4.4.- Agencia EFE, S.A.U

Group 1 has been extensively excavated over many field seasons. Although soil chemical residues were able to be analyzed from the household, since they were collected prior to large– scale horizontal excavations, the area was not able to be sampled for macro– and microartifacts

129

in the same manner as the rest of the sample area. For this reason, to create a more complete picture, this section details some of the excavations of Group 1, with focus on the Terminal Classic occupation layer.

Group 1 consists of four structures, numbers 59, 60, 61 and 62, on a raised platform (Figure 7.33). It is the largest plaza group on the ridge top of the Northern Settlement measuring 26.5 m north‐south and 25.5 m east‐west with a maximum height above ground surface of 2.5 m at the northeast corner of Structure 59. As with most of the architecture in the Northern Settlement, Group 1 is oriented roughly 8 degrees west of true north. The group was initially tested by AAP in 2001 then trenched in 2004 (LeCount 2004; LeCount and Blitz 2002, 2005; LeCount et al. 2005). Members of the project returned to the area from 2010–2012 to conduct large scale excavations (Antonelli and Rothenberg 2011; Rothenberg 2012; Freiwald 2012; Freiwald and Micklin 2013). These investigations uncovered a long occupation sequence beginning in the Middle Preclassic and continuing into the Postclassic.

Figure 7.33. Malerized representation of Group 1 with structure numbers identified and excavated units defined in gray.

130

Shortly before the start of the Terminal Classic, architectural modification at Group 1 began again after a hiatus of approximately 80 years with the expansion of building platforms and alterations throughout the group. However, though all four structures of Group 1 have evidence of occupation during the Terminal Classic, only the southern structure, Structure 61, shows architectural modification at this time. Very large (> 50 cm) dry laid chert cobbles were used to enlarge this structure by at least 1 m (Figure 7.34). This type of construction appears to be the hallmark of Terminal Classic construction at Actuncan and is distinct from the densely packed cobble, soil, and midden fill used during the Late Classic (Mixter et al. 2014). Although plaster floors were constructed at Group 1 prior to the Terminal Classic, the last plaster floor was laid during the Early Classic and only earthen floors accumulated thereafter. It appears as if the Terminal Classic residents of Group 1 are using all of their architectural efforts toward the enlargement of Structure 61, rather than elsewhere in the group, likely representing the

131

importance of the structure. Perhaps the structure’s augmentation was an attempt to highlight the social status of Group 1 residents, particularly since this structure faces a public plaza to the south and would have therefore been highly visible by many people.

The Classic Maya did not bury their dead in formal cemeteries but, rather, interred them in a variety of places including houses, plazas, and caves. Although burial practices were largely standardized throughout the Maya region by the Classic, regional differences are apparent and are likely related to social affiliations (Freiwald 2011; Schwake 2008; Welsh 1988). Group 1 appears to have served as an important location for burials beginning in the Terminal Preclassic, due to the presence of three single interment stone crypt burials placed within the patio space dating to this time (LeCount and Blitz 2002, 2005). Two burials, Burials 1 and 4, were excavated from the western side of the patio (east of Structure 62) and one burial, Burial 3, was excavated southwest of Structure 59 (LeCount and Blitz 2002; Scopa Kelso 2005). The presence of early burials at Group 1 support interpretations that Group 1 was a founding household in the Northern Settlement (LeCount 2012). During the early Late Classic through the Terminal Classic, the patio space directly to the west of the eastern structure, Structure 60, was used as a burial ground for numerous people (Figure 7.35) (see Freiwald 2012; Freiwald and Micklin 2013 for full descriptions of burials). To date, seven burials have been identified to the west of Structure 60 (Burial 14 is not represented in Figure 7.35) containing a minimum number of 12 individuals, though there are likely many more burials that have yet to be uncovered. The excavated burials were interred within the fill of the patio and were placed in very close proximity to one another, located within 50 cm vertically, and most found within a 10 cm range (Freiwald 2012). All individuals except one (Burial 13) were buried in a prone, extended position, with the right arm

132

Figure 7.35. Composite drawing showing the location of burials west of Structure 60.

placed behind the back head to the south, following burial norms in the Belize Valley during the Classic period (Schwake 2008; Weiss–Krejci 2006; Willey et al. 1965; Yeager 2003b). Burial 13 was also oriented south, but was placed in a supine position, a rare burial position for the region which some argue can indicate non–local origin (Freiwald 2012; Freiwald and Micklin 2013; Micklin 2015). However, values from carbon, oxygen, and strontium isotope analyses (derived

133

from tooth enamel) for all individuals fit local Belize River Valley isotope ranges (Micklin 2015). The graves are all heavily disturbed, likely from the placement of later interments, and nearly every burial included elements from other individuals and/or was missing parts of the body. Grave goods were few and varied, including shell ear ornaments (Figure 7.36), a carved deer antler (Figure 7.37), a chert point (Figure 7.38), obsidian blades (Figure 7.39), and a small, undecorated ceramic bowl, commonly called a finger bowl, containing one human distal manual phalanx (Figure 7.40). Additionally, cave pearls and a speleothem (Figure 7.41), were found in the vicinity of the burials though not in direct association with a specific interment. Throughout the Maya region, eastern structures functioned as sacred ground for the burial of important members of the household thus operating as a shrine for the veneration of ancestors (Helmke et al. 2006; McAnany 1994). Not all community members were buried in eastern shrines and these locations were often used as shared burial locations for a number of different households (Aimers et al. 2000; Freiwald 2012). The large number of burials identified in front of Structure 60 suggests the building’s function as an ancestral shrine while the time span of interments suggest it was used for such a purpose over several generations, including during the Terminal Classic. Burial practices at Group 1 during the Terminal Classic are different than other households at Actuncan due to the high number of interments as well as extreme levels of disturbance from repeated use (Freiwald 2012). The manner in which individuals were buried and extensively disturbed suggests that the space itself held more importance as a ritual location rather than recognition of the individual graves.

In summary, though everyday activities likely occurred throughout (and surrounding) Group 1, it appears that Structures 60 and 61 may have held greater importance during the

134

Figure 7.36. Shell ear ornaments found in association with Burial 9.

135

Figure 7.38. In situ chert point found in association with Burial 13.

136

Figure 7.40. Exterior (left) and interior (right) view of a ceramic bowl containing a human distal manual phalanx found in association with Burial 13.

Figure 7.41. A speleothem (left) and cave pearls (right) found near the burials in Group 1.

Terminal Classic. The burials associated with Structure 60 suggest its ritual importance and use as an ancestral shrine. Evidence suggests that burial of important community members occurred over several generations, including during the Terminal Classic. With Group 1’s long occupation history, residents likely connected themselves not only to their ancestors but also to the group’s location on the landscape. Since burial location may have been shared by multiple households,

137

anyone involved in ancestral veneration activities was also connecting themselves to shared founding members of the community. By associating themselves with shared heritage in a common location, ancestral veneration practices would have increased a sense of community among residents involved. As the only construction completed during the Terminal Classic, the focus of architectural enhancement of Structure 61 may speak to the importance of this structure, perhaps to indicate social status of the group’s residents. Social status of Group 1’s residents may have been connected with the ancestral veneration activities associated with the adjacent building, Structure 60. Alternatively, enlargement of Structure 61 may have been related to its location facing the public plaza to the south as it would have been highly visible from the plaza by many people. In the following chapter, these ideas are explored as excavation data from Group 1 is examined in conjunction with the chemical and artifact data presented above.

138