The Impact of Ceramic Raw Materials on the Development of Hopewell and Preclassic Maya Pottery A Thesis submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Anthropology of the College of Arts and Sciences by Dominique Sparks-Stokes May 2019 B.A. University of Cincinnati December 2017 Committee Chair: Kenneth Barnett Tankersley, Ph.D. ABSTRACT This thesis examines the role ceramic raw materials play in the technological development of pottery in two geographically separated regions, the Middle Woodland Hopewell in the Ohio River Valley and the Preclassic Maya in Lowland Belize. To this end, a suite of physical, mineralogical, and chemical analytical techniques including scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive spectrometry, X-ray fluorescence spectrometry, and X-ray diffractometry is used to examine the ceramic raw material composition of pottery sherds from the Hopewell Twin Mounds Village site in southwestern Ohio and the Preclassic Maya Colha site in northeastern Belize. The Preclassic Maya pottery from the Colha site is technologically more advanced than Hopewell pottery from the Twin Mounds Village site in terms of hardness, porosity, and refractory properties such as thermal conductivity, resistance to thermal shock, and thermal decomposition. These ceramic properties result from the use of locally available volcanogenic clays at the Colha site. Comparable ceramic raw materials were unavailable to the Hopewell at the Twin Mounds Village site, which resulted in poorer quality pottery. ii iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Court Family Foundation and the Charles Phelps Taft Foundation supported this project. Dr. Fred Valdez, University of Texas, Austin provided pottery sherds from the Colha site in Belize, which was imperative to the completion of this work. Many thanks go to Department of Geology and Dr. Warren Huff for use of their instruments and assisting with X-ray Diffractometry analysis and Liquid separation. Gratitude goes to my loving friends and family for both mental and emotional support as I partook though this journey. The guidance and encouragement of Drs. Kenneth Barnett Tankersley and Sarah Jackson made this thesis possible. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract……………………………………………………………….……….….….ii Listing of Figures…………………………………………………….………...…...vii Listing of Tables………………………………………………………………….....ix Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………1 Chapter 2: Physical Properties of Pottery………………………...………………….7 Physical Properties of Clay…………………………………………………..7 Physical Properties of Pottery.……………………………………….….....10 Hardness………….…………………………………………….……....…..10 Strength……………………...…...…….………………..………….………11 Porosity…………. ……………………………………………….…….......12 Color……………………………...…….……………………….……...…..12 Firing Temperature………………………………………….……………...13 Texture…………….………………………………………….………....….14 Summary..………………………...…….………………….…………...…..15 Chapter 3: Archaeological Sites………….………………………………………...16 Colha……..…………………...…………………………….………………18 Twin Mounds……………………………………………….………………20 Summary…………….. ……..……………………………….……………..23 Chapter 4: Methods and Analyses..….…………………...……….…………...…...24 Pottery Sample………..…...……………………………….…………..…...25 Physical Properties….……..………………...………………………....…...25 Sample Preparation..………………………………………….…………….25 v Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Energy Dispersive Spectrometry (EDS)…………………………...…….……………………………….…....29 Powder X-ray Diffraction Analysis (XRD)....…………….……….…….....30 Energy Dispersive X-Ray Fluorescent Spectrometry (ED-XRF)………......30 Summary…………………………...…….………………….………….…..31 Chapter 5: Results……….…………………………………..………...……….…...32 Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)………………..…….……………...32 Energy Dispersive Spectrometry (EDS)……………………..………...…...34 X-ray Diffractometry Analysis (XRD).……………….………….…...…....35 Energy Dispersive X-ray Fluorescent Spectrometry (ED-XRF).…………..38 Summary………….…………………………………………………....…...41 Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusion.………..…………………………….……..42 References Cited………………………………………………………..……….….45 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The geographical locations of the Middle Woodland Hopewell Twin Mounds village and Preclassic Maya Colha site. Figure 2: The geologic setting of the Preclassic Maya Colha site relative to the source of volcanogenic clays (after Tankersley at al., 2011, 2016). Figure 3: The geologic setting of the Twin Mounds site relative to ceramic raw material source areas (after Dalby, 2007). Figure 4: Middle Woodland Hopewell pottery sherd sample from the Twin Mounds village site. Figure 5: Preclassic Maya pottery sherd sample from the Colha site. Figure 6: Photomicrographs of quartz, calcite, and clay minerals in sherds from the Colha site. Figure 7: Photomicrographs of quartz, calcite, and clay minerals in sherds from the Twin Mounds village site. Figure 8: SEM micrographs of temper raw materials from Hopewell pottery sherds from the Twin Mounds Village site. Figure 9: SEM micrographs of temper and paste raw materials from Preclassic Maya pottery sherds from the Colha site. Figure 10: XRD analysis of Hopewell pottery sherds from the Twin Mounds village site. Figure 11: XRD analysis of ceramic raw materials from the vicinity of the Twin Mounds village site. Figure 12: Mineralogical composition of clay minerals at the Twin Mounds Village site. vii Figure 13: XRD analysis of ceramic raw materials from the vicinity of the Colha site (after Tankersley et al., 2011, 2016). Figure 14: XRD analysis of Preclassic Maya pottery sherds from the vicinity of the Colha site. viii LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Radiocarbon dates obtained from the Colha and Twin Mounds Village sites. Table 2: Physical properties of Preclassic Maya and Middle Woodland Hopewell pottery sherds. Table 3: EDS analysis of Hopewell pottery sherds from the Twin Mounds village site. Table 4: EDS analysis of Preclassic Maya pottery sherds from the Colha site. Table 5: XRF analysis of major elements in Hopewell pottery sherds from Twin Mounds village site and Preclassic pottery sherds from the Colha site. Table 6: XRF analysis of pottery sherds from Twin Mounds village and Colha sites. ix Chapter 1: Introduction In 1959, Leslie White published a paradigm shifting anthropological theory in The Evolution of Culture: The Development of Civilization to the Fall of Rome. Like its human biological counterpart, White believed that non-genetic culture also evolves. A primary aspect of his theory was the technological component of culture. He argued that technology was the driving force behind cultural evolution. White emphasized that the material, physical, and chemical aspects of technology provide humans with a means of survival and ultimately adaptation. White’s theory of cultural evolution drew upon the economic theoretical framework of Marxian economics. In particular, White focused on concept that the economic base determines the superstructure of society (i.e., political power structures, roles, state, etc.). In this perspective, the role of ceramic technology can be viewed as an important facet of a culture’s economic base, which in part determines the development of social superstructure. Ceramic raw material availability, quality, and their physical properties and chemical composition ultimately limit the level of the technological development of pottery. Consequently, the origin of pottery and its level of development vary in many parts of the world and at different points in times (Brown, 1989). Therefore, it is not surprising that the level of ceramic development corresponds to the level of a culture’s polity. That is, complex levels of ceramic technology are associated with more complex polities. Cross-culturally and pan-globally, the earliest pottery co-occurs with plant domestication and the need to store grain in insect-free containers. Food storage in ceramic containers was a crucial technological adaptation to increasing populations in environmentally or socially circumscribed regions. These subsistence and demographic changes are found in ceramic 1 technological innovations, class differences, and demands on labor (Goody, 1982:50153). Thus, understanding changes or differences in the development of ceramic technology are important indicators of changes in ancient subsistence economies (Barnett and Hoopes 1995; Mills, 1999; Arnold, 1999; Skibo and Blinman, 1999). With higher quality ceramic raw materials, greater technological developments could be made. In these situations, pottery played multiple and more complex roles in societies that went far beyond their subsistence functions. In complex polities, high-quality ceramic raw materials allowed pottery to enter exchange networks and became modes of social communications. Their new and differentiated roles in social communication were possible because of the physical and chemical properties of the ceramic raw materials (Stark, 1999). The accessibility and procurement of higher quality ceramic raw materials facilitated a shift from functional mundane pottery to elaborately decorated vessels in a structural hierarchy and status symbols in a complex polity, which communicates social strata, sacred values, and economically valued prestigious gifts (Stark, 1999). Anthropologically, the economics of ceramic production can be viewed as the cornerstone of the human livelihood in complex polities. In other words, understanding the modes of ceramic production is vital to our understanding of complex forms of social and political organization (Longacre, 1999). If the level