Crossing the Usumacinta: Stylistic Variability and

Dynamic Boundaries in the Preclassic and Early

Classic Period Northwest Maya Lowlands
Joshua Englehardt
Department of Anthropology, Florida State University
1847 W. Tennessee St., Tallahassee, FL 32306 USA
jenglehardt@fsu.edu

Introduction

In this article, I explore processes of regional boundary formation in ancient

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

Archa e o l o gic al R ev iew f ro m C amb ridg e - 25. 2 - 2010

58 Crossing the Usumacinta: Stylistic Variability and Dynamic Boundaries

boundary, adding res-

olution to inferences
regarding regional
interaction. Such
stylistically defined
zones of social inter-
action, and overlaps
in archaeologically
identified regional
exchange networks,
may parallel previous-
ly identified linguistic
or ethnic divisions, Fig. 1. The light grey overlay demarcates the northwest Maya lowlands of the
the presence of which Middle and Lower Usumacinta River basin in Tabasco, south-eastern Mexico (af-
ter Hernández Ayala 1981: 68, fig. 1). The micro-regional study area is outlined in
provides a useful the cross-hatched black rectangle. Map by the author, modified and reproduced
comparative baseline. from original by Hans Braxmeier under terms of GNU Free Documentation
I offer a preliminary license.
comparative and qualitative analysis of the ceramic data and interpret
these results to suggest the existence of a more fluid social boundary
in earlier, Late Preclassic period temporal contexts which subsequently
‘closed’ as the lowland Maya region at once expanded and turned inward
during the Preclassic-Classic period transition. An increasingly complex
system of social integration within the Early Classic period Maya low-
lands appears to be associated with a more rigidly defined socio-cultural
boundary. I conclude with an observation on the ways in which changes
in social organisation may be related to both material variation and the
permeability and conservation of socio-geographic boundaries.

Theoretical Considerations
A central problem in archaeology is the placement of the boundaries
investigators use to circumscribe and define archaeological ‘cultures’
(Green and Perlman 1985: 6–9; Kowalewski et al. 1983; Parkinson 2006:
33–34; Stark 1998). To elucidate variability in socio–cultural boundaries,
archaeologists have effectively employed stylistic and distributional
analyses of material variables, particularly ceramic assemblages, in a
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76
 Joshua Englehardt 59

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

From this perspective, continuity in material culture across social

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

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76

60 Crossing the Usumacinta: Stylistic Variability and Dynamic Boundaries

Regional Context and Background

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

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76

 Joshua Englehardt 61

Ceramic Sample and

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

The ceramic sample includes approximately 21,000 sherds dating to

the Late Preclassic and Early Classic periods which were recovered from
systematic surface collection, securely identified archaeological contexts,
or stratified test pits (González Moreno 2006: 87–95; Hernández Ayala
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76
62 Crossing the Usumacinta: Stylistic Variability and Dynamic Boundaries

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

Additionally, I measure subtle variability in the evolution of forms

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

Summary of Ceramic Data

Within the sample, I have identified approximately 6000 sherds dating to
the Late Preclassic period in the San Pedro Mártir basin that represent 16
type-varieties from eight ceramic groups and three wares (table 2). For the
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76
 Joshua Englehardt 63

sake of simplicity within the sample, I consider only those type–variety

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

Of the 16 major Late Preclassic type components in the sample,

12 have equivalents at Piedras Negras (out of a total of 32 type-variety
combinations present at both sites), and 13 are evident at Altar (out of
35 type–varieties present at both sites). The sampled sites thus share ap-
proximately 37 percent of their Late Preclassic ceramic types with both
Piedras Negras and Altar. Likewise, the predominance of monochrome
red, black and cream ceramics with thick, waxy slips in the sample cor-
responds closely to evidence from Abal phase Piedras Negras and the
late waxy horizon at Palenque and throughout the lower and middle
Usumacinta basin (Muñoz 2004; Ochoa and Casasola 1991: 10; Rands 1987).
As elsewhere, broad-line incising and fluting are the most common deco-
rative modes evident within the sample during Late Preclassic times (cf.
Lee 1972: 11; Muñoz 2004; Rands 1987: 210). In terms of shape classes, the
most common forms in the sample are wide, shallow dishes, plates, apax-
tles and cajetes with thickened, slightly everted rims and thick-walled jars
with short, out-curving necks. These forms are quite common during the
Late Preclassic period in the lower Usumacinta basin and in the Petén low-
lands, and vessels with similar forms and surface finish are also evident in
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76
64 Crossing the Usumacinta: Stylistic Variability and Dynamic Boundaries

Usumacinta
San Pedro

Sacrificios
Chiapa de

Uaxactún

Palenque
Altar de

Grijalva
Piedras
Negras

Middle
Period

Mártir

Lower

Corzo
Date

600 Taxinchan Chixoy Tepeu 1 Balche Otolum

Kundapi
Laguna Veremos 3 Cascada
Caoba (early)

Naba
500 Kaxabyuc
(late) 2
Early Classic

Tzakol
Ayn
Motiepa
400 (Early
Jiquipilas (early) 1

Juspano
Pom
Picota
300 Classic Salinas
Horizon)

?
200 Isthmo
(late)
Pichi

Chicanel
?
(Late

Ipsan
100 Plancha
Waxy
Horizon)
Late Preclassic

AD
Abal
BC Horcones (early)

100 Mamom
late

Guañoma
Guanacaste (late)

200
San Felix Misolha
300 (Early
Waxy
Horizon)
Bari

Chacibcan
Middle Preclassic

400
middle

Francesa Hol
Felisa

500
(early (Pre–
(early) facet Waxy
Xot Mamon) Horizon)
600

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

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76

 Joshua Englehardt 65

Sample
variety
Period

Group

Type:
Ware

Size
Uaxactún Sapote Sapote Striated: sapote 437
Unslipped Triunfo Triunfo Striated: triunfo 6041
Paso Caballos Laguna Verde Incised: laguna 874
Waxy Sierra
Sierra Red: sierra 696
Fine Brown San Martín San Martín Variegated Brown: san martín 1035
Holmul Orange Ixcanrio Ixcanrio Orange Polychrome: VU 103
Actuncan Orange Polychrome: VU 397
Aguila Orange: aguila 422
Aguila
Pita Incised: VU 60
Dos Arroyos Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome: dos arroyos 746
Balanza Black: balanza 119
Early Classic

Lucha Incised: bolocantal 71

Balanza
Lucha Incised: lucha 1479
Petén Gloss Bolonchac Orange Polychrome: black 451
Santa Rosa Cream Polychrome: santa rosa 210
Santa Rosa Suktan Cream Polychrome: suktan 48
Mataculebra Cream Polychrome: mataculebra 182
Saxché
Moro Orange Polychrome: moro 346
Anaité Red: anaité 284
Tinaja Cameron Incised: cameron 388
Tinaja Red: aduana 602
Carmelita Incised: carmelita 52
Infierno
Infierno Black: infierno 328
Saxché Orange Polychrome: saxché 125
Palmar
Zacatel Cream Polychrome: zacatel 35
15,531
Altamira Fluted: altamira 68
Correlo Incised Dichrome: correlo 5
Hongo Compuesto: hongo 13
Laguna Verde Incised: laguna 118
Sierra Repasto Black on Red: repasto 32
Paso Caballos Sierra Red: sierra 2910
Waxy
Late Preclassic

Flor Cream: flor 984

Flor
Mateo Red on Cream: flor 17
Pital Pital Cream: pital 135
Polvero Polvero Negro: polvero 360
Centenario Fluted: centenario 143
Fluted
Setok Fluted: VU 178
Flores Waxy
Monochrome Chunhinta Black: chunchinta 77
Black Deprecio Incised: VU 96
Uaxactún Achiotes Achiotes Unslipped: achiotes 459
Unslipped Sapote Sapote striated: sapote 254

5849
Total 21,380

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

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76

66 Crossing the Usumacinta: Stylistic Variability and Dynamic Boundaries

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

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

In the Early Classic period, greater variation becomes evident.

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

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76

 Joshua Englehardt 67

Tiradero, Early Classic ceramics Mirador, Early Classic ceramics

a. Type Variety Sample b. Type Variety Sample

4392 1060
Triunfo Striated: triunfo Triunfo Striated: triunfo
48.67% 33.91%

San Martín Variegated 910 497

Lucha Incised: lucha
Brown: san martín 10.09% 15.90%

869 Dos Arroyos Orange Poly- 347

Lucha Incised: lucha chrome: dos arroyos 11.10 %
9.63%
145
455 Laguna Verde Incised: laguna
Laguna Verde Incised: laguna 4.63%
5.04%
San Martín Variegated 56
Dos Arroyos Orange Poly- 267 Brown: san martín 1.79%
chrome: dos arroyos 2.96%
2105
6893 Total
Total 67.34%
76.39%
Cenotes, Early Classic ceramics Mirador, Early Classic ceramics
c. Type Variety Sample d. Type Variety Sample
519 Bolonchac Orange Poly- 451
Triunfo Striated: triunfo 34.58% chrome: black 23.98%
265 Moro Orange Poly- 346
Laguna Verde Incised: laguna 17.65% chrome: moro 18.39%
Dos Arroyos Orange Poly- 119 233
chrome: dos arroyos 7.92% Aguila Orange: aguila 12.39%
102 224
Lucha Incised: lucha Infierno Black: infierno
6.80% 11.91%
San Martín Variegated 69 217
Brown: san martín 4.60% Anaité Red: anaité 11.54%
1074 1471
Total Total
71.55% 78.20%

All sites, Late Preclassic ceramics

e. Type Variety Tiradero Mirador Cenotes San Claudio Total

1085 640 325 860 2910

Sierra Red: sierra 45.51% 45.42% 49.46% 61.47% 49.75%

485 176 82 241 984

Flor Cream: flor 20.34% 12.49% 12.48% 17.22% 16.82%
235 83 25 116 459
Achiotes Unslipped: achiotes 9.85% 5.89% 3.81% 8.29% 7.84%

Polvero Black: polvero 139 75 69 77 360

5.83% 5.32% 10.50% 5.50% 6.15%
127 71 13 43 254
Sapote Striated: sapote 5.32% 5.03% 1.98% 3.07% 4.34%

2071 1045 514 1337 1074

Total 86.87% 74.16% 78.23% 95.56% 71.55%

Table 3. Breakdown of quantities and percentages of five most common type–varieties present in sample at each site in Early Classic
(a–d) and Late Preclassic (e) periods. Percentages indicate proportions of selected type–varieties and totals in relation to the
respective Late Preclassic and Early Classic period ceramic assemblages as wholes.
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76
68 Crossing the Usumacinta: Stylistic Variability and Dynamic Boundaries

northern sites, there appears to be a clinal distribution, with gloss and

polychrome ceramics present at 25.6 percent of the sample at Cenotes,
15.7 percent at Mirador, and only eight per cent at Tiradero.

Comparing the sampled ceramics with adjacent sequences, a simi-

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

Shape classes demonstrate similar distributional variability. At San

Claudio and Piedras Negras, ollas with incurving walls and thickened rims,
bolstered rim unslipped basins and utility jars, thin-walled moulded rim
bowls, shallow cajetes with hollow, conical tripod supports, and cazuelas
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76
 Joshua Englehardt 69

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

Interpreting Variability in the Ceramic Evidence

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

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76

70 Crossing the Usumacinta: Stylistic Variability and Dynamic Boundaries

These data intimate the formation of a socio-cultural boundary in the

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

These Early Classic period developments correspond to what also ap-

pears to be increased control of the western, southern and southeastern
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76
 Joshua Englehardt 71

peripheries. Increasing boundary demarcation is reflected in the com-

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

Conclusions and Future Directions

On the basis of the ceramic data presented, I have suggested that a more
pronounced and far less porous social boundary developed along the
intermediate plains of the mid-lower Usumacinta and lower San Pedro
Mártir basins in the Early Classic period. This frontier separated the
northwest Maya lowlands from the developing core area of Classic Maya
society centralised in the Petén, with sites in the low sierras south of the
intermediate plains such as San Claudio becoming more integrated in
Classic Maya traditions, and sites to the north of the plains such as Mirador,
Cenotes and Tiradero orienting themselves outward. It appears that the
development of this boundary was coeval with trends of increasing
complexity, integration and centralisation in the Maya lowlands that
occurred roughly at the Preclassic–Classic period transition. In this sense,
it would seem that diachronic changes in socio-political organisation,
Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76
72 Crossing the Usumacinta: Stylistic Variability and Dynamic Boundaries

namely increased centralisation, integration and hierarchical control,

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

I am expanding my qualitative analysis to include data from six other

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

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76

 Joshua Englehardt 73

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

References
Adams, R.E.W. 1971. The Ceramics of Altar de Sacrificios, Guatemala (Papers of the Peabody
Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography, vol. 63, no. 1). Cambridge: Harvard Uni-
versity Press.

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

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

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

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

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hodder, I. 1985. Boundaries as strategies: An ethnoarchaeological study. In Green, S.W.

and Perlman, S.M. (eds), The Archaeology of Frontiers and Boundaries. Orlando: Aca-
demic Press, 141–162.

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

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

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 77–95

 Joshua Englehardt 75

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

Kaufman, T. S. 1976. Archaeological and linguistic correlations in Mayaland and associat-

ed areas of Mesoamerica. World Archaeology 8(1): 101–118.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ochoa, L. 1983. El medio Usumacinta: Un eslabón en los antecedentes Olmecas de los

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

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

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

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76

76 Crossing the Usumacinta: Stylistic Variability and Dynamic Boundaries

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

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

Sanchez Caero, O. F. 1979. Excavaciones Arqueológicas en la Zona de Jonuta, Tabasco. Un-

published B.A. dissertation submitted to the Escuela Nacional de Antropología e
Historia, Mexico City.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archaeological Review from Cambridge 25.2: 57–76