Identification of Caves in the Mirador-Calakmul Karst Basin Through Visualization of LiDAR Data

Abstract

In the Maya Lowland region of Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize numerous caves have been documented to contain Maya artifacts. Research has shown that the Maya used caves for ritual activities and often left ceramic fragments or created as part of their activities. As such, through time archaeologists have attempted to locate caves in the lowlands to better document these ritual practices. However, locating caves in forest-covered terrains is difficult. With the advent of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data, though, has become possible to remotely identify cave entrances. Using LiDAR data recorded in the Mirador-Calakmul Karst Basin during 2015 we identified 148 potential cave entrances. We validated 44 of these anomalies through a pedestrian survey performed during the 2021 field season which led to the identification of 29 caves. An additional seven caves were identified opportunistically during the field season, and three previously known caves were also explored. Of the 39 caves examined four were determined to contain Maya artifacts.

Full text

Identification of Caves in the Mirador-Calakmul Karst Basin Through Visualization
of LiDAR Data
Ross Ensley1 and Carlos Morales-Aguilar1,2,3
1 GeoMaya Research Initiative
2 University of Texas, Austin
3 Laboratoire Archéologie des Amériques
This report was originally written to be submitted in Spanish as part of the 2021 Temporada Report. The
full reference for this report is as follows:
Hansen, Richard D., Edgard Suyuc-Ley, and Gustavo Martinez-Hidalgo (editors)
2022 Investigaciones multidisciplinarias en La Cuenca Mirador, Informe temporada de campo 2021,
Actividades de laboratorio efectuadas durante la temporada de campo 2021. Report submitted to
Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Dirección General del Patrimonio Cultural y Natural,
Departamento de Monumentos Prehispánicos y Coloniales Instituto de Antropología e Historia.
Introduction
In the Maya Lowland region of Mexico, Guatemala, and Belize numerous caves have
been documented to contain Maya artifacts. Research has shown that the Maya used
caves for ritual activities and often left ceramic fragments or created as part of their
activities. As such, through time archaeologists have attempted to locate caves in the
lowlands to better document these ritual practices. However, locating caves in forest-
covered terrains is difficult. With the advent of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data,
though, has become possible to remotely identify cave entrances. Using LiDAR data
recorded in the Mirador-Calakmul Karst Basin during 2015 we identified 148 potential
cave entrances. We validated 44 of these anomalies through a pedestrian survey
performed during the 2021 field season which led to the identification of 29 caves. An
additional seven caves were identified opportunistically during the field season, and three
previously known caves were also explored. Of the 39 caves examined four were
determined to contain Maya artifacts.
Mirador-Calakmul Karst Basin
The Mirador-Calakmul Karst Basin (MCKB) is a Neogene fluviokarst landscape (White,
1988; Gates, 1992, 1999) located in north-central Petén and southern Campeche on the
southern Petén Plateau (Gunn and Folan, 1992; Folan et al., 2001; Ensley, 2018; Ensley
et al., 2021). The area is dominated by low-lying seasonal swamps, locally known as
bajos, where water collects from the surrounding karstic upland hills (Gunn and Folan,
1992; Hansen et al., 2002; Hansen, 2012a, 2012b, 2016, 2017; Ensley, 2018; Ensley et
al., 2021).
The MCKB (Fig. 1) exhibits all hydrologic features common to drainage basins in addition
to inferred groundwater flow routes and well-defined boundaries. A karst drainage basin,

or karst basin, is a three-dimensional volume that encompasses the surface area and
subsurface rock that contributes water to a conduit network with discharge to an outlet
spring or springs (Quinlan and Ewers, 1989; Taylor et al., 2005; Taylor and Greene,
2008). The key karst hydrologic features that define a karst basin (Ray, 2001) are present
in the MCKB as follows: 1) Seasonal swamps, or bajos, are prevalent in the karst valleys;
2) sinkholes are present throughout the basin, but especially common along faulted
margins of the larger bajos; 3) intermittent lakes, locally known as civales, are notable
along the southeastern flank of the basin; 4) ephemeral streams and swallow holes are
present in the karst valleys; 5) solution corridors, fractures, caves, and vadose tubes
provide evidence of the subsurface conduit system that underdrains the karst valleys; and
6) springs are common on the western margin of the basin where they have eroded a line
of hills.
Groundwater flow paths and defined borders further define a karst basin and delimit its
area. Regional groundwater modeling demonstrates that groundwater flows from the
central anticlines of the Petén Plateau towards the west (Bauer-Gottwein et al., 2011;
Ensley et al., 2021). Borders of the MCKB are delineated by the surface anticlines on the
east, a line of hills north of Calakmul, and the line of low hills interrupted by karst valleys
along the west. During seasonal rains, sinkholes and swallow holes funnel water into
subsurface conduits which drain to springs along the western margin of the basin.
Caves
Caves are conduits that serve to funnel water into the subsurface. They are defined as a
hole in the ground large enough for a human to enter (Jennings, 1997; Gunn, 2004;
Moyes and Montgomery, 2019; White and Culver, 2019). Three types of caves have been
observed to date in the MCKB including solution caves, remnant caves, and talus caves.
They are defined as follows:
• A solution cave is one in which the cavity is created through chemical dissolution of
the parent rock, commonly limestone, by circulating ground water (White and Culver,
2019). The rooms, or passages, can be a few meters to 10s of kilometers in length.
Caves can be exposed through the processes of erosion or collapse, or through
human activity such as quarries and road cuts (White, 2019).
• A remnant cave is a fragment of an original cave, or a partial cave, exposed through
geological or human processes. Although remnant caves are formed through
dissolution, they are typically only a small fraction of the original cave through
exposure. Remnant caves may be exposed by slope erosion (Duchene and Martinez,
2000), doline collapse (Westaway et al., 2010; Knez. 2015; Tirla et al., 2020), or
through human excavation of a quarry (McKee, 1993; Mihevc, 2007).
• A talus cave is composed of the interstices between boulders that are large enough
for a human to explore (Gracanin, 1978; Holler, 2019; White and Culver, 2019). Where
geologic processes such as cliff collapse or faulting have created a boulder field, talus
caves can be found in which the passages are air spaces between the boulders.

Examples of talus caves have been described by Eszterhas and Szentes (2008),
Epstein (2010), and Oprea and others (2015).
Identification and examination of caves is an important aspect of geoarchaeology in the
Maya Lowlands. This stems from our knowledge of the ritual use of caves by the Maya,
widely documented in the region (Woodfill et al., 2012; Moyes and Brady, 2012; Wrobel
et al., 2017; Brady and Stone, 2019; Moyes, 2020). This ritual use takes the form of
placing ceramics in caves, construction of small monuments or alters, paintings, and
burials. Most Maya ceramic objects identified in caves are fragmentary and were likely to
have been ritually broken or brought into the cave as single sherds (Moyes, 2016). Often,
ceramic pieces were placed in niches or small alcoves (Moyes, 2001).
In northern Peten, Preclassic artifacts have been identified in several locations. Preclassic
ceramics were identified from the San Pablo Cave, near El Cayo along the Usumacinta
River (Lee and Hayden, 1988). Preclassic ceramics and ritual use of a cave were
described from the Cueva de las Pinturas near Cobanerita (Brady et al., 1997). Golden
and others (2008) collected Preclassic ceramics from multiple caves in the region of
Piedras Negras and Yaxchilan. On the margin of the Peten Plateau, Preclassic ceramics
have been described from caves near Uaxactun (Tec and Kovac, 2011; Krempel et al.,
2014). These serve to illustrate the ritual use of caves in northern Peten during the
Preclassic. Undated ceramics have been observed in caves near El Zotz (Cook et al.,
2019). Separately, Newman and others (2015) described a vessel excavated from an
Early Classic tomb at El Diablo that was encrusted with calcium deposits and
hypothesized that it may have been used for ritual collection of water in a cave.
Prior to the 2021 field season only a few caves had been identified within the MCKB
(Table 1), but none with artifacts that could be dated to the Preclassic. These included
two solution caves and two talus caves. Artifacts have not been observed in any of these.
Caches of artifacts were discovered in two small cavities on the flanks of collapse dolines
near Los Monos and La Muerta, but these features were not caves. Lastly, Copal balls
were discovered in one small cave, but they have not been dated.
LiDAR Acquisition
LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) has been used widely throughout the Maya
Lowlands. The use of LiDAR in Maya lowlands has demonstrated the extreme efficiency
and use of this technology for interpretation of geomorphological features (Weishampel
et al, 2011; Frausto-Martínez et al., 2019; Moreno-Gómez et al., 2019; Moyes and
Montgomery, 2019; Ensley et al., 2021), mapping hydrological features (Macrae and
Iannone, 2016; Brewer et al., 2017; Šprajc et al., 2021) and settlement patterns (Chase
et al., 2016; Fisher et al., 2016; Thompson, 2020) over a wide range of forested and non-
forested areas. The laser technology uses infrared to ultraviolet light to image terrain
details over large contiguous, forested areas. The Mirador Basin Project pioneered the
use of this technology in Guatemala with acquisition of a large Phase I survey in the
southern MCKB during 2015 followed by an additional Phase II survey in 2018.

Eagle Mapping acquired the Phase I dataset from June 27 to July 4, 2015, using a Riegl
LMS-Q1560 airborne laser scanner. The survey was flown with a Piper Navajo aircraft.
GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) data were calibrated with a ground base
station at Mundo Maya Airport, Flores, Guatemala, having a maximum distance of 99.9
km from the survey area. Positional data were processed using the Applanix POSpac
MMS v8.2 software. RIEGL RiPROCESS software was used to calibrate the boresight
data, and the BayesMap Solutions BayesStripAlign v2.1 software was used to align
swaths. Table 2 lists the acquisition parameters, while Table 3 lists the coordinate system
used. The survey had 31,209,808,778 total returns (Rtn) with an average density of 48.39
Rtn/m2. Eagle Mapping used TerraSolid’s Terrascan software to classify ground points.
Total ground returns (Grtn) were 1,403,832,999 with an average density of 2.18 Grtn/m2.
A complete listing of the acquisition and initial processing results is provided in Table 4.
Additional post-processing increased the density of ground returns to 5.3 Grtn/m2. We
used QuickTerrain Modeler to create a bare earth digital elevation model (DEM) with a
0.5 m resolution.
Identification of Cave Openings with LiDAR
Although LiDAR data have been used commonly for interpretation of karst landscapes
and dolines, these data have only been used sparingly to identify potential cave openings.
Weishampel and others (2011) calculated a Topographic Position Index (TPI) from LiDAR
data to identify 60 previously undocumented vertical depressions, shafts, and cave
entrances in western Belize. Moyes and Montgomery (2016, 2019) used a Local Relief
Model, or LRM, (Hesse, 2012; Kokalj et al., 2013) to identify 157 potential cave openings
in the Vaca Plateau of western Belize. Of these 39, or 25% of the potential caves, were
verified during ground surveys to be cave entrances. In Italy, Balsi and others (2021) were
able to highlight a cave entrance with LRM.
Several key attributes of the LiDAR survey were calculated to visualize potential cave
entrances (Table 4). They include the following:
• Hillshade provides a raster image that resembles the natural landscape with a uniform
illumination and is commonly used to visualize landforms (Mayoral et al., 2017;
Tzvetkov, 2018; Gallwey et al., 2019).
• Simple Local Relief Model (SLRM) removes the large-scale topographical changes
and highlights small-scale changes. This attribute has been widely accepted for the
identification of archaeological and geomorphological features (Hesse, 2012; Kokalj
et al., 2013; Kazimi et al., 2020).
• Slope Angle was calculated to determine the angle of the edges of geologic features
such as collapse dolines, fault scarps, and ravines. This derivative of a DEM is useful
for detection of archaeological structures (Kokalj et al., 2013) and geomorphological
features (Hofierka et al., 2018).

The terrain of the Phase I area was imaged using a combined visualization of hillshade,
SLRM, and slope. A common practice for identification of landforms with LiDAR data is
to combine multiple attributes into a single image (Kokalj et al., 2013; Kokalj and Somrak,
2019). We displayed rasters of the three attributes as follows:
• Hillshade: Displayed as a base layer drawn as an RGB Composite. The use of multi-
Hillshade avoided having steep slopes fully darkened in shadows.
• SLRM: Displayed with a stretched color scale from blue-yellow-red. Regions with
minor changes in relief were imaged in yellow while areas with rapid changes in relief
were imaged in red or blue. A transparency of 50% was used for this layer so that it
appeared to drape on the hillshade layer.
• Slope Angle: Displayed as a classified layer with angles shown from 40-90 degrees,
in 10-degree color increments. No transparency was used for this layer. This served
to highlight areas where the slope of the terrain was highest.
Potential cave openings were manually identified in ArcMap using the visualization
described above. Cave entrances can take the form of a horizontal or a vertical entrance.
Horizontal entrances typically exhibit a zone of high values on a Slope Angle attribute.
Associated naturally formed geological features include dolines, fault scarps, and ravines.
They may also be associated with human derived features such as quarries. These
features are highlighted on the SLRM attributed as areas with rapid changes in relief. We
flagged a total of 148 points with significant areas of Slope Angle greater than 50o and
associated with natural features or quarries with rapid changes in relief. Anomalies
associated with constructions such as pyramids, plazas, and other buildings were not
flagged. Each anomaly was assigned a Flag ID following the LiDAR tile grid. The geologic
setting for each anomaly was determined from the LiDAR data including collapse dolines,
fault scarps, ravines, and quarries. Figure 2 is an SLRM map for the area around El
Mirador showing the anomalies identified. Figure 3 is an example anomaly observed on
the SLRM map with the slope overlay. This figure shows the anomaly CG42-01 later
associated with the Jaguar Cave.
Pedestrian Survey
During the 2021 field season a pedestrian survey was undertaken in the area surrounding
El Mirador to provide ground truth for the identified anomalies. The process used for the
pedestrian survey was as follows:
• LiDAR data we loaded into a Garmin Montana 700i to visualize the terrain during the
pedestrian survey. This was necessary because of the thick forest cover.
• Point and line data were loaded into a Garmin InReach handheld GPS device. The
data included identified SLRM flags, trails, and known caves.
• Identified flags were visited and the observed on-ground features were surveyed. Data
collected at each site included the following:
o Site number
o GPS data for

o Geologic setting
o Measurement of cliffs or caves observed
• Each cave was inspected to determine the presence or absence of artifacts
• Opportunistic caves identified during the pedestrian survey were also surveyed
Results
During the pedestrian survey 44 of the flagged anomalies were observed on the ground
in the region near El Mirador. Table 6 lists the results which included a large number of
caves associated with dolines, human-made quarries, and fault scarps. These results are
summarized in Table 7. In total 29 caves, or 65.9% of the flagged anomalies, were
verified. An additional 10 caves were encountered opportunistically during the pedestrian
survey (Table 8) that were not associated with an SLRM anomaly. One of these, site 21-
247 near Los Faisanes, was previously described by Morales-Aguilar and Morales-López
(2007).
Morphometric data were collected for all the 54 features identified during the pedestrian
survey, including both those with and without flagged anomalies (Table 9). For caves, we
calculated the ratio of the interior length versus the entrance width. A ratio less than one
is indicative of a small portion of the original cave and are considered to be remnant
caves. A ratio larger than 1 indicates a cave that is only partially exposed. These were
termed solution caves.
As discussed above, cave entrances can be exposed in several ways. Table 10 tabulates
the exposure style for each of the 39 caves identified. The majority, 53.8%, were exposed
through doline collapse. 12.8% were exposed through motion along faults. 30.8%, those
associated with quarries, are believed to have been exposed during quarry operations by
the Maya. Lastly, only 1 cave, or 2.6%, we exposed by erosion or hillslope retreat.
Only caves, or smaller cavities, in which artifacts were observed were named. Two of
these, the Los Monos Cache, the La Muerta Cache, and the Copal Cave, were identified
in prior field seasons (Morales-Aguilar and Morales-López, 2005; Morales-Aguilar and
Mauricio, 2006). The La Muerta Cache was in a small cavity not associated with an SLRM
anomaly. The Los Monos Cache is at present a small cavity that is related to an anomaly
(CG39-01), but it was apparently larger at the time of discovery and shows evidence of
collapse. The named caves and cavities are listed in Table 11. Four of these caves are
described below.
Jaguar Cave is located 200 m west of the first platform of the La Danta pyramid complex.
The cave entrance is situated along the southeastern margin of a large Maya quarry (Fig
4) and was most likely exposed during quarry operations. It was named by the field team
after a juvenile jaguar skull that was found nearby. Two large blocks at the cave entrance,
tilted to the northwest, suggest that the cave was larger at one time and that the roof has
collapsed to some degree. Visualization of the LiDAR data showed that the location has
a significant anomaly - a sharp discontinuity from high positive to low negative SLRM and
a maximum slope of 56.5o. The feature is a solution cave with two passages and a total

length of 13.44 m (Fig. 5). An upright white stone was present at the beginning of the side
passage (Fig. 6) and faced a small upright potsherd 2.6 m away near the end of the
passage. The triangular-shaped stone was resting on three rounded stones. A large slab
of limestone .65 m by .34 m was leaning on the north wall near the entrance. It did not
appear to have fallen from the cave ceiling and may have been placed in a near upright
position. Pottery fragments were observed lying on the floor of the cave and present in
the near surface rubble. An archaeological team excavated a test pit (Oper. 121C) and
recovered sherds dated to Late Preclassic, Late Classic, and Terminal Classic. We
interpret the upright stone to be a small monument, or alter, and that the cave was used
for ritual purposes.
Culebra Cave is located 112 m west of the northwest corner of the La Danta pyramid
complex. The entrance is a small hole on the north flank of a large Maya quarry (Fig. 7)
and was most likely exposed during quarry operations. The field crew named the cave
after a rattlesnake skin found inside of it. Visualization of the LiDAR data shows a
moderate anomaly with a slope of 56.6o. The feature is a solution cave with a central
chamber and two linear passages with a total length of 18 m (Fig. 8). Multiple sherds were
present on the floor in all three parts of the cave (Figs. 9 and 10).
Guacamaya Cave is located south of the causeway from El Mirador to La Danta 195 m
from the first platform of La Danta. The primary entrance is a small collapse doline (Fig.
11). The cave was known prior to the 2021 field season and was named after the nearby
Guacamaya Complex. The cave has three additional entrances, one near the entrance
and two at the end of the east passage (Fig. 12). Total passage length is 66.4 m. Although
the collapse dolines at the south and north ends of the cave can be observed on the
LiDAR data no slope anomalies are present. The feature is a solution cave with minor
ribbon speleothems (Fig. 13). Multiple sherds were present on the cave floor (Fig. 14).
Pizote Cave is located 34 meters from the Jaguar Cave in the same quarry. The entrance
is at the base of a small cliff on the south side of the quarry (Fig. 15) and was likely
exposed during quarry operations. The cave has two small chambers and based on the
Length/Entrance Width ratio of 0.78 we consider this to be a remnant cave. Potsherds
were present on the cave floor (Fig. 16).
Conclusion
Visualization of LiDAR attributes including hillshade, SLRM, and slope have been
successfully used to identify the entrances to 29 caves in the region near El Mirador, 28
of which were previously unknown. The verification of 44 flagged SLRM anomalies
demonstrated a success rate of 65.9%. Geologic features that generated false anomalies
include cliffs, large collapsed bounders, and a single small cavity. An additional ten caves
were observed through the course of a pedestrian survey, of which only three were
previously known. Analysis of the 39 caves observed concluded that the entrances were
exposed through several different processes including doline collapse, faulting, slope
erosion, and human quarry operations. The Preclassic Maya of the Mirador-Calakmul

Karst Basin used caves for ritual practices as evidenced by broken ceramics found in four
caves, and a small altar found in one. This is in line with the documented used of caves
during the Preclassic in other caves in northern Peten.

Tables
1. Previously identified caves and cavities.
Site
Cave
Name
Settlement
Geologic
Latitude
Longitude
Type
Feature
(Deg.)
(Deg.)
21-212
Talus Cave
El Mirador
Fault Scarp
17.753083
-89.924830
21-213
Talus Cave
El Mirador
Fault Scarp
17.752711
-89.925061
21-215
Solution Cave
Guacamaya Cave
La Danta
Doline
17.751968
-89.908624
21-247
Solution Cave
Los Faisanes
Doline
17.772892
-89.934204
Unknown
Copal Cave
La Danta
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown

2. LiDAR acquisition parameters
Group
Parameter
Value
Units
General Info
Area
645.01
km2
Project
#15-013
Dates
6/27 - 7/4
Number Flights
4
Plane
Piper Navajo (PA31)
Flight Time
18hr 11min
Scan Time
8hr 33min
Source
System
Reigl Q1560
Wavelength
1064
nm
Scan Rate Nominal
800
kHz
Scan Rate Usable
533
kHz
Scan View
58
Deg
Laser
2 x 400 kHz
Reigl Accuracy Horiz.
+/- 5
cm
Reigl Accuracy Vertical
+/- 10
cm
Positional Data
Position Horizontal
< 0.05
m
Position Vertical
< 0.10
m
Velocity Horizontal
0.005
m/s
Velocity Vertical
m/s
Roll & Pitch
0.005
deg
True Heading
0.008
deg
Flight Plan
Altitude (nominal)
550
M AGL
Flying Speed (nominal)
140
kts
Scan Rate Nominal
800
kHz
Scan Rate Usable
533
kHz
Scan View
58
degrees
Line Spacing
240
m
Swath width
621
m
Minimum Overlap
55
percent
Pulse Density (nominal)
20
pulses/m2

3. LiDAR survey coordinate system.
Parameter
Value
Projection
UTM 16N
Horizonal Datum
WGS84
Vertical Datum
EGM2008
Geoid
EGM2008
Units
Metric
EPSG Code
32616
4. LiDAR acquisition and processing results
Parameter
Result
Units
Total shots
16,455,360,978
Returns/Shot
1.90
Total returns
31,209,808,778
Total rtn/m2
48.39
Total ground returns
1,403,832,999
Total Grtn/ms
2.18
Accuracy Horizontal
+/- 15
cm
Accuracy Vertical
+/- 30
cm
5. Processing parameters for attribute analysis.
Attribute
Program
Parameter
Value
Contours
QGIS v3.14
Interval
1 m
Smooth iterations
3
Max offset
0.35
Max node angle
180
Slope
QGIS v3.14
Ratio vertical to horizontal
1
SLRM
RVT Plugin
QGIS
Radius
10 m
Vertical exaggeration
1
Multi-Hillshade
RVT v2.2.1
Azimuth directions
16
Altitude
45 deg

6. Verified results for all SLRM-Slope anomalies in the Mirador area.
Flag ID
Site
Verified
Result
Settlement
Geologic
Artifacts
Latitude
Longitude
Feature
(Deg.)
(Deg.)
AT23-04
19-007
Yes
Cliff
Catzin
Ravine
No
17.574185
-89.993411
AT23-01
19-013
Yes
Remnant Cave
Catzin
Doline
No
17.574860
-89.991615
AT23-02
19-014
Yes
Cliff
Catzin
Doline
No
17.574747
-89.991259
AT24-01
19-016
Yes
Cliff
Catzin
Doline
No
17.575496
-89.988675
AS21-01
19-046
Yes
Remnant Cave
Tintal
Doline
No
17.572202
-90.000765
CG39-01
21-205
Yes
Cavity
Los Monos
Quarry
Yes
17.751887
-89.920831
CG39-02
21-206
Yes
Remnant Cave
El Mirador
Doline
No
17.750032
-89.921069
CF39-01
21-208
Yes
Remnant Cave
El Mirador
Doline
No
17.749639
-89.921996
CG38-01
21-209
Yes
Solution Cave
El Mirador
Fault Scarp
No
17.753646
-89.924204
CG38-02
21-210
Yes
Remnant Cave
El Mirador
Fault Scarp
No
17.753682
-89.924252
CG38-03
21-213
Yes
Talus Cave
El Mirador
Fault Scarp
No
17.752711
-89.925061
CG42-01
21-216
Yes
Solution Cave
La Danta
Quarry
Yes
17.753214
-89.908394
CG42-04
21-217
Yes
Remnant Cave
La Danta
Quarry
No
17.753774
-89.908348
CG42-05
21-218
Yes
Solution Cave
La Danta
Quarry
No
17.753877
-89.908391
CG42-03
21-219
Yes
Remnant Cave
La Danta
Quarry
No
17.753980
-89.908153
CG42-06
21-220
Yes
Solution Cave
La Danta
Quarry
No
17.753761
-89.907696
CG42-07
21-221
Yes
Solution Cave
La Danta
Quarry
No
17.753828
-89.907584
CG42-11
21-222
Yes
Remnant Cave
La Danta
Quarry
No
17.753683
-89.907563
CG42-10
21-223
Yes
Solution Cave
La Danta
Quarry
Yes
17.753692
-89.907383
CG42-08
21-224
Yes
Solution Cave
La Danta
Quarry
No
17.753558
-89.907363
CG42-09
21-226
Yes
Remnant Cave
La Danta
Quarry
No
17.753244
-89.906633
CF44-01
21-233A
Yes
Remnant Cave
Loro Real
Doline
No
17.750022
-89.895867
CF44-02
21-233B
Yes
Remnant Cave
Loro Real
Doline
No
17.750034
-89.895882
CF44-03
21-233C
Yes
Remnant Cave
Loro Real
Doline
No
17.750072
-89.895875
CD40-05
21-235
Yes
Remnant Cave
La Muerta
Doline
No
17.738982
-89.915547
CD40-02
21-238
Yes
Cliff w Cavity
La Muerta
Doline
Yes
17.738664
-89.916805
CD40-03
21-239
Yes
Cliff w Overhang
La Muerta
Doline
No
17.738669
-89.917696
CD40-04
21-240
Yes
Remnant Cave
La Muerta
Doline
No
17.738287
-89.918155
CD39-04
21-242
Yes
Remnant Cave
La Muerta
Doline
No
17.736741
-89.918624
CD39-01
21-243
Yes
Remnant Cave
La Muerta
Doline
No
17.736957
-89.918972
CC39-02
21-244
Yes
Cliff
La Muerta
Doline
No
17.733949
-89.918462
CC39-01
21-246
Yes
Remnant Cave
La Muerta
Doline
No
17.732755
-89.918382
CL36-01
21-248
Yes
Boulders
Los Faisanes
Doline
No
17.773860
-89.934421
CL37-01
21-249
Yes
Cliff
Los Faisanes
Doline
No
17.774129
-89.931157
CK40-02
21-250
Yes
Cliff
Tzunun
Ravine
No
17.770325
-89.915406
CB44-04
21-252
Yes
Solution Cave
Chacte
Doline
No
17.730314
-89.899030
CB44-03
21-253
Yes
Cliff
Chacte
Doline
No
17.730282
-89.898762
CB44-02
21-254
Yes
Cliff
Chacte
Doline
No
17.728758
-89.897409
CB44-01
21-255
Yes
Cliff
Chacte
Doline
No
17.728792
-89.895987
CA42-01
21-257
Yes
Remnant Cave
Chacte
Doline
No
17.725836
-89.905051
CC51-03
21-258
Yes
Cliff w Cavity
La Herradura
Doline
No
17.736539
-89.863151
CC51-02
21-259
Yes
Remnant Cave
La Herradura
Doline
No
17.736665
-89.862876
CC51-01
21-260
Yes
Remnant Cave
La Herradura
Doline
No
17.736865
-89.862135
CK40-01
21-262
Yes
Cliff
Tzunun
Fault Scarp
No
17.771588
-89.915245

7. Validated results for SLRM-Slope anomalies.
Result
Number
Percent
Cavity
1
2.3%
Cliff
13
29.5%
Collapsed Boulders
1
2.3%
Remnant Cave
20
45.5%
Solution Cave
8
18.2%
Talus Cave
1
2.3%
Total
44
100.0%
8. Features identified during pedestrian survey
Site
Verified
Cave
Settlement
Geologic
Artifacts
Latitude
Longitude
Type
Feature
(Deg.)
(Deg.)
21-204
Yes
Remnant Cave
Los Monos
Doline
No
17.751826
-89.920727
21-211
Yes
Remnant Cave
El Mirador
Fault Scarp
No
17.753770
-89.924224
21-212
Yes
Talus Cave
El Mirador
Slope
No
17.753083
-89.924830
21-215
Yes
Solution Cave
La Danta
Doline
Yes
17.751968
-89.908624
21-225
Yes
Remnant Cave
La Danta
Quarry
No
17.753626
-89.906788
21-229
Yes
Solution Cave
La Danta
Slope
No
17.757609
-89.898259
21-241
Yes
Solution Cave
La Muerta
Doline
No
17.737286
-89.918325
21-245
Yes
Talus Cave
La Muerta
Doline
No
17.732204
-89.918312
21-247
Yes
Solution Cave
Los Faisanes
Doline
No
17.772892
-89.934204
21-251
Yes
Remnant Cave
La Danta
Quarry
Yes
17.753109
-89.908698

9. Morphometric data for all identified features.
Flag ID
Site
Feature
Cliff (Max., m)
Entr (Max., m)
Interior (Max., m)
Ratio
Height
Length
Height
Width
Height
Width
Length
L/EntW
No Flag
21-215
Solution Cave
2.72
4.79
1.35
4.79
66.44
13.87
CG42-10
21-223
Solution Cave
1.40
3.10
0.60
1.50
1.42
9.65
18.01
12.01
CG38-03
21-213
Talus Cave
0.85
1.43
15.55
10.87
No Flag
21-245
Talus Cave
1.05
1.27
2.13
2.83
6.42
5.06
No Flag
21-247
Solution Cave
2.50
4.20
0.87
2.96
1.66
4.48
9.25
3.13
No Flag
21-229
Solution Cave
1.10
4.80
0.43
1.81
0.72
3.41
5.25
2.90
CG42-01
21-216
Solution Cave
3.32
13.44
1.58
3.39
1.91
3.31
9.60
2.83
CG42-06
21-220
Solution Cave
3.88
10.41
2.41
6.00
2.41
5.16
11.43
1.91
CB44-04
21-252
Solution Cave
6.67
3.19
0.81
2.68
1.18
2.70
4.70
1.75
CG42-07
21-221
Solution Cave
2.29
6.05
0.90
4.00
0.96
2.00
5.47
1.37
No Flag
21-212
Talus Cave
0.63
1.65
2.25
1.36
CG42-08
21-224
Solution Cave
6.43
5.75
0.74
1.19
1.44
1.21
CG42-05
21-218
Solution Cave
2.99
7.29
1.26
1.66
1.99
1.20
CG38-01
21-209
Solution Cave
4.07
55.65
0.94
4.90
1.46
2.40
5.85
1.19
No Flag
21-241
Solution Cave
1.15
7.90
0.83
1.92
2.01
1.05
CG42-11
21-222
Remnant Cave
13.55
2.95
0.80
6.55
1.30
5.13
6.17
0.94
No Flag
21-204
Remnant Cave
2.60
3.00
1.00
1.70
1.60
0.94
AT23-01
19-013
Remnant Cave
1.91
7.73
1.10
2.40
1.90
0.79
No Flag
21-211
Remnant Cave
4.00
5.80
2.28
2.32
1.82
0.78
No Flag
21-251
Remnant Cave
1.92
12.64
0.94
4.73
1.09
6.49
3.68
0.78
CG42-03
21-219
Remnant Cave
3.98
4.32
2.83
3.05
2.23
0.73
CC39-01
21-246
Remnant Cave
2.21
15.90
0.90
3.08
2.02
0.66
CD39-04
21-242
Remnant Cave
2.32
8.96
1.06
4.20
2.58
0.61
AS21-01
19-046
Remnant Cave
1.41
4.36
1.05
3.85
2.20
0.57
CA42-01
21-257
Remnant Cave
3.25
27.79
2.61
8.00
4.33
0.54
CG38-02
21-210
Remnant Cave
5.27
12.40
1.00
2.53
1.34
0.53
CC51-02
21-259
Remnant Cave
2.61
17.45
1.98
5.67
3.00
0.53
CF44-03
21-233C
Remnant Cave
6.10
2.98
2.29
5.20
2.66
0.51
CG42-09
21-226
Remnant Cave
1.37
11.38
0.79
7.41
3.38
0.46
CF44-01
21-233A
Remnant Cave
6.24
1.80
2.32
5.20
2.33
0.45
No Flag
21-225
Remnant Cave
1.48
4.35
0.70
3.08
1.37
0.44
CF39-01
21-208
Remnant Cave
3.56
19.49
2.17
2.78
1.22
0.44
CF44-02
21-233B
Remnant Cave
4.80
2.73
1.79
3.50
1.52
0.43
CD39-01
21-243
Remnant Cave
3.53
16.48
1.60
2.57
1.09
0.42
CD40-04
21-240
Remnant Cave
6.05
18.72
1.19
4.80
2.01
0.42
CD40-05
21-235
Remnant Cave
4.55
20.67
3.05
6.68
2.24
0.34
CG42-04
21-217
Remnant Cave
2.86
9.24
2.15
3.26
1.01
0.31
CG39-02
21-206
Remnant Cave
1.70
9.94
0.30
1.50
0.43
0.29
CC51-01
21-260
Remnant Cave
4.08
20.62
2.26
11.65
2.85
0.24
AT23-02
19-014
Cliff
3.49
12.72
AT23-04
19-007
Cliff
5.50
22.41
AT24-01
19-016
Cliff
5.18
17.43
CB44-01
21-255
Cliff
3.71
14.02
CB44-02
21-254
Cliff
6.02
14.40

CB44-03
21-253
Cliff
3.67
18.11
CC39-02
21-244
Cliff
6.78
19.33
CC51-03
21-258
Cliff w Cavity
6.29
1.90
CD40-02
21-238
Cliff w Cavity
4.04
42.86
CD40-03
21-239
Cliff w
Overhang
4.13
11.26
CK40-01
21-262
Cliff
6.29
91.41
CK40-02
21-250
Cliff
1.90
25.06
CL36-01
21-248
Boulders
CL37-01
21-249
Cliff
3.00
4.00
CG39-01
21-205
Cavity
3.13
17.68
1.00
0.30
0.50
10. Exposure style for all identified caves.
Exposure Style
Number
Percent
Erosion
1
2.6%
Collapse
21
53.8%
Faulting
5
12.8%
Human Activity
12
30.8%
Total
39
100.0%
11. Named caves and cavities
Site
Cave
Name
Settlement
Artifacts
Latitude
Longitude
Type
(Deg.)
(Deg.)
21-205
Cavity
Los Monos Cache
Los Monos
Yes
17.751887
-89.920831
21-216
Solution Cave
Jaguar Cave
La Danta
Yes
17.753214
-89.908394
21-223
Solution Cave
Culebra Cave
La Danta
Yes
17.753692
-89.907383
21-238
Cavity
La Muerta Cache
La Muerta
Yes
17.738664
-89.916805
21-251
Remnant Cave
Pizote Cav e
La Danta
Yes
17.753109
-89.908698
21-215
Solution Cave
Guacamaya Cave
La Danta
Yes
17.751968
-89.908624
Unknown
Copal Cave
La Danta
Yes
Unknown
Unknown

Figures
1. Mirador-Calakmul Karst Basin

2. SLRM Map, Mirador Region

3. SLRM map with slope overlay, Flag CG-02. Site 21-216 is Jaguar Cave and site 21-
251 is Pizote Cave.

4. Jaguar Cave, photo of entrance.

5. Jaguar Cave, interior photo with alter at start of interior passage.

6. Map of Jaguar Cave.

7. Culebra Cave, photo of entrance showing Edgar Juarez in protective gear.

8. Sketch map of Culebra Cave.

9. Culebra Cave, photo of ceramic rim piece with snakeskin in background.

10. Culebra Cave, photo of partial plate exposed in crevice on the side of the cave.

11. Guacamaya Cave, photo of entrance.

12. Sketch map of Guacamaya Cave.

13. Ribbon structure present on the roof of Guacamaya Cave.

14. Guacamaya Cave, photo of potsherd exposed on the cave floor.

15. Pizote Cave, photo of entrance

16. Pizote Cave, photo of potsherd exposed on cave floor.

17. Geological team 2021 standing on top of La Danta Pyramid. From left to right Edgar
Juarez, Ross Ensley, Jose Manzanero, and Rony Mendez

Bibliography
Balsi, Marco, Salvatore Esposito, Paolo Fallavollita, Maria Grazia Melis, and Marco
Milanese
2021 Preliminary Archeological Site Survey by UAV-Borne Lidar: A Case Study.
Remote Sensing 13:1-10.
Bauer-Gottwein, Peter, Bibi R. N. Gondwe, Guillaume Charvet, Luis E. Marin, Mario
Rebolledo-Vieyra, and Gonzalo Merediz-Alonso
2011 Review: The Yucatán Peninsula Karst Aquifer, Mexico. Hydrogeology Journal
19:507–524.
Brady, James, Gene Ware, Barbara Luke, Allan Cobb, John Fogarty, and Beverly
Shade
1997 Preclassic Cave Utilization near Cobanerita, San Benito, Peten. Mexicon
19(5):91-96.
Brady, James, and Andrea Stone
2019 Maya Caves. In Encyclopedia of Caves, edited by William B. White, David C.
Culver, and Tanja Pipan, pp. 686-690. Academic Press.
Brewer, Jeffrey, Christopher Carr, Nicholas Dunning, Debra Walker, Armando Anaya
Hernández, Meaghan Peuramaki-Brown, and Kathryn Reese-Taylor
2017 Employing Airborne Lidar and Archaeological Testing to Determine the Role of
Small Depressions in Water Management at the Ancient Maya Site of Yaxnohcah,
Campeche, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science Reports 13:291-302.
Chase, Arlen, Diane Chase, Jaime Awe, John Weishampel, Gyles Iannone, Holley
Moyes, Jason Yaeger, and M. Kathryn Brown
2014 The Use of LiDAR in Understanding the Ancient Maya Landscape. Advances in
Archaeological Practice 2(3):208-221.
Cook, Duncan, Thomas Garrison, Leila Donn, and Dennis Baldwin
2019 Identificando Entradas de Cuevas en un Paisaje Kárstico Forestal Utilizando
Elevaciones del Lidar: Resultados Preliminares de El Zotz, Guatemala. In Proyecto
Arqueológico El Zotz, 13a Temporada de Campo, edited by Yeny Myshell Gutiérrez
Castillo, Thomas Garrison, Jose Luis Garrido López, Edwin Román Ramirez, and
Stephen Houston, p. 317-332.
DuChene, Harvey R., and R. Martinez
2000 Post-Speleogenetic Erosion and its Effect on Caves in the Guadalupe
Mountains, New Mexico and West Texas. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies
62(2):75-79.
Ensley, Ross A.

2018 Karst Landscapes of the Petén Plateau. Paper presented at the
Mesoamerican Conference, November 16-17, 2018, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Ensley, Ross, Richard D. Hansen, Carlos Morales-Aguilar, and Josie Thompson
2021 Geomorphology of the Mirador-Calakmul Karst Basin: A GIS-based approach to
hydrogeologic mapping. PLoS One 16(8):e0255496.
Epstein, Jack
2020 Teachers guide to Geologic Trails in Delaware Gap National Recreation Area,
Pennsylvania-New Jersey. The Geological Society of America Field Guide 16:127-
147.
Eszterhás, István, and George Szentes
2008 Geologic Sketch and the Caves of the Mátra Mountains in Hungary.
Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Pseudokarst, April 29- May 2,
2008, p 27-42.
Fisher, Christopher, Juan Carlos Fernández-Diaz, Anna Cohen, Oscar Neil Cruz, Alicia
Gonzáles, Stephen Leisz, Florencia Pezzutti, Ramesh Shrestha, and William Carter
2016 Identifying Ancient Settlement Patterns Through LiDAR in the Mosquitia Region
of Honduras. PLoS One 11(8):e0159890.
Folan, William J., Jacinto M. Hau, Joyce Marcus, W. Frank Miller, and Raymundo
Gonzáles Heredia
2001 Los caminos de Calakmul, Campeche. Ancient Mesoamerica 12:293–298.
Frausto-Martínez, Oscar, Norma Angelica Zapi-Salazar, and Orlando Colin-Olivares
2019 Identification of Karst Forms Using LiDAR Technology: Cozumel Island, Mexico.
In Trends in Geomatics, An Earth Science Perspective, edited by Rifaat Abdalla, pp
33-43. IntechOpen, London, United Kingdom.
Gallwey, Jane, Matthew Eyre, Matthew Tonkins, and John Coggan
2019 Bringing Lunar LiDAR Back Down to Earth: Mapping Our Industrial Heritage
through Deep Transfer Learning. Remote Sensing 11(17):1994.
Gates, Gary R
1992 Fisiografía, geología e hidrología. In Programa de manejo reserva de la
Biosfera Calakmul, Campeche, edited by William J. Folan, Jose M. García Ortega,
and Maria C. Sánchez Gonzáles, pp. 22–27. Campeche, Mexico.
Gates, Gary
1999 Fisiografía, Geología e Hidrología. In Naturaleza y cultura en Calakmul,
Campeche, edited by William J. Folan Higgins, María C. Sánchez Gonzáles, and
Jose M. García Ortega, pp. 31–39. Universidad Atónoma de Campeche, Campeche,
Mexico.

Golden, Charles, Andrew Scherer, A. René Muñoz, and Rosaura Vasquez
2008 Piedras Negras and Yaxchilan: Divergent Political Trajectories in Adjacent
Maya Polities. Latin American Antiquity 19(3):249-274.
Gracanin, Tomislav
1978 Sandstone Talus Caves of the Central Kentucky Karst. Bachelor of Science
thesis, Ohio State University, 23 pp.
Gunn, Joel D., and William J. Folan
1992 Clima. In Programa de manejo reserva de la Biosfera Calakmul, Campeche,
edited by William J. Folan, Jose M. García Ortega, and Maria C. Sánchez Gonzáles,
pp. 34-55. Campeche, Mexico.
Gunn, John
2004. Caves. In Encyclopedia of Caves and Karst Science., edited by John Gunn,
pp. 417-421. Taylor and Francis Group, New York.
Hansen, Richard D.
2012a The Beginning of the End: Conspicuous Consumption and Environmental
Impact of the Preclassic Lowland Maya. In An Archaeological Legacy: Essays in
Honor of Ray T. Matheny, edited by Deanne G. Matheny, Joel C. Janetski, and
Glenna Nielson, pp. 241–285. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.
Hansen, Richard D.
2012b Kingship in the Cradle of Maya Civilization: The Mirador Basin. In Fanning
the Sacred Flame: Mesoamerican Studies in Honor of H. B. Nicholson, edited by
Matthew A. Boxt and Brian D. Dillon, pp. 139–171. University Press of Colorado,
Boulder.
Hansen, Richard D.
2016 Cultural and Environmental Components of the First Maya States: A
Perspective from the Central and Southern Maya Lowlands. In The Origins of Maya
States, edited by Loa P. Traxler and Robert J. Sharer, pp. 329–416. University of
Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia.
Hansen, Richard D.
2017 The Feast Before Famine and Fighting: The Origins and Consequences of
Social Complexity in the Mirador Basin, Guatemala. In Feast, Famine or Fighting?
Multiple Pathways to Social Complexity, edited by Richard J. Chacon and Rubén G.
Mendoza, pp. 305–335. Springer International, Cham, Switzerland.
Hansen, Richard D., Steven Bozarth, John Jacob, David Wahl, and Thomas Schreiner
2002 Climatic and Environmental Variability in the Rise of Maya Civilization: A
Preliminary Perspective from Northern Petén. Ancient Mesoamerica 13(2):273–295.
Hesse, Ralk

2012 Using LIDAR-Derived Local Relief Models (LRM) as a New Tool for
Archaeological Prospection. In Landscape Archaeology Between Art and Science,
edited by Sjoerd Kluiving and Erika Guttmann-Bond, pp. 369-378. Amsterdam
University Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hofierka, Jaroslav, Michal Gallay, Peter Bandura, and Ján Šašak
2018 Identification of Karst Sinkholes in a Forested Karst Landscape Using Airborne
Laser Scanning Data and Water Flow Analysis. Geomorphology 308:265-277.
Holler, Cato
2019 Pseudokarst. In Encyclopedia of Caves, edited by William B. White, David C.
Culver, and Tanja Pipan, pp. 836-849. Academic Press.
Jennings, J.N.
1997 Cave and Karst Terminology. Australian Speleological Federation, pp. 13.
Kazimi, B., F. Thiemann, and M. Sester
2020 Detection of Terrain Structure in Airborne Laser Scanning Data Using Deep
Learning. Annals of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information
Sciences V-2-2020:493-500d.
Kokalj, Ziga, and Maja Somrak
2019 Why Not a Single Image? Combining Visualizations to Facilitate Fieldwork and
On-Screen Mapping. Remote Sensing 11(7):747.
Kokalj, Žiga, Klemen Zakšek, and Krištof Ostar
2013 Visualizations of Lidar Derived Relief Models. In Interpreting Archaeological
Topography: Airborne Laser Scanning, 3D Data and Ground Observation, edited by
Rachel Opitz and David Cowley, pp. 100-114. Oxbow Books, Oxford, United
Kingdom.
Krempel, Guido, Milan Kovác, Thomas Drapela, and Silvia Alvarado Najarro
2014 Bolontun: Un Sitio Extraordinario en la Periferia de Uaxactun. In XXVII
Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2013, edited by B.
Arroyo, L. Méndez Salinas, and A. Rojas. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y
Etnología, Guatemala, p. 903-918.
Lee, Thomas, and Brian Hayden
1988 San Pablo Cave and El Cayo on the Usumacinta River, Chiapas, Mexico.
Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation No. 53, 79 pp.
Macrae, Scott, and Gyles Iannone
2016 Understanding Ancient Maya Agricultural Terrace Systems Through Lidar and
Hydrological Mapping. Advances in Archaeological Practice 4(3):371-392.

Mayoral, Alfredo, Jean-Pierre Toumazet, François-Xavier Simon, Franck Vautier, and
Jean-Luc Peiry
2017 The Highest Gradient Model: A New Method for Analytical Assessment of the
Efficiency of LiDAR-Derived Visualization Techniques for Landform Detection and
Mapping. Remote Sensing 9(2):120.
McKee, Jeffrey K.
1993 Formation and Geomorphology of Caves in Calcareous Tufas and Implications
for the Study of the Taung Fossil Deposits. Transactions Royal Society South Africa
48(2):307-322.
Mihevc, Andrej
2007 The Age of Karst Relief in West Slovenia. Acta Carsologica 36(1):35-44.
Morales-Aguilar, Carlos, and Abel Morales-López
2005 Programa de Mapeo: Observaciones de la Rectificación de Rasgos
Arquitectónicos y Descripción del Asentamiento de El Mirador, Peten, Guatemala. In
Investigación y Conservación en los Sitios Arqueológicos El Mirador, La Muerta,
Xulnal y Tintal, Informe Final de la Temporada 2004, edited by Edgar Suyuc Ley and
Richard D. Hansen, pp. 6-144.
Morales-Aguilar, Carlos, and Douglas Mauricio
2006. El Mapa de La Muerta: Un Asentamiento Prehispánico al Sur de El Mirador,
Peten. In Investigación y Conservación en los Sitios Arqueológicos El Mirador, La
Muerta, Tintal, La Tortuga, Tamazul, La Llorona, Camarón, El Encanto, Lechugal,
Icotea, Los Chuntos y El Laurel, Informe Final Temporada 2006, edited by Nora
María López, pp. 22-64.
Morales-Aguilar, Carlos, and Abel Morales-López
2007 Reconocimiento y Mapeo del Sector Norte de Los Faisanes, El Mirador,
Guatemala. In Investigación y Conservación en los Sitios Arqueológicos de la Zona
Cultural y Natural Mirador, Informe Final Temporada 2007, edited by Nora María
López, pp. 1-43.
Moreno-Gómez, Rudolf Liedl, and Catalin Stefan
2019 A New GIS-Based Model for Karst Dolines Mapping Using LiDAR; Application
of a Multidepth Threshold Approach in the Yucatan Karst, Mexico. Remote Sensing
11(10):1147.
Moyes, Holley
2001 The Cave as a Cosmogram: The Use of GIS in an Intrasite Spatial Analysis of
the Main Chamber of Actun Tunichil Muknal, A Maya Ceremonial Cave in Western
Belize. PhD Dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, 209 p.
Moyes, Holley

2016 Xibalba, the Place of Fear: Caves and the Ancient Maya Underworld. Arys
14:171-190.
Moyes, Holley
2020 Ritual Cave Use Among the Ancient Maya. In The Maya World, edited by Scott
Hutson and Traci Ardren, pp. 287-306. Routledge.
Moyes, Holley, and James Brady
2012 Caves as Sacred Space in Mesoamerica. In Sacred Darkness: A Global
Perspective on the Ritual Use of Caves, edited by Holley Mayes, pp. 151-170.
University Press of Colorado.
Moyes, Holley, and Share Montgomery
2016. Mapping Ritual Landscapes Using Lidar. Advances in Archaeological Practice
4(3):249-267.
Moyes, Holley, and Shane Montgomery
2019. Locating Cave Entrances Using Lidar-Derived Local Relief Modeling.
Geosciences 9(2):98.
Oprea-Gancevici, Dinu, Georgiana Buta, and Adrian Done
2015 Endokarst Morphology in the Rarău Massif. Revista de Geomorfologie, 17:45-
53.
Quinlan, James F., and Ralph O. Ewers
1989 Subsurface Drainage in the Mammoth Cave Area. In Karst Hydrology,
Concepts from the Mammoth Cave Area, edited by William B. White and Elizabeth L.
White, pp. 65-103. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Ray, Joseph A.
2001 Spatial Interpretation of Karst Drainage Basins. In Geotechnical and
Environmental Applications of Karst Geology and Hydrology - Proceedings of the
Eight Multidisciplinary Conference on Sinkholes and the Engineering and
Environmental Impacts of Karsts, held April 1-4, 2001, Louisville, Kentucky, edited by
Barry F. Beck and J. Gayle Herring, pp. 235-244. Balkema, Lisse, Netherlands.
Šprajc, Ivan, Nicholas Dunning, Jasmina Štajdohar, Quintin Hernández Gómez, Israel
Chato López, Aleš Marsetič, Joseph Ball, Sara Dzul Góngora, Octavio Esparza Olguín,
Atasa Flores Esquivel, and Ziga Kokalj
2021 Ancient Maya Water Management, Agriculture, and Society in the Area of
Chactún, Campeche, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 61:101261.
Taylor, Charles J., and Earl A. Greene
2008 Hydrogeologic Characterization and Methods Used in the Investigation of Karst
Hydrology. In Field Techniques for Estimating Water Fluxes Between Surface Water

and Ground Water, edited by Donald O. Rosenberry and James W. LaBaugh, pp. 71-
114. U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 4-D2. Reston, Virginia.
Taylor, Charles J., Hugh L. Nelson, Jr., Gregg Hileman, and William P. Kaiser
2005 Hydrogeologic-Framework Mapping of Shallow, Conduit-Dominated Karst —
Components of a Regional GIS-Based Approach. In U.S. Geological Survey Karst
Interest Group Proceedings Rapid City, South Dakota, September 12-15, edited by
Eve L. Kuniansky, pp. 103–113. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2005-5160, Reston, Virginia.
Tec Pool, Fatima, and Milan Kovac
2011 Hallazgos Recientes en La Cuevas Alrededor de Uaxactun. In XXIV Simposio
de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2010, edited by B. Arroyo, L. Paiz,
A. Linares, A. Arroyave. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala, p.
796-808.
Tzvetkov, Jordan
2018 Relief Visualization Techniques Using Free and Open Source GIS Tools. Polish
Cartographical Review 50(2):61-71.
Thompson, Amy
2020 Detecting Classic Maya Settlements with Lidar-Derived Relief Visualizations.
Remote Sensing 12(17):2838.
Tîrla, Laura, Virgil Drăgusin, Petra Bajo, Silviu Covaliov, Nicolae Cruceru, Vasile Ersek,
Diana Hanganu, John Hellstrom, Dirk Hoffmann, Ionuţ Mirea, Tiberiu Sava, Gabriela
Sava, and Ionuţ Şandric
2020 Quaternary Environmental Evolution in the South Carpathians Reconstructed
from Glaciokarst Geomorphology and Sedimentary Archives. Geomorphology
354:107038.
Weishampel, John, Jessica Hightower, Arlen Chase, Diane Chase, and Ryan Patrick
2011 Detection and Morphologic Analysis of Potential Below-Canopy Cave Openings
in the Karst Landscape Around the Maya polity of Caracol using Airborne Lidar.
Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 11(3):187-196.
Westaway, Kira E., Thomas Sutikna, Michael Morwood, and Jian-Xin Zhao
2010 Establishing rates of Karst Landscape Evolution in the Tropics: A Context for
the Formation of Archaeological Sites in Western Flores, Indonesia. Journal of
Quaternary Science 25(6):1018-1037.
White, William B.
1988 Geomorphology and Hydrology of Karst Terrains. Oxford University, New York.
White, William B.

2019 Entrances. In Encyclopedia of Caves, edited by William B. White, David C.
Culver, and Tanja Pipan, pp. 380-386. Academic Press.
White, William B., and David C. Culver
2019 Cave, Definition of. In Encyclopedia of Caves, edited by William B. White, David
C. Culver, and Tanja Pipan, pp. 255-259. Academic Press.
Woodfill, Brent, Stanley Guenter, and Mirza Monterroso
2012 Changing Patterns of Ritual Activity in an Unlooted Cave in Central Guatemala.
Latin American Antiquity 23(1):93-119.
Wrobel, Gabriel, Amy Michael, Jack Biggs, Christophe Helmke, Shawn Morton, and
Christopher Andres
2017 Maya Mortuary Landscapes, Central Belize. Antiquity 91(358):1-7.