The Patterns of Refuse Disposal in Maya City

I’m interested in archaeology’s study of variations in household economic production and subsistence patterns at the Classical Maya city of Tikal in Mexico. Refuse disposal in the Maya Highlands by Hayden and Cannon is a crucial resource for my research.

“Cultures do not just interact with one another; they also interact with the environment,” claim Renfrew and Bahn.

(Paul Bahn of Renfrew, 70). Archaeologists can obtain particular information on the subsistence habits and economic output of people in that area at specific sites based on the rules for disposing of trash in the Maya Highlands. Households in the Maya Highlands dispose of refuse in a specific structure depending on their needs and the nature of the refuse. It is sorted out and dumped separately, either within the compounds or farther away from the houses. This information is relevant in that it makes it easier to single out types of refuse and compare waste from different houses

Convenience determines patterns of refuse disposal. Refuse that is considered to have little value is dumped nearby in a casual manner, which includes organic remains and house sweepings dumped near the gardens to be used as manure. Inorganic refuse goes through many stages of discard. Items may be kept under the beds along with the hedge of the fence then moved to sites where such items from other households are accumulated. The final discarding can be done by disposing them in pits. The higher is the value of the waste items, the longer it takes for them to be entirely discarded (Hayden & Cannon). Examples of this waste include machetes, axes, and ritual food preparation vessels. In the Maya area, the use of pits for disposal of large hindrance potential refuse was uncommon, unlike in other communities.

It is essential to consider the quantification techniques used in comparing artifacts at the household level. Hayden and Cannon’s research found that Maya houses were single-roomed and had earthen floors. Most of the daily activities happen in the houses, around the hearth. Most house refuses are considered of low hindrance potential, and are therefore disposed of in the garden or the “toft”, meaning a place within the compound. The houses were swept daily. Outdoor work was done in the patio area, which was not cleaned as frequently and as neatly as the houses. The primary refuse sites will mostly have the tiny pieces and fragments of valuable items. These items will mainly also be found around the hearth, which is the place where much house activities are done, and around the patios, where daily activities took place.

Human behavior is important in understanding the patterns of refuse disposal. According to Cannon and Hayden (1983), a number of activities taking place in the compound, the size of the compound, and the nearness to and convenience of dumping locations determines the behaviors of discarding refuse. The Maya villages portrayed a culture whereby ceramics were locally manufactured, and a number of stone tools were used along with metal tools that were imported. Much of the house structures tools and technologies used are similar to those used in the prehistoric times. When families move to another place, both organic and organic refuse will be left in the house and also around the compound that may be valuable to archaeological study.

In conclusion, my work as an archaeologist will be more efficient through the use of the existing analysis of trash deposits and patterns of disposal in the community. I would focus more on the toft area in households and common refuse areas in the neighborhood since it would not only be economical, but also have a higher probability of finding valuable archaeological evidence.

Works Cited

Hayden, Brian, Aubrey Cannon: “Where the Garbage goes: Refuse Disposal in the Maya Highlands.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2, 1983: 117-163.

Renfrew, Colin, and Paul Bahn. Archaeology. 7TH Edition. Thames &Hudson, New York: N.P, 2016. Print.