SPECIAL SECTION: PROBLEMATIC “ON-FLOOR” DEPOSITS IN THE TERMINAL CLASSIC EASTERN MAYA LOWLANDS: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE MAYA COLLAPSE

In this issue, we offer a Special Section on problematical and on-floor deposits in Classic Maya sites in Belize coordinated by James J. Aimers, Julie A. Hoggarth, Jaime J. Awe, and Arlen F. Chase. Ten articles by several authors flesh out this topic and offer an in-depth exploration that is sure to be of use to Mesoamerican archaeologists and archaeologists in general. Anyone who has excavated structures—from the smallest to the largest, plazas, or extramural areas—will have encountered such deposits that can test our acumen. The term “problematical deposit” (PD; those working in Belize are partial to the term “problematic deposit,” and use it throughout this Special Section) was coined during the Tikal Project in the 1960s to account for a deposit that was neither a cache nor a burial but was produced by some other behavior (see the article by Moholy-Nagy (2020) in this issue for an update). This term is relative, for the issue resides in the archaeological interpretation of the deposit, not in the behaviors that produced it. Many of the PDs occur on floors, and this Special Section emphasizes how we can better interpret on-floor deposits. Numerous examples highlight the heterogeneity of remains, and advance our understanding of ancient behaviors and transformation processes that produced these vexing PDs. James J. Aimers, Julie A. Hoggarth, and Jaime J. Awe provide a solid introductory article to this Special Section that reviews the history of PDs. They rightly caution that such deposits are variable in nature, found in numerous locations, and are not restricted to abandonment processes of Classic Maya centers, all of which lend utility to the intentionally vague designation of “problematical.” A typology of these deposits is offered by the authors, who base the categories on material correlates, including artifacts, soil matrix, and other attributes. An in-depth accounting of context is critical for interpretation. The classifications (de facto refuse, squatter’s deposits, dedication/consecration deposits, three types of termination deposits, feasting deposits, and pilgrimage deposits) accentuate a wide range of behaviors, some of which are exemplified by case studies in subsequent articles. Arlen F. Chase and Diane Z. Chase discuss the on-floor (or on-stair) deposit for remains at Caracol, Belize. Their excavations since 1985 at this site have produced a plethora of different contexts in the ancient city’s epicenter and residential groups. The variability from structure to structure in on-floor deposits defies easy categorization, though two main types were determined: (1) whole vessels found in situ on floors and (2) sheet refuse. The Chases caution, however, that enumerating contents does not elucidate behaviors responsible for them. The interpretation of the rapid abandonment of this city is greatly strengthened by examining the nature of these deposits, and interestingly, despite material differences in expression, nearly all are accompanied by human bone. The final moments of Caracol indeed may have been violent. Another example of abandonment-related deposits comes from Chan Chich in Western Belize. Brett A. Houk furnishes an in-depth analysis of four PDs whose composition and context differ from each other, yet all emanate from near the city center in elite residential groups. The emphasis is on determination of the processes that produced the deposits, not simply around the time of abandonment but as part of the abandonment process. Artifact scatters contrast with artifactual materials that were piled together. Richness measures further tease out information that is critical to comparisons. The utility of detailing the contents and context of PDs allows other researchers to compare their own datasets to this one. To demonstrate the utility of their behavioral-contextual method for elucidating PDs, Maxime Lamoureux-St-Hilaire and Andrew Kent Snetsinger refer to the archaeological remains of a palace at La Corona, Guatemala, and an agricultural household group from the outskirts of Mininha, Belize, noting that such deposits occur at all scales of architecture. Recommending that Mayanists abandon the PD concept and work toward a common interpretive framework and terminology, their first order of business is to operationalize definitions. The incorporation of formation processes, following Schiffer’s (1987) behavioral approach, results in five behavioral-contextual categories. Using this framework, the gradual and organized abandonment of La Corona’s palace compares with that of Group MRS15 at Minanha. The authors assert that the replicability of their method goes far in helping to resolve PDs. In the fifth article in this section, Jaime J. Awe, Christophe Helmke, James J. Aimers, Claire E. Ebert, W. James Stemp, and Julie A. Hoggarth broaden the discussion on PDs through the incorporation of ethnohistoric and ethnographic approaches with archaeology. By focusing on peri-abandonment processes at numerous Maya sites of different scales, they dispel concerns of interpreting PDs through microstratigraphic excavation and regional comparisons. Furthermore, material remains from pilgrimages have been documented in ethnographies that are of great utility in interpreting the archaeological record. The application of several approaches supplies a strong interpretation of ancient behaviors.