Pine, prestige and politics of the Late Classic Maya at Xunantunich, Belize.

Lentz, David L. ; Yaeger, Jason ; Robin, Cynthia 等

Introduction

Most studies of Precolumbian Maya trade and exchange base their inferences on the distribution of artefacts made of durable material such as ceramic, chert, obsidian, shell and jade. Charting the trade and exchange of plant products that are susceptible to decomposition is more elusive. Despite the challenges of retrieving plant materials from open sites in the Neotropics, systematic paleoethnobotanical sampling at three Late Classic sites, Xunantunich, San Lorenzo and Chan Noohol, in western Belize (Figure 1) produced a broad array of carbonised plant remains. In-depth analysis of the wood component of those remains revealed a non-random distribution of charred pine (Pinus spp.) in archaeological sediments. This paper discusses the implications of these unexpected results for the Late Classic political economy.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Pine in the Maya area, present and past

The natural vegetation around Xunantunich today is Neotropical deciduous forest dominated by broadleaf hardwoods. The largest nearby pine stands are in the Mountain Pine Ridge, 17km to the south-east (Figure 1). The acidic soils of the Mountain Pine Ridge, highly weathered and derived largely from granite bedrock, are unsuitable for agriculture, accounting for the low density of Precolumbian and modern habitation. The soils, however, do support extensive open-canopied pine forests in which the visual dominants are Caribbean pine (Pinus caribaea vat. hondurensis [Senecl] Barr. et Golf.) and, at higher altitudes (600800m), red pine (P. oocarpa Schiede) (Perry 1991: 199-200; Balick et al. 2000: 49).

Modern Maya people employ pine for a variety of purposes. The Tzotzil and Tzeltal of highland Chiapas use pine to make furniture, domestic utensils, fences and houses (Berlin et al. 1974; Breedlove & Laughlin 2000). The Mopan and Kekchi of southern Belize also use the wood for house construction (Thompson 1930).

Pine is commonly burned for fuel, but because it produces a smoky fire, some contemporary Maya convert pinewood to charcoal first (Breedlove & Laughlin 2000; Wisdom 1940). Charcoal burns more cleanly, and it is lighter than untreated wood. This latter quality is important to traders who transport charcoal and other pine products to sell in regional markets (e.g. Wisdom 1940: 21). Maya carboneros from Cajole, Guatemala, harvest pine and hardwoods, burn the wood to make charcoal and then carry it in 36kg loads to the Quezaltenango market, 16km distant (Hehr 1967: 62). Because of its copious resin, pine heartwood is ideal for torches and fire-starting splints (Atran & Ucan Ek' 1999; Barrera Matin et al. 1976; Breedlove & Hopkins 1971; Breedlove & Laughlin 2000; Oakes 1951), and the Chorti often give pine torches to travellers as a gesture of hospitality (Wisdom 1940: 25).

Beyond these mundane applications, Maya people employ pine in rituals. In the highlands, pine boughs and needles adorn crosses and altars, and the resin serves as incense (Berlin et al. 1974; Breedlove & Laughlin 2000; Deal 1988; Tedlock 1982; Vogt 1969; Wisdom 1940). In the lowlands, the Lacandon (McGee 1990) and the Itza (Atran & Ucan Ek' 1999) burn pine resin as incense, sometimes mixed with copal resin. Pine also has medicinal properties; the Tzotzil use pine resin to make a tea to treat loose teeth and spider bites (Breedlove & Laughlin 2000).

Paleoethnobotanical data demonstrate the long history of utilitarian and ritual uses of pine in the Maya area. Pine occurs in diverse domestic contexts in Maya sites, especially middens and platform fill (Dickau & Lentz 2001; Lentz 1991, 1994, 1999; Lentz et al. 1996, 1997; Miksicek 1983, 1991; Morehart 2001, 2003; Wiesen & Lentz 1999). Archaeologists have also reported finding pine in caves, which were points of communication with the underworld (Morehart 2001; Morehart et al. 2003), and in caches at Caracol (Chase & Chase 1998: 317), tombs at Copan (Lentz 1991) and offerings at La Milpa (Hammond et al. 2000).

Collection and analysis of paleobotanical samples

The data presented herein were collected by members of the Xunantunich Archaeological Project (XAP), directed by Richard M. Leventhal and Wendy Ashmore. XAP combined fieldwork at Xunantunich with a settlement survey and excavations of several hinterland settlements, with the goal of understanding the rapid and late florescence of the Xunantunich polity in the Late Classic period (Ashmore & Leventhal 1993).

We assigned all residential structures to a socio-economic 'status level' between one and five that indexed the labour invested in domestic construction, as estimated through rough proxies of size, masonry technique and architectural elaboration. The amount of labour invested in domestic architecture is one of the best indicators of household wealth (Smith 1987, also Abrams 1994) and allows us to distinguish between 'non-elite' or 'commoner' (Status Levels 1-2) and 'elite' (Status Levels 3-5) households.

XAP personnel collected paleoethnobotanical materials following protocols established by Lentz (1989, 1991). Analyses of 253 macrobotanical samples and 250 flotation samples are the basis of the discussion that follows.

Xunantunich and its hinterland settlements

The three sites discussed in this paper, Xunantunich, San Lorenzo and Chan Noohol, lie within 5km of each other (Figure 2). Their inhabitants were all members of the same polity, but each occupied a distinct place within the region's socio-political landscape. Xunantunich, with its pyramids, royal palace and plazas (Figure 3), became the capital of one of the pre-eminent polities in the upper Belize River valley during the Late and Terminal Classic periods (AD 600-890) (Leventhal & Ashmore 2004). After centuries of sporadic occupation beginning in the early Middle Preclassic period, Xunantunich grew rapidly during the Late Classic period, which encompasses the site's Samal (AD 600-670) and Hats' Chaak (AD 670-780) ceramic phases (LeCount et al. 2002). Throughout the Late Classic period, Xunantunich's rulers oversaw a remarkable series of building programs, most of which date to the Hats' Chaak phase. At the same time, the polity's hinterland grew to its peak population density (LeCount et al. 2002). Later in the Hats' Chaak phase, however, the hinterland began a significant demographic decline, and large sectors of Xunantunich fell into disuse, a trend that culminated in the site's abandonment by the end of the Terminal Classic Tsak' phase (AD 780-890). In the broader political context, it has been suggested (Ball & Taschek 1991:154) that Xunantunich may have been a derivative, frontier stronghold for Naranjo, a large civic-ceremonial centre located about 12km to the west.

[FIGURES 2-3 OMITTED]

San Lorenzo was a small, discrete settlement cluster of 20 mound groups (Figure 4) on the banks of the Mopan River, 1.5km north-east of Xunantunich (Yaeger 2000a). Founded just before the Samal phase, the hamlet's history roughly paralleled that of Xunantunich. Despite evidence that the Hats' Chaak residents of San Lorenzo shared a community identity, households differed considerably in wealth and the strength of their ties to the polity's rulers (Yaeger 2000b). The families who occupied the three largest residential groups at San Lorenzo (Status Level 3) lived in houses built of cut limestone blocks with corbel vaulted masonry roofs and elaborate architectural features such as high benches and basal mouldings. These residents also had access to ornaments made of exotic marine shell and greenstone, materials that presumably circulated through the political-economic networks that bound the polity rulers to their subjects (Yaeger 2003). Other objects of non-local raw materials--obsidian blades, granite grinding stones and slate plaques, pendants and smoothing stones--were much more widely distributed.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

In contrast, other inhabitants of San Lorenzo lived in multi-unit domestic groups characterised by substructure platforms faced with cobbles and some small limestone blocks (Status Level 2). Atop these platforms sat wattle and daub houses, a few of which had low foundation walls. Finally, many of the hamlet's residents lived in small wattle and daub houses set on isolated single platforms that were faced with minimally modified river cobbles (Status Level 1). These buildings required the least amount of labour investment, indicating that these families were relatively poor.

Chan Noohol was a smaller hinterland settlement 4 km south-east of Xunantunich on the gently undulating limestone uplands between the Mopan and Macal Rivers. The settlement consists of seven small farmsteads encircled by agricultural terraces (Figure 5). These modest residences, small pole and thatch buildings constructed on low platforms with minimal artefact assemblages, appear to constitute the 'poorest' domestic remains excavated in the Xunantunich region (Robin 1999, 2002a, 2002b). With the exception of granite grinding stones, obsidian blades and slate artefacts, most people's possessions were made of locally available raw materials. Despite their humble means, certain inequalities did exist among the Chan Noohol residents. The house platforms of single-residence groups (CN1, CN2, CN3, CN4, CN6; all Status Level 1) were smaller, less elaborate and contained less cut stone masonry than those of the two-residence groups (CN5, CN7; Status Level 2). Furthermore, the only residents to possess ornaments of greenstone and marine shell lived in the two-residence groups.

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

Results

Paleoethnobotanical analysis revealed that pine (Figure 6) was common in Late and Terminal Classic strata at Xunantunich and San Lorenzo. Pine specimens were recovered in ceremonial, ancillary and residential structures alike. Pine was most common in refuse deposits, where it probably represented the discarded, partially consumed fuel from hearths and braziers or the remains of domestic utensils and furniture. The presence of pine in collapse debris, derived from the post-abandonment deterioration of buildings and their platforms, coupled with the presence of several large, beam-sized pieces, indicate its use in architectural construction. Thus, the distribution of archaeological pine in a variety of primary and secondary depositional contexts suggests a range of uses similar to that documented among modern Maya.

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

However, even a cursory examination of the data (Table 1) reveals differences among sites in the distribution of pine. In terms of its ubiquity, we recovered pine in 24 per cent of the Xunantunich samples, 14 per cent of the San Lorenzo samples and 3 per cent of those at Chan Noohol. Differences in pine as a percentage by weight of all wood types were even more dramatic: pine constituted 10 per cent of all wood by weight at Xunantunich, but only 1 per cent at San Lorenzo and 0.02 per cent at Chan Noohol. Note, however, that wood weights were skewed by the presence of several large specimens, probably fallen pine beams, at Xunantunich. Consequently, we believe the most appropriate comparative measure is ubiquity rather than weight.

We compared the ubiquity of pine in all Late and Terminal Classic samples at the three sites using a chi-square ([chi square]) test (Table 2) and found statistically significant differences among the sites ([chi square] = 21.28, p < 0.001). When pine ubiquity between Xunantunich and San Lorenzo only was compared, however, the differences were not statistically significant ([chi square] = 1.88, p = 0.28). Levels of pine consumption were thus relatively similar at San Lorenzo and Xunantunich, but significantly lower at Chan Noohol, and it is very unlikely that these observed differences were due to chance alone.

Turning to the role of socio-economic status in structuring pine use, we found that pine was relatively common in households at Xunantunich and San Lorenzo regardless of status level. When the levels of pine use were compared within Xunantunich and San Lorenzo, observed differences by status level were not statistically significant ([chi square] = 1.30, p = 0.25 and [chi square] = 5.37, p = 0.07, respectively). These results suggest that within these two settlements, people had more or less equal access to pine products, regardless of socio-economic status.

When we compared pine ubiquity in non-elite residences (Status Levels 1-2) at San Lorenzo with those at Chan Noohol, however, we found the differences to be statistically significant ([chi square] = 17.51, 10 < 0.001). The farmers living at Chan Noohol had significantly less access to pine than did the poorer residents of San Lorenzo, despite the fact that all evidence indicates that they were of similar economic means as inferred from their investment in domestic architecture, the relatively impoverished domestic assemblages and the rarity of artefacts made of high status exotic material, e.g. jade and marine shell. The significant differences in pine distribution between the low status occupants of San Lorenzo and Chan Noohol suggest that the circulation of pine products was determined by strategies other than simple economics.

Discussion

The significant presence of pine in the Xunantunich polity raises provocative questions about how it arrived at Xunantunich and how it circulated once there. There are three competing explanations for how pine might have arrived at Xunantunich. The first explanation is that, unlike today, pine once grew naturally around Xunantunich. If there had been significant ancient pine stands near Xunantunich, we would expect an even distribution of archaeological pine remains among the three settlements analysed because residents of the polity could have gathered it through routine foraging. The paleoethnobotanical results clearly do not reflect this explanation. A second explanation is that the ancient Maya could have cultivated pine trees, but this labour- and land-intensive practice is unknown in the Maya ethnographic literature whereas the long-distance transport of pine products is well documented. The third explanation, that wood was imported from nearby regions with naturally occurring stands of pine, is the most plausible. This explanation fits the current distribution of pine and is consistent with modern Maya ethnographic accounts. Also, the presence of carbonised P. oocarpa needles at San Lorenzo demonstrates that at least some pine products came from the Mountain Pine Ridge, the only place in the region where the upland-loving species grows.

The Macal River is the best route into the Mountain Pine Ridge and the Maya Mountains that lay beyond. These two areas are the sources of mineral, animal and plant resources that are not found elsewhere in the Maya lowlands (Dunham 1996; Graham 1987), and Awe (1985) has suggested that the site of Caledonia, on the upper Macal, served as a gateway into these important resource zones (Figure 1). Given that other bulky products, such as slate and granite, came from the Mountain Pine Ridge, there is no reason to doubt that pine products might have travelled along the same routes.

It is unclear who collected and processed pine for export. Given the lack of any significant Precolumbian population in the Mountain Pine Ridge, it seems likely that specialised traders, perhaps akin to Cajoler's carboneros, travelled into the Mountain Pine Ridge, processed pine into charcoal and other products and then transported it to their consumers. The distance to the nearest pine source is roughly the same as that travelled by modern carboneros, and the importation of pine into Xunantunich need not have entailed a more complicated system of extraction for trading purposes.

The above discussion argues for pine as an imported commodity in the Xunantunich polity, but it leaves open the question as to how the commodity may have been distributed. The archaeological presence of pine can be used to evaluate models of distribution mechanisms that structured people's access to pine. If people purchased or bartered for pine in a relatively unregulated market system (a simple economic model), we would expect pine to be widely distributed in households throughout the polity's capital and hinterland (Hirth 1998). The greater the value of pine as a market commodity, the more restricted its distribution, as households of higher socio-economic status (i.e. wealth) would have used more pine and those of lower status would have used less, regardless of their location. Because of the presence of pine among the low status residences at San Lorenzo and the near absence of pine at Chan Noohol, this model is not a good fit for the Xunantunich polity.

As an alternative model, pine products were valued imports whose circulation was restricted and controlled by the polity's rulers and elite leaders within each settlement. In this model, pine was an important part of the political economy. Higher status people would have given pine to their subordinates to cement their loyalties and strengthen tributary networks that were the basis of elite provisioning and wealth (Foias 2002; LeCount 1999). This model leads us to expect pine ubiquity to decrease as we trace out the dendritic hierarchical networks of the polity's political economy from its rulers to its humblest households. In the case of Chan Noohol, the leading citizens were peasants themselves who lacked the political connections to warrant receipt of a full spectrum of trade goods on a frequent basis. In contrast, the low status denizens of San Lorenzo, from the same economic stratum as the Chan Noohol peasants, regularly received trade goods as a result of the strong political position of their community leaders. Thus, the political-economic model matches the pine data observed.

Conclusion

The results of this paleoethnobotanical study indicate that pine products were imported into the upper Belize river valley during Precolumbian times, and the Maya used these products for a variety of purposes. The non-random distribution of pine throughout the Xunantunich polity during the Late and Terminal Classic periods suggest that pine products may not have circulated by simple market exchange, but rather as a component of socio-political strategies.

Artefacts of other non-local raw materials, notably jade from the Guatemalan highlands and shells from the Caribbean, follow the same distribution as pine: they are extremely rare at Chan Noohol, but occur more frequently in higher status households at San Lorenzo and in elite residences and burials at Xunantunich. These objects also probably circulated through gifting networks, but pine products travelled much farther down the political hierarchy, similar to less elaborately decorated polychrome pottery (LeCount 1999), than did the rarer, more valuable goods. Thus, pine products could have strengthened the polity's political economic fabric in ways and to an extent that highly prized goods could not.

The distribution of pine products stands in marked contrast to that of granite, slate and obsidian, despite the fact that granite and slate came from the Mountain Pine Ridge, possibly carried on the same canoes as pine products. Granite grinding stones, slate pendants and smoothing stones, and blades made with obsidian from the Guatemalan highlands occur in broadly comparable frequencies at Chan Noohol, San Lorenzo and Xunantunich, a pattern that conforms more to expectations of unrestricted market exchange (Hirth 1998). The co-existence of these broad but distinct patterns of circulation within a single polity demonstrates the complexity of the Late Classic Maya economy, while illuminating the limitations of models that uncritically equate local products with low-value, utilitarian goods and exotic materials with high-value prestige items (Graham 2002; Rice 1987).

The importance of pine products in the political economy of Late and Terminal Classic Xunantunich also raises the question of whether pine trade was strictly a local phenomenon or a practice of broader geographic and cultural scale. The discovery of pine charcoal at other sites across the Maya lowlands (summarised in Lentz 1999) hints at the widespread exchange of pine, beginning as early as the Preclassic period (Wiesen & Lentz 1999). We do not expect that pine had the same value in all Maya economies, nor that it circulated in similar ways throughout the lowlands. The data and interpretations presented in this paper, nevertheless, are a first step to understanding broader regional patterns in the exchange of pine products. What is clear, though, is that the ancient occupants of Xunantunich and their near neighbours at San Lorenzo made frequent use of pine products obtained from distances well beyond the range of routine foraging and distributed the commodities through what may have been politically motivated exchanges.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge the Belize Department of Archaeology, particularly Commissioner John Morris, and his predecessor, Allan Moore. We also thank our XAP colleagues, especially Richard Leventhal and Lisa LeConnt. Chris Morehart, Cliff Ransom and Nyree Zerega provided excellent technical assistance in the paleoethnobotanical laboratory. We are grateful to Norman Hammond and Stephen Houston for comments on earlier drafts of this paper. Funding was provided by the National Science Foundation (SBR9321503, SBR9530949, SBR9618540), the University of Pennsylvania Museum, and Penn's Department of Anthropology and School of Arts and Sciences.

Received: 19 April 2004; Revised: 14 January 2005; Accepted: 2 May 2005

References

ABRAMS, E.M. 1994. How the Maya built their world: energetics and ancient architecture. Austin: University of Texas Press.

ASHMORE, W. & R.M. LEVENTHAL. 1993. Xunantunich reconsidered. Paper presented at the First Belize Conference, Jacksonville, FL.

ATRAN, S. & E. UCAN EK'. 1999. Classification of useful plants by the northern Peten Maya (Itzaj), in C.D. White (ed.) Reconstructing ancient Maya diet: 19-59. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

AWE, J.J. 1985. Archaeological investigations at Caledonia, Cayo District, Belize. MA Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent University.

BALICK, M.J., M.H. NEE & D.E. ATHA. 2000. Checklist of the vascular plants of Belize. Memoirs of the New York Botanical Garden vol. 85. Bronx.

BALL, J.W. & J.T. TASCHEK. 1991. Late Classic lowland Maya political organization and central-place analysis: new insights from the upper Belize valley. Ancient Mesoamerica 2: 149-65.

BARRERA MARIN, A., A.B. VAZQUEZ & R.M. LOPEZ FRANCO. 1976. Nomenclatura etnobotanica Maya: Una interpretacion taxonamica. Instituto National de Antropologia e Historia, Coleccion Cientifica 36. Mexico City.

BERLIN, B., D.E. BREEDLOVE & P.H. RAVES. 1974. Principles of Tzehal plant classification: an introduction to the botanical ethnography of a Mayan-speaking people of highland Chiapas. New York: Academic.

BREEDLOVE, D.E. & N.A. HOPKINS. 1971. A study of Chuj (Mayan) plants with notes on their uses II. The Wasmann journal of biology 29:107-28.

BREEDLOVE, D.E. & R.M LAUGHLIN. 2000. The flowering of man: a Tzotzil botany of Zinacantan. (abridged ed.). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

CHASE, D.Z. & A.F. CHASE. 1998. The architectural contexts of caches, burials, and other ritual activities for the Classic period Maya (as reflected at Caracol, Belize), in S.D. Houston (ed.) Function and meaning in Classic Maya architecture: 299-332. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

DEAL, M. 1988. Recognition of ritual pottery in residential units: an ethnoarchaeological model of the Maya family altar tradition, in T.A. Lee & B. Hayden (ed.) Ethnoarchaeology among the highland Maya of Chiapas: 61-90. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation no. 26. Provo: Brigham Young University.

DICKAU, R. & D. LENTZ. 2001. Diets under duress: paleoethnobotanical evidence from dye Late Classic Maya of Aguateca. Paper presented at the 66th annual meeting for the Society for American Archacology, New Orleans.

DUNHAM, P.S. 1996. Resource exploitation and exchange among the Classic Maya: Some initial findings of the Maya Mountains Archaeological Project, in S.L. Fedick (ed.) The managed mosaic: ancient Maya agriculture and resource use: 315-34. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

FOIAS, A.E. 2002. At the crossroads: the economic basis of political power in the Petexbatun region, in M.A. Masson & D.A. Freidel (ed.)Ancient Maya political economies: 223-48. Walnut Creek: Altamira.

GRAHAM, E.A. 1987. Resource diversity in Belize and its implications for models of lowland trade. American Antiquity 52 (4): 753-67.

--2002. Perspectives on economy and theory, in M.A. Masson & D.A. Freidel (ed.) Ancient Maya political economies: 398-418. Walnut Creek: Altamira.

HAMMOND, N., G. TOURTELLOT, G. EVERSON, K.L. SAGEBIEL, B. THOMAS & M. WOLF. 2000. Survey and excavations at La Milpa, Belize, 1998. Mexicon 22 (2): 38-43.

HARCOURT, C.S. 1996. Belize, in C.S. Harcourt & J.A. Sayer (ed.) The conservation atlas of tropical forests: The Americas: 151-159. New York: Simon & Schuster.

HEHR, J.G. 1967. Charcoal: its multifarious effect in a rural Guatemalan community M.A Thesis, Department of Geography, Western Michigan University.

HIRTH, K.G. 1998. The distributional approach: a new way to identify marketplace exchange in the archaeological record. Current Anthropology 39 (4): 451-76.

LECOUNT, L.J. 1999. Polychrome pottery and political strategies in Late and Terminal Classic lowland Maya society. Latin American Antiquity 10: 239-58.

LECOUNT, L.J., J. YAEGER, R.M. LEVENTHAL & W. ASHMORE. 2002. Dating the rise and Fall of Xunantunich, Belize: a Late and Terminal Classic lowland Maya regional center. Ancient Mesoamerica 13 (1): 41-63.

LENTZ, D.L. 1989. Botanical remains from the El Cajon area: insights into a prehistoric dietary pattern, in K. Hirth, G.L. Pinto & G. Hasemann (ed.) Archaeological research in the El Cajon region, 1: prehistoric cultural ecology: 187-206. Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology, no. 1. Pittsburgh: Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh.

--1991. Maya diets of the rich and poor: paleoethnobotanical evidence from Copan, Latin American Antiquity 2: 269-87.

--1994. Paleoethnobotanical evidence for subsistence practices and other economic activities in the Petexbatun region during the Classic Period. Paper presented at the 93rd American Anthropological Association Meetings, Atlanta.

--1999. Plant resources of the ancient Maya: the paleoethnobotanical evidence, in C.D. White (ed.) Reconstructing ancient Maya diet:. 3-18. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

LENTZ, D.L., M.P. BEAUDRY-CORBETT, M.L.R. DE AGUILAR & L. KAPLAN. 1996. Foodstuffs, forest, fields and shelter: a paleoethnobotanical analysis of vessel contents from the Ceren site, El Salvador. Latin American Antiquity 7: 247-62.

LENTZ, D.L., C.R. RAMIREZ & B.W. GRIMSON. 1997. Formative period subsistence and forest product extraction at the Yarumela site, Honduras. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 63-74.

LEVENTHAL, R.M. & W. ASHMORE. 2004. Xunantunich in a Belize valley context, in J.F. Garber (ed.) The ancient Maya of the Belize valley: half century of archaeological research. Tallahassee: University Press of Florida.

MASSON, M.A. & D.A. FREIDEL (ed.) 2002. Ancient Maya political economies. Walnut Creek: Altamira.

MCGEE, J.R. 1990. Life, ritual, and religion among the Lacandon Maya. Belmont: Wadsworth.

MIKSICEK, C.H. 1983. Macrofloral remains in the Pulltrouser area: settlements and fields, in B.L. Turner & P.D. Harrison (ed.) Pulltrouser swamp: ancient Maya habitat, agriculture and settlement in northern Belize: 94-104. Austin: University of Texas Press.

--1991. The economy and ecology of Cuello, in N. Hammond (ed.) Cuello: an early Maya community in Belize: 70-97. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

MOREHART, C.T. 2001. Preliminary analysis of paleoethnobotanical samples from Pook's Hill, Cayo District Belize. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

--2003. Paleoethnobotany at Avila, in J.M. Ferguson, M.H. Oland & M. Masson (ed.). Belize Postclassic Project 2002: investigation of the shore settlements of Progresso Lagoon and San Estevan: 126-32. Occasional Publication no. 9, Institute of Mesoamerican Studies. Albany: The University at Albany.

MOREHART, C.W., K.M. PRUFER & D.L. LENTZ. 2003. Wood of the gods: the ritual use of pine in ancient Maya society. Paper presented at the 68th Annual Meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, Milwaukee.

OAKES, M. 1951. The two crosses of Todos Santos: survivals of Mayan religious ritual. New York: Pantheon.

PERRY, J.P., JR. 1991. The pines of Mexico and Central America. Portland: Timber.

Rice, P.M. 1987. Economic change in the lowland Maya Late Classic period, in E. Brumfiel and T.K. Earle (ed.) Specialization, exchange, and complex societies: 76-85. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

ROBIN, C. 1999. Towards an archaeology of everyday life: Maya farmers of Chan Noohol and Dos Chombitos Cik'in, Belize. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

--2002a. Outside of houses: the practices of everyday life at Chan Noohol, Belize. Journal of Social Archaeology 2 (2): 245-68.

--2002b. Gender and Maya farming: Chan Noohol, Belize, in T. Ardren (ed.) Ancient Maya women: 12-30. Walnut Creek: Altamira.

SMITH, M.E. 1987. Household possessions and wealth in agrarian states: implications for archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6 (4): 297-335.

TEDLOCK, B. 1982. Time and the highland Maya. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

THOMAS, D.H. 1986. Refiguring anthropology: first principles of probability and statistics. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

THOMPSON, J.E.S. 1930. Ethnology of the Mayas of southern and central British Honduras. Field Museum of Natural History Anthropological Series 17: 23-213. Chicago.

VOGT, E.Z. 1969. Zinacantan: a Maya community in the highlands of Chiapas. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University.

WHITE, C.D. (ed.). 1999. Reconstructing ancient Maya diet. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

WIESEN, A. & D.L. LENTZ. 1999. Preclassic floral remains at Cahal Pech and Pacbitun, Belize: summary report, in P.F. Heals (ed.) Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: report on the 1996 and 1997 field seasons: 53-67. Occasional papers no. 12. Peterborough, Ontario: Department of Anthropology, Trent University.

WISDOM, C. 1940. The Chorti Indians of Guatemala. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

YAEGER, J. 2000a. Changing patterns of social organization: the Late and Terminal Classic communities at San Lorenzo, Cayo District, Belize. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

--2000b. The social construction of communities in the Classic Maya countryside: strategies of affiliation in Western Belize, in M.A. Canuto & J. Yaeger (ed.) The archaeology of communities: a New World perspective: 123-42. London: Routledge.

--2003. Untangling the ties that bind: the city, the countryside, and the nature of Maya urbanism, in M.L. Smith (ed.) The social construction of ancient cities: 121-55. Washington, PC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

David L. Lentz (1), Jason Yaeger (2), Cynthia Robin (3) & Wendy Ashmore (4)

(1) Chicago Botanic Garden, 1000 Lake Cook Road, Glencoe, IL 60022, USA (Email: dlentz@chicagobotanic.org)

(2) Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1180 Observatory Dr., Madison, WI 53706, USA (Email: jyaeger@wisc.edu)

(3) Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, 1810 Hinman Ave., Evanston, IL 60208, USA (Email: c-robin@nwu.edu)

(4) Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, Watkins Hall 1229, Riverside, CA 92521, USA (Email: wendy.ashmore@ucr.edu)

Table 1. Wood remains from three upper Belize river valley sites

 Number of contexts

Site Pine Hardwood All samples

Xunantunich 24 80 101
San Lorenzo 24 128 176
Chan Noohol 3 86 92

 Weight (g)

Site Pine Hardwood All samples

Xunantunich 8.80 79.22 158.77
San Lorenzo 0.76 85.78 148.33
Chan Noohol 0.04 146.01 163.30

Table 2. Contingency table for the chi-square test comparing
wood use at three sites in the upper Belize river valley.
[O.sub.1] equals the number of observed contexts containing
pine or hardwood and [E.sub.1] equals the expected value
(see Thomas 1986)

 [O.sub.1]-
Site and wood type [O.sub.1] [E.sub.1] [E.sub.1]

Chan Noohol pine 3 8.65 -5.65
Chan Noohol hardwoods 86 80.35 5.65
San Lorenzo pine 23 30.71 -5.71
San Lorenzo hardwoods 291 285.29 5.71
Xunantunich pine 24 12.64 11.36
Xunantunich hardwoods 106 117.36 -11.36

 [([O.sub.1]-
 [([O.sub.1]- [E.sub.1])
 [E.sub.1]) .sup.2]/
Site and wood type .sup.2] [E.sub.1]

Chan Noohol pine 31.93 0.30
Chan Noohol hardwoods 31.93 0.40
San Lorenzo pine 32.65 1.06
San Lorenzo hardwoods 32.65 0.11
Xunantunich pine 129.15 10.22
Xunantunich hardwoods 129.15 1.10

[chi square] = 16.58 (df = 2), p < 0.001 = 13.816.