Mayflower Archaeology Project (MAP)

Mapping & Survey

Introduction
In 1996 the Mayflower Archaeological Project Survey (MAPS) initiated a comprehensive survey and mapping program designed to document all mounds and features associated with the Mayflower site. MAPS will attempt to continue this work in the coming years, concentrating its efforts and resources in several key areas. We will continue mapping the structures located in the site core and expand our efforts to include all mounds and features within .5 km of Mayflower.

Extensive pedestrian transect surveys will be conducted to further define the extent and nature of ancient settlement around the site core. Finally, a series of Shovel Test Pit (STP) programs will be implemented to uncover evidence of activity, define the occupation areas and test the accuracy of surface survey. The sections below describe the research undertaken in 1996, our research goals for the 1997 season (and beyond) and the methods and techniques we are employing.

Reconnaissance Survey Methodology
The US Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines define "reconnaissance survey" as pedestrian or windshield survey with little or no subsurface testing. As such, they provide little information about specific cultural resources. They are, however, occasionally required, especially if little is known initially about the research area. A preliminary reconnaissance survey was performed at the beginning of the 1996 field season to assess field conditions and obvious disturbances within the area to delineate regions that were appropriate for intensive pedestrian survey.

Mapping Methodology
The first objective of the 1996 Mayflower Archaeological Project Survey (MAPS) was to create a comprehensive baseline grid based on the UTM system. The MAPS grid was tied into the UTM grid using existing landmarks as determined by 1:50,000 scale maps and by use of a GPS system. This baseline grid is represented by several permanent datums located on and near Mayflower and Maintzunun. Practical experience dictated that several permanent datums would ensure the grid’s longevity should an accident compromise the integrity of any given datum. Permanent datum points were created using poured cement and rebar, as well as permanent geological entities.

Upon completion of the baseline grid for each site, a new map of existing structures identified by Graham was created and tied to our permanent grid. The re-mapping of these sites allowed for a detailed inspection of any significant changes that have occurred to these structures including looting, biological or faunal turbation. In addition to redocumenting Graham’s maps and correcting several errors, the preliminary survey uncovered several new mounds and features which were added to the core map for each site.

In 1997 we attempted to complete the mapping of the site core and continue the systematic mapping of the area within .5 km of the center of Mayflower. The resulting data (presented below) begin to indicate the extent and density of ancient settlement. These maps provide the foundation for future research on settlement patterning, economic, social and political organization and will be refined and enlarged as the MAP progresses in future years. If time permits or high concentrations of settlements are found, we will enlarge the areas of the mapping to acquire additional data in future years.

Intensive Pedestrian Transect Survey Methodology
Intensive pedestrian survey is the only reliable method for achieving thorough coverage of a study area. It is designed to locate previously unreported cultural resources and to relocate previously reported cultural resources. Due to limitations of time and resources only a few pedestrian transects were completed in 1996. Though limited in scope, these transects located a small new site as well as new features at Maintzunun and Mayflower. Transects between the three main sites will be completed in the future and additional pedestrian survey will be conducted in the area surrounding Mayflower. A transect survey was established in 1997 to discover and record new outlying structures, which will be linked into the baseline grid. The initial focus of the transects are to explore the spatial inter-relationship of these three sites in order to identify outlying structures associated with these sites and to record the landscape that these sites occupy. This relationship will be explored by performing transects on the shortest (or most efficient) path between the three sites. This transect survey will also sample the area of land enclosed in the arbitrary triangle formed by the distribution of the three sites. The project has secured a Robotic Geometer Theodolite which will allow for site maps and transects to be completed.

Shovel Test Pit Survey and Site Definition Methodology
Shovel test pits (STPs) will be excavated in and around the site core to identify middens associated with known structures, to provide quick chronologies, and to locate "hidden" structures and activity areas. The use of STPs at Dos Pilas, Guatemala, and the preliminary results of the MAP STP program indicate that the tropical lowlands are ideally suited for this type of research program.

In 1996, three groups of STPs were placed in the core area. One group each surrounded the bases of Mayflower Structures A-8 and A-11 while the third covered the area between the Mayflower mounds and Silk Grass Creek. In all three groups the STPs were placed systematically every two meters. The extremely low density of artifacts retrieved in the STPs surrounding Structure A-11 indicated that this area was regularly cleaned—a characteristic of public or ceremonial architecture. Conversely, the STPs surrounding Structure A-8, located away from the main plaza area, revealed a midden (later excavated as a controlled 2 m x 2 m test pit) which contained a high density of coarse ceramic ware, lithics, and lithic debitage—a characteristic of domestic units. In the initial surface survey of the third area between the Mayflower mounds and Silk Grass Creek no cultural materials were retrieved. However, after excavating over thirty STPs in this area nearly all contained cultural material including the remains of a low terrace wall.

These results reveal the potential for using STPs to expose unobtrusive occupation and activity areas, as well as promptly identifying what types of activities might have occurred in or around structures. STPs will enable the MAP to expeditiously acquire large amounts of valuable data concerning the size and function of mounds and activity areas without the destruction associated with full scale excavations. The data obtained from STPs will further enable better placement of controlled 2 m x 2 m test pits—optimizing both time and resources. The STP program continued in 1997 in the site core, testing structures at the Mayflower site core. In addition to the site core, STPs will be excavated along some transect lines and, if possible, near smaller mounds outside the core area in order to identify activities unrecorded by the surface survey and determine the nature and extent of the settlement in these areas. The methodology and techniques of employing STPs are discussed below:

1. The primary implementation of this technique will be used in the previously defined site core. STPs will be placed at 1 m intervals around the base of existing structures. These STPs will be approximately 30 cm in diameter and their depths will be dependent upon bedrock and Holocene deposits. Soil removed from the STPs will be screened using 1/4 inch mesh screens. Cultural materials will be collected and labeled with the appropriate STP #, date, excavator, contents and number of bags. Results of the test will be recorded, providing an expedient density and distribution map of artifacts. Strata within selected shovel tests will be characterized according to soil type (e.g., sandy clay) and Munsell colors. The data will be used to construct an initial overview of strata across the site which will subsequently be used to guide the placement and depth of later excavation units.

2. STPs will also be used to test the hypotheses that structures constructed of perishable building materials and activity areas located near the site core are not readily identifiable. Previously such structures and activity areas were only identified by chance encounter or with large scale extramural stripping projects. By placing several 100 m x 100 m grids in and around the site core it is hypothesized that by distributing STPs at 3 m intervals across this grid these ephemeral structures and activity areas will be quickly and accurately identified.

3. Finally, STPs will be used to test the precision of the conventional transect surveys in site definitions. A sample of documented transect lines will be chosen to have STPs placed along the same axis of travel that the original surveyor used. These STPs will follow the conventional application of STPs in long-distance surveys: STPs will be placed every 10 m along the line of travel of the original surveyor and if no artifacts are encountered the STP is recorded as negative and the surveyor moves on. If the surveyor encounters artifacts the unit is positive. When a positive unit is identified the surveyor will open up four additional STP units 3 m away from the positive STP. The new STPs will form a cross, with the original STP as the center point. If any more artifacts are encountered in these exploratory STPs then the same positive response technique will be implemented. These lineal shovel tests, in conjunction with surface scatter, provide data regarding the horizontal extent and boundaries of the activity. If no artifacts are encountered in any of the units the original artifact(s) is ruled an isolated find, it is documented and the surveyor moves on.

   After horizontal site definition is completed, larger units will be excavated as necessary to obtain data concerning subsurface artifact density and depth of deposit, and to assess subsurface disturbance. At minimum, one 50 cm x 50 cm unit will be excavated in 10 cm levels to a depth of two sterile levels. Additional units may be excavated to obtain data for various portions of the sites. These units become impractical when artifacts occur at depths greater than 70 cm, and in these cases, the unit will be expanded into a 1 m x 1 m unit. Strata in these units will be examined to characterize soil types, Munsell colors, and subsurface disturbance.

   Where there is a possibility of recovering small-sized floral and faunal remains, soil samples will be collected from the excavation units. These will be either wet screened through 1/16 inch mesh or a water flotation device will be used.

Controlled surface collections may also be used for site definition. At minimum, a 2 m x 2 m surface provenience will be established within an area where artifacts are concentrated. A thorough collection of that provenience will be made, with artifacts being placed in bags labeled with the provenience grid coordinates. Use of controlled provenience of standard size will allow a comparison of surface densities of the three known sites within the area.

General surface collections may be collected to supplement controlled surface collections. Crew members will flag the extent of surface scatter and all concentrations so that these can be plotted on the site map.

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Resource Base Map
GIS data layers for much of Belize are either nonexistent, or cover limited areas. One of the goals for the MAP will be to produce GIS data layers for the Stann Creek district based on currently available 1:50,000 scale data. In addition to currently available data, other new data layers will be created to approximate the resource landscape inhabited by the Maya. A more fine-scale GIS data layer may be constructed for each site and its immediate landscape in the future.

The resource landscape of the Stann Creek District will include, where applicable:

1. Ocean – saltwater resource locations; fish, crustaceans, avian
2. Streams – navigable waterways, resource rich non-navigable waterways (fish, fresh water)
3. Lakes – fresh water, food resources
4. Ponds – potable water or not, potential food resources
5. Springs – seasonal
6. Locations of general flora and fauna resources, coastal, intermontane, and mountain.
7. Areas of potentially cultivable lands (based on Digital Elevation Models and field observations)
8. Lithic resource areas
9. Clay resource areas
10. Commercially exploitable exotic resource locations (jade, obsidian, stingray spines, etc.)
11. Caves (and their relation to known sites)

After the 1997 field season was complete our team created several small scale maps of the Mayflower region. These were to be expanded as work continued at the site and provide further information on spatial relationships of the site components. Several maps were completed before our relationship with the 1997 survey team expired. Figure 5 is a wire-frame model of the Mayflower area, the white box represents the Mayflower core area. Figure 6 is a false-color rendering of the same area.

1997 Survey & Mapping
The College of Lake County provided MAP with a Topcon Model 302 Total Station with data collector and prism/pole set-up to use during a 4 week period this summer. Over 5,000 data points were recorded with the Total Station during this time letting us produce the first high quality topographic map of the Mayflower Main Group. Figure 7 is a 10 cm topographic contour map of the Mayflower Main Group clearly showing the mounds comprising this group. Several things are visible when examining this map. First, the central, outset stairways for Structures A-9, A-10, and A-11 are all easily located (see Figure 2 to compare and for structure numbers). Second, in the lower right corner of Figure 7 two new mounds were located and mapped near Structure A-8.

In addition to contour maps we have been able to perform some basic 3D renderings of the Main Group. Figure 8 and Figure 9 represent an isometric view of Mayflower from the southwest. As the database increases with the mapping of additional areas of the site this 3D rendering will enable us to better view the spatial relationships between structures, sites, and the environment. Also, as the large scale rendering of Structure A-8 (Figure 10 and Figure 11) demonstrates, the looter’s pits and previous excavation pits can be recorded with a high degree of accuracy.

With the aid of the Total Station, the project was able to establish additional survey benchmarks within the Mayflower group. Using the initial project benchmark (established in 1996) just north of Maintzunun off of the F.S.R. #2 spur, MAP established a sub-benchmark in the Mayflower Main Plaza near the stela cache excavated by Graham in 1976. This benchmark was set with rebar in cement with a backsight (also rebar in cement) located near the base of Structure A-1.

Last year’s excavation units were established using a transit and a slightly different grid system. In 1997 we were able to use the Total Station to establish new, more accurate grid and synchronize the coordinates for the previous excavation units of the Structure A-8 excavations as well as lay out the newer excavation units around A-8, A-11, and in the plaza area.

Using the Total Station to map Mayflower enables us to easily expand the mapping program and integrate the new data with those from previous seasons. In future years, the site core map will be expanded to include Maintzunun and the other areas around Mayflower. Also, through the use of computer topography programs and imaging systems we will be able to plot archaeological data more easily and accurately as well as include information obtained during multiple field seasons.

During the 1996 field season, pedestrian survey of the chained banana field east/northeast of Mayflower revealed the existence of several previously unknown mounds. A road cut made in July of 1996 uncovered subsurface features that have been determined to be living or activity areas. The 1997 survey was to focus on this area again, but due to the amount of vegetation re-growth it was determined that the survey focus be shifted to the areas immediately north, south, and west of the Mayflower Main Group.

Three distinct areas were investigated and thus assigned separate operations for purposes of data collection. Operation 5 included the area immediately north of the Main Group, Operation 6 comprised of the areas west and south of Mayflower, and Operation 7 encompassed the survey of possible quarry sites and caves near T’au Witz. The survey methodology varied from operation to operation depending on terrain, time, and manpower availability (discussed in more detail below). The different methods were also employed to determine a feasible way in which to survey in the rain forest growth of the region.

Operation 5 comprised an area between the Main Group and the present day river terrace to the north. Based upon experiences in regions with similar forest cover survey lines were located 15 m apart, the maximum distance allowable between surveyors and for visibility of any cultural features on the forest floor. Due to an unfortunate accident that left the project surveyor with a broken arm, not all transects in this area were finished. Approximately 45% of Operation 5 was surveyed.

A total of 4 lines of stone were located in the areas surveyed. All were small, low (30-70 cm high) mounds with between 2 and 8 worked stones on the surface. In most cases several other stones were located below the surface by probing the mound area with a 30 cm chaining pin. It turns out that these lines of stone comprise two mounds (A12 & A13) that will be investigated at a later date. The location of each these mounds were recorded and appears on the revised site map (Figure 12 and Figure 13).

The presence of subsurface stones at several of these mounds, along with the evidence of entire living/activity areas found beneath the present surface last year in Operation 4 (the chained banana field east of Mayflower), leads us to believe that the occupational density might be much higher than evidenced by visible mounds in this area. Future research will focus on completing the transect survey of this area as well as obtaining additional data on subsurface occupation areas.

Operation 6 employed a different method for locating mounds in the area west and southwest of the Main Group. One small transect was cut to facilitate entry to the area west of the Main Group. A crew of three local workmen was then assigned areas of approximately 500 m² to walk through, slowly and methodically, but not using any formal survey lines, searching for any evidence of cultural activity. A total of 13 previously unrecorded mounds were identified in the area west of the Main Group. As in the previous operation, most of these were small, low mounds (30-60 cm high) with only a few stones visible on the surface, though additional probing often revealed other subsurface stones. Transects cut to the south and west of Structure A-8 for the purpose of obtaining data for the topographic map revealed two additional mounds in close proximity to Structure A-8.

All new structures with substantial architecture were recorded and appear on the revised site map (Figure 12 and Figure 13). The two mounds close to Structure A-8 were completely recorded with the Total Station. As in Operation 5, the low height of the mounds and the presence of subsurface stone also indicate that additional subsurface features may be located in this area.

Operation 7 is located south of Mayflower and comprises the area around the site of T’au Witz, which is above Mayflower on a ridge that forms the south side of a box canyon. While this area was not slated for survey this season, several potential quarry sites were discovered between the 1996 and 1997 season by Florentino Bol and Ramon Guzman, two of MAP’s workmen from the 1996 field season who are now employees of the DOA. Upon the advice of Archaeological Commissioner John Morris, who had seen the potential quarry sites before we arrived for the 1997 season, we set up a survey of the area.

Four areas were investigated as potential quarries looking for evidence of stone cutting, working, and other cultural evidence. Three of the sites were located by Bol and Guzman and the fourth possible site was located while cutting a transect between Mayflower and T’au Witz.

Quarry One is located on the north face of the ridge while Quarries Two and Three are located on the south face of the same ridge. All three sites appear to be natural outcroppings of conglomerate stone (similar to granite). A simple viewing of all three sites indicates that cutting of the outcrops was in progress. Numerous straight (and obviously not natural) cuts in the outcrops can be seen at all three sites. Potentially large stones (large enough to be stelae) are halfway cut, indicating that the stone was in the process of being quarried. This activity was abandoned halfway through the process and presently we have no way of telling how much, if any, of the stone was actually mined.

While it is obvious that human activity was occurring in the area, rock samples from all three quarries produced very poor quality stone. The grains in the samples are much larger than those of the T’au Witz Stela and the pieces from the Mayflower stela cache, and it is not the same stone that appears to be used as terrace facings for the mounds in the Mayflower Main Group. In addition, the stone was very brittle and would easily crumble under pressure from one’s hand. From this very preliminary analysis, it appears that this stone could not be used for anything as delicate as stelae or even for terrace walls. Continued survey and excavations will be required to clear up these questions.

The fourth potential quarry site is located approximately 3/4 of the way down the transect from Mayflower to T’au Witz. It is a natural outcropping of granite very similar to stela and facing stones of Mayflower. Approximately 50 m north of this outcrop is a small mound upon which sits a large pile of stone chips—many with beveled edges and right angles. This site’s location between the rock outcrop and Mayflower may indicate that it functioned as a stone-working site.

Although there is no evidence of cultural material at the rock outcrop, the presence of the small mound with the stone chips just a short distance away suggests that this area might be the best candidate for the Mayflower site’s quarry. It is a short and gentle downhill slope from this outcrop to Mayflower as well as being located fairly close to T’au Witz.

Additional work is still needed in all three of these operations. Research is needed concerning the exact composition of stone from the both the Mayflower constructions and from the potential quarry sites thus far identified as well as continued survey for other potential quarry sites. Not all areas north and west of the site have been covered by pedestrian survey and future work will certainly uncover additional mounds and subsurface features.

Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page