Archives

During the High Middle Ages, whilst Western Europe was still coping with the sociopolitical disorder and economic decline which had engulfed the continent since the fall of Rome, the Hohokam of the North American Southwest were reaching their pinnacle of economic prosperity and social organization (Brown 1988: 1-61; Smith 2004: 14). Interestingly, the Hohokam or ‘those who have gone before’ are not as well known as some of their contemporaries, such as the Pueblo III era Anasazi, the Aztecs and the late-Classic/Postclassic Maya (Justice 2002: 275; Milner 2009: 680; Webster and Evans 2009: 596). Nonetheless, the Hohokam were a productive and expansive culture, whose innovations influenced subsequent Native American and post-Columbian generations (Browman et al. 2009: 320; See also Smith 2004: 23-93).

Center to Hohokam culture was their technologically sophisticated canal engineering which was utilized to irrigate numerous sub-communities (Abbott 2000: 48). At its peak (c. AD 1150-1450), the Hohokam hydraulic system was the largest of the day and provided water (and consequently food) to tens of thousands of rural inhabitants, rivaling the excellence of the ancient Roman aqueducts — an urban engineering marvel (Medchill 2012, pers.comm.; Logan 2002: 31; cf Aicher 1995: 6). Moreover, through a vast array of human-made waterways, otherwise disunified subcultural ‘villages’ were integrated into a highly complex agricultural based society (Abbott 2000: 143; Abbott et al. 2003: 15). Thus, one may argue, that the increasing needs of an agrarian society was an incentive for the centralized management of inter-communal water facilitation, which in turn resulted in a closely knit farming society that was regionally unsurpassed in crop production (cf Milner 2009: 692, 694).

How is archaeological survey and excavation changing our understanding of Hohokam agriculture and irrigation? To answer this, I shall critically discuss several examples from both the Preclassic (c. AD 700-1150) and Classic (c. AD 1150-1450) Hohokam Periods. Specifically, I will draw from a host of archaeological subcategories such as botanical, hydrological and settlement patterns, with some perspectives coming from my recent fieldwork at the Riverview Archaeological Project.

Part I: The Dry Farmers

Evolving Cultigen Patterns

Research into the selection of agricultural crops may be a rather unique reflection of the evolution of Hohokam irrigation. For example, archaeobotanical evidence has revealed that cultigens, such as the legume tepary and the herb amaranth (Fig. 1), were popular with the Classic Hohokam especially during the Sacaton-Soho (Sedentary) transition phase (c. AD 1050-1150) (Browman et al. 2009: 320-321; Elson 1998: 7; Barnes and Breternitz 1988: 54). Other agricultural genera excavated from Classic Period contexts include cucurbita (squash) and P. vulgaris (common beans) (Foster 2012: 39; Kwiatkowski 2003: 50). This is in stark contrast to their more homogenous Preclassic taste for ‘traditional’ cultigens such as maize — a species found sparingly in Classic contexts but abundantly in Preclassic phases (Browman et al. 2009: 316; cf Foster 2012: 91). Some have explained this apparent disparity between Preclassic and Classic horticulture as indicative of archaeological bias from poor sampling techniques (See Browman et al. 2009: 316, 318).

Perhaps there is validity to this argument. Funding for Hohokam field research has been infinitesimal since the start of the Great Recession and this has impacted specialist studies (Howard 2012, pers. comm.). However, an equally valid interpretation is that a growing diversity of plant based food products during the Classic Period was a direct result of expanding farming communities; a development caused by the increasing sophistication of the canal system and exploitation of arable land (See also pre-Columbian ‘soil changes’ in Fish 2000: 258-259). Arguably, the plethora of these otherwise ‘Mesoamerican’ species in Classic Hohokam contexts implies escalating trade with the south which may be the product of increased socioeconomic complexity — a process also reflected in Hohokam irrigation (see below) (Abbott  2003: 15; contra Foster 2012: 91–92).

As the irrigation systems became more integrated, farming intensified and the Classic Period Hohokam added to their subsistent resources by domesticating wild plant types as can be seen in the cultivation of the monocot agave, an arid perennial (Phillips 2009: 698). Additionally, survey and excavation of several sites, such as Hodges, have indicated that these ‘transplanted desert species’ included the now virtually extinct lycium berlandieri (a Southwest American wolfberry), hoffmannseggia densiflora (a rushpea potato) and a variety of species from the subfamily chenopodioideae for pseudocereal usage (Gibbon 1998: 364; Fish 2000: 260; Hodgson 2001: 236; Moerman 2010: 128, 437; Scupin and DeCorse 2003: 193). Moreover, the Hohokam cultivated the genus of hordeum known as pusillum (a wild grass), most likely to provide a crop that could be harvested year-round (Hodgson 2001: 66). However, as the Civano Phase Hohokam (c. AD 1300-1375) were faced with horrendous cycles of droughts and floods which negatively impacted their ecosystem, they were forced to rely on broader subsistence strategies (Elson 1998: 7; Howard 2012, pers. comm.; Phillips 2012, pers. comm.).

Living off the Land

For example, evidence from the Tucson occupation zone (see below) suggests that the Hohokam established seasonal camps to obtain supplemental food sources from the ‘thriving desert’ (Fish et al. 1992a: 14-17; Blythe 2009: 45). On the other hand, these ‘outposts’ may have been positioned in familiar terrain for the express purpose of exploiting certain wild species to support communal sustenance. For instance, archaeological evidence has indicated that villagers foraged for cacti fruit from species such as C. gigantea (saguaro), which became an essential staple of their diet (Phillips 2009: 692). However, it should be noted that statistical analysis of cacti density patterns has implied that systemic foraging of C. gigantea seeds would hardly meet the needs of a pre-Columbian village community (Kwiatkowski 2003: 52-54). Whatever the case may be, arguably the Hohokam maintained a somewhat ‘semi-hunter-gatherer’ lifestyle (cf Bayman 2001: 273-274).

Fascinatingly, excavations of food processing sites at Nogales revealed the usage of plant based foods and herbs as medicine (Eppinga 2002: 10-11). It therefore follows that the Classic Hohokam possessed at least a rudimentary understanding of nutritional values. From this premise, one may argue that simple nutritional requirements may have been a factor in Classic Period horticulture. For example, archaeozoological analyses of animal bones excavated from sites in the Phoenix and Tucson areas have suggested that the dramatic escalation in the number of settlements during the Classic Period caused a precipitous decrease in the local wildlife (Sheridan 2012).

Logically, any decline in wild game would have resulted in a corresponding reduction in dietary sources of ‘complete proteins’ (See Gropper and Smith 2005: 239). Consequently, cultigens that contain the essential amino acid lysine — such as amaranth — would have become highly valuable to a predominately agrarian culture (Huckell and Toll 2004: 90-91; See also Browman et al. 2009: 321; cf Sheridan 2012). What may be inferred is that the Hohokam, potentially, became victims of their own success in irrigation and agriculture. Regardless, it is increasingly clear from the archaeological evidence that similar to their engineering feats, the Hohokam had designed a complex agricultural system.

Part II: Irrigation and Settlement Structure

The Sacredness of Water

Prehistoric canal research of the ‘occupation zones’ has greatly changed our understanding of Hohokam irrigation by revealing its role in sociopolitical structure (Howard 2012, pers. comm.). A role that evolved in no small way from the Hohokam’s concept that water was sacred — a celestial gift from God (Medchill 2008, pers. comm.; See also Lockard 2008: 245). Thus, water was intimately linked to inter and intra social structures. A unique example of this association may be found in the area known as Canal System Two, or CS-2, where three identified sites may have been part of a intercommunal nexus bound by irrigation needs (Abbott 2000: 67; cf ‘irrigation communities’ in Bayman 2001: 273, 287).

Casa Buena & the Grand Canal Ruins

Northwest of the Salt River, excavations carried out at the site of Casa Buena revealed an expansive Classic Period village settlement which, interestingly, possessed a large platform-based mound (Abbott 2000: 67-68). This is not uncommon. Hohokam mounds have been found elsewhere (Fig. 2) in the Salt River area and it has been suggested that they served a ritualistic function (Howard 2012, pers. comm.). However, northeast of Casa Buena another mound was found at the Grand Canal Ruins leading archaeologists to speculate that there was a link between the two settlements (Abbott 2000: 68, cf 147). To be sure, excavated pottery sherds from Casa Buena and the Grand Canal Ruins revealed a high degree of exchange in locally produced ‘plainware’ between the two communities, suggesting a ‘social relationship’ of some sort (See Abbott 2000: 145-148). This may be supported from similar burial practices vis-à-vis the inhumation/cremation ratio, and the analogous types of grave goods (Mitchell and Brunson-Hadley 2001: 58).

Pueblo Grande

Figure 3: An assemblage of artifacts, specifically red-on-buff pottery sherds and lithics from Canal One (Riverview). Photo courtesy of Heidi Emma (2012)

Southeast of these sites is Pueblo Grande, a village which possessed a local pottery industry as well (Abbott 2000: 18). However, here ceramic production was on a much more prodigious scale. For example, chemical analysis has revealed that a wide spectrum of Salt River sand types and outcrops were employed for locally produced pottery fabrics such as plainware (Mitchell and Brunson-Hadley 2001: 46; Abbott 2000: 79-83). Such data underscores the scope of their ceramic industry in comparison to their contemporaries (cf Abbott 2000: 147-151). Yet, excavations also revealed an unusually high quantity of the socially coveted redware (cf Fig. 3), a non-local ceramic unobserved in contexts at Casa Buena and the Grand Canal Ruins (Abbott and Walsh-Anduze 1995: 93-94; Abbott and Schaller 1994: 100). Thus, it may be plausible to deduce that Pueblo Grande was a ‘regional’ socioeconomic center — but to what end?

Irrigation Alliance

Uniquely, all three of these sites shared two CS-2 canals in what is labeled the ‘North Occupation Zone’ (See Abbott 2000: 87). However, what is captivating is the fact that Pueblo Grande is strategically situated at the head gates of both canals — tactically in a position to exhibit influence over the other two sites if desired (Earle and Doyel 2008: 34; cf Yoffee 2004: 11-12). What can be said then? Perhaps the ruins of the Grand Canal are in actuality a colony of Casa Buena ‘pioneers’, both of which formed an axis with Pueblo Grande — itself responsible for the water management and irrigation development of the area (cf Abbott 2000: 147; Fish et al. 1992a: 15; Morgan 1994: 108; Abbott et al. 2003: 15). Under such circumstances, Casa Buena and the Grand Canal Ruins could be viewed as the ‘peripheral’ to a Pueblo Grande ‘center’ (See ‘site hierarchy’ in Renfrew and Bahn 2008: 184).

Equally, Pueblo Grande may have used their ‘water rights’ as leverage on neighboring polities to compel ‘membership’ in a canal system they monopolized (See Abbott and Schaller 1994: 101). To be sure, it has been suggested that disputes over ‘canal integration’ formed the foundation of intersocial organization for the early Classic Period (Abbott et al. 2003: 15). Moreover, such ‘interpolity transactions’ may explain the disparities between Pueblo Grande and Casa Buena/Grand Canal Ruins pottery types (cf Maya ‘interpolity competition’ in Rice 2009: 123). For example, it has been suggested that redware exchange was used in a ‘reciprocal’ manner between village families (Abbott 2000: 139-140; cf Renfrew and Bahn 2008: 360-361).

Considering its value, however, it is equally plausible that redware was a form of payment for services rendered from one village to another or a symbol of respect to the social hierarchy of a community (cf ‘Hohokam chiefdom’ in Earle and Doyel 2008: 33). Thus, it may be posited that the Pueblo Grande-Casa Buena-Grand Canal Ruins’ sector constituted an agricultural league, consisting of semiautonomous villages bound by a common need for water (cf Yoffee 2004: 11-12).

Early Irrigation and the complexities of a Civilization

In the past, archaeologists interpreted the Hohokam ‘canal social system’ (see above) as a product of diffusion from pre-Columbian Mexican cultures (Foster 2012: 39). However, this has been disputed as radiometric dating indicates that the earliest Hohokam canal — a ‘small ditch’ in the vicinity of Riverview — was constructed during the 1^st century AD (Earle and Doyel 2008: 31; contra Fig. 4). In addition, researchers have concluded that the Hohokam of the Formative Period (c. AD 1-750) were ‘dependent on irrigation’ as early as the middle of the first millennium AD (Phillips 2009: 692). This is in no doubt a result of Preclassic subsistence requirements brought on by the gradual sedentism of the Sacaton Phase (c. AD 750-1050) (See Phillips 2009: 698). It is therefore logical to assume that the demands placed on older, less sophisticated canals would be too great. Consequently, a ‘Preclassic’ construction boom in ‘single ditch’ canals took place, thus setting the stage for the Classic Period integration (Earle and Doyel 2008: 31-32).

__________________________________

Figure 4: Riverview’s Canal One excavation (in progress) as it appeared on April 16, 2012. At this point during the excavation it was assumed that there were actually two canals running parallel to each other, hence the great length of the trench. Regardless, after weeks of digging — old school archaeological style — our sixteenth trench intercepted the first Prehistoric waterway at the site. Of course, the full scope of the discovery was not fully realized for several weeks. Photo by Paul J. De Mola (2012)

__________________________________

Interestingly, it appears that the causes behind Preclassic irrigation development parallel the socioeconomic factors which drove the hydraulic engineering of the Classic Period. Moreover, while archaeology has definitely increased our understanding of Hohokam irrigation and agriculture, the various evidences presented here seem to suggest that one cause was the catalyst for all changes: sedentism. However, we should not assume that the Hohokam were an entirely sedentary culture at any stage of their evolution. For example, surveys of the Tucson landscape have indicated that the mountainous topography was unsuitable for the type of large scale irrigation seen in the north occupation zone. This may be supported by the late arrival of irrigation in this area (Earle and Doyel 2008: 31).

In addition, ethnographic studies have inferred that the Tucson Hohokam made use of both anthropogenic and natural reservoirs to store water for agricultural purposes (Bayman 2001: 273-273; Fish et al. 1992b: 43). However, could not a mobile community utilize ‘large water holes’ while foraging too? Perhaps certain Hohokam ‘sects’ were only semi-sedentary and had a lifestyle that reflected their Paleoindian forbearers (See Browman et al. 2009: 313-321). This might better explain the motivation behind their seasonal camps (see above). In comparison, neighboring cultures such as the Mogollon coped with hilly landscapes through an institutionalized synthesis of agricultural and hunter-gatherer economies (Shaw and Jameson 1999: 45; Darvill 2008: 286). Consequently, it may be postulated that the Tucson area Hohokam were not nearly as sedentary as their Phoenix counterparts and were, in point of fact, quite mobile.

Endings

Figure 5: Here, Paul Joseph De Mola is measuring strata column elevation for trench nine using an automatic level (Riverview). Photo courtesy of Dutch Duering (2012b)

Throughout this essay, I have discussed how archaeological survey and excavation (Fig. 5) has been used to change our understandings of agricultural patterns by highlighting some of the changes that the Hohokam brought to their own diets. Moreover, I have examined various excavated sites to display how Hohokam irrigation was critical to Preclassic and Classic societies. These two aspects of Hohokam culture while distinguishable are, of course, inseparable. In fact, it may be said that canals formed the thread that interweaved Hohokam agricultural and irrigation strategy. That is to say, agriculture was as intertwined with irrigation as day is to night. To this end archaeological research has been indispensable in our knowledge of the Hohokam as a ‘people’.

Dr. Jerry Howard (2012, pers. comm.) has stated that the expansion of settlements during the latter Classic Period caused a subsequent overexploitation of resources during the Polvoron Phase (c. AD 1375-1450) setting the stage for an ecological crisis. Tragically, with numerous droughts came a decline in irrigation, which in turn caused a collapse of the already strained agricultural system. Subsequently, villages were abandoned thereby reducing human power to maintain operating canals which only further depleted food sources. As a result, the entire Hohokam economic structure descended into social chaos. Ergo, it may be argued that at the height of their civilization — during the great days of the early Classic Period — the Hohokam were inadvertently sowing the seeds of their own demise.

Notes

1. The recent decision of the city of Mesa to redevelop the Riverview Golf Club and Park resulted in the State’s first serious archaeological fieldwork in nearly four years. Consequently, a grant to conduct cultural research management was extended to Dr. Jerry Howard (ASU) for a short three week season in April 2012. Additional funding for what became known as the Riverview Archaeological Project was commensurate to any ‘significant discovery’ of prehistoric value, such as Hohokam features (Howard 2102, pers. comm.; See Nelson 2012; cf Renfrew and Bahn 2008: 584). 
2. At the heart of Hohokam life was the dependence their social communities placed upon desert farming in which canal systems played an essential role. A chief objective of the Riverview Archaeological Project was the methodical recording of any Hohokam canals—including their location, number, age, and configuration—with the intention of enabling the researchers to better ‘reconstruct the evolution’ of Canal System One (CS-1) (Howard 2012. pers. comm.). Because of its location south of the Salt River, Riverview was suspected of Hohokam agency. This theory was postulated by Dr. Jerry Howard, a leading authority of Hohokam culture and expert on Classic Phase irrigation.  
3. Much of the excavation at Riverview was in the form of ‘intercept trenches’. Ingeniously utilized by Dr. Howard and his CRM team, the raison d’être of intercept trenches is rather straightforward: intercept archaeological features at a perpendicular angle. In the case of Riverview, east-west ditches were cut in the hope of intersecting prehistoric canals flowing south from the Salt River — a method that bore much fruit for the team from ASU. 

4. Since the Hohokam disposed of their rubbish in waterways, the most indicative evidence for a canal is artifacts of which pottery is the most common (Medchill, 2012, pers. comm.). However, it must be noted that excavation is not an exact method of science. For example, after the first two weeks of digging at Riverview, only two shards were found in the first ten intercept trenches. These specimens were identified as Classic Hohokam red-on-buff ware (Howard 2012, pers. comm.). Unfortunately, because of the dearth of material culture from these trenches, it was concluded that none of them intersected a canal.

5. Simple in situ observation of stratigraphy during excavation is an essential component of Hohokam fieldwork (Greene 2002: 88 – 90). During data recovery, any indications of leaching (i.e. caliche), rust and charcoal may aid in the detection of hidden contexts. For example, charcoal—essentially a pyrolitic organic residue—may imply the presence of a kiln or even a crematory, as was briefly believed to be the case within Riverview’s Canal One (Hurcombe 2007: 140; contra Duering 2012a, pers. comm.).
6.  Petrographic and chemical analyses of soil composition (e.g., sandy silt with high levels of silica, clay with bioturbation), equips Hohokam ceramicists with a cross-referencing tool to help determine the provenience of fabrics used in ceramic typologies (Phillips 2012, pers. comm.; Booker 2102, pers. comm.). For example, are the vegetal inclusions found within a piece of Redware consistent with botanical conditions from this or another site? What is the precise mineral source of the clay that a Hohokam potter used in a red-on-buff bowl (See Banning 2000: 175)? Ultimately, answers to these questions may aid in identifying socioeconomic trade patterns and anomalies.
7. In theory, canals are known for the exquisite ‘mottled strata’ they leave in soil deposits. That is to say, heterogeneous sediments possessing low levels of sand that are deposited through channeled river and appear as ‘churned’ color patterns on trench walls (Phillips 2012, pers. comm.; See also Huckleberry 2006: 349). This was most vividly illustrated recently at Riverview’s trench sixteen (Fig. 4) which was also accompanied by a wide prehistoric artifact distribution, lending support to the opinion that this was indeed a canal of Hohokam origin. 
8. It should be noted, however, that Hohokam canals were so well designed that they were frequently reused by historical (later) engineers. At Riverview, their post-colonial reuse is evidenced by the presence of bioturbation by freshwater anthropods. For example, a cavity located immediately below the topsoil in trench thirteen’s stratigraphy implied the presence of crayfish—a nonnative crustacean which entered Salt River reservoirs in historical times (Duering 2012a, pers. comm.; See AGFD 2012).

Bibliography

Abbott, D. R., 2000. Ceramics and Community Organization Among the Hohokam. First ed. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Abbott, D. R., Breternitz, C. D. & Robinson, C. K., 2003. Challenging Conventional Conceptions. In: D. R. Abbott, ed. Centuries of Decline during the Hohokam Classic Period at Pueblo Grande. First ed. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, pp. 3-23.

Abbott, D. R. & Schaller, D. M., 1994. Ceramics Among the Hohokam: Modeling Social Organization and Exchange. In: D. Scott & P. Meyers, eds. Archaeometry of Pre-Columbian Sites and Artifacts. First ed. Los Angeles: Getty Conservation Institute, pp. 85-112.

Abbott, D. R. & Walsh-Anduze, M. E., 2005. Temporal Patterns without Temporal Variation: The Paradox of Hohokam Redware Ceramics. In: B. J. Mills & P. L. Crown, eds. Ceramic Production in the American Southwest. First ed. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 88-114.

AGFD, 2003. Crayfish Brochure. Arizona Game and Fish Department. [Online]
Available at: http://www.azgfd.gov/pdfs/i_e/Crayfish_Brochure.pdf
[Accessed 1 July 2012].

Aicher, P. J., 1995. Guide to the Aqueducts of Ancient Rome. First ed. Wauconda: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, Inc.

Banning, E., 2000. The Archaeologist’s Laboratory: The Analysis of Archaeological Data. First ed. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Barnes, E. & Breternitz, C. D., 1988. Excavations at Casa Buena: Changing Hohokam Land use along the Squaw Peak Parkway. Soil Systems Publications in Archaeology, II(11), pp. 49-56.

Bayman, J. M., 2001. The Hohokam of Southwest North America. Journal of World Prehistory, XV(3), pp. 257-311.

Blythe, A. A., 2009. Social Differentiation in Animal Use and Subsistence: A Case Study of the Marana Platform Mound. First ed. Ann Arbor: ProQuest, LLC.

Browman, D. L., Fritz, G. J., Watson, P. J. & Meltzer, D. J., 2009. Origins of Food-Producing Economies in the Americas. In: C. Scarre, ed. The Human Past: World Prehistory & the Development of Human Societies. Second ed. London: Thames & Hudson, Ltd, pp. 306-349.

Brown, T. S., 1988. The Transformation of the Roman Mediterranean, 400-900. In: G. Holmes, ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. First ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-61.

Darvill, T., 2008. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Archaeology. Second ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

De Mola, P. J., 2012. Looking south across Canal One. The former cross-trench sixteen now appears to be intercepting a potential second canal. The excavators may be observed working to the immediate southwest of the landscape. [Photograph] (Riverview Archaeological Project).

Duering, W. D., 2012a. Personal Communication. In the field cartography and geospatial engineering instruction. As well as general conversations on the Riverview Archaeological Project, including its sedimentology and artifacts. [Interview] (March 29-April 5, 2012).

Duering, W. D., 2012b. Paul De Mola measuring strata column elevation at trench nine. [Photograph] (Riverview Archaeological Project).

Earle, T. & Doyel, D. E., 2008. The Engineered Landscapes of Irrigation. In: L. Cliggett & C. A. Pool, eds. Economies and the Transformation of Landscape. First ed. Lanham: Alta Mira Press, pp. 19-46.

Elson, M. D., 1998. Expanding the View of Hohokam Platform Mounds: An Ethnographic Perspective. First ed. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Emma, H., 2012. Assorted lithics and shards from Canal One. [Photograph] (Riverview Archaeological Project).

Eppinga, J., 2002. Nogales: Life and Times on the Frontier. First ed. Charleston: Arcadia Publishing.

Fish, S. K., 2000. Hohokam Impacts on Sonoran Desert Environment. In: D. L. Lentz, ed. Imperfect Balance: Landscape Transformations in the Precolumbian Americas. First ed. New York: Columbia University Press, pp. 251-280.

Fish, S. K., Fish, P. R. & Madsen, J. H., 1992a. Early Sedentism and Agriculture in the Northern Tucson Basin. In: S. K. Fish, P. R. Fish & J. H. Madsen, eds. The Marana Community in the Hohokam World. First ed. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 11-19.

Fish, S. K., Fish, P. R. & Madsen, J. H., 1992b. Parameters of Agricultural Production in the Northern Tucson Basin. In: S. K. Fish, P. R. Fish & J. H. Madsen, eds. The Marana Community in the Hohokam World. First ed. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 41-52.

Foster, W. C., 2012. Climate and Culture Change in North America AD 900-1600. First ed. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Gibbon, G. E., 1998. Archaeology of Prehistoric Native America: An Encyclopedia. First ed. Oxon: Taylor & Francis Group.

Greene, K., 2002. Archaeology: An Introduction. Fourth ed. London: Routledge.

Gropper, S. S. & Smith, J. L., 2005. Advanced Nutrition and Human Metabolism. Sixth ed. Stamford: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Hodgson, W. C., 2001. Food Plants of the Sonoran Desert. First ed. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Howard, J., 2012. Personal Communication. Regular in the field conversations on the Riverview Archaeological Project, Hohokam culture and interpretion of material remains. [Interview] (March 29-April 5, 2012).

Huckell, L. W. & Toll, M. S., 2004. Wild Plant Use in the North American Southwest. In: P. E. Minnis, ed. People and plants in ancient western North America. First ed. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 37-114.

Huckleberry, G., 2006. Sediments. In: J. Balme & A. Paterson, eds. Archaeology In Practice: A Student Guide To Archaeological Analyses. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 338-361.

Hurcombe, L. M., 2007. Archaeological Artefacts as Material Culture. First ed. London: Routledge.

IAE, 2008. Interpreting Archaeological Evidence: Material Culture and Environment. (Level 2 course reader). First ed. Leicester: University of Leicester.

Justice, N. D., 2002. Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of the Southwestern United States. First ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Kwiatkowski, S. M., 2003. Evidence for Subsistence Problems. In: D. R. Abbott, ed. Centuries of Decline during the Hohokam Classic Period at Pueblo Grande. First ed. Tucson: University of Arizona Press, pp. 48-69.

Lockard, C. A., 2008. Societies, Networks, and Transitions: A Global History (Volume I: To AD 1500). First ed. Stamford: Cengage Learning.

Logan, M. F., 2002. The Lessening Stream: An Environmental History of the Santa Cruz River. First ed. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Medchill, B., 2012. Personal Communication. Instruction in various field methods and their logical applications, including sedimentology. General conversations on the Riverview Archaeological Project. [Interview] (April 2-5, 2012).

Meiguoren, 2012. Mesa Grande Hohokam Ruins Arizona. (Photo) Available at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mesa_Grande_Hohokam_Ruins_Mesa_Arizona.jpg.
[Accessed 12 December 2012].

Milner, G. R., 2009. Complex Societies of North America. In: C. Scarre, ed. Our Human Past: World Prehistory & the Development of Human Societies. Second ed. London: Thames and Hudson, pp. 678-715.

Mitchell, D. R. & Brunson-Hadley, J. L., 2001. An Evaluation of Classic Period Hohokam Burial and Society: Chiefs, Priests, or Acephalous Complexity? In: D. R. Mitchell & J. L. Brunson-Hadley, eds. Ancient Burial Practices in the American Southwest: Archaeology, Physical Anthropology, and Native American Perspectives. First ed. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp. 45-67.

Moerman, D. E., 2010. Native American Food Plants: An Ethnobotanical Dictionary. First ed. Portland: Timber Press, Inc.

Morgan, W. N., 1994. Ancient Architecture of the Southwest. First ed. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Nelson, G., 2012. Vote signals end for Mesa’s Riverview Golf Course. [Online]
Available at: http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/2012/02/21/20120221vote-signals-end-riverview-golf-course.html
[Accessed 25 November 2012].

Phillips, B., 2012. Detailed in-the-field lectures on the geomorphology and sedimentology of Riverview and the greater Phoenix area. [Interview] (March 29-April 5, 2012).

Phillips, D. A., 2009. Adoption and Intensification of Agriculture in the North American Southwest: Notes Toward a Quantitative Approach. American Antiquity, LXXIV (4), pp. 691-707.

Renfrew, C. & Bahn, P. G., 2008. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. Fifth ed. London: Thames & Hudson, Ltd.

Rice, P. M., 2009. Late Classic Maya Pottery Production: Review and Synthesis. Journal of Archaeological Methods and Theories, XVI (2), pp. 117-156.

Scupin, R. & DeCorse, C. R., 2003. Anthropology: A Global Perspective. Fifth ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

Shaw, I. & Jameson, R., 1999. A Dictionary of Archaeology. First ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.

Sheridan, T. E., 2000. Human Ecology of the Sonoran Desert. [Online]
Available at: http://www.eebweb.arizona.edu/faculty/Bonine/Sheridan_NatHistSonDesert2000_HumanEcologySonoranDesert_105-118.pdf
[Accessed 16 August 2012].

Strobl, B., 2012. Personal Communication. Instruction in interpreting archaeological remains and working with a backhoe. Sporadic discussions on the Riverview Archaeological Project [Interview] (March 29-April 5, 2012).

Smith, J., 2004. Making Water Flow Uphill: The History of Agriculture in Mesa, Arizona. First ed. Mesa: Mesa Historical Society.

Wayne, E., 2006. Popping Amaranth. (Photo) Available at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amaranth_sp_2.jpg.
[Accessed 11 December 2012].

Webster, D. & Evans, S. T., 2009. Mesoamerican Civilization. In: C. Scarre, ed. The Human Past: World Prehistory & the Development of Human Societies. Second ed. London: Thames & Hudson, Ltd, pp. 594-639.

Yoffee, N., 2004. Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations. First ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Acknowledgements

The esteemed cultural resource management team from Arizona State University: archaeologist(s) Carla Booker, Brian Medchill and Bert Strobl who were gracious enough to take the time in giving me a ‘trench course’ in stratigraphy, sedimentology and the logistics involved in ‘canal hunting’.

An expression of gratitude must be paid to my Aunt Faith who furnished me with the camera for my ventures, and my first cousin Heidi who graciously assisted me with photography.

Special mention needs to be made to archaeologist Walter ‘Dutch’ Duering and archaeobotanist Bruce Phillips, for providing me with an intense training experience in modern cartography and geoarchaeology, respectively.

A very special thank you must be expressed to Dr. Jerry B. Howard (ASU) who managed to imbue this young man with a deep appreciation for the pre-Columbian southwest.

For additional information on the Riverview Archaeological Project, Mesa Grande or the Hohokam contact:

Dr. Jerry B. Howard, Curator of Anthropology

Arizona Museum of Natural History

480-644-2230

http://azmnh.org/

Cover Photo, Top Left: Detail of the Casa Grande Great House remains. Greg Hume, Wikimedia Commons

Khirbet Qeiyafa, in Israel, is located on the summit of a hill that borders the Elah Valley southwest of Jerusalem. This would have been a key strategic location in the biblical Kingdom of Judah, on the main road from Philistia and the coastal plain to Jerusalem and Hebron in the hill country. Even prior to excavation, visitors to Khirbet Qeiyafa could discern a massive city wall, 2–3 m in height, encompassing the summit of the hill. This city wall demarcates an area of 2.3 hectares with a total length of ca. 700 m. Due to the local topography, only the external face of the wall is exposed, the inner part buried under archaeological remains. The base of the wall is composed of cyclopean stones, some weighing 4–5 tons, while its upper part is built with medium-sized stones. Two city gates were already located prior to their excavation, one in the south and one in the west (Figs. 1–3).

____________________________________

Unmatched by the immovable stone of a massive cliff-like form, the wind bows to the unwavering integrity of the mountain, but cuts through the zigzagging maze of rickety, ancient wooden stairs, built centuries before on the mountain’s face, with the tautness of snapping fingers. Each crackle courses through pine boards in a ceaseless chorus of sound. There are places where they creak, places where they sing in low sonorous tones. There are places where the worms had eaten holes through the wood, creating small portholes through which one can see the forests of the valley floor far below………

“This is one of the most overlooked sites in China,” said Kuanghan Li. “Not many people have heard of it. Yet, it is also one of the most important. These places were built by imperial families for hundreds of years.”

It is not an understatement to say that Kuanghan Li, Global Heritage Fund’s Director of the China Heritage Program, is optimistic about the prospects for Maijishan, one of a handful of Buddhist caverns found in the country. From the train station, however, there’s little to see of one of China’s, and the world’s, most significant Buddhist complexes.

Ms. Li, Nada Hosking, Global Heritage Fund’s Director of Programs and Partnerships, and I had just arrived in Tianshui, a small, industrial city in China’s remote Gansui province. As we wound our way through its rain-choked streets, I tried to imagine the site as I had seen it from pictures. A tall, tawny-colored mountain, Maijishan appeared to me as a prominent bluff overlooking a primeval forest of oaks and pine. In the winter, the snow seasoned the worked stone with an austere grandeur, though its starkness seemed to herald the beauty of the spring yet to come.

Maijishan was more majestic in person than could be imagined. From our vantage point a giant emerged, appearing to rise at least 1,000 feet from the ground. The clay buddhas that adorned its side were massive structures some 100 feet tall and clearly visible from the visitor center half a mile away. The combination of forest, mountain, and sky, all wreathed in a midsummer mist, provided a sublime visual context.

____________________________________

Maijishan in a sea of fog. ©Maijishan Grotto Art Institute and Global Heritage Fund

_________________________________________  

After waiting for a short time in the offices of the Maijishan Art Research Institute, our partner in conserving Maijishan’s Buddhist heritage, we are assigned an English-speaking guide to take us up to the mountain. The wooden staircases that were once used by the monks have long since been removed, and in their place, an extensive series of concrete stairs and niches have been constructed to allow access to visitors. 

Climbing these stairs, one encounters the first prominent feature —  three large buddhas installed centuries ago into the mountain’s outer wall, those that appeared so small from afar on first reckoning. Their sheer size cannot be conveyed through words or pictures; craning my neck upward, I could only view them in their entirety before the strain became uncomfortable. After several flights of stairs, I was able to appreciate each segment in turn, their painted feet, their long-flowing robes, their serene faces radiating serenity, their benevolent eyes. 

Like all of Maijishan’s sculptures, these are not made from stone but from a wooden skeleton overlaid with clay and then painted. Each successive generation of monks would maintain and embroider the mountain’s many art installations, adding their own unique veneer to more than 2,000 years of history. In their absence, the sculptures, frescoes, and other artworks have decayed. With these massive sculptures, where the facade has rotted away, it is possible to discern their superstructures. 

To me at least, it’s clear why this site has enchanted so many over the millennia.

“It is as if one were to mount a carriage and pierce the mountain, carving out great niches” the sixth-century poet Yü Hsin wrote on an inscription upon a wall in one of Maijishan’s many grottoes. Though his original work is lost, his words remain to convey the awe, the power, and the majesty of this celestial confabulation: in his poems, Maijishan’s sacred caves were “carved in the darkness of the mountain peak” before earthquakes buried them, its walls “covered with inscriptions taken from holy scripture”¹ until the paint faded away, the surrounding land bathed in brilliance by “an infinite medley of stars overhead” before the advent of industry polluted the skies. 

The Sheaves of Wheat Mountain

You don’t need poetry to understand why Maijishan cuts an impressive figure, and there are many candidates to explain its magnificence. Extolled as the “Sheaves of Wheat Mountain” since the early fifth century, Maijishan’s golden-hued stone contrasts markedly with the greens and browns of the forest, the blue of the local rock, and the clear, pure waters of the springs. It appears like a crown amid dull trinkets. “Up and down is 80,000 feet” one record reads, a bit of ridiculousness that does not diminish the dizzying sheerness of the mountain’s heights and the fear they inspire in everyone but the birds, the grottoes’ only inhabitants now that the original stepladders and stairs have all rotted away. 

Located only a few miles south of the main road between China and Central Asia, Maijishan became a center of cross-cultural pollination for hundreds of thousands of itinerants and a historical record written in the art of 12 separate dynasties. Indians, Mongols, Huns, Sogdians, Tibetans, Chinese, and others passed through its halls as they passed through the pages of history, each leaving an indelible piece of themselves behind. 

The mountain’s 194 grottoes are a testament to their influence. They come in seven architectural variations, are home to over 7,000 statues, and are covered in more than 100 square meters of murals. Everything is dedicated to the pursuit of Buddhism, from the artworks depicting the birth of Siddhartha to bodhisattvas contorting themselves in meditation to the arrival of new devotees.  While its physical attributes may have led to its initial prominence, it was this heritage, written and painted and sculpted upon the soft golden stone, that cemented it in the consciousness of globalized Buddhism as a cousin to Mount Sumeru, the Buddhist holy mountain, “the mythical axis of the universe.”²

The history of Maijishan, like the history of all things along these ancient trade routes, begins with a journey. In one account, the priest Hsüan-kao came to Maijishan and meditated there before forming his own ascetic system. He was later joined by the shaman T’an-Hung, who arrived at Maijishan sometime between 420 and 422. They “became good friends” and inaugurated the holy mountain’s first monastic community. After it grew to nearly 300 people, the two masters departed, Hsüan-kao for another master and T’an-Hung for Cochin, where his suicide through self-immolation is recorded in morbidly poetic terms: those who bore witness “saw Hung with a golden body, riding very swiftly westward on a golden deer.”³ — the picture of insanity tinged by religious fervor. 

This semi-mythical beginning may or may not be true, but it is indisputable that Maijishan soon became an important religious site to the rulers of China. In the Sung Dynasty-era book Fang-yü sheng-lan, a historian explains, “Yao Hsing carved the mountains and made 1,000 cliffs and 10,000 images, turning the cliff into halls.” Thereupon [it became] Chin Chou’s place of scenic beauty.”⁴ A stele from 1222 declares that 10,000 people prayed at the site, empires gave the priests grants of land for farming, and seven kingdoms “continuously”⁵ repaired it. Later empires found it important to issue imperial decrees on its name, declaring it first “Ching-nien ssu” then “Ying-chien kan ssu” and then “Jui-ying ssu” before settling, finally, on Maijishan.

But, as a consequence of its strategic location alongside the Silk Road, not even royal patronage could ensure the safety and tranquility of the Buddhist community at Maijishan. Successive kingdoms fought over the ownership of the site from its foundation, with five different governments contesting control between 385 and 446 AD. It is not hard to imagine that Maijishan was far less tranquil than the average monastic community.

The earliest cave art dates from sometime in the fifth century, but scholars are divided as to whether they were made before or after the anti-Buddhist persecutions of 446-452.⁶ Visiting in the eighth century, the poet Tu Fu adapted the work of his predecessor Yü Hsin to write poignantly about the cruelty of time:

There are few monks left in these remote shrines, 

And in the wilderness the narrow paths are high.

The musk-deer sleep among the stones and bamboo, 

The cockatoos peck at the golden peaches. 

Streams trickle down among the paths; 

Across the overhanging cliff the cells are ranged, 

Their tiered chambers reaching to the very peak; 

And for 100 li one can make out the smallest thing.⁷

And yet, a stele from the Ming Dynasty in 1642 declares that “from Yao-Chin until now has been 1,300-some years and the incense fires have never stopped,”⁸ a powerful testament to its longevity through the turbulent years of war. It was not until the 18^th century that the grottoes saw their end as a functioning monastic community. 

________________________________________ 

A buddha and bodhisattva preside in one of the grottoes at Maijishan. ©Maijishan Grotto Art Institute and Global Heritage Fund

_________________________________

A detail from a fresco in Maijishan. ©Maijishan Grotto Art Institute and Global Heritage Fund

____________________________________________________ 

Preserving Maijishan

As one of the four main large grottoes in China, the Maijishan Grottoes were announced as part of the priority group of heritage sites to be placed under emphasis by the State Department in 1961. On 22 June 2014, at the 38^th World Heritage Site Nomination Conference held in Doha, Qatar, the Maijishan Cave-Temple Complex was inscribed onto the World Heritage List as part of the series of sites under “Silk Roads: The Routes Network of Chang’an-Tianshan Corridor.” Significant improvements have been made on the surrounding environment of the heritage sites following inscription. Nevertheless, appropriate preservation and management is crucial at Maijishan to ensure that the values of authenticity and integrity are retained.

“It has not undergone a lot of major intervention, at least in modern times,” Kuanghan Li says of the site. “It’s still pretty much intact and authentic. Now, with the whole [UNESCO] nomination and the development of the Chinese domestic tourism market, it’s getting more and more popular. There’s a lot of risk involved.”

For now, the main problem plaguing the site is tourism. During 2016’s May Day holiday, over 30,000 people visited the site in a single day, breaking all of its past records. Furthermore, Maijishan lacks much of the documentation and planning of other Chinese grottoes; not only does it not have a proper conservation history, it also does not have an archival record, making it difficult to understand the scope and extent of the threats to the site’s physical, built heritage. 

According to Ms. Li, the following are priorities for conserving Maijishan’s spectacular tradition of Buddhist cave art:

• There is an urgent need for visitor management plans to be put in place to prepare for the increase in tourists,⁹ so as to prevent any destruction that may threaten the integrity of the site. 
• Lack of appropriate expertise in restoring and maintaining the site may also result in the deterioration of valuable heritage material. 
• In addition, some of the caves suffer from natural erosion.¹⁰ Proper frameworks and expertise are required to ensure that sculptures and paintings are preserved. 
• While preserving the site, innovative solutions are needed to enhance access in a way that does not compromise visitor experience, or impose on surrounding communities. 

To develop solutions to these issues, Global Heritage Fund is partnering with the Maijishan Grottoes Art Research Institute, which has served as a source of research and expertise on the Maijishan Cave Temple Complex. Since the establishment of the Gansu Province Cultural Department, the Maijishan Grottoes Art Research Institute has further refined its methodology and has been providing integrative services related to preservation, research, and tourist reception at Maijishan.

According to the current conditions and needs at the Maijishan Grottoes site and in line with the skills of our partners, the three main goals for Global Heritage Fund’s work are:

• Develop an operational strategy for visitor management and establish relevant courses for members of staff and volunteers at the site, including access, interpretation, visitor capacity and technology-led education.
• Conduct a systematic examination of Maijishan’s historic preservation, including restorative principles, techniques, and methods, and use it as a foundation for building up further scientific analysis and comprehensive proposals. This will help to create comprehensive frameworks for restoring and maintaining the site’s colored sculptures and mural paintings.
• Create a community development program focused on the living communities within the park. Activities will include education, handicraft development and promotion, and sustainable community-based tourism development and training.

As to the future of conservation at Maijishan, Ms. Li has this to say: “We hope to develop a good management plan so there is something they can run and sustain in the long term. The Maijishan Grottoes Art Research Institute has had trouble attracting staff, because the site is so remote. This isn’t as bad as it sounds, however. They mostly hire from the villages around the area, who use more traditional techniques and methods of restoration. This is a good thing overall since it helps the community and maintains the integrity of the site. We’re hoping to add to this by giving more study to these traditional methods, and helping them build off this foundation to work toward a more systematic conservation method and plan – instead of just introducing modern conservation methods very abruptly and then overrun what they’ve done before.”

______________________________________

After the religious community of Maijishan departed, most of Maijishan fell into neglect. In the absence of artificial lighting, this grotto has fallen into darkness. ©Maijishan Grotto Art Institute and Global Heritage Fund

______________________________________

Readers can learn more about the Global Heritage Fund and its unique mission to preserve the world’s heritage here.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

1. Sullivan 6 

2. Sullivan 1

3. Mai-chi shan 482

4. Ibid., 482

5. Ibid., 483

6. Ibid., 484

7. Sullivan 7

8. Ibid., 483

9. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1442

10. http://www.shanghaidaily.com/national/Buddhist-effigies-put-into-digital-catalogue/shdaily.shtml

Sources:

http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1631/

Receive 30 days free access to the popular new CuriosityStream lineup of documentaries on science, history, nature, and technology as a new Popular Archaeology premium subscriber.

___________________________________________

Travel and learn with Far Horizons.

______

“‘Go now to the place in Shiloh where I first made a dwelling for my Name, and see what I did to it because of the wickedness of my people Israel.” — Jeremiah 7:12

Numerous questions remain unanswered. Was the site [Shiloh] practically unoccupied during the Bronze Age, or did the Israelites occupy a site already sacred? When did they take it, during the Bronze Age, or at the beginning of Early Iron? This is another of the sites, which, like Ai and Jericho, can assist in determining the date and character of the Hebrew conquest. Was the place unoccupied during the Middle and Late Iron Ages, that is after the loss of the Ark? And was it destroyed by the Philistines, or did it gradually fall into ruins after the loss of the Ark? — McCown, Chester C. “Archaeological News.” American Journal of Archaeology 34, no. 1 (1930): 96.

Another excavation day begins as diggers disembark from the bus. The sun peaks over the Transjordan Mountains in the east, illuminating the distant twin towers in Amman, Jordan. Silently, or so it seems, the workers climb the short distance from the parking lot to the site, a walk that pilgrims have made for millennia. Some appear half asleep while others appear as if focussing intently on the day ahead. Once arrived, volunteers disperse in smaller groups to their respective squares. A family with younger children stops at the first square while a group of college students pours into another. An older couple slowly and steadily makes their way up to the site to become the final volunteers. Blue shirts, interspersed among the crowd, are supervisors who have invested years of their lives climbing similar hills to solve similar conundrums. But Shiloh, as this site is popularly known, stands unique among the ubiquitous mounds in the southern Levant. Here, in the tribal territory of biblical Ephraim, Joshua, according to the biblical account, ordered a tabernacle to be erected as a home for the Ark of the Covenant. Here, for the believers, a sacrificial system closed the gap between human sinfulness and celestial perfection. In just seven hours, the shofar will blow, signaling the end of fieldwork for another day. But until that happens, archaeologists, students and volunteers will have excavated 1,750 pieces of pottery, 35 other objects, the remains of several new walls and several new installations or structures, and perhaps even some glyptic remains………

_____________________________________

 Sun rising over the eastern mountains. Photo by Suzanne Lattimer

__________________________________________________ 

History of Exploration and Excavation at Shiloh

In 1838, the great American Orientalist Edward Robinson linked the ruins at Khirbet Seilun, 20 miles north of Jerusalem, with the famous Israelite cultic site of Shiloh. Almost three decades later, in 1866, Major Charles Wilson, on behalf of the Palestine Exploration Fund surveyed the ruins (Wilson, 1873, 38). A few years later the French explorer Victor Guérin documented what he observed at the site (Guérin, 1875, 21–23). In the 1880s, Conder and Kitchner did the same in their Survey of Western Palestine (1882, 368). Following World War I, the Danish set their sights on excavating Shiloh, with initial soundings being executed by Aege Schmidt in 1922. With the help of Albright, Schmidt correctly identified the basic ceramic sequence at Shiloh (Albright, 1923, 10). Three seasons of excavation followed in 1926, 1929, and 1932 under the skilled direction of Hans Kjaer, with the helpful guidance of Albright and steadfast support of Schmidt. Kjaer tragically died in the middle of the 1932 season. The cause of his death remains uncertain. Glueck describes it as exhaustion from the excavation (Glueck, 1933, 66), while others attribute it to dysentery (Anonymous, BAR, 3). Albright handed the reins of the excavation to his brilliant protégé Nelson Glueck who promptly closed the dig, without explaining his reasons.

In 1963, the Danish, under Svend Holm-Nielsen, returned to execute a final series of soundings before publishing the long-awaited final excavation report in 1969. From 1981 to 1984, Professor Israel Finkelstein, on behalf of Bar Ilan University, excavated Shiloh, publishing his final report in 1993. Finkelstein corrected some of the errors of the Danish excavation. Notably, he discovered a large bone deposit in Area D, with a large quantity of Late Bronze Age (LB, or c. 1483–1177 B.C.)  pottery, some of which was cultic. Furthermore, Finkelstein states, “There were also several dozen Cypriot sherds. Most of the pottery is of the LB I horizon. There is also a small quantity of LB II pottery, although not from the end of the period” (Finkelstein, 1993, 45).

In Area C, Finkelstein connected with the work of the Danes and fully exposed Iron Age (IA) I (c. 1177 – 980 B.C.) “storage rooms” filled with pithoi of the collared-rim type. Surprisingly, these storerooms lie outside the perimeter wall. To us, this points to a construction date prior to the Philistine arrival in 1177 B.C. when Shiloh, like the meaning of its name, operated in relative tranquility. In contrast, Finkelstein assigns a date of c. 1150 B.C. to the Area C buildings. Shortly after Finkelstein concluded his work, Ze’ev Yeivin, on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, conducted limited excavations on the scarp just north of the tel (the northern platform) followed by work in a few other areas. Based on the scarp’s dimensions, Wilson had advocated for it as the location of the Israelite tabernacle (Kaufman, 1988).

In the last decade, under the guidance of Hananya Hizmi, Staff officer of the Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria, further excavations have been conducted near the summit, on the aforementioned scarp, and the churches and other structures along the southern approach to the site. Evgeny Aharonovic led the excavation of the churches, and Reut Ben-Arie supervised the work on the summit, northern scarp, and southeastern fortifications. In 2017, The Associates for Biblical Research (ABR), under the direction of Scott Stripling, conducted Season One of a planned multi-year expedition, which this article summarizes.

The ABR Excavations

Research Goals

Research Goals for the ABR excavation at Shiloh include the following:

1.  Clarify the occupational history 

2.  Determine if the MB (Middle Bronze) III fortifications enclosed a city or just a temenos

3.  Document cultic remains from the BA (Bronze Age) and IA (Iron Age)

4.  Determine the extent of the BA, IA, ER (Early Roman), and Byz (Byzantine) occupation in Field H1 and on the summit

5.  Compare the excavated remains at Shiloh with those in the Highlands Region, particularly the two sites previously excavated by ABR (Khirbet Nysia and Khirbet el-Maqatir)

6. Connect the work of the Kjaer on the northwest fortifications with the work of Finkelstein on the northeast fortifications

Occupational History of the Site

The time between c. 1750–1650 B.C., which corresponds to the “MB (Middle Bronze) IIb” period, witnessed the establishment of a village without walls at the site of Shiloh. Only pottery testifies to this foundational phase. During the ensuing period (“MB III/MB IIC”, or c. 1650–1483) the residents of Shiloh constructed a massive fortification system that enclosed 17 dunams (4.25 acres). MB III in the southern Levant witnessed a proliferation of similar fortification systems. Examples include Khirbet el-Maqatir, Jericho, Shechem, and Gezer.

The MB III city at Shiloh, designated as our City One, suffered destruction by unknown invaders, perhaps the recently expelled Hyksos from Egypt. Resilient residents quickly rebuilt, or at least resettled Shiloh as a cultic center in the Late Bronze Age. Pit deposits of bones, cultic vessels, scarabs, and an abundance of pottery establish this fact. The LB inhabitants apparently continued to use the MB infrastructure. Israel Finkelstein, who excavated Shiloh from 1981 to 1984 on behalf of Bar Ilan University, assigned an area that contained a faunal deposit to an Israelite cleanup of the remnants of Amorite sacrifices on the summit. The deposit, however, rich in LB pottery, may serve as evidence of the Israelite sacrificial system that began c. 1400 B.C., assuming an early date for the Exodus and Conquest. In Season One, we excavated an atypically large quantity of animal bones.

According to the Hebrew Bible, the Amorites controlled the Shiloh region at the time of the conquest (Num 13:29 [Highlands]; Josh 7:7 [Ai]; 2 Sam 21:2 [Gibeon]), and this likely extended back to MB III (c. 1650–1483 B.C.). Shiloh plausibly fell within the realm of the city-state of Shechem to the north since it lies ten miles north of Khirbet el-Maqatir, a likely northern border fortress for the southern city-state of Jerusalem (Finkelstein and Na’aman, 2005, 186).

The site remained active until a possible second destruction, perhaps at the hands of the Philistines (1 Sam 4), which occurred c. 1050 B.C. Season One in Field H1 failed to yield evidence of this destruction in our Stratum V, so clarification of this proposed destruction ranks as a priority in the coming seasons. Prior to our first season of excavation, scholars widely held that IA (Iron Age) II (c. 980–587 B.C.) witnessed only a small settlement at Shiloh (1 Kgs 11:29 and 12:15; Jer 41:5), but we found that the IA II footprint exceeded that of the IA I footprint. This harmonizes with the findings of the Civil Administration team on the northern platform (Livyatan and Hizmi, 2017, 50). While we found a small amount of Persian and Early Hellenistic (c. 332–167 B.C.) pottery, the latter part of the Late Hellenistic period (c. 167–63 B.C.) saw a major resettlement at the site, and this pattern accelerated in the Early Roman (ER, or c. 63 B.C.–A.D. 136) period. We now have evidence that virtually the entire site experienced settlement in the ER period. Byzantine era (c. A.D. 325–636) builders matched this construction zeal. The city continued through the Early Islamic Age (c. A.D. 636–1099) and into the Middle Ages when apparently the Black Death or some other pestilence finally brought an end to life at ancient Shiloh.

_______________________________________

 Above and below: Panorama of excavations on the last day. Photo by Suzanne Lattimer

_________________________________________________________

 Volunteers dry sift the soil coming out of the squares. Photo by Michael Luddeni

___________________________________________ 

Reading pottery with reference material close at hand. Photo by Suzanne Lattimer

______________________________________________________ 

Season One Findings and their Significance

Season One focused on ten 5×5 meter squares in Area H1 on the northern slope of the tel, with the intention of exposing the outside, top, and inside of the perimeter wall. This area lies between the Kjaer and Finkelstein excavations. We opened two squares (AC29 and AD29) directly connected with the Danish excavation in Areas F and H, thus continuing to expose the storage rooms inside the MB III fortification wall. At the other end of the field, Wall 6 in square AH30 clearly connects to Finkelstein’s work in Area K.

The MB III fortification wall (our Wall 1) ranges from 5.3 to 5.7 meters thick. It has a denticulated or “saw-tooth” pattern, a 1 meter wide jutting out of the entire wall, an unusual feature for the Highlands Region. Whether this massive wall functioned as a fortification wall or merely as a perimeter wall for a temenos remains unclear in light of the absence of domestic architecture from the BA and IA inside the wall. Finkelstein’s excavations revealed a massive glacis protecting the foundations of the wall, with no additional fortification. The absence of towers buttresses the hypothesis that the wall merely supported a religious platform. Our excavations proved inconclusive in this regard. While we found a glacis, it did not encircle the entire wall, perhaps being partially removed by later builders. All around Wall 1, we found an abundance of mud brick in various states of decay. This detritus suggests the existence of a mud brick superstructure atop the massive wall, a common building technique for this time period. This evidence hints at a city and not just a cultic platform. The range of colors suggests phases or refortification of the wall over time.

After the first season, we adjusted previous stratification theory and clarified the occupation on the northern side. Our excavations showed a larger IA II presence at the site than was previously realized. In fact, the IA II footprint in Area H1 exceeds the IA I footprint. It was also thought that the ER city only covered the southern portion of the tel. We, however, found extensive evidence of an ER presence on the northern side of the tel: portions of villas, objects, 100 coins, and a large volume of diagnostic pottery. Likewise, the Byzantine remains exceeded our expectations, as evidenced by large terrace walls and an enigmatic augment to the exterior of Wall 1A.

The Season One cultic remains consist of fragments of ceramic cultic stands. Of possible significance, the quantity of animal bones exceeded what we expected based on our previous excavation experience. Only additional excavation will determine if another large bone deposit, like Area D, exists at Shiloh. The forthcoming zooarchaeological report from Season One will answer a number of questions. Are the bones from animals connected with the biblical sacrificial system? Are these young animals, which are required in the biblical sacrificial system? The analysis will also illuminate the diet of the ancient inhabitants. 

____________________________________________

 Standing on bedrock on the outside of the MB II fortification wall. Photo by Michael Luddeni

____________________________________________

 Early Roman ring. Photo by Michael Luddeni

______________________________________________________

Cutting-Edge Technology

We pride ourselves in the technological advances at Shiloh. We became one of the first in Israel to go 100% digital in the field. Supervisors record data on PDF forms on their iPads, which are backed up daily to our database. We methodically metal detect each locus, a rarity for this region. The resulting metallic discoveries are astounding. In our first season at Shiloh we located 240 coins (100 from Area H1), plus other metal objects like an MB axe and dagger. Outside of Jerusalem, we were the first, to our knowledge, to wet-sift our material. The additional excavation protocol yielded a scarab, beads, coins, and other small objects missed by the volunteers in the square and by the dry sift team. We plan to upgrade the wet-sift process for next season. We also plan to implement a three dimensional digital photography of the squares which will allow us to have a 3D rendering of each square, to see the progress of the excavation, and pinpoint measurements and objects. Furthermore, we regularly fly a drone to capture macro and micro overhead shots. All of this technology enables us to make data driven decisions regarding how, when, and where we excavate. Finally, several staff members, led by Leen Ritmeyer, spent the week following the excavation restoring several unstable walls that we exposed, using state-of the art materials and techniques.

_____________________________________________

 Staff Metal Detectorist, Ellen Jackson, shows off a coin she found using her metal detector. Photo by Michael Luddeni

_____________________________________________________ 

Future Plans

It will take at least five seasons to adequately address our original research objectives. We also have a strong interest in excavating the summit of Tel Shiloh, which could take another few years. Hopefully, our work will shed light on the location of the Israelite Tabernacle at Shiloh. For a full discussion on this topic see my (Stripling) 2016 article in Bible and Spade (Stripling, 2016, 88-95).

The more that we uncover of Shiloh, the more questions tend to arise. So, we could be here for decades. For now, we take it one season at a time, filtering through almost 4,000 years of human history. Although Shiloh now ranks among the largest excavations in the southern Levant, we have saved a spot for you to join us. For details, visit www.digshiloh.org. 

Image showing stratigraphic sequences above: Stratigraphic Sequence at Shiloh. Chart by Authors

_________________________________

Receive 30 days free access to the popular new CuriosityStream lineup of documentaries on science, history, nature, and technology as a new Popular Archaeology premium subscriber.

___________________________________________ 

Travel and learn with Far Horizons.

______

Bibliography

Albright, W.F. “The Danish Excavations at Shiloh.” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 9 (Feb 1923): 10-11.

Anonymous. “Did the Philistines Destroy the Israelite Sanctuary at Shiloh?” Biblical Archaeology Review 1.2 (March-April 1975): 1-6.

Conder, C. R., and Kitchner, H. H. The Survey of Western Palestine Memoirs 2, Sheets VII–XVI, Samaria. London: Palestine Exploration Fund (1882).

Finkelstein, Israel, Shlomo Bunimovitz, Zvi Lederman, and Baruch Brandl, eds. Shiloh: The Archaeology of a Biblical Site. Monograph Series of the Institute of Archaeology 10. Tel Aviv, Israel: Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University (1993).

Finkelstein, Israel and Nadav Na’aman, Shechem of the Amarna Period and the Rise of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, IEJ 5 (2005): 172–93. 

Glueck, Nelson. “Palestinian and Syrian Archaeology in 1932.” American Journal of Archaeology Vol. 37.1 (Jan-Mar 1933): 160-172.

Guérin, V. Pp. 21–23 in Vol. 2 Samaria of The Survey of Western Palestine: Memoirs of the Topography, Orography, Hydrography, and Archaeology. 3 vols. London, U.K., 1875.

Hizmi, Hananya, and Reut Livyatan-ben-Arie. “The Excavations at the Northern Platform of Tel Shiloh the 2012-2013 Seasons [Translated from Hebrew].” Edited by D. Scott Stripling and David E. Graves. Translated by Hillel Richman. Near East Archaeological Society Bulletin 62 (2017): 35–52.

Kaufman, Asher S. “Fixing the Site of the Tabernacle at Shiloh.” Biblical Archaeology Review 14.6 (Nov-Dec1988): 42-49.

Stripling, Scott. “The Israelite Tabernacle at Shiloh.” Bible and Spade 29.3 (Fall 2016): 88-95.

Wilson, Charles W. “Shiloh.” Palestinian Exploration Fund: Quarterly Statement 5–6 (1873): 22-39.

This report presents the results of excavations undertaken in the patio area of ‘Building Group 78’ at Xno’ha by the Maya Research Program (MRP) in 2014. The site of Xno’ha is situated in northwestern Belize between the Bajo Alacranes and the Dumbbell Bajo (Guderjan 2007: 15) (see Figure 1). Characterised as a medium-sized Maya centre, comprising a large central plaza surrounded by an abundance of residential building groups, “the name [Xno’ha] was given to the site in reference to Xno’ha Creek which enters the Rio Azul/Hondo from Mexico just north of the site” (Guderjan 2013: 11).

Analysis of ceramics recovered from all excavated contexts suggests that the entire patio platform, fronting structures designated ’79’ and ’80’, was constructed during the Late Preclassic period (300 BC – 250 AD). In 2013 a Late Preclassic ceramic cache (comprising 9 Sierra Red vessels) was found while excavating the Group 78 patio. Follow-up excavations undertaken in 2014 identified a second component to Cache 13-03 configured in a cruciform pattern. The discovery of additional vessels in the vicinity of Cache 13-03 increased the minimum number of associated Preclassic vessels to 25. In addition to this finding, immediately south of Burial 13-01 (a tomb that was excavated the previous year) a second burial was discovered that contained a variety of ornamental grave goods including a Late Preclassic bird-effigy incensario. Representing what was probably the earliest period of the building group’s construction, a fragmented Late Preclassic incensario was also found close to bedrock, sealed below the thick plaster floor, in association with a remnant wall.

Figure 1: Location of Xno’ha (upper center of picture) and Related Sites. Courtesy Mark Wolf (after Guderjan 2013).

Xno’ha Group 78 – General Description

Group 78 is described here as a patio group as defined by Guderjan, Lichtenstein and Hanratty (2003: 35). Patio groups usually comprise L-shaped configurations that generally face eastward and are positioned on a levelled hill where peripheral masonry structures define a central open space. Consistent with this description, Xno’ha Group 78 comprises an elevated and level open space that is bounded on its northern and western limits by remnant rectilinear range-type structures. Maya range structures are described as large, vaulted and multi-roomed and ordered so as to surround small plazas or patios (Kowalski 2003: 204).

Figure 2: Building Group 78 Panorama Showing Structures 79 and 80 and Patio in the Foreground

A View of Excavated Remains of Patio Group 78.

Located approximately 200 metres due east of Structure 1, and the sites central plaza, Xno’ha Group 78 is oriented approximately 8° east of magnetic north and measures about 25 metres x 25 metres. Structure 79 is positioned to mark the western limits of the building group and Structure 80 defines its northern boundary. While the more precise dimensions (and orientation) of the buildings will only be ascertained following more extensive excavation, preliminary estimations of the mounds and structural features indicate that buildings measure between 15-17 metres in length (as gauged along the midline of the mounds) to the point where they intersect in the northwest corner of the group. The patio extends approximately 14 metres east-west and 19 metres north-south, as measured from the baseline of the building mounds to where the ground begins to slope away at the eastern and southern limits of the group. One datum point was recorded for Group 78 (with a handheld GPS) during the 2013 excavations – Alex 1: 1984915.49N, 0288124E-not corrected.

On the east side of the building group is a shallow rectangular depression in the patio platform, which measures 4 metres north-south and 5.4 metres east-west. It has yet to be determined what this surface depression is; whether it represents slumping of the building group’s patio or, alternatively, a remnant architectural feature. Initial clearing of vegetation in 2013 undertaken on the inclined ground on the eastern side of the group suggests that it may have once formed part of a terraced approach, functioning as the formal entrance to the group. However, this has yet to be verified archaeologically.

While no known archaeological excavations have occurred within Group 78 prior to 2013, some ground disturbance is evident on the eastern boundary of Structure 79. Oriented north-south, this disturbance measures approximately 2 metres by 3 metres and is visible in the form of backfilled area of ground. The presence of this disturbance suggests that some archaeological testing of the group may have occurred but may have not been previously reported. It is possible that it was undertaken as part of excavations carried out between 2002 and 2004 when many of the Xno’ha buildings were test excavated to determine their age and phases of construction.

Xno’ha – Summary of Previous Archaeological Investigations

The long-term goal of the archaeological inquiry at Xno’ha Group 78 is to build on previous work first undertaken by Jason Gonzales between 2002 and 2004 (Gonzales 2005a and 2005b); to construct a ‘domestic structure database’ through the excavation of elite household groups and compounds within the settlement zone. A key question driving the inquiry at Xno’ha is how did Maya elites create, develop and maintain their power structures (see Guderjan 2013: 1-15)? It has been long argued that “gradations within archaeological remains suggest that the distinction between the elites and the non-elite is more of a continuum than a well-defined division” (Sharer 1994: 490). Remnants of “monumental earthen constructions, elaborate human burials, diverse arrays of luxury goods, and other remains… [exist] as evidence… [of the] sociopolitical complexity [among the ancient Maya]” (Sharer 1989: 166). Importantly, Xno’ha’s location mid-way between Blue Creek and Nojol Nah permits MRP to examine the dynamics of ancient Maya elite interaction at the intra-site and regional level. The establishment of such a database would also provide a basis for a comparative study of behaviour between royal elites and between royal elites and non-royal elites and commoners.

Xno’ha Excavations 2002-2004

Xno’ha was first identified in 1990 and was subsequently surveyed, mapped, and partially excavated between 2002 and 2004. The primary goal of the 2002 survey and archaeological evaluations was to determine whether Xno’ha was an autonomous centre or a subsidiary of La Milpa (Gonzalez 2003; Knippe and Gonzalez 2003). La Milpa is the largest Maya centre in close proximity to Xno’ha and was likely to be the dominant regional power during the period of its political florescence through the Late Preclassic period (300BC – 250 AD) (Guderjan 2007: 16). In 2003, Jason Gonzalez undertook test excavations in the site’s main plaza and within the limits of a proposed ballcourt (see LaLonde 2003, Gonzalez and Knippe 2004, Gonzales 2005a and 2005b). Additionally, extensive test excavations were undertaken in and around the many residential buildings located at the site (see Gonzalez 2005).

While dating has yet to establish the precise period or periods of occupation within Group 78, preliminary assessment of excavated ceramics suggest that it functioned as an elite residential complex during the Late Preclassic and Classic periods.  Excavations undertaken at the site between 2002 and 2004 suggest that the site of Xno’ha was occupied from the Late Preclassic to the Terminal Classic period (300BC – 925AD). According to Gonzales (2005a: 147), analysis of ceramics obtained from construction fill contexts during the 2002, 2003 and 2004 investigations indicated that the first buildings were erected within the site core area during the Late Preclassic, with some lesser construction occurring during Late Preclassic period. Civic expansion at Xno’ha during the Early Classic period is suggested by the construction of the larger public building in the site’s core as well as some increased building in residential areas of the site; as well as landscape modifications both in the centre and the periphery of the site. Following an apparent drop in construction during the Middle to Late Classic period, there was a substantial increase in construction in the interior and on the margin of the site during the Late Terminal Classic period. All this construction, however, was restricted to the residential areas and in the form of general modifications to the landscape; no large public architecture was built during the Terminal Late Classic period (Gonzales 2005a: 147).  

The relationship that Xno’ha had with regional centres such as Rio Azul and La Milpa has yet to be established; including the impact such centres had on the cultural and occupational history of the site. Gonzales proposes that an objective of future research at the site should be to determine why there was a reduction in construction at Xno’ha during the Early and late Classic periods and why there was a substantial increase in building during the Terminal Classic period. Beyond this, it remains important to establish the reasons for the site’s abandonment at the end of the Terminal Classic Period, and how this movement fits within the greater regional history of north-western Belize (Gonzales 2005a: 147).

Xno’ha Excavations 2012

In 2012, excavations continued at Xno’ha, which focused on Structure 1; a gallery style building positioned on the eastern edge of Plaza A. Structure 1 measures approximately 62 meters north-south and 23 meters east-west and is oriented 18° east off magnetic north. The building stands 4.5 metres tall and has a large central staircase leading up from Plaza A at the front of the building; there is also a staircase leading up from Plaza B at the rear. During the 2012 excavations, the areas south of the structure’s centreline were targeted, allowing a general picture of this very large building to be ascertained within the limited time available (Guderjan and Preston 2012: 24).

Excavations in 2012 resulted in the removal of overburden along the midline of Structure 1 and the exposure of the southwest corner of the building. The gallery located at the top of the basal platform measures approximately four metres wide with walls 80cm thick. The interior of the structure consists of a single room that has seven doorways on the west side of the building; three of which were unearthed during the 2012 excavations. Digging on the eastern side of the gallery also revealed multiple doorways. Very few artefacts were recovered during these stripping operations (Guderjan and Preston 2012: 25)

During the 2012 field season, a two-metre wide trench was also placed along the midline of an alleged ballcourt; at the level of the proposed playing field. The purpose of the excavation was to obtain information regarding the period of its construction and to determine how long it may have been used. The investigations undertaken during the 2013 field season were insufficient to determine the function of this building group.

Xno’ha Excavations 2013

The Purported Ball Court at Xno’ha

In 2013, MRP undertook an archaeological assessment of Pitz Nah (i.e. MRP Operation 13:01), a building complex located within the larger Maya site of Xno’ha. The building group comprises a small plazuela bounded by two parallel buildings, in addition to a peripheralstructure positioned immediately west of Structure 16 (i.e. Structure 16A). The earliest archaeological assessment (undertaken in 2002) documented this group as a ballcourt (see Lalonde 2002, Gonzales 2003, Lohse et al 2004, and Guderjan 2013). The presence of Aguila Orange ceramics identified during excavations suggested that the group was constructed during the Early Classic period. Excavations undertaken in 2012 revealed a lower platform within the plazuela, pushing the date of the earliest phase of construction back to the Preclassic period (Guderjan and Preston, 2012).

In 2013, MRP expanded the previous year’s operations at this group in order to provide a more complete understanding of the function and temporal nature of the group. Archaeological assessment revealed substantially disturbed soils as well as discrepancies in architectural features reported by Lalonde (2002).

Clarification of the 2002 findings warranted a more thorough examination into the function of the group as well as a refinement of the temporal sequencing for Structures 15 and 16 and Platform 17. The findings from the 2013 excavation revealed that the structures displayed markedly different construction phases as well as substantial differences between the two main structures represented. More specifically, the structures did not display any continuity of design or architectonic symmetry, common among ball courts in Central America (Mead, Mastropietro and LeMasters 2013: 51-52).

Excavations of a Terminal Classic Courtyard Structure at Xno’ha

In 2013, a small Courtyard Group, designated Group 63, was also excavated. The group comprises five small structures that surround a small plaza, located south of Structure 1 and in close proximity to the Xno’ha site core. The objective of the investigation was to generate a sample of residential architecture to compare with other sites in the region, namely Nojol Nah, Tulix Mul and Blue Creek.

Focus of the investigation was directed at Structure 67, which was completely excavated over a four-week period. The structure measures approximately eight meters long and comprises four rooms, three of which were oriented east to west. The fourth Room, oriented north-south, was assessed as being the earliest of the four rooms. All ceramic material recovered during the excavation dated to the Terminal Classic Period and all but one was built in a single construction phase. It was noted during the excavations that the entire structure was built directly onto the bedrock. This style of architecture seems prevalent at Xno’ha, while presently unknown at both Nojol Nah and Tulix Mul (Hannah Plumer 2014: 83-85)

Excavations at Group 78

The excavations were undertaken at Group 78 over a four-week period in July 2013. The purpose of the excavations was to commence exposing Structures 79 and 80 before subsequent excavations reveal the broader construction history of the group in later field seasons. The approach undertaken was to first locate the patio surface and baseline of two superstructures before broader stripping of the associated architecture. In addition to the general objectives of the fieldwork being achieved, a Late Preclassic ceramic cache (comprising 9 Sierra Red vessels) was recovered during excavations as well as an Early Classic tomb.

The Late Preclassic Ceramic Cache in Situ (as found)

Figure 4: Reconstruction of Preclassic Ceramic Cache 13-03, Vessels 2-7, East View

Preclassic Ceramic Cache

During 2013 a sub-patio ceramic deposit was uncovered during the stripping operations connected with Structure 78. Designated Xno’ha Cache 13-03, the cache consisted of 9 fragmented Sierra Red vessels dating typologically to the Late Preclassic period (300 BC-250 AD).

Found in the southeast quadrant of Sub-operation A, against the east wall of the trench, the most intact portion of the cache (Vessels 2 to 7) were found at a depth of 110 cm.  Highly fragmented Vessels 1, 8 and 9, were located directly above this deposit. The cache measured 125 cm north-south and 50 cm east-west in its horizontal extent and 45 cm vertically.  Two vessels remained in the east wall of Sub-operation A at the end of the 2013 field season.

The most ordered component of the cache was represented by 6 pots numbered 2 -7. Four of the vessels (Vessels 1, 2, 3 and 4) were staked in a lip-to-lip configuration with one vessel positioned immediately north and south of the stack. Pollen and phytolith analysis of the sediments contained within the vessels determined the following:

This sample is characterized by high frequencies of leaves from shrubs and trees, as well as herbaceous monocots, similar to the assemblage from the burial at Chum Balam Na. A trace of hat-shaped phytoliths (0.4 percent) indicates that palm fruits may have been part of the offering. A low frequency of spinulose spheres > 10µ (2.2 percent) indicate that oil extracted from A. cohune and/or R. regia may have been poured into the lower vessel.  Two sponge spicules were found while scanning.  Their rarity indicates that the spicules may have leaked into the vessel from the surrounding matrix. As in the Chum Balam Na sample, this isolate required oxidation (in concentrated hydrogen peroxide) to remove large amounts of microscopic plant material that were probably the result of large amounts of leaves having been placed in the cache (Bozarth 2013: 12-13).

Figure 5: Configuration of Multiple Vessel Lip-to-Lip Cache, Lot 7, Vessels 2-7, East View

Xno’ha Burial 13-01

During the excavation of Xno’ha Sub-operation B, two closely positioned capstones were revealed overlying a human burial at the western end of the excavation. The poor condition of the burial chamber suggested that the tomb may have succumbed to compression from the surrounding construction fill. Excavation revealed a burial cavity measuring 110 cm by 65 cm containing the individual interred in a flexed position facing eastward with the head oriented to the south. Some of the more distinguishable skeletal remains were a partial cranium and several long bones, which included an ulna, radius, humerus and femur.  A highly fragmented pelvis was also identifiable; in addition there were bone fragments and several teeth that were recovered during sieving of the burial deposits. As formal analysis of the remains has yet to be undertaken, it is unclear whether it will be possible to determine the age and gender of the individual, due primarily to the poor condition of the remains.

One highly degraded and non-diagnostic fragment of pottery, probably associated with the surrounding construction fill, was recovered while excavating Lot 6. Additionally, two marine shells and a jade cylinder bead were also found. The mottled whitish-green jade bead (measuring 60 mm long and 25 mm thick) was found positioned between the ulna/radius and the cranium of the individual. The bore drilled through the length of the bead measured 6 mm. The marine shells were recovered whilst sieving the burial deposits. It is clear that the floor, below which the burial had been placed, corresponded to an earlier construction phase of the patio group.

Xno’ha Excavations 2014

Building Group 78 – Excavation Method and Stratigraphy

The excavations at Group 78 were undertaken over an eight-week period commencing in early June and finishing at the end of July 2014. Due to time constraints, the excavations were undertaken by two teams of volunteers led by MRP Staff and interns. Ian Lemasters and Holly Lincoln led one team that focused on the continued stripping operation of Structures 79 and 80, which began the previous year (see Lemasters and Lincoln, this volume). The excavation in the patio area was supervised by Alexander Parmington whose qualifications include a Doctorate in Maya Archaeology from La Trobe University, Australia.

Excavations were undertaken at Xno’ha Group 78 Patio from the 1^st of July to the 29^th of July utilizing teams of volunteers, numbering 6-8, over two consecutive 2 week sessions (i.e. Sessions 3 and 4); participants included local workers from San Felipe as well as volunteers from the United States. The Session 3 volunteers were Fidel Cruz, Kevin Austin, Megan Weldy, Jack Magee, Emily Prichard, Julia Mahr, Shelby Betz, and Beth Eraul; the Session 4 volunteer participants were Katie Wahler, Mariela Mendoza, Douglas Reithmuller, Romano Derosa, and Chabli Bravo. What follows is a description of the excavations, which were undertaken in accordance with the research objectives and ‘Specific Planned Activity’ items 1 and 4 as out lined in the 2014 research proposal:

Specific Planned Activity items 1 and 4

1. 1. Excavations of elite residential groups. As part of our ongoing concern with the events and processes of abandonment, we propose to continue stripping excavations of several elite residences at Xno’ha, Nojol Nah and Tulix Mul Blue Creek. The major effort will be at Xno’ha, where we will continue investigating elite residences associated with the main plaza.” (see Guderjan 2014: 2).

1. 4. Continuation of excavations at Xno’ha. A major part of our long-term planning is to enhance our understanding of regional processes of interaction and abandonment. Earlier research at Xno’ha focused on similar questions but did not address acquisition of data from the Central Precinct. We undertook first excavations in 2012 and in 2013 found that the buildings believed to be a ballcourt was not. We will continue these excavations in 2014.”(see Guderjan 2014: 3).

Eight sub-operations were excavated in the Building Group 78 Patio area during the 2014 field season (i.e. A, B, M, N, O, P, T and U) [Note: in this report, Lots Q 62 and Q 67 have been redesignated P 62 and P 67]. In the following discussion, profile drawings, figures and plans will be presented for the sub-operations and lots; lots being the smallest provenance designations recorded. Figure 6 provides a key for the locations of the sub-operations and their positions relative to the structures they were assigned to investigate. All of the sub-operations excavated measured 2 metres by 4 metres, with exception of Sub-operation P and U, which were excavated to chase out (i.e. determine the extent) of cultural deposits (see Figure 6).

Each sub-operation was placed so that its long axis ran parallel to the sub-operations excavated in 2013. Due to the prospective depths of the excavations and concerns regarding access and stability of the excavations, the 2 metre by 4 metre sub-operations were each separated by a 50 cm balk. During excavations, four primary stratigraphic layers were identified; overlayed by a humus of amassed soils. Each related to different phases of the patio’s construction. The humic layer within all sub-operations generally consisted of a moist brownish-grey silty loam with abundant tree roots and gravels throughout. The underlying rubble generally consisted of poorly sorted limestone cobble mixed with limestone and silty soils. All boundaries between gravels and soils were relatively diffuse with moderate to abundant root disturbance apparent throughout the upper fill.

All lots were excavated stratigraphically; each is discussed numerically under the relevant sub-operation header (see below). Due to the disturbed nature of the upper deposits, all excavation of the upper structural fill was undertaken with a mattock, hand pick, and shovel. Additionally, while all associated ceramic and lithic artefacts were collected and assigned relevant Lot numbers, only every fourth bucket of excavated humus was dry-screened.  Every second bucket of soils collected below humic level was screened, while 100% screening of subsoils was limited to those lots with in-situ deposits.

All architectural features and special deposits were excavated by trowel, hand-pick, brush and pan; they were also progressively documented and digitally photographed. The X, Y and Z coordinates for all in-situ cultural material was recorded with tape and compass. Vertical control was achieved and maintained with a transit. Excavation of the structures were undertaken systematically; for example, when an architectural feature or special deposit was identified, the archaeological investigation determined the horizontal extent of the deposit, or find, before proceeding downward through the underlying strata. Where applicable, soil samples were collected for pollen and phosphate testing as was the case with the Sub-operation P and the Sub-operation U (see relevant sections below). Human remains were excavated with dental tools, small plastic spatulas and brushes to minimise damage to the bone during excavation. Where possible, lots were dated by the associated ceramics (analyses provided by Colleen Hanratty).

Figure 6: Plan of Excavations, Xno’ha Group 78 – Patio Area. Courtesy MRP

Xno’ha Operation 13-02, Sub-operation M – Lots 51, 54, 60, 66, 68 and 88

Oriented east-west, Xno’ha Sub-operation M comprised a 4 metre by 2 metre trench located south of sub-operation B and Structure 80 (see Figure 6). The objective of Xno’ha Sub-operation M was to investigate the external patio area of Building Group 78. This included verifying the presence of a suspected floor that was detected during the excavation of Suboperation B in 2013. Located immediately north of Sub-operation M, associated with this floor, was a large ceramic deposit that was located in the east of the sub-operation.

The excavation of Sub-operation M was undertaken to a maximum depth of 120 cm below surface level and began with the removal of the overburden resulting from the accumulation of soils and plant decomposition. This was followed by the excavation of the underlying construction fill revealing two floor surfaces. Two capstones covering what turned out to be a Late Preclassic tomb (see Sub-operation U, Lot 96) were also found during the excavation of Sub-operation M as well as the remains of a large Late Preclassic vessel (see Lots 51, 54, 60, 66, 68 88 and Figures 8 and 9).

Lot 51 – Removal of Humus

Occasional chipped stone (i.e. lithics) and ceramic fragments were unearthed, collected and bagged during the excavation of Lot 51. The excavation of Lot 51 extended to a depth of 45 cm. The compaction of the soil was found to be loose, comprising moist dark-brown silty loam (5YR 3/1) with frequent course limestone pebbles and cobbles. Cortical cert and abundant roots were found throughout the deposit. The relative percentage of the pebbles/cobbles to soil matrix was estimated to be 30% and 70% respectively. Removal of the humic layer exposed increasing cobble composed primarily of limestone. No formal surface to the patio was identified during the excavation of Sub-operation M, Lot 51. The lot was closed following the detection of a substantial increase of cobble material.

Lot 54 – Patio Construction Fill and Preclassic Pot

Lot 54 comprised loose dark greyish-brown soils (10YR 4/2) with limestone and chert cobble, the relative percentages of cobble and soil was 70% and 30% respectively. Artefactual material comprised infrequent chipped stone artefacts and ceramic sherds. The remains of a Late Preclassic pot measuring approximately 25 cm in diameter, was detected in the east profile of the sub-operation; located at the interface between the primary humic layer and the underlying cobble fill. Even though the vessel was highly fragmented, its vertical (upright) orientation could be discerned during excavation. Only a portion of the vessel was recovered during the excavation of Lot 54. Recovering any remaining vessel fragments will require extending Sub-operation M eastward. Lot 54 was excavated to a maximum depth of 65 cm and ceased when an increase in the size of underlying ballast was identified. Lot 54 was closed when large rubble was detected representing the primary construction fill for the latest phase of the patio’s construction.

Lot 51, East Profile, Late Preclassic Jar Offering

Lot 60 – Patio Construction Fill and Capstones

Large boulders of chert and limestone were identified during the excavation of Lot 60. The matrix in between the boulders comprised moist dark grey brown silty loam (10YR 4/2) loam with infrequent poorly sorted cobbles and pebbles. Percentages of soils verses ballast material was 20% and 80% respectively.

Occasional chipped stone (i.e. lithics) and ceramic fragments were unearthed, collected, and bagged during the excavation of Lot 60. Lot 60 extended to a maximum depth of 85cm and terminated following an apparent reduction in the size and frequency of ballast material, the discovery of several pieces of fragmented bone, and the identification of two capstones located in the south-west quadrant of the sub-operation. The bone fragments were found in association with what was initially thought to be a disturbed burial on the east side of the sub-operation. Oriented north-east, the burial was suggested by two rows of stones that appeared to be set in a parallel configuration. It was originally believed that the stones may have once been positioned to support capstones and contain human remains; however, further inquiry could not verify this proposal nor discount the possibility that the stones were simply residual cobble material suspended in the surrounding soil matrix.

Lot 66 – Exposure of Remnant Floor

Occasional chipped stone (i.e. lithics) and ceramic fragments were unearthed, collected, and bagged during the excavation of Lot 66. Lot 66 comprised a greyish-brown fine grained silty loam (7.5YR 5/1) with inclusions of limestone ranging in size from 5-30cm in their maximum dimension. Excavation of Lot 60 exposed a grey silty relatively free of rock suggesting the excavation was on or approaching a remnant floor surface. Several fragments of bone as well as a medial obsidian blade were found while dry sieving the deposits. During excavation, the fragments of bone and obsidian blade were viewed as potential floor deposits. The excavation of Lot 66 ceased following the identification of the suspected floor deposit, which corresponded to the elevation of the remnant floor surface identified during the excavation of Sub-operation B Lot 4 in 2013, which approximated 89.85 metres above sea level. Lot 66 reached a maximum depth of 110 cm.

Lot 68 – Excavation of Floor

The objective of Lot 68 was to excavate the floor identified during the previous lot. Occasional chipped stone and ceramic fragments were collected and bagged during the excavation of Lot 68. The remnant floor comprised a compact greyish-brown fine grained silty loam (7.5YR 5/1) with infrequent inclusions of limestone and suspended ballast material ranging in size from 5-40cm. The floor surface was poorly preserved and extended westward as far as two capstones that were exposed during the excavation of Lot 66. The termination of the floor on the eastern side of the capstones indicated that it did not extend across the entire sub-operation and that the burial (verified during the excavation of Sub-operation U), penetrated through the floor surface into the supporting construction fill. The intrusive nature of the burial was also evidenced by a concentration of cobble material, at the floor level, visible in the western profile of the sub-operation. Lot 68 reached a maximum depth of approximating 120 cm. As previously stated, the depth of the remnant floor was consistent with the level of the floor identified in the northern and neighbouring Sub-operation B, which was excavated in 2013. The excavation of Lot 68 ceased when a darkening of soil was detected as well as the reappearance of supporting cobble construction fill.

Lot 88 – Sub-floor Construction Fill

The objective of the Sub-operation 88 was to break through the remnant sub-floor construction fill to the underlying bedrock, which was identified during the excavation of Sub-operation T (see relevant sections). Lot 88 comprised a relatively thin layer of limestone and chert cobble fill suspended a matrix of dark grey-brown silty loam with increasing clay content (munsel 2.5YR 4/1); the relative percentages of cobble and soil were 80% and 20% respectively. Occasional chipped stone artefacts and ceramic fragments were collected and bagged during the excavation of Lot 88. The suspected burial, located in the east of Sub-operation M (see Lot 60), was further investigated and subsequently dismissed as a possibility, during the excavation of Lot 88. Limited time prevented the completion of the Lot 88, which will continue in 2015. Sub-operation M reached a maximum depth of 130 cm from surface level. 

Xno’ha Operation 13-02, Sub-operation N – Lot 52

Oriented east-west, Xno’ha Sub-operation N was to be a 4 metre by 2 metre trench located east of sub-operation M. The objective of Xno’ha Sub-operation N was to investigate a shallow surface depression and an area of inclined ground located on the eastern side of the group (see Figure 6). The surface depression measures 4 metres north-south and 5.4 metres east-west. As previously stated, it is unclear what this surface depression is; whether it represents slumping of the building group’s patio or, alternatively, a remnant architectural feature. Initial clearing of vegetation in 2013 suggested that it may have once formed part of a terraced approach, functioning as the formal entrance to the group. Unfortunately, time constraints prevented the excavation of Suboperation N beyond general clearing of surface vegetation. It is projected the excavation of Sub-operation N will continue in 2015.

Xno’ha Operation 13-02, Sub-operation O – Lots 55, 59, 70, 72 and 105

Oriented east-west, Xno’ha Sub-operation O comprised a 4 metre by 2 metre trench located immediately west of sub-operation B and south of Structure 80 (see Figure 6). The objectives of Xno’ha Sub-operation O were generally consistent with Sub-operation M: to investigate the external patio fronting Building Group 78. This included verifying the presence and extent of a floor that was detected during the excavation of Suboperation B in 2013 as well identify any associated architectural features if present. Additionally, it was decided that further excavation of the patio fronting Structure 80 may uncover cache deposits associated with the dedication of Structure 80 and/or any earlier construction phases of the building group.

The excavation of Sub-operation O and was undertaken to a maximum depth of 140cm below surface level and began with the removal of the overburden resulting from the accumulation of soils and plant decomposition. This was followed by the excavation of successive spits of platform construction fill. The excavation of Sub-operation exposed what is currently believed to be a small bench or platform (see Lots 55, 59, 70, 72 and 105).

Lots 55 and 59 – Removal of Humus

Infrequent chipped stone and fragmented ceramics were unearthed, collected and bagged during the excavation of Lots 55 and 59. The excavation of Lots 55 and 59 was undertaken in arbitrary spits of 30-40 cm and extended to a maximum depth of 70 cm. The compaction of the soil was consistent with Sub-operation M and was found to be loose comprising moist dark brown silty loam (5YR 3/1) with frequent roots and occasional course limestone pebbles and cobbles. Small cortical chert cobbles were also found throughout Lots 55 and 59. The relative percentage of the pebbles/cobbles to soil matrix was estimated to be 20% and 80% respectively. Removal of the humic layer exposed increasing cobble composed primarily of limestone. No formal surface to the patio was identified during the excavation of Lots 55 and 59. There was gradual lightening of the soils as Sub-operation progressed deeper. Lot 59 was closed following the removal of the primary root zone as well as the detection of an apparent increase in the frequency of pebble and cobble material.

Lot 70 – Exposure of Plastered Surface

Lot 70 comprised loose mid Greyish-brown loam (7.5YR 5/1) mixed with a concentration of moderately sorted pebble and cobble material. Infrequent lithics and ceramic fragments were unearthed, collected and bagged during the excavation of Lot 70. Excavation of Lot 70 ceased at a maximum depth of 100 cm from surface level; following the detection of the compact plaster surface at the centre of the sub-operation. This plaster surface was initially thought to be a floor but is now believed to be a potential bench following the excavation of subsequent lots (see Lots 72 and 105). Lot 70 was closed and a new lot assigned, following the identification of the compact plastered surface. This was done to separate any potential cultural deposits associated with the surface of this feature (see Lot 72).    

Lot 72 – Cut in Plaster Surface and Remnant Wall

The excavation of Lot 72 revealed a plaster surface in the central area of Sub-operation O. The plaster feature measures approximately 2 m east-west (the northern and southern extent of the feature has yet to be determined) and is bounded on the east by a line of stones suggesting the presence of a rudimentary wall. The plaster feature is delineated on the west by a north-south oriented cut. During excavation, an additional thin covering of plaster was found extending from the cut. The western profile of the sub-operation suggested that it may have been capping something below. The Lot was closed following the identification of the cut, the additional plaster surface, and the remnant wall located on the east side of the sub-operation.

Lot 105 – Exposure of Bench Feature

The objective of Lot 105 was to investigate a cut found adjacent to a plaster feature, which was identified during the exaction of Lot 72. The Excavation of Lot 105 revealed a 40 cm high bench-like feature, located in the central area of Sub-operation O. A remnant plaster floor was also found lipping up to the bench on its western side. An examination of the cut revealed no overlying cultural deposits other than construction fill. Excavation around the feature reaffirmed the presence of the rudimentary wall abutting the eastern side of the bench; the western side of the bench was constructed from a single course of cut stone. A break in the plaster render, on the top surface of the bench, indicated that the bench is constructed primarily of cobble fill.

The excavation of Lot 105, on the eastern and western sided of the bench, extended to a maximum depth of 140 cm from the surface level. The compaction of the soil was loose comprising loose mid greyish-brown silty loam (7.5YR 5/1) mixed with frequent chert and limestone pebbles and cobbles. The relative percentage of the soil matrix to pebble/cobble material was estimated to be 20% and 80% respectively. Infrequent chipped stone and fragmented ceramics were unearthed, collected and bagged during the excavation of Lot 105. The northern and southern extent of the bench has yet to be ascertained.

Xno’ha Operation 13-02, Sub-operation P Lots 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 67, 71, 86

The objective of Sub-operation P was to recover the remainder of Cache 13-03, which was partially excavated in 2013. During the 2013 excavations, a sub-patio cache of vessels was exposed during the stripping operations associated with Structure 78. Subsequent excavations revealed that the cache comprised at least 9 fragmented Sierra Red vessels dating typologically to the Late Preclassic period (300BC-250AD). At the end of the 2013 field season, two fragmented vessels, ordered in a lip-to-lip configuration, remained visible in the east wall of Sub-operation A at the northern end of the cache deposit. Sub-operation P was positioned immediately east of Sub-operation A (refer Figure 6). On completion, Sub-operation P measured 2.3 metres north-south and 1.4 metres east-west and reached a maximum depth of around 120 cm below surface level.

Sub-operation P began with the removal of overburden resulting from the accumulation of soils and plant decomposition. This was followed by the excavation of the underlying construction fill and the recovery of 6 complete and 10 partial vessels. All vessels were found broken and suspended in the construction fill of the patio. The highly fragmented condition of the vessels was the result of compression by the surrounding construction fill and presence of a large tree found growing directly above and down through the cache deposit (see Lots 56, 57, 58, 61, 62, 67, 71, 86).

While it remains unclear whether vessels recovered during the 2014 excavations are a component of Xno’ha Cache 13-03, it is possible that the vessels recovered during the excavation of Sub-operation P were an unrelated deposit. This is evidenced by differences in the size and configuration of the vessels recovered during the 2013 and 2014 field seasons as well as differences in the elevations of both ceramic deposits. Following the excavation of Sub-operation P, and subsequent lab analysis of the vessels recovered, the minimum number of individual vessels that recovered in the vicinity of Cache 13-03, increased from 9 (as documented in 2013) to 25.

Lot 56 – Removal of Humus and Tree Roots

Occasional chipped stone artefacts and ceramic sherds were unearthed, collected and bagged during the excavation of Lot 56. The excavation of Lot 56 extended to a depth of 50 cm. The compaction of the soil was found to be loose comprising moist fine dark-brown silty loam (5YR 3/1) with frequent medium sized course limestone pebbles and cobbles and abundant tree roots throughout. The relative percentage of the pebbles/cobbles to soil matrix was estimated to be 30% and 70% respectively. Removal of the humic layer exposed cobble composed primarily of limestone. The lot was closed following penetration through the primary root zone.

A choice was made during the excavation of Lot 56 not to remove the entire tree located in the vicinity of Cache 13-03; but rather, to excavate around it. This was due to concerns regarding the stability of the ground and the fragility of any remaining cached vessels: The removal of the tree would have resulted in substantial ground disturbance in the vicinity of the cache.

Lot 57 – Fill above Cache 13-03

The interface between Lot 56 and 57 was diffuse, occurring over a vertical distance of approximately 15 cm. Occasional chipped stone and ceramic fragments were unearthed, collected, and bagged during the excavation of Lot 57. Large cobbles of chert and limestone, measuring 10-60 cm, were identified during the excavation of Lot 57. The matrix in between the cobble comprised a moist grey-brown silty loam (10YR 4/2) with frequent poorly sorted pebbles and cobble. Percentages of soils verses pebble/cobble was 30% and 70% respectively. Lot 57 was excavated to a depth of 60 cm and ceased on the identification of an area of grey loam (10YR 4/2) that was free of rubble measuring approximately 120 cm north-south and 70 cm east-west. 

Lot 58 – Exposure of Capstones

The objective of Lot 58 was to determine the nature of the cobble-free deposit located east of the Cache deposit identified in 2013 (see MRP 2013 field report). Excavation of Lot 58 revealed two capstones, aligned north-south, at a depth of 70 cm. On discovery of the capstones, the excavation of Lot 58 continued for the purpose of removing associate soils and exposing any underlying features. The deposit consisted of moist grey-brown silty loam (10YR 4/2), surrounding what was initially thought to be a tomb. This suggestion was later dismissed following the discovery of fragmented vessels in subsequent lots that were set in a lip to lip configuration below the capstones. Excavation of Lot 58 ceased at a depth of 100 cm, once the capstones and the surrounding ballast were fully exposed. One broken and incised dolomite bead, measuring 55 mm in maximum dimension, was recovered during the excavation of the deposit overlying the capstones.

Lot 61 – Ceramic Deposit: Cache Outer, Northwest

The purpose of Lot 61 was the recovery of two fragmented lip-to-lip vessels identified in the south profile of Sub-operation A in 2013 (see MRP field report 2013). The deposit was designated ‘Ceramic Deposit, Northwest Corner’ following the identification of additional vessels underlying a northern most capstone, which was found during the excavation of Lot 58; it was determined that the vessels beneath the capstone comprised the central portion of a larger ceramic deposit (see Lots 62 and 67). During the excavation of Lot 61, all pottery was removed with associated soils for the purpose of sampling. The supporting material comprised relatively small well sorted limestone cobble. No unusual residues were identified during excavation of the vessels. Following lab analysis, one Sierra Red bichrome bowl measuring 19 cm in diameter was reconstructed showing punctuations on the exterior, dating to the Late Preclassic period.

Lot 62 Ceramic Deposit: Cache Inner

The purpose of Lot 62 was to determine the nature of the deposit underlying two capstones that were found during the excavation of Lot 58. First suspected to be a burial, the lot was subsequently designated ‘Ceramic Deposit, Cache Inner’ when several vessels were found beneath the northern capstone, which comprised the central portion of a larger ceramic deposit (see Lots 61 and 67): On removal of the capstones, and adjacent cobble, a total of six fragmented Sierra Red vessels dating to the Late Preclassic period were recovered at a depth of approximately 80 cm from the surface level; two of which were configured in a lip-to-lip configuration and positioned directly beneath the northern most capstone. While the ordering of the remaining ‘Cache Inner’ vessels could not be ascertained (due to their high fragmentation), there was a clear concentration of vessels just north of those underling the capstones. The poor condition of the vessels suggested that the cache may have succumbed to compression from the surrounding construction fill. During the excavation of Lot 67, all pottery was removed with associated soils for the purpose of sampling. No unusual residues were identified during excavation of the vessels. The surrounding material comprised small well sorted limestone a cobble that was apparently utilised as packing to support the cached vessels. Following lab analysis, six vessels were reconstructed which ranged from 19-25cm in diameter. On recovery of the vessels beneath the capstones, it was found that the cache deposit extended eastward into the root zone of an overlying tree (see Lot 67 Ceramic Cache East Outer).

Lot 67 – Ceramic Cache: East Outer

The objective of Lot 67 was to determine the eastern extent of a ceramic deposit that was exposed during the recovery central portion of deposit underlying two capstones, which were found during the excavation of Lot 58. Lot 67 was designated ‘Ceramic Deposit, Cache East-Outer’, which comprised the eastern portion of a larger ceramic deposit (see Lots 61 and 62). A concentration of ten partial Sierra Red vessels, dating to the Late Preclassic period, was recovered during excavation of Lot 67. While the precise configuration of the eastern segment of the cache could not be ascertained (again, due to their high fragmentation), at least two vessels appeared to be in a lip-to-lip configuration. The poor preservation of the eastern component of the cache could be attributed to a large amount of disturbance due to the presence of a tree roots growing directly above and through the deposit. No unusual residues were identified during excavation of the vessels. The surrounding soil comprised a loose mid greyish-brown loam (7.5YR 5/1) mixed with moderately sorted pebble and cobble material. Following lab analysis, the partial vessels were reconstructed where possible. Estimates of vessel size ranged from 20 to 25 cm in diameter. The depth of the east-outer component of the cache was consistent with Lot 62: The vessels were recovered from a depth of approximately 80 cm from the surface level.

The Lot 67 was closed once all noticeable ceramics were recovered. Given the partial nature of all vessels recovered from the east-outer component of the cache, there remains some potential for further associated ceramic to found following the removal of the tree and when Sub-operation P is extended eastward in 2015.

Lot 71 – Cobble Below Cache Overlying Floor

Below Lots 61, 62 and 67 was a layer of cobble overlying remnant plastered floor, designated Lot 71. The deposit comprised a mid greyish-brown silty loam with large cobble ballast mixed throughout. The relative percentage of the cobbles to soil matrix (7.5YR 5/1) was estimated to be 70% and 30% respectively. During the excavation of Lot 71, a compact plaster floor was found extending across the entire sub-operation. The objective of Sub-operation 71 was to expose the plaster floor taking special note of any cultural deposits that may have been present on close to floor level. Two broken jade beads (split longitudinally) were recovered during the excavation of Sub-operation P. Measuring 16 mm and 11mm in their maximum dimension, the smaller of the two beads was found while sieving the deposits and the other was found in situ while scraping back the floor in the vicinity of the Cache 13-01. The presence of these broken beads suggests that they once comprised a component of the Cache 13-01. Lot 71 extended to a maximum depth of 120 cm-130 cm from surface level and was close once the floor was fully exposed. During the excavation of Lot 71, some degraded bone was also identified in the east wall of Sub-operation P.

Lot 86 – Bone Deposit On Floor Below Cache 13-03 East Outer

On clearing of the deposits underlying Ceramic Cache 13-03 East Outer (i.e. Lot 71), a deposit of highly degraded bone was found in the east profile of Sub-operation P at a depth of 120 cm from the surface level. The purpose of Lot 86 was to determine the nature of this bone deposit. The small area of localised bone was surrounded by a grey-brown silty loam (7.5YR 5/1) that was relatively free of any stone or cobble material. Measuring 15-20 cm east-west, the bone was highly friable; held together only by the surrounding soil matrix. It could not be determined during excavation whether the bone was human; on its removal it completely disintegrated. During the excavation of Lot 86, associated soils were bagged for the purpose of sampling.

Location:  Xno’ha Operation 13-02, Sub-operation A – Lot 73

Oriented north-south, Xno’ha Sub-operation A comprised a 4-metre by 2-metre trench located on the western side of Sub-operation P (see Figure 6). Beginning in 2013, the purpose of Xno’ha Sub-operation A was to define the baseline (east side) of Structure 79. This required identifying the most recent phase of the plaza’s construction before extending northward towards the building with subsequent sub-operations. A deposit of nine Late Preclassic vessels was recovered during the excavations in the patio area of Sub-operation A. The excavations ceased at a depth of 110 cm in 2013, following removal of the cached vessels.

Excavation of Suboperation A continued in 2014 (i.e. Lot 73) to verify the presence of a floor identified during the exaction neighbouring Sub-operation P (see Lot 71). This required removal of a layer of cobble ballast approximately 20 cm thick. The excavation of Lot 73 confirmed that the floor, identified during the excavation Lot 71, did extend across Sub-operation A.

During the excavation of Lot 73, a small concentration of ceramic sherds (collectively comprising one near complete Sierra Red vessel) was recovered from the patio construction fill in the northeast quadrant of Sub-operation A. Located near the northwest boundary of Sub-operation P, the size and form of the vessel (once reconstructed) was consistent with those recovered from Lots 61, 62 and 67, indicating that it may have been a component of the Cache 13-03. However, given its positioning away from the larger Cache I3-03 deposit, this vessel may have no direct association.

Xno’ha Operation 13-02, Sub-operation T – Lots 76 & 80

Sub-operation T was undertaken to investigate the floor identified during the excavation of Sub-operations A and P (see Lots 71 and 73). To abridge the inquiry, a decision was made to consolidate Sub-operations A and P into one sub-operation. Sub-operation T comprised two lots (Lots 76 and 80), which, on excavation, revealed a heavy plaster flooring (believed to be earliest construction phase of the patio) adhered to a thin underlying layer of construction fill. This was followed by the exposure of a layer of clayey soil (see Lot 80) covering undulating bedrock. During the excavation of Lot 80 a cut was identified in the underlying bedrock in the southeast of the sub-operation; in addition to a remnant wall and fragmented Late Preclassic incensario in the north of the sub-operation. The excavation of Sub-operation T was undertaken to a maximum depth of 210 cm below surface level (see Lots 76 and 80).

Lot 76 – Penetration of Plaster

The object Lot 76 was to penetrate a plaster floor that was identified during the excavation of Lots 71 and 73 and expose any underlying construction fill. Excavation of Lot 76 revealed a floor measuring 20-30 cm thick that was adhered to a thin layer of cobble fill. The weight of the floor, combined with its close proximity to bedrock (see Lot 80), suggested that it relates to the earliest construction phase of the patio. The expanse of this early floor was suggested by the presence of a remnant floor found at a corresponding depth (see Lots 66, 71 and 73) during the excavation of Sub-operation M. It has yet to be established what relationship this early floor has with the Structures 79 and 80; although, it is certain that it corresponds to earlier phase construction. Infrequent chipped stone and fragmented ceramics were unearthed, collected and bagged during the excavation of Lot 76. The excavation of Lot 76 extended to a maximum depth of 150 cm below surface level and cease following the identification of a layer clayey soils overlying bedrock.

Lot 80 – Clay over Bedrock and Remnant Architectural Feature

The objective of the Sub-operation 80 was to excavate the soil deposit identified during the excavation of Lot 76, which comprised a dark grey-brown loam with high clay content (munsel 2.5YR 4/1). Found to be reasonably free of cobble, the relative percentages of soil and cobble/stone material were 95% and 5% respectively. Occasional chipped stone artefacts and ceramic fragments were collected and bagged during the excavation of Lot 80. 

The excavation of Lot 80 revealed what appeared to be a 100 cm x 60 cm cut in the bedrock in the southeast quadrant of Sub-operation T as well as a small deposit of highly degraded bone located immediately west of this cut. In addition to these finds, a suspected remnant wall was identified immediately below the thick plaster floor at a depth of 160 cm in the north of the sub-operation. The wall comprised two single parallel courses of cut stone (chert) that were oriented in east-west. A highly fragmented Late Preclassic vessel was found in association with this architectural feature. A possible termination deposit, the form and likely function of this vessel have yet to be ascertained; however, the presence of protuberances or spikes over the vessel exterior (on occasion referred to as hobnails and thought to be symbolic of the Ceiba tree) is not an uncommon feature of Maya incensarios. The excavation of Lot 80 ceased at a maximum depth of 210 cm from surface level, once bedrock was reached. Some further excavation of Lot 80 will be required in 2015 to recover any additional pieces of the incensario that may have been missed during the excavation of Lot 80.

 Following discovery of two capstones in the southwest of Sub-operation M (see Lot 60), suggesting the presence of a burial, a decision was made to extend the trench westward under a new sub-operation. Designated Sub-operation U, its purpose was to fully expose the outside of the suspected burial before lifting the capstones and excavating its interior. The excavation of the burial and the overlying deposits under a new sub-operation provided tighter control over the provenance of materials recovered during excavation. The excavation of Sub-operation U verified the presence of a burial (Tomb 14-01) containing an interred individual with an array of burial goods comprising macro botanicals, an intact Late Preclassic bird effigy incensario, and various items of body ornamentation. 

Approximating 140 cm x 150 cm, the excavation of Sub-operation U was undertaken to a maximum depth of 140 cm below surface level. It began with the removal of aggraded soils resulting from plant decomposition. This was followed by the excavation of the underlying construction fill. Following this, the three capstones were subsequently removed and the interior of the burial excavated (see Lots 92, 93, and 96).

Lot 92 – Removal of Humus

Consistent with Sub-operation M, Lot 51, occasional chipped stone artefacts and ceramic fragments were unearthed, collected and bagged during the excavation of Lot 92. The excavation of Lot 92 extended to a depth of 45 cm. The compaction of the soil was found to be loose comprising moist dark fine brown silty loam (5YR 3/1) with frequent course limestone pebbles and cobbles. Cortical cert and abundant roots were found throughout the deposit. The relative percentage of the pebbles/cobbles to soil matrix was estimated to be 30% and 70% respectively. Removal of the humic layer exposed increasing cobble composed primarily of limestone. No formal surface to the patio was identified during the excavation of Sub-operation U, Lot 92. The lot was closed following the detection of a substantial increase in underlying cobble material.

Lot 93 – Construction Fill Over Burial

Lot 93 comprised loose dark greyish brown soils (10YR 4/2) with limestone and chert cobble, the relative percentages of cobble and soil was 70% and 30% respectively. Artefactual material comprised infrequent chipped stone artefacts and ceramic sherds, which were collected and bagged during the excavation. Lot 93 was excavated to a maximum depth of 85 cm and ceased when all capstones were exposed. A third capstone was identified during the excavation of Lot 93 positioned just south of the two identified during the excavation of Suboperation M Lot 60.

Lot 96 – Tomb 14-01 Interior

The objective of Lot 96 was the excavation of Tomb 14-01 interior. Removal of the three capstones revealed a thin layer of gravels over loose greyish-brown silty loam (2.5YR 4/1) free of construction fill. On excavating down into the burial cavity, which measured 120 cm north-south and 50 cm east-west and was lined with cut limestone, highly degraded human skeletal remains were identified. The first appearance of the skeletal remains occurred at a depth 0f 100 cm and ended at a depth of 140 cm from surface level. Excavation of these remains revealed a human individual interred in a flexed position facing eastward with the head oriented to the North. Some of the more distinguishable skeletal vestiges included a partial cranium and several long bones; they also included a partial radius and humerus as well as a partial femur and tibia. In addition to long bones and bone fragments, several teeth were found while sieving of the surrounding deposits. As formal analysis of the remains has yet to be undertaken, it is unclear whether it will be possible to determine the age, health and gender of the individual; this is due primarily to their poor condition of the remains. Soils samples were collected from the burial for pollen and phytolith, results of which are pending.

Grave goods found with the burial included twenty-three plant seeds from three different plant varieties. Formal identification these macro-botanicals have yet to be undertaken. The seeds were found within the soil overlying the burial; their presence suggested that related plant material was deposited with burial. This finding is generally consistent with those associated with Xno’ha Burial 13-01,which was excavated the previous year (see MRP 2013 field report). Analysis of the soil sample taken from Burial 13-01 determined the following:

The high frequency of unknown phytoliths is the result of poor preservation.  No hat-shaped palm phytoliths were found.  However, the frequency of spinulose spheres > 10µ (4.8 percent) indicates that oil extracted from A. cohune and/or R. regia may have been poured into the vessel. Moreover, a low frequency of sponge spicules (1.2 percent) indicates that sponges were part of the offering (Bozarth 2013: 13).

In addition to the macro botanicals, a conch shell ornament carved into a flower shape (measuring 27 mm across) was found over the midsection of the individual; together with a red coral cruciform insert. The shell ornament and coral insert were found separated from one another; it was on their recovery that it was revealed that the pieces fitted together. A large jade cylinder bead, measuring 50 mm x 10 mm, was also recovered just south of the other ornamental pieces, as well as seventeen lithic flakes weighing 112 grams and one chert uni-face weighing 632 grams. Several marine shell fragments and a redware turkey effigy incensario were also found during the excavation of the Burial 14-01.

Measuring approximately 16 cm across and 14 cm in height, a Late Preclassic bird-effigy-incensario was found during the excavation of Burial 14-01. Preliminarily assessment suggests that the vessel was designed to resemble a turkey. This is implied by the comb on the head as well as general form and posture of the creature. Oriented westward in the burial, the head of the bird is clearly visible on one side of the vessel as it projects downward over the breast of the animal. Three phalanges located around the midsection of the incensario signify the wings and tail of the bird. Both the top and base of the vessel have comparable proportions and are dish shaped. A hole, measuring approximately 70 mm across, penetrates right through the centre of the incensario.

Xno’ha Operation 13-02, Sub-operation B – Lots 77, 84, 91 and 97

The excavation of Sub-operation B continued in 2014. The primary objective was the investigation of the sub-floor deposits east of Burial 13-01. Sub-operation B comprised four lots (i.e. Lots 77, 84, 91 and 97) and was excavated to a maximum depth of 175 cm from surface level. Cleaning and close examination of the profiles, immediately adjacent to Burial 13-01, suggest that the burial was intrusive, penetrating the floor in the east of the sub-operation. The excavation of Sub-operation B also revealed a second remnant floor, which occurred at comparable depth as the first-phase-patio-floor found in Sub-operations A and P (see relevant sections).

Lot 77 – Excavation of Remnant Floor

The objective of Lot 77 was to investigate the floor identified during the excavation Lot 3 in 2013 (see MRP Field Report 2013). Occasional chipped stone and ceramic fragments were collected and bagged during the excavation of Lot 77. The remnant floor comprised a compact greyish-brown fine grained silty loam (7.5YR 5/1) with infrequent inclusions of limestone and suspended ballast material ranging in size from 5-40 cm. The floor surface was poorly preserved and extended as far as the eastern edge of the burial cavity located in the west of the sub-operation. The termination of the floor, on the eastern side of the Burial 13-01, indicated that it did not extend across the entire sub-operation and that the burial (like Burial 14-01 in Sub-operation U), penetrated through the remnant floor surface into the supporting construction fill. The intrusive nature of the burial was also evidenced by a concentration of cobble material visible in the southern profile of the sub-operation. Lot 77 reached a maximum depth approximating 105 cm. The depth of the remnant floor was consistent with the level of the floor identified in neighbouring Sub-operation M. The excavation of Lot 77 ceased when a darkening of soil was detected as well as the reappearance of supporting cobble construction fill.

Lot 84 – Sub-floor Construction Fill

The objective of the Sub-operation 84 was to excavate down through the layer of construction fill found underlying a remnant floor on the eastern side of Sub-operation B. Lot 84 comprised a relatively thin layer of limestone and chert ballast suspended a matrix of dark grey-brown silty loam with increasing clay content (munsel 7.5YR 5/1); the relative percentages of cobble and soil were 80% and 20% respectively. Occasional chipped stone artefacts and ceramic fragments were collected and bagged during the excavation of Lot 84. The excavation of Lot 84 reached a maximum depth of 120 cm from surface level and ceased on the identification of a second remnant floor found at a corresponding depth to the first-phase-patio-surface found in Sub-operations A and P (see relevant sections). 

Lot 91- Sub-floor Construction Fill and First Phase Patio

The object Lot 91 was to penetrate the remnant floor that was identified during the excavation of Lots 76 and expose the underlying construction fill. Excavation of Lot 91 revealed a layer of cobble 20-30 cm thick. The absence of large amounts of cobble was the resulted of the floor’s close proximity to bedrock. Infrequent chipped stone and fragmented ceramics were unearthed, collected and bagged during the excavation of Lot 91. The excavation of Lot 91 extended to a maximum depth of 150 cm below surface level and cease following the identification of a layer clayey soils overlying bedrock.

Lot 97 – Clay over Bedrock

The objective of the Sub-operation 97 was to excavate the soil deposit identified during the excavation of Lot 97, which comprised a dark grey-brown loam with high clay content (munsel 2.5YR 4/1). Found to be reasonably free of cobble, the relative percentages of soil and cobble/stone material were 95% and 5% respectively. Occasional chipped stone artefacts and ceramic fragments were collected and bagged during the excavation of Lot 97.  The excavation of Lot 97 ceased at a maximum depth of 175 cm from surface level, once bedrock was reached.

_______________________________

All images courtesy Maya Research Program, unless otherwise noted.

Acknowledgements:

I would like to thank Tom Guderjan and Colleen Hanratty and all the team for the invaluable support they provided during my stay over MRP field Sessions 3 and 4 2014.  This work would also not have been possible without the efforts of the workers from San Felipe as well as volunteers Fidel Cruz, Kevin Austin, Megan Weldy, Jack Magee, Emily Prichard, Julia Mahr, Shelby Betz, Beth Eraul, Katie Wahler, Mariela Mendoza, Douglas Reithmuller, Romano Derosa, and Chabli Bravo.

References

Bozarth, S. R. 2013. Blue Creek 2013 Biosilicate Report: Analysis of Biosilicates and Charred Phytoliths at Chum Balam Na, Nojol Nah, and Xno’ha North western Belize. Department of Geography University of Kansas.

Chase, A. F. and D. Z. Chase. 1992a. Mesoamerican Elites: Assumptions, Definitions, and Models. In Mesoamerican Elites, An Archaeological Assessment, edited by D. Z. Chase and A. F. Chase: 3–17. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press.

González, J.  J. 2003. Cultural Landscapes, Cultural Identity: Settlement at Ixno’Ha, Belize. pages 39-43 Blue Creek Regional Political Ecology Project: 2001 And 2002 Research Summaries, edited by Jon C. Lohse. Maya Research Program, Fort Worth, Texas.

González, J. J, and H Knippe. 2004. Ixno’ha Excavation Report, 2003. Pages 33-52.  Blue Creek Regional Political Ecology Project 2003 Seasonedited by Jon C. Lohse. Maya Research Program, Fort Worth, Texas.

González, Jason J. 2005 2004 Ixno’ha Excavation Report , pages 108-158. In 2004 Season Summaries of the Blue Creek Regional Political Ecology Project, edited by Jon C. Lohse and Kerry L. Sagabiel. Maya Research Program, Fort Worth, Texas.

Guderjan, T and Hanratty. C . 2014.  The 22nd annual report of the Blue Creek Archaeological Project. Maya Research Program, University of Texas at Tyler.

Guderjan, T.H., R. J. Lichtenstein, et al. 2003. Elite Residences at Blue Creek, Belize. In Maya Palaces and Elite Residences: An Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by J. Joyce Christie: 13–45. Austin, University of Texas Press.

Guderjan, T. H. 2007. The Nature of a Maya City: Resources, Interaction and Power at Blue Creek, Belize. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Guderjan T. H. 2013. Archaeological Research Proposal for Blue Creek Nojol Nah, and Xno’ha.

Kanippe, H. and J. J, González. 2003 Small Sites Versus Large Sites: Questioning Maya Political and Economic Settlement Relationships pages 44-49 Blue Creek Regional Political Ecology Project: 2001 And 2002 Research Summaries, edited by Jon C. Lohse. Maya Research Program, Fort Worth, Texas.

Kowalski, J. K. 2003. Evidence for the Functions and Meanings of some Northern Maya Palaces. In Maya Palaces and Elite Residences: An Interdisciplinary Approach, edited by J. Joyce Christie: 204–253. Austin, University of Texas Press.

Lalonde, D. 2002. Ixno’Ha 2002 Season Excavation Summary pages 50-52. Blue Creek Regional Political Ecology Project: 2001 And 2002 Research Summaries, edited by Jon C. Lohse. Maya Research Program, Fort Worth, Texas.

Marcus, J. 1992b. Royal Families, Royal Texts: Examples from the Zapotec and Maya. In Mesoamerican Elites, An Archaeological Assessment, edited by D. Z. Chase and A. F. Chase: 221–241. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press.

Mead, K., G. Mastropietro  and I. LeMasters. 2014. Pitz Nah Or Ma’ Pitz Nah, That Is The Question – 2013 Excavations at a Purported Ball Court at Xnoha. In The 22^nd annual report of the Blue Creek Archaeological Project. Maya Research Program, University of Texas at Tyler.

Parmington, A.  2013.  Excavations Undertaken at Xnoha Building Group 78. In The 22nd annual report of the Blue Creek Archaeological Project. Maya Research Program, University of Texas at Tyler

Plumer, H. 2014. Excavations of a Terminal Classic Courtyard at Xnoha. In The 22^nd annual report of the Blue Creek Archaeological Project. Maya Research Program, University of Texas at Tyler.

Preston, T and T Guderjan. 2013. 2012 Excavations at Xno’ha. The 21st annual report of the Blue Creek Archaeological Project. Edited by Thomas H. Guderjan and C. Colleen Hanratty. Maya Research Program, University of Texas at Tyler.

Sanders, W. T. 1992. Ranking and Stratification in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. In Mesoamerican Elites, An Archaeological Assessment, edited by D. Z. Chase and A. F. Chase: 278– 291. Norman, University of Oklahoma Press. Sharer, R. J. 1994. The Ancient Maya [Fifth Edition]. Stanford, California, Stanford University Press.

Schele, L. and P. Mathews. 1998. The Code of Kings: The Language of Seven Sacred Temples and Tombs. New York, Scribner.

Sharer, R. J. 1994. The Ancient Maya [Fifth Edition]. Stanford, California, Stanford University Press