How Material Culture Acted on the Ancient Maya of Yucatan, Mexico

2

How Material Culture Acted on the AncientMaya of Yucatan, Mexico

Scott R. HutsonUniversity of Kentucky

andGavin Davies

University of Kentucky

ABSTRACTThis paper looks at how materiality in a specific sense (e.g., aspects of raw materials) contributes to materiality

in a broader sense (e.g., the mutually constitutive relations between people and things). We embark from the pointthat common materials, such as stone and perishable containers (baskets, gourds), shape people’s social interactionsand their physical sensibilities. The use of very large stones for buildings in and around Ucı, a local political centerin the northern Maya Lowlands of Yucatan, Mexico, required people to draw on a large web of social relations inorder to get access to the right stone and the right labor. Furthermore, hauling such stones and placing them in wallsrequired a very literal form of physical dialogue between laborers that is otherwise quite rare, akin to carrying acouch. We believe that the closely coordinated and intimately shared physical maneuvers required to haul and placea 150 kg stone intensified the bonds between co-actors, who were likely part of the same household. This suggeststhat the stability of households depends not just on what people do, but how they do these things together. Manyhouseholds at two sites near Ucı—Kancab and 21 de Abril—depended heavily on baskets and gourds since potterywas scarce. Aspects of the making of these tools, such as the procurement of materials for baskets, sent peoplebeyond their homes and into contact with many others. Thus, we argue that discussions of materials in craftworkshould expand to consider the social entanglements entailed in the procurement of materials. Furthermore, we arguethat the specific tactile characteristics of perishable goods such as baskets and gourds help create different kinds ofpeople. In households with less pottery, day to day use of baskets and gourds would have inculcated non-discursivesenses of touch that rose to discursive consciousness at community wide occasions at households that served meals onpottery. Such events would have been diacritical, making participants aware of the differences between themselves.In sum, raw materials such as stone and gourds play a large role in making actors who they were and creating socialnetworks. [households, material culture, Mesoamerica, Maya]

T he specific aspects of the materials that people interactwith on a daily basis have consequences for the kinds

of lives people live. In this paper, we look at how mate-riality as Ingold (2007) discusses it—the physical charac-teristics of things: weight, texture, pliancy, source—shapesrelations between people and shapes embodied expectationsof the world; materiality as Miller (2010) discusses it (seealso Overholtzer and Robin, chapter 1). In other words, weexplore how materials enmesh people in social relations

and shape their dispositions. We will examine these pointsusing data from the Ucı-Cansahcab Regional IntegrationProject (UCRIP for short), based in the northern Maya Low-lands, at the northern tip of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico(Figure 2.1). Over four field seasons, UCRIP has been inves-tigating social, political, ritual, and economic changes thatsurround the construction of an 18 km long stone causewaythat connects the local center of Ucı with several smaller an-cient settlements, ending at Cansahcab (Hutson 2008, 2010a,

ARCHEOLOGICAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, Vol. 26, pp. 10–26, ISSN 1551-823X,online ISSN 1551-8248. C© 2015 by the American Anthropological Association. All rights reserved. DOI: 10.1111/apaa.12065.

Ancient Maya of Yucatan, Mexico 11

Figure 2.1. Map of UCRIP and Maya area, showing most sites mentioned in the text.

2010b). Though our case study does not actively campaignfor a particular paradigm vis-a-vis material culture, we findcomfort in that version of actor network theory that acknowl-edges differences between humans and non-humans (Latour1994). In the context of our study, this means that when ma-terial culture acts on people, it does so because it is closelybound up with human action (Robb 2004; see also Hodder2011). In other words, we follow the notion that materialculture on its own cannot exercise agency (which we defineas the capacity to choose a course of action that, whether in-tended or not, reproduces or transforms social structure), yethumans only exercise agency with the support of materialculture.

We explore two kinds of materials: stones used to con-struct the platforms that supported ancient houses and con-tainers for storing, preparing, and serving food and drink.For both cases we intend to show that “things, objects, land-scapes, possess ‘real’ qualities that affect and shape bothour perception of them and our cohabitation with them”(Olsen 2003:88). In the case of stone, we focus on the com-paratively large stones—megaliths—that form the retentionwalls of many platforms in the area. Once these stones werein place, people came into contact with them every time theyentered or left their houses. Yet we are interested in earlierstages of the biographies of these stones, particularly theacts of quarrying them, preparing them, and moving them

12 Scott R. Hutson and Gavin Davies

into place. More precisely, we are interested in how thematerial features of the stones precipitated and shaped inter-actions among the people working with these stones. Closeconsideration of the specific skills, logistics, and physicalmovements—pushing, pulling, lifting—necessary for work-ing these stones permits a more intimate understanding ofsocial relations.

Our focus on containers differs in a number of ways. Tobegin with, whereas the megaliths in the platforms are themost visible and permanent of the archaeological remainsalong the Ucı-Cansahcab causeway, container technologyhas proved far less visible. As we discuss below, ceramicpots were uncommon at many households occupied dur-ing the era in which the causeway was built and used. Wetherefore consider highly perishable container technologies:gourds and baskets. These indirectly inferred materials fore-ground a discussion of materiality as Miller (2010:50–54)defines it: the ongoing process through which people andthings make each other (see also Overholtzer and RobinChapter 1). Though it goes without saying that people makethings, the more interesting point, made clear in Bourdieu’scase of the Kabyle house (1979), is that material cultureshapes people, imprinting them with dispositions, orienta-tions, habits—a taken-for-granted sense of the proper wayto live. We make the point that the dispositions cultivatedin a household where soft containers (basketry, gourds) pre-dominate are not the same as those cultivated in a house-hold where hard containers (ceramics) predominate. Fromthis point, we argue that the variance in these dispositionsbecame important in situations where households with dif-ferential access to pottery came into contact.

Our data come from intensive investigations at house-holds in two communities along the causeway—the sites ofKancab and 21 de Abril. Kancab, located eight kilometerseast of Ucı, covers about 1.2 km2 and has a central cere-monial plaza. The causeway between Ucı and Cansahcabpasses through the center of Kancab, but does not actu-ally connect with Kancab’s plaza. 21 de Abril is a smallersite located along the causeway, five kilometers east of theUcı site core and three kilometers west of the Kancab sitecore.

The Sociality of Stone

At both Kancab and 21 de Abril, people built houses ontop of platforms constructed in what we refer to as the me-galithic style (Figure 2.2; Mathews and Maldonado 2006).Megalithic buildings at two other local centers (Dzilam andAke) and the regional center (Izamal), each of which is lo-cated within 40 kilometers of Ucı, dumbfounded 19th cen-

tury explorers (Figure 2.3; Brasseur de Bourbourg 1865;Charnay 1863; Stephens 1963). For example, in 1843 JohnL. Stephens published the following passage about Structure1 at Ake:

The ascent is on the south side, by an immensestaircase, forming an approach of rude grandeur, perhapsequal to any that ever existed in the country. Each stepis four feet five inches long, and one foot five inches inheight . . . It was a new and extraordinary feature, entirelydifferent from any we had seen. [1963:304]

The buildings upon which Stephens commented arenot the only ones in the Maya area that use large stones.For example, the occupants of the Mirador Basin, locatedapproximately 400 kilometers south of Ucı, built earliermegalithic structures in the 5th and 6th centuries B.C.E.(Hansen 1998). However, the megalithic structures in thenorthern Lowlands share a set of characteristics that distin-guish them from other buildings with large stones (Hutson2012; Mathews and Maldonado 2006). These characteristicsinclude platform retaining walls with large, dressed facingstones (usually longer than 60 centimeters) stacked withtheir long axis aligned with the face of the wall. The plat-forms often have rounded corners and the stones themselvesalso have rounded corners, giving them what has been calleda “pillow” shape (Taube 1995). The ancient Maya often builtapron moldings with these megaliths. Megalithic buildingswith these particular details cluster around Ucı, Izamal, Ake,and Dzilam but also appear further to the east at large sitessuch as Naranjal, Victoria, and Tres Lagunas in northernQuintana Roo, Mexico (Glover and Stanton 2010). In con-trast to the Ucı area, megalithic buildings in northern Quin-tana Roo are not found at smaller sites. In and around Ucı,most domestic megalithic platforms cover between 200 and400 square meters, and rarely stand taller than one meter.A household wishing to build a 200 m2 megalithic platformwith one course of megaliths along the full perimeter ofthe retaining wall would need about 60 megaliths, assumingeach megalith was one meter long. Most northern Lowlandhouseholds beyond the Ucı area did not build with megalithsand, around Ucı and Naranjal, the style did not continue verylong after its apogee in the first half of the 1st millenniumC.E. Most people who lived on the peninsula in ancient timesbuilt perfectly viable platforms using smaller stones.

We call attention to the ways in which the process ofbuilding with megaliths, as opposed to other kinds of stones,shaped social relations (see Joyce 2004 for an account ofhow building with clay impacted society). Our contributioncomplements other approaches to the sociality of stone inthe Maya area, such as the point that stone, in the form ofa stela, can embody and extend royal people (Houston and


Figure 2.2. West side of Structure 51, a domestic megalithic platform from the site ofKancab.

Figure 2.3. Photo of the central megalithic stairway of Structure 1, Ake, Yucatan.

Stuart 1998). Our approach differs from Tilley’s treatmentof the materiality of stones in Europe since Tilley (2004) fo-cuses mostly on how stone buildings and monuments wereexperienced after they were created and/or put into place.Quarrying megaliths requires much more than hard labor.The high quality flint required to make the bifacial toolsto quarry limestone is difficult to find in the vicinity of

Ucı. Furthermore, fashioning bifaces for quarrying wouldhave required very experienced tool makers. Finally, exper-imental quarrying exercises in the Peten district of northernGuatemala (Woods and Titmus 1996) indicate a scarcity ofthe kinds of quarries (those with minimal fractures and min-imal hard, spherical inclusions) that work well for extract-ing large blocks. Around Ucı, limestone is soft compared


Figure 2.4. Map of 21 de Abril, showing locations of 38s14, 42s2, and S408.

to limestone further to the south, given that it was formedmore recently (over the last 2 million years, as opposed tothe last 24 million years; Ward 1985) and the purity of lime-stone around Ucı is quite variable (see also Carmean et al.2011).

Given the uneven availability of suitable stone for themegaliths themselves and for tools for extracting and shap-ing them, quarrying megaliths required a body of geographi-cal and technical knowledge that entailed a network of socialrelations. In other words, if we presume that each householdbuilt its own platform, a household that wanted to incorpo-rate megaliths into the retaining wall of its platform wouldhave needed to maintain the connections necessary to ac-cess the right kinds of quarries. That household might alsoneed good relations with an expert biface maker, who inturn would need to maintain the relations necessary to getaccess to high quality chert. If the household did not dothe actual quarrying itself, it had to expend the economicand/or social capital to get specialized masons to do thework. Stoneworking was a specialized skill in the conquestperiod in Yucatan (Farriss 1984:166), and data from variousMaya sites suggest it was also a specialization before contact(Abrams 1994; Andrews and Rovner 1973; Carmean et al.2011; Hansen 1998; Haviland 1974).

In sum, making megaliths required multiple social re-lations. The size of megaliths has an additional impact onsocial relations. Megalithic stones in domestic contexts atKancab and 21 de Abril average approximately 80×50×25 cm (Stair 2013). A stone of these dimensions has avolume of 0.1 m3. Experimental archaeology in the Peten(Sidrys 1978; Woods and Titmus 1996) shows that a 1 m3

block of limestone weighs anywhere from 1236 to 2700 kg.The limestone around Ucı would fall closer to the light endof this spectrum. Thus, a 0.1 m3 block like those used indomestic platforms at Ucı would weigh between 123.6 andperhaps 200 kilograms (between 272 and 441 pounds). Itwould take at least two people to move stones of that weightfrom the quarry to the platform and to hoist such a stone intoposition on top of other megalithic stones on a retaining wall.Two (or more) people working together to move these stonesis a paradigm case of dialogical action, no different from theexample of two people sawing a log with a two-handed saw(Taylor 1999:35; Hutson 2010c:27). The absence of oneperson renders the other person’s actions absolutely inept.We presume that most non-megalithic platforms in Yucatanwere also built by more than one person working at the sametime, and that these multiple workers also had to coordinatetheir actions. Yet jobs like moving and hoisting megaliths


can only be done by multiple actors working intimately intandem. Workers do not just share understandings of how toget the job done, they must coordinate physical movementon shared tasks. Anyone who has helped another person lifta couch up a staircase knows that one person’s movementphysically registers on the other. One person pushing outof sync with the other can easily cause injury. We believethat the closely coordinated physical maneuvers required tohaul and place a 150 kg stone intensified the bonds betweenco-actors.

The way that the material characteristics of megalithicstone bring about exceptionally dialogical relations betweenpeople becomes more important when we consider that theconstruction of megalithic platforms may not have happenedall at once. Whereas it is sometimes presumed that buildingsare first built and later occupied, some building projects areworks in progress (see, for example Gerritsen 1997; Rod-ning 2007). In the case of megalithic platforms, this mightmean that in the initial construction effort, builders usedmegalithic stones for a portion of the perimeter of the plat-form and smaller stones for the rest, with the intention ofgradually replacing the smaller ones with megaliths whentime and resources permitted. Though perfectly habitable,some platforms may never have received megaliths on theentire perimeter. This is precisely what we find: In a sam-ple of 54 megalithic platforms in the vicinity of Ucı, JoeStair (2010) has observed that only a few platforms havemegalithic stones on their full perimeters. On average, me-galithic stones cover less than half the perimeter. Thus, theretaining walls of most platforms feature a mix of non-megalithic and megalithic stones. Stair (2010) notes thatthere is no correlation between platform volume and theproportion of megaliths on a platform’s perimeter. In otherwords, to the extent that platform volume can be seen as ameasure of control of resources, households with abundantresources do not necessarily have the most megaliths in theirplatforms. If, over the course of a megalithic platform’s bi-ography, its occupants occasionally replaced smaller stoneswith megalithic stones, we need to envision the exemplarydialogical actions of pushing, pulling, and lifting megalithsas a recurring event, not limited to the initial constructionstage. Future research might able to test this by determiningwhether or not platforms with more megalithic stones hadlonger occupations.

Household Ceramics at Kancab and 21 deAbril

Though megalithic platforms are quite imperishable,excavations at these platforms often uncover little else

Figure 2.5. Map of Kancab showing location of KN82 and Str. 51.

beyond architecture. Most UCRIP platform excavations be-gan with 50×50 cm pits around the perimeter of the plat-form. The goal of the pits was to produce evidence of thedistribution of artifacts across a broad space and to locateareas for broader excavations. Working on the periphery ofplatforms follows the expectation, based on ethnoarchaeol-ogy and previous excavations at other households, that trashis most common off the back edges of structures (Becker2003; Deal 1985; Hutson et al. 2007; Killion 1992). Fortwo platform groups at 21 de Abril (Structures 38s14 and42s2; Figure 2.4) and two platform groups at Kancab (Struc-tures KN82 and KN51; Figure 2.5), the 50×50 cm pits wereplaced on a 5×5 m grid systematically covering a broad areaaround the platforms. This sampling strategy, conducted in2010 and 2011, netted very few artifacts. For example, at thehousehold centered on Structure KN51 at Kancab (Figure2.6), located about 300 meters north of the Kancab mainplaza, 125 pits, spread over approximately 0.4 ha and repre-senting 10 m3 of excavation, yielded only 278 grams of ce-ramics. The pit with the most pottery had six sherds, addingup to 65 grams. Diagnostic sherds from the Unto, Xanaba,Saban, Muna, and Baca groups indicate that the area was in


Figure 2.6. Map of Structure 51 (Kancab site) and its surrounding structures, showing the location ofexcavations and the densities of ceramics found in the 50×50 cm pits.

use from the Late Preclassic to the end of the Classic period.One hundred meters to the east, a total of 49 50×50 cmpits, encircling Structure KN82, yielded no artifacts what-soever. At 21 de Abril, in the area centered on Structure38s14 (Figure 2.7), 95 pits spread over approximately 0.33ha and representing 7.8 m3 of excavation yielded only 178g of ceramics. We placed 305 pits around structure 42S2,recovering 301 g of pottery from 14.7 m3 (Figure 2.8). Di-agnostic sherds from the 21 de Abril excavations date to thePreclassic and Early Classic (Joventud, Dzudzuquil, Sierra,Chunhinta, Polvero, Saban, Xanaba, Timucuy, Tituc, andShangurro groups). The stratigraphy in nearly all of these574 pits consists of an A-horizon grading underneath to aB-horizon on top of bedrock, which, on average, is found30 centimeters below the surface. Stated differently, thereis no culturally meaningful stratigraphy in these pits andtherefore no way to stratigraphically link any of these pitsto the marginally more complex stratigraphy of excavatedplatforms (Figure 2.9).

It is not uncommon for a portion of surface collectionsor test pits in the northern Maya Lowlands to yield no ceram-ics. For example, ten percent of excavations (mostly 2×2 mpits) in Late Preclassic platforms at Komchen recovered nosherds (Ringle and Andrews 1988), and 60.2% of the 5261surface collection squares (3×3 m) at Sayil yielded no sherds(Smyth et al. 1995:333). The much higher percentages ofpits without artifacts (88% at KN 51, 100% at KN82, 85%at 38s14, 95% at 42s2) at Kancab and 21 de Abril, however,call for explanations. Several possibilities could explainthe low amounts of ceramic. First, these structures may notrepresent the remains of households. Second, the trash mayhave been carted far away from the areas tested with excava-tion. Third, occupation may have been very short, generatingvery little trash. Fourth, the trash might be on top of theplatforms. Fifth, local conditions might inhibit preservationof ceramics. Sixth, a perishable container technology mayhave been used more intensively than ceramics. Additionaldata help assess each of these possible explanations.


Figure 2.7. Map of Structure 38s14 (21 de Abril site) and its surrounding structures,showing the location of excavations and the densities of ceramics found in the 50×50 cmpits. The line between A’ and B’ represents the cross section depicted in Figure 2.9.

The possibility that these platform groups are not theremains of households is strengthened by the fact that be-yond ceramics, few other artifacts were found in the 50×50cm pits: only two pieces of shell and one fragment of aprismatic obsidian blade, both pertaining to the excavationsat 21 de Abril. On the other hand, three of the four plat-form groups tested extensively (38s14, 42s2, and KN51)have a key artifact often thought to pertain to households: agrinding stone for food preparation (Ashmore 1981; Ringleand Andrews 1988). These three platform groups also havepotsherds (though in small quantities, as noted above) from

common domestic pottery forms (jars, bowls, plates). Theseplatform groups also resemble architectural compounds thathave been classified as households on the basis of excava-tions at other sites. Such compounds have houses and smallerauxiliary structures (storage sheds, kitchens, etc.). At Kan-cab and 21 de Abril, the main buildings are not too big tobe considered houses, and the sizes of the smaller build-ings suggest that they are auxiliary structures. Furthermore,chemical analyses of soils were conducted at two of thefour platform groups (38s14 and Str. 51). At both of thesegroups, soil phosphate data suggest that everyday activities


Figure 2.8. Map of Structure 42s2 (21 de Abril site) and its surrounding structures, showing the location ofexcavations and the densities of ceramics found in the 50×50 cm pits.

Figure 2.9. North–South excavation profile of Structure 38s14, looking west. North is at right; see letters A’ and B’ in Figure 2.7for the location of the profile.

using organic materials were conducted in association withthe platforms. Thus, without needing to invoke the pejora-tively named but never fully refuted principal of abundance(Haviland 1966), we have strong evidence that three of thesefour platform groups (KN82 being the exception) are the re-mains of households.

Regarding the second explanation (poor preservation),some Late Preclassic and Early Classic wares in Yucatan(particularly Usil Flaky ware) are indeed more crumbly thanlater ceramics such as slatewares. However, at 21 de Abril,

the architectural group centered on structure S408, locatedonly 200 meters to the south of 42s2 and 400 meters south-east of 38s14 (see Figure 2.4), has an abundance of pot-tery from the same time period and pertaining to the samecrumbly pottery types. The decent preservation of contem-poraneous pottery at S408 suggests that preservation condi-tions cannot explain the relative lack of pottery at the otherplatform groups.

Regarding the possibility that broken pottery may havebeen carted further away from the platforms, we returned to


one of the four extensively tested platform groups in orderto expand the grid of test pits. The goal was to see if wecould locate dumps at greater distances from the structures.In the vicinity of Structure 42s2 at 21 de Abril, we dug305 pits, switching to 10 meter spacing once we were atleast 10 meters beyond the structures in the group (Figure2.8). Some pits were located as far as 70 meters away fromthe main platform, Structure 42s2. Extending the grid onlystrengthened the pattern noted above: ceramics cluster closeto the structures. Of course, it is still possible that trashdumps exist beyond the area we tested. Unless such dumpswere sequestered in rare subterranean features, we mightexpect them to be visible on the ground (in the form of sherdscatters), given the shallow soils and the formation processesthat bring sherds to the surface. Nevertheless, systematicpedestrian survey of nearly 14 square kilometers around21 de Abril, Kancab, Ucanha, and Ucı (with 10 meter- to15 meter-spacing between surveyors) failed to locate thekind of sherd scatter that could be attributed to trash hauledfar away from structures.

Block excavations of architecture at 38s14 and 42s2conducted in 2011 help assess the fourth and fifth possibleexplanations for the low amount of sherds off the edges ofplatforms: that the structures had short occupations or thatdebris was kept on top of the platform. At 42s2 block ex-cavations covering 96 m2 and 45.6 m3 (Figure 2.8) showedthat the occupants expanded the main building by about10 square meters at its southeast corner during the sameceramic phase in which they built the rest of the platform.Furthermore, the circular ring of stones—Structure 42s2a—at the northwest edge of the platform was added on in theLate Classic period. So, at least for 42s2, we can eliminatethe idea that the lack of ceramics was due to a short occu-pation. Ringle and Andrews (1988:187) note that the largesize of platforms at Komchen may indicate that they wereoccupied for a long time. The same logic could apply toplatforms at 21 de Abril and Kancab. Covering at least 200square meters, rising to heights of up to one meter, and builtof dozens of megalithic stones, these structures required thekind of commitment that implies their builders did not in-tend to abandon them shortly. Nevertheless, an initial intentto stay put does not guarantee a long occupancy.

Regarding the explanation that garbage was kept ontop of platforms, we excavated portions of the top of fivestructures. At 42s2, we recovered 2.4 kg of ceramics fromthe top 25 cm of the 96 m2 that were excavated. Thoughthese excavations represent about a third of the surface ofthe platform, they do not comprise a representative sam-ple since they were not systematically distributed across theplatform. Thus, our data from 42s2 are not conclusive. Mod-est excavations (eight square meters amounting to two cubic

meters) at a small nearby circular structure (43s5; Figure2.8) revealed no sherds whatsoever. At 38s14, almost 400meters to the east, 92 m2 of excavation covered nearly allof the surface of the chief platform (Structure 38s14; Figure2.7). The top 25 centimeters of these excavations yielded1.67 kilograms. Excavations of eight square meters of thesurface of Structure 38s23 and 16 square meters of the sur-face of Structure 38s27 yielded 30 and 88 grams of pot-tery, respectively. Such sherd quantities, ranging from 3 to17 grams of pottery per square meter, are low and suggestthat if the people of 38s14 were using lots of pottery theydid not leave much of it on their platforms.

Soft Technologies

In summary, none of the first five explanations for thelack of pottery at the four platform groups thus far discussedreceive support from intensive investigations. In many cases,the data directly refute these explanations. These resultsencourage consideration of the sixth possible explanation:many of the households in this region may not have pos-sessed much pottery. What materials would they have usedinstead? Our best answer is one that we cannot prove, butwhich seems likely and which has been suggested beforefor other Maya sites (Fry 2003:86): perishables such asgourds and baskets. Gourds are naturally watertight, andbaskets can be made watertight (Mason 1904; Wyckoff2001), though watertight baskets do not appear amongthe 20th century Maya basketry traditions documented byOsborne (1965). The main thing that pots can do and perish-able containers cannot is withstand the heat of a fire. Nev-ertheless, Mesoamerican people cooked with gourds andbaskets long before the appearance of pottery by heatingrocks over a fire and putting the rocks into the basket orgourd containing the stew or broth to be cooked (Clark et al.2007). Indeed, the first pots in many regions of Mesoamer-ica were made in the shape of gourds (Clark and Gosser1995; Flannery and Marcus 1994). If gourds and basketswere used for cooking, we would expect to find fire-crackedrock. In northern Yucatan, fire-cracked rock from ancientfood preparation is difficult to distinguish from weatheredlimestone burnt in wildfires and fires purposefully set byfarmers as part of slash and burn agriculture. Such stone isabundant due to the presence of limestone bedrock outcrops.

The invention of pottery did not eliminate soft tech-nologies: Maya speakers use baskets and gourds abundantlyinto the ethnographic present. At the ruins of Chichen Itzaand Dzibilchaltun (see Figure 2.1), basketry has been foundin perennially wet places where it has a chance of preserv-ing, such as cenotes: karstic sinkholes which go down to


Figure 2.10. A Classic period Maya ceramic vase made to look like a basket (photo courtesy of Justin Kerr).

the water table (Mefford 1992; Taschek 1994). We also seebasketry represented in Maya art (for a recent review, seeHouston 2013). For example, several baskets appear in themurals of Structure 1-sub 4 in the Chiik Nahb group atCalakmul, Campeche, Mexico, the only set of murals fromthe Maya area that depicts what appears to be everyday life(Carrasco et al. 2009). Furthermore, potters made pots thatlook like baskets (Figure 2.10; Houston 2013:fig. 18; Millerand Martin 2004:pl. 52), and painters depicted baskets onpots (Kerr 1989:27, 80). The scenes on vases in which bas-kets are depicted are mostly court scenes, populated by highstatus people. In these scenes, depictions of pots outnum-ber depictions of baskets. Baskets are more common in theeveryday scenes on the Calakmul murals, and this makessense if baskets were in broader circulation among lowerstatus people such as those at sites like Kancab and 21de Abril. Osborne comments that among the 20th centuryMaya, “baskets of all shapes and sizes are necessary to thedaily life of indian and ladino alike from the time he is laidin a basket cradle at birth until his death, when small basketsof food are laid beside him to provide nourishment on hislong journey into the afterlife” (1965:197).

Actual or phantom remains of gourds have also beenfound in locations with exceptional preservation conditions,such as the Sacred Cenote at Chichen Itza (Coggins andShane 1984), tomb 19 of Rio Azul (Adams 1999), and inseveral contexts at the Ceren site, El Salvador (Beaubien1993). Furthermore, the Classic Maya made gourd skeu-morphs (Figure 2.11; Houston 2013:fig. 28; Reents-Budetet al. 2004) and depicted gourds in paintings on vases. Thespecies represented by the vessel in Figure 2.11 is Lagenariasiceraria, used today and in the past in Yucatan as a watercontainer. Perhaps the most well-known ancient Maya de-piction of a gourd, coming from the north wall mural of the

Figure 2.11. A Classic period Maya ceramic vessel made to looklike a Lagenaria siceraria gourd (photo courtesy of Justin Kerr).

Pinturas Group, Structure Sub 1a, at San Bartolo, locatedin the Department of the Peten, Guatemala (Saturno et al.2005), is also Lagenaria siceraria. In addition to Lagenaria,other vine gourds and the tree gourd (Crescentia cujete)are and have been used in Yucatan for a wide varietyof purposes: as cups, spoons, dippers, serving containers,


storage containers, tortilla keepers, water carriers, et cetera(Redfield and Villa Rojas 1934; Tozzer 1907)

An important question to ask regarding gourds and bas-kets is why they would have been used instead of pottery.Since the use of gourds predated the use of pottery and sinceone can do almost anything with a gourd that one can dowith a pot (Osborne 1965:218), it should perhaps come asno surprise that people at the dawn of the Classic periodused lots of gourds. Whereas gourds can be acquired andprepared rather easily, making even the “simplest” pottery,such as unslipped jars, required the expertise and knowledgeof a specialist (Joyce et al. 2014:413). We suspect that lowamounts of pottery reflect a lack of resources. Yet if gourdsare a convenient and affordable alternative to pottery, bas-ketry might not be. Given the high quality of preserved bas-kets from cenotes and baskets portrayed on pots (Mefford1992), baskets would have been difficult to make. Detailedstudies of Native American basketry (Mason 1904; Morrisand Burgh 1941) evince a bewildering array of knowledgeand production steps that must be mastered. Yet the uses towhich basketry was put (hats, mats, sandals, bags, bowls,bins, etc.) are so widespread that a household could prob-ably not get along without a basket maker. Basketmaking,like potting, required skill, and was indispensable (Osborne1965:197).

The assumption that people at 21 de Abril and Kan-cab used lots of these two phantom materials—gourdsand baskets—entails several consequences. Ingold arguesthat the “basketmaker operates within a field of forcesset up through his or her engagement with the material”(2000:347). One of the forces to which Ingold refers is ma-teriality in the sense of pliability of raw material, such asthe notion that fibers, when bent and interwoven, “exert aconsiderable resistance of their own” (Ingold 2000:342). Wewould like to call attention to a field of forces not consideredby Ingold in his essay: the social field. Specifically, the ma-teriality of baskets, in the sense of the diversity, availabilityand procurement of raw materials, demands (and enmeshesthe basketmaker within) a complex web of knowledge andsocial relations. The production of baskets (excluding, per-haps, the simplest plaited specimens) draws the artisan wellbeyond the house in search of a broad variety of materials.For example, a single coiled basket could need plant matterfrom as many as three different species for the warp and upto six species for the weft, not to mention vegetal and min-eral resources for resins, dyes, pigments and sealants, andfaunal material (bones, feathers, quills, sinews) for decora-tive and other purposes (Mason 1904:197). Knowing whereto find these resources, how to get them, and the time ofyear when they are ready for use requires not only an inti-mate knowledge of place, but a potentially complex set of

social relations to gain access to those places. Of course,making pottery also requires access to a variety of resources(clay, temper, water, fuel, pigments, etc.), but this is a dif-ferent network of resources than what the basketmaker re-quires, and therefore comes with different social relations.Here, making baskets involves more than just interactionsbetween a person and things because access to things (inthis case the materials for craft production) implicates addi-tional networks of social relations. It is difficult to engendersuch social relations due to scant data on whether men orwomen made baskets. In 20th century Yucatan, both sexesmake baskets; in other parts of the Maya area the gender ofthe task is varied (Looper 2006).

One of the most important consequences of heavy use ofsoft technologies regards the way these technologies shapepeople. Shifting back to materiality as the mutually con-stitutive relationships between people and things, we mustagree that the kind of person one comes to be depends onthe kinds of materials with which they grow. Sensitivitiesgained from frequent contact with perishables as opposedto pottery constitute a subject with particular dispositions,understandings, and expectations, many of which are non-discursive. So, the question becomes: how do the sensoryexperiences of pottery and perishables differ, and what arethe consequences of these different experiences? Basketsand gourds are much lighter than ceramics. They are alsoless fragile. Whereas a ceramic pot breaks when knockedover, little happens to a basket when dropped. Essentiallyfabric, a basket permits flexibility and leeway, whereas potsimpose limits and restraint. Thus, baskets cultivate a dif-ferent way of carrying the self: one can be less physicallycareful around baskets. Yet people are not merely “around”baskets. Given the prolonged intimate bodily contact be-tween people and basketry, people are very much “with”baskets. Most ancient Maya likely wore baskets (hats, san-dals) and slept, stepped, and sat on them (mats). Many 20thcentury Maya in Guatemala were laid in baskets at birth andshrouded in basket-like mats at death (Osborne 1965:197).Of course, one could also be “with” pottery in the sense ofwearing ceramic pendants or earspools, yet basketry moreeasily becomes an extension of the self. Basket and humanbody are pre-adapted to one another: they both have a degreeof physical flexibility (as opposed to the rigidity of a pot)built into them. Thus, a material world with more basketryand less pottery provides a very different sense of affor-dances, textures, and possibilities—a very different sense ofbeing in the world.

We now return to the guiding question regarding theconsequences of being with perishables versus being withpottery. Living with less pottery creates a background ofdaily experiences and expectations against which particular


events that did involve pottery may have stood out. Forexample, a person more accustomed to eating from lighter,thinner gourds might consciously register those occasionswhen they eat from a heavier, thicker pot. Such occasionslikely occurred at 21 de Abril. We return to the fact that onlyone particular household at 21 de Abril had a lot of pottery.This household occupied Structure S408, which has threegrinding basins and an assemblage of domestic pottery.This platform is the largest at 21 de Abril in terms of bothvolume (ca. 575 cubic meters) and surface area (425 squaremeters), and may have been constructed with labor fromother households in the community. Though we recoveredabout twice the amount of ceramic from S408 as at 38s14and 42s2, the volume of excavation is still rather low at S408(8 m3 versus 32 m3 and 45 m3 respectively; ceramic densitiesare 1.1, 0.15, and 0.09 kg/m3, respectively), so our compar-isons cannot yet be representative. Nevertheless, S408 hassignificantly more fancy service ware than the other twogroups (11% versus 2% and 3%, respectively; Chi-square= 43.98, p < 0.001). The abundance of decorated servingwares suggests that the occupants of Structure S408 mayhave hosted ceremonies and meals attended by other mem-bers of the community. Thus, Structure S408 may have beena kind of anchor for local community identity while at thesame time communicating difference within the communitybetween those who lived there and those who did not. Wesee Structure S408 as analogous to structures 22, 23, and24 at San Lorenzo, Belize (Yaeger 2000). As people from38s14 and 42s2 came to S408 and received food and drinkserved on pottery, handled those pots, and ate from them,the material characteristics of pottery would not have beenlost given that these people were more accustomed to eatingand drinking from baskets and gourds. The heaviness of thepottery diacritically marked social differences, reinforcedby the heaviness of the much more grandiose platform thathosted them. Pool and Britt (2000:154-5) argue that thedifferent feel of eating from pots with different weightsand pastes can express divergent social status. The vastlydifferent feel of pots and perishable containers could havecreated and expressed social status at the physical, tactilelevel of the body. Our point here accords with the claim thatpeople “make or contest cultures . . . through their bodies,in space, and through matter” (Pauketat and Alt 2005:214).

Conclusion

In this paper, we have called attention to the ways inwhich common materials—stone, basketry, gourds—shapepeople’s social interactions and their physical sensibilities.In showing how these materials acted on people, as opposedto staking yet another claim that materials are active, we

see our chapter as the kind of middle range contributionencouraged by Robb in this volume.

The use of very large stones for buildings in and aroundUcı meant that not all rock outcrops or quarries were suitableand quarrying required substantial skill. Thus, choosing tobuild with megaliths may have committed a household todraw on a web of social relations in order to get accessto the right stone and skilled labor. Furthermore, haulingsuch stones and placing them in walls, though perhaps notrequiring much skill, required a very literal form of physicaldialogue between laborers that is otherwise quite rare, akin tocarrying a couch. We believe that the closely coordinated andintimately shared physical maneuvers required to haul andplace a 150 kg stone intensified the bonds between co-actors,who were likely part of the same household. Surely thesharing of other necessary activities, such as production andconsumption, helped keep households together. Yet our casestudy suggests that the stability of households depends notjust on what people do, but how they do these things together.

Our excavations show that the areas on top of and arounddomestic platforms are mostly devoid of non-perishable ar-tifacts. Thus, detecting activity areas around these houseshas been difficult. Nevertheless, by considering the perish-able artifacts used in lieu of things like pottery, it is pos-sible to envision tasks, such as procurement of materialsfor basket making, that sent people beyond their homes andinto contact with many others. Discussions of technique incraftwork have recently expanded to consider the socialityof techniques and the communities of practice that informthem (Joyce et al. 2014). We argue that discussions of ma-terials in craftwork should likewise expand to consider thesocial entanglements entailed in the procurement of mate-rials. Furthermore, we argue that the specific tactile char-acteristics of perishable goods, such as baskets and gourds,help create different kinds of people. In households withless pottery, day to day use of baskets and gourds wouldhave inculcated non-discursive senses of touch that rose todiscursive consciousness at community wide occasions athouseholds that served meals on pottery. Such events wouldhave been diacritical, making participants aware of the dif-ferences between themselves. In sum, the points in this paperlead to the conclusion that the interactions between peopleand things in everyday life created a complex dance throughwhich actors became who they were, created and recreatedsocial networks, and recognized themselves as similar to anddifferent from others.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Consejo de Arqueologıa, Instituto Na-cional de Antropologıa e Historia, Mexico, for permitting


UCRIP field research. The data presented in this paper wereacquired with funds from the National Science Founda-tion (BCS-1063667), The Waitt Foundation/National Ge-ographic, The Wenner Gren Foundation, The Selz Founda-tion, and, at the University of Kentucky, the Office of theVice President for Research and the College of Arts andSciences. Ruben Maldonado graciously shared his previousresearch with us. For field and lab assistance that contributedto this paper, we thank Joe Stair, Kevin Stanfield, CarrieTodd, Willem VanEssendelft, Teresa Vazquez, and CamilleWestmont. For permission to work on the tracts of land men-tioned in this paper, we thank Jacinto Herrera, RaimundoChan, Damian Chim, Juan Itza, Galvin Can Herrera, Mariodel Pascual Pinto Escobedo, Arcadio Tamayo, and ArsenioPool May. We thank Rosemary Joyce and two anonymousreviewers for comments that greatly improved this paper.

References Cited

Abrams, Elliott1994 How the Maya Built Their World. Austin: Univer-

sity of Texas.

Adams, Richard E. W.1999 Rio Azul: An Ancient Maya City. Norman: Uni-

versity of Oklahoma.

Andrews IV, E. Wyllis, and Irwin Rovner1973 Archaeological Evidence on Social Stratification

and Commerce in the Northern Maya Lowlands:Two Mason’s Toolkits from Muna and Dzi-bilchaltun. Middle American Research Institutepublication 31. New Orleans: Tulane University.

Ashmore, Wendy1981 Some Issues of Method and Theory in Lowland

Maya Settlement Archaeology. In LowlandMaya Settlement Patterns. Wendy Ashmore, ed.Pp. 37–70. Albuquerque: University of NewMexico.

Beaubien, Harriet F.1993 From Codex to Calabash: Recovery of a Painted

Organic Artifact from the Archaeological Siteof Ceren, El Salvador. Journal of the AmericanInstitute for Conservation 32(2):153–164.

Becker, Marshall2003 Houselots at Tikal Guatemala: It’s What’s out Back

that Counts. In Reconstruyendo la Ciudad Maya:El Urbanismo en las sociedades Antiguas. AndresCiudad Ruiz, Maria J. Iglesias Ponce deLeon, and

M. Carmen Martınez Martınez, eds. Pp. 427–460.Madrid: Sociedad Espanola de Estudios Mayas.

Bourdieu, P.1979 [1972] The Kabyle House or the World Reversed.

In Algeria 1960. Pp. 133–153. Cambridge:Cambridge University.

Brasseur de Bourbourg, Charles Etienne1865 Essai Historique sur le Yucatan et descripcion

des les ruines de Ti-hoo (Merida) et d’Izamal.In Archives de la Commission Scientifique duMexique, Tome 2. Pp. 18–64. Paris: ImprimerieImperiale.

Carmean, Kelli, Patricia A. McAnany, and Jeremy A.Sabloff

2011 People Who Lived in Stone Houses: Local Knowl-edge and Social Difference in the ClassicMaya Puuc Region. Latin American Antiquity22:143–158.

Carrasco Vargas, Ramon, Veronica A. Vasquez Lopez, andSimon Martin

2009 Daily Life of the Ancient Maya Recorded in Mu-rals. Proceedings of the National Academy ofScience 106(46):19245–19249.

Charnay, Desire, and Eugene E. Viollet-le-Duc1863 Cites et Ruines Americaines: Mitla, Palenque,

Izamal, Chichen Itza, Uxmal. Paris: Gide.

Clark, John E., and Dennis C. Gosser1995 Reinventing Mesoamerica’s First Pottery. In The

Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovationin Ancient Societies. William K. Barnett and JohnW. Hoopes, eds. Pp. 209–221. Wash ington, DC:Smithsonian Institution.

Clark, John E., Mary E. Pye, and Dennis C. Gosser2007 Thermo-lithics and Corn Dependency in

Mesoamerica. In Archaeology, Art, and Ethnogen-esis in Mesoamerican Prehistory: Papers in Honorof Gareth W. Lowe. Lynneth Lowe and Mary E.Pye, eds. Pp. 23–42. Papers of the New WorldArchaeological Foundation, No. 68. Provo, UT:Brigham Young University.

Coggins, Clemency, and Orrin C. Shane III1984 Cenote of Sacrifice: Maya Treasures from the

Sacred Well at Chichen Itza. Austin: University ofTexas.


Deal, Michael1985 Household Pottery Disposal in the Maya High-

lands: An Ethnoarchaeological Interpretation.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4:243–291.

Farriss, Nancy M.1984 Maya Society under Colonial Rule: The Collective

Enterprise of Survival. Princeton: PrincetonUniversity.

Flannery, Kent V., and Joyce Marcus1994 Early Formative Pottery of the Valley of Oaxaca,

Mexico. Prehistory and Human Ecology of theValley of Oaxaca, Vol. 10, Memoirs of the Museumof Anthropology, No. 27. Ann Arbor: Universityof Michigan.

Fry, R. E.2003 Social Dynamics in Ceramic Analysis: A Case

Study from Peripheral Tikal. Ancient Mesoamerica14:85–93.

Gerritsen, Fokke.1997 To Build and to Abandon: the Cultural Biography

of Late Prehistoric Houses and Farmsteads in theSouthern Netherlands. Archaeological Dialogues6(2):78–97.

Glover, Jeffrey B., and Travis Stanton2010 Assessing the Role of Preclassic Traditions in

the Formation of Early Classic Yucatec Cultures,Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 35(1):58–77.

Hansen, Richard D.1998 Continuity and Disjunction: The Pre-Classic An-

tecedents of Classic Maya Architecture. InFunction and Meaning in Classic Maya Architec-ture. Stephen D. Houston, ed. Pp. 49–122. Washington, D.C: Dumbarton Oaks.

Haviland, William A.1966 Maya Settlement Patterns: A Critical Review.

Middle American Research Institute Publication26:21–47.

1974 Occupational Specialization at Tikal, Guatemala:Stone Working and Monument Carving. AmericanAntiquity 39:494–496.

Hodder, Ian2011 Human-Thing Entanglement: Towards an Inte-

grated Archaeological Perspective. Journal of theRoyal Anthropological Institute 17:154–177.

Houston, S.2013 The Life Within: Classic Maya and the Matter of

Permanence. New Haven: Yale University.

Houston, Stephen D., and David Stuart1998 The Ancient Maya Self: Personhood and Portrai-

ture in the Classic Period. Res: Anthropology andAesthetics 33:73–101.

Hutson, Scott R.2008 Proyecto Arqueologico Sacbe de Ucı-Cansahcab:

Informe de la temporada de campo 2008. Reportsubmitted to the Consejo de Arqueologıa, INAH,Mexico.

2010a Proyecto Arqueologico Sacbe de Ucı-Cansahcab:Informe de la temporada de campo 2009. Mex-ico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa eHistoria, Consejo de Arqueologıa.

2010b Proyecto Arqueologico Sacbe de Ucı-Cansahcab:Informe de la temporada de campo 2010. Mex-ico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa eHistoria, Consejo de Arqueologıa.

2010c Dwelling, Identity and the Maya: Relational Ar-chaeology at Chunchucmil. Lanham, MD:Altamira.

2012 Urbanism, Architecture, and Internationalism inthe Northern Lowlands during the Early Classic.In The Ancient Maya of Mexico: Reinterpretingthe Past of the Northern Maya Lowlands. GeoffreyBraswell, ed. Pp. 119–142. Br istol, CT: Equinox.

Hutson, Scott R., Travis W. Stanton, Aline Magnoni, RichardE. Terry, and Jason Craner

2007 Beyond the Buildings: Formation Processes ofAncient Maya Houselots and Methods for theStudy of Non-architectural Space. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 26:442–473.

Ingold, Tim2000 The Perception of the Environment: Essays on

Livelihood, Dwelling, and Skill. London: Rout-ledge.

2007 Materials against Materiality. Archaeological Dia-logues 14(1):1–16.


Joyce, Rosemary, Julia Hendon, and Jeanne Lopiparo2014 Working with Clay. Ancient Mesoamerica 25:411–

420.

Kerr, Justin1989 The Maya Vase Book, Volume 1. New York: Kerr

Associates.

Killion, Thomas W.1992 Residential Ethnoarchaeology and Ancient Site

Structure: Contemporary Farming and Pre-historic Settlement Agriculture at Matacapan,Veracruz, Mexico. In Gardens of Prehistory:The Archaeology of Settlement Agriculture inGreater Mesoamerica. Thomas W. Killion, ed. Pp.119–149. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama.

Latour, Bruno1994 Pragmatogonies: A Mystical Account of How Hu-

mans and Nonhumans Swap Properties. AmericanBehavioral Scientist 37(6):792–807.

Looper, Matthew G.2006 Fabric Structures in Classic Maya Art and Ritual.

In Sacred Bundles, Ritual Acts of Wrapping andBinding in Mesoamerica. Julia Guernsey and F.Kent Reilly, eds. Pp. 80–104. Barnardsville, NC:Boundary End Archaeological Research Center.

Mason, Otis T.1904 Aboriginal American Basketry: Studies in a Tex-

tile Art without Machinery. Washington, DC:Smithsonian.

Mathews, Jennifer P., and Ruben Maldonado Cardenas2006 Late Formative and Early Classic Interaction

Spheres Reflected in the Megalithic Style. In Life-ways in the Northern Lowlands: New Approachesto Maya Archaeology. Jennifer P. Mathews andBethany A. Morrison, eds. Pp. 95–118. Tucson:University of Arizona.

Mefford, Jill J.1992 Basketry, Twined Sandal Soles, and Cordage.

In Artifacts from the Cenote of Sacrifice,Chichen Itza, Yucatan. Clemency C. Coggins,ed. Pp. 91–97. Cambridge, MA: Peabody Mu-seum of Archaeology and Ethnology, HarvardUniversity.

Miller, Daniel2010 Stuff. Cambridge: Polity.

Miller, Mary E., and Simon Martin2004 Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya. San Francisco:

Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco.

Morris, Earl H., and Richard F. Burgh1941 Anasazi Basketry, Basket Maker II through Pueblo

III: A Study Based on Specimens from the SanJuan River Country. Washington, DC: CarnegieInstitution of Washington.

Olsen, Bjørnar2003 Material Culture after Text: Re-Membering

Things. Norwegian Archaeological Review36(2):87–104.

Osborne, Lilly de Jong1965 Indian Crafts of Guatemala and El Salvador. Nor-

man: University of Oklahoma.

Pauketat, Timothy R., and Susan M. Alt2005 Agency in a Postmold? Physicality and the

Archaeology of Culture-Making. Journal of Ar-chaeological Method and Theory 12(4):257–281.

Pool, Chris A., and Georgia M. Britt2000 A Ceramic Perspective on the Formative to Clas-

sic Transition in Southern Veracruz, Mexico.American Antiquity 66:139–161.

Redfield, R., and A. Villa Rojas1934 Chan Kom: A Maya Village. Washington, DC:

Carnegie Institute of Washington.

Reents-Budet, Dorie, Ellen E. Bell, Loa P. Traxler, andRonald L. Bishop

2004 Early Classic Ceramic Offerings at Copan: AComparison of the Hunal, Margarita and Sub-Jaguar Tombs. In Understanding Early ClassicCopan. Ellen E. Bell, Marcello Canuto, andRobert J. Sharer, eds. Pp. 159–190. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania.

Ringle, William M., and E. Wyllis Andrews V1988 Formative Residences at Komchen, Yucatan, Mex-

ico. In Household and Community in theMesoamerican Past. Richard Wilk and WendyAshmore, eds. Pp. 190–197. Albuquerque:University of New Mexico.

Robb, John2004 The Extended Artefact and the Monumental Econ-

omy: a Methodology for Material Agency. In


Rethinking Materiality: The Engagements of Mindwith the Material World. Elizabeth DeMarrais,Chris Gosden, and Colin Renfrew, eds. Pp.131–140. Cambridge: McDonald Institute ofArchaeology.

Rodning, Chris B.2007 Building and Rebuilding Cherokee Houses and

Townhouses in Southeastern North Carolina.In The Durable House. Robin A. Beck, ed. Pp.464–484. Carbondale: Center for ArchaeologicalInvestigations.

Saturno, William, David Stuart, Karl Taube, and HeatherHurst

2005 The Murals of San Bartolo, El Peten, Guatemala:Part 1, the North Wall. Barnardsville, NC:Boundary End Archaeological ResearchCenter.

Smyth, Michael P., Chris C. Dore, and Nicholas P. Dunning1995 Interpreting Prehistoric Settlement Patterns:

Lessons from the Maya Center of Sayil, Yucatan.Journal of Field Archaeology 22:321–347.

Sidrys, Raymond1978 Megalithic Architecture and Sculpture in the Maya

Area. In Papers on the Economy and Architectureof the Ancient Maya. Raymond Sidrys, ed. Pp.155–183. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology,University of California Los Angeles.

Stair, Joseph2010 Diversity in Domestic Architecture at Ucı: An

Analysis of Megalithic Stones. Paper presentedat the 75th Annual Meeting of the Society forAmerican Archaeology, St. Louis, April 16.

2013 Domestic Megalithic Architecture: An Analysis ofStatus and Community at and around the AncientMaya Site of Uci, Yucatan, Mexico. Mastersthesis, Department of Anthropology, University ofKentucky.

Stephens, John L.1963 [1843] Incidents of Travel in Yucatan, Volume 2.

New York: Dover.

Taschek, Jennifer1994 The Artifacts of Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico:

Shell, Polished Stone, Bone, Wood, and Ceram-ics. New Orleans: Middle American ResearchInstitute, Tulane University.

Taube, Karl A.1995 The Monumental Architecture of the Yalahau

Region and the Megalithic Style of the NorthernMaya Lowlands. In The View from Yalahau: 1993Archaeological Investigations in Northern Quin-tana Roo, Mexico. Scott Fedick and Karl A. Taube,eds. Pp. 79–87. Riverside, CA: Latin AmericanStudies Program, University of California.

Taylor, Charles1999 To Follow a Rule. In Bourdieu: A Critical Reader.

Richard Shusterman, ed. Pp. 29–44. Oxford:Blackwell.

Tilley, Christopher2004 The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Land-

scape Phenomenology. Oxford: Berg.

Tozzer, Alfred M.1907 A Comparative Study of the Mayas and the La-

candones. London: Archaeological Institute ofAmerica.

Ward, William C.1985 Quaternary Geology of Northeastern Yucatan

Peninsula, Part 2. In Geology and Hydrogeologyof the Yucatan and Quaternary Geology ofNortheastern Yucatan Peninsula. William C. Ward,Alfred E. Weidie, and William Back, eds. Pp.23–53. New Orleans: New Orleans GeologicalSociety, University of New Orleans.

Woods, James C., and Gene L. Titmus1996 Stone on Stone: Perspectives of Maya Civilization

from Lithic Studies. In Eighth Palenque RoundTable. Martha J. Macri and Jan McHargue, eds.Pp. 479–489. San Francisco: The Pre-ColumbianArt Research Institute.

Wyckoff, Lydia L.2001 Southwest. In Woven Worlds: Basketry from the

Clark Field Collection at the Philbrook Museumof Art. Lydia L. Wyckoff, ed. Pp. 31–50 T ulsa,OK: Philbrook Museum of Art.

Yaeger, Jason2000 The Social Construction of Communities in the

Classic Maya Countryside: Strategies of Affili-ation in Western Belize. In The Archaeology ofCommunities: A New World Perspective. MarcelloA. Canuto and Jason Yaeger, eds. Pp. 123–141.London: Routledge.

Date post:	16-May-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	uky
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

How Material Culture Acted on the Ancient Maya of Yucatan, Mexico

Documents