8

Materiality and Sacred Landscapes:Ulua Style Marble Vases in Honduras

Christina LukeBoston University

ABSTRACTIn this chapter, imagery on Ulua marble vases from the lower Ulua Valley of Honduras is explored from the

perspective of conceptual landscapes and place-making at Travesıa. I argue that the color of the stone—whitemarble—and the associated iconography are related to localized understandings of paradisical ancestral spheres.The portable nature of Ulua marble vases enabled this spiritual realm to be presented during social and politicalevents in the region and abroad in both lower Central America and the central Maya lowlands. [architecture,Honduras, landscape, marble, Ulua]

The lower Ulua Valley of northwestern Honduras sits onthe buffer zone between the Maya area and the region

of lower Central America (Figure 8.1). The site of Travesıais located in the heart of the region along the banks of theimpressive Ulua River. The role of the Travesıan commu-nity in the region can be understood to some extent throughan analysis of Late Classic (C.E. 600/650–800/850) carvedUlua marble vases (Figures 8.2–8.4): stylistic and chemicalanalyses point to centralized production at a workshop there(Luke 2002; Luke and Tykot 2007; Luke et al. 2006). Draw-ing on a Formative period tradition of carving white stonevases (Luke et al. 2003), artisans expanded their repertoireof imagery on Late Classic vases: series of scrolls and othermotifs that create zoomorphic heads, framed between upperand lower geometric borders and two opposing zoomorphichandles. Such imagery is in keeping with that on Late Clas-sic architectural facades in the Maya lowlands as well aswith local traditions in the Ulua Valley of portraying thebuilt environment on Ulua polychromes. Similar to thosein other regions of ancient Mesoamerica, sites in the UluaValley were constructed with an eye toward the immediatelandscape. The research presented here explores how Uluamarble vase imagery is firmly situated within both local and

pan-Mesoamerican traditions of landscape and architecturalimagery on material, portable objects.

Landscape, Architecture, and Memorializingin the Maya World

Over the past decade archaeologists have focused on thelandscape(s) as palimpsests with multiple layers of meaning(see Hicks et al. 2007). Archaeology offers a particularlygood disciplinary lens through which to explore changes inlandscapes by peeling back these layers. Landscapes may beconceptualized in their natural forms (i.e., caves, mountains,etc.); landscapes may be physically altered by human action;and landscapes may be ideational—imagined or emotionalfeatures and places that, as Knapp and Ashmore (1999:12)write, “may provide moral messages, recount mythic his-tories, and record genealogies.” Over time the meaningsof landscapes may become blurred between layers, mak-ing the distinction between conceptual and ideational land-scapes difficult. Precisely because meanings may shift fromindividual to individual as well as from group to group,the fundamental understanding of what a place means is

ARCHEOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, Vol. 21, Issue 1, pp. 114–129, ISSN 1551-823X,online ISSN 1551-8248. C© 2012 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-8248.2012.01040.x.

Ulua Style Marble Vases in Honduras 115

Figure 8.1. Sites with Ulua style marble vases in Guanacaste and the central Maya lowlands.

Figure 8.2. Ulua marble vase. University of Pennsylvania Museumof Archaeology and Anthropology. (NA5526)

subjective, dependent on the knowledge of a specific personor community (see Casey 1997; Cohen 1984; Pred 1990).

This subjectivity constitutes a critical aspect for under-standing how people construct sacred beliefs and how these

beliefs underscore the foundation of a moral compass, whichshapes everyday events and practices, including how thingsare used. How people recall specific beliefs and practices ona regular basis is rooted in self-identification, memory, andsocial context (see Goodby 1998:161). The reflexive natureof making memories creates a fluid, yet messy process—memories are in constant flux (see Joyce 2003). How mightarchaeologists study memory in material culture? And howmight material culture be used to understand how commu-nities conceptualized landscapes?

Guided by a rich sphere of mythology from Mesoamer-ica and Central America (see Tedlock 1996; Vogt 1969; seealso Helms 1979) we are aware that the earth, heavens, andunderworld were (and in many places remain) intimatelyrelated, unable to be separated into distinct spheres. Thiscontinuum of space is also clearly reflected in general be-liefs of time: it is cyclical. In this way, the past is guided bythe present. These common overarching frameworks informhow people “should” live. The Ulua Valley in western Hon-duras is part of this general Mesoamerican sphere, as arethe lowlands of Guatemala and the Yucatan peninsula, theareas of the Gulf Coast, and the highlands of Oaxaca (seeHenderson 1997).

Thomas (2001:175) explicitly notes the integrated re-lationship between the physical location of a place (i.e., thegeography) and meaning, especially the “historically consti-tuted” connections to landscapes. The inherent link between

116 Christina Luke

Figure 8.3. Ulua marble vase from Uaxactun, central Maya lowlands. Adapted fromArtifacts of Uaxactun, Alfred Kidder 1947.

Figure 8.4. Ulua marble vase. University of Pennsylvania Museumof Archaeology and Anthropology. (NA5527)

a space imbued with ancestral spheres and place-making iscontingent on both localized perceptions of meaning andbroader regional templates. A number of researchers haveemphasized the importance of landscape in the constructionof space for the ancient Maya. Whether we view sites ascosmograms (Ashmore 1991; Coggins 1980; contra Smith2005) or reflections of real or fabricated natural landscapes,particularly streams and rivers, caves or natural grottolikeformations (see Brady and Prufer 2005; Demarest et al.2003; French 2002; Joyce et al. 2009; Stanton and Magnoni

2008), Mesoamerican architects often planned plaza areas,buildings, temples, and other structures to replicate or tocoordinate with the natural world, creating conceptual aswell as ideational places. The iconographic programs rep-resented on such structures further embed the natural andsocial worlds within the symbolic repertoire of royal art andarchitecture (Houston 1998; Inomata and Houston 2001;Looper 2003; Reents-Budet 1994:237–252; Stone 2002).Because urban/site planners throughout Mesoamerica drewfrom a sacred, ancestral sphere, architectural complexes aremore than aesthetic manifestations. According to Stuardo(2003:185), “architecture itself becomes a resource usedin the structuring of the social interaction that reproducessociety,” which would serve to maintain these important tiesto the past as well as the future. What happens in a publicplaza, a temple or palace complex, even a small house, con-firms and maintains conceptual and social experiences. Myinterest lies in how places and perceptions of those placesin Mesoamerica influence the production of portable, whitestone vases.

A relationship exists between white stony places andthings and the mountainous witz in Mesoamerica (see Taube2004:84). Scrolls—representations of breath and wind ofthe ancestral soul—mark a relationship to the paradisical(white/brilliant) realm of the Flower Mountain. Represen-tations of the witz include a frontal zoomorphic head withfront-facing eyes, a prominent snout (protruding and curledwhen in profile) with scrolls emanating from the sides ofthe mouth and face, and the brow element with scrolls atboth ends (see Taube 2004:79). Linda Schele (1998) showedthat a stepped cleft centered above or within the brow el-ement marked the Creation Mountain; Taube (2004:80–81) has shown that representations of the Flower Mountain

Ulua Style Marble Vases in Honduras 117

include a floral motif in the center of the brow or a symbolicrepresentation of a solar cartouche. While researchers haveexplored the localized nuances of these forms in northernand central Mesoamerica, the Uluan marble vases have notbeen explored through this lens.

Landscapes and Artifacts in the Uluan World

Here I document evidence for artists memorializingconstructed spaces and conceptual landscapes linked to an-cestral spheres on portable Ulua marbles, objects them-selves most likely used in public and monumental spaces.I draw from the rich literature discussed above of pan-Mesoamerican frameworks of landscape and the construc-tion of sacred places as well as localized Uluan practicesof place-making through architecture (Joyce et al. 2009)and portable objects, specifically Ulua polychromes. By in-corporating an analysis of both the built environment andportable objects, I argue that our understanding of the mate-rial used for and the imagery portrayed on portable objectsmust be contextualized within localized Uluan as well aspan-Mesoamerican concepts of ancestral geography.

During specific social and ritual events throughout an-cient Mesoamerica portable objects would have been usedor worn. The status and meaning associated with these ob-jects would have promoted beliefs among the participantsand the attendees, who would have looked on from somedistance. The pedagogy and confirmation of ideas throughthe production and use of specific objects served to so-lidify social actions and beliefs. For example, throughoutMesoamerica the social acts of drinking and feasting duringpublic ceremonies required the use of specific types of ob-jects (see Reents-Budet 1994). In some cases objects mayhave been used to consume specific foods or beverages. Inthe lower Ulua Valley cacao production most likely consti-tuted an important aspect of the Late Classic economy, theregion itself famed during the conquest for the richest cacao(Bergmann 1969). Henderson and Joyce (2002, 2006; Hen-derson et al. 2007; Joyce and Henderson 2007) suggest thatas early as the Formative period sharing a vessel filled witha cacao beverage, particularly when the beverage was tintedred, may have symbolized the flowing of blood between kinmembers linked through marriage. The prevalence of two-handled ceramic (e.g., Lug Head Paloma and Bombero) andmarble vases in the Ulua Valley points to their intended useduring social events (i.e., the act of giving or sharing a rit-ual beverage) or other ritual practices. The public displayof objects gave participants an opportunity to communi-cate visually a material identity. Objects used during public(or semipublic) events would have been carefully selected;

furthermore, the production of materials to be used in pub-lic settings would have required deliberate decisions aboutwhat message(s) to send—what knowledge to depict andhow.

Uluan site layouts and material culture indicate a regionthat participated in social and economic networks with boththe central Maya spheres and communities in lower Cen-tral America (Henderson 1997; Joyce 1991, 1993a, 1993b,1996); furthermore, linguistic and ethnohistorical data pointto the Lenca as the primary group who occupied the region(Joyce 1991:15–21). Thus, the material culture of the lowerUlua Valley must be understood in terms of both its uni-versality in the context of pan-Mesoamerican themes and itsdistinctly localized ways of experiencing the world. The LateClassic period in the Ulua Valley was a time of great pros-perity. A number of regional polities developed. Travesıawas one of these central locations (Henderson 1992; Joyce1991:37, 101, 117), situated on the banks of the Ulua River,giving it access to the Caribbean trading networks as wellas access to central Honduras and lower Central Amer-ica beyond. The site of Travesıa itself was well planned(Joyce 1985, 1991; Lopiparo 2003; see Stone 1941). Thecentral core zone included a complex of monumental ar-chitectural mounds, some faced with cut stones, arrangedin plaza groups interconnected by a series of stairways; aballcourt was located to the southwest (Stone 1941:60, fig.48, 94). Many of the buildings and spaces in the core areawere covered with thick coats of plaster (Stone 1941).

The monumental core area of Travesıa appears tohave been constructed with an eye to the valley landscape(Lopiparo 2003:274–276). As Joyce and colleagues (2009)demonstrate, the attention to mountains for development ofthe site in the Ulua Valley indicates not only a focus onlandscape but also a focus on the tallest peak in the region:“The builders who placed this architectural group in thefloodplains of the Lower Ulua Valley in the Late Classicperiod effectively centered the entire cosmos on Travesıa.The site functioned as a pivot point where a shared regional‘vertical’ axis extending to the southern mountain bisecteda winter solstice path of the sun aligned to significant land-scape features in a way only possible at this particular place”(Joyce et al. 2009:63). Lopiparo’s analysis of the Travesıacore area confirms that “while other sites in the valley have arange of orientations that all seem to align with the southernpeak, Travesıa is located at the center point of perpendicularlines aligned with the three tallest mountains surroundingthe valley” (Lopiparo 2003:260). Based on this research sheconcludes, “at the site of Travesıa, we find an axis mundi thatcenters the cosmos by drawing upon fundamental cosmolog-ical understandings about the nature of space and time—andthen embedding and memorializing this knowledge in the

118 Christina Luke

built environment” (Lopiparo 2003:262). Travesıa’s loca-tion on the river and the array of carefully planned and con-structed architectural monuments and associated features allconfirm its prominence as a sacred hub in the valley. Howelse did Travesıa and other sites visually celebrate or distin-guish themselves?

While in the central Maya lowlands sites can be dif-ferentiated based on polychrome types (Ball 1993; Reents-Budet 1998; Reents-Budet et al. 2001), polychromes in theUlua Valley demonstrate broad regionally agreed-upon andshared aesthetic canons (Joyce 1991, 1993b, 2004). This par-allel production and the mutual identification process sug-gest shared participation in sociopolitical life in the valley,not necessarily characteristic of high levels of competition.The site-specific art forms from the much more politicallycomplex states of Copan, Tikal, and Palenque indicate amore centralized process of production than that seen in thesocially and politically less complex Ulua Valley. Yet, thecentralized production of Late Classic Ulua marble vases,most likely at Travesıa (Luke and Tykot 2007; Luke et al.2006), is closer to the centralized paradigm of palace artsdocumented in central Maya areas. The social prominence ofTravesıa is alluded to by the fine craftsmanship of the vasesand their limited and strategic distribution (local and for-eign) (Luke 2010); furthermore, the standardized imagerycarved in white marble, particularly over such a long periodof time, reflects a portable object that conveyed a sense ofplace.

Ulua Marble Vases

Carved from a single block of white marble with greatattention to detail (Figures 8.2–8.4), Late Classic Ulua mar-ble vases represent the mastery of stone vase carvers innorthwestern Honduras (Luke 2008; Luke et al. 2003; Schaf-fer 1992). Ulua marble vases are delicate with thin walls (2–4centimeters); they stand on average 13 centimeters in heightand average 13 centimeters in width, yet most vases are ei-ther taller than they are wide or wider than they are tall.Unlike the early Honduran or the Late Classic central andnorthern Maya stone vase traditions, Ulua marble vases havetwo zoomorphic lug handles placed opposite each other,which divide an exterior wraparound composition, creatingthe illusion of symmetrical obverse and reverse sides: anupper border frames the entire scene, often accompanied bya lower border. A series of independent scrolls constitute thebuilding blocks for the central program. In most cases, thesescrolls form profile and central zoomorphic heads, repre-senting the ear, lower jaw, protruding tongue, curling snout,and so on. In general, vases have tripod or ring supports, thelatter with cutout windows of step motifs.

Five stylistic groups can be defined based on the varia-tion of specific motifs and forms; a number of subgroups canalso be defined (Luke 2002; Luke and Tykot 2007). Thosevases with dual bird handles, scale borders, central programswith profile zoomorphic heads, and tripod feet are amongthe earliest. Later styles follow the same general pattern butwith some stylistic updating: feline-inspired handles; vous-sure (or half-moon), mat, or chevron borders; and profile aswell as frontal zoomorphic heads in the main program; thesevases usually have ring supports (Figures 8.2–8.4).

Mythological Places in White Stone

Travesıa’s location on the Ulua River and its impor-tance for the production of marble vases allowed for multi-ple different spheres of interaction with outside communi-ties. Marble vases found outside of the valley (Figure 8.1)confirm Travesıa’s participation in expansive long-distancenetworks (Luke 2010; Luke and Tykot 2007). Transmis-sion of ideas and sense of place would have been throughthe materiality of the vases: their white marble and im-agery. In addition, while the stone itself—white marble—was critical in the production process for its fine-grainedtexture (able to be carved in great detail), it also held sacredassociations.

Linked to concepts of paradise and renewal, the colorwhite appears to have conferred supernatural status in theancient Maya world. In ancient times and with many con-temporary Mayan groups, white is associated with the direc-tion north (Closs 1988:406–407; DeBoer 2005:72; Hanks1988:358–359; Maria Vargas 1998; Laughlin 1969:175;Leon-Portilla 1988:126; Witkowski and Brown 1981), therealm of the ancestors (Ashmore and Sabloff 2002:203;Schele and Miller 1986:42). In Aztlan, the “image ofparadise”—the place of origin—was associated with white-ness (see Magaloni-Kerpel 2006). Taube (2005) has arguedfor the symbolic importance of green stone to the Maya.Other stones, too, may have been valued for their sacredness.White stone may have held significance in its source loca-tions as well as in its brilliant, iridescent color. Sources ofwhite stone—speleothems found in caves, craggy mountainpeaks of limestone, openings and interiors of white lime-stone cenotes—are often linked to a supernatural realm ofancestors. And natural occurrences found within or aroundthese natural formations tend to be “white” as well: releases(steam, clouds, rains, wind, air, etc.) rise from the placeof ancestral paradise (see Hill 1992); white rapids gushfrom sacred rivers and natural grottos, entering the terrestrialrealm (see Brady and Ashmore 1999:129); white mist risesfrom caves and cenotes; white clouds encapsulate towering

Ulua Style Marble Vases in Honduras 119

mountain peaks; white bolts of lightening fill the sky duringtorrid storms.

Eva Hunt’s analysis of Zinacantan provides furtherethnographic evidence for associating the whiteness of rainwith caves as the realm of ancestors: “Falling water orrains . . . originated from the caves of the earth, went up to thesky, and came down again” (Hunt 1977:123). In one specificexample, Hunt comments on a ritual ceremony interruptedby a rainstorm: “the air turned watery white, obscuring thecorn fields below in a turbulent mist, leaves and ears of cornroaring with the torrents of wind and rain” (Hunt 1977:237).Here white rain nourishes sacred cornfields. Yet, white isalso associated with death: the white flower wind denotesthe breath of the soul (Houston and Taube 2000:267). Thebrightness of the path of the sun may also be equated with awhite brilliance or iridescent color, and the solar path itselfis argued to lead to a place of ancestral paradise (Hill 1992;Taube 2004). In summary, the whiteness/iridescent qualityof the stone used to produce the vases may have been linkedto realms associated with the entry to and exit from a paradis-ical ancestral realm (caves with dramatic white speleothemsand white limestone mountain peaks) as well as to the whitesteam or mist, clouds, and water emerging from these naturalformations.

Mountains encompass all of these various manifesta-tions: white clouds or mist blankets mountaintops; cavestend to be found nearby or even within mountains; rainssweep down from or over mountains; rivers and streams withwhite rapids cascade from mountains. The entrance to thecave had great spiritual significance among the Late ClassicMaya as the home of the ancestors, and the Maya constructedtheir sites with the natural environment very much in mind.Temples were placed over caves, or caves were actually con-structed. The cave itself was an entrance to the bowels of theearth, literally the “stone house” (Prufer and Brady 2005).At many Late Classic sites temples are thought to be man-ifestations of mountains (see Vogt 1981, 1992), and rulersare buried within the recreated sacred cave—the heart ofthe mountain. Mountains can also be named or celebrated:the principal mound of a city symbolizes its mountain ofcreation (Looper 2003:72).

These characteristics follow the major elements asso-ciated with broad conceptions of mountains—the witz—inthe greater Maya sphere. Represented on facades of build-ings, altars, or stelae, personifications of mountains are oftencarved or sculpted from a whitish rock, usually limestone.Cauac/the witz (after Stuart 1987) represents “the personi-fication of a stone mountain, at least sometimes represent-ing the ‘sustenance mountain’ of Mesoamerican traditions”(Stross 1996:95). For Schele and Miller (1986:45), thisimage is “the essence of stone; like rock it is a thing of the

ground. It represents openings in rock and in buildings madeof rock.” The multiple groupings of witz heads, particularlythose superimposed on Classic period Maya art, especiallyon architectural facades, may refer to “mountains formed ofdiscrete masses of projecting stone” (Taube 2004:84), theentry into these recreated mountains symbolizing access tointerior caves or grottolike formations. As Taube writes, “thegreat open mouth of the principal witz [represents] a cavepassage linking the underworld interior of the mountain tothe earth and heavens” (Taube 2004:80).

Taube (2004:79) places royal ancestors on the upperportions of monumental scenes in celestial paradise, ratherthan in the bleak, dark underworld. This paradisical realm isthe home of the gods and ancestors, filled with lush gardensof flowers, fruit, maize, and tropical birds (Hill 1992:71–73). The witz in the celestial realm is linked to the FlowerMountain: “a place of resurrection and ascent out of the un-derworld” (Taube 2004:80). Taube notes also the potentialtime depth of this place in ethnographic research: “Amongthe contemporary Tzutuhil Maya of Santiago Atitlan, thereis a concept of Flowering Mountain Earth, the pivotal axismundi supporting the stump of the ancestral maize tree, the‘Father/Mother’” (Taube 2004:81). This Flower Mountainfunctions as a “dwelling place of ancestors and the meansby which they and celestial gods ascend into the sky” (Taube2004:81). This place of celestial ascent, thus, has an inherentlink to the symbolism of temples as representations of moun-tains where the royal tombs of ancestors are placed (Taube2004:83). Taube argues that by the Early Classic FlowerMountains can be distinguished in Maya iconography.

During the Late Classic artisans drew from earliercanons. The wide range of Early Classic representations ofthe Flower Mountain embedded in stone confirms its univer-sality in greater Mesoamerica. Representations of the FlowerMountain are part of early monumental sculptural pro-grams found throughout Mesoamerica, such as at Uaxactun(Figure 8.5) and Tikal (Temple 5D-33–2nd), and may belinked to concepts of centering (e.g., axis mundi) (see Abaj

Figure 8.5. Uaxactun, Building H, drawn by Linda Schele. Foun-dation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Research, Inc.(FAMSI).

120 Christina Luke

Figure 8.6. Foliated Cross at Palenque, drawn by Linda Schele. Foundation for theAdvancement of Mesoamerican Research, Inc. (FAMSI).

Figure 8.7. Stela 1, Bonampak, drawn by Linda Schele. Foundation for the Advance-ment of Mesoamerican Research, Inc. (FAMSI).

Takalik Stela 4) (Taube 2004:83). In the southeastern re-gions of the Maya sphere, Monument 26 from Quirigua de-picts an ancestor emerging from a witz form, an Early Classiccelebration of ancestor veneration (Looper 2003:40–46, 90–100). In these examples, scrolls roll from the mouth, cheeks,and upper forehead area, and a cleft is placed in the centerof the forehead.

Representations of the witz continue in the Late and Ter-minal Classic periods. On the Tablet from the Foliated Crossat Palenque (Figure 8.6), the mountain creature is depictedfloating in the primordial sea, and Stela 1 from Bonampak(Figure 8.7) illustrates an ancestor emerging from the cen-tral forehead of the witz (Schele 1998:495). The elaboratefacades of the northern lowlands (Chenes, Rio Bec, andPuuc) most likely illustrate a localized rendition of zoomor-phic mountains (see Schele 1998; Taube 2004). Further-more, these forms may be stacked in multiples, as foundthroughout the northern lowlands as well as at Copan, whichTaube (2004:84) links to the concept of a “mountain house.”Whether specifically the Flower Mountain or other associ-

ations with the general meaning of the witz, these carefullyconstructed facades are more than mere decoration: “theydenote such temples as places infused with spiritual powerand life” (Taube 2004:85).

Objects with representations of the witz became bodiesin motion, playing key roles in both private and public events.The imagery enabled a process of remembering in royalspaces. Furthermore, the action of using a vessel decoratedwith representations of the witz for ritual purposes invited acontinual process of evaluating and reconstituting collectivememories of landscape and place from one generation to thenext. In this way, objects played key roles in reproducingvisual narratives.

Ulua Marble Vases and Local Landscapes

In the case of the Ulua Valley, a localized emphasison the Santa Barbara Mountain points to distinct social andritual meanings in settlement planning with regard to the

Ulua Style Marble Vases in Honduras 121

conceptual and experiential landscape. The imagery on Uluamarble vases complements the cosmological principles thatguided settlement planning in the Ulua Valley, particularlyTravesıa as an axis mundi, as noted in Lopiparo’s analysis.Produced over multiple generations, Ulua marble vases showthe process of formalizing access to historical narratives.The use of the vases during ritual events, particularly themovement of the object among participants, required theactive incorporation of the viewer (her eyes, body, etc.) forfull comprehension of the landscape narrative.

Profile zoomorphic heads are the focus of the maincomposition on the earliest Ulua style marble vases (ca.C.E. 600–650). A tripod vase with two bird handles, a tripodvase with two feline handles (see Museum of the AmericanIndian [MAI] 4.3955), and a vase with a ring base and twobat handles all portray the initial stages of configuring thecomposition: a profile zoomorph (or zoomorphs) is the mainimage. The zoomorph itself has an eye and often an incisor,which may include a foamy/toothy upper jaw line. Scrollsconstitute the lower jaw, nose, and ear and may include atongue or speech (possibly breath) scroll, and a scale borderor borders frame the program.

By about C.E. 700–800, as the tradition evolved, thewraparound composition shows remarkable enhancementwith attention to symmetry between the handles and theupper and lower borders; there is also a refinement in thequality of carving and sculpting. Profile zoomorphs are in-tegrated in a fluid program with an almost interlacing effect.Repeating voussure (half-moon), mat, cartouche, or inter-locking key motifs replace scale borders. In one exampleof a vase with double-headed feline handles, a series of in-terlaced profile zoomorphic heads (all created from scrolls)are framed by upper and lower borders, each with an inter-locking key placed in the center of the repeating voussuremotifs, perhaps symbolizing a portal (Figure 8.4).

The later period of production continues this high-quality craftsmanship, yet the central composition changes:frontal zoomorphic heads are commonly featured on boththe obverse and reverse sides of taller cylindrical vases. Thedistribution of vases in this final phase indicates a strongTravesıa network in the lower Ulua Valley as well as anincreasingly strong tie to the central Maya lowlands. Com-munities participating with Travesıa during the later stageof Ulua marble vase production are located in areas whereprominent architectural and sculptural facades adorned thecentral plazas and temples.

The standard template used for front-facing zoomorphicheads throughout the late Ulua marble corpus illustrates adeliberate decision to emphasize this specific image. A faceemerges from the scrollwork: two eyes and a nose, both in re-lief with additional incising for detail. In several examples,

the mouth and upper brow area are represented as doublescrolls and additional scrolls may curl away from the face orbe paired underneath the mouth. Between the brow scrollsare placed mirrored scales or half-moons. On one example ofan Ulua style marble vase excavated at Uaxactun (Figure 8.3;Kidder 1947), two scrolls rise from the forehead element,represented as a single portal, cartouche, or perhaps solardisc. Also on this vase, motifs that may represent portalsare found on the upper and lower borders (a cartouche andinterlocking key, respectively). On another example (Figure8.4), the face emerges between two vertically placed double-ended scrolls; the forehead element remains in place overthe face. On many examples, profile zoomorphic heads flankthe frontal zoomorph. Additional sculpting may be used tohighlight cheeks and other features. Teeth, notably incisors,emerge from beneath a foamy upper jaw. In general, vaseswith frontal zoomorphs have ring bases with cutout stepsand a final basal border. Vases with frontal zoomorphs tendto be taller than they are wide, perhaps a deliberate deci-sion on the part of the artisan to make room for a centralzoomorph.

The emphasis on a fully realized frontal zoomorphichead represents a localized Uluan tradition of celebratingthe mountainous landscape and Travesıa’s centrality in it.The peak of the Santa Barbara Mountain is the tallest inthe region, and it is one of the only limestone (in fact,white limestone) peaks in Central America. When look-ing from Travesıa to the south, the rising peak is oftenblanketed in clouds, a telltale sign of the rains to come,causing changes in the color of the river waters as well astorrent, white rapids cascading over the impressive cliffsat Pulhapanzaak (see Joyce et al. 2009:63). The emphasison this mountain and the natural occurrences produced byand around it—white clouds and rapids as well as heavyrains and steam (from the rains on hot, humid lands andfrom the falls/rapids)—bespeak why inhabitants at Travesıamay have symbolically embedded these elements in tangibleobjects.

The long tradition of carving vases from white stonein Honduras (Luke et al. 2003) may have been linkedto procurement strategies from sacred caves or grottolikeformations in rock as well as to the white color of the stone,perhaps early referents to the ancestral sphere. The develop-ment of this tradition during the Late Classic period, espe-cially the carving of very focused imagery on the exterior,points to a spiritual component, particularly when contextu-alized by the broad cosmic import of Travesıa. With this siteas the axis mundi of the valley, the imagery placed on marblevases produced at the site is in every way linked with ances-try: the color of the stone and the universal Mesoamericanconventions for representing mountains.

122 Christina Luke

One vase typifies a fully realized vision of the mountain-paradise imagery, specifically its suggestive relationship toa portal, a cave. Now on public display at the ClevelandMuseum of Art, vase 1990.90 has two composite (feline-serpent) handles framed by a mat upper border and chevronlower border with a final ring base with step-fret cutout win-dows. The central composition depicts two figures in theopening of a cave, a stone house. An upper central zoomor-phic head frames an opening to the cave/house. The uppersection of the beast includes the hallmark cleft: two oppos-ing scale motifs framed by two scrolls. The stylized steppedopening of the cave frames the two figures; a stalagmiteemerging from two bottom scrolls separates them. On thisvase scrolls emanate from the mouth of the cave, perhapsreferencing the breath and wind of the ancestral realm in thelower Ulua Valley.

Embedding the imagery of the mountain into a whitestone—marble—Uluan artisans created a portable monu-ment imbued with sacred imagery that was tinged with theancestral sphere. Imagery that captured the spirit of the an-cestral realm thus invited a suite of collective memories,furnished base points for them, and preserved them for fu-ture viewers. The representation of the supernatural in whitemarble vases created a new type of vessel for the Uluanregion: one that served as a foundation for site identifica-tion set within a key material/color. Materially linking asite to a portable good served multiple purposes, includ-ing the repeated use and display of these goods duringevents (public and private) as well as the ability to trans-fer the vessel as a gift to prominent rulers or nobles, so-lidifying spiritual ties in the region or even much fartherabroad.

The changes within the marble vase corpus itself andthe emphasis on such sacred imagery suggest an increasedpublic awareness of Travesıa’s participation in social andpolitical spheres as well as a growing desire to portray theprominence of the localized landscape on a portable ob-ject. The stylistic updating of the imagery indicates howoutside/distant influences may have directed artisans in re-fining the imagery. That is, the initial template for the vases,marked by the early styles, makes clear that Ulua artisansdrew from local stone vase traditions when deciding to em-bed this highly celebrated and ritually charged imagery instone on Late Classic vases; yet they also drew from gen-erally accepted pan-Mesoamerican frameworks. While thevases would most likely have been used during public eventsas sumptuous drinking vessels, their mobility also allowedfor private viewing or interment with the dead. The delib-erate choice of new material and imagery would have beenvisible to all, standing out from those of other fancy objects,specifically Ulua polychromes.

The material and iconography of marble vases com-plement contemporary Ulua polychromes, allowing the per-former or viewer to see different types of objects in use,each with its own significance. The deliberate use of ma-terial and a localized representation of the symbolic im-portance of landscapes in the lower Ulua Valley, referenc-ing the Santa Barbara Mountain specifically, may be whatsets marble vases apart from polychromes. The iconographyfound on Ulua marble vases celebrates this sacred realm andcomplements the multitude of representations portrayed onpolychromes (see Joyce 1993a, 1993b; Viel 1978). Yet thetwo types of vases were not necessarily mutually exclu-sive: polychrome iconography is rich with representationsof architectural space and spatial landscapes, much of itstructurally related to Ulua marble vases. Performances inthe plaza and temple areas provide a glimpse into localceremonies, now memorialized on portable objects. Thesepolychromes further situate Ulua marble vases in a localizedcontext of objects in motion.

Presenting the Sacred: Ulua Marble Vases andUlua Polychromes

Representations of royal courts on Maya ceramics havebeen explored in detail by Reents-Budet (2001). In herwork she analyzes the portrayal of architectural features inthe courts of the Maya, demonstrating that representationsare idealized, not reflective of specific areas or monuments.She notes that decorative iconic motifs found on build-ings are painted on ceramics, notably motifs associated with“frontal portrayals of the buildings, rendering the upper stepof the supporting platforms and the buildings’ floor piers,medial moldings or cornices, and upper zones” (Reents-Budet 2001:198). According to her research, representa-tions of entire structures are rare. Among the key motifs thatportray specific elements of architecture are depictions ofthatched roofs, represented by a fringe of horizontal lines,chevrons, or vertical tabs with cross-hatching. Exceptionalare roof combs with representations of mat, step-fret, andzoomorphic motifs (Reents-Budet 2001:198, 199). Thesemotifs are represented throughout Ulua polychromes andmany of the same motifs are standardized on Ulua mar-ble vases, suggesting a general shared knowledge of howobjects should look. Here strong local traditions portray ar-chitectural motifs and spaces on portable objects; objectsthat would have been “in motion” during ritual events thatmay have referenced conceptual landscapes.

Of the 13 polychrome vessels that represent entire build-ings documented by Reents-Budet (2001:198), four are Uluapolychromes (see Kerr K4628, K4629, K4577, K4968; R.

Ulua Style Marble Vases in Honduras 123

Figure 8.8. Ulua polychrome. Photograph K4628 c© Justin Kerr.

A. Joyce, personal communication 2007). Stylistically thesevases date to the period between C.E. 750 and C.E. 850 (R. A.Joyce, personal communication 2007). In all four examplesthe main narrative scene is framed by an upper border thatincludes elements of architectural motifs: step-fret (K4577),mat (K4629, K4628, K4968), and portal (K4628). The tem-ples are all portrayed in profile and a figure (also in profile)sits inside the temple structure itself. In front of the plaza,musicians or dancers conduct a performance. On one exam-ple (Figure 8.8; K4628), the upper border is carved with analternating mat and portal motif (including scrolls issuingfrom the portal); the integration of carving with painted de-signs on the exterior of Ulua polychromes can be linked tothe motifs and formats seen on Ulua marble vases (Joyce2004; Luke 2002).

On Maya and Ulua polychromes, architectural com-plexes are representations: they tend to depict general sceneswith an emphasis on the actors themselves, not necessarilythe symbolism embedded in the architecture or associatedmonuments of specific sites. Yet the iconographic programson marble vases show a shift from presentation scenes ofactors in spaces to representations of the supernatural, hereargued to be linked with witz imagery most celebrated inother areas of Mesoamerica on stone monuments and build-ing facades. The deliberate choice to represent supernaturalimagery reserved for public monuments and buildings onUlua marble vases corresponds to the shift in material fromceramic to white marble, further evidence that material itselfmust have been of critical importance.

In addition to traditions of portraying architecturalspaces on polychromes, we can also trace links to sa-cred landscapes. I turn first to the Paloma variety Uluapolychromes—the clearest ceramic analogue to the initialstage of Ulua marble vase production (Joyce 2004; Luke

Figure 8.9. Lug Head Paloma Ulua polychrome. Photo courtesyof the Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, VA.

2002). On a number of Paloma examples (Figures 8.9 and8.10; Viel 1978:195) the upper border that frames the centralimage includes a profile zoomorphic head. The headdress ofthe profile head includes a flowerlike motif above the eye-brow. A representation of a stepped mountain, often with aclear opening (perhaps a cave), can often be found on thelower border as well as the pedestal base. In several exam-ples, the central profile personage (located between the twoborders) is embedded in the opening of a portal (see Figures8.9 and 8.10). This format is in keeping with the associationof rulers, ritual practitioners, or other nobles with portals

124 Christina Luke

Figure 8.10. Lug Head Paloma Ulua polychrome (verso of Figure8.9). Photo courtesy of the Chrysler Museum of Art, Norfolk, VA.

and their ability (perceived) to transcend the terrestrial andsupernatural realms. The profile head with the flower motifpaired with the stepped mountain and portal imagery pointsto universal notions of how to represent themes related tolocalized views of mountain landscapes in the lower UluaValley. Finally, two bird handles protrude from the sides ofthe vases, with the body of the bird on the vessel itself. Theassociation with birds may be related also to the more spe-cific reference and portrayal of snowy egrets found on otherpolychrome types and varieties and generalized notions ofplaces of origins associated with birds (see Joyce 2004).

Representations of places of origin on Ulua poly-chromes have also recently been discussed by Nielsen andBrady (2006). Their analysis of “dancing figures” in theopening of a cave on a Cyrano variety Ulua polychrome(see Joyce 1993a, 1993b, 2004) from Los Naranjos offersinsight into the importance of localized landscapes at LakeYojoa in the production of this imagery. They argue that thismotif of “dancing figures” relates to “the theme of groupgenesis and cave emergence” within the wider sphere ofMesoamerican cosmology and its “focus on the act of cre-ation” (Nielsen and Brady 2006:213). They suggest that forthe people at Los Naranjos, the Cave of Taulebe, just south ofLake Yojoa, may have held significant importance. Whetherit is the Taulebe Cave or another place or places (i.e., SantaBarbara Mountain, Pulhapanzaak, etc.), local Uluan tradi-tions of imagery construction, as Joyce (1993b, 2004) hasshown, must be understood within local points of reference.

Above I focused on the strategic position of the witz overthe opening of a cave on one vase. Recall the two figures oneither side of the speleothem in the center of the cave. Hereis another example of how themes on Ulua polychromes areincorporated into Ulua marble vase imagery and related tobroader themes of mountainous landscapes of paradise orcreation, or both.

Turning now specifically to the imagery on the few ex-amples of full temples represented on Ulua polychromesand its relationship to Ulua marble vase imagery, I focus onthe representation of the roof. On three Ulua polychromes(K4628, K4629, K4968) scale motifs are found along thebase of the roof comb, and hanging stepped-terrace and car-touche “fringe” appears on the fourth (K4577). As discussedabove, similar stepped motifs can be found on a number ofUlua polychrome types and varieties, used as border, rim, orpedestal-base motifs, the latter often with some carving (Fig-ures 8.9 and 8.10). The stepped cutout windows are foundalso on marble vase ring bases. Ulua polychromes, in gen-eral, do not feature scenes of entire temples, so these exam-ples of architectural spaces offer a glimpse at what templesin the Ulua Valley may have looked like, albeit schematic,and of the artists’ thoughts on how to portray human beingsin these settings. In doing so, this imagery confirms that atleast representations of temples and their associated plazaareas follow general Maya conventions, thus confirming theparticipation of the Ulua Valley in not just a stylistic spherebut also a shared set of ideas about how space and buildingsshould look on the landscape as well as on portable goods.

Motifs found on the roofs of buildings represented onpolychrome vases may include the sign for stone, “seem-ingly indicating their stone construction” (Reents-Budet2001:198). The stony quality of the building, thus, was ofgreat concern for the Maya, important enough to place sig-nifiers on ceramic pots making clear that monuments wereconstructed from stone, as seen in Figure 8.8 of an Uluastyle polychrome (K4628). As Reents-Budet writes, “theClassic Maya perceived the palace compound as the stoneand stucco embodiment of the office of ajaw-ship and ofthe royal physical body” (Reents-Budet 2001:210). Uluancarvers show eclecticism on marble vases. They incorpo-rated a distinctively localized way of producing desirablewhite stone vases, and were also able through the produc-tion (material and imagery) of these vases to embody thesacred landscape that played a vital role in site constructionand founding. By expanding local white stone vase tradi-tions (see Luke et al. 2003), artists embedded the essence ofthe monumental in the white marble, metaphorically link-ing the imagery as portrayed on marble vases to constructedmonuments as well as the home of the ancestors, the whiterealm.

Ulua Style Marble Vases in Honduras 125

Finally, Ulua marble vase production follows shifts inpolychrome production in several other important ways.While a common suite of conventions underlay Ulua poly-chrome traditions, by the late seventh and into the earlyeighth century distinct stylistic traditions emerged in theComayagua and Ulua regions, the former with connectionsto Copan and lower Central America, the latter closely tiedwith the central Maya lowlands (Joyce 2004). By the eighthcentury, cylindrical vases portray scenes that include hu-man figures, which Joyce (2004) suggests may be related toan increased use of polychromes in burials, rather than thetraditional use in communal ceremonies and everyday life.This practice is in keeping with the increasingly sophisti-cated craftsmanship, restrictive distribution, and high-statuscontexts for Ulua marble vases (see Luke and Tykot 2007).

Discussion

Based on the chronology of Ulua polychromes and mar-ble vases, these two traditions functioned side-by-side. Theinitial phase of marble vase production is marked by an in-creasing number of hybrid polychromes with clear referentsto marble vases, particularly upper and lower borders carvedin similar motifs, scroll motifs carved in the main program,and use of a white stucco to cover these vases (or portionsof them). Furthermore, examples of fully realized marblevase ceramic effigies with a white slip covering the entireexterior point to a direct relationship between the desiredstylistic qualities of marble vases and those represented inceramic.

The stylistic and distributional analyses indicate that theheyday of the Ulua marble vase carvers dates to the periodC.E. 650–800. While certainly not abundant (not more than170 vases are known in museum collections), these vaseswere strategic markers for the valley, specifically Travesıaand its centrality. The shift from strictly profile to frontalzoomorphic heads, often flanked by profile zoomorphs, andthe increasing sophistication with which the Uluan carverstackled their work, attests to the longevity of the traditionwith increasing emphasis on this frontal zoomorphic head.The imagery speaks to immediate mountainous landscapes,confirmed by site orientation.

Uluan carvers portrayed this sacred landscape onportable vases, imagery typically used in the central Mayasphere on architectural facades and stone monuments. Theydid so not only in their execution of the design but alsothrough the choice of material: stone. On Ulua marble vases,Uluan artisans did not represent what happened in the court,rather they represented the sacred nature of the space, itselfembedded in a conceptual landscape. By choosing to place

on Ulua marble vases motifs typically reserved for fixedlarge pyramids and monuments elsewhere in Mesoamer-ica, seen as representations of the sacred landscape them-selves, artisans created ritually charged objects that could beused in local performances as well as gifted abroad, therebymetaphorically transporting Travesıa to counterparts in dis-tant regions and affirming prominence abroad.

Conclusion

This chapter has explored how portable objects maybe intricately tied to the conceptual landscapes of a region.Viewing objects within a local context, rich with interpre-tations and memories of the past, we can understand bettertheir place. The attention to planning of site layouts and ar-chitectural iconographic programs in the context of the localenvironment has proved to be invaluable for understandingMayan sites. This approach is equally as useful for our un-derstanding of portable objects. For over a century Uluamarble vases have been understood as luxury items that in-corporated the Ulua Valley into the wider Mesoamericansphere. We can now situate these vessels within the con-text of sites and contemporary objects. Ulua marble vasesand polychromes were used in similar contexts, yet poly-chromes have a much wider distribution. Taken togetherthe two vase traditions offer a lens into our understandingof not only Ulua marble vase imagery but also the impor-tance of conveying local knowledge of and appreciation forhow people in the Ulua constructed their place in the worldaround them. The importance of the mountainous terrainand its associated symbolism is expressed on Ulua marblevases. The various manifestations of mountains on icono-graphic repertoires across Mesoamerica provide us with arich understanding of how specific motifs transcended re-gional boundaries and were memorialized over time in localtraditions. What is more, by understanding the localized ren-dering of the paradisical ancestral spheres, we have a muchmore nuanced understanding of the material used for thevases—white marble.

References

Ashmore, Wendy1991 Site-Planning Principles and Concepts of Di-

rectionality among the Ancient Maya. LatinAmerican Antiquity 2(3):199–226.

Ashmore, Wendy, and Jeremy Sabloff2002 Spatial Orders in Maya Civic Plans. Latin

American Antiquity 13(2):201–215.

126 Christina Luke

Ball, Joseph1993 Pottery, Potters, Palaces, and Polities: Some

Socioeconomic and Political Implications of LateClassic Maya Ceramic Industries. In LowlandMaya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D.Jeremy A. Sabloff and John S. Henderson, eds. Pp.243–272. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

Bergmann, John F.1969 The Distribution of Cacao Cultivation in Pre-

Columbian America. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 59(1):85–96.

Brady, James E., and Wendy Ashmore1999 Mountains, Caves, Water: Ideational Land-

scapes of the Ancient Maya. In Archaeologiesof Landscape. Wendy Ashmore and A. BernardKnapp, eds. Pp. 124–145. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Brady, James E., and Keith M. Prufer, eds.2005 In the Maw of the Earth Monster. Austin:

University of Texas Press.

Casey, Edward S.1997 The Fate of Place: A Philosophical History.

Berkeley: University of California Press.

Closs, Michael P.1988 Response to Coggins and Bricker. American

Antiquity 53(2):402–411.

Coggins, Clemency Chase1980 The Shape of Time: Some Political Implica-

tions of a Four-Part Figure. American Antiquity45:727–739.

Cohen, A. P.1984 The Symbolic Construction of Communities.

London: Tavistock.

DeBoer, Warren R.2005 Colors for a North American Past. World

Archaeology 37(1):66–91.

Demarest, Arthur, Kim Morgan, Claudia Wolley, andHector Escobedo

2003 The Political Acquisition of Sacred Geogra-phy: The Murcielagos Complex at Dos Pilas. InMaya Palaces and Elite Residences. Jessica J.Christie, ed. Pp. 120–153. Austin: University ofTexas Press.

French, Kirk D.2002 Creating Space through Water Management

at the Classic Maya Site of Palenque, Chiapas,Mexico. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology.University of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Goodby, Robert G.1998 Technological Patterning and Social Bound-

aries: Ceramic Variability in Southern NewEngland, A.D. 1000–1675. In The Archae-ology of Social Boundaries. M. Stark, ed.Pp. 161–182. Washington, DC: SmithsonianInstitution.

Hanks, William F.1988 Grammar, Style, and Meaning in a Maya

Manuscript. International Journal of AmericanLinguistics 54(3):331–365.

Helms, Mary1979 Ancient Panama: Chiefs in Search of Power.

Austin: University of Texas Press.

Henderson, John S.1992 Variations on a Theme: A Frontier View of

Maya Civilization. In New Themes on the AncientMaya. E. C. Danien and Robert J. Sharer, eds. Pp.161–171. Philadelphia: University of PennsylvaniaPress.

1997 World of the Ancient Maya. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.

Henderson, John S., and Rosemary A. Joyce2002 Brewing Distinction: The Development of

Cacao Beverages in Formative Mesoamerica.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Anthropological Association, NewOrleans.

2006 Brewing Distinction: The Development ofCacao Beverages in Formative Mesoamerica.In Chocolate in Mesoamerica: A CulturalHistory of Cacao. Cameron McNeill, ed. Pp.140–153. Gainesville: University Press ofFlorida.

Henderson, John S., Rosemary A. Joyce, Gretchen R. Hall,W. Jeffery Hurst, and Patrick E. McGovern

2007 Chemical and Archaeological Evidence forthe Earliest Cacao Beverages. Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences of the UnitedStates of America 104(48):18937–18940.

Ulua Style Marble Vases in Honduras 127

Hicks, Dan, Laura McAtackney, and Graham Fariclough,eds.

2007 Envisioning Landscape: Situations and Stand-points in Archaeology and Heritage. WalnutCreek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Hill, Jane1992 The Flower World of Old Uto-Aztecan. Journal of

Anthropological Research 48:117–144.

Houston, Stephen D.1998 Finding Function and Meaning in Classic

Maya Architecture. In Function and Meaning inClassic Maya Architecture. Stephen D. Houston,ed. Pp. 519–538. Washington, DC: DumbartonOaks.

Houston, Stephen D., and Karl Taube2000 An Archaeology of the Senses: Perception

and Cultural Expression in Ancient Mesoamerica.Cambridge Archaeological Journal 10(2):261–294.

Hunt, Eva1977 The Transformation of the Hummingbird.

Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Inomata, Takeshi, and Stephen D. Houston, eds.2001 Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, vol. 1.

Boulder, CO: Westview.

Joyce, Rosemary A.1985 Cerro Palenque, Valle de Ulua, Honduras:

Terminal Classic Interaction on the MesoamericanPeriphery. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana.

1991 Cerro Palenque: Power and Identity on theMaya Periphery. Austin: University of Texas Press.

1993a Appendix A: A Key to Ulua Polychromes.In Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras. John S.Henderson and Marilyn Beauty-Corbett, eds.Pp. 257–279. Monograph 35. Los Angeles:Institute of Archaeology, University of California.

1993b The Construction of the Mesoamerican Frontierand the Mayoid Image of Honduran Polychromes.In Reinterpreting Prehistory of Central America.Mark Miller Graham, ed. Pp. 51–101. Niwot:University Press of Colorado.

1996 Social Dynamics of Exchange: ChangingPatterns in the Honduran Archaeological Record.

In Chieftains, Power and Trade: Regional Inter-action in the Intermediate Area of the Americas.C. H. Langeback and F. Cardenas-Arroyo, eds.Pp. 31–46. Bogota, Colombia: Departmento deAntropologia, Universidad de los Andes.

2003 Concrete Memories: Fragments of the Pastin the Classic Maya Present (500–1000 AD). InArchaeologies of Memory. Ruth Van Dyke andSusan E. Alcock, eds. Pp. 104–126. Malden, MA:Blackwell.

2004 El estudio de los polıcromos Uluas: Hon-duras en el mundo Maya. Paper presented atthe VIII Seminario de Antropologia Hondurena,Tegucigalpa.

Joyce, Rosemary A., and John S. Henderson2007 From Feasting to Cuisine: Implications of

Archaeological Research in an Early HonduranVillage. American Anthropologist 109(4):642–653.

Joyce, Rosemary A., Julia A. Hendon, and Jeanne Lopiparo2009 Being in Place: Intersections of Identity and

Experience on the Honduran Landscape. In TheArchaeology of Meaningful Places. B. J. Bowserand M. Nieves Zadeno, eds. Pp. 53–72. Salt LakeCity: University of Utah Press.

Kidder, Alfred1947 Artifacts of Uaxactun. Washington, DC: Carnegie

Institution of Washington.

Knapp, Bernard A., and Wendy Ashmore1999 Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Con-

ceptualized, Ideational. In Archaeologies ofLandscape: Contemporary Perspectives. WendyAshmore and Arthur Bernard Knapp, eds. Pp.1–32. Wiley-Blackwell.

Laughlin, R. M.1969 The Tzotzil. In Handbook of Middle Ameri-

can Indians, vol. 7(1). Robert Wauchope, ed. Pp.152–194. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Leon-Portilla, Miguel1988 Time and Reality in the Thought of the Maya.

Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Looper, Matthew2003 Lightning Warrior. Austin: University of Texas

Press.

128 Christina Luke

Lopiparo, Jeanne2003 Household Ceramic Production and the Crafting

of Society in the Terminal Classic Ulua Valley,Honduras. Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, University of California, Berkeley.

Luke, Christina2002 Ulua Style Marble Vases. Ph.D. dissertation,

Department of Anthropology, Cornell University.2008 Carving Luxury: Late Classic White Stone

Vase Traditions in Mesoamerica. In New Ap-proaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of GroundStone Artifacts. Yorke M. Rowan and J. R. Ebeling,eds. Pp. 298–319. London: Equinox.

2010 Ulua Marble Vases Abroad: ContextualizingSocial Networks between the Maya World andLower Central America. In Trade and Exchange:Archaeological Studies from History and Prehis-tory. Carolyn Dillian and Carolyn White, eds. Pp.37–58. New York: Springer.

Luke, Christina, Rosemary A. Joyce, John S. Henderson,and R. H. Tykot

2003 Marble Carving Traditions in Honduras: For-mative through Terminal Classic. In ASMOSIA6, Interdisciplinary Studies on Ancient Stone–Proceedings of the Sixth International Conferenceof the Association for the Study of Marble andOther Stones in Antiquity, Venice, June 15–18,2000. L. Lazzarini, ed. Pp. 485–496. Padova, Italy:Bottega d’Erasmo.

Luke, Christina, and R. H. Tykot2007 Celebrating Place through Luxury Craft Pro-

duction: Travesıa and Ulua Style Marble Vases.Ancient Mesoamerica 18:325–328.

Luke, Christina, R. H. Tykot, and Robert W. Scott2006 Petrographic and Stable Isotope Analyses of

Late Classic Ulua Marble Vases and PotentialSources. Archaeometry 48(1):13–29.

Magaloni-Kerpel, Diana2006 Real and Illusory Feathers: Pigments, Paint-

ing Techniques, and the Use of Color in AncientMesoamerica. Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos,6. http://nuevomundo.revues.org/document1462.html, accessed July 17, 2007.

Maria Vargas, L.1998 Los colores Lacadones: La percepcion visual

de un pueblo Maya. Serie Antropologia Fisica.Mexico, DF: Instituto Nacional de Antropologis eHistoria.

Nielsen, Jesper, and James E. Brady2006 The Couple in the Cave: Origin Iconogra-

phy on a Ceramic Vessel from Los Naranjos,Honduras. Ancient Mesoamerica 17:203–217.

Pred, Allan1990 Making Histories and Constructing Human

Geographies: The Local Transformation ofPractice, Power Relations, and Consciousness.Boulder, CO: Westview.

Prufer, Keith M., and James E. Brady, eds.2005 Stone Houses and Earth Lords: Maya Reli-

gion in the Cave Context. Niwot: University Pressof Colorado.

Reents-Budet, Dorie1994 Painting the Maya Universe. Durham, NC:

Duke University Press.1998 Elite Maya Pottery and Artisans as Social

Indicators. In Craft and Social Identity. CathyL. Costin and Rita P. Wright, eds. Pp. 71–89.Archeological Papers of the American Anthropo-logical Association, 8. Arlington, VA: AmericanAnthropological Association.

2001 Classic Maya Concepts of the Royal Court:An Analysis of Renderings on Pictorial Ceramics.In Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, vol. 1.Takeshi Inomata and Stephen D. Houston, eds. Pp.195–236. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Reents-Budet, Dorie, Ronald Bishop, Jennifer T. Taschek,and Joseph W. Ball

2001 Out of the Palace Dumps: Ceramic Produc-tion and Use at Buenavista del Cayo. AncientMesoamerica 11:88–121.

Schaffer, A.-L.1992 On the Edge of the Maya World. Archaeol-

ogy March/April:50–53.

Schele, Linda1998 The Iconography of Maya Architectural Facades

during the Late Classic Period. In Function andMeaning in Classic Maya Architecture. StephenD. Houston, ed. Pp. 479–517. Washington, DC:Dumbarton Oaks.

Ulua Style Marble Vases in Honduras 129

Schele, Linda, and M. E. Miller1986 Blood of Kings. Fort Worth, TX: Kimball

Art Museum.

Smith, Michael E.2005 Did the Maya Build Architectural Cosmograms?

Latin American Antiquity 16(2):217–224.

Stanton, Travis W., and Aline Magnoni, eds.2008 Ruins of the Past: The Use and Perception

of Abandoned Structures in the Maya Lowlands.Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Stone, Andrea Joyce, ed.2002 Heart of Creation: The Mesoamerican World

and the Legacy of Linda Schele. Tuscaloosa:University of Alabama Press.

Stone, D. Z.1941 Archaeology of the North Coast of Hon-

duras. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University,vol. 9, no. 1. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University.

Stross, Brian1996 The Mesoamerican Cosmic Portal: An Early

Zapotec Example. Res: Anthropology andAesthetics 29/30:82–101.

Stuardo, Rodrigo Liendo2003 Access Patterns in Maya Royal Precincts. In

Maya Palaces and Elite Residences. Jessica J.Christie, ed. Pp. 184–203. Austin: University ofTexas Press.

Stuart, David1987 Ten Phonetic Syllables. Research Reports on

Ancient Maya Writing, 14. Washington, DC:Center for Maya Research.

1996 Kings of Stone: A Consideration of Stelaein Ancient Maya Ritual and Representation.

Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 29/30:148–171.

Taube, Karl A.2004 Flower Mountain: Concepts of Life, Beauty,

and Paradise among the Classic Maya. Res:Anthropology and Aesthetics 45:71–98.

2005 The Symbolism of Jade in Classic Maya Re-ligion. Ancient Mesoamerica 16:23–50.

Tedlock, Dennis, trans.1996 Popol Vuh: The Definitive Edition of the Mayan

Book of the Dawn of Life and the Glories of Godsand Kings. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Thomas, Julian S.2001 Archaeologies of Place and Landscape. In

Archaeological Theory Today. Ian Hodder, ed. Pp.165–186. Oxford: Blackwell.

Viel, Rene1978 Etude de la ceramique Ulua-Yojoa Polychrome

(Nord-Ouest de Honduras): Essai d’ analyse stylis-tique du Babilonia. Ph.D. dissertation, UniversiteRene Descartes, Paris.

Vogt, Evan Z.1969 Zinacantan: A Maya Community in the Highlands

of Chiapas. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.1981 Some Aspects of the Sacred Geography of

Highland Chiapas. In Mesoamerican Sites andWorld Views. E. P. Benson, ed. Pp. 119–142.Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

1992 The Persistence of Maya Tradition inZinacantan. In The Ancient Americas: Artfrom Sacred Landscapes. R. F. Townsend, ed. Pp.60–69. Chicago: Art Institute of Chicago.

Witkowski, Stanley R., and Cecil H. Brown1981 Lexical Encoding Systems and Language

Change: Color Terminology Systems. AmericanAnthropologist 83(1):13–27.