Je'reftheel, Roaring Creek Works, Belize

heart of earth StUDIeS IN Maya rItUaL CaVe USe edited by James e. Brady aSSoCIatIoN for MeXICaN CaVe StUDIeS BULLetIN 23 2012 4 AMCS Bulletin 23 — Heart of Earth Cover photo: this structure at the back of Quen Santo Cave 3, huehuetenango, Guatemala, was called the temple room by eduard Seler in his report published in 1901. the room is still an important pilgrimage destination for the Maya. Photograph by allan Cobb. association for Mexican Cave Studies Po Box 7672 austin, texas 78713 www.amcs-pubs.org ©2012 James. e. Brady Printed in the United States of america AMCS Bulletin 23 — Chapter 6 — Helmke and Wrobel 69 6 Je’reftheel, roaring Creek Works, Belize Christophe G. B. helmke and Gabriel D. Wrobel The small dry cave of Je’reftheel (Plautdietsch for ‘Skeleton Cave,’ a.k.a. Franz Harder Cave after the cave’s discoverer) is located on the outskirts of the modern Mennonite village known as Springield in the eastern karstic hills of the Roaring Creek Valley (Figure 1). The area is generally known as the southern Roaring Creek Works and refers to a series of limestone hills deined by the course of the Roaring Creek to the west and the Caves Branch River to the east. Recent settlement has resulted in the nearly complete dismantling and leveling of all ancient housemounds in the direct vicinity of the site (Franz Harder, personal communication, 2003), and thus we cannot speak to the relationship of Je’reftheel to a speciic community in antiquity. However, it should be noted that during recent investigations, members of the Caves Branch Archaeological Survey (CBAS) project have observed the presence of housemounds in several locations in the surrounding area, and have documented the existence of several new large urban cores (Andres et al. 2011). These data suggest the presence of relatively dense settlement and a social hierarchy established in the area during the Late Classic period. Access to the cave is gained via a small diagonal issure (measuring at most 4.5 m wide and 0.6 m high) in a limestone outcrop. This issure opens up into a narrow vertical Figure 1. Map of the Caves Branch and roaring Creek Valleys, showing the location of Je’reftheel and neighboring archaeological sites. Map by Shawn Morton. 70 AMCS Bulletin 23 — Chapter 6 — Helmke and Wrobel Figure 2. Plan of Je’reftheel indicating the location of archaeological features. AMCS Bulletin 23 — Chapter 6 — Helmke and Wrobel chimney that is just barely big enough for an adult to squeeze into, forming the entrance. The c. 5 m high shaft connects to the narrow (c. 0.7 m wide) and high (over 5 m) Passage 1 (Figure 2). In all, Passage 1 measures at least 14 m in length (north-south). The northern end of Passage 1 is illed by a steep breakdown talus that drops sharply from the entrance. Climbing down the breakdown from the entrance, leads to the mid-point of Passage 1, where the breakdown gives way to a mostly level loor, composed of wet and very sticky clay. Passage 1 continues to the south and ends at a small ledge overlooking Chamber 1. Directly below the ledge is a deep and vertical solution funnel that punctures the looring of Chamber 1, greatly complicating entry into Chamber 1. Even with sturdy ladders, experienced cavers have taken at least half an hour to make it from the entrance to Chamber 1 (despite the short 17 m circuit separating the two). Although Chamber 1 measures only 3.8 by 4.4 m, its ceiling is far higher than that of Passage 1. The loor of Chamber 1 is composed mostly of colluvium formed by repeated seepage and minor collapse of the cave’s ceiling. Leading off from the southeast is the narrow Passage 2 that connects to the cave’s largest chamber (Chamber 2). Although unconirmed, it seems possible that Passage 2 was widened in antiquity, based on the roughly quadrangular shape of the aperture and what appears to be a spoil heap at the western threshold in Chamber 1. Chamber 2 measures as much as 10.6 m long (north-south) and 5.5 m wide (east-west), although the ceiling is only suficiently high to permit standing over a third of the chamber’s total surface area. The northern end of Chamber 2 is characterized by limestone bedrock, while the southernmost extremity is partly engulfed by a small breakdown, covered in active drip-water formations. A sharp drop in the ceiling at the eastern side of the chamber forms Alcove 1 that is separate in terms of ambient space from the remainder of the larger chamber. At the southeastern corner of Alcove 1 is a small solution funnel that extends vertically downwards for 2 to 3 m. From the southern end of Alcove 1 is the narrow and low Passage 3 that exhibits active drip-water formations (maximum width and length are c. 1 m and 2.2 m respectively). Passage 3 connects to the small Chamber 3 that measures 2.4 m in diameter, on average, and has a maximum ceiling height of c. 1.2 m. The entire west wall of Chamber 2 is coated in drip-water and lowstone formations. A small opening (c. 0.5 x 0.7 m) in this curtain of formations leads down into Chamber 4, the cave’s smallest chamber. The entirety of Chamber 4 is coated in lowstone and drip water formations. The only portions of the cave that are suficiently big to accommodate groups of Figure 3. the olive shell tinkler that forms feature 2. Left: Drawing of the shell tinkler. Drawing by Gustavo Valenzuela. right: Photo of the tinkler, calciied in situ onto a brecciated limestone shelf. Photograph by Christophe helmke. 71 up to ive people are Chambers 1 and 2, while all others at most can only accommodate one person at a time. Account of Investigations Following the initial report of Je’reftheel in 2003 to the Belize Institute of Archaeology by a group of three Springield Mennonites, a small team led by Christophe Helmke and Jaime Awe reconnoitered the site in an effort to conirm its location and unlooted status. Later, the team began a short and intensive effort to map the entirety of the cave, produce detailed plans of archaeological features, record all artifact remains, and collect several representative soil and carbon samples. Sherry Gibbs also conducted preliminary in situ analyses of the human remains, indicating a preliminary MNI estimate of 18. Small teams followed up these efforts on brief visits to the cave in 2005 and 2006. In 2007, the two authors returned to carry out the speciic task of documenting, exhuming and recovering the scattered surface deposits of human remains in Alcove 1 of Chamber 2 for detailed laboratory analyses. Upon discovering that many of the bones were still articulated within the underlying clay matrix, the collection activities were halted. A later team from the CBAS project led by Wrobel revisited the site in 2009 and 2010 to carefully excavate and document the position of all human remains in an attempt to discern interment practices and to interpret the nature of subsequent movement of bone. Laboratory analyses of the human remains are ongoing. Artifacts and Features All artifacts and features found in association with Je’reftheel were found within the cave and the eleven identiied concentrations were designated from the southernmost recesses of Chamber 2 outwards to Passage 1. Feature 1 is a small scatter of a few disarticulated human remains that is commingled with minor collapse on the breakdown slope, at the southern end of Chamber 2. The bones have been leached due to the drip-water activity in this area and are therefore quite brittle. These were likely relocated in antiquity on the basis of differential preservation. Feature 2 refers to a perforated Olive shell (Oliva sp.) tinkler that had been placed on a small limestone shelf in the 72 AMCS Bulletin 23 — Chapter 6 — Helmke and Wrobel Figure 4. Chert lanceolate biface, from Chamber 4. Drawing by Gustavo Valenzuela. southeastern portion of Chamber 2 (Figure 3). The tinkler had been deposited there in antiquity with lowstone subsequently bonding the artifact to the shelf. The presence of more tinklers in Feature 5 (discussed below) may indicate secondary movement of primary deposits within the cave, although it seems probable that the olive shell tinkler was purposefully placed at its ind spot and constitutes its own discrete feature. Feature 3 is a dense cluster of highly commingled human remains, composed mostly of long bones (MNI = 3). The feature is situated in Chamber 2, at the southern mouth of the entrance to the small Chamber 4. The feature has the appearance of a ‘bundle burial’ (see Reese-Taylor et al. 2006). Since no textile remains were found with the feature, the bundling of these bones remains open to question, although these were clearly gathered into a discrete cluster secondarily, subsequent to ossiication. Feature 4 comprises all the human remains that have been found within Chamber 4 and the narrow passage connecting it to Chamber 2. At the western extremity of Chamber 4 the human remains are represented mostly by long bones and a fragmentary mandible, while the smaller passage contains two skulls and smaller bones. Included within Feature 4 was a complete, inely knapped, chert lanceolate biface (Figure 4). Features 3 and 4 lie directly beneath a shaft in the cave ceiling in which numerous bats roost. A comparison of pictures of Feature 3 taken in 2003 and 2009 shows the rapid deterioration and displacement resulting from the accumulations of guano, as well as the death and putrefaction of dead bats in the area during this interval (Figure 5). The area around Feature 3 slopes slightly down to the very small passage containing Feature 4. Features 3 and 4 may therefore represent part of the same deposit, since there is no distinct Figure 5. Pictures of feature 3 taken in 2003 (left) and covered by guano in 2009 (right). AMCS Bulletin 23 — Chapter 6 — Helmke and Wrobel 73 Figure 6. Panoramic view of feature 5 within Chamber 3 (looking south-east from Passage 3). Composite photo-mosaic by Christophe helmke. Figure 7. the concentrations of perforated shell tinklers, feature 5, Chamber 3. a) a concentration of shells associated with pelvic bones (encircled). b) Close-up view of the shell tinklers in situ. Photos by Christophe helmke. break within the bone scatter. Gibbs’s in situ analysis in 2003 (prior to the putrefaction of bats) identiied an MNI of 3 for Feature 3 and 4 for Feature 4. Feature 5 represents all the well-preserved and highly commingled human remains of Chamber 3, as well as associated artifacts (Figure 6). Artifacts included a small ceramic jar (Vessel 1), numerous perforated Dwarf Olive (Olivella sp.) shell tinklers and other marine gastropod shells, L-shaped adornments made of carved shell with greenstone appliqués, several carved shell adornos, and a stemmed chert biface. One cluster of tinklers found in association with pelvic bones (Figures 7a and 7b) originally must have formed part of a belt assemblage, in keeping with iconographic representations (Figure 8). Another cluster was found encircling an articulated wrist, and it likely formed a bracelet (Figure 9). In the Roaring Creek Valley, similar shell tinklers have been found in the main burial chamber of Actun Kabul, at Actun Tunichil Mucnal in the westernmost extent of the Eastern Chambers, and in special deposits at Pook’s Hill. Otherwise comparable examples have been found in several other caves in the Lowlands, including Actun Balam (Pendergast 1969: 55, Fig. 10g), Eduardo Quiroz Cave (Pendergast 1971: 71, Fig. 17b-h), Actun Polbilche (Pendergast 1974: 55, 56, 59), Naj Tunich (Brady 1989: 286, Fig. 6.11a), Petroglyph Cave (Reents-Budet and MacLeod 1997: 42-43, 70-72, Fig. 49e and f), Actun Yaxteel Ahau (Owen and Gibbs 1999: 190-191, Fig. 2a), Actun Hub (Peterson 2006: 74 AMCS Bulletin 23 — Chapter 6 — Helmke and Wrobel Figure 8. Belts of shell tinklers in Late Classic Maya iconography, associated with military regalia. a) the ruler Itzamnaaj B’ahlam III (aD 681-742) in battle, grasping the hair of a vanquished foe (Lintel 46, yaxchilan). b) the ruler K’ahk’ Tiliw Chan Chaahk (aD 693-728) in military regalia, possibly dressed as a Yajaw K’ahk’ or ‘Vassal of fire’, a priestly military order (Stela 2, Naranjo). Black triangles point to the belts of shell tinklers. Drawings by Ian Graham. Figure 9. an olive shell bracelet around an articulated wrist from feature 5, Chamber 3. Photo by Gabriel Wrobel. Figure 10 (above). L-shaped ear adornments from feature 5, Chamber 3. AMCS Bulletin 23 — Chapter 6 — Helmke and Wrobel 75 found within the small Chamber 3. This involved the removal of surface deposits and excavation within the underlying shallow sticky clay matrix. Overall, the bones were in an excellent state of preservation, perhaps because of the limited foot trafic in this area resulting from the very narrow entrance passage. However, drip water in some areas has cemented bones in place, and guano by roosting bats has also resulted in degradation in other areas. Many of the bones in Feature 5 were still in articulation, indicating that the deceased individuals were deposited before the onslaught of decay, conforming to what can be termed primary interments. Nevertheless many individual elements were seemingly scattered within the chamber, suggesting subsequent movement following decomposition. As will be discussed below, in Feature 7 it appears that later interments were Figure 11. Stemmed biface from feature 5, Chamber 3. 46), Midnight Terror Cave (Brady 2009: 88), and Cuychen (Helmke et al. 2011). L-shaped artifacts have elsewhere been referred to as “boot-shaped adornments” (Coe 1959: 58) and “pins” (Pendergast 1990: 188, Figs. 91, 92b-c) and have been provisionally identiied as ear adornments (Pendergast 1990: 188) or labrets (Helmke 2009: 400-402). Nevertheless, as far as we are aware, the function of these adornments has not been adequately resolved to date. Signiicantly, the examples from Je’reftheel (Figure 10) were found as a pair in close association with articulated shoulder elements and cervical vertebrae, on either side of the skull of this individual. The context, as well as the fact that these specimens occurred as a paired set strongly suggests that these were used as ear adornments. Comparable specimens have been found at nearby surface sites, including three complete and two fragmentary ones at the Pook’s Hill plazuela, where these appear to have been made of dense, homogeneous and polished limestone (Helmke 2009: 402). These are very similar to examples found at other Lowland Maya sites including Deep Valley (Andres and Shelton 2010:Fig. 2.13), Altun Ha (Pendergast 1990: Fig. 92b-c, f, g-i), and further aield, at Piedras Negras (Coe 1959: 58, Fig. 55q-t). In terms of cave contexts similar examples have been noted from Petroglyph Cave (Reents and MacLeod 1997: 43, 66, 67, 93, 106, Fig. 49d), Actun Tunichil Mucnal (Helmke 2009: 400-402), Actun Yaxteel Ahau (Brady 2010:48), and from deposits at the nearby Sapodilla Rockshelter. The biface was discovered beneath a small lat stone near the entrance to Chamber 3 (Figure 11). No use-wear was evident, suggesting it may have been manufactured speciically for deposition within the cave. In the Belize Valley, Willey et al. (1965:412) identiied examples with the same general form as “tapered stem, long blade” bifaces (see speciically Fig. 261d, p. 413) and date them to the Late Classic period (Tiger Run and Spanish Lookout phases). Investigations by the CBAS during the 2010 ieldseason focused on creating a detailed map of all bones and artifacts Figure 12. the archaeological materials that together form feature 6, within the solution funnel at the south-eastern corner of alcove 1, Chamber 2. Composite photo-mosaic by Christophe helmke, based on photographs by Gabriel Wrobel. 76 AMCS Bulletin 23 — Chapter 6 — Helmke and Wrobel Figure 13. the pair of jars that form the westernmost extent of feature 7, alcove 1, Chamber 2. a) Vessel 3 (Cayo Unslipped). b) Vessel 4 (tinaja red). Drawings by elmer and Juan ramirez. c) Vessels 3 and 4 as found in situ. Note how the rim of Vessel 3 has been terminated by chipping at the rim and how the fragmented Vessel 4 has a small stalagmitic formation growing inside. Photograph by Christophe helmke. at least in part responsible for disrupting articulations of earlier ones. While this may also be the case in Feature 5, no bodies were completely articulated, suggesting that some other mechanism was at work as well. Our investigations in part sought to determine whether this movement of bones within the cave resulted from intentional manipulation as part of an extended mortuary ritual, intentional or unintentional displacement of bones in conjunction with the placement of later interments, and/or taphonomic forces such as water movement. Comparison of the plan view photos from 2004 and 2009 show that all six of the intact crania have shifted positions, as have some of the long bones. The mechanism(s) responsible is not clear, though certainly either occasional inundation of water or curious local visitors could be responsible. No elements present in the 2004 photo appeared to be missing during the 2010 season. Because of the excellent preservation and nearly complete collection of the feature 5 assemblage, our preliminary inventory conidently identiied nine individuals by cranial and/or dental remains. ongoing lab analysis seeks to match and assign postcranial elements to the skulls. an analysis of all cranial material from feature 5 shows the presence of both sexes and of both adults and sub-adults. thus, clearly, the rules governing interment within Je’reftheel did not pertain to inclusion within any speciic type of social group in which sex and age were clearly deined. Feature 6 comprises all the highly fragmentary human remains and small ceramic sherds found within the solution funnel, at the southeastern portion of Alcove 1 (Figure 12). Due to the drip-activity associated with Passage 3, it seems most likely that the materials found within the solution tunnel have been secondarily displaced from the archaeological remains found in Alcove 1. A fragmentary unslipped jar was also discovered within this solution tunnel as c. 27 sherds (Vessel 2). Feature 7 encompasses the fragmentary human remains and ceramic sherds that are widely scattered and partly imbedded into the silty loor of Alcove 1. Two jars—one redslipped and fragmentary (Vessel 4), the other complete (Vessel 3), except for a partially chipped lip—were set side-by-side, forming a discrete entity and the westernmost extent of this feature. A small stalagmite was found growing in the middle of the fragmentary jar, and the complete jar contained a small deposit of colluvium and a human phalange (Figure 13). Following initial surface collection of bones from Features 6 and 7 by the authors in 2007, intensive investigations by the CBAS project in 2009 focused on exposing and documenting the position, and speciically the presence of articulations, of bones from Feature 7. The entire feature was covered in a layer of dense, light gray clay (Level 1), which appears to have washed in over time and was similar to that found in Feature 5. Removal of Level 1, which was no more than 3 cm deep, revealed a single layer of bone lying on a surface of very dark clay (Level 2). The Level 2 surface was not completely horizontal, and sloped downward slightly towards the south towards Feature 6. As a result, Level 1 had illed in the depression and was deepest in this area. Because many of the bones were still articulated, it can be assumed that Level 2 was the original ground surface on which bodies were deposited. While the dark color may be the result of the heavy organic residue left by the decomposing bodies, no such layer was found in Feature 5. No bones or artifacts were found within Level 2. Beneath Level 2, which was approximately 6 cm thick, there was a distinct and sudden transition to a layer of white clay (Level 3). On this surface AMCS Bulletin 23 — Chapter 6 — Helmke and Wrobel in the northernmost corner of the area lay the remains of a partial and poorly preserved globular narrow-mouthed jar (Figure 14). The vessel was missing its base, and the top half, including the rim, were crushed lat. The ceramic was heavily burned, though no ash was evident in the vicinity, and the fragments were soft due to permeation of water. Attempts to remove the vessel failed, since the sherds were too brittle, and consequently these were left in situ. Level 3 was directly on the underlying lowstone. The clays of Levels 2 and 3 were distinctly different in color and texture, and thus it is entirely possible that this surface was prepared for its use as a platform for the placement and disposal of the dead. The bones from Feature 7 were in varying states of preservation as a result of erosion caused by drip water in some areas. After the rains began in late June of 2009, we noticed that drip activity increased dramatically, eroding a series of tiny vertical holes through the exposed clay. This action could easily account for the discrepancies noted in the preservation of bone in adjacent areas. During the excavation of Feature 7, ive partially articulated skeletons were identiied, and several other possible articulations were noted as clusters of anatomically related elements, though poor preservation prevented a deinite determination of whether they represented in situ individuals. In addition, though, it seems quite likely that many of the bones were washed or swept into the sinkhole to become part of Feature 6. Given the estimated placement and orientations of the individuals based on the articulated in situ bones, they are not consistently aligned with one another and many would have overlapped if they were interred simultaneously. Instead, the bones form a single layer, and there is no evidence of any stacked articulated elements, suggesting that bones of earlier interments were moved to make way for newer ones. This speciic mortuary behavior, while not previously noted in caves, is commonly reported in tomb contexts (Awe et al. 2005b: 41; Chase 1994; Healy et al. 1998; Weiss-Krejci 2004). Feature 8 is represented by a scatter of 9 ceramic sherds, Figure 14. fragments of top half of a poorly preserved globular vessel beneath Level 2, in feature 7. 77 most of which conjoin with the red-slipped jar of Feature 7 (Vessel 4). Feature 8 was deposited just 1.7 m northwest of the jars from which the sherds stem, at the foot of the Chamber 2 wall. Feature 9 refers to a naturally-formed, cylindrical cavity that measures 6.8 cm in diameter and as much as 10 cm deep. This cavity punctures a small shelf of breccia conglomerate limestone on the southern end of Chamber 1. A cluster of wood charcoal was documented at the bottom of this small cavity, suggesting that it may have served as an expedient torch holster, a practice documented elsewhere in the caves of Chechem Ha (Moyes 2004: 5) and Xba’qel Cho’qow (Morehart et al. 2005: Fig. 6, 262). Feature 10 is a small cluster of soda straw formations that have been deposited in the westernmost extremity of Chamber 1. The origin of these formations is unclear at present, but since the most active area of drip water formations documented in the cave is Alcove 1 and the west wall of Chamber 2, it is presumed that these may have their origin there and subsequent to breakage were cached as Feature 10 in Chamber 1. Feature 11 is a widely scattered cluster of human remains and the fragmented remains of two jars. The human remains are scattered all along the northeastern wall of Chamber 1 and some appear to have washed down the slope, into the solution tunnel, by hydraulic activity. The remains of the two jars (Vessels 5 and 6) were found as three discrete clusters along the base of the northeastern wall of Chamber 1. The northernmost cluster consists of 19 large and intermingled sherds of the two jars, placed as though stacked, and thereby greatly resembling Feature 8. The central cluster represents the largest portions of the two jars, in which the unslipped jar was nestled into the red-slipped jar, associated with an additional 10 sherds. The southernmost cluster is represented solely by 17 small-to-medium sherds of the red-slipped jar (Vessel 5), as though this was the location where this jar had been initially smashed. We collected the scattered human remains, which seem to have been pushed or washed down from the main chamber area, from the solution tunnel. All appeared to have been recently displaced, and a preliminary visual inspection of the remains shows an MNI of at least 2 adult individuals based on cranial fragments. The general size and robusticty of the cranial features suggest that both individuals are adult males. Feature 12 is a cluster of medium-to-large speleothems that were stacked at the foot of the western wall of Passage 1. Placement of the feature, at the widest point of Passage 1 in a small recess, suggests that these speleothems were originally scattered throughout the passage and were stacked out of the way to clear access. Spatial Distribution the features containing artifacts and human bones encountered in Je’reftheel were all readily visible on the surface and minor test excavations conducted throughout the cave, for the extraction of matrix samples (for the recovery of charred macroloral remains via loatation), revealed that 78 AMCS Bulletin 23 — Chapter 6 — Helmke and Wrobel the few areas exhibiting accumulations of matrices were quite shallow (c. 10-15 cm). Consequently, the features visible on the surface amount to the bulk of the assemblage for the entire cave. Nevertheless, some artifacts and human skeletal elements are undoubtedly still concealed in these shallow matrices, as has been conirmed by the excavations of features 5 and 7; these, however, are deemed to be negligible constituents. With the exception of Jereftheel’s termini (Chambers 3 and 4, as well as alcove 1 and the solution funnel that stems from it), one section of the cave leads to another in an extremely linear fashion. It thus stands to reason that the majority of the cave was solely used for ingress to, and egress from, the deeper areas. In fact, the only evidence of human activities encountered in the areas proximate to the entrance is feature 12, a stack of splintered speleothems that appear to have been moved out of the path solely to facilitate access. the remaining cultural features of Je’reftheel are otherwise distributed nearly equally in three principal areas: Chamber 1, Chamber 2 and collectively the termini of the cave. Chamber 1 and Chamber 2 are the only two areas of the cave that provide room for standing and the gathering of small groups of people. the presence of larger groupings of artifactual features in these areas thus appears to be a direct consequence of this fact. the termini in contrast, are all low-lying areas, which require crawling to be accessed, and few can it more than one adult at any given time. the features present at these termini thus appear to have been deposited by solitary individuals. Despite these differences, if the number of features is taken as an indication of the intensiveness or extensiveness of ancient usage, then Chambers 1 and 2 as well as all the termini appear to have witnessed the same amount of usage and no true focal point of activities can be discerned. Temporal Distribution of Ceramics the ceramic remains found within Je’reftheel were few and comprise a small sample. Compared to those from nearby caves, the ceramic assemblage of Je’reftheel is relatively small in terms of frequency, types represented, and temporal breadth, and thus can be characterized as being highly homogeneous throughout. the few vessels found within the cave are all jars and only two speciic sub-forms were documented: Cayo Unslipped: Variety Unspeciied (Brown) vessels, which are all stout, wide-mouthed, jars that exhibit extensive black ire-clouding or charring along their bases, and tinaja red: tinaja Variety vessels, which are all larger, red-slipped, highly oxidized, narrow-mouthed jars. Unlike other caves where the ceramic assemblage tends to be dominated by jars, that of Je’reftheel is comprised exclusively of such jars. No other forms were documented amongst the ceramic remains. Because the site was unlooted at the time of its irst exploration, we are also in the advantageous position of discussing the complete ceramic assemblage, rather than a sub-set thereof. all ceramics deposited in the cave belong exclusively to the Late Classic (aD 550-950) Spanish Lookout Complex; however, no clear evidence has been found to indicate if these specimens belong to the early facet (LC2) or late facet (LC3) of the Spanish Lookout Complex, because the types represented occur during the entirety of the complex. While these types tend to be slightly more commonplace in the late facet Spanish Lookout (aD 830-950, terminal Classic), the forms and sizes of the vessels are more in keeping with those of the early facet (aD 550-830), and thus we are unable to reine the dating of the specimens to any particular facet of the Spanish Lookout. an aMS date derived from a carbon sample demonstrates a 2-sigma range of aD 680-890, which spans both facets and thereby does not conclusively help to resolve to which facet the deposits belong. the form modes and the sizes of the vessels are consistent throughout the small assemblage and thus, irrespective of the facet to which these should be assigned, these are clearly and squarely contemporaneous and must date to a speciic segment of the Late Classic, as demonstrated by the aMS date. as such, we can see the cave being utilized for a short period of time in the Late Classic, probably somewhere within the same century or century and a half, at which point presumably all archaeological features were formed. Form Distribution one interesting peculiarity is the fragmentation of jars and the subsequent dispersal of sherds into discrete clusters (although these could be conclusively reitted to nearby partial jars during analyses). Vessel 4 (tinaja red) was found as a partial jar, as part of feature 7, while the sherds of its fragmented side cluster 1.7 m away as feature 8. the partial Vessels 5 (tinaja) and 6 (Cayo) were found nestled into one another as the central portion of feature 11, while a scatter of sherds of Vessel 5 were found 1 m to the south, and the remaining commingling sherds of Vessels 5 and 6 were found as another cluster, set in a small niche at ground level, less than a meter to the north. the smashing of jars and the deliberate dispersal of sherds into neat clusters or stacks is a practice that has also been observed at actun tunichil Mucnal (helmke 2009: 390-392, 456-458) and eduardo Quiroz Cave (Pendergast 1971: 9). this practice appears to be part and parcel of a particular type of termination ritual that formally closed the activities conducted in the caves that introduced the ceramic implements in the irst place. An alternate form of termination appears to have been to chip away at the rim of a jar, and this practice is seen on Vessel 3 (Cayo) that forms part of feature 7 (figure 15). Similar chipping has also been observed on otherwise complete jars found within the unlooted section of the Laberinto de las tarántulas, where a comparable termination function has been invoked (helmke 2009: 60, 247). the complete smashing of a jar is represented by Vessel 2 (Cayo) that appears to have been cast down the solution funnel of alcove 1. this leaves Vessel 1 of feature 5 as the sole complete vessel in the cave’s assemblage. this vessel is also the smallest of the cave’s assemblage, but otherwise all the other vessels found within Je’reftheel have witnessed some sort of termination. the other noteworthy feature of the spatial form AMCS Bulletin 23 — Chapter 6 — Helmke and Wrobel distributions is the occurrence of jars in pairs. this is clearly seen by the paired tinaja and Cayo jars of feature 7 (figure 13) and the similarly paired tinaja and Cayo jars of feature 11. this then leaves Vessels 1 and 2. Vessel 1 was found complete and apparently in situ as part of feature 5 in Chamber 3. We therefore suspect that Vessel 1 (tinaja) was left in the position where it has originally been deposited. this also leads us to suspect that Vessel 2 (Cayo) was originally paired to Vessel 1 and was only divorced from its original pairing when it was cast down the solution funnel as part of a termination event. With this reconstruction the salient pattern that emerges is that there were three discrete pairings of jars, one in Chamber 1 (feature 11), one in Chamber 2 (feature 7) and the other in Chamber 3 (feature 5). the other important aspect is that these pairings are each composed of a wide-mouthed jar (that presumably contained semi-liquid food or stews) and a narrow-mouthed jar (that probably contained liquids, such as a type of beverage). Together these two forms of jars, clearly deine the activity set for Je’reftheel. this activity set is remarkably similar to that reconstructed for the unlooted Upper Passages of the Laberinto de las tarántulas where jars (one wide-, one narrow-mouthed), dishes and bowls occurred according to a predominant ratio of 2:1:1 (helmke 2009). at the Laberinto de las tarántulas and actun tunichil Mucnal, bowls and dishes also co-occur in nearly equal frequencies. the one major omission in the case of Je’reftheel, therefore are the bowls and dishes that appear to have been used as secondary containers, into which the contents of wide- and narrow-mouthed jars would have been poured. If these were indeed utilized in Je’reftheel, then it stands to reason that Figure 15. Plan photograph of Vessel 3, feature 7. Note the human phalange in the jar, and the chipped rim, presumably a form of termination. Photograph by Christophe helmke. 79 perishable bowls were used (presumably made of gourds), or that these were carried back out of the cave. however, the presence of paired jars at both Je’reftheel and the Laberinto de las Tarántulas is a signiicant continuity and the relative proximity of the two sites may be the underlying factor. as is the case at the Laberinto de las tarántulas, the individual activity sets identiied at Je’reftheel may well pertain to discrete events that took place at the site. Since three homogeneous activity sets could be identiied for Je’reftheel, it would thus seem that these are the remains of three discrete events. If this is the case, then it is possible that the deposition of human remains may also follow this pattern and data from the excavation of human remains shed further light on the timing of mortuary activities within Je’reftheel. as discussed above, the distribution of bones within the features demonstrates the presence both of primary interments and of secondary manipulation and movement of elements. It is likely that the majority (if not all) of the individuals were originally interred as whole bodies. features 5 and 7 clearly show that some of the movements of bone were related to disturbance by later intrusive interments, and thus we can rule out the notion that each chamber represented a single, discrete deposition event. the secondary burials of features 3 and 11 demonstrate bundling and/or stacking practices. at present, we cannot be sure if the primary interments of these individuals occurred within Je’reftheel or if the individuals were relocated there as secondary burials from other sites, though further lab analysis may help to resolve this issue. for instance, a cranium found within feature 4 (Chamber 4) matched a mandible and 2 maxillary incisors found within feature 5 (Chamber 3), suggesting secondary movement of elements following natural decomposition. In general, the presence of secondary burials, along with the partial commingling found in features 5 and 7, suggest a pattern of periodic revisitation and manipulation of previous interments. thus, the variations in the observed patterns of deposition between ceramics and human remains may imply that they represent different, though undoubtedly related, rituals. Distribution of Human Remains all areas that exhibit artifactual features also contain human remains, and this congruity suggests that the distribution of human remains should also be considered in spatial terms. In addition, the spatial incidence of artifacts with human remains suggests that the former were integrated into the activities that resulted in the deposition of the latter. When considering the distribution of individuals identiied throughout the cave, we ind that none are located near the entrance, relatively few are located in Chambers 1 and 2, and the vast majority are found in the four termini of the cave. this notable increase in human skeletal materials as one proceeds deeper and deeper within the cave is signiicant. first, it suggests that the focal point of the cave’s usage may have been the termini and that the primary activity was the one resulting in the deposition of human remains. Second, it implies that the termini were viewed as locations that differed in type from all other portions of the cave, and 80 AMCS Bulletin 23 — Chapter 6 — Helmke and Wrobel that these termini were more amenable, or suitable, to the activities that resulted in the deposition of human remains. Consequently, three different types of activity areas can be isolated for Je’reftheel: 1) entrance areas for ingress and egress, 2) chambers for gatherings and the deposition of the bulk of artifactual materials, and 3) termini that were the preferred areas for the deposition of human skeletal remains. the distinction between entrance(s), gathering chambers and termini has also been documented for the other sites in the area (e.g. Stone 2000; helmke 2009), although with some differences in the constituent archaeological features. on account of the contemporaneity of all ceramic materials within the cave, the gradual ingress into the cave is not observed, as is otherwise the case with the other caves examined. this attribute is probably also brought about by the relatively small size of the cavern and the little distance that separates each of the areas within the cave. one interesting peculiarity, however, is the fact that all materials in Je’reftheel date to the Late Classic, which is precisely the span to which the majority of materials from almost all other caves in the surrounding area date (Pendergast 1969, 1970, 1971, 1974; McNatt 1996; helmke 2009; Moyes et al. 2009). In this case we appear to be looking at a site that had not witnessed utilization until the peak of cave usage in the Late Classic. thus, it is not only caves that had already been used in earlier periods that saw continued and more intensive usage in the Late Classic, but new and previously unused caves that were also drawn into the roster to serve as the loci of activities. In much the same way as previously unused areas of caves were utilized for the irst time in the Late to terminal Classic, Je’reftheel as a cave of more technical access, also only witnessed usage at that time period. Conclusion Je’reftheel provided us with the rare opportunity to investigate an unlooted cave site. our documentation and excavation efforts have also revealed that the site was intensively utilized during the Late Classic, demonstrated on the basis of ceramic types and corroborated by an aMS date. Whereas at present we are unable to conclusively narrow down the dates of the cave’s utilization, it seems to be restricted to a relatively short period of time. furthermore, no evidence exists to suggest that the cave saw usage before or after the Late Classic period and thus emerges as a cave site that was used intermittently for a series of ritual events during the course of perhaps no more than just a few generations. the large quantity of skeletal material found within the site indicates that the cave served as an important repository for human remains. on-going osteological analyses are already beginning to suggest that the cave served as the locus of a particular type of funerary ritual, rather than the setting of human sacriice (Wrobel et al. 2011). The artifact assemblage was found to be relatively small, and aside from the lanceolate points and items of personal adornment, is dominated by ceramic jars. these were found to be entirely homogeneous in terms of dating, with varying forms being taken as indicative of original function. the spatial patterning and absence of looting allowed the identiication of a functionally simple, but complete, ceramic activity set, formed by a pair of wide- and narrow-mouthed jars. each of the activity sets was found in discrete areas of the caves in close association with important deposits of human remains and it seems likely that these were closely related in terms of the events that led to the deposition of these archaeological features. the continuities and discontinuities of the Je’reftheel assemblage with the assemblages from other caves were scrutinized with an eye to identifying the different types of activities responsible for the formation of these respective deposits. these indicate that Je’reftheel forms part of a coherent regional tradition of cave utilization, although the minor differences noted suggest that it likely is associated speciically with its own distinct community, which unfortunately remains unidentiied to date. Acknowledgments We extend our warm thanks to Jaime awe, Sherry Gibbs, Doug Weinberg, Rafael Guerra, the Village of Springield, Bridget ebeling, James Stemp, Shawn Morton, Kip andres, rebecca Shelton, Julie Nehammer Knub, Kristi Bowman, Ian anderson and the staff from Caves Branch Lodge, the Belize Institute of archaeology, and the students of the 2009 and 2010 CBAS ield schools. Many thanks also to James Brady for his thorough review of this paper. References Cited andres, Christopher r. and rebecca Shelton 2010 Surface Site Investigations In and around the Caves Branch river Valley in 2009. In The Caves Branch Archaeological Survey Project: A Report of the 2009 Field Season, edited by Christopher r. andres and Gabriel D. Wrobel, pp. 4-20. Belize archaeological research and education foundation occasional report #1, oxford, MS. andres, Christopher r., Gabriel D. Wrobel, Jason J. Gonzalez, Shawn G. Morton, and rebecca Shelton 2011 Power and Status in Central Belize: Insights from the Caves Branch archaeological Survey Project’s 2010 field Season. Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology 8: 101-113. awe, Jaime J., Douglas M. Weinberg, and rafael a. Guerra 2005 Belize Valley archaeological reconnaissance Macal river Project – archaeological Mitigation in the Upper Macal Valley: report of Investigations Conducted between June – December 2003 and January – March 2004. report Submitted to the Belize Institute of archaeology and the Belize electric Company Limited. Brady, James e. 1989 an Investigation of Maya ritual Cave-use with Special reference to Naj tunich, Peten, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation. archaeology Program, University AMCS Bulletin 23 — Chapter 6 — Helmke and Wrobel of California, Los angeles. Brady, James e. 2009 Midnight terror Cave report 2009 Season. report submitted to the Belize Institute of archaeology, Belmopan. 2010 an archaeological Survey of the Upper Passage of actun yaxteel ahau, Belize. 2009 Season report. report to the Belize Institute of archaeology, Belmopan. Chase, Diane Z. 1994 human osteology, Pathology, and Demography as represented in the Burials of Caracol, Belize. Studies in the Archaeology of Caracol, Belize, edited by Diane Z. Chase and arlen f. Chase, pp. 123-138. Pre-Columbian art research Institute, Monograph 7, San francisco. Coe, William r. 1959 Piedras Negras Archaeology: Artifacts, Caches, and Burials. University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. healy, Paul f., Jaime J. awe, and hermann helmuth 1998 an ancient Maya Multiple Burial at Caledonia, Cayo District, Belize. Journal of Field Archaeology 25(3): 261-274. helmke, Christophe G.B. 2009 ancient Maya Cave Usage as attested in the Glyphic Corpus of the Maya Lowlands and the Caves of the roaring Creek Valley, Belize. Ph.D. Dissertation, University College London Institute of archaeology, London. helmke, Christophe, Jaime J. awe, Shawn G. Morton, and Gyles Iannone 2011 Messages from the Dark: archaeological and Epigraphic Signiicance of Cuychen, Macal Valley, Belize. 9th annual Belize archaeology Symposium, San Ignacio hotel, San Ignacio, June 29th. McNatt, Logan 1996 Cave archaeology of Belize. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies, Vol. 58(2): 81-99. Morehart, Christopher t., David L. Lentz, and Keith M. Prufer 2005 Wood of the Gods: the ritual Use of Pine (Pinus spp.) by the ancient Lowland Maya. Latin American Antiquity 16(3): 255-274. Moyes, holley 2004 Changes and Continuities in Ritual Practice at Chechem Ha Cave, Belize: Report on Excavations Conducted in the 2003 Field Season. Grant report submitted to the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. http://www.famsi. org/ reports/02086/index.html. Moyes, holley, Jaime J. awe, George a. Brook, and James W. Webster 2009 the ancient Maya Drought Cult: Late Classic Cave Use in Belize. Latin American Antiquity 20(1): 175-206. 81 owen, Vanessa and Sherry Gibbs 1999 Preliminary report of Investigations on Ledge 2, actun yaxteel ahau. In The Western Belize Regional Cave Project: A Report of the 1998 Field Season, edited by Jaime J. awe, pp. 186-204. Department of anthropology, occasional Paper, No. 2, University of New hampshire, Durham. Pendergast, David M. 1969 The Prehistory of Actun Balam, British Honduras. Art and Archaeology Occasional Paper 16. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. 1970 A. H. Anderson’s Excavations at Rio Frio Cave E, British Honduras (Belize). Art and Archaeology Occasional Paper No. 20. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. 1971 Excavations at Eduardo Quiroz Cave, British Honduras (Belize). Art and Archaeology Occasional Paper 21. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. 1974 Excavations at Actun Polbilche, Belize. Archaeology Monograph 1. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. 1990 Excavations at Altun Ha, Belize, 1964-1970, Volume 3. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto. Peterson, Polly 2006 Ancient Maya Ritual Cave Use in the Sibun Valley, Belize. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Boston University, Boston. reents-Budet, Dorie and Barbara MacLeod 1997 The Archaeology of Petroglyph Cave, Cayo District, Belize. Report submitted to the Belize Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan. reese-taylor, Kathryn, Marc Zender, and Pamela Geller 2006 Fit to be Tied: Funerary Practices among the Prehispanic Maya. In Sacred Bundles: Ritual Acts of Wrapping and Binding in Mesoamerica, edited by Julia Guernsey and F. Kent Reilly III, pp. 40-58. Boundary End Archaeological Research Center, Barnardsville. Stone, andrea J. 2000 Spiritual Journeys, Secular Guises: rock art and elite Pilgrimage at Naj tunich Cave, Guatemala. Paper presented at the Dumbarton oaks Conference on Pre-Columbian Studies: Pilgrimage and Sacred Landscape in Pre-Columbian america, Dumbarton oaks research Library & Collection, Washington D.C., october 7-8. Weiss-Krejci, estella 2004 Mortuary representations of the Noble house: a Cross-Cultural Comparison between Collective tombs of the ancient Maya and Dynastic europe. Journal of Social Archaeology 4: 368-404. Wrobel, Gabriel D., Christophe helmke and Jaime J. awe 2011 Caves as tombs: a Bioarchaeological example from the Maya Cave Site of Je’reftheel, Caves Branch, Belize. Current Research in Maya Bioarchaeology, 76th annual Meeting of the Society for american archaeology, Sacramento, March 31st.