Speleothem breakage, movement, removal, and caching: An aspect of ancient Maya cave modification

Speleothem Breakage, Movement,Removal, and Caching: An Aspect ofAncient Maya Cave Modification

James E. Brady*Department of Anthropology, George Washington University,Washington, D.C. 20052

Ann Scott2929 Curry Parkway #25, Madison, Wisconsin 53713

Hector Neff and Michael D. GlascockUniversity of Missouri, Research Reactor Center,Columbia, Missouri 65211

Recent investigations have documented extensive human breakage, movement, reset-ting, removal, and caching of speleothems which reflects an unreported aspect of an-cient Maya cave utilization. The movement, resetting, and caching of speleothems makeit clear that much of the breakage was purposeful. Speleothems appear in excavationcontexts at surface sites, and the Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project demon-strates that reported examples represent only a small portion of formations actuallypresent. Many of the contexts at surface sites indicate that speleothems had a sacredor special meaning, and ethnographic sources indicate that the meaning is associatedwith rain, fertility, healing, and power. Preliminary results of neutron activation analy-sis indicate that it may be possible to determine the cave of origin of speleothems foundin cultural contexts. 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

Archaeology routinely studies evidence of human modification of the natu-ral environment, including direct alteration of natural features as well as thepresence of manuports—unaltered items from another location deposited ata site. Because of this traditional concern, it is surprising that little mentionhas been made of human modifications to cave environments, especially tofeatures such as stalagmites, stalactites, and other formations (referred tocollectively as speleothems).

* Send all correspondence to Dr. James E. Brady, 2702 Wisconsin Ave, N.W., #208, Washington,D.C. 20007.

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, Vol. 12, No. 6, 725–750 (1997) 1997 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC 0883-6353/97/060725-26

BRADY ET AL.

A

Figure 1. Limestone shafts from Chichen Itza which may be imitations of speleothems. A) exam-ples set up in the museum, B) stacked at the site.

726 VOL. 12, NO. 6

ANCIENT MAYA CAVE MODIFICATION

BFigure 1—Continued

Despite the fact that few archaeologists have reported extensive spel-eothem breakage in caves, several authors have advanced ideas of speleothemuse. One of the first was Puleston (MacLeod and Puleston, 1978), who sug-gested that the Maya may have beaten on speleothems as they would a drumto produce music. He saw the long limestone shafts found at Chichen Itza aspossible imitations of speleothems which served this purpose (Figure 1).

Cottier (1982:103) mentions the mutilation of speleothems which appearsto have been extensive enough at Dzibilchultun for him to suggest that itmay represent actual ‘‘mining’’ for use as ceramic temper. However, he notesthat none of the contexts in which the speleothems were found could be di-rectly tied to ceramic manufacture. Cottier’s suggestion echoes Arnold’s(1971:33) observation of modern Yucatecan potters mining speleothems fortemper from a nearby cave. The widespread mining of speleothems for temperappears highly unlikely in Prehispanic times because (1) the amount ofcalcite required for ceramic manufacture would have completely strippedcaves of speleothems in a rather short time, (2) the majority of examinedcaves have large pieces of broken speleothem littering the floors, which ifsystematically mined, would have been collected, and (3) utilitarian functionsproposed for caves should follow laws of economic efficiency, so that one wouldexpect the easily reached formations closest to the entrance to be stripped

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 727

BRADY ET AL.

first and miners would systematically work deeper into the cave until thetravel distances no longer made it economically efficient to exploit a source.This pattern of speleothem exploitation has not been observed, and it is oftenthe formations located in the deepest parts of the cave that have been broken,a pattern more associated with a religious/ceremonial use (Straus, 1990:284).

Bassie-Sweet (1991) has proposed that the erection of stela may have beena memorialization of an earlier ceremony in which the completion of a calen-drical period was marked by the setting up of a speleothem in a cave. Ini-tially, Bassie-Sweet’s proposal did not appear to be supported by archaeologi-cal evidence. However, in the last several years (Awe, 1994; McNatt, 1996) anumber of purposefully erected speleothems or stelalike stone shafts havebeen reported from caves.

In the Cueva del Rıo El Duende at Dos Pilas, the Petexbatun RegionalCave Survey found a segment of stalagmitic column, approximately 3 m longand 0.5 m in diameter, lying on its side near the middle of the passage. Asearch of the area failed to find the place from which the speleothem hadoriginally come, and the weight of the piece ensured that it could not havebeen moved any great distance by natural forces. It was concluded that thecolumn had been moved to that location by the Maya and could have been setvertically at one time, although there is no evidence for the latter. Cobb(1995) notes some resetting of large speleothems (.1 m), but these tend tooccur where passages change dimension or at the entrance to restricted pas-sages. Cobb suggests that these mark the boundary of ceremonial areas. Re-ports of vertically set speleothems may support Bassie-Sweet’s proposal, butshould not be taken as proof of her idea. Cobb (1995) presents a very differentinterpretation based on actual observation of cave context.

Bassie-Sweet’s (1991:110–117) hypothesis rests on the proposition thatthere is a close relationship between stelas and speleothems which allows theformer to represent the latter. If this proposition is valid, one must wonderwhy speleothems were not used regularly for stelas. Most areas like Dos Pilashave more than enough caves to supply large stalagmitic columns. Despitethis, only at Yaxchilan was a large speleothem used as a stela (MacLeod andPuleston, 1978:74; Tate, 1992:132) (Figure 2). Maler (1903:154, 157–158, 179,183) notes several large uncarved speleothems at the same site which he callscolumns that may have functioned as uncarved stela. The Yaxchilan exam-ples clearly indicate that the idea of using speleothems for stelas had oc-curred to the Maya but the presence of only a single speleothem among thehundreds of known stelas casts doubt on how closely related the Maya sawthe two forms.

SPELEOTHEM BREAKAGE

Interest by the Petexbatun Regional Cave Survey in cave modification in-volving formations was awakened by speleologist Cobb (1995), who noted the

728 VOL. 12, NO. 6


Figure 2. Stela 31 at Yaxchilan is carved in a stalagmite.


BRADY ET AL.

Figure 2—Continued

730 VOL. 12, NO. 6


extensive breakage, movement, and caching of speleothems. The moststraightforward modification of the cave environment is simple speleothembreakage, which can result from a variety of causes ranging from accidentalbumping to deliberate vandalism. While it is possible that some of the break-age is recent, enough cases of formation regrowth have been observed to becertain that Prehispanic breakage was common. Experience in dozens ofcaves in the Petexbatun Region and elsewhere has documented that breakageis ubiquitous.

While the breakage of lower formations could be accidental, the fact thatstalactites out of easy reach are so frequently broken indicates that mostwere broken deliberately. In many cases, speleothem fragments were foundin places where they clearly had been moved from their original context. AtDos Pilas and Naj Tunich, fragments of soda straws, small white stalactites,were found in natural niches in the cave wall where they had obviously beenplaced by humans. In Gordon’s Cave #3 near Copan, Honduras, excavationsbelow an area where all the stalactites had been broken from the ceiling re-vealed that most pieces had been removed (Brady, 1995). Finally, several verylarge caches of broken speleothems were found in the Cueva de Sangre atDos Pilas, where they were purposefully gathered in one place.

SPELEOTHEM USE

Some speleothem breakage can be attributed to various uses within caves.A sharp pointed segment of stalactite with a muddy handprint was found atNaj Tunich, Peten, Guatemala in a low passage that someone had attemptedto enlarge by digging. The mud along the tip of the stalactite suggests that ithad been used as a pick. The crawlway is located in a passage discovered in1988. The lack of footprints in the soft, powdery soil covering the entrance tothe passage and the absence of looting provide a fair degree of confidencethat this newly discovered passage had not been entered in recent times. Thestalactite’s use is likely contemporaneous with the ceramic found in the pas-sage which has been dated to the Late Classic Period (A.D. 600–900) (Bradyet. al., 1992).

Dunham et al. (1993) suggest that Maya artifacts reported as being madeof alabaster tend to be made of speleothems. No study of museum specimensverifying this proposal has been published. However, an ‘‘alabaster’’ vesselwith very evident growth rings, indicative of speleothem formation, fromZacualpa, Quiche, Guatemala (Lothrop, 1936:52) supports this observation.

Large pieces of speleothem have also been used as construction material incaves. At Naj Tunich, a barrier of thick column segments, which probablyblocked the entrance to the tunnel system at the end of the Late Classic, waspartially destroyed by modern looters. At the same site, broken speleothemsand sediments were used to make a dam in one chamber creating a pool ofwater. The associated ceramics date the construction to the Protoclassic (100


BRADY ET AL.

B.C.–A.D. 400). A series of steps at Tacbi Ha Cave (Rissolo, 1996:116) inYucatan also employed broken speleothems. In the Cueva de Sangre at DosPilas a large speleothem segment was strategically set up to block an openingbetween formations and force visitors to follow a path around the formations.All of the above are mundane uses of speleothems in which they may havebeen used as tools or for construction because they were close at hand. Theseuses do not imply that the pieces necessarily have a special meaning.

RELIGIOUS USES OF SPELEOTHEMS

Most uses of speleothems, however, do imply that the stone is consideredto have some type of special power, and so the uses are only understandablewithin the context of Maya religion. Maya religion has a heavily terrestrialfocus. Carlson and Eachus (1977:38) state that ‘‘. . . to the Kekchi [Q'eqchi'],there is only one deity with whom he must be vitally concerned: Cu:l Taq'a[Tzuultaq'a] the ‘Earth God’.’’ The word ‘‘tzuultaq'a’’ means ‘‘hill-valley’’ andthe earth deity is addressed in a number of Maya languages by a name whichtranslates as ‘‘hill-valley’’ (Tedlock, 1992:454), making explicit its terrestrialnature. In the Q'eqchi' area, as elsewhere, the Tzuultaq'as reside in caves inspecific sacred mountains. The terrestrial religious focus is not restricted tothe Maya but seems to be a generalized Mesoamerican phenomenon. For theMixtec of Oaxaca, Mexico no term is more emotionally charged than the wordfor earth (King, 1988:169) and a similar relationship was noted among Nahuaspeakers of Central Mexico (Sandstrom, 1991:240).

Because of their sacred connotation, terrestrial features such as caves areof enormous importance throughout Mesoamerica. Caves are closely associ-ated with rain and fertility, the two most important concerns of an agricul-tural people. Rain is universally thought to be created within caves beforebeing sent into the sky (Vogt, 1969:387). To this day, ceremonies in cavesmark the onset of the rainy season throughout the Maya area. The ancientMaya were so impressed with these features that they regularly placed tem-ples over caves found within sites (Thompson, 1938; Brady, in press, a) as away of sanctifying these structures and imbuing them with power. Wherenatural caves did not occur, man-made ones were dug to replace them (Bradyand Veni, 1992; Hermes Cifuences, 1993; Manzanilla et al., 1994). It thusappears that caves were considered an indispensable feature of the sacredlandscape.

In the study of religion it is recognized that beliefs and rituals surroundingpoints of such fundamental importance tend to elaborate various aspects ofthat place so that they come to possess a whole range of sacred meanings.Levy-Bruhl (cited in Eliade, 1958:367) states: ‘‘To these natives, a sacred spotnever presents itself to the mind in isolation. It is always part of a complexusof things which includes the plant or animal species which flourished there atvarious seasons, as well as the mythical heroes who lived, roamed or created

732 VOL. 12, NO. 6


something there and who are often embodied in the very soil. . . .’’ This is thecase in the Maya area where plants and animals found near cenotes, a typeof cave, are associated with the rain god and the plants are those prescribedfor ritual use (Redfield, 1941:117). One would expect then that distinctivefeatures of caves, such as speleothems, would come to have special meaningand uses as well since they are a purely cave phenomenon.

Although ethnographic data on speleothems are scarce, they do tend to con-firm this proposition. Speleothems are referred to as ‘‘the stone’’ among theYucatec Maya. They are associated with the fangs of the terrestrial serpentyum baalam and are said to be ‘‘his bench’’ (Sosa, 1985:414). Tozzer (1907:87)states that the Lacandon place a small ‘‘idol’’ in their incensarios while Sous-telle (1961:59) states specifically that it is a stone taken from a sacred cave.When the incensario is replaced, the stone is taken from the old vessel andplaced in the new one. Because Soustelle was not permitted to see the cavestone, it is not known if it had been carved to form an ‘‘idol’’ and we cannotbe completely certain that it is a speleothem. Bruce (1975:80) states that thestones comes from a shrine sacred to the deity to whom the incensario isdedicated. It is interesting, moreover, that the stone is called ‘‘the seat of thegod’’ since this parallels the Yucatec reference to ‘‘his bench.’’ Q'eqchi' divin-ers also use a stone taken from a sacred cave in their profession (GoubaudCarrera, 1949:106). While, once again, one cannot be absolutely certain thata speleothem is being used, the cave association seems to be the basis of itspower. Furthermore, the Tzeltal Maya in Chiapas place speleothems on theiraltars (Deal, 1988:74) and newly married Mixtec couples set up speleothemsbeside the house for health, fertility, and good fortune (Ravicz and Romney,1969:394).

In the archaeological record, there are a number of uses of speleothemsthat appear to rest on the assumption that the stone contains spiritual power.At Naj Tunich, an elaborate altar in a remote, hard-to-reach chamber has arow of stalactites set vertically along its rear edge. William Hanks (personalcommunication to Andrea Stone, cited in Brady et al., 1992:78) suggests that,for the Maya, vertically set stones are associated with sacred places. Thecenter of this altar was dismantled and contained a large first-sized chunk ofcrystalline limestone from a formation, but it is not certain if it was deliber-ately placed there for its crystalline quality. Slabs from a large stalagmiticcurtain were also used at Naj Tunich as altar tops on which offerings werefound.

Perhaps the most commonly recorded use of speleothems is as idols. Spel-eothems with pecked faces have been recorded in all parts of the Maya area(Figure 3) including: Copan in Honduras (Gordon, 1898:5), the Rıo Candelariacave system in Alta Verapaz (Carot, 1989:28), Jobonche, Jovelte, Juteria andCorosal Caves in southeastern Peten (Siffre, 1979a, 1979b) and the Cueva dela Cabeza on the Guatemalan side of the Usumacinta River near Yaxchilan(Maler, 1903:202). Several are recorded from the Cueva de los Andasolos (Na-


Figure 3. Map of the Maya area showing the location of caves and surface sites which haveproduced utilized speleothems.



Figure 4. Drawing of the interior of a Mixtec shrine with its stone idol representing the raingod (after Schultz Jena 1939:65).

varrete and Martinez, 1977) and another is mentioned by Stirling (1947:139)in Chiapas. In Belize, speleothem sculptures are found in a cave near BenqueViejo (Gann, 1925:112) and Rio Frio Cave E (Anderson, 1962:331; Pendergast,1970:8, 50–51). To the north in Yucatan, faces carved on speleothems arefound at Actun Spukil and Actun Ceh (Mercer, 1975:30, 33–34; Hatt et. al.,1953; Part 2, Plate 1, Part 5, Plate 2; Bonor Villarejo, 1987:25, Figure 4;Uc Gonzalez and Canche Manzanero, 1989:292–295), Loltun (Thompson,


BRADY ET AL.

1897:16; Strecker, 1981), Cueva Xcatil (Casado Lopez et al., 1988:92), Tancah(Lothrop, 1924:132, Miller, 1982:88, Figure 119), and the Cuevas de Mis, Pe-troglifos (Strecker, 1984), Ehbis, Xcosmil, and Cahum (Strecker, 1985) allnear Oxkutzcab. Based on his finds, Strecker (1985:21) has suggested thatpecked faces are one of the most common forms of cave art.

There is little doubt that these carved speleothems were used as idols be-cause the function is documented in ethnohistorical and ethnographic sourcesboth in the Maya area and elsewhere in Mesoamerica. Andrews (1943:48–49)explored a cave shrine in southwestern Campeche containing an unworkedspeleothem called the ‘‘Virgin of Candelaria.’’ Thompson (1963:148–149) wasshown a stalagmite fragment in southern Belize which was called a ‘‘santo.’’One of the most sacred locations for the Ixil Maya is a cave with a largestalactite set in the center of a great stone altar 6 ft high and 10 ft long. Thecave is named Xetish, which means ‘‘where formerly there dwelt a god’’ (Lin-coln, 1945:95–96). Lincoln does not mention carvings on the stalactite, butseveral animals were depicted on the altar. There are a number of cases re-corded from Oaxaca. Fray Geronimo Abrego accomplished the conversion ofthe Chocho only after destroying their stalagmite idol (Hoppe and Weitlaner,1969:506). Tibon (1961:145) recorded the use of a stalagmite idol by theTrique. Ravicz and Romney (1969:394) state that the Mixtec make offeringsin a cave to a stalagmitic idol which represents the rain god. The shrine foundby Schultze Jena (1938:65) of a Mixtec water deity consisting of a stone idolwith an anthropomorphic face inside a stone enclosure representing a cave(Figure 4) is probably related to the same beliefs. Bevans (1938:65) also men-tions finding caves with idols in the form of stone shafts, possibly spel-eothems, with incised human features in the Chinantec area.

Stone idols, often housed in caves, are frequently mentioned in the ethno-historical literature, but rarely are sufficient data provided to allow an identi-fication of the type of stone. Bunzel (1952:268) states that idols are generallyrain related as, of course, are caves. Considering the number of documentedspeleothem idols and the number of cave associated idols mentioned in ethno-history, Brady (in press, b) has argued elsewhere that a large percentage ofPre-Columbian stone idols were made from speleothems.

SPELEOTHEMS AND SURFACE ARCHAEOLOGY

To this point, the discussion of the breakage and use of speleothems hasbeen limited to cases documented, for the most part, in caves. However, thebreakage of speleothems is not linked solely to their movement and cachingwithin caves. Speleothems have been recovered in a variety contexts by sur-face excavations. Speleothems were present in a number of substela cachesat Copan (Stromsvik, 1942; Longyear, 1952:51–53) and in dedicatory cachesat Dzibilchultun (Andrews and Andrews, 1980:255, Cottier, 1982:103) andCaracol (Arlen Chase, personal communication, 1995). The Dzibilchultun ex-

736 VOL. 12, NO. 6


ample is interesting because the piece appears to have been placed in thecache for its crystalline structure, which may make it similar to the piecefound in the Naj Tunich altar mentioned earlier. Four speleothems were re-covered from Burial E-54/9 at Altun Ha (Pendergast, 1990:150) and anotherwas found in Tomb 6 at Copan (Longyear, 1952:43). Formations were foundin Burials 5 and 6 at Piedras Negras (Coe, 1959: Figure 64). Although Burial6 was found in a cave, Coe (1959:125) notes that the cave had no naturalformations. A possible speleothem may also have been recovered from a tombat Yaxuna (David Friedel, personal communication, 1995).

Speleothems have also been reported from the surface in a variety of do-mestic contexts. At Itzan, speleothems were found in middens dating as earlyas the Middle Preclassic (Kevin Johnston, personal communication, 1991)which suggests that their use has great antiquity. At Dzibilchultun 19 speci-mens were recovered from noncache contexts ranging from Late Prelassic toTerminal Classic (Cottier, 1982:103). Speleothems are reported in excava-tions at the Melhado site (Willey and Bullard, 1956:42), Point Placentia(MacKinnon, 1985:80), Pacbitun (Bill, 1987:238–284) and Caracol (A. Chase,personal communication, 1996) in Belize and in several constructions at Co-pan (Kluth, 1992:84–85; Cassandra Bill, personal communication, 1992). AtMayapan during the Postclassic, speleothems were used in the construction ofhigh relief stucco and in freestanding parts of stucco figures (Proskouriakoff,1962:346). A speleothem was also incorporated into a Late Postclassic shrineon a structure at Naranjal, Yucatan (Rissolo, 1996:119).

There is good reason for believing that the speleothems reported above rep-resent only a fraction of those actually present in Maya archaeological sites.None had been found on the Petexbatun Regional Archaeological Project untilspeleothems were discussed with the archaeologists at Dos Pilas. An examplewas recovered the following day, and several dozen in all were found in theexcavation of residential structures. Most of the pieces were small; only fourexceeded 10 cm in length, and included stalactites, stalagmites and pieces offlowstone. The floors of residences at Dos Pilas consist of a pavement of lime-stone rocks which often resemble cave formations. Without careful checkingthe chances of overlooking a speleothem were excellent. These examples ofcave formations reported from surface excavations represent only a minuteproportion of the speleothems actually present in archaeological deposits be-cause most go unrecognized. In addition to the speleothems recovered in exca-vation, two large stalagmites were found on the surface. One was found neara residential structure in a plaza group (Figure 5) and another very largeexample, unassociated with architectural features, was recorded along a trail,on the outskirts of Dos Pilas (Figure 6).

Finally, a speleothem artifact was found in a private collection from thesite of Chichicaste in northeastern Honduras. A 6-cm-long piece of crystallinestalactite was drilled lengthwise and apparently suspended as a tubular bead


BRADY ET AL.

Figure 5. Stalagmite (after resetting) found at a residential group at Dos Pilas.

738 VOL. 12, NO. 6


Figure 6. Stalagmite found on the outskirts of Dos Pilas.


BRADY ET AL.

Figure 7. A drilled speleothem from Chichicaste, Honduras which was probably used as a tubu-lar bead.

(Figure 7). Ceramic material from the site is predominantly Late Classic indate, possibly suggesting the artifact is of the same age.

The discovery of speleothems in surface archaeological sites is importantbecause it sheds light on the meaning of speleothems and helps to explainthe extensive breakage. The presence of speleothems in caches and burialsand their use as idols is a good indication that cave formations are thoughtto have some type of power or mana (a Polynesian word used to denote spiri-tual power). Because the ethnographic examples of idols (Andrews, 1943;Thompson, 1963) are uncarved, it is obvious that speleothems do not come bytheir power by virtue of some modification, such as the pecking of a face onthe surface of the stone. The specimens recovered from residential construc-tion appear to relate to beliefs similar to those documented among the Mixtec,where each household has a piece of speleothem to insure health, good for-tune, and fertility (Ravicz and Romney, 1969:394). The data from surface ar-chaeology strongly suggest that much of the breakage was motivated by theneed to supply speleothem fragments for uses outside of the cave. The excava-tions at Gordon’s Cave #3 indicate that the majority of the broken stalactiteshad been removed from the cave (Brady, 1995:36).

740 VOL. 12, NO. 6


NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS OF SPELEOTHEMS

During the last decade an important development in Maya cave archaeol-ogy has been the advent of systematic cave surveys, often in conjunction withsurface archaeological projects (Bonor Villarejo, 1987; Brady, 1991; Rissolo,1996). The comprehensive survey for caves in a given area provides a database for conducting certain types of analyses that are not possible with inves-tigations of single caves.

The association with surface archaeological projects also opens up the pos-sibility of exploring the wider social context of cave utilization, an example ofwhich is the cave survey conducted in the Copan Valley by Scott (1992). Thelimited survey, utilizing local informants in this heavily settled area, located14 caves and information about five others. Scott estimates that additionalwork may yield as many as three dozen caves. Since many of the caves arelittle more than rockshelters or crevices (see Straus [1990:257] for a discus-sion of the difference between caves and rockshelters), the number of caveswith speleothems would probably not exceed 25. During the survey, spel-eothems were collected from four caves with samples from both the entranceand an interior chamber taken from the largest cave, Cueva Grande (Figure8). These were submitted to the Missouri University Research Reactor forneutron activation analysis.

As expected, calcium is by far the dominant element, making up roughly40% of each sample, which is nearly pure calcium carbonate. Correspond-ingly, all other elements are present in minute amounts, including elements,such as iron, that are normally considered major elements. The large numberof missing measurements resulted from many elements being so scarce as tobe below detection. Other elements are present in sub-parts-per-million (ppm)amounts (e.g., lanthanum, see the Appendix, p. 745). Nevertheless, the differ-ences in certain elements are quite large, especially if one compares the speci-mens with the lowest concentrations (Hacienda Grande, around 20 ppm iron)to those with the highest (Cerro el Pino, around 630 ppm iron).

While admittedly stretching a tiny data base, there appears to be a south-west to northeast trend toward higher concentrations of the measured ele-ments: Hacienda Grande is the lowest in all four elements illustrated in Fig-ures 9 and 10; Guerra and Gordon’s Caves are tied on the lanthanum-samarium plot (Figure 9), but Guerra is clearly higher in iron and scandium(Figure 10); and Cerro el Pino is far higher in all four elements. Gordon’s andGuerra Caves are geographically the closest together of all the caves, andthey are also compositionally similar, based on comparison of ppm of rareearths (lanthanum, samarium—see Figure 9). If a larger sample replicatesthese preliminary analyses, and the apparent southwest–northeast trend,then this may provide a basis for speleothem sourcing in the Copan Valley.

The basic requirement of chemistry-based sourcing is that between-sourcevariation must exceed within-source variation in some measurable way. This


Fig

ure

8.M

apof

the

Cop

anV

alle

y,H

ondu

ras

show

ing

the

loca

tion

ofth

eca

ves

from

wh

ich

spel

eoth

ems

wer

eta

ken

for

neu

tron

acti

vati

onan

alys

is.

742 VOL. 12, NO. 6


Figure 9. Plot of the Lanthanum-Samarium values derived from neutron activation analysis ofspeleothems collected from four Copan Valley caves.

is the ‘‘provenance postulate’’ (Weigand et al., 1977). In this case the smallneutron activation analysis data base provides some optimism that this con-dition may hold with respect to the Copan Valley speleothems. The repeatanalyses of the specimens were much closer to their paired sample than tosamples from other caves. Even more important, the samples and their re-peats from the two chambers of Cueva Grande are closer to one another thanthey are to samples from other caves. In fact, the configuration of these fourdata points on Figures 9 and 10 suggest that the amount of within-cave varia-tion may not be any greater than within-piece variation. If further spel-eothem sampling and analysis bear out these preliminary results, then it willbe possible to trace archaeologically recovered speleothems to specific cavesin the Copan Valley.

If the pattern holds, the implications are exciting. Speleothems have beenrecovered from excavations at Copan from substela caches, burials, and struc-tural fill in several areas. If the formations from the substela caches andpublic architecture can be traced to their cave of origin, independently de-rived data will be available on which caves the Maya considered important.Ancient Maya sacred landmarks probably existed in some type of ranked sys-


BRADY ET AL.

Figure 10. Plot of the Iron-Scandium values derived from neutron activation analysis of spel-eothems collected from four Copan Valley caves.

tem since modern Maya groups have hierarchies of sacred sites. The spel-eothem data, therefore, would provide insights into the structure of Copanecosacred geography. It would also be a valuable aid in developing research de-signs that prioritize caves for future investigation.

The speleothems recovered from residential contexts are potentially valu-able for analyzing prehistoric social organization. It is probable that carefulexcavation of residential units will yield speleothems in nearly every case. Itis known from ethnographic sources that kinship and residential groups haveclose ties to particular caves (Villa Rojas, 1946:16). Sourcing of the spel-eothems from residences may reveal the composition and boundaries of spe-cific social groups within a given site.

SUMMARY

Speleothem use by the ancient Maya has been largely ignored by archaeolo-gists. Current research demonstrates that speleothem breakage is ubiquitousin Maya caves, needs to be recorded, and demonstrates past human utiliza-

744 VOL. 12, NO. 6


Ap

pen

dix

.Res

ult

sof

the

neu

tron

acti

vati

onan

alys

isof

spel

eoth

ems

coll

ecte

dfr

omfo

ur

Cop

anV

alle

yca

ves.

An

idP

rove

nie

nce

Mid

dle

Mid

dle

Mid

dle

Mid

dle

Mid

dle

Mid

dle

Mid

dle

Lon

gL

ong

Lon

gL

ong

Lon

gL

ong

As

La

Lu

Nd

Sm

UY

bC

eC

oC

rC

sE

uF

e

JB00

1AC

ave

3,G

ordo

n’s

Cav

e2.

003

0.10

810.

1422

0.96

90.

4269

0.09

090.

0192

0.00

7628

.065

JB00

1BC

ave

3,G

ordo

n’s

Cav

e1.

228

0.06

430.

0561

0.65

70.

1603

0.07

910.

0305

0.00

8529

.961

JB00

2AC

ave

5,G

uer

raC

ave

1.09

40.

2153

0.01

390.

1004

0.34

10.

0866

0.07

530.

1756

0.04

070.

0276

87.1

16JB

002B

Cav

e5,

Gu

erra

Cav

e0.

402

0.08

250.

0282

0.07

440.

1062

0.37

90.

0124

107.

373

JB00

3AC

ave

6,H

acie

nda

Gra

nde

,E

ntr

ance

0.02

050.

0184

0.19

50.

0896

0.00

6310

.311

JB00

3BC

ave

6,H

acie

nda

Gra

nde

,E

ntr

ance

0.02

440.

0423

0.33

90.

0969

0.00

960.

0053

16.6

03JB

004A

Cav

e6,

Hac

ien

daG

ran

de,

Bac

k0.

0247

0.01

160.

236

0.07

760.

0106

11.3

50JB

004B

Cav

e6,

Hac

ien

daG

ran

de,

Bac

k0.

370

0.04

780.

0231

0.48

20.

0966

0.00

9432

.685

JB00

5AC

ave

14,

Cer

roel

Pin

o1.

145

1.73

660.

0551

2.90

430.

7918

0.30

20.

3926

0.64

790.

1564

0.65

220.

0902

0.23

2029

5.55

6JB

005B

Cav

e14

,C

erro

elP

ino

1.34

50.

6545

0.02

260.

3210

0.85

50.

1358

1.29

730.

3457

1.96

970.

1340

0.06

1697

3.36

1

An

idP

rove

nie

nce

Lon

gL

ong

Lon

gL

ong

Lon

gL

ong

Lon

gL

ong

Lon

gL

ong

Lon

gL

ong

Lon

gH

fN

lR

bS

bS

cS

rT

aT

hS

cS

cS

rT

aT

b

JB00

1AC

ave

3,G

ordo

n’s

Cav

e0.

3377

0.00

9911

9.6

0.01

370.

0099

119.

6JB

001B

Cav

e3,

Gor

don

’sC

ave

0.01

50.

3356

0.01

2671

.00.

0126

71.0

JB00

2AC

ave

5,G

uer

raC

ave

0.02

20.

0674

0.04

7080

.80.

0090

0.01

800.

0470

80.8

0.00

90JB

002B

Cav

e5,

Gu

erra

Cav

e0.

0401

0.03

8876

.80.

0199

0.03

8876

.8JB

003A

Cav

e6,

Hac

ien

daG

ran

de,

En

tran

ce0.

0040

44.4

0.00

4044

.1JB

003B

Cav

e6,

Hac

ien

daG

ran

de,

En

tran

ce0.

0062

52.9

0.00

6252

.9JB

004A

Cav

e6,

Hac

ien

daG

ran

de,

Bac

k0.

0061

54.6

0.00

6154

.6JB

004B

Cav

e6,

Hac

ien

daG

ran

de,

Bac

k0.

0052

71.5

0.00

5271

.5JB

005A

Cav

e14

,C

erro

elP

ino

0.03

00.

0534

0.32

9324

.30.

0751

0.02

550.

3293

24.3

0.07

51JB

005B

Cav

e14

,C

erro

elP

ino

0.21

50.

2785

0.58

8219

.30.

0429

0.02

450.

1740

0.58

8219

.30.

0429

0.02

45

An

idP

rove

nie

nce

Lon

gL

ong

Lon

gS

hor

tS

hor

tS

hor

tS

hor

tS

hor

tS

hor

tS

hor

tS

hor

tS

hor

tT

hZ

nZ

rA

lB

aC

aD

yK

Mn

Na

Tl

V

JB00

1AC

ave

3,G

ordo

n’s

Cav

e0.

0137

0.73

946.

7840

3620

1.09

144.

1JB

001B

Cav

e3,

Gor

don

’sC

ave

1.60

174.

0940

3521

1.36

126.

2JB

002A

Cav

e5,

Gu

erra

Cav

e0.

0180

0.97

6738

5722

3.14

90.7

JB00

2BC

ave

5,G

uer

raC

ave

0.01

990.

8150

4125

992.

4077

.9JB

003A

Cav

e6,

Hac

ien

daG

ran

de,

En

tran

ce0.

3453

4017

950.

5175

.3JB

003B

Cav

e6,

Hac

ien

daG

ran

de,

En

tran

ce0.

5449

4084

480.

7947

.5JB

004A

Cav

e6,

Hac

ien

daG

ran

de,

Bac

k0.

4282

3983

151.

3192

.0JB

004B

Cav

e6,

Hac

ien

daG

ran

de,

Bac

k0.

3310

4056

492.

3263

.5JB

005A

Cav

e14

,C

erro

elP

ino

0.02

551.

3617

9.15

3887

690.

685

7.16

52.0

JB00

5BC

ave

14,

Cer

roel

Pin

o0.

1740

2.50

2811

.18

3838

7511

.23

58.0

6.02


BRADY ET AL.

tion of the environment. The breakage of stalactites out of easy reach, theirmovement, and caching document deliberate human activity which appearsto have spiritual and other meanings.

A review of the ethnographic literature shows that cave formations arethought to have power or sacredness. This derives from their association withcaves and particularly with concepts of rain, fertility, and healing. Their ap-parent use in incensarios, on altars, and as idols reflect what may be a smallrange of their ceremonial uses. The underlying meaning appears to be similarto that being expressed by the placement of speleothems in burials and cachesin the archaeological record. Their probable use by modern diviners may indi-cate that they had a function among religious specialists as well. At the low-est level, there is evidence among the modern Mixtec and in the archaeologi-cal record that speleothems may have been regularly kept as part of thecollection of objects of power that protected every household. The very prelim-inary results of neutron activation analysis for sourcing speleothems havebeen outlined. While a great deal of work has yet to be done before it iscertain that the method will yield reliable results, this initial attempt sug-gests that neutron activation may provide archaeologists with a powerful an-alytical tool enabling researchers to address important and sophisticated an-thropological questions about ancient Maya culture.

The investigations at Naj Tunich and Petexbatun were made possible by three generous grantsfrom the National Geographic Society. Excavations in Gordon’s Cave #3, Copan were supportedby donations from Philip and Judy Walters and John and Mary Cooper. The Petexbatun RegionalCave Survey was as a subproject of Vanderbilt University’s Petexbatun Regional ArchaeologicalProject. The senior author wishes to thank the project director, Dr. Arthur A. Demarest, for hisencouragement and support. Work in Copan was facilitated by Ricardo Agurcia, Oscar Cruz, andWilliam Fash. The idea for sourcing speleothems using neutron activation was independentlyconceived by Barbara Fash. This article grew out of observations made by Allan Cobb and devel-oped in conversations with him and John H. Fogarty. The authors appreciate the support of theNational Science Foundation (Grant DBS9102016) to Missouri University Research Reactor,which supported the neutron activation analysis. This article has profited from thoughtful criti-cism offered by Paul Goldberg and E. James Dixon, but the authors accept sole responsibility forany errors.

REFERENCES

Anderson, A.H. (1962). Cave Sites in British Honduras. In Alten des XXXIV InternationalenAmerikanistenkongresses, Wein, 1960, pp. 326–331. Vienna: Verlag Ernst Berger.

Andrews, E.W. IV (1943). The Archaeology of Southwestern Campeche. Contributions to AmericanAnthropology and History No. 40. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Andrews, E.W., IV and Andrews, E.W., V (1980). Excavations at Dzibilchultun, Yucatan, Mexico.New Orleans: Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University.

Arnold, D.E. (1971). Ethnominerology of Ticul, Yucatan Potters: Etics and Emics. American An-tiquity 36:20–40.

Awe, J. (1994). From the Garden of Eden to the Land of Xibalba: A Search for Changes inthe Role of Caves in Ancient Maya Society. 93rd Annual Meeting, American AnthropologicalAssociation, Atlanta, Georgia.

746 VOL. 12, NO. 6


Bassie-Sweet, K. (1991). From the Mouth of the Dark Cave: Commemorative Sculpture of the LateClassic Maya. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Bevans, B. (1938). The Chinantec: Report on the Central and South-Eastern Chinantec Region,Volume 1—The Chinantec, Their Habitat. Publication No. 24. Washington, D.C.: InstitutoPanamericano de Geografıa e Historia.

Bill, C.R. (1987). Excavations of Structure 23—A Maya ‘‘Palace’’ at the Site of Pacbitun, Belize.Master’s Thesis, Trent University, Peterborough.

Bonor Villarejo, J.L. (1987). Exploraciones en las Grutas de Calcehtok y Oxkintok, Yucatan,Mexico. Mayab 3, 24–31.

Brady, J.E. (1991). The Petexbatun Regional Cave Survey: Ritual and Sacred Geography. 47thInternational Congress of Americanists, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Brady, J.E. (1995). A Reassessment of the Chronology and Function of Gordon’s Cave #3, Copan,Honduras. Ancient Mesoamerica 6, 29–38.

Brady, J.E. (in press, a). Settlement, Architecture and Ideology: Results of the Petexbatun Re-gional Cave Survey. American Antropologist.

Brady, J.E. (in press, b). The Gruta de Jobonche: An Analysis of Speleothem Rock Art. Instituteof Maya Studies Journal.

Brady, J.E., and Veni, G. (1992). Man-Made and Pseudo-Karst Caves: The Implications of Sub-surface Geologic Features Within Maya Centers. Geoarchaeology 7, 149–167.

Brady, J.E., Veni, G., Stone, A., and Cobb, A.B. (1992). Explorations in the New Branch of NajTunich: Implications for Interpretations. Mexicon 16(4), 74–81.

Bruce, R.D. (1975). Lacandon Dream Symbolism, Vol. 1: Dream Symbolism and Interpretations.Mexico: Ediciones Euroamericanas.

Bunzel, R. (1952). Chichicastenango: A Guatemalan Village. Locust Valley, New York: J.J. Au-gustin Publisher.

Carlson, R., and Eachus, F. (1977). The Kekchi Spirit World. In H.L. Neuenswander and D.E.Arnold, Eds., Cognitive Studies of Southern Mesoamerica, pp. 36–65. Dallas: Summer Instituteof Linguistics.

Carot, P. (1989). Arqueologıa de la Cuevas del Norte de Alta Verapaz. Cuadernos de EstudiosGuatemaltecos 1. Mexico: Centre d’E

´tudes Mexicaines et Centramericaines.

Casado Lopez, M.P., Lopez de la Rosa, E., and Velazquez Morlet, A. (1988). Subproyecto dePictografıas y Petrograbados. In A. Velazquez Morlet, E. Lopez de la Rosa, M.P. Casado Lo-pez, and M.G. Gonzalez, Eds. Zonas Arqueologicas: Yucatan 1, pp. 91–98. Mexico City: Insti-tuto Nacional de Antropologıa e Historia.

Cobb, A.B. (1995). A Preliminary Note on the Breakage and Movement of Speleothems. Unpub-lished manuscript in possession of the author.

Coe, W.R. (1959). Piedras Negras Archaeology: Artifacts, Caches, and Burials. Philadelphia: TheUniversity Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Cottier, J.W. (1982). The Dzibilchultun Survey: Consideration of the Test-Pitting Data. Ph.D.Dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.

Deal, M. (1988). Recognition of Ritual Pottery in Residential Units: An Ethnohistorical Model ofthe Maya Family Altar Tradition. In T.A. Lee, Jr. B. Hayden, Eds., Ethnoarchaeology amongthe Highland Maya of Chiapas, Mexico, pp. 61–89. Paper No. 56. Provo, Utah; New WorldArchaeological Foundation.

Dunham, P.S., Murray, R.C., Gall, D.G., and Meurer, W.P. (1993). The Maya Mountains Archaeo-logical Project (MMAP): A Preliminary Report of the 1993 Season. National Geographic Soci-ety, Washington, D.C.

Eliade, M. (1958). Patterns in Comparative Religion. New York: Sheed and Ward.Gann, T. (1925). Mystery Cities: Exploration and Adventure in Lubaantun. London: Duckworth.Gordon, G.B. (1898). Caverns of Copan, Honduras. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of American

Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 1, pp. 137–148. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Univer-sity Press.


BRADY ET AL.

Goubaud Carrera, A. (1949). Notes on San Juan Chamelco, Alta Verapaz. Manuscripts on MiddleAmerican Cultural Anthropology No. 23 Chicago: University of Chicago Microfilms.

Hatt, R.T., Fisher, H.I. Langebartel, D.A., and Brainerd, G.W. (1953). Faunal and ArchaeologicalResearchers in Yucatan Caves. Bulletin No. 33. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan: Cranbrook Insti-tute of Science.

Hermes Cifuences, B. (1993). La Secuencia Ceramica de Topoxte: Un Informe Preliminar. Bei-trage zur Allegemeinen und Vergleichenden Archaologie 13, 221–251.

Hoppe, W., and Weitlaner, R.J. (1969). The Chocho. In E.Z. Vogt, Ed., Handbook of Middle Ameri-can Indians, Vol. 7: Ethanology, pp. 506–515. Austin: University of Texas Press.

King, M.B. (1988). Mixtec Political Ideology: Historical Metaphores and the Poetics of PoliticalSymbolism. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Kluth, D.W. (1992). Evidence for a Termination Ritual in the West Court of Copan: Archaeologyat a Classic Maya Center in Honduras. Master’s Thesis, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb.

Lincoln, J.S. (1945). An Ethnological Study of the Ixil Indians of the Guatemala Highlands.Manuscripts on Middle American Cultural Anthropology No. 1. Chicago: University of Chi-cago Microfilms.

Longyear, J.M. III (1952). Copan Ceramics: A Study of Southeastern Maya Pottery. Publication597. Washington, D.C: Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Lothrop, S.K. (1924). Tulum: An Archaeological Study of the East Coast of Yucatan. PublicationNo. 335. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Lothrop, S.L. (1936). Zacualpa: A Study of Ancient Quiche Artifacts. Publication 472. Washington,D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.

MacKinnon, J.J. (1985). The Point Placencia Archaeological Project 1984–85 Fieldwork. Mexicon7, 80–83.

MacLeod, B., and Puleston, D.E. (1978). Pathways into Darkness: The Search for the Road toXibalba. In M.G. Robertson and D.C. Jeffers, Eds. Tercera Mesa Redonda de Palenque, Vol.IV, pp. 71–77. Monterey, California: Herald Printers.

Maler, T. (1903). Researches in the Central Portion of the Usumatsintla Valley. Memoirs of thePeabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 2, pp. 77–216. Cambridge,Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Manzanilla, L., Barba, L., Chavez, R., Tejero, A., Cifuentes, C., and Peralta, N. (1994). Cavesand Geophysics: An Approximation to the Underworld of Teotihuacan, Mexico. Archaeometry36, 141–157.

McNatt, L. (1996). Cave Archaeology of Belize. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 58(2), 81–99.Mercer, H.C. (1975). The Hill-Caves of Yucatan. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. (origi-

nal 1896).Miller, A.G. (1982). On the Edge of the Sea: Mural Painting at Tancah-Tulum, Quintana Roo,

Mexico. Washington, D.C: Dumbarton Oaks.Navarrete, C., and Martinez, E.E. (1977). Exploraciones Arqueologicas en la Cueva de los Anda-

solos, Chiapas. Mexico City: Universidad Autonoma de Chiapas.Pendergast, D.M. (1970). A.H. Anderson’s Excavations at Rio Frio Cave E, British Honduras

(Belize). Art and Archaeology Occasional Paper 20. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum.Pendergast, D.M. (1990). Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize, 1964–1970, Vol. 3. Toronto: Royal

Ontario Museum.Proskouriakoff, T. (1962). Civic and Religious Structure of Mayapan. In H.E.D. Pollock, R.L.

Roys, T. Proskouriakoff, and A.L. Smith, Eds., Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico, pp. 321–442. Publi-cation 619. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Insitution of Washington.

Ravicz, R., and Romney, A.K. (1969). The Mixtec. In E.Z. Vogt, Ed., Handbook of Middle AmericanIndians, Vol. 7: Ethnology, Pt. 1, pp. 367–99. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Redfield, R. (1941). The Folk Culture of Yucatan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Rissolo, D. (1996). An Arqueological Investigation of Tacbi Ha Cave. In S.L. Fedick and K.A.

748 VOL. 12, NO. 6


Taube, Eds., The View from Yalahau: 1993 Archaeological Investigations in Northern QuintanaRoo, Mexico, pp. 115–120. Latin American Studies Program, Field Report Series No. 2. River-side: University of California Riverside.

Sandstrom, A.R. (1991). Corn Is Our Blood: Culture and Ethnic Identity in a Contemporary AztecIndian Village. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Schultze Jena, L. (1938). Mixtekische Texte. Indiana III: Bei Den Azteken, Mixteken und Tlapa-neken der Sierra Madre del Sur von Mexiko, pp. 65–87. Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fisher.

Scott, A.M. (1992). Cave Reconnaisance in the Copan Valley. Report on file. Tegucigalpa: Insti-tuto Hondureno de Antropologıa e Historia.

Siffre, M. (1979a). L’Or des Gouffres. Paris: Flammarion.Siffre, M. (1979b). A

`la Recherche de l’Art des Cavernes du Pays Maya. Nice: Editions Alain Lef-

euvre.Sosa, J.R. (1985). The Maya Sky, the Maya World: A Symbolic Analysis of Yucatec Maya Cosmol-

ogy. Ph.D. Dissertation, State University of New York, Albany.Soustelle, G. (1961). Observaciones sobre la Religion de los Lacandones de Mexico Meridional.

Guatemala Indigena 1(1), 31–105.Stirling, M.W. (1947). On the Trail of La Venta Man. National Geographic 91(2), 137–172.Straus, L.G. (1990). Underground Archaeology: Perspectives on Caves and Rockshelters, In M.B.

Schiffer, Ed., Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 2, pp. 255–304. Tucson: University ofArizona Press.

Strecker, M. (1981). Exploraciones Arquelogicas de Teobert Maler en Cuevas Yucatecas. Boletınde la Escuela de Ciencias Antropologicas de la Universidad de Yucatan 48/49, 20–31.

Strecker, M. (1984). Cuevas Mayas en el Municipio de Oxkutzcab, Yucatan (I): Cuevas Mis yPetroglifos. Boletın de la Escuela de Ciencias Antropologicas de la Universidad de Yucatan68, 21–28.

Stechker, M. (1985). Cuevas Mayas en el Municipio de Oxkutzab (II): Cuevas Ehbis, Xcosmil,y Cahum. Boletın de la Escuela de Ciencias Antropologicas de la Universidad de Yucatan70, 16–23.

Stromsvik, G. (1942). Substela Caches and Stela Foundations at Copan and Quirigua. Contribu-tions to American Anthropology and History No. 37. Publication 528. Washington, D.C: Car-negie Insitution of Washington.

Tate, C.E. (1992). Yaxchilan: The Design of a Maya Ceremonial City. Austin: University ofTexas Press.

Tedlock, B. (1992). The Role of Dreams and Visionary Narratives in Mayan Cultural Survivals.Ethnos 20, 453–476.

Thompson, E.H. (1897). Cave of Loltun, Yucatan. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of AmericanArchaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 1, No. 2. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard UniversityPress.

Thompson, E.H. (1938). The High Priest’s Grave, Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. AnthropologySeries 27(1). Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History.

Thompson, J.E.S. (1963). Maya Archaeologist. London: Robert Hale, Ltd.Tibon, G. (1961). Pinotepa Nacional: Mixtecos, Negros y Triques. Mexico City: Universidad Auto-

noma de Mexico.Tozzer, A.M. (1907). A Comparative Study of the Mayas and the Lacandones. New York: Archaeo-

logical Institute of America.Uc Gonzalez, E., and Canche Manzanero, E. (1989). Calcehtok desde la Perspectiva Arqueologica.

In Memorias del Segundo Coloquio Internacional de Mayistas, pp. 287–301. Mexico City: Uni-versidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.

Villa Rojas, A. (1946). Notas sobre la Etnografia de los Indios Tzeltales de Oxchuc, Chiapas,Mexico. Manuscripts on Middle American Cultural Antropology No. 7. Chicago: University ofChicago Microfilms.

Vogt, E.Z. (1969). Zinacantan: A Maya Community in the Highlands of Chiapas. Cambridge,Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.


BRADY ET AL.

Weigand, P.C. Harbottle, G., and Sayre, E.V. (1977). Turquoise Sources and Source Analysis:Mesoamerica and the Southwestern U.S.A. In T.K. Earle and J.E. Ericson, Eds. ExchangeSystems in Prehistory, pp. 15–34. New York: Academic Press.

Willey, G.R., and Bullard, W.R., Jr. (1956). The Melhado Site, A House Mound Group in BritishHonduras. American Antiquity 22, 29–44.

Received December 3, 1996Accepted for publication December 3, 1996

750 VOL. 12, NO. 6

Speleothem breakage, movement, removal, and caching: An aspect of ancient Maya cave modification

Documents

Transcript of Speleothem breakage, movement, removal, and caching: An aspect of ancient Maya cave modification