Archaeological Paleography

A Proposal for Tracing the Role of Interaction in Mayan Script Innovation via Material Remains

Joshua D. Englehardt

• Publisher: Archaeopress Archaeology
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9781784912390
• eBook ISBN: 9781784912406
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Archaeology
• Index: Social Sciences

This research explores the development of the Maya writing system in Middle–Late Formative and Early Classic period (700 BC–AD 450) Mesoamerica. It seeks to correlate script development with interregional interaction and diachronic changes in material culture, and proposes a new methodological template for examining script development via material remains. In doing so, it contributes to anthropological debate regarding the role and effects of interregional interaction in processes of development and change of material and symbolic culture. This investigation posits that Maya writing developed in late Middle Formative through Early Classic period Mesoamerica as a correlate of interregional sociopolitical and economic interaction. Scholars working in many areas of the world have long claimed that interaction is central to cultural innovation, especially in relation to the development of writing. If the emergence of the Mayan script is a correlate of systemic interaction, then its developmental process should be traceable archaeologically through artifactual evidence. This hypothesis is tested by exploring archaeological indicators of interaction against a backdrop of previously-documented transformations in the emerging Mayan script. The methodological model proposed here builds on current models of the development of Mesoamerican writing systems and models of interregional interaction and cultural development to associate archaeological remains with the development of the Mayan script.

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1
• Introduction
• Figure 1.1. Map of Mesoamerica. The micro–regional study area is outlined in the cross–hatched box.
• Figure 1.2. The northwest Maya lowlands, detailing the micro–regional study area. The light grey overlay demarcates the northwest Maya lowlands of the Middle and Lower Usumacinta River basin in Tabasco, south–eastern Mexico (after Hernández Ayala 1981: 8
• Figure 1.3. Detail of micro–regional study area and location of sites which provide ceramic evidence discussed in the text.
• Chapter 2
• Theoretical Framework and Methodological Premises
• Figure 2.1. A hypothetical lattice model of Middle Preclassic period scale–free interregional interaction networks, showing nodes of interaction (after Demarest 1989: 337, fig. 13.2).
• Figure 2.2. An analytic classification of writing systems based on types of signs and symbols employed (adapted from Gelb 1963: 14, fig. 2). In the typology detailed above, ideography and pictography/iconography are classified as semasiographic scripts, w
• Figure 2.3. Classification of Mesoamerican scripts (after Justeson et al. 1985; see also Coe 1976: fig. 1; Justeson 1986; Justeson and Matthews 1990; Marcus 1992a; Mora–Marín 2001: 444–46, figs. 1.7–1.9).
• Figure 2.4. Acrophany and reformulation in Maya writing. a: T740 hu, hu, ‘iguana;’ phonetic sign; represents the upended head of a lizard or other reptile; b: T740:121.126 hu–li–ya, huliiy, intransitive verb, ‘arrived;’ c: T740.23 hu–na, hun, ‘paper,’ ‘bo
• Figure 2.5. a: k’u (k’u) (T604) ‘nest;’ phonetic sign; b: k’u–xa–ja (k’uxaj) (T604:114.181) passive verb; ‘was eaten;’ ‘was ground;’ ‘was hurt.’ Drawings by Pearl Lau.
• Figure 2.6. Lazy–S / cloud / T632 substitution set (drawing by Pearl Lau after Reilly 1996: 414, fig. 3).
• Chapter 3
• Figure 3.1. Map of the central and northwest Maya lowlands, showing sites included in this study and their location in relatio to other Classic period Maya centers.
• The Northwest Maya Lowlands: Site Selection and Regional Background
• Figure 3.2. Distribution of early Mesoamerican script groups overlying distribution of Early Formative ceramic traditions (1150–850 BC). The bold black lines separate the Oaxacan, Southeastern, and Mayan script traditions. The light dashed lines indicate
• Figure 3.3. Map of Mesoamerica. The extent of the Classic Maya area is roughly outlined in the light grey overlay, with traditional internal highland–lowland divisions noted. The central Maya core area of the Petén is highlighted in the grey cross–hatched
• Figure 3.4. Relief map of the site of San Claudio, 1m contour. (González Moreno 2006: 32, fig. 30). Map by Mario Retíz.
• Figure 3.5. Relief map of the site of Tiradero, 1m contour. Areas of excavation outlined in black cross hatched boxes. Map by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 49, fig. 49.
• Figure 3.6. Map of the site center of Mirador. Map by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 54, fig. 55.
• Figure 3.7. Relief map of the site of Revancha, 0.5m contour. Map by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 58, fig. 60.
• Ceramic Sample and Analytic Methods
• Chapter 4
• Figure 4.1. Middle Formative period ceramic type–varieties present in sample (n ≥ 10), showing quantities and group and ware associations (González Moreno 2006; Hernandez Ayala 1981).
• Figure 4.2. Late Formative period ceramic type–varieties present in sample (n ≥ 10), showing quantities and group and ware associations (González Moreno 2006; Hernandez Ayala 1981).
• Figure 4.3. Early Classic period ceramic type–varieties present in sample (n ≥ 10), showing quantities and group and ware associations (González Moreno 2006; Hernández Ayala 1981).
• Figure 4.5. Plan of San Claudio Structure 1. Illustration by Mario Retíz after González Moreno 2006: 34, fig. 32.
• Figure 4.6. Plan of San Claudio Structure 4. Illustration by Mario Retíz after González Moreno 2006: 35, fig. 33.
• Figure 4.8. Plan of San Claudio Structure 12. Illustration by Mario Retíz after González Moreno 2006: 35, fig. 34.
• Figure 4.9. Map detailing excavated areas at House 1, Tiradero. Illustration by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 50, fig. 51.
• Figure 4.10. Detail of excavated areas at the Tiradero ballcourt. Illustration by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 52, ig. 54.
• Figure 4.11. Floor plans of the three houses at Mirador in which explorations were undertaken and ceramic materials recovered. Illustration by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 55, fig. 57.
• Figure 4.12. Detail of excavations at the Mirador ballcourt. Illustration by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 56, fig. 9.
• Figure 4.13. Regional ceramic sequences and correlations for the Maya lowlands, with relative and absolute chronological correlation. (Adams 1971: 136, table 23; Hernández Pons 1984: fig. 5; Hernández Ayala 1981: 77; Holley 1987; Lee 1972; Muñoz 2004; Ran
• Figure 4.14. Breakdown of quantities and percentages of five most common type–varieties present in sample at each site in the Middle Preclassic period. Percentages indicate proportions of selected type–varieties and totals in relation to the respective Mi
• Figure 4.15. Breakdown of quantities and percentages of five most common type–varieties present in sample at each site in the Late Preclassic period. Percentages indicate proportions of selected type–varieties and totals in relation to the respective Late
• Figure 4.16. Breakdown of quantities and percentages of five most common type–varieties present in sample at each site (a–d) in the Early Classic period. Percentages indicate proportions of selected type–varieties and totals in relation to the respective
• Figure 4.17. The variable stylistic attributes and categories of those attributes that were observed and recorded on diagnostic artifacts within the sample.
• Figure 4.18. Comparative interpretation of stylistic attributes. *At the regional scale, units refer to distinct ceramic tradi ions (or cultural groups). At the micro–regional scale, units refer to the four sites as a clustered whole (when compared with s
• Ceramic Analyses
• Chapter 5
• Interpreting the Results of the Comparative and Statistical
• Figure 5.1. Results of ANOVA statistical analysis on Middle Formative period ceramic sample. (1)
• Figure 5.2. Pie chart illustrating occurrences of specific type–varieties within the Middle Formative period ceramic sample.
• Figure 5.3. Frequencies of Middle Formative period type–varieties within the sample.
• Figure 5.4. Cross tabulation of form/shape by site, Middle Formative period.
• Figure 5.5. Tukey HSD test for between site variability in Middle Formative period formal attributes.
• Figure 5.6. Percentage of occurrence of specific form or shape class within the Middle Formative period assemblages.
• Figure 5.7. Results of ANOVA statistical analysis on Late Formative period ceramic sample. (1)
• Figure 5.8. Cross tabulation of ware by site, Late Formative period.
• Figure 5.9. Bar graph illustrating site specific percentages of ceramic wares within the Late Formative period sample.
• _GoBack
• Figure 5.11. Tukey HSD test for between site variability in Late Formative period ceramic wares.
• Figure 5.12. Percentage of occurrence of specific slip within the Late Formative period assemblages.
• Figure 5.13. Percentage of occurrence of specific decoration types within the Late Formative period assemblages.
• Figure 5.14. Percentage of occurrence of surface treatments within the Late Formative period assemblages.
• Figure 5.15. Clustered boxplot displaying ranges of classificatory attribute variability during the Late Formative period.
• Figure 5.16. Cross tabulation of form/shape by site, Late Formative period.
• Figure 5.17. Bar graph illustrating site specific percentages of ceramic forms and shapes within the Late Formative period ceramic sample.
• Figure 5.18. Clustered boxplot displaying ranges of formal attribute variability during the Late Formative period.
• Figure 5.19. Percentage of occurrence of specific paste colors within the Late Formative period assemblages.
• Figure 5.20. Percentage of occurrence of specific paste textures within the Late Formative period assemblages.
• Figure 5.21. Clustered boxplot displaying ranges of paste attribute variability during the Late Formative period.
• Figure 5.22. Clustered boxplot displaying ranges of morphological attribute variability during the Late Formative period.
• Figure 5.23. Results of ANOVA statistical analysis on Early Classic period ceramic sample. (1)
• Figure 5.24. Bar graph illustrating site specific percentages of ceramic wares within the Early Classic period sample.
• Figure 5.25. Bar graph illustrating general breakdown and site specific percentages of individual type–varieties within the Ea ly Classic period ceramic sample.
• Figure 5.26. Cross tabulation of surface treatment by site, Early Classic period.
• Figure 5.27. Percentage of occurrence of specific surface treatments within the Early Classic period assemblages.
• Figure 5.28. Cross tabulation of decoration type by site, Early Classic period.
• Figure 5.29. Percentage of occurrence of specific decoration types within the Early Classic period assemblages.
• Figure 5.30. Clustered boxplot displaying ranges of classificatory attribute variability during the Early Classic period.
• Figure 5.31. Tukey HSD test for between site variability in Early Classic period classificatory attributes. (1)
• Figure 5.32. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along classificatory parameters of ware and type–variety.
• Figure 5.33. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along classificatory parameters of slip and surface treatment.
• Figure 5.37. Percentage of occurrence of specific paste textures within the Early Classic period assemblages.
• Figure 5.38. Clustered boxplot displaying ranges of paste attribute variability during the Early Classic period.
• Figure 5.39. Tukey HSD test for between site variability in Early Classic period paste attributes.
• Figure 5.40. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along paste parameters of color and exture.
• Figure 5.41. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along paste parameter of temper content.
• Figure 5.42. Cross tabulation of form/shape by site, Early Classic period.
• Figure 5.44. Tukey HSD test for between site variability in Early Classic period formal attributes.
• Figure 5.45. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along formal parameters of form/shape and angles/flanges.
• Figure 5.46. Clustered boxplot displaying ranges of morphological attribute variability during the Early Classic period.
• Figure 5.47. Tukey HSD test for between site variability in Early Classic period morphological attributes.
• Figure 5.48. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along morphological parameters of base and support type.
• Figure 5.49. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along morphological parameter of lip type.
• Figure 5.50. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along morphological parameters of wall and rim/neck type.
• Figure 5.51. Cross tabulation of wall thickness by site, Early Classic period.
• Figure 5.52. Percentage of occurrence of specific wall thickness within the Early Classic period assemblages.
• Figure 5.53. Cross tabulation of vessel height by site, Early Classic period.
• Figure 5.54. Cross tabulation of neck length by site, Early Classic period.
• Figure 5.55. Clustered boxplot displaying ranges of dimension attribute variability during the Early Classic period.
• Figure 5.56. Tukey HSD test for between site variability in Early Classic period dimension attributes.
• Figure 5.57. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along dimension parameters of wall thickness and vessel height.
• Figure 5.58. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along dimension parameter of neck le gth.
• Figure 5.59. H score heterogeneity measures of assemblage diversity over time.
• Figure 5.60. Comparative assessment between assemblages at the regional level, Middle Formative period (Mamom sphere), illust ating correspondence and discrepancies between sampled ceramics and adjacent sites and regions.
• Figure 5.61. Comparative assessment between assemblages at the regional level, Late Formative period (Chicanel sphere), illus rating correspondence and discrepancies between sampled ceramics and adjacent sites and regions.
• Figure 5.62. Comparative assessment of San Claudio assemblage at the regional level, Early Classic period (Tzakol sphere), illustrating correspondence and discrepancies between sampled ceramics from San Claudio and adjacent sites and regions.
• Figure 5.63. Comparative assessment of Tiradero, Mirador, and Revancha assemblages at the regional level, Early Classic period (Tzakol sphere), illustrating correspondence and discrepancies between sampled ceramics from Tiradero, Mirador, and Revancha and
• Figure 5.70. The spatial distribution of common Late Formative period ceramic attributes (e.g., thick waxy red, cream, and black slips, groove–incised, fluted, and striated decoration, flat–based shallow dishes and deep bowls with thick everted rims and d
• Figure 5.71. The spatial distribution of divergent central (Tzakol; dark grey overlay) and developing northwestern (stippled light grey overlay) Maya lowland ceramic spheres in the Early Classic period. The study area is outlined in the black cross–hatche
• Figure 5.72. Detail of the central Petén and northwestern Maya lowlands, illustrating the geographic extent of the Early Classic period Tzakol sphere (dark grey overlay) and the developing divergent ceramic tradition of the northwestern Maya lowlands (cro
• Figure 5.73. Interpretation of patterns of interaction within and between units deduced from ceramic analyses for the Middle a d Late Formative periods. *At the regional scale, units refer to distinct ceramic traditions (or cultural groups). At the micro–
• Chapter 6
• Comparative Analysis of Iconographic and Linguistic Evidence
• Figure 6.1. The development of Mesoamerican writing systems (after Lacadena 2010).
• Figure 6.2. Phonological aspects of early writing or ancestral script adopted by the Maya as compared with four Mesoamerican language families (after Lacadena 2010:36, table 3).
• Figure 6.3. Mixe–Zoque loans into Greater Lowland Mayan languages. These loans are widespread in Mayan and other Mesoamerican languages, and probably reflect contact with the Olmec (Justeson et al. 1985: 23). This table provides only those loans into Lowl
• Figure 6.4. Extent of Mixe–Zoque language area (L) and probable movement of Olmec ethnic groups/Mixe–Zoque language groups and Olmec artistic styles and ceramic technologies during the Middle and Late Formative periods (R); based on linguistic data and ar
• Figure 6.5. Phylogenetic grouping of Mayan languages detailing glottochronological estimates for divergence (cf. Campbell 1984: 2–3, figs. 1–2; Justeson et al. 1985: 3, fig. 1).
• Figure 6.6. Sign reformulation to reflect the m to b’ linguistic shift and problems of adaptation. The glyphs are identical except for the two circles with infixed cross–hatched patterns (T741) affixed to the protuberance in T19 and T21 (Englehardt 200:
• Figure 6.7. MS130, T548, and T528.
• Figure 6.8. Epi–Olmec sign MS44 and Maya signs T23, T526, and T529. a: MS44 in different contexts; b: down–turning ground moti in Izapan art and Olmec iconography; c: Epi–Olmec ‘sun–at–horizon’ glyph collocation and its Maya equivalent; d: early examples
• Figure 6.9. Frozen uses and continuing visual associations of T23. a: Palenque Tablet of the 96 Glyphs; b: Palenque Palace Tablet; c: unidentified text from Tikal; d: Ahuelicán greenstone tablet; e: Dos Pilas Stela 8 (after Mora–Marín 2001: 680, Fig. 7.3
• Figure 6.10. Examples within the Mayan script of the reformulation of established signs to reflect new or alternate linguistic values. These examples show the versatility of single signs, and the range in which they can be reused or reformulated to reflec
• Figure 6.11. Objects with Olmec–style iconography found in the study area. a: Unprovenanced Olmec low relief, currently in the Museo Municipal de Tenosique; b: Olmec–style incised lápida from Balancán, Tabasco; c: Olmec–style incised lápida from Emiliano
• Figure 6.12. Spatial distribution of Mesoamerican down–turning ground or ‘basal band’ motif related to Mayan sign T23, Formative–Early Classic period, detailing iconographic or scribal affiliation.
• Figure 6.13. Rough temporal distribution of the down–turning ground or ‘basal band’ motif related to Mayan sign T23 in distinc Mesoamerican iconographic and scribal systems.
• Figure 6.14. Spatial distribution of Olmec vegetal bundle or ‘torch’ motif, Middle Formative period.
• Figure 6.15. Subsequent iterations of the Olmec iconographic bound vegetal bundle or ‘torch’ motif in distinct Mesoamerican iconographic and scribal systems. a: CS 29 bundle element (L) and CS 12 torch element (R) in glyphic contexts on the Cascajal Block
• Figure 6.16. Spatial distribution of Mesoamerican disembodied hand motifs, Formative–Early Classic period, detailing iconographic or scribal affiliation. Only securely provenienced examples are shown.
• Figure 6.17. Rough temporal distribution of the outstretched, ‘thumbs up’ hand motif in distinct Mesoamerican iconographic and scribal systems.
• Figure 6.19. Rough temporal distribution of the flat, outstretched hand motif in distinct Mesoamerican iconographic and scribal systems.
• Figure 6.20. Rough temporal distribution of the ‘casting’ hand motif in distinct Mesoamerican iconographic and scribal systems.
• Figure 6.21. Spatial distribution of Mesoamerican Lazy–S motif, Formative–Postclassic period, detailing iconographic or scribal affiliation.
• Figure 6.22. Rough temporal distribution of the Lazy–S motif in distinct Mesoamerican iconographic and scribal systems.
• Figure 6.23. Spatial distribution of Mesoamerican disembodied foot motif, Formative–Postclassic period, detailing iconographic or scribal affiliation.
• Figure 6.24. Rough temporal distribution of the disembodied foot motif in distinct Mesoamerican iconographic and scribal systems.
• Figure 6.25. Spatial distribution of possible Mesoamerican calendric count sign related to Maya Initial Series Introductory Glyph (ISIG), Formative–Early Classic period, detailing iconographic or scribal affiliation.
• Figure 6.26. Rough temporal distribution of possible Mesoamerican calendric count sign related to Initial Series Introductory Glyph (ISIG) in distinct Mesoamerican iconographic and scribal systems (cf. Englehardt 2005: 478, figs. A4.38 and A4.39).
• Figure 6.27. Rough temporal distribution of a possible ‘foliated ajaw’ motif in distinct Mesoamerican iconographic and scribal systems.
• Chapter 7
• Interpretation and Discussion: The Relationship Between Material Interaction, Innovation, and Script Development
• Chapter 8
• Conclusions
• Bibliography