Maya Marketplace at Maax Na, Belize «173 into most aspects of their daily life, and there ate indications they did so in marketplaces as well (Shaw 2012). Conquest period Maya trade routes had small shrines honoring Ek Chuah, the god of merchants and cacao plant- ers (Miller and Taube 1993; Roys 1943:71, 78), and Aztec marketplaces had shrines and markers (Berdan and Anawalt 1992:156; Hirth 2009b; Hirth and Webb 2006). Blanton (2013) notes that markers in particular serve in many cultures to delimit the liminal space represented by the mar- ket from other parts of the site. It seems likely, then, that an architectural pairing of shrine and marker similar to what the Aztecs had was typical of Maya markets as well (Shaw 2012). Both Becker and Jones remark on the association of the sacred with the secular in their articles for this volume: At Calakinul, recent discoveries of murals on Chiik Nahb’s Structure 1 (Carrasco Vargas and Colén Gonzalez 2005; Carrasco Vargas et al. 2009) have both practical and spiritual implications, Current interpretation of the iconography suggests the paintings represent specialized food vendors (Martin 2007, 2012), though some think they may refer instead to food preparations for feasts (Boucher and Quifiones 2007; Carrasco Vargas and Cordeiro Baqueiro 2012; Carrasco Vargas ct al. 2009; see King, this vol., for further discussion). If the vendor interpretation holds, it would power- fully corroborate the validity of Plaza Plan 9 as a signature market space, given the smaller buildings associated with Structure 1 in the Chiik Nahb Complex. More to the point, it would accentuate the fact that temples could be associated with markets, too, and that ceremonies were an impor- tant part of marketplace activities. As noted, markets were not just places for vending; they were where many different activities could occur (Hutson 2000), including lim- aces ited production of varied goods, from implements to food (Hirth 2009b; Cap, King, this vol.). Evidence for these can he found in indirect indica- tors, microremains, or chemical signatures (Cap, this vol; Shaw 2012) The most obvious indirect indicators of trade are exotics such as obsidian, shell, jade, or “foreign” ceramics that are not native to a particular site or area. However, these alone do not necessarily indicate a market economy, as they could also have arrived through either redistribution or reciprocal transactions (Cap, and King and Shaw, this vol.). Even where there is ex- tensive regional distributional data ona kind of item, it cannot be assumed that exchange necessarily took place in marketplaces. However, direct evi- dence for production in the market area can help prove that it did (Shaw 2012). For chipped stone tools, chert or obsidian, this evidence can take the form of lithic debris representing the final stages of production (Hirth 2009b). IF ancient market practices followed ethnohistoric ones (King,174 + Shaw and King this vol.), then one might expect to find a skilled fintknapper putting the final touches on blades and other tools in a market setting. Ceramic pro- duction, on the other hand, probably most often took place outside the marketplace, due to the firing requirements. Indeed, archaeological data suggests ceramics were made mostly in small communities around the periphery of site centers (Ball 1993; Fry 1969; Potterand King 1995; Rands 1964, 1967, 1974; P. Rice 1987). Ceramics, too, are heavy and breakable and, therefore, might not be an ideal commodity for exchange, though some may have been produced for the marketplace, such as censor ves- sels or comales (Shaw 2012). Finding them, unused, in high numbers in middens associated with a possible marketplace might indicate they were sold there. However, other types of ceramics, such as pots, jars, and plates, could just as easily have entered the marketplace as containers for food and other perishables, so interpretation can be tricky and would require additional functional analysis (Shaw 2012). It is unlikely, as Becker (this vol.) suggests, that all the artifacts ent would have been removed as a pre: matter of course or once the market was defunct. We agree with Cap (this val.) that larger, more permanent markets in particular would have left archacologically visible traces in the form of middens and other deposits Asa number of authors have noted, the majority of the goods that may have moved through Maya markets would have been perishable (Coggins 2001; Dahlin 2003, 2009; Dahlin et al. 2010; Foias 2002:232; 1987; King, this vol.). Finding traces of these is, of course, a real chal- EF. Craham lenge, Nonetheless, techniques ranging from residue analysis to Alotation can help recover microdata, and faunal and botanical analysis can help trace the origins of some of the organics found. It is well-known, for exam- ple, that there was a brisk trade in marine resources from the coast to the interior, beginning in the Preclassic (2000 B.C.E.-C.F. 250), though how that trade was organized is less certain. Evidence of marine fauna in mid- dens associated with potential marketplaces would help support the idea that they arrived through market exchange (Shaw 2012). Perhaps most promising, however, has been the application of soil chemistry to market areas (Dahlin 2003, 2009; Dahlin et al. 2007, 2010; Hutson and Terry 2006; Hutson et al. 2007; Terry et al. 2000, 2004, this vol.; Wells 2004; Wells et al. 2000). The patterns revealed by tracking phosphate concentra- tions ata site have helped to identify possible food stall areas, as well as to distinguish marketplaces from areas where ritual feasting took place (Terry etal., this vol.). Other chemicals can reveal where animals were slaugh- tered in modern markets (Terry et al., this vol.) or the repetitive selling of certain goods in certain places. Elevated levels of iron, for example, mightMaya Marketplace at Maax Na, Belize + 175 indicate that hematite pigments or polychrome vessels had been stored and/or were exchanged in a particular location (Shaw 2012). These physical indicators provide a good basis for evaluating the exis- tence of a market at a site. They were all found to one degree or another during our investigations at Maax Na The Maax Na Marketplace The site of Maax Na is located in the Three Rivers Region of northwestern Belize and adjacent Guatemala (Adams 1995; Adams et al. 2004; Scarbor- ough et al. 2003). It is situated in the La Lucha Uplands, at the top of the major escarpment uplift that separates the coastal floodplains of Belize to the east from the rolling hills of the Petén Karst Plateau to the west (Dun- ning et al. 2003; Fig. 6.1). A survey team from the University of Texas at ite in 1995, and the Ma ect (MNAP), which we co-direct, subsequently investigated it over several Austin discovered the 1: Na Archacology Proj- short field seasons. From the beginning the layout of the site suggested there were functional differences between sectors, and work on differen- tiating these eventually led us to identifying a marketplace. However, in order to understand the role and function of the Maax Na market, it is important to put it first into its broader regional context. Rio Azul in Guatemala is the largest site in the Three Rivers Region, and it appears to have dominated at least the western part of the area, along with the smaller site of Kinal south of it. Farther to the east, however, the large sites are more comparable in size to each other and are more evenly distributed. Maax Na is one of several such sites in this part of the region, which also contains Blue Creek, Dos Hombres, Gran Cacao, Great Sa- vannah, and La Milpa, among others. The regular spacing of major sites in this part of the Three Rivers Region is unusual, and their density is even more so. Large centers average a distance of 7-10 km from each other here, a shorter span than that found in much of the central Petén (D. Rice and Culbert 1990). The Programme for Belize Archaeological Project, with which we are affliated, and several other research programs are cur- rently working towards elucidating the economic base that supported the high population in this region, as well as the political relations among the large centers. The lack of obvious evidence for strife and the fact that many of the sites overlapped in time, especially in the Late Classic (C.E. 600-800), suggests they were heterarchically organized (King 2000, in press; King and Shaw 2003). While La Milpa, the only site with carved