The Belize Postclassic Project: Laguna de On Island Excavations 1996

Report to the Department of Archaeology

Belmopan, Belize

edited by Marilyn A. Masson and Robert M. Rosenswig

February 1997

OCCASIONAL PUBLICATION N0.1

INSTITUTE FOR MESOAMERICAN STUDIES The University at Albany

State University of New York Albany, NY 12222

Doubloon Bank Lagoon

'V 'V 'V 'V

'V 'V

'V

'V 'V 'V

'V 'V 'II

'II

'V 'V • 'II

___--- 4 krn to Kichpanha

'II 'V 'II 'II BAH '92

~

I :'VI i~lllil~

Marsh and Swamp

Body of water

Chiwa Lagoon

' 9 krn to El Cacao ---...

Honey Camp Lagoon (Laguna de On)

@'jl

'II 'II

'II

'II 'II

'V 'II

'II

"" 'V

'II • 'II

'II

'II

Kilometers

.l Postclassic Archaeological Site * Classic Archaeological Site

I

I I

:,'I

LJ

.

. .

The Belize Postclassic Project: Laguna de On Island Excavations 1996

Report to the Department of Archaeology

Belmopan, Belize

February 1997

Marilyn A. Masson Principal Investigator Dept. of Anthropology Soc. Sci.. 263

edited by

The University at Albany-SUNY Albany, NY 12222 USA

Robert M. Rosenswig Field Director Dept. of Sociology & Anthropology 6303 NW Marine Dr .

. University of British Columbia Vancouver, B..C., Canada V6T1Z1

Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publication No. 1 The University at Albany

State University of New York Albany, NY 12222

sponsoring institutions.~ SUNY-ALBANY Center for Field Research: Earthwatch Foundation for Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies Wenner Gren Foundation

Table of Contents

Chapter' One Overview of 1996 Investigations at Laguna de On Island Mal'ilyn A. Masson ........................................................................................................... :···· ................ 1

Chapter Two Structnl'e I, a C-shaped building at Laguna de On Island Marilyn A .. Masson, Melissa .Joy Shumake, and Evon Moan ••.•..•.••••••.•.••..... 11

Chapter Thr·ee Notes on a Flint God K Eccentric from Laguna de On Island Marilyn A. Masson ................................................................................................................ 25

Chapter' Four Structur·e II, a Shrine Platform at Laguna de On Island Robert M. Rosenswig and .Joy Beckel' .......................................................................... 29

Chapter Five Structul'e III, a Stone Dock at Laguna de On Island Marilyn A .. Masson and Sarah Gonzalez ...................................................................................... 39

Chapter Six Testing Explorations at Laguna de On Island: Landscape Modification, a Burial Al'ea, and Courtyard Walls Ed Barnhart and Sarah Howard ................................................................................... 43

Chapter' Seven Pl'eliminary Observations of Postclassic Cer·amics fmm Laguna de On Island Shirley Boteler Mock ....................................................................................................................... 61

Chapter Eight Faunal Remains from Laguna de On Island 1996: Pr·eliminary Observations Jennifer Wharton ...................................................................................................................... 69

Chapter Nine Lithic Tools from 1996 Season at Laguna de On Island Marilyn A. Masson ......................................................................................................................... 77

Appendix I.. Analysis of Human Dentition from Laguna de On Island 1996 Skeletons Joy Becker ................................................................................................................................ 85

Refel'ences Cited......................................................................................... 89 Acknowledgments........................................................................................................ 97

1996 Project Staff

Marilyn Masson (SUNY-Albany)- Project Director Annabeth Headrick (Western State College of Colorado)- Lab Director Shirley Mock (Institute of I exan Cultures)- Project Ceramicist Rob Rosenswig (Univ. of British Columbia)- Field Director Ed Barnhart (Univ. of I exas) - Excavation Supervisor Joy Becker (Univ. of I exas) - Excavation Supervisor, Osteologist Evon Moan (Univ of Michigan)- Excavation Supervisor Joy Shumake (Univ .. of Michigan)- Excavation Supervisor Sarah Gonzalez (Austin, Texas)- Assistant Excavation Supervisor Sarah Howard (Univ. of Victoria)- Assistant Excavation Supervisor

1996 Pr·oject Volunteer Staff (Center for Field Research: Earthwatch)

Elaine Augot (Boston, MA) David Banis {Seattle, W A) Crystal Bassett (Merritt Island, FL) Anne Deane (Ipswich, UK) Susan Don (Providence, RI) Ellen Dretzka (Wheaton, IL) Andrew Duffell (Balham, UK) Amanda Fidler (London, UK) Judith Fryer (I rappe, P A) Savina Geerinckx (Cambridge, UK, Belguim) Doreen Gray (Grand Cayman) Shirley Guntharp (Little Rock, AR) Sarah Halford (Needham, MA)

• Andrea Hamos (Shrewsbury, MA) Jim Hamos(Shrewsbury, MA) Michael Hein (Hamburg, Germany) Lulu Henderson (Washington, D.C.) Dennis Hyde (Norwalk, CT) Robert Kelly (Woods Hole, MA) Carol Lamont (Miami, F L) Hilary Levey (Brooklyn, NY) Patti Moore (Lake Forest, CA) Pat Morey (Martinsville, NJ) Bill Newman (Newtonville, MA) Janelle Orsi (Moss Beach, CA) Sheryl Perry (Seattle, W A) Stacey Pope (Syracuse, NY) Jonathan Pavey (Glam, Wales) Marie Stolte (Burnsville, MN) Ben Voce-Gardner (New York, New Y ark) Averell Withers (West Palm Beach, FL)

List of Tables page

Table I Artifuct Frequencies from 1996 Excavations at Laguna de On Island 6 Table 2 Lot descriptions from Suboperation 8, Structure I 15 Table 3 Lots Correlated with Deposits at Structure I (Suboperation 8) 16 Table 4 Concentrations of Artifacts and Ceramics at Structure I 18 I able 5 Lot Descriptions for Structure ll 34 Table 6 Lots correlated with stratigraphic deposits at Structure II 35 Table 7 Lot Descriptions at Suboperation 14 42 Table 8 Lot descriptions at Suboperation 5b 46 Table 9. Lot Correlations at Suboperation 5b 46 I able 10 Lot Descriptions at Suboperation 5c 50 I able 11 Lot correlations at Suboperation 5c 50 Table 12. Lot Descriptions at Suboperation 7a 55 I able 13 Lot Correlations at Suboperation 7a 55 I able 14 Lot Descriptions at Suboperation 13 60 I able 15 Lot Correlations at Suboperation 13 60 Table 16 Ceramic Frequencies from Laguna de On Island 1996 Excavations 68 I able 17 I axa Identified from 1996 Laguna de On Island Sample 73 Table 18 Taxa Recovered from Structure I (of partly analyzed sample) 74 I able 19 Large and Small I axa Recovered from Suboperations 8

(Structure I), 5, and 14 75 I able 20. Cranial and Postcranial Remains of Large Game at

Suboperations 8, 5, and 14 76 I able 21 Burned and unburned lithic shatter (br sh and ubr sh)

and platform-bearing flakes (br flks and ubr flks) 82 I able 22 Obsidian blades, cores, and debris, with tabulation of

macroscopic observations of wear 83 I able 23 Nonobsidian Lithic I ools and Cores from 1996 Laguna de On Island 84

I ~ I I

I i

I I

List of Figures page

Figure l. Map of 1996 Excavations at Laguna de On Island 5 Figure 2. Photo of Structure I 12 Figure 3. Map of Structure I 13 Figure 4 Profile of Suboperation 8, north wall 17 Figure 5 Ceramic concentration at Structure I l7 Figure 6. Burials at Structure I 20 Figure 7. Flint God K eccentric in situ at Structure I 23 Figure 8 Ceramics from Structure I (various types) 24 Figure 9. Ceramics from Structure I (composite censers) 24 Figure lO Close-up photo of Flint God K Eccentric from Structure I 27 Figure II. Illustration of Flint God K Eccentric from Structure I 28 Figure 12. Map of Structure II - Suboperation 12 30 Figur·e B Photograph of Structure II (Suboperation 12) 31 Figure 14 Profile of soil beneath Structure II 36 Figure 15. I riangular biface found at east edge of Structure II 38 Figure 16 Map of Structure III (Suboperation 14 ), stone dock 41 Figure 17 Photo of Structur·e III ( Suboperation 14) vicinity looking east 42 Figure 18 Cross section diagram of island at the vicinity of Subop 5 units 44 Figure 19. Photo and map of Suboperation 5b, south profile 45 Figure 20 Suboperation 5c profile of north wall 50 Figur·e 21 Photo of Suboperation 5c burials 51 Figure 22. Map of Suboperation 5c burials 51 Figure 23 Greenstone celt (left) and groundstone bead (center)

from Suboperation 5c Also shown is a ground iron ore bead (right) from Suboperation 8 (Structure I) 52

Figure 24. Map and photo ofSuboperation 7a 54 Figure 25 Suboperation 7a Pomacea cache pit 56 Figure 26 Map and photo of Suboperation l3 59 Figure 27. Decorated ceramics from Laguna de On Island 1996 (illustrations) 67 Figure 28 Ceramic types from Laguna de On Island 1996 (photo) 68 Figure29 Lithic tools from Laguna de On Island 1996 81

Chapter One

Overview of 1996 Inve,stigatiom at Laguna de On Island: Research Goals, Methodology, Results, and Preliminary Interpretations

Mari{yn A. Masson

Long Term Project Goals

The Belize Postclassic prqject is a long term program of research devoted to understanding processes of social transformation and survival strategies of populations that recreated Maya society in northern Belize after the I Oth century collapse of Classic period city states in this region. Sites such as Laguna de On Island represent village settings where this process of cultural change took place, as communities preserved som~ institutions, discarded others, and transformed still other structures of the past to meet new circumstances of the Postclassic world The Maya ethnographic record suggests that the community is a highly significant unit that defines social and political identity (Wolf 1959, Redfield 1941, Redfield and Villa Rojas 1934, Thompson 1970, Vogt 1976, Farriss 1984}. Based on analogy to ethnographic observations, the community scale of analysis is an appropriate one for examining Postclassic cultural patterns further back in time, at village sites like Laguna de On Island.

The community focus of this project is also based on results of previous research in the southern Maya lowlands, which indicate that adaptations to the Classic collapse are variable and village-based. In fact, interpretations of the relative prosperity and ethnic affiliation of Postclassic sites is highly variable in the southern lowlands (Freidel 1985, Ball 1985, D. Chase 1982, A Chase 1983, P Rice 1986, D.. Chase and A Chase 1982, A Chase and D. Chase 1985, D Chase and A Chase 1988, A. Chase and P Rice 1985, Graham 1985, Graham et aL1989, Hester 1985, Masson 1993, Pendergast 1981, 1985, 1986, D Rice 1986, Walker 1990}. These interpretations variously suggest that foreign migrants replaced earlier populations in Belize (D. Chase and A Chase 1982, Hester 1985), continuities are observed in transformation among in situ populations (Pendergast 1981, 1985, 1986, D. Chase and A Chase 1988, Graham eta!. 1989, Walker 1990), or that local and foreign ethnic expressions can be viewed at individual sites as a result of mutual assimilation (D Rice 1986). Investigations of Postclassic community patterns were initiated at Laguna de On Island in 1991 .. I esting of deposits on the island and at a residential plaza at the lagoon's southeast shore were conducted at this time (Valdez et a!. 1992, Masson 1993). The analysis of these assemblages and their contexts provided preliminary indications of Classic to Postclassic cultural adapations, economies, and chronologies at this site which guided the 1996 season.

Although work has begun at Laguna de On Island, little is currently known at the regional scale of patterns of settlement, demography, economy, and political structure of northern Belize Postclassic culture .. The long term goals of this project are to compile data through investigations at multiple communities which will ultimately facilitate regional scale interpretations,. In the 600 years ofPostclassic culture history in Belize, systems of community and regional organization are not assumed to be homogenous, given the variability observed across the lowlands in space and time (Freidel 1985) The long term objectives of the Belize Postclassic Project will document regional systems of political organization through extensive testing of Postclassic

l

village sites from the Middle Postc]assic, Late Postclassic, and Colonial periods. Political organization will be examined through the evaluation of intrasite and intersite social hierarchies, forms of religious monopology, as well as local and long distance economies The analysis of artifact assemblage variablity and patterning from household and ritual contexts will provide the primary data for this examination Belize is a significant region in the cultural geography of Yucatan and the southern lowlands in the 11th through 17th centuries, situated between two regions that are more thoroughly documented historically, ie .. , the Yucatan and the Peten .. Ihe archaeological record of Belize can supplement biased historical accounts such as the Books of the Chilam Balam which emphasize the role of foreign invasion in lowland political history. Ihe untold story of village adaptations in locations further removed from the hot seat of political affairs in northern Yucatan is represented in the Belize Postcjassic archaeological record Ihe Belize Po.stclassic Project has a long term commitment to analyzing the history and process of these late centuries in the Belize region.

Of broader anthropological interest to this project is a process of cultural change that may be termed selective reproduction (Masson 1997a}. Analyzing selective reproduction of cultural institutions in a resistance climate like that which may have existed after the Classic period collapse in Belize assumes conscious historical action and the presence of social memory among Postclassic villages and their leaders. In the Postclassic period, certain institutions of Classic period Maya society were retained (like calendric rituals) while others were intentionally disgarded (like divine kingship and investment in monumental architecture). This investigation assumes that social memory was not lost in the Postclassic, and that Postclassic peoples were not "incapable" or insufficiently "complex" to achieve the centralization of the Classic period city states It is instead considered that social and political transformations toward more fragmented and autonomous secondary regional state systems were accomplished through active choices made in Postclassic cultural reproduction, and these choices were based on the perception that such changes were generally beneficial to the participants involved. Essentially, patterns observed to date suggest that Postclassic Maya society in northern Belize was reproduced, at the village scale, through the selective replication of institutions of the past (Pendergast 1986, Masson 1997a} I he mechanism of replication of ritual or other organizational principles was originally observed by Vogt (1969) who noted this phenomena among communities surrounding the center of Zinacantan, Chiapas

To observe patterns of selective reproduction of Maya culture archaeologically, excavations at Laguna de On Island are investigating a variety ofritual and domestic contexts through detailed horizontal excavations which will facilitate spatial analysis.. I he project seeks to collect empirical evidence attesting to village political organization, social hierarchies, ritual practice, and local and long distance economic patterns from which broader questions may ultimately be addressed I o date, this approach has provided evidence for the reproduction of certain religious rituals by political authorities at the island (Masson 1997a) Household production and local economy also exhibit significant reproduction of ear Iier systems (Masson 1993, 1997b). Reproduction of institutions from the past was accompanied by change and adjustments to new external political and economic realities (Masson 1997b )..

Objectives of the 1996 Season

The o~jective of the 1996 season was to gather evidence of village social hierarchy and political organization at Laguna de On Island, through expanding the research investigations of the 1991 season (Valdez et al 1992, Masson 1993, 1997b} Initial testing in 1991 facilitated

2

general predictions for subsurface architectural recovery, while the 1996 project sought to recover detailed spatial information from ritual and domestic contexts .. The primary focus of 1996 excavations was ritual architecture, although at the beginning of the season the function of the structures was not known The recovery ofPostclassic ritual behavior is significant to the project's interest in political organization, as religious institutions preserved in the archaeological record provide important insights on the survival and transformation of beliefs and customs ofthe past They are also a playing field for political control and advantage that is closely linked to community political systems and social organization .. Two ritual buildings were exposed in 1996.. Additional 1996 testing focused on community investment projects in landscape modification, as such efforts provide a means of meaSuring the degree of persuasive political authority through the mobilization of cooperative works.. Public construction prqjects were documented and assessed through exploring artificially constructed terraces, fortification walls, and canoe docks at the island.

Evidence for social status differentiation at the island was to be examined in the 1996 research plan by comparing the ar·chitectural elaboration, poSsessions, and production activities of households Family size and kin-based social identity were to be similary assessed through investigating architectural form, artifact assemblages, and mortuary patterns Although a number of locations were tested at the island with the aim of uncovering domestic architecture, a household structure has yet to be located .. Several domestic middens and associated burial areas have been found, however, and analysis of domestic assemblages has begun in advance of the recovery of associated structures

Methods

Excavations in 1996 employed the technique of broad horizontal exposure of architectural features visible from the surface or encountered in the 1991 season .. Broad horizontal exposure allows for maximal observation of spatial relationships between artifacts, features, and architecture Spatial associations provide the richest data for interpreting the meaning and function of archaeological deposits. As Postclassic remains on the island are found at the surface and extend to a depth of around 30 em, this village site poses an ideal situation for horizontal exposure due to a lack of over lying deposits.. In 1996 this methodology was accompanied by a program of smaller test units that explored areas of the island to be expanded into horizontal exposures in future seasons

For tight spatial control, large buildings were excavated within 2X3m squar·e (or smaller) collection units. Within these units, artifacts associated with different deposits (or lots) were also collected separately. Lots were designated according to soil characteristics, directional relationship to important features such as walls (internal and external space, for example), changes in artifact densities, and arbitrarily Vertical levels were customarily divided into 5 or! Ocm intervals All soil was screened through l/4" hardware mesh, and stone tools and debris, ceramics, animal bone, and shell were collected. Additional soil samples were taken from features and profiles for later flotation, pollen or phytolith analysis, or soil humate dating. Suboperation 14 underwater units were tested by shovel scraping surface lagoon sand directly into a 1/4" screen and water-screening the deposits in each unit Water at Suboperation 14 averaged 80cm deep, which facilitated this method.

3

Results Excavations

Excavations at Laguna de On Island during the Summer of 1996 were concentrated in the upper status precinct of this Postclassic community, located at the island's apex (Figure 1).. Investigations also tested selected areas on the outer terraces of the island (Figure 1) to provide valuable comparative information on the variability in social status, religious and economic activities, and other clues to the organization ofPostclassic society at this village .. In the upper courtyard of the island, two architectural complexes were horizontally cleared, the Suboperation 8 complex (Structure I, Masson et aL Chapter I wo) and the Suboperation 12 complex (Structure II, Rosenswig and Becker, Chapter Four). Additional testing in this area explored the boundaries of a large courtyard area along a boulder wall that delineates the west edge ofthe apex area in Suboperations 7 and 13 (Bamhart and Howard, Chapter Six) The south area of the island, away from the upper courtyard, was explored in test units designated Suboperation 5b and 5c (Barnhart and Howard, Chapter Six). A partially submerged dock structure at the water's edge to the east ofthe apex was tested in Suboperation 14 (Masson and Gonzalez, Chapter Five). These Suboperations are described in detail in the chapters of this report, and their location on the island is shown in Figure 1 A summary of findings is described below, in sections on artifact analysis, ritual architecture and test explorations

Ana(ysis

As a result of efforts of volunteers, workmen, and staff during the 1996 excavation at Laguna de On Island, 190 square meters ofPostclassic structures and activity areas were exposed Recovered materials include 12,875 ceramic sherds, 9,663 pieces of debitage (stone tool manufacturing debris), 5,300 pieces of animal bone, 307 obsidian blades, 212 stone tools, 172 net weights, 24 modified ceramic sherds, 21 spindle whor Is, five human skeletons, eight pieces of worked marine shell, two clay balls, one incised clay object, one serpentine adze, one piece of coral, one flint eccentric and assorted samples of soil, pigment, burned rocks and carbonized wood for specialized analysis (for relative percentages by Suboperation see Table 1). With the exception of the flint eccentric which remained with the Department of Archaeology of Belize, all materials were shipped to the Jab at SUNY-Albany, where they will be analyzed through studies conducted by collaborating professionals and graduate students. Currently, preliminary analysis has been conducted on I 00% of the debitage fiom the site, I 00% of the lithic tools, 100% of the obsidian blades, 50% of the ceramics, and 50% of the faunal bone .. Preliminary analysis has primarily been classificatory, and future specialized studies are planned for raw material sourcing for lithics and ceramics, tool use wear, residue analysis, and radiocarbon dating.. Ongoing analyses that are currently underway include completion of chronological and functional ceramic analysis (by Shirley Mock), completion of the faunal analysis for a master's thesis at SUNY -Albany (by Jennifer Wharton), analysis of skeletons and mortuary patterns (by Rob Rosenswig), lithic analysis (by Masson and SUNY students), and GIS-based spatial analysis of Laguna functional assemblages, distributions, and chronological trends (by Masson and Rosenswig)..

Ritual Architecture 1996- Summary of Results

Excavations during the 1996 season in a possible ritual courtyard area at Laguna de On Island yielded important information about 11th-14th century religion. A C-shaped public building (Structure 1), a large shrine platform (Structure II), and two burial areas provide initial views of

4

Figure I Map of 1996 Excavations at Laguna de On Island (originally drafted by Kathryn Reese- Taylor)

Subop 12- STRUCTURE II

M

L

Subop 13

t N

o 5 15m

Contour SOcm

I able 1 Artifact Frequencies fiom 1996 Excavations at Laguna de On Island

MAJOR ARTIFACT CATEGORIES !

'

! i [Subop i I I ' I L i 5 7 13] 8! 12; ! 141 N % ;N % !N [% jl\ I% IN % iN % !total

artifact I ! i I

I I I I

debitage I 327 40.22' 258 48.77 1007 i 54.64 ' 48761 33.67 : 1255• 16.00' 730 33.871 8453 lithic tool ! 7 0.86 1 3 0.57. 151 081 i 135) 0.93 i 41 o . .52 I II 0.511 212 fauna 160 19.68: 92 17.39: 287115.57) 341Si 23.58) 1067 13.601 279i 12.95' 5300 obsidian II 1.35! 22 4.16! 27i 1.47! 1481 1.02! 99 1.26! 40) 1.861 347 ceramic 305 3752 i 150 28 361 499) 27.08! 5828140.241 5313 67.74] 1087 50.44 i 13182 netwt

' 3 0.37. 4 0.76 8• 0.43j 811 056 i 68 o.s7! 8, 037' 172

I 813 I 529 1843: i 14483! 7843 : 21551 '27666

ritual behavior at this site. Artifact concentrations at these buildings identify activities that took place there, such as the sacrifice and consumption of large game animals (Wharton, Chapter Eight), incense burning, breaking of ceramic vessels, and caching of offerings of exotic chert stone tools (Masson et at, Chapter Ihree ).. Both structures are associated with concentrations of broken ceramics that date to the Middle Postclassic (Mock, Chapter Seven} There appear to be some functional differences, based on architectural composition.. Structure I has a three-sided wall foundation in a C-shaped configuration.. It is associated with upper status burials Structure II is a rubble platform, which faces a rubble patio that extends to the south of it No burials were found in the vicinity of Structure II, and numerous concentrations of highly burned rock were recorded within the rubble ofthis platform Functional differentiation ofthese buildings awaits completion of analysis.. However, neither resembles a domestic structure due to a lack of household debris, such as edible portions of large game, manos, metates, or contemporary fire pits. However, in the soil zone beneath each structure, there appear to be midden deposits that suggest a domestic occupation existed in this vicinity prior to the construction of these nondomestic buildings. The midden deposits appear to be primary, as pits full of charred soil are present within them. These pits originate well below the soil level associated with the architecture of Structures I and II (about 30 em below surface), and are overlain by walls or rubble of each building .. Ihese results raise intriguing questions to be addressed in ongoing artifact analysis which will examine temporal trends in these assemblages ..

Ihe Postclassic ritual buildings and deposits at Laguna de On may reflect a complex of religious beliefs and rituals associated with calendrics, the agricultural cycle, and ancestor veneration that has its origins in the Preclassic period (at least 350 B. C) and continued through the Colonial era (I aube 1992, Freidel et at 1993, Masson 1997a). Evidence from Laguna may thus demonstrate the selective reproduction in the Postclassic period of traditional Maya beliefs that remained useful to affluent village agriculturalists of Belize, in particular, rituals pertaining to rain. Ihrough examining such behavior, Postclassic reconciliation of social memory and social choice in the context of recreating Maya society can be documented .. Ihis process has been alluded to in investigations of reproduction of Maya culture at Postclassic sites across the lowlands (Pollock et al. 1962, D. Chase 1982, Freidel and Sabloff 1984:183-184, Pendergast 1986) and in the highlands (Blake 1985)

Ihe 1996 excavations reflect considerable distinctions in social status and the existence ofa political hierarchy at Laguna de On Island. Burial deposits in the ritual center included skeletons with filed front teeth (Becker, Appendix I), a cosmetic touch suggesting elite status .. Ihese upper status burials were located around a ritual C-shaped structure (Structure I}. In contrast, burials recovered elsewhere at the island lack filed teeth and are not in proximity to public buildings. Ihe association of elite cemeteries with ritual activity implies a renewed significance for kin­based political power in the Postclassic.

1996 Test Explorations of Terrace, Wall, and Dock Areas- Summary ojResults

Excavations outside ofthe possible ritual courtyard in the vicinity of Structure I and Structure II showed intensive and elaborate landscape modifications that improved the island's contours and made them more suitable for village habitation.. In Suboperation 5b, a lens offill over a meter deep was documented in an area that appeared natural from the surface. Ihe detection of fill at this location supplements information provided by the original Suboperation 5 excavations in 1991, which documented a tenace wall at the water's edge that retained an additional meter of fill Suboperation 5c provides important contrastive stratigraphy that verifies the artificial nature

7

of the Suboperation 5 and 5b deposits (Figure 1),. Although Suboperation 5c was only 5 meters upslope (and 20cm higher in elevation) than 5b, only 30 em of topsoil was present over bedrock at 5c. A gradient of 20cm is insufficient to account for a difference in depth of soil formation from 30cm to lm, especially at the top of a slope. Ihe 30cm deposits in 5c represent the natural soil formation in the humic layer over bedrock found throughout the island, Bedrock rises to a high point in Suboperation 5c, and dips low in 5b This dramatic undulation of bedrock was levelled out in Postclassic terrace construction. Suboperation 5 and 5b indicate the extent of artificial terrace construction in this location of the island, which covers approximately 113 of the island's width .. In bedrock at Suboperation 5c, a 1X2m trench, three burials have been found which may represent a cemetery area .. Broad horizontal exposure in this area planned for 1997 will clarifY the extent of this burial concentration, and its associations. Ihese burials may be of a lower status than those recovered at Structure I, as they did not exhibit tooth filing. Additional public facilities constructed at the island include a stone dock that pr~jects into the water on the island's east side (Suboperation 14) and a large boulder wall framing the west edge ofthe upper courtyard (Suboperations 7a and 13} Ihese efforts imply that other areas of the island might be similarly artificially constructed, a possibility to be explored in future testing ..

I he terrace, wall, and dock landscape modifications at Laguna suggest the existence of an influential political office during the Postclassic period at this community. At first view, the island appears to be a natural phenomena geomorphological phenomena. Neither architecture or landscape modifications are visible from the surface As a result of 1996 investigations, it is apparent that much of the island may be artificially modified through engineering feats undertaken by Postclassic villagers. These observations suggest that Postclassic Belize Maya society was politically complex, more so than might have been surmised from the lack of visible construction pr~jects observed on the island's surface

DiYcussion

Investigations of Political Organization and Ritual Behaviol'

One of the major goals of this project is to reconstruct the political organization and social hierarchy of the Laguna de On Postclassic. Last year's investigations in the upper courtyard recovered Structures I (Suboperation 8) and II (Suboperation 12), which provide clues about important foundations of political and religious behavior The organization of rituals at Laguna de On Island may have been orchestrated by important village headmen, as observed in Colonial times based on ethnohistoric analogy (Scholes and Rays 1948, Coe 1965:100-102, Fox 1987, D Chase 1982, 1986, 1988, D. Chase and A Chase 1988, Masson 1995),. Village leaders could have been elected officials or members of powerful founding lineages of the community Postclassic political transformations throughout Mesoamerica express a renewed importance of kin-based power (Fox 1987) which seems to be exemplified at Laguna de On.

The importance of lineage-based distinctions at Laguna de On might be supported by the proximity of these public buildings to a burial area from which the skeletons with filed teeth have been recovered .. It is significant that the male and female skeletons buried at Structure I exhibit the only tooth filing observed from the island. Ihis pattern suggests that important ancestors, such as lineage heads, may have been buried in this prominent location at the top of the island, Ihe activities and religious architecture found in this area may be directly related to the presence of interments of important elders who were to become venerated ancestors Many Maya groups believe that ancestors possess powers to intervene on behalf ofthe living by

8

appealing to supernatural entities in the spiritual realm that control natural forces such as rain (McAnany 1995).

God K is closely associated with ancestors in Maya mythology, and an effigy eccentric in the form of this deity was found in close proximity to Structure I and its associated burials. I he flint eccentric is a likely heir loom manufactured in the Classic period, deepening its significance as a cached offering at Structure I. I he presence of this artifact on the island links this Postclassic community with the recent past in a special way. Whether it was looted from a Classic period tomb by Postclassic people or handed down through generations, it signifies that ties to the past were important to the villagers of Laguna .. Ihis is a thought-provoking observation, as processes ofPostclassic social transformation are not well understood in this part of Belize. It is not known to what degree populations of the Classic period were displaced or replaced in the Early Postclassic, nor is it known to what degree institutions of the Classic period were rejected by villagers who faced new opportunities in the Early Postclassic to throw off burdens of labor, military service, and taxation by regional lords. Certainly the lack of large scale monumental architecture, hieroglyphic inscribed monuments, and the institution of divine kinship were aspects of Maya culture that were r"jected, not forgotten, in the Early Postclassic .. Yet the caching of the God K heirloom suggests that some aspects and objects ofthe past remained significant and were included in politically orchestrated ritual.

Inve.stigations of Chronology, Economy, Ecology

Other significant research issues will be addressed from analysis of materials from within and outside of Laguna's ritual precinct, including chronology, paleoecology, demography, and economic systems Ceramic concentrations found at Structure I included vessel types that are often assigned to different time periods (ranging from late Early Postclassic, Middle Postclassic, and Late Postclassic ), but their recovery together in features at Laguna may ultimately result in a refined Postclassic ceramic chronology for northern Belize. Bones of sacrificed animals associated with these ceramic features will be used for radiocarbon dating

Identification of the bones of numerous forest dwelling large game animals, such as tapir, reflects a major rejuventation ofthe 12th-14th century ecology in northern Belize Improved hunting opportunities and animal proteins in the diet for the Laguna community are implied from the recovery of abundant terrestrial and aquatic animals in ritual and domestic deposits .. By contrast, game is scarce or absent from most Classic period domestic contexts in this region (Scott 1980, 1982) and pollen records show considerable deforestation (D.. Rice 1986).. Skeletal analysis will further provide testimony regarding the health of Middle Postclassic populations at Laguna.. Ihe population at Laguna appears robust and exhibits minimal pathologies, perhaps due to a more diverse and protein rich diet facilitated by reforestation .. Bone chemistry studies planned for these remains will supplement current understanding of Postclassic human biology Middens sampled throughout the island will enable analysis of ceramic and lithic assemblages pertinent to understanding local production and exchange relationships ofthis community ..

Investigations of Community Building Projects and Cooperative Labor

Tests in Suboperations 5, 5b, and 5c provide evidence of considerable community labor projects which modified the natural landscape of the island. Ihe upper contour (see Figure I) is artificially extended through the addition of fill to build a terrace of at least 13m in length, retained by large boulder walls Similar modifications around the site may have given the island

9

its current tiered and fortified appearance .. Future testing will be designed to measure the extent of this effort in other zones of the village. Extending the upper surface of the island in the Suboperation 5 area made it more suitable for human occupation as the original configuration of the island shows dramatic undulations in topography The modifications are significant as they reflect a considerable degree of village-level social complexity measured by the amount of organization and effort required to change the surface of the island through earth-moving and wall construction Such modifications require leadership capacities found in socially complex societies The documentation of such efforts is significant for estimating political complexity and tracking changes in mechanisms of community integration and focus in the Early Postclassic period, particularly as traditional monumental architectru·e is absent from the site.. Futrne analysis will focus on the composition of the terrace fill itself, as currently it origin is not known. Collaborative geomorphological efforts are planned in conjunction with radiocarbon dates and artifact analysis aimed at determining whether the fill is from elsewhere on the island or whether it was brought by canoe from the lagoon shore. This determination is significant as transporting fill fiom the lagoon shore would exponentially increase the estimates of labor investment in this pr()ject

A Comment on Chr·onology

It may be noted that much of this introduction has avoided the issue ofPostclassic chronology, in particular the assigment of "Early," "Middle," or "Late" Postclassic to the Laguna de On Island site There are two reasons for this abstinence. First, radiocarbon results from the 1996 season are not yet completed, although samples have been selected and are ready to be sent as soon as affirmation from solicited sources of support is received. The second reason is that confusion exists in the literature regarding the chronological correlation of the Early, Middle, and Late Postclassic. For example, the ceramics from late Early Postclassic/Middle Postclassic at Colha are thought to be contemporary with the ceramics from what is termed the Late Postclassic at Iulum (Valdez and Mock 1985}. As Valdez and Mock (1985:74) proclaim, the Coliia dates are corroborated by radiocarbon dates, and the I ulum dates are not Indeed, the ceramics may be contemporary, but the names of the periods at each site are contradictory. Iulum-like redware ceramics comprise the majority of types identified at Laguna de On Island At Iulum, these redwares have been dated to AD 1250 (Ball 1982: Ill) and AD 1300 (Smith 1971 :30}. According to murals and architecture, however, I ulum "flourished" after AD 1400 (Miller 1982:11} All three dates are based on stylistic observations. Iulum-like wares at Santa Rita have been assigned dates of AD 1150-1300, based on initial radiocarbon results (D. Chase and A Chase 1988:78)

Santa Rita Corozal is generally referred to as a Late Postclassic site (D Chase and A Chase 1988: 13), although published dates from this site are primarily 13th and 14th century (1988:Iable 2) as are the katun endings recorded on the site's murals (Long 1919). It is hoped that the difficulties with nomenclature described above will eventually be resolved, and for the time being it appears that Laguna de On Island is a primarily Middle Postclassic site with ceramics that resemble Iulum, Santa Rita, and Mayapan Iulum-like redwares are found at the site in addition to Rita Red and Chen Mul Modelled forms. The duration of occupation at this site is thought to begin in the "late Early" Postclassic and extend into the Late Postclassic as indicated by the continuum of ceramics recovered at the site in the 1996 season Detailed temporal affiliations will be determined as ceramic analysis progresses with the aid of radiocarbon dating.

10

Chapter Two

Structure I, a C-shaped Building at Laguna de On Island

Marilyn A. Mas.son, Joy Shumake, and Evon Moan

Structure I- C-shaped Public Building

A section of one of the walls of Structure I (Suboperation S) was uncovered during the 1991 season in a 2X3m unit (excavated by Kam Managhan), which revealed a burial, offering, and fire pit to the west of the wall and a concentration of animal bone (crania oflarge game) and ceramic censers to the east of the wall (Valdez eta! 1992, Masson 1993) This initial test suggested that this structure was the focus of ritual activity (Masson 1997a). However, more extensive excavations were needed to document the configuration of this building and the associated artifacts that would explain the nature of its use.. The position and dimension of Suboperations Sa through So are shown on the composite map of the island (Figure I) These units exposed the walls as well as the internal and external space associated with Structure L I ogether these units exposed 67 square meters. Excavations at Suboperation S were supervised by Joy Shumake and Evon Moan .. The photograph in Figure 2 shows Structure I after most of these Suboperations were completed

Desaiption of Structure I Architecture

Structure I is a C-shaped building, as it has stone wall foundations on three sides (north, west, and south) and is open to the east (Figure 2, 3) The upper part of the walls would have had perishable pole and thatch extensions to the roof The front may also have been partially walled with perishable materials, or it may have been open. The walls of Structure I were made of limestone, including a hard nonporous variety and a softer "solidified marl" variety that showed greater signs of erosion, both types available in the local bedrock substrate. The walls ofthe building were partially outcropping on the surface, which guided the placement of excavation units Some stones were misplaced due to tree root disturbance. Others were burned, suggesting the structure may have been destroyed by fire

One very large stone was located in the center of the open side of the building (Figure 3) Despite hypotheses that it might have been an altar or uncarved stela, there was no direct evidence on the stone itself to support this such as carving or residual pigment on the stone's face. A substantial concentration of ceramics were found to the south of it, and lithic tools may have been placed at the northwest corner of this stone. Such concentrations were recovered in other areas around Structure I, but those recovered to the south of this stone in Lots 92, 94, 101, and 103 were among the most numerous concentrations associated with this building

Description of Stratigraphic Deposit.s at Structure I

A total of eighty-six lots were defined (Table 2) for the fifteen horizontal subunits delineated for the Suboperation S (Structure I) excavations These horizontal and vertical units of collection will enable spatial comparisons to be made of different areas of Structure I. For temporal analysis, a correlation of these lots among the horizontal subunits is more useful for general analysis

11

Figure 2 Photo of Structure I, facing west

Figure 3. Map of Structure I (illustration prepared by Pamela Headrick)

A Burial #5 B Burial #4 t c Burial #9 D Burialll6 N E God K flint 0 0 eccentric F cached llthlcs

,·"\ L_/

Ceramic concentrations

'0- Tree -

~83l Possible Altar/ unmarked stela B\t

2m

Stratigraphic deposits associated with Structure I are listed below, and the associated lots are summarized in Table 3, and profiles are displayed in Figure 4.

Deposit A) a humic topsoil found within and outside of the wall aligmnents that defined Structure I, averaging a depth of 20cm This soil was loosely packed and riddled with fibrous tree roots Ceramics, lithics, obsidian, and f1mnal bone were recovered in this layer.. The materials in this soil are thought to be contemporaneous with the use of Structure I (Middle Postclassic), and some materials in this soil may postdate the use of Structure I (Late Postclassic ). A burial (Burial 6) was found in this topsoil.

Deposit B) soil located beneath Structure I, a brown loam that interfaces with bedrock, generally 20cm in depth .. Some mottling of the soil is observed due to the mixture of limestone bedrock with the basal soils .. In this deposit, ceramics, lithics, obsidian, and faunal bone are found, in low numbers A large pit full of burned soil was also found in this layer. The pit originated beneath the northwest corner ofthe Structure I wall foundation. This deposit dates to the Middle Postclassic, and is thought to represent a zone of occupation that predates the construction of Structure 1 Three burials intrude into the limestone bedrock. For two of these burials (Burials 4 and 5), the origination of the pit was not identified due to the close resemblance of burial pit soils to both Deposits A and B The pit of the third burial (Burial 9) was viewed first in profile, and originated near the surface in Deposit A

Features Associated with Structure I

Many ceramics deposited around Structure I were recovered in nine dense and distinctly isolated concentrations, ranging from 20-50 em in diameter (Table 4, Figure 5).. In contrast, soil outside ofthese deposits had very little debris and few ceramics. Faunal bone, freshwater snail shells, fishing weights, and occasional obsidian blades were also present in these concentrations Is.olated sherds and partially reconstructable vessels were present in these features, and some sherds were refitted from different concentrations. These refits imply that the deposits occurred within a short period of time, and that the vessels were broken prior to their deposition in the concentrations. The origins of these concentrations of mixed vessels pose interesting questions and it is uncertain whether the features are primary or secondary deposits On a general level, however, the composition of vessel forms (including many incense burners) found in these concentrations are used to infer a ritual function for Structure I as described later in this chapter .. Other concentrations of materials ("artifact concentrations") were defined, which contained higher proportions of nonceramic debris, such as snail shells, animal bone, and chert or obsidian items, though lithics were always present in low numbers (Table 4) Fishing weights or notched sherds were also occasionally observed

Ongoing analysis will investigate the explanation of these deposits at Structure 1 Smashed vessels are often associated with termination events (Walker 1990), and much of the lithic debris around Structure I appears to have been burned, perhaps with the abandonment of this structure. Breakage of incense burners is also a characteristic of shrines found at sites in northern Belize after their abandonment in Precolumbian times (Sidrys 1983:242-244, Valdez 1987, Walker 1990:399-411, Masson 1997b). Such shrines may be linked to pilgrimage circuits documented in Late Postclassic and Colonial Yucatan (Freidel and Sabloff 1984:74-75, Walker 1990:311, Masson 1997b ), which served significant integrative functions in defining regional polities as they do in ethnographic Zinacantan (Vogt 1969:391, 1976:187, Freidel and Sabloff 1984:74-75)

14

Table 2. Lot descriptions from Subop 8, Structure I.

~~!-i~_!_or su~_p ~ .G.~truct_!!te_!) L_ag~ de on Island_!996 _ ::l _ ~-- ___ _ __ ___ ~--1_ __ _L ___ l_·---=r-~_!!__ _ suboL_ ~'lertp_!l~ml_ _ =:=I ___ L ___ _ __ _ iot # ~ubol!.._ ___ de~cnJ~~----j ___ L____ _ _ __

! 7 _! ptt/bunal _? h!~~-~! ol~ UJJ!t 8 found while scrapmg flo~!:- ____ 60 81!_ __ !~ot mat topsoil 1.5 X 2m umt west of8f ___ _

20 8 bunal T _] _ ---1~--- ___ _1()9 8'!._ __ arbitra.!l"evel under lot 60 to sterile _ _ __ 1--------= 1 ~'! topsoU arouml south fac!!!g wal~- --= ____ -~0 8!__ topsoil !V~_st 1.5X2nt _____ f__ _ ___ ~ Sa _ topsoil west side~~_!_'!'!'.!![_ ____ _ _ _ _ _ __ 81 8!___ ~J!SOi! cast 1.5X2m __ _ ___ _

58a ___ topsol!southunitofsubl~~---- ___ __ __ __89_~~-- lotunder!~-- ____ ---~-=----=--=_-~Sa-- [soutlt_s~~io_n_i!f_!'_o~wal!__ _ _ ____ __2!_!JL _ artifactconccntr!'tio~westsideoflot89 _____ _

_ 11 Sa I lot ~clow lot_5 ~b~ ~---~ ___ _ ~---___ 92 ~I __ _ cerrumc conccnt~li~ ___ _ __ _

12~r~-a 3_0 l'h!_ X__!O em section where e~centnc _was fo~d __ --- -~ _2<!_ 8~ - - .·.eram. i.e C_!) .. ~~_!.l_1l·_.tlo·.·n u.nder rot 92 .-- ··---19 Sa ___ t~v.soll __ _r= __ =r:_ ~~ l_ _ _ -1- ______ !QO 8!..___ _ artifactconccntratiC!_!J:~deriot91 ____ _ ~ -= _j 1- Sa~- -!•r:tll\l_d_~on.centration yoto says iot 19_ _ __ _ ___ _ __1(11 8i____ artifact concentratloll_llllde_r lot 94 ~-

25 S01 __ tops4!!lund_~l~"!2_ _____ ~ __ !9.;!_8i __ artifadconcc~!'.~~~-!:!!lde_riotlot ______ t-------- -44 8.1 I ceram1c conct•ntrnhon T -- 104 81 artifact concentrntion under lot 100

__

13il:: ::.:~~2i:fi~~~;F~r2 1 i ===r=~~~ -~iHl~-- ~:~::7.~~1~~~s1f~L~~:6--==l~-- · I f- _8i8b__ I soil under lot 2 sub<)pl!b 10 ""-' arbll"'"l' __ ·-··- __ _I_ 78 ~i- ___ !<)]'soil west 1X3..;::::::} _____ _

~" Sh _____ ll!lme~one s~f~~ _ _l _ ___ f . -·-· __ ___ _____]__9 ~j ____ ~~~X31!' __ __j ___ -t----------- 8b-::____ __ !oPS_?_!l arO':!__I_!_d __!.~k concentration ]_ 95 8.L~-- south end of unit east of#28___ t~-1

26 Sc __ I2X2~__!1~teastofrockwall-__!_!)(!_soil __ __26 S.i__ westrockconc~traiion__ _ ____ _ - -- 278c-_ js.fe"•Uconc~!ratlon=:I _______ - --- 9"!_~.i- spacebetween~_ckc~ncentrations ___ _

~~-~~}~~~=- -~ c;ntinnatmnor.!~~l!..~!!!hof26_ ___ -~S.L easttock~oncentration ~----- ~6 Sc____ ceram1c c-o~_!ntrntiO_!l_!t~!er I~!_ !I ___ _____ __!Q_I 8.L artifact co~ce_ntratlo~~-lot 97 ~-~-- 43 Sc _ _ ~~n~e_!" fragn~·nts and ptg mandible _ _ _ 124 8L_____ arbitr~~·lot~---~ ~- 46 Se _ =lbo!rt_al 6__ I_ __ ::::r=___ __ __23_ 8'!.___ !<)j>SOil root mat =r ____ _

87 8c ______ u~~!.!_!~_!}2 ____ L__ 114 8k arbitrary leve! bcio'ft·Jot _2:;!___ ~-j-----~---88 8~ area beh\een rocks m lot32 arhitra.!I_level bel<m· iot 114 ~ -127 8c- --- -- ;-.rbitrary lot under#~~--- topsoil root mat rock concentration assoc.--;tlot 98------------ 3~- id __ .--:_ .-_ ~~s_o_U ___ r==-L=----= --- __ _ ___ -to~psoil _ _l>lg_III): __ d_ls-tu-r~ed ;-•• -_.-a~ound t~=r====~

t-= ~~ ~i--.=-3~~~r~:~~~ccr=:~_" _ ~-- __ ~-=--=--~-- !~; i}-----~~~~~~~~7=+=---

- __1_9 8e __ j~J me~r __!!_nl~~c~ ofs1!f4!P 8~~psoil___ ~ --·-------~?.. ~~----- nof"!!!_ 1/2 !~funJ!Jnc~:r•g s~'!~~ !!'.!'.!!~! ·-·--

1---~8 8~-----~E~!:I_lerl!f!_~!_- ________________ _ 59 8e sw comer of unit, hearth

-=~~-==i~ ~;---= ~-;)d-ct:" lot ?7 ~rbit!_~~-~==~: ~===: .. ~-76 Sc under lot 58 arbitrary

-_-_·-_-_ .... -77 8-e~---.. ·-~---M~cr.:l-ot-S9~rbitrartt·_--_---- ·:=::~-=~-----·------~5 8~-- topsoil- humic root mat ________ ________ ----· --+---~~

j-------~j-if--- -- '7tdr::!:!~os~7~~st~n;··-·-- ________ .. ____ _

I able 3 Lots Correlated with Deposits at Structure I (Subop 8)

Subop i Context Description

f----- SuboJlemtion 8 ComJllex

all 1 topsoil-level 1 _, __ , _ _..

: artifact concentrations-level 1

all level2

. artifact concentrations-level 2 1 level 3 to bedrock

Sa, c, i, ,h.!___; ___ ,111

8i, I 8a

, artifac~ concentf'ations-level3 ; soil around flint eccentric 'rock wall 8a,e,L

-~8e=,x____ hearths ~c,_f_~ burials

Lot#

1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 26, 28, 30, 32, 39 45, 49, 60, 78, 79, i 80,81,93,115, 116,117,123,134,154,189 '

i 27, 34,92 8, ll, 25, 37, 38, 58, 68, 72, 73, 87, 88, 89, 95, 109, Ill, 114, 136, 137, 138, 174 _____j 21, 36, 43, 44, 91, 94, 97, 100, 101, 135, 138

' 16, 74, 75, 76, 77, 108, 112, 124, 130, 131 103, 104, 142 : 12 3, 19, 57, 96, 97 I

17' 20, 46, 132

Burner ceremonies are also frequently linked to calendrical ceremonies in codaical and ethnohistorical accounts. Currently, it is not known whether the broken burner vessels at Structure I are associated with possible calendrical ceremonies contemporary with the use of this building, deposited at the time of its destruction, or placed there after it was abandoned. Regardless of these alternatives, they do signifY its importance as a ritual locality. As the ceramics, lithics, and faunal remains largely match those found elsewhere on the island, the possibility that these assemblages are contemporary with the village's Middle Postclass.ic occupation seems most probable

Burial> from Structure I

Burials were found around the exterior of Structure I, in what appears to be two distinctive deposits (Figure 6) First, to the west ofthe building, intruding into the soft limestone substrate, two adult burials were found this year (Figure 6} In 1991, an additional adult burial (Burial 4. male) was found in this location (Figure 6) The two burials from 1996 (BurialS, male and Burial 9, female) had filed incisors, which may indicate a higher social position for these individuals. This practice appears to have continued in the Postc!assic, and supports other information suggesting that the apex of the island was the focus for elite activity Burials 4 and 5 from this area were seated and flexed, and Burial 9 was flexed on her left side.

A fourth burial, that of a child (Burial 6), was found to the south of Structure I (Figure 6) This burial deposit is distinguished from the other interments to the west by two characteristics First, it is located in shallow topsoil, just 20 em below the surface and paralleling the south wall Second, this individual was in a different position, facing north, lying on the left side and semi­flexed This child may have been buried at a later point in the island's history, but shares proximity to Structure I with the other interments

Cached Offering> at Structure I

A flint eccentric appears to have been cached outside the south wall of Suboperation 8 (Figure 7) at a shallow depth of 15 em below the surface (Masson, Chapter Three, this volume) Flint eccentrics in northern Belize often take the shape of lightning bolts, various geometric patterns, or effigies of animals or humans (Pendergast 1982) The eccentric from Suboperation 8 has two effigy heads of the Maya God K on it, a deity often associated with lightning or rain. The effigies of God K are identified by smoking torches emerging from their foreheads. This artifact was apparently left as a cached offering God K effigy eccentrics are rare in the Maya lowlands, and are associated with Classic period royal tombs or monumental caches Other collected pieces are reported by Schele and Miller (1986) and McAnany (1995, from the Dum barton Oaks collection} The significance of this find as a probably heirloom at the Postclassic village of Laguna de On is discussed in Chapter Three

Additional caches were found in 1991 from this vicinity A lenticular biface was found near Suboperation 8 in Suboperation 3 (a courtyard patio surface located immediately west of Structure I (Masson 1993, 1997b)) which also may have been cached in the topsoiL An additional cache was located in 1991 outside the west wall of Structure I, which included a drilled Pomacea shell, a shell bead, an obsidian blade, and a flake (Masson 1993, 1997b) Together, these three sets of possible offerings may identify the significance of caching in this ritually significant locality

. 6 Burials at Structure I Frgure

' 0

/NORTH ';!'i @ 0 0 0 v Q 0

~-:J+-l;~)\T~

Figure 4. Profile of Subop 8, north wall. Northwest corner of Structure I viewed on right side of

photo.

Figure 5 Ceramic concentration at Structure I

Table 4 Concentrations of Artitacts and Ceramics at Structure I

-----!------~- --- I ' - ---- - -------------- ---------- --------

I J DATE LOT# SUBOP DESCRIPTION _: 0 - - -- ---- -- --- - ---------- i

Cone. #1 6/27/96 2L8a , artifact concentration photo says lot 19 Cone. #I 7/8/96 44jMa :ceramic concentration under lot 21 i

' i -------- ---·-- ------- - __ : _____ __L____ i

Cone #2 6129/96• 27j8c 'ceramic concentration! i i ' -------· --- -------

•ceramic concentration onder lot 27 i Cone .. #2 714/96 36;8c I ----- ------------i

I I J

~Cone #3 = __ _:_71tif21L~ --.:13~8(-_~ __:_:__(Ceramic concentration censer fragments and pig mandibl

________ ---------.--- _ • I I i I I

---- - - --- ----------. ---- - - -- ------·---

Cone. #4 7115196 92'8i ceramic concentration 1 ! ----------

' ---- ·------

Cone #4 7116196 94'8i c·cramic concentration under lot 92 Cone. #4 7116196 101 8i artifact concentration under lot 94! ' --·------ ----- -------

! Cone. #4 7!16!96 103 8i artifact concentration under lot 101 ' ------------ ---------------

' i Ccc---- ------. ; i Cone., #5 7115/96 91 8i artifact concentration west side of lot 89 --------- --------Cone. #5 7/16/96 100 8i aiiifact concentration under lot 91:

- -

~nc#5 7/16/96 i04 8i artifact concentration under· lot iOO I ·---------·----------'

! ----- -----··-- -- -- -----Cone. #6 7122196 13.:" 81 ceramic concentration under ruotsi i

---- -- ------ -- - ------

Cone .. #6 7/2.3196 142 81 pomacca concentr~!~~!!~~!1~~_}ot 138 -- ------

leone. #7--- - ---- - ••

i i

7125196 167 8m ceramic concentration in lot 134 '

20

Ceramic Function and Chronology at Structure I

The Jack of large quantities of domestic debris at Structure I (ground stone, staple faunal remains, cooking features, and utilitarian lithic tools) correlates with a high proportion of ritual ceramics, ritual faunas, and cache offering compar·ed to other ar·eas excavated at the site .. Ceramics consisted of a high proportion of incense burner types (Figme 8), including Cehac­hunacti composite, Ak applique, 1 sabak unslipped, and a single example of Chen Mul Modeled effigy censer (Mock, Chapter Seven, this volume).. At Structure I, c.ensers formed at least 20% of ceramics identified by Shirley Mock (Chapter Seven, this volume) during preliminary analysis. This percentage of censers is twice that recovered from Structure II (also a ritual public building) and is three times the amount found in the domestic terrace area of Suboperation 5 (Mock, Chapter Seven, this volume).. Other types of vessel fragments are found in low numbers, interspersed with the censer sherds. The inclusion of utilitarian wares in ritual deposits, however, is not uncommon (Smith 1971 :Table 20, Levanthal and Baxter J988:Iable 3.1)

Most of the ceramics from Structure I date to the Middle Postclassic This assignment is based on high frequencies ofPayil Red ceramics (313%) that ar·e thought to be affiliated with the I ulum Sphere (Mock, Chapter Seven, this volume).. Middle Postclassic contexts also contain ceramics related to the Early Postclassic Augustine sphere (Zakpah Orange Red 6 3%), as well as various censer vessels and Rita Red ceramics are similar to those forms common in the Late Postclassic (Chase 1982, Mock, this volume} Late Postclassic Chen Mul modelled sherds scattered around the surface of Structure I have been partially refitted and represent (to date) a single Mayapan style effigy incense burner (Figure 9). This vessel may postdate the earlier materials or signal the initial arrival ofthis form in northern Belize around beginning of the 14th century The mixed ceramic Jots at Laguna suggests that transitions from the Early, Middle, and Late Postclassic resulted in lingering characteristics (Mock, Chapter Seven, this volume}. Securing absolute dating for ceramic chronologies is a primary objective in the ongoing analysis. When ceramic analysis is complete, a seriation analysis is planned that may help to refine the chronology as well.

Ritual Faunas at Structure I

Cranial elements oflarge game animals found in association with the ceramic concentrations of Structure I, apparently deposited in the context of the same activities .. These cranial bones were disarticulated, and do not represent entire skulls placed in situ. Concentrations typically contain scattered alligator, peccary, deer, or tapir teeth, skull or mandible fragments (Wharton, Chapter Eight, this volume) The deposition of these faunal remains around Structure I at Laguna de On Island may represent behavior associated with calendrical burner ceremonies depicted in the Maya codices (Masson 1997a, 1997b, Taube 1988:244) as well as Colonial and ethnographic accounts (for example Landa in Iozzer 1944:62-63).. Landa (in Iozzer 1944:62-63) describes the consumption of animals sacrificed in calendrical rituals. Such ceremonies at Laguna de On Island may have served an important role integrating the community and reinforcing village political leadership ..

It is noteworthy that the taxa involved are those that would have represented high status animals, limited to large game (Masson 1995). Smaller, "staple" taxa, such as armadillo, fish and turtle are evenly distributed around the island (Masson 1995). Also equitably distributed are the postcrania of large game around the island, suggesting that these animals may have been redistributed (Masson 1995)

21

Summary

The ritual assemblages of Structure I provide important insight into religious institutions in the Postclassic at Laguna de On Island. The 1996 tests ofthis structure observe that an occupational zone is represented upon bedrock in this location Subsequently, a C-shaped structure was built. Associated with this building are concentrations of broken ceramics, artifacts, and large game crania.. A possible stelae or altar stone is centrally located at the open face of the building, which was also associated with an artifact concentration and a number of stone tools. Three burials that may be of upper status individual ar·e found intruding into bedrock outside the rear west wall of the building. A fourth burial, that of a child was found in the topsoil outside the south wall Near this burial, also in the topsoil, a God K effigy eccentric flint was found .. Remains of a single Mayapan style censer were also found scattered around the building, but it is not known whether this Late Postclassic form postdates the use of Structure I or not Further research will focus on the function and chronology ofthe materials collected in 1996

22

Figure 7 God K eccentric in situ at Structure I

Figures 8. Ceramics from Structure I: top row, Canton Incised: variety unspecified; center, Payil Red: Palmul Incised; bottom row, Payil Red: variety unspecified.

, .. -~,..,......., ·'··!1.·-·<

Figure 9 Ceramics from Structure 1: composite censer wares (Cehac-Hunacti)

Chapter Three

Notes on a Flint God K Eccentricfrom Laguna de On Island

Marilyn A .. Masson

An eccentric flint was found, apparently cached, outside the south wall of Structure I. On this flint, two God K effigy heads have been chipped bifacially off of a single blade (Figures 10, II) Ihe eccentric was found at the southwest corner of Structure I, cached 15 em below the surface. The effigies of the deity God K are identified by smoking torches emerging from their foreheads (Schele and Freidel 1990:414). I his rutifact was apparently left as a cached offering, although as it is located in the topsoil, stratigraphic support for its identity as a cache (such as an intrusive pit) was not visible.

I he flint is manufactured of druk grey, mottled chert with a fine-grained, waxy, and moderately siliceous consistency Ihe chert is thought to be from Calha, a neighboring stone tool manufacturing center (Thomas Hester, personal communication, Januruy 1997) It exhibits a proximal break in an ruea ofthe tool that appeared to have been the handle or base of the artifact A portion of the surface of this proximal end apperus unchipped bifacially, giving the rutifact an incomplete apperuance. Close examination shows that this planru region is actually covered in cleat subcortex, which may have been prohibitive for reduction when the rutifact was manufactured. Other areas of the rutifact rue completely finished, including final retouching of serrations that form the headresses and faces of the effigies. Ihese portions of the tool suggest that the rutifact was completed, and that the unchipped surface was intentionally left this way Ihe break would thus represent a use-related occurrence rather than a manufacturing accident as it is unlikely that bifacial thinning ofthe shaft would occur after delicate late stage shaping ofthe effigies in the manufacturing sequence. An additional break is noted on the lateral side ofthe rutifact near the proximal end. A third head may have pr()jected from this narrow constricted projection that apperus to have snapped off Ihis break is shown at the base of the artifact on the left lateral side in Figure I 0 A small serrated segment beneath it was probably related to the missing portion of this effigy.

Effigy flints, pruticularly those elaborate enough to depict a deity, are rate in the Maya lowlands. Contextual recovery of such artifacts is reported from funerary and cache deposits at the Classic period centers of Copan, Honduras (Fash 1991:100, Figures 53-57) and Iikal, Guatemala. Laguna de On provides a third documented location of such an object, although the time period and its location in the surface deposits of an agrarian village are in sharp contrast to the royal burials contexts that have yielded previous examples. Additional collected pieces rue reported by Schele and Miller (1986:73, 101, Plates 25, 26, though these specimens are unprovenienced) and McAnany ( 1995 :Figure 2. II), fiom the Dumbruton Oaks collection. God K effigy flints from Iikal and Copan (Fash 1991) date to the Classic period .. Noneffigy eccentrics from Altun Ha (Pendergast 1982) and Calha (Shafer and Hester 1983) date primarily to the Late Preclassic and Classic periods. As large, elaborate eccentrics have not been commonly reported fiom Postclassic investigations throughout the Maya lowlands (Shafer and Hester 1983, 1988), the Laguna de On Island eccentric is probably in secondary context Gann (1918:68) reported finding two eccentrics cached just below the surface of Mound 4 at the Postclassic site of Santa Rita, along with Postclassic pr()jectile points, suggesting that the use of these heirloom objects

25

for cached offerings was not confined to Laguna de On. The Laguna eccentric is likely to have been manufactured in the Classic period, and may have been looted in the Middle Postclassic from its original context in a Classic period tomb

Eccentric flints or flint axes often appear to be associated with lightning, rain rituals, and fertility (Taube 1992).. In the Maya codices, Chac is occasionally observed holding eccentric flints which may be representative of lightning bolts or other forces associated with storms .. God K (''with the ornamented nose") is a prominent deity that survived iQ Maya religion from the Classic period through Colonial times (Schellhas 1904:32-34, Taube 1992:69) with numerous referents in the codices.. Associations of this deity ar·e significant for interpreting the context of the Laguna de On effigy. Most common themes affiliated with God K are those of lineage (Coggins 1988, Schele 1976, Taube 1992), accession to rulership (Schele and Miller 1986, Grube 1992), and ancestor communication (Schele and Miller 1986, Love 1994).. God K effigy axes ate depicted in art as "manikin scepters" held by Classic period royals served as emblems of lineage (Coggins 1988} Grube (1992:211) notes that a pruticular form of Maya dance commemorating accession recorded on Lintels 1 and 42 at Yaxchilan involved the bestowal of the God K scepter

The God K kawil deity is also closely associated with communication of ancestors through companion spirits or wayob, according to inscriptions read by Grube (1992:209-210). One eccentric flint illustrates a God K head which forms the back of a canoe that appeats to be escorting a deceased Maya lord to the underworld (Schele and Miller 1986:286, Plate 114). Posthumous portraits of deceased kings at Palenque and Copan depict them with the God K celt piercing their foreheads, suggesting they transformed into or otherwise portrayed this deity in death (Schele and Miller 1986:73). The fact that the God K effigies that have been documented ruchaeologically from in funerary and cache contexts provides support for the epigraphic and iconographic association of God K with ancestors Other noneffigy eccentrics reported from the geographically closer Belizean sites of AI tun Ha (Pendergast 1982: 121-124) and Coiba (Sullivan 1991:34, 70) were also from funerruy context

The procurement of the Classic period effigy expresses the significance of obtaining an heirloom flom the past for the purpose of using it as a cached offering. Added to its status as an oqject of antiquity to the Laguna de On Postclassic village, the artifact's symbolic representation of a lightning deity with well-documented close ties to the ancestors and other rain deities in the supernatural realm make it pertinent as an offering in a building around which calendrical ceremonies may have taken place and significant ancestors were interred. The association of upper status interments, a public building, incense burning, ceramic smashing, animal sacrifice and game redistribution, and the offering of an eccentric flint provide a window of observation into religious ritualism ofthe Middle Postclassic It is clear that rain or calendrical ceremonies with links to ancestor communication that have their roots in the Preclassic and Classic period were reproduced at the village scale at Laguna de On Island

The orchestrators and prime beneficiaries of such ceremonies at Laguna de On would have been village leaders who may have been descendants of ancestors interred at Structure I through affinal or sanguinallineage ties .. Concurring interpretations have been offered for the atchaeological record at Santa Rita (D Chase 1982, 1986, 1988, D. Chase and A Chase 1988), where evidence suggests that New Year or Uayeb rituals took place in the residential courtyards of village leaders. The existence and operational mechanisms of a village hierruchy at Laguna de On may thus be viewed at Structure I through morturuy patterns, architecture, features, and rutifact composition ..

26

-

Figure 10 Close-up photo of Flint God K Eccentric from Structure I

Figure II Illustration of flint God K Eccentric from Structure I

A .. Dea.ne .

Chapter Four

Structure II, a Shrine Platform at Laguna de On Island

Robert M. Rosen swig and Joy Becker

Suboperation 12 Complex

The Suboperation 12 Complex exposed Structure II in a series of sixteen adjacent units including Suboperations 12a through 12p (Figure I) This area encompassed 77 square meters of excavation and allowed us to document and record the majority of this structure (Figure 12} The surface was visible in the form of outcropping rubble and a vertical alignment of stones along the north edge

The working hypothesis for the function of this structure is that it represents an offeratory shrine platform Such a platform was reported by the explorer Thomas Gann when he visited the site in 1927 and collected a number of offerings that lay upon a "pavement of stone" (Gann 1928: 53-54) As the structure is located at the pinnacle of the island, it is in a likely location for such a shrine. It is also the onl.v discernable surface feature (Figures 12, 13) that could be described as a ···pavement of stone··· The offerings that Gann collected date to the Late Postclassic and Colonial era. \\hich postdate the occupation of Laguna de On Island Shrines are often built at important ancestral locales in northern Belize (Walker 1990, Hammond and Bobo 199" ). Our investigations "ere undertaken "ith the goals of determining whether this structure vvas used as a shrine as vvell as "hen it had been built In particular, we wished to determine the relationship between the Late Postclassic usc of this structure and any previous ritual activit) dating to the islands occupation in the 'vliddle Postclassic

Jfetluul\

The excavations of Suboperation 12 consisted of three stages: 1) removing and screening the soil matrix covering the structure to collect assemblages associated with the structure's surface in separate horizontal subunits (Deposits A-C): 2) mapping and photographing the structure after it vvas maximal!) exposed in the sixth vveek of the 1996 season; and 3) excavating beneath the structure ( Deposits D-F) to determine the histor: of its development The soil covering this structure \\as excavated vv ith troYYels and the soil beneath the rubble platform was removed with shovels All soils excavated from this structure \\ere screened through 1/4" mesh and all cultural materials \\ere collected and returned to our field laboratory

Arcltitectural De1cription of Structure !I

Excavations revealed that Structure II consists of a large rubble platform, oriented with the long axis of the island approximate!: 20 degrees vvest of magnetic north Structure II is a 1\\o level. stone structure YYith an upper platform of "X3m and a lower patio of 9X2m (Figures 12, 13) Both levels YYere probabl0 surfaced vvith marl plaster which has since eroded and is no longer present Tvvo periods of construction are observed in the upper rubble platform

29

Figure 12 Map of Structure II- Subop 12 (illustration by Timothy Hare) The upper platform is shaded at the top ofthe map, and the rubble patio is shown, unshaded to the south

D ,o

• 0 o.~

t N

I

.. •

Individual burned rock

Ceramic concentrations

~ Burned rock

~ :.::centrations

Figure 13 Photographs of Structure II (Subop 12), before excavation looking northwest (top) and after excavation looking east (bottom)

31

Ihe west side of the building is framed in the rear by the up~ight vertical stone wall alignment that had been visible from the surface. This alignment is parallel to the front edge ofthe rubble platform. I he west side of the structure marked by the vertical alignment appears to represent the first building episode in this location The east half of the platform is characterized by a "pavement" which partially overlays the original structure on the east side. Ihe pavement thus represents the second construction phase of Structure II Ihe lower patio that extends to the south of the upper platform was built before or at the same time as the second phase of Structure II, as it runs partially beneath the platform It may also have been built in two episodes corresponding to the construction phases of the upper platform. Radiocarbon dates will provide a refined understanding of this sequence

Stratigraphic Observations at Structure II

Within the sixteen horizontal excavation units of Suboperation 12, 78 individual lots were designated (Table 5). The comparison ofthese lots will facilitate spatial analysis among different horizontal areas of the building in ongoing artifact distribution studies Ihe correlation of these lots across Structure II may also be combined for analytical purposes into basic stratigraphic deposits interpreted to be contemporaneous. The basic stratigraphic deposits at Structure II are summarized below A list of lots associated with these deposits defined for Structure II is presented in Table 6 These will provide the basis for chronological analysis of artifact assemblages at this location. A profile of an east-west cross section of Structure II (surface rubble) and underlying midden deposits is shown in Figure 14

Deposit A) a humic topsoil layer overlying the stones comprising the rubble platform of Structure II This topsoil may be further spatially segregated to that occuring on the west half of Structure II in the portion of the building that appears to have been constructed first, delineated by a rear (north) vertical alignment and a possible side (east) alignment of large displaced stones (Deposit A I): and that occuring on the east half of Structure II, a contiguous rubble layer (Deposit A2) These layers contained ceramic sherds, obsidian blades, chipped stone (nonobsidian) tools and flakes, animal bone, and burned rock concentrations The amount of soil "as not abundant in Deposit A, and it had an eroded appearance. Ceramics in this soil date to the Middle Postclassic, but it is from the surface of this layer that Gann collected Late Postclassic and Colonial artifacts now housed at the British Museum

Deposit B) a humic topsoil layer overlying the stones comprising the lower rubble patio that extends to the south along the front of Structure II. This patio was not further excavated, and remains intact at the site These layers contained ceramic sherds, obsidian blades, chipped stone (nonobsidian) tools and flakes, and animal bone Ceramics date to the Middle Postclassic

Deposit C) a humic topsoil layer of 20 em average) found at the surface to the east and north sides of Structure II These layers contained ceramic sherds, obsidian blades, chipped stone (nonobsidian) tools and flakes, two human phalanges, burned rock concentrations, and animal bone Ceramics date to the Middle Postclassic

Deposit D) humic soil within the stones of Structure II in Suboperations 12a-12d, excavated with the removal of these stones to investigate deposits beneath the building This soil may similarly be divided into west (Deposit D I) and east (Deposit D2) halves

32

Deposit E) midden like soil excavated beneath Structure II (average depth 50 em) Ibis underlying deposit contained lithics, ceramics, animal bone, pits of burned soil It may represent a zone of occupational debris that predates the construction of Structure II Ceramics are Early/Middle Postclassic.

Deposit F) a lower zone of midden like soil excavated beneath Structure II that interfaces with marl bedrock It is of a lighter color due to intermingling of organic soil with limestone bedrock It also contained lithics, ceramics, and animal bone. Pit-like intrusions are noted into bedrock, but they do not appear to be cultural features and are currently interpreted to represent infilling of natural bedrock anomalies with soil that formed on the island One of these anomalies was excavated at the end of the 1996 season, and the remainder will be investigated at the beginning of the I 997 season Ceramics are Middle Postclassic

Features and Artifacts As.sociated with Structure II

Information related to the function of Structure II is evasive As previously noted, effigy ceramics thought to be from the surface of this building were collected by Gann However, the structure had few intact artifact concentrations that directly revealed the function of the structure. Ritual areas among living cultures in Mesoamerica are often kept clean from debris, and the low amount of artifacts on the rubble platform may signify the maintenance ofritual cleanliness in this area However, many small concentrations of highly burned rock were found around the edges ofthe rubble platform (Figure 12) Further concentrations of these burned rocks were found within the alignment on the west side (construction episode I) and off the edge of the building to the east Burned rock concentrations found within the alignment of phase I and around the edges of the pavement of phase II may functionally link the two construction episodes Little was found in these burned rock concentrations that would indicate the purpose for which they were used Fires were probably kindled in these locations, but the features are not pit shaped and thus do not resemble domestic cooking pits as found elsewhere on the island. The nondomestic nature of these tiny burned rock concentrations also suggests a ritual use of this structure

Around the periphery of the upper platform, ceramic and artifact concentrations were recovered as shown in Figure 12. Whole stone tools were also placed on the surface ofthe patio, including a whole, triangular biface with little evidence of wear (Figure I 5) which may have been a cached offering on the building's east side Roughly manufactured expedient bifaces of a utilitarian nature were also found on the patio and obsidian blades were found around the periphery of Structure II's upper platform The blades exhibited very little wear, in contrast to blades found in domestic contexts at the island which were used for a variety of heavy tasks Little or no visible macrowear on the obsidian blades fiom Structure II may imply their use for bloodletting or animal sacrifice, though use wear studies planned for these tools will test this hypothesis I o the north east of the structure two human phalanges were recovered as well as two catfish spines.

In comparing artifact counts, Structure II has at least 20% more ceramics than Structure I and all other areas tested (Table 1). Ibis proportion also suggests that activities conducted at Structure II were of a specialized nature Ibis proportion is due to lower numbers of other types of materials such as lithic debris and faunal remains, as the actually density of ceramics encountered

33

Table 5. Lot DescriptiOns for Structure II.

Lot IA'I for S>~_~op_!2JSI':'•c!tJre II) !,agu ... <fe On bland_ 19')6 . __ .. --1- _ _ _ --~--- ~~-J-·-···---1----··- ··--- ... lot# _ _!~~ ;~bco:~~i;;~:~~::~~,cl!~~ --=-=~1 __ __ ~·~~~=~--=~~=· #_ ~ji i~o~ = ~:;;~tiot==·±=:=-t::--·-+ -- -I _ -~ 6_ 12a __ =:lroc~C!Jncc~!!'atio~!Jbop _!_~ .:__l!a,~nent____ _ __ ·- ______ 35 11!_ _ _ south ~xte~~~n O.!!'_!oc~_conce~trpfion"_ _ _

-----=- !§~ ~~: =-~;~~rr::d;~:;;.;;;;.~:;~;t;:;~f-=--- =-=-·~_!= ~--1i :i~-=~ ::~;~-~~~~!~~:;;~?~--=~---~~Et~a~i~·--~~~---:·.= -~ _ _ )93 ~~-- _ P!!_f_~tu~ !!!_ be~~cl!_ Ul~!r lot !_79 _ __ _ _ __ _ ___ 3~ 1~ _ _ ~_!~t e~te1!sio~ o~-~O.~_!~~entl~~!~~------ _______ _

___ !7~ } !!!.___ ___ l!Jl_jlCr !!!e~~f soil ~der 1~!_- _____ _ ___ -~- 6~ 1!!_ ____ bu!!'.!~-~ck -~~~.!~~rati?!! ______ _ ______________ _

12_7 12_!l ___ .rocks__!le!!r_p_!_tf~at~·e_} ____ L_ _ _______ 4~ 12g __ £!!:_1Ulli~_5..!mcc_l!!!'ation~urro_!l}ldedb !..~d~!-

l . --~~ .. ~ _ !2·2· : __ --~ -1_~ __ ; __ -~_~:~_-_;_c~~~::"_;[..~~~~o~--~~; mt_._· __ is_!w~t ~ t!!_f!-79 ______ -fz! 1~-- __ ::::~~~i~·:::l'er;::~~~-'<>' 38 _ f ___ _ I 161- ti;&d -~b~t~;d r.-~~k~~~-c;~t;:-ati~-;~;;;Jot-7--f·· + - --- - t76 li~ - - north side ~unat~der i~t 38 --- r~ -~---- ----- ~---r·- j~t_li~~~---_- =~~~i~~-~i~¥~~~~=:~~~~==-:-~=~-: ---~- -_r~- : -= --~!-Ht----~ ~1r~:-t~!=~~~:~e;i!:!.;~~:tri-~;~=:-=~: _:· -~~=

.. ... . . ....... - ... ·-·····- ...... ······t· - ·-- - -·····-- ···---····--·--···-·-··-··-· ---···±· ·--····-1 ! ~~ H~- ---\~~~~h_ 0-~;~~u~~_::~~e_~-=r~~~---~l ~.~.~~L _ ----~ .:- ----- _J. .. -----.i~ fii-··---- ~~:r~~i:::;~~!~~;:; ::~cc~~~flirnrio~-bel~ 82 ~-­

~! 8 } !£__ -· -:=! !:~_':k C;)~~!!i~~!.!:~i!!!_~~-~p 12 ~~!'~~!n~~~~ --~- j:_ -- -- -·-- -- =-}~! iC~- ~~l'ne~i _!?Ck c!_J!Cent~ti;n l!l~j} 1 Q_~== ~~== ---22 12c soi.lsurroun. dhog.ro('kconcentl11.tlon ofsubop 12 _ . s._.;; 12j topsoil root n1at in 2X2 next to subo 8c ······-····-····-·····--·--· --··----·-----·-·····--·····-····- -- --·-- _________ [ ____ ·----- --· 24 12c soil surrounding rockconcentr~tion m subop 12 102 12k topsoil2X2.65 m unit l

t-- ---=~~-~-9 1~=--- ~~~~tJ;~ti~~~~5~ti~i~~--==~C:::=~=~~: ·::=: -=~-= ~ -113 izk -=~= arbit;;ry);;-eT~·km lot 102---=- -=-= _ =.:_::__= ___ 6!_ '!_2c ___ b~_!!!~d _!?Ckc~ncent!:_~ion s~~o_!!ter _ _ -~- __ --·- ___ ____D~ 1~~~- soil outside oflo'!er rock lay~ __ _ _ --~ __ ~2 1~- E_t_!!"lled!"_~cknng~uth~~~--i _____________________ ___g'!__!!!_~--~esoilovcrlowerrockl~~r ____ ---~-

63 12c bumed rock concentration NW 121 121 soiJ over lowu rocJ:'.Iayer

. -- fsi 1~: _ -- ~~~~~~~~:;;;1~~~~ 18 - -_ =:::. ~=== ·= -~fi! :~~ ;;_,;.;idr-;~~kS::l:::_.:-- ___ ===

----~5 llc _ 1\'all~nn~~·-w __ _j__~--- _ ----·-- ·---·-----~-~~12m ~~tet:n~~-~~~trn!!onf~!,Jun~ ______ ··---~-1 195 12c soil under lower layerlot 160 1411 12m lowero-oek concentration under iot 126 l --.- -------. - -- ----- . - --- -------·----· ------------------·--r·-··---- _ _!~ 1_2_!__ t~k concc_!!!ratio.!!_ on su_~~~ _:pavcme~ ________ _ __ _!_?0 l~l!_~p_ west rock_mo~nd featur~----- -~--- _ -----I ___ __!~ !!~ __ verti~alrockf~~ati~---t- __ ~- ___ _!32_ t!!!__ ___ ~psoil_!~~tm~_!_overlo~!:roc~!:!YCTIX2m

23 12d soil to nol1h ofvntkal rock wall 152 12n arbitrary revel under lot 139 L _ I ·=--~ ~~! t2t[=~~~~med r,;ckconcent;;~on ==-- - -=-~- == --=--= _!~! i2o = --~I!~TI~cr";.,."te;nn~H;d=~- -= =--=-~- ~--- ... __ _!80 1!~- ___ ~PP~}evcl of~_il un!e.! lot!!__ _ __ ~- ____ !~4 12~--- we~!_~d~ofmoun..!!_~~~!_lo!_!~ __ _ _ ·---

1 _________ !_-~1 1-!_t_!_ ___ ·-_ no~!t side .of .. ~!_!i~~~_!!ll u!~~~!__!_~-·- 23 ___________ ... ------.--.. -·----. ___ !§~ _g~-- .eel~~~!·_ of r~. -~~-~!!!_-~~~~-!~_!___! ~--_____ . . .. . I

182 12d south side ofvertical wall under lot 15 166 12o east side ofmow1d undu lot 153

!==~~!~ i~! •· = !Sft:~::~:~~~~~;~:~r~;;~::!.g~::h:;~~=~~! ar~~~~~E~~fic~~;~~~i~ ~;~~~ -- 1 =-~==~ f-===M: f~·-==-~ ::~~;:J;~1::~-:~~~~~:~~~!=~~.i~::-~~;r~t~-sz-=--=l~==~~- :_:===~- ==-~=---r-~.-:~. :=--~i=--·~.:=~~~·:r~-= -+----·1

I able 6 Lots correlated with stratigraphic deposits at Structure II

Suboperation 12 Complex Suboperations Deposit Lot #'s 12a-d upper rock layer (platform) 157 12a-d lower rock layer (patio) 160 12d stone wall ( 5 vertical rocks) 15, 189 12a-d materials recovered on upper rock 6,13,14,18

layer (platform) all topsoil, level 1 7,22,23,24,31,35,38,51 ,67,82,85,

102,121,120,126,139,153, 156

12e, 12f, 12g artifact concentrations, level I 29,41,42,152 all loam below topsoil, level 2 40,66,110,113,119,125,158,

.. / 176,179,181,182,183,184 12a, 12d, 12h artifact concentrations, level 2 71,194,198 12a-d soil below Structure I, level 3 to 173,178,195,196

bedrock 12a, 12c, 12d, 12f, 12h burned rock concentrations 61 ,62,63,64,65,84, 161,162,

163 12a, 12b hearths 177,199,200 12a pit feature 193,197 12d rock layer between lots 157 and 191

160 (possibly disturbed)

35

Figure 14. Profile of soil beneath Structure II, shown in east-west cross section balk of southwest quadrant of Structure II. North wall ofSubop 12c, with underlying rubble of Structure II visible on surface, brown loam midden or midden/fill below the rubble interfacing with limestone bedrock at base.

throughout excavations was not great. In fact, Structure II had less overall ceramics (5,313) than Structure I (5,828), despite the fact that over 10 square meters more were excavated at Structure II than at Structure I. When results of ceramic analysis are completed, we will evaluate differences in the type of ceramics found at Structure II compared to other areas. The majority of these sherds are from non-utilitarian censers and incense burners. Some sherds were refitted from opposite ends of the Suboperation 12 complex, as well as from the neighbouring Suboperation 8 complex.

Chronology of Structure II

Ceramics found from this area (within the platform, in concentrations, and in general scatters) date to the Early/Middle Postclassic. The most common ceramic type (Mock, this volume) identified thus far are Payil Red (3.8.71%), Zakpah Orange Red (8.93%), and Santa Unslipped (6.82%). Future planned seriation of the complete data set may refine this chronology further. The date of the ceramics found at Structure II suggests that the building was constructed and used at the time of the occupation of the island, in the Middle Postclassic. Radiocarbon dates to be submitted in the Spring of 1997 will provide refinement of this chronology. The Late Postclassic/Colonial materials collected from the surface by Gann thus appear to have been deposited on a previously built and abandoned structure at that time. There is no evidence that during the Late Postclassic or Colonial periods a shrine platform was built on Laguna de On Island. Other deposits of late period effigy ceramics found in northern Belize are similarly found on abandoned "ancestral" structures built in earlier periods (Walker 1990:399-411 ).

Beneath the rubble platform of Structure II, there is a deposit that may represent domestic occupation (Figure 14). A large pit of burned soil and midden debris was found beneath the rubble in the front of the building. No dedicatory offering was placed in this location, and although two-thirds of the area beneath the building was excavated to bedrock, there is no evidence that this shrine is associated with a cemetery area or even a single burial that might have influenced the location of this building as observed in Structure I. Beneath the south central area of the upper platform, a large pit of burned soil was found. A partially reconstructable vessel and midden debris were found in this pit, and it is thought to be domestic in nature and to be unassociated with the construction of the building. Artifact analysis will determine whether the brown loamy soil deposit beneath the building represents undisturbed domestic trash or whether this soil was transported to this location as fill prior to the construction ofthe platform. The presence of pits of burned soil and partial vessels broken in place suggests, preliminarily, that beneath the platform an area of primary (undisturbed) domestic refuse is present.

Summary

The diverse classes of artifacts and features uncovered at Structure II suggest a non-domestic, nonutilitarian function for this building. These results are consistent with Gann's (1928) interpretation of this building as a shrine from his collection of Late Postclassic/Colonial materials on the upper platform's surface. Four distinct temporal episodes are indicated from the 1996 excavations and Gann' s report; I) a domestic, pre-architectural deposit of probable Middle Postclassic date, 2) an initial construction episode of the west half of the upper platform and patio of probable Middle Postclassic date, 3) a second construction episode when this west half was extended to the east by a rubble pavement and a continuation of the patio of probable Middle Postclassic date, and 4) the use of this structure as a shrine in the Late Postclassic/Colonial period(s) as reported by Gann.

37

Figure 15 I riangular bifitce (possibly cached) found at east edge of Structure II

Chapter Five

Structure III, a Stone Dock at Laguna de On Island

Mari(yn A. Mas.son and Sarah Gonzalez

Description

Suboperation 14 investigated a large stone feature, Structure III, that extended from the east shore ofthe island into the water (Figure 1, 16). Excavations were supervised in the field by Sarah Gonzalez. The configuration of the submerged portion of the stone feature is U-shaped. The water is 80cm deep along the edge of this pr~jection. Structure III, thought to be a canoe landing, is located immediately east and downslope of Structure I, the C-shaped building exposed in Suboperation 8, and Structure I faces the dock. The dock may have represented the primary access point to the village Access to the island ri~ay have been restricted for defense, as the settlement of the lowland Maya Postclassic is characterized by a consideration of defensible positions such as hilltop, peninsular, or island locations (Chase and Rice 1986, Chase and Chase 1985)

Suboperation 14 extended units over an area of 6.5m X 4 . .5m, encompassing terrestrial and aquatic segments of Structure III (Figures 16, 17). Suboperations 14a and 14b (1X2.25m each) tested the terrestrial area where the stones were partially covered by wet humic topsoil (Table 7). Suboperations 14c and 14d (325m X 2.25m each) tested stones of the structure that extended out into the water, outcropping above it Soil was washed out of the stones in 14c and 14d, and tree trunks had created large holes in the structure in several places. A large mangrove tr·ee was removed from the stones in this area prior to excavation .. Suboperations 14e and 14f marked the edge of the structure in the water Stones in this area form aU-shaped pr~jection. Submerged lagoon sand adjacent to Structure III's edge in Suboperations 14e and 14f was excavated by shovel testing and water screened.

High numbers of artifacts were recovered from this procedure .. The artifacts must have fallen or eroded into the water in this area through canoe landing activities or from eroding midden deposits on the island's shore .. The density of artifacts found in Suboperations 14e, 14f, 14a, and 14b suggest that the Structure III vicinity was a high traffic area in which a variety of activities were conducted. Such density might be expected for a dock and major access area, where artifacts were probably broken, lost, or discarded around the landing .. Materials found were not just trade items such as ceramics or obsidian, but faunal bone as well, suggesting that domestic middens are located nearby Cranial and postcranial remains of animals were found The materials collected from this area represent a broad range of economic activities. This sample provides a valuable contrast to the nondomestic material recovered from Suboperations 8 and 12 and the fill materials found in the lower portion of 5b, and occupational debris from the top of 5b and 5c

Summary

I ests at Suboperation 14 suggest that this stone feature that projects into the water may have served as a canoe dock. The presence ofthis dock, the only such feature located to date around

39

the island's periphery, may suggest that access to the island was formally restricted Considered in co[\junction with the idenfication of boulder walls found around the island at Suboperations 5, 13, and 7a (Barnhart and Howard, Chapter Six, this volume), the possibility that the Laguna de On Island village was fortified is emerging. The recovery of high numbers of artifacts that represent a range of economic activities from the dock area also contributes a valuable contrastive sample to the ritual assemblages recovered from Structures I and II that will facilitate further analysis of village production activities and local and long distance trade

Gann, in his reconnaissance of the island in 1927 (Gann 1928), noted the presence of stone docks around the periphery of the lagoon. These features ar·e observed today at the southeast shore of the lagoon.. It is not known whether they date to the historic logging camp (Honey Camp) encountered by Gann in the early decades of this century, or whether they are Precolumbian in origin.. The 1997 season will initiate underwater reconnaissance in the vicinity of these features and sampling of associated submerged deposits in an effort to address this question.

The identification of these docks as Precolumbian is significant for assessing the degree to which the lagoon shore was occupied in the Postclassic. Survey on the shore has noted dispersed surface deposits ofPostclassic materials that are difficult to locate in areas other than uncleared milpas It is certain that inhabitants of the island would have cultivated rich sediments surrounding the shore of the lagoon, but the extent of settlement is unknown Investigations of a Classic period plaza group in 1991 at the southeast shore of the lagoon did exhibit a Postclassic occupation in the surface topsoils (Masson 1993), and it is hoped that future testing will clarify the extent of this shore occupation

40

Figure 16 Map of Structure III (Subop 14), stone dock prqjecting into water on east edge of island

- tree hole

Figure 17 Photo of Structure III (Suboperation 14) vicinity looking east

I able 7 Lot Descriptions at Subop 14

date I lot# rsubop i description} 7/23/96! 144l14a _!surface soil over rocks 1X2.25m 7/24/961 155IJ4a-f !stone_platform feature i 7/24/96f 145l14b I soil on shore 1X2.25m --7/24/96! 146! 14c ! projection into water 2. 25X3.30m I

7/24/96! 147jl4d I projection into "ater 2.25X3.30m ! 7/24/961 148114e r soil undern ater beneath projection 2,25X2m 7!24/96' l49i14f ! soil undernater beneath pro.iection 2.25X2m

Chapter Six

Testing Expl01atiom at Laguna de On Island: Landscape Modification, a Burial Area, and Courtyard Walls

Ed Barnhart and Sarah Howard

The 1996 Testing Program

Suboperations 5b, 5c, 7a, and 13 formed the testing program of the 1996 season, which is designed to explore the diversity of contexts at Laguna de On Island that will help guide further testing (Figure 18).. In 1996, the project sought to identifY domestic contexts, and test excavations were placed in areas to the south and north of Structures I and II to collect contrastive information flom these ritual buildings. Suboperation 5b located a deep layer of fill that clarified terrace construction efforts at the island (described below and in Masson, Chapter One) At the surface of this terrace deposit, the corner of a rubble platform was uncovered which may represent a domestic structure Suboperation 5c revealed a shallow midden deposit and a concentration of three burials in a 1X2m unit Further work in this area will explore the extent of this apparent cemetery and search for domestic structures that may be associated with it Suboperation 7a was placed over a boulder alignment flaming a possible courtyard area in the northwest area of the island's highest plateau .. A high concentration of debris suggests that a number of activities were conducted in this area, and a cache was also found adjacent to the wall This area will also be targeted for horizontal expansion .. Suboperation 13 was placed over an additional concentration of large boulders along the west edge of the upper courtyard. Similar to Suboperation 7a, artifact density was very high. The artifacts collected from Suboperations Sb, Sc, 7a, and 13 provide valuable contrastive assemblages to the materials collected flom Structures I and II, and will be analyzed with the goal of reconstructing economic systems of this island community

Suboperation 5

Suboperations 5b and Sc were placed in an area away from the ritual precinct with the goal of gathering complementary information about domestic activities, house form, non-apex burial patterns, and status variability (Figure 1). Domestic structures were not encountered this season, although an area of deep artificial terrace fill was revealed in 5b and a possible cemetery area was found in 5c

In the Suboperation 5 area, terrain slopes gently up flom the shore in three wide, ephemeral ten aces, the third beginning some thirty meters from the water's edge (Figure 1) The terrace edge closest to the shoreline slopes up almost two meters and exhibits surface indications of having once been a north-south running retaining wall In 1991, a 2Xlm excavation unit was placed parallel to andjust above the wall segment (Valdez eta] 1992, Masson 1993) Excavation reached a depth of just over 1. 5 meters before encountering bedrock In 1996, the wall segment was designated Suboperation Sa and briefly investigated. A five meter section of wall was cleaned off and photographed. Ceramic sherds, lithic flakes and small quantities of faunal bone were recovered from the spaces in between the wall stones, supporting the area's identification as a cultural feature Two other units were opened in the Suboperation 5 area; Suboperations Sb and Sc

43

Figure 18 Cross section diagram of island at the vicinity of Subop 5 units Variable depth of surface topsoil, fill, and bedrock on east half of island and relative position of Subops 5, 5b, and 5c are shown

sueop 5uB•f 5C ){!,

5«fdP

L2J ----5

.r L~ + + + + + + + + + + 50m 45m 40m 35m 30m 25m 20m 15m 10m 5m Om

Legend • "' -Topsoil r-- vv

UFill ~Bedrock

f Terrace/wall

figure 19 Photo and map of Suboperation 5b, soufb profile

E---~N

/;;/

' '

root

~·

I 3Ucm

i.:ht:rl

dark brmm topsoil \\ ith roots

gray bmwn soil with limestone inclusions (lill)

section of wall removed for vessel excavation

part1al vessel (Early Classic) (from fill)

~ soil limestone marl

dark bro\\·n organic cla~ ~~'il·®;~ solidified limestone marl ( origmal organic soil honzon)

I able 8 Lot descriptions at Subop 5b

date jlot # lsubop i descriptioni I i

'

7/8/96 47Tsa I terrace wall facing segment surface finds '7/8/961 4815b 1 humic root mat topsoil i i

7/9/96 53)5b I ceramic concentration i I

'7/9/96 54Tsb ! rock concentration ! ! ' 7/9/96 55 15b 'soil surrounding lot 53 and 54 I

7/11/96 70i5b TarbitraQ unit under lot 55 I

7/12/96 83 15b /arbitraQ le\el under lot 70 (and 55) 7/15/96 90]5b :under lot 83, bedrock transition zone 7/16/961 99:5b i arbitrar)' level under lot 90 1

7/17/96 106i5b i arbitrary level below lot 99 I

7/18/961 118i5b 1 dark soil in bedrock se corner

I able 9 Lot Correlations at Subop 5b

Jiate~SU~~: :u::LPLEX --D~;~~ip!i~n=-=-~ =t~-~~ .. --Ve, __ rtical L--ot~;sociatio, 11 ___ :_--"'!_~ _0_7/_0_8/_9_6 ~ _ _47!- a terrace wall faci~~g__seglll""_!_sg._fa~~ fi;;_ds - __ ----r- ~ l

07/08/96. --48+-sb humic root llllltt<>P_soil ______ - --- - -- --1---:--:----·--r--· -~ _ -07/09(96-- 53-~- , ceramic concentration - ----- 48 -·-- l ---~

·~~:;:· 111 ::: J:;:;~:::::::;:.~G";~, m- ••• 53 ;: 55 --~'' --·· ·--~ __(l7/ll/96 _ _l(l_ 5b i ariJitrary unit under lot 5~. __ 83 !I _ _ __ ____ [

07/12/96_ 83 __ 5b--farbitrary level Drtder_Io!__70_(and_55) 90 -+---- _ --,1 , o-7f!s;96 JO ,_Sb _--junder lot83, bedr:<>c_ktransition zone_ _____ 99 ____ , -.-_--.--- -l .'

07/16/96; 99 1 Sb larbitrarylevelunder:_lot9o____ ____ _ _ 106 liS -'------i _07/l7j96 _ __!_o_6 i Sb I ar_IJj!_r_llry levelbelow !ot 99_ ___ _______ ___ ____ _ ____ __ -ci_ 07/18/96~-j _Sb i dark soiiin_IJ.,drock se co!_ner ____ -,--~---- _ ---~

Suboperation .5b

Suboperation 5b was a 1X2 meter unit placed upslope fiom Suboperation 5 that was excavated in 1991. Suboperation 5 was located along the inside of a wall that marks the edge of the island on the southeast side. Artificial fill was observed in Suboperation 5, retained by large boulder walls on the terrace edge. A burial was found beneath the fill intruding into bedrock I his 1991 unit raised important issues of landscape modification. How extensive was this fill spatially, and what was the original contour ofthe island? Why was the terrace built in this location, perhaps to improve the surface for domestic occupation? I o answer these questions, Suboperation 5b was placed between the original Suboperation 5 and the top contour ofthe island at this location Suboperation 5c tested a I X2 meter area just within the top contour of the island .. It was hoped that Suboperations 5, 5b, and 5c would provide a good cross section of terrace modification, original island shape, and activities for which the terrace was used. Suboperation 5a was assigned to an area ofthe terrace wall that was cleaned for photography, although excavations were not conducted in this area ..

I he deposits of Suboperation 5b match closely those found in Suboperation 5, nine meters to the east along the shore of the island .. From this unit, we learned that the original contour of the island, indicated by the depth of bedrock in these two units, is very low and only a few centimeters above water leveL We also learned that the one meter of terrace fill is broadly extensive, at least 13 meters in length when the dimensions of the two units are added to the distance between them. This construction documents intensive efforts on the part ofthe Middle Postclassic occupants of this village in modifying and improving the shape of the island. The social significance ofthis labor is outlined in the introductory section of this report

Description of Suboperation .5b Stratigrap~y

The soil layers within Suboperation 5b slope up to the north and west Stratigraphic profiles reveal three main soil strata, each containing cultural material (Figures 18, 19, Tables 8, 9) The upper most layer, Deposit A, reaches a depth range from 25 to 75cm below ground surface This layer includes the naturally formed organic topsoil and contains many roots in a matrix of dark brown loamy soiL The second soil layer, Deposit B, ranging in depth fiom 25 to 145cm below ground surface, is gray-brown in color and contains tiny chunks of marl and dispersed limestone nodules.. This zone is thought to be artificial fill Deposit C, the third and lowest layer (directly atop bedrock), first encountered at a depth of95cm below surface, is a mottled combination of two soil types .. This soil is thought to be original A horizon soil formed over bedrock. The majority of Deposit Cis comprised of a soft yellow limestone, the same material as the harder bedrock below it Interfingered and pocketed into the soft limestone lies a dark brown organic soiL The organic soil layer is roughly 20 em in vertical width and covered the majority of the unit floor at a depth of 125-135 em below surface.

At ground surface of Suboperation 5b, a concentration of rubble was uncovered in the southwest quadrant of the unit. Ceramic sherds, lithic flakes, animal bone fragments and a broken biface were found within the spaces between the stones. Interpreted as a possible corner of a structure close to the surface, the concentration was pedestalled and preserved through the completion ofthe excavation.

I he artifacts in Deposit A of Suboperation 5b were plentiful and found randomly throughout the matrix No real concentrations were observed Bioturbation caused by roots has probably

47

moved the artifacts from their original locations Lithic flakes and eroded slip ceramic sherds comprised the majority of artifacts recovered. Small quantities of animal bone, shell and obsidian were also recovered A small percentage of the lithic flakes and tiny fragments of limestone showed evidence of heat alteration .. Objects of special note found in the bioturbated Deposit A include a small stone adze made of serpentine, a lithic projectile point blank, a molded ceramic spindle whorl top and a single, historic white glazed ceramic sherd, likely evidence of the British logging camp once on the island, occupied briefly around the tum ofthe century

The transition between Depost A and Deposit B was marked by an increase in flecks of marl and a change to a more gray-brown color soil (Tables 8, 9). When the top of Deposit B was encountered, vertical collection strategies were changed from natural/cultural lot divisions into 20cm arbitrary levels. The depth of the unit was observably below that generally observed for natural soils on the island, and we suspected that a zone of artificial fill had been encountered. The Suboperation 5c excavation, taking place simultaneously less than I Om away, had hit bedrock at 40cm below ground surface. In contrast, just 9m to the east of Suboperation 5b, the 1991 excavations at Suboperation 5 (Masson 1993) had gone to a depth of 1.5m before encountering bedrock An arbitrary level division of20cm per level was thus adapted in anticipation of a deep deposit

Artifacts in Deposit B were dispersed, consisting primarily oflithic flakes and ceramic sherds .. Burned flakes increased in frequency and the first slipped ceramic sherds in the unit were recovered .. The matrix of Deposit B contained tiny flecks of charcoal. A small burned rock cluster was encountered in association with a burned biface and charcoal at a depth of 80cm below ground surface. A 14C sample was collected for analysis .. At a depth of 11 Ocm below ground surface, sitting on the transition zone between Deposits B and C, a partial vessel was recovered protruding from the south wall of the unit The fragment was a flaring rim, medial flanged, orangeware bowL Shirley Mock, project ceramicist, confirmed the vessel's identification as an Early Classic type. Currently, this is the only ceramic artifact recovered from the island that is not of Postclassic date .. A large charcoal sample was collected that was in contact with the bowl's interior for carbon dating. Postclassic sherds found at the same depth and below suggest the partial vessel was brought in as part of the fill, rather than representing evidence of Early Classic occupation .. The original location of this fill is not known. As Classic period deposits have been located to date only on the shores of the lagoon, it is probable that fill was transported by canoe to the island. Further testing on the island in future years will be used to supplement current conclusions that the island deposits are only ofPostclassic date .. Carbon dating of soil humates and animal bone in Deposit B are also planned.

The third and deepest strata ofSuboperation 5b, Deposit C (Tables 8, 9), was a mottled, dark brown organic soil with soft yellow limestone interfingering horizontally through it The mottling is due to its mixture with limestone bedrock upon which it rests, Flakes, burned flakes, ceramic sherds and two possible flake scrapers were found within the organic soil patches. A small but significant quantity of flakes and sherds carne from the soft limestone layers. The soil in this deepest strata is probably the original horizon formed above bedrock on the island,

Artifacts from Suboperation 5b

The general character of artifacts recovered from Suboperation 5b are quite different from those found at Structures I and IL For example, few incensario ceramics were recovered. Ceramic concentrations were also not observed, and obsidian artifacts are also less fr·equent In

48

preliminary observations, current evidence indicates that artifacts from in Suboperation 5b represent domestic debris

Suboperation .5c

Suboperation 5c added further intriguing information to the construction history of the island Located just 5 .. 6 meters to the west (uphill) of Suboperation 5b, the depth of deposit was only 40 em deep (Figure 20, Tables 10, II) Bedrock was found at this depth! Thus, bedrock is 40 em deep at the high contour at this part of the island, and is 140 em deep 5. 6 meters downslope at Suboperation 5b .. The terrace that extended east to the water, documented in Suboperation 5 and 5b, was essentially raised to the elevation of the high contour found in 5c .. Furthermore, a burial area was revealed in the IX2m area of Suboperation 5c. In this unit, three burials were found; Burial 7, Burial 8, and Burial 10 The skull of Burial 10 was found on the last day of excavation, in the eastern portion of the unit, at a lower elevation than the others. It was not removed due to lack of time. Burial pits were found cut into the bedrock Burial 7 was located in the western portion of the unit and Burial 8 was found in the center of t)1e unit (Figure 21} During the cleaning of the south wall of the Suboperation 5c for profile drawing, the outline of a fourth pit was revealed, which may represent an additional burial

Burials at Suboperation .5c

The cranium of Burial 7 was found 45cm below ground surface, slightly crushed on the left side (Figure 22) The distal left femur laid at an angle against the back of the cranium Bone preservation was good to moderate. The body was interred seated, knees up and arms wrapped around the legs Its head had since slumped down between the knees. At the base ofthe pit, the individual's hands and feet were found in good condition along side the fragmentary pelvis. Skeletal positioning indicated the body was seated facing west The mandible was recovered with teeth intact Initial observation of molar characteristics identified Burial 7 as an adult, 30-40 years of age. The burial pit was clearly visible, roughly circular and marked by the sharp transition between the yellow limestone bedrock and the gray-brown soil within the pit No artifacts were recovered in direct association with the burial

Burial 8 was found and excavated simultaneously with Burial 7 The pit outline of Burial 8 touches that of Burial 7 to the west Above the Burial 8 pit were placed a cluster of five unburned cobbles. Fragmentary pieces of Burial 8's skull were recovered from the perimeter of the rock cluster. Despite the destroyed condition of the skull, the rest of the skeleton, encountered directly beneath the rock cluster, was relatively articulated and in a good state of preservation.

Burial 8 was also seated facing west, with the knees up and arms wrapped around legs The maxilla was found with teeth still intact, upside down and oriented east (opposite from the orientation of the body) The skull had apparently dropped between the legs postmortem Molar characteristics identified the individual as an adolescent The pelvis was fragmentary and gender has not been assigned No artifacts were found in direct association with the burial pit

The relationship of this tightly-packed burial area to the rubble platform in Suboperation 5b will be one focus of 1997 investigations. Additional plans are being made for geostratigraphic documentation and radiocarbon dating of the landscape modification in this area A connecting trench will be dug which will provide a full cross section view of the island to enable full analysis of these deposits

49

Table 10. lot Descriptions at Subop Sc

date :lot# isubop i description: 7/9/96 i 5015c i humic root mat topsoil i

-7/I0/961 69!5c i layer under humic lot 50 -----

7/13/96! 86l5c ! burial 7 and associated rock cluster 7/16/96' 105'5c •burialS

I able 11 Lot correlations at Subop 5c

07/09/96 50 07/10/96 69

-

07/13/96 86 07/16/96 I 05

5~---~ h~-.;.k -~~o-;;t mat topsoil 5c -11a\'·er under humic lot 50 5c· rt.-~;·i~i 7 a~d associated ruck clu~ltl 5< i b~ria18

Figure 20 Subop 5c profile of north v.all

2 meters

i 1

' 50 69

86 105

--c------- --

----+------~--

dark brov. n topsoil limestone rocks root

grey bro"n soil \\ith limestone inclusions

limestone bedrock

Figure 21 Photo of Suboperation Sc burials

Figure 22 Map of Suboperation Sc burials

Figure 23 Greenstone celt (left) and groundstone bead (center) from Suboperation 5c Also shown is a ground iron ore bead (right) from Suboperation 8 (Structure I)

,_, -

f~~···

Artifacts and Stratigraphy of Suboperation .5c

The strata above the burials in Suboperation 5c, Deposit A (Tables 10, II), from surface to an average depth of 40cm, contained a number of interesting artifacts. This dark brown organic topsoil was heavily bioturbated by roots, and overlies bedrock A single glazed historic sherd was found, and all others resemble Middle Postclassic domestic debds In the soil above Burial 7, two small stemmed projectile points and a thin, bifaciallanceolate blade were recovered Between the stones in the cluster above Burial 8, two obsidian blade fragments and a piece of sea turtle shell were found In the soil from the western half of the Suboperation 5c, a greenstone 2Xlcm rectangular bead was recovered (Figure 23). Above the third as yet unexcavated burial, a ceramic tripod foot vessel fragment and a burned chert core were recovered. The association of these artifacts with the burials is unclear as the origination surface of burial pits was not defined due to the similarity of burial fill to Deposit A Lithic flakes, ceramic sherds, faunal bone (burned and unburned) and tiny fragments of burned rock were found dispersed through Deposit A

Suboperation 7a

Suboperation 7a tested a 2X3m area adjacent to Suboperation 7, excavated in 1991 (Masson 1993) The 1991 Suboperation 7 (2X3m) tested a small earthen mound in which a scatter of human bone was recovered This area of the island is located at the west edge of a rectangular plateau at the island's highest elevation which may have served as a courtyard (Figure I) Immediately to the west ofSuboperation 7 and 7a, the slope of the island's northwest side begins Suboperation 7a was placed over some large stones that were visible on the surface in this area, to see whether they formed part of a wall that may have delineated the courtyard edge (Figure 24). Further stones are observed to the north of Suboperation 7a, which probably extend the alignment exposed in this unit The 1997 season will continue explorations in that direction These stones appear to mark the edge of a large .. flat surface to the northwest of Structure II (Suboperation 12) which may be a courtyard at the island's apex Suboperation 7a was placed with the goal of exposing the courtyard-edge wall and collecting further materials for spatial comparison of activities

The walls uncovered in 7a were comprised of large, flat boulders (Figure 24) The stone alignment within Suboperation 7a runs north-south. The two largest stones, crumbling at their edges, are flat and over 1 meter wide The 20cm organic topsoil layer surrounding the stones, Deposit A, was excavated in two separate lots, one on the east side, the other on the west (Tables 12, 13) These collection units will facilitate comparisons among artifact assemblages and activities in this location An eroded plaster surface, Deposit B, was encountered on both sides of the wall (Tables 12, 13) This surface may represent the top of bedrock, but it appears to have been exposed and eroded, perhaps doubling as a living surface. A high concentration of artifacts were found in this area, particularly on the east (or courtyard interior) side of the wall A pit was found in the northeast corner of the unit, in which a lenticular biface (made of chalcedony) and Pomacea shells were placed as a cached offerings or part of a cooking pit (Figure 25).

De<cription of Artifacts and Feature< at Suboperation 7a

Artifact density within the top soil layer was high, and hundreds of flakes, burned flakes and ceramic sherds were recovered from both sides of the stone alignment, as well as small quantities faunal bone (burned and unburned), obsidian fragments and shell On the west side of the stone alignment, towards the center of the unit, a concentration of artifacts was discovered directly

53

Figure 24 Map of Suboperation 7a (right), showing plan perspective with north to the top of the page (scale l:20cm) Note Pomacea cache pit in northwest corner of unit within depression indicated Photo of Subop 7a is shown below, facing south.

Q limestone rock

~ eroded limestone surface

@ pomacea shell

~ depression

Nor~

'--'<----' 20cm

'

. '

ao:.··.· ·:. 0.·

.,(\: : ~ .

0

'0

I able 12 Lot Descriptions at Subop 7a

date ilot # •SUbop · descriiJtion: i

i

7/22/961 129i7a !topsoil f !

-7/24/96; 150i7a I soil east of rock under lot 129 I

7/24/961 151 :7a i soil west of rock under lot 129 7/26/96! 171 17a : ne corner artifacts concentrated under lot 150 7/26/96! 172i7a ! possible terrace wall rock feature J 7/26/96 1 175 17a :cache biface and 3 pomacea shells in lot 171 7130/96 186 17b tol!soil root mat, 2X3m:

I able 13 Lot Correlations at Subop 7a

~--1---- ~~~-·--~~

--"'SU=BOP 7 COMPLEX . 07/22/96. 12'1~ I 7a ·Jtopsoil ~. ~ ·-~ - --~~

07/24/96 151 i 7a ~~~soil west of rock unde! lot WI __ _ 07/24/96 150 ! 7a i soil east ofrock under lot 129

-~~;;:~~f: ~~ i ~· ~-: I ;~;i~~e:e~:~i!~~:i~~~·:-:~:::~eund~~ lotl50 ~-07/26/96 _!'7.5_ j__lll_ _J Cl!che biface and 3 pomacea_ shells in lot !7]__ i

07/30/96 18~_-+-L-~ -=7:-b -1-t-op_s_o-:cilc-root mat, 2X3m ---- ----~ ---f-~ =----=--=

129 186 150 172 151

---- 171 175

-- ---------- -----

----r-i ____ _

--- ! --------I +------

__ j _____ _

----1----

I -----;

---~

- - - -~

I

!

Figure 25. Suboperation 7a Pomacea cache pit

besideand below the stones, Fragments of a single, red slipped vessel, four obsidian blade fragments and two Pomacea shells were found in association, mixed with ceramic sherds and lithic flakes. This concentration is similar to that of small ritual offerings found at Structures I andiL

The northeast corner of Suboperation 7a was identified early as a separate feature A patch of dark brown soil, approximately 50cm in diameter, was identified in the topsoiL Artifacts included a high density of faunal bone (a large mammalian mandible among them), a solid ceramic tripod vessel leg, high numbers of burned flakes, ceramic sherds, obsidian blade fragments and ceramic fishing weights. As this northeast corner was excavated, it became clear that it was a pit that intruded beneath the limestone surface that covers all other areas of the unit At the base of this pit, two levels of Pomace a shells were recorded to a depth of 60cm below ground surface. The pit walls and base were lined with stones.

The upper Pomacea shell concentration was found at 30cm below ground surface in association with four burned rocks, a fragmentary red slipped plate and a well made lenticular biface, 14cm in length. The three shells were tightly clustered in the center ofthe pit The lower Pomacea shell concentration was found 25cm lower than the upper concentration, at 55cm below ground surface, The shells were not tightly clustered, as in the upper layer, but were found in greater quantity .. A total of seven Pomacea shells were found in this layer in association with fragments of a single, red slipped vessel. Two large charcoal samples were collected from this level

Further horizontal exposure of this area planned for 1997 will hopefully reveal associations of this pit of concentrated materials and heaveily littered activity area and permit further interpretation. The 1996 unit accomplished its goals of collecting comparative lithic, ceramic, and faunal materiaL Documenting this segment ofthe courtyard wall also provides further testimony to the significant efforts in construction at the island and the organization of public and private space at this community

Suboperation 13

Suboperation 13 was excavated to recover comparative information with Suboperation 7a, as it is located in the same general vicinity on the island. Suboperation 13 was placed I 0 . .5 meters to the west of Suboperation 12 and 10.2m south of Suboperation 7a, along the edge of the same courtyard space tested by Suboperation 7 (Figure I} Suboperation 13a was a IX2m trench placed in front of an extremely large semi-upright boulder along the courtyard edge (Figure 26) Working hypotheses for the function of these large stones included their use as part ofthe courtyard wall or perhaps as an altar area. An additional large boulder was visible on the surface of Suboperation 13a as well Suboperation I 3b was a 2X3m trench that encompassed the area around the boulder.

Artifacts and Stratigrap~y of Subopemtion 13a

Stratigraphy around the stones was the same found at Suboperation 7a a shallow topsoil layer (Deposit A) lying directly atop a cracked, crumbling limestone surface (Deposit B, Tables 14, 15) In the south portion of Suboperation 13a, the edge of a structure or wall was found in the form of a rubble surface extending into the south and east walls (Figure 26}. The north side of the boulders in both units revealed an eroded marl limestone surface (Figure 26) similar to that observed in Suboperation 7a.

57

Aitifact densities were extremely high .. Lithic flakes and ceramic sherds were especially abundant compared to other areas tested at the site. Hundreds of large flakes were collected .. Other artifact types found in Suboperation 13 topsoil include obsidian blade fragments, fishing weights and small fragments of faunal bone. This material and associated ceramics will be used in analysis to evaluate the use of this area when the island was occupied. It is possible that the large stones are part of the courtyard wall, but they appear to have been dislodged by tree root activity ..

I wo areas of concentrated artifacts were found in Suboperation 13. On the north side ofthe large stones, directly at their base, whole Pomacea shells were recovered along with obsidian blade fragments and an anthropomorphic tripod vessel leg. The leg was hollow and molded in the form of a human face .. The second concentration, 20cm west of the stones, was first identified as a patch of dark brown organic soiL Unburned fragments of a red slipped plate were recovered from within the patch .. The o~jects were found in loose, root-disturbed soil. Further analysis of these assemblages will examine the nature of activities performed in this area

Summary

The testing program of the 1996 season at Laguna de On succeeded in sampling a four locations at the site. Suboperation 5b and Sc expanded 1991 investigations of the Suboperation 5 vicinity on the southeastern slope of the island, identifying tenace construction activity and a burial area Further work in this area is planned that will provide context for the burial area and continue the project's search for domestic structures and midden sampling. The other two locations tested, Suboperations 7a and 13, provide a glimpse of the west edge of a possible courtyard area along the northwestern slope of the island. These tests suggest that this flat plateau may be bordered by a large boulder wall that meets an eroded plaster deposit, currently thought to be bedrock that may have served as an occupational surface. Atop this deposit was recovered evidence of intensive activities that appear both economic and ritual in nature .. Further testing will expand these test pits to horizontal units to aid the interpretation of village domestic and ritual activities at the site

58

Figure 26 Map of Suboperation 13 (right) showing plan perspective with north to the top of the page A photo ofSubop 1.3 is sltown below, facing south.

Q eroded lrmestone surface

limestone rock

tree root

~. North

I able 14 Lot Descriptions at Subop 13

date ;lot# isubop i description; . i

7/22/96 1 128':13a itOJlSoi12Xlm_unit I ',

7/23/961 143lJ3a i arbitrary level under lot 128 ~----

7/25/96: 159113b 'topsoil root mat 2X3m i

' 7/29/96! 183'13b 1 dark soil north side of unit under lot 159 7/31/96' 188j13b !dark soil under lot !59 i

'

8/4/96 201'13a&b 1'h\O large rocks I I

I able 15 Lot Correlations at Subop 13

- ---~' ------ __ ]

SUBOP 13 COMPLEX - 08j04/l)6 __ 20 1 13a&b two large f'ocks_ _

-------- ---+----------07/22/96 128 13a ,_topsoii2Xlm uni!

-"0"7 /,_2-'3/'-"9:"6 _ _,1.,.4"'3-+_13a i arbitrary level ull<l_erJo_t(2_8_

Chapter Seven

Preliminary Observations ofPostclassic Ceramics from Laguna de On Island

Shirley Boteler Mock

IntT'oduction

Ceramics remain a significant portion of the mysterious puzzle of Maya Postclassic settlement economies, social organization, ideology, and religion. This is due, in part, to the fact that the nuances of this time period are not understood. Past attempts to separate ceramics into discrete temporal categories have often been confounded by the admixture of I erminal Classic­Postclassic occupations at many sites.. Such methodological difficulties in Belize have been encountered in shallow deposits at Coiba (Valdez 198 7) and Northern River Lagoon (Mock 1994}. The type-variety format itself in many ways, intended to be a valuable tool for comparative analysis, imposes categories that obfuscate our understanding ofPostclassic processes. Moreover, sherd surfaces are often eroded, making type assigmnents difficult

Previous investigations at the island site of Laguna de On in 1991 began to address some of these questions .. Evidence from ceramic data suggested that a small community grew up on the island during the Middle Postclassic (AD 1100-1350).. During the Late Postclassic (AD 1350-1500), a shrine was established, becoming the depository of offerings perhaps related to post­abandonment pilgrimages (Masson 1993:46).. Ceramics and lithics recovered from initial tests on the island provided the basis for these preliminary interpretations (Masson 1993; Valdez and Masson 1994), although ceramic chronology was not supplemented by absolute dating.

The 1996 field season at Laguna de On continued to address these questions through more extensive excavations and detailed attention to horizontal and vertical variability among the assemblages .. Detecting differential representations and the presence or absence of specific ceramics within the excavated portions of the site became crucial not only to illuminate site chronology but to facilitate religious and functional designations of structures on the island.

Approximately 50% of the Laguna de On ceramics were analyzed during my examination in the 1996 field season .. Following procedures established at Colha (Valdez 1987) and Northern River Lagoon (Mock 1994 ), the sherds were sorted into groups according to surface finish or slip color .. The groups were then divided into tentative types using the type-variety format and modal form analysis .. Established types from Colha (Valdez 1987), Cerros (Walker 1990), Santa Rita (D. Chase and A. Chase 1988), and Lamanai (Graham 1987) were used as indices of classification. Preliminary descriptions of these provisional classifications are provided below

Zakpah Ceramic Group

Originally placed in the Augustine Red Group (Mock 1994), these ceramics date to the Early Postclassic at Colha where they are represented by Zakpah Orange-Red. Forms include bowls, flanged dishes, and large chalices (Mock 1994; Valdez 1987; Valdez et aL 1994).. Rims are often direct or slightly padded with rounded or pointed lips. Slip is a reddish orange with frequent fire clouding grading into a golden green (Mock 1994) Paste varies, some unoxidized with coarse grained with large calcite particles .. Some sherds displaying surface attributes characteristic of

61

the type have a finer sandy-coral colored paste with fewer black cores. When eroded, Zakpah Orange-Red typically displays more calcite leaching than Payil Red (discussed below)

The small sample of sherds from Laguna de On appear to represent vessel forms such as collaredjars or bowls and chalices with direct or slightly padded rims .. Based on my own observations of the Northern River Lagoon ceramic collection, I agree with Walker's assessment (1991) that this group represents a transition from the Terminal Classic Kik Group.

One ceramic type belonging to the Zakpah Group that is rare in the ceramic collection is identical to Centon Incised: Variety Unspecified at Colha (Valdez 1987 :220; Walker 1990). It is typified by grater bowls with interior incised designs. Presumably this rarity is in part due to the non-domestic nature of the structure it was recovered in at Laguna de On.

A tentative type, Zakpah Variety Incised: Variety Unspecified, is being used at this stage of the analysis. The limited number of sherds does not permit placement in either the Zakpah Incised or Zakpah Gouged-Incised types designated at Cerros (Walker 1990).. The identifying attributes of both either overlap or are not fully represented in the Laguna de On collection. Another provisional "working" type is Zakpah Orange-Red Composite: Variety Unspecified. It is characterized by applique bands with punctation and incisions on what appears to be Zakpah Orange-red paste ..

Payil Red Group

The slipped ceramics at Laguna de On are dominated by the Payil Red Group and appear identical to the red slipped wares of Iulum and Ichpaatun (Pendergast 1981; Sanders 1960; Smith 1971 :30) in Yucatan, and those of Lamanai, in Belize (Graham 1987). The type variety Payil Red is placed in the Middle Postclassic, Early Facet Kanan, complex at Cerros (Walker 1990:86; see also Ball1978:208). At Colha, Payil Red is placed in the Middle Postclassic Canos Complex, the last functionally complete complex (Valdez 1993:13) at the site. Both plain and incised versions of this ceramic type occur in surface deposits mixed with I erminal Classic ceramics (Gabourel Complex) at the Northern River Lagoon site in Belize (Mock 1994)

Payil Red (Mock 1994) is typically characterized by an opaque red slip and thin walls The slip has a slightly waxy feeL Paste, ranging flom buff to light pink-coral is more oxidized and shows finer calcite intrusions than Zakpah Red. Eroded sherds have a powdery surface.

Forms include basal-break flat-bottom dishes and sag bottom vessels with hollow tripod feet Vessel forms generally are more diminutive in contrast to Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic vessels. I have observed that there are similarities in manufacturing technology between the Payil Red group and the Late Classic I inaja Red Group (Mock 1994). Modal continuities also exist in the bowl and jar forms.

Payil Red: Palmul Incised, occurring rarely in the Laguna de On ceramics is characterized by shallow post-slip incising. Redundant elaborated scroll patterns, band panels, and pendant hooks suggesting abbreviated, conflated serpent and bird motifs are a notable characteristic (Mock 1994) Due to the small sherds in the Laguna de On collection designs are difficult to determine However, these attributes are present in attenuated form, and appear to be crudely executed. A few segmented flanges present in the collection display the characteristic Payil Red slip ..

62

Payil Red: Punctated Applique is another provisional type assigned on the basis of one sherd. Punctated decoration is infrequent in the Postclassic, in contrast to the Late-Ierminal Classic. Again we may have local potters incorporating Classic ceramic traditions into a new, later ceramic type.

Payil Red-Striated, another infrequently occurring provisional type, is characterized by its thin walls and fine calcite paste. Forms are ollas or small jars. Striations below below the juncture of neck and body. Ihis type shar·es characteristics with Red Neck Mother Striated: Variety Unspecified, Chambel Group at Cerros (Walker 1990:75)

Rita Red Group

A limited number of sherds from Laguna de On have been tentatively placed in the Rita Red Group (see Chase 1982; Walker 1990:88-90). Represented by unique parenthesis neck tinajas at Laguna de On, this type is dated from the Middle Postclassic to the Late Postclassic (see Sanders 1960:F igure 5c ).. Since the sherds display the characteristic Payil Red slip, this assignment is pending, however, until the paste is examined petrographically. It is possible that the sherds represent a transitional stage or type between the Middle and Late Postclassic .. I he jars may have been manufactured at Santa Rita and brought to Laguna de On during pilgrimage visits (e g, Walker 1990:89)

Navula Group

Initial sorting was easily accomplished due to the unslipped, smoothed, pinkish buff surface with the pock-marked finish peculiar to this group. One noted characteristic at Laguna de On is the exterior thickened and folded rim and round lip. A second sorting divided the sherds tentatively into Cehac-Hunacti Composite: Variety Unspecified and Thul Applique (see also Ak Applique, Valdez 1994) of the Navula Unslipped group Because of the lack of complete vessels and small rim sherds, many ofthe assignments to either type-variety were arbitrary. Both types were recovered in all deposits at Laguna de On.

Cehac-Hunacti as a type was established at Mayapan by Smith (1971) and specific sherds indicate that it is represented at Laguna de On by a similar globularjar censer form with pedestal base and averted neck Vessels are decorated with appliqued, punctated bands and circular motifs, and occasionally twisted guilloches (see Smith 1971 :95). I he paste is heavily tempered with large calcite flecks.

Many of the sherds could also be placed in the Cohokum Group on the basis of distinct paste and surface characteristics (see Cerros [Early Facet Kanan], Walker 1990:100, 102); see also Chase 1982: 541).. For example, some appear identical to Santa Unslipped: I am an Variety of the Cohokum Group at Cerros (Walker 1990:100), also characterized by pock-marked surfaces Walker (1990:102) also notes that Iaman Variety shares attributes with the Navula Ceramic Group. Analogous forms occur at Middle Postclassic Mayapan (Smith 1971:94-95)

Cohokum Ceramic Group

One new provisional type represented in limited quantities in the collection is Santa Unslipped: Striated .. Sample is too small to determine whether they representjars or bowls Cerros has Santa Unslipped bowls and ollas in the Early Facet Kanan continuing into the Late Facet Kanan (Walker 1990:100-102) Ihese two groups need to be studied further. It is entirely

63

possible, that the two overlap temporally and what we see are transitions in pottery traditions with residual attributes. Bowl or olla forms used as censers may have evolved to more formal censer forms

Tsabak Group

This unslipped group is represented by two provisional type varieties (see also Walker 1990:94-96).. Provisional Type I has a dark grey-reddish brown surface and a sandy, flaky paste with dark cores and large inclusions.. Similar to Walker's (1990:91 ), Tsabak Unslipped: 1 sabak Variety, and Valdez's (1987:220) More Force Unslipped, there are visible layers of silicate arrangements. Forms are short-necked ollas or bowls with averted necks and direct rims .. Rim sherds are thick.

Provisional I ype II is represented by similar forms but is characterized by a micaceous paste (see Walker 1990:93). At Calha this type is represented by Maskall Unslipped (Adams and Valdez 1979: 3 7; Valdez 1987). These variety differences suggest the existence of two separate production locales. It is possible that the presence of the two varieties relates to desired functional differences. Some of the vessels may have functioned as a type of censer.

Panaba Gnmp

At Calha the Late Postclassic is represented by Chen Mul Modeled ceramic type(Balll978: Smith 1971), found only at one elite complex (Operation 2012) presumed to be the focus of ancestor rituals and pilgrimage visits (Valdez 1987:231).. Chen Mul Modelled is widespread in the Postclassic, typified by a large, modeled effigy figure with attached bucket It is similar to the full figure effigy vessels at Mayapan (Smith 1971: I 02-103.. A similar type is also found at Lamanai (Pendergast 1981: Fig. 27, 1985).. An analogous form at Santa Rita (Chase 1982:537) and Cerros (Walker 1990:108) is Kol Modeled: Kol Variety of the Cohokum Group

At Laguna de On this crude censer ware is temporally placed in this group until further analysis and observations of comparative collections. Regardless it is represented by many sherds in mixed Middle Postclassic-Late Postclassic strata (see also Ball1978).. By matching sherds from different lots and levels, one almost complete vessel was reconstructed. Until depositional and contextual factors are examined however, we cannot assume this temporal continuity

I have separated the ceramics into two provisional types on the basis of surface and paste characteristics. Provisional Type I, including the reconstructed vessel, is characterized by a distinct yellowish-red, sandy paste with large calcite and hematite inclusions .. Surfaces are reddish brown and cores are typically dark gray Surfaces are crudely smoothed.. Modeled appliques are attached.

Provisional Type II is characterized by a gray paste and gray surface. These differences are presumably due to the clay sources used by different production locales.

Discu.s.sion of Cemmics and Pteliminary Observations

Several implications may be derived from this preliminary analysis ofthe Laguna de On ceramics First, observation of forms represented suggest that the assemblage is functionally incomplete There is an obvious rarity of or absence of functional types such as plates and

64

comales in the collection, supporting previous interpretations that Structures I and II were ritualistic settings .. Of particular significance are the large numbers of sherds representing special-occasion vessels such as the large red-slipped chalices or effigy censers and ollas or bowls.

A second observation is chronological. In contrast to the sites ofLamanai (Pendergast 1981) and Cerros (Walker 1990), the Postclassic ceramics from Laguna de On include no obvious Terminal Classic-Early Postclassic vessel forms. Terminal Classic indices such as incised and trickle slate wares are notably absent However, as at other sites (Graham 1987), the Postclassic ceramics from Laguna de On do show continuities in certain Late-Terminal Classic attributes such as red-slipped types, gouged-incised, pedestal bowls, censers, and flaring neckjars ..

In general, Postclassic ceramics are unlike those of the Late-Terminal Classic in that they are characterized by a more limited repertoire of designs and forms, This change may relate to a decrease in the importance that individuals and groups ascribed to local social boundaries The most common slipped ceramic type is Payil Red, referred to elsewhere as Augustine Red or TulumRed(Pendergast 1981,Graham 1987,Mock 1994, ValdezetaL 1994, Valdez 1994).

A third point observation from my analysis to date concerns distinctions in Postclassic slipped traditions.. I agree with Valdez ( 1994) that the Middle Postclassic forms (Payil Red) continue traditions developed and established in the Early Postclassic .. However, based on my preliminary observations ofthe more diagnostic sherds of the Laguna de On sample I am hesitant to pose clear distinctions in surface treatment as I did at Colha (Mock 1994) Graham ( 1987) for example, describes the "orange-red slip" of Buk Phase Middle Postclassic ceramics at Lamanai as similar to the "lustrous orange-red slip" of the Augustine Red at Tipu. At Colha, Valdez places the Zakpah Orange-Red in the Early Postclassic (1987), while Walker assigns it to the Middle Postclassic (1990:41)

My observations of the sherds indicate that it can be very difficult to separate out the surface color and incising treatment into two temporal types Until further comparisons are made I would say that the two overlap in surface treatment In fact, attributes characteristic of both types may be represented in single vessel.

In addition, neither slip color nor presence of post-slip or pres lip incising are a consistent index of classification in the Laguna de On collection .. Ceramics with the darker matte-red slip characteristic of Payil Red Group also display deep-gouged designs and the orange-red, fire­clouded surfaces show the shallow post-slip incising characteristic of the Zakpah Orange-red Group (as described in Walker 1990) There are also inconsistencies in pastes and wall thicknesses between the two groups. The latter may simply be related to the portion of the vessel the sherd represents. For instance, a bowl may be thin-walled while the base may be thicker to sustain the weight Local production by different potters may also be responsible for these differences If the bowl and base of the large red-slipped chalice vessels were formed separately by different potters it is also reasonable that the vessels may display individual preferences Admittedly, these observations are preliminary based on the small numbers of incised sherds, and the lack of complete specimens However, these discrepancies are enough to raise significant issues about distinguishing these two ceramic groups

Such overlap also occurs in groups and types other than the redwares that I have described in this paper The main censer type, Chen Mul Modeled, also crosses paste groups and is present

65

in the Middle Postclassic deposits. This observation supports the notion that local production areas were using different clay sources. If Laguna de On is being visited in pilgrimages, one might also expect to find Chen Mul Modeled censers of different pastes from various locations.

These differences may be more significant than the similarities for interpreting behavioral patterns As Sinopoli (1991:165) points out, the presence of"functionally analogous vessels of distinct materials" is not unique to our modern world. She notes further that "factors of cost, availability, the 'prestige value' ofgoods, taste (of food or in styles), and tradition are all likely to play a role in the choices consumers make among alternate vessel materials .. "

Until analysis of the entire collection of ceramics is complete I am hesitant to place specific ceramic types in a time period within the Postclassic .. Completion of analysis will involve the comparison of these ceramics to other collections. However, for the purposes of promoting discourse on Postclassic chronology as the ceramic analysis and radiocarbon chronologies are established for this site, a tentative assignment can be made according to comparisons to other sites.. Based on these preliminary observations of the ceramics, I propose an early facet Middle Postclassic to Late Postclassic occupation of the site .. Contextual recovery of ceramics combined with future chemical characterization and mineral petrographic studies of the ceramics from Laguna de On offer some potential in understanding these technological and stylistic overlaps Radiocarbon dates are needed before the ceramic chronology proceeds much further .. From this converging data we can draw significant inferences about the Postclassic period at Laguna and throughout northern Belize.

66

Table 16 Ceramic Frequencies from Laguna de On Island 1996 Excavations

Ceramics from Laguna de On Island 1996 - Preliminary Analysis (about 50% of recovered sherds) (Percentages sho" n are those of total ceramics analyzed as well as% of ceramics analyzed per subop) ·

________ Total S0-=-8.::....-.e~-- S012 ;'c--c-__ c!, S"-'0"-'5=---.c-cc---

---~-----

Ak applique Cehac:lmnacti composite Ch_e_n_t\1_uVC_h_o~!"ful. __ _

# % # 0/o !# ;o/o I# % c-=-=----12 1.36% 37 1 62%. ---:-c----'--'=c-=- ----"-'-.:-.=~--28 (I 91% 25 1 10%

-~~~-~~~-~~~~-~ 59 I 91% -15 1 97%· ·-- -· -- ----- __ .:_c___:::::_:_c=-~.::..

7 0 21~0 7 0.3lo/o

5, 0.62%• 0.00% 3 0.37%! 0.00% 4 0.50%! ]O; 4.27%

0.00%! 0.00% 0 ())~;(; 0.00%' 0.00%,

·--------- ·-------- ---- 0.04%. 1 10% 0 13%

28 0 91~-0 25 3 037%' 000%· --·-··------· --

T_sabak uns)ipped __ _ Santa unslippecl__ __ _

~~gus_tinc_ ~e_d _________ . Palmu1/Po1mul inmed Holmul

-------

Pm il Red Zakpah Ora_n_l;IO_R_cci __ Rna Red

crodcd1zmsc

I !TOTAL

:. 0.10~-o .) 0 00%' 000%

87 .?. ~Q0 o 56 2 +6o/o 2-l 2 98% 7 2.99% ;t;6 12 8i~o ~31 1-f 52°/o 55 6.82%' 10 4.27%

2 () 06° 0 () 0 00% 2 0.25% 0 0.00% - ·~--------------

() ( ,~o o () 0.00% 1 0.12% 0 0.00% -

]6 () -~·~0() 11 0 57°1~ 3 0.37o/o 0 0.00% --

() I! -.o o 00-t.% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% -------------. ·----·---

106:' "'4 '3! 0u 71-1 _; l. 12°/o 312 38.71% 39 16.67%

~.fl) Xi '7°o J.n 6 27°/o 72 8.93% 3-1 l-1..53% ---------·---------

'! () ~ l_)<) () X () .15%) 1 0.12% 0 0.00% ------------·---

--------· 109.?. x:J 321 134 ·----

lOX6 22XO 806 23-1 ·--·--

Figure 27. Decorated ceramics from Laguna de On Island, I 996: Payil Red (top left), Payil Red: Palmul Incised (top right, center, below left, below right)

Figure 28 Ceramic types tr·om Laguna de On Island, 1996 season. I op left is a fOlded rim vessel ffom the Navula Group, the top three sherds on the right are identified as Ihul Applique, the two effigy vessel supports on the bottom left are Zakpah All other specimens on the bottom are Payil sag-bottom vessels or vessel supports, with one flange fi:agment of a Payil chalice form (foreground near scale, bottom right)

Chapter Eight

Faunal Remains from Laguna de On Island 1996: Preliminary Observations

Jennifer Wharton

This report represents a preliminary analysis of the fimnal remains from the 1996 excavations at the Postclassic Maya site of Laguna de On Island, Belize. Prior faunal studies have been completed at this site by Masson (1993, 1995). This previous study focused on bone collected in 1991 from excavations at the Classic period shore as well as the Postclassic period island at Honey Camp Lagoon (Laguna de On).. This analysis provides additional information on Postclassic faunal remains from the 1996 field season which extended previous excavations on the island. A portion of faunal bone samples were analyzed from Suboperations 5, 8, 12, 13, and 14.

This report contains preliminary results of the portion of faunal remains from Laguna analyzed as of December 1996, an estimated 50% of last year's sample .. The remainder is being analyzed for my master's thesis at SUNY-Albany during the Spring of 1997. This analysis focused primarily on Suboperation 8 in order to verify patterns of faunal distribution detected in the 1991 analysis and observed in the field in 1996.

Results

The analysis completed thus far has examined 1,614 fragments. Identifications were made with the assistance of animal osteology manuals and the comparative collection of the New York State Museum. Unfortunately, this collection does not feature many tropical species, which hindered some of the identifications .. The fauna represented in this sample include primarily mammals, reptiles, fish, and birds with few fish or amphibians and no shellfish (I able 17). I axa are described by class in the section below Distribution patterns of these taxa are subsequently examined

Mammalia

Mammals recovered from Laguna cover a wide range of both small and large game These were presumably acquired from the environment surrounding the lagoon Large game include two varieties of deer, Mazama americana, or red brocket deer, and the larger Odocoileous virginianus, or white-tailed deer. Also found at the site ar·e tapir, Tapir us bairdii, and peccary, Tayassu sp Large mammals not identified to species are generally thought to be deer or peccary, based on observations of cortical thickness of long bone and cranial fragments .. Smaller mammals found in some abundance include the nine-banded armadillo, Dasypus novemcinctus, and to a Jesser degree rodents (Rodentia), agouti paca (Dasyproctidae), and mustelids (Mustelidae).. Also retrieved were specimens of dog or fox (Canidae), small to medium carnivores (Carnivora), and possibly sloths or anteaters (Edentata).

69

Aves and Amphibia

Most bird and amphibian remains from the site are unidentified to species, due to limits of the comparative collection. Some diagnostic turkey bones (Me/eagris gal/opavo) have been identified, but for the most part, birds are classified as either small, medium, or large sized Aves Amphibians are considered to be some species of Anura, either frog (Rana) or toad (Bujo)

Reptilia

Reptiles represent the other most prominent faunal class at the Laguna site. Alligatm (Crocodylidae) appears to have been a major food source in addition to other large game mammals.. Also found at the site are turtles (T estudines ), and with the exception of a few pond turtles (Pseudemys sp . .), these were not identified as to species .. No lizards and few snakes (Serpentes) have been recovered from the island in the 1996 analysis.

Osteichthye.s and Chondrichthyes

Very few fish remains have been uncovered at the site. Those that have been identified include Galicthyes, or catfish, Tarpon at/anticus, tarpon, and Gerridae One example of a sting ray (Rajifmmes) spine has also been identified.

Di,stribution of Faunal Remains

As mentioned above, the flmnal remains examined in this study were recovered from the ritual structure at the apex of the island (Suboperation 8), a dock area (Suboperation 14), and near a domestic terrace (Suboperation 5). The distribution ofremains at these locations show significant differences when both quantities and qualities of taxa are considered. Faunal remains from the three areas are described below

Suboperation 8

Analysis completed at Suboperation 8 offers the most comprehensive investigation offlmnal remains at Laguna de On Island from analysis of the 1996 sample to date In all, a total of 1,321 fragments were examined fiom this location (I ables 18, 19) Excluding the unidentified pieces from this total allows for the proportionate quantities of the rest of the sample to be determined and analyzed .. Mammals and reptiles make up of the largest portion of this sample, nearly SO% and 45% respectively (Table 18) Overwhelmingly, alligator is the most abundant species represented (31 %, fable 18). Other fauna found in relatively large quantities (Table 18) are brocket deer (8%) and tapir (7 . .5%) as well as unidentified large mammals (8%) Large game at Suboperation 8 are represented primarily by cranial fragments (fable 20).

Comparisons made between the numbers oflarge (deer, tapir, peccary, and alligatm) and small or medium animals (including birds, fish, amphibians, snake, and turtles, Table 19) reveal that Suboperation 8 predominately contained larger species (65%) The reverse is true at other Suboperations (I able 19)..

70

Suboperation .5

Analyzed faunal remains at Suboperation 5 comprise a much smaller sample than at Suboperation 8, with a total of 120 pieces examined of which 81 were identified (Table 19} I his number reflects the amount analyzed to date, not the absolute number of bones recovered from this area .. Mammals represent the greatest number of fragments represented (74%), with reptiles embodying only 13.5% of the entirety (table not shown}. Apart from brocket deer (12%), small and medium sized mammals make up most of the quat)tity, in particular, armadillo (16%, I able 19} Species not observed to date in this analysis at Suboperation 5 include carnivores, paca or agouti, and mustelids. Faunal remains at Suboperation 5 appear to be comprised of mostly small and medium sized animals (70%, I able 19), in contrast to Suboperation 8 (35%) I he use of amphibians, birds, and snakes is also noticeably higher.

Suboperation 14

Suboperation 14 shows some differences compared to the other two sites. Ihis is also a small sample, of only 93 fragments of which 69 were identified (I able 19}. Reptiles make up the largest portion of the total at 47% (table not shown) and mammals are also abundantly represented (38%, table not shown} Turtle is common (35 5%) in the sample, and bird (8..6%) and alligator (nearly 10%) were also represented (table not shown) Fewer species of large mammals, and much less deer, tapir, and alligator are found in this area compared to Suboperation 8 and peccary is absent so far in the analysis (I able 19} Small and medium animals (74%) are proportionately present in greater numbers compared to the larger (26%) taxa (I able 19)

I he differences in proportion of large to smaller animals found between Suboperation 8 (652%) and Suboperations 5 (29.6%) and 14 (25 .. 8%) are interesting to note (Table 19} Large game (defined as large mammals, deer, tapir, peccary, and crocodile) more abundantly represented at Suboperation 8 (I able 19} Suboperation 14 yielded abundant of turtle fimnal remains. I his could have been due to its proximity to the water where turtles may perhaps have been caught and butchered .. Suboperation 5, unlike the other two sites, shows a more equitable use of animals, although armadillo represents the largest portion of the sample. Further analysis will improve the sample sizes at Suboperations 5 and 14, and will facilitate more reliable observations.

Element Analysis of Large Game

The observation that large game are concentrated at Suboperation 8 is further enlightened by corresponding distribution patterns of cranial and post-cranial fragments (I able 20) Suboperation 8 displays a much larger percentage (Table 20) of cranial elements of large game (74%) than either Suboperation 5 or 14 (both 21 %} Masson (1995) has suggested that this distribution of cranial and post-cranial fragments at Laguna is representative of ritual feasting at Suboperation 8, Structure L I he larger quantity of cranial remains found at Suboperation 8 indicate that the structure may have been the location of the butchering and distribution of large animals. Masson ( 1995) attributes the predominance of cranial fragments at the site to decapitation during the processing procedure The relative abundance of large game at the ritual location of Suboperation 8, in comparison to Suboperations 5 and 14, supports the suggestion that these animals may have been more highly valued for status-enhancing activities (Masson 1995}. According to the distribution of fauna at Laguna, smaller mammals such as armadillo,

71

along with birds, fish, and turtles comprised staple food sources found from most contexts at the site (Masson 1995).

Summary

Except for the lack of fish and shellfish, the types of faunal species recovered at Laguna de On Island are comparable to those reported from other Postclassic sites in Belize (Scott 1980, 1982, Shaw and Mangan 1985, Stanchly 1995).. Differences most likely reflect local environment and changes in the abundance of particular species through time .. One such localized difference is observed in the prevalence of alligator (or crocodile) at Laguna de On Island (Structure I, Suboperation 8). Generally deer, turkey, and peccary appear to have been considered the favored taxa among the Maya as suggested by representations in art, writing and faunal assemblages (Stanchly 1995, Masson 1995). Explanations for the preference of crocodile at Laguna may depend on the relative availability of larger animal species or the preferences of the local population.

72

I able 17 I axa Identified from 1996 Laguna de On Island Sample

class taxa count (!ercent Mammalia Canidae 4 4.94%

Dasypus novemcinctu.s 13 16 05% Mazama americana 10 12 35% Odocoileus virgmianus 1 123% Rodentia (small) 2 247% Tapirus bairdii 6 7 41% Tayassu 3 3 70% small mammal 5 6.17% small-medium mammal 1 123% medium mammal 6 7 41% unidentified mammal 9 11.11% Total Mammalia 60 74.07%

Aves Aves 3 3.70% Total Aves 3 3.70%

Reptilia Crocodylidae 4 4 94% Serpentes 3 3 70% Testudines 4 4.94% Total Reptilia 11 13.58%

Amphibia Anura 4 4.94% Total Amphibia 4 4.94%

Osteichthyes Galichthyes fe/is 1 123% Osteichthyes 2 247% Total Osteichthyes 3 3.70%

unidentified unidentified 39 Total unidentified 39

I able 18. I axa Recovered from Structure I (of partly analyzed sample)

class taxa count Qercent Mammalia Canidae 1 0 .. 10%

Carnivora 2 0..21% Dasyproctidae 3 0 .. 31% Dasypus novemcinctus 33 3 .. 43% Edentata 1 0 .. 19% Mazama ameticana 76 7..90% Mustelidae 1 0 .. 10% Odocoi/eus virginianus 12 1..25% Rodentia 7 0 . .73% Tapirus tlairdii 72 7..48% Tayassusp 27 2 . .81% Ungulate 9 0.94% deer-sized mammal 32 3 .. 33% small mammal 22 2..29% small-medium mammal 2 0..21% medium mammmal 31 3.22% large mammal 80 8 .. 32% unidentified mammal 66 6.86%

Total Mammalia 477 49.58%

Aves Aves 11 1 14% Aves/Reptilia 2 0..21% Meleagris ga/lopavo 1 0.10%

Total Aves 14 1.46%

Reptilia Crocodylidae 308 32.02% Pseudemys sp 5 0 .. 52% Serpentes 7 0..73% Testudines 111 11.54%

Total Reptilia 431 44.80%

Amphibia Anura 1 0.10%

Total Amphibia 0.10%

Osteichthyes Galichthye.s felis 26 2..70% Osteichthyes 2 0..21% Perciformes 10 1.04% Tarpon altlantJcus 0.10%

Total Osteichthyes 39 4.05%

unidentified large animal 33 unidentified 326

Total Unidentified 359

Table 19. Large and Small Taxa Recovered from Subops 8

ammal s1ze taxa count gercent count gercent count gercent subop 5 subop 8 subop 14

large Mazama amertcana 10 12.35% 76 7.64% 4 4.30% Odocoifeus V1rgm1anus 1 1.23% 12 1.21% 4 4.30% deer-s1zed mammal 0 0.00% 32 3.22% 2 2.15% TapJ(US ba1rdii 6 7.41% 72 7.24% 3 3.23% Tayassu sp 3 3.70% 27 2.71% 0 0.00%

Ungulate 0 0.00% 9 0.90% 2 2.15% Crocodylidae 4 4.94% 308 30.95% 9 9.68% large an1mal 0 0.00% 33 3.32% 0 0.00%

large mammal 0 0.00% 80 8.04% 0 0.00%

Total Large Ammal 24 29.63% 649 65.23% 24 25.81%

small/medium Canidae 4 4.94% 1 0.10% 1 1.08% Carnivora 0 0.00% 2 0.20% 1 1.08%

Dasyproctldae 0 0.00% 3 0.30% 0 0.00% Dasypus novemcmctus 13 16.05% 33 3.32% 3 3.23%

Edentata 0 0.00% 1 0.10% 0 0.00% Mustelidae 0 0.00% 1 0.10% 1 1.08%

Rodentia 2 2.47% 7 0.70% 1 1.08% small mammal 5 6.17% 22 2.21% 1 1.08% small-medium mammal 1 1.23% 2 0.20% 0 0.00% medium mammal 6 7.41% 31 3.12% 4 4.30%

unidentified mammal 9 11.11% 66 6.63% 8 8.60% Aves 3 3.70% 14 1.41% 8 8.60% Reptilia 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 2 2.15%

Serpentes 3 3.70% 7 0.70% 0 0.00%

Testudines 4 4.94% 116 11.66% 33 35.48% Amphibia 4 4.94% 1 0.10% 1 1.08%

Osteichthyes 3 3.70% 39 3.92% 5 5.38%

Total Small/Medium An1mal 57 70.37% 346 34.77% 69 74.19%

I able 20 Cranial and Postcranial Remains of Large Game at Subops 8, 5, and 14

cranial/[1ost-cranial taxa count [lercent count [lercent count [lercent subop 5 subop 8 subop 14

cranial Crocodylidae 0 0.00% 202 35 .. 82% 0 000% large animal 0 0 .. 00% 33 585% 0 000% large mammal 0 0 .. 00% 61 10 .. 82% 0 000% Mazama americana 0 0 .. 00% 19 337% 2 10.53% Odocoi/eus virginianus 0 0.00% 6 1 06% 1 5..26% Tapirus bairdii 2 8 .. 33% 71 12 .. 59% 1 5..26% Tayassu 3 12.50% 26 4.61% 0 0.00%

Total Cranial 5 20.83% 418 74.11% 4 21.05%

post-cranial Crocodylidae 4 16 .. 67% 30 5.32% 4 2105% deercsized mammal 0 0 .. 00% 25 443% 2 10 .. 53% large mammal 0 0.00% 18 319% 0 0.00% Mazama americana 10 4167% 57 10.11% 2 10.53% Odocoileus virginianus 4.17% 6 1 06% 3 15 . .79% Tapirus bairdii 4 16 .. 67% 1 018% 2 10 .. 53% Ungulate 0 0.00% 9 1.60% 2 10.53%

Total Post-cranial 19 79.17% 146 25.89% 15 78.95%

Chapter Nine

Preliminary Ana~y.sis of1996 Lithics from Laguna de On Island

Mari(yn A. Masson

This chapter presents an inventory and initial chissification of lithic tools recovered from the 1996 season at Laguna de On Island .. Further analyses will examine the distribution of lithic types, use wear, raw material identification, procurement, manufacturing and recycling patterns along with other artifacts from the site in a holistic investigation of social and economic issues of Postclassic life at Laguna de On Island A total of 546 chipped stone tools were recovered from the 1996 season. These include 249 obsidian blades, 99 obsidian flakes, chips, and chunks, 3 obsidian cores, and 195 nonobsidian tools made of chert, chalcedony, or other siliceous, limestone, or quartz-like materials locally available in northern Belize .. Temporally diagnostic tools are those associated with the Middle Postclassic period, referred to as the late facet of the Early Postclassic period at Calha as defined by Shafer and Hester (1983), Hester (1985), Valdez (1987) and Michaels (1987) Similarities to Mayapan (Prokouriakoff 1962) and Santa Rita (Shafer and Hester 1988) assemblages are noted among the Laguna tools which imply contemporanaiety

A similar assemblage of lithic and obsidian tools was recovered from the 1991 season at Laguna (Masson 1993, Valdez 1993}. During the 1991 season, four obsidian arrow points were also recovered from the surface levels at Laguna, which are similar to those thought to date to the Late Postclassic period at Colha and Santa Rita Corozal (Shafer and Hester 1983}. One obsidian arrow point was recovered in 1996. The compressed nature ofPostclassic stratigraphy in the topsoils of Belize makes temporal analysis difficult, but hydration dating of obsidian points may assist in determining whether obsidian arrow points postdate the side-notched chert forms

A total of 8,453 nonobsidian lithic flakes and shatter were also recovered during the 1996 season. In the field, the all shatter and flakes were collected from excavations, where all soils were 1/4" screened .. In the field laboratory, shatter was counted according to burned and unburned pieces, and discarded Shatter was defined as chips and chunks oflithic material representing all categories of lithic debris other than platform bearing flakes, cores, or tool fragments .. Much of the shatter was burned, and appeared to have been created through heat damage .. Platform bearing flakes were also tabulated according to burned and unburned categories, and the degree of cortex present These flakes were retained and shipped to SUNY­Albany for further analysis of technological attributes and raw material identifications .. Burned flakes and shatter are thought to represent a significant variable for spatial analysis at the site, as these frequencies vary with contexts of recovery (Table 21} Structures in the Suboperation 8 and Suboperation 5b areas may have been subjected to burning (in events of abandonment, violence, or termination), as a greater amount of the lithic debris was heat shattered ( 40%) at these locations compared to other areas (I able 21)

77

Ob.sidianfrom the 1996 Season ..

Obsidian blades from the 1996 season were tabulated at SUNY-Albany, with the assistance of Alice Waid, Stephanie Sheldon, and Kevin Sheridan. Obsidian was classified according to portion and degree of wear observable macroscopically (Table 22}. Blades were small, generally ranging from 2cm to !em in width The greatest number of blades were recovered from Structures I and II (Suboperations 8 and 12 respectively, Table 22), as these were the largest excavation units. Volumetric comparisons have not yet been comp)eted, but are planned to evaluate the meaningful frequency distributions of obsidian at the site Few complete blades were recovered at the site (N=4, Table 22), and more medial fragments were found than proximal or distal. Distal fragments are low in number in most units with the exception of Suboperation 5 (Table 22), for reasons that are currently undetermined. Sample sizes are low in all units except Suboperations 8 and 12, which may affect these variable frequencies of blade portions represented.. Three of four obsidian cores were recovered from Suboperations ll (N=2) and 12 (N=l).. These areas represent ritual structures at the site, and were also the focus of most ofthe 1996 excavations which may account for this distribution. Suboperations 7 and 13, along the west edge ofthe island's upper courtyard, have high percentages of flakes compared to other areas (47..6% and 333% respectively, Table 22}

Wear observed on obsidian blades was macroscopically classified as light, medium, heavy, or not visible. Most specimens exhibited light wear, with some variability noted according to area recovered.. The percentages ofwear classifications are similar among Structures I and II (Suboperations 8 and 12,63.5% and 65 3% respectively, Table 22), as might be expected for these two nondomestic ritual areas .. Suboperations 5 and 7 exhibit higher percentages of blades with light wear (75% and 87 5% respectively, Table 22} Heavy wear is most frequent in Suboperations 5 and 14 (12 5% and 12% respectively, Table 22), areas thought to represent domestic middens ..

These interesting spatial variations in obsidian debris and wear suggest that functional activities across the site may be differentiated through further analysis of this material in conjunction with other artifact patterns .. The high number of obsidian debris (N=359) compared to nonobsidian lithic tools (N=I95) also indicates the significance of this material in domestic and ritual economies ofthis Middle Postclassic community .. As suggested from the 1991 analysis (Masson 1993, 1997b), the abundance of obsidian indicates that it was generally available through inter-regional trade networks to agrarian communities such as Laguna de On, and that it was used for a broad range of tasks formerly performed in previous periods with tools made of locally available chert or chalcedony Essentially, the devaluation of this material resulted in its commonplace use, a pattern that contrasts with its limited distribution in the earlier Classic period in northern Belize (Masson 1993}

Nonobsidian Lithic.sfrom the 1996 season.

The 195 nonobsidian lithic tools and cores recovered in 1996 include 14 blades, 7 hammer stones, 56 bifaces, 7 pr~jectile point/knives, 5 uniface/scrapers, 22 cores, 77 used flakes, 5 Calha workshop biface thinning flakes, and two ground or polished objects (Table 23} Formally manufactured Postclassic types such as lenticular and triangular bifaces are thought to have been obtained from Calha, as workshops containing manufacturing debris of these forms have been recorded at this site (Shafer and Hester 1983, Michaels 1985, Michaels 1987} Other expedient forms made oflower quality local materials available in the vicinity of Honey Camp

78

Lagoon (Laguna de On}. This pattern of obtaining fonnal tools of superior materials from Colha and manufacturing expedient tools from low grade materials is consistent with that observed from the 1991 lithic analysis from this site (Masson 1993)

From the tabulations presented in Table 23, some preliminary observations can be made. Nonobsidian blades are present in low numbers, probably due to the abundance of obsidian blades on the island.. Hammerstones are also infrequent, and were primarily found from Suboperation 8.. Further research will focus on the specific deposits of these manufacturing tools, which may represent debris associated with an occupation that predates the construction of a ritual building (Structure I) in this location ..

Bifaces were common, including expedient forms, recycled Classic period oval bifaces or tranche! adzes, thin oval bifaces that appear to be made in the Postclassic period, and fragments ofPostclassic lenticular and triangular bifaces The proximal or distal tips oflenticular and triangular bifaces can be difficult to distinguish if only small fragments are represented, although the triangular forms have a much broader angle at the base .. Lenticular forms may have been mounted as weapons for spears (Thomas R Hester, personal communication 1993) although in a residential context they occasionally display lateral edge dulling that may be related to their use as knives for cutting (Masson 1993) The function of triangular forms is difficult to ascertain, as complete specimens from Laguna de On Island do not exhibit excessive wear.

Chert pr~jectile points from the 1996 season are ofthe side·-notched and leaf~shaped varieties that are thought to date to the Middle Postclassic (or the late facet of the Early Postclassic at Colha as defined in Shafer and Hester 1983}. Although only six points were found, they were distributed in both the ritual area (Suboperation 8) and in hypothesized domestic midden areas (Suboperations 5 and 14) at the site. This pattern is different from that observed in the 1991 investigations, which showed exclusive recovery of projectile points from the Suboperation 8 vicinity (Masson 1993, 1997b}

Unifaces were found in low numbers and are variable in form Used flakes were common at Suboperations 8 and 13, and present in low numbers in all other areas .. High numbers of cores from Suboperation 8 correlates with the recovery ofhammerstones and used flakes in this location .. Sample sizes of nonobsidian lithics are generally low at all units except Suboperations 8 and 12, so interpretations based on spatial comparisons awaits the collection of increased samples from other locations

Also noted in previous analysis is the presence of low numbers of Colha workshop biface thinning flakes at Laguna de On Island. These thinning flakes appear to have been brought to the site from Colha workshops of Late Preclassic or Classic date. The site lacks a full assemblage of formal oval biface celt and tranchet adze manufacturing debris or tools, so these highly distinctive flakes of Colha material are out of context They do not appear used and they are found in a limited distribution at Structure II (Suboperation 12), suggesting their placement as offerings or some other intentional ritual or economic caching or discard behavior. It is clear from the presence of these flakes and recycled Classic period oval bifaces and tranche! tools at the site that Laguna de On Postclassic residents were obtaining limited numbers of lithic materials from earlier deposits in this region, perhaps from the Classic period occupation at the shores of the lagoon or from Colha itself Classic period tool fragments were also recovered from Postclassic assemblages at Santa Rita (Shafer and Hester 1988: 117)

79

The raw materials represented in nonobsidian tools from the 1996 season showed that the use of Calha chert was significant, and its superior grade and workability was recognized by the Laguna de On community.. A preliminary classification of raw materials shows the following frequencies: Colha chert 35 .. 68%; mottled patinated and other moderate grain locally-available chert 25 41 %; coarse grained chert 11 .. 89%; quartz blend coarse materials 8.11 %; and chalcedony 17. 84%.. A single tool was made of a granite-schist conglomerate that was probably derived from the Maya mountains in southern Belize. Further analysis of raw materials from the 100% sample of platform-bearing flakes saved from the island will provide full details of procurement strategies at this site ..

Summary

In summary, the lithic materials from the 1996 season at Laguna de On reflect diverse activities at this island village. Obsidian blades show a range of light, moderate, and heavy edge wear, and nonobsidian tools comprise a broad array of formal and expedient forms. The ritual and domestic functions of the island will be documented through the distributional analysis of these sensitive indicators. External relationships ofthe island with the manufacturing center of Colha and long distance obsidian routes are also reflected in this lithic assemblage. Plans for hydration dating and sourcing of obsidian, once accomplished, will augment the potential contributions of this data. Continuing analysis will also combine the 1991 and 1996lithic material together and lithic pattems will be considered along with other forms of artifact analysis

80

Figure 29. Lithic tools from Laguna de On Island, 1996 Season .. Iop left, bifi!Ce similar to long knives from Mayapan (Proskouriakoff I 962:F igure 28o-u), top center, stemmed or lenticular biface similar to those reported from Calha (Shafer and Hester 1983), top right, short biface similar to those from Mayapan (Proskouriakoff I 962:Figure 28x-aa), bottom left, side-notched pr()jectile point similar to Mayapan (Proskouriakoff 1962:Figure 30b), bottom right, bifacial knife or preform

A~ne

A Deane

I able 21. Burned and unburned lithic shatter (br sh and ubr sh) and platform-bearing flakes (br flks and ubr flks) from Laguna de On Island 1996.

!Subop .

!5b :5c 7 13' 8: 12 14 "De.bitage :N % •N :o/o :N : o/o ! !\' -o/o N fo/o 'N 9/o N 0 ---------~--

Yo total--~

br Ilks 66 2619 19 25.33 97 37.60' 161. 15.99 1077: ]2 09 1'75 13 94 --s37.26]629 ubr Ilks 50 19 84 25 33.33 54 20 93. 434· 43.10 1206 i 24.73 ' 614 48.92 ~ 40.55 2654 c-'-:-· ·---· br sh 101 40.08 25. 33.33 80 31 OJ 257! 25.52' 1922! 39-/]i 266 21.20_11! 16.]6 2744 '!_br sh 35 13.89 6 8.00 27 ~ 10.-/7. 155. 15.39 ' 671!13.76 1 2001 15.94. 263 3603]35i

252 75 258 1007' 4876, 1255' 730 8453 -

Table 22 Obsidian blades, cores" and debris from 1996 Laguna de On Island Suboperations, "ith tabulation of macroscopic observations of \\ear

.

Counts of Obsidian from 1996 La~una de on Island';-;Sc-ub_o~pLs=--- =~--=-;--=o-----;,-----1 Whole 'Proximal Medial Distal :Core 'Flake Chunk Chip •all

S~bop ll -- _____ -1 ~-- -- 36 71 ----iT_::_:::_: __ -;;oc'·· ==-----;;;:;;-+==='---;;-. ---2.c-·------""2"'0 ___ . -,--1 -- ----6------'2~ ------=~---~----::_

29 8 6 163 --~---;;';;:-

SIJb~p_l2 __ _ ,, ______ -----~-----'--'_ Subop 7 ________ _!J_ _____ 3 ______ ~;_ ____ o, ___ __:_o __ __::.:,., ___ --=c-

9 3 6 99

10: I 2 21

Subop 13 ___ ___ _!_ ___ _!_ 5 2 0, 9: 7 2 '

27

Subop S 0 1 -1 3 1 tsut;;;jl ll --0 -----8 15 2 0 '

2 3. 0 II 2: o, 27

---- . ------- ----- - -------· .. --:-----0; _ _____l____ ____

' . ·------ -----------i

Per,centag.,_of Obsidian fro_m 1996 laguna_ de on Island Subo_p_s_~-+~~--·~-~- __ Whole Proximal Medial Distal Core i Flake ! Chunk ! Chip ; all

---·-----·----

Subop 8 0,61% 22.09% Subop 12 2 02% 20.20%

~~~~~ 7 ______ !!:_q_qyo ----~- 1./ .. 29% Subop 13 3. 70% ------ ---

Sub~r_? ______ ~· 00~±_ _____ ? .. J.J% Subop }.t 0 .. 00% 29 .. 63~~~ f---- -----

------· -- ·--, ---o= 1356% ·- _!}6'!{, 0,00%. 1'779%' ./.91%: 3.68%' 163 51 ;2% 6 06% 2.02%' 9"09%! 3,03%' 6.06% 99

0, oo% ----.f-;;7"'.6"2"'%c:,+! --,,:_co7"6'"%-;-+-' --9~-."'52~%"',c-,-----;:;2-1'-23.81% ]8 52'!;;

28 .. 57~(.

55 .. 56{/ u

0 .. 00% ----------

711% 21,-13% -----------

-: . .JJ%

_____ , 000% 33.33% 25.93% 7 . .f1%' 27 7l.f% 11.29%! 21 . ./3% o.oo%, II 0.00% 7.11% ' 0.00%. 0.00% _!_!___

-------------~---~------

":_e~_r Ohs~ne~_~m ~a_gl)I_Ia_~e-~n Island Biatle!! (1996 sea~~~)_ __ -----·---+.::-----c---Count iPercent ---·--------·---

Li~ht Med Hea'~ 1 uta I Subop 8 75 33 /(} I 18

--------~~~=-~~-------- .... _ ! Light Med : Hea"

·-------~~- ------- cc·----L·~;;c-

Subop8 ____ 63.56% .. _ _}'7.97% • 8 .. ./7% Subop 12 19 22 .f 75 Subop 12 _ 6533'!£ _ _ 2933% ___ ____2:~3% Subop 7 7 I (/ 8 Subop 7 . 8750% ' 12.50% 0,.00% Subop 1.3 s 3 (/ 8 ----- sub~--,;13·--- 62.50% : 37.50% : -- ----o .. oo% Suhop 5 6 I I 8 sut;;;J;'S" ___ 7i0o%-12--:57i%--12.50%

... __ -----

Suhop I~ R I-I l 25 Suhop 1·4 . 32 00% , S600% • 1200% ---- -----~--!-------------,----c------~-----

L-__________________________________ ~----------------------------·--------

Table 23 Nonobsidian Lithic Tools and Cores from 1996 Laguna de On Island ..

Lithic Tools from Laguna de On Island loc9":9C'6-~-+'#c-oc;f'--T'-o';o;'ls'-'ib.-:,ve'S.;'u=b=op~--'c' ;;-;--;-;;-'t;;--o---oco-·c':c-o---:-:-~---;-;; T)pe :s._.·u_.b,..o.,.p._5>__,'-oSu__,b00o""--p7._-+i"Su__,b,.-o_,p .. 8'--'·"su..,bo=p'-'1 .. 2'-'-+I"Su..,bo=p'-'1._3'-'-+I"S""ubo=p,_1._4'--ii_-G00r .. an""d,__.T.::''--co"'t blades 1 ! i i !

flake blade --------+---o~,----:ooc,----o-I:'----:oo",---- -:col-, ---;;0 ,---c-11

macroblade : O; 0; 0 0: 01 1 i 1 blade 0. 0 6. 3, L Oi 10 stemofstemmedblade ; 0 O: li o: o; 0, 1

~',"hin"· '"b-'i:Ofa-"cr"·a"'ll"'y"'· tr=imm="e"d~b~la-d7e----'----'o"'----o:+------o-+,-----'Cl+-i ---"o~,------::0 i----10-1

subtotal· 0, o, 81 4i 1 i 1; 14 hanunerstones ' !

core hanunerstone 0, 0. 3i OJ 0 0 3 hammerstone ! lj 0 2 1' 0 0 4

____________________ ':c"~h:'~-- _ -~- _ _ .:.o~·---='-+ !,

1 ___ .::1-'; ____ ..co-r·---4--------.2

bifaces chopper : 0 o' 0' 1 0' 0] 1 expedientbiface 1' 0 21 3! o; Oi 6 leb'Cif!'a._.ce==="'----------,-----'1 c: ---·-71---"3-+!---"2T----+o-+i----+o0i:----c7:1 =cc;cc~c--------------,------c;'------;;-,,-~---"13~-----..,---c;--------"o+-. ----­oval hiface 01 o: 6! 0! ; 19

l"o"v""a"l b"i:cfa ... c"e-o_r_tr_an-c~h-.-,-,oo---cl-----l------c:-l ____ o=- --===~,o=-c'-, ======io-+·=======~ot j, =====-::::;ot•,_--_ -_ -_ -_-_-' __ --;-'C-11 narrow parallel-sided biface 0 ---O;cO -- 1 ; 0 i 0' 0 1

f"s .. te'"m=oecf""st:--e'"mm==.d~bC:,.f:--ac"e==----- ·---·---· ----0::-.-----;;-'------++----~-----;;-,---~ i 0: O; _ ____::Oj_i ___ lt! ___ __!J~--~-1

~s~~~mm~:Oe""d_-b~if,.a~c~e/~c~ho~p~p~•~r----------~------~0~------~0 _______ 0:+-' _-____ __-1~! ______ ~0~------0~j -------0-11 thin biface 0 U o, li 0,: 0! 1 f~=~~=o----· ~--·--~- -----o;- ------;;+---~-----;;-f------;;c+----Ci thinsmallo,albiface 0 0 3: o: 1 o: 4 tuncheltool 0 0 1

1 t' o: o; 2

F,"'=;c-=;'';;;-------~-~----i-----;;-----~-;;-,--~~-;;-;----~~~~~-;;t-~~-o+-~~-::oJ triangular bifacc 0 0 0 1: 0' 1 2 lele~n~ti?c~lli~a~rnuu~~-~~~~po~m~t--------------c------~o ------~oT_------~o+,------"2+-----~o-+,------~o~-------2~

hmti<"tdar bifac(>·~lknil';=-;,'.7•------~ -----;;-1: ----.::- ----5;c----"1+1----c:o-r: ----co:C,------+;i7 lenticular or triangular biface ! o_:~--- 0 0: 0: 1 i 0' 1

F==cc=cc======'-,u-;bc:t-ot"a71 i-1 -------;4 ' -:1~----;2~8+,--~1;09Cf,----;2Cj!----c2C1!----5;c6

!p~~f~~'d'k-n~n-·e-.,---.====----===--~_! ___ . ---·~' _ ----~---~,'--- ---·---~---~~----c-1 pr ojectile point blank or knife 1 · 0 0! 0: 0: 1 i 2

~l..,ea~f:"s:-.h..,ape=d'Jpo=mcct'--c---~~-----------"o'-· ____ _..o ___ .:_._ll ___ ~oc' ----"-0' c.' ___ ,o+-i --~~ projectile point, side notched 1 · 0 2 1 0: 0 1 1 ! 4 f==='-"-======--,u--:b-to-t~al -----2~--o-· ---;~. ---+o"----o::+• ------olccl----"'71 ------------~~~-----"'-----~----+,---~---~-+---~L----1 ~·-c_ra~p_e_rs ______________ -·-----· ---~·------ ----;:+-' ----;;+-----+----! ______ _ ~c=o~r-0e.::scC'rC::a"'p:=e._r ________________ -:O _____ Uc-_____ -C'-0 ___ -:2:c,-' ---~0+1 ___ __..0~! ____ ~2 unifacial scraper 0 0 0 0' 2: 0 2

l''~cr._.a,.,p~e'-r ___________ -c-_,_1

___ ~0';·-___ coc ____ _l_. 0 0 0 -~ 1->;---;-----------~'"=b=-='.::"'=ai=+. ___ _:_o : ___ o 1 2 ' 2 , o: s

f/;1/_'_<JS_ _________ ~ -----;;-•----:-----='--~:+------:oc---::1!--~~ utflk 0 1 581 21 91 01 70

~~","Ilk,"'-· ~1a-.-g-.-------------------o" ·-·--~ ·-o:~-- 3: 2J _____ t_r o :----+601 notched flake -~----OC:-_------cOc----~l+i-----..COi Oj oi---~le1 00bif~-"ac'0i..,al:OtO'hinnin""· ~--g~fl~a~ke _______ ,_ · ---':o'-'-------':0 ,----o~; ____ cs:;+-- o: o i 5 E=-'-==---=------+-------;; ~-~--cc'-------;;o+----':+--~.i-----'?---~ core 0 0 lSi 4' 01 3; 22

subtotal o · 1 , n, 13 · 10 1 3 · 1o4 miscellaneous ' , F::;;=7"==--.----------r~----o+---o-+, -~·----;;+-------;;-1--o. ---~'---c+-------c-1 lpestlefragment o' 0' 1: 1

r'=ha~p=e~dLp~eb=b=l•~--------;-,. __ -----".01 0 1 O! Oj 0 I I

..,G.:.:••..::an,_,de_:_To:;ot,_,a'-1 -------------'--7·~----'2"·----'1'-"2"-3.' ___ ..;3"-".9! __ ___,_15:::.1 ---"-9'-!, ---"19;e:5'-!

Appendix I. Analysis of Human Dentition from Laguna de On Island 1996 Skeletons, compiled by Joy Becker

Burial #5, Subop 8, Lot 20, male based on sciatic notch, estimate age in 40's (based on moderate wear on teeeth and standards based on Smith 1984, Scott 1979), seated flexed facing SW, buried in pit to west (rear) ofC-shaped building Structure II, pit intrudes into white marl bedrock, exhibits tooth filing Heavey shoveling on upper right lateral incisor, possible slight Carabelli's pit, slight enamel extensions on lower molars

Tooth inventory: maxillary left Ml, P3, C, 11, maxillary right 11, 12, C, P4, M2 mandibular left Ml, M2, M3 mandibular left 12, P3, P4, M2 or M3 (looks like M2 but not distal interproximal facet)

Pathologies: moderate calculus (including occlusal surface of upper left P3

Caries: Maxillary left: Ml (I occlusal and large distal cary at CEJ) P3 (mesial at CE J) C (distal at CEJ)

Maxillary right: P4 (distal at CEJ) Mandibular left: M3 (slight occlusal)

M2 (occlusal) Ml (slight distal at CEJ)

Mandibular right: P3 (large distal at CEJ) P4 (large distal at CEJ) M2 or M3 (2 occlusals, 1 mesial CE J, 1 lingual CE J)

Modifications: Filed upper left central incisor, filed upper right central and lateral incisors (IJJ 3, 5 or VI .3 or 6) Standards p. 59

(/ vv

Burial #6, Subop 8, Lot 46, unsexed, child age 4-5 based on tooth eruption and wear, lying on left side semi-flexed, facing north, only a few em (25 em) below the surface, pit not discernable in topsoil matrix, south of south wall of east facing C shaped structure II, beneath extensive ceramic concentration, near and beneath God K flint eccentric

Tooth inventory: deciduous maxillary left complete, maxillary right complete deciduous mandibular left- all but I 1 and 12 deciduous mandibular right- all but 11 and 12 maxillary permanent left I I, 12, M1, C and P3 in crypt

right M 1 (and P3 and 12 in crypt) mandibular permanent left Ml (11 visible in crypt)

right M 1, P3 (I 1, 12, and C visible in crypt)

Criteria for Age Assignment: (based on Ubelaker's American Indian Chart, all deciduous roots complete, occlusion on all deciduous teeth- slight on dM2 .. permanent molarserupted but not in occlusion,

development of permanent teeth: upper left 11,12 crown 3/4cc but not calcified Ml roots are 114 formed ~v12 croVvn 1/2 formed

Pathologies: field observation noted a cult on the mandible splitting it in two, but lab examination suggests this is a clear break Caries: deciduous upper left dM I -slight distal interproximal

1.2 - buccal cary r 1 t.. .. ~~~~ ~~., 1 1 - uu .... ~w-aJ \..a! J'

upper right II - large buccal cary 1.-:' - Jar ge buccal cary

lo"cr left: dM.-:'- small occlusal dM I - 2 small occlusals

lo\\er right: dM I -small occlusal dM2 - 2 small occlusals

Other observations: bifurcate upper canine roots \\/sheath connecting it (deciduous), labially deflected roots on upper central incisors (deciduous). slight carabellis pit on upper dM2's and permanent M 1· s .. shovelling on central upper permanent incisors

Burial #9 Suboperation SF, lot 132, female, age 25-30 (based on erupted M2 with light-moderate wear), lying on left side, flexed, facing west, located in bedrock pit to the west (rear) of Structure II, filed upper incisors

Inventory: Upper left: II - M2 (alveolar for M3 not visible) Upper right: 11-M2 Lower right: ll-P4 (Ml lost antemortem), M2 Lower left: I l-P4 (Ml lost antemortem), M2 looks as ifthis individual never had M3 's

Pathologies: (after reconstruction a more detailed analysis should be done, at present lingual and interproximal surfaces not visible), alveolar resorption seen on premolars, slight dentin exposure on canines and slight on molars, calculus light to moderate (only moderate on upper right molars), one healed abcess on lower right M2

Caries: upper left Ml -large distal interproximal upper left P4- medium at buccal centento-enamel junction

upper left P3 - large at buccal lower left M I - small buccal on root

lower right- none visible

Other observations: filed upper central and lateral incisors (on mesial and distal sides), upper canines filed on mesial side* incisors resemble III3, canine

canines resemble III I, p. 59 on Standards book

vvvv

Burial #7, Suboperation 5c, Lot 86, around IS years old, seated flexed in bedrock pit facing west, signs of shovelling on upper left central incisors, 2 h} poplasias on lower canines on lower l/3 of tooth Near burial #7 and burial #I 0, in possible cemetery area on upper terrace of island

I ooth Inventory: Upper left: P4, P3, C, 12, and II Upper right: II, C, P4, M I (in maxilla) Lower left: C, P.3, (P4-M.3 lost antemortem*) Lower right: II, 12, C. P3, P4 (Ml-M3lost antemortem*) * if present at ail

Pathologies: Caries Upper Left P4 , large distal interproximal C - medium distal interproximal 12 - small distal interproximal

Upper Right (M I needs to be checked after removal in skull) P4 - large distal interproximal

WeaL moderate using upper and lower P4s (Ml not in occlusion but light wear, heavier wear on incisors but serious malocclusion), extreme wear on lingual surfuce of upper anterior teeth and labial surface of lower anterior teeth, light caicul

Burial #8, Suboperation 5c, Lot - results pending

88

References Cited

Adams, Richard E. W., and Fred Valdez, Jr. 1980 The Ceramics ofColha, Belize: Report on the First Season, 1979. Ceramica de

Cultura Maya 10:72-80 Philadelphia: Laboratory of Anthropology, Temple University.

Ball, Joseph W 1978 Archaeological Pottery of the Yucatan-Campeche Coast Middle American Research

Institute, Publication 46. Tulane University, New Orleans.

1982 Appendix 1: The Iancah Ceramic Situation: Cultural and Historical Insights from an Alternative Material Class. In On the Edge of the Sea Mural Painting at Tancah­Tulum, Quintana Roo, Mexico, by Arthur G. Miller, pp .. I 05-114. Dum barton Oaks, Washington, DC

1983 Notes on the Distribution of Established Ceramic Types in the Corozal District, Belize, Central America .. In Archaeological Excavations in Northern Belize, Central America, edited by R. V Sidrys, pp. 203-220. UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Memoir 17. Los Angeles.

1985 The Postclassic That Wasn't: The Thirteenth-through-Seventeenth Century Archaeology of Central Eastern Campeche, Mexico, In The Lowland Maya

Postclassic, edited by A.F. Chase and PM Rice, pp. 273-84, The University of Texas Press, Austin.

Blake, Thomas Michael 1985 Canajaste: An Evolving Postclassic Maya State. Ph.D dissertation, Dept. of

Anthropology, University of Michigan.

Buikstra, Jane and Douglas Ubelaker, editors 1994 Standards for Data Collectionfrom Human Skeletal Remains. Arkansas Archaeological

Survey Research Series no 44.

Chase, Arlen F. 1983 A Contextual Consideration of the Tayasal-Paxcaman Zone, El Peten,

Guatemala. Ph.D Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor

Chase, Arlen F. and Diane Z. Chase 1985 Postclassic Temporal and Spatial Frames for the Maya: A Background .. In The

Lowland Maya Postclassic, edited by A Chase and P Rice, pp .. 9-23 .. University of I exas Press, Austin.

Chase, Arlen F.. and Prudence M. Rice, editors 1985 The Lowland Maya Postclassic University of Texas Press, Austin

89

Chase, Diane Z. 1982 Spatial and Temporal Variability in Pmtclassic Northern Belize. Ph.D

Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor.

1986 Social and Political Organization in the Land of Milk and Honey: Correlating the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of the Postclassic Lowland Maya, In Late Lowland

Maya Civilization Classic to Postclassic, edited by lA Sabloff and EW Andrews V, pp .. 347-3 78.. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque ..

1988 Caches and Censerwares: Meaning from Maya Pottery, In A Potfor All Reasons. Ceramic Ecology Revisited, edited by Charles C Kolb and Louana M. Lackey, pp. 81-104 Special Publication ofCeramica de Cultura Maya et al, Laboratory of Anthropology, Temple University, Philadephia.

Chase, Diane Z and Arlen F .. Chase 1982 Yucatec Influence in Terminal Classic Northern Belize. American Antiquity

47:596-614.

Chase, Diane Z. and Arlen F . Chase 1988 A Paste/as sic Perspective. Excavations at the Maya Site of Santa Rita Corozal,

Belize. Precolumbian Art Research Institute Monograph 4, San Francisco.

Coe, Michael D 1965 A Model of Ancient Community Structure in the Maya Lowlands. Southwestern

Journal of Anthropology 21:97-114

Coggins, Clemency C 1988 The Manikin Scepter: Emblem of Lineage .. Estudios de Cultura Maya 17:123-

158

Fan iss, Nancy 1984 Maya Society Under Colonial Rule The Collective Enterpri,se ofSurvival

Princeton University Press.

Fash, William L 1991 Scribes, Warriors, and Kings The City of Copan and the Ancient Maya. Thames

and Hudson Ltd, London.

Fox, John W. 1987 Maya Postclassic State Formation Segmentary Lineage Migration in Advancing

Frontier:s, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Freidel, David 1985 New Light on a Dark Age: A Summary of Major Themes. In The Lowland Maya

Postclassic, edited by A Chase and P Rice, pp. 285-310 .. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Freidel, David A and Jeremy A Sabloff 1984 Cozumel Late Maya Settlement Patterns .. Academic Press, New York

90

Freidel, David A, Linda Schele and Joy Parker 1993 The Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman's Path, William Morrow and

Company, New York. Gann, Thomas W ..

1918 The Maya Indians ofSouthern Yucatan and Northern British Honduras.. Bureau of American Ethnology 64, Smithsonian Institution,

Gann, Thomas W 1928 Maya Cities .. London and New York

Graham, Elizabeth A. 1985 Facets of Terminal to Postclassic Activity in the Stann Creek Disttict, Belize .. In

The Lowland Maya Postclassic, edited by A Chase and P Rice, pp.215-230. University of Texas Press, Austin.

1987 I erminal Classic to Early Historic Period Vessel Forms from Belize. In Maya Ceramics, edited by PM Rice and R Sharer, pp 73~98 BAR International Series 345, Oxford, England.

Graham, Elizabeth A, David M Pendergast and Grant D Jones 1989 On the Fringes of Conquest: Maya-Spanish Contact in Colonial Belize. Science

246:1254-1259

Grube, Nikolai 1992 Classic Maya Dance: Evidence from Hieroglyphs and Iconography Ancient

Mesoamerica 3(2):201-218.

Hammond, Norman, and Matthew R Bobo 1994 Pilgrimage's Last Mile: Late Maya Monument Veneration at La Milpa, Belize.

World Archaeology 26(1 ):20-34.

Hester, I hom as R. 1985 Late Classic-Early Postclassic Transitions: Archaeological Investigations at

Colha, Belize. Final Performance Report to the National Endowment for the Humanities Grants RO 20534-83 and RO 20755. Center for Archaeological Research, I he University of Texas at San Antonio. On file at IARL, University of Texas, Austin.

Landa, Friar Diego de 1944 Landa's Relaciones de las Cosas de Yucatan Translated by Alfred Iozzer.

Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 18. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Levanthal, Richard M. and Kevin H Baxter 1988 Ihe Use of Ceramics to IdentifY the Function of Copan Sttuctures. In Household

and Community in the Mesoamerican Past, edited by Richard R Wilk and Wendy Ashmore, pp,. 51-71,, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

91

Long, Richard C.E 1919 The Date of the Maya Ruins at Santa Rita, British Honduras .. Man 29:59-61, April.

Love, Bruce 1994 The Penis Codex Handbook for a Maya Priest .. University of Texas Press, Austin ..

McAnany, Patricia A 1995 Living With the Ancestors Kinship and Kingship in Ancient Maya Society ..

University of Texas Press, Austin.

Masson, Marilyn A 1993 Changes in Maya Community Organization from the Classic to Postclassic

Periods: A View from Laguna de On, Belize. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of I exas at Austin.

1995 Community Feasting Rituals and Postclassic Maya Village Political Structure: Evidence from Archaeofaunal Remains .. presented at the 1995 Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Minneapolis, MN.

1997a Reproduction of Maya Religious Ritual in the Postclassic Archaeological Record at Laguna de On Island, Belize. submitted to Ancient Mesoamerica, February 1997.

1997b Postclassic Maya Social I ransformations: A Community Level Perspective from Laguna de On, Belize Latin American Antiquity (February issue)

Michaels, George 1985 The Early Postclassic at Calha, Belize: A Summary Overview and Directions for

Future Research .. In Final Performance Report to the National Endowment for the Humanities Grants RO 20534-83 and RO 20755, edited by Thomas R. Hester, pp. 196-211 Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio. On file at I ARL, University of I exas, Austin

198 7 A Description of Early Postclassic Lithic Technology at Calha, Belize .. M A thesis, Department of Anthropology, I exas A&M University

Miller, Arthur G. 1982 On the Edge of the Sea Mural Painting at Tancah-Tulum, Quintana Roo, Mexico.

Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC

Mock, Shit ley Boteler 1994 The Northern River Lagoon Site: Subsistence, Saltmaking, and Survival on the Belize

Coast during the Late- Terminal Classic Period Ph.D.. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of I exas, Austin.

1994 Yucatecan Presence in Northern Belize Postclassic Ceramics at Calha. In Continuing Archaeology at Calha, Belize, edited by Thomas R Hester, Harry l. Shafer, and Jack D. Eaton, pp. 9-16 Studies in Archaeology 16. Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin.

92

Pendergast, David A 1981 Lamanai, Belize: Summary of Excavation Results, 1974-1980. Journal ofField

Archaeology 8(1):29-53

1982 Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize 1964-1970. Archaeological Monographs of the Royal Ontario Museum, The Alger Press, Toronto

1985 Lamanai, Belize: An Updated View. In The Lowland Maya Postclassic, edited by AChase and P Rice, pp .. 91-103.. University of I exas Press, Austin.

1986 Stability Through Change: Lamanai, Belize from the Ninth to the Seventeenth Century. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization Classic to Po,stclassic, edited by J.A Sabloff and E W Andrews V, pp. 223-250 .. University of New Mexico Press.

Pollock, HED, R Roys, L Proskouriakoft, and A Ledyard Smith 1962 Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico .. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C.

Publication 619 ..

Proskouriakoff, I atiana 1955 Ihe Death of a Civilization .. Scientific American 192:82-88

1962 Ihe Artifacts of Mayapan. In Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico, p. 321-432 .. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D..C.

Publication 619.

Redfield, Robert 1941 The Folk Culture of Yucatan. University of Chicago Press .. Chicago.

Redfield, Robert and Villa Rojas 1934 Chankom A Maya Village. Carnegie Institute of Washington Pub.. 448

Washington, D.C

Rice, Don 1986 The Peten Postclassic: A Settlement Perspective .. In Late Lowland Maya

Civilization Classic to Postclassic, edited by lA Sabloff and E W. Andrews V, pp. 301-346 University ofNew Mexico Press, Albuquerque

Rice, Prudence 1986 Ihe Peten Postclassic: Perspectives from the Central Peten Lakes In Late

Lowland Maya Civilization Classic to Postclassic, edited by JA Sabloft and EW Andrews V, pp .. 251-299 .. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Sanders, William I. 1960 Prehistoric Ceramics and Settlement Patterns in Quintana Roo, Mexico Carnegie

Institute of Washington, Publication 606, Contribution 60

Schele, Linda 1976 Accession Iconography of Chan-Bahlum in the Group of the Cross at Palenque. In

The Art, Iconography, and Dynastic History of Palenque, Part 3, edited by Merle Greene Robertson, p. 9-34. Robert Louis Stevenson School, Pebble Beach.

93

Schele, Linda and Mary Ellen Miller 1986 The Blood of Kings. Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. Kimbell Art Museum, Fort

Worth.

Scholes, Frank V and Ralph L Roys 1948{1968) The Maya Chantal Indians ofAcalan-Tixchel, Carnegie Institution of

Washington, Publication 560, Washington, D.C., (republished by the University of Oklahoma Press}

Scott, Robert F , IV 1980 Further Comments on Faunal Analysis and Ancient Subsistence Activities at Colha. In

Ihe Colha Pr~ject, Second Season, 1980 Interim Report, edited by Thomas R Hester, Jack D. Eaton, and Harry J. Shafer, pp .. 281-288.. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio, and Centro Studi e Ricerche Ligabue, Venezia San Antonio.

1982 Notes on the continuing Faunal Analysis for the Site of Colha, Belize: Data from the Early Postclassic .. In Archaeology at Calha, Belize. The 1981 Interim Report, edited by Ihomas R Hester, Harry J Shafer, and Jack D. Eaton, pp. 203-207.. Center for Archaeological Research, Ihe University of Iexas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Iexas.

Shafer, Harry J and Ihomas R Hester 1983 Ancient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize, Central America. American

Antiquity 48(3):51

1988 Appendix III: Preliminary Analysis of Postclassic Lithics from Santa Rita Corozal, Belize In A Postclassic Per.spective. Excavations at the Maya Site of Santa Rita Corozal, Belize, edited by Diane Chase and Arlen Chase, pp. 111-117. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute Monograph 4, San Francisco.

Shaw, Leslie C. and Patricia H Mangan 1985 Faunal Analysis of an Early Postclassic Midden, Peration 2032, Colha, Belize In

Late Classic-Early Po.stclassic Transitions. archaeological Investigations at Calha, Belize, edited by Ihomas R Hester, pp.45-69 Center for Archaeological Research, I he University of I exas at San Antonio, San Antonio, I exas

Sidrys, Raymond V 1983 Archaeological Excavations in Northern Belize, Central America Monograph

XVII, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles

Sinopoli, Car Ia M 1991 Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics Plenum Press, New York

Smith, Robert E. 19 71 The Pottery of Mayapan Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and

Ethnology 66. Harvard University, Cambridge.

94

Stanchly, Norbert 1995 Formative Period Maya Faunal Utilization at Cahal Pech, Belize: Preliminary

Analysis of the Animal Remains from the 1994 Field Season. In Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project Report on the 1994 Field Season, edited by Paul F.. Healy and Jaime l. Awe, ppJ24-149 .. Occasional Papers in Anthropology, no. I 0, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario.

Sullivan, Lauren Ann 1991 Preclassic Domestic Architecture at Colha, Belize. Master's thesis, Department of

Anthropology. University of I exas at Austin

Taube, Karl Andreas 1988 The Ancient Yucatec New Year Festival: The Liminal Period in Maya Ritual and

Cosmology. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Yale University.

1992 The Major Gods ofAncient Yucatan. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology 32 .. Dum barton Oaks, Washington, D.C

Thompson, l. Eric S. 1970 Maya History and Religion University of Oklahoma Press, Norman ..

Valdez, Fred Jr.. 1987 The Ceramics of Colha, Northern Belize.. PhD. Dissertation, Department of

Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge.

1988 The Ceramics ofColha, Belize. Ceramica de Cultura Maya et at 15:41-50 Philadelphia: Laboratory of Anthropology

1993 Appendix X. Obsidian Artifacts from Laguna de On Island. Included with permission in Changes in Maya Community Organization from the Classic to Postclassic Periods: A View from Laguna de On, Belize, Marilyn A Masson's Ph.D

dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin ..

1994 The Colha Ceramic Complexes. In Continuing Archaeology at Calha, Belize, edited by Thomas R. Hester, Harry J. Shafer, and Jack D Eaton, pp .. 9-16. Studies in Archaeology 16 Texas Archaeological Research Laboratory, The University of Texas at Austin ..

Valdez, Fred Jr and Shirley B. Mock 1985 Early Postclassic Settlements at Colha, Belize: Problems in Ceramic Typology and

Chronology. In Late Classic-Early Po.stclassic Transitions. Archaeological Investigations at Calha, Belize, edited by Thomas R. Hester, pp. 70-75. F ina! Performance Report to the National Endowment for the Humanities Grants R0-2053483 and R0-20755. Center for Archaeological Research, The University of Texas at San Antonio.

Valdez, Fred Jr, Marilyn A Masson and Lenore Santone 1992 Report ftom the 1991 Field Season at Laguna de On Report on file at the Department

of Archaeology, Belmopan, Belize ..

95

Valdez, Fred Jr., and Marilyn A Masson 1994 Classic to Postclassic Settlement and Architecture at Laguna de On, Belize,

Manuscript submitted for publication. On file the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas at Austin ..

Valdez, Fred Jr.., Lauren A. Sullivan and Thomas H. Guderjan 1994 Ceramics from Northern Ambergris Caye Sites .. manuscript on file at the

Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas at Austin ..

Vogt, Evon Z. 1969 Zinacantan A Maya Community in the Highlands ofChiapas. The Belknap

Press of Harvard University Press .. Cambridge, Massachusetts,

1976 Tortillas for the Gods: A Symbolic Analysis of Zinacanteco Rituals .. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Walker, Debra S. 1990 Cerros Revisited: Ceramic Indicators of I erminal Classic and Postclassic

Settlement and Pilgrimage in Northern Belize. Ph.D.. dissertation, Southern Methodist University, Dallas ..

Wolf, Eric 1959 Sons of the Shaking Earth The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

96

Acknowledgments

I he prqject owes thanks to a number of individuals who made the 1996 season possible, We would like to thank Dr .. Fred Valdez and Dr. Thomas Hester who helped to initiate research at Laguna de On in 1991 through the support of the University of Texas at Austin Mr .. Brian Woodeye, Archaeological Commissioner of Belize in 1996, was extremely helpful in launching the Belize Postclassic Project's first season at Laguna de On Island, and we are grateful to him and to the Deprutment of Archaeology for providing us with a permit for investigations.. Bert Masson and Amin Awe provided critical assistance in ruranging for our field crunp in San Estevan. We greatly appreciate the help of Armando Castillo in giving us permission to use San Estevan' s community center and assisting us in many aspects ofproject operations in this village for 1996 Ihe prqject would also like to thank the Lyon's Club of San Estevan for the use of their showers, bathrooms, and scenic dock on the banks ofthe New River .. We would also like to thank Victor Ayuso and Sonya Espat of Victor's Inn for providing the project with world class Belizean cuisine and hospitality, Armando Gomez and his son Areli also provided key assistance to the project in leasing us their boat for transportation each day to the island. Jay Crystal also helped the project considerably in providing us with fieldworthy vehicles for the project's duration. The Lee family of Lee's Chinese Restaurant in Orange Walk also assisted the project with their hospitality, providing a home away from home At SUNY-Albany, the following students have been extremely helpful in analysis of the 1996 materials: fermi fer Wharton, Alice Waid, Kevin Sheridan, and Stephanie Sheldon,

Ihe Center for Field Research Earthwatch made this season possible by funding the project for 1996 and providing us with enthusiastic volunteers who donated their time and resources to investigating the Belize Postclassic, These volunteers made valuable contributions to this prqject's research with their efforts in excavation, lab, and constructive ideas. We are patticularly grateful to Gretchen Bowder and Alison McCrae of Eatthwatch who coordinated the project Ihe Foundation for Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies also provided critical support in a grant for 1996 field research that enabled the project to achieve all of its goals for this season. The assistance of the director of this foundation, Sandy Noble Brudsley, is greatly appreciated The prqject also wishes to acknowledge the Wenner Gren Foundation, which has provided support for the bulk of project publication and reseruch before and after the field season Ibis support will culminate in a book written about this research, entitled The Postclassic Maya ofLaguna de On, Belize. Ihe Anthropology depattment of Pacific Lutheran University provided institutional support for the inception of this prqject in the 1995-1996 academic year, for which we are exceedingly gratefuL Continued institutional support of this project in the 1996-199 7 academic yeru is being provided by the Anthropology Department of the State University of New York at Albany

97