Changing Patterns of Ceramic Stylistic Diversity...Maya Acta Archaeological 2001

Acta Archaeologica vol. 72:2, 2001, pp. 159–188 Copyright C 2001

Printed in Denmark ¡ All rights reserved ACTA ARCHAEOLOGICAISSN 0065-001X

CHANGING PATTERNS OF CERAMIC STYLISTIC DIVERSITYIN THE PRE-HISPANIC MAYA LOWLANDS

by

M A. M

ABSTRACTCeramic stylistic diversity across the Maya lowlands area fluctuatesfrom the Late Preclassic through Late Postclassic periods. Duringthe Late Preclassic and Late Postclassic, assemblages within andbetween individual settlements are less diverse. In contrast, theEarly, Late, and Terminal Classic periods exhibit far greater in-tersite variation in ceramic styles and greater diversity of wareswithin communities. This fragmentation of style zones during theClassic periods correlates with the periods of greatest hierarchicaldevelopment and political centralization in Pre-Hispanic Maya his-tory. This climate of interpolity competition affected ceramic pro-duction styles, configurations of economic interaction, and expres-sions of sub-group identity. This paper documents temporal trendsin ceramic uniformity and diversity and explores the historical con-text of expanding and contracting style zones over time in theMaya area. In particular, the ‘‘standardization’’ of Postclassic Mayapottery across the lowlands is interpreted in light of expanded inter-polity market interactions, decentralized political structure, andgreater overall economic integration of the Yucatan peninsula com-pared to the preceding Classic period.

INTRODUCTIONThe economic systems of the Late Preclassic and LatePostclassic Maya world inevitably differed in funda-mental ways due to their respective positions in his-tory, as the former represents early statehood and thelatter represents a mature development that followedmany centuries of statehood and a period in whichtraditional institutions of kingship had become out-moded. The uniformity of ceramic styles exhibitedacross the lowlands during both of these periods im-plies that the economic interaction spheres of both ofthese periods, despite their position in history, shared

a more open and extensive network than during theintervening Classic periods.

Settlement of the Late Preclassic suggests the for-mation of regional city state hierarchies (Figs. 1, 2).Large kingdoms such as El Mirador built massivemonumental architecture and core-periphery ex-change networks within the lowlands region were es-tablished (Andrews and Mock n.d.). Investigations ofmany Classic period centers have detected a substrateof Late Preclassic occupation and monumental con-struction that indicates their earlier political signifi-cance (Freidel and Schele 1990), though thoroughsettlement analysis is hindered by the fact that manyPreclassic structures are not visible in surface surveys(Fry 1989, Pyburn 1989). Less is known about theeconomic organization of the Late Preclassic Mayaworld than for later periods, although the study ofCerros, a coastal trading center in northern Belizereveals the links of lowland Maya networks to earlycoastal trade and the extraction of marine resources(Freidel 1986a). Small settlements such as Cuello alsoparticipated in widespread long distance trade (Ham-mond 1991), and the development of an agrarianeconomy has been tracked at Preclassic communitiessuch as K’axob (McAnany 1995).

The amplified hierarchical development in theMaya area during the Classic period was ac-companied by an increase in the manufacture andcirculation of prestige goods (Adams 1971, Sabloff1975:236, Fry 1980:16, Rice 1987a:77–79, Ball 1993,Reentz-Budet 1994). As the central thesis of this paper

160 Acta Archaeologica

Fig. 1. Map of sites mentioned in the text.

161Changing Patterns of Ceramic Stylistic Diversity in the Pre-Hispanic Maya Lowlands

examines diversity of ceramic assemblages as a re-flection of the economic substrates of contrastive pol-itical and economic organization, the issue of ‘‘elite’’(prestige goods) versus ‘‘nonelite’’ pottery directly af-fects the degree of ceramic diversity. Rice (1981:220,1989:111) suggests that increased social stratificationresults in the creation of more diverse segments ofsociety and a variety of specialized activities, events,and needs that are reflected in ceramic diversity. Thisinterpretation is no doubt true. This paper probesfurther, however, to query whether fundamental pol-itical and economic organizational differencesaffected ceramic diversity. In particular, the de-em-phasis of vertical social distinctions in the utilitarianrealm may be viewed as an important dimension of apolitical economic strategy that downplayed individ-ual status differences.

Late Preclassic and Late Postclassic period Mayapolities may have represented ‘‘corporate’’ state soci-eties in their de-individualizing doctrines (Blanton et

al. 1996:13, Blanton 1998), and these ideals may havecontributed to decreased ceramic diversity in import-ant ways. Although Late Preclassic or Late Postclassicstates may have been less stratified or less centralizedthan their Classic period Maya counterparts, their or-ganization represents an important variation fromtraditional models of nonwestern state societies thattranscends the assessment of complexity based solelyon hierarchy and centralization (Joesink-Mandeville1981:226, Rathje 1975, Blanton et al. 1996:13, Blan-ton 1998). Despite this general characterization, con-siderable variation existed across the Late Preclassic(McAnany 1995) and Late Postclassic (Chase andChase 1985) landscape in the degree of stratificationand centralization. Both periods are marked by thedevelopment of influential core centers, El Miradorand Mayapan respectively, each of which were unri-valed in magnitude during the peak of their power.These cities had centralizing effects on surroundingpolities, and distant, smaller centers may have beenrelatively autonomous but were linked to these citiesthrough alliance and trade.

The Postclassic period was characterized by con-straint on the development of pronounced politicalhierarchies in favor of a more inclusive mercantile,entrepreneurial social environment (Webb 1964, Sab-loff and Rathje 1975, Rathje 1975, Masson 2000).

This period was also marked by a strong emphasis oncoastal and riverine settlement (Chase and Chase1985, Andrews and Vail 1990, Andrews et al. 1988)that connected maritime networks to inland nodes ofpower such as Nohpeten (Jones 1999), Acalan (Schol-es and Roys 1948), and Mayapan (Pollock et al. 1962).Many trading centers such as Tulum, Cozumel, SantaRita, Xicalanco, and Champoton were distributedalong the Gulf or Caribbean coasts of the Yucatanpeninsula (Andrews and Vail 1990). This coastal focusand the acceleration of maritime trading of the Post-classic period represents a major settlement and econ-omic shift compared to earlier periods.

Colonial accounts provide much information aboutLate Postclassic period economy, characterized by ex-tensive intra-lowland and international exchange fa-cilitated by maritime trading networks operatingaround the peninsula of Yucatan (Fig. 1) from the Bayof Honduras to the Gulf Coast of Mexico (Roys 1943,1965, Scholes and Roys 1948, Thompson 1970, PinaChan 1978). Such networks were formed during theEpiclassic/Early Postclassic period in northern Yucat-an (Kepecs et al. 1994) and flourished until the Span-ish conquest (Freidel and Sabloff 1984, Sabloff andRathje 1975).

Ceramicists working in the Maya area have notedthe widespread uniformity of the Late Preclassic (350B.C. – A.D. 250) Chicanel ceramic complex acrossthe lowlands, expressed in common serving wareforms and types of surface decoration (Willey et al.1967, Fry 1989:97). Although the term ‘‘standardiza-tion’’ was used instead of uniformity to describe asimilar trend for the Late Postclassic period (A.D.1100–1500), common pottery forms and decorationswere also highly similar across much of the lowlandsat this time, particularly from Mayapan to the eastcoast of Quintana Roo and throughout Belize (Rathje1975:431, Connor 1983:365, 374). These similaritiesbetween sites are so marked that scholars have sug-gested that Postclassic wares were ‘‘mass produced’’(Sabloff and Rathje 1975, Rathje et al. 1978). In con-trast, wares of the Early, Late, and Terminal Classicexhibit more pronounced inter-site differences in ce-ramic styles, with sites located just a few days’ journeyapart from one another possessing completely differ-ent lists of types (Smith and Gifford 1965:533, Willey,Culbert, and Adams 1967:310, Ball 1977, Gifford


1976, Fry 1989:103). This paper explores patterns ofintrasite and regional ceramic diversity over time inportions of the Maya lowlands and offers interpreta-tions of these trends in light of fluctuating dynamicsof economic interaction, political organization, andpopulation distribution across the landscape.

Several approaches are possible for assessing ce-ramic diversity among assemblages of the Late Pre-classic, Classic, and Postclassic periods in the Mayaarea. A landmark previous effort at making such com-parisons was published by Rice (1989), who docu-mented greater diversity in the type lists of assem-blages of the Classic periods compared to the LatePreclassic. In that earlier study, Rice infers that theoverall greater diversity of the Classic period potterywas a reflection of increased social stratification. She(1989) further noted that many aspects of ceramicproduction can be compared, including form, style,and technology. Rice’s primary goal for comparingthe diversity of Preclassic and Classic period assem-blages was to track the degree of craft specialization.In her original model, an increase in ceramic produc-tion specialization in the manufacture of specific ves-sel types was an expected correlate of increased socialdifferentiation that accompanied hierarchical devel-opment of Classic period Maya polities. This verticalsocial differentiation created different sets of con-sumers and a greater variety of occasions calling fordiverse ceramic wares. This paper builds upon Rice’sprevious analysis in the following three ways: 1) byadding the Postclassic period to the temporal com-parisons of ceramic diversity in the Maya area, 2) bycomparing ceramic diversity within several sites bytime period rather than just looking at a single site,and 3) in making geographic comparisons of ceramictypological diversity between sites. This essay exploresthe meaning of temporal and geographic variation inceramic production with regard to changing politicalformations.

CERAMICS AND POLITICAL STRUCTUREThe lesser diversity of assemblages during the LatePreclassic and Late Postclassic has meaning only inthe relative sense as compared to the interveningClassic periods. The Classic periods (Early, Late, andTerminal) are known to be the most politically hier-

archical intervals of the lowland Maya sequence (Cul-bert 1991, Demarest 1992, Chase and Chase 1992),and in this paper I argue that fundamentally differentforms of political economies and regional interactionare represented by the more geographically confinedceramic stylistic spheres of the Classic periods thanduring the preceding or subsequent periods. AlthoughClassic period Maya society possessed strong localutilitarian economies (Rice 1987a) and more distantprestige exchange networks (Blanton et al. 1996), theshrunken extent of ceramic style zones suggests thatutilitarian interaction spheres were localized aroundprimary political centers within sub-regions of thelowlands (Rands and Bishop 1980, Rice 1987a). Adecreased level of interaction with other neighboringand more distant political spheres among those indi-viduals who produced, exchanged, and consumed themajority of ceramic wares is implied by this pattern.This paper argues that the size and multiplicity of theClassic period ceramic style zones reflect networks ofinteraction that were ‘‘intensive (Mann 1986:7–9),’’‘‘inward-looking’’ (Fry and Cox 1974:210, followingRands 1967), or ‘‘solar’’ (as in relatively independent,Smith 1976, West n.d.). In contrast, style zone distri-butions of the Late Preclassic and Late Postclassicperiod imply that economic networks of this periodwere ‘‘extensive’’ (Mann 1986:7–9)’’ or ‘‘outward-looking’’ (Fry and Cox 1947:210, following Rands1967).

A recently proposed ‘‘dual processual’’ model(Blanton et al. 1996) compares and contrasts Me-soamerican political economies and argues that LatePreclassic (such as El Mirador) and Postclassic (suchas Chichen Itza) Maya polities employed a ‘‘corpor-ate’’ strategy that emphasized group-oriented doc-trine and politicoeconomic institutions. In societiesled by this style of political regime, relatively openeconomic systems contribute to reducing inter-indi-vidual displays of status and wealth differences andthe types of behavior that would allow individuals toestablish a monopoly on power or prestige (Blantonet al. 1996). In contrast, individualizing ‘‘networking’’regimes promote prestigious displays that encourageelites’ efforts to control the acquisition and distri-bution of distant luxury items. Blanton and colleaguescall attention to different forms of political economiesthat can culminate in contrasting patterns of collec-


Fig. 2. Selected Late Preclassic, Classic, and Postclassic ceramic chronological sequences in the Maya lowlands that illustrate the longevityof the Late Preclassic and Late Postclassic periods and the longer stability of modes of ceramic production implied by this longevity.

tive versus individualizing forms of social identity,leadership legitimation, and economic exchange (fol-lowing Renfrew 1974).

In separate works, these scholars have also notedthe influence of scale on patterns of political central-ization (Kowalewski et al. 1983, Feinman 1998). Mostrelevant to this paper, some large scale complex soci-

eties may also be relatively decentralized (Blanton1998). Extensive networks of mercantile-oriented pol-ities that are largely decentralized through diffusepower networks are also described by Mann (1986:8–10). Certain kinds of political hierarchies createboundaries that act as barriers to interaction, whiledecentralized networks are more fluid (Kowalewski et


al. 1983:40, Cherry 1987:156). In regional networksthat are ‘‘inherently open’’ and where economic activ-ities are not spatially redundant, a high degree of in-terdependency can develop. Kowalewski (1982:66)notes these patterns for Late Postclassic Mesoamerica,where they correlate with ill-defined political bound-aries. The existence of open, loosely bounded politicallandscapes probably contributed to the widespreadceramic styles of the Late Preclassic and Postclassicperiods that are described in this paper.

The issue of ceramic style zone sizes in Mesoamer-ica was examined by Barbara Stark for the Preclassicperiod in Veracruz, Mexico (1997). Stark notes thatceramic styles closely reflect geopolitical units, andobserves that the trend of localization and ‘‘shrink-ing’’ of ceramic style zones occurs with the rise ofhierarchical Middle Preclassic Olmec polities alongwith an increase in population size (Stark 1997:288).Ceramic styles can represent the degree to which so-cial and economic networks between communities areopen or closed across a landscape (B. Stark 1997:179,Graves 1994, M. Stark 1994), and I contend here thatthis relationship was true for the Maya lowlands andexplains diachronic trends observed in ceramic diver-sity.

Political interaction is identified as an importantfactor in maintaining peaceful relationships that facili-tate the operation of markets and other mechanismsof exchange (Stark 1997:179). It has been suggestedby Gifford (1976:153–154) and Ball (1981:227–228)that the uniformity of Late Preclassic Maya sphereceramics across the landscape may reflect the exist-ence of more open economic systems compared to theClassic period. The trend for initial ceramic stylisticspheres to be more broadly uniform geographically,followed by spatial ‘‘contraction’’ into more localizedspheres is also observed in North American regions(Braun and Plog 1982, Stark 1997:280). Increasedcompetition among emerging polities may contributeto this limitation of social spheres, as Stark notes(1997:283).

Willey (1991, 1999) has discussed a related phe-nomenon for Preclassic Mesoamerican Olmec societyand the Chavin of Peru. He notes that these societiesare associated with widespread horizontal stylistic in-tegration, a pattern that he interprets to representbroadly-disseminated political ideology and economic

exchange. These periods are disrupted by episodescharacterized by regional stylistic diversity and Willeyobserves alternation in tendencies of localization ofstylistic phenomena and periods of more extensivegeographic similarity. For the Olmec, Willey notesthat broadly-shared symbolism is associated withequally broad important networks of economic ex-change (Willey 1991:206). The widespread distri-bution of ‘‘Olmec style’’ ceramics are the result ofvarious local and interactive processes among societ-ies in many regional pockets of Mesoamerica (Flann-ery and Marcus 1994, Clark 1997, Clark and Blake1989), but few would deny that Veracruz Olmec pol-ities interacted with other regions through inter-re-gional exchange of valuable items. Rathje (n.d.) notesthat widely-shared symbolism facilitates transethnicand transnational communication among societies to-day and paves the way for commercial activity as itprobably did for Olmec lords and their contemporarypolities outside of the Veracruz region.

EXPLANATIONS FOR CERAMIC STYLISTICVARIATIONMany variables can produce a pronounced degree oflocalized diversity or widespread geographic uniform-ity in ceramic stylistic traditions. Kalinga ethnoar-chaeological studies have linked the social identitiesof small regional ‘‘communities’’ with stylistic distinc-tiveness, where the maintenance of ultra-local identityand group boundaries are important (Graves1994:18). Some scholars attribute regional uniformityor standardization of pottery wares to the centraliza-tion of production (Sinopoli 1991:116, 145–159),which is true for some regions such as the Valley ofOaxaca (Feinman 1985, Feinman et al. 1984, Fein-man et al. 1989) and Mesopotamia (Johnson 1973,1987). This is not true for the Maya area throughoutmost time periods and locations (West n.d.). A validcritique of the universal association of centralizationand widespread, homogenous style distributions is of-fered by Hodder (1982). In some cases, the oppositetrend is documented. More widespread artifact stylezones can be found when production is primarily ac-complished at a local level (Plog 1980, 1983:134). Thedecentralized nature of many Late Postclassic polities(outside of the city of Mayapan) is similarly associated


with great stylistic integration. An examination of thespecific historical factors influencing production, ex-change, and style distribution is needed in each re-gional case, as wares can become more diverse orless diverse with centralization or decentralization indifferent instances (Plog 1983:135).

Other scholars attribute broad geographic similar-ities in pottery manufacture to expanding networks ofhuman economic interactions that affect concepts ofgroup identity (Watson and LeBlanc 1973, Wobst1977, Braun 1985). While studies in the Near Easthave attributed widespread uniformity to the actualtrade of ceramics (Watson and LeBlanc 1973), the ex-change of ideas about style also occurs through trade,which may or may not involve the exchange of largequantities of ceramic vessels. It has been noted inother regional interaction spheres of the world thatpottery can travel far greater distances over waterthan via overland routes, as can stylistic ideas thataffect pottery manufacture (Sinopoli 1991:104, Clarkand Gosser 1995). Overland routes for direct Me-soamerican pottery exchange studied by Foster(1965:56, Sinopoli 1991:104) do not exceed 150 mil-es, whereas water transport facilitated Roman vesseldistribution for much further distances in ancientEurope (Sinopoli 1991:104). Among the Dalupa ofthe Phillipines, pottery exchange distances betweengroups tripled with the construction of a new roadsystem connecting regions that were within 40km ofone another (M. Stark 1994:191). The constructionof roads in this case had a similar effect to that ofmaritime transport among coastal societies.

Utilitarian wares of the Classic Maya period arethought by Fry (1980:16) to have been obtainedthrough local or sub-regional market exchange, andsuch a context would provide an environment con-ducive for interaction and transmission of desirableattributes of ceramic vessels to producers. Thecharacteristics of local production are understoodfrom only a few studies (Rice 1980, Rands and Bishop1980, Foias and Bishop 1997, Kepecs 1998, Mock1997), and more paste studies are needed to iron outspecifics of community pottery making and exchange.

During the Postclassic Maya period, the develop-ment of circum-peninsular water-borne canoe tradingis well attested-to in Spanish accounts. This pan-pen-insular trade has been linked to the standardization

of Postclassic pottery attributes (Sabloff and Rathje1975, Rathje 1975, Rathje et al. 1978). It is not knownif this standardization is due to mass (centralized) pro-duction and bulk transport of pottery for trade as Sa-bloff and Rathje (1975) proposed. Studies of pasteand attribute variation are needed to evaluate this hy-pothesis. The homogeneity of local pastes in sub-re-gions of the lowlands such as the Peten Lakes (Rice1980) or northern Belize (Masson and Mock n.d.) sug-gests that a great mixture of diverse pastes resultingfrom multiple production locales is not present atPostclassic communities. This pattern could reflectthe presence of fewer, ‘‘mass’’ production centers ora similarity in clay selection and processing tech-niques used by a variety of producers to make suchpottery within these sub-regions. Technological devel-opmental trends observed in Postclassic wares overtime indicate that potters improved and standardizedtheir techniques (Rice 1980, Masson and Mock n.d.).Potters in various lowland sub-regions conformed tomany common stylistic templates for surface decor-ation and form. Extensive Postclassic trade contrib-uted to potters’ sharing and adopting these commonconventions in various sub-regions. The ‘‘mercantile’’focus of the Postclassic period contrasts to earlier con-cerns of Classic period kings with political ascent,dynastic history and legitimization, and warfare(Webb 1964, Rathje 1975, Sabloff and Rathje 1975).

In ethnoarchaeological studies, greater access tomarkets affects the types of pottery found in house-holds in the Maya highlands (Arnold 1991:67). In Ar-nold’s study, isolated communities that lack easy mar-ket access more often make their own wares or useless kinds of wares than are regionally available. Theamplified regional market access inferred for Postclas-sic Maya communities thus probably contributed togreater inter-site similarities of assemblages of thisperiod. This pattern represents an inverse and com-plementary trend to that observed by Arnold, al-though more studies are needed to document the de-gree of intercommunity variation in pottery assem-blages for the Postclassic period. Sanders’ (1960)initial study of Ichpaatun and Tulum assemblagessuggests that differences in stylistic diversity amongmore decorated, elite wares at Postclassic centers doexist.

More difficult to address are the cognitive factors


Fig. 3. Pie charts indicating relative percentages of slipped wares from selected Late Preclassic sistes, including Cuello (upper left, data fromHammond et al. 1991:Fig. 3.40), Alta de Sacrificios (upper right, data from Adams 1971), Barton Ramie (lower left, data from Gifford 1976),

and Becan (lower right, data from Ball 1977:Appendix I, 16(A) 784 and 16(A) 785–786).

influencing widespread ceramic stylistic integrationduring the Late Preclassic and Late Postclassic Mayaperiods. Ceramic sociologists have argued that styleis a form of nonverbal communication that conveysimportant information about group identity (Wiessner1983, 1984, Hegmon 1992:518). Hegmon notes(1992:521) that style has different meaning in differ-ent contexts. Styles of objects destined for use in pri-vate contexts can, for example, be intended for use inrituals by small numbers of individuals, while objectsthat are widely visible in society (like common ce-

ramic wares) are more symbolic of group or ethnicboundaries (Hegmon 1992:521). Broader similaritiesin ceramic styles can also be punctuated by subtlelocal variations or particular forms manufactured bya single community or small set of communities,which have been termed ‘‘microtraditions’’ by Dealin the modern Maya highland settlements (1998:32).Such microtraditions have been documented in theLate Preclassic (Angelini and McAnany 1999) andPostclassic Maya lowlands (Graham and Pendergast1989:11, Chase and Chase 1988) in studies that have


focused on whole vessels from funerary or ritual con-texts that tend to have more limited distributions.These specialized wares are accompanied by sharedforms of common serving dishes and attributes of sur-face decoration that are found at most among sites(Masson 2000). Plog notes that style is multidimen-sional, and can be assessed at many levels of socialinteraction or ‘‘design hierarchies’’, as particular attri-butes vary in different ways (Plog 1983:129).

MAYA UTILITARIAN AND PRESTIGEECONOMIC SPHERES AND STYLISTICVARIATIONCeramic production and exchange operated in twooverlapping realms of Maya society. Most pots repre-sented basic commodities of common households ex-changed in a utilitarian realm and rarer forms repre-sented status objects that circulated in a realm of pres-tige goods exchange and elite gift-giving (Rands andBishop 1980, Ball 1993, Rentz-Budet 1994). Distri-butions of the latter are apical, though not entirelyexclusive. Ceramics that are found in greater abun-dance in elite contexts are embued with differentforms of stylistic meaning. Elaborate Classic periodpolychrome vases, commissioned for elites (Rentz-Bu-det 1994, Ball 1993), represent private, ritual, andpolitical spheres described by Hegmon (1992:521).More common wares, highly visible in many con-sumption activities of daily life and found in all resi-dential contexts perhaps reflected the identity ofgroups of communities as Hegmon suggests.

Differences in frequencies are observed among socalled ‘‘elite’’ wares (rarer) and ‘‘utilitarian’’ wares(more common) in assemblages from different sitesand in contexts at individual sites. Elite wares, bydefinition, are more commonly recovered in tombs,ritual offerings, or elite residences, while utilitarianwares are more generally distributed. However, a not-able characteristic of Maya economies is the lack ofexclusive distributions for most highly valued com-modities, which trickle down in reduced proportionsto even the most common of households (Gifford1976:153–154, Freidel 1986b:414). The ceramic as-semblages compared in this paper include those thatwere most commonly manufactured and distributedin each time period and those rarer types that occur

in greater numbers in elite contexts but are also foundin some commoner households. Entire site assem-blages are the focus of this paper, due to the subjec-tivity involved in identifying ‘‘elite’’ wares across acontinuum of frequencies in various site contexts anddue to the lack of published data on frequencies ofsuch wares according to context.

REGIONAL COMPARISONS OF CERAMICSTYLISTIC DIVERSITY: A NEWEXAMINATIONCERAMIC DATA USED IN THIS STUDY

Data used in the comparisons below are from varioussites with published sherd type:variety classificationcounts from different periods (Fig. 2). For the LatePreclassic (Table 1, Fig. 3), sherd counts are used fromBarton Ramie (Gifford 1976, compiled from text),Cuello (Hammond et al. 1991:Fig. 3.40), Becan (Ball1977:183, context 16(A)785–786), and Altar de Sacri-ficios (Adams 1971, compiled from various tables, in-cluding 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 20, and others).For the Early and Late Classic periods (Tables 2, 3,Figs. 4, 5), I use samples from Altar de Sacrificios,Barton Ramie, and Becan (Early Classic context16A781–783 and Late Classic context 1Q) from thesame literary sources cited above. For the TerminalClassic period (Table 4, Fig. 6), sherd counts wereused from the same sites as for the Early and LateClassic (using context 2(B)355, 359 from Becan), withthe addition of sites from Macanche Island (Rice1987b:Table 3) and Cerros (Walker 1990:Table 1.1).Late Postclassic samples (Table 5, Fig. 7) were usedfrom Macanche Island (Rice 1987b:Table 8), CayeCoco (Masson and West 1999), Mayapan (Smith1971), and Cozumel (Connor 1983:Appendix TableB1).

In my examination of assemblage diversity, I de-part from Rice’s (1989) approach in that issues of craftspecialization are not of concern to this study. Thisstudy examines only the types of ceramics that pro-ducers were attempting to conform to, irrespective oftheir degree of success. Based on Rice’s (1987a) workand an important study by Rands and Bishop of com-munity level ceramic production (1980), I infer thatthe utilitarian assemblages found at Late Postclassicand Postclassic sites consist of types that were pro-


duced primarily on a local basis at the communitiesexamined (or their close neighbors) and that thesetypes were exchanged in local or regional markets (in-volving sets of communities within a few days’ travelof one another). Although sourcing studies (Randsand Bishop 1980) suggest that communities may havespecialized in particular forms, Rands and Bishopalso suggest that intercommunity exchange of theseforms resulted in the presence of functionally com-plete assemblages at households and sites within thesecommunity exchange spheres.

Rice (1981:222) has observed that technologicalvariation within types reflects differences in abilitiesof producers to conform to a mental template. Forthis current study, variation in technological qualityor paste types are not considered relevant as these aremerely the result of local skill and local resources thatwere available and variable across lowlands geogra-phy. More important to this study are the attempts by

Table 1. Late Preclassic ceramic samples (from Adams 1971, Hammond et al. 1991, Gifford 1976, Ball 1977 as cited in text).

Altar Cuello Cuello Barton Ramie Barton Ramie Becan BecanGroups N sherds N types N Sherds N types N sherds N types N sherds

Sierra R 550 9 1777 5 3728 3 147Chicago OJ 1 385Joventud R 5 1 18Polvero B 215 2 58 3 844 1 22Matamore 1 78Flor Cream 67 1 24 4 212 1 1Escobal 1 15 1 5Ixcopal 15Itzan R on 3Guacamallo 10Other 15Hillbank R 2 724Aguila OJ 1 3Muxanal RoC 1 4Zapotista trickle 1 62Dos Arroyos 1 3Sapote Striated 634 1 17 1 1200 2 135Richardson Peak Unslip 1 83Paila Unslip 3 1303Achiotes Unslip 1 12N of groups 9 N of groups 8 N of groups 6 N of groups 11N of types N of types 17 N of types 18 N of types 14NISP 1514 NISP 2437 NISP 8011 NISP 412% shared w/Cuello 96.3% % shared w/Altar 77.0% % shared w/Altar 74.7% % shared w/Altar 78.4%% shared w/B. Ramie 96.3% % shared w/B. Ramie 77.0% % shared w/Cuello 74.7% % shared w/Cuello 75.2%% shared w/Becan 96.6% % shared w/Becan 77.6% % shared w/Becan 74.7% % shared w/Bramie 74.0%

community producers to replicate regional forms andstyles (the primary basis for classification of ‘‘types’’and ‘‘varieties’’ in the type:variety system), irrespec-tive of the skills or resources they possessed to ac-complish this.

The type:variety method is a taxonomic approachto ceramic classification commonly used in the NewWorld (Wheat et al. 1958). A ‘‘type’’ is a broad cat-egory of ceramics that share diagnostic attributes, in-cluding surface decoration, form, or paste. Types canbe further divided into varieties. Type groups (or clus-ters) reflect broader regional similarities, and arethought to represent shared normative concepts of ce-ramics style and production (Gifford 1960, Sinopoli1991:52), and for this reason the type group classifi-cation is used for comparisons in this study. The typegroup is a category of ceramic classification that in-cludes around 1–5 types of ceramics that are relatedbased on slip, paste, and range of forms. Each type


within a type group examined in the literature usedin this study is usually further divided into around 1–3 varieties based on differences in decorative attri-butes or form. While communities are expected toshow more variation in their varieties, types and typegroups are more indicative of patterns shared on aregional level (Smith et al. 1960). Most type groupsare dominated by a single type (such as Sierra Red inthe Sierra Group, Ball 1977:183, context 16A785–786), with low numbers of specimens defining ad-ditional types (such as Repasto Black-on-Red in theSierra Group, Ball 1977:183, context 16A785–786).

Table 2. Early Classic ceramic samples (from Adams 1971, Gifford 1976, Ball 1977 as cited in text).

Altar Altar Barton Ramie Barton Ramie Becan BecanGroups N types N sherds N types N sherds N types N sherds

Sierra Red 19 1 28Caribal Red 237Cumbre Red 35Tranquilo Red 42Fowler OJ Red 2 1221Minanha Red 2 2907Dos Hermanos R 1 262Balanza Black 9 4 2792 1 132Discordia Black 1 4Polvero Black 24Gavilan Black 18Pucte Brown 32 3 219Actuncan OJ 74 2 202Mojarra OJ 16Dos Arroyos Poly 7 3 1296 3 284Aguila OJ 1472 2 28 2 85San Roman relief 2Balanza 3 10Batres 1 495Maxcanu 1 157Quintal 1 7Tixcacal OJ poly 14Escobal R on Buff 1 5Mopan striated 1 3362Sapote striated 89 1 88Socotz striated 1 11416Triunfo striated 1621 2 1166White Cliff striated 1 5299Hewlett Bank unslip 1 235

N of groups 15 N of groups 12 N of groups 13N of types not rec. N of types 23 N of types 18NISP 3697 NISP 29239 NISP 2475% shared w/B. Ramie 43.1% % shared w/Altar 15.5% % shared w/Altar 21.4%% shared w/Becan 87.0% % shared w/Becan 14.1% % shared w/Bramie 20.2%

Some fundamental methodological barriers existfor making intersite comparisons. In any analyticalfield, there are ‘‘lumpers’’ and ‘‘splitters,’’ and the‘‘lumper’’ approach is useful for the purposes of thisexamination which seeks to identify broad regionalsimilarities or differences. For example, not all Post-classic scholars express the view in print that LatePostclassic communities across the Maya lowlandspossessed closely-related utilitarian ceramic traditions,while others do hold this view (Rathje et al. 1978,Masson 2000). Those interested in facets of local com-munity technology have emphasized such aspects ofceramic production as variability in paste groups and


Fig. 4. Pie charts indicating relative percentages of slipped waresfrom selected Early Classic sites, including Altar de Sacrificios (datafrom Adams 1971), Barton Ramie (data from Gifford 1976), and

Becan (data from Ball 1977:Appendix I).

Fig. 5. Pie charts indicating relative percentages of slipped waresfrom selected Late Classic sites, including Altar de Sacrificios (datafrom Adams 1971), Barton Ramie (data from Gifford 1976), and

Becan (data from Ball 1977:Appendix I).


slips within a limited regional sphere (e.g. Rice 1980).Other investigators have focused on the analysis ofentire vessels and features (Graham 1987, Chase andChase 1988) which can offer better data than ceramicsherds for the analysis of certain vessel forms. Ritualor burial features, where whole vessels are most oftenrecovered, can yield primarily specialized ritual ce-

Table 3. Late Classic ceramic samples (from Adams 1971, Gifford 1976, Ball 1977 as cited in text).

Altar Altar Barton Ramie Barton Ramie Becan BecanGroups N types N sherds N types N sherds N types N sherds

Mountain Pine R 6 2923Subin Red 59Tinaja Red 207Ejercito Red 11Corona Red 2 878Petexbatun OJ 21Mataculebra poly 13Santa Rosa poly 9Saturday Creek poly 1 732Tasital 1 2Molino Black 1 1 4 8121Achote Black 73Teakettle Bank Black 2 1172Saxche OJ poly 3 355 3 204Petkanche OJ poly 2 70Chimbote poly 6 222Palmar OJ 18 3 3Sotero R-brown 3 1510Becanchen brown 1 8113Macal OJ R 2 10256Zacatel Cream 8Juleki Cream poly 1 2Petkanche cream 1 44Azcorra Ivory poly 3 81Cambio Unslipped 1 1Corona 2 4Dzitbalche 2 6Petkanche poly 3 6Triunfo striated 1 5Egoista resist 1 4Zopilote Smudge Black 84other B or R on OJ 8Jones camp striated 1 3870White Cliff striated 1 15438Zibal unslipped 1 1706Encanto Striated 261 1 7036

N of groups 12 N of groups 11 N og groups 17N of types not rec. N of types 22 N of types 37NISP 772 NISP 37965 NISP 24800% shared w/B. Ramie 0 % shared w/Altar 0.0% % shared w/Altar 28.4%% shared w/Becan 36.1% % shared w/Becan 1.0% % shared w/Bramie 33.6%

ramic forms. Such specialized pottery is illustrated bythe chalice vessels from funerary contexts at Lamanai(Pendergast 1981) and effigy wares from caches atSanta Rita (Chase and Chase 1988) which emphasizecommunity differences (Graham and Pendergast1989:11, Chase and Chase 1988) rather than similar-ities. In a contrastive but perhaps complementary


Fig. 6. Pie charts indicating relative percentages of slipped waresfrom selected Late Classic sites, including Altar de Sacrificios(upper left, data from Adams 1971), Barton Ramie (upper right,data from Gifford 1976), Cerros (center left, data from Walker1990), Becan (center right, data from Ball 1977:Appendix I), and

Macanche Island (lower left, data from Rice 1987).


Fig. 7. Pie charts indicating relative percentages of slipped wares from selected Postclassic sites, including and Macanche Island (upper left,data from Rice 1987), Caye Coco (upper right, from Masson and West 1999), Mayapan (lower left, from Smith 1971), and Cozumel Island

(lower right, from Connor 1983).

fashion, similarities are observed in utilitarian ce-ramics that are more comparable between sites (Mas-son 2000). Perhaps local identities were celebrated inritual wares, but larger affinities were expressed in theutilitarian realm. Stark (1997) discusses difficulties inmaking intersite comparisons of ceramic assemblagesusing published illustrations of ceramic wares, whichusually tend to show the most common and or themost rare wares but do not reflect their proportionsin the assemblages from which they are derived. Pub-lication of unusual, idiosyncratic vessels can give afaulty impression that ceramics from different sites arequite dissimilar, and can misrepresent greater similar-

ities reflected in shared, utilitarian types. Completepublication of quantified ceramic type frequencies ismore conducive for inter-site comparisons.

Inter-regional comparisons of ceramic types aredifficult due to the variety of criteria used by differentceramicists in classifying their data. Plog notes(1983:128) the subjectivity of typological analysis ofstylistic data that has complicated his own efforts tomake regional comparisons in the Southwest U.S. Ex-periments with the replicability of ceramic typologicalanalysis reveal substantial discrepancies (30–50%) intype groupings among different investigators (Plog1983:136). The geographic extent of general charac-

174Acta

Archaeologica

Table 4. Terminal Classic ceramic samples (from Adams 1971, Gifford 1976, Ball 1977, Walker 1990, Rice 1987:Table 3 as cited in text).

Altar Altar Barton Ramie Barton Ramie Cerros Cerros Becan Becan Macanche MacancheN types N sherds N types N sherds N types N sherds N types N sherds N types N sherds

Dolphin Head Red 1 2749Kik Red 400Kik Red 32Subin Red 766Ejercito Red 177Abelino Red 10Tinaja Red 328 2 100 5 372Garbutt Creek R 2 4617Vaca Falls 3 4394Mt. Maloney Black 1 758Yalbac Brown 1 1633Traino Brown 3 547Payaso Orange Brown 1 105Meditation Black 1 620Achote Black 2 27 14 3 839 1 167Daylight OJ 1 14Anonal OJ 97Sayaxche OJ poly 12Palmar OJ 6 76Balancan OJ 2 6Altar OJ 4 10 1 1Danta Cream 1 3 1 1Savinal Cream 13Harina Cream 2 153Dolorido Cream poly 2 5Nanzal 1 1Asote 1 1Tialipa 2 3Belize Red 7 23240Chunhuitz OJ 2 2441Yaha Creek cream 1 1239Yantho Incised 2Metzabok Slate 7Ticul Thin Slate 20 3 122Pixtun trickle on gray 1 680Zopilote Smudge Black 476Special: Red slip tripod dish 1 12Chablekal 1 1Encanto striated 1427 1 1750Buyuk striated 204Chambell striated 1382Red Neck Mother striated 3Triunfo striated 20Sakatan unslipped 679Lacanaya plain 6Tutu Camp striated 1 3217Cayo unslipped 2 12927Cambio Unslipped 2 132 2 1418


Tab

le4.

Con

tinue

d.

Alta

rA

ltar

Bar

ton

Ram

ieB

arto

nR

amie

Cer

ros

Cer

ros

Bec

anB

ecan

Mac

anch

eM

acan

che

Nty

pes

Nsh

erds

Nty

pes

Nsh

erds

Nty

pes

Nsh

erds

Nty

pes

Nsh

erds

Nty

pes

Nsh

erds

Nof

grou

ps10

Nof

grou

ps17

Nof

grou

ps11

Nof

grou

ps12

Nof

grou

ps8

Nof

type

sno

tre

c.N

ofty

pes

35N

ofty

pes

not

rec.

Nof

type

s25

Nof

type

s14

NIS

P33

19N

ISP

5794

6N

ISP

2756

NIS

P42

04N

ISP

2231

%sh

ared

w/B

.R

amie

0%

shar

edw

/Alta

r0.

0%%

shar

edw

/Alta

r0

%sh

ared

w.

44.0

%%

shar

edw

/Alta

r%

shar

edw

/Bec

an52

.9%

%sh

ared

w/B

ecan

0.05

%%

shar

edw

/Bra

mie

0.5%

%sh

ared

w.

20.0

%%

shar

edw

/Bra

mie

%sh

ared

w/C

erro

s0

%sh

ared

w/C

erro

s0.

05%

%sh

ared

w/B

ecan

1.2%

%sh

ared

w.

44.0

%%

shar

edw

/Cer

ros

%sh

ared

w/M

acan

che

9.9%

%sh

ared

w/M

acan

che

0.05

%%

shar

edw

/Mac

anch

e0.

5%%

shar

edw

.25

.7%

%sh

ared

w/B

ecan

teristics of Maya lowlands Late Preclassic Sierra Redpottery (Table 1), discussed below, is not disputed inthe literature (Gifford 1976:84, Ball 1977, Fry 1980:3,Lopez 1997), and perhaps this trend is due to greaterintersite comparisons among investigators. The thrustof Lopez’s dissertation (1997) on Preclassic Maya ce-ramics critiques the pitfalls of community-basedanalysis that does not acknowledge important re-gional similarities.

The Classic period types compared in this paperwere published by a variety of different investigators(Tables 2–4, Figs. 4–6), and it is possible that somefundamentally similar ceramics have been classifiedunder different local type names. More regionally-oriented studies are needed. Despite these potentialproblems, most ceramicists whose studies are used inthis report were quite interested in regional relation-ships and had seen collections from other sites. Gif-ford (1976:192) comments on the increased diversityof Classic period wares in describing decreased in-tersite similarities between Belize valley assemblagesand those of major Classic period sites to the west.Although typological categories used in this paper willprobably be revised in future studies, the data usedhere represent the most comprehensive publishedstudies that offer counts of type classifications suitablefor quantitative comparisons. The potential for typo-logically-similar wares to be classified under differentnames in local assemblages is shared for the Postclas-sic period, as described below. Even allowing that po-tential additional diversity is represented in Classicand Postclassic assemblages as quantified herethrough typologies that have been split rather thanlumped, the trend of greater diversity within sites andbetween sites during the Classic periods compared tothe Late Preclassic and Postclassic remains evidentand valid.

UNIFORMITY VS. DIVERSITY OVER TIME:A LOOK AT COMMUNITY ASSEMBLAGESOF EACH PERIODThree basic similarities are observed in the ceramicassemblages of the Late Preclassic and Late Postclas-sic periods. The first and most general similarity ofthe Late Preclassic and Postclassic periods is thatthese are two of the most long-enduring ceramic as-


semblages in the Maya sequence (Fig. 2). Conserva-tively, each sequence lasts at least 500 years, and upto 600 years in some parts of the lowlands (Pyburn1989:126, Chase and Chase 1985:Figs. 2, 3). Figure2 shows examples of site sequences that demonstratethe relative longevity of these periods. While changesin major ceramic type groups do occur during thesesequences, they do so along a continuum of attributevariation that causes them to be classified within thesame or analogous typological categories. While thetype:variety method of ceramic classification com-monly used in the Maya area has distinct advantagesand disadvantages (summarized recently in Lopez1997), its widespread use within this region allows in-tersite comparisons to be made. This taxonomic ap-proach to classification also serves as a measure of thedegree of production changes. Changes within majortypes of the Late Preclassic and Late Postclassic Mayalowlands are most commonly observed in the defi-nition of new varieties of major types such as SierraRed or Payil Red in sites examined in this study.Changes in the Classic period are across more inclus-ive type or type group categories (Gifford 1976).While ‘‘type groups’’ have been selected for use in thisstudy, evidence suggests that variation in forms withintypes (Rice 1981) and ceramic stylistic motifs (Stark1997) are also amenable to these types of long termcomparisons and they reflect similar patterns.

The second major similarity between Late Preclas-sic and Postclassic ceramic patterns is that they aredominated by a single redware group of ceramics(Table 1, Figs. 3, 7). The Sierra Red ceramic typegroup category represents the vast majority of slippedwares among Late Preclassic assemblages (Sullivanand Valdez n.d.), and Payil Red, Mama Red, andPaxcaman Red are three closely-related sub-regionaltypes that represent a resounding majority of slippedwares of Late Postclassic Maya assemblages (Smith1971, Rice 1981, Masson 2000). Not only are thesered-slipped wares predominant in the assemblages,but they are accompanied by fewer other types com-pared to the Classic periods (Tables 1–5, Figs. 4–7).While variability in types and forms is observedwithin the Late Preclassic and within the PostclassicMama Red, Payil Red, and Paxcaman Red typegroups, these groups share attributes of form, decor-ation, and to a certain extent, technology (though

clays vary) across different communities for each timeperiod. Fig. 4 shows the proportion of Sierra Redwares among slipped ceramic groups at selected LatePreclassic sites. Figs. 4–6 show the proportions ofslipped wares in Early, Late, and Terminal Classicassemblages. While the Classic period sites also havedominant wares, many sites have two or three typesthat are most common in the assemblages rather thana single dominant type of slipped ware as observed forLate Preclassic and Postclassic samples. Classic periodassemblages are also accompanied by a far greater listof other types than the Late Preclassic or Postclassicsamples (Tables 1–5). Fig. 7 displays a trend for thepredominance of a single type group of red ware ce-ramics at selected Postclassic sites that is comparableto that trend shown in Fig. 4 for the Late Preclassic.

The third major similarity of Late Preclassic Chi-canel and Mama Red/Payil Red/Paxcaman Red war-es is that they are common at sites throughout theMaya lowlands. At sites from northern Yucatan (Bey et

al. 1997) to the southern lowlands (Table 1), Late Pre-classic ceramics are classified according to the sametype variety groups. The similarities between Maya-pan’s Mama Red and censer and unslipped vessels(Table 5) to those found at Postclassic sites in QuintanaRoo, Belize and the Peten have been described in theliterature (Robles 1986, Connor 1983, Peraza 1993,Bullard 1973, Chase and Chase 1988). The broad geo-graphic extent of Late Preclassic wares has been long-noted by ceramicists (Gifford 1976:153–154, Ball1981:226, Fry 1980:3), and is thought to reflect wide-spread regional contacts and ‘‘norm sharing’’ of attri-butes in pottery production (Fry 1980:3).

Fig. 3 illustrates the number of slipped wares forselected Late Preclassic sites where ceramic typecounts were available. Sierra Red forms the majorityof all of these assemblages, ranging from 54–76%.Polvero Black is the second most common slippedtype for Altar de Sacrificios and Barton Ramie and itis present at all sites examined, but other local typesare of secondary importance in the northern Belize/southern Quintana Roo vicinities of Cuello and Be-can (Fig. 3, Table 1).

Figs. 4–6 illustrate the diversity of slipped waresfound in each of the Classic periods. Considerablevariation is observed in the composition of assem-blages from each temporal interval, both in the pro-

177Changing

Patterns

ofCeram

icStylistic

Diversity

inthe

Pre-H

ispanicM

ayaLow

lands

Table 5. Late Postclassic ceramic samples (from Rice 1987:Table 8, Masson & West 1999, Smith 1971, Connor 1983:Table B1 as cited in text).

Groups Macanche Macanche Caye Coco Caye Coco Mayapan Mayapan Cozumel Cozumel(suggested by the author*) Groups (as published N types N sherds N types N sherds N types N sherds N types N sherds

Fine OJ 5 929 5 144Paxcaman/Payil Red Paxcaman Red 5 983

(minus 12.1% Ixpop)Payil Red 4 2611 2 24 2 4603

Paxcaman: Ixpop polychrome 1 135Trapeche Red, Rita Red, Trapeche Red 4 280

Mama RedRita Red 3 817Mama Red 7 90455 3 2207

Unspecified Gray 1 21Topoxte 4 329Other 3 41Cedral Red 2 366Red Santa 1 336Black 1 64 3 838Buff 1 2Brown 2 7San Joaquin Buff 1 16 3 3727Telch Brick 4 2384Other slip 1 2 3 306Pozo, Cohokum, Mayapan Pozo unslipped 2 769

unslippedCohokum Unslipped 5 5726Mayapan Unslipped 11 41951

Chilo & Navula unslip Chilo unslipped 2 408Navula unslipped 2 39 2 6849

Patojo censer, Chen Mul Patojo Censer 2 89Chen Mul Censer 1 128809Kol Modelled Censer

Ciega unsl 1 371Tsabak unsl 1 224

Macanche Macanche Coco Coco Mayapan Mayapan Cozumel(from Rice 1987: (Table B.1)Table 8)

Late Postcl NISP 3055 NISP 9844 NISP 269423 NISP 14540N of groups 9 N of groups 11 N of groups 9 N of groups 6N of types 24 N of types 21 N of types 40 N of types 15% shared Mayapan 73.6% % shared Mayapan 94.2% % shared Coco 99% % shared Coco 93.9%% shared Cozumel 73.6% % shared Cozumel 93.5% % shared Cozumel 99% % shared Mayapan 95.0%% shared Coco 93.6% % shared Macanche 93.5% % shared Macanche 98% % shared Macanche 94.05%

(note comparisons to Macanche include Paxcaman without Ixpop, Trapeche, Topoxte & unslipped only).


portions represented by various types, and in the mostnumerous types at each site. For the Early Classic(Fig. 4), 74% of the slipped wares of Altar de Sacri-ficios are comprised of Aguila Orange. Batres Red-slipped wares, Dos Arroyos Polychromes, and Max-canu brown-slipped ceramics comprise major pro-portions (41%, 23%, and 13% respectively) of the Be-can slipped ware assemblage, and Barton Ramie isdominated by Fowler Orange Red (14%), MinanhaRed (33%), and Balanza Black (31%). The greatestnumber of types are found at Altar de Sacrificios, andthe fewest are reported from Barton Ramie (Fig. 4).All sites have more type groups than the Late Preclas-sic assemblages shown in Fig. 3.

The Late Classic slipped ceramic samples illus-trated in Fig. 5 (Table 3) also do not exhibit manyshared type groups between sites. The dominant war-es at Altar de Sacricios include Tinaja Red (40%),Zopilote Smudge Black (15%), Achote Black (14%),and Subin Red (12%). At Barton Ramie, Macal Or-ange Red (61%) and Mountain Pine Ridge Red (17%)are most common. Becanchen Brown (46%) and Mo-lino Black (47%) are the primary slipped wares at Be-can. Altar de Sacrificios and Becan each have longerlists of slipped types than Barton Ramie, indicatinggreater diversity at these sites. However, the Altar deSacrificios assemblage also has a greater number ofrelatively common types than Becan, which is primar-ily dominated by two wares (Fig. 5). Greater typologi-cal diversity is thus seen in the western city state ofAltar de Sacrificios, and less diversity is reflected at

Table 6.

Altar Cuello B. Ramie Becan Cerros Macanche Caye Coco Mayapan Cozumel Average

RICHNESS (DIVERSITY)Late Preclassic 1.3 0.94 1.48 1.59 1.33Early Classic 1.34 1.8 1.63 1.59Late Classic 1.84 1.64 1.34 1.61Terminal Classic 1.54 1.83 1.59 1.33 1.14 1.49Postclassic 1.77 1.14 1.15 1.23 1.32

EVENNESS (EQUITABILITY)Late Preclassic 0.59 0.45 0.82 0.66 0.63Early Classic 0.49 0.72 0.63 0.61Late Classic 0.74 0.68 0.47 0.63Terminal Classic 0.67 0.64 0.64 0.55 0.55 0.61Postclassic 0.8 0.47 0.52 0.69 0.62

sites located at a distance from this area (to the east)such as Barton Ramie and Becan.

The Terminal Classic assemblages are also quitediverse and do not bear close resemblances to oneanother (Fig. 6, Table 4). Dominant wares at Altarcontinue from the Late Classic, including Subin Red(40%), Tinaja Red (18%), and Zopilote Smudge Black(26%). At Barton Ramie, Garbutt Creek Red (55%)dominates the assemblage, Kik Red (82%) is preva-lent at Cerros, and Tinaja Red (45%) is most commonat Macanche. Unlike the others, Becan is not domi-nated by a class of red-slipped ware. This trend ismaintained at Becan from the Late Classic period.Instead, common types at this site continue to includea black-slipped ware (Achote Black, 37%), and abrown-slipped ware (Traino Brown, 24%), with Pix-tun Trickle on Gray also forms a major proportion(29%). While Altar de Sacrificios exhibits continu-ation from the Late Classic in its three most commonceramic wares, a reduction in the number of types isobserved at this site over time. The opposite trend isobserved at Barton Ramie, which displays increasedtypological diversity in its Terminal Classic assem-blage compared to that of the Late Classic (Figs. 5,6). This trend may reflect important productionchanges in the Belize region in conjunction with thefall of western centers.

Postclassic ceramic wares in this study that havebeen classified as different local types within the Mayalowlands are closely related and appear to representlocal attempts to conform to a broader regional tem-


Fig. 8. Number of ceramic type groups (slipped and unslipped) for all sites examined for each time period. The Late Preclassic, Early Classic,and Postclassic sites have far fewer type groups than those identified for the Late Classic and Terminal Classic sites.

plate of vessel form and decoration. Paxcaman andPayil Red wares bear important resemblances to eachother and to wares that have been classified as Mamaor Rita Red. Mayapan’s Mama Red ceramics prob-ably represent a northwest Yucatan variant of Quin-tana Roo’s Payil Red wares (Peraza 1993:404). Formsshared by Paxcaman, Payil, Mama, and Rita Redwares include sag-bottom, tripod outflaring walleddishes (with scrolled, vented, or pointed feet), collaredbowls, other small bowls and ollas, slipped ollas, andjars (Masson 2000). Unslipped wares found from thePeten Lakes to northern Yucatan also share very simi-lar forms, including folded rim ollas, bowls, and ap-plique or effigy censer wares. More detailed dis-cussions of the chronology and geographic extent ofPostclassic ceramic wares are available elsewhere(Masson 2000). Bullard (1973), Rice (1981), Chaseand Chase (A. Chase and D. Chase 1985, D. Chaseand A. Chase 1988), Robles (1986), Graham (1987),and Valdez (1987) offer a variety of perspectives oninter-site relationships. In the opinion of this author,

Payil Red, Mama Red, and Paxcaman Red ceramictypes represent local classifications by ceramicists thatare part of a pan-lowland complex of similar stylisticattributes. Local potters were trying to conform towidely-shared templates with clay resources and skillsavailable to them in various pockets of the southernlowlands region. Fig. 7 shows the degree to whichred-slipped wares dominate Postclassic assemblagesfrom four different sites. At Caye Coco, Mayapan,and Cozumel, Payil and Mama or Rita Red (closely-related types) account together for 88–93% of theslipped wares at these sites.

The average number of ceramic type groups persite by time period is plotted in Fig. 8 (Table 6), whichincludes both slipped and unslipped ware categories.These numbers clearly show more diversity in thenumber of type groups within the Classic period, withLate Preclassic and Postclassic sites represented by av-erages of 8.5 and 8.7 type groups per site. These aver-ages are substantially lower than the average numberof groups per site calculated for the Early Classic


Fig. 9. Cumulative frequency curves for each time period, showing the percentage of sherds (y axis) distributed in various type groups for allsites examined. The sharper curves of the Late Preclassic and the Postclassic indicate that the majority of sherds in these assemblages aremade up of a very few highly abundant type groups, indicating a lower degree of diversity in these samples. In contrast, sherds are distributed

among several abundant type groups for the Classic period assemblages, indicating greater diversity.

(11.6), Late Classic (13.3), and Terminal Classic (13.3)sites examined in this study. Such calculations areaffected by approaches to type:variety classificatorytechniques. Some very similar wares at different Post-classic sites have been classified with local type names,such as local variants of Mayapan’s Chen Mul styleeffigy censer style (listed as Patojo and Kol Modelledtypes). If they had not been classified as separate war-es, all indices of diversity employed in this paperwould be even more reduced for the Postclassicperiod than they are as currently shown.

An examination of cumulative frequency curves ofthe number of sherds in each group (for groups withmore than 20 sherds) by time period further illustratesthe diversity of ceramic types in the Classic periodsversus the Late Preclassic and Postclassic periods (Fig-ure 9). The curves of the Late Preclassic and Postclas-sic are most similar, as they are shorter and exhibit

sharp vertical rises that indicate that fewer types makeup the majority of these assemblages. The Early Clas-sic curve is also similar to the Postclassic curve in thatfewer types comprise the curve compared to Late andTerminal Classic assemblages, although the verticalportion of this curve is more gradual, indicating thatthere are more types that are numerous in the EarlyClassic assemblage than in the Preclassic and Post-classic samples. Sherd counts are distributed acrosseven greater numbers of type groups for the Late andTerminal Classic periods, as indicated by their moregradual curves (Fig. 9). Greater numbers of typegroups with only a few sherds in each category arealso exhibited for the Late and Terminal Classicperiods in particular, in comparison to the Late Pre-classic, Early Classic and Late Postclassic curves (Fig.9).

Statistical analysis of diversity has been commonly


applied to assess variation in archaeological type as-semblages (Leonard and Jones 1989, Rick 1996), andspecifically applied to diachronic Maya ceramic typevariation by Rice (1989). Diversity analysis is per-formed using the Shannon-Weaver formula (Pielou1966, Shannon and Weaver 1949:14) which generatesvalues of ‘‘richness’’ and ‘‘evenness.’’ This statistic canbe complicated to interpret and is not considered su-perior in this case to the frequency examinations al-ready presented above. However, it provides onefurther look at this data.

The formula for richness (also referred to as diver-sity) is as follows:

Hø Ω ªp log p

‘‘where p is the number of ith species divided by thesample size (Pielou 1966, Shannon and Weaver1949:14),’’ as defined by Reitz and Scarry (1985:20)in their application of this technique to dietary diver-sity in zooarchaeological analysis. This measurement(ranging from 0.1–4.99) reflects both how many cate-gories (of ceramic type groups in this study) are pres-ent and how much each was utilized (paraphrasedfrom Reitz and Scarry 1985:20). Equitability is an ad-ditional measurement that can be calculated from thisindex, which measures the distribution of numbers ofspecimens across taxonomic or typological categories.This value ranges from 0.1–1.0. If one or more cate-gories contain the majority of the specimens, lowequitability values result (Reitz and Scarry 1985:20).If the sample is more normally distributed with a fewabundant taxa, a moderate number of common taxa,and many rare taxa, then higher equitability valuesresult (paraphrased from Reitz and Scarry 1985:20).Equitability is calculated as follows:

E Ω Hø/H max

‘‘where Hø is the Diversity index and H max is thenatural log of the number of observed species (Pielou1966, Sheldon 1969)’’ as explained by Reitz and Scar-ry (1985:20). Diversity indices are more complicatedto interpret than equitability indices. Diversity valuescan increase with greater numbers of types (or taxa),and as equitability of the distribution of these taxaincreases (Reitz and Scarry 1985:20). Both of these

measures are dependent on sample size. As samplesfor all periods and sites are relatively large in thisstudy (Tables 1–6), size should not affect the use ofthis statistic.

Diversity and Equitability values were calculatedfor each site in all time periods (Table 7). The diver-sity (richness) measures confirm the patterns alreadyidentified by the previous manipulations of this paper,with higher average values calculated from Classicperiod sites than from sites from the Preclassic orPostclassic (Table 7, far right column). Considerablevariation is observed in the diversity values from indi-vidual sites, however, confirming the trend illustratedin Figs. 4–8 for slipped wares. As richness values canrange from 1.0–4.99, the values shown in Table 7 arerather tightly clustered between 1.32 and 1.61. Thesesimilar values are probably derived from the fact thatmost of the assemblages examined are dominated bya few key types, as the diversity statistic is especiallysensitive to proportionate distributions. Equitabilityvalues were also not particularly useful for distinguish-ing differences over time. Average values calculatedfor groups of sites within each time period were allnearly identical (Table 7).

DISCUSSION: EXPLAINING TRENDS INCERAMIC DIVERSITYAccording to Rice (1989:111) low diversity can attestto the existence of fewer products or producers, con-trolled production, or it can represent mass produc-tion and standardization among highly complex soci-eties. Rice’s (1989) diversity comparisons by timeperiod within the site of Barton Ramie generally fol-lowed the results of this study, with diversity increas-ing overall during the Classic period (with some slightreversals during the Late Classic compared to theEarly and Terminal Classic periods) compared to theLate Preclassic. The Postclassic period was not in-cluded in Rice’s previous studies (1981, 1989). Ricehas interpreted increased diversity of the Classicperiods to indicate greater social diversity and special-ization of tasks, roles, and activities that required spe-cialized ceramic products (Rice 1987:79, 83).

Rice’s observations are certainly on target, as theintricacies of elite life and its effects on southern low-land Maya society continue to be documented in on-


going ceramic studies (for example, Chase and Chase1992, Ball 1993, Reentz-Budet 1994, 2000). In inter-preting diversity fluctuations in the long term cyclesexamined here, I explore the utility of Blanton et al.’s(1996) dual processual model for its explanatory po-tential. Assuming the existence of state level societyfor the Late Preclassic and Late Postclassic Mayasouthern lowlands, the relative decreased visibility ofsocial tiers, specialized elite activity, and prestigegoods ceramics – the inverse of Rice’s criteria whichdifferentiated the Classic period – are not thought tosimply represent a relative deflation of social com-plexity. Rather, these represent one characteristic of‘‘corporate’’ political organization as defined by Blan-ton et al., in which ‘‘prestige items’’ that signify theexclusivity of individual political actors and ambitiousfactions of society are relatively less common. Suchsocieties place a greater emphasis on the control ofstaple finance, and prestige goods are used to a farlesser degree to distinguish intermember status differ-ences compared to more exclusionary systems of pol-itical economy such as that of the Classic periodMaya (Blanton et al. 1996:6). According to Blanton et

al. (1996:9), the Late Preclassic Maya represented acorporate political formation, as they possessed grouporiented architectural complexes, wide open publicspaces, and an iconography that did not advertise theindividual status of political leaders.

Although the economic organization of Late Pre-classic Maya polities is not well understood, the wide-spread regional distribution of ceramic wares associ-ated with the Late Preclassic Chicanel sphere suggestsan open, far-reaching set of economic networks andbroad geographic integration across the Maya low-lands (Gifford 1976:84). The widespread productionof Sierra Red pottery types may have reinforced themaintenance of a pan-lowland Maya identity. Thelack of subgroup divisions and boundaries implied bythe geographic extent of this ware is a significant clueto the broad parameters of economic interaction atthis time. Reduced proportions of distinct elite waresused primarily for feasting, gift-giving, and other self-aggrandizing posturing is a characteristic that mightbe expected of corporate formations, according toBlanton et al. (1996:6–7). This pattern is observed forother valuable commodities as well, which are moregenerally distributed in all social contexts of societies

with corporate organization, according to theseauthors.

Blanton et al. also suggest that the group-orientedstyle of Postclassic political art and architecture atChichen Itza (now considered to date to the TerminalClassic/Epiclassic, Ringle et al. 1998, Bey et al. 1997,Andrews et al. 2000) can be attributed to a corporatestrategy of rulership (Blanton et al. 1996:8). Rathje(1975:421) noted 25 years ago that Postclassic statescast aside inefficient investments of social energy suchas labor-intensive monumental works that glorified in-dividual political campaigns during the Classic periodin favor of pursuits that resulted in greater affluenceamong all members of society through an emphasison inclusive patterns of commercial production andexchange. Sabloff and Rathje (1975) also noted thatmost classes of commodities are distributed moreevenly among all social tiers (1975:423, 436), theythey interpreted to be related to a decline in costs(due to efficiency of production and transportation) ofresources in general. In an earlier work, Webb(1964:463–478) pushed this notion further, suggestingthat ‘‘progressive,’’ mature, fully-developed state soci-eties did not develop in Mesoamerica until the Post-classic period. Although I have fully discussed the ap-plication of Webb’s models elsewhere (Masson 2000),in brief, they apply criteria derived from comparativeanalysis of civilizations by White (1959), Steward(1955), Willey (1953:344–359), Kroeber (1948:298–304), and Childe (1959:412–421, 1960:88–112,1953). Some of these criteria for ‘‘progressive’’ (al-though this term is unnecessarily unilinear) states thatWebb and his predecessors defined are recognizableattributes of Postclassic Maya regional organization.Some of the signs of mature (‘‘progressive’’) state soci-eties according to these scholars include the following:1) evidence for greater universality (or international-ism) in belief systems and material culture, 2) the for-mation of larger political units or perhaps more ex-tensive ones, 3) the lack of cultural isolation, 4) aninternational economy, and 5) a decrease in invest-ment of social energies into religious architecture infavor of more efficient edifices and public spaces de-signed to be shared by larger ‘‘secular’’ factions ofsociety (Webb 1964:478). Rathje further developedthe idea that Postclassic architecture was designed toaccommodate larger groups of people and that it ‘‘fa-


cilitated’’ communication (1975:427). Most of thesetraits are observed in the Postclassic lowlands with thepossible exception of the formation of large politicalunits, although the role of the centralized Mayapanstate in integrating the lowlands is under re-examina-tion (Masson 2000). Political structure and polity sizevaried across this area (Roys 1957, Marcus 1993), andextensive networks of semi-autonomous polities exist-ed outside the Mayapan political sphere that was con-centrated in northwest Yucatan (Masson 2000). May-apan’s lords engaged in important ritual and econ-omic integrating activities across the peninsula thatjoined many such semi-autonomous polities into alarger regional sphere that transcended politicalboundaries (Masson 2000).

The lack of ceramic diversity in Late Postclassicwares probably reflects a reduced emphasis on sub-group geographical distinctions. The widespread geo-graphic extent of local efforts to conform to thesebasic types is indicative of greater lowland integrationthan is previously observed for the Classic period, asa consequence of increased pan-lowland interaction.This interaction was driven by extensive market ex-change and economic interdependencies that linkedcommunities from distant corners of the lowlandsthrough the facilitating mechanism of maritime trans-port during the Late Postclassic (Sabloff and Rathje1975). Classic period economic interaction may havebeen more bounded by hierarchical political systemsthat fostered inward-looking production and ex-change networks (West n.d.), and a greater depen-dency on overland routes that were suitable forshorter distance exchange of common, everydayitems. The localization of Classic period interactionspheres as implied by inter-polity stylistic diversity as-sessed in this paper may be related to the distributionof populations across the landscape and the centraliz-ing effects of city state hierarchies. Stark (1997) sug-gests that the development of Middle Preclassic Ol-mec hierarchies in conjunction with population in-creases around emergent centers facilitated thedevelopment of more intensive, concentrated popula-tions and community networks that had attained acertain critical mass that allowed them to become self-sustaining and to form concentrated interactionspheres with little need of external dependencies. Thismodel may also apply to the Classic period Maya

case, where population increases (Culbert 1988) andhierarchical development culminated in similar ‘‘so-lar’’ (Smith 1976, West n.d.) or insular trends of inter-action around local centers, at least in the realm ofeveryday pottery exchange.

Too little systematic survey has been performed toallow the estimation of Postclassic population sizes inmost areas of the lowlands (excepting Rice and Rice1990 and Kepecs 1998) to determine whether popu-lation size or distribution is correlated with the devel-opment of extensive networks and interactionspheres. Large numbers of settlements have beenfound along the Caribbean coast (Andrews and Vail1990), and, with the exception of Mayapan, settle-ment at Postclassic Maya sites generally is not heavilyconcentrated or urbanized. Networks of semi-auton-omous polities extend across the eastern coastal zoneof the Yucatan peninsula (Kepecs and Masson n.d.,Masson 2000). The development of more externally-focused local spheres of interaction does not correlatewith low population levels in coastal zones, althoughsettlement size reduction and dispersion may havebeen important factors. Continued research is likelyto affirm Sabloff and Rathje’s interpretation that thedevelopment of pan-lowland market spheres andmaritime trade played an important role in regionalstandardization of styles in common artifacts such asceramics. The Late Preclassic seems to have sharedwith the Postclassic an extensive, pan-lowland econ-omic network, yet this period shares pronounced hier-archical development (as reflected in architecturalmonumentality) with the Classic period. The use ofcoastal or riverine transport may have been helpfulin facilitating the extensive interchanges of the LatePreclassic as well, as implied by research at the coastaltrading center site of Cerros (Freidel 1986a) and theidentification of large salt works in northern Yucatanthat date to this period (Andrews and Mock n.d.).More work is needed to reconstruct greater detail insystems of economic interaction for all of theseperiods, particularly in the exchange spheres of com-mon artifact classes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSResearch at Caye Coco has been supported by the NationalScience Foundation, the Earthwatch Foundation, the Foundation


for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, and the Depart-ment of Anthropology at The University at Albany – SUNY. Iwould like to thank William Rathje, Barbara Stark, Lauren Sulli-van, and John Clark for comments on an earlier version of this

REFERENCES

Adams, Richard E.W. 1971: The Ceramics of Altar de Sacrificios. Papersof the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol.63 No. 1, Harvard University. Cambridge.

Andrews, Anthony P. & Gabriela Vail, 1990: Cronologia de SitiosPrehispanicos Costeros de la Peninsula de Yucatan y Belice.Boletin de la Escuela de Ciencias Antropologicas de la Universidad de

Yucatan 18(104–105): 37–66.Andrews, Anthony P., Tomas Gallareta N., Fernando Robles C.,

Rafael Cobos P. & Pura Cervera R, 1988: Isla Cerritos: AnItza Trading Port on the North Coast of Yucatan, Mexico.National Geographic Research 4:196–207.

Andrews, Anthony P., E. Wyllys Andrews & Fernando Robles,1999: The Northern Maya Collapse and its Aftermath. Pre-sented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Philadelphia.

Andrews, Anthony P. & Shirley B. Mock, n.d. New Perspectiveson the Prehispanic Maya Salt Trade. In Ancient Maya Political

Economies, edited by Marilyn A. Masson and David Freidel. Al-tamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Angelini, Mary Lee & Patricia A. McAnany, 1999: Integration andIdentity Among Formative Maya Villages: A View fromK’axob, Belize. Presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of theSociety for American Archaeology, Chicago.

Arnold III & Phillip J, 1991: Domestic ceramic production and spatial

organization. Cambridge University Press.Ball, Joseph W, 1977: The Archaeological Ceramics of Becan, Campeche,

Mexico. Middle American Research Institute Publication 43. Tu-lane University, New Orleans.

– 1981: Comments on Evolution of Specialized Pottery Produc-tion: A Trial Model (by Prudence M. Rice). Current Anthropology

22(3): 228.– 1993: Pottery, Potters, Palaces, and Polities: Some Socioecon-

omic and Political Implications of Late Classic Maya CeramicIndustries. In Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D.,edited by Jeremy Sabloff and John Henderson, pp. 243–272.Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Bey, George J. III, Craig A. Hanson & William M. Ringle, 1997:Classic to Postclassic at Ek Balam, Yucatan: Architectural andCeramic Evidence for Defining the Transition. Latin American

Antiquity 8(3): 237–254.Blanton, Richard E., 1998: Beyond Centralization: Toward a

Theory of Egalitarian Behavior in Archaic States. In Archaic

States, edited by Gary M. Feinman and Joyce Marcus, pp. 135–172. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Blanton, Richard E., Gary M. Feinman, Stephen A. Kowalewski &

paper that was delivered at the 1999 Society for American Ar-chaeology meetings, although my appreciation in no way impliesthat these scholars agree with the interpretations offered in thispaper.

Peter N. Peregrine, 1996: A Dual-Processual Theory for theEvolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology

37(1): 1–14.Braun, D., 1985: Ceramic decorative diversity and Illinois Wood-

land regional interaction. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, editedby B.A. Nelson, pp. 128–155. Southern Illinois UniversityPress, Carbondale.

Braun, D.P. & S. Plog, 1982: Evolution of ‘‘Tribal’’ Social Net-works: Theory and Prehistoric North American Evidence.American Antiquity 47: 504–525.

Bullard, William R., Jr., 1973: Topoxte: A Postclassic Maya Site inPeten, Guatemala. In Monographs and Papers in Maya Archaeology,edited by William R. Bullard, pp. 245–308. Papers of the Pea-body Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard Univer-sity Vol. 61. Cambridge.

Chase, Arlen F. & Diane Z. Chase, 1985: Postclassic Temporal andSpatial Frames for the Maya: A Background. In The Lowland

Maya Postclassic, edited by A. Chase and P. Rice, pp. 9–23.University of Texas Press, Austin.

Chase, Diane Z. & Arlen F. Chase, 1988: A Postclassic Perspective:

Excavations at the Maya Site of Santa Rita Corozal, Belize. Precolumb-ian Art Research Institute Monograph 4, San Francisco.

– 1992: Mesoamerican Elites. University of Oklahoma Press,Norman.

Cherry, John, 1987: Power in Space: Archaeological and Geo-graphic Studies of the State, In Landscape and Culture: Geographical

and Archaeological Perspectives, edited by J.M. Wagstaff. pp. 146–172. Basil Blackwell, London.

Childe, V. Gordon, 1959: The Birth of Civilization. In Readings in

Anthropology, edited by Morton H. Fried, pp. 412–421. ThomasY. Crowell Co., New York.

– 1960: What Happened in History. Penguin Books, Ltd., Harmond-sworth, Middlesex.

Clark, John E., 1997: The Arts of Government in Early Mesoamer-ica. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 211–234.

Clark, John E. & Michael Blake, 1989: El Origen de la Civilizacionen Mesoamerica: Los Olmecas y Mokaya del Soconusco deChiapas, Mexico. In El Preclassico o Formativo: Avances y Perspectiv-

as, edited by M. Carmona Macias, pp. 385–403. Museo Na-cional de Antropologia, Mexico City.

Clark, John E. & Dennis Gosser, 1995: Reinventing Mesoamerica’sFirst Pottery. In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation

in Ancient Societies, edited by William K. Barnett and John W.Hoopes, pp. 209–222. Smithsonian Institution Press, Wash-ington.


Connor, Judith G., 1983: The Ceramics of Cozumel, QuintanaRoo, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Arizona.

Culbert, T. Patrick, 1988: The Collapse of Classic Maya Civiliza-tion. In The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations, edited byNorman Yoffee and George Cowgill, pp. 69–101. University ofArizona Press, Tucson.

– 1991: Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological

Evidence. School of American Research Advanced SeminarSeries. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Deal, Michael, 1998: Pottery Ethnoarchaeology in the Central Maya High-

lands. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Demarest, Arthur A., 1992: Ideology in Ancient Maya Cultural

Evolution: The Dynamics of Galactic Polities. In Ideology and

Pre-Columbian Civilizations, edited by Arthur A. Demarest andGeoffrey W. Conrad, pp. 135–157. School of American Re-search Press, Santa Fe.

Demarest, Arthur A. & Antonio E. Foias, 1993: MesoamericanHorizons and the Cultural Transformations of Maya Civiliza-tion. In Latin American Horizons, edited by Don S. Rice, pp. 147–192. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C.

Feinman, Gary M., 1985: Changes in the organization of ce-ramic production and organizational change in the pre-His-panic valley of Oaxaca. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, editedby Ben A. Nelson, pp. 195–224. Southern Illinois Press, Car-bondale.

– 1998: Scale and Social Organization: Perspectives on the Ar-chaic State. In Archaic States, edited by Gary M. Feinman andJoyce Marcus, pp. 95–134. School of American Research Press,Santa Fe.

Feinman, Gary M., Stephen A. Kowalewski & Richard E. Blanton,1984: Modelling archaeological ceramic production and organ-izational change in the pre-Hispanic valley of Oaxaca. In The

Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology,edited by S.E. van der Leeuw and A.C. Pritchard, pp. 295–334. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

Feinman, Gary M., S. Banker, R.F. Cooper, G.B. Cook & L.M.Nicholas, 1989: A technological perspective on changes in theancient Oaxacan grayware ceramic tradition: Preliminary re-sults. Journal of Field Archaeology 16:331–343.

Flannery, Kent V. & Joyce Marcus, 1994: Early Preclassic Pottery of

the Valley of Oaxaca. Memoir 27, Museum of Anthropology, Uni-versity of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Foias, Antonia E. & Ronald L. Bishop, 1997: Changing CeramicProduction and Exchange in the Petexbatun Region, Guatema-la: Reconsidering the Classic Maya Collapse. Ancient Mesoamerica

8: 275–291.Foster, George M., 1965: The Sociology of Pottery: Questions and

Hypotheses Arising From Contemporary Mexican Work. In Ce-

ramics and Man, edited by F.R. Matson, pp. 43–61. Viking FundPublications in Anthropology, No. 41. New York.

Freidel, David A., 1986a: Preface. In Archaeology at Cerros, Belize,

Central America. Vol. I. An Interim Report, edited by Robin A. Rob-ertson and David Freidel, pp. ix–x. Southern Methodist Uni-versity Press, Dallas.

– 1986b: Terminal Classic Lowland Maya: Successes, Failures,and Aftermaths. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Post-

classic, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and E.W. Andrews V, pp.409–430. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Freidel, David A. & Jeremy A. Sabloff, 1984: Cozumel: Late Maya

Settlement Patterns. Academic Press, New York.Fry, Robert E., 1980: Models of Exchange for Major Shape Classes

of Lowland Maya Pottery. In Models and Methods in Regional Ex-

change, edited by R.E. Fry, pp. 3–18. SAA Papers No. 1, Soc.For Amer. Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

– 1989: Prehistoric Maya Economies of Belize, edited by P.A. McAn-any and B.L. Isaac. Research in Economic AnthropologySupplement 4. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Fry, Robert E. & Scott C. Cox, 1974: The Structure of ceramicexchange at Tikal, Guatemala. World Archaeology 6(2): 209–225.

Gifford, James C., 1960: The Type-Variety Method of CeramicClassification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomenon. American

Antiquity 25: 341–347.– 1976: Prehistoric Pottery Analysis and the Ceramics of Barton Ramie in

the Belize Valley. Volume 18. Memoirs of the Peabody Museumof Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Cam-bridge.

Graham, Elizabeth A., 1987: Terminal Classic to Early HistoricPeriod Vessel Forms from Belize. In Maya Ceramics, edited byPrudence Rice and Robert Sharer, pp. 73–98. BAR Interna-tional Series 345, Great Britain.

Graham, Elizabeth & David M. Pendergast, 1989: Excavations atthe Marco Gonzalez Site, Ambergris Cay, Belize, 1986. Journal

of Field Archaeology 16: 1–16.Graves, Michael W., 1994: Kalinga Social and Material Culture

Boundaries: A Case of Spatial Convergence. In Kalinga Ethnoar-

chaeology, edited by William A. Longacre and James M. Skibo,pp. 13–50. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Hammond, Norman, Juliette Cartwright Gerhardt & Sara Don-aghey, 1991: Stratigraphy and Chronology in the Reconstruc-tion of Preclassic Development at Cuello. In Cuello: an early Maya

Community in Belize, edited by Norman Hammond, pp. 23–69.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Hegmon, Michelle, 1992: Archaeological Research on Style. Annual

Review of Anthropology 21: 517–536.Hodder, Ian, 1982: Symbols in Action. New York, Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.Joesink-Mandeville, L. R.V., 1981: Comments on Evolution of Spe-

cialized Pottery Production: A Trial Model (by Prudence M.Rice). Current Anthropology 22(3): 232.

Johnson, Gregory A., 1973: Local Exchange and Early State For-mation in Southwestern Iran. University of Michigan Museum of

Anthropology Anthropological Papers, No. 51. Ann Arbor.– 1987: The changing organization of Uruk administration on

the Susiana Plain. In The Archaeology of Western Iran: Settlement and

Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest, edited by F. Hole, pp.107–139. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Jones, Grant D., 1999: The Conquest of the Last Maya Kingdom. Stan-ford University Press, Stanford.

Kepecs, Susan, 1998: Diachronic Ceramic Evidence and Its SocialImplications in the Chikinchel Region, Northeast Yucatan,Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 9(1): 121–136.

Kepecs, Susan, Gary M. Feinman & Sylviane Boucher, 1994:


Chichen Itza and Its Hinterland: A World Systems Perspective.Ancient Mesoamerica 5: 141–158.

Kepecs, Susan & Marilyn A. Masson, n.d. Small Postclassic Politiesin Yucatan and Belize. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, ed-ited by Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan. The Univer-sity of Utah Press, Salt Lake.

Kowalewski, Stephen A., 1982: The Evolution of Primate RegionalSystems. Comparative Urban Research 9: 60–78.

Kowalewski, Stephen A., Richard E. Blanton, Gary Feinman &Laura Finsten, 1983: Boundaries, Scale and Internal Organiza-tion. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 32–56.

Kroeber, A.L., 1948: Anthropology. Harcourt, Brace & Co., NewYork.

Leonard, Robert D. & George T. Jones, 1989: Quantifying Diversity

in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Lopez Varela, Sandra, 1997: Dissertation on Preclassic ceramics

from K’axob. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of London.McAnany, Patricia A., 1995: Living With the Ancestors: Kinship and

Kingship in Ancient Maya Society. University of Texas Press, Austin.Mann, Michael, 1986: The Sources of Social Power, Volume I: A History

of Power from the Beginning to A.D. 1760. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

Marcus, Joyce, 1993: Ancient Maya Political Organization. In Low-

land Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D., edited by Jere-my A. Sabloff and John Henderson, pp. 111–184. DumbartonOaks, Washington, D.C.

Masson, Marilyn A., 2000: In the Realm of Nachan Kan: Postclassic

Maya Archaeology at Laguna de On, Belize. The University Press ofColorado, Boulder.

Masson, Marilyn A. & Shirley Boteler Mock, n.d. Maya CulturalAdaptations from the Terminal Classic to Postclassic Period atLagoon Sites in Northern Belize as Reflected in Changing Ce-ramic Industries. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands:

Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by Don S. Rice,Prudence M. Rice, and Arthur A. Demarest. Westview Press,Boulder.

Masson, Marilyn A. & Georgia West, 1999: Preliminary Obser-vations on Postclassic Ceramic Development at Caye Coco. InBelize Postclassic Project 1998: Investigations at Progresso Lagoon, ed-ited by Marilyn A. Masson and Robert M. Rosenswig, pp. 163–168. Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional PublicationNo. 3, Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, The University atAlbany – SUNY, Albany.

Matthews, Peter, 1991: Classic Maya Emblem Glyphs. In Classic

Maya Political History: Hieroglyphs and Archaeological Evidence, editedby T.Patrick Culbert, pp. 19–29. Cambridge University Press.

Mock, Shirley Boteler, 1997: Monkey Business at Northern RiverLagoon: A Coastal-inland Interaction Sphere in Northern Be-lize. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 165–183.

Netting, Robert M., 1972: Sacred Power and Centralization: As-pects of Political Adaptation in Africa. In Population Growth: An-

thropological Implications, edited by B. Spooner. MIT Press, Cam-bridge, Mass.

Pendergast, David M., 1981: Lamanai, Belize: Summary of Exca-vation Results, 1974–1980. Journal of Field Archaeology 8(1): 29–53.

Peraza Lope & Carlos Alberto, 1993: Estudio y Secuencia del Material

Ceramico de San Gervasio, Cozumel. Tesis Profesional, UniversidadAutonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Mexico.

Pielou, E.C., 1966: Species-Diversity and Pattern-Diversity in theStudy of Ecological Succession. Journal of Theoretical Biology 10:370–383.

Pina Chan, Roman, 1978: Commerce in the Yucatec Peninsula:The Conquest and Colonial Period. In Mesoamerican Communi-

cation Routes and Culture Contacts, edited by T.A. Lee and C. Nav-arrete, pp. 37–48. Papers of the New World ArchaeologicalFoundation 40. Brigham Young University, Provo.

Plog, Stephen, 1980: Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics. Cam-bridge University Press, New York.

– 1983: Analysis of Style in Artifacts. Annual Review of Anthropology

12: 125–142.Pollock, Harry E.D., Ralph L. Roys, Tatiana Proskouriakoff & A.L.

Smith, 1962: Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. Carnegie Institute ofWashington Publication No. 619. Washington, D.C.

Pyburn, K. Anne, 1989: Prehistoric Maya Community and Settlement at

Nohmul, Belize. BAR International Series 509, Oxford.Rands, Robert L., 1967: Ceramic Technology and Trade in the

Palenque Region, Mexico. In American Historical Anthro-pology, edited by C.L. Riley and W.W. Taylor, pp. 137–151.Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Rands, Robert L. & Ronald L. Bishop, 1980: Resource Procure-ment Zones and Patterns of Ceramic Exchange in the PalenqueRegion, Mexico. In Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, ed-ited By Robert E. Fry, pp. 19–46. SAA Papers No. 1, Societyfor American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

Rathje, William L., 1975: The Last Tango in Mayapan: A TentativeTrajectory of Production-Distribution Systems. In Ancient Civil-

ization and Trade, edited by J.A. Sabloff and C.C. Lamberg-Kar-lovsky, pp. 409–448. Univ. of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Rathje, William L., David A. Gregory & Frederick M. Wiseman,1978: Trade Models and Archaeological Problems: ClassicMaya Examples. In Mesoamerican Communication Routes and Culture

Contacts, edited by Thomas A. Lee and Carlos Navarrete, pp.147–175. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation40. Brigham Young University, Provo.

Reentz-Budet, Dorie, 1994: Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics

of the Classic Period. Duke University Press, Durham.– 2000: Classic Maya Concepts of the Royal Court: An Analysis

of Renderings on Pictorial Ceramics. In Royal Courts of the Ancient

Maya, Volume I: Theory, Comparison, and Synthesis, edited byTakeshi Inomata and Stephen D. Houston, pp. 195–236.Westview Press, Boulder.

Reitz, Elizabeth J. & C. Margaret Scarry, 1985: Reconstructing His-

toric Subsistence with an Example from Sixteenth-Century Spanish

Florida. Special Publication Series, Number 3. Society for His-torical Archaeology.

Renfrew, Colin, 1974: Beyond a Subsistence Economy: The Evolu-tion of Social Organisation in Prehistoric Europe. In Recon-

structing Complex Societies (Supplement to the Bulletin of theAmerican Schools of Oriental Research, No. 20), edited byCharlotte B. Moore, pp. 69–84. Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology Press.


Rice, Don S. & Prudence M. Rice, 1990: Population Size andPopulation Change in the Central Peten Lakes Region, Guate-mala. In Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Lowlands, ed-ited by T. Patrick Culbert and Don S. Rice, pp. 123–148. Uni-versity of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Rice, Prudence M., 1980: Peten Postclassic Pottery Production andExchange: A View from Macanche. In Models and Methods in

Regional Exchange, edited by R.E. Fry, pp. 67–82. SAA PapersNo. 1, Soc. For Amer. Archaeology, Washington, D.C.

– 1981: Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A TrialModel. Current Anthropology 22(3): 219–240.

– 1987a: Economic Change in the Lowland Maya Late ClassicPeriod. In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, edited byE.M. Brumfiel and T.K. Earle, pp. 7685. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge.

– 1987b: Macanche Island, El Peten, Guatemala: Excavations, Pottery,

and Artifacts. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.– 1989b: Ceramic diversity, production, and use. In Quantifying

Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and GeorgeT. Jones, pp. 109–117. Cambridge University Press.

Rick, John, 1996: Projectile Points, Style, and Social Process in thePreceramic of Central Peru. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights

into Human Prehistory, edited by George H. Odell, pp. 245–278.Plenum Press, New York.

Ringle, William M., Tomas Gallareta Negron & George J. Bey III,1998: The Return of Quetzalcoatl: Evidence for the spread ofa world religion during the Epiclassic period. Ancient Mesoamerica

9: 183–232.Robles C., Fernando, 1986: Cronologia Ceramica de El Meco. In

Excavaciones Arqueologicas en El Meco, Quintana Roo, 1977, editedby Antonio P. Andrews and Fernando Robles Castellanos, pp.77–130. Coleccion Cientifica, Instituto Nacional de Antropolo-gia, Mexico, D.F.

Roys, Ralph L., 1943: The Indian Background of Colonial Yucatan.Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 548. Washington.

– 1957; The Political Geography of the Yucatan Maya. Carnegie Insti-tute of Washington Publication 613. Washington.

– 1965: Lowland Maya Society at Spanish Contact. In Handbook

of Middle American Indians 3: 659–678. University of Texas Press,Austin.

Sabloff, Jeremy A., 1975: Excavations at Seibal, Department of the Peten,

Guatemala: The Ceramics. Peabody Museum Memoir 13(2). Harv-ard University, Cambridge.

Sabloff, Jeremy A. & William L. Rathje, 1975: The Rise of a MayaMerchant Class, Scientific American 233: 72–82.

Sanders, William T., 1960: Prehistoric Ceramics and Settlement Patterns

in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Contributions to American Anthro-pology and History 12(60). Carnegie Institute of WashingtonPublication 606, Washington, D.C.

Sanders, William T. & Barbara J. Price, 1968: Mesoamerica: The

Evolution of a Civilization. Random House, New York.Scholes, Frances V. & Ralph L. Roys, 1948: The Maya Chontal Indi-

ans of Acalan-Tixchel: A Contribution to the History and Ethnography of

the Yucatan Peninsula. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publi-cation 560. Washington, D.D.

Shannon, C.E. & W. Weaver, 1949: The Mathematical Theory of Com-

munication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Sheldon, A.L., 1969: Equitability Indices: Dependence on the Spe-cies Count. Ecology 50: 466–467.

Sinopoli, Carla M., 1991: Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. Ple-num Press, New York and London.

Smith, Carol A., 1976: Causes and Consequences of Central-PlaceTypes in Western Guatemala. In Regional Analysis, Volume I, Econ-

omic Systems, edited by Carol A. Smith pp. 255–302. AcademicPress, New York.

Smith, Robert E., 1971: The Pottery of Mayapan. Papers of the Pea-body Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 66. Harvard Uni-versity, Cambridge.

Smith, Robert E. & James C. Gifford, 1965: Pottery of the MayaLowlands. In Handbook of Middle American Indians 2: 498–543.University of Texas Press, Austin.

Smith, Robert E., Gordon R. Willey & James C. Gifford, 1960:The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for the Analysis of MayaPottery. American Antiquity 18: 305–313.

Stark, Barbara L., 1997: Gulf Lowland Settlement in Perspective.In Olmec to Aztec: Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands,edited by Barbara L. Stark and Philip J. Arnold III, pp. 278–209. University of Arizona Press.

Stark, Miriam T., 1994: Pottery Exchange and the Regional Sys-tem: A Dalupa Case Study. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology, editedby William A. Longacre and James M. Skibo, pp. 169–197.Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Steward, Julian H., 1955: Theory of Culture Change. University ofIllinois Press, Urbana.

Sullivan, Lauren & Fred Valdez, Jr., n.d. Late Preclassic MayaCeramic Traditions in the Early Classic of Northwestern Belize.Manuscript in possession of the authors.

Thompson, J. Eric S., 1970: Maya History and Religion. University ofOklahoma Press.

Valdez, Fred, Jr., 1987: The Ceramics of Colha, Northern Belize.Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, HarvardUniversity, Cambridge.

Walker, Debra, 1990: Cerros Revisited: Ceramic Indicators of Ter-minal Classic and Postclassic Settlement and Pilgrimage inNorthern Belize. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Methodist Uni-versity, Dallas.

Watson, P.J. & S. A. LeBlanc, 1973: A comparative statistical analy-sis of painted pottery from seven Halafian sites. Paleorient 1:119–133.

Webb, Malcolm C., 1964: The Post-Classic Decline of the PetenMaya: An Interpretation in Light of a General Theory of StateSociety. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, UniversityMicrofilms, Ann Arbor.

West, Georgia, n.d. Ceramic Exchange in the Late Classic andPostclassic Maya Lowlands: A Diachronic Approach. In Ancient

Maya Political Economies, edited by Marilyn A. Masson and Dav-id Freidel. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Wheat, Joe Ben, James C. Gifford & William W. Wasley, 1958:Ceramic Variety, Type Cluster, and Ceramic System in South-western Pottery Analysis. American Antiquity 24: 34–47.

White, Leslie, 1959: The Evolution of Culture. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,New York.

Wiessner, P., 1983: Style and Social Information in Kalahari SanProjectile Points. American Antiquity 48: 253–276.


– 1984: Reconsidering a Behavioral Basis for Style: A Case StudyAmong the Kalahari San. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:190–234.

Willey, Gordon R., 1953: Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Val-

ley, Northern Peru. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No.155. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

– 1991: Horizontal Integration and Regional Diversity: An Alter-nating Process in the Rise of Civilizations. American Antiquity

56(2): 197–215.

Author’s address:

University at AlbanyState University of New YorkDepartment of AnthropologySocial Science 263Albany, New York 12222U.S.A.mdelaguna/hotmail.com

– 1999: Styles and State Formations. Latin American Antiquity

10(1):86–90.Willey, Gordon R., Culbert, T. Patrick & Richard E.W. Adams,

1967: Maya Lowland Ceramics: A Report from the 1965 Guat-emala City Conference. American Antiquity 32: 289–315.

Wobst, H.M., 1977: Stylistic behavior and information exchange.In For the Director: Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by C.Cleland, pp. 317–342. Anthropological Papers of the Universityof Michigan, 61. Ann Arbor.

Changing Patterns of Ceramic Stylistic Diversity...Maya Acta Archaeological 2001

Documents

Transcript of Changing Patterns of Ceramic Stylistic Diversity...Maya Acta Archaeological 2001