Beyond the Buildings: Formation Processes of Ancient Maya Houselots and Methods for the Study of...

This article was published in an Elsevier journal. The attached copyis furnished to the author for non-commercial research and

education use, including for instruction at the author’s institution,sharing with colleagues and providing to institution administration.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 442–473

www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

0278-4165/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2006.12.001

Beyond the buildings: Formation processes of ancient Maya houselots and methods for the study of non-architectural space

Scott R. Hutson a,¤, Travis W. Stanton b, Aline Magnoni c, Richard Terry d, Jason Craner d

a Department of Anthropology, 211 LaVerty Hall, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0024, USAb Departamento de Antropología, Universidad de las Americas, Puebla, Mexico

c Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, USAd Department of Plant and Animal Sciences, Brigham Young University, USA

Received 7 August 2005; revision received 28 November 2006Available online 5 February 2007

Abstract

The success of activity areas research in domestic contexts has highlighted the need for archaeologists working in thetropics to explore both indoor and outdoor spaces. The preservation of houselot boundaries at ancient Chunchucmil,Yucatán, Mexico, provides an ideal environment to explore methods for the investigation of broad spaces beyond build-ings, to test ethnoarchaeological models of activity areas and refuse disposal, and to demonstrate the importance of openspaces to understanding ancient economic organization. The results of methodological experiments reported in this paperfavor the use of systematic subsurface sampling (as opposed to surface collections) for characterizing speciWc uses of spacearound houses. Formation processes dictate that soil chemistry, paleoethnobotany, and other laboratory techniques shouldsupplement excavations. Our explorations of three houselots suggest that ethnoarchaeological models of the use of space incontemporary houselots serve as successful templates for interpreting the use of space in ancient times. Post-abandonmentdeposition within houselots, however, can confuse these interpretations. This paper therefore reports a new ethnoarchaeo-logical study that helps illuminate the nature of post-abandonment discard. After resolving critical issues of methodologyand formation processes, this paper assesses the economic contribution of houselot activities. Given Chunchucmil’s agricul-tural marginality, such home economics played an important role in the subsistence needs of this urban center.© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Activity areas; Ethnoarchaeology; Formation processes; Space; Chunchucmil; Maya; Refuse; Biomarkers; Coprostanol

Introduction

In its Wrst years, the Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology published two inXuential studies about

domestic artifact disposal (Hayden and Cannon,1983; Deal, 1985). Though Hayden and Cannonemphasized the principals that structure secondaryrefuse discard (e.g. economy of eVort and hindrancepotential) and Deal emphasized the evolutionarysequence of patterns in pottery disposal, a centralcontribution of both studies was the development ofa comprehensive account of domestic space. The

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (S.R. Hutson).


S.R. Hutson et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 442–473 443

authors shifted attention from the house to thehouselot, and in doing so emphasized activities thattake place outdoors. Moreover, they added a sys-tematic model of formation processes to previouswork by, among others, Robert Wauchope (1938),who had documented early 20th century Maya usesof outdoor spaces, and archaeologists in Oaxaca(Flannery, 1976; Winter, 1974) who had identiWedoutdoor activity areas in ancient contexts.

As part of a surge of interest in household studies(see papers in Wilk and Rathje, 1982; Netting et al.,1984), Hayden and Cannon and Deal’s workinspired additional ethnoarchaeological research onhouselots (Arnold, 1990; Killion, 1990; Smyth, 1990)and made a solid argument for Weld archaeologiststo pay more attention to spaces beyond the build-ings (e.g. Alexander, 1999; Ball and Kelsay, 1992;Becker, 2001; Johnston and Gonlin, 1998; Killion,1992a; Killion et al., 1989; Manzanilla, 1987; Pool,1997; Pyburn, 1990; Robin, 1999; Smyth and Dore,1992; Webster and Gonlin, 1988). Mesoamericanistsdid not, of course, operate in a vacuum. Archaeolo-gists elsewhere, particularly in North America, alsolooked more carefully at non-built spaces (Beaudry,1986, 1989; Gibb and King, 1991; Heath and Ben-nett, 2000; Kuijt, 1989; Miller and Gleason, 1994;Rogers and Smith, 1995; Rothschild, 1991; Yentschand Kratzer, 1994). As a major result of these newstudies, researchers identiWed a close relationshipbetween the use of space and economic processes.For example, in exploring the links between residen-tial site structure and agricultural production,Killion (1990, 1992a,b) found that in contemporaryVeracruz, Mexico, the size of houselots and thedegree of concentration of debris within them corre-lates with the intensity of farming beyond the house-lot and the distance between Welds and homes.Further, Arnold’s (1990) ethnoarchaeological studyof households in Veracruz specializing in potteryproduction revealed relationships between the sizeof houselots, the organization of trash within them,and specialization in crafts.

Following the lead of these contributions, ourgoal is to determine what an exploration of non-architectural space can contribute to the under-standing of ancient economies. Several authors(Johnston and Gonlin, 1998; Killion, 1992a; Web-ster and Gonlin, 1988) have emphasized that under-standing socio-economic processes (and basic sitestructure [O’Connell, 1987, p. 106]) requires attend-ing to the entire space of the houselot. Archaeolo-gists must look beyond the traditional focus of

research—buildings—because many of the dailyactivities that contribute to the successful (or unsuc-cessful) production and reproduction of the house-hold take place out of doors, especially in the tropics(Robin, 2002; Robin and Rothschild, 2002). Toquote the title of a recent essay by Marshall Becker(2001): “it’s what’s out back that counts.” Neverthe-less, relatively few studies—Sayil (Killion et al.,1989), Cobá (Manzanilla, 1987) and Chan Nòohol(Robin, 1999)—have taken the entire houselot as thescale of analysis and been systematic about investi-gating space beyond the buildings. This is unfortu-nate because, to quote Johnston and Gonlin (1998,p. 158): “If we are to determine what causal vari-ables (if any) determined Maya household form, wemust shift our focus from the house as a spatiallyconWned architectural entity to the larger terrainwherein socioeconomic behavior transpired andwithin which certain durable material residues ofthat behavior are likely to remain. That larger ter-rain is the houselot.”

In the Maya highland villages studied by Haydenand Cannon (1983) and Deal (1985), houselots(Fig. 1) consist of houses and auxiliary structuresthat often face onto a patio or clear work area, a toftzone for discard and storage surrounding the struc-tures and patio, and, beyond the toft zone, broadspaces containing gardens, trees, paths, and discretedumps. Within the houselot, we are particularlyinterested in the broad area beyond the buildings,patio, and toft zone. This area—often called the gar-den area—comprises the majority of houselot spacein contemporary houselots and even in the mostdensely settled ancient Maya cities (Ball and Kelsay,1992; Killion et al., 1989). In fact, a large gardenarea diVerentiates ancient Maya domestic spacefrom the more densely packed dwelling units andhouse compounds of ancient cities in central Mexico(Santley and Hirth, 1993, pp. 6–8). Archaeologiststake great risks in ignoring the garden area not onlybecause gardens can make an important contribu-tion to subsistence, but also because this area maycontain other economic features and structures notvisible from the surface (Johnston, 2004).

The ancient site on which we focus—Chunchuc-mil, Yucatan, Mexico—makes an excellent casestudy because, unlike most other Classic periodMaya sites, Chunchucmil’s houselots are boundedby collapsed stone walls that reached up to 1 meterhigh. The boundary walls provide a distinct advan-tage in studying economic organization becausethey enable researchers to quantify the space


444 S.R. Hutson et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26 (2007) 442–473

available to a household, determine the extent of ahousehold’s activity areas, and connect the thingsthat people do to the places they live. Further,Chunchucmil is ripe for examining how spacesbeyond the buildings may have been used in eco-nomic processes because poor agricultural condi-tions around the site predispose the site’sinhabitants to alternative economic strategies. Werecognize that understanding spatial dynamics ofancient houselots also contributes to discussions ofsocial organization (Robin, 2002). Yet our previousand ongoing work (Hutson et al., 2004) has notmade explicit the economic issues that we address inthe current essay.

Though our ultimate objective is to assess theeconomic signiWcance of open spaces, we must Wrstmeet there proximate goals that, due to the paucityof systematic studies of houselots, have seldom beenaddressed. First, we formalize methods for systemat-ically investigating the entire space of ancient house-lots through multiple lines of evidence. Second, wevalidate the usefulness of the houselot model as amiddle range tool for understanding the use of spacein ancient contexts. Others have argued that Spanishcolonialism shaped the speciWc conWguration ofMesoamerican houselots (Alexander, 1999; cf.

Becker, 2001, p. 440). Thus, we cannot simplyassume that spatial models derived from 20th cen-tury houselots are applicable to ancient houselots.Third we separate pre-abandonment discard pat-terns from post-abandonment discard patterns.Without accomplishing this third step, archaeolo-gists cannot attribute spatial patterning of artifactsto the social group that occupied the houselot inquestion. As part of this third step, we conductedoriginal ethnoarchaeological research on aban-doned lots in the contemporary village of Chun-chucmil. The second and third steps combine toform the basic task of understanding the culturalformation processes of the archaeological record.

We begin the paper with background on Chun-chucmil and the conditions that make this site a use-ful case study of ancient Maya economies. We thenmove to the Wrst proximate goal: determining thebest Weld method for the study of non-built space. Inthis section, we present and compare the results ofboth surface collection and subsurface sampling asapplied to the same houselot. We also stress thatWne-grained lab methods (such as soil chemistry andpaleoethnobotany) used by household archaeolo-gists in and around buildings must also be appliedsystematically to open spaces. Having presented

Fig. 1. Idealized representation of a houselot, showing structural core, clear area, intermediate area and garden area. Adapted fromHayden and Cannon, 1983: Fig. 5.

Intermediate Area

Garden Area

Garden Area

= Provisional discard

Edge of houselotHouselotentrance

Trash from sweepingand dumping

=

Clear Area

House

House

kitchen

well

bath-room

cornstorage

2 m



some of these results, we then compare them to theexpectations of the ethnoarchaeologically-basedhouselot model. Since proper interpretation of theresults requires attention to post-abandonmenttransformations, we also compare discard patternsin ancient houselots to post-abandonment discardpatterns in contemporary houselots. As part of thiscomparison, we present the results of our ethnoar-chaeological work in contemporary Chunchucmil.Finally, we reconstruct the use of space in threehouselots and place these results in the context ofthe site as a whole, which has been hypothesized tobe a market center (Dahlin, 2003; Dahlin andArdren, 2002), and the broader context of houselotstudies at other Mesoamerican sites.

Site background

Chunchucmil is located in northwest Yucatán,Mexico (Fig. 2), a Xat area with relatively sparserainfall (approximately 700 mm per year) and negli-gible soils (about a third of the ground surface isbedrock). Since a seasonally inundated savannahabuts the western edge of the site, Chunchucmil’sinhabitants lacked abundant farmland, but hadaccess to the Gulf Coast of Mexico, 27 km to thewest, and other ecological zones in between. Chun-chucmil reached its apogee in the middle of the Clas-sic period (AD 400–600), when over 30,000 peopleoccupied an area of at least 20 km2. Thus far,11.8 km2 of Chunchucmil has been mapped, reveal-ing very dense residential settlement. The centralportion of the site contains ca 800 residences perkm2 (Magnoni in press). Residential settlement atthis time consisted primarily of patio groups,deWned as three or more structures facing a commonpatio (Ashmore, 1981; Willey and Bullard, 1965).Excavations reveal that Chunchucmil’s patio groupshoused multiple nuclear families that shared a cor-porate identity anchored in a group shrine (Hutsonet al., 2004). Data from excavations in 163 diVerentarchitectural complexes indicate that most of themonumental compounds visible in Fig. 2 as well asmost of the houselots throughout the site had a lateEarly Classic occupation (Hutson et al., 2005; Man-sell, 2006).

As mentioned above, Chunchucmil’s patiogroups are bounded by stone walls, also called albar-radas, (Magnoni, 1995; Vlcek et al., 1978). The albar-radas at Chunchucmil clearly deWne houselots andtheir boundaries (see also Goñi Motilla, 1995). Inthe densely settled residential core of the site, house-

lot boundaries are contiguous (cf. Becker, 2001, typeA), with narrow alleyways allowing for circulationwhereas on the periphery of the site, there are openspaces between houselots (cf Becker, 2001, type C).Beyond Cobá (Fletcher, 1983) and Becán (Thomas,1981), few other Classic period Maya sites containstone houselot boundaries, though other sites mayhave had perishable boundary markers. Ball andKelsay (1992; see also Becker, 2001) have attemptedto locate perishable houselot boundaries throughsoil phosphates and debris.

Given Chunchucmil’s large population and itsimpoverished agricultural conditions (Beach, 1998),its residents could not have relied solely on tradi-tional swidden agriculture to sustain themselves(Dahlin et al., 2005). The Pakbeh project has consid-ered several alternative subsistence strategies. Onestrategy includes agricultural techniques such askitchen gardening and growing non-traditionalcrops like agave (Dahlin et al., 2005). A second strat-egy would have been to hunt and Wsh in the savan-nah, estuary, and gulf coast to the west. Data frombone isotopes of a small sample of individuals showsthat the diets of people from Chunchucmil were notas high in C4 plants such as maize when comparedto people from sites located further inland (Mansellet al., 2006). This gives some credence to these Wrsttwo strategies. A third strategy was to exploit non-food resources from the coast, estuary and savannah(such as salt, feathers, pelts, dyes, wood) and tradethem for food to areas where these resources wouldhave been in high demand. Dahlin and others havesupported this argument using several lines of evi-dence, such as the presence of a central marketplace(Dahlin, 2003; Dahlin and Ardren, 2002) and anabundance of non-local trade goods, such as obsid-ian, in nearly all houselots tested at the site (Hutsonet al., 2005). A fourth strategy would have been tospecialize in craft activities and exchange the craftsfor food.

Understanding the use of space in houselots canhelp further evaluate these hypotheses. Two of theancient houselots featured in this study—‘Aak andMuuch (Fig. 3a)—are “next-door neighbors,” sepa-rated by a narrow alleyway and located approxi-mately 500 m east/southeast of the center ofChunchucmil (Fig. 2). The two groups were selectedfor study because they were seen to be similar inmany ways (same conWguration and quantity ofarchitecture, same neighborhood) with the excep-tion of the amount of space within the houselotwalls. The ‘Aak houselot has 3910 m2 of space



bounded by the houselot walls while the Muuchhouselot has 2640 m2 (site meanD 3500 m2). A thirdhouselot, named Balam (Fig. 3b), with an area of2810 m2 and located 2.1 km southwest of the sitecenter, was included in the study in order to providean example of the use of space in a houselot in theless densely settled site periphery. All three houselotshave shrines on their east sides (see Becker, 1999).Though the current paper focuses on the space

beyond the buildings, these spaces are best under-stood in the context of the buildings themselves.Therefore, our research design called for horizontalexcavations of architecture in the ‘Aak houselot (atotal exposure of 336 m2), and the Muuch houselot(a total exposure of 224 m2). Soil chemistry, Wnescreening and paleoethnobotany accompanied exca-vations both within and beyond the buildings. Ashort description of the houselots follows; the

Fig. 2. Map of the Chunchucmil site center highlighting the location of the ‘Aak and Muuch groups. Grid squares measure 250 £ 250 m.Inset map shows the location of Chunchucmil and other sites mentioned in the text.



results of the architectural excavations are presentedin greater depth elsewhere (Hutson, 2004; Hutsonand Terry, 2006; Stanton, 2001).

During its earliest occupation, the ‘Aak houselotconsisted of a modest residence with a plaster Xoor(S2E2-23). In the next construction stage, the ‘Aak

houselot occupants covered this structure with ashrine in the form of a square platform beneathwhich they placed two burials with rich oVerings.They also built a dominant residence (S2E2-22; seeHendon, 1991) to the northwest of the shrine, main-tained a food preparation area to the southwest and

Fig. 3. Maps of ’Aak, Muuch, and Balam houselots. (a) Map of the Muuch (above) and ’Aak (below) houselots (topo lines represent 20 cmintervals). (b) Map of Balam group (topo lines represent 15 cm intervals). (c) Entire site map. The darker square in the center represents thesite center as pictured in Fig. 2. The location of the Balam group is given by the dark circle in the southwest portion of the larger map. AllWgures are oriented to north.



artiWcially raised the level of the patio now boundedby these three features (shrine, residence and foodpreparation area). Subsequently, the shrine under-went at least four modiWcations, perhaps with thepassing of each generation (Hutson et al., 2004).Before the third modiWcation, the dominant resi-dence (S2E2-22) was renovated, a second residence(S2E2-24) was built in the food preparation area,and food preparation activities were moved to a newauxiliary structure (S2E2-21) north of the dominantresidence. At some point, unexcavated structureS2E2-25, a probable residence, was built on the westside of the patio. The ‘Aak group has potentialentrances on its north and west sides.

The Muuch houselot has Wve structures arrangedaround a slightly elevated patio (see Fig. 3a). Weexcavated the two most substantial structures:S2E2-13, the dominant residence on the west side ofthe patio, and S2E2-16, a large shrine on the eastside. The other three structures, structures S2E2-14,¡15, and ¡17, all had perishable superstructuresand were likely used for food preparation (S2E2-15),storage, productive activities (S2E2-14) and sleeping(S2E2-17). A stone lined walkway leads from theeast edge of the Muuch houselot to the Muuchpatio. A number of lines of evidence suggest that the‘Aak and Muuch houselots were contemporaneous(both date to within an approximately 200 yearperiod in the middle of the Classic Period), thoughthe Muuch houselot, which exhibits only two con-struction phases, may have had a shorter occupationthan the ‘Aak houselot (Holmberg et al., 2006).

The ‘Aak and Muuch houselots were vacated at thebeginning of Late Classic (ca. AD 600). In the LateClassic and ensuing Terminal Classic, other houselotscontinued to be occupied and new structures werebuilt only 100m to the west of ‘Aak and Muuch(Magnoni et al. in press). Limited Postclassic ceramicshave been recovered at a few locations across the siteincluding an area 50m to the east of ‘Aak and Muuch.Due to such continued occupation of the site after‘Aak and Muuch were vacated, post-abandonmentformation processes occurring prior to the Spanishconquest must be anticipated. From the late 19th cen-tury to the 1970s, large portions of the site were underhenequen cultivation, but this activity did not greatlydisturb the conWguration of space within houselots.

Methods for exploring outdoor space

Non-architectural spaces within Chunchucmil’shouselots are vast; most houselots have more than

2000 m2 of open space. A major methodologicalconsequence of the large size of houselots is that,due to time and cost, broad horizontal excavations,though ideal for architecture, become unfeasible foropen spaces. Despite impressive coverage of extra-mural space in horizontal excavations at sites likeCopan, where 80% of the area excavated at ruralsites was beyond the buildings (Webster and Gonlin,1988), these excavations and others “were generallytoo small to expose much of the garden area compo-nent” (Johnston and Gonlin, 1998, p. 168). The gar-den area often comprises 60% of the space of thehouselot (the patio, structures, and toft zone occupythe rest of the space).

In light of the unfeasibility of broad horizontalexposures, two options remain: surface collectionsand subsurface sampling. We used both methods onthe Wrst houselot that we investigated—‘Aak—inorder to determine which of the two methods to useon the other houselots. In this section we discuss thetwo methods and then present the results of thiscomparative methodological experiment. Since thereis no standard method in Mesoamerica for system-atically investigating such large non-architecturalspaces, we hope our experiment will help guide otherarchaeologists facing similar questions. We alsostress the need to supplement Weld methods with labanalyses such as soil chemistry and paleoethnobo-tany.

Issues in sub-surface samplingIn Mesoamerica, subsurface sampling applied to

non-architectural spaces of houselots has followedboth systematic and non-systematic researchdesigns. Santley (1992) and Pool (1997) use non-systematic subsurface sampling. Ball and Kelsay(1992), Robin (1999), and Krueger (2000) provideexamples of systematic subsurface sampling. InBall and Kelsay’s study of the Guerra and Buenav-ista sites in Belize, post holes were placed everymeter along transects (nD 14 in one case) radiatingout from the architectural core of three patiogroups. In Krueger’s study of an Olmec houselotnine kilometers southeast of San Lorenzo, Vera-cruz, Mexico, and Robin’s study of Chan Nòohol,a Maya agricultural village on the periphery of thesite of Xunantunich, Belize, the authors placedshovel tests at the corners of 5 m by 5 m and 4 m by4 m grids, respectively. Krueger found that a 5 mgrid of pits yielded the same spatial patterns as a2 m grid. Robin’s study is exemplary and pioneer-ing in having combined systematic oV-mound



sampling with soil chemistry and paleoethnobo-tany. The factors aVecting the success of the gridtest method, which we also used at Chunchucmil,require more discussion.

Though rare in Mesoamerica, systematic gridtesting is quite common in the United States(McManamon, 1984), particularly in the EasternWoodlands where archaeological remains areobscured by dense vegetation or have been buriedby leaf litter, topsoil, or sedimentation (Wobst,1983). Due to its broad application, this method hasgenerated debate about its advantages and disad-vantages (Lightfoot, 1986; Nance and Ball, 1989;Shott, 1989). The two major issues regarding thesuccess or failure of systematic subsurface samplingare intersection probability and detection probabil-ity (Krakker et al., 1983; Lightfoot, 1986; Nance andBall, 1986). Intersection probability refers to theprobability that the sampling unit—augur hole,shovel test, or test pit—successfully falls within thebounds of the features sought by the archaeologist.The size of the features, the spacing of the sampleunits, and the conWguration of their arrangement(square versus hexagonal) have the largest eVect onintersection probability (Krakker et al., 1983).Within the context of the houselot, systematic sam-pling may fail on account of low intersection proba-bility if there are features such as concentrated trashdumps that are only two meters wide, for example,but the sample units are spaced Wve meters apart. Afailure to uncover concentrated trash dumps there-fore may correspond not to an absence of trashdumps but to the low intersection probability cre-ated by the choice of spacing.

Detection probability refers to the probabilitythat a sub-surface sample falls within a feature butfails to yield artifacts or ecofacts from that fea-ture. Detection probability is most relevant whenthe feature in question is a site. Within houselots,the issue is diVerent because the goal of each pit isnot simply to detect artifacts: spaces with no arti-facts, such as paths or clean areas, are just asimportant as spaces with artifacts (Sheets, 2002).Further, assessing the relative quantity of artifactsis more important than simply determining pres-ence or absence. For example, diVerentiating agarden area from an “intermediate zone” wheretrash accumulates requires an assessment of therelative quantity of artifacts, not simple presenceor absence. In this case, excavating pits that arelarge enough to be representative of the sampledarea becomes important.

Sub-surface sampling at ChunchucmilTo increase detection and intersection probabil-

ity—in other words, to improve the chances that ourpits recover a representative sample of the artifactsand ecofacts in the vicinity of each pit (see Nanceand Ball, 1986)—we used 50£50 cm pits as opposedto the smaller shovel tests or post holes (Fry, 1972;Krueger, 2000; Robin, 1999). Using larger pits alsoincreased the excavation sample, permitted deeperexcavation in rocky soils, and allowed for broaderexposure of stratigraphy. In summary, our excava-tion method provides a systematic, aligned, 1% sam-ple of open space in the two houselots. Since soilsare very thin in this region, bedrock is exposed onthe surface in many areas. Exposed bedrock pre-vented digging a pit at every corner of the 5 m by 5 mgrid, thus reducing our sample fraction to slightlybelow 1%. In the ‘Aak, Muuch, and Balam house-lots, we dug 104, 70, and 95 grid tests, respectively.All grid tests were dug to bedrock, which, on aver-age, is about 20 cm below the surface. Data fromhorizontal excavations that extend away from build-ings was added to the sample of grid tests.

Many household archaeologists now realize thatstudies of activity areas cannot rely solely on mac-roartifacts (Barba and Manzanilla, 1987; Hastorf,1999; Hastorf and Johannessen, 1991; Manzanillaand Barba, 1990; Middleton and Price, 1996; Mooreand Denton, 1988; Parnell et al., 2002a,b; Pearsall,2000; Robin, 2002; Sanchez Vizcaíno and Cañabate,1999; Schuldenrein, 1995; Shott, 1989; Terry et al.,2004). This is particularly true of research beyondthe buildings where, due to the vastness of openspace, preserved macroartifacts are few and farbetween. Therefore, in addition to quarter inchscreening in the Weld, a ten liter sample from eachgrid test was Xoated and Wne-screened to recovermacrobotanical remains and microartifacts in theheavy fraction. Unfortunately, due to thin soils andpoor preservation, the macrobotanical analysis didnot yield useful results. Soil samples for phosphate,trace elements, phytolith, and biomarker analysiswere also taken from each grid test. Biomarker anal-ysis has been successfully used in cool- moist, andwarm-arid European soils to identify the presence ofcoprostanol associated with human fecal deposits(Bull et al., 1999, 2003).

Surface collectionsWhereas vegetation cover and sedimentation

hinder surface collections in many other parts of theMaya lowlands (Ashmore, 1990; Fry, 1972), shallow



soils, moderate ground visibility and considerablebioturbation make surface collections feasible atChunchucmil. We followed methods used in the“Miguel T” hectare of the nearby site of Sayil(Killion et al., 1989), thus collecting 100% of thespace within the albarrada walls of the ‘Aak house-lot. Collection procedure involved clearing all brush,laying a 2 m by 2 m grid across the 3900 m2 withinthe ‘Aak group walls, and collecting all visible arti-facts from every grid unit.

ResultsComparing the results of the surface collections

with the excavations allows us to assess the strengthsof these two methods for reconstructing householdactivities in open spaces. Fig. 4 juxtaposes the quan-tities of ceramics found in surface collections withthe densities of ceramics in the grid test excavations.The juxtaposition reveals a broad similarity in theresults yielded by the two methods: both methodsidentify a cloud of sherds around the buildings.Nevertheless, the comparison also reveals two majordiscrepancies. First, the excavations documented

very high concentrations of ceramics—such as thenorth side of structure S2E2-23 (18.9 g/m3) and thesoutheast corner of structure S2E2-21 (13.3 g/m3)—that the surface collections failed to detect. The sur-face collections failed because erosion from thestructures buried subsurface concentrations. Second,the surface collections recovered nearly the samequantities of ceramics in the north area of the house-lot as in the architectural core, whereas excavationsin the north area recovered ceramics in compara-tively sparse quantities (less than 0.5 kg per m3). It isnot clear which method is more reliable in the caseof this second discrepancy. Post-depositional distur-bance could make the surface collections inaccurateyet since the subsurface excavations represent only a1% sample of the non-built space, low intersectionprobability may have caused excavations to misssmall patches of debris.

Obsidian is the only other artifact class recoveredby the surface collections. Fragments of prismaticblades were found in Wve surface collection units.Four of these units are within a few meters of areaswhere obsidian was found below the surface. In

Fig. 4. Comparison of surface collections and subsurface sampling in the ‘Aak group. (a) Distribution of ceramics recovered from surfacecollections. Dark grey areas represent concentrations of 45 g or more per 2 m £ 2 m collection block. Medium grey areas represent concen-trations between 25 and 45 g. Light grey areas represent concentrations between 5 and 25 g. (b) Density of ceramics (measured in kilo-grams per cubic meter) recovered by grid tests. The grid tests are represented by solid black boxes and are drawn to scale. Empty boxesrepresent grid tests on bedrock.



general, then, where obsidian was found in surfacecollections, there was obsidian below the surface.Yet surface collections failed to detect four of the sixdensest concentrations of obsidian as identiWed byexcavation. This suggests the subsurface excavationsprovided richer data for this artifact class.

Based on the results from obsidian and ceramics,subsurface excavations worked better at Chunchuc-mil given our research design (see also Redman,1987, p. 250; cf. Dunnell and Dancey, 1983;Wandsnider and Ebert, 1988). We therefore did notsurface collect the other two houselots presented inthis study. Excavations have the additional beneWtof being more useful in taking soil samples becausethey allow samples to be taken at multiple depths.Soil samples taken from the surface force the some-times erroneous assumption that the current groundsurface is equivalent to the ancient ground surface.We do not reject surface collections programmati-cally as tools for researching intra-houselot activityareas. For example, we have found that in architec-tural groups that date to the Terminal Classic periodat both Chunchucmil and the nearby site of SantaBarbara (Stanton et al., 2003), surface material ismuch more abundant, potentially enhancing conclu-sions based on surface collections. Thus, our Wnd-ings do not undermine conclusions based on surfacecollections at sites such as Sayil, which also dates tothe Terminal Classic.

Pre-abandonment formation processes

Applying the grid test method to the Muuch andBalam houselots (Fig. 5) reveals patterns in the dis-tribution of ceramics that mimic in broad outlinethe patterns found in the ‘Aak houselot (Fig. 4b). Inall three houselots, most of the durable trash sur-rounds the patios and the structures. This showsthat variables such as houselot size and settlementdensity do not have a large eVect on maintenanceand discard practices. Before moving from the staticpatterns in these three houselots to a discussion ofdynamic economic strategies, we need to get clearabout the activities and processes that formed thesepatterns. The rings of debris around the structures in‘Aak, Muuch, and Balam conform to what houselotethnoarchaeologists identify as the “toft” zone or“intermediate” zone. This suggests that the houselotmodel is the most appropriate middle range tool forapproaching Chunchucmil’s archaeological record.Patterns documented at other Maya sites whereresearchers focused on entire houselots (Ball and

Kelsay, 1992; Killion et al., 1989; Robin, 1999) alsoexhibit refuse maintenance typical of contemporaryhouselots. Thus, the Chunchucmil data adds furthersupport to the validity of the houselot model as aheuristic device for interpreting the kinds of activi-ties underlying the patterns of debris in ancienthouselots. The similarity between houselots atancient Chunchucmil, a city of at least 30,000 inhab-itants, and contemporary houselots, most of whichpertain to rural villages, underscores the importantpoint that diVerences in the scale of settlement (cityversus village) do not necessarily aVect houselotconWguration. Though post-conquest historical pro-cesses have transformed some aspects of houselots,such as the shift from amorphous houselot shapes topolygons with straight boundaries and several rightangles, formation processes remain generally thesame.

Due to the demonstrated applicability of thehouselot model, we now present additional detailsfrom the houselot model that aid in the interpreta-tion of Chunchucmil’s ancient houselots. Beyondthe work done by Hayden’s Coxoh ethnoarchaeo-logical project in highland Chiapas and Guatemala(Deal, 1985; Hayden and Cannon, 1983; see alsoVogt, 1969), houselots have also been explored inthe Sierra de los Tuxtlas, Veracruz (Arnold, 1990,1991; Killion, 1990, 1992a), the Huastec Maya areaof Veracruz (Alcorn, 1984), Tlaxcala (Barba andOrtíz, 1992), the Puuc Hills of Yucatán (Smyth,1990), the Guatemalan Peten (Fernandez et al.,2002), and the northern plains of Yucatán (Alexan-der, 1999; Anderson, 1998; Hanks, 1990; Kintz,1990; Wauchope, 1938). The documented houselotsdiVer in many ways, so there is no uniWed “houselotmodel” (Santley, 1992, p. 167). Nevertheless, despitethe variation in climate, pedology, and topographyamong the diVerent case studies, all documented thesame basic spatial patterns. As mentioned in theintroduction, all houselot models share four keycomponents: (1) the structural core; (2) the workarea; (3) the intermediate area; and (4) a peripheralarea with gardens and pathways (Fig. 1).

The structural core consists of houses and otherstructures such as kitchens, animal pens, and maizestorehouses. The clear area is adjacent to the struc-tural core and often takes the form of an open-airpatio. In patio-focused houselots, as opposed tostructure-focused houselots (Killion, 1992a), thestructures open onto the patio, which is the site ofnumerous outdoor activities, such as tool produc-tion and maintenance, crop processing, gatherings,



and child’s play (Hammond and Hammond, 1981).As part of what Deal (1998) refers to as mainte-nance disposal (see also Needham and Spence,1997), occupants sweep (or toss [Binford, 1978])

trash from the clear area to the intermediate area atthe edge of the clear area (cf. Arnold, 1990). Inter-pretation of speciWc activities contributing refuse tothe intermediate area poses diYculties because

Fig. 5. Map of the Muuch (a) and Balam (b) houselots showing the density of ceramics (measured in kilograms per cubic meter) recoveredby grid tests. The grid tests are represented by solid black boxes and are drawn to scale. Empty boxes represent grid tests on bedrock.



refuse accumulations often represent a palimpsest ofactivities. For example, a trash pit at the edge of aplatform frequently contains the remains of manydiVerent activities; trash from patio sweepings, fromfood preparation and serving, and from special con-sumptive occasions such as feasts (Boone, 1987; Wil-son, 1994). Occasionally, enough garbageaccumulates in the intermediate zone to create a nui-sance, prompting “dumping disposal” (Deal, 1998),in which trash is moved to dump sites at the edge ofthe houselot or someplace outside of the houselot(ravines, town dumps), but within a two-minutewalk. The trash in these concentrated dumps—“transport middens”—can be considered tertiarydiscard since it has been twice removed from thelocation of the activity that generated it. Often,houselot occupants intentionally curate damageditems that may still serve other purposes (Deal, 1985,p. 253). For example, large fragments of a brokenpot may be used as scoops or shelters for seedlings.This type of trash, referred to as “provisional dis-card”, is often kept alongside structures and in theinterstices between the structural core and the cleararea (Hayden and Cannon, 1983; Killion, 1992a).

The garden area is located beyond the intermedi-ate area and extends to the edges of the houselot.This area is usually the largest of the four areas andcontains economically useful plants (herbs, fruittrees, staple crops) and other features like privies,wells, and discrete dumps. In the garden area, peopleoften spread organic refuse as a fertilizer. Gardensare usually free of large inorganic items such as bro-ken pots because they would blunt the gardeningtools (Ball and Kelsay, 1992; Deal, 1998, p. 121;Hayden and Cannon, 1983, 140). Nevertheless, pot-tery can end up in gardens inadvertently (Miller andGleason, 1994, p. 37; Santley, 1992, p. 171).

The boundaries between the four areas blur whena houselot is occupied for more than one generation(Hirth, 1993, p. 25; Smith, 1992). Over time and overgenerations, depositional sequences are likely to bemore complex and activity signatures more jumbledand palimpsest-like as the function of speciWc spacesmay change (Alexander, 1999; Rapoport, 1990).

Post-abandonment models of discard

The major shortcoming in applying the houselotmodel to ancient archeological contexts is that mostof the ethnoarchaeological studies that contribute tothe model focus on houselots that are in use, andtherefore are not subject to post-abandonment dis-

turbance. Since nearby houselots at Chunchucmilcontinued to be occupied after the three houselotspresented in this study were abandoned (see above;Magnoni et al. in press), some of the archaeologicalremains found within these houselots might havebeen deposited by people living at the site after‘Aak, Muuch and Balam were abandoned. To suc-ceed in understanding the use of space thereforerequires diVerentiating pre-abandonment refusefrom post-abandonment refuse. Compared to theamount of writing on occupied houselots (see previ-ous section) and on the process of abandonmentitself (e.g. Cameron and Tomka, 1993), not muchhas been written about post-abandonment pro-cesses, such as neighbors dumping material intoabandoned houselots. We therefore undertook ourown ethnoarchaeological study of two abandonedhouselots in the contemporary village of Chunchuc-mil. In this section, we present the results of thisstudy and a set of expectations for post-abandon-ment depositional processes that arise from this andother studies.

Research conducted by Deal (1985, 1998), Wilkand SchiVer (1979) and Ascher (1968, 50–51)revealed that dumping, creation of paths, scattering,and scavenging are some of the most common cul-tural transformations of already abandoned house-lots. The intensity of these activities depends on anumber of factors, such as the amount of timeelapsed since abandonment and whether or not thevacant lot is easily accessible. Deal (1998, pp. 130–132)outlines six models of pottery refuse patterning,going from least intense post-abandonment activityin model one to most intense post-abandonmentactivity in model six. Deal’s models arise in partfrom maps of two abandoned houselots in Aguaca-tenango, Chiapas, Mexico. The clearest pattern ofpost abandonment dumping visible in these maps istrash dropped along pathways cutting throughhousesites (Deal, 1985, Wg. 21). Post-abandonmentpaths form in open lots when the lot oVers a short-cut between two points of travel, though paths mayoften dead-end in vacant lots when the lot itselfbecomes a destination. Wilk and SchiVer (1979)report that in abandoned lots in Tucson, refuse dis-posal most often takes place along pathways as well.

Chunchucmil’s ancient houselots are enclosed,and therefore not likely to be traversed by paths.Dumping over the boundary walls is more likely.Deal (1998, 129) notes dumping over boundaryfences but the maps of the two Aguacatenangohouselots do not clearly show artifact patterning



that would result from dumping over fences. In hishousesite 1 (Deal, 1998, Wg. 5.10), a dense concentra-tion of sherds appears inside the south fence butsince the space on the other side of the fence is a pas-ture, as opposed to a street or path, the accumula-tion may instead be a transport midden created bythe people that once lived there.

In sum, though dumping over fences and intoabandoned houselots has been noted, little atten-tion has been paid to this activity. In cases likeChunchucmil where post-abandonment dumpinginto closed houselots may have occurred, we needmore information on what to expect from post-abandonment dumping in order to be able todiVerentiate it from residues of pre-abandonmentdumping such as transport middens. If pre-aban-donment and post abandonment dumping cannotbe distinguished, then we cannot connect a house-lot’s residues to the people who lived there. To geta better sense of post-abandonment dumping, we

mapped the trash in two abandoned houselots inthe modern village of Chunchucmil in 2001. Con-temporary Chunchucmil grew from an haciendafounded in the late 19th century. The haciendaspecialized in the processing of henequen, the Wberof agave plants. After the 1937 Land Reform, thehenequen laborers formed an ejido of community-owned land for subsistence farming. In the late20th century, henequen production ceased. Enter-ing the 21st century, fewer and fewer villagersfarm for a living though many who have foundjobs elsewhere return to the village in the eveningsor on weekends. According to the 2000 census(INEGI, 2000), 814 people, most of them bilingual(Spanish/Yucatec), live in Chunchucmil. Houselot 1(H1) is at the northern edge of town, whereasHouselot 2 (H2) is in the center of town (Fig. 6).Both lots had been abandoned for more than tenyears and contain the partially collapsed androoXess remains of stone houses.

Fig. 6. Schematic map of the modern village of Chunchucmil in 2001, showing location of the two houselots studied for post-abandon-ment discard.



Results of the ethnoarchaeological studyA stone albarrada wall rising about one meter oV

the ground encloses H1 on all sides (Fig. 7). Thehouselot measures 56 m by 43 m (surface area2408 m2). The only entrance to H1 is through thehouse itself. As Fig. 7 shows, the house is on thesouth edge of the houselot, which opens onto analleyway. A one-lane paved road that connectsChunchucmil to the coastal town of Celestún,approximately 60 km to the northwest, occupies thewestern edge of the houselot. At the time of study, asmall number of villagers from Chunchucmil usedthis road on foot or on bicycle to get to land northof town to hunt, collect Wrewood, grow papaya andaloe vera, or tend bees. Untended scrub forest lies onthe other side of the road as well as to the north ofthe houselot. An occupied houselot shares the east-ern edge of H1. Garbage mapping in H1 revealedtwo concentrations of refuse (Fig. 7). The denser ofthe two is at the southern half of the eastern edge ofthe houselot, along the border of the neighboringhouselot. Most of this trash originated in the neigh-boring houselot and was tossed over the wall, per-haps piece by piece as suggested by the broad

scattering. The other concentration is found alongthe entire length of the western edge of the houselot,which borders the road north to Celestun. Asopposed to being evenly scattered, this trash isfound in small clusters. This suggests dumping ofdiscrete bags or bucket-loads of trash. This kind ofdumping is also visible along both sides of the Cele-stun road north of H1. The fact that most of thetrash is recent (food wrappers not yet faded) indi-cates that this trash was deposited after the aban-donment of the houselot. Though H1 has a naturaldepression, no trash was found in it.

Houselot 2 (Fig. 8) measures 19 m by 22 m(418 m2) and is Xatter than H1. A low stone wallencloses H2 on all sides. The formal entrance is onthe west side of the lot, through the ruins of thehouse and facing the town’s basketball court acrossthe street (Fig. 6), but there are breaks in the eastand south walls leading to occupied houselots onboth sides. Roads border the north and west sides.The road along the north is the town’s main thor-oughfare, extending to the municipal center of Max-canú, 25 km to the east. Prior to its destruction in2006, the basketball court was the location for mostspecial events in town, such as dances, Westas, townassemblies, political rallies, and school graduationceremonies. The area is quite busy on a daily basis.In the early morning, men and women from Chun-chucmil form a line along the north side of the hous-elot while waiting for buses to take them to day jobsin Maxcanú and the city of Mérida. Throughout theday, a variety of older men loiter near the northwestcorner of the houselot. In the late afternoon andearly evening, children, teenagers, and young menused to play soccer on the smooth, paved surface ofthe basketball court. We have observed participantsin some of these activities throwing debris into thehouselot and, occasionally, using it as a bathroom.We have also observed pigs, dogs, and goats passingthrough the houselot’s various openings. Due to anunanticipated project in which the absentee ownersrebuilt the house, we were unable to map the trash atthe west end of H2.

In H2, the heaviest concentrations of garbagewere along the eastern and southern edges. Much ofthis garbage was still fresh and therefore can beattributed to the neighbors living on the other sideof the wall. With the exception of a pile of corncobs,the trash by the eastern and southern edges of thehouselot does not cluster into clumps. This resem-bles the scattering processes (outlined in Deal’smodels 5 and 6; 1998:130–132) that can result from

Fig. 7. Map of modern abandoned houselot 1 (H1), showing thelocation of each piece of trash. Contour lines represent 10 cm ele-vations.

Neighboringhouselot

Scrub forest

Scrubforest

Public alleyway

Edg

e of

roa

d no

rth

to C

eles

tun

Abandonedhouse

Out-house

0 m 10 m



child’s play, farming, or animals. In the case of H2,goats and pigs are the most likely culprit. Scatteringmay also mean that items of trash were tossed piece-meal. There was a light concentration of garbagealong the northern edge of the houselot, the edgebordering the village’s main thoroughfare. This gar-bage was diVerent from the trash along the eastedge. Whereas the garbage along the east edge wasmixed, containing clothing, paper, mirror fragments,ceramic sherds, food containers and more, the refusealong the north edge consisted mostly of soda andbeer bottles. The fact that the labels on many ofthese containers had not yet faded indicates thatthey were tossed recently, after the houselot wasabandoned.

Compared to H1, H2 had much more garbage.Not counting the pile of several hundred corn cobs,we mapped 2459 pieces of trash in H2, whichequates to a density of 8.86 pieces of trash per m2. InH1, we mapped 388 pieces of trash, which equates toa density of 0.19 pieces per m2. This disparity in the

amount of trash is due in part to the fact that H2 isin the center of town, where there are more peopleliving and spending time. Deal (1998, p. 136) notesthat the more centrally located of the two aban-doned houselots in Aguacatenango also had moregarbage. The disparity may also be due to the factthat there were many complete bottles in H1whereas glass in H2 was most often found in theform of fragments: the fact that each fragment wascounted as a single piece of trash artiWcially elevatesthe trash count in H2. Postabandonment pathwaytofts do not appear in either houselot.

In summary, the results of this ethnoarchaeologystudy of abandoned houselots entail speciWc expec-tations for patterning of debris attributable to post-abandonment processes. First, people living nextdoor to abandoned lots throw mixed trash over thealbarrada walls. Second, people who are not imme-diate neighbors dump loads of mixed trash, thusleaving a clumped spatial pattern. Third, people loi-tering along the outside edges of houselots toss

Fig. 8. Map of modern abandoned houselot 2 (H2), showing all locations of pieces of trash.



disposable food and drink containers, such aspotato chip bags, soft drink containers, and beerbottles, into abandoned houselots. This third pointmay not be applicable to research on ancient house-lots because extensive use of disposable food con-tainers as well as snacking while “on the go” maynot characterize pre-industrial societies (Hodder,1983). These expectations predict that post-aban-donment discard should be located at the edges ofhouselots, in contradistinction to pre-abandonmentdiscard, which clusters in the intermediate area(Deal, 1998, p. 131).

Analysis of ancient houselots

Having developed expectations for both pre-abandonment and post-abandonment formationprocesses, we now return to the results of the exca-vations beyond the buildings in ancient houselots.The ceramic distributions in Figs. 4b and 5 followDeal’s predictions for minimal post-abandonmentactivity; they resemble the distribution of trash in ahouselot before abandonment such as in Deal’smodels one and two (1998:130–2). The fact that theceramics in all three houselots are not widely scat-tered across non-built space suggests little or noneof the kind of post-abandonment disturbances(farming, walking, child’s play, animal disturbance)that result in even scattering. Nevertheless, in allthree houselots there is debris up against the bound-ary walls. Our ethnoarchaeological research sug-gests this reXects post-abandonment dumping thatoccurred shortly after the houselots were abandoned(ceramics in these dumps are contemporaneous withceramics from the occupation of the houselots). Onthe other hand, two accumulations of debris—at thenorthwest edge of the ‘Aak houselot and at the westedge of the Muuch houselot—could have been cre-ated by occupants of the houselot who transportedexcess garbage from the intermediate area. We willconsider these two trash accumulations more closelyby comparing them to trash from the intermediateareas. We now turn to these intermediate areas, andsubsequently the spaces beyond them, to illuminatewhat the uses of these spaces can tell us aboutancient economic practices.

Following the houselot model as well as results ofother excavations in the Maya area (Webster et al.,1997), we surmise that the accumulations of debrisringing the patio and structural core of the ‘Aak,Muuch, and Balam houselots result from regulartrash maintenance practices such as dumping or

sweeping debris from structures and patios to theintermediate zone.1 The Xoors of the excavatedbuildings in ‘Aak and Muuch were found relativelyclean, suggesting that trash generated inside thesestructures was also moved to the intermediate area.Though excavations in the patios did yield garbage,the original patio Xoor had eroded away. Thus,ceramics from excavations in the patios, rather thanindicating the cleanliness/dirtiness of the patio sur-face, may instead indicate what sorts of culturalremains were part of the Wll used by builders. Due tothis indeterminacy, patio areas were “whited-out” inFigs. 4b and 5. Soil samples from the center of the‘Aak and Muuch patios yielded average levels ofphosphates and trace elements (see Table 1), indicat-ing that if activities on the patio generated organicdebris, the occupants cleared oV the debris withsome regularity, as expected in the houselot model.Therefore, discussing economic activities that mayhave occurred on the patio requires examination ofthe accumulations of debris most likely swept fromthe patio.

The most diagnostic accumulation is located oVthe northwest corner of the ‘Aak patio, betweenstructures S2E2-23 (the shrine) and S2E2-22 (thedominant residence of the group). As part of thearchitectural excavations, we fully excavated thisheterogeneous midden, which appears to resultfrom both maintenance and production debris(Needham and Spence, 1997, p. 85; Wilson, 1994).The excavations revealed only a 50 cm wide gapbetween the northwest corner of the platform ofstructure S2E2-23 and the southeast corner of thefront porch of structure S2E2-22, so getting fromthe patio to this midden is not easy: the debris mayhave come from the structures themselves. Themidden contained not only the most dense concen-tration of pottery of any of the three houselots(18.9 kg/m3), but also chert Xakes, earspool frag-ments, a marine shell ornament, complete andfragmentary marine shells, worked and unworkedanimal bone, Xecks of carbon and high quantitiesof obsidian prismatic blades (121 fragments per m3).Sherds in this deposit were slightly larger thanthose from other contexts (average 7.8 grams persherd compared to the group average of 5.8 g),perhaps indicating less post-depositional distur-bance, such as trampling. Sherds in this deposit

1 We do not agree with the economizing logic used by Haydenand Cannon to describe these maintenance practices (Hutson andStanton, 2007).



Table 1Raw data for Phosphorous and trace elements of the grid tests in the ‘Aak and Muuch groups

North East P Ba Cd Cu Fe Mn Pb Sr Zn

¡65 ¡30 10.15 0.068 0.130 1.455 13.44 9.11 2.73 18.96 0.237¡65 ¡20 6.79 0.061 0.179 2.016 15.65 12.49 3.58 10.65 0.524¡65 ¡15 4.75 0.080 0.114 1.256 9.79 3.53 2.87 21.46 0.275¡65 ¡10 6.46 0.097 0.078 1.411 8.71 5.17 2.87 16.08 0.324¡65 0 5.58 0.112 0.108 1.665 13.73 13.62 3.25 19.40 0.538¡65 5 6.15 0.050 0.076 1.787 13.59 5.14 2.52 9.50 0.554¡60 ¡35 10.15 0.077 0.102 1.720 13.74 7.23 3.10 14.26 0.559¡60 ¡25 9.31 0.067 0.172 1.960 19.82 59.04 3.96 30.28 0.558¡60 ¡20 6.65 0.059 0.205 2.030 26.26 63.18 4.12 34.30 0.785¡60 ¡15 4.32 0.075 0.119 1.241 13.97 7.10 3.13 25.36 0.409¡60 ¡10 11.47 0.061 0.118 1.423 13.71 28.94 3.64 25.74 0.259¡60 ¡5 9.59 0.067 0.149 1.609 17.47 14.61 3.49 21.02 1.997¡60 0 5.32 0.061 0.108 2.378 14.41 10.16 3.12 8.45 1.031¡60 10 10.64 0.116 0.139 1.902 15.27 12.12 3.02 14.06 0.587¡55 ¡35 9.65 0.038 0.159 1.393 14.03 7.44 3.72 18.53 0.371¡55 ¡30 14.79 0.053 0.146 1.579 15.01 14.68 3.79 25.60 0.346¡55 ¡10 5.91 0.071 0.109 1.418 12.73 46.94 3.64 20.52 0.315¡55 ¡5 9.45 0.069 0.142 1.348 19.23 10.41 3.72 21.28 1.262¡55 5 5.58 0.063 0.154 2.150 15.06 11.00 2.84 7.45 0.952¡55 10 10.52 0.089 0.085 1.765 9.75 5.18 2.43 12.64 0.565¡55 15 5.64 0.078 0.126 1.498 11.79 5.31 2.84 15.54 0.349¡55 20 11.55 0.112 0.113 1.182 13.00 10.63 3.20 13.13 0.309¡50 ¡35 7.84 0.091 0.026 0.965 11.63 6.85 1.58 5.22 0.327¡50 ¡30 10.83 0.056 0.122 1.210 11.27 11.80 2.75 15.26 0.308¡50 ¡25 7.35 0.073 0.157 1.669 16.45 0.00 3.57 12.82 0.771¡50 ¡20 4.19 0.120 0.168 1.849 13.48 26.88 3.49 23.30 0.406¡50 ¡15 4.51 0.143 0.246 1.602 18.54 21.34 3.95 21.20 0.539¡50 0 22.50 0.211 0.201 1.786 14.78 25.02 4.46 10.51 2.356¡50 20 9.31 0.115 0.152 1.473 14.49 9.45 3.19 8.95 0.833¡45 ¡25 7.81 0.081 0.143 1.386 17.08 19.74 3.44 25.98 1.033¡45 ¡20 7.87 0.109 0.293 2.052 24.90 21.82 4.72 10.35 1.251¡45 15 5.97 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.¡45 20 7.57 0.071 0.141 1.368 14.07 11.59 3.31 14.38 0.392¡45 30 7.30 0.171 0.131 1.582 18.35 82.72 4.01 24.36 n.a.¡40 ¡30 11.06 0.104 0.129 1.339 10.72 20.30 3.73 22.72 0.142¡40 ¡15 4.05 0.168 0.153 1.566 18.14 17.53 3.76 9.63 2.500¡40 25 6.84 0.094 0.130 1.277 16.55 7.35 3.13 15.29 0.205¡35 ¡30 8.76 0.132 0.202 1.594 19.65 0.00 4.10 13.84 1.861¡35 ¡25 9.28 0.123 0.155 1.452 17.94 18.69 3.73 16.56 1.321¡35 ¡15 8.64 0.188 0.106 1.485 18.38 0.24 3.76 8.32 1.046¡35 0 6.10 0.238 0.158 1.436 15.98 7.08 3.39 10.04 0.348¡30 ¡35 11.89 0.159 0.133 1.984 21.70 30.60 5.93 17.59 2.956¡30 ¡25 8.46 0.125 0.114 1.594 17.06 53.32 3.92 23.34 0.960¡30 ¡20 5.12 0.038 0.210 1.820 19.88 24.96 4.62 10.02 4.162¡30 ¡15 6.23 0.115 0.157 1.444 21.84 4.58 3.78 14.00 0.407¡30 ¡10 11.34 0.102 0.187 1.599 25.92 22.38 4.07 15.29 0.646¡30 20 5.44 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.¡30 25 8.55 0.075 0.092 1.101 12.06 12.58 2.98 17.01 0.215¡25 ¡25 6.89 0.132 0.122 1.521 15.69 47.82 4.05 27.96 0.451¡25 ¡20 10.22 0.093 0.115 1.333 10.14 16.65 3.48 18.74 0.318¡25 ¡15 4.51 0.092 0.170 1.612 17.21 25.12 3.97 22.12 0.480¡20 ¡30 9.65 0.110 0.147 1.412 15.33 23.50 3.91 18.11 0.721¡20 ¡25 9.35 0.116 0.133 1.792 22.86 48.56 4.53 24.78 1.783¡20 ¡20 6.08 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.¡20 ¡15 5.08 0.085 0.196 1.602 13.38 20.36 3.84 21.56 1.549¡20 ¡10 7.12 0.098 0.204 1.648 20.28 49.54 4.23 16.62 0.916¡20 ¡5 9.22 0.148 0.180 1.789 20.66 13.19 4.51 15.76 1.057



Table 1 (continued)


¡20 15 10.83 0.082 0.130 1.444 19.89 16.41 3.60 16.96 0.224¡20 20 10.30 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.¡15 ¡30 8.61 0.045 0.163 1.263 18.47 18.59 2.87 14.56 0.636¡15 ¡25 6.60 0.024 0.203 1.391 14.05 20.04 3.10 8.81 0.307¡15 ¡15 8.95 0.196 0.272 1.878 25.06 60.60 4.53 15.04 3.810¡15 ¡10 8.86 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.¡15 ¡5 9.69 0.143 0.194 1.877 16.87 17.24 4.48 19.40 1.144¡15 0 4.22 0.092 0.159 1.650 19.28 9.00 4.00 19.22 0.294¡15 5 7.84 0.109 0.185 1.667 22.20 0.00 4.22 10.63 0.635¡15 10 11.51 0.062 0.136 1.935 20.58 12.33 4.32 8.35 0.410¡15 15 9.79 0.117 0.113 1.513 22.36 9.37 3.70 21.48 0.315¡15 20 9.18 0.120 0.123 1.755 24.44 15.47 5.22 21.40 1.858¡10 ¡30 9.22 0.092 0.177 1.492 15.92 18.35 4.08 14.64 1.499¡10 ¡25 8.99 0.138 0.175 1.377 18.03 9.09 3.30 12.58 1.469¡10 ¡20 8.19 0.129 0.265 1.721 24.66 22.30 4.35 16.65 1.610¡10 ¡15 8.19 0.185 0.287 1.918 23.18 21.84 4.50 17.62 1.300¡10 ¡5 10.75 0.126 0.219 1.743 19.41 13.70 4.30 17.33 0.916¡10 0 5.56 0.111 0.172 1.735 15.71 14.69 3.99 18.42 1.230¡10 10 6.58 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.¡10 20 13.72 0.100 0.124 1.651 27.02 21.00 4.30 22.90 0.450¡5 ¡20 6.84 0.081 0.250 1.673 26.14 23.32 4.65 21.44 1.022¡5 ¡15 7.33 0.135 0.255 1.574 17.20 12.24 3.81 16.69 1.434¡5 ¡10 5.50 0.086 0.199 1.422 16.85 5.40 3.39 12.86 0.282¡5 0 7.02 0.215 0.151 1.858 22.16 20.82 4.57 23.04 0.563¡5 5 12.86 0.097 0.148 1.692 23.48 17.14 4.18 21.04 0.256¡5 10 7.70 0.029 0.135 1.618 19.84 14.23 4.16 10.58 0.440¡5 15 5.74 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.¡5 20 11.18 0.103 0.133 1.602 21.80 14.10 3.74 16.49 0.331

0 ¡15 6.72 0.136 0.241 1.767 23.14 20.90 4.12 16.60 1.2140 ¡10 5.17 0.105 0.207 1.660 15.70 10.52 3.96 19.88 0.6750 0 6.37 0.188 0.124 1.655 15.81 15.69 4.34 19.40 0.4640 10 14.48 0.140 0.177 1.879 20.74 21.20 4.00 19.49 2.0760 20 5.74 0.092 0.174 1.489 21.46 16.88 3.79 19.67 0.2865 ¡10 7.79 0.101 0.170 1.446 18.30 12.19 3.70 17.93 0.4475 ¡5 5.58 0.186 0.103 1.619 15.83 16.26 4.40 22.58 0.5525 0 5.95 0.147 0.128 1.665 18.93 20.06 4.44 19.95 0.9165 10 7.40 0.187 0.118 1.229 21.02 3.63 2.69 9.47 0.4075 20 11.34 0.094 0.171 1.475 22.18 8.93 4.47 20.88 0.167

10 ¡15 5.17 0.109 0.145 1.278 13.02 13.77 3.42 16.10 0.19610 ¡10 9.02 0.110 0.178 1.624 22.24 21.54 4.10 18.56 0.77410 0 7.33 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.14 20 11.02 0.245 0.163 1.419 17.54 19.17 3.78 10.28 1.38715 ¡20 10.26 0.098 0.120 1.498 16.09 31.42 3.91 23.10 0.27615 ¡15 6.28 0.096 0.138 1.475 16.49 8.56 3.99 16.32 0.95615 ¡10 5.62 0.147 0.193 1.492 22.60 6.55 3.89 13.96 0.51615 ¡5 10.04 0.101 0.146 1.349 14.73 14.29 4.31 16.26 3.66415 0 4.90 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.15 5 5.78 0.111 0.133 1.568 18.61 9.48 4.37 16.74 0.21916.5 0 4.07 0.203 0.239 1.667 21.68 17.90 3.814 10.96 0.54516.5 15 11.80 0.077 0.228 1.648 20.60 0.00 3.956 11.03 0.87320 ¡20 9.59 0.085 0.168 1.730 20.04 39.26 4.108 21.72 1.07220 ¡10 5.62 0.112 0.109 1.489 14.08 41.02 3.996 18.14 0.59320 ¡5 8.28 0.129 0.143 1.434 13.96 15.41 4.052 16.22 1.09620 0 7.65 0.129 0.131 1.551 16.64 13.55 4.048 17.82 0.39620 5 7.62 0.157 0.151 1.531 17.77 18.77 3.752 15.58 0.45320 23 9.55 0.193 0.216 1.519 16.02 25.64 3.956 13.70 0.81325 ¡25 6.70 0.129 0.243 1.678 26.96 15.87 4.606 15.92 0.87725 ¡20 6.56 0.116 0.170 1.874 21.44 16.12 5.26 19.65 0.666

(continued on next page)



also represented a higher proportion of servingvessels than in other contexts (44% bowls, servingplates (cajetes) and large serving basins (cazuelas)compared to 32% for the rest of the group), sug-gesting food consumption.

Obsidian analysis yields the most compellingdata on economic strategies. Much more obsidiancame from this context (a total of 213 artifacts) thanany other excavation context at the site. In fact,

approximately a fourth (670 of 2716) of all of theobsidian recovered at Chunchucmil came from the‘Aak group, and this high Wgure does not reXectexcavation bias (Hutson et al., 2006). Since over 90%of the obsidian recovered from the ‘Aak group con-sists of prismatic blade fragments, the occupants ofthe group specialized (sensu Clark, 1995) not inworking obsidian, but in an activity that uses obsid-ian blades as a tool.

Table 1 (continued)

All data is reported in parts per million. The North and East coordinates correspond to the grids pictured in Figs. 4b, 5a and 9.


25 ¡15 4.58 0.144 0.115 1.329 13.56 9.52 3.384 13.79 0.22425 25 9.02 0.091 0.163 1.437 16.13 17.21 3.686 20.48 0.33130 ¡25 12.82 0.137 0.126 1.413 13.64 19.81 3.936 10.04 0.51830 ¡20 6.72 0.124 0.214 1.622 13.88 0.00 4.09 8.95 0.86730 ¡15 5.50 0.121 0.144 1.449 15.29 22.84 4.054 18.17 0.22330 25 10.34 0.131 0.166 1.467 22.24 13.87 3.66 11.64 0.55430 30 5.74 0.100 0.146 1.422 22.14 10.95 3.648 16.89 0.35435 ¡20 14.63 0.111 0.216 1.500 16.60 21.56 7.73 17.22 0.32635 ¡15 6.39 0.142 0.266 1.467 21.26 22.18 3.862 18.62 0.37235 5 5.42 0.184 0.113 1.745 14.74 25.88 5.016 12.14 1.19635 25 5.84 0.161 0.106 1.232 15.54 20.82 3.208 8.12 0.27235 30 10.41 0.134 0.125 1.327 11.82 17.89 3.926 16.42 0.36540 ¡25 14.58 0.193 0.208 2.038 19.51 37.48 5.524 17.40 1.64040 ¡20 14.12 0.149 0.200 1.812 22.56 38.34 3.94 21.70 1.30340 ¡15 4.60 0.175 0.050 1.113 14.11 11.16 2.126 5.75 0.30340 ¡10 3.83 0.151 0.152 1.480 17.59 14.11 3.606 12.34 0.36740 20 5.82 0.112 0.135 1.349 19.11 13.85 4.166 14.43 0.43740 30 9.52 0.150 0.113 1.346 12.36 21.82 3.852 17.70 0.34345 ¡20 10.95 0.171 0.217 1.567 20.92 28.52 3.43 17.35 0.74945 ¡10 16.83 0.167 0.199 1.721 15.41 46.52 4.44 18.46 1.26745 ¡5 5.93 0.100 0.136 1.584 22.54 14.37 4.724 16.05 0.45245 0 10.52 0.185 0.164 1.471 22.48 6.98 3.626 13.97 0.43945 20 4.97 0.096 0.116 1.379 15.35 15.99 3.138 18.03 0.34845 25 7.51 0.123 0.093 1.160 10.36 9.19 3.21 16.29 0.22345 30 9.42 0.048 0.131 1.362 14.04 0.00 3.74 10.37 0.42846 5 7.12 0.132 0.160 1.880 26.06 23.26 4.46 16.59 1.63850 ¡15 6.23 0.133 0.148 1.473 25.14 18.63 3.596 13.33 0.78450 ¡10 0.088 0.110 1.213 19.85 7.13 3.446 12.65 0.21850 ¡5 6.97 0.093 0.148 1.346 15.28 10.16 3.496 18.45 0.19750 5 5.27 0.000 0.210 1.615 27.36 0.00 3.746 10.83 0.85150 10 10.45 0.070 0.132 1.289 16.69 17.13 2.978 13.70 0.30150 15 5.66 0.112 0.094 1.300 13.59 14.87 3.23 15.95 0.29750 20 5.74 0.110 0.109 1.346 16.39 24.02 3.594 25.32 0.27950 25 7.62 0.079 0.105 1.196 15.12 13.54 4.058 20.02 0.15655 ¡10 5.21 0.133 0.140 1.649 29.44 7.49 3.306 16.60 0.59255 ¡5 5.60 0.137 0.180 1.612 18.71 18.14 3.67 21.00 0.91055 0 6.12 0.113 0.122 1.314 14.66 9.92 3.506 20.04 0.30155 5 5.72 0.104 0.112 1.402 18.56 13.47 4.562 24.08 0.34255 15 6.94 0.119 0.120 1.342 22.54 29.10 3.712 22.22 0.46660 ¡5 4.75 0.086 0.167 1.627 16.11 16.76 3.048 18.45 0.35260 0 7.22 0.101 0.112 1.211 11.40 7.48 3.052 14.96 0.37560 5 4.85 0.078 0.136 1.134 15.18 19.10 2.784 18.65 0.58560 10 6.53 0.084 0.093 1.021 10.18 11.81 3.008 16.26 0.23760 15 6.28 0.086 0.141 1.311 18.80 24.20 3.404 17.61 0.44265 ¡5 6.12 0.109 0.156 1.207 15.25 15.71 3.252 14.83 0.45965 5 6.17 0.155 0.209 1.620 20.18 32.36 3.344 17.88 0.609



To help identify this activity, the Wrst authorexamined use wear through high power magniWca-tion (Aoyama, 1995; Keeley, 1980; Lewenstein,1981, 1987; Semenov, 1964) of the cutting edges of asystematic random sample of 66 blades from con-texts throughout the site. Microscopic usewear anal-yses presume that the materials with which a toolcomes into contact and the way in which the toolmoves among these materials leave diagnostic wearpatterns. To determine how a tool was used (chop-ping, scraping, cutting, sawing, etc.) and what mate-rials it was used on (bone, meat, wood, grasses, etc.),microscopically observed traces on archaeologicallyrecovered stone tools must be compared with micro-scopic traces on experimentally used stone tools. InMesoamerica, experimental archaeology conductedby Suzanne Lewenstein (1987) has produced diag-nostic use-wear patterns of obsidian tools used in avariety of ways and on a variety of materials com-mon in the Maya area. In the current study, the dor-sal and ventral sides of each of the 66 prismaticblades were observed at 100£, 200£, and 400£ witha light microscope. Wear patterns were compared tothose created experimentally by Lewenstein andothers. Though analysis of the results is on-going,the most obvious diVerence between the blades fromthe ‘Aak group and those from other areas ofthe site is that 82% (14 of 17) of the blades from the‘Aak group, as opposed to 22% (11 of 49) of the

blades from the rest of the site, had parallel stria-tions that result from slicing coarse Wbers (Fig. 9).Agave is an excellent candidate given that it growsvery well in northwestern Yucatan. Dahlin et al.(2005) have suggested agave hearts as an importantfood at Chunchucmil, and it should also be notedthat most ancient Maya commoners probably woreclothing made from agave Wber. Cotton is too soft toaccount for the wear patterns. Another Wber-work-ing activity that might account for the use-wear onthe obsidian blades is preparing baskets. Basketswould have been in high demand at Chunchucmilfor transporting and shipping salt from the coastalsalt Xats.

The other high-density concentrations of debrisin the intermediate zone of the ‘Aak houselot do nothelp identify specialized economic activities per-formed on the patio. Using various lines of evidence,including phosphate analysis, ceramic vessel forms,obsidian data and the presence of grinding stones onthe surface, two food preparation areas becomeclear, one around structure S2E2-21 (oV the patioand behind structure 22) and the other by structureS2E2-24. In the Muuch group, likely food prepara-tion areas are located at the northwest corner of thepatio and the southeast corner of the patio. Datafrom horizontal excavations suggest that in bothhouselots, only one food preparation area was usedat any particular time. In the Balam houselot, we

Fig. 9. Photo of dorsal side of obsidian prismatic blade from ‘Aak group with horizontal striations characteristic of slicing coarse Wbers(100£ magniWcation).



have not been able to identify a food preparationarea. Nevertheless, nearly all houselots at Chun-chucmil and at other Maya sites had food prepara-tion areas, and the scale of food production in ‘Aakand Muuch does not suggest an economic special-ization. Since these food preparation areas mean lit-tle to Chunchucmil’s economic strategy, we do notdwell on them further.

In ethnographically observed contexts, provi-sional discard in the form of cracked pots is oftenlocated along the edges of the buildings. In the ‘Aakgroup, horizontal excavations uncovered portions ofbroken ceramic vessels along the exterior edges oftwo houses, structures S2E2-22 and S2E2-24, butthese broken pots reveal little about economic strat-egies.

Now that we know more about the debris in theintermediate areas, we have clues for evaluatingwhether accumulations of debris along the north-west edge of the ‘Aak group and the west edge of theMuuch group result from pre-abandonment or post-abandonment practices. The accumulation of debrisat the northwest edge of the ‘Aak group has noobsidian and no phosphate enrichment. It is there-fore diVerent from the debris closer to the structures.This suggests that the trash at the edge of the house-lot was not hauled from the intermediate area.Instead, this trash may have been dumped into thehouselot by people living nearby after the houselotwas abandoned. The issue is still equivocal, however,since the trash in some ways Wts expectations oftrash moved out from intermediate area (Haydenand Cannon, 1983; Wells et al., 2000, p. 459). Thisissue is not terribly important because the trashitself is an undistinguished, prosaic accumulationpotsherds, not likely to reXect major economic strat-egies.

The debris along the west edge of the Muuchhouselot merits more consideration. Fig. 5a showsthat there are in fact two clusters of ceramic debrisalong the west edge, one to the north and one to thesouth. Another nearby cluster is found at the south-west corner of structure S2E2-13. Each of thesethree spots is distinct. Of the two clusters along thealbarrada, only the cluster further to the north hashigh phosphate readings (15 ppm versus back-ground and control values of 3–5 ppm; see Table 1).Neither of them had obsidian. Though only 16obsidian blades were recovered from the 70 grid testunits in Muuch, two of them were found in the clus-ter at the southwest corner of structure 13. This doesnot appear to be a sampling error by which obsidian

is accidentally over-represented because half of the18 obsidian blades recovered from the excavationsof structure S2E2-13 came from the nearby south-west corner of the structure. This area has no phos-phate enrichment.

Unlike the area at the southwest corner of thestructure, the two sherd-rich areas to the west at theedge of the houselot both had high readings of iron,manganese, copper, lead and strontium (Fig. 10;Table 1). High readings for iron, copper, lead andmanganese raise eyebrows because other researchershave suggested that these elements were used by theancient Maya to make pigments (GoVer, 1980; Par-nell et al., 2002a; Wells et al., 2000). Trace metalsanalysis has detected mercury-based pigments suchas cinnabar on Xoors of structures at Chunchucmil(Hutson and Terry, 2006) and at Ceren, El Salvador(Parnell et al., 2002b), but mercury is not salient insamples beyond the buildings at Chunchucmil. Ironis a major component of red, yellow, and brown pig-ments such as ochre and hematite, copper is a majorcomponent of blue and green pigments such as mal-achite and azurite, and manganese is a major com-ponent of black pigments such as pyrolusite. Theidea that they were part of blue, green, black, andwhite pigments is unlikely because the ancient Mayaused other materials for these colors (Schele, 1985).Black was probably obtained by using burnt copal(Tozzer, 1941, p. 125; Case et al., 2003). The famous“Maya blue” was obtained by mixing and heatingpalygorskite clay and indigo (Roundhill et al., 1994;Torres, 1988; Van Olphen, 1966). Green probablycame from mixing Maya blue with yellow iron oxide(Schele, 1985). Thus, it seems unlikely that the con-centrations of lead, copper and manganese representresidues of pigment preparation. Copper and leadare also components of modern pesticides, but it isunlikely that modern farmers would have chosenthese locations to apply pesticides because they usu-ally farm on the mounds themselves, where richersoils have developed over the last 1,000 years. Fur-ther, the association of iron, manganese and copperhas been noted at Piedras Negras, a site not exposedto pesticides. At this point, it is not certain whatthese concentrations of metals mean for Chunchuc-mil, though their concentrations are above controlsamples. High concentrations of iron at Aguateca,Guatemala have been attributed to workshop activi-ties with pyrite mirrors (Terry et al., 2004), thoughno pyrite debris has been found at Chunchucmil.

In sum, there are three zones in the western areaof the Muuch houselot, behind structure S2E2-13,



where trash from unknown activities accumulated.Since the two trash dumps along the albarrada edgeare distinct from the one closer to the structure, it isplausible that the trash along the albarrada camefrom outside the Muuch group and was dumpedthere once the group was abandoned. An alternativeexplanation was that all three of these trash clusterswere generated by an activity area oV the backporch of structure 13. Since this structure was occu-pied for at least two generations, we should expect

complex and changing uses of space over time(Alexander, 1999; Hirth, 1993; Johnston and Gon-lin, 1998, p. 163; Smith, 1992).

Importantly, the area on the west edge of theMuuch houselot is not the only area with high tracemetal readings. Another area is located on the edgeof structure S2E2-14. This means that even if thetrash by the houselot edge is postabandonmentdebris, there is still tenuous evidence that some craftactivity was performed inside the houselot while the

Fig. 10. Partial results of ICPAES trace metals analysis in the ‘Aak and Muuch groups. Isopleth lines indicate factor group (produced byprincipal components analysis) containing DTPA iron, lead, manganese and copper.



houselot was occupied. In addition to the trace met-als, structure S2E2-14 has obsidian, modest (1.5kg/m3)accumulations of ceramics, and substantial phos-phates enrichment (10.4 ppm). Phytolith analysis ofa soil sample oV the back of the structure revealednothing out of the ordinary. The form of the struc-ture—labeled “open front frame brace” by Ringleand Smith (1998, p. 41)—resembles a pair of eye-glasses and is uncommon in Yucatan, suggesting aspecial function. The west room has less than 10 m2

of space, probably too small for a residence. Dahlin(personal communication 2005) suspects that manyof Chunchucmil’s households engaged in productiveactivities that would leave behind few if any diag-nostic non-perishable byproducts. The chemicallyenriched sediments around structure S2E2-14 sug-gest one of these activities.

Garden areasThere is a discrepancy among houselot models

with regard to identifying garden space: some arguethat gardens should contain no hard inorganictrash, lest they damage farming tools (Ball and Kel-say, 1992; Deal, 1998, p. 121; Hayden and Cannon,1983, p. 140) whereas others note that gardens cancoincide with sheet middens (Alexander, 1999; Sant-ley, 1992; cf. Santley, 1989). As Figs. 4b and 5 show,much of the space beyond the structural core andthe intermediate zones in ‘Aak, Muuch, and Balamhas very little ceramic garbage. In the ‘Aak andMuuch groups, however, much of this clean openspace lacks suYcient soil for gardening; Fig. 11highlights bedrock outcrops in the two groups.Actual garden areas should have suYcient soil (atleast 20 cm) as well as phosphate enrichment. Givencontemporary Maya homegardening (Kintz, 1990),we would expect kitchen gardens to be artiWciallyfertilized, resulting in elevated phosphate levels (Balland Kelsay, 1992; Barba and Manzanilla, 1987;Barba and Tovalín Ahumada, 1987). In the ‘Aakgroup, two areas (east of structure S2E2-21 and inthe southwest of the houselot; see Fig. 11) havedeeper soils, high phosphates and little inorganicdebris. Of the ten ‘Aak soil samples analyzed forphytoliths samples from these two areas contain thehighest numbers (seven and eight) of maize phyto-liths. These maize phytoliths, which, according toSteven Bozarth (2003) are from both the cob andhusk, indicate either maize plants growing anddecaying in situ or the use of fertilizer containingfragments of maize plants (Miller and Gleason,1994, p. 26).

With regard to gardens containing hard inor-ganic debris, the area immediately to the west ofS2E2-21 has evenly broadcast ceramics in additionto deep soils and higher phosphates. Since this areaalso has three metates, it seems more likely that thiswas a grinding area, perhaps an extension of thefood processing associated with structure S2E2-21to the immediate east, as opposed to a garden. Thus,gardens and hard inorganic debris do not seem tooverlap in our sample of houselots.

Across all three houselots, less than 10% oftotal area meets the garden criteria—deep soil,high phosphates, etc. (for data on sold phosphatesin the Balam houselot, see Table 2). This wouldsuggest that the houselots could not have providedmuch food. Two factors, however, mitigate thisconclusion. First, the people of Chunchucmil mayhave grown vegetables, herbs and medicinal plantsin raised wooden beds called ka’anche’ as is donein some contemporary villages (Barba and Manza-nilla, 1987; Caballero, 1992; Vargas Rivero, 1983).Unfortunately, this growing technique would bediYcult to detect archaeologically. Second, eco-nomically useful species such as agave, nopal, orfruit trees that do not need deep soils or fertilizersmay have been grown in other areas of the house-lot (Dahlin et al., 2005; Kepecs and Boucher, 1996,p. 76). Contemporary Yucatecan houselots con-tain fruit trees that are not artiWcially fertilizedand that grow in areas of sparse soil (Caballero,1992; Gomez Pompa, 1987; Ortega et al., 1993;Rico-Gray et al., 1990). Of the seven areas sam-pled for phytoliths in the Muuch group, the areawith by far the most fruit tree phytoliths (15 com-pared to two or fewer elsewhere) was in the northof the group, where soils are thin and lack phos-phate enrichment. Eight fruit tree phytoliths alsocame from an area at the south of the ‘Aak house-lot (Fig. 11).

Additional areasGarden areas contain more than just gardens.

They may also contain privies, kilns, washing areas,beehives, etc (Becker, 2001), though none of thesefeatures were located in our sample. Chemical anal-yses of ten soil samples selected from suspected gar-den and privy areas, as well as control areas,revealed that coprostanols were not preserved wellenough to be able to detect ancient human feces.The Balam group has a sascabera: a quarry that sup-plies building stone, low-grade chert, and sascab—friable limestone used in mortar and plaster. Only a



Fig. 11. Map of ‘Aak and Muuch groups showing gardens, bedrock, fruit trees, and staging areas.



quarter of the houselots at Chunchucmil hadsascaberas, thus implying local exchange. Prelimi-nary analyses suggest that households with sascab-eras do not diVer greatly from those without them(Hutson et al., 2006).

Killion (1992a) observed that some houselotscontain a second clear area, which he called a

Table 2Raw data for Phosphorous in the Balam group, reported in partsper million

North East Final XP ppm

10 30 8.4610 45 6.1710 50 5.1015 25 5.3115 30 4.4915 35 5.4415 40 5.7015 45 4.5215 50 4.7715 55 9.4215 65 4.2420 15 3.4220 20 5.5820 25 5.6220 30 5.3920 35 4.1520 55 4.5220 60 4.4720 65 3.4225 15 4.7725 20 4.3325 25 5.2725 30 4.5425 35 7.0725 55 6.2025 60 4.4525 65 4.7329 47 5.0929.5 42.5 5.0130 10 4.1330 15 6.8730 20 3.2830 25 4.7730 38 4.7530 55 5.6030 60 5.3530 70 4.4433.5 48 7.0734 43.5 4.1534.5 39 4.0135 10 3.0135 15 4.2135 20 3.9935 60 7.7935 70 4.7535 75 4.1838 49 3.7038.5 44.5 3.7639 40 5.2740 10 4.8740 15 4.8940 20 7.5240 25 4.5040 55 8.0840 60 4.6040 65 3.8940 70 6.82

Table 2 (continued)

The North and East coordinates correspond to the grid picturedin Fig. 5b.

North East Final XP ppm

45 20 9.9145 25 5.1045 30 6.0645 55 5.8745 60 3.6745 65 4.4745 70 2.9050 20 5.0050 25 5.5450 30 3.2350 40 4.7350 50 6.5850 60 3.9750 65 14.3950 70 2.2555 15 3.1255 20 7.3855 25 2.1755 30 5.5255 35 4.4455 40 3.6355 45 4.8955 50 3.0455 55 3.5755 60 4.5260 15 4.9460 20 4.6360 25 6.3560 30 4.9460 35 4.7760 40 3.9360 45 5.6460 50 4.5760 55 11.4465 25 10.7665 30 7.3665 35 11.0365 40 12.3865 45 8.5265 50 5.1670 30 6.4470 35 4.1070 40 5.1470 45 4.8070 50 7.7175 35 9.2675 50 13.78



staging area, located next to the entrance to house-lots. People use the staging area to prepare for andcontinue work that takes place partly outside of thehouselot, such as farming, crop processing, orresource procurement. At the entrances of all threehouselots (north side in ‘Aak, east side in Muuchand Balam), there are clear areas adjacent to spotsof phosphate enrichment. The phosphate enrich-ment is not likely to represent fertilized gardensbecause soil is thin or nonexistent. High phosphatesmay be the remains of crop processing debris,though the phosphate hotspot by the entrance to the‘Aak group had no phytoliths from corn husks. Thebest explanation for these phosphate hotspots isthat they result from the accumulation of organicmaterials brought from outside the houselot, such asWrewood, and temporarily stored by the entrance(Barba and Manzanilla, 1987, p. 73). In the cleararea by the ‘Aak entrance, Wne screening of a tenliter sample of soil yielded a 2 mm obsidian chip, theonly obsidian chip found in Wne screening from all104 of the 50 cm by 50 cm pits. SchiVer (1987, pp. 62–73, 188) has noted that tiny pieces of debris often donot travel far: they may end up embedded in theXoor at the exact location where they were gener-ated, indexing a primary context of the use or main-tenance to stone tools. Though conclusions based ona single artifact are admittedly risky, we use this arti-fact only to add an additional line of evidence toexisting lines of evidence that already suggest thatthe area by the entrance to the ‘Aak group was astaging area.

Discussion: household economy and open spaces

In the introduction, we stated that our ultimategoal was to determine what an exploration of non-architectural space can contribute to the under-standing of ancient economies. Using the example ofChunchucmil, we conclude that this exploration canmake several contributions, though it is importantnot to overstate them. Our data enable us to com-ment on the proposed alternative economic strate-gies that would have allowed Chunchucmil’sinhabitants to survive in an agriculturally poor area.Though our Wndings tell us little about long distancetrade or exploitation of food resources from thesavannah, estuary, and coast, we can address craftspecialization and agricultural intensiWcation. As foragriculture, data from soil chemistry and phytolithanalysis reveal that the households we sampledmaintained houselot gardens resembling those of

other sites such as Sayil (Killion et al., 1989; Smythet al., 1995), Cobá (Manzanilla, 1987), Cerén(McKee, 1999), Guerra (Ball and Kelsay, 1992) andChan Nòohol (Robin, 1999). Chunchucmil’s inhab-itants used their houselot space to grow both cropsand trees, suggesting a cultivated mosaic (Fedick,1996). Given that the average size of houselots atChunchucmil is above 3000 m2, we postulate thatmost houselots at Chunchucmil turned some of theirnon-built space over to gardens or tree crops. Thus,though Chunchucmil’s settlement density washigher than these other sites and its yield from hous-elot gardens was likely lower due to less availablespace and rockier soils, it can still be considered a“garden city.” The contrast with Sayil, for example,nevertheless remains stark insofar as studies at twoscales of analysis show that elevated phosphatelevels cover a much higher proportion of that site(Killion et al., 1989; Smyth et al., 1995; Fig. 11).

As for crafts, use-wear analysis of abundantobsidian prismatic blades in an intermediate areadump in the ‘Aak group revealed evidence of aspecialization involving cutting coarse Wbers. Thisspecialization could be agave processing or basket-making. Yet the ‘Aak houselot is unusual in thisregard because excavations (mostly test pitting) in asystematic, representative sample of 162 other archi-tectural compounds has uncovered durable evidenceof craft specialization in no more than Wve contexts(Hutson et al., 2005). It is possible, however, thatChunchucmil’s households were specializing in pro-ductive activities that would not leave behind non-perishable artifacts. Such productive activities mightbe detected by soil chemistry. In this regard, thepresence of elevated trace metals in a trash dumpassociated with the oddly shaped structure S2E2-14 in the Muuch group might suggest an as yetundetermined economic activity. At present, webelieve it is premature to make any conclusionsbased on these ambiguous trace metals data andstand by previous data that shows that craft special-ization is minimal at Chunchucmil.

To summarize, the excavations beyond the build-ings had a limited impact on the evaluation ofhypotheses regarding alternative economic strate-gies at Chunchucmil. This permits two methodologi-cal reXections. First, the specialization in Wberworkat the ‘Aak group was detected not by grid tests wellbeyond the building but by traditional horizontalexcavations near the architecture and follow-up labanalyses. No craft specializations were detected inthe expansive garden area beyond the intermediate



area. This does not suggest a Xaw in the subsurfacesampling method. Rather, it suggests that gardenareas were used mostly as the term predicts: for gar-dening. Following this logic, one could argue thatexcavations like those in rural Copan (Webster andGonlin, 1988) which explored very large oV-moundareas near buildings but may not have reached thegarden area, are suYcient. Nevertheless, we only dis-cussed the garden area of three houselots in thispaper; in other houselots across the Maya area,important economic features such as kilns wereprobably dispersed in the garden area thus meritingthe methods used in this study—systematic grid testscoupled with soil chemistry and paleoethnobotany.Furthermore, even in those cases where the gardenarea is just for gardens, the only way to documentthese gardens and their extent is to go well beyondthe buildings.

Conclusions

In conclusion, exploring space well beyond thebuildings does indeed contribute to our knowledgeof ancient Maya household economies. We empha-size that the use of archaeological data from Chun-chucmil to characterize household economies is justone of the contributions of this paper. The paperalso presents a controlled comparison of the utilityof two diVerent Weld methods and an original ethno-archaeological study which illuminated a poorlydocumented form of post-abandonment discard.These contributions to methodology and formationprocesses can aid research undertaken beyond theMaya area and can inform topics not restricted toeconomics.

Methodologically, deploying full coverage sur-face collections and systematic subsurface sam-pling concurrently on the same locale permitted acomparison of their individual merits. Due tolocalized erosion and sedimentation, we found thatexcavations along a grid (comprising a 1% excava-tion sample of all non-architectural space) weremore successful than surface collections. In broadoutline, however, both methods yielded suYcientdata to comment on the validity of ethnoarchaeo-logical models of the use of space in houselots. Nei-ther method is suYcient, however, withoutaccompanying labwork. Microscopic use wearanalyses, phosphate analysis, trace metals analysisand phytolith analysis proved indispensable inidentifying gardening, arboriculture, and Wber-working.

Since houselot models arose from studies ofbounded houselots, the existence of houselot bound-aries at ancient Chunchucmil provides an excellentopportunity for testing the models. Nevertheless,because many of these models were based on houselotsnot yet abandoned, they cannot be tested withoutWrst understanding the eVects of post-abandonmentcultural formation processes. Our ethnoarchaeologi-cal study of abandoned houselots within the modernvillage of Chunchucmil succeeded in documentingsome of these eVects. In general, pre-abandonmentdiscard clusters near the buildings in intermediatezones, whereas post-abandonment discard clustersat the edge of houselots. At Chunchucmil, much ofthe pre-abandonment patterning of artifacts andecofacts in non-architectural spaces clusters close tothe buildings and is therefore interpretable as pre-abandonment. Our results closely match the house-lot model, complete with work areas, intermediateareas, provisional discard and garden areas. This isan important Wnding because contemporary house-lots observed by ethnoarchaeologists mostly pertainto rural settlement patterns whereas Chunchucmilwas a city with over 30,000 inhabitants when thehouselots discussed above were occupied. Further-more, in our admittedly small sample of three hous-elots, craft specialization, settlement density andhouselot size do not greatly aVect the use of space.Patterning in the large houselot (‘Aak) with craftspecialization located in a dense neighborhood issimilar to that of a smaller houselot (Balam) with nocrafts located in the less densely settled siteperiphery.

In sum, a combination of excavation, lab analyses(phosphates, trace metals, phytoliths), and ethnoar-chaeological analogy succeeded in identifying theuse of space beyond the buildings in three houselotsat ancient Chunchucmil, both before and after theirabandonment. In this paper we have not had theopportunity to use our data on the context of dailypractice to oVer interpretations of household socialdynamics within the houselot. Nevertheless, we havelaid the groundwork for adding such interpretationsto those available from architectural excavations.Combining such interpretations will enable a moreholistic view of household life among the ancientMaya.

Acknowledgments

A portion of this paper was presented at theCongreso Internacional de Cultura Maya in 2001 in



Mérida, Yucatán. We thank the organizers of thatconference, Ruth Gubler and Alfredo BarreraRubio. We also thank the INAH Consejo deArqueología for permission to conduct this researchand the support of the INAH Regional Center inYucatán. This study is part of the Pakbeh RegionalEconomy Project (PREP). At the time of Weldwork,the PREP was directed by Bruce Dahlin and TraciArdren, and we owe them a great debt for theirencouragement and support. Funds for Weld and labresearch came from a National Science Foundationgrant awarded to Dahlin and Ardren and an NSFDoctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant awardedto the Wrst author. Finally, completion of the paperwas supported by a Richard Carley Hunt postdoc-toral fellowship awarded to the Wrst author by theWenner-Gren Anthropological Foundation. Wealso thank Tara Bond, Takeshi Watanabe, DanMazeau, Jessica Conroy, Zak Wood, AnthonyWhite, Eugenia Mansell, and Timoteo Rodriguezfor help in the Weld and lab. We extend our apprecia-tion to the people of Kochol, Yucatán, who workedwith us in the Weld. In our choice of Weld and labmethods, we acknowledge a debt to Cynthia Robin,Christine Hastorf, and Rosemary Joyce. We thankthe two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments.

References

Alcorn, J.B., 1984. Huastec Maya ethnobotany. University ofTexas Press, Austin.

Alexander, R., 1999. Mesoamerican houselots and archaeologicalsite structure: Problems of inference in Yaxcaba, Yucatan:Mexico, 1750–1847. In: Allison, P. (Ed.), The Archaeology ofHousehold Activities. Routledge, London, pp. 87–100.

Anderson, E.N., 1998. Gardens of Chunhuhub. In: Memorias delTercer Congreso Internacional de Mayistas, pp. 291–310.UNAM, Mexico.

Aoyama, K., 1995. Microwear analysis in the southeast Mayalowlands: two case studies at Copan, Honduras. Latin Ameri-can Antiquity 6 (2), 129–144.

Arnold, P.J., 1990. The organization of refuse disposal andceramic production within contemporary Mexican houselots.American Anthropologist 92, 915–932.

Arnold, P.J., 1991. Domestic Ceramic Production and SpatialOrganization: A Mexican Case Study in Ethnoarchaeology.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ascher, R., 1968. Time’s arrow and the archaeology of a contem-porary community. In: Chang, K.C. (Ed.), Settlement Archae-ology. National Press Books, Palo Alto, pp. 43–52.

Ashmore, W., 1981. Some issues of method and theory in lowlandMaya settlement archaeology. In: Ashmore, W. (Ed.), Low-land Maya Settlement Patterns. University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque, pp. 37–70.

Ball, J., Kelsay, R., 1992. Prehistoric intrasettlement land use andresidual soil phosphate levels in the Upper Belize Valley, Cen-

tral America. In: Killion, T. (Ed.), Gardens of Prehistory. Uni-versity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 234–262.

Barba, L., Manzanilla, L., 1987. de áreas de actividad. In: Manza-nilla, L. (Ed.), Coba, Quintana Roo. UNAM, Mexico City, pp.69–115.

Barba, L., Ortíz, A., 1992. Análisis químico de pisos de ocupación:un caso etnográWco en Tlaxcala, Mexico. Latin AmericanAntiquity 3, 63–82.

Barba, L., Tovalín Ahumada, A., 1987. Estudio de las unidadeshabitacionales antes de la excavación. In: Manzanilla, L. (Ed.),Coba, Quintana Roo. UNAM, Mexico City, pp. 332–337.

Beach, T., 1998. Soil constraints on Northwest Yucatan, Mexico:Pedoarchaeology and Maya subsistence at Chunchucmil.Geoarchaeology 13, 759–791.

Beaudry, M.C., 1986. The archaeology of historical land use inMassachusetts. Historical Archaeology 20, 38–46.

Beaudry, M.C., 1989. Household structures and the archaeologi-cal record: examples from New World historical sites. In:MacEachern, S., Archer, D.J.W., Garvin, R.D. (Eds.), House-holds and Communities: Proceedings of the Twenty-WrstAnnual Conference of the Archaeological Association ofthe University of Calgary. University of Calgary, Calgary,pp. 84–92.

Becker, M., 1999. Excavations in Residential Areas of Tikal:Groups with Shrines. Tikal Reports 21. University Museum,University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Becker, M., 2001. Houselots at Tikal Guatemala: It’s what’s outback that counts. In: Ciudad Ruiz, A., Iglesias Ponce de León,M.J., Martínez Martínez, M.C. (Eds.), Reconstruyendo la Ciu-dad Maya: El Urbanismo en las sociedades Antiguas. Publi-caciones de la SEEM No. 6. Sociedad Española de EstudiosMayas, Madrid, pp. 427–460.

Binford, L.R., 1978. Dimensional analysis of behavior and sitestructure: learning from an Eskimo hunt stand. AmericanAntiquity 44, 4–20.

Boone, J.L., 1987. DeWning and measuring midden catchment.American Antiquity 52, 336–345.

Bozarth, S., 2003. Phytolith analysis of Balam, ’Aak, and Muuchhouselots at Chunchucmil, Yucatan (manuscript in possessionof the author).

Bull, I.D., Elhmali, M.M., Roberts, D.J., Evershed, R.P., 2003. Theapplication of steroidal biomarkers to track the abandonmentof a Roman wastewater course at the Agora (Athens, Greece).Archaeometry 45, 149–161.

Bull, I.D., Simpson, I.A., Van Bergen, P.F., Evershed, R.P., 1999.Muck n’ molecules: organic geochemical methods for detect-ing ancient manuring. Antiquity 73, 86–96.

Caballero, J., 1992. Maya homegardens: past, present and future.Etnoecologica 1, 35–53.

Cameron, C.M., Tomka, S.A. (Eds.), 1993. Abandonment ofsettlements and regions. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

Case, R.J., Tucker, A.O., Maciarello, M.J., Wheeler, K.A., 2003.Chemistry and ethnobotany of commercial incense copals,Copal Blanco, Copal Oro, and Copal Negro, of North Amer-ica. Economic Botany 57 (2), 189–202.

Clark, J.E., 1995. Craft specialization as an archaeological cate-gory. Research in Economic Anthropology 16, 267–294.

Dahlin, B.H., 2003. Chunchucmil: a complex economy in North-west Yucatan. Mexicon 25, 129–138.

Dahlin, B.H., Ardren, T., 2002. Modes of exchange and regionalpatterns: Chunchucmil, Yucatan, Mexico. In: Masson, M.,



Freidel, D. (Eds.), Ancient Maya political economies. Alta-mira, Walnut Creek, CA, pp. 249–284.

Dahlin, B.H., Beach, T., Luzzader-Beach, S., Magnoni, A., Hut-son, S.R., Mansell, E.B., Mazeau, D., 2005. Reconstructingagricultural self-suYciency at Chunchucmil, Yucatan, Mex-ico. Ancient Mesoamerica 16 (2), 229–247.

Deal, M., 1985. Household pottery disposal in the Maya High-lands: an ethnoarchaeological interpretation. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 4, 243–291.

Deal, M., 1998. Pottery Ethnoarchaeology in the Central MayaHighlands. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake.

Dunnell, R.C., Dancey, W.S., 1983. The siteless survey: a regionalscale data collection strategy. Advances in ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory 6, 267–287.

Fedick, S. (Ed.), 1996. The Managed Mosaic: Ancient Maya Agri-culture and Resource Use. University of Utah Press, Salt LakeCity.

Fernandez, F.G., Terry, R.E., Inomata, T., Eberl, M., 2002. Anethnoarchaeological study of chemical residues in Xoors andsoils of Q’eqchi Maya houses at Las Pozas, Guatemala.Geoarchaeology 17, 487–519.

Flannery, K.V. (Ed.), 1976. The Early Mesoamerican Village.Academic Press, New York.

Fletcher, L., 1983. Coba and Mayapan: a comparison of solares,household variation, socio-political organization and land ten-ure. In: Folan, W., Kintz, E., Fletcher, L. (Eds.), Coba: A ClassicMaya Metropolis. Academic Press, New York, pp. 121–131.

Fry, R.E., 1972. Manually operated post-hole diggers as samplinginstruments. American Antiquity 37, 259–261.

Gibb, J., King, J., 1991. Gender, activity areas, and homelots inthe 17th century Chesapeake region. Historical Archaeology25 (4), 109–131.

GoVer, Z., 1980. Archaeological Chemistry. John Wiley and Sons,New York.

Gomez Pompa, A., 1987. On Maya silviculture. Mexican Studies3, 1–17.

Hammond, G., Hammond, N., 1981. Child’s play: a disturbancefactor in archaeological deposition. American Antiquity 46,634–636.

Hanks, W., 1990. Referential practice: language and lived spaceamong the Maya. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Hastorf, C., 1999. Recent research in paleoethnobotany. Journalof Archaeological Research 7, 55–103.

Hastorf, C., Johannessen, S., 1991. Understanding changing peo-ple/plant relationships in the prehispanic Andes. In: Preucel,R. (Ed.), Processual and Postprocessual Archaeologies: Multi-ple Ways of Knowing the Past. Center for ArchaeologicalInvestigations, Carbondale, IL, pp. 140–158.

Hayden, B.D., Cannon, A., 1983. Where the garbage goes: refusedisposal in the Maya Highlands. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 2, 117–163.

Heath, B., Bennett, A., 2000. The little spots allow’d them: Thearchaeology of African American yards. Historical Archaeology34 (2), 38–55.

Hendon, J.A., 1991. Status and power in classic Maya society:an archaeological study. American Anthropologist 93,894–918.

Hirth, K., 1993. Identifying rank and socioeconomic status indomestic contexts: an example from Central Mexico. In:Santley, R., Hirth, K. (Eds.), Prehispanic Domestic Units inWestern Mesoamerica. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp. 121–146.

Hodder, I., 1983. The Present Past. Pica Press, New York.

Holmberg, K.G., Stanton, T.W., Hutson, S.R., 2006. The impactof time on the perception of archaeological landscapes: Or, aperception of landscape at uncertain times. In: Robertson,E.C., Seibert, J., Fernandez, D.C., Zender, M. (Eds.), Spaceand Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. University of New Mex-ico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 15–27.

Hutson, S.R., 2004. Dwelling and SubjectiWcation at the AncientUrban Center of Chunchucmil, Yucatan, Mexico. Unpub-lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Uni-versity of California, Berkeley.

Hutson, S.R., Mazeau, D.E., Dahlin, B., 2005. Household econ-omy and subsistence among the Classic Maya: The case fromChunchucmil, Yucatan, Mexico. In: Paper presented at the70th Annual Meetings of the Society for American Archaeol-ogy, Salt Lake City, April 1st, 2005.

Hutson, S.R., Magnoni, A., Mazeau, D., Stanton, T.W., 2006.The archaeology of urban houselots at Chunchucmil, Yuca-tan, Mexico. In: Mathews, J.P., Morrison, B.A. (Eds.), Life-ways in the Northern Lowlands: New Approaches to MayaArchaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp.77–92.

Hutson, S.R., Magnoni, A., Stanton, T.W., 2004. House rules?:The practice of social organization in classic periodChunchucmil, Yucatan, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 15,74–92.

Hutson, S.R., Stanton, T.W., 2007. Cultural logic and practicalreason: the structure of discard in ancient Maya houselots.Cambridge Archaeological Journal.

Hutson, S.R., Terry, R.E., 2006. Recovering social and culturaldynamics from plaster Xoors: chemical analyses at ancientChunchucmil, Yucatan, Mexico. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 33, 391–404.

INEGI, 2000. XII Censo General de Población y Vivienda 2000.Principales resultados por localidad. Yucatán. Instituto Nac-ional de Estadística Geografía e Informática, Aguascalientes,Mexico.

Johnston, K.J., 2004. The invisible Maya: Minimally moundedresidential settlement at Itzán, Petén, Guatemala. Latin Amer-ican Antiquity 15 (2), 145–175.

Johnston, K., Gonlin, N., 1998. What do houses mean?Approaches to the analysis of Classic Maya commoner resi-dences. In: Houston, S. (Ed.), Function and Meaning in Clas-sic Maya Architecture. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C,pp. 126–161.

Keeley, L.H., 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone ToolUses: A Micro-wear Analysis. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

Kepecs, S., Boucher, S., 1996. The Pre-Hispanic cultivation ofrejolladas and stone-lands: new evidence from northeastYucatan. In: Fedick, S.L. (Ed.), The Managed Mosaic. Uni-versity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 69–91.

Kintz, E.R. 1990. Life Under the Tropical Canopy: Tradition andChange among the Yucatec Maya. Holt, Rinehart and Win-ston, Fort Worth.

Killion, T., 1990. cultivation intensity and residential site struc-ture: an ethnographic examination of peasant agriculture inthe Sierra de los Tuxtlas, Veracruz, Mexico. Latin AmericanAntiquity 1, 191–215.

Killion, T.W., 1992a. Residential ethnoarchaeology and ancientsite structure: Contemporary farming and prehistoric settle-ment agriculture at Matacapan, Veracruz, Mexico. In: Killion,T.W. (Ed.), Gardens of Prehistory: The Archaeology of



Settlement Agriculture in Greater Mesoamerica. University ofAlabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 119–149.

Killion, T.W., 1992b. The archaeology of settlement agriculture.In: Killion, T.W. (Ed.), Gardens of Prehistory: The Archaeol-ogy of Settlement Agriculture in Greater Mesoamerica. Uni-versity of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, pp. 1–13.

Killion, T.W., SabloV, J.A., Tourtellot, G., Dunning, N.P., 1989.Intensive surface collection of residential clusters at terminalclassic Sayil, Yucatan, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology16, 273–294.

Krakker, J., Shott, M., Welch, P.D., 1983. Design and evaluationof shovel-test sampling in regional archaeological survey.Journal of Field Archaeology 10, 469–480.

Krueger, R., 2000. Some proposals on the organization of a ruralOlmec household. Paper presented at the 65th annual meet-ings of the Society for American Archaeology, Philadelphia.

Kuijt, I., 1989. Refuse patterning or activity areas: an examina-tion of cultural material from the Jack Harkey Site 1, NewMexico. In: MacEachern, S., Archer, D.J.W., Garvin, R.D.(Eds.), Households and Communities: Proceedings of theTwenty-Wrst Annual Conference of the Archaeological Asso-ciation of the University of Calgary. University of Calgary,Calgary, pp. 209–217.

Lewenstein, S.M., 1981. Mesoamerican obsidian blades: an exper-imental approach to function. Journal of Field Archaeology 8(2), 175–188.

Lewenstein, S.M., 1987. Stone Tool Use at Cerros: The Ethnoar-chaeological and Use-wear Evidence. University of TexasPress, Austin.

Lightfoot, K., 1986. Regional surveys in the Eastern UnitedStates: the strengths and weaknesses of implementingsubsurface testing programs. American Antiquity 51 (3),484–504.

Magnoni, A., 1995. Albarradas at Chunchucmil and in the North-ern Maya Area. B.A. Thesis, University College of London.

Magnoni, A., in press. Population estimates at the ancient MayaCity of Chunchucmil, Yucatán, Mexico. In: Clark, J. (Ed.),Digital Discovery: Computer Applications and QuantitativeMethods in Archaeology, CAA 2006. BAR InternationalSeries, Oxford.

Magnoni, A., Hutson, S.R., Stanton, T.W., in press. Landscapetransformations and changing perceptions at Chunchucmil,Yucatán. In: Stanton, T.W., Magnoni, A. (Eds.), The use andperception of abandoned structures in the Maya Lowlands.University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Mansell, E.B. 2006 Análisis de Cerámica. In: Global Report ofthe Pakbeh Regional Economy Program, Presented to theConsejo de Arqueología of the Instituto Nacional de Ant-ropología e Historia, Mexico, pp. 25–34, Washington D.C.

Mansell, E.B., Tykot, R.H., Freidel, D.A., Ardren, T., Dahlin, B.,2006. Early to Terminal Classic Maya diet in the northernlowlands of the Yucatán (Mexico). In: Staller, J., Tykot, R.H.,Benz, B. (Eds.), Histories of Maize: MultidisciplinaryApproaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, Biogeography,Domestication, and Evolution of Maize. Academic Press,New York, pp. 173–185.

Manzanilla, L. (Ed.), 1987. Coba, Quintana Roo: Analisis de DosUnidades Habitacionales Mayas. Universidad NacionalAutonoma de Mexico, Mexico City.

Manzanilla, L., Barba, L., 1990. The study of activities in classichouseholds: two case studies from Coba and Teotihuacan.Ancient Mesoamerica 1, 41–49.

McKee, B.R., 1999. Household archaeology and cultural forma-tion processes: examples from the Ceren site, El Salvador. In:Allison, P. (Ed.), The Archaeology of Household Activities.Routledge, London, pp. 30–42.

McManamon, F.P., 1984. Discovering sites unseen. Advances inArchaeological Method and Theory 7, 223–292.

Middleton, W.D., Price, T.D., 1996. IdentiWcation of activity areasby multi-element characterization of sediments from modernand archaeological house Xoors using inductively coupledplasma-atomic emission spectroscopy. Journal of Archaeolog-ical Science 23, 673–687.

Miller, N., Gleason, K.L., 1994. Fertilizer in the identiWcation andanalysis of cultivated soil. In: Miller, N., Gleason, K.L. (Eds.),The Archaeology of Garden and Field. University of Pennsyl-vania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 25–43.

Moore, T.R., Denton, D., 1988. The role of soils in the interpreta-tion of archaeological sites in Northern Quebec. In: BintliV, J.,Davidson, D., Grant, E. (Eds.), Conceptual Issues in Environ-mental Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh,pp. 25–37.

Nance, J.D., Ball, B.F., 1986. No surprises? The reliability andvalidity of test pit sampling. American Antiquity 51, 457–483.

Nance, J.D., Ball, B.F., 1989. A shot in the Dark: Shott’s com-ments on Nance and Ball. American Antiquity 54, 405–412.

Needham, S., Spence, T., 1997. Refuse and the formation of mid-dens. Antiquity 71, 77–90.

Netting, R.M., Wilk, R., Arnould, E. (Eds.), 1984. Households:Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group.University of California Press, Berkeley.

O’Connell, J.F., 1987. Alyawara site structure and its archaeologi-cal implications. American Antiquity 52 (1), 74–108.

Ortega, L.M., Avendano, S., Gomez-Pampa, A., Ucan Ek, E.,1993. Los solares de Chunchucmil, Yucatan, Mexico. Biotica1, 37–51.

Parnell, J.J., Terry, R.E., Nelson, Z., 2002a. Soil chemical analysisapplied as an interpretive tool for ancient human activities inPiedras Negras, Guatemala. Journal of Archaeological Sci-ence 29, 379–404.

Parnell, J.J., Terry, R.E., Sheets, P., 2002b. Soil chemical analysisof ancient activities in Ceren, El Salvador. Latin AmericanAntiquity 13, 331–342.

Pearsall, D., 2000. Paleoethnobotany. Academic Press, New York.Pool, C.A., 1997. The spatial structure of formative households at

Bezuapan. In: Stark, B., Arnold, P. (Eds.), Olmec to Aztec:Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands. Universityof Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 40–67.

Pyburn, A., 1990. Settlement patterns at Nohmul: preliminaryresults of four excavation seasons. In: Culbert, T.P., Rice, D.S.(Eds.), Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Lowlands.University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 183–197.

Rapoport, A., 1990. Systems of activities and systems of settings.In: Kent, S. (Ed.), Domestic Architecture and the Use ofSpace. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 9–20.

Redman, C.L., 1987. Surface collection, sampling and researchdesign: a retrospective. American Antiquity 52, 249–265.

Rico-Gray, V., García Franco, J.G., Chemas, A., 1990. Speciescomposition, similarity, and structure of Maya homegardensin Tixpehual and Tixcacal-Tuyub, Yucatan, Mexico. Eco-nomic Botany 44 (4), 470–487.

Ringle, W.M., Smith, J.G., 1998. Report on the 1997 Field Seasonat Ichmul de Morley. Report on Wle at the Consejo deArqueología, INAH, Mexico City.



Robin, C., 1999. Towards an Archaeology of Everyday Life:Maya Farmers of Chan Nòohol and Dos Chombitos Cik’in,Belize. Unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Robin, C., 2002. Outside of houses: the practices of everyday lifeat Chan Nòohol, Belize. Journal of Social Archaeology 2,245–267.

Robin, C., Rothschild, N., 2002. Archaeolgoical ethnographies:social dynamics of outdoor spaces. Journal of Social Archae-ology 2 (2), 159–172.

Rogers, J.D., Smith, B.D. (Eds.), 1995. Mississippian Communitiesand Households. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Rothschild, N., 1991. Incorporating the outdoors as living space.Expedition 33, 24–32.

Roundhill, L.S., Reents-Budet, D., McGovern, P., Michel, R., 1994.Maya blue: A fresh look at an old controversy. In: Fields, V.M.(Ed.), Seventh Palenque Round Table, 1989. Pre-ColumbianArt Research Institute, San Francisco, pp. 253-256.

Sanchez Vizcaíno, A., Cañabate, M.L., 1999. IdentiWcation ofactivity areas by soil phosphorous and organic matter analysisin two rooms of the Iberian sanctuary “Cerro el Pajarrillo.Geoarchaeology 14, 47–62.

Santley, R.S., 1989. residential site structure in the Basin of Mex-ico during the Formative and Classic. In: MacEachern, S.,Archer, D.J.W., Garvin, R.D. (Eds.), Households and Com-munities: Proceedings of the Twenty-Wrst Annual Conferenceof the Archaeological Association of the University ofCalgary. University of Calgary, Calgary, pp. 398–406.

Santley, R.S., 1992. A consideration of the Olmec phenomenon inthe Tuxtlas: early formative settlement pattern, land use, andrefuse disposal at Matacapan, Veracruz, Mexico. In: Killion,T. (Ed.), Gardens of Prehistory. University of Alabama Press,Tuscaloosa, pp. 150–183.

Santley, R.S., Hirth, K., 1993. Household studies in Western Mes-oamerica. In: Santley, R.S., Hirth, K. (Eds.), PrehispanicDomestic Units in Western Mesoamerica. CRC Press, BocaRaton, pp. 3–20.

Schele, L., 1985. Color on classic architecture and monumentalsculpture of the southern Maya Lowlands. In: Boone, E.H.(Ed.), Painted Architecture and Polychrome MonumentalSculpture in Mesoamerica. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington,D.C, pp. 31–49.

SchiVer, M.B., 1987. Formation Processes of the ArchaeologicalRecord. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Schuldenrein, J., 1995. Geochemistry, phosphate fractionation,and the detection of activity areas at Prehistoric North Amer-ican sites. In: Collins, M.E., Carter, B.J., B.G. Gladfelter, B.G.,Southard, R.J. (Eds.), Pedological Perspectives in Archaeolog-ical Research. SSSA Special Publication Number 44. SocialScience Society of America., Madison.

Semenov, S., 1964. Prehistoric Technology, Translated by M.Thompson. Adams and Dart, London.

Sheets, P.D. (Ed.), 2002. Before the volcano erupted: The ancientCerén village in Central America. University of Texas Press,Austin.

Shott, M., 1989. shovel-test sampling in archaeological survey:comments on Nance and Ball, and Lightfoot. AmericanAntiquity 54, 396–404.

Smith, M.E., 1992. Braudel’s temporal rhythms and chronologytheory in archaeology. In: Knapp, A.B. (Ed.), Archaeology,Annales, and Ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 223–234.

Smyth, M.P., 1990. Maize storage among the Puuc Maya: thedevelopment of an archaeological method. Ancient Meso-america 1, 51–69.

Smyth, M.P., Dore, C., 1992. Large-site archaeological methods atSayil, Yucatan, Mexico: investigating community organization ata Prehispanic Maya Center. Latin American Antiquity 3, 3–21.

Smyth, M.P., Dore, C.C., Dunning, N.P., 1995. Interpreting prehis-toric settlement patterns: lessons from the Maya center of Sayil,Yucatan. Journal of Field Archaeology 22, 321–347.

Stanton, T.W., 2001. Report on excavations in the Muuch group.In: Dahlin, B.H., Mazeau, D. (Eds.), Pakbeh Archaeology Pro-ject Report on the 2001 Field Season. Howard University,Washington D.C, pp. 58–69.

Stanton, T.W., Carrillo Sánchez, R.E., Gallareta, T.C., Eberl, M.,Jiménez Alvarez, S., Ramos Pacheco, J., 2003. Puuc settlementon the northwest coastal plain of Yucatán: Preliminaryresearch from Santa Bárbara. Mexicon 25, 24–33.

Terry, R.E., Fernandez, F.G., Parnell, J.J., Inomata, T., 2004. Thestory in the Xoors: Chemical signatures of ancient and modernMaya activities at Aguateca, Guatemala. Journal of Archaeo-logical Science 31, 1237–1250.

Thomas, P., 1981. Prehistoric Maya Settlement Patterns at Becan,Campeche, Mexico. MARI Publication 45, Middle AmericanResearch Institute, New Orleans.

Torres, L.M., 1988. Maya blue: How the Mayas could have madethe pigment. In: Sayre, E., Vandiver, P., Druzik, J., Stevenson,C. (Eds.), Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology, MaterialsResearch Society Symposium Proceedings vol. 123. MaterialsResearch Society, San Francisco, pp. 123-128. .

Tozzer, A.M., 1941. Landa’s Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan: ATranslation. Papers of the Peabody Museum of AmericanArchaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, vol. XVII.Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology,Cambridge, MA. .

Van Olphen, H., 1966. Maya blue: A clay-organic pigment.Science 154, 645–646.

Vargas Rivero, C., 1983. El Ka’anche: Una práctica horticolaMaya. Biotica 8 (2), 151–173.

Vogt, E.Z., 1969. Zinacantan: A Maya community in the high-lands of Chiapas. The Belknap Press of Harvard UniversityPress, Cambridge, Ma.

Vlcek, D., Garza, S., Kurjack, E.B., 1978. Contemporary Maya farm-ing and ancient settlements: some disconcerting evidence. In:Harrison, P.D., Turner, B.L. (Eds.), Prehispanic Maya Agricul-ture. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 211–223.

Wandsnider, L., Ebert, J.I., 1988. Issues in archaeological surfacesurvey: meshing method and theory. American Archaeology 7, 2.

Wauchope, R., 1938. Modern Maya Houses: A study of the Sig-niWcance. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication502, Washington D.C.

Webster, D., Gonlin, N., 1988. Household remains of the hum-blest Maya. Journal of Field Archaeology 15, 169–190.

Webster, D., Gonlin, N., Sheets, P., 1997. Copan and Cerén: Twoperspectives on ancient Mesoamerican households. AncientMesoamerica 8, 43–61.

Wells, C., Terry, R.E., Parnell, J., Hardin, P., Jackson, M., Hous-ton, S.D., 2000. Chemical analyses of ancient anthrosols in res-idential areas of Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Journal ofArchaeological Science 27, 449–462.

Wilk, R., Rathje, W. (Eds), 1982. Archaeology of the Household:Building a Prehistory of Domestic Life, American BehavioralScientist 25(6). Sage, Beverley Hills.



Wilk, R., SchiVer, M.B., 1979. The archaeology of vacant lots inTucson, Arizona. American Antiquity 44, 530–536.

Willey, G., Bullard, W.J., 1965. Prehispanic settlement patternsin the Maya lowlands. In: Willey, G. (Ed.), Handbook ofMiddle American Indians. In: Archaeology of SouthernMesoamerica, Part 1, Vol. 2. University of Texas Press, Aus-tin, pp. 360–377.

Wilson, D.C., 1994. IdentiWcation and assessment of secondaryrefuse aggregates. Journal of Archaeological Method andTheory 1, 41–68.

Winter, M., 1974. Residential patterns at Monte Alban, Oaxaca,Mexico. Science 186, 981–987.

Wobst, H.M., 1983. We can’t see the forest for the trees: Samplingand the shapes of archaeological distributions. In: Moore, J.,Keene, A. (Eds.), Archaeological Hammers and Theories.Academic Press, New York, pp. 37–85.

Yentsch, A.E., Kratzer, J.M., 1994. Techniques for excavating andanalyzing buried eighteenth century landscapes. In: Miller, N.F.,Gleason, K.L. (Eds.), The Archaeology of Garden and Field.University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp. 168–201.

Beyond the Buildings: Formation Processes of Ancient Maya Houselots and Methods for the Study of...

Documents

Transcript of Beyond the Buildings: Formation Processes of Ancient Maya Houselots and Methods for the Study of...