crossing the usumacinta: stylistic variability and dynamic

A r c h a e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w f r o m C a m b r i d g e - 2 5 . 2 - 2 0 1 0

Crossing the Usumacinta: Stylistic Variability and Dynamic Boundaries in the Preclassic and Early Classic Period Northwest Maya LowlandsJoshua EnglehardtDepartment of Anthropology, Florida State University 1847 W. Tennessee St., Tallahassee, FL 32306 [email protected]

Introduction

In this article, I explore processes of regional boundary formation in ancient Maya society by evaluating variable stylistic attributes and distributions

of ceramic artefacts that date to the transition from the Late Preclassic to Early Classic periods (200 BCE–600 CE) in the mid-lower Usumacinta River basin of southeastern Tabasco, Mexico (fig. 1). This northwest region of the Maya lowlands has long been considered a boundary area within south–eastern Mesoamerica and a nexus of communication between discrete Preclassic period interaction spheres. I employ ceramic data from four sites to evaluate stylistic and distributional variability in and between ma-terial assemblages in order to characterise the interaction that occurred within and across this boundary area. Formal and distributional variation in the material data along parameters of type–variety and shape class permits an assessment of the permeability and social maintenance of the

58 Crossing the Usumacinta: Stylistic Variability and Dynamic Boundaries

A r c h a e o l o g i c a l R e v i e w f r o m C a m b r i d g e 2 5 . 2 : 5 7 – 7 6

boundary, adding res-olution to inferences regarding regional interaction. Such stylistically defined zones of social inter-action, and overlaps in archaeologically identified regional exchange networks, may parallel previous-ly identified linguistic or ethnic divisions, the presence of which provides a useful comparative baseline. I offer a preliminary comparative and qualitative analysis of the ceramic data and interpret these results to suggest the existence of a more fluid social boundary in earlier, Late Preclassic period temporal contexts which subsequently ‘closed’ as the lowland Maya region at once expanded and turned inward during the Preclassic-Classic period transition. An increasingly complex system of social integration within the Early Classic period Maya low-lands appears to be associated with a more rigidly defined socio-cultural boundary. I conclude with an observation on the ways in which changes in social organisation may be related to both material variation and the permeability and conservation of socio-geographic boundaries.

Theoretical ConsiderationsA central problem in archaeology is the placement of the boundaries investigators use to circumscribe and define archaeological ‘cultures’ (Green and Perlman 1985: 6–9; Kowalewski et al. 1983; Parkinson 2006: 33–34; Stark 1998). To elucidate variability in socio–cultural boundaries, archaeologists have effectively employed stylistic and distributional analyses of material variables, particularly ceramic assemblages, in a

Fig. 1. The light grey overlay demarcates the northwest Maya lowlands of the Middle and Lower Usumacinta River basin in Tabasco, south-eastern Mexico (af-ter Hernández Ayala 1981: 68, fig. 1). The micro-regional study area is outlined in the cross-hatched black rectangle. Map by the author, modified and reproduced from original by Hans Braxmeier under terms of GNU Free Documentation license.

59Joshua Englehardt


variety of spatial and temporal contexts (Hirth 1998; Hodder 1978, 1982, 1985; O’Shea and Milner 2002; Parkinson 2006: 34; Skibo et al. 1989). The association of style with boundary is complex and highly contextualised, since material culture systems are historically situated phenomena (Stark 1998: 8–9). Variation in material data may be used to define a boundary, but the boundary does not necessarily enclose a particular suite of material culture. Moreover, drastic changes in material culture are not always explained by coeval transformations in socio–cultural organisation or a concurrent redefinition of social boundaries. It is more fruitful to approach the relationship between material culture and boundary from a dynamic perspective (see Barth 1969; Kowalewski et al. 1983).

From this perspective, continuity in material culture across social boundaries is a function of multiple factors, including relative degrees of integration, interaction and interdependence of the cultural group(s) that occupy the landscape on either side of a supposed boundary. Measuring stylistic variability in material objects, or lack thereof, thus speaks to the relative permeability and social maintenance of the boundary itself, and may yield clues regarding the temporal contexts of boundary formation or diachronic changes in socio-political organisation. Such methods have been applied to questions of interaction and the relationship between material traditions with success in Mesoamerican contexts (e.g. Cheetham 2007; Demarest and Sharer 1982; Neff et al. 1999). Greater material and dis-tributional uniformity across a border area suggests extended interaction on a wider scale and more relaxed structural integration, resulting in less defined, more fluid social boundaries. Conversely, increased variation in material assemblages indicates narrower interaction on a more localised scale, a greater degree of integration within larger cultural systems, and a less permeable, more established boundary. In this sense, the analy-sis and interpretation of stylistic and distributional patterns observed in material data can be related to social processes by focusing on changes in artefacts over space and through time (Green and Perlman 1985: 6; Parkinson 2006: 36; Skibo et al. 1989).



Regional Context and Background

The Usumacinta River and its tributaries form part of the frontier between the nations of Mexico and Guatemala, as well as internal boundaries between the Mexican states of Tabasco, Chiapas and Campeche. In antiquity, the wide alluvial floodplains of the mid-lower Usumacinta and lower San Pedro Mártir River basins comprised a region that was situated along established trade routes and has been traditionally considered a physiographic boundary between distinct Mesoamerican interaction spheres. These regions, including interior Chiapas, the Gulf Coast Olmec heartland and the southern Maya lowlands of the Petén, Guatemala, exhibit evidence of sustained, intensive interaction throughout the Preclassic period (Golden and Scherer 2006; Ochoa 1983). The mid–lower Usumacinta River basin of southeastern Tabasco has been long underrepresented in Mesoamerican archaeology, despite its promising location, with only a handful of systematic archaeological investigations directed at the area. The most notable of these was the Proyecto Tierras Bajas Noroccidentales, conducted in the late 1970s through the Centro de Estudios Mayas of the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México under the direction of Dr Lorenzo Ochoa. Various homologies in the material data derived from the project, as well as shared aesthetic traditions and similarities with adjacent regional sequences, suggest processes of interregional exchange between independent yet interdependent entities whose temporal depth extends far back into the Early and Middle Preclassic periods. Prior linguistic analyses (Justeson et al. 1985; Kaufman 1976; Lacadena and Wichmann 1999) and previous investigations of Late Classic period evidence from the region (García Moll 2005; González Moreno 2006; Hernández Ayala 1981; Hernández Pons 1984; Ochoa and Casasola 1991; Sanchez Caero 1979) confirm that this area was a nexus of interaction located in a frontier zone of the greater Maya lowlands during the Late Classic period and that the region formed a boundary between Late Classic Maya ceramic spheres. The formation of this boundary, however, likely occurred in earlier Preclassic or Early Classic period temporal contexts.

61Joshua Englehardt


Ceramic Sample and Analytic MethodsIn order to explore these early processes of boundary formation, I cull information from both published sources and archaeological collections, and present a preliminary analysis of ceramic artefacts from four sites on the eastern edge of my focus area within the northwest Maya lowlands: Tiradero, Cenotes, Mirador and San Claudio (fig. 2). These sites are all second– and third–tier centres that exhibit evidence of long occupational histories dating from the Middle Preclassic through to the Late Classic period (González Moreno 2006; Hernández Ayala 1981). The sites were selected on the basis of their location within the study area, in the San Pedro Mártir valley approximately 35km to the east of the Usumacinta River, a flat area of intermediate plains between the low foothills of the Sierra del Lacandón to the south, and the wider Usumacinta floodplain to the north (Ochoa 1983; Ochoa and Casasola 1991; Rands 1987: 204, fig. 1). The site of Tiradero is located in the north of the study area near the floodplain, while San Claudio is situated approximately 60km to the south, adjacent to the low sierras. The sites of Mirador and Cenotes lie to the east of the San Pedro Mártir River on the intermediate plains between Tiradero and San Claudio.

The ceramic sample includes approximately 21,000 sherds dating to the Late Preclassic and Early Classic periods which were recovered from systematic surface collection, securely identified archaeological contexts, or stratified test pits (González Moreno 2006: 87–95; Hernández Ayala

Fig. 2. Detail of micro-regional focus area and location of sites which pro-vide ceramic evidence discussed in the text. Map by the author, modified and reproduced from original by Hans Braxmeier under terms of GNU Free Documentation license.



1981: 82–84). I have recorded and assessed formal and functional vari-ability evident within the sample along two parameters: the traditional type–variety system (Smith et al. 1960) and classification of vessel form and shape (Culbert and Rands 2007). To elucidate the extent of cross–boundary interaction and integration, I compare stylistic attributes such as surface treatment, decoration and decorative technique, vessel diam-eter and thickness, and elaboration and standardisation of shape and di-mensions observable within the sample with the stylistic characteristics of established ceramic sequences and typologies at sites in immediately adjacent areas (table 1). Specifically, these include Palenque and the lower Usumacinta basin to the west, Chiapa de Corzo and the middle Grijalva basin to the southwest, and Piedras Negras, Altar de Sacrificios and Uaxactún to the south and east within the Maya lowlands of the middle Usumacinta basin and the Petén.

Additionally, I measure subtle variability in the evolution of forms over time, yielding detectable changes in different vessel shapes across the sample. Such changes refine the placement of a specific artefact within a given chronological sequence, since forms evolve more rapidly than types, and demonstrate a greater range of variation (Culbert and Rands 2007: 185). Classes of forms identified in my sample include plates, jars, basins, ollas (earthen cooking pots), tecomates (common spheric ves-sels), apaxtles (shallow flat-bottomed vessels with flaring sides), cajetes (flat earthen bowls), and cazuelas (pots or bowls with a nonrestricted opening and no handles). To record temporal variation in form, I relate shape classes to corresponding ceramic phases based on modifications over time, such as rim orientation, thickness of the walls, or occurrence of specific decorative techniques. Again, I compare formal variability in the sample with sequences and materials encountered in the adjacent areas specified above.

Summary of Ceramic DataWithin the sample, I have identified approximately 6000 sherds dating to the Late Preclassic period in the San Pedro Mártir basin that represent 16 type-varieties from eight ceramic groups and three wares (table 2). For the

63Joshua Englehardt


sake of simplicity within the sample, I consider only those type–variety combinations present in quantities greater than five at any of the four selected sites. The five most common Late Preclassic type-varieties are uniform at each of the sites and occur in roughly the same proportions (table 3e). The Late Preclassic period assemblages are dominated by waxy wares, specifically Sierra Red ceramics, at roughly 50 percent of the total Late Preclassic sample. The Sierra Red ubiquitous in the late Bari and early Pichi phases of the lower San Pedro Mártir basin is virtually identical to that found throughout the Late Preclassic period Maya lowlands. Specific occurrences include the Abal phase at Piedras Negras, the Plancha phase at Altar de Sacrificios, the Chicanel phase at Uaxactún, and even as far afield as the Guanacaste and Horcones phases at Chiapa de Corzo and the Guañoma phase of the Middle Grijalva region (cf. Adams 1971: 21; Lee 1972: 11; Muñoz 2004; Smith 1955). Sierra Red is also the dominant type at both Altar and Uaxactún in the Plancha and early Chicanel phases, respectively (Adams 1971: 123).

Of the 16 major Late Preclassic type components in the sample, 12 have equivalents at Piedras Negras (out of a total of 32 type-variety combinations present at both sites), and 13 are evident at Altar (out of 35 type–varieties present at both sites). The sampled sites thus share ap-proximately 37 percent of their Late Preclassic ceramic types with both Piedras Negras and Altar. Likewise, the predominance of monochrome red, black and cream ceramics with thick, waxy slips in the sample cor-responds closely to evidence from Abal phase Piedras Negras and the late waxy horizon at Palenque and throughout the lower and middle Usumacinta basin (Muñoz 2004; Ochoa and Casasola 1991: 10; Rands 1987). As elsewhere, broad-line incising and fluting are the most common deco-rative modes evident within the sample during Late Preclassic times (cf. Lee 1972: 11; Muñoz 2004; Rands 1987: 210). In terms of shape classes, the most common forms in the sample are wide, shallow dishes, plates, apax-tles and cajetes with thickened, slightly everted rims and thick-walled jars with short, out-curving necks. These forms are quite common during the Late Preclassic period in the lower Usumacinta basin and in the Petén low-lands, and vessels with similar forms and surface finish are also evident in



Table 1. Regional ceramic sequences and correlations for the Maya lowlands, with relative and absolute chronological correlation. (See Adams 1971: 136, table 23; Hernández Pons 1984: fig. 5; Hernández Ayala 1981: 77; Holley 1987; Lee 1972; Muñoz 2004; Rands 1972, 1987; Smith 1955; Smith and Gifford 1966).

Dat

e

Peri

od

San

Pedr

o M

árti

r

Low

er

Usu

mac

inta

Chia

pa d

e Co

rzo

Alt

ar d

e Sa

crifi

cios

Uax

actú

n

Pied

ras

Neg

ras

Mid

dle

Gri

jalv

a

Pale

nque

600

500

400

300

200

100

AD

Early

Cla

ssic

Caob

a (e

arly

)

Taxinchan

Laguna

Chixoy Tepeu 1 Balche

Kund

api

Otolum

Kaxabyuc

(Early

Veremos

Tzak

ol

3

Naba

Cascada

Jiquipilas

Isthmo

(late)Ayn

2

Jusp

ano

Motiepa

Picota

(early) 1

Pom

Pich

i

ClassicHorizon)

?

?

Salinas

Chicanel

MamomLate

Pre

clas

sic

(late)

Plancha

Abal

Ipsa

n (Late Waxy

Horizon)

BC

100

200

300

400

500

600

Bari

late

Horcones

Guanacaste

(early)

Gua

ñom

a

(late)

San Felix

Mid

dle

Prec

lass

ic

mid

dle Hol

Misolha(Early Waxy

Horizon)Chacibcan

Francesa

Felis

a

(early)Xot

(early facet

Mamon)

(Pre–Waxy

Horizon)

65Joshua Englehardt


Table 2. Late Preclassic and Early Classic period ceramic type–varieties present in sample (n. ≥ 5), showing quantities and group and ware associations. (cf. Gonzalez Moreno 2006; Hernandez Ayala 1981)

Peri

od

War

e

Gro

up

Type

: va

riet

y

Sam

ple

Size

Early

Cla

ssic

Uaxactún Unslipped

Sapote Sapote Striated: sapote 437Triunfo Triunfo Striated: triunfo 6041

Paso Caballos Waxy Sierra

Laguna Verde Incised: laguna 874Sierra Red: sierra 696

Fine Brown San Martín San Martín Variegated Brown: san martín 1035Holmul Orange Ixcanrio Ixcanrio Orange Polychrome: VU 103

Petén Gloss

Aguila

Actuncan Orange Polychrome: VU 397Aguila Orange: aguila 422

Pita Incised: VU 60Dos Arroyos Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome: dos arroyos 746

Balanza

Balanza Black: balanza 119Lucha Incised: bolocantal 71

Lucha Incised: lucha 1479

Santa Rosa

Bolonchac Orange Polychrome: black 451Santa Rosa Cream Polychrome: santa rosa 210

Suktan Cream Polychrome: suktan 48

SaxchéMataculebra Cream Polychrome: mataculebra 182

Moro Orange Polychrome: moro 346

TinajaAnaité Red: anaité 284

Cameron Incised: cameron 388Tinaja Red: aduana 602

InfiernoCarmelita Incised: carmelita 52

Infierno Black: infierno 328

PalmarSaxché Orange Polychrome: saxché 125Zacatel Cream Polychrome: zacatel 35

15,531

Late

Pre

clas

sic

Paso Caballos Waxy

Sierra

Altamira Fluted: altamira 68Correlo Incised Dichrome: correlo 5

Hongo Compuesto: hongo 13Laguna Verde Incised: laguna 118Repasto Black on Red: repasto 32

Sierra Red: sierra 2910

FlorFlor Cream: flor 984

Mateo Red on Cream: flor 17Pital Pital Cream: pital 135

Polvero Polvero Negro: polvero 360

Flores WaxyFluted

Centenario Fluted: centenario 143Setok Fluted: VU 178

Monochrome Black

Chunhinta Black: chunchinta 77Deprecio Incised: VU 96

Uaxactún Unslipped

Achiotes Achiotes Unslipped: achiotes 459Sapote Sapote striated: sapote 254

5849

Total 21,380



the Guanacaste and Horcones phases at Chiapa de Corzo and the Middle Grijalva Guañoma phase (Lee 1972: 12; Muñoz 2004; Rands 1987: 212).

The ceramics in the sample are formally and stylistically quite close to Late Preclassic period materials in adjacent regions, manifesting dif-ferences primarily of emphasis as opposed to striking departures. While some varietal variation exists between the sample and neighbouring sequences, the types are essentially the same, and ranges of formal varia-tion and decorative technique are virtually indistinguishable. The internal consistency and standardisation of Late Preclassic period lowland Maya pottery complexes likely stems from the development and widespread diffusion of the Mamom horizon style, a ceramic sphere whose influence is extensively noted in Middle Preclassic period ceramic phases through-out southeastern Mesoamerica (Willey et al. 1967). Most wares and types in the subsequent Late Preclassic Chicanel sphere, including those in my sample, are essentially modified continuations of widely shared earlier ceramic traditions. Their formal similarity is thus somewhat unsurprising.

In the Early Classic period, greater variation becomes evident. Within the sample, roughly 15,500 sherds date to the Early Classic pe-riod, broken down into 25 type-varieties of 13 groups and five distinct wares (table 2). At this time, the number of ceramic wares, groups and type-varieties present at the sampled sites increases. Moreover, the five most common Early Classic type components are no longer uni-form. Instead, type-varieties of Petén Gloss ware stand out in the as-semblage at San Claudio, whereas unslipped and waxy wares continue to dominate at the other sites (tables 3a-d). The gloss ware, polychrome and orange–slipped pottery characteristic of Early Classic period low-land Maya ceramics of the Floral Park and Tzakol spheres, while present in significant quantities at San Claudio (almost 55 percent of the Early Classic sample at the site), are decidedly lacking at Mirador, Cenotes and Tiradero just 50km to the north. While gloss ware and polychrome types represent only 15.8 percent of the total sample from the three

67Joshua Englehardt


Tiradero, Early Classic ceramics

a. Type Variety Sample

Triunfo Striated: triunfo 439248.67%

San Martín Variegated Brown: san martín

91010.09%

Lucha Incised: lucha 8699.63%

Laguna Verde Incised: laguna 4555.04%

Dos Arroyos Orange Poly-chrome: dos arroyos

2672.96%

Total 689376.39%

Mirador, Early Classic ceramics

b. Type Variety Sample




34711.10 %



561.79%

Total 210567.34%

Cenotes, Early Classic ceramics

c. Type Variety Sample




1197.92%



694.60%

Total 107471.55%

Mirador, Early Classic ceramics

d. Type Variety Sample

Bolonchac Orange Poly-chrome: black

45123.98%

Moro Orange Poly-chrome: moro

34618.39%

Aguila Orange: aguila 23312.39%

Infierno Black: infierno 22411.91%

Anaité Red: anaité 21711.54%

Total 147178.20%

All sites, Late Preclassic ceramics

e. Type Variety Tiradero Mirador Cenotes San Claudio Total

Sierra Red: sierra 108545.51%

64045.42%

32549.46%

86061.47%

291049.75%

Flor Cream: flor 48520.34%

17612.49%

8212.48%

24117.22%

98416.82%

Achiotes Unslipped: achiotes 2359.85%

835.89%

253.81%

1168.29%

4597.84%

Polvero Black: polvero 1395.83%

755.32%

6910.50%

775.50%

3606.15%

Sapote Striated: sapote 1275.32%

715.03%

131.98%

433.07%

2544.34%

Total 207186.87%

104574.16%

51478.23%

133795.56%

107471.55%

Table 3. Breakdown of quantities and percentages of five most common type–varieties present in sample at each site in Early Classic (a–d) and Late Preclassic (e) periods. Percentages indicate proportions of selected type–varieties and totals in relation to the respective Late Preclassic and Early Classic period ceramic assemblages as wholes.



northern sites, there appears to be a clinal distribution, with gloss and polychrome ceramics present at 25.6 percent of the sample at Cenotes, 15.7 percent at Mirador, and only eight per cent at Tiradero.

Comparing the sampled ceramics with adjacent sequences, a simi-lar pattern of divergence is evident. Of the 25 type-varieties in the Early Classic sample, seven are evident at Piedras Negras, and just nine find correspondence with materials at Altar de Sacrificios. In contrast to the Late Preclassic period, during the Early Classic the sampled sites shared an average of only 10.5 percent of their ceramics with these neighbouring centres. Four of these seven shared type-varieties are found only at San Claudio, and the only orange polychrome present at Mirador, Cenotes and Tiradero, Dos Arroyos, is exceedingly rare at both San Claudio and Piedras Negras (Muñoz 2004). The orange polychromes and Aguila Orange pres-ent in great quantities at San Claudio also dominate the Pom and Naba phase assemblages at Piedras Negras. Nevertheless, the Usulutan-style decoration and mammiform supports diagnostic of the Early Classic peri-od in the central Petén and found in Isthmo and Jiquipilas phase ceramics at Chiapa de Corzo–while evident at Piedras Negras, Altar, and Uaxactún–are lacking within the sample. Moreover, the medial and basal-flanged bowls characteristic of the Tzakol ceramic sphere are absent within the sample and only appear at Piedras Negras or Altar well into the latter half of the Early Classic, in the Naba and late Ayn/Veremos phases, respec-tively (cf. Adams 1971: 127; Muñoz 2004). Mirador, Cenotes and Tiradero appear typologically unrelated to the Tzakol sphere. Instead, these sites seem more closely aligned with the Picota phase at Palenque or the site of Pomoná, where gloss ware is likewise absent and fine brown paste ceramics such as the San Martín Variegated Brown (present at the three sites, but not at San Claudio) are unusually well represented in Early Classic materials (García Moll 2005; Rands 1972, 1987: 214).

Shape classes demonstrate similar distributional variability. At San Claudio and Piedras Negras, ollas with incurving walls and thickened rims, bolstered rim unslipped basins and utility jars, thin-walled moulded rim bowls, shallow cajetes with hollow, conical tripod supports, and cazuelas

69Joshua Englehardt


and dishes with composite profiles and thick, nearly vertical rims are com-mon (cf. Holley 1987: 189–190; Muñoz 2004). Such vessel forms are rare elsewhere in the sample and in the Petén, and could represent an incipi-ent localised style. In contrast, the forms evident at Mirador, Cenotes and Tiradero are primarily deep bowls with everted rims, large, steep-walled basins, short-necked, roughly finished jars, and thin-walled, shallow, di-rect rim dishes. The forms again correspond closely to those found in Picota phase Palenque and throughout the Early Classic horizon lower Usumacinta basin and appear more firmly rooted in earlier, Preclassic tra-ditions (Hernández Pons 1984; Rands 1987: 214). Striated jars, however, oc-cur frequently throughout the sample, as they do at Piedras Negras, but not at Palenque (Holley 1987: 189).

Interpreting Variability in the Ceramic EvidenceIn general, the variability between Early Classic period ceramic materials from San Claudio and the sites of Mirador, Cenotes, and Tiradero closely parallels the traits identified by Holley (1987: 188–189) that distinguish the pottery of Piedras Negras and Altar de Sacrificios from the northwestern Maya lowlands as a whole. These include the relative thickness of vessel walls, jar morphology, basin elaboration, and surface treatment. Vessel walls are decidedly thinner at the northern sites and do not demonstrate the typical dichotomy between thin walled serving ware and thick walled utility ware evident at San Claudio and Piedras Negras. Jars in the assemblage at San Claudio have longer necks than those at Mirador, Cenotes, and Tiradero, and basins at San Claudio are relatively simple in comparison to the shouldered shapes and elaborate rims evident at the other sites. Finally, the polychrome and orange slip traditions evident at San Claudio and characteristic of Early Classic lowland conventions in the Petén are noticeably lacking at Mirador, Cenotes and Tiradero. In sum, the Early Classic ceramic sequence at San Claudio appears more closely related to Tzakol sphere assemblages at Piedras Negras and Altar, whereas materials from the remaining sampled sites seem to be associated with a developing northwestern tradition evident at Palenque and the lower Usumacinta region.



These data intimate the formation of a socio-cultural boundary in the Late Preclassic–Early Classic period transition. The widespread similarity in ceramic types and forms throughout the Maya lowlands and beyond during the Late Preclassic period implies a great degree of interaction over a large swathe of southeastern Mesoamerica that does not appear to have been impeded or affected by any recognised socio-cultural or political boundary. After the Late Preclassic–Early Classic period transi-tion, however, a regional separation of sequences and a greater degree of variability both within the sample and in relation to ceramic assemblages at adjacent sites and regions indicates much less interaction within and across the region, suggesting that a boundary had been established at or shortly after the beginning of the Early Classic period. The corre-spondence between ceramic materials from San Claudio and those at neighbouring lowland regional centres at Piedras Negras and Altar de Sacrificios, coupled with the lack of parallels between the assemblages from Mirador, Cenotes and Tiradero and the central Petén, as well as the formal and stylistic similarities of those assemblages with materials en-countered to the north and west, suggests that the intermediate plains of the mid-lower Usumacinta and lower San Pedro Mártir basins north of the low Sierra del Lacandón foothills was itself the Early Classic period frontier of the Maya lowlands. Sites on or near this boundary, such as San Claudio and Piedras Negras, generally imitated core trends, and the incip-ient localised Early Classic styles noted at these sites, themselves heavily influenced by central Petén trends, speak at once to both their increased integration in a larger, more complex and centralised social system and their relative isolation and situation at a peripheral area. Moreover, the clinal distribution and temporal lag in ‘down-the-line’ emergence of Petén-based traits (e.g. the relatively late appearance of basal-flanged bowls at Altar de Sacrificios, and, subsequently, Piedras Negras) indicate an emphasis on stricter control and restricted flow of diffused technolo-gies from the core to the periphery as Maya society became increasingly complex, centralised and inward-focused.

These Early Classic period developments correspond to what also ap-pears to be increased control of the western, southern and southeastern

71Joshua Englehardt


peripheries. Increasing boundary demarcation is reflected in the com-plete divergence of Ipsan and Juspano phase ceramics in the middle Grijalva basin (Lee 1972: 13–14), as well as the lack of formal or stylistic similarity between the Tzakol sphere and post-Usulutan ceramics on the southeastern periphery, as reflected in the materials evident in the post-Arenal, Santa Clara and Aurora phases at Kaminaljuyú in the highlands to the south. In the northwest, the boundary did not remain static. Tzakol 1 types eventually found their way to Palenque, although not until the later Early Classic Motiepa and Cascada phases and in limited quantities. As Palenque grew in importance, it became the ‘gateway city’ on the periphery, and the frontier shifted to the northwest in the Late Classic period, accompanied by a restructuring of socio-political and economic organisation that apparently involved regions even further to the north (Holley 1987: 198). At this point, a cursory examination of the Late Classic ceramic types evident in the San Pedro Mártir basin reveals that the com-mon type-varieties once again became as uniform as they had been in the Middle and Late Preclassic, with assemblages dominated by Tinaja Red, Cambio Unslipped, Encanto Striated and Fine Orange ware, the last itself notably absent at the new periphery of Palenque. These issues, however, are outside the scope of the present discussion.

Conclusions and Future DirectionsOn the basis of the ceramic data presented, I have suggested that a more pronounced and far less porous social boundary developed along the intermediate plains of the mid-lower Usumacinta and lower San Pedro Mártir basins in the Early Classic period. This frontier separated the northwest Maya lowlands from the developing core area of Classic Maya society centralised in the Petén, with sites in the low sierras south of the intermediate plains such as San Claudio becoming more integrated in Classic Maya traditions, and sites to the north of the plains such as Mirador, Cenotes and Tiradero orienting themselves outward. It appears that the development of this boundary was coeval with trends of increasing complexity, integration and centralisation in the Maya lowlands that occurred roughly at the Preclassic–Classic period transition. In this sense, it would seem that diachronic changes in socio-political organisation,



namely increased centralisation, integration and hierarchical control, are positively correlated with both amplified material variation and an increased emphasis on the delineation and control of peripheral boundaries. The preliminary results of my classification and comparative analysis support the initial hypothesis of a more relaxed and fluid boundary in the Late Preclassic period which subsequently became less permeable and more strictly defined in the Early Classic period. The interpretations presented here demonstrate that the examination of stylistic and distributional variability in ceramic materials may profitably inform archaeological investigation of boundary formation and preservation in antiquity, generating especially satisfying results when the data are considered on several different temporal, geographic, and social scales.

I am expanding my qualitative analysis to include data from six other sites within my study area as part of my doctoral research. In addition to integrating settlement pattern data and other evidence that speaks to diachronic changes in socio-political organisation, I plan to compare the results of the analysis as a whole with documented linguistic and ethno-historic evidence in order to nuance my interpretations. A more detailed consideration of variability in ceramic temper and paste would also prove useful in this endeavour (Culbert and Rands 2007). Finally, I in-tend to introduce a quantitative component to the distributional analy-sis of my ceramic sample, based on the H–score heterogeneity measure (Garraty 2009; Kintigh 2002). In doing so, I will move beyond an analytic or interpretive scheme that opposes style and function to achieve a more holistic understanding of variability in material culture (cf. Hurt and Rakita 2001; Stark 1998), in both general terms, and in the specific case of the Preclassic–Classic period transition in the Maya lowlands. Other such analyses in divergent contexts may bring a fuller, long-term comprehen-sion of the short-term processes involved in the creation and mainte-nance of socio-cultural boundaries.

73Joshua Englehardt


Acknowledgements This paper is the result of doctoral research and investigations made possible by the Eisele Foundation Predissertation Research Award and the Department of Anthropology at Florida State University. I would also like to thank the Consejo de Arqueología of the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia for permission to conduct this research, and in particular Dolorez Juarez of the Consejo Central Office for her assistance in obtaining all relevant permits. In Villahermosa, thanks go to Rebeca Perales of the Instituto Estatal de Cultura del Estado de Tabasco and director of the Museos de Tabasco for her guidance, and for allowing me access to the collections housed in the Museo Regional de Antropología Carlos Pellicer Cámara during the renovations at that facility. At the Centro INAH Tabasco, I extend my warmest appreciations to José Luis Romero Rivera, Angela González Moreno, and Rebecca González Lauck for their support and advice. Finally, at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, my heartfelt thanks to the late Dr Lorenzo Ochoa for his kindness and generosity in granting me access to the ceramic collection of the Proyecto Tierras Bajas Noroccidentales. This paper is dedicated to his memory. All errors or omissions of fact are the sole responsibility of the author.

ReferencesAdams, R.E.W. 1971. The Ceramics of Altar de Sacrificios, Guatemala (Papers of the Peabody

Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, vol. 63, no. 1). Cambridge: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Barth, F. 1969. Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Boston: Little Brown and Co.

Cheetham, D. 2007. Cantón Corralito: Objects from a Possible Gulf Olmec Colony. Crystal River: Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.

Culbert, T.P. and R.L. Rands. 2007. Multiple classifications: An alternative approach to the investigation of Maya ceramics. Latin American Antiquity 18(2): 181–190.

Demarest, A.A. and Sharer, R.J. 1982. The origins and evolution of Usulutan ceramics. American Antiquity 47(4): 810–822.

74 The Architect of Decay? Art as Active in Shamanic and Cosmological Interpretations


Garraty, C.P. 2009. Evaluating the distributional approach to inferring marketplace ex-change: A test case from the Mexican Gulf lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 20(1): 157–174.

García Moll, R. 2005. Pomoná: Un Sitio del Clásico Maya en las Colinas Tabasqueñas. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Golden, C. and Scherer, A. 2006. Border problems: Recent archaeological research along the Usumacinta River. The PARI Journal 7(2): 1–16.

González Moreno, A. 2006. San Claudio, Un Asentamiento de las Tierras Bajas Norocciden-tales del Área Maya, Tabasco, México: Sus Redes de Interacción Vistas a través de la Ce-rámica Arqueológica. Unpublished M.A. dissertation submitted to the Escuela Na-cional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Green, S.W. and Perlman, S.M. 1985. Frontiers, boundaries, and open social systems. In Green, S.W. and Perlman, S.M. (eds), The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries. Orlando: Academic Press, 3–14.

Hernández Ayala, M.I. 1981. Cronología y Periodificación de la Región del Río San Pedro Már-tir, Tabasco. Unpublished M.A. dissertation submitted to the Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Hernández Pons, E.C. 1984. Investigaciones Arqueológicas en el Valle del Rio Tulija, Tabasco–Chiapas. Proyecto Tierras Bajas Noroccidentales, vol. III. Mexico City: UNAM.

Hirth, K.G. 1998. The distributional approach: A new way to identify marketplace ex-change in the archaeological record. Current Anthropology 39: 451–476.

Hodder, I. 1978. Boundary Maintenance and Material Culture in the Baringo District, Ke-nya. Hikuin 5.

Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in Action: Ethnoarchaeological Studies of Material Culture. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hodder, I. 1985. Boundaries as strategies: An ethnoarchaeological study. In Green, S.W. and Perlman, S.M. (eds), The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries. Orlando: Aca-demic Press, 141–162.

Holley, G. 1987. Living on the edge: The ceramic sequence at Piedras Negras, Guatemala. In Rice, P.M., and Sharer, R.J. (eds), Maya Ceramics: Papers from the 1985 Maya Ceram-ic Conference (BAR International Series 345i). Oxford: BAR/Archaeopress, 183–202.

Hurt, T.D. and G.F.M. Rakita. 2001. Style and Function: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary Ar-chaeology. Westport: Bergin and Garvey.

75Joshua Englehardt


Justeson, J. S., Norman, W.M., Campbell, L.R. and Kaufman, T.S. 1985. The Foreign Impact on Lowland Mayan Language and Script (Middle American Research Institute Publi-cation 53). New Orleans: Tulane University.

Kaufman, T. S. 1976. Archaeological and linguistic correlations in Mayaland and associat-ed areas of Mesoamerica. World Archaeology 8(1): 101–118.

Kintigh, K. W. 2002. Tools for Quantitative Archaeology: Programs for Quantitative Analysis in Archaeology. Programs manual published by the author, Tempe. Website: http://tfqa.com, accessed on 21 December 2009.

Kowalewski, S., Blanton, R., Feinman, G. and Finsten, L. 1983. Boundaries, scale, and inter-nal organization. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 32–56.

Lacadena, A. and Wichmann, S. 1999. The distribution of lowland Maya languages in the Classic period. Paper presented at the 1999 Palenque Round Table.

Lee, T.A., Jr. 1972. The middle Grijalva regional chronology and ceramic relations: A pre-liminary report. In Hammond, N. (ed.), Mesoamerican Archaeology: New Approaches. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1–20.

Muñoz, A.R. 2004. The Ceramic Sequence of Piedras Negras, Guatemala: Type and Varieties. Crystal River: Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.

Neff, H., Cogswell, J.W., Kosakowsky, L.J., Estrada Belli, F. and Bove, F.J. 1999. A new per-spective on the relationships among cream paste ceramic traditions of southeast-ern Mesoamerica. Latin American Antiquity 10(3): 281–299.

O’Shea, J.M. and Milner, C.H. 2002. Material indicators of territory, identity, and interac-tion in a prehistoric tribal system. In Parkinson, W. (ed.), The Archaeology of Tribal Societies (International Monographs in Prehistory). Ann Arbor: University of Michi-gan Press, 200–226.

Ochoa, L. 1983. El medio Usumacinta: Un eslabón en los antecedentes Olmecas de los Mayas. In Ochoa, L. and Lee, T.A. Jr. (eds), Antropología e Historia de los Mixe–Zoques y Mayas: Homenaje a Frans Blom. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Filológi-cas, UNAM/BYU, 147–174.

Ochoa, L. and L. Casasola. 1991. Tierra Blanca y el Medio Usumacinta: Notas de su cerá-mica arqueológica. Tierra y Agua: La Antropología en Tabasco 2: 7–28.

Parkinson, W. A. 2006. Tribal boundaries: Stylistic variability and social boundary mainte-nance during the transition to the Copper Age on the Great Hungarian Plain. Jour-nal of Anthropological Archaeology 25: 33–58.



Rands, R.L. 1972. The ceramic sequence at Palenque, Chiapas. In Hammond, N. (ed.), Me-soamerican Archaeology: New Approaches. Austin: University of Texas Press, 51–75.

Rands, R.L. 1987. Ceramic patterns and traditions in the Palenque area. In Rice, P.M., and Sharer, R.J. (eds), Maya Ceramics: Papers from the 1985 Maya Ceramic Conference (BAR International Series 345i). Oxford: BAR/Oxford University Press, 203–238.

Sanchez Caero, O. F. 1979. Excavaciones Arqueológicas en la Zona de Jonuta, Tabasco. Un-published B.A. dissertation submitted to the Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Skibo, J.M., Schiffer, M.B. and Kowalski, N. 1989. Ceramic style analysis in archaeology and ethnoarchaeology: Bridging the analytical gap. Journal of Anthropological Archae-ology 8: 388–409.

Smith, R.E. 1955. Ceramic Sequence at Uaxactun, Guatemala (Middle American Research Institute Publication 20). New Orleans: Tulane University.

Smith, R.E. and Gifford, J.C. 1966. Maya Ceramic Varieties, Types and Wares at Uaxactun: Supplement to Ceramic Sequence at Uaxactun, Guatemala (Middle American Re-search Institute Publication 28). New Orleans: Tulane University.

Smith, R.E., Willey. G. R. and Gifford, J.C. 1960. Type–variety analysis of Maya pottery. American Antiquity 23: 330–340.

Stark, M. 1998. Technical choices and social boundaries in material culture patterning: An introduction. In Stark, M. (ed), The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1–11.

Willey, G.R., Culbert, T.P. and Adams, R.E.W. 1967. Maya lowland ceramics: A report from the 1965 Guatemala City conference. American Antiquity 32(3): 289–315.

crossing the usumacinta: stylistic variability and dynamic

Documents