Suboperation C173B (Figure 3, Figure 6) was assigned for the areal excavation of the northwest corner of the building. Excavation was carried out only down to presumed floor level and followed the rear wall of the building for about 1.8 m and the northern wall of the building for approximately 4 m. Almost nothing in the way of artifactual materials was recovered. The corner itself was in an excellent state of repair.

Suboperation C173C (Figure 3, Figure 5, Figure 6) began as an excavation to expose the southern side of the Structure A31 stairway. It was extended to the south until it reached the southern extent of the platform; however, no corner was recovered and it is suspected that it was ravaged in antiquity by a tree. For the most part, excavation proceeded only to the base of the substructure of the building, following the presumed floor. Prior to backfilling, however, the inset corner where the stair and the substructure met was sub-floored, finding an earlier plastered surface approximately 70 cm below the level on which Structure A31 had been built (Figure 5). A large number of reconstructible ceramic vessels were recovered on the upper floor in the area immediately south of the axial stair. These vessels included domestic forms, serving wares, a possible hand drum (Figure 8s), and two censers - a Lamanai-style “Buk” incensario (Figure 8d) and a fine orange Mixtec-style incensario (Figure 8b). Much of the base of the Lamanai-style vessel lay against the side of the stairway with the rim and body pieces scattered to the south; body pieces for this vessel were also recovered in excavation C173D, but in a much eroded condition making full assembly difficult. The globular body of the Mixtec-style incensario was presumably complete, but the piece was missing its two front legs and handle; the rim may have been ground down in antiquity. Many of the body sherds for the other vessels illustrated in Figure 8 were recovered, but could not be fully reconstructed given the time constraints of the field season. Two complete chert points and a chert pick were also recovered in this area (Figure 9), along with a hammerstone. Faunal remains associated with the vessels included unidentified burnt bone and more than a dozen deer bone fragments.

The excavations into and around Structure A31 were completely backfilled at the end of the 2006 field season.

The Northwest Acropolis: Structures A61-A71.

Suboperation C5B (Figure 12) was assigned in 1985 to the clean-up investigation of a looted tomb that had been encountered in Structure A63 (originally nicknamed “Zoom” prior to mapping). A crude trench had penetrated the western facing of Structure A63, encountering the open chamber. The looters had clearly encountered materials on the bench, as this surface was completely clean and devoid of any artifactual materials. They had also penetrated the rear wall of the chamber, but had neglected to dig in front of the bench. The materials that they had removed consisted of bone and ceramic vessels (Figure 17), the majority of which were recovered on the front surface of the structure.

S.D. C5B-1 (Figure 12, Figure 14, Figure 15, Figure 16) was assigned to the tomb in Structure A63. The chamber was well constructed with an eastern bench and a southern entryway. The chamber measured 1.5 m in height by 2.2 m in length by 0.95 cm in width; the entryway extended an additional 1.05 m to the south. The bench only rose 20 cm above the western floor. The chamber encompasses 4.19 cubic meters of space, putting it in the mid-range of Caracol’s tomb volumes.
As noted in the original reports (A. Chase and D. Chase 1987:37; D. Chase 1994:136), the bone from the looted tomb was collected from the looters’ backdirt and the front of the bench area was excavated, resulting in the recovery of in situ skeletal remains and 1 vessel (Figure 17d). The analysis of the skeletal remains indicated that minimally 2 to 3 individuals were present in this tomb; these individuals were adult and 1 was identified as male and 1 was identified as female. Four ceramic vessels (Figure 17) were recovered from outside the chamber on the looters’ spoil heap. The 2006 excavations fully cleared the chamber and also the looters backdirt from their axial trench. These investigations resulted in the recovery of the additional remains of minimally 2 subadults, 1 aged 4 and 1 aged 7; these bones were recovered outside the chamber in areas that the looters had filled in as they were digging and it is unclear whether these materials originally came from inside the tomb or from another burial that was encountered in front of the tomb. Given the integrity of the 1985 skeletal remains as all from adult individuals, it is suspected that one or more child burials west of the chamber were encountered by the looters. However, additional artifacts can be added to the tomb corpus. One bone pin (Figure 18c) was recovered from inside the tomb chamber during cleaning and another bone pin (Figure 18b) was recovered from outside the chamber in lenses that indicated in had originally been inside the tomb. Also found in this same lens of dirt was a jadite “button” (Figure 18a) from an ear assemblage.

S.D. C5C-1 (Figure 13) was assigned for human juvenile long bone fragments that were sealed beneath two capstones in the eastern limit of excavation C5C. Because these remains had been placed directly on dry core fill, it is possible that the deposit was disturbed in antiquity by animals that could have easily crawled through the spaces between the stones. It is also not know if this deposit was sealed by any of the floors, although it likely was. The deposit cannot be directly dated at this point in time, although it is certainly generic Late Classic.

Structure A61 (Figure 10)

At the conclusion of the field season, all of the excavations in the Northwest Acropolis were completely backfilled.

The Gateway Group: Structure B139-B143.

Suboperation C174B (Figure 37, Figure 38) was assigned for a 2.0 m (north-south) by 1.5 m (east-west) excavation that was set over the boundary area between Structure B140 and B141. It was designed not to penetrate the building and succeeded in locating the southern facing for Structure B140. Although this facing was only two courses in height, it does demonstrate the existence of at least two buildings on the supporting platform.

Suboperation C174C (Figure 40, Figure 41, Figure 42) was assigned for a 2.0 m (north-south) by 1.5 m (east-west) excavation that was positioned over the depression north of Structure B143. Excavation quickly showed that a collapse had indeed taken place and at a depth of 1.9 m, an open air space was discovered indicative of a chultun. The chultun was almost completely filled with fill and dirt that had to be removed to get to the chamber floor. Eventually, the excavation reached a depth of 3.8 m at which point at burial was encountered. Partial ceramic vessels dating to the later part of the Late Preclassic era (Figure 44) were recovered from the matrix layer that covered the bottom of the chultun. For the most part, however, the materials within the collapse in the chultun were mixed, ranging in date from Late Preclassic to Terminal Classic. It seems likely that there was some Terminal Classic activity in this locus as a model-carved sherd was found deep within the chamber. Artifactual materials were plentiful and included: faunal remains, a stalagtite, a partial chert point, a partial ceramic labrette (Figure 45c), a partial sandstone palette, a worked shell (Figure 45b), a large obsidian blade (Figure 45d), an obsidian core, chert drills, worked shell fragments (Figure 45a); a shaped drilled sherd, drilled spondylus shell, a partial slate palette, a stingray spine (Figure 45e), and a worked deer tine (Figure 45f). An unexpected amount of chert was also recovered from the fills within the chultun. The quantity of chert (in conjunction with the antler tine) indicates that this material was being worked nearby and then perhaps purposefully redeposited in or near the chultun. The recovered chert included: 281 “chunks,” weighing 3,459.2 grams; 602 flakes, weighing 1,955.0 grams; 3 blade fragments, weighing 5.5 grams; 8 tools, weighing 39.4 grams; and 4 drills, weighing 3.6 grams.

S.D. C174C-1 (Figure 43) was assigned to the remains of two individuals who were recovered on the floor of the chultun. An adult female was to the north and a young adult male was to the south. Some lipping was present on the vertebrae of female. It is suspected that these two individuals were placed in the chultun during the Late Preclassic era, based on materials in the soils immediately above them, and then covered with the later collapse probably during the Terminal Classic Period.

Suboperation C174D (Figure 47, Figure 48) was assigned for a 6.92 m (north-south) by 1.5 m (east-west) axial trench through Structure B142. No stairway could be located on the northern side of the building platform, although two construction walls became evident very quickly. A single burial (S.D. C174D-1) was found at the base of the northernmost construction wall. Possible low facings were found immediately below the ground surface, but were impossible to confirm except for one toward the rear of the building. The crudeness of this latest construction effort was very reminiscent of some of the platforms excavated just outside of the epicenter and south of Structure B5 during the 2000 field season (www.caracol.org 2000 field report). Stratigraphically, it became apparent that this latest building effort – approximately 1 m in height – was constructed over an earlier construction that was stepped in 30 cm increments above an associated plaza floor. The rear facing for this construction was located almost immediately below the later one, and at the same angle, indicating continuity in building efforts. A deeper excavation on the northern side of Structure B142 recovered pieces of two earlier floors but little else. Ceramically, the latest construction effort at the Structure B142 locus was associated with a reconstructible burner and censer lid (Figure 50) dating to the Terminal Classic. Other interesting artifacts recovered in the structure fills included a drilled sherd, 2 partial chert points, a cave concretion, a shell inlay (Figure 54b), a sandstone palette fragment, and 2 fragments of green obsidian (date unknown).

S.D. C174D-1 (Figure 49) was assigned to a concentration of bones, primarily long bone fragments (femur, tibia, fibula) from an adult, that had been placed at the base of the northern construction wall. As these remains were actually adjacent to a large rodent hole, it may be that other bones from this interment were moved elsewhere in the borrow. There were no associated artifacts with this burial. Stratigraphically, the interment should be Terminal Classic in date.

Suboperation C174E (Figure 52, Figure 53) was assigned to a 1.5 m (north-south) by 2.5 m (east-west) axial excavation that encompassed a large portion of Structure B143. Even in this small building sequent constructions were evident. As originally constructed, Structure B143 had been bi-level. At some time the easternmost facing was raised to a level that buried the inner facing in the core of the building. Artifactual materials recovered in the building fills of Structure B143 included a hammerstone, a pyrite fragment, and 3 worked shells (2 shown in Figure 54a and 54c). However, more than 2000 pieces of chert were recovered from a fill layer to the west of the innermost facing (Figure 55). As classified, the chert that was recovered in the excavation included: 295 “chunks,” weighing 2,128.3 grams; 1,746 flakes, weighing 1,557.5 grams; 13 blade fragments, weighing 41.3 grams; 56 tools, weighing 96.8 grams; and 46 drills (Figure 55), weighing 73.8 grams. Clearly, chert working took place somewhere nearby and the debitage was redeposited as fill when the first version of Structure B143 was built.

Summary of Gateway Group

All excavations undertaken in the Gateway Group were backfilled at conclusion of 2006 field season.

Structure H2: A Looted Tomb

Significance

Acknowledgements

References

Adams, Richard E.W.

1991 [1977] Prehistoric Mesoamerica, revised edition, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Awe, Jaime J. and Christophe G.B. Helmke

2000 Fashionably Late: A Postclassic Censer from the Roaring Creek Valley, Belize. in C.S. Griffith, R. Ishihara, and J.J. Awe, Eds., The Western Belize Regional Cave Project: A Report of the 1999 Field Season, pp. 187-198. Department of Anthropology Occasional Paper 3. University of New Hampshire, Durham.

Becker, Marshall J.

1979 “Priests, Peasants, and Ceremonial Centers: The Intellectual History of a Model,” in N. Hammond and G. Willey, Eds., Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory, pp. 3-20, University of Texas Press, Austin.

Binford, Louis

1968 “Some Comments on Historical versus Processual Archaeology,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 24:267-275.

Braswell, Geoffrey E., Joel D. Gunn, Maria del Rosario Dominguez Carrasco, William J. Folan, Laraine A. Fletcher, Abel Morales Lopez, and Michael D. Glascock

2004 “Defining the Terminal Classic at Calakmul, Campeche,” in A. Demarest, P. Rice, D. Rice, Eds., The TerminalCclassic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, pp. 162-194, University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Chase, Arlen F.

1985 "Troubled Times: The Archaeology and Iconography of the Terminal Classic Southern Lowland Maya," in M.G. Robertson and V.M. Fields, Eds., Fifth Palenque Round Table, 1983, Vol. VII, pp. 103 114, Pre Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco.

1990 "Maya Archaeology and Population Estimates in the Tayasal Paxcaman Zone, Peten, Guatemala," in T.P. Culbert and D.S. Rice, Eds., Prehistoric Population History in the Maya Lowlands, pp. 149-165, University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque.
1994 "A Contextual Approach to the Ceramics of Caracol, Belize," in D. Chase and A. Chase, Eds., Studies in the Archaeology of Caracol, Belize, pp. 157-182, Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute Monograph 7, San Francisco.

2004 “Polities, Politics, and Social Dynamics: “Contextualizing” the Archaeology of the Belize Valley and Caracol,” In J. Garber, Ed., The Archaeology of the Belize Valley: Half a Century Later, pp. 320-334, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Chase, Arlen F. and Diane Z. Chase

1987 Investigations at the Classic Maya City of Caracol, Belize: 1985-1987, Pre- Columbian Art Research Institute Monograph 3, San Francisco.

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

1998 "Late Classic Maya Political Structure, Polity Size, and Warfare Arenas," in A. Ciudad Ruiz et al., Eds., Anatomia de una civilizacion: Aproximaciones Interdisciplinarias a la Cultura Maya, pp. 11-29, Sociedad Espanola de Estudios Mayas, Madrid.

2001 “The Royal Court of Caracol, Belize: Its Palaces and People,” in Takeshi Inomata and Stephen D. Houston, Eds., Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya: Volume 2: Data and Case Studies, pp. 102-137, Westview Press, Boulder.

2004 “Terminal Classic Status-Linked Ceramics and the Maya ‘Collapse:’ DeFacto Refuse at Caracol, Belize,” in A. Demarest, P. Rice, D. Rice, Eds., The Terminal classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, pp. 342-246, University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

2005 “Contextualizing the Collapse: Hegemony and Terminal Classic Ceramics from Caracol, Belize,” in S. Lopez Varella and A. Foias, Eds., Geographies of Power: Understanding the Nature of Terminal Classic Pottery in the Maya Lowlands, pp. 73-91, BAR Monograph S1447,Oxford.

in press “’This is the End:’ Archaeological Transitions and the Terminal Classic Period at Caracol, Belize,” Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 4.

Chase, Arlen F., Diane Z. Chase, and Wendy Teeter

2004 “Adding Flesh to Bones: Using Zooarchaeology Research to Answer Big- Picture Questions,” Archaeofauna 13:155-172.

Chase, Diane Z.

1994 "Human Osteology, Pathology, and Demography as Represented in the Burials of Caracol, Belize," in D. Chase and A. Chase, Eds., Studies in the Archaeology of Caracol, Belize, pp. 123-138, Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute Monograph 7, San Francisco.

Chase, Diane Z. and Arlen F. Chase

1982 "Yucatec Influence in Terminal Classic Northern Belize," American Antiquity 47: 596 614.

1996 "Maya Multiples: Individuals, Entries, and Tombs in Structure A34 of Caracol, Belize," Latin American Antiquity 7(1):61-79.

2000 “Inferences about Abandonment: Maya Household Archaeology and Caracol, Belize,” Mayab 13:67-77.

2002 “Classic Maya Warfare and Settlement Archaeology at Caracol, Belize,” Estudios de Cultura Maya 22:33-51.

2003 “Texts and Contexts in Classic Maya Warfare: A Brief Consideration of Epigraphy and Archaeology at Caracol, Belize,” in M.K. Brown and T.W. Stanton, Eds., Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare, pp. 171-188, Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek.

2004 “Patrones de Enterramiento y Cíclos Residenciales en Caracol, Belice,” in R. Cobos, Ed., Culto Funerario en la Sociedad Maya: Memoria de la Cuarta Mesa Redonda de Palenque, pp. 203-230, INAH, Mexico, D.F.

2006 “Framing the Maya Collapse: Continuity, Discontinuity, Method, and Practice in the Classic to Postclassic Southern Maya Lowlands,” in G. Schwartz and J. Nichols, Eds., After the Collapse: The Regeneration of Complex Societies, University of Arizona Press, Tuscon (in press).

Culbert, T. Patrick

1973 “The Maya Downfall at Tikal,” in T.P. Culbert, Ed., The Classic Maya Collapse, pp. 63-92, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1974 The Lost Civilization: The Story of the Classic Maya, Harper and Row, New York.

Demarest, Arthur A.

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

1997a “The Vanderbilt Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project 1989-1994: Overview, History, and Major Results of a Multidisciplinary Study of the Classic Maya Collapse,” Ancient Mesoamerica 8:209-227.

1997b “War, Peace, and Collapse of a Native American Civilization: Lessons for Contemporary Systems of Conflict,” in T. Gregor, Ed., A Natural History of Peace, pp. 215-248, Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville.

2004 “After the Maelstrom: Collapse of the Classic Maya Kingdoms and the Terminal Classic in the Western Peten,” in A. Demarest, P. Rice, D. Rice, Eds., The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, pp. 102-124, University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

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

2004 “Political Decentralization, Dynastic Collapse, and the Early Postclassic in the Urban Center of Copan, Honduras,” in A. Demarest, P. Rice, D. Rice, Eds., The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, pp. 260-287, University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Freidel, David A.

1986 “Maya Warfare: An Example of Peer Polity Interaction,” in C. Renfrew and J. Cherry, Eds., Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, pp. 93-108, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Garber, James F.

2004 Ed., The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Graham, Elizabeth

1987 Terminal Classic to Early Historic Period Vessel Forms from Belize. in P.M. Rice and R.J. Sharer, Eds., Maya Ceramics, Vol. 1, pp. 73-98. International Series 345. BAR, Oxford.

Gill, Richard B.

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

Harrison, Peter D.

1999 The Lords of Tikal: Rulers of an Ancient Maya City, Thames and Hudson, London.

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

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

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

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

Hunter-Tate, Clarrisa C.

1994 "The Chultuns of Caracol," in D. Chase and A. Chase, Eds., Studies in the Archaeology of Caracol, Belize, pp. 64-75, Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute Monograph 7, San Francisco.

Johnson, M.S. and D. R. Chaffey

1973a A Forest Inventory of Parto f the Mountain Pine Ridge, Belize, Land Resource Study No. 13, Land Resources Division, Tolworth Tower, Surbiton, Surrey, England.

1973b An Inventory of the Chiquibul Forest Reserve, Belize, Land Resource Monuments, Land Resource Study No. 14, Land Resources Division, Tolworth Tower, Surbiton, Surrey, England.

Laporte, Juan Pedro

1994 “Ixtoton, Dolores, Peten: entidad politica del noroeste de las montanas Maya,” Atlas Arueologico de Guatemala No. 2, Universidad de San Carlos, Guatemala.

1996 “Organizacion territorial y politica prehispanica en el sureste de Peten,” Atlas Arueologico de Guatemala No. 4, IDAEH, Guatemala.

2004 “Terminal Classic Settlement and Polity in the Mopan Valley, Peten, Guatemala,” in A. Demarest, P. Rice, D. Rice, Eds., The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, pp. 195-230, University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Lucero, Lisa J.

2002 “The Collapse of the Classic Maya: A Case for the Role of Water Control,” American Anthropologist 104:814-826.

Mathews, Peter

1991 “Classic Maya Emblem Glyphs,” in T.P. Culbert, Ed., Classic Maya Political History, pp. 19-29, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sabloff, Jeremy A. and Gordon R. Willey

1967 “The Collapse of Maya Civilization in the Southern Lowlands: A Consideration of History and Process,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 23:311-336.

Satterthwaite, Linton

1937a “Thrones at Piedras Negras,”University Museum Bulletin 7(1):18-23.

1937b “Identification of Maya Temple Buildings at Piedras Negras,” Publications of the Philadelphia Anthropological Society 1:161-177.

Scarborough, Vincent

1998 “Ecology and Ritual: Water Management and the Maya,” Latin American Antiquity 9:135-159.

2003 The Flow of Power: Ancient Water Systems and Landscapes, SAR Press, Santa Fe.

Teeter, Wendy and Arlen F. Chase

2004 “Adding Flesh to Bones: Using Zooarchaeology Research to Answer Big- Picture Questions,” Archaeofauna 13:155-172.

Thompson, J. Eric S.

1954 The Rise and Fall of Maya Civilization, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Tourtellot, Gair and Jason J. Gonzalez

2004 “The Last Hurrah: Continuity and Transformation at Seibal,” in A. Demarest, P. Rice, D. Rice, Eds., The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, pp. 60-82, University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Webster, David L.

2000 “The Not So Peaceful Civilization: A Review of Maya War,” Journal of World Prehistory 14(1):65-119.

Webster, David L., AnnCorine Freter, and Rebecca Storey

2004 “Dating Copan Culture-History: Implications for the Terminal Classic and the Collapse,” in A. Demarest, P. Rice, D. Rice, Eds., The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, pp. 231-259, University of Colorado Press, Boulder.

Willey, Gordon R.

1990 “General Summary and Conclusions,” Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala 17(4), Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, Cambridge.

Willey, Gordon R. and Demitri Shimkin

1973 “The Maya Collapse: A Summary View,” in T.P. Culbert, Ed., The Classic Maya Collapse, pp. 457-501, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

TABLE 1: Caracol Project Members: 2006 Field Season

Staff:

Arlen F. Chase C1
Diane Z. Chase C2

Amy Morris C111
Jorge Garcia C144
Amanda Groff C150

Andrea Slusser C173
Andrew Tetlow C174
Kim Harrod C175
Lydia Pittman C176

Belizean Labor:

Rita Wilshire
Angelica Meneses
Alicia Hernandez

Saul Galeano
Julio Galeano
Jaime Iglesais
Carlos Ivan Mendez
Gustavo Mendez Jr.
Asterio Moralez
Anthony Wiltshire

On-Site Visitors:

Chris Parkinson (UCF Biology colleague)
Norman Edwards (UCF Maya Studies student)
Elena Benard (UCF Biological Graduate student)
Joyce Brown (UCF Biological Graduate student)
Amanda Cooper (UCF Biological Graduate student)
Mary Anne Kovosy (UCF Biological Graduate student)

Figures: