A PRELIMINARY LEXICON OF ULÚA MEDALLION MOTIFS

A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School Of Cornell University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

by Kathryn Marie Hudson January 2012

© 2012 Kathryn Marie Hudson

ABSTRACT

The research presented here combines archaeological and linguistic inquiry to develop a preliminary lexical analysis of the subset of iconography that occurs as part of medallion motifs. These elements were part of the iconographic system that was developed and implemented in the Ulúa Valley of Honduras during the Classic Period (c. 300-900 AD). Medallions are an Ulúa iconographic construction in which a central element or set of elements is demarcated by framing features that separate the internal components from other iconographic elements and mark them as a cohesive textual unit. This analysis approaches medallions as a distinct iconographic form and treats the motifs that constitute them as an iconographic subset whose use was governed by rules of textuality. It creates a preliminary lexicon of these motifs and divides them into lexemes that are headed by lemmas so that future studies can more easily attempt to ascertain the rules that governed their structure and their positioning in broader iconographic compositions. The ceramics that constitute the corpus used for this analysis are housed in the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University. Three hundred and seven pieces were incorporated into the sample set, and each of these has at least one medallion as part of its iconography. A variety of non-medallion motifs are also attested within the iconography of the sample corpus, though these elements are not relevant to the present analysis. All of the samples used in this analysis have documented provenience; they come from several locations, including the sites of Aguatal, Chasnigua Farm, Las Flores Bolsa, Lo de Vaca, Playa de los Muertos, Santa Rita, Siguatepeque, and Yarumela. This diversity of provenience allows the lexicon to more accurately represent the whole of Ulúa iconography and incorporate a more comprehensive list of medallion lexemes.

iii

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Kathryn Marie Hudson was born in Houston, Texas, and grew up in Alpharetta, Georgia. She received an Associate of Arts degree in Foreign Languages from Georgia Perimeter College and then attended Georgia State University, where she graduated magna cum laude with research honors and received Bachelor of Arts degrees in both Anthropology and History.

iv

For my parents, Steve and Ann Hudson, who always encouraged me to follow my bliss.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work would not have been possible without the unwavering support and encouragement of my advisors, Frederich Gleach and Bernd Lambert. Fred, you have always pushed me to work harder and be better than I ever thought I could be. Thank you for encouraging me to step outside the box, for teaching me that mistakes are evidence of work and dedication, and for believing in me even when I could not believe in myself. You are an inspiration, a mentor, and a dear friend. Bernd, your unwavering support and encouragement has meant more to me than it is possible to express. Thank you for never letting me give up on myself, and for taking me on as a student, a colleague, and a collaborator. You are my both my teacher and my friend. To the other faculty at Cornell who helped in the creation of this work – John Henderson, Molly Diesing, Sarah Murray, and Wayne Harbert – your suggestions helped turn my gut feelings into a thesis, and your advice and support were invaluable. Thank you all very, very much. Sincere thanks are also due to the Linguistics Department at Cornell University, which took me in and helped this archaeologist to discover the linguist hidden within. Finally, thank you to my wonderful parents, Ann and Steve Hudson. You taught me that the world is a fascinating place, and this little exploration of it was inspired by you. I love you.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Biographical Sketch………………………………………………………………………………iii Dedication……………………………………………………………………...…………………iv Acknowledgements……………….……………………………………………………………….v Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………………vi List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………vii List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………viii Chapter 1 – Introduction….……………………………………………………………………….1 Chapter 2 – Ulúa Archaeology and Iconographic Studies……………………………..………….4 Chapter 3 – Text and Textuality……………………………….………………………………...20 Chapter 4 – Medallions Defined…………………………………………………………………28 Chapter 5 – A Preliminary Lexicon of Medallion Motifs ………………………….……………53 Chapter 6 – Conclusion.…………………………………………………………….……………83 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………………..85

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 (Map of Eastern Mesoamerica showing the Ulúa Valley)…………...………………….5 Figure 2 (Detailed map of the Ulúa Valley and its surrounding regions……...…………….…….6 Figure 3 (Examples of medallion framing categories)…………………………………………..21 Figure 4 (Examples of frame complexity).……………………… ……………………………...23 Figure 5 (Examples of medallion internal component categories)…………………….………...24 Figure 6 (An illustration of PM-671)…………………………………….……………….……...34 Figure 7 (Illustration of the exterior and interior of PM-671)……………………....…………...43 Figure 8 (The flamed medallions on the external wall of PM-13)…………..…………………..45

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 (Ulúa medallion lexemes and lemmas of the central type)…………...………….……...56 Table 2 (Ulúa medallion lexemes and lemmas of the framing type)…..……...…………….…...72

1

CHAPTER 1

AN INTRODUCTION

Homo sapiens sapiens are innately symbolic animals that possess an inclination towards semiotic structuring that defines the species and shapes the cultures that it creates. Although the creation of syntactically structured semiotic relationships reached its peak with the development of human language in its spoken and written forms, these systems are not the only manifestation of this astonishing capability. Sign systems that lack a linguistic component are underutilized portals into the human experience, and Mesoamerica is particularly rich in iconographic systems that served as visual languages for those with access to the cultural grammars necessary for their utilization and interpretation. These systems functioned as cultural artifacts that intersected with other kinds of symbolic constructions, and they can be analyzed as concrete entities capable of providing information about the cultures that created them.

The research presented here focuses on the iconographic system that was developed and implemented in the Ulúa Valley of Honduras during the Classic Period (c. 300-1000 AD). In particular, it focuses on the subset of Ulúa iconography that occurs as part of medallion motifs.

Medallions are an Ulúa iconographic construction that will be defined in detail in chapter four; for now it is sufficient to note that medallions are iconographic motifs in which a central element or set of elements is demarcated by framing features that separate the internal components from other iconographic elements and mark them as a cohesive textual unit. This analysis recognizes medallions as a distinct iconographic form and treats the motifs that constitute them as a subset of Ulúa iconography. It creates a lexicon of these motifs and divides them into lexemes that are headed by lemmas; the lexemes represent the sets of forms taken by each motif and the lemmas serve as the “dictionary forms” of each lexeme that function as the flagship entry for that lexeme. 2

Future studies of Ulúa medallions will attempt to ascertain the rules that governed their structure and their positioning in broader iconographic compositions.

Chapter two reviews the most significant aspects of Ulúa archaeology and iconographic studies since work first began in the Valley in the late 19th century. An understanding of these inquiries is necessary for contemporary scholarship focused on the region, particularly since many archaeological sites in the Ulúa valley have been destroyed or compromised by looting and encroaching development. Chapter three defines Ulúa medallions, discusses their distinguishing characteristics and features, and identifies the three types of medallions that occur within the

Ulúa iconographic corpus. Chapter four explores how notions of text and textuality can be used to develop an analytical approach to the study of Ulúa iconography through a review of the most common definitions of text and an examination of the iconography found on two Ulúa vessels.

Chapter five presents the lexicon of motifs that occur as part of medallions. The structure of the lexicon is described, and the relevant terminology is defined.

The ceramics that constitute the corpus used for this analysis are housed in the Peabody

Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University. The sample set included 307 pieces, and each of these has at least one medallion as part of its iconography. A variety of non- medallion motifs is also attested within the iconography of the sample corpus, though these elements are not relevant to the present analysis. All of the samples used in this analysis have documented provenience; they come from several locations, including the sites of Aguatal,

Chasnigua Farm, Las Flores Bolsa, Lo de Vaca, Playa de los Muertos, Santa Rita, Siguatepeque, and Yarumela. This diversity of provenience allows the lexicon to more accurately represent the whole of Ulúa iconography and thus incorporate a more comprehensive and accurate list of medallion lexemes. Unprovenienced pieces were not included because it is impossible to identify 3 forgeries with absolute certainty and the inclusion of inauthentic motifs would invalidate the legitimacy of the lexicon.

4

CHAPTER 2

AN OVERVIEW OF ULÚA ARCHAEOLOGY AND ICONOGRAPHIC STUDIES

The Ulúa Valley has never attracted the attention or fervor that is bestowed on sites and regions that are believed to have been inhabited by the ancient Maya, but several scholars have investigated the archaeology and iconography of the region since the earliest work occurred there in the late nineteenth century. An understanding of these inquiries is necessary for contemporary scholarship in the region, particularly since in many parts of the Ulúa valley archaeological sites have been destroyed or compromised by looting and encroaching development. The Ulúa Valley and its surrounds are introduced below, and a summary of archaeological and iconographic work in the region is provided. Spatial constraints prevent the consideration of every investigation, but the most significant work in Ulúa archaeology and iconography is described within the following sections.

An Introduction to the Ulúa Valley Region

The Ulúa Valley is located in the northwestern part of Honduras and encompasses the region surrounding the modern city of San Pedro Sula (Figure 1). This region, along with central

Honduras and El Salvador, is commonly described as the southeastern frontier of Mesoamerica

(Henderson 1992b:161); the north-central part of Nicaragua and the Nicoya region of Costa Rica are also included in some definitions (e.g. Henderson and Hudson 2011, in press). The frontier label can be problematic when it is used to suggest cultural isolation, however. Communities throughout this region interacted with their Mesoamerican contemporaries and formed part of a

“web of interaction” that linked them with the broader Mesoamerican world (Henderson and

Hudson 2011, in press). Joyce (1986:313, 321-326) used ceramics to identify two general zones 5 of interaction that incorporated the southeastern frontier, and Henderson (1992a:166) further supports the idea of frontier incorporation when he noted that Ulúa ceramics have been found at

Maya sites such as Copán. Linguistic data concerning the relationships of frontier languages and ethnohistorical accounts of migration legends also reflect the interaction between communities in the southeast fringe and their Mesoamerican counterparts and indicates population movements linking the core and periphery.

Figure 1. A map of Eastern Mesoamerica showing the location of the Ulúa Valley.

The Ulúa Valley itself straddles the lower reaches of the Ulúa and Chamelecón Rivers, and the broader surrounding region incorporates sites situated along the Lake Yojoa basin and in the Comayagua, Naco, and Yoro Valleys (Figure 2). Archaeological evidence indicates that the region has been settled since the Formative Period (c. 1600 BC); the earliest evidence of village life has been found at the site of Puerto Escondido, and by 1100 BC this site was clearly functioning as part of the broader Olmec sphere (Joyce and Henderson 2001). Los Naranjos was part of the Olmec world by 900 BC (Joyce and Henderson 2001; Joyce and Henderson 2002).

Complexity continued to develop in the region following the Olmec collapse around 600 BC, 6 and public buildings were constructed at several sites in the region late in the first millennium

BC and early in the first millennium AD (Henderson and Hudson 2011). These sites included

Río Pelo in the Ulúa valley (Wonderley 1991) and Yarumela in the Comayagua valley (Dixon et al. 1994); monumental architecture on a smaller scale was being constructed in the Naco Valley during the same period.

Figure 2. A detailed map of the Ulúa Valley and its surrounding regions.

During the Classic Period, c. 300 – 900 AD, sites in the Ulúa Valley and its surrounding regions prospered. A stratified settlement hierarchy developed in the Ulúa Valley at this time

(Henderson 1992b; Joyce 1991; Stone 1941), and Travesía emerged as the largest regional site

(Joyce 1983). Other relatively large sites also emerged during this time period; these included

Los Naranjos in the Yojoa basin (Baudez and Becquelin 1973), La Sierra in the Naco Valley

(Henderson et al. 1979; Schortman and Urban, eds. 1994), and Gualoquito in the middle Ulúa valley (Schortman et al. 1986). Ulúa polychrome pottery flourished at this time, sometimes alongside more localized styles (Henderson and Hudson 2011, in press). 7

During the Terminal Classic and Postclassic periods, changes in ceramics found in and around the Ulúa Valley mirror contemporaneous changes that were occurring elsewhere in Maya

Mesoamerica (Henderson and Hudson 2011, in press). The site of Cerro Palenque seems to have been the dominant settlement at this time (Joyce 1991), though Tenampúa, in Comayagua, was fortified with a defensive wall and likely exerted regional influence (Dixon 1987, 1989, 1992).

Many other sites in the Ulúa Valley region were abandoned during this transitional period, and by 1100 AD only villages remained in the region (Henderson and Hudson 2011, in press). The site of Naco emerged as a trading town sometime following 1200 AD (Wonderley 1981, 1985).

Its success continued until the Spanish invasion; the site‟s prosperity served as the catalyst for

Cortes‟ march through Honduras in 1524-1525 following his conquest of Mexico.

A History of Archaeology in the Ulúa Valley

The first archaeologist to formally work in the Ulúa Valley was George Byron Gordon.

He began his Honduran fieldwork as part of the Peabody Museum archaeological expedition to

Copán, but from 1896 until 1897 the project was temporarily suspended because of tensions with the Honduran government (Gordon 1898:3). This lull in work at Copán led Gordon to consider other parts of the country as potential field sites, and he ultimately settled on the Ulúa Valley.

This region was first introduced to him in 1894 when, following a suggestion made by a resident of San Pedro Sula, he briefly visited the site of Playa de los Muertos when rains prevented him from travelling to Copán as planned (Gordon 1898:5). This initial visit was brief because of the inundation of the Ulúa River, and Gordon describes finding nothing more than lush vegetation and an abandoned indigenous village (1898:5). The ceramic glimpse into the region‟s history was tantalizing, however, and Gordon decided to return to the Valley when time and weather would allow. 8

The opportunity to return to the Ulúa Valley presented itself to Gordon in 1896 when his work at Copán was temporarily halted. His previous experience in the Valley made him wary of the weather, and he was careful to schedule his research in the dry season. His first Ulúa expedition was conducted in May and June, 1896; a second trip was undertaken from March until June the following year (Gordon 1898:5). Embarking via canoe from La Pimienta, he scouted the region for suitable sites located along the Ulúa River; high riverbanks with very clear stratigraphic delineation were believed to be ideal (Gordon 1898:7-8). Many sites were visible from the water‟s surface, and Gordon noted in his 1898 report that the vertical riverbanks offered a “continuous spectacle of broken pottery and fragments of bone” (1989:7-8). He initially settled on a series of locations in the central part of the Ulúa Valley, primarily around Playa de los

Muertos and the village of Santana (Gordon 1898:8-9); he also ventured beyond the shores to the east of the river and visited a monumental inland site that was eventually dubbed La Quebrada

Encantada (Robinson 1989).

Shortly after Gordon completed his work in the Ulúa Valley, A. H. Blackiston conducted and documented excavations at several sites along the Chamelecón and Ulúa (Oloa) Rivers. The location of the sites was described, and their proximity to the rivers was attributed to topographic changes that occurred since the original deposition (Blackiston 1910:201). Blackiston described the patterning of each site and described the layout of those containing multiple mounds, and he catalogued and described the materials that were found at each location (Blackiston 1910). His discoveries included obsidian flakes, ceramic heads and whistles, pottery, large jars containing carved stone objects, ceramic seals and stamps, a green stone mask, beads made from jade and other stones, a carved figure, effigy vessels, stone implements, an assortment of human bones, and unspecified “culture symbols.” On the basis of his findings he concluded that all the sites 9 were mortuary in nature, though human remains were not uncovered at every location

(Blackiston 1910).

In 1928-1929, Dorothy H. Poponoe conducted a series of excavations at the site of Playa de los Muertos after a workman described the site as “a place where pottery and bones were frequently found” (Poponoe 1934:62). Her 1928 excavations uncovered two burials with the bodies and grave goods intact; the mortuary materials included a shell bracelet in burial one and ceramics and stone tools in burial two (Poponoe 1934:63-64). She also discovered non-buried bone fragments, presumably from midden deposits, and a variety of ceramic materials, though her limited timeframe prevented her from conducting more than a cursory investigation of the site. Her 1929 excavations uncovered fourteen additional burials at the site (1934); these graves contained an assortment of mortuary goods that are carefully described by Poponoe in her report of the excavations (1934).

William Duncan Strong, along with Alfred Kidder II and A. J. Drexel Paul Jr., conducted excavations as part of the Smithsonian-Harvard expedition to northwestern Honduras in 1936.

Their work encompassed a variety of sites along the Ulúa and Comayagua Rivers, including Las

Flores Bolsa, Santa Rita, Playa de los Muertos, and several unnamed mounds (1938:39-76). The excavations focused particularly on Las Flores Bolsa because of the human remains that were visible in the river bank (Strong, Kidder, and Paul 1938:39) and Playa de los Muertos because of the relatively long history of successful archaeological work at the site (Strong, Kidder, and Paul

1938:62). They also worked in the Naco Valley along the Chamelecón River and investigated

Naco, Las Vegas, Tres Piedras, and other sites (1938:27-39); sites around Lake Yojoa – including Aguacate, Aguatal, La Ceiba, and Los Naranjos – were also explored (1938:76-118). 10

All of the sites are described in detail, as are the artifacts that were found within them, and particular attention was given to ceramics in their report of the excavations (1938).

Jens Yde (1938) did a very limited amount of archaeological reconnaissance in the Ulúa

Valley as part of the Tulane University-Danish National Museum Expedition to Central America in 1935. His work in Honduras focused mainly on the regions of Comayagua, Yojoa, Copán, and the upper Chamelecón, but he also investigated the Sula (i.e. Ulúa) Valley during his stay in the town of La Lima. He conducted an extensive surface survey of the area around La Lima, often on the advice of locals who claimed to know where archaeological materials could be found, but the materials discovered in this manner were only briefly described. More attention was given to the excavations of mounds near La Lima, and the results of these investigations were described in detail.

Doris Stone oversaw a great number of excavations in Honduras, some of which took place in and around the Ulúa Valley (1934, 1941, 1957). Although her research did not focus on the valley in particular, her work nonetheless made many contributions to our understanding of the region‟s archaeology and history. She was the first to describe the site of Los Naranjos, and her preliminary report includes descriptions of the stele she found on her first visit to the site

(1934). She conducted extensive work at the site of Travesía in the Ulúa region; her excavations there uncovered a variety of monumental structures, along with a wide variety of artifacts that included obsidian, shells, worked stone, and ceramics (1941). This work is particularly valuable since Travesía was destroyed in the 1960‟s so that sugarcane could be planted in the area. In

1957 Stone published a general survey of archaeology in central and southern Honduras that was based on the results of her work in the country. This tome included an extensive analysis of 11 ceramic materials from the Comayagua region (1957:19-46); discussions of culture, geography, and history are included to supplement Stone‟s archaeological analyses.

George Hasemann, Lori van Gerpen, and Vito Véliz (1977) conducted mapping and test- trenching at the site of Currusté that uncovered a considerable amount of information about the site‟s layout and architectural features. Each unit was described in detail, and their excavations uncovered an assortment of ceramic and lithic materials. Hasemann and Véliz also worked with

Eugenia Robinson at the site of Travesía (1979). They documented and assessed the damage to the site following its bulldozing and the construction of drainage channels to facilitate sugarcane cultivation. Charles Lincoln (1979) and James Sheehy (Sheehy and Véliz 1977; Sheehy 1978) worked on the same project and helped to assess the damage at Travesía; Sheehy (1976) also worked briefly at the site of Choloma.

Nedenia Kennedy (1980a, 1980b, 1986) conducted exploratory excavations at the site of

Playa de los Muertos focused on the Middle and Late Formative period occupation of the site.

She defined a ceramic sequence for materials from this period that was able to identify three distinct ceramic complexes within the array of material that had previously been grouped into a single category identified only as Playa de los Muertos (1980a, 1980b). This ceramic sequence was later used by Kennedy to illustrate the biases implicit in assumptions about the

Mesoamerican “periphery” and argue that such a conceptualization hinders the ability of scholars to engage with and understand sites that are normally classified in this way (1986).

John S. Henderson (1984) directed the Proyecto Arqueologico Sula. This project was an attempt to recover basic archaeological information about the Valley so that a “descriptive catalogue of the archaeological resources” could be developed and a basis for a “reconstruction of its culture history” could be created (Henderson 1984:3). The project combined survey work 12 with excavations of varying intensity, and the results of the investigation were described and analyzed. Henderson‟s work in the Valley (1992a) led him to critique approaches to the study of elites and elitism in Mesoamerica, particularly in the southeastern frontier zone, and argue for a definition of the archaeological correlates of elites that is separate from those marking the state.

He suggested that notions of the elite must be kept separate from concepts of social and political organization and argued persuasively that any discussion of elites must be preceded by evidence that indicates the elites are a separate group and not simply one end of a social continuum.

Henderson (1992b) also examined notions of the periphery, particularly as they relate to studies of Honduras and El Salvador. He critiqued traditional definitions of the Maya cultural tradition as too narrow, ignoring variations caused by changes in cultural patterns and geographic distributions; the traditional definitions were characterized as overly focused on the elite, and he notes that the diversity within the Ulúa Valley could have rivaled that between the Valley and the

Maya world. He collaborated with Rosemary Joyce (2001) to demonstrate that village life at the site of Puerto Escondido, in the Ulúa Valley, was among the earliest examples of such settlements. Their work engaged with the problems implicit in concepts of the periphery and countered the view that Honduras was a developmentally retarded region that lagged behind the rest of Mesoamerica.

In 2007, Henderson collaborated with Rosemary Joyce, G. R. Hall, W. Jeffrey Hurst, and

Patrick McGovern in order to demonstrate that Mesoamerica‟s earliest cacao beverages were produced at the site of Puerto Escondido. They extracted chemical residues from ceramics that had been excavated at the site and were able to demonstrate that cacao beverages, most likely made by fermenting the pulp that surrounds the cacao seeds, were being produced prior to 1000

BC. Henderson worked with Joyce again in 2010 to examine how the design features and 13 iconographic motifs found on materials excavated at Early Formative sites in the Ulúa Valley were shared with the rest of Mesoamerica and reflect participation in the sphere of interaction most usually identified as Olmec. This analysis further critiqued the notion that Honduras was a peripheral region that was not fully engaged with the rest of the Mesoamerican cultural sphere.

Rosemary Joyce (1983) also conducted excavations at the site of Travesía as part of the

Proyecto Arqueologico Sula that was directed by John Henderson. Her primary excavation was a two square meter unit identified as Operation 83A, though she also began a second unit that was labeled Operation 83C but left unfinished. The features and artifacts discovered during the excavations were described in detail, and much attention was given to the relationships between the occupations at the site. Joyce (1986) also identified two broad networks of interactions: one based in the southern highlands of Honduras and El Salvador that had east-west communication through the highlands, and another centered on the north coast of the Caribbean that linked the

Ulúa Valley with Belize and the Maya lowlands. Joyce (1991) conducted additional excavations at the site of Cerro Palenque in an attempt to reconstruct the social and political systems that structured life at the site during the Classic period. Julia Hendon (2010) collaborated with Joyce during the excavations at Cerro Palenque and in the Cuyumapa Valley, east of the Ulúa Valley; her preliminary focus was on an analysis of the relationships that existed between identity, memory, and materiality. Jeanne Lopiparo, who participated in various excavations directed by

Henderson and Joyce, began work at the site of Currusté in 2007; as of 2011, the results of her research have not been published.

Ulúa Iconographic Studies

Ulúa iconographic studies, like Ulúa archaeological investigations, began with the work of George Byron Gordon in the late nineteenth century. Gordon developed a classificatory 14 scheme that grouped excavated artifacts into six numbered categories based on form; the first of these (Group One) encompassed all pottery vessels (1898:18). This ceramic group was further subdivided into five subgroups (labeled A-E by Gordon) based on the perceived artistic quality of the piece, with A representing vessels believe to have the highest degree of artistic quality

(Gordon 1898:19-21). The painted iconography found on ceramics from the Uloa (Ulúa) Valley is discussed and described in detail, and many illustrations are provided.

The excavations conducted by Strong, Kidder, and Paul in 1936 also produced a variety of iconographic data that was described in their 1938 report. Although ceramic iconography was not a primary focus of their investigations, they provided detailed accounts of the ceramics that they discovered. Particular attention was given to ceramic materials from the sites of Santa Rita,

Playa de los Muertos, Aguacate, Naco, and La Ceiba. Many illustrations of vessels from these sites were provided, though some of the illustrated pieces were in private collections and thus cannot be assigned to a particular site with complete confidence. Despite this problem, Strong,

Kidder, and Paul gave detailed information about the forms, iconography, and provenience of ceramics that they actually uncovered during the course of their excavations. They also developed a sequence of ceramic types for northwestern Honduras (1938:119) and applied it to the materials they discovered.

Jens Yde (1938) described the form and iconography of ceramics discovered during his excavations of mounds near La Lima in some detail. Although few illustrations were provided in his account of the ceramic materials, his descriptions permit visualization of the materials he uncovered. Details of vessel form, wall thickness, and appendages were carefully recorded, and both painted and incised decorations are reported. Yde also described and illustrated ceramic materials found in the areas around Comayagua, Yojoa, Copán, the upper Chamelecón, and Jaral. 15

Although he did not attempt to synthesize this information with the data from the Ulúa Valley to create a broader ceramic typology, his descriptions contain valuable clues concerning the spatial distribution of particular vessel styles and iconographic motifs.

The work of Doris Stone also contributed to our understanding of Ulúa iconography.

Although the only direct reference to ceramics given in her preliminary account of Los Naranjos is a passing mention that references the discovery of a clay ear plug along with a “crudely-made round dish…and a crude figure broken at the chest,” oblique reference is made to polychrome pottery from unspecified areas around the site (Stone 1934:128). Considerably more attention was given to ceramics in her later publications, however, and Ulúa material featured prominently in these discussions. The iconography of vessels from Travesía was given particular attention, and she developed a rudimentary analytical framework that situated the Travesía motifs within a broader Mesoamerican context and posited a preliminary typology (1941). She also attempted to identify relationships between motifs and identified motif variations within the Travesía corpus

(1941). This preliminary analysis eventually developed into a comprehensive review of ceramics from the Comayagua region that included a discussion of imported Ulúa-style vessels (1957:19-

46). Although Ulúa materials are not the focus of this analysis, Stone‟s work nonetheless offers a valuable review of Honduran ceramics and iconography.

John M. Longyear III (1947) presented an overview of the archaeology of the eastern edge of Mesoamerica with an analysis of cultural relationships and identity that included comments on how such relationships may be incorporated into and reflected by ceramic motifs.

This analysis was not specifically focused on Ulúa materials, but the issues it dealt with are directly relevant to Ulúa iconographic studies. Longyear also developed a detailed analysis of ceramic materials from the site of Copán and surrounding areas based on his excavations in the 16 region (1952). Although this analysis does not deal specifically with Ulúa ceramics beyond reference to a few comparative pieces, the proximity of Copán to the Ulúa Valley and its role as the nearest major political center makes his discussion a valuable source of comparative information.

Jeremiah Epstein (1959) argued that the Ulúa polychrome complex could be dated from the beginning of the Late Classic Period to sometime around the end of that period and therefore corresponds to the Late Classic period of the Maya world. He divided the Ulúa complex into two types: Santa Rita (the earlier type) and Las Flores (the later type). Epstein used a combination of stylistic analysis and the dating information known from sites outside of the Ulúa realm, and he situated the Ulúa materials within a broader Mesoamerican schema. He provided an extensive analysis of when the complex likely began and ended; ceramic collections, excavation reports, stylistic elements, and contemporaneous evidence from the Maya world were used as evidence in support of his arguments.

René Viel (1975) combined the results of previous studies of Ulúa ceramics with his own research to produce an exceptionally thorough analysis of Ulúa polychromes. His work includes an illustrated discussion of vessel forms and their variations that helped establish a standardized typology for Ulúa ceramic materials. Perhaps more importantly, Viel created a detailed catalogue of the iconographic motifs that can be found on the ceramics. Although this catalogue does not include every possible motif, it does incorporate a large number of iconographic elements and splits them into classes based on their general form. Each entry is labeled, described, and then illustrated; the accompanying discourse situates the ceramics and their iconography within the broader Mesoamerican ceramic tradition. Large sections of vessels were included when the iconography found on a particular part of a vessel was conceptualized as a singular entity; whole 17 vessels were also illustrated to demonstrate how different motif classes could be used together.

Viel also created a typology of Ulúa ceramics that incorporated stylistic changes over time and comparative information based on contemporary materials from Copán and Uaxactún.

Eugenia J. Robinson (1978) undertook a comparative study of Ulúa-Yojoa and Maya polychromes to determine which design features of Maya ceramics were incorporated into the

Ulúa-Yojoa material. She focused exclusively on Ulúa vessels that were perceived as “typically

Mayoid” and represented in the literature as related to Maya ceramics; such selectional bias skewed the results of her analysis and created the false impression that Ulúa-Yojoa polychrome ceramics are Mayan derivatives rather than the product of a distinct cultural and linguistic sphere that interacted with but was distinct from the Maya world. Such missteps did not completely vitiate the potential value of Robinson‟s analysis, however. Her descriptions of Ulúa motifs are thorough, and her division of these motifs into categories of related elements is potentially valuable.

Anthony Wonderley (1986) conducted a semiotic analysis of the Late Postclassic period

Nolasco Bichrome pottery found in the Naco Valley that explored the kinds of cultural and social information that can be gleaned from analyses of what the author describes as material symbolics.

Although his work focused on Naco ceramics rather than materials from the Ulúa Valley, the methodological and conceptual frameworks he developed are directly relevant to studies of Ulúa imagery. Wonderley contextualized his analysis through a thorough discussion of the Nolasco tradition and a review of the general history of the Naco Valley. He then focused on the avian motif (referred to as “Motif A”) and on the repetition of design elements; these were linked to

Lenca mythic and ritual verbal traditions structured as couplets. The rise of Vagando Polychrome 18 pottery in the region c. 1450, coinciding with the development of new architectural styles, was also discussed to illustrate how pottery styles reflect social and cultural ideas and practices.

Hugh Gerald Kennedy (1987) analyzed the Babilonia (i.e. Ulúa) polychrome ceramics that are housed in the Manchester Museum and attempted to situate them in the classification scheme developed by Viel. His conclusion was that the forty-three items studied were painted no later than the Terminal Classic (c. the tenth century AD) and originated in the Yojoa region, but there is a significant problem with his analysis. The vessels that were included in his research originated in a private collection and do not have reliable provenience; this severely limits their usefulness and the viability of his analysis. The illustrations provided by Kennedy are potentially useful, however, and could be used as additional examples of attested motifs that supplement an analysis based on provenienced materials provided that the information they provide is identified as based on unprovenienced materials.

Rosemary Joyce worked in conjunction with Marilyn Beaudry-Corbett, Pauline Caputi,

John S. Henderson, Eugenia Robinson, and Anthony Wonderly to develop a chapter on Ulúa ceramics for the reference work entitled Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras (Henderson and

Beaudry-Corbett 1993). For the same volume, she developed a key for the analysis of Ulúa polychromes that was designed to allow Ulúa ceramic materials to be classified and categorized; it also offers useful information about the characteristics of Ulúa ceramic materials. Four groups were identified in the diagnostic key and then subdivided into sub-groups based on form and iconographic decoration; several illustrations were provided, along with a sorting key that treats form, appendages, and some kinds of iconography (e.g. bands and counters) as diagnostic. Joyce

(1993) also examined the distribution of various Ulúa motifs, particularly those that were shared with the Maya lowlands, and found evidence of close connections with Maya centers in Belize. 19

Jesper Nielson and James E. Brady (2006) conducted an analysis of the “dancing figures” motif as it is represented on a vessel collected by Jens Yde in 1935. They relate the motif to

Mesoamerican origin mythologies and identify it as representing creation deities that are copulating in a cave, possibly with the intent of creating humanity. The identification of the cave as the location of the scene depicted in the motif is crucial to their argument, and they base this assessment on the black color of the background on which the figures are represented. Nielson and Brady argue that settlement locations in ancient Mesoamerica were chosen based on the degree to which their geographic features corresponded to those that featured prominently in mythology, and they argue that Lake Yojoa exemplified this tendency because it reflected the ideal Mesoamerican landscape. They situate Ulúa iconography within broader Mesoamerican traditions, and examples from Mexican and Mayan cultural groups are used to support their argument. They postulate that the cave represented on the Yde Vessel is the Tauleve Cave, located just south of Lake Yojoa, but there is no concrete evidence to support such a claim.

20

CHAPTER 3

IDENTIFICATION OF ULÚA MEDALLIONS AND MEDALLION TYPES

Medallions constitute a major iconographic class of Ulúa ceramics, but the features that define this category have never been thoroughly discussed. These motifs are often presented only in passing and characterized as discrete units that function as relatively minor parts of the visual scheme; no attempt has been made to explore how the motifs function in their own right. Even a cursory overview of the medallion corpus challenges this orthodoxy, however, and a careful review reveals an astonishing range of compositions that utilize a distinct set of elements and are governed by a unique set of structuring principles. Medallions are therefore closely related to the concepts of text and textuality described in the next chapter, and it seems apparent they were one of the principal constructions used on Ulúa ceramics.

Medallions Defined: Identifying Features and Characteristics

Ulúa medallions can be concisely defined as iconographic motifs in which a central element or set of elements is demarcated by framing that separates the internal components from other iconographic elements and marks them as a cohesive textual unit. The frame(s) are most often circular in form, though they may also be rectangular or figural, and concentric framing is common with circular and other geometric forms. The internal components can take a variety of forms, and single elements occur as often as multi-element compositions. Internal medallion elements can be figural, geometric, or abstract; it is even possible for medallions to be empty or comprised of a solid (i.e. filled) circle whose frame is formed by the surrounding background or by a circular band that blends into the circle motif. The most important feature of these internal elements is not their particular form, however, but rather the fact that they are demarcated by 21 framing elements; this is the characteristic that marks them as distinct units that have their own internal cohesion.

The frame is the defining feature of Ulúa medallion motifs. Although all Ulúa medallions incorporate framing elements, these features exhibit a wide array of forms and compositions.

Medallion framing components can be broadly split into the following four categories based on form: circular frames, geometric frames, figural frames, and abstract frames (Figure 3). Circular frames are the most common form and appear in the majority of Ulúa medallion designs; this frequency is the reason for their assignment to a distinct framing category. The key feature of this taxon is its circular shape – the composition of the framing elements is secondary to their overall form. Many of these frames consist of a plain circular band or a set of concentric circular bands; bands that are embellished in some way are also common, as are circular bands composed of dots, ovals, or other shapes.

(a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 3. Examples of medallion framing categories: (a) circular frame, (b) geometric frame, (c) figural frame, and (d) abstract frame.

Geometric frames are closely related to circular frames, but they differ in terms of form and frequency. These frames are most often rectangular or square, and they may have an angular or a somewhat more rounded shape. Most of these frames consist of one or more embellished bands; concentric sets of geometric frames are common, but undecorated bands and single bands are also attested. Figural frames are a distinct category that occurs relatively rarely in the Ulúa 22 corpus. Although their appearance differs considerably from the more regular shapes found in circular and geometric frames, they function in the same way, surrounding an internal component that is consequently set off from the rest of the iconography. Figural frames frequently represent animal or animal-hybrid forms, but they can also have forms that are less readily identifiable (e.g. the “Casper” frame illustrated in the chapter five). The internal components of these medallions are most commonly positioned where the torso, especially the chest, of the surrounding figure would be.

Abstract frames are the most distinctive category. They function in the same way as other

Ulúa medallion frames – they demarcate internal components from other iconographic elements and mark them as a cohesive textual unit – but their lack of an easily identifiable form sets them apart from other frame taxa. Abstract frames are intentionally present but not graphically marked; they are formed by the background that surrounds the medallion. These backgrounds can consist of fields that are painted or fields that are slipped but unpainted, and both forms are equally common. The internal components surrounded by these frames can be either painted or composed of the slip used on the vessel, and the composition of the internal element is often opposite the composition of the frame. Abstract frames formed by painted backgrounds most usually surround internal elements composed of the vessel‟s slip, either with or without any additional painted motifs, and abstract frames created by an unpainted slip usually surround painted internal elements.

Three of the four categories described above can be further refined based on composition.

The categories of circular frames, geometric frames, and figural frames can each be split into the following two subcategories: simple frames and complex frames (Figure 4). These subcategories are based on the level of complexity of the frame and, consequently, there are no absolute 23 guidelines for subcategory classification. The specific criteria for assignment to one of the subcategories vary with the framing style, and distinctions must be made and modified as the data set expands. Although it is impossible to articulate absolute guidelines, some general criteria can be identified. For circular frames, division into the simple and complex is based on the number of framing elements and their composition. For geometric medallion frames, this division is based on the degree of embellishment. For figural frames, the simple and complex subcategories are differentiated based on the complexity of the figure that constitutes the framing element.

(a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 4. Examples of frame complexity: (a) simple circular frame, (b) complex circular frame, (c) simple figural frame, and (d) complex figural frame.

Although the frame is the feature that defines and identifies Ulúa medallions as a distinct iconographic subset, the semantic content is primarily embodied in the central component(s) circumscribed by the frame and secondarily in the interplay between the internal elements and the frame surrounding them. Like the elements used for framing, the central component(s) found in Ulúa medallions can be divided into categories based on their form. The three categories of internal medallion components are as follows: geometric designs, figural designs, and abstract designs (Figure 5). The defining features of these categories do not align exactly with those of the framing styles that share the same labels; the characteristics of internal components are distinct, and their taxonomy is based on the overall composition of the medallion interior. 24

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 5. Examples of medallion internal component categories: (a) geometric designs, (b) figural designs, and (c) abstract designs

Geometric designs are the most common kind of internal medallion components. These elements have a geometric or structural form that is comprised of non-figural elements; multi- element compositions are common. Figural designs are nearly as common as geometric ones, but they differ from them in two key ways. Firstly, figural designs consist of images that are easily identifiable as non-geometric and non-abstract. These figures most usually represent animals or animal-hybrids, though images of heads alone – particularly serpent or reptilian heads – are also very common. Secondly, figural designs almost always occur as singular entities that consist of only one motif. Accessorizing elements can be built into the figural motif, but multi-figure compositions are rare. Abstract designs differ greatly from both geometric and figural motifs.

These designs usually consist of solid circular elements that are painted or composed of the slip used on the vessel. They are most often paired with abstract frames, and the composition of the internal element is usually opposite the composition of the frame.

Determining the boundary between the framing and central elements of Ulúa medallions can occasionally prove challenging. Although many medallions have clear distinctions between their internal motifs and the framing elements that surround them, some have elaborate frames surrounding relatively small internal motifs that can, at times, seem to blend into the frames that encase them. Such blurry boundaries are most common in medallions with complex circular frames because the embellishment or composition of the framing elements can easily seem 25 linked with the internal motif in such compositions; this is especially true when the internal motif is a solid circle or a geometric design that is partially mirrored in the embellishment of the frames.

The key to identifying where an internal element ends and the frame begins lies in the characteristics of Ulúa framing. Although it is possible for framing elements to be embellished with decorative motifs or composed of a band of circles, dots, ovals, or geometric shapes, these elements are distinct from the central medallion element. This distinction exists even when the central element incorporates some or all of the same features that constitute or embellish the frame; the difference is that framing elements are clearly demarcated and structured -- most often into circular and banded forms – while central elements exhibit more freedom of form and do not surround any other element. If elements or sets of elements are arranged sequentially in a banded form that is circular or geometric and situated around an internal area, they belong to a frame. If elements or sets of elements exhibit a more clustered arrangement and are surrounded by sets of other elements that are sequentially arranged, they belong to a central motif.

Constituent Medallions and Vessel Medallions

The location of Ulúa medallion motifs on a vessel can vary considerably. Medallions can be situated with broader iconographic scenes or positioned as stand-alone features in the absence of any other iconographic elements. They can encompass the entirety of a vessel and cover all of the exterior or interior of a vessel; it is also possible for part of the interior or exterior of a vessel to consist of a singular medallion motif even if other areas have non-medallion iconographic elements. The varied positioning of medallions on Ulúa vessels enables medallion motifs to be divided into two overlapping types based on location: constituent medallions and vessel medallions. Vessel medallions can be split into whole vessel medallions (WVM) and partial 26 vessel medallions (PVM). These three types – constituent medallions, whole vessel medallions, and partial vessel medallions -- represent the primary styles of Ulúa medallions that will be discussed below.

Constituent medallions represent the most common type. These medallions function within broader iconographic schemes or stand alone as the only iconography found on a vessel, thus creating the iconographic scheme of which they are a part. Their demarcation does not rely on the vessel or any part of it – they are independent of the vessel form. Constituent medallions can be positioned on the exterior of a vessel, on the interior surface, on the interior or exterior base (particularly on the dimpled bases), and on appendages such as feet and handles. They function as part of a broader iconographic plan or constitute their own iconographic scheme in the absence of other motifs; all examples of this type are singular components or parts of larger depictive schemes. They can be surrounded by all kinds of frames -- circular, geometric, figural, or abstract, – but their positioning is their primary characteristic.

Vessel medallions are not quite as common as constituent medallions, but they do occur regularly in the Ulúa iconographic corpus and can be situated on the interior or exterior of a piece. The frames of these medallions incorporate some aspect of the form on which they are painted, most usually the rims of bowls or plates and the carinations of jars. The demarcation of these medallions relies on the vessel, and the medallion is dependent on the vessel form. The framing elements of these motifs consist of one of the frame styles described above used in conjunction with a physical aspect of the vessel on which the medallion is painted. The rims of bowls and plates commonly function in this manner, as do the carinations of jars; it is also possible for the ring surrounding a vessel‟s base and appendages such as feet to be incorporated into the frames of vessel medallions. 27

Partial vessel medallions cover only part of the surface of a vessel. They occur almost exclusively on the exterior surfaces of jars and they most often incorporate the jar‟s carination into the medallion frame. It is also possible for them to occur on the base of a vessel, utilizing the edge of a dimpled base as a framing component; the edges of feet can also help frame a partial vessel medallion on a footed vessel, but this combination is rare. Partial vessel medallions can simultaneously be constituent medallions; such overlap occurs when the non-medallion part of a vessel‟s design creates a broader iconographic field of which the PVM is a part. Whole vessel medallions can occur on either the exterior or interior of a vessel. They encompass the entirety of the side on which they occur (i.e. all of the exterior or all of the exterior), and their framing elements incorporate both a painted element and the rim. The internal and framing parts of a

WVM create the entirety of the iconography; no non-medallion iconography is present on the side of a vessel that contains a whole vessel medallion.

28

CHAPTER 4

TEXT AND TEXTUALITY AS AN ANALYTICAL APPRAOCH

Orthodox analytical approaches to Ulúa Polychrome and Bold Geometric painted pottery from northwestern Honduras proceed as though every vessel consists of multiple banded fields, each of which is treated discretely as an independent collection of motifs. This approach parses

Ulúa ceramic designs excessively, and it affords distinct banded fields a privileged status that is disproportional to their corresponding individual contributions to the iconographic whole. This overemphasis on the banded structure, while potentially useful for some analyses, obscures the relationships among fields and motifs and precludes recognition of Ulúa ceramic texts with a polyvocal, multi-tiered nature that produces textuality. This textuality suggests the existence of signs as well as signals among Ulúa motifs and requires a reconceptualization of both text and textual boundaries on the ceramic vessels.

Text & Textuality on Ulúa Ceramics

Text and textuality are two distinct yet related concepts necessary for the understanding and extraction of meaning in many symbolic constructions. This conceptual and terminological framework is most frequently applied to linguistic studies of discourse and literature (see

Bakhtin 1981; Boyarin 1993; Derrida 1977; Riles 2006; Silverstein and Urban 1996; Street

1984), but its application to the study of ceramic material from the Ulúa Valley is beneficial.

Such appropriation facilitates the recognition of ceramic iconography as composed of texts containing semiotic motifs capable of providing meaning directly through their form (i.e., functioning as signals) and indirectly through interpretation with the relevant cultural grammar

(i.e., functioning as signs with contextually dictated significance). Careful consideration of what 29 text, textuality, signs and signals are is required for such an investigation; a brief discussion of these definitions and their application to Ulúa ceramic materials is provided here.

A variety of definitions of text have been proposed, most of which vary only in terms of nuanced specifics. The one most appropriate for analyses of the Ulúa ceramic material is that proposed by Hanks: a text is “any configuration of signs that is coherently interpretable by some community of users” (1989:95). The term sign also needs to be addressed; for the purposes of ceramic analysis, a sign can be best defined as anything that is “implicated in the communicative process” (Preucel 2006:5). Although iconographic texts such as those on Ulúa ceramics are not communicative in a traditional manner due to the absence of hieroglyphs reflecting spoken language like those produced by nearby Mayan populations, they clearly functioned in a semiotic way. They were a system of symbols and representational modes capable of conveying a variety of information about ideas and experiences (Preucel 2006:5); more precisely, they were visual texts that represent a sort of visual language that could be understood by individuals situated within the proper cultural milieu.

A visual language operates in much the same way as a conventional, orally transmitted linguistic system. Chomsky noted that “a [verbal] language is defined by giving its alphabet and its grammatical sequences” (1957:21); this observation applies to communicative systems in the visual medium as well. The term alphabet is imprecise and potentially biased, but here it is used as a proxy for written forms of linguistic communication. If an alphabet is conceptualized as a set of signs that work together to create meaningful linguistic units (i.e., words, phrases, and sentences), and if grammar can be thought of as rules that structure alphabetic use, then it is clear that visual systems of motifs operating as signs comprise a visual language. In terms of the Ulúa ceramics, the alphabet is composed of the motifs that appear on Polychrome and Bold Geometric 30 painted pottery. These images are a set of signs that work together to create semantically meaningful combinations; the rules that structure them comprise a cultural grammar in which the governing principles consist of cultural knowledge and norms. This grammar allows the visual text to be read by members of the culture, sometimes through nuanced understandings of the meanings conveyed by sign combinations. In such cases, textuality occurs.

Textuality is both related to and distinct from text; Hanks once again provides the most relevant definition of this concept for studies of Ulúa ceramics. He describes textuality as the

“quality of coherence or connectivity that characterizes text” – more precisely, textuality can be conceived of as the “fit between sign form and some larger context that determines its ultimate coherence” (Hanks 1989:96, emphasis added). Fit is the primary element in this definition – it suggests a codified Weltanschauung as conceptualized by Whorf (1956) and a level of artistic and textual sophistication that many Mesoamericanists believe were characteristic only of cultures with monumental architecture and written forms of language. Textuality and the construction of meaning through association also suggest a polyvocalic symbolic system, which in turn implies a high level of semiotic complexity. Although the inhabitants of the Ulúa Valley did not utilize the traditional benchmarks of cultural achievement (i.e., written language), they nonetheless developed and employed a complex symbolic repertoire that is manifest in the visual texts on ceramic materials.

The recognition of textuality as a component of some Ulúa ceramic texts illuminates the complexity of the iconographic motifs used in the region. These texts are composed of signs, as noted above, but this term is inappropriate when used in a generalizing manner in discussions of the Ulúa material. The need for a relabeling of the concept does not suggest that the definition provided by Preucel (2006) or the usage of the term by Hanks (1989) are in any way invalid; on 31 the contrary, both can be constructively used in the present analysis. The presence of textuality on Ulúa ceramics, and its implications, necessitates more specificity when discussing the motifs utilized on the pottery; signs should be relabeled as symbols when the term is used broadly in relation to discussions of the Ulúa corpus that do not include reference to the presence or absence of textuality. This allows for a differentiation between two distinct symbolic subsets: the signal and the sign.

Although Hanks (1989) used the term sign in a broader fashion than is appropriate here and privileged it in his definitions of text and textuality, he did distinguish the term from signals.

He follows the work of Vološinov (1986) and defines a signal as a symbol that is “intelligible through mere recognition” (1989:105); in other terminology, signals are symbols capable of inherently conveying meaning that can be accessed through the signal itself. The definition of sign provided by Preucel stands as the most relevant to Ulúa ceramic studies – as stated above, a sign can be defined as anything “implicated in the communicative process” (Preucel 2006:5).

The observation that signs can only be understood through interpretation should be added to this definition (Hanks 1989:105, following Vološinov:1986); the specific meaning of a sign can vary based upon its textual context, and the cultural grammar is required to select the proper meaning from the array of options for any given sign occurrence. The meaning of a sign is therefore not as readily apparent as that conveyed by a signal and requires an active reading on the part of the interpreter; it is often accessible only through an understanding of its relationship with other signs associated with it. Signs are thus integral parts of textuality, though they can also occur in texts alongside signals. These interrelationships can be best illuminated by examining their manifestation on actual ceramic materials, as described below.

32

Text and Textuality in Ulúa Medallions: PM-671 and PM-13

Two samples of Ulúa pottery will be used to illustrate how text and textuality manifest in the ceramic medium and how signals and signs function in such contexts. These examples are housed in the collections of the Peabody Museum Research Annex in Boston and were chosen because of their characteristic and diagnostic natures. The pieces represent two vessel forms that are common in Ulúa Valley contexts: jars and hemispherical bowls. Each vessel manifests distinct combinations of signals and signs and variations of Ulúa textual styles; although the meanings they convey cannot yet be ascertained, consideration of their textual and symbolic structure is a necessary first step toward the achievement of such an understanding. The textual structure and symbolic content will be presented and analyzed in relation to possible constructions of meaning as they would have been understood by those who created and utilized the pottery. Each vessel is identified primarily by the number assigned to it during the research process and secondarily by its Peabody accession number or field number; the provenience for each vessel is also described.

PM-671

The eighteen articulating sherds that comprise PM-671 (field number 17-165) provide a striking example of textuality on Ulúa ceramics. The sherds are from the lower portion of a large jar and would have covered much of the area between the base of the vessel and the carinated shoulder. They were uncovered in Excavation 2 at the site of Santa Rita (Strong, Kidder, and

Paul 1938:45-62); this site is situated below the town of Santa Rita on the Comayagua River and yielded a wide range of cultural material during the 1936 excavations (Strong, Kidder, and Paul

1938:45). Contextual data for Excavation 2 are limited, but the field report notes that it adjoined 33 with both Excavation 1 and the northern extension and extended east through a refuse heap of polychrome and bold geometric ceramic material (Strong, Kidder, and Paul 1938:45-46).

PM-671 is an example of the Bold Geometric style of Ulúa ceramics. This taxon is related to but distinct from Ulúa Polychromes; it is an inexplicably underemphasized subset.

Examples of the Bold Geometric style are most commonly known from the lower Ulúa (Sula)

Valley, particularly at the sites of Las Flores Bolsa, Santana (an outlier of Travesía), and Santa

Rita; El Cajón (Hirth, Lara Pinto, and Hasemann 1989) has also yielded a significant amount of

Bold Geometric material. Technologically, Bold Geometrics can be thought of as the most robust of the Ulúa ceramics. They have thick walls and large vessel sizes; the paste is hard fired and highly oxidized due to the high temperatures used in firing (Henderson and Beaudry-Corbett

1993: 88-89, 222-229, 245). The vessel forms are more limited than those of the Ulúa

Polychrome material – jars with strap handles and shallow plates are the dominant forms, though other forms are also attested. The usual designs consist primarily of geometric and animal motifs rendered in broad lines with black and red paint on a dark orange background.

The motifs that appear on the sherds comprising PM-671 represent common design elements found on Bold Geometric ceramics (Figure 6). There is a partial knot motif in the center of a rectangular field filled with fine black cross-hatching; this rectangular field is outlined with a thin black line and framed by a red rectangle of medium width. To the left of this motif is an inverted V shape drawn in red and outlined by a slightly narrower, black inverted V; these two elements appear to be concentric. A medium-width black band is located below the motifs described above, and a band of solid red rectangles situated between two red bands comes next.

Two narrow black bands follow the red bands described above; these are closely spaced and positioned just below them. A red band of the same width then follows. Below this red band is a 34 series of designs that alternates between two specific motifs, each of which occurs three times.

The first motif consists of concentric inverted V shapes drawn in red paint; the inner V is noticeably thicker than the one that frames it. The second of the alternating motifs is made up of vertical sets of parallel red lines framed on each side by solid trapezoidal shapes; two of the three examples of this motif contain four vertical inner lines, while the third example contains five.

Figure 6. An illustration of PM-671.

Orthodox approaches to the analysis of Ulúa ceramics parse the motifs into banded texts that are treated independently of each other. The spatial arrangement of Ulúa motifs makes such an approach understandable, but it is nonetheless problematic. In the case of PM-671, traditional interpretations would partition the motifs into a sequence of four stacked, horizontal texts that are demarcated by the presence of bands. The first of these would be bounded on the bottom by the first black band that is visible on the sherds; the motifs within it would include the framed knot motif on a cross-hatched background, the paired inverted V design to its left, and any other motifs on the missing part of the vessel between the first black band located directly below these motifs and the next band above it. The second text identified by traditional interpretive approaches would be defined by the two red bands that follow the first black band; the series of 35 red rectangles between these red bands would comprise the content of this particular text. The third text would consist of the two thin black bands. These bands could themselves be considered as the content of this text; conversely, it is possible the empty space between them would be given this role. Finally, the fourth banded text recognized in an orthodox analysis would include the space below the last red band. The constituent motifs would include the three sets of parallel red lines framed by solid trapezoidal shapes and the three concentric inverted V shapes. The bottom of this field would be marked by the base of the vessel.

In contrast, my analysis disregards banding as the primary organizational principle and instead focuses on textual polyvocality, textuality, and the sign/signal dichotomy. Under such an interpretive model, the parsing of a ceramic text takes a considerably different form. Primarily, each vessel is considered as functioning as its own textual unit. Every ceramic piece, therefore, is itself a first order text; in examples where the vessel is broken and only sherd material remains, the totality of the assemblage of remaining sherds is treated as the first order textual unit. When other texts are defined within the composition, they are considered to be texts within the broader text of the vessel and are identified in ascending numeric order based on increasing specificity

(i.e., second order texts, third order texts, etc.). Any text can contain multiple orders of text or contain only a first order textual unit; it is also possible for any text to contain multiple instances of the textual order whose numeric identifier is one higher than that of the text in question. The conceptual stacking of texts is a crucial part of attempts to discern textual meaning on Ulúa ceramic materials.

All texts on a vessel, including the first order whole-unit text and any other orders of text within it, are classified based on the presence or absence of textuality. When textuality occurs, the symbols within the text are treated as signs rather than signals because their meaning is 36 dependent upon their interrelationships and iconographic context. These signs can be polyvocalic and function simultaneously as signals and signs, but their situation within a context of textuality implies that some aspect of their meaning must be derived indirectly through contextual interpretation. It is theoretically possible to have textuality between different orders of text on a single vessel, but the limitations of current understandings of Ulúa symbolic systems make it impossible to identify instances in which the collection of symbols that comprise a text within a text can operate concurrently as a sign. In texts without textuality, the symbols can operate as either signals or signs.

The textual structure of PM-671 appears markedly different when the analytical framework described above is used. The eighteen sherds together make up the first order textual unit; they stand for the text that was the vessel in its entirety. The whole vessel text represented by these sherds consists of at least two second order texts, and one of these clearly includes textuality. The first of the second order texts includes the framed knot motif on a cross-hatched background, the inverted V motif beside it, and the black band just below them; it is probable that other motifs were also included, but their absence on the surviving sherds means they are excluded here. This text does not appear to have textuality, though this cannot be determined with absolute certainty due to the small percentage that survives. The apparent absence of textuality means the two component motifs (the knot design and the inverted Vs) could have functioned as either signals or signs; it is likely that both symbol types are included in this particular subtext. The black band on the lower edge of this text demarcates the textual boundary and serves as the lower edge of the text. It does not appear to function as a distinct component motif. 37

The knot motif appears throughout the Ulúa ceramic corpus and is particularly common on Bold Geometrics and in the iconographic subset of medallions. It can occur in a variety of contextual locations, but it is usually enclosed in a circular or rectangular frame and set against a variable background. This consistency in form and variability in intra-text context suggest that the knot motif is polyvocalic, functioning simultaneously as a signal and a sign. It likely conveyed a generalized meaning inherently through its form and a more refined meaning that was achieved by combining the knot motif with a set of backgrounds and framing patterns that also functioned in a semiotic way. The resulting combinations of knots, backgrounds, and framing styles created a range of differing but related meanings that could only be accessed through use of the proper cultural grammar; this functions as a third order text and illustrates a situation in which a symbol within a text can manifest textuality even if the text that contains it does not. Although the specific meanings created by these associations cannot, at present, be identified, recognizing their existence and the patterning that created them is the necessary first step towards understanding. In the case of PM-671, the knot motif on the framed and cross- hatched background is a sign that is simultaneously a third order text that has textuality situated within a second order text that does not.

The paired inverted V motif to the left of the knot design is the second surviving element of the first second order text of PM-671. This motif is very common on Ulúa Bold Geometric ceramics, and it appears in association with many other design elements in both banded and non- banded iconographic presentations. This motif does not itself manifest textuality – it functions as a signal and probably carried a significance that is opaque to modern researchers working outside of the cultural grammar. This significance could operate on its own as the sole meaning of the signal, or it could be combined with the significance of other signs or signals in a text that has 38 textuality to create a larger, more complex meaning. Such motifs are therefore semantically flexible; they were capable of standing alone, operating as discrete units within a larger text, or functioning as one of the elements that combine to create meaning in a text with textuality. In the initial second order text of PM-671, the inverted V motif functions in the second way described above – it is part of a text without textuality. The process of reading this text would have necessitated an understanding of the meaning of the motifs within it, including the inverted V design; the lack of textuality in this text means that the paired, inverted Vs are textually related to the knot deign but semantically distinct.

The other second order text found on PM-671 is more completely represented than the first and begins just below the black band that indicates the lower edge of the first second order text. It includes the band of solid red rectangles situated between two red bands, the pair of narrow black bands, and a solitary red band. It also includes six non-banded motifs: three pairs of red inverted Vs with a wider line used on the internal V, two sets of four vertical parallel red lines framed on each side by solid trapezoidal shapes, and one set of five vertical parallel red lines framed on each side by solid trapezoidal shapes. This text does have textuality, and thus the component motifs function as signs whose meaning must be determined through their association with each other. Individual motifs within the second subtext of PM-671 do not appear to have textuality themselves, though if color and shape are treated as distinct semiotic components, it is possible that the band of red rectangles between two thinner red bands and the trapezoidal shapes flanking the sets of vertical parallel lines represent a simple sort of textuality. All of the motifs within this second subtext are found throughout the Ulúa ceramic corpus; it is their combination that is significant on PM-671. 39

The form of this second order text is significant because it represents an exceptionally large example of a medallion and provides a rare example of a medallion functioning as a second order textual unit. As described in the preceding chapter, medallions are an iconographic subset on Ulúa ceramic materials that are defined by their shape and overall structure rather than by any particular component or element. Although the term medallion has been loosely used in the literature to refer to any framed motif that is set off from its iconographic surroundings (see

Nielson and Brady 2006), such usage is overly general and obscures the true nature of this important motif type. As described in the preceding chapter, Ulúa medallions are circular iconographic components in which an internal element or set of elements is enclosed within a circular field. This main field may be surrounded by additional circular frames, though framing is not necessary. When it does occur, the form of the frame always mimics the circular shape of the main field and can be attached to the main field or detached from it. Medallion frames vary in terms of composition, though common framing elements include plain circular bands, sets of concentric bands, “flaming bands,” dots, triangles, and feathers. They can stand alone, be used with other medallions, or be associated with non-medallion iconographic motifs.

Ulúa medallions function as textual units that always exhibit textuality, even when the broader text that contains them does not. Their constituent components are thus polyvocal and interdependent signs that work collectively to create the meaning of a medallion; this meaning is variable and based on particular combinations of internal elements, circular backgrounds, and framing. Each medallion component can appear elsewhere in the Ulúa iconographic corpus and convey a generalized meaning, but their inherent significance is superseded by a contextually- determined, specific meaning when they occur as part of a medallion. The large medallion that makes up the second of the second order texts of PM-671 is thus a text with textuality situated in 40 a larger text without it; progress towards an understanding of the textual meaning of PM-671 as a whole requires consideration of how the meaning of this second order text is constructed.

The structure of this text is significant because it forces a reconsideration of the orthodox practice of parsing Ulúa ceramics into distinct banded fields. Since this second order text is, in its entirety, a large medallion, the elements that comprise it must be viewed as components and not as separate entities that stand alone. The band of solid red rectangles situated between two red bands and the pair of narrow black bands provides the framing for the medallion; they are not the discrete features that would be identified by traditional analytical approaches. The framing is multi-layered, and if color and shape are viewed as semiotic elements, then the color, shape, and possibly width used in the construction of these bands helps build the meaning. The single red band demarcates the main circular field of the medallion; it cannot be treated as a solitary motif.

The background of this main field is provided by the slip of the vessel and has a dark orange color. The central element of the medallion is composed of six motifs arranged around a circular space devoid of paint: the three sets of inverted red Vs and the three sets of parallel lines flanked by trapezoidal shapes.

The boundaries of the medallion that comprises this second order text are as significant as the structure of the medallion itself. The outer textual boundary is made up of the band of red rectangles between two red bands that serves as the most exterior frame around the medallion; more specifically, the uppermost red band provides the exact textual limit. This band would be treated separately from any other motifs in traditional interpretive approaches, but its situation in a text with textuality means that such an analysis is not valid. It is multifunctional and serves to both frame the medallion and demarcate the edge of the second subtext; its meaning is derived from its association with the other components of the large medallion. The boundary of the main 41 field is provided by the solitary red band; this would also be analytically isolated under orthodox analyses. The banded boundaries of the second order texts of PM-671 demonstrate that bands cannot be isolated from the textual whole; they do more than simply subdivide an iconographic field. They functioned as parts of texts and carried their own meanings, and they need to be considered in relation to other motifs.

The most significant boundary of the second order text on PM-671 is the one around which the components of the central element are arranged. This boundary demarcates the unpainted circular motif that functions as the most central element of the main field, and it is produced by the edge of the dimple base. The circular motif itself is significant and interesting – the dimpling of the base adds a tactile and visual component that may have contributed to meaning – but the construction of its boundary through the appropriation of the basal edge is key.

It reveals that vessels and parts of vessels could function as textual components; they could do more than simply carry the message conveyed by the iconography. They could be a part of the iconography and, therefore, a contributing part of the message. In the case of PM-671, the base of the vessel is an active part of a second order text. It functions as the center element in the main field of the medallion, and the basal rim demarcates the motif.

PM-13

PM-13 (Peabody accession number 38-45-20/5307; field number 17-94) offers another striking example of textuality on Ulúa ceramic material. It is a reconstructed hemispherical bowl that includes sherds representing approximately 85% of the original vessel; the remainder of the piece consists of plaster fill. Most of the iconography is still visible despite moderate erosion in some areas, and it is possible to recognize distinct motifs on both the interior and exterior sides of the vessel. Like PM-671, the surviving sherds were uncovered at the site of Santa Rita; more 42 specifically, they were uncovered in Excavation 1, Pottery Levels 9-11 (Strong, Kidder, and Paul

1938:45-62). These pottery levels span stratigraphic units C and D and were likely part of the southern pottery-rich “polychrome refuse heap” that was described by Strong, Kidder, and Paul in their excavation report (1938:46-48).

PM-13 is an example of the Polychrome style of Ulúa ceramics. This taxon is related to but distinct from the Bold Geometrics; both styles occur in the same stratigraphic locations at

Santa Rita (Strong, Kidder, and Paul 1938:48-54). The Ulúa Polychrome style is most commonly attested in the lower Ulúa Valley, the Comayagua basin, and the Lake Yojoa region (Henderson and Beaudry-Corbett 1993: 102-103, 111-114, 121-122, 228-230, 159-161, 245-279).

Technologically, Ulúa Polychromes are smaller in overall vessel size and have correspondingly thinner walls than the Bold Geometrics; the paste and firing are much more variable. The vessel forms used for Polychromes include variations of cylinders, bowls, footed plates, and small jars.

The corpus of standard motifs is considerably more extensive than that found on Bold Geometric material and includes more anthropomorphic and zoomorphic elements.

The motifs found on PM-13 include both common and distinctive iconographic elements

(Figure 7). Externally, there is a black band along the upper edge of the exterior wall that extends to cover the rim of the vessel. Two narrow red bands are located just below it; a band of right- facing beanhead motifs follows. The main field is located below the band of beanheads and contains six motifs that alternate between two general design forms. The first of these motifs is a

“flamed medallion” with a variable reptilian head as the internal element; there are three such medallions on PM-13, and each contains a different variant of the reptilian head. The second motif form in the main field is a seated figure with an elaborated headdress. There are three of these figures and, although they are eroded, all three figures appear to be the same. The dimple 43 base of the vessel contains another “flaming medallion” motif in which the internal element is formed by the dimple base and enclosed by a red circle and a “flamed” frame.

Internally, PM-13 contains additional iconographic motifs that constitute another textual feature. There are three pairs of vertical orange lines that extend the full length of the interior wall; these pairs are evenly spaced around the interior wall, and each orange line in each pair is framed on each side by a thin red line. The pairs of framed orange lines are separated by sets of counters. Counter motifs are extremely common on Ulúa Polychrome ceramics; those found on

PM-13 are thin and elongated, and each includes a segmented section near the top of the motif.

The counter motifs are monochromatic, and the colors used alternate between black and red. The internal base of the vessel is heavily eroded, but at least three concentric red bands, evenly spaced, are located around the outer perimeter. Other motifs that may have been present on the internal base are no longer visible.

(a) (b)

Figure 7. An illustration of the exterior (a) and interior (b) of PM-671.

The parsing of the iconography found on PM-13 is relatively straightforward under the orthodox analytical model. Externally, traditional interpretations of Ulúa would recognize a single primary field consisting of the three “flamed medallion” motifs with a variable reptilian 44 head as the internal element and the three seated figures with elaborated headdresses. These elements would be taken as primary and privileged over other iconographic components; they would be seen as the main (and perhaps only) significant features. The top of this primary field would be demarcated by the three bands that circle the upper part of the exterior wall; the bottom would be marked by the lower edge of the six motifs within the field. The band of beanheads would be incorporated into the main field as a supplementary or decorative element, and the motifs that circle the exterior base would also be viewed as supplementary. Internally, an orthodox analytical approach would recognize the counter motifs, and the pairs of framed orange bands that divide them, as components of a single interior field. The concentric bands around the interior base would be seen as supplementary or perhaps as marking the lower boundary of the interior field.

The textual structure of PM-13 is conceptualized differently under my analytical model.

The same basic divisions are made within the composition, but the relationships between texts and between their symbolic components are approached in terms of the presence or absence of textuality. The vessel as a whole is treated as the first order text and is divided into three second order texts based upon iconographic divisions; the surviving motifs also include four recognizable third order texts. The first of these second order texts consists of the entire exterior of the vessel. The edge of this text is provided by the black band at the uppermost part of the exterior wall; there are no discrete upper and lower edges of this text due to its circular shape.

The base of the vessel forms the textual center and part of the iconography of the first second order text. It is not a separate, unrelated symbolic entity. This text includes the black band, the pair of narrow red bands, and the band of right-facing beanhead motifs. It also includes the three seated figures with elaborated headdresses and four flamed medallions. This second order text 45 itself does not appear to have textuality; the component motifs (the black band, the red bands, the beanhead band, the seated figures, and the flamed medallions) include a mixture of both signals and signs.

The four flamed medallions in the first second order text of PM-13 are symbols with internal textuality; they are also the four third order texts referenced above (Figure 8). They represent a stylistic subset of Ulúa medallions and are characterized by a flamed outer frame; this frame frequently incorporates dots and is set apart from the edge of main circular backdrop. The variable reptilian heads that function as the main element in three of the four examples on PM-13 occur in other iconographic contexts on Ulúa ceramic material; it is probable that reptile heads innately carried a broad semiotic connotation that was refined by their specific composition and positioning within a text or larger symbol in relation to other variable symbolic elements such as backgrounds and frames. The reptile heads are therefore polyvocal and function simultaneously as a signal and a sign within the larger medallions that are found on PM-13. The meaning of each medallion can be derived from its particular combination of flamed frames, other frames, circular backgrounds, and particular reptilian elements. These medallions provide another example of a situation in which a symbol within a text can manifest textuality even if the text that contains it does not; these flamed medallions must be understood as textual units before the broader meaning of the first subtext that contains them can be ascertained.

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 8. The three flamed medallions on the external wall of PM-13 (a, b, c); the flamed medallion on the base on PM-13 (d)

46

The most significant flamed medallion on PM-13 is the one located on the exterior of the dimple base. This medallion is entirely situated within the dimple base itself; it is composed of a flamed frame around a red circular band that demarcates the interior field. This interior field is devoid of iconography, but that does not suggest that it was consequently devoid of meaning. As in PM-671, the dimpled base adds a tactile and visual component that may have contributed to the medallion‟s meaning. The concavity of the base could have carried some general meaning that was refined by its contextual situation within the central field of a medallion; such an assumption suggests that the meaning of the concave dimpling was polyvocal and would have differed in specific meaning between PM-671 and PM-13. The lack of any painted iconography was also probably significant – the absence of a motif could be just as symbolic as the presence of one would be and could also have had polyvocality dependent upon its contextual milieu. This medallion therefore offers additional evidence that vessels and parts of vessels functioned as an active part of the iconography and were able to contribute to the overall meaning of a text or symbol.

The non-medallion motifs of the first subtext of PM-13 represent elements that are very common on Ulúa Polychrome ceramics. The black band and two red bands around the outside of this subtext appear in some form on most pieces of Ulúa painted pottery; they would be treated separately from all other motifs in orthodox analyses, including other bands. Such an approach is not productive, however; the bands cannot be understood outside of their textual context. The banded motifs do not have textuality, but they do have polyvocality – it is likely that the color and perhaps thickness of each band contributed to its overall meaning. The beanhead is another common Ulúa ceramic motif that lacks textuality but likely had polyvocality. Beanheads occur frequently on Ulúa Polychromes, and while they usually occur in bands such as the one seen on 47

PM-13, it is possible for them to stand alone. Additional support for the polyvocality of the beanhead can be found it its directionality – while the general shape remains constant, the orientation (right or left) of the motif can vary. Finally, the three seated figures do not appear to have textuality. While it is likely that seated figures, generally conceived, had the capacity to manifest textuality through their construction of identify through the inclusion or exclusion of particular features, the three seated individuals on PM-13 are identical in composition.

The remaining second order texts are located on the interior of PM-13. The second of the second order texts consists of the interior vessel walls and includes all of the motifs represented by them. The upper edge of this text is demarcated by the rim of the vessel; there is not a painted motif that marks the boundary. This is another instance in which a part of an Ulúa vessel can function as a component of a text and offers further support to the argument that Ulúa vessels themselves were part of the semiotic process. The lower edge of this text is demarcated by the first concentric red band on the interior base. This band is painted on the vessel base at exactly the point where the interior wall curves into the interior base; it touches the bottom of each of the motifs painted onto the inside vessel wall. This text does not have textuality, and the motifs it contains can operate as either signals or signs. It is likely that both symbol types are represented, but their precise meaning will only be accessible once a thorough understanding of the cultural grammar has been achieved.

The counter motif that is repeated in the second order text described above is extremely common on Ulúa Polychrome ceramics. It appears primarily on the interior of bowls and plates, though examples are also known from cylinders. These motifs always have the same general shape but can vary in color, composition, length, and width; they provide another example of a symbol with innate textuality, and while the meaning of the counters is still unknown, an 48 understanding of the semiotic interdependence of the constituent elements they contain will be crucial to achieving such comprehension. This textuality also suggests that the counter motif is polyvocal and, like the reptilian head found in the flamed medallions, innately conveyed a general meaning that was modified and refined by textual and intra-symbol context. On PM-13, the counters appear in sets that are separated by pairs of framed orange lines. It is unclear if such tripartite division was semantically significant or purely aesthetic, but it is likely that the dividing pairs of framed orange lines functioned in a manner similar to bands. Their significance is dependent upon recognition of their textual context, and it is likely that the colors and thickness of the lines contributed to this significance and created polyvocality.

The third and final second order text of PM-13 consists of the interior base of the vessel.

It includes two concentric red bands located beneath the red band marking the lower edge of the second subtext; it is possible that other motifs were once present in the central field of this text, but the internal base is heavily eroded and any additional motifs that were once present are no longer visible. The poor state of preservation of this text makes it impossible to determine if textuality was present, and thus it is difficult to ascertain if the motifs it contained were only signs or also included signals. The concentric red bands are reminiscent of the framing found around many medallion motifs; it is quite possible that the third subtext was once a medallion that functioned synonymously as a text in a manner similar to the second subtext of PM-671.

Under such a hypothesis, it is possible that the internal motif has eroded away or that the internal motif was a non-motif that could have been equally significant. It is also possible the concentric bands functioned as bands around the edge of a text, similar to the three bands that circle the first subtext of PM-13.

49

Reconceptualization of Ulúa Text and Textual Boundaries

Orthodox analytical approaches to Ulúa ceramic materials prioritize bands as the primary means of organizing and parsing iconography. Each band or banded text is then treated as a distinct and independent textual unit – the relationships between bands are not considered, and the motifs comprising the bands are frequently treated on an individual basis. In contrast, my analytical approach rejects bands as the main organizing principle on Ulúa ceramics and focuses instead on textuality, polyvocality, and the sign/signal dichotomy. Each vessel, or set of sherds remaining from it, is treated as its own textual unit; this is the first order text. Other texts within the iconography of a vessel text are considered to be second or third order texts.

All texts on a vessel, including the first order text, are classified based on the presence or absence of textuality. Any text can contain multiple other texts or none at all; the conceptual stacking of texts must be considered when attempting to discern meaning. The motifs within a text are broadly classified as symbols; this category can be divided into signals and signs based on whether or not a particular motif is capable of innately conveying meaning through its form.

When textuality is present, the symbols within the text are treated as signs rather than signals; these signs can be polyvocalic and function simultaneously as signals, but at least some aspect of their meaning is derived indirectly through contextual interpretation. In texts without textuality, the symbols can operate as either signals or signs.

Application of my interpretive approach leads to insights requiring a reconceptualization of text and textual boundaries on Ulúa ceramics; this in turn necessitates reconsideration of how

Ulúa iconography and text are constructed and functioned. One of the most important insights yielded by these processes is that a vessel or part of a vessel can function as textual components; that is, they can serve as signs within a textual context. They are capable of functioning as part of 50 the iconography and as part of the message it conveys; they can be components of both texts that have textuality and those without it. Vessels and vessel components can serve as text boundaries, as motifs, and as modifiers to painted iconographic elements; their color (or lack thereof), tactile qualities, and particular form create a polyvocality that likely supplemented innate meanings.

My analytical approach also reveals that individual Ulúa motifs frequently contain polyvocality, textuality, or both. An Ulúa motif is polyvocal when it conveys a general meaning that can be refined by changes to its composition and positioning within a text or larger symbol in relation to other variable symbolic elements; the voice of the motif changes along with its textual context. Orthodox analytical approaches treat individual motifs as single units and largely overlook the components that comprise them; the analytical framework detailed above requires consideration of the elements that make up a motif. A motif can thus be semantically flexible and convey a range of meanings related to general meaning that it inherently conveys; although the cultural grammar needed to access these meanings on a specific level is largely opaque to modern researchers, an understanding of their polyvocal nature allows for the recognition of patterns that, in turn, can help illuminate the cultural grammar.

A motif contains textuality when its meaning is accessible only through the combination of its component parts. Motifs with textuality are different from those with polyvocality because they convey a single, specific meaning created by their constituent elements; they do not have a general meaning that is simply modified to a point within a semantic range by component or contextual variation. The meaning of a motif with textuality is completely dependent upon the specific combination of elements that comprise it; it does not have an inherent meaning that could stand alone without modification. It is also possible for a motif to include both polyvocality and textuality, though such a situation requires consideration of the semantic levels 51 within a single motif. One or more of the component parts in a motif with textuality can be polyvocal; in such cases, the elements comprising the components of a motif need to be carefully considered.

My analytical methodology also sheds light on the role of banding on Ulúa ceramics.

Although bands are not the primary, defining units described by traditional analyses, they are an important part of Ulúa iconography. Bands themselves can be polyvocal; it is probable they had an inherent meaning that could be modified by color, length, and width. Such band features were therefore semantically significant and make it clear that bands are far more nuanced and iconographically complex than the orthodox interpretation allows. It is also probable that some

Ulúa bands had inter-band textuality – the band of red rectangles between two red bands on PM-

671 offers an example of this. Bands on Ulúa ceramics could be composed of multiple motifs that ranged from simple lines of a particular width to geometric shapes and figural elements; it is conceivable that the meaning of some multi-element bands was only apparent when the meaning of each constituent motif is considered together with that of all other motifs.

Ulúa bands can be a meaningful part of any type of textual unit; they can contribute to texts with textuality and to those without it. They are capable of functioning as both signals and signs, and they cannot be treated as completely distinct units. It is possible for bands to mark textual boundaries, as described for both PM-671 and PM-13; this function is similar to the role assigned to bands by traditional analyses, but recognition that a textual boundary is still an active textual component is a significant difference. Bands can demarcate second and third order texts; they can also function as second and third order texts within the broader text represented by a vessel or its surviving sherds. In such cases, motifs within a band function as textual components that create the textual meaning. These texts can assume the same form as the banded fields that 52 dominate orthodox approaches to Ulúa iconography, but banded fields do not always function as texts. They should not be privileged in iconographic analyses and parsing.

53

CHAPTER 5

A PRELIMINARY LEXICON OF ULÚA MEDALLIONS

The preceding discussion of text and textuality in Ulúa iconography, and the use of these features as the foundation for the development of a new analytical methodology, necessitates the identification of a lexicon that houses the constituent iconographic components and information relating to their use in medallion motifs. This lexicon must be based on the linguistic model that has been widely described (see e.g. Haspelmath and Sims 2010). Although Ulúa iconography does not represent a human language, it is a structured system with a bounded set of constituent components that can be combined to form medallions in Ulúa iconographic contexts. This constituent motif set is a distinct subset of Ulúa iconography that overlaps only partially with the iconographic elements that are used elsewhere in ceramic designs. This distinctiveness, combined with the structured way in which these elements are used in medallions, suggests that a lexical structure is the most appropriate way to conceptualize and organize the iconography of

Ulúa medallions.

Structure of the Ulúa Lexicon

A lexicon is the entity that houses and organizes the vocabulary of a language; it is the list of elements that speakers of a language must know in addition to the grammar (Haspelmath and Sims 2010:334). Although it may seem odd to use a linguistic structure for iconographic analysis, the imagery in Ulúa medallions can be conceptualized as a kind of visual language and thus analyzed by means of an adaptation of linguistic models. It should be noted that this visual language does not have any relationship to spoken language – the motifs do not represent spoken language but instead constitute a symbolic system that could be used to visually construct 54 semantically meaningful compositions. The vocabulary of these compositions consists of the iconography that is used to construct them; individual motifs can therefore be thought of as akin to the words of a spoken language. These compositions can then be decoded (i.e. “read”) by those with access to the proper cultural grammar.

The lexeme is the primary component of any lexicon. It encompasses the set of forms that can be taken by a word and is associated with a meaning and a particular syntactic category. It is possible to conceptualize lexemes as abstract concepts that encompass the “core meaning shared by a set of closely related word-forms that form a paradigm” (Haspelmath and Sims 2010:333).

The paradigmatic nature of lexemes is important because it illuminates the interconnectedness of the forms that constitute them and reinforces the fact that lexemes indicate meaning rather than a particular form. The syntactic categories that are used in linguistics are word types (i.e. nouns, verbs, etc.) and phrase types (i.e. noun phrases, verbal phrases, etc.); for Ulúa medallions, the analogous categories are central motifs and framing motifs. All of the iconographic components found in medallions are assigned to one of these two groups, and the lexicon is divided into two categories based on this division.

Each category of lexemes in the medallion lexicon is organized by lemmas. A lemma is the form of a lexeme that functions as the flagship entry for that lexeme and represents all of its forms; it can be thought of as the “dictionary form,” but it does not have to function in that way.

Lexemes, as described above, refer to the set of all word-forms that share the same meaning and belong to the same paradigm. The term lemma refers to the form that is selected to represent the lexeme through the process of lemmatization. Lemmatization involves grouping related inflected forms under a single headword (the lemma) that represents the lexeme. In the present analysis, lemmatization involved the identification of related graphic forms that constitute a paradigm and 55 the designation of the lexeme within the paradigm that is graphically most simple. This simple form is the lemma. There is no implication that it functions differently from the other lexemes; its defining characteristics are the simplicity of its form and its role as the reference form.

The medallion lexicon is organized by groups headed by lemmas because such a structure enables the lexicon to account for and reflect the relatively inflectional nature of Ulúa medallion components. Many elements in Ulúa medallions can be parsed into basic forms that are modified and elaborated (i.e. inflected) to create the range of motifs attested in the iconographic corpus, and structuring the lexicon by paradigms headed by lemmas allows this reality to be reflected.

Although not all lexical analyses use this organizational approach, similar methodologies are described and attested in the linguistic literature (e.g. Gaustad 2004; Goñi and Gonzáles 1996;

Lete, Sprenger-Charolles, and Cole 2004; Radford et. Al. 1999:233).

Every entry in the medallion lexicon consists of a lemma and all of its “inflected” forms.

The lemma is listed first and followed by a catalog of its related lexemes; if no inflectional forms are attested, the lemma is equivalent to the only known lexeme and is listed as a singular entry.

Partial motifs are included in the lexicon if enough distinguishing features to permit their identification are preserved. Given the preliminary stage of the medallion lexicon, preference is given to the differentiation of motifs until connections between them can be established. Ulúa iconography is still too poorly understood to allow for the identification of elements and design features that can function as “inflectional” elements or the discussion the rules that govern their use, but combinatorial patterns should be noted.

Ulúa Lexemes of the Central Type

Ninety distinct lexemes have so far been identified as belonging to the central type. These are presented in paradigms in table 1; the entries are arranged alphabetically by lemma with any 56 associated inflected lexemes positioned after the lemma and arranged in alphabetical order. The lemmas are numerically identified (i.e. 1, 2, 3, etc.) and labeled with all capital letters, while any associated lexemes are identified by number and letter combinations (i.e. 1a, 1b, 1c, etc.) and labeled with lower-case letters. An illustration is given for every entry.

Table 1. Ulúa medallion lexemes and lemmas of the central type.

NUMBER LEXEME ILLUSTRATION

1 BAND

1a Grey Band outlined in Black

2 BAND – THIN

2a Black Thin Band Set

57

3 BEARDED REPTILE HEAD

4 BIRD-BACKED FIGURE

5 BIRD/BAT HEAD

6 CIRCLE – HOLLOW

6a Hollow Circle with Infixed Half Circle

6b Dotted Partial Hollow Circle

58

6c Hollow Circle made from Parallel Lines

7 CIRCLE – SOLID

7a Black Solid Circle

7b Orange Solid Circle

7c Red Solid Circle

8 CROSS

59

8a Checkerboard Cross

8b Circle-Cross with Dots

8c Cross with Dots

8d Dotted and Framed Cross

8e Dotted Separated Cross

8f Hanging Cross

60

8g Incised Parallel Lines Cross

8h Multi-line Cross with Dot

8i Parallel-Lines Cross

9 CROSS HATCHING

10 CROWNED BIRD FIGURE

11 CURVED HOOK

61

11a Curved Hook – Parallel Lines

12 CURVED LINE

13 DIAGONAL DIVIDING LINE

14 DIAMOND

14a Concentric Dotted Diamond Motif

15 DOTS

62

15a Incised Dots

16 DOTTED ARMADILLO

17 EMPTY

18 HALF CIRCLE – HOLLOW

18a Half Circle made from Parallel Lines

19 HALF CIRCLE – SOLID

63

20 HEAD 1

21 HEAD 2

22 HEAD 3

23 HOOK

23a Elongated Hook

64

24 HUNCHED WALKING BIRD

25 KNOT

25a Dotted and Footed Outlined Knot

25b Geometric Knot

25c Simple Knot

26 MONKEY HEAD

65

27 NET-HEAD FIGURE

28 PARALLEL LINES

28a Dotted Converging Parallel Lines

28b Parallel Line Set with Scallops

28c Parallel Line Set with Scrolls 1

28d Parallel Line Set with Scrolls 2

66

29 QUARTER CIRCLE – HOLLOW

30 QUARTER CIRCLE – SOLID

31 QUATREFOIL/K‟IN

32 RECTANGLE

32a Concentric Rectangle with Line of Dots

32b Rectangle with Line of Dots

67

33 REPTILE HEAD 1

34 REPTILE HEAD 2 (rf reptile head 5)

35 SCALLOPS

35a Dotted Scallop Triplet

36 SEGMENTED MONKEY FIGURE

37 SPIRAL

68

38 ST. ANDREWS CROSS

38a Incised St. Andrew‟s Cross

38b St. Andrew‟s Cross in Dots

38c Stepped St. Andrew‟s Cross with Dots

39 STEP SECTION COLUMN

40 STEPPED PYRAMID

69

40a Opposed Step Pyramids with Curls

41 TEARDROP FLOWER

41a Crossed Teardrop Flower with Concentric Circular Center

41b Teardrop flower with outlined dot

42 THREE-QUARTER CIRCLE – HOLLOW

43 TRIANGULAR STYLIZED BIRD

70

44 TRUMPET MOTIF

44a Flowery Trumpet Motif

44b Stylized Trumpet Motif

45 TWIST

45a Dotted-End Twist

45b Footed Twist

71

45c Twist with R Dot at Center

46 WAVY-EDGED SECTION

47 WHOLE MONKEY FIGURE

Ulúa Lexemes of the Framing Type

There are sixty lexemes that have so far been identified as belonging to the framing type.

These are presented in paradigms in table 2; the entries are once again arranged alphabetically by lemma with any associated inflected lexemes positioned after the lemma and arranged by on alphabetical order. The lemmas are numerically identified (i.e. 1, 2, 3, etc.) and labeled with all capital letters, while any associated lexemes are identified by number and letter combinations (i.e.

1a, 1b, 1c, etc.) and labeled with lower-case letters. An illustration is provided for every entry.

72

Table 2. Ulúa medallion lexemes and lemmas of the framing type.

NUMBER LEXEME ILLUSTRATION

1 ABSTRACT FRAME (FRAME FORMED BY BACKGROUND)

2 BAND

2a Band w/ dots and paired parallel lines

2b Black Band

2c Black Band with Dots

73

2d Black Band with Humps

2e Black Band with Knots

2f Black Band with White Design

2g Dark Red Band

2h Incised Band

2i Orange Band

74

2j Red Band

2k Red Band with Black Thin Band as Inner Frame

2l Red Band with Black Thin Band as Outer Frame

2m Red Band with Humps

2n Red Band with Tail

2o White Band

75

3 BAND – THIN

3a Black Thin Band

3b Dark Red Thin Band

3c Orange Thin Band

3d Red Thin Band

3e Red Thin Band with Loops

4 BAND – WIDE

76

4a Black Wide Band

4b Red Wide Band

4c Red Wide Band Outlined in Black

4d White Wide Band

5 BAT FRAME

6 BEAN HEAD BAND

77

7 BEAN HEAD BAND – STYLIZED AND DOTTED

8 BIRD FRAME 1

9 BIRD FRAME 2

10 BIRD FRAME 3

11 BRUSH BAND WITH SCALLOPS

78

12 CASPER FRAME

13 DIVIDED COUNTERS BAND

14 DOT BAND

14a Black Dot Band

14b Red Dot Band

79

15 DOTS

16 FLAMED BAND

16a Dotted Flamed Band 1

16b Dotted Flamed Band 2

16c Flamed Band 1 (Orange flames with a red outline on the outer edge)

80

17 GEOMETRIC BAND (4 Scalloped Hook Sections Divided by 4 Flanked Hollow Rectangles)

18 OVAL BAND

18a Oval Band with Dots

19 PARALLEL LINE SETS BAND

20 PUNCTUATED STEP BAND

81

21 SCALLOPED BAND

21a Dotted Scalloped Band

21b Outlined Scalloped Band

21c Scalloped Band with Red Sections

22 SPIDER FRAME

23 STARBURST BIRD FRAME 1

82

24 STARBURST BIRD FRAME 2

25 STYLIZED BIRD FRAME

26 STYLIZED SERPENT BAND

27 WING BAND WITH BLACK DOTS

83

CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSION

The research presented here combines archaeological and linguistic inquiry to develop a preliminary lexical analysis of the subset of Ulúa iconography that occurs as part of medallion motifs. The methodology used to develop this lexicon approached medallions as a distinct iconographic form and treated the motifs that constitute them as an iconographic subset whose use was governed by issues of textuality. It is a nuanced and uncommon approach and, as such, had to be situated within a broader consideration of the relevant issues. Chapter two reviewed the most significant work in Ulúa archaeology and iconographic studies since investigations first began in the Valley in the late 19th century. Chapter three explored notions of text and textuality and discussed how they can serve as the foundation for a new analytical approach to Ulúa iconography, and chapter four defined Ulúa medallions. Chapter five presented the lexicon itself, along with a discussion of its structure.

A total of 307 samples from the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology at

Harvard University was included in the data set used for the analysis. Each of these has at least one medallion as part of its iconography, and the constituent components of these medallions make up the lexicon that was presented in chapter five. Non-medallion motifs were not included because, although they may relate to medallions in a broader textual manner, they do not relate to the construction of medallions motifs. One hundred fifty lexemes were identified. Ninety of these lexemes belong to the central type and sixty belong to the framing type. Among the lexemes of the central type, forty-seven lemmas were identified; the remaining forty-three central entries are “inflected” forms that are grouped after the lemma to which they are related. 84

Twenty-seven of the lexemes of the framing type are lemmas while the remaining thirty-three lexemes are “inflected” forms.

Such an analysis is crucial for future research because it moves away from the traditional notions of Ulúa iconography as governed by a horizontally banded structure and instead begins to develop a new analytical approach based on concepts of text and textuality. Ulúa iconography functioned as a kind of visual language, and the motifs that constituted it can be conceptualized as the “vocabulary” that was used to construct visual texts. Medallions make use of their own set of these vocabulary items; engaging with lexical subsets such as the one applicable to medallion motifs rather than with the entire corpus of attested iconographic motifs is beneficial because it facilitates the recognition of related lexical groups that can be subsumed under the heading of a lemma and prevents the analytical process from becoming overwhelming. Vocabularies need to be identified and organized before they can be understood; the construction of a lexicon permits this kind of structuring and begins to create the foundation for future studies of both the motifs used to construct Ulúa medallions and the rules that govern this usage.

85

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bakhtin, M. M. The Dialogic Imagination. Ed. Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981.

Baudez, Claude F., and Pierre Becquelin. Archeologie De Los Naranjos, Honduras. Mexico: Mission Archéologique et Ethnologique Française au Méxique, 1973.

Blackiston, A. Hooton. "Archaeological Investigations in Honduras." Records of the Past 9.4 (1910): 194-201.

Boone, Elizabeth Hill, and Walter D. Mignolo, Eds. Writing Without Words: Alternative Literacies in Mesoamerica and the Andes. Durham: Duke University Press, 1994.

Borhegyi, Stephan F. de. "Comments on Incense Burners from Copan, Honduras." American Antiquity 20 (1955): 284-86.

Boyarin, Jonathan, Ed. The Ethnography of Reading. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.

Bullen, Ripley P., and Willian W. Plowden Jr. "Preceramic Archaic Sites in the Highlands of Honduras." American Antiquity 28.3 (1963): 382-85.

Campbell, Lyle, Anne Chapman, and Karen Dakin. "Honduran Lenca." International Journal of American Linguistics 44.4 (1978): 330-32.

Campbell, Lyle. "The Last Lenca." International Journal of American Linguistics 42.1 (1976): 73-78.

Canby, Joel S. "Possible Chronological Implications of the Long Ceramic Sequence Recovered at Yarumela, Spanish Honduras." Selected Papers of the 29th International Congress of Americanists. Ed Sol Tax. Vol. 1. University of Chicago Press, 1949. 79-85.

Carnie, Andrew. Syntax: A Generative Introduction. 2nd ed. Introducing Linguistics 4. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2007.

Chomsky, Noam. Syntactic Structures . The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1957.

Conzemius, Eduard. "On the Aborigines of the Bay Islands (Honduras)." 22 Congresso Internacionale Degli Americanisti . Vol. 2. Rome, 1926. 57-68.

Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. Trans. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977.

86

Dixon, Boyd. "Conflict Along the Southeast Mesoamerican Periphery: A Defensive Wall System at the Site of Tenampua." Interaction on the Southeast Mesoamerican Frontier: Prehistoric and Historic Honduras and El Salvador. Ed. Eugenia J. Robinson. Oxford: BAR International Series, 1987. 142-53.

---. "A Preliminary Settlement Pattern Study of a Prehistoric Cultural Corridor: The Comayagua Valley, Honduras." Journal of Field Archaeology 16 (1989): 257-72.

---. "Prehistoric Political Change on the Southeast Mesoamerican Periphery." Ancient Mesoamerica 3 (1992): 11-25.

Dixon, Boyd, et al. "Formative-Period Architecture at the Site of Yarumela, Central Honduras." Latin American Antiquity 5 (1994): 70-87.

Epstein, Jeremiah. "Dating the Ulua Polychrome Complex." American Antiquity 25.1 (1959): 125-29.

Gaustad, Tanja. "A Lemma-Based Approach to a Maximum Entropy Word Sense Disambiguation System for Dutch." Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling '04) (2004): 778-84.

Gerstle, A. "Ethnic Diversity and Interaction at Copan, Honduras." Interaction on the Southeast Mesoamerican Frontier: Prehistoric and Historic Honduras and El Salvador. Ed. E. J. Robinson. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports, 1987.

Goñi, Jose M., and Jose C. González. "A Framework for Lexical Representation." AI „95: 15th International Conference. Language Engineering 95 (Montpellier, France) : (1996): 243- 52.

Gordon, George Byron. Researches in the Uloa Valley, Honduras Vol. 1. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, 1989.

Hanks, W. F. "Text and Textuality." Annual Review of Anthropology 18 (1989): 95-127.

Hasemann, George, Vito Veliz, and Lori Van Gerpen. Informe Preliminar, Curruste: Fase 1. San Pedro Sula: Instituto Hondureno de Antropologia e Historia, 1978.

Haspelmath, Martin, and Andrea D. Sims. Understanding Morphology. 2002. 2nd ed. Understanding Language Series. London: Hodder Education, 2010.

Hawkes, Terence. Structuralism and Semiotics. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2003.

Henderson, John S., Ed. Archaeology in Northwestern Honduras: Interim Reports of the Proyecto Arqueologico Sula. Ithaca: Cornell University, Latin American Studies Program and Archaeology Program, 1984. 87

---. "Elites and Ethnicity Along the Southeastern Fringe of Mesoamerica." Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment. Eds. Diane Z. Chase and Arlen F. Chase. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992a. 157-68.

---. "Variations on a Theme: A Frontier View of Maya Civilization." New Theories on the Ancient Maya. Eds. E. C. Danien and R. J. Sharer. Philadelphia: University Museum, 1992b. 161-71.

Henderson, John S., and Ricardo Agurcia F. "Ceramic Systems: Facilitating Comparison in Type-Variety Analysis." Maya Ceramics: Papers From the 1985 Maya Ceramics Conference. Eds Prudence M. Rice and Robert J. Sharer. Oxford: B.A.R., 1987.

Henderson, John S., and Marilyn Beaudry-Corbett, Eds. Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras: Regional Classification and Analysis. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 1993.

Henderson, John S., and Kathryn M. Hudson. "The Southeastern Fringe of Mesoamerica." Handbook of Mesoamerican Archaeology. Eds. Christopher Pool and Deborah Nichols. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. In press.

Henderson, John S., et al. "Archaeological Investigations in the Valle de Naco, Northwestern Honduras: A Preliminary Report." Journal of Field Archaeology 6 (1979): 169-92.

Henderson, J. S., et al. "Chemical and Archaeological Evidence for the Earliest Cacao Beverages." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 104.48 (2007): 18937-40.

Hendon, J. A. "The Uses of Maya Structures: A Study of Architecture and Artifact Distribution at Sepulturas, Copan, Honduras.". Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, 1987.

Hirth, Kenneth, Gloria Lara Pinto, and George Hasemann. Archaeological Research in the El Cajon Region. Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, Department of Anthropology, 1989.

Howry, Jeffrey C. "Ethnographic Realities of Mayan Prehistory." Cultural Continuity in Mesoamerica. Ed. David L. Browman. Chicago: Mouton Publishers, 1978.

Joyce, Rosemary A. Travesia (CR 35): Archaeological Investigations, 1983. Report submitted to the Proyecto Arqueológico Sula of the Instituto Hondureńo de Antropología e Historia. Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 1983.

---. "Terminal Classic Interaction on the Southeastern Maya Periphery." American Antiquity 51.2 (1986): 313-29.

88

---. Cerro Palenque: Power and Identity on the Maya Periphery. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1991.

---. "The Construction of the Maya Periphery and the Mayoid Image of Honduran Polychromes." Reinterpreting Prehistory of Central America. Ed. M. M. Graham. Niwot: University Press of Colorado, 1993. 51-101.

Joyce, R. A., and J. S. Henderson. "Beginnings of Village Life in Eastern Mesoamerica." Latin American Antiquity 12.1 (2001): 5-23.

---. "La Arqueologica Del Periodo Formativo En Honduras: Nuevos Datos Sobre El «Estilo Olmeca» En La Zona Maya." Mayab 15 (2002): 5-17.

---. "Being "Olmec" in Early Formative Period Honduras." Ancient Mesoamerica 21.1 (2010): 187-200.

Kennedy, Hugh Gerald. Honduran Babilonia Polychrome Ceramics From the Manchester Museum. London: Department of Prehistory, Institute of Archaeology, University College London, 1987.

Kennedy, Nedenia. "Acerca De La Frontera En Playa De Los Muertos, Honduras." Yaxkin 2.3 (1978): 203-15.

---. "La Cronologia Ceramica Del Formativo De Playa De Los Muertos, Honduras." Yaxkin 3.4 (1980a): 265-72.

---. "The Formative Period Ceramic Sequence From Playa De Los Muertos, Honduras.". University of Illinois - Urbana, 1980b.

---. "The Periphery Problem and Playa De Los Muertos: a Test Case." The Southeast Maya Periphery. Eds. P. A. Urban and E. Schortman. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1986. 179-93.

Knowles, Gerry, and Zuraidah Mohd Don. "The Notion of a "Lemma": Headwords, Roots, and Lexical Sets." International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9.1 (2004): 69-81.

Lete, Bernard, Liliane Sprenger-Charolles, and Pascale Cole. "MANULEX: A Grade-Level Lexical Database From French Elementary School Readers." Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36.1 (2004): 156-66.

Lincoln, Charles. "Architectural Test Excavations at Travesia, Honduras." Human Mosaic 13 (1979): 15-24.

Longyear III, John M. Cultures and Peoples of the Southeastern Maya Frontier. Theoretical Approaches to Problems Series. Cambridge: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1947.

89

---. Copan Ceramics: A Study of Southeastern Maya Pottery. Washington D. C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1952.

Marcus, Joyce. "The Origins of Mesoamerican Writing ." Annual Review of Anthropology 5 (1976): 35-67.

Nielson, Jesper, and James E. Brady. "The Couple in the Cave: Origin Iconography on a Ceramic Vessel from Los Naranjos, Honduras." Ancient Mesoamerica 17.2 (2006): 203-17.

Peirce, Charles Sanders. "What Is a Sign?" The Essential Peirce, Volume 2: Selected Philosophical Writings, 1893-1913. Eds. Nathan Houser, et al. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998. 4-10.

Poponoe, Dorothy H. "Some Excavations at Playa De Los Muertos, Ulua River, Honduras." Maya Research: Mexico and Central America 1.2 (1934): 61-86.

Preucel, Robert W. Archaeological Semiotics. Social Archaeology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

Quilter, Jeffrey. "The Narrative Approach to Moche Iconography." Latin American Antiquity 8.2 (1997): 113-33.

Radford, Andrew, et al. Linguistics: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Riles, Annelise, Ed. Documents: Artifacts of Modern Knowledge. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006.

Robb, John E. "The Archaeology of Symbols." Annual Review of Archaeology 27 (1998): 329- 46.

Robinson, Eugenia J. "Maya Design Features of Mayoid Vessels If the Ulua-Yojoa Polychromes.". Tulane University, 1978.

---. "The Prehistoric Communities of the Sula Valley, Honduras: Regional Interaction in the Southeast Mesoamerican Frontier.". Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, 1989.

Robinson, Eugenia, George Hasemann, and Vito Veliz. "An Archaeological Evaluation of Travesia, Honduras." Human Mosaic 13 (1979): 1-14.

Schortman, Edward, and Patricia A. Urban, Eds. Sociopolitical Hierarchy and Craft Production: The Economic Bases of Elite Power in a Late Classic Southeastern Polity 3: The 1992 Naco Valley Season. Tegucigalpa: Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia, 1994.

90

Schortman, Edward M., et al. "Interregional Interaction in the Southeast Maya Periphery: The Santa Barbara Archaeological Project 1983-1984 Seasons." Journal of Field Archaeology 13 (1986): 259-72.

Sheehy, James. "Preclassic Artifacts from Choloma, Cortes, Honduras." Las Fronteras De Mesoamerica, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia, XIV Mesa Redonda 2.1 (1976): 221- 28.

---. "Informe Preliminar Sobre Las Excavaciones in Travesia En 1976." Yaxkin 2.3 (1978): 175- 202.

Sheehy, James, and Vito Veliz. "Excavaciones Recientes En Travesia, Valle De Sula." Yaxkin 2.2 (1977): 121-24.

Shepard, Anna O. Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1971.

Silverstein, Michael, and Greg Urban, Eds. Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Street, Brian. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Stone, Doris Zemurray. "A New Southernmost Maya City." Maya Research: Mexico and Central America 1.2 (1934): 125-28.

---. Archaeology of the North Coast of Honduras. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 9. Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 1941.

---. The Archaeology of Central and Southern Honduras. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 49. Cambridge: The Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, 1957.

Strong, William Duncan, Alfred Kidder, and A. J. Drexel Paul. Preliminary Report on the Smithsonian Institution-Harvard University Archaeological Expedition to Northwestern Honduras, 1936. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 97. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1938.

Urban, Patricia A., and Edward M. Schortman, Eds. The Southeast Maya Periphery. Austin: The University of Texas Press, 1986.

Viel, Rene. "Etude De La Ceramique Ulua-Yojoa Polychrome (Nord-Ouest Du Honduras): Essai D'Analyse Stylistique Du Babilonia.". Universite Rene Descartes, 1975.

Volosinov, V. N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Trans. Ladislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986. 91

Whorf, Benjamin Lee. Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Ed. John B. Carroll. New York: The Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1956.

Wonderley, Anthony. "Late Postclassic Excavations at Naco, Honduras." Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Cornell University, 1981.

---. "The Land of Ulua: Research in the Naco and Sula Valleys, Honduras." The Lowland Maya Postclassic. Eds. A. F. Chase and Prudence M. Rice. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1985.

---. "Material Symbolics in Pre-Columbian Households: The Painted Pottery of Naco, Honduras." Journal of Anthropological Research 42.4 (1986): 497-534.

---. "The Late Preclassic Sula Plain, Honduras: Regional Antecedents to Social Complexity and Interregional Convergence in Ceramic Style." The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica. Ed. William R. Fowler. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 1991. 143-69.

Yde, Jens. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Northwestern Honduras: A Report on the Work of the Tulane University-Danish National Museum Expedition to Central America. Acta Archaeologica 9. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard/Ejnar Munksgaard, 1938.