Ancient Mesoamerica

http://journals.cambridge.org/ATM

Additional services for Ancient Mesoamerica:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Diachronic Ceramic Evidence and its Social Implications in the Chikinchel

Region, Northeast Yucatan, Mexico

Susan Kepecs

Ancient Mesoamerica / Volume 9 / Issue 01 / March 1998, pp 121 - 135

DOI: 10.1017/S0956536100001899, Published online: 10 October 2008

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0956536100001899

How to cite this article:

Susan Kepecs (1998). Diachronic Ceramic Evidence and its Social Implications in the Chikinchel Region, Northeast
Yucatan, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica, 9, pp 121-135 doi:10.1017/S0956536100001899

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ATM, IP address: 128.210.126.199 on 24 May 2015

Ancient Mesoamerica, 9 (1998), 121-135
Copyright © 1998 Cambridge University Press. Printed in the U.S.A.

DIACHRONIC CERAMIC EVIDENCE

AND ITS SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
IN THE CHIKINCHEL REGION,
NORTHEAST YUCATAN, MEXICO

Susan Kepecs

Department of Anthropology, 5240 Social Science, 1180 Observatory Drive, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wl 53706, USA

Abstract
In this paper I present new, surface-collected ceramic data from the previously little-known Chikinchel region in northeast
Yucatan. My goals are twofold: first, to expand the utility of surface-collected materials by suggesting a technological approach
(paste analysis) to classify small or eroded sherds; and second, to place Chikinchel into the larger spatial and temporal framework
of the northern Maya lowlands. The ceramic analyses presented here span the Late Formative through Spanish Colonial periods.
Diachronic changes in the regional distributions of the different wares that compose the Chikinchel ceramic inventory are
demonstrated and discussed in terms of larger processes occurring across the peninsula.

The ceramic data described in this paper provide preliminary tem- sites) is modified for the Chikinchel analysis by incorporating as-
poral and spatial frameworks for a previously little-known area in pects of George Brainerd's (1958) earlier study of Yucatan ceram-
northeastern Yucatan, where I recently carried out extensive sur- ics, as well as more recent published work on the pottery of the
veys. The native name for this region at the time of the Spanish Yucatan and Campeche coasts (Ball 1978), Coba (Robles Caste-
invasion was Chikinchel1 (Figure 1). The Chikinchel ceramics re- llanos 1990), Isla Cerritos (Andrews et al. 1988; Robles Castella-
flect the fact that the largest natural salinas (salt deposits) in south- nos 1987; Robles Castellanos and Andrews 1986), and Chichen
ern Mesoamerica occupy its coastal estuary, the Rio Lagartos. Here, Itza (Lincoln 1991). This literature adds temporal and spatial di-
a pre-Hispanic site called Emal sits amid extensive remains of an- mensions that are particularly relevant to the Chikinchel sequence.
cient solar evaporation pans (Andrews 1983; Eaton 1978; Kepecs In contrast to most ceramic chronologies, the Chikinchel se-
1990, 1997; Kepecs et al. 1994). The diachronic, macroregional quence (Table 1) relies entirely on surface-collected materials. As
importance of this resource is suggested by the notable presence such it is preliminary, but provides a useful heuristic picture of dia-
of prestige or extra-local ceramics here and at various other sites chronic change in the study region. The criteria I rely on for clas-
in the region, especially San Fernando, a large inland center 13 sification differ somewhat from the type-variety system traditionally
km south of the saltworks (Andrews 1983; Kepecs 1990, 1994, used in northern Yucatan. Although I employ the same basic ce-
1997; Kepecs et al. 1994). ramic groups that are used by my colleagues, standard type-variety
I discuss the Chikinchel ceramics within the basic chronolog- identifications generally depend on formal characteristics—vessel
ical framework set forth by Robert E. Smith of the Carnegie In- form, surface finish, and decoration. Since the Chikinchel collec-
stitution of Washington in 1971. Attempts to refine the gross, tions contain mostly small sherds manifesting various degrees of ero-
synchronic time periods of this sequence are under way (e.g., Bey sion, certain technological attributes—changes in paste and temper—
et al. 1992:12; Boucher 1989; Boucher and Palomo 1995), but often are the the only remaining diagnostic elements.
Smith's basic scheme remains useful, facilitating common dia- Smith (1971) and Brainerd (1958) gave some consideration to
logue between investigators working at different sites across the paste and temper in their type descriptions, but their treatments
peninsula. Smith's sequence (based on materials excavated at Maya- were neither inclusive nor systematic. As a result, northern plains
pan with auxiliary information from Chichen Itza and the Puuc ceramicists often describe ceramic pastes (excellent treatments are
found in Andrews V [1989] and Robles Castellanos [1990]), but
rarely rely on them as primary identifying characteristics (see also
1
There were many small political units in sixteenth-century Yucatan. Robles Castellanos 1990:27). I focus primarily on visual criteria
These usually bore the names of their governors or head lineages. In sev- for paste identification in this paper, and refer the reader to Rice
eral cases, geographic territories containing several independent cacicaz- (1987), Rye (1981), and Shepard (1974) for related discussions of
gos also bore names; Chikinchel was one of these (others were Ecab and firing technology and the physical properties of different tempers.
Chakan). Political organization in these territories fluctuated; at times some
of the independent units contained therein probably allied for defense (Oko- I also refer the reader to Feinman et al. (1989, 1992) for similar
shi 1994; Quezada 1993; Marcus 1993; Roys 1957). studies on Oaxacan ceramics, and to Ball (1978), Robles Caste-

121
122 Kepecs

Table 1. Chikinchel ceramic sequence

Archaeological Period Main Ceramic Horizon Main Diagnostics Secondary Diagnostics Approximate Calendar Date

Spanish Transitional Yuncu unslipped, unspecified unslipped, Spanish olive jars A.D. 155O-17OOs
Abala and Sakpokana reds
Terminal Postclassic/ Transitional-Hocaba/Tases Yuncu unslipped, unspecified unslipped, A.D. 1400-1550 (Late Mayapan
Contact period Abala and Sakpokana reds, Cunduacan through the Contact period)
Fine Orange; "Mayapan" and "Tulum"
reds, Navula unslipped, Chen mul incen-
sarios, Matillas Fine Orange
Late Postclassic Hocaba/Tases "Mayapan" and "Tulum" reds, Navula Peto Cream (early facet) A.D. 1150-1400
unslipped, Chen Mul incensarios, Matil-
las Fine Orange
Terminal Classic/Early Sotuta Itza slates, Dzibiac red, Silho Fine Or- Peto Cream, Cehpech A.D. 750-1150
Postclassic ange slates, Vista Alegre
Late Classic Cochuah various incised bichromes, Xanaba red, Gulf Coast wares (Celes- A.D. 650-750
regional polychromes tun, Fine Gray), later early
slates
Early Period, Classic Cochuah various incised bichromes, Xanaba red, first "early slates" (Middle A.D. 300-650
regional polychromes Classic?)
Early Period, Late Chicand Sierra red 100 B.C.-A.D. 300
Formative

llanos (1990), and Smith (1971) for type descriptions of excavated and remaining traces of slip often were noted on Chikinchel sherds.
materials from Yucatan that include details of vessel form, slip, The better-identified materials helped support classifications of
and decoration. more eroded sherds from the same archaeological contexts. Fi-
The observations employed in the following descriptions were nally, sherds and thin sections from the Chikinchel collections were
made on the entire Chikinchel sample with the aid of a hand lens. compared to similar materials from the stratigraphic type-variety
To provide positive mineralogical identifications of the tempering collections at the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia's
agents in these ceramics, 5 to 10 thin sections were made from Centro Regional de Yucatan (CRY-INAH) (Kepecs et al. 1995).
sherds representing each of the wares discussed in this study (with Most of the temporally diagnostic ceramics of the northern plains
the exception of Late Formative Sierra, which is too soft to cut; were present in Chikinchel. Many of the unidentifiable sherds in
see later). Petrographic analysis also confirms impressions of tem- my collections (about 10% overall) probably represent less-
per grain size, which can be temporally diagnostic. Descriptions diagnostic, unslipped utilitarian wares.
of grain size are based on the standard geological Wentworth scale.
Categories include silt (< .062 mm); fine (.062-.25 mm); medium
(.26-.50 mm); coarse (.51-1 mm); very coarse (1-2 mm); and gravel THE CHIKINCHEL SURVEYS
(> 2 mm).
The Chikinchel surveys yielded a substantial amount of ceramic
Despite my emphasis on paste, it is important to note that tra- data. Reconnaissance was carried out on both regional and whole-
ditional type-variety attributes such as diagnostic formal elements site scales. The regional sample consists of 72 sites (Figure 2) that
were located through informant-aided road and trail survey.2 To
mark geographic placement, the UTM coordinates of each site were
registered on Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Geografica e Infor-
mation (INEGI) topographic sheets at a scale of 1:100,000. The
main architectural core of each site was sketch mapped on graph
paper, and individual structures in these groups were surface col-
Chikinchel lected. These surveys produced 272 collections, containing a total
• Dzibilchaltun ~~~~~~~~~. _,
•Merida Chichen Itza ' Ti2in
>n
of 7,775 sherds.
• Mayapan • •Valladolid / _ Full-coverage survey with systematic surface collection later
• Puuc region was carried out at three of these sites (Emal, San Fernando, and
• Other sites mentioned in text Yucatan Loche). These were selected for their archaeological importance
• • Spanish center
throughout the Chikinchel sequence, and also because they appear
Modem state Campeche ^ ^ Quintana Roo
€%-$' in the sixteenth-century documentary record. Methods were adapted

2
Laguna de Terminos The locations of Emal and Loche were pinpointed by Ralph Roys
(1957) during his pioneering surveys. Thirty-nine of the sites in the Chi-
kinchel sample were registered previously during surveys carried out for
Caribbean Sea the Atlas arqueologico del estado de Yucatan (Garza Tarazona de Gonza-
les and Kurjack 1980), and several more are noted in Zonas arqueologicas
Yucatan (Velazquez M. et al. 1988). However, none of these sites was
Figure I. Chikinchel and other places cited in the text (Chikinchel bound- mapped or surface collected and dated through ceramics prior to the Chi-
aries are from Andrews [1984] and Roys [1957]). kinchel Project surveys.
Ceramics and society in the Chikinchel region 123

Temporal and spatial distinctions among ceramics representing

Gulf of Mexico
L the first 800 years of broad-scale occupation on the peninsula (ca.
100 B.C.-A.D. 700) are still poorly understood. The pottery of the
northern plains during this long span includes two principal groups
m of red-slipped wares (Sierra and Xanaba); various incised bi-
"• . • • chromes (usually split into several poorly defined types, among
San Fernando • •
• • which I do not distinguish); smooth and striated plain wares; and
wLiOche
\ • • regional polychromes. These ceramics traditionally are divided into
two sequential horizons: the Late Formative Chicanel sphere3 and
• •
its Early Classic counterpart, Cochuah. The plainwares probably
span this division, and it is generally agreed that the bichromes are
Cochuah. The redwares are somewhat more problematic. On strat-
igraphic grounds, Robles Castellanos (1987, 1990; also Andrews
et al. 1988) places both red-slipped groups in Chicanel, although
10 km
Xanaba is "late" within this context (Robles Castellanos 1990:71;
see also Ball 1978:101). In Smith's (1971:133, 138) scheme, how-
Figure 2. Chikinchel survey sites. ever, Sierra is Chicanel, while Xanaba is part of the later, Cochuah
sphere.
On technological grounds, Smith's distinction makes sense. The
most salient quality of Chicanel pastes in the northeast (at least in
from the strategies of the great Mesoamerican highland surveys Chikinchel and at Coba) is softness4; sherds have rounded edges,
(Blanton et al. 1982, 1993; Kowalweski et al. 1989; Sanders et al. and some nearly disintegrate under the pliers (see also Robles Cas-
1979). Modern land use is conducive to this kind of reconnais- tellanos 1990:60). Paste color is variable in the red, light red, red-
sance; most of Chikinchel has been cleared for cattle grazing or dish brown, yellowish brown, light brown, and brown Munsell
short-fallow ejido plots. Aerial photographs at a scale of 1:5000 ranges. Calcite temper is the rule; often this is fine-grained but
were used as base maps. The photos covered blocks 36 km2 cen- punctuated by occasional large, gravel-size chunks. Cochuah ce-
tered on the architectural core of each settlement. Pedestrian crews ramics (epitomized by the bichromes) are hard and clunky by com-
systematically combed the delineated areas on a field-by-field ba- parison. Paste is porous and friable; it fractures rather than crumbles,
sis. All visible features were mapped on the aerial photographs although some sherds break more easily than others. Sherds ex-
and recorded in field notes. Surface sherds were encountered and hibit diverse paste colors in the light red, reddish brown, yellow-
collected at approximately 80% of the registered structures from ish brown, pink, gray, and light gray ranges.5 They contain variable
the three survey units. This process yielded a combined total of kinds of temper including calcite (Figure 3a), grog, and vegetable
3,549 collections, altogether containing roughly 108,000 sherds. fiber (Figure 3b). These ingredients can occur separately or in the
At each of the full-coverage sites, collections made at the main same sherd. Calcite inclusions in a single sherd can vary radically
architectural cores during the first surveys proved to be effective in size, although medium, coarse, and very coarse grains are more
predictors of the chronology of the rest of the settlement. typical than fine or gravel-sized ones. Based on these qualities,
What follows is a diachronic description of Chikinchel's ce- what I call Sierra is Chicanel, while Xanaba belongs with the bi-
ramic inventory and a discussion of some of the spatial patterns chromes in Cochuah. This division is an oversimplification, but it
that emerge from the survey data. These patterns reveal how Chi- serves as a useful heuristic tool for developing a preliminary chro-
kinchel developed in relation to neighboring areas through time. nology based on surface-collected materials.
In the final section of this paper I synthesize the results of the dis- Local varieties of Sierra mark the Late Formative across the
tributional studies and paste analyses, contributing new insights Maya lowlands. Xanaba is more specific to Yucatan, where it is
into the ancient political and economic processes of northeast Yu- broadly distributed (Ball 1978:101; Robles Castellanos 1990:72;
catan (see also Feinman 1982; Kepecs et al. 1995; Shepard 1974). Smith 1971:31). The bichromes (also specific to the northern low-
lands) span the coast from the northwest to Tancah on the eastern
seaboard, but inland most are limited to the northeast plains, skirt-
THE EARLY PERIOD: CHICANEL AND COCHUAH ing the western area (Andrews et al. 1988; Ball 1978:110; Bey
CERAMICS IN THE CHIKINCHEL REGION

The early ceramics of Yucatan are marked by a lack of technolog- 3

Very little has been published on Formative occupations in Yucatan;
ical sophistication. There is a limited repertory of vessel forms Middle Formative components are reported at several sites including Kom-
(mostly tecomates, flat-bottomed bowls, and dishes with flared chen (Andrews V 1989; Ringle and Andrews V 1990) and Ek Balam (Bey
sides), paste color is inconsistent, and aplastic inclusions or tem- et al. 1998), but many regions, including Chikinchel, do not appear to
pers consist of randomly sized particles of several varieties. Di- have been broadly settled until the Late Formative.
4
We are only beginning to recognize the great variability in Early pe-
versity in paste color results from two factors: different kinds of riod ceramics. At Komchen in western Yucatan, Andrews V (1989) notes
impurities in the clay (iron or organic materials), and variation in both hard- and soft-paste variants of Sierra, although the former prevails.
5
firing atmosphere, temperature, and duration (Rice 1987:333). Researchers report different color ranges for Sierra, Xanaba, and the
Much greater variability in the temper and color of Early period bichromes; those noted by Robles Castellanos (1990) can overlap and some-
ceramics compared to the wares of succeeding epochs reflects the times vary from those I observed on the Chikinchel materials. However,
reports agree that the bichromes most typically have gray pastes, although
potters' increased skills in later centuries with regard to selection browns, reds, and pinks also occur; the reverse holds for Xanaba (see also
of materials and firing technology. Robles Castellanos 1990).
124 Kepecs

Figure 3. Thin sections of diagnostic ceramics: (a) Calcite, Cochuah [ 4 0 x ] ; [b] vegetable fiber, Chochuah; rounded particle at lower
left is calcite [ 4 0 x ] ; [c] volcanic ash and clay-lump inclusions, Sotuta slate (lOOx); (d) calcite, Hocaba/Tases; Tulum red (40x).

et al., 1998; Robles Castellanos 1990:82). The distribution of these nological innovations as well. Polychrome pastes are calcite tem-
ceramics suggests a Classic-period link between major interior pered, but particles appear to have been sorted, as most are medium
sites in eastern Yucatan (Coba and Ek Balam) and pan-peninsular in size. The paste matrix is denser and more compact than that of
coastal developments (see also Andrews and Robles Castellanos Xanaba and the bichromes. This distinction probably is related to
1985).
Chikinchel's occupational sequence begins in the Late Forma-
tive. Collections from 70% of the sites in the regional sample con-
tain small amounts of Sierra. Later in the Early period occupation
increased; Cochuah diagnostics are represented at 90% of the sites
(Figure 4). Both Xanaba and the bichromes are abundant. The lat-
ter situate Chikinchel in the eastern/coastal sphere, which proba-
bly was involved in a growing salt trade (see also Andrews 1983).
Although there are salt sources all along the north coast, the rich-
est are toward the east, at Emal. Archaeological evidence points to
the beginnings of large-scale salt production at this time; Emal has
a substantial Cochuah ceramic component, and many of its struc-
tures originally were built during the Early Classic (Kepecs 1990;
Kepecs et al. 1994).
Across Yucatan, regional polychromes mirroring the famous
Classic-period Peten ceramics (see Ball 1978) coexisted with com-
mon Cochuah wares. The polychromes mark status as well as time.
Their production required greater specialization; elaborate painted
designs were the work of trained artisans, and pastes suggest tech- Figure 4 . Chikinchel sites with Cochuah ceramics.
Ceramics and society in the Chikinchel region 125

longer firing time6 and/or the use of different clay sources. Color
(at least in Chikinchel) usually is a distinctive pink (5YR 7/4),
suggesting greater control over materials and firing processes.
In Chikinchel, the status-marking function of polychrome ce-
ramics is underscorded by distribution. At two of the full-coverage
sites (Loche and San Fernando), sherds were limited mostly to cen-
tral architecture and were collected only in small quantities. This
pattern is reversed at Emal, reflecting this site's unique prosperity;
the Cochuah inventory here includes more polychromes than com-
mon wares (Kepecs 1995). Most are local Yucatan varieties, but
some are Peten imports.

THE LATE CLASSIC, OR PRE-CEHPECH:

THE BEGINNINGS OF GULF
COAST INFLUENCE
FigureS. Chikinchel sites with Late Classic Gulf Coast ceramics.

New ceramics appear toward the end of the Classic period (ca. A.D.
650). The red-slipped and incised bichrome wares of the Cochuah
tradition apparently continued to provide the great majority of slipped prior to the Chikinchel surveys, this pottery was known only at
vessels, but cream-slipped pottery, previously of minor importance, Dzibilchaltun among inland centers (Ball 1978:94, 96; Simmons
began to take on the characteristics of the distinctive Yucatan slate- and Brem 1979:87).
wares that mark the later, Terminal Classic florescence of the pen- In Chikinchel, small amounts of Fine Gray and higher propor-
insula's most famous sites (including the Puuc centers, Chichen Itza, tions of Celestun were collected at several coastal sites, and were
and Coba). Among elements that distinguish the slates from their especially abundant at Emal; inland, however, these ceramics were
Cochuah predecessors are denser paste and more adherent slips. This recovered only at San Fernando (Figure 5). The presence of these
trend may have begun in the Middle Classic; the first "early slates" southern gulf ceramics along the northern littoral suggests early
resemble good-quality Cochuah ceramics (George Bey and Susan interest in the rich saltworks by post-Teotihuacan Gulf Coast en-
Kepecs, conversations 1994-1997; Boucher 1989). Cream-slipped trepreneurs (see Ball 1977; Kepecs et al. 1994). This picture is
sherds from Late Classic contexts in the Puuc region, however, dif- compatible with Eric Thompson's (1970; see also Andrews and
fer from Cochuah materials technologically; these were the direct Robles Castellanos 1985) "Putun hypothesis," in which merchant
antecedents of the full-blown northern-plains slateware tradition oc- warriors from the Gulf Coast spread into Yucatan at the end of the
curring in the next archaeological horizon (Kepecs et al. 1995; Classic; notable among these groups were the Itza,7 who estab-
cf. Robles Castellanos 1990:109; and see later). lished themselves eventually at Chichen. Dzibilchaltun and San
In addition, two technologically innovative ceramics that orig- Fernando, both thriving towns during the Late Classic, must have
inate in the Late Classic along the southern Campeche/Tabasco been instrumental in the growing trade networks of this period;
Gulf Coast (Simmons and Brem 1979) show up at certain sites in their inland locations close to the coast were ideal for providing
the northern lowlands. These are gray fine-paste ware (Chabekal labor and administration for the production and distribution of high-
and unspecified varieties) and the ash-and-calcite tempered, red- quality salt.
paste Celestun group. These ceramics are characterized by the ap- These Late Classic developments were accompanied by an ap-
pearance of new vessel forms and consistency in paste color and parent change in the links between coastal settlements and inland
temper (or lack of temper). Fine Gray is the predecessor of the centers on the northeast plains. Robles Castellanos and Andrews
later Fine Orange wares found in the Usumacinta region and at (1986) have argued that by the Terminal Classic, the Itza effec-
some sites in Yucatan. Celestun can be characterized as an early tively had cut Coba off from the coast. Yet red-slipped, Late Clas-
slateware that in some ways foreshadows later ceramics from Chi- sic horizon markers from that site (the Batres and Arena groups;
chen (Kepecs et al. 1995); in particular, its hard red paste often is Robles Castellanos 1990) are absent in Chikinchel, suggesting that
covered by opaque white or cream slips, a hallmark of Itza slates this shift may have occurred slightly earlier.
(Brainerd 1958:55).
Both Celestun and Fine Gray are reported sporadically along
the north coast (Ball 1978). Inland, Fine Gray is noted in very low THE TERMINAL CLASSIC/EARLY POSTCLASSIC,
frequencies at various sites across the northern plains (see Robles A.D. 750-1150: THE CEHPECH/SOTUTA OVERLAP
Castellanos 1990:157), and in greater quantity at Dzibilchaltun (Bey By the beginning of the Terminal Classic, cream-slipped ceramics
et al. 1992:16; Smith 1971:18). Celestun's range is more limited; predominated over reds. These majority wares were fullblown
"slates," named for the chalkboard color of their finish and marked
6
Preliminary experiments on Yucatan ceramics from the Early Classic by strong, dense pastes and a variety of new, standardized vessel
through the Late Postclassic (Kepecs et al. 1995) showed that firing tem- forms (see Brainerd 1958:93; also Smith 1971). A certain inven-
perature varied little through time; pots generally were fired at 700-750°C
(see also Feinman et al. 1989). This is typical of the temperature range
7
achieved in open-pit firings, which probably were the most common means The term "Itza" is used to refer to a powerful group from the Gulf
of manufacturing ancient Mesoamerican ceramics (see Rice 1987:20-21; Coast that challenged Late Classic rulers in parts of Yucatan and probably
Rye 1981:25; Shepard 1974:83-84). However, characteristics of clays also ultimately allied with them. Evidence points to a change in government in
can be altered through the addition of different aplastics, as well as through this region, but not to a replacement of local, northern plains populations
changes in the duration of firing. (see Andrews 1990; Kepecs et al. 1994; Thompson 1970).
126 Kepecs

tory of Late Classic forms and surface treatments evolved into the 1951:242, 1964:251, also cited in Smith 1971:1:269; Simmons and
Cehpech slatewares of the gray-slipped western (Puuc) and brown- Brem 1979) involving a combined total of over 500 sherds each of
slipped eastern (Coba) traditions (Bey et al. 1992; Robles Caste- Cehpech and Sotuta materials override any lingering doubts; these
llanos and Andrews 1986). Formal differences, cream or stark white distinctive glass splinters were used abundantly as temper during
slips, and greater paste standardization (Kepecs et al. 1995) dis- the Terminal Classic/Early Postclassic.
tinguish the Sotuta slates (the hallmark ceramic of Chichen Itza) Cehpech and Sotuta slates differ somewhat in terms of overall
from the Cehpech sphere. recipe. The composition of Sotuta paste in particular is remark-
Smith (1971) split Cehpech and Sotuta chronologically, linking ably homogeneous. Ninety-nine percent of the Sotuta sherds from
the former to the "Terminal Classic" and the latter to the "Early the combined petrographic studies contained ash, accompanied by
Postclassic." However, more recent research from projects across occasional calcite and clay lump inclusions (Figure 3c). The sam-
the peninsula indicates at least partial temporal overlap between pled Cehpech slates also contained calcite and clay lumps (or some-
these two spheres. Empirically, their relationship varies across times grog), but less than half contained volcanic ash. Unfortunately,
space. Cehpech and Sotuta frequently occur together; but while all of the Cehpech samples were taken from Puuc sites; to date,
Cehpech clearly predominates at the Puuc sites (Smith 1971), Coba comparable information from Coba and other key northeastern cen-
(Robles Castellanos 1990), Ek Balam (Bey et al. 1992; Ringle ters is not available.
et al. 1991), and Yaxuna (see Robles Castellanos 1990), stronger Ash is a superior tempering agent, adding strength to the paste
ties to the Itza-related Sotuta complex are evident in Chikinchel, by bonding with the clay particles even at the relatively low firing
at Isla Cerritos (Andrews et al. 1988; Robles Castellanos 1987), temperatures typical of ancient Mesoamerican ceramics (see Kepecs
and across much of the Cupul region between Chichen and the etal. 1995;Nelson 1984;Rice 1987:407;Rye 1981:108). The tiny
coast (Figure 6; and see Anderson 1998; Andrews et al. 1989; particles (which range from silt sized to fine on the Wentworth
Kepecs and Gallareta Negron 1995; Kepecs et al. 1994). scale) also leave the surface unmarred, providing improved con-
There is no evidence in northeast Yucatan to suggest that Ceh- ditions for slip (Shepard 1974:27-29). Since ash temper is not vis-
pech predates Sotuta. At Isla Cerritos, Sotuta slates always were ible to the naked eye, this attribute is not helpful for expediently
present in strata containing Cehpech materials, and continued after classifying large numbers of sherds. In addition to form and slip,
the latter's disappearance (Andrews et al. 1988:201; Robles Caste- however, slates manufactured in different regions have distinct paste
llanos 1987:104). At Yula(asmall site near Chichen), Sotuta and Ceh- colors. Cehpech pastes from the Puuc sites tend to be gray or brown,
pech also are coeval, and in one sealed, stratigraphic context Sotuta while Sotuta paste almost always is red (Smith 1971:28). This pic-
actually preceedes Cehpech (Anderson 1998). Sotuta clearly pre- ture is complicated by the Coba materials, which are formally Ceh-
vails at Chichen, but in a recent sample small amounts of Cehpech pech but frequently have brown or reddish paste (Robles
also were encountered in 17 out of 22 test pits (Lincoln 1991:229, Castellanos 1990:184). Therefore, without any trace of slip or form
258). At Coba, in contrast, small numbers of Sotuta sherds were in- it is difficult to distinguish "Coba" Cehpech from Sotuta sherds.
trusive in Cehpech contexts (Robles Castellanos 1990:212-213). Still, slatewares are the most durable of northern plains ceramics;
Thus, the slatewares appear to represent a single archaeological ho- sherds with identifying formal elements or slip are common.
rizon spanning roughly 400 years. The old chronological terminol- In addition to the slates, the Cehpech and Sotuta spheres have
ogy urgently needs revision, but until researchers can agree on parallel sets of minority wares that overlap technologically but
refinements it is expedient to refer to the Cehpech/Sotuta era by the can be distinguished on formal or decorative grounds when sherds
clumsy composite term "Terminal Postclassic/Early Postclassic" (for retain traces of these elements. Red-slipped, ash-tempered pot-
another alternative, cf. Kepecs et al. 1994). tery and Fine Orange wares belong in this category. Like the ear-
The slatewares represent a major departure from Cochuah tech- lier polychromes, these ceramics are prestige markers; they often
nology. Their remarkable density probably is related in part to fac- are more elaborately decorated than common slipped serving
tors such as longer firing duration and the selection of better clays. vessels, and the manufacture of fine-paste pottery in particular
Additionally, many slates were tempered with volcanic ash. The involved special technological expertise (Kepecs 1995). Further,
presence of this microscopic, nonlocal material in Yucatan's slates the distributions of these ceramics generally are limited to elite
has been the subject of some debate (e.g., Isphording and Wilson contexts. Cehpech prestigewares include Teabo red and Altar
1974; cf. Simmons and Brem 1979). However, four separate pet- Fine Orange; the Sotuta versions are Dzibiac red and Silho Fine
rographic studies (Chung 1993; Kepecs et al. 1995; Shepard Orange.
I focus here on Sotuta, since prestigewares identified as Ceh-
pech are all but absent in the Chikinchel collections. Dzibiac is
similar technologically to the slates but often has finer paste. Add-
Gulf of Mexico
ing to its prestige panache, Dzibiac's formal repertory reflects the
influence of Silho, which in turn suggests "foreign" (possibly Mex-
ican) influences (Brainerd 1958:56; Smith 1971:1:181). On the pen-
insular scale, Dzibiac appears limited to Chichen, Mayapan, and
the sites between Chichen and the coast (see Andrews et al. 1988;
Kepecs et al. 1994; Robles Castellanos 1987; Smith 1971). Silho
overlaps this distribution, but also is represented at more exotic
locations along the coast from Veracruz to Cozumel (Ball
1978:102).
Slates were three times as common as Dzibiac in the Carnegie
collections from Chichen (Smith 1971:174, 178). Silho in partic-
Figure 6. Regions with principal ties to Sotuta or Cehpech ceramic spheres. ular is a status indicator (see Kepecs 1995; Kepecs et al. 1994;
Ceramics and society in the Chikinche! region 127

Gulf of M

• .
Cupul Survey Area WLoche

Chikinckel Survey An

Secondary administrative
center (Itza infrastructure]
Large site
(throughout sequence)
Smaller site with Itza
prestigewares
Figure 9. Chikinchel sites with Dzibiac red ceramics.

Figure 7. The Itza polity [Cupul and Chikinchel regional surveys) [after
Kepecs 1997:Figure 2; courtesy Plenum Press).
Classic/Early Postclassic era.8 In contrast, Dzibiac (Figure 9) and
Silho (Figure 10) are limited to the western and central portions of
Chikinchel, remaining closer to Chichen than the slates. Dzibiac,
however, was more broadly distributed than Silho,9 which was re-
Lincoln 1991:268). It is rare, indicating restricted use; at Chichen covered only from the most strategic centers leading to the coast and
the number of recovered Silho sherds is about one-tenth the size along the littoral. Site-level data provide more context for these ce-
of the Dzibiac sample (Smith 1971:182). ramics. At San Fernando and Loche, Sotuta prestige sherds were col-
lected in small quantities and were limited almost exclusively to
central architecture. Not surprisingly, at Emal generous quantities
Cehpech and Sotuta in Chikinchel
8
Sotuta prevails over Cehpech in Chikinchel. This is not surpris- Eroded, red-paste slate body sherds in the Chikinchel collections were
ing, since (as I have discussed in detail elsewhere) the regional classified as Sotuta, because most were noted in collections that included
settlement pattern consists of strings of secondary Itza centers run- identifiable Sotuta materials. Unfortunately this method of classification
probably obscures the influence of Coba in Chikinchel, but even so this
ning from Chichen to its port at Isla Cerritos (Andrews 1990; An- must have been minimal, given the overwhelming evidence for Itza activ-
drews et al. 1988) and the Emal saltworks (Figure 7; and see Kepecs ity in the region.
9
etal. 1994; Kepecs and Gallareta Negron 1995). Farther east there As I note in earlier papers (Kepecs 1994; Kepecs et al. 1994), Silho
is less evidence of Itza influence. and its successor (Late Postclassic Matillas Fine Orange) only can be dis-
tinguished on the basis of formal and design elements. Although many
Sotuta slates are broadly distributed; they were collected at 75% fine orange sherds in the Chikinchel collections were placed in the "Un-
of the sites in the Chikinchel sample (Figure 8), and at the intrasite identified Fine Orange" (UFO) category, those that could be classified show
level they are the most common ceramic marker of the Terminal markedly different distribution patterns for the two groups.

GulfofMexic
• t.
•

• •
" *' - s in Fernando •

•A-Loche • . •
\ • " •
• •
\ . • •• •'

^ 1 0 km

Figure 8. Chikinchel sites with Sotuta slates. Figure 10. Chikinchel sites with Silho Fine Orange ceramics.
128 Kepecs

sherds were collected at eastern sites and also at San Fernando and
Emal, suggesting that Coba was not entirely cut off from the coast
during this period. In contrast, sherds with characteristic Puuc col-
oring generally were limited to sites in the west and along the coastal
strip.
Two additional horizon markers of the Terminal Classic/Early
Postclassic are fairly common in Chikinchel. These ceramics, Vista
Alegre and Peto Cream, transcend the traditional boundaries of
the Cehpech and Sotuta spheres. Below, I expand what we know
about these wares by adding their Chikinchel distributions to the
pan-peninsular picture.
Puuc
1 Coba
® Puuc and Coba Vista Alegre: The Northeast Sphere

Sherds from unslipped domestic pots are not always diagnostic,

Figure II. Chikinchel sites with Cehpech slates. but Vista Alegre, a group of striated tecomates and jars (or drums)
from this period, is identifiable by the presence of visible quartz
crystals in addition to calcite inclusions in the paste (Robles Cas-
tellanos 1990:178). Vista is distributed almost exclusively in the
of both Dzibiac and Silho were recovered from over half of the site's northeast; it is reported from Coba, Cozumel, and other Quintana
structures. Roo sites (Ball 1978:114-115; Robles Castellanos 1990:179; Sand-
Although the Sotuta horizon prevails in Chikinchel, other ce- ers 1960). Robles Castellanos (1990) places this ware in the Ceh-
ramic currents trace links between this territory and the broader pech complex at Coba, but it also is present at sites slightly farther
arena of pan-peninsular interactions. Cehpech sherds have vari- west, in contexts that are primarily Itza related. Vista does not ap-
able pastes and slips; some may have been produced locally, while pear in the ceramic literature on Chichen, and only a few sherds
others have characteristics typical of Puuc or Coba slates. Ceh- were recovered at Yula (Patricia K. Anderson, personal commu-
pech ceramics were recorded at only 11 % of the sites in the re- nication 1997). However, it is common at Isla Cerritos (Andrews
gional sample (Figure 11), and composed very low proportions of et al. 1988; Robles Castellanos 1987). In Chikinchel, Vista is fairly
the overall assemblages from the full coverage sites (Figure 12). frequent at sites toward the east and along the coast (Figure 13).
The small quantities of Cehpech mixed with abundant Sotuta sherds Its distribution, like that of the brown-slipped, Coba-style Ceh-
in Chikinchel mirror proportions at Chichen, suggesting that the pech slates, suggests that Classic-period connections in eastern Chi-
latter were in common use in Itza territory, while the rare Cehpech kinchel were not entirely obliterated by Itza restructuring.
materials were a prestige-goods overlay (Anderson 1998; Kepecs
et al. 1994; Lincoln 1991:229-267).
Where to Put Peto Cream?
A very preliminary spatial distinction between the two Ceh-
pech spheres emerges at the regional level. A few brown-slipped The problem of Peto Cream is more chronological than spatial.
Various researchers have noted controversy over the temporal iden-
tity of this calcite-tempered slate imitation (Hanson 1991; Lincoln
1991:323-328; Ringle et al. 1991; Robles Castellanos 1990:240;
100 Smith 1971:1: 26), and there may be some empirical variation in
its placement across the peninsula. For example, at Isla Cerritos

Sotuta

Cehpech

50

Emal San Fernando Loche

Figure 12. Percentage of Late Postclassic platforms with Sotuta and Cepech
ceramics at the full-coverage sites. Figure 13. Chikinchel sites with Vista Alegre ceramics.
Ceramics and society in the Chikinchel region 129

of forms that continued to evolve from the Cehpech/Sotuta reper-

tory (see also Smith 1971:1:218).
"Mayapan" and "Tulum" redwares are the most common slipped
diagnostics of the period. These names, originally linked to "type
sites," actually refer to similar, widely produced variants of red-
slipped ceramics having thicker (Mayapan) or thinner (Tulum) ves-
sel walls. The distinction is somewhat heuristic. In the Carnegie
type collections, however, vessel walls from Mayapan pots typi-
cally are thicker than .5 cm (7-8 mm is common), while those
from Tulum generally measure .5 cm to slightly less. The east-
west peninsular distributions of some of the earlier ceramics give
way to more complex patterns in the Late Postclassic (see Robles
Castellanos 1990:220-237, 262-263). Thicker redwares prevail at
Mayapan and Coba, while thin reds predominate on the east coast.
Major unslipped groups in the Hocaba/Tases sphere include Chen
Mul effigy censers and related incensario types as well as utilitar-
Figure 14. Chikinchel sites with Peto Cream ceramics.
ian wares. These usually can be distinguished from the unslipped
materials of earlier eras by their paste, which retains the charac-
teristics of Late Postclassic slipped wares. Of course, with very
eroded sherds the distinction between slipped and unslipped is
Peto is an integral part of the Sotuta complex (Andrews et al. blurred. The paste, however, remains temporally diagnostic.
1988:201-202; Robles Castellanos 1987:105-106; cf. Ringle
Other Hocaba/Tases markers include Matillas Fine Orange, and,
et al. 1991:2), while it is associated with Late Postclassic red-
at least in the early phase of the Late Postclassic, Peto Cream. Ma-
wares at Mayapan10 (Smith 1971:1: 200, 232, 234).
tillas, the key prestige ware of this period, is reported from sites
Peto sherds are identifiable even when eroded; their dense paste
along the Campeche and Quintana Roo coasts, but not from Isla
is heavily tempered with coarse black and white calcite, and their
Cerritos; inland it occurs at Dzibilchaltun, Mayapan, and (in small
color usually is light red to light reddish brown. Peto is distributed
quantities) at Coba (Ball 1978:91; Robles Castellanos 1990:236).
widely across western and central Chikinchel (Figure 14). Al-
Settlement shifts across the peninsula indicate sweeping change.
though this pattern follows the Itza corridor, many of the collec-
The Puuc centers and Coba declined (e.g., Robles Castellanos and
tions in which Peto is present contain both Terminal Classic/Early
Andrews 1986), along with Chichen, Isla Cerritos, and the rest of
Postclassic and Late Postclassic ceramics. Therefore, its temporal
the settlements in the Cupul region adjacent to Chikinchel (An-
affinities cannot be addressed directly from the data. The paste,
drews et al. 1989; Bey et al. 1998; Kepecs et al. 1994; Kepecs and
however, gives the impression that this pottery may have origi-
Gallareta Negron 1995). Hocaba/Tases ceramics are present at some
nated during the Itza period as a cheap version of the better-
of these sites, but in notably smaller quantities than the diagnos-
crafted, ash-tempered Sotuta slatewares it resembles. (The Cehpech
tics of the preceeding period (see Robles Castellanos 1987,1990).
sphere also has an imitation slateware, the sherd-tempered Cauich
Different centers reached their peaks: Mayapan in the west, and
coarse cream; Smith 1971:15). At the beginning of the Late Post-
Tulum and other sites in Ecab (today Quintana Roo), Chikinchel's
classic, ash temper became scarce, probably because of interrup-
neighbor to the east (see Andrews 1993). A full-blown Hocaba/
tions in the trade routes through which it was procured (Kepecs
Tases horizon in Chikinchel links this territory to the new growth
1994; Kepecs et al. 1994). Potters again relied on locally available
areas rather than to the dwindling cores of the Terminal Classic/
materials. Peto became the sole remnant of the cream-slip tradi-
Early Postclassic.
tion previously glorified in the ash-tempered slatewares.

Hocaba/Tases in Chikinchel
THE LATE POSTCLASSIC: A.D. 1150-1450:
THE HOCABA/TASES COMPLEX" Hocaba/Tases ceramics were recorded at 91 % of the sites in the re-
gional sample, an increase of 16% over the previous period. The route
The Late Postclassic is marked by a complete return to calcite- leading from Chichen to Emal was eclipsed (Kepecs 1994, 1997;
tempered pastes and a preference for red-slipped ceramics. How- Kepecs and Gallareta Negron 1995). Emal and the towns on the
ever, this shift is not accompanied by a return to Classic-period coastal strip retained their long-standing importance, and new cen-
technology. Late Postclassic, Hocaba/Tases-sphere ceramics (like ters sprang up in the east, which the Itza had failed to incorporate (Fig-
Peto) differ from their Cochuah counterparts, having greater paste ure 15). Key settlements were larger than in the preceeding period;
density and uniformity of temper (Figure 3d, and discussed in at all three full-coverage sites Hocaba/Tases ceramics were more
greater detail later), more consistent paste color, and a wide range broadly distributed than their Sotuta predecessors.
Both "thick" and "thin" redwares are well represented at most
10
Peto usually is considered part of the Hocaba (early facet Late Post- Chikinchel sites (Figure 16). These have diverse pastes, in con-
classic) complex at Mayapan, but Smith (1971:1:234) notes that it also is trast to the more homogeneous Sotuta slates (see also Smith
present in reduced quantities in later, Tases lots. 1971:1:203). There are five distinct paste groups; two thick ("Maya-
11
In Smith's scheme, Hocaba and Tases are sequential complexes rep- pan" and "Cancun") and three thin ("Tulum," "Local," and "San
resenting two phases at Mayapan that supposedly postdated the Itza ep-
Fernando"). Distinguishing attributes include paste color and vari-
och. However, there are few real distinctions between these two facets,
and recent projects at other sites have failed to clarify or support this di- ation in calcite inclusions (Table 2). Apparently, this variation does
vision (see also Bey et al. 1998). not relate to vessel function, since a range of forms (jars, bowls,
130 Kepecs

Gulf of Mexico

SanFe rnando
^Cha

• • •
Cupul Survey Area

Chiktnxhel Sui•veyAre.

"Thick" and "thin" reds

t Large site
"Thick- reds
Smaller site "Thin" reds
Chichen Itza m

Figure 16. Chikinchel sites wih thick ("Mayapan") and thin (Tulum) Hocaba/
Tases reds.
Figure 15. The Late Postclassic (Cupul and Chikinchel regional surveys)
[after Kepecs 1997:Figure 3; courtesy Plenum Press).

Colonial-period complex include jars reminiscent of Mayapan red

but marked by innovative new "parenthesis" rims, and thinner-
dishes) occurs in each paste group. The five varieties are consis- walled pots similar to Tulum red. In the unslipped category are
tent and can be identified by eye or with a hand lens. Sherds from vessels exhibiting several variants of "groove-hooked" rims pre-
all five groups were recovered at each of the three full-coverage viously unknown in Yucatan ceramics (for illustrations, see Ball
sites, in different proportions (Figure 17). 1978:86, Figure 5; Brainerd 1958:176-179, Figures 33-34; Smith
1971:11:84-85).
Chen Mul incensarios (Figure 18) and unslipped Navula ce-
ramics also are distributed widely across Chikinchel. In contrast, Despite the temporal assignments of Smith's post-Mayapan com-
Matillas Fine Orange, like its predecessor, Silho, is highly re- plexes, red-slipped jars with parenthesis rims first appeared in lots
stricted. Like Silho, Matillas is common at Emal, but limited to at that site that also contained typical Hocaba/Tases wares, dated to
central architecture at Loche and San Fernando. On the regional the upper end of the Mayapan occupational sequence. Parenthesis
scale it was collected only at large sites along the coastal strip, rims also occur in Tulum red (Sanders 1960:238). Groove-hooked
primarily those between Emal and the eastern end of the territory rims are not represented in the Hocaba/Tases sphere, but they occur
(Figure 19). in the formal repertory of Cunduacan Fine Orange,'2 aTerminal Post-
classic prestige ware from the Laguna de Terminos region (Ball
1978:86-87, Figure 5; Berlin 1960; Matheny 1970). The appear-
THE TERMINAL POSTCLASSIC/SPANISH OVERLAP: ance of these new forms in pre-Spanish contexts suggests that the
THE "TRANSITIONAL HORIZON" ceramics of Smith's Colonial complex actually began evolving from
Hocaba/Tases traditions well before the advent of Spanish admin-
Much remains to be learned about the ceramics of Yucatan after
istration. Thus in place of Smith's two post-Mayapan complexes I
the fall of Mayapan (ca. A.D. 1450; Roys 1957, 1962), since until
tentatively define a single ceramic horizon marking the Terminal
recently archaeologists tended to rely on documentary sources
Postclassic through Spanish periods, which I call "Transitional." I
for information on the Terminal Postclassic and Spanish Colonial
do not mean to suggest a complete break coincident with the fall of
periods. Smith (1971:1:246-249) defined two postoccupational
Mayapan. Transitional ceramics evidently overlap Hocaba/Tases ma-
complexes at Mayapan, but the first, dated to A.D. 1450-1550,
contained.only a few insecurely identified sherds of single ware;
the second (A.D. 1550-1800) was composed of several poorly 12
Tases-like anthropomorphic incensarios also are included in the Cun-
described ceramic groups. Red-slipped wares in Smith's second, duacan inventory.

Table2. Key attributes of Hocaba/Tases redware pastes in Chikinchel

Thick Reds Thin Reds

Paste Type Mayapan Cancun Tulum Local San Fernando

Paste color (descriptive) pinkish white, pink, pale red, light red pale red, light red light red, pink light red, reddish brown,
red red
Munsell colors 5YR 8/2, 5YR 7/4, 10R 2.5YR 5/6-6/6 10R 6/4-6/8, 2.5YR 6/6 10R 6/6-6/8, 5YR 7/3- 10R 6/6-6/8, 2.5YR
6/2-6/3 8/4 5/4-5/8
Calcite medium to coarse black medium to coarse black near-fine paste to medium to coarse black fine white
and white and white medium-fine black and and white
white
Ceramics and society in the Chikinchel region 131

100 —
"Local"
90 —
"Mama"
80 —
"San Fernando"
70 —
"Tulum"
60 —
50 —
40 —
30 —
20 —

l! SIO km

Figure 17. Percentage of Late Postclassic platforms with Hocaba/Tases red-

ware ceramics at the full-coverage sites (from Kepecs 1997:Figure 4; cour- Figure 19. Chikinchel sites with Matillas Fine Orange ceramics.
tesy Plenum Press).

terials during the final years of occupation at that site, a situation that Hanson 1991; Smith 1971). However, it is worth noting that the
seems to continue through the Contact period at other locations that red-slipped wares are notably more rare than Yuncu, at least in
were not abandoned before the Spanish invasion (see also Ball Chikinchel and at neighboring Ek Balam (Bey et al. 1998), two
1978:79; Bey et al. 1998; Kepecs 1997; Robles Castellanos areas where detailed studies of the ceramics from this period cur-
1990:220-222,230). By the second half of the sixteenth century, the rently are being carried out.
newer wares probably prevail. In Chikinchel, Cunduacan Fine Orange from southern Campeche
Transitional ceramics include various unslipped wares, among also is part of the Transitional horizon. Cunduacan is extremely
which the best known is the Yuncu group,13 and red-slipped pot- rare in Yucatan. Several possible examples were recorded at Maya-
tery including thin-walled Abala and thicker Sakpokana14 (see Ball pan, in postabandonment levels evidently representing the last 70
1978:Figure 5; Brainerd 1958:Figures 33-34; Smith 1971:1:247- years of native rule (Smith's [1971:1:246-247] first post-Tases com-
248). Yuncu and the post-Tases reds are reported at various sites plex). Yet there was no Cunduacan in Smith's Colonial complex,
across the peninsula (Ball 1978; Bey et al. 1998; Brainerd 1958; and this ware remains unreported in other Spanish-era contexts;
thus it apparently marks only the Terminal Postclassic portion of
the years spanned by the Transitional horizon. Prior to the Chikin-
13
Related to Yuncu are other undefined ceramics (sometimes incorpo- chel surveys, there were no reported occurences of Cunduacan in
rating new formal elements) that continue Tases unslipped traditions into northern Yucatan except at Mayapan. However, sherds were re-
the Colonial period (see Robles Castellanos 1990:220).
14 covered in collections from Emal, San Fernando, and Survey site
Ware descriptions and nomenclature for post-Tases ceramics remain
poorly established in the literature. Unclear distinctions among ware, group, #46 (Figure 20), suggesting Terminal Postclassic ties between the
and type names need to be clarified, but my usage (which departs from saltworks and southern Campeche (Kepecs 1994, 1997).
Smith 1971) should be understandable to all researchers familiar with north- As with most ceramics throughout the sequence, sherds of Tran-
ern plains ceramics.
sitional wares can be distinguished from their Hocaba/Tases pre-
decessors on technological rather than formal grounds. Cunduacan
differs from Matillas and Silho by having sandy inclusions not com-
mon to other fine-orange pastes (author's observations of thin sec-
tions; also Berlin 1960:135). Yuncu and redwares have pastes that
are similar to Tases materials, although overall there is more vari-
ability in paste color, and in the Chikinchel samples shell and/or
sand inclusions occasionally were noted in addition to calcite. Un-
like Tases unslipped wares, Yuncu has a plain, nondecorative sur-
face coat (perhaps a "self-slip"; see Rice 1987:151) that is slightly
lighter than the core paste; light brushing on one or both surfaces
also is a common characteristic (see also Ball 1978:100; Bey
et al. 1998). Transitional redwares differ from their Tases coun-
terparts by having thinner, flakier slips; often they also are more
heavily tempered (see also Bey et al. 1998; Smith 1971:1:248).
In Chikinchel, Transitional sherds were collected at 23% of
the sites in the regional sample. At the three full-coverage sites,
the number of platforms marked by Transitional ceramics was
slightly less than half that of the preceeding Late Postclassic
period (Kepecs 1997). In contrast, Spanish ceramics are limited
Figure 18. Chikinchel sites with Chen mul incensarios. to the most strategic locations. These include a small colonial
132 Kepecs

ive jar sherds were collected. This probably reflects the fact that ar-
chaeological horizons build up over decades if not centuries, while
Spanish occupation here was very brief (less than a year).

SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSIONS

The preceeding analyses are preliminary, but they contribute to

both methodological and spatial/chronological problems facing re-
searchers in the northern Maya lowlands. Guidelines for paste anal-
ysis provide a simple, heuristic addition to the type-variety concept
Transitional
that facilitates the identification of sherds from surface contexts.
This approach can yield increased proportions of classified mate-
Transitional and Spanish
rials, thereby providing larger, more reliable samples.
T® Transitional component includes Cunduacan
Substantively, the preliminary ceramic data presented here place
Chikinchel, formerly a blank on archaeological maps (see Bey
Figure 20. Sites with Transitional and Spanish components (after Kepecs et al. 1992; Robles Castellanos and Andrews 1986), into the larger
1997:Figure 6; courtesy Plenum Press). spatial and chronological frameworks of the peninsula. Through-
out the pre-Hispanic sequence, Emal's salt was crucial to the re-
gion's development. Ceramic testimony to this phenomenon is
evident in the much higher proportions of prestigewares from all
port established at Rio Lagartos15 sometime prior to 1579 (see periods collected here than at other Chikinchel sites.
Lopez de Cogolludo 1983[1579-1581]:II:33, 249; Molina Soli's Much remains to be learned about the pan-regional interactions
1988:251); Loche, serving the Spaniards as a halfway point be- that occurred in the northern lowlands during the Classic period,
tween Rio Lagartos and a Franciscan monastery at Tizimin (Ciudad but the northeast distribution of Cochuah incised bichromes sug-
Real 1976 [ca. 1590]:II:320-321); Emal; and San Fernando. At gests that powerful inland centers (Coba, Ek Balam) maintained
these locations, European ceramics consist only of small amounts links to the coast via sites in Chikinchel. At the end of this period,
of olive-jar fragments of uncertain date and a few losa sherds new ceramics from the southern Campeche coast that appear at
postdating the sixteenth century. Emal and San Fernando are precursors of great change. Their pres-
The small amounts of Spanish ceramics in Chikinchel are not ence suggests that Emal's gem-like white salt caught the attention
surprising; Spanish settlement made few inroads into this terri- of Gulf Coast entrepreneurs—Thompson's (1970) hypothetical Pu-
tory. Only three examples of colonial architecture are known. These tun, the direct ancestors of the Itza. Multiple lines of archaeolog-
include a few very fragmentary remains of wall foundations at the ical data (regional settlement distributions, architecture, and
port at Rio Lagartos (personal observation) and two visita churches: ceramics) suggest that during the succeeding, Terminal Classic/
one at Loche (Lopez de Cogolludo 1957 ]1688]:Book 4, Capftulo Early Postclassic period, the Itza set up a political hierarchy in
20; Gallareta Negron et al. 1990:35; Kepecs 1990), and one at Chikinchel that was linked to their capital at Chichen and geared
Dzonotake16 (Lopez de Cogolludo 1983 [1579-1581]:II:84;Scholes toward control of salt production and coastal trade. I have dis-
1938:11:61; and personal observation), 32 km south of Emal. cussed the organization of this composite Itza polity in greater de-
tail elsewhere (Kepecs et al. 1994; see also Kepecs 1997; Kepecs
East of Emal and San Fernando, surviving native towns proba-
and Gallareta Negron 1995).
bly had little sustained contact with the Spaniards. Foreign admin-
istration was weak this far from Merida, and the Chikinchel Maya In the context of this paper, however, it is important to note that
were notoriously rebellious (Kepecs 1997). In 1543 the Spaniards Itza political-economic strategies are reflected in ceramic technol-
founded the first short-lived Villa de Valladolid at Chauaca, a major ogy. Since highly centralized governments control economic func-
Late Postclassic settlement in eastern Chikinchel (Lopez de Cogo- tions, ceramic production in such situations might be controlled or
lludo 1983 [1579-1581]:II:136, 243-250; Roys 1957:107-108). administrated. Reduced competition, coupled with the demands of
However, although two surveys were carried out at this site,'7 no ol- high-intensity manufacture, should be reflected in a relatively high
degree of product standardization (Feinman 1982:181). The ho-
mogeneity of the Sotuta slates probably is a consequence of this
15
The port at Rio Lagartos was built over the long-occupied native process.
site of Holkoben (see Ball 1978; Eaton 1978; Kepecs 1990). In the Late Postclassic, the Itza polity broke apart. No political
16
David Webster (1978, 1980) carried out some excavation at Dzono- capital on the order of Chichen arose to coordinate another re-
take in the 1970s, but published information on ceramics from this project
is abbreviated. gional state; instead, independent senorios (or batabils) in Chikin-
17
Following documentary descriptions (Oviedo y Valdes 1853 [1535— chel occupied small territories18 (Okoshi 1994; Quezada 1993;
1547]; Roys 1957) and eighteenth-century maps in the possession of Luis
Millet (CRY-INAH), several Terminal Postclassic sites in Chikinchel were
identified archaeologically. Among them is Chauaca, a vast tract of pre- and photo-aided, intensive road-and-trail surveys covered the rest of the
Hispanic settlement in northeastern Chikinchel that Roys expected but failed survey block and surrounding area. This field strategy netted a preliminary
to find in the same location (Kepecs 1990; Millet, personal communica- sketch of the settlement's overall house-mound distribution, although be-
tion 1989). This area was supposed to be included in my project as one of yond the core nothing was mapped formally or surface collected.
18
the full-coverage survey blocks. However, since the first three sites turned Groups of independent batabils probably formed fleeting alliances
out to be much larger than expected, I ran out of time and money before from time to time (Marcus 1993; Okoshi 1994; Quezada 1993; Roys 1957),
this could be accomplished. Instead (in addition to first-stage, regional sur- but there is no historical or archaeological evidence of a consolidated, multi-
vey procedures), the architectural core was mapped onto the airphotos, level polity in Late Postclassic Chikinchel.
Ceramics and society in the Chikinchel region 133

Roys 1957). In weak political systems, independent producers are San Fernando reflects ties to the Putun homeland on the eve of the
free to compete (Feinman 1982); the patterned diversity of Hocaba/ Spanish invasion.
Tases pastes suggests the rise of rival potters' groups in the ab- Finally, the Chikinchel ceramic data reveal the eastern periph-
sence of centralized administration (Kepecs 1995, 1997). eries of Spanish administration, and show that native settlement in
Late Postclassic Chikinchel settlements grew and prospered. The this region diminished but was not obliterated in the sixteenth cen-
ceramic data indicate an increase in the number of occupied sites tury. Transitional ceramics also suggest two economic shifts that
across the region and growth in settlement size at the three full- occurred in the post-invasion period (Kepecs 1997). First, the pro-
coverage sites during this period. There was a florescence in the duction of prestigewares apparently ended with the advent of Span-
east, which had been on the Itza periphery. Sites in this zone fit ish administration, reflecting the natives' loss of control over
Spanish descriptions of thriving trading ports (e.g., Diaz del Cas- prosperous long-distance trade routes and the production of re-
tillo 1984; Oviedo y Valdes 1853:111:32; also Kepecs 1994, 1997). lated exchange goods. Second, reduced emphasis on slipped or dec-
Further (in contrast to Late Postclassic shifts in other parts of the orated vessels and greater variability in temper or inclusions in
Itza corridor), sites in west and central Chikinchel did not decline, common ceramic pastes (compared to the clear patterns of the Late
and salt trade with southern Campeche did not end with Chichen's Postclassic redwares) suggests that production became less spe-
collapse. The presence of Cunduacan Fine Orange at Emal and cialized (and more localized) when the native economy was bent
to European demands.

RESUMEN
En este arti'culo se presentan nuevos datos ceramicos procedentes de una Despues, durante los siglos tradicionalmente senalados como los perfo-
region antes poco conocida llamada Chikinchel en el noreste de Yucatan. dos clasico terminal y postclasico temprano, los datos ceramicos parecen
Estos datos resultan de reconocimientos a dos niveles. A nivel regional se indicar que la region fue parte del territorio controlado por los poderosos
hicieron recolecciones de superficie en los centros arquitectonicos de 72 itzas. Abundantes cantidades de la ceramica Sotuta, marcador del hori-
sitios. A nivel del sitio, se llevaron a cabo recorridos sistematicos de "com- zonte itza, se reportan en todos los sitios grandes entre Chichen y Emal.
pleta cobertura" con recolecion de superficie en tres de estos asentamien- Con respecto al bien conocido problema cronologico de esta epoca, los
tos, escogidos por tener importancia durante la secuencia prehispanica y datos ceramicos de Chikinchel tambien apuntan al modelo del "traslape
tambien porque hay descripciones de ellos en las fuentes historicas del Cehpech/Sotuta." Aqui se apoya un traslape total.
siglo XVI. Mas de 115,000 tiestos proporcionan la informacion utilizada Los grandes y famosos sitios del clasico terminal/postclasico tem-
en este estudio. prano (incluyendo los del Puuc, Chichen y Coba) disminuyeron en el post-
Aqui tengo dos metas. La primera es ampliar la utilidad anah'tica de clasico tardio mientras Mayapan y los sitios de la costa oriental florecian.
materiales ceramicos procedentes de la superficie. Utilizo metodos de cla- Segiin los documentos espanoles el florecimiento de estos lugares se debi'a
sificacion que ademas de las caracten'sticas tradicionalmente notadas como a un prospero comercio. Los datos ceramicos indican la participacion de
forma y acabado (las cuales frecuentmente no se presentan en los tiestos Chikinchel en este proceso. Emal mantenfa su importancia y la dis-
erosionados de superficie) incluye una consideracion de atributos tecnologi- tribucion regional de la ceramica Hocaba/Tases de este periodo indica un
cos (analisis de pasta). La segunda es situar Chikinchel dentro del marco aumento en el mimero de sitios ocupados. Los datos tambien muestran
espacial y temporal proporcionado por los arqueologos trabajando en otras crecimiento al nivel del sitio, ya que hay un notable incremento sobre el
partes de la peninsula. Los resultados del analisis presente sugieren que periodo anterior en el mimero de plataformas habitacionales marcadas por
durante toda la epoca prehispanica la region participo en un prospero co- tiestos del complejo Hocaba/Tases.
mercio basado en sus blancas salinas naturales que son las mas grandes del Chikinchel aparentemente se encontraba en las periferias lejanas de la
sur de mesoamerica. administracion espanola. La ceramica espafiola esta muy mal representada
La secuencia temporal de Chikinchel y los grupos ceramicos que cor- en toda la region. Se recolectaron algunos tiestos de jarra de olivo en ciertos
responden a cada periodo arqueologico notado en la region se presentan en sitios del poniente y tambien en Emal. Empero, en el oriente de Chikinchel
Tabla 1. Durante la segunda parte del periodo temprano (el "clasico tem- no hay huella de la ceramica europea. Segiin las fuentes documentales, en el
prano") la cosecha de las salinas chikinchelenas aumento a gran escala. El aflo 1543 los espanoles se establecieron brevemente en el sitio indigeno de
sitio de Emal, ubicado en medio de estas fuentes, tiene un componente Chauaca ubicado en esta zona, pero en menos de 12 meses los extranjeros se
substancial de la ceramica Cochuah, y abundan tiestos de los policromos trasladaron tierra adentro, donde se fundo el centro administrativo de Va-
regionales sugeriendo la prosperidad del sitio. Luego, durante el "clasico lladolid. El breve acontecimiento en Chauaca no permitio la acumulacion de
tardfo" aparecen nuevos vinculos ceramicos entre Chikinchel y el golfo de vasijas europeas en cantidades suficientes para que perduren tiestos en el re-
Campeche, sugeriendo la "hipotesis putun" de Eric Thompson en la cual gistro arqueologico. En contraste, la presencia de la ceramica indigena de este
"comerciantes-guerreros" del Golfo de Mexico entraron a Yucatan al tiempo periodo fue notada en varios sitios en el oriente y el sur de Chikinchel, lo cual
de la caida de los grandes centros ceremoniales del Peten. sugiere que esta region segufa como una zona libre.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This is a revised version of a paper that was presented in the symposium tance of Lorena Mirambell Silva and Alejandro Martinez Muriel, directors
organized by Traci Ardren and Charles Suhler entitled "Chronological of the Consejo de Arqueologia at INAH, and Alfredo Barrera Rubio, di-
Frameworks for Ancient Maya Development: New Evidence from North- rector of CRY-INAH in Merida. The surveys, of course, could not have
eastern Yucatan," at the 93rd Annual Meeting of the American Anthropo- been carried out without my dedicated field crews and the gracious help of
logical Association, Atlanta. Funding for the Chikinchel Project was many other modern Chikincheleiios. To Luis Millet C. I owe the historical
provided by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, identification of several key sites discussed in this paper. Special thanks
Fulbright HE, National Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement Grant are due to Sylviane Boucher, Rafael Burgos, Yoli Palomo, Carlos Peraza,
#BNS 89-02631, and a University of Wisconsin Graduate School Foreign Patricia Anderson, and George Bey, with whom I have had countless dis-
Travel Fellowship. The Chikinchel Project was facilitated with the assis- cussions about Yucatan ceramics over the last decade. I also am grateful to
134 Kepecs

Will Andrews for providing me access to his unpublished material on the Plenum Press and the Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory for
Komchen ceramics; his detailed type descriptions made me aware of com- permission to reporduce three figures that originally appeared in Kepecs
plexities concerning the technology of Early period ceramics that I was (1997). Reviews of an earlier draft by Joe Ball, George Bey, and Bill Rin-
unable to discuss fully in this paper. Instrumental in my petrographic anal- gle provided valuable guidelines for improvements; I hope I have man-
yses were Jim Burton, Sherman Banker, and especially Jim Stoltman, who aged to answer some of their questions in this version. Tony Andrews,
taught me how to analyze paste and why this was important. Sherman Linda Nicholas, and Gary Feinman also read and commented on various
Banker took the photomicrographs included in this paper, and was a con- drafts of this paper. All errors of fact or interpretation, however, are solely
stant source of support, both technological and moral. Thanks are due to my own.

REFERENCES
Anderson, Patricia K. gionales. Paper presented at the First International Congress of May-
1998 Yula, Yucatan, Mexico: Terminal Classic Maya Ceramic Chro- istas, San Cristobal, Chiapas.
nology for the Chichen Itza Area. Ancient Mesoamerica 9:151-165. Boucher, Sylviane, and Yoli Palomo
Andrews, Anthony P. 1995 El grupo k'inich naranja: Un sistema ceramico del clasico tardfo
1983 Ancient Maya Salt Production and Trade. Univesity of Arizona en el noroeste de la peninsula de Yucatan. In Memorias del Segundo
Press, Tucson. Congreso de Mayistas, pp. 239-274.Merida, Yucatan.
1984 The Political Geography of the Sixteenth Century Yucatan Maya: Brainerd, George W.
Comments and Revisions. Journal of Anthropological Research 1958 The Archaeological Ceramics of Yucatan. Anthropological
40:589-596. Records No. 19. University of California, Berkeley.
1990 The Fall of Chichen Itza: A Preliminary Hypothesis. Latin Amer- Chung, Hea Joo
ican Antiquity 1:258-267. 1993 Andlisis tipologicoy petrogrdfico de la cerdmica arqueologica de
1993 Late Postclassic Lowland Maya Archaeology. Journal of World Chichen Itza, Yucatan. Unpublished licenciatura thesis in archaeology,
Prehistory 7:35-69. Escuela Nacional de Antropologfa e Historia/Instituto Nacional de
Andrews, Anthony P., Tomas Gallareta N., and Rafael Cobos P. Antropologfa e Historia-Secretaria de Educacion Publica, Mexico.
1989 Preliminary Report on the Cupul Survey Project. Mexicon XI:91- Ciudad Real, Antonio de
95. 1976 [ca. 1590] Tratado curioso y dodo de las grandezas de la Nueva
Andrews, Anthony P., Tomas Gallareta Negron, Fernando Robles Caste- Espana. 2 vols. Serie Historiadores y Cronistas de Indias No. 6. Uni-
llanos, Rafael Cobos Palma, and Pura Cervera Rivero versidad Nacional Autbnoma de Mexico, Mexico.
1988 Isla Cerritos: An Itza Trading Port on the North Coast of Yuca- Diaz del Castillo, Bernal
tan, Mexico. National Geographic Research 4:196-207. 1984 [1568] Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva Espana.
Andrews, Anthony P., and Fernando Robles Castellanos 6th ed. Espasa-Calpe, Madrid.
1985 Chichen Itza and Coba: An Itza-Maya Standof in Early Postclas- Eaton, Jack D.
sic Yucatan. In The Lowland Maya Postclassic, edited by Arlen F. 1978 Archaeological Survey of the Yucatan-Campeche Coast. In Stud-
Chase and Prudence M. Rice, pp. 62-72. University of Texas Press, ies in the Archaeology of Coastal Yucatan and Campeche, Mexico,
Austin. pp. vii-67. Publication No. 46. Middle American Research Institute,
Andrews, E. Wyllys V Tulane University, New Orleans, LA.
1989 Komchen Ceramic Type Descriptions. Manuscript on file, De- Feinman, Gary M.
partment of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison. 1982 Patterns in Ceramic Production and Distribution, Periods Early I
Ball, Joseph W. Through V. In Monte Alban 's Hinterland, Part I: The Prehispanic
1977 An Hypothetical Outline of Coastal Maya Prehistory: 300 B . C - Settlement Patterns of the Central and Southern Parts of the Valley of
A.D. 1200. In Social Process in Maya Prehistory: Studies in Honor of Oaxaca, Mexico, edited by Richard E. Blanton, Stephen A. Kowal-
Sir Eric Thompson, edited by Norman Hammond, pp. 167-196. Ac- weski, Gary M. Feinman, and Jill Appel, pp. 181-206. Memoirs No.
ademic Press, London. 15. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
1978 Archaeological Pottery of the Yucatan-Campeche Coast. In Stud- Feinman, Gary M., Sherman Banker, Reid F. Cooper, Glen B. Cook, and
ies in the Archaeology of Coastal Yucatan and Campeche, Mexico, Linda M. Nicholas
71-146. Publication No. 46. Middle American Research Institute, Tu- 1989 A Technological Perspective on Changes in the Ancient Oaxaca
lane University, New Orleans, LA. Grayware Ceramic Tradition: Preliminary Results. Journal of Field
Berlin, Heinrich Archaeology 16:331-344.
1960 Late Pottery Horizons of Tabasco, Mexico. In Publication Feinman, Gary M., Stephen A. Kowalewski, Sherman Banker, and Linda
No. 606, Contributions to American Anthropology and History M. Nicholas
No. 59, pp. 95-153. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washing- 1992 Ceramic Production and Distribution in Late Postclassic Oa-
ton, DC. xaca: Stylistic and Petrographic Perspectives. In Ceramic Production
Bey, George J. Ill, Tara M. Bond, William M. Ringle, Craig A. Hanson, and Distribution, edited by George J. Bey III and Christopher A. Pool,
Charles W. Houck, and Carlos Peraza Lope pp. 235-260, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
1998 The Ceramic Chronology of Ek Balam, Yucatan, Mexico. An- Gallareta Negron, Tomas, Anthony P. Andrews, and Peter J. Schmidt
cient Mesoamerica 9:101-120. 1990 A 16th Century Church at Xlacah, Panaba, Yucatan. Mexicon
Bey, George J. Ill, Carlos Peraza L., and William M. Ringle XIL33-36.
1992 Comparative Analysis of Late Classic Period Ceramic Com- Garza Tarazona de Gonzales, Silvia, and Edward B. Kurjack
plexes of the Northern Maya Lowlands. Cerdmica de Cultura Maya 1980 Atlas arqueologico del estado de Yucatan. 2 vols. Centro Re-
16:11-17. gional del Sureste, Instituto Nacional de Antropologfa e Historia, Me-
Blanton, Richard E., Stephen A. Kowalewski, Gary M. Feinman, and Jill rida, Mexico.
Appel Hanson, Craig A.
1982 Monte Alban's Hinterland, Part I: The Prehispanic Settlement 1991 An Initial Report on Ceramics from Excavations in Mani and
Patterns of the Central and Southern Parts if the Valley of Oaxaca, Surface Collections at Hunacthi, Yucatan, Mexico. Submitted to Cen-
Mexico. Memoirs No 15. Museum of Anthropology, University of tro Regional de Yucatan, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Histo-
Michigan, Ann Arbor. ria, Merida.
Blanton, Richard E., Stephen A. Kowalewski, Gary M. Feinman, and Laura Isphording, Wayne C , and Eugene M. Wilson
M. Finsten 1974 The Relationship of "Volcanic Ash," Saklu'um, and Palygors-
1993 Ancient Mesoamerica: A Comparison of Change in Three Re- kite in Northern Yucatan Maya Ceramics. American Antiquity 39:483-
gions. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 488.
Boucher, Sylviane Kepecs, Susan
1989 Ceramica pizarra temprana: Algunos precursores y variantes re- 1990 Informe preliminar del reconocimiento de Chikinchel al Instituto
Ceramics and society in the Chikinchel region 135

Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico, D.F., y al Centro Re- Ringle, William M., and E. Wyllys Andrews V
gional de Yucatan, Merida. Manuscript on file, Centro Regional de Yu- 1990 The Demography of Komchen, An Early Maya Town in North-
catan, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Merida, Mexico, ern Yucatan. In Precolumbian Population History in the Maya Low-
and Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison. lands, edited by T. Patrick Culbert and Don S. Rice, pp. 215-244.
1994 Northeast Yucatan and the Aztecs: A World Systems Perspec- University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.
tive. Paper presented at the 59th Annual Meeting of the Society for Ringle, William M., George J. Bey, and Carlos Peraza L.
American Archaeology, Anaheim, CA. 1991 An Itza Empire in Northern Yucatan?: A Neighboring View. Pa-
1995 Diachronic Implications of Ceramic Production and Distribu- per presented at the 47th International Congress of Americanists, New
tion in the Northern Maya Lowlands: A Political Economy Perspec- Orleans, LA.
tive. Paper presented at the 94th Annual Meeting of the American Robles Castellanos, Fernando
Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. 1987 La secuencia ceramica preliminar de Isla Cerritos, Costa Centro-
1997 Native Yucatan and Spanish Influence: The Archaeology and His- Norte de Yucatan. In Papers from the 1985 Maya Ceramic Confer-
tory of Chikinchel. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory ence, edited by Prudence M. Rice and Robert J. Sharer, pp. 99-190.
4(3-4):307-329. Special Issue: New Approaches to Combining the BAR International Series 345(i). British Archaeological Reports, Ox-
Archaeological and Historical Records, guest edited by Susan Kepecs ford.
and Michael Kolb. 1990 La secuencia ceramica de la region de Coba, Quintana Roo. In-
Kepecs, Susan, Sherman Banker, James B. Stoltman, and Sylviane Boucher stituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico.
1995 Anna Shepard and the Yucatan Slatewares: New Perspectives Robles Castellanos, Fernando, and Anthony P. Andrews
through Laboratory Analyses. Paper presented at the 60th Annual Meet- 1986 A Review and Synthesis of Recent Postclassic Archaeology in
ing of the Society for American Archaeology, Minneapolis, MN. Yucatan. In Late Lowland Maya Civilization: Classic to Postclassic,
Kepecs, Susan, Gary M. Feinman, and Sylviane Boucher edited by Jeremy. A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys Andrews V, pp. 53-98.
1994 Chichen Itza: A World Systems Perspective. Ancient Mesoamer- University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
ica 5:141-158. Roys, Ralph L.
Kepecs, Susan, and Tomas Gallareta Negron 1957 The Political Geography of the Yucatan Maya. Publication No.
1995 Una vision diacronica de Chikinchel y Cupul, Noreste de Yuca- 613. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC.
tan, Mexico. In Memorias del Segundo Congreso Internacionat de 1962 Literary Sources for the History of Mayapan. In Mayapan, Yu-
Mayistas, pp. 275-293. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, catan, Mexico, by H.E.D. Pollock, Ralph L. Roys, Tatiana Proskouri-
Mexico. akoff, and A. Ledyard Smith, pp. 24-86. Publication No. 619. Carnegie
Kowalewski, Stephen A., Gary M. Feinman, Laura Finsten, Richard E. Institution of Washington, Washington, DC.
Blanton, and Linda M. Nicholas Rye, Owen S.
1989 Monte Alban 's Hinterland Part II: Prehispanic Settlement Pat- 1981 Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction. Manuals on
terns in Tlacolula, Etla, and Ocotlan, the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Archaeology No. 4. Taraxacum, Washington, DC.
Memoirs No. 23. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Sanders, William T.
Ann Arbor. 1960 Prehistoric Ceramics and Settlement Patterns in Quintana Roo,
Lincoln, Charles Mexico. In Contributions to American Anthropology and History No.
1991 Ethnicity and Social Organization at Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mex- 60, pp. 155-264. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC.
ico. Ph.D. dissertation. Harvard University. University Microfilms, Sanders, William T., Jeffrey Parsons, and Robert Santley
Ann Arbor. 1979 The Basin of Mexico. Academic Press, New York.
Lopez de Cogolludo, Fray Diego Scholes, France V. (compiler)
1957 [1688] Historia de Yucatan. 2 vols. Edited by Mercedes de la 1938 Documentos para la historia de Yucatan II: La iglesia en Yucatan
Garza, Ana Luisa Izquierdo, Maria del Carmen Leon, y Tolita Figueroa. 1560-1610. Carlos R. Menendez, Compaiiia Tipografica Yucateca,
Editorial Academia Literaria, Mexico. Merida, Mexico.
1983 [1579-1581] Relaciones historico-geogrdficas de la gober- Shepard, Anna O.
nacion de Yucatan. 2 vols. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mex- 1951 Ceramic Technology. In Yearbook No. 50, pp. 241-244. Carne-
ico, Mexico. gie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC.
Marcus, Joyce 1964 Ceramic Development of the Lowland and Highland Maya. In
1993 Ancient Maya Political Organization. In Lowland Maya Civili- Proceedings of the 35th International Congress of Americanists,
zation in the Eighth Century A.D., edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and vol. 1, pp. 518-20. Mexico.
John S. Henderson, pp. 111-184. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library 1974 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Publication No. 609. Second re-
and Collection, Washington, DC. print ed., Kirkby Lithographic Company, Washington, DC. Origi-
Matheny, Ray T. nally published by Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington,
1970 The Ceramics of Aguacatal, Campeche, Mexico. Papers No. 27. DC.
New World Archaeological Foundation, Brigham Young University, Simmons, Michael P., and Gerald F. Brem
Provo, UT. 1979 The Analysis and Distribution of Volcanic Ash-Tempered Pot-
Molina Soli's, Juan F. tery in the Lowland Maya Area. American Antiquity 44:79-91.
1988 Historia de Yucatan. Dominacion espanola I. 1 st ed. facsimile. Con- Smith, Robert E.
sejo Editorial de Yucatan, Merida, Mexico. Originally published 1904. 1971 The Pottery of Mayapan. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Ar-
Nelson, Glen C. chaeology and Ethnology Vol. 66. Harvard University, Cambridge,
1984 Ceramics: A Potters' Handbook. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, MA.
New York. Thompson, Sir J. Eric S.
Okoshi, Tsubasa 1970 Ma\a History and Religion. University of Oklahoma Press, Nor-
1994 Ecab: Una revision de la geograffa poh'tica de una provincia maya man.
yucateca. In Memorias del Primer Congreso International de May- Velazquez M., Adriana, Edmundo Lopez de la R., Maria del Pilar Casado
istas, pp. 280-287. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mex- L., y Margarita Gaxiola
ico. 1988 Zonas arqueologicas Yucatan. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia
Oviedo y Valdes, Gonzalo Fernandez de e Historia, Mexico.
1853 [ 1535-1547] Historia general y natural de las Indias. Libro 32, Webster, David
Capitulo II. Imprenta de la Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid. 1978 Three Walled Sites in the Northern Maya Lowlands. Journal of
Quezada, Sergio Field Archaeology 5:375-390.
1993 Pueblos v caciques yucatecos, 1550-1580. Colegio de Mexico, 1980 Spatial Bounding and Settlement History at Three Walled North-
Mexico. ern Maya Centers. American Antiquity 45:834-844.
Rice, Prudence M.
1987 Pottery Anaylsis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.