Ancient Maya Mortuary Practice at Mid-Level Sites in the Belize River Valley, Belize by Anna ...

550 Pages·2015·6.61 MB·English

Creating Community: Ancient Maya Mortuary Practice
at Mid-Level Sites in the Belize River Valley, Belize
by
Anna Novotny

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy

Approved July 2015 by the
Graduate Supervisory Committee:

Jane Buikstra, Chair
Christopher Carr
Kelly Knudson
Cynthia Robin
Miguel Aguilera
Vera Tiesler

ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
August 2015
ABSTRACT
This research focuses upon the intersection of social complexity and leadership
among commoners in complex societies as expressed through mortuary ritual. I study
how ideology, materialized through treatment of the deceased body, was a potential
source of power among commoners in ancient Maya society and how this materialization
changed through time. Mortuary data are drawn from mid-level settlements of the Belize
River Valley, located in western Belize within the eastern Maya lowlands. The primary
research question addresses whether mid-level leaders in the Belize River Valley targeted
certain human bodies for ancestral veneration through tomb re-entry and ritual interaction
with skeletal remains. The ritual-political strategy of mid-level leaders is measured using
archaeothanatology, an analysis of grave taphonomy based on forensic data, to
reconstruct cultural beliefs about death based on treatment of deceased bodies, radiogenic
strontium isotope analysis to reconstruct residential history, and analysis of dental metrics
to assess biological kinship. While preservation of osseous material was poor, results
indicate that the frequency of disarticulated and secondary burials was higher in eastern
structures than in other locales, although eastern structures were not the only loci of these
types of deposits. Overall, it does not seem like secondary burials were regularly and
purposefully created for use as ritual objects or display. Radiogenic strontium isotope
data enrich this analysis by showing that eastern structures were not a burial locale
exclusive to individuals who spent their childhood in the Belize Valley. Data from upper-
level eastern structures also suggests that within that part of society local birth did not
guarantee interment in a local manner; perhaps the social network created during one's
life shaped treatment in death more than residential origin. Biological distance analyses
i
were inconclusive due to missing data. Comparison of mortuary practices to nearby
regions shows distinct mortuary patterning across space and time. This is consistent with
reconstructions of ancient Maya sociopolitical organization as regionally diverse and
moderately integrated.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The dissertation research was funded by the National Science Foundation
Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant #1329406. Funding was also provided by
Wenner Gren International Collaborative Research Grant to Jane Buikstra and Vera
Tiesler. Preliminary data collection was funded by Sigma Xi Arizona State University
Chapter Research Grant, Arizona State University Graduate and Professional Student
Association Graduate Research Support Program, Arizona State University School of
Human Evolution and Social Change, Phase II Students Special Research Grant.
I would like to thank my committee for their years of academic and moral
support, particularly my advisor, Jane Buikstra. Thank you for bringing me to Arizona
State; this move had an immeasurable effect on my research trajectory and development
as a scholar. Heartfelt thanks to my committee members for all their time and effort
towards bringing this project to completion, Miguel Astor-Aguilera, Christopher Carr,
Kelly Knudson, Cynthia Robin and Vera Tiesler.
Thank you, first, to the Institute of Archaeology at the National Institute for
Culture and History in Belize. Particular thanks go to Jaime Awe, John Morris, and
Melissa Bladillo for granting me permission to work in Belize, assisting me during data
collection, and, at least for John Morris, even reading drafts of my dissertation.
Thank you to Cynthia Robin and the Chan Project for introducing me to
archaeology in the Belize Valley, particularly the archaeology of mid-level sites. We had
a great team – thanks to the lab crew Chelsea Blackmore, Elise Enterkin, Nick Hearth,
Angela Keller, Laura Kosakowsky, and Carmen Ting.
iii
For post-Chan project data collection in Belize I am indebted to the Belize Valley
Archaeological Reconnaissance Project for providing invaluable logistic support. Julie
Hoggarth, deserves particular mention for her help in gaining access to the various labs
and bodegas that housed the decades of skeletal material excavated by Jaime Awe and his
colleagues and students. Thanks to Jaime Awe for generously allowing me permission to
analyze the BVAR burials. Thank you, also, to the original excavators of much of the
material discussed herein: James Aimers, Carolyn Audet, Mark D. Camphell, David
Cheetham, James Conlon, David Driver, James Garber, David Glassman, Christophe
Helmke, Bobbi Hohmann, Julie Hoggarth, Gyles Iannone, David Lee, Terry Powis,
Jennifer Piehl, Catarina Santasillia, and Leslie Swain. The bioarchaeologists whose data
organization and reporting were also invaluable: Bradley Adams, Carolyn Freiwald,
Sherry Gibbs, Voula Kokkalis, Marion Maar, Jennifer Piehl, Rhan-Ju Song, Tamara
Varney, and Gabriel Wrobel.
Thank you to Jason Yaeger for facilitating access to the skeletal remains of the
Xunantunich Archaeological Project and to Samuel Connell and Richard Leventhal for
graciously permitting me to re-analyze the material. Thank you to Lisa Lucero for
granting me access to the Saturday Creek burials, drawings, and context information.
Thank you to Lisa LeCount and Carolyn Freiwald for allowing me access to the teeth
from the Actuncan Archaeological Project skeletal material.
At the Field Museum in Chicago, I appreciate Gary Feinman allowing me to
access the skeletal remains from San José and Christopher Philipp facilitating my visit.
Thank you to Karen and Jeff Hansen for always hosting me when I am in Chicago.
iv
At the Peabody Museum of Ethnology and Archaeology, many thanks to Michelle
Morgan, Olivia Herschensohn, and Jane Rousseau for approving and facilitating my visit.
Thank you to Stephanie Meredith for hosting me in while in Boston.
Thank you to the Center for Bioarchaeological Research for providing data
collection materials, including the Hillson-Fitzgerald calipers. I would also like to thank
the professors and students in the CBR for providing such a stimulating and supportive
experience while I was at ASU. Christopher Stojanowski deserves particular mention as
he was not on my dissertation committee but provided feedback and support in the
research design, data collection, and reporting of the biodistance results.
I am indebted to all the students in the Archaeological Chemistry Lab in the
Center for Bioarchaeological Research. Emily Schach and Allisen Dahlstedt deserve
particular commendation for shepherding me through the radiogenic strontium sample
preparation in the ACL and strontium collection in the Keck Lab. Niamh Daily, Sara
Marstellar, Eleanna Prevedorou, Krsitin Nado, and Emily Sharp also lent much needed
support.
Within the School of Human Evolution and Social Change I would like to thank
Chelle Brooks, Tae O’Connor, and Georgianna Miller for their support and assistance
over the years.
Thank you to Alanna Ossa for her help with MS Access and general advice on
data organization. Michael Neihaus and May Boggess of the Statistical Computing
Center at ASU provided statistical support.
v
The following people who have helped shape my career in archaeology: Ed
Schortman, Pat Urban, Laura Kosakowsky, Michael Callaghan, Brigitte Kovacevich,
Carrie Anne Berryman, Jeremy Bauer, Sarah Clayton, and Katie Miller.
I was lucky to be surrounded with a brilliant, fun, and kind cohort at ASU:
Mallorie Hatch, Eleanna Prevedorou, Kelly Harkins, Leigh Anne Ellison, Colleen
Strawhacker, Claire Roberts, Chris Roberts, Emily Schach, Allisen Dahlstedt, Kristin
Nado, Valerie Ramos, Colleen Bivona, Julie Novic, Angela Huster, Kent Johnson, Sofia
Pacheco-Fores, Amy Farnback-Pearson, Amy Shapiro, Elisabeth Culley. All of these
people are my helpful, thoughtful, colleagues and also dear friends.
It is my pleasure to acknowledge the huge role my family has had in my success:
Pam and Jerry Novotny, Rachel, Sam, and Abigail Ecker, Sam and Maigen Novotny, Eli
Novotny, and Claire Novotny. If there is anyone who is happier than me that I am done, it
is these people.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. xi
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................. xiii
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ................. ................................................................................... 1
2 MAYA WORLDVIEWS ............... ....................................................................... 13
Maya Worldview: Linking Ancient and Modern .................................. 14
Maya Cosmology ................................................................................... 14
Change and the Material World in Maya Worldviews ......................... 16
Mesoamerican Life Essences ................................................................. 18
Maya Living Ancestors .......................................................................... 29
Conclusion ............................................................................................. 33

3 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE .......................................................................... 34
Practice and Ancient Maya Relational Worldviews ............................. 35
From Practice to Ritualization: Materializing Maya Worldviews ........ 40
Ideology .................................................................................................. 46
Conclusion ............................................................................................. 53

4 ANCIENT MAYA SOCIOPOLITICAL ORGANIZATION AND MID-LEVEL
CENTERS ........................................................................................... 54
Ancient Maya Sociopolitical Organization ........................................... 55
Defining Mid-level Centers ................................................................... 59
vii
CHAPTER Page
Conclusion ............................................................................................. 65
5 RESEARCH EXPECTATIONS .............................................................................. 71
Expectation 1: Commoner Mobility ...................................................... 72
Expectation 2: Mortuary Ritual ............................................................. 82
Expectation 3: Biological Lineage and Kinship .................................... 92
Expectation 4: Social Transformation ................................................. 100
Conclusion ........................................................................................... 103

6 BACKGROUND AND SAMPLE SELECTION ................................................ 106
Belize Valley: Geography and Resources ........................................... 106
Belize Valley: History of Research ..................................................... 107
Belize Valley: Culture History ............................................................ 110
Site Descriptions: Upper Belize River Valley ..................................... 121
Site Descriptions: Central Belize River Valley ................................... 128
Site Descriptions: Lower Belize River Valley .................................... 131
Site Descriptions: Non-Belize River Valley ....................................... 132
Sample Selection .................................................................................. 132
Chronology ........................................................................................... 133
Site Types ............................................................................................. 134
Architectural Context ........................................................................... 135
Conclusion ........................................................................................... 136

viii
CHAPTER Page
7 METHODS BACKGROUND ........... .................................................................. 138
Biogeochemistry .................................................................................. 138
Mortuary Analysis ............................................................................... 151
Biodistance ........................................................................................... 183
Conclusion ........................................................................................... 216

8 MATERIALS AND METHODS .......................................................................... 218
Expectation 1: Biogeochemistry .......................................................... 219
Expectation 2: Mortuary Ritual ........................................................... 231
Expectation 3: Biodistance .................................................................. 246
Expectation 4: Social Transformation ................................................. 257
Conclusion ........................................................................................... 259

9 RESULTS ...................... ....................................................................................... 260
Expectation 1: Commoner Mobility .................................................... 260
Expectation 2: Mortuary Ritual ........................................................... 268
Expectation 3: Biodistance .................................................................. 350
Expectation 4: Social Transformation ................................................. 355
Conclusion ........................................................................................... 357

10 DISCUSSION ................... ................................................................................. 359
Expectation 1: Commoner Mobility .................................................... 360
ix