©Niña Neivens 2018

The research described in this dissertation concerns the lowland Maya ceramics

of the early Middle Preclassic, or pre-Mamom, period . The ceramics described here

were excavated at Holmul and Tikal in the Peten region of Guatemala. The data

from my attribute analysis is presented in several ways. First I present the type-

variety analysis of these two sites in the format that is preferred within the Maya

lowland and fosters regional comparison. Secondly I present this data from a

perspective of formal attributes or isochrestic style to consider how these ceramics

were used. Finally I present the data from the perspective of iconography or

iconologic style to consider the ideology presented within these ceramic vessels and

broader implications for interaction between the Maya and other Mesoamerican

societies in the Middle Preclassic. All of these analyses allow an interpretation of

the use of these ceramic vessels and the motivations behind the adoption of ceramic

technology in the Maya lowlands.

This period in Mesoamerica was dominated by an artistic canon known as the

‘Olmec’ style. For many years the lowland Maya were considered peripheral to this

style phenomenon and few sites revealed contemporary evidence of ‘Olmec’

iconography. As more sites define the pre-Mamom phase of lowland Maya

prehistory we have an opportunity to re-assess this interpretation. The ceramics of

Holmul provide a wealth of data on ‘Olmec’ style incised design. The major goals of

this dissertation were to present this data and consider the lowland Maya as active

participants in this dynamic iconographic and ideological complex.

During the Early Preclassic the Peten region of Guatemala was occupied by few

mobile populations whose only archaeological remains are their impact on the

environment, seen in sediment analyses of lake cores. In the early Middle Preclassic

these people formed settlements on modified hilltops that later became elaborate

ceremonial centers. At that time these early villagers began a process of change

from a transegalitarian society to a socially complex one that emerged in the Middle

and Late Preclassic. In looking at this moment of massive social change we have few

archaeological remains to consider, mostly their ceramics.

These early Middle Preclassic ceramics from Holmul and Tikal are highly

decorated and consist primarily of serving vessels. The decorated serving vessels

occur mostly commonly as outcurving plates and bowls. The everted rim plates are

most commonly used for the display of incised design. These and other plates often

occur in medium to large diameters, indicating that they were used in communal

gatherings involving groups larger than the average household. The bowls occur in

a bimodal distribution representing a single-serving size of under 20cm diameter

and a multiple-serving category of 26cm and above. Utilitarian types are rare for

both Holmul and Tikal, although they are more common and more varied at Tikal.

These data suggest that ceramic technology was initially adopted for purposes

related to serving food to a group, rather than for cooking food at the household

level. A similar phenomenon is seen for the adoption of ceramics on the Pacific

Coast of Guatemala where the first ceramics, Barra complex, are highly decorated

tecomates and bowls for serving beverages to individuals in feasting events. I

suggest that the pre-Mamom ceramics of Holmul and Tikal were also adopted for

use in feasting events. These events would have involved highly decorated serving

vessels whose incisions tied these villagers to an iconographic and ideological

system found across Mesoamerica at this time. The events would have featured

consumption of maize, snail and mussel shells, and meat. Much of the iconography

relates to themes of maize agriculture and these Maya villagers were increasing

their reliance upon maize agriculture at that time. Therefore maize agriculture was

an important component of these feasting events and everyday life for the lowland

Maya in the early Middle Preclassic. By presenting these data on this little known

period of Maya prehistory I hope to foster debate about the role of the lowland Maya

in the ‘Olmec’ style phenomenon and the local process of ceramic adoption and

increasing social complexity at Holmul and Tikal.

i

Acknowledgements

This research would not have been possible without the unwavering support of my family. I

owe the biggest debt to my mother. She spent hours with me in the field washing and marking

sherds in 2004-2007 at Holmul and at Tikal in 2011. She was an ever-present source of support

in caring for my children and I during my fieldwork and lab analysis. She encouraged me not to

give up on this project even when I had every reason to leave it unfinished. Since she gave up on

her own dissertation in part because of my birth in 1980 I feel that I owe this dissertation to her.

I also owe a large debt to my children who have been hearing about this dissertation their entire

lives and who were always willing to come along for the adventure. Equally important has been

the support of Francisco Estrada-Belli who allowed me to work on the ceramics of Holmul. I

have loved participating in this archaeological adventure with him since 2003. For me,

archaeology has always been intricately intertwined with family. Additionally, I must

acknowledge the support of my father who would have been so proud to know that his daughter

is a doctor. His biggest support was in allowing the Holmul project to store ceramics at his home

in Guatemala providing a beautiful lab for my work.

My life as an archaeologist began with a great opportunity offered to me by Norman

Hammond. As an old friend of my parents he graciously took me in to his field school at Cuello

even though I had no experience in archaeology. My experience at Cuello fostered an interest in

the Maya Preclassic that has shaped this research. Norman’s support and friendship through the

years has kept me on track. At Cuello I met Astrid Runggaldier who has inspired me on my

quest to understand the Preclassic Maya. I am also forever grateful for the opportunity to work

with Frank and Julie Saul on the human remains from Cuello. My undergraduate professors

were especially influential for me. I’d like to thank Barbara Price for her time and guidance, her

ii

enthusiasm for ancient Mesoamerica was imparted to me during many evenings in the early

years of my scholarship and those conversations are fond memories. In my senior year at

Columbia I was so fortunate to have the advice of Allan Maca. He was extremely generous with

his time and expertise in writing when reviewing the many drafts of my undergraduate thesis.

At Tulane University I have been guided from the start by E. Wyllys Andrews, IV. He has

been a huge support for me in understanding the Preclassic Maya and my research has paralleled

some aspects of his own research on Preclassic ceramics. I could not have asked for a better

advisor on this research topic. I also owe him thanks for refraining from telling me what he

thought about the pre-Mamom ceramics until I had formulated my own interpretation. I was

especially lucky to have his guidance in 2011 when he, George Bey, and Jaime Awe joined me

in Guatemala to examine the ceramics from Holmul and Tikal. Having the opportunity to

discuss these ceramics with such renowned specialists was amazing. Thank you each for your

comments and advice.

My experience in the field in Guatemala has brought me into contact with so many scholars

that I’d like to thank. Mike Callaghan was a great colleague who taught me ceramic analysis

with the Holmul materials. I am so proud of our work together and our enduring friendship.

Diana Mendez Lee has been my right hand in Guatemala since 2009, helping me in excavations

at Group II, ceramic analysis at Holmul, and the re-analysis project at Tikal. Our work at Tikal

was facilitated by Francisco Estrada-Belli, Erik Ponciano, Alvaro Jacobo, Elizabeth Marroquin,

and the many individuals employed at Tikal National Park in 2011. I am so thankful to the

Instituto de Arqeuologia e Historia of Guatemala for allowing me access to the collections from

Tikal.

iii

The identification of the pre-Mamom complex at Holmul was made infinitely easier through

conversations with Richard Hansen, Donald Forsyth, and John Clarke during a visit in 2005 and

for that I am forever thankful. Conversations with David Cheetham have helped me formulate

my interpretation and classification. John Clarke has always shown an interest in this research

and offered advice over the years. Numerous scholars have come to the Holmul lab and offered

their suggestions on the pre-Mamom ceramics, including; Takeshi Inomata, Daniela Triedan,

Debra Walker, Clemency Coggins, Norman Hammond, Ron Bishop, and Dorie Reents-Budet.

Bernard Hermes has been an advisor for the years of my analysis, I am infinitely grateful that he

was available to teach me the Tikal ceramic sequence in 2011. My interpretation has been

possible through comparison to other sites, specifically Cahal Pech and Ceibal. I’d like to thank

Jaime Awe and Lauren Sullivan for allowing me to see the Cunil materials and discuss the pre-

Mamom with them in 2007 and 2010. I’d also like to thank Takeshi Inomata and Daniela

Triedan for allowing me to see the Ceibal Real Xe materials in 2011. The recent research at

Cahal Pech and Ceibal have revolutionized scholarly understanding of the pre-Mamom and

without that research my own would have been inconclusive.

In the final aspect of my dissertation writing experience I was lucky to have Jason Nesbitt and

Marcello Canuto on my committee. Both of them arrived after I had already been at Tulane for

many years and I appreciate all the time and energy they put into my project. Jason Nesbitt took

me under his wing to discuss my writing on a regular basis over the last few years. Marcello

Canuto was always ready and willing to discuss the preclassic Maya and help me work through

my interpretations of the pre-Mamom ceramics. E. Wyllys Andrews, IV was just as available for

advice in the last year as he was in my first years of study. Thank you all for believing in my

ability to finish this.

iv

Table of Contents page

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 2: Background to the Problem of Formative Ceramics in Mesoamerica 18

Chapter 3: Research at Holmul; Provenience of the Collection 48

Chapter 4: Holmul K’awil Phase Ceramics: Type-Variety Description 80

Chapter 5: Tikal Early Eb Phase Ceramics: Type-Variety Description 181

Chapter 6: Style: The K’awil and Early Eb Ceramics from the Perspective of Form and

Function 253

Chapter 7: Iconography and the ‘Olmec’ Style in the K’awil and Early Eb Complexes 285

Chapter 8: Conclusions 326

List of Figures page

2.1: Map of the Maya Lowlands with sites containing pre-Mamom pottery, courtesy Francisco

Estrada-Belli 23

2.2: Ceramic vessles from Cuello Burial 116: Cotton Tree Incised vessels (above) and Chicago

Orange: Nago Bank Variety(below) bowl found inverted over skull (Robin 1989) 27

2.3: Zotz Zoned-Incised: Zotz Variety vessel from Cahal Pech (Awe 1992) 29

2.4: Komchen ceramics: Kin Orange-Red(right) and Almeja Burnished(left) (Andrews et al.

2018) 32

v

2.5: Incised Gordon Complex ceramics from Copan (Fash 1992) 34

2.6: San Lorenzo incised pottery (Lowe 1989) 38

2.7: Leandro Gray bowl, San Jose Mogote (Marcus and Flannery 1994) 39

2.8: “Olmec” style incised ceramics from Tlapacoya (Niederberger 2000) 40

2.9: Incised vessel from Chalcatzingo (from Olmec World 1996) 41

2.10: Excised Fire-sperpent motifs from El Varal (Lesure 2000) 42

3.1: Map of Holmul region, courtesy Francisco Estrada-Belli 50

3.2: Map of Holmul and Group II, courtesy Francisco Estrada-Belli 52

3.3: Postholes at the base of excavations in Building N, Group II 53

3.4: Bedrock surface under Building B (left), and Building F (right) 54

3.5: Building N Phase 1 from south, façade 56

3.6: Building N Phase 1 from north showing superstructure 57

3.7: North Profile of Building N, Group II 58

3.8: West Profile of Building B, Phase 1 59

3.9: South Façade of Building B, Phase 1, drawing of stucco mask 59

3.10: South Façade of Building B, Phase 1, detail 60

3.11: Reconstruction drawing of Building B, Phase 1, by Fernando Alvarez 61

vi

3.12: Building F, Phase 1 reconstruction, courtesy Francisco Estrada-Belli 63

3.13: Plan and Profile of Building B 64

3.14: Plan and Profile of Building F 65

3.15: Building N from South, showing Phase 2 in foreground 67

3.16: Building B, façade from South, showing Phase 2 and 5 (left) 82

3.17: Building N from east showing Phase 2 in foreground and Phase 3 above 83

3.18: Building N, Phase 4 from South, showing small platform on plaza floor 85

4.1: K’atun Red: K’atun Variety, photo 92

4.2: K’atun Red: K’atun Variety, rim profiles 93

4.3: K’atun Red: Incised Variety, photo 97

4.4: K’atun Red: Incised Variety, rim profiles 98

4.5: K’atun Red: Incised Variety, drawing of sherds 99

4.6: K’atun Red: Lak Variety, photo 101

4.7: a-g K’atun Red: Lak Variety; h-l K’atun Red: Lak’ek Variety, rim profiles 102

4.8: K’atun Red: Lak’ek Variety, photo 104

4.9: Ochkin Orange: Ochkin Variety, photo 106

4.10: Ochkin Orange: Ochkin Variety, rim profiles 107

vii

4.11: Ochkin Orange: Incised Variety, photo 120

4.12: Baadtz Tan: Incised Variety, rim profiles 112

4.13: Baadtz Tan: Incised Variety, photo 112

4.14: Sak White: Sak Variety, photo 116

4.15: Sak White: Sak Variety, rim profiles 117

4.16: Sak White: Incised Variety, rim profiles 120

4.17: Sak White: Incised Variety, photo 121

4.18: Lak’in Red-on-white: Lak’in Variety, rim profiles 124

4.19: Lak’in Red-on-white: Lak’in Variety, photo 124

4.20: Lak’in Red-on-White: Variety Unspecified Incised plate, photo 126

4.21: Lak’in Red-on-White: Variety Unspecified Incised plate base , photo 127

4.22: Eknab Black Group; a-o Eknab Black: Eknab; p-t Eknab Black: Incised 129

4.23: Eknab Black: Eknab Variety, photo 131

4.24: Eknab Black: Incised Variety, photo 133

4.25: Mo’ Mottled: Mo’ Variety, photo 136

4.26: Mo’ Mottled: Mo’ Variety, rim profiles 137

4.27: Mo’ Mottled: Fluted Variety, rim profiles 139

viii

4.28: Mo’ Mottled: Fluted Variety, photo 139

4.29: Kitam Incised: Kitam Variety, photo 143

4.30: Kitam Incised: Kitam Variety, rim profiles 144

4.31: Calam Buff: Calam Variety, rim profiles 148

4.32: Calam Buff: Calam Variety, photo 149

4.33: Ante Incised: Ante Variety, rim profiles 151

4.34: Ante Incised: Ante Variety, photo 152

4.35: Aac Red-on-Buff Group; a-c: Aac Red-on-Buff: Aac Variety; d-e: Aac Red-on-Buff:

Incised Variety, rim profiles 154

4.36: Aac Red-on-Buff: Incised Variety, rim profiles 154

4.37: Jobal Red: Jobal Variety, photo 157

4.38: Jobal Red: Jobal Variety, rim profiles 158

4.39: Jobal Red: Incised Variety, rim profiles 160

4.40: Jobal Red: Incised Variety, photo 161

4.41: Xpokol Incised: Xpokol Variety, rim profiles 163

4.42: Xaman Red-on-White: Xaman Variety, photo 165

4.43: Chicin’a Black: Chicin’a Variety, photo 167

ix

4.44: Chicin’a Black Group; a-c: Chicin’a Black: Chicin’a Variety; d-f: Chicin’a Black: Incised

Variety, rim profiles 168

4.46: Chicin’a Black: Incised Variety, photo 169

4.47: a-h: Canhel Unslipped: Canhel; i-m: Cabcoh Striated: Cabcoh, rim profiles 171

4.48: a-k: Ramonal Unslipped: variety unspecified; l-m: Ramonal Unslipped: variety unspecified

with red paint, rim profiles 175

4.49: Achiotes Unslipped: Achiotes Variety, rim profiles 177

4.50: Achiotes Unslipped: Achiotes Variety, photo 178

4.51: Achiotes Unslipped: variety unspecified impressed, rim profiles 178

4.52: Amanecer Unslipped: Amanecer Variety, rim profiles 180

4.53: Amanecer Unslipped: Amanecer variety, photo 180

5.1: Problematical Deposit 12 (left), and Problematical Deposit 6 (right) taken from Laporte and

Fialko 1993: 10 183

5.2: Chak Red: Chak Variety, rim profiles 192

5.3: Chak Red: Chak Variety, photo 193

5.4: Chak Red: Incised Variety, rim profiles 196

5.5: Chak Red: Incised Variety, photo 197

5.6: Bil White: Bil Variety, rim profiles 199

x

5.7: Bil White: Bil Variety, photo 200

5.8: Bil White: Incised Variety, rim profiles 202

5.9: Bil White: Incised Variety, photo 202

5.10: Bil White: Incised Variety, photo 203

5.11: Bil White: variety unspecified Red-on-White, rim profiles and photo 204

5.12: Lamat Black Group; a-i: Lamat Black: Incised Variety; j-l: Lamat Black: Lamat Variety;

m-n: Lamat Black: Incised Variety (grooved incised), rim profiles 207

5.13: Lamat Black: Lamat Variety, photo 208

5.14: a-y: Lamat Black: Incised; z-ae: Boolay Brown: Chamfered, photo 210

5.15: Boolay Brown Group; a-e: Boolay Brown: Boolay variety; f-j: Boolay Brown: Chamfered

Variety, rim profiles 212

5.16: Becch Incised: Becch Variety, rim profiles 214

5.17: Bechh Incised: Bechh Variety, photo 214

5.18: Calam Buff: Calam Variety, photo 219

5.19: Ante Incised: Ante Variety, rim profiles 221

5.20: Ante Incised: Ante Variety, photo 222

5.21: Aac Red-on-Buff: Aac Variety, rim profiles 224

5.22: Aac Red-on-Buff: Aac Variety, photo 225

xi

5.23: Aac Red-on-Buff: Incised Variety, rim profiles 226

5.24: Aac Red-on-Buff: Incised Variety, photo 227

5.25: Jobal Red: Jobal Variety, rim profiles 230

5.26: Jobal Red Group; a-c: Jobal Red: Jobal Variety; d-e: Jobal Red: Unspecified Incised

Variety, photo 230

5.27: Ainil Orange Group; a-f: Ainil Orange: Ainil Variety; g-k: Xpokol Incised: Xpokol

Variety, rim profiles 232

5.28: Xpokol Incised: Xpokol Variety, photo 234

5.29: Unnamed Brown Group; a-h: Unnamed Brown: variety unspecified; i: Unnamed Brown:

variety unspecified incised, rim profiles 236

5.30: Canhel Unslipped Group; a-c: Canhel Unslipped: Canhel Variety; d-e: Canhel Unslipped:

Red-on-Unslipped Variety, rim profiles 238

5.31: Canhel Unslipped: Canhel Variety, rim profiles 239

5.32: Canhel Unslipped: Red-on-Unslipped Variety, photo 240

5.33: Ramonal Unslipped Group: a-f: Ramonal Unslipped: Ramonal Variety; g-k: Ramonal

Unslipped: Incised Variety, rim profiles 243

5.34: Ramonal Unslipped: Ramonal Variety, photo 244

5.35: Ramonal Unslipped: Incised Variety 246

xii

5.36: Amanecer Unslipped Group; a-e: Amanecer Unslipped: Amanecer Variety; f: Amanecer

Unslipped: Amanecer Variety, rim profiles 249

5.37: Amanecer Unslipped: Amanecer Variety, rim profiles 250

5.38: Amanecer Unslipped: Amanecer Variety, photo 250

6.1: Plate with outcurving sides and exterior thickened rim 265

6.2: Plate with outcurving sides and ouflared everted rim 265

6.3: Plate with outcurving sides and direct rim 266

6.4: Bowl with slightly incurving sides and direct rim 269

6.5: Bowl with round sides and direct rim 269

6.6: Bowl with flared sides 269

6.7: Tecomates with direct rim 270

6.8: Tecomates with exterior thickened rim 270

6.9: Dish with outcurving sides 273

6.10: Jar with outcurving neck 274

6.11: Jar with vertical neck 274

6.12: Unslipped Utilitarian Bowls 276

6.13: Unslipped Utilitarian Jars 277

6.14: Unslipped Utilitarian Jars 278

xiii

7.1: San Martín Pajapan Monument 1 289

7.2: Humboldt Celt; Mexican celt from the Metropolitan Museum of Art 291

7.3: Early Lowland Maya writing from San Bartolo (right) (Saturno et al. 2006); and Cascajal

Block (left) early writing from Olman region (Rodriguez Martinez et al. 2006) 293

7.4: Cleft Head Motifs from Holmul 296

7.5: Incised Cleft Heads from El Mesak, and Altamira (Clark and Pye 2000) 296

7.6: Cruciform Motif from Tikal 298

7.7: Kan Cross and Cruciform Motifs from Holmul 299

7.8: Sherd with Bar and Four Dots motif from Cival 300

7.9: Hand-Paw-Wing Motifs from Holmul (a and b) and Tikal (c) 300

7.10: Hand-Paw-Wing Motifs from Holmul 301

7.11: U Shape and Double Merlon Motifs from Holmul 303

7.12: L Shape Motif from Holmul 305

7.13: Music Bracket Motifs from Holmul 307

7.14: Music Bracket Motif from Tikal 308

7.15: Sharks Tooth Motifs from Holmul 309

7.16: Sharks Tooth Motifs from Tikal 309

7.17: Tassel Motifs from Holmul 312

xiv

7.18: Mat Motifs from Holmul 313

7.19: Triangle Motif from Tikal 315

7.20: Triangle Motif from Holmul 315

7.21: Excised Sherd from Holmul 318

7.22: Resist Decorated sherd from Holmul 319

7.23: Stepped Fret Motif from Tikal (left) and Holmul (right) 320

List of Tables page

Table 3.1: Frequencies of Earliest Contexts from Building N 55

Table 3.2: Frequencies of Earliest Contexts from Building B 62

Table 3.3: Frequencies of Earliest Contexts from Building F 63

Table 3.4: Faunal Remains and Incised Motifs from potential feasting contexts 74

Table 6.1: Frequencies of all Plates by diameter Holmul 262

Table 6.2: Frequencies of all Plates by diameter Tikal 263

Table 6.3: Diameter of Holmul Plates with Outflared Everted Rim, Exterior Thickened Rim, and

Direct Rim 263

Table 6.4: Diameter of Tikal Plates with Outflared Everted Rim, Exterior Thickened Rim, and

Direct Rim 264

Table 6.5: Frequency of All Slipped Bowls from Holmul by diameter 267

xv

Table 6.6: Frequency of All Slipped Bowls from Tikal by diameter 268

Table 6.7: Frequency of All Slipped Tecomates from Holmul by diameter 271

Table 6.8: Frequency of All Slipped Tecomates from Tikal by diameter 271

Table: 6.9: Frequency of All Slipped Dishes from Holmul by Diameter 273

Table 6.10: Frequency of All Slipped Jars from Holmul by diameter 275

Table 6.11: Frequency of All Slipped Jars from Tikal by diameter 275

Table 8.1: Occurrence of Incised Motifs by Site 3

Biographical Sketch 393

1

Chapter 1

Introduction to Dissertation

This dissertation presents an analysis of the earliest ceramic complexes from Holmul

and Tikal in Guatemala and situates them within the social context of early Middle

Preclassic period Mesoamerica (1000-750BC). These early ceramic complexes are

important because they inform a critical period of ancient Maya prehistory (Estrada-Belli

2012; Inomata 2017a; Rice 2015). Data from the Maya Lowlands reveal that this area

differed greatly from other parts of Mesoamerica in the Early and Middle Preclassic or

Formative (the term Formative is used for most of Mesoamerica while in the Maya

Lowlands the term Preclassic is preferred). In the Maya Lowlands ceramic technology

was not adopted until around 1000 BC after their Mesoamerican neighbors had been

using ceramics for several centuries (Clark and Cheetham 2002; Inomata et al. 2013;

Inomata 2017a and b; Sullivan and Awe 2013; Sullivan et al. 2018). Additionally,

‘Olmec’ style motifs were used in the Maya Lowlands by communities that displayed

less social complexity than other Mesoamerican groups (Estrada-Belli 2017; Brown et al.

2018; Inomata 2017a). The Maya Lowlands were occupied for centuries by mobile

people before the advent of ceramic technology (Inomata et al. 2015; Hansen et al. 2002;

Lohse et al. 2006; Pohl et al. 1996; Wahl et al. 2013;). Around 1000 BC these people

began to use ceramics in a wide variety of forms, colors, and with elaborate geometric

incised designs (Andrews 1990; Cheetham 2005; Clark and Cheetham 2002; Neivens de

Estrada 2013; Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016). At the same time Maya villagers

built the foundations of later urban centers with the construction of early ceremonial

architectural complexes known as E-Groups (Estrada-Belli 2012; 2017; Inomata et al.

2

2015a; Inomata 2017a and b). Thus this early material will inform us on the role that

pottery played at a formative moment of ancient Maya social development, when these

transegalitarian communities chose to create and settle in permanent villages.

The early Middle Preclassic ceramic collection from Holmul represents one of the

largest and most varied samples from this time period found to date in the Maya

Lowlands. This collection includes monochrome types in red, orange, black, and white,

and incised types of all these; as well as several bichromes and a burnished buff ware.

This amount of variation is not seen in subsequent complexes from Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016). Most of the early Middle Preclassic materials from

Holmul are found in secondary contexts of Middle and Late Preclassic monumental

architecture (Neivens de Estrada 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010). This presents a significant

problem for dating the ceramics. I have established these dates by comparison to other

collections with better stratigraphy (see Inomata et al. 2013). To this end I studied in

detail the collections from Ceibal, Tikal, and Cahal Pech. As a result of my analyses at

Tikal I have chosen to include the analysis of the Early Eb complex in this dissertation

because a type-variety description of these ceramics has not been published previously

(Cheetham n.d.; Culbert n.d.). The Early Eb ceramics were found mostly in isolated

contexts in chultunes at the base of excavations in the Mundo Perdido area of Tikal’s site

center. Holmul’s K’awil complex stands out from other pre-Mamom collections in the

large variation in types and their elaborate incised decoration. The Tikal collection

differs from the Holmul collection in its greater abundance and variety of utilitarian

types, and in the relative paucity of complex iconography.

In this dissertation I present a stylistic analysis of the Early Middle Preclassic

3

ceramic phases at Holmul and Tikal, Guatemala (c. 1000-850 B.C.), and try to place them

within the context of contemporaneous pottery traditions. This material is similar to

pottery complexes from Cahal Pech (Cunil) and Cuello (Swasey) in Belize, Ceibal (Real

Xe) in Guatemala; Copan (Gordon) in Honduras; and Komchen (Ek) and Kiuic (Ch’oh

Ek) in Yucatan, Mexico. These collections all share some stylistic attributes with pottery

collections from other parts of Mesoamerica, such as southern Guatemala and the

highlands and lowlands of Mexico (Cheetham 2005). This style consists of an

iconographic complex characterized by motifs excised or incised on ceramics and also

found on other artworks (Grove 1989a). This shared iconographic complex has been

called ‘Olmec,’ ‘Olmec style,’ and ‘Olmecoid’ in the past (Clark and Pye 2000; Grove

1989a). Scholarship on this topic has tended to focus on two polarized views. One group

(Backles et al. 2012; Blomster et al. 2005; Caso 1965; Coe 1965; Clark 1997; Clark and

Pye 2000; Neff 2011) see this shared style as a diffusionist pattern of material culture

emanating from the Gulf Coast Olmec archaeological culture (or Olman), who were the

most socially complex at the time, outwards to less complex communities. An alternative

perspective (Demarest 1989; Brown et al. 2018; Flannery 1968; Flannery and Marcus

2000; Grove 1989, 1993; Joyce and Henderson 2010; Sharer et al. 2006) views this

period as one in which many groups of varying social complexity used these motifs for

their own local purposes, and through interaction these motifs became a broadly shared

iconographic and ideological complex. My use of the term ‘Olmec’ style is not intended

to conflate the issue of a shared iconographic complex with the influence or intrusion of a

particular archaeological culture from the Gulf Coast of Mexico. Furthermore, the

inclusion of a particular set of motifs on these sherds is just one component of each

4

overall ceramic complex, and not necessarily the defining characteristic of any of them.

I use the term ‘Olmec’ style to refer to a specific set of motifs found in the Early and

Middle Preclassic/Formative across Mesoamerica, these motifs were identified by

scholars in the 1940s-1960s and defined at that time as ‘Olmec’ (Caso 1942; 1965; Coe

1965; Coe and Diehl 1980; Covarrubias 1957). Subsequently the archaeological culture

on the Gulf Coast was called Olmec, based on the prevalence of ‘Olmec’ style at those

sites. ‘Olmec’ style was later called the Olmec Horizon (Grove 1993; Niederberger

1996), Early Horizon (Demarest and Foias 1993; Pool et al. 2010), X-Complex (Grove

1989), or Pan Mesoamerican Formative Symbol System (Reilly 1994, 1995), but none of

these terms has caught on and ‘Olmec’ style retains its original definition, while ‘Olman’

has been proposed as a term to refer to the archaeological culture of the Gulf Coast

during the Formative period (Pool 2007).

This research began with several fundamental research questions. Firstly, are these

ceramics the earliest phase in the Holmul sequence? Secondly, if they are the first

ceramics, why did the Maya villagers at Holmul choose to adopt ceramic technology?

How were the ceramic vessels used? What are the meanings behind the elaborate incised

designs on the vessels? After careful excavation and ceramic analysis I have concluded

that these are the earliest ceramics in the Holmul sequence and that they are

contemporary with the earliest, or pre-Mamom phase, from Ceibal and Cahal Pech. I

propose that these ceramics were adopted for use in special occasions of ritual

consumption, or feasting activities (Dietler 2001). The incised designs reflect an

ideology that tied the lowland Maya into a shared symbol system found across

Mesoamerica in the early Middle Preclassic/Formative. I suggest that the ceramic

5

technology was adopted as a medium to display these ideologically charged images and

that the events in which they were used were important foundational events around place-

making at these newly settled sites.

THE PROBLEM OF THE EARLY MAYA LOWLANDS IN THE MIDDLE

PRECLASSIC

Excavations at several sites in Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico have revealed that the

pre-Mamom ceramic complex was a widespread phenomenon in the Maya lowlands

(Andrews et al. 2018; Clark and Cheetham 2002; Cheetham 2005; Inomata et al. 2013,

2017a and b; Sullivan and Awe 2013; Sullivan et al. 2018). Importantly, new research at

Ceibal has revolutionized our understanding of this period in Maya prehistory with

extensive evidence of early ritual activity (Inomata et al. 2013; 2015a and b; Inomata et

al. 2017; Inomata 2017a and b). Cheetham (2005) proposes that pre-Mamom Maya

pottery forms a widespread and relatively homogeneous complex that, because of the

similarity in decorated serving vessels, should be referred to as the “Cunil Horizon” after

the complex at Cahal Pech. Others prefer to see three distinct ceramic spheres in the

central Maya Lowlands—Swasey-Bladen (northern Belize), Eb/Cunil/Kanocha (western

Belize and eastern Petén), and Xe/Real Xe (southwestern Petén) (Ball and Taschek 2003;

Sullivan and Awe 2013). They tend to consider the Mamom horizon as the first true

horizon style uniting the Maya Lowlands under a uniform ceramic style and shared ritual

architecture in the form of E Group complexes (Brown et al. 2018; Estrada-Belli 2017;

Inomata 2017a; Smith et al. 1960; Willey et al. 1962). The lowland Maya ceramics of

the early Middle Preclassic show striking similarities in form, surface color, and

6

especially in decoration with post-slip fine-line incised motifs. Whether this forms a

coherent ceramic horizon style within the Maya Lowlands cannot be determined until

more conclusive data is available. Nonetheless, I argue that these ceramics belong within

the larger cultural phenomenon dominated by a series of iconographic motifs known as

the ‘Olmec’ style.

In the past decade new research from Ceibal produced material that will largely shape

this debate going forward. Inomata and colleagues (2015a; 2017) identified well-

stratified primary deposits of pre-Mamom and Mamom ceramics in the site core of

Ceibal. A large corpus of radiocarbon dates show that the ceremonial core of the site was

constructed beginning around 1000 cal. BC. (Inomata et al. 2013; 2017a). Their rigorous

approach to radiocarbon dating demonstrate that other Maya sites in the area with similar

ceramics including Cuello, Cahal Pech, Blackman Eddy, and Tikal all date to around

1000BC (Inomata et al. 2013). Through comparative analysis I place the beginning of

Holmul’s K’awil phase at 1000BC, and its conclusion at 850BC based on local

radiocarbon dates for the succeeding phase (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016;

Estrada-Belli 2011). These ceramics all occur within the sacred ceremonial cores of

lowland Maya sites, specifically under E-Groups and Triadic Groups (Inomata et al.

2013; Inomata et al. 2015a; Rice 2015, 2017), and were likely used within these areas in

association with early place making rituals. Both Inomata et al. (2015, 2017), Rice (2015,

2017), and Brown et al. (2018) suggest that these early ceramics were used in ceremonies

of place making and communal gathering at what later became sacred centers. E-Groups

are the earliest ceremonial architectural complexes created by the Maya, consisting of a

long low platform on the East side, a radial structure on the west, and an open plaza

7

between them (Doyle 2012, 2017; Estrada-Belli 2006, 2011; Rice 2017). The open

plazas within E-Groups were the locations of elaborate foundational ceremonies marking

these spaces as sacred cosmograms, as evidenced at Ceibal and Cival in the Holmul area

(Estrada-Belli 2011, 2012, 2017; Inomata 2015; 2017). These site centers are the

locations where most of the pre-Mamom ceramics are found at Ceibal (Inomata 2017),

Holmul, Tikal (Cheetham n.d.; Culbert 2003; n.d.; Laporte and Valdés 1993), and in the

Lake Petén Itzá region (Rice 1979, 2015, 2017).

Scholars considering the earliest lowland Maya ceramics were once limited to the

scant data from Altar de Sacrificios, Ceibal, Cuello, and later Cahal Pech. My study

examines the earliest ceramic phases from Holmul and Tikal in light of the abundant new

data now available. Early scholars posited that the Maya Lowlands had not been

populated by sedentary agriculturalists prior to the pre-Mamom phase, and that these

ceramics represented migrations from the adjacent areas of Chiapas (Andrews 1990;

Clark and Pye 2000). Now that ceramics are found across the Petén, in western and

northern Belize, and in northwest Yucatan, such a hypothesis is becoming increasingly

untenable. Furthermore, environmental studies have revealed that the area was occupied

by mobile hunter-gatherers prior to the appearance of settled villages (Pohl et al 1996;

Wahl et al. 2006; 2013). Pointing to the lack of stratified deposits pre-dating the Mamom

phase at many sites, some claimed that pre-Mamom ceramics form a sub-complex of

early Mamom (Ball and Taschek 2003). But now that excavations at Ceibal, Tikal, Cahal

Pech, and Kiuic have identified numerous stratified primary deposits of pre-Mamom

pottery, it is clear that these complexes are the first in the sequence. The ethnicity of

these early villagers is also subject to debate, with some scholars claiming that they were

8

Mije-Sokean speakers from the Olmec heartland, and others claiming an indigenous

Maya identity (Awe 1992; Ball and Taschek 2003; Cheetham 2005; Garber et al. 2001;

Iceland 2005). Those who see Pre-Mamom peoples as having a non-Maya identity

assume that the motifs found on decorated serving vessels arrived with migrants who had

ties to the Olman region. In contrast, scholars who favor a Maya identity argue that

foreign symbols were adopted by an indigenous Maya population (Cheetham 2005;

Estrada-Belli 2017; Inomata et al. 2015a). The conflation of style, language, and

ethnicity all add to this confusion.

My study uses a framework of community identity to interpret regional and local

stylistic patterns in ceramics. By looking at the concept of community, I hope to move

beyond some limitations of the site-specific ceramic studies of the past and undertake a

broader comparison of sites bearing evidence for this period (Yaeger and Canuto 2000).

This approach also allows me to consider stylistic variation as a reflection of community

without assuming that group identity is principally determined by language or ethnicity

(Bartlett 2000). I consider the natural community as the group of potters who interacted

frequently in daily life, and the imagined community as an identity actively chosen by

villagers who participated in a broader ideological system (Isbell 2000). The imagined

community is a more frequently changing category and one that individuals may choose

to present at specific moments in their social lives. The natural community, in contrast, is

reflected in isochrestic style, a style of learning or practicing a craft activity (Sackett

1977, 1982, 1990) that is interpreted to reflect local potting groups. Isochrestic style is

seen in the specific vessel forms and in form and slip color combinations at a given site

or sub-site area. Iconological style is the iconographic content of an artifact or artwork,

9

reflecting deliberate choices by potters to imbue their products with a particular symbolic

meaning. This category is more likely to reflect imagined community because it is an

iconographic or ideological program actively chosen by potters and the consumers of the

vessels, and because such iconographic content often links communities that may not

have routine contact with one another. Therefore, iconological style is more likely to

reflect interaction between communities.

The incised designs and vessel forms found in the Maya Lowlands at this time connect

these communities with an iconological style system found throughout Mesoamerica in

the Formative period. These pre-Mamom ceramics show similarities to incised ceramics

from the Basin of Mexico (Tolstoy 1989; Neff et al. 2005) to Honduras (Joyce and

Henderson 2001, 2010). It is now abundantly clear that the Maya Lowlands were

occupied by pottery-producing people in the early Middle Preclassic, and that their

connections to other communities across the landscape brought them into an ideological

and iconographic system that united Mesoamerica around the early Middle Formative/

Preclassic period. Despite this, we cannot explain this phenomenon as representing

immigration to a previously unoccupied wilderness. Instead, evidence from numerous

studies suggests that pre-ceramic populations occupied this area continuously from at

least 2500 B.C. (Iceland 2005; Lohse et al. 2006; Inomata et al. 2015a; Wahl et al. 2013).

Their impact on the environment is seen in sediment cores from northern Belize and the

central and northern Petén (Lohse et al. 2006; Pohl et al. 1996; Wahl et al. 2006). It

seems likely that the same people who impacted the environment since 2500 B.C. were

the ancestors of those living there about 1000 B.C. (Inomata et al. 2015a and b; Wahl et

al. 2013;). The Holmul region specifically shows evidence of human impact from 2500

10

BC and was occupied continuously beginning no later than 1300 B.C. (Wahl et al. 2013).

The early inhabitants of Holmul chose to adopt ceramic technology later than other

Mesoamerican communities, around 1000 B.C. The lack of contemporaneous architecture

may indicate that these communities were not fully sedentary (Inomata et al. 2015b), or

that they lived in perishable structures that are ephemeral in the archaeological record.

The movement of people across the landscape likely brought them into contact with each

other and with villagers residing in areas adjacent to the Maya Lowlands, and this contact

may have instigated the initial adoption of ceramic technology. The strongest similarities

in these ceramics are found among nearby lowland Maya communities indicating the

highest degree of interaction among neighboring sites. I interpret the pre-Mamom

ceramics of Holmul as indicating close connections between this site and its nearest

neighbors at Cahal Pech and Tikal, and that inter-community contact among the lowland

Maya tied them into an inter-regional network of iconography and ideology that is

fundamentally pan-Mesoamerican. Across Formative/Preclassic Mesoamerica ceramics

were used as the primary medium for the display of symbolism related to ideological

concepts of earth, cosmos, and maize agriculture (Reilly 1994; 1995; Schele 1995; Taube

2000). These symbols have been called ‘Olmec’ style and their widespread manifestation

has been noted by scholars who posit a shared ideological system throughout this region

(Coe et al. 1996; Clark and Pye 2000; Tolstoy 1989). For many years the Maya were

excluded from this discussion of shared ideology in the ‘Olmec’ style system. Extending

this discussion to include the lowland Maya is one of the major goals of this dissertation.

The pre-Mamom complexes from Holmul and Tikal (c. 1000-850 B.C.) provide

insight into the motivations for adopting ceramic technology in the Maya Lowlands. This

11

area was populated for at least several hundred years before the adoption of ceramics, and

it seems likely that the indigenous population adopted this technology. Their interaction

with people or objects from other areas of Mesoamerica is clear in the iconological style

of pottery, that is, the elaborate incised designs shared with ceramics from other areas of

Mesoamerica: Oaxaca, the Basin of Mexico, the Gulf Coast, Pacific and Highland

Guatemala, Honduras, as with other sites within the Maya Lowlands (see fig. 2.6-2.10).

The K’awil complex from Holmul includes a monochrome red, variegated red,

monochrome white, red-on-white, monochrome black, burnished buff, and red-on-buff,

as well as incised versions of all these slip colors. Similar types are found at other sites

around Mesoamerica at this time, but no other lowland Maya site yet includes all of these

types. Similarities in color, incised decoration, and forms are seen across the Maya

lowlands. I interpret these similarities within a framework of isochrestic style.

Communities of potters may have had direct contact and through their daily practice, or

habitus (Bourdieu 1977), created site specific styles. The K’awil collection shows

variation in color, form, and decoration that is greater than that seen in later complexes at

Holmul. This greater variation suggests that potters were experimenting with their newly

adopted craft and later simplified their production to a smaller group of preferred colors

and decorations (Neivens de Estrada 2013). The pottery therefore seems more complex in

its first appearance and became simplified over time, a phenomenon also noted after the

adoption of Barra complex ceramics on the Pacific coast. The Barra complex includes a

wide variety of decorated tecomates and bowls but no utilitarian component, the

following compex evidences fewer types of decoration and the addition of a utilitarian

ware (Blake and Clark 1999; Clark 1991; Clark and Blake 1994). The communities

12

around Holmul may have adopted ceramic technology in part as a way to present ‘Olmec

‘style motifs in a permanent medium. This iconological style was important specifically

because it expressed an ideology shared with an ‘imagined’ community across

Mesoamerica.

THE ADOPTION OF CERAMIC TECHNOLOGY

The adoption of ceramic technology by social groups in Mesoamerica follows several

distinct trajectories. The earliest ceramic complexes from the highlands of Mexico are

the Purron Complex from the Tehuacan Valley (MacNeish et al. 1970) and the Espiridion

complex from the Oaxaca Valley (Flannery and Marcus 1994; Marcus 1983). In both

cases early pottery seems to have been invented for the purpose of cooking and storage of

food. These early utilitarian forms mimic perishable containers such as gourds (Marcus

1983; Bitz 2015). The earliest ceramic complex from the Pacific coast of Guatemala, the

Barra complex, is roughly contemporary with the highland complexes but is a very

different case. The Barra complex includes many highly decorated types of serving

tecomates and bowls and no plain courseware for cooking or food preparation. Clark and

Blake (1994) suggest that ceramic vessels were inititally used in competitive displays of

ritual drinking among early aggrandizers. The Barra complex includes elaborate

decoration including paint, burnishing, incising, fluting, gadrooning, zoned cross-

hatching, zoned punctation, and bichrome/trichrome techniques. The Barra complex

consists of 85% decorated tecomates with orifice diameters between 10 and 18cm, and

15% decorated flat-bottomed bowls with diamaters between 10 and 20cm. The following

Locona Ocos complex includes fewer elaborate surface decorations, more formal

13

variation, larger vessel size, and the introduction of coarse utilitarian wares (Clark and

Cheetham 2005).

The Maya Lowlands adopted ceramics relatively late, after many areas of

Mesoamerica had already been using ceramics for several centuries (Clark 1991;

Flannery et al. 1994; Joyce and Henderson 2001; MacNeish et al. 1970; Marcus 1983;

Lesure 1998). We can assume that the producers of pre-Mamom ceramics were in

contact with some of these pottery-producing communities and learned this craft through

interaction (Andrews 1990; Andrews and Bey 2018; Inomata 2017). It is important to

consider why the Lowland Maya chose to begin using ceramic technology for the first

time in the Early to Middle Preclassic transition (Inomata et al. 2013, 2015a and b). The

K’awil complex shows some similar patterns to the Barra complex. The majority of the

K’awil and Early Eb complexes consist of highly decorated serving vessels. These

include a greater number of slip colors, bichromes, complex incision, and burnishing than

seen in subsequent assemblages. There is a paucity of coarse utilitarian wares, only 10%

of the K’awil collection and 16% in the Early Eb, and this pattern changes in the

following complexes. While the K’awil collection include a greater number of multiple

serving vessels, both complexes include vessels that were single serving. Tecomates in

the K’awil and Barra complexes have an orifice of 10-20cm (Clark and Cheetham 2005).

The Early Eb complex at Tikal also follows this pattern although it includes more

utilitarian types, including unslipped colander vessels which would have been used in the

processing of maize (these colanders are also seen in the Belize River Valley, Garber et

al. 2004).

14

ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION

In the second chapter of this dissertation I review the material on ceramics from the

early Middle Preclassic period from throughout Mesoamerica. I review the history of the

debate surrounding these early ceramics and the iconographic motifs that create the

‘Olmec’ style. I discuss this shared style phenomenon as it appears at archaeological

sites from Mexico to Honduras. I also review in detail the contemporary ceramics from

the Maya Lowlands at the sites of Cahal Pech in Belize, Komchen/Kiuic in Mexico, and

in Guatemala at Tikal and Seibal/Altar de Sacrificios. This review shows that the Maya

Lowlands were fully participating in the shared style found in various parts of

Mesoamerica at this time.

The third chapter of this dissertation is a review of the archaeological context of the

ceramic material from Holmul, Guatemala. These materials were excavated between

2005 and 2014 in Group II of the site center of Holmul. I conducted many of these

excavations myself so I have a detailed understanding of the contexts. Since this material

was predominantly from mixed contexts often containing material from the early Middle

Preclassic (K’awil phase), late Middle Preclassic (Mamom phase), and Late Preclassic

(Chicanel phase), a major goal of this research was to correctly separate this material into

chronological phases. Additional materials were found in various contexts in the site

center of Holmul and Cival.

The fourth chapter of this dissertation is the type-variety analysis of the K’awil phase

from Holmul, Guatemala. This is the presentation of the data collected from Holmul for

this dissertation. The Holmul K’awil phase includes several decorated wares; K’an

Slipped ware, Belize Valley Dull ware, Calam Burnished ware, and Rio Holmul Slipped

15

ware. K’an slipped ware is a newly defined ware present exclusively in the Holmul

region. It is the most common ware in this ceramic phase and consists of the following

groups: K’atun Red, Ochkin Orange, Baatz Tan, Eknab Black, and Sak White. Belize

Valley Dull ware is relatively common at Holmul and was defined at Cahal Pech. The

only group in Belize Valley Dull ware is the Uck Red Group and it occurs in several

types some of which are identical to types found at Cahal Pech; Mo’ Mottled: Mo’

Variety, Mo’ Mottled: Fluted Variety, and Kitam Incised: Kitam Variety. La Lila

Burnished ware is a new ware based on the Calam Buff type defined at Tikal, although

that type description has not been published (Culbert 1993; Culbert n.d.). It consists of

one group, Calam Buff, which is divided into the following varieties in keeping with the

definitions from Tikal; Calam Buff: Calam Variety, Ante Incised: Ante Variety, Aac

Red-on-Buff: Aac Variety, and Aac Red-on-Buff: Incised Variety. Rio Holmul Slipped

ware is an uncommon but consistent ware defined during this study at Holmul and Tikal.

It contains the following groups: Jobal Red, Unspecified White, Ainil Orange, and

Chicin’a Black. The unslipped utilitarian wares include several unspecified wares, 1)

containing Canhel Unslipped group, 2) containing Ramonal Unslipped group, 3)

Uaxactun Unslipped Ware containing an unspecified type, and 4) and unspecified ware

containing the Amanecer Unslipped group. These remain unspecified because of the

small sample available at this time.

The fifth chapter of this dissertation is the type-variety analysis of the Early Eb phase

from Tikal, Guatemala. It follows the same type variety structure as Chapter 4. The

ceramics from Tikal were collected by various archaeological projects and analyzed by

the author at Tikal in 2011. The Tikal sample had been studied previously by T. Pat

16

Culbert (n.d., 1993) and David Cheetham (n.d.; 2002; Clark and Cheetham 2005)

although neither report has yet been published. In my analysis I followed the type names

as defined in previous publications wherever possible. The Tikal collection was less

voluminous and with less internal complexity than the Holmul collection. There was

more diversity in the unslipped utilitarian ceramics from Tikal than from Holmul, while

Holmul had more variation in the decorated serving types. The Tikal Early Eb sample

consists of La Justa Slipped ware, Rio Holmul Slipped ware, La Lila Burnished ware, and

Canhel Unslipped ware; as well as several unspecified unslipped wares; Ramonal

Unslipped group, and Amanecer Unslipped group.

The sixth chapter of this dissertation is an analysis of the isochrestic style exhibited in

the K’awil and Early Eb phase ceramics. In this chapter I consider the ceramics from a

perspective of form, size, and use categories. This approach will allow me to consider

the isochrestic style preferred by the particular potting communities at Holmul and Tikal.

I found that the Holmul and Tikal collections consist largely of decorated serving vessels

in single and multiple serving sizes and hypothesize that these were used in special

communal gatherings involving food consumption.

The seventh chapter of this dissertation is an analysis of the iconological style

exhibited in the K’awil and Early Eb phase ceramics. In this chapter I compare the local

ceramics from Holmul and Tikal to the larger pan-Mesoamerican tradition known as

‘Olmec’ style. The use of this foreign and ideologically charged iconography was

significant for the local potters at these lowland Maya sites. These potters were engaging

in a novel technology and they used it specifically to present ideologically charged

17

motifs. The presentation of this ideology and the events featuring these vessels was a

driving force behind the adoption of ceramic technology itself.

The primary goal of this dissertation is to analyze and investigate the significance of

the ceramics of the early Middle Preclassic phase at Holmul and Tikal, which are

contemporary with ‘Olmec’ style ceramics found throughout Mesoamerica. In the eighth

chapter I summarize the results of the dissertation and present my conclusions. I discuss

why ceramic technology was adopted at Holmul and Tikal in the early Middle Preclassic,

suggesting how these ceramics link the lowland Maya into a shared iconographic and

ideological system found throughout Mesoamerica.

18

Chapter 2

Background to the Problem of Formative Ceramics in Mesoamerica

The adoption of ceramic technology in the Maya Lowlands must be considered within

the context of the dynamic social processes occurring in Mesoamerica in the

Preclassic/Formative period (called the Preclassic in the Maya Lowlands, and known as

the Formative elsewhere in Mesoamerica). The Maya Lowlands were occupied by mobile

hunter-gatherers experimenting with agriculture during the Early Preclassic (1450-1100

BC) (Lohse et al. 2006; Wahl et al. 2006, 2013). Elsewhere in Mesoamerica this period

saw the first settled villages with agriculture and ceramic technology: Oaxaca (Flannery

1968; Flannery and Marcus 1994), Pacific Coastal Guatemala and Chiapas (Blake and

Clark 1999; Clark 1991), the Gulf lowlands of Mexico (Coe and Diehl 1980; Pool 2007),

the Basin of Mexico (Diehl 1989b; Tolstoy 1989), and Honduras (Fash 1982, 1991; Joyce

and Henderson 2001, 2010). Around the transition from the Early to Middle Precassic

(1100-1000BC) many of these communities show evidence of increasing social

complexity. An integral part of the evidence for increased complexity is in the ideology

expressed in artwork, including motifs incised or excised on ceramic vessels (Demarest

1989; Grove 1989). Around 1000 BC (Inomata et al. 2013) the lowland Maya started to

make ceramic vessels decorated with the same ideologically charged motifs incised using

similar techniques. It is still unclear how to define these early Maya settlements.

Inomata et al. (2015a) suggest that some were ritual gathering places and that the

populations were still semi-mobile at that time. The paucity of household remains

available at this time preclude a conclusive interpretation of these settlements. The

primary archaeological material we have to study the early Middle Preclassic Maya is

19

their ceramics, for this reason I explore the pre-Mamom people through their ceramics

found at Holmul and Tikal in this dissertation. In the following pages I review the

ceramic evidence for the Preclassic Maya Lowlands as well as Formative Mesoamerica to

frame my arguments about early ceramics at Holmul and Tikal.

THE MAYA LOWLANDS

The situation in the Maya Lowlands may be unique within Mesoamerica at this time.

The Maya Lowlands had not been inhabited by settled pottery-using villagers until the

Early Preclassic/Formative and some of their earliest pottery shows ‘Olmec’ style

designs. The earliest occupation of the Maya Lowlands has long been the subject of

scholarly debate. From the 1930s until about 1960 the Mamom ceramic phase was

considered the earliest occupation of the Maya Lowlands (Smith 1955), dating to the late

Middle Preclassic (600- 250 B.C.). In the 1960s, Altar de Sacrificios and Ceibal

(previously spelled Seibal; Willey 1982; Sabloff 1975) yielded earlier pre-Mamom

ceramics, but these sites were peripheral to the Petén heartland and characterized by a

limited early occupation thought to consist of perishable structures. Cuello, Belize, was

discovered in 1973 and an antiquity of greater than 2000 B.C. claimed for its ceramics

making it the earliest ceramic phase in Mesoamerica (Hammond et al. 1979; Hammond

1991; Kosakowsky 1987; Pring 1977). Later re-examination of the radiocarbon dates

from Cuello place the Swasey phase around 1200-900 B.C. (Andrews and Hammond

1990; Kosakowsky and Pring 1998). Another Belizean site, Cahal Pech, revealed pre-

Mamom ceramics and occupation levels in 1992, but the excavators remained cautious

about claiming their antiquity in part because of the controversy surrounding the Cuello

dates (Awe 1992; Awe et al. 1990). With subsequent research and radiocarbon dates the

20

Cunil complex was dated to start at 1100/1000BC (Sullivan and Awe 2013; Garber et al.

2004; Sullivan and Awe 2013; Sullivan et al. 2018). More recently several sites in

Belize, Guatemala, and Mexico have revealed pre-Mamom ceramic phases, showing that

this occupation was widespread and not restricted to a few anomalous sites (Andrews and

Bey 2018; Cheetham 2005; Inomata et al. 2015a; Rice 2015).

Earlier scholars considering the earliest lowland Maya ceramics were limited to the

scant data from Altar de Sacrificios, Ceibal, and Cuello; the present study seeks to re-

examine this period in light of the abundant new data. Early scholars posited that the

Maya Lowlands had not been populated prior to the pre-Mamom phase and that these

ceramics represented migrations from the adjacent areas of Chiapas (Andrews 1990).

Now that these ceramics and settlements are found across Guatemala, Belize, Mexico,

and we have evidence of pre-ceramic populations, such a hypothesis has become

increasingly untenable. The relationship between pre-Mamom and Mamom has also

been questioned, some suggesting that Mamom replaced pre-Mamom rather than

developing from it (Adams 1971; Andrews 1990) while others view it as ancestral

(Andrews and Bey 2018; Brown et al. 2018; Culbert n.d.; Sabloff 1975; Willey 1967).

The ethnicity of these early villagers has also been debated, with some scholars claiming

they were ethnic Mixe-Zoque/’Olmec’ based on shared iconographic motifs on decorated

serving vessels, and others claiming an indigenous Maya ethnicity (Awe 1992; Ball and

Taschek 2003; Cheetham 2005; Garber, et al. 2001; Joesink-Mandeville 1977).

In his 1990 study, Andrews examined the earliest lowland Maya pottery, specifically

the Xe and Real Xe complexes, which were at that time the only early Middle Formative

ceramics in the Petén. He pointed out that slips are probably less likely to change than

21

other vessel attributes like forms and temper. The slips of Xe and Real Xe are most

similar to the thin, powdery, and dull or matte slips of the Isthmian types found in

Chiapas. These are very dissimilar to the following Mamom slips that are widespread

across the Maya Lowlands, to the extent that he did not see it developing from the

Xe/Real Xe tradition (Andrews 1990). Willey, who excavated Ceibal, saw the Escoba

Mamom as a development from the antecedent Real Xe (Willey et al. 1982). Andrews

proposed that the earliest ceramics at Altar de Sacrificios and Ceibal were produced by an

immigrant population who came from Chiapas. This seemed especially likely

considering that these two sites are located on the Pasión River adjacent to Chiapas.

Recent excavations at Ceibal support this hyspothesis and reveal close ties to settlements

in Chiapas (Inomata 2017). However, this model doesn’t explain social processes across

the Maya Lowlands, farther away from Chiapas.

Awe’s excavations at Cahal Pech have produced evidence of primary pre-Mamom

deposits with associated radiocarbon dates around 1000BC (Awe 1992). Awe sees the

Cahal Pech Cunil phase developing into the following early Kanluk phase, and the late

Kanluk as related to the Mamom sphere. As other scholars before him, Awe views the

Mamom sphere as one that unites the lowland Maya area in a broadly shared pottery

tradition coinciding with population increase and greater social complexity (Awe 1992;

Estrada-Belli 2017; Inomata 2017).

Cheetham has proposed that this pre-Mamom phase is such a widespread and

homogenous phenomenon that it should be called the ‘Cunil Horizon’, because of the

similarities in decorated serving vessels between sites (Cheetham 2005). He claimed that

these ceramic complexes contain extraordinarily similar patterns in serving vessels, in

22

terms of form and surface decoration. He found that decorated and incised serving

vessels tend to make up 4% of these collections, and has identified a number of ‘Olmec’

style motifs that are found on them (Cheetham 1995). Pointing to the evidence of human

impact on the Maya Lowlands prior to this period (Iceland 2005; Pohl et al. 1996)

Cheetham and Awe both claim that pottery technology was adopted by individuals

already living in the area, rather than brought by migrants (Awe et al. 2004; Cheetham

2005). In the case of Cahal Pech scholars believe that an in situ development from pre-

ceramic to Cunil occurred, based on remains found in the base of excavations at Structure

B-4 (Cheetham 1995).

Clark and Cheetham (2002) put the pre-Mamom pottery into a regional perspective

with respect to the rest of Mesoamerica. They claim that the appearance of distinct

ceramic complexes represent former tribal territories existing prior to settled village life.

For the lowland Maya, they note differences among the utilitarian complexes of the Xe,

Eb, Cunil, and Swasey complexes, but they argue that the striking similarities of

decorated serving vessels in these complexes attest to increasing contact among these

Maya groups. One of the initial goals of this project was to test this hypothesis with the

Holmul data. Unfortunately, the lack of a robust utilitarian component of the complex

precludes such conslusions.

Inomata and Triedan’s recent research at Ceibal, Guatemala, has produced pre-

Mamom ceramics associated with architecture in a well- stratified context with ample

radiocarbon dates. At Ceibal in the early Middle Preclassic, around 1000BC, the earliest

23

Fig. 2.1: Map of Maya Lowlands with sites containing pre-Mamom pottery, courtesy

Francisco Estrada-Belli

ceramics appear along with the first phase of ritual architecture. This architecture is an

early example of the E-Group, a monumental architectural complex that became common

in the Maya Lowlands several hundred years later (Doyle 2017; Estrada-Belli 2017).

Inomata notes that this pattern aligns Ceibal with contemporary developments known as

24

the Middle Formative Chiapas pattern (Inomata et al. 2013; Lowe 1977). He concludes

that the development of this pattern follows the decline of San Lorenzo but precedes the

apogee of La Venta, and that this period of increasing social complexity cannot be

explained as instigated by interactions with cultures of the Gulf Coast. Instead, he

suggests that this pattern emerged through Maya interactions with people to the west, in

Chiapas.

Petén, Guatemala: Altar de Sacrificios Xe and Ceibal Real Xe

Pre-Mamom ceramics were found at Altar de Sacrificios and Ceibal in the 1960s and

1970s (Adams 1971; Sabloff 1975). These projects focused on later periods of Maya

prehistory and found only scant remains of early Middle Preclassic material. A notable

exception was the discovery of a cruciform cache containing four Real Xe vessels and

blue jade objects, found in Group A at Ceibal (Andrews 1990; Sabloff 1975). Further

investigations into Group A by Inomata and colleagues have greatly elucidated the early

Middle Preclassic period at Ceibal. This area was the site of the earliest manifestations of

communal ritual architecture in the Maya Lowlands, at 1000BC (Inomata et al. 2013;

Inomata et al. 2015). The site center was occupied by a population that may have been

semi-sedentary and Inomata suggests that ritual communal gatherings in this space

created a sense of community that led to subsequent settlement at this location (Inomata

et al. 2015 a and b). This early communal architecture consists of several superimposed

E Group complexes. E Groups were the first ritual constructions found at many sites in

the Maya Lowlands consisting of: a radial pyramid on the west side and a long low north-

south structure on the east, creating an open plaza between them (Doyle 2012, 2017;

Estrada-Belli 2012). The open plaza was a location imbued with ideological meaning

25

and often the site of elaborate place making rituals. At Ceibal these rituals involved ritual

interment of finely cut and polished blue jade and greenstone objects and ceramic vessels

(Inomata et al. 2013). These interments were often deposited in cruciform patterns which

can be interpreted as cosmic diagrams conceptually identifying the site center as the axis-

mundi. The interment of blue jade in cruciform cosmograms is also seen at Cival, in the

Holmul region (Estrada-Belli 2011, 2013), as well as at La Venta and other sites occupied

in the early Middle Formative. Inomata’s approach to dating the Ceibal caches and

ceramics has created the most well defined chronology for any Middle Preclassic site in

Mesoamerica (Inomata et al. 2013). The Real Xe phase dates to 1000-700BC and can be

divided into three sub-phases (1000-850 BC, 850-800 BC, and 800-700 BC). In the same

study Inomata and colleagues re-evaluate radiocarbon data from the contemporary sites

of Cuello, Cahal Pech, Blackman Eddy, and Tikal and posit that these all fall around

1000 BC or later (Inomata et al. 2013). By comparison to the Ceibal materials I argue

that the Holmul K’awil complex also begins around 1000BC. Real Xe ceramics have

greater quantities of slipped serving vessels (80.5%), than unslipped utilitarian vessels

(19.5%) (Sabloff 1975) (although these values may differ with the new research), a

pattern also seen at Cuello and Holmul. Slipped serving vessels often occur as dishes,

plates and bowls with flared sides and thickened rims. Also common are tecomates

which are usually red slipped (Sabloff 1975). One of the most diagnostic features of the

Real Xe phase is the presence of post-slip fine-line incision, sometimes occurring in

‘Olmec’ style motifs. The most common incised decoration are single or double lines

encircling vessel rims, and zoned patterns of vertical or horizontal lines, as well as

triangles and cross hatching.

26

Northern Belize: Cuello’s Swasey and Bladen

Cuello, located in Northern Belize was one of the first lowland Maya sites where early

Middle Preclassic ceramics were found (Hammond 1991; Pring 1977). The early Middle

Preclassic at Cuello is divided into two separate complexes, the Swasey Complex (1200-

900 BC) and the Bladen Complex (900-650 BC) (Kosakowsky 1987; Kosakowsky and

Pring 1998). Vessel forms primarily distinguish the Swasey and Bladen complexes;

decoration techniques are further elaborated in the Bladen complex, while surface color

stays relatively consistent. This distinction may align with the Real 1 to Real 2 transition

(Inomata et al. 2013). Swasey and Bladen Complex ceramics are all found within

residential architecture at the base of what later became a ritual platform in the Middle

and Late Preclassic (Hammond 1991). The Swasey Complex consists of one unslipped

group, which comprise only 10% of the total collection and three slipped groups that

comprise the other 90% of the collection (Kosakowsky 1987). This pattern is similar to

Holmul where the sample is 90% decorated slipped vessels and only 10% unslipped

utilitarian types.

Swasey complex decoration includes incision, usually grooved incision, although fine-

line incision is also present (see fig. 2.2). New ceramic types and vessel forms distinguish

the following Bladen complex (Kosakowsky and Pring 1998). Thickened rims and

squared lips were replaced by direct and exterior thickened rims and round lips. New

decoration techniques include fine-line incision, gouge incision, modeling, black line

smudging, and resist. This complex shows many similarities to the Bolay complex at the

nearby site of Colha, Belize. Several Bladen-period burials include blue-jade objects,

27

Fig. 2.2: Ceramic vessles from Cuello Burial 116: Cotton Tree Incised vessels (above)

and Chicago Orange: Nago Bank Variety(below) bowl found inverted over skull (Robin

1989)

aligning this period with the Real Xe phase at Ceibal, Gordon phase at Copan, and the

early Middle Preclassic ‘Olmec’ style in general (Hammond 1999). A blue jade concave

“clamshell” pendant was found with a child, Burial 166. A blue jade spangle pendant

was found with a female, Burial 114 (Hammond 1991, 1999).

Some scholars have argued that Swasey should be considered an early facet of the

Bladen complex rather than a separate complex (Andrews and Hammond 1990; Valdez

1987). Nonetheless it is stratigraphically antecedent to Bladen, and shows ties to the

other pre-Mamom ceramic complexes of the Maya Lowlands. The post-slip fine line

incision of the Swasey complex are more similar to other pre-Mamom types than to the

succeeding Mamom types.

28

Belize River Valley, Belize: Cahal Pech Cunil and Blackman Eddy Kanocha

The Cunil phase is the first occupation at Cahal Pech, Belize, dating to the terminal

Early Preclassic/early Middle Preclassic. The phase was identified at the base of Str. B-4

in Plaza B, dating to 1100-900 BC. Structure B-4 contains 10 superimposed Cunil phase

households, consisting of packed marl and earth surfaces with postholes that probably

represent circular or apsidal wattle-and-daub superstructures (Healy et al. 2004). By the

end of the phase these households are square or rectangular with stripes of red paint on

the exterior walls. The three Cunil residences elsewhere in Plaza B are less elaborate

without plaster floors, although the patios and interior floors are paved with thin, round

pieces of limestone. At the base of the Str. B-4 households is a 20-30 cm thick layer of

paleosol with abundant chert debittage but no ceramics except for the minute, trampled

sherds on the topmost surface (Awe 1992).

In the Cunil phase ‘Olmec’ style motifs are found on ceramics with post-slip fine line

incision, and on jadeite artifacts (Cheetham 1995). The most diagnostic form of serving

vessel is the plate with outflared walls and wide everted rims. As seen in the Kanocha

phase at Blackman Eddy and Early Eb at Tikal, colanders are also present at Cahal Pech

(Cheetham 2010b). Cache 1 represents an early house dedication or place-making ritual.

This cache was placed above Floor 10 in Structure B-4 and contained one vessel, 18

marine shell disks, 3 pieces of greenstone, a peccary scapula and a canine scapula

(Sullivan et al. 2018). Cunil complex sherds are also found in the peripheral settlement

clusters around Cahal Pech, although no stratigraphically sealed deposits, with associated

architecture, have yet been found outside the site center (Cheetham 1995).

29

Fig. 2.3: Zotz Zoned-Incised: Zotz Variety vessel from Cahal Pech (Awe 1992)

The Cunil phase has two wares, Belize Valley Dull Ware that contains the decorated

vessels, and represents 35% of the assemblage, and Belize Valley Coarse Ware

containing the undecorated utilitarian vessels (Sullivan and Awe 2013; Sullivan et al.

2018). Cunil’s Belize Valley Dull ware has a fine paste texture with volcanic ash,

quartzite, and mica and/or hematite inclusions. These serving vessels occur in 3 slip

colors (Uck Red, Cocoyal White, and Chi Black groups). Elaborate incised designs are

found in Baki Incised, Kitam Incised, and Zotz Zoned-Incised (all Uck Red group)

(Sullivan et al. 2018). Belize Valley Coarse Ware has one group, Sikiya Unslipped,

30

consisting primarily of jars, as well as some incurving sided bowls, tecomates, and

colanders. These utilitarian vessels are interpreted as food preparation vessles for

cooking and storage (Sullivan et al. 2018). The Cunil phase shows many similarities to

Holmul, such that some of the same type names have been used. The Mo Mottled and

Kitam incised from the two sites are virtually indistinguishable. Uck Red and Baki Red

Incised show strong similarities to Katun Red and Katun Red: Incised variety but differ in

qualities of the paste and slip; the former often has a dark gray or black paste which is

revealed through incision, and the red colored slip tends more towards orange. Cocoyal

White is similar to Sak White in color, surface quality, and forms; however Sak White

occurs in an incised variety while Cocoyal White does not. Both the Cunil and K’awil

fine wares are characterized by volcanic ash temper.

At Blackman Eddy, Belize, pre-Mamom ceramics are found in the first occupation

phase, Kanocha (1100-900 BC). The Kanocha ceramics include one utilitarian ware and

one dull-slipped ware. The utilitarian ware uses calcite and quartzite temper and comes

in a variety of forms: bowls, tecomates, colanders, and short-necked jars with lugged- and

strap-handles. One complete vessel found was a colander that had lime-encrusted drain

holes, probably used as a container to rinse off lime soaked corn in the preparation of

maize prior to grinding (Garber, Brown, Driver, et al. 2004). The dull-slipped serving

ware has ash-temper and employs the decorative techniques of appliqué fillets, post-slip

incising, and differential firing. The incised designs appear on the rims of flat-bottom

plates with out-curving sides and wide everted rims, as well as on the exterior of

tecomates (Garber, et al. 2004; Cheetham 2005). The designs may have been incised on

the vessels after firing, leading Cheetham to suggest that the designs are made by the

31

consumers, rather than the producers, of the pottery (Cheetham 2005). This ceramic

complex also includes ocarinas and mold-made figurines (Garber, et al. 2004). The

Kanocha material consists of approximately 1,500 sherds from mixed deposits dating to

the early Mamom period.

Yucatan, Mexico: Komchen Ek and Kiuic Ch’oh Ek

Andrews et al. (2018) report that pre-Mamom ceramics have also been found on the

Yucatan Peninsula at Komchen and Kiuic. The Ek phase of Komchen, Yucatan, Mexico,

has recently been re-interpreted as a pre-Mamom tradition (Andrews 1988; Andrews et

al. 2018). It contains fine line incised decoration and dull slips similar to those found in

the Cunil complex, and this has led Andrews to re-evaluate their antiquity. Bey has also

found a pre-Mamom phase, Ch’oh Ek phase, at Kuiuc in the Puuc area where they are

dated to 900-800BC. At both sites the pre-Mamom ceramics are associated with the

earliest phases of monumental civic architecture. The two most diagnostic types at

Komchen and Kiuic are Kin Orange-Red and Almeja Burnished Gray, which occur on

the same fine gray paste (see fig. 4.2). The Kin Orange-Red and Almeja Burnished Gray

occur with incised varieties using similar fine-line technique found in the Cunil, Real Xe,

Early Eb and K’awil complexes. Incision is rare in the Almeja Burnished group and

more common in Kin Orange-Red (Andrews et al. 2018). Ek includes two utilitarian

types (Achiotes Unslipped and Chancenote Striated, which are virtually indistinguishable

from unslipped types in the following phase. These unslipped vessels are usually round-

sided bowls or wide-mouth jars with flared and outcurving necks. The finer paste serving

ware occurs as dishes and bowls with gently flared to nearly vertical sides, direct rims

32

Fig. 2.4: Komchen ceramics: Kin Orange-Red(right) and Almeja Burnished(left)

(Andrews et al. 2018)

and flat bases. The Komchen collection consists of 32% unslipped utilitarian types and

68% slipped types, and 5% of the total collection is incised. A major distinction between

the northern Maya complexes from those in the southern Maya Lowlands is in the

absence of the outcurving-sided plate with wide everted rim. Incision usually occurs on

the exterior of plates or bowls with vertical sides, similar to Cantὀn Corallito. Content of

the incised decoration is also distinct in the northern Maya Lowlands. Complex ‘Olmec’

style motifs are absent from this area; instead incised decorations are geometric forms

such as triangles, diagonal lines repeating, cross-hatching, squares and rectangles (often

defining space for cross hatching). It should be noted that these less complex incised

designs are also found at many sites bearing ‘Olmec’ style design (Holmul, Cahal Pech,

Oaxaca, San Lorenzo, and Copan). Numerous other sites in the Yucatan and Campeche

33

have identified similar materials dating to the early Middle Preclassic (1000-700 BC)

(Andrews et al. 2017).

Honduras: Copan Gordon Complex

The early Middle Preclassic phase at Copan is the Gordon complex. George Gordon

found the first vessels of this complex in caves surrounding the Copan Valley in the

1890s. The majority of the collection was excavated in the center of Copan in the 9N-8

residential area by William Fash and William Sanders and analyzed by Rene Viel (Fash

1991; Viel 1993). The complex consists primarily of whole vessels found within two

cemeteries, 18 vessels and 23 sherds (see fig. 2.5). An additional 9 complete vessels

were found in caves around the Valley by Gordon and later by David Webster. In

Group 9N-8 the southern burials used cists or stone coverings over the graves, while

those on the north were simple graves (Fash 1982). The north group contained a large

quantity of jade, over 500 pieces found with 4 individuals, out of a total of 13 burials.

The south group contained 18 burials and 3 of these individuals were buried with a total

of 4 pieces of jade (Fash 1982). The vessels of the Gordon complex include many

examples of ‘Olmec’ style motifs, both incised and excised (Viel 1993). Fash (1982,

1991) sees similarities between these and the ceramics of the Xe phase at Ceibal, as well

as contemporary ceramics from La Venta and Izapa. Another feature that aligns this

complex to the shared ideological system found across Mesoamerica in the early Middle

Preclassic is the ritual use of jade celts. The majority of the vessels are small-medium

straight walled bowls, similar to the forms so common at Cantón Corralito, Mexico and

in the Yucatan. These bowls have complex designs including excising with flame

34

Fig. 2.5: Incised Gordon Complex ceramics from Copan (Fash 1992)

eyebrow motif, crossed bands, starbursts, hand-paw-wing motif, as well as resist design

and zoned cross hatching with incision, and one example of a fine-line incised cleft head

(Viel 1993). Other forms include one bottle with gadrooning, a bichrome bird effigy

vessel, and a straight-necked jar with incised design of the music bracket motif (this

motif is commonly incised on jars at Holmul). While Copan is a culturally Maya city

during the Classic period, it shows some affiliation to the non-Maya communities of

Honduras during the Preclassic (Joyce and Henderson 2001). I have included it here

although it is unclear whether Copan can be considered part of the lowland Maya cultural

sphere in the early Middle Preclassic.

35

Holmul’s K’awil Complex

The K’awil complex ceramics of Holmul fit into a pattern for the lowland Maya

region at this time but they also have some unique features. The monochrome red type

has features unique to the site, although it is similar to the dull monochrome reds of

contemporary sites outside the Maya Lowlands, particularly the Pacific Coast of

Guatemala (Neivens de Estrada 2013). Other types found at Holmul are identical to those

found at nearby sites. These include Mo Mottled and Kitam Incised (which are identical

at Holmul and at Cahal Pech), and Calam Buff and Aac Red-on-buff (which are identical

at Holmul and Tikal). Other types, such as the monochrome white, are distinct at Tikal

(Bil White), Holmul (Sak White), and Cahal Pech (Cocoyal Cream), although the incised

variety occurs only at Tikal and Holmul thus far. Ceramics from all sites at this time

share the tendency towards post-slip incised design. At Holmul ceramics were probably

incised while the vessel was leather hard, as evidenced by the bunching of excess clay

gathered at the edge of incision. These designs occur on every slip color found at Holmul

and may be found on any vessel form or on any part of the vessel, but occur most

frequently on the wide everted rims of plates.

FORMATIVE MESOAMERICA AND THE MOTHER CULTURE THEORY

The discussion of Preclassic or Formative period Mesoamerica has been dominated by

a debate about the primacy of the Olmec as the “mother culture” of later civilizations

(Blomster et al. 2005; Caso 1942; Coe 1965; Flannery et al. 2005). This debate began in

the 1940s, when little or no material on the subject had been excavated by archaeologists

(Caso 1942, 1965). The material under discussion had come instead from art collections

and looted contexts throughout Mesoamerica (Covarrubias 1946). Although the last 70+

36

years have seen considerable improvement in the amount and quality of material

excavated from this time period, debate continues along much the same lines. This

section will focus on the debate regarding the ceramics of Formative Mesoamerica to lay

a foundation for understanding where the Holmul and Tikal materials fit within these

patterns.

In the early history of Mesoamerican studies most temporal relationships were based

on similarities in style and iconography. As archaeology has progressed, we have moved

beyond these culture historical perspectives to an anthropological approach looking at the

social practices underlying such cultural phenomena. This is possible because of

advances in the scientific methods used in archaeology, especially radiocarbon dating,

and the great wealth of newly excavated data from archaeological excavations.

During the early part of the 20th century many Mesoamerican objects appeared on the

art market that shared aspects of style and iconography. Most of these were looted, and

they wound up in museums and private collections from Mexico to Costa Rica. These

collections consisted of ceramic vessels with excised designs, incised hollow white-ware

figurines, or incised jades. The incised or excised designs on these objects constitute a

set of common abstract motifs (see fig. 2.6-2.10). Soon thereafter archaeological remains

on the Gulf Coast were identified with some of these same motifs (Stirling 1940, 1943).

These remains included monumental heads, altars, and anthropomorphic or zoomorphic

sculptures carved from basalt. The people of the ancient Gulf Coast were christened the

‘Olmec’ after a group of people who had lived in the region at the time of the conquest,

and they have more recently been renamed the ‘Olman’ (Pool 2007). An immediate

connection was recognized between the archaeological culture on the Gulf Coast and the

37

portable art objects with incised decoration, and these unprovenienced art objects were

also called ‘Olmec’ (Coe 1965; Grove 1989; Stirling 1943). Covarrubias (1946) traced

the development of various gods of the later Mesoamerican pantheons back to these early

‘Olmec’ style motifs, especially the various rain gods. He concluded “A great and

mysterious race of artists seems to have lived since early times on the

Isthmus…Appearing suddenly out of nowhere in a state of full development, they

constitute a culture that seems to have been the root, the mother culture, from which the

later and better known…cultures sprang” (1946:79-80). And with this eloquent statement

he initiated one of the most controversial debates in Mesoamerican archaeology. The

major proponents of the ‘mother culture’ theory were Caso (1942, 1965) and Coe (1965,

1966). Caso interpreted the earliest cultural complexity in Oaxaca to be the result of

Olmec conquest of the region. Coe (1961) recorded incised decoration on ceramics at La

Victoria, on the Pacific Coast of Guatemala, that was similar to incised decoration from

the Gulf Coast, and he later developed a research plan at San Lorenzo to further examine

this phenomenon (Coe and Diehl 1980). The Yale University San Lorenzo project

determined the antiquity of San Lorenzo as Early Formative (1350-900BC). It is clear

that Coe’s research objective of defining the origin of ‘Olmec’ style ceramics influenced

the interpretation of the ceramics found at San Lorenzo. The ‘Olmec’ style had been

defined based on looted objects in private collections and archaeologists of the time were

searching for the archaeological culture to which this style could be attributed. Coe

states, “Calzadas Carved is 100 percent Olmec, in the sense that it has been decorated

with motifs and in a style long identified as Olmec” (Coe and Diehl 1980: 159) (see fig.

2.6). It is no surprise that the circular nature of this interpretation and subsequent

38

research has led to great confusion. One has to wonder how different the history of our

field would be if the Gulf Coast had already had a different name for the archaeological

culture, or if Caso and Covarrubias had simply chosen a different name for the style that

did not associate it with a particular archaeological site or culture. Such efforts to re-

write this aspect of our discipline’s history have not been fruitful. Some scholars suggest

that we call the Gulf Coast archaeological culture the Olman (Pool 2007), and reserve the

term ‘Olmec’ for the artistic style. Others have proposed alternate names for the art style,

including; X-complex (Grove 1989), San Lorenzo Horizon (Coe and Diehl 1980; Diehl

and Coe 1995), Early Horizon (Demarest and Foias 1993; Grove 1993), and Pan-

Mesoamerican Formative symbol system (Reilly 1994, 1995).

Fig. 2.6: San Lorenzo incised pottery (Lowe 1989)

39

At the same time as Coe and Diehl were elucidating the nature of San Lorenzo,

scholars in Oaxaca began to question the interpretation of ‘Olmec’ style objects found

there (see fig. 2.7). Flannery (1968) presented an alternate hypothesis for the appearance

of ‘Olmec’ style objects outside of the Olmec heartland in the Gulf Coast. He proposed

that the Olman culture centered at San Lorenzo did not dominate other sites across

Mesoamerica and did not send emissaries and immigrants to settle these other areas.

Instead, he suggested that various centers were evolving independently towards

chiefdom- level society and that the interaction of emerging leaders led to shared style.

The emerging leaders commissioned artworks with ideologically charged motifs known

as ‘Olmec’ style, and as these people and objects interacted the motifs were shared and

spread across Mesoamerica (Flannery 1968). At the heart of this argument is that San

Lorenzo was a chiefdom and that there were several other similarly complex societies in

Fig. 2.7: Leandro Gray incised bowl depicting flame eyebrow motif from San Jose

Mogote (Marcus and Flannery 1994)

40

Fig. 2.8: “Olmec” style incised ceramics from Tlapacoya (Niederberger 2000)

Mesoamerica. Further, this model posits that interaction between San Lorenzo and

Oaxaca, for example, would not have been more influential than Oaxaca’s interaction

with other places, such as the Basin of Mexico or Pacific Coast of Chiapas (see fig. 2.9-

2.10). Demarest later elaborated this model (1989), describing this phenomenon as a

lattice of interaction during the Middle Formative. Subsequent archaeological research

has revealed ‘Olmec’ style ceramics from numerous locations throughout Mesoamerica.

Grove’s research has defined Early and Middle Preclassic/Formative evidence at

Chalcatzingo (Grove 1984). This site evidences social complexity at this time and there

is evidence of ‘Olmec’ style motifs on both monumental artwork and ceramics (see fig.

2.9). Grove suggests using the term X-complex for the motifs found on pottery to

divorce this concept from the Gulf Coast Olmec and mother culture theory (1989).

Scholars such as Flannery (1968), Grove (1993), and Hammond (1989) have examined

this phenomenon outside Olman and oppose the ‘mother’ culture hypothesis (Flannery et

al. 2005; Reilly 1994).

41

Fig. 2.9: Incised vessel from Chalcatzingo depicting cleft head and various ‘Olmec’ style

motifs (from Olmec World 1996)

‘Olmec’ style ceramics are specifically defined as vessels decorated with ‘Olmec’

motifs found during the transition from the Early to Middle Formative, around 1100-900

BC, in various areas of Mesoamerica (see fig. 2.5- 2.10). Cheetham’s (2010) study of

Cantón Corralito appears to have identified an ethnic enclave from San Lorenzo at a site

in the Mazatán area of Pacific Coastal Chiapas. Here Cheetham identified ceramics with

‘Olmec’ style designs, both incised and excised, made locally and imported from San

Lorenzo, as evidenced by Instrumental Nuetron Activation Analysis (INAA). He

concludes that vessels were imported from San Lorenzo to Cantón Corralito at a rate of

20-40 per year during the Cuadros phase (1000-850 BC) (Cheetham 2010; Demarest

42

Fig. 2.10: Excised Fire-sperpent motifs from El Varal (Lesure 2000)

1989; and Lesure 1998 for Cuadros dates). He suggests that this extended contact

implies immigration of people from San Lorenzo and continued contact with their former

home (2010). He also notes differences in local imitations of San Lorenzo vessels. The

vessels imported from San Lorenzo tend to be small, individual-size serving dishes or

bowls with bolstered or direct rims, while those made locally were 5-7 cm larger in

diameter (2010). This is thus far a unique situation and reveals that San Lorenzo’s

interaction with contemporary sites occurred in many different forms.

Rosenswig (2010) examines the process of interaction with the Olmec Gulf Coast in

the Soconusco region, on the Pacific coast of Chiapas and Guatemala (see fig. 2.9). He

suggests three hypothetical models for the interaction of elites at San Lorenzo and in

Soconusco and examines these using several lines of evidence. These hypotheses are the

Peer Polity model, Elite Emulation model, and the Aztec Analogy model (i.e., conquest

by an empire). Rosenswig finds that the Elite Emulation model best fits the extensive

data from the Soconusco area, arguing that the Soconusco elites solidified control over

43

their local populations in part through emulation of processes utilized by elites at San

Lorenzo. He concludes that many of the social processes that define Mesoamerican

statecraft, those aligning elites with supernatural forces and specifically with maize

iconography and associated ideology, were first defined at San Lorenzo. These social

processes were imitated by local elites in Soconusco through their own efforts to control

their local populations. This imitation involved interaction through visits to the chiefly

center of San Lorenzo and other emerging centers.

Joyce and Henderson (2010) interpret evidence of ‘Olmec’ style iconography in

Honduras. Honduras is the most distant area from the Gulf Coast that has evidence of

this iconography on ceramics. They argue that “such innovative material practices,

including use of similar canons of representation and new preferences for vessel forms,

finishes, and decoration, raise questions that must first be answered in terms of local

experience, local meaning, and local practices” (2010: 187). They find a high percentage

of incised ‘Olmec’ motifs, 5% of the sample, and conclude that this high proportion of

elaborate serving vessels represents special deposits and not the standard percentage of an

everyday assemblage. In Puerto Escondido, Honduras, these vessels were associated

with households that also contained other exotic materials that would have enabled these

residents to distinguish themselves in everyday material practice (2010). Joyce and

Henderson conclude that these vessels were used in mortuary rituals and feasts for the

living that would have commemorated special life events. They ask the provocative

question- “were Formative Hondurans trying to be “Olmec”?” (2010: 194), and conclude

that “new imagery in broader networks to which they were connected may have been

viewed less as representations of gods or supernatural beings, and more like crests,

44

emblems of identity,” (2010: 197). They concur with the findings of Rosenswig that to

be “Olmec” was to participate in and accept a hierarchy of people that was fundamentally

rooted in local processes and represented in a foreign symbol system shared with foreign

elites.

John Clark has been one of the major proponents for the view of ‘Olmec’ style as a

wide-ranging elite governing practice found in various parts of Mesoamerica. He states,

“in the Olmec case, the creation and deployment of “art”, as narrowly defined, promoted

governance through covert control of foundational ideologies,” (1997: 212). He further

re-defines the term ‘Olmec’ to describe the political phenomenon that began in Veracruz

around 1150 uncal BC and adopted by people living outside this heartland zone. He

suggests that further evidence is necessary to understand these social processes and that

interaction must be examined on a case- by- case basis. He focuses on the Pacific Coast

of Chiapas and Guatemala. He finds that initially the Gulf Coast Olmec may have been

stimulated towards complexity by contact with peoples from Chiapas in the Early

Formative (1997). Later, in the transition from the Early to Middle Formative, the Gulf

Coast Olman were more complex, with a political system based on divine kingship, and

had a stimulating effect on the elites of Chiapas (Clark 1997; Clark and Pye 2000). Clark

falls in the “mother culture” camp when he concludes that “the early Olmecs created the

first civilization in Mesoamerica; they had no peers, only contemporaries,” (Clark and

Pye 2000: 246).

45

CONCLUSIONS

It is important to consider stylistic variation as reflecting community identity without

assuming this identity to relate to ethnicity. I consider the ‘natural’ community as the

group of potters who interact on a frequent basis in daily life, and the ‘imagined’

community as an identity actively chosen by villagers to participate in a broader

ideological system (Isbell 2000). The ‘natural’ community will be reflected by

isochrestic style, style of learning or practicing a craft activity that is interpreted to reflect

local potting groups (Sackett 1977, 1982, 1990). An example of isochrestic style would

be where one community prefers to decorate pottery with excision while another prefers

fine line incision. Iconological style is the specific iconographic content of an artifact or

artwork, reflecting deliberate choices by potters to imbue their products with a particular

symbolic meaning (for example the Cleft Head or Flame Eyebrow motifs, see fig. 2.6-

2.10). This category is more likely to reflect ‘imagined’ community, because it is an

iconographic and/or ideological program actively chosen by potters and often links

potters who may or may not have any daily contact with one another.

In the case of ‘Olmec’ style these categories of style are sometimes conflated. Most

scholars referring to ‘Olmec’ style, however, are discussing iconological style,

specifically a set of motifs including the avian serpent, flame eyebrow, gum bracket (U

shape), Kan Cross, sunburst or shell, single line break, music brackets, fish or shark, and

cleft heads (Cheetham 2010; Joralemon 1971; Reilly 1994; Taube 1995a and b). Others

restrict the term ‘Olmec’ style to an isochrestic style, consisting of such motifs when

found excised or carved onto ceramic vessels (Blomster et al. 2005). Others would find

this distinction irrelevant (Grove 1993, Reyes González and Winter 2010: 158), because

46

‘Olmec’ style motifs are also found in other isochrestic manifestations most notably fine

line incised motifs on ceramic vessels and other other portable prestige items such as

jade, and on monumental stone sculptures. INAA studies have shown that ceramics

excised with ‘Olmec’ motifs were traded from San Lorenzo to other contemporary sites

(Blomster et al. 2005, Cheetham 2010; Neff 2006; 2010). Fine-line incised vessels tend

to be locally made, and there is little evidence of vessels imported to San Lorenzo.

The evidence now shows that around 1100-1000 cal BC settlements made and used

pottery decorated with a shared symbol system that shows remarkable similarity across

Mesoamerica. This phenomenon is found at contemporaneous sites ranging from as far

as the Basin of Mexico, through the Yucatan and Chiapas, to as far southeast as

Honduras. This dissertation will show that the Maya Lowlands were a part of this

phenomenon. In some cases this decorated pottery was used at centers of emerging

social complexity such as the chiefdoms and/or emerging states in the Gulf Coast of

Olman, and the Valley of Oaxaca. In the Maya Lowlands this decorated pottery was used

at less complex sites occupied by transegalitarian villagers. The pre-Mamom ceramics

are part of a phase that represents the first settled, pottery-producing villages of the

region. In other areas these ceramics are part of a long-standing tradition of pottery

making, such as on the Pacific Coast, Oaxaca, the Basin of Mexico, and the Gulf Coast.

The similarities between all these places is the iconological style, the content of

decoration on the pottery is shared. There are some major distinctions in isochrestic

style, most notably the preference for incision vs. excision as a decoration method.

Another aspect that is shared amongst these pottery traditions is in the vessel forms;

across this wide space there is a consistent preference for decoration of ‘Olmec’ style

47

motifs on bowls, plates, or dishes with outcurving walls and direct, thickened, or

bolstered rims. Since the manifestation of this style system is not identical from place to

place we cannot assume that the same processes explain this phenomenon in each place.

The purpose of this dissertation is to explore and document this phenomenon in the Maya

Lowlands from the perspective of Holmul and Tikal in the Petén region of Guatemala.

Most authors now agree that ‘Olmec’ style does not indicate a single process of

colonization of Mesoamerica by the Gulf Coast Olman. Instead, many scholars posit that

there are distinct social processes evident at different sites. Further, many scholars would

argue that we are still lacking much of the evidence that would fully illuminate these

processes. Joyce and Henderson suggest that we consider the motivations of local people

in adopting these foreign motifs and provocatively suggest that being ‘Olmec’ can be

conceived as a political heritage actively promoted by emerging elites engaging in a

basically local drama. Rosenswig also finds that elites in Soconusco utilized ‘Olmec’

style symbolism for personal advancement in local arenas. Many scholars would agree

that the ‘Olmec’ style was a set of motifs used by various elites and that these images

related to an ideology relating kings to the divine and maize agriculture.

48

Chapter 3

Research at Holmul; Provenience of the Collection

This chapter will focus on the context of the ceramic materials examined in this

dissertation. The ceramic materials from Holmul were recovered from excavations

between 2005 and 2014. These excavations were conducted as part of the Holmul

Archaeological Project directed by Dr. Francisco Estrada-Belli with permission from the

Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Guatemala. Excavations in Group II,

Buildings N and B were conducted by the author.

PREVIOUS CERAMIC RESEARCH AT HOLMUL

Archaeological investigations in the Holmul region began with the 1909-1911

excavation led by Raymond Merwin (Merwin and Vaillant 1932). His research produced

one of the first ceramic sequences in the Maya Lowlands. Merwin’s excavations focused

on monumental architecture and tombs in the ceremonial core of Holmul, Groups I, II,

and III. The series of superimposed tombs from Building B, Group II were especially

important for the definition of the early part of his ceramic sequence (his Holmul I and II

phases). In Building B, Merwin identified numerous separate tombs, including 21

individuals, with ceramics from what is now known as the Terminal Preclassic to Late

Classic. These ceramics, housed at the Peabody Museum and American Museum of

Natural History, were especially important in the study of the “Protoclassic” or Q-

Complex phenomenon in the Maya Lowlands (Callaghan 2008; Brady et al. 1998;

Hammond 1984; Pring 2000). The excavations of Merwin at Holmul Group II, Building

B, have also been particularly important in forming a foundation for understanding

49

ancient Maya concepts of ancestor veneration (Acuña 2018; Callaghan 2013; McAnany

1995; 1998; Taube 1998).

The site of Holmul was not studied again until the excavations led by Francisco

Estrada-Belli began in 2000. One of the goals of the project was to define the earliest

phases of Holmul in an effort to better understand the origins of Maya social complexity.

The project’s regional approach examined the archaeology of numerous separate sites

around Holmul, including Cival, Sufricaya, Hamontun, and K’o (see fig. 3.1). Ceramic

materials from all sites were examined for this study of the pre-Mamom sequence.

However, only excavations from Holmul and Cival have revealed these earliest ceramics

thus far. Initial ceramic analyses were undertaken by Kosakowsky (2001); subsequent

analyses were undertaken by Callaghan (2008) for his Ph. D. dissertation. Callaghan’s

study utilized stereomicroscope, petrography, and Instrumental Neutron Activation

Analysis of paste to look at changing production techniques of terminal Preclassic

ceramics. His study also included a ceramic sequence for the Holmul region, including

the pre-Mamom phase of materials excavated between 2004 and 2005. In his 2008

sequence he chose to use the same type names as the Cunil sequence from Cahal Pech.

As the Holmul/Cival sample grew with further excavations, it became clear that the

Holmul sequence had significant differences in pastes and slip colors to necessitate

distinct types for this site. In a co-authored monograph (Callaghan and Neivens de

Estrada 2016) we published these new type decriptions for the pre-Mamom phase, and

additional ceramics found by the project up to 2014. The type descriptions found in that

publication are similar to those contained in this dissertation. Callaghan’s expertise in

paste analysis and description were very important to this study. We examined the pre-

50

Fig. 3.1: Map of Holmul region, courtesy Francisco Estrada-Belli

Mamom ceramics together with stereomicroscope and the descriptions found here will

align with the descriptions of later phases detailed in Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada

2016. This dissertation includes all pre-Mamom ceramics excavated by the Holmul

Archaeological Project from 2000 to 2014. Excavations by Estrada-Belli continue into

the present and new examples of these ceramics are unearthed each year.

EXCAVATIONS AT HOLMUL

Humans occupied the area around Holmul by at least 1350 BC (Wahl et al. 2013).

While these early inhabitants did not leave any cultural material, or such has not yet been

51

discovered, they did leave an impact on their environment. Sediment cores from the

nearby Laguna Yaloch have revealed human impact on the natural environment from

3350 BP and Zea pollen directly evidencing agriculture at 3330 BP (Wahl et al. 2013).

These early farmers lived a lifestyle that did not include ceramic technology until about

1000BC. The early inhabitants likely moved across the landscape, planting corn and

other crops around seasonally inundated bajos (Clark and Cheetham 2002; Inomata et al.

2015b; Pohl et al. 1996). The adoption of ceramic technology appears to coincide with

the creation of the first settled villages (Awe 1992; Lohse et al. 2006). Some scholars

suggest that during this transition a component of the population remained mobile, while

others settled in villages, and suggests that the relationships between these groups were

negotiated through public ritual at these early ceremonial settlements (Estrada-Belli 2012;

Inomata et al. 2015b). The earliest architecture at these sites are E-groups, ceremonial

complexes comprised of a long low eastern structure and a radial pyramid on the West.

These are the sites of the earliest evidence of place making ceremonies involving jade

axes and cosmic symbolism around the axis-mundi (Estrada-Belli 2006, 2011, 2012,

2017; Inomata et al. 2015a and b; Inomata 2017a and b).

Group II Holmul (see fig. 3.2) was the site of some of the earliest monumental

architecture built by the ancient Maya. Around 400-350 BC much of the area was

completely scraped clean to bedrock and a large basal platform was constructed. It

included three major pyramidal structures along the north side with temples on top. The

central focal point, Building B, was adorned with a well-preserved stucco façade

depicting an elaborate scene referencing ancestor veneration (Neivens de Estrada 2005,

2006, 2009; Estrada-Belli 2011). Even

52

Figure 3.2: Map of Holmul and Group II, courtesy of Francisco Estrada-Belli

before this construction the area of Group II was a location with a rich cultural history. It

was an area inhabited by people since c. 1000-850 BC evidenced in the high quantity of

pre-Mamom ceramic material found within the construction fills of Group II.

I suggest that the humans who impacted the environment as seen in the sediment cores

from Laguna Yaloch around 1350 BC settled in a village at the site of Group II in Holmul

53

around 1000 BC. I believe that they created some structures here and made, used, and

discarded ceramics here between 1000 and 850 BC. Later this area was demolished and

the remains of this early village were scooped up and used for construction fill in the

monumental architecture dating to 400 BC. The earliest construction at the site is

evidenced by a round posthole that has three smaller postholes around it, suggesting a

perishable structure. The subsequent construction fills under Building N consist of a few

layers of exclusively Kawil-phase material and these layers may be the remains of a

living surface dating to the early Middle Preclassic.

The western area of Group II was the location of an ephemeral early structure

identified only by the scant remains of postholes cut into bedrock in the northwestern

Figure 3.3: Postholes at the base of excavations in Building N, Group II

54

area of the group, beneath the plaza between Building N and Building B (see fig. 3.3).

This earliest structure was likely a wattle and daub household evidenced in the pattern of

one large round posthole ringed by three much smaller round postholes (Neivens de

Estrada 2007). The area was then completely cleared in preparation for the subsequent

architecture. The bedrock surface under Buildings B and F were quaried for stone blocks

used in subsequent architecture (see fig. 3.4).

Fig. 3.4: Bedrock surface under Building B (left) and Building F (right)

Other early deposits in the area of Building N and Building B are layers of fill and

plaza floors (Neivens de Estrada 2007; see Table 3.1). The deposits laid directly on

55

bedrock or sterile paleosol contained exclusively K’awil phase ceramics (context

numbers HOL.T.76.16, 77.06, 71.27, and 71.28). These deposits are covered with other

layers of construction fill (contexts HOL.T.76.15, 77.05, 77.04, and 71.60), which

contained mixed material from the K’awil, Yax Te, and Itzamkanak phases. These layers

were sealed by plaster floors in the plaza (contexts HOL.T.71.23, 77.03, 77.01). The

early layers containing 100% K’awil material may have been primary deposits on ancient

living surfaces, but they were not sealed with an identifiable surface such as a floor. The

earliest living surfaces at Cahal Pech consist of stamped earth floors and low marl

platfroms. These deposits were covered by fill that contained largely K’awil phase

materials, mixed with some Yax Te Mamom and Itzamakanak phase materials, and

sealed by the first plaza floor (Neivens de Estrada 2007, 2009).

Context Kawil (1000-850BC) Yax Te (850-450BC) Itzamkanak (450BC-AD250)

HOL.T.76.16 100% (N=6) 0 0

HOL.T.77.06 100% (N=5) 0 0

HOL.T.71.27 100% (N=5) 0 0

HOL.T.71.28 100% (N=13) 0 0

HOL.T.71.60 51% (N=19) 49% (N=18) 0

HOL.T.76.15 52% (N=28) 43% (N=23) 6% (N=3)

HOL.T.77.05 66% (N=50) 33% (N=25) 1% (N=1)

HOL.T.77.04 14% (N=1) 0 86%(N=6)

Table 3.1: Frequencies of Ceramics in Earliest Contexts from Building N (Phase 1 plaza

fill, Phase 2 Plaza fill)

56

The first major phase of monumental architecture dates to the transition between the

Middle and Late Preclassic, around 400BC (Neivens de Estrada 2005; 2007; 2009). The

basal platform of Group II was 2.8-3 meters tall on the northwest, and contained three

buildings along the northern side. All three of these buildings faced south. Excavations

in 2012 defined two other buildings, Building C on the West and Building A on the East,

that faced each other creating the triadic group layout.

On the northwest was Building N, Phase 1, standing at least 2.5 meters tall off the

platform (see fig. 3.5-3.7). The overall width and length are unknown because it was

covered by later architecture, but it was at least 5 meters long North-South and 6 meters

wide East- West. It consisted of a basal platform with at least two terraces, the first tier

was .5 m high and the second was .7 m high. The southern facade consisted of two tiers

Fig. 3.5: Building N Phase 1 from south façade

57

Fig. 3.6: Building N Phase 1 from north showing superstructure

flanking a central stairway; large postholes in front of the platform on the Southeast

corner and just east of the stairway indicate some sort of wooden construction. This was

probably the armature for a thatch roof that would have created a covered patio space in

front of the temple (see fig. 3.5). On top of this basal platform was another platform set

back to the North by several meters. This platform was slightly wider on the front and

narrower on the back and was one step higher up (see fig. 3.6). On top of the upper

platform was a masonry superstructure, which was demolished prior to burial, but whose

outline could be seen clearly (see fig. 3.7). The entire building was thoroughly burned on

the exterior and interior prior to its demolition and burial. I interpret this burning as

related to a termination ritual performed prior to the Phase 2 construction. Interestingly,

58

Figure 3.7: North Profile of Building N, by Nina Neivens and Diana Méndez Lee

the contemporary Late Preclassic buildings on the basal platform of Group II do not show

this type of ritual destruction (Neivens de Estrada 2007, 2009). In fact, the first phase of

both Buildings B and F are remarkably well preserved.

In the center was the focal structure, Building B, Phase 1, with a platform 6 meters

high off the basal platform of Group II and with a superstructure standing at least 2

meters high (Neivens de Estrada 2005). This monumental construction included a

pyramidal base of 4 stepped tiers (each approximately 95 cm high), with a central

stairway for access (see fig. 3.8-3.11). Atop the pyramidal base was another platform T-

shape in plan perspective, approximately 14 meters along the rear and 8 meters along the

front. This platform was 2.5 meters high and incorporated an inset central stairway and

two massive stucco witz mask decorations adorning its sides (Estrada-Belli 2011;

59

Figure 3.8: West Profile of Building B, Phase 1, drawing by Nina Neivens

Figure 3.9: South Facade of Building B, Phase 1, drawing by Nina Neivens

60

Fig. 3.10: South Façade of Building B, Phase 1

Neivens de Estrada 2009). Atop this platform was the superstructure, mimicking the

outline of the platform below, and containing three narrow rooms along the rear and at

least two square rooms in the front. The superstructure was intact up to 1.8 meters in

some places, although most of the roof stones had been demolished prior to the

subsequent construction. It contained low, broad, windows over both the masks and in

the rear rooms on the east and west sides (see fig. 3.8 and 3.9). These windows were

each flanked by square vents at floor level, a feature also seen along the floor along other

exterior and interior walls (Neivens de Estrada 2005, 2007). These floor level vents are a

pattern seen throughout the history of Building B, as evidenced in the Early Classic phase

(McAnany 1998; Merwin and Vaillant 1932; Taube 1998). The first phase is dated to c.

400-350 BC by a series of radiocarbon samples taken from charcoal imbedded in the

plaster on the face of the stucco mask (Estrada-Belli 2011; Neivens de Estrada 2007).

61

Figure 3.11: Reconstruction drawing of Building B, Phase 1, by Fernando Alvarez

The Building B Phase 1 mask represents a zoomorphic mountain whose open mouth is a

cave (compare to Mora-Marin 2005). The side panels represent 2 skull and crossed

bones, which is the earliest yet found of this common motif. From the open mouth/cave

an old man emerges (Neivens de Estrada 2010). This old man is related to God N, who

often emerges from a shell. The God N motif is also see on ceramics in funerary contexts

from Group II through the Classic period (Estrada-Belli and Tokovinine 2016). I

interpret Building B, Phase 1, as an ancestor veneration shrine (Neivens de Estrada

2010).

The plaza floor in front of Building B, phase 1, is context number HOL.T.63.116, and

this corresponds to context numbers HOL.T.71.23, 77.01, and 76.01, which surround the

North and East sides of Building N (Neivens de Estrada 2006, 2007, 2009). Excavations

62

Context Kawil (1000-850BC) Yax Te (850-450BC) Itzamkanak (450BC-AD250)

HOL.T.63.08 89% (N=31) 3% (N=1) 9% (N=3)

HOL.T.74.28 55% (N=6) 0 45% (N=5)

HOL.T.74.26 89% (N=33) 2% (N=1) 8% (N=3)

HOL.T.74.25 21% (N=5) 9% (N=2) 70% (N=16)

HOL.T.74.24 59% (N=24) 34% (N=14) 7% (N=3)

Table 3.2: Frequencies of Earliest Contexts from Building B, all Phase 1

into the interior center of Building B identified several layers of construction fill

containing mixed materials from the K’awil, Yax Te, and Itzamkanak phases (see

Table3.2). While Building B dates to the Late Preclassic there were likely earlier

settlements nearby that were destroyed and used for fill in these monumental

constructions.

On the northeast was Building F, phase 1. Building F had a long basal platform

oriented towards the south with a masonry superstructure placed on the north side (see

fig. 3.12). At that time, or later, the first phase of Building A was constructed on the

same basal platform on the north side and facing west. Building F faced south and the

basal platform created a wide-open space in front of the building. The earliest

construction in the area of Building F was the construction fill for the basal platform of

Building F phase 1 (see Table 3.3). These construction fills are context numbers

HOL.T.75.24, 75.25, 75.26, these were sealed by the masonry on the rear façade of the

structure, context number HOL.T.75.23. Building F shows a similar pattern to Building N

63

with the majority of fill made up of K’awil material, with small quantities of Yax Te

Mamom, and the construction itself dates to the transition to the Late Preclassic, c. 400-

350 BC. The subsequent phases of Building F are poorly understood.

Context Kawil (1000-

850BC)

Yax Te (850-

450BC)

Itzamkanak (450BC-AD250)

HOL.T.75.26 98% (N=90) 2% (N=2) 0

HOL.T.75.25 94% (N=17) 6% (N=1) 0

HOL.T.75.24 91% (N=41) 2% (N=4) 0

Table 3.3: Frequencies of Earliest Contexts from Building F, all Phase 1

Fig. 3.12: Building F, Phase 1 reconstruction, courtesy Francisco Estrada-Belli

64

Figure 3.13: Plan and Profile of Building B, drawing by Mauricio Diaz

65

Figure 3.14: Plan and profile of Building F, drawing by Mauricio Diaz

66

Excavations in this building showed four phases of architecture seen in profile from the

looters trench on the East side and excavation tunnel on the North side of the structure.

However, excavations on the interior of the building only revealed the first phase of

architecture in detail.

The broad platform and these three buildings comprise the earliest phase of

construction in Group II. This phase of construction represents the largest labor

investment ever seen in the area of Group II, including both massive earth moving and

finely crafted architectural planning and decoration. The following phases of Building B

built upon this foundation and grew considerably taller than the original, but following

construction decreased in mass and size. This phenomenon is achieved through the

gradual covering of these earliest buildings with taller basal platforms, and somewhat

taller but smaller pyramids are built over the earlier buildings. Building N grew in the

following phase but thereafter became much smaller over time, until it was simply a low

platform sitting on the plaza floor. Less is known about the overall dimensions of

Building F and its final appearance.

In Phase 2 the group the overall height of the basal platform of Group II was increased

by about 10 cm, and all three buildings were expanded considerably. This phase dates to

the Late Preclassic, sometime between 400 BC and AD 150, I estimate its date at 250-

200BC. On the northwest Building N reached its largest construction phase (see fig.

3.15). It consisted of a long low platform at least 11 meters long North-South and 7

meters wide at its base. The basal platform consisted of two tiers, each 1.15m high and at

least .77m wide on the west side. The front of this platform presents an unusual

67

Fig. 3.15: Building N from South, showing Phase 2 in foreground

pattern: it consists of an inset stairway flanked by the repeated double tiers as on the

sides, and these are flanked by two narrower stairways on the distal ends meeting the

corners of the platform. The two frontal tiers and the broad open space on top (7m N-S)

create a space that would have been ideal for artistic display. One might expect to find a

stucco decoration similar to the masks of Building B Phase 1, but the tiers were lacking

any architectural decoration (see fig. 3.15). Instead, I envision this space as one for the

presentation of more ephemeral artwork. At times the space may have been used for

performance by dancers or actors in elaborate costume. At others it may have displayed

painted or woven artwork on textile. This space can be interpreted as a stage upon which

many different performances may have taken place. Leaving this architectural space

blank of permanent artwork allowed multiple meanings to be given to the space during

68

different performative events (Freidel 2017). The concept of a stage is repeated atop the

basal platform where an open space of 7 by 6 meters is left in front of the next platform.

This space would also have been ideal for use in performance art. The upper platform

was 6 meters wide (E-W) at its center with inset corners. The height of this platform and

possible presence of a superstructure could not be determined because the area was

destroyed during later construction. Based on earlier and later construction I suggest that

the platform had a single or double stairway possibly flanking a stucco decoration such as

a mask, and that a stone superstructure would have sat atop the platform (Neivens de

Estrada 2007, 2009).

Phase 2 of Building B is far less understood than the first phase, because it was not as

well preserved. The basic outline of the platform and superstructure were probably much

the same as the previous construction, with a slightly larger shell encasing it. It was built

using an unusual construction style (see fig. 3.16). The masonry blocks were set in

alternating rows with one row of blocks set with the long side on the exterior and the next

row with the short side to the exterior (Neivens de Estrada 2006). This pattern is seen in

the platform of the building as well as the basal platform of Group II. The previous

construction had used long blocks set with the short side to the exterior (as also seen in

monumental construction at Cival and El Mirador in the same time period, Hansen et al.

2018), and later architecture used the blocks with their long side to the exterior (Estrada-

Belli 2011). The façade included an upper platform similar in style and size to the

platform, which bore the stucco façade in Phase 1. Whatever decoration may have

adorned it had been removed because when it was excavated little stucco remained on the

69

Fig. 3.16: Building B, façade from South, showing Phase 2 (right) and Phase 2 and 5

(left)

masonry. This masonry consisted of a slightly convex platform with an outset

rectangular tier on top of it. The stairway was initially inset inside this platform, as seen

in Phase 1, and a later remodeling created a stairway that was half inset on the upper part

and outset on the lower half (Neivens de Estrada 2005).

A major renovation of Group II was undertaken in Phase 3, dating to the Late

Preclassic sometime between 400 BC and AD 150 (Itzamkanak phase). I estimate its

date at around 50 BC =/-100 years based upon the sequence of construction and range of

dates for the ceramic phase. A fill of 2.65 meters, covering much of the earlier

constructions, raised the basal platform of the group itself. This essentially covered the

70

Fig. 3.17: Building N from east showing Phase 2 in foreground and Phase 3 above

entire lower platform of Building N, leaving only the upper platform on top of the plaza

floor (see fig. 3.17). Instead of covering the earlier construction with a larger one

encasing it, as is often seen in Maya architecture, the earlier construction was simply

renovated. Building N in Phase 3 consisted of a single low platform of 1.2 meters high,

and possibly a masonry superstructure. The inset corners of the earlier phase were

expanded by the addition of two flanking stairways of three steps on each distal end of

the platform (see fig. 3.18). The style and construction of these steps was of far lesser

quality than the earlier construction. The central portion of the platform contained a

stucco mask consisting of a lower jaw and open mouth of some snake-like creature facing

frontally (see fig. 3.7). This stucco mask was destroyed on the upper portion, along with

71

the possible superstructure, after the end of the buildings’ use life. The addition of this

stucco mask may have been during a renovation after Phase 3 Building N had been in

use.

In Phase 3 Building B took on a much different appearance. In previous phases it had

been wider at the base than in height, this relationship shifts in the following phases.

With the mass of Building B Phase 1 buried, the base of the pyramidal structure seemed

to have been smaller than previous phases and the emphasis shifted towards increasing

height. The overall height of the pyramidal structure increased by 4 meters in this phase.

The basal pyramid was relatively steep with repeated short steps, and probably accessed

by a central stairway. This phase showed considerable damage by tree roots in the basal

pyramid and thus little is known about its final appearance. This platform continued in

use during the following phases of construction, which consist of additions made to the

upper portion and superstructure of the building (Neivens de Estrada 2005).

Phase 4 of Building N is essentially its last phase because at this time the building was

demolished and covered by the plaza floor. The burial of Building N included

several distinct layers of fill laid on its sides to cover it entirely. On the east and south to

the center a thick layer of white plaster was laid filling in the area between Building N

and B. On the West from the center of the building a gray soil with copious artifactual

remains, many dating to the pre-Mamom phase, was laid to fill in this space

(HOL.T.71.57). The plaza floor was increased in height by 1 meter covering the remains

of Building N and created an open plaza space to the West of Building B. This phase

72

Fig. 3.18: Building N Phase 4 from south, showing small platform on plaza floor

dates to the terminal Late Preclassic, c. AD 150. Later renovations of Building B are

documented in Merwin and Vaillant 1932. These renovations focus on the buildings use

as a temple devoted to ancestor veneration with over 22 individuals interred inside it from

AD 150 into the Classic Period (Merwin and Vaillant 1932; McAnany 1998).

POTENTIAL FEASTING CONTEXTS

I have interpreted the pre-Mamom deposits found in the construction fill of Group II

as secondary deposits of material that was removed from nearby and deposited here in the

73

Late Preclassic. I suggest that some of the early Middle Preclassic ceramics were used in

feasting events in the nearby vicinity. There are several contexts of K’awil material

found in the fill of Builidngs B and F that may be the remains of such feasting events.

These contexts contain a majority K’awil phase ceramic material and a high quantity of

faunal remains (A. Sharpe personal communication 2017; see Table 3.4). Found in the

interior of Building B directly over the construction of Phase 1, HOL.T.63.20 is a

construction fill containing 92% K’awil phase and 8% Ixim Mamom phase ceramics.

Faunal remains in this context include 12 specimens of edible shell 9 river mussels

(Unionidae), 2 jute (Pachychilus glaphyrus), one freshwater snail (Pomacea flagellate).

This context also includes one marine tusk shell (Dentalium sp.) which is an ornamental

shell used in preclassic Maya burials and ceremonial offerings (Sharpe 2016; Hammond

1991). This context also includes a large number of complex incised decoration on the

K’awil phase ceramics. These include 5 Cleft heads on red-slipped vessels (Katun Red-

3, and Jobal Red- 2) as well as 3 sharks tooth motifs (Ante Incised), and 2 double

merlons (Katun Red). As well as; Sun/Starburst (Katun Red), tassel (Katun Red),

Crossed bands (Ante Incised), mat motif (Kitam Incised), U-shape (Katun Red), and

Music Brackets (Katun Red) as well as 12 other incised sherds. I suggest that this

context may be the remains of a feast involving shells and snails that utilized many red-

slipped vessels with complex iconography related to cosmology for serving. Five of the

total 30 cleft heads are found in this single context, representing 17% of all cleft heads,

which seems significant. For some reason vessels adorned with the cleft head motif were

preferred for this event.

74

Context/Material HOL.T.63.08 HOL.T.63.20 HOL.T.75.25 HOL.T.75.26

% Kawil 89% 92% 94% 98%

Unionidae 13 9 1

Jute 1 2

Pomacea 6 1

White-Tail Deer 3 4

Brocket Deer 1

? Mammal 1

Peccary 7

Turtle 4

Armadillo 1

Triton Trumpet Shell 1

Tusk Shell 1

Cleft Head 1 5

Sharks Tooth 2 1

Double Merlon 2

Music Bracket 1 1 1 4

U-shape 1 1

Flower/Sun 1 2

Crossed Bands 1

Tassel 1

Table 3.4: Faunal Remains and Complex Incised Motifs from potential feasting contexts

(Sharpe n.d.)

75

Beneath Building B, Phase 1, HOL.T.63.08, is a construction fill containing 89%

K’awil phase, 3% Ixim Mamom phase, and 9% Itzamkanak Chicanel phase ceramics.

This context also included a large quantity of snails and shells. There are 20 specimens

of edible shell; 13 river mussels (Unionidae), 6 freshwater snail (Pomacea flagellate), and

one jute (Pachychilus indiorum) (Sharpe n.d.). The K’awil sample does not include the

same range of complex iconography as the previous context, but it does include several

examples. There is one Cleft Head (Xpokol Incised), one Music Bracket (Katun Red),

two double line enciclircling, and three triple encircling, as well as 2 other incised sherds.

I suggest that this context may also be the remains of a pre-Mamom feast that served

shells in incised decorated serving vessels. River mussels and Apple Snails were a

significant source of nutrition for the Preclassic Maya, and became less common over

time (Hammond 1992; Moholy-Nagy 1978; Sharpe 2016). Excavations at Ceibal have

uncovered huge deposits of similar early Middle Preclassic pomacea shell food remains

(Sharpe 2016).

The earliest fills in Building F, Phase 1, also included large quantities of food remains

representing very different faun from that found in Building B. Deep beneath Building F,

Phase 1, HOL.T.75.26, is the first construction fill and it contained 98% K’awil phase

and 2% Itzamkanak Chicanel phase ceramic. Of the 19 faunal specimens there were: 7

peccary (Tayassuidae), 4 turtle (Testudines), 11 unidentified mammal, 4 white-tailed deer

(Odocoileus virginianus), 1 brocket deer (Mazama sp.), and 2 unidentified medium-sized

birds. K’awil incised ceramics from this context include 4 Music brackets (Katun Red- 2,

and Kitam Incised- 2), one flower (Sak White), one U-shape (Kitam Incised), and 3 other

incised sherds. I suggest that this context is the remains of a pre-Mamom phase feast

76

involving peccary, deer, bird, and turtle meat, and that this meal was served in vessels

decorated primarily with the Music Bracket motif. This context contains 15% of all

Music Bracket motifs found at Holmul. In another fill of the same phase of Building F,

HOL.T.75.25 contained 94% K’awil phase and 1% Ixim Mamom phase ceramics. This

context contained one river mussel (Unionidae), 3 white-tail deer (Odeocoileus

virginianus), and one ornamental Triton’s trumpet shell (Charonia tritonis) (Sharpe n.d.).

The K’awil ceramics in this context included one sharks tooth (Baatz Tan) and one Music

Bracket (Aute Incised). I suggest that these contexts from Building F, Phase 1, are the

remains of feasting events involving meat consumption. Further studies are needed to

determine the veracity of these proposed feasting contexts.

SUMMARY

The excavations from Group II have offered great detail on the ritual practices of the

Late Preclassic and Classic period, and ceramic remains from the early Middle Preclassic.

These ceramics represent a significant collection from the early Middle Preclassic Maya

Lowlands. It remains one of the most varied and most well preserved of these collections

found to date. The incised decoration found at Holmul set this collection apart from other

nearby sites where incisions are fewer, and often poorly preserved. The provenience of

these ceramics suggests an early Middle Preclassic occupation in the immediate vicinity

of Group II. I suggest that this was the location of the first settled village in the area.

The people who lived here are known only by these ceramics, a few postholes, and their

significant impact on the environment as seen in the sediment cores from Lake Yaloch. I

suggest that Group II was a gathering place for ritual activity during the early Middle

Preclassic, of the type discussed by Inomata and colleagues at Ceibal (Inomata et al.

77

2015a and b). This location was imbued with meaning during those early events, which

must have included ceremonial consumption from the highly decorated ceramics found

there. These special events would have been a time for both settled villagers and mobile

groups to display their ideology linking them through this place to the cosmos (Inomata

et al. 2015b). These gatherings and the ideologies expressed on these objects are likely

shared by the various communities across Mesoamerica who used ceramics decorated in

the ‘Olmec’ style system. Later the remains of this early community were scraped up and

used in fill for the monumental architecture of the Late Preclassic. The large quantities of

K’awil phase ceramics found throughout the Preclassic sequence at Holmul suggest that

the early Middle Preclassic deposits must have been significant in this area.

The area remained a location for place making and ritual activity for approximately

2000 years (Estrada-Belli 2011; Merwin and Vaillant 1932). We see the focus of ritual

activity surrounding ancestor veneration and royal lineage begin at 400-350 BC and

continue to the Late Classic (c. AD 850) (Acuna 2018; Estrada-Belli and Tokovinine

2016; Martin 2015). Whatever ritual and daily activity occurred at Holmul in the early

Middle Preclassic, we know it involved ceramic vessels, and that these ceramics were

imbued with meaning related to a shared ideology that connected the lowland Maya to a

pan-Mesoamerican imagined community.

ANALYSIS OF CERAMICS

I have chosen to present the ceramic data from Holmul and Tikal in several ways. The

first is a type variety analysis, and because my analysis differs in some ways from others

that have been published, I describe my procedure here. Type-variety is the preferred

78

method of ceramic analysis within this culture area (Aimers 2013; Rice 1976; Rice 2013;

Sabloff 1975; Smith et al. 1960; Willey 1967). This system presents the ceramic data

with a focus on surface finish such as slip color and presence of decoration (Sabloff and

Smith 1969). I follow Rice (1976, 2013) in using the ware concept as defined largely by

paste characteristics, avoiding the confusion of wares based on both paste and surface

characteristics (Gifford 1976). Within ware categories the ceramics are separated by

groups, which are the broad category of related types. Ceramic types are based on surface

treatment, usually slip color or burnishing. Varieties are defined based on further

distinctions in decoration, such as; presence of incision (example Sak White: Incised

Variety), or common forms (example Mo Mottled: Fluted variety, Katun Red: Lak

variety). The type-variety method is ideal for creating chronology with large quantities

of ceramic material and for comparisons between lowland Maya sites.

I have tried to use the type-variety in a way that works well with this particular

collection and in some cases that has led me to depart from some traditions of the system.

In considering the incised ceramics I chose not to make separate type names. Instead I

will use the type name and incised variety (example Katun Red: Incised variety), rather

than inventing unique names for every incised type (example Guitarra Incised: Guitarra

variety within the Juventud Red group). This is helpful because of the significant variety

within the sample. If I had given a unique name to every incised type I would have

increased the number of names dramatically. Since one of the main critiques of the type-

variety system is the proliferation of type names (Aimers 2013; Dunnel 1971; Rice 2013)

I find improvement with this approach. Further, I chose to describe the types on the

Group level and then describe characteristics separating types within each type

79

description. This is a departure from earlier descriptions which describe the defining

characteristics of the group within each type description (Gifford 1976; Kosakowsky

1987; Sabloff 1975), which I found would have been very repetitive with the abundance

of types and varieties within this particular collection. While I find the type-variety

system very helpful for fostering comparisons between sites, a critical issue for this

dissertation, I find it lacking in terms of considering the use-lives of the vessels

themselves. I try to move beyond the type-variety system with an analysis of form and

iconography. I hope that this analysis of form will allow greater understanding of how

the early Middle Preclassic Maya used these pots and why they adopted this new

technology.

As part of this dissertation research I went to Tikal to collect comparison data on the

Early Eb ceramics. Upon arrival I was shown the small type collections housed at the

UPENN lab and site museum. This sample was far too small for the attribute analysis I

hoped to perform. I learned that a much larger sample of ceramics from the Mundo

Perdido project was housed in the Lithic storage room. This material was in plastic bags

which had deteriorated and the ceramics had fallen on the ground leading to a mixture of

types and contexts. I felt that this important collection should be maintained and made

available for future scholars. As a result I designed a ceramic analysis project to sort the

sherds by type and re-store them in archival bags and boxes. During that project, with the

help of Bernard Hermes, I was able to sort thousands of ceramics from throughout the

Tikal sequence. This was a wonderful learning experience for ceramic analysis and the

curation of materials. Since the Early Eb complex had not previously been described in

detail I chose to make it a larger part of this dissertation and included that description as

80

Chapter 5. The materials from Tikal are now well organized and available for scholarly

study. The Problematical Deposits of Tikal are stored in another location at the site and

readily available for study.

81

Chapter 4

Holmul K’awil Phase Ceramics: Type-Variety Description

The earliest evidence of ceramics in the Holmul region is the presence of pre-

Mamom pottery. While this complex has only been found in a few stratigraphically

isolated contexts, I have named it the K’awil Complex and assume that further work will

produce more pre-Mamom ceramics in the region. I have estimated the start and end

dates of this complex through a combination of radiocarbon sampling and type-variety-

mode classification. While we have no carbon sample associated with the beginning of

the K’awil complex, we do have a sample associated with the beginning of the

succeeding Yax Te (Mamom sphere) ceramic complex. Burial 33 at Cival, which

included a complete Guitara Incised: Jach Variety plate was found below a collapsed

chultun containing a large Yax Te deposit (Estrada-Belli 2008). Carbon associated with

the deposit returned a calibrated date of 895-840 BC (Estrada-Belli 2008:44). Recent

proxy studies of pollen indicating early settlement in the Holmul region show that the

region was initially populated by approximately 1300 BC (Wahl et al. 2013). Based on

these lines of evidence, and typological similarities with other Pre-Mamom complexes, I

place the K’awil complex between 1000 and 840 BC. The K’awil complex is

distinguished from the following Yax Te complex in terms of form, surface finish, and

paste. The most common forms in the K’awil complex are plates with outurving sides;

combined with either exterior thickened rims and pointed lips, or wide everted rims. Jars

tend to have short outcurving or vertical necks, and tecomates (neckless jars) are also

present. Surface finish is dramatically different in the K’awil complex in the generally

dull surface quality and in that the red is a dark red with micaceous particles sometimes

82

tending towards purple while later reds tend towards orange and waxy surface finish.

The paste of the K’awil complex includes volcanic ash which is not present in subsequent

complexes. Descriptions of K’awil material included in this study come from 1540 rim

sherds and 558 diagnostic body sherds for a total of 2,098 sherds. The K’awil complex is

defined by 8 wares, 15 groups, and 31 type-varieties. The majority of type-varieties are

decorated serving vessels; slipped (72%) or burnished (18%), vs. unslipped utilitarian

vessels (10%). The reader will notice the small quantity of unslipped utilitarian vessels

in this study. This is due to two factors, the nature of the mixed deposits and the

composition of the complex itself. The unslipped utilitarian types are roughly similar

from throughout the Preclassic period making it notoriously difficult to separate the

phases found in mixed contexts. In this study I have tended towards conservatism and

present only sherds that I can be certain date to the K’awil phase based on paste and

formal characteristics. Future studies will likely reveal a larger component of unslipped

utilitarian types in the K’awil complex. Secondly, the Pre-Mamom complexes tend to

have fewer utilitarian vessels than decorated serving vessels. This is true for the Real Xe

(80.5% slipped, 9.5% unslipped) Cunil (percentages not published), and Swasey (91%

slipped vs. 9% unslipped) complexes (Sabloff 1975; Kosakowsky 1987). This

phenomenon suggests that these early ceramics were introduced primarily as serving

vessels.

The K’awil complex is defined on the basis of this classification. While K’awil

includes varieties of types present in the Cunil complex of the neighboring Belize River

Valley (e.g., Mo Mottled and Kitam Incised) and the Eb complex of Tikal (Calam Buff),

the presence of these types is not enough to include it within the Cunil or Eb ceramic

83

spheres. Therefore, I propose that K’awil is a new pre-Mamom ceramic sphere centered

upon the Holmul region. K’awil is roughly contemporaneous with the Early Eb complex

at Tikal (Culbert 1993, 2003, n.d; Laporte and Fialko 1995; Laporte and Valdes 1993),

the Cunil complex at Cahal Pech (Awe 1992; Cheetham 1995, 1996, 2005; Cheetham et

al. 2003; Clark and Cheetham 2002) and Xunantunich (Strelow and LeCount 2001),

Kanocha at Blackman Eddy (Garber et al. 2002), the Early Ah Pam complex in the Lake

Yaxha region (Rice 1979), Xe at Altar de Sacrificios (Adams 1971), Real at Ceibal

(Sabloff 1975; Inomata et al. 2013, Inomata et al. 2015), the Swasey complex at Cuello

originally defined by Pring (1977b) and later split into Swasey and Bladen by

Kosakowsky (1987), Bolay at Colha (Valdez 1987), and Ek/Ch’oh Ek in the northern

Yucatan Penninsula (Andrews et al. 2018). K’awil material is found in greatest

quantities at the site of Holmul in sub-platform excavations in Buildings N, B, and F in

Group II (Nievens de Estrada 2007; 2009; 2013). However, an occasional diagnostic

sherd has appeared in construction fill in the epicenter of Cival and Holmul. It is

important to note that to date, K’awil complex material is rarely found unmixed with later

ceramic/cultural material in the Holmul region. While it has been found in relatively

large quantities in substructure fill beneath Group II at Holmul, K’awil sherds were

associated with late Middle Preclassic Yax Te complex and Late Preclassic Itzamkanak

complex ceramic material. This situation adds to confusion regarding the beginning date

of this complex. Despite this material not having been found in an isolated context,

K’awil ceramics constitute a true pre-Mamom complex in the Holmul region. The

following type-descriptions support this argument.

84

K’an Slipped Ware

K’an slipped Ware is found in the K’awil phase at Holmul and Cival. The ware

contains the following groups and types:

K’atun Red Group:

K’atun Red: K’atun Variety

K’atun Red: Lak Variety

K’atun Red: Lak’ek Variety

K’atun Red: Incised Variety

Ochkin Orange Group

Ochkin Orange: Ochkin Variety

Ochkin Orange: Incised Variety

Baadz Tan: Incised Variety

Eknab Black Group

Eknab Black: Eknab Variety

Eknab Black: Incised Variety

Sak White Group

Sak White: Sak White Variety

Sak White: Incised Variety

85

Lak’in Red on White: Lak’in Variety

Lak’in Red on White: Incised Variety

K’an Slipped Ware is characterized by a thick slip which is well adhered so that

examples tend to be well preserved. The ware includes slips of all major colors common

to the Lowland Maya, including red (K’atun Red group), black (Eknab Black group),

white (Sak White group), red on white (Lakin Red-on-White), orange (Ochkin Orange

group), and tan (Baadz Tan group). It is similar to Rio Pasion Slipped Ware and Belize

Valley Dull Ware in the presence of dull or matte slips. It differs from these in that it is

defined by local types and shows greater diversity in decoration (more slip colors, more

varieties with incised decoration). It is most similar to Belize Valley Dull Ware which

also includes volcanic ash in the paste. It differs from Belize Valley Dull Ware in the

color of the slips, the red group exhibits a darker red rather than orange-red, the black

group is more common, and the white group is distinct in color and in the presence of an

incised variety.

The paste is a yellow color usually consistently fired throughout the body of the sherd,

although sometimes a darker grey core is present. Some sherds exhibit an entirely grey

paste color interpreted as resulting from differing firing conditions; either the vessel was

insufficiently fired (temperature too low), or the vessel was fired in a reducing

atmosphere (black slipped vessels). Paste inclusions are well-sorted and scarce,

especially in comparison to the contemporary ceramics of Ceibal (Rio Pasion Ware).

Inclusions consist of ash (volcanic glass), biotite mica, and ferruginous particles

(Callaghan 2008). These occur in such small and regular quantities as to imply that they

86

were part of the original clay matrix rather than added as temper to the clay during

production. A small quantity of the sample reacts to Hydrochloric acid, indicating the

presence of chrystalline or sparitic calcite (Callaghan 2008). There is little or no organic

matter in the paste.

Belize Valley Dull Ware: see Cahal Pech (Sullivan and 2013; Sullivan et al. 2018)

Uck Red Group

Mo’ Mottled: Mo’ Variety

Mo’ Mottled: Fluted Variety

Kitam Incised: Kitam Variety

La Lila Burnished Ware

Calam Buff paste was defined by Culbert at Tikal (Culbert n.d.: 6-7) and was defined

as a ceramic ware in Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada (2016). It is essentially identical

to the paste of K’an Slipped Ware but differs in that vessel surfaces are primarily

unslipped and burnished. It includes four types:

Calam Buff Group

Calam Buff: Calam Variety

Ante Incised: Ante Variety

Aac Red-on-Buff: Aac Variety

Aac Red-on-Buff: Incised Variety

87

Rio Holmul Slipped Ware

Rio Holmul Slipped Ware is found in the K’awil phase at Holmul and Cival. The

ware contains the following types:

Jobal Red Group

Jobal Red: Jobal Variety

Jobal Red: Incised Variety

Unspecified White Group

Xaman Red on White: Xaman Variety

Ainil Orange Group

Xpokol Incised: Xpokol Variety

Chikcin’a Black Group

Chicin’a Black: Chikin’a Variety

Chicin’a Black: Incised Variety

Rio Holmul Slipped Ware is characterized by a thick dull slip that is very well adhered

and compact paste with medium-coarse texture. The ware differs from K’an Slipped

Ware in characteristics of the paste, its gritty texture is more similar to paste of Rio

Pasíon Slipped Ware. The paste of Rio Holmul Slipped Ware is dark; brown (10YR5/3,

6/6, 5/6, 4/4, 6/8, 4/6, 5/4, 5/8, 7.5YR4/6, 5/8, 5/6) or grey (7.5YR6/1). Inclusions in the

paste include organic matter and crystalline or sparitic calcite (react to Hydrochloric

88

acid), ash, and biotite mica and round red ferruginous particles. Firing cores are present,

especially in bases of dishes and bowls. Vessel walls tend to be thinner than K’an

Slipped Ware.

K’an Slipped Ware

Group: K’atun Red

Ware: K’an Slipped Ware

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: Eb/Cunil/Xe

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) dull red slip on interior and exterior of vessel; (2)

fine yellow paste with ash temper; (3) plates with outcurving sides.

Paste, Temper, and Firing: Yellow colored paste (7.5YR8/6, 7/4, 6/6, 10YR7/4)

with low frequency of darker core (grey). Paste well sorted with fine inclusions, and

fine-grained appearance. Primary inclusions are ash, crystalline calcite, biotite mica and

ferruginous particles (Callaghan 2008). Mostly thoroughly fired, to a yellow/pale brown

color, some evidence of darker core (grey) (7.5YR4/0, 5/2, 5YR5/1), and this paste may

occur entirely grey when under-fired (Rice 2005: 345).

Surface Finish and Decoration: Monochrome red slip on exterior and interior of

vessel (10R4/6, 5/4, 4/8, 5/8, 5/6, 2.5YR6/4, 5/6, 5/4, 4/6, 6/6, 5/8, 7.5R4/6, 4/4, 5/4).

Many examples of inclusions of mica, very fine grain (1/16-1/8 mm), usually visible only

under magnification. Some vessels slipped only on exterior or interior depending upon

89

form (slightly incurving sided bowls are slipped on exterior, plates with exterior

thickened rims are slipped on interior only). This type is distinguished from other

K’awil- phase reds (Jobal Red group) which tend toward purple-red and have inclusions

of specular hematite.

Form: Dishes with outcurved sides and exterior folded rims with pointed lips,

slipped on exterior and interior, are the most common form (N=24). This form is so

common in the K’atun Red group that it has been designated as a variety of the type and

distinguished by lack of slip on vessel exterior beneath the rim (see below K’atun Red:

Lak Variety). Other forms are defined within type descriptions below.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: K’atun Red shows ties to the Uck Red group from

Cahal Pech (Sullivan et al. 2009, p.163) and Abelino Red group from Ceibal and Altar de

Sacrificios (Sabloff 1975, p.48). Similarities are seen in the use of a dull or matte slip

and similar forms such as the curved- sided dish with exterior folded rim and pointed lip

(personal observations 2009-2011: Cahal Pech, Belize; Peabody Museum, Cambridge;

IDEAH Ceramoteca, Guatemala City). The K’atun Red group appears less eroded than

the contemporary reds at other sites, with a darker red color, and with local paste

composition.

K’atun Red Group, Type: K’atun Red, Variety: K’atun

Sample: 202 rims, 208 bodies, 410 total, 51% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

90

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) dull red slip on interior and exterior of vessel; (2)

Plates with outflaring sides; (3) yellow paste color with ash inclusions.

Form: The most common form in the Katun Red: Katun variety type is bowls,

followed by plates, tecomates, and jars. There are bowls with flared sides, direct rims,

and rounded, pointed, or squared lips (N=16). Bowls also occur with incurved sides and

vertical necks, with direct rims, and rounded, pointed, or squared lips (N=5). Other

bowls have round sides, direct or exterior thickened rims, and rounded or pointed lips

(N=11). Finally, bowls with incurved sides, have direct or exterior folded rim, and

rounded or pointed lips (N=23). All bowls have wall thickness of 0.4-1.2 cm, rim

thickness of 0.7-1.2 cm, and diameter of 10-30cm, usually 30 cm. Plates occur with

outcurving sides, direct rim, and pointed or rounded lip (N=21). Other plates have

outcurving sides, exterior folded or exterior thickened rim, and pointed lips (N=12).

Other plates have outcurving sides, outflared everted rims, and rounded lips (N=4). All

plates have wall thickness of 0.8-1.2 cm, rim thickness of 0.7-1.3 cm, and diameter of 20-

40 cm. Tecomates (markedly incurving bowls or neckless jars) occur with exterior

folded/thickened or direct rims, and rounded lips (N=21). Tecomates have wall thickness

of 0.6-1.3 cm, rim thickness of 1.5-2 cm, and diameters are usually around 20cm but

range from 10-30 cm. Jars occur with outcurving neck, direct rim, and rounded or

pointed lip (N=14). Other jars have vertical necks, direct rims, and rounded lips (N=2).

All jars have wall thickness of 0.7-1.3 cm, rim thickness of 0.5-1.2 cm, and diameter of

10-15 cm. Bases in the Holmul collection are all flat (N=10). There is also one

mushroom stand in the collection.

91

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: K’atun Red: K’atun Variety has been found at

Holmul in mixed deposits in excavations into the platforms of Building B, Group II;

Building F, Group II; and Building N, Group II. It is most commonly found in phase 1 of

Building F, and phases 1 and 2 of Buildings B and N. It has also been found at Cival in

mixed deposits in the Group 1 platform, in Structure 1, a midden in the northern area of

the epicenter, the plaza in front of the North Pyramid, Structure 20 (i.e., West Pyramid),

the defensive wall, Structure 17 in Group 7, and beneath Stela 6.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: K’atun Red shows ties to Uck Red from Cahal

Pech (Awe 1992; Sullivan et al. 2009:163; Sullivan and Awe 2013) and Abelino Red

from Ceibal (Sabloff 1975:48) and Altar de Sacrificios (Adams 1971). Similarities are

seen in the use of dull or matte slip, and similar forms such as the outcurved plates, with

exterior folded rim and pointed lip or wide everted rims. Abelino red is different from

K’atun red because it has a much coarser paste with more inclusions and in that the

vessels tend to be smaller overall and with thinner vessel walls. Uck red is different from

K’atun red because its’ surface slip lacks the micaceous particles and the red color tends

more towards orange. K’atun red is also similar to Kolok Red: Kolok variety from

Yaxha-Sacnab region (Rice 1979), the similarity is primarily in a common form: the

flaring sided plate with exterior thickened rim (personal observation 2011). K’atun red

also shows similarities to Consejo Red: Consejo variety from Cuello, Belize

(Kosakowsky 1987).

Comment: This is the earliest monochrome red found at Holmul and the most

abundant type in the K’awil phase.

92

Illustrations:

Fig. 4.1: Katun Red: Katun Variety

93

Fig 4.2: K’atun Red: K’atun Variety

K’atun Red Group, Type: K’atun Red, Variety: Incised

Sample: 104 rims, 67 bodies, 171 total, 21% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) dull red slip on interior and/or exterior of vessel;

(2) fine-line post-slip incision in complex designs; (4) fine yellow paste with volcanic ash

inclusions, (4) plates with outcurving sides and wide everted rims.

94

Surface Finish and Decoration: Monochrome red with addition of post-slip fine-

line (0.35-1.18mm), post-slip broad line (5.4-9.25mm) or pre-slip groove incision (1.32-

3.73mm). Post-slip incision was used to decorate vessels at the leather hard stage of

production. The most common incised designs are single lines encircling (N=27),

double-line encircling (N=16), double-line register (N=19), and triple-line encircling

(N=6). These are often combined with other motifs. Also common are Music Brackets,

in undulating (N=2), vertical (N=5), and diagonal (N=4) patterns. Other complex motifs

include cleft heads (N=10), shark’s tooth (N=5), mat motif (N=2), and tassel (N=2).

There are many geometric forms including the U-shape (N=5), sometimes repeated, L-

shape (N=7), and S-shape (N=1) often in combination with other geometric forms,

double merlon (N=1), triangle (N=6) often with a triangle repeated inside, circle (N=12),

semicircle (N=4), and cross-hatching (N=1). There are also many unique combinations

of designs, such as the rounded square around rounded star with circle inside (N=1), and

square cartouche with circle at corner and horizontal band (N=1).

Form: The most common form among Katun Red: Incised variety vessels is the

outcurving sided plate, most commonly found with outflared everted rims, and rounded

lips (N=45). Those plates where the everted rim was measurable had an everted rim to

vessel wall angle of 115-135 degrees, the length of the rims were between 2.5 and 4 cm,

and vessel heights were 5.8-6.6 cm. Also common were plates with outcurving sides,

exterior thickened rims, and pointed lips (N=25), four of these had flat bases and their

vessel heights were 4-7cm. Other plates with outcurving sides, had direct rims, and

rounded or pointed lips (N=8). Plates have wall thickness of 0.8-1.1 cm, rim thickness of

0.7-1.2 cm, and diameter of 20-40 cm. Plates with outcurving sides and outflared everted

95

rims usually have a double line register around the rim defining space for further

decoration. Common motifs on these rims include groups of vertical lines (N=15), L-

shape with circle (N=2), and triangle (N=2). Plates with outflaring sides and exterior

thickened rims tend to have incised decoration on the interior of the vessel and common

motifs include cleft heads (N=6) sometimes in combination with circles and L-shapes.

Bowls with slightly incurving sides, had direct rims, and rounded or pointed lips (N=20).

Bowls with outcurving sides, had direct or exterior thickened rims, and pointed lips

(N=14). Other bowls had round sides, direct or exterior thickened rims, and pointed lips

(N=8). All bowls have wall thickness of 0.6-1.2 cm, rim thickness of 0.5-1 cm, and

diameter of 10-30 cm. Bowls have incised decoration on the exterior rim and body of

vessels. Most common motifs found on bowls are single, double, and triple lines

encircling the vessel, as well as music brackets (N=8), U-shape (N=2), mountain motif

(N=2), and cleft head (N=2). Also common were tecomates (markedly incurving bowls

or rimless jars) with exterior folded rims, and rounded lips (N=15). Tecomates had a

wall thickness of 0.6-1.3 cm, rim thickness of 0.8-1.4 cm, and diameter of 15-22 cm. The

motif most commonly found on tecomates was the music bracket (N=4). Pre-slip groove

was present but uncommon, these incisions were found as single lines encircling the

exterior rims of round-sided bowls with exterior thickened rims (N=3), tecomates with

exterior thickened rims (N=3), and plates with outcurving walls and exterior thickened

rims (N=2).

Intrasite Locations and Context: K’atun Red: Incised Variety has been found at

Holmul in mixed deposits in excavations into the platforms of Building B, Group II;

Building F, Group II; and Building N, Group II. It has also been found at Cival in mixed

96

deposits in the Group 1 platform, in Structure 1, a midden in the northern area of the

epicenter, the plaza in front of the North Pyramid, Structure 20 (i.e., West Pyramid),

Structure 7 (i.e., east structure of the main E-Group), the defensive wall, and beneath

Stela 2.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: K’atun Red is similar to Baki Red Incised: Baki

Variety in the Uck Red group at Cahal Pech (Sullivan et al. 2009:163; Sullivan and Awe

2013). It is distinct from Baki Red Incised: Baki variety because the latter usually has a

dark grey paste that is revealed through the incision, while K’atun Red: Incised variety

usually has a light colored paste revealed through the incision (personnal observation

Cahal Pech, Belize 2009, 2010). It is also similar to Pico de Oro Incised: Variety

Unspecified in the Abelino Red group from Ceibal (Sabloff 1975:49-52), where

similarities are found in the method of incision and content of incised decoration. K’atun

Red: Incised variety is similar to Backlanding Incised: Backlanding variety in the content

of incised design (Kosakowsky 1987). Similarities to Kin Orange-Red: Incised variety

include method of incision and presence of cross-hatching, although this type tends to

occur on the exterior of straight-sided bowls (Andrews and Bey 2011).

Comment: K’atun Red: Incised Variety is one of the most remarkable types in the

K’awil material. All the pre-Mamom complexes include a monochrome red with incised

decoration. The method of decoration is usually fine-line post-slip incision. The content

of the decoration incudes various geometric patterns often created with the single or

double-lines encircling the vessel, found on the exterior of bowls or on the interior of

wide everted rim dishes and bowls. The characteristic fine-line incision makes it easily

recognizable even if the slip has been completely eroded away. Because these designs

97

occur during the same time period (~1000-800 BC) and have been recorded on ceramics

found in sites on the south coast of Guatemala (see Love’s Melendrez White [2002:

Figures 48e2, 50f] Melendrez Black [2002: Figures 54b, 56e, 62f, 62j], Cuca Red-on-

Buff [2002: Figures 68c, e1, e3] and Ramirez Fine-White [2002: Figures 78-80]), and

through the Pasion River region, the Central Peten, Belize Valley, and northern Belize

Cheetham (2005:27) calls this a horizon style. K’atun Red: Incised Variety was initially

typed as Kitam Incised by Callaghan (2005, 2008) and is here represented by a new type

and variety designation.

Illustration:

Fig. 4.3: K’atun Red: Incised Variety

98

Fig. 4.4: Katun Red: Incised Variety

99

Fig. 4.5: Katun Red: Incised Variety

K’atun Red Group, Type: K’atun Red, Variety: Lak Variety

Sample: 144 rims, 10 bodies, 154 total, 19% of group.

100

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) dull red slip on vessel interior; (3) unslipped

smooth exterior buff color; (2) dishes with exterior folded rims and pointed lips.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Monochrome red slip on interior of vessel

(10R4/6, 5/4, 4/8, 5/8, 5/6, 2.5YR6/4, 5/6, 5/4, 4/6, 6/6, 5/8, 7.5R4/6, 4/4, 5/4). Exterior

is unslipped but well-smoothed or burnished to a buff or pinkish grey color (5YR7/2,

10YR7/3, 10YR7/1, 7.5YR7/2, 7.5YR6/3). This variety is defined by its diagnostic form

and distinguished from the K’atun Red Variety because of its lack of slip on vessel

exterior.

Form: This variety is exclusively found in one form: plates with outcurved sides

and exterior folded rims with pointed lips and flat bases. All 144 rims exhibit this form.

Their walls range from 0.7 to 1.3 cm thick, their rims range from 0.9 to 1.3 cm thick.

Vessel diameter ranges from 20 to 40cm, and all bases present in the Holmul collection

are flat.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: K’atun Red: Lak Variety has been found at

Holmul in mixed deposits in excavations into the platforms of Building B, Group II;

Building F, Group II; and Building N, Group II. It is most common in phase 1 of

Building F and phases 1 and 2 of Building N. Katun Red: Lak variety is not found at

Cival.

101

Intersite Locations and Contexts: This form is also found at Tikal in Chak Red

(Early Eb phase) although it is not the dominant form and is not a named variety as at

Holmul. The form also occurs in Abelino Red and Kolok Red from the Lake Yaxha

region (Rice 1979).

Comment: Katun Red: Lak variety was classified as Aac Red-on-Buff by

Callaghan (2008) and later re-defined in Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada (2016).

Illustration:

Fig. 4.6: K’atun Red: Lak Variety

102

Fig. 4.7: a-g K’atun Red: Lak Variety; h-l K’atun Red: Lak’ek Variety

K’atun Red Group, Type: K’atun Red, Variety: Lak’ek Variety

Sample: 63 rims, 8 bodies, 71 total, 9% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) dull red slip on vessel interior only; (2) unslipped

black smudged exterior; (3) plates with exterior folded rims and pointed lips.

103

Paste, Temper, and Firing: Black exterior is produced during firing by the

reduced atmosphere. This reducing atmosphere is possibly produced by covering the

vessels with organic matter at the final phase of firing, thus restricting the flow of air

around the vessels. This may reflect fire-clouding that could represent variation in

K’atun Red: Lak Variety, but is interpreted here as intentional smudging because of its

consistent black colored exterior and the numerous examples found in the sample. Paste

appearance identical to K’atun Red: K’atun Variety, paste inclusions of round white

calcite react to Hydrochloric acid.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Monochrome red slip on interior of vessel. Many

examples of red slip with inclusions of mica, some large enough to be seen without

magnification (fine grain 1/8-1/4 mm), others visible under microscope (very fine grain

1/16-1/8 mm). Exterior is unslipped but well-smoothed or burnished then smudged to

black color. This variety is distinguished from the K’atun Red: Lak Variety by its black

exterior.

Form: Forms and measurements of K’atun Red: Lak’ek Variety are identical to

K’atun Red: Lak Variety. This variety occurs only on plates with outcurved sides and

exterior folded rims with pointed lips and flat bases. All 63 rims and 7 bases exhibit this

form.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: K’atun Red: Lak’ek Variety has been found at

Holmul in mixed deposits in excavations into the platforms of Building B, Building F,

and Building N, in Group II. It is most commonly found in phase 1 of thes buildings.

104

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Vessels with red-slipped interiors and exteriors

unslipped with intentional smudging are present at Tikal in only a few body sherds

(personal observation 2011).

Comment: Katun Red: Lak’ek variety was classified as Aac Red-on-Buff by

Callaghan (2008) and later re-defined in Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada (2016).

Illustration:

Fig. 4.8: Katun Red: Lak’ek Variety

Group: Ochkin Orange

Ware: K’an Slipped Ware

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

105

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: Eb/Cunil

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) monochrome orange slip, 2) yellow paste

Paste, Temper, and Firing: see K’an Slipped Ware, with volcanic ash inclusions.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Monochrome orange slip (2.5YR5/8, 5/6, 6/6,

5YR6/6, 7/6). Interior and exterior surfaces are well smoothed and relatively dull in

color. Ochkin Orange group is distinguished from the K’atun Red group by its surface

color. It is a true orange color and lacks the micaceous particles found in the slip of the

K’atun Red group. It may have a cream underslip that produces this very orange color.

Ochkin Orange Group, Type: Ochkin Orange, Variety: Ochkin

Sample: 7 rims and 4 bodies, 11 total, 31% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) monochrome orange slip, 2) yellow paste with

volcanic ash inclusions.

Form: The most common forms are plates with outcurving sides, direct or

exterior thickened rims, and pointed or rounded lips (N=6). These plates have walls with

thickness of 0.7-1.1 cm, rim thickness of 0.8-1.4 cm, and diameters of 25-40cm. Other

forms include bowls with outcurving sides, direct rim, and rounded lips (N=5). Bowls

106

have wall thickness of 0.6-1 cm, rim thickness of 0.7-0.9 cm, and diameter of 25 cm. All

bases in the Holmul collection are flat (N=4).

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Ochkin Orange: Ochkin Variety has been found

at Holmul in mixed deposits in excavations into the platforms of Building B and F, Group

II.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: This orange type shows similarities to

contemporary types such as Yaltata Orange from the Lake Yaxha region (Rice 1979) and

Ceibal (Ceibal 1975). It is found on a local paste similar to that of the K’atun Red group

and other types in the K’an Slipped Ware. Ochkin Orange is similar in surface color and

form to Kin Orange-Red form Komchen and Kiuic in Mexico (Andrews and Bey 2011)

and Chicago Orange from Cuello (Kosakowsky 1987).

Illustration:

Fig. 4.9: Ochkin Orange: Ochkin Variety

107

Fig 4.10: Ochkin Orange: Ochkin Variety

Ochkin Orange Group, Type: Ochkin Orange, Variety: Incised

Sample: 16 rims, 9 bodies, 25 total 69% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) Matte Orange Slip, 2) fine-line incised decoration

Surface Finish and Decoration: Ochkin Orange: Incised Variety is identical to

Ochkin Orange: Ochkin Variety with the addition of post-slip fine-line incision. Incision

varies from 0.3 to 1.39mm wide. The most common motif was curvilinear lines (N=6)

found on the interior and exterior of vessel bodies, one of these was combined with a

circle and continuous notches. Vertical lines were found on vessel exterior on the rim

and/or body, both single (N=2) and multiple (N=5) lines are present. The single line

encircling (N=3) was combined with various geometric forms, in one case with a curving

line on the vessel’s exterior rim and in another case with continuous vertical lines on the

interior of an everted rim. One rectangular cleft head was combined with a group of

vertical lines (N=1) on the vessel’s exterior rim. There was one sharks tooth found on the

108

interior base. The collection also included a circle on interior body (N=1), an

unidentified geometric form on interior body (N=1), and vertical scratching on exterior

rim (N=1).

Form: The collection includes plates with everted rims, bowls, and tecomates.

The outcurving sided plates with outflared everted rims (N=7). These plates had wall

thickness of 0.6-1.2 cm, and the angle of the everted rims to the vessel walls was 130-140

degrees, with diameters of 25-30 cm. These plates usually had the incised decoration on

the interior of wide everted rims. The vertical sided bowls had direct rims, and rounded

lips (N=2). Other bowls had slightly incurving sides, direct rims, and pointed lips (N=3).

These bowls had wall thickness of 0.5-0.8 cm, the former had a diameter of 15-20 cm.

Bowls had incised decoration on the exterior rim and body of vessels, as well as the

interior base. When incised on the exterior rim designs often include triple line

encircling (N=2), sometimes combined with a semi-circular drip motif (N=1). The

tecomates had exterior folded or interior thickened rims and pointed lips (N=2) had a wall

thickness of 0.7 cm, rim thickness of 1-1.1 cm, and orifice diameters of 20cm.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Ochkin Orange: Incised Variety has been found

at Holmul in mixed deposits in excavations into the platforms of Building B and N,

Group II.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Ochkin Orange: Incised variety is similar to

Kin Orange Red: Incised variety from Komchen (Andrews and Bey 2011).

109

Illustration:

Fig 4.11: Ochkin Orange: Incised Variety

Baadz Tan Group, Type: Baadz Tan, Variety: Baadz

Sample: 9 rims, 75% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Type defined by Culbert at Tikal (1993: 5).

2016).

Ceramic Group: Baadz Tan

Ware: K’an Slipped

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: Eb, Cunil, Xe

Description:

110

Surface Finish and Decoration: Baadz Tan: Baadz Variety has well-adhered slip

in a light brown or orange-brown color (7.5YR5/4, 2.5YR5/6, 5YR5/6).

Form: The most common form are plates with outcurving sides, direct rims, and

rounded or pointed lips (N=5). Also present are plates with outcurving sides, exterior

thickened or outflared everted rims, and pointed or rounded lips (N=2). Plates have wall

thickness of 0.6-0.9 cm, rim thickness of 0.6-1 cm, and diameters of 15-30 cm. Other

forms include a bowl with slightly incuving sides and direct rim, and a jar with

outcurving neck.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Baadz Tan: Baadz variety is found at Cival’s

site center in a chultun under the main plaza.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: The Baadz Tan Group is also found at Tikal

(Culbert 1993; Culbert n.d.: 24-25). Baadz Tan shows some similarites in surface color

to Mo’ Mottled group from Cahal Pech, Belize (Sullivan et al. 2009). It differs in slip

characteristics in that Baadz Tan is a more regular color, thick, and well-adhered; while

Mo’ Mottled is less consistent across the body of the vessel.

Cultural Significance: Noting the distinctions in paste, Culbert has suggested that

Baadz Tan may be a trade type (Culbert n.d.: 24).

Baadz Tan Group, Type: Baadz Tan, Variety: Incised

Sample: 2 rims, 1 bodies, 3 total, 25% of group.

111

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Type defined by Culbert (1993: 5) at Tikal,

variety defined by Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada

2016).

Description: With only three sherds in the Holmul collection there is not a large enough

sample to fully define Baadz Tan: Incised Variety here. Future excavations at Holmul or

Tikal may uncover a sample that would facilitate a full description and identification.

Surface Finish, Decoration and Form: Baadz Tan: Unnamed Incised included two

plates with outcurving sides, exterior folded rims, and rounded or pointed lips (N=2).

Plates had wall thickness of 0.9-1 cm, rim thickness of 0.9-1.4 cm, and diameters of 20

and 40 cm. One of these was decorated with pre-slip groove incision (1.69mm thick)

depicting a shark’s tooth with a group of vertical lines, and continuous curvilinear lines

on the exterior rim and body of the vessel. The other plate was decorated with post-slip

fine-line incision (0.58mm thick) on the interior rim and body, depicting a vertical line

and circle. The body sherd (N=1) had a wall 0.8 cm thick and was decorated with pre-

slip groove incision (1.71mm thick) on the exterior with an encircling line and curvilinear

lines.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: The Baadz Group has been found at Holmul in

mixed deposits in excavations into the platforms of Buildings B, N, and F, in Group II.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: The Baadz Tan Group is also found at Tikal

(Culbert 1993: 5; Culbert n.d. p. 24-25).

112

Illustration:

Fig 4.12: Baadz Tan: Incised Variety

Fig 4.13: Baadz Tan: Incised Variety

Group: Sak White

Ware: K’an Slipped Ware

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

113

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: Eb/Cunil

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) matte white to grey slip; 2) small plates with

outcurving sides.

Paste, Temper, and Firing: Paste is well sorted with few inclusions. Primary

inclusions are fine to medium-grained crystalline calcite, medium-grained white calcite,

ash, and very few round red ferruginous particles. Paste color (10YR7/1, 6/3) light grey

or light brown when well fired and very hard. Paste color (10YR6/4) light yellowish

brown when less fired and softer, sometimes with grey firing core. This paste is similar

to that of the K’atun Red group.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Matte white slip (10YR8/1, 8/2, 7/1, 7/2, 7/3,

6/1; 5YR8/1, 7/2) often poorly applied leading to erosion. Often paste color can be seen

underneath slip and where slip has eroded. Monochrome color found on interior and

exterior of vessel depending upon form, plates with outcurving sides are slipped on

interior only.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: The Sak White group shows strong similarities

to Cocoyal Cream from Cahal Pech (Sullivan et al. 2009: 164). Their surface color and

dull finish make the two groups virtually identical. Sak White and Cocoyal Cream both

have high quantities of ash in their paste (Sullivan et al. 2009; Sullivan and Awe 2013).

The Sak White group also shows marked similarities to Bil White from Tikal (see

Chapter 5).

114

Sak White Group, Type: Sak White, Variety: Sak

Sample: 142 rims and 60 bodies, 202 total, 62% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) matte white to grey slip; 2) small dishes with

outcurving sides.

Form: The most common forms are plates with outcurving walls, direct rims, and

round lips (N=51). Also common are plates with outcurving walls, exterior thickened

rims, and pointed or rounded lips (N=38). Other plates have outcurving sides, outflared

everted rims, and rounded lips (N=13), several of these had a measurable everted rim to

vessel wall angle, varying from 105 to 120 degrees. All plates have wall thickness of

0.5-1 cm, rim thickness of 0.5-1.1 cm, and diameter of 10-30 cm. Another common form

is the bowl with flared sides, exterior folded rim, and pointed or rounded lip (N=27).

Other bowls have slightly incurving or round sides, direct rims, and rounded lips (N=20).

Bowls have wall thickness of 0.6-1.1 cm, rim thickness of 0.9-2.2 cm, and diameters of

25-40 cm. Also found are tecomates with direct or exterior thickened rims, and rounded

lips (N=3). Tecomates (markedly incurving bowls or neckless jars) have wall thickness

of 0.5-0.9 cm, rim thickness of 0.7-0.9 cm, and orifice diameters of 6-30 cm. Finally, jars

with outcurving necks are found with direct rims, and rounded lips (N=2). Jars have rim

thickness of 0.6-0.9 cm and orifice diameters of 12 or 15 cm. All bases in the Holmul

collection are flat (N=6).

115

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Sak White: Sak Variety has been found at

Holmul in mixed deposits in excavations into the platforms of Buildings B, N, and F,

Group II. It occurs most commonly in phase 1 of Building F and phases 1 and 2 of

Building N. It is also found at Cival in mixed deposits in Structure 20 (i.e, West

Pyramid).

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Sak White is very similar to Cocoyal Cream at

Cahal Pech (Sullivan et al. 2009; Sullivan and Awe 2013), and Bil white at Tikal (Culbert

n.d.: 24). In both cases Sak White is similar in the presence of ash in the paste and in the

matte quality of the white slip. There are also similarities in form, most commonly

occurring in outflaring sided plates with direct rims. It is contemporaneous with Huetche

White of Ceibal (Sabloff 1975: 53-55) and Altar de Sacrificios (Adams 1971: 25). In the

Lake Yaxha-Sacnab region Rice found a similar monochrome white and called it Huetche

White (Rice 1979 Figure 4a-c). Similarities between Sak White and Huetche White from

Ceibal are found in the true white color of the slip (later slips tend towards a cream color)

and in the matte surface texture.

Comment: Sak White was initially classified as Cocoyal White by Callaghan

(2008) and later classified as Sak White by Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada (2016).

This is defined as a separate types based on significant differences with Cocoyal White

from Cahal Pech; Cocoyal White group is found on a different paste and does not include

an incised variety.

116

Illustration:

Fig. 4.14: Sak White: Sak Variety

117

Fig 4.15: Sak White: Sak Variety

Sak White Group, Type: Sak White, Variety: Incised

Sample: 38 rims, 11 bodies, 49 total, 15% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

118

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) matte white slip; 2) fine-line and groove incised

decoration.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Sak White: Incised Variety vessels were

identical to Sak White: Sak Variety with the addition of post-slip fine-line (0.26-1.24mm

thick) or pre-slip groove incision (2.3-3.34mm thick). Incised lines often form complex

motifs such as cleft heads (N=3), shark’s tooth (N=6), geometric forms (N=9), L-shape

(N=1) and double merlons (N=1). Incised decoration also occurs in simple designs such

as single (N=6), double (N=7), or triple (N=1) lines encircling vessel interiors, sometimes

in combination with more complex motifs. Unique combinations of motifs include a

cartouche with cleft head and circle inside it; tassel motif with L-shape and geometric

form; and drip with a circle underneath it and another circle.

Form: The most common form is the plate with outcurving sides, outflared

everted rim, and rounded lip (N=25). Those sherds that had a measurable angle between

everted rim and vessel wall were 125 or 135 degrees, and length from everted rim edge to

interior orifice was 2.4-5.2 cm. These plates had incised decoration on the interior of

wide everted rims. Other plates occurred with outcurving sides, exterior thickened rims,

and rounded or pointed lips (N=9). These plates had incised decoration usually on the

interior rims and bodies, but also on the exterior rims and bodies of the vessels. Plates

had wall thickness of 0.6-1.3 cm, rim thickness of 0.7-1.4 cm, and diameters of 25-40 cm.

Bowls were found with round or slightly incurving sides, direct rims, and rounded lips

(N=4). These bowls had incised decoration on the interior and exterior rims and bodies

119

of the vessels. Bowls have wall thickness of 0.4-0.8 cm, rim thickness of 0.5-0.7 cm, and

diameters of 15-25 cm. There is one vase or bowl with vertical sides and flat base, its

walls are 0.5 cm thick.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Sak White: Incised Variety has been found at

Holmul in mixed deposits in excavations into the platforms of Buildings B, N, and F, in

Group II. It is found most abundantly in phase 2 of Building N.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Sak White: Incised Variety is similar to Bil

White: Incised Variety from Tikal (see Chapter 5). It is similar to Comistun Incised from

Ceibal (Sabloff 1975:53-55) and Altar de Sacrificios (Adams 1971: 25). Comistun

Incised sometimes includes pre-slip groove incision in combination with post-slip fine-

line insicion and this is not seen in Sak White: Incised variety. While there are strong

similarities between Sak White and Cocoyal White from Cahal Pech, no examples of an

incised white type have yet been identified in the Belize River Valley.

120

Illustration:

Fig 4.16: Sak White: Incised Variety

121

Fig 4.17: Sak White: Incised Variety

Sak White Group, Type: Lak’in Red-on-White, Variety: Lak’in Red-on-White

Sample: 68 rims, 2 bodies, 70 total, 21% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) matte white slip; 2) matte red slip painted over

some portions of vessel.

122

Surface Finish and Decoration: Lak’in Red on White is identical to Sak White:

Sak Variety with addition of red slip identical to that found on K’atun Red. Red lines

show sharp edges demarcating red versus white space. The red slip is most often on

interior of vessel only (N=15), or on interior and around the exterior of the rim (N=14).

Vessels slipped on the exterior and interior rim (N=15), and on the rim only (N=9) are

also present in the Holmul collection. There are three examples of a vertical line painted

from the rim on the vessel exterior. The body sherds show vertical lines and curving

lines.

Form: The most common forms are plates with outcurving sides, direct rims, and

rounded or pointed lips (N=25). Plates with outcurving sides, exterior thickened rim, and

pointed lip (N=12). Plates have wall thickness of 0.6-1.4 cm, rim thickness of 0.7-2 cm,

and diameters of 20-40 cm. Plates usually have red on the whole exterior and interior

rim, or the whole interior. Also common are bowls with slightly incurving sides, direct

rims, and rounded lips (N=15). These bowls have wall thickness of 0.7- 1 cm, rim

thickness of 0.5-1 cm, and diameters of 18-35 cm. Bowls usually have red on the whole

exterior or interior of the vessel with white on the opposite side, sometimes with a

vertical line painted on the exterior. Other forms include the bowl or vase with vertical

sides, direct rim, and rounded or pointed lip (N=5). Bowls or vases have wall thickness

of 0.6-0.9 cm, rim thickness of 0.6-0.9 cm, and diameter of 20 cm. There is one tecomate

with direct rim, and rounded lip, whose walls and rim are 0.7 cm thick and whose

diameter is 10 cm.

123

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Lak’in Red-on-white: Lak’in Variety is found at

Holmul in excavations into the platforms of Buildings N, B and F, in Group II. It is

found most commonly in phase 1 of Building F.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Lak’in Red-on-White is similar to Bil White

group, Unspecified Red-on-White from Tikal (Laporte and Fialko 1993) and Toribio

Red-on-Cream from Altar de Sacrificios (Adams 1975). One sherd from Cahal Pech,

Red-on-buff: Variety Unspecified (A) has white slip and a red rim encircling the vessel

exterior (Sullivan et al. 2009: 163). Eight sherds found at Ceibal had similar qualities to

Lak’in Red-on-white, Unnamed Red-and-White Dichrome (Sabloff 1975: 60). It is also

similar to Tower Hill Red-on-Cream from the Bladen phase at Cuello (Kosakowsky

1987). Lak’in Red-on-White is also similar to Bil While Unnamed Red-on-white from

Tikal. Red-on-white is common in other parts of Mesoamerica at this time, including

Melendrez Red-on-White from Pacific coastal Guatemala, and Xola Red-on-white from

the Salama Valley (personal observation 2011). Lak’in Red-on-white is also similar to

San Jose Red-on-white from the Valley of Oaxaca (Flannery et al. 1994). These non-

Maya types have a white primary slip with the addition of bands of red paint around the

exterior rims of plates and in vertical lines on vessel exteriors.

124

Illustration:

Fig 4.18: Lak’in Red-on-white: Lak’in Variety

Fig 4.19: Lak’in Red-on-white: Lak’in Variety

125

Sak White Group, Type: Lak’in Red-on-white, Variety: Incised Unspecified

Sample: 3 rims, 4 bodies, 7 total, 2% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) matte red slip painted on white slip, 2) fine-line

incised decoration.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Lak’in Red-on-white: Incised Variety is identical

to Lak’in Red-on-white with the addition of incised decoration. Most examples use fine-

line incision to demarcate red and white slipped space (N=3), these are 0.42-0.59mm

thick. All of these occur on the interior of the vessel body and one is combined with a

vertical line. A simple line demarcating red slipped areas combined with a shark’s tooth,

semi-circle, and a geometric form (N=1) decorated the interior base of a vessel. A line

encircling (N=1) and a vertical line (N=1) were found on the vessel’s exterior rim. The

collection also included vertical scratches (N=1) on the interior vessel body.

Form: Plates with outcurving sides, exterior thickened rims, and pointed lips

(N=2). These plates have wall thickness of 0.8-0.9 cm, rim thickness of 0.5-1 cm, and

diameter of 40 cm. There was one bowl with slightly incurving sides, direct rim, and

rounded lip (N=1), whose walls were 0.7 cm thick, and its rim was 0.5 cm thick. The

collection includes one flat base (N=1) and body sherds (N=4) with walls 0.8-1 cm thick.

126

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Lak’in Red-on-white: Incised Variety is found

at Holmul in mixed deposits in excavations into the platforms of Buildings N, B, and F,

in Group II.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Lak’in Red-on-White is similar to Bil White

group, unspecified Red-on-White incised variety defined by Laporte and Fialko (1993)

and Haleb red-on-cream Fluted-grooved, defined by Culbert (n.d. :25) both from Tikal.

Two sherds in the Unnamed Red-and-White Dichrome type from Ceibal have incised

decoration at their rims (Sabloff 1975: 60).

Illustration:

127

Fig. 4.20: Lak’in Red-on-White: Variety Unspecified Incised plate

Fig. 4.21: Lak’in Red-on-White: Variety Unspecified Incised plate base

Group: Eknab Black

Ware: K’an Slipped Ware

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: Eb, Cunil, Xe

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) grey-black to light black thin slip, 2) grey paste

with some evidence of darker grey core.

128

Paste, Temper, and Firing: Paste color is grey to grey-black but otherwise similar

to other pastes of the K’an Slipped Ware. Paste is well-sorted with few small inclusions,

including ferruginous particles, and calcite. The black color was probably the result of

firing in a reducing atmosphere.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Eknab Black slip color is light black to grey-

black (7.5YR 6/1, 4/0, 3/0, 5/0; 10YR5/1, 6/1, 4/1; 2.5YR3/0) and jar rims often have a

band of orange or red around them.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Eknab Black at Holmul is identical to Lamat

Black at Tikal (see Chapter 5) with similarities both in slip color and paste. It is similar

in slip color and matte surface quality to Crisanto Black from Ceibal, differing only in

paste composition (personal observation 2011). Black slipped vessels are rare in the

Cunil phase of Cahal Pech; Chi Black: Chi Variety has a dull streaky black slip that

erodes easily and bears little resemblance to Eknab Black.

129

Illustration:

Fig 4.22: Eknab Black Group; a-o Eknab Black: Eknab Variety; p-t Eknab Black: Incised

Variety

Eknab Black Group, Type: Eknab Black, Variety: Eknab Black

Sample: 74 rims and 10 bodies, 84 total, 78% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

130

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) grey-black to light black thin slip, 2) grey paste,

3) jars and outcurving bowls and plates.

Form: The most common forms are jars with outcurving necks, direct rims, and

rounded or pointed lips (N=35). Jars have wall thickness of 0.8-1.1 cm, rim thickness of

0.7-1.1 cm, and orifice diameter of 12-18 cm. Also common are bowls flared or slightly

incurving sides, direct rims, rounded squared or pointed lips (N=14). These bowls have

wall thickness of 0.6-1 cm, rim thickness of 0.8-1 cm, and diameter of 18-40 cm. Other

forms include plates with outcurving sides, exterior thickened rims, and pointed lips

(N=12). Other plates with outcurving sides, have outflared everted rims, and rounded

lips (N=5). There are also plates with outcurving sides, direct rims, and rounded lips

(N=9). All plates have wall thickness of 0.6-1 cm, rim thickness of 0.7-1.4 cm, and

diameter of 18-40 cm. There are two tecomates with direct or exterior folded rims, and

rounded lips, which had wall thickness of 0.5-1.4 cm, rim thickness of 0.5-2 cm, and

diameters of 15 and 20 cm. All bases in the Holmul collection are flat (N=10).

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Eknab Black is found at Holmul in mixed

deposits in excavations into the platforms of Buildings B, N, and F, in Group II. It is

found in greatest adundance in Phase 1 of Building F, and Phase 2 of Biulding B.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Eknab Black at Holmul is identical to Lamat

Black at Tikal (see Chapter 5) with similarities both in slip color and paste. It is similar

in slip color and matte surface quality to Crisanto Black from Ceibal, differing only in

paste composition (Sabloff 1975: 57) and Altar de Sacrificios (Adams 1971: 24).

131

Illustration:

Fig. 4.23: Eknab Black: Eknab Variety

Eknab Black Group, Type: Eknab Black, Variety: Incised

Sample: 11 rims, 13 bodies, 24 total, 22% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) grey-black or light black slip, 2) fine-line incised

decoration.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Identical to Eknab Black: Eknab Variety with the

addition of incised decoration. The incision is primarily post-slip fine-line incision (0.47-

1.2mm thick) but also includes one example of pre-slip groove incision (1.86mm thick).

132

The incised decoration includes a number of motifs including three lines encircling

(N=3), double line encircling (N=2), and a double line register encasing continuous

vertical lines (N=4). There are diagonal music brackets (N=2), vertical music brackets

(n=1), geometric lines (N=2), triangle (N=2), and circle (N=3). One sherd displays a

more complex configuration of motifs including a birds beak, three circles, and geometric

forms. These incised designs are found on both the exterior and interior of vessels.

Form: The most common form is the plate with outcurving sides, outflared

everted rim, and rounded lip (N=4). Plates with outcurving sides, exterior folded rims,

and pointed lips (N=1). These plates had wall thickness of 0.8-1 cm, and rims 0.8-1.2 cm

thick, with diameters of 12-30 cm. The collection includes one bowl with round sides,

direct rim, and rounded rim had walls 1 cm thick, and rim 1.4 cm thick, with diameter of

40 cm. There was one jar with outcurving neck (N=1) which had a walls 0.7 cm thick,

rim 0.8 cm thick, and diameter of 18cm. Also present was one tecomate with exterior

folded and incised rim (N=1) with walls 0.6 cm thick, rim 0.9 cm thick, and orifice

diameter of 18cm.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Eknab Black is found at Holmul in mixed

deposits in excavations into the platforms of Buildings B, N, and F, Group II. It is found

most commonly in phase 1 of Building F.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Eknab Black: Incised Variety is similar to

Chompipi Incised from Ceibal (Sabloff 1975: 57) differing in paste composition and style

of incision. Chompipi Incised, of the Crisanto black group differs significantly from

133

Eknab Black: Incised variety in that the former consists of pre-slip groove incision while

the latter is post-slip fine-line incision.

Illustration:

Fig 4.24: Eknab Black: Incised Variety.

Belize Valley Dull Ware

Group: Uck Red see Cahal Pech (Sullivan et al. 2009; Sullivan and Awe 2013)

Ceramic Group: Uck Red

Ware: Belize Valley Dull

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: Cunil

134

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) mottled slip color ranging from brown to red to

white, 2) yellow paste.

Paste, Temper, and Firing: Paste of the Mo’ Mottled: Mo’ Variety and Fluted

Variety are similar to pastes of K’an Slipped Ware.

Surface Finish and Decoration: The slips of the Uck Red Group, Mo’ Mottled:

Mo’ Variety and Fluted Variety, are mottled with high degree of variability. The primary

slip color is orange-brown, but it ranges to red and white (7.5YR5/4, 5YR5/6, 4/6, 5/4,

2.5YR4/4, 5/6). Some of these sherds may be misidentified K’atun Red sherds. However

the Mo’ Mottled Group is large and consistent enough to imply that the potters

intentionally created the mottled surface.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: The Mo’ Mottled: Mo’ Variety and Fluted

Variety are identical in surface appearance to Mo’ Mottled: Mo Variety from Cahal Pech

and that is why they are classified as the same type (Sullivan et al. 2009: 164). Mo’

Mottled group is also found at Tikal, although in smaller quantities than at Cahal Pech or

Holmul (personal observation 2011).

Uck Red Group, Type: Mo’ Mottled, Variety: Mo’

Sample: 109 rims, 4 bodies, 113 total, 49% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Sullivan et al. (2009) at Cahal Pech, Belize.

Ceramic Group: Uck Red

Ware: Belize Valley Dull

135

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: Cunil

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) mottled slip color ranging from brown to red to

white, 2) outflaring sided plates and bowls with slightly incurving walls.

Form: The most common form was the plate with outcurving sides, direct rim,

and rounded or pointed lip (N=29). Also common were plates with outcurving sides,

outflared everted rims, and rounded lips (N=22). Other plates with outcurving sides, had

exterior thickened rims, and pointed lips (N=18). All plates have wall thickness of 0.6-

1.3 cm, rim thickness of 0.7-1.6 cm, and diameters of 18-40 cm. Bowls were found with

slightly incurving sides, direct or exterior folded rim, and rounded or pointed lip (N=25).

Other bowls had round sides, direct or exterior thickened rim, and rounded or pointed lips

(N=16). Also present were bowls with flared sides, direct rim, and rounded or pointed lip

(N=5). All bowls had wall thickness of 0.5-1 cm, rim thickness of 0.6-1.5 cm, and

diameter of 12-30 cm. The collection also includes tecomates with exterior or interior

thickened rims, and rounded or pointed lips (N=3), with wall thickness of 0.8 cm, rim

thickness of 0.9-1 cm, and orifice diameter of 10-18 cm.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Mo’ Mottled: Mo’ Variety is found at the site of

Holmul in mixed deposits in platform excavations of Buildings N, B and F, in Group II.

It is found with greatest frequency in phase 1 of Buildings F and B and phases 1, 2, and 4

of Building N.

136

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Mo’ Mottled: Mo’ Variety is identical to Mo’

Mottled: Mo Variety from the Cunil complex at Cahal Pech (Sullivan et al. 2009),

differing only in paste. At Holmul Mo Mottled: Mo’ Variety has a local paste that is

similar to all types in the K’an Slipped Ware.

Illustration:

Fig. 4.25: Mo’ Mottled: Mo’ Variety

137

Fig 4.26: Mo’ Mottled: Mo’ Variety

Uck Red Group, Type: Mo’ Mottled, Variety: Fluted

Sample: 15 rims, 1 body, 16 total, 8% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Type established by Sullivan et al. (2009),

variety established by Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada

2016).

Ware: Belize Valley Dull

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

138

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: Cunil

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) Mo’ Mottled surface color, 2) dishes with fluting

on exterior wall below rim.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Identical to Mo’ Mottled with addition of fluting

on exterior body. Fluting begins between 8mm and 32mm below the rim and extends to

mid-body.

Form: Mo’ Mottled: Fluted Variety is found primarily as dishes with outcurving

sides and narrow outflared everted rims (N=13), the fluting occurs just below the rim.

There are also incurving sided bowls, with direct rims, and rounded or pointed lips

(N=2). Walls of these dishes are 0.5-1.1 cm thick, their rims are 0.7-1.3 cm thick, and

their diameters range from 20 to 35cm.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Mo’ Mottled: Fluted Variety is found at the site

of Holmul in mixed deposits in platform excavations of Buildings F and N, Group II. It

is most common in Phases 1 and 4 of Building N.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: This variety is common in the Mottled Group at

Holmul, but it is not seen in the Mo’ Mottled Group at Cahal Pech, Belize. Similar forms

become more common in following ceramic phases at Cahal Pech. Fluting is found in

many other types from Ceibal in this time period; Setok Fluted: Setok Variety (red),

Edmundo Fluted: Edmundo Variety (white), and Valdemar Fluted: Valdemar Variety

139

(black) (Sabloff 1975: 49; 55). Fluting is also seen at Tikal in Haleb Red-on-Cream

Fluted-grooved: Haleb Variety (Culbert 1993: 5).

Illustration:

Fig 4.27: Mo’ Mottled: Fluted Variety

Fig 4.28: Mo’ Mottled: Fluted Variety

Uck Red Group, Type: Kitam Incised, Variety: Kitam

Sample: 73 rims, 20 bodies, 93 total, 44% of group

140

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Type and variety established by Sullivan at

Cahal Pech, Belize (Sullivan et al. 2009: 164).

Ware: Belize Valley Dull

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: Cunil

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) Mo’ Mottled surface color, 2) Fine-line and

groove incised decoration.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Identical to Mo’ Mottled with addition of fine-

line and/or groove incised decoration. Post-slip fine-line incisions are 0.4-1.4mm wide,

pre-slip grooved incisions are 1-3mm. Kitam Incised: Kitam Variety usually exhibits

fine-line post-slip incision (N=87), smaller quantities show groove incision pre-slip

(N=4), and one sherd combines groove incision with impressions (N=1). Kitam Incised:

Kitam Variety shows more complex incised motifs than other incised types of the K’awil

phase. Simple incised decorations include the double line encircling (N=5), which is

often used to define space containing further decoration. One of these is combined with

woven lines and two sets of two vertical lines, another is combined with a rectangular

cleft head and a group of horizontal lines, and another is combined with three tassels.

Another simple decoration is the single line encircling (N=12), four of these are

combined with continuous diagonal lines, and another one is combined with double lines

encircling. Three lines encircling is also present in the sample (N=3), one of these is

141

combined with vertical lines and woven lines. The L-shape is quite common (N=15), one

of these is combined with a circle, three are combined with a rectangle. Cleft Heads are

also common including several distinct styles, rectangular cleft heads (N=3), square cleft

heads (N=5), triangular cleft head (N=3), and a profile cleft head (N=1). Cleft heads are

often combined with other geometric forms, two of the rectangular cleft heads are

combined with square cleft heads, and another is combined with a double line encircling

and a group of horizontal lines. The circular cleft heads are combined with a circle and

L-shape on one sherd, and with a rounded rectangle on another sherd. The profile cleft

head also includes and rectangular eye and a triangular bird’s beak. The sample also

includes examples of the harpy eagle crest (N=2), one combined with an L-shape, and

another combined with a rectangular eye and ‘mountaintops’. The sample includes the

music bracket motif (N=3), one of which is combined with a cleft head, circle, and woven

lines. Also seen in the sample is the U-shape (N=4), these often occur as a repeated

pattern, one displays two ‘U-shapes’ and another displays three, another is combined with

a circle. Vertical lines (N=4), one of which is combined with a complex geometric form,

and single horizontal lines (N=2) are common in the sample, one of these is combined

with a curving line, the other demarcates a space further decorated with fingernail

impressions. Motifs found in few cases include; fingers (N=2), feathers (N=2), rounded

flower with cruciform lines (N=1), fish fin (N=1), and shark’s tooth (N=4). Some sherds

show a unique arrangement of motifs, one example displays an arrow with feather

combined with two circles, vertical lines and perpendicular woven lines (N=1). There is

some use of cartouches with motifs inside, one is a square cartouche with a double

merlon inside on top of a vertical line (N=1), another is a rectangular cartouche with a

142

square inside it and two horizontal lines (N=1). Another unique example is fluted and

modeled, the modeled handle has incised lines giving the impression of a fish fin, and the

exterior is decorated with several vertical music brackets and a nested semi-circle (N=1).

Form: The most common forms in the Holmul collection are plates with

outcurving sides, outflared everted rims, and rounded lips (N=12). These all display

incision on the interior of the wide everted rim. The collection includes three sherds

where angle of everted rim to vessel body could be measured and these were 130, 135,

and 130 degrees, their lip to interior orifice length was 45, 44, and 32mm respectively.

Also common are plates with outcurving sides, exterior thickened rims, and pointed lips

(N=5). These all display incision on the interior body of the vessel. All plates have wall

thickness of 0.6-1.1 cm, rim thickness of 0.8-1.1 cm, and diameters of 18-35 cm. Also

common in the collection are bowls with slightly incurving sides, direct rims, and

rounded lips (N=10), with incision on the exterior rim and/or body. These bowls had

walls 0.6-0.8 cm, rims 0.5-1 cm, and diameters between 23 and 30 cm. Vases or bowls

with flared sides, direct rims, and rounded lips (N=4) have incision on the exterior rim

and/or body. Walls of vases or bowls are 0.6-0.8 cm thick, with rims 0.6-0.8 cm thick,

and diameters between 12 and 20cm. The tecomate has an exterior thickened and incised

rim (N=1) with incision on the exterior rim and body, a 0.7 cm thick wall, 0.9 cm thick

rim, and 12cm orifice diameter. All bases in the Holmul collection are flat (N=10).

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Kitam Incised: Kitam Variety is found at

Holmul in mixed deposits in excavations into the platforms of Buildings F, B, and N, at

Group II.

143

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Kitam Incised: Kitam variety was defined at

Cahal Pech (Sullivan et al. 2009). It is nearly identical to Kitam Incised: Kitam Variety

at Cahal Pech differing only in its local paste composition. Kitam Incised: Kitam Variety

is also found at Tikal (personal observation 2011). It is very distinct from K’atun Red:

Incised Variety because of its mottled slip color that is never a monochrome red, but

often ranging from red to orange to brown, and white.

Illustration:

Fig 4.29: Kitam Incised: Kitam Variety

144

Fig 4.30: Kitam Incised: Kitam Variety

La Lila Burnished Ware

Group: Calam Buff

Ware: La Lila Burnished

Ceramic Complex: K’atun

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: Eb, Cunil, Xe

Description:

145

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) unslipped burnished surface, 2) pale brown to

pink surface color.

Paste, Temper, and Firing: Identical to pastes of the K’an Slipped Ware. Paste

inclusions are crystalline calcite, ash, ferruginous particles, and mica, all of which appear

to be part of the matrix of the clay rather than temper. Paste color varies from grey

brown to pale brown or pink (7.5YR6/4, 10YR5/1, 5YR7/4). There is some evidence of

under-firing based on presence of a greyer core. Most sherds are fired fully to a pale

brown color.

Surface Finish and Decoration: The majority of the sample are light grey to very

pale brown (10YR7/1, 7/2, 7/3, 6/1, 6/2) or pink/pinkish grey (7.5YR7/2, 6/4, 7/4;

5YR7/3, 7/2). The surface is burnished to create a very smooth surface that is generally

the same color as the paste. The surface appearance of this type is more variable than

other types in the K’awil complex, both in surface color, degree of burnishing, and

overall vessel size. Calam Buff Group bases often reveal fireclouding.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Calam Buff Group from Holmul is identical to

Calam Buff from Tikal as defined by Culbert (n.d.: 12) and in the Lake Yaxha-Sacnab

region by Rice (1979).

Calam Buff Group, Type: Calam Buff, Variety: Calam

Sample: 193 rims, 102 bodies, 295 total, 80% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Type established by Rice (1979) at Yaxha-

Sacnab, variety established by Culbert (1993; 2006) at Tikal.

146

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) unslipped burnished surface, 2) pale brown to

pink color.

Form: The most common form is the plate with outcurving sides, exterior folded

rims, and rounded lips (N=40). Other plates with outcurving sides, have direct rims, and

rounded or square rims (N=2). All plates have wall thickness between 0.8 and 1.2 cm

thick, rims between 1 and 1.8 cm, and diameters between 20 and 40cm. Also common

are bowls with round or slightly incurving sides, direct rim, and rounded or square lip

(N=9). Other bowls have flared sides, direct or exterior thickened rims, rounded or

pointed rims (N=5). All bowls have walls between 1.1 and 2 cm thick and rims between

1 and 2 cm thick, their diameters are 10-30 cm. Other forms include the plate with flared

sides, direct rim, and rounded lip (N=11). Other plates with outcurving sides have

outflared everted rims, and rounded lips (N=5). All plates have wall thickness of 0.5-1

cm, rim thickness of 0.7-1.1 cm, and diameter of 15-45 cm. Also present are jars with

outcurving necks, direct rims, and rounded lips (N=4), their rims are 0.6-1.2 cm thick,

and orifice diameters are 15-16 cm. Finally, there are tecomates with direct or exterior

folded rims, and rounded lips (N=2), with walls are 1-2.2 cm thick, rims are 0.8-3 cm,

and orifice diameters are 18-20 cm. Most bases in the Holmul collection are flat (N=6)

these have a wall thickness around 1cm.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Calam Buff: Calam Variety is found at the site

of Holmul in mixed deposits in platform excavations of Buildings B, F, and N, Group II.

It is found in most abundance in Phase 1 of Building F, Phase 1 and 2 of Building B, and

147

Phases 1,2, and 4 of Building N. Calam Buff: Calam Variety is also found at Cival in the

platform of Group 1, Structure 1, Structure 9 (i.e., west pyramid of the main E-Group

complex) and Structure 7 (i.e., east platform of main E-Group complex), a midden in the

northern area of the epicenter, Structure 20 (i.e., West Pyramid), Structure 31, beneath

Stela 2, and in the collapsed chultun containing Burial 33.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Calam Buff: Calam Variety from Holmul is

identical to Calam Buff from Tikal as defined by Culbert (n.d. :12). It is the most

common type at Tikal in this time period and less abundant at Holmul. Calam Buff is

also common in the Lake Yaxha region (Rice, 1979), it has not been identified outside

the Central Peten. It is also similar to Almeja Burnished Grey from Komchen and Kiuic

(Andrews et al. 2018).

148

Illustration:

Fig 4.31: Calam Buff: Calam Variety

149

Fig 4.32: Calam Buff: Calam Variety

Calam Buff Group, Type: Ante Incised, Variety: Ante

Sample: 33 rims, 14 bodies, 47 total, 13% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Hermes in Laporte and Fialko (1993: 51).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) Unslipped Burnished surface, 2) incised design.

150

Surface Finish and Decoration: Characterized by burnished Calam Buff surface

with addition of incised decoration. Post-slip fine-line incision is most common (N=28)

and incision thickness ranges from 0.54-1.63mm, although most are 1mm and under.

Pre-slip grooved incision is also present (N=4) measuring 4-5mm. One example

combines grooved incision (3.79mm) as a double line around the everted rim and fine-

line incision 1mm) on the interior body and rim depicting a vertical line, circle, and L-

shape.

Form: Most common are plates with outcurving sides, wide outflared everted

rims, and rounded lips (N=16). Six of these sherds had a measurable distance from rim to

interior orifice of 4-4.3 cm and angle of everted rim to vessel body wall of 120-135

degrees. Other plates with outcurving sides had exterior thickened rims, and pointed lips

(N=3). All plates have a wall thickness of 0.6-0.9 cm and a rim thickness of 0.9-1.1 cm

and diameter ranging from 25-40cm. In all cases plates with outcurving sides bore incised

decoration on the interior rim or body of the vessel. Another common form is the bowl

with slightly incurving sides, direct rim, and rounded or pointed lips (N=6). These bowls

had wall thickness of 0.5-0.8 cm, rim thickness of 0.5-0.7 cm, and diameter of 20-30 cm.

All bowls had incised decoration on the exterior rim and/or body of the vessel.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Ante Incised: Ante Variety is found at the site

of Holmul in mixed deposits in platform excavations of Buildings N, B, and F, in Group

II. It is most common in Phase 1 of Building N and Phase 2 of Building B.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Ante Incised from Holmul is identical to Ante

Incised from Tikal (Hermes 1993: 11). It is also similar to Almeja Burnished Grey:

151

Incised variety from Komchen and Kiuic (Andrews et al. 2018). No similar incised

burnished or unslipped types have been identified at Cahal Pech or Ceibal.

Illustration:

Fig 4.33: Ante Incised: Ante Variety

152

Fig 4.34: Ante Incised: Ante Variety

Calam Buff Group, Type: Aac Red-on-Buff, Variety: Aac

Sample: 10 rims, 15 bodies, 25 total, 7% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Type defined by Rice (1979) at Yaxha

Sacnab, variety defined by Culbert (1993: 5) at Tikal.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) unslipped bowls, 2) broad bands of red slip

around body and rim of vessels.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Aac Red on Buff: Aac Variety vessels are overall

unslipped and burnished, with the addition of red painted lines in a slip similar to K’atun

Red. Painted lines are located around rims on the exterior of the vessel. Most body

153

sherds are unslipped on the interior with large bands of red on exterior. One body sherd

exhibits encircling bands combined with another band at a right angle. Slip is painted on

with wide brushes without clear demarcation of slipped area. In a few examples these

broad bands are demarcated by incised lines, both fine line (N=3) and grooved incisions

(N=2). Unslipped color is light brown or greyish brown (7.5YR6/4, 10YR6/2) and well

smoothed. Red slipped area is (7.5R4/6, 10R5/3) and between 25 and 32mm wide.

Form: Most common are bowls with slightly outcurving walls, direct rim, and

rounded or pointed lips (N=7). These bowls all have red paint on the whole interior and

on the exterior rim. Bowls have walls that are 0.7-1 cm thick, rims that are 0.7-0.8 cm

thick, and diameters of 15-30 cm. Also present are plates with outcurving sides, direct

or outflared everted rims, and pointed lips (N=3). Plates have wall thickness of 0.9-1.1

cm, rim thickness of 1.1-1.3 cm, and diameters of 25 cm, and are painted red on the

whole interior.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Aac Red-on-Buff is found at Holmul in mixed

deposits in the platforms of Building B, and F in Group II.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Aac Red-on-Buff: Aac Variety is common at

Tikal (Culbert 1993; Laporte and Fialko 1993).

154

Illustration:

Fig 4.35: Aac Red-on-Buff Group; a-c Aac Red-on-Buff: Aac Variety; Aac Red-on-Buff:

Incised Variety.

Fig 4.36: Aac Red-on-Buff: Incised Variety.

Rio Holmul Slipped Ware

Group: Jobal Red

Ware: Rio Holmul Slipped

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: Eb, Cunil, Xe

155

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) Dark red slip color, 2) compact hard paste, 3)

dark grey paste color.

Paste, Temper, and Firing: The Jobal Red Group is characterized by its distinct

paste. The paste is compact and walls tend to be thinner than other ceramic types of this

time period. Paste color is dark grey to black. It has more inclusions than the K’an

Slipped Ware but these inclusions are small and densely packed.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Well-adhered red slip, ranging from dark red to

purple-red (7.5R4/6, 3/8, 5/8, 4/4, 5/6, 2.5YR5/6, 6/4, 4/6, 4/8, 5/8, 5/4, 10R4/6, 4/4, 4/8,

5/8, 5/6). This slip is well preserved and rarely eroded indicating a strong adherence to

the vessel body.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: The Jobal Red Group is also found at Tikal (see

Chapter 5).

Jobal Red Group, Type: Jobal Red, Variety: Jobal Red

Sample: 56 rims, and 5 bodies, 61 total, 68% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) monochrome dark red slip, 2) compact dark grey

to black paste.

156

Form: Bowls with slightly incurving sides, direct rims, and rounded or pointed

lips (N=16) are the most common form in the Holmul collection. Their walls measure

between 0.4-1.1 cm, their rims are 0.6-1 cm thick, and their diameters are 12-30cm,

usually around 20cm. Jars with outcurving necks and direct rims (N=12) have walls

measuring 0.8-1.2 cm, and rims 0.5-0.9 cm thick, with orifice diameters 8-15cm wide.

Another jar with outcurving neck has an outflared everted rim and pointed lip (N=1) with

wall 0.6 cm thick, rim 0.7 cm thick, and orifice diameter of 20cm. Other forms include

plates with outcurving or flared sides and direct rims, with rounded or pointed lips (N=8).

As well as plates with outcurving sides dishes with exterior folded rims, and pointed lips

(N=5). All plates have wall thickness of 0.6-1 cm, rim thickness of 0.7-1.4 cm, and

diameters of 25-30 cm. Tecomates are found with interior or exterior thickened rims

(N=7). Tecomates have walls measuring 0.8-1 cm, rims measuring 1.1-1.2 cm, and their

orifice diameters are 15-30cm. Vases or bowls with flared sides, direct rims and rounded

lips (N=4) have walls 0.6-1 cm thick, rims 0.8-1 cm thick, and diameters between 16 and

35cm. The Holmul collection includes five flat bases (N=5).

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Jobal Red is found at the site of Holmul in

mixed deposits in platform excavations of Buildings N, B, and F, in Group II. It is found

most commonly in phase 1 of Building F, phase 2 of Building N, and phases 1 and 2 of

Building B.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Jobal Red: Jobal variety is also found at Tikal

(personal observations). The purplish red slip color is not found at other pre-Mamom

sites in the Maya lowlands but is common in contemporary collections on the Pacific

Coast of Guatemala. (such as Victoria Red, Meledrez Red).

157

Illustration:

Fig. 4.37: Jobal Red: Jobal Variety

158

Fig. 4.38: Jobal Red: Jobal Variety

Jobal Red Group, Type: Jobal Red, Variety: Incised

Sample: 17 rims, 12 bodies, 29 total, 32% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) dark red slip color, 2) fine-line incised decoration.

159

Surface Finish and Decoration: Jobal Red: Incised Variety is characterized by

monochrome Jobal Red slip with post-slip fine-line incision measuring 0.35-1.2mm

thick. There are two examples of pre-slip grooved incision (N=2) measuring 1.5 and

2.3mm thick, both depicting lines. Fine-line incised decorations depict various motifs.

There are several examples of one (N=3) or more (N=1) vertical lines, or diagonal lines

(N=1). Double lines encircling (N=3), or double line register (N=1), are often combined

with other motifs such as double merlon (N=1), shark’s tooth (N=1), continuous vertical

lines (N=2), stepped fret (N=1), and cross hatching (N=1). Cleft heads (N= 3) are present

in the Holmul collection, sometimes in combination with circles (N=2), and other cleft

heads (N=1). Geometric motifs include U-shape (N=2), semi-circles (N=2), teardrop

shape (N=1), and fish fin with semi-circle (N=1). One example of a diagonal music

bracket (N=1), and a tassel shape (N=1) in combination with diagonal lines are also

present in the collection. The collection includes one sherd that combines pre-slip groove

incision (2mm thick) depicting a double line encircling and post-slip fine-line incision

(0.89mm thick) depicting continuous vertical lines on the vessel exterior body and rim.

Form: The most common form are bowls with slightly outcurving sides, direct

rims and rounded lips (N=8). Bowls have a wall thickness of 0.4-0.8 cm, and rim

thickness of 0.5-1 cm and diameter of 16-30cm, usually around 30cm. Also common are

plates with outcurving sides, exterior folded and incised rims and pointed lips (N=2).

Other plates have outflared everted rims and rounded lips (N=3). All plates have wall

thickness of 0.7-1 cm, rim thickness of 0.7-1 cm, and diameters of 15-40 cm. All bases

found in the collection were flat (N=8).

160

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Jobal Red Incised: Incised Variety is found at

the site of Holmul in mixed deposits in platform excavations of Buildings N, B, and F, in

Group II. It is most common in phase 2 of Building N.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Jobal Red: Incised Variety is also found at

Tikal (see Chapter 5).

Illustration:

Fig. 4.39: Jobal Red: Incised Variety

161

Fig. 4.40: Jobal Red: Incised Variety

Ainil Orange Group; Type: Xpokol Incised, Variety: Xpokol

Ceramic Group: Ainil Orange

Ware: Rio Holmul Slipped

Sample: 4 rims, 100% of group

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Type established by Culbert (1993: 5) at

Tikal, variety established by Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de

Estrada 2016).

Description:

162

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) very thin wall and fine paste, 2) deep orange slip,

3) fine-line incised decoration.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Slip color is deep orange (7.5YR5/4, 5YR6/6)

and very well preserved. One example is pre-slip groove incised (2.6mm) with double

lines encircling the exterior rim (N=1). Two examples have post slip fine-line incision

(0.3mm), one with geometric forms and a circle (N=1), and the other with a rectangular

cleft head and a rounded rectangle (N=1) both are located on the exterior rim and upper

body of the vessels.

Form: The Holmul collection includes bowls with slightly incurving sides, direct

rims, and rounded lips (N=2). The bowls have a wall thickness of 0.5-0.6 cm and rim

thickness of 0.8-0.9 cm, and a diameter of 15cm. The collection includes one vase or

bowl with vertical sides, direct rim, and rounded lip (N=1), wall thickness is 0.5 cm, rim

thickness is 0.6, and its diameter is 15cm.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Xpokol Incised was recovered in mixed

deposits in phase 1 of Buildings F and B, in Group II at Holmul.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Ainil Orange: Ainil Variety and Xpokol

Incised: Simple-incised and Design-incised varieties were found and defined at Tikal

(Culbert 1993; Laporte and Fialko 1993).

163

Illustration:

Fig. 4.41: Xpokol Incised: Xpokol Variety

Unspecified White Group, Type: Xaman Red-on-White, Variety: Xaman Red-on-

White

Sample: 5 rims, 2 bodies, 100% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

Ware: Rio Holmul Slipped

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: Eb, Cunil, Xe

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) Rio Holmul Ware paste, dark grey to black,

dense, and thin-walled, 2) White base slip with Jobal red painted onto interior and in lines

on exterior.

164

Surface Finish and Decoration: This type will belong to a yet unidentified White

Group within the Rio Homul Ware. Xaman Red-on-White combines a base white slip

(10YR8/1, 8/2, 6/1, 5YR8/1) with the addition of Jobal red slip (7.5R4/6, 3/8, 2.5YR4/6)

on vessel interiors and in bands painted on vessel exteriors, often in horizontal encircling

lines around vessel rims. In some cases the red slip includes clearly visible particles of

specular hematite. This type is easily distinguished from Sak White Group’s Lak’in Red-

on-White because of the distinct paste and dark red slip.

Form: The most common form in the Holmul collection are vases or bowls with

vertical sides, direct rims, and rounded or pointed lips (N=4), and there is one vertical

sided vase or bowl with flat base (N=1). Wall thickness of vases range from 0.6-0.7 cm,

and rim thickeness ranges from 0.7-0.8 cm, with diameters between 20-30cm. Also

present in the collection is one bowl with slightly incurving sides (N=1) with a wall

thickness of 0.6 cm and a rim thickness of 0.6 cm. The collection includes one plate with

outcurved sides (N=1), whose wall thickness is 0.9 cm and rim thickness is 0.8 cm, with

a diameter of 25cm.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Xaman Red-on-white material comes from

phase 1 in the subplatform of Building B, Group II at Holmul.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Xaman Red-on-White is similar to Bil White

group unspecified Red-on-White (Laporte and Fialko 1993) and Haleb red-on-cream

Fluted-grooved (Culbert 1993:5) from Tikal. At Ceibal a somewhat similar type with

white interior and red exterior was noted by Sabloff (1975: 60), Unnamed Red-and-White

Dichrome, eight sherds, two of which were incised with encircling lines.

165

Illustration:

Fig. 4.42: Xaman Red-on-White: Xaman Variety

Fig. 4.43: Xaman Red-on-White: Xaman Variety

Group: Chicin’a Black

Ware: Rio Holmul Slipped

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

166

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: Eb/Cunil/Xe

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) dark grey to black paste, 2) black slip, 3) thin

walled vessels.

Paste, Temper, and Firing: Paste is very compact and vessel walls are thin. Paste

color is dark grey to black.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Chicin’a Black is characterized by monochrome

black slip (2.5YR4/0, 5YR3/1, 3/0, 7.5YR4/0, 10YR4/1) with little uniformity so that

each sherd is a slightly different color. This sample is only six sherds so the true nature

of the Group is unknown until a greater sample is identified.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Chicin’a Black Group has not been identified at

other lowland Maya sites.

Chicin’a Black Group, Type: Chicin’a Black, Variety: Chicin’a Black

Sample: 4 rims, 2 bodies, 6 total, 50% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) dark grey to black paste, 2) monochrome black

slip, 3) thin walled vessels.

167

Form: The most common form are bowls with slightly incurving sides, direct

rims, and rounded lips (N=2). Bowls have walls 0.3-0.6 cm thick and rims 0.4-0.5 cm

thick, and diameters of 30cm and 20cm. The collection also includes two plates, one

with outcurving sides direct rim and pointed lip (N=1). The other plate has flared sides,

direct rim, and rounded lip (N=1). Plates have wall thickness is 0.4-0.9 cm and rim

thickness of 0.4-0.8 cm and diameters of 15 and 17 cm.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: The small sample of Chikin’a Black material

comes from mixed deposits in excavations into the subplatform of Building F, Group II at

Holmul.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Chicin’a Black: Chicin’a Variety has not been

identified at Tikal, Cahal Pech, or Ceibal.

Illustrations:

Fig. 4.44: Chicin’a Black: Chicin’a Variety

168

Fig. 4.45: Chicin’a Black Group; a-c Chicin’a Black: Chicin’a Variety; d-f Chicin’a

Black: Incised Variety.

Chicin’a Black Group, Type: Chicin’a Black, Variety: Incised

Sample: 3 rims, 3 bodies, 6 total, 50% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: 1) Chicin’a Black slip, 2) incised decoration.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Chicin’a Black slip with addition of fine-line

incision (0.6 and 0.39mm), including a rounded star (N=1), L-shape (N=1), and

curvilinear lines (N=1). Another example includes a single encircling line, circle, vertical

line, and vertical scratches (N=1), another example also shows vertical scratching (N=1).

All examples display incision on the exterior body and/or rim of the vessel.

169

Form: The Holmul collection includes a bowl with slightly incurving sides, direct

rim, and rounded lip (N=1). There is one vase or bowl with vertical sides whose form

could not be determined. These vessels have wall thickness of 0.5-0.8 cm, rim thickness

of 0.7 cm, and diameters of 25-30cm. There is one example that includes applique

decoration.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: The small sample of Chikin’a Black: Incised

variety material comes from excavations of mixed deposits into the subplatform of

Building F, Group II at Holmul.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Chicin’a Black: Incised Variety has not been

identified at other lowland Maya sites.

Illustrations:

Fig. 4.46: Chicin’a Black: Incised Variety.

Unslipped Utilitarian Wares

Canhel Unslipped Ware

Canhel Unslipped Group, Type: Canhel Unslipped, Variety: Canhel

170

Ware: Canhel

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

Sample: 44 rims, 2 bodies, 46 total, 90% of group.

Established: Culbert (1993: 5) at Tikal.

Principal identifying attributes: 1) Unslipped vessels light brown in color, 2)

slightly incurving bowls with rounded bases.

Paste, firing, and temper: Paste is medium texture, with few inclusions of white

calcite and silica, and light brown in color (7.5YR6/4).

Surface finish and decoration: Surface is unslipped with a similar color to the

paste, though somewhat lighter in color, light brown (10YR7/2 and 7.5YR6/4). Vessel

interiors are more smoothed than vessel exteriors.

Forms: 1) Bowls with incurving walls, direct rims, and rounded bases. Bowl

diameters are 20-35 cm and wall thickness is 0.7-1.2 cm.

Intrasite location and contexts: Canhel Unslipped has been found at Holmul in

mixed deposits in excavations into the platforms of Building B, Group II; Building F,

Group II; and Building N, Group II. It is found most commonly in phases 1 and 2 of

Buildings N and F, as well as Phase 4 of Buildings N and B.

Intersite locations and contexts: Canhel Unslipped is also found at Tikal, where it

was established by Culbert (1993: 5). Canhel Unslipped is very similar to Ardagh

171

Orange-Brown: Ardagh variety from Cahal Pech in surface color (Sullivan and Awe

2013).

Comment: There is another type represented by only 2 sherds that includes red

paint on the exterior of the upper shoulder of the vessel. This is similar to a type

common at Tikal within the Canhel Unslipped group but was not defined by Culbert

(n.d.) because most examples come from the Proyecto National de Tikal project that post-

dated Culbert’s study.

Illustration:

Fig. 4.47: a-h Canhel Unslipped: Canhel variety; i-m Cabcoh Striated: Cabcoh variety.

Canhel Unslipped Group, Cabcoh Striated: Cabcoh Variety

172

Ware: Unspecified

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

Sample: 5 rims, 5 total, 10% of group.

Established: Culbert (1993: 5) at Tikal.

Principal identifying attributes: 1) Unslipped vessels light brown in color with

striations on exterior of vessel, 2) bowls with incurved sides with outcurving necks, and

recurved sides.

Paste, firing, and temper: Paste is medium texture, with few inclusions of white

calcite and silica, and light brown in color (7.5YR6/4).

Surface finish and decoration: Surface is unslipped with a similar color to the

paste, light to medium brown (7.5YR6/2, 5YR6/2). Vessel exteriors have striations most

notably on the upper shoulders of vessel, sometimes lower parts of the vessel are polished

very smooth.

Forms: 1) bowls with incurved sides with outcurving necks, and recurved sides,

and rounded bases. Bowls have a diatemeter of 25-40 cm and wall thickness usually

around 0.8 cm.

Intrasite location and contexts: Cabcoh Striated has been found at Holmul in

mixed deposits in excavations into the platforms of Building N, B, and F, in Group II. It

is found most commonly in phases 1 and 2 of Building F, and phases 1 and 4 of Building

B.

173

Intersite locations and contexts: Cabcoh Striated is also found at Tikal, where it

was established by Culbert (1993: 5).

Illustration: see Figure 4.34 above.

Unspecified Unslipped Ware

Type: Ramonal Unslipped, Variety: Unspecified

Ware: Unspecified

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

Sample: 75 rims, 75 total, 100% of group.

Established: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada

2016).

Principal identifying attributes: 1) Unslipped vessels light yellow to buff in color,

2) slightly incurving bowls with direct or exterior thickened rims, 3) Jars with outcurving

necks.

Paste, firing, and temper: Paste is medium textured with rounded gray calcite and

less rounded crystalline calcite inclusions, and yellow (10YR7/4) to buff (10YR8/2) in

color. This type is similar to Calam Buff but its’ paste is less compact and more porous.

Color is buff (10YR8/2; 10YR8/3), and firing cores are almost non-existent.

Surface finish and decoration: Surface is coarse and unslipped with surface color

identical to the paste color.

174

Forms: 1) Slightly incurving sided bowls, with direct or exterior thickened rims,

2) jars with outcurving necks, 3) markedly incurving bowls (tecomates). Bowls have a

diameter of 20-30cm and wall thickness of 0.9-1.2 cm. Jars have a diameter of 10-12 cm

and wall thickness of 0.8-1.1 cm. Tecomates have a diameter of 10-20 cm and wall

thickness of 0.4-0.9 cm.

Intrasite location and contexts: Ramonal Unslipped has been found at Holmul in

mixed deposits in excavations into the platforms of Buildings N, B, and F, in Group II. It

is found most commonly in phases 1 and 2 of Buildings N and F, as well as Phase 4 of

Buildings N and B.

Intersite locations and contexts: This type is also found at Tikal where it is

abundant in the Proyecto Nacional de Tikal collections (see Chapter 5).

Comment: This type is extremely similar to Calam Buff: Calam variety in terms

of paste and surface color. The major distinction is that Ramonal Unslipped is not

burnished, generally coarser, and occurs in utilitarian forms. The two types blend into

one another in cases where a Calam Buff sherd is less well smoothed and/or eroded, or

where Ramonal Unslipped is well smoothed or otherwise decorated (with the addition of

red paint or incision).

175

Illustration:

Fig. 4.48: a-k Ramonal Unslipped: variety unspecified; l-m Ramonal Unslipped: variety

unspecified with Red Paint.

Uaxactun Unslipped Ware

Type: Unnamed Unslipped, Variety: Unspecified

Ware: Uaxactun Unslipped

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

Sample: 9 rims, 9 total, 100% of group.

Established: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada

2016).

176

Principal identifying attributes: 1) Unslipped vessels grey in color, 2) markedly

incurving bowls (tecomates), 3) incensarios, 4) volcanic ash inclusions.

Paste, firing, and temper: Paste is medium coarse in texture, with many fine grain

inclusions of silica and few medium sized red inclusions and some very fine volcanic ash

particles. Paste is grey in color (5YR5/1).

Surface finish and decoration: Surface is unslipped and well polished, with darker

color on the interior than the exterior. Surface color is light brown to light grey (5YR8/1,

5YR7/1).

Forms: 1) Tecomates with exterior folded or interior thickened rims, 2)

Incensarios with annular supports. Tecomates have a diameter of 18-30 cm and wall

thickness of 0.8-1.5 cm.

Intrasite location and contexts: Uaxactun Unslipped, Unnamed: Variety

Unspecified has been found at Holmul in mixed deposits in excavations into the

platforms of Buildings N, B, and F, in Group II. It is found most commonly in phases 1

and 2 of Buildings N and B.

Intersite locations and contexts: Uaxactun Unslipped is also found at Tikal in the

Early Eb complex, and is similar to Achiotes Unslipped which is common in the

following Tzec complex (Culbert 1993:5, n.d.).

Comment: This unnamed type was initially classified as Achiotes Unslipped by

Callaghan (2008). Significant distinctions between this sample and Achiotes Unslipped

suggest a distinct type. Achiotes Unslipped is common in the Middle and Late Preclassic

177

and therefore it was very difficult to separate examples from the K’awil complex within

mixed deposits. These differentiating characteristics used here were in paste and form.

Firstly, presence of ash temper is common across types in the K’awil complex and not

found in the Yax Te Mamom complex. Secondly, tecomates are common in this time

period throughout the Maya region and are less common in succeeding phases. It is

likely that the sample is under-represented here due to this conservative approach. I

suspect that once isolated deposits of K’awil material have been identified in the Holmul

region this unnamed unslipped component will represent a larger percentage of the

complex with greater variability.

Illustration:

Fig. 4.49: Unnamed Unslipped: Variety Unspecified (Uaxactun Unslipped Ware)

178

Fig. 4.50: Unnamed Unslipped: Variety Unspecified (Uaxactun Unslipped Ware).

Fig. 4.51: Unnamed Unslipped: variety unspecified impressed (Uaxactun Unslipped

Ware).

Unspecified Porous Unslipped Ware

Type: Amanecer Unslipped, Variety: Amanecer

Ware: Unspecified

179

Ceramic Complex: K’awil

Sample: 29 rims, 29 total, 100% of group.

Established: This type has been called Amanecer Unslipped: Amanecer variety by

Bernard Hermes for Nakum but has not yet been defined in a publication.

Principal identifying attributes: 1) Unslipped vessels orange-red in color, 2) thin

walled tecomates with exterior folded rims.

Paste, firing, and temper: Paste is coarse in texture, with many medium sized

inclusions of quartz, and red in color (2.5YR6/8). Vessel walls are thin, usually around

0.5 cm thick.

Surface finish and decoration: Surface is unslipped with a similar color to the

paste, ranging from red to light red and reddish brown (2.5YR6/6, 2.56/4, 10R4/8).

Vessel interiors are more smoothed than vessel exteriors, and vessel exteriors are

sometimes striated.

Forms: 1) tecomates with exterior folded or thickened rims, 2) jars with short

outcurving necks. Tecomates have diamters of 8-15 cm and wall thickness of 0.4-0.7 cm.

Jars are lacking data on diameter, and wall thickness is 1.0-1.4 cm.

Intrasite location and contexts: Amanecer Unslipped has been found at Holmul in

mixed deposits in excavations into the platforms of Buildings N, B, and F, in Group II. It

is found most commonly in phases 1 and 2 of Building F.

Intersite locations and contexts: Amanecer Unslipped: Amanecer variety is also

common at Tikal (see Chapter 5).

180

Illustration:

Fig. 4.52: Amanecer Unslipped: Amanecer variety.

Fig. 4.53: Amanecer Unslipped: Amanecer variety.

181

Chapter 5

Tikal Early Eb Phase Ceramics: Type-Variety Description

The earliest evidence of ceramics in the Tikal region is the presence of pre-Mamom

pottery. The complexwas initially defined by T. Patrick Culbert as the Early Eb complex

(Culbert 1993; n.d.), based on ceramics were found by the University of Pennsylvania

Tikal Archaeological Project in 1956-1969. That project found few pre-Mamom

ceramics that were scant remains without good stratigraphic contexts, however they were

typologically distinct. Culbert identified the Early Eb complex as the beginning of the

Tikal sequence in one published monograph (1993) and one unpublished manuscript

(n.d.), which includes type descriptions. The ceramics described by Culbert were found

in chultunes in the site center and surrounding settlement, none of them are associated

with architecture or stratigraphically isolated. The first location was Chultun 5G-15, in

the southeastern quadrant of Tikal, 1.5 km east of the main ceremonial center (Culbert

n.d.). This chultun was designated Problematical Deposit 1, and contained a primarily

Early Eb deposit except for a few Imix sherds at the top of the chultun. The second

location was at the base of the North Acropolis in Tikal’s site center, in a depression in

bedrock. The third location was a fill sealed by a Late Preclassic Str. 5C-54 in the site

center. Part of this structure may have included Early Eb architecture but the structure

was not excavated further by the project. Later excavations by the Proyecto Nacional

Tikal defined a substructure of 2 m in height with four stairways that was the earliest

ceremonial architecture in this location. In all, the University of Pennsylvania project

unearthed 5,811 Early Eb ceramics. While this is a significant sample its description

182

remains unpublished and the stratigraphic relationship of this to later complexes is

unclear.

The Early Eb complex was better defined during the extensive excavations of the

Proyecto Nacional Tikal, 1972-1980. These excavations were focused in the site center

at the ceremonial complex known as the Mundo Perdido, Str. 5C-54, as well as in the

settlement surrounding Tikal. The first evidence of architecture in the area dates to the

late Eb (600-500BC) or Mamom ceramic sphere. Early Eb material was found in the

chultunes carved out of bedrock under the Mundo Perdido ceremonial center (Laporte

and Fialko 1990; 1995). The most notable are Problematical Deposit 6 and Problematical

Deposit 12. These were sealed isolated contexts of Early Eb material. Some individual

sherds from the Early Eb complex were also found in various excavations of residences

in Tikal’s periphery. Ceramics from the Proyecto Nacional Tikal were analyzed by

Bernard Hermés who defined additional types within the complex (1993). Hermes was

also a participant in this dissertation research during the re-analysis and storage of

ceramics at Tikal in 2011.

In his initial study of the Tikal ceramics Culbert defined the pre-Mamom complex at

Tikal as an early component of the Eb/Mamom complex (Culbert 1993). Therefore,

many of the primary types had Mamom phase names. For example, he called the Early

Eb monochrome red Joventud Red: Yellow paste variety (Culbert n.d.). Now that the

sample is much larger and can be compared to other similar contemporary complexes, it

is appropriate to place the Early Eb types into distinct types and varieties. These Early

Eb types show significant distinctions from the following late Eb/Mamom types. Most

notably these types are on a different paste that is a light yellow and contains ash. Also,

183

Fig. 5.1: Problematical Deposit 12 (left) and Problematical Deposit 6 (right) (taken from

Laporte and Fialko 1993: 10)

the incised types tend to be fine-line post slip incision while the Late Eb incised types

tend to be pre-slip groove-incised. Additionally, these incisions sometimes include pan-

Mesoamcerican or ‘Olmec’ style symbols that are common in the early Middle

Preclassic. Since the previous type variety analysis conducted by Culbert was never

published, I chose to present the type variety analysis of the Tikal Early Eb phase as a

chapter in this dissertation. Some types defined by Culbert, such as Ainil Orange and

Calam Buff, were constrained to the Early Eb phase and therefore I have not changed

these type names. Where a separate type name had already been established for an

incised type I use this separate type name, where new incised types are created in this

typology I have chosen to use the variety specification for the incised samples (example:

Chak Red: Incised Variety). I have done this because I do not want to burden the

literature with excessive new type names, where a variety designation will suffice and

184

simplify the nomenclature. Since the pre-Mamom complexes are newly defined types,

many scholars have chosen to proceed in this manner (Andrews et al. 2018). In my study

I analyzed materials primarily from the Proyecto Nacional Tikal, because the Early Eb

sample from the University of Pennsylvania project could not be found at the site lab.

Many of the ceramics from both projects have been re-buried over the years. This

description is based on materials from the general excavations from Mundo Perdido

housed in the Lithics Stoage space at Tikal as well as Problematical Deposits 6 and 12.

However, only a small sample of diagnostic types from Problematical Deposit 6 could be

obtained for this analysis, the rest of the material was missing from the collection.

I place the beginning of the Early Eb complex at around 1000 BC following Inomata.

Inomata and colleagues (2013) have argued that the majority of pre-Mamom complexes

in the Maya lowlands begin around 1000 BC, including Tikal’s Early Eb. The Tikal

sample fits well within this group. The Early Eb complex shares patterns of ashy yellow

paste, fine line post-slip incision, and formal characteristics such as the everted rim plate.

The Early Eb continues until the beginning of the late Eb, around 600 BC (Laporte and

Fialko, 1990) but possibly earlier.

La Justa Slipped Ware

La Justa slipped ware is found in the Early Eb phase at Tikal. This ware is similar to

K’an Slipped Ware from Holmul and Belize Valley Dull Ware from Cahal Pech. The

ware contains the following groups and types:

Chak Red Group

Chak Red: Chak Variety

185

Chak Red: Incised Variety

Chak Red: Fluted Variety

Lamat Black Group

Lamat Black: Lamat Variety

Lamat Black: Incised Variety

Bil White Group

Bil White: Bil Variety

Bil White: Incised Variety

Bil White: Red-on-White Variety

Boolay Brown

Boolay Brown: Boolay Variety

Bechh Incised: Bech Variety

Boolay Brown: Chamfered Variety

La Justa Slipped ware paste has a fine-medium grained texture, with fine and medium

grain inclusions of quartz in regular quantitites. Paste color varies from very pale brown

(10YR7/3, 7/4), brown (10YR5/4) to grey (10YR6/1). Darker paste cores are common,

probably evidencing inconsistencies in the firing process.

La Lila Burnished Ware

186

La Lila Burnished ware is found at Tikal in the Early Eb phase and contains the

following groups and types:

Calam Burnished Group

Calam Buff: Calam Variety

Ante Incised: Ante Variety

Aac Red-on-Buff: Aac Variety

Aac Red-on-Buff: Incised Variety

La Lila Burnished ware (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016) is distinguished by

its unslipped and heavily burnished surface. The paste is similar to La Justa Slipped ware

in color and composition. Surface color is close to paste color.

Rio Holmul Slipped Ware

Rio Holmul slipped ware is found in the Early Eb phase at Tikal. The ware contains

the following groups and types:

Jobal Red Group

Jobal Red: Jobal Variety

Jobal Red: Incised Variety

Ainil Orange Group

Ainil Orange: Ainil Variety

187

Xpokol Incised: Xpokol Variety

Unnamed Brown Group

Unnamed Brown: variety unspecified

Rio Holmul Slipped Ware is characterized by a thick dull slip that is very well adhered

and compact paste with medium-coarse texture. The ware differs from La Justa Slipped

ware in characteristics of the paste, its gritty texture is more similar to paste of Rio Pasíon

Slipped Ware. The paste of Rio Holmul Slipped Ware is dark; brown (10YR5/3, 6/6, 5/6,

4/4, 6/8, 4/6, 5/4, 5/8, 7.5YR4/6, 5/8, 5/6) or grey (7.5YR6/1). Inclusions in the paste

include organic matter and crystalline or sparitic calcite (reacts to Hydrochloric acid),

ash, and biotite mica and round red ferruginous particles. Firing cores are present,

especially in bases of dishes and bowls.

Canhel Unslipped Ware

Canhel Unslipped ware is found at Tikal in the Early Eb phase and contains the

following groups and types:

Canhel Unslipped Group

Canhel Unslipped: Canhel Variety

Canhel: Red on Unslipped Variety

Canhel Unslipped Ware was first identified by Culbert at Tikal (1993: 6). It is a

utilitarian ware characterized by its roughly smoothed unslipped surface and medium

coarse dark paste. It usually occurs in large bowls, jars, and tecomates.

188

Unspecified Unslipped Ware

This Unspecified Unslipped ware is found at Tikal in the Early Eb phase, it contains

the following groups and types:

Ramonal Unslipped Group (formerly part of Calam Buff group)

Ramonal Unslipped : Ramonal Variety

Ramonal Unslipped: Incised Variety

Ramonal Unslipped: Grooved-Incised

Ramonal Unslipped ware is distinguished by its unslipped surface whish is identical in

color to Calam Buff but is not burnished. It has the paste that Culbert distinguished as

‘medium-carbonate paste’. It is part of the type Culbert called Calam Buff. The type

formerly called Calam Buff has been split into to wares, Calam Burnished Ware and

Ramonal Unslipped Group. The latter is not burnished and only roughly smoothed. The

paste includes “medium amounts of carbonate particles that range in size from very fine

to quite large”, (Culbert n.d. :7). These carbonate particles are visible on the surface of

the vessel creating a surface with pale pink to yellow color speckled with white particles.

Porous Unslipped Ware

Porous Unslipped ware was defined at Nakum by Hermes and is found at Tikal in the

Early Eb phase, it includes the following groups and types:

Amanecer Unslipped Group

Amanecer Unslipped: Amanecer Variety

189

Atardecer Unslipped: Atardecer

Porous Unslipped ware was defined at Nakum by Hermes (n.d.). It is characterized by

its gritty and porous unslipped surface, light weight, and bright orange red color. The

porous surface is likely the result of organic inclusions that burnt out during the firing

process. Other inclusions are medium textured particles of quartz and calcite. Vessels in

this ware are large jars with relatively thin walls and thickened rims and/or shoulders.

Surfaces are sometimes striated and sometimes covered with a ‘bath’ of the same color as

the paste, giving a slightly smoother surface.

La Justa Slipped Ware

Group: Chak Red

Ware: La Justa Slipped Ware

Ceramic Complex: Early Eb

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: K’awil/Cunil/Xe

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) dull red slip on interior and exterior of vessel;

(2) red tends towards orange-red; (3) light brown paste color.

Paste, Temper, Firing: See Paste of La Justa Slipped Ware. This corresponds to

Culbert’s (n.d.) Yellow Paste, and Chak Red is equal to what he called Joventud Red:

Yellow paste variety. The paste is characterized by its’ distinctive yellow color (10YR

7/6). The paste has finely divided inclusions and lacks carbonate (Culbert n.d.: 7), most

190

common inclusions are amorphous white particles with occasional black particles and

golden mica.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Well-adhered thick red slip, with color ranging

from pale red (2.5YR6/8, 10R6/8) to true red (2.5YR4/3, 4/6, 10 R4/6, 5/6).

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Chak Red shows ties to the K’atun Red group

from Holmul, and the Uck Red group from Cahal Pech, as well as Abelino Red group

from Ceibal. These similarities include the use of dull or matte slip and similar forms.

Comments: This group and it’s types fall into the category that T. Patrick Culbert

called “Joventud Red: Yellow paste variety” in an unpublished manuscript. The

excavations of the Proyecto Nacional Tikal increased the sample of this early material

significantly, and it is now possible to define separate groups and types for the Early Eb

material. These sherds show significant differences to the following Joventud Red Group

types of the Mamom phase.

Chak Red Group, Type: Chak Red, Variety: Chak

Sample: 285 rim sherds, 63% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: This report.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) monochrome dull red slip, (2) La Justa Slipped

Ware yellow paste, (3) no further decoration.

191

Form: Of this sample 48 rim sherds were included in the attribute analysis. Most

common were plates with outcurved sides; with exterior folded and pointed or rounded

rims (N=6). Other outcurving sided plates had outflared everted rims (N=7), direct rim

with pointed lip (N=9), and exterior thickened rims (N=6). Other plates had incurving

sides and direct rounded rims, and rounded or square lips (N=3). Also common were

Tecomates, with exterior folded or thickended rims (N=9), interior thickened (N=1) or

outflared everted rims (N=2), and jars with outcurving necks (N=2). Also present were

Bowls with slightly incurving sides and direct rounded rims (N=3), a plate with round

sides (N=1), and a vase or bowl with vertical sides and exterior folded rim (N=1).

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in many deposits in

the area of the Mundo Perdido complex. The majority of the sample comes from a

chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Chak Red: Chak variety is similar to Katun

Red: Katun variety from Holmul, the types share a dull finish but Chak Red has a more

orange red color while Katun Red is a dark red. It is also similar to Kolok Red: Kolok

variety (Rice 1979) in surface finish and color. It shows similarities to Uck Red: Uck

variety from Cahal Pech, Belize and Consejo Red: Consejo variety from Cuello, Belize.

Comment: There is one sherd with appliqué decoration on a rounded bowl with

direct rounded rim. Chak Red: Chak variety is equivalent to Juventud Red: Juventud

Variety (Laporte and Fialko 1993; Culbert 1993) from the Early Eb phase. It is equivalent

to Culbert’s Joventud Red: Joventud and Yellow-paste Varieties (n.d.). It was separated

into a new type here to avoid confusion with the Juventud Red group, that is common in

192

the following Mamom phase. The paste, slip, and forms are significantly distinct from

the Mamom phase Juventud Red and warrant a separate type. Further, the established

pattern for pre-Mamom complexes is now to establish separate types from the following

Mamom complex types, something that was not possible with the small sample sizes

available to Culbert’s initial study.

Illustration:

Fig. 5.2: Chak Red: Chak Variety

193

Fig. 5.3: Chak Red: Chak Variety

Chak Red Group, Type: Chak Red, Variety: Incised

Sample: 168 rim sherds, 37% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: This report.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) Chak Red group slip, (2) fine-line incision, (3)

groove incision, (4) La Justa Slipped Ware paste.

Surface Finish and Decoration: This sample included 148 fine-line incised

sherds, 10 groove incised sherds, and 10 sherds with broad and fine line incision; of

194

these, 48 rims and 13 body sherds were included in the attribute analysis. Most sherds

were decorated with fine line incision after application of the slip (N=40). Some

examples were decorated with broad line incision prior to slip application (N=10), and

other sherds combined both (N=10). In these cases the broad lines or grooves were used

to define the spaces for the fine incision. All examples were found on the interior of wide

everted rims where the grooves ran around the edge of the vessel rim and/or break

between the rim and wall. The most common incisions were single (N=16) or double

lines encircling the vessel (N=18). Double lines were often found in combination with

nested triangles whose bases rested upon the encircling line (N=5). Single lines

encircling were found in combination with other geometrics (N=1), woven motif (N=1),

vertical lines (N=2), diagonal lines (N=1), triangles (N=1) and circles (N=2). The music

bracket motif (N=4) was usually seen in combination with vertical lines, but also with

other geometrics such as a square and a circle. There were two examples of the shark’s

tooth motif (N=2) both in combination with encircling lines and vertical lines and found

on the interior of everted rim dishes. Each example of a star was unique; one was semi-

circular and combined with curving vertical lines (N=1), another had a circle inside it and

was combined with vertical lines. There was one example of the cleft head motif (N=1),

and one L-shape (N=1). An interesting unique motif included a stepped-pyramid motif

with circle and triangles above double lines encircling (N=1), found on the exterior wall

of a bowl. There was also a motif that consisted of “mountains” with double lines at the

rounded end (N=1).

Form: Most common were plates with outcurving sides with outflared everted

rims, and rounded lips (N=24). Other plates had exterior thickened rims and pointed lips

195

(N=10). Also common were bowls with slightly outcurving sides, rims direct and

rounded (N=7). There were also tecomates with exterior folded or interior thickened rims

and pointed lips (N=3), or direct pointed rims (N=2). The collection includes one jar

with outcurving neck and direct rounded rim (N=1).

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in many deposits in

the area of the Mundo Perdido complex. The majority of the sample comes from a

chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Chak Red: Incised variety is similar to Katun

Red: Incised variety from Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016). The

similarities are seen in the pre-slip fine line incision and shared iconographic motifs.

These similarities are also shared with Baki Red-incised: Baki variety from Cahal Pech,

Belize. It is also similar to Pico de Oro Incised: Pico de Oro variety from Ceibal (Sabloff

1957) in the method of incision. It shares content and technique of incised design with

Backlanding Incised: Backlanding variety (Kosakowsky 1987).

Comment: Chak Red: Incised Variety is equivalent to Guitarra Incised (Laporte

and Fialko 1993; Culbert 1993) from the rarly Eb phase. This type is equivalent to

Culbert’s Guitara Incised: Simple-incised and Design-incised Varieties (n.d.). It was

separated into a new type here to avoid confusion with the Juventud Red group, that is

common in the following Mamom phase. The paste, slip, and incision technique are

significantly distinct from the Mamom phase Guitarra Incised and warrant a separate

type. Further, the established pattern for pre-Mamom complexes is now to establish

196

separate types from the following Mamom complex types, something that was not

possible with the small sample sizes available to Culbert’s initial study.

Illustration:

Fig. 5.4: Chak Red: Incised Variety

197

Fig. 5.5: Chak Red: Incised Variety

Bil White Group

Ware: La Justa Slipped Ware

Ceramic Complex: Early Eb

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: K’awil/Cunil/Xe

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) Dull White to Grey Slip, (2) La Justa Slipped

Ware paste.

Paste. Temper, Firing: see La Justa Slipped Ware

198

Surface Finish and Decoration: Well-adhered white to grey slip with dull finish

(10YR7/1, 7/2, 7/3; 10 YR8/2, 8/3). Some evidence of fireclouding to darker grey.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Bil White is not common at Tikal. It shows

similarities to Sak White: Sak variety from Holmul, Cocoyal White: Cocoyal variety

from Cahal Pech (Sullivan et al. 2009), and Huetche White: Huetche variety from Ceibal

(Sabloff 1975).

Bil White Group, Type: Bil White, Variety: Bil

Sample: 33 rim sherds, 72% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: At Tikal by Laporte and Fialko (1993).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) monochrome Bil White slip, (2) La Justa Slipped

Ware yellow paste, (3) no further decoration.

Form: This report is based on 33 rims, 14 of which were included in the attribute

analysis. Most common are plates with outcurving sides and exterior thickened rims

(N=4), or outflared everted rims (N=3). Other plates had flared sides and direct (N=3) or

exterior thickened rims (N=2). Also present are a plate with vertical sides (N=1), a bowl

with slightly incurving sides (N=1), and a jar with outcurving neck (N=1).

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in many deposits in

the area of the Mundo Perdido complex. The majority of the sample comes from a

chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Bil White: Bil variety shows similarities to Sak

White: Sak variety from Holmul, Cocoyal White: Cocoyal variety from Cahal Pech

199

(Sullivan et al. 2009), and Huetche White: Huetche variety from Ceibal (Sabloff 1975).

All these pre-Mamom types share the matte surface quality and white color that

distinguishes them from the cream color found in the Mamom phase.

Illustration:

Fig. 5.6: Bil White: Bil Variety

200

Fig. 5.7: Bil White: Bil Variety

Bil White Group, Type: Bil White, Variety: Incised

Sample: 10 rim sherds, 1 body sherd, 11 total, 24% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Laporte and Fialko (1993).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) Bil White slip, (2) fine-line incised decoration,

(3) pre-slip groove incision, (4) La Justa Slipped Ware yellow paste.

Surface Finish and Decoration: This report is based on 10 rims and 1 body sherd.

Both fine line (N=6) and groove incision (N=3) are present, as well as a combination of

both techniques (N=2). All rim sherds have incision on the interior of the everted rim

(N=5), while the body sherd has incision on the exterior body (N=1). The most common

motif is the double line encircling (N=5), one was paired with a line break (N=1), another

with vertical lines and three rectangles (N=1), and another with a music bracket (N=1).

There was also one single line encircling (N=1). There were diagonal lines (N=2) in one

case paired with vertical lines. Fine line incisions are pre-slip, most groove incisions are

201

post-slip, although one example of groove incision was pre-slip. The examples that

combined the two incision techniques had groove incision around the interior and exterior

edge of the everted rim, creating a border for further decoration; a diagonal music bracket

(N=1) and nested triangles (N=1).

Form: Most common were plates with outcurving walls and outflared everted

rims (N=8). Also present was a slightly incurving bowl (N=1) and a tecomate with

exterior thickened rim (N=1).

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in many deposits in

the area of the Mundo Perdido complex. The majority of the sample comes from a

chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Bil White: Incised variety is similar to Sak

White: Incised variety from Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016) and

Comistun Incised: Comistun variety from Ceibal (Sabloff 1975). These types share the

matte surface quality and white slip color, as well as methods of incision. Bil White:

Incised variety and Comistun Incised: Comistun variety both occur in pre-slip groove

incision and post-slip fine-line incision, sometimes in combination, while pre-slip groove

incision is not common in Sak White: Incised variety.

Illustration:

202

Fig. 5.8: Bil White: Incised Variety

Fig. 5.9: Bil White: Incised Variety

203

Fig. 5.10: Bil White: Incised Variety

Group: Bil White, Type: Unnamed Red-on-White, Variety: Unspecified

Sample: 2 rim sherds, 4% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Laporte and Fialko (1993) at Tikal.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) Bil White slip, (2) addition of Chak Red slip

over Bil White slip.

Surface Finish and decoration: Primary slip color is Bil White (10YR8/3 and

10YR7/3) with addition of red slip (2.5YR5/8 and 2.5YR4/4). Both cases show a simple

band encircling the interior rim, and the incurving sided bowl also has a band encircling

the exterior rim.

Form: One bowl with slightly outcurving sides and direct rounded rim (N=1),

and one plate with outcurving sides and outflared everted rim (N=1).

204

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in a chultun in

bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Bil White group Unnamed Red-on-White:

Unspecified variety is similar to Lak’in Red-on-White: Lak’in variety from Holmul

(Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016) and Toribio Red-on-Cream: Toribio variety

from Ceibal (Sabloff 1975). These types share the matte surface quality and red on white

slip color. Similarities are also found to Tower Hill Red-on-Cream: Tower Hill variety

from Cuello (Kosakowski 1987). Red-on-White types are common across Mesoamerica

at this time; including Melendrez Red-on-White from Pacific Coastal Guatemala, Xola

Red-on-White from the Salama Valley, and San Jose Red-on-White from the Valley of

Oaxaca (Flannery et al. 1994).

Illustrations:

Fig. 5.11: Bil White: Unspecified Red-on-White

Group: Lamat Black

Ware: La Justa Slipped Ware

Ceramic Complex: Early Eb

205

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: K’awil/Cunil/Xe

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) dull black to dark gray slip (2) La Justa Slipped

Ware paste.

Paste, Temper, Firing: see La Justa Slipped Ware

Surface Finish and Decoration: Well adhered medium thick slip with no

crackling in the surface. Slip color ranges from black (7.5YR2.5/1, 10R2/1), dark grey

(7.5YR4/1, 10YR4/1) to grey (7.5YR5/1, 10YR5/1). Slip usually found on vessel

interior and exterior, except in the cases of tecomates.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Black slip is rare in the Maya lowlands in the

pre-Mamom phase. Lamat Black is similar to Crisanto Black from Ceibal, and Eknab

Black from Holmul. Chi Black: Chi Variety is rare in the Cunil complex. In some cases

white slipped types that were burned after deposition or during their use life are

mistakenly identified as black slipped vessels.

Group Lamat Black, Type: Lamat Black, Variety: Lamat

Sample: 86 rim sherds, 80% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: This report.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) monochrome dull black to dark gray slip (2) La

Justa Slipped Ware yellow paste.

206

Form: This report based on 86 sherds, of which 17 rims were included in the

attribute analysis. Most common were plates with outcurved sides; direct rims and lip

beveled-in (N=2), or pointed (N=1). Other plates with outcurved or flared sides had

exterior folded or thickened rims, and rounded lips (N=4). Also common were bowls

with slightly incurved sides and direct rounded rims (N=2). Jars were found with

outcurving necks (N=2) or outflared necks (N=3) and direct pointed lips. Also present

was a tecomate with exterior folded rim and rounded lip (N=1).

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in many deposits in

the area of the Mundo Perdido complex. The majority of the sample comes from a

chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Lamat Black: Lamat variety is similar to Eknab

Black: Eknab variety from Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016) and

Crisanto Black: Crisanto variety from Ceibal (Sabloff 1975). Similarities are found in the

matte surface quality and black color.

Comment: Lamat Black: Lamat variety is equivalent to Chunhinta Black:

Chunhinta Variety (Laporte and Fialko 1993; Culbert n.d.) from the Early Eb phase. This

is equivalent to Culbert’s Chunhinta Black: Chunhinta and Fine-inclusions Varieties

(n.d.). It was separated into a new type here to avoid confusion with the Chunhinta Black

group, that is common in the following Mamom phase. The paste, slip, and forms are

significantly distinct from the Mamom phase Chunhinta Black and warrant a separate

type. Further, the established pattern for pre-Mamom complexes is now to establish

207

separate types from the following Mamom complex types, something that was not

possible with the small sample sizes available to Culbert’s initial study.

Illustration:

Fig. 5.12: a-i: Lamat Black: Incised Variety; j-l: Lamat Black: Lamat variety; m-n: Lamat

Black: incised variety (groove incised).

208

Fig. 5.13: Lamat Black: Lamat Variety

Group Lamat Black, Type: Lamat Black, Variety: Incised

Sample: 16 rims, 5 bodies, 21 total, 20% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: This report.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) monochrome Lamat Black slip, (2) post-slip fine

line decoration, (3) pre-slip groove incision, (4) La Justa Slipped Ware yellow paste.

Surface Finish and Decoration: This report is based on 16 rims, and 5 body

sherds, which were all included in the attribute analysis. Most sherds were decorated with

post-slip fine line incision (N=14), as well as pre-slip groove incision (N=4), and a

combination of both techniques (N=3). The most common motif is a single line (N=5) or

double line (N=8) encircling the vessel and this decoration is usually found on the interior

209

of outflared everted rims (N=5). One double line encircling is combined with a semi-

circular lightning motif and another semi-circle, and found on the exterior rim and body

of a vertical sided vase (N=1). In another case the double line encircling is paired with a

single line encircling and nested triangles along the double line, found on the interior of

an outflared everted rim (N=1). Another double line encircling is paired with three half

circles and found on the exterior rim of a slightly incurving sided bowl (N=1). Another

double line encircling is combined with vertical lines, circles, and a rectangle (N=1).

Other motifs include; semi-circles (N=3), triangles (N=2) and music bracket (N=1).

Form: Most common were plates with outcurving sides and outflared everted

rims (N=7). Also common were bowls with slightly incurving sides and direct (N=5) or

interior thickened rims (N=1). Also present were vases or bowls with vertical sides

(N=2) and a tecomate with exterior thickened rim (N=1).

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in many deposits in

the area of the Mundo Perdido complex. The majority of the sample comes from a

chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Lamat Black: incised variety is similar to

Eknab Black: incised variety from Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016) in

both surface quality, color, and method of decoration. There are similarities to Chopipi

Incised: Chompipi variety from Ceibal (Sabloff 1975) although the latter usually has pre-

slip groove incision in circular designs.

Comment: Lamat Black: incised is equivalent to Deprecio Incised: Simple-incised

and Design-incised Varieties (Laporte and Fialko 1993; Culbert n.d.) from the Early Eb

210

phase. It was separated into a new type here to avoid confusion with the Chunhinta

Black group, Deprecio Incised type, that is common in the following Mamom phase. The

paste, slip, and incision techniques are significantly distinct from the Mamom phase

Deprecio Incised and warrant a separate type. Further, the established pattern for pre-

Mamom complexes is now to establish separate types from the following Mamom

complex types, something that was not possible with the small sample sizes available to

Culbert’s initial study.

Illustration:

Fig. 5.14: a-y: Lamat Black: Incised Variety; z-ae: Boolay Brown: Chamfered Variety

211

Group: Boolay Brown

Ware: La Justa Slipped Ware

Ceramic Complex: Early Eb

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: K’awil/Cunil/Xe

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) Dark Brown slip, (2) La Justa Slipped Ware

paste.

Paste. Temper, Firing: see La Justa Slipped Ware

Surface Finish and Decoration: Monochrome brown slip medium-thick well-

adhered slip with color varying from brown (7.5YR4/2,) reddish brown (5YR4/4, 5/4,

5/6) to dark grey (5YR4/1).

Intersite Locations and Contexts: There are no brown types in contemporary

complexes.

Group Boolay Brown, Type: Boolay Brown, Variety: Boolay Brown

Sample: 103 sherds, 62% of group

Established as a Type and/or Variety: By Laporte and Fialko (1993) at Tikal.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) monochrome Boolay Brown slip, (2) La Justa

Slipped Ware paste, (3) no further decoration.

Form: This report is based on 103 sherds, of which 6 rims were analyzed in

greater detail.

212

Most common were vertical sided plates with exterior folded rims and rounded

lips (N=2). Also common were incurving sided dishes; with interior thickened (N=1), or

direct rims (N=2). Also present was a Tecomate with exterior folded rim (N=1).

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in two chultunes in

bedrock, Problematical Deposit 6 and 12.

Illustration:

Fig. 5.15: a-e: Boolay Brown: Boolay Variety; f-j Boolay Brown: Chamfered Variety.

Boolay Brown Group, Type: Bechh Incised, Variety: Bechh Incised

Sample: 44 sherds, 27% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Laporte and Fialko (1993) at Tikal

Description:

213

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) Boolay Brown slip, (2) incised design in both

fine-line and grooved styles.

Form: This report is based on 44 sherds, of which 33 were included in the

attribute analysis. Most common were plates with outcurved sides and outflared everted

rims (N=10). Also common were bowls with slightly incurved sides; and direct rounded

rim (N=7) or interior thickened rim (N=1). Also present were vases or bowls with flared

sides; and direct rounded rims (N=4) or exterior folded rim and beveled-out lip (N=1).

Also present were plates with flared sides and direct rims (N=2) and a tecomate interior

thickened rim (N=1). All bases in the Tikal collection were flat (N=2).

Surface Finish and Decoration: Monochrome brown slip with addition of incised

decoration. Fine line post-slip incision (N=24), groove pre-slip incision (N=5), and

combination of both incision types (N=3). The most common motif is double-line

encircling (N=11); often this is combined with nested triangles (N=8), sometimes with

other geometrics such as diagonal lines (N=1) or circles (N=1)

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in many deposits in

the area of the Mundo Perdido complex. The majority of the sample comes from a

chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

214

Illustration:

Fig. 5.16: Bechh Incised: Bechh Variety

Fig. 5.17: Bechh Incised: Bechh Variety

215

Boolay Brown Group, Type: Boolay Brown, Variety: Chamfered

Sample: 18 sherds, 11% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: This report.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) dark brown slip, (2) chamfering on exterior

body, usually near rim, (3) La Justa Slipped ware paste.

Form: This report is based on 18 sherds, of which 5 rims were included in the

attribute analysis. Most common were plates with flared sides; with outflared everted

rims (N=2), or direct rims with rounded lip (N=2). Also present was a plate with

outcurved sides and direct rim with beveled-out lip (N=1).

Surface Decoration: Monochrome brown slip with chamfering on vessel exterior

under rim, or on interior of everted rim.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in a chultun in

bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Illustration: see Fig. 5.14 and 5.16 above.

La Lila Burnished Ware

Calam Burnished Group

Ware: La Lila Burnished

Ceramic Complex: Early Eb

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: K’awil/Cunil/Xe

Description:

216

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) Unslipped burnished surface, (2) Buff color

surface similar to paste color, (3) occurs often with an exterior folded rim on various

vessel forms.

Paste, Temper, Firing: This group corresponds to Culbert’s (n.d.: 6) Medium-

carbonate paste. It is characterized by medium sized carbonate inclusions, color is pale

brown to reddish yellow (10YR7/4 to 7.5YR6/6).

Surface Finish and Decoration: Calam Burnished Group is characterized by its’

unslipped and heavily burnished surface. This surface is so smooth that it may appear to

be slipped, but the surface color is similar to the paste color. Surface color is generally

called ‘Buff’ to indicate that it is unslipped. The color actually ranges significantly; light

yellowish brown (10YR6/4), light brown (7.5YR6/4), very pale brown (10YR7/3, 7/4,

8/3), light gray (10YR7/2), white (10YR8/2), pinkish white (7.5YR8/2) pink (7.5YR8/4,

7/4, 5YR7/4), and pinkish gray (7.5YR7/2).

Intersite Locations and Contexts: La Lila Burnished ware and Calam Burnished

group types are found at Tikal (Culbert 1993; 2006), the Lake Yaxha Sacnab region (Rice

1979), and Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

Comment: Culbert identified Calam Buff at Tikal and noted that “there is a wide

range from well smoothed to poorly smoothed” (n.d. :12). These have now been

separated into separate wares and types; Calam Burnished Ware is the well smoothed

(burnished), and Ramonal Unslipped Ware is the poorly smoothed sample.

Calam Burnished Group, Type: Calam, Variety: Calam

Sample: 70 rim sherds, 39% of group.

217

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Type defined by Rice (1979) at Yaxha

Sacnab, and variety defined by Culbert (1993; 2006) at Tikal.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) Unslipped burnished surface, (2) outcurving

sided dishes with outflared everted or exterior folded rim

Form: This report is based on 70 rim sherds which were all included in the

attribute analysis. The most common form in the collection is the outcurving sided dish

with exterior folded rim and rounded lip (N=21). These have wall thickness of 0.5-0.9

cm and rim thickness of 0.9-1.1 cm. None of these examples included a base so it is

possible that these are bowls rather than dishes. Plates with outcurved sides and outflared

everted rims (N=20) had walls 0.6-0.8 cm and rims 0.5-1.1 cm thick. The angle between

the everted rim and the vessel wall was between 90 and 140 degrees, one example

included a flat base. The plates with outcurved sides, exterior thickened rims, and

rounded lips (N=3) had walls 0.5-0.6 cm thick and rims 1.5-1.5 cm thick. Other plates

with outcurving sides had direct rims, and beveled-in lips (N=2) had walls 0.6-0.7 cm

thick and rims 0.7-0.9 cm thick, and their diameters were 25 and 30 cm. Other

outcurving sided plates with direct rim and rounded lip (N=2) had a 0.5-0.7 cm thick wall

and 0.5-0.9 cm thick rim, with diameters of 25 and 30cm. Vases or bowls with vertical

sides and exterior thickened rims (N=6) had walls of 0.6-0.9 cm thick, rims 1.1-1.5 cm

thick, and diameters between 20 and 35cm. Vases or bowls with flared sides and exterior

folded rims (N=5) had walls 0.7-1 cm thick, rims 1.3-2.3 cm thick, and diameters

between 28 and 40cm. Bowls or dishes with outcurved sides and horizontal everted rims

(N=2) had walls 0.6-0.7 cm thick, rims 2-2.2 cm thick, and diameters of 35cm.

218

Tecomates had direct and rounded rims (N=3), or direct rim with beveled-out lip (N=1),

or outflared everted rim (N=1), and their walls were 0.5-0.7 cm thick with rims 0.9-1.2

cm thick. A bowl with slightly incurved sides and direct rounded rim (N=1) had a wall

thickness of 1 cm and rim thickness of 0.7 cm. Another bowl with slightly incurved sides

and direct rim with pointed lip (N=1) had a wall 0.7 cm thick, rim 0.5 cm thick, and

diameter of 12cm. The final bowl with slightly incurving sides had a direct rim and

beveled-out lip (N=1), its wall was 1 cm thick, rim 1 cm thick, and its diameter was

20cm. One bowl with round sides and exterior folded rim (N=1) had walls 0.4 cm thick

and a rim 1 cm thick.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in many deposits in

the area of the Mundo Perdido complex. The majority of the sample comes from a

chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Calam Buff: Calam variety is also found at

Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016) and in the Lake Yaxha-Sacnab region

(Rice 1979). It is similar to Almeja Burnished Grey from Komchen and Kiuic (Andrews

et al. 2018).

219

Illustration:

Fig. 5.18: Calam Buff: Calam Variety

Calam Burnished Group, Type: Ante Incised, Variety: Ante

Sample: 61 sherds, 34% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Hermes in Laporte and Valdez (1993: 55-

59).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) unslipped burnished surface, (2) incised

decoration.

220

Surface Finish and Decoration: This report is based on 61 sherds, 47 of these

were included in the attribute analysis. Surface is identical to Calam Buff: Calam variety

with the addition of incised decoration in pre-slip grooved line (N=34), post-slip fine-line

(N=23), or a combination of these (N=23). Grooved incised measured 1.4-4mm wide

and fine-line incised measured 0.5-2mm wide. Grooved lines were usually single lines

encircling the rim (N=22) or two lines that created a register demarcating the space

around the everted rim (N=9). In cases where grooved and fine-lines were combined the

grooved lines usually created a register or single encircling line and the fine-lines created

more elaborate decoration inside that space (N=22). The fine-line elaboration often

depicted a diagonal music bracket motif (N=3), sometimes repeated around the rim. One

of these depicted a rounded cleft head motif (N=1), another three triangles with diagonal

lines inside (N=1), others with vertical lines and shark’s tooth motif (N=2), others with

vertical lines and nested triangles (N=4). Other fine-line depictions of complex motifs

include the triangle (N=3), circle (N=1), cleft head and circle (N=1), shark’s tooth (N=2),

and double line break (N=1). One example combined a single line encircling with a

shark’s tooth repeated twice and a semi-circle (N=1), and another combined a rounded

cleft head with three vertical lines (N=1). Some examples have specular hematite rubbed

into the incised decoration.

Form: The most common form was outcurving sided plates with outflared everted

rims (N=36). These plates were incised on the interior of the rim and had walls between

0.5-0.9 cm thick, rims 0.6-1.1 cm, and diameters of 19-40cm. Where measurable width of

the everted rims were 2-7 cm and the angle between the everted rim and vessel body was

115-130 degrees. Outcurving sided plates with horizontal everted rims (N=36) had walls

221

0.6-1.1 cm thick, rims 0.5-1.2 cm thick, and diameters of 18-40cm. The dish with

outcurving walls and direct rounded rim (N=1) has walls 0.5 cm thick and a rim 0.6 cm

thick, diameter 20cm, and the incision was on the exterior rim. Tecomates (N=2) had

direct rounded rim or exterior folded rim with walls 0.5-0.8 cm thick, rims 0.9-1 cm

thick, diameters 20 and 15cm, with incision on the exterior rim. One bowl with round

sides and direct rounded rim (N=1) had walls 0.7 cm thick and rim 0.7 cm thick, diameter

of 25cm, and incision on the exterior rim. There were five body sherds in the sample and

all of these were incised on the exterior of the vessel.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in many deposits in

the area of the Mundo Perdido complex. The majority of the sample comes from a

chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Ante Incised: Ante variety is also found at

Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016) and in the Lake Yaxha-Sacnab region

(Rice 1979). It is similar to Almeja Burnished Grey: Incised Variety from Komchen and

Kiuic (Andrews et al. 2018).

Illustrations:

Fig. 5.19: Ante Incised: Ante Variety.

222

Fig. 5.20: Ante Incised: Ante Variety

Calam Burnished Group, Type: Aac Red-on-Buff, Variety: Aac

Sample: 34 rim sherds, 19% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Type named by Rice (1979) at Lake

Yaxha-Sacnab, variety defined at Tikal by Culbert (1993; 2006).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) unslipped burnished surface, (2) red slip painted

in lines onto vessel interior or exterior.

Surface Finish and Decoration: This report is based on 34 rim sherds, of these 23

sherds were included in the attribute analysis. Vessel surface is identical to Calam Buff:

Calam Variety with the addition of red slip. The additional red slip is painted over the

223

entire interior or exterior of vessel and/or in lines on various parts of the vessel.

Unslipped area is reddish yellow (5YR6/6) light reddish brown (5YR6/4), reddish yellow

(5YR7/6), pink (5YR7/3, 7.5YR7/4), or light brown (7.5YR6/4). Red slip is similar in to

Chak Red slip, its color is weak red (10R4/4, 5/4), light red (10R6/8), or red (10R4/8,

5/8). On plates with outflared everted rims the red slip was located on the interior of the

rim with a single line encircling. One example exhibits red slip on the entire interior of

the vessel.

Form: The most common form was plates with outcurving sides and outflared

everted rims (N=6), these had walls between 0.5-0.8 cm thick and rims 0.6-0.9 cm thick.

Their diameters were 17-38cm and the angle between the everted rim and vessel wall was

120 or 130 degrees. All of these had red slip encircling the interior of the everted rim.

Plates with outcurving sides and direct rounded rims (N=4) had wall thickness of 0.3-1

cm, and rim thickness of 0.8-1 cm, and a diameter of 19 -30cm, with a simple red line

encircling the interior rim. A plate with flared sides and direct rounded rim (N=1) had

wall 0.9 cm thick, rim 0.8 cm thick and a diameter of 16cm, with red slip on the entire

interior. Outcurving-sided vases or bowls (N=3) had walls 0.6-0.8 cm thick, rims 1 cm

thick, and diameters of 20-30cm. Two of these had simple lines encircling the vessel rim,

the other was decorated at the base and exterior wall with an encircling line and a vertical

line. Other vases had vertical sides with vertical lines painted on the vessel exterior, with

a direct rounded rim (N=1) or exterior folded rim (N=1). Their wall thicknesses were

0.6-0.7 cm, rim thicknesses were 0.7-1.2 cm, one had a diameter of 20cm. Three body

sherds had red slip painted on the exterior of the vessel, one had an encircling line with

vertical lines, and another had an encircling line with a curving line.

224

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in many deposits in

the area of the Mundo Perdido complex. The majority of the sample comes from a

chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Aac Red-on-Buff: Aac Red-on-Buff Variety

was first defined by Rice (1979) at Yaxha Sacnab in the Ah Pam Complex. It is also

found at Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016). This type shows some

similarities to the many red-on-white types of the early Middle Preclassic complexes

from throughout Mesoamerica.

Illustration:

Fig. 5.21: Aac Red-on-Buff: Aac Variety.

225

Fig. 5.22: Aac Red-on-Buff: Aac Variety

Calam Burnished Group, Type: Aac Red-on-Buff, Variety: Incised

Sample: 13 rims, 7% of group

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Type defined by Rice (1979) at Yaxha

Sacnab, variety defined in this study at Tikal.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) unslipped burnished surface, (2) addition of red

slip in lines, (3) incised decoration.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Vessels were decorated with red slip painted in

lines and with grooved-line incision (2-5mm wide). Incision was found exclusively on

the interior of everted rims, usually in simple encircling lines (N=11). All examples of

more complex design were in fine-line post-slip incision (1.02 or 0.4mm wide). One of

these depicted a triangle with a vertical line (N=1), and another combined the grooved

line encircling the rim with a fine-line encircling and a triangle with vertical lines inside

it (N=1).

226

Form: Aac Red-on-Buff: Incised Variety is found exclusively in plates with

outcurving sides and outflared everted rims (N=9), and one of these includes a flat base.

Walls were 0.5-1 cm thick, rims were 0.6-1.1 cm thick, and diameters were between 18

and 40cm, with a rim to vessel wall angle of 120 or 130 degrees.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in many deposits in

the area of the Mundo Perdido complex. The majority of the sample comes from a

chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Aac Red-on-Buff: Incised variety is only found

at Tikal, although 5 body sherds have been found at Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de

Estrada 2016).

Illustration:

Fig. 5.23: Aac Red-on-Buff: Incised Variety.

227

Fig. 5.24: Aac Red-on-Buff: Incised Variety

Rio Holmul Slipped Ware

Group: Jobal Red

Ware: Rio Holmul Slipped

Ceramic Complex: Early Eb

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: K’awil/Cunil/Xe

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) red slip with dull finish, (2) compact hard paste,

(3) dark grey to black paste.

Paste, Temper, Firing: Medium to coarse textured paste with a large quantity of

inclusions giving a gritty feel. This paste is very dark, grey or brown to black.

228

Surface Finish and Decoration: Red slip is well adhered and often well

preserved. Dark red color with little variance, red (10R4/6, 4/8, 5/8) to reddish brown

(2.5YR4/4).

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Jobal Red group is found at Tikal and Holmul.

It is dissimilar to other red types found at various sites in the Maya lowlands. It shows

greater similarity to red types from outside the Maya lowlands, such as those in the

Salama Valley and Pacific coast of Guatemala.

Jobal Red Group, Type: Jobal Red, Variety: Jobal

Sample: 12 sherds, 100% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Type and variety were defined by

Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (2016).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) monochrome red slip, (2) compact dark grey to

black paste.

Form: This report is based on 12 sherds, of which 9 rims were included in the

attribute analysis, as well as 2 incised sherds. Most common were plates with outcurving

sides, exterior thickened rims pointed lips (N=3). These plates had wall thickness of 0.7-

0.8 cm and rim thickness of 0.9-1 cm, diameters of 30 or 35cm, and two of these had flat

bases. One plate with outcurving sides, interior thickened rim pointed lip (N=1) had a

wall 0.5 cm thick and rim 0.7 cm thick and a 30cm diameter. A plate with flared sides

and direct pointed rim (N=1) had a wall thickness of 0.7 cm and rim thickness of 0.5 cm

and 30cm diameter. A vase or bowl with flared sides, interior thickened rim, pointed lip

and flat base (N=1) had a wall thickness of 0.4 cm and rim thickness of 0.7 cm with 20cm

229

diameter. One plate with round sides (N=1) had a wall 0.5 cm thick and a rim 0.6 cm

thick and a diameter of 18cm. The tecomate with direct rounded rim (N=1) had a wall

0.7 cm thick and a rim 0.7 cm thick and orifice diameter of 9cm. A jar with outflared

neck, rim interior thickened and pointed lip (N=1) had a rim measuring 0.8 cm and an

orifice diameter of 14cm.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in the Mundo Perdido

complex, in a chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Jobal Red: Jobal variety is also found at

Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016). It is dissimilar to other red types

found at various sites in the Maya lowlands. It shows greater similarity to red types from

outside the Maya lowlands, such as those in the Salama Valley and Pacific coast of

Guatemala.

Comment: The Tikal sample includes three Jobal Red Group sherds with incision.

230

Illustration:

Fig. 5.25: Jobal Red: Jobal Variety

Fig. 5.26: a-c: Jobal Red: Jobal Variety; d-e Jobal Red: Unspecified Incised Variety.

231

Ainil Orange Group

Ware: Rio Holmul Slipped

Ceramic Complex: Early Eb

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: K’awil/Cunil/Xe

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) monochrome slip that fades from orange to

grey, (2) thin walled vessels, (3) coarse dark paste.

Paste, Temper, Firing: Medium to coarse textured paste with a large quantity of

inclusions giving a gritty feel. This paste is very dark, grey or brown to black.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Monochrome slip is predominantly orange but

often fades to grey. The slip is very hard and well-adhered, color ranging from pink

(7.5YR8/4, 5YR7/3, 5YR8/4) to light reddish brown (5YR6/4).

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Ainil Orange Group is found at Tikal and

Holmul in small quantities.

Ainil Orange Group, Type: Ainil Orange, Variety: Ainil

Sample: 12 sherds, 75% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: By Culbert at Tikal (1993).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) monochrome slip that fades from orange to grey,

(2) thin walled vessels, (3) coarse paste.

Form: This report is based on 12 sherds, of which 4 rims were included in the

attribute analysis. The most common form was plates with outcurving sides and outflared

everted rims (N=2). These plates had walls 0.6-0.7 cm thick and rims 0.4-0.7 cm thick,

232

diameters of 15 and 25cm, and an angle between the everted rim and vessel wall of 120

and 135 degrees. A bowl with slightly incurving sides and direct rim (N=1) had a wall

0.5 cm thick and rim 0.7 cm thick, and diameter of 15cm. The vase or bowl with flared

sides (N=1) had walls 0.5 cm thick, a rim 0.7 cm thick and a diameter of 20cm.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in many deposits in

the area of the Mundo Perdido complex.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Ainil Orange: Ainil variety is not found at any

other site. The incised type of the Ainil Orange group, Xpokol Incised: Xpokol variety is

found at Holmul in small quantities (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

Illustration:

Fig. 5.27: a-f Ainil Orange: Ainil Variety; g-k Xpokol Incised: Xpokol Variety

Ainil Orange Group, Type: Xpokol Incised, Variety: Xpokol

Sample: 4 sherds, 25% of group.

233

Established as a Type and/or Variety: This report, it was initially described in the

unpublished study by Culbert (n.d.: 20-21) at Tikal.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) monochrome slip that fades from orange to grey,

(2) fine-line post-slip decoration, (3) thin walled vessels, (4) coarse paste.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Xpokol Incised: Xpokol Variety is characterized

by Ainil Orange slip with the addition of fine-line (0.41-0.9mm) post-slip decoration. In

all cases in the sample the incised decoration is located on the exterior rim and body of

the vessel. The sample includes three examples of double line encircling the vessel, each

combined with another motif: curved tooth, vertical lines, and a circle with another line

encircling the vessel. The other example was decorated with a triangle with nested

triangles inside it.

Form: The collection includes one bowl with slightly incurving walls and direct

rounded rim (N=1) which had walls 0.8 cm thick and a rim 0.6 cm thick. A plate with

outcurving sides, interior thickened rim, with pointed lip (N=1) had walls 0.7 cm thick

and a rim 0.6 cm thick. Another plate with incurved walls and direct rounded rim (N=1)

had walls 0.5 cm thick and rim 0.5 cm thick.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in a chultun in

bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Xpokol Incised: Xpokol variety is also found at

Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

234

Illustration:

Fig. 5.28: Xpokol Incised: Xpokol Variety

Unnamed Brown Group

Ware: Rio Holmul Slipped

Ceramic Complex: Early Eb

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: K’awil/Cunil/Xe

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) dark brown slip with dull finish, (2) dark coarse

compact paste.

Paste, Temper, Firing: Medium to coarse textured paste with a large quantity of

inclusions giving a gritty feel. This paste is very dark, grey or brown to black.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Monochrome brown slip is thick and well-

adhered and often well-preserved. Slip color is brown, and ranges from brown

(7.5YR5/4) to yellowish red (5YR4/6, 5/6).

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Brown slip is not found in pre-Mamom

complexes at nearby sites.

Unnamed Brown Group, Type: Unnamed Brown, Variety: Unspecified

Sample: 12 sherds, 100% of group.

235

Established as a Type and/or Variety: This report

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) dark brown slip with dull finish, (2) dark coarse

compact paste.

Form: This report is based on 12 sherds, of which 6 were included in the attribute

analysis, including 1 incised sherd. Most common are plates with outcurving sides,

exterior folded rims and rounded lips (N=3) these had walls 0.5-0.8 cm thick, rims 1-1.7

cm thick and 30cm diameters. Another outcurving sided plate had a direct rim and

beveled-out lip (N=1) its wall thickness was 0.7 cm and rim thickness was 0.8 cm and

diameter was 30cm. The Tikal sample included tecomates, with an exterior thickened or

folded rims (N=2), whose wall thicknesses were 0.5-0.6 cm and rim thicknesses were

0.9-1 cm thick, and 15cm orifice diameters. A jar with outcurving neck (N=1) had a wall

thickness of 0.7 cm, rim thickness of 0.6 cm, its’ orifice diameter was 12cm. The vase or

bowl with outcurving sides and direct rounded rim (N=1) had walls 0.7 cm thick and rim

0.5 cm thick and a diameter of 20cm.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in many deposits in

the area of the Mundo Perdido complex. The majority of the sample comes from a

chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Comment: The Tikal sample includes one example of an Unnamed Brown Group

incised sherd. It is a body sherd with broad fine-line incision (1.36mm) on the exterior

body depicting a geometric form.

Illustration:

236

Fig. 5.29: a-h: Unnamed Brown: Variety unspecified; i: Unnamed Brown: variety

unspecifed incised.

Unslipped Utilitarian Wares

Canhel Unslipped Ware

Canhel Unslipped Group

Ware: Rio Holmul Slipped

Ceramic Complex: Early Eb

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: K’awil/Cunil/Xe

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) rough unslipped surface, (2) dark and gritty paste, (3)

large utilitarian forms.

237

Paste, Temper, Firing: Canhel Paste was defined by Culbert (n.d. :5) and

characterized by “abundant amounts of non-carbonate inclusions that give a spotty,

granular appearance”. These medium-sized inclusions consist of shiny black material,

clay, and white amorphous particles (Culbert n.d. :6).

Surface Finish and Decoration: Canhel Group types are characterized by an

unslipped roughly smoothed surface. Many of the sherds have smudging on one or both

surfaces. The sherds are dark and highly variable in color, ranging from light brownish

gray (10YR6/2), reddish yellow (7.5YR7/6), gray (10YR5/1, 6/1), to dark gray (5YR4/1).

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Canhel Unslipped is found at Tikal and Holmul

(Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016). It is similar to Jocote Orange from Cahal Pech

(Sullivan et al. 2009). Canhel Unslipped: Red-on-Unslipped Variety shows similarities

to Palma Daub from Ceibal (Sabloff 1975).

Group: Canhel Unslipped, Type: Canhel Unslipped, Variety: Canhel

Sample: 154 sherds, 57% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: At Tikal by Culbert (1993)

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) rough unslipped surface, (2) dark surface and

paste color, (3) large jars.

Form: This report is based on 154 sherds, of which 6 rims were included in the

attribute analysis. Jars with outcurving necks and direct rounded rims (N=3) have rims

0.9-1.2 cm thick and orifice diameters of 20-30cm. Jars with outcurving necks and

exterior thickened rims with rounded lips (N=2) have rims 1.6cm thick and both have

orifice diameters of 40cm. One tecomate with direct rounded rim (N=1) had a wall

238

thickness of 0.9 cm and a rim thickness of 1 cm, orifice diameter of 10cm. This tecomate

had a strap handle with horizontal orientation that measured 1.9 cm wide and 5 cm long

and oval-shaped in profile.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in the Mundo Perdido

complex, in a chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Canhel Unslipped is found at Tikal and Holmul

(Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016). It is similar to Jocote Orange from Cahal Pech

(Sullivan et al. 2009).

Illustration:

Fig. 5.30: a-c: Canhel Unslipped: Canhel Variety; d-e: Canhel Unslipped: Red-on-

Unslipped Variety.

239

Fig. 5.31: Canhel Unslipped: Canhel Variety.

Group: Canhel Unslipped, Type: Canhel, Variety: Red-on-Unslipped

Sample: 116 sherds, 1 with appliqué, 43% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: this report.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) rough unslipped surface, (2) addition of red paint

on surface.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Canhel Unslipped: Red-on-Unslipped Variety

differs from Canhel Unslipped in its lighter unslipped color (7.5YR5/4, 10YR7/3, 7/4)

and lack of smudging. All examples are bowls with the addition of red paint on the

240

vessel exterior encircling the rim and in rough circles and diagonal lines in patterns of

three below the rim. The red paint (10R4/6, 5/6) looks like it was applied with the

fingers.

Form: All examples in the sample were large bowls with direct rounded rims and

concave bases.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: Canhel Unslipped: Red-on-Unslipped Variety

shows similarities to Palma Daub from Ceibal (Sabloff 1975).

Illustration: See Fig 5.30 above.

Fig. 5.32: Canhel Unslipped: Red-on-Unslipped variety

241

Unspecified Unslipped Ware

Ramonal Unslipped Group

Ware: Unspecified Unslipped Ware

Ceramic Complex: Early Eb

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: K’awil/Cunil/Xe

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) Unslipped rough surface, (2) buff surface color

is equal to paste color, (3) large bowls and vases.

Paste, Temper, Firing: Ramonal Unslipped Group has the paste that Culbert

distinguished as ‘medium-carbonate paste’. It is part of the type Culbert called Calam

Buff, but distinguished because its surface is not burnished and only roughly smoothed.

The paste includes “medium amounts of carbonate particles that range in size from very

fine to quite large”, (Culbert n.d.: 7). These carbonate particles are visible on the surface

of the vessel creating a surface with pale pink to yellow color speckled with white

particles.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Surface color is nearly identical to Calam Buff:

Calam Variety, but Tikal Unslipped Group differs in that it is not burnished. Surface

color is the same as the paste color, with some of the paste inclusions (white amorphous

particles) visible on the surface. Surface color is referred to as buff because it is

unslipped, the color actually ranges from pink (7.5YR7/4), pinkish grey (7.5YR7/2),light

gray (10YR7/2), very pale brown (10YR7/3), to light brown (7.5YR6/4).

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Ramonal Unslipped group is also found at

Holmul.

242

Comment: Culbert identified Calam Buff at Tikal and noted that “there is a wide

range from well smoothed to poorly smoothed” (n.d. :12). These have now been

separated into separate wares and types; Calam Burnished Ware is the well smoothed

(burnished), and Ramonal Unslipped Ware is the poorly smoothed sample.

Ramonal Unslipped Group, Type: Ramonal Unslipped, Variety: Ramonal

Sample: 82 sherds, 75% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: This report.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) unslipped rough surface, (2) buff surface color is

equal to the paste color, (3) large outcurving sided vases with exterior folded rims.

Form: This report is based on 82 sherds, of which 31 were included in the

attribute analysis. Vases or bowls with outcurving sides, exterior folded rim and rounded

lip (N=14) are the most common form characterizing this type. Their walls are relatively

thin (0.4-0.9 cm thick) and the rims quite thick (1-2.1 cm thick) and diameters are

between 25 and 40cm. Vases or bowls with outcurving sides and exterior thickened rims

had pointed lips (N=4) had walls 0.6-1 cm thick, rims 1.6-2 cm thick, and diameters of

30-40cm. Bowls with slightly incurving sides, direct rims, and rounded or pointed lips

(N=6), or beveled-in lips (N=1) had walls 0.6-0.9 cm thick, rims 0.7-1 cm thick, and

diameters between 10 and 30cm. Jars with outcurving necks and direct rounded rims

(N=3) had wall thickness of 0.8-1.2 cm, rim thickness of 0.8-1.3 cm with orifice

diameters of 11 and 17 cm. One tecomate had direct rounded rim (N=1) with wall

thickness of 0.4 cm, rim thickness of 0.8 cm, and 20 cm diameter. A dish with vertical

sides and direct squared rim and flat base (N=1) had walls 0.7 cm thick, rim 0.9 cm thick,

243

and diameter of 15cm. Another dish had outcurved sides and direct rounded rim (N=1)

with walls 0.4 cm thick, rim 0.7 cm thick, and diameter of 19cm.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in many deposits in

the area of the Mundo Perdido complex. The majority of the sample comes from a

chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Ramonal Unslipped is also common at Homul

and especially at Cival in the Holmul region (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016). It

is also seen commonly in the collections from the Yaxha-Sacnab region (personal

observations 2011).

Illustration:

Fig. 5.33: a-f: Ramonal Unslipped: Ramonal Variety; g-k: Ramonal Unslipped: Incised

Variety.

244

Fig. 5.34: a-c: Ramonal Unslipped: Ramonal Variety; d-g: Ramonal Uslipped: Incised

Variety.

Ramonal Unslipped Group, Type: Ramonal Unslipped, Variety: Incised

Sample: 18 sherds, 17% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: This report.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) unslipped roughly smoothed surface, (2) incised

decoration.

Surface Finish and Decoration: This report is based on18 sherds, of which 6 were

included in the attribute analysis. Ramonal Unslipped: Incised variety sherds are

identical to Tikal Unslipped: Tikal variety with the addition of incised decoration. The

everted rim plates were decorated with pre-slip grooved (1.51-2.56mm wide) double lines

around the interior rim. These plates were further decorated with post-slip fine line

incision (0.3-0.7mm wide) in double lines encircling their rims (N=2). Another plate was

245

decorated with a fine-line depiction of a music bracket motif with double line encircling

(N=1). The vases or bowls both bore fine-line incision (0.84 and 0.73mm wide)

depicting the shark’s tooth motif and a circle (N=2).

Form: Plates with outcurving sides and outflared everted rim (N=4) had walls 0.6

cm thick (where measurable), and rims between 0.7-1 cm thick. Only one of these had a

measurable diameter, 20 cm, its everted rim was 2.5 cm long and the angle of the rim to

the vessel wall was 135 degrees. All of these plates had incised decoration on the interior

of the everted rim. Vases or bowls with vertical sides and exterior folded rims (N=2) had

walls 0.6-0.7 cm thick, rims 1.2-1.3 cm thick and bore incised decoration on the exterior

rim and body of the vessel.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in the Mundo Perdido

complex, in a chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Ramonal Unslipped: incised variety has not

been found outside of the Tikal region.

246

Illustration:

Fig. 5.35: Ramonal Unslipped: Incised variety

Ramonal Unslipped Group, Type: Ramonal Unslipped, Variety: Grooved

Sample: 9 sherds, 7 analyzed in greater detail, 8% of group

Established as a Type and/or Variety: This report.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) unslipped roughly smoothed surface, (2) grooved

decoration.

247

Surface Finish and Decoration: Tikal Unslipped: Mundo Perdido Grooved

variety sherds are identical to Tikal Unslipped: Tikal variety with the addition of

grooving on the vessel exterior (vases or bowls) or interior of everted rim (plates).

Form: The most common form is plates with outcurving sides and outflared

everted rims (N=3), these had walls 0.6-0.9 cm thick and rims between 0.7-1 cm thick.

Where measurable diameters were 30 cm, and the angle of the rim to the vessel wall was

125 and 130 degrees. Also present were vases or bowls with vertical sides and exterior

thickened rims and pointed lips (N=4) had walls 0.5-0.9 cm thick, rims 1-1.2 cm thick.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in the Mundo Perdido

complex, in a chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts:

Unspecified Porous Unslipped Ware

Amanecer Unslipped Group

Ware: Unspecified Porous Unslipped

Ceramic Complex: Early Eb

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: K’awil/Cunil/Xe

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) Gritty and porous paste, (2) Orange-red surface

color.

Paste, Temper, Firing: Paste is gritty and porous. The porous surface is likely

the result of organic inclusions that burnt out during the firing process. Other inclusions

are medium textured particles of quartz and calcite.

248

Surface Finish and Decoration: The Amanecer group is characterized by its

rough unslipped surface, light weight, and bright orange red color which is the same as

the paste color. Color of the unslipped surface ranges from reddish yellow (7.5YR7/6,

5YR6/6), pink (7.5YR7/4), to dark grey (10YR4/1). Some sherds include the addition of

a red ‘wash’ and striations on vessel exterior. The striations occur directly under the rim

and to the shoulder of the tecomate. The red ‘wash’ is a slightly darker red than the paste

and unslipped surface. Red wash color is various shades of red; light red (10R6/8),

Reddish yellow (5YR6/6), light reddish brown (5YR6/4), or light brown (7.5YR6/4).

Surface is very porous and rough, sometimes with striations. The vessels are large jars

with relatively thin walls and thickened rims and/or shoulders.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: The Amanecer Group was first identified at

Nakum (Hermes personal communication) and has been identified in very small

quantities at Tikal and Holmul.

Amanecer Unslipped, Type: Amanecer Unslipped, Variety: Amanecer

Sample: 11 rims, 2 bodies, 6 total, 100% of group. 7 rim sherds have striations on

exterior body of vessel.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: This report.

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) Unslipped porous surface, (2) bright red to

orange color on surface and in paste, (3) red ‘wash’ added to vessel surface, (4) large jars.

Form: The most common form is jars with outcurved necks and direct rounded

rims (N=2) had only one measurable wall at 1 cm thick, rims were 0.8-2 cm thick, and

diameters of 25 and 40 cm. Jars with outcurved necks, direct rims, and beveled-out lips

249

(N=2) had rims 1.2-1.7 cm thick and diameters of 39 and 40 cm. The sample included

two body sherds with strap handles, these were oriented vertically and round in profile,

measuring 2.2 by 6.4 cm and 2.1 by 6.9 cm. Red wash is found exclusively on tecomates

with exterior folded rims and rounded lips (N=7) had thin walls (0.5-0.7 cm thick) and

much thicker rims (0.9-1.5 cm thick), and orifice diameter was usually 10 or 15cm.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in many deposits in

the area of the Mundo Perdido complex. The majority of the sample comes from a

chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Amanecer: Amanecer variety is also found at

Nakum (Hermes personal communication) and Holmul.

Illustration:

Fig. 5.36: a-e: Amanecer Unslipped: Amanecer Variety; f: Amanecer Unslipped:

Amanecer Variety.

250

Fig. 5.37: Amanecer Unslipped: Amanecer variety.

Fig. 5.38: Amanecer Unslipped: Amanecer Variety.

Uaxactun Unslipped Ware

Unnamed Unslipped Group

Ware: Uaxactun Unslipped

Ceramic Complex: Early Eb

Ceramic Sphere Affiliation: K’awil/Cunil/Xe

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) well-smoothed unslipped surface with grey

color, (2) ash temper, (3) tecomates are common.

251

Paste, Temper, Firing: Paste is light grey in color and has few inclusions. The

primary inclusion is volcanic ash. Surface color is generally equal to paste color and

darker firing cores are rare.

Surface Finish and Decoration: Unnamed Unslipped group is characterized by

its’ unslipped surface and ash temper. Surface is well-smoothed and color is generally

grey and ranges from; white (10YR8/2), Light grey (10YR7/1, 7/2), grey (10YR6/1),

light brownish grey (10YR6/2), to very pale brown (10YR7/3, 7/4).

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Unnamed Unslipped group is found at Tikal

and Holmul in the pre-Mamom complexes and at Uaxactun in the Mamom complex.

Unnamed Unslipped Group, Type: Unnamed Unslipped, Variety: Unspecified

Sample: 17 rim sherds, 100% of group.

Established as a Type and/or Variety: Neivens de Estrada at Holmul (Callaghan

and Neivens de Estrada 2016).

Description:

Principal Identifying Modes: (1) well-smoothed unslipped surface with grey

color, (2) ash temper, (3) tecomates are common.

Form: The most common form was the tecomate with direct rounded rim

(N=10), which had walls 0.5-0.8 cm thick, rims 0.7-1.7 cm thick, and orifice diameters

between 4 and 30cm. Tecomates with exterior thickened rims and rounded (N=3) had

walls between 0.7-1 cm and rims between 1-1.9 cm, and diameters between 14 and 40cm.

Another tecomate, with exterior thickened rim and beveled-out lip (N=1) had a wall 1.5

cm thick, rim 2 cm thick, and orifice diameter of 45cm. Jars with outcurving necks and

direct rounded rims (N=2) had walls 0.5-0.6 cm thick, rims 0.9 cm thick and diameters of

252

20 and 27cm. A bowl with slightly incurving sides and direct rounded rim (N=1) had a

wall 1 cm thick, rim 1.3 cm thick, and diameter of 40cm. One tecomate with direct rim

and pointed lip (N=1) had a strap handle horizontally oriented, and an impression along

the rim. This vessel had a 0.5 cm thick wall, 0.8m thick rim, and orifice diameter of

11cm and the handle measured 1.7 by 5.6 cm. There were three other strap handles on

body sherds in the collection, all vertically oriented, measuring 2.5 by 6.2 cm, 1 by 3.9

cm, 1.5 by 5.3 cm. One of these had a vertical impression along it, another was

rectangular in profile, and the third was round in profile. Three other body sherds had

further decoration; one with a fillet and two with other impressions.

Intrasite Locations and Contexts: These ceramics are found in many deposits in

the area of the Mundo Perdido complex. The majority of the sample comes from a

chultun in bedrock, Problematical Deposit 12.

Intersite Locations and Contexts: Uaxactun Unslipped Ware, Unnamed Unslipped:

variety unspecified is also found in the pre-Mamom complex at Holmul.

253

Chapter 6

Isochrestic Style: The K’awil and Early Eb Ceramics from the Perspective of Form

and Function

This chapter presents the formal characteristics of the early Middle Preclassic

ceramics from Holmul and Tikal. An examination of the ceramic forms allows one to

hypothesize the functions of these vessels. I have found that a majority of these ceramic

collections consist of decorated serving vessels such as plates and bowls. These early

ceramics represent a special new technology and I hypothesize that these were serving

vessels used in communal gatherings or feasting events. Many daily consumption needs

would have been met with perishable containers such as gourds, which were used prior to

the adoption of ceramics (Blitz 2015). Through understanding how these ceramics were

used by the Lowland Maya I hope to shed light on how and why ceramic technology was

adopted by these communities. The presence of incised ‘Olmec’ style symbols have been

used to posit interaction between these foreign communities (Cheetham 2005; Estrada-

Belli 2011). I’d like to understand how the ceramics bearing these symbols were used to

further our understanding of the nature of that interaction. While various communities

across Mesoamerica began using these complex ‘Olmec’ style motifs at the same time,

they did not all use these motifs in the same way (Flannery and Marcus 2000; Joyce and

Henderson 2010). There are important distinctions in the method of incision (carved-

incised or excised design vs. fine-line incised design), and in the forms and sizes of

vessels upon which these symbols were displayed (Blomster et al. 2005; Cheetham

2010). These motifs were also found on other media, such as jade objects, monumental

stone sculpture, and painted murals (see Clark and Pye editors 2000; and essays by Coe

254

and others 1996; and Sharer and Grove editors 1989). By presenting a detailed

description of the ways in which the Lowland Maya at Holmul and Tikal used these

symbols I hope to elucidate the ways in which these specific Mesoamerican communities

incorporated foreign symbolism into their local ideological practice.

In the previous chapters I have described the ceramics of the early Middle Preclassic

from the perspective of the type-variety system. In this chapter I have reorganized the

data to look at variation in formal categories, and in the following chapter I will present

the data on iconography. Looking at these ceramics with an emphasis on vessel form is

helpful in fostering inter-site comparison. Forms offer different kinds of specific

information than surface color and decoration, which is the foundation of the type-variety

system. The type-variety system is the preferred method for describing ceramics in the

Maya Lowlands and Mesoamerica and that is why I chose to use this system in my

description (Aimers 2013; Rice 2013; Sabloff and Smith 1969; Smith et al. 1960; Willey

et al. 1967). However, I am particularly drawn to the methods that use formal attributes

as the foundation for ceramic description. Formal morphology is strongly linked to

vessel use (Smith 1985). Similar forms are found at various sites and through different

time periods and can imply similar functions of these objects. Forms are also more useful

for inter-site comparison because we can discuss the vessels without the distracting

terminology relating to the different surface colors and paste recipes, which are likely to

differ across space. Taylor (1948) emphasized that archaeological inferences are based

on three kinds of data (1) the frequency, (2) formal properties, and (3) spatial distribution

of behavioral by-products. This analysis of form will allow archaeological inference of

cultural behavior that is not readily apparent through the type-variety analysis.

255

The following is a description of the forms of the K’awil and Early Eb phases. The

description of Holmul’s K’awil complex is based on 916 slipped/burnished monochrome

rim sherds, 358 slipped/burnished and incised rim sherds, and 136 unslipped rim sherds.

The description of Tikal’s Early Eb complex is based on 212 slipped/burnished rim

sherds, 234 slipped/burnished and incised rim sherds, and 88 unslipped rim sherds. The

sample includes all diagnostic sherds from these collections. Only rim sherds with

measurable characteristics such as rim diameter, visible slip color, and identifiable form

were included in the analysis. All body sherds with incised decoration were included in

the attribute analysis but only rim sherds are included in this description of form and

percentages. All sherds were re-fitted prior to examination to determine that each sherd

represented a single vessel. Missing data is indicated with an asterisk (*), where some

attributes such as diameter and/or vessel form could not be determined. Each sherd in the

sample represents a single case in the attribute analysis. In addition to context number,

type, variety, and munsell color, I took data on various aspects of form and decoration.

The primary classes of form consist of Plate, Dish, Bowl, Vase, and Jar; and each of these

categories is further defined by the orientation of the wall (vertical, flared, outcurving, or

round sides) and are based on standard categories defined by Sabloff (1975). These

primary categories are subdivided by rim (direct, exterior thickened, interior thickened,

exterior folded, interior folded, horizontal everted, and outflared everted) and lip

treatment (rounded, pointed, squared). Incised decoration was broken down in a number

of categories, pre-slip vs. post-slip incision, broad line vs. fine line incision, location of

decoration on vessel body, primary motif, secondary motif, tertiary motif, and width of

incision. I present frequencies and percentages for both Holmul and Tikal samples,

256

however it is important to remember that the Tikal sample is less reliable due to the

various issues in the curation of this sample. The Tikal ceramics have been moved,

reorganized, and in some case lost and/or discarded over the many years since their

archaeological recovery.

ANALYSIS OF STYLE

As an analysis of pottery using form and decoration, my study utilizes the concept of

style. Style is fundamentally defined as formal variation (Sackett 1977, 1982). From the

beginnings of archaeology, style in artifacts has been used as a chronological marker

(Willey and Phillips 1962). The study of pottery began as an effort to define cultural

chronology, and specifically time-sensitive pottery types were used to define pottery

typologies in the Maya area (Culbert and Rands 2007). As more refined methods of

dating were developed and used, there was a call to look beyond chronology and study

the use of pots as tools in human societies (Braun 1983). Pottery remains an important

indicator of time and will always be used to identify chronological relationships when

other dating methods are not available. Style was also used as a method of identifying

shared culture history and to indicate broad patterns of interaction among cultures. While

there are many reasons for stylistic variation to occur, if social patterns or identities are

reflected in the artifactual evidence, then we infer that they would occur in the population

of artifact producers as well (Arnold et al. 1991). This is the fundamental tenet of

stylistic analysis. It does not claim to be an explanatory model of cultural difference or

artifact variation. Instead, style analysis is a method to identify differences that can stem

from any number of social situations.

257

Style has been divided into two basic components by Sackett, isochrestic and

iconological (Sackett 1982, 1977). Isochrestic style is a way of doing or learning a

particular craft activity; and its focuses on the choices made by the artisans of a given

social group. Iconological style refers to specific iconography used by artisans. Sackett

posits that the study of isocrestic style reflects ethnicity to a greater extent than

iconological style because the former is learned through repeated enforcements in the

practice of production within a specific social group, and the latter reflects formal

variation used by artisans to invest an object with symbolic content (1982). The ‘Olmec’

style pottery from across Mesoamerica shows striking similarities in iconologic style, in

that specific motifs are repeated throughout this broad area. This pottery shows

distinctions in isochrestic style most notably in the potters’ preference for excision or

fine-line incision to display these motifs as well as formal variation and vessel size

(Blomster et al. 2005; Flannery et al. 2005). The potters of the Maya Lowlands used

fine-line incision almost exclusively, while at San Lorenzo excision was the preferred

method (see fig. 2.6), and in Oaxaca both methods were practiced (see fig. 2.7) (Blomster

et al. 2005; Flannery et al 2005). Communities in the Basin of Mexico preferred excision

(see fig. 2.9) (Tolstoy 1989) as did the potters in Honduras (see fig. 2.5) (Joyce and

Henderson 2001; Viel 1993). Further evidence of isochrestic style in these artifacts is

seen in the preference for incised decoration on particular forms, sizes, and slip colors of

vessels. Ceramic sociology is the study of formal variation in iconography to determine

ethnicity, migration, and cultural contact. These studies often use Wobst’s Information

Exchange Theory as a foundation (Wobst 1977). The iconological style is interpreted in

a functionalist approach as a method of communication, and claims that iconography

258

should be highly visible and simplified to enable clear interpretation by the receiver of

the message communicated. Although these expectations are often not met, with

iconography often seemingly intended to be “read” by only the few, the approach has

been important for ceramic studies. The influential work by Bishop and his colleagues

has looked at style as a communication system within a society that encodes aspects of

that society’s value system (Bishop et al. 1982). They have found that artistic and

iconographic style correlate to different ceramic pastes, or site-specific production

groups, for the late Classic Lowland Maya.

Ethnographic studies of iconological style in ceramics and other aspects of material

culture have produced mixed results, reflecting the various ways in which societies use

style for their own specific needs. In one case style of projectile points closely parallels

ethnic and linguistic boundaries (Wiessner 1983). In a study of dress, style did not

always reflect ethnic identity, but sometimes came to reflect ethnic boundaries when

those boundaries were in dispute (Kimec et al. 1982). In a study of Shipibo-Conibo

designs on ceramics, clothing, and facial design, the iconological style was found to

reflect specific ideological content used in healing ceremonies (Gebhart-Sayer 1985). In

an influential ethnoarchaeology project on Kalinga pottery, Graves has found that the

basic structural components of design are constrained by design information shared

across a community of interacting potters, and further that the constancy of incised bands

may reflect the manner in which the design is produced on the pots, or the tools that form

the design unit, i.e. isochrestic practice (Graves 1985). In a study of the eastern Andes,

Osborn found that clothing was a strong ethnic marker while ceramic style reflected

family groups (Osborn 1989). A group in Sierra Leone with marked ethnic boundaries

259

evident in material culture in modern times had only limited indication of those

boundaries in archaeology, primarily manifested in ritual activity, and while styles of

decoration varied between settlements, some decorative techniques cross-cut ethnic

groups (DeCorse 1989). These studies reflect the multiple ways that style can inform

archaeological inference. Our interpretation of the meaning of shared style must

therefore be culturally specific.

When considering ancient complex societies it is important to consider that

iconological style may reflect divisions within a socially bounded social or ethnic group,

rather than distinguishing it from other ethnic groups. One of the problems encountered

by archaeologists attempting to apply the study of style to pottery is the simplistic view

that style should reflect ethnic identity, although it is clear from ethnographic studies that

there are many reasons why ancient societies may have used particular iconographies.

Janusek found that expressions of social identity, based on stylistic diversity in ceramic

form and decoration and residential compounds, shifted from reflecting a myriad of

ethnic groups in the pre-State period to a unified community in the Tiwanaku state

(Janusek 2002). The separate ethnic groups may have still been present but were no

longer reflected in ceramic style. In a study of Celtiberian pottery, mineralogical and

compositional data were used to claim that pottery was locally made and that the regional

style resulted from a shared style and technology rather than trade or exchange (Garcia-

Heras 2000). This unified regional style thus reflects a conscious choice for potters to

participate in a shared tradition. In a study of postclassic Oaxaca, ceramic design

variation was accounted for by ceramic exchange, temporal variation, and stylistic

differences between vessel forms (Feinman et al. 1992). Ceramic Sociology has had

260

particular success in the American Southwest, where immigration and ethnic identity

have been determined by several lines of evidence. One study shows that the ways in

which ethnic enclaves were incorporated into a local society differed dramatically by site,

some groups maintained non-local ethnic traits, including style in pottery, and others

became acculturated to local patterns almost immediately. In a study of Mimbres pottery,

using iconography, Hegmon and Kulow have examined innovation in pottery designs as a

reflection of agency within artisan communities (Hegmon and Kulow 2005).

For Mesoamerica, shared iconography has often been used as evidence of cultural

interaction, elite emulation, and ethnic migration. In particular, the ‘Olmec style’ was

once used to claim that a group of ethnic Mixe-Zoque people migrated from the Gulf

Coast across Mesoamerica, creating a shared style (Clark 2000). This argument has been

challenged by many scholars and is still a topic of debate (Flannery 2000; Blomster et al.

2005; Flannery et al. 2005; Sharer 2006). It is now clear that the presence and quantity

of ‘Olmec’ style objects is highly variable across Mesoamerica (Pool 2007). This study

seeks an in-depth understanding of the ways in which these symbols were used by the

Lowland Maya at Holmul and Tikal. I believe that a detailed understanding of the ways

in which each community used these symbolically imbued vessels will illuminate the

nature of this interaction. Cheetham’s study (2010) found that 95% of incised vessels

from both Cantón Corallito, Chiapas (Límon Incised) and San Lorenzo (Calzadas

Carved) were straight-sided bowls with direct rims and bolstered lips. While these

vessels had the same form, he found that the locally-made bowls at Cantón Corallito were

on average 5-7cm larger in diameter than the vessels imported from San Lorenzo. This

bowl form is also found in the Maya Lowlands, but the preferred form for incised

261

decoration at Holmul and Tikal is the plate with wide everted rim, where incision is

usually found on the interior of the wide rim. In a study of a small site occupied at this

time in Oaxaca, Barrio Tepalcate, fine paste slipped types were almost exclusively small

cups and bowls, and less than half of these bore incised design in ‘Olmec style’ motifs

(Reyes González and Winter 2000). In a study from household assemblage at El

Remolino, Veracruz, Wendt (2010) found that 94% of all incised decoration occurred on

small bowls in his ‘single serving’ category. He argues that such incised designs were

not produced for large public displays, but for household-centered events. Additionally

incised decorated vessels were uncommon, representing only 0.71% (Calzadas Carved)

and 0.51% (Límon Carved-Incised) of the assemblage (Wendt 2010). These studies of

form and ‘Olmec style’ iconography will allow us to examine the ways in which various

Mesoamerican communities incorporated foreign symbolism into their local ideological

practices in a more nuanced way.

SERVING VESSELS

The K’atun and Early Eb complexes consist largely of serving vessels. The K’awil

complex contains 90% slipped or burnished vessels and only 10% unslipped utilitarian

vessels. The Early Eb are 84% slipped or burnished vessels and 16% unslipped

utilitarian vessels. The decorated serving vessels are defined as particular forms (plates,

bowls, dishes, tecomates, and jars) when found with slipped surfaces or including further

decoration such as incising or burnishing. This study is based on 1274 slipped or

burnished vessels from Holmul and 446 slipped or burnished vessels from Tikal. Plates,

bowls, and dishes were all probably used in similar ways. These vessels are ideal for the

presentation and consumption of solid foods and stews.

262

Plates

The majority of serving vessels in the K’awil complex are plates, comprising 43% of

serving vessels at Holmul and 82% of serving vessels at Tikal (see Table 6.1 and 6.2).

These occur in several forms with distinct sides, rim, and lip treatments. Plates are

defined as “Vessels with height less than 1/5 its diameter” (Sabloff 1975). Rim diameter

data from both Holmul and Tikal show that a majority of plates were 30-35cm wide, a

medium to large serving size.

The most common plate found at Holmul has outcurving sides and exterior folded or

thickened rim, representing 22% of the slipped/burnished vessels from Holmul and 13%

Table 6.1: Frequencies of all Plates from Holmul by diameter (N=449)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0

Holmul K'awil Form: Plates

Plate

263

Table 6.2: Frequencies of all Plates from Tikal by diameter (N=144)

Table 6.3: Diameter of Holmul Plates with Outflared Everted Rim (N=123), Exterior

Thickened Rim (N=178), and Direct Rim (N=143)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0

Tikal Early Eb Form: Plate

Plate

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Holmul K'awil Plates

Plate outflared everted Plate exterior * Plate direct

264

Table 6.4: Diameter of Tikal Plates with Outflared Everted Rim (N=108), Exterior

Thickened Rim (N=33), and Direct Rim (N=28)

of slipped/burnished vessels from Tikal (Holmul N=283; Tikal N=58) most commonly

with pointed lips, and sometimes with rounded lip (see Table 6.3 and 6.4). The majority

of plates with exterior thickened/folded rims at Holmul and Tikal occur in a multiple

serving category, with diameters of 35 cm. This is the defining form for types Katun

Red: Lak variety and Katun Red: Lak’ek variety. It is common in all monochrome types

and is also common for incised types. This form of plate is preferred by many potters at

Holmul, Cival, and Tikal. I propose that this form represents an isochrestic style that was

particularly preferred by the Holmul potters. The two types defined exclusively by this

form (Katun Red: Lak variety and Lak’ek variety) are not found at Cival or Tikal. In

contrast, these types are abundant in the Holmul collection. The differences between

plate, dish, and bowl relate to their depth and therefore represent different quantities of

food these vessels would have contained. These different depths would have also been

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55

Tikal Early Eb Plates

Plate outflared everted Plate exterior * Plate direct

265

preferred based on the type of food presented within them; a deeper bowl would have

been preferred for liquid food such as soup, while a shallower plate would have been

preferred for solid food such as tamales. Future studies of the residues left inside these

vessels will offer evidence as to the foods

that were contained in these ancient vessels.

Fig. 6.1: Plate with outcurving sides and exterior thickened rim

Fig. 6.2: Plate with outcurving sides and outflared everted rim

266

Fig. 6.3: Plate with outcurving sides and direct rim

Another common plate is found with outcurving sides and outflared everted rim,

representing 12% of slipped/burnished vessels from Holmul and 38% of

slipped/burnished vessels from Tikal (Holmul N=150; Tikal N=171) (see Table 6.3 amd

6.4). This is the second most common form within the K’awil complex decorated serving

vessels. It occurs more commonly within incised types, than monochrome types, 75% of

everted rim vessels at Holmul are incised while 80% of everted rim plates at Tikal are

incised (112 at Holmul and 137 at Tikal). Rim diameter data shows that a majority of

everted rim plates from Holmul were 35cm and 45cm. Everted rim plates from Tikal

show a majority of diameters between 30 and 45cm. We would expect the rim diameters

to be larger in this category because the wide rim style by definition is larger than the

actual orifice of the vessel. Nonetheless these plates still fall into a medium to large size

category, suggesting that they were intended for multiple servings. This formal

preference reveals the isochrestic style of pre-Mamom potters. When a potter intended to

create an incised vessel they chose this specific vessel form. This seems a logical choice,

given that the form would have provided an ideal surface for incised decoration that

would display these motifs. This form often bore incised designs of iconological style

267

expressing complex ideology shared with foreign communities. Other plates are found

with direct rim and rounded or pointed lip (see figure 6.3).

Bowls

Bowls are relatively common in the K’awil and Early Eb complexes, comprising 26%

of serving vessels from Holmul (N=326) and 22% of serving vessels from Tikal (N=97)

(see Table 6.5 and 6.6). Bowls are defined as a “vessel with height no more than equal

but no less than 1/3 of its diameter” (Sabloff 1975). Bowls from Holmul show a bimodal

distribution similar to that found for early Middle Preclassic El Remolino (Wendt, 2010).

Holmul bowls occur in two categories, a smaller single serving of under 25cm diameter,

and a medium-large category of 35cm diameter. Tikal data do not show the same marked

bimodal distribution but they do show a majority of bowls occur in the under 25cm and

25-30cm categories.

The most common bowls are found with slightly incurving sides, and direct rim with

rounded lip, pointed lip, or square lip, representing 13% of slipped/burnished vessels

from Holmul and 7% of slipped/burnished vessels from Tikal (Holmul N=171; Tikal

N=33) (see figure 6.4). Another common bowl has round sides, direct rim, and rounded

or pointed lips (Holmul N=41; Tikal N=5) (see figure 6.5).

268

Table 6.5: Frequency of All Bowls from Holmul by diameter (N=226)

Table 6.6: Frequency of All Bowls from Tikal by diameter (N=26)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0

Holmul K'awil Forms

Bowl

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0

Tikal Early Eb Forms

Bowl

269

Fig. 6.4: Bowl with slightly incurving sides and direct rim

Fig. 6.5: Bowl with round sides and direct rim

Fig. 6.6: Bowl with flared sides

270

Other bowls have flared sides and direct rims, with rounded lip, square lip, or pointed

lip, representing 9% of the slipped/burnished vessels from Holmul and 2% of the

slipped/burnished vessels from Tikal (Holmul N=40; Tikal N=9) (see figure 6.6). Also

present are bowls with flared sides and exterior folded or thickened rim, with rounded or

pointed lip (Holmul N=31) (see figure 6.7). The tecomate, or markedly incurving bowl,

is found with direct rim and rounded lip (Holmul N=13; Tikal N=18) (See figure 6.8).

Other tecomates occur with interior thickened rim with rounded lip (Holmul N=8; Tikal

N=3), or with exterior thickened rim and pointed lip (Holmul N=22; Tikal N=29).

Slipped tecomates comprise 3% of the Holmul collection and 4% of the Tikal collection.

A majority of Tecomates in the Tikal collection have a rim diameter of 20cm. The

Holmul Tecomates are more varied in diameter, occurring in medium-large size

categories.

Fig. 6.7: Tecomate with direct rim

Fig. 6.8: Tecomate with exterior thickened rim

271

Table 6.7: Frequency of All Slipped Tecomates from Holmul by diameter (N=49)

Table 6.8: Frequency of All Slipped Tecomates from Tikal by diameter (N=20)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0

Holmul K'awil Forms

Tecomate

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0

Tikal Early Eb Forms

Tecomate

272

Dishes

Dishes are a category between plate and bowl, defined as “vessel with height between

1/3 and 1/5 its diameter” (Sabloff 1975). Many of the sherds within this sample do not

have a full rim to base profile so it is impossible to determine their exact form. Where

found most rim to base profiles that seem like plates or dishes the vessel height is less

than 1/5th the diameter, so these fall into the category of plates. In other cases where we

do not have a rim to base profile but the height is clearly larger than 1/5th the diameter I

have generally classified these vessels as bowls. Therefore the dish category is small,

comprising 1% of serving vessels from Holmul, although this may be an inaccurate

sample. There are some cases where the vessel height does clearly fall within the range

of 1/5th to 1/3rd the diameter, and these have been definitively classified as dishes.

Most dishes are found with flared sides and direct rims, with rounded or pointed lips

(Holmul N=21). Other dishes are found with outcurving sides and outflared everted rims

with rounded lip (Holmul N=15) (See figure 6.9). This form is seen nearly exclusively

within the Mo Mottled: Fluted variety. Also present are dishes with vertical sides and

direct rims with rounded or pointed lip (Holmul N=10). Most dishes from Tikal are

unslipped types (Ramonal Unslipped).

273

Figure 6.9: Dish with outcurving sides

Table 6.9: Frequencies of All Slipped Dishes from Holmul by diameter (N=62)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0

Holmul K'awil Forms

Dish

274

Jar

Most jars are unslipped utilitarian vessels and these will be described in the following

section. Sometimes jars are found with formal decoration (slipped and/or incised) and

these may have been used as formal serving vessels. These jars were probably used to

serve liquids. Most jars have outcurved necks with direct rims, and rounded or pointed

lips (Holmul N=91; Tikal N=14) (see figure 6.10). Also present are jars with vertical

necks and direct rims, with rounded or squared lips (Holmul N=3) (see figure 6.11).

Slipped jars comprise 7% of the Holmul collection and 3% of the Tikal collection.

Fig. 6.10: Jar with outcurving neck

Fig. 6.11: Jar with vertical neck

275

Table 6.10: Frequency of All Slipped Jars from Holmul by diameter (N=83)

Table 6.11: Frequency of All Slipped Jars from Tikal by diameter (N=10)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0

Holmul K'awil Forms

Jar

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0

Tikal Early Eb Forms

Jar

276

UTILITARIAN VESSELS

Unslipped utilitarian vessels are usually used for cooking and storage. They tend to be

larger than serving vessels and have a coarser paste. They also show more use-wear

including burning in the case of cooking vessels. These vessels tend to occur most often

as bowls and jars. It is striking that the K’awil and Early Eb collections have few

utilitarian vessels as compared to decorated serving wares, these comprise only 10% of

the Holmul K’awil complex and 16% of Tikal’s Early Eb complex. The following

description is based on 136 unslipped rim sherds from Holmul and 88 rims from Tikal.

Utilitarian Jars

Jars are the most common form for unslipped utilitarian vessels. Jars occur with

outcurved necks and direct rims (Holmul N=46, Tikal N=13) or exterior thickened rims

(Holmul N=29; Tikal N=2) (see figure 6.14). Jars were often used for liquid storage.

Jars comprise 55% of the utilitarian vessels from Holmul and 17% from Tikal.

Fig. 6.12: Unslipped Utilitarian Jars

Utilitarian Bowls

277

The utilitarian vessels consist largely of bowls. A common bowl occurs with incurved

sides and outcurved neck with exterior thickened rim (Holmul N=11, Tikal N=18) (see

figure 6.12). Another bowl occurs with incurved sides, outcurved sides, and recurved

neck, with exterior thickened rim (Holmul N=9). Both of these bowls occur exclusively

in the Ramonal Unslipped types. Other bowls have slightly incurving sides, direct rim

and rounded lip (Holmul N=25). Bowls comprise 33% of the utilitarian vessels at Holmul

and 20% of the utilitarian vessels at Tikal, excluding tecomates. Bowls with markedly

incurving sides, or tecomates, occur with direct rims (Holmul N=9; Tikal N=11), exterior

thickened or folded rims (Holmul N=32; Tikal N=11), or interior thickened rims (Holmul

N=10) (see figure 6.13). Tecomates comprise 37% of the utilitarian vessels at Holmul

and 25% of the utilitarian vessels at Tikal.

Fig. 6.13: Unslipped Utilitarian Bowls

278

Fig. 6.13: Unslipped Utilitarian Tecomates

Utilitarian Dishes

While dishes are uncommon in the unslipped utilitarian wares, they do occur often in

the Ramonal Unslipped types. Dishes have outcurving sides, and exterior folded rim, and

represent 36% of utilitarian vessels from Holmul and 31% of utilitarian vessels from

Tikal (Holmul N=32; Tikal N=27). This form of Ramonal Unslipped type is found at

Tikal and at Cival, but is absent in the collection from the site center of Holmul.

CONCLUSIONS ON FORM

It is striking that the K’awil and Early Eb ceramic complexes consist so largely of

serving vessels. The K’awil complex consists of 90% slipped or burnished vessels and

10% unslipped utilitarian vessels, while the Early Eb complex consists of 84% slipped or

burnished vessels and 16% unslipped utilitarian vessels. In both samples outcurving-

279

sided plates are the most common form. At Holmul most plates are outcurving with

exterior thickened rim and pointed lip (22%), while at Tikal most plates have outflared

everted rims (38%). This and other serving vessels make up the majority of each

collection. In a normal sample, a ceramic complex would consist of both serving vessels

and food preparation vessels (cooking and storage) in roughly equal quantities. Instead,

these early collections are largely made up of serving vessels and these are often highly

decorated. The villagers who made and used these vessels had recently adopted ceramic

technology. The unique characteristics of these collections can reveal why this

technology was adopted. Since the collections are largely serving vessels it would appear

that the technology was adopted for new practices surrounding the consumption of food,

rather than for food preparation and storage. This differs starkly from other world areas

where ceramic technology was often adopted around new practices in food preparation

(Hoopes and Barnett 1995). The Lowland Maya adoption of ceramic technology likely

corresponded to new social practices around special events of consumption, a pattern also

seen on the Pacific coast of Guatemala in the Barra phase (Blake and Clark 1999).

Archaeologists can infer the function of a ceramic vessel from its form (Smith 1985).

This follows from some basic assumptions as well as from ethnographic studies (DeBoer

and Lathrap 1979). Cooking vessels tend to be bowl-shaped, with large basal surface for

efficient heat transfer, and a somewhat restricted mouth (Henrickson and McDonald

1983; Braun 1982). Cooking pots tend to be undecorated, neither slipped nor decorated

with incision or impression. Storage vessels for dry foods tend to be large bowls and jars

with wide orifices and are often covered with another small bowl or with a textile cover

tied around the outcurving neck of the jar (Henrickson and McDonald 1983). Storage

280

vessels for liquids tend to be smaller than those for dry-storage and show greater

morphological variability, and tend to be bowls or jars (Henrickson and McDonald 1983).

Vessels for transport tend to be jars, often with handles if used for short-distance water

transport (Henrickson and McDonald 1983; Reina and Hill 1978). Vessels for serving

and food consumption tend to be plates, dishes and small bowls, usually with flat

bottoms, and are often decorated (Henrickson and McDonald 1983; Nelson 1981; Reina

and Hill 1978). They find that serving dishes for an individual tend to range in height

from 6 to 8 cm, and 10 to 23 cm in diameter. Serving dishes for a larger group, such as a

family, tend to be around 10cm in height and between 8.4 and 95 cm in diameter. In his

study of modern households in Sierra de las Tuxtlas Arnold (1991) finds that single

serving bowls had a mean orifice diameter of 18cm. In his study of Formative household

ceramics at El Remolino, Wendt finds a bimodal distribution of orifice diameter in bowls

and plates, suggesting a single use category of 10-20cm diameter and a muliple serving

category of over 26cm (Wendt 2010).

All slipped or burnished plates, dishes, and bowls in the Holmul and Tikal collections

can be interpreted as serving vessels. These are usually flat bottom vessels decorated

with slip and sometimes with incised decoration on the exterior and/or interior. The

outcurving sided plate is the most common vessel form in slipped/burnished serving

vessels comprising 42% of the collection from Holmul and 83% of the collection from

Tikal. The serving plate with outflared everted rim would have provided an ideal surface

for decoration, and indeed a majority of this form does display incised design on the

upper surface, interior everted rim, of the vessel. In the everted rim plate category, 75%

of rims from Holmul and 80% of rims from Tikal included incised decoration. This is an

281

ideal location for decoration because it is visible even when the vessel is filled with food.

Diameters of slipped vessels show a majority of serving plates were medium-large

size, indicating that they may have been used for serving in communal gatherings (see

Table 6.10). Vessels with diameters under 20cm were most likely for individual

consumption, while those with diameters of 26 cm and above may have been for

communal serving. Bowls from Holmul show a similar bimodal distribution of orifice

diameter to the recorded for El Remolino, interpreted by Wendt as indicating single- and

multiple-serving categories. Large size vessels would have likely been used for serving

gatherings of people, either family groups or supra-family groups (Henrickson and

McDonald 1983; Reyes González and Winter 2000). Holmul’s plates do not show a

bimodal distribution of orifice diameter. Instead the majority of plates have a diameter of

over 26cm, falling into Wendt’s multiple-serving category (see Table 6.3 and 6.4). Of

Holmul’s slipped jars and tecomates a majority are medium and large size (see Table 6.7-

6.10). Tecomates are neckless jars, or globular bowls with restricted orifices. As their

orifices are restricted by definition they are most likely to have small orifice diameters.

They are common in the Preclassic/Formative period across Mesoamerica (Arroyo 1995;

Clark and Gosser 1995), probably modeled after gourds, and become less common in the

Middle and Late Preclassic. Tecomates are found as both slipped and/or decorated types

and as unslipped coarse wares. They may have been used as serving vessels for liquids,

or as storage and/or cooking vessels. No noticeable difference in orifice diameter

between slipped or unslipped tecomates can be seen at Holmul or Tikal. It is likely that

tecomates had similar functions whether slipped/decorated or plain and that differences in

decoration reflect different locations or social contexts in which they were used. The

282

orifice diameter of tecomates at Holmul is similar to Barra orifice diameter (10-20cm)

which are interpreted by Clark and Blake as individual serving vessles used in feasting

events (1994). Most of the jars in these collections are slipped and sometimes include

incised decoration. This special care for the surface decoration implies that they were

intended to be seen at communal gatherings or special events. Jars used for private

storage in the household would have probably been coarse and undecorated.

Jars are often used for storage and transport of liquids (Henrickson and McDonald

1983; Reina and Hill 1978; Thompson 1958). If these were cooking pots we could infer

that larger vessels were used for cooking meals for larger groups (Blitz 1993). The

unslipped jars may have been used for storage and/or cooking. The slipped jars may have

been used in serving or for carrying water. The function of water transport would explain

their smaller size, as they must be light enough to carry, and their decoration, as they

were seen in the public sphere. Reina and Hill (1978) found that modern Maya jars used

for water transport were often decorated and that their specific form related to functions

particular to the communities in which they were used. In many cases jar form was

related to ethnic identity. Thompson also found decorated jars among the modern Maya

of the Yucatan, some with painted decoration (Thompson 1958). Both Thompson and

Reina and Hill note that water-carrying jars are used by women, and that these occasions

outside the home are opportunities to display social identity. In their study of modern

Shipibo-Conibo ceramics, DeBoer and Lathrap found that medium-sized jars were used

for both water transport and storage (1979).

I believe that the high percentage of decorated serving vessels indicates that these

ceramics were used in communal gatherings or special events. The incised designs

283

imbued these ceramics with ideological meaning that may relate to the nature of these

communal gatherings. As these are the earliest ceramics of the area we can assume that

perishable containers were still in use for many daily purposes. The fact that these events

utilized a new technology in itself indicates a special or innovative social practice. The

decorated nature of these earliest pots suggest that they were symbolically-charged

objects, also suggesting use in communal gatherings. The ritually meaningful designs

incised on these pots offers insight to the nature of these social events.

Some ceramic studies have identified the cooking vessels used to prepare foods for

large groups (Mills 1999) and identified locations of cooking and consumption in elite or

communal spaces as compared to size distribution in households (Blitz 1993; LeCount

2001). In the Holmul case, these ceramics are found in fill from later monumental

architecture so it is possible that a greater percentage of cooking and storage vessels may

be found at another location or with increased sample size. It is possible that we have

identified the remains of a special location for the consumption of food in communal

gatherings. Future research may identify other locations with a normal distribution of

vessels on the household level, or other locations where the food for these events was

prepared. But if this were the case I would not expect to see the same pattern at Tikal or

other pre-Mamom sites. The collection from Tikal is comprised of various excavations

throughout the site core. In fact, the collections from Tikal, Ceibal, and Cuello all show

the same high ratio of decorated serving vessels that I have noted for Holmul. Another

issue that must be considered is sampling error. It is possible that the sample is biased

towards the decorated serving vessels because they are more easily identified than the

coarse cooking and storage vessel. It is much more difficult to identify the cooking

284

vessels because they show less change over time and are therefore more easily

misidentified with types from a later phase. I have no doubt that future studies will

resolve this issue and that the sample of cooking vessels from this time period will

increase. However, if this bias were a major problem we would expect to see a

concurrent increase in the cooking vessels identified with later phases and this is not the

case at Holmul.

285

Chapter 7

Iconography and the ‘Olmec’ Style in the K’awil and Early Eb Complex ceramics

Early and Middle Formative Mesoamerica is dominated by an artistic style that was

originally labeled ‘Olmec’ (Caso 1942; Coe 1965; Pool 2007). This problematic term

conflates the ‘Olmec’ style, which is found in many distinct societies, with ‘the Olmec’,

an archaeological culture on the Gulf Coast of Mexico. Grove suggests identifying it as

the ‘X Complex’ to avoid this confusion (1989), while Reilly (1994) prefers Pan-

Mesoamerican Formative Symbol System. I use the term ‘Olmec’ style to refer to a

specific set of iconographic motifs and the term Olman to refer to the archaeological

culture of the Gulf Coast in the Formative period. When I refer to style I will

differentiate between iconologic style, a shared repertoire of distinct motifs, and

isochrestic style, the techniques used in the creation of artifacts (Hegmon 1992; Sackett

1990). There is considerable regional variation in how these motifs were rendered,

forming loosely bounded units along cultural lines in Central Mexico, the Valley of

Oaxaca, the Gulf Coast Olman, the Pacific Coast/highlands of Chiapas and Guatemala,

and the Maya Lowlands (Flannery and Marcus 2000). These ‘Olmec’ style iconographic

motifs were incised or excised on ceramic vessels, incised on portable jade objects, and

on monumental stone sculpture in the transition from the Early to Middle Formative or

Preclassic, c. 1100/1000 to 850 B.C.

A problem in discussing this symbolic system has been the aforementioned conflation

of terms, which has lead to a misunderstanding of how these symbols were

communicated and reproduced across this vast area. Early scholars (Coe 1965;

Covarrubias 1957; Joralemon 1971) interpreted this distribution as evidence of a

286

conquering empire that emanated from the Olman heartland on the Gulf Coast and set up

outposts across Mesoamerica. This approach suffers from a colonialist core-periphery

model that has not been borne out in subsequent evidence. Recently scholars have called

for research to identify site-specific patterns of use of ‘Olmec’ iconography to better

understand the myriad meanings behind this phenomenon (Brown et al. 2018; Cheetham

2010; Joyce and Henderson 2010; Rosenswig 2010). I hope to show that the

communities in the Maya Lowlands were participants in this system where new ideas

were actively interpreted, manipulated, and used to create a new ideology (Clark 1997;

Joyce and Henderson 2010). It is now clear that the ‘Olmec’ style motifs were as

prevalent at the same early date outside the Olman heartland as within it (Cheetham

2010; Wendt 2010), such as at the sites of Coapexco and Tlatilco in the Basin of Mexico

and Valley of Oaxaca (Flannery and Marcus 2000; Tolstoy 1989). Many scholars now

believe that the elites in various culture areas were emulating and interacting with each

other, participating in a common ideological system (Clark and Pye 2000; Flannery 1968;

Hammond 1989; Demarest 1989). These elites used the ‘Olmec’ iconography to express

their ideology and also to express their elite status (Clark 1997; Rosenwig 2010). By

using the same conventions as elites in other regions, they expressed their relations with

them and claimed exalted status, building their power in the local community (Demarest

1989; Flannery 1968; Rosenswig 2010).

The Maya Lowlands have been considered anomalous in Early and Middle Preclassic

Mesoamerica (Demarest 2004). Until recently, few remains from the Maya lowlands had

included evidence of human settlement at this time, or participation in the ‘Olmec’ style

tradition. An exception to this was the early find of a cruciform cache with jade and

287

ceramic vessels at Ceibal from the early Middle Formative (Willey 1982). Instead,

participation in the ‘Olmec’ style tradition was inferred from symbols that evolved from

it and were utilized by the Lowland Maya on the Late Formative stucco masks adorning

monumental architecture and in the Classic period (Freidel et al. 1993; Ringle 1999;

Schele 1995). Many beleived that the Maya were not contemporaries in this interregional

interaction sphere but had inherited this symbol system from their neighbors after they

were mostly in decline. Finds at Cahal Pech (Awe et al. 1990), Blackman Eddy (Garber

et al. 2001), Ceibal (Inomata et al. 2013a, 2017) and Holmul have revealed ceramic

complexes that were contemporary with the ‘Olmec’ style across Mexico and used the

same motifs (Cheetham 2005). It now seems that the Lowland Maya adopted this

iconographic complex, along with ceramic technology itself, through interaction with

their neighbors during the early Middle Formative (1000-850/750 BC). These motifs and

the ideology expressed therein were used, manipulated, and re-created within a new

political ideology that fully emerged in the Middle to Late Formative with evidence of

social complexity (Brown et al. 2018; Estrada-Belli 2011; 2017). This region cannot be

understood in terms of simple core-periphery relations with the elites of La Venta, instead

the Maya were a peer participant in a widespread ideological system communicated by

inter- and intra-regional interaction, and a socially charged place where innovative

cultural constructs were created and transformed (Inomata 2015a and b; Joyce and

Henderson 2010; Lightfoot and Martinez 1995).

288

‘OLMEC’ ICONOGRAPHY AND IDEOLOGY

One of the most common and intriguing of the ‘Olmec’ style symbols is the ‘cleft

head’ or ‘cleft motif’ (Joralemon 1971; Schele 1995; Taube 1995a). This appears on

everything from ceramic vessels to monumental stone and stucco sculpture. This has

been compared to the furrow in the brow of a jaguar by those who consider the image to

represent a shaman in the act of shifting to a jaguar-like creature (Coe 1965; Furst 1996).

It is also related to the earth, fertility, and maize, a conceptual crack in the earth from

which a maize seed grows (Reilly 1994) or the husk from which an ear of maize emerges

(Schele 1995; Taube 1995a). It is also associated with various proposed Formative

deities including the Avian Serpent and Olmec Rain God (Taube 1995a and b). All of

these interpretations can be applied because the image appears in so many different

contexts and forms, with multiple meanings. Taube points out that the cleft as the husk

of the maize plant has clear links to Classic Maya representations of maize. The cleft

head motif becomes clearer on a stone sculpture of a figure raising the world tree

(Monument 1 from San Martín Pajapan; Early Formative c. 1000 BC).

San Martín Pajapan Monument 1 has several cleft motifs in the composition and this

fully round sculpture allows the clefts to be seen from every direction. The monument

shows a human in the process of raising a staff with a cleft in the top. The figure wears a

headdress that shows an ‘Olmec were-jaguar baby’ with a cleft head on top, its sides are

adorned with U-shapes, and a curvilinear and striated cleft facing the back of the

sculpture. The headdress is itself wearing another headdress with almond-shaped eyes,

furrowed brow, and wide-open mouth that is similar to

289

Fig. 7.1: San Martín Pajapan Monument 1 (Benson and de la Fuente 1996: 162)

thrones from La Venta and monumental sculpture from Chalcatzingo. The sides of this

upper headdress have clefts on each side. Seen from above these cleft heads become the

Kan Cross. It shows that the cleft is actually a cruciform shown from a frontal

perspective, or the point of the earth’s surface as the center of the cosmos. The Classic

Maya inverted this image down and viewed it from a bird’s eye perspective where it

becomes the cruciform, the world tree, ‘kin’ sign for sun/day, or the quadripartite division

of the cosmos. It is the furrow in the earth from which the maize plant emerges, drawing

into line the quadripartite organization of the earth, its center which is the maize plant,

and the vertical organization of the cosmos reaching the heavens with the leaves of the

plant and the underworld with its roots (Freidel et al. 1993). Maya kings re-enact the

birth of the maize god from the sacred central axis of sites as ritualized legitimization of

their divine privilege.

290

‘Olmec’ style incised decorations are often found on portable jade objects (see Clark

and Pye editors, 2000). These jade and greenstone objects are often celts and figurines.

Taube interprets the celts as representing maize plants, they are found plain, with fine line

incision, and re-worked to create different objects (Taube 1995a). For the Lowland Maya

these jade celts are used in place making ceremonies at the foundations of the ceremonial

centers of Ceibal (Inomata 2017) and Cival in the Holmul region (Estrada-Belli 2006,

2011, 2017). At both sites plain jade celts were interred in cruciform shaped caches at

the central point of the site, in front of E Groups. Similar cruciform jade caches are

found at La Venta, El Manati, and San Isidro (Inomata 2017; Pool 2007). When these

jades include incised design they often showed the same complex motifs found in

monumental art and on ceramic vessels. In the example of the Humboldt celt (fig. 7.2

right) we see the double merlon at the base representing the earth, with a vessel above it,

then a series of sacred objects placed linearly going up the length of the celt. These

sacred objects include the Kan Cross, the crossed bands, and tassel motifs, among others.

Interestingly these motifs are stacked on top of an everted rim plate, whose form is

similar to those in the pre-Mamom collections, and under this is the double merlon or

sign for the earth. This stacking of iconographic motifs is also seen in the complex

incised designs of the K’awil complex. In another example, from the Metropolitan

Museum of Art, we see the cleft head with sprouting maize plants which are also cleft

heads, crossed bands, and L-shaped eye, as well as additional images. Many of these

abstract motifs are seen in the K’awil ceramics.

291

Fig. 7.2: Humboldt Celt (Benson and de la Fuente 1996: 134); Mexican celt from the

Metropolitan Museum of Art (Coe et al. 1996: 262).

Many scholars look at ‘Olmec’ style iconography as the basis on which later

Mesoamerican cultures developed their logographic writing systems (Carrasco and

Englehardt 2015; Houston 2004; Justeson 1986; Pohl et al. 2002; Rodríguez Martinez et

292

al. 2006). Some of the iconic images found on ‘Olmec’ style ceramics show direct

relations to later components of writing. Carrasco and Englehardt posit that two symbols

on the Cascajal block represent a diphrastic kenning meaning: the throne, the mat (2015)

(see fig. 7.3, right). A kenning is defined as two words that are combined to arrive at a

third meaning. Citing the many later instances where throne and mat are combined to

refer to rulership, leadership, or the region controlled by a lord; they suggest that the

Cascajal block symbols are ancestral symbols to this concept. The Cascajal block is

dated to c. 900 BC (Rodríguez Martinez et al. 2006) and found in a looted context from

the Gulf Coast Olman area. The throne symbol (sign 11) is similar to the double merlon

motif and also seen in iconographic images containing thrones and the mat symbol (sign

22) is common on ceramics across the region. Hull (2010) discusses the diphrastic

kenning ha’ waaj’ (water, tamale) referring in general to nourishment by food and drink.

Combinations of abstract motifs of pre-Mamom pottery may function similarly to these

diphrastic kennings from Olman and the Classic Maya. The elements on the Cascajal

block are similar to combinations of symbols found incised on jade objects, such as the

Humboldt celt (fig. 7.2 left) (see also Tlaltenco Celt). Another early example of ‘Olmec’

writing is on the San Andres cylinder seal, which depicts a speech scroll emanating from

the mouth of a bird (Pohl et al. 2002). One sign shows a U shape with scroll and bracket,

and the other sign is glyph containing the U shape and double merlon in a cartouche

(AJAW glyph, Pohl et al. 2002). In later Maya script the AJAW glyph is both a day sign

and the title for “ruler”. Both the Cascajal block and the finds from San Andres show

that these early glyphs are often contained within a cartouche.

293

Fig. 7.3: Early Lowland Maya writing from San Bartolo (right) from Saturno et al.

2006; and Cascajal Block (left) early writing from Olman region (Rodriguez

Martinez et al. 2006)

The earliest evidence of writing in the Maya Lowlands comes from a painted block

found at San Bartolo, Gautemala and dating to 200-300 BC (Saturno et al. 2006) (see fig.

7.3 left). This inscription includes 10 glyph blocks, each unique, with one recognizable

glyph aA7, AJAW, the title for “lord”, “noble”, or “ruler” (Saturno et al. 2006). This

glyph has the same square geometric qualities of Epi-Olmec writing and pre-Mamom

incised design, unlike the curvilinear script of other early Maya writing (Mora-Marin

2005) The text on Kaminaljuyu Stela 10 (Maya highlands) is of a similar date, 400-200

BC, and portrays some similar glyphs, including the AJAW glyph (Mora-Marin 2005).

294

Each of these early examples of Olmec and Maya writing show that elements of the

‘Olmec’ style system were used to portray spoken language. Since these early examples

of writing often include the AJAW glyph, scholars have suggested that the ‘Olmec’ style

motifs and their early writing represent concepts of rulership that were developed in the

Olmec heartland and emanated outwards to other communities through interaction and

the spread of this symbol system (Justeson 1986; Mora-Marín 2009). Clark suggests that

the Olmec created this art style and “promoted governance through covert foundational

ideologies,” (1997: 212), and that their influence on each location should be considered

on a case by case basis.

INCISED DESIGN ON K’AWIL AND EARLY EB CERAMICS

The following description of the Holmul collection is based on a sample of 462

individual sherds, including 104 body sherds and 358 rims. All sherds were re-fit prior to

analysis to ensure that each case in the attribute analysis represented a single vessel. For

the incised sherds I collected all the same data as the slipped/burnished and the unslipped

sherds. Additional categories of data collected related to incised design, including 1st,

2nd, and 3rd motif represented, location of incision, width of incision, incision type (fine-

line or broad line), and pre-slip vs. post-slip incision.

Cleft Heads

There are many examples of the Cleft Head motif in the Holmul collection, occurring

in several different styles. In the instance of these ceramics, I believe the cleft head

relates to concepts of earth, fertility, maize, and the complex ideology that accompanies

them. In several examples from Holmul we see a cross section of the earth and a maize

295

seed; the cleft is the surface of the earth where it breaks allowing the maize plant to

emerge (Schele 1995). These clefts with circle motifs often occur at the base or lower

interior wall of flat-bottomed flaring-sided plates.

The Holmul collection includes 30 examples of the cleft head motif accounting for 6%

of the incised collection, compared to the 4 examples (2%) in the Tikal collections I

studied. Other collections from the Maya Lowlands have only a few examples of this

important motif, if any. The cleft head at Holmul is found in various types and forms;

Katun Red: Incised variety (9), Sak White: Incised variety (3), Ochkin Orange: Incised

variety (1), Ante Incised: Ante variety (3), Jobal Red: Incised variety (2), Xpokol Incised:

Xpokol variety (1), and Kitam Incised: Kitam variety (11). There are no examples of the

cleft head motif from Cival. At Tikal 2 are Ante Incised: Ante variety and 2 are Chak

Red: Incised variety. Three of these are found on the exterior body and one is on the

interior rim of an everted rim plate.

The prevalence of the cleft head in the Holmul collection indicates that this was a

popular motif among the potters within the community. The cleft head is the single most

common complex motif found in the K’awil phase at Holmul, often found in combination

with other complex motifs. Why did the Holmul potters use this image so often? It may

reflect the types of events in which these ceramics were used. The cleft head references

the ideology of a quadripartite cosmos and the central role of maize agriculture in this

cosmology. Therefore, the ceramics with this iconography may have been used in

ceremonies relating to events that celebrated maize agriculture, the quadripartite cosmos,

and place making at newly founded villages. If there were emerging leaders at this time

296

Fig. 7.4: Cleft Head Motifs from Holmul

Fig. 7.5: Incised Cleft Heads from El Mesak (above), and Altamira (below) (Clark and

Pye 2000)

they would have likely used this imagery in events intended to legitimize their privileged

positions (Brown et al. 2018). These ceramics would have also been used in events that

297

brought visitors from other communities such as Cahal Pech, Tikal, and Ceibal to

Holmul. We can hypothesize that neighbors from other Lowland Maya communities

visited Holmul, and that would have led to the similarities in ceramic styles. Such events

may also have drawn in mobile populations from the surrounding region, leading to

increased settlement. It is also possible that elites from the Maya highlands of Guatemala

or Chiapas were involved in these interactions (compare to cleft heads from Pacific Coast

in Fig. 7.5). Through this process of neighbor-to-neighbor interactions the cleft head

became a symbol reflecting the ideology of fertility and cosmology throughout

Mesoamerica. Clark has suggested that maize agriculture and elite leadership were a

complex promulgated across Mesoamerica by the Gulf Coast Olman (Clark 1997; Clark

and Pye 2000).

Kan Cross and Crossed-Bands Motif

The Holmul pre-Mamom collection includes several oher motifs relating to

Mesoamerican concepts of the quadripartite organization of the cosmos, including the

crossed-bands (Ante Incised), and Kan Cross (1=Xpokol Incised), starburst (1=Kitam

Incised, 2=Sak White: Incised), and flower (1=Sak White: Incised, 1=Kitam Incised).

The Kan Cross appears in virtually every area where the other ‘Olmec’ style symbols are

used, often in combination with the cleft head. The starburst and flower motifs are

similar in that they represent a quadripartite division of space and accentuate the central

space. Where we see the flower it usually has cruciform lines emanating from it on the

flat base of plates. The sun symbol may be related to the Classic Maya glyph ‘kin’ or

sun/day. The St. Andrew’s Cross is seen on many Early and Middle Formative artworks,

including; ceramics, monumental sculpture and relief carving, and precious stones like

298

jade and greenstone. The Cascajal block includes one example of the crossed-bands

inside a cartouche (sign 26), and in two cases inside a cartouche with a triangle

underneath it (sign 10) (Rodríguez Martinez et al. 2006). In this and the Late Classic

times it has been argued that the crossed bands refer to the quadripartite organization of

the cosmos, specifically to the intersecting bands of the Milky Way and the ecliptic in the

night sky (Freidel et al. 1993). The intersecting bands seem to refer to the sky and to the

four quarters and center of the universe, while the quincunx pattern of circles (and bar

and four dots) refers more specifically to the horizontal organization of the cosmos and

earth (Reilly 1994). In the Formative period these two concepts overlap, but for the

Classic Maya they are distinct representations. They are always related as essential

elements in the Mesoamerican concept of cosmic organization and their similarities were

played upon by Maya artists (Freidel et al. 1993).

Fig. 7.6: Cruciform or starburst Motifs from Tikal

299

Fig. 7.7: Kan Cross and Cruciform Motifs from Holmul

The Holmul collection includes one sherd depicting the bar and four dots motif found

at Cival’s site center. The bar and four dots motif is common in ‘Olmec’ style art

especially incised on precious jade objects. It is related to concepts of the quadripartite

cosmos and the central role of the ruler and maize agriculture (Reilly 1994). This

example is found on the interior everted rim of a plate and is combined with two tassel

motifs, a V-shape above, and flanked by two music brackets.

300

Fig. 7.8: Sherd with Bar and Four Dots motif from Cival

Jaguar-Dragon-Paw-Wing and Flame Eyebrow

The jaguar-dragon/hand-paw-wing and avian serpent/flame-eyebrow motifs

(Joralemon 1971) are the generic terms given to the various representations of the

appendage of the ‘Olmec Dragon’, highly stylized imagery representing the earth surface

and/or cosmos (Joralemon 1976, Reilly 1994). The hand-paw-wing motif in the Maya

Lowlands tends to appear as a series of elongated inverted U-shapes, often with two

horizontal lines towards the top (Cheetham 2005). The Holmul collection includes

various representations similar to those described by Cheetham (2005) as well as

a. b. c.

Fig. 7.9: Hand-Paw-Wing Motifs from Holmul (a. and b.) and Tikal (c.)

301

Fig. 7.10: Hand-Paw-Wing Feather Motifs from Holmul

stylized representations of wings, a feathered bird crest shown frontally, and fish fins.

The Holmul collection includes 18 representations of these related images; hand-paw-

wing/flame eyebrow/feathers motif, accounting for 4% of all incised sherds. The motif

occurs most often on Kitam Incised: Kitam variety (9) and Katun Red: Incised variety

(5), as well as Jobal Red: Incised variety and Sak White: Incised variety. This reflects a

preference for incising this design on red vessels. It occurs most often on the exterior

body of bowls (13). It occasionally occurs with the L-shape (2) and with the rectangular

eye (1). These L-shapes and rectangles are parts of larger compositions of the ‘Olmec

Dragon’. A portion of the hand-paw-wing motif is found in two examples from Cival,

Sak White: Incised variety and Katun Red: Incised variety. The hand-paw-wing motif

302

occurs in 3 instances in the Tikal collection, all on the exterior of vessels. It occurs in

Chak Red: Incised variety (2) and Bechh Incised: Bechh variety (1).

U-shape

The U-shape is seen often in Formative and Preclassic artwork, it is a component of

several other important motifs. Reilly (1995) has suggested that the U-shape is a pars

pro toto symbol representing the ‘Olmec Dragon’ a representation symbolizing the earth

in the primordial sea of creation. The U-shape is seen in the gum brackets of the ‘Olmec

Dragon’ and is also part of the ‘double merlon’ motif, which represents the surface of the

earth. In some cases it is one half of the cleft head motif. In the Classic period it evolves

into the ‘AJAW’ glyph for ruler/lord, and it is interpreted as referring to a bead made of

jade or spondylus (Freidel et al. 2002). The U-shape is seen in one example from the

Cascajal block (sign 23, Rodríguez Martinez 2006). It is also a common decorative motif

seen on complex imagery relating to rulership on monumental stone sculpture in Olman

(Coe 1980), Guerrero (Grove 1984), and the Pacific Coast (Clark and Pye 2000).

The U-shape occurs on 12 sherds in the Holmul collection, representing 3% of incised

sherds. It is seen only on red types; Katun Red: Incised variety (5), Jobal Red: Incised

variety (3), and Kitam Incised: Kitam variety (4). It most often occurs on the exterior

body or rim of vessels, and it is not seen on the wide everted rims of plates. When seen

on vessel exteriors it is on round sided or slightly incurving bowls. When seen on vessel

interiors it is seen on the interior body or base of outcurving plates. These motifs are

probably part of a larger configuration of symbols, such as a music bracket, double

303

merlon, or hand-paw-wing motifs, or part of a complex representation such as the ‘Olmec

Dragon’ or hand-paw-wing motif. The U-shape was not present in the Tikal collection.

Fig. 7.11: U Shape and Double Merlon motifs from Holmul

Double Merlon

The Double Merlon motif occurs commonly in the ‘Olmec’ style incised design and

consists of two inverted U-shapes sometimes with a flat line on either side (Joralemon

304

1971). The double-merlon is seen on the Cascajal block in two examples (sign 11,

Rodríguez Martinez 2006) it is interpreted as a throne symbol by Carrasco and

Englehardt (2015). The double merlon is interpreted as representing the surface of the

earth, related to the ideological concept of the earth as the Olmec Dragon, a crocodilian

monster floating in a sea. In such complex representations the double merlon is seen as

the bumpy back or gums and teeth of the crocodile, and the double merlon is a pars pro

toto motif symbolizing this creature and the earth’s surface (Reilly 1994). There are 5

examples of the double merlon in the Holmul collection, representing 1% of the total

incised sample. It is found on several vessel forms and in several locations on those

forms with no detectable pattern. It is seen on Sak White: Incised variety (1), Kitam

Incised: Kitam variety (1), Jobal Red: Incised variety (1), Katun Red: Incised variety (1),

and Ante Incised: Ante variety (1) types. The double merlon is not present in the Tikal

collection.

L-shape

The L-shape is a common ‘Olmec’ motif and is related to the ‘Olmec Dragon’

(Joralemon 1976). The L-shape is either the eye of the ‘Olmec Dragon’ when paired with

the flame eyebrow, or the upper jaw when represented from the side (U-shape in frontal

view, see Joralemon 1971, Reilly 1994). The L-shape is fairly common in the Holmul

collection with 35 examples representing 8% of the incised sample. It occurs in various

types but most commonly in Kitam Incised: Kitam variety with 14 examples. It is

displayed on the interior and exterior of bowls and plates. The L-shape most often occurs

with a circle (8 examples) and sometimes with further elements of the ‘Olmec Dragon’

such as the cleft head (4) and feathers (3). These incomplete examples are probably part

305

of larger compositions representing the ‘Olmec Dragon’ or hand-paw-wing. Only one of

these examples is found at Cival, a Sak White: Incised variety sherd, where it was

combined with a tassel motif, another geometric, and triple-line encircling the vessel, all

found on the exterior rim of the vessel. One L-shape motif from Holmul is excised, and

this sherd represents a unique paste for the site (see below).

Fig. 7.12: L-shape motif from Holmul

306

Music Bracket

Another common symbol is the music bracket motif, or Motif 11 (Joralemon 1971).

The motif consists of a single or group of vertical lines with U-shapes repeated along the

outside of the vertical lines, usually framing each side. At Holmul it is usually seen on

tecomates or wide everted rim plates. The music bracket is often displayed vertically on

the exterior body of the vessel, less commonly it is shown horizontally along a vessels’

rim. This motif is more common within the Maya Lowlands than in other parts of

Formative Mesoamerica. It may be that this is a local variation on a more common

theme, such as the gum bracket, often a crucial component of the ‘Olmec Dragon’.

Music brackets are seen on 27 sherds from the Holmul collection, representing 6% of

the collection. This is the only motif that shows a clear correlation with color and form.

It is most commonly found in the Katun Red: Incised type (19), (accounting for 63% of

all music brackets). It is also found most commonly on the exterior of restricted orifice

vessels (22 out of 27 total, or 82%) such as tecomates, and slightly incurving bowls. This

indicates that the Holmul potters reserved this motif for these types of vessels. The

association of the motif with the color red may relate to the meaning of the motif or the

use of the vessel. The use of the motif on the exterior of restricted orifice vessels may

also refer to the contents of the vessels themselves. There are two examples of the music

bracket motif found at Cival, a Kitam Incised: Kitam variety and an Ante Incised: Ante

variety on everted rim plates. Interestingly these Cival examples do not show the same

patterns as Holmul, in these cases the music bracket is displayed on the interior rim of an

open orifice plates.

307

Fig. 7.13: Music Bracket Motifs from Holmul

The Tikal collection includes 15 examples of the music bracket motif, comprising 6%

of the incised collection. These are distributed evenly across types: Ramonal Unslipped:

Incised variety (1), Ante Incised: Ante variety (3), Bil White: Incised variety (2), Bechh

Incised: Bechh variety (4), Chak Red: Incised variety (5), and Lamat Black: Incised

variety (2). The Tikal examples do not show the same preference for restricted orifice

308

Fig. 7.14: Music Bracket Motifs from Tikal

vessel form. It is found on the interior of outcurving plates with everted rims in 12 cases,

or 80% of the time. The potters from Tikal seem to have preferred to use this

iconography in different ways from the Holmul potters. This may reflect different events

in which the vessels were used and the messages encoded in them. On the other hand this

may reflect isochrestic style. Perhaps the potters from Tikal had the habit of putting the

music bracket motif on the interior of plates and this habit was passed from one potter to

another through practice. The potters from Holmul had the habit of using this motif on

the exterior of tecomates and passed this practice through the process of making pottery

together as a community.

309

Shark’s Tooth

The shark’s tooth motif is seen across Mesoamerica, and especially in the Oaxaca

Valley, where it is usually incised on the exterior of tecomates and deep bowls

Fig. 7.15: Shark’s Tooth Motifs from Holmul

Fig. 7.16: Shark’s Tooth Motif from Tikal

310

descending from the vessels’ lip (Cheetham 2005). Joyce (1991) has interpreted it as a

textual reference to bloodletting, representing the perforator that was used in auto-

sacrifice. This action is an essential quality of Classic Maya and other Mesoamerican

kings. The offering of blood was a way to communicate with ancestors and gods, and to

commission their help with earthly dilemmas such as agriculture and accession rites

(Freidel et al. 1993). Most examples from Holmul present the shark’s tooth motif

horizontally along the rim of the vessel. The shark’s tooth motif is often paired with a

group of vertical lines, especially when located on the everted rims of plates. This motif

can also be interpreted as a horizontal

represntation of the rounded cleft head. This interpretation would also be supported

when there is a circle or semi-circle at the base of the shark’s tooth, as this is often seen

with rounded cleft heads. Alternatively, the circle may reference a component of the

bloodletting instrument.

The Holmul collection includes 25 examples of the shark’s tooth motif, comprising

5% of all incised sherds. The motif is common among many types: Katun Red: Incised

variety (9), Sak White: Incised variety (7), Lakin Red-on-White: Incised variety (1),

Baadz Tan: Incised variety (1), Ante Incised: Ante variety (4), Ochkin Orange: Incised

variety (1) and Kitam Incised: Kitam variety (1). There is one example of the shark’s

tooth on a Jobal Red: Incised variety sherd from Cival. The motif is not used

preferentially on any form or location, although in Ante Incised it tends to occur on the

everted rim of outcurving sided plates (3 out of 4). The Tikal collection includes 9

examples of the shark’s tooth motif, or 4% of the total incised sample. The potters at

Tikal tended to use the shark’s tooth motif on Ante Incised everted-rim plates, as seen on

311

four examples. This may relate to the intended use of the vessel, such as indicating the

contents of the vessel, or the type of ceremony in which the vessel was used. If the

shark’s tooth was indeed an iconographic reference to bloodletting it might indicate that

these wide-open vessels were used as a collection vessel during ritual bloodletting. In

Classic Maya iconography this plate form is seen often as a collection vessel for paper

with blood offerings (Freidel et al. 1993).

Tassels or Maize Fetishes

The tassel motif is often seen in ‘Olmec’ style artwork where it appears as a ritual

implement held by a ruler. This has been interpreted by Grove as a reference to auto-

sacrifice as part of the legitimization of rulership (Grove 1987). Schele interprets the

motif as a bundle of cuttings used by powerful leaders to plant new crops of corn (Schele

1995). Taube elaborates on this interpretation, seeing the ‘corn fetish’ as a ritual object

that celebrated corn as fundamental to the construction of the cosmos as understood by

early Middle Formative people across Mesoamerica (Taube 1995a). The tassel motif

seen in early pre-Mamom ceramics is far less complex and detailed than depictions

incised on jade or greenstone. Nonetheless, these tassels are probably also a symbol for

corn and its special meaning for early leaders and shamans. The Holmul collection

includes 8 examples of the tassel motif, representing 2% of the incised collection. This

motif is found in Katun Red: Incised variety (3), Ante Incised: Ante variety (1), Jobal

Red: Incised variety (1), Kitam Incised: Kitam variety (2), and Sak White: Incised variety

(1). The tassel motif tends to occur on the exterior body of vessels such as vases,

tecomates, bowls, and plates; although it also occurs on the interior base and body of

plates. There are two examples from Cival on a Sak White: Incised variety vessel and the

312

aforementioned sherd with bar and four dots motif (eroded). This motif was not present

in the Tikal collection.

Fig. 7.17: Tassel Motifs from Holmul

Mat Motif

Maya and Mesoamerican art include many representations of the woven mat. This

symbol is later called the ‘pop’ motif, the Maya word for mat. It represents the woven

cloth that adorned a seat, throne, or when placed on the ground creating a separation

between an individual and the ground, used as a distinguishing quality of early leaders in

the Oaxaca Valley (Flannery and Marcus 2000; Marcus 1999). With the inception of a

rank-based society elites used the symbol of a stool or the mat motif to identify

313

Fig 7.18: Mat Motifs from Holmul

themselves as distinct from the rest of society. In Oaxaca this pattern is seen in figurines

seated on stools, and on incised ceramics, found associated with elite households. The

mat symbol is also seen at Uaxactun in the Late Formative as an element associated with

a monumental stucco mask and the representation of important ancestors (Laporte and

Valdés 1993). It is seen in the Middle Preclassic at Cuello incised on bone tubes found in

the burials of elite individuals (Hammond 1990). For the Late Classic Maya the mat

motif is the paramount symbol for rulership, seen in association with rulers and their

places of governance such as the Copan Popol Na building (Fash et al. 1992). The

Cascajal block includes one instance of the mat motif (sign 22, Rodríguez Martinez et al.

2006). Carrasco and Englehardt (2015) interpret this image as a part of the diphrastic

kenning (the mat, the throne) indicating rulership in general.

The mat motif is seen on nine different sherds from the Holmul collection,

representing 2% of the incised collection. The examples were found in the Katun Red:

Incised variety (N=3), and Kitam Incised: Kitam variety (N=5), and Jobal Red: Incised

314

variety (1) types in a variety of forms. The mat motif was not found at Cival or in the

Tikal collection. In these early representations of the mat motif, we see patterns of

interlocking horizontal bands. This is the pattern seen in woven cloth and also the pattern

maintained in the Late Classic depictions. It also resembles

the contemporary representations from Oaxaca and the in Basin of Mexico that have been

identified as mat motifs symbolizing rulership (Flannery and Marcus 2000).

Triangles

Triangles are a common motif incised in Lowland Maya ceramics in the Pre-Mamom

period and become more common in the Mamom phase. Triangles are often represented

nested one inside another in a pattern of three, or with diagonal lines inside the triangle.

Triangles are almost always depicted along the edge of a single or double line that

encircles the vessel. There are 11 examples of the triangle in the Holmul collection,

comprising 2% of incised sherds. They are found on the exterior bodies of bowls (4), the

interior of everted rims (2), and the interior of bases (2). These are Katun Red: Incised

variety (6), Ante Incised: Ante variety (1), Kitam Incised: Kitam variety (1), Eknab

Black: Incised variety (1), and Jobal Red: Incised variety (1). There are three examples

of the triangle motif at Cival; a Katun Red: Incised variety, an Eknab Black: Incised

variety, and an Ante Incised: Ante variety. The triangle is the most common motif in the

Tikal collection, with 30 examples representing 13% of all incised sherds. Triangles are

seen in various types; Chak Red: Incised variety (8), Bechh Incised: Bechh variety (8),

Ante Incised: Ante variety (7), Lamat Black: Incised variety (2), Bil White: Incised

variety (2), Aac Incised: Aac variety (1), and Xpokol Incised: Xpokol variety (1).

315

Triangles are most often seen on the interior everted rims of plates (17). They are also

seen on the exterior rims of bowls (12).

Fig. 7.19: Triangle Motif from Tikal

Fig. 7.20: Triangle Motif from Holmul

316

Lines encircling vessels

The most common incised decoration on pre-Mamom pottery consist of lines

encircling the vessel. Often a single or double line will define the area of further

decoration with incision. Sometimes a pair of single lines create a register within which

the more complex motifs occur, this occurs most often around the wide everted rim of

out-curving plates. Single lines encircling the vessel occur in 74 examples in the Holmul

collection, evident on 16% of the total sample of incised sherds. The single line occurs in

various types; Katun Red: Incised variety (28), Sak White: Incised variety (13), Ochkin

Orange: Incised variety (3), Ante Incised: Ante variety (8), Chicin’a Black: Incised

variety (2), Jobal Red: Incised variety (1), Eknab Black: Incised variety (1), Xpokol

Incised: Xpokol variety (4), and Kitam Incised: Kitam variety (15). A pair of double

lines encircling the vessel occurred in 41 cases in the Holmul collection, 9% of the total

incised collection. This design also occurred throughout all types; Katun Red: Incised

variety (15), Sak White: Incised variety (4), Xpokol Incised: Xpokol variety (1), Eknab

Black: Incised variety (1), Ante Incised: Ante variety (2), Jobal Red: Incised variety (3),

Kitam Incised: Kitam variety (6), most often occurring on the exterior body of bowls.

Two lines with a space between them creating a register was also common, 37 examples

comprising 8% of the Holmul collection. This design also occurred in various types;

Katun Red: Incised variety (18), Sak White: Incised variety (3), Ochkin Orange: Incised

variety (1), Jobal Red: Incised variety (1), Ante Incised: Ante variety (1), and Kitam

Incised: Kitam variety (1). It was found most often on Ante Incised (9) types where it

was usually found on the interior wide everted rim of out-curving plates.

317

At Tikal single and double encircling lines are also the most commonly found incised

designs. Single lines encircling occur in 36 sherds, accounting for 15% of all incised

sherds. This occurs in various types, but most often in Ante Incised: Ante variety (19),

and Chak Red: Incised variety (13). Single grooved lines are also common, occurring in

54 cases accounting for 23% of incised sherds, occurring throughout the types equally.

Double lines occurred in pairs often, 57 cases or 24%, but occurred as paired lines

creating a register in only 3 cases. Double incised lines occurred most often in Bechh

Incised: Bechh variety (16), and Chak Red: Incised variety (13) as well as most other

types. Pre-slip grooved incision was also used in paired lines, 11 cases or 5%, and as a

register, 20 cases or 8%. These groove incisions occurred throughout all types, but the

grooved register was most common in Ante Incised: Ante variety (12). The grooved

lines were often combined with post-slip fine line incision. Grooved incision becomes

more common in the following Mamom complex.

Unique or Complex Images

The Holmul collection includes one sherd that is decorated with excision or carved-

incised. Excision is common in other areas of Mesoamerica during the Early and Middle

Formative (Bomster et al. 2005); it is found in the Gulf Coast, Oaxaca Valley, Basin of

Mexico, and in Honduras. This sherd is the first example of this type found in the Maya

Lowlands. It depicts a flame eyebrow on the exterior of a dish or plate with exterior

thickened or bolstered rim. The paste is unique and it seems likely that this sherd could

represent an imported vessel.

318

The Holmul collection includes one sherd that combines red-on-black slip with resist

decoration. This example is found on a round sided bowl with red slipped band on the

interior and exterior rim. The lower interior is black with resist design depicting rounded

images in a repeating pattern. Resist techniques are found commonly in the Basin of

Mexico in the Early and Middle Formative but have not been found in the Maya

Lowlands until this example from Holmul.

Fig. 7.21: Excised sherd from Holmul

319

Fig. 7.22: Resist Decorated sherd from Holmul

The Holmul K’awil and Tikal Early Eb each contain one instance of a stepped-fret

motif. This motif is common in later Maya iconography but is not seen often in pre-

Mamom decoration or the ‘Olmec’ style phenomenon. The two sherds show remarkable

similarity in the rendition of the motif. The one from Tikal occurs on a Chak Red:

320

Incised Variety bowl vessel, while the one from Holmul occurs on a K’atun Red: Incised

Variety everted rim plate. These stepped fret motifs are similar to the mountain sign

discussed by Mora-Marin (2005). Several Early and Middle Formative objects bear

this moutain symbol, including Kaminaljuyu Stela 10 and the Sacatepequez Stela. If

these stepped frets represent mountains then the circle at the base would be

interpreted as representing a cave. Interestingly, the Holmul sherd was actually

found wedged into the teeth of the open mouth cave/mountain mask in Building B,

Phase 1. However, that may be mere coincidence.

Fig. 7.23: Stepped Fret Motif from Tikal (left) and Holmul (right)

Sometimes we see a variety of motifs combined in complex patterns. These are

reminiscent of the ‘Olmec style’ incised decoration found on jade celts such as the

Humboldt celt. These linear combinations of motifs are reminiscent of early writing.

Many scholars have discussed these motifs as pars pro toto symbols referencing complex

concepts such as the Avian Serpent and Olmec Rain God. These symbols incised on jade

celts tend to pertain to maize, the quadripartite organization of the cosmos, and fertility.

The combination of motifs has been related to diphrastic kennings, combining two

321

images to arrive at a third meaning, and this may offer interpretation of the combination

of abstract motifs in pre-Mamom pottery. For the Classic Maya, writing on ceramic

vessels often refers to their food contents (Balieav et al. 2010) and that may be the case

here too.

VESSEL FORM AND INCISION

The Holmul potters show a preference for incised decoration on everted rim plates,

116 or 32% of incised rim sherds. Incised types account for 80% of all everted rim plates

in the K’awil complex. The plate with exterior thickened rim was also commonly found

with incised design, with 51 examples or 14% of incised rims. Incised types account for

18% of plates with exterior thickened rims. Bowls are also commonly found with incised

decoration. Bowls with slightly incurving sides occur with incision in 55 examples, 15%

of the incised collection. Other bowls with incision include the bowl with round sides

(Holmul N=12) and with flared sides (Holmul N=14). Also present are incised

tecomates, 20 examples accounting for 5% of the incised collection. Incised types

account for 48% of all slipped tecomates. Finally, there are 11 examples of incised vases

with vertical or flared sides, or 3% of the collection. When Holmul potters intended to

create a vessel decorated with incised motifs they were most likely to choose to make

plates with everted rims. When they made tecomates they were most likely intending to

use incised decoration, although slipped tecomates are relatively uncommon.

Interestingly there are no examples of incised design on jars from Holmul.

322

ICONOLOGIC AND ISOCHRESTIC STYLE

One of the goals of this project was to develop an understanding of the choices made

by potters in the Holmul and Tikal regions. To this end I have considered style from an

isochrestic and iconologic perspective. The most common incised decoration from these

sites is in single or double lines encircling vessel rims. Holmul potters used double lines

encircling most often on Ante Incised: Ante variety, on the interior of everted rims.

These double lines sometimes create a register delineating the area of further decoration.

Tikal potters used single/double lines encircling and triangles more commonly than

Holmul potters did. This difference may be related to chronology, as the single/double

encircling lines and triangles become more common in the following Mamom complex.

It may be that the Holmul pre-Mamom collection is slightly earlier than that from Tikal.

Tikal potters incised the music bracket motif diagonally on the interior upper surface of

everted rim dishes. Holmul potters incised music brackets verically on exterior bodies of

red-slipped vessels with restricted orifices. Holmul potters incised U-shape motifs on red

vessels, usually on the exterior of bowls. Holmul potters used cleft heads often while

cleft heads were absent from the Tikal collection. Holmul potters used mat motif and U-

shape while Tikal potters did not. Tikal potters tended to incise the Shark’s Tooth motif

on the interior everted rims of Ante Incised: Ante variety dishes. Holmul potters used

complex iconography more often than those at Tikal. These distinctions may again be

related to chronology; the more complex iconography may be used in the earlier part of

the pre-Mamom phase.

The potters from both Holmul and Tikal incised motifs on pottery that tied them into a

larger iconological style system shared with many communities across Mesoamerica.

323

One of the essential images in this symbol system is the cleft head. The cleft head is an

important motif relating to the cruciform cosmos and the maize plant at its center. This

image is found in its simplest form incised on ceramics, and in more complex

manifestations on monumental stone sculpture and incised on portable precious jade

objects. The Kan Cross is a related image, essentially the cleft head as seen from the

bird’s eye perspective, as can be seen so clearly in San Pajapan Monument 1. This image

is common in later Maya artistic canons around the legitimization of kingship. The U-

shape is also related to the cleft head as it is half of the rounded cleft head and often seen

adorning headdresses comprised of cleft heads. For the classic Maya the U-shape is part

of the AJAW glyph for ruler and the iconologic marker for ‘precious’. The cleft head is

also related to the shark’s tooth motif since it is presented horizontally as a deep cleft. In

these cases it can be interpreted either as a bloodletting instrument, or a deep cleft in the

earth, and probably this dual-interpretation was something played upon by these artists.

The Music Bracket motif is also related to the U-shape as it consists of vertical U-shapes

repeated along vertical or horizontal lines. The U-shape is also found in the gum bracket

as a component of the hand-paw-wing motif, it consists of two inverted U-shapes under a

horizontal or diagonal line. The other component of the hand-paw-wing motif is the

‘flame eyebrow’ which consists of a downturned line, or L-shape, with two or three

undulating lines adjacent to it.

CONCLUSIONS

The pre-Mamom collections from Holmul and Tikal include many examples of

incised motifs related to the ‘Olmec’ style phenomenon. These motifs are usually created

by fine-line incision in the Holmul and Tikal collections. They are found on all types of

324

slipped vessels, and on all forms. These motifs are often related to ideology surrounding

maize agriculture, the quadripartite organization of the cosmos, place making, and

rulership. While there are many examples of complex iconography, there are also many

more examples of simpler incised design such as single and double lines encircling vessel

walls, and triangles.

There are several recognizable motifs in the earliest phase at Holmul that relate to the

institution of kingship and its artistic representation for the Late Classsic Maya. Firstly,

we have evidence of abstract images related to rulership, such as the mat motif and

possibly the U-shape. The first symbolizes the seat of the ruler and in the Classic period

can stand alone to represent the institution of kingship and the ruling lineage. The U-

shape later represents precious stone and is used as a qualifier to identify ‘presciousness’

as the essential quality of an object. There are also symbols relating to the organization

of the cosmos; the crossed bands, cleft motif, and bar and four dots. The crossed bands

represent the intersection of the Milky Way and the ecliptic in the night sky. The Kan

Cross represents the portal space at that intersection which provides a conduit between

the upper, middle, and under-worlds. The cleft motif also relates the concept of this

portal space, but reflects the portal between the under and middle-worlds as a cross-

shaped cleft in the surface of the earth. It is also related to fertility of maize as it is the

growing maize seed that produces this cleft in the earth and the substance of the plant that

provides the conduit between the mundane and supernatural worlds. Finally, there is the

representation of sacred objects used by a ruler to travel between the natural and

supernatural worlds; the bloodletter and possibly the tassel motif. The bloodletter is an

object used in auto-sacrifice by the ruler to let his own blood, it is then burned to

325

transform it into a state that can be received by the gods and ancestors. This holy

substance, ch’ulel, becomes the means of communication between the ruler and the

deities, the site of his requesting their protection, and thus the legitimization of his role as

the ruler (Freidel et al. 1993). These three essential aspects of rulership; the person of the

ruler, the cosmos, and the communication between them; were components of the

‘Olmec’ style iconologic assemblage, long before they were used in divine legitimization

of the first Maya kings. While thes motifs are related to Classic period divine

legitimization of kings, it is important to remember that we do not have evidence of

kingship or social inequality in the early Middle Preclassic. These images may have been

used for very different purposes at this early date and later were associated with dynastic

rule. Nonetheless the use of these motifs in the early Middle Preclassic shows a

significant continuity in ideology and iconography from the foundation of Maya villages

to the Classic period cities.

326

Chapter 8

Conclusions

The most striking aspects of the pre-Mamom ceramics at Tikal and Holmul are that 1)

a majority of the collecion are decorated serving vessels, 2) the many incised decorations

represent abstract ideologically charged motifs similar to those used across Mesoamerica

in early elite contexts. These features have led me to conclude that ceramic technology

was adopted in this region for purposes related to serving and consuming foods in

ceremonial feasting events. While pre-Mamom ceramics have been found throughout the

Maya Lowlands, little is known about these settlements as remains of architecture are

extremely limited (Awe 1992; Cheetham 2005; Estrada-Belli 2011, 2012; Hammond

1990; Healy et al. 2004; Inomata 2015a and b). Many of the sites where pre-Mamom

ceramics are found do not include any primary deposits or architecture dating to that

period, including Holmul and Tikal (also Altar de Sacrificios, Xunantunich, Blackman

Eddy, Colha, Komchen, and Kiuic). Based on the prevalence of highly decorated serving

vessels (90% at Holmul and 84% at Tikal) and relative paucity of utilitarian vessels, I

propose that the pre-Mamom ceramics were an innovation adopted for serving food in

feasting activities. Dietler (2001: 67) defines feasting “explicitly as a form of public

ritual activity centered around the communal consumption of food and drink…identifying

feasts as a ritual activity does not mean that they are necessarily highly elaborate

ceremonies”. A similar situation has been hypothesized for the adoption of Barra

ceramics in the Soconusco region of the Pacific coast of Guatemala (Clark 1991; Clark

and Blake 1994; Clark and Gosser 1995). The Barra ceramics consisted primarily of

elaborately decorated serving vessels for liquids. Clark and Blake (1994) argue that these

327

vessels were used in feasts organized by early aggrandizers serving alcoholic beverages

in efforts to establish themselves as prestigious (or high-ranking) individuals within their

transegalitarian societies (Hayden 2001, 2011), a transformation that took place between

1500 and 1100 BC.

MAYA LOWLANDS AT THE EMERGENCE OF CERAMIC TECHNOLOGY

Prior to the pre-Mamom Phase, the Peten had been sparsely populated by hunter-

gatherers who used some maize agriculture, around 1500-1350 BC (Hansen et al. 2002;

Iceland 2005; Lohse et al. 2006; Pohl et al. 1996; Wahl et al. 2013). Around 1000 BC

their use of maize agriculture intensified with evidence of deforestation due to swidden

agriculture (Wahl et al. 2013). Parts of neighboring Belize were occupied by nomadic

hunter-gatherers in the millennia prior to ceramics, but little evidence of stone tools have

been found in the Peten (Lohse et al. 2006). The presence of early settlement is only

evident in lake sediment proxies of their impact on the environment with the introduction

of domesticated maize and subsequent land clearing activity (Wahl et al. 2006, 2013).

This evidence suggests that hunter-gatherers who were already planting domesticated

maize populated this area prior to the adoption of ceramics (Clark and Cheetham 2002;

Inomata 2015a). These early inhabitants probably utilized the seasonally inundated bajos

for natural irrigation (Lohse et al. 2006; Pohl et al. 1996; Wahl et al. 2006). Later, they

started clearing land of indigenous shrubs to make space for their crops. Around 1000

BC they began to produce and use K’awil ceramics at Holmul and Cival.

The earliest pre-Mamom villages were settled by these hunter-gatherers, possibly with

some additional individuals who would have migrated from communities in neighboring

328

areas (Inomata 2017). These early settlements are known only by scant remains of

architecture and the ceramics they used, often found mixed in fill from subsequent

monumental construction, as at Holmul. For Cahal Pech and Cuello there are a handful

of households and household level ritual activity at this time (Cheetham 2005; Hammond

1990; Healy et al. 2004; Sullivan et al. 2018). At Ceibal we see the earliest ritual

construction for the Maya Lowlands, an E-Group containing numerous caches exhibiting

evidence for early ritual activity (Inomata et al. 2015b; Inomata 2017a and b; Inomata et

al. 2017).

Excavations at Holmul have revealed only a few isolated primary contexts dating to

the pre-Mamom period. The only hint of construction dating to this time consists of four

postholes that represent the remains of some type of occupational architecture and a few

isolated deposits at the base of excavations around Building N. At Cival no

archaeological remains date directly to the pre-Mamom period, although these ceramics

have been found throughout the site center in subsequent construction fill. The first

construction at Cival is the massive earth moving project that created a large earthen

mound and topped with the first E-Group dating to around 800-750 BC, containing

Mamom ceramics and scant remains from the pre-Mamom Phase (Estrada-Belli 2011,

2012, 2017).

Ceramic technology was adopted by these incipient villagers at a time when

perishable containers were still in use and probably continued to meet some of their daily

needs (Blitz 2015). Ceramic vessels were likely used in new and special ways. Often

ceramic technology is adopted to meet the new needs of communities around food

preparation and storage (Hoopes and Barnett 1995). In those cases many of the vessels

329

are utilitarian types used for cooking and storage (Aikens 1995; Crown and Wills 1995;

Moore 1995). In the case of the Maya Lowlands and Pacific Coastal Guatemala/Chiapas

the earliest ceramics are not primarily utilitarian vessels. Instead, highly decorated

serving vessels comprise 90% of the K’awil complex and 100% of the Barra complex.

Therefore, it seems that this technology was adopted for use in special events around the

presentation and consumption of food. The K’awil and Early Eb ceramics were also used

as a medium for artistic expression of ideology that united the Maya Lowlands with other

parts of Mesoamerica (Cheetham 2005; Grove 1989; Joyce and Henderson 2010). These

symbols may have been used in distinct ways by each of the different communities where

they are found. An analysis of the ways in which each individual community used this

iconography is essential to understanding the social processes under way in the early

Middle Preclassic/Formative Mesoamerica (Cheetham 2010; Inomata 2015b; Joyce and

Henderson 2010). The goal of this dissertation is to elucidate how these early ceramics

and their iconography were used (or incorporated) by the Lowland Maya at Holmul and

Tikal.

The Maya Lowlands represents a unique facet in the ‘Olmec’ style interaction

sphere. Each area with ‘Olmec’ style iconography exhibits these motifs in distinct ways,

and each represents a differing levels of social complexity. None of these areas provides

an adequate model for understanding the Maya Lowlands. This area is unique in that it is

the only region that had no ceramic technology prior to 1000 BC and its first example of

pottery is marked by participation in the ‘Olmec’ style phenomenon. All other areas of

interaction in this network had an existing ceramic technology and incorporated ‘Olmec’

style design in their established ceramic tradition (Demarest 1989; Flannery and Marcus

330

1994; Grove 1989; Lesure 2011; Rosenswig 2010). The early villagers at Holmul

probably had contact with nearby regions of Mexico and the highlands of Guatemala

where pottery appeared much earlier (1600-1500 B.C.) (Clark and Gosser 1995; Flannery

and Marcus 1994; Inomata 2017a, MacNeish 1970). These various communities had

substantially different levels of social complexity during the era of ‘Olmec’ style incised

design (Demarest 1989; Flannery and Marcus 2000; Inomata 2015a). The Lowland

Maya transegalitarian communities were less socially complex than any other area in this

interaction sphere. That is not to suggest that they were passive participants in this

system who were colonized by foreign migrants. Instead, it is important to consider how

local communities utilized these symbols of ideology for their own local purposes (Joyce

2010) at a moment of massive social change at the transition from a foraging lifestyle to

settled village life with permanent ceramics.

‘Olmec’ style symbolism is found on ceramics across Mesoamerica, from as far as the

Basin of Mexico, through the Isthmus of Tehuatepec, the Yucatan, Guatemala, and to

Honduras (Grove 1989; Joyce and Henderson 2010; Tolstoy 1989). The same motifs are

also found in monumental stone sculpture in areas of greater social complexity (Gulf

Coast, Guerrero, Pacific Coast of Chiapas/Guatemala) and on portable objects of precious

greenstone and jade (Clark and Pye editors, 2000; Taube 1995a and b). Blank jade celts

without incised motifs are interred in the early Middle Preclassic in sites from the Maya

Lowlands, Chiapas, and the Gulf Coast usually in cruciform patterns underneath site

centers and sacred spaces (Ceibal, Cival, La Venta, and El Manatí) (Inomata 2017).

These cosmograms were interred during foundational place-making rituals at E-Groups in

Ceibal (1000-850 BC) and Cival (800 BC) in the Maya Lowlands (Estrada-Belli 2017;

331

Inomata 2017) as well as in adjacent Chiapas. The cosmogram or axis mundi is also a

recurrent theme in the incised decoration of the pre-Mamom ceramics at Holmul.

ANALYSIS OF THE K’AWIL AND EARLY EB CERAMICS

This dissertation began with the following questions: are these ceramics the earliest in

the Holmul sequence, and if so why was this new technology adopted? To answer these

questions, I have described a large assemblage of pottery from Holmul and Tikal,

performed an attribute analysis, and compared the collection to other early collections

from the Maya Lowlands and adjacent parts of Mesoamerica.

Based on this analysis, I conclude that the K’awil complex represents the earliest

ceramic phase in the Holmul sequence. The K’awil pottery was excavated from the base

of Group II in Holmul, the central E-Group in Cival, and in some small quantities from

other Preclassic contexts at both sites. To date, K’awil ceramics have not been found at

any of the other sites in the Holmul region (Hamontun, K’o, Cival II, Dos Aguadas,

Hahakab). The earliest levels just above bedrock in Holmul Group II contain 100%

K’awil ceramics. These early levels were identifiable as discrete contexts, but did not

represent an identifiable living surface or architecture. A single posthole in bedrock

ringed by several very small postholes give tantalizing clues to perishable structures that

probably dated to the K’awil phase. I hypothesize that these K’awil villagers lived in

perishable structures similar to the wattle and daub homes occupied by rural Maya

peoples in the Middle Preclassic at sites like Cuello and Cahal Pech, Belize (Hammond

1991; Sullivan et al. 2018). The large quantities of K’awil material throughout the

Preclassic sequence at Group II indicate that these ceramics were used and deposited in

332

or near Group II during the early Middle Preclassic period. Evidence of this early

settlement was largely obliterated and their remains scooped up and used for fill in the

massive constructions of the subsequent Late Preclassic, around 400-350 BC (Estrada-

Belli 2011; Neivens de Estrada 2005, 2007, 2009).

The K’awil complex dates to 1000-850 BC based on ceramic cross-dating with

other early Middle Preclassic complexes (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016;

Inomata et al. 2013). The beginning date is based on comparison to similar ceramic

complexes with better absolute dating and stratigraphy, including Ceibal and Cahal Pech.

Inomata and colleagues (2013) suggest that all the pre-Mamom complexes from Belize

and the Peten of Guatemala begin around 1000 BC. The end of the K’awil complex dates

to around 850 BC based on the radiocarbon date of a human burial in a chultun at Cival,

which contained ceramics from the succeeding ceramic complex, Yax Te Mamom

(Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016). This separation aligns with the Real 1 to Real

2 transition. The Yax Te Mamom complex contains early forms of major groups

(Juventud and Chunhinta) but a full ceramic complex cannot be defined with the

available data.

The ceramics of the K’awil complex are related to the contemporary complexes at

Ceibal (Real Xe), Cahal Pech (Cunil), and Tikal (Early Eb). For instance, there are

similarities in vessel forms, slip quality, and decorative techniques. The pastes are

unique to each site suggesting that each community was producing the pottery locally.

The distinctions between these complexes were sufficient to warrant the creation of new

type names for the Holmul K’awil complex. Firstly the Holmul collection is more varied

than other collections and includes types not yet found at other sites. The most abundant

333

type at most of the pre-Mamom sites is the monochrome red (Katun Red at Holmul,

Abelino Red at Ceibal, Uck Red at Cahal Pech, and Chak Red at Tikal). Holmul’s Katun

Red slip is different from Abelino Red or Uck Red in being a dark true red, while the

others tend towards an orange red, and because the slip includes particles of mica. The

monochrome black and its incised variety are also unique to Holmul. Cahal Pech’s Chi

Black is rare and does not occur in an incised variety; Ceibal’s Chompipi Incised is

similar in surface color to Eknab Black: Incised variety, but it occurs primarily with pre-

slip groove incision in circular patterns unlike the post-slip geometric incision from

Holmul. These major distinctions led me to create new type names for the Holmul

K’awil complex and those descriptions became a major component of this research.

Where types at Holmul were identical to previously established types from other sites I

have used those established type names: such as Mo’ Mottled, Kitam Incised, Calam

Buff, Ante Incised, and Aac Red-on-Buff.

The K’awil complex is the earliest ceramic phase in the Holmul region, and these

ceramics were made and used by people living in the immediate vicinity of Group II and

the site center of Cival prior to the monumental constructions that characterize these sites

in the Late Preclassic. Middle Preclassic populations may have remained semi-mobile as

suggested by Inomata and colleagues for Ceibal (Inomata et al. 2015a). These early

settlements may have been occupied by part of the local population at that time, while

others remained mobile moving seasonally through the landscape. The feasting events

that utilized the K’awil ceramics may have been opportunities for these two populations

to come together. Alternatively, these events may have involved only the part of the

population who had settled into these villages.

334

Feasting

The first ceramic complex at Holmul consists of 90% serving vessels and 10%

utilitarian cooking vessels. The wide array of serving vessels and their relative quantities

indicate that ceramic technology was adopted for the presentation and consumption of

food in special events involving food consumption, or ritual feasting. The fact that these

ceramics represent a novel technology for the Holmul villagers suggests that they were

used in an innovative practice, in this case special feasting events. I do not believe that

these early ceramics were used for the everyday presentation of food at the household

level within a family group. I hypothesize that these ceramics were used in special

feasting events that would have brought together larger groups of people for communal

consumption. The majority of plates from Holmul and Tikal occur in diameters larger

than 26cm, a category interpreted as multiple –serving (Arnold 1991; Wendt 2010). The

bowls in these collections occur in a bimodal distribution of diameters under 26cm and

larger than 30cm, suggesting a single and multiple-serving caetegory. At Ceibal these

early ceramics were used around the earliest public architecture. Unfortunately we do not

have evidence of ritual or household architecture from pre-Mamom times at Holmul,

Cival or Tikal. This technology itself was a new and special phenomenon, that the

vessels are for serving, and that they are highly decorated including elaborate

ideologically charged motifs indicates that they were used in special events. It is possible

that these decorated motifs had been known and used by these people for many

generations before they appeared on ceramic vessels. These motifs could have been

incised on gourds using similar techniques (Blitz 2015). The adoption of ceramic

technology allowed these people to display these motifs on a permanent medium and

335

allowed for new serving forms such the plate. Further, the new vessel forms utilized

would have allowed greater visibility for these motifs during their presentation,

specifically the plates with wide everted rims. Everted rim plates at Holmul are incised

75% of the time and 80% of the time at Tikal. It is also possible that these motifs were

new to the villagers that settled at Holmul and Cival. They may have been motifs that

they picked up from interaction with neighbors from other more socially complex areas

of Mesoamerica, and were incorporated by the Lowland Maya as a way of expressing

participation in an imagined community focused on maize agriculture (Clark 1997; Isbell

2000).

Since the type-variety method is the preferred method for analyzing ceramics in the

Maya Lowlands I have presented this data using that method (Chapter 4 Holmul and

Chapter 5 Tikal). In this analysis I chose to supplement my traditional type-variety

analysis with an attribute analysis and description of form (Chapter 6) and iconologic

style (Chapter 7). In looking at form I divided the ceramics into two basic categories;

decorated serving vessels (slipped or burnished), and unslipped utilitarian vessels. When

Holmul potters made plates they preferred to make them with exterior thickened rims and

pointed lips, while Tikal potters preferred to make plates with everted rims. Everted rim

plates are also common at Holmul, but not as common as other plates or bowls with

incurving sides and direct rims. Potters at both sites tended to use the everted rim plate

for incising, and that seems logical given that the everted rim provides a flat surface upon

which to create further decoration. Potters at Holmul and Tikal both tended to make

slipped tecomates with exterior thickened rims, with some examples of tecomates with

direct rims and interior thickened rims. At Holmul roughly half the slipped tecomates

336

were incised. Dishes with flared sides are found only at Holmul in the Mo’ Mottled:

Fluted Variety type. For undecorated utilitarian ceramics Holmul potters preferred to

make jars with direct rims and exterior thickened rims, while the collection at Tikal

contained a more even distribution of bowls, tecomates, and jars. Dishes with exterior

thickened rims were only found in the Ramonal Unslipped type at both sites, where it is

common. Interestingly, this type and form is not found at Holmul but is common at Cival

in the Holmul region.

By making these minute distinctions between preferences of the potting communities

at Holmul and Tikal I have approached an understanding of isochrestic style. These

distinctions between the two samples reflect the choices made by potters while they are

creating their craft, a process described by Bourdieu as habitus (1977). Their preferences

are passed through the community and down to the next generation through the process

of daily actions within the crafting community. This isochrestic style is a reflection of

the natural community while iconologic style can reflect the ‘imagined community’

(Sackett 1990, Isbell 2000). The imagined community may invoke an ideology actively

pursued by a community that wishes to express its connection to other places, foreign

concepts, or complex ideology (Isbell 2000).

The potters at Holmul and Tikal actively chose to imbue their vessels with

iconography common in other parts of Mesoamerica during the Early and Middle

Preclassic. This iconologic style reflects participation in a broad ideological system that

relates to maize, fertility, and the quadripartite organization of the cosmos, which were

concepts that were later used in the legitimization of divine kingship in the Maya

Lowlands and across Mesoamerica (Caso 1942; Freidel 2017; Martin 2007). These early

337

ceramics are decorated serving vessels indicating that ceramics were adopted for

purposes pertaining to consumption patterns. The symbolically-charged motifs often

relating to the maize plant on serving vessels suggests that they were used in ritualized

feasts that likely involved maize. These feasting events in Holmul and Tikal were

opportunities for the communities to express their ‘imagined community’ by displaying

foreign symbolism and its related ideology. Interactions among distinct communities of

varying complexity is evidenced by the ‘Olmec’ style incised design. The Lowland

Maya observed or learned about ceramic technology through these same interactions that

transmuted this artistic style across this vast region.

This was a transformative moment in the trajectory of ancient Maya prehistory when

formerly mobile egalitarian groups started to settle into permanent villages, use ceramics,

and plant maize intensively. The social events in which these ceramics were used may

have been essential to this cultural transformation. While the Barra ceramics were used

by emergent elites in social events focused on their own social aggrandizement, there is

no evidence for hierarchy within the K’awil and Early Eb societies. These ceramic

assemblages show a similar emphasis on serving vessels and complex decoration, but

they may have been used in social events aimed at uniting semi-mobile groups (as

suggested by Inomata for the early E-Groups) rather than in events designed to establish

social hierarchy. The incised decoration occurs on both individual and multiple serving

size categories. These decorations tend to relate to concepts of maize agriculture and

cosmology. These concepts are later associated with the legitimization of kingship

(Freidel et al. 1993; Schele 1995), but we cannot project such an interpretation back in

time without further evidence of social inequality.

338

Iconography

The complex incised decoration from Holmul include many motifs related to maize;

cleft head, shark’s tooth, tassel, and Kan cross. The cleft head is the crack in the surface

of the earth from which the maize plant emerges, sometimes it includes a circle which

represents the maize kernel (Schele 1995). The shark’s tooth has been interpreted as a

bloodletting instrument (Joyce 1991), but it also shares qualities to the cleft head and in

the Holmul examples may also represent the cleft in the earth from which the maize plant

emerges. The St. Andrew’s cross, a cross with four equal sides, is a cosmogram

representing the four directions of the earth and heavens, in 3-dimensional sculpture from

this time we see that the Kan cross is a cleft head seen in plan perspective (see San

Martín Pajapan Monument 1, fig. 7.1). The center of the four directions of the earth is

often the location of the maize plant in later Maya art, and maize has a central role in

conceptions of the cosmos. This was a time when the Maya at Holmul began to use and

plant maize more intensively (Wahl et al. 2013). Maize agriculture was an important part

of the new sedentary lifestyle of these villagers at Holmul and it was celebrated at

communal events in which ceramic vessels were displayed and used. In this way these

two new technologies, maize agriculture and ceramic vessels, were essential components

of a sedentary lifestyle. The feasting events and iconography of the vessels were

opportunities to celebrate the maize plant and build community identity.

In other areas, the incised decoration on jade celts that combine motifs in a linear

pattern also tend to portray images related to maize, the quadripartite cosmos, and

fertility. In some cases these linear patterns suggest incipient writing (Justeson 1986;

Pohl et al. 2002). The earliest examples of writing include symbols found in the ‘Olmec’

339

style. Blank jade celts were used by the Lowland Maya at Ceibal and Cival in place-

making ceremonies at the site centers relating these sacred spaces to the cosmos. Maybe

the combinations of motifs incised on ceramic vessels also offer clues to the ceremonies

in which these vessels were used, or the contents of those vessels.

One of the goals of this project was to identify ways in which the local communities

created these ceramic vessels in distinct ways. In considering isochrestic style I have

looked at specific formal, color, and incision type and location, from both Holmul and

Tikal to approach an understanding of local patterns. While the cleft head is common at

Holmul it shows no preference for slip color or location on the vessel, and cleft heads are

absent from the Tikal collection entirely. The Hand-Paw-Wing and Flame Eyebrow

motifs at Holmul tend to be incised on red slipped vessels, and are most commonly

incised on the exterior of bowls. The U-shape is often part of a larger complex design

such as the music bracket, hand-paw-wing/flame eyebrow, or cleft head; the U-shape was

common at Holmul but not found at Tikal. The music bracket at Holmul is usually found

on red slipped vessels on the exterior body of tecomates and bowls, displayed vertically.

At Tikal the music bracket is usually seen on the rim of everted rim plates, and displayed

horizontally, with no preference for slip color. The tassel and mat motifs are common at

Holmul, but absent from the Tikal collection. These distinctions result in part from the

differing nature of the two ceramic collections.

The Holmul collection contains a larger quantity of incised sherds, and the motifs tend

to be more complex. There are some similarities between the collections from Cival and

Tikal that set them apart from the Holmul collection. Both sites have fewer examples of

340

Motif Holmul (399 Total) Cival (64 Total) Tikal (233 Total)

Cleft Head 30 0 4

L-shape 34 1 0

U-shape 12 0 0

Double Merlon 5 0 0

Tassel 8 1 0

Mat 9 0 0

Shark’s Tooth 24 1 4

Music Bracket 25 2 15

Triangle 11 3 30

Table 8.1: Occurrence of Complex Incised Motifs by site

incised decoration and fewer depictions of complex iconography. Tikal has a greater

number of triangles, a motif that becomes more common in the following ceramic phase.

There are no examples of the U-shape or double merlon at either site, these motifs are

both related to the Cleft Head and the complex compilations related to the hand-paw-

wing or ‘Olmec Dragon’ motif. Music Brackets at Tikal and Cival are incised on the

everted rims of open plates, while at Holmul this motif tends to be incised on the exterior

of restricted orifice vessels. Other complex motifs such as the Tassel and Mat motif are

rare or absent from the Cival and Tikal collections. Both sites included examples of the

Ramonal Unslipped: Ramonal variety deep dishes that are absent from Holmul. Ramonal

Unslipped occurs in an incised variety which is also absent from Holmul. The Tikal

collection also included a larger variety of these unslipped vessels including red-painted

unslipped types and colander forms. This may indicate that the Tikal and Cival

341

collections are slightly later in date than Holmul collection. It may alternatively indicate

that either collection does not represent a complete sample, and perhaps later excavations

will reveal a complete sample with greater internal complexity that may have existed

during this time period. Another possibility is that the Holmul collection in some ways

represents a special sample. It may be that the Holmul collection is made up of the

remains of serving vessels related to feasting activity while the vessels used for cooking

those feasts, and/or for quotidian activities were deposited in another location at the site.

CONCLUSIONS

I suggest that the earliest ceramics were produced and utilized specifically for feasting

events at Holmul and Tikal. These ceramics show the high degree of decoration common

to ceramics used in feasting activities (Clark and Blake 1994; DeBoer 2001; Hayden

2001; Junker 2001, LeCount 2001). Another archaeological marker of feasting behavior

is the presence of larger cooking vessels, as seen in numerous examples from the

Southwest and Southeast United States (Blitz 1993; Mills 1999; Potter 2000). In those

examples large cooking and storage vessels are interpreted as evidence of food

preparation locations for feasts sponsored by local elites interested in gathering

communal labor for work events around mound building (Blitz 1993) or social

integration (Mills 1999). There is no corresponding large-scale cooking vessel forms

found with the early ceramics of the Lowland Maya pre-Mamom or the coastal Maya

Barra complex. Instead, these Maya communities developed ceramic vessels to display

and consume food in ritual contexts, but may have continued to prepare foods in the ways

they had done prior to the invention of ceramic technology (Clark and Blake 1994).

342

Another possibility is that these feasting events may not have involved large quantities

of food or a large group of participants. These may have been feasts in the sense of a

ritual consumption events involving a group different from the immediate family (Dietler

2001). LeCount finds that Classic Maya feasting events were not accompanied by overtly

large cooking vessels, specifically she found elite feasting associated with vases for

drinking chocolate (LeCount 2001). LeCount notes that “Cooking and preparation pots

are less specific indicators of feasting than serving ware because Maya cuisine, whether it

was daily, sacred, or festival foods, essentially involved the same set of cooking

techniques: soaking, mixing, boiling, and toasting” (LeCount 2001: 945). Callaghan’s

discussion of feasting among the Terminal Preclassic Maya also did not include large-

scale vessels, but instead involved highly decorated and ritually significant vessels used

in funerary contexts (Callaghan 2016). I hypothesize that pre-Mamom Maya feasting

follow patterns seen for the Formative period Soconusco and Classic period Maya; that

feasting is evidenced through elaborately decorated serving vessels rather than large-scale

cooking, storage, or presentation vessels.

Feasting in transegalitarian societies can take many forms. Societies without social

inequality may use feasts to build community, or individuals may sponsor feasts to

promote themselves and differentiate themselves as special members of the community

(Hayden 2001). One such community building event would be feasting associated with

mound building (Blitz 1993; Knight 2001), or work feasts where groups come together to

cooperate in farming. Examples of feasts sponsored for personal promotion are found in

the Northwest coast potlatch (Perodie 2001) and Hawaiian chiefdoms (Kirch 2001).

Sometimes these events would be difficult to detect in the archaeological record. In some

343

cases the remains of feast preparation might be found in a separate location from the feast

consumption event (Weissner 2001). Archaeological inference for feasting behavior

consists of the vessels used to prepare or consume the meal; and the botanical or faunal

remains of that meal. The cases of Late Classic Maya feasting around chocolate

beverages (LeCount 2001) and Terminal Preclassic Maya feasting around funerary events

(Callaghan 2016) do not involve large groups of participants but are distinguished as

feasts by their ritualized nature; the use of special food and drink and highly elaborate

and personalized drinking vessels. In the case of the pre-Mamom Maya I suggest that

these highly decorated vessels were used as serving vessels in feasting events. The small

size bowls may have been used as individual contianers in these feasts. These events

may have included outsiders not residing in the community, such as mobile populations

living in the immediate area. Such events would have drawn the mobile population into

the social arena of the villagers, and possibly created reciprocal relationships that

benefitted both groups and led to ceremonial place making rituals at site centers like

Cival and Ceibal (Estrada-Belli 2017; Inomata et al. 2015a; Inomata 2017). Other

outsiders involved in these ritual events may have come from other villages, such as

centers in the Maya Lowlands or other centers in Mesoamerica. These events would

have provided an opportunity for the spread of ideas and iconography that defined the

‘Olmec’ style system.

Particular contexts at Holmul indicate remains of feast events through the presence of

serving vessels and large quantities of faunal remains. HOL.L.63.20 and HOL.L.63.08

are construction fill found inside Building B and containing 92% and 89% K’awil

ceramics, as well as faunal remains of river mussels and apple snails (Sharpe n.d.). I

344

suggest that these contexts are the remains of feasts that included shellfish and snails, and

most likely some form of maize. These remains were scooped up and redeposited in the

monumental construction phase of the Late Preclassic. HOL.T.75.26 is a context of

construction fill at the base of Building F in Group II and containing 98% K’awil

material, as well as faunal remains of peccary, white-tailed deer, bird, and turtle (Sharpe

n.d.). I suggest that this context represents the remains of a feast involving animal meat.

Another important component of these events would have been maize. We cannot

determine the contents of vessels until further analysis has been completed, but maize

must have been one ingredient. The sediment core analysis shows an increased reliance

on maize agriculture in the early Middle Preclassic (Wahl et al. 2013), and the

iconography of the incised decoration is often concerned with the centrality of maize

cosmology. These feasting events may have been related to new consumption patterns

created by the increased reliance on maize agriculture. I suggest that these feasts

occurred in or around Group II during the early Middle Preclassic and their remains were

re-deposited in monumental architecture in the Late Preclassic.

These events would have been an important component of settled village life. They

offered an opportunity to celebrate the ideology and cosmology that became fundamental

to settlements of the Maya Lowlands. They would have likely been events that drew in

participants from the surrounding landscape and promoted the adoption of settled village

life and ceramic technology. While the iconography incised on these vessels is ancestral

to later imagery legitimizing divine kingship it is not appropriate to suggest social

inequality for the pre-Mamom Maya given the lack of other archaeological correlates.

345

There may have been ‘big men’ or ‘aggrandizers’ who sponsored these events but there is

no other evidence of those elite individuals.

During the Mamom phase Lowland Maya exhibit the first manifestations of social

complexity, combined with elaborate rituals around place-making, a phenomenon that

appears first at Ceibal between 1000 and 800 BC, then at Cival around 800-750 BC, and

in the numerous E Group assemblages built across the lowlands in the following

centuries during the late Middle preclassic phase (Anderson 2011; Doyle 2012; Doyle

2017; Inomata 2017). This period shows cultural homogeneity across the Maya

Lowlands with similar Mamom ceramics found across the region. Furthermore, during

this time a uniquely Maya cultural tradition appears across the lowlands defined by

shared ceramic styles, architectural complexes, and ritual practice (Estrada-Belli 2017).

In the following Late Preclassic period, defined by the Chicanel ceramic sphere, the

Maya Lowlands reached an apex of cultural complexity (Brown et al. 2018). In

considering the origins of social complexity we must look farther back in time, to the

period when this area was shifting from mobile egalitarian communities to settled

villages.

In subsequent phases the remains of the K’awil phase community and the feasting

events conducted there were scooped up in community building events that created the

monumental ceremonial architecture of the Late Preclassic. The first phase of that Late

Preclassic monumental construction was a decorated with a witz (mountain) mask with

an idealized ancestor emerging from a cave. Perhaps the Late Preclassic inhabitants of

Holmul remembered the community celebrations and feasts of the K’awil phase and

chose this location for ancestor veneration intentionally because it contained those

346

remains. Group II, Holmul was likely the location of a pre-Mamom village and the site

of ritual feasting. It became a space for ancestor veneration in the Late Preclassic and

funerary events involving feasting as evidenced through elaborate serving vessels found

in tombs (Callaghan 2016; Merwin and Vaillant 1932). The theme of ancestor

veneration was maintained into the Late Classic with the construction of an elaborate

tomb and temple shrine celebrating an important lineage (Estrada-Belli and Tokovinine

2016). This long term focus on ancestor veneration may indicate that such celebrations

of ancestors were evident here in the pre-Mamom phase, a hypothesis that may be

confirmed as new evidence is uncovered.

This dissertation has presented the earliest ceramic complexes from Holmul and Tikal,

dating to 1000-850 BC. A major component of the research has been a description of the

ceramic assemblages and dating them based on cross-reference of other sites with better

stratigraphy and radiocarbon dates (Inomata et al. 2013). Two striking features of these

pre-Mamom ceramic phases are the incised complex iconography and the prevalence of

highly decorated serving vessels. The incised decoration of ‘Olmec’ style motifs shows

that these Maya lowlanders were participating in an ‘imagined’ community that drew

them into a social sphere uniting much of Mesoamerica in the early Middle Preclassic. I

have argued that the highly decorated serving vessels were adopted for use in special

feasting events in which these ceramics were displayed and used. These events might

have occasioned visits from neighboring settlements or regions and thus served as a

mechanism for the exchange of ideas expressed in the ideologically charged incised

motifs. By examining these ceramics from the perspective of isochrestic and iconologic

style we can begin to elucidate how communities were brought into this intriguing

347

interaction sphere and transformed these motifs through their own local practices. This

era presents an important moment in the social history of the region when these

transegalitarian communities chose to settle in permanent villages and soon thereafter

began to build monumental ritual centers.

348

References Cited

Acuña, Mary Jane

2018 El Achiotal: An Interior Frontier Center in Northwestern Peten,

Guatemala. In: Pathways to Complexity: A View from the Maya Lowlands,

edited by M. Kathryn Brown and George J. Bey, III. University Press of Florida.

Adams, Richard E. W.

1971 The Ceramics of Altar de Sacrificios. Cambridge: Papers of the Peabody

Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Vol. 63, no. 1.

Aimers, James John

2013 Type-Variety on Trial: Experiments in Classification and Meaning Using

Ceramic Assemblages from Lamanai, Belize. In: Ancient Maya Pottery:

Classification, Analysis, and Interpretation. Edited by John James Aimers.

University Press of Florida.

Aikens, C. Melvin

1995 First in the World: The Jomon Pottery of Early Japan. In: The Emergence

of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by William K.

Barnett and John W. Hoopes. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Andrews, E. Wyllys IV.

1986 Olmec Jades from Chacsinkin, Yucatan, and Maya Ceramics from La

Venta, Tabasco. In: Research and Reflections in Archaeolgy and History; essays

349

in Honor of Doris Stone, edited by E. Wyllys Andrews IV. Middle American

Research Institute, Publication 57. New Orleans.

1990 Early Ceramic History of the Lowland Maya. In: Vision and Revision in

Maya Studies, ed. Flora Clancy and Peter Harrison, pp. 1-19. Albuquerque:

University of New Mexico Press.

Andrews, E. Wyllys, George J. Bey III, and Christopher Gunn

2018 The Earliest Ceramics of the Northern Maya Lowlands. In: Pathways to

Complexity: A View from the Maya Lowlands, edited by M. Kathryn Brown and

George J. Bey, III. University Press of Florida.

Andrews, E. Wyllys IV, and Norman Hammond

1990 Redefinition of the Swasey Phase at Cuello, Belize. American Antiquity

55:570-84.

Anderson, David

2011 Xtobo, Yucatan, Mexico, and the Emergent Preclassic of the Northern

Maya Lowlands. Ancient Mesoamerica 22: 301-322.

Arroyo, Barbara

1995 Early Ceramics from El Salvador: The El Carmen Site. In The Emergence

of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by William K.

Barnett and John W. Hoopes. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington.

Arnold, Dean

350

1991 Domestic Ceramic Production and Spatial Organization: A Mexican Case

Study in Ethnoarchaeology. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Arnold, Dean, Ronald L. Bishop, and Hector Neff

1991 Compositional analysis and “sources”: an Ethnoarchaeological Approach.

American Anthropologist v.93(1), pp. 70-90.

Awe, Jaime Jose

1992 Dawn in the Land Between the Rivers: Formative Occupation at Cahal

Pech, Belize and its Implications for Preclassic Development in the Maya

Lowlands. Ph. D. Dissertation from the Institute of Archaeology, University of

London.

Awe, Jaime, Cassandra Bill, Mark Campbell, and David Cheetham

1990 Early Middle Formative Occupation in the Central Maya Lowlands:

Recent Evidence from Cahal Pech, Belize. PIA No. 1, 1990

Backles, Clarus J. Jr., David Cheetham, and Hector Neff

2012 The Color of Influence: A Provenance Study of Hematite- Based Paints on

Early Olmec Carved Pottery. Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 70-92.

Ball, Joseph W. and Jennifer T. Taschek

2003 Reconsidering the Belize Valley Preclassic: A Case for Multiethnic

Interactions in the Development of a Regional Culture Tradition. Ancient

Mesoamerica, Vol. 14, issue 2.

351

Bartlett, Mary Lee and Patricia A. McAnany

2000 “Crafting” communities: the materialization of Formative Maya identities.

In: The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by

Marcello A. Canuto and Jason Yaeger. Routledge; New York.

Benson, Elizabeth P., and Beatriz de la Fuente

1996 Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of

Art.

Beliaev, Dmitri, Albert Davletshinm and Alexandre Tokovinine

2010 Sweet Cacao and Sour Atole: Mised Drinks on Classic Maya Ceramic

Vases. In: Pre-Columbian Foodways: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Food,

Culture, and Markets in Ancient Mesoamerica. Edited by John Edward Staller

and Michael Carrasco. Springer, New York.

Bishop, Ronald L., Robert L. Rands, and George R. Holley

1982 Ceramic Compositional Analysis in Archaeological Perspective. In:

Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory vol. 5. Edited by Michael

Schiffer, pp. 275-330. Academic Press: New York.

Blake, Michael and John E. Clark

1999 The Emergence of Hereditary Inequality: The Case of Pacific Coastal

Chiapas, Mexico. In: Pacific Latin America in Prehistory; The Evolution of

352

Archaic and Formative Cultures. Edited by Michael Blake. Washington State

University Press, Pullman, Washington.

Blitz, John

1993 Big Pots for Big Shots. American Antiquity. Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 80-96.

2015 Skeuomorphs, Pottery, and Technological Change. American

Anthropologist, Vol. 117 (4), pp. 665-678.

Blomster, Jeffrey P.

2010 Complexity, Interaction, and Epistemology: Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and

Olmecs in Early Formative Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica, Vol. 21:135-

149.

Blomster, Jeffrey P. Hector Neff, and Michael D. Glascock

2005 Olmec Pottery Production and Export in Ancient Mexico Determined

Through Elemental Analysis. Science, Vol. 307, p. 1068-1072.

Bogucki, Peter

1995 The Linear Pottery Culture of Central Europe: Conservative Colonists? In:

The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies,

edited by William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington D.C.

Bourdieu, Pierre

1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

353

Brady, James E., Joseph W. Ball, Duncan C. Pring, Rupert A. Housley, and Norman

Hammond

1998 The lowland Maya “Protoclassic”: a reconsideration of its nature and

significance. Ancient Mesoamerica, Vol. 9, no. 1, pp.17-38.

Braun, David P.

1982 Pots as Tools. In: Archaeological Hammers and Tools, pp. 107-134.

Academic Press, New York.

Brown, J. A.

1989 The Beginnings of Pottery as an Economic Process. In: What’s New? A

Closer Look at the Process of Innovation, edited by S. vander Leeuw and R.

Torrence, pp. 203-224. Unwin Hyman, London.

Brown, M. Kathryn, Jaime J. Awe, and James Garber

2018 The Role of Ideology, Religion, and Ritual in the Foundation of Social

Complexity in the Belize River Valley. In: Pathways to Complexity: A View from

the Maya Lowlands, edited by M. Kathryn Brown and George J. Bey, III.

University Press of Florida.

Callaghan, Michael

2008 Technologies of Power: Ritual Economy and Ceramic Production ihn the

Terminal Preclassic Period Holmul Region, Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D.

dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville.

354

2013 Politics Through Pottery: A View of the Preclassic-Classic Transition

from Building B, Group II, Holmul, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica (24) 2, pp.

307-341.

2016 Techné and Ceramic Social Valuables of the Late Preclassic Maya

Lowlands. In: Making Value, Making Meaning: Techné in the Pre-Columbian

World, edited by Cathy Lynne Costin. Dumbarton Oaks; Washington D.C.

Callaghan, Michael and Nina Neivens de Estrada

2016 The Ceramic Sequence of the Holmul Region, Guatemala. The University

of Arizona Press; Tucson.

Canuto, Marcello A.

2007 Middle Preclassic Maya Society: Tilting at Windmills or Giants of

Civilization? In: The Origins of Maya Sates, edited by Loa P. Traxler and Robert

J. Sharer. University if Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology;

Philadelphia.

Carrasco, Michael D. and Joshua D. Englehardt

2015 Diphrastic Kennings on the Cascajal Block and the Emergence of

Mesoamerican Writing. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 25:3, pp. 635-656.

Caso, Alfonso

355

1942 Definición y extension del complejo ‘Olmeca’”. Mayas y Olmecas:

segunda Reunión de mesa redonda sobre problemas antropológicos de México y

Centro América. Mexico DF: Talleres de la Editorial Stylo.

1965 Existó un imperio olmeca? Memoria de el Colegio Nacional, 5 (3):1-52.

Mexico DF.

Cheetham, David

1995 Excavations at Structure B4, Cahal Pech, Belize: 1994 Operations. In:

Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1994 Field Season, edited

by Paul F. Healy and Jaime J. Awe, pp.18-44. Trent University, Department of

Anthropology Occasional Papers in Anthropology, no. 10. Peterborogh.

2005 Cunil: A Pre-Mamom Horizon in the Southern Maya Lowlands. In: New

Perspectives on Formative Mesoamerican Cultures, edited by Terry G. Powis.

BAR International Series 1377.

2010a Cultural Imperatives in Clay: Early Olmec Carved Pottery from San

Lorenzo and Cantón Corralito. Ancient Mesoamerica, Vol. 21: 165-185.

2010b Corn, Colanders, and Cooking: Early Maize Processing in the Maya

Lowlands and Its Implications. In: Pre-Columbian Foodways: Interdisciplinary

Approaches to Food, Culture, and Markets in Ancient Mesoamerica. Edited by

John Edward Staller and Michael Carrasco. Springer, New York.

n.d. Tikal Monograph. Unpublished manuscpript in the possession of the author.

Clark, John E.

356

1991 The Beginnings of Mesoamerica: Apologia for the Soconusco Early

Formative. In: The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica,

edited by W. R. Fowler Jr. pp. 13-26. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

1997 The Arts of Government in Early Mesoamerica. Annual Reviews of

Anthropology, Vol. 26: 211-234.

2007 Western Kingdoms of the Middle Preclassic. In: The Origins of Maya

Sates, edited by Loa P. Traxler and Robert J. Sharer. University if Pennsylvania

Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology; Philadelphia.

Clark, John E. and Michael Blake

1994 The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of

Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. In: Factional Competition and the

Political Development in the New World, edited by E. M. Brumfiel and J. W.

Fox, pp. 17-30. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Clark, John E. and David Cheetham

2002 Mesoamerica’s Tribal Foundations. In: The Archaeology of Tribal

Societies, ed. W.A. Parkinson, pp. 278-339. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan

Press.

Clark, John E. and Dennis Gosser

1995 Reinventing Mesoamerica’s First Pottery. In The Emergence of Pottery:

Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by William K. Barnett

and John W. Hoopes. Smithsonian Institution Press: Washington.

357

Clark, John E. and Mary E. Pye

2000 The Pacific Coast and the Olmec Question. In: Olmec Art and

Archaeology in Mesoamerica. National Gallery of Art: Washington. Yale

University Press: New Haven.

Clark, John E. and Mary E. Pye, editors

2000 Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. National Gallery of Art:

Washington. Yale University Press: New Haven.

Clarke, Michael J.

2001 Ahka Feasting: An Ethnographical Perspective. In: Feasts:

Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power,

edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden. The University of Alabama Press:

Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Coe, Michael

1961 La Victoria, an Early Site on the Pacific coast of Guatemala. Papers of

the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 53. Harvard University.

1965 The Olmec style and its distribution. In: Handbook of Middle American

Indians, Vol. 3, edited by Gordon R. Willey. Austin: University of Texas.

1966 The Maya. 1st edition. New York: Thames and Hudson.

Coe, Michael D. and Richard A. Diehl

358

1980 In the Land of the Olmec: the Archaeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan.

Austin: University of Texas Press.

Coe, Michael D., Richard A. Diehl, David A. Freidel, Peter T. Furst, F. Kent Reilly, III,

Linda Schele, Carolyn E. Tate, Karl A. Taube

1996 The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership. Princeton: The Art Museum,

Princeton University.

Covarrubias, Miguel

1946 Mexico South: the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

1957 Indian Art of Mexico and Central America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Crown, Patricia L., and W. H. Wills

1995 Economic Intensification and the Origins of Ceramic Containers in the

American Southwest. In: The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation

in Ancient Societies, edited by William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Cyphers, Ann

1997 Olmec Architecture at San Lorenzo. In: Olmec to Aztec: Settlement

Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands, edited by Barbara L. Stark and Philip J.

Arnold III. University of Arizona Press: Tucson.

Culbert, T. Patrick

359

1993 The Ceramics of Tikal: Vessels from the Burials, Caches, and

Problematical Deposits. Tikal Report No. 25A. University Museum Monograph

No. 81. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

2003 The Ceramics of Tikal. In: Tikal: Dynasties, Foreigners, and Affairs of

State, edited by Jeremy Sabloff, pp. 47-82. School of American Research Press,

Santa Fe.

n.d. Tikal Report No. 25B. Unpublished manuscpript in the possession of the

author.

Culbert, T. Patrick and Robert Rands

2007 Multiple Classiffications: An Alternative Approach to the Investigation of

Maya Ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 18: 181-190.

Cyphers, Ann

2007 The Early Preclassic Olmec: An Overview. In: The Origins of Maya Sates,

edited by Loa P. Traxler and Robert J. Sharer. University if Pennsylvania

Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology; Philadelphia.

DeBoer, W.R., and D.W. Lathrap

1979 The Making and Breaking of Shipibo-Conibo Cedramics. In Ethnography

for Archaeology, edited by C. Kramer, pp. 102-138. Columbia University Press:

New York.

DeCorse, Christopher R.

360

1989 Beads as Chronological Indicators in West African Archaeology: a

Reexamination, pp. 41-53.

Demarest, Arthur A.

1989 The Olmec and the Rise of Civilization in eastern Mesoamerica. In:

Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by Robert J. Sharer and David C.

Grove. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

2004 Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Demarest, Arthur A. and Antonia E. Foias

1993 Mesoamerican Horizons and the Cultural Transformations of Maya

Civilization. In: Latin American Horizons: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks

11th and 12th October 1986. Edited by Don Stephen Rice. Dumbarton Oaks:

Washington DC.

Diehl, Richard A.

1989 Olmec Archaeology: what we know and what we wish we knew. In:

Regional Perspectives on the Olmec. Edited by Robert J. Sharer and David C.

Grove. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Diehl, Richard A. and Michael D. Coe

1995 Olmec Archaeology. In: The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership pp. 11-

25. Art Museum, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.

361

Dietler, Michael

2001 Theorizing the Feast: Rituals of Consumption, Commensal Politics, and

Power in African Contexts. In: Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic

Perspecties of Food, Politics, and Power, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian

Hayden. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

Doyle, James

2012 Regroup on “E-Groups”: Monumentality and Early Centers in the Middle

Preclassic Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity, v.23(4), pp. 355-379.

2017 A Tale of Two E Groups: El Palmar and Tikal, Petén, Guatemala. In:

Maya E Groups: Calendars, Astronomy, and Urbanism in the Early Lowlands,

edited by David A. Freidel, Arlen F. Chase, Anne S. Dowd, and Jerry Murdock.

University Press of Florida.

Dunnell, Robert C.

1971 Sabloff and Smith’s “The Importance of Both Analytic and Taxonomic

Classification in the Type-Variety System”. American Antiquity (36) 1: 115-118.

Estrada-Belli, Francisco

2006 Lightning, Sky, Rain and the Maize God: The ideology of Preclassic Maya

Rulers at Cival, Peten, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 17(1):57-78.

362

2007 Regional and Innterregional Interactions and the Preclassic Maya. In: The

Origins of Maya Sates, edited by Loa P. Traxler and Robert J. Sharer. University

if Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology; Philadelphia.

2011 The First Maya Civilization: Ritual and Power before the Classic Period.

New York: Routledge.

2012 Early Civilization in the Maya Lowlands, Monumentaity, and Place

Making: A View from the Holmul Region. In: Early New World Monumentality.

Edited by Richard L. Burger and Robert M. Rosenswig. University Press of

Florida.

2017 The History, Function, and Meaning of Preclassic E Groups in the Cival

Region. In: Maya E Groups: Calendars, Astronomy, and Urbanism in the Early

Lowlands, edited by D. A. Freidel, A.F. Chase, A. S. Dowd, and J. Murdock.

University Press of Florida.

Estrada-Belli, Francisco and Alexandre Tokovinine

2016 A King’s Apotheosis: Iconography, Text, and Politics in a Classic Maya

Temple at Holmul. Latin American Antiquity, v. 27(2), pp. 149-168.

Fash, Barbara, William Fash, Sheree Lane, Rudy Larios, Linda Schele, Jeffrey Stomper,

and David Stuart

1992 Investigations of a Classic Maya Council House at Copán, Honduras.

Journal of Field Archaeology, vol. 19, pp. 419-442.

Fash, William L.

363

1982 A Middle Formative Cemetery from Copán, Honduras. Paper presented at

the American Anthropology Association annual meeting.

1991 Scribes, Warriors, and Kings: The City of Copán and the Ancient Maya.

Thames and Hudson.

Flannery, Kent V.

1968 The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca: a model for interregional interaction

in Formative times. In: Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, edited by

Elizabeth P. Benson. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

Flannery, Kent V. Andrew K. Balkansky, Gary M. Feinman, David C. Grove, Joyce

Marcus, Elsa M. Redmond, Robert G. Reynolds, Robert J. Sharer, Charles Spencer, and

Jason Yaeger

2005 Implications of New Petrographic Analysis for the Olmec “mother

culture” Model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United

States of America, Vol. 102, No. 32: 11219-11223.

Flannery, Kent V. and Joyce Marcus with technical ceramic analysis by William O.

Payne

1994 Early Formative Pottery of the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Memoirs of the

Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 27, Vol. 10. Ann Arbor,

Michigan.

Flannery, Kent and Joyce Marcus

364

2000 Formative Mexican Chiefdoms and the Myth of the “Mother Culture”.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19, 1-37.

Freidel, David

2017 E Groups, Cosmology, and the Origins of Maya Rulership. In: Early

Maya E Groups, Solar Calendars, and the Role of Astronomy in the Rise of

Lowland Urbanism, edited by David A. Freidel, Arlen A. Chase, Anne S. Dowd,

and Jerry Murdock. University Press of Florida.

Freidel, David and Linda Schele

1988 Symbol and Power: A History of the Lowland Maya Cosmogram. In:

Maya Iconography, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson and Gillett G. Griffin. Princton

University Press; Princeton, New Jersey.

Freidel, David, Linda Schele and Joy Parker

1993 Maya Cosmos; Three Thousand Years on the Shaman’s Path. Perennial,

New York.

Freidel, David, Kathryn Reese-Taylor, and David Mora-Marin

2002 The Origins of Maya Civilization: The Old Shell Game, Commodity,

Treasure, and Kingship. In: Ancient Maya Political Economies, edited by Marilyn

A. Masson and David A. Freidel. Altamira Press; Walnut Creek, CA.

365

Fields, Virginia. 1986. The Iconographic Heritage of the Maya Jester God. In: The Sixth

Palenque Roundtable, 1986. Edited by Merle Greene Robertson. University of

Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

Fields, Virginia and Dorie Reents-Budet editors.

2005. Lords of Creation; The Origins of Sacred Maya Kingship. Scala Publishers

Ltd; Los Angeles, CA.

Feinman, Gary M., Sherman Banker, Linda M. Nicholas, Stephen A. Kowalewski

1992 Ceramic Production and Distribution in Late Postclassic Oaxaca: Stylistic

and Petrographic Perspectives. In: Ceramic Production and Distribution: An

Integrated Approach pp. 235-259.

Furst, Peter T.

1996 Shamanism, Transformation, and Olmec Art. In: The Olmec World:

Ritual and Rulership. Princeton: The Art Museum, Princeton University.

Garber, J. F. and M. K. Brown editors

2001 The Belize Valley Archaeology Project: Results of the 2000 Field Season.

Department of Anthropology, Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos.

Garber, James F., M. Kathryn Brown, Jamie J. Awe and Christopher J. Hartman

2004 Middle Formative Prehistory of the Central Belize Valley: An

Examination of Architecture, Material Culture, and Sociopolitical Change at

366

Blackman Eddy. In: The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of

Archaeological Research, edited by James F. Garber. University Press of Florida.

Garber, James F., M. Kathryn Brown, W. David Driver, David M. Glassman, Christopher

J. Hartman, F. Kent Reilly III, and Lauren A. Sullivan

2004 Archaeological Investigations at Blackman Eddy. In: The Ancient Maya

of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited by James

F. Garber. University Press of Florida.

Garcia-Heras, Manuel

2000 Regional Shared Styles and Technology: A Mineralogical and

Compositional Study of Celtiberian Pottery from Numantia, Spain. Journal of

Field Archaeology, v. 27(4), pp. 437-454.

Gebhart-Sayer, Angelika

1985 The Geometic Designs of the Shipibo-Conibo in Ritual Context. Journal

of Latin American Lore, v.11, pp.143-175.

Gifford, James C.

1976 Prehistoric Pottery Analysis and the ceramics of Barton Ramie in the

Belize River Valley. Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Harvard University,

Memoirs 18.

Graves, Michael W.

367

1982 Breaking Down Ceramic Variation: Testing Models of White Mountain

Redware Design Style Development. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology,

v.1(4), pp. 305-354.

Grove, David C.

1984 Chalcatzingo: Excavations on the Olmec Frontier. Thames and Hudson:

New York.

1989a Olmec: what’s in a name? In: Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited

by Robert J. Sharer and David C. Grove. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1989b Chalcatzingo and its Olmec connection. In: Regional Perspectives on the

Olmec, edited by Robert J. Sharer and David C. Grove. Cambridge University

Press: Cambridge.

1993 “Olmec” Horizons in Formative Period Mesoamerica: Diffusion or Social

Evolution? In: Latin American Horizons: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks 11th

and 12th October 1986. Edited by Don Stephen Rice. Dumbarton Oaks:

Washington DC.

2007 Preclassic Central Mexico: The Uncertain Pathway from Tlatilco to

Teotihuacan. In: The Origins of Maya Sates, edited by Loa P. Traxler and Robert

J. Sharer. University if Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology;

Philadelphia.

Hayden, Brian

368

2001 Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting. In:

Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and

Power, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden. The University of Alabama

Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

2011 Big Man, Big Heart? The Political Role of Aggrandizers in Egalitarian and

Transegalitarian Societies. In: For the Greater Good of All: Perspectives on

Individualism, Society, and Leadership, edited by Donnelson R. Forsyth and

Crystal L. Hoyt. Jepson Studies in Leadership. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

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 Peten. Ancient Mesoamerica 13: 273-

295.

Hansen, Richard D., Donald W. Forsyth, James C. Woods, Thomas P. Schreiner, and

Gene L. Titmus

2018 Developmental Dynamics, Energetics, and Complex Economic

Interactions of the Early Maya of the Mirador-Calakmul Basin. In: Pathways to

Complexity: A View from the Maya Lowlands, edited by M. Kathryn Brown and

George J. Bey, III. University Press of Florida.

Hammond, Norman, S. Donaghey, D. Pring, R. Wilk, F. Saul, E. Wing, A. Miller, and L.

Feldman

369

1979 The Earliest Lowland Maya? Definition of the Swasey Phase. American

Antiquity 44: 92-110.

Hammond, Norman

1988 Cultura Hermana: reappraising the Olmec. Quarterly Review of

Archaeology, Vol. 9, no. 4: 2-4.

1991 Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize. Cambridge University

Press: Cambridge.

1984 Holmul and Nohmul: A Comparison and Reassessment of Two Lowland

Maya Protoclassic Sites. Cerámica de Cultura Maya, Vol. 13:1-17.

1999 The Genesis of Hierarchy: Mortuary and Offertory Ritual in the Pre-

Classic at Cuello, Belize. In: Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica; A

Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks 9 and 10 October 1993. Dumbarton Oaks Library

and Collection, Washington, D.C.

Healy, Paul F., David Cheetham, Terry G. Powis, and Jaime J. Awe

2004 Cahal Pech: The Middle Formative Period. In: The Ancient Maya of the

Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited by James F.

Garber. University Press of Florida.

Hegmon, Michelle

1992 Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:

517-36.

370

Hegmon, Michelle and Stephanie Kulow

2005 Painting as Agency, Style as Structure: Innovations in Mimbres Pottery

Designs from Southwest New Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Method and

Theory, v. 12(4), pp. 313-334.

Henrickson and McDonald

1983 Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethnographic Search and an

Archaeological Application. American Anthropologist, Vol. 85, No. 3, pp. 630-

643.

Hermes, Bernard

1993 Adiciones tipológicos a los complejos Eb, Tzec, y Manik de Tikal,

Guatemala. Revista Espaniola de antropología Americana 23.

Hoopes, John W. and William K. Barnett

1995 The Shape of Early Pottery Studies. In: The Emergence of Pottery;

Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies. Edited by William K. Barnett

and John W. Hoopes.

Houston, Stephen D.

2004 Writing in early Mesoamerica. In: The First Writing: Script Invention as

History and Process, edited by S. D. Houston. Cambridge University Press;

Cambridge.

Hull, Kerry

371

2010 An Epigraphic Analysis of Classic-Period Maya Foodstuffs. In: Pre-

Columbian Foodways: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Food, Culture, and

Markets in Ancient Mesoamerica. Edited by John Edward Staller and Michael

Carrasco. Springer, New York.

Iceland, Harry B.

2005 The Preceramic to Early Middle Formative Transition in Northern Belize:

Evidence for the Ethnic Identity of the Preceramic Inhabitants. In: New

Perspectives on Formative Mesoamerican Cultures, pp. 15-26. BAR International

Series 1322.

Inomata, Takeshi

2017a The Isthmian Origins of the E Group and its Adoption in the Maya

Lowlands. In: Early Maya E Groups, Solar Calendars, and the Role of

Astronomy in the Rise of Lowland Urbanism, edited by David A. Freidel, Arlen

A. Chase, Anne S. Dowd, and Jerry Murdock. University Press of Florida.

2017b The Emergence of Standardized Spatial Plans in Southern Mesoamerica:

Chronology and Interregional Interactions Viewed from Ceibal, Guatemala.

Ancient Mesoamerica 28: 329-355.

Inomata, Takeshi, Flory Pinzón, Juan Manuel Palomo, Ashley Sharpe, Raúl Ortiz, María

Belén Méndez, and Otto Román

2017 Public Ritual and Interregional Interactions: Excavations of the Central

Plaza of Group A, Ceibal. Ancient Mesoamerica 28: 203-232.

372

Inomata, Takeshi, Daniela Triedan, Kazuo Aoyama, Victor Castillo, and Hitoshi

Yonenobu

2013 Early Ceremonial Constructions at Ceibal, Guatemala, and the Origins of

Lowland Maya Civilization. Science, Vol. 340.

Inomata, Takeshi, Jessica MacLellan, and Melissa Burham

2015a The Construction of Public and Domestic Spheres in the Preclassic Maya

Lowlands. American Anthropologist, Vol. 00, No. 0, pp1-16.

Inomata, Takeshi, Jessica MacLellan, Daniela Triedan, Jessica Munson, Melissa Burham,

Kazuo Aoyama, Hiroo Nasu, Flory Pinzón, and Hitoshi Yonenobu

2015b Development of sedentary communities in the Maya lowlands: Coexisting

mobile groups and public ceremonies at Ceibal, Guatemala. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 112, no. 14, pp. 4268-4273.

Isbell, William H.

2000 What We Should Be Studying: the "imagined community" and the

"natural community". In The Archeaology of Communities; A New World

Perspective, edited by J. Yaeger and M. A. Canuto. Routledge, London and New

York.

Janusek, John

2002 Out of Many, One: Style and Social Boundaries in Tiwanaku. Latin

American Antiquity, v.13(1), pp. 35-61.

373

Joesink-Mandeville, LeRoy V.

1977 Olmec-Maya Relationships: A Correlation of Linguistic Evidence with

Archaeological Ceramics. Journal of New World Archaeology 2:30-39.

Joralemon, Peter David

1971 A Study of Olmec Iconography. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and

Archaeology 7. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington DC.

Joyce, Rosemary

1991 Olmec Bloodletting: An Iconographic Study. In: Sixth Palenque Round

Table, 1986, edited by Virginia M. Fields. Norman: University of Oklahoma

Press.

Joyce, Rosemary and John Henderson

2001 Beginnings of Village Life in Eastern Mesoamerica. Latin American

Antiquity 12(1): 5-24.

2010 Being “Olmec” in Early Formative Period Honduras. Ancient

Mesoamerica 21: 187-200.

Junker, Laura Lee

2001 The Evolution of Platform Mound Ceremonialism in Eastern North

America. In: Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food,

Politics, and Power, edited by Michael Dietler and Brian Hayden. The University

of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

374

Justeson, John S.

1986 The Origin of Writing Systems: Preclassic Mesoamerica. World

Archaeology, Vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 437-458.

Kimec, T., C. Haslegrove, and I. Hodder

1982 A Method for the Indentification of the Location of Regional Cultural

Boundaries. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, v. 1(2), pp. 113-131.

Kirch, Patrick V.

2001 Polynesian Feasting in Ethnohistoric, Ethnographic, and Archaeological

Contexts: A Comparison of Three Societies. In: Feasts: Archaeological and

Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and Power, edited by Michael

Dietler and Brian Hayden. The University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa,

Alabama.

Knight, Vernon James

2001 Feasting and the Emergence of Platform Mound Ceremonialism in Eastern

North America. In: Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on

Food, Politics, and Power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden. University of

Alabama Press; Tuscaloosa.

Kosakowsky, Laura J.

1987a Preclassic Maya Pottery at Cuello, Belize. Tucson: University of Arizona

Press.

375

1987b The Formative Ceramic Sequence of Cuello, Belize. In: Maya Ceramics:

Papers Presented from the 1985 Maya Ceramic Conference, ed. Prudence M. Rice

and Robert J. Sharer, pp. 15-36. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

2001 The Ceramic Sequence from Holmul, Guatemala: Preliminary results from

the year 2000 season. Mexicon, Vol. 23, No. 4: 85-91.

Kosakowsky, Laura J. and Duncan C. Pring

1998 The Ceramics of Cuello, Belize- A New Evaluation. Ancient

Mesoamerica 9: 55-66.

LeCount, Lisa

2001 Like Water for Chocolate: Feasting and Political Ritual among the Late

Classic Maya at Xunantunich, Belize. American Anthropologist Vol. 103, no. 4,

pp. 935-953.

Laporte, Juan Pedro

1995 Preclásico s Clásico en Tikal: Proceso de transformacíon en el Mundo

Perdido. In: The Emergence of Lowland Maya Civilization: The Transition from

the Preclassic to the Early Classic, edited by Nikolia Grube, pp. 17-35. Acta

Mesoamericana 8, Verlag Anton Saurwein.

Laporte, Juan Pedro and Juan Antonio Valdés

1993 Tikal y Uaxactún en el Preclásico. Mexico City: Universidad Autónoma

de México, Campeche.

376

Laporte, Juan Pedro and Vilma Fialko C.

1990 New Perspectives on Old Problems: Dynastic References for the Early

Classic at Tikal. In: Vision and Revision in Maya Studies. Edited by Flora S.

Clancy and Peter D. Harrison. University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque.

1995 Un reencuentro con Mundo Perdido, Tikal, Guatemala. Ancient

Mesoamerica 6:41-94.

Lesure, Richard G.

1998 Refining An Early Formative Ceramic Sequence from the Chiapas Coast

of Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 9:67-81.

Lesure, Richard

2000 Animal Imagery, Cultural Unities, and Ideologies of Inequality in Early

Formative Mesoamerica. In: Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica.

National Gallery of Art: Washington. Yale University Press: New Haven.

Lightfoot, Kent G. and Antoinette Martinez

1992 Frontiers and Boundaries in Archaeological Perspective. Annual Reviews

of Anthropology. 24: 471-92.

Lohse, Jon C., Jaime Awe, Cameron Griffith, Robert M. Rosenswig, and Fred Valdez Jr.

2006 Preceramic Occupations in Belize: Updating the Paleoindian and Archaic

Record. Latin American Antiquity, 17(2): 209-226.

377

Love, Michael

2002 Early Complex Society in Pacific Guatemala: Settlements and Chronology

of the Río Naranjo, Guatemala. Papers of the New World Archaeolgical

Foundation, No. 66. Brigham Young University, Provo.

Lowe, Gareth W.

1977 The Mixe-Zoque as Competing Neighbors of the Early Lowland Maya.

In: The Origins of Maya Civilization, edited by Richard E.W. Adams, pp. 197-

248. University of New Mexico Press: Albuquerque.

MacNeish, Richard S., Frederick A. Peterson, and Kent V. Flannery

1970 The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Vol. 3: Ceramics. University of

Texas Press, Austin.

Marcus, Joyce

1983 The Espiridión Complex and the Origins of the Oaxacn Formative. In:

The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations,

edited by K.V. Flannery and J. Marcus, pp. 42-43. Academic Press, New York.

1999 Men’s and Women’s Ritual in Formative Oaxaca. In: Social Patterns in

Pre-Classic Mesoamerica. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.\

Martin, Simon

378

2007 Ideology and the Early Maya Polity. In: The Origins of Maya Sates, edited

by Loa P. Traxler and Robert J. Sharer. University if Pennsylvania Museum of

Archaeology and Anthropology; Philadelphia.

2015 The Old Man of the Maya Universe: Unified Aspects to Ancient Maya

Religion. In: Maya Archaeology 6, pp.186-229. Precolumbia Mesoweb Press,

CA.

Matheny, Ray T. and T.W. Rutledge

1987. An Early Maya Metropolis Discovered. National Geographic, vol. 172, no.

3, September 1987.

McAnany, Patricia

1995 Living with the Ancestors. Austin: University of Texas Press.

1998 Ancestors and the Classic Maya Built Environment. In: Function and

Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks

Research Library and Collection.

Merwin, Raymond E. and George C. Vaillant

1932 The Ruins of Holmul, Guatemala. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of

Archaeology and Ethnology. Vol. 3, No. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Mills, Barbara J.

1999 Ceramics and the Social Contexts of Food Consumption in the Northern

Southwest. In: Pottery and People, pp.99-114.

379

Moholy-Nagy, Hattula

1978 The Utilization of Pomacea Snails at Tikal, Guatemala. American

Antiquity, Vol. 43, No. 1, pp. 65-73.

Moore, A. M. T.

1995 The Inception of Potting in Western Asia and Its Impact on Economy and

Society. In: The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient

Societies, edited by William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes. Smithsonian

Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Mora-Marín, David F.

2005 Kaminaljuyu Stela 10: Script classification and linguistic affiliation.

Ancient Mesoamerica, 16, pp. 63-87.

2009 Early Olmec Writing: Reading Format and Reading Order. Latin

American Antiquity, 20(3), pp. 395-412.

Neff, Hector

2006 The Olmec and the origins of Mesoamerican civilization. Antiquity 80:

714-716.

2011 Evolution of the Mesoamerican Mother Culture. Ancient Mesoamerica,

Vol. 22: 107-122.

380

Neff, Hector, Jeffrey Blomster, Michael D. Glascock, Ronald L. Bishop, M. James

Blackman, Michael D. Coe, George L. Cowgill, Richard A. Diehl, Stephen Houston,

Arthur A. Joyce, Carl P. Lipo, Barbara L. Stark, and Marcus Winter

2006 Methodological Issues in the Provenance Investigation of Early Formative

Mesoamerican Ceramics. Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 17, no. 1: 54-76.

Neivens de Estrada, Nina

2005 Group II, Building B, Excavation HT41. In: Archaeological

Investigations in the Holmul Region, Peten: Results of the Fourth Season, 2003,

edited by Francisco Estrada-Belli, pp. 88-90. Vanderbilt University, Nashville.

2006 Edificio B, Grupo II, Holmul, 2005. In: Archaeological Investigations in

the Holmul Region, Peten: Results of the Sixth Season, 2005, edited by Francisco

Estrada-Belli, pp. 22-27. Vanderbilt University, Nashville.

2007 Group II, Buildings B and B, Excavations HOL.T.63, HOL.T.71, and

HOL.T.70. Report submitted to the Holmul Archaeological Project.

2009 Group II, Building N, Excavations HOL.T.71, HOL.T.76, and HOL.T.77.

Report submitted to the Holmul Archaeological Project.

2010 Early Lowland Maya Ceramics: Material from Holmul, Peten, Guatemala.

Paper presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the Society for America

Archaeology, St. Louis.

381

2013 A Tangled Web. In: The Maya and Their Central American Neighbors:

Settlement Patterns, Architecture, Hieroglyphic Texts and Ceramics, edited by

Geoffrey Braswell, pp. 177-200. Routledge, New York.

Nelson, Ben A.

1981 Ethnoarchaeology and Paleodemography: A Test of Turner and Lofgen’s

Hypothesis. Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 37, No. 2: 107-129.

Niederberger, Christine

1996 Olmec Horizon Guerrero. In: Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, edited by E.

P. Benson and B. de la Fuente, pp.95-103. National Gallery of Art, Washington,

D.C.

2000 Ranked Societies, Iconographic Compleity, and Economic Wealth in the

Basin of Mexico toward 1200 B.C. In: Olmec Art and Archaeology in

Mesoamerica. National Gallery of Art: Washington. Yale University Press: New

Haven.

Perodie, James R.

2001 Feasting for Prosperity: A Study of Southern Northwest Coast Feasting.

In: Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics, and

Power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden. University of Alabama Press;

Tuscaloosa.

382

Pohl, Mary D., Kevin O. Pope, John G. Jones, John S. Jacob, Dolores R. Piperno, Susan

D. de France, David L. Lentz, John A. Gifford, Marie E. Danforth, and J. Kathryn

Josserand

1996 Early Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity

7:355-372.

Pohl, Mary E.D., Kevin O. Pope; and Christopher von Nagy

2002 Olmec Origins of Mesoamerican Writing. Science, Vol. 298, pp.1984-

1987.

Pool, Christopher A.

2007 Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica. Cambridge University

Press: Cambridge.

Pool, Christopher A., Ponciano Orti Ceballos, María del Carmen Rodríguez Martínez,

and Michael L. Loughlin

2010 The Early Horizon at Tres Zapotes: Implications for Olmec Interaction.

Ancient Mesoamerica, Vol. 21: 95-105.

Pring, Duncan

1977 The Preclassic Ceramics of Northern Belize. Ph.D. dissertation,

University of London. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI.

2000 The Protoclassic in the Maya Lowlands. BAR International Series 908.

Archaeopress, England.

383

Reilly, F. Kent, III.

1994 Visions to Another World: Art, Shamanism, and Political Power in Middle

Formative Mesoamerica. Ph.D. Dissertation presented to the University of Texas

at Austin.

1995 Art, Ritual, and Rulership in the Olmec World. In: The Olmec World.

Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Reina, Ruben E. and Robert M. Hill, II

1978 The Traditional Pottery of Guatemala. University of Texas Press: Austin.

Reyes González, Liliana Carla and Marcus Winter

2010 The Early Formative Period in the Southern Isthmus: Excavations at

Barrio Tepalcate, Ixtepec, Oaxaca. Ancient Mesoamerica, Vol. 21: 151-163.

Rice, Prudence M.

1976 Rethinking the Ware Concept. American Antiquity 41 (4):538-43.

1979 Ceramic and Nonceramic Artifacts of Lakes Yaxhá-Sacnab, El Petén,

Guatemala. Cerámica de Cultura Maya 11:1-86.

2013 Type-Variety: What Works and What Doesn’t. In: Ancient Maya Pottery:

Classification, Analysis, and Interpretation. Edited by John James Aimers.

University Press of Florida.

2015 Middle Preclassic Interregional Interaction and the Maya Lowlands.

Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 23, pp. 1-47.

384

2017 The E Group as Timescape: Early E Groups, Figurines, and the Sacred

Almanac. In: Maya E Groups: Calendars, Astronomy, and Urbanism in the Early

Lowlands, edited by D.A. Freidel, A.F. Chase, A.S. Dowd, and J. Murdock.

University Press of Florida.

Ringle, William M.

1999 Pre-Classic Cityscapes: Ritual Politics among the Early Lowland Maya.

In: Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton

Oaks.

Robin, Cynthia

1989 Preclassic Maya Burials at Cuello, Belize. BAR International Series 480.

Oxford, England.

Rodríguez Martinez, Ma. del Carmen, Ponciano Ortiz Ceballos, Michael D. Coe, Richard

A. Diehl, Stephen D. Houston, Karl A. Taube, and Alfredo Delgado Calderón

2006 Oldest Writing in the New World. Science, Vol. 313, pp. 1610-1614.

Rosenswig, Robert M.

2010 The Beginnings of Mesoamerican Civilization. Cambridge University

Press: Cambridge.

Sabloff, Jeremy A.

1975 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Ceramics.

Cambridge: Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Memoirs 13.

385

Sabloff, Jeremy A. and Robert E. Smith

1969 The Importance of Both Analytic and Taxonomic Classification in the

Type-Variety System. American Antiquity, 34(3) pp. 278-285.

Sakett, J.R.

1977 The meaning of style in archaeology: a general model. American antiquity

42(3): 369-80.

1982 Approaches to style in lithic archaeology. Journal of anthropological

archaeology 1(1):59-112.

1990 Style and ethnicity in archaeology: the case for isochrestism. In The Uses

of Style in Archaeology, edited by M. W. a. C. A. H. Conkey. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge; New York.

Saturno, William A.

2009 Centering the Kingdom, Centering the King: Maya Creation and

Legitimization at San Bartolo. In: The Art of Urbanism: how Mesoamerican

Kingdoms Represented Themselves in Architecture and Image. Edited by W. L.

Fash and L.L. Luján, pp. 111-134. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C.

2006 The Dawn of Maya Gods and Kings. National Geographic, 1:69-77.

Saturno, William A., David Stuart, and Boris Beltrán

2006 Early Maya Writing at San Bartolo, Guatemala. Science 311:1281-1283.

386

Schele, Linda and David Freidel

1990 A Forest of Kings; The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. Quill, New

York.

Schele, Linda

1995 The Olmec Mountain and Tree of Creation in Mesoamerican Cosmology.

In: The Olmec World: Ritual and Rulership. The Art Museum, Princeton

University. Princeton, New Jersey.

Sharer, Robert J. and David C. Grove, editors

1989 Regional Perspectives on the Olmec. Cambridge University Press;

Cambridge.

Sharer, Robert J. and Loa P. Traxler.

2006 The Ancient Maya. Sixth Edition. Stanford University Press; Stanford,

Ca.

Sharpe, Ashley

2016 A Zooarchaeological Perspective on the Formation of Maya States.

Unpublished ph.D. Dissertation presented to the Dept. of Anthropology,

University of Florida at Gainesville.

n.d. Faunal Remains from Holmul. Report in preparation for submission to

IDAEH.

387

Smith, Marion F.

1985 Toward and Economic Interpretation of Ceramics: Relating Vessel Size and

Shape to Use. In: Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited by Ben A. Nelson. Pp.

254-309. Southern Illinois Press, Carbondale.

Smith, Robert E.

1955 Ceramic Sequence at Uaxactun, Guatemala. Middle American Research

Institute, Publication No. 20. New Orleans: Tulane University.

Smith, Robert E. Gordon R. Willey, and James C. Gifford

1960 The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for the Analysis of Maya Pottery.

American Antiquity 25 (3): 330-40.

Sullivan, Lauren and Jaime J. Awe

2013 Establishing the Cunil Ceramic Complex at Cahal Pech, Belize. In:

Ancient Maya Pottery: Classification, Analysis, and Interpretation. Edited by

John James Aimers. University Press of Florida.

Sullivan, Lauren A., Jaime J. Awe, and M. Kathryn Brown

2018 The Cunil Complex: Early Villages in Belize. In: Pathways to Complexity:

A View from the Maya Lowlands, edited by M. Kathryn Brown and George J.

Bey, III. University Press of Florida.

Sharer, Robert J., Andrew Balkansky, James H. Burton, Gary M. Feinman, Kent V.

Flannery, David C. Grove, Joyce Marcus, Robert G. Moyle, T. Douglas Price, Elsa M.

388

Redmond, Robert G. Reyolds, Prudence M. Rice, Charles S. Spencer, James B. Stoltman

and Jason Yaeger

2006 On the Logic of Archaeological Inference: Early Formative Pottery and

the Evolution of Mesoamerican Societies. Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 17, no.

1: 90-103.

Stirling, Matthew W.

1940 An initial series from Tres Zapotes, Vera Cruz, Mexico. National

Geographic Society Contributed Technical Papers 1 (1). Washington, DC:

National Geographic Society.

1943 Stone Monuments of Southern Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology

Bulletin 138. Washingotn DC: Smithsonian Institution.

Stoltman, James B. Joyce Marcus, Kent V. Flannery, James H. Burton, and Robert G.

Moyle

2005 Petrographic Evidence Shows That Pottery Exchange between the Olmec

and Their Neighbors Was Two-Way. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 102, No. 32: 11213-11218.

Strelow and LeCount

2001 Regional Interaction in the Formative Southern Maya Lowlands: Evidence

of Olmecoid Stylistic Motifs in a Cunil Ceramic Assemblage from Xunantunich,

Belize. Poster presented at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for American

Archaeology, New Orleans.

389

Taylor, Walter

1948 A Study of Archaeology. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological

Association, Memoir 69.

Taube, Karl A.

1995a Lightning Celts and Corn Fetishes; The Formative Olmec and the

Development of Maize Symbolism in Mesoamerica and the American Southwest.

In Olmec Art and Archaeology. Editor Michael Coe. Princeton University Press;

Princeton, NJ.

1995b The Rainmakers: The Olmec and Their Contribution to Mesoamerican

Belief and Ritual. In: The Olmec World. Princeton University Press, Princeton,

NJ.

1998 The Jade Hearth: Centrality, Rulership, and the Classic Maya Temple. In:

Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, ed. Stephen D. Houston.

Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Thompson, Raymond H.

1958 Modern Yucatecan Maya Pottery Making. Memoirs of the Society for

American Archaeology. American Antiquity Vol XXIII, No. 4, Part 2.

Tolstoy, Paul

1989 Coapexco and Tlatilco: sites with Olmec materials in the Basin of Mexico.

In: Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by Robert J. Sharer and David C.

Grove. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

390

Triedan, Daniela, Victor Castillo, Takeshi Inomata, Juan Manuel Palomo, María Belén

Méndez, Mónica Cortave, Jessica MacLellan, Melissa Burham, and Erick Ponciano

2017 Social Transformations in a Middle Preclassic Community: Elite

Residential Complexes at Ceibal. Ancient Mesoamerica 28: 233-264.

Valdez, Juan Antonio

1987 Uaxactun: Recientes Investigaciones. Mexicon 8(6): 125-128.

Vitelli, Karen D.

1995 Pots, Potters, and the Shaping of Greek Neolithis Society. In: The

Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by

William K. Barnett and John W. Hoopes. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington D.C.

Viel, Rene

1993 Evolucion de la Ceramica de Copan, Honduras. Instituto Hondureño de

Antropología e Historia; Tegucigalpa, D.C.

Wahl, D., R. Byrne, T. Schreiner, and R. Hansen

2006 Holocene Vegetation Change in Northern Peten and its Implications for

Maya Prehistory. Quarternary Research 65: 380-404.

Wahl, David, Francisco Estrada-Belli, and Lysanna Anderson

391

2013 A 3400 year paleolimnological record of prehispanic human-environment

interactions in the Holmul region of the southern Maya lowlands.

Paleaeogeography, Paleoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 379-380, pp. 17-30.

Wendt, Carl J.

2010 A San Lorenzo Phase Household Assemblage from El Remolino,

Veracruz. Ancient Mesoamerica Vol. 21: 107-122.

Wiessner, Polly

1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American

Antiquity, v.48(2), pp. 253-276.

2001 Of Feasting and Value: Enga Feasts in a Historical Perspective (Papua

New Guinea). In: Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food,

Politics, and Power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden. University of Alabama

Press; Tuscaloosa.

Willey, Gordon R. editor

1982 Excavations at Seibal. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology

and Ethnography, vol. 15, no. 1. Cambridge, MA.

Willey, Gordon R. T. Patrick Culbert, and Richard E.W. Adams

1967 Maya Lowland Ceramics: A Report from the 1965 Guatemala City

Conference. American Antiquity (32) pp. 289-315.

Willey, Gordon and Philip Philips

392

1962 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Univeristy of Chicago

Press; Chicago.

Wobst, Martin H.

1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. Anthropological Papers,

no.61, pp.317-342. Ann Arbor.

Yaeger, Jason and Marcello A. Canuto

2000 Introducing the archaeology of communities. In: The Archaeology of

Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by Marcello A. Canuto and

Jason Yaeger. Routledge; New York.

393

Biographical Sketch

Niña Denise Neivens was born on July 24, 1980 in New York City. She studied

Archaeology at Columbia University and received her bachelor’s degree in 2002. She

received her Master’s Degree in Anthropology from Tulane University in 2008. Neivens

has participated in archaeological projects in Belize, Honduras, Guatemala, the United

Kingdom, and the United States. Neivens has worked on curation of archaeological

materials at the American Museum of Natural History, Middle American Research

Institute, and Tikal and Holmul in Guatemala. Her primary research has been at Holmul,

Peten, Guatemala where she has worked from 2003 to the present.