Chapter Four

    The Suboperation 12 Complex exposed Structure II in a series of sixteen adjacent units including Suboperations 12a through 12p (Figure 1). This area encompassed 77 square meters of excavation and allowed us to document and record the majority of this structure (Figure 12). The surface was visible in the form of outcropping rubble and a vertical alignment of stones along the north edge.

    The working hypothesis for the function of this structure is that it represents an offeratory shrine platform. Such a platform was reported by the explorer Thomas Gann when he visited the site in 1927 and collected a number of offerings that lay upon a "pavement of stone" (Gann 1928: 53-54). As the structure is located at the pinnacle of the island, it is in a likely location for such a shrine. It is also the only discernable surface feature (Figures 12, 13) that could be described as a "pavement of stone." The offerings that Gann collected date to the Late Postclassic and Colonial era, which postdate the occupation of Laguna de On Island. Shrines are often built at important ancestral locales in northern Belize (Walker 1990, Hammond and Bobo 1994). Our investigations were undertaken with the goals of determining whether this structure was used as a shrine as well as when it had been built. In particular, we wished to determine the relationship between the Late Postclassic use of this structure and any previous ritual activity dating to the island’s occupation in the Middle Postclassic.

    The excavations of Suboperation 12 consisted of three stages: 1) removing and screening the soil matrix covering the structure to collect assemblages associated with the structure’s surface in separate horizontal subunits (Deposits A-C); 2) mapping and photographing the structure after it was maximally exposed in the sixth week of the 1996 season; and 3) excavating beneath the structure ( Deposits D-F) to determine the history of its development. The soil covering this structure was excavated with trowels and the soil beneath the rubble platform was removed with shovels. All soils excavated from this structure were screened through 1/4" mesh and all cultural materials were collected and returned to our field laboratory.

    Excavations revealed that Structure II consists of a large rubble platform, oriented with the long axis of the island approximately 20 degrees west of magnetic north. Structure II is a two level, stone structure with an upper platform of 4X3m and a lower patio of 9X2m (Figures 12, 13). Both levels were probably surfaced with marl plaster which has since eroded and is no longer present. Two periods of construction are observed in the upper rubble platform.

    The west side of the building is framed in the rear by the upright vertical stone wall alignment that had been visible from the surface. This alignment is parallel to the front edge of the rubble platform. The west side of the structure marked by the vertical alignment appears to represent the first building episode in this location. The east half of the platform is characterized by a "pavement" which partially overlays the original structure on the east side. The pavement thus represents the second construction phase of Structure II. The lower patio that extends to the south of the upper platform was built before or at the same time as the second phase of Structure II, as it runs partially beneath the platform. It may also have been built in two episodes corresponding to the construction phases of the upper platform. Radiocarbon dates will provide a refined understanding of this sequence.

    Within the sixteen horizontal excavation units of Suboperation 12, 78 individual lots were designated (Table 5). The comparison of these lots will facilitate spatial analysis among different horizontal areas of the building in ongoing artifact distribution studies. The correlation of these lots across Structure II may also be combined for analytical purposes into basic stratigraphic deposits interpreted to be contemporaneous. The basic stratigraphic deposits at Structure II are summarized below. A list of lots associated with these deposits defined for Structure II is presented in Table 6. These will provide the basis for chronological analysis of artifact assemblages at this location. A profile of an east-west cross section of Structure II (surface rubble) and underlying midden deposits is shown in Figure 14.

Deposit A) a humic topsoil layer overlying the stones comprising the rubble platform of Structure II. This topsoil may be further spatially segregated to that occuring on the west half of Structure II in the portion of the building that appears to have been constructed first, delineated by a rear (north) vertical alignment and a possible side (east) alignment of large displaced stones (Deposit A1); and that occuring on the east half of Structure II, a contiguous rubble layer (Deposit A2). These layers contained ceramic sherds, obsidian blades, chipped stone (nonobsidian) tools and flakes, animal bone, and burned rock concentrations. The amount of soil was not abundant in Deposit A, and it had an eroded appearance. Ceramics in this soil date to the Middle Postclassic, but it is from the surface of this layer that Gann collected Late Postclassic and Colonial artifacts now housed at the British Museum.

Deposit B) a humic topsoil layer overlying the stones comprising the lower rubble patio that extends to the south along the front of Structure II. This patio was not further excavated, and remains intact at the site. These layers contained ceramic sherds, obsidian blades, chipped stone (nonobsidian) tools and flakes, and animal bone. Ceramics date to the Middle Postclassic.

Deposit C) a humic topsoil layer of 20 cm average) found at the surface to the east and north sides of Structure II. These layers contained ceramic sherds, obsidian blades, chipped stone (nonobsidian) tools and flakes, two human phalanges, burned rock concentrations, and animal bone. Ceramics date to the Middle Postclassic.

Deposit D) humic soil within the stones of Structure II in Suboperations 12a-12d, excavated with the removal of these stones to investigate deposits beneath the building. This soil may similarly be divided into west (Deposit D1) and east (Deposit D2) halves.

Deposit E) midden like soil excavated beneath Structure II (average depth 50 cm). This underlying deposit contained lithics, ceramics, animal bone, pits of burned soil. It may represent a zone of occupational debris that predates the construction of Structure II. Ceramics are Early/Middle Postclassic.

Deposit F) a lower zone of midden like soil excavated beneath Structure II that interfaces with marl bedrock. It is of a lighter color due to intermingling of organic soil with limestone bedrock. It also contained lithics, ceramics, and animal bone. Pit-like intrusions are noted into bedrock, but they do not appear to be cultural features and are currently interpreted to represent infilling of natural bedrock anomalies with soil that formed on the island. One of these anomalies was excavated at the end of the 1996 season, and the remainder will be investigated at the beginning of the 1997 season. Ceramics are Middle Postclassic.

    Information related to the function of Structure II is evasive. As previously noted, effigy ceramics thought to be from the surface of this building were collected by Gann. However, the structure had few intact artifact concentrations that directly revealed the function of the structure. Ritual areas among living cultures in Mesoamerica are often kept clean from debris, and the low amount of artifacts on the rubble platform may signify the maintenance of ritual cleanliness in this area. However, many small concentrations of highly burned rock were found around the edges of the rubble platform (Figure 12). Further concentrations of these burned rocks were found within the alignment on the west side (construction episode I) and off the edge of the building to the east. Burned rock concentrations found within the alignment of phase I and around the edges of the pavement of phase II may functionally link the two construction episodes. Little was found in these burned rock concentrations that would indicate the purpose for which they were used. Fires were probably kindled in these locations, but the features are not pit shaped and thus do not resemble domestic cooking pits as found elsewhere on the island. The nondomestic nature of these tiny burned rock concentrations also suggests a ritual use of this structure.

    Around the periphery of the upper platform, ceramic and artifact concentrations were recovered as shown in Figure 12. Whole stone tools were also placed on the surface of the patio, including a whole, triangular biface with little evidence of wear (Figure 15) which may have been a cached offering on the building’s east side. Roughly manufactured expedient bifaces of a utilitarian nature were also found on the patio and obsidian blades were found around the periphery of Structure II’s upper platform. The blades exhibited very little wear, in contrast to blades found in domestic contexts at the island which were used for a variety of heavy tasks. Little or no visible macrowear on the obsidian blades from Structure II may imply their use for bloodletting or animal sacrifice, though use wear studies planned for these tools will test this hypothesis. To the north east of the structure two human phalanges were recovered as well as two catfish spines.

    In comparing artifact counts, Structure II has at least 20% more ceramics than Structure I and all other areas tested (Table 1). This proportion also suggests that activities conducted at Structure II were of a specialized nature. This proportion is due to lower numbers of other types of materials such as lithic debris and faunal remains, as the actually density of ceramics encountered throughout excavations was not great. In fact, Structure II had less overall ceramics (5,313) than Structure I (5,828), despite the fact that over 10 square meters more were excavated at Structure II than at Structure I. When results of ceramic analysis are completed, we will evaluate differences in the type of ceramics found at Structure II compared to other areas. The majority of these sherds are from non-utilitarian censers and incense burners. Some sherds were refitted from opposite ends of the Suboperation 12 complex, as well as from the neighbouring Suboperation 8 complex.

    Ceramics found from this area (within the platform, in concentrations, and in general scatters) date to the Early/Middle Postclassic. The most common ceramic type (Mock, this volume) identified thus far are Payil Red (38.71%), Zakpah Orange Red (8.93%), and Santa Unslipped (6.82%). Future planned seriation of the complete data set may refine this chronology further. The date of the ceramics found at Structure II suggests that the building was constructed and used at the time of the occupation of the island, in the Middle Postclassic. Radiocarbon dates to be submitted in the Spring of 1997 will provide refinement of this chronology. The Late Postclassic/Colonial materials collected from the surface by Gann thus appear to have been deposited on a previously built and abandoned structure at that time. There is no evidence that during the Late Postclassic or Colonial periods a shrine platform was built on Laguna de On Island. Other deposits of late period effigy ceramics found in northern Belize are similarly found on abandoned "ancestral" structures built in earlier periods (Walker 1990:399-411).

    Beneath the rubble platform of Structure II, there is a deposit that may represent domestic occupation (Figure 14). A large pit of burned soil and midden debris was found beneath the rubble in the front of the building. No dedicatory offering was placed in this location, and although two-thirds of the area beneath the building was excavated to bedrock, there is no evidence that this shrine is associated with a cemetery area or even a single burial that might have influenced the location of this building as observed in Structure I. Beneath the south central area of the upper platform, a large pit of burned soil was found. A partially reconstructable vessel and midden debris were found in this pit, and it is thought to be domestic in nature and to be unassociated with the construction of the building. Artifact analysis will determine whether the brown loamy soil deposit beneath the building represents undisturbed domestic trash or whether this soil was transported to this location as fill prior to the construction of the platform. The presence of pits of burned soil and partial vessels broken in place suggests, preliminarily, that beneath the platform an area of primary (undisturbed) domestic refuse is present.

    The diverse classes of artifacts and features uncovered at Structure II suggest a non-domestic, nonutilitarian function for this building. These results are consistent with Gann’s (1928) interpretation of this building as a shrine from his collection of Late Postclassic/Colonial materials on the upper platform’s surface. Four distinct temporal episodes are indicated from the 1996 excavations and Gann’s report; 1) a domestic, pre-architectural deposit of probable Middle Postclassic date, 2) an initial construction episode of the west half of the upper platform and patio of probable Middle Postclassic date, 3) a second construction episode when this west half was extended to the east by a rubble pavement and a continuation of the patio of probable Middle Postclassic date, and 4) the use of this structure as a shrine in the Late Postclassic/Colonial period(s) as reported by Gann.