72 2 159

Copyright C 2001
Acta Archaeologica vol. 72:2, 2001, pp. 159188

Printed in Denmark All rights reserved
ACTA ARCHAEOLOGICA
ISSN 0065-001X
CHANGING PATTERNS OF CERAMIC STYLISTIC DIVERSITY

IN THE PRE-HISPANIC MAYA LOWLANDS
by
M A. M
ABSTRACT
Ceramic stylistic diversity across the Maya lowlands area fluctuates
from the Late Preclassic through Late Postclassic periods. During
the Late Preclassic and Late Postclassic, assemblages within and
between individual settlements are less diverse. In contrast, the
Early, Late, and Terminal Classic periods exhibit far greater intersite variation in ceramic styles and greater diversity of wares
within communities. This fragmentation of style zones during the
Classic periods correlates with the periods of greatest hierarchical
development and political centralization in Pre-Hispanic Maya history. This climate of interpolity competition affected ceramic production styles, configurations of economic interaction, and expressions of sub-group identity. This paper documents temporal trends
in ceramic uniformity and diversity and explores the historical context of expanding and contracting style zones over time in the
Maya area. In particular, the standardization of Postclassic Maya
pottery across the lowlands is interpreted in light of expanded interpolity market interactions, decentralized political structure, and
greater overall economic integration of the Yucatan peninsula compared to the preceding Classic period.
INTRODUCTION
The economic systems of the Late Preclassic and Late
Postclassic Maya world inevitably differed in fundamental ways due to their respective positions in history, as the former represents early statehood and the
latter represents a mature development that followed
many centuries of statehood and a period in which
traditional institutions of kingship had become outmoded. The uniformity of ceramic styles exhibited
across the lowlands during both of these periods implies that the economic interaction spheres of both of
these periods, despite their position in history, shared
a more open and extensive network than during the

intervening Classic periods.
Settlement of the Late Preclassic suggests the formation of regional city state hierarchies (Figs. 1, 2).
Large kingdoms such as El Mirador built massive
monumental architecture and core-periphery exchange networks within the lowlands region were established (Andrews and Mock n.d.). Investigations of
many Classic period centers have detected a substrate
of Late Preclassic occupation and monumental construction that indicates their earlier political significance (Freidel and Schele 1990), though thorough
settlement analysis is hindered by the fact that many
Preclassic structures are not visible in surface surveys
(Fry 1989, Pyburn 1989). Less is known about the
economic organization of the Late Preclassic Maya
world than for later periods, although the study of
Cerros, a coastal trading center in northern Belize
reveals the links of lowland Maya networks to early
coastal trade and the extraction of marine resources
(Freidel 1986a). Small settlements such as Cuello also
participated in widespread long distance trade (Hammond 1991), and the development of an agrarian
economy has been tracked at Preclassic communities
such as Kaxob (McAnany 1995).
The amplified hierarchical development in the
Maya area during the Classic period was accompanied by an increase in the manufacture and
circulation of prestige goods (Adams 1971, Sabloff
1975:236, Fry 1980:16, Rice 1987a:7779, Ball 1993,
Reentz-Budet 1994). As the central thesis of this paper
160
Acta Archaeologica
Fig. 1. Map of sites mentioned in the text.
Changing Patterns of Ceramic Stylistic Diversity in the Pre-Hispanic Maya Lowlands

examines diversity of ceramic assemblages as a reflection of the economic substrates of contrastive political and economic organization, the issue of elite
(prestige goods) versus nonelite pottery directly affects the degree of ceramic diversity. Rice (1981:220,
1989:111) suggests that increased social stratification
results in the creation of more diverse segments of
society and a variety of specialized activities, events,
and needs that are reflected in ceramic diversity. This
interpretation is no doubt true. This paper probes
further, however, to query whether fundamental political and economic organizational differences
affected ceramic diversity. In particular, the de-emphasis of vertical social distinctions in the utilitarian
realm may be viewed as an important dimension of a
political economic strategy that downplayed individual status differences.
Late Preclassic and Late Postclassic period Maya
polities may have represented corporate state societies in their de-individualizing doctrines (Blanton et
al. 1996:13, Blanton 1998), and these ideals may have
contributed to decreased ceramic diversity in important ways. Although Late Preclassic or Late Postclassic
states may have been less stratified or less centralized
than their Classic period Maya counterparts, their organization represents an important variation from
traditional models of nonwestern state societies that
transcends the assessment of complexity based solely
on hierarchy and centralization (Joesink-Mandeville
1981:226, Rathje 1975, Blanton et al. 1996:13, Blanton 1998). Despite this general characterization, considerable variation existed across the Late Preclassic
(McAnany 1995) and Late Postclassic (Chase and
Chase 1985) landscape in the degree of stratification
and centralization. Both periods are marked by the
development of influential core centers, El Mirador
and Mayapan respectively, each of which were unrivaled in magnitude during the peak of their power.
These cities had centralizing effects on surrounding
polities, and distant, smaller centers may have been
relatively autonomous but were linked to these cities
through alliance and trade.
The Postclassic period was characterized by constraint on the development of pronounced political
hierarchies in favor of a more inclusive mercantile,
entrepreneurial social environment (Webb 1964, Sabloff and Rathje 1975, Rathje 1975, Masson 2000).
161
This period was also marked by a strong emphasis on

coastal and riverine settlement (Chase and Chase
1985, Andrews and Vail 1990, Andrews et al. 1988)
that connected maritime networks to inland nodes of
power such as Nohpeten (Jones 1999), Acalan (Scholes and Roys 1948), and Mayapan (Pollock et al. 1962).
Many trading centers such as Tulum, Cozumel, Santa
Rita, Xicalanco, and Champoton were distributed
along the Gulf or Caribbean coasts of the Yucatan
peninsula (Andrews and Vail 1990). This coastal focus
and the acceleration of maritime trading of the Postclassic period represents a major settlement and economic shift compared to earlier periods.
Colonial accounts provide much information about
Late Postclassic period economy, characterized by extensive intra-lowland and international exchange facilitated by maritime trading networks operating
around the peninsula of Yucatan (Fig. 1) from the Bay
of Honduras to the Gulf Coast of Mexico (Roys 1943,
1965, Scholes and Roys 1948, Thompson 1970, Pina
Chan 1978). Such networks were formed during the
Epiclassic/Early Postclassic period in northern Yucatan (Kepecs et al. 1994) and flourished until the Spanish conquest (Freidel and Sabloff 1984, Sabloff and
Rathje 1975).
Ceramicists working in the Maya area have noted
the widespread uniformity of the Late Preclassic (350
B.C. A.D. 250) Chicanel ceramic complex across
the lowlands, expressed in common serving ware
forms and types of surface decoration (Willey et al.
1967, Fry 1989:97). Although the term standardization was used instead of uniformity to describe a
similar trend for the Late Postclassic period (A.D.
11001500), common pottery forms and decorations
were also highly similar across much of the lowlands
at this time, particularly from Mayapan to the east
coast of Quintana Roo and throughout Belize (Rathje
1975:431, Connor 1983:365, 374). These similarities
between sites are so marked that scholars have suggested that Postclassic wares were mass produced
(Sabloff and Rathje 1975, Rathje et al. 1978). In contrast, wares of the Early, Late, and Terminal Classic
exhibit more pronounced inter-site differences in ceramic styles, with sites located just a few days journey
apart from one another possessing completely different lists of types (Smith and Gifford 1965:533, Willey,
Culbert, and Adams 1967:310, Ball 1977, Gifford
162
Acta Archaeologica
1976, Fry 1989:103). This paper explores patterns of

intrasite and regional ceramic diversity over time in
portions of the Maya lowlands and offers interpretations of these trends in light of fluctuating dynamics
of economic interaction, political organization, and
population distribution across the landscape.
Several approaches are possible for assessing ceramic diversity among assemblages of the Late Preclassic, Classic, and Postclassic periods in the Maya
area. A landmark previous effort at making such comparisons was published by Rice (1989), who documented greater diversity in the type lists of assemblages of the Classic periods compared to the Late
Preclassic. In that earlier study, Rice infers that the
overall greater diversity of the Classic period pottery
was a reflection of increased social stratification. She
(1989) further noted that many aspects of ceramic
production can be compared, including form, style,
and technology. Rices primary goal for comparing
the diversity of Preclassic and Classic period assemblages was to track the degree of craft specialization.
In her original model, an increase in ceramic production specialization in the manufacture of specific vessel types was an expected correlate of increased social
differentiation that accompanied hierarchical development of Classic period Maya polities. This vertical
social differentiation created different sets of consumers and a greater variety of occasions calling for
diverse ceramic wares. This paper builds upon Rices
previous analysis in the following three ways: 1) by
adding the Postclassic period to the temporal comparisons of ceramic diversity in the Maya area, 2) by
comparing ceramic diversity within several sites by
time period rather than just looking at a single site,
and 3) in making geographic comparisons of ceramic
typological diversity between sites. This essay explores
the meaning of temporal and geographic variation in
ceramic production with regard to changing political
formations.
CERAMICS AND POLITICAL STRUCTURE

The lesser diversity of assemblages during the Late
Preclassic and Late Postclassic has meaning only in
the relative sense as compared to the intervening
Classic periods. The Classic periods (Early, Late, and
Terminal) are known to be the most politically hier-
archical intervals of the lowland Maya sequence (Culbert 1991, Demarest 1992, Chase and Chase 1992),
and in this paper I argue that fundamentally different
forms of political economies and regional interaction
are represented by the more geographically confined
ceramic stylistic spheres of the Classic periods than
during the preceding or subsequent periods. Although
Classic period Maya society possessed strong local
utilitarian economies (Rice 1987a) and more distant
prestige exchange networks (Blanton et al. 1996), the
shrunken extent of ceramic style zones suggests that
utilitarian interaction spheres were localized around
primary political centers within sub-regions of the
lowlands (Rands and Bishop 1980, Rice 1987a). A
decreased level of interaction with other neighboring
and more distant political spheres among those individuals who produced, exchanged, and consumed the
majority of ceramic wares is implied by this pattern.
This paper argues that the size and multiplicity of the
Classic period ceramic style zones reflect networks of
interaction that were intensive (Mann 1986:79),
inward-looking (Fry and Cox 1974:210, following
Rands 1967), or solar (as in relatively independent,
Smith 1976, West n.d.). In contrast, style zone distributions of the Late Preclassic and Late Postclassic
period imply that economic networks of this period
were extensive (Mann 1986:79) or outwardlooking (Fry and Cox 1947:210, following Rands
1967).
A recently proposed dual processual model
(Blanton et al. 1996) compares and contrasts Mesoamerican political economies and argues that Late
Preclassic (such as El Mirador) and Postclassic (such
as Chichen Itza) Maya polities employed a corporate strategy that emphasized group-oriented doctrine and politicoeconomic institutions. In societies
led by this style of political regime, relatively open
economic systems contribute to reducing inter-individual displays of status and wealth differences and
the types of behavior that would allow individuals to
establish a monopoly on power or prestige (Blanton
et al. 1996). In contrast, individualizing networking
regimes promote prestigious displays that encourage
elites efforts to control the acquisition and distribution of distant luxury items. Blanton and colleagues
call attention to different forms of political economies
that can culminate in contrasting patterns of collec-
163
Fig. 2. Selected Late Preclassic, Classic, and Postclassic ceramic chronological sequences in the Maya lowlands that illustrate the longevity
of the Late Preclassic and Late Postclassic periods and the longer stability of modes of ceramic production implied by this longevity.
tive versus individualizing forms of social identity,

leadership legitimation, and economic exchange (following Renfrew 1974).
In separate works, these scholars have also noted
the influence of scale on patterns of political centralization (Kowalewski et al. 1983, Feinman 1998). Most
relevant to this paper, some large scale complex soci-
eties may also be relatively decentralized (Blanton

1998). Extensive networks of mercantile-oriented polities that are largely decentralized through diffuse
power networks are also described by Mann (1986:8
10). Certain kinds of political hierarchies create
boundaries that act as barriers to interaction, while
decentralized networks are more fluid (Kowalewski et
164
Acta Archaeologica
al. 1983:40, Cherry 1987:156). In regional networks

that are inherently open and where economic activities are not spatially redundant, a high degree of interdependency can develop. Kowalewski (1982:66)
notes these patterns for Late Postclassic Mesoamerica,
where they correlate with ill-defined political boundaries. The existence of open, loosely bounded political
landscapes probably contributed to the widespread
ceramic styles of the Late Preclassic and Postclassic
periods that are described in this paper.
The issue of ceramic style zone sizes in Mesoamerica was examined by Barbara Stark for the Preclassic
period in Veracruz, Mexico (1997). Stark notes that
ceramic styles closely reflect geopolitical units, and
observes that the trend of localization and shrinking of ceramic style zones occurs with the rise of
hierarchical Middle Preclassic Olmec polities along
with an increase in population size (Stark 1997:288).
Ceramic styles can represent the degree to which social and economic networks between communities are
open or closed across a landscape (B. Stark 1997:179,
Graves 1994, M. Stark 1994), and I contend here that
this relationship was true for the Maya lowlands and
explains diachronic trends observed in ceramic diversity.
Political interaction is identified as an important
factor in maintaining peaceful relationships that facilitate the operation of markets and other mechanisms
of exchange (Stark 1997:179). It has been suggested
by Gifford (1976:153154) and Ball (1981:227228)
that the uniformity of Late Preclassic Maya sphere
ceramics across the landscape may reflect the existence of more open economic systems compared to the
Classic period. The trend for initial ceramic stylistic
spheres to be more broadly uniform geographically,
followed by spatial contraction into more localized
spheres is also observed in North American regions
(Braun and Plog 1982, Stark 1997:280). Increased
competition among emerging polities may contribute
to this limitation of social spheres, as Stark notes
(1997:283).
Willey (1991, 1999) has discussed a related phenomenon for Preclassic Mesoamerican Olmec society
and the Chavin of Peru. He notes that these societies
are associated with widespread horizontal stylistic integration, a pattern that he interprets to represent
broadly-disseminated political ideology and economic
exchange. These periods are disrupted by episodes

characterized by regional stylistic diversity and Willey
observes alternation in tendencies of localization of
stylistic phenomena and periods of more extensive
geographic similarity. For the Olmec, Willey notes
that broadly-shared symbolism is associated with
equally broad important networks of economic exchange (Willey 1991:206). The widespread distribution of Olmec style ceramics are the result of
various local and interactive processes among societies in many regional pockets of Mesoamerica (Flannery and Marcus 1994, Clark 1997, Clark and Blake
1989), but few would deny that Veracruz Olmec polities interacted with other regions through inter-regional exchange of valuable items. Rathje (n.d.) notes
that widely-shared symbolism facilitates transethnic
and transnational communication among societies today and paves the way for commercial activity as it
probably did for Olmec lords and their contemporary
polities outside of the Veracruz region.
EXPLANATIONS FOR CERAMIC STYLISTIC

VARIATION
Many variables can produce a pronounced degree of
localized diversity or widespread geographic uniformity in ceramic stylistic traditions. Kalinga ethnoarchaeological studies have linked the social identities
of small regional communities with stylistic distinctiveness, where the maintenance of ultra-local identity
and group boundaries are important (Graves
1994:18). Some scholars attribute regional uniformity
or standardization of pottery wares to the centralization of production (Sinopoli 1991:116, 145159),
which is true for some regions such as the Valley of
Oaxaca (Feinman 1985, Feinman et al. 1984, Feinman et al. 1989) and Mesopotamia (Johnson 1973,
1987). This is not true for the Maya area throughout
most time periods and locations (West n.d.). A valid
critique of the universal association of centralization
and widespread, homogenous style distributions is offered by Hodder (1982). In some cases, the opposite
trend is documented. More widespread artifact style
zones can be found when production is primarily accomplished at a local level (Plog 1980, 1983:134). The
decentralized nature of many Late Postclassic polities
(outside of the city of Mayapan) is similarly associated

with great stylistic integration. An examination of the
specific historical factors influencing production, exchange, and style distribution is needed in each regional case, as wares can become more diverse or
less diverse with centralization or decentralization in
different instances (Plog 1983:135).
Other scholars attribute broad geographic similarities in pottery manufacture to expanding networks of
human economic interactions that affect concepts of
group identity (Watson and LeBlanc 1973, Wobst
1977, Braun 1985). While studies in the Near East
have attributed widespread uniformity to the actual
trade of ceramics (Watson and LeBlanc 1973), the exchange of ideas about style also occurs through trade,
which may or may not involve the exchange of large
quantities of ceramic vessels. It has been noted in
other regional interaction spheres of the world that
pottery can travel far greater distances over water
than via overland routes, as can stylistic ideas that
affect pottery manufacture (Sinopoli 1991:104, Clark
and Gosser 1995). Overland routes for direct Mesoamerican pottery exchange studied by Foster
(1965:56, Sinopoli 1991:104) do not exceed 150 miles, whereas water transport facilitated Roman vessel
distribution for much further distances in ancient
Europe (Sinopoli 1991:104). Among the Dalupa of
the Phillipines, pottery exchange distances between
groups tripled with the construction of a new road
system connecting regions that were within 40km of
one another (M. Stark 1994:191). The construction
of roads in this case had a similar effect to that of
maritime transport among coastal societies.
Utilitarian wares of the Classic Maya period are
thought by Fry (1980:16) to have been obtained
through local or sub-regional market exchange, and
such a context would provide an environment conducive for interaction and transmission of desirable
attributes of ceramic vessels to producers. The
characteristics of local production are understood
from only a few studies (Rice 1980, Rands and Bishop
1980, Foias and Bishop 1997, Kepecs 1998, Mock
1997), and more paste studies are needed to iron out
specifics of community pottery making and exchange.
During the Postclassic Maya period, the development of circum-peninsular water-borne canoe trading
is well attested-to in Spanish accounts. This pan-peninsular trade has been linked to the standardization
165
of Postclassic pottery attributes (Sabloff and Rathje

1975, Rathje 1975, Rathje et al. 1978). It is not known
if this standardization is due to mass (centralized) production and bulk transport of pottery for trade as Sabloff and Rathje (1975) proposed. Studies of paste
and attribute variation are needed to evaluate this hypothesis. The homogeneity of local pastes in sub-regions of the lowlands such as the Peten Lakes (Rice
1980) or northern Belize (Masson and Mock n.d.) suggests that a great mixture of diverse pastes resulting
from multiple production locales is not present at
Postclassic communities. This pattern could reflect
the presence of fewer, mass production centers or
a similarity in clay selection and processing techniques used by a variety of producers to make such
pottery within these sub-regions. Technological developmental trends observed in Postclassic wares over
time indicate that potters improved and standardized
their techniques (Rice 1980, Masson and Mock n.d.).
Potters in various lowland sub-regions conformed to
many common stylistic templates for surface decoration and form. Extensive Postclassic trade contributed to potters sharing and adopting these common
conventions in various sub-regions. The mercantile
focus of the Postclassic period contrasts to earlier concerns of Classic period kings with political ascent,
dynastic history and legitimization, and warfare
(Webb 1964, Rathje 1975, Sabloff and Rathje 1975).
In ethnoarchaeological studies, greater access to
markets affects the types of pottery found in households in the Maya highlands (Arnold 1991:67). In Arnolds study, isolated communities that lack easy market access more often make their own wares or use
less kinds of wares than are regionally available. The
amplified regional market access inferred for Postclassic Maya communities thus probably contributed to
greater inter-site similarities of assemblages of this
period. This pattern represents an inverse and complementary trend to that observed by Arnold, although more studies are needed to document the degree of intercommunity variation in pottery assemblages for the Postclassic period. Sanders (1960)
initial study of Ichpaatun and Tulum assemblages
suggests that differences in stylistic diversity among
more decorated, elite wares at Postclassic centers do
exist.
More difficult to address are the cognitive factors
166
Acta Archaeologica
Fig. 3. Pie charts indicating relative percentages of slipped wares from selected Late Preclassic sistes, including Cuello (upper left, data from
Hammond et al. 1991:Fig. 3.40), Alta de Sacrificios (upper right, data from Adams 1971), Barton Ramie (lower left, data from Gifford 1976),
and Becan (lower right, data from Ball 1977:Appendix I, 16(A) 784 and 16(A) 785786).
influencing widespread ceramic stylistic integration

during the Late Preclassic and Late Postclassic Maya
periods. Ceramic sociologists have argued that style
is a form of nonverbal communication that conveys
important information about group identity (Wiessner
1983, 1984, Hegmon 1992:518). Hegmon notes
(1992:521) that style has different meaning in different contexts. Styles of objects destined for use in private contexts can, for example, be intended for use in
rituals by small numbers of individuals, while objects
that are widely visible in society (like common ce-
ramic wares) are more symbolic of group or ethnic

boundaries (Hegmon 1992:521). Broader similarities
in ceramic styles can also be punctuated by subtle
local variations or particular forms manufactured by
a single community or small set of communities,
which have been termed microtraditions by Deal
in the modern Maya highland settlements (1998:32).
Such microtraditions have been documented in the
Late Preclassic (Angelini and McAnany 1999) and
Postclassic Maya lowlands (Graham and Pendergast
1989:11, Chase and Chase 1988) in studies that have

focused on whole vessels from funerary or ritual contexts that tend to have more limited distributions.
These specialized wares are accompanied by shared
forms of common serving dishes and attributes of surface decoration that are found at most among sites
(Masson 2000). Plog notes that style is multidimensional, and can be assessed at many levels of social
interaction or design hierarchies, as particular attributes vary in different ways (Plog 1983:129).
MAYA UTILITARIAN AND PRESTIGE

ECONOMIC SPHERES AND STYLISTIC
VARIATION
Ceramic production and exchange operated in two
overlapping realms of Maya society. Most pots represented basic commodities of common households exchanged in a utilitarian realm and rarer forms represented status objects that circulated in a realm of prestige goods exchange and elite gift-giving (Rands and
Bishop 1980, Ball 1993, Rentz-Budet 1994). Distributions of the latter are apical, though not entirely
exclusive. Ceramics that are found in greater abundance in elite contexts are embued with different
forms of stylistic meaning. Elaborate Classic period
polychrome vases, commissioned for elites (Rentz-Budet 1994, Ball 1993), represent private, ritual, and
political spheres described by Hegmon (1992:521).
More common wares, highly visible in many consumption activities of daily life and found in all residential contexts perhaps reflected the identity of
groups of communities as Hegmon suggests.
Differences in frequencies are observed among so
called elite wares (rarer) and utilitarian wares
(more common) in assemblages from different sites
and in contexts at individual sites. Elite wares, by
definition, are more commonly recovered in tombs,
ritual offerings, or elite residences, while utilitarian
wares are more generally distributed. However, a notable characteristic of Maya economies is the lack of
exclusive distributions for most highly valued commodities, which trickle down in reduced proportions
to even the most common of households (Gifford
1976:153154, Freidel 1986b:414). The ceramic assemblages compared in this paper include those that
were most commonly manufactured and distributed
in each time period and those rarer types that occur
167
in greater numbers in elite contexts but are also found

in some commoner households. Entire site assemblages are the focus of this paper, due to the subjectivity involved in identifying elite wares across a
continuum of frequencies in various site contexts and
due to the lack of published data on frequencies of
such wares according to context.
REGIONAL COMPARISONS OF CERAMIC

STYLISTIC DIVERSITY: A NEW
EXAMINATION
CERAMIC DATA USED IN THIS STUDY
Data used in the comparisons below are from various

sites with published sherd type:variety classification
counts from different periods (Fig. 2). For the Late
Preclassic (Table 1, Fig. 3), sherd counts are used from
Barton Ramie (Gifford 1976, compiled from text),
Cuello (Hammond et al. 1991:Fig. 3.40), Becan (Ball
1977:183, context 16(A)785786), and Altar de Sacrificios (Adams 1971, compiled from various tables, including 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 20, and others).
For the Early and Late Classic periods (Tables 2, 3,
Figs. 4, 5), I use samples from Altar de Sacrificios,
Barton Ramie, and Becan (Early Classic context
16A781783 and Late Classic context 1Q) from the
same literary sources cited above. For the Terminal
Classic period (Table 4, Fig. 6), sherd counts were
used from the same sites as for the Early and Late
Classic (using context 2(B)355, 359 from Becan), with
the addition of sites from Macanche Island (Rice
1987b:Table 3) and Cerros (Walker 1990:Table 1.1).
Late Postclassic samples (Table 5, Fig. 7) were used
from Macanche Island (Rice 1987b:Table 8), Caye
Coco (Masson and West 1999), Mayapan (Smith
1971), and Cozumel (Connor 1983:Appendix Table
B1).
In my examination of assemblage diversity, I depart from Rices (1989) approach in that issues of craft
specialization are not of concern to this study. This
study examines only the types of ceramics that producers were attempting to conform to, irrespective of
their degree of success. Based on Rices (1987a) work
and an important study by Rands and Bishop of community level ceramic production (1980), I infer that
the utilitarian assemblages found at Late Postclassic
and Postclassic sites consist of types that were pro-
168
Acta Archaeologica
duced primarily on a local basis at the communities

examined (or their close neighbors) and that these
types were exchanged in local or regional markets (involving sets of communities within a few days travel
of one another). Although sourcing studies (Rands
and Bishop 1980) suggest that communities may have
specialized in particular forms, Rands and Bishop
also suggest that intercommunity exchange of these
forms resulted in the presence of functionally complete assemblages at households and sites within these
community exchange spheres.
Rice (1981:222) has observed that technological
variation within types reflects differences in abilities
of producers to conform to a mental template. For
this current study, variation in technological quality
or paste types are not considered relevant as these are
merely the result of local skill and local resources that
were available and variable across lowlands geography. More important to this study are the attempts by
community producers to replicate regional forms and

styles (the primary basis for classification of types
and varieties in the type:variety system), irrespective of the skills or resources they possessed to accomplish this.
The type:variety method is a taxonomic approach
to ceramic classification commonly used in the New
World (Wheat et al. 1958). A type is a broad category of ceramics that share diagnostic attributes, including surface decoration, form, or paste. Types can
be further divided into varieties. Type groups (or clusters) reflect broader regional similarities, and are
thought to represent shared normative concepts of ceramics style and production (Gifford 1960, Sinopoli
1991:52), and for this reason the type group classification is used for comparisons in this study. The type
group is a category of ceramic classification that includes around 15 types of ceramics that are related
based on slip, paste, and range of forms. Each type
Table 1. Late Preclassic ceramic samples (from Adams 1971, Hammond et al. 1991, Gifford 1976, Ball 1977 as cited in text).
Groups
Sierra R
Chicago OJ
Joventud R
Polvero B
Matamore
Flor Cream
Escobal
Ixcopal
Itzan R on
Guacamallo
Other
Hillbank R
Aguila OJ
Muxanal RoC
Zapotista trickle
Dos Arroyos
Sapote Striated
Richardson Peak Unslip
Paila Unslip
Achiotes Unslip
N of groups
N of types
NISP
% shared w/Cuello
% shared w/B. Ramie
% shared w/Becan
Altar
N sherds
Cuello
N types
Cuello
N Sherds
Barton Ramie
N types
Barton Ramie
N sherds
Becan
N types
Becan
N sherds
550
9
1
1777
385
3728
147
2
1
1
1
58
78
24
15
844
1
1
18
22
212
1
1
1
5
724
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
62
3
135
5
215
67
15
3
10
15
634
1
1
N of groups
N of types
1514
NISP
96.3% % shared w/Altar
96.3% % shared w/B. Ramie
96.6% % shared w/Becan
17
83
1200
1303
8
N of groups
17
N of types
2437
NISP
77.0% % shared w/Altar
77.0% % shared w/Cuello
77.6% % shared w/Becan
6
18
8011
74.7%
74.7%
74.7%
1
12
N of groups
11
N of types
14
NISP
412
% shared w/Altar
78.4%
% shared w/Cuello 75.2%
% shared w/Bramie 74.0%

within a type group examined in the literature used
in this study is usually further divided into around 1
3 varieties based on differences in decorative attributes or form. While communities are expected to
show more variation in their varieties, types and type
groups are more indicative of patterns shared on a
regional level (Smith et al. 1960). Most type groups
are dominated by a single type (such as Sierra Red in
the Sierra Group, Ball 1977:183, context 16{A}785
786), with low numbers of specimens defining additional types (such as Repasto Black-on-Red in the
Sierra Group, Ball 1977:183, context 16{A}785
786).
169
Some fundamental methodological barriers exist

for making intersite comparisons. In any analytical
field, there are lumpers and splitters, and the
lumper approach is useful for the purposes of this
examination which seeks to identify broad regional
similarities or differences. For example, not all Postclassic scholars express the view in print that Late
Postclassic communities across the Maya lowlands
possessed closely-related utilitarian ceramic traditions,
while others do hold this view (Rathje et al. 1978,
Masson 2000). Those interested in facets of local community technology have emphasized such aspects of
ceramic production as variability in paste groups and
Table 2. Early Classic ceramic samples (from Adams 1971, Gifford 1976, Ball 1977 as cited in text).
Groups
Altar
N types
Sierra Red
Caribal Red
Cumbre Red
Tranquilo Red
Fowler OJ Red
Minanha Red
Dos Hermanos R
Balanza Black
Discordia Black
Polvero Black
Gavilan Black
Pucte Brown
Actuncan OJ
Mojarra OJ
Dos Arroyos Poly
Aguila OJ
San Roman relief
Balanza
Batres
Maxcanu
Quintal
Tixcacal OJ poly
Escobal R on Buff
Mopan striated
Sapote striated
Socotz striated
Triunfo striated
White Cliff striated
Hewlett Bank unslip
Altar
N sherds
Barton Ramie
N types
Barton Ramie
N sherds
19
237
35
42
9
24
18
32
74
16
7
1472
2
2
2
1
4
1221
2907
262
2792
3
2
219
202
3
2
1296
28
3362
11416
89
1621
N of groups
N of types
NISP
% shared w/B. Ramie
% shared w/Becan
15
not rec.
3697
43.1%
87.0%
1
1
N of groups
N of types
NISP
% shared w/Altar
% shared w/Becan
5299
235
12
23
29239
15.5%
14.1%
Becan
N types
Becan
N sherds
28
1
1
132
4
3
2
284
85
3
1
1
1
1
10
495
157
7
14
5
88
1166
N of groups
N of types
NISP
% shared w/Altar
% shared w/Bramie
13
18
2475
21.4%
20.2%
170
Acta Archaeologica
Fig. 4. Pie charts indicating relative percentages of slipped wares

from selected Early Classic sites, including Altar de Sacrificios (data
from Adams 1971), Barton Ramie (data from Gifford 1976), and
Becan (data from Ball 1977:Appendix I).

from selected Late Classic sites, including Altar de Sacrificios (data
from Adams 1971), Barton Ramie (data from Gifford 1976), and
Becan (data from Ball 1977:Appendix I).

slips within a limited regional sphere (e.g. Rice 1980).
Other investigators have focused on the analysis of
entire vessels and features (Graham 1987, Chase and
Chase 1988) which can offer better data than ceramic
sherds for the analysis of certain vessel forms. Ritual
or burial features, where whole vessels are most often
recovered, can yield primarily specialized ritual ce-
171
ramic forms. Such specialized pottery is illustrated by

the chalice vessels from funerary contexts at Lamanai
(Pendergast 1981) and effigy wares from caches at
Santa Rita (Chase and Chase 1988) which emphasize
community differences (Graham and Pendergast
1989:11, Chase and Chase 1988) rather than similarities. In a contrastive but perhaps complementary
Table 3. Late Classic ceramic samples (from Adams 1971, Gifford 1976, Ball 1977 as cited in text).
Groups
Altar
N types
Mountain Pine R
Subin Red
Tinaja Red
Ejercito Red
Corona Red
Petexbatun OJ
Mataculebra poly
Santa Rosa poly
Saturday Creek poly
Tasital
Molino Black
Achote Black
Teakettle Bank Black
Saxche OJ poly
Petkanche OJ poly
Chimbote poly
Palmar OJ
Sotero R-brown
Becanchen brown
Macal OJ R
Zacatel Cream
Juleki Cream poly
Petkanche cream
Azcorra Ivory poly
Cambio Unslipped
Corona
Dzitbalche
Petkanche poly
Triunfo striated
Egoista resist
Zopilote Smudge Black
other B or R on OJ
Jones camp striated
White Cliff striated
Zibal unslipped
Encanto Striated
Altar
N sherds
Barton Ramie
N types
Barton Ramie
N sherds
2923
Becan
N types
Becan
N sherds
878
8121
3
2
6
3
204
70
222
3
8113
1
1
3
1
2
2
3
1
1
2
44
81
1
4
6
6
5
4
59
207
11
21
13
9
1
1
1
732
2
1
2
3
1172
355
1510
10256
73
18
84
8
1
1
1
N of groups
N of types
NISP
% shared w/B. Ramie
% shared w/Becan
261
12
not rec.
772
0
36.1%
N of groups
N of types
NISP
% shared w/Altar
% shared w/Becan
3870
15438
1706
11
22
37965
0.0%
1.0%
1
N og groups
N of types
NISP
% shared w/Altar
% shared w/Bramie
7036
17
37
24800
28.4%
33.6%
172
Acta Archaeologica

from selected Late Classic sites, including Altar de Sacrificios
(upper left, data from Adams 1971), Barton Ramie (upper right,
data from Gifford 1976), Cerros (center left, data from Walker
1990), Becan (center right, data from Ball 1977:Appendix I), and
Macanche Island (lower left, data from Rice 1987).
173
Fig. 7. Pie charts indicating relative percentages of slipped wares from selected Postclassic sites, including and Macanche Island (upper left,
data from Rice 1987), Caye Coco (upper right, from Masson and West 1999), Mayapan (lower left, from Smith 1971), and Cozumel Island
(lower right, from Connor 1983).
fashion, similarities are observed in utilitarian ceramics that are more comparable between sites (Masson 2000). Perhaps local identities were celebrated in
ritual wares, but larger affinities were expressed in the
utilitarian realm. Stark (1997) discusses difficulties in
making intersite comparisons of ceramic assemblages
using published illustrations of ceramic wares, which
usually tend to show the most common and or the
most rare wares but do not reflect their proportions
in the assemblages from which they are derived. Publication of unusual, idiosyncratic vessels can give a
faulty impression that ceramics from different sites are
quite dissimilar, and can misrepresent greater similar-
ities reflected in shared, utilitarian types. Complete

publication of quantified ceramic type frequencies is
more conducive for inter-site comparisons.
Inter-regional comparisons of ceramic types are
difficult due to the variety of criteria used by different
ceramicists in classifying their data. Plog notes
(1983:128) the subjectivity of typological analysis of
stylistic data that has complicated his own efforts to
make regional comparisons in the Southwest U.S. Experiments with the replicability of ceramic typological
analysis reveal substantial discrepancies (3050%) in
type groupings among different investigators (Plog
1983:136). The geographic extent of general charac-
174
Table 4. Terminal Classic ceramic samples (from Adams 1971, Gifford 1976, Ball 1977, Walker 1990, Rice 1987:Table 3 as cited in text).
Altar
N types
Barton Ramie
N types
Barton Ramie
N sherds
2749
Cerros
N types
Cerros
N sherds
Becan
N types
Becan
N sherds
Macanche
N types
Macanche
N sherds
100
372
547
1
105
1
1
167
14
1
1
1
1
153
1418
400
32
766
177
10
328
2
3
1
1
4617
4394
758
1633
1
2
620
27
76
14
839
2
4
6
10
3
1
122
680
1
1
1
12
1
1750
132
97
12
3
13
1
1
2
7
2
1
1
1
3
23240
2441
1239
2
7
20
476
1427
204
1382
3
20
679
6
1
2
3217
12927
Acta Archaeologica
Dolphin Head Red

Kik Red
Kik Red
Subin Red
Ejercito Red
Abelino Red
Tinaja Red
Garbutt Creek R
Vaca Falls
Mt. Maloney Black
Yalbac Brown
Traino Brown
Payaso Orange Brown
Meditation Black
Achote Black
Daylight OJ
Anonal OJ
Sayaxche OJ poly
Palmar OJ
Balancan OJ
Altar OJ
Danta Cream
Savinal Cream
Harina Cream
Dolorido Cream poly
Nanzal
Asote
Tialipa
Belize Red
Chunhuitz OJ
Yaha Creek cream
Yantho Incised
Metzabok Slate
Ticul Thin Slate
Pixtun trickle on gray
Zopilote Smudge Black
Special: Red slip tripod dish
Chablekal
Encanto striated
Buyuk striated
Chambell striated
Red Neck Mother striated
Triunfo striated
Sakatan unslipped
Lacanaya plain
Tutu Camp striated
Cayo unslipped
Cambio Unslipped
Altar
N sherds
Table 4. Continued.
8
14
2231
N of groups
N of types
NISP
% shared w/Altar
% shared w/Bramie
% shared w/Cerros
% shared w/Becan
12
25
4204
44.0%
20.0%
44.0%
25.7%
N of groups
N of types
NISP
% shared w.
% shared w.
% shared w.
% shared w.
11
not rec.
2756
0
0.5%
1.2%
0.5%
N of groups
N of types
NISP
% shared w/Altar
% shared w/Bramie
% shared w/Becan
% shared w/Macanche
17
35
57946
0.0%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
10
not rec.
3319
0
52.9%
0
9.9%
N of groups
N of types
NISP
% shared w/B. Ramie
% shared w/Becan
% shared w/Cerros
% shared w/Macanche
N of groups
N of types
NISP
% shared w/Altar
% shared w/Becan
% shared w/Cerros
% shared w/Macanche
Altar
N sherds
Altar
N types
Barton Ramie
N types
Barton Ramie
N sherds
Cerros
N types
Cerros
N sherds
Becan
N types
Becan
N sherds
Macanche
N types
Macanche
N sherds
175
teristics of Maya lowlands Late Preclassic Sierra Red

pottery (Table 1), discussed below, is not disputed in
the literature (Gifford 1976:84, Ball 1977, Fry 1980:3,
Lopez 1997), and perhaps this trend is due to greater
intersite comparisons among investigators. The thrust
of Lopezs dissertation (1997) on Preclassic Maya ceramics critiques the pitfalls of community-based
analysis that does not acknowledge important regional similarities.
The Classic period types compared in this paper
were published by a variety of different investigators
(Tables 24, Figs. 46), and it is possible that some
fundamentally similar ceramics have been classified
under different local type names. More regionallyoriented studies are needed. Despite these potential
problems, most ceramicists whose studies are used in
this report were quite interested in regional relationships and had seen collections from other sites. Gifford (1976:192) comments on the increased diversity
of Classic period wares in describing decreased intersite similarities between Belize valley assemblages
and those of major Classic period sites to the west.
Although typological categories used in this paper will
probably be revised in future studies, the data used
here represent the most comprehensive published
studies that offer counts of type classifications suitable
for quantitative comparisons. The potential for typologically-similar wares to be classified under different
names in local assemblages is shared for the Postclassic period, as described below. Even allowing that potential additional diversity is represented in Classic
and Postclassic assemblages as quantified here
through typologies that have been split rather than
lumped, the trend of greater diversity within sites and
between sites during the Classic periods compared to
the Late Preclassic and Postclassic remains evident
and valid.
UNIFORMITY VS. DIVERSITY OVER TIME:

A LOOK AT COMMUNITY ASSEMBLAGES
OF EACH PERIOD
Three basic similarities are observed in the ceramic
assemblages of the Late Preclassic and Late Postclassic periods. The first and most general similarity of
the Late Preclassic and Postclassic periods is that
these are two of the most long-enduring ceramic as-
176
Acta Archaeologica
semblages in the Maya sequence (Fig. 2). Conservatively, each sequence lasts at least 500 years, and up
to 600 years in some parts of the lowlands (Pyburn
1989:126, Chase and Chase 1985:Figs. 2, 3). Figure
2 shows examples of site sequences that demonstrate
the relative longevity of these periods. While changes
in major ceramic type groups do occur during these
sequences, they do so along a continuum of attribute
variation that causes them to be classified within the
same or analogous typological categories. While the
type:variety method of ceramic classification commonly used in the Maya area has distinct advantages
and disadvantages (summarized recently in Lopez
1997), its widespread use within this region allows intersite comparisons to be made. This taxonomic approach to classification also serves as a measure of the
degree of production changes. Changes within major
types of the Late Preclassic and Late Postclassic Maya
lowlands are most commonly observed in the definition of new varieties of major types such as Sierra
Red or Payil Red in sites examined in this study.
Changes in the Classic period are across more inclusive type or type group categories (Gifford 1976).
While type groups have been selected for use in this
study, evidence suggests that variation in forms within
types (Rice 1981) and ceramic stylistic motifs (Stark
1997) are also amenable to these types of long term
comparisons and they reflect similar patterns.
The second major similarity between Late Preclassic and Postclassic ceramic patterns is that they are
dominated by a single redware group of ceramics
(Table 1, Figs. 3, 7). The Sierra Red ceramic type
group category represents the vast majority of slipped
wares among Late Preclassic assemblages (Sullivan
and Valdez n.d.), and Payil Red, Mama Red, and
Paxcaman Red are three closely-related sub-regional
types that represent a resounding majority of slipped
wares of Late Postclassic Maya assemblages (Smith
1971, Rice 1981, Masson 2000). Not only are these
red-slipped wares predominant in the assemblages,
but they are accompanied by fewer other types compared to the Classic periods (Tables 15, Figs. 47).
While variability in types and forms is observed
within the Late Preclassic and within the Postclassic
Mama Red, Payil Red, and Paxcaman Red type
groups, these groups share attributes of form, decoration, and to a certain extent, technology (though
clays vary) across different communities for each time

period. Fig. 4 shows the proportion of Sierra Red
wares among slipped ceramic groups at selected Late
Preclassic sites. Figs. 46 show the proportions of
slipped wares in Early, Late, and Terminal Classic
assemblages. While the Classic period sites also have
dominant wares, many sites have two or three types
that are most common in the assemblages rather than
a single dominant type of slipped ware as observed for
Late Preclassic and Postclassic samples. Classic period
assemblages are also accompanied by a far greater list
of other types than the Late Preclassic or Postclassic
samples (Tables 15). Fig. 7 displays a trend for the
predominance of a single type group of red ware ceramics at selected Postclassic sites that is comparable
to that trend shown in Fig. 4 for the Late Preclassic.
The third major similarity of Late Preclassic Chicanel and Mama Red/Payil Red/Paxcaman Red wares is that they are common at sites throughout the
Maya lowlands. At sites from northern Yucatan (Bey et
al. 1997) to the southern lowlands (Table 1), Late Preclassic ceramics are classified according to the same
type variety groups. The similarities between Mayapans Mama Red and censer and unslipped vessels
(Table 5) to those found at Postclassic sites in Quintana
Roo, Belize and the Peten have been described in the
literature (Robles 1986, Connor 1983, Peraza 1993,
Bullard 1973, Chase and Chase 1988). The broad geographic extent of Late Preclassic wares has been longnoted by ceramicists (Gifford 1976:153154, Ball
1981:226, Fry 1980:3), and is thought to reflect widespread regional contacts and norm sharing of attributes in pottery production (Fry 1980:3).
Fig. 3 illustrates the number of slipped wares for
selected Late Preclassic sites where ceramic type
counts were available. Sierra Red forms the majority
of all of these assemblages, ranging from 5476%.
Polvero Black is the second most common slipped
type for Altar de Sacrificios and Barton Ramie and it
is present at all sites examined, but other local types
are of secondary importance in the northern Belize/
southern Quintana Roo vicinities of Cuello and Becan (Fig. 3, Table 1).
Figs. 46 illustrate the diversity of slipped wares
found in each of the Classic periods. Considerable
variation is observed in the composition of assemblages from each temporal interval, both in the pro-
Groups
(suggested by the author*)
Fine OJ
Paxcaman/Payil Red
Paxcaman: Ixpop polychrome

Trapeche Red, Rita Red,
Mama Red
Groups (as published

Paxcaman Red
(minus 12.1% Ixpop)
Payil Red
Trapeche Red
Macanche
N types
Macanche
N sherds
983
1
4
135
280
Caye Coco
N types
Rita Red
Mama Red
Unspecified Gray
Topoxte
Other
Cedral Red
Red Santa
Black
Buff
Brown
San Joaquin Buff
Telch Brick
Other slip
Pozo, Cohokum, Mayapan
unslipped
Chilo & Navula unslip

Patojo censer, Chen Mul
1
4
3
Pozo unslipped
Cohokum Unslipped
Mayapan Unslipped
Chilo unslipped
Navula unslipped
Patojo Censer
Chen Mul Censer
Kol Modelled Censer
2611
817
Mayapan
N types
Cozumel
N types
Cozumel
N sherds
929
144
24
4603
90455
2207
1
1
1
2
1
336
64
2
7
16
366
5726
6849
371
838
3
4
3
3727
2384
306
11
41951
769
408
89
39
1
1
Macanche
Mayapan
N sherds
21
329
41
Ciega unsl
Tsabak unsl
Late Postcl
Caye Coco
N sherds
Macanche
(from Rice 1987:
Table 8)
NISP
3055
N of groups
9
N of types
24
% shared Mayapan
73.6%
% shared Cozumel
73.6%
% shared Coco
93.6%
Coco
NISP
N of groups
N of types
% shared Mayapan
% shared Cozumel
% shared Macanche
(note comparisons to Macanche include Paxcaman without Ixpop, Trapeche, Topoxte & unslipped only).
128809
224
Coco
Mayapan
9844
11
21
94.2%
93.5%
93.5%
NISP
N of groups
N of types
% shared Coco
% shared Cozumel
% shared Macanche
Mayapan
269423
9
40
99%
99%
98%
Cozumel
(Table B.1)
NISP
N of groups
N of types
% shared Coco
% shared Mayapan
% shared Macanche
14540
6
15
93.9%
95.0%
94.05%
Table 5. Late Postclassic ceramic samples (from Rice 1987:Table 8, Masson & West 1999, Smith 1971, Connor 1983:Table B1 as cited in text).
177
178
Acta Archaeologica
portions represented by various types, and in the most

numerous types at each site. For the Early Classic
(Fig. 4), 74% of the slipped wares of Altar de Sacrificios are comprised of Aguila Orange. Batres Redslipped wares, Dos Arroyos Polychromes, and Maxcanu brown-slipped ceramics comprise major proportions (41%, 23%, and 13% respectively) of the Becan slipped ware assemblage, and Barton Ramie is
dominated by Fowler Orange Red (14%), Minanha
Red (33%), and Balanza Black (31%). The greatest
number of types are found at Altar de Sacrificios, and
the fewest are reported from Barton Ramie (Fig. 4).
All sites have more type groups than the Late Preclassic assemblages shown in Fig. 3.
The Late Classic slipped ceramic samples illustrated in Fig. 5 (Table 3) also do not exhibit many
shared type groups between sites. The dominant wares at Altar de Sacricios include Tinaja Red (40%),
Zopilote Smudge Black (15%), Achote Black (14%),
and Subin Red (12%). At Barton Ramie, Macal Orange Red (61%) and Mountain Pine Ridge Red (17%)
are most common. Becanchen Brown (46%) and Molino Black (47%) are the primary slipped wares at Becan. Altar de Sacrificios and Becan each have longer
lists of slipped types than Barton Ramie, indicating
greater diversity at these sites. However, the Altar de
Sacrificios assemblage also has a greater number of
relatively common types than Becan, which is primarily dominated by two wares (Fig. 5). Greater typological diversity is thus seen in the western city state of
Altar de Sacrificios, and less diversity is reflected at
sites located at a distance from this area (to the east)

such as Barton Ramie and Becan.
The Terminal Classic assemblages are also quite
diverse and do not bear close resemblances to one
another (Fig. 6, Table 4). Dominant wares at Altar
continue from the Late Classic, including Subin Red
(40%), Tinaja Red (18%), and Zopilote Smudge Black
(26%). At Barton Ramie, Garbutt Creek Red (55%)
dominates the assemblage, Kik Red (82%) is prevalent at Cerros, and Tinaja Red (45%) is most common
at Macanche. Unlike the others, Becan is not dominated by a class of red-slipped ware. This trend is
maintained at Becan from the Late Classic period.
Instead, common types at this site continue to include
a black-slipped ware (Achote Black, 37%), and a
brown-slipped ware (Traino Brown, 24%), with Pixtun Trickle on Gray also forms a major proportion
(29%). While Altar de Sacrificios exhibits continuation from the Late Classic in its three most common
ceramic wares, a reduction in the number of types is
observed at this site over time. The opposite trend is
observed at Barton Ramie, which displays increased
typological diversity in its Terminal Classic assemblage compared to that of the Late Classic (Figs. 5,
6). This trend may reflect important production
changes in the Belize region in conjunction with the
fall of western centers.
Postclassic ceramic wares in this study that have
been classified as different local types within the Maya
lowlands are closely related and appear to represent
local attempts to conform to a broader regional tem-
Table 6.
Altar
RICHNESS (DIVERSITY)
Late Preclassic
1.3
Early Classic
1.34
Late Classic
1.84
Terminal Classic
1.54
Postclassic
EVENNESS (EQUITABILITY)
Late Preclassic
0.59
Early Classic
0.49
Late Classic
0.74
Terminal Classic
0.67
Postclassic
Cuello
B. Ramie
Becan
0.94
1.48
1.8
1.64
1.83
1.59
1.63
1.34
1.59
0.45
0.82
0.72
0.68
0.64
0.66
0.63
0.47
0.64
Cerros
1.33
0.55
Macanche Caye Coco
1.14
1.77
0.55
0.8
1.14
0.47
Mayapan
1.15
0.52
Cozumel
Average
1.23
1.33
1.59
1.61
1.49
1.32
0.69
0.63
0.61
0.63
0.61
0.62
179
Fig. 8. Number of ceramic type groups (slipped and unslipped) for all sites examined for each time period. The Late Preclassic, Early Classic,
and Postclassic sites have far fewer type groups than those identified for the Late Classic and Terminal Classic sites.
plate of vessel form and decoration. Paxcaman and

Payil Red wares bear important resemblances to each
other and to wares that have been classified as Mama
or Rita Red. Mayapans Mama Red ceramics probably represent a northwest Yucatan variant of Quintana Roos Payil Red wares (Peraza 1993:404). Forms
shared by Paxcaman, Payil, Mama, and Rita Red
wares include sag-bottom, tripod outflaring walled
dishes (with scrolled, vented, or pointed feet), collared
bowls, other small bowls and ollas, slipped ollas, and
jars (Masson 2000). Unslipped wares found from the
Peten Lakes to northern Yucatan also share very similar forms, including folded rim ollas, bowls, and applique or effigy censer wares. More detailed discussions of the chronology and geographic extent of
Postclassic ceramic wares are available elsewhere
(Masson 2000). Bullard (1973), Rice (1981), Chase
and Chase (A. Chase and D. Chase 1985, D. Chase
and A. Chase 1988), Robles (1986), Graham (1987),
and Valdez (1987) offer a variety of perspectives on
inter-site relationships. In the opinion of this author,
Payil Red, Mama Red, and Paxcaman Red ceramic

types represent local classifications by ceramicists that
are part of a pan-lowland complex of similar stylistic
attributes. Local potters were trying to conform to
widely-shared templates with clay resources and skills
available to them in various pockets of the southern
lowlands region. Fig. 7 shows the degree to which
red-slipped wares dominate Postclassic assemblages
from four different sites. At Caye Coco, Mayapan,
and Cozumel, Payil and Mama or Rita Red (closelyrelated types) account together for 8893% of the
slipped wares at these sites.
The average number of ceramic type groups per
site by time period is plotted in Fig. 8 (Table 6), which
includes both slipped and unslipped ware categories.
These numbers clearly show more diversity in the
number of type groups within the Classic period, with
Late Preclassic and Postclassic sites represented by averages of 8.5 and 8.7 type groups per site. These averages are substantially lower than the average number
of groups per site calculated for the Early Classic
180
Acta Archaeologica
Fig. 9. Cumulative frequency curves for each time period, showing the percentage of sherds (y axis) distributed in various type groups for all
sites examined. The sharper curves of the Late Preclassic and the Postclassic indicate that the majority of sherds in these assemblages are
made up of a very few highly abundant type groups, indicating a lower degree of diversity in these samples. In contrast, sherds are distributed
among several abundant type groups for the Classic period assemblages, indicating greater diversity.
(11.6), Late Classic (13.3), and Terminal Classic (13.3)

sites examined in this study. Such calculations are
affected by approaches to type:variety classificatory
techniques. Some very similar wares at different Postclassic sites have been classified with local type names,
such as local variants of Mayapans Chen Mul style
effigy censer style (listed as Patojo and Kol Modelled
types). If they had not been classified as separate wares, all indices of diversity employed in this paper
would be even more reduced for the Postclassic
period than they are as currently shown.
An examination of cumulative frequency curves of
the number of sherds in each group (for groups with
more than 20 sherds) by time period further illustrates
the diversity of ceramic types in the Classic periods
versus the Late Preclassic and Postclassic periods (Figure 9). The curves of the Late Preclassic and Postclassic are most similar, as they are shorter and exhibit
sharp vertical rises that indicate that fewer types make

up the majority of these assemblages. The Early Classic curve is also similar to the Postclassic curve in that
fewer types comprise the curve compared to Late and
Terminal Classic assemblages, although the vertical
portion of this curve is more gradual, indicating that
there are more types that are numerous in the Early
Classic assemblage than in the Preclassic and Postclassic samples. Sherd counts are distributed across
even greater numbers of type groups for the Late and
Terminal Classic periods, as indicated by their more
gradual curves (Fig. 9). Greater numbers of type
groups with only a few sherds in each category are
also exhibited for the Late and Terminal Classic
periods in particular, in comparison to the Late Preclassic, Early Classic and Late Postclassic curves (Fig.
9).
Statistical analysis of diversity has been commonly

applied to assess variation in archaeological type assemblages (Leonard and Jones 1989, Rick 1996), and
specifically applied to diachronic Maya ceramic type
variation by Rice (1989). Diversity analysis is performed using the Shannon-Weaver formula (Pielou
1966, Shannon and Weaver 1949:14) which generates
values of richness and evenness. This statistic can
be complicated to interpret and is not considered superior in this case to the frequency examinations already presented above. However, it provides one
further look at this data.
The formula for richness (also referred to as diversity) is as follows:
H p log p
where p is the number of ith species divided by the
sample size (Pielou 1966, Shannon and Weaver
1949:14), as defined by Reitz and Scarry (1985:20)
in their application of this technique to dietary diversity in zooarchaeological analysis. This measurement
(ranging from 0.14.99) reflects both how many categories (of ceramic type groups in this study) are present and how much each was utilized (paraphrased
from Reitz and Scarry 1985:20). Equitability is an additional measurement that can be calculated from this
index, which measures the distribution of numbers of
specimens across taxonomic or typological categories.
This value ranges from 0.11.0. If one or more categories contain the majority of the specimens, low
equitability values result (Reitz and Scarry 1985:20).
If the sample is more normally distributed with a few
abundant taxa, a moderate number of common taxa,
and many rare taxa, then higher equitability values
result (paraphrased from Reitz and Scarry 1985:20).
Equitability is calculated as follows:
E H/H max
where H is the Diversity index and H max is the
natural log of the number of observed species (Pielou
1966, Sheldon 1969) as explained by Reitz and Scarry (1985:20). Diversity indices are more complicated
to interpret than equitability indices. Diversity values
can increase with greater numbers of types (or taxa),
and as equitability of the distribution of these taxa
increases (Reitz and Scarry 1985:20). Both of these
181
measures are dependent on sample size. As samples

for all periods and sites are relatively large in this
study (Tables 16), size should not affect the use of
this statistic.
Diversity and Equitability values were calculated
for each site in all time periods (Table 7). The diversity (richness) measures confirm the patterns already
identified by the previous manipulations of this paper,
with higher average values calculated from Classic
period sites than from sites from the Preclassic or
Postclassic (Table 7, far right column). Considerable
variation is observed in the diversity values from individual sites, however, confirming the trend illustrated
in Figs. 48 for slipped wares. As richness values can
range from 1.04.99, the values shown in Table 7 are
rather tightly clustered between 1.32 and 1.61. These
similar values are probably derived from the fact that
most of the assemblages examined are dominated by
a few key types, as the diversity statistic is especially
sensitive to proportionate distributions. Equitability
values were also not particularly useful for distinguishing differences over time. Average values calculated
for groups of sites within each time period were all
nearly identical (Table 7).
DISCUSSION: EXPLAINING TRENDS IN

CERAMIC DIVERSITY
According to Rice (1989:111) low diversity can attest
to the existence of fewer products or producers, controlled production, or it can represent mass production and standardization among highly complex societies. Rices (1989) diversity comparisons by time
period within the site of Barton Ramie generally followed the results of this study, with diversity increasing overall during the Classic period (with some slight
reversals during the Late Classic compared to the
Early and Terminal Classic periods) compared to the
Late Preclassic. The Postclassic period was not included in Rices previous studies (1981, 1989). Rice
has interpreted increased diversity of the Classic
periods to indicate greater social diversity and specialization of tasks, roles, and activities that required specialized ceramic products (Rice 1987:79, 83).
Rices observations are certainly on target, as the
intricacies of elite life and its effects on southern lowland Maya society continue to be documented in on-
182
Acta Archaeologica
going ceramic studies (for example, Chase and Chase

1992, Ball 1993, Reentz-Budet 1994, 2000). In interpreting diversity fluctuations in the long term cycles
examined here, I explore the utility of Blanton et al.s
(1996) dual processual model for its explanatory potential. Assuming the existence of state level society
for the Late Preclassic and Late Postclassic Maya
southern lowlands, the relative decreased visibility of
social tiers, specialized elite activity, and prestige
goods ceramics the inverse of Rices criteria which
differentiated the Classic period are not thought to
simply represent a relative deflation of social complexity. Rather, these represent one characteristic of
corporate political organization as defined by Blanton et al., in which prestige items that signify the
exclusivity of individual political actors and ambitious
factions of society are relatively less common. Such
societies place a greater emphasis on the control of
staple finance, and prestige goods are used to a far
lesser degree to distinguish intermember status differences compared to more exclusionary systems of political economy such as that of the Classic period
Maya (Blanton et al. 1996:6). According to Blanton et
al. (1996:9), the Late Preclassic Maya represented a
corporate political formation, as they possessed group
oriented architectural complexes, wide open public
spaces, and an iconography that did not advertise the
individual status of political leaders.
Although the economic organization of Late Preclassic Maya polities is not well understood, the widespread regional distribution of ceramic wares associated with the Late Preclassic Chicanel sphere suggests
an open, far-reaching set of economic networks and
broad geographic integration across the Maya lowlands (Gifford 1976:84). The widespread production
of Sierra Red pottery types may have reinforced the
maintenance of a pan-lowland Maya identity. The
lack of subgroup divisions and boundaries implied by
the geographic extent of this ware is a significant clue
to the broad parameters of economic interaction at
this time. Reduced proportions of distinct elite wares
used primarily for feasting, gift-giving, and other selfaggrandizing posturing is a characteristic that might
be expected of corporate formations, according to
Blanton et al. (1996:67). This pattern is observed for
other valuable commodities as well, which are more
generally distributed in all social contexts of societies
with corporate organization, according to these

authors.
Blanton et al. also suggest that the group-oriented
style of Postclassic political art and architecture at
Chichen Itza (now considered to date to the Terminal
Classic/Epiclassic, Ringle et al. 1998, Bey et al. 1997,
Andrews et al. 2000) can be attributed to a corporate
strategy of rulership (Blanton et al. 1996:8). Rathje
(1975:421) noted 25 years ago that Postclassic states
cast aside inefficient investments of social energy such
as labor-intensive monumental works that glorified individual political campaigns during the Classic period
in favor of pursuits that resulted in greater affluence
among all members of society through an emphasis
on inclusive patterns of commercial production and
exchange. Sabloff and Rathje (1975) also noted that
most classes of commodities are distributed more
evenly among all social tiers (1975:423, 436), they
they interpreted to be related to a decline in costs
(due to efficiency of production and transportation) of
resources in general. In an earlier work, Webb
(1964:463478) pushed this notion further, suggesting
that progressive, mature, fully-developed state societies did not develop in Mesoamerica until the Postclassic period. Although I have fully discussed the application of Webbs models elsewhere (Masson 2000),
in brief, they apply criteria derived from comparative
analysis of civilizations by White (1959), Steward
(1955), Willey (1953:344359), Kroeber (1948:298
304), and Childe (1959:412421, 1960:88112,
1953). Some of these criteria for progressive (although this term is unnecessarily unilinear) states that
Webb and his predecessors defined are recognizable
attributes of Postclassic Maya regional organization.
Some of the signs of mature (progressive) state societies according to these scholars include the following:
1) evidence for greater universality (or internationalism) in belief systems and material culture, 2) the formation of larger political units or perhaps more extensive ones, 3) the lack of cultural isolation, 4) an
international economy, and 5) a decrease in investment of social energies into religious architecture in
favor of more efficient edifices and public spaces designed to be shared by larger secular factions of
society (Webb 1964:478). Rathje further developed
the idea that Postclassic architecture was designed to
accommodate larger groups of people and that it fa-

cilitated communication (1975:427). Most of these
traits are observed in the Postclassic lowlands with the
possible exception of the formation of large political
units, although the role of the centralized Mayapan
state in integrating the lowlands is under re-examination (Masson 2000). Political structure and polity size
varied across this area (Roys 1957, Marcus 1993), and
extensive networks of semi-autonomous polities existed outside the Mayapan political sphere that was concentrated in northwest Yucatan (Masson 2000). Mayapans lords engaged in important ritual and economic integrating activities across the peninsula that
joined many such semi-autonomous polities into a
larger regional sphere that transcended political
boundaries (Masson 2000).
The lack of ceramic diversity in Late Postclassic
wares probably reflects a reduced emphasis on subgroup geographical distinctions. The widespread geographic extent of local efforts to conform to these
basic types is indicative of greater lowland integration
than is previously observed for the Classic period, as
a consequence of increased pan-lowland interaction.
This interaction was driven by extensive market exchange and economic interdependencies that linked
communities from distant corners of the lowlands
through the facilitating mechanism of maritime transport during the Late Postclassic (Sabloff and Rathje
1975). Classic period economic interaction may have
been more bounded by hierarchical political systems
that fostered inward-looking production and exchange networks (West n.d.), and a greater dependency on overland routes that were suitable for
shorter distance exchange of common, everyday
items. The localization of Classic period interaction
spheres as implied by inter-polity stylistic diversity assessed in this paper may be related to the distribution
of populations across the landscape and the centralizing effects of city state hierarchies. Stark (1997) suggests that the development of Middle Preclassic Olmec hierarchies in conjunction with population increases around emergent centers facilitated the
development of more intensive, concentrated populations and community networks that had attained a
certain critical mass that allowed them to become selfsustaining and to form concentrated interaction
spheres with little need of external dependencies. This
model may also apply to the Classic period Maya
183
case, where population increases (Culbert 1988) and

hierarchical development culminated in similar solar (Smith 1976, West n.d.) or insular trends of interaction around local centers, at least in the realm of
everyday pottery exchange.
Too little systematic survey has been performed to
allow the estimation of Postclassic population sizes in
most areas of the lowlands (excepting Rice and Rice
1990 and Kepecs 1998) to determine whether population size or distribution is correlated with the development of extensive networks and interaction
spheres. Large numbers of settlements have been
found along the Caribbean coast (Andrews and Vail
1990), and, with the exception of Mayapan, settlement at Postclassic Maya sites generally is not heavily
concentrated or urbanized. Networks of semi-autonomous polities extend across the eastern coastal zone
of the Yucatan peninsula (Kepecs and Masson n.d.,
Masson 2000). The development of more externallyfocused local spheres of interaction does not correlate
with low population levels in coastal zones, although
settlement size reduction and dispersion may have
been important factors. Continued research is likely
to affirm Sabloff and Rathjes interpretation that the
development of pan-lowland market spheres and
maritime trade played an important role in regional
standardization of styles in common artifacts such as
ceramics. The Late Preclassic seems to have shared
with the Postclassic an extensive, pan-lowland economic network, yet this period shares pronounced hierarchical development (as reflected in architectural
monumentality) with the Classic period. The use of
coastal or riverine transport may have been helpful
in facilitating the extensive interchanges of the Late
Preclassic as well, as implied by research at the coastal
trading center site of Cerros (Freidel 1986a) and the
identification of large salt works in northern Yucatan
that date to this period (Andrews and Mock n.d.).
More work is needed to reconstruct greater detail in
systems of economic interaction for all of these
periods, particularly in the exchange spheres of common artifact classes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Research at Caye Coco has been supported by the National
Science Foundation, the Earthwatch Foundation, the Foundation
184
Acta Archaeologica
for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, and the Department of Anthropology at The University at Albany SUNY. I
would like to thank William Rathje, Barbara Stark, Lauren Sullivan, and John Clark for comments on an earlier version of this
paper that was delivered at the 1999 Society for American Archaeology meetings, although my appreciation in no way implies
that these scholars agree with the interpretations offered in this
paper.
REFERENCES
Adams, Richard E.W. 1971: The Ceramics of Altar de Sacrificios. Papers
of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol.
63 No. 1, Harvard University. Cambridge.
Andrews, Anthony P. & Gabriela Vail, 1990: Cronologia de Sitios
Prehispanicos Costeros de la Peninsula de Yucatan y Belice.
Boletin de la Escuela de Ciencias Antropologicas de la Universidad de
Yucatan 18(104105): 3766.
Andrews, Anthony P., Tomas Gallareta N., Fernando Robles C.,
Rafael Cobos P. & Pura Cervera R, 1988: Isla Cerritos: An
Itza Trading Port on the North Coast of Yucatan, Mexico.
National Geographic Research 4:196207.
Andrews, Anthony P., E. Wyllys Andrews & Fernando Robles,
1999: The Northern Maya Collapse and its Aftermath. Presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, Philadelphia.
Andrews, Anthony P. & Shirley B. Mock, n.d. New Perspectives
on the Prehispanic Maya Salt Trade. In Ancient Maya Political
Economies, edited by Marilyn A. Masson and David Freidel. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Angelini, Mary Lee & Patricia A. McAnany, 1999: Integration and
Identity Among Formative Maya Villages: A View from
Kaxob, Belize. Presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the
Society for American Archaeology, Chicago.
Arnold III & Phillip J, 1991: Domestic ceramic production and spatial
organization. Cambridge University Press.
Ball, Joseph W, 1977: The Archaeological Ceramics of Becan, Campeche,
Mexico. Middle American Research Institute Publication 43. Tulane University, New Orleans.
1981: Comments on Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A Trial Model (by Prudence M. Rice). Current Anthropology
22(3): 228.
1993: Pottery, Potters, Palaces, and Polities: Some Socioeconomic and Political Implications of Late Classic Maya Ceramic
Industries. In Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D.,
edited by Jeremy Sabloff and John Henderson, pp. 243272.
Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Bey, George J. III, Craig A. Hanson & William M. Ringle, 1997:
Classic to Postclassic at Ek Balam, Yucatan: Architectural and
Ceramic Evidence for Defining the Transition. Latin American
Antiquity 8(3): 237254.
Blanton, Richard E., 1998: Beyond Centralization: Toward a
Theory of Egalitarian Behavior in Archaic States. In Archaic
States, edited by Gary M. Feinman and Joyce Marcus, pp. 135
172. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Blanton, Richard E., Gary M. Feinman, Stephen A. Kowalewski &
Peter N. Peregrine, 1996: A Dual-Processual Theory for the

Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology
37(1): 114.
Braun, D., 1985: Ceramic decorative diversity and Illinois Woodland regional interaction. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited
by B.A. Nelson, pp. 128155. Southern Illinois University
Press, Carbondale.
Braun, D.P. & S. Plog, 1982: Evolution of Tribal Social Networks: Theory and Prehistoric North American Evidence.
American Antiquity 47: 504525.
Bullard, William R., Jr., 1973: Topoxte: A Postclassic Maya Site in
Peten, Guatemala. In Monographs and Papers in Maya Archaeology,
edited by William R. Bullard, pp. 245308. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University Vol. 61. Cambridge.
Chase, Arlen F. & Diane Z. Chase, 1985: Postclassic Temporal and
Spatial Frames for the Maya: A Background. In The Lowland
Maya Postclassic, edited by A. Chase and P. Rice, pp. 923.
University of Texas Press, Austin.
Chase, Diane Z. & Arlen F. Chase, 1988: A Postclassic Perspective:
Excavations at the Maya Site of Santa Rita Corozal, Belize. Precolumbian Art Research Institute Monograph 4, San Francisco.
1992: Mesoamerican Elites. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
Cherry, John, 1987: Power in Space: Archaeological and Geographic Studies of the State, In Landscape and Culture: Geographical
and Archaeological Perspectives, edited by J.M. Wagstaff. pp. 146
172. Basil Blackwell, London.
Childe, V. Gordon, 1959: The Birth of Civilization. In Readings in
Anthropology, edited by Morton H. Fried, pp. 412421. Thomas
Y. Crowell Co., New York.
1960: What Happened in History. Penguin Books, Ltd., Harmondsworth, Middlesex.
Clark, John E., 1997: The Arts of Government in Early Mesoamerica. Annual Review of Anthropology 26: 211234.
Clark, John E. & Michael Blake, 1989: El Origen de la Civilizacion
en Mesoamerica: Los Olmecas y Mokaya del Soconusco de
Chiapas, Mexico. In El Preclassico o Formativo: Avances y Perspectivas, edited by M. Carmona Macias, pp. 385403. Museo Nacional de Antropologia, Mexico City.
Clark, John E. & Dennis Gosser, 1995: Reinventing Mesoamericas
First Pottery. In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation
in Ancient Societies, edited by William K. Barnett and John W.
Hoopes, pp. 209222. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Connor, Judith G., 1983: The Ceramics of Cozumel, Quintana
Roo, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Arizona.
Culbert, T. Patrick, 1988: The Collapse of Classic Maya Civilization. In The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations, edited by
Norman Yoffee and George Cowgill, pp. 69101. University of
Arizona Press, Tucson.
1991: Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological
Evidence. School of American Research Advanced Seminar
Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Deal, Michael, 1998: Pottery Ethnoarchaeology in the Central Maya Highlands. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Demarest, Arthur A., 1992: Ideology in Ancient Maya Cultural
Evolution: The Dynamics of Galactic Polities. In Ideology and
Pre-Columbian Civilizations, edited by Arthur A. Demarest and
Geoffrey W. Conrad, pp. 135157. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Demarest, Arthur A. & Antonio E. Foias, 1993: Mesoamerican
Horizons and the Cultural Transformations of Maya Civilization. In Latin American Horizons, edited by Don S. Rice, pp. 147
192. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C.
Feinman, Gary M., 1985: Changes in the organization of ceramic production and organizational change in the pre-Hispanic valley of Oaxaca. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, edited
by Ben A. Nelson, pp. 195224. Southern Illinois Press, Carbondale.
1998: Scale and Social Organization: Perspectives on the Archaic State. In Archaic States, edited by Gary M. Feinman and
Joyce Marcus, pp. 95134. School of American Research Press,
Santa Fe.
Feinman, Gary M., Stephen A. Kowalewski & Richard E. Blanton,
1984: Modelling archaeological ceramic production and organizational change in the pre-Hispanic valley of Oaxaca. In The
Many Dimensions of Pottery: Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology,
edited by S.E. van der Leeuw and A.C. Pritchard, pp. 295
334. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.
Feinman, Gary M., S. Banker, R.F. Cooper, G.B. Cook & L.M.
Nicholas, 1989: A technological perspective on changes in the
ancient Oaxacan grayware ceramic tradition: Preliminary results. Journal of Field Archaeology 16:331343.
Flannery, Kent V. & Joyce Marcus, 1994: Early Preclassic Pottery of
the Valley of Oaxaca. Memoir 27, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Foias, Antonia E. & Ronald L. Bishop, 1997: Changing Ceramic
Production and Exchange in the Petexbatun Region, Guatemala: Reconsidering the Classic Maya Collapse. Ancient Mesoamerica
8: 275291.
Foster, George M., 1965: The Sociology of Pottery: Questions and
Hypotheses Arising From Contemporary Mexican Work. In Ceramics and Man, edited by F.R. Matson, pp. 4361. Viking Fund
Publications in Anthropology, No. 41. New York.
Freidel, David A., 1986a: Preface. In Archaeology at Cerros, Belize,
Central America. Vol. I. An Interim Report, edited by Robin A. Robertson and David Freidel, pp. ixx. Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas.
1986b: Terminal Classic Lowland Maya: Successes, Failures,
and Aftermaths. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Post-
185
classic, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and E.W. Andrews V, pp.

409430. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Freidel, David A. & Jeremy A. Sabloff, 1984: Cozumel: Late Maya
Settlement Patterns. Academic Press, New York.
Fry, Robert E., 1980: Models of Exchange for Major Shape Classes
of Lowland Maya Pottery. In Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, edited by R.E. Fry, pp. 318. SAA Papers No. 1, Soc.
For Amer. Archaeology, Washington, D.C.
1989: Prehistoric Maya Economies of Belize, edited by P.A. McAnany and B.L. Isaac. Research in Economic Anthropology
Supplement 4. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Fry, Robert E. & Scott C. Cox, 1974: The Structure of ceramic
exchange at Tikal, Guatemala. World Archaeology 6(2): 209225.
Gifford, James C., 1960: The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic
Classification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomenon. American
Antiquity 25: 341347.
1976: Prehistoric Pottery Analysis and the Ceramics of Barton Ramie in
the Belize Valley. Volume 18. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum
of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Cambridge.
Graham, Elizabeth A., 1987: Terminal Classic to Early Historic
Period Vessel Forms from Belize. In Maya Ceramics, edited by
Prudence Rice and Robert Sharer, pp. 7398. BAR International Series 345, Great Britain.
Graham, Elizabeth & David M. Pendergast, 1989: Excavations at
the Marco Gonzalez Site, Ambergris Cay, Belize, 1986. Journal
of Field Archaeology 16: 116.
Graves, Michael W., 1994: Kalinga Social and Material Culture
Boundaries: A Case of Spatial Convergence. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology, edited by William A. Longacre and James M. Skibo,
pp. 1350. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Hammond, Norman, Juliette Cartwright Gerhardt & Sara Donaghey, 1991: Stratigraphy and Chronology in the Reconstruction of Preclassic Development at Cuello. In Cuello: an early Maya
Community in Belize, edited by Norman Hammond, pp. 2369.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hegmon, Michelle, 1992: Archaeological Research on Style. Annual
Review of Anthropology 21: 517536.
Hodder, Ian, 1982: Symbols in Action. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Joesink-Mandeville, L. R.V., 1981: Comments on Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A Trial Model (by Prudence M.
Rice). Current Anthropology 22(3): 232.
Johnson, Gregory A., 1973: Local Exchange and Early State Formation in Southwestern Iran. University of Michigan Museum of
Anthropology Anthropological Papers, No. 51. Ann Arbor.
1987: The changing organization of Uruk administration on
the Susiana Plain. In The Archaeology of Western Iran: Settlement and
Society from Prehistory to the Islamic Conquest, edited by F. Hole, pp.
107139. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Jones, Grant D., 1999: The Conquest of the Last Maya Kingdom. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Kepecs, Susan, 1998: Diachronic Ceramic Evidence and Its Social
Implications in the Chikinchel Region, Northeast Yucatan,
Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 9(1): 121136.
Kepecs, Susan, Gary M. Feinman & Sylviane Boucher, 1994:
186
Acta Archaeologica
Chichen Itza and Its Hinterland: A World Systems Perspective.

Ancient Mesoamerica 5: 141158.
Kepecs, Susan & Marilyn A. Masson, n.d. Small Postclassic Polities
in Yucatan and Belize. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan. The University of Utah Press, Salt Lake.
Kowalewski, Stephen A., 1982: The Evolution of Primate Regional
Systems. Comparative Urban Research 9: 6078.
Kowalewski, Stephen A., Richard E. Blanton, Gary Feinman &
Laura Finsten, 1983: Boundaries, Scale and Internal Organization. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 3256.
Kroeber, A.L., 1948: Anthropology. Harcourt, Brace & Co., New
York.
Leonard, Robert D. & George T. Jones, 1989: Quantifying Diversity
in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Lopez Varela, Sandra, 1997: Dissertation on Preclassic ceramics
from Kaxob. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of London.
McAnany, Patricia A., 1995: Living With the Ancestors: Kinship and
Kingship in Ancient Maya Society. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Mann, Michael, 1986: The Sources of Social Power, Volume I: A History
of Power from the Beginning to A.D. 1760. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Marcus, Joyce, 1993: Ancient Maya Political Organization. In Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D., edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and John Henderson, pp. 111184. Dumbarton
Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Masson, Marilyn A., 2000: In the Realm of Nachan Kan: Postclassic
Maya Archaeology at Laguna de On, Belize. The University Press of
Colorado, Boulder.
Masson, Marilyn A. & Shirley Boteler Mock, n.d. Maya Cultural
Adaptations from the Terminal Classic to Postclassic Period at
Lagoon Sites in Northern Belize as Reflected in Changing Ceramic Industries. In The Terminal Classic in the Maya Lowlands:
Collapse, Transition, and Transformation, edited by Don S. Rice,
Prudence M. Rice, and Arthur A. Demarest. Westview Press,
Boulder.
Masson, Marilyn A. & Georgia West, 1999: Preliminary Observations on Postclassic Ceramic Development at Caye Coco. In
Belize Postclassic Project 1998: Investigations at Progresso Lagoon, edited by Marilyn A. Masson and Robert M. Rosenswig, pp. 163
168. Institute of Mesoamerican Studies Occasional Publication
No. 3, Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, The University at
Albany SUNY, Albany.
Matthews, Peter, 1991: Classic Maya Emblem Glyphs. In Classic
Maya Political History: Hieroglyphs and Archaeological Evidence, edited
by T.Patrick Culbert, pp. 1929. Cambridge University Press.
Mock, Shirley Boteler, 1997: Monkey Business at Northern River
Lagoon: A Coastal-inland Interaction Sphere in Northern Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 8: 165183.
Netting, Robert M., 1972: Sacred Power and Centralization: Aspects of Political Adaptation in Africa. In Population Growth: Anthropological Implications, edited by B. Spooner. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Pendergast, David M., 1981: Lamanai, Belize: Summary of Excavation Results, 19741980. Journal of Field Archaeology 8(1): 29
53.
Peraza Lope & Carlos Alberto, 1993: Estudio y Secuencia del Material
Ceramico de San Gervasio, Cozumel. Tesis Profesional, Universidad
Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Mexico.
Pielou, E.C., 1966: Species-Diversity and Pattern-Diversity in the
Study of Ecological Succession. Journal of Theoretical Biology 10:
370383.
Pina Chan, Roman, 1978: Commerce in the Yucatec Peninsula:
The Conquest and Colonial Period. In Mesoamerican Communication Routes and Culture Contacts, edited by T.A. Lee and C. Navarrete, pp. 3748. Papers of the New World Archaeological
Foundation 40. Brigham Young University, Provo.
Plog, Stephen, 1980: Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics. Cambridge University Press, New York.
1983: Analysis of Style in Artifacts. Annual Review of Anthropology
12: 125142.
Pollock, Harry E.D., Ralph L. Roys, Tatiana Proskouriakoff & A.L.
Smith, 1962: Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico. Carnegie Institute of
Washington Publication No. 619. Washington, D.C.
Pyburn, K. Anne, 1989: Prehistoric Maya Community and Settlement at
Nohmul, Belize. BAR International Series 509, Oxford.
Rands, Robert L., 1967: Ceramic Technology and Trade in the
Palenque Region, Mexico. In American Historical Anthropology, edited by C.L. Riley and W.W. Taylor, pp. 137151.
Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
Rands, Robert L. & Ronald L. Bishop, 1980: Resource Procurement Zones and Patterns of Ceramic Exchange in the Palenque
Region, Mexico. In Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, edited By Robert E. Fry, pp. 1946. SAA Papers No. 1, Society
for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C.
Rathje, William L., 1975: The Last Tango in Mayapan: A Tentative
Trajectory of Production-Distribution Systems. In Ancient Civilization and Trade, edited by J.A. Sabloff and C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 409448. Univ. of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Rathje, William L., David A. Gregory & Frederick M. Wiseman,
1978: Trade Models and Archaeological Problems: Classic
Maya Examples. In Mesoamerican Communication Routes and Culture
Contacts, edited by Thomas A. Lee and Carlos Navarrete, pp.
147175. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation
40. Brigham Young University, Provo.
Reentz-Budet, Dorie, 1994: Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics
of the Classic Period. Duke University Press, Durham.
2000: Classic Maya Concepts of the Royal Court: An Analysis
of Renderings on Pictorial Ceramics. In Royal Courts of the Ancient
Maya, Volume I: Theory, Comparison, and Synthesis, edited by
Takeshi Inomata and Stephen D. Houston, pp. 195236.
Westview Press, Boulder.
Reitz, Elizabeth J. & C. Margaret Scarry, 1985: Reconstructing Historic Subsistence with an Example from Sixteenth-Century Spanish
Florida. Special Publication Series, Number 3. Society for Historical Archaeology.
Renfrew, Colin, 1974: Beyond a Subsistence Economy: The Evolution of Social Organisation in Prehistoric Europe. In Reconstructing Complex Societies (Supplement to the Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 20), edited by
Charlotte B. Moore, pp. 6984. Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press.

Rice, Don S. & Prudence M. Rice, 1990: Population Size and
Population Change in the Central Peten Lakes Region, Guatemala. In Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Lowlands, edited by T. Patrick Culbert and Don S. Rice, pp. 123148. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Rice, Prudence M., 1980: Peten Postclassic Pottery Production and
Exchange: A View from Macanche. In Models and Methods in
Regional Exchange, edited by R.E. Fry, pp. 6782. SAA Papers
No. 1, Soc. For Amer. Archaeology, Washington, D.C.
1981: Evolution of Specialized Pottery Production: A Trial
Model. Current Anthropology 22(3): 219240.
1987a: Economic Change in the Lowland Maya Late Classic
Period. In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, edited by
E.M. Brumfiel and T.K. Earle, pp. 7685. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
1987b: Macanche Island, El Peten, Guatemala: Excavations, Pottery,
and Artifacts. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.
1989b: Ceramic diversity, production, and use. In Quantifying
Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Robert D. Leonard and George
T. Jones, pp. 109117. Cambridge University Press.
Rick, John, 1996: Projectile Points, Style, and Social Process in the
Preceramic of Central Peru. In Stone Tools: Theoretical Insights
into Human Prehistory, edited by George H. Odell, pp. 245278.
Plenum Press, New York.
Ringle, William M., Tomas Gallareta Negron & George J. Bey III,
1998: The Return of Quetzalcoatl: Evidence for the spread of
a world religion during the Epiclassic period. Ancient Mesoamerica
9: 183232.
Robles C., Fernando, 1986: Cronologia Ceramica de El Meco. In
Excavaciones Arqueologicas en El Meco, Quintana Roo, 1977, edited
by Antonio P. Andrews and Fernando Robles Castellanos, pp.
77130. Coleccion Cientifica, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia, Mexico, D.F.
Roys, Ralph L., 1943: The Indian Background of Colonial Yucatan.
Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 548. Washington.
1957; The Political Geography of the Yucatan Maya. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 613. Washington.
1965: Lowland Maya Society at Spanish Contact. In Handbook
of Middle American Indians 3: 659678. University of Texas Press,
Austin.
Sabloff, Jeremy A., 1975: Excavations at Seibal, Department of the Peten,
Guatemala: The Ceramics. Peabody Museum Memoir 13(2). Harvard University, Cambridge.
Sabloff, Jeremy A. & William L. Rathje, 1975: The Rise of a Maya
Merchant Class, Scientific American 233: 7282.
Sanders, William T., 1960: Prehistoric Ceramics and Settlement Patterns
in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Contributions to American Anthropology and History 12(60). Carnegie Institute of Washington
Publication 606, Washington, D.C.
Sanders, William T. & Barbara J. Price, 1968: Mesoamerica: The
Evolution of a Civilization. Random House, New York.
Scholes, Frances V. & Ralph L. Roys, 1948: The Maya Chontal Indians of Acalan-Tixchel: A Contribution to the History and Ethnography of
the Yucatan Peninsula. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication 560. Washington, D.D.
Shannon, C.E. & W. Weaver, 1949: The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.
187
Sheldon, A.L., 1969: Equitability Indices: Dependence on the Species Count. Ecology 50: 466467.
Sinopoli, Carla M., 1991: Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. Plenum Press, New York and London.
Smith, Carol A., 1976: Causes and Consequences of Central-Place
Types in Western Guatemala. In Regional Analysis, Volume I, Economic Systems, edited by Carol A. Smith pp. 255302. Academic
Press, New York.
Smith, Robert E., 1971: The Pottery of Mayapan. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 66. Harvard University, Cambridge.
Smith, Robert E. & James C. Gifford, 1965: Pottery of the Maya
Lowlands. In Handbook of Middle American Indians 2: 498543.
University of Texas Press, Austin.
Smith, Robert E., Gordon R. Willey & James C. Gifford, 1960:
The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for the Analysis of Maya
Pottery. American Antiquity 18: 305313.
Stark, Barbara L., 1997: Gulf Lowland Settlement in Perspective.
In Olmec to Aztec: Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands,
edited by Barbara L. Stark and Philip J. Arnold III, pp. 278
209. University of Arizona Press.
Stark, Miriam T., 1994: Pottery Exchange and the Regional System: A Dalupa Case Study. In Kalinga Ethnoarchaeology, edited
by William A. Longacre and James M. Skibo, pp. 169197.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.
Steward, Julian H., 1955: Theory of Culture Change. University of
Illinois Press, Urbana.
Sullivan, Lauren & Fred Valdez, Jr., n.d. Late Preclassic Maya
Ceramic Traditions in the Early Classic of Northwestern Belize.
Manuscript in possession of the authors.
Thompson, J. Eric S., 1970: Maya History and Religion. University of
Oklahoma Press.
Valdez, Fred, Jr., 1987: The Ceramics of Colha, Northern Belize.
Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard
University, Cambridge.
Walker, Debra, 1990: Cerros Revisited: Ceramic Indicators of Terminal Classic and Postclassic Settlement and Pilgrimage in
Northern Belize. Ph.D. dissertation, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.
Watson, P.J. & S. A. LeBlanc, 1973: A comparative statistical analysis of painted pottery from seven Halafian sites. Paleorient 1:
119133.
Webb, Malcolm C., 1964: The Post-Classic Decline of the Peten
Maya: An Interpretation in Light of a General Theory of State
Society. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, University
Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
West, Georgia, n.d. Ceramic Exchange in the Late Classic and
Postclassic Maya Lowlands: A Diachronic Approach. In Ancient
Maya Political Economies, edited by Marilyn A. Masson and David Freidel. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Wheat, Joe Ben, James C. Gifford & William W. Wasley, 1958:
Ceramic Variety, Type Cluster, and Ceramic System in Southwestern Pottery Analysis. American Antiquity 24: 3447.
White, Leslie, 1959: The Evolution of Culture. McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
New York.
Wiessner, P., 1983: Style and Social Information in Kalahari San
Projectile Points. American Antiquity 48: 253276.
188
Acta Archaeologica
1984: Reconsidering a Behavioral Basis for Style: A Case Study

Among the Kalahari San. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3:
190234.
Willey, Gordon R., 1953: Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Valley, Northern Peru. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No.
155. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1991: Horizontal Integration and Regional Diversity: An Alternating Process in the Rise of Civilizations. American Antiquity
56(2): 197215.
Authors address:
University at Albany
State University of New York
Department of Anthropology
Social Science 263
Albany, New York 12222
U.S.A.
mdelaguna/hotmail.com
1999: Styles and State Formations. Latin American Antiquity

10(1):8690.
Willey, Gordon R., Culbert, T. Patrick & Richard E.W. Adams,
1967: Maya Lowland Ceramics: A Report from the 1965 Guatemala City Conference. American Antiquity 32: 289315.
Wobst, H.M., 1977: Stylistic behavior and information exchange.
In For the Director: Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by C.
Cleland, pp. 317342. Anthropological Papers of the University
of Michigan, 61. Ann Arbor.

72 2 159

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

72 2 159

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Copyright C 2001

Acta Archaeologica vol. 72:2, 2001, pp. 159188

CHANGING PATTERNS OF CERAMIC STYLISTIC DIVERSITY

a more open and extensive network than during the

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

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

This period was also marked by a strong emphasis on

1976, Fry 1989:103). This paper explores patterns of

CERAMICS AND POLITICAL STRUCTURE

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

tive versus individualizing forms of social identity,

eties may also be relatively decentralized (Blanton

al. 1983:40, Cherry 1987:156). In regional networks

exchange. These periods are disrupted by episodes

EXPLANATIONS FOR CERAMIC STYLISTIC

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

of Postclassic pottery attributes (Sabloff and Rathje

influencing widespread ceramic stylistic integration

ramic wares) are more symbolic of group or ethnic

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

MAYA UTILITARIAN AND PRESTIGE

in greater numbers in elite contexts but are also found

REGIONAL COMPARISONS OF CERAMIC

Data used in the comparisons below are from various

duced primarily on a local basis at the communities

community producers to replicate regional forms and

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

Some fundamental methodological barriers exist

Fig. 4. Pie charts indicating relative percentages of slipped wares

Fig. 5. Pie charts indicating relative percentages of slipped wares

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

ramic forms. Such specialized pottery is illustrated by

Fig. 6. Pie charts indicating relative percentages of slipped wares

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

ities reflected in shared, utilitarian types. Complete

Dolphin Head Red

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

teristics of Maya lowlands Late Preclassic Sierra Red

UNIFORMITY VS. DIVERSITY OVER TIME:

clays vary) across different communities for each time

Paxcaman: Ixpop polychrome

Groups (as published

Chilo & Navula unslip

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

portions represented by various types, and in the most

sites located at a distance from this area (to the east)

Macanche Caye Coco

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

plate of vessel form and decoration. Paxcaman and

Payil Red, Mama Red, and Paxcaman Red ceramic

(11.6), Late Classic (13.3), and Terminal Classic (13.3)

sharp vertical rises that indicate that fewer types make

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

measures are dependent on sample size. As samples

DISCUSSION: EXPLAINING TRENDS IN

going ceramic studies (for example, Chase and Chase

with corporate organization, according to these

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

case, where population increases (Culbert 1988) and

Peter N. Peregrine, 1996: A Dual-Processual Theory for the

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

classic, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and E.W. Andrews V, pp.

Chichen Itza and Its Hinterland: A World Systems Perspective.