Archaeology and Heritage Management in the Maya Area: History and Practice at Caracol, Belize

Abstract

Archaeology and heritage management in the Maya area have developed differently in the various modern-day countries that make up ancient Mesoamerica. In the country of Belize, heritage management has been conjoined with archaeology since at least the late 1970s. Long-term projects, such as the 1985-to-present archaeological investigations at the ancient ruins that comprise the immense city of Caracol, Belize, demonstrate the evolution of heritage management. This abandoned metropolis has also been the location of concerted stabilization and conservation efforts. Research and heritage management efforts at this urban center have been coordinated and intertwined since the project’s inception. This article contextualizes the long-standing relationships between archaeology and cultural heritage as it has been practiced at Caracol, Belize within the broader field of Maya Studies.

Convergence Zone Politics at the Archaeological Site of Ucanal, Peten, Guatemala

“…Likewise, many traits specific to Caracol are relatively absent at Ucanal. Some of the most distinctive forms of local identity expression at Caracol and its subordinate satellite sites are face vessels and crude Jaguar God of the Underworld incensarios found in eastern shrine complexes, the use of Belize Red vessels within caches and burials, and the practice of caching small bowls with human fingers (Chase and Chase 1994, 2004b, 2012, 2017). Thus far, caching practices at Ucanal do not exhibit any of these caching and offering traditions, practices that would have been highly meaningful and symbolically potent manifestations of social identity and affiliation.…”

“…Ucanal, however, also possesses slipped ceramics that are common to western Belize: the Upper Belize River Valley, the Mountain Pine Ridge, and parts of the Maya Mountains. These ceramics include Pine Ridge Carbonates (e.g., Dolphin Head Red, Mount Maloney, and Garbutt Creek groups), British Honduras Ash Wares (e.g., Belize Red, Platon Punctated-incised, and Martins-incised) and Vinaceous Tawney wares (Chase and Chase 2012; Gifford 1976; Kowakowsky 2012; LeCount 1996; LeCount et al 2002). Both the Belize- and Peten-based ceramic ware ceramics were found in all excavated contexts from elite, ceremonial, middle-status, to commoner household contexts.…”

The Rapid Rise and Fall of Cerros, Belize: A Generational Approach to Chronology

“…People began settling the region at least 2,000 years before pottery was first produced (Lohse 2010), mostly living on the margins of freshwater ecotones. Early pottery production began about 3,000 years ago at sites such as Cuello (Kosakowsky 1987; Kosakowsky and Pring 1998), Colha (Valdez 1987), and Santa Rita Corozal (Chase and Chase 2006), with widespread occupation documented in the region by the late Middle Preclassic (Reese-Taylor 2016; Table 1). By the Late Preclassic, most of northern Belize was occupied, and pyramidal constructions dotted the landscape.…”

“…To the north, Oxtankah was established as a port facility at least by the Late Preclassic, if not earlier (de Vega Nova 2013a, 2013b). Santa Rita Corozal was certainly a permanent coastal village in the Middle Preclassic (Chase and Chase 2006), yet to the east the Cerros peninsula remained unoccupied until about 200 BC. Perhaps those who first settled there sought out unoccupied land or hoped to control access to trade along the three river systems that enter into Chetumal Bay.…”

Introduction to the Special Section: Borders, Frontiers, and Boundaries in the Maya World: Concepts and Theory

“…For example, the name of Belize Red type ceramics (named for the original location of discovery at Barton Ramie, Belize) implicitly suggests that it is a type specific to Belizean sites, and the name Peten Gloss ware or vajilla de Pet é n Lustroso by similar reasoning, implies a ceramic ware specific to Peten sites. Yet archaeological distributions of such types and wares do not conform to modern geopolitical boundaries (Chase and Chase 2012; Halperin et al 2020; LeCount et al 2002), and thus create confusion for understandings of pre-Columbian belonging and interaction. Both countries also have their own intellectual interaction spheres fostered through national conferences and the use of different languages for communication.…”