Ancient Mesoamericahttp://journals.cambridge.org/ATM

Additional services for Ancient Mesoamerica:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click hereTerms of use : Click here

THE ROOTS OF SOTUTA: DZITAS SLATE AS A YUCATECAN TRADITION

Scott A. J. Johnson

Ancient Mesoamerica / Volume 26 / Issue 01 / March 2015, pp 113 - 126DOI: 10.1017/S095653611500005X, Published online: 20 August 2015

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S095653611500005X

How to cite this article:Scott A. J. Johnson (2015). THE ROOTS OF SOTUTA: DZITAS SLATE AS A YUCATECAN TRADITION. Ancient Mesoamerica,26, pp 113-126 doi:10.1017/S095653611500005X

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ATM, IP address: 24.207.212.14 on 21 Aug 2015

THE ROOTS OF SOTUTA: DZITAS SLATE AS AYUCATECAN TRADITION

Scott A. J. JohnsonDepartment of Anthropology, Washington University, McMillan Hall, Room 112, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, Missouri 63130-4899

Abstract

The Sotuta pottery complex has been used in the archaeology of the northern Maya lowlands to identify the Terminal Classic period andcultural association with Chichen Itza. The Sotuta complex, however, is made up of many pottery types, the majority of which areinappropriate markers of elite sociopolitical history. It is argued here that Sotuta-complex slate wares developed out of previous local slatewares regardless of the elite sociopolitical changes taking place with the arrival of the Itza. The wares produced and distributed bycommoners were independent of elites and have been artificially chained to questions of elite political expansion for which they areinappropriate correlates.

The relationship of the Cehpech and Sotuta pottery complexes hasbeen a hotly debated topic in Yucatan since the 1970s. In thispaper, I argue that the chronology of the most prolific Sotuta andCehpech types should be considered independent of their associa-tion with either complex. Dzitas Slate, as part of the Sotutacomplex, has been used to argue for the presence of TerminalClassic (a.d. 800–1100) elite Itza control in the contexts in whichit is found. Muna Slate,1 the most common type of the Cehpechcomplex, is either associated with the Late Classic period (a.d.600–800) or non-Itza areas of the Terminal Classic period.Scholars have attempted to answer questions regarding the elite po-litical history of the region by studying these utilitarian types, theproduction and trade of which were not controlled by elites. New ev-idence from central Yucatan suggests that Dzitas Slate may havebeen developed out of the local Muna Slate tradition independentof the arrival of outsiders at Chichen Itza in the a.d. 800s. Thishypothesis is not new, as it was noted by Brainerd (1958), Smith(1971), and numerous modern scholars as discussed throughoutthis paper.

Popola, Yucatan, is a small site located 13 km south-southwestof Chichen Itza and 5 km north-northeast of Yaxuna (seeFigure 1). Pottery from this site, as well as data from Ichmul deMorley, Chichen Itza, Yaxuna, Ek Balam, and Coba, has been ex-amined for this study. When separated out from questions of polit-ical history, Dzitas Slate can be demonstrated to be the regional slateware of central Yucatan, which gradually developed out of an earlierMuna Slate tradition. In the past, models describing the overlap (orlack thereof) of Muna and Dzitas Slate have been used to explainboth the relationship of these types and regional sociopoliticalhistory. In this paper, I argue that none of these models are

necessary to explain the gradual transition from Muna to DzitasSlate in this central area, although they are still applicable for dis-cussing regional overlap. Apparent “overlap” is shown to be theco-occurrence of regional slate types instead of a mixing of chrono-logical periods in most cases.

THE CEHPECH-SOTUTA TRANSITION DEBATE

The Original Definition and Division of Sotuta and CehpechPottery

Robert E. Smith (1971) created a chronology for northern Yucatanwith 10 phases, each of which was characterized by a potterycomplex. In Smith’s (1971:7) terms, complexes are “all-inclusiveanalytical units in that each descriptively encompasses all the mate-rial of a certain kind that is known from a given phase.” Potterytypes and groups did not span more than one complex as originallyorganized and defined by Smith (1971:7). This clear-cut division oftypes between chronological periods is the root cause of the debateand confusion about the transition from Cehpech to Sotuta complex-es in Yucatan. More recently, researchers (for example, Bey et al.1998; Johnstone 2001; Robles Castellanos 1990) have defined com-plexes that share types across periods. This paper uses the term“complex” in Smith’s original sense.

The debate surrounding the transition of the Cehpech to theSotuta complex began with the original definition by Smith, whowas working with pottery excavated in the monumental cores ofMayapan, Uxmal, Chichen Itza, and Kabah (in descending orderof sample size) (Smith 1971:9, Table 1a, Table 1b). Smith (1971:134) dated the Cehpech complex to a.d. 800–1000. This complexconsisted of five wares (Puuc Unslipped, Puuc Slate, Thin Slate,Puuc Red, Fine Orange, and Cauich Coarse-cream) and was domi-nated by the Muna Slate, Yokat Striated, Ticul Thin, and Teabo Redtypes (in descending order by count) (Smith 1971:134, 145, 149,154, 156). Smith (1971:167, 196) argued that Cehpech pottery orig-inated in the Puuc region and that it became “the most widespread

113

E-mail correspondence to: sajjohnson@gmail.com1

Unless otherwise noted, “Muna Slate” and “Dzitas Slate” refer to theMuna and Dzitas varieties, respectively, as the implications for thin-walled,elaborately decorated or inscribed vessels are different from utilitarianvarieties.

Ancient Mesoamerica, 26 (2015), 113–126Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2015doi:10.1017/S095653611500005X

and proliferous of any [complex] within the confines of the northernhalf of the Yucatan Peninsula.” The Sotuta complex followedCehpech, lasting from a.d. 1000–1200 in Smith’s (1971:134–135)dates. He (Smith 1971:134–135, 171, 174, 178) specified at leastsix wares in the Sotuta complex (Chichen Unslipped, ChichenSlate, Chichen Red, Fine Orange, Fine Buff, and Plumbate), domi-nated by the Dzitas Slate, Piste Striated, and Dzibiac Red types (indescending order by count). The origin of the Sotuta complex wastraced to Chichen Itza, and the novel forms tied to the influx of SilhoOrange imported by the “Toltecs” at the beginning of this period(Smith 1971:191–192). Although Smith presented these complexesand their associated types as mutually exclusive in the temporalsense, he noted in a number of places how “the principal [Sotuta]wares, unslipped, slate and red, changed but little from theCehpech Phase” (Smith 1971:191, also 169, 192). The argumentof this paper hinges on this point.

Smith’s chronology updated and improved upon the one createdby George W. Brainerd. Brainerd (1958:3–4) had created a five-stage chronology of Yucatecan pottery, which included a precursorto the Cehpech-Sotuta division outlined above. Brainerd (1958:3–4)identified Florescent and Mexican Stages (roughly today’s Late and

Terminal Classic periods, respectively). The primary types of eachphase were later used by Smith to divide the Cehpech and Sotutacomplexes. The Florescent was dominated by “Florescent ThinSlateware,” “Florescent Medium Slateware,” and “FlorescentMedium Redware” (today’s Ticul Thin-slate, Muna Slate, andTeabo Red types, respectively), while “Mexican MediumSlateware” and “Mexican Medium Redware” (today’s Dzitas Slateand Dzibiac Red types, respectively) dominated the Mexicanperiod. One important distinction, however, is that Brainerd didnot argue that types were exclusive to each phase: “change[s] prob-ably took place gradually during the [Early Mexican] substagerather than at its beginning, and it is quite possible that various ofthe other innovations…did not arrive simultaneously” (Brainerd1958:94).

The Importance of the Cehpech-Sotuta Transition in theLocal Sociopolitical History

Scholars have tied the transition between Cehpech and Sotuta com-plexes to the regional sociopolitical history in the northern YucatanPeninsula and, therefore, understanding the pottery chronology has

Figure 1. Map of major (and some minor) sites across the northern Yucatan Peninsula (after Google Satellite image from 2009 andNational Geographic 1997).

Johnson114

taken on a greater importance than that of simply explaining the de-velopment of local pottery. Cehpech represents native Yucatecanpottery before the arrival of the Itza and the areas not affiliatedwith Chichen Itza, whereas Sotuta pottery is correlated with intru-sive Itza domination. When Brainerd and Smith devised theirculture-historical chronologies, the rise of Chichen Itza was attribut-ed to the conquest of local Maya by invading central Mexicans(Brainerd 1958:96; Smith 1971:253). The presence of new potterytypes associated with the Sotuta complex was taken as evidencefor the presence of new ethnic groups in Yucatan. Today, the inva-sion of central Mexicans has been re-evaluated as the immigration ofGulf Coast traders who undertook a campaign to dominate peninsu-lar trade (Andrews 1990; Andrews and Robles Castellanos 1985:67;Robles Castellanos and Andrews 1986). Modern scholars usepottery, architecture, iconography, and epigraphy to trace the polit-ical history of Chichen Itza (Andrews 1990; Andrews and RoblesCastellanos 1985; Bey et al. 1998; Cobos Palma 2004, 2007;Freidel 2007; Freidel et al. 1998; Ringle et al. 2004; Ringle 2004;Ringle and Bey 2012; Robles Castellanos and Andrews 1986;Schele and Freidel 1990:346–376; Suhler et al. 2004; Suhler et al.1998; Wren and Schmidt 1991). In many cases, the presence ofSotuta complex pottery has been taken as evidence of the presenceand often the dominance of Chichen Itza’s influence at sitesthroughout the peninsula (Amador Berdugo 2005:306; Anderson1998a; Anderson 1998b:262 [citing Andrews and RoblesCastellanos 1985:68–69]; Andrews and Robles Castellanos 1985:68; Chase and Chase 1982:609; Cobos Palma 2004:540; Kepecset al. 1994:146; Manahan and Ardren 2010; Smith 2000:51–52;Suhler et al. 1998:178; Suhler et al. 2004:456–457, 477; ToscanoHernández and Ortegon Zapata 2003:441–442). These scholars rep-resent a diversity of opinions, ranging from the blunt “any Sotutaequals Itza domination,” to those who do not differentiatebetween different types within the Sotuta sphere when discussingsocial meaning. This paper, following the lead of others (Ball1993; Stanton and Bey 2006; Stanton and Gallareta Negrón2001), questions this correlation.

Hypotheses Used to Explain the Relationship of Cehpechand Sotuta Pottery

Scholars have proposed three primary hypotheses to explain thetransition from Cehpech to Sotuta pottery, each describing theamount of overlap between the two complexes: no overlap, partialoverlap, and total overlap. Research at sites across the peninsula pro-vided support for each of these hypotheses, but no one has offered aconclusive resolution to this debate. The central argument of thispaper is that what these hypotheses hope to elucidate (elite sociopo-litical change) is better explained with other correlates. The existinghypotheses, however, must be discussed before moving on to thisargument.

The pottery types in Smith’s original definition of the Cehpechand Sotuta complexes were mutually exclusive. The change fromCehpech to Sotuta pottery was thought to be so rapid that virtuallyno local overlap between the two was discernible in the archaeolog-ical record. Indeed, in Smith’s analysis of pottery from Chichen Itza,Cehpech deposits were found below levels containing Sotuta mate-rials with little to no mixing between them (Smith 1971:168). Theprimary differences between Cehpech and Sotuta pottery arenovel forms in local types and the appearance of trade wares fromthe Gulf (Silho Fine Orange and Tohil Plumbate) (Smith 1971:

191). These changes were rapid because they were thought to ac-company the central Mexicans who quickly conquered Yucatan.

Problems with the No Overlap Hypothesis at both the local andregional level include logistics, sample size, loss of provenience in-formation, and over-extrapolation of local patterns. While the typesof imported pottery may change rapidly because of long-distancepolitics, locally produced utilitarian pottery cannot change asquickly (see also Johnstone 2001:116). Bey (2003:21) describedthree options for the rapid and complete replacement of one utilitar-ian pottery assemblage with another: “1) import all domesticpottery…2) force all local producers to stop producing onecomplex and start producing another, or 3) replace all local…potterswith new producers.”None of these options are logistically feasible,nor are any of them supported by archaeological data. The NoOverlap hypothesis does not explain the change of utilitarianpottery. Furthermore, the sample available to Smith was small andconfusing (Ball 1979:18). Smith (1971:5) noted that “a considerableportion of the potsherds collected at these sites had to be discardedbecause the paper identification tags had been destroyed by insects,and the provenience lost, before Brainerd could examine the mate-rial.” The basis of the culture history of Late and Terminal ClassicYucatan began with this small, arguably unrepresentative sample,drawn primarily from two sites—Uxmal and Chichen Itza (Ball1979:19). Although recent work at Ek Balam, Yaxuna, ChichenItza, Coba, and other sites has increased the sample size and prove-nience information associated with these complexes (Ambrosino2006; Ardren 1997; Bey et al. 1998; Cobos Palma 2003, 2004;Freidel 2007; Freidel et al. 1998; Houck 2004; Johnstone 2001;Pérez de Heredia Puente 2010; Ringle et al. 2004; RoblesCastellanos 1980, 1990; Schmidt 1994, 1999, 2000, 2005, 2007;Smith 2000, 2001; Stanton et al. 2008; Stanton and Magnoni2009, 2010, 2013; Suhler et al. 2004; Suhler et al. 1998; ToscanoHernandez and Ortegon Zapata 2003), the No Overlap Hypothesisdoes not explain the transition from the Cehpech to Sotutacomplex at the regional or local levels because it cannot explainthe utilitarian transition, and this last point is critical because utili-tarian types make up the majority of Cehpech and Sotuta pottery.This hypothesis, then, should not be used to explain the sociopolit-ical history of the peninsula. The political history is more closelytied to imports, which make up only a small part of these complexes.

In 1979, two alternative hypotheses were proposed. The PartialOverlap Hypothesis (originally “non-linear, partial overlap recon-struction”) suggested that Cehpech and Sotuta overlapped regional-ly for as much as 100 years: Cehpech existed as late as a.d. 1050 inthe Puuc region, while Sotuta originated in the mid-800 s nearChichen Itza (Ball 1979:33, Figure 17; see also Andrews 1979:9;Andrews and Andrews 1980; Lincoln 1983; Robles Castellanos1980). The second alternative was known as the Total OverlapHypothesis (originally “non-linear, total overlap reconstruction”)and suggested that Cehpech and Sotuta were contemporaneous, re-gional variations: Cehpech lasted until well after a.d. 1100, practi-cally until Sotuta disappeared just before a.d. 1200 (Ball 1979:33–34, Figure 17; but see Andrews 1979:9). Ball (1979:18–19)stated that these hypotheses were in response to three shortcomingsof the No Overlap Hypothesis: unrepresentative sample size, loss ofprovenience information, and over-exploitation of local patterns(that is, taking pottery sequences and associations from one siteand unquestioningly applying them in areas hundreds of kilometresaway). It should be noted that then, as well as now, these potterychronologies suffer a chronic lack of radiocarbon or epigraphicdates and are subject to debate.

The Roots of Sotuta 115

The Overlap Hypotheses do not explain the local appearance ofimported pottery and should not be applied equally at every site. Theintroduction of imported pottery at any particular site, especiallytypes with restricted, elite distribution, may be best explainedwith the No Overlap Hypothesis, as the trade of these types is typ-ically seen as connected with elite political relationships, which canchange rapidly (see also Ball 1972; Blanton and Feinman 1984;Feinman and Nicholas 1991; Flannery 1968; Helms 1993;Schneider 1977; Stanton and Gallareta Negrón 2001). Partiallyoverlapping complexes have been noted at sites such as IslaCerritos, Coba, Dzibilchaltun, Popola, and Ichmul de Morley(Andrews et al. 1988; Andrews and Andrews 1980; Johnson2012; Ringle et al. 2004:495; Robles Castellanos 1990:212–213[calls it “intrusive,” not mixed]; Smith 2001:33). Fewer sites dem-onstrate a total overlap of Cehpech and Sotuta types. The most com-plete overlap may be at Yula, just 5 km south of Chichen Itza(Anderson 1998a, 1998b). Chichen Itza is the largest site to argu-ably demonstrate the No Overlap Hypothesis (Pérez de HerediaPuente 2010; Smith 1971). Ball (1979:19) points out that thepottery chronology at one site does not dictate the sequence atanother, and it is possible (although improbable) that scholarshave correctly characterized the pottery sequence at their sitesthrough these contrasting hypotheses.

Recently, Pérez de Heredia Puente (2010) completed his disser-tation examining the pottery from Schmidt’s recent excavations atChichen Itza. He dated Muna Slate’s production (Cehpech) froma.d. 830/850 to 930/950 and Dzitas Slate’s production (Sotuta)from a.d. 920/950 to 1100/1150 (Pérez de Heredia Puente 2010:178, 269). In each pair of dates, Pérez de Heredia Puente refers tothe dates of production and deposit respectively. For example, heargues that Muna Slate was produced from a.d. 830 to 930 andwas deposited in the archaeological record from a.d. 850 to 950. Ithink the distinction is worth considering, but would argue thatpottery types will be deposited as soon as they are produced sincea percentage of vessels always break in the firing process andwould be discarded. Furthermore, his date for the transition fromMuna to Dzitas is based on the stratigraphy of the Osario’s stairway,which he dates to a.d. 950 because “it must be earlier than the con-struction of the pyramid, which has a hieroglyphic inscription dateda.d. 998” (Pérez de Heredia Puente 2010:189). The date on this in-scription does not necessarily date the building, as it may refer to apast event or have been installed at a later time. The lack of carbondates continues to plague the pottery chronologies of the northernlowlands.

This reconstruction allowed no local overlap in productionbetween the Cehpech and Sotuta slate wares (he argues that com-plexes are finite and mutually exclusive). He (Pérez de HerediaPuente 2010:399) concluded that “the evidence for a sequential ar-rangement of the historical periods that span from the Classic to thePostclassic at Chichen Itza is overwhelming.” (Pérez de HerediaPuente 2010:399). Rejecting the Total and Partial OverlapHypotheses and their explanatory power at Chichen Itza, heinstead argued that his data support the No Overlap Hypothesis(Pérez de Heredia Puente 2010:394, 399). Many of his contextsdid show evidence of mixing between the complexes, however, afact he attributed to the continued use of Cehpech pottery evenafter its production was discontinued (use overlap, not productionoverlap or later mixing) (Pérez de Heredia Puente 2010:408).Pérez de Heredia Puente (2010:399) did concede that “on a regionallevel, there are indications that point to a partial overlap betweenCehpech and Sotuta complexes.” Robles Castellanos worked

with the pottery of Coba, Isla Cerritos, and many other sitesacross the peninsula. He has argued for regional variation and thepartial overlap of Cehpech and Sotuta types (Andrews et al. 1986,1988; Robles Castellanos 1980, 1990, 2000; Robles Castellanosand Andrews 2001, 2002). By the Late Classic period, RoblesCastellanos (2000) suggests that Cehpech slate wares, primarilyMuna Slate, had divided into two regional groups with three sub-groups each. As early as a.d. 750 these two regional groups weredivided by the advent of the Sotuta complex and its primary slateware, Dzitas (Robles Castellanos 2000:328). Muna Slate persistedthrough a.d. 900, while Dzitas lasted until a.d. 1100 (RoblesCastellanos 2000:333, 335). Between a.d. 750 and 900, then,Cehpech and Sotuta slate wares existed simultaneously, supportingthe partial overlap model on a regional scale. It is irrefutable thatCehpech and Sotuta overlapped on the peninsular scale, as, evenwith conservative dates, the Muna Slate (Cehpech) was producedas late as a.d. 1100 in Quintana Roo, and Dzitas Slate (Sotuta) iscertainly present by a.d. 900 in central Yucatan (RoblesCastellanos 2000; Robles Castellanos and Andrews 1986:67), butscholars have debated the amount of overlap at individual sites.

Anderson (1998a, 1998b) identified contexts representingthe total overlap of Cehpech and Sotuta types at the site of Yula,located 5 km south of Chichen Itza. In sealed and unsealed strati-graphic sequences at the site, she demonstrated a statistical corre-lation of Cehpech and Sotuta types, and in one fully and onepartially sealed unit, Sotuta and Cehpech pottery were depositedtogether in all layers except the bottom two, which containedSotuta pottery (Anderson 1998a:158–159, Table 2, 1998b:121).Anderson argued that Sotuta completely overlaps Cehpech andthat “[t]he results … clearly do not support Smith’s model oflinear succession, in which Cehpech ceramics are replaced bySotuta ceramics” and that at Yula “Cehpech and Sotuta were essen-tially contemporaneous” (Anderson 1998a:162). Anderson did notdivide the Halach Winik pottery phase at Yula, which containedboth Cehpech and Sotuta complexes and dates from a.d. 600/700–1000 (Anderson 1998a:Table 1).

THE INDEPENDENT EVOLUTION OF DZITAS SLATE

The Division of Utilitarian and Imported Pottery

The Cehpech and Sotuta complexes consisted of various potterytypes, some of which were produced regionally, while otherswere imported from the Gulf Coast or southern lowlands.Together these types created the complexes from which sociopolit-ical history has been extrapolated. Unfortunately, the complexesdefined by Smith encompassed types of pottery that had vastly dif-ferent social implications. For example, the presence of Sotutapottery has been used as evidence of Itza domination at sites inYucatan (Amador Berdugo 2005:306; Anderson 1998b:262[citing Andrews and Robles Castellanos 1985:68–69]; Andrewsand Robles Castellanos 1985:68; Chase and Chase 1982:609;Cobos Palma 2004:540; Kepecs et al. 1994:146; Smith 2000:51–52; Suhler et al. 2004:456–457, 477; Suhler et al. 1998:178;Toscano Hernández and Ortegon Zapata 2003:441–442). Sotutapottery, however, includes both utilitarian and imported types.Utilitarian types, such as Dzitas Slate, Piste Striated, and DzibiacRed, were produced and traded locally by commoners independentof elite influence (Ball 1993; Fry 1989:10; Hassig 1985:120–121;Rands 1967:141; Ringle et al. 2004:491; Roys 1947:69; Stantonand Gallareta Negrón 2001:232). The presence of these types

Johnson116

should not be used to infer elite-level social interaction. OtherSotuta types, such as Tohil Plumbate and Silho Fine Orange,were distributed through elite-controlled trade networks and thepresence of these types is an appropriate marker of interaction (al-though tertiary gifting, market acquisition, or smuggling may alsoaccount for the presence of this material) (Stanton and GallaretaNegrón 2001:232). Because of this heterogeneity within complex-es, the Cehpech and Sotuta labels obscure the material and culturalhistory, and the utilitarian and imported types must be examinedindependently.

The fundamental problem is that scholars are looking for a singledate for this transition, but the variability of the types (and theirproduction, importation, exchange, etc.) precludes this. Viewingutilitarian and imported wares independently clarifies the otherwisecontradictory and confusing sequence of pottery complexes tied tothe regional political history. First, the differences in regional utili-tarian pottery are actually the gradual change over time of slate,unslipped, and slipped pottery types. Second, imported pottery,when combined with architectural, iconographic, and epigraphicinformation, is a better indicator of elite regional history. The re-mainder of this paper focuses on the development of slate wares,which include the dominant types of the Cehpech and Sotutacomplexes.

Dzitas and Muna Slate Compared

Slate wares are common and distinctive technology within theSotuta and Cehpech complexes. Muna Slate is the predominanttype of Puuc Slate Ware and the Cehpech complex. Dzitas Slateis the most common type of Chichen Slate Ware in the Sotutacomplex. Muna Slate is found across the entire peninsula duringthe Late Classic period (and primarily the eastern and westernparts during the Terminal Classic period), while Dzitas Slatemarks the Terminal Classic and, often, Itza domination. Instead ofviewing Muna and Dzitas Slates as independent entities with socio-political connotations, they should be understood as regional andtemporal variations within a single utilitarian technology (Stantonand Bey 2006).

Brainerd (1958:52–53, 55) and Smith (1971:16, 28) describedthe attributes of Muna and Dzitas Slate. Both types share a polished,waxy, and hard slip, but Muna Slate’s slip is usually opaque and“soapy,” while that of Dzitas Slate is translucent and often lesssoapy (Brainerd 1958:52; Smith 1971:28). Both types have amedium to fine, hard paste, but Muna Slate’s paste color matchesthe slip, while Dzitas Slate’s paste color does not (Brainerd 1958:53; Smith 1971:16, 28). Smith (1971:28, 95–96, 97, 191–192) de-scribes the differences between Muna and Dzitas Slate as: (1) 98.6%of Dzitas Slate vessels contain volcanic ash temper, whereas half ofMuna Slate vessels are tempered with ash and the other half withcalcite, (2) Dzitas Slate has red paste “almost exclusively,” whileMuna Slate’s paste is usually “gray, brown, beige, and less frequent-ly red,” (3) Dzitas Slate slip has a pinkish hue because the red pastecan be seen through the thin, grayish-white to gray slip, which is “arare phenomenon” with Muna Slate’s usually opaque gray, brown,buff, or cream slip, (4) Muna Slate typically has rounded bolsteredrims while Dzitas Slate has ovoid bolstered rims that are ofteneverted, and (5) Dzitas has novel forms adopted from importedstyles in addition to the common Muna Slate forms.

When presented in the most typical terms, these types appear dif-ferent and easily distinguishable, but both Brainerd (1958:94) andSmith (1971:191–192) note a smooth, gradual transition from

Muna to Dzitas Slate (see also Ringle et al. 2004:492; RoblesCastellanos and Andrews 1986:87; Suhler et al. 2004:454).Brainerd (1958:94) noted a gradual transition in slips:

“…there is a technical change in the slateware [sic] pottery fromthe waxy, translucent slip of Florescent times to an opaque whiteslip. This change probably took place gradually during the sub-stage rather than at its beginning, and it is quite possible thatvarious of the other innovations described above did not arrivesimultaneously since no certain chronological sequencing hasbeen determined within the substage.”

Smith (1971:191–192) also noted the gradual transition from Munato Dzitas Slate and their overall similarity:

“Chichen Slate Ware [Dzitas] is much like Puuc Slate Ware[Muna] save in form, decorative techniques and style of design.In other words, the paste composition in some instances ismuch the same, the surface finish in both cases is smoothed, pol-ished and has a waxy feel…. Here we have a type that seems tohave evolved out of an earlier type with the natural changes ex-pected for a new era.”

This paper argues that it is only when Dzitas Slate is compared tomuch earlier Muna Slate from the same region, or contemporaryMuna Slate from other regions, does there appear to be a stark con-trast. If this hypothesis is correct, then there should be a discern-able period of transition from “typical” Muna to Dzitasattributes in the central region. Recent work at the site ofPopola, Yucatan, and other sites in central Yucatan have identifiedthis transition. Four of the five differences from Smith (1971;listed above) between Muna and Dzitas Slates can be shown tochange gradually over time (the fifth point, temper material, wasnot tested). Scholars have attributed deep sociopolitical ramifica-tions to the change from Cehpech to Sotuta at many sites. If,however, it can be demonstrated that the “typical” Muna Slate de-veloped gradually into the “typical” Dzitas Slate, then these typesshould not be used to mark a hard-and-fast transition point for elitepolitical history.

The paste and slip combinations of Muna and Dzitas Slatesshould differentiate them if Smith’s characterizations are accurate.As described above, Muna Slate typically has gray, brown, orbeige paste covered by an opaque slip of roughly the same colorand Dzitas Slate is readily identifiable by its strong red or orangepaste under a semi-translucent grayish-white slip. Examples ofboth of these types can be seen in Figure 2. The paste and slipcolors and slip transparency are mutually exclusive. Therefore,pottery that mixes attributes with both types should not exist ifthese types are separate. The most common pottery at Popola,however, was a slate ware with a strong red-to-orange pastecovered by an opaque gray slip, also shown in Figure 2. While itis not new to suggest that Dzitas Slate derived out of the earlierMuna Slate tradition, this is, to my knowledge, the first substantialreport of an intermediate variety. I have argued for this to be con-sidered a new variety of the Muna Slate type, called “Popola”(Johnson 2012:285). The slip was indistinguishable from MunaSlate and the paste was identical to typical Dzitas Slate.Furthermore, the appearance of the slip varied continuously fromopaque to translucent. Muna Slate samples at the InstitutoNacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) Ceramoteca inMérida, Yucatan, from the sites of Yaxuna and Chichen Itzaalso exhibited this paste-slip combination, which was also noted

The Roots of Sotuta 117

by Pérez de Heredia Puente at Chichen Itza (2010:134–135, 178)and Patricia Anderson (personal communication 2011) at Yula.Muna Slate samples from Ek Balam and Coba had almost nored paste.

The deep red paste may be an artifact of chronology, accident,technology, and/or chemical composition. Red paste is producedwhen ferrous-rich clay is fired in an oxidizing environment. Claymust have at least 3% fully oxidized iron in order to produce ared paste color (Rice 1987:335). The greater the oxidation duringfiring, the greater the value and chroma on the Munsell scale,which translates to brighter colors (having less organic matterwithin the clay will further increase this) (Rice 1987:343). Thebright red paste of Dzitas Slate is due to the compounds in theclay and firing technique. Although Maya pottery with red pastehad been well known for over a millennium, slate wares appear tohave begun with non-red paste and changed over time. In paststudies, the red paste-opaque gray slip combination has beencounted as Muna Slate at Yaxuna and Chichen Itza, causing diffi-culty in making intersite comparisons. Almost no red paste was ob-served in the samples from Ek Balam and Coba, which wereproducing Muna Slate into the a.d. 1000s, and this suggests thatthe change in paste color was not a purely chronological distinction.The red paste may have been accidental at first; the unintentionalside effect of an oxidizing firing technique in an area that had theright chemical composition in its clay sources. The red paste maynot have been purposefully produced by Late and TerminalClassic Yucatecan potters, but it may have been a side effect of

traditional firing techniques. The paste, of course, was not meantto be seen by consumers as it was covered by an opaque slip thatbecame thinner and more transparent with time.

My hypothesis is that this red paste was an inadvertentby-product of local clay sources and firing techniques to beginwith, and a controlled variable later on. The opaque slip typical ofMuna Slate would have made tight control of the paste color unnec-essary. The bright red color may have become common (if unintend-ed) in central Yucatan through the use of iron-rich clays and anoxidizing firing technique. Over time, potters near Chichen Itzamay have begun to use a thinner and more translucent slip,causing the underlying paste to become increasingly visible. Theprocesses that produced the red paste must have then been purpose-fully employed to create the pinkish appearance typical of DzitasSlate. It is difficult to demonstrate intentionality in the archaeolog-ical record, and this scenario is one way in which this phenomenoncould be explained, but not the only one.

Evidence also demonstrates a clear transition from Muna toDzitas Slate forms. Although typically differentiated by rim shapeand novel forms, Muna and Dzitas Slates from Popola and Ichmulde Morley, Yucatan, demonstrate local overlap and gradual transi-tion. The typical Muna Slate bolstered rim should be found onlywith sherds of Muna Slate paste and slip combinations, and theovoid, often everted rims of Dzitas Slate should be found onlywith typical Dzitas Slate paste and slip combinations. At Popola,Muna Slate forms were found with Dzitas Slate paste and slip com-binations and vice versa. Figure 3 illustrates this phenomenon: thetop row represents the typical Dzitas Slate paste (deep red) andslip (translucent grayish white) combination, the bottom row con-tains the typical Muna Slate paste (brown, gray, beige) and slip(opaque slip, matching the paste colour) sherds with their associatedforms, which have been separated as typical Muna or Dzitas forms.The middle row represents those sherds with transitional paste (deepred) and slip (opaque gray) combination. Note that the transitionalpaste-slip combination is equally split between Dzitas and Munaforms, exactly what would be expected of a transitional variety.Furthermore, novel forms, such as the molcajete (grater bowl),thought to be diagnostic of Dzitas Slate, were found on sherdswith both Muna and transitional paste-slip combinations. This ap-parent anomaly was also noted at the site of Ichmul de Morley,half way between Chichen Itza and Ek Balam: “Several examplesof Cehpech type with Sotuta forms and modes were noted, includinga number of molcajete fragments made with Muna Slate ware pasteand slip” (Bey 2003:28–29; Ringle et al. 2004:495). I would notethat the pottery data from Popola is drawn from heavily mixed strati-graphic contexts. The gradual transition discussed here is in terms ofmorphology and appearance. The chronological reconstruction out-lined below is a hypothetical scenario grounded in data drawn fromacross the region.

The Gradual and Continuous Transition from Muna toDzitas Slate in Central Yucatan

The transition from Muna to Dzitas Slate does not require any ofthe above-described hypotheses. Muna Slate changed graduallyover time in seven regions of Yucatan from a.d. 700 to 900, in-cluding the central region, where it developed into what hasbeen labeled Dzitas Slate. Dzitas Slate is a chronological typeonly in that it succeeds traditional Muna Slate in the centralregion, but when compared to other slate wares of the TerminalClassic period, Dzitas Slate existed as a coeval regional type

Figure 2. Examples of the paste and slip of Muna Slate and Dzitas Slate, aswell as the intermediate type identified at the site of Popola, Yucatan.Photos by the author.

Johnson118

Figure 3. Muna Slate and Dzitas Slate forms sorted by paste and slip combinations from the site of Popola, Yucatan. Gray sectorsindicate forms that do not match paste and slip combinations.

The Roots of Sotuta 119

with other Muna Slate derivatives. Robles Castellanos (2000) de-scribed six regional subgroups of Muna Slate, divided by a centralzone of nascent Dzitas Slate. If the slate wares are studied indepen-dently of the Cehpech and Sotuta labels, however, Dzitas Slateshould instead be considered a seventh regional subgroup ofMuna Slate (or, as argued by Stanton and Bey [2006], a regionalcomplex), which may be called Cupul, stretching from Yaxuna toIsla Cerritos. The seven regional subgroups of Muna Slate in theLate and Terminal Classic periods, from east to west, wouldthen become Lakin, Coba, Talol, Cupul, Izamal, Chiychantiho,and Puuc (see bottom of Figure 4). Robles Castellanos (2000)fully describes each of these subgroups, and therefore only abrief summary of the original six is offered here. The EasternGroup includes the Lakin (northern Quintana Roo), Coba(Coba-Yaxuna corridor), and Talol (Ek Balam area) subgroups;the first two share a light to dark brown slip color, while the lasthas a lighter gray slip (Robles Castellanos 2000:299–313). TheWestern Group has the Izamal, Chiychantiho (Mérida-Dzibilchaltun area), and Puuc regional subgroups; the first twoare characterized by their brownish-yellow slips, and the last hasa distinct gray slip (Robles Castellanos 2000:313–327). TheCupul regional subgroup, proposed here, covers the area fromYaxuna through Chichen Itza and extends north to Isla Cerritos.The slate ware of this area is distinctive with a light gray orcream slip, whose translucence increases over time to the pointwhere the red paste can be seen through it.

The following tentative chronology is based on dates reportedby scholars across Yucatan, which are derived from architectureand stratigraphy, not radiocarbon dates, a continuing problem inthis area. The seven Muna Slate subgroups may have been devel-oped out of an early slate that originated in the Puuc and spreadacross the peninsula in the beginning of the Late Classic period(see top of Figure 4). Early slate pottery, called “Early Slate,”“Chemax,” or “Say” (Brainerd 1958; Boucher 1990; Johnstone2001; Robles Castellanos 1990; Pérez de Heredia Puente 2010,2012), was characterized by a gritty, medium paste with smoothedgray, yellowish-brown, or dull orange slip (Johnstone 2001:67;Pérez de Heredia Puente 2010:91–93, 2012:383). It beganshowing up in the Cupul area around a.d. 600 and lasted untila.d. 750/830 (Johnstone 2001:63, 73–74; Pérez de HerediaPuente 2010:124, 2012:Figure 27). By the end of the LateClassic period, Early Slate in each of the seven regions had devel-oped into the distinctive subgroup for that area (Figure 5). In allcases the paste had become harder and the slips more even.In the Cupul region, from a.d. 750/800–900/950, a distinctorangish-red paste emerged, covered by a slip that ranged fromyellow-brown to light gray in color and became increasingly trans-lucent over time (Anderson 1998b:88; Johnstone 2001:79; Pérez deHeredia Puente 2010:134–135, 178; Patricia Anderson, personalcommunication 2011). By the beginning of the Terminal Classicperiod (a.d. 900/950–1100/1150), slate ware in the Cupulregion had developed a strong red paste and a translucent lightgray slip (Anderson 1998b:100–101; Johnstone 2001:90; Pérezde Heredia Puente 2010:184–186, 269). Although local formsthat had been used throughout the Late Classic period continuedto dominate the slate ware assemblage, novel forms, mainlyderived from imported vessels, were also introduced. This final it-eration of local slate ware is labeled Dzitas Slate. The emergence ofDzitas Slate is not the result of the rise of Chichen Itza, but ratherthe gradual evolution of the slate ware in this central region inde-pendent of elite political events.

RAMIFICATIONS OF THESE FINDINGS

Previously Proposed Hypotheses of Overlap areUnnecessary to Explain Local Transitions of Slate Wares

None of the overlap hypotheses are needed to explain the local de-velopment of Dzitas out of Muna Slate (they are necessary,however, to characterize the intrusive appearance of fully developedDzitas Slate in regional contexts). The idea that artifact types changegradually over time is found in every introductory textbook. Thisfundamental proposition explains the transition from Muna Slateto Dzitas Slate if the political ramifications are ignored (for themoment). Gradual stylistic change can explain the data presentedby Pérez de Heredia Puente (2010), Anderson (1998a, 1998b),and Robles Castellanos (2000) as the progression of regional slateware variation. In the Cupul region, Muna and Dzitas Slate arestrongly related. Recall that fully developed Dzitas Slate is charac-terized by a white, semi-translucent slip over a deep red or orangepaste. At Popola, Chichen Itza, and Yula, most Muna Slate typepottery has a red or orange paste with light gray or white slip(Patricia Anderson, personal communication 2011; Pérez deHeredia Puente 2010:134–135).

If judging from paste and slip alone, it may be difficult to pin-point the division between Muna and Dzitas Slates in this area.Because these closely related types were placed in the Cehpechand Sotuta complexes, a hard-and-fast division between them hasnonetheless been sought. Furthermore, the political implications as-sociated with the Cehpech and Sotuta complexes has inflated theimportance of this division. Here I suggest that Muna and DzitasSlate should not be used to mark the division between Cehpechand Sotuta complexes in this area. Types that have a more restrictedtemporal distribution and that are more easily distinguished fromother types are more appropriate to identify contexts associatedwith each complex. The smooth transition from Muna Slate toDzitas Slate precludes a clear temporal division in the Cupul slatesubgroup. When the late slate ware from the Chichen Itza regionis compared to slate wares in nearby areas, the difference is apparentand may be explained by overlap models on a regional scale. Insteadof recognizing Dzitas Slate as a contemporaneous regional variationof the Cupul slate subgroup, it is still seen by some as a chronolog-ical difference because of the later association of Dzitas Slate withChichen Itza (while others [for example, Andrews and Sabloff1986; Lincoln 1986] have noted the error in this for some time).Scholars recognize the regional variation of eastern and westernCehpech because contemporaneity is not in question. Dzitas Slateis the most distinctive and recognizable variety of slate ware inthe Cupul subgroup, but its characteristic paste, slip, and non-foreign forms were present in the local Muna Slate pottery beforethe rise of Chichen Itza. Identifications of temporal overlap in theliterature may in fact be showing the co-occurrence of contempora-neous regional slate subgroups (Robles Castellanos 2000:328).

Three overlap hypotheses, presented above, have been used toexplain the transition from Cehpech to Sotuta complexes, but Ihave argued here that the pottery within these complexes cannotbe treated as internally homogeneous units because the types areproduced and controlled by different social groups. One mustinstead discuss the slow and gradual transition from Muna toDzitas Slate (and by extension other local types) as separate fromthe immediate appearance of imported Silho Orange and TohilPlumbate. The imported types can be used to mark the Sotutacomplex because they indicate what Sotuta is supposed to: associa-tion with Chichen Itza and the Terminal Classic period. The

Johnson120

appearance of Silho and Tohil pottery may mark the entrance of Itzainfluence at a site (although other mechanisms, such as tertiarygifting, market acquisition, or smuggling cannot be excluded as pos-sible sources). The distribution of these types was restricted. Once

the foreign forms were incorporated into the utilitarian slatewares, however, these forms are no longer restricted and cannotbe used to argue for the dominance of Chichen Itza because com-moners produced these types without elite control (although the

Figure 4. Upper map shows the spread of slate pottery in the Late Classic period, and the lower map identifies the seven regional slatevariations in the Late and Terminal Classic periods (adapted from Robles Castellanos 2000:Figure 17).

The Roots of Sotuta 121

imported types demonstrably controlled by the Itza continue tosuggest this relationship).

The No Overlap Hypothesis only explains the immediate appear-ance of Silho Orange and Tohil Plumbate, which are found betweena.d. 900/950 and 1150/1200 (Andrews et al. 1988; Pérez deHeredia Puente 2010:395) in places where they had not occurredbefore. This elite-level change may have been rapid when it oc-curred, and therefore little overlap would have been required. TheNo Overlap Hypothesis does not hold regionally, however,because the elites at each site appear to have adopted these typesat slightly different times, creating a regional overlap. It maywork on a site-by-site basis with restricted imports, but not forany region as a whole.

The Total Overlap Hypothesis describes the co-occurrence ofcontemporaneous regional slate wares, not two separate socialgroups. The Partial Overlap Hypothesis does not describe thelocal transition from Muna Slate to Dzitas Slate because the transi-tion is gradual. All of these hypotheses are based upon the supposi-tion that Cehpech and Sotuta come as discrete assemblages. It isclear that some types (Silho Orange and Plumbate) may be some-times described this way, but the majority of types, which areproduced locally by commoners without elite oversight, vary organ-ically and change gradually over time. We cannot place an artificialdivision between Muna and Dzitas Slate in the Cupul regionbecause it is a gradual transition. When comparing early MunaSlate and late Dzitas Slate one can see a definitive difference, butwe cannot continue to view these types in isolation.

Evidence for Itza Elite Interaction Does Not Include DzitasSlate

The presence or absence of particular types of imported pottery canbe used to mark a new pottery complex and associated politicalchanges. It is a sound practice to build pottery chronologies basedon the occurrence of types with restricted temporal distribution. Itdoes not seem prudent to rely on gradually transitioning slatewares for chronology at this level of precision, let alone to trace soci-opolitical changes on a regional level, and particularly withoutstrong stratigraphy, radiocarbon dates, and a clear description of

specific attribute or modal changes over time. If Dzitas Slate is dif-ferentiated fromMuna Slate by the addition of a few imported formsto a local repertoire, the presence of the imported pottery should beused to mark the period instead of locally produced utilitarian ver-sions (even this is problematic, as imported pottery often had re-stricted distribution and many contexts may not contain thesemarkers even if they were present at the site). The adoption of im-ported forms into the local slate tradition may have lagged afterthe introduction of the imported pottery, further obscuring the anal-ysis. Utilitarian pottery that changes gradually over time is not anappropriate marker of elite sociopolitical changes, as the productionand distribution of utilitarian pottery is not controlled byMaya elitesin most cases.

The presence of Sotuta-sphere pottery has been seen as acommon marker for Chichen Itza dominion (Amador Berdugo2005:306; Anderson 1998b:262 [citing Andrews and RoblesCastellanos 1985:68–69]; Andrews and Robles Castellanos 1985:68; Chase and Chase 1982:609; Cobos Palma 2004:540; Kepecset al. 1994:146; Smith 2000:51–52; Suhler et al. 2004:456–457,477; Suhler et al. 1998:178; Toscano Hernandez and OrtegonZapata 2003:441–442), but the presence of Dzitas Slate is not thesame as the presence of Silho Fine Orange and Tohil Plumbate,even though they are all Sotuta-sphere pottery. Ball (1993:257, em-phasis added), among others, specifically warned against equatingceramic spheres with polities by stating that “[c]eramic spheres donot correspond to single social communities, economic networks,or polities, although their limits may sometimes be coincidentwith these…. Thus, ceramic spheres should not be used casuallyto map the political geography of the Late Classic Maya lowlands.”

The difficulty is that elite trade centers are often associated withpopulation centers and elite and utilitarian goods from the samelocation occur so often together that they are frequently giventhe same meaning in interpretation. In cases where Chichen Itzacontrol is argued, Dzitas Slate (as well as Silho Fine Orangeand Tohil Plumbate) is present (for example, at Isla Cerritos,Cozumel, and Chichen Itza), and this makes logical sense.Although Dzitas Slate is found in some areas that were probablycontrolled by Chichen Itza, not all areas with Dzitas Slate were con-trolled by Chichen Itza. Other, more direct lines of evidence can and

Figure 5. The parallel evolution of seven regional slate subgroups (after Robles Castellanos 2000; Suhler et al. 1998:Figure 4). The lightgray represents early slate and its spread across the peninsula. The darker gray areas represent the regional pottery types, which weregradually developed in seven regions of Yucatan.

Johnson122

should be used to argue for control of an area by Chichen Itza.Stanton and Gallareta Negrón (2001:211) point out that Mamomand Chicanel pottery predominate the Preclassic assemblage, butthis does not suggest expansive Mamom or Chicanel polities.They argue that the lack of knowledge about the production anddistribution mechanisms of Sotuta types is part of this misunder-standing. Indeed, Ball (1993:256) posits that “…major centersappear not to have exercised any real control in the moremundane day-to-day economic affairs of their political territories,”such as the production and trade of domestic pottery. Stanton andGallareta Negrón (2001:230; see also Bey 2003; Stanton and Bey2006) make a similar argument, suggesting that the assumptionequating Itza control to the presence of Sotuta pottery is faulty,because “[c]onquest, control, and the imposition of ceramic stylesare not the only possibilities to explain the distribution of Sotutavessels” and that “these ‘ceramic style equals political influence’models of sociopolitical interaction make assumptions concerninghow ceramic production and distribution systems articulate withpolitical influence.” The presence of Dzitas Slate is not enoughevidence to attribute hegemonic control and each site should betaken on a case-by-case basis.

Late Classic and Early Terminal Classic Political Landscape inYucatan, A.D. 600–900

Elite interaction of this period has been discussed extensively, al-though the interactions of elites are often described as if characteriz-ing the entire population. While the elites of the Puuc, Coba, EkBalam, and other centers imported and traded goods and ideasfrom the southern lowlands, and possibly central Mexico, duringthis period, the nonelite populations trended toward pan-Yucatecangoods and ideas.

In the Late Classic period, Puuc-style architecture was seenacross the peninsula except at Coba (Andrews 1942, 1965;Andrews and Andrews 1980; Andrews 1979; Andrews 1995:225;Bey et al. 1998; Brainerd 1958; Thompson 1945:6–8; Thompsonet al. 1932:20). This set of elite ideas, translated into monumentalarchitecture at many sites, including Yaxuna, Dzibilchaltun,Chichen Itza, Ek Balam, and Culuba, suggests a close relationshipbetween their rulers. By this time, Muna Slate had divided intoseven regional variants and was completely dominant among thenonelite. Muna Slate was also used by the elite, but they hadaccess to trade wares and local high-quality wares, as well.

Chichen Itza was a medium-sized Late Classic site, withPuuc-style architecture, again attesting to elite relationships acrossthe central and western Peninsula. In the Cupul area, Muna Slatewas slowly evolving into a local variant with deep red paste and alight gray slip. Sometime in the a.d. 800s architectural motifs andforms, trade goods, and iconography in the elite contexts atChichen Itza changed rapidly (although others [for example,Braswell 2012; Ringle and Bey 2009; and Ringle 2004, 2009]suggest that the change may have been more gradual than common-ly thought). It has been argued that this was caused by the arrival offoreign elite ideas and people at Chichen Itza (Andrews 1990;Andrews and Robles Castellanos 1985; Robles Castellanos andAndrews 1986). While utilitarian pottery and architecture didchange, it developed out of local slate and household constructiontechnology.

It appears that the Itza elite were violently and/or coercively sub-jugating much of the peninsula in the early Terminal Classic period,and elite trade goods associated with the Itza, including Silho FineOrange, Tohil Plumbate, and Pachuca Obsidian, can be found inelite contexts across the peninsula at this time (Andrews andRobles Castellanos 1985; Robles Castellanos and Andrews 1986;Stanton and Gallareta Negrón 2001:238–239). The Itza alsospread architectural and iconographic motifs at new subsidiarycenters. Nonelite goods and technology, however, were clear contin-uations of native Yucatecan practices. Dzitas Slate was technologi-cally related to other peninsular slate wares, for example, althoughnovel pottery forms possibly signalled the addition of new foodpreparations (molcajetes, for example). Many forms, however,were local. For the elites, architecture, iconography, elite pottery,and religious and ritual practices all change more precipitouslythan for the nonelites. Ball (1977:173–174) noted a similar drasticchange in the elite assemblage at Becan, while commonerslargely carried on with their own pottery traditions.

CONCLUSION

This paper has two primary conclusions. First, the appearance ofDzitas Slate is less complicated than it has previously been present-ed. The culprit behind this difficulty is Dzitas Slate’s unfortunateassociation with the Itza and one of the most contentious sociopo-litical events of pre-Columbian Yucatan. Scholars have rightlystriven to understand the mechanism and effects of the Itza’s en-trance onto the Yucatecan political stage in the a.d. 800s. Theelite political landscape was greatly altered by their appearance.The production of utilitarian pottery types was not revolutionizedby the coming of the Itza, however. It is true that novel formsbased on new imported types appear in the local slate ware reper-toire, but we should instead emphasize the overall similarity oflocal Muna and Dzitas types: surface treatment, slip texture andcolor, paste texture and color, forms, and overall technology.These utilitarian types are perfectly capable of evolving and chang-ing over time on their own without any major input from local orforeign elites. Broadly speaking, Dzitas Slate is the TerminalClassic slate type from the Cupul (central Yucatan) region. It grad-ually developed out of the local Muna Slate variety. In the Cupulregion, it may be considered to be a chronological marker of theTerminal Classic period. Across the peninsula during theTerminal Classic, it may be viewed as a regional type, and not nec-essarily an intrusive tradition imposed by the Itza elite.

Second, the Yucatecan elite experienced great upheaval with thearrival and rise of the Itza, and this history should be traced with themost appropriate correlates. Imported pottery, elite architecture, andprestige goods are all excellent markers of elite activity and politicalalignment, but utilitarian pottery is not. Dzitas Slate does occur atChichen Itza during its apogee and has therefore been correlatedwith that polity. Correlation does not equal causation, however,and not all locations with Dzitas Slate demonstrate other markersof Itza domination. The casual use of any Sotuta or Cehpechwares to mark the presence or absence of Itza domination is too sim-plistic, and the types and their historical implications must be exam-ined on a case-by-case basis.

The Roots of Sotuta 123

RESUMEN

El complejo cerámico Sotuta ha sido utilizado en la arqueología maya de lastierras bajas del norte para identificar el periodo clásico terminal y suasociación cultural con Chichen Itza. La definición original del complejoha creado una división artificial entre la cerámica Sotuta y tipos del complejoCehpech, llegados antes. Sin embargo, nuevos datos del centro de Yucatansugieren que algunos tipos de cerámica Cehpech evolucionaron gradual-mente en los tipos del complejo Sotuta y por lo tanto la división entreambos complejos es en gran medida una construcción artificial.

Los investigadores dependen de la presencia de la cerámica del complejoSotuta para identificar el alcance del poder político de Chichen Itza. El com-plejo Sotuta, sin embargo, está formado por muchos tipos de cerámica, y lamayoría son marcadores inadecuados de historia sociopolítica de élite. Aquí

se argumenta que en el complejo Sotuta las cerámicas pizarra evolucionarona partir de las cerámicas pizarra locales, independientemente de los cambiossociopolíticos de la élite que ocurrieron con la llegada de los Itzaes. Lasmercancías producidas y distribuidas por los comuneros eran independientesal de las élites y han sido artificialmente encadenados a preguntas de laexpansión política de la élite de los que son correlatos inapropiados. Sepresenta una nueva interpretación de la secuencia cerámica pizarraregional, mostrando el desarrollo local del tipo primario Sotuta fuera delcomplejo Cehpech. Algunos tipos del complejo Sotuta son marcadores apro-piados de la expansión élite Itza, pero los investigadores deben considerarcuidadosamente qué tipos están presentes antes de crear su relato históricocultural.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thank you to the individuals and institutions that supported the fieldworkand analysis of the data collected at Popola. The state and federal officesof the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia provided permits andaccess to the Centro de INAH Yucatán ceramoteca in Mérida. Thank you es-pecially to the Consejo de Arqueología in Mexico City and to SylvianeBoucher in Mérida. I am grateful to the various funding agencies who fi-nanced the work at Popola, including the National Science Foundation(Archaeology, Dissertation Improvement Grant No. 1103533, 2011),American Philosophical Society’s Lewis and Clark Fund (2010), Tulane

University’s Dean of the School of Liberal Arts (2009, 2010) and StoneCenter for Latin American Studies (2008, 2009), the Fundación Pedro yElena Hernández, and the Selz Foundation (2008–2011). Many individualshave helped in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of these data but, ofcourse, any mistakes are my own. Thanks especially to Will Andrews, AlineMagnoni, Travis Stanton, William Ringle, Sara Dzul, and Eduardo Peréz deHeredia Puente, as well as my good friends in the village of Popola and thegraduate students who helped me gather field data (especially CristinaVázquez Piña, who also assisted with the Spanish summary).

REFERENCES

Amador Berdugo, Fabio E.2005 Ancient Pottery in the Yalahau Region: A Study of Ceramics and

Chronology in Northern Quintana Roo, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, State University of New York atBuffalo. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.

Ambrosino, James N.2006 Warfare and Destruction in the Maya Lowlands: Pattern and

Process in the Archaeological Record of Yaxuna, Yucatan, Mexico.Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Southern MethodistUniversity, Dallas. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor,MI.

Anderson, Patricia K.1998a Yula, Yucatan, Mexico: Terminal Classic Maya Ceramic

Chronology for the Chichen Itza Area. Ancient Mesoamerica 9:151–165.

1998b Yula, Yucatan, Mexico: Terminal Classic Maya Settlement andPolitical Organization in the Chichen Itza Polity. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago.University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.

Andrews, Anthony P.1990 The Fall of Chichen Itza: A Preliminary Hypothesis. Latin

American Antiquity 1:258–267.Andrews, Anthony P., Tomás Gallareta Negrón, Fernando RoblesCastellanos, Rafael Cobos Palma, and Pura Cervera Rivero1986 Isla Cerritos Archaeological Project: A Report of the 1985 Field

Season. Report to the Committee for Research and Exploration,National Geographic Society, Washington, DC.

1988 Isla Cerritos: An Itzá Trading Port on the North Coast of Yucatan,Mexico. National Geographic Research 4:196–207.

Andrews, Anthony P., and Fernando Robles Castellanos1985 Chichén Itzá and Coba: An Itza-Maya Stand-off in Early

Postclassic Yucatan. In The Lowland Maya Postclassic: Questionsand Answers, edited by Arlen F. Chase and Prudence M. Rice,pp. 62–72. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Andrews, E. Wyllys IV1942 Yucatán Architecture. Carnegie Institution of Washington

Yearbook 41: 257–63.1965 Archaeology and Prehistory in the Northern Maya Lowlands: An

Introduction. In Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, Part 1, edited

by Gordon R. Willey, pp. 288–330. Handbook of Middle AmericanIndians, Vol. 2, Robert Wauchope, general editor. University ofTexas Press, Austin.

Andrews, E. Wyllys IV, and E. Wyllys Andrews V1980 Excavations at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico. Middle AmericanResearch Institute, Publication No. 48. Tulane University, New Orleans.

Andrews, E. Wyllys V1979 Some Comments on Puuc Architecture of the Yucatán Peninsula.In The Puuc: New Perspectives, edited by Lawrence Mills, pp. 1–17.Central College, Pella, IA.

Andrews, E. Wyllys V, and Jeremy A. Sabloff1986 Classic to Postclassic: A Summary Discussion. In Late LowlandMaya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, edited by Jeremy A.Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews V, pp. 433–456. University of NewMexico Press, Albuquerque.

Andrews, George1995 Pyramids and Palaces, Monsters and Masks: The Golden Age ofMaya Architecture, Vol. 1. Labyrinthos, Lancaster, CA.

Ardren, Traci1997 The Politics of Place: Architecture and Cultural Change at theXkanha Group, Yaxuná, Yucatán, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven,Connecticut. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.

Ball, Joseph W.1972 A Coordinate Approach to Northern Maya Prehistory: a.d700–1200. American Antiquity 39:85–93.

1977 The Archaeological Ceramics of Becan, Campeche, Mexico.Middle American Research Institute, Publication No. 43. TulaneUniversity, New Orleans.

1979 Ceramics, Culture History and the Puuc Tradition: SomeAlternative Possibilities. In The Puuc: New Perspectives, edited byLawrence Mills, pp. 18–35. Central College, Pella, IA.

1993 Pottery, Potters, Palaces, and Polities: Some Socioeconomic andPolitical Implications of Late Classic Maya Ceramic Industries. InLowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D., edited byJeremy A. Sabloff and John S. Henderson, pp. 243–272. DumbartonOaks, Washington, DC.

Bey, George J. III2003 The Role of Ceramics in the Study of Conflict in Maya

Johnson124

Archaeology. In Ancient Mesoamerican Warfare, edited by M. KathrynBrown and Travis W. Stanton, pp. 19–30. AltaMira Press, WalnutCreek, CA.

Bey, George J. III., Tara M. Bond, William M. Ringle, Craig Hanson,Charles W. Houck, and Carlos Peraza López1998 The Ceramic Chronology of Ek Balam, Yucatan, Mexico. AncientMesoamerica 9:101–120.

Blanton, Richard E., and Gary M. Feinman1984 The Mesoamerican World System: A Comparative Perspective.American Anthropologist 86:673–682.

Boucher, Sylviane1990 Una revisión de las esferas cerámicas del preclásico medio entrelas regiones Puuc-Rio Bec-Chenes, y del clásico tardio en el Puuc.Paper presented at the Primer Simposio Maler, Bonn, Germany.

Brainerd, George W.1958 The Archaeological Ceramics of Yucatan. University of CaliforniaAnthropological Records, Vol. 19. University of California Press,Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Braswell, Geoffrey E.2012 The Ancient Maya of Mexico: Reinterpreting the Past of theNorthern Maya Lowlands. Equinox Publishing, Sheffield, England.

Chase, Diane Z., and Arlen F. Chase1982 Yucatec Influence in Terminal Classic Northern Belize. AmericanAntiquity 47:596–614.

Cobos Palma, Rafael2003 The Settlement Patterns of Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, NewOrleans. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.

2004 Chichén Itzá, Settlement and Hegemony during the TerminalClassic Period. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands,Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by Arthur A.Demarest, Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, pp. 517–544.University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

2007 Multepal or Centralized Kingship? New Evidence onGovernmental Organization at Chichén Itzá. In Twin Tollans: ChichénItzá, Tula, and the Epiclassic Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World,edited by Jeff K. Kowalski and Cynthia Kristan-Graham, pp. 315–343.Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Feinman, Gary M., and Linda M. Nicholas1991 New Perspectives on Prehispanic Highland America: AMacroregional Approach. Comparative Civilizations Review 24:13–33.

Flannery, Kent V.1968 The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca: A Model for Inter-regionalInteraction in Formative Times. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on theOlmec, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 79–110. Dumbarton Oaks,Washington, DC.

Freidel, David A.2007 War and Statecraft in the Northern Maya Lowlands: Yaxuna andChichen Itza. In Twin Tollans: Chichen Itza, Tula, and the Epiclassicto Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Jeff K.Kowalski and Cynthia Kristan-Graham, pp. 345–375. DumbartonOaks, Washingtion, DC.

Freidel, David A., Charles K. Suhler, and Rafael Cobos Palma1998 Termination Ritual Deposits at Yaxuna: Detecting the Historicalin Archaeological Contexts. In The Sowing and the Dawning:Termination, Dedication, and Transformation in the Archaeologicaland Ethnographic Record of Mesoamerica, edited by Shirley B.Mock, pp. 135–146. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Fry, Robert E.1989 Models of Exchange for Major Shape Classes of Lowland MayaPottery. In Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, edited byRobert E. Fry, pp. 3–18. Society for American Archaeology Papers,No. 1. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.

Hassig, Ross1985 Trade, Tribute, and Transportation: The Sixteenth-CenturyPolitical Economy of the Valley of Mexico. University of OklahomaPress, Norman.

Helms, Mary W.1993 Craft and the Kingly Art: Art, Trade, and Power. University ofTexas Press, Austin.

Houck, Charles W., Jr.2004 The Rural Survey of Ek Balam, Yucatan, Mexico. Ph.D. disserta-tion, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans.University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.

Johnson, Scott A. J.2012 Late and Terminal Classic Power Shifts in Yucatan: The View

from Popola. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,Tulane University, New Orleans. University Microfilms International,Ann Arbor, MI.

Johnstone, David2001 The Ceramics of Yaxuná, Yucatan. Ph.D. dissertation, Department

of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas. UniversityMicrofilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.

Kepecs, Susan M., Gary M. Feinman, and Sylviane Boucher1994 Chichén Itzá and its Hinterland: A World-Systems Perspective.

Ancient Mesoamerica 5:141–158.Lincoln, Charles E.1983 Chichén Itzá: Clásico terminal o postclasico temprano? Boletin de

la Escuela de Ciencias Antropológicas de la Universidad de Yucatán10(59):3–29.

1986 The Chronology of Chichen Itza: A Review of the Literature. InLate Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic, edited byJeremy A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews V, pp. 141–197.University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Manahan, T. Kam, and Traci Ardren2010 Transformación en el tiempo: Definiendo el sitio de Xuenkal,

Yucatán, durante el periodo clásico terminal. Estudios de CulturaMaya 35:11–32.

National Geographic Society1997 Ancient Mesoamerica. National Geographic Maps, Washington,

DC.Pérez de Heredia Puente, Eduardo J.2010 Ceramic Contexts and Chronology at Chichen Itza, Yucatan,

Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Archaeology,La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.

2012 The Yabnal-Motul Ceramic Complex of the Late Classic Period atChichen Itza. Ancient Mesoamerica 23:379–402.

Rands, Robert L.1967 Ceramic Technology and Trade in the Palenque Region, Mexico. In

American Historical Anthropology, edited by Carroll R. Riley andWalterW. Taylor, pp. 137–151. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.

Rice, Prudence M.1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press,

Chicago.Ringle, William M.2004 On the Political Organization of Chichen Itza. Ancient

Mesoamerica 15:167–218.2009 The Art of War: Imagery of the Upper Temple of the Jaguars,

Chichen Itza. Ancient Mesoamerica 20:15–44.Ringle, William M., and George J. Bey III2009 The Face of the Itzas. In The Art of Urbanism: How

Mesoamerican Kingdoms Represented Themselves in Architectureand Imagery, edited by William L. Fash and Leonardo López Luján,pp. 329–383. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

2012 The Late Classic to Postclassic Transition among the Maya ofNorthern Yucatan. In The Oxford Handbook of MesoamericanArchaeology, edited by Deborah L. Nichols and Christopher A. Pool,pp. 385–404. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ringle, William M., George J. Bey III, Tara Bond Freeman, Craig A.Hanson, Charles W. Houck, and J. Gregory Smith2004 The Decline of the East: The Classic to the Postclassic Transition

at Ek Balam, Yucatan. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands:Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by Arthur A.Demarest, Prudence M. Rice, and Don S. Rice, pp. 485–516.University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Robles Castellanos, Fernando1980 La secuencia cerámica de la región de Coba, Quintana Roo.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Esquela Nacional de Antropología eHistoria and Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

1990 La secuencia cerámica de la región de Coba, Quintana Roo.Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

2000 Las esferas cerámicas Cehpech y Sotuta del apogeo del clásicotardío (c. 730–900 d.C.) en el norte de la península de Yucatán. InLa producción alfarera en el México antiguo, edited by NorbertoGonzález Crespo and Ángel García Cook, pp. 281–344. InstitutoNacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Robles Castellanos, Fernando, and Anthony P. Andrews1986 A Review and Synthesis of Recent Postclassic Archaeology in

The Roots of Sotuta 125

Northern Yucatan. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization, edited byJeremy A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews V, pp. 53–98. School ofAmerican Research, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

2001 Proyecto Costa Maya: La interacción costa-interior entre de losmayas de Yucatán, México. Report submitted to the ConsejoNacional de Arqueología Instituto Nacional de Antropología eHistoria, Mexico City.

2002 Proyecto Costa Maya: Reconocimiento arqueológico en elnoroeste de Yucatán, México. Report submitted to the ConsejoNacional de Arqueología Instituto Nacional de Antropología eHistoria, Mexico City.

Roys, Ralph L.1947 The Indian Background of Colonial Yucatan. Carnegie Institution

of Washington, Publication No. 548, Washington, DC.Schele, Linda, and David Freidel1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. William

Morrow and Company, New York.Schmidt, Peter1994 Chichén Itzá. Arqueología Mexicana 2(10):20–25.1999 Chichén Itzá: Resultados y proyectos nuevos. Arqueología

Mexicana 7(37):32–39.2000 Nuevos datos sobre la arqueología e iconografía de Chichén Itzá.

Investigadores de la Cultura Maya 8:38–48.2005 Nuevos Hallazgos en Chichén Itzá. Arqueología Mexicana 8:48–55.2007 Birds, Ceramics, and Cacao: New Excavations at Chichén Itzá,

Yucatan. In Twin Tollans: Chichén Itzá, Tula, and the EpiclassicEarly Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Jeff K. Kowalskiand Cynthia Kristan-Graham, pp. 151–203. Dumbarton Oaks,Washington, DC.

Schneider, Jane1977 Was There a Precapitalist World-System? Peasant Studies 6:

20–29.Smith, James G.2000 The Chichen Itza-Ek Balam Transect Project: An Intersite

Perspective on the Political Organization of the Ancient Maya. Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh.University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, MI.

2001 Preliminary Report of the Chichen Itza–Ek Balam TransectProject. Mexicon 23:30–35.

Smith, Robert E.1971 The Pottery of Mayapan Including Studies of Ceramic Material

from Uxmal, Kabah, and Chichén Itzá. 2 vols. Peabody Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnography, Vol. 66. Harvard University,Cambridge, MA.

Stanton, Travis W., and George J. Bey III2006 ¿Donde se fue? Reconciling Early Postclassic Regional Settlement

Patterns in a Post-Overlap Northern Lowlands. Paper presented at the71st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, SanJuan, Puerto Rico.

Stanton, Travis W., and Tomás Gallareta Negrón2001 Warfare, Ceramic Economy, and the Itza: A Reconsideration of theItza Polity in Ancient Yucatan. Ancient Mesoamerica 12:229–245.

Stanton, Travis W., Scott R. Hutson, and Aline Magnoni2008 Proyecto de Interacción Política del Centro de Yucatán: Primeratemporada de campo. Report submitted to the Consejo de Arqueologíadel Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historía, Mexico City.

Stanton, Travis W., and Aline Magnoni2009 Proyecto de Interacción Politica del Centro de Yucatán: Segundatemporada de campo. Report submitted to the Consejo de Arqueologíadel Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historía, Mexico City.

2010 Proyecto de Interacción Politica del Centro de Yucatán: Terceratemporada de campo. Report submitted to the Consejo deArqueología del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historía,Mexico City.

2013 Proyecto de Interacción Política del Centro de Yucatán: Cuartotemporada de campo. Report submitted to the Consejo deArqueología del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historía,Mexico City.

Suhler, Charles K., Traci Arden, David A. Freidel, and David Johnstone2004 The Rise and Fall of Terminal Classic Yaxuna, Yucatan, Mexico.In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands: Collapse, Transition,and Transformation, edited by Arthur A. Demarest, Prudence M.Rice, and Don S. Rice, pp. 450–484. University Press of Colorado,Boulder.

Suhler, Charles K., Traci Ardren, and David Johnstone1998 The Chronology of Yaxuna: Evidence from Excavation andCeramics. Ancient Mesoamerica 9:167–182.

Thompson, J. Eric S.1945 A Survey of the Northern Maya Area. American Antiquity 11:2–24.

Thompson, J. Eric S., Harry E. D. Pollock, and L. H. Jean Charlot1932 A Preliminary Study of the Ruins of Coba, Quintana Roo, Mexico.Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication No. 424. Washington,DC.

Toscano Hernández, Lourdes, and David Ortegon Zapata2003 Yaxuná: Un centro de acropio del tributo Itzá. Los Investigadoresde la Cultura Maya 11:439–445.

Wren, Linnea, and Peter Schmidt1991 Elite Interaction During the Terminal Classic Period: NewEvidence from Chichèn Itzá. In Classic Maya Political History:Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence, edited by T. PatrickCulbert, pp. 199–225. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Johnson126