The Pennsylvania State University the Graduate School College of The

The Pennsylvania State University

The Graduate School

College of the Liberal Arts

AN EXAMINATION OF THE UAPALA-USULUTÁN CERAMIC SPHERE

USING INSTRUMENTAL NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS

A Dissertation in

Anthropology

Craig Thomas Goralski

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

December 2008

The dissertation of Craig Thomas Goralski was reviewed and approved* by the following:

Kenneth G. Hirth Professor of Archaeological Anthropology Dissertation Adviser Chair of Committee

David L. Webster Professor of Archaeological Anthropology

Lee A. Newsom Associate Professor of Archaeological Anthropology

Barry E. Scheetz Professor of Civil Engineering

Dean R. Snow

Professor of Anthropology

Chair of the Graduate Program in Anthropology

*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School

ABSTRACT

This thesis summarizes an examination of the Uapala-Usulután Ceramic Sphere using

Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA). Usulután pottery is found at sites within chiefdoms throughout El Salvador and portions of Honduras during the Late Formative to Early

Classic transition (400 BC – AD 250). Usulután pottery can be divided into two type-varieties:

Izalco Usulután and Bolo Orange. Both type-varieties distinctive for their burnished surface and orange on cream resist decoration. Izalco Usulután is made with fine textured cream colored clays. Bolo Orange is made with medium to fine texture buff to orange colored clays. Although they are similar in appearance, each type has a different pattern of distribution throughout this region. These patterns of distribution have lead researchers to argue for increased interaction among the chiefdoms. The region marked by this interaction is called the Uapala Ceramic

Sphere. While some level of interaction is agreed upon, the specific behaviors that caused these patterns has been debated.

This thesis identifies patterns of Usulután production and distribution using INAA, which measures the chemical composition of pottery by bombarding samples with neturons through irradiation and then measuring the characteristic energy released by different elements as they release them. The amounts of different elements for each sample are used to group sherds statistically based on compositional similarity. Examination of these groups can identify loci of production and the subsequent movement of pots from these loci to where they are used and deposited.

A total of 229 Usulután sherds were submitted to INAA and their chemical compositions were compared. Grouping based on compositional similarities revealed that the majority of

iii

Usulután pottery in the Uapala Ceramic Sphere was made locally, although the majority of regions within the sphere either exported or imported Usulután pottery in varying amounts.

These patterns of production and distribution suggest that a combination of exchange and stylistic emulation lead to the Uapala Ceramic Sphere.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures………………………...……………………………….………………………….xi List of Tables…………………………..…………………………….…………………………..xv Acknowledgements…………………………………………………...……………………...... xvi

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………...…….………………..…1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….1 Research Objectives………………………………………...…...………………………..7 Trade and Exchange in Complex Societies...... 8 Research Methodology……………………………………...... ………………………....13 Results……………………………………………………...... …………………………..16 Thesis Organization……………………………………..…..…………………………...18

Chapter 2. USULUTÁN POTTERY……………………...……………………………………..21 Introduction………………………………………...………………………………….....21 Description and Characteristics……………………..……………………………….…..21 Method of Manufacture and History of Investigation……………..………………….…37 Type-Variety Description – Sharer’s Izalco Usulután: Izalco…….…………………….40 Usulután Pottery: Range, Types and Frequencies………………….…………………...43 El Salvador…………………………………………………………….…………………45 El Salvador – Chalchuapa………………………………………….………….....45 El Salvador – Santa Leticia…………………………………………….………...47 El Salvador – Quelepa…………………………………………………….……..49 Honduras………………………………………………………….….…………………..51 Honduras – Naco Valley…………………………………………………………51 Honduras – Lake Yojoa………………………………………………...……..…52

Honduras – Ulua Valley………………………………………………………….53 Honduras – El Cajon………………………………………………………..……56 Honduras – Comayagua Valley…………………………………………….....…57 Honduras – Copan Valley…………………………………………………..……57 Guatemala…………………………………………………………………………..……60 Belize……………………………………….…………………………………………....61 Summary of Distribution and Sites of Manufacture…………………………………….62 Loci of Production………………………………………….…………………………....66 Context: Usulután Pottery Consumption………………………………………………...71 Type Variety and Modal Analysis of Usulután Pottery…………….…………………...73 Conclusion……………………………………………………….……………………...78

Chapter 3: THE UAPALA CERAMIC SPHERE: SITES AND REGIONS.…...... ….……….79 Introduction……………………………………………………………….……………..79 Interaction Sphere Concept...... 79 Interaction Spheres and the Ceramic Sphere Concept...... 84 The Uapala Ceramic Sphere………………………………………………………….....88 The Uapala Ceramic Sphere: Regional Profiles……………………………………..….96 Comayagua Valley……………………………………………………....……....96 The Ulua Valley……………………………………………………………...…101 Lake Yojoa Region…………………………….…………………………….....108 Naco Valley…………………………………….……………………………....113 Santa Barbara Region……………………….……………………………….....116 El Cajon Region…………………………………………………………...……118 Copan and the Copan Valley...... 121 El Salvador…………………………………………………………………………...…123 Santa Leticia………………………………………………………………….....123

Chalchuapa…………………………………………………………………..…126 Quelepa………………………………………………………………………....128 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..….130

Chapter 4: INAA AND PETROGRAPHY...... 131 Introduction...... 131 History of Petrographic Analysis and Current Methodology...... 133 Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis: History and Methodology...... 136 The Early Years: 1960’s and 1970’s...... 137 The 1980’s...... 144 The 1990’s...... 157 Historical Overview – INAA...... 166 Conclusion...... 168

Chapter 5: METHODS...... 170 Introduction...... 170 INAA with the Smithsonian/NIST Partnership...... 172 INAA Procedures – Smithsonian/NIST...... 173 Smithsonian/NIST Sample Preparation and Irradiation...... 174 Smithsonian/NIST Statistical Procedures...... 175 Recent Criticisms of INAA...... 179 A Dual Approach: Petrography and INAA...... 183 Summary of Dissertation Research Methodology...... 185 Preliminary Petrographic Research...... 185 The Analytical Sample: Spatial Extent...... 186 Sampling Contexts...... 187 Vessel Form and Chronological Issues...... 189

vii

Sampling of Existing Collections in Honduras and the United States...... 191 Sample Coding Protocol...... 194 Conclusion...... 200

Chapter 6: USULUTÁN POTTERY IN THE NORTHERN UAPALA CERAMIC SPHERE..202 Introduction...... 202 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Coding Database...... 203 Coded Sherd Data Summary – All Sherds...... 205 Coded Sherd Data Summary and Interpretation – Specific Types/Varieties...... 208 Summary and Interpretation – Bolo Orange...... 208 Summary and Interpretation – Izalco Usulután...... 216 General Observations on Usulután Pottery...... 221 Conclusion...... 226

Chapter 7: RESULTS OF INAA OF USULUTÁN POTTERY...... 227 Introduction...... 227 Results: Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis...... 227 Cluster Analysis Results and Compositional Group Refinement...... 231 Refined Compositional Group Analysis...... 235 Interpretations of Production and Distribution Based On Refined Compositional Group Membership...... 241 Refined Group 1...... 242 Refined Group 2...... 243 Refined Group 3...... 244 Refined Group 4...... 245 Refined Group 5...... 246 Refined Group 6...... 247

viii

Refined Group 7...... 248 Refined Group 8...... 248 Refined Group 9...... 249 Refined Group 10...... 250 Refined Group 11...... 250 Refined Group 12...... 251 Refined Group 15...... 252 Refined Group 15.2...... 253 Refined Group 16...... 253 Refined Group 16.2...... 254 Conclusion...... 262

Chapter 8: INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS...... 271 Introduction...... 271 The Uapala Ceramic Sphere: Patterns of Production and Distribution...... 273 The Trade Sphere Model...... 274 Local Production and Emulation...... 275 Regional Production and Interregional Exchange...... 276 Redefining the Uapala Ceramic Sphere: Usulután as an Interregional Exchange Good...... 278 Elite Use of Usulután Pottery: Serving, Feasting and Gifting...... 283 Using INAA to Examine Ceramic Production and Distribution at the Regional Level...... 286

References…………………………………………………....…….…………………………...289

Appendix A: Ceramic Coding Sheets for Ceramic Analysis.....……………………………...... 313 Appendix B: Sherd Coding Data...... ………………………………….…322 Appendix C: Usulután Database from NIST/Smithsonian with Summaries by Type/Variety....373 Appendix D: Clustered Sherd Groups Following INAA...... 395 Appendix E: Refined Sherd Groups Following INAA...... 401 Appendix F: Summaries of Elemental Data for Refined Groups 1-16...... 406

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Izalco Usulután:Usulután Variety flat bottomed plate………………………………....2 Figure 2. Izalco Usulután: Usulután Variety jar……………………………….…………..……...3 Figure 3. Map of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere...... ……………..…………………...3 Figure 3a. Regions and Sites with Significant Amounts of Usulután Pottery Within the Uapala Ceramic Sphere...... 14 Figure 4. Puxtla Usulután from Santa Leticia, El Salvador……………………………………...... ………………...... 24 Figure 5. Jicalapa and Olocuitla Usulután from Santa Leticia, El Salvador ………………….....25 Figure 6. Izalco Usulután Flaring-Wall Bowls with Nubbin Supports from Quelepa, El Salvador...... 26 Figure 7. Puxtla Incised Usulután: Puxtla Variety from Chalchuapa, El Salvador...... …………………………………….....27 Figure 8. Jicalapa Usulután: Jicalapa Variety from Chalchuapa, El Salvador…………....……..27 Figure 9. Izalco Usulután: Izalco Variety from Chalchuapa, El Salvador…...... …………..…….28 Figure 10: Izalco Usulután: Santo Domingo Variety from the Naco Valley, Honduras……...... 29 Figure 11. Muerdalo Orange: Rio Pelo Variety from the Lower Ulua Valley, Honduras...... ……………………………29 Figure 12. Rim Profiles and Supports for Zarrosa Orange: Zarrosa Variety from the Lower Ulua Valley, Honduras………………………...... ………………..30 Figure 13. Muerdalo Orange: Remolino Variety from the Lower Ulua Valley, Honduras.....………………………………………………………...... 30 Figure 14. Izalco Usulután Barandillal Variety from the Santa Barbara region, Honduras…...... 31 Figure 15. Muerdalo Orange-related outflaring walled bowl from the El Cajon region, Honduras...... ………………………………………….....31 Figure 16. Muerdalo Orange-related shallow dish from the El Cajon region, Honduras...... …32 Figure 17. Izalco Usulután from the Copan Valley…………………………………...... ………33 Figure 18. Rim Profiles for Jars with Usulután Decoration from Quelepa, El Salvador…..…….34

Figure 19. Fine textured, Temperless Cream Paste, Muerdalo Orange-related Sherd Profile from El Cajon region, Honduras…………...... ………35 Figure 20. Medium textured Bolo Orange sherd profile from El Cajon region, Honduras ………...... ……...…36 Figure 21. Map of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere (Demarest 1986)……………………………….89 Figure 22. Map of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere (Robinson 1988)……………………………….92 Figure 23. Map of the Comayagua Valley…………………………………………………….....97 Figure 24. Map of Yarumela, Comayagua Valley…………………………………………...…..98 Figure 25. Map of the Ulua Valley………………………………………………………..……102 Figure 26. Rio Pelo site map, Ulua Valley……………………………………………………..103 Figure 27. La Guacamaya site map, Ulua Valley…………………………………………...….105 Figure 28. Lake Yojoa Region, Honduras…………………………………………………...…109 Figure 29. Los Naranjos site map, Lake Yojoa region…………………………………………111 Figure 30. Map of the Naco Valley………………………………………………………….…113 Figure 31. La Sierra site map, Naco Valley…………………………………………………….114 Figure 32. Gualjoquito site map, Santa Barbara region………………………………………...117 Figure 33. Map of the El Cajon Region………………………………………………………...119 Figure 34. Santa Leticia site map……………………………………………………………….124 Figure 35. Discriminant Function Plot or Refined Groups 1 through 12...... 237 Figure 36. Discriminant Function Plot Showing the Similarity

Among Refined Groups 10, 11, and 12...... 238

Figure 37. Discriminant Plot of Refined Compositional Groups...... 240

Figure 38. Refined Group 1, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database...... 243

Figure 39. Refined Group 2, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database...... 244

xii

Figure 40. Refined Group 3, including samples submitted by the author

and those in the NIST database...... 245

Figure 41. Refined Group 4, including samples submitted by the author

and those in the NIST database...... 246

Figure 42. Refined Group 5, including samples submitted by the author

and those in the NIST database...... 247

Figure 43. Refined Group 6, including samples submitted by the author

and those in the NIST database...... 247

Figure 44. Refined Group 7, including samples submitted by the author

and those in the NIST database...... 248

Figure 45. Refined Group 8, including samples submitted by the author

and those in the NIST database...... 249

Figure 46. Refined Group 9, including samples submitted by the author

and those in the NIST database...... 249

Figure 47. Refined Group 10, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database...... 250

Figure 48. Refined Group 11, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database...... 251

Figure 49. Refined Group 12, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database...... 252

Figure 50. Refined Group 15, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database...... 252

xiii

Figure 51. Refined Group 15.2, including samples submitted by the author

and those in the NIST database...... 253

Figure 52. Refined Group 16, including samples submitted by the author

and those in the NIST database...... 253

Figure 53. Refined Group 16.2, including samples submitted by the author

and those in the NIST database...... 254

Figure 54. The Uapala Ceramic Sphere with El Salvadoran and Honduran sub-spheres...... 256

Figure 55. The El Salvadoran and Honduran sub-spheres, El Cajon-Comayagua

sub-sphere added...... 258

Figure 56. The El Salvadoran, Honduran, El Cajon - Comayagua sub-spheres,

with Northwestern Uapala – Guatemalan sub-sphere added...... 260

Figure 57. The El Salvadoran, Honduran, El Cajon – Comayagua,

Northwestern Uapala – Guatemalan, and Comayagua-based sub-sphere added...... 262

Figure 58. Plot of (Iron) Fe and Cr (Chromium) values for all NIST database samples...... 275

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Major Sites and Regions Reporting Usulután Pottery...... ………………………...…...44 Table 2. Usulután decorated types and varieties, sorted by paste, slip…………………...... 64-65 Table 3. Usulután decorated types and varieties in the NIST database by frequency……..264-265 Table 4. Usulután decorated types and varieties in the NIST Database by site…...... …266-269 Table 5. Canonical Discriminant Functions and Elemental Loadings...... 270 Table 6. Chart showing Refined Compositional Group Membership by Region...... 288

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many people to thank for their assistance, guidance, patience and support. First and foremost I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Ken Hirth, for all of his help and guidance throughout the dissertation process. From the development of the initial research design that lead to this project through the analysis and editing process, your help in bringing this research to fruition cannot be understated. Many thanks to committee members, past and present for their participation and support: current members Dr. David Webster, Dr. Lee Newsom, Dr.

Barry Scheetz, and former committee member Dr. Frances Hayashida for her early input. A special thanks to the graduate students, staff and faculty at the Department of Anthropology,

Penn State University. They have all contributed to making it a special place to learn and grow.

Early financial support for this research was provided through grants from the research and

Graduate Studies Office (RGSO) and Department of Anthropology.

My deepest appreciation goes to Drs. Pat Urban and Ed Schortman (Kenyon College) for sharing pottery, ideas and interpretations stemming from their various projects. Their openness and willingness to share data is a model for other archaeologists to emulate. Many thanks to Dr.

Ron Bishop and Dr. James Blackman (NIST/Smithsonian partnership) for their assistance in the application of INAA. Specials thanks are due to Ron, whose belief in the importance of this research and willingness to support it both financially and personally was crucial to its success.

This research was carried out under contract with the Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e

Historia and I am gracious for their continued support of archaeology throughout Honduras, regardless of time and place. Special thanks go to the staff of the Comayagua Regional Museum and the people of Comayagua, La Paz and Miravalle.

xvi

This dissertation would not have been completed with the love and support of friends and family. You are too numerous to mention by name here, but your unwavering belief in me over the years lifted my spirits more times than I can count. Finally, special recognition must be given to the late Dr. LeRoy Joesink-Mandeville (California State University Fullerton). He continues to be a mentor in the true sense of the word. Despite the support and input of everyone mentioned above, any errors or shortcomings in this dissertation are the author’s alone.

xvii

Chapter 1 – Introduction

Introduction

The goal of this dissertation is to determine whether the presence of Usulután pottery at sites within the Uapala Ceramic Sphere is the result of a single or multiple spheres of ceramic production and distribution. Between the Late Formative to Early Classic Period transition (400

BC – AD 250), sites in what are now western, northern and central Honduras and Eastern El

Salvador used a pottery type referred to as Usulután. Usulután ceramics are an important component of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere, occurring in a range of contexts and at sites of differing size and function. Usulután is easily recognized in the archaeological record because of its distinctive orange and cream appearance, resist decoration, and narrow range of medium to fine pastes (Figures 1 and 2). Usulután ceramics have a long history of investigation throughout

Southeastern Mesoamerica, are widely reported throughout the sphere and are thought to have played a significant role in both local and regional political economies. However, whether this type was produced locally or represents a trade ware has remained largely unanswered. This project employs chemical compositional methods in order to identify patterns of ceramic production and distribution. These patterns are used to assess whether the Uapala Ceramic

Sphere represents a large single sphere of ceramic exchange or multiple spheres of more localized exchange, and the effects these patterns of production had on political economies at the local and regional levels.

Figure 1. Izalco Usulután: Usulután Variety flat bottomed plate from El Salvador.

(http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/elsalvad/ti/00000031.jpg)

Figure 2. Izalco Usulután: Usulután Variety jar from El Salvador.

(http://exchanges.state.gov/culprop/elsalvad/ti/00000033.jpg)

The Uapala Ceramic Sphere (see Chapter 2) was first proposed by Andrews (1977), who

used the ceramic sphere concept to explain broad similarities in ceramic complexes at sites

within a boundary encompassing nearly 30,000 sq. km (Figure 3). The sphere was dominated by chiefdom societies whose elite figures controlled or influenced entire valleys or portions of valleys. Primate sites within two or three-tiered settlement hierarchies are common within these chiefdom societies, as are abundant signs of ranking. Culturally, the majority of the sites within the sphere are thought to have been Lenca speaking, although along the western border of the sphere inhabitants are likely to have been Maya speakers. There is considerable differentiation from region to region within the sphere in terms of site planning, household architecture and

3 material goods, and ceramic complexes tend to show more differences than similarities (see

Chapter 4).

Figure 3. Map of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere (Robinson 1988)

Despite these differences in location and cultural trajectories, Andrews identified the presence of similar pottery throughout the sphere and suggested that these similarities reflected some level of cultural contact. Within the sphere, the most widely shared pottery is Usulután.

Usulután refers to several ceramic types exhibiting medium to fine paste and distinctive resist

decoration incorporating orange and cream hues (see Chapter 3). Usulután occurs in varying frequencies throughout the sphere, with some regions reporting significant amounts of Usulután within ceramic complexes and others reporting only minimal amounts of the type, suggesting that the desire or ability to procure or produce this type differed significantly from region to region. Reflecting on his research at Quelepa (Figure 3), Andrews (1970, 1971) noted that

Usulután has stylistic antecedents in some portions of El Salvador, but these stylistic antecedents

were absent in the rest of the sphere. He used these patterns of Usulután precursors to suggest

that sites in the southwest of the sphere such as Quelepa may have played a central role in both

the development of Usulután and for the sphere as a whole.

Researchers after Andrews have expanded on the Uapala Ceramic Sphere concept, with

some arguing for more than one sphere (Robinson 1988) and others musing on the meaning of

the sphere in terms of behavior (Wonderley 1991). Although the Uapala Ceramic Sphere concept

itself has been discussed, investigations of production, distribution and consumption have not

been furthered since Andrews’ early thoughts. Instead, a number of competing models have been

proposed that could be used to explain the presence of Usulután in the sphere. It is possible that

ceramic production took place in a single locus in some portion of the sphere and that the

ceramics produced in this location were traded over long distances to sites in the sphere. It is also

possible that Usulután’s presence is the result of widespread emulation of the Usulután

decorative techniques, and trade, if any, was localized. It is also possible that production occurred in several locations within the sphere together with a moderate degree of trade. Of course, these different models carry with them significant differences in economic, political and

social behavior, and determining which of these scenarios is best supported by the data will shed

much light on a number of cultural processes.

The study of trade in this portion of the Southeastern Mesoamerican Periphery during the

Late Formative to Early Classic period transition is important for a number of reasons.

Discerning whether Usulután ceramics distribution was the result of long-distance trade or more localized patterns of production and distribution serves to characterize the political economies of sites and regions within the sphere. The ability of elites to control the importation and distribution of imported prestige goods from a significant distance versus their ability to sponsor or otherwise control localized production and distribution reflect differing political, economic and ideological strategies at the site and polity levels (see Chapter 2). By characterizing this segment of the political economies within the sphere, it is possible to eliminate some models for the maintenance of social complexity in favor of others.

The study of trade is also important within this region because many of the sites in this

region are located in the Comayagua Depression, one of the few geographic features promoting north-south migration across an otherwise hostile landscape. This portion of the Southeastern

Mesoamerican Periphery has long been characterized as an intermediate area, with culture traits from Mesoamerica, Lower Central America and South America passing through this region to influence cultural trajectories to both the north and south. Explanations of how these cultural traits were transmitted remains speculative at best. By understanding how culture traits within the sphere spread and were maintained, this study provides one explanation of how influences from regions to the north and south may have been transmitted across this intermediate area.

Research Objectives

This project was designed in order to test three alternative models for the presence of

Usulután ceramics throughout the Uapala Ceramic Sphere:

1) The trade sphere model - Usulután was produced at a single locus somewhere

within the ceramic sphere, with its distribution reflecting long distance trade

within a single ceramic sphere.

2) Local manufacture and emulation - Usulután pottery was locally produced at

many sites within the Uapala ceramic sphere, with this production traveling

little to no distance from loci of production to where it was consumed.

3) Regional production and interregional exchange – this model proposes that

Usulután was produced at some or all of the sites within the Uapala Ceramic

Sphere, but this production alone does not constitute all of the Usulután

pottery present. Both local production and foreign production that was

exchanged locally are represented.

It should be noted, however, that the behavioral implications of the third model can vary widely. Proportions of local Usulután production versus imported Usulután may indicate differing levels of interest or ability to conduct long-distance trade within the sphere.

Additionally, one portion of the sphere may be explained by a scenario in which all Usulután was imported from a distance, while other portions of the sphere may have produced their own

Usulután for local consumption.

Trade and Exchange in Complex Societies

The three alternative models presented above can be considered reasonable explanations

for the patterns of Usulután distribution seen throughout the Uapala Ceramic Sphere because a

robust body of trade and exchange theory and its archaeological and ethnoarchaeological applications has shown that in complex societies such as chiefdoms, regional stylistic patterns

can often be the result of long-distance exchange. Although ethnoarchaeological work among the

Kalinga by Longacre and his colleagues (Longacre et al. 1988, Longacre and Stark 1992, Stark

1992) reminds us that goods are capable of moving moderate distances without any involvement

by anyone other than the manufacturers themselves, many explanations for regional patterns of

material culture among complex societies argue for some level of outside influence or control

(Frankenstein and Rowlands 1978, Kipp and Schortman 1989).

One such explanation is the political model argued by Brumfiel and Earle (1987), who

suggest that elites organize the specialized production of goods and their exchange to create and

maintain social inequality, strengthen political coalitions, and fund new institutions of control.

The links between production, exchange and power in complex societies was further argued by

Blanton et al (1996). Blanton and his colleagues argued that those in power in complex societies

maintain their position through two general strategies: exclusionary, in which individuals seek to

monopolize power, and corporate, in which individuals seek to organize the distribution of

power as managers within a prescribed power structure. Key to both strategies is influence or

control over production and how that production is distributed. In Early and Middle Formative

periods in Mesoamerica, Blanton and his colleagues argue that a common way that this control

was achieved was through the sponsorship or control of long-distance exchange. Sought after

goods brought in from a distance were used or displayed in feasts or given as gifts, which served

8 to both cement relationships among elites and differentiate elites from non-elites in

Mesoamerican complex societies.

Feasts are an effective way to assert claims of power and status and are well documented both ethnographically and archaeologically (Dietler and Hayden 2001, Wiessner and

Schiefenhovel 1996), especially in chiefdoms (Blitz 1993, Cobb 2003, Dye 1995, Hockett 1998,

Junker 2001, Welch 1991, Welch and Scarry 1995).

The importance of feasting events has been defined in a number of ways by researchers.

Several researchers (Blake and Clark 1999, Clark and Blake 1994, Costin and Earle 1989,

Hayden 1995) have noted that evidence for feasting appears at the same time as evidence for emerging elites, and that the political, economic and social behaviors that are required for regular feasts contribute to the permanency of status distinctions. For example, Hayden (1990) argues that highly competitive individuals in chiefdoms sought to accumulate foodstuffs in order to redistribute them in specialized events. In societies in which there are corporate land use rights and/or shared group ownership of tools or facilities integral to the collection of food, these

‘accumulators’ spur the increased exploitation of a resource. Their roles as administrators or spokesmen at times of communal gathering provide the opportunity to take credit for particularly large harvests or other periods of resource abundance. By linking themselves to abundant food collection, these accumulators have the opportunity to exert economic leverage on their corporate supporters. In this way, the emergence of social stratification and increased food collection are linked, with outright food production in a socially complex setting often the end result.

Others define the importance of feasting in terms of how already existing social inequalities are maintained and reinforced. Brumfiel (1987) notes that in Late Prehispanic

Central Mexico, feasts were matters of both political and social importance. Feasting marked the

succession of rule in kingdoms and noble houses, and feasts were conducted to facilitate the

internal administration of political units. Feasts were also the pretext for the redistribution of

exotic foodstuffs and currency to administrative and service personnel, and were often held as a forum for the discussion of local and regional affairs. In pre-state Mexico, feasts were more abundant and localized, serving as mechanisms for the definition and negotiation of social status and political power. Instead of being held in palace or administrative contexts, pre-state feasts would have been more household based, with the negotiations among elite members of these societies being less ostentatious, less codified and less a matter of public record than the state level feasts that followed.

In the archaeological record, feasting is commonly argued based on three general lines of evidence: food remains, ceramic data and identification of special purpose structures or architecture (for a synthetic study using all of these, see Pauketat et al 2002). Because feasts require large quantities of foodstuffs, and may include exotic or rare ‘prestige’ foods, they often leave behind faunal or botanical evidence that is easily distinguishable from common household consumption. Feasting can be visible in the archaeological record as large single deposition episodes of animal remains, shells, or organic materials. One can also expect to see a narrowing of the diversity of species represented in a deposit, as those holding the feast seek to share large quantities of the same food. Additionally, one might expect to see a less skewed skeletal representation of animal parts, as chiefs or other elites seek to minimize the high costs of feasts by maximizing the amount of meat from as few animals as possible.

In Mesoamerica, where post-depositional conditions often result in the loss of some or all of the organic material at an archaeological site, feasting has been more commonly argued on the

10 basis of ceramic data. At the site of Huexotla in the eastern Valley of Mexico, Brumfiel (1987) examined patterns of pottery distribution within an elite urban core and nearby piedmont.

Excavation units within the urban core dated to both prior and after Aztec domination. The piedmont portion of the site was only occupied after Aztec control and integration into the empire.

During the Late Postclassic Period, serving vessels, defined by Brumfiel as thin-walled vessels with shapes suitable for the serving of food and drink, dominated all ceramic wares at the site. Based on the frequency of identifiable rim sherds, 65% of the sherds excavated were orange and red ware service vessels, with hemispherical bowls and dishes with supports constituting

88% of the orange ware and hemispherical bowls constituting 96% of the red wares. These pottery types are labor intensive and were likely manufactured by specialists. She notes that urban portion of the site has much more serving vessels (34% more identifiable rim sherds) than does the piedmont during the same period. She interprets these higher numbers of serving vessels in the urban core as evidence for the use of serving vessels in feasting behavior among elites residing in the core.

A comparison of the amounts and frequency of serving vessels during the early and late periods of occupation at the site reveals that while the overall frequency of serving vessels did not change, decorated serving vessels are 17% less common in the later contexts. If, as Brumfiel argues, the decorated serving vessels were the types most likely to have been used by elites in feasting behavior, one can interpret a significant decrease in feasting activity during the later period of occupation. Brumfiel attributes this decrease in decorated serving vessels to the inclusion of Huexotla in the Aztec empire. Traditional feasting to negotiate and reaffirm status

differentials and alliances was no longer needed as frequently, with the administration of the

empire obviating the need for many of the feasting events.

Two examples of feasting have been argued for sites within the Uapala Ceramic Sphere.

At the site of Rio Pelo in the Ulúa Valley, Wonderley has argued that chiefs and other elite

individuals may have participated in feasting during the Late Formative period. A single event,

60cm thick deposit was found that contained large pot sherds and faunal material at the base of

Mound I. Faunal material included peccaries, white-tailed deer, birds, fish and turtle. The pot sherds, which included Usulután pottery, were large and frequently conjoinable, suggesting that the vessels in the deposit were broken at the mound and deposited immediately. As we will see in Chapter 3, Usulután pottery is dominated by vessels used to serve foods. The combination of a large amount of faunal remains and pottery restricted to service ware leads Wonderley to suggest that the deposit represents a single feasting event held to commemorate the initiation of Mound I

(Wonderley 1991: 155).

Wonderley argues that Usulután pottery may have been specifically manufactured for use in these feasting events, and that the widespread presence of Usulután pottery may be due, in large part, to pan-regional feasting behavior (Wonderley 1991: 164-166).

Canuto (2004: 47) and Schortman and Urban (2004: 324) have argued that feasting likely took place during the Early Classic in the Copan Valley. At the secondary site of Los Achiotes, deposits associated with a central ball court were dominated by serving plates and dishes with

Usulután decoration. These deposits, which date to the Early Classic period, were part of a ritual zone at the site, where signs of regional contacts and outside influence are prevalent. Canuto argues that Usulután pottery may have functioned as ritual serving vessels for feasting activities associated with the ballgame, as elites sought to express their political and economic connections

12 to both the primate site of Copan as well as sites as far as the El Salvadoran and Guatemala highlands.

The review above has discussed some of the ways in which regional patterns in material culture can be explained for complex societies. In many cases, these patterns are the result of long distance exchange which is often sponsored, influenced, or controlled by select individuals within a society. The review has suggested reasons why individuals would bother to devote so much energy to long distance exchange and has suggested that feasting and gift giving were two ways in which individuals within Formative Period Mesoamerica could have translated this control over production and distribution into political and economic power. Essential to understanding whether these explanations are supported archaeologically is the identification of patterns of production and distribution for goods sharing a regional style.

Research Methodology

In order to identify patterns of production and distribution for Usulután ceramics, 229 ceramic samples from sites within the sphere (Figure 3a) were analyzed using Instrumental

Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) at the Conservation Analytical Laboratory, Smithsonian

Institution. INAA allows samples to be distinguished and grouped compositionally in order to determine their locus of manufacture. Samples are irradiated by bombarding them with neutrons, with each atom within the sample becoming an unstable isotope. The irradiated samples then decay at the atomic level, with the differing amounts of energy emitted by decaying atoms being used to identify the amount of each element comprising the sample. Samples were irradiated and the amounts of a range of elements were measured, creating an overall chemical composition profile for each sample. Using standards established at the Smithsonian, compositional profiles

were grouped statistically based on their similarity in composition to identify similar loci of

production, with statistically similar samples thought to have been derived from the same source

clays and therefore the same locus of production.

Figure 3a. Regions and Sites with significant amounts of Usulután pottery within the Uapala

Ceramic Sphere: 1 – Copan Valley, 2 – Naco Valley, 3 - Ulúa Valley, 4 – Central Santa Barbara

Region, 5- Southwestern Honduras, 6 – Lake Yojoa, 7 – El Cajon Region, 8 – Comayagua

Valley, 9 – Chalchuapa, 10 – Santa Leticia, 11 – Quelepa (Adapted from Henderson and

Beaudry-Corbett 1993)

For this project, two categories of samples were included for analysis: samples of

Usulután pottery regardless of paste appearance and samples representing non-Usulután pottery made with a cream colored or fine paste. Usulután samples selected for analysis represent the full range of vessel types, paste appearance and type of decoration whenever possible in an attempt to sample all of the Usulután variants in the archaeological record. Any imitation Usulután

mimicking imported Usulután was sampled for by representing the full range of pastes. Cream

and fine-paste non-Usulután samples were selected for analysis because the clays used for these

non-Usulután types are most likely to have been used in the manufacture of imitation Usulután

pottery by local potters.

By combining these two categories, the sampling strategy sought to represent the full

range of Usulután, including those types thought by researchers to be both probable imports and

locally manufactured, and localized production of pottery that lacked Usulután decoration, but

were similar in terms of paste appearance. Compositional comparison of these categories

provides the best way to identify patterns of production, distribution and consumption and

highlight any vessels that were imported from a distance.

Prior to analysis, a total of 327 sherds from 16 different sites within the Uapala Ceramic

Sphere were examined and coded for 27 different attributes. This examination was conducted in

order to bring to light any regional or sphere-wide trends in Usulután pottery that might inform the inferences from the compositional data. This examination also served to test the conventional wisdom regarding Usulután pottery, which to date has been based on site specific or regional data alone.

The 327 samples were submitted for analysis to the Conservation Analytical Laboratory at the Smithsonian Institution under the direction of Dr. Ronald Bishop. Of the 327 submitted

samples, 229 were irradiated and analyzed using methods and standards for INAA and the

statistical analysis of compositional data established by the lab and Dr. Bishop (see Chapter 5).

Following the generation of compositional data for these samples, their data was added to an

existing compositional database of 4950 ceramic and clay samples conducted at the same lab

using the same preparation and analytical methods. This existing database reflects a composite

sample for Southeastern Mesoamerica involving multiple projects and the collaboration of

various researchers. Included in the composite database are samples from additional sites within

the sphere, many of which conform to the sampling strategy adopted for this study. Included are

samples of Usulután pottery, samples representing non-Usulután pottery made with a cream

colored or fine paste, and samples representing large utilitarian vessels, regardless of their paste

appearance. A comprehensive representation of the Uapala sphere as possible was attempted by

combining this project’s samples with those in the existing database. Compositional data were analyzed statistically and grouped based on similarity. Samples of statistically similar composition were assumed to have been produced with the same clays and therefore to have emanated from the same locus of production.

Results

Using a 10 element spectrum, compositional INAA data for these 229 samples were subjected to cluster analysis, principal component analysis and discriminant analysis in an attempt to identify any statistically significant compositional groups. Of the 229 samples, 170 found membership in 13 refined compositional groups. Of these a total of 129 samples clustered into 6 compositional groups statistically refined to a 95% confidence interval. A total of 41 samples found membership in 7 groups that were visually refined by Bishop. These

compositional groups were compared to the NIST database in an attempt to identify any samples

from across southeastern Mesoamerica that belonged in any group. A total of 72 additional

sherds were added from the NIST database to the refined groups, for a total of 242 samples.

These groups were found to be compositionally distinct from one another, allowing each group

to be interpreted as a distinct clay resource or mixture of resources used for ceramic production.

By combining information on provenience, vessel form, paste appearance and decoration from the coding data and the compositional group data, it was possible to identify patterns of

Usulután ceramic production within the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. First, there appears to have been very little trade between the El Salvadoran and Honduran portions of the sphere. A single sherd excavated from contexts in El Salvador was found in a Honduran compositional group, and there is no evidence at this time linking pottery production in El Salvador to contexts in

Honduras. Second, most of the regions within the Honduran portion of the sphere appear to have been producing their own Usulután as well as importing Usulután pottery from other regions, and sub-spheres of more intense interaction are represented by the data. While more samples will clarify the proportion of imported to local pottery and help refine patterns of Usulután distribution within each region, the data thus far suggests that imported Usulután pottery was concentrated at primary sites and in elite portions of sites and found in much smaller amounts at secondary sites or in non-elite contexts.

These patterns of production and distribution support the interpretation that in many cases

Usulután pottery was an imported prestige good, with chiefs or other elite figures playing a role in its acquisition and distribution. Such patterns, when combined with information regarding vessel form and decoration, support the interpretation that at least some Usulután pottery was used as special service vessels in ritual events, including chiefly feasting.

The addition of more samples to the NIST database will likely clarify and refine some of the patterns of production and distribution presented in this dissertation. However, the combination of coding data on Usulután from throughout the Uapala Ceramic Sphere and the application of INAA represents a major step forward in our understanding of the Uapala Ceramic

Sphere, Usulután production and distribution, and the role Usulután pottery played in site specific and regional economic, political and ideological behavior.

Thesis Organization

The presentation of this thesis is divided into 8 chapters that present the method, context and findings of the research conducted. Following the chapters, the raw data from the various forms of ceramic analysis are presented in appendix form.

Chapter 2 discusses Usulután pottery. This pottery is widely distributed throughout

Mesoamerica and Lower Central America. Although it has been reported for decades, interpretations of its role in local and regional culture trajectories vary and researchers have not found uniform ways to identify it in terms of its appearance. Chapter 3 describes Usulután pottery and its variants, summarizes its history of investigation, and discusses the interpretations that have been offered regarding its method of manufacture, loci of production and importance in ceramic complexes. The chapter outlines the type-variety system of ceramic analysis and assesses the usefulness of the approach to the understanding of Usulután pottery.

Chapter 3 describes the sites and regions within the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. Site-specific and regional histories are discussed, with special emphasis being placed on their political economies, ceramic complexes, and evidence of ceramic production. Regional trends in social complexity are summarized and previous characterizations of chiefdoms are discussed, focusing

on whether research to date supports models in which long-distance trade is possible and whether

prestige goods economies played a significant role in regional and site-specific cultural trajectories.

Chapter 4 discusses two methods used to chemically characterize pottery: petrography and Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis. First, the methodology and rationale behind using petrography is presented and some cases in which it has been successfully used are discussed.

Then the chapter discusses the methodology used in INAA, focusing on studies involving ceramic production and distribution in Mesoamerica. The applicability of these methods to questions of Usulután pottery are evaluated and INAA is argued to be the more appropriate method for this study.

The methodology and sampling employed in this project is summarized in Chapter 5. The chapter outlines the methodologies and protocol used by the Archaeometry program at the

Smithsonian Institution and the National Institute of Standards and Technology reactor facility for sample preparation, irradiation, analysis and statistical evaluation. A recent critique of INAA methods and rebuttals of this critique are considered in light of the data set for this project and the research questions being posed.

Then the chapter turns to the specific samples chosen for this study and how they were studied prior to the application of INAA. First, the sampling strategy used in this study is presented. Then, descriptions of the samples selected for study and the contexts in which they were drawn are provided. The chapter ends with a discussion of the coding of each sample for its characteristic attributes and how these data will inform both considerations of Usulután pottery and the compositional data derived from INAA.

Chapters 6 and 7 present the coding data and chemical characterization data generated by

INAA. The Chapter 6 summarizes the coding data and describes the 327 sample population in

terms of 27 different attributes. These coding data are used to re-evaluate the two major type-

varieties sampled, Bolo Orange and Izalco Usulután, in light of a sphere-wide data set. The

INAA data is presented in Chapter 7. The chemical concentrations for 229 samples are summarized and trends in the data based on these concentrations are presented. The process of statistical analysis and the formation of compositional groups are then presented. The validity of these groups are argued and group membership is then summarized.

Chapter 8 presents the interpretations of the data and conclusions. Using both the coding data and the compositional data, patterns of Usulután production and distribution are identified and evaluated. The Uapala Ceramic Sphere concept is reevaluated in light of these new patterns and a new definition of the sphere in geographic and behavioral terms is provided. Chapter 8 then returns to the research questions and models presented earlier in this chapter, summarizing how this research impacts our understanding of ceramic production, trade and exchange, and the nature of chiefdoms during the Late Formative to Early Classic transition in Southeastern

Mesoamerica.

Chapter 2: Usulután Pottery

Introduction

The Uapala Ceramic Sphere examined by this project is partly defined by the presence of

Usulután pottery. Widely recognized as one of the finest pottery types manufactured in pre- contact Mesoamerica, Usulután pottery is easy distinguishable from other types in archaeological deposits and is often used as a primary step in identifying Late Formative/Preclassic and Early

Classic occupations. This chapter will first describe Usulután pottery in a broad sense, including the range of variation observable within the sphere. Then the history of investigation and thoughts on the method of manufacture will be discussed. Some competing hypotheses for the method of manufacture will be evaluated based on the author’s visual inspection of Usulután throughout the sphere. This chapter will then detail the type and variety of Usulután pottery most commonly cited in comparisons of Usulután pottery, Izalco Usulután: Izalco Variety (Sharer

1978b: 39). Following the description of this pottery, the chapter will shift to where types and varieties of Usulután are found across the sphere and beyond, how they are characterized by researchers in these regions, the temporal range in which they are found and their frequencies.

The chapter will then consider Usulután in more behavioral terms, focusing on its evolution as a type, arguments for where it was produced, and the contexts in which Usulután was used in prehistory. The chapter ends with a consideration of how the techniques used by researchers to classify Usulután pottery have impacted how it is reported and understood by researchers.

Description and Characteristics

The term Usulután refers to a mode of ceramic decoration. It covers a range of ‘resist’ techniques of decoration found on a variety of different vessel forms that results in a wide range

of appearances (Figures 4-17). It has proven difficult to categorize Usulután pottery in a

comprehensive manner, with researchers opting for a type-variety manner of classification

Attributes used to classify Usulután pottery have included surface finish, color, decorative modes

and paste characteristics (Demarest and Sharer 1982; Gifford 1976: 116). Because Usulután

pottery membership is largely determined by a decorative technique rather than by vessel form,

rim form, paste, or other more traditional characteristics, typological terminology has been

difficult to standardize outside of western El Salvador (Demarest and Sharer 1982: 810).

The name Usulután is derived from a region of El Salvador where high frequencies of this pottery is found. Pottery decorated in the Usulután style is generally characterized by an

attempt through various means to create a muted bichrome effect in which lines, blotches, dots

and other design elements of a lighter hue are contrasted against a dominant darker hue using a

resist technique. Lines of decoration, usually parallel and in discrete sets, are the most common

design element (Figures 4 a,d and f and 15). Dots are less common, and splotches or zones of

resist decoration are the least prevalent in the archaeological record (Figure 4 a, c and e).

The dominant color scheme is orange with cream colored decorative elements. It should be noted, however, that there is a considerable range of color variation, with the dominant color ranging from red through orange to orange-pink. The secondary color can range from white through cream to a pink-cream and even a light tan color. Some vessels appear to have been fired deliberately to create a ‘tiger-striped’ appearance, with the dominant color of the vessel being black with orange lines, splotches or dots.

This decoration takes place upon a smooth and glossy surface finish on the vessel, and the majority of Usulután pottery appears to have been well burnished. In some cases burnishing lines are visible beneath the decoration, but this is generally not the case.

While vessel forms for Usulután pottery can be highly variable, the majority of vessels are service pottery, with cooking or storage vessels bearing Usulután decoration largely absent in the archaeological record. A common Usulután vessel form is a plate or low-walled bowl with a flat or slightly concave bottom (Figures 6, 9 f-1, and 15). A subset of this form is the flat bottomed plate with a ‘dimpled’ center. These plates commonly have out-flaring walls and supports and thickened or out-turned rims. Decoration on these vessel forms tends to be concentrated on the interior, although some decoration on both the interior and exteriors of the vessels are common.

Figure 4. Puxtla Usulután from Santa Leticia, El Salvador (Demarest 1986)

Figure 5. Jicalapa and Olocuitla Usulután from Santa Leticia, El Salvador (Demarest 1986)

Figure 6. Izalco Usulután Flaring-Wall Bowls with Nubbin Supports from Quelepa, El Salvador

(Andrews 1976)

Figure 7. Puxtla Incised Usulután: Puxtla Variety from Chalchuapa, El Salvador (Sharer 1978b)

Figure 8. Jicalapa Usulután: Jicalapa Variety from Chalchuapa, El Salvador (Sharer 1978b)

Figure 9. Izalco Usulután: Izalco Variety from Chalchuapa, El Salvador (Sharer 1978b)

Figure 10: Izalco Usulután: Santo Domingo Variety from the Naco Valley, Honduras (Urban

1993a)

Figure 11. Muerdalo Orange: Rio Pelo Variety from the Lower Ulúa Valley, Honduras

(Beaudry-Corbett et al 1993)

Figure 12. Rim Profiles and Supports for Zarrosa Orange: Zarrosa Variety form the Lower Ulúa

Valley, Honduras (Beaudry-Corbett et al 1993)

Figure 13. Muerdalo Orange: Remolino Variety from the Lower Ulúa Valley, Honduras

(Beaudry-Corbett et al 1993)

Figure 14. Izalco Usulután: Barandillal Variety from the Santa Barbara region, Honduras (Urban

1993b)

Figure 15. Muerdalo Orange-related outflaring walled bowl from the El Cajon region, Honduras

(Hirth et al 1989)

Figure 16. Muerdalo Orange-related shallow dish from the El Cajon region, Honduras (Hirth et al 1989)

Figure 17. Izalco Usulután from the Copan Valley (Hopkins 1986)

Simple hemispherical bowls are also common, with the occurrence of outturned or bolstered rims less common than for plates. Again, the interior of these vessels tend to bear more decoration than the exterior, and rim decoration is commonly seen. Jars with Usulután decoration are largely absent from the archaeological record, although some have been reported at sites in El

Salvador (Fig. 18).

Figure 18. Rim Profiles for Jars with Usulután Decoration from Quelepa, El Salvador (Andrews

1976)

Clay used to manufacture Usulután pottery tends to be fine (Fig. 19) to medium (Fig. 20) in appearance, with little to no evidence of temper. Some very fine variants are seen, but these tend to be fairly rare. When temper is visible in cross-section, it tends to be ash or a fine silty sand. The clays used tend to fire to colors ranging from white to medium brown, with white to cream coloration dominating.

Figure 19. Fine textured, Temperless Cream Paste, Muerdalo Orange-related Sherd Profile from

El Cajon region, Honduras

Figure 20. Medium textured Bolo Orange sherd profile from El Cajon region, Honduras

Overall, the general appearance of Usulután pottery is that of a finely made vessel requiring time and effort to manufacture. The color contrasts tend to be striking, and the lines, dots or splotches of resist decoration produce an esthetically pleasing product. When compared to the rest of the ceramic assemblages where it is found, Usulután pottery tends to look very different, resulting in a finished product of notable quality (Demarest and Sharer 1982: 810-811).

Method of Manufacture and History of Investigation

The exact method by which Usulután decoration was accomplished has been vociferously debated by researchers since the first time it was identified. The decorative technique was first discussed by Lothrop (1933: 51), who suggested that the lighter hue designs were simply the result of black painted lines that had dissolved, taking with it part of a second slip and revealing the lighter base color of the vessel beneath it.

Shook and Kidder, noted the decorative technique on ceramics excavated from Mound E-

III-3 at Kaminaljuyu, speculating that wax could have been applied to a burnished vessel, thus protecting the wax-applied designs from a darker coating of paint or slip that was applied after the wax resist. The decorative effect, they suggested, was created when the wax resist would melt off, revealing the lighter designs of the original vessel color prior to the dark paint or slip application. This assertion was based on their recognition that some runs or blobs of the lighter hue are visible in some of the more poorly decorated Usulután vessels, suggesting that this was indeed a ‘resist’ technique (Shook and Kidder 1952: 100).

In a further study of Usulután pottery at Kaminaljuyu by Wetherington (1978: 101), it was suggested that instead of a wax application or other preventative measure to prevent a

second slip from covering up a primary, lighter hued slip, the second slip was ‘drawn off’ of the

vessel while the second slip was still wet. The second slip or paint could be removed using an

instrument with several teeth to reveal the primary color of the vessel and resulting the ‘resist’

appearance of the vessel.

This technique was tested experimentally by Sharer (1978b: 134-5), who test fired and

decorated a number of ceramic plaques using the wax-resist method of decoration in an attempt

to better understand the Usulután pottery found at Chalchuapa, El Salvador. Plaques were

burnished, slipped, and decorated using a wax substance before slipped a second time. The

Usulután technique was produced with great clarity and color. Although the scraping method

championed by Wetherington was not tested, Sharer felt that the amount of similarity between

excavated Usulután vessels and his own test plaques strongly suggested the wax-resist method

was the most likely technique employed by ancient potters. To date no attempt has been made to

repeat the scraping technique. Finally, Mary Hopkins examined Izalco Usulután samples as part of the Santa Leticia Project to clarify the decorative technique applied to Usulután pottery (Fig.

16). Using binocular microscopy on samples from Chalchuapa and Copan, Hopkins determined that the likely method of manufacture for Usulután pottery was a three step process. First, the leather-hard vessel was decorated with a resist substance using a multiple brush. Then the vessel was polished, usually in a direction that was not likely to smear the resist lines on the vessel.

Next, the substance responsible for the darker main color of the vessel was added and the vessel was fired. This process produced a resist decorated vessel that lacked a second slip. To test whether this effect was restricted to a certain firing temperature, Hopkins re-fired multiple sherds with this technique are variable temperatures, and the results showed no discoloration or muting of the resist effect. Additional analysis of sherds using a scanning electron microscope failed to

find any evidence of a primary slip beneath the darker slip that provides the main coloration of

Usulután vessels (Hopkins 1986: 242-246).

Based on this analysis, Hopkins concluded that two-layer techniques in which one slip is applied and is then decorated with a resist substance prior to a second slipping and subsequent firing are generally not supported by her research. Further, it appears from her research that the application of a wax substance on the vessel to allow the resist contrast characteristic of Usulután pottery is also not supported due to the likelihood that vessel burnishing and wax application would have resulted in blurred or streaky lines incongruent with finished Usulután pottery found in archaeological contexts. Finally, her research does not support theories suggesting the vessel was fired with substances that change color to produce designs of contrasting colors. The result

of her work was that basically every major hypothesis outlining possible methods of decoration

for Usulután pottery was rejected.

Hopkins suggests two additional theories that have yet to be tested: first, she suggests that

a variation of the double-slip hypothesis is possible. An extremely thin iron-based wash applied

to a dark orange or red vessel could penetrate the dark slip, thereby causing the paste underneath

to fire differently than the rest of the vessel. The differential firing as a result of the iron based

wash creates the diagnostic resist markings. Second, Hopkins suggests a variation of Shepard’s

alkali paint hypothesis. Shepard suggested that alkali paints can fire to lighter colors then they

appear when unfired. Hopkins suggests that applying these paints to the vessel prior to firing

could cause variations in slip appearance and cause the characteristic resist patterning. While

Hopkins admits that neither hypothesis is strongly supported by any data at the time, the dearth

of viable options and the possibility that these two methods could have been employed rendered

them the best possible guess at the time (Hopkins 1986: 247-249).

From personal observation I would suggest that both Wetherington and Sharer are correct

in their assessments of Usulután decoration. In the vast majority of Usulután vessels, the clean

lines of a wax resist technique or other non-etched method of decoration are clearly visible.

There are, however, some vessels decorated in an Usulután-like manner where the lines of

decoration are jagged, suggesting that there was a forcible removal of a second slip from the

vessel, either with a tool or through the application of an acid. My suggestion of the removal of a

second slip to reveal a first on some Usulután pottery is not new. None other than Anna Shepard

discussed the possible application of acids to Usulután pottery, determining under microscopic

examination that the scarring usually left by acid application was absent from her sample and

was therefore not likely to have been used in their decoration (Shepard 1966: 211-213). I am not

suggesting that Shepard was incorrect in her examination, but rather that her sample was

inconclusive, and not representative of the broad range of Usulután pottery available to researchers today.

Type-Variety Description – Sharer’s Izalco Usulután: Izalco

Archaeologists throughout Southeastern Mesoamerica have described Usulután in a variety of ways, but the most commonly cited description is that of Sharer’s type and variety,

Izalco Usulután: Izalco found at Chalchuapa, El Salvador (1978b) (Fig. 9). It is often cited because it was one of the earliest thorough descriptions of the type in the archaeological literature. The type and variety descriptions are based on 8,300 sherds and a dozen whole vessels. The Usulután ceramics found at Chalchuapa likely represents pottery that was manufactured locally and possibly traded (see below). Further, the Izalco ceramic group constitutes nearly 10% of the Caynac Ceramic Complex at Chalchuapa. The Caynac Ceramic

Complex includes 11 ceramic groups, many of which have multiple types per group, adding to

the importance of the Izalco group in the overall ceramic sequence at the site.

Archaeologists throughout the Uapala Ceramic Sphere cite Sharer and use his description

of Izalco as a point of departure when describing their own Usulután pottery (Andrews 1976,

Beaudry-Corbett 1993, Beaudry-Corbett et al 1993, Demarest 1986, Joesink-Mandeville pers.

Comm.. 2001, Sato 1993, Edward Schortman pers. Comm.. 2005, Patricia Urban pers. Comm..

2005). Below is Sharer’s type description for Izalco Usulután: Izalco and the characteristics of

this type should be considered to hold for all other mentions of Izalco Usulután or Muerdalo

Orange unless otherwise noted.

Sharer describes Izalco Usulután: Izalco in terms of identifying attributes, forms and

dimensions, paste, treatment, decorations, appendages, intra-site provenience, and inter-site provenience (Sharer 1978b: 39-41). Sharer identifies two main identifying attributes: 1) A low contrast Usulután decoration of salmon-pink lines and orange areas and 2) a very hard and usually fine paste combined with a hard and very durable surface finish. The forms and dimensions include, in decreasing frequency: 1) composite-wall bowls with flat or convex bases, direct, direct-grooved everted and everted-grooved rims; 2) flaring wall bowls with flat or convex bases, everted and everted-grooved rims with slight thickening on exterior surface; 3) restricted shallow bowls with convex or flat bases and direct rims; 4) Dishes with direct wide-

everted and wide-everted-grooved rims; 5) vertical-wall bowls with flat bases and direct of

slightly everted rims; 6) flanged flaring-wall bowls with convex bases and direct rims with sub-

labial and medial flanges; 6) convex-wall (hemispherical) bowls with convex or ring bases and

direct rims; 7) faceted-flanged composite-wall bowls with direct rims; 8) low-neck jars with

41 direct rims; 9) high-neck jars with direct and everted rims, and; 10) dishes with direct wide- everted and wide-everted-grooved rims.

Sharer described the treatment of the pottery in terms of paste and surface finish. Paste was described as a hard, fine paste with few inclusion or fine tuff and pumice particles generally

.05 to .4 mm. in diameter. Paste is usually a salmon-pink color (5YR 7/4, 6/4, 5/4; 2.5YR 6/4,

5/4). Oxidation is usually incomplete, with dark cores being common. Surface finish is defined by a lustrous glossy polish. The surface is very hard and durable. The Usulután decoration appears as lighter lines usually a salmon pink (same as the paste color in term of Munsell coloration) against areas of a darker, dull reed or orange color (2.5YR 5/6; 10R 56, 4/6). The surface finish resembles a very thin slip, but even under high magnification, this slip is difficult to distinguish.

The decorations on the vessel tend to be Usulután ‘lines’ of varying width and length that are usually purposeful, creating various patterns. Generally the patterns are composed of straight, vertical or diagonal lines, wiggly lines, swirls, loops and ‘blotches’. This decoration occurs on both the interior and exterior of vessels. The more complex patterns seem always to be done with multiple brush applicators.

Appendages include solid nubbin and solid conical supports as well as hollow conical and mammiform supports. Supports appear in sets of three and four on the bottom of vessels.

Additional appendages (in very small numbers) include small strap handles and two types of spouts.

Izalco Usulután: Izalco is compared by Sharer to Quelepa (Andrews 1970), who suggests his Chalchuapan Izalco is very similar to what Andrews describes from contemporaneous deposits. Varieties of Izalco Usulután that may differ somewhat from that at Chalchuapa include

Usulutáns reported in the Salama Valley, Guatemala (Sharer and Sedat 1973), Kaminaljuyu,

Chiapa de Corzo.

Usulután Pottery: Range, Types and Frequencies

Prior to any broader considerations of the geographic and temporal range of Usulután pottery, a site-by-site summary of the specific types of Usulután pottery, their frequencies, and the times in which they appear should be attempted. By outlining these basic facts, we can piece together a broader understanding of the role that Usulután pottery plays in Mesoamerican prehistory. For ease of discussion, this summary will be divided into sections based on the modern political boundaries in the region: Honduras, Guatemala, Belize and El Salvador. A comprehensive listing of overall frequencies of Usulután pottery at the sites and regions mentioned below can be found in Table 1.

Temporal Context Muerdalo/Bolo/Izalco Region Site Amount Vessel Types Range (Elite/Non) Chilanga Copan 400 BC - AD Copan small numbers Elite undefined Izalco 100 La Entrada 300 BC - AD La Entrada small numbers Elite bowls Izalco 250 Naco Valley 300 BC - AD 15% of tecomate, bowl, Santo Domingo Elite, Non-Elite Izalco, Chilanga 250 assemblage olla Lower Ulúa 450 BC - AD Rio Pelo small numbers Elite jars, plates,bowls Muerdalo 250 300 BC - AD substantial La Guacamaya Elite, Non-Elite plate, bowl Muerdalo 250 amounts Santa Barbara 400 BC - AD Gualjoquito fairly common Elite, Non-Elite bowls Izalco 100 El Cajon 400 BC - AD bowls, plates, Salitron Viejo abundant numbers Elite Muerdalo, Bolo 100 jars 400 BC - AD bowls, plates, Unnamed sites abundant numbers Non-elite Muerdalo, Bolo 100 jars Lake Yojoa 300 BC - AD 5% of tot. Los Naranjos Elite bowls, jars Muerdalo, Bolo 600 collection Comayagua

Valley 300 BC - AD significant bowls, plates, Yarumela Elite Izalco 200 amounts jars SW Honduras La Mariposa AD 250 + small numbers Elite bowls Izalco El Nispero AD 250 + small numbers Elite bowls Izalco El Salvador 400 BC - AD Up to 10% of bowls, plates, Chalchuapa Elite, Non-Elite Izalco 400 phases jars 400 BC - AD Up to 14% of bowls, plates, Santa Leticia Elite, Non-Elite Izalco 100 phases jars 500 BC - AD Up to 60% of bowls, plates, Quelepa Elite, Non-Elite Izalco 600 phases jars

Table 1. Major sites and Regions Reporting Usulután Pottery. Includes Temporal Range, Amount as Reported, Contexts, Vessel Types and the Type of Usulután Identified. Sites reporting resist decorated medium paste Usulután pottery with regional nomenclature are classified as having Bolo Orange.

El Salvador

In El Salvador, there has been significant research involving the study of Usulután

pottery, resulting in a standardized typological terminology. In contrast to other regions of

Southern Mesoamerica such as Honduras, the type/variety system is used for the entire region,

with one set of definitions sufficing for the explanation of Usulután pottery found at a series of

sites. Variations from site to site are noted, but these variations are included in the type

definitions, allowing for flexibility in their discussion and a more in-depth analysis of their role

in prehistoric cultures.

El Salvador - Chalchuapa

At Chalchuapa in western El Salvador, Usulután pottery first appears during the Kal

Ceramic Complex, which dates from 650-400 BC. Puxtla Incised Usulután: Puxtla Variety is

characterized by double slipping and both fine and medium pastes that fire to cream, buff and

brown colors. Bowls and plates dominate this type, and incising below the rim is common

(Figure 7). Additional Usulután pottery is found within the Jicalapa Ceramic Group, one of many separate groups within the Chul Ceramic Complex. The Chul complex dates to between 400 and

200 BC, although admittedly this date is the result of the comparison of non-Usulután pottery found at Chalchuapa with other similar types found elsewhere in Guatemala. This Jicalapa Group comprises almost 7% of the total Complex, and is divided into two varieties: Jicalapa Usulután:

Jicalapa and Jicalapa Usulután: Thick-wall. Jicalapa Usulután: Jicalapa comprises most of the

Jicalapa group, with the Thick-wall variety appearing in trace amounts during this period. Both types are characterized by a high percentage of bowls of different shapes, some low-necked jars, and some dishes. The paste of these vessels is somewhat variable, ranging from a medium coarse

paste to a fine light sandy buff paste. Decoration consists of a cream colored slip applied to an

already well smoothed vessel which is then marked with a brush or other applicator using a resist

style and slipped a second time using an orange colored slip to obscure the entire first slip prior

to firing. After firing, the decorated resist patterns persist in the original cream slip color, which

for Jicalapa Usulután is commonly a series of thick parallel lines that commonly swirl and loop

across the surface of the vessel, although some spot and blotch-decorated examples have been

reported. This resist technique is applied to both interiors and exteriors of the vessel, and after

firing produces a clean, sharp contrasting visual appearance. The Thick-Walled variety of this

ceramic group is differentiated from Jicalapa Usulután on the basis of a generally thicker wall, although a slightly more constricted range of vessel forms are noted and a coarser paste is more

frequent (Sharer 1978b: 30-31) (Figure 8).

Usulután pottery also appears during the Cayanac Complex, which dates to between 200

BC and AD 200 (Sharer 1978b: 115). Usulután appears in significant numbers, comprising

nearly 10% of the total ceramic assemblage for the complex. The Izalco Ceramic group is

comprised of one type; Izalco Usulután, which is further divided into two varieties; the Izalco

variety, which dominates the Izalco Ceramic Group in terms of raw numbers and a Thick-walled

variety that is found only in trace amounts. Izalco Usulután members are commonly bowls,

although some jar and dish examples exist. The paste is characterized as hard and fine, with few

inclusions present under microscopic examination. Decoration of the vessels in the Usulután

style is usually expressed in the application of a set or sets of parallel wavy or straight lines, dots

or blotches of a cream color set against a dominant field of orange or orange red coloration.

These resist designs commonly are found on the exterior of vessels, although in the case of

shallow plates and bowls, decoration can be found on both sides of the vessel. The thick walled

variant of this type is different from the rest of the Izalco group only in terms of vessel thickness

(Figure 9).

Finally, Usulután appears in a third ceramic complex, the Vec Ceramic Complex, which based on radiocarbon assays at Chalchuapa dates from 200-400 AD. Within the Vec Ceramic

Complex, the Chilanga Ceramic Group comprises a mere .6% of the total assemblage for this

Complex, making it one of the rarer groups at the site. Chilanga Red-Painted Usulután appears within this group, and is divided into two varieties: Chilanga and Osicala. Paste for both varieties is reported to be fine and light cream or buff in color for both varieties, and the vessel forms for both are highly restricted with only bowl specimens having been found. Decoration of the vessels is largely similar to that of Izalco Usulután, with the only notable differences being the color of the second applied slip, which is a red rather than orange during this period of time and the addition of more complex and stylized resist decoration. For the Osicala variety, design elements expand to now include monkey figures, and more numerous, finer curvilinear line groups (Sharer 1978b: 47).

El Salvador – Santa Leticia

Usulután ceramics enjoy a long and well documented history at the nearby site of Santa

Leticia in western El Salvador as well. During the Chul Complex, which dates from 400 -100

BC, Usulután pottery is found in relatively large numbers, comprising 14% of the Olocuitla

Group, which itself comprises 6% of the total ceramic assemblage excavated at the site

(Demarest 1986: 58, 76). Olocuitla Usulután vessels are commonly bowl shaped, although a few jars exhibiting Usulután decoration have been found. The paste for these vessels is generally fine, with very little temper having been added to the base clay prior to firing. The paste fires to a cream color, although examples of interior oxidation resulting in a gray to black core are

common (Demarest 1986: 67). The decoration of these vessels commonly consists of buff to

light orange lines of resist decoration set against a darker field ranging in color from pink to

orange-red in color (Figure 5) Demarest notes two variants of Usulután decoration at Santa

Leticia, a single slip variety in which the contrast between the light lines of decoration and the

dominant darker slip are muted and a second, less common variant in which the use of a double

slip results in a higher level of contrast between the designs presented using a primary cream

colored slip and the dominant second slip, which is darker in color than the first slip. The design

elements consist of single wavy or straight lines, sets of wavy or straight parallel lines, dots or

splotches. These design elements occur either on both sides of the vessel or on the interior alone

(Demarest 1986: 80-81).

Another group within latter portion of the Chul Complex, the Jicalapa Ceramic Group, is

characterized by vessels decorated with a double slip, with cream underslips being paired with

darker bright orange overslip. In many cases, this double slipping is accompanied by Usulután

decoration, although in some examples the orange slip has faded due to weathering, revealing the

cream underslip and causing any Usulután designs that were there to disappear. Like Olocuitla

Usulután, the Jicalapa Usulután decoration consists of wavy or straight single or multiple lines, with some examples of splotches present (Figure 5). It should be noted, however, that the

frequency of actual Usulután decoration on these vessels is less common than in the Olocuitla

examples, with a plain orange slip appearance being very frequent. Additionally, the range of

vessel forms for this group is larger than that for Olocuitla Usulután, expanding to include huge

basins, jars, and cylinders. A final point of contrast between the Jicalapa and Olocuitla Usulután

types is a clear difference in the paste used in the production of the vessels. Unlike Olocuitla,

which is generally fine in texture and fires to a cream color, the Jicalapa Usulután specimens are

manufactured using a medium coarse paste which is often tempered with a pumice material and

fires to a range of temperatures including light orange, pinkish-gray, buff, and light red variants

(Demarest 1986: 88-90).

Izalco Usulután is reported at Santa Leticia, beginning around 100 BC and continuing

through AD 100. Izalco Usulután at Santa Leticia is single slipped, with a fine, light firing paste.

Vessel forms tend to be those with outflaring walls, including bowls and plates. Multiple parallel

lines of resist decoration on vessel interiors and exteriors dominate the sample. Demarest

compares Santa Leticia’s Izalco Usulután to that found at Chalchuapa, going to far as to refer to

his type and variety descriptions in their entirety (Demarest 1986: 130) (Figure 5).

El Salvador - Quelepa

Moving to the southeast, the site of Quelepa in eastern El Salvador also reports

significant numbers of Usulután pottery. Usulután is present during the Uapala, Shila I and Shila

II phases, which date from 500 BC and AD 600 according to radiocarbon assays. Usulután

appears in great numbers throughout this time span, and a variety of types and varieties.

Izalco Usulután appears during the Uapala phase, dating from 500 BC to AD 150

(Andrews 1976: 43), and comprises a hefty 60% of the total ceramic assemblage. Izalco

Usulután: Izalco is characterized by a fine paste that ranges in fired color from pinkish cream to a pale brown. This type and variety is dominated by bowls, although some examples of jars and dishes have been found. Decoration of these vessels generally consists of a series of parallel wavy or straight lines set of a cream coloration set against an orange to red-orange field. Some examples of singular lines, splotches or dots exist, and in some cases the resist lines vary from a cream color to an almost light orange color (Andrews 1976: 61). Other variants of the Izalco

Usulután described above include three types that are generally of a poorer quality than standard

Izalco Usulután. Izalco Usulután: Coarse Incised, is characterized by a generally coarser paste than standard Izalco Usulután, a generally heavier and thicker vessel appearance and some incising on the exterior of the vessels. Additionally, this coarser Usulután variant is dominated by jar forms, with no bowls present; Izalco Usulután: Coarse Variety is even more coarse in paste appearance than the incised variety above, and exhibits a cruder application of the Usulután resist technique than in the standard type; Izalco Usulután:Modeled and Izalco Usulután:

Impressed Fillet are varieties of Izalco in which appliqué features are placed near the rims of the vessels, usually bowls. Finally, Izalco Usulután: Red Painted is a variety of Izalco Usulután in which red paint is applied to the rims of the vessels, usually bowls (Andrews 1976: 61-65)

(Figure 6). Another, non-Izalco Usulután type found during the Uapala Phase is Thick-Slip on

White Usulután. A very minor type at Quelepa, this type is characterized by a generally soft reddish-brown paste and a probable double slip, the first white, the second orange, applied to jars with neck incising (Andrews 1976: 70)

An Usulután Polychrome type appears in trace amounts during the Lepa Ceramic

Complex at Quelepa. These specimens are composed of a fine red paste. Vessel forms are unknown due to small sherd size, but they exhibit classic Usulután decoration. This polychrome type is then painted with a variety of hues, including black, red, orange and purple. This type is poorly dated due to its low frequency at the site but appears to date to a later period of time than the Uapala phase, possibly as late as 600 AD. Demarest suggests that because this paste type is unique to this type, the sherds are likely imports (Demarest 1986: 139).

Honduras

Usulután pottery is well documented in Honduras. Nearly every project in the past two

decades has identified the presence of the pottery to some degree. Usulután pottery in the north

of Honduras was first noted by Henderson et al (1979: 187), who mentioned tecomates, ollas,

and bowls with thickened rims or flanges, many of which were decorated with an orange slip

with parallel line Usulután decoration at the site of Santo Domingo in the Naco Valley. The result of a preliminary survey of the region, Henderson’s report merely dates the Usulután pottery to the Late Preclassic period, with no greater temporal control than that.

Honduras – Naco Valley

Further research in the Naco Valley by Pat Urban and others (Henderson et al 1979,

Urban 1986, Urban 1993a) uncovered Usulután pottery in great numbers at a series of sites exhibiting monumental architecture. In a 1986 overview of current research, Urban noted the

‘presence of high percentages of Usulután-decorated vessels that are similar to Chalchuapa’s

Izalco Usulután’ (Urban 1986: 279). While small in number, the Usulután decorated vessels comprised a high proportion of the total ceramic assemblage for the period. Again, the date given for this Usulután presence was simply the Late Preclassic period (Urban 1986: 278). A final comment on Usulután is found in the volume ‘Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras: Regional

Classification and Analysis’ edited by Henderson and Beaudry-Corbett (1993). In Urban’s Naco

Valley chapter in this volume, two types are identified. The first is Izalco Usulután: Santo

Domingo, which takes its name from the site where it is most frequent. The Izalco Usulután found at Santo Domingo is described as being predominantly bowl shaped in form, having a very fine white to cream colored paste, and exhibiting multiple wavy parallel lines that are white to

51 cream in color set against an orange field of color (Figure 10). This decoration is found on both the interior and exterior of vessels, although exterior decoration on vessels comprise a large proportion of the overall collection. Urban notes that the range of variation in the form and decoration of Izalco Usulután pottery in the Naco Valley is less pronounced than in other regions, and proposes that the Izalco–style Usulután found here is imported from elsewhere

(Urban 1993a: 37).

Another type is Chilanga Usulután. This type, which bears no variety name, comprises a small percentage of the assemblage (1.7%), and only a fraction of that amount shows definite resist decoration. Dating to between AD 250 and 600, this type exhibits the same resist decoration, single slip, and fine paste as the earlier Izalco type. The vessel type, however, is mostly comprised of cylinders with vertical walls and direct rims. Red paint, usually restricted to the rim, is this type’s other distinguishing feature.

Honduras – Lake Yojoa

In the Lake Yojoa region, descriptions of Usulután pottery have long dominated the literature (Baudez and Becquelin 1973, Beaudry-Corbett 1993). Usulután pottery was first recognized and named at the site of Los Naranjos on the north shore of the lake by Baudez and

Becquelin (1973: 170, 182-3) They named the single slipped, fine cream paste Usulután decorated pottery they found Muerdalo Orange, which appears to be a Honduran nomenclature for what would otherwise be called Izalco Usulután if it were to be found outside of Honduras

(Baudez and Becquelin 1973: 75-76). Comparisons of the Los Naranjos Muerdalo Orange have been made to Usulután pottery at a number of sites in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala

(Beaudry-Corbett 1993: 182-3).

Muerdalo Orange appears in limited numbers in contexts that are assumed to be Late

Preclassic, but remain poorly dated. The Muerdalo Orange at Los Naranjos is described as having a very fine paste with a very small amount of temper. Nearly all the vessel forms are bowl shaped, although a few examples of both long and short-necked jars have been found.

Vessels are decorated usually on both sides or in some cases, on the exterior only, with groups of straight or wavy parallel lines that are cream in color. Again, these cream lines are set against a dominant orange field.

A second type of Usulután pottery called Bolo Orange is also reported. Bolo Orange is manufactured using two slips and a medium brown to brown-red paste. It dates to the same period as Muerdalo Orange and has been compared to other double slipped Usulután pottery in

Honduras, El Salvador and Nicaragua. The term Bolo Orange appeared early in the literature for ceramic analyses in Honduras, and has been used by other to describe double slipped, buff to brown firing paste Usulután pottery (Baudez and Becquelin 1973, Beaudry-Corbett 1993).

A third type is Tzuntulin Red. This type is contemporaneous with Muerdalo and Bolo

Orange, and dates to the Late Preclassic period. This type is made with a medium paste that fires from cream to buff in color. A wide range of vessel forms are found for this type, including large numbers of jars. This type has red paint over most or all of the vessel obscuring or muting single slip resist decoration similar to that found on Muerdalo orange vessels.

Honduras – Ulúa Valley

In the Ulúa Valley, Usulután decorated vessels first appear during the Sula Complex during the latter portion of the Playa Phase, dating to between 300 and 150 BC. Muerdalo

Orange: Rio Pelo is characterized by single slip resist decoration that occurs on both the interior and exterior of vessels. Design elements are commonly light colored straight or wavy parallel

lines, ranging from cream to light orange in color, set against an orange or in some cases gray to

black field (Figure 11). Vessels are predominantly bowl shaped, although some jar forms has

been found as well. Pastes are fine and light firing.

A second Usulután type, named Jul Usulután: Jul, is found at la Guacamaya in the Ulúa

Valley. Found in slightly later Late Preclassic deposits than Muerdalo Orange, Jul Usulután: Jul

is made of a fine to medium paste that fires to a cream to very light buff color. Vessel forms are

similar to Muerdalo Orange. What distinguishes this type from Muerdalo is a darker, reddish slip

applied to the vessel. Jul Usulután: Soysoy is a variant of Jul Usulután that is double slipped, but

curiously is described as having the same light firing paste as Muerdalo Orange. Further,

although the parallel lined designs in a white to cream color continue, these lines are set against a

more red than orange field. A minor type in the Ulúa Valley, Jul Usulután appears to be

somewhat similar to pottery found at El Cajon and might be included in the Los Naranjos

definition of Muerdalo Orange, but by the slimmest of margins (Beaudry-Corbett et al 1993.: 80-

81).

A final type dating to the Sula Complex is Zarrosa Orange: Zarrosa. This type-variety is

similar to Bolo Orange in terms of its paste appearance and color as well as its decoration

through the use of two slips. Flaring wall bowls are common within this type (Figure 12).

During the Terminal Preclassic, Middle Chalmecon Phase in the Ulúa Valley, Usulután

pottery disappears except for Muerdalo Orange: Remolino (Figure 13). This type is nearly

identical to the Rio Pelo variety, except for a few examples of exterior flanges and some

modeling of bowls to represent faces.

In the Early Classic period, Late Chalmecon Phase (AD 250 - 400), Chilanga Usulután:

La Lima and Chilanga Usulután: Cristobal Grooved appear. Both are single slipped, fine cream

54 paste Usulután. Both types tend to be bowls or cylinders, and both have red paint on top of resist decoration. Cristobal Grooved differs from La Lima only in that vessels of this variety have paired circumferential grooves below the rim and sometimes near the vessel base.

In the Santa Barbara region of Honduras, Izalco Usulután is again identified in Late

Preclassic contexts. Characterized by a fine to medium pale brown paste, the Izalco Usulután in the Santa Barbara region is comprised totally of bowl forms, and is decorated with the now familiar wavy or straight parallel white to tan lines of resist set against an orange field (Urban

1993b: 143-4). Researchers have chosen to subdivide the Izalco Usulután types found in this region into four varieties based on slight differences in slip color or minor surface scraping,

Izalco Usulután : Barandillal is the most common variety of the group and most closely resembles Izalco Usulután found elsewhere (Figure 14). Small amounts of Izalco Usulután:

Barandillal persist into the Early Classic period as well.

Izalco Usulután: Cascajal differs in base slip color, which is grey instead of cream, Izalco

Usulután: Divisito has an orange gray primary color, with resist lines tending to be more orange than cream. Izalco Usulután: El Panal is similar to the Barandillal variety, but shows signs of scraped slip lines. This overall Izalco Usulután type is found in nearly all Late Preclassic contexts in the Santa Barbara region (Urban 1993b: 144).

During the Early Classic period, Jicalaca Complex, two varieties of the Chilanga type appear. Chilanga Red Painted Usulután: Comederos and Chilanga Red Painted Usulután: Black

Painted are similar to the single slipped, fine light firing paste Chilangas described previously, although the range of resists decorative modes expands from parallel lines and dot to splotches and irregular patches. The Black Painted variety not surprisingly has the addition of black paint but is otherwise similar to the Comederos variety.

Honduras – El Cajon

In the El Cajon region of Honduras, a broad sampling of cultural material at a number of sites turned up a large amount of Muerdalo Orange sherds. Muerdalo Orange is one of the most

common decorated types found during the Early Yunque Phase (400 BC – AD 0) at El Cajon and

occurs in three varieties. These are: a fine textured, temperless cream paste (Figure 19), a fine

textured light to medium orange paste, and a coarse cream granular paste. Muerdalo Orange

vessel forms in the El Cajon region are mainly out flaring walled bowls, shallow dishes and short

necked jars (Hirth et al 1989: 213) (Figures 15, 16).

During the same span of time, Bolo Orange appears in the El Cajon region. It is

comparable to other Bolo Orange types and varieties throughout Honduras, and has the

characteristic double slipping, medium buff to brown firing paste seen elsewhere (Figure 20).

Unlike other Bolo Orange types and varieties, however, those found in the El Cajon region show

a relatively wide range of plastic decoration, including incising, engraving, and appliqué

elements. Additionally, the range of vessel types is greater than found in other portions of

Honduras, including jars in significant frequencies.

By the Late Yunque Phase (0 – 400 AD), the coarse paste variant of the Muerdalo

Orange specimens is absent, and plastic decoration in the shape of mammiform supports is found

on some vessels (Hirth et al 1989: 215). El Cajon’s Muerdalo Orange appears to be largely

similar to that found at Los Naranjos, although at El Cajon it was decided to divide the Muerdalo

Orange into multiple types based on paste character while at Los Naranjos there is a single,

broad Muerdalo orange type spanning all paste variants (Hirth et al 1989: 213).

Bolo Orange persists during this phase as well, although it decreases significantly in

frequency and the range of vessel forms constricts, leaving only bowls by this time.

Honduras – Comayagua Valley

In the Comayagua Valley, recognition of Usulután pottery has a long history. One of the

first to excavate extensively in the valley, Joel Canby (1949) noted four categories of Usulután

pottery, dividing them up in a similar fashion to that done in the El Cajon region. Usulután Ware,

Polished Usulután Ware, Dull Usulután Ware and ‘Local Paste’ Usulután Ware were noted and

were initially dated to between 300 or 250 B.C. and A.D. 500 (Joesink-Mandeville 1987: 198).

Further research in the valley at the site of Yarumela resulted in the recognition of Izalco

Usulután and a finer level of chronological control, with Usulután pottery now being dated to

between 300 BC and AD 200 (Joesink-Mandeville 1993: 244). Izalco Usulután, Usulután Ware,

Polished Usulután Ware, and Dull Usulután Ware in the Comayagua Valley are characterized by a fine paste largely devoid of temper. ‘Local Paste’ Usulután is characterized by a medium, darker firing paste. Vessel forms for all Usulután wares are generally bowls, with a few plates and jars being present. The resist decoration commonly consists of parallel sets of straight or wavy lines, with some examples of cross-hatching present. These lines are generally cream to white in color and are set against a dominant orange field. The range of Usulután types first mentioned by Canby was supported by later research, with the quality of the slipping and clarity of the resist decoration varying enough to justify different categories of Usulután pottery in the valley (Joesink-Mandeville 1993: 244-5).

Honduras – Copan Valley

In the Copan Valley of Western Honduras, Izalco Usulután pottery is found in large numbers at the site of Copan as well as other locations in the valley. At Copan, Usulután pottery is first seen during the Chabij Complex (300 B.C. – AD 100), comprising 43.5% of all sherds from the complex (Viel 1993: 51). The Izalco pottery identified within the Copan Valley within

this complex has been identified by a number of researchers (Longyear 1952, Willey et al 1994,

Viel 1993) as being consistent in form and decoration to those types found in El Salvador, and

more specifically, the site of Chalchuapa. Traits shared by Copan Izalco Usulután and that found

at Chalchuapa include a single slipped orange and cream resist decoration, fine cream firing

paste, and vessel forms including flat bottomed plates and dishes with outflaring walls (Figure

17). The lack of mammiform supports on Izalco Usulután vessels at Copan is also seen at

Quelepa, suggesting some possible similarities with that site as well.

Copan Izalco Usulután during this complex also includes several types of jars, which are not generally seen elsewhere in Honduras. The lack of mammiform supports is another point of departure between Copan and other sites in Honduras.

In the later Bijac Ceramic Complex (AD 100-400), Izalco Usulután continues with little variation to the Izalco seen previously. The differences during this complex include the appearance of mammiform supports and hemispherical bowls, which suggest increased continuity with other sites in Western and Northern Honduras. Viel identifies two varieties of

Usulután during this period: Izalco Usulután: Sipues and Izalco Usulután: Bicoño. Sipues appears to be a general continuation of the Izalco Usulután found during the Bijac period and the

Bicoño variety differs in that they are commonly adorned with large, fancy and often garish looking supports. The frequency of Usulután pottery during this complex decreases significantly, dropping to only 20% of the complexes sherds (Viel 1993: 67).

Izalco Usulután appears in small but significant amounts in the Acbi Ceramic Complex

(AD 400 – 650), comprising only 10% of sherds from this complex. The hemispherical bowls that begin to appear during the Bijac complex are more frequent. The Sipues and Bicoño varieties identified previously continue. A new variety, Izalco Usulután: Fijatevos Variety

58 appears during this period, and is defined by a wider range of rim profiles and increased use of irregular or highly decorated supports. Usulután pottery with red painted decoration, Chilanga rojo sobre Usulután, appears as does a similar type, Arturo dicromatico inciso. These two types feature Usulután decoration beneath red paint. For the Chilanga type, paint appears most frequently on or near rims. The Arturo type is restricted to jars and the red paint is frequently applied in wide zones of decoration.

Elsewhere in the Copan Valley, Usulután pottery appears at two sites. In the northeastern portion of the valley, Usulután pottery appears at the site of Los Achiotes during the Chabij and

Bijac phases. Recent excavations at Los Achiotes have uncovered Usulután pottery similar to the types and varieties found at the site of Copan itself. The site of El Raizal is located just to the south of Los Achiotes and dates to the Acbi and Coner phases. Chilanga Usulután is found in some of the earliest deposits at the site, which date to around AD 500. Ceramic analysis is ongoing, and due to the recent nature of the excavations at this both sites, frequencies for these types is absent (Canuto 2004: 44-45).

Usulután pottery in the Copan Valley is recognized as having the widest range of vessel forms recorded for any location in Honduras (Longyear 1952, Viel 1983). Vessels with Usulután decoration show great amounts of elaboration, especially on vessel rims and supports. The appearance of resist decoration at Copan does not seem to vary significantly from the parallel resist lines and dots seen elsewhere, but the range of vessels upon which it is found suggests some level of discontinuity with the rest of Honduras.

In summary, reports of Usulután pottery in Honduras dating to the Late Preclassic period have been frequent, with every major region, site, and valley in central and western Honduras reporting its presence to some degree. Patterns of distribution have been noted by some

59 researchers attempting to make sense of its presence in Honduras, although the conclusions of these analyses have been contradictory in nature due in large part to the difficulty in comparing

Usulután designations, nomenclature, and descriptions throughout the region.

For example, Robinson (1987: 176) argues that Bolo Orange, a type identified in the Sula

Valley, El Cajon Region, Los Naranjos and the Comayagua Valley but absent in parts of Santa

Barbara, the Naco Valley and Copan, represents a foreign import from El Salvador or

Guatemala. This curious pattern of distribution, she argues, represents different sectors of a larger ceramic sphere.

In contrast, Schortman and Urban (1991: 125-6) and Hirth (1989) suggest that the very same type – Bolo Orange - is not an import, but rather a local attempt at Usulután manufacture, citing similarity on a visual level between the pastes of local ceramics at a number of sites and the Bolo Orange Usulután found at each site. Clearly, more analysis of Usulután pottery is necessary in this region in order to answer these and other questions of interaction and political economy.

Guatemala

A number of sites in the Valley of Guatemala and along the Pacific coast have reported the presence of Usulután decorated pottery. Most notable of these sites is Kaminaljuyu, which can be used as the model site for Usulután presence in Guatemala in terms of decorative and temporal range (Kosakowsky et al 2000: 203). The presence of Usulután at Kaminaljuyu was first treated by Shook and Kidder (1952), who noted in their report on Mound E-III-3 at

Kaminaljuyu a significant amount of the pottery. Shook and Kidder reported mostly bowl vessel forms, although some examples of vessels with restricted necks and cylinders with exterior

Usulután decoration were present. Decoration of these vessels usually involved sets of parallel

wavy or straight lines, ranging in color from white to cream to yellow. These lines usually

appeared on the exteriors of vessels, although they are present on some bowls on both the

exterior and interior. This lined decoration was set against a dominant field of color ranging from red to orange, although one example of a gray vessel exists (Shook and Kidder 1952: 100 – 106).

Wetherington (1978) expanded on this original description of Usulután pottery at

Kaminaljuyu in his summary of the Penn State extensive excavations at the site. In his description of Kaminaljuyu Usulután, he made note of the ceramic paste, which he described as generally medium-fine to fine in nature with few inclusions present (Wetherington 1978: 103).

Additionally, Wetherington stressed the ubiquity of Usulután pottery at the site and provided a rough chronology for its presence, with Usulután pottery appearing around 500 BC and continuing through the Terminal Formative (200 BC – AD 200). It is during the Terminal

Formative that Usulután decoration appears in greatest numbers, comprising nearly 40% of total ceramic assemblage for the period (Wetherington 1978: 125, 130).

Belize

Although no true resist decorated Usulután pottery has been reported in Belize, there have been a number of pottery types at sites that are decorated in such a way as to suggest

Usulután inspiration. At Barton Ramie within the Mount Hope Ceramic Complex (BC 100 to

AD 250), Savannah Bank ‘Usulután’ mirrors the Usulután of Honduras, Guatemala and El

Salvador in terms of general appearance (bichrome with lines of a resist-like quality) but differs in terms of paste quality, coloration of the vessel and most importantly, method of decoration.

The lines of decoration are set against a dominant field, but are applied positively through the

application of a paint or paint-like substance. Paste quality is generally of a medium coarseness,

with large amounts of temper visible, and the color scheme is often of orange-brown lines of decoration set against a dominant golden brown field. These ‘Usulután’ style samples at Barton

Ramie are similar to other resist-like types at other sites in Belize, including Uaxactun, Seibal and Altar de Sacrificios, although at each site true Usulután pottery is absent (Gifford 1976:

117).

Summary of Distribution and Sites of Manufacture

From this summary a number of patterns appear in terms of the spatial and chronological distribution of Usulután pottery that provides a rough sketch for the origins and evolution of

Usulután pottery. Usulután pottery appears earliest at Chalchuapa in El Salvador by 650 B.C. with Puxtla Incised Usulután: Puxtla Variety, when resist decoration is applied to a wide variety of forms resulting in a wide range of appearances (Sharer 1978b: 27). Following its initial appearance at Chalchuapa, Usulután pottery appears at a number of sites in eastern Guatemala and El Salvador, including Santa Leticia (Olocuitla Usulután), Kaminaljuyu (Cream Slipped

Usulután) and Quelepa (Izalco Usulután: Izalco Usulután), suggesting that the method of production if not the vessels themselves had spread outward in all directions following this initial fluorescence.

Usulután pottery then appears to have undergone some considerable refinement in terms of appearance and method of manufacture. At Santa Leticia in eastern El Salvador, initial

Usulután variants (Olocuitla Usulután, Jicalapa Usulután) gave way to a more codified Usulután

(Izalco Usulután), as the range of pottery characteristics became restricted in terms of the paste that was used (generally fine), the vessel forms (bowls and plates), the coloration of the slip or

62 slips (orange and cream) and the decorative style (sets of parallel wavy or straight lines).

Additionally, it is argued that the techniques used to decorate Usulután pottery developed as well. During the Kal (650 – 400 BC) and Chul Phases (400 – 100 BC), Usulután pottery appears to have been manufactured using a double slip, one thick and cream colored, the other orange in color. By the end of the Chul Phase, these double slipped varieties gave way to ‘true single slipped Usulután’ (Demarest and Sharer 1982: 817-8). This restricted range of attributes defines the culmination of Usulután pottery development in El Salvador, Izalco Usulután, which appears by about 200 BC. As Usulután developed into this codified form, its popularity spread into

Honduras. By the time this evolution had concluded, single slipped Izalco Usulután was reported at nearly every site in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras (Izalco Usulután, Muerdalo

Usulután) during the Late Preclassic, serving as a diagnostic marker for the Late Preclassic period throughout southeastern Mesoamerica and the southeastern periphery (Demarest and

Sharer 1982: 810, 819). Izalco Usulután pottery continues to appear throughout the Late and

Terminal Preclassic periods, eventually waning in popularity across the periphery, disappearing as a type altogether by the beginning of the Classic period (Demarest and Sharer 1982: 819)

(Table 2).

Table 2, Part 1 Paste Number of Slips Paste Color Site or Chronological Appearance Type: Variety Region Period Buff- Single Double Fine Medium Cream Brown 300 BC – AD Izalco Copan X X X 100 300 BC – AD Usulután: (no var.) La Entrada X X X 600 Izalco Usulután: Santo Naco 300 BC – AD X X Domingo Valley 250 Chilanga Usulután: (no Naco AD 250 -600 X X X var.) Valley Muerdalo Orange: Rio Ulúa 300 – 150 BC X X X Pelo Valley Ulúa Jul Usulután: Jul 300 – 150 BC X X X X X Valley Ulúa Jul Usulután: Soysoy 300 – 150 BC X X X Valley Zarrosa Orange: Ulúa 300 – 150 BC X X X Zarrosa Valley Muerdalo Orange: Ulúa 150 BC – AD X X X Remolino Valley 150 Chilanga Red Painted Ulúa AD 250 - X X X Usulután : La Lima Valley Chilanga Red Painted Ulúa Usulután: Cristobal AD 250 - X X X Valley Grooved Izalco Usulután: Santa 300 BC – AD X X X X Barandillal Barbara 250 Izalco Usulután: Santa 300 BC – AD X X X X Cascajal Barbara 250 Izalco Usulután: Santa 300 BC – AD X X X X Divisito Barbara 250 Izalco Usulután: El Santa 300 BC – AD X X X X Panal Barbara 250 Chilanga Red Painted Santa AD 250 - 600 X X X Usulután: Comederos Barbara Chilanga Red Painted Santa AD 250 - 600 X X X Usulután: Black painted Barbara Izalco Usulután: Santa AD 250 - 600 X X X X Barandillal Barbara Izalco Usulután : (no Southwest AD 250 - 600 X X X var.) Honduras Chilanga Red Painted Southwest AD 250-600 X X X Usulután: (no var.) Honduras Muerdalo Orange: (no 300 BC – AD Lake Yojoa X X X X var.) 600 300 BC – AD Tzuntulin Red: (no var.) Lake Yojoa X X X X 600 Muerdalo Orange- 400 BC – AD Related With Resist El Cajon X X X X X 0 Decoration: (no var.)

Table 2, Part 2 Paste Number of Slips Paste Color Site or Chronological Appearance Type: Variety Region Period Buff- Single Double Fine Medium Cream Brown Muerdalo Orange- AD 0 – AD Related With Resist El Cajon X X X X 400 Decoration: (no var.) 400 BC – AD Bolo Orange: (no var.) El Cajon X X X X 400 Izalco Usulután: (no Comayagua 300 BC – AD X X X var.) Valley 200 Comayagua 300 BC – AD Bolo Orange: (no var.) X X X Valley 200 Izalco Usulután: Izalco Quelepa 500 X X X X Usulután Izalco Usulután: 500 or 400 BC Quelepa X X X X Coarse Incised – AD 150 Izalco Usulután: 500 or 400 BC Quelepa X X X X Coarse Variety – AD 150 Izalco Usulután 500 or 400 BC Quelepa X X X X Modeled – AD 150 Izalco Usulután: 500 or 400 BC Quelepa X X X X Impressed Fillet – AD 150 Izalco Usulután: Red 500 or 400 BC Quelepa X X X X Painted – AD 150 Thick Slip Orange on 500 or 400 BC White Usulután: (no Quelepa X X X X – AD 150 var.) Puxtla Incised Usulután: Puxtla Chalchuapa 650 – 400 BC X X X X variety Jicalapa Usulután Chalchuapa 400 – 200 BC X X X X Jicalapa Jicalapa Usulután: Chalchuapa 400 – 200 BC X X X X Thick Walled 200 BC – AD Izalco Usulután: Izalco Chalchuapa X X X 200 Izalco Usulután: Thick 200 BC – AD Chalchuapa X X X Walled 200 Chilanga Red-painted Chalchuapa 200 – 400 AD X X X Usulután: Chilanga Chilanga Red-painted Chalchuapa 200 – 400 AD X X X Usulután: Osicala Olocuitla Usulután: Santa 650 – 400 BC X X X X (no var.) Leticia Jicalapa Usulután: (no Santa 500 BC – AD X X X var.) Leticia 100 Izalco Usulután: (no Santa 100 BC – AD X X X X var.) Leticia 100

Table 2. Usulután decorated types and varieties, sorted by paste, slip

Whether the spread of Izalco Usulután is due to the movement of pots or emulation of the

style is an issue that has been largely avoided by researchers. A few (Robinson 1987, Kennedy

1986, Urban 1993a, Hirth et al 1989) have explicitly suggested that Izalco Usulután was likely

imported from outside their region of study. Others have implied it through the use of foreign

type and variety nomenclature (Urban 1993b, Viel 1993, Joesink-Mandeville 1993). The issue of

whether Usulután types and varieties were locally manufactured is a question left unaddressed by

many researchers as well. Wonderley (1991) suggests that during the Late Preclassic period a

number of sites attempted to manufacture their own Usulután pottery, resulting in a series of

double slipped types (most commonly referred to as Bolo Orange in Honduras, and as ‘coarse

paste’ variations on Usulután types elsewhere) of a moderately fine to coarse paste. While this

currently stands as the conventional wisdom, researchers have been loathe to tackle the issue in

print. The discussion below summarizes the arguments pertaining the production of Usulután

pottery to date.

Loci of Production

A number of sites have been argued as loci for the production of Usulután ceramics.

These arguments have traditionally been based on two major factors, large amounts at a single site or region, or chemical compositional studies. When researchers have noted the

overwhelming presence of Usulután decorated pottery, either in raw numbers or as a proportion

of the ceramic assemblage for a particular period of time, they have argued that such large

numbers of vessels are more likely to be the result of local manufacture than long distance

exchange. Others have tested ceramic samples from a site through the use of neutron activation

analysis, which allows the researcher to demonstrate whether the use of locally obtained clays in the manufacture of the pottery took place.

Most of the sites that have been argued as production centers of Usulután pottery have

been located in Guatemala and El Salvador. In El Salvador, Quelepa is argued to have been

producing Usulután pottery during the Uapala phase (500 BC – AD 150) when Usulután pottery

comprises roughly half of all the ceramics excavated at the site during the period (Andrews

1976: 56, 1977: 117). The argument of Quelepa as a center of productions has been supported by

diminishing frequencies of Usulután at sites to the northeast of Quelepa in a classic drop-off

curve of distribution (Renfrew 1977, Robinson 1988: 19). Usulután appears in high frequencies

at Santa Leticia in El Salvador as well (34% of the assemblage for the Jicalapa group),

prompting researchers to argue for Santa Leticia as a probable locus of production for Usulután

pottery during the Late Formative period (Demarest 1986: 145). A similar line of argument is

followed for Chalchuapa, where Usulután decorated pottery dominates both the Chul and

Cayanac ceramic complexes. The proportion of Usulután pottery in the total ceramic assemblage

for the site is small (6% and 9%, respectively), but it is the most numerous group in each

complex, suggesting that it was manufactured on site (Sharer 1974: 171; 1978: 30, 39).

The site of Kaminaljuyu in Guatemala has also been argued as a possible locus of

production based on two lines of non-elemental evidence: 1) the amount of Usulután pottery

recovered at the site during the Late Formative period, and 2) visual similarities between the

paste of Usulután pottery and locally made modern pottery. During the late Formative period,

Usulután decorated pottery comprises nearly 15% of the typed ceramics at the site, leading

Wetherington to suggest a local manufacture rather than a high amount of imported material.

Microscopic examination of the paste composition for Usulután pottery dating to the Late

Formative period and similar firing local clays used in the manufacture of non-Usulután vessels showed general similarities as well (Wetherington 1978: 495).

Arguments for the production of Usulután pottery in Honduras based on ceramic frequency are largely absent, with researchers there either avoiding an explanation of whether

Usulután pottery is locally made or an import or assuming that it is foreign with little explanation of where they think it is manufactured (e.g. Robinson 1987: 176, Kennedy 1986: 187, Urban

1993a: 37). While similarities between Usulután pottery in Honduras and types in Guatemala and

El Salvador have been noted, most researchers simply refer to Andrews’ (1976) discussion of an

Uapala ceramic sphere stemming from his work at Quelepa in order to tie locally recovered

Usulután to better-documented sites outside their own research focus. The Uapala ceramic sphere represents an attempt by Andrews to come to grips with a high level of similarity between

ceramic complexes throughout El Salvador, Honduras and portions of Guatemala. As Chapter 4

will summarize, one of the characteristics of the Uapala ceramic sphere is the presence of

Usulután pottery and this is commonly cited by Honduran researchers who want to show they

recognize influence at a distance but aren’t sure how to characterize it (e.g. Joesink-Mandeville

1993: 244).

Arguments for Usulután pottery production loci in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras based on compositional analysis have largely stemmed from attempts to define general patterns of production and consumption of Late Formative period pottery. Generally, a few samples of

Usulután pottery have been included in larger projects. These samples are compared

compositionally to local clay samples or non-Usulután vessels thought to have been produced

locally. Sample sizes have tended to be small and ineffective. As a result, arguments for loci of

Usulután pottery production have been presented as an aside, and this dissertation is the first

project specifically designed to test for loci of Usulután pottery production .

In Guatemala, attempts to understand patterns of production and consumption along the

Pacific Coast through the application of Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) resulted in mixed signals regarding the production of Usulután pottery. An initial NAA study by Rice (1978a) to identify Kaminaljuyu as a locus of Usulután production was later met with skepticism and more thorough and contradicting data by researchers in the area (Neff, Bishop and Bove 1989: 103). In this larger study, ceramics were analyzed that were thought to have been manufactured at a

number of sites along the Pacific Guatemalan coast and the Valley of Guatemala. PCRU’s (Paste

Compositional Reference Units) that represent clusters of samples with similar compositions

were composed using chemical data generated through Neutron Activation Analysis. Only one of

the Usulután samples gathered at coastal sites matched the established PCRU’s that define the

rest of the Late Preclassic ceramics in the study (Neff, Bishop and Bove 1989: 103). The one

Usulután sherd that did match established PCRU’s appeared to belong to the ‘fine white core

group’, originating in the Sacatepéquez highlands. From this testing, the authors suggest that the

paramount centers included in the study, namely El Balsamo, Monte Alto and Los Cerritos, had

Usulután pottery imported from non-Valley of Guatemala production loci. Where these centers

were located, however, was not suggested (Neff, Bishop and Bove 1989: 104).

The inability to define any Guatemalan production loci for Usulután pottery continued

despite attempts to correlate Usulután pottery with a larger database and more refined PCRU’s

(Neff et al 1994: 344-345), further suggesting that the loci of production for Usulután pottery

within Guatemala remains undiscovered, or more likely, Usulután ceramics were imported. Of

course, researchers in Guatemala hold out hope for the former rather than the latter (Neff, Bishop

and Arnold 1990: 176), largely based on non-Usulután compositional analyses suggesting that in

general Guatemalan ceramics were manufactured in Guatemala and El Salvadoran ceramics were

manufactured in El Salvador (Bishop and Demarest 1986: 237).

Research in El Salvador, the proposed locus of production for the vast majority of

Usulután decorated pottery, is ongoing and a compositional database is in development. Sample

sizes for individual sites in El Salvador are small and are in the process of being bolstered by

clay samples (Bishop, personal communication 2008). For this reason, the linkages between sites

in El Salvador and sites in other regions remain based on arguments derived from frequency

analysis and not chemical analysis.

In Honduras, a single study of ceramic production provides some insight into loci of

Usulután production. A number of late Yunque Phase Sulaco group ceramics were analyzed

using Neutron Activation Analysis. Two of the groups included in this study were Sulaco Orange

and Muerdalo Orange. Sulaco Orange ceramics were partially contemporaneous with Muerdalo

Orange and are similar to Muerdalo in terms of paste appearance and use of orange slip. All of

the samples analyzed in the study were compared compositionally, and several PCRU’s were

formed. Muerdalo Orange samples from bowls with mammiform supports and the Sulaco

Orange samples were tested against PCRU’s in order to see if they matched compositionally.

Roughly half of the samples called ‘monochrome’, which include an unknown number of resist-

decorated sherds, failed to cluster with any of the established PCRU’s that characterize the rest of the samples. Instead, these samples cluster among themselves, creating a new PCRU comprised solely of monochrome sherds. Because the paste recipes for these sherds do not match the established PCRU’s but still cluster together they either represent paste a paste unique to this type using a local clay or represent pottery that was imported from outside the region.

The other half of the ‘monochrome’ samples and do not cluster at all, failing to match

any of the PCRUs. Because these samples do not match established PCSUs and also fail to form

their own cluster, this portion of the ‘monochrome’ samples were made from a variety of paste

recipes, none of which were shared by any other types that were analyzed. This could represent

either a range of unidentified local clays not used in the manufacture of other types or could

represent several foreign paste recipes used to manufacture imported pottery (Beaudry et al

1988: 109, 111).

In conclusion, this evidence suggests that in both the El Cajon region and the Sula

Valley, monochrome ceramics, including resist decorated specimens, were produced either from

unidentified clays within the research area or clays outside the regions being studied.

Context: Usulután pottery consumption

A review of the consumption patterns of Usulután pottery suggests a promising set of patterns, with Usulután pottery appearing in significant numbers in elite contexts. But upon further review, this pattern might actually reflect the ‘top down’ archaeology prevalent throughout Southern Mesoamerica and the Southeastern Mesoamerican periphery rather than any economic, social or political reality in prehistory.

Usulután decorated pottery has been found most often in the context of elite house

structures, in elite mound fill, or in middens associated with structures of an elite context.

Whether at Chalchuapa (Sharer 1978a: 39), Copan (Viel 1993: 50,66), Yarumela (Joesink-

Mandeville 1987, 2004: 279), Rio Pelo (Wonderley 1991: 153) or any other site mentioned in the

above review, Usulután pottery is primarily associated with elite activity at primary or secondary

centers within settlement hierarchies. Largely absent from discussions of Usulután consumption are reports of Usulután pottery being found in non-elite contexts.

This apparent pattern has prompted some researchers to suggest that for most sites in

which it is found, Usulután was a trade ware that was imported by elites, who then restricted its

distribution to serve their own political and economic goals (Schortman and Urban 1991: 126,

Urban 1993a, Wonderley 1991: 164-5). This argument is in turn used to support suggestions that

a broader interaction sphere, defined largely by the presence of Usulután ceramics and having

far-reaching effects in terms of non-ceramic commonalities throughout Southern Mesoamerica

and the Southeastern Mesoamerican periphery, was an elite driven phenomenon (Wonderley

1991: 165, Joesink-Mandeville 2004: 285, Lange 1992).

While the end result of this line of thinking regarding Usulután exchange and resulting

interaction spheres is likely to be true, the steps taken to get to this conclusion thus far rest on a

foundation of negative evidence. Research throughout the Southeastern Mesoamerican periphery

has been decidedly top-down in nature, with excavations and subsequent ceramic analysis focusing on the primary large centers in a region. Research has often lacked extensive surveys of areas peripheral to primary sites that would illustrate the breadth of consumption for ‘elite’ pottery, including Usulután decorated vessels. The question of Usulután consumption is well defined at an elite level, but the possibility of non-elite consumption of Usulután pottery has not been researched to the extent that we can truly call Usulután pottery an elite ware. Further, the presence of a double slipped, coarse paste Usulután pottery at a number of sites has prompted the suggestion that these vessels are merely ‘knock-offs’ of imported Usulután. If these were indeed local knock-offs that satiated the local demand for a restricted trade ware, then the distribution of these knock-offs would have a predictable pattern of consumption both at primary and secondary sites in regions throughout Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.

Also hindering the study of Usulután pottery production and consumption are issues

related to the use of the type-variety system of ceramic classification. While this system of

classification may be the most suitable for Mesoamerican ceramic analysis, the study of Usulután

pottery in general and Izalco Usulután: Usulután in particular has been hindered to some degree

using this system. The following review will briefly summarize two types of classification systems, the type-variety system and modal analysis, and discuss how the type-variety system has impacted the study of Usulután pottery.

Type-Variety and Modal Analyses of Usulután Pottery

The type-variety method of ceramic classification has dominated ceramic analysis in

Mesoamerica since the 1960’s, and is generally the method used by archaeologists to make sense of the variability apparent in the ceramic record. The type-variety system is not without its drawbacks, however, and at times researchers have abandoned the type-variety system for a modal analysis. Modal analysis is not without its drawbacks either, and others have favored employing a combination of the two systems. A brief summary of the two methods and how they have been applied in Mesoamerica is presented here. The advantages and shortcomings of both will be discussed and finally the impact of the type-variety and modal systems on the understanding of Usulután will be presented.

The type-variety system was presented as a basis for the analysis of Maya pottery by

Smith, Willey and Gifford (1960), who sought to avoid the confusion seen elsewhere in

Mesoamerica and North America in general by defining terms of analysis and discussing how they should be applied in a manner that could be emulated by others conducting research in the

Maya region.

Analysis of pottery using the type-variety system begins with the recognition and recording of attributes. Attributes are the smallest unit of analysis and represent individual observable features of a piece of pottery such as paste, rim shape, and surface color. The authors are careful to distinguish between attributes and modes. A mode is a ceramic attribute (or collectively a small group of inseparable attributes) that have been observed to have singular

importance and meaning. A mode, according to Smith, Willey and Gifford, is ‘…an attribute or

cluster of attributes that displays significance in its own right’ (Smith, Willey and Gifford 1960:

331). When attributes that are observable are combined, a variety is created. A variety is

intended to be the smallest meaningful unit of classification in the type-variety method and is meant to approximate some culturally meaningful cluster of pottery producing choices. The authors contend that varieties (and types) were realities within the cultural configuration of their origin and should strive to mimic the ordering of pottery variability in the past.

A type is a level of analysis above the variety and represents …’an aggregate of visually distinct ceramic attributes already objectified within one or generally several varieties that, when taken as a whole, are indicative of a particular class of pottery produced during a specific time interval within a specific region” (Smith, Willey and Gifford 1960 333). The type must have a definable time and space position, although the type should remain a fluid category, changing its definition as more ceramic data is available.

From types and varieties, groups, ceramic complexes and ceramic sequences can be constructed. A ceramic group is a set of closely related pottery types that demonstrate a distinctive homogeneity in their ranges of variation in form and technological attributes. A group is in some ways a super type, representing a number of types that demonstrate the same basic surface treatment or decoration although in some cases the group concept is used to describe

poorly preserved sherds with some loss of surface decoration that exhibit a shared range of paste

appearances. In some applications, the group differs from the type in that types within a group

are more likely to have different pastes (Gifford 1976). The ceramic complex represents the full range of ceramics known to have been use at a particular time and is usually comprised of several different ceramic groups (Sharer 1978b). Complexes are often divided into phases, which represent temporal subdivisions with a broader chronological period, when additional dating information necessitates some separation within a complex.

The application of the type-variety system is not without its limitations, however. Wright

(1967) argues that the type-variety method tends to pigeon hole individual attributes whose

trends extend beyond the type and that broad trends across types and varieties based on a single

attribute may be muted. Hammond (1972) suggests that the dendritic structure of the system is

too rigid and forces pottery into false hierarchies, making assertions about variety, type and

group membership questionable. Citing ceramic evidence from Lubaantún in Belize, Hammond

argues that the broad similarities within his ceramic data beyond surface decoration would be

muted using the type-variety method. If type-variety is meant to describe realities within the cultural configuration of their origin, then it should be flexible enough to identify realities other than surface decoration. Others disagree with how data generated by the type-variety scheme is

reported. Smith (1979) argues that the descriptions of types and varieties inevitably include the

description of attributes that some members of the type or variety may share or may not.

An alternative approach, and one that can be merged to some degree with the type-variety

system, is modal analysis. Modal analysis of ceramics in Mesoamerica was first proposed by

Rouse (1960), who defined a mode as a series of attributes which are shared by the

corresponding parts of a series of artifacts. This approach selects individual ceramic traits

(modes) such as a particular slip, vessel form or paste and uses them as the basic unit of classification. Its proponents have argued that modal analyses can be particularly helpful when ceramics from a site are poorly preserved, allowing a limited range of attributes to be reliably recorded. Because the focus of analysis is on a limited or singular attribute, describing sherds can be easier using a modal analysis than a type-variety approach. Modal analysis can also help to clarify broad trends in ceramics over time, as a single mode is tracked despite other changes in a vessel’s appearance (Wright 1967).

Critics of a strict modal analysis argue that the ability of a modal analysis to track ceramic trends over long periods of time actually hinders its applicability and results in a

‘lumping’ of ceramic variability. Site chronologies based on a modal analysis may miss significant changes in ceramic production over time as research deemphasizes some changing clusters of ceramic attributes while focusing on others. Another major criticism is that a modal analysis results in tightly defined units that, although useful at the site specific level of analysis, make inter-site comparisons difficult (Sabloff 1975).

The type-variety method of ceramic classification has been used by the majority of archaeologists working at sites within the Uapala ceramic sphere. In some ways this approach has been useful, but in others it had hindered the study of Usulután pottery. One positive contribution of the type-variety system has been the emphasis on reporting surface decoration.

The resist decoration of Usulután pottery is the most recognizable of all of its attributes and what sets it apart from all other pottery types and varieties in Southeastern Mesoamerica. Because of this focus on surface decoration, regional trends can be identified and site to site comparisons can be drawn. Another benefit of the focus on surface decoration has been the body of literature suggesting ways in which resist decoration was achieved. Because so much of the descriptive

76 focus has been on surface decoration, many researchers have mused about how potters created this effect.

The strict adherence to the type-variety approach by researchers reporting Usulután pottery has had some drawbacks. A review of the types and varieties reported in the regions included in this study reveals over three dozen different type and variety combinations for

Usulután pottery (Table 1). Many researchers have opted for the creation of distinct types and varieties despite recognizing Usulután based on where it has been reported elsewhere and describing it with few, if any, localized variations. One example is Muerdalo Orange, which is a single slipped, fine cream paste Usulután. This type is described by Baudez and Becquelin as nearly identical to the Izalco Usulután: Izalco found in El Salvador, and they clearly recognize it as a closely related, if not the same type. Despite these similarities, they opted for a localized nomenclature, which has been followed by some other researchers in Honduras (Hirth et al

1989). The result has been a confusing variability in how Usulután pottery is reported.

Even more confusing is the proliferation of localized type and variety names given to double slipped, fine to medium, buff to brown paste Usulutáns. In some portions of Honduras these are called Bolo Orange, in other parts, they take on other names. While the double slipped, fine to medium, buff to brown paste Usulutáns do show more variability across Honduras and El

Salvador, they are clearly slight variations on the same theme: an attempt to make resist decorated orange and cream colored vessels despite the inability or unwillingness to use light firing clays. To overcome this resource-based shortcoming, potters are using a medium to fine clay that fires to variable colors, slipping it once to a cream color to conceal the darker firing color, then following the first slip with a second orange slip to create the resist appearance.

A modal analysis that focuses first on paste and secondly on surface decoration has been

followed by Hirth and others working in the El Cajon region. Instead of sorting their resist-

decorated pottery into multiple types and varieties based primarily on surface decoration, they

describe Muerdalo Orange as a single ceramic class with variable pastes. Types within the class are recognized based on these paste differences. Such a system of classification at least begins to bring to light what potters likely had in mind: the desire to manufacture a resist decorated vessel with an orange and cream color scheme regardless of the raw materials available. Clearly the type-variety classification system has served archaeologists working in many parts of Honduras well, but the emphasis on surface decoration in the description of Usulután pottery has not come without a price.

Conclusion

This chapter has reviewed Usulután pottery, attempting to be as comprehensive a discussion of the types and varieties found in Southeastern Mesoamerica as possible. While research over the past seventy years has resulted in a proliferation of types and varieties that occasionally obscures trends in the data, but overall, Usulután pottery is well understood and well described. Thanks to these accurate descriptions, researchers began to notice broad geographic trends in ceramic complexes and in the distribution of Izalco Usulután in particular.

These trends served as the foundation for the recognition of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere, which is discussed in Chapter 4.

Chapter 3 – The Uapala Ceramic Sphere: Regions and Sites

Introduction

The previous chapter focused on Usulután pottery, and specifically Izalco Usulután. It

detailed the attributes that define the type and its broad geographic range. Izalco Usulután and its

variants have been the focus of much attention from researchers working throughout

Southeastern Mesoamerica, and have been integral to arguments for site to site and regional

contact for decades. E Wyllys Andrews V recognized the broad presence of Izalco Usulután

throughout portions of Honduras and El Salvador and summarized its geographic range, creating

the Uapala Ceramic Sphere (Andrews 1976). This sphere was not just a summary of its presence

and absence across different portions of Southeastern Mesoamerica, but rather a model of

interaction. Andrews outlined both how it was formed and what behaviors maintained these

similarities over time. His model has been a point of discussion ever since.

This chapter will begin by discussing and critically evaluating the Uapala Ceramic

Sphere constructed by Andrews and subsequent applications, modifications and critiques by others. The sites and regions within the sphere are identified, and attention is given to the

contexts in which Izalco Usulután and other Usulután decorated pottery have been found and

their frequency in site-specific or regional ceramic complexes.

Interaction Sphere Concept

The concept of the interaction sphere was first developed by Joseph Caldwell in

a paper published in 1964. Noting that 'nothing is clearer to the archaeologists than that over

broad geographical regions various societies tend to change in concert' (Caldwell 1964: 135),

Caldwell attempted to conceive of a concept and surrounding body of theory that would explain

79 what archaeologists could so plainly see. He largely drew from the works of Gordon Willey, whose recently published works on 'great art styles' had prompted Caldwell's consideration of the levels of interaction required to bring about such regionally bounded culture traits.

The result was the 'interaction sphere', which Caldwell defined as a geographically bounded region involving several distinctive cultures that retain their distinctiveness at the level of subsistence technology and local crafts, but which share a common set of values, rituals, behavior, styles and materials (Caldwell 1964: 137, Hayden and Schulting 1997: 52). An expanded definition of the term 'interaction sphere' notes that there should be distinctive cultural traditions in each of the regions within the interaction sphere prior to the emergence of any shared supralocal cultural attributes (Caldwell 1964: 137). Following the establishment of an interaction sphere, diagnostic artifacts and usages should not continue to have a single source, but rather reflect a heightened level of communication between portions of the interaction sphere.

Caldwell suggests that the shared items that serve to bind an interaction sphere together are usually mortuary-ceremonial or religious. Therefore, connections between parts of an interaction sphere are most easily visible when examining burials. Items found in a household context, on the other hand, are less likely to reflect the supralocal cultural traits that bind the interaction sphere. Rather, these contexts should serve as examples for the locally derived culture traits that give portions of an interaction sphere their distinct character (Caldwell 1964: 138).

In an effort to place his formulation of the interaction sphere in context, Caldwell returned to the works of Willey that had inspired him. Willey's work regarding 'great art styles' of the Olmec and Chavin sought to explain the development of regional cultures and social complexity (Willey 1962). Caldwell suggested that unlike most of the interaction theories of the

time, the interaction sphere concept could provide applicability to a number of regions in time

and space.

In the same volume as Caldwell's formulation of the interaction sphere concept, Stuart

Streuver (1964) presented generally similar but alternative characterization of the interaction

sphere. A colleague of Caldwell's, Streuver's formulation of the interaction sphere was similar to

interaction sphere on some levels and significant different at others. Both Streuver and Caldwell

agreed that elite activity should be a major focus when examining interaction spheres, arguing

that elite action in a society often has the potential for much greater impact on culture change

then other segments of a society.

Where Streuver departed from Caldwell was in the sphere’s major theoretical purpose.

While Caldwell's underlying purpose in presenting the interaction sphere was to explain how

interaction spheres stimulated cultural change, Streuver sought to explain why the interaction

sphere developed and was participated in by its members. Two major aspects of Streuver's

formulation and how it differs from Caldwell’s should be noted.

First, his concept of the interaction sphere was less ideological and more economic in

nature than Caldwell's. Streuver specifically stated that the movement of artifact styles, raw

materials, and especially finished products circulated as the result of largely economic motives.

The cultural rationale for the movement of goods within a society was subsumed under

established logistical networks that were economic in nature.

These networks, despite being formed for largely economic reasons, were still

ideologically and socially relevant. The objects that tied an interaction sphere together, Streuver argued, were 'status-specific objects', objects that furthered the differences between elites and non-elites, and could be used to further political and social development (Streuver 1964: 88).

Second, Streuver was also more specific about the origins of the interaction sphere,

discussing why people within a region would want to be involved in such a logistics network in

the first place. Streuver suggested that interaction spheres were developed due to the aggregation

of populations that resulted from the adoption of agriculture. People were centrally located and

burgeoning political complexity was a factor in the daily lives of these nucleated people. The

shift from hunting and gathering to agriculture, while providing a stronger subsistence base in

good years, exposed these populations to more risk in bad year, necessitating a higher level of

regional contact. Streuver argued that the result was the interaction sphere, and was a method of

establishing continued contact between groups of people that occasionally served to buffer

against subsistence risk.

In a later article, Robert Hall (1973) outlined the concrete benefits of interaction

networks. Participation in a network fostered friendly ties with one's neighbors through the

exchange of prestige goods and the ability to count on them for exchange of subsistence goods

was improved. Food was redistributed along the same lines, and involving the same agents, as

the prestige goods exchange that forms the interaction sphere. Hall also offered a potential cause for the collapse of an interaction sphere. He suggests that interaction spheres can disintegrate in response to more predictable ways of providing for local subsistence needs. In such cases, it became economically unnecessary for groups to participate in interaction sphere 'insurance' network and regional interaction spheres were limited in favor of more localized exchange (Hall

1973: 69).

In a later paper, Dalton provided a further interpretation and expansion of the interaction sphere concept. In a paper responding to Polanyi's thoughts on long-distance trade, Dalton

(1975) suggested that interaction sphere communities were restricted to pre-state levels of social

82 complexity. These communities were reliant on lineage or clan organizations to structure economic and social interaction, used primitive valuables for the establishment of alliances, and showed signs of some level of endemic conflict.

Having considered what the major figures in the development of the interaction sphere concept have said, a discussion of what they do not say should be given, and the interaction sphere should be placed in a wider theoretical framework.

Caldwell and the others mentioned above do not specifically stress the role of elites in their discussions of interaction spheres, although it is evident from reading their work that individual agents are at the center of interaction networks. If individual agents are the ones structuring and supporting the interaction sphere, Dalton's assertion of levels of social complexity at the group level can be transferred to the political elite. Therefore, a further requirement of an interaction sphere would be a similar level of political power for the elite agents within an interaction sphere.

Additionally, the benefits for political elite are hinted at, but not made explicit. By inserting themselves in the system as subsistence buffers, they place themselves at a node of control in times of stress and increase the potential to expand their political power (see Hayden and Gargett 1990 for a more focused discussion). Further, if the maintenance of interaction spheres requires the movement of prestige goods that are symbolically rich and of great value, it provides an opportunity for the political elite to shape segments of the society through control of the production, distribution, and consumption of an important fraction of the economy. The symbolic and value-laden nature of these goods also allows the elite to shape the ideological structure of the society, directing and even constructing meaning from a distance, what Helms has termed 'esoteric knowledge' (Helms 1991). Finally, through the control of the movement of

83 these goods an elite has the opportunity to mediate political relationships both within his own region and between groups at a distance. By participating in an interaction network, the elite can channel of diffuse power at specific points, serving his own political agenda. If goods are important ideologically, materially and symbolically, deciding who has them amounts to deciding who can claim legitimate power at any level of social interaction.

Interaction Spheres and the Ceramic Sphere Concept

One archaeological application of the Interaction Sphere concept is the ceramic sphere. In many ways, the ceramic sphere is merely a ceramic-based interaction sphere, with many of the same mechanisms and behaviors guiding its formation and continuation. However, the ceramic sphere concept has features that differentiate it from other kinds of interaction spheres. Many classes of artifacts have long been easily distinguished as locally produced or imported. Shells, jade, magnetite and even obsidian are restricted to a limited number of sources, and these sources have been identified in the archaeological literature for decades. Pottery, on the other hand, can usually be made with a range of locally available materials. Because the progression from the recognition of ceramics exhibiting shared styles to the identification of imported pottery is not a straightforward process, pottery types and varieties have been argued both as examples of long distance prestige goods and as markers of localized autonomous craft production.

In order to successfully identify an artifact as a long-distance trade good, one must be able to successfully source the raw material(s) used in its construction. By identifying the locus of raw materials, one can either expect goods produced from that source to be deposited relatively close, or can infer that the raw materials were transported at a significant cost. Another step is the identification of the locus of production. Archaeologists have argued the identification

84 of production loci based on high frequencies of the object being manufactured, debitage from the manufacturing process, or tools associated with the production of an object (Weigand et al 1977).

Next, the archaeologist must be able to demonstrate the movement of goods across space. Goods need to have been traded and not the result of the movement of people themselves. Finally, the distribution of the artifact at the site of consumption must be considered. If the ceramics in question are thought to be a prestige good, patterns of distribution should show signs of restriction by an elite. The argument for this is usually based on prestige good concentrations at

‘elite’ locations such as burials and monuments requiring group construction; conversely, the prestige good needs to be largely absent from other non-elite contexts.

Ceramics are more difficult to test in this manner than other prestige goods because clays to make them are readily available and difficult to source by visual inspection alone. Usually the archaeologist is forced to turn to compositional studies using petrography or chemical means such as neutron activation analysis in order to source ceramic artifacts. Second, identifying loci of production is especially difficult in the case of ceramics. The manufacture of ceramics requires few, if any tools, and the firing of ceramic vessels can leave no archaeological traces.

Third, the case for the movement of pottery across space is difficult to argue. Ceramics, unlike jade or stone pendants, are rather bulky and incur high transport costs. Maintaining a ceramic trade network would incur higher costs to elite sponsors than many other forms of long distance exchange. Fourth, understanding the distribution of the ceramic at the point of consumption is difficult to accomplish since local potters are likely to produce imitation wares.

For these reasons, theory explaining the relationship between regional ceramic stylistic similarities and the behaviors responsible for their development and maintenance has been underdeveloped. Unlike many other artifact categories, the raw materials used to manufacture

85 ceramics are ubiquitous, and a range of behaviors could explain a single regional ceramic pattern. Despite these limitations, attempts have been made to model potential behaviors that drive the development of regional ceramic patterns. One of these is the ceramic sphere concept.

A ceramic sphere is defined as an integrative unit above the ceramic complex; it exists when the majority of the most common ceramic types are shared between two or more ceramic complexes (Willey, Culbert and Adams 1967: 306). In other words, a ceramic sphere exists when two or more sites share most of the ceramic types comprising their ceramic assemblages. This identification can be difficult because the ceramic types that join regions are often identified in a site-specific context and described accordingly. In these cases a widely distributed ceramic type may go unnoticed due to incomplete or incomparable designation by multiple researchers. Even worse, a type that appears at one site can be misidentified as being identical to a type at another site without the rigorous testing of these assertions by the researcher.

When successfully identified, however, a ceramic sphere shows that there was a high degree of interaction between participating communities. The precise form of that interaction, however, is left ambiguous: it can be the product of the actual movement of pots through economic interaction, or the communication of the technological and stylistic information pertinent to ceramic manufacture and design. The reasons for the development of a ceramic sphere are similar to those argued for the development of an interaction sphere. The ceramics being traded cement relationships between regions, providing a secure source of non-elite goods in times of stress. Once established, the ceramic sphere allows the elite figure to further their own political agenda through the careful manipulation of the distribution of goods reinforcing a political ideology (Robinson 1988: 11).

Once identified, researchers must then explain the type of interaction responsible for

formulation of a ceramic sphere. This is important because the type of interaction, whether it be

the diffusion of ideas or technological skill, the movement of actual potters or pot owners over

space through migration, or the movement of the pots themselves, all have significant

ramifications for understanding the social, political and economic forces that shaped it.

As the above review has demonstrated, the interaction sphere concept clearly has utility

in the explanation of regional social, political and economic behavior, and helps the

archaeologist to understand the local and regional factors that shaped this behavior. The

interaction sphere concept has not gone without its criticisms, however. The interaction sphere

concept tends to lose much of its explanatory value once societies in the sphere of interaction

reach a moderate to high level of social complexity. It appears that for tribes and the majority of

chiefdom level societies, interaction sphere theory has explanatory value. In proto-states or state

level societies, the development of institutions, the ability for political figures to exact influence

at a distance, and the technological and systemic advances that allow materials such as bulk

staples all contribute to the abandonment of interaction sphere theory in favor of other lines of

theory, such as world-systems perspectives or peer-polity models. In Mesoamerica there have

been few attempts to use the interaction sphere concept, but it has yet to catch on in a significant

way.

The ceramic sphere likewise has utility for archaeologists studying regional similarities in ceramic assemblages. Recognition of a ceramic sphere shifts the level of analysis from a site or group of sites to a broad region, prompting researchers to consider a wider range of behaviors that could explain the range of type-varieties at a site and how they are distributed. However,

many regional ceramic patterns are not investigated once they are recognized due to the inability

of researchers to define patterns of production and distribution without additional research. The

participation of elites in behaviors that lead to these similarities is often assumed but untested.

Because ceramic spheres lacking evidence for production and distribution can be interpreted as

the result of a wide range of behaviors, these too have had limited application and success in

Mesoamerica.

The Uapala Ceramic Sphere

The Uapala Ceramic Sphere is a region of ceramic similarity that comprises parts of El

Salvador and much of Honduras during the Late Preclassic period (Figure 21). The sphere was proposed by E.W. Andrews V following extensive excavations at the site of Quelepa in eastern

El Salvador (Andrews 1976, 1977). The Uapala ceramic sphere is based on the presence of a single pottery type: Izalco Usulután. Excavations from several test pits at Quelepa’s East Group revealed a number of caches dating to the Uapala phase (C. 500-400 B.C. to A.D. 150). These

caches were composed almost entirely of Usulután pottery, and this type constitutes almost 60%

of the Uapala phase lots throughout the site.

Figure 21. Map of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. (Demarest 1986)

Andrews recognized similarities between the Usulután ceramics of Quelepa, and those

found at sites in the Guatemalan highlands (e.g. Kaminaljuyu), and Los Naranjos in Honduras.

He argued that the different dating of the phases in which Usulután appeared suggests two phases of development and expansion. First, Usulután resist pottery appears throughout western

El Salvador and highland Guatemala during a portion of the Middle Preclassic Period (650-400

BC). He refrains from identifying any single site as the origin of Usulután, but suggests that the

pottery was likely developed somewhere within this region. After this initial development,

Usulután is found later in ceramic complexes in Eastern El Salvador and Honduras that date to

the late Middle Preclassic. Because Usulután is found in these regions without any stylistic

antecedents, Andrews argues that the pottery style spread east and north sometime after 300 B.C.

Andrews argues that the mechanism for the geographic spread of this ceramic tradition is

the movement of Quiche speakers radiating outward from a heartland in Western El Salvador

and the Guatemalan highlands to the rest of the Uapala ceramic sphere. Evidence for such

movement is based on phonological correspondences between Lenca and Quiche and the modern

distribution of Lenca place names.

Lenca, a linguistic group that dominated central and western Honduras and much of El

Salvador at the time of Spanish contact, has been considered a part of the Macro-Chibchan

language system, of which Quiche is also a member. Andrews (1972: 53) suggests that Lenca

diverged as a language from Quiche during the first millennium B.C. as populations left the

Quiche-speaking portions of the Guatemalan highlands and Western El Salvador and settled to

the east. The correlation of Lenca place names at the time of contact with the extent of Usulután

pottery at sites dating to the Middle and Late Preclassic is also cited as evidence of this

migration.

Demarest, citing ceramic evidence from Santa Leticia, reiterated the existence of the

Uapala ceramic sphere, although he expanded the list of ceramic similarities to include two additional ceramic categories (Figure 21). First, zoned bichromes that are closely related to

Izalco Usulután. This decoration is frequently seen on jars, often with fillet appliqué or incision.

Types and varieties that fit within this group are Pacheco Dichrome at Copan, Placitas Red at

Quelepa and Ulúa Bichrome in west-central Honduras. A second category added by Demarest is

90 a similar plain buff ceramic, which lacks red paint and is dominated by jar and tecomate forms

(Demarest 1986: 163). Based on frequencies of this expanded range of types, Demarest argued that the Naco Valley, Ulúa Valley and Santa Barbara regions of Honduras should be added to the

Andrews’ sphere as well.

Demarest agrees with Andrews’ assertion that the Uapala sphere is related to Lenca speaking cultures. He cautions, however, that without more specific connections between proposed areas of origin and the rest of the sphere, a range of hypotheses other than Andrews’ migration hypothesis could explain the Late Preclassic spread of Izalco Usulután across the southern periphery (Demarest 1986: 175).

An examination of the sphere by Robinson (1988) called into question both Andrews’ and Demarest’s formulations. Robinson argued for expanding the size of the Uapala ceramic sphere based on a review of Late Preclassic complexes from the Sula (later called Ulúa) Valley and Los Naranjos. First, Robinson argued that all of the Sula valley should be included in the sphere because of the substantial amounts of Usulután found being reported at Colonia Care,

YR-162, Rio Pelo and La Guacamaya. She also suggested that the El Cajon region should also be included based on recent research (Figure 22).

Figure 22. Map of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. (Robinson 1988)

She suggested that mere presence or absence of similarities among types within a region were not sufficient to define a ceramic sphere. Instead, similarities needed to be present among types that constitute a significant portion of the overall ceramic complex. An examination of the frequency of Usulután ceramics based on current research at the time at Yarumela and the Ulúa

Valley suggested that amounts of Izalco/Muerdalo at Yarumela and in the Ulúa Valley were very

92 small. Based on available evidence, she suggested that the distribution of Usulután pottery within the sphere could conform to a simple fall-off curve from assumed loci of production in El

Salvador and not provide any evidence of increased interaction. Rather than a sponsored or directed trade network of elite sponsorship, this distribution suggests a simple function of distance from the point of manufacture.

In addition to the presence of Izalco/Muerdalo Usulután, Robinson suggests the majority of sites within the sphere show a range of functional or stylistic alternatives. In a central corridor of the sphere, Yarumela and Los Naranjos showed significant amounts of the locally made double slipped variant of Usulután called Bolo Orange. Robinson argues that elsewhere in the sphere, red-slipped fine paste bowls lacking resist decoration show an intimate knowledge of

Usulután manufacturing methods, with these red-slipped vessels replacing Izalco Usulután.

Her analysis suggests that beneath a veneer of inter-regional stylistic similarity there are obvious regional variations. The small amounts of Izalco Usulután combined with the proliferation of stylistic alternatives shows that there is a sharing of ideas about a common resist style across the sphere, but not the kinds of intense interaction that results in a sharing of multiple ceramic types resulting in a single ceramic sphere. The distribution of different varieties of Izalco Usulután-inspired pottery such as Bolo Orange can be traced to identify sub-spheres and these sub-spheres should replace the single Uapala Ceramic Sphere proposed by Andrews and Demarest.

One sub-sphere identified by Robinson includes sites on the eastern portion of the Ulúa

Valley and Los Naranjos at Lake Yojoa. During the Middle and Late Preclassic periods, La

Guacamaya and Los Naranjos share a majority of their six most common types: Izalco Usulután,

Muerdalo Orange, Bolo Orange and three other non-resist decorated types. Robinson suggests

these similarities are the result of easy interaction along the Blanco River and represents a

sharing of decorative style, and not the pottery itself. During the Late Preclassic, this sphere

expanded to include the El Cajon region, Yarumela in the Comayagua Valley and the Choluteca region.

Absent from this sub-sphere during the Late Preclassic are portions of the Santa Barbara region, Naco Valley and Copan, all in the western portion of Honduras. Their absence is based on the lack of Bolo Orange and lesser overall similarities in ceramic complexes with sites and regions to the east. While these sites and regions may have maintained contact with other portions of the sphere, Robinson argues they do not show the range of ceramic similarity required for a ceramic sphere.

The fundamental difference between the single spheres proposed by Andrews and

Demarest and the multiple spheres proposed by Robinson is that Robinson’s spheres include the consideration of non-Izalco Usulután variants. Because these variants clearly are related to Izalco in terms of decoration, they need to be considered if we are to completely understand the composition of the sphere. However, neither Andrews nor Demarest should be faulted for not considering non-Izalco types in their analysis. When their research was published, archaeological research in Honduras was very limited. About the same time as Demarest’s 1986 report on Santa

Leticia was published, multiple in the Ulúa, Naco, and Comayagua Valleys and Santa Barbara and El Cajon regions were in their infancy. Robinson, being a member of one of those projects, was in a unique position to comment on these new types.

In 1991, Wonderley provided another assessment of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere based on research to date, in the Ulúa valley in which he sought to redefine the sphere chronologically, geographically and behaviorally. Wonderley argued for an upward revision of the Cayanac

94 complex in Western El Salvador and complexes at Quelepa and Copan suggesting that the

Uapala Ceramic Sphere appeared in northern Honduras about 200 BC and likely lasted until AD

200.

In terms of its geographic extent, Wonderley suggested that the sphere comprises an arc that on its western edge included the southeastern highlands, including the sites of Quelepa,

Copan, Quirigua and possibly the Paraíso basin in north-central El Salvador. This arc extended to the north and east to include most of Honduras. Sites or regions included are the Comayagua

Valley, the Ulúa Valley, the Santa Barbara region, the El Cajon region, the Sulaco region and possibly Lake Yojoa. Wonderley’s addition of the Lake Yojoa region is tentative based on the poor preservation of Jaral phase (800-400 BC) ceramics and overall poor chronological control at the site of Los Naranjos. He cautioned that more research needed to be done in this area before

Los Naranjos could be properly positioned within the sphere.

In order to characterize the sphere in behavioral terms, Wonderley compared the non- ceramic artifacts and site planning and architecture for Playa de los Muertos, Rio Pelo, La

Guacamaya, and Colonia Care with sites in the southeastern highlands. He concludes that a combination of similarities and differences that suggest some level of initial contact, followed by divergent localized development. The ceramic evidence from the same regions suggests a convergence of ceramic styles that add to an underlying established range of types and varieties.

Wonderley suggests that the ceramic evidence to date does not reflect the exchange of goods, the acquisition of status-related objects or the behavior of ranked elites.

The only sphere-wide similarity Wonderley argues for is the occurrence of a similar class of dishes. Bowls with outflaring walls and other open vessels constitute a functionally specific package of vessel types, all of which were adopted earliest in the southeastern highlands and then

spread throughout the sphere. Using Izalco Usulután as a model, potters outside the highlands copied vessel forms and only in some cases, the decorative modes that define Izalco. Wonderley points out that in ceremonial contexts both the forms and the decoration is likely to be adopted, but in domestic contexts, the vessel forms are copied with a higher frequency than the decorative modes.

Wonderley speculates that the adoption and proliferation of these vessel forms throughout the sphere may represent a behavioral change, with inhabitants within the sphere emphasizing the communal sharing of food. Where Izalco Usulután is found in ceremonial

contexts, this combination of vessel form and decoration may indicate feasting behavior among

and between elites. In domestic contexts, tracing the different modes of decoration adorning

these vessel types may prove useful in identifying the lateral movement of individuals or groups through intermarriage or short-distance migration.

The Uapala Ceramic Sphere – Regional Profiles

Comayagua Valley

The Comayagua Valley is dominated during throughout the Middle and Late Formative

and Early Classic periods by the site of Yarumela (Figures 23, 24). Surveys of the valley by the

Yarumela Archaeological Project (Joesink-Mandeville 1987) suggest a two level site hierarchy,

with the primate center being Yarumela. Arguments for Yarumela’s centralized political control

of the valley have been based due to its centralized location within the valley, material

assemblages, and site design and magnitude. Smaller sites in the valley to the north and south of

Yarumela have been determined to be secondary sites based on smaller amounts of monumental

architecture, a smaller proportion of prestige goods, and the lack of central plazas or other forms

96 of special purpose architecture (Dixon et al 1994). As the following review will show, the majority of fieldwork in the region has been undertaken at Yarumela, offering the largest ceramic collection for study. For this reason, the Comayagua Valley will be represented by

Yarumela in this study.

Figure 23. Map of the Comayagua Valley. (Joesink-Mandeville 1993)

Figure 24. Map of Yarumela, Comayagua Valley. (Joesink-Mandeville 1993)

The site of Yarumela is a complex of over 20 mounds that dominates the West side of the

Rio Humuya in the center of the Comayagua Valley in central Honduras (Figure 24). Located atop a natural high point in the valley, Yarumela's four largest mounds are aligned following the cardinal directions, forming a central plaza approximately a half-kilometer in size along its east- west axis and over a kilometer along its north-south axis. The largest mound, Mound 101, constitutes the site's western boundary. Also referred to as El Cerrito, this mound measures over twenty meters in height and 165 by 100 meters at its base, making it one of the largest man-made structures in prehistoric Honduras. The site is bounded on the south, east and west sides by the meandering Rio Humuya, which forms an oxbow at the north and south. The overall size of the site is considerable, stretching nearly one and a half kilometers on its north-south axis and a full kilometer on its east-west axis.

Ephraim Squier first investigated the mound complex site of Yarumela in 1858. Squier's report provided a summary of the flora and fauna that surrounded the site at the time of his visit and described the size, shape and condition of the mounds (Squier 1859). The next phase of research took place in the beginning half of this century and was dominated by the work of two prolific reporters on Honduran prehistory, Samuel Lothrop and Monseñor Federico Lunardi.

These two researchers placed Yarumela in a valley wide context, recognizing the site as the principal site in the valley. Lothrop and Lunardi can also be credited with providing two of the earliest descriptions of ceramic artifacts at the site, drawing from limited surface collections conducted during their investigations of the valley (Lothrop 1927, Lunardi 1941).

In the second half of the century two investigators, Doris Stone and Joel Canby, did much to place Yarumela within a chronological sequence. Stone’s work, conducted during the late

1940’s and published in 1957, correctly placed the site within the Formative period (1000 BC –

AD 250) and provided the first widely published report on the site (Stone 1937). Stone’s work led Joel Canby to Yarumela, who constructed a preliminary ceramic sequence based on the first intensive excavations at the site. Canby was also the first to speculate about contacts between

Yarumela and sites to the far north, noting similarities between Formative Yarumela and Classic period Copan ceramics in both form and decoration (Canby 1949).

The next thirty years of research at Yarumela was limited to observations on existing ceramic collections, and as a result only minor revisions of the ceramic chronology and site interpretation were progressed. The discussion of Yarumela in terms of inter-regional contact was revitalized by E.W. Andrews V, who argued for a general ceramic sphere that included

Yarumela, several other Honduran sites (Los Naranjos, Copan and Santa Rita) and the site of

Quelepa in El Salvador. These and other discussions of Yarumela in contact with other sites and regions (Demarest 1986, Robinson 1988) were then furthered by Joesink-Mandeville, who focused on possible links both to the north and south of Yarumela through excavations initiated at Yarumela in 1981. Drawing from extensive excavations of several of the primary mounds at the site, Joesink-Mandeville noted ceramic figurines of a Southern Mexican Olmec style and earspools much like those of the Conchas phase of Pacific Guatemala (Joesink-Mandeville

1987:203).

In addition to evidence for contact between Yarumela and its closest neighbors, arguments have been made asserting more distant contact. Evidence of such contact was first proposed by Michael Coe, who noted that the earspools at Yarumela, later seen as evidence of northern contact, in fact correlated to earspools of the Chorrera phase of coastal Ecuador as well.

Coe also suggested that shallow plates that dominate the Yarumela ceramic tradition are most similar to the manioc griddles of northwestern South America (Coe 1961).

100

Joesink-Mandeville has also argued for contact between Yarumela and its neighbors to the distant south. He cites strong affinities between both the Ecuadorian and Peruvian ceramic traditions with that of Yarumela. Similarities between Yarumelan ceramics and those of Costa

Rican and Guatemalan traditions have also been noted (Joesink-Mandeville 1987).

Research in the valley outside of Yarumela has consisted mainly of surface collecting and some test pitting. Although secondary sites have been identified (Dixon 1989), their relationship to Yarumela and extent of occupation is largely unknown.

Usulután pottery is found at Yarumela during the Miravalle Complex, which dates from

300 BC to AD 250. Visual examination of the Yarumela ceramic collection resulted in some

Usulután being found at each of the archaeological operations at the site dating to that period.

Usulután is most abundant at the largest mound, Mound 101, and Mound 102, which lies across a large plaza from Mound 101. Both of these are elite domestic contexts, with Mound 101 thought to have been the home of a chief with valley-wide political control.

The Ulúa Valley

The Ulúa Valley is located in northern central Honduras and contains over four hundred surveyed sites, many of which have Formative period components (Figure 25). Of principal interest in this study are the sites of Río Pelo and La Guacamaya, both located along the eastern edge of the Ulúa Valley.

101

Figure 25. Map of the Ulúa Valley. Sites mentioned in the text include: Rio Pelo (6), La Guacamaya (11) and Playa de los Muertos (17). (Beaudry-Corbett et al 1993)

102

Río Pelo refers to a group of mounds located along the eastern edge of the Ulúa Valley at an elevation of 90 meters above the valley floor (Figure 26). Excavations at the site were initiated by Anthony Wonderley (1991) whose work included both lithic and ceramic analyses, as well as targeted excavations regarding site occupation and mound construction sequences.

The site’s major occupation dates to Late Formative Pelo II period, dating from 150 BC to 150

AD. Although there appears to be some occupation prior to the Pelo II phase, it was during Pelo

II that the majority of the monumental construction at the site occurred, with over a dozen mounds being constructed. Construction episodes were few at Rio Pelo, with some of the mound being constructed with a single effort. The mounds range in height from 1 to 6 meters, with some located around a small plaza (Wonderley 1991: 152-4).

Figure 26. Rio Pelo site map, Ulúa Valley. (Wonderley 1991)

103

Usulután-decorated ceramics appear at Rio Pelo during the Pelo II period (150 BC – AD

150), and are part of a broader group of ceramics termed the Santa Elena group. Muerdalo

Orange ceramics are found at Rio Pelo in relatively small numbers, with a total of 72 sherds being recovered. Of those, 17 classifiable rims were identified. From these rims, researchers have determined that the Muerdalo Orange collection is dominated by bowls, with only three of the 17 rim sherds being non-bowls. The paste for these vessels is generally fine, with little to no temper present. The Usulután decoration on the vessels is commonly represented by groups of parallel straight or curvilinear lines of a cream color contrasted with an orange to orange-red slip.

La Guacamaya is located along the eastern side of the Ulúa Valley, and was extensively explored by Eugenia Robinson (1987). Comprised of three main architectural groups, the Tyaj,

Chalmecon and Gordon, La Guacamaya includes several dozen mounds of varying heights, with several of the mounds situated around a plaza (Figure 27).

104

Figure 27. La Guacamaya site map, Ulúa Valley. (Robinson 1988)

Excavations by Robinson have provided a large amount of chronologically defined ceramic material, with a Late Formative component dominating the collection. Two operations at

La Guacamaya in close proximity to mound structures and probably representing in situ debris yielded ceramic material dating to the Late Formative and was named the Pehul Ceramic

Complex.

105

Numbering over 2,700 sherds, the Pehul Complex collection has over 20 defined ceramic

types and several ceramic classes. The types of greatest interest here are the Usulután types of

Muerdalo Orange and Zarrosa Orange, which appear in substantial amounts at the site. The

Muerdalo Orange found at La Guacamaya is consistent with similarly named ceramics at other

sites. It is a fine paste ware, with white and orange resist decoration. Design elements include the

familiar multiple straight or curvilinear parallel lines in white contrasted on an orange surface.

Rim sherd analysis suggests that Muerdalo Orange appears to be highly associated with bowl

forms, with non-bowl forms constituting a small proportion of the collection.

The other resist ceramic found at La Guacamaya is Zarrosa Orange, which is a double

slipped orange and cream ware that is similarly of fine paste. Zarrosa Orange occurs only in a

variety of bowl forms. Again, design elements include the sets of multiple parallel straight or

curvilinear lines of a cream color contrasted with an orange background (Beaudry-Corbett et al

1993: 81-82; Robinson 1988: 14-16).

Playa de los Muertos, located in the Upper Ulúa Valley of northern Honduras, was first

investigated by George Byron Gordon around the turn of the 20th century. While his initial study

did little to illuminate the history of the site’s occupation, it did serve to attract attention to the

site from others. In 1934, Popenoe and Valliant provided the first descriptive works on the

ceramics at Playa de los Muertos, which included comparisons to ceramics from sites in Central

Mexico (Ticoman and Zacatenco) and the Maya region (Holmul, Uaxactun and Kaminaljuyu).

The excavated material from these investigations prompted Valliant to include Playa de los

Muertos among the sites demonstrating Q-Complex cultural traits. Ranging geographically from

Guatemala to Peru, sites with attributes on the Q-complex trait list were thought to have had

106

some level of interaction in prehistory and represented a larger cultural sphere that existed during

the Formative period (Popenoe 1934).

The works of Popenoe and Valliant were heavily drawn upon by Doris Stone, the next

individual to investigate the site (Stone and Turnbull 1941). The pre-war archaeological efforts at

Playa de los Muertos also included the construction of the first relative chronological sequence by Strong Kidder and Paul (1938), who dated the occupation at the site to the Formative period based on comparative ceramic studies outside the region. In these investigations, the ceramics in the Upper Ulúa Valley were found to be stylistically similar to those found in the Mamom and

Chicanel complexes of the Maya regions. Comparisons were also drawn with the Yojoa monochrome style of Los Naranjos.

Research at the site was stagnant until the dissertation work of Nedenia Kennedy (1981), who incorporated absolute dating methods in a series of new excavations at the site and confirmed the Formative period date proposed by Strong, Kidder and Paul. Her work focused on the ceramics at the site and provided a three-stage sequence persisting through the Formative period and stretching into the Classic period (AD 250-800).

Kennedy’s generation of new ceramic data at Playa de los Muertos served as a reference for a number of comparative studies with the sequences of sites both near and far. Correlations were drawn between the Classic Period sequence at Playa de los Muertos and others in Belize and the Copan Valley of Northern Honduras (Sheptak 1987), as well as Los Naranjos, Yarumela and other sites in Central Honduras (Henderson and Beaudry-Corbett 1993).

The argument for significant levels of contact between Playa de los Muertos and its neighbors during the Formative period are less agreed upon, however. While some researchers argue that Formative period ceramics excavated in the Upper Ulúa Valley reflect high levels of

107

contact to both the north and south of the Upper Ulúa Valley (Joyce 1987, Joesink-Mandeville:

personal communication 2001), others have questioned the validity of a large ceramic sphere

dating to the Formative period that includes Playa de los Muertos and distant sites in El

Salvador. Instead, a smaller ceramic sphere has been proposed (Robinson 1988) that includes

sites in northern and central Honduras but excludes sites both to the south and north of these

regions.

Lake Yojoa Region

The Lake Yojoa region is best known for the site of Los Naranjos, located on the

northern shore of Honduras’ largest lake (Figure 28). One of the lesser-studied regions of

Honduras, Los Naranjos represents the only heavily studied site in the region. For this reason,

Los Naranjos will be the site of prominence representing the Lake Yojoa region in this study.

108

Figure 28. Lake Yojoa Region, Honduras. (Beaudry-Corbett et al 1993)

109

The site of Los Naranjos was first reported by Doris Stone (1937), who observed a

mound complex on the northern shore of the lake (Figure 29). The first systematic investigations

at the site were carried out by a combined French and Mexican research team headed by Claude

Baudez (Baudez and Becquelin 1973), who published the only history of the site and description

of its ceramic tradition to date. They argued for chiefdom-level social complexity at the site based on the size and number of mounds and excavations of burials associated with the site. The ceramic collection now housed in Tegucigalpa has been the source of much investigation by those working at other sites (outlined below). Since the publication of Baudez’s ceramic catalog, researchers have referred to their work extensively and made comparisons of the Los Naranjos tradition to other sites (Beaudry-Corbett 1993). Specific comparisons have been drawn between the ceramics at Los Naranjos and distant neighbors to the north and south. Specifically, Los

Naranjos shows ceramic similarities with complexes in Nicaragua (Baudez 1970), Chalchuapa

(Beaudry-Corbett 1993), Chukumuk (Lothrop 1933), and Bilbao (Parsons 1967). Comparisons with closer neighbors have been made with respect to the eastern side of the Ulúa valley and El

Cajon region (Robinson 1987), Comayagua Valley in general (Baudez 1966) and Yarumela in particular (Joesink-Mandeville: personal communication 1999).

110

Figure 29. Los Naranjos site map, Lake Yojoa region. (Bebb et al 1996)

111

Usulután ceramics are prominent in the Los Naranjos ceramic assemblage, constituting approximately 10% of the total ceramic assemblage excavated by Baudez and Becquelin (1973).

The Usulután decoration is separated into two major types. The first is termed Múerdalo Orange and has several indentifying characteristics. It has a single red-orange slip on top of a cream colored surface, with groups of cream-colored curved or straight lines dominating observed design elements. This method of decoration is found on vessels of a fine to very fine paste quality, with few inclusions present. In terms of vessel forms, bowls dominate, with Beaudry-

Corbett suggesting that only 40 of the 985 Usulután-decorated samples are from jars or other non-bowl forms (Beaudry-Corbett 1993: 182). The level of temporal control at the site with regards to the ceramic assemblage is generally poor, with this type of Usulután ceramics being dated to somewhere in the Eden I (300 BC – AD 250) or II (AD 250-AD 600) periods (Beaudry-

Corbett 1993: 183).

The second type of Usulután-decorated ceramics found at Los Naranjos is Bolo Orange.

It is found in much smaller numbers, constituting only 3% of the collection. Unlike Muerdalo

Orange, Bolo Orange is associated with vessels of a medium paste, with a higher frequency and size of inclusions in the paste. Also, unlike Muerdalo, Bolo Orange is double slipped with whitish and orange-red colors. Vessel form for Bolo Orange is dominated by varieties of bowls, with jars and other non-bowl forms constituting less than 1% of the collection. Cream colored lines adorn the vessels in a similar fashion to Muerdalo Orange, with curved and straight lines appearing in groups of two to five lines each set. Temporally, Bolo Orange appears to have gained prominence prior to Muerdalo, although there is considerable overlap between the types, with Bolo appearing during the Eden I and II periods as well (Beaudry-Corbett 1993: 193).

112

Naco Valley

The Naco Valley lies in northwestern Honduras and surrounds the Rio Chalmecon

(Figure 30). The Naco Valley is roughly 20 km northeast of the modern Ulúa Valley city of San

Pedro Sula. Nearby regions included in this study include the Copan Valley to the southwest and the Lake Yojoa region to the south.

Figure 30. Map of the Naco Valley. Sites mentioned in the text include La Sierra (2) and Santo Domingo (5). (Urban 1993a)

113

The history of investigation in the Naco Valley is a long, but relatively undistinguished

one. The valley was first observed by early explorers canvassing Honduras for a variety of natural resources. Its archaeological components were ignored until the Smithsonian-Harvard projects of 1936 (Strong, Kidder and Paul 1938). This survey identified five sites in the valley, including the site of Naco, where limited test pitting was conducted. Henderson’s work in the

1970’s represented the first systematic and expanded excavations (Henderson et al 1979). The most recent excavations in the valley have been conducted by Urban and Schortman (Urban,

Schortman and Ausec 2002, Schortman and Urban 1994), who have ongoing projects in the valley today. The bulk of the ceramic collection for the Naco Valley is based on extensive excavations carried out by Urban and Schortman at the site of La Sierra, a site with several mound clusters that has been interpreted as the primate site in a regional settlement hierarchy and the home of a valley-wide chiefdom (Schortman and Urban 1994) (Figure 31).

Figure 31. La Sierra site map, Naco Valley. (Urban and Schortman 1994)

114

The chronological sequence for the valley is a long one, beginning with limited Middle

Preclassic (800-400 BC) settlements and stretching into the Early Postclassic (AD 1100-1250).

Like other regions in Honduras we find the usual development cycle of small villages being

replaced by larger, stratified sites as population levels in the valley increased.

Usulután ceramics appear in the Late Preclassic period, termed the El Limon Complex by

researchers. Ceramic collections for this time period stem from excavations conducted by Urban

in 1977 and 1979, with the Usulután material specifically coming from excavations at the site of

Santo Domingo, a mound complex at the north edge of the valley. Usulután decorated ceramics

are present during this time period in good numbers, representing approximately 15% of the

ceramic assemblage. Urban has named the Usulután excavated at the site Izalco Usulután, which

is characterized by a very fine paste with little to no temper visible. Bowls dominate the form of

this type, with no non-bowl rim sherds having been excavated. The usual multiple wavy line

resist marks of a cream color set against an orange slipped background appears here (Urban

1993a: 37).

There is a presence of Usulután-decorated ceramics in the Early Classic Period, but in very small numbers (1.4% of the total assemblage). Referred to as Chilanga Usulután, the vessel

forms for this period are less restrictive than in the Preclassic, with cylindrical vessels being

added here. In addition, the usual orange and cream desist motif is joined by red painted rim

decoration. Because of these changes in form and decoration, Urban suggests that this ware

reflects a local tradition and not one shared by other sites outside the Naco Valley (Urban 1993a:

39).

115

Santa Barbara Region

The Santa Barbara region is located just to the west of Lake Yojoa in what is now the

Tencoa Valley. The region is very rugged, with elevations ranging from 300 to 800 meters above

sea level over very short distances. The region is dominated by the site of Gualjoquito, which sits

along the east bank of the Ulúa River atop one of a limited number of flat, well-drained plains in

the valley (Figure 32). Fieldwork carried out by Urban (1993b) over the span of four field

seasons identified Gualjoquito as the region’s largest site with extensive monumental

architecture, and this site has been interpreted as the likely primate site in a valley-wide chiefdom. Occupation at Gualjoquito begins during the Late Preclassic period and the site rapidly developed in terms of size and social complexity. During this period Izalco Usulután is reported to be fairly common, although percentages of ceramic complexes or groups are not available. Because Izalco Usulután has been found in significant amounts at Gualjoquito, and is fully comparable to Izalco found elsewhere in Mesoamerica, interaction between the inhabitants of the site and other elites where Izalco Usulután has been found has been inferred (Schortman

Pers. Comm. 2005). The extent of the distribution of Izalco Usulután elsewhere in the region has not been reported, although a total of 61 sites recovered enough ceramic evidence that chronological control could be achieved.

116

Figure 32. Santa Barbara region, Honduras (Urban 1993b)

117

El Cajon Region

The El Cajon region is located in Central Honduras, at the confluence of the Sulaco and

Humuya Rivers (Figure 33). The valley is situated between the Comayagua Valley, which is to the south and upstream on the Humuya River and the Ulúa Valley, which is to the north and downstream on the Humuya River. The Sulaco River extends from where it meets with the

Humuya to the east, eventually passing the modern town of Victoria.. The terrain in this region is rugged, with a limited amount of landscape that would be conducive to permanent settlement in prehistory. Of concern to researchers have been the valley bottoms in close proximity to the rivers in the region. It is in these areas that a combination of soil quality and access to water provides a more hospitable environment (Hirth et al 1989:19-23).

118

Figure 33. Map of the El Cajon Region. (Hirth et al 1993)

119

The history of investigation in the El Cajon region is similar to other regions in

Honduras. The work of the Smithsonian-Harvard Project provided the first surveying of the region in terms of its archaeological recourses (Strong, Kidder and Paul 1938). Following mention of the region in that study, research in the valley was largely stagnant until a preliminary archaeological reconnaissance of the Sulaco and Humuya river drainages and their surrounding areas conducted by Veliz and Hasemann (1978).

This reconnaissance led to the most comprehensive archaeological evidence to date. The

El Cajon Archaeological Project was initiated in response to plans to flood the valley bottoms of the region following the construction of the El Cajon Hydroelectric Dam. Foremost a salvage project, its goals were to collect and document as much archaeological material as possible and submit this material to the widest range of analytical methods as possible. As a result of a valley- wide archaeological survey, Hirth identified a total of 45 archaeological sites with occupation periods ranging from 400 BC to AD 1000. The height of social complexity and population density appears to have occurred within the region around AD 600, although social complexity and a three-tiered settlement hierarchy are visible during the Late Preclassic period. Hirth argues for small lineage-based political systems dominated by four large sites, Salitron Viejo,

Guarabuqui, La Ceiba, and Intendencia. Each of the sites exhibits monumental architecture in the form of large earthen mounds, one or more plazas, and different signs of large construction projects. The largest site, Salitron Viejo, appears to have been prominent during the Late

Preclassic to Early Classic transition, and likely was the primate site of a regional chiefdom

(Hirth et al 1989). Thankfully, this research resulted in the collection of vast amounts of ceramics. It is from this collection that the presence and frequency of Usulután decorated ceramics is known (Hirth et al 1989: 1-5).

120

Usulután pottery first appears during the early Yunque phase, which dates from 400 BC

to AD 1, in deposits from Salitron Viejo (PC-1), PC-22 and PC-37. PC-22 and PC-37 are both secondary sites within this chiefdom, but likely had their own elite population segments as well.

Two types are identified during this phase: Muerdalo-Related with Resist Decoration and Bolo

Orange. Muerdalo-Related with Resist Decoration occurs in three distinctly different pastes, used to subdivide this ceramic class into several types and varieties. These paste types include a fine textured, temperless cream paste; a fine textured light orange paste; and a coarse cream granular paste. All paste variants are slipped orange and occur with both monochrome and resist- decorated surfaces. Bolo Orange is characterized by a coarse brown paste and a thick orange on white double slip surface.

During the Late Yunque phase (AD 1 – AD 400) Muerdalo-Related ceramic types made with the fine textured cream paste and fine textured orange paste continue, with more orange paste vessels than cream paste vessels dating to this period. The coarse paste variant seen during the Early Yunque is not represented. Bolo Orange decreases in frequency during this phase.

Multiple ceramic types found in the El Cajon region have been compared to those at Los

Naranjos, Playa de los Muertos and other sites in the Ulúa region, sites in the Santa Barbara region, Yarumela in the Comayagua Valley and Copan. Comparisons have been made between types found in the El Cajon region and ceramic types found in El Salvador and highland

Guatemala as well, including the El Cajon type Muerdalo Orange, which appears to be similar in decoration and paste to Izalco Usulután from those regions.

121

Copan and the Copan Valley

The Copan Valley is located in northwestern Honduras along the Guatemalan border.

This valley is famous for the Maya site of Copan, which is located in the southern portion of the

valley. Copan itself has a history of occupation dating as far back as 1400 BC, but is mostly

known for its Classic Period sociopolitical development, monumental architecture and sculpture.

Ceramic material dating to the Late Formative and Early Preclassic periods is relatively rare and

from a limited number of contexts for two reasons. First, Classic period construction was extensive and superimposed over Formative period structures, and second, because the regime of the river has changed and there has been a lot of deposition, burying Formative occupations on the valley floor (Bell, Canuto and Sharer 2004).

Usulután dating to the Chabij complex was found to the south of the Acropolis at Copan in what have been interpreted as elite contexts (Viel 1983: 484-491). Bijac complex sherds at

Copan are from several contexts, all of which are thought to be related to elite residential or ceremonial structures. Bijac complex Usulután is found in early levels at the Great Plaza at

Copan, which was an early locus for ceremonial activity and in areas south of the Acropolis, which may have been an elite residential area (Viel 1993: 15). Acbi complex Usulután pottery has been found in a number of Early Classic elite burials, including the Hunal tomb, which has been attributed to Copan ruler K’inich Yax K’uk Mo’ (Reents-Budet et al 2004). Finally, Acbi

complex Usulután pottery is reported at the elite site of 8N-11 in the Las Sepulturas portion of the Copan urban core. The site of 8N-11 has been interpreted as the Late Classic residence of an

elite ‘war captain’ (Webster et al 1988). Of 328 sherds dating to the Acbi complex at 8N-11, 23

showed Usulután decoration.

122

Usulután found outside of the elite core at Copan comes from the sites of Los Achiotes

and El Raizal, both of which were likely secondary centers affiliated with Copan. Los Achiotes

pre-dates much of the socio-political growth at Copan, but the Los Achiotes elite nevertheless

appear to have maintained strong political, religious and economies ties with Copan. Usulután at

this site is concentrated in cache deposits surrounding a ballcourt. Tetrapod Usulután vessels

from these contexts are thought to have been used to serve foods during ballgame ceremonies

and feasts (Canuto 2004: 44-47).

At El Raizal, Usulután pottery is found in dedicatory caches within patio structures that

are flanked by house mounds. Canuto (2004: 47) suggests that these deposits, despite their association with households, were also the result of elite ritual behavior.

Schortman and Urban (2004: 323-324, 327-330) suggest that Copan may have been a distributional node for Usulután pottery. They note that the overall affinity of Copan Usulután to that found at the site of Chalchuapa is high, and that Usulután pottery is well represented throughout the Copan Valley in a variety of vessel forms although not in small residential complexes. Other evidence linking Copan to sites in the El Salvadoran and Guatemalan highlands suggests that contact between the Copan Valley and sites to the west and southwest may have been frequent, and propose that Copan received at least a portion of their Usulután pottery from that direction, in turn distributing it to sites and regions in northwestern Honduras.

El Salvador

Santa Leticia

The site of Santa Leticia is located in the Department of Ahuachapan in southwestern El

Salvador. The site has a long history of investigation, having first been described in 1878 by

123

Siméon Habel. Habel noted the presence of large stone idols and associated earthen mounds at the site. Despite his discovery, no excavations were undertaken at the site for over a century, although speculation about the now buried sculptures and whether they suggested links to other regions was frequent. After nearly a century that yielded a single test pit of excavation, Demarest initiated a program of systematic excavation at the site (Demarest 1986). Mapping of the site and excavation of the sculptures, which Demarest and others refer to as pot-bellied monuments, was followed by the excavation of a house platform, living floors and several large bell-shaped pits

(Demarest 1986: 11-14).

Operations at the site included the excavation of several large earthen mounds that

Demarest argues constitute a ceremonial zone at the site. The largest of these mounds is six meters in height and dates to the Late Preclassic period (Figure 34). Additional units were dug to uncover the extent of the surrounding village (Demarest 1986: 15-36).

Figure 34. Site map, Santa Leticia, El Salvador (Demarest 1986)

124

The sequence of occupation at Santa Leticia begins about 500 B.C. and blossoms into a

full-fledged village by 100 B.C. Demarest interprets the construction of artificial terraces and large earthen mounds lacking evidence for domestic activity as evidence for social complexity.

He argues that the potbellied monuments and temple-topped mounds likely represent a regional ceremonial center.

Usulután pottery is present at Santa Leticia, first appearing as parts (14.4%) of the

Olocuitla and Jicalapa (7.1%) groups during the Chul Complex (400-100 B.C.). Usulután vessels in the Olocuitla group include flaring walled bowls, which dominate (64.6%), hemispherical bowls and straight walled bowls, all of which are manufactured with a fine light firing paste.

Usulután decoration within this group tends to be single lined (37.8%), although multiple parallel lines (17.7%) and splotches (17%) are present as well. Single slipping comprises the majority of the Usulután, although some double slipped sherds are present as well. The Jicalapa group

Usulután is characterized by thicker slips and a coarser paste that fires to a wider range of colors than for Olocuitla vessels. The range of vessel types is slightly greater although shallow curved- wall bowls constitute over half of the group’s identifiable sherds. The frequency of double slipped vessels increases, and this is likely reflective of the use of a wider range of paste colors.

Izalco group Usulután pottery is found in contexts dating to the Kal phase (500-400 B.C.) and Early Caynac phase (100 B.C. – AD 100). It should be noted that Izalco is absent from the two of the domestic areas of the site and the highest frequency of Izalco Usulután was found in close proximity to the potbellied sculptures, suggesting a restricted distribution. The Izalco reported at Santa Leticia is single or ‘self’ slipped, and the vessel surface is polished or well burnished. Resist lines of a ink to buff color are found against a buff to orange background.

125

Large open basins with outflaring walls dominate the range of vessel forms, and vessel walls

tend to be rather thin.

The Usulután ceramics at Santa Leticia have been compared to Usulután found at a

number of other sites in the Southeastern Mesoamerica. Demarest argues that this Izalco

Usulután is likely a localized development from earlier Jicalapa and Olocuitla Usulutáns, despite

sharing characteristics with Izalco found at Chalchuapa (Demarest 1986: 130-131).

Chalchuapa

The site of Chalchuapa is located in the extreme western portion of El Salvador, a short distance from the border with Guatemala. Located within the Valley of the Rio Paz, Chalchuapa consists of a total of 58 large structures and an additional 87 structures less than 1 meter in height. Excavation at the site began in the 1940’s, although the results of excavations remain unpublished. Additional excavations were completed in the 1950’s by Alfred V. Kidder and

William Coe, with the data from those projects suggesting a Late Preclassic period of occupation. A more thorough investigation of the site was undertaken by Sharer between 1966 and 1970, and included the mapping, surface surveys, excavation and analysis of data from six defined mound groups and six additional areas that showed signs of habitation, but no mounds over 1m in height. Occupation at the site begins with a single mound dating to the Rojn complex

(100-600 BC), with the site growing by leaps and bounds during the Nay complex (ca. 200 BC –

AD 0), staying relatively stagnant in terms of growth during the Ean complex (ca A.D. 0 – 300), with reoccupation and expansion evident during the Lom (ca. A.D. 450-650), Wena (ca. A.D.

650-1300) and Baj (ca. A.D. 1300-1500) complexes.

126

Despite this lengthy range of occupation, the periods of greatest interest to Sharer was the

Middle Preclassic, where pottery types and monument styles suggest an Olmec influence and the

Late Preclassic, during which the site’s growth and development was greatest (Sharer 1978a).

During the Kal complex during the Late Preclassic period (650 – 400 B.C.), Usulután pottery begins to appear at the site with Puxtla Incised Usulután. This type comprises 1.6% of the

Puxtla Ceramic Group. Puxtla Incised Usulután is dominated by vertical-wall bowls of a medium to fine buff colored paste. Vessel walls tend to be somewhat thick when compared to other types in the complex, and resist decoration includes patterned lines and blotches, often joined by some amount of incising. Sharer argues that this is representative of a localized development in ceramic technology, and that the resist decoration on Usulután vessels developed at Chalchuapa from attempts to control the patterning of orange-fired areas on cream wares that date to this period. During the subsequent Chul complex (400 - 200 B.C.), Jicalapa Usulután comprises 6.6% of the pottery by sherd quantity and is characterized by flaring walled, flat bottomed bowls and shallow bowls. Pastes are somewhat variable, ranging from medium coarse and orange firing to fine and light sandy buff. Sharer describes characteristic resist decoration similar to that for

Puxtla, albeit with less incidences of incision. The majority of sherds of this type appear to have been achieved with a double slip technology (Sharer 1978b).

During the early (200 B.C. – AD 0) and late (0 – 200 AD) portions of the Caynac complex , Usulután appears in its greatest numbers. A rare variant of Usulután appearing during the early portion of the phase is Tepecoyo Fluted Usulután, which is characterized by a distinctive orange and cream resist decoration scheme on the vessel exterior and a cream base slipped interior. Vessel forms of this type are not surprisingly dominated by fluted vertical wall bowl forms. Izalco Usulután appears in both portions of the Caynac complex at Chalchuapa, and

127 constitutes its own ceramic group. Comprising 9.7% of the ceramics in the complex, Izalco

Usulután is described as exhibiting a low contrast Usulután decoration of salmon pink lines contrasted against an orange area. The paste is described as usually fine and hard, and the vessel surface is usually burnished or polished to a hard and durable finish. Composite-wall bowls with flat or convex bases and direct or everted rims are frequent in this type, with a range of other plate and bowl vessel types present as well. Unlike Jicalapa Usulután, Izalco shows no signs of double slipping, and the base coloration appears to be a result of the natural firing color of the clays used to manufacture these vessels. Sharer also notes a ‘fire-clouded’ variant of the vessel in which the light colored lines fire to a near black and the orange fires to a darker, but still orange, color. Lines of decoration dominate, many of which are grouped and parallel. Splotches of resist decoration are also present.

The presence of Usulután at Chalchuapa ends with the Chilanga Ceramic Group during the Vec ceramic complex (AD 200 – 400). Chilanga Usulután is defined by the addition of a red slip or paint on top of an otherwise regular Usulután vessel. This group is extremely rare (.3% of the complex) but Sharer argues they suggest similarities with the red ringed Usulután bowls reported at Copan and Quelepa, raising the question of whether this shared type is the result of independent invention, shared conventions of vessel decoration, or the movement of vessels.

Quelepa

The site of Quelepa is located 8 km northwest of the town of San Miguel in eastern El

Salvador. Quelepa stretches along a 1km portion of the Rio San Esteban, in a low lying, hot, and highly agriculturally productive of the country. The site, the largest in El Salvador east of the

Lempa River, was first reported by Peccorini in 1913 and later excavated by Andrews. Quelepa

128

consists of a number of large stone-faced earthen mounds, some of which are situated around a

well defined plaza. Two distinct mound groups are visible, the East Group and the West Group

(Fig. 35). The East group consists of several large earthen mounds constructed atop high artificial terraces. The terraces appear to have been constructed primarily as a platform for living

structures and this portion of the site lacks plazas. The West group includes a large number of

smaller platforms, most of which are situated around a single court of plaza. Andrews suggests

that the differences in group planning suggest dual cultural influences at the site. While the

planned construction of mounds around a plaza in the West group suggests similarities with a

broad Mesoamerican tradition of site planning, the East Group suggests a lack of this affiliation

(Andrews 1976).

A series of test pits dug by Andrews suggest that occupation at the site began at the East

Group, and a combination of pottery caches and sherd scatters associated with house floors

suggests that occupation at the site began around 500 – 400 B.C. The first ceramic complex,

called Uapala, dates from this period of first occupation until A.D. 150. It is a fairly small

complex, with only two ware and three major ceramic groups represented. Comprising 59.9% of

this complex is Izalco Usulután, which is described by Andrews as a hard, thin pottery that is

well polished and bears wavy resist lines over an orange slip. The dominant vessel form is a

flaring-wall bowl with outturned or everted rims. Interior rim incision is common, as are

supports of various types. Usulután pottery continues to dominate through the Shila complex

(AD 150-600), with Tongolona Orange and Chaparrastique Red-on-orange comprising 62.2% of the complex. While some of the characteristics of Izalco Usulután continue on these types, they differ significantly in terms of paste and surface condition. The fine pastes of the Izalco

Usulutáns are largely absent, and a wider range of paste textures and colors appear. The surfaces

129

of these later types are less polished, the execution of resist lines is less formal and splotches of

resist decoration in addition to or instead of lines increase. Red paint applied primarily to rims

but also to other portions of vessels appears during this phase as well, and this red painting is

often associated with an increase in incising.

Andrews points out the broad similarities in the ceramic complexes of Quelepa and

Chalchuapa, with many of the types appearing to be identical. Type-specific similarities,

including Izalco Usulután exist between Quelepa and Kaminaljuyu and Los Naranjos (Andrews

1976: 117).

Conclusion

This chapter has reviewed the Uapala ceramic sphere as formulated by Andrews.

The sites and regions within the sphere have been discussed with attention given to the contexts in which Izalco Usulután and its variants have been found and their frequencies. Subsequent re-

formulations of the sphere by others based on this data have been summarized and some

shortcomings of the sphere have been discussed. The ceramic sphere is a useful way of framing

regional ceramic similarities and begins to bridge the gap between recognizing trends in ceramic

complexes and past behaviors. However, as this review has shown, a range of behaviors could

result in the stylistic similarities across a region leading to the recognition of a ceramic sphere.

Pottery offers unique challenges to those attempting to model behaviors of production,

distribution and consumption due to its ease of emulation and difficulty in sourcing. As the next

chapter will show, a common and effective way to distinguish specific patterns of production and

distribution within a ceramic sphere is through the use of compositional methods.

130

Chapter 4 – INAA and Petrography

Introduction

This chapter outlines two of the methods used by the author to examine the Uapala

Ceramic Sphere, Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) and petrographic analysis.

INAA has been effectively used in Mesoamerica to identify patterns of ceramic production and distribution. A robust literature suggests that when INAA is applied appropriately to a well designed sample set, clearly stated research hypotheses can be tested. Nevertheless, many INAA

studies incorporate petrographic analysis as a second method to compositionally characterize ceramic pastes. The reason is that INAA is a bulk characterization method that examines the paste of a ceramic sample compositionally. This paste may be the result of a mixture of clays, or can be the end product of considerable manipulation to modify raw clays into a fireable product.

This manipulation can include tempering, levigation, hand sorting and other methods that add or subtract material to raw clays. These modifications can result in a wide range of chemical compositions for finished vessels produced from the same clay. Petrography provides a way to assess the impacts of some of this manipulation by examining sherd samples under microscopy.

By examining thin sections of sherds the researcher can identify the addition of temper and other modifications made to clays in the production of pottery.

In addition to these criticisms, INAA has recently come under attack from proponents of petrography and others who argue that regional INAA studies suffer from a range of methodological limitations (Flannery et al 2005, Stoltman et al 2005, Sharer et al 2006). They argue that petrography is better suited to such large projects, providing more reliable data on pottery production and distribution. These claims have been refuted by INAA practitioners, who

131 argue that while petrography is a useful method and can be used in concert with INAA, it should not be used as substitute method in place of INAA compositional studies. These arguments are outlined in Chapter 5.

In light of these and other concerns my analysis evaluated both petrography and INAA to determine the most appropriate method for identifying patterns of pottery production and distribution within the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. Petrography was conducted on a small number of representative Usulután sherds using the methods discussed below to determine: 1) whether petrography could be used to generate reliable compositional data on Usulután pottery, and 2) second to identify any effects of clay manipulation during Usulután manufacture that could potentially hinder the application of INAA. By employing both methods, this study addresses many of the concerns raised by proponents of petrography and identifies INAA as the most appropriate methodology to use in answering the questions of pottery production and distribution raised in Chapter 1.

This chapter begins with a brief summary of petrographic analysis, discussing its methodology and a few of its applications. This review of petrographic literature will show that while it is a useful method for pottery in many regards, the fine pastes used in the production of

Usulután pottery diminishes its usefulness in characterizing this data set.

The chapter will then introduce INAA and the techniques used to generate compositional data on ceramics and the methods used to identify patterns in the data. The chapter will then discuss the history of INAA applications in Southeastern Mesoamerica from the 1960’s through the 1990’s, showing how the methodology and its application have been developed and refined during this period.

132

History of Petrographic Analysis and Current Methodology

The birth of petrographic analysis can be traced to Anna Shepard’s studies of Rio Grande

ceramics in the 1930s (1936, 1942, 1965). Her analysis of ceramic pastes using microscopy

moved beyond mere paste description to the use of ceramics in other forms of interpretation.

Although her analysis is often cited, the techniques she used remained relatively unpracticed

until Stoltman’s study of Spring Hollow Incised pottery dating to the Early Woodland period in

the Upper Mississippi valley (Stoltman 1989). Stoltman’s work builds on earlier studies by

Chayes in which measurements of bounded areas of samples generated unbiased estimates of the relative volumes of rock constituents (1954, 1956) and limited applications to archaeological ceramics (Plog 1980, Hantman and Plog 1982 among others).

Stoltman used a polarizing microscope equipped with a measuring eyepiece with a cross hair and a stage that allows a sample to be moved beneath the microscope in fixed increments to argue that thinly cut sections from ceramic sherds could be systematically observed and the character of their pastes summarized. Thirty-one slides were prepared from sherds of different ceramic types considered to be part of the same ware, Levsen Stamped and Spring Hollow

Incised. Samples were analyzed from several localities in the Upper Mississippi Valley

(Stoltman 1989: 148).

These slides were moved in increments of 1mm across the microscope’s field of vision.

As the slides moved systematically across the stage, Stoltman assigned what he saw beneath the crosshairs to one of five classes based on its appearance, size and composition: matrix, silt, sand, grit temper, or void. When no grains were visible under microscopy, matrix was recorded. Small grains under .0625mm in size were classified as silt, and grains larger than that were classified as grit or sand, depending on their appearance. He also took note of the angularity of the grains,

133

suggesting that this characteristic could help determine temper from naturally occurring

inclusions in the paste. At least 100 observations were made for each thin section, with an upper

limit of 200 point counts per sample. Following the tabulation of observations for each sample

and the generation of class percentages, the amounts of matrix, sand and grit were plotted on a

one-dimensional equilateral triangle, with each angle of the triangle representing one observation

class. In plotting each sample based on mineralogical observations, Stoltman hoped to identify

‘zones’ in which mineralogically similar sherds could be expected to reside.

Stoltman compared the frequencies for all three paste classes for each sample using a t-

test, and found that there were significant differences depending on the locality in which the

sherd was excavated. Stoltman argued this pattern suggested that the regional ware argued for

the sites he was sampling should be redefined. Sherds from non-Linn ware types were then

examined using the same methodology. Instead of the data supporting a regional ware-based

pattern of similarities in paste composition, the additional data supported locality-specific patterns of production.

Slight modifications to his methodology were published in a paper describing the application of petrography methods to two Middle Mississippian-contact sites in the upper

Mississippi Valley region (Stoltman 1991). While the point counting under microscopy remained unchanged, Stoltman used the quantitative data derived from his analysis to draw a distinction between body and paste. Stoltman defines body as the bulk composition of a ceramic vessel, including clays and temper, and paste, and defines paste as the aggregate of natural materials, i.e. clays and larger mineral inclusion, to which temper was later added. After point counting, the data for body and paste were separated, and plots for each were generated. By separating the two categories and plotting them separately, Stoltman argued that he was taking into account the

134 independent origins of the clays and tempers, something which chemical compositional methods mutes through bulk characterization.

Of added importance in this article is Stoltman’s discussion of the applicability of petrographic analysis, where he admits that petrography is not well suited to fine paste ceramics.

He states that :

‘In some instances true temper may not be present (e.g., self-tempered clays or clays that

have been subjected to various refining methods to remove coarser inclusions or the

temper may not be identifiable as such (some sand tempers). In such cases body cannot

be identified reliability. These instances do not vitiate the method, but simply constitute

inappropriate circumstances for its full application’ (Stoltman 1991: 117).

Stoltman tested his refined methodology in a second study examining differences between black-on-white and plain vessels dating to the Tesgi phase (A.D. 1250-1300) from two sites in the Kayenta region of north-central Arizona (Stoltman et al 1992). Using the same methodology, Stoltman observed differences in the clay pastes used for each type based on an increased amount of sand temper used in the manufacture of plain vessels. A chemical analysis using an acid-extraction method conducted by Burton and Haas identified 12 elemental concentrations (Al, Ba, Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, P, Sr, Ti and Zn). Using a principal components analysis on these data, the authors found the chemical patterns to confirm the petrographic data.

The authors argued that because the two methods proved to be complementary, the utility of petrographic analysis in the characterization of pottery was confirmed. They cautioned, however, that the true strength of petrographic analysis was in the characterization of the temper used in pottery manufacture. Because amounts of temper comprise one of three axes of variation examined by petrography, samples that are temperless or have very little temper would make

135

sample differentiation with petrographic analysis difficult. Chemical analyses are best suited for characterization of clays that were minimally tempered. Using a dual approach, the authors argued, would provide different and complementary perspectives on the same data set. These perspectives would be more powerful in the identification of patterns of pottery production than chemical or petrographic analyses alone.

Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis: History and Methodology

Instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) is a nuclear analytical technique for measuring the concentrations of large number of elements in a single sample and can be applied to the analysis of a wide variety of sample types. INAA involves exposing the sample (along with prepared standards and appropriate quality control materials) to a field of neutrons. This exposure causes most of the elements within the sample to become radioactive. These radioactive elements decay according to their elemental half-lives and each element emits a known amount of energy when it decays. The energy of the radioactive emission allows identification of the element because the intensity of emission is proportional to the mass of that element. The energies given off by each radioactive element as it decays is detected using a spectrometer. These energies, expressed as gamma rays, are recorded and tabulated and counts of each element that is recorded are made. INAA is a highly sensitive and precise technique, allowing for amounts as small as parts per million to be recorded. When applied to ceramic or clay samples, their chemical composition is characterized using the amounts of several elements.

This combination of different elemental amounts produces a signature profile that can then be used to compare that sample to other pottery samples or clays stored in a compositional database.

136

The application of INAA to ceramics in Mesoamerica has a long history. From the

earliest days of the science, it has been used as a method to answer questions of pottery

provenience, clay resource exploitation, trade and exchange, and the movement of peoples from

one site to another. This literature review will focus on the application of INAA throughout southern Mesoamerica and what is commonly termed ‘the southern Maya periphery’, with examples of INAA application extending as far south as Nicaragua. For the most part, studies using INAA in central Mexico and regions northward will be omitted, unless their impact on

INAA studies was significant. This review will be constrained temporally to the Formative and

Early Classic periods; Classic Maya ceramic studies will not be included here with the exception of Copador ceramics, which is illustrative of both fine paste ceramic studies and includes sites within the Uapala Ceramic Sphere.

The purpose of this review is threefold: first, to bring to light commonalities among studies in terms of methodology and theory; second, to discern any common limitations to the application of INAA to ceramics in this region, and third, to review the accumulated knowledge

on ceramic production, distribution and consumption of fine paste ceramics in this geographic

area. Because the application of INAA has a long history, the publications reviewed here offer

some insight to the development of INAA itself. With this in mind, this literature review will be

presented chronologically.

The Early Years: 1960’s and 1970’s

One of the first applications of INAA in Mesoamerica was conducted by Bennyhoff and

Heizer (1965). In an attempt to discern the provenience of sherds from Cuicuilco and

Teotihuacan and determine the presence or absence of ceramic trade in the region, Bennyhoff

and Heizer examined a total of 11 sherds using INAA following a preliminary petrographic

137

analysis of two of the sherds. Examining only the manganese content of the sherds through

irradiation and subsequent statistical analysis, the authors argued that their study had identified

two distinct clay sources, one at Cuicuilco and one at Teotihuacan, and that vessels manufactured

at Teotihuacan were found in Cuicuilco contexts, suggesting ceramic trade within the Valley of

Mexico (Bennyhoff and Heizer 1965: 348-9).

The INAA research of Bennyhoff and Heizer was called into question by Anna O.

Shepard a year later, who specifically argued that INAA didn’t effectively answer the research questions at hand. Shepard objected to the inclusion of sherds that were not examined petrographically, suggesting that all sherds that are included in such studies should undergo at least a preliminary petrographic examination. Questions were also raised as to the use of manganese concentrations, with Shepard asking whether the manganese amounts reflected differences in the clay paste used or the temper that was added to the paste during vessel construction. The issue of temper as a possible source of spurious results was raised, with

Shepard pointing out that if discerning distinct clays are the goal of the characterization process then the effects of temper could have a negative effect on that process. Additionally, Shepard argued that the issue of post-discard alteration of the sherds had not been considered, raising the possibility that such alterations could have effects on the chemical compositions of the sherds themselves due to extensive leaching or other natural depositional processes. Finally, the reliance on a single element in the characterization of clay pastes was questioned, with Shepard suggesting that a single element could hardly have the explanational value the original authors were hoping for (Shepard 1966: 870-871).

In an attempt to further the work of Bennyhoff and Heizer’s research, Shepard presented the results of additional petrographic analysis, showing that it was unlikely that temper factored

138 into the manganese concentrations in this case. Shepard, however, does present additional evidence suggesting that manganese concentrations in clay pastes can be highly variable from sherd to sherd, making this element a poor one for use in INAA applications. In her conclusions,

Shepard argued for less reliance on a single application such as INAA and more reliance on a series of petrographic and chemical analyses that provide the opportunity for multiple lines of supporting evidence (Shepard 1966: 871).

Applications of INAA to answer research questions involving the identification of sources and investigations of possible ceramic exchange continued with an examination of Maya

Fine Orange pottery by Sayre and Chan (1971). In this study, samples were studied from similar contexts at the sites of Seibal, Altar de Sacrificios, Kixpek, Uaxactun, Chichen Itza, El Cayo,

San Jose, Piedras Negras, Nuevas Esperenza, and Tabasco to identify regional patterns in ceramic paste characterization and to identify loci of production in a broad regional survey.

Sayre and Chan cited unpublished work that characterized Fine Orange sherds excavated at

Kixpek and Piedras Negras as chemically similar, which further showed that utilitarian wares at

Piedras Negras were chemically distinct from the Fine Orange wares. They sought to increase the scope of the current studies by including multiple sites in their survey, testing chemical composition using methods that recorded more elements than had been previously used, and finally, by increasing the sample sizes at each site, to accommodate a representative sample of both utilitarian (supposedly locally made at each site) and Fine Orange (supposedly traded) wares. It was thought that by employing these methods a definitive characterization of the Fine

Orange and utilitarian wares at each site could be developed, and that the results of these characterization studies would effectively answer research questions regarding loci of production

139

of Fine Orange and the possible movement of ceramics from one site to another (Sayre and Chan

1971: 165-6).

Sherds were prepared for analysis without any apparent preliminary petrographic

examination, with nine elements being counted and incorporated into the statistical analysis

following activation. Included in this spectrum was manganese, which Shepard suggested was an

untrustworthy element when examining finely tempered wares in the Valley of Mexico. The

sample size for each site averaged ten and totaled 45 sherds, with a combination of local

utilitarian wares and Fine Orange wares being sampled for each site (Sayre and Chan 1971: 168-

9).

Nine elements were counted and elemental concentrations were examined using a

statistical analysis that included measures of statistical distance between data points. Sayre and

Chan concluded that chemical characterization had identified a more or less uniform group comprising all of the Fine Orange sherds. The uniformity of paste composition was used to suggest a single source and uniform vessel production at that site. Further, they found that utilitarian wares from each site were: 1) chemically different from Fine Orange samples at all sites, and 2) highly scattered, suggesting a wide array of local paste utilization (Sayre and Chan

1971: 172-4). Finally, the researchers suggest that a high level of similarity between utilitarian pastes at Altar de Sacrificios and the Fine Orange group suggests the possibility of centralized production for Fine Orange ceramics. For reasons unstated, Sayre and Chan point out that more research was required in the future to confirm this possibility.

In their conclusion and an attached commentary by Sabloff (1971), the researchers conclude that the sites studied in the survey were connected through a trade network of Fine

Orange ceramics. It appears that a single unknown site produced the Fine Orange wares found at

140 each of the sites that were studied, exporting its wares throughout a wide geographical area.

Members in this network include sites as far west as Piedras Negras in Guatemala and the site of

Carlos Greene in Mexico, sites as north as Chichen Itza, sites as far east as El Cayo and San Jose in Belize, and sites as far south as Kixpek in central Guatemala (Sayre and Chan 1971: 167).

Soon afterwards, Hammond et al (1976) furthered the trend of fine paste studies with a study of the ceramics at Lubaantun, Belize. Their research focused on the self-sufficiency of

Lubaantun for the manufacture of both utilitarian and fine paste ceramics. Hammond et al applied INAA to a wide array of ceramic types, including both the ubiquitous utilitarian wares they thought were most likely to have been locally manufactured and the fine paste serving vessels that were ‘obvious import(s)’ (Hammond et al 1976.: 147). Additionally, material excavated from Barton Ramie and the nearby site of Pusilha were included to test possible relationships between Barton Ramie and Lubaantun. At the center of their research question was the testing of possible linkages between Lubaantun and the rest of the Maya lowlands, already shown to have been participating in a regional exchange network of fine paste ceramics

(Hammond et al 1976: 147). Also included in the study was a collection of locally and regionally drawn clay samples from contemporary potting communities, one of the first attempts to do so in

Mesoamerica with regards to INAA studies. A total of 91 samples were tested in the study, which continued the trend of higher sample sizes in such studies (Hammond et al 1976: 150-

151).

During the irradiation of the samples, a spectrum of 21 elements was counted. Using a cluster analysis, several clusters representing sherds of similar elemental composition were identified. The dendrogram produced by the cluster analysis demonstrated a high level of intra- type homogeneity, with most if not all of the samples from a ceramic type clustering together

141 compositionally (Hammond et al 1976: 156). Multidimensional scaling was used to discern the relationships between the clusters that had been identified (Hammond et al 1976: 162). The results of the scaling provided the following four conclusions: first, local clays collected throughout the Lubaantun area were highly homogeneous, providing a good measure of local clay character that could effectively be compared to sherds of an unknown origin. Second, comparison of the Lubaantun reference group to coarse ware utilitarian sherds suggested that utilitarian vessels were indeed of local manufacture. Third, the utilitarian fine paste types that were thought a priori to have been locally manufactured were indeed statistically similar to local clays that were sampled. Fourth, a small group of sherds failed to cluster significantly with any of the raw clays or the other locally made ceramic types being sampled. Sherds in this group were thought to be imports from portions of the Belize and Pasion valleys based on similarities in paste, temper, form, slip and other non-chemical attributes. This analysis suggested that despite the fine-paste designation, the majority of these vessel types were manufactured locally.

Of these fine paste types excavated at Lubaantun, some were found to have been manufactured locally, some were found to have been manufactured a short distance from sites up river, and a few were found to have chemical signatures for the neighboring site of Pusilha, suggesting trade between the two sites (Hammond et al 1976: 166-167).

While the inclusion of local clay samples represents a step forward in the application of

INAA to these kinds of research problems, little attention was given to the temper that was sometimes added to utilitarian wares. Without a consideration of the temper used, the possibility remains that the correlations between the utilitarian wares and the local clays could be spurious

(Shepard 1966: 871).

142

The failure to fully integrate the existing data on fine ware ceramics from other sites

reflects the early date of these studies. As a result, a portion of the sherds collected in this study

were unassigned. A more modern study would have turned to existing databases to find some

level of correlation between the unassigned sherds in this study and those from other studies of

fine paste ceramics. Rather than suggesting a locus of production based on visual appearance, a

statistical link could have been forged between the unassigned sherds at Lubaantun and other

compositional reference groups.

In 1978, a study was undertaken by Wetherington (1978) concerned with the ceramics of

the Formative and Classic period site of Kaminaljuyu, located in the Valley of Guatemala, As

part of the results of that study, a chapter was written by Arnold et al dedicated to a study of

contemporary potting communities in the area to provide a possible benchmark for ongoing

compositional studies in the region and at the site. A total of 273 samples were taken from raw

materials and manufactured pottery at three large potting communities in the vicinity of

Kaminaljuyu, Chinautla, Sacojito and Duranzo, and at three smaller potting communities, Mixco,

Sacoj, and Cakchiquel. The researchers wanted to observe and test the product resulting from the

acquisition of ‘white’ clays, the addition of locally available tempers, and the firing of the

vessels using traditional means (Wetherington 1978: 551).

INAA was applied using a twelve element spectrum to the samples in order to ascertain

the full range of compositional profiles reflecting differences in base ceramic paste, added

temper, and firing techniques. Three major hypotheses were tested. First, was the trace element composition of the clays being used similar to the composition of the pots it produced? Results of INAA application showed that temper could possibly change the chemical composition of the vessels being produced (Wetherington 1978: 565). Second, they sought to test the hypothesis that

143 non-plastics, or temper, added to the clays were completely separate compositionally to the base clays comprising the paste. A comparison of the raw clays to the temper agents found that the temper agents did have many of the same chemical characteristics as the paste, and so the addition of temper may have caused the discrepancies that resulted in the rejection of the first hypothesis. The third hypothesis was that the temper composition, although not found to be similar to the composition of raw clays, could be the same composition as the fired pottery.

Support of this hypothesis would suggest that compositional profiles of fired pots reflected the temper as much as it did the paste of the vessel.

This ethnoarchaeological study supported the contention that INAA compositional studies reflected both paste chemical composition and temper chemical composition. An adequate study of both materials is required to correlate the finished product profile with the raw clays used to designate compositional profiles. Additional attention must be given to the ratios of different elements in both temper and clays in order to deal with the ‘noise’ introduced by temper and successfully determine the paste characteristics from different potting communities

(Wetherington 1978: 571-2).

The 1980’s

The 1980’s represented a fluorescence in the application of INAA in Mesoamerica, a time in which more studies on theory, methodology and research results were published than in the previous two decades combined. The advancements in INAA application that were made during the previous two decades were recognized and built upon, a reflection of the mature nature of the discipline.

One important study in the early 1980’s was a study of resource procurement zones and ceramic exchange in the Palenque region of Mexico. This study used INAA to identify all the

144 locally available clays in the Palenque macroregion that were utilized in the production of

Classic period ceramics excavated at Palenque and neighboring sites. The study adopted a broad geographic approach, recognizing that ‘suitable clays may occur at a number of localities within a region’ and the importance of examining the possible ‘failure of a community to utilize available clays or to exchange locally manufactured ceramics’ (Rands and Bishop 1980:19). An important a priori assumption in this study was that ceramic exchange can take place on different levels, locally, macro-regionally, and at long distances. In order to understand the complete picture of resource exploitation, production and exchange, one needs to employ analysis at multiple geographic levels, investigating all of the procurement opportunities available both to pottery producers and consumers. (Rands and Bishop 1980: 19-20).

Chemical characteristics of ‘local’ clays were generated, creating four compositional

‘regions’ using sherd samples from ubiquitous wares that were thought to have been manufactured from local clays at each site. Possible noise introduced by temper was discounted through petrographic analysis, which showed that temper was not a significant factor in the characterization of the sherds. By comparing the numbers of sherds at each site from each of the four regions, the study was able to comment on the level of region to region ceramic movement

(Rands and Bishop 1980: 22-23).

The results of their studies allowed the authors to make several comments on the production and distribution of ceramics in the Palenque region. It appears that Palenque benefited from the incoming trade of pottery from different zones in the Palenque region.

Conversely, little pottery was manufactured locally at Palenque and distributed throughout the surrounding region, indicating a unidirectionality of ceramic trade. Further, one of the four regions of ceramic production was identified as contributing a high amount of pottery to the

145 assemblage at the site of Palenque. Called ‘the plains’ by the authors, this region is poorly identified in the study and neither maps nor geographic details of where the ‘plains’ is located is mentioned (Rands and Bishop 1980: 41-42).

Breaking down the data set into vessel forms suggests that regions had some specialization in the vessel forms imported to Palenque. Finally, these patterns of resource exploitation and movement of pottery to Palenque show considerable stability over time, as sherds from contexts throughout the Late Classic show the same patterns of production and distribution (Rands and Bishop 1980: 42).

This study is important because it was an advancement over the local vs. long distance ware dichotomy that was prevalent in previous studies, with the identification of both local and long distance pottery production and distribution being a research focus from the very beginning of the study. Additionally, this study represents one of the first integrations of temper studies in its analysis. Whereas earlier studies either focused on either pottery on the one hand or local clay signatures in the form of large utilitarian vessels or clays and temper on the other, this study attempted to deal with both components.

Despite these advances, the identification of resource procurement zones is poorly explained, and the choice to use large utilitarian vessel sherds as examples of local pottery may be presumptuous in light of their conclusions showing a movement of these utilitarian wares throughout the region. Instead the investigation of local raw materials may have been more productive.

By 1984, applications of INAA to answer questions of production and distribution of ceramics stretched southward into Nicaragua and Costa Rica with a study of Nicoya polychrome ceramics by Jane Stevenson Day (1984). During the period from AD 1000 to AD 1550, changes

146

in the technical and iconographical aspects of pottery from two regions showed an increasing

level of similarity between the Pacific coast of Nicaragua and sites along the Tempisque drainage

in Costa Rica.

In addition to the shared technology and iconography between these two regions, the

existence of a poor imitation of Nicoya polychrome became more and more pronounced at sites

in the Tempisque region. These ceramic developments pointed to the existence of trade between

the two regions. Pottery originating outside the Tempisque region was being imported for local consumption and was supplemented by local attempts to manufacture pottery with the same stylistic and technological characteristics (Day 1984: 189-190).

Day examined three sets of ceramics in an attempt to support or refute these apparent patterns based on visual examination of the ceramic record. The first was excavated from

contexts throughout the region that dated to an early period prior to the suggested convergence of

ceramic traditions in the region. This group would supposedly define the regionally specific

compositional reference groups for comparison with later sherds. The second set included sherds

of Vallejo Polychrome Ceramics, the proposed traded and imitated ceramic ware in the region.

This type that appears in great numbers in the Rivas/Lakes region of Nicaragua and in lesser

amounts in portions of Costa Rica, suggesting a priori a Nicaraguan locus of production. The

third set is comprised of sherds from the suggested copied versions of this ware, called Filadelfia

Ware, which appears primarily in portions of Costa Rica.

Application of INAA confirmed that by the late Prehistoric period, Vallejo polychrome

pottery manufactured in Nicaragua was imported to parts of Costa Rica, and that the demand for

this ware could not be met by trade alone. As a result, local ‘knock-off’ wares similar in

147

iconography but dissimilar in paste composition were produced to fulfill the total demand for this

ceramic (Day 1984: 191-192).

Although this article represents the first of its kind for the southern reaches of

Mesoamerica, it had three drawbacks: 1) there were no attempts to confirm the local signatures

of ceramic wares through the testing of clay samples, 2) there was no consideration of temper

given in the study, and 3) the provenience of the sherds analyzed was not given. This study also

assumes that clay exploitation does not change over time, with the same clays used during a

period prior to the period of ceramic exchange being used to formulate region specific clay

signatures. Further, the elemental spectrum used to characterize the sherd paste was not specified

and finally, the inclusion of the early polychrome sherds in the initial research design was not

integrated in the final conclusions of the author. Although this study represents a major step forward in the discussion of exchange in the region, its methodology is poorly reported and may have impacted its results and interpretations.

The trend of INAA applications in ceramics research continued with the publication of a study examining ceramic production in Classic period Honduras (Beaudry et al 1988). INAA was applied to the ‘Bold Geometric polychrome’ assemblages at sites in the El Cajon and Sula

Valley regions of Honduras. A sample of 130 stylistically similar sherds with varying technological attributes were tested from both regions with the research objective of testing the possibility of a site in the El Cajon region as the locus of production for this particular ceramic type. Additionally, ‘wasters’, or misfired sherds, from contexts at the site of Salitron Viejo in the

El Cajon region were tested as control specimens, with the wasters tested in order to provide a measure of what local wares produced in the El Cajon region looked like chemically (Beaudry et al 1988: 102).

148

Following the generation of chemical composition profiles for each sherd, the samples

were analyzed and placed in reference units based on a 14-element spectrum. Eighty of the 130 sherds analyzed clustered based on this compositional data. Almost three-fourths of the Salitron

Viejo sherds from the El Cajon region were successfully placed into three of the four compositional clusters. These clusters were interpreted to represent local manufacture, with the non-grouped sherds representing either vessels that were manufactured locally out of pastes that were identified as not local, or through foreign manufacture and importation (Beaudry et al 1988:

110).

Further, sherds from vessels excavated in the Sula Valley grouped with the El Cajon samples, suggesting that at least a portion of the ceramic assemblage for sites in the Sula Valley region was comprised of El Cajon region imports (Beaudry et al 1988: 112).

This study represents a major step forward in the analysis of Honduran ceramics, moving from stylistically-based considerations of production and exchange to chemically determined conclusions. One shortcoming of the study was a general lack of consideration for the temper used in the manufacture of the vessels. While the El Cajon polychromes are described as being

‘fine paste’ (Beaudry et al 1988: 112), with the assumption being that fine paste ceramics have little introduced temper noise, some of the Sula Valley sherds were not as finely tempered. The inclusion of these lesser-tempered sherds might warrant more discussion of temper issues than was provided here.

Another regional study of fine-paste ceramics in southern Mesoamerica using INAA is a detailed study of Copador ware and related pottery types found throughout the ‘Southeast Maya

Area’ (Bishop et. al. 1986). Copador is a highly distinguishable cream-paste ceramic ware found in Late Classic contexts in a number of regions. These include: the Rio Copan Zone in western

149

Honduras, the Middle and Lower Motagua Valley in Guatemala, and Western and West-Central

El Salvador. Stylistic analysis showed a fairly restricted range of decorative techniques, which was inferred to mean specialized production and widespread distribution of the type throughout

the southern portion of the Maya area. It was thought that a single locus of production existed for

Copador ceramics. Copan was hypothesized as the production locus based on the sheer number

of sherds excavated from the Rio Copan region (Bishop et al 1986: 144).

In order to test this hypothesis and understand regional distribution of these ceramics,

sherd samples of Copador ware and related Gualpopa and Chilanga types were tested using

INAA. Consideration of possible noise from temper was dismissed due to the very low levels of

temper visible in the paste prior to INAA testing. Each of the sherds was tested for group

membership using a 15 element spectrum and Euclidian distance measures. The three groups that

were formed from the data reflected ‘local’ pastes for three broad regional categories. The

‘Copan focus’ group represented pottery manufactured in the Copan region. Seventy-one the 108

samples excavated from the Copan Valley and the Rio Amarillo areas, both in Western

Honduras, grouped together in the ‘Copan Focus’ group. The rest of the sample population for

this region was so heterogeneous as to defy grouping attempts.

Twenty-seven of the 75 samples excavated from western and west-central El Salvador

formed a distinct group, which was determined to represent locally available resources. Thirty-

five of the remaining El Salvadoran samples grouped with the ‘Copan Focus’ group, signifying

some level of ceramic trade between the two regions. Of these 35 traded sherds, 20 were

Copador (Bishop et al 1986: 159-160).

Fourteen of the 35 samples taken from sites in the Motagua Valley region of Guatemala

grouped together in what was determined to be a Motagua region reference group. Of the rest of

150

the samples, 11 grouped with the Copan focus group, suggesting some level of ceramic exchange

from the Copan region to the Motagua Valley (Bishop et al 1986: 160).

Their conclusion from this research was that the Copan region was the manufacturer of

Copador ceramics for export to sites in Guatemala and El Salvador. Further, the statistical

grouping of the Copan Focus group was very tight, suggesting a level of specialization that

included the specific exploitation of a specific clay resource or multiple resources of similar

composition. Further, the tight grouping of non-Copan Focus pastes in the Motagua and El

Salvadoran regions suggests that local imitation ware was also restrictively manufactured, perhaps even at the household level (Bishop et al 1986: 164-5).

A study by Demarest and Sharer (1986) on late Preclassic ceramics along the southeast

Maya periphery represented one of the early attempts to integrate INAA research with ceramic studies dealing with differing levels and forms of cultural interaction. In a comparison of the ceramic taxonomies at sites in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras the researchers found that in many cases what was thought to have been separate wares representing site or subregional ceramic traditions was instead one ware of a similar style and manufacture. These newly identified commonalities suggested broad integrated cultural traditions of a regional scale.

An example of this would be the supposed different Usulután types at Kaminaljuyu and

Monte Alto in Guatemala (Demarest and Sharer 1986: 203). A close inspection by the authors of the supposed Kaminaljuyu-specific ceramic tradition (Wetherington 1978) showed that in terms of surface treatment, appearance, and apparent techniques of manufacture, the Kaminaljuyu

Usulután is identical to those found throughout western El Salvador.

By adopting a regional perspective, the researchers sought to delineate the differences

between ceramic traditions and delineate visible ceramic spheres where applicable. Two spheres

151 were noted for western El Salvador and portions of Guatemala. One was called the Providencia

Ceramic Sphere (ca. 400-100 B.C.), which included a number of fine wares, including Usulután and Mirador Red wares. Changes in the traditions over time suggested a second, late sphere, the

Miraflores sphere (ca. 100 B.C. – AD 250) which again included Usulután and Mirador red wares, albeit different varieties of these broad types (Demarest and Sharer 1986: 206-7).

These two ceramic spheres include the sites of Chalchuapa, Santa Leticia, Antiquisaya,

Kaminaljuyu, and Monte Alto, with each site sharing a high percentage of the diagnostic sphere types (Demarest and Sharer 1986: 211). The influence of the sites in this ceramic sphere can be seen outside the sphere’s geographic boundaries, as types such as Izalco Usulután that constitute the Miraflores and Providencia spheres are found in eastern El Salvador and western Honduras.

The number of similar types in these regions, however, are not significant enough to include them in the ceramic sphere, and are instead considered on the periphery of the peripheral ceramic sphere (Demarest and Sharer 1986: 213). Early reports of INAA research on ceramics in the proposed sphere reached an interesting conclusion: the types found in the ceramic sphere reflected shared knowledge of styles, appearance and manufacturing techniques, and not large exchange networks. The chemical compositions of fine red, fine orange and black-brown vessels, showed that each sub-region produced their own pottery, with no significant correlations between the chemical compositions of vessels found in different subregions (Demarest and

Sharer 1986: 219).

This study represents a further advance for INAA applications. With a body of research to draw upon, wider discussions of the meaning of compositional patterns were offered.

Researchers sought to move beyond the site- or subregion-specific level of analysis prevalent in the earlier years of INAA research. Instead, the broader implications of site specific or

152 subregional works on regions or multiple regions were offered. Steps were taken towards a higher level of integration of research and a better understanding of the broad cultural processes that were going on economically and socially along the southeastern Mesoamerican periphery.

In the late 1980’s, a series of publications appeared chronicling attempts by a number of researchers to apply INAA to Guatemalan ceramics in the hope of understanding patterns of production and distribution (Bishop et al 1986, Bishop and Demarest 1986, Bishop et al 1989,

Neff et al 1988, Neff 1989). The INAA expertise in each of these projects was provided by either

Hector Neff and Ronald Bishop. A summary article published in 1989 by these two along with

Frederick Bove, (Neff et al 1989) provided an overview and interpretation of the existing data.

Drawing upon the analysis of 1166 ceramic and raw clay specimens from the Pacific coastal plain and the Valley of Guatemala, this work attempted to summarize what was known about loci of production, distribution and exchange of ceramics along the Pacific slope of

Guatemala during the Late Preclassic and Late Classic periods. Recognizing there were temporal gaps, the authors sought to provide the most in-depth analysis during these periods, with only tentative inferences of developmental trends for the Early and Middle Preclassic periods (Neff et al 1989: 97).

The methods used in the analysis were the same for all the sherds and clays sampled, having been processed in the same lab (MURR) following the same protocol. In each study, a fourteen element spectrum was examined, and group designations were determined using this spectrum. Reference groups called ‘paste compositional reference units’ or ‘PCRUs’ were formed through a statistical analysis of the existing data, providing geographic information that resulted in site specific regional patterns of ceramic production. It was thought that an accurate compositional pattern for locally manufactured pottery in each region could be understood by

153 sampling a number of sherds and clays from the area representing one depositional context.

Further, after the generation of regional patterns, site-specific patterns within a regional system could be understood (Neff et al 1989: 98-99).

The results indicated a level of pottery manufacture self-sufficiency. In the event that sherds sampled from a site did not match the proposed PCRU for that site or region, an attempt was made to match the unassigned sherds to any of the other generated PCRU’s in the database.

Assignment of the sherds to another PCRU would then indicate the movement of vessels from the PCRU to the locus of deposition. If unassigned sherds did not correspond with any known

PCRU’s in the sample database, it was assumed to represent a new clay source from either local deposits or pottery manufactured at a distant site (Neff et al 1989: 100).

For the Early Formative, a sample of utilitarian sherds were tested from sites in the

Escuintla region. Local production was found to dominate here, with pots being made from clays that were within10km of the final point of deposition.

During the Middle through Terminal Formative periods, local production of domestic wares continued, although INAA revealed the beginnings of localized exchange in Guatemala. A series of specific wares were found to be made at several production centers and exchanged to nearby sites. While long distance trade appears to have been largely absent, ceramic traditions expanded to include the wares produced by neighboring sites within their own particular region of Guatemala. In these cases, specific wares were produced in specific places, with sites in a region collecting a smattering of pottery of different types from each specialized production center. Further, this exchange was largely directional, with sites in the highlands producing pots that generally flowed towards the Guatemalan coast (Neff et al 1989: 104-5).

154

The Classic period in Guatemala was characterized by INAA as a period in which

ceramic exchange became more widespread and included sites at a greater distance than in

previous periods. In several cases, ceramics from sites in Guatemala were found to have

originated in regions up to 100 km away. Again, the general pattern is that pottery produced in

the Guatemalan highlands radiated outwards, with a large amount of ceramic material being

traded towards the Pacific coast. In another continuation of earlier trends, specific wares appear

to have been produced and traded out of specific production sites, with the diverse assemblages

of the Pacific coast sites reflecting a number of sites combining specialized production and

exchange of single wares (Neff et al 1989: 106-7).

Finally, the Early Postclassic is characterized by a general end to specialized ceramic production and exchange. At several sites in the highland regions, previously flourishing ceramic specialization ends, with local production and consumption of wares returning (Neff et al 1989:

107).

Thanks to the development a large ceramic compositional database, researchers from outside Guatemala were able to integrate their research from outside the region, testing possible movement of ceramic material from Guatemala to other regions, or the movement of materials from these outlying regions to sites within the Guatemalan study area. One such study was done by Bishop, Demarest and Sharer (1989), who attempted to discern ceramic production and

consumption patterns during the Late Preclassic period in five regions: western El Salvador,

central El Salvador, eastern El Salvador, highland Guatemala, western Honduras (Bishop et al

1989: 135)

The researchers noticed stylistic and formal patterning between these five regions, noting

high levels of similarity in surface decoration, vessel form and paste characteristics. There were

155 many cases of stylistic similarity that included multiple modes of surface decoration strengthening the likelihood of some level of interaction, whether by communication or exchange (Demarest and Sharer 1989: 135-6).

Compositional analyses of 130 sherds from these five regions was undertaken, with one fundamental research question in mind: did the high levels of stylistic similarity between the ceramic assemblages in these five regions represent a shared body of ideas or did this shared sense of style represent intense economic interaction? (Demarest and Sharer 1989: 138-9) A ten element spectrum was used in the construction of compositional profiles for each sample and group membership was assigned within 95% confidence intervals. Following statistical analysis for the data, it was found that only a very small number of the total sample count could not be placed within a regional cluster, and that the clusters for each site were very homogeneous. This tight clustering of the sherds suggested that although there was a fairly high level of stylistic similarity across a wide geographical region, the exchange of ceramics from one region to the other was likely not a cause for these broad stylistic patterns (Demarest and Sharer 1989: 144).

This integrative approach built on the database-generating studies of the previous decade and represents a major step forward in INAA research. The development of a database of compositional references from which to compare unknown samples provides researchers with a powerful tool to identify ceramic exchange and regional and trans-regional distribution patterns.

As the rest of this review will show, from the late 1980’s onward, researchers actively sought to integrate their samples into some regional database whenever possible, taking advantage of the information available to them in the understanding of their own particular research questions.

156

The 1990’s

The application of INAA to questions of production and distribution of ceramics

flourished in the 1990’s, as researchers applied INAA to familiarly-themed questions, integrating their research to established databases, fine tuning methodology, and conducting more thorough research than seen in previous decades. Again, a small number of researchers were at the forefront of this research: Hector Neff, director of the Research Reactor Facility at the University of Missouri and Ronald Bishop, director of the Conservation Analytical Laboratory at the

Smithsonian Institution. These two researchers participated in most of the projects involving

INAA in Mesoamerica during the 1990’s and both stressed the importance of integrating new

INAA data with existing databases and sharing data between labs. This cooperation fostered

INAA research in Mesoamerica as much as any methodological advance and its importance cannot be understated.

Research in Guatemala continued with a paper by Neff, Bishop and Arnold (1990) re- examining possible loci for whiteware production by the Formative Period inhabitants of

Kaminaljuyu. Drawing on Rice’s early work, this research sought to test whether consumers at

Kaminaljuyu procured their whiteware ceramics from sites within the northern end of the Valley of Guatemala, as Rice (1978a, 1978b) had argued, or from other newly identified loci of production in Guatemala. Whiteware ceramics from Kaminaljuyu were compared to an existing compositional database. This database included sherds from multiple sites within the Valley of

Guatemala that matched the whiteware ceramics from Kaminaljuyu in both paste appearance and decoration (Demarest 1986, Demarest and Sharer 1986). By subjecting the Kaminaljuyu data to statistical procedures testing group membership in this wider Valley of Guatemala database, any

157

ceramic production shared between the two regions would be identified (Neff et al 1990: 172,

174).

The results of their analysis were threefold. First, the Formative period Kaminaljuyu

sherds did not group with clay profiles from contemporary potting communities in the northern

Valley of Guatemala; this suggested that Rice’s original assertion that Kaminaljuyu procured their whiteware from nearby sites to the north was incorrect. Second, the Kaminaljuyu sherds grouped with a previously derived ‘Kaminaljuyu’ reference group, comprised of raw clays and sherds from production loci, suggesting that the production of these whitewares were local.

Third, the heterogeneity of the Kaminaljuyu sherds suggests that local production was most likely occurred at a series of sites utilizing multiple clay resources (Neff, Bishop and Arnold

1990: 178). Such a finding corresponds with a similar study of Fine Red pottery, (Neff, Bishop and Arnold 1988), which also found that centers in the Formative period often exploited local production loci, obtaining different types or wares from different sites within a small radius of the consumption center.

In 1992, Neff edited a series of chemical composition studies in a volume entitled

Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology. Several of these studies applied

INAA to sites and regions in Mesoamerica in an attempt to understand patterns of acquisition, production, distribution and consumption of ceramics and represented the most current reports on fieldwork of a cumulative nature.

Questions regarding the movement of ceramics in Pacific Coastal Guatemala were tackled by Bove et al (1992), who summarized their ongoing research on the Formative to

Classic transition. It had been argued that substantial changes in the ceramic traditions of Pacific coastal Guatemalan sites had taken place during the transition from the Formative to Classic

158 period. Stylistic observations suggested that changes in the coastal Guatemalan ceramic traditions represented the wholesale abandonment of one tradition for another due to outside influences. If this were true, there should be easily recognized changes in resource exploitation, the location of specialized pottery manufacture, and the movement of these site specific wares throughout the region (Bove et al 1992: 191).

Of special interest was the magnitude of shifts in traditions during this transitional period and whether these shifts represented localized evolution/devolution of one tradition into another, or the replacement of a domestic tradition by a foreign one. Two broad traditions were examined, the Naranjo tradition, which dominated sites located in northern coastal Guatemala and the

Achiguate tradition, which dominated sites along central and southern coastal Guatemala. The

Formative and Classic period domestic ceramic wares that comprised both traditions were tested using INAA to construct regional composition profiles. If, as some had suggested, the ceramic tradition in one region was weakened through unequal exchange, the movement of peoples, or social decentralization, then this pattern should be recognizable through a comparison of chemical compositional profiles (Bove et al 1992:189-191).

The signs of the weakening or replacement of one tradition with that of foreign tradition include: 1) a less heterogeneous pattern of resource exploitation, 2) a less diverse array of specialized production loci, and 3) a less complex ceramic tradition as a whole. None of these were supported for the Achiguate tradition during the Formative to Classic period transition.

Instead, both wares that were widely distributed as well as wares restricted to specific contexts came from multiple production loci. Resource exploitation remained varied, with a range of clay sources being used. Exchange within the region continued as well (Bove et al 1992: 195,197).

159

If the Achiguate tradition was found not to be waxing/waning during the Formative to

Classic period transition, then what about the Naranjo tradition wares? In a test of the domestic

wares produced in the Naranjo tradition, chemical composition data suggests a complex pattern

of resource exploitation, production specialization and within-region exchange similar to that

seen for the Achiguate tradition (Bove et al 1992: 198).

In short, existing theories on the development of ceramic traditions in Pacific Coastal

Guatemala had proved to underestimate these regional cultures, painting a picture of site-specific production and distribution. Although shifts in styles, forms and methods changed over time, these shifts in appearance did not indicate a less complex tradition with regards to acquisition, production and distribution. Furthermore, suggestions of cultural dominance resulting in the adoption of one ceramic tradition over another were not supported at all (Bove et al 1992: 199,

201).

Another study of Pacific Coastal Guatemalan compositional patterns involved analyzing nearly 250 samples from clay deposits and possible temper material in the Escuintla region of coastal Guatemala. The research objective was to identify raw materials used in pottery manufacture as possible, providing as complete a collection of compositional signatures of clays and temper material available to prehistoric potters as possible (Neff et al 1992: 59).

The Pacific Coastal Guatemala varies in compositional profiles from region to region and even from river drainage to river drainage because of a variety of volcanic, riverine and other depositional processes. These processes resulted in deposits that are not only highly differentiated in terms of their appearance, plasticity, and texture, but also in terms of their chemical composition. Because potters may not use all of the clay deposits available to them in

160 the manufacture pottery, determining which modern deposits in the Escuitla region required extensive surveying.

Three types of pre-INAA tests were conducted in an attempt to discern which resources were likely used and which were not. First, the study conducted field tests of plasticity and within-deposit variability, selecting only deposits malleable and homogeneous enough for pottery construction for lab analysis. After field testing, petrographic analysis was conducted on samples to further test for within-deposit heterogeneity at different locations and depths, thus reducing the amount of samples necessary for inclusion in the study whenever possible (Neff et al 1992: 66). After collection, the clay samples were fired to assess their quality for pottery manufacture prior to the application of INAA, with only well firing clays included in the analysis.

Similarly, the range of possible temper types was narrowed prior to their inclusion in the study. Volcanic ash and riverbank sands were included for INAA because they had been observed in both prehistoric and modern pottery (Neff et al 1992: 62-3).

Following application of INAA on the clay and temper samples, some patterns in sample composition were easily recognized through principal components analysis. The data suggested three general trends with regards to deposit composition. One component high in levels of Co, Sr and Ca was found to best characterize samples in the southeast portion of the study region. A second component high in Mn, V and largely devoid of Ca best characterized the samples from the northeast of the study area. A third component high in Sm, Nd, Yb and Ca best characterized clays at the extreme south of the study region. A set of three other components were found to shed light on compositional patterning, but to a lesser extent then the primary three components

(Neff et al 1992: 77-8).

161

Following the compilation of the INAA data, these data were compared to the

petrographic data and revealed that patterned variation in texture, non-plastic mineral content

and parent material composition found during the petrographic study correlated with the INAA

compositional patterns. This level of correlation between petrographic and INAA analysis of

ceramic and clay paste supported the idea that petrographic analysis should precede other types of chemical composition study, especially when the sherds are tempered and that temper can be sourced. Additionally, a whole host of site specific chemical compositions were generated, as well as broader drainage-specific or deposit specific patterns, allowing future archaeologists avenues to follow in compositional studies of both raw materials and vessel sherds (Neff et al

1992: 82-3).

In an attempt to summarize compositional studies throughout Lower Central America,

Lange et al (1992) examined ceramic production and distribution in the Greater Nicoya region of

southern Nicaragua and northern Costa Rica. Drawing on an established database of over 1,200

sherds and clay samples, the authors attempted to move beyond simple identification of loci of

production and consumption towards a more complex understanding of intra- and inter-regional

cultural contacts (Lange et al 1992: 171).

Thanks to an established typology for the region as well as highly heterogeneous

geological factors, researchers found it was easy to test for compositional patterns at the

subregional level. Through an examination of ceramic samples spanning 2500 years of

occupation, several temporal production and distribution patterns were revealed. First, sherds

from the Zoned Bichrome period, dating from 1000 B.C. to A.D. 500 were compared to the

compositional database. Sherds from different subregions matched a variety of local clays found

within each subregion, suggesting local clay exploitation and dispersed production loci. These

162

small and localized compositional groups suggested a lack of long distance trade or exchange

(Lange et al 1992: 174-5).

Sherds matched a smaller range of clays during the Middle Polychrome period, A.D. 800 to A.D. 1350, and the Late Polychrome period, A.D. 1350 to 1520. Decorated ceramics made with a fine, largely untempered paste matched compositionally with nine production areas in the

Greater Nicoya region. This identification of multiple production loci allowed the movement of pottery across the region to be modeled. The northern sector of Nicaragua was shown to have dispersed its pottery southward into the southern region in Costa Rica, with very little material from the southern region finding its way northward (Lange et al 1992: 182).

In another paper, Neff (Neff et al 1994) transitioned from the data generating papers of the previous decade to utilize existing databases and some additional INAA analysis in order to interpret the production, distribution and consumption patterns of three key wares (Formative

Fine White Paste, Fine Red Paste and Classic Fine Red) during the Late Formative to Classic

Period transition. The primary research question was whether the same panregional production and consumption patterns of the two Formative period wares could explain the consumption pattern of the Classic period ware (Neff et al 1994: 334-5).

Two broad wares, white paste ware and red ware, represent the Formative Period. The white paste wares includes Usulután decorated material, as well as simple silhouette, composite silhouette and labial flange painted vessels. Analysis of 109 samples of white paste ware failed to yield large compositional clusters, although some of the samples appeared to be compositionally similar to pottery from the Guatemalan highlands. Consumption of this ware is spread throughout both the highlands and Pacific coast, suggesting that multiple production centers,

163

including some possibly in the highlands, satisfied a wide demand for the ware and that some

trade occurred (Neff et al 1994: 335)

Fine red ware is found along the central Guatemalan Pacific slope, including

Kaminaljuyu, and sites in El Salvador. INAA suggests that red wares were produced in the vicinity of three major sites in the region of consumption: Kaminaljuyu, Monte Alto and El

Balsamo (Neff et al 1994: 336).

In both cases, the production and consumption patterns of Formative period ceramics suggested that distribution of these wares was substantial, with pots manufactured in one zone being consumed in another. This distributional pattern was directional, as white and red wares flowed from highland production loci to sites along the coast for consumption over distances as far as 100km (Neff et al 1994: 354).

Classic period red or ‘flesh’ ware is found in the southern central highlands of Guatemala and at sites along the Pacific coast. An application of INAA on the flesh ware samples suggested that the production loci for the Classic period flesh ware differed from those for Formative white and red wares. Sites producing this Classic flesh ware in the piedmont regions of Guatemala and not the highlands as was observed for the previous period. Additionally, patterns of consumption were different in the Classic period, with manufactured pots from the piedmont being consumed in both the highlands and along the Pacific coast. The implications of this research include a substantial shift in the distributional patterns of ceramics, as flesh ware was exchanged in two directions, both to the highlands and to coastal sites. Further, while Formative period production loci were scattered and remained so until the Classic period, the Classic period production loci for flesh ware become significantly constricted over time, with a single production point providing the bulk of flesh ware by the Late Classic (Neff et al 1994: 354).

164

Having failed in previous studies to identify loci of production for Formative and Classic

period Guatemalan white paste wares (Neff et al 1990, 1994), Neff and several colleagues

revisited the question five years later. This time, additional white paste ware data were compared

to an expanded compositional database that included newly analyzed sherds from Guatemala and

El Salvador (Neff et al 1999: 281-2).

White paste ceramics with Usulután decoration comprised the bulk of the additional

samples in the study. Usulután decorated pottery is found in large numbers in Guatemala, and is

thought to be similar in paste composition to Sacatepéquez white ware. Attempts at sourcing

Usulután excavated at sites in Guatemala had been unfruitful to date, with the exception of a

single study of El Mirador Usulután, which was found to have likely been manufactured at

Kaminaljuyu (Bishop 1984).

Samples of white paste Usulután ceramics (referred in the Guatemalan literature as ‘Ivory

Ware’) and the related Sacatepéquez white ware were investigated in order to generate

compositional profiles for each type. Following INAA application and comparison with existing

paste sources, it was found that none of the ivory ware was sufficiently similar to existing source

clay profiles, and a production loci for these wares was not determined (Neff et al 1999: 288).

This dearth of fine paste Usulután production loci throughout Guatemala lead Neff et al to suggest that much of the Usulután wares found in southern Guatemala were imported from El

Salvador. This argument was supported by studies of Usulután ceramics in El Salvador suggesting that the resist technique was applied to a variety of pastes at several sources of production. Such a range of applications indicates that the variation found in Guatemalan collections could still reflect imports of Usulután from a single or multiple sources within El

Salvador (Neff et al 1999: 293).

165

With compositional comparisons within Guatemala unsuccessful, Neff and his colleagues

compared these materials to Usulután ceramics excavated in El Salvador. In both paste appearance and mode of decoration, the samples from western El Salvador appeared identical to much of the Usulután found in Guatemala. When compared chemically, existing profile ranges

for two broad types of Usulután found in El Salvador, (Jicalapa and Olocuitla), overlapped compositionally with the Guatemalan Usulután. Some of the white wares from Guatemala likely came from the same source as Usulután ceramics found in western El Salvador. Current thinking on the production loci for these El Salvadoran ceramics suggest that they are indeed native to El

Salvador, although conclusive chemical composition studies supporting these assertions have yet to be conducted (Neff et al 1999: 289, 293-4).

Historical Overview - INAA

As this review has shown, there has been a great deal of improvement in the application of INAA to questions of production distribution and consumption of ceramics in Southeastern

Mesoamerica. Methods have become more or less standardized and research is now less site specific, making it of greater interest to a wider audience.

Sampling and methodological practices have been standardized in a number of ways.

First, INAA labs recognize that in order to construct compositional clusters that represent patterns of pottery production, sample sizes for a single ceramic type or a single site must be large. Sample sizes for multi-site or multi-type studies need to be even larger. Sherds from large utilitarian vessels too large to have been transported long distances and samples of ubiquitous types or wares at a site should be sampled in order to best characterize a ‘local’ range of ceramic compositions. In addition to pottery sherds, researchers recognize that it is beneficial to sample a

166 range of locally available raw clay sources and possible tempers. Further, each of the categories above must come from well provenienced contexts, with each of the ceramic vessel types, clays or tempers requiring site and context specific information. In the case of pottery sherds, temporal control is required in order to understand changes in pottery production over time.

Early INAA research was highly site specific, with researchers seeking to identify patterns of ceramic production at the local level. These site specific studies over the years have contributed to a growing compositional database and more recent INAA research has sought to integrate the data from a study at a particular site or region into a larger, more geographically comprehensive databases. Comparisons of data within these databases allow the researcher to report on localized patterns of production and distribution and identify compositional similarities with other previously studied sites and regions. Such comparisons have brought to light previously unconsidered relationships among sites and regions and researchers have sought to place these relationships in behavioral contexts. Examples in Mesoamerica would include the construction and compositional testing of ceramic spheres. INAA recently has been used to understand whether these ceramic spheres are the result of migration-based interaction, with potters and ideas moving from place to place, or the result of directed economic interaction, sponsored by elites or other agents at sites in Mesoamerica.

This is not to say that there have not been endemic problems with INAA applications in

Southeastern Mesoamerica. Some of the early studies involving INAA were poorly integrated into existing research, necessitating the development of large, well-funded and broad ranging studies largely being carried out in order to make sense of existing studies that conflicted with one another due to their narrow scope. Even today, the majority of INAA research in

167

Southeastern Mesoamerica is site-specific, requiring periodic synthetic studies in order to

identify broad regional patterns.

Another problem has been INAA projects with insufficient sample sizes. Sample sizes in

early studies tended to be very small, a reflection of the prohibitive cost of the methodology. The

resulting compositional clusters were not well defined and the subsequent addition of samples

often resulted in shifting patterns of production. Today, archaeologists initiating INAA projects

still face challenges of sample size, having to balance research budgets against sampling effects.

Additionally, an early history of site specific research has led to the development of site

specific ceramic types, wares and complexes. In many cases, researchers at one site have been

describing and naming a type that is clearly similar in both technological and stylistic attributes

to types in other regions. Because the type-variety system of classification is largely based on

similarities in decoration and not paste, ceramicists have been slow to recognize regional trends

in pottery production unless commonalities in paste are joined by commonalities in surface

decoration.

Despite these shortcomings, INAA research in Southeastern Mesoamerica is vibrant and yields data that has significantly changed the way researchers in the area view ceramic production, distribution and consumption.

Conclusion

This chapter has reviewed the history of two methods used to characterize archaeological ceramics, petrographic analysis and INAA. Both are useful methods that can generate data used to answer questions of ceramic production and distribution. However, this review has shown that when applied to fine paste ceramics such as Usulután, INAA has significant advantages over

168 petrographic analysis. The following chapter will discuss the specific INAA methods used by the Smithsonian Institution’s archaeometry program and the National Institute of Standards and

Technology. Recent criticisms of these methods and those used by other labs conducting INAA will be reviewed and an argument for using INAA over petrography analysis will be presented.

The chapter then presents the methods used by the author to sample pottery within the Uapala

Ceramic Sphere, generate compositional data on these samples, and identify patterns in the data.

169

Chapter 5 – Methods

Introduction

As the previous chapter has shown, INAA is a proven method of generating compositional data on ceramics found in archaeological contexts. This method has been used throughout Mesoamerica to identify patterns of pottery production and distribution and infer broader economic, political and ideological behaviors from these patterns.

The INAA conducted in this dissertation was carried out at the Smithsonian Institution, with the irradiation and elemental data being generated at the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST). This chapter discusses the reasons for collaborating with the

Smithsonian/NIST partnership. Several research facilities could have been used to generate and analyze compositional data for the samples coded by the author. The Smithsonian/NIST facilities were chosen because of a long history of methodological standardization and an extensive compositional database that addresses many of the sampling issues with the author’s sample set.

This chapter then discusses the specific INAA methodology used by the Smithsonian

Institution’s Archaeometry Program and the National Institute of Standards and Technology to generate compositional data from ceramic samples and how these data are analyzed to identify patterns of production and distribution. Although these methods are constantly being refined and improved, the protocols and procedures established by the Smithsonian Institution and NIST have been used in over 30,000 analyses, involving over 1750 irradiations. These analyses have produced data that has been used in research projects involving hundreds of collaborators from more than 130 institutions worldwide, and has resulted in more than 130 publications in peer- reviewed and other journals, books and monographs.

170

However, a series of recent articles (Stoltman et al 2005, Flannery et al 2005, Sharer et al

2006) have criticized the application of INAA in the study of regional patterns of pottery production and distribution across southern Mexico during the Formative period (Neff and

Glascock 2002, Blomster et al 2005). Critics of INAA have argued that petrographic analysis is a more appropriate method to characterize pottery compositionally. The merits and drawbacks of both petrographic analysis and INAA will be discussed here because these articles and the responses to them (Neff et al 2006a, Neff et al 2006b) have garnered much attention and are germane to the topics this dissertation addresses.

The chapter then presents the methodology for this project, which employed both a petrographic analysis and the use of INAA to analyze Usulután pottery. First, the methodology and results of a small pilot project applying petrography analysis to Usulután pottery is discussed. It was found that this method is not well suited for the compositional analysis of

Usulután pottery due to its generally fine to medium paste. Based on these results, petrography was abandoned as a potential method to compositionally analyze Usulután pottery and INAA was utilized instead.

The chapter then summarizes the sampling strategy used to represent the geographic, typological and temporal range of Usulután in the Uapala Ceramic Sphere and how this variation was addressed by the sample set. Finally the chapter discusses how each sample was coded for

29 different attributes and how these data contribute to a better understanding of Usulután pottery.

171

INAA with the Smithsonian/NIST Partnership

As the previous chapter has shown, INAA is conducted by a number of researchers at a number of facilities in the U.S. and around the world. Although the general INAA methodology is the same regardless of the particular reactor facility or researchers conducting the analysis, there are some slight differences among labs in terms of the number of elements that are accounted for following radiation, the statistical methods used to analyze the data, and the databases from which to compare new sample data. These slight differences in analytical approaches to compositional data, and slight variations among reactor facilities in their ability to count elements require calibration of data from lab to lab. This calibration takes considerable time and cooperation between research facilities and for these reasons, the author chose to work with a single lab for this project.

The author chose to collaborate with Dr. Ronald Bishop at the Smithsonian Institution and Dr. M. James Blackman at the National Institute of Standards and Technology instead of other research facilities for a number of reasons. First, the Smithsonian/NIST collaboration has resulted in a large database of almost 5000 samples that cover much of Southeastern

Mesoamerica. This database includes samples of both Usulután and non-Usulután pottery from many of the sites and regions sampled by the author. Several sites within the Uapala Ceramic

Sphere that were not sampled by the author are represented in the NIST database as well, including many of the sites argued to have been loci of production for Usulután pottery.

Additionally, efforts have been made by Dr. Bishop to sample raw clays from several portions of

El Salvador, providing additional data from which to compare the samples submitted by the author. Although other research facilities, most notably the Missouri University research Reactor

(MURR), have also sampled pottery from this portion of Mesoamerica, the targeted sampling of

172

sites and clay deposits in El Salvador and Honduras by Bishop and Blackman provides the most

amenable database for addressing questions of Usulután pottery production and distribution.

Second, the author chose to collaborate with the Smithsonian/NIST partnership because

of a long history of standardized methodology. Because Drs. Blackman and Bishop have a long

history at their respective positions, the methods and statistical analysis used to generate

compositional data has been standardized. Because these samples have been run according to a

standardized methodology and their data have been stored in the NIST database, comparison of

these data to newly generated data from the samples submitted by the author is easily

accomplished. It should be noted that some of the analytical procedures employed by NIST and

the Smithsonian are not used by other labs, who take slightly different statistical approaches to compositional data. For a discussion of how the Smithsonian/NIST facilities differ from other labs, and an explanation of their philosophy regarding compositional analysis, the reader is

directed to Blackman and Bishop (2007).

Finally, Smithsonian Research Archaeologist Dr. Ronald Bishop has collaborated on

studies in the past the specifically target fine paste pottery, including Usulután (see Chapter 5).

His familiarity with Usulután type-varieties and the projects they came from allowed the author

to mitigate potential challenges of preparing and analyzing fine paste pottery and comparing

newly generated data to an existing NIST database derived from collaborations with over 130

researchers and institutions

INAA Procedures – Smithsonian/NIST

The analytical protocols for Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis at the National

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) are the result of a long term collaboration between

173 research chemist M. James Blackman and research archaeologist Ronald Bishop. Blackman was added to the Smithsonian staff in 1978 and Bishop joined in 1983 following many years as a resident in the Brookhaven Archaeometry group. The protocols outlined below were established during the following 29 years and have been summarized periodically in publications by both

Bishop and Blackman. The summary below follows their most recent discussion of protocols

(Blackman and Bishop 2007). Following these procedures, over 32,000 analyses have been produced, including 130 collaborations with outside researchers.

Smithsonian/NIST Sample Preparation and Irradiation

Sampling of ceramics is carried out either by drilling the sherd with a tungsten carbide bit or grinding a portion of the sherd in an agate or alumina mortar and pestle. Prior to drilling, the sherd is cleaned with a tungsten carbide burring tool to remove surface decoration or other possible contaminants. The sherd is drilled, most commonly along a broken edge parallel to the curvature of the vessel wall, and the resulting powder is collected on a weighing paper and transferred to a glass screw top vial. Several hundred milligrams are collected to ensure homogeneity, and the powder is dried at 110 degrees Celsius to remove adhered water.

Following drying, the sample is allowed to return to ambient temperature and then a 80-100 mg subsample is weighed and transferred to a polyethylene tube for irradiation. Between each stage of this process, drill bits, burring bits and other equipment are washed with acetone or methanol to prevent cross contamination.

The sample is pneumatically introduced to the NIST Center for Neutron Research’s 20

MW research reactor, where it is irradiated for 4 hours at a neutron flux of 7.7 X 1013 n cm -2 s-1.

Samples decay for six days and then counted for 1 hour and 5 minutes using sample changers and a hyper-pure Ge detector. A second decay period of 3 weeks follows, after which a second

174

count of 2 hours and 10 minutes is conducted using a different sample changer and a gamma

detection system. A total of 35 elements are counted, but not all of these elements are used in the

statistical evaluation of data. Some elements counted are found in such small amounts that

accurate detection cannot be ensured or are determined with relatively poor precisions. These

elements are excluded from the statistical analyses. Some of the elements may alert researchers

to possible salt or tungsten contamination and are similarly ignored for compositional purposes.

Periodic analyses of SRM 679 – Brick Clay are used as a check standard to detect shifts or errors

in measurement over time. Descriptive statistics for all of the counted elements confirms that 18

of them are routinely quantified with less than an 8% error range; 12 of those elements are

quantified to less than 4%. Normalized coefficient of variation values for SRM 679 indicate that

all sources of error other than counting statistics are generally less than 3% in all but three

elements (zinc, antimony and neodymium), which confirms a high level of analytical precision.

Smithsonian/NIST Statistical Procedures

Following the generation of compositional data, these data are recorded for each sample

in a compositional database, with quantities of each element being reported either as a

percentage or in parts per million. Each sample is given a unique identifying name and number combination and as much provenience information as possible is recorded. The type, or in many cases, the type and variety, are recorded as well. Concentrations of each chosen element for samples are compared using a matrix of mean-Euclidian distances and an unweighted pair-wise average linkage clustering method is used to separate and identify groups. Mean-Euclidian distances are an expression of the amount of distance in space between points when they are graphed. In this case, the points are concentrations of an element selected to characterize each sample. Average linkage clustering methods examine the plots of each sample in space, merging

175

samples that are closest to each other in clusters and expressing the distance between clusters.

Clusters are expressed in a dendrorgram. This dendrogram serves to identify trial groups or

clumps of samples that are compositionally similar and show the relationship of these clusters to

any other identified clusters. This type of clustering analysis is found in most multivariate

statistical packages. The specific one used here, SYSTAT (version 10) however, has an

additional feature that seriates or reorders the resulting dendrogram so that the last cluster in a

group is somewhat similar to the first sample in the cluster that follows.

However, a hierarchical cluster analysis of Euclidian distances can often be distorted due

to elemental correlations. If two elements covary to a great degree, a dendrogram might reflect a narrower range of elemental variance than intended and the principle of variable independence is violated. Further, such distances can be distorted due to anomalous elemental concentrations.

When elemental concentrations are not log-transformed, a single element represented in very large or very small amounts will tend to exaggerate the dissimilarity of the specimens.

Cluster analyses invariably include some number of outliers. Blackman and Bishop

(2007) distinguish outliers as either global or local. Global outliers are those samples that do not belong to any clusters within the data set and can be considered as ‘noise’. Global outliers can arise because a sample is part of a population that is otherwise not represented, measurement error, variability that is due to the behavioral modification of raw materials, or errors of data entry. Such global outliers may be seen as ‘strings’ at the end of a dendrogram and can be targeted for more scrutiny later in the statistical analysis.

A data set or group that has been identified by a cluster analysis, if sufficiently populated, must then be examined using multivariate statistical measures. These measures ensure that the distortion that occurs in cluster analyses has not affected group composition and provides a

176

statistical measure by which confidence in group membership can be determined. One technique

commonly used is principal components analysis (PCA). In PCA, a transformation of the data set

based on eigenvector methods is performed in order to determine the amount of variance in the

data set when plotted in multidimensional space. The first principal component when analyzing

ceramic samples is a combination of concentrations for multiple elements counted during the

INAA process when their inter-elemental correlation is taken into account. This component is

oriented in the direction of maximum variance. The second PC is calculated to lie in the direction

of maximum amount of the remaining variance, with the additional constraint that it must be

perpendicular to the first PC when plotted in multidimensional space. Additional PCs are added

with the constraint that they must be plotted orthogonal to the existing PCs. This technique may

allow samples characterized by a large number of elemental concentrations to be distinguished

more easily by reducing the dimensionality of the data set. For example, ceramic samples with

two dozen or more elements counted during INAA can often be represented in three PCs.

Glascock (1992) argues that for the majority of ceramic samples, the first three principal

components can account for up to 70% of the compositional variance in a sample population. If

compositional groups are present within a data set, a PCA will likely identify them.

Alternatively, however, there may be archaeologically useful information remaining in one or

more of the more minor components. How many components to use depends upon each

individual application. PCA is also a useful tool in identifying how concentrations of multiple

elements covary within a sample population. Such information can be useful in the selection of

elements in future statistical analyses.

Once a group has been identified using bivariate plots, PCAs, or other analyses can be

used, such as a canonical discriminate analysis, which calculates the probability of each sample’s

177

membership within that group. The probability of a sample’s membership in a group is

commonly calculated by examining the sample’s Malhalanobis distance from the multivariate

group centroid of a data set. The Malhalanobis distance statistic differs from a simple Euclidian

distance measurement because it incorporates information about the correlations between pairs

of elements as derived by the off-diagonal terms of the variance-covariance matrix. Therefore, a

Malhalanobis distance calculation allows the researcher to calculate the probability that a

particular sample belongs to a group based on its proximity to the group centroid in Euclidian

terms and also on the rate at which the density of data points decreases from the group centroid

toward the specimen of interest.

In order to assess whether sample groups are significantly different, the Hotelling’s T2

statistic can be used. This statistic is like the Malhalanobis distance statistic, but instead of

comparing individual data points within a group, it compares two members of different groups.

The Hotelling’s T2 statistic can also be transformed into a measure of the probability of group

membership as well, known as the F-value (Glascock 1992). These procedures are found in

most multivariate statistical packages.

In practice, the use of group evaluation techniques requires some care. “Common” use of

discriminant analysis tends to use a “pooled” variance – covariance matrix, that is, one based on

the inter-elemental relationships of the trial groups. A change of membership of a few samples can have a profound influence on the discriminant reference axes. A more conservative approach, and slower, is to evaluate the membership probabilities for each group, individually, and then to assess the likelihood that other samples might belong to that group—given their distance from the multivariate centroid. These calculations can be carried out using the programs originally written at Brookhaven National Laboratory by Edward Sayre (e.g., Sayre

178

1976) or as programmed in the GAUSS language by Hector Neff. The latter is available upon request at the “MURR Archaeometry” web site.

It is helpful to communicate multivariate relationships among samples graphically rather than just in tables. Most often, these results are presented in the form of bivariate plots, with individual elements or principal components represented on each axis. Individual samples are plotted with regards to their values on both axes, and similarity and dissimilarity can be observed based on the distance from point to point. Groups with members meeting a 90 or 95% confidence interval are commonly surrounded by ellipses (although other confidence intervals have been used in particular applications). In order to identify the provenience of samples, or the ceramic types they represent, samples are often represented by specific symbols, which are explained in an accompanying table.

Recent Criticisms of INAA

In 2002, Neff and Glascock published an INAA of 944 Formative period potsherds from seven regions of southern Mexico. This study sought to identify patterns of pottery production and distribution that lead to pan-regional similarities in ceramic complexes. These similarities and others represent an ‘Olmec Art Style’, a coherent iconographic system that has been argued to have developed along the Gulf Coast and then spread throughout most of Mesoamerica. Some have argued that with the spread of Olmec iconography came the dissemination of social, political and religious institutions. Central to this argument is the first Olmec capital of San

Lorenzo, which showed higher sociopolitical complexity than contemporary sites and evidence for the development of much of the iconography seen elsewhere.

179

Sherds from several ceramic types and varieties dating to the San Lorenzo horizon (1350

to 1000 BC) were sampled from sites throughout Southern Mexico. Samples were compared

compositionally to a database that included 527 archaeological samples from later sites and over

800 clay samples from the same regions. Of these 944 samples, 725 samples could be separated

compositionally into 15 regionally specific groups based on concentrations of 32 different

elements. The results of the INAA were reported in 2005 by Blomster, Neff and Glascock. An

analysis of the compositional data demonstrated that two white wares, Conejo Orange-on-White and Xochiltepec White, were produced at San Lorenzo (Blomster et al 2005: 1070). Other white ware pottery mimicking those styles were produced locally in several regions, but this production was not widely distributed. Additional types, including a grey ware called Calzadas Carved, show a similar pattern of production at San Lorenzo that was distributed to other portions of southern Mexico. This type likewise was copied by local potters, who distributed their pottery locally. None of the 431 pot sherds that could be identified as being produced outside of the Gulf

Coast region were found in Gulf Coast contexts, suggesting a unidirectional pattern of pottery distribution (Blomster et al 2005: 1071).

The authors argue that because trade was unidirectional in nature and the pottery that was imported to regions outside the Gulf Coast depicted Olmec iconography, this exchange behavior was one way in which Olmec influence spread across Mesoamerica.

A petrography study by Stoltman and others was published the same year claiming to overturn the Blomster et al results (Stoltman et al 2005). Stoltman and his colleagues argued that inherent methodological problems with INAA clouded the data. They claimed that in addition to clays, four other sources of elements exist that can skew compositional data: 1) added aplastics

180

(temper, 2) water used to moisten the clay, 3) substances stored, cooked or transported in pottery and 4) chemicals in the soil that are absorbed by pottery after deposition (called diagenesis).

Stoltman and his colleagues point out that not all of the sherds subjected to INAA clustered and that Neff and Glascock admit that there were some similarities between some gray ware pottery from the Valley of Oaxaca and pottery in the San Lorenzo reference group

(Stoltman et al 2005). A reanalysis of sherds of the same wares using petrographic analysis separated these two groups based on the quartzitic or calcareous sands used to temper the clays

(Stoltman et al 2005: 11214).

Stoltman et al also suggest that the use of Malhalanobis distances to assign compositional group membership (discussed below) results in too many samples being classified as

‘unassigned’, and that the use of discriminant function analysis can be more effective. These methodological and statistical concerns lead to a second study using different sherds from wares argued to have been traded by Blomster et al. Using the methods outlined below, Stoltman found that patterns of clay tempering supported the reciprocal exchange of two wares, Tortuga Polished and Calzadas Carved between San Lorenzo and various sites in Oaxaca. They argued that as a result of this petrographic evidence the unidirectional distribution argued previously was no longer supported. A supporting article by Flannery et al (2005) attacks the Blomster et al study, accusing them of ‘sampling bias, anthropological implausibility, and logical non-sequiturs’

(Flannery et al 2005: 11219). They also argue that there isn’t a bridging argument from Blomster et al’s INAA production and distribution data to their claims for significant political, ideological and economic influence emanating from San Lorenzo.

Those in support of the Blomster et al article and of INAA in general responded (Neff et al 2006a). In their response, the authors argue that the critiques by both Stoltman et al and

181

Flannery et al are filled with errors and misinterpretations of the Blomster et al data. Criticisms of the INAA and sampling design employed by Blomster et al are based on exaggerated or misleading interpretations. The data presented by Stoltman et al is based on a tiny sample

(approximately 20 sherds), which Neff et al argue cannot be used to reassess or overturn data from nearly 1000 ceramics and 623 raw clays.

In refuting claims that INAA results in too many unassigned samples, Neff et al state that in order to make their arguments for trade as strong as possible, they set exceedingly high statistical limits for group membership. The unassigned samples, instead of failing completely to group with any of the regional compositional groups, instead grouped very well, but not to the

90% confidence interval they had set for group membership. Any easing of the statistical rigor for group membership would have resulted in more samples supporting the argument for unidirectional trade, not weakening it (Neff et al. 2006a: 62-3).

Neff et al also discuss the potential skewing of compositional data due to the addition of temper, the use of water to moisten clays, the absorption of elements from food or liquid and the absorption of elements after deposition through ground water seepage. They point out that one effect of these processes on elemental data would be to create compositional differences where none existed. Because the compositional groups identified by Blomster et al include both sherds and local clays, any skewing of the compositional data due to the effects argued by Stoltman et al would have resulted in a fractioning of compositional groups. The raw clays unaffected by temper or the absorption of elements from foodstuffs would comprise one group. Ceramic samples, even if they were made from the same clay would splinter into an array of compositional groups. These groups would reflect the effects of adding different types and amounts of temper, the elements absorbed through cooking or storing of foodstuffs, or

182

diagenesis. Neff et al argue this is not the case with the Blomster et al data, which groups clays

and pottery into a small number of compositionally discrete clusters (Neff et al 2006a: 66-7).

Two more articles, a rebuttal by the Stoltman et al camp (Sharer et al 2006) and a final

statement of support for INAA (Neff et al 2006b) round out the debate. These articles focus as

much on the mother culture/sister culture debate surrounding Olmec studies as any

methodological issues surrounding INAA, and will not be summarized here.

A Dual Approach – Petrography and INAA

I believe that the research conducted by Blomster et al is fundamentally sound, and support the points made by Neff et al in support of INAA (2206a, 2006b). However, many of the points made by Stoltman et al (2005) remind us that methods of analysis cannot be applied indiscriminately and must be justified. Both advocates for INAA and those supporting petrographic analysis have voiced support for a dual approach that employs both methods. Those favoring INAA have explicitly stated that in many cases, petrographic analysis is a crucial first step in INAA studies (Neff et al 2006a). Those who favor petrography have suggested in the past that INAA and petrographic analysis can be complementary (Stoltman et al 1992), although recent claims that petrography can overturn INAA results seem to reflect a tempered enthusiasm for a dual approach (Stoltman et al 2005).

The applicability of both methods to the characterization of Usulután pottery can be assessed by returning to the recent criticisms made by Stoltman et al. Of the four potential sources of elements that can skew compositional analyses of clays they identify, three do not apply to this study and the potential effects of the fourth can be mitigated. The addition of temper to clays is argued by Stoltman as a potential source of elements that can skew INAA data.

183

However, Usulután pottery is described as having a fine to medium paste with little to no temper

throughout the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. A visual inspection of Usulután under microscopy by

Hopkins (1986) noted the homogeneity of the paste and the overall lack of inclusions. The

selection of fine to medium pastes by Usulután potters and the lack of identifiable temper under

microscopy remove temper as a potential source of elemental noise. The absorption of elements

from contact with food during cooking or storage is also eliminated. The range of vessel forms

for Usulután does not include cooking or storage vessels. Instead, Usulután pottery is restricted

almost exclusively to serving vessels such as bowls, plates and dishes. Food would have had

limited contact with Usulután pottery, and never in the contexts of storage or cooking. Post- depositional absorption of elements can also be eliminated. As Neff et al point out (2006a), post depositional absorption through contact with groundwater and surrounding soil is most pronounced when the clays used in pottery manufacture are porous, when sherds lack surface treatment, or both. The clays used in the manufacture of Usulután pottery are uniform and dense while their surfaces are both burnished and slipped at least once. Further, Usulután pottery is found primarily in mound contexts. These elevated mounds would be above the water table and well-drained, preventing long term exposure to ground water. Personal experience excavating at

Mounds 104 and 101 at Yarumela support this claim. Excavation units at both mounds uncovered strata that were dry and never water-logged, even when excavation took place during the rainy season.

Of the four potential sources of skewing elements, the application of water to moisten clays during pottery manufacture could potentially add elements to the compositional data. In cases where this has had an effect, a comparison between clay samples and ceramic samples should show increases in elements common in trace amounts in water. These effects can be

184 mitigated by eliminating some of these elements from the analysis should this pattern appear in the raw data.

Therefore, the application of INAA to questions of Usulután pottery production and distribution is appropriate and warranted. Factors that limit the applicability of INAA do not apply to this data set and previous INAA research has shown promising results. Also, petrography is not an appropriate method by which to characterize Usulután pottery. As even

Stoltman will concede (1991:117) fine clays like those used in the manufacture of Usulután pottery do not include enough inclusions to make differentiation of sources successful.

Summary of Dissertation Research Methodology

Preliminary Petrographic Research

Despite the above review describing the utility of INAA analysis and the difficulties in applying petrographic methods to fine textured ceramics, a pilot project using Stoltman’s methodology was conducted by the author. By conducting this pilot project, the applicability of petrographic analysis and whether INAA was a suitable method for this particular data set could be assessed. A set of 20 sherds that were representative of Usulután pottery’s fine to medium paste appearance was sent to Petrographic International (now Vancouver GeoTech Labs) and 27 mm X 46mm thin sections were prepared. These thin sections were brought to the Department of

Geosciences, Pennsylvania State University, and were examined under microscopy with the assistance of Dr. David Eggler. Examination under microscopy at 10X, 20X, and 100X magnification showed that while some inclusions were visible, the vast majority of the sample’s surface was homogeneous paste lacking identifiable minerals. Due to the overall lack of

185

identifiable inclusions in the paste, Dr. Eggler and the author concluded that the paste was too

fine to generate reliable compositional data using standard point counting methods.

The Analytical Sample: Spatial Extent

In order to effectively determine patterns of Usulután pottery production and distribution

within the Uapala Ceramic Sphere, several axes of variation had to be accounted for. First, as

much of the geographic extent of the sphere needed to be sampled as possible. To accomplish

this, requests for Usulután sherds were made to the directors of past and present archaeological

projects in Honduras and El Salvador. Drs. Patricia Urban and Edward Schortman agreed to

share Usulután sherds from their projects in the Naco Valley and Santa Barbara region stored at

Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio. Dr. Kenneth Hirth agreed to share access to a small

collection of sherds stored at Penn State University from his research in the El Cajon region. He

also agreed to share coding data identifying operations and sub-operations from the El Cajon project so that additional materials could be sampled from collections in Honduras. Dr. Le Roy

Joesink-Mandeville agreed to share sherds from his excavations in the Comayagua Valley, also stored in Honduras. Dr. Ronald Bishop of the Smithsonian Institution allowed access to sherds submitted by researchers for previous projects that included site of Los Naranjos in the Lake

Yojoa region as well as sites within the Copan Valley, including Copan itself.

The sherds from these various projects provide broad coverage across Honduras where

Usulután pottery has been reported (Henderson and Beaudry-Corbett 1993). Attempts were made to sample sherds from the Ulúa Valley and La Entrada region, both portions of the Uapala sphere where Usulután has been reported in considerable amounts, but these attempts were unsuccessful. Elsewhere in Honduras, nine sherds of Usulután pottery have been reported for the

186

sites of El Nispero and La Mariposa to the southwest of Lake Yojoa (Urban 1993: 173-5), but

this was considered too small a collection to merit sampling.

Additional spatial coverage of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere was obtained using

compositional data already part of the NIST compositional database at the Smithsonian

Institution. Of the 5697 samples within the NIST database, 791 are Usulután decorated pottery

types, varieties or wares (Table 3). A total of 63 different sites are represented in the Usulután

portion of the database (Table 4). Sixteen of these sites are within the Uapala Ceramic sphere.

Four of these 16 sites added geographic range to the sample set. Usulután from Guauchia III and

Cara Sucia in the Ulúa valley represent one region of Honduras not previously sampled. The

sites of Chalchuapa and Santa Leticia are also represented, providing Usulután from two portions

of the sphere where researchers have argued Izalco Usulután was produced. The other 12 sites in

the Uapala Ceramic Sphere with Usulután in the NIST database are represented by the author’s

sampling of collections, strengthening the sample size for these regions.

Sampling Contexts

A second axis of variation to be accounted for was the range of contexts in which

Usulután pottery is found. Of primary interest was the sampling of Usulután from both elite and

non-elite contexts within regional chiefdoms. If Usulután pottery was imported from a distance,

it is likely that those of a higher socio-economic status would have enjoyed greater access to

what would have presumably been expensive goods. Of secondary interest would be the

sampling of multiple sites within a site hierarchy. If the distribution of Usulután pottery was

controlled by any segment of the society, patterns of distribution over space should be

observable. To this end, samples were drawn from as many contexts as possible in each region.

187

For the Comayagua Valley, all of the samples came from the site of Yarumela, the primate site in a two tiered hierarchy. Two operations were sampled, Operation 19 and 21, both of which are excavations of principal house mounds within the site’s core. Although other sites exist within the valley that were likely part of this settlement hierarchy (Dixon 1989), material from these sites was only available from surface collections which lacked Usulután pottery.

In the Naco Valley, submitted samples were from sites representing a range of contexts:

Santo Domingo, La Sierra, Las Vegas, Site 100, Site 120 and Site 128. Elite contexts are represented by samples drawn from excavations at Santo Domingo, the site that dominated the

Naco Valley polity during the Late and Terminal Formative periods, and La Sierra, which dominated the valley during the Early Classic period. The unnamed Site 100 represents a non- elite context, and has been characterized as a rural farmstead (Schortman pers. com. 2007). The site of Las Vegas has a long history of occupation, and was likely a secondary administrative center dating from the Middle Formative period onward. Residents of Las Vegas may have had more access to goods than those at Site 100, but likely would have had less access to goods than those at La Sierra or Santo Domingo. Unnamed Site 120 and Site 128 were represented in the sample as well. Both of these sites have considerable architecture dating to the Late and

Terminal Classic periods and were likely secondary administrative centers during those periods.

The extent to which these Late and terminal Classic designations extend to the Late Formative and Early Classic periods is undetermined, however, and whether they could be considered elite or non-elite is not clear.

The Santa Barbara region is represented by samples from three sites: Gualjoquito, and

Sites 106 and 114. Gualjoquito is the primate site for the Ulúa drainage in the Santa Barbara region during the Late Classic, and was home to a substantial and possibly hierarchically

188

organized population during the Late Formative and Early Classic periods. Sites 106 and 114 are

two sites located within the Gualjoquito hinterland, and both were relatively small settlements

that likely lacked any elite components.

The Lake Yojoa region is represented by a single site, Los Naranjos, which was the

center of a regional chiefdom during the Late Formative and Early Classic periods. Although

these sherds are unprovenienced beyond the site-specific level, all excavations to date have focused on the principal mound group at the site, and these contexts have been argued to have

been elite in nature.

The El Cajon region is represented by a wide range of site types and contexts within

those sites. The bulk of the samples from the El Cajon region are from the primate site of

Salitron Viejo, and both elite and non-elite contexts within that site are represented. Of particular

importance are samples from principal mound groups, including Usulután found in dedicatory

caches marking the initiation or completion of mound building activity. Two other sites within

the El Cajon region, PC-13 and PC-22, are also represented. These sites are secondary and

tertiary sites, respectively, within the El Cajon settlement hierarchy.

Vessel Form and Chronological Issues

Sampling also sought to represent the full range of Usulután pottery in terms of

decoration, paste appearance and vessel form. Because stackable vessel forms would have

resulted in a much lower transport cost and were therefore more likely to have been transported

over moderate or long distances, bowls and plates were of primary sampling importance. Jars

and other non-stackable vessel forms were also sampled, but were of secondary interest,

comprising a smaller proportion of the samples. Usulután pottery within the Uapala Ceramic

Sphere is somewhat variable in terms of paste appearance, with pastes ranging from very fine

189 and untempered to medium fine in appearance. Paste color also varies somewhat from sample to sample. The bulk of Usulután pottery in this study is of a fine paste that ranges from a cream to light tan appearance. Less common paste variants that were less fine or a darker hue were also sampled, but represented a minority within the total sample. Decoration of Usulután pottery is also somewhat variable, although the majority of the samples conform to the general definition of Izalco or Muerdalo Usulután provided in Chapter 3. Samples of local variants, commonly referred to as Bolo Orange, were also selected for analysis. In some cases sherds appeared to have at one time had resist decoration, but had since faded or eroded. These were sampled as well, albeit in small numbers.

In some cases, attempts were made to represent cream paste traditions that included non-

Usulután pottery. Sherds from vessels that were made of clays similar in appearance to those used to manufacture Usulután but lacked resist decoration were sampled in small numbers, especially when samples with definitive resist decoration were poorly represented for a site or portion of a site.

Samples from different temporal contexts were sought out in order to discern any shifts in patterns of pottery production and distribution over time. However, fine grained temporal control at the majority of sites within the Uapala Ceramic Sphere is generally lacking. While the temporal control for a single occupation period is often well established, the extent of excavation is often insufficient to provide enough contexts to examine subtle shifts in production and distribution within an occupation period.

An example of this can be seen at the site of La Sierra in the Naco Valley. While researchers have been able to establish that La Sierra was the dominant site within a valley-wide site hierarchy during the Late Formative period, more discrete temporal control within that

190 period has not been established, hindering the investigation of pottery production and distribution (Urban 1993, Schortman and Urban 1994). Of the areas sampled, only Salitron Viejo in the El Cajon region has research extensive enough to assure sampling from distinct temporal contexts representing distinct phases within a single site. Sampling took advantage of this opportunity and samples were drawn from distinct levels that represent the early and late phases of occupation during the Late Formative to Early Classic transition at the site. At Operation G,

Sub-operations 9 and 206, one of the principal mound groups at Salitron Viejo, excavation units revealed a lengthy and continuous period of occupation. Samples were drawn from the early and late phases of this occupation in both deep and shallow excavation levels in an attempt to expose any shifts in pottery production or distribution at the site during these phases.

Sampling of Existing Collections in Honduras and the United States

In June of 2002, a trip was made to Comayagua, Honduras, in order to sample the El

Cajon and Yarumela projects. The El Cajon project materials were housed outside of Comayagua on property owned by the Instituto Hondureño de Antropología e Historia. Information on type frequencies for each operation, sub-operation and level was provided by Ken Hirth, the director of the El Cajon Archaeological Project. During the ceramic analysis phase of the project, sherds were coded with regard to surface decoration, providing data that summarized where sherds with resist decoration, the hallmark of Usulután pottery, was found and in what numbers. These data were tabulated and compared to site maps for the project. Levels within sub-operations and operations with more than a dozen resist decorated sherds represented were highlighted and sought for sampling. Access to the storage facility was granted by IHAH for a period of two days, and a team of workers was assembled and transported to the storage facility. The storage facility was poorly maintained and there was some evidence of prior looting of the ceramic

191

materials. Bags were ripped open with their contents strewn about the building floor, and many

bags were water damaged from holes in the corrugated aluminum roof, making their tags

unreadable and provenience impossible. Despite these obstacles, forty bags whose tags matched

the operations, sub-operations and levels identified as having significant amounts of Usulután

sherds were found. These bags were taken from the storage facility and taken to the regional

museum in Comayagua for inspection. Bags were opened and sherds that would help fulfill the

sampling design outlined above were pulled and bagged. Samples that appeared to match the

description of Izalco Usulután or Muerdalo Orange outlined previously were selected first,

sherds that appeared to match descriptions for Bolo Orange were selected second. Rim sherds

were preferred to allow for the determination of vessel form. Regardless of type, sherds that well

well-preserved with all of their decoration intact were selected as much as possible. In order to

increase the possibility of determining vessel form, rim sherds and large body sherds were

prioritized. Unselected sherds were re-bagged and stored at the museum.

Artifacts from the Yarumela Archaeological Project are stored at the Comayagua

Regional Museum, and are organized by operation, sub operation and level. Previous analysis of

the ceramics was conducted from 1994-1999 by several individuals, including the author. After consulting with the project director, Dr. LeRoy Joesink-Mandeville, and reviewing the ceramic data, Joesink-Mandeville and the author selected Operations 19 and 21 for sampling. Both operations were from elite mound contexts that included a series of burned house floors, providing good chronological control. The Yarumela Project’s ceramic coding data includes the categories “wash/slip” and “surface decoration”, with codes in both categories specific to resist decoration. A review of the coding sheets suggested that resist pottery was well-represented in

both operations.

192

A total of twenty-three bags of ceramic sherds for Operations 19 and 21 were examined,

and sherds following the sampling strategy outlined above were pulled and bagged. Both the

bags from the El Cajon project and the Yarumela Project were transported to the Mesoamerican

Archaeology Lab at the Pennsylvania State University under the authorization of the Instituto

Hondureño de Antropología e Historia. The total number of sherds from both projects taken to

the lab for analysis was 1005.

In June of 2006, the author contacted Drs. Edward Schortman and Patricia Urban, the

directors of the Naco Valley and Santa Barbara Archaeological Projects, and was granted access

to their ceramic collections at Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio. Attempts were made to sample

from larger collections for these projects in Honduras, but their whereabouts were not certain,

having been moved from storage facilities to a freight train car located somewhere in or around

La Lima, Honduras. IHAH officials were unable to locate the box car during the author’s 2002

trip, and subsequent attempts to locate the collections and gain access to them were unsuccessful.

At Kenyon College, samples from the Naco Valley and Santa Barbara projects were

represented in large type collections stored on campus in lab facilities for Urban and Schortman.

Boxes of sherds with the project name, site name and in some cases, operation and level were

examined for Usulután pottery. In many cases, bags were marked with the type/variety of the

sherds, and the selection of sherds from these projects stems from their designation by the project

directors as well as the author. A total of 43 sherds from both projects as well as 6 sherds from the site of Los Naranjos were selected and taken to the Mesoamerican Archaeology Lab at the

Pennsylvania State University.

In the fall of 2006 the author visited Dr. Roland Bishop, Research Archaeologist at the

Smithsonian Institution, to examine unanalyzed sherds in the NIST collection. These sherds,

193 which were sent to Dr. Bishop as part of previous projects, were not sampled due to various reasons, and were available for inclusion in this project. Although a good number of sherds were available, they were of poor condition, with significant surface erosion. A total of 9 sherds from

El Salvador were taken for coding and subsequent return to NIST for INAA.

Finally, the author discovered Usulután sherds from the Copan Valley being stored in the

Carpenter Building at Penn State, University Park. These sherds stemmed from an incomplete project initiated by William T. Sanders and were never analyzed. Attempts to gain provenience data from Dr. Sanders was unsuccessful, beyond they were gathered from the Acropolis at Copan during the mid 1980’s. Since previous attempts to sample Usulután from more recent projects in the Copan Valley were unsuccessful and Copan Usulután is poorly represented in the NIST data base, these sherds were added to the sample despite their lackluster provenience. A total of 6

Usulután sherds were considered for analysis. A total of sherds 1069 sherds were drawn from various projects across to Uapala Ceramic Sphere for coding and INAA analysis.

Sample Coding Protocol

Once all of the sherds were in the lab, a further sampling and analysis of the sherds was begun. For each sherd to be sent for INAA, a total of 30 attributes were recorded following a standardized sampling protocol (Appendix 1). Data for each sherd was recorded on paper and then transferred to a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet. The sampling protocol developed for this project is similar to the ceramic coding conducted by the Yarumela Archaeological Project and was chosen due to the author’s familiarity with that system and its proven applicability to the analysis of Usulután pottery. In a few cases, this protocol was modified to better record the data essential to the description of Usulután pottery. Additions or modifications from Yarumela

Archaeological Project coding methods are mentioned when applicable below. First, a sample

194 number was assigned to each sherd and recorded in Column A. All available provenience information that could be gathered either by consultation with project directors, information noted on specimen bags or trays, or information written on the sherd itself was recorded in

Columns B, C and AC). The type and variety for each sample was recorded (Column D).

Type/variety designations made by a previous researcher were largely reinforced, although some sherds that were mis-typed were reassigned type and variety. Type and variety conventions followed by other researchers working in Honduras were followed, using Bolo Orange and

Muerdalo Orange terminology.

The part of the vessel the sherd comes from is noted in Column E. Rims (part code 01), bases (part code 06), and body sherds (part code 11) were most commonly represented in the sample. Column F records the shape of the sherd. This column provides the opportunity to identify a range of different handles, bases, spouts, supports and adornos. Of these categories, the bases (shape codes 06, 07, 08) and supports (shape codes 11-16) were most applicable to sampled sherds. Column G shows the vessel from for each sample. Vessel form was determined using a range of attributes following those outlined by Rice to determine broad categories of vessel types (1987). Some vessel types common to the Uapala Ceramic Sphere that are more specific than basic jar, bowl and plate forms are included in the coding protocol. Illustrations of these vessel types, which were used for the initial coding of Yarumela Archaeological Project pottery can be found in Appendix 1. In addition to Rice’s methodology, personal experience examining pottery from this region suggests that a sherd with curvature suggesting an overall small vessel and a lack of interior decoration is commonly a sign that the sherd is from a jar. The inability to decorate the interior of the vessel due to the restricted neck prevents much adornment past simple smoothing. Sherds with this combination of attribute were often coded as jars (vessel

195

from code 01). The two categories for plates (vessel form codes 03 and 04) and some of the

categories for bowls (vessel form code 05, 06, 11) are the vessel forms most likely to have been

stackable. Neck height was measured in centimeters in column H. None of the sherds from jars

were large enough to determine the neck height of the vessel, and that column is empty for all

samples.

The thickness of the vessel was measured using a digital caliper rounded to the nearest

tenth of a centimeter. These measurements are recorded in columns I (minimum vessel

thickness) and J (maximum vessel thickness). Sherds were measured at their thickest and

thinnest points discounting ridges, flanges or other methods of thickening the vessel body. In the

case of supports, any of the vessel body attached to the support was measured and not the

support. In cases where vessel body was completely absent, the support itself was measured for

thickness – these measurements are significantly greater than those for vessel body thickness an

can be easily discriminated.

Column K codes the type of rim profile observable for the sherd. The naming

conventions for these rim types follow those for the Yarumela Archaeological Project and appear

to conform well with descriptions of ceramics by other researchers in Honduras (Henderson and

Beaudry-Corbett 1993). Illustrations of these rim profiles can be found in Appendix 1. Rim diameter is recorded in column L and was determined using a rim diameter form in which the rim sherd’s curvature is compared to a series of concentric circles of differing diameters. The

finish of the sample is recorded in column M. The coding options range from little to no

finishing (finish code 01 “brushed” and code 10 “scraped”) to highly polished (finish code 06).

When different portions of the sherd’s surface were finished differently, the more finished of the

surface finishing was coded for.

196

Column N records the wash or slip used to decorate the vessel. Of particular

importance is wash/slip code number 3, “negative resist (Usulután technique)”. Samples with

coded “3” in column N were determined by the author to exhibit the hallmark of Usulután

pottery, lines, dots or splotches of resist decoration and best represent the potter’s desire to

produce or emulate a codified style of decoration.

The color of the paint used to decorate the sherd is noted in column O. It should be noted that the majority of coded samples exhibit an orange to orange red color that is the result of a slip or wash. Only when a sherd has been decorated with visible orange paint was the sherd coded

“04” (orange).

The color of the sherd’s decoration was determined with a Munsell soil color chart (Year

2000 Revised Washable Edition) using methods outlined in the charts instructions. Hue, value and chroma were determined by comparing the sherd’s color to color chips under a combination of natural light and florescent light in a laboratory setting. These color notations were recorded in columns P and Q. Column P represents the primary or dominant color of the sherd’s decoration.

For sherds that are bichromatic, such as Usulután pottery, the color against which resist decoration is set is the primary color. For most sherds this is orange or some variant of orange.

The secondary color recorded in column Q. For Usulután sherds, this column represents the color of the resist lines of decoration which are set against the primary color recorded in column P. For sherds that lack resist decoration, the secondary color represents the color of any paint, slip or wash that was added to the sherd.

The next four columns, R through U, detail the decoration on the exterior of the vessel.

Column R, Surface Treatment I – Exterior, describes the method by which the vessel was decorated and focuses on whether that decoration was pre-slip or post-slip, and the depth to

197

which instruments cut into or added to the vessel surface. Column S, Surface Treatment II –

Exterior, expands on the previous information by describing the shape and appearance of that

decoration. Column T, Surface Treatment III – Exterior, describes whether the design element groupings coded in the two previous columns appear in a single row, double row, triple row, or zoned. Column U, Surface Treatment IV – Exterior, describes whether those same design element groupings are linear or curvilinear. These same four categories are repeated for the interior surface of the vessel in Columns V through Y.

The location of the major design elements is coded in Column Z. The exterior of the vessel is assumed unless otherwise noted. In the case of resist decoration, the location of the bulk of the resist lines, dots, or splotches is located. The texture of the clay paste used to manufacture the vessel is coded in Column AA. Paste codes 3 (fine texture, orange to buff color, associated with Usulután technique) and 4 (fine texture, cream color, associated with the Usulután technique) are of particular interest – samples coded with either are more than likely Usulután pottery and made with untempered or lightly tempered clays that fire to a lighter color than the bulk of other types found in the Uapala Ceramic Sphere.

A description of the sherd’s paste color using a Munsell Soil Color Chart and the same techniques used in Columns P and Q is given in Column AB. In cases where the sherd may have been discolored or its edges worn down post-deposition, a pair of small pliers was used to create a fresh break, and the paste color from the broken edge was described. In some cases where carbonization had occurred, the sherd exhibits two colors: the primary color of the paste with a black carbonized band in the middle. When this was observed, the paste without the carbonization was described. For a small proportion of the samples, the black band of

198

carbonization obscures the normal paste color completely. When this was observed, a Munsell

description of the band itself was given.

Column AC provides a summary of any information associated with the sherd.

Information on the bags or trays the sherds are derived from is provided, as is any information that was written or stamped on the sherd itself. When information is given with quotation parks around it, that information was taken verbatim from the sherd, bag or tray.

Finally, Column AD summarizes the notes taken on each sample. Notes were originally

written on coding sheets as they were coded. After coding was completed, those notes were

reviewed and the most pertinent information from those notes was entered into the excel

spreadsheet. The information provided in the notes helps to clarify, augment, or in some cases

modify the information given in the coded portions of the spreadsheet. The codes should not be

considered alone without consultation of the notes portion of the spreadsheet. The transition from

qualitative data to quantitative data for statistical purposes always includes a loss of information.

This loss can be mitigated by careful consultation of the notes for each sample. The original

coding sheets can be found in Appendix 1.

Of the 1069 samples brought to the lab during sampling, a total of 327 were coded. These

327 were chosen because they were representative of the larger 1069 sample set brought to the

lab. All of the sites that were initially represented in the 1069 sample set are included in the

smaller coding sample set. The full range of pastes and type-varieties are also accounted for.

Both single and double slipped variants of Usulután pottery are represented, and the full range of

identifiable vessel forms were sampled. In cases where more than one temporal period at a site or

region was present, samples were drawn from each period. Not all of the 1069 samples were

199 included for coding due to time and budget constraints, and further sampling of the remaining

742 sherds may inform these analyses in the future.

Conclusion

This chapter has presented the methods employed in this research and a justification for their use. It began with a summary of petrographic methods, one of the two most popular approaches that have been employed in Mesoamerican compositional studies. The chapter then reviewed INAA, which has been the preferred method used to analyze the chemical composition of pottery in Mesoamerica. Through a review of its history of application, we see that despite initial shortcomings of some studies, modern INAA applications have been successful in the identification of patterns of ceramic production and distribution. The chapter then reviewed the sample preparation, irradiation and elemental counting methods employed by NIST. The review of the NIST methodology not only serves to explain what modern INAA methodology entails, but also summarizes how samples used in this research were prepared.

Considerable attention was given to recent criticisms of INAA and its applicability in the identification of production loci and the distribution of pottery over long distances. The major criticisms of INAA methodology and the responses by the INAA community to these criticisms were summarized. The chapter then justified the use of INAA for this project in light of those criticisms. The dual approach to compositional characterization that includes both petrographic analysis and INAA is outlined and a pilot project that eliminated petrography as a suitable method for these samples is reviewed.

The chapter then summarizes this study’s sampling strategy and its suitability to addressing the research questions presented in Chapter 1. In order to effectively answer those

200

questions, both spatial representation of the entire Uapala sphere and representation of all of the

major Usulután types and varieties were attempted. A total of 327 samples were collected from

existing collections from sites within the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. Sixteen different types and varieties were represented, all of which of which are Izalco Usulután, Muerdalo Orange, Bolo

Orange or type-varieties with their characteristics following other nomenclature. The methods used to classify and record these samples was outlined and the methods used to prepare them for

INAA were presented. Of the 327 samples that were coded by the author, 229 were analyzed through INAA and are included in the larger database. These analyzed Usulután samples were added to 464 Usulután samples already in the NIST database for a total of 791 samples. Between the samples submitted by the author and the NIST data from previous projects, a total of 16 sites within the Uapala Ceramic Sphere are represented with Usulután samples. This accounts for all but one of the regions reporting significant quantities of Usulután pottery within the Uapala

Ceramic Sphere.

The next chapter presents a more thorough summary and interpretation of the coded samples. The chapter begins with a discussion of how the 327 coded samples reflect Usulután pottery within the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. Trends in the coding data for 27 different attributes

are summarized and then interpreted. General observations on Usulután pottery in light of these

sphere-wide data are then presented.

201

Chapter 6 – Usulután Pottery in the Northern Uapala Ceramic Sphere

Introduction

This chapter summarizes the coding data for 327 Usulután decorated sherds drawn from

sites throughout the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. The coding of these sherds was essential in the

determination of which samples to submit for INAA and these data are used to inform the

interpretations of the compositional groups discussed in Chapter 8. In addition to their usefulness

in complementing the compositional data, the data summarized in this chapter provide an

opportunity to identify trends in Usulután pottery across the sphere. This sample cannot be

considered a completely accurate or random representation of all of the Usulután used

throughout the sphere during the Late Formative to Early Classic transition. However, the data

provided here advance our understanding of Usulután pottery and forms general impressions of

how it was used and its broader role in Uapala chiefdoms.

This chapter will begin with a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the sampling

method used in this study and the resulting data set that was coded. It will be argued that using

this data set to examine patterns in Usulután pottery from a sphere-wide perspective is appropriate. Then the chapter presents the coding data, identifying the patterns across the data set

for 27 attributes. Interpretations of the coding data are presented for the two most common type-

varieties, Bolo Orange and Izalco Usulután. The chapter concludes with a discussion of Usulután

pottery as a whole and what how this coding data impacts conventional wisdom of the type.

202

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Coding Database

The 327 samples used in this study are not a representative sample of all of Usulután ceramics found within the Uapala Ceramic Sphere but they do provide a good overview of general patterns of paste use, vessel form, and decoration within the sphere. Samples were selected that added to the geographic representation of the sphere in the database, appeared to be manufactured with one of several commonly observed pastes that clearly represented a single or double slipped type-variety of Usulután pottery, or were easily identifiable in terms of vessel form. In some cases, samples that would have added variability for one or more of the attributes that were coded for were not included because doing so would have meant sacrificing the goals stated above. Because of the way sherds were selected, the 327 sample database should not be considered a random sample or representative of ceramic variability throughout the Uapala

Ceramic Sphere.

The sample is not representative of the entire sphere because not all the regions within the sphere are represented and not all sites within the sampled regions are included in this study.

The author was not able to get access to collections from all of the regions within the sphere, and some of the collections he did have access to did not have Usulután pottery from all the sites where it is reported. Further, the amount of archaeology varies greatly across the sphere and many sites that may have Usulután pottery have not been excavated or have not to date been excavated thoroughly.

Finally, this sample is neither random nor entirely representative because, despite some strong trends noticeable in the 1069 sherds that were selected from available collections, the full range of variation for every important sherd attribute cannot be represented for every site or

203

region with a sample size of 327 sherds. Some variation in the database had to be sacrificed for

some attributes in order to ensure that a representative sample for others was achieved.

Despite these limitations, this database includes enough samples to give a general impression of Usulután pottery for the Honduran portion of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. As the following review will show, there are sufficient data for many of the attributes that were coded to expose general trends throughout the sphere for both Bolo Orange and Izalco Usulután. Trends

for several attributes related to paste appearance, vessel form and surface decoration are

especially noteworthy because the sample set was designed to represent their full range of

variation.

To date, descriptions of Usulután pottery have been largely site or regionally focused.

While many researchers have noted similarities between the Usulután pottery they see in their

excavations and reported attributes for Usulután found elsewhere (Henderson and Beaudry-

Corbett 1993), this is the first inter-regional analysis of Usulután based on a comparison of

Usulután pottery from a variety of projects. By using a single coding methodology for samples from several projects, some of the confusion stemming from different applications of the type-

variety and modal classification systems can be avoided.

The summary presented below is not intended to be a fully comprehensive analysis of

Usulután pottery. Instead, it represents a step away from site specific or regional analyses

prevalent to date and approaches Usulután pottery from an interregional perspective. Some of the trends presented below should be viewed as preliminary observations and may change as sherds from more sites are added to the analysis. Still, this analysis is an important first step in a broader understanding of Usulután pottery in Honduras.

204

Coded Sherd Data Summary – All Sherds

The summaries of the sherd data can be seen in Appendix 2. A total of 327 samples were coded for analysis. All but two of these sherds are from contexts within Honduras, the other two were from El Salvador. The vast majority (n=280, 86%) of the sherds were either rims (n=156 ,

48%) or body sherds (n=124, 38%). Supports (n=24, 7%) and bases (n=16, 5%) are also well represented, with solid nubbin supports and flat bases dominating these two categories. Vessel form was able to be determined for 145 (45%) sherds, with bowls (n=70, 21%) and two forms of plates (n=66, 20%) constituting most of the samples. There is a generally small range of vessel thickness observed among the samples, with 215 (66%) of the sherds ranging from .6 to .8 cm maximum thickness and 285 (87%) of the samples exhibiting between .4 and .7 cm minimum thickness. Of the 161 (49%) samples that were rim sherds that could be characterized, outturned rims dominated, with direct rims the second most commonly coded rim type. Vessel rim diameters could be estimated for 63 (19%) of the 327 samples. The diameters for these rims were highly variable, ranging from 12 to 38 cm. The most common rim diameter, with 8 (2%) samples, was 22 cm, suggesting a plate or shallow bowl. All of the samples were able to be coded for finish.

Nearly all (n=323, 99%) of the sherds were burnished with striations evident on the surface. The wash or slip was visible on all but 7 of the samples, and the vast majority of the samples (n=244, 75%) were positively identified as having a negative resist slip consistent with the Usulután technique. A small but not insignificant number of sherds (n=73, 22% ) were identified as having a matte wash or slip. This code was often used when resist decoration, and therefore a double slip, was not able to be seen. In such cases where a single slip is easily identified but a second slip is not evident for any reason, a matte wash or slip was coded. Paint

205 was not visible on 286 (87%) of the sherds, with the decoration limited solely to the use of slips and a resist technique to achieve coloration. Of the 40 (12%) sherds that showed evidence of paint, the largest number showed evidence of red paint. Red paint is not surprising, as Chilanga

Usulután, a variant of Usulután, is characterized by the application of red paint on top of resist decoration.

The two columns that code for the colors of the primary and secondary modes of decoration showed a generally restricted range of coloration. For the primary coloration, the combination of hue, value and chroma that was most frequent was 2.5YR 6/6 (92) and 2.5YR 6/8

(n=41, 13%), both light red. Other commonly coded Munsell colors for primary decoration were

10R 5/8 (n=35, 11%) and 10R 5/6 (n=19, 6%), both red. The most commonly coded color for secondary decoration was 5YR 6/6 (n=26, 8%), reddish yellow. Other common colors fell between 7.5YR 7/2 (n=21, 6%), pinkish gray, and 7.5 YR 8/2 (n=19, 6%), pinkish white.

Coding for the exterior surface decoration revealed that the majority of sherds lacked any kind of exterior incising, excising or other forms of tooled modification. Over half of the sherds

(n=185, 57%) lacked any of the forms of decoration described in Surface Treatment I. The bulk of the remainder of the samples (n=123, 38%) were coded as other, which was used to identify the sherd has having some form of resist decoration. Roughly half of the coded sherds (n=164,

50%) also lacked the decoration described in Surface Treatment II. The most common coded entries were parallel lines (n=90, 28%), random (n=35, 11%), which refer to the appearance of resist lines on the vessel’s exterior. Surface Treatment III reveals that 18 of the sherds showed single, double or triple lines of decoration, which is consistent with descriptions of Usulután given by previous researchers (see Chapter Usulután). Also consistent with other descriptions of resist decoration is a significant number (n=38, 12%) of curvilinear design element groupings.

206

Interior surface decoration generally mirrors that of the exterior, with the majority of sherds showing a lack of tooled modification. A significant number (n=35, 11%) of the sherds show some incision. These incisions, which appear u-shaped in cross section and therefore suggest they were executed before a slip or wash was applied, usually appears as rim decoration.

Resist decoration is represented in Surface Treatment II – Interior, and again mirrors that of the exterior. Again, parallel lines (n=114, 35%) and random (n=31, 10%) dominate. Surface

Treatment II – Interior shows that the number of design element groupings that can be characterized as single, double or triple row is greater than for the exterior of the vessel. A total of 41 sherds (13%) show decoration in rows, reflecting the increased decoration of vessel interiors with sets of resist line decoration. Interestingly, the proportion of interior curvilinear to linear decoration is 74 to 104, more even than for vessel exteriors (38 to 92), suggesting that sets of straight lines of resist decoration are more likely to be found on vessel interiors than exteriors.

The coding for the location of major design elements suggests that roughly half of sherds with decoration (128 of 237 sherds, 54%) showed both interior and exterior decoration, which was coded as 09- Other (Specify in Comments) and explained in the Notes column for each sherd. A significant number of sherds showed interior decoration alone (n=52, 16%), while 23

(7%) sherds had decoration only restricted to the vessel body.

A summary of the paste appearance shows that 216 of the sherds could be identified as having fine paste, with 125 (58% of fine paste sherds) firing to an orange to buff color and 91

(42%) firing to a cream color. One sherd had paste so fine as to suggest it was completely untempered, and the remaining sherds (n=111, 34%) had a medium paste.

The Munsell data for the sherd paste appearance was variable, with the six most common munsell colors accounting for only 116 of the sherds. The most common paste color is 7.5

207

YR8/2, pinkish white (n=32, 10%). The other most commonly observed pastes were 7.5YR 8/3, pink (n=27, 8%), light reddish brown, 5YR 6/4 (n=18, 6%), reddish yellow, 5YR 6/6 (n=15,

5%), reddish yellow 5YR 7/6 (n=13, 4%) and 7.5YR 8/4, pink (n=11, 3%).

Coded Sherd Data Summary and Interpretation – Specific Types/Varieties

The coding of 327 sherds from seven different regions within the Uapala ceramic sphere provides an opportunity to analyze and summarize the two most commonly reported type/varieties, Izalco Usulután: Izalco Variety and Bolo Orange, beyond the site specific level of analysis. These two type/varieties comprise 179 of the 327 sherds that were coded. The remaining 148 sherds are comprised of three general classes of sherds: 1) sherds that were designated by other researchers of the author as ‘Usulután’ and lacked any other type-variety

description, 2) Chilanga Usulután, and 3) type-varieties that are defined as having some

members that are resist decorated and some that are not. Excluding undifferentiated Usulután

samples limits the inclusiveness of these analyses and can be viewed as an overly conservative

approach. The type-variety classification system, however, allows researchers to recognize

similarities among ceramic assemblages at different sites and regions. By limiting these

summaries to samples that reflect established classification requirements, a description of these

type-varieties for the Honduran portion of the sphere can be generated.

Summary and Interpretation - Bolo Orange

The coding data for Bolo Orange is derived from 103 sherds classified with the following

names: 1) Aguaagua/Tilaga or Bolo Orange, 2) Bolo Orange, 3) Bolo Orange Tiligua Dense

Orange, 4) Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo, and 5) Usulután Poss. Bolo. These names were copied

208

from labels on the sherds, or specimen bags when the sherds were collected. In lieu of this

information, the author classified the sherds as Bolo Orange using the attributes described in

Chapter 3.

Despite having multiple type-variety names, all of the sherds selected are considered by

the author to represent Bolo Orange as it was described by Baudez and Becquelin (1973).

Aguaagua refers to one of two type-varieties: Aguaagua Uneven Orange: Totoca and Aguaagua

Uneven Orange: Aguaagua. The Totoca variety is found in Late Preclassic contexts in the Santa

Barbara region and is defined by an uneven orange slip and medium to medium fine pale brown

paste. Some sherds have faint resist lines present, although not all of the sherds in this variety

exhibit this decoration. The Aguaagua variety dates to Early Classic contexts and like its

predecessor, is defined by an uneven orange slip. This variety is usually made with a medium

paste that fires to a pale brown. Some sherds of this variety exhibit resist decoration. Sherds of

this type were included in the Bolo sub-set of the data because, like Bolo Orange elsewhere, they represent an attempt to apply resist decoration to medium non-cream pastes.

Orange slipped Poss. Bolo and Usulután Poss. Bolo were included because the author felt upon examination that the sherds showed many of the attributes for Bolo Orange, most notably a medium fine buff to brown paste. In the majority of cases for Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo, the sherd was not given a Bolo Orange designation because the decoration on the sherd appeared to be resist-like, but was eroded or faded to the point that a complete examination of the decoration wasn’t possible. In others, sherds were classified Usulután Poss. Bolo because the sherds showed double slipping and resist decoration, but this double slipping was applied to pastes that fired to a light buff to cream color. Because Bolo Orange has been described throughout the sphere as

209 having both the double slipped resist decoration and a medium to medium fine buff to brown paste, it was designated as a possible Bolo.

Of the 102 sherds, 47 (46%) are from the site of Salitron Viejo (PC-1) in the El Cajon

Region of Honduras, 27 (26%) are from Yarumela in the Comayagua Valley, 16 (16%) are from

La Ceiba (PC-13) in the El Cajon region, 4 (4%) are from Los Naranjos in the Lake Yojoa region, 4 (4%) are from PC-22, an unnamed site in the El Cajon region, and 4 (4%) are from the

Santa Barbara region. There were 57 (56%) rims, 35 (34%) body sherds, 7 (7%) supports, 3 (3%) bases and one body sherd with a strap handle attached. Two of the bases were for flat bottomed plates, the other was a ringed base. There were four nubbin supports, the other three were tall, solid supports.

Analysis of these data revealed the following trends among Bolo Orange sherds. Vessel form could be determined for 46 (45%) of the 102 sherds. Plates with a basal break comprised

43% of these identifiable sherds. Plates with a basal break have a flat base and shallow, flaring sides. The transition from base to vessel wall is usually fairly pronounced, resulting in the diagnostic ‘break’. The second most common vessel type was bowls (32%). These bowls appear to be hemispherical based on the curvature of the sherds. The third most common vessel type was what Joesink-Mandeville (1993) calls a Chilcal bowl (8%). Chilcal bowls are those that have concave sides, a basal angle and a convex base. In many ways a Chilcal bowl can be considered a deeper variety of the plate with basal break. The Chilcal bowls often have an outflaring rim.

The maximum vessel thickness for Bolo sherds ranged from 1.6 cm to .5 cm. The most common maximum sherd thicknesses were .9 cm (23%), .6 cm (14%), .8 cm (13%) and 1.1 cm

(12%). Minimum sherd thicknesses ranged from 1.1 to .3 cm. The most common minimum thicknesses were .5 cm (28%), .6 cm (23%), .7 cm (19%), .8 cm (12%), .4 cm (10%).

210

Of the 57 rims that were in the Bolo Orange data set, only three rim profiles were fairly common. Out turned rims were the most frequent (46% of rims), followed by exterior thickened

(23%), and direct rounded (16%), the remaining rim profiles each comprised 5% of the rim sherds or less. Rim diameter could be determined for 15 rim sherds. Vessel diameter was found to be highly variable, ranging from 38 to 12 cm. Although none of the rim diameters could be considered frequent in the sample, rim diameters of 22 (3%) and 20 cm (3%) appeared most often.

The surface finish of all 102 Bolo Orange sherds was burnished with some striations visible. This finish is found for both the interior and exterior of all vessels, and appears to have been an integral and routine part of vessel Bolo Orange manufacture. It should be noted though that the striations found on the vast majority of the sherds are not severe. The striations are less pronounced than one would expect for a patterned burnished vessel, and it appears that great care was taken to prepare the vessel surface prior to slipping.

The wash or slip found on sherd surfaces fell into two broad categories. The slight majority of sherds (52%) had evidence of a negative resist, or Usulután technique. Nearly all of the remaining sherds (43%) had one slip or two slips, with a matte appearance, but no resist decoration present. In most cases, evidence of two slips could be seen on the broken edge of the sherd surface, in some cases, however, this could not be seen with the naked eye or under 10X microscopy. Because the sherd sizes tended to be rather small, it is more likely that the sherds found to have evidence of two slips are actually Bolo Orange sherds, but from a portion of the vessel that lacked that type of decoration. A small number of sherds showed paint (12%) added to a single or double slip. A small amount of sherds (7%) showed some orange paint added.

Other colors were red hematite (3%) and red (2%).

211

The color of the Bolo Orange sherds was highly variable, both in terms of the primary orange color and the color of the resist lines. The coding of the primary color for each sherd, which in this case is the orange color against which resist lines are set, resulted in 23 different

Munsell soil colors. The most common color was light red, represented by 2.5 YR 6/6 (37%) and

2.5YR 6/8 (17%). Red, 10R 5/8 (7%) was also represented, followed by reddish yellow. 2.5YR

5/6 (7%).

Secondary sherd color measured the appearance of resist lines if there was Usulután decoration and paint or other color treatments added to an orange slip when Usulután decoration was absent. A second coloration was reported for 75% of Bolo Orange sherds. Secondary sherd color was also highly variable and no single color dominated. A total of 31 Munsell soil colors were coded. The five most common colors were 7.5YR 7/2, pinkish gray, (8%), 7.5YR 7/4, pink, (8%), 2.5YR 6/6, light red, (6%), and 5YR 6/6, reddish yellow (5%). Each of the other 28 colors was reported for 3% or less of the Bolo Orange sherds.

Exterior surface treatment other than resist decoration was extremely rare. Only 2% of sherds showed any kind of incising. A single sherd appeared to be gadrooned, or decorated in order to make it appear gourd-like. The remaining 97% lacked additional surface treatment. The resist decoration on vessel exteriors tended to be either in sets of parallel lines (23%) or random lines (7%). Further coding of these resist lines revealed that 2% of Bolo sherds had lines in a double row, 1% had single lines and 1% had zoned resist decoration. The lines were further coded for their appearance, with 21% of Bolo sherds having curvilinear lines and 5% having straight lines of decoration.

Both resist and non-resist interior vessel decoration was significantly more common.

Interior incision appeared on 13% of sherds, and one sherd appeared to be gadrooned. The

212 increase in interior incision is mostly due to a higher incidence of incision on the inside of out turned bowl and plate rims. Coding of the resist decoration resulted in 32% of sherds having parallel resist lines and 8% having random resist lines. Sets of resist decoration tended to be single row (11%) or double row (5%), although triple row (1%), and zoned (1%) were also represented. Straight lines comprised 30% of Bolo Orange sherd resist decoration while curvilinear lines comprised 21%.

The location of the major design elements could be determined for 64% of the sherds.

17% of sherds had only interior decoration and no exterior decoration at all. Rims were the most common portion of a vessel to be decorated (8%).

Bolo Orange paste appearance was restricted to three general categories. The majority of sherds (53%) had a medium to coarse texture, with inclusions and possibly temper visible. These were generally dark firing pastes, appearing buff to brown to orange after firing. 42% of sherds were of a fine texture and an orange to buff color. The range of coloration for these pastes was more restricted, with fewer orange firing pastes in this group. Finally, 5% of sherds were of a fine texture and fired to a cream color.

The range of Munsell colors for Bolo Orange pastes was immense, with 43 different colors observed. No single color dominated the Bolo Orange samples, and the five colors seen most commonly were 2.5YR 5/6 (6%), 5YR 6/6 (6%), 7.5YR 8/4 (6%), 5YR 6/4 (5%), and 5YR

7/6 (5%). A blackened core due to firing was visible on 20% of the sherds.

Analysis of the coding data from sites throughout the Honduran portion of the sphere confirms some characterizations of Bolo Orange made by other researchers, refutes others, and provides some new perspectives on the type. As the review in Chapter 3 has mentioned, most researchers report that Bolo Orange from their particular region or site of interest is dominated

213

by plates and bowls, and this is certainly reflected in the sphere-wise coding data. The vessels are

also reported to be fairly thin walled, and again this is reflected in the coding data. Researchers have also suggested that Bolo Orange was produced using two slips over a medium texture, buff to brown paste. This is borne out by the coding data. Sets of parallel lines of resist decoration are reported as the dominant decorative motif, which is also reflected in the data. Some researchers have noted some incising on Bolo Orange sherds, which is seen here. Bolo Orange pastes are reported to be brown to buff to orange in color, and the vast majority of Bolo Orange pastes

coded for this project support this. Some have reported black to gray paste cores due to firing in

a reduced atmosphere at low temperatures, and again, this is reflected in the coded data.

Additionally, the rims for Bolo Orange vessels tend to be out turned. Many of the outturned rims

are coded as such because they are for plates or dishes with outflaring walls, and the rims

continue this outflaring effect. Some of the bowl rims are out turned as well, suggesting that the

outturned style of Usulután plates may have been carried over to bowl forms. The Bolo Orange

bowl and plate rims that are not out turned are direct. Rims for this type are very rarely, if ever,

turned inward, resulting a restricted opening.

This research has also brought to light trends in Bolo Orange that have not been noticed or have gone unreported by other researchers. Exterior decoration is rarer than interior decoration. Resist decoration is found on 30% of Bolo Orange sherd exteriors, and decoration other than resist lines occurs on only 2% of sherds. By contrast, interior resist lines appear on

40% of Bolo Orange interiors, and interior decoration other than resist lines appears on 14% of sherds. Non- resist decoration tends to be incised interior rim grooves. While interior rim grooves have been mentioned in the literature, a comparison of interior and exterior decoration has not.

214

Contrary to what some have reported (Baudez and Becquelin 1973), Bolo Orange is not

confined to medium pastes. Fine textured pastes are found in nearly the same amounts as

medium pastes, and many of these show little to no signs of added temper. Curiously, 5% of

Bolo Orange sherds were made of fine textured pastes that fire to a cream color. Despite being

manufactured with clays that fire to a cream color, these vessels were double slipped, with the

first slip differing slightly from the fired paste color. These sherds may represent

experimentation, with potters extending the range of double slipped Usulután pottery to include

clays that don’t require two slips. Or they may represent a finicky potter who, despite having

clays that fire to one shade of cream, decides to slip their vessel twice for a more assured cream

appearance.

Also, 5% of Bolo Orange sherds were observed with red or red hematite paint decoration.

Red-painted Bolo Orange is a type that has not been described in the literature. Chilanga

Usulután, however, has been described as a single slipped Usulután vessel (Izalco or Muerdalo) with applied red paint. These double slipped and red painted sherds may represent a double slipped variant of Chilanga Usulután that uses a wider variety of pastes in its manufacture.

Some additional comments about Bolo Usulután are warranted in light of the coding data.

The wide range of pastes used in the manufacture of Bolo Orange is likely related to the use or

two slips in their decoration. When a paste was used that would not fire to a cream color, a

second slip was necessary. Bolo Orange can be seen as an aesthetic compromise; potters were

willing to go through the extra work of applying a cream slip if it meant that a wider range of

clays could be used.

215

Summary and Interpretation - Izalco Usulután

The coding data for Izalco Usulután is derived from a total of 76 sherds. These sherds are

from 5 different varieties classified with the following names: Usulután Izalco, Orange Slipped

Poss. Izalco, Usulután Poss. Izalco, Usulután Izalco? and Muerdalo Orange. These names were

assigned by referring to the specimen bags information or the sherd itself when they were pulled

from existing collections with that information, or the name was assigned by the author

following the Izalco Usulután: Izalco Variety description by Sharer (1978). Orange slipped Poss.

Izalco are sherds that are made with a fine, cream firing paste and appear to be single slipped.

These sherds show no evidence of resist decoration. The author feels that this is likely the result

of small sherd size, and that these sherds are undecorated portions of vessels with Usulután

decoration. Usulután Poss. Izalco is comprised of sherds that have resist lines of varying non-

cream coloration. This range of coloration is due to the lack of a cream-colored slip and is a

reflection of the varying firing colors of the pastes used in their manufacture. Usulután Izalco? is

a small group of sherds that appear to be single slipped and made with a fine cream colored paste

but are eroded or faded. The result is a largely cream colored vessel with traces of orange slip

with resist lines that are difficult to identify or are absent.

The Izalco Usulután sherds are dominated by the site of Salitron Viejo (PC-1) in the El

Cajon region, which comprises 76% of all Izalco Usulután sherds (n=58). Other sites or regions

with Izalco Usulután sherds include Yarumela in the Comayagua Valley (13%, n = 10), the Santa

Barbara region (7%, n=6) Los Naranjos, and PC-13 and PC-22 in the El Cajon region (1% each, n=1).

Of the 76 sherds, the majority of were rims (51%), followed by body sherds (32%),

supports (12%), bases (4%), and rims with bases (1%). All of the base sherds were flat, and not

216

dimpled. There were two varieties of supports: solid nubbin (11%) and tall solid (1%). One sherd

had an exterior labial ridge on the vessel body.

Vessel form could be determined for 40% of the Izalco sherds. Of these identifiable

sherds, 48% were from plates with a basal break. Bowls were the next most common vessel form

(24%), followed by Chilcal Bowls (17%), plates with a rounded base (7%), and cylindrical bowls

(3%). Vessel wall thickness was variable, with the maximum thickness ranging from 1.7 to .5

cm. The most common maximum thickness was .7 cm (22%), followed by .9 cm (18%), .6 cm

(17%), and .8 cm (12%). Minimum thickness was less variable, ranging from .5 cm to .9 cm. The

most common minimum thickness was .5 cm (41%), followed by .4 cm (22%), .6 cm (22%) and

.7 cm (9%).

The most common rim profile among the 40 rim sherds were out turned rims (57.5% of rims). The next most common were exterior thickened rims (22.5%) and direct rounded rims

(12.5%). Direct pointed, interior thickened, inturned and everted rims each constituted 2.5% of the rim sherds.

Rim diameters were measurable for 16 of the 40 rim sherds. The vessel diameters ranged

from 34 cm to 16 cm and were fairly evenly dispersed. The most common rim diameters were 22

cm (4%), 26 cm (4%), 19 cm (3%), and 24 cm (3%).

A burnished finish with striations was applied to all 76 Izalco sherds. The vast majority

(82%) were slipped using the Usulután technique, with resist decoration visible. Sherds that

showed a single orange slip but no evidence of resist decoration comprised 17% of the sherds.

As was the case with Bolo Orange sherds lacking resist decoration, the author feels that the lack

of resist decoration is a function or the small sherd sizes, and that sherds from other portions of

these vessels were decorated in the Usulután style. Almost none (99%) of the sherds showed any

217

added paint, although one sherd appeared to have had orange paint applied on top of an orange

slip.

The Munsell data for Izalco sherds revealed a wide range of both primary and secondary

colors. There were 20 different primary colors coded, although there was a steep drop off after

the six most popular colors. The most common Munsell soil color was 2.5YR 6/6 (24%), followed by 2.5YR 6/8 (16%), which are both light red. Other colors, in decreasing frequency are: 10R 5/8, red (12%), 2.5YR 5/6, red (12%), 10R 5/6, red (7%). There were 17 different secondary colors coded, with 5YR 6/6, reddish yellow, the most frequent (12%). Other secondary colors included 5YR 7/8, reddish yellow, (8%), 7.5YR 7/3, pink, (7%), 5YR 7/6, reddish yellow, (5%), 7.5 YR 7/6, reddish yellow, (5%) and 7.5YR 7/4. pink (5%).

Exterior surface treatment other than resist lines was rare among Izalco sherds. Incising

of different varieties was seen on only 4% of sherds. Exterior resist decoration tended to be in

sets of parallel lines (22%), or random lines or splotches (12%). Cross-hatching was well

represented (8%) as well. Resist decoration was zoned (5%), single lined (4%), or in double rows

(3%). Resist design groupings were tended slightly to be linear (21%) rather than curvilinear

(17%).

Interior surface decoration other than resist lines was more frequent than for vessel

exteriors. Vessel incising was seen on 13% of the sherd exteriors. Types of resist decoration

were dominated by parallel lines, visible on 37% of sherds. Random lines or splotches (9%), and

cross hatched lines (8%) were also visible on sherd interiors. These design element groups were

evenly distributed among single rows (9%), zoned (8%), and double rows (5%). Linear design

elements were more common (37%) than curvilinear elements (25%).

218

The majority of sherds had some form of decoration on both their interiors and exteriors

(39%). Some sherds had just interior decoration (18%), and 12% had exterior body decoration

alone.

The vast majority of Izalco sherds (76%) were manufactured with a fine textured paste that fired to a cream color. A small, but not insignificant number of sherds (22%), were made with a fine textured paste that fired from orange to buff. One percent of Izalco sherds were of a very fine texture that appeared to be devoid or temper.

There was a wide range of paste appearances, with 22 Munsell colors represented. The

six most frequent Munsell color designations, however, accounted for 65% of the sherds. A

comparison of these six color plates suggests slight color variations on a dominant pink to cream

color scheme. The most popular color was 7.5 YR 8/3, pink, (21%), followed by 7.5YR 8/2,

pinkish white, (20%), 10YR 8/2, very pale brown (8%), 7.5YR 7/2, pinkish gray, (7%), 10YR

8/3, very pale brown, (5%), and 7.5 YR 7/3, pink, (5%). A blackened core due to firing was

visible for 12% of the sherds.

A review of the coding data supports much of what has been written about Izalco

Usulután. As most researchers have claimed, Izalco Usulután is dominated by plates and bowls.

Plates often have solid nubbin supports and flat bottoms. Vessel surfaces are always burnished

prior to the application of a slip, and Izalco Usulután appears to be the result of the application of

a single orange slip. The primary color is usually some type of orange, although the specific

orange color varies. Resist decoration on Izalco Usulután have been described as cream to pink

to buff in color, and the Munsell data for secondary decoration bears this out. Resist decoration

tends to be sets of parallel lines that are either straight or curvilinear, and cross-hatched resist lines occur as well. Non-resist decoration tends to be in the form of circumferential interior rim

219

grooves, either in a single row, double row, or some basic geometric designs. The paste for

Izalco Usulután is described as fine and firing to a light buff to cream color, which corresponds well to the coding data.

A few additional observations about Izalco Usulután can be made in light of the data. For

the majority of Izalco Usulután sherds, the color of the resist lines match the firing color of the

paste used to manufacture the vessel. In some cases, however, this coloration differs slightly,

likely due to the burnishing applied to the clay prior to slipping. In other cases, the application of

the orange slip to the vessel affected the base coloration of the resist lines, resulting in a color

more orange than the fired paste color. If potters used an inhibitor to prevent a second slip from

covering portions of the vessel, it appears that in some cases this method was not entirely

successful.

The homogeneity of paste appearance for this type-variety is striking in terms of texture

and coloration. Regardless of where it is found within the Honduran portion of the sphere, the

paste used to manufacture Izalco Usulután is fine, with very few or no inclusions visible to the naked eye. Visible temper is very rarely seen, and what is visible appears to be ash. The range of color is slight, considering the geographic extent of the sample group. Potters manufacturing

Izalco Usulután had a clear mental template for how the clay should appear. Because the firing color of the clay had a direct result on the appearance of the resist lines beneath the orange slip, great attention and care was given to fired paste appearance. The narrowed range of Izalco

Usulután paste attributes and the lack of similar pastes used for non-Usulután types within the

sphere suggests the restricted use of a clay or clays for their manufacture.

220

General Observations on Usulután Pottery

The process of selecting sherds for coding from several regions within the Honduran

portion of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere afforded the author the opportunity to study Usulután

pottery at great length. Although 327 sherds were selected for analysis, several times that amount

were studied but not selected. The literature review provided in Chapter 3 represents the most

comprehensive discussion of Usulután pottery since the treatments of the type-variety given by

Demarest and Sharer in the 1980’s. This research has led me to some general observations about

Usulután decorated pottery manufacture and how it has been reported by archaeologists in the literature.

Discussions of Usulután pottery have focused on its resist decoration and rightfully so.

The bichrome appearance of Usulután pottery and the specialized method by which this appearance was achieved results in vessels that are pleasing to the eye. When compared to all other types dating to this time period within the Uapala Ceramic Sphere, Usulután decorated pottery stands alone in terms of its appearance. It must be noted that this fine appearance was the result of labor investments not seen for any other pottery type in the sphere.

I interpret labor investment in the manufacture of Usulután pottery to be very high for several reasons. First, the range of clays suitable for manufacture is fairly narrow. Medium to fine clays are required for this type in order to achieve the luster that burnishing provides. Potters would have a narrowed range of clays available to them suitable for Usulután pottery manufacture. Also, the burnishing process for these vessels was arduous. Although striations from the rubbing of the vessel are visible, it is clear that great care was taken in the preparation n

of the vessel for decoration. More labor was required in order to achieve a cream base color for

the vessel. Depending on the type and variety, one of two costly steps must be taken. In the case

221 of Bolo Orange, a cream to buff colored slip must be prepared and applied to the entire vessel, and the vessel must be allowed to dry. In the case of Izalco Usulután, clays must be used that are both fine to medium textured and fire to a cream to buff color. While these clays may have been local in some regions, the lack of other non-Usulután types utilizing fine cream firing clays suggests that their use was prohibitive in some way.

Once a cream base was achieved, decoration of the vessel was carefully considered. In some cases the resist decoration appears to have been sloppy or haphazard, but the majority of

Bolo Orange and Izalco Usulután vessels appear to have been decorated with great care. Interior rim grooves or geometric patterns were carefully incised on many Usulután vessels. Parallel lines were created using a special tool, likely a brush, which appear even in thickness, evenly spaced, and consistent over the surface of the vessel. I agree with Demarest and Sharer (1982) that this resist decoration was likely achieved by applying an inhibitor that masked portions of the vessel and prevented an orange slip from coloring those parts of the vessel. A likely substance used to decorate the may have been wax. The application of waxes to pottery has a long history and is still in use today, producing pottery that matches the appearance of Usulután (Turner 2008).

Following the application of an inhibitor, an orange slip had to be applied to the vessel and allowed to dry. Finally, it is clear from an examination of Usulután pastes that both Bolo Orange and Izalco Usulután were fired to very high temperatures. Researchers have remarked that

Usulután pottery is very hard to the touch and when struck or dropped make a characteristic ping sound. Although discussions of prehistoric ceramic firing methods in Mesoamerican are beyond the scope of this paper, it is clear that high temperatures had to be sustained for long periods of time in order to fire Usulután pottery.

222

One trend brought to light is that 5% of sherds that were classified by the author or others as Bolo Orange were manufactured with a light buff to cream firing fine paste. Despite being manufactured with a light firing paste, these vessels were double slipped; once with a cream base slip and once with an orange slip. This may reflect potters who wanted to ensure that their resist lines were of a cream color but were unsure of the firing color of the clays they used. It may also be evidence of potters transitioning from the manufacture of double slipped Bolo Orange pottery to single slipped Muerdalo/Izalco Usulután pottery. Regardless of the underlying cause, these sherds show that the line distinguishing these two broad classes of Usulután pottery is slightly blurred.

The general interpretation that Muerdalo/Izalco Usulután is single slipped and manufactured with a fine light firing paste and Bolo Orange or other double slipped types with localized nomenclature is manufactured with a darker, less fine paste is supported by the data.

However, not all fine cream paste Usulután pottery is single slipped, and not all double slipped pottery was the result of the potter needing to obscure a darker firing paste. Experimentation or a transition from one way of manufacturing Usulután pottery to another is reflected in the data.

Coding data also brings to light some new patterns of decoration. Both Izalco/Muerdalo

Usulután and Bolo Orange show significantly more interior decoration than exterior decoration.

Resist lines, dots and splotches and incised lines are both more frequent on vessel interiors.

Special attention appears to have been given to the interior of vessel rims, with both incision and resist decoration often occurring along rim interiors and where a vessel rim and body transitions.

Wonderley (1991) and Schortman and Urban (2004) have argued that Usulután pottery was service ware used in ritual ceremonies and feasts. They base these arguments on two lines of

223

evidence, first, the range of vessel forms for Usulután pottery and non-Usulután pottery, and second, the contexts in which Usulután pottery have been found.

The most common vessel forms for Usulután pottery in Honduras are plates or dishes with open, outflaring walls and rims, or bowls with outflaring walls or rims. The coding data failed to identify any jars, ollas, or tecomates, which reflects vessel form frequencies reported in the literature (Henderson and Beaudry-Corbett 1993). Only three regions within Honduras report

Usulután jars (Ulúa Valley, El Cajon region and Lake Yojoa region), and only in trace amounts.

Tecomates, ollas, or other vessel forms associated with cooking or storing with resist decoration are absent throughout Honduras. Although a review of all other pottery types dating to the same

time period was not conducted by the author, discussions of trends in vessel form variation

(Henderson and Beaudry-Corbett 1993) suggest that this vessel form pattern is unique to

Usulután type-varieties within the Honduran portion of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere.

From these data we can confirm that Honduran Usulután is clearly a service ware, used

for the presentation and consumption of food. First, none of the vessel types are suitable for the

preparation or storage of food. Both Bolo Orange and Izalco Usulután pottery is dominated by

plates, dishes and bowls with outflaring walls and everted rims. Robertson (1983: 128) suggests

that everted rims contribute to the ‘graspability’ of vessels when filled with hot food. Wonderley

(1991: 157) suggests that the supports found on many Usulután vessel forms were added to lift

food off the ground, allowing their contents to remain hotter longer. Further, none of the sherds I

observed showed any signs of having been used for preparing or storing food. Sherds lacked fire

clouding and residues on sherd exteriors and vessel interiors showed no wear at all. Sherds that

were eroded showed an even loss of color and decoration across the face of the sherd, suggesting

post-depositional loss of decoration rather than use-wear.

224

Because Usulután pottery is restricted to a small number of vessel forms, and those vessel

forms are not commonly found for other contemporaneous types and varieties, the argument for

specialized use of Usulután pottery as a service ware is strengthened. Wonderley first suggested

the specialized use of Usulután pottery (Wonderley 1991: 164). Usulután pottery is found in earthen mound contexts at Rio Pelo in the Ulúa Valley. Wonderley interpreted these mounds to be non-residential loci for ceremonies involving Ulúa Valley elites. Wonderley argued that because Usulután pottery is service ware, and this service ware was found in ceremonial non- residential contexts, it was used for the serving of food in feasting events by chiefs and other Rio

Pelo elites. He argues that these feasts were likely held to negotiate alliances or marriages, transact gifting or trading or to end a feud.

While I agree with Wonderley’s interpretation of Usulután pottery as a service ware used in feasts across the Uapala Ceramic Sphere, I doubt that the everted rims were added to the forms primarily to ease the transport of hot foods. The coding data presented above suggests that everted rims may have been seen primarily as platforms for additional decoration. Rim decoration was common on both Izalco Usulután and Bolo Orange sherds. Single, double and even triple circumferential grooves are often found. Geometric designs are less frequent, but still well represented. This decoration is often found at the rim/body junction, which would have promoted breakage at these points when carrying hot foods. Patterns of breakage observed along these grooves support this assertion. Therefore, the outflaring walls and everted rims found on many Usulután vessels primarily provided the opportunity to add aesthetic and economic value.

The outflaring walls, decorated rims and supports contribute to the impression that Usulután pottery is an objet d’art as much as it is a vessel for food presentation.

225

Conclusion

This chapter has presented the coding data generated during the sample selection phase of this project. Of 1069 sherds that were collected from various projects across the Uapala Ceramic

Sphere, a total of 327 were selected for INAA. These 327 samples were not chosen randomly nor were they chosen to represent the full range of all aspects of Usulután variation across the sphere. Instead, this sample set was designed to provide the best possible opportunity to identify patterns of Usulután production and distribution using chemical compositional analysis. This sample set, however, provides the opportunity to characterize Usulután from a regional perspective for the first time in Honduras. As the discussion above has shown, some of the commonly held assumptions about Usulután pottery have been supported, some have been refuted, and some new interpretations have been generated. The interpretations in this chapter should serve as a baseline characterization of Usulután pottery in general and Bolo Orange and

Izalco Usulután type varieties in particular. The addition of more samples will strengthen the interpretations presented above over time.

The following chapter present the results of the INAA applied to 229 of the 327 samples that were submitted to the Smithsonian Institution for irradiation at the National Institute of

Standards and Technology reactor facility. The compositional data for the sherds is discussed and their grouping using a series of statistical methods is presented.

226

Chapter 7 – Results of INAA of Usulután Pottery

Introduction

This chapter presents the results of the application of INAA to 229 samples of Usulután pottery from the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. The compositional data for the samples are summarized and the process is outlined of how these data were analyzed using standardized statistical methods. The compositional data for samples submitted by the author was combined with other Usulután samples from the NIST database and were subjected to statistical analysis in order to look for compositional groups that could potentially represent discrete Usulután production and patterns of interaction. Compositional groups were able to be identified and many were able to be refined to a 95% confidence level for group membership. The chemical composition of each group was compared to the entire NIST database in an attempt to draw in non-Usulután samples or match compositional groups to raw clays sampled in the database. This chapter then summarizes the quantities of sherds from each site or region as well as the type- varieties represented in each statistically refined compositional group. This process of statistical refinement and analysis of groups based on site and type-variety membership is then used to identify loci of Usulután production and trace its distribution from production loci to where it was used and deposited.

Results: Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis

Of the 327 sherds that were coded and summarized above, 229 were sampled for irradiation and INAA. Samples were prepared by Ronald Bishop, research archaeologist of the

Smithsonian Institution. The samples were irradiated and compositional data was collected by M.

227

James Blackman, Senior Research Chemist. The sample preparation, irradiation and analysis using INAA were conducted using established Smithsonian Institution/NIST protocols outlined in Chapter 5.

The number of analyzed samples (229) does not match the total number of submitted samples (327) because of time and budgetary constraints. First, there are a number of concurrent projects being run at the NIST facility and space in the reactor is limited. Samples are not always run immediately after preparation. Instead, samples wait for their turn in the reactor, with some projects having higher priority than others. Second, the irradiation and analysis process takes approximately 60 days to complete. The first irradiation counts the elements with short half lives, and a second irradiation is used to count those elements with longer half lives. Because of this need for two irradiations, a sample is usually in the process of irradiation and analysis for some time.

Because of the high volume of samples from multiple projects being run at the NIST facility, Bishop and Blackman use a combination of random and targeted sampling to achieve meaningful results with the fewest number of samples. For many projects, samples are selected at random from those submitted. This reduces sampling bias during a project’s initial phases.

Following the irradiation of a significant proportion of the submitted samples, the compositional data is considered along with type-variety, context or temporal information, and additional samples are added that will both round out the variability in the overall sample group and also have the greatest ability to bolster or refine early compositional trends in the data.

For the samples submitted by the author, the first few sets of samples were chosen at random. As sampling continued, however, an effort was made to include all of the sites and type- varieties represented by the samples. Irradiation of samples was concluded in Spring 2008 to

228

allow Bishop and the author to analyze the compositional data and follow the statistical

procedures outlined in Chapter 5.

Data for a total of 29 elements were initially recorded for each sample. These elements

are: Na, K, Ca, Sc, Cr, Fe, Co, Zn, As, Br, Rb, Sr, Zr, Sb, Cs, Ba, La, Ce, Nd, Sm, Eu, Tb, Yb,

Lu, Hf, Ta, Th, U and W. This group of elements are recorded by Blackman and Bishop because

they can be reliably counted using INAA methodology and have proven to effectively

differentiate ceramic samples. Of this group, a sub-set of 15 elements were used in order to run compositional analyses: Sc, Cr, Fe, Sb, Cs, Ba, La, Ce, Sm, Eu, Yb, Lu, Hf, Ta, and Th. The other 14 elements were eliminated for four main reasons. First, analysis of over 4900 ceramic samples from Mesoamerica has shown that in some cases elemental concentrations tend to co-

vary, with increases or decreases in one element matching with increases or decreases in another.

When elements are found to co-vary, inclusion of both in a cluster analysis, PCA or discriminant

analysis inflates the number of elements counted, but doesn’t add any interpretational value to

the analysis. In these cases, one of the two elements is removed. A second reason for elimination

is that some of the 29 elements listed above do not vary among samples from Southeastern

Mesoamerica. Without sample to sample variance in that element, its ability to differentiate

samples compositionally is muted. Inclusion of these elements would give the impression of a

robust multivariate analysis when in reality, their inclusion adds no interpretive value. Third,

because elemental concentrations vary among samples, if any of the samples in a data set is

shown to have elemental concentrations in such small amounts that precision cannot be

maintained, that element is removed from the analysis for all samples. Fourth, the methods used

to prepare the samples can contaminate them prior to irradiation. For example, cobalt (Co) and

229

tungsten (W) are present in drill bits used to extract sample powder from sherds. Wear of the

drill bit can introduce both of these elements to the sample, and therefore were removed.

The first step of analysis was to merge the compositional data from samples submitted by

the author and other Usulután samples in the NIST database from previous projects into a single

data set. In order to select the samples in the database that have Usulután decoration, the author

and Bishop reviewed the type-variety information for all 4948 Mesoamerican samples in the

NIST database, selecting type-varieties that are classified by their resist decoration. The column

named ‘Type’ in the NIST database specifies the type, variety, or ware identification for each

sample. In the majority of cases, these names are entered using type-variety information

provided to Bishop by those submitting the samples. In rare cases where no type-variety

information is provided, Bishop or others have attempted to give the sample a type-variety

designation based on personal experience and reviews of the literature.

This review added an additional 562 samples to the 229 submitted by the author for a

total of 791 samples, which will be referred to as the Usulután Database (Appendix.3). A total of

82 different type-variety-ware labels for samples with Usulután resist decoration are represented

in the database, reflecting the proliferation of site-specific nomenclature regarding resist- decorated ceramics (Table 3). The large number of types is also a result of the myriad ways

researchers have reported their samples to Bishop. For example, Izalco Usulután: Izalco Variety

is present in the database as ‘Izalco: Usulután’, ‘Usulután, Izalco’, ‘Usulután Izalco’ and several

other designations.

These 562 samples included 37 sites throughout Southeastern Mesoamerica not sampled

by the author. Of note are the sites of Chalchuapa and Kaminaljuyu, both argued to have been

production of loci for Izalco Usulután. The amounts of Usulután for a number of the sites

230

sampled by the author have also been increased. The entire Usulután database summarized by

site and type-variety is presented in Table 4.

Cluster Analysis Results and Compositional Group Refinement

This 791 sample Usulután Database was subjected to a multivariate cluster analysis using

the 15 element spectrum detailed above. The cluster analysis measured variance among samples

and grouped samples into clusters based on compositional similarity. In order to represent these

clusters spatially, cluster membership and the distance between clusters was plotted in two

dimensions using a dendrogram. The dendrogram is useful because it allows the observer to view

similarity and dissimilarity among individual samples and groups, identifying sub-clusters within

clusters when they are present.

Of the 229 samples that were submitted by the author for INAA, 193 (84%) were

clustered into 19 Clustered Compositional Groups. A summary of Clustered Compositional

Group membership by site and type can be seen in Appendix 4. The remaining 36 (16%) samples

submitted by the author went unclustered. Such a high proportion of cluster membership attests

to the relative homogeneity of samples within a cluster and suggests that the recipes for clay

selection and preparation were followed. A total of 50 additional Usulután samples that were not

submitted by the author in the NIST database clustered compositionally with the dissertation

samples, 39 of which were from sites not previously represented by the author’s sampling.

The Clustered Compositional Groups tentatively identified by a cluster analysis were

then subjected to statistical group evaluation in order to create more refined groups. This

evaluation determined the likelihood of group membership by measuring each sample’s

Mahalanobis distance from the multivariate centroid of the group to which it was assigned.

231

Clusters comprised of samples with small Mahalanobis distances from the group centroid are well defined, clusters with larger Mahalanobis distances are poorly defined.

A robust statistical estimate of group membership using Mahalanobis distances requires at least twice the number of samples as there are variables being evaluated (Bishop and Neff

1988). Because the largest Clustered Compositional Group identified in the cluster analysis had

31 samples, a restricted number of elements were used to evaluate the cluster groups. Elemental concentrations for 10 of the 15 element spectrum were used (K, Sc, Cr, Fe, Ba, Cs, La, Ce, Eu, and Hf). These elements were chosen because they have been found by Bishop to be the most useful in discrimination among manufacturing locales in the Southeast Maya region (Bishop, personal communication, May 2008). Whereas the trial groups were formed from a cluster analysis based on the absolute magnitude of elemental measurement and assumes elemental independence, the statistical refinement is based on the pattern of elemental covariation. This pattern of covariation more closely reflects the occurrence of elemental concentrations in nature, leading to a more accurate determination of group membership. Group membership was determined using a 95% confidence interval. Samples lying outside of this interval were eliminated from the group and new group probabilities were recalculated.

The statistical evaluation of Clustered Compositional Groups 1, 2, 3, 3.2, 5,10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 at the 95% confidence interval resulted in a total of 7 refined compositional groups, hereafter referred to as Refined Groups 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, and 12 (Appendix 5). Refined Groups

1, 2, 5 and 11 are almost identical in membership to pre-refinement Clustered Compositional

Groups 1,2,5, and 11, respectively. These refined groups gained or lost one group member.

Refined Group 3 is comprised of all of the previous Clustered Compositional Group 3 samples as well as the bulk of Clustered Compositional Group 3.2. Refined Group 10 lost 5 samples from

232 the pre-refinement Clustered Compositional Group 10. Refined Group 12 is a combination of samples from Clustered Compositional Groups 12, 13 and 14.

Clustered Compositional Groups 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 15 were too small for statistical refinement but were nonetheless visually refined by Bishop. An example of this visual refinement would be when the majority of samples in a group had values of chromium between

10 and 12 parts per million and one or two samples had values of 30 to 40 parts per million.

Those with elevated chromium values would be considered outliers and removed from the group.

These groups, although not refined to a 95% confidence interval, are still useful in this analysis and will likely form the foundation for future compositional groups amenable to statistical refinement if their membership increases with more samples.

Of the 229 samples submitted by the author analyzed using INAA, 170 (74%) clustered into refined compositional groups, 129 of which clustered into statistically refineable groups, 41 into visually refined groups. The remaining 59 sherds submitted by the author and analyzed using INAA (26%) failed to cluster into refineable groups. A total of 23 samples submitted by the author that initially clustered were rejected through statistical and visual refinement.

Those samples identified as members of a group through cluster analysis but rejected by the statistical refinement of larger groups and visual refinement of smaller groups are considered outliers, but still have interpretive value. Outliers can be the result of three causes. First, the composition of a sample may be slightly divergent from other samples as a function of vessel preparation. A slightly different amount or combination of temper added to the same clay or clays used in vessel preparation may separate samples compositionally to the point they no longer part of the same statistically refined group. Second, samples drawn from sherds manufactured from clays that are not completely homogeneous may result in slightly different

233

compositions. Third, the INAA process has a small amount of inherent analytical error which

may be sufficient to separate samples manufactured from the same clay or clays. In each case,

the sample may be just beyond the selected margin of group definition, resulting in its rejection

under statistical refinement. In these cases the source clay of the outlier sample may be identical

to the group it originally clustered with, and should be considered useful in later interpretations

of the data.

Following the statistical and visual refinement of the cluster groups, the rest of the NIST

database consisting of 4948 non-Usulután ceramic and raw clay samples from sites and regions

in Southeastern Mesoamerica was compared a second time to the newly refined groups. Each of

the samples in the NIST database was compared to each of the Refined Groups in succession to

see if its composition was statistically similar and could be included in any of the Refined

Groups. This step was taken to see if any of the refined compositional groups were manufactured

with the same clays used to manufacture non-Usulután pottery in Southeastern Mesoamerica.

This step would also identify any similarities among the compositional groups and raw clays

submitted to NIST for analysis. The likelihood of a NIST sample belonging in any of the Refined

Groups was calculated using the parameters for a group of infinite size and using the Hotelling’s

T2 statistic. The Hotelling’s T2 is used to test for differences in the centroids of two groups. In this case, one group is a single sample from the NIST database, the other is the group centroid from a Refined Group. Again, a 95% confidence interval was set for group membership.

As a result of this comparison, a total of 77 NIST database samples are included in the

refined compositional groups. The pottery that was pulled in from the NIST database is largely comprised of Usulután sherds, with the exception of Refined Compositional Group 3. This group was increased to 37 total members with the addition of 15 non-Usulután samples from the site of

234

Salitron Viejo (PC-1) in the El Cajon region. These sherds include misfired kiln wasters and polychrome sherds from the Sulaco Ceramic Group proposed by Hirth (Beaudry et al 1989).

Although the Sulaco Ceramic Group sherds are not identified individually by type in the NIST database, the types that were submitted to Bishop for analysis include Sulaco Weak/black-lipped bowls, Serpent fill/interior diagonal, incised/white polychrome, Pendant U and knotted textile design, Bichrome/trichrome, and Monochrome (including Usulután vessels with mammiform supports). While some of the polychrome samples were included in Refined Group 3 at the 95% confidence interval, it should be noted that all of the polychrome samples and kiln wasters submitted by Beaudry are compositionally similar to Refined Group 3. The relationship between

Refined Group 3 and the El Cajon polychrome samples is shown in Figure 35 and discussed below.

Refined Compositional Group Analysis

With the groups now statistically or visually refined and any similar NIST database samples add to them, the refined groups can be analyzed for variation with each group and elemental differentiation between groups. The refined groups, including those samples pulled in from the NIST database, are presented in Appendix 5, which summarizes group membership by site/region and type. Appendix 6 presents elemental information for each group. First, the mean elemental concentrations for elements used in the cluster analysis are given, then a measure of dispersion for each element within each group is presented using the coefficient of variation. The coefficient of variation is a normalized measure of dispersion calculated as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean. The average coefficient of variance for each element is given at

235

the bottom of Appendix 6. The generally low coefficients for each element illustrates the overall

compositional homogeneity within each group.

These elemental data were used in a discriminant analysis based on a pooling of the

variance-covariance matrix. A discriminant analysis can be used to test whether groups are

statistically different, but because the variables in INAA are known to co-vary, the analysis and plots presented here were only used to illustrate group relationships in multielemental space in two dimensions. The elemental loadings on six discriminant functions are presented in Table 5.

A series of bivariate plots shows the relationships among the compositional groups that were identified using Mahalanobis distances and the Hotelling’s T2 statistic outlined above.

Figure 35 shows the 7 statistically refined groups plotted using discriminant functions 1 and 2.

Ellipses surrounding each group show a 95% confidence interval for each group. These groups

were also found to be statistically separate, again, at a 95% confidence interval. This means that

while the groups and their ellipses may overlap when shown in two dimensional space, they are

statistically separate groups. As you can see, Refined Group 3 and to a lesser extent, Refined

Group 2 appear to separate from the rest of the groups significantly. Figure 36 plots the same

Refined Groups using discriminant functions 1 and 3. The use of a discriminant function 3 on the

y-axis helps to show the close association of Refined Groups 3, 10, 11 and 12.

236

NEWGP discriminant axis 2 -3 1 2 3 5 10 11 -7 12 -8 -4 0 4 8 discriminant axis 1

Figure 35. Discriminant Function Plot of Refined Groups 1 through 12. Ellipses represent 95% confidence interval.

237

-1 NEWGP discriminant axis 3 1 2 -3 3 5 10 11 -5 12 -8 -4 0 4 8 discriminant axis 1

Figure 36. Discriminant Function Plot Showing the Similarity Among Refined Groups 10, 11, and 12.

238

Figure 37 shows the relationship between Refined Group 3 and the El Cajon polychrome samples discussed above. Polychrome samples that did not group with Refined Group 3 at the

95% confidence level are shown as squares on a bivariate plot of discriminant functions 1 and 2.

This graph shows that while only some of the El Cajon polychrome samples joined Refined

Group 3 at the 95% confidence level, all of the samples are compositionally similar, likely reflecting slight changes in the addition of temper or preparation of clays prior to pottery manufacture.

239

NEWGP 1 discriminant axis 2 -3 2 3 5 10 11 12 -7 99 -8 -4 0 4 8 discriminant axis 1

Figure 37. Discriminant Plot of Refined Compositional Groups. NEWGP symbol + includes El

Cajon Polychromes at 95% confidence interval. NEWGP symbol □ 99 are El Cajon

Polychromes not at 95% confidence interval.

240

Interpretations of Production and Distribution Based on Refined Compositional Group

Membership

A review of the refined compositional groups brings to light some geographical and

typological patterning. The discussion below highlights some of the major groups in terms of location and type-variety. For 7 of the 16 Refined Groups (1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, and 12) these

patterns can inform interpretations of pottery production and distribution. For the other 9 groups

(4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 15, 15.2, 16, and 16.2), small sample sizes prohibit a clear identification of a

production locus. These groups, however, bring to light preliminary trends in the data that may

be supported by more samples in the future.

Each of the compositional groups that includes samples whose membership meet a 95% confidence interval (Refined Groups 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, and 12) can be interpreted as a group of samples that were made from the same clays. The 95% confidence interval, although admittedly

an arbitrary level of confidence, represents two standard deviations in a normal distribution and

has been shown to effectively distinguish patterns in archaeological data (Drennan 1996,

Fletcher and Lock 2005). Further, the 95% confidence interval has been used in past INAA

studies to distinguish group membership, and has held up to later scrutiny and the addition of

more samples to compositional databases (Bishop, personal communication, May 2008).

If we consider the Refined Compositional Groups listed above to represent pottery

production using a single clay or combination of clays, an analysis of group membership in terms

of geography and typology can be used to identify patterns of pottery production and

distribution. In groups where the majority of samples are from a single site or region, the

criterion of abundance (Bishop et al 1982) can be used to argue that all of the samples within that

group were produced at that site or region. The criterion of abundance is predicated on the idea

241

that the movement of pottery over space is costly due to weight, breakage and volumetric

concerns. As ethnoarchaeological research has confirmed (Deal 1984, Pool and Bey 2007),

pottery tends to be distributed locally, even when there are opportunities to transport it. When

compositional groups are dominated by samples from a single site or region, the criterion of

abundance can be invoked to assign a production locus to all of the members of that group.

When a compositional group is not dominated by pottery by any single site or region, one can

interpret that one of the sites represented is likely a locus of production, although the addition of

more samples from sites or regions within the group is needed to identify the locus of

production.

Refined Group 1

Refined Group 1 (n=32) is a large compositional group dominated by samples from the

site of Yarumela (n=11) and sites in the Copan Valley (n=10) (Figure 38). Six samples in

Refined Group 1 are from the site of Copan itself, and an additional 4 samples are from other

sites in the Valley. Because Yarumela is the most represented site, it is possible that this group

represents Comayagua Valley production. It is possible, however, that sampling bias contributed

to this pattern, and additional samples will be required for a more definite interpretation.

Regardless of the site or region eventually found to have produced these samples, Refined Group

1 confirms the movement of multiple type-varieties of Usulután pottery throughout the Western portion of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere and some level of interaction between the Peten region of

Guatemala and a site or sites in Western Honduras. The type-varieties in this group are dominated by undifferentiated Usulután (n=12), followed by Usulután Izalco (n=3), Bolo Orange

242

(n=3) and Chilanga (n=2). Of special interest are two Usulután sherds from the site of El Mirador in the Peten region of Guatemala.

Refined Group 1 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 11 Usulután 12 Copan 4 Izalco Usulután 4 Copan Cementario 3 Bolo Orange 3 Santa Barbara 3 Usulután Izalco 3 El Mirador 2 Chilanga: Chilanga 2 Copan Valley El Raizal 2 Taixiguat Orange 1 Copan Valley Los Achiotes 2 Usulután Possible Chilanga 1 Guauchia III 1 Usulután Possible Bolo 1 Los Naranjos, Lake Yojoa 1 Usulután Highland 1 Site 100 (Naco) 1 Usulután? 1 Santo Domingo (Naco) 1 Usulután Like 1 Ayala Grana 1 Tirantes Trichrome 1 Muerdalo Orange 1 Total 32 Total 32

Figure 38. Refined Group 1, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database.

Refined Group 2

Refined Group 2 (n=15) is a combination of sherds from Yarumela (n=7) and the El

Cajon region (n=8) and represents production in one of those two regions (Figure 39). More samples will be needed in order to define this compositional group in terms of pottery production, but this group does confirm interaction between Yarumela and sites in the El Cajon region. Again, a wide variety of type-varieties are represented, suggesting that this interaction was not confined to a single Usulután pottery type-variety. Undifferentiated Usulután dominates the type frequencies (n=8).

243

Refined Group 2 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 7 Usulután 8 El Cajon Salitron Viejo 6 Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 2 El Cajon PC-13 2 Bolo Orange 1 Usulután Izalco 1 Usulután Chilanga 1 Usulután Red and Black 1 Usulután Possible Izalco 1 Total 15 Total 15

Figure 39. Refined Group 2, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST

database.

Refined Group 3

Refined Group 3 is the largest compositional group with 37 members and is clearly

demonstrative of localized Usulután pottery production in the El Cajon region (Figure 40). All of

the samples are from this region, with most of the samples coming from the site of Salitron Viejo

(n=31). This group is largely comprised of orange slipped and possibly Bolo sherds, as well as

confirmed Bolo Orange sherds and some polychrome vessels of various type-varieties. This compositional group confirms without doubt that at least some of the Bolo Orange pottery distributed in the El Cajon region was manufactured locally. The presence of kiln wasters in this group also confirms localized ceramic production. Based on the proportion of Salitron Viejo samples to La Ceiba samples, it is likely the ceramic production took place at or near Salitron

Viejo, with pottery being distributed to La Ceiba. All of the sherds in this group are from the El

Cajon region. The most frequent type in this group is Orange Slipped Possible Bolo (n=13), followed by Polychrome – Type Unspecified (n=4).

244

Refined Group 3 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon Salitron Viejo 31 Orange Slipped Possible Bolo 13 El Cajon PC-13 6 Polychrome – Type Unspecified 4 Bolo Orange 4 Kiln Waster 3 Polychrome – Group 1 3 Monochrome – Type Unspec. 2 Trichrome – Type Unspecified 2 Orange Slipped Chilanga 2 Bichrome – Type Unspecified 1 Usulután Izalco 1 Usulután Red Rimmed 1 Usulután 1 Total 37 Total 37

Figure 40. Refined Group 3, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database.

Refined Group 4

Refined Group 4 is a small group that was refined visually rather than statistically due to its small overall size (n=8) (Figure 41). This group is comprised of sherds from Yarumela (n=3),

El Raizal in the Copan valley (n=3) and Santa Leticia (n=1). Undifferentiated Usulután (n=4) is the most frequent type.

245

Refined Group 4 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 4 Usulután 4 Copan Valley El Raizal 3 Usulután Ve 1 Santa Leticia 1 Bolo Orange 1 Izalco Usulután 1 Chilanga 1 Total 8 Total 8

Figure 41. Refined Group 4, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database.

Refined Group 5

Refined Group 5 is a large group with 27 members and was refined statistically (Figure

42). This group is dominated by samples from Yarumela (n=15), with some representation from

Los Naranjos (n=3), Santa Barbara (n=3), the site of Las Vegas in the Naco Valley (n=2) and

PC-1 Salitron Viejo (n=2). Based on the criterion of abundance, it is likely that this compositional group represents ceramic production from Yarumela that was both used locally and traded to other sites in central Honduras. Usulután is the most common type-variety represented (n=13), followed by Bolo Orange (n=8), which confirms that double slipped non-

Izalco pottery was being traded between regions of Honduras.

246

Refined Group 5 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 15 Usulután 13 Los Naranjos 3 Bolo Orange 8 Santa Barbara 3 Usulután Chilanga? 2 Las Vegas, Naco Valley 2 Usulután Possible Bolo 1 El Cajon Salitron Viejo 2 Aguaagua Uneven 1 El Cajon PC-22 1 Orange Slipped 1 Copan 1 Orange Slipped Possible Bolo 1 Total 27 Total 27

Figure 42. Refined Group 5, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database.

Refined Group 6

Refined Group 6 (n=12) was refined visually due to small sample size, and is dominated by samples from the Cementerio portion of Copan (n=8) (Figure 43). An additional Copan valley sample is represented, along with samples from the El Cajon region (n=2) and one sample from the Naco Valley. This group is dominated by Bolo Orange sherds (n=7) and possible Bolo

Orange sherds (n=2).

Refined Group 6 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Copan, Cementerio 8 Bolo Orange 7 Copan Valley 1 Orange Slipped Possible Bolo 2 El Cajon Salitron Viejo 1 Usulután 1 El Cajon PC-13 1 Chilanga 1 Santo Domingo (Naco) 1 Jicalapa Usulután 1 Total 12 Total 12

Figure 43. Refined Group 6, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database.

247

Refined Group 7

Refined Group 7 (n=11) is another small group that was refined visually (Figure 44). It has a wide range of geographic distribution, including samples from Yarumela (n=5), Salitron

Viejo (n=4) and Cementerio contexts at Copan (n=2). This group is largely comprised of Bolo

Orange (n=5) or possible Bolo Orange (n=1) and untyped Usulután (n=3).

Refined Group 7 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 5 Bolo Orange 5 El Cajon Salitron Viejo 4 Usulután 3 Copan, Cementerio 2 Izalco Usulután 1 Usulután Possible Bolo 1 Usulután Possible Izalco 1 Total 11 Total 11

Figure 44. Refined Group 7, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database.

Refined Group 8

Refined Group 8 (n=11) was refined visually due to small group size (Figure 45). This group is comprised of samples from a wide range of sites and regions, including secondary sites in the El Cajon region (n=4), sites in the Naco valley (n=4), Santa Barbara (n=1). Chilanga

Usulután is the most common type-variety (n=4), followed by Usulután (n=2) and several other types represented by a single sample.

248

Refined Group 8 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon PC-13 2 Chilanga 4 El Cajon PC-22 2 Usulután 2 Naco valley, Site 426 2 Bolo Orange 1 Naco Valley (no site) 1 Aguaagua/Tilagua 1 Santa Barbara, Gualjoquito 1 Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 1 Las Vegas, Naco Valley 1 Orange Slipped Poss. Izalco 1 La Canteada 1 Urraco Red-Painted 1 Unknown Provenience 1 Total 11 Total 11

Figure 45. Refined Group 8, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database.

Refined Group 9

Refined Group 9 (n=4) is the smallest of the compositional groups, and consists of 2 samples from Gualjoquito in the Santa Barbara region and a secondary site in the Naco Valley

(n=2) (Figure 46). Four different type-varieties are represented in this group: Usulután Izalco,

Usulután, Chilanga and Cececapa Incised.

Refined Group 9 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Santa Barbara, Gualjoquito 2 Usulután Izalco 1 Site 106, Naco Valley 2 Usulután 1 Chilanga 1 Cececapa Incised 1 Total 4 Total 4

Figure 46. Refined Group 9, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database.

249

Refined Group 10

Refined Group 10 is a large group that was refined statistically (Figure 47). This group is

comprised entirely of samples from the El Cajon region and represents El Cajon ceramic

production. The most frequently represented site is PC-1 SalitronViejo (n=24), followed by one

sample each from PC-22 and PC-13 La Ceiba. The most common type-variety is Orange Slipped

Possible Bolo (n=9), followed by Usulután (n=5), Orange Slipped Possible Izalco (n=3), and a

number of type-varieties with 1 or 2 samples each.

Refined Group 10 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon Salitron Viejo 24 Orange Slipped Possible Bolo 9 El Cajon PC-22 1 Usulután 5 El Cajon PC-13 1 Orange Slipped Possible Izalco 3 Bolo Orange 2 Usulután Izalco 2 Orange Slipped 2 Usulután Izalco? 1 Usulután Possible Bolo 1 Usulután Possible Izalco 1 Total 26 Total 26

Figure 47. Refined Group 10, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST

database.

Refined Group 11

Refined Group 11 is one of the larger groups (n=19), and was refined statistically (Figure

48). This group is dominated by samples from PC-1 Salitron Viejo (n=12), followed by

Yarumela (n=4), Guauchia III (n=2) and PC-22 in the El Cajon region (n=1), which are all in the western and central portion of Honduras. This group can be interpreted as representing El Cajon

250

ceramic production, with some of this production being traded outside to valley. The group is

dominated in terms of type-variety by Izalco Usulután. This group not only identifies local Izalco

Usulután production, but single slipped cream paste Usulután that was produced in Honduras and

traded to other portions of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere.

Refined Group 11 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon Salitron Viejo 12 Usulután Izalco 7 Yarumela 4 Usulután 5 Guauchia III 2 Orange Slipped Possible Izalco 3 El Cajon PC-22 1 Usulután Possible Izalco 1 Orange Slipped 1 Orange/Brown 1 Brown Resist 1 Total 19 Total 19

Figure 48. Refined Group 11, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST

database.

Refined Group 12

Refined Group 12 is the second largest compositional group (n=32) and was refined

statistically (Figure 49). Most of the samples in this group are from Salitron Viejo (n=24), followed by Yarumela (n=5) and Guachia III (n=3) Like Refined Group 11, this group can be interpreted as pottery produced in the El Cajon region, with some of this production being

distributed elsewhere to portions of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. The most common type is

Usulután (n=12), followed by Usulután Izalco (n=10) and Bolo Orange (n=5). The co-occurrence

of both Izalco Usulután and Bolo Orange sherds in this group in significant amounts merits

attention (see Chapter 7).

251

Refined Group 12 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon Salitron Viejo 24 Usulután 12 Yarumela 5 Usulután Izalco 10 Guauchia III 3 Bolo Orange 5 Orange Slipped Possible Izalco 2 Usulután Brown Variety 1 Usulután Possible Bolo 1 Usulután Possible Izalco 1 Total 32 Total 32

Figure 49. Refined Group 12, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database.

Refined Group 15

Refined Group 15 is a small group (n=8) and is comprised of sherds from 6 different sites or regions (Figure 50). Of note is the inclusion in this group of a single Usulután sample from

Kaminaljuyu in Guatemala. Usulután (n=5), Untyped (n=2) and Izalco Usulután (n=1) complete the group.

Refined Group 15 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Naco Valley, La Sierra 2 Usulután 5 Yarumela 2 Untyped 2 El Cajon, Salitron Viejo 1 Izalco Usulután 1 Copan 1 Santa Barbara (no site) 1 Kaminaljuyu 1 Total 8 Total 8

Figure 50. Refined Group 15, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database.

252

Refined Group 15.2

Refined Group 15.2 is only 3 samples, two of which are from Yarumela and one is from an unknown site in the Naco Valley (Figure 51). Usulután, Usulután Possible Bolo and Bolo

Orange are the three types included in this group. Because of its small size, this group was refined visually.

Refined Group 15.2 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 2 Usulután 1 Naco Valley (no site) 1 Usulután Possible Bolo 1 Bolo Orange 1 Total 3 Total 3

Figure 51. Refined Group 15.2, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database.

Refined Group 16

Refined Group 16 is another small group (n=7) that was refined visually (Figure 52). Six of the seven samples in this group are from the El Cajon region, the seventh is from Yarumela.

Four of the samples are Izalco Usulután (n=3) or Orange Slipped Possible Izalco (n=1). One

Bolo Orange and one Usulután sherd complete the group.

Refined Group 16 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon, Salitron Viejo 5 Usulután Izalco 3 El Cajon, PC-13 1 Usulután 2 Yarumela 1 Bolo Orange 1 Orange Slipped Possible Izalco 1 Total 7 Total 7

Figure 52. Refined Group 16, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST database. 253

Refined Group 16.2

The final compositional group, Refined Group 16.2 is only two sherds, both of which are

Usulután samples from the site of Guachia III (Figure 53).

Refined Group 16.2 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Guachia III 2 Usulután 2 Total 2 Total 2

Figure 53. Refined Group 16.2, including samples submitted by the author and those in the NIST

database.

Equally important to this discussion of pottery production and distribution is a

consideration of what samples in the NIST database were not included in these compositional

groups. Of primary importance is the complete lack of pottery from El Salvador in these groups.

Despite attempts to compositionally link the 229 submitted samples to the rest of the NIST

database, none of the statistically Refined Compositional Groups with members meeting a 95% confidence interval included a single El Salvadoran sample. A sample of Usulután pottery from

Santa Leticia was grouped compositionally in Refined Group 4, but this is too small a group for

statistical refinement and its membership may change with the addition of more samples and

more rigorous statistical refinement. Refined Group 4, which also includes samples from

Yarumela and El Raizal in the Copan Valley, cannot be interpreted at this time to represent an El

Salvadoran locus of production.

The inability of Usulután pottery from El Salvador to find its way into any of the compositional groups created by this analysis confirms that the bulk of both Muerdalo/Izalco and

Bolo Orange Usulután pottery distributed in Honduras was not produced in El Salvador. The

NIST database includes both Usulután and non-Usulután sherds from Santa Leticia and

254

Chalchuapa in El Salvador, and Kaminaljuyu in Guatemala. Each of these sites has been argued to have produced Usulután pottery. Pottery from unnamed sites throughout Western El Salvador and clay samples from the Izalco region of El Salvador are also in the database, the these also failed to group compositionally with any of the samples analyzed in this study.

This compositional patterning suggests that at the most, trace amounts of Usulután pottery produced in El Salvador made its way northward into the rest of the Uapala Ceramic

Sphere and that at least in terms of ceramic exchange, the Uapala Ceramic sphere can be divided into El Salvadoran and Honduran sub-spheres (Figure 54). The amount of Usulután pottery manufactured in El Salvador was so minimal that it comprised none of the compositional groups in this study. A single sherd from Santa Leticia was grouped, and because one sherd was grouped when 77 sherds of various type-varieties from Santa Leticia reside in the NIST database, it is unlikely that this single sherd was produced in El Salvador.

255

Figure 54. The Uapala Ceramic Sphere with El Salvadoran and Honduran sub-spheres. (adapted from Henderson and Beaudry-Corbett 1993)

256

While these data do not support significant long-distance exchange between Honduras and El Salvador, several exchange patterns within Honduras were identified. Compositional groups 2, 11 and 12 each include significant amounts of both Yarumela and El Cajon samples.

Each of these groups was refined statistically and samples within this group reflect a 95% confidence interval of membership and each compositional group was also found to be statistically different with a 95% confidence interval. We can therefore interpret each compositional group as representing ceramic production from a single distinct clay source.

Ethnoarchaeological studies of ceramic production indicates that the majority of clays that are used by potters are found within a small radius of where they are produced (Arnold 1995, Deal

1985), so the movement of potters from the El Cajon region and the Comayagua Valley to a third site for shared exploitation of a clay resource is unlikely. Also unlikely is the likelihood that a third unsampled site produced pottery for both regions, and is somehow not represented by the sampling conducted by the author nor the NIST database.

Therefore, it can be argued that Refined Compositional Groups 2, 11 and 12 represent either El Cajon or Comayagua Valley ceramic production, and that this pottery moved from one region to the other. Because of the increased amount of economic exchange between these two regions, we can consider the Comayagua Valley and El Cajon region to represent a sub-sphere within the Uapala Ceramic Sphere (Figure 55). Without clay samples to geographically define this production, the specific locus of production cannot be fully determined, but the criterion of abundance (Bishop et al 1982) supports the conclusion that Compositional Groups 11 and 12 represent Izalco Usulután pottery production from the El Cajon region that was traded to

Yarumela. Compositional Group 2 is almost equally divided among Yarumela and El Cajon samples, with the majority of sherds in this group unable to be classified by type-variety. Either

257

clay sourcing and/or more sherd samples will be needed to identify a locus of production for

samples in this group and determine whether this clay source was used to manufacture single

slipped Usulután, double slipped Usulután or both.

Figure 55. The El Salvadoran and Honduran sub-spheres, El Cajon - Comayagua sub-sphere added. (adapted from Henderson and Beaudry-Corbett 1993)

258

A second pattern of production and distribution can be inferred from Refined

Compositional Group 1. This group is dominated by sherds from Yarumela (n=11) and the

Copan Valley (n=11), although sherds from a number of sites in Northern and Central Honduras

(Santa Barbara Region, Lake Yojoa Region and Naco Valley) and the Peten region of Guatemala are represented in small numbers. This compositional group, like Groups 2, 10 and 11 above, is statistically refined to the 95% confidence levels and also separates compositionally from other groups with the same level of confidence. Based on the high amount of compositional similarity among members of the group and the statistically significant separation of this group from all others, Compositional Group 1 can be inferred to represent production from a single clay source.

The sites represented in this group are found throughout central, northern and western

Honduras and northern Guatemala. Because these regions are separated by up to 200 km, it is highly unlikely that potters from each site identified in the group were using the same clay, leaving the movement of pots from one site represented in the group to the others the most likely scenario. Based on the number of samples from Yarumela and the Copan Valley in the group, it is likely that this group represents pottery production in one of these two regions. Because this group does not include any clay samples and the number of sherds representing both regions is even, neither clay sourcing nor the criterion of abundance can be used to eliminate either region as a potential locus of production. The addition of more samples or clay sources will likely help refine this group compositionally. Regardless of the specific locus of production, this group can be considered strong evidence for the movement of Usulután among sites throughout the western and northern portions of Honduras. The inclusion of 2 samples from El Mirador suggests that this ceramic interaction likely spread into northern Guatemala as well. This pattern of production

259 and distribution can be inferred to represent an additional Northwestern Uapala – Guatemalan sub-sphere (Figure 56).

Figure 56. The El Salvadoran, Honduran, El Cajon - Comayagua sub-spheres, with Northwestern

Uapala – Guatemalan sub-sphere added. (adapted from Henderson and Beaudry-Corbett 1993)

260

The samples in this group include undifferentiated Usulután, Izalco Usulután, Bolo

Usulután, Chilanga Usulután among others. This seemingly incongruent group likely represents

double slipped, dark firing paste Usulután. Of the 12 samples submitted by the author, only one

is a somewhat light firing single slipped sherd classified as Izalco Usulután (CG245). The other

11 samples are double slipped and manufactured with a buff to brown, medium textured paste.

Visual examination of the other samples in this group submitted by other researchers may reveal

differences in how Izalco Usulután and Bolo Orange are classified, with samples classified as

Izalco Usulután by other researchers having a coarser and darker firing paste than the author

would consider appropriate for Izalco Usulután.

A third pattern of pottery production and distribution can be seen with Refined

Compositional Group 5. Like the other groups used to argue for pottery production from a single

clay source, Group 5 was refined to group membership with a 95% confidence interval. It was

also determined to separate compositionally from all other groups with the same level of

confidence. Group 5 is dominated by sherds from Yarumela, but includes some sherds from Los

Naranjos, the Santa Barbara region, the Naco valley, sites in the El Cajon region, and Copan.

Because over half of the samples in this group are from the site of Yarumela, and sites

represented in this group are spread throughout central and western Honduras, samples within

this group can be interpreted at pottery manufactured in the Comayagua Valley. This pottery

subsequently was transported to the other sites in the region and represents a Comayagua-based sub-sphere (Figure 57).

261

Figure 57. The El Salvadoran, Honduran, El Cajon – Comayagua, Northwestern Uapala –

Guatemalan, and Comayagua-based sub-sphere added. (adapted from Henderson and Beaudry-

Corbett 1993)

Conclusion

This chapter has presented the compositional data for 229 Usulután pottery sherds generated by INAA. The process of whittling down these 229 samples into compositional groups was presented, and the statistical justification for these groups was provided. The process of comparing compositional groups to the NIST database was reviewed, and refined compositional groups were identified. Of the 229 samples that were subjected to INAA, 170 found membership

262

in refined compositional groups. Comparison of these groups to the NIST database pulled an

additional 77 sherds into these groups. Based on provenience information and type-variety classification, many of the groups were able to be identified as representations of specific loci of production. With production loci identified, patterns of distribution were identified.

The next chapter will interpret the patterns of production and distribution presented above, and will return to the research hypotheses presented in Chapter 1.The behaviors responsible for the Uapala Ceramic Sphere will be identified and how this newly defined ceramic sphere reflects broader socio-political and ideological aspects of chiefdoms during the Late

Formative to Early Classic transition will be discussed.

263

Table 3. Usulután decorated types and varieties in the NIST database by frequency. Includes samples submitted by the author (n=229) and those already in the NIST database (n=562).

Type/Variety Amount Usulután 279 Bolo Orange 54 Chilanga Polychrome 37 Usulután Izalco 36 Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 34 Usulután, ORANGE WARE 29 Izalco Usulután: Bicoños 27 Jicalapa Usulután 20 Chilanga: Osicala 18 Usulután, Izalco 18 Chilanga: Chilanga 16 Chilanga 12 Usulután Undifferentiated 10 Usulután(?)Orng 10 Orange Slipped Poss. Izalco 9 Usulután, Jicalapa 9 Izalco Usulután: Izalco 8 Usulután decoration, local KJ? 7 Usulután Variegated 7 Usulután-like 7 Izalco Usulután: Sipues 6 Usulután (San Antonio) 6 Usulután Poss. Bolo 6 Usulután, Highland 6 Usulután? Orange 6 Izalco Usulután 5 Olocuitla Usulután 5 Orange Slipped 5 Usulután Poss. Izalco 5 Usulután?, local? 5 Jicalapa or Izalco Usulután 4 Usulután, Verbena Ivory, Highland 4 Chilanga Usulután 3 Jacalapa Usulután 3 Usulután Chilanga? 3 Usulután negativo 3 Usulután, Highland? 3 Usulután, local 3 Usulután, local paste 3 Usulután? 3

264

Orange slipped Chilanga? 2 Taixiguat or Bolo Orange 2 Usulután (Red Painted) 2 Usulután Brown Variety 2 Usulután Cafe Reservado Sobre 2 Usulután decoration 2 Usulután Izalco? 2 Usulután, falso 2 Usulután, Form B 2 Usulután, Form C 2 Usulután, Tzuntulin Red 2 Usulután, Verbene Red-orange 2 Usulután, vessel form C 2 Verbena Red-orange, Usulután 2 Aguagua Tilaga or Bolo Orange 1 Aguagua/Tilaga or Bolo Orange 1 Aguagua/Tilage or Bolo Orange 1 Bolo Orange Tiligua Dense Orang 1 Brown Resist (Usulután?) 1 Cececapa Incised? Bolo? 1 Chilanga: Osicala or Favela 1 Izalco Usulután: Local? 1 Jicalpa Usulután 1 Jiclapa Usulután 1 Muerdalo Orange 1 Orange Slipped Red Rim 1 ORANGE WARE Usulután 1 Orange/Brown Slipped 1 Red rimmed Usulután 1 Usulután (poss. Chilanga) 1 Usulután Chilanga 1 Usulután I, Form C 1 Usulután Undifferentiated/MIOR 1 Usulután, Chilanga Red-painted 1 Usulután, Form E 1 Usulután, imitation 1 Usulután, Paxtla 1 Usulután, pseudo 1 Usulután, vessel form A 1 Usulután, vessel form D 1 Usulután, vessel form E 1 Usulután? Chilanga? 1 Total 791

265

Table 4. Usulután decorated types and varieties in the NIST Database by site. Those added to the database by the author are in column ‘Additions’ the totals for each site and type-variety are in column ‘Count’. Unnamed sites are excluded. For a full listing, see Appendix 3.

Site or Region Type/Variety Additions Total Anna Usulután Undifferentiated 3 Asuncion Mita Chilanga 1 Chilanga Polychrome 1 Ayala, Granada Usulután 14 Usulután-like 7 Calakmul Usulután Café Reservado Sobre 2 Cara Sucia Jicalapa or Izalco Usulután 1 Jicalapa Usulután 3 Olocuitla Usulután 2 Chalchuapa Chilanga Polychrome 7 Usulután, Izalco 15 Usulután, Jicalapa 5 Chinandega Usulután 1 Copan Chilanga 5 Usulután 2 13 Usulután Chilanga 1 Usulután, Izalco 2 Copan Valley Chilanga Polychrome 1 Copan Valley, CV20 Chilanga Polychrome 11 Copan, Cementerio Bolo Orange 13 Chilanga: Chilanga 14 Chilanga: Osicala 14 Izalco Usulután: Bicoños 27 Jicalapa Usulután 2 Copan, El Raizal Bolo Orange 4 Chilanga: Chilanga 2 Chilanga: Osicala 4 Izalco Usulután: Izalco 4 Izalco Usulután: Sipues 3 Copan, Los Achiotes Bolo Orange 1 Izalco Usulután: Izalco 4 Izalco Usulután: Local? 1 Chilanga: Osicala 1 Izalco Usulután: Sipues 3 Cuello Usulután Decoration 2 El Balsamo Usulután Undifferentiated 2

266

Site or Region Type-Variety Additions Total El Mirador Usulután 3 Usulután, Highland 6 Usulután, Highland? 3 Usulután, imitation 1 Usulután, Verbena Ivory, Highland 4 Usulután, Pseudo 1 Flores Usulután negativo 3 Guauchia III Usulután 11 Guaytan Chilanga Polychrome 1 Ixtonton Usulután 1 Kaminaljuyu Usulután 56 Usulután decoration, local KJ? 7 Usulután? Orange 6 Verbena Red-orange. Usulután 2 La Canteada Chilanga Polychrome 11 La Maquina (Canarrana) Chilanga 3 Izalco Usulután 1 La Morena Usulután undifferentiated/MIOR 1 Usulután Variegated 1 La Noria Usulután Variegated 2 Leon Viejo Usulután, local paste 1 Leon Viejo (Isla Rosa) Usulután 1 Leon Viejo (Puerto Usulután 1 Mongotambo) Los Bordos Jicalapa or Izalco Usulután 3 Jicalapa Usulután 3 Olocuitla Usulután 1 Red rimmed Usulután 1 Los Cerritos-sur Usulután Undifferentiated 2 Los Naranjos Bolo Orange 4 7 Muerdalo Orange 1 1 Usulután, Tzuntulin Red 1 1 Madriz Usulután (San Antonio) 6 Managua Usulután 6 Usulután, local paste 2 Managua(Santa Leon #36) Usulután 1 Managua N-MA-36 Usulután 26 Usulután, falso 2 Managua N-MA-62 Usulután 1 Maria Linda Jicalapa Usulután 1 Usulután 6

267

Site or Region Type-Variety Additions Total Mico Usulután Undifferentiated 1 Monte Alto Usulután, Form A 1 Usulután, Form B 2 Usulután, Form C 5 Usulután, Form D 1 Usulután, Form E 2 Moyuta Usulután Variegated 1 Naco Valley Usulután 7 7 Usulután (Red Painted) 1 Untyped Usulután 2 2 Naco Valley, La Sierra Chilanga Polychrome 1 Naco Valley, Site 11 Usulután (Red Painted) 1 Nueve Cerros Izalco Usulután 1 Usulután 34 Usulután (?) Orng 10 Obraje Jacalapa Usulután 3 Paraiso, S.R. Olocuitla Usulután 1 PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 13 13 Brown Resist (Usulután?) 1 1 Orange Slipped 5 5 Orange Slipped Chilanga? 2 2 Orange Slipped, Poss. Bolo 34 34 Orange Slipped, Poss. Izalco 9 9 Orange Slipped Red Rim 1 1 Orange/Brown Slipped 1 1 Usulután 25 25 Usulután Brown Variety 2 2 Usulután Chilanga? 1 1 Usulután Izalco 29 29 Usulután Izalco? 1 1 Usulután Poss. Bolo 1 1 Usulután Poss. Izalco 1 1 Usulután Red and Black 1 1 PC-13 El Cajon Bolo Orange 2 2 Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 14 14 Usulután 1 1 PC-22 El Cajon Bolo Orange 1 1 Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 3 3 Orange Slipped Poss. Izalco 1 1 Quirigua Chilanga Polychrome 2 Usulután 3 Rio Grande Usulután, local 3

268

Site or Region Type-Variety Additions Total San Jose Usulután 1 Santa Barbara Chilanga Polychrome 2 Izalco Usulután 5 8 Aguaagua Tilaga or Bolo Orange 3 3 Bolo Orange Tiligua Dense Orang 1 1 Cececapa Incised? Bolo? 1 1 Chilanga Usulután 2 2 Taixiguat or Bolo Orange 2 2 Tirantes Trichrome 1 1 Usulután 1 1 Usulután? 1 1 Santa Barbara? Usulután 1 1 Santa Leticia Jicalapa Usulután 17 Usulután 3 Usulután, Puxtla 1 Usulután, Verbene Red-Orange 2 Untyped Usulután 2 2 Santa Rosa Usulután 6 Sin Cabezas Orange Ware Usulután 30 Usulután Undifferentiated 1 Usulután Variegated 1 Tiquisate Area Usulután Undifferentiated 1 Tres Marias Olocuitla Usulután 1 Ujuxte Usulután 6 Wak – El Peru Usulután? Local? 5 Western El Salvador, Volcan Chilanga 3 Yarumela Bolo Orange 13 13 Usulután 22 42 Usulután Izalco 2 2 Usulután Poss. Bolo 5 5 Usulután Poss. Izalco 4 4 Unnamed Site Chilanga Usulután 2 2 Urraco Red-Painted Resist 1 1 Usulután 5 5 Usulután Chilanga 2 2 Usulután? 2 2 Usulután Chilanga 1 1

269

Canonical discriminant functions

1 2 3 4 5 6 Constant -.38 -2.77 -0.82 -6.68 2.16 0.30

K 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CR 0.04 -0.04 -0.08 0.05 -0.02 -0.06 SC 0.08 -0.15 -0.00 -0.15 0.08 0.19 FE 0.03 0.10 0.18 1.31 -0.19 1.00 RB 0.04 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.00 -0.03 SB -0.48 -0.46 -0.23 -0.75 -0.27 -0.58 CS -0.24 0.02 0.31 0.18 -0.01 -0.19 BA 0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 LA 0.03 -0.04 0.03 0.05 -0.02 0.11 CE 0.01 0.01 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.01 SM -0.61 -0.20 -0.29 -0.39 0.28 0.09 EU -0.08 -1.04 3.73 -1.26 -2.44 -0.64 YB -0.53 0.24 -0.56 0.79 -0.22 0.23 LU 3.44 2.20 1.54 3.35 -1.87 -2.51 HF -0.41 -0.11 0.16 -0.21 0.45 -0.11 TA -0.44 0.19 -0.89 -0.82 -0.08 -0.19 TH 0.17 0.28 0.08 0.25 -0.17 -0.15

Table 5. Canonical Discriminant Functions and Elemental Loadings

270

Chapter 8 – Interpretations and Conclusions

Introduction

This intent of this dissertation has been to evaluate the Uapala Ceramic Sphere and

determine the behaviors responsible for the broad similarities in Usulután pottery that define it.

As the previous chapters have shown, the Uapala Ceramic Sphere is useful as a tool to recognize

broad similarities in ceramic assemblages, but attempts to explain how these similarities came to

be suffered from a lack of data regarding patterns of Usulután production and distribution. This

dissertation first attempted to tackle these questions using petrographic analysis, which was

unsuccessful due to the fine paste used in the manufacture of Usulután pottery. A second

method, INAA, was chosen because of its ability to generate reliable compositional data that can

be combined with provenience and type-variety information to identify loci of production and patterns of distribution.

A sample of 327 sherds was chosen from 12 sites and regions in Honduras that lie within

the Uapala Ceramic sphere. The sampling strategy for selecting these sherds was to include

sherds that geographically represented as much of the Uapala Ceramic sphere as possible and

reflected as much of the full range of pastes used to produce Usulután pottery, Usulután type-

varieties, vessel types and modes of decoration as possible. Those portions of the sphere in El

Salvador and some parts of Honduras not sampled by the author are represented compositionally

in the NIST database. The 327 samples were submitted to Dr. Ron Bishop at the Smithsonian

Institution for preparation and subsequent analysis at the reactor facility at the National Institute

for Standards and Technology with the assistance of Dr. M. James Blackman. Of these submitted

samples, 229 were analyzed using INAA. Compositional data for these samples and other

271

Usulután samples already in the NIST database were subjected to statistical analysis to identify

any compositional groups. Trial compositional groups were further refined and a total of 16 refined compositional groups comprised of samples submitted by the author and NIST database samples were created. These compositional groups were examined for geographic and type- variety membership, and patterns of production and distribution were identified.

This chapter will revisit the three behavioral models proposed for explaining the Uapala

Ceramic Sphere from Chapter 1. Each of the proposed models will be evaluated in light of the compositional groups identified in the previous chapter and the patterns of production and distribution that they identify. This discussion will show that a model that combines both local production of Usulután pottery and Usulután imported from a distance best explains the patterns seen in the compositional data. An alternative model in which commonalities in Usulután pottery were the result of emulation with little to no Usulután pottery moving across the sphere can be rejected. Similarly, a model in which a single locus of Usulután production produced the pottery seen throughout the sphere can also be rejected.

Following this discussion, the chapter will present specific behaviors that could have resulted in this combination of locally produced and imported Usulután seen throughout the sphere. By combining provenience, type-variety, vessel form, and surface decoration data generated from typological comparisons presented in Chapter 7 and the refined compositional group data, there are indications that Usulután was traded over relatively long distances throughout the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. Trade between adjacent valleys as well as trade up to distances of approximately 150 km is supported by this analysis.

The chapter will then present the argument that Usulután pottery was a prestige good and that at least a portion of the Usulután found throughout the sphere was used by elites as gifts or

272 as part of feasting rituals. The chapter will conclude with a brief discussion of how this research impacts continuing arguments regarding the applicability of INAA to regional questions of pottery production and distribution. Recent concerns regarding the ability of INAA to identify long distance exchange have been shown not to apply here.

The Uapala Ceramic Sphere: Patterns of Production and Distribution

This research was conducted in order to explain the commonalities in Usulután pottery found throughout the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. The sphere defined by Andrews and later refined by Demarest, Robinson and Wonderley could be explained by three separate models, which were presented in Chapter 1. These models are:

1) The trade sphere model - Usulután was produced at a single locus somewhere

within the ceramic sphere, with its distribution reflecting a single ceramic

sphere.

2) Local manufacture and emulation - Usulután pottery was locally produced at

many sites within the Uapala ceramic sphere, with this production traveling

little to no distance from loci of production to where it was consumed.

3) Regional production and interregional exchange – this model proposes that

Usulután was produced at some or all of the sites within the Uapala Ceramic

Sphere, but this production alone does not constitute all of the Usulután

pottery present. Both local production and foreign production that was

exchanged locally are represented.

273

Each of these models would be reflected in the compositional data in different ways. By testing these expectations against the compositional data presented in the previous chapter, we can evaluate the fit of each model in explaining the Uapala Ceramic Sphere.

The Trade Sphere Model

The trade sphere model would apply if Usulután was produced at a single locus within the sphere. Usulután pottery shows high levels of homogeneity throughout the sphere and this homogeneity could have been the result of exchange from a single point of production to sites throughout the sphere. If this were the case, the compositional data generated through INAA would cluster into a limited number of compositional groups reflecting local clays available to potters at the locus of manufacture. Further, this small number of clays would be restricted to those clays reflecting the range of paste appearances for Usulután vessels. This model would also be supported if we found all of the vessels with similar pastes grouping together compositionally, regardless of where they are found. For example all fine textured, cream firing Usulután found throughout the sphere should sort into a single compositional group.

The compositional data supports none of these expectations. A clear compositional separation that splits Honduran and El Salvadoran pottery is visible using only two elemental concentrations (Figure 58). A total of 16 separate compositional groups were generated from the

INAA data. This number is much too large to reflect the range of clays used to manufacture a single ceramic type. Further, vessels with similar paste appearances are found in multiple compositional groups. Izalco Usulután, which is defined as having a fine cream firing paste, appears in 11 of the 16 compositional groups. Clearly, the Uapala Ceramic Sphere was not the

274 result of production from a single locus and subsequent distribution to sites throughout the sphere.

Figure 58. Plot of (Iron) Fe and Cr (Chromium) values for all NIST database samples. Iron is in percent, Chromium is in parts per million. Macro symbols at right represent general regional grouping used by NIST.

Local Production and Emulation

This model proposes that Usulután pottery was locally made throughout the Uapala

Ceramic Sphere, and that this production moved very short distances, if at all, from the locus of

275 manufacture. If this model were the case, there would be a large number of compositional groups that reflect the use of many clay sources across the sphere. Minimally, we would expect to see at least two compositional groups per region or site sampled; one for fine textured cream paste

Izalco Usulután pottery and one for medium to fine buff paste Bolo Orange pottery. Also we would expect to see the membership of compositional groups to be relatively homogeneous, with a single site or possibly two sites in close proximity to each other represented in a single compositional group.

The compositional data supports neither of these expectations. The 16 compositional groups are too few to represent both a cream paste compositional group and a buff paste compositional group for each of the 9 distinct regions represented in the refined compositional groups. Further, only 3 of the 16 compositional groups are comprised of samples from a single region. Several of the compositional groups include samples from regions that are up to 100km apart.

Regional Production and Interregional Exchange

The third model is one of regional production and exchange. In this model, Usulután pottery was produced at some or all of the sites where it is found, but this production alone does not constitute all of the Usulután pottery. Both locally made pottery as well as pottery imported from a distance would be represented. Compositional data supporting this model would identify several loci of production for Usulután pottery. These loci would be identified either as compositional groups dominated by samples from a single site or region or compositional similarities between Usulután sherds and local clays. This model would also be supported if

Usulután pottery from sites identified as Usulután producers was not represented by a single

276 local compositional group but by multiple compositional groups, at least one of which represented pottery produced elsewhere.

As the review of compositional group membership in the previous chapter has shown, this third model combines both local production and importation of Usulután pottery and is supported by the INAA data. First, multiple loci of Usulután production have been confirmed.

Refined Group 3 is dominated by samples of Usulután pottery excavated from sites in the El

Cajon region and several kiln wasters from the El Cajon valley. This compositional group clearly indicates El Cajon Usulután production. Three other compositional groups (10, 11 and 12) can be interpreted as representing Usulután production in the El Cajon region based on the criterion of abundance. Refined Group 5 is dominated by samples from Yarumela in the Comayagua Valley and can be similarly interpreted as representing Comayagua Valley production. Refined Group 1 is a mixture of samples from Yarumela and sites in the Copan Valley and likely represents pottery production in one of those two regions. Refined Group 2 is a mixture of samples from the

Comayagua Valley and the El Cajon region and likely represents pottery production from one of those two regions. These Refined Compositional Groups identify two or three loci of production for Usulután pottery within Honduras. All but one of the sherds from El Salvador in the NIST database failed to cluster compositionally to any of the groups identified by the author. This confirms that an additional locus or loci of production resides somewhere in El Salvador.

The compositional groups also show that none of the regions sampled by the author were completely self-sufficient in terms of Usulután pottery production. Each of the seven regions within Honduras represented in the Refined Compositional Groups (Santa Barbara Region,

Comayagua Valley, Copan Valley, Ulúa Valley, Lake Yojoa Region, Naco Valley, El Cajon

Region) has Usulután pottery produced in another region within the sphere (Table 6).

277

Clearly Usulután pottery was moving across portions of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere, with

a portion of the Usulután found in each region within Honduras emanating from elsewhere. The

most likely explanation for the movement of Usulután pottery across the northern portion of the

Uapala Ceramic Sphere is its use as a long distance exchange good. Differences in ceramic

assemblages, differences in site planning and architecture, and a lack of evidence for rapid shifts

in material culture such as site-unit intrusions suggest that the migration of populations from one

portion of the sphere to another portion were infrequent.

Furthermore, it is unlikely that Usulután pottery would have been transported by families

or individuals faced with the prospect of moving from one portion of the sphere to another.

Usulután pottery in the Honduran portion of the sphere is dominated by service vessels and

appears to have been considered by many who used it as pottery reserved for special events.

Most Usulután vessel forms do not stack particularly well and tend to be large and heavy,

increasing their transport cost. With these high transport costs and specialized use, it is unlikely

that migrating individuals or families would have chosen Usulután pottery above other vessel

forms and type-varieties to accompany them on their travels.

Redefining the Uapala Ceramic Sphere: Usulután as an Interregional Exchange Good

The available data can be used to redefine the Uapala Ceramic sphere identified by

Andrews and later redefined by Demarest, Robinson and Wonderley. The broad similarities in

Usulután pottery seen throughout the sphere are the result of both exchange and emulation, with varying proportions of importation and emulation. Stylistic continuity between the El Salvadoran and Honduran portions of the sphere was largely due to emulation. A single sherd from El

Salvador was found to have been manufactured in Honduras in Refined Group 4. Neither

278

Usulután pottery from Santa Leticia, Chalchuapa and Quelepa nor clay samples from across El

Salvador matched compositionally to Usulután found in Honduran contexts. Although future analysis may identify exchange of Usulután pottery between these two portions of the sphere, the data presented here suggest that this interaction was infrequent at best.

Within Honduras, stylistic similarities in Usulután pottery were the result of frequent exchange combined with emulation. Localized production and distribution was confirmed for the

El Cajon region and Comayagua Valley. A third locus of production centered in the Copan

Valley is possible, but more samples from this region or clay samples are required to fully eliminate other possible loci of production. Imported Usulután from one or more neighbors was found in each of the regions sampled in Honduras. For regions like the Comayagua Valley, El

Cajon Region and Copan Valley, significant amounts of both local production and importation is identified. For other regions, including Lake Yojoa, the Naco Valley and Santa Barbara region, the majority of samples sorted into compositional groups from outside those regions. Other valleys and regions of the Honduran portion of the sphere likely produced their own Usulután pottery as well, but this production is still unidentified due to small sample sizes.

With long distance exchange identified as a prevalent behavior throughout the Honduran portion of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere, the question of how this exchange was facilitated is raised. Most of this sphere resides within the Comayagua Depression, one of four geographic corridors that facilitate movement from north to south across Central America. Although the presence of the Comayagua Depression provides a route by which traders could have carried

Usulután pottery, the general landscape of Honduras is not conducive to long distance travel.

Rivers may have been used for portions of trips between some of these regions, but the bulk of the travel between any two regions in the sphere would have been on foot.

279

As was discussed in Chapter 2, the vessel types that dominate Usulután pottery are plates or dishes with out-flaring walls. These vessels often have supports, which may be of considerable size. This vessel type is large, bulky and does not stack well, which would have increased the transport costs of moving Usulután pottery considerably. This combination of harsh travel conditions and large bulky goods would have made the transport of Usulután pottery across Honduras a costly venture that likely restricted Usulután trade to a small number of specialists who abandoned other activities for weeks or months at a time. So who were these individuals who supported and benefitted from the transport of Usulután pottery?

As the review of trade and exchange theory in Chapter 1 has shown, the long distance transport of goods for exchange in chiefdoms is often promoted by elites at different levels of social rank, who have the economic, political and religious authority to sponsor such activity.

They use this authority to bring goods from a distance that are valued for the technological advantages they allow, their aesthetic character, or simply because they show contacts to an outside world unknown to others.

In cases where chiefs or other elite segments of a society are promoting, sponsoring, or participating in long distance exchange, we would expect to see these goods concentrated in elite contexts at sites where they are found or at primary sites within a settlement hierarchy.

Depending on the level of elite control over imported prestige goods, we can predict several possible patterns of distribution. If elites controlled the distribution of prestige goods within their society, we would expect to see restricted access to these goods among non-elite segments of the population (Hirth 1998). If control over this distribution was weak, we would expect to see a more even distribution of the good across settlement hierarchies and in a wider range of contexts.

280

A review of the contexts in which Usulután pottery has been found within the Honduran portion of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere shows that Usulután pottery, although occasionally present in non-elite contexts, is closely associated with elite households, elite burials, dedicatory caches, and special purpose structures.

At the site of Rio Pelo in the Ulúa Valley, Muerdalo Orange Usulután is found in association with a dense deposit of faunal material at the base of a civic-ceremonial earthen mound. Wonderley (1991) considers the mound to be civic-ceremonial in function because it lacks evidence of habitation similar to that found at other mound loci at the site, but does show sign of periodic use. He argues that this mound was likely the site of ritual feasting behavior, and that Usulután pottery was used in these feasts.

Additional evidence of specialized deposits of Usulután pottery can be found at Copan and at Salitron Viejo in the El Cajon region. At Salitron Viejo, excavations at Operation G, Sub-

Operation 206 included a number of complete vessel interred in a dedicatory cache. This operation-sub-operation is located at one of the principal mounds at the site. The mound has been interpreted as an elite structure with additional adjoining ceremonial structures (Kenneth Hirth, personal communication, 2006). Although it is not clear whether, like at Rio Pelo, faunal materials were associated with the deposit, the evidence at El Cajon can be interpreted as another example of the specialized use of Usulután pottery.

At Copan, four Usulután vessels are found in the Hunal tomb, which is thought to have been the burial site of K’inich Yax K’uk’ Mo’, the first ruler of the Copan dynasty (Fash and

Fash 2000, Martin and Grube 2000, Sharer et al 1999). All four of the vessels are dishes with outflaring walls and tripod or tetrapod mammiform supports.

281

At the site of Yarumela, Usulután pottery is found in abundance in elite portions of the site at Operations 10, 11, 19 and 21. Operations 10 and 11 were dug into Mounds 102 and 101, respectively. Mound 101, El Cerrito, is the largest earthen mound at the site, and was the residence of a chief with valley-wide political control. Mound 102 is another principal mound at

the site, located directly to the east of Mound 101. This mound has been interpreted as the

residence of a shaman or other religious figure based on comparisons of Mound 102’s artifact

assemblage to other house mounds at the site (Joesink-Mandeville personal communication,

2001).

The evidence above has shown that Usulután pottery can be closely associated with elite

segments of chiefdoms within the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. Returning to the Refined

Compositional Groups discussed in Chapter 7, we see that a portion of the Usulután pottery found in elite contexts, in special deposits and at primary sites within a settlement hierarchy was

imported. Refined Compositional Group 1, which reflects either Comayagua Valley or Copan

ceramic production, is primarily found in elite contexts or primary sites within regional

settlement hierarchies at Copan, Yarumela, Los Naranjos, Santo Domingo, and El Mirador,

Guatemala. Only one sample from this group was found in a non-elite context outside of the

Copan Valley: a single undifferentiated Usulután sherd from a rural farmstead at Site 100 in the

Naco Valley. All but two of the samples in Refined Compositional Group 2 are from Yarumela

and Salitron Viejo, both primary sites in the Comayagua Valley and El Cajon region,

respectively. Two samples are from the site of PC-13, which is a secondary site in the El Cajon region. Refined Compositional Group 5, which likely reflects Comayagua Valley ceramic production, is found outside the valley at the primary sites of Copan, Los Naranjos, Salitron

Viejo and Gualjoquito, with only one sample from the secondary site of Las Vegas in the Naco

282

Valley. Refined Compositional Groups 11 and 12, which both likely represent El Cajon production, include samples at the primary site of Yarumela.

These patterns of Usulután distribution clearly show an affinity for Usulután decorated pottery by elite segments of chiefdoms throughout the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. Time and again this pottery is found in a range of elite contexts, and in some cases special attention was given to how it was disposed of. While on the surface this would appear to confirm Usulután pottery as an elite-controlled prestige good, a word of caution is warranted.

In many ways, the overall patterns of Usulután distribution at elite portions of sites, at primary sites within settlement hierarchies and in special deposits reflect the top-down nature of archaeology conducted throughout Honduras. Without more extensive excavations of secondary, tertiary and rural sites within settlement hierarchies and targeted excavation of non-elite households, clear evidence for proportions of Usulután pottery found in elite versus non-elite contexts is largely absent for most of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere.

The patterns identified by the author showing imported Usulután pottery at primary sites within settlement hierarchies, in elite contexts and in special deposits are likewise hindered by the top-down approach to archaeology prevalent throughout Honduras. Because the bulk of

Usulután pottery available for sampling came from elite contexts, any imported Usulután was likely to be associated with elites. It should also be noted that proportional or balanced representation of elite and non-elite contexts was not one of the sampling goals of the author.

Elite Use of Usulután Pottery: Serving, Feasting and Gifting

This dissertation has shown that Usulután pottery was exchanged throughout the

Honduran portion of the Uapala Ceramic Sphere. It has also shown that elites within regional

283 chiefdoms in Honduras had a great affinity for Usulután pottery, with both localized Usulután production as well as imported Usulután finding its way into the region. Because it is likely that elites themselves were involved in the importation of Usulután pottery, the question must be raised why elites would go to the trouble to import a bulky, fragile and costly prestige good from a distance. Arguments for the specific behaviors related to the use of Usulután pottery can be based on a combination of coding and compositional data. From these data, Usulután pottery was likely used as a daily serving vessel for elites to reinforce status differences, as a special service ware used in ritualized feasts with other elites to force or renegotiate status differences, and as gifts given by elites to forge alliances and incur debt.

As Chapters 2 and 6 have shown, Usulután pottery in the Honduran portion of the sphere is dominated by flat or dimpled bottomed plate and dishes with outflaring walls, many of which were found to have supports. Also common for Usulután pottery in Honduras are hemispherical bowls. Both of these vessel forms are used primarily for serving. Non-serving vessels such as jars, ollas, tecomates and griddles are extremely rare, suggesting that Usulután decorated pottery was considered a service ware. I argued in Chapter 6 that Usulután pottery was a labor intensive product to manufacture, and was likely seen as an expensive and aesthetically pleasing objet d’art used for serving foods. Compositional data showing that at least a portion of this Usulután pottery was imported from great distances strengthens this argument considerably. In cases where Usulután-decorated pottery was found in elite household contexts, it is likely that it was a prestige good designed to represent and reinforce economic and political differences between elite and non-elite segments of Honduran chiefdoms.

Contextual data from the Ulúa and Copan Valleys suggest that in some cases, Usulután pottery was specifically used in feasting and dedication rituals. At Rio Pelo, Wonderley (1991)

284

argues that the Usulután found in association with high densities of faunal remains at the base of

a civic-ceremonial mound is evidence of it used in feasting rituals. Canuto (2004: 47) and

Schortman and Urban (2004: 324) have also argued that feasting likely took place in the Copan

Valley at the secondary site of Los Achiotes. At Salitron Viejo in the El Cajon region,

excavations at Operation G, Sub-Operation 206 included a number of complete vessels interred

in a dedicatory cache. In these instances, Usulután pottery was likely used as a prestige good in

order to reinforce or negotiate status among elites and distinguish elite from non-elites within

these regional chiefdoms. As Chapter 1 has argued, feasts were used to cement or renegotiate

alliances among elites. Usulután pottery would have served in these rituals as a way of

displaying the wealth and establishing long-distance ties of the individual or group hosting the

feast.

It is unlikely that even a moderate amount of imported Usulután found within any single

region was imported by every household in which it was found because of the prohibitive costs

of transporting Usulután from one portion of the sphere to another. More research is required to

identify distribution nodes at the regional or site-specific levels and model the specific ways in which Usulután pottery was imported. However, the patterns of production and distribution identified by the author thus far suggest that economic interaction between regions of the sphere was robust, and that imported pottery may have been distributed as gifts or traded from those who could afford to sponsor or participate in long distance exchange to those who could not. In cases where Usulután pottery was given as a gift, it could have been used to create social or economic debt for the recipient, cement alliances and ensure continued cooperation between individuals or groups, or negotiate status differentials (Dalton 1977).

285

Using INAA to Examine Ceramic Production and Distribution at the Regional Level

Finally, let us return to the debate regarding the ability of INAA to address questions of ceramic production and distribution at the regional level. Of the 229 samples that were submitted for INAA, 135 (59%) were able to be grouped compositionally at a 95% confidence interval based on multivariate data on 10 independent elements. Of the remaining 94 samples, another 30 were grouped through a cluster analysis and were visually refined to remove outliers. This means that 174 out of the 229 samples submitted 76% found group membership as the result of a robust statistical analysis. Subsequent analysis of the refined compositional groups showed that each group was compositionally distinct from each other to a 95% confidence interval, further supporting INAA’s ability to differentiate compositional groups at a regional scale of analysis.

Although not a specific goal of this dissertation, the applicability of INAA to studying

ceramic production and distribution at the regional level (Stoltman et al 2005, Flannery et al

2005, and Sharer et al 2006) has been supported. Because the samples submitted for analysis

were of a fine to medium paste and contained little to no visible temper, concerns about the bulk

characterization inherent in INAA were muted and samples were assigned to compositional

groups with a high level of confidence.

A plot showing elemental concentrations for chromium (Cr) and iron (Fe) for all 4948

samples in the NIST database illustrates how Honduran pottery production in general and

Usulután pottery in particular is compositionally distinct from other pottery in the database.

Figure 60 shows all 4948 samples in the NIST database plotted on two axes: iron (%) on the y

axis and chromium on the x axis (parts per million or ppm). In this figure all of the samples are

labeled based on the general region in which they were found. The samples from Honduras,

represented by light green x’s, are characterized compositionally as having a combination of low

286 amounts of iron and high amounts of chromium. The iron amount for most Honduran samples is below 4%, and the chromium amounts for most Honduran samples ranges from 20 to 60 ppm.

Because the bulk of the Honduran samples show a compositional difference based only on two elemental concentrations, we would expect that the addition of more elements would only serve to further distinguish Honduran samples from others in the database. As the review in Chapter 6 has shown, the addition of 8 more elements continued to differentiate these samples, providing convincing evidence that the majority of sherds excavated from sites in Honduras were compositionally separate from those in the Guatemalan and El Salvadoran highlands, Motagua

Valley of Guatemala, Monte Alto region of Guatemala, Pacific Coast of Guatemala,

Suchitepeque region of Guatemala and El Salvador.

This pattern came to light as a result of the addition of 229 Honduran samples by the author. The addition of more Honduran samples should continue to compositionally define

Honduran pottery and can serve as an early way of identifying samples from Honduras using

INAA.

287

Santa Comayagua Copan Ulúa Los Naco El Santa El Kaminal

Barbara Valley Valley Valley Naranjos Valley Cajon Leticia Mirador -juyu 1 Y/C Y/C Y/C Y/C Y/C Y/C Y/C 2 X X 3 EC 4 X X X 5 Y Y Y Y Y 6 X X X 7 X X X 8 X X X 9 X X 10 EC 11 EC EC EC 12 EC EC EC 15 X X X X X X 15.2 X X 16 X X X 16.2 X

Table 6. Chart showing Refined Compositional Group membership by region. Bold and Underlined type = statistically refined group (single locus of production). Plain type = visually refined group (production locus undetermined). Y/C = Yarumela or Copan production. Y = Yarumela Production. EC = El Cajon Production.

288

References

Andrews, E Wyllys, V

1970 Excavations at Quelepa, eastern El Salvador. Cerámica de Cultura Maya 6: 210-

49.

1971 Excavations at Quelepa, El Salvador. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tulane

University.

1972 Correspondencias fonológicas entre el Lenca y una lengua mayanece. Estudios de

Cultura Maya 8: 53-57.

1976 The archaeology of Quelepa, El Salvador. Middle American Research Institute

Publication 42. Tulane University, New Orleans.

1977 The southeast periphery of Mesoamerica: a view from El Salvador. In Social

Process in Maya Prehistory: Studies in Honour of Sir Eric Thompson, edited by

Norman Hammond, pp. 113-134. Academic Press, New York.

Baudez, Claude F.

1966 Niveaux céramiques au Honduras: Une reconsidéracion de l’évolution culturelle.

Journal de la Société de Américanistes 55(2): 299-342.

1970 Central America. Translated by J. Hogarth. London: Barrie and Jenkins.

Baudez, Claude F. and P. Becquelin

1973 Archéologie de Los Naranjos, Honduras. Collection Etudes Mésoaméricaines 2.

Mision Archéologique et Ethnologique Francaise au Mexique. Mexico City.

Beaudry, Marilyn P., R.L. Bishop, J.S. Henderson and K.L. Hirth

1988 Determining ceramic production: a view from Honduras. In Ceramic Ecology,

1988: Current Research on Ceramic Materials, edited by C.C. Kolb, pp. 97-116.

289

Beaudry-Corbett, Marilyn P.

1993 Lake Yojoa Region. In Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras: Regional Classification

and Analysis, edited by J. Henderson, M. Beaudry-Corbett, pp. 180-193. Institute

of Archaeology Monograph no. 35, University of California, Los Angeles.

Beaudry-Corbett, Marilyn P., P. Caputi, J.S. Henderson, R.A. Joyce, E. J. Robinson, A.

Wonderley

1993 Lower Ulúa Region. In Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras: Regional Classification

and Analysis, edited by J. Henderson, M. Beaudry-Corbett, pp. 64-135. Institute

of Archaeology Monograph no. 35, University of California, Los Angeles.

Bell, Ellen E., M. Canuto and R.J. Sharer, eds.

2004 Understanding Early Classic Copan. University of Pennsylvania Museum of

Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia.

Bennyhoff, James A. and R.F. Heizer

1965 Neutron activation analysis of some Cuicuilco and Teotihuacan pottery:

archaeological interpretation of results. American Antiquity 30(3): 348-349.

Bishop, Ronald L.

1984 Análisis por activación de neutrones de la cerámica de El Mirador [Proyecto El

Mirador de la Harvard University, 1982-1983], Mesoamérica 5(7): 103-111.

Bishop, Ronald L. and A.A. Demarest

1986 Chemical analysis and ceramic compositional modeling of the southeastern

highland monochrome ceramics. In The Archaeology of Santa Leticia and the rise

of Maya civilization. Middle American Research Institute, publication 52,

Appendix 8. Middle American Research Institute, New Orleans.

290

Bishop, Ronald L. A.A. Demarest and R.L. Sharer

1989 Chemical analysis and the interpretation of late preclassic intersite ceramic

patterns in the southeast highlands of Mesoamerica. In New Frontiers in the

Archaeology of the Pacific Coast of Southern Mesoamerica, F.J. Bove and L.

Heller, eds. Arizona State University Anthropological Research Papers no. 39,

Tempe, pp. 135- 145.

Bishop, Ronald L., M.P. Beaudry, R.M. Leventhal, and R.J. Sharer

1986 Compositional analysis of Copador and related pottery in the southeast Maya

area. In The Southeast Maya Periphery, edited by P.A. Urban and E. M.

Schortman. pp. 143-167. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Bishop, R.L., R.L. Rands and G.R. Holley

1982 Ceramic compositional analysis in archaeological perspective. In Advances in

Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by M. Schiffer, pp. 275-330.

Academic Press, New York.

Blackman, M. James and R.L. Bishop

2007 The Smithsonian-NIST Partnership: The Application of Instrumental Neutron

Activation Analysis to Archaeology. Archaeometry 49(2): 321-341.

Blake, M. and J.E. Clark

1999 The Emergence of Hereditary Inequality: The Case of Pacific Coastal Chiapas. In

Pacific Latin America in Prehistory, edited by M. Blake, pp. 55-73. Washington

State University Press, Seattle.

Blanton, Richard, G.M. Feinman, S.A. Kowalewski and P. Peregrine

291

1996 A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization.

Current Anthropology 37(1): 1-14.

Blitz, J.

1993 Big Pots for Big Shots: Feasting and Storage in a Mississippian Community.

American Antiquity 58: 80-96.

Blomster, J.P.

2005 Olmec Pottery Production and Export in Ancient Mexico Determined Through

Elemental Analysis. Science 307: 1068-1072.

Bove, Frederick J., H. Neff, B. Lou and S. Medrano

1992 Early classic traditions of Pacific Coastal Guatemala: Compositional Evidence. In

Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, edited by H. Neff,

pp. 189-202. Prehistory Press: Madison.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth M.

1987 Consumption and Politics at Aztec Huexotla. American Anthropologist 89(3):

676-686.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. and T. K. Earle

1987 Specialization, exchange and complex societies: An Introduction. In

Specialization, Exchange and Complex Societies, edited by Brumfiel, E.M. and

Earle, T.K., pp 1-9.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Caldwell, Joseph R.

1964 Interaction Spheres in Prehistory. In Hopewellian Studies, edited by J.R. Caldwell

and R. Hall, pp. 133-143.Illinois State Museum, Scientific Papers, no. 12,

Springfield.

292

Canby, Joel S.

1949 Excavations at Yarumela, Spanish Honduras: Recovery, Description and

Interpretation of a Long Ceramic Sequence. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

Harvard University, Cambridge.

Canuto, Marcello

2004 The Rural Settlement of Copan: Changes Through the Early Classic, in

Understanding Early Classic Copan, edited by E. E. Bell, M.A. Canuto and R. J.

Sharer, pp. 29-53. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and

Anthropology, Philadelphia.

Chayes, F.

1954 The Theory of Thin-Section Analysis. Journal of Geology 62: 92-101.

1956 Petrographic Modal Analysis. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Clark, J.E. and M. Blake

1994 The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Rank

Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica, In Factional Competition and Political

Development in the New World, edited by E.M. Brumfiel and J.W. Fox, pp. 17-

30. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Cobb, C.R.

2003 Mississippian Chiefdoms: How Complex? Annual Review of Anthropology 32:

63-84.

Coe, Michael D.

293

1961 La Victoria: An early site on the Pacific coast of Guatemala. Papers of the

Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 53. Harvard University,

Cambridge.

Costin, C.L. and T. Earle

1989 Status Distinction and Legitimation of Power as Reflected in Changing Patterns

of Consumption in Late Prehispanic Peru. American Antiquity 54: 691-714.

Dalton, George.

1975 Karl Polanyi’s analysis of long-distance trade and his wider paradigm. In Ancient

Civilization and Trade, edited by J.A. Sabloff and C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky pp.

63-132. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

1977 Aboriginal Economies in Stateless Societies. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory,

edited by T. Earle and J. Ericson pp. 191-212. New York: Academic Press.

Day, Jane S.

1984 Greater Nicoya polychrome Ceramics: Regional and Inter-regional Ties. BAR

International Series vol. 226, pp. 187-202. British Archaeological Reports,

Oxford.

Deal, Michael

1985 Household pottery disposal in the Maya highlands: an ethnoarchaeological

interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4(4): 243-291.

Deitler, M. and B. Hayden, eds.

2001 Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics and

Power, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Demarest, Arthur A.

294

1986 The Archaeology of Santa Leticia and the Rise of Maya Civilization. Publication

No. 52, Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans.

Demarest, Arthur A., and R. J. Sharer

1982 The origins and evolution of Usulután ceramics. American Antiquity, 47(4): 810-

822.

1986 Late Preclassic Ceramic Spheres, Culture Areas, and Cultural Evolution in the

Southeastern Highlands of Mesoamerica. In The Southeast Maya Periphery, P.A.

Urban and E. M. Schortman, eds. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp.194-223.

Dixon, Boyd

1989 A preliminary settlement pattern study of a prehistoric cultural corridor: the

Comayagua valley, Honduras. Journal of field archaeology 16: 257-71

Dixon, Boyd., Hasebe, Nobukatsu, Mucio, Michael, Vincent, William, James, David, Petersen,

Kenneth., Joesink-Mandeville, L. R. V.

1994 Formative-period architecture at the site of Yarumela, Central Honduras. Latin

American Antiquity 5(1): 70-87.

Drennan, Robert D.

1996 Statistics for Archaeologists: A Common Sense Approach. Interdisciplinary

Contributions to Archaeology. Springer, New York.

Dye, David H.

1995 Feasting with the Enemy: Mississippian Warfare and Prestige-Goods Circulation.

In Native American Interactions: Multiscalar Analyses and Interpretations in the

Eastern Woodlands, edited by M.S. Nassaney and K. E. Sassaman, pp. 289-316.

University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

295

Fash, William L. and B.W. Fash

2000 Teotihuacan and the Maya: A Classic Heritage. In Mesoamerica’s Classic

Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, edited by D. Carrasco, L. Jones, and S.

Sessions, pp. 433-464. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Flannery, Kent V., A. K. Balkansky, G.M. Feinman, D.C. Grove, J. Marcus, E.M. Redmond,

R.G. Reynolds, R.J. Sharer, C.S. Spencer, J Yaeger

2005 Implications of New Petrographic Analysis for the Olmec ‘Mother Culture’

Model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102: 11219-11223.

Fletcher, M. and G.L. Lock

2005 Digging Numbers: Elementary Statistics for Archaeologist. 2nd edition. Oxford

School of Archaeology, Oxford.

Frankenstein, Susan. and M.J. Rowlands

1978 The Internal Structure and Regional Context of Early Iron Age Society in South-

Western Germany. In Bulletin of The Institute of Archaeology 15: 73-112,

University of London, London.

Gifford, James C.

1960 The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator of Cultural

Phenomena. American Antiquity 25(3): 341-347.

1976 Prehistoric Pottery Analysis and the Ceramics of Barton Ramie in the Belize

Valley. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology Memoirs 18. Harvard

University, Cambridge.

Glascock, M.D.

296

1992 Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics at MURR by Neutron Activation

analysis and Multivariate Statistics. In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic

Pastes in Archaeology, edited by H. Neff, 11-30. Monographs in World

Archaeology 7, World History Press, Madison

Hall, Robert L.

1973 An Interpretation of the Two-climax Model of Illinois Prehistory. Paper presented

at the 9th Annual Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences,

Chicago.

Hammond, Norman G.

1972 A Minor Criticism of the Type-Variety System of Ceramic Analysis. American

Antiquity 37(3): 450-452.

Hammond, Norman, G. Harbottle and T. Gazard

1976 Neutron Activation and Statistical Analysis of Maya Ceramics and Clays from

Lubaantun, Belize. Archaeometry 18(2): 147-168.

Hantman, Jeffrey L. and S. Plog

1982 The Relationship of Stylistic Similarity to Patterns of Material Exchange. In

Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, edited by J. Ericson and T. Earle, pp. 237-263.

Academic Press, New York.

Hasemann, George, V. Veliz, L. Van Gerpen

1978 Informe Preliminar, Currusté: fase I. Ms. On file, Instituto Hondureño de

Antropología e Historia. Tegucigalpa.

Hayden, Brian

297

1990 Nimrods, Piscators, Pluckers and Planters: The Emergence of Food Production.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 9:31-69.

1995 Pathways to Power: Principles for Creating Socioeconomic Inequalities. In

Foundations of Social Inequality, edited by T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman, pp. 15-

86. Plenum Press, New York.

Hayden, Brian and Rob Gargett

1990 Big Man, Big Heart? A Mesoamerican View of the Emergence of Complex

Society. Ancient Mesoamerica 1: 3-20.

Hayden, Brian and R. Schulting

1997 The Plateau Interaction Sphere and Late Prehistoric Cultural Complexity.

American Antiquity 62(1), pp. 51085.

Helms, Mary

1991 Esoteric Knowledge, Geographical Distance, and the Elaboration of

Leadership Status: Dynamics of Resource Control. In: Profiles in Cultural

Evolution, Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology no. 85, pp. 333-

350. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Henderson, John S. and M. Beaudry-Corbett (editors)

1993 Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras: Regional Classification and Analysis. Los

Angeles: Institute of Archaeology Monograph no. 35, University of California.

Henderson, J., I. Sterns, A. Wonderley and P. Urban

1979 Archaeological Investigations in the Valle de Naco, Northwestern Honduras: a

Preliminary Report. Journal of Field Archaeology 6: 169-192.

Hirth, Kenneth G.

298

1996 Political Economy and Archaeology: Perspectives on Exchange and Production.

Journal of Archaeological Research 4(3): 203-239.

Hirth, Kenneth G.

1998 The Distributional Approach: A New Way to Identify Marketplace Exchange in

the Archaeological Record. Current Anthropology 39:4: 451-476.

Hirth, Kenneth G., N. Kennedy, M. Cliff

1993 El Cajón Region. In Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras: Regional Classification and

Analysis, edited by J. Henderson, M. Beaudry-Corbett, pp. 214-233. Institute of

Archaeology Monograph no. 35. University of California. Los Angeles.

Hirth, Kenneth G., G.L. Pinto, G. Hasemann

1989 Archaeological Research in the El Cajon Region, Volume 1: Prehistoric Cultural

Ecology. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

Hockett, B.S.

1998 Sociopolitical meaning of faunal remains from Backer Village. American

Antiquity 63: 289-302.

Hopkins, Mary R.

1986 Appendix 9: Analyses of the technique of Izalco-type Usulután decoration. In The

archaeology of Santa Leticia and the Rise of Maya Civilization, edited by Arthur

A. Demarest. Pp. 239-250. Middle American Research Institute, Publication 52.

Tulane University, New Orleans.

Joesink-Mandeville, L.R.V.

1986 Proyecto Arquelógico Valle de Comayagua: Investigaciones en Yarumela-

Chilcal. Yaxkin IX(2): 17-41.

299

1987 Yarumela, Honduras: Formative Period Cultural Conservatism and Diffusion. In

Interaction on the Southeast Mesoamerican Frontier: Prehistoric and Historic

Honduras and El Salvador, edited by E.J. Robinson, p. 196-214. BAR

International Series 327. British Archaeological Reports. Oxford.

1993 Comayagua Valley. In Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras: Regional Classification

and Analysis, edited by J. Henderson, M. Beaudry-Corbett, pp. 234-247. Institute

of Archaeology Monograph no. 35, University of California, Los Angeles.

2004 Interaction and exchange as evident at Yarumela, Honduras: the ancient

chiefdom in the borderland. In New Perspectives on Formative Mesoamerican

Cultures, edited by Terry G. Powis, pp. 111-120. International Series, 1377.

British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, England.

Joyce, Rosemary

1987 Intraregional Ceramic Variation and Social Class: Developmental Trajectories of

Classic Period Complexes from the Ulúa Valley, In Interaction on the Southeast

Mesoamerican Frontier: Prehistoric and Historic Honduras and El Salvador,

edited by E.J. Robinson. BAR International Series 327. British Archaeological

Reports, Oxford.

Junker, Laura L.

2001 The Evolution of Ritual Feasting Systems in Prehispanic Philippine Chiefdoms.

In Feasts: Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics and

Power, edited by M. Dietler, B. Hayden, pp. 267-310. Smithsonian Institution

Press, Washington D.C.

Kennedy, Nedenia

300

1981 The Formative Period Ceramic Sequence from Playa de Los Muertos, Honduras.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana

1986 The periphery problem and Playa de los Muertos: A test case. In The Southeast

Maya Periphery, edited by P. Urban and E. Schortman, pp. 179-193. University

of Texas, Austin

Kipp, R. and E.M. Schortman

1989 The political impact of trade on chiefdoms. American Anthropologist 91: 370-

385.

Kosakowsky, Laura J., F.E. Belli and P. Petit

2000 Preclassic through Postclassic: ceramics and chronology of the southeastern

Pacific coast of Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 11(2): 199-215.

Lange, F.W., V Canouts and S Salgado G.

1992 The greater Nicoya ceramic database: development and application. In

Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, edited by H. Neff,

pp. 171- 187. Prehistory Press, Madison.

Longacre, William A., Kenneth L. Kvamme and Masashi Kobayashi

1988 Southwestern Pottery Standardization: an ethnoarchaeological view from the

Philippines. The Kiva 53(2): 101-112.

Longacre, William A. and Miriam T. Stark

1992 Ceramics, Kinship and Space : A Kalinga Example. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 11: 125-136.

Longyear, John M.

301

1952 Copan Ceramics: A study of Southeastern Maya Pottery. Carnegie Institution of

Washington Publication 597, Washington D.C.

Lothrop, Samuel K.

1927 Pottery types and their sequence in Salvador, Indian Notes and Monographs,

Heye Foundation, vol. 4, New York

1933 An archaeological study of ancient remains on the borders of Lake Atitlan,

Guatemala. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 444, Washington

D.C.

Lunardi, Federico

1941 Los misterios del valle de Comayagua. Imprenta Calderon, Tegucigalpa.

Martin, Simon and N. Grube

2000 Chronicle of Maya Kings and Queens. London: Thames and Hudson.

Neff, Hector.

1989 Origins of plumbate pottery production. In Ancient trade and tribute: economies

of the Soconusco region of Mesoamerica, edited by B. Voorhies, pp. 175- 193.

1992 Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology. Prehistory Press:

Madison.

Neff, Hector., R.L. Bishop, D.E. Arnold

1988 Reconstructing ceramic production from ceramic compositional data: a

Guatemalan example. Journal of Field Archaeology 15: 339-348.

1990 A reexamination of the compositional affiliations of formative period whiteware

from highland Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 1: 171-180.

Neff, Hector. Bishop, R.L. and F.J. Bove

302

1989 Compositional patterning in the ceramics from Pacific and Highland Guatemala.

Archaeomaterials 3: 97-109.

Neff, Hector, J. P. Blomster, M.D. Glascock, R.L. Bishop, M.J. Blackman, M.D. Coe, G.L.

Cowgill, R.A. Diehl, S.D. Houston, A.A. Joyce, C.P. Lipo, B.L. Stark, M. Winter

2006a Methodological issues in the provenance investigation of Early Formative

Mesoamerican ceramics, Latin American Antiquity 17(1): 54-76

Neff, Hector, J. P. Blomster, M.D. Glascock, R.L. Bishop, M.J. Blackman, M.D. Coe, G.L.

Cowgill, A. Cyphers, R.A. Diehl, S.D. Houston, A.A. Joyce, C.P. Lipo, M. Winter

2006b Smokescreens in the Provenance Investigation of Early Formative Mesoamerican

Ceramics, Latin American Antiquity 17(1): 104-118.

Neff, Hector., F. J. Bove, B. Lou and M.F. Piechowski

1992 Ceramic raw materials survey in Pacific coastal Guatemala. In Chemical

Characterization of Pastes in Archaeology, edited by H. Neff, pp. 59-84.

Prehistory Press, Madison.

Neff, Hector., F. J. Bove, E. J. Robinson, B. Arroyo L.

1994 A ceramic compositional perspective on the formative to classic transition in

southern Mesoamerica. Latin American Antiquity 5(4): 333-358.

Neff, Hector., J. W. Cogswell, L. J. Kosakowsky, F. Estrada Belli, and F. J. Bove

1999 A new perspective on the relationships among cream paste ceramic traditions of

southeastern Mesoamerica. Latin American Antiquity 10(3): 281-299.

Neff, Hector and M. D. Glascock

2002 Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of Olmec Pottery, Electronic

Document, http://www.missouri.edu/~reahn/, accessed November 22, 2005.

303

Parsons, Lee A.

1967 Bilbao, Guatemala: An Archaeological Study of the Cotzumalhuapa Region. 2

vols. Publications in Anthropology 11-12. Milwaukee Public Museum,

Milwaukee.

Pauketat, Timothy R., L.S. Kelly, G.T. Fritz, N.H. Lopinot, S. Elias and E. Hargrave

2002 The Residues of Feasting and Public Ritual at Early Cahokia. American Antiquity

67(2): 257-279.

Plog, Stephen

1980 Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics. University Press, Cambridge.

Pool, Christopher A. and G.J. Bey III, eds.

2007 Pottery Economics in Mesoamerica. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Popenoe, Dorothy Hughes

1934 Some Excavations at Playa de los Muertos, Ulúa River, Honduras. Maya

Research, 1: 61-85.

Rands, Robert. and R. Bishop

1980 Resource procurement zones and patterns of ceramic exchange in the Palenque

region, Mexico. In Models and Methods in Regional Exchange, edited by R. Fry

pp. 19-46. Society for American Archaeology, SAA Papers 1.

Reents-Budet, Dorie, E.E. Bell L.P. Traxler and R.L. Bishop

2004 Early Classic Ceramic Offerings at Copan: A Comparison of the Hunal, Margarita

and Sub-Jaguar Tombs, in Understanding Early Classic Copan, edited by E. E.

Bell, M.A. Canuto and R. J. Sharer, pp. 159-190. University of Pennsylvania

Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia.

304

Renfrew, Colin

1977 Alternative Models for Exchange and Spatial Distribution. In Exchange Systems

in Prehistory, edited by T.K. Earle and J.E. Ericson, pp. 71-90. Academic Press,

New York.

Rice, P.M.

1978a Ceramic continuity and change in the Valley of Guatemala. In The Ceramics of

Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala, edited by R. K. Wetherington, pp. 511-542. Monograph

Series on Kaminaljuyu, The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.

1978b Clear answers to vague questions: some assumptions of provenience studies on

pottery. In The Ceramics of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala, edited by R.K.

Wetherington, pp. 511-542. Monograph Series on Kaminaljuyu, Pennsylvania

University Press, University Park.

1987 Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Robertson, Robin

1986 Functional analysis and social process in ceramics: the pottery from Cerrros,

Belize. In Civilization in the ancient Americas. Albuquerque p.105-142, ill.

Robinson, Eugenia J.

1987 Sula Valley diachronic regional and interregional interaction: a view from the east

side alluvial fans. In Interaction on the Southeast Mesoamerican Frontier, edited

by E. Robinson, pp. 154-195. British Archaeological Reports no. 327, vol. 1.

Oxford.

305

1988 Ceramic spheres of the southwest Mesoamerican frontier. In Cerámica de la

Cultura Maya, edited by Gifford and Kirkpatrick, No. 13, pp. 10-24. Temple

University, Philadelphia.

Rouse, Irving

1960 The Classification of Artifacts in Archaeology. American Antiquity 25(3): 313-

323.

Sabloff, Jeremy A.

1971 Appendix. Comments on the archaeological background and implications of the

neutron activation analyses of fine paste pottery, In Science and Archaeology,

edited by R. Brill, pp.180-181. MIT Press.

1975 Excavations at Seibal, Department of the Peten, Guatemala: the ceramics.

Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Memoirs 13(2),

Santley, Robert S. and R. T. Alexander

1992 The Political Economy of Core-Periphery Systems. In Resources, Power and

Interregional Interaction, edited by E.M. Schortman and P.A. Urban, pp. 23-49.

New York: Plenum Press.

Sato, Etsuo

1993 La Entrada Region. In Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras: Regional Classification

and Analysis, edited by J. Henderson, M. Beaudry-Corbett, pp. 20-29. Institute of

Archaeology Monograph no. 35, University of California, Los Angeles.

Sayre, Edward V.

306

1976 Brookhaven procedures for statistical analyses of multivariate archaeometric data.

UCLA Center for medieval and Renaissance Studies Contributions, University of

California Press, Los Angeles.

Sayre, Edward V., and L.H. Chan

1971 High resolution gamma ray spectroscopic analyses of fine orange pottery. In

Science and Archaeology, edited by R. Brill, pp. 165-179. M.I.T. Press.

Schortman, Edward, and P. Urban

1987 Modeling Interregional Interaction in Prehistory, in Advances in Archaeological

Method and Theory, Vol. II, p. 37-95.

1991 Patterns of Late Preclassic Interaction and the Foundation of Complex Society in

the Southeast Maya Periphery. In The Formation of Complex Society in

Southeastern Mesoamerica, edited by W. Fowler, pp. 121-140. CRC Press, Boca

Raton.

1994 Living on the edge: core/periphery relations in ancient southeastern Mesoamerica.

Current Anthropology 35(4): 401-430.

2004 Marching Out of Step: Early Classic Copan and Its Honduran Neighbors, in

Understanding Early Classic Copan, edited by E. E. Bell, M.A. Canuto and R. J.

Sharer, pp. 319-336. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and

Anthropology, Philadelphia.

Sharer, Robert J.

1974 The prehistory of the southeastern Maya periphery. Current Anthropology 15(2):

165-187.

307

1978a Introduction, Surface Surveys, Excavations, Monuments and Special Deposits. In

The Prehistory of Chalchuapa, El Salvador (Vol. I), edited by R. Sharer.

University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

1978b Pottery and conclusions. In The Prehistory of Chalchuapa, El Salvador (Vol. III),

edited by R. Sharer. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Sharer, Robert J. and D.W. Sedat

1973 Archaeological Investigations in the Northern Maya Highlands, Guatemala:

Interaction and the Development of Maya Civilization. Monograph 59. University

Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Sharer, Robert J., L.P. Traxler, D.W. Sedat, E.E. Bell, M.A. Canuto, C. Powell.

1999 Early Classic Architecture Beneath the Copan Acropolis: A Research Update.

Ancient Mesoamerica 10:3-23.

Sharer, Robert J., A.K. Balkansky, J. H. Burton, G. M. Feinman, K. V. Flannery, D. C. Grove, J.

Marcus, R. G. Moyle, T. D. Price, E. M. Redmond, .T G. Reynolds, P. M. Rice, C. S. Spencer, J.

B. Stoltman, and J. Yeager

2006 On the Logic of Archaeological Inference: Early Formative Pottery and the

Evolution of Early Mesoamerican Studies. Latin American Antiquity 17:90-103.

Shepard, Anna O.

1936 The technology of Pecos pottery. In The Glaze-Paint, Culinary, and Other Wares.

Edited by A.V. Kidder and A. O. Shepard, pp. 389-588. The Pottery of Pecos, vol.

2. Yale University Press, New Haven.

308

1942 Rio Grande Glaze Paint Ware. A Study Illustrating the Place of Ceramic

Technological Analysis in Archaeological Research. Publication no. 528.

Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington D.C.

1954 Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Publication no. 609. Carnegie Institution of

Washington, Washington D.C.

1965 Rio Grande glaze-paint pottery: a test of petrographic analysis. In Ceramics and

Man, edited by Frederick R. Matson. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology

41. New York.

1966 Problems in pottery analysis. American Antiquity 31(6): 870-871.

Sheptak, Russell N.

1987 Interaction between Belize and the Ulúa valley. In Interaction on the Southeast

Mesoamerican Frontier: prehistoric and Historic Honduras and El Salvador,

edited by E.J. Robinson. BAR International Series 327. British Archaeological

Reports, Oxford.

Shook, Edward M. and A. V. Kidder

1952 Mound E-III-3, Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Publication 596. Carnegie Institution of

Washington, Washington, D.C.

Smith, Michael E.

1979 A Further Criticism of the Type-Variety System: The Data can’t be Used.

American Antiquity 44(4): 822-826.

Smith, Robert E., G.R. Willey and J.C. Gifford

1960 The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for the Analysis of Maya Pottery. American

Antiquity 25(3): 330-340.

309

Squier, Ephriam. G.

1859 A visit to the Guajiquero Indians. Harper’s New York Monthly 19(113): 603-619.

New York.

Stark, Miriam T.

1992 From sibling to suki: social relations and spatial proximity in Kalinga pottery

exchange. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 11:137-151.

Stoltman, James B.

1989 A Quantitative Approach to the Petrographic Analysis of Ceramic Thin Sections.

American Antiquity 54:147-160.

1991 Ceramic Petrography as a Technique for Documenting Cultural Interaction: An

Example from the Upper Mississippi Valley. American Antiquity 56(1): 103-120.

Stoltman, James B., J.H. Burton and J. Haas

1992 Chemical and Petrographic Characterizations of Ceramic Pastes: Two

Perspectives on a Single Data Set. In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic

Pastes in Archaeology, edited by H. Neff, pp. 85-92. Prehistory Press, Madison.

Stoltman, James B. J. Marcus, K. Flannery, J Burton, R. Moyle

2005 Petrographic Evidence Shows that Pottery Exchange Between the Olmec and

Their Neighbors Was Two Way. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences 102: 11213-11218.

Stone, Doris and C. Turnbull

1941 A Sula-Ulúa Pottery Kiln. American Antiquity 7(1): 39-47.

Stone, Doris

310

1937 The Archaeology of Central and Southern Honduras. Papers of the Peabody

Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 49(3). Cambridge: Harvard University.

Streuver, Stuart

1964 The Hopewell Interaction Sphere in Roverine-Western Lakes Cultural History. In

Hopewellian Studies, edited by J. Caldwell and R. Hall, pp. 85-106, Illinois State

Museum Scientific Papers, no. 12 Springfield.

Strong, William D., Alfred Kidder and A.J.D. Paul

1938 Preliminary report on the Smithsonian Institution-Harvard University

Archaeological Expedition to Northwestern Honduras, 1936. Smithsonian

Miscellaneous Collections 97(1). Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

Urban, Patricia

1986 Precolumbian settlement in the Naco Valley, Northwestern Honduras. In The

Southeast Maya Periphery, edited by P. Urban and E. Schortman, pp. 275-296.

University of Texas Press, Austin.

1993a Naco Valley. In Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras: Regional Classification and

Analysis. edited by J. Henderson, M. Beaudry-Corbett, pp. 30-63. Institute of

Archaeology Monograph no. 35, University of California, Los Angeles.

1993b Central Santa Barbara Region. In Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras: Regional

Classification and Analysis. edited by J. Henderson, M. Beaudry-Corbett, pp.

136-171. Institute of Archaeology Monograph no. 35, University of California,

Los Angeles.

Urban, Patricia, E. Schortman and M Ausec

311

2002 Power without Bounds? Middle Preclassic Political Developments in the Naco

Valley, Honduras. Latin American Antiquity 13(2): 131-152.

Veliz R., Vito and G. Hasemann

1978 Prospección Arqueológia de la Presa El Cajón: Localización Preliminar de

Sitios, Conclusiones Tentativas, Recomendaciones Iniciales. Ms. On file, Instituto

Hondureño de Antropología e Historia, Tegucigalpa.

Viel, Rene

1993 Copan Valley. In Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras: Regional Classification and

Analysis. edited by J. Henderson, M. Beaudry-Corbett, pp. 12-18. Institute of

Archaeology Monograph no. 35, University of California, Los Angeles.

Webster, David, B. Fash, R. Widmer and S. Zeleznik

1988 The Skyband Group: Investigation of a Classic Maya Elite Residential Complex

at Copan, Honduras. Journal of Field Archaeology 25(3): 319-343.

Welch, P.D.

1991 Moundville’s Economy. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Welch, P.D. and C.M. Scarry

1995 Status-related variation in foodways in the Moundville Chiefdom. American

Antiquity 60: 397-419

Wetherington, R. K.

1978 The Ceramics of Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Monograph Series on Kaminaljuyu.

The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.

Wiessner, P. and W. Schiefenhovel, eds.

312

1996 Food and the Status Quest: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Berghahn Books,

Providence.

Willey, Gordon R.

1962 Mesoamerica. Courses toward urban life. Publications in anthropology.

Braidwood, Robert J. and Willey, Gordon Randolph, editors. p. 84-105. Wenner-

Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, New York.

Willey, Gordon., T.P. Culbert and R.E.W. Adams

1967 Maya lowland Ceramics: a Report From the 1965 Guatemala City Conference.

American Antiquity 32: 289-315.

Willey, Gordon R., R. M. Leventhal, A. A. Demarest, W. L. Fash

1994 Ceramics and Artifacts from Excavations in the Copan Residential Zone. Papers

of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Harvard University vol.

80, Cambridge.

Wonderley, Anthony

1991 The Late Preclassic Sula Plain, Honduras: Regional Antecedents to Social

Complexity and Interregional Convergence in Ceramic Style. In The Formation of

Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica, edited by W. Fowler, pp. 141-

170. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Wright, J.V.

1967 Type and Attribute Analysis: Their Application to Iroquois History, in Iroquois

Culture, History, and Prehistory; Proceedings of the 1965 Conference on Iroquois

Research, edited by E. Tooker, pp. 99-100. New York State Museum and Science

Service, Albany.

313

Appendix A: Coding Sheets for Ceramic Analysis

Ceramic Codes 00 Not Applicable 99 Indeterminate/Eroded

Sample Number The Number Given to the Sample.

Country Modern Country in Which Site is Found

Region The Region (following Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras Designation)

Site Name of Site (or Number)

Catalog Information Information and Markings on Sherd, Including Op, Sub-Op, Unit, etc

Type/Variety The Type and Variety of the Sherd, and Information on Who Typed It, If Possible

Part 01 Rim 10 Support 02 Handle 11 Body 03 Lug 12 Adorno 04 Neck 13 Rim w/ Handle 05 Shoulder 14 Rim w/ Base 06 Base 15 Neck-Shoulder Junction 07 Spout 16 Whole Vessel 08 Spout w/ Bridge 17 Other (Specify In Comments) 09 Spout, Stirrup

Shape 01 Rope 02 Bi-Loop 03 Tri-Loop Handles 04 Circular 05 Strap

06 Flat 07 Round Base 08 Dimple

09 Oval X-Section Spout 10 Circular X-Section

11 Nubbin, Solid 12 Mamiform, Solid 13 Mamiform, Hollow Supports 14 Tall, Solid 15 Tall, Hollow 16 Tall, Modeled

17 Anthropomorphic Adorno 18 Zoomorphic

19 Labial Ridge 20 Lateral Ridge 21 Lateral Flange 22 Other (Specify in Comments)

Vessel Form 01 Jar 02 Tecomate 03 Plate, Yarumela 04 Plate, Basal Break (Flat base, Flaring Sides) 05 Dish/Bowl 06 Bowl, Deep 07 Bowl, Chilcal (Concave Side, Basal Angle, Convex Base) 08 Deep Basin 09 Vase, Cylindrical 10 Bowl, Cylindrical 11 Bowl 12 Other (Specify in Comments)

Neck Height Measurement in centimeters of rim to shoulder

Maximum Thickness/Minimum Thickness Measurement in centimeters of the maximum and minimum sherd thickness

Rim Profile Enter Code From Drawn Profile Sheet

Rim Diameter Measurement in Centimeters of the rim diameter

Finish 01 Brushed 06 Polished (no striations evident) 02 Rough-Smoothed 07 Burnished (striations evident) 03 Well Smoothed 08 Burnished, Patterned 04 Wiped 09 Burnished, Random/Scatter 05 Matte 10 Scraped 11 Other (Specify in Comments)

Wash/Slip 01 Wash/Slip, Matte 02 Wash/Slip, Polished 03 Negative Resist (Usulutan Technique)

Paint 01 White 08 Black 02 Buff/Beige 09 Red on Natural/Buff/Beige 03 Yellow 10 Red on White 04 Orange 11 Red on Orange 05 Red 12 Red on Black 06 Red Hematite 13 Red & Black on Natural/Buff/Beige 14 Black on Orange 15 Other (Specify in Comments)

Munsell Information – Surface Treatment – Primary Color The Munsell Color Chart Codes for the Coloration of the Sherd. Dominant Color is considered Primary (for Izalco Usulutan, Orange would be primary)

Munsell Information – Surface Treatment – Secondary Color The Munsell Color Chart Codes for the Coloration of the Sherd. Background Color is considered Secondary (for Izalco Usulutan cream/buff/beige resist lines are secondary)

Surface Treatment I - Exterior 01 Gadrooned 02 Pseudo-Gadrooned (Painted) 03 Impression/Punctation 04 Applique 05 Incised, Light 06 Incised, V in X-Section (Probably post-slip) 07 Incised, U in X-Section (Probably Pre-Slip) 08 Engraving (Post-Slip, Post-Wash) 09 Excised 10 Other (Specify in Comments)

Surface Treatment II - Exterior 01 Shell Stamp 18 Knobs, Punctation 02 Rocker Stamp, True 19 Rosettes, Dog Pad 03 Rocker Stamp, pseudo 20 Cross hatch 04 Dentate Stamp 21 Diagonal 05 Stippling, Light 22 Vertical 06 Jab 23 Vertical, Oblique 07 Jab, Teardrop 24 Horizontal 08 Punctation, Reed 25 Horizontal, Oblique 09 Punctation, Arc/Crescent 26 Multi-Directional 10 Punctation, dash or broken line 27 Curvilinear 11 Finger/Fingernail Gouging 28 Null Category 12 Applique, fillet plain 29 Random 13 Applique, fillet fingernail slash 30 Filler 14 Applique, Fillet reed punctuation 31 Rectangles 15 Applique, Fillet Hollow Reed Punct. 32 Triangles 16 Applique, Fillet Chain Motif 33 Parallel Lines 17 Knobs, Plain 34 Wavy Lines 35 Other (Specify in Comments)

Surface Treatment III - Exterior Refers to Design Element Groupings 01 Single Row 02 Double Row 03 Triple Row 04 Zoned

Surface Treatment IV - Exterior Refers to Design Element Groupings 01 Curvilinear 02 Linear

Surface Treatment I - Interior 01 Gadrooned 02 Pseudo-Gadrooned (Painted) 03 Impression/Punctation 04 Applique 05 Incised, Light 06 Incised, V in X-Section (Probably post-slip) 07 Incised, U in X-Section (Probably Pre-Slip) 08 Engraving (Post-Slip, Post-Wash) 09 Excised 10 Other (Specify in Comments)

Surface Treatment II - Interior 01 Shell Stamp 18 Knobs, Punctation 02 Rocker Stamp, True 19 Rosettes, Dog Pad 03 Rocker Stamp, pseudo 20 Cross hatch 04 Dentate Stamp 21 Diagonal 05 Stippling, Light 22 Vertical 06 Jab 23 Vertical, Oblique 07 Jab, Teardrop 24 Horizontal 08 Punctation, Reed 25 Horizontal, Oblique 09 Punctation, Arc/Crescent 26 Multi-Directional 10 Punctation, dash or broken line 27 Curvilinear 11 Finger/Fingernail Gouging 28 Null Category 12 Applique, fillet plain 29 Random 13 Applique, fillet fingernail slash 30 Filler 14 Applique, Fillet reed punctuation 31 Rectangles 15 Applique, Fillet Hollow Reed Punct. 32 Triangles 16 Applique, Fillet Chain Motif 33 Parallel Lines 17 Knobs, Plain 34 Wavy Lines 35 Other (Specify in Comments)

Surface Treatment III - Interior Refers to Design Element Groupings 01 Single Row 02 Double Row 03 Triple Row 04 Zoned

Surface Treatment IV - Interior Refers to Design Element Groupings 01 Curvilinear 02 Linear

Location Refers to the Location of Major Design Elements 01 Jar Shoulders 02 Jar Necks 03 Rim 04 Handles 05 Neck Bands/ Panels 06 Zone Filler 07 Body 08 Interior (Exterior is Assumed Otherwise) 09 Other (Specify in Comments)

Paste 01 Fine to Very Fine Texture, Probably Untempered or Indeterminate (La Paz Fine) 02 Medium to Coarse Texture, Grit/Sand Temper (Valle Coarse Ware) 03 Fine Texture, Orange to Buff Color, Associated with Usulutan Technique 04 Fine Texture, Cream Color, Associated with the Usulutan Technique 05 Bung Holes and Other Traces of Organic Inclusions in Paste (Valle Coarse Ware) 06 Voids Present, Due to Inadequate Kneading, (also associated with Valle Coarse) 07 Other

Munsell Information – Paste Color The Munsell Color Chart Codes for the Coloration of the Sherd’s Paste. If paste is primarily one color, but shows signs of a blackened core dues to reduction, a BC is added to the Munsell Designations.

Vessel Form Codes Used in Coding of Sherds

Rim Types Used in Coding of Sherds

Appendix B – Sherd Coding Data

Sample Number Country Site TypeVariety Part Shape VesselForm NeckHt MaxThick MinThick RimProf 1 Honduras Naco Valley Usulutan 01 00 04 00 1.3 .6 04 2 Honduras Naco Valley Usulutan 11 00 11 00 .67 .76 00 3 Honduras Naco Valley Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .61 .46 00 4 Honduras Naco Valley Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .62 .59 00 5 Honduras Naco Valley Usulutan 11 00 11 00 .49 .39 00 6 Honduras Naco Valley Usulutan 11 00 04 00 .61 .55 00 7 Honduras Naco Valley Usulutan 11 00 11 00 .47 .34 00 8 Honduras Los Naranjos Bolo Orange 01 00 04 99 1.31 .39 14 9 Honduras Los Naranjos Bolo Orange 01 00 04 00 1.03 .82 11 10 Honduras Los Naranjos Bolo Orange 01 00 04 00 1.21 .51 14 11 Honduras Los Naranjos Bolo Orange 01 00 04 00 1.27 .75 04 12 Honduras Los Naranjos Muerdalo Orange 01 00 11 00 .59 .52 01 13 El Salvador 01 00 04 00 1.22 .85 11 14 El Salvador Santa Leticia 14 07 11 00 1.46 1.45 05 15 Honduras Los Naranjos Tzuntulin Rouge 01 00 06 00 .97 .45 04 16 Honduras Naco Valley 01 00 11 00 .62 .48 02 17 Honduras Naco Valley 01 00 11 00 .66 .52 02 18 Honduras Urraco Red-Painted Resist 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 19 Honduras Usulutan 10 11 99 00 .8 .7 00 20 Honduras Santa Barbara? Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .7 .6 00 21 Honduras Usulutan 11 00 12 00 1.0 .8 00 22 Honduras Usulutan 11 00 11 00 .8 .6 00 23 Honduras Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .7 .6 00 24 Honduras Usulutan? 10 11 99 00 .7 .6 00 25 Honduras Usulutan? Chilanga? 01 00 99 00 1.1 .8 04 26 Honduras Usulutan (poss. Chilanga) 01 00 05 00 .8 .4 14 27 Honduras Usulutan 01 00 99 00 1.7 .9 14 28 Honduras Chilanga Usulutan 06 06 12 00 .6 .6 00 29 Honduras Chilanga Usulutan 06 06 12 00 .7 .6 00 30 Honduras Usulutan? 01 00 11 00 .8 .7 02 31 Honduras Usulutan Chilanga 01 00 99 00 .8 .7 02 32 Honduras Usulutan Chilanga 10 16 99 00 .7 .6 00 33 Honduras Ste. Barbara Usulutan Izalco 01 00 04 00 1.0 .5 04 34 Honduras Sta. Barbara Usulutan Izalco 01 00 04 00 .9 .5 11 35 Honduras Sta. Barbara Usulutan Izalco 01 00 04 00 1.0 .6 11 e Number RimDia Finish Wash/Slip Paint MunsellPri MunsellSec SurfExtl SurfExt2 SurfExtS SurfExtS Surflntl Surflnt2 SurflntS 1 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/8 5YR 8/2 00 33 09 02 00 34 09 2 00 11 03 00 10R 5/8 00 00 33 09 01 00 33 09 3 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/8 10R 4/2 00 00 00 00 00 33 09 4 00 07 03 00 2. SYR 6/6 10YR 8/3 00 00 00 00 00 33 02 5 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/3 00 34 01 01 00 00 00 6 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 2.5YR 4/3 00 33 09 02 00 00 00 7 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 SYR 8/4 00 00 00 00 00 35 00 8 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/4 00 29 00 00 00 29 00 9 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 7.5YR 8/3 00 29 00 00 00 35 03 10 20 07 03 00 5YR 7/6 7.5YR 8/2 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 11 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 10YR8/3 00 33 09 02 00 33 09 12 16 07 03 00 99 99 00 33 09 02 00 00 00 13 28 07 03 00 2.5YR 4/6 SYR 7/2 00 35 09 01 00 35 09 14 26 07 03 00 2.5YR 4/6 2.5YR 3/3 00 21 09 02 00 21 09 15 18 08 03 05 1 0R 4/8 7.5YR 6/6 00 35 09 00 00 00 00 16 99 07 03 05 2.5YR 5/8 7.5YR 7/3 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 17 21 07 03 05 2.5YR 6/8 7.5YR 7/3 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 18 00 07 03 00 SYR 5/8 5YR 7/4 00 00 00 00 00 33 99 19 00 07 03 00 2.5 YR 6/8 7.5YR 7/2 00 33 99 02 00 33 99 20 00 07 03 00 5YR 6/6 10YR7/2 00 00 00 00 00 33 99 21 00 07 03 00 2.5 YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/2 00 33 99 02 00 00 00 22 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 10YR 8/3 00 33 99 02 99 99 99 23 00 07 03 00 2. SYR 6/6 10YR7/2 00 33 99 02 00 00 00 24 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 10YR8/3 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 25 99 07 03 05 2. SYR 6/6 7.5YR 7/4 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 26 22 07 03 05 1 0R 5/8 10YR7/3 07 00 01 01 00 00 00 27 99 07 03 06 2. SYR 4/6 7.5YR 8/3 07 00 01 01 00 00 00 28 00 07 03 11 1 0R 4/6 2.5YR 5/8 00 26 00 01 00 26 00 29 00 07 03 05 1 0R 4/6 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 33 00 30 24 07 01 05 10R 5/8 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 31 99 07 03 06 1 0R 4/6 2.5YR 6/8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 32 00 07 03 05 1 0R 6/6 5YR 7/6 03 06 00 02 00 00 00 33 26 07 03 00 2. SYR 6/6 1 0R 3/1 00 33 99 01 00 33 99 34 28 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 7.5YR 8/3 07 24 01 02 00 00 00 35 99 07 03 04 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/4 00 00 00 00 00 21 01 irflnt4 Sample Number Locat Paste Munsell Paste 01 1 10 03 7.5YR 7/4 BC 02 2 10 02 5YR 5/6 BC 02 3 10 03 5YR 5/4 BC 02 4 08 03 SYR 7/3 BC 00 5 00 03 5YR 7/3 00 6 00 04 5YR 7/6 00 7 08 04 5YR 7/4 00 8 10 03 5YR 6/8 BC 02 9 08 02 7.5YR 7/6 BC 00 10 10 03 5YR 7/6 02 11 10 03 5YR 5/6 00 12 10 04 SYR 7/2 BC 01 13 10 02 SYR 7/2 BC 02 14 10 03 5YR 3/1 BC 00 15 10 03 (Core) SYR 2.5/1 00 16 03 04/01 5YR 7/3 00 17 03 04 5YR 7/3 BC 01 18 08 02 7/5YR 6/6 02 19 07 03 2.5YR 6/6 02 20 08 02 7.5YR 6/3 00 21 00 03 10YR 8/1 BC 99 22 07 02 2.5YR 2.5/0 00 23 07 03 SYR 7/2 00 24 00 02 10YR 4/1 BC 00 25 03 02 7.5YR 2/0 BC 00 26 03 03 10YR7/4 00 27 03 04 SYR 7/3 01 28 09 03 7.5YR 7/3 BC 02 29 08 02 7.5YR 7/6 00 30 03 02 5YR 7/4 BC 00 31 03 03 SYR 6/4 00 32 09 02 2.5YR 6/4 BC 02 33 09 03 SYR 6/3 00 34 07 04 SYR 7/3 02 35 0803 03 2.5YR 6/6 Catalog Info Sample Number Bag: 'Usulutan Naco Valley (1L-r) Sherd: "Ip" "123C-3/42" 1 Bag: 'Usulutan Naco Valley (1L-r) Sherd: "Is" "12 OF 17" 2 Bag: 'Usulutan Naco Valley (1L-r) Sherd: "11" "HSB5" 3 Bag: "Usulutan Naco Valley (1L-r) Sherd "In" "HCR3101A1" 4 Bag: "Usulutan Naco Valley (1L-r) Sherd "Im" "100A/1 HCR2" 5 Bag: "Usulutan Naco valley (1L-r) Sherd "1-O" "123C-3/45" 6 Bag: "Usulutan Naco valley (1 L-r) Sherd "1r" "171 A-1" 7 Bag: Los Naranjos Bolo Orange Usul Tech Visible Sherd: 296 8 Bag: Los Naranjos Bolo Orange Usul Tech Visible Sherd: 580 9 Bag: Los Naranjos Bolo Orange Usul Tech Visible Sherd: 1178 10 Bag: Los Naranjos Bolo Orange Usul Tech Visible Sherd: 580 11 Bag: "Muerdalo Orange Usul Los Naranjos" Sherd: 111 12 Bag: "D003 Salvador" Sherd: D003 TR-1-5-1J6 or TR-1-S-1J6, "37" "I" 13 Bag: "D019 Santa leticia Salvador" Sherd: D019 A-251 14 Bag: Tzuntulin Rouge Usul RAJ Muerdalo Slip Los Naranjos Sherd:350 15 Bag: "3" Sherd "3a" "180/2" 16 Bag: "3" Sherd: "18 A/7" "3f 17 Bag: "Urraco Sample #113" (local imit Chilanga) No Marks on Sherd 18 Sherd: "123A-1/3" 19 Sherd: "HSB5/M15J1 (eroded) "HP/42" Sticker: "32" 20 Sherd: "123C-2/6a" or "Ga" 21 Sherd: "123C-2/61" or "G1" 22 Sherd: "101 A/1 ""HCR3" 23 Sherd: "123C-2/10" 24 Sherd: "123C-3/50" 25 Bag: "Usul/Usul. J-Bowl", "128A 120F/7 HJB5" "123C171A" Sherd: "123c-3/47" or "A7" 26 Bag: "Usul/Usul J-Bowl", "128A 120F/7 HJB5" "123C171A" Sherd: "123A-1/16" 27 Bag: "426 Chilanga Sample" Sherd: "426 P/05 Chilanga" 28 Bag: "426 Chilanga Sample" Sherd: "4261/07 Chilanga" 29 Bag: Berlin bodies Usulutan and red-Painted Usul 1L-K" Sherd: "10/A/2" 30 Bag: Berlin bodies Usulutan and red-Painted Usul 1L-K" Sherd: "HCR3" "10/A/1" or "101A11"" 31 Bag: Berlin bodies Usulutan and red-Painted Usul 1L-K" Sherd: "101 A/1" "HCR3" 32 Tray: "Preclassic PSB Sherds" Sherd: "PSB 6A-28" "Izalco" 33 Tray:"Preclassic PSB Sherds" Sherd:" PSB 1B/5" Note: 'Izalco Usulutan" 34 Tray:"Preclassic PSB Sherds" Sherd:" PSB 5H57" "lzalco?Pos Doub Slip" 35 Notes Resist: Parallel Lines (7 of them) ext. Wavy Lines (5) int., Bolo Pattern Burnish ext.,resist dark/light orange int. Ext faux resist. Int. has grey/orange resist lines vs orange slip, Ext. crazed resist Definite Bolo - double slip (cream/orange) evident, int. has resist Orange slip int. Ext orange slip w/ faded poorly done resist line At least 6 orange resist lines on red/brown foreground. Brown int. Splotchy faded cream/orange resist int. Orange slip ext. Top rim groove. Random splotchy resist. Definite Bolo. Ext rim groove Ext groove btm rim at rim/body. Shell effect resist on int. Resist ext. Two slips evident: cream, orange. Orange faded. Top rim groove. Bolo. Parallel resist lines down from rim of vessel. Bolo Orange - two slips Series of parallel vert lines down bowl ext from rim groove.oran. Slip int. Parallel curvy resist lines on ext., int. Extends down from rim Diagonal resist lines on int/ext Ext: Paint post-rim combined w/ pattern burnish, lnt:Red rirn, orang slip Red rim interior, top rim ext. paint. Faded orange slip. Good Izalco. Red rim paint int/ext; may be same vessel as sample 16, poss. Izalco Orange wash ext., resist parallel curved lines int. bowl or plate Solid support w/ vessel body. Orange slipped sup.. Int Ext parallel line

Could be bowl or typical dimpled btm. Plate w/ outfl. Wall. Black Core. Ext. resist-line decoration. Double slip. Int. eroded, some cream visible. Bowl or plate. Ext. has parallel resist lines. Ine eroded orange slip. Import. Solid nubbin support w/ faded roange/pink slip. Attached int. cream slip. Ext. thickened rim sherd Rim is wavy Int. ext. orange slip. Ext. red paint Rim. Int. rim groove orange slip w/ crazing. Ext. dark org/red paint rim/body Top rim incised groove. Red/br rim paint. Faded org. slip. Fine DOS. import Plate. One side haphazard resist lines, other orange slip red paint. Plate/Flat Bot. Bowl. Ext. eroded. Int. red paint and cream lines and resist Rim is squared, direct rounded. Red-org paint on rim. Org. slip in usul, style. Plate or bowl w/ outflar rim. Red paint on rim and vessel int.Poss. Single org. slip Body w/support. Orange slip, red paint vessel int. poss resist Gouged sup. Plate w/ high outflaring walls. Def. Izalco. Int/ext. parallel resist lines. Imp. Ext. has groove around base. Faded resist parralel lines. Rim groove. Groove top rim. Rim heavy org slip or paint. Int. resist. Small plate. Import. Sample Number Country Site TypeVariety Part Shape VesselForm NeckHt MaxThick MinThick RimProf 36 Honduras Sta. Barbara Usulutan Izalco 01 00 04 00 .8 .4 04 37 Honduras Sta. Barbara Usulutan Izalco 11 19 99 00 1.5 .5 00 38 Honduras Sta. Barbara Chilanga Usulutan 01 00 11 00 .7 .6 02 39 Honduras Sta. Barbara Usulutan 06 07 11 00 .8 .6 00 40 Honduras Sta. Barbara Chilanga Usulutan 01 00 11 00 .7 .6 02 41 Honduras Sta. Barbara Usulutan? 01 00 11 00 1.4 .5 11 42 Honduras Sta. Barbara Tirantes Trichrome 01 00 11 00 .7 .5 02 43 Honduras Sta. Barbara Bolo Orange Tiligua Dense Orange 01 00 04 00 .9 .5 11 44 Honduras Sta. Barbara Aguagua/Tilaga or Bolo Orange 01 00 11 00 .7 .5 02 45 Honduras Sta. Barbara Aguagua/Tilaga or Bolo Orange 01 00 11 00 .8 .5 02 46 Honduras Sta. Barbara Aguagua/Tilaga or Bolo Orange 01 00 11 00 .9 .5 01 47 Honduras Sta. Barbara Taixiguat or Bolo Orange 01 00 07 00 1.3 .7 11 48 Honduras Sta. Barbara Taixiguat or Bolo Orange 01 00 99 00 1.0 .7 02 49 Honduras Sta. Barbara Cececapa Incised? Bolo? 01 00 11 00 .8 .6 02 50 Honduras PC-13EICajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 11 00 99 00 1.1 .7 00 51 Honduras PC-13EICajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 07 00 .9 .8 01 52 Honduras PC-13EICajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 07 00 .8 .6 11 53 Honduras PC-13EICajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 11 00 99 00 .9 .8 00 54 Honduras PC-13EICajon Usulutan Izalco 01 00 11 00 .9 .5 02 55 Honduras PC-13EICajon Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 .8 .5 00 56 Honduras PC-13EICajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 04 00 1.2 1.1 04 57 Honduras PC-13EICajon Usulutan 01 00 11 00 1.1 .6 04 58 Honduras PC-13 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 99 00 1.4 1.1 04 59 Honduras PC-13 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 11 00 1.0 .4 03 60 Honduras PC-13 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 99 00 .8 .5 04 61 Honduras PC-13 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 11 00 .9 .5 03 62 Honduras PC-13 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 99 00 .9 .6 11 63 Honduras PC-13 El Cajon Bolo Orange 10 14 99 00 .6 .5 00 64 Honduras PC-13 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 07 00 1.1 .6 11 65 Honduras PC-13 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 04 00 1.1 .7 11 66 Honduras PC-13 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 08 00 .9 .8 02 67 Honduras PC-13 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 10 14 99 00 .7 .6 00 68 Honduras PC-22 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 69 Honduras PC-22 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 99 00 .7 .5 02 70 Honduras PC-22 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Izalco 01 00 11 00 1.1 .9 02 Sample Number RimDia Finish Wash/Slip Paint MunsellPri MunsellSec SurfExtl SurfExt2 SurfExtS SurfExtS Surflntl Surf!nt2 SurflntS 36 20 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 7.5YR 7/6 00 00 00 00 00 33 99 37 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 1 0R 5/3 00 33 99 02 00 33 99 38 17 07 03 05 10R 4/8 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 24 01 39 00 07 03 00 1 0R 5/8 7.5YR 7/4 00 35 00 00 00 33 99 40 99 07 03 05 1 0R 4/6 2.5YR 6/4 00 35 00 00 00 35 00 41 99 07 03 00 1 0R 5/8 7.5YR 7/2 07 00 01 01 00 00 00 42 19 07 03 06 10R 4/8 10R 5/8 00 35 04 01 00 35 04 43 22 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 7.5YR 7/2 00 33 99 00 00 00 00 44 17 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 99 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 45 99 07 02 04 1 0R 5/8 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 46 99 07 99 04 10R 4/8 7.5YR 7/3 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 47 24 07 02 15 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/2 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 48 28 07 03 04 10R 5/8 7.5YR 7/3 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 49 99 07 99 04 2.5YR 5/6 7.5YR 8/2 05 21 99 01 00 00 00 50 00 07 01 04 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 51 99 07 01 06 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 52 99 07 99 06 2.5YR 5/6 00 00 00 00 07 00 01 53 00 07 03 00 2/5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 54 99 07 99 00 2.5YR 6/8 7.5YR 6/2 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 55 00 07 03 00 5YR 6/8 7.5YR 7/2 00 33 99 02 00 00 00 56 99 07 01 00 2.5YR 5/6 7.5YR 7/3 00 26 99 01 00 00 00 57 99 07 99 00 2.5YR 6/8 7.5YR 7/2 00 00 00 00 07 33 02 58 99 07 01 04 1 0R 5/4 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 10 00 00 59 20 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 6/2 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 60 99 07 01 05 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 61 99 07 01 00 SYR 7/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 62 99 07 01 06 1 0R 5/4 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 63 00 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 5YR 7/8 00 00 00 00 00 33 00 64 99 07 01 04 2.5YR 6/6 SYR 7/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 65 99 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/2 00 00 00 00 07 33 02 66 19 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 67 00 07 01 00 SYR 7/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 68 00 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 69 99 07 01 00 10R 5/6 SYR 5/2 00 33 99 02 00 33 99 70 99 07 01 00 2, SYR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 irflnt4 Sample Number Local Paste MunsellPaste 02 36 08 03 SYR 7/4 02 37 09 03 2.5YR 2.5/0 BC 02 38 03 02 2.5YR 4/6 01 39 00 02 10R 4/6 00 40 03 04 2.5YR 2.5/0 00 41 03 02 2.5YR 2.5/0 BC 01 42 09 03 5YR 6/2 BC 00 43 00 02 7.5YR 5/3 BC 00 44 00 02 7.5YR 7/4 00 45 09 02 2.5YR 3/0 BC 00 46 09 02 5YR 5/4 00 47 03 02 7.5YR 3/0 BC 00 48 03 02 7.5YR 2/0 BC 00 49 09 02 5YR 6/4 00 50 00 02 7. SYR 6/3 00 51 09 02 2.5YR 6/8 BC 01 52 03 02 7.5YR 7/4 00 53 09 02 2.5YR 6/8 00 54 09 03 SYR 5/2 00 55 09 03 SYR 6/4 BC 00 56 09 03 SYR 7/6 01 57 03 03 7.5YR6/2 00 58 03 03 5YR 6/4 BC 00 59 00 02 5YR 7/2 00 60 09 03 2.5YR 5/6 00 61 00 03 7.5YR 7/6 00 62 08 02 SYR 6/24 02 63 00 03 5YR 7/3 BC 00 64 00 03 2.5YR N3 BC 01 65 09 03 10YR7/2BC 00 66 00 03 SYR 6/3 00 67 00 03 2.5YR 4/2 00 68 00 03 SYR 7/3 BC 02 69 09 03 7.5YR 8/3 00 70 00 04 7.5YR 8/3 Cataloglnfo Sample Number Tray: "Preclassic PSB Sherds" Sherd:"lzalco PSB 5H/58" 36 Tray: "Preclassic PSB Sherds" Sherd: "Izalco II" "PSB 64 45" 37 Tray:"Early Classic PSB Sherds" Bag: Chilanag Usul w/ variant paste 106D/19" Sherd:"PSB 106 D/19" 38 Tray:"Early Classic PSB Sherds" Bag: Chilanag Usul w/ variant paste 106D/19" Sherd:"PSB 106 D/19" 39 Tray: "Early Classic PSB Sherds" Bag: "Chilanga Usulutan 2 Bowl, 3 that Fit 3K/8" Sherd:"PSB K/8" 40 Bag: "Aguagua" "Tiligua dense orange Z,U, 1t" or "Z,U,H" "PSB 3C/6" 41 Bag: Tirantes Trichrome" Sherd: "PSB4C/1" or "11C/1" 42 Bag:"Tiligua Dense Orange F Jar" Sherd:"PSB 114 E/6" 43 Bag:"Probable Aguagua/Tilaga" Sherd:"PSB5C/45" 44 Bag:"Probable Aguagua/Tilaga" Sherd:"PSB BC-12" 45 Bag:"Probable Aguagua/Tilaga" Sherd:"PSB 3C/16" 46 Bag:"Taixiguat" Sherd:"PSB 3C-28" 47 Bag:"Taixiguat" Sherd:"PSB 5F/2" 48 Bag:"Cececapa Incised w/ Red" Sherd:"PSB 5H/42" 49 Sherd:"PC13-U-31-b" 50 Sherd:"PC13-U-31-b" 51 Sherd:"PC13-u-31-b" 52 Sherd:"PC13-U-31-b" 53 Sherd:"PC13-U-31-b" 54 Sherd:"PC13-Q-1-c" 55 Sherd:"PC13-Q-4-b" 56 Sherd:"PC13-Q-4-b" 57 Sherd:"PC13-Q-4-b" 58 Sherd:"PC13-Q-4-b" 59 Sherd:"PC13-J-14-c" 60 Sherd:"PC13-J-14-c" 61 Sherd:"PC13-J-14-c" 62 Sherd:"PC13-J-14-c" 63 Sherd:"PC13-J-14-c" 64 Sherd:"PC13-J-14-c" 65 Sherd:"PC13-J-14-c" 66 Sherd:"PC13-U-31-b" 67 Bag:"PC22-C-3-C" 68 Bag:"PC22-C-3-C" 69 Bag:"PC22-C-3-C" 70 Notes Rim has adomo dimple or knob. Int. parallel diag. resist. Ext. org. slip. Izalco. Ext. labial flange w/ pos. faded resist. Int. grey on org resist. Izalco Orange slip throughout, one resist line on bowl int. Red paint on rim. Bowl base w/ basal support rim. Pos. resist splotch ext. parallel resist int. Probably double slip Bowl w/ faded resist. Red paint ext., rim. Geometic designs. Cream paste. Pre-slip groove on top of out-turned rim. Badly faded org. slip, no resist. Gray-cream color, single slip. Poorly exec geometric resist bowl int/ext. red painted rim Plate w/ flaring walls, basal break. Int. faded org. slip, ext. resist reduced Bowl w/ ext. basal groove. Org. slipped w/ resist crazing purposeful(?) Orange slip int. Poss. Orange paint or thick slip ext. Bowl Orange slip on vessel ext., top, int. of rim. Gray int. tan ext. (due to firing) Creamy gray burnished appearance (like resist lines) org. slip on rim, ext. Direct rim, but flat. Orange slip/paint on rim, vessel ext. Tan/Cream rest Org. slip evident Possible white paint or slip. Diag. light incising ext. Org. slip or light paint on int/ext No signs of resist, but small, eroded. Bolo? Orange slip, paint red paint on int/ext. Squared off rim. No resist. Bolo? Org. slip, traces of paint on int. rim, body. Int. rim groove. Likely Bolo. Orange slip. Poss resist on int/ext. Very faded. Very faint orange orange slip on int/ext. Fine paste, buff/gray. Poss Izalco Int. shows primary cream slip. Ext shows faded parallel lines. Double slip. Ext. may have pattern burninsh for resist decor. Org. slip. Likely bolo. Faded org. slip, otherwise gray. Double rim groove. No resist. Likely bolo. Rim int./body has wide groove. Thikc org. slip, poss. Org. paint. No resist. Faded org. slip, non-linear faded resist possible on ext. Squared off rim. Org. slip int., rim, rim ext. Org./red paint ext post-rim. No resist. Likely bolo. Org. slipped, no resist. Very fine paste buff to cream. Bolo probable. Orange slipped ext. Faded red hematite int., int. rim. Heavy org. slip on support, vessel body. Resist lines on vessel int. Thick org. slip or paint on ext., rim top, rim int. Faded org. slip vessel int. Org. on white slipped. No resist, but parallel incised lines int. rim. Likely bolo Basin or high, straight walled bowl. Org. slip, no resist. Double slip, Bolo. Support w/ vessel body. Org. slipped, no resist. Poss. Bolo. Body sherd, orange slipped, no resist. Resist lines on int./ext. Faded Cream-buff paste. Org. slip throughout, no resist. Poss Izalco. Sample Number Country Site TypeVariety Part Shape VesselForm NeckHt MaxThick MinThick RirnProf 71 Honduras PC-22 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 04 00 1.1 .6 04 72 Honduras PC-22 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 11 00 04 00 .5 .5 00 73 Honduras PC-22 El Cajon Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 .7 .6 00 74 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 99 00 .9 .8 11 75 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 99 00 .8 .5 11 76 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 99 00 1.0 .7 04 77 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 01 00 99 00 .9 .7 11 78 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 99 00 .9 .6 11 79 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 11 00 11 00 .6 .5 00 80 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 99 00 1.1 .6 11 81 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Izaico 01 00 99 00 .7 .4 11 82 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Izaico 01 00 00 00 .8 .4 11 83 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Izaico 01 00 07 00 .7 .4 11 84 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 01 00 04 00 1.1 .8 10 85 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izaico 01 00 99 00 .7 .5 11 86 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izaico 01 00 99 00 .9 .6 11 87 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 11 00 04 00 .6 .4 00 88 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izaico 10 14 99 00 .6 .4 00 89 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 11 00 .7 .6 02 90 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 .8 .3 00 91 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 11 00 99 00 .7 .5 00 92 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Usulutan 11 00 11 00 .6 .4 00 93 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izaico 10 11 04 00 .6 .5 00 94 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 03 00 .8 .7 00 95 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 11 00 .6 .4 02 96 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 10 22 99 00 .6 .5 00 97 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 1.1 .8 00 98 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izaico 10 11 99 00 .6 .5 00 99 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 100 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izaico 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 101 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 .8 .7 00 102 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .8 .6 00 103 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 99 00 .8 .8 02 104 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .5 .5 00 105 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 11 00 99 00 .5 .4 00 Sample Number RimDia Finish Wash/Slip Paint MunsellPri MunsellSec SurfExtl SurfExt2 SurfExtS SurfExtS Surflntl Surflnt2 SurflntS 71 21 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/2 10 33 02 02 07 35 01 72 00 07 01 00 2.5YR 5/8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 73 00 07 01 05 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/4 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 74 19 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/8 00 00 00 00 07 00 01 75 25 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/2 00 00 00 00 07 00 01 76 99 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/8 10YR7/1 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 77 99 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/3 00 00 00 00 07 00 01 78 99 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 79 00 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 80 99 07 01 00 1 0R 5/8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 81 24 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 10YR 8/2 00 00 00 00 07 00 01 82 99 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/4 5YR 7/1 00 00 00 00 07 33 02 83 99 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/2 00 00 00 00 07 00 01 84 32 07 99 00 2.5YR 6/6 5YR 8/4 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 85 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 8/2 00 00 00 00 07 00 01 86 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 7.5YR 6/4 00 00 00 00 07 33 02 87 00 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/8 7.5YR 7/2 10 00 00 00 00 00 00 88 00 07 03 00 2.5 YR 5/8 2.5YR N3/ 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 89 20 07 01 00 5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 90 00 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/8 5YR 3/1 00 00 00 00 00 34 99 91 00 07 01 04 1 0R 5/8 7.5YR 7/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 92 00 07 03 04 1 0R 5/8 SYR 7/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 93 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 SYR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 94 00 07 03 00 10R 5/8 2.5YR 6/8 00 00 00 00 00 33 99 95 22 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 96 00 07 01 00 1 0R 5/6 7.5YR 7/2 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 97 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 2.5YR 6/2 00 00 00 00 00 33 99 98 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 00 00 00 00 00 35 00 99 00 07 03 00 1 0R 4/8 SYR 6/1 00 00 00 00 00 33 02 100 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/3 SYR 6/6 00 33 99 02 00 33 99 101 00 07 03 00 1 0R 5/6 2.5YR 6/6 00 33 99 02 00 33 99 102 00 07 03 00 5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/2 00 33 99 02 00 00 00 103 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 00 33 99 02 00 33 99 104 00 07 03 00 2. SYR 6/8 SYR 6/4 00 35 00 00 00 35 00 105 00 07 01 00 2. SYR 6/8 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 irflnt4 Sample Number Locat Paste MunsellPaste 01 71 09 02 5YR 5/4 00 72 00 03 5YR 6/4 02 73 00 03 7.5YR 8/4 01 74 08 02 5YR 7/3 01 75 00 03 2.5YR N3/ BC 00 76 00 02 7.5YR N3/ BC 01 77 03 02 SYR 5/3 BC 00 78 00 03 5YR 7/2 00 79 00 02 5YR 7/6 00 80 00 03 5YR 6/3 01 81 03 04 10YR8/3 01 82 08 04 7.5YR 7/2 01 83 03 04 7.5YR 8/3 00 84 00 03 SYR 7/6 01 85 03 04 7.5YR 7/2 01 86 03 04 7.5YR 7/2 00 87 07 03 2.5YR 6/6 01 88 08 03 7.5YR 7/3 00 89 00 02 2.5YR N3/ BC 01 90 00 03 2.5YR 6/8 00 91 00 04 7.5YR 8/4 00 92 00 03 5YR 7/6 00 93 00 03 7.5YR 7/2 01 94 08 02 7.5YR 6/4 00 95 00 03 2.5YR 6/6 00 96 00 03 5YR 7/3 01 97 00 03 SYR 8/3 00 98 08 04 5YR 7/3 02 99 00 03 2.5YR 5/6 02 100 09 04 SYR 7/3 02 101 09 03 1 0R 6/8 00 102 00 02 SYR 5/4 02 103 03 03 7.5YR 7/4 00 104 09 04 7.5YR 8/3 00 105 00 03 7.5YR 8/4 CO CD CD CD 01 0) 01 Q} CO CO CQ CO CO = 01 ~U u TJ CD CD CD CO CO CO CO CD CD CD CO g g g Bag/Sh e CO CD CO CO CO 0> 03 03 01 Q) 01 01 ff ff 01 CD CD CO CQ CO co CO CO co CO CO CO a? 01 01 CD 01 01 01 CD Im CO tiI. 6 6 6 01 01 01 CO CO OT ro OT OT OT ro 0) ro ro W OT OT OT OT u CO O 1 T| CO CO 3- 3" CO CO 1 55 OT OT 71 71 OT CO OT 01 01 CD 3" 3" 3T 3" 3" CO CO OT OT OT CQ CO (& CD CD CD CD (D CD CD CD CD CD CD 'z CD O 5f 4> 3" TJ CD CD CD 3" 3" CD CD CD a O a a a a a a CD CO TJ 01 a— a_ a a• a a- a* - — — - «• N3 a a a a a a a a "d s ~ = en •£ OT OT OT 5f «Jk —* 1 a a a o22-C-3- € TJ "D TJ TJ "P TJ -D "0 ~o T3 TJ TJ "0 = = ~n = O c U CD CD CD TJ TJ o g g g g g 6 g g g g g g O g g o o Q g O . i i i i i 2i i _x _X g g

CV-46 - CV-46 - a i i CV-46 - i i a < <. i OT — X a g g i ? i, CO TJ | i eo 1 en CD 1 TJ £ ? 9 9 CO ?

= C30 -"3 CD

OT 0 •a. o o o o o o CO (O CO (O CO CD CD CO CD 00 00 00 00 00 en *» co ro ->. o co oo ->J O) en CO K3 -». O CD 00 -N| en A c 3 cr Notes Faded orange slip. Ext. ridges on body. Top rim groove. Bolo - 2nd slip. Body sherd, basal break portion. Org. slipped, fading to It. org. No resist. Resist int. Red paint ext. Rim has int. groove on out-turned portion. Org. slipped, no resist Org. slipped, faded, reveals white slip. Int. rim groove. No resist, likely bolo Org. slipped. Reveals white slip. No resist, but probably Bolo Chilcal bowl or plate w/ basal break. Double slip. No resist. Int rim groove Bowl or plate. Double slip evident. No resist. Bolo. Orange slipped, no resist. Orange slipped, single slip poss, no resist. Int rim groove. Orange slipped. Possible Izalco, but no resist present. Org. slipped, faded. Pair of incised lines int. rim. Poss Izalco (cream/buff) Bowl w/ outflaring rim. Incised groove rim int. Orange slipped. No resist. Poorly executed bolo. Resist evident. Blocky, wide resist lines faded org. slip, poss. Resist on ext. Rim has int. groove. Likely Izalco Int. rim has incised grooves, resist parallel lines. Rim edge irregular. Izalco. Body w/ dimpled base. Org. slipped, no resist. Support, body. Org. slip ext. Int. parallel wavy resist lines. Tiger (black/org) Orange slipped, no resist. Probably Bolo. Plate w/ dimpled center. Org. slip ext. Int. parallel wavy lines. Likely Bolo Org. slipped w/org-red paint applied in resist style on ext. Int. org slip. Orange slipped w/ orange-red paint on int., ext. Support w/ vessel body. Faded resist int/ext. Izalco likely- single slip. Plate w/ faded resist parallel lines int. Ext thick slip, poss org.-red paint. Orange slipped bowl. Possible 'crazing' resist int. Bolo Ring shaped support w/ body. Orange slipped. Crazed resist. Bolo? Poorly executed resist on plate base interior. Faded splotchy resist on vessel int. Plate of some sort. Izalco likely Faded resist on ext. Orange/gray. Parallel resist lines on int/ext. Izalco. Dark org./lt. org. parallel resist lines int./ext. Faded resist parallel lines on ext. No slip evident on int. Tiger stripe' resist on int. and ext. rim Resist on int. ext. Orange slipped. Possibly a bowl. No resist evident. Poss. Bolo Sample Number Country Site TypeVariety Part Shape Vessel Form NeckHt MaxThick MinThick RimProf 106 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izaico 01 00 99 00 1.1 .6 11 107 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange slipped Chilanga? 01 00 07 00 .8 .6 02 108 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 109 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 99 00 .9 .6 11 110 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange slipped Chilanga? 11 00 99 00 .5 .4 00 111 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 99 00 1.0 .7 11 112 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan tzalco 10 11 03 00 .7 .6 00 113 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 114 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Chilanga 01 00 11 00 1.9 .9 02 115 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Izaico 11 00 99 00 .5 .5 00 116 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Izaico 11 00 99 00 .5 .5 00 117 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 17 05 99 00 1.6 .7 00 118 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Brown or Orange Slipped 01 00 99 00 .9 .7 11 119 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 99 00 .8 .7 11 120 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Izaico 01 00 10 00 .7 .5 11 121 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange/Brown Slipped 01 00 99 00 .9 .7 04 122 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 07 00 .9 .6 04 123 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 07 00 .9 .7 11 124 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped 01 00 99 00 .7 .6 11 125 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 11 00 1.1 .7 11 126 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izaico 11 00 99 00 .5 .5 00 127 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .7 .6 00 128 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Izaico 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 129 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Izaico 01 00 07 00 .9 .6 11 130 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 .8 .7 00 131 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izaico 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 132 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 11 00 99 00 .8 .7 00 133 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Red and Black 11 00 11 00 .6 .5 00 134 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 10 11 99 00 1.1 .0 00 135 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Izaico 01 00 99 00 .7 .6 11 136 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 99 00 .7 .6 11 137 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izaico 01 00 99 00 .5 .4 11 138 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 11 00 99 00 .9 .5 00 139 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Red Rim 01 00 07 00 1.2 .7 11 140 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 11 00 1.0 .8 02 Sample Number RimDia Finish Wash/Slip Paint MunsellPri MunsellSec SurfExtl SurfExt2 SurfExtS SurfExtS Surflntl Surf!nt2 SurflntS 106 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 SYR 7/8 10 00 00 00 00 33 99 107 24 07 01 05 1 0R 5/8 2.5YR 6/8 00 00 00 00 00 00 04 108 00 07 03 00 SYR 6/6 7.5YR 7/2 00 33 99 02 00 26 00 109 28 07 03 00 1 0R 5/8 1 0R 3/1 00 33 99 02 00 33 99 110 00 07 01 05 1 0R 5/6 2.5YR 6/8 00 00 04 02 00 00 00 111 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 7.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 07 00 01 112 00 07 03 00 2. SYR 5/6 7.5YR 7/6 00 00 00 00 00 29 00 113 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 00 33 99 02 00 00 00 114 23 07 03 05 2.5YR 6/8 SYR 6/6 00 35 00 00 00 34 00 115 00 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 116 00 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/8 1 0R 5/8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 117 00 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 118 23 07 01 00 1 0R 5/4 00 00 00 00 07 00 01 119 12 07 01 00 SYR 7/6 07 20 00 02 00 00 00 120 99 07 01 00 SYR 6/6 35 00 00 00 00 00 00 121 99 07 01 00 SYR 6/6 SYR 8/1 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 122 99 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/8 7.5YR 7/4 00 00 00 00 06 33 02 123 99 07 01 00 2.5YR 5/6 SYR 6/2 00 00 00 00 05 33 02 124 99 07 01 06 2.5YR 5/6 7.5YR 7/3 07 00 01 02 07 00 01 125 18 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 2.5YR 6/8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 126 00 07 03 00 2. SYR 6/6 SYR 7/8 10 33 02 01 00 00 00 127 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 2.5YR 6/4 10 33 99 02 00 00 00 128 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 129 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 7.5YR 8/2 00 00 00 00 07 00 02 130 00 07 03 00 SYR 6/2 2.5YR 5/6 00 00 00 00 10 99 99 131 00 07 03 00 SYR 5/1 2.5YR 6/6 06 00 01 01 11 33 99 132 00 07 03 00 1 0R 5/6 7.5YR 7/4 00 00 00 00 10 29 00 133 00 07 01 99 2.5YR N4/ 1 0R 5/8 10 35 99 99 00 00 00 134 00 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 135 19 07 01 00 SYR 6/6 00 00 00 00 07 33 02 136 99 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/8 00 00 00 00 07 00 01 137 99 07 03 00 1 0R 5/6 SYR 6/6 05 00 01 01 00 29 00 138 00 07 01 00 10R 5/8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 139 99 07 01 05 2.5YR 5/6 SYR 7/4 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 140 26 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 irflnt4 Sample Number Locat Paste MunsellPaste 02 106 08 04 7.5YR 8/2 00 107 08 03 5YR 6/6 01 108 00 03 5YR 7/2 02 109 00 03 5YR 7/2 00 110 00 03 5YR 7/8 01 111 03 03 10YR8/1 01 112 08 04 7.5YR 8/2 00 113 00 03 5YR 6/4 01 114 09 03 7.5YR 7/4 00 115 00 04 7.5YR 8/2 00 116 00 04 7.5YR 8/2 00 117 00 03 7.5YR 7/6 01 118 03 04 7.5YR 8/3 00 119 00 03 7.5YR 7/3 00 120 00 04 7.5YR 8/2 BC 00 121 99 04 7.5YR 8/2 01 122 03 03 5YR 6/4 01 123 03 03 7.5YR 7/2 02 124 09 02 7.5YR 7/3 BC 00 125 00 03 5YR 6/1 BC 00 126 00 04 7.5YR 8/3 00 127 00 03 7.5YR 7/4 00 128 00 03 7.5YR 8/3 02 129 08 03 10YR8/2 99 130 08 03 7.5YR 8/3 02 131 08 04 7.5YR 8/3 BC 00 132 08 03 7. SYR 8/2 00 133 00 03 5YR 7/8 00 134 00 02 1 0R 5/8 01 135 03 04 7.5YR 8/2 01 136 08 04 7.5YR 8/2 00 137 03 04 7.5YR 8/3 00 138 00 03 SYR 7/4 00 139 03 02 5YR 7/6 00 140 00 03 SYR 7/4 Cataloglnfo Sample Number Bag/Sherd:"PC1-CX-40-c" 106 Bag/Sherd:"PC1-CX-40-c" 107 Bag/Sherd:"PC1-CX-40-c" 108 Bag/Sherd:"PC1-CX-40-c" 109 Bag/Sherd:"PC1 -CX-40-c" 110 Bag/Sherd:"PC1 -CX-40-C" 111 Bag/Sherd:"PC1 -CX-40-c" 112 Bag/Sherd:"PC1 -CX-40-c" 113 Bag/Sherd:"PC1 -CX-40-c" 114 Bag/Sherd :"PC1-CX-40-c" 115 Bag/Sherd:"PC1-CX-40-c" 116 Bag/Sherd: "PC1 -CX-40-c" 117 Bag/Sherd:"PC1-CX-40-c" 118 Bag: "PC1-G-9-b" 119 Bag: "PC1-G-9-b" 120 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-9-b" 121 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-9-b" 122 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-9-b" 123 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-9-b" 124 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-9-b" 125 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-9-h" 126 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-9-h" 127 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-9-h" 128 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-9-h" 129 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-9-h" 130 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-9-h" 131 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-9-h" 132 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-9-h" 133 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-9-h" 134 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-85-k" 135 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-85-k" 136 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-85-k" 137 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-85-k" 138 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-85-k" 139 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-85-k" 140 Notes Izalco. Splotchy resist ext. Parallel resist int (tiger- firing?). Probably plate. Red paint on int., rim int. in a pseudo-resist decoration style Some form of plate. Crazed resist on int. Faded parallel lines on ext. Gray resist lines on orange slip. Parallel lines on int/ext. Exterior has red paint/resist-like zoned decoration. Int top rim has groove. Org. slipped, crazed resist ext. Lighter slip interior. Crazed resist vessel int. Orange slipped to red slipped int/ext. Plate? Dark orange/It, orange resist. Parallel lines. Dark orange slipped otherwise Knob adorno bowl ext. Dk. Org./Lt. red slip on ext., rim int. Org slip resist int. Poss. Faded resist on int., org. slipped otherwise. Likely Izalco. Similar to 115 - may be same vessel. Looks like ext. support broke off. Org. slipped body w/ strap handle frag. Very likely bolo - good candidate local. Incised rim groove, rim int. Slip is org/brown (firing?) Crazed resist. Looks Izalco Org. slipped ext. crosshtaching post rim. No resist, but poss. Bolo Ext. ridge post rim. Org. slipped, no resist. Izalco poss. Poss. Bowl or basin. Org/Brn heavy slip/paint on ext., rim. White int. Ashy gray/cream paste. Import? Org. slipped, no resist. Two incised grooves on int. Likely Bolo. Bowl w/ outflaring rim. Org. slipped, faded. Twin incised lines rim int. No resist. Org. slipped, no resist. Ext body groove, one int rim groove. Possible bolo. Org. slipped, no resist. Bowl w/ outturned squared off rim. Likely Bolo. Lt. org slip/wash int. Ext parallel resist lines org/dusky red. Cream paste. Izalco. Org/red slip int./ext. Lighter red/org. parallel resist lines on ext. Poss. Bolo. Ext. org. slipped. Int. org/red. No resist. Fine buff paste, poss. Izalco. Org. slipped int/ext. No resist. Parallel incised lines int. rim. Poss. Bolo. Thick org. slip inl/ext. poss paint on ext. Parallel resist lines int. org. on gray. Bolo. Ext. org. slipped w/ incised line. Int. org on gray 'tiger stripe1 resist lines. Izalco. Org/red slipped ext. Int. random resist application, shows cream base. Poss Bolo. Bowl, int. org. slip/paint. Ext resist appearance, black/dk. Org. Usulutan variant? Support, nubbin. Org. slipped, poss. Bolo. Med. org. paste. Bowl, chilcal or plate w/ outfl. rim. Dbl. incised grooves rim ext. No resist. Izalco? Probable bowl w/ outturned rim. Single groove int. Org. slipped, no resist. Fine. Int. dark org./red on org. resist(random) w/ incised rim groove. Ext random resist. Red/org. slip int. ext. no resist. Cream to org. slip. Red paint top, int. of rim. No true resist, attempt? Med paste. Org. slipped, no resist. Bowl. Poss red paint or thick slip on rim ext Sample Number Country Site TypeVariety Part Shape VesselForm NeckHt MaxThick MinThick RimProf 141 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped 10 11 99 00 2.0 .0 00 142 Honduras PC-1 Et Cajon Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 .5 .5 00 143 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 01 00 11 00 .7 .6 02 144 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped 01 00 99 00 .7 .5 11 145 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Izalco 01 00 99 00 .7 .5 11 146 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped 11 00 99 00 .7 .5 00 147 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 148 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .8 .7 00 149 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped 10 12 99 00 1.4 .0 00 150 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Izalco 01 00 99 00 .7 .5 14 151 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped 14 00 04 00 .9 .6 11 152 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 11 00 04 00 .9 .5 00 153 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped 01 00 06 00 1.4 .7 04 154 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped 11 00 99 00 .8 .5 00 155 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 99 00 .7 .5 11 156 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 11 00 99 00 .5 .3 00 157 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 11 00 .9 .6 02 158 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 07 00 .9 .8 11 159 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 01 00 99 00 .6 .5 11 160 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 01 00 04 00 1.1 .8 04 161 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 01 00 99 00 .9 .6 02 162 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 14 00 04 00 .8 .4 11 163 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 11 00 99 00 .6 .4 00 164 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 99 00 .8 .4 04 165 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 11 00 99 00 .7 .5 00 166 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 01 00 04 00 .8 .6 11 167 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Poss. Izalco 06 06 04 00 .6 .4 00 168 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Poss. Bolo 01 00 99 00 1.1 .8 11 169 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 11 00 .6 .5 00 170 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 01 00 03 00 .8 .4 09 171 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 01 00 99 00 .7 .4 11 172 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 01 00 99 00 1.2 .6 04 173 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 11 00 99 00 ,6 .4 00 174 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 06 08 04 00 .5 .4 00 175 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 17 11 03 00 .6 .4 00 Sample Number RimDia Finish Wash/Slip Paint MunsellPri MunsellSec SurfExtl SurfExt2 SurfExtS SurfExtS Surflntl Surflnt2 SurflntS 141 00 07 03 00 SYR 8/4 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 142 00 07 03 00 1 0R 4/1 2.5YR 5/6 00 33 99 02 00 00 00 143 99 07 03 00 10R 5/3 10R 5/6 00 33 99 02 00 00 00 144 28 07 01 00 2.5YR 5/6 00 00 00 00 07 00 01 145 99 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/4 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 146 00 08 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 10 33 99 01 00 00 00 147 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/4 00 33 99 02 00 00 00 148 00 07 03 00 1 0R 4/3 2.5YR 6/4 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 149 00 07 01 00 1 0R 6/8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 150 26 07 01 00 2.5YR 5/6 00 00 00 00 07 35 01 151 99 07 01 00 5YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/2 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 152 00 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/4 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 153 29 07 01 00 5YR 6/6 07 33 02 02 07 35 01 154 00 08 01 00 1 0R 5/6 00 20 04 02 00 00 00 155 99 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 05 33 02 156 00 07 03 00 2.5YR N4/ SYR 6/6 10 33 99 01 10 33 99 157 99 07 01 00 1 0R 5/8 7.5YR 7/6 10 00 00 00 10 00 00 158 99 07 01 00 SYR 7/6 00 00 00 00 06 27 01 159 24 07 01 00 1 0R 5/8 00 00 00 00 06 27 01 160 22 07 03 00 10R 5/6 2.5YR 6/8 11 33 04 01 07 33 04 161 23 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 5YR 7/8 10 33 99 02 07 00 01 162 34 07 03 00 10R 5/8 5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 10 33 04 163 00 07 03 00 2.5YR N3/ 10R 5/8 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 164 99 07 03 00 SYR 6/6 7.5YR 7/3 10 00 00 00 10 33 99 165 00 07 03 00 SYR 4/3 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 20 00 166 99 07 03 00 SYR 5/1 2. SYR 6/8 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 167 00 07 03 00 1 0R 5/8 SYR 6/6 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 168 00 07 03 00 2.5YR N4/ 2.5YR 5/6 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 169 00 07 03 00 7.5YR N4/ 2.5YR 6/6 10 29 00 00 00 00 00 170 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/2 2.5YR 6/8 10 29 00 00 10 29 00 171 99 07 03 00 SYR 6/6 2.5YR N4/ 10 29 00 00 05 00 01 172 99 07 03 00 1 0R 5/8 2.5YR 6/8 10 33 99 02 10 29 00 173 00 07 03 00 1 0R 4/8 1 0R 5/8 10 27 99 01 00 00 00 174 00 07 03 00 SYR 5/3 SYR 3/1 10 33 99 01 00 00 00 175 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 2.5YR N4/ 00 00 00 00 10 29 00 irflnt4 Sample Number Local Paste MunsellPaste 00 141 00 02 5YR 6/4 00 142 00 02 SYR 5/6 00 143 00 04 7.5YR 8/2 01 144 03 03 2.5YR 6/6 00 145 00 04 7.5YR 8/3 00 146 00 04 7.5YR 8/4 00 147 00 03 7.5YR 8/3 BC 02 148 09 02 2.5YR 6/8 00 149 00 04 5YR 8/2 01 150 08 04 10YR8/3 00 151 00 04 7.5YR 7/2 BC 01 152 08 02 7.5YR 7/6 01 153 09 02 SYR 5/2 00 154 00 04 7.5YR 8/2 01 155 03 04 7.5YR 8/2 01 156 09 04 7.5YR 8/4 00 157 00 04 10YR8/2 01 158 03 03 5YR 8/2 01 159 03 02 7.5YR 7/2 02 160 09 04 10YR8/3 02 161 09 04 10R8/2BC 02 162 07 04 SYR 5/1 02 163 07 04 7.5YR 8/2 01 164 08 03 2.5YR 5/6 01 165 07 04 10YR8/2 02 166 07 04 7.5YR 8/3 01 167 08 04 7.5YR 8/2 02 168 09 02 5YR 7/2 00 169 07 03 7.5YR 8/3 00 170 07 02 SYR 7/6 01 171 04 02 2.5YR 7/3 00 172 07 04 SYR 7/6 00 173 07 04 7.5YR 7/2 00 174 07 02 SYR 7/2 00 175 08 02 SYR 7/6 Catalog! nfo Sample Number Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-85-k" 141 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-85-q" 142 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-85-q" 143 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-85-q" 144 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-85-q" 145 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-115-h" 146 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-115-h" 147 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-115-h" 148 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-115-h" 149 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-196-F" 150 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-196-F" 151 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-196-F" 152 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-196-F" 153 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-200-b" 154 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-200-b" 155 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-200-b" 156 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-200-b" 157 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-200-b" 158 Bag/Sherd: "PC1 -G-200-b" 159 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 160 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 161 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 162 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 163 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 164 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 165 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 166 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 167 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 168 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 169 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 170 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 171 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 172 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 173 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 174 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 175 Notes Support. Org. slip on vessel int faded. Support ext. faded org. slip fade to cream. Org./dr. gray resist appearance on ext. Poss resist on int, Bolo Bowl w/ dk. Org./red slip. Resist lines on ext. are It.red. Poss Izalco. Orange slipped, no resist. Interior rim groove. Org. slipped, no resist. Likely shallow plate. Very Izalco looking. Org. slipped, ext. has pattern burnishing for faux resist appearance. Org. slip int. Ext org. slip w/ It. org. resist lines. Well executed. Int., ext. straightresist lines, parallel. Ext color hematite red vs org/red. Int lighter. Orange slip faded to pink/org. on mammiform support. Fine paste. Poss Izalco. Plate or bowl w/ outflaring rim. Single int. rim groove. Org slip faded, no resist. Shallow plate w/ outflaring rim. Org. slip, no resist. Poss. Izalco Orange slipped int/ext. Poorly executed resist lines on int. Likely Bolo. Large bowl or basin. Int. rim groove. Double ext. body groove. Org slip, no resist. Int. is white/cream (same as paste). Ext. red/org. slip w/ pattern burnish. Org. slipped, no resist. Pair of rim grooves on int. Outflaring rim on bowl/plate. Tiger stripe resist on int/ext. (parallel lines org. set vs. black/gray) Izalco, import. Rim w/ ext knob adorno. Int poorly exec, resist, lacking red-org slip, reveals org. Eroded rim/body sherd. Single int. incised rim groove. Faded org. slip. No resist. Faded rim sherd w/ int. rim groove. Org. slipped, no resist. Ext. has body ridges, int/ext has sets of parallel resist lines. Top rim groove. Izalco. Plate w/ basal break or bowl. Int,ext. parallel lines. Int has post rim body groove. Plate w/ basal break or shallow basin. Ext. org. slip. Int rim groove, resist lines. Ext. orange slip. Int. 'tiger stripe' resist (org/black-gray). Ext org. slip w. ridges. Squareed off rim. Int. parralel resist lines w/ It. slip. Ext. org. slip. Int. cross hatch resist org. lines vs. red/brown Int. double rim groove. Tiger stripe resist. Org parallel lines, black/gray. Ext black. Base of plate, w/ missing support. Ext org slipped no resist. Int parallel resist lines. Irregular rim profile. Ext resist lines vessel body. Int resist lines, but diff. coloration. Bowl body. Int not burnished. Ext burnished, slipped w/resist (dk. gray/org) Plate or shallow boel. Ext. groove post-rim. Int/ext poorly done resist. Similar to 169 Int/ext random splotchy resist. Rim int has light incised groove. Paste Bolo-like. Ext. parallel resist lines. Int. rendom resist. Likely Izalco. Probably plate w/ basal break. Ext. resist red/org. Int black/gray, no resist, Izalco likely. Plate of some sort. Parallel curved resist lines. Dk. Gray on gray/black. Dimpled Base. Base, body w/ support. Shallow bowl or plate. Ext black/gray, int rand. Resist (169,170) Sample Number Country Site TypeVariety Part Shape VesselForm NeckHt MaxThick MinThick Rim Prof 176 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .5 ,4 00 177 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped 14 00 07 00 .8 .5 11 178 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 11 00 99 00 .7 .6 00 179 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 11 00 99 00 .5 .4 00 180 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Izalco 10 11 99 00 1.4 .5 00 181 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 01 00 11 00 .9 .7 02 182 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Brown Variety 11 00 04 00 .8 .5 00 183 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Brown Variety 14 00 07 00 .6 .4 11 184 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 11 00 99 00 1.2 .7 00 185 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 01 00 99 00 .7 .5 11 186 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Poss. Izalco 11 00 99 00 .8 .7 00 187 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Poss. Izalco 01 00 99 00 .9 .7 11 188 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .8 .5 00 189 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 11 00 .5 .5 11 190 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .8 .6 00 191 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 01 00 11 00 .8 .6 02 192 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 11 00 .6 .5 00 193 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 10 11 99 00 1.9 .4 00 194 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Izalco 10 11 99 00 1.7 .6 00 195 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 11 00 99 00 .7 .5 00 196 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 .7 .6 00 197 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 11 00 04 00 .7 .5 00 198 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 04 00 .7 .6 00 199 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 99 00 .9 .6 04 200 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .7 .3 00 201 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Poss. Bolo 11 00 99 00 .9 .8 00 202 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 11 00 .8 .5 04 203 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 11 00 .8 .6 02 204 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .9 .8 00 205 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 04 00 .6 .4 00 206 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 01 00 07 00 .8 .5 11 207 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 11 00 04 00 .9 .5 00 208 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 01 00 99 00 1.1 .6 04 209 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 01 00 99 00 1.1 .6 04 210 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 01 00 07 00 .7 .3 11 Sample Number RimDia Finish Wash/Slip Paint MunsellPri MunsellSec SurfExtl SurfExt2 SurfExtS SurfExtS Surflntl Surflnt2 SurflntS 176 00 07 03 00 5YR 6/8 10YR 7/4 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 177 99 07 01 00 2.5YR 5/6 05 00 01 02 07 33 02 178 00 07 03 00 1 0R 5/8 SYR 7/4 10 20 04 00 10 20 04 179 00 07 03 00 SYR 6/6 SYR 4/1 10 20 00 00 10 33 99 180 00 07 01 00 10R 5/8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 181 22 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 2.5YR 6/8 10 33 99 01 10 33 99 182 00 07 03 00 SYR 5/3 SYR 6/3 00 00 00 00 10 20 04 183 99 07 03 00 2.5YR N4/ 7.5YR 6/3 10 20 04 02 08 33 02 184 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 7.5YR 7/3 10 20 04 01 10 20 04 185 26 07 03 00 1 0R 5/8 2.5YR 6/8 00 00 00 00 10 29 00 186 00 07 03 00 1 0R 4/8 10R 5/8 10 29 00 02 10 29 00 187 99 07 03 00 1 0R 5/6 SYR 6/6 10 29 00 00 10 29 04 188 00 07 03 00 1 0R 5/6 10R 5/8 07 00 01 02 10 29 04 189 99 07 03 00 1 0R 5/8 SYR 6/6 00 00 00 00 10 35 00 190 00 07 03 00 1 0R 4/2 7.5YR 7/6 10 33 04 02 00 00 00 191 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 SYR 6/6 10 29 00 00 10 35 00 192 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 SYR 7/8 10 33 99 02 00 00 00 193 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 10 34 99 194 00 07 01 00 SYR 6/4 SYR 7/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 195 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 SYR 7/8 10 35 00 02 00 00 00 196 00 07 03 00 5YR 6/4 7.5YR 7/6 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 197 00 07 03 00 SYR 6/4 SYR 6/6 10 33 99 02 00 00 00 198 00 07 03 00 SYR 5/4 7.5YR 6/6 10 33 99 02 10 29 00 199 21 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 5YR 6/4 10 33 99 02 00 00 00 200 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/2 10 33 99 02 00 00 00 201 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/4 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 202 99 07 03 00 1 0R 5/6 SYR 6/8 10 35 00 00 10 33 99 203 99 07 03 00 1 0R 5/8 7.5YR 6/6 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 204 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/4 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 205 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/4 SYR 6/6 10 33 99 01 00 00 00 206 22 07 03 00 2.5YR6/6 7.5YR 6/6 10 29 00 00 10 33 99 207 00 07 04 00 2.5YR6/6 SYR 7/6 10 20 00 01 10 33 99 208 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 SYR 7/6 10 20 99 01 10 33 99 209 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 SYR 7/6 10 20 99 01 10 33 99 210 22 07 03 00 10R 5/8 2.5YR 6/8 10 29 00 00 10 34 99 irflnt4 Sample Number Local Paste MunsellPaste 02 176 07 03 10YR 8/2 BC 01 177 09 03 7.5YR 8/2 00 178 07 04 7.5YR 8/3 01 179 07 03 10YR7/3 00 180 00 04 7.5YR 8/2 02 181 09 02 7.5YR 8/4 02 182 07 04 7.5YR 8/2 02 183 09 03 7.5YR 7/2 01 184 09 04 10YR8/2 00 185 09 04 7.5YR 8/2 02 186 09 04 7.5YR 8/3 00 187 09 04 7.5YR 8/3 00 188 07 04 7.5YR 8/4 00 189 08 04 7.5YR 8/3 00 190 07 04 10YR8/3 00 191 09 04 7.5YR 8/2 00 192 00 04 7.5YR 8/2 01 193 08 02 5YR 7/6 00 194 00 04 7.5YR 8/3 BC 00 195 00 04 10YR8/1 BC 02 196 08 02 5YR 6/6 00 197 07 02 2.5YR 6/8 00 198 09 02 SYR 6/6 00 199 09 03 SYR 4/6 00 200 00 02 2.5YR 6/6 02 201 00 02 7.5YR 6/4 02 202 09 02 7.5YR 7/4 02 203 09 02 2.5YR 6/6 BC 02 204 09 02 7.5YR 6/4 00 205 00 03 7. SYR 7/3 BC 01 206 09 04 10YR8/1 99 207 09 04 7.5YR 8/2 02 208 09 04 7.5YR 8/3 02 209 09 04 7.5YR 8/3 01 210 09 04 7.5YR 8/3 Catalog Info Sample Number Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 176 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-b" 177 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-J" 178 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-J" 179 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-J" 180 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-J" 181 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-J" 182 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-J" 183 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-j" 184 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-J" 185 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-J" 186 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-J" 187 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-J" 188 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-J" 189 Bag/Sherd: "PC1 -G-206-j" 190 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-J" 191 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-j" 192 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-j" 193 Bag/Sherd: "PC1 -G-206-j" 194 Bag/Sherd: "PC1 -G-206-j" 195 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-W" 196 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-W" 197 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-W" 198 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206 W" 199 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-W" 200 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-X" 201 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-X" 202 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-X" 203 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-X" 204 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-211-a" 205 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-211-a" 206 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-211-a" 207 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-211-a" 208 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-211-a" 209 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-211-a" 210 Notes Ext. resist parallel lines org./lt org.-cream. Int faint lines dk. Org./lt.org. Shallow dish/bowl w/ outflaring rim. Ext, int have incised grooves, org slip, no resist. Cross hatched resist (dk. Org./lt org.)on ext, int. Likely plate w/ basal break. Izalco. Prob. Plate. Int. resist org/gray parallel lines. Ext. cross hatch resist org/gray. Dark org. slip int/ext. on support w/ body. No resist. Bowl w/ parallel resist lines on int/ext. Poorly executed, probably Bolo. Plate w/ basal break. Brown slipped w/ resist dk brn/lt brn cross hatch. Izalco-like paste. Chilcal bowl or plate w/ basal break, outflaring rim. Ext cross hatch. Int rim grooves. Large bowl or plate w/ basal break. Int/ext. has Crosshatch resist. Org./org.-cream. Bowl w/ outflaring wall or plate. Incised in.t rim groove. Int random resist, ext org. slip. Body sherd w/ random resist lines on int/ext. Red/dr. org. versus org. scheme. Bowl or plate w/ outflaring rim. Int/ext. has org vs. It. org. resist. Looks random/zoned. Similar to 187. Prob. bowl. Ext groove, int wide resist stripe. Brown/org. vs org. Int has rim groove (incised). Lines, randomshapes in resist int. Ext same resist, color. Similar to 188. Int. black (slip/firing?) Ext. lines ot create resist zone. Bowl. Crazed resist ext. Int. has lines, circles of resist. Org/lt. org. color Bowl. Ext has faint parallel resist lines (dk. Org/lt. Org.) Int. orange slip. Nubbin support. Org. slip ext. Vessel int. has gray/ org.-tan resist motif. Support. Org. slip, no resist. Ext a dull gray color. Likely Usulutan, poss. Izalco Orange slip int/ext. Ext has resist dots in a line. Likely plate w/ basal break Brown/org. exterior. Int. brown-org w/ org. resist lines. Bolo. Plate w/ basal break or basin. Brn/org. slip int. Ext brown/org vs org resist parallel lines. Similar to 197. Ext. brn/org slip w/ org/cream resist lines. Int same color lines splotches. Bowl. Ext. thickened rim, ext. body ridge Ext org slip w/ It. resist lines (cream) lnt.org. slip Org. slip int. Ext org slip w/ parallel resist lines. Exterior has basal groove. Org. slip ext. Org slip w/ cream resist lines int. Likely Bolo. Bowl w/ ext. ridge post-rim. Int has resist lines org slip vs. It org lines. Bowl rim (irregular). Int/ext resist parallel lines org. vs It. org. Body sherd w/ int/ext resist lines Org/pink vs. cream/org. color Black versus orange "tiger stripe" resist (parallel lines) Bowl w/ outfl rim or sm plate w/ basal brk. Dk org/lt org resist splotch ext, line ext. Wall, base of plate. Org/lt,org resist on int/ext. Parallel lines int. Cross hatch ext. Izalco. Bowl w/ outfl. Wall or plate w. basal. Dbl incised rim groove. Ext cross hatch, int lines. Single int. rim groove. Int. Crosshatch resist, ext. splotches. Dk org vs. It org color. Splotches resist exterior. Wavy line resist int. Dk. Org vs. org. color. Sample Number Country Site TypeVariety Part Shape Vessel Form NeckHt MaxThick MinThick RimProf 211 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .7 .6 00 212 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .7 .6 00 213 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 06 06 04 00 .7 .5 00 214 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 99 00 .8 .5 11 215 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 04 00 .6 .4 00 216 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 10 11 99 00 1.2 .4 00 217 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Izalco 10 11 99 00 1.7 .4 00 218 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 11 00 .7 .4 02 219 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 220 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 06 06 03 00 .9 .6 00 221 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Poss. Bolo 11 00 99 00 .7 .5 00 222 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 99 00 .7 .7 02 223 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Izalco 10 11 99 00 1.6 .4 00 224 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 10 11 99 00 1.6 .6 00 225 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 01 00 11 00 1.0 .6 02 226 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 99 00 1.4 .6 04 227 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 1.0 .9 00 228 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 07 00 1.0 .6 11 229 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .7 .5 00 230 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 10 11 99 00 1.6 .4 00 231 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 01 00 99 00 .9 .7 04 232 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 06 06 04 00 .5 .4 00 233 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Brown Resist (Usulutan?) 01 00 07 00 .8 .7 11 234 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 99 00 .9 .7 02 235 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 99 00 1.0 .6 11 236 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izalco 01 00 99 00 1.0 .5 04 237 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 01 00 99 00 .8 .5 02 238 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 10 11 04 00 1.5 .4 00 239 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Poss. Bolo 01 00 99 00 1.3 .6 04 240 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Poss. Izalco 11 00 04 00 .9 .5 00 241 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 1.0 .4 00 242 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 243 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Poss. Izalco 01 00 07 00 .9 .5 11 244 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .8 .7 00 245 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Izalco 01 00 11 00 .8 .6 03 Sample Number RimDia Finish Wash/Slip Paint MunsellPri MunsellSec SurfExtl SurfExt2 SurfExtS SurfExtS Surflntl Surflnt2 SurflntS 211 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 7.5YR 7/6 10 33 00 02 10 33 00 212 00 07 03 00 1 0R 5/6 5YR 6/6 10 29 00 00 00 00 00 213 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/4 10 29 04 00 10 33 99 214 99 07 03 00 1 0R 5/8 SYR 6/6 10 29 00 00 10 20 00 215 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 5YR 6/4 10 33 99 02 10 29 99 216 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/3 10 33 00 02 10 33 00 217 00 .7 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 218 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 10R 5/2 10 33 99 02 10 29 00 219 00 07 03 00 5YR 7/6 1 0R 5/1 10 34 99 01 00 00 00 220 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 SYR 6/2 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 221 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 10R 5/1 10 33 99 01 00 00 00 222 99 07 03 00 5YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/4 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 223 00 07 01 00 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 224 00 .7 .3 00 2.5YR 6/6 SYR 7/6 00 00 00 00 10 33 33 225 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/4 SYR 6/6 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 226 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/3 SYR 7/4 00 00 00 00 10 34 04 227 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 SYR 6/6 00 00 00 00 10 34 99 228 22 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 SYR 7/4 10 33 04 02 10 33 04 229 00 07 03 00 10R 5/8 2.5YR 6/8 10 33 02 02 00 00 00 230 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/4 00 00 00 00 10 35 01 231 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 SYR 6/8 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 232 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/6 10 20 99 01 10 34 99 233 20 07 03 00 7.5YR N3/ 7.5YR 6/4 10 33 99 02 07 35 01 234 99 07 03 00 10R 5/4 SYR 6/6 10 29 04 00 10 29 04 235 99 07 03 00 2. SYR 6/6 SYR 7/2 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 236 99 07 03 00 SYR 6/6 7.5YR 7/4 10 29 00 00 10 33 00 237 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 4/2 7.5YR 7/3 10 33 99 02 00 00 00 238 00 07 03 00 5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/4 10 29 99 02 10 29 99 239 99 07 03 00 1 0R 5/8 7.5YR 7/2 00 00 00 00 10 26 99 240 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/3 00 00 00 00 10 26 00 241 00 07 03 00 10R 6/6 7.5YR 7/2 10 00 00 00 10 33 99 242 00 07 00 04 2.5YR 6/8 7.5YR 7/2 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 243 33 07 03 00 10R 5/8 7.5YR 7/6 10 33 03 02 10 20 00 244 00 07 03 00 10R 5/8 2.5YR 6/8 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 245 24 07 03 00 SYR 6/6 7.5YR 7/3 00 00 00 00 10 26 99 irflnt4 Sample Number Local Paste Munsell Paste 02 211 09 03 5YR 8/1 BC 00 212 00 03 SYR 8/1 BC 01 213 09 03 7.5YR 8/2 02 214 09 04 7.5YR 8/2 00 215 09 04 SYR 8/2 02 216 09 04 10YR8/2 00 217 00 04 7.5YR 8/2 00 218 09 04 7.5YR 8/3 00 219 00 04 7.5YR 8/2 01 220 09 03 SYR 7/6 00 221 00 03 7.5YR 8/3 02 222 08 04 7. SYR 8/2 BC 00 223 00 04 10YR8/2 02 224 08 03 5YR 7/4 02 225 08 03 7.5YR 8/4 01 226 08 04 10YR8/3 01 227 08 04 10YR8/3 02 228 09 03 7.5YR 8/2 00 229 00 03 7.5YR 7/6 02 230 08 02 1 0R 5/6 02 231 09 04 7.5YR 8/3 01 232 09 04 7.5YR 8/2 01 233 09 04 10YR8/2 00 234 09 04 7.5YR 8/2 02 235 09 03 SYR 7/1 02 236 09 03 SYR 7/2 00 237 03 03 7.5YR N3/ 02 238 09 02 SYR 6/6 02 239 08 02 7.5YR 6/4 02 240 08 03 7.5YR 7/3 02 241 09 02 SYR 6/6 00 242 07 02 SYR 5/4 BC 02 243 09 03 SYR 6/4 02 244 09 02 7.5YR 8/4 02 245 09 04 7.5YR 7/3 Cataloglnfo Sample Number Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-211-a" 211 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-211-a" 212 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-211-a" 213 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-211-a" 214 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-211-a" 215 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-211-a" 216 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-211-a" 217 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-M-37-J" 218 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-M-37-J" 219 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-M-37-J" 220 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-M-37-J" 221 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-M-37-J" 222 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-M-37-J" 223 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-M-37-J" 224 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-P-4-C" 225 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-T-1-h" 226 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-T-1-h" 227 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-T-1-h" 228 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-C" 229 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-C" 230 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-C" 231 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-C" 232 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-C" 233 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-C" 234 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-C" 235 Bag/Sherd: "PC1-G-206-C" 236 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 2 of 6" Sherd: "LP1-19-B1" 237 Bag: "LP1-19-B1" Sherd: "LP1-19-B1" 238 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 2 of 6" Sherd: "LP1-19-B1" 239 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 2 of 6" Sherd: "LP1-19-B1" 240 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 3 of 6" Sherd: "LP1-19-B1" 241 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 3 of 6" Sherd: "LP1-19-B1" 242 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 3 of 6" Sherd: "LP1-19-B1" 243 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 3 of 6 Izaico" Sherd: "LP1-19-B1" 244 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 3 of 6 Izaico" Sherd: "LP1-19-B1" 245 Notes Body sherd w/ int/ext parallel resist lines. Org vs. It org color. Dk. Org. slip w/ It org. random resist splotches. Int. org slip, no resist. Base, wall of plate. Parallel curvilinear resist int. Random zoned resist ext. Org/lt. org. Incised rim groove on int. Ext random splotchy resist, int. cross hatch. Dr. org vs org Plate w/ basal break. Ext. parallel lines Br/org vs. It org. Int lines, splotch org vs. lt.org/tan Support for bowl/plate. Ext. parallel line resist dk org/lt org Int parallel lines org/lt org. Orange slipped int/ext. No resist. Cream paste. Bowl w/ random resist lines. Ext parallel resist lines. Dk. Org/gray vs. org. Squared rim. Parallel wavy lines, splotch resist ext. (dk org/gray vs. org) Org slip int. Plate base. Parallel resist lines int. (grey vs org) Ext parallel straight lines grey/org vs org Body sherd w/ wide reist lines on ext. (gray/org.) Orange slip interior. Int. rim groove w/ resist lines. Org. vs. cream/org. Tan slip exterior. Nubbin support. Int/ext org. slip, no resist. Nubbin support, ext. org. slip. Int org slip w/ resist attempt. Poorly done, maybe brushed. Bowl w/ direct, squared rim. Poor resist lines in.t Red brown/org. Dbl rim groove (It. incised), parallel wavy lines post-rim groove. Eroded red/bm vs org. Incised groove on int. (post-rim?), parallel wavy lines int. Ext. orange slip. Bowl w/ outflaring walls. Int, ext. paralel lines org. vs It. org/cream. Rim groove int. Probable bowl. Int. It. org. slip. Ext. dk org. slip/ org. resist lines. Bowl or plate support w/ body. Single resist line int. org. vs. It org./cream. Ext org. slip. Dbl incised rim groove int. Int.ext. parallel line resist. Int dk org vs It org;ext dk org vs org. Plate base, prob. w/basal break Int parallel wavy resist lines org vs It org Ext cross-hatch Bowl rim sherd. Int. rim groove. Bin/gray color. Ext. blk/brn. w/ brown resist lines. Bowl rim w/ int. ext. random resist. Int org vs black/gray. Ext. red/org vs tan/org. Int rim groove, resist lines org vs It. org/cream. Ext brown slip, no resist. Int rim groove. Int parallel resist lines org. vs. It. org/cream. Ext random resist org./lt org Bowl or plate w/ outturned rim. Int. tan, ext. black-org. w/tan resist lines. Reduced? Base w/ nubbin support. Int/ext random resist lines org/lt org. Poorly applied, Bolo. Probably a bowl. Org. slipped int/ext. w/ cream int. lines. Wall w/ plate base, shows basal break. Ext. org. slipped Int org. slip w/ cream resist lines Plate w/ basal break or bowl. Ext. org. slipped w/ 2 base ridges. Int org slip w/ resist lines Body sherd. White slip w/ org. slip or paint. Ext org. faded to white. Int org/white bolo. Chilcal bowl w/ top rim groove, ext. basal ridge. Org slip w/ It org resist. Lines, Crosshatch Dark org. slip int/ext. w/ It. org resist lines. Single slipped bowl. Org. slipped ext. faded w/ minimal org. left. Int. rand lined resist Izalco Sample Number Country Site TypeVariety Part Shape VesselForm NeckHt MaxThick MinThick RimProf 246 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 1.0 .9 00 247 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 01 00 04 00 1.0 .7 11 248 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Poss. Bolo 01 00 04 00 1.3 .7 04 249 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Poss. Bolo 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 250 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .8 .5 00 251 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 01 00 11 00 1.2 .8 11 252 Honduras Yarumela Usufutan 11 00 04 00 .6 .5 00 253 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Poss. Bolo 11 00 99 00 .5 .5 00 254 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 255 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 01 00 07 00 1.1 .6 11 256 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .6 .6 00 257 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 01 00 05 00 .9 .7 11 258 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 1.0 .9 00 259 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .9 .8 00 260 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Poss. Bolo 06 06 04 00 .9 .6 00 261 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 .9 .7 00 262 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 01 00 07 00 .9 .5 11 263 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 06 06 04 00 .8 .5 00 264 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 265 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 266 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 01 00 11 00 .9 .7 04 267 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .7 .6 00 268 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 01 00 99 00 1.1 .6 11 269 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 .5 .5 00 270 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Poss. Izalco 11 00 99 00 .9 .5 00 271 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 01 00 04 00 1.1 .5 11 272 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .9 .7 00 273 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 274 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Poss. Izalco 01 00 99 00 .6 .4 04 275 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 01 00 99 00 1.1 .6 11 276 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 11 00 .6 .5 00 277 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 04 00 .8 .5 00 278 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .7 .5 00 279 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .5 .4 00 280 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 01 00 99 00 1.2 .9 03 Sample Number RimDia Finish Wash/Slip Paint MunsellPri MunsellSec SurfExtl SurfExt2 SurfExtS SurfExtS Surflntl Surflnt2 SurflntS 246 00 07 03 00 1 0R 4/1 SYR 6/6 10 33 99 01 10 33 99 247 99 07 03 00 7.5YR 6/2 2.5YR 6/6 10 33 99 01 10 33 99 248 28 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 10YR8/3 10 29 99 00 10 29 99 249 00 07 03 00 5YR 7/6 10YR 8/3 00 00 00 00 10 33 00 250 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 10YR7/3 00 00 00 00 10 29 00 251 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 SYR 6/6 10 33 99 02 10 26 99 252 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 SYR 7/2 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 253 00 07 03 00 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 8/2 10 33 02 02 10 33 99 254 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 5YR 7/1 00 00 00 00 10 35 04 255 99 07 03 00 10R 5/6 7.5YR 7/4 00 00 00 00 10 29 99 256 00 07 03 00 7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 8/2 10 00 00 00 10 33 99 257 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/2 06 33 04 02 10 33 99 258 00 07 03 00 10R 5/6 7.5YR 7/4 10 29 00 99 10 33 99 259 00 07 03 00 5YR 6/4 5YR 7/6 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 260 00 07 03 00 5YR 5/2 1 0R 5/8 10 33 99 01 10 33 99 261 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/2 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 262 99 07 03 00 SYR 6/4 7.5YR 7/2 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 263 00 07 03 00 SYR 6/6 7.5YR 7/2 10 35 00 00 10 33 99 264 00 .7 .3 00 5YR 5/1 SYR 7/8 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 265 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 10YR8/2 10 33 99 02 00 00 00 266 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 10YR 7/2 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 267 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/2 10 29 00 00 10 29 00 268 99 07 03 00 1 0R 5/6 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 10 33 04 269 00 07 03 00 1 0R 6/4 SYR 6/6 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 270 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 SYR 6/6 10 33 02 02 10 34 99 271 34 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 SYR 6/1 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 272 00 07 03 00 5YR 4/1 5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 10 26 99 273 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 10YR8/2 10 29 99 00 10 26 99 274 99 07 03 00 5YR 7/6 SYR 7/1 10 33 99 02 10 29 00 275 27 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7/5YR 8/2 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 276 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 5YR 7/6 10 29 99 01 10 29 99 277 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 SYR 7/1 10 26 99 02 00 00 00 278 00 07 03 00 SYR 5/6 7.5YR 7/4 10 33 99 02 00 00 00 279 00 .7 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 SYR 6/6 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 280 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 SYR 7/4 00 00 00 00 10 33 02 irflnt4 Sample Number Locat Paste MunsellPaste 02 246 09 03 SYR 7/2 01 247 09 03 10YR8/3 00 248 09 02 SYR 6/6 01 249 08 02 2.5YR 5/6 00 250 08 02 5YR 6/6 02 251 09 03 7.5YR 8/4 01 252 09 02 5YR 6/3 02 253 09 02 5YR 6/4 99 254 00 02 5YR 5/4 01 255 08 03 7.5YR 7/6 02 256 09 03 5YR 6/6 02 257 09 02 5YR 6/4 01 258 09 03 SYR 7/4 BC 02 259 08 03 7.5YR 7/3 01 260 09 03 7YR 8/3 02 261 09 02 2.5YR 5/4 02 262 09 02 7.5YR 6/4 01 263 09 02 10R 5/1 02 264 09 03 5YR 7/4 00 265 10 02 7.5YR 6/4 02 266 09 02 2.5YR 5/6 00 267 09 02 7.5YR 6/3 02 268 00 03 7.5YR 7/6 02 269 09 02 2.5YR 6/8 01 270 09 03 7.5YR 7/6 02 271 09 03 SYR 6/1 02 272 09 03 7.5YR 8/4 02 273 09 03 5YR 6/4 00 274 09 02 SYR 5/4 02 275 09 02 5YR 5/4 01 276 09 03 SYR 7/6 BC 00 277 07 02 SYR 6/4 BC 00 278 09 03 7.5YR 5/3 02 279 08 03 SYR 6/6 02 280 09 02 2.5YR N2.5/ Catalog! nfo Sample Number Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 3 of 6 Orange/Black" 246 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 3 of 6 Orange/Black" Sherd: "LP1-19-B1" 247 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 4 of 6" 248 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 4 of 6" 249 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 4 of 6" 250 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 5 of 6" 251 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 5 of 6" 252 Bag: "LP1 -19-B1 Bag 5 of 6" 253 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 6 of 6" 254 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 7" 255 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 8" 256 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 9" 257 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 9" 258 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 9" Sherd: "LP1-19-B1" 259 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 10" Sherd: "LP1-19-B1" 260 Bag: "LP1-19-B1 Bag 10" Sherd: "LP1-19-B1" 261 Bag: "LP1-19-B2 Bag 1" 262 Bag: "LP1-19-B2 Bag 1" 263 Bag: "LP1-19-B2 Bag 1" 264 Bag: "LP1-19-B2 Bag 1" 265 Bag: "LP1-19-B2 Bag 2" 266 Bag: "LP1-19-B2 Bag 2" 267 Bag: "LP1-19-B2 Bag 2 Izalco" 268 Bag: "LP1-19-B2 Bag 2" 269 Bag: "LP1-19-B2 Bag 3 Izalco" 270 Bag: "LP1-19-B2 Bag 3 Izalco" 271 Bag: "LP1-19-B2 Bag 3 Izalco" 272 Bag: "LP1-19-B2 Bag 4" 273 Bag: "LP1-19-B2 Bag 4 Izalco" 274 Bag: "LP1-21-D2" Sherd: "LP1-21-D2" 275 Bag: "LP1-21-D3" 276 Bag: "LP1-21-D3" Sherd: "LP1-21-D3" 277 Bag: TP1-21-D3" Sherd: "LP1-21-D3" 278 Bag: "LP1-21-D3" Sherd: "LP1-21-D3" 279 Bag: "LP1-21-D3" Sherd: "LP1-21-D3" 280 Notes Body sherd w/ tiger stripe resist. Org/blk-brn. Int. parallel lines, ext. parallel curved lines. Ext. painted ridge. Ext tiger stripe org/blk-brn w/ parallel org. resist. Int faded org/gray lines Top rim groove, ext. body ridge. Org/pink slip int/ext. Faded. Splotchy/random resist decor. Prob. Bowl or plate base. Int. org slip w/ parallel curved cream resist. Ext faded org slip. Bowl or plate w/o basal body frag. Org. slip int/ext. Int random cram resist decoration. Rim w/ wide int. groove. Org slip w/ It. org. resist lines. Likely bolo. Plate assumed w/ basal break. Int org. slip It org/cream resist. Ext org slip, cream resist. External groove. Lt. org./ cream resist on int/ext. Faded. Poss. Bowl frag. Int dk gray, eroded. Ext dk org slip w/ geometric resist wht/lt. gray 2 slips. Dk. Org. slip ext., some crazing. Int. has random resist org vs. cream/lt.org lines Ext wavy ridges, faded org. slip, poss. Faded resist lines. Int. It org w/ cream paral. Resist. Ext crude incised parallel lines post-rim. Int faded resist lines. Dbl slip org./cream. Bolo. Ext org. slip w/ It org-pink random resist (faded). Int dk org w/ It org/tan parallel resist lines Ext org. slipped, no resist. Int. parallel resist lines dk. Org. vs. It. org. Base to plate w/ basal break. Int tiger stripe (aprallel lines). Ext. dk org. vs. It org resist. Int., ext. parallel resist lines. Lt org vs cream. Ext has two body ridges. Bolo. Faded. Int/ext. parallel resist lines on rim, body. Org to It. org vs. It org to cream decoration. Plate w/ basal break Ext. faded, resist visible. Int. concentric resist lines Faded org/cream. Tiger stripe resist int. org vs dk gray/blk, parallel lines. Ext faded, but some resist. Bolo, dbl slip. Ext incised line, resist lines org vs white. Int faded, no resist but same dbl slip Dbl. slipped. Ext has sloppy parallel lines, int. has better executed (both It. org vs white) Bolo, dbl slipped. Int/ext has poorly applied, faded resist decoration. Org. vs. gray/tan. Chilcal bowl or plate w/ outflaring rim. Ext dk org slip Int dk org/red slip w/ org parallel lines Bolo, int. faded resist org/lt. org. Ext. dk org/red vs org/ Ext. parallel resist lines dk org/lt org. Int parallel wavy lines org vs dk org to gray (reduced) Badly faded, but parallel resist lines on int./ ext. org. vs gray. Ext. gray/black, possible resist blackened over. Int. resist lines org vs red/brown. Int/ext. org slip w/ white/gray resist (random resist ext, resist lines int) Poss. Drinking cup or small bowl. Resist int/ext., fading. Ext. ripples on body. Bolo-dbl. slip. Tom rim grooves, ext. groove post-rim. Parallel resist int/ext org/crm/tan Bowl w/ thin walls. Int/ext. random resist, poorly done. Dk org/gray vs. It. org. Plate w/ portion of base w/ basal break. Ext resist lines org vs gray.Int faded, no resist Ext. parallel resist lines dr org vs lt.org. Poss int. resist, but eroded. Looks single slip. Parallel thin resist lines on int. org vs It org to tan. Fine orange colored paste. Parallel resist lines int. org/tan-cream. Ext faded/eroded, no resist. Double slip. Sample Number Country Site TypeVariety Part Shape VesselForm NeckHt MaxThick MinThick Rim Prof 281 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Poss. Bolo 11 00 04 00 .5 .4 00 282 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Poss. Bolo 01 00 99 00 .8 .6 04 283 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 10 11 03 00 1.6 .5 00 284 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 11 00 04 00 .9 .6 00 285 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .5 .4 00 286 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .6 .4 00 287 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 01 00 99 00 1.0 .7 04 288 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 01 00 99 00 1.3 .6 04 289 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 04 00 1.0 .6 00 290 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 06 06 04 00 .5 .5 00 291 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 01 00 99 00 1.2 1.0 04 292 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Poss. Izaico 06 06 04 00 .9 .7 00 293 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 01 00 99 00 1.1 .6 04 294 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .5 .4 00 295 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .9 .6 00 296 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Poss. Izaico 01 00 99 00 .7 .4 11 297 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 01 00 99 00 1.1 .7 11 298 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Izaico 11 00 99 00 .7 .4 00 299 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 06 06 04 00 .6 .5 00 300 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Poss. Izaico 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 301 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 01 00 03 00 .9 .5 11 302 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 01 00 04 00 .9 .5 04 303 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 304 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 06 06 04 00 .6 .5 00 305 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 01 00 07 00 1.3 .8 11 306 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 01 00 99 00 1.1 .5 11 307 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .7 .6 00 308 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 309 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan Izaico 06 06 04 00 .6 .5 00 310 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 01 00 04 00 1.1 .6 04 311 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 01 00 04 00 1.1 .6 04 312 Honduras Yarumela Bolo Orange 11 00 99 00 .6 .6 00 313 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 01 00 99 00 1.1 .6 04 314 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 11 00 .7 .3 00 315 Honduras Yarumela Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .5 .5 00 Sample Number RimDia Finish Wash/Slip Paint MunsellPri MunsellSec SurfExtl SurfExt2 SurfExtS SurfExtS Surflntl Surflnt2 SurflntS 281 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 10YR8/2 10 33 99 01 10 33 99 282 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/3 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 283 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 10YR7/3 10 29 99 01 10 34 00 284 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 10YR8/2 10 33 03 02 10 33 99 285 00 07 03 00 1 0R 5/8 7.5YR 8/2 10 33 99 01 10 33 99 286 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 7.5YR 8/2 10 29 00 00 10 33 99 287 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/2 00 00 00 00 10 33 00 288 23 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 5YR 8/2 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 289 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 10YR8/2 10 33 99 02 00 00 00 290 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 7.5YR 7/4 00 00 00 00 10 35 04 291 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 10YR7/3 00 00 00 00 10 29 99 292 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/6 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 293 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/2 10 29 00 00 10 33 00 294 00 07 03 00 5YR 6/6 5YR 8/1 10 33 00 02 00 00 00 295 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/2 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 296 99 07 03 00 2.5YR N3/ 2.5YR 6/8 10 33 99 02 10 26 99 297 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 7.5YR 6/2 00 00 00 00 10 33 02 298 00 07 03 00 5YR 4/1 2.5YR 6/8 10 26 04 01 10 20 04 299 00 07 03 00 SYR 6/4 SYR 6/6 10 29 99 01 10 29 99 300 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/3 10 29 99 01 10 20 99 301 31 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 SYR 6/6 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 302 31 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 10YR8/1 10 29 00 00 10 29 00 303 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 8/2 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 304 00 07 03 00 10R 5/6 7.5YR 7/3 10 20 99 02 10 33 99 305 38 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 10YR7/3 01 24 99 02 10 20 99 306 99 07 03 00 10R 5/8 7.5YR 7/4 10 29 99 00 10 33 99 307 00 07 03 00 10R 5/6 7.5YR 6/4 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 308 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 10YR7/2 10 29 99 00 10 29 99 309 00 07 03 00 1 0R 5/6 7.5YR 7/4 09 27 9 00 10 35 01 310 27 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 7. SYR 7/2 07 26 04 02 10 29 04 311 29 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 10YR7/2 10 35 00 00 10 33 99 312 00 07 03 00 1 0R 6/6 7.5YR 7/4 10 00 00 00 10 33 99 313 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/6 SYR 6/1 10 29 00 00 10 29 00 314 00 07 03 06 SYR 6/6 SYR 7/1 10 33 04 02 10 29 00 315 00 07 03 00 SYR 6/6 10YR7/3 10 33 99 02 10 33 99 irflnt4 Sample Number Local Paste MunsellPaste 01 281 09 02 7.5YR 6/4 02 282 09 02 2.5YR 5/6 01 283 09 03 7.5YR 6/4 02 284 09 02 5YR 6/4 01 285 09 02 5YR 6/6 BC 01 286 09 02 5YR 5/4 02 287 08 02 2.5YR 5/6 02 288 09 02 SYR 2.5/1 BC 00 289 09 02 SYR 5/3 BC 00 290 08 02 SYR 5/4 02 291 08 02 2.5YR 5/6 02 292 08 03 SYR 6/4 02 293 09 02 SYR 6/6 00 294 09 02 SYR 6/6 BC 02 295 09 02 10R5/6BC 01 296 09 04 7.5YR 8/2 02 297 08 02 1 0R 5/6 02 298 09 04 5YR 8/2 BC 01 299 09 03 7YR 8/2 02 300 09 04 7.5YR 7/3 02 301 09 03 5YR 6/4 00 302 09 03 7.5YR 6/3 BC 01 303 08 02 5YR 6/6 01 304 09 02 SYR 4/3 BC 02 305 09 02 5YR 5/6 02 306 09 02 5YR 6/4 02 307 09 02 SYR 6/6 00 308 09 02 2.5YR 5/4 BC 02 309 09 04 7.5YR 8/3 02 310 09 02 2.5YR 5/6 BC 02 311 09 02 7.5YR 5/3 02 312 09 02 2.5YR 5/6 00 313 09 02 2.5YR 5/4 00 314 09 03 7.5YR 7/4 BC 02 315 09 03 7.5YR 6/4 BC Cataloglnfo Sample Number Bag: "LP1-21-D3" Sherd: "LP1-21-D3" 281 Bag: "LP1-21-D3" Sherd: "LP1-21-D3" 282 Bag: "LP1-21-D3" Sherd: "LP1-21-D3" 283 Bag: "LP1-21-D3" Sherd: "LP1-21-D3" 284 Bag: "LP1-21-D3" Sherd: "LP1-21-D3" 285 Bag: "LP1-21-D3" Sherd: "LP1-21-D3" 286 Bag: "LP1-21-D3" Sherd: "LP1-21-D3" 287 Bag: "LP1-21-D3" Sherd: "LP1-21-D3" 288 Bag: "LP1-21-D3" Sherd: "LP1-21-D3" 289 Bag: "LP1-21-D3" Sherd: "LP1-21-D3" 290 Bag: "LP1-21-D4" 291 Bag: "LP1-21-D4" Sherd: "LP1-21-D4" 292 Bag: "LP1-21-D4" Sherd: "LP1-21-D4" 293 Bag: TP1-21-D4" 294 Bag: "LP1-21-D4" 295 Bag: "LP1-21-D4" 296 Bag: "LP1-21-D4" 297 Bag: "LP1-21-D4" Sherd: "LP1-21-D4" 298 Bag: "LP1-21-D5" Sherd: "LP1-21-D5" 299 Bag: "LP1-21-D5" Sherd: "LP1-21-D5" 300 Bag: "LP1-21-D5" Sherd: "LP1-21-D5" 301 Bag: "LP1-21-D5" Sherd: "LP1-21-D5" 302 Bag: "LP1-21-D5" Sherd: "LP1-21-D5" 303 Bag: "LP1-21-D5" Sherd: "LP1-21-D5" 304 Bag: "LP1-21-D5" Sherd: "LP1-21-D5" 305 Bag: "LP1-21-D5" Sherd: "LP1-21-D5" 306 Bag: "LP1-21-D5" Sherd: "LP1-21-D5" 307 Bag: "LP1-21-D5" Sherd: "LP1-21-D5" 308 Bag: "LP1-21-D5" Sherd: "LP1-21-D5" 309 Bag: "LP1-21-D6" Sherd: TP1-21-D6" 310 Bag: "LP1-21-D6" Sherd: "LP1-21-D6" 311 Bag: "LP1-21-D6" Sherd: "LP1-21-D6" 312 Bag: "LP1-21-D6" Sherd: "LP1-21-D6" 313 Bag: "LP1-21-D7" Sherd: "LP1-21-D7" 314 Bag: "LP1-21-D7" Sherd: "LP1-21-D7" 315 Notes 3 sherds/vessel sent as 1. Poss dbl slip int/single slip ext. Org vs tan ext Org ys cream int. Int. rim groove. Ext body groove post-rim. Int/ext. tan/white resist parallel straight lines. Bolo. Nubbin support w/ body. Int random curvilinear. Ext. similar w/ less resist. Org vs cream/tan Sherd w/ body, base to near rim. Ext body groove. Int/ext parallel resist. Org on cream 2 slip. Ext ridge on body. Int/ext parallel wavy lines. Faded, org on tan Ext ridges for rippled appear. Faded resist org/cream. Int parallel resist lines org vs. cream. Int. groove, incised line on rim. Ext. org. slipped. Int org w/ white resist lines. Ext faded, slipped, no resist. Int top rim groove, int body parallel resist lines org/white. 2 slip. Body, base plate w/ basal. Int faded org slip, no resist. Ext org slip w/ tan-white resist lines. Ext org. slip, Int org. slip w/ tan resist. Geomteric shapes, parallel curvilinear lines. Int top rim groove. Org. slip int/ext. Int. lines, vaguely parallel, but sloppy execution. Base of plate. Ext. org. slipped. Int org. slipped w/ yellow/tan resist line. Parallel, curved. Fine. Top rim groove. Org. slip int/ext. Ext. white/cream random splotchy resist. Int paral. See 291 Bowl, pos. jar. Ext It org. w/ white resist lines, possibly for gadrooning effect. Int poorly slipped Ext org. slip, no resist. Interior org. slip w/ white-It, gray resist lines. Irreg. rim. Dbl. int. grooves post-rim. Ext rippling. Ext org/red slip w/ It org resist Int tiger stripe Ext. org. slip. Int org slip white/It, gray resist lines. Top int. rim groove. Int. ext. tiger stripe resist. Int. cross hatch, ext. lines, splotches. Org vs. dr gray. Poss. Izalco. Rand. Resist lines int/ext. Int org to brown vs. It org. Ext brown/org vs It. org. Int/ext. resist. Ext random, poss. Designs. Int cross hatch. Dk org vs It org to tan. Poss Izalco. Int. rim groove post-slip. Parallel lines int. org. vs. org/brown. Ext tan/red slip. Ext thickened suared off rim. Ext ridge post-rirn. Int/ext random splotchy resist.Org vs wht/gray Ext org/red slip. Int org. slip w/ white resist lines. Dbl. slipped. Base to a plate. Ext dr. org/red slip w/ tan Crosshatch Int. org slip w/ tan parallel lines. Int. rim groove, Crosshatch resist org vs tan. Ext ripple incising post-rim. Org/tan slip, no resist Irreg. rim w. knobs. Int rim incised groove. Ext random resist org vs tan/It org. Int parallel lines. Drk. Org. vs It. org. resist. Parallel lines int., ext. Int ext random resist org. vs. white/tan. Double slip. Dk org./red slip. Sngl. Cream resist line on int. Ext rough excised line. Likely Izalco. Ext dbl groove post-rim to create zones. Int top rim groove. Int. resist zones org vs It org/tan. Ext post-rim groove, body ridge, crazed resist. Dk org. slip. Int top rim groove, lines org vs tan Ext. body groove. Dk org slip. Int parallel resist lines org slip vs tan lines. Bolo. Ext rippling ridges, randon resist org vs It. org. Int similar org vs It org random resist. Bowl poss. Plate w/o basal. Ext parallel lines org vs It gray. Int random resist spit. Red paint. Int/ ext. It. org/tan - It. gray resist decoration. Poorly applied. Sample Number Country Site TypeVariety Part Shape VesselForm NeckHt MaxThick MinThick RimProf 316 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Poss. Izaico 11 00 99 00 .8 .7 00 317 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 99 00 .8 .6 12 318 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Izaico 11 00 03 00 .7 .5 00 319 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 06 06 04 00 .8 .7 00 320 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan 01 00 04 00 .9 .4 11 321 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Bolo Orange 01 00 04 00 1.2 .7 11 322 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Poss. Izaico 01 00 04 00 .9 .7 11 323 Honduras PC-1 El Cajon Usulutan Poss. Izaico 01 00 11 00 .9 .6 12 324 Honduras Copan Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .7 .5 00 325 Honduras Copan Usulutan 11 00 99 00 .6 .5 00 326 Honduras Copan Usulutan Chilanga 10 00 99 00 .7 .5 00 327 Honduras Copan Usulutan Chilanga 01 00 11 00 .7 .5 01 le Number RimDia Finish Wash/Slip Paint MunsellPri MunsellSec SurfExtl SurfExt2 SurfExtS SurfExtS Surflntl Surflnt2 SurflntS 316 00 07 03 00 2. SYR 5/2 2.5YR 5/4 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 317 99 07 03 00 10R 5/8 2.5YR 6/8 10 29 00 00 10 29 00 318 00 07 03 00 1 0R 5/8 SYR 7/8 10 29 00 00 10 33 00 319 00 07 03 00 SYR 5/2 5YR 6/6 10 33 99 02 10 29 00 320 31 07 03 00 1 0R 5/8 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 321 27 07 03 00 5YR 5/1 2.5YR 6/6 00 00 00 00 10 33 00 322 99 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/6 10YR8/3 00 00 00 00 10 33 99 323 19 07 03 00 10R 5/6 SYR 7/8 10 29 00 00 00 00 00 324 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 5/8 2.5YR 6/6 10 33 00 02 00 00 00 325 00 07 03 00 2.5YR 6/8 2.5YR 6/6 10 29 00 00 00 00 00 326 00 07 03 05 7.5YR 6/3 SYR 8/4 10 35 00 00 00 00 00 327 99 07 03 05 2.5YR 6/6 7.5YR 7/2 10 29 00 00 00 00 00 Surflnt4 Sample Number Locat Paste MunsellPaste 02 316 08 04 10YR8/2 00 317 09 03 7.5YR 7/6 BC 01 318 09 03 10YR8/3 00 319 09 04 7.5YR 8/2 01 320 08 03 7.5YR 7/6 02 321 08 02 SYR 6/6 02 322 08 04 7.5YR 8/2 00 323 09 04 7.5YR 8/3 00 324 09 03 7.5YR 7/4 00 325 09 02 7.5YR 7/4 BC 00 326 09 02 SYR 6/4 00 327 09 02 7.5YR 7/3 BC Cataloglnfo Sample Number Bag: "PC1-CX-33-I" Sherd: "PC1-CX-33-I" 316 Bag: "PC1-CX-33-I" Sherd: "PC1-CX-33-I" 317 Sherd: "PC1-A2-2-m" "med. Buff/cream" 318 Sherd: "PCI-AF-(eroded) "N39-41/W117-118" "med. Buff/cream" 319 Bag: "PC Operacion 1" Sherd: "PC1-l-18-g" 320 Bag: "PC Operacion 1" Sherd: "PC1-l-18-g" 321 Bag: "PC Operacion 1" Sherd: "PC1-l-19-f 322 Bag: "PC Operacion 1" Sherd: "PC1 -1-18-a" "6" 323 Bag: "Copan Sherd Sample 45 Specimens" Sherd: "Usulutan 1" "#480" 324 Bag: "Copan Sherd Sample 45 Specimens" Sherd: "Usulutan 2"" 26" 325 Bag: "Copan Sherd Sample 45 Specimens" Sherd: "Chilanga 1" 326 Bag: "Copan Sherd Sample 45 Specimens" Sherd: "Chilanga 2" 327 Notes Ext org. slip. Int tiger stripe resist. Sets of parallel lines org vs dk gray-black. Izalco. From PSU. Dk org to red slip int/ext. Org. resist, random splotches int/ext. Likely bowl. From PSU collect. Dk org slip int/ext. w/ org to It. org resist decor. Int parallel concentric lines Ext. random PSU Ext dk org/brown w/ org. resist parallel lines. Int. faded, but w/ random resist org vs tan/brn PSU Poorly exec. Top rim groove. Ext dk org slip. Int dk org to red slip w/ parallel lines dk org PSU Top rim groove. Ext org slip Int brown gray w/ org resist lines. Bolo. From PSU collection. Ext org. to bm slip. Int brn slip w/ tan parallel resist line Prob. Due to firing. Fine. Poss. Izalco PSU Ext random resist org. vs. It. org. Int. org. slip. Fine [aste, poss. Izalco. From PSU collection. Ext org/lt org resist. Int org., poss, no slip. Tape on sherd. Jar or bowl. PSU, William Sanders Ext It org slip, random wht resist splotches. Int dk org/red slip. Tape on sherd. PSU Sanders Int. org/tan slip w/ crazing resist. Ext similar but w/ red paint on top. Zoned? Plant? PSU Sanders Red paint on int, top, ext rim. Org slip beneath. Ext It org w/ tan-gray rand. Resist. Int no. PSU San.

Appendix C: Usulutan Database from NIST/Smithsonian with Summaries by Type/Variety

Type Los Naranjos SE Meso Aguagua Tilaga or CAL004 4778 XBOLO Bolo Orange Aguagua Tilaga or Bolo 1 Orange Count Los Naranjos SE Meso Aguagua/ Tilaga or CAL005 891 NV2 XBOLO Bolo Orange Aguagua/ Tilaga or Bolo 1 Orange Count Los Naranjos SE Meso Aguagua/ Tilage or CAL006 3101 XBOLO Bolo Orange Aguagua/ Tilage or Bolo 1 Orange Count Los Naranjos SE Meso Bolo Orange CAL007 2579 USUL Los Naranjos SE Meso Bolo Orange CAL008 2577 USUL Naco Valley Bolo Orange CG0001 5826 USUL Naco Valley Bolo Orange CG0002 1221 NV4 USUL Naco Valley Bolo Orange CG0003 841 USUL Naco Valley Bolo Orange CG0004 45 USUL Naco Valley Bolo Orange CG0005 5390 USUL Naco Valley Bolo Orange CG0006 1524 ULUA3 USUL Naco Valley Bolo Orange CG0007 2045 USUL Los Naranjos Bolo Orange CG0008 892 NV2 XBOLO Los Naranjos Bolo Orange CG0009 1344 XBOLO Los Naranjos Bolo Orange CG0010 1204 HON1 XBOLO Los Naranjos Bolo Orange CG0011 1343 XBOLO Los Naranjos Bolo Orange CG0012 5404 HON Bolo Orange CG0019 5894 USUL Santa Bolo Orange CG0020 1212 HON1 USUL Barbara? unknown Bolo Orange CG0021 642 USUL unknown Bolo Orange CG0022 641 USUL Bolo Orange CG0023 2044 USUL unknown Bolo Orange CG0024 5388 USUL Bolo Orange CG0025 5589 USUL unknown Bolo Orange CG0026 547 HON Bolo Orange CG0027 5899 USUL unknown Bolo Orange CG0028 529 USUL Bolo Orange CG0029 528 CHILANGA unknown Bolo Orange CG0030 1323 NV6 USUL Bolo Orange CG0031 1308 HON unknown Bolo Orange CG0032 1307 HON Ste. Barbara Bolo Orange CG0033 5585 XIZALCO Sta. Barbara Bolo Orange CG0034 4987 XIZALCO Sta. Barbara Bolo Orange CG0035 1247 YAR1 XIZALCO Sta. Barbara Bolo Orange CG0036 1334 NV6 XIZALCO Sta. Barbara Bolo Orange CG0037 653 XIZALCO Sta. Barbara Bolo Orange CG0038 1714 SV2 CHILANGA Sta. Barbara Bolo Orange CG0039 1715 SV2 USUL Sta. Barbara Bolo Orange CG0040 508 PC CHILANGA Sta. Barbara Bolo Orange CG0041 532 USUL Sta. Barbara Bolo Orange CG0043 5405 XBOLO Sta. Barbara Bolo Orange CG0044 5387 BOLO Sta. Barbara Bolo Orange CG0045 2188 XBOLO Sta. Barbara Bolo Orange CG0046 530 XBOLO Sta. Barbara Bolo Orange CG0047 848 HON Sta. Barbara Bolo Orange CG0048 533 HON Sta, Barbara Bolo Orange CG0049 525 HON PC-13 El Bolo Orange CG0050 744 PC HON ^ Caion PC-13 El Bolo Orange CG0051 1681 SV2 HON 1 Caion PC-13 El Bolo Orange CG0052 1742 SV2 HON Cajon PC-13 El Bolo Orange HON CG0053 1656 SV1 1 Caion PC-13 El Bolo Orange XBOLO CG0055 757 PC 1 Caion PC-13 El Bolo Orange CG0056 729 PC HON ^ Caion PC-13 El Bolo Orange USUL CG0057 739 PC 1 Caion PC-13 El Bolo Orange CG0058 2582 PC HON 1 Caion PC-13 El Bolo Orange CG0059 1478 PC HON Caion PC-13 El Bolo Orange CG0060 53 PC HON Caion Bolo Orange Count 54

PC-13 El Bolo Orange Tiligua Cajon Dense Orang CG0061 754 PC HON 1 Bolo Orange Tiligua Dense 1 Orang Count PC-13 El Brown Resist CGOOE2 1662 PC HON 1 Cajon (Usulutan?) Brown Resist (Usulutan?) 1 Count PC-13 El Cececapa Incised? CG0063 663 PC XBOLO 1 Cajon Bolo? Cececapa Incised? Bolo? Count PC-13 El Chilanga CG0064 731 PC HON Caion PC-13 El Chilanga HON CG0065 605 PC 1 Caion PC-13 El Chilanga HON CG0066 1923 PC 1 Caion PC-13 El Chilanga HON CG0067 1709 SV2 1 Caion PC-22 El Chilanga HON CG0068 1455 PC 1 Caion PC-22 El Chilanga CG0070 PC HON 635 1 Caion PC-22 El Chilanga CG0071 1201 PC HON Caion PC-22 El Chilanga HON CG0072 759 PC 1 Caion PC-22 El Chilanga PC XBOLO CG0073 551 1 Caion PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga CG0074 517 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga CG0076 512 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga CG0077 586 PC XBOLO 1 Chilanga Count 12

PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0078 515 PC HON I PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0079 1346 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0080 520 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0081 6316 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0082 601 PC- HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0083 594 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0084 1347 PC XBOLO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0085 602 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0086 567 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0088 1374 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0089 1490 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0090 1657 SV1 XBOLO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0091 563 PC HON I PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0094 1205 PC USUL 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0095 1717 SV2 HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0096 745 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0097 726 PC XBOLO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0098 7SS PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0101 1658 SV1 XBOLO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0106 573 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0107 1716 SV2 HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0109 550 PC USUL 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0110 1726 SV2 HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0111 613 PC USUL 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0112 510 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0114 1719 SV2 HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0115 627 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0117 746 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0121 630 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0122 516 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0123 629 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0125 1733 SV2 HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Polychrome CG0126 572 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0127 728 PC USUL 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0131 595 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0133 755 PC USUL 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Polychrome CG0137 604 PC XIZALCO 1 Chilanga Polychrome Count 37

PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Usulutan CG0138 1354 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga Osulutan CG0139 1376 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga Usulutan CG0140 1349 PC HON 1 Chilanga Usulutan Count 3

PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Chilanga CG0141 1567 ULUA3 HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Chilanga CG0142 553 PC XBOLO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga: Chilanga CG0143 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Chilanga CG0147 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Chilanga CG0148 1353 PC USUL 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga: Chilanga CG015Q 623 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Chilanga CG0151 628 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Chilanga CG0152 753 PC XBOLO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga: Chilanga CG0153 514 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Chilanga CG0154 631 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Cbilanga: Chilanga CG0155 606 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Chilanga CG0156 6315 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Chilanga CG0157 612 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Chilanga CG0160 509 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Chilanga CG0161 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Chilanga CG0162 PC XIZALCO 1 16 Chilanga: Chilanga Count PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0164 538 PC USOL 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0165 600 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0166 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0168 513 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0169 561 PC USUL 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0170 5399 PC XBOLO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0171 2143 PC X80LO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0172 557 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0175 5398 PC USUL 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0176 610 PC USUL 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0177 591 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0178 621 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0178 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0179 6314 PC XIZALCO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0180 614 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0181 555 PC XBOLO 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0182 625 PC HON 1 PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0183 592 PC HON 1 Chilanga: Osicala Count 18

PC-1 El Cajon Chilanga: Osicala CG0184 626 PC XIZALCO 1 or Favela Chilanga: Osicala or 1 Favala Count PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0188 570 PC USUL 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0190 564 PC USUL 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0191 618 PC XIZALCO 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0193 582 PC USUL 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0194 596 PC HON 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0204 583 PC USUL 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0205 465 PC USUL 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0207 607 PC XIZALCO 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0208 620 PC XIZALCO 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Dsulut n: CG0209 566 PC XIZALCO 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0210 617 PC XIZALCO 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0211 519 PC USUL 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0214 622 PC USUL 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0215 608 PC USUL 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0216 597 PC XIZALCO 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0217 624 PC HON 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0218 560 PC USUL 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0220 PC USUL 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0222 PC USUL 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0225 727 PC XBOLO 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0228 619 PC USUL 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0229 6313 PC USUL 1 BiCOBOS PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0230 581 PC XBOLO 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0231 599 PC XIZALCO 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0232 609 PC USUL 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0233 598 PC HON 1 Biconos PC-1 El Cajon Izalco Usulut n: CG0236 518 PC XIZALCO 1 Biconos Izalco Usulut n: Biconos 27 Count Yarumela Izalco Usulutan CG0237 5849 USUL Yarumela Izalco Osulutan CG0238 5847 XBOLO Yarumela Izalco Usulutan CG0239 5389 XIZALCO Yarumela Izalco Usulutan CG0241 5429 XBOLO Yarumela Izalco Usulntan CGQ243 588 XIZALCO Izalco Usulutan Count 5

Yarumela Izalco Osulutan: CG0245 5574 XIZALCO Izalco Yarumela Izalco Usulutan: CG0246 569 USUL Izalco Yarumela Izalco Usulutan: CG0247 5988 USUL Izalco Yarumela Izalco Usulutan: CG0248 1249 YAR1 XIZALCO Izalco Yarumela Izalco Usulutan: CG0251 556 XBOLO Izalco Yarumela Izalco Osulutan: CG02 53 589 XIZALCO Izalco Yarumela Izalco Usulutan: CG0254 1538 ULUA3 XBOLO Izalco Yarumela Izalco Usulutan: CG0255 847 XBOLO Izalco Izalco Usulutan: Izalco 8 Count Izalco Osulutan: 1245 YAR1 Local? Izalco Usulutan: Local? 1 Count Yarumela Izalco Usulutan: CG02 57 1203 HON1 XBOLO Sipues Yarumela Izalco Usulutan: CG0258 6125 USUL Sipuea Yarumela Izalco Usulutan: CG0259 1117 ULUA1 USUL Sipues Yarumela Izalco Usulutan: CG0260 571 XIZALCO Sipues Yarumela Izalco Usulutan: CG0262 5848 USUL Sipues Yarumela Izalco Usulutan: CG0263 6126 USUL Sipuea Izalco Usulutan: Sipues 6 Count Yarumela Jacalapa Usulutan CG0264 750 USUL Yarumela Jacalapa Usulutan CG0265 584 XBOLO Yarumela Jacalapa Usulutan CG0268 1720 SV2 USUL Jacalapa Usulutan Count 3

Yarumela Jicalapa or Izalco CG0269 3018 CHAL1 XBOLO Usulutan Yarumela Jicalapa or Izalco CG0270 1721 SV2 XIZALCO Usulutan Yarumela Jicalapa or Izalco CG0271 5816 USUL Usulutan Yarumela Jicalapa or Izalco CG0273 1244 YAR1 USUL Usulutan Jicalapa or Izalco 4 Usulutan Count Yarumela Jicalapa Osulutan 1200 HON1 Yarumela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0276 5855 USUL Yarumela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0280 5431 XBOLO Yarumela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0282 840 XIZALCO Yarumela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0283 5523 USUL Yarumela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0284 585 XBOLO Yaruroela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0288 1541 ULUA3 XBOLO Yarumela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0291 1305 USUL Yarumela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0295 1306 USUL Yarumela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0296 603 XIZALCO Yarumela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0297 2860 USUL Yarumela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0300 758 XIZALCO Yarumela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0302 1248 YAR1 USUL Yarumela Jicalapa Usulutan CG0307 1202 HON1 USUL Yarumela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0309 593 XIZALCO Yarumela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0310 5423 USUL Yarumela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0311 587 USUL Yarumela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0312 839 XBOLO Yarumela Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0313 5428 USUL PC-1 El Cajon Jicalapa Dsulutan CG0316 615 PC XIZALCO 1 Jicalapa Dsulutan Count 20

PC-1 El Cajon Jicalpa Usulut n

Jicalpa Usulut n Count 1

PC-1 El Cajon Jiclapa Usulut n CG0318 Jiclapa Dsulut n Count 1

PC-1 El Cajon Muerdalo Orange

Muerdalo Orange Count 1

PC-1 El Cajon Olocuitla Dsulutan CG0321 1755 PC XBOLO 1 Copan Olocuitla Dsulutan CG0324 5744 USUL Copan Olocuitla Dsulutan CG0325 5839 USUL Copan Olocuitla Dsulutan CG0326 4939 HON SAN JOSE SUCHITEPEQ Olocuitla Dsulutan CPA1208 3999 USUL UEZ Olocuitla Dsulutan Count 5

SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS

SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS CPA311 SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS CPA312 SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS

Orange Slipped Count 5

SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange slipped PAC. COAS Chilanga?

SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange slipped PAC. COAS Chilanga? 3914 AMATLE USUL Orange slipped Chilanga? 2 Count SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss. Solo SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss. Bolo CPA317 3967 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss . Bolo CPA318 4084 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss . Bolo CPA319 4029 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss . Bolo CPA320 3862 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss . Bolo CPA321 4083 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss. Bolo CPA322 2783 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss . Bolo CPA323 3972 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss. Bolo CPA324 3970 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss . Bolo CPA325 1933 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss . Bolo CPA326 3975 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss . Bolo CPA327 3864 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss . Bolo CPA328 4068 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss . Bolo CPA329 3910 AMATLE USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss . Bolo CPA330 2764 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss . Bolo CPA331 4067 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss . Bolo CPA332 4055 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss . Bolo CPA333 3913 AMATLE USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC . COAS Poss . Bolo CPA334 4065 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss . Bolo CPA335 3731 NPC USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss. Bolo CPA33S 3912 AMATLE USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss. Bolo CPA337 3965 USUL SIN CABEZAS ESCUINTLA, LFO Orange Slipped PAC. COAS Poss . Bolo CPA338 4033 PCOAST Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan Orange Slipped CPE001 5974 USUL Coast Poss . Bolo Nueve Cerros Pacific Ivory Orange Slipped CPE004 5581 USUL Coast Poss . Bolo Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan (?) Or Orange Slipped CPE005 2952 FRH2A USUL Coast ng Poss. Bolo Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan (?) Or Orange Slipped CPE006 3169 FRH1 USUL Coast ng Poss. Bolo Nueve Cerroa Pacific Usulutan (?) Or Orange Slipped CPE007 3143 FRH1 USUL Coast ng Poss . Bolo Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan (?) Or Orange Slipped CPE008 5163 USUL Coast ng Poss . Bolo Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan (?) Or Orange Slipped CPE009 3144 FRH1 USUL Coast ng Poss . Bolo Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan (?) Or Orange Slipped CPE010 3139 FRH1 USUL Coast ng Poss. Bolo Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan (?) Or Orange Slipped CPE011 3156 FRH1 USUL Coast ng Poss . Bolo Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan(?) Or Orange Slipped CPE012 3180 FRH1 USUL Coast ng Poss . Bolo Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan(?)0r Orange Slipped Coast ng Poss . Bolo Orange Slipped Boss. Bolo 34 Count Maria Linda Pacific Orange Slipped Coast Poss. Izalco Maria Linda Pacific Orange Slipped Coast Poss. Izalco Maria Linda Pacific Orange Slipped Coast Poss. Izalco Maria Linda Pacific Orange Slipped Coast Poss. Izalco Maria Linda Pacific Orange Slipped Coast Poss. Izalco Maria Linda Pacific Orange Slipped Coast Poss. Izalco Ujuxte Pacific Orange Slipped Coast Poss. Izalco Ujuxte Pacific Orange Slipped Coast Poss. Izalco Ujuxte Pacific Orange Slipped Coast Poss. Izalco Orange Slipped Poss. 9 Izalco Count Ujuxte Pacific Orange Slipped Red Coast Rim Orange Slipped Red Rim 1 Count Ujuxte Pacific ORANGE WARE Coast Usulutan ORANGE HARE Usulutan 1 Count Ujuxte Pacific Orange/Brown Coast Slipped Orange/Brown Slipped 1 Count Nueve Cerros Pacific Red rinmed Usulutan Coast Red rimned Usulutan Count 1

Nueve Cerros Pacific Taixiguat or Bolo CPE099 3164 FRH1 USUL Coast Orange Nueve Cerros Pacific Taixiguat or Bolo CPE100 5157 USUL Coast Orange Taixiguat or Bolo Orange 2 Count Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE101 5970 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE102 5174 NFRO USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE103 2041 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE104 5971 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE105 3865 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE106 5503 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE107 3147 FRH1 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE108 5973 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE109 3166 FRH1 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Uaulutan CPE110 3064 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE111 5968 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE112 5956 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE113 5512 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE114 678 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE115 5517 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE116 2961 FRH2A USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE117 5955 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE118 679 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE119 5233 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE120 5972 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE121 4122 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE122 5510 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE123 5507 NFRO USUL Coast Nueve Cerroa Pacific Usulutan CPE 124 5976 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE125 5246 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE126 2968 FRH2A USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE127 4804 NFRO USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE128 2069 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Osulutan CPE129 5511 USUL Coast Nueve Cerros Pacific Usulutan CPE130 4174 USUL Coast Chalchuapa SE Me so Jicalapa Usulutan CPE 141 5904 J1CALAPA Usulutan Chalchuapa SE Me so Jicalapa Usulutan CPE142 2023 JICALAPA Usulutan Chalchuapa SE Meso Jicalapa Usulutan CPE143 2988 CHAL1 JICALAPA Usulutan Chalchuapa SE Meso Jicalapa Usulutan CPE144 4599 JICALAPA Usulutan Chalchuapa SE Meso Jicalapa Usulutan CPE145 2859 CHALT JICALAPA Usulutan Chalchuapa SE Meso Izalco Usulutan CPE151 3775 IZALCO Usulutan Chalchuapa SE Meso Izalco Usulutan CPE152 3012 CHAL1 IZALCO Usulutan Chalchuapa SE Meso Izalco Usulutan CPE153 6122 IZALCO Usulutan Chalchuapa SE Meso Izalco Usulutan CPE154 3765 IZALCO Usulutan Chalchuapa SE Meso Izalco Usulutan CPE155 3004 CHAL1 IZALCO Usulutan Obraje Usulutan CPE157 3218 XJACALAPA Obraje Usulutan CPE158 2994 CHAL1 Obraje Usulutan CPE159 3025 CHAL1 XJACALAPA Paraiso, S. Usulutan CPE161 5515 R. Tres Marias Usulutan CPE 162 6061 Los Bordos Usulutan CPE173 5219 XJACALAPA Los Bordos Usulutan CPE174 3411 Los Bordos Usulutan CPE175 2934 FRH2A Los Bordos Usulutan CPE176 4802 XJACALAPA Los Bordos Usulutan CPE177 3207 FRH1 XJACALAPA Los Bordos Usulutan CPE178 4639 XJACALAPA Los Bordos Usulutan CPE179 2068 XJACALAPA Los Bordos Usulutan CPE180 5319 XJACALAPA Maria Linda Usulutan CPE182 5232 XJACALAPA La Maquina SE Pacific Usulutan CPE265 4131 CHILANGA (Cantarrana) Coast La Maquina SE Pacific Usulutan CPE266 4636 CHILANGA (Cantarrana] Coast La Maquina SE Pacific Usulutan CPE267 4653 CHILANGA {Cantarrana} Coast La Maquina SE Pacific Usulutan CPE270 5236 YIZALCO (Cantarrana) Coast Nueve Cerros SE Pacific Usulutan CPE271 5509 YIZALCO Coast Santa Leticia SE Meso Jicalapa Usulutan ELS012 5320 XJACALAPA Usulutan Santa Leticia SE Meso Jicalapa Usulutan ELS013 3014 CHftLl " XJACALAPA Usulutan Santa Leticia SE Meso Jicalapa Usulutan ELS014 5689 XJACALAPA Usulutan Santa Leticia SE Meso Jicalapa Usulutan ELS015 5812 XJACALAPA Usulutan Santa Leticia SE Meso Jicalapa Usulutan ELS016 3001 CHAL1 XJACALAPA Usulxitan Santa Leticla SE Meso Jicalapa Usulutan ELS017 2984 CHAL1 XJACALAPA Usulutan Santa Leticia SE Meso Jicalapa Usulutan ELS018 2997 CHAL1 XJACALAPA Usulutan Santa Leticia SE Meso Jicalapa Usulutan ELS019 5958 XJACALAPA Usulutan Santa Leticia SE Meso Jicalapa Usulutan ELSQ2Q 5691 XJACALAPA Usulutan Santa Leticia SE Meso Jicalapa Usulutan ELS021 5914 XJACALAPA Usulutan Santa Leticia SE Meso Jicalapa Usulutan ELS022 2992 CHAL1 XJACALAPA Usulutan Santa Leticia SE Meso Jicalapa Usulutan ELS030 2077 XJACALAPA Usulutan Santa Leticia SE Meso Jicalapa Usulutan ELS032 3058 XJACALAPA Usulutan Cara Sucia SE Meso Usulutan ELS102 4348 Cara Sucia SE Meso Usulutan ELS103 5175 XJACALAPA Cara Sucia SE Meso Usulutan ELS104 2996 CHAL1 XJACALAPA Cara Sucia SE Meso Usulutan ELS105 5642 Cara Sucia SE Meao Usulutan ELS106 2882 XJACALAPA Cara Sucia SE Meso Usulutan ELS107 3769 NPC XJACALAPA Kaminal juyu SE Meso Usulutan K JO 62 8 5960 USUL Kaminaljuyu SE Meso Usulutan KJ0629 3059 USUL Kaminal juyu SE Meso Usulutan KJ0630 3092 USUL Usulutan MS 192 5 6086 USUL nonprovenienc Usulutan HS2031 5590 USUL ed nonprovenienc Usulutan MS2032 5582 USUL ed Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSC/15 5694 CHI LAN GA Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSC/17 2922 FRH2A CHILANGA Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSC/18 4976 CHILANGA Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSC/19 4978 CHILANGA Copan Valley, SE Meso Usulutan MSC045 2602 CHILANGA CV20 Copan Valley, SE Meso Usulutan MSC046 4917 CHILANGA CV20 Copan Valley, SE Meso Usulutan MSC047 1698 SV2 CHILANGA CV20 Copan Valley, SE Meso Usulutan MSC048 5645 CHILANGA CV20 Copan Valley, SE Meso Usulutan MSC049 5599 CHILANGA CV20 Copan Valley, SE Meso Usulutan MSC050 5703 CHILANGA CV20 Copan Valley, SE Meso Usulutan MSC058 5814 CHILANGA CV20 Copan Valley, SE Meso Usulutan MSC059 5714 CHILANGA CV20 Copan Valley, SE Meso Usulutan MSC060 5696 CHILANGA CV20 Copan Valley SE Meso Usulutan MSC061 5716 CHILANGA Copan Valley, SE Meso Usulutan MSC062 5911 CHILANGA CV20 Copan Valley, SE Meso Usulutan MSC063 5717 CHILANGA CV20 Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSC301 5767 CHILANGA Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSC302 5752 CHILANGA Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSC303 5835 CHILANGA Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSC304 4866 CHILANGA Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSC305 5141 CHILANGA Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSC346 535 USUL Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSCC38 5800 CHILANGA Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSCC39 4943 CHILANGA Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSCC41 4638 CHILANGA Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSD001 2822 CHALT IZALCO Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSD002 2851 CHALT IZALCO Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSD004 2916 FRH2A IZALCO Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSD005 4642 IZALCO Kaminaljuyu Dsulutan MS DO 3 5 5234 HIGH Kami nal juyu Dsulutan MS DO 37 6060 HIGH Copan Usulutan MSD042 1127 ULUA1 IZALCO Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSD044 1363 COPX1 IZALCO Santa Leticia SE Meso Usulutan MSD046 4340 USUL Cuello SE Meso Usulutan MSD096 5815 HIGH Cuello SE Meso Usulutan MSD097 5863 HIGH Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSD121 2970 CHAL1 IZALCO Rio Grande SE Meso Usulutan MSD157 2975 CHAL1 USUL? Rio Grande SE Meso Usulutan MSD158 1757 USUL? Rio Grande SE Meso Usulutan MSD159 4759 USUL? Kaminaljuyu SE Meso Usulutan MSD191 6047 USUL? Kaminal j uyu SE Meso Usulutan MSD192 5881 USUL? Kaminaljuyu SE Meso Usulutan MSD193 5244 USUL? Kaminaljuyu SE Meso Usulutan MSD194 5225 USUL? Kaminaljuyu SE Meso Usulutan MSD195 5701 USUL? Kaminaljuyu SE Meso Usulutan MSD196 4176 USUL? Kaminaljuyu SE Meso Usulutan MSD197 5238 USUL? El Mirador?? SE Meso Usulutan MSD300 2061 USUL Santa Leticia SE Meso Usulutan MSD330 4237 JICALAPA Santa Leticia SE Meso Usulutan MSD331 3063 JICALAPA Santa Leticia SE Meso Usulutan MSD333 2823 CHALT JICALAPA Santa Leticia SE Meso Usulutan MSD334 3028 CHAL1 JICALAPA ? SE Meso Usulutan MSD337 3756 AMATLE IZALCO Santa Leticia SE Meso Usulutan MSD338 3010 CHAL1 USUL Santa Leticia SE Meso Usulutan MSD339 1768 USUL Santa Leticia SE Meso Usulutan MSD339 1769 USUL Santa SE Meso Usulutan MSD340 3027 CHAL1 USUL Letiicia Santa Leticia SE Meso Usulutan MSD341 2831 CHALT USUL ? SE Meso Usulutan MSD342 2087 USUL Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSD34 5 5883 USUL Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSD346 5763 USUL Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSD347 5708 USUL Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSD348 5730 USUL Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSD349 5874 USUL Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSD3SO 2019 USUL Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSD351 5684 USUL Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSD352 5090 USUL Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSD353 1565 ULUA3 USUL Copan SE Meso Usulutan MSD354 5044 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD365 1723 SV2 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD366 1369 COPX1 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD367 562 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD368 5570 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD369 5427 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD370 639 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD371 632 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD372 5425 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Oaulutan MSD373 752 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD374 751 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD375 1246 YAR1 USUL Guauchia III SE Meso Usulutan MSD376 5753 USUL Guauchia III SE Meso Usulutan MSD377 5751 USUL Guauchia III SE Meso Usulutan MSD378 549 USUL Guauchia III SE Meso Usulutan MSD379 836 USUL Guauchia III SE Meso Usulutan MSD380 837 USUL Guauchia III SE Meso Usulutan MSD381 634 USUL Guauchia III SE Meso Usulutan MSD382 5942 USUL Guauchia III SE Meso Usulutan MSD383 559 USUL Guauchia III SE Meso Usulutan MSD384 611 USUL Guauchia III SE Meso Usulutan MSD385 554 USUL Guauchia III SE Meso Usulutan MSD387 633 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD388 5424 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD389 732 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD390 1251 YAR1 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD391 5432 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD393 1250 YAR1 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD394 616 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD395 1367 COPX1 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD396 1368 COPX1 USUL Yarumela SE Meso Usulutan MSD397 1722 SV2 USUL Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSD398 6289 IZALCO Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSD399 4221 IZALCO Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSD400 4219 IZALCO Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSD401 4347 IZALCO Chalchuapa SE Meso Usulutan MSD4 02 4350 IZALCO Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD530 2979 CHAL1 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD531 3003 CHAL1 HIGH Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD532 2943 FRH2A USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD533 5293 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD534 6042 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD535 3884 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD536 3580 MFC USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD537 2779 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD538 3403 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD539 3334 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD540 5878 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD541 3337 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD542 5288 USUL Kafflinaljuyu Dsulutan MSD543 2904 FRH2A USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD544 5964 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD54 5 5237 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD54 6 2950 FRH2A USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD547 4668 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD548 667 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD549 2778 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD550 5806 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD551 5239 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD552 5785 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD553 5732 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD554 5886 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD555 2989 CHAL1 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD556 3062 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD557 5249 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD558 5786 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD559 2910 FRH2A USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD560 4516 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD561 5890 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD562 5879 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD563 2896 FRH2A USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutaa MSD564 5651 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD566 5777 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD567 5281 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD568 3081 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD569 2890 FRH2A USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD570 3306 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD571 3929 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD572 3945 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD573 5254 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD574 5248 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD575 5295 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan M5D584 3262 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSD585 3094 USUL El Mirador SE Meso Usulutan MSDE01 5817 USUL El Mirador SE Meso Usulutan MSDE02 5776 USUL El Mirador SE Meso Usulutan MSDE03 5653 USUL El Mirador SE Meso Usulutan MSDE04 5766 USUL El Mirador SE Meso Usulutan MSDE05 5010 USUL El Mirador SE Meso Usulutan MSDE06 5804 USUL El Mirador SE Meso Usulutan MSDE07 1887 USUL El Mirador SE Meso Usulutan MSDE08 5757 USUL El Mirador SE Meso Usulutan MSDE09 5805 USUL El Mirador SE Meso Usulutan MSDE10 5654 USUL El Mirador SE Meso Usulutan MSDE11 5745 USUL El Mirador SE Meso Usulutan MS DEI 5 5729 USUL El Mirador SE Meso Usulutan MSDE16 5500 USUL El Mirador SE Meso Usulutan MSDX20 5901 USUL El Mirador SE Meso Usulutan MSDX21 5784 USUL El Mirador SE Meso Usulutan MSDX22 5738 USUL El Mirador Usulutan MSDX55 6301 USUL Guaytan Osulutan MSG300 5919 CHILANGA Asuncion Mita Osulutan MSG328 1989 CHILANGA Asuncion Mita Osulutan MSG329 5038 CHILANGA Kaminaljuyu Osulutan MSG529 2953 FRH2A USUL Kaminaljuyu Osulutan MSG530 3315 USUL Kaminaljuyu Osulutan MSG531 5235 USUL Kaminaljuyu Osulutan MSG532 3088 USUL Kaminaljuyu Osulutan MSG533 3069 USUL Kaminaljuyu Usulutan MSG534 2010 USUL Monte Alto Osulutan MSG671 4444 USUL Monte Alto Osulutan MSG672 4485 USUL Monte Alto Osulutan MSG673 3551 NPC USUL Monte Alto Osulutan MSG675 3380 USUL Monte Alto Osulutan MSG677 3186 FRH1 USUL Monte Alto Osulutan MSG679 3869 USUL Monte Alto Osulutan MSG680 4162 USUL Monte Alto Osulutan MSG681 5986 USUL Monte Alto Osulutan MSG682 2909 FRH2A USUL Monte Alto Osulutan MSG683 3185 FRH1 USUL? Monte Alto Osulutan MSG684 5252 USUL Ixtonton Osulutan MSIT69 1860 USUL Calakmul Osulutan MSK675 5819 Calakmul Osulutan MSK677 644 La Canteada SE Meso Osulutan MSM041 5803 CHILANGA La Canteada SE Meso Osulutan MSM042 682 CHILANGA La Canteada SE Meso Osulutan MSM047 5916 CHILANGA Osulutan Count 279

La Canteada SE Meso Osulutan (poss. MSM049 681 CHILANGA Chilanga) Osulutan (poss. Chilanga) I Count La Canteada SE Meso Osulutan (Red MSM097 2183 CHILANGA Painted) La Canteada SE Meso Osulutan (Red MSM098 4956 CHILANGA Painted) Osulutan (Red Painted) 2 Count La Canteada SE Meso Osulutan (San MSM099 683 CHILANGA Antonio) La Canteada SE Meso Osulutan (San MSM122 5736 CHILANGA Antonio) La Canteada SE Meso Usulutan (San MSM123 5787 CHILANGA Antonio) La Canteada SE Meso Usulutan (San MSM124 5862 CHILANGA Antonio) La Canteada SE Meso Osulutan (San MSM125 5790 CHILANGA Antonio) Naco Valley, SE Meso Osulutan (San MSNV13 526 CHILANGA La Sierra Antonio) Osulutan (San Antonio) 6 Count Naco Valley SE Meso Osulutan Brown MSNV16 2046 HON Variety Naco Valley, SE Meso Osulutan Brown MSNV17 527 HON Site 11 Variety Osulutan Brown Variety 2 Count Quirigua SE Meso Osulutan Cafe MSQ046 4954 CHILANGA Reaervado Sabre Quirigua SE Meso Osulutan Cafe MSQ048 219 Ql Reservado Sobre Usulutan Cafe Reservado 2 Sabre Count Quirigua SE Meso Usulutan Chilanga MSQ111 183 Ql Usulutan Chilanga Count 1

Quirigua SE Meso Usulutan Chilanga? MSQ112 5918 USUL Quirigua SE Meso Usulutan Chilanga? MSQ113 5621 USUL Santa Barbara SE Meso Usulutan Chilanga? MSSB07 5866 YIZALCO Usulutan Chilanga? Count 3

Santa Barbara SE Meso Usulutan decoration MSSB08 645 YIZALCO Santa Barbara SE Meso Usulutan decoration MSSB09 4962 YIZALCO Usulutan decoration Count 2

Santa Barbara SE Meso Usulutan decoration, local MSSB30 5004 CHILANGA KJ? Santa Barbara SE Meso Osulutan decoration, local MSSB31 4808 CHILANGA KJ? El Balsarno Usulutan decoration, local MSZ084 4192 USUL KJ? La Morena Usulutan decoration, local MSZ173 4196 USUL KJ? La Morena Usulutan decoration, local MSZ174 3309 USUL KJ? 5909-1B3 Usulutan decoration, local MSZ511 3585 NPC USUL KJ? Usulutan decoration, local MSZ513 3087 USUL KJ? Usulutan decoration, 7 local KJ? Count Los Cerritos- Usulutan I, Form C M32516 3086 USUL sur Usulutan I, Form C Count 1

Anna Usulutan Izalco MSZ517 5196 USUL Anna Usulutan Izalco MSZ518 5258 USUL Anna Usulutan Izalco MSZ519 4393 USUL 4502-2B1 Usulutan Izalco MSZ535 5824 USUL 5103-1B1 Usulutan Izalco MSZ550 3314 USUL Sin Cabezas Usulutan Izalco MSZ694 2052 USUL Sin Cabezas Usulutan Izalco MSZ696 5580 USUL Moyuta Usulutan Izalco MSZ706 3987 USUL Tiquisate Usulutan Izalco MSZ714 2978 CHAL1 USUL area La Noria Usulutan Izalco MSZ721 2787 USUL Usulutan Izalco MSZ724 3953 USUL Usulutan Izalco MSZ730 4290 USUL Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPA046 4735 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPA047 4223 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPA048 2763 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPA049 6101 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPA050 5924 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPA051 4733 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPA052 680 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPAA45 3133 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPAA46 2762 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izaloo NPAA47 1904 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPAA48 4224 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPAA49 4705 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPAA50 4349 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Osulutan Izalco NPAA51 4736 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPAA52 4225 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPAA53 1953 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Osulutan Izalco NPAA54 4734 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPAA55 3235 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPAA56 4222 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPAA57 4737 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Osulutan Izalco NPAA58 3095 USUL Granada Ayala, SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPAA59 666 USUL Granada Managua SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPM002 4672 USUL Managua SE Meso Usulutan Izalco NPM071 4669 USUL Usulutan Izalco Count 36

Managua SE Meso Usulutan Izalco? NPM072 4684 USUL Managua SE Meso Usulutan Izalco? NPM073 4691 USUL? Usulutan Izalco? Count 2

Managua SE Meso Usulutan negative NPM074 4720 USUL Managua SE Meso Usulutan negative NPM075 4655 USUL Managua SE Meso Usulutan negative NPM076 4716 USUL? Usulutan negative Count 3

Managua SE Meso Usulutan Poss. Bolo NPM077 4679 USUL Chinandega Usulutan Poss. Bole NPM083 4706 USUL (norte) Leon Vie jo ( Usulutan Poss. Bolo NPM088 4702 USUL Isla Rosa) Leon Vie jo Usulutan Poss. Bolo (Puerto NPM092 4673 USUL Mongotambo) Leon Vie jo Usulutan Poss. Bolo NPM093 4681 USUL? Managua SE Meso Usulutan Poss. Bolo (Santa Leon NPM097 4645 USUL 136) Usulutan Poss. Bolo Count 6

Managua, N-MA- SE Meso Usulutan Poss. NPN201 4683 USUL 36 Izalco Managua, N-MA- SE Meso Usulutan Poss. NPN202 4689 USUL 36 Izalco Managua, N-MA- SE Meso Usulutan Poss. NPN203 4671 USUL 36 Izalco Managua, N-MA- SE Meso Usulutan Poss. NPN204 733 USUL 36 Izalco Managua, N-MA- SE Meso Usulutan Poss. NPN205 4695 USUL 36 Izalco Usulutan Poss. Izalco 5 Count Managua, N-MA- SE Meso Usulutan Red and NPN206 4703 USUL 36 Blade Usulutan Red and Black 1 Count Managua, N-MA- SE Meso Usulutan NPN207 4675 USUL 36 Undifferentiated Managua, N-MA- SE Meso Usulutan NPN208 4676 USUL 36 Undifferentiated Managua, N-MA- SE Meso Usulutan NPN209 4685 USUL 36 Undifferentiated Managua, N-MA- SE Meso Usulutan NPN210 4418 USUL 36 Undifferentiated Managua, N-MA- SE Meso Usulutan NPN211 4682 USUL 36 Undifferentiated Managua, N-MA- SE Meso Usulutan NPN213 4688 USUL 36 Undifferentiated Managua, N-MA-SE Meso Usulutan NPN214 4680 USUL 36 Undifferentiated Managua, N-MA-SE Meso Usulutan NPN215 4701 USUL 36 Undifferentiated Managua, N-MA-SE Meso Usulutan NPN216 4692 USUL 36 Undifferentiated Managua, N-MA- SE Meso Usulutan NPN217 4700 USUL 36 Undifferentiated Usulutan Undifferentiated 10 Count Managua, N-MA-SE Meso Usulutan 36 Undifferentiated/HI NPN218 4699 USUL OR Usulutan 1 Undifferentiated/MIOR Managua, N-MA-SE Meso Usulutan Variegated NPN219 4746 USUL 36 Managua, N-MA-SE Meso Usulutan Variegated NPN220 4696 USUL 36 Managua, N-MA- SE Meso Usulutan Variegated NPN221 4686 USUL 36 Managua, N-MA-SE Meso Usulutan Variegated NPN224 4693 USUL 36 Managua, N-MA-SE Meso Usulutan Variegated NPN225 4678 USUL 36 Managua, N-MA- SE Meso Usulutan Variegated NPN226 4417 USUL 36 Managua, N-MA-SE Meso Dsulutan Variegated WPN227 4667 USUL 36 Usulutan Variegated Count 7

Managua, N-MA-SE Meso Usulutan(?)Orng NPN228 4677 USUL 36 Managua, N-MA-SE Meso Usulutan(?)Orng NPN229 4687 USUL 36 Managua, N-MA-SE Meso Usulutan(?)Orng NPN230 4704 USUL 36 Managua, N-MA-SE Meao Usulutan(?)Orng NPN232 4663 USUL 36 Managua, N-MA- Usulutan(?)Orng NPN237 4694 USUL 62 Madriz Usulutan(?)Orng NPN917 4S97 NIC Madriz Usulutan(?)Orng NPN918 4698 NIC Madriz Usulutan(?)Orng NPN919 1529 ULUA3 NIC Madriz Usulutan(?)Orng NPN920 4690 NIC Madriz Usulutan(?)Orng NPN921 4586 NIC Usulutan(?)Orng Count 10

Usulutan, Chilanga Red-painted

Usulutan, Chilanga Red- 1 painted Count Flores Usulutan, falso RPF028 XIZALCO Flores Usulutan, false RPF031 XIZALCO Usulutan, false Count 2

Flores Dsulutan, Form B

Western El SE Meso Usulutan, Form B Salvador, Site 20 Usulutan, Form B Count 2

Western El SE Meso Usulutan, Form C Salvador, volcanic Western El SE Meso Usulutan, Form C Salvador, lower Rio Usulutan, Form C Count 2

Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Form E Cementerio Usulutan, Form E Count 1

Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Highland UP0002 366 MM XBOLO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Highland UP0003 580 XBOLO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Highland UP0004 897 NV2 XBOLO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Highland UP0005 373 MM XBOLO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Highland UP0006 5447 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan , Highland UP0007 5852 YIZALCO Cementerio Usulutan, Highland Count 6

Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Highland? UP0008 5773 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan , Highland? UP0009 5907 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan , Highland? UP0010 5602 YIZALCO Cementerio Usulutan, Highland? Count 3

Copan, SE Meso Osulutan , imitation UP0011 5931 YIZALCO Cementerio Usulutan, imitation Count 1

Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Izalco UP0012 5630 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Uaulutan , Izalco UP0013 5885 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Izalco UP0014 5095 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan , Izalco UP0017 5380 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Izalco UP0018 5113 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Izalco UP0019 5622 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan , Izalco UP0020 5577 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Izalco UP0021 5684 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan , Izalco UP0022 5712 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Izalco !JPQ023 5831 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Izalco UP0024 5566 CHILANGA Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Izalco UP0025 5900 CHILANGA Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan , Izalco UP0026 5598 CHILANGA Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan , Izalco UP0027 5681 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Izalco UP0028 1516 COPX2 XBOLO Cementerio Copan, SE Me go Usulutan , Izalco UP0029 1518 COPX2 XJACALAPA Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Izalco UP0030 1521 COPX2 XBOLO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Izalco UP0031 5596 YIZALCO Cementerio Usulutan, Izalco Count IS

Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Jicalapa UPOQ32 5720 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Jicalapa UP0033 1519 COPX2 XBOLO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Jicalapa UP0034 5903 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Jicalapa UP0035 5882 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Jicalapa UP0036 1515 COPX2 XBOLO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, Jicalapa UP0037 1520 COPX2 HON Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan , Jicalapa UP0038 394 MM XBOLO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan , Jicalapa UP0040 5391 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan , Jicalapa UP0041 5832 YIZALCO Cementerio Usulutan, Jicalapa Count 9

Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, local UP0042 1514 COPX2 XBOLO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, local UP0043 1513 COPX2 XBOLO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan , local UP0044 5877 YIZALCO Cementerio Usulutan, local Count 3 Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, local UPOQ53 1517 COPX2 XBOLO Cementerio paste Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, local UPOQ54 5699 YIZALCO Cementerio paste Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, local UP0056 5597 YIZALCO Cementerio paste Usulutan, local paste 3 Count Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0057 5618 YIZALCO Cementerio Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0058 649 CHILANGA Cementerio HARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0059 5771 CHILANGA Cementerio muz Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP006Q 5678 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0061 5069 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0062 5774 CHILANGA Cementerio MARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0063 5578 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0064 5706 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0065 5051 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0066 5813 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0067 5493 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0068 4927 CHILANGA Cementerio HARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UPOQ69 5440 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0073 5695 CHILANGA Cementerio HARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0074 656 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0075 5077 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORAHSE UP0076 5575 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGB UP0077 5869 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0078 5727 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0079 5075 CHILANGA Cementerio WAKE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0080 5779 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0081 5726 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0082 5065 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0083 5754 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0084 647 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE (JP0109 5055 CHILANGA Cementerio WARE Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0278 5842 YIZALCO Raizal Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0279 113 YIZALCO Raizal WARE Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan, ORANGE UP0280 5400 XBOLO Raizal WARE Usulutan, ORANGE WARE 29 Count Copan, Los SE Meso Usulutan, Paxtla Achiotes Usulutan, Paxtla Count 1

Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan, psuedo Raizal Usulutan, psuedo Count 1

Copan, Los SE Meso Usulutan, Tzuntulin UP0284 YIZALCO Achiotes Red Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan, Tzuntulin UP0285 XBOLO Raizal Red Usulutan, Tzuntulin Red 2 Count Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan, Verbena UP0286 393 MM XBOLO Raizal Ivory, Highland Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan, Verbena UP0287 1206 HON1 XBOLO Raizal Ivory, Highland Copan, Los SE Meso Usulutan, Verbena UP0288 5138 YIZALCO Achiotes Ivory, Highland Copan, Los SE Meso Usulutan, Verbena UP0289 5840 YIZALCO Achiotes Ivory, Highland Usulutan, Verbena Ivory, 4 Highland Count Copan, Los SE Meso Usulutan, Verbene UP0290 5137 XBOLO Achiotes Red-orange Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan , Verbene UP0291 1211 HON1 YIZALCO Raizal Red-orange Usulutan, Verbene Red- 2 orange Count Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan, vessel UP0292 5470 YIZALCO Raizal form A Usulutan, vessel form A 1 Count Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan , vessel UP0293 5845 YIZALCO Raizal form C Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan, vessel UP0294 466 YIZALCO Raizal area form C Usulutan, vessel form C 2 Count Copan, Los SE Meso Usulutan, vessel UP0295 49 YIZALCO Achiotes ar form D Usulutan, vessel form D 1 Count Copan, Los SE Meso Usulutan , vessel UP0296 5407 YIZALCO Achiotes ar form E Usulutan, vessel form E 1 Count Copan, Los SE Meso Usulutan? UP0297 2599 YIZALCO Achiotes ar Copan, Los SE Meso Usulutan? UP0298 576 YIZALCO Achiotes Copan, Los SE Meso Usulutan? UP0323 5140 CHILANGA Achiotes ar Usulutan? Count 3

Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan? Chilanga? UP0324 5088 CHILANGA Raizal Usulutan? Chilanga? count 1

Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan? Orange UP0325 5454 CHILANGA Raizal Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan? Orange UP0326 5455 CHILANGA Raizal Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan? Orange UP0327 5089 CHILANGA Raizal Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan? Orange UP0328 5658 CHILANGA Raizal Copan, El SE Meso Usulutan? Orange UP0329 1167 CHILANGA Raizal Wak -El Peru Usulutan? Orange WP0096 1884 USUL Usulutan? Orange Count 6

Wak -El Peru Usulutan? , local? WP0103 121 USUL »ak -El Peru Usulutan? , local? WP0105 1885 USUL Wak -El Peru Usulutan? , local? WP0107 1886 USUL Wak -El Peru Usulutan? , local? WP0108 1889 USUL Santa Rosa Central Usulutan Usulutan?, local? WHIV01 3570 NPC USUL Highlands Usulutan?, local? Count 5

Santa Rosa Central Usulutan Usulutan-like WWIV02 3871 USUL Highlands Santa Rosa Central Usulutan Usulutan-like WWIV03 3936 USUL Highlands Santa Rosa Central Usulutan Usulutan-like WHIV04 3870 USUL Highlands Santa Rosa Central Usulutan Usulutan-like WWIV05 3867 USUL Highlands Kaminaljuyu V. Ivory Usulutan-like WWIV06 5867 USUL Guatemala Kaminaljuyu V. Ivory Usulutan-like WWIV07 5889 USUL Guatemala Kaminaljuyu V. Ivory Usulutan-like WWIV08 5873 USUL Guatemala Usulutan-like Count 7

Kaminaljuyu V. Ivory Verbena Red-orange, WWIV09 5905 USUL Guatemala Usulutan Kaminaljuyu V. Ivory Verbena Red-orange, WHIV10 5778 USUL Guatemala Usulutan Verbena Red-oranga, Usulutan Count Grand Count Appendix D: Compositional Groups From Cluster Analysis

Cluster Compositional Group 1 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 11 Usulutan 11 Copan 3 Usulutan Izalco 3 Copan Cementario 3 Bolo Orange 3 Santa Barbara 2 Chilanga 2 El Mirador 2 Izalco 1 Copan Valley El Raizal 2 Muerdalo 1 Copan Valley Los Achiotes 2 Taixiguat Orange 1 Guauchia III 1 Usulutan Possible Chilanga 1 Los Naranjos, Lake Yojoa 1 Usulutan Possible Bolo 1 Santo Domingo (Naco) 1 Usulutan Highland 1 Usulutan? 1 Usulutan Like 1 Total 31 Total 31

Cluster Compositional Group 2 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 8 Usulutan 8 El Cajon Salitron Viejo 6 Bolo Orange 2 El Cajon PC-13 2 Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 2 Usulutan Izalco 1 Usulutan Chilanga 1 Usulutan Red and Black 1 Usulutan Possible Izalco 1 Total 16 Total 16

Cluster Compositional Group 3 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon Salitron Viejo 10 Orange Slipped Possible Bolo 10 El Cajon PC-13 6 Bolo Orange 3 Orange Slipped Chilanga 2 Usulutan Izalco 1 Total 16 Total 16

Cluster Compositional Group 3.2 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon (no site) 7 Bolo Orange 3 Los Naranjos 2 Orange Slipped Possible Bolo 3 Usulutan 2 Orange Slipped Red Rim 1 Total 9 Total 9

Cluster Compositional Group 4 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 4 Usulutan 4 Copan Valley El Raizal 3 Usulutan Ve 1 Santa Leticia 1 Bolo Orange 1 Izalco Usulutan 1 Chilanga 1 Total 8 Total 8

Cluster Compositional Group 5 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 15 Usulutan 13 Los Naranjos 3 Bolo Orange 7 Santa Barbara 3 Usulutan Chilanga? 2 Las Vegas, Naco Valley 2 Usulutan Possible Bolo 1 El Cajon Salitron Viejo 2 Aguaagua Uneven 1 El Cajon PC-22 1 Chilanga 1 Asuncion Mit 1 Orange Slipped Possible Bolo 1 Copan 1 Orange Slipped 1 Total 28 Total 28

Cluster Compositional Group 6 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Copan, Cemeterio 8 Bolo Orange 7 Copan Valley 1 Orange Slipped Possible Bolo 2 El Cajon Salitron Viejo 1 Usulutan 1 El Cajon PC-13 1 Chilanga 1 Santo Domingo (Naco) 1 Jicalapa Usulutan 1 Total 12 Total 12

Cluster Compositional Group 7 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 5 Bolo Orange 5 El Cajon Salitron Viejo 4 Usulutan 3 Copan, Cemeterio 2 Izalco Usulutan 1 Usulutan Possible Bolo 1 Usulutan Possible Izalco 1 Total 11 Total 11

Cluster Compositional Group 8 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon PC-13 2 Chilanga 4 El Cajon PC-22 2 Usulutan 2 Naco valley, Site 426 2 Bolo Orange 1 Naco Valley (no site) 1 Aguaagua/Tilagua 1 Santa Barbara, Gualjoquito 1 Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 1 Las Vegas, Naco Valley 1 Orange Slipped Poss. Izalco 1 La Canteada 1 Urraco Red-Painted 1 Unknown Provenience 1 Total 11 Total 11

Cluster Compositional Group 9 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Santa Barbara, Gualjoquito 2 Usulutan Izalco 1 Site 106, Naco Valley 2 Usulutan 1 Chilanga 1 Cececapa Incised 1 Total 4 Total 4

Cluster Compositional Group 10 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon Salitron Viejo 29 Orange Slipped Possible Bolo 10 El Cajon PC-22 1 Usulutan 6 El Cajon PC-13 1 Usulutan Izalco 4 Orange Slipped Possible Izalco 3 Bolo Orange 2 Usulutan Izalco? 2 Orange Slipped 2 Usulutan Possible Bolo 1 Usulutan Possible Izalco 1 Total 31 Total 31

Cluster Compositional Group 11 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon Salitron Viejo 13 Usulutan Izalco 8 Yarumela 4 Usulutan 5 Guauchia III 2 Orange Slipped Possible Izalco 3 El Cajon PC-22 1 Usulutan Possible Izalco 1 Santa Barbara (no site) 1 Orange Slipped 1 Chilanga Usulutan 1 Brown Resist 1 Orange/Brown 1 Total 21 Total 21

Cluster Compositional Group 12 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon Salitron Viejo 6 Usulutan 2 Yarumela 3 Usulutan Izalco 2 Copan El Raizal 1 Izalco Usulutan 1 Bolo Orange 1 Usulutan Brown 1 Orange Slipped 1 Usulutan Possible Bolo 1 Usulutan Possible Izalco 1 Total 10 Total 10

Cluster Compositional Group 13 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon Salitron Viejo 17 Usulutan Izalco 10 Guauchia III 2 Usulutan 6 Yarumela 1 Orange Slipped Possible Izalco 1 Orange Slipped Possible Bolo 1 Usulutan Brown 1 Total 20 Total 20

Cluster Compositional Group 14 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon Salitron Viejo 7 Usulutan 6 Yarumela 2 Bolo Orange 4 Guauchia III 1 Total 10 Total 10

Cluster Compositional Group 15 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Naco Valley, La Sierra 2 Usulutan 5 Yarumela 2 Untyped 2 El Cajon, Salitron Viejo 1 Izalco Usulutan 1 Copan 1 Santa Barbara (no site) 1 Kaminaljuyu 1

Total 8 Total 8

Cluster Compositional Group 15.2 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 2 Usulutan 1 Naco Valley (no site) 1 Usulutan Possible Bolo 1 Bolo Orange 1 Total 3 Total 3

Cluster Compositional Group 16 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon, Salitron Viejo 5 Usulutan Izalco 3 El Cajon, PC-13 1 Usulutan 2 Yarumela 1 Bolo Orange 1 Orange Slipped Possible Izalco 1 Total 7 Total 7

Cluster Compositional Group 16.2 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Guachia III 2 Usulutan 2 Total 2 Total 2

Appendix E: Refined Compositional Groups

Refined Compositional Group 1 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 11 Usulutan 12 Copan 4 Izalco Usulutan 4 Copan Cementario 3 Bolo Orange 3 Santa Barbara 3 Usulutan Izalco 3 El Mirador 2 Chilanga: Chilanga 2 Copan Valley El Raizal 2 Taixiguat Orange 1 Copan Valley Los Achiotes 2 Usulutan Possible Chilanga 1 Guauchia III 1 Usulutan Possible Bolo 1 Los Naranjos, Lake Yojoa 1 Usulutan Highland 1 Site 100 (Naco) 1 Usulutan? 1 Santo Domingo (Naco) 1 Usulutan Like 1 Ayala Grana 1 Tirantes Trichrome 1 Muerdalo Orange 1 Total 32 Total 32

Refined Compositional Group 2 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 7 Usulutan 8 El Cajon Salitron Viejo 6 Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 2 El Cajon PC-13 2 Bolo Orange 1 Usulutan Izalco 1 Usulutan Chilanga 1 Usulutan Red and Black 1 Usulutan Possible Izalco 1 Total 15 Total 15

Refined Compositional Group 3 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon Salitron Viejo 31 Orange Slipped Possible Bolo 13 El Cajon PC-13 6 Polychrome – Type Unspecified 4 Bolo Orange 4 Kiln Waster 3 Polychrome – Group 1 3 Monochrome – Type Unspec. 2 Trichrome – Type Unspecified 2 Orange Slipped Chilanga 2 Bichrome – Type Unspecified 1 Usulutan Izalco 1 Usulutan Red Rimmed 1 Usulutan 1 Total 37 Total 37

Refined Compositional Group 4 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 4 Usulutan 4 Copan Valley El Raizal 3 Usulutan Ve 1 Santa Leticia 1 Bolo Orange 1 Izalco Usulutan 1 Chilanga 1 Total 8 Total 8

Refined Compositional Group 5 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 15 Usulutan 13 Los Naranjos 3 Bolo Orange 8 Santa Barbara 3 Usulutan Chilanga? 2 Las Vegas, Naco Valley 2 Usulutan Possible Bolo 1 El Cajon Salitron Viejo 2 Aguaagua Uneven 1 El Cajon PC-22 1 Orange Slipped 1 Copan 1 Orange Slipped Possible Bolo 1 Total 27 Total 27

Refined Compositional Group 6 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Copan, Cemeterio 8 Bolo Orange 7 Copan Valley 1 Orange Slipped Possible Bolo 2 El Cajon Salitron Viejo 1 Usulutan 1 El Cajon PC-13 1 Chilanga 1 Santo Domingo (Naco) 1 Jicalapa Usulutan 1 Total 12 Total 12

Refined Compositional Group 7 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 5 Bolo Orange 5 El Cajon Salitron Viejo 4 Usulutan 3 Copan, Cemeterio 2 Izalco Usulutan 1 Usulutan Possible Bolo 1 Usulutan Possible Izalco 1 Total 11 Total 11

Refined Compositional Group 8 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon PC-13 2 Chilanga 4 El Cajon PC-22 2 Usulutan 2 Naco valley, Site 426 2 Bolo Orange 1 Naco Valley (no site) 1 Aguaagua/Tilagua 1 Santa Barbara, Gualjoquito 1 Orange Slipped Poss. Bolo 1 Las Vegas, Naco Valley 1 Orange Slipped Poss. Izalco 1 La Canteada 1 Urraco Red-Painted 1 Unknown Provenience 1 Total 11 Total 11

Refined Compositional Group 9 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Santa Barbara, Gualjoquito 2 Usulutan Izalco 1 Site 106, Naco Valley 2 Usulutan 1 Chilanga 1 Cececapa Incised 1 Total 4 Total 4

Refined Compositional Group 10 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon Salitron Viejo 24 Orange Slipped Possible Bolo 9 El Cajon PC-22 1 Usulutan 5 El Cajon PC-13 1 Orange Slipped Possible Izalco 3 Bolo Orange 2 Usulutan Izalco 2 Orange Slipped 2 Usulutan Izalco? 1 Usulutan Possible Bolo 1 Usulutan Possible Izalco 1 Total 26 Total 26

Refined Compositional Group 11 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon Salitron Viejo 12 Usulutan Izalco 7 Yarumela 4 Usulutan 5 Guauchia III 2 Orange Slipped Possible Izalco 3 El Cajon PC-22 1 Usulutan Possible Izalco 1 Orange Slipped 1 Orange/Brown 1 Brown Resist 1 Total 19 Total 19

Refined Compositional Group 12 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon Salitron Viejo 24 Usulutan 12 Yarumela 5 Usulutan Izalco 10 Guauchia III 3 Bolo Orange 5 Orange Slipped Possible Izalco 2 Usulutan Brown Variety 1 Usulutan Possible Bolo 1 Usulutan Possible Izalco 1

Total 32 Total 32

Refined Compositional Group 15 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Naco Valley, La Sierra 2 Usulutan 5 Yarumela 2 Untyped 2 El Cajon, Salitron Viejo 1 Izalco Usulutan 1 Copan 1 Santa Barbara (no site) 1 Kaminaljuyu 1

Total 8 Total 8

Refined Compositional Group 15.2 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Yarumela 2 Usulutan 1 Naco Valley (no site) 1 Usulutan Possible Bolo 1 Bolo Orange 1 Total 3 Total 3

Refined Compositional Group 16 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency El Cajon, Salitron Viejo 5 Usulutan Izalco 3 El Cajon, PC-13 1 Usulutan 2 Yarumela 1 Bolo Orange 1 Orange Slipped Possible Izalco 1 Total 7 Total 7

Refined Compositional Group 16.2 Site/Region Frequency Type/Variety Frequency Guachia III 2 Usulutan 2 Total 2 Total 2

Appendix F: Summaries of Elemental Data for Refined Groups 1-16 NEWGP STATISTICS NA K SC CR FE SB 1 N of cases 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 1 Mean 0.97 2.27 10.13 11.94 2.37 1.75 1 C.V. 0.25 0.19 0.21 0.36 0.18 0.21 2 N of cases 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 2 Mean 0.44 1.36 12.28 31.44 2.80 2.33 2 C.V. 0.52 0.11 0.11 0,21 0.11 0.29 3 N of cases 37 37 37 37 37 37 3 Mean 0.86 1.39 11.42 39.31 2.97 2.61 3 C.V. 0.24 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.13 0.13 4 N of cases 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 4 Mean 0.86 1.95 12.14 28.51 3.19 2.01 4 C.V. 0.28 0.23 0.22 0.15 0.20 0.12 5 N of cases 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 5 Mean 1.03 2.58 10.54 45.99 2.78 1.61 5 C.V. 0.25 0.14 0.25 0.33 0.14 0.23 6 N of cases 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 6 Mean 0.63 1.88 10.79 35.42 2.95 4.72 6 C.V. 0.27 0.20 0.06 0.24 0.12 0.18 7 N of cases 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 7 Mean 1.17 3.13 9.10 19.11 2.40 2.98 7 C.V. 0.10 0.15 0.10 0.12 0.09 0.33 8 N of cases 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 8 Mean 0.84 1.82 9.69 24.65 2.42 1.61 8 C.V. 0.50 0.27 0.13 0.23 0.15 0.14 9 N of cases 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 9 Mean 1.13 1.74 11.03 28.73 3.03 2.56 9 C.V. 0.10 0.04 0.05 0.23 0.10 0.12 10 N of cases 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 10 Mean 0.70 1.55 9.26 14.15 1.77 2.60 10 C.V. 0.32 0.18 0.11 0.32 0.12 0.14 11 N of cases 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 11 Mean 0.50 1.47 9.73 10.10 1.77 2.39 11 C.V. 0.40 0.23 0.18 0.16 0.11 0.22 12 N of cases 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 12 Mean 0.79 1.81 8.39 12.68 1.93 2.23 12 C.V. 0.31 0.12 0.11 0.20 0.12 0.14 15 N of cases 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 15 Mean 0.54 1.62 11.97 7.38 2.58 2.05 15 C.V. 0.49 0.32 0.32 0.24 0.18 0.36 15.2 N of cases 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 15.2 Mean 0.81 2.80 13.43 39.37 3.50 2.00 15.2 C.V. 0.44 0.08 0.18 0.25 0.22 0.08 16 N of cases 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 16 Mean 0.48 1.40 12.73 35.33 2.44 1.53 16 C.V. 0.34 0.31 0.16 0.52 0.13 0.22

Avg. C.V All Groups 0.32 0.18 0.16 0.25 0.14 0.19

C.V. = Coefficient of Variaiton NEWGP STATISTICS RB CS BA LA CE EU 1 N of cases 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 1 Mean 114.06 7.79 1192.85 29.12 53.24 0.86 1 C.V. 0.18 0.37 0.39 0.17 0.21 0.21 2 N of cases 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 2 Mean 101.69 10.73 598.00 44.87 91.81 1.29 2 C.V. 0.16 0.27 0.26 0.11 0.28 0.30 3 N of cases 37 37 37 37 37 37 3 Mean 82.10 5.65 496.95 34.65 68.30 0.91 3 C.V. 0.10 0.26 0.37 0.14 0.20 0.24 4 N of cases 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 4 Mean 119.25 9.58 689.25 26.58 49.29 0.86 4 C.V. 0.10 0.21 0.19 0.13 0.25 0.23 5 N of cases 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 5 Mean 122.51 5.97 1104.61 31.03 56.32 0.68 5 C.V. 0.15 0.16 0.31 0.22 0.23 0.26 6 N of cases 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 6 Mean 95.38 10.36 1403.56 33.45 57.29 1.05 6 C.V. 0.15 0.25 0.33 0.16 0.16 0.12 7 N of cases 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 7 Mean 153.18 9.22 1064.27 41.59 74.32 0.79 7 C.V. 0.08 0.24 0.35 0.16 0.14 0.22 8 N of cases 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 8 Mean 72.57 3.86 1244.20 41.82 80.75 1.03 8 C.V. 0.19 0.25 0.20 0.31 0.30 0.17 9 N of cases 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 9 Mean 88.25 4.91 1226.75 31.18 69.15 0.87 9 C.V. 0.07 0.11 0.21 0.18 0.29 0.15 10 N of cases 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 10 Mean 66.71 5.04 1411.28 34.70 108.55 0.54 10 C.V. 0.18 0.25 0.34 0.23 0.33 0.11 11 N of cases 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 11 Mean 71.55 7.35 374.78 58.21 158.30 0.73 11 C.V. 0.25 0.31 0.56 0.24 0.25 0.29 12 N of cases 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 12 Mean 93.61 8.15 324.22 37.28 96.34 0.55 12 C.V. 0.13 0.17 0.38 0.15 0.27 0.18 15 N of cases 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 15 Mean 86.84 7.48 780.83 52.07 81.10 1.61 15 C.V. 0.36 0.14 0.26 0.29 0.14 0.25 15.2 N of cases 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 15.2 Mean 131.87 5.72 1130.67 70.50 129.50 2.31 15.2 C.V. 0.26 0.14 0.33 0.19 0.36 0.28 16 N of cases 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 16 Mean 84.13 6.40 848.22 79.98 134.56 1.99 16 C.V. 0.40 0.37 0.37 0.24 0.23 0.19

Avg. C.V All Groups 0.18 0.23 0.32 0.19 0.24 0.21

C.V. = Coefficient of Variaiton NEWGP STATISTICS YB LU HF TA TH 1 N of cases 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 1 Mean 3.29 0.47 7.27 1.04 11.51 1 C.V. 0.19 0.24 0.19 0.26 0.21 2 N of cases 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 15.00 2 Mean 4.66 0.66 6.45 1.15 14.51 2 C.V. 0.12 0.14 0.12 0.19 0.21 3 N of cases 37 37 37 37 37 3 Mean 3.63 0.50 7.92 1.15 9.32 3 C.V. 0.14 0.15 0.09 0.23 0.11 4 N of cases 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 4 Mean 3.23 0.47 7.39 1.05 11.57 4 C.V. 0.13 0.18 0.18 0.11 0.14 5 N of cases 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 27.00 5 Mean 3.48 0.50 6.71 1.01 10.30 5 C.V. 0.18 0.20 0.07 0.11 0.10 6 N of cases 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 6 Mean 3.47 0.55 7.67 1.08 10.75 6 C.V. 0.14 0.18 0.14 0.12 0.18 7 N of cases 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 7 Mean 4.91 0.67 6.79 1.20 12.90 7 C.V. 0.12 0.13 0.07 0.16 0.13 8 N of cases 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 8 Mean 4.33 0.60 7.75 1.54 12.52 8 C.V. 0.27 0.25 0.22 0.29 0.13 9 N of cases 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 9 Mean 4.39 0.64 9.06 1.67 10.26 9 C.V. 0.09 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.07 10 N of cases 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00 10 Mean 4.65 0.65 6.90 1.77 15.57 10 C.V. 0.22 0.23 0.14 0.13 0.18 11 N of cases 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.00 11 Mean 6.69 0.93 8.21 2.07 21.46 11 C.V. 0.12 0.15 0.26 0.09 0.16 12 N of cases 32,00 32.00 32.00 32.00 32.00 12 Mean 4.59 0.66 8.57 1.61 15.37 12 C.V. 0.12 0.17 0.14 0.16 0.26 15 N of cases 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 15 Mean 5.14 0.71 6.99 0.98 13.66 15 C.V. 0.21 0.15 0.19 0.20 0.35 15.2 N of cases 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 15.2 Mean 6.52 0.89 6.19 0.97 10.18 15.2 C.V. 0.16 0.25 0.05 0.09 0.02 16 N of cases 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 9.00 16 Mean 6.57 0.89 7.74 1.35 18.41 16 C.V. 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.26 0.33

Avg. C.V All Groups 0.16 0.17 0.14 0.17 0.17

C.V. = Coefficient of Variaiton Craig Goralski Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University 409 Carpenter Building, State College, PA 16802 e-mail: [email protected]

Education Fall 2008 Ph.D. in Anthropology. Pennsylvania State University. ‘An Examination of the Uapala-Usulután Ceramic Sphere Using Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis’ Spring 1998 Master of Arts Degree in Anthropology. California State University, Fullerton. Spring 1996 Bachelor of Arts Degree in Anthropology with Honors. California State University, Fullerton.

Fieldwork Yarumela Archaeological Project, Yarumela, Honduras. Principal Investigator: Dr. LeRoy Joesink-Mandeville, CSU Fullerton. Houserville Complex Archaeology Project Co-Principal Investigator with Timothy Murtha, Penn State University Archaeological Field School, Pennsylvania State University, Principal Investigator: Dr. Dean Snow, Penn State University San Miguel Archaeological Project, San Miguel, California. Principal Investigator: Karen Fontanetta, Curator, Mission San Miguel CA ORA 840A Milling Stone Horizon Site. Principal Investigator: LeRoy Joesink- Mandeville, Professor, CSU Fullerton. CSU Fullerton Forensic Investigation Team. Director, Dr. Judy Suchey, Professor, CSU Fullerton

Publications December 2003 Book Review: In the Realm of Nachan Kam: Postclassic Maya Archaeology at Laguna de On, Belize by Marilyn Masson. Latin American Antiquity 14:4: 501-502. In Press Monumental Architecture and Site Occupation at Yarumela, Honduras. In Twenty-Five Years of Settlement Pattern Research on the S.E. Maya Periphery: Papers in Memory of George Hasemann. Edited by B. M. Dixon and R.W. Webb In Prep Comayagua Valley. In Pottery of Prehistoric Honduras: Regional Classification and Analysis, 2nd ed. Edited by J.S. Henderson and M. Beaudry-Corbett. (Co-Authored with L.R.V. Joesink- Mandeville)