PROBLEMATICAL DEPOSITS IN MAYA ARCHAEOLOGY

The “problematical deposit” is an intriguing yet poorly understood terminological category in the archaeology of the Maya Lowlands. Problematical deposits generally resemble middens in composition but appear ritual in context, as they are often located at the centerline of monumental, ceremonial architecture (Houk 2000). Many problematical deposits have been interpreted as the archaeological traces of ritual behavior associated with the “termination” of structures or whole sites. In the Three Rivers Region of northwestern Belize, where Blue Creek is located, problematical deposits have been reported at other sites, such as Dos Hombres, where Brett Houk (2000) has described a thorough chronological assessment of a problematical deposit dating to the Terminal Classic period. Because many sites in the Three Rivers Region were depopulated during the Terminal Classic, problematical deposits should be regarded as important sources of data pertaining to the political demise of centers and the apparently large-scale abandonment of settlements in the region.

Termination ritual deposits have been described as either desecratory (Garber 1986) or reverential components of a pan-Maya ceremonial program of cyclical destruction and renewal. James Garber (1986:117) characterizes them as involving the intentional deposition and scattering of decomposed limestone, various ceremonial artifacts, and burned and smashed ceramic vessels. Sherds from spatially separate areas in these deposits often fit together, prompting the inference that whole vessels were ceremonially smashed and then scattered. Deposits that seem to fit this description have been found at various sites throughout the Maya Lowlands. In Belize, they include the sites of Cerros (Friedel 1986) and Dos Hombres (Houk 2000).

The practice of piling and scattering broken potsherds in ritually important architectural spaces at different Maya sites is likely a component of a larger program of ritual expression. However, classification of deposits into “behavioral types” such as “termination ritual deposits,” based on apparent similarities from one to the next on the ground obscures the range of variety in Maya ritual behavior. The ceramic contents of individual “termination ritual deposits” have rarely been thoroughly quantified and compared with other depositional categories. Although partially refitting sherds are commonly found across levels, the inference that these deposits include the broken parts of multiple whole vessels has never been effectively tested.

Until real similarities are demonstrated across sites, deposits that appear contextually similar should not be put into any category that suggests a “type” of ritual behavior that is common across the lowland Maya culture area. Interpretation of problematical deposits as traces of specific kinds of ritual practice requires validation through systematic analysis of their content.

SPECIAL DEPOSIT 1 AT BLUE CREEK

The focus of this paper, the problematical deposit called Special Deposit 1 (SD 1), found at Blue Creek, appeared to meet the criteria for a “termination ritual deposit” on the ground, and thus the contents of SD 1 and their distribution were investigated to understand better the behavior resulting in this deposit. The relationship of SD 1 to Structure 3, particularly its interference with access to the building, suggests that the structure was undergoing a change in function or became defunct at the time the materials were deposited.

There are a variety of possible ritual and nonritual interpretations of SD 1. It may indeed be the remains of ritual actions associated with the abandonment of Structure 3. The “termination ritual” concept, for example, implies a ritual event, focused on Structure 3, that included the intentional smashing and layering of vessels. An alternative explanation involving ritual actions is that SD 1 includes the redeposited remains of ceremonial activities such as feasting practiced elsewhere at the site of Blue Creek.

Alternatively, SD 1 may represent an accumulation of material of a nonritual nature, deposited over a lengthy period of time, rather than a single event focused on Structure 3. SD 1 could be provisionally discarded architectural fill material, originally intended for an unrealized construction project at Structure 3. It could also simply be terminal occupation debris left by the final occupants of Blue Creek. Peter Harrison (1999:196–198) has suggested that similar deposits at Tikal's Structure 5D-46 represent the debris of the final occupants of this structure and site. Parts of the same vessels were found widely separated within these middens, like those in “termination ritual deposits”, although Harrison (1999:196–198) infers that this indicates wide intervals between bouts of cleaning.

Through our investigation of the ceramic contents of SD 1, we discovered a need for refinement of the concepts used to characterize depositional behavior. Difficulty in differentiating “terminal occupation debris,” “ritual debris,” and “termination deposits” is largely attributable to a gap between knowledge of the Maya belief system and reconstruction of ritual behavior archaeological data.

The Architectural Context of SD 1

Blue Creek was occupied from at least the Middle Preclassic (beginning ca. 800 b.c.) through the Terminal Classic (a.d. 600–900/1000) (Table 1). As Guderjan (2004) described in his paper, the site core at Blue Creek comprises two major architectural groups: the Main Plaza (Plaza A) and a linear arrangement of structures, Plaza B, located northeast of Plaza A. In addition, recent fieldwork has revealed Plaza C, a less developed but no less monumental platform just to the south of Plaza A. SD 1 covered the front of Structure 3, which is one of two tall, pyramidal structures occupying the eastern side of Plaza A (Figure 2).

Ceramic chronology for the site of Blue Creek, northwestern Belize

Site map of the core area of Blue Creek showing the locations of Plazas A, B, and C and the location of Structure 3 in Plaza A. (Originally mapped by Michael Lindeman; computer work by Greg Johnson, Joe Sakaduski, and Tom Dolezal; modified by David Drier.)

None of the investigations conducted at either of these two structures (Figure 2, Structures 2 and 3) have supported Guderjan's (2004:238–239) conjecture that the buildings possess morphological similarities to E-Group architectural complexes as proposed by Oliver Ricketson and Edith Ricketson (1937) or Karl Ruppert (1940). The archetypical form of these complexes has been defined as “three small buildings on a single platform defining the eastern side of a plaza” and “a large pyramid structure” on the western side (Ruppert 1940:222). While the designated E-Groups demonstrate some significant levels of variation (Ruppert 1940:224, 227, Table II), to the point that many could not have functioned as actual solar markers, their importance as a formal and stylized ritual assemblage has been well documented (Aveni 1994; Chase and Chase 1995). In contrast to these groups, the eastern side of Plaza A contains only two structures, and, as our excavations have documented, they are set directly upon the plaza surface, not on a common platform.

Instead, the location and design of the buildings clearly resemble eastern shrine structures identified at Tikal and elsewhere (Becker 1971, 1972; Coggins 1975; Gann 1927; Haviland 1981; Leventhal 1983; McAnany 1995; Thompson 1931; Welsh 1988). Based on architectural design attributes, human remains, and associated artifacts, eastern shrines appear to have functioned as foci of ancestral veneration and corporate group ritual (Becker 1971; Leventhal 1983; McAnany 1995, 1998). Although most commonly recognized in residential groups within site settlement zones (e.g., Gann 1927; Leventhal 1983; Welsh 1988), the eastern shrine pattern has also been noted in monumental public plazas (Becker 1972; McAnany 1995:58), where it most likely represents ancestor enshrinement for the site's “ruling elite.” Multiple eastern shrines are rare but have been identified (Haviland 1981) and used to suggest an increased level of social status for the residents of the group in relation to other compounds.

Excavations at Structure 3 in 1997 identified one major construction phase and a later minor extension of the base of the stairs. The structure had a wide central stairway, large stair side outsets, and rounded corners and appears to have been built without a superstructure (Figure 3). On the building's center line, at the base of the stairs, was a 3 m wide vaulted masonry shrine. A large limestone boulder, 60 cm in height, had been set into the floor in the center of the shrine's interior chamber. A previous discussion of the structure (Driver and Wanyerka 2002) suggested that the shrine and boulder represent components of an architectural feature identified by Karl Taube (1998) as a “hearthstone stairway shrine” and as such constitute a layered creation metaphor that would have played an important role in the construction of sacred landscapes for the Maya of Blue Creek.

Isometric drawing of Structure 3 showing central staircase and shrine.

During the excavations, a dense concentration of ceramic sherds and dark soil was encountered on Structure 3's stairway. SD 1 was located along the building's centerline and extended 1.2 m into the plaza and 2.2 m up the slope of the mound (Figure 4). The material entirely covered the remains of the stairway shrine and fanned out from its sides, burying the lowest four to five steps of the stairway. Unfortunately, the northern portion of the deposit had been destroyed by a large looter's trench, and further disturbance had occurred when the trench was backfilled for safety in 1992. As a consequence of the extensive disturbance, excavations concentrated on the relatively intact southern portion of the deposit, which appears to represent approximately two-thirds of the original. The deposit was included within an excavation trench, Operation 5C, that was placed to clear the basal treads of the building's stairway and was excavated in several arbitrary lots to maximize the possibility of examining spatial variations within the deposit. To ensure maximum recovery of all associated artifacts, the matrix from these lots was screened through a quarter-inch mesh.

SD 1 during excavation at Blue Creek. (a, c) Surface of SD 1 in front of Structure 3 showing high concentration of sherds. (b) Detail of surface of SD 1 showing intact whole vessel. (d) Density of sherds in SD 1 through doorway of central shrine on Structure 3. (e) Central shrine on Structure 3 after SD 1 has been excavated.

The sherds were embedded in a dark soil matrix containing a high concentration of carbon. There were only seventeen nonceramic artifacts recovered from the deposit. These consisted of four chert bifaces, one chert blade, two obsidian blades, and ten obsidian blade fragments. Eleven of the obsidian blades and fragments and two of the chert bifaces, were recovered from inside the basal shrine chamber where they were located adjacent to, or on top of, the large boulder. Within the chamber, the matrix containing the sherds was dark black and appeared to consist of almost pure carbonized material with little soil intermixing. The boulder and the walls of the chamber were heavily stained with carbon from the matrix. This carbon film extended up the south wall to a height of 32 cm, and 38 cm up the east wall, and apparently represented the maximum extent of SD 1 when it was initially deposited within the chamber. Based on the height of this film it appears that the limestone boulder had originally been almost totally buried by the material. The unusually high concentration of sherds within SD 1, compared with other deposits from Blue Creek, suggested that SD 1 was unusual and worthy of a more detailed analysis.

SUMMARY

In summary, the materials of SD 1 appear to represent a secondary deposit placed on the shrine and stairway of Structure 3. The material was most likely acquired from an undiscovered primary midden that accumulated from feasting rituals held in or near Plaza A at Blue Creek. The redeposited material was dumped in high concentrations both on the floor inside the shrine and on its central feature, as well as outside along its sides, atop its roof, and over the lower portion of Structure 3's stairway. This completely blocked off the interior of the shrine and would have greatly limited access to the summit of Structure 3. Although the chronological distribution of the ceramics indicates that much of this material was deposited in the original midden over a long period of time, the high percentage of Late and Terminal Late Classic sherds in SD 1 suggests that much of the final material was generated during ritual events that occurred just before the abandonment of Blue Creek. Because the feature was not internally stratified, and because its location effectively would have ended use of the basal shrine and a large portion of the main stairway, it appears that only this final act of secondary deposition could be assumed to have occurred as a single event. SD 1 thus appears to represent the remains of complex termination activities directly associated with the abandonment of the structure, and perhaps the site itself, but much of the material used in the Terminal Classic event had been produced by long-term feasting-refuse discard behaviors. The presence of Dos Bocas (Late Classic II) and Booth's River (Terminal Classic) Ceramic Complex materials suggests a Terminal Late Classic terminus post quem for the occurrence of the deposit, as well as the implied ritual and structural abandonment.

Problematical deposits throughout the Maya Lowlands reveal information about changes in the functions of buildings with which they are associated. In some cases they are related to the addition of new layers of construction. At Cerros, for example, “termination ritual deposits” were found just beneath new levels of construction in context with dedicatory caches. David Friedel and Linda Schele (1989) have suggested that these deposits represent ritual complements to dedication rites. In other cases, these deposits may relate to the abandonment of structures, which simply became convenient places to put trash (Harrison 1999). At any rate, they are important aspects of the archaeological record to consider when attempting to understand dynamic cultural processes, because they signify shifting relationships between people and their built environment.

Variation in the content and in the spatial and temporal contexts of problematical deposits calls for careful investigation of individual cases, prior to their interpretation. This is vital to understanding the variety of practices that may underlie them. Furthermore, we should attempt to study problematical deposits, whether ritual or not, in terms of the behavior that created them. Interpretation of ritual behavior should not be confused with the reconstruction of aspects of the Maya belief system.

At this point, our theoretical and methodological tools are inadequate for confirming the likelihood that problematical deposits represent particular behaviors. However, analyses of the contents of such deposits can yield valuable information regarding their cultural formation processes. Our analyses of SD 1 at Blue Creek demonstrate that certain behaviors, such as cumulative deposition, may be reliably inferred from archaeological remains, while others, such as the breaking of whole vessels, may not. The contents of SD 1, its lack of whole vessels, and the wide vertical separation within the deposit of refitting sherds indicate that it is a secondary deposit, not the single ritual event involving the smashing of whole vessels on Structure 3 at Blue Creek as described by Guderjan (2004). The quantitative analyses of the contents of SD 1 described in this paper have complemented our knowledge of its context. Clearly, a sharper awareness of how the content of problematical deposits contrasts with that of other kinds of deposits, within and between sites, will aid in reconstructing the behaviors that created them.

RESUMEN

Se presentan los resultados de nuestro análisis del contenido y contexto de un “depósito problemático” del clásico terminal en el sitio de Blue Creek, en el noroeste de Belice. Consideramos los distintos comportamientos, ritual y otro, que a lo mejor asuman responsabilidad del depósito. Discutimos que el depósito es secundario, o sea que, no es el resultado de un ritual terminal en que vasijas enteras fueron estrelladas en la fachada (parte delantera) de una estructura monumental (Estructura 3) en el centro del sitio. Un análisis esmerado de las cerámicas en el depósito, específicamente el número de vasijas enteras y las formas de las vasijas representadas, juntos con consideración cuidadosa de la evidencia estratigráfica, sugerimos que es posible que este depósito problemático represente los transportados restos de varios banquetes que ocurrieron en otro lugar dentro del sitio y, a una fecha posterior, fue transportado dicho depósito a Estructura 3. La investigación que presentamos aquí tiene implicaciones importantes para entender los comportamientos y los sucesos que ocurrieron antes del abandono de los sitios de los maya durante el período clásico terminal. Además, ofrecemos una metodología para la interpretación de los depósitos problemáticos que con frecuencia no se encuentran analizados, y demostramos que la investigación detallada de tales depósitos contribuye a una mayor comprensión del comportamiento del ritual de los maya.