Archaeological Paleography : A Proposal for Tracing the Role of Interaction in Mayan Script Innovation Via Material Remains

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. Cover 1 Title Page 3 Contents 5 Preface 11 Acknowledgements 13 Chapter 1 15 Introduction 15 Research Objectives 16 Overview of the Investigation 18 Regional Context of Dataset 18 Analytic Units and Comparative Methodology 21 Interpretive Synthesis: Evaluating the Model 22 Statistical Methods of Quantitative Analysis 22 Organization of this Volume 23 Conclusions 24 Figure 1.1. Map of Mesoamerica. The micro–regional study area is outlined in the cross–hatched box. 16 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: 68 19 Figure 1.3. Detail of micro–regional study area and location of sites which provide ceramic evidence discussed in the text. 20 Chapter 2 26 Theoretical Framework and Methodological Premises 26 Modeling Interaction and Innovation in Ancient Societies 26 Systems and Complexity Theories 26 Theories of Network and Social Exchange 28 Examining Interaction, Integration, and Variability through Material Culture 29 Boundary Areas and Material Innovation 32 Interaction and The Development of Writing Systems in Mesoamerica 33 Writing and the Development of Writing Systems 33 Shared Features, Linguistic Encoding, and the Development of Mesoamerican Scripts 36 The Emergence and Nature of the Mayan Script 38 Evaluating The Relationship between the Development of Writing and Material Interaction in Formative Period Mesoamerica 40 Recontextualization 42 Interpretive Framework: Correlating Script Diversification and Material Change 43 Conclusions 44 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). 28 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 34 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). 36 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 39 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. 39 Figure 2.6. Lazy–S / cloud / T632 substitution set (drawing by Pearl Lau after Reilly 1996: 414, fig. 3). 39 Chapter 3 46 Figure 3.1. Map of the central and northwest Maya lowlands, showing sites included in this study and their location in relation to other Classic period Maya centers. 46 The Northwest Maya Lowlands: Site Selection and Regional Background 46 Regional Context 47 Location and Environment 50 Previous Investigations 51 Site Selection and Background 53 San Claudio 53 Tiradero 55 Mirador 56 Revancha 57 Conclusions 59 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 47 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 48 Figure 3.4. Relief map of the site of San Claudio, 1m contour. (González Moreno 2006: 32, fig. 30). Map by Mario Retíz. 54 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. 55 Figure 3.6. Map of the site center of Mirador. Map by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 54, fig. 55. 57 Figure 3.7. Relief map of the site of Revancha, 0.5m contour. Map by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 58, fig. 60. 58 Ceramic Sample and Analytic Methods 60 Ceramic Sample 60 Archaeological Contexts of the Ceramic Sample 61 Sorting and Typing 68 Chronology and Phasing 69 Ceramic Sequence of the Lower San Pedro Mártir Basin 70 Middle Formative Period 73 Late Formative Period 74 Early Classic Period 75 Variables, Scale, and Analytic Units 78 Type–Variety 79 Form and Shape Class 80 Techno–Stylistic Attributes and Dimensions 80 Distribution 82 Comparative Analysis of Attribute Variability 82 Quantitative Analyses of Similarity and Diversity 84 ANOVA Cluster Analysis of Mean Attribute Similarity and Distance 85 H Score Measures of Diversity 86 Conclusions 88 Chapter 4 60 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). 61 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). 61 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). 62 Figure 4.5. Plan of San Claudio Structure 1. Illustration by Mario Retíz after González Moreno 2006: 34, fig. 32. 63 Figure 4.6. Plan of San Claudio Structure 4. Illustration by Mario Retíz after González Moreno 2006: 35, fig. 33. 63 Figure 4.8. Plan of San Claudio Structure 12. Illustration by Mario Retíz after González Moreno 2006: 35, fig. 34. 64 Figure 4.9. Map detailing excavated areas at House 1, Tiradero. Illustration by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 50, fig. 51. 65 Figure 4.10. Detail of excavated areas at the Tiradero ballcourt. Illustration by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 52, fig. 54. 66 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. 67 Figure 4.12. Detail of excavations at the Mirador ballcourt. Illustration by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 56, fig. 59. 67 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 71 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 73 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 75 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 77 Figure 4.17. The variable stylistic attributes and categories of those attributes that were observed and recorded on diagnostic artifacts within the sample. 81 Figure 4.18. Comparative interpretation of stylistic attributes. *At the regional scale, units refer to distinct ceramic traditions (or cultural groups). At the micro–regional scale, units refer to the four sites as a clustered whole (when compared with s 83 Ceramic Analyses 89 Results of Ceramic Analyses 90 Statistical Analyses of the Ceramic Sample 90 ANOVA Analysis of Middle Formative Period Ceramics 90 ANOVA Analysis of Late Formative Period Ceramics 92 ANOVA Analysis of Early Classic Period Ceramics 101 The H Score Diversity Measure 111 Summary of Statistical Analyses 111 Comparative Assessment between Assemblages at the Regional Level 112 Middle Formative Period 114 Late Formative Period 119 Early Classic Period 125 Summary of Comparative Analysis 130 Patterns of Interaction and Innovation Revealed through the Ceramic Analyses 130 Variability over Time 131 Variability through Space 131 Conclusions 138 Chapter 5 89 Interpreting the Results of the Comparative and Statistical 89 Figure 5.1. Results of ANOVA statistical analysis on Middle Formative period ceramic sample. (1) 91 Figure 5.2. Pie chart illustrating occurrences of specific type–varieties within the Middle Formative period ceramic sample. 92 Figure 5.3. Frequencies of Middle Formative period type–varieties within the sample. 92 Figure 5.4. Cross tabulation of form/shape by site, Middle Formative period. 93 Figure 5.5. Tukey HSD test for between site variability in Middle Formative period formal attributes. 93 Figure 5.6. Percentage of occurrence of specific form or shape class within the Middle Formative period assemblages. 93 Figure 5.7. Results of ANOVA statistical analysis on Late Formative period ceramic sample. (1) 94 Figure 5.8. Cross tabulation of ware by site, Late Formative period. 95 Figure 5.9. Bar graph illustrating site specific percentages of ceramic wares within the Late Formative period sample. 95 _GoBack 96 Figure 5.11. Tukey HSD test for between site variability in Late Formative period ceramic wares. 96 Figure 5.12. Percentage of occurrence of specific slip within the Late Formative period assemblages. 97 Figure 5.13. Percentage of occurrence of specific decoration types within the Late Formative period assemblages. 97 Figure 5.14. Percentage of occurrence of surface treatments within the Late Formative period assemblages. 98 Figure 5.15. Clustered boxplot displaying ranges of classificatory attribute variability during the Late Formative period. 98 Figure 5.16. Cross tabulation of form/shape by site, Late Formative period. 99 Figure 5.17. Bar graph illustrating site specific percentages of ceramic forms and shapes within the Late Formative period ceramic sample. 99 Figure 5.18. Clustered boxplot displaying ranges of formal attribute variability during the Late Formative period. 100 Figure 5.19. Percentage of occurrence of specific paste colors within the Late Formative period assemblages. 100 Figure 5.20. Percentage of occurrence of specific paste textures within the Late Formative period assemblages. 101 Figure 5.21. Clustered boxplot displaying ranges of paste attribute variability during the Late Formative period. 101 Figure 5.22. Clustered boxplot displaying ranges of morphological attribute variability during the Late Formative period. 102 Figure 5.23. Results of ANOVA statistical analysis on Early Classic period ceramic sample. (1) 103 Figure 5.24. Bar graph illustrating site specific percentages of ceramic wares within the Early Classic period sample. 104 Figure 5.25. Bar graph illustrating general breakdown and site specific percentages of individual type–varieties within the Early Classic period ceramic sample. 105 Figure 5.26. Cross tabulation of surface treatment by site, Early Classic period. 105 Figure 5.27. Percentage of occurrence of specific surface treatments within the Early Classic period assemblages. 105 Figure 5.28. Cross tabulation of decoration type by site, Early Classic period. 106 Figure 5.29. Percentage of occurrence of specific decoration types within the Early Classic period assemblages. 106 Figure 5.30. Clustered boxplot displaying ranges of classificatory attribute variability during the Early Classic period. 107 Figure 5.31. Tukey HSD test for between site variability in Early Classic period classificatory attributes. (1) 108 Figure 5.32. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along classificatory parameters of ware and type–variety. 109 Figure 5.33. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along classificatory parameters of slip and surface treatment. 109 Figure 5.37. Percentage of occurrence of specific paste textures within the Early Classic period assemblages. 112 Figure 5.38. Clustered boxplot displaying ranges of paste attribute variability during the Early Classic period. 112 Figure 5.39. Tukey HSD test for between site variability in Early Classic period paste attributes. 113 Figure 5.40. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along paste parameters of color and texture. 114 Figure 5.41. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along paste parameter of temper content. 114 Figure 5.42. Cross tabulation of form/shape by site, Early Classic period. 114 Figure 5.44. Tukey HSD test for between site variability in Early Classic period formal attributes. 115 Figure 5.45. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along formal parameters of form/shape and angles/flanges. 116 Figure 5.46. Clustered boxplot displaying ranges of morphological attribute variability during the Early Classic period. 116 Figure 5.47. Tukey HSD test for between site variability in Early Classic period morphological attributes. 117 Figure 5.48. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along morphological parameters of base and support type. 118 Figure 5.49. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along morphological parameter of lip type. 118 Figure 5.50. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along morphological parameters of wall and rim/neck type. 118 Figure 5.51. Cross tabulation of wall thickness by site, Early Classic period. 119 Figure 5.52. Percentage of occurrence of specific wall thickness within the Early Classic period assemblages. 119 Figure 5.53. Cross tabulation of vessel height by site, Early Classic period. 119 Figure 5.54. Cross tabulation of neck length by site, Early Classic period. 120 Figure 5.55. Clustered boxplot displaying ranges of dimension attribute variability during the Early Classic period. 120 Figure 5.56. Tukey HSD test for between site variability in Early Classic period dimension attributes. 121 Figure 5.57. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along dimension parameters of wall thickness and vessel height. 121 Figure 5.58. Extrapolated Tukey test illustrating means for groups in homogeneous subsets along dimension parameter of neck length. 122 Figure 5.59. H score heterogeneity measures of assemblage diversity over time. 122 Figure 5.60. Comparative assessment between assemblages at the regional level, Middle Formative period (Mamom sphere), illustrating correspondence and discrepancies between sampled ceramics and adjacent sites and regions. 123 Figure 5.61. Comparative assessment between assemblages at the regional level, Late Formative period (Chicanel sphere), illustrating correspondence and discrepancies between sampled ceramics and adjacent sites and regions. 123 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. 126 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 126 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 136 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 137 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 138 Figure 5.73. Interpretation of patterns of interaction within and between units deduced from ceramic analyses for the Middle and Late Formative periods. *At the regional scale, units refer to distinct ceramic traditions (or cultural groups). At the micro– 139 Chapter 6 142 Comparative Analysis of Iconographic and Linguistic Evidence 142 Methodological Considerations: Tracing the Role of Iconographic Innovation in Script Development 143 Linguistic Data: Framing Interaction and Innovation 144 Linguistic Affiliation of the Ancestral System and the Impact of Mixe–Zoque on GLM Languages 145 Temporal Contexts of Interaction: GLM Linguistic Diversification and the Influence of Cholan–Tzotzilan 147 Archaeological–Linguistic Correlations 150 Textual Evidence Indicative of Linguistic Diffusion 152 Summary of Linguistic Evidence 156 The Visual Dataset: Iconographic Transformations and Mayan Script Development 157 Contextualizing the Evidence 160 Earth Bands and T23 na 162 Vegetal Bundles or ‘Torches’ 164 Hand Motifs 166 The Lazy–S 170 Calendrical Notations 172 Human Foot Motif 172 Summary of Iconographic Evidence 176 Conclusions 177 Figure 6.1. The development of Mesoamerican writing systems (after Lacadena 2010). 143 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). 146 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 147 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 148 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). 149 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 2005: 153 Figure 6.7. MS130, T548, and T528. 153 Figure 6.8. Epi–Olmec sign MS44 and Maya signs T23, T526, and T529. a: MS44 in different contexts; b: down–turning ground motif in Izapan art and Olmec iconography; c: Epi–Olmec ‘sun–at–horizon’ glyph collocation and its Maya equivalent; d: early examples 155 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. 7.13 155 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 160 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 162 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. 163 Figure 6.13. Rough temporal distribution of the down–turning ground or ‘basal band’ motif related to Mayan sign T23 in distinct Mesoamerican iconographic and scribal systems. 163 Figure 6.14. Spatial distribution of Olmec vegetal bundle or ‘torch’ motif, Middle Formative period. 165 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 165 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. 166 Figure 6.17. Rough temporal distribution of the outstretched, ‘thumbs up’ hand motif in distinct Mesoamerican iconographic and scribal systems. 167 Figure 6.19. Rough temporal distribution of the flat, outstretched hand motif in distinct Mesoamerican iconographic and scribal systems. 168 Figure 6.20. Rough temporal distribution of the ‘casting’ hand motif in distinct Mesoamerican iconographic and scribal systems. 168 Figure 6.21. Spatial distribution of Mesoamerican Lazy–S motif, Formative–Postclassic period, detailing iconographic or scribal affiliation. 171 Figure 6.22. Rough temporal distribution of the Lazy–S motif in distinct Mesoamerican iconographic and scribal systems. 171 Figure 6.23. Spatial distribution of Mesoamerican disembodied foot motif, Formative–Postclassic period, detailing iconographic or scribal affiliation. 173 Figure 6.24. Rough temporal distribution of the disembodied foot motif in distinct Mesoamerican iconographic and scribal systems. 173 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. 174 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). 174 Figure 6.27. Rough temporal distribution of a possible ‘foliated ajaw’ motif in distinct Mesoamerican iconographic and scribal systems. 176 Chapter 7 179 Interpretation and Discussion: The Relationship Between Material Interaction, Innovation, and Script Development 179 Interpreting Variability: A Multi–Scalar Correlational Approach 179 Synthesis of Data 182 The Middle Formative Period 182 The Late Formative Period 183 The Early Classic Period 185 Summary 186 Correlations with the Developing Mayan Script 188 Evaluation and Implications 192 Conclusions 195 Chapter 8 197 Conclusions 197 Results and Implications of this Investigation 198 Assessment of the Proposed Model and Future Directions 201 Final Thoughts 203 Bibliography 204 Middle–Late Formative and Early Classic period,Mesoamerica,Mayan script