For the past half-century, archaeologists have speculated regarding the possible triggers for settlement development and processes driving the growth of sociopolitical and socioeconomic complexity among the ancient Maya of East-Central Belize (Graham Reference Graham, Evans and Webster2001). The most popular hypotheses focus on the exploitation of local resources of limited availability elsewhere in the Maya lowlands, mainly marine and montane-derived raw materials and resulting products (Peuramaki-Brown et al. Reference Peuramaki-Brown, Morton and Jillian2020). In this article, we explore the hypothesis of granite as a staple resource (prime export) and valued material that fueled settlement growth and complexity at the ancient Alabama Townsite—a Late to Terminal Classic (ca. a.d. 700–900) rapid-growth community situated within an alluvial pocket surrounded by the foothills of the eastern Maya Mountains (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Eastern Maya Lowlands showing sites and granite sources mentioned in this Compact Section, including Alabama. CCB = Cockscomb Basin, HBR = Hummingbird Ridge, MPR = Mountain Pine Ridge. Map produced by M. Brouwer Burg.
Background
Our research at Alabama as part of the Stann Creek Regional Archaeology Project (SCRAP) works to identify and explain processes of settlement development and growth in East-Central Belize (Peuramaki-Brown Reference Peuramaki-Brown2017; Peuramaki-Brown et al. Reference Peuramaki-Brown, Morton, Longstaffe and Jordan2023). Before our research, few archaeologists knew of Alabama, with information coming primarily from studies by MacKinnon and colleagues (Reference MacKinnon, Olson and Emily1993), who highlighted the “megalithic” granite architecture and slab features of the townsite’s monumental core (Figure 2). Our research to date has confirmed MacKinnon’s initial suggestion of relatively rapid site development in the core during the Late to Terminal Classic transition (ca. a.d. 700–900), and has expanded to clarify this timing within the surrounding settlement zone (Longstaffe and Peuramaki-Brown Reference Longstaffe and Peuramaki-Brown2025; Peuramaki-Brown and Morton Reference Peuramaki-Brown and Morton2019a).
Figure 2. Granite ballcourt of North Plaza (left) (photo courtesy of Belize Institute of Archaeology); and slab “pathway” of West Plaza (right).
But what drove such development? Given past hypotheses focused on resource exploitation, we turned to the staple theory of economic growth, as outlined by Harold Innis and others (Watkins Reference Watkins1963). The theory describes a regional-historiographical systems approach that links resource procurement to settlement development. The fundamental requirement of this theory is the identification of staple resources: commodities that are in constant demand, are limited in source location, and dominate an economy’s exports. Potential resources in East-Central Belize were cacao, salt, and various montane-derived materials, including granite and high-quality clays (Dunham Reference Dunham and Fedick1996; Graham Reference Graham1978, Reference Graham1987, Reference Graham1994; MacKinnon Reference MacKinnon1989; Stomper et al. Reference Stomper, Brown and Pope2004). While an exploration of staple theory initiated our study of granite use at Alabama, it quickly gave way to other value considerations among ancient Alabamans.
Methods
As discussed in this Compact Section’s introduction, geologists recognize three major granitic plutons in the Maya Mountains of Belize: Mountain Pine Ridge (MPR) in the west, Hummingbird (HBR) in the northeast, and Cockscomb (CCB) in the southeast. The granites of each have distinct compositions of mineral types, shapes, sizes, and ratios, with some demonstrating seemingly distinct colorings often used by archaeologists for basic identification, including pink for MPR and cream for HBR (Shipley and Graham Reference Graham1987).
Unfortunately, CCB granite colors are often similar to these other granites, which is problematic if relying only on color for identification. Some CCB granites also weather to dark gray or black, leading some earlier archaeologists to misidentify them as basalt or andesite (MacKinnon Reference MacKinnon1988). CCB granites remain dramatically understudied compared to the other two plutons, as the physical terrain of the CCB is relatively difficult to access.
SCRAP studies of granite use by the ancient Maya of Alabama, situated adjacent to the CCB pluton, were initiated in 2014 and have involved traditional geological and archaeological surveys within the monumental core, settlement zone, and surrounding foothills; X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analyses and thin-section petrographic study of CCB granite and related (by)products; basic analyses of finished products; and informal community-engaged experimental archaeology. Each approach has yielded crucial preliminary insights into ancient Alabamans’ many and varied uses of granite, to be further explored in future.
Results
Granite access, types, and spatial distribution
During a two-year pedestrian survey (Peuramaki-Brown Reference Peuramaki-Brown2016; Peuramaki-Brown et al. Reference Peuramaki-Brown, Morton, Tibbits and Green2017), we observed granite materials (modified and unmodified) of various forms at 129 (78.66 percent) of the 164 earthen mounds documented in the Alabama settlement (Figure 3), including construction materials for platform-construction cores made of sandy clays and granite cobble/boulder inclusions, and granite facings. This included hewn granite blocks at 74 settlement mounds (45.12 percent) and all structures of the monumental core. As settlement mounds are primarily located in an active orange orchard surrounding the monumental core and subject to significant disturbance, the above numbers are likely lower than would be if undisturbed.
Figure 3. Alabama settlement map showing distribution of mounds with hewn granite blocks, surveyed granite sources, and possible granite-product manufacture locations.
At four mounds—ALA-010, 030, 048, 077—along the west, north, and east edges of the settlement and immediately south of the monumental core, respectively, significantly more granite material was observed at surface than was typical of other observed mounds, and examples of flakes and mano and metate preform fragments were collected. Although these are mostly informal, subjective observations, at the moment they are striking enough to warrant future investigation.
Although residents could easily access outcrops in the surrounding foothills—and some even along the valley’s edges—we found no clear evidence for direct quarrying (cf. Spenard et al., this issue). Instead, ancient Alabamans likely gathered eroded/displaced materials from secondary sources along waterways that continued into the valley.
Granite was obviously a readily available resource to many at Alabama, but was it a prime export as required by staple theory? Given that staple theory relies on identifying a resource as a prime export, we decided the most straightforward way to explore this would be to expand on Shipley and Graham’s (Reference Graham1987) study of granite distribution to include a broader consideration of CCB granite sources. In 2015, we invited Tawny Tibbits (Reference Tibbits2016) to broaden her geological reference collection by sampling the local CCB granites—guided by our Community Liaison, Mr. Higinio Chiac Sr., and other local assistants—for XRF sourcing (Figure 4). As part of this research, she also sourced ground stone artifacts from sites across Belize (Brouwer Burg et al. Reference Brouwer, Marieka and Harrison-Buck2021), and examined 60 granite artifacts from SCRAP surface-collected and excavated granite ground stone assemblages, including 39 portable tools, 20 hewn blocks, and one slab.
Figure 4. Mr. Higinio Chiac Sr. and Tawny Tibbits on geological survey in surrounding foothills (left); and Tibbits conducting pXRF sourcing on architectural blocks in open excavations (right).
Unsurprisingly, all sampled architectural elements and most portable tools at Alabama were sourced to the CCB (88.33 percent total). Tibbits found little evidence for CCB materials moving beyond East-Central Belize, representing just over 4 percent of her total tested artifact assemblages from sites across the country (Tibbits et al. Reference Tibbits, Peuramaki-Brown, Burg, Tibbits and Harrison-Buck2023). Tibbits also identified several manos and a metate of MPR granite at Alabama (11.67 percent of the XRF-tested assemblage). The MPR products are distinct, with smooth, highly polished surfaces developed from intense use. Local manos and metates often look very rough by comparison, perhaps because they were not used as long, which may suggest a degree of expediency in their manufacture and use.
While Tibbits’ data did not support the idea of granite as a prime Alabama export, it did hint at an unsuspected diversity within the local CCB granites. To explore this more fully, we contracted Joanna Potter (Reference Potter, Peuramaki-Brown and Morton2018)—a geologist specializing in granitic materials—to conduct a baseline geological survey and petrographic study. In the lower foothills immediately surrounding Alabama, she identified up to nine distinct granitic “types” based on morphological and compositional differences and the presence/absence of xenoliths (unrelated rock fragments within the granitic body). Identifying these different CCB granite types and related variations in quality (discussed below) is essential for future resource studies examining material access and control within the community.
Granite use and product manufacture
Construction material appears to have been Alabamans’ principal use of granite. In addition to using raw materials in some platform-construction cores, they gathered alluvial boulders of various sizes to shape into blocks for exterior facings and stairs and massive boulders for multi-purpose slabs.
Granite workers took advantage of the natural cleaving (jointing) of massive boulders for slabs as evidenced by an alignment of granite slabs in the monumental core. This consists of a series of minimally modified slabs from the same boulder, placed end-to-end in the West Plaza directly in front of the stairs leading up to the acropolis (Figure 2). These massive slabs—estimated to weigh over a ton—were partially investigated in the 1980s (MacKinnon et al. Reference MacKinnon, Olson and Emily1993). When project members lifted one of the slabs, investigators noted they were “supported” with rough stone pedestals and had cached materials below. We have located and mapped additional slabs throughout the monumental core and settlement zone and believe the ancient Alabamans used many of them as altars and stelae, in addition to architectural elements such as the ball court apron. One was reported standing upright in the 1980s at the end of the raised sacbe in the southwest corner of the monumental core, with cached materials at its base (MacKinnon Reference MacKinnon1988).
Ancient Alabamans produced granite blocks for platform facings and stairs by flaking and pecking boulders, as suggested by recovered flakes and pecking debris, and a partially pecked block preform encountered during excavations at the ALA-045A house platform (Pennanen and Peuramaki-Brown Reference Peuramaki-Brown2016) (Figure 5). They used quartz and quartzite hammerstones for the task. These are other locally abundant, essential stone resources, as chert is unavailable in most of the district (at least not in any significant quantities) and is imported primarily for use in the manufacture of finely flaked unifaces and bifaces in the Alabama assemblage.
Figure 5. Samples of Alabama artifacts related to granite shaping, including granite flake and quartzite hammerstone (left), and pecked granite-block preform (right).
The ease of shaping granite depends on the chosen type. In 2019, we attempted preliminary, informal experimental studies with two local types as part of a community-engagement activity. The sample with abundant mica was more friable and easier to shape, producing bigger flakes and larger (coarse) angular debris. The sample with less mica proved more challenging to shape, producing small flakes and smaller (fine) rounder debris (Figure 6). While the more friable type may have been ideal for quick block manufacture, it may have been less desirable for food-processing tools.
Figure 6. Experimental granite blocks with associated debris and thin sections (cross-polarized light): Block 1, showing abundant mica (biotite + muscovite) causing breakage into larger, multimineral fragments (left); and Block 2, showing less abundant mica (biotite + muscovite) causing smaller fragments composed primarily of quartz (right). See Jordan (Reference Jordan, Peuramaki-Brown and Morton2022) and Jordan et al. (Reference Jordan and Peuramaki-Brown2021) for petrographic methods.
Virginia Chiac initiated a preliminary study of size/shape to establish the degree of uniformity of excavated granite blocks from the monumental core and settlement. Face height and width, block length, and overall shape and context were recorded for 225 blocks. To compare, we plotted two measurements for each block—face width and height—as craftspeople did not always shape blocks along their length; blocks also come in different end shapes (e.g., triangular, squared), depending on function (Figure 7). While there is some consistency in block-face height at Structure (Str.) 1-2 of the monumental core (regularly between 15 and 20 cm), there are no other apparent patterns at this time.
Figure 7. Mr. Justino Chiac and Matthew Longstaffe lifting a facing block (left); Ms. Virginia Chiac measuring blocks (center); and scatter plot of 225 block-face measurements, color-coded by structure (right).
Besides construction blocks, the most common items used and produced at Alabama were manos, turtleback and trough metates, and “donut stones,” for which we have recovered preforms and finished products (Figure 8). We have also recovered pecked spheres of unknown function and many chinking stones—wedges used in façade construction.
Figure 8. Various local products (finished and preforms), including donut stones (upper top); metate and manos (lower top); chinking stones (bottom left); relief-carved block (bottom center) (no scale; photo courtesy of S. Silver); and architectural blocks (bottom right).
Granite shaping by the local ancient Maya also occasionally involved relief carving/pecking. An example of this is seen in a photo taken in the 1990s by primatologist Scott Silver while researching in the CCB Basin about 10 km north, near the neighboring ancient Pearce Townsite (Figure 8) (Peuramaki-Brown and Morton Reference Peuramaki-Brown and Morton2019b). A similar example was reported in a personal collection in Maya Mopan, the present-day village neighboring ancient Alabama, and was believed to have originated from the site (MacKinnon et al. Reference MacKinnon, Olson and Emily1993). We believe both to be feline representations, though this is open to interpretation; incidentally, the CCB Basin immediately north of Alabama has some of the highest jaguar numbers in the world and is home to the world’s first jaguar reserve (Peuramaki-Brown and Morton Reference Peuramaki-Brown, Morton, Andersson, Cothran and Kekki2021). Granite relief carvings have yet to be encountered in excavations.
Ancient Alabamans may have even used the debris produced by shaping granite. Through petrographic study, we have identified intentionally added crushed granite in local pottery fabrics and earthen joint mortars used in architecture (Jordan Reference Jordan, Peuramaki-Brown and Morton2022; Jordan et al. Reference Jordan and Peuramaki-Brown2021), though this may also be the result of intentionally crushed materials for temper vs. manufacture by-products (Figure 9). We have also observed lenses of crushed granite as remnants of possible surfacing materials on some investigated platforms, as Graham (Reference Graham1994) noted elsewhere in the district.
Figure 9. Examples of earthen mortar and associated thin sections (cross-polarized light): core face of Str. 1-2 construction platform, mortar sample with aggregate similar to Block 1 experimental debris, suggesting use of granite with more abundant mica (top); stair risers at ALA-002B platform, mortar sample with aggregate similar to Block 2 experimental debris, suggesting use of granite with less abundant mica (bottom).
Discussion
Although CCB granite does not appear to have been a significant export beyond East-Central Belize, it was a locally essential resource, used to physically build architecture across the Alabama Townsite during its rapid growth in the late facet of the Late Classic. How, then, should we consider the value of this locally ubiquitous resource if not as an export item? A study by Horowitz (Reference Horowitz2022) focuses on the value of locally ubiquitous chert resources in western Belize. She outlines five approaches to value that we might wish to consider when evaluating Alabama granites: labor, scarcity vs. abundance, symbolic value and landscape association, resource access and quality, and producer skill. Considering these perspectives, we might also argue that in addition to general value, an economy of granite existed within the Alabama community, resulting in a significant, emerging local system that likely fostered new categories of people and diverse relationships.
Labor
Ancient Alabamans built their town out of granite. We can consider such labor investment from gathering and moving raw boulders through to shaping blocks and manufacturing mortar, chinking, and flooring materials. Most identified mounds in the settlement incorporated granite construction material, with almost half possessing hewn granite blocks. Although the labor investment for shaping granite would have been comparatively more than required for shaping softer limestone, as was done at most other Maya sites, it must have been more efficient or cost-effective than the alternative of importing building materials. This process represents significant community labor investment, taking time and human effort to produce valued architecture.
Regarding granite item production, we have yet to identify intensive manufacturing locales at Alabama, though the aforementioned four mounds observed with more granite material at surface could be candidates. Granite working was possibly a widespread, part-time craft/trade. During survey, we surface-collected at 144 settlement mounds and identified granite flakes at 14. We encountered additional flakes at all 10 mounds excavated to date, only three of which had flakes in their surface-collected materials. We also encountered other smaller granite debris in all excavations—both from intentional working and unintentional erosion, tentatively differentiated by particle shape, angularity, and roundedness. We note these debris are encountered in low densities, nowhere near those of identified intensive manufacturing contexts elsewhere in the Eastern Lowlands (Ward Reference Ward2013).
Whether granite working was the full-time pursuit of a few individuals or many working seasonally or part-time remains to be determined, though we believe a combination may have been likely.
Scarcity vs. abundance
Granite is plentiful at Alabama and widely dispersed in the surrounding foothills and along all Waha Leaf Creek drainage feeder streams. Although resource abundance might suggest it was not highly valued, granite was prized as an essential construction material throughout the town. However, the abundance of granite may have influenced the way it was utilized, as there was little incentive for residents to conserve raw materials. The seemingly expedient nature of CCB metates and manos reflects this abundance.
Symbolic value and landscape association
We are not aware of any terms for granite within ancient Maya texts, and literacy levels in East-Central Belize may have been limited given the general lack of epigraphic texts. However, we know that stone, hills, and water bodies were considered animate beings among the ancient Maya (Brady and Ashmore Reference Brady, Ashmore, Ashmore and Knapp1999) and, as such, have symbolic value. Ancient Alabamans used granite to fashion monumental architecture and uncarved altars and stelae to mark caches that included offerings made of rare limestone. They also carved/pecked images of feline or non-human primate faces and bodies in relief on blocks, recognized as important symbolic beings among multiple ancient Mesoamerican peoples, including the Maya (Stone-Miller Reference Stone-Miller2004). Finally, the colors, shapes, shininess, and iridescence of certain minerals found within local granites may have added to its “preciousness” (Ferry et al. Reference Ferry, Vallard and Walsh2020).
Resource access and quality
Settlement mounds identified during our pedestrian survey were classified as Type I to VI, reflecting differences in overall mound size and number and organization of grouped mounds (Figure 3 inset). We hypothesize that occupants of Type I sites generally represent the lowest socioeconomic strata and Type VI the highest. Each socioeconomic stratum represented at Alabama had access to hewn granite blocks. However, the wide variety within the CCB granites, including possible variations in quality, are crucial future avenues of study, as particular socioeconomic strata or other groups may have restricted/controlled access to certain varieties.
As discussed above, we also identified four mounds during the settlement survey where more intensive granite-related production activities may have occurred but have yet to be investigated. Three are along the settlement edges, toward the base of the foothills close to source areas, and the other near the monumental core. All are single mounds, less than a meter in height, with much raw granite material, flakes and other debris, and mano/metate preform fragments noted at surface. A couple of interpretations come to mind. These are low-status residential mounds; thus, more intense granite processing was a more prominent activity in lower socioeconomic households. As Horowitz (Reference Horowitz2022) suggested concerning chert processing in western Belize, perhaps groups or individuals at Alabama who did not have access to sufficient agricultural lands turned to specializing in granite working to make a living. A second interpretation is that these are not residential mounds but large midden deposits or material storage and represent discrete workshops (King and Powis, this issue). At present, this remains speculative in the absence of excavation data.
Producer skill
The manufacture of granite blocks may have required relatively low skill levels. Small children and uncoordinated archaeologists made satisfactory progress in dressing blocks at the abovementioned outreach event. But this work takes time. A general lack of uniformity of block-face size at settlement sites may suggest the involvement of lower-skilled workers, among other possible explanations. The more consistent face height of blocks used in Str. 1-2 may mean a greater concern with material uniformity and associated planning in the monumental architecture of the downtown—hence increasing its perceived value—but this awaits further excavation at other comparative localities to confirm.
Manufacturing of what might be considered more complex and valued items, such as manos and metates, suggests more skilled producers, perhaps with dedicated production facilities. We hope to further explore this possibility in future excavations at the four mounds where greater quantities of granite material were observed, including flakes and mano/metate preform fragments.
Conclusion
Today, the Mopan Maya of the Alabama area—who migrated into the region in the 1970s—still live amid granite, as did their ancient local counterparts. Whether as outcroppings or boulders in their yards and fields, slabs for washing clothes down at the stream, a relaxing day lounging on foothills bedrock at a local waterfall, or the occasional ancient mano and metate used for crushing and grinding, granite is an ever-present aspect of their lives. Despite this ubiquitous presence, they do not intentionally seek out granite or differentiate it from other rocks, as did the ancient Maya. Today’s lack of recognition brings us back to the question of whether the Alabama Maya valued granite despite it not serving as a staple export resource fueling community development and complexity. It is hard to imagine that they did not. In determining that local granites do not appear to be a prime Alabama export, which would be an easy way to assess its value, we must rethink how this resource was alternatively used for developing community and building complexity. Our study provides a different way to consider this locally abundant yet more broadly scarce resource of value in the ancient Maya world.
Acknowledgements
We want to thank the people of Maya Mopan, Belize’s Institute of Archaeology staff, and the Greene Groves property owners and staff. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Experiment.com, and Athabasca University’s Research Office and Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences funded this work. Thank you to our anonymous reviewers.
Competing interests
The authors declare none.
All data available at scraparchaeology.com or upon request.
Open access
