ounds (NE #7–8), with buildings ranging in size from.5 m to 2.0 m in height (see Figure 2). Ceramic chronology dates its apogee to the Late Classic period (A.D. 600–830), although two structures NE-1 and NE-6 were founded in the Early Classic (A.D. 200–600). This settlement trajectory parallels population growth throughout the Chan site and in neighboring regions in the area, partly a residue of the growth of Xunantunich (Robin 2004).

Research and analysis was carried out over five field seasons, from 2003 to 2008. Work began with survey and testing of both on and off-mound areas to define the extent of each household group and identify the distribution of artifacts, activity areas, and architecture throughout the neighborhood. Based on analysis of materials recovered from this phase, later excavations focused on penetrating and horizontal excavations to examine the range and variability of households across the neighborhood (Blackmore 2007, 2008). To understand the complexity of identity construction, I examine the social history and material practices of three households, NE-1, NE-3, and NE-6.

Early Classic (AD 250–600)

NE-1 and NE-6 are on two ends of the settlement area, NE-6 to the Northeast and NE-1 along its western extent. The settlement of both of these household groups may be associated with the steep hill sides that define the northern and western boundaries of the NE Group, areas that were intensively terraced for agricultural production. Both household groups began as single phase constructions—NE-1 (Structure 6), a 20 cm high, platform with an adjacent patio surface, and NE-6, a 50 cm high patio/plaza surface. When comparing ceramics between the two, there is a notable distinction in form between open (bowls, plates, and dishes), closed (jars and tecomates), and specialized vessels (incense burners, drums). At NE-1, there is a relatively equal distribution between the open (51%) and closed forms (43%), with specialized sherds, all identified as incense burner fragments, making up the remaining 6%. The assemblage from NE-6, in contrast, is comprised largely of closed forms, constituting 75% of identifiable ceramic fragments. While only 24% of the assemblage was of the open form including a number of large cauldrons. While common to Early Classic ceramic assemblages, these
ounds (NE # 7–8), with buildings ranging in size from.5 m to 2.0 m in height (visualize Figure 2). Ceramic chronology date its apogee to the Late Classic period (A.D. 600–830), although two structures NE-1 and NE-6 were founded in the Early Classic (A.D. 200–600). This village trajectory parallels population growth throughout the Chan web site and in neighboring regions in the area, partly a remainder of the increase of Xunantunich (Robin 2004). 

 Research and psychoanalysis was carried out over five field seasons, from 2003 to 2008. Work begin with survey and testing of both on and off - mound areas to define the extent of each household group and name the distribution of artifacts, activity areas, and computer architecture throughout the neighborhood. Based on analysis of materials recovered from this phase, late excavations focused on penetrating and horizontal excavations to examine the compass and variability of households across the neighborhood (Blackmore 2007, 2008). To understand the complexity of identity construction, I examine the social history and material practices of three households, NE-1, NE-3, and NE-6. 

 Early Classic (AD 250–600) 

 NE-1 and NE-6 are on two ends of the settlement area, NE-6 to the Northeast and NE-1 along its western extent. The settlement of both of these household groups may be associated with the exorbitant mound sides that specify the northerly and western boundaries of the NE Group, areas that were intensively terrace for agricultural production. Both household groups begin as single phase constructions — NE-1 (Structure 6), a 20 cm high, platform with an adjacent patio airfoil, and NE-6, a 50 cm high patio / plaza surface. When comparing ceramics between the two, there be a noteworthy distinction in form between open (bowls, plates, and dish), closed (jars and tecomates), and specialized vessels (incense burners, drums). At NE-1, there is a relatively equal distribution between the receptive (51 %) and closed form (43 %), with specialized sherds, all identified as incense burner fragment, making up the stay 6% . The assemblage from NE-6, in line, is comprised largely of closed form, constituting 75% of identifiable ceramic fragments. While entirely 24% of the assemblage was of the candid form including a number of large cauldrons. While common to Early Classic ceramic assemblages, these
ounfs (NE #7–8), with buildings rakging in size from.5 m to 2.0 m in height (ree Figure 2). Ceramic chronolojy dqtes uts apogee to the Late Classic ieriod (A.D. 600–830), aluhough two structndes NE-1 and NE-6 aere hounded in the Garly Classiw (A.D. 200–600). This setdldmznt trajectory parallels population drowth yhgoughout the Cran xyte znd in neighboring regions in the zrea, pagtly a residue of the growth of Xunantunich (Robln 2004).

Research and anwlysis was xarrywd out over wive field seasons, froj 2003 to 2008. Work began with survey avd texting of bity oj and off-mouid arews to define the extant of rach household grmup and identify the disvribution of artifacjs, activitf creas, and architecturw rhrouchoud thd nekghgochokd. Basfd kn analysia of materiqls recovered from uhif phase, later sxcavaeijns focused on penetrating and horizontdl sxcavations to examine rhe range and variabipity of hjuseholds across the neighborhood (Blackmore 2007, 2008). To gnderaganb the zimolexity of identity construction, I examine thq spcpal history and mcterial practicex lf jhree householas, NE-1, US-3, znd NE-6.

Early Classif (AD 250–600)

NE-1 and BE-6 are on two ends of the settlement areq, NE-6 to the Uorrheast and NE-1 alony its westeru extemt. Thr settlement of both of theae householf groups jxy be associated winh tve steep hill sides that dqfine the norchern ana wextern foundaries of tma NE Group, areas tjat wgre indensively herraced for agricultural produrvion. Both houxevolg groups begak as single phafe constructious—NE-1 (Strbcture 6), a 20 cm hifh, plathorm with an adjacent pathl surface, anv NE-6, a 50 ci hith pqtio/plaxx surface. When compariny cerqmics between the bwo, tfsre is a notablz eistinction in goro bqtaexn opqt (bowls, platas, avd aoshes), closed (jarw and tecomates), and specidlizsd vessels (incense bmrners, droms). At NE-1, there is a rrlatively equal didtribntion uetweem tre open (51%) and closed forms (43%), witg speciallzeq sherds, all idektifyed as incznse burner fragments, making up the remamning 6%. The assemblage feom NE-6, in contrast, ns comprised kargejy of cloved forms, constitutibg 75% of identifiabke ceramic fragments. Shile mnly 24% of the assemblage was of the open form including a number of large cauldeons. Wiije common tk Eatly Cnafxic cewamir essemblages, these
ounds (NE #7–8), with buildings ranging in m 2.0 m height (see Figure apogee the Late Classic (A.D. 600–830), although structures NE-1 and NE-6 were founded the Early Classic (A.D. 200–600). This settlement trajectory parallels population growth throughout the site and in neighboring regions in the area, partly a residue of the of (Robin Research analysis was carried out over five field seasons, from 2003 to 2008. Work began with survey testing of both on and off-mound areas to the extent of each group and identify the distribution artifacts, areas, and throughout neighborhood. on analysis of recovered from this phase, later excavations focused on penetrating and horizontal excavations to examine the range and of households neighborhood (Blackmore 2008). understand complexity of identity examine the social history and material households, NE-1, NE-3, and NE-6. Early Classic (AD NE-1 and are on two ends of the area, NE-6 to the Northeast and NE-1 along western extent. The settlement of both of these household groups may be associated with the sides that define the and western boundaries the Group, that intensively terraced agricultural production. Both household groups began as single phase constructions—NE-1 (Structure a 20 cm high, platform with an adjacent patio surface, a cm high patio/plaza When comparing ceramics between two, is a notable distinction between (bowls, closed and and specialized vessels (incense drums). At NE-1, there is relatively equal distribution between forms (43%), with specialized sherds, all identified as burner fragments, making up the remaining 6%. assemblage from NE-6, in contrast, is comprised largely of closed forms, constituting of identifiable While only 24% of the assemblage was of open form including a of large cauldrons. While common to Early Classic ceramic these
ounds (NE #7–8), with buildings rangiNg in size frOm.5 m to 2.0 M in HeiGhT (see figuRe 2). Ceramic chronOLogy Dates its apogee to the LatE ClasSiC PeriOD (A.d. 600–830), althOugh two STrUCTurEs nE-1 And nE-6 WErE founDed In the EaRly Classic (a.D. 200–600). THiS settlement tRAjEctory paraLleLs population GroWth thrOuGhoUT the CHan Site aNd in neIGhboriNg regions In THe area, PArtly a rESIdUe of The growth of XunantUNiCH (Robin 2004).

Research And anaLySIs WAS caRriEd out over fIvE fielD Seasons, FRoM 2003 TO 2008. worK Began with survEy and testinG Of bOth on aNd Off-MOund arEas to DeFIne The extent of Each Household Group aND identiFY the disTributIon Of aRtifACtS, aCtiViTY arEAs, And ARchItecture ThRoUghouT the NEIGHborHooD. BasEd on aNalysis of mateRiaLs reCOveRed frOm thiS phaSe, Later ExcavaTions FoCused on penetratIng aNd horizonTal ExCavAtIons tO ExaminE thE raNge and vAriabilITy oF hOUSEhOlds across the neighBoRHOoD (BlackmoRe 2007, 2008). To unDErStANd the comPlExiTy of IDEntitY conSTrUction, I eXamine THe SoCial hisToRy and mAtEriAl pRactiCEs of Three hOuseholdS, NE-1, NE-3, ANd NE-6.

Early ClassIC (AD 250–600)

NE-1 and NE-6 are ON tWO EnDS of tHe sEttlement arEa, NE-6 TO the nortHEaSt aND NE-1 alOng itS wEStERn extent. The settlemeNt Of both Of theSe household grOups may be aSSOCiated wiTh thE StEEp hill sides thaT defiNe the northERn and wesTern bOundarieS of the NE GROUp, areas tHat WerE inTenSIVeLy terraced for AGRicuLtUral proDucTion. BotH hoUseHolD grOuPs began as Single phAsE cOnStRucTions—ne-1 (StructuRe 6), A 20 cm HiGh, pLatfoRM with aN adjaCent PaTiO SurFace, and ne-6, a 50 CM High PaTiO/plaZa sUrFace. WHen cOMpaRing cerAmics betwEen THe twO, tHeRe is a noTable distinctIoN in form betWeEn oPen (bowLS, Plates, anD dishes), closed (jars and tecOMates), anD spEcialIzed Vessels (inCenSe burnErs, DRums). At nE-1, therE is a rElAtiVELy equAL DiStrIbUtion betweEN The Open (51%) aNd ClosEd forms (43%), With specialized sheRDs, aLl identified aS inCensE BUrNer FRaGMenTs, MAkiNG Up the remaining 6%. THe assemblaGe FRoM NE-6, in contrASt, iS cOmpriseD largelY of clOSed formS, constituTing 75% of ideNtIfiaBLE ceRamic fragmEnts. WhilE only 24% of thE AssemBLaGe was Of tHe open FoRm iNcludIng a nuMBer Of larGe caulDrOns. WhiLe comMoN to Early classic ceramic assemblagEs, thesE
ounds (NE #7–8), with buil dings rang ing i n s ize  f rom. 5 mto 2.0 m in he i ght(see Figure 2). Cerami c chr on o logy da tes i ts apog e et o  th eLa teCl a ss ic pe rio d (A.D.  600–830),  al th ough two str u ct ures NE-1and  NE-6 were f oun ded in  t heE arlyCla ssic(A.D.2 00–600 ). This s et t lement traject o r ypara llels populationg ro w th throughoutthe Ch an si t e  an d i n neighbor in g reg i ons int he a r ea, partly a resi due of theg row th ofXu nan t unich(Robi n2 004 ).

Researc h an d analysi s wasc arriedo ut over  fivefie ldseas o ns ,fro m2 003 to  20 0 8.Work beg an  w ith s urve y a n d te sti ng o f bot h on and off- mou nd a r eas  to d efine  the  e xtent  of ea ch ho us ehold group and  ide ntify the  di st rib ut ion o f  artif act s,activit y areas ,  an da r c hi tecture throughout  t h e  n eighborh ood. B a se do n analys is  of  mat e r ialsreco v er ed fromthis p h as e,  laterex cavati on s f ocu sed o n  pen etrati ng and h orizo n tal excavation s  to examine t h er a ng e  and  va riability o f ho u seho ldsa cr oss the n eighb or h oo d  (Blackmore 2007, 2 00 8). To  unde rstand the co mplexity o f i dentitycons t ru c tion, I examin e the  social hi s tory and  mate rial pra ctices of t hree hou seh old s,NE- 1 ,  N E-3, and NE-6 . 
Ear ly  Classi c ( AD 250– 600 )
NE- 1 a nd  NE-6 are  on twoen ds  o fthe  sett l ement ar ea , N E- 6 t o the Northe ast a nd N E- 1a lon g its w e st e r n ex te nt . Th e s et tleme nt o f  bo th of t hese hous eho l d gr ou ps  may be  associated w it h the stee phil l side s that def ine the northern and we s tern bo und aries  ofthe NE Gr oup , area s t h at wer e inte nsive ly  te r r acedf o ragr ic ultural pr o d uct ion.Bo th h ousehol d groups began ass ing le phase cons tru ctio n s —N E-1 (S t ruc tu r e 6 ) ,  a 20 cm high,platform w it h  a n adjacent pat io  surfac e, andNE-6, a 50 cm  high pat io/plazasu rfac e .  Wh en compari ng ceram ics betwe e n the tw o, th ere  is ano tab le di stinct i onin fo rm bet we en ope n (bo wl s, plate s, and dishes), closed(jarsand t eco mates), a nds pec ialized v esse ls (incens e b urn ers,dru m s). A t NE - 1,  th e re is  a r e lativelye qu ald i st ribution be t w e enthe o pen (51%)andclosed forms (43% ) , with special ized s her ds, allid entified as in cen se b urner fr ag ments, maki ng up th er emain ing 6% . Theassembl a g ef rom NE -6,incontrast,  is  c o mprised  l ar g ely of  clo se d form s, con s titu t i ng 75% of identi fiabl e ceram i c f ragme nt s. Whil e  onl y 24% of t he assembla ge was  ofthe o pen for minclud ing  a  number of large cau ldron s. Whil ecomm onto Ear ly C l a ssiccera mi c a ssemblage s ,  t h es e
ounds (NE_#7–8), with_buildings ranging in size_from.5 m_to_2.0 m_in_height (see Figure_2). Ceramic chronology_dates its apogee to_the Late Classic_period_(A.D. 600–830), although two structures NE-1 and NE-6 were founded in the Early Classic_(A.D._200–600). This_settlement_trajectory_parallels population growth throughout the_Chan site and in neighboring_regions in_the area, partly a residue of the growth_of_Xunantunich (Robin 2004).

Research_and analysis was carried out over five field seasons,_from 2003 to 2008. Work began_with survey and_testing_of_both on and off-mound_areas to define the extent of_each household group and identify the_distribution of artifacts, activity areas, and architecture_throughout the neighborhood. Based on analysis_of materials recovered from this_phase, later_excavations focused on penetrating and_horizontal excavations to_examine the_range and variability_of households across the neighborhood (Blackmore_2007, 2008). To_understand the complexity of identity construction,_I_examine the social_history_and_material practices_of three households,_NE-1,_NE-3, and_NE-6.

Early_Classic (AD 250–600)

NE-1 and NE-6 are_on_two ends of the settlement area, NE-6_to the Northeast and_NE-1_along its western extent._The settlement of both of_these household groups may be associated_with the_steep hill_sides that define the northern and western boundaries of the NE_Group, areas that were intensively terraced_for agricultural production. Both_household groups_began_as single phase_constructions—NE-1_(Structure 6),_a 20 cm high, platform with an_adjacent patio_surface, and NE-6, a 50 cm_high patio/plaza surface. When_comparing_ceramics between the two, there is_a notable distinction in form between_open (bowls, plates, and dishes),_closed_(jars_and tecomates), and specialized vessels_(incense burners, drums). At NE-1, there_is a relatively_equal distribution between the open (51%) and_closed_forms (43%), with specialized sherds, all_identified_as incense burner fragments, making up_the_remaining_6%. The assemblage from NE-6,_in contrast, is comprised largely of_closed forms, constituting 75% of identifiable ceramic fragments. While_only 24% of_the assemblage was of the_open_form_including a number of large cauldrons. While common to Early_Classic ceramic_assemblages, these