soil resources of the motul de san josé maya: correlating soil taxonomy and modern itzá maya soil...

Soil Resources of the Motul De

San José Maya: Correlating Soil

Taxonomy and Modern Itzá Maya

Soil Classification Within a Classic

Maya Archaeological Zone

Christopher T. Jensen,1 Matthew D. Moriarty,2

Kristofer D. Johnson,1 Richard E. Terry,1,* Kitty F. Emery,3

and Sheldon D. Nelson1

1Department of Plant and Animal Sciences, Brigham Young University, Provo,

UT 846022Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 701183Environmental Archaeology, Florida Museum of Natural History, University

of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611

Investigations of soil resources in the department of Petén, Guatemala can provide importantinsight into the agricultural and land use strategies of the ancient Maya. The site of Motul deSan José, located 3 km north of Guatemala’s Lago Petén Itzá, is situated in the core zone ofClassic Maya civilization and in an area currently inhabited by the modern Itzá Maya. Thisarea was occupied and farmed from the Middle Preclassic period (~600 B.C.) to the EarlyPostclassic (~A.D. 1000). During the Late Classic period (~A.D. 600–830), Motul de San Joséwas one of many centers of intense population growth. The authors focused on examiningsoil resources in the Motul de San José area. Soil studies included chemical and physical eval-uations of soils and an investigation of the traditional soil classification system used by mod-ern Itzá Maya farmers in the community of San José. The results of these investigations, alongwith a subsequent carbon isotopic study of ancient vegetative signatures by Webb et al. (thisissue, 291–312) provide a framework for assessment of ancient Maya land-use strategies inthe Motul de San José area. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

Initial studies of the ancient Maya presumed that swidden (slash-and-burn) agri-culture, the dominant agricultural system in the Maya world today, was also the pri-mary mode of agricultural production for the large Classic Maya populations in thelowlands (Willey and Bullard, 1965; Coe, 1999; Ashmore and Willey, 1981; Abrams andRue, 1988). Early studies suggested that, as population pressures increased, expand-ing areas of primary forest were cleared, leading eventually to large-scale erosion

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3, 337–357 (2007)© 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley Interscience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI:10.1002/gea.20156

*Corresponding author; E-mail: [email protected].

throughout much of the region (Nations and Nigh, 1980). These combined data sug-gest that agricultural potential was one of the critical factors in settlement locationfor the ancient Maya of Motul de San José, Guatemala.

More recently, research has identified and delineated alternate agricultural prac-tices that may have been more sustainable for the ancient Maya (e.g., Wilken, 1971;Turner, 1974; Antoine et al., 1982; Bloom et al., 1983, 1985; Fedick, 1994, 1996; Dunningand Beach, 1994, 2000; Pohl et al., 1996; Dunning et al., 2002). Numerous studies sug-gest that the ancient Maya incorporated multiple modes of geointensive agriculturesuch as terraces, drained fields, and drainage canals (Dunning, 1992; Beach andDunning, 1995; Fedick, 1996; Beach, 1998). Further, ethnographic work among themodern Maya by Atran (1993) and others has led to the formulation of more sophis-ticated models for ancient Maya extensive agriculture. In Atran’s model, based on hisresearch among the modern Itzá Maya, the combination of agroforestry techniquesand more complex systems of intercropping provided a more sustainable and envi-ronmentally less destructive form of agriculture.

The growing recognition of the complexity of ancient Maya subsistence systems,as well an increased perception of environmental heterogeneity within the Mayalowlands, has led to a recent emphasis on understanding soil resources in relationto ancient Maya settlement. Standardized pedological and indigenous soil classi-fication systems have proven especially useful in this regard. Fedick (1994), forexample, used the USDA system of land evaluation in Belize to identify high prob-ability agricultural zones in the Belize Valley. He found that while the soils asso-ciated with limestone terraces and ancient Maya settlement were relatively fertile,those in valley bottoms were the most productive, suggesting that the ancientMaya chose to reside close to, but not within, those areas that could be inten-sively cultivated (see also Fedick, 1996; Dunning et al., 2002; Hansen et al., 2002).

In addition, some of the most important studies of ancient Maya agriculturalresources have involved the combination of modern soil science and ethnographicstudies among modern Maya farmers. Dunning (1992), for example, provided adetailed description of the soil classification used by modern Yucatec Maya anddescribed how the classification system plays a critical role in organizing subsis-tence systems. This study has been part of an overall increase in ethnopedologicalstudies throughout Mesoamerica and the world (e.g., Williams and Ortiz-Solorio,1981; Wilshusen and Stone, 1990, Pawluk et al., 1992). One of the great advantagesoffered by such multidisciplinary approaches to soil resource is that indigenous soilclassification systems are often intricately related to agricultural potential based oncenturies of in situ experience (Dunning, 1992).

The objectives of this study were to combine modern pedological analyses ofsoils with an indigenous soil classification system to provide insights into ancientMaya land use and agriculture in the Motul de San José area. Our study involved rig-orous pedological analyses of soils in the Motul de San José area and ethnographicinterviews with members of the San José community. The carbon isotope signa-tures of ancient C4 vegetation in the same soil profiles are reported in this volumeby Webb et al. (this issue, pp. 291–312). The overall goals of this research are tocompare indigenous Itzá Maya soil classification with USDA soil taxonomy and

JENSEN ET AL.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 22, NO. 3 DOI: 10.1002/GEA338

eventually to use these data to model ancient Maya subsistence patterns in theMotul de San José area.

MOTUL DE SAN JOSÉ: BACKGROUND AND HISTORY OF RESEARCH

The archaeological site of Motul de San José is an ancient Maya center located 2.6km north of Lago Petén Itzá and approximately 32 km southwest of the major cen-ter of Tikal. Ceramic analyses and AMS radiocarbon dates indicate that Motul wasoccupied from the Middle Preclassic period (~600 B.C.) to the Early Postclassicperiod (~A.D. 1000–1200), with a major peak during the Late Classic (A.D. 600–830;Foias, 2003). During the Late Classic, Motul was a medium-sized ceremonial centercovering an area of approximately 2–3 km2. Most of the major temples, palaces, andelite residential groups within the site’s 1.2-km2 epicenter were constructed duringthis period (Foias, 2003).

During the site’s Late Classic apogee, Motul de San José was also a capital in apolity based on the northwestern shores of Lago Petén Itzá and commonly referredto as the “Ik” polity for its distinctive element in its emblem glyph (Reents-Budet etal., 1994; Foias, 2003). During this time, Motul de San José was an administrativecenter for a dense network of peripheral settlement and satellite centers extendingseveral kilometers in all directions (Moriarty, 2004). Most of these satellite centersare located in topographic settings and soil zones that closely mirror those found incentral Motul de San José.

During the subsequent Terminal Classic period (~A.D. 830–1000), Motul de SanJosé, like many centers in the Maya lowlands, experienced a decline in populationand political importance. Although a small remnant population continued to occupythe site into the Early Postclassic period (~A.D. 1100–1200), the major focus of set-tlement in the Motul de San José area shifted to nearby sites along the shores ofLago Petén Itzá, including Trinidad de Nosotros (Moriarty et al., 2004) or to small,strategically located centers like Akte (Moriarty, 2003). During this period, Motul deSan José may have declined in political importance and the seat of the “Ik” polity prob-ably shifted to one or several other sites in the Lago Petén Itzá area.

Archaeological investigations at Motul de San José, directed by Dr. Antonia E.Foias, have focused on testing models of economic organization for the Late ClassicMaya (Foias, 1999, 2003). Excavations at Motul de San José and nearby satellite cen-ters have been ongoing since 1998 (Foias, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003; Moriarty,2003; Moriarty et al., 2004), and have combined traditional archaeology with envi-ronmental research (the ecology sub-project directed by Kitty F. Emery) since itsinception (Emery, 2001, 2003). Soil studies have formed an important part of thisresearch (Jensen et al., 2002; Moriarty, 2002b).

SAN JOSÉ, PETÉN, GUATEMALA: LAND USE AND SOIL CLASSIFICATION

Motul de San José’s location places the site only 3 km from the modern Mayacommunity of San José. San José, along with the nearby town of San Andrés, are

DOI: 10.1002/GEA GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, VOL. 22, NO. 3

SOIL RESOURCES OF THE MOTUL DE SAN JOSÉ MAYA

339

the two remaining Itzá Maya communities in the Petén. Although Itzaj Maya is spo-ken fluently by a small number of individuals in San José (Hofling and Tesucún,1997), and the town itself consists of a mix of Itzá and non-Itzá, immigrant popula-tions, Itzá culture remains an important part of the town’s tradition and this is par-ticularly evident in modern agricultural practices in San José. Traditional Itzá Mayaland-use strategies are generally regarded as particularly well suited to the Peténenvironment.

Some of the most important early models for ancient Maya agricultural practicesin the Petén lowlands were based on ethnographic studies conducted among the ItzáMaya of San José. Cowgill’s (1962) study of Itzá Maya agriculture, for example, providedbaseline data on modern Maya agricultural yields that have since been utilized innumerous reconstructions of ancient Maya subsistence economy. Further, Reina’s(1967) ethnographic study of Itzá Maya farmers in San José has been frequently citedin reconstructions of ancient Maya subsistence and has formed an important part ofoverall understandings of modern Maya subsistence.

Recently, however, Atran (1993) proposed a somewhat different model of ancientMaya agriculture based on his own ethnographic research among the Itzá Maya.Atran proposed that most attempts to model ancient Maya agricultural systemsfrom modern Itzá Maya agriculture have oversimplified modern Itzá farming prac-tices and overemphasized the importance of maize (Atran, 1993:638–640). The richlydetailed picture Atran presented of modern Itzá Maya agriculture is one in whichthe intercropping of multiple plant species within a carefully tended forest envi-ronment produces a more sustainable and regenerative agricultural system. Atran(1993:636) argued that such a system may have been in place during the ClassicMaya period.

One of several critical factors in modern Itzá Maya agriculture, and key to theiragricultural system, is their soil-classification system. Indigenous soil classificationby the Itzá Maya, reported previously by several authors (e.g., Reina, 1967; Atran,1993), divides soils in the San José area into a number of major classes. These classesare divided by characteristics of color, texture, inclusions, depth, and so on. As is thecase with most indigenous soil classification, the San José system is inherently linkedto agricultural potential and land-management strategies. Thus, an understandingof this system provides a window into the nature of agricultural potential in the SanJosé area.

METHODS

Investigation of Itzá Maya Soil Classification

In 2000 and 2001, Moriarty conducted a series of informal interviews with localworkers from the town of San José employed by the Motul de San JoséArchaeology Project. Itzá Maya and non-Itzá informants were selected for inter-views on the basis of extensive knowledge in traditional agriculture and willing-ness to describe soil classes in detail. The overall goal of these interviews was togain a better appreciation of Itzá Maya soil classes in terms of perceived charac-

JENSEN ET AL.


teristics and field identification, and to supplement previous descriptions (e.g.,Reina, 1967; Atran, 1993).

During these interviews, informants were asked to identify all the soil classesthey were aware of, to describe their locations, and to list their potential agricul-tural uses. Most interviews covered a broad range of topics, including overall con-siderations of strategies and methods in traditional farming. Further, as most inform-ants were part of the archaeological survey crew, discussions of soil classes andtheir agricultural correlates were often supplemented by visits to agricultural fieldsand soil zones within the survey area (Moriarty, 2002b).

In 2002, Moriarty carried out a series of six formal interviews on the east transect,a 2-km-long survey transect cut to the east of central Motul de San José. These inter-views were designed to test the consistency of previously identified soil classes andto provide a closer comparison with ongoing pedological and settlement studies. Aseries of 40 stations were established at 50-m intervals on the east transect. At eachstation, informants were asked to identify and describe nearby soils. Informantswere also asked to identify those areas along the transect that they considered mostsuitable for various forms of agriculture and to describe soils in an “ideal” agricul-tural field. Notes from interviews from 2000 to 2002 were synthesized into prelimi-nary reports on soil classification in San José and will be published more exten-sively elsewhere (Moriarty, 2002b, 2004).

Soil Profile Investigations

In 2001, the principal focus of settlement pattern investigations at Motul deSan José was the cutting and survey of a 400-m wide, 2-km-long transect from theeastern boundary of the Motul de San José Ecological Park (Figure 1). Within thistransect a total of 30 residential groups were identified, mapped, and tested withexcavation (Moriarty et al., 2002; Moriarty, 2004). East transect investigationsdemonstrated that settlement directly contiguous with Motul de San José termi-nated at the western edge of a small bajo, approximately 1.2 km east of the site’sMain Plaza. These investigations also led to the identification and delineation ofthe site of Chäkokot, a small satellite center located 2 km east of Motul. Settlementwithin the surveyed zone was found to be primarily Late Classic in affiliation withminor Preclassic and Postclassic components. Further, based on analyses of res-idential group surface remains, settlement on the east transect reflects a widerange of Classic Maya social and economic statuses (Moriarty, 2002a).

Following archaeological investigations, a series of 13 soil profile pits wereexcavated and examined by Jensen and Johnson on the baseline of the transect(Jensen et al., 2002). Three additional soil profiles were excavated and examinedwithin the central portion of Motul de San José for comparison between periph-eral and central settlement zones. Soil pits were strategically placed to describeall the major soil zones encountered within the east transect and central Motul deSan José (Figure 1).

Soil horizons were described in the field using soil survey descriptive meth-ods, including evaluations of root quantity; pore space; structure; friability; con-



341

JENSEN ET AL.


Fig

ure 1

.M

ap o

f a

port

ion

of t

he s

ite

cent

er a

nd t

he e

ast

tran

sect

of

Mot

ul d

e Sa

n Jo

sé, G

uate

mal

a.

sistency; boundary; and wet and dry color (Schoeneberger et al., 1998; Soil SurveyStaff, 1999). Site information included slope, aspect, landform type, vegetation, andair and soil temperature. GPS locations were taken for each soil profile and fixedaccording to the Total Station map coordinates established by the archaeologicalsurvey crew (Jensen et al., 2002; Moriarty et al., 2002; Moriarty, 2004).

Horizon samples were collected in the field and transported to the BrighamYoung University, Soil and Plant analysis laboratory for characterization of soilphysical and chemical properties. Particle-size analysis was performed by thehydrometer method (Gee and Bauder, 1986). Soil pH was determined on a 1:1 soilto water paste. The calcium carbonate equivalent percentages were found by react-ing the soil with 0.5 M HCl and back titrating with 0.25 M NaOH (Leoppert andSuarez, 1996). Percent organic carbon was determined by an elemental analyzer(Nelson and Sommers, 1996). Trace metals were extracted with DTPA and ana-lyzed by inductively-coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopy (Wells et al.,2000; Parnell et al., 2002). Phosphates were analyzed using the Mehlich II weakacid extraction procedure (Mehlich, 1978; Terry et al., 2000). Data from field notesand laboratory analyses were used to classify the soils according to USDA soil tax-onomy (Soil Survey Staff, 1999).

Additional investigations were performed by Jensen, Moriarty, and Emery in2002 to facilitate the generation of a soil map for the east transect. Soil sampleswere examined with the aid of a 2.5-cm diameter auger at 25-m intervals along theeast transect to verify soil changes and to interpret soil types according to preestab-lished evaluations. For each sample location, slope and vegetation were alsorecorded. The data were brought back to the BYU soil laboratory and soils weremapped using the Golden Software Surfer program. Soils were evaluated for chem-ical and physical properties and compared to local Itzá Maya classifications. ItzáMaya terminology was used for soil descriptions and on the resultant soil map(Figure 2).

RESULTS

Itzá Maya Soil Classification

Based on soil interviews from 2000 to 2002, five agriculturally useful soil classeswere defined by informants from San José: Ek Luum (“Black Earth”), Saknis (“WhiteEarth”), Ek Luk (“Black Clay”), Chachak Luum (“Red/Colored Earth”), and Kan

Luum (“Yellow Earth”) (Moriarty, 2002b). A sixth soil class, referred to as Tierra

Mezclada (“Mixed Earth”), was also identified by informants, although this soil des-ignation covers a wide range of mixed soil type found in transition zones. Thesesix soil classes, described in several orthographies and with English translations,are presented in Table I.

Informants identified a number of additional soil classes with potential uses in con-struction and pottery making. Clays in the San José area can, for example, be dividedinto a multitude of different classes on the basis of color and other characteristics.These classes were, however, excluded from the present study. Further, of the five



343

JENSEN ET AL.


Fig

ure 2

.It

zá M

aya

soil

clas

ses

iden

tifi

ed a

long

the

eas

t tr

anse

ct a

t M

otul

de

San

José

, Gua

tem

ala.

named classes of agriculturally useful soils identified by informants, only four (Ek

Luum, Saknis, Ek Luk, and Chachak Luum) appeared with some frequency in thedirect Motul de San José area. Brief descriptions of these four soil classes, as wellas the more general Tierra Mezclada, as described by informants from San José,are provided below as Table II. These descriptions include both the soils’ perceivedcharacteristics as well as their typical settings.

Generalized Agricultural Potential of San José Soil Classes

Dunning (1992, p. 26, note 4), in his seminal work on the indigenous soil-classification system in the Puuc region of Yucatan, noted that, “contemporaryMaya farmers viewed their soil environment with a keen functional aesthetic:Taxonomic distinctions reflect qualitative assessments of agricultural potential.”Itzá Maya soil classification in San José was highly analogous; soil classes wereclosely linked to perceived agricultural potential and any discussion of soils ledto some discussion of agriculture. One of the major goals of soil interviews in SanJosé was to acquire detailed information regarding the perceived agriculturalpotential of local soil classes. Although a more detailed presentation of agricul-tural potential in the San José soil classification system is in preparation, TableIII presents a generalized picture of the perceived agricultural potential of thesoil classes discussed above.

There was considerable overlap among the various soil classes in terms of agri-cultural potential (see Table III). For example, Saknis, Ek Luum, and Ek Luk soilswere all generally regarded as potentially suitable for traditional maize-focusedmilpa agriculture. Of these, however, Saknis and Ek Luum soils were generallyregarded as more likely to produce successful yields than Ek Luk soils, and eachsoil class was thought to necessitate a slightly different planting and maintenance



345

Table I. San José soil classes.

Itzaj Mayaa Itzaj Maya (Traditional (ALMG

Spanish orthography)b orthography)c English

Ek Luum* Ek Luum* ‘ek’-lu’um “Black earth”N/A Saknis* säk-ni’is “White earth”Barro Negro* Ek Luk ‘ek’-luk’ “Black clay”Tierra Colorada Chachak Luum* chächäk-lu’um “Red/colored earth”Tierra Amarilla* Kan Luum k’än-lu’um “Yellow earth”Tierra Mezclada* N/A N/A “Mixed earth”

Note. The most frequently used term is marked with an asterisk (*).a The term “Itzá Maya” is used to refer to the Maya cultural group. “Itzaj Maya” is used to refer to their lan-guage. b The common Itzaj Maya orthography has, for reasons of consistency, been utilized for the soil classnames presented here. Informants from San José referred to soil classes in both Itzaj Maya and Spanish.cThe official orthography follows Hofling and Tesucún (1997).

strategy. Saknis soils were, for example, thought to be particularly fragile and vul-nerable to erosion and, therefore, must be cleared and planted with a greater degreeof care. Further, Ek Luum soils were thought to be particularly useful for house-hold gardens.

Taxonomic Description of Soil Profiles

Sixteen soil profiles were examined and described along the 2-km east transectand from selected areas within the Motul de San José site center (Figure 1). Thephysical and chemical properties of each soil profile are listed in Tables IV and V.Surface (A) horizons of these profiles were very dark in color, with organic C con-tents in excess of 3.0%. The pH of the A horizons ranged from neutral to slightlyalkaline (pH = 6.8–8.1) because of the high calcium carbonate content of the lime-stone parent materials. The A horizons were described as mollic epipedons (soft,dark, organic, rich, surface horizons). Each of the 16 soil profiles were determinedto belong to the soil order Mollisols according to the USDA soil taxonomy (Table VI).Seven of the soil profiles were included in the great group Haprendolls. TheHaprendolls were characterized by a mollic epipedon that was less than 50 cm deep,a CaCO3 equivalent of more than 40% and the absence of an argillic (translocated sub-surface clay) horizon. The Typic Haprendolls (CJ4, KJ2, and KJ6) were deeper than50 cm before contact with bedrock, whereas the Lithic Haprendolls (CJ1, CJ2, CJ3,and KJ4) were in contact with bedrock at depths less than 50 cm.

Five of the profiles contained argillic horizons characterized by translocated clayfound in the Bt horizon. These soils belong to the great group Argiudolls. Profiles CJ6

JENSEN ET AL.


Table II. Indigenous descriptions of soil classes.

Soil class Description

Saknis Saknis soils are normally described as smooth, lightweight soils found in hilltopsettings. Saknis soils are almost always found to be very shallow. Small stones, fromthe underlying parent bedrock, are frequent in most Saknis soils.

Ek Luum Ek Luum soils are normally described as dark, slightly clayey soils, with very fewstones. Ek Luum soils are thought to be relatively deep and mature, and somewhatdistinct from underlying bedrock. These soils are normally found in broad uplandareas and, occasionally, in toeslope areas.

Ek Luk Ek Luk soils are normally described as very dark, clayey soils mixed with veryfew stones. These soils are typically situated on top of dense clay deposits withinbajo areas. Most informants admit some difficulty in differentiating between Ek

Luum and Ek Luk soils as the difference between these soils is often a matter ofa small change in clay content.

Chachak Luum Chachak Luum soils are normally described as chalky red soils found in raisedplateaus, normally marked by grasslands, or on heavily drained slopes adjacent toLago Petén Itzá. Chachak Luum soils are thought to be relatively deep and arefrequently covered by a shallow humus layer of variable color.

and KJ7 were relatively shallow and in contact with bedrock at less than 50 cm(Lithic Argiudolls) whereas profile KJ8 was more than 80 cm deep (Typic Argiudolls).The Aquic Argiudolls (CJ5 and KJ5) were in contact with high water table (less than40 cm) on a seasonal basis. The aquic conditions were determined by the presenceof iron mottling and other redoximorphic features in the profiles.

The remaining four profiles lacked the argillic horizon but were affected by sea-sonal water tables within 40 cm of the surface. Profiles KJ1 and KJ3 possessed mot-tling in the B horizon. These profiles were classified as Aquic Hapludolls. Profiles CJ7and CJ8 were characterized by redoximorphic features and high amounts of shrink-swell clay. They were classified Typic Endoaquolls.

Soil pedogenesis (the physical and chemical weathering processes that form soilhorizons) appears to be most developed in footslope and toeslope areas, whereas



347

Table III. Generalized agricultural potential for Itzá Maya soil classes.

Soil Type Modern Agricultural Potential According to Local Informants

Saknis Saknis soils represent probably the most controversial soils in the Motul de SanJosé area. Although Itzá Maya individuals tend to regard Saknis soils as excep-tionally productive, when carefully managed, immigrant and Ladino individualsregard these soils as almost useless. As Saknis soils are the most susceptible toerosion, these are the soils most likely to benefit from traditional agro-forestryfarming practices, as described by Atran (1993). Itzá Maya individuals regardSaknis soils as highly suitable for the full suite of milpa plants.

Ek Luum Ek Luum soils are highly regarded for most forms of agriculture by all inform-ants. They are thought to retain nutrients and moisture for much longer periodsthan Saknis. Milpas in Ek Luum zones will normally contain the full suite of agri-cultural plants. Ek Luum soils are also, above all other soil classes, regarded asthe most suitable for garden agriculture.

Chachak Luum Chachak Luum soils are regarded as unsuitable or risky for traditional milpa agri-culture. Although Chachak Luum soils are not generally viewed favorably formilpa agriculture, they are regarded as potentially productive for beans, somespecies of fruit trees, and other arboreal plants.

Ek Luk Ek Luk soils tend to be regarded as somewhat marginal in terms of agricultural pro-duction. Milpas planted in Ek Luk soils tend to be maize-focused and often lackmany of the less hardy plants normally found in the understory of Maya fields. Ek

Luk soils also tend to be the soils most subject to yearly climate variations. Althoughthese soils can be extremely productive during particularly rainy years, relativelydry years can lead to crop failure or stunted plant growth.

Tierra Mezclada Although Tierra Mezclada does not represent a true Itzá Maya soil class, inform-ants commonly refer to mixed soil zones. Soils described as mixed can have a vari-ety of agricultural potentials. For example, soils consisting of both Saknis and Ek

Luum soils, and located on relatively flat uplands, are regarded as probably the mostproductive soils in the Motul de San José area. Other combinations of soils, espe-cially when found on slopes, are regarded as much less productive.

JENSEN ET AL.


Tab

le I

V.

Phy

sica

l and

che

mic

al p

rope

rtie

s of

CJ

prof

iles,

Eas

t Tr

anse

ct.

Bul

kO

rgan

ic-

Meh

lich

D

epth

Dry

Wet

G

rave

lSa

ndSi

ltC

lay

dens

ity

CaC

O3

CE

CC

PP

rofi

leH

oriz

on(c

m)

colo

rco

lor

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(g/c

m3 )

pH(%

)(c

mol

/kg)

(%)

(mg/

kg)

CJ-

1A

10–

910

YR

2/1

10Y

R2/

12.

144

2531

1.5

7.8

54.4

15.3

5.8

9.3

A2

9–18

7.5Y

R2.

5/1

10Y

R3/

18.

344

2135

1.6

8.0

59.6

nd3.

6nd

Bw

18–3

910

YR

4/1

10Y

R4/

115

.637

2439

1.7

8.0

67.2

nd2.

2nd

C39

–54

10Y

R7/

210

YR

7/1

37.3

3024

47nd

7.8

77.4

nd0.

9nd

CJ–

2A

0–21

10Y

R2/

110

YR

2/1

�1

3314

531.

77.

722

.613

.92.

67.

5B

w21

–33

10Y

R4/

210

YR

6/2

6.5

3316

511.

77.

846

.3nd

1.2

ndC

33+

10Y

R7/

210

YR

7/2

56.1

4128

311.

68.

081

.2nd

0.4

nd

CJ-

3A

0–10

10Y

R2/

110

YR

2/1

9.7

3425

411.

77.

779

.652

.72.

910

.4A

C10

–30

10Y

R3/

110

YR

4/1

14.2

3031

391.

57.

976

.224

.71.

65.

6C

30+

10Y

R8/

110

YR

8/1

41.5

3035

341.

38.

085

.0nd

0.6

nd

CJ-

4A

10–

1810

YR

2/1

10Y

R2/

14.

034

1749

1.6

7.7

17.6

79.6

2.7

7.7

A2

18–4

010

YR

3/1

10Y

R2/

225

.133

1453

1.7

7.9

24.3

nd1.

9nd

C40

–70

10Y

R2/

110

YR

2/1

56.8

3919

421.

97.

844

.4nd

1.7

nd

CJ-

5A

10–

1510

YR

2/2

10Y

R3/

11.

731

1059

1.6

7.7

4.7

83.3

2.0

7.1

A2

15–3

710

YR

3/1

10Y

R2/

1�

126

569

1.7

7.6

1.8

nd2.

1nd

Bw

37–4

910

YR

4/2

10Y

R4/

15.

129

1358

1.5

7.8

17.9

nd1.

3nd

C49

–65

10Y

R4/

310

YR

4/4

6.3

3437

291.

88.

066

.2nd

0.5

nd

CJ-

6O

0–3

ndnd

ndnd

ndnd

ndnd

ndnd

ndnd

A3–

2110

YR

2/1

10Y

R2/

10.

545

1243

1.5

8.0

51.4

51.4

3.7

10.9

Bw

21–3

610

YR

4/1

10Y

R3/

149

.945

2135

1.9

8.1

71.0

nd1.

8nd

Bt

36–4

510

YR

5/2

10Y

R3/

23.

834

2145

1.7

8.3

76.2

nd1.

1nd

C45

+10

YR

7/1

10Y

R5/

26.

4nd

ndnd

1.5

8.2

78.8

nd0.

4nd

CJ-

7A

0–20

10Y

R2/

110

YR

2/1

�1

205

751.

76.

95.

715

.32.

19.

6B

t120

–45

10Y

R5/

110

YR

5/1

�1

22–2

801.

86.

83.

4nd

0.3

ndB

t245

+10

YR

6/1

10Y

R5/

1�

123

076

1.9

7.7

ndnd

–0.3

nd

CJ-

8A

0–11

10Y

R2/

110

YR

2/1

16.7

2210

691.

67.

2nd

20.2

2.2

11.5

B11

–32

10Y

R3/

110

YR

2/1

�1

1317

701.

67.

6nd

14.6

0.8

7.9

C32

–50

10Y

R4/

110

YR

3/2

48.5

308

621.

8nd

ndnd

0.6

nd2B

g150

–60

10Y

R4/

110

YR

4/1

�1

188

741.

98.

011

9.3

nd0.

0nd

2Bg2

60–7

010

YR

4/1

10Y

R4/

1�

128

1162

1.9

8.0

–14.

7nd

–0.2

nd

Note

. nd

= n

ot d

eter

min

ed.



349

Tab

le V

.P

hysi

cal a

nd c

hem

ical

pro

pert

ies

of K

J pr

ofile

s, E

ast

Tran

sect

, and

Mot

ul d

e Sa

n Jo

sé. B

ulk

Org

anic

-M

ehlic

h D

epth

Gra

vel

Sand

Silt

Cla

yde

nsit

yC

aCO

3C

EC

C

P

Pro

file

Hor

izon

(cm

)D

ry c

olor

Wet

col

or(%

)(%

)(%

)(%

)(g

/cm

3 )pH

(%)

(cm

ol/k

g)(%

)(m

g/kg

)

KJ-

1O

0–3

——

—A

3–25

10Y

R2/

110

YR

2/1

�1

263

701.

67.

1–3

.429

.22.

513

.4B

w25

–53

10Y

R3/

110

YR

3/1

�1

275

691.

87.

87.

6nd

0.6

9.5

Bt

53–6

410

YR

4/1

10Y

R5/

1�

120

971

1.7

8.0

17.6

nd0.

67.

9C

64�

10Y

R7/

210

YR

7/3

�1

1615

692.

07.

940

.0nd

0.1

5.9

KJ-

2A

10–

1610

YR

2/2

10Y

R2/

1�

142

1939

1.8

7.8

65.7

34.0

3.9

9.2

A2

16–3

010

YR

2/2

10Y

R2/

138

.731

4127

2.5

8.1

63.6

nd3.

28.

0A

C30

–44

10Y

R4/

210

YR

4/1

56.2

3329

391.

68.

174

.1nd

2.6

8.3

C44

�10

YR

8/1

10Y

R8/

162

.6nd

ndnd

ndnd

88.5

nd1.

9nd

KJ-

3A

10–

1810

YR

2/1

10Y

R2/

1�

124

571

1.6

7.0

0.6

17.4

1.0

10.6

A2

18–2

810

YR

2/1

10Y

R2/

1�

18

191

1.7

7.4

1.6

nd2.

210

.7B

w28

–48

10Y

R7/

210

YR

7/2

�1

249

671.

98.

023

.7nd

0.1

7.8

Bt

48�

10Y

R6/

210

YR

6/2

�1

518

771.

98.

131

.7nd

0.0

5.5

KJ-

4O

0–4

ndnd

ndnd

ndnd

ndnd

ndnd

ndA

4–23

10Y

R2/

110

YR

2/1

19.8

3932

291.

57.

952

.751

.03.

88.

4C

23�

10Y

R8/

110

YR

8/2

ndnd

ndnd

nd6.

892

.0nd

ndnd

KJ-

5A

0–12

10Y

R2/

110

YR

2/1

�1

256

691.

86.

80.

058

.42.

210

.0B

t112

–34

10Y

R3/

110

YR

3/1

�1

243

731.

86.

50.

116

.01.

26.

5B

t234

–100

10Y

R4/

110

YR

4/1

�1

ndnd

nd1.

87.

1–3

.1nd

0.2

9.7

C10

0�5Y

7/2

5Y7/

2�

1nd

ndnd

nd7.

612

.80.

07.

1

KJ-

6O

0–1

ndnd

ndnd

ndnd

ndnd

ndnd

ndA

138

10Y

R2/

110

YR

2/1

�1

ndnd

nd1.

87.

721

.9nd

2.4

ndA

C38

–50

10Y

R2/

210

YR

3/1

58.9

ndnd

nd1.

97.

853

.1nd

1.4

ndC

50�

10Y

R4/

110

YR

4/2

54.0

ndnd

nd1.

87.

859

.7nd

0.9

nd

KJ-

7O

0–2

ndnd

ndnd

ndnd

ndnd

ndnd

ndnd

A1

2–22

10Y

R3/

110

YR

3/1

�1

ndnd

nd1.

87.

1–0

.213

.93.

110

.5A

222

–42

5YR

3/2

10Y

R3/

1�

1nd

ndnd

1.7

7.3

–3.7

nd1.

2nd

C42

�10

YR

8/3

10Y

R8/

474

.5nd

ndnd

1.8

7.7

41.1

nd0.

7nd

KJ-

8A

10–

3510

YR

3/1

10Y

R3/

2�

127

1459

1.6

7.7

23.2

nd2.

016

.6A

235

–65

10Y

R3/

210

YR

3/1

�1

3017

531.

78.

042

.4nd

0.9

7.1

Ab

65–8

710

YR

2/1

10Y

R2/

1�

120

872

nd7.

8–3

.8nd

1.1

6.6

C87

�10

YR

7/2

10Y

R7/

234

.1nd

ndnd

1.7

nd64

.7nd

ndnd

Note

. nd

= n

ot d

eter

min

ed.

backslopes and hilltops have much simpler and less dramatic soil horizon distinctions.Table VI demonstrates the relationship between landform changes and gradient.Typical shoulder slope areas exhibit shallow A–C or A–B–C horizons, with very lim-ited development in the B horizon. These soils have higher amounts of gravel thanfootslope or toeslope soils and have developed directly on sascab parent material (asoft limestone). Back and footslope areas exhibited increased pedogenesis, with thepresence of increased clay contents and clay skins in the B horizons caused by thetranslocation of clays. Multiple, distinctive Bw and Bt horizons were found in the pro-files of these areas. Toeslopes exhibited extensive pedogenesis with multiple A andB horizons. Many of these soils had redoximorphic features and contain clay contentsas high as 80% in some horizons.

The Correlation of Modern Itzá Maya and USDA Soil Taxonomy

The combined Itzá Maya soil-classification studies and soil taxonomic investiga-tions have provided overlapping data for four of the soil classes discussed by the mod-ern Maya of San José, Petén, Guatemala. Detailed descriptions for each of these foursoils, as determined by analysis at Brigham Young University, are provided below andin Table VII. The Itzá Maya classification appears to be reliant on surface soil colorsand textures, and on landscape position and vegetation. The soil types, according toItzá Maya classification, are shown on the contour map in Figure 2. USDA soil tax-onomy is much more comprehensive, encompassing physical and chemical proper-ties of the surface and subsurface horizons. Therefore, there was not a direct cor-relation between the two forms of soil classification. The characteristics andtaxonomy of four Itzá Maya soil classes are listed below.

JENSEN ET AL.


Table VI. USDA soil classifications and Itzá Maya soil classifications for each profile.

Soil Profile Topography USDA Soil Class Itzá Soil Class

CJ1 Hillcrest Lithic Haprendolls Saknis 1CJ2 Hillcrest Lithic Haprendolls Saknis 1CJ3 Shoulder Lithic Haprendolls Saknis 2CJ4 Footslope Typic Haprendolls Ek Luum 2CJ5 Backslope Aquic Argiudolls Ek Luum 2CJ6 Backslope Lithic Argiudolls Tierra MezcladaCJ7 Footslope Typic Endoaquolls Tierra MezcladaCJ8 Toeslope Typic Endoaquolls Ek LukKJ1 Backslope Aquic Hapludolls Tierra MezcladaKJ2 Backslope Typic Haprendolls Saknis 2KJ3 Drainage Aquic Hapludolls Ek Luum 2KJ4 Backslope Lithic Haprendolls Saknis 2KJ5 Footslope Aquic Argiudolls Ek Luum 1KJ6 Toeslope Typic Haprendolls Saknis 2KJ7 Toeslope Lithic Argiudolls Saknis 2KJ8 Footslope Typic Argiudolls Ek Luum 1



351

Ek Luum

Soils described by informants as Ek Luum occupied 20% of the area included inthe east transect. This soil type can be divided into two related classes: Ek Luum 1and Ek Luum 2. Ek Luum 1 soils were normally found in footslope settings and tendto have relatively high clay contents. Soil profiles KJ5 located near the eastern bound-ary of the park and KJ8 at the site center near the base of the Acropolis were classi-fied Ek Luum1. Profile KJ5 had more than 70% clay in the Bt horizons and redoxi-morphic features that placed this soil in the great group Aquic Argiudolls. KJ8contained a heavy-textured (72% clay) buried A horizon that appeared to have beencovered by gravelly debris related to construction of the Acropolis. This profile lackedthe redoximorphic features of KJ5 and was classified Typic Argiudolls. Ek Luum 2 soilswere found in footslope, toeslope, and drainage settings and tended to have somewhatlower clay contents than Ek Luum 1 soils. Profiles CJ4, CJ5, and KJ3 were among thedeepest soils along the transect and were classed by the informants as Ek Luum 2 soils.Profile CJ4 was well drained and fit the great group Typic Haprendolls. Profiles CJ5and KJ3 exhibited redoximorphic features in the B horizons indicative of seasonal highwater table and were classified Aquic Argiudolls and Aquic Hapludolls, respectively.In general, Ek Luum soils formed in areas collecting soils eroded from upland areas.The relatively high clay content of these soils impart both high nutrient retention andwater holding capacities making them highly suitable for agriculture.

Saknis

Saknis soils were typically shallow with limited soil development and were foundin hillcrest, shoulder, and toeslope settings. These were the most common soil typein the east transect at 52% of the area. Saknis soils exhibited less horizonation thanother soils in the Motul de San José area. Once these soils were cleared for maizecultivation, they would be highly susceptible to water erosion. Saknis soils were alsonotable in having the lowest clay content. Saknis soils’ overall high sand and silt con-tent made them relatively light, workable soils. These characteristics and shallow

Table VII. Average A horizon physical properties for Itzá Maya soil classes.

Physical Tierra Properties Saknis 1 Saknis 2 Ek Luum 1 Ek Luum 2 Mezclada Ek Luk

Soil profiles CJ1, CJ2 CJ3, KJ2, KJ4, KJ5, KJ8 CJ4, CJ5, CJ6, CJ7, CJ8KJ6, KJ7 KJ3 KJ1

% Sand 38.5 38.3 26.0 27.5 32.5 22.0% Silt 19.5 25.3 10.0 7.5 8.5 10.0% Clay 42.0 36.3 64.0 65.0 59.0 69.0Texture Clay Clay Clay Clay Clay ClayPorosity 38.5 30.6 29.8 38.1 35.1 34.0BD 1.63 1.84 1.86 1.64 1.72 1.75% Gravel 6.0 9.9 �1 2.2 1.0 16.7Soil ped Angular Subangular Subangular Angular Angular Angular structure Blocky Blocky Blocky Blocky Blocky Blocky

depth combined to give Saknis soils lower water-holding capacity and make themmuch more prone to erosion than Ek Luum 1 and 2.

Saknis soils can also, like Ek Luum, be divided into two related classes: Saknis

1 and Saknis 2. Saknis 1 soils were, on average, deeper and sandier than Saknis 2soils. Much of this difference was accounted for by topography as Saknis 1 soilswere typically located on hillcrests; Saknis 2 soils were found in shoulder locationsand were subject to erosion. Saknis 1 profiles CJ1 and CJ2 were located within thesmall hilltop settlement of Chäkokot. The Saknis 2 profiles CJ3, KJ2, KJ4, KJ6, andKJ7 were shallow soils found at shoulder slope locations. The Saknis soils belongedto the suborder Haprendolls characterized by a mollic epipedon, high CaCO3 equiv-alent, high pH, and lack of an argillic horizon. Haprendolls form under forest con-ditions in the Petén on limestone parent materials. Nutrient and water retention ofthese soils were generally limited by shallow soil depth.

Ek Luk

Ek Luk soils were found in the numerous small bajos and drainage ways and occu-pied 14% of the transect area. These soils were typically exceptionally deep and somewere situated atop dense clay. The profile CJ8 located near the center point of a drainageway was the only example on the east transect. The soil depth was greater than 70 cmand more than 60% clay in each horizon. Redoximorphic features in the B horizons andhigh amounts of shrink-swell clay place this profile in the great group Endoaquolls.Perhaps one of the most interesting characteristics of Ek Luk soils were their closerelationship with Ek Luum soils. Average clay contents in Ek Luk and Ek Luum 1 soilsare, for example, highly similar, and it was perhaps not surprising that local informantsoften had some difficulty in deciding between the Ek Luk and Ek Luum soil classes.

Tierra Mezclada

The three Tierra Mezclada profiles (CJ6, CJ7, and KJ1) belonged to three differ-ent great groups, Argiudolls, Endoaquolls, and Hapludolls, respectively. The term,Tierra Mezclada, means “mixed earth” and was used to describe miscellaneous soiltypes that were transitional. They occupied 14% of the east transect.

Soils in the Motul de San José area can be best understood in terms of a soilcatena representing landscape features and their relationships with soil formation,soil-profile pedology, and profile depth. The deep, heavy-textured soils Ek Luum

and Ek Luk were found in areas of soil deposition, whereas eroded areas and upperslopes have soil profiles that were much shallower. These were the Saknis soils.Average profile depths from each topographic location demonstrated the differencesbetween the eroded summit and shoulder and backslope soils, and the depositionalfootslope and toeslope soils (Table VIII).

CONCLUSIONS

The soil resource study of the east transect revealed that most soils of the areaexhibited positive characteristics for crop cultivation, but there were some impor-

JENSEN ET AL.




353

tant soil limitations (Table IV and Table V). The surface horizon of each soil pro-file contained excessive amounts of shrink-swell clay (�21%), but the high organiccarbon contents, greater than 2%, imparted beneficial aggregation for water infil-tration and plant root growth. The Ek Luum and Ek Luk soils had wide cracks inthe surface and high bulk density in the subsurface horizons. These characteris-tics made the workability of soils difficult, but the low landscape position andlow slope enhanced the sustainability of these soil types. The Saknis soils locatedat the hill crests and backslopes exhibited better soil texture, organic matter, andstructure characteristics than the Ek Luum and Ek Luk soils. Although theseproperties would be fine for crop growth, the shallowness of the profiles and theerosion hazard of sloped land would have been serious limitations. Another lim-itation to most of the soil types along the east transect was high calcium carbon-ate content and alkaline pH. It is possible that the slight alkalinity of the soilwould present nutrient deficiency problems for some crop species because theessential nutrients phosphorus, iron, and zinc form highly insoluble compoundsat high soil pH.

The study of modern soils at Motul de San José was useful to understand thesoil resources that were available to the ancient Maya. It is difficult to determinehow soil conditions have changed since the height of ancient Maya cultivation.Continued pedogenesis, dust, and organic matter inputs under the forest have nodoubt affected these soils in the intervening 1000 years. Nonetheless, althoughthe modern soil landscape is not in the exact condition as it was during ancientMaya occupation, modern topography and topology remain basically unchanged.

Table VIII. A Horizon depth, topographic location, andpercent slope for soil tests.

A Horizon(s) Topographic %

Profile Depth (cm) Location Slope

CJ1 0–18 Hillcrest 3CJ2 0–21 Hillcrest 3CJ3 0–30 Shoulder 4CJ4 0–40 Footslope 4CJ5 0–37 Backslope 5CJ6 0–21 Backslope 4CJ7 0–20 Footslope 6CJ8 0–11 Toeslope 5KJ1 0–25 Backslope 8KJ2 0–30 Backslope 6KJ3 0–28 Drainage 5KJ4 0–23 Backslope 8KJ5 0–12 Footslope 1KJ6 0–38 Toeslope 3KJ7 0–42 Toeslope 2KJ8 0–35 Footslope 3

In other words, relatively prime agricultural soils and poor agriculture soils werefound in the same places in ancient times as they are today. Likewise the ancientMaya would probably have experienced the same difficulties due to soil limitationsand reaped the same benefits of relatively good soils that the modern farmersreceive.

The combination of indigenous soil classification with USDA soil taxonomy pro-duced interesting information, even though the two classification systems were notdirectly correlated. Soil taxonomy produced precise information about soil proper-ties that reflect their agricultural capabilities. Important soil-limiting factors, such ashigh clay content, high shrink-swell potential, shallow profile, and redoximorphic fea-tures, represented by taxonomic nomenclature, could only be observed through soil-profile investigations and laboratory tests. However, the scientific interpretationsof soil resources were added to greatly by practical ethnographic knowledge.Information gleaned from a single soil profile does not always accurately representthe agricultural productivity of an area. Many different soil types can exist in a smallarea because of the highly variable landscape that is commonly observed through-out the Petén.

We caution that although the physical and chemical characteristics of the soilssuggest the relative value of certain areas for ancient crop cultivation, these obser-vations do not necessarily tell us that a given area or soil type was used ancientlyin crop production or how extensively the ancient Maya farmed them. It is possi-ble that many factors, especially those of a sociopolitical nature, could have beendeterministic of how land resources were utilized in the study areas. Therefore,more data in the form of settlement distribution and density, as well as additionalsoil chemical analyses, are needed to form a more complete picture of the trueagricultural landscape at the height of Maya occupation of Motul de San José. Thesoil profiles from the site center and from the east transect have been subjectedto carbon isotope analysis for additional evidence of agricultural utilization patternsduring the long Preclassic and Classic Maya occupations (Webb et al., this issue,pp. 291–312). It has been shown that the carbon isotope signature of ancient C4 veg-etation, including maize crops, retained in the soil humus can be used to find areasof ancient maize agriculture in the Maya lowlands (Webb et al., 2004; Fernández etal., 2005). The study by Webb et al. (this issue, pp. 291–312) provides important infor-mation on the areas of ancient maize agriculture at Motul de San José.

Archaeological investigations at Motul de San José and other nearby sites were supported by grants fromthe National Science Foundation, the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.,Williams College, the Middle American Research Institute, SUNY-Potsdam, the Florida Museum of NaturalHistory, and Tulane University. Funds for soil interviews in 2002 were provided by the Tulane UniversityCenter for Latin American Studies. Funds for the soil analysis research were provided, in part, by aMentoring Environments Grant from Brigham Young University. The excellent laboratory analysis byundergraduates in the Environmental Science Program at Brigham Young University is acknowledged: TylerTuttle, Amy Butterfield, Travis Thomason, and Heather Hughes. Finally, we would like to especially thankDon Jorge Arturo Zac and other members of the San José community who provided so much informationon their soil classification system.

JENSEN ET AL.




355

REFERENCES

Abrams, E.M., & Rue, D.J. (1988). The causes and consequences of deforestation among the prehistoricMaya. Human Ecology, 16, 377–395.

Antoine, P.P., Skarie, R.L., & Bloom, P.L. (1982). The origin of raised fields near San Antonio, Belize: Analternative hypothesis. In K.V. Flannery (Ed.), Maya subsistence: Studies in memory of Dennis E.Puleston (pp. 227–236). New York: Academic Press.

Ashmore, W., & Willey, G.R. (1981). A historical introduction to the study of Lowland Maya settlement pat-terns. In W. Ashmore (Ed.), Lowland Maya settlement patterns. Albuquerque, NM: University of NewMexico Press.

Atran, S. (1993). Itzá Maya tropical agro-forestry. Current Anthropology, 34, 633–700.Beach, T. (1998). Soil catenas, tropical deforestation, and ancient and contemporary soil erosion in the

Petén, Guatemala. Physical Geography, 19, 378–405.Beach, T., & Dunning, N.P. (1995). Ancient Maya terracing and modern conservation in the Petén rainforest

in Guatemala. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 50, 138–145.Bloom, P.R., Pohl, M., Buttleman, C., Wiseman, F., Covich, A., Miksicek, C., et al. (1983). Prehistoric Maya

wetland agriculture and the alluvial soils near San Antonio Rio Hondo, Belize. Nature, 301, 417–419.Bloom, P.R., Pohl, M., & Stein, J. (1985). Analysis of sedimentation and agriculture along the Rio Hondo,

northern Belize. In M. Pohl (Ed.), Prehistoric lowland Maya environment and subsistence economy(pp. 21–33). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Coe, M.D. (1999). The Maya (6th ed.). New York: Thames and Hudson.Cowgill, U. (1962). An agricultural study of the Southern Maya Lowlands. American Anthropologist, 64,

273–286.Dunning, N.P. (1992). Lords of the hills: Ancient Maya settlement in the Puuc Region, Yucatán, Mexico.

Madison, WI: Prehistory Press.Dunning, N.P., & Beach, T. (1994). Soil erosion, slope management, and ancient terracing in the Maya

lowlands. Latin American Antiquity, 5, 51–69.Dunning, N.P., & Beach, T. (2000). Stability and instability in pre-Hispanic Maya landscapes. In D. Lentz

(Ed.), Imperfect balance (pp. 179–202). New York: Columbia University Press.Dunning, N.P., Luzzadder-Beach, S., Beach, T., Jones, J.G., Scarborough, V., & Culbert, T.P. (2002). Arising

from the bajos: The evolution of a neotropical landscape and the rise of Maya civilization. Annals ofthe Association of American Geographers, 92, 267–283.

Emery, K.F. (2001). Investigaciones ecológicas preliminares del medioambiente antiguo de Motul de SanJosé. In A.E. Foias (Ed.), Proyecto arqueológico Motul de San José—Informe # 4: Temporada deCampo 2001 (pp. 108–135). Williamstown, MA: Williams College.

Emery, K.F. (2003). The economics of natural resource use at ancient Motul de San José, Guatemala.Mayab, 16, 33–48.

Fedick, S.L. (1994). Ancient Maya agricultural terracing in the Upper Belize River area. AncientMesoamerica, 5, 107–127.

Fedick, S.L. (1996). An interpretative kaleidoscope: Alternative perspectives on ancient agricultural land-scape of the Maya Lowlands. In S.L. Fedick (Ed.), The managed mosaic: Ancient Maya agricultureand resource use (pp. 107–131). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.

Fernández, F.G., Johnson, K.D., Terry, R.E., Nelson, S., & Webster, D. (2005). Soil resources of the ancientMaya at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 69, 2020–2032.

Foias, A.E. (1999). Introducción: Entre la política y economía: Proyecto arqueológico Motul de San José.In A.E. Foias (Ed.), Proyecto arqueológico Motul de San José—Informe #4: Temporada de Campo2001 (pp. 1–16). Williamstown, MA: Williams College.

Foias, A.E. (Ed.). (2000). Proyecto arqueológico Motul de San José—Informe #2: Temporada de Campo1999. Williamstown, MA: Williams College.



Foias, A.E. (2003). Perspectivas teóricas en las dinámicas del estado Clásico Maya: Resultados preliminaresdel Proyecto Eco-Arqueológico Motul de San José, 1998–2003. Mayab, 16, 15–32.

Foias, A.E., Chinchilla, O., Burgos, B., Goldfine, R., & Suntecun, E. (1999). Mapeo del sitio Motul de SanJosé. In A.E. Foias (Ed.), Proyecto arqueológico Motul de San José—Informe #1: Temporada de Campo1998 (pp. 9–15). Williamstown, MA: Williams College.

Gee, G.W., & Bauder, J.W. (1986). Particle-size analysis. In A. Klute (Ed.), Methods of soil analysis (pp.383–411). Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.

Hansen, R.D., Bozarth, S., Jacob, J., Wahl, D., & Schreiner, T. (2002). Climatic and environmental vari-ability in the rise of Maya civilization: A preliminary perspective from northern Peten. AncientMesoamerica, 13, 273–295.

Hofling, C.A., & Tesucún, F.F. (1997). Itzaj Maya-Spanish-English Dictionary. Salt Lake City, UT: Universityof Utah Press.

Jensen, C., Johnson, K., & Terry, R.E. (2002). Análisis química de suelos en Motul de San José. In A.E. Foias(Ed.), Proyecto arqueológico Motul de San José—Informe #4: Temporada de Campo 2001 (pp. 136–143).Williamstown, MA: Williams College.

Loeppert, R.H., & Suarez, D.L. (1996). Carbonate and gypsum. In J.M. Bigham (Ed.), Methods of soil analy-sis. Part 3: Chemical methods (pp. 437–474). Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.

Mehlich, A. (1978). New extractant for soil test evaluation of phosphorous, potassium, magnesium, cal-cium, sodium, manganese, and zinc. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 9, 477–492.

Moriarty, M.D. (2002a). A preliminary assessment of settlement at Motul de San José, Peten, Guatemala.Paper presented at the 67th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver, CO.

Moriarty, M.D. (2002b). Notas preliminares sobre la clasificación indígena de suelos en San José, Petén,Guatemala. In A.E. Foias (Ed.), Proyecto arqueológico Motul de San José—Informe #4: Temporada deCampo 2001 (pp. 131–135). Williamstown, MA: Williams College.

Moriarty, M.D. (2003). Proyecto Arqueológico Motul de San José—Informe #5: Temporada de Campo2002. New Orleans, LA: Tulane University.

Moriarty, M.D. (2004). Settlement archaeology at Motul de San José, el Petén, Guatemala: Preliminaryresults from the 1998–2003 seasons. Mayab, 17, 21–44.

Moriarty, M.D., Castellanos, J.E., & Foias, A.E. (2004). Proyecto Arqueológico Motul de San José—Informe#6: Temporada de Campo 2003. Guatemala City: Instituto de Antropología e Historia.

Moriarty, M.D., Ramírez, F., Spensley, E., & Buechler, J. (2002). Reconocimiento, mapeo y sondeos in laperiferia de Motul de San José: El transecto este. In A.E. Foias (Ed.), Proyecto arqueológico Motul deSan José—Informe # 4: Temporada de Campo 2001 (pp. 86–103). Williamstown, MA: Williams College.

Nations, J., & Nigh, R. (1980). The evolutionary potential of Lacandon Maya sustained-yield tropical for-est agriculture. Journal of Anthropological Research, 36, 1–30.

Nelson, D.W., & Sommers, L.E. (1996). Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In J.M. Bigham(Ed.), Methods of soil analysis. Part 3, Chemical methods (pp. 961–1010). Madison, WI: Soil ScienceSociety of America.

Parnell, J.J., Terry, R.E., & Nelson, Z. (2002). Soil chemical analysis applied as an interpretive tool forancient human activities at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Journal of Archaeological Science, 29, 379–404.

Pawluk, R.R., Sandor, J.A., & Tabor, J.A. (1992). The role of indigenous soil knowledge in agriculturaldevelopment. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 3, 298–302.

Pohl, M.D., Pope, K.O., Jones, J.G., Jacob, J.S., Piperno, D.R., deFrance, S.D., et al. (1996). Early agricul-ture in the Maya lowlands. Latin American Antiquity, 7, 355–372.

Reents-Budet, D., Bishop, R.L., & MacLeod, B. (1994). Painting styles, workshop locations and pottery pro-duction. In D. Reents-Budet (Ed.), Painting the Maya universe (pp. 165–220). Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press.

Reina, R.E. (1967). Milpa and milperos: Implications for prehistoric times. American Anthropologist, 69,1–20.

Schoeneberger, P.J., Wysocki, D.A., Benham, E.C., & Broderson, W.D. (1998). Field book for describingand sampling soils. Lincoln, NE: National Soil Survey Center, Natural Resources Conservation Services,United States Department of Agriculture.

Soil Survey Staff. (1999). Keys to soil taxonomy. Blacksburg, VA: Pocahontas Press.

JENSEN ET AL.




357

Terry, R.E., Hardin, P.J., Houston, S.D., Jackson, M.W., Nelson, S.D., Carr, J., et al. (2000). Quantitative phos-phorus measurement: A field test procedure for archaeological site analysis at Piedras Negras,Guatemala. Geoarchaeology, 15, 151–166.

Turner II, B.L. (1974). Prehistoric intensive agriculture in the Mayan lowlands: Examination of relic ter-races and raised fields indicates that the Rio Bec Maya were sophisticated cultivators. Science, 185,118–124.

Webb, E.A., Schwarcz, H.P., & Healy, P.F. (2004). Carbon isotope evidence for ancient maize agriculturein the Maya lowlands. Journal of Archaeological Science, 31, 1039–1052.

Webb, E.A., Schwarcz, H.P., Jensen, C.T., Terry, R.E., Moriarty, M.D., & Emery, K.F. (2007). Stable carbon iso-tope signature of ancient maize agriculture in the soils of Motul De San José, Guatemala. Geoachaeology,22, 291–312.

Wells, E.C., Terry, R.E., Parnell, J.J., Hardin, P.J., Jackson, M.W., & Houston, S.D. (2000). Chemical analy-ses of ancient anthrosols in residential areas at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience, 27, 449–462.

Wilken, G.C. (1971). Food-producing systems available to the ancient Maya. American Antiquity, 36,432–448.

Willey, G.R., & Bullard, W.R. (1965). The handbook of middle American Indians. Vol. 2: Archaeology of south-ern Mexico. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Williams, B.J., & Ortiz-Solorio, C.A. (1981). Middle American folk soil taxonomy. Annals of the Associationof American Geographers, 71, 335–374.

Wilshusen, R.H., & Stone, G.D. (1990). An ethnoarchaeological perspective on soils. World Archaeology,22, 104–114.

Received September 1, 2006Accepted for publication October 11, 2006

soil resources of the motul de san josé maya: correlating soil taxonomy and modern itzá maya soil...

Documents