Chapter Five

Evaluating the Archaeological

Signatures of Maya Ritual and Conflict

Jonathan B. Pagliaro, James F. Garber,

and Travis W. Stanton

Evidence for conflict and warfare among the pre-Columbian Maya has
been gathered from epigraphic, iconographic, and archaeological con-
texts. Recently, some scholars have argued that particular ritual
deposits constitute an important category of archaeological evidence
pertaining to Maya warfare (Ambrosino 1997; Ambrosino et al., chap-
ter 7 in this volume; Brown and Garber, chapter 6 in this volume;
Freidel and Suhler 1998; Freidel et al., chapter 11 in this volume; Mock
1998b; Stanton 1999; Stanton and Pagliaro 1997; Suhler 1996; Suhler
and Freidel 1995a, 1995b). Designated desecratory termination ritual
deposits, they exhibit purposeful destruction of material culture and
symbols of power, including elite architecture and burials. Similar acts
of destruction have been observed within the archaeological records
of cultures throughout the world (Tarlow 1997) and are related to an
overarching ideological strategy used by individuals and/or groups
of individuals attempting to establish dominance within prehistoric
societies.
The identification and interpretation of these ritual deposits is
becoming central to reconstructing the ideological and material goals
behind ancient Maya conflict and warfare. Yet despite the increasing

– 75 –
76 / Jonathan B. Pagliaro, James F. Garber, and Travis W. Stanton

awareness that some ritual deposits can be related to warfare activi-

ties, a number of unresolved issues remain. First, criteria for distin-
guishing the remains of ritual behavior from other activities, such as
refuse disposal, are not clearly defined (Stanton and Pagliaro 1997).
Second, termination ritual deposits and destructive behavior mani-
festing similar material patterning appear to occur for a variety of rea-
sons, including but not limited to conflict and warfare. Thus, separate
subclasses of ritual deposits must be more clearly defined to reach an
increased understanding of the behavior associated with Maya con-
flict and warfare as well as other ritual activity.

The Ritual Enigma

Maya ritual deposits represent a variety of ceremonial activities that
are presently subsumed under a number of contextual subclasses,
including reverential termination, desecratory termination, and dedi-
cation or consecration rituals. Although the material patterning for
some of these classes of ritual activity is similar, the composition and
contexts of these deposits, as well as artifact condition, vary among
categories. While differences in material patterning between consecra-
tion and termination ritual deposits may be fairly simple to discern,
identification of the subclasses of termination ritual deposits, namely,
desecratory and reverential termination deposits, require a more in-
depth analysis of depositional context, artifact condition, and material
patterning. Further, as within any classificatory system, categories of
ritual deposits must also account for a degree of variability within
each single type. Each category may vary across time and space as well
as among communities of different sizes. Although such deposits may
occur in a variety of contexts, architectural features will be the focus
of this analysis.
Dedication or consecration ritual deposits have been identified by
a number of Mesoamerican scholars (see Coe 1959; Mock 1998a;
Monaghan 1998; Pendergast 1998). These deposits consist of materials
that were cached in the attempt to charge a place or thing with super-
natural power (see Freidel et al. 1993). The Maya, along with other
Mesoamerican peoples, were very proficient in imbuing or ensouling
places with supernatural power by placing material items within
them, such as flint eccentrics, pottery filled with perishable goods, and
even sacrificial victims. Archaeologically, these deposits are easily dis-
tinguishable from reverential and desecratory termination ritual
deposits because the material items are not associated with destruc-
 Evaluating the Archaeological Signatures of Maya Ritual / 77

tive behavior, such as intensive burning, burial disturbance, destruc-

tion of material goods, and the destruction and desecration of
architecture (Garber 1983).
In contrast, reverential termination ritual deposits often exhibit
extensive destruction of material culture, including architecture and
ceramics. These deposits often represent the ritual destruction or ‘‘ter-
mination’’ of one construction phase of a structure before an ensuing
phase’s construction may begin. Furthermore, ritual destruction of
architecture and material goods linked to site or structure abandon-
ment may also indicate reverential ritual activity by prehistoric inhab-
itants. These rituals are associated with the cyclical Maya belief system
in which one cycle of life must be terminated before the next may
begin.1
Similar in appearance to reverential termination deposits, desecra-
tory termination ritual deposits have also been identified through the
recognition of patterning in artifact consumption and depositional
context (Ambrosino et al., chapter 7 in this volume; Brown and
Garber, chapter 6 in this volume; Freidel et al. 1998; Garber 1981, 1989,
1993; Pagliaro et al. 1998; Stanton 1998, 1999; Stanton and Pagliaro
1997; Suhler 1996; Suhler and Freidel 1995a). In contrast to reverential
termination ritual deposits, these deposits appear to be linked to
destruction associated with warfare and, as with reverential deposits,
can be followed by site abandonment. Simply stated, desecratory ter-
mination ritual deposits are the result of purposeful destruction and
manipulation of material culture for the furtherment of goals aimed
at destroying the supernatural power of a defeated community or fac-
tion. These rituals resulted in the formation of deposits that were used
to ‘‘kill’’ the animate supernatural power of an object, person, place,
or portal to the otherworld. Although the destruction and material
patterning associated with these rituals linked to warfare and domi-
nance may superficially resemble reverential termination ritual depos-
its, desecratory termination deposits present an archaeological
signature that is contextually distinct from these acts of veneration.

Identifying and Categorizing

Termination Ritual Deposits
Analysis of depositional context and patterning in artifact consump-
tion within ritual deposits has enabled researchers to establish a more
concrete list of core signature features for the two general categories of
78 / Jonathan B. Pagliaro, James F. Garber, and Travis W. Stanton

termination ritual deposits noted previously. Generally, termination

deposits have been and often are misinterpreted as squatter refuse or
the product of natural processes of mound decay (Stanton and Pagli-
aro 1997). Suhler and Freidel (1995a) have noted that through the use
of positive contextual patterning, a list of core signature features may
be created that can be used to make a distinction between some of
the more problematic deposits uncovered through excavation, such as
those associated with warfare and those of reverential ritual behavior
from squatter refuse and natural deterioration.
The confusion as to what constitutes ancient Maya refuse as
opposed to the remains of termination rituals has been a result of their
seemingly similar material patterning. On closer examination, these
patterns diverge into identifiable categories separating the types of
activities. Although materials such as pottery, faunal remains, manos,
metates, and obsidian are found in both kinds of deposits, the condi-
tion and contexts in which they are found are different. Refuse is gen-
erally located beyond the outskirts of an architectural feature or
group, while termination deposits are located on or within structures.
Because refuse does not generally accumulate in sizable quantities
within an inhabited and/or utilized structure, actual refuse found
within architectural boundaries must be the result of dumping prac-
tices after an architectural feature or entire structure has been aban-
doned. The separation of these processes from termination rituals
involves the examination of both the artifacts and the structure itself.
Discussion of refuse disposal and midden accumulation has been con-
sidered in more detail elsewhere by the authors (Hutson and Stanton
2001; Stanton and Pagliaro 1997) and others (Deal 1985; Hayden 1979;
Hayden and Cannon 1983) and will be only briefly summarized here.
Perhaps the best archaeological example illustrating patterns of
refuse disposal comes from the site of Ceren, El Salvador (see Beaudry
and Tucker 1989; Gerstle 1989, 1993; McKee 1989, 1993; Sheets 1992).
Ceren is a small site consisting of a number of structures that were
completely buried by a volcanic eruption in the sixth or seventh cen-
tury a.d. This unique situation gives archaeologists a rare view of how
refuse was distributed in a functioning pre-Columbian household (see
also Deal and Hagstrum 1995).
The Ceren data support the model of Maya refuse disposal pro-
posed here, namely, that refuse was disposed outside of architectural
features. Although the floors of structures are littered with ceramics,
a layer of tephra separates most of these artifacts from the floors, indi-
cating that the vessels were suspended from the roof and broke only
 Evaluating the Archaeological Signatures of Maya Ritual / 79

after the roof gave way to the volcanic activity. Other objects (obsidian
blades and so on) that were stored in the rafters were also deposited
on the floor in this fashion. What remained of the artifact assemblages
that can be determined to have been in contact with the floors at the
time of the eruption includes probable digging stick weights, jars, and
a few scattered small sherds. Structure 1B, hypothesized to be a stor-
age area, contained a large number of ceramic vessels (Beaudry and
Tucker 1989). More than half these vessels were incomplete, suggest-
ing that the vessels were reused and curated as long as they were not
too severely broken. Based on this evidence, the Maya may not have
left any pots or large sherds in structures on their abandonment. This
may have depended on the distance between the original structure
and the new locus of habitation. Objects that have a substantial capac-
ity for curation are not often provisionally discarded (Tomka 1993).
Digging-stick weights would also most likely be curated until they
were too worn to be of practical use. On the other hand, the small
sherds, never found in the centers of the floors, were most likely
deposited and caught in artifact traps like those described by Deal
(1985); thus, the functioning Ceren household was kept basically free
of household refuse.
The refuse that has been identified at Ceren fits into two deposi-
tional categories. The first involves sweeping processes. An area adja-
cent to Structure 10 was identified where sherds seem to have been
swept into a pile. Paths through household compounds were also kept
free of refuse by sweeping activities. The second depositional category
involves actual dumping activities resulting in the formation of mid-
dens. Several middens were located within household compounds.
Some of these middens were excavated in close proximity to but never
within the contexts of structures. Refuse was dumped in discrete areas
within household compounds, most likely after being swept from
structures, patios, and pathways. Apparently, the occupants of Ceren,
like the Maya today (Deal 1985), threw their refuse outside in discrete
midden areas. Similar results have been obtained in studies of Early
Classic house lots at Chunchucmil, Yucatán, suggesting that this is a
widely distributed pattern (Hutson and Stanton 2001).
Unlike ancient Maya refuse middens, termination ritual deposits
are often located within architectural boundaries. Evidence for dese-
cratory termination rituals located within architectural boundaries
includes the following:
1. Intensive burning
2. Intentional structural damage, including floor damage, vault collapse,
and the defacing of facades
80 / Jonathan B. Pagliaro, James F. Garber, and Travis W. Stanton

3. Deposition of layers of white marl

4. Pot smashing and scattering resulting in ceramic sherd refits from wide
areas and different levels
5. Rapid deposition of material
6. Dense concentrations of large sherds with sharp, angular breaks
7. Large quantities of ‘‘elite’’ artifacts

The most easily recognizable trait of desecratory termination rit-

ual deposits is the condition of the ceramics recovered from these
deposits. Ceramic sherd refits from different levels, often spaced quite
far apart and from wide areas such, are indicative of pot smashing
and scattering associated with termination ritual deposits. Ceramics
associated with archaeological trash are generally worn and cannot
be refit. Thus, patterns of scattering are not discernable within these
midden deposits.
In contrast to most domestic midden deposits, desecratory termi-
nation ritual deposits can also include primary- or secondary-context
human remains. Deposit content and context suggest that desecratory
termination deposits represent the literal termination of all cycles of
life and death invested within all associated artifacts, structures,
burials, and so on. Furthermore, desecratory termination deposits
may include purposeful disturbance and/or desecration of elite
burials as well as the remains of ritually sacrificed elite inhabitants of
a Maya community (Ambrosino 1997; Ambrosino et al., chapter 7 in
this volume; Mock 1998b; Suhler and Freidel 1998). For example, Mock
(1994a, 1998b) reports a skull pit at Colha containing the decapitated
heads of thirty individuals. Many of the skulls were found with articu-
lated vertebrae and had indications that the skin had been flayed from
their faces. She suggests that these individuals were sacrificed during
a termination ritual ending the Terminal Classic occupation at Colha.
In association with this skull pit, Mock reports additional building
destruction and deposits of stacked polychrome sherds, teeth, scat-
tered human remains, jade, and evidence of burning. Furthermore,
Mock argues that the flaying of these individuals’ faces is analogous
to the defacement of monuments like those reported at Copán (Schele
1991b).
Although the ultimate target of desecratory termination ritual
may have been the live members of a ruling elite and their buried
ancestors, it appears as if the majority of desecratory rituals do not
exhibit evidence of burial disturbance or the sacrifice of humans. Yet
when this behavior can be identified, it may strongly suggest acts of
 Evaluating the Archaeological Signatures of Maya Ritual / 81

conflict, including warfare. Associations between termination depos-

its and architectural defacement, human sacrifice, and intensive burn-
ing, such as that noted by Mock earlier, appear to be critical in
determining the type of ritual deposit under investigation and any
link these acts of prehistoric destruction may have had to conflict and
warfare.
Distinguishing between ritual deposits associated with warfare
and conflict (such as desecratory termination) and those indicative of
reverential termination is a much more complicated affair because the
list of core signature features used to identify these two types of ritual
deposits are very similar. Furthermore, both desecratory and reveren-
tial termination deposits may often be found within similar deposi-
tional contexts. As will be discussed later in this chapter, a noted
difference between reverential and desecratory termination deposits
may be the intensity of both architectural destruction and burning.
Deposits uncovered at a number of sites in the Belize River Valley, as
well as in surrounding areas, will be used to illustrate patterns of
building and artifact destruction associated with both types of termi-
nation deposits.

Archaeological Evidence
of Ritual Deposits
The two most apparent features of desecratory ritual deposits are
architectural destruction and evidence of burning. Excavations at the
site of Blackman Eddy, Belize (Brown and Garber, chapter 6 in this
volume), have uncovered episodes of burning and facade destruction.
These deposits illustrate the archaeological signature of desecratory
termination ritual, including, in many cases, extremely high tempera-
ture burning of plaster floors. Evidence for this type of burning, as
seen on Structure B1–4th at Blackman Eddy, is clearly representative
of much more intense episodes of burning and destruction than those
represented within apparent reverential termination deposits located
in other episodes of construction for this structure (Brown and Garber
1999). Although both desecratory and reverential deposits exhibit sim-
ilar archaeological signatures, factors such as the intensity of struc-
tural damage and burning associated with these deposits may aid in
determining observable patterning within the different categories of
ritual deposit. Much of the archaeological database used in discover-
ing patterns of artifact consumption and deposition within desecra-
82 / Jonathan B. Pagliaro, James F. Garber, and Travis W. Stanton

tory and reverential termination deposits has been gathered through

excavations along architectural axes. Most, however, do not illustrate
the spatial extent on which both reverential and desecratory termina-
tion rituals may have been carried out.
Archaeological studies have indicated that both desecratory and
reverential termination deposits may often have had a site- or at least
structurewide focus. For example, artifacts recovered from termina-
tion deposits located within the alleyway between Structures B1 and
B2 at Blackman Eddy, such as ceramic vessels, obsidian blades, and
stone metates, were only partially reconstructable. This may indicate
that reverential deposits could conceivably constitute structure- or
sitewide ceremonies that are only partially uncovered by a scattering
of excavation units throughout an archaeological site. Suhler and
Freidel (1995a) have noted that such rituals may leave behind involved
and complex stratigraphic deposits, usually centered at the level of an
entire building. Mock (1998b:115) has likewise noted that termination
deposits may be scattered in ‘‘liminal interstices or places of transi-
tion, such as stairways, doorways, axial centers or lines, or the corners
of structures.’’ In other words, ritual deposits are not necessarily
located solely on the axes of public architecture. Excavations at Black-
man Eddy and other archaeological sites, such as Cerros and Yaxuná
(Ambrosino 1997; Freidel et al. 1998; Suhler 1996), have demonstrated
that ritual deposits can encompass an entire structure or extend across
an entire site.
Excavations on Structure 4B-1st at Cerros, Belize, may be cited as
evidence for the dispersed and, at least, structurewide nature of some
ritual deposits. Walker (1998) notes,

Analysis revealed that the matrix surrounding the cache held frag-
ments of the same types of vessels as those found at the base of 4B-1st
in Operation 25g. . . . Some sherds found in Operation 20 appeared to
be fragments of pots deposited in Operation 25g, 13 m below at the
base of the temple, although no fits were discovered. This surprising
finding gave the first major analytical link between the two spatially
distinct deposits, implying that a single ritual locus spanned the
entire building. (89–92)

Likewise, a Late Formative/Protoclassic termination deposit uncov-

ered on Structure B1–2nd at Blackman Eddy illustrates that ritual
deposits may have been strewn over an entire structure. Garber et al.
(1996:9) note that while the majority of this ritual deposit (containing
200 Late Formative/ Protoclassic sherds, including three partial ves-
 Evaluating the Archaeological Signatures of Maya Ritual / 83

sels, jute [Pachyychillus claphyrus] shells, riverine bivalves, several chert

flakes, and a chopper) was located beneath the eastern corner of the
eastern outset panel on Structure B1–2nd, the other half of a ceramic
vessel from this ritual deposit was recovered from the lower portion
of the mound.
On an apparently larger scale, excavations within Structure 6F-68
at the site of Yaxuná, Yucatán, are indicative of a larger termination
event inclusive of at least several structures at the site (Ambrosino et
al., chapter 7 in this volume). The desecratory termination of Structure
6F-68 included burial disturbance and desecration, intensive burning
of plaster floors, deposition of large amounts of smashed ceramics and
white marl, and intentional vault collapse (Ambrosino 1995, 1996;
Ambrosino et al., chapter 7 in this volume). After excavations within
other parts of Structure 6F-68 and nearby Structure 6F-3, also within
the North Acropolis at Yaxuná, it was determined that this violent act
of termination was carried out by people from Chichén Itzá and was
performed on much of the North Acropolis (Ambrosino et al., chapter
7 in this volume; Suhler 1996). Therefore, in addition to the apparent
similarities in both patterns of artifact consumption and deposition for
Maya rituals of reverential and desecratory termination, both types of
deposits seem to also share patterning in depositional context. This
further complicates the differentiation between ritual deposits linked
to reverence and those associated with violence and warfare.

Discussion
As illustrated earlier, it is apparent that continued observation of pat-
terning in artifact consumption and deposition, as well as contextual
patterning, is a necessity if we desire to establish a more refined
archaeological signature for ritual deposits as a whole. A better under-
standing of the patterning within ritual deposits, as well as their asso-
ciation with other indications of violence, conflict, and warfare, is
essential if we are to utilize these data as evidence for or as an indica-
tion of conflict and warfare. Previous research by the authors (Garber
1981, 1993; Pagliaro et al. 1998; Stanton and Pagliaro 1997) and others
(Suhler and Freidel 1995a; Walker 1998) have attempted to identify
patterning within the particular artifact types found in the context of
Maya ritual deposits as well as refuse deposits. These contextual anal-
yses of artifact remains have been successful in determining both pat-
terns of ceremonial activity and artifact consumption.
For example, Garber (1993) illustrated a contextual covariance
84 / Jonathan B. Pagliaro, James F. Garber, and Travis W. Stanton

between jade artifact type, condition of preservation, and category of

ritual deposit within contexts excavated at Cerros:

Jades recovered from dedicatory caches are usually intact, and those
recovered from termination rituals are usually broken. Thus, whole
jades are associated with structure completion or dedication, and
broken jades are associated with abandonment and destruction.
Beads and flares are recovered from both contexts. The form and the
event dictated whether or not the artifact was smashed. (171)

Continued analysis of artifact consumption within both trash and rit-

ual middens is essential if a list of core signature features for both
types of deposits is to be identified.
As stated earlier, further analysis of differences and similarities in
contextual and spatial patterning for both reverential and desecratory
termination deposits is a necessity if termination ritual deposits are to
be used as evidence for conflict and warfare as well as other ritual
activity. An association of ritual deposits to other factors indicative of
warfare, violence, or acts of reverence, such as ethnographic accounts,
archaeological evidence from multiple structures at a site, and evi-
dence from surrounding sites, will aid in strengthening arguments
identifying an act of reverence or warfare within a particular deposit
or architectural feature. For example, Driver and McWilliams (1995)
note that ritual middens excavated within structures at Ontario Vil-
lage, Blackman Eddy, and Floral Park, Belize, all appear to indicate
similar patterning that is suggestive of a type of ‘‘abandonment
ritual’’:

The deposits recovered at Ontario Village and Blackman Eddy con-

sist of one or more whole vessels surrounded or buried by what
appears to be primary midden-like deposits directly transported to
the ritual location. Initial testing at the site of Floral Park has also
identified a similar deposit of midden-like material, although of
much greater volume. The deposition of these materials across the
basal portion of the Structure A1 stair may have been intended to
symbolically deny access to the summit, in effect, killing the struc-
ture. As no later construction was intended, such deposits may be
seen as an ‘‘abandonment ritual,’’ rather than a termination ritual
enacted prior to the commencement of a new building episode. (34)

An additional example of this type of deposit may have been

uncovered within the alleyway 2 between Structures B1 and B2 within
the northern cluster of structures at Blackman Eddy, Belize (Hartman
 Evaluating the Archaeological Signatures of Maya Ritual / 85

and Pagliaro 2000; Hartman et al. 1999). Excavations between Struc-

tures B1 and B2 at Blackman Eddy have thus far uncovered at least
two ritual deposits covering the entire excavated portion of this alley-
way. The first ritual deposit encountered in the alleyway, Problematic
Deposit 1 (PD1), consisted of a high density of ceramic sherds, some
of which were very weathered, while others may have been smashed
immediately before deposition. Other cultural material found in the
ritual deposit included chert flakes, granite ax fragments, partial ves-
sels, obsidian blades, metate fragments, hammer stones, mano frag-
ments, large chert bifaces, bone, and partial and whole ceramic
figurines. This material was deposited directly on yellowish marl melt
overlying the B1–1st alley floor. This Late Classic deposit may be
linked to structure abandonment. PD1 exhibits the same pattern as
other ritual middens deposited at the time of structure abandonment
excavated within the Belize River Valley (see the previous discussion).
Moreover, because there is no evidence of intense burning, architec-
tural destruction, or other acts of violence, this deposit does not
appear to be a desecratory termination event linked to warfare or con-
flict.3 In other words, although indicative of the destruction of large
amounts of material items, this problematic deposit does not appear
to indicate evidence of conflict or warfare and may instead indicate
yet another example of the abandonment ritual recorded by Driver
and McWilliams (1995) at several sites located throughout the Belize
River Valley. Although these deposits do not appear to indicate dese-
cratory termination or acts of violence suggestive of warfare, similar
deposits excavated throughout the Maya area do seem to illustrate
that the abandonment or termination of structures or entire communi-
ties can correlate with warfare.
For example, two alleyways excavated at Cerros, Belize (between
Structures 4A and 4B in the central zone and Structures 29C and 29D
300 meters to the south), may be indicative of a more violent end to
the use of the surrounding architecture (Freidel 1986b). Although the
termination ritual located between Structures 4A and 4B contained a
number of artifacts similar to those found in the alleyway at Blackman
Eddy, Freidel (1986b:9) noted that the deposit also contained a large
number of fragments of modeled and painted stucco decoration
‘‘fallen or torn from the walls.’’ The termination event located in the
alleyway between Structures 29C and 29D was likewise inclusive of
evidence of burning, including scorched plaster and charcoal. The
investigators also indicated the presence of large quantities of
86 / Jonathan B. Pagliaro, James F. Garber, and Travis W. Stanton

smashed pottery vessels intermixed with plaster torn from the frieze
and panels located higher on the structure (Freidel 1986b:11–12).
Garber (1986:118) indicated that these two termination events at
Cerros, similar to those found on Structures 5C, 2A-sub-1st, and 3B,
are indicative of termination rituals: a behavioral pattern associated
with the abandonment of architecture. Garber (1981) noted that evi-
dence of ritual structure termination and abandonment may include
the destruction and removal of plaster facades, burning, broken arti-
facts including jade, white marl layers, and evidence of the prepara-
tion and consumption of a ceremonial beverage. While some of the
features may be absent from a given ritual deposit, it appears that lay-
ering of white marl, destruction of material culture, and burning are
consistent (Garber 1986:118).
Although these termination events at Cerros exhibit artifact pat-
terning similar to those recovered from excavations at Blackman Eddy
and those recorded by Driver and McWilliams (1995), the deposits at
Cerros differ in some important aspects. The non-Cerros examples
from the Late Classic Belize Valley offer many of the core signature
features of a reverential termination deposit. For example, the sur-
rounding architecture does not appear to have been disturbed, and
there is no evidence of in situ, high-temperature burning as was the
case at Cerros (for an example of warfare-related destruction at Black-
man Eddy, see Brown and Garber, chapter 6 in this volume). Even
though the previously mentioned termination events at Cerros and
PD1 at Blackman Eddy were both located within alleyways, some dif-
ferences in contextual patterning, artifact consumption, and associa-
tion with other indications of violence and/or conflict may indicate
two different types of ritual activity, namely, a ritual of desecratory
termination within the alleyways at Cerros and an act of reverential
termination and abandonment at Blackman Eddy.
Association of termination deposits with other evidence of war-
fare and conflict is therefore critical in the recognition of desecratory,
war-related deposits as opposed to other, nonviolent forms of ritual
deposits. For example, the association of midden-like material with
other evidence of violence and warfare, such as architectural destruc-
tion and intensive burning, may indicate that deposits within two elite
residential compounds at Copán were ritually terminated in a dese-
cratory fashion. The 10L-33 complex at the south edge of the acropolis
was covered with ‘‘domestic refuse’’ during the Terminal Classic ‘‘just
prior’’ to the cessation of occupation. Not only do these deposits occur
in the remains of collapsed elite structures at Copán, but they are also
 Evaluating the Archaeological Signatures of Maya Ritual / 87

directly associated with intensive burning. In the words of Andrews

and Fash (1992),

It might be argued that our evidence for the destruction of buildings

at the core of Copan is limited to four buildings and that fires in a
few buildings could have come about in more natural and less mean-
ingful ways. But it must be remembered that the four buildings men-
tioned are among the few vaulted structures of importance excavated
in recent years. Such evidence was most likely overlooked in the
past, and most of the great buildings in central Copan were cleared
long ago, so that we will probably not find large numbers of struc-
tures with clear traces of destruction by burning. In considering the
case for violent terminal events, we should recall the small round
altars from Structures 10L-29 and 10L-43. Both commemorate 11
Ahau 18 Mac (790) and both were neatly and identically snapped in
half. The one from 10L-29 was vandalized just before the building
collapsed, and the one from 10L-43 may have been broken as part of
the same event. The fragmentary rectangular altar excavated in 1990
from the building collapse behind 10L-32 (CPN 19222), probably a
companion piece sitting next to Altar F on the bench of the center
room, was badly shattered, and most of it was not found. Intentional
vandalism preceding the destruction of 10L-32 seems indicated. (86)

Similarly, MacKie (1985:48–49, 65–71) identified several midden-

like deposits located on plaster floors within the terminal construction
phases of several structures at Xunantunich, Belize (as well as directly
in front of these structures). While MacKie attributed these deposits
(within Structures A-6, A-11, and A-15 at Xunantunich) and the ‘‘sud-
den’’ vault collapses located directly on top of them to a ‘‘natural
disaster,’’ such as an earthquake and/or natural decay, he does not
rule out the possibility that ‘‘human agents’’ may have been involved.
Of particular interest is MacKie’s (1985) thorough description of
deposits located within Structure A-15 and directly below the vault
collapse:

In room 2 the north half of the front wall had completely disap-
peared down to the plinth-top level. The plastered floor of the north
half of the room was covered by a layer of black earth from 1–2 in
(2–5 cm) thick and part of the floor was so blackened and warped as
to suggest that fires had been lit directly on the plaster. (69)

As with the termination deposits from Copán noted earlier, the associ-
ation of these midden-like deposits at Xunantunich with intensive
88 / Jonathan B. Pagliaro, James F. Garber, and Travis W. Stanton

burning of plaster floors, vault collapse, architectural defacement, and

an ‘‘interruption’’ in both ceramic chronology (MacKie 1985:49) and
structure use and occupation strengthen an argument that these
deposits are not due to natural collapse or decay and instead may be
attributed to acts of desecratory termination linked to conflict and
warfare at the end of Classic period.
Houk (1996) has likewise made a potential link between the termi-
nation of the main acropolis at Dos Hombres (a.d. 840–850) and the
‘‘sacking’’ of nearby Rı́o Azul in a.d. 840 (see Adams 1995). Associa-
tions of termination events (such as at Dos Hombres) to other war-
related evidence within the same time period and region (such as that
at Rı́o Azul in this example) can only strengthen arguments intending
to discern these ritual deposits as violent or war-like in nature (Brown
and Garber, chapter 6 in this volume; Stanton 1999; Suhler and Freidel
1995a, 1995b). Association of these ritual middens with other evidence
of conflict and violence, such as intentional destruction of surround-
ing architecture and material goods (as illustrated earlier at Copán
and Xunantunich), is necessary if these deposits are to be used as evi-
dence for warfare.
Again, the minimal amount of comparative data identifying Maya
ritual deposits as a whole and their association with other evidence
for warfare and conflict leaves us with a situation in which the recog-
nition of these deposits as evidence of warfare, destruction, or rever-
ence is often quite problematic. Further investigation of material
patterning within all types of Maya middens (both domestic and rit-
ual) is needed. Likewise, patterning for ritual deposits on a regional
scale may also aid in determining the ideological and/or material
goals behind these deposits. While some ritual middens or deposits
may be more easily connected to warfare-related behavior, examples
such as those noted earlier illustrate the need for caution when
approaching the subject of Maya ritual deposits and their prehistoric
implications.

Conclusions
Maya termination rituals exhibit an enormous amount of variability
on a number of different regional and temporal scales. Variability in
what are possibly the same types of ritual deposits within different
archaeological settings must also be addressed and accounted for if a
list of core signature features is to be defined for both desecratory and
reverential termination deposits. Although desecratory termination
 Evaluating the Archaeological Signatures of Maya Ritual / 89

deposits share some commonalities in patterns of both artifact con-

sumption and deposition with reverential termination deposits, some
variables thus far observed in the archaeological record may offer ave-
nues of exploration that will further enhance our understanding and
recognition of these two deposit types. While these ritual deposits
may share some features in patterns of both artifact consumption and
deposition, it must be remembered that desecratory and reverential
termination deposits represent two very different sets of ideological
and political goals. The similar patterning found in these ritual depos-
its also needs to be analyzed on a variety of different scales if their
role as a useful indicator of warfare and conflict or other ritual activity
and their underlying ideological and/or political goals are to be better
understood. Furthermore, this evidence for conflict and warfare must
be used in association with other contextual factors, such as epi-
graphic and iconographic evidence, and co-occurrences of similar pat-
terns at neighboring sites and in other structures at the same site. The
similarity between the archaeological signatures for reverential and
desecratory termination deposits necessitates a better understanding
of the patterning and context for both types of ritual deposit before
their use as a mechanism for understanding the political and/or ideo-
logical objectives behind them can be refined.

Notes
1. Walker (1998) illustrated through her investigations at Cerros that rever-
ential termination deposits may also represent attempts to rejuvenate power
and life forces originally ensouled within structures through caching
behavior.
2. The term ‘‘alleyway’’ is used in this case to define the plastered surface
between Structures B1 and B2 at Blackman Eddy. The portion of this alleyway
excavated thus far measures approximately 2.8 meters in width (east to west)
and 7.0 meters long (north to south).
3. At approximately 166 to 176 centimeters below surface level, a similar
ritual deposit was uncovered, again spanning the entire length and width of
the excavated portion of the alley between Structures B1 and B2. This deposit
(PD2) included a high density of ceramic sherds and refits (some again
appearing to have been weathered, possibly before deposition), granite metate
fragments, shell beads and fragments, manos, hammer stones, chert flakes,
obsidian blades, chert cores, bone, and a minimal amount of burnt ceramics
and daub.