Archaeological paleography : : a proposal for tracing the role of interaction in Mayan script innovation via material remains / / Joshua D. Englehardt.

• Superior document: Archaeopress pre-Columbian archaeology ; 6
• VerfasserIn: Englehardt, Joshua,
• Place / Publishing House: Oxford : : Archaeopress,, [2015]; ©2015
• Year of Publication: 2015
• Edition: 1st ed.
• Language: English
• Series: Archaeopress Pre-Columbian archaeology ; 6.
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (202 pages).

This volume explores the development of the Maya writing system in Middle-Late Formative and Early Classic period (700 BC-AD 450) Mesoamerica.

Table of Contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Contents
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Chapter 1
• Introduction
• Research Objectives
• Overview of the Investigation
• Regional Context of Dataset
• Analytic Units and Comparative Methodology
• Interpretive Synthesis: Evaluating the Model
• Statistical Methods of Quantitative Analysis
• Organization of this Volume
• Conclusions
• Figure 1.1. Map of Mesoamerica. The micro-regional study area is outlined in the cross-hatched box.
• Figure 1.2. The northwest Maya lowlands, detailing the micro-regional study area. The light grey overlay demarcates the northwest Maya lowlands of the Middle and Lower Usumacinta River basin in Tabasco, south-eastern Mexico (after Hernández Ayala 1981: 68
• Figure 1.3. Detail of micro-regional study area and location of sites which provide ceramic evidence discussed in the text.
• Chapter 2
• Theoretical Framework and Methodological Premises
• Modeling Interaction and Innovation in Ancient Societies
• Systems and Complexity Theories
• Theories of Network and Social Exchange
• Examining Interaction, Integration, and Variability through Material Culture
• Boundary Areas and Material Innovation
• Interaction and The Development of Writing Systems in Mesoamerica
• Writing and the Development of Writing Systems
• Shared Features, Linguistic Encoding, and the Development of Mesoamerican Scripts
• The Emergence and Nature of the Mayan Script
• Evaluating The Relationship between the Development of Writing and Material Interaction in Formative Period Mesoamerica
• Recontextualization
• Interpretive Framework: Correlating Script Diversification and Material Change
• Conclusions
• Figure 2.1. A hypothetical lattice model of Middle Preclassic period scale-free interregional interaction networks, showing nodes of interaction (after Demarest 1989: 337, fig. 13.2).
• Figure 2.2. An analytic classification of writing systems based on types of signs and symbols employed (adapted from Gelb 1963: 14, fig. 2). In the typology detailed above, ideography and pictography/iconography are classified as semasiographic scripts, w
• Figure 2.3. Classification of Mesoamerican scripts (after Justeson et al. 1985
• see also Coe 1976: fig. 1
• Justeson 1986
• Justeson and Matthews 1990
• Marcus 1992a
• Mora-Marín 2001: 444-46, figs. 1.7-1.9).
• Figure 2.4. Acrophany and reformulation in Maya writing. a: T740 hu, hu, 'iguana
• ' phonetic sign
• represents the upended head of a lizard or other reptile
• b: T740:121.126 hu-li-ya, huliiy, intransitive verb, 'arrived
• ' c: T740.23 hu-na, hun, 'paper,' 'bo
• Figure 2.5. a: k'u (k'u) (T604) 'nest
• ' phonetic sign
• b: k'u-xa-ja (k'uxaj) (T604:114.181) passive verb
• 'was eaten
• ' 'was ground
• ' 'was hurt.' Drawings by Pearl Lau.
• Figure 2.6. Lazy-S / cloud / T632 substitution set (drawing by Pearl Lau after Reilly 1996: 414, fig. 3).
• Chapter 3
• Figure 3.1. Map of the central and northwest Maya lowlands, showing sites included in this study and their location in relation to other Classic period Maya centers.
• The Northwest Maya Lowlands: Site Selection and Regional Background
• Regional Context
• Location and Environment
• Previous Investigations
• Site Selection and Background
• San Claudio
• Tiradero
• Mirador
• Revancha
• Conclusions
• Figure 3.2. Distribution of early Mesoamerican script groups overlying distribution of Early Formative ceramic traditions (1150-850 BC). The bold black lines separate the Oaxacan, Southeastern, and Mayan script traditions. The light dashed lines indicate.
• Figure 3.3. Map of Mesoamerica. The extent of the Classic Maya area is roughly outlined in the light grey overlay, with traditional internal highland-lowland divisions noted. The central Maya core area of the Petén is highlighted in the grey cross-hatched
• Figure 3.4. Relief map of the site of San Claudio, 1m contour. (González Moreno 2006: 32, fig. 30). Map by Mario Retíz.
• Figure 3.5. Relief map of the site of Tiradero, 1m contour. Areas of excavation outlined in black cross hatched boxes. Map by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 49, fig. 49.
• Figure 3.6. Map of the site center of Mirador. Map by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 54, fig. 55.
• Figure 3.7. Relief map of the site of Revancha, 0.5m contour. Map by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 58, fig. 60.
• Ceramic Sample and Analytic Methods
• Ceramic Sample
• Archaeological Contexts of the Ceramic Sample
• Sorting and Typing
• Chronology and Phasing
• Ceramic Sequence of the Lower San Pedro Mártir Basin
• Middle Formative Period
• Late Formative Period
• Early Classic Period
• Variables, Scale, and Analytic Units
• Type-Variety
• Form and Shape Class
• Techno-Stylistic Attributes and Dimensions
• Distribution
• Comparative Analysis of Attribute Variability
• Quantitative Analyses of Similarity and Diversity
• ANOVA Cluster Analysis of Mean Attribute Similarity and Distance
• H Score Measures of Diversity
• Conclusions
• Chapter 4
• Figure 4.1. Middle Formative period ceramic type-varieties present in sample (n ≥ 10), showing quantities and group and ware associations (González Moreno 2006
• Hernandez Ayala 1981).
• Figure 4.2. Late Formative period ceramic type-varieties present in sample (n ≥ 10), showing quantities and group and ware associations (González Moreno 2006
• Hernandez Ayala 1981).
• Figure 4.3. Early Classic period ceramic type-varieties present in sample (n ≥ 10), showing quantities and group and ware associations (González Moreno 2006
• Hernández Ayala 1981).
• Figure 4.5. Plan of San Claudio Structure 1. Illustration by Mario Retíz after González Moreno 2006: 34, fig. 32.
• Figure 4.6. Plan of San Claudio Structure 4. Illustration by Mario Retíz after González Moreno 2006: 35, fig. 33.
• Figure 4.8. Plan of San Claudio Structure 12. Illustration by Mario Retíz after González Moreno 2006: 35, fig. 34.
• Figure 4.9. Map detailing excavated areas at House 1, Tiradero. Illustration by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 50, fig. 51.
• Figure 4.10. Detail of excavated areas at the Tiradero ballcourt. Illustration by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 52, fig. 54.
• Figure 4.11. Floor plans of the three houses at Mirador in which explorations were undertaken and ceramic materials recovered. Illustration by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 55, fig. 57.
• Figure 4.12. Detail of excavations at the Mirador ballcourt. Illustration by Mario Retíz after Hernández Ayala 1981: 56, fig. 59.
• Figure 4.13. Regional ceramic sequences and correlations for the Maya lowlands, with relative and absolute chronological correlation. (Adams 1971: 136, table 23
• Hernández Pons 1984: fig. 5
• Hernández Ayala 1981: 77
• Holley 1987
• Lee 1972
• Muñoz 2004
• Ran
• Figure 4.14. Breakdown of quantities and percentages of five most common type-varieties present in sample at each site in the Middle Preclassic period. Percentages indicate proportions of selected type-varieties and totals in relation to the respective Mi.
• Figure 4.15. Breakdown of quantities and percentages of five most common type-varieties present in sample at each site in the Late Preclassic period. Percentages indicate proportions of selected type-varieties and totals in relation to the respective Late
• Figure 4.16. Breakdown of quantities and percentages of five most common type-varieties present in sample at each site (a-d) in the Early Classic period. Percentages indicate proportions of selected type-varieties and totals in relation to the respective
• Figure 4.17. The variable stylistic attributes and categories of those attributes that were observed and recorded on diagnostic artifacts within the sample.
• Figure 4.18. Comparative interpretation of stylistic attributes. *At the regional scale, units refer to distinct ceramic traditions (or cultural groups). At the micro-regional scale, units refer to the four sites as a clustered whole (when compared with s
• Ceramic Analyses
• Results of Ceramic Analyses
• Statistical Analyses of the Ceramic Sample
• ANOVA Analysis of Middle Formative Period Ceramics
• ANOVA Analysis of Late Formative Period Ceramics
• ANOVA Analysis of Early Classic Period Ceramics
• The H Score Diversity Measure
• Summary of Statistical Analyses
• Comparative Assessment between Assemblages at the Regional Level
• Middle Formative Period
• Late Formative Period
• Early Classic Period
• Summary of Comparative Analysis
• Patterns of Interaction and Innovation Revealed through the Ceramic Analyses
• Variability over Time
• Variability through Space
• Conclusions
• Chapter 5
• Interpreting the Results of the Comparative and Statistical
• Figure 5.1. Results of ANOVA statistical analysis on Middle Formative period ceramic sample. (1).
• Figure 5.2. Pie chart illustrating occurrences of specific type-varieties within the Middle Formative period ceramic sample.