Mimicry, Decoration, or Dialect Variation?

A Comparative Analysis of Surface Decoration and Pseudo-glyphs on Polychrome

Ceramics from Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán, El Salvador By: Mariana Aldana

Abstract: This thesis is a comparative analysis of pseudo-glyphs and iconography on Maya polychrome

ceramics. As defined by Longyear (1944, 1952), the term “pseudo-glyph” describes elements or signs

that resemble hieroglyphs in terms of placement on the vessel and general physical appearance but do not

conform to the established canons of Mayan hieroglyphic inscription. Pseudo-glyphs mimic writing but

do not form coherent phrases (Calvin 2006). Vessels containing these pseudo-glyphs have most often

been located in the southeastern lowlands and highlands including Chiapas, Mexico, Guatemala, El

Salvador, and Western Honduras.

It has been suggested that some vessels may have had multiple different artists/scribes painting

images and writing glyph bands and this may be an explanation to the confusion of pseudo-glyphs (Rice

2009). Houston (2000) similarly suggests that pseudo-glyphs may be due to the different level of

epigraphic skill mastery, most likely the result of an illiterate populace competing to gain the elite status

of a scribe. In contrast, pseudo-glyphs may simply be poorly misunderstood because of the

disproportional linguistic investigation in the Maya highland versus the lowland region (Danien 1998). In

this study I argue that the legibility of pseudo-glyphs is less significant because they play a semantic role

in building a community identity (Earnest et al. 2008).

I examine polychrome vessels with a glyph band around the rim from an Early Late Classic (550-

850 C.E.) site in El Salvador (Earnest 1999). I compare these pseudo-glyph bands to vessels from other

sites in the Maya highlands, lowlands and periphery to look for similarities or repetitions in glyphs or

related iconography. This thesis offers a preliminary analysis of pseudo-glyphs from the Maya periphery

and concludes that at this point in research the glyphic motifs on Copador, Gualpopa, and Arambala

polychromes are not legible. Finally, I address the social role of these polychrome ceramics at the

community level of Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán and at a greater sphere between El Salvador and the Maya

region, specifically Copán. Copador ceramics show an interaction between a peripheral region and Copán

(Beaudry 1983; Bill 1997), while the pseudo-glyphs and other iconographic motifs on Copador,

Gualpopa, and Arambala polychromes may play the role of semantic unification to create a social identity

for the region of Ciudad Nuevo Cuscátlan (Earnest et al. 2008).

INTRODUCTION

Over the past half century, Maya epigraphy has made great strides in understanding and

translating Mayan hieroglyphic text. The Maya region is made up of the highlands – which

include the mountainous region along the Pacific coast from Chiapas, Mexico to parts of El

Salvador and Western Honduras – and the lowlands that include the Yucatán peninsular region,

Belize, and parts of Guatemala (see Figure 1). The most progress in Maya epigraphy is on

lowland iconography, while highland writing has been less extensively analyzed.

While popular culture often refers to the ancient Maya as a homogenous group, there are

many differences among the groups of people that lived in what is known as the Maya region of

Mesoamerica (Sharer and Traxler 2006). Some examples of these differences include highland

versus lowland Maya linguistics as seen in epigraphy and relations between the highland Maya

and those in the Maya periphery. In this paper I seek to expand the understanding of a specific

form of hieroglyphics present throughout the Maya region and in the periphery: pseudo-glyphs

on polychrome (multi-colored) vessels. These pseudo-glyphs are relatively common throughout

the Maya highlands and periphery, specifically El Salvador, Western Honduras, and parts of

Guatemala, but their origin is enigmatic (K. Sampeck, personal communication 2011). In this

thesis I compare iconography of glyph bands containing pseudo-glyphs to the images on other

parts of vessels from an early Late Classic site in El Salvador and relate this imagery to previous

archaeological, ethnohistorical, and art historical studies of similar themes. I compare the

structure of these glyph bands to known linguistic structures of legible hieroglyph bands found

on Maya polychrome pottery for insight into if and how these pseudo-glyphs mimic legible

Maya writing. I will additionally compare pseudo-glyphs found on these ceramics to legible

glyphs and to pseudo-glyphs found on ceramics from Guatemala.

Prior to modern advances in Maya epigraphy, most hieroglyphic texts were thought to be

largely decorative and focus mainly on the numerical system, astronomy and calendrics without

a true phonetic system. Thanks to historical accounts by Diego de Landa and linguistic

breakthroughs by Henrich Berlin, Tatiana Proskouriakoff, Stephen Thompson and others,

Mayanists have come to understand and translate a majority of the lowland Maya hieroglyphic

system (Bricker 1995; Houston 2000; Miller 1989; Rice 200; Sharer & Traxler 2006). Much less

work has involved studying the variations between the lowland and highland hieroglyphic

system, or the linguistics of the Maya periphery and their relation to the rest of the Maya region.

The pseudo-glyphs from the early Late Classic site of Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán in El Salvador

illustrate a relationship between the Maya periphery and the Maya polity of Copán through an

enigmatic play on glyphs. The most intensive study of pseudo-glyphs to-date is that of Inga

Calvin (2006) in her dissertation Between Text and Image: An Analysis of Pseudo-glyphs on Late

Classic Maya Pottery from Guatemala. This study focused on ceramics from the Petén region

of Guatemala, which lies in the southern lowlands. She leaves Copador ceramics, which are very

common throughout El Salvador and Honduras, out of her study because they lie in an area that

may be culturally and linguistically distinct from the southern lowlands and even the highlands.

This being said, it is important to see how pseudo-glyphs from El Salvador and Honduras

diverge from the pseudo-glyphs from the Petén region.

The archaeological site discussed in this thesis is from a peripheral region of El Salvador

that interacted with the Maya region. The ceramics are from the Early Late Classic and Late

Classic period (550-850 C.E.) and contain pseudo-glyphs (Earnest 1999). The ceramics used for

comparison are from various Late Classic sites in Guatemala (Calvin 2006; Coe 1982, 1999;

Danien 1998; Kelley 1976; Longyear 1944; Rice 2009; Robicsec & Hales 1982). I examine

photographs of 10 whole polychrome vessels containing pseudo-glyphs. I do this by comparing

the linguistic structure of pseudo-glyph bands to the known linguistic structure of legible glyph

bands on ceramics and by following Calvin‟s (2006) criteria for classifying glyphs into

categories based on color, repetition, and outlining. I further compare stylistic records and

descriptions of similar pottery types and discuss the social meaning of pseudo-glyphs and

Copador ceramics (Beaudry 1983, Bill 1997, Longyear 1952). I reference the dissertation of

Inga Calvin (2006) for comparison of ceramics, as well as collections by Michael Coe and Justin

Kerr and other iconographic and hieroglyphic studies (Carlson 1988; FAMSI; Gates 1978; Harris

& Stearns 1992; Lesure 2004; Longyear 1944; Marci & Vail; Robicsec & Hales 1982; Stuart

1988; Thompson 1962).

From this comparative analysis I found that the pseudo-glyphs in this collection remain

illegible. I conclude that, while there are many possible explanations for pseudo-glyphs on these

ceramics, the most parsimonious argument at this point in research is that these glyphic motifs

serve the purpose of forming a community identity at Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán, and at a larger

sphere, between Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán and Honduras (Earnest et al. 2008). Pseudo-glyphs are

abundant on polychrome ceramics at this site, which implies semantic importance as opposed to

meaningless decoration (Earnest et al. 2008). I point out areas in research that call for further

investigation regarding the major production centers for Copador ceramics by carrying out a

large-scale study of polychrome ceramics from El Salvador (Beaudry 1983; Bill 1997), as most

studies of related polychromes, specifically Copador ceramics, have a key focus on the Copán

region. I finally suggest that pseudo-glyphs on Copador, Gualpopa, and Arambala ceramics

should be further analyzed at a linguistic and social level, in addition to the studies that have

been done on a stylistic level regarding the surface decorations.

Figure 1 Map of the Maya region showing highlands, lowlands, and the site of Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán, El Salvador

BACKGROUND IN MAYA STUDIES

A hieroglyphic system is written in, constituting or belonging to a system of writing

accomplished mainly with pictorial characters. The present understanding of the Mayan writing

system is that it involves a mixture of syllabic and logographic symbols, differing from Egyptian

or other known hieroglyphic systems. A logogram is defined as a letter, symbol, or sign used to

represent an entire word. A single symbolic figure or character in the Mayan writing system will

be referred to as glyph (or in the case of mimicry examined here, pseudo-glyph). For

comparison purposes this paper will take care to pay attention to the art of writing with proper

usage of words/spelling, or orthography, of known glyphs and pseudo-glyphs.

As defined by Longyear (1944, 1952), the term “pseudo-glyph” describes elements or

signs that resemble hieroglyphs in terms of placement on the vessel and general physical

appearance but that do not conform to the established canons of Mayan hieroglyphic inscription.

Pseudo-glyphs mimic writing but do not form coherent phrases (Calvin 2006). The way pseudo-

glyphs “mimic” Maya writing will be elaborated in the data analysis.

Iconography, which refers to pictures illustrating a subject, is an important to the study of

Mayan hieroglyphic texts. Glyphs often resemble images or faces and thus they fall under the

category of iconography. When compared to the other writing systems from Mesoamerica

(Aztec, Mixtec, Zapotec) the Mayan writing system is the most phonetically developed, while

the others are heavier on imagery than phonetic components (Bricker 1995).

A BRIEF HISTORY IN MAYA EPIGRAPHY

Mayan hieroglyphs have been intensively studied for over the past 40 years. As a result,

there have been monumental breakthroughs in the interpretation of the writing structure, calendar

system, numerical system and iconographical meanings. The origin of the Mayan artistic

practices and writing symbols, in addition to those of most other Mesoamerican societies, is

believed to be influenced by the Olmec culture of the gulf coast (Lesure 2004). Work in Maya

epigraphy, which is the study and decipherment of inscriptions, has made it possible to read the

majority of lowland hieroglyphs, giving archeologists a wealth of knowledge considering Maya

religion, mythology, politics, and relative dates of important events (Sharer and Traxler 2005).

Much of ancient Maya writing is found on stone monuments (mentioned below), painted

on ceramic vessels or incised on precious stones. Most recently in they have been deciphered on

Mayan codices, or deer skin books, which are largely almanacs or astrological documentation.

Friar Diego de Landa was a Spanish Catholic missionary who extensively documented his

contact with the Maya society and compiled an “alphabet”. While erroneous in principle

because the Mayan writing system is not alphabetic, this work helped archaeologists find

correlations with Maya dates and begin deciphering Maya text. This has formed the basis of

relatively accurate interpretation of Maya Long Count dates (Sharer and Traxler 2005).

Yuri Knorosov was the first to identify the number of glyphs that make up the language

and to demonstrate that the Maya writing system involved a phonetic component, as opposed to

being limited to calendrical and astronomical components. This demonstration led to the

understanding that the ancient Maya language is a syllabic-logographic writing system. This was

deduced because the number of glyphs – around 800 – is far too large to be simply alphabetical

or syllabic, too small to be solely logographic, and because of the synharomoic rules involving

silent syllables. The synharmonic rule can be illustrated by the Maya word kutz (figure 2),

meaning turkey, that would be spelled ku-tz(u), in which ku and tzu would each be a glyph but

the “u” in the ts(u) glyph remains silent. (Sharer and Traxler 2005).

Figure 2 Synharmony illustrated by "Turkey" glyph

Mayan glyph interpretation was aided by the acknowledgement of polyvalent glyphs, or

glyphs that may have more than one meaning. An example of “ku” as a polyvalent glyph will be

mentioned later during the data analysis. Roughly ten years after Knorosov‟s discover Tatiana

Proskouriakoff made a breakthrough in linguistic patterns that described political events in

history by comparing monuments from three ancient Maya cities: Naranjo, Yaxhilan, and Piedras

Negras. Her studies also resulted in the discovery of emblem glyphs, which stand for individual

city names (Sharer and Traxler 2005).

According to the most recent advances in Maya epigraphy as mentioned in the Annual

Review of Anthropology in October 2005, there are at least five different ways a word in Maya

script can be written: “(a) with a logogram, (b) with a logogram and one or more semantic

determinatives1, (c) with a logogram and one phonetic complement, (d) with a logogram and two

phonetic complements, or (e) with three phonetic signs” (Bricker 1995:218). Characteristics of

words in the Maya writing system are characterized by four basic shapes: consonant-vowel-

consonant, consonant-vowel-vowel-consonant, consonant-vowel-consonant-vowel, and vowel-

consonant-vowel-consonant. Scribes utilized vowel insertion and deletion to maintain the shape

mentioned above, and some glyphs have more than one meaning (Bricker 1995). Additionally,

ceramic writings follow these linguistic characteristics, but are generally more brief (Coe 1999).

An additional part of Maya hieroglyphic text is the number system (see figure 3). For a

Maya epigraphy neophyte, one good place to start is identifying number glyphs. These are

especially common on stela – tall blocks of stone with incised text – because they were most

often erected by great kings, queens, or political leaders to record their birth, family connections,

and monumental battle victories during his or her reign. In brief, a single dot represents the

1 Determinatives are non-phonetic glyphs which give extra information about the meanings of words, distinguish

homophones, and serve as word dividers (Ager 2010)

number one. Dots are added up to four and five is shown by a horizontal or vertical bar,

depending on the positioning of the numbers in text. One horizontal bar with two circles on top

is equal to seven and two vertical or horizontal bars are equal to ten. This bar and dot numeral

system is specific to the Maya region and is not found in neighboring regions such as central

Mexico (Sharer & Traxler 2006). That is to say this is another component of the Mayan writing

system specific to this ancient society. As one will note later and in appendix I this bar-dot

numeral system is seen on the polychrome ceramics found at Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán.

Figure 3 Maya numeric system

On stela or ceramics these number glyphs follow the same rules and are often vertical as

opposed to horizontal. In addition to numbers there are specific glyphs that represent days,

months, and years from the Maya calendrical system used in hieroglyphic writing to record

important dates (Sharer and Traxler 2006). Between the clear numeric system and

archaeologist‟s decipherment of the calendar system Maya archaeologists now have very reliable

dates assigned to great polities that recorded the reigns of rulers (Joyce 2004). Number glyphs

are also found within pseudo-glyph bands but prove to be more of an impediment than a remedy

when trying to determine the direction of the glyph band.

CURRENT VIEWS REGARDING PSEUDO-GLYPHS

There are currently a number of different explanations for the presence of pseudo-glyphs.

It is largely accepted that Mayan scribes were part of the elite class, resulting in competition for

scribe status (Houston 2000). Hieroglyphic writing was a form of symbolic capital, a way to

record history and a sort of propaganda used by elites to maintain power over the populace

(Marcus 1995). This writing system itself was a part of the Mayan identity. Hieroglyphics and

other iconography on polychrome ceramics represented concepts shared by those within the

society (Robin 2004). In relation to these topics, there are four main hypotheses, mostly from

the Maya lowlands, to explain the presence of pseudo-glyphs.

Mimicry by an Illiterate Populace

The first and most common hypothesis is that pseudo-glyphs are essentially the result of

an illiterate populace trying to copy legible hieroglyphics. This may be to gain status, a result of

political upheavals or a result of reciprocal gift-giving (Calvin 2006; Houston 2000). Houston

(2000) argues the former; pseudo-glyphs may be a result of competition for elite status and a

reflection of the importance of luxury goods (e.g. ceramics containing text). In other words,

pseudo-glyphs may very likely have been an effort by illiterate citizens to mimic hieroglyphic

writing onto vessels in an effort to gain prestige through the skill of writing or through the

possession of vessels with writing.

In Calvin‟s (2006) extensive dissertation her overall conclusion was that there was no

clear evidence that pseudo-glyphs convey an alternative glyphic system. She argues that pseudo-

glyphs are most prevalent around a time of great social upheaval or during the Late Classic

Period (600-900 C.E.) and may be a result of it. During this time, there were fluctuations in

power resulting in secondary and tertiary lords creating an increasing demand for new text that

could not be met by the true elite scribes (Calvin 2006; Danien 1998). In short, this claim

coincides somewhat with the illiterate scribe argument, in that the social upheaval allowed for

inexperienced commoners to assume the role of scribe. In addition to the arguments explained

above, Calvin (2006) suggests that pseudo-glyphs may be a result of reciprocal gifting of

ceramics. By the Late Classic period ceramics became more accessible to the public so they may

have become part of a reciprocal gift exchange during which the addition of glyphs would

increase the prestige of the vessel. She (Calvin 2006) also argues that there still needs to be

more research on pseudo-glyphs and suggests some experimentation for epigraphers, such as

substituting real glyphs in certain pseudo-glyph bands and more comparative studies of ceramics

with pseudo-glyphs.

Multiple Artists & Dialectical Differences

In some instances, it has been suggested that vessels may have had different artists. For

example, one artist could have painted the image and another the glyph bands (Rice 2009). In

some of these situations where it seems that the same vessels have more than one artist, the glyph

bands are largely pseudo-glyphic. In a review of Late Classic pottery production, Rice (2009)

suggests that if there were different artists working on the same vessels, difficulty in deciphering

texts may be a result of a different dialect used by different artists , such as the Ch‟orti dialect

that differs from the Southern lowland classic system based on K‟ekchi. When applied to

illegible glyphs or pseudo-glyphs, the work of different artists on the same vessels might also

imply that some artists may not have had as in depth knowledge of the Mayan script as others.

Despite this, pseudo-glyphs are often found on the finest polychrome ceramics, and clearly

legible Primary Standard Sequence text (explained later) have been found on poorly decorated

ceramics (Rice 2009).

Dialectic Differences

A style of vessel known for its pseudo-glyphs is the Chamá polychrome, named after the

Chamá region of the Alta Verapaz Guatemalan highlands. The pseudo-glyphs on these vessels

were most often believed to have been the work of illiterate artists, as is suggested by Houston

(2000). In a study on Chamá vessels Danien (1998) argues that this explanation is no longer

credible because not as much linguistic investigation has been done among the highland region

and the pseudo-glyphs at hand are simply poorly misunderstood and in fact, have since been

deciphered and found to have origins in an Eastern Cholan dialect.

This concept of dialectic differences also leads to an argument that pseudo-glyphs may in

fact be a southern highland dialectic, or a variant of a culturally distinct group in the Maya

periphery uninterpreted by modern scholars. In the Salamá Valley located in central Guatemala

(see figure 4) there are stone monuments with inscriptions from the Preclassic era that “provide

evidence that there were at least two functionally distinct recording systems in use in the Maya

highlands during the latter portion of the Preclassic” (Sharer 1989:173). These recording

systems were likely a major precursor to the evolution of the Maya writing system and seem to

have been used for public display and non-public idiosyncratic usage (Sharer 1989). This

location is important because it is in an area between the southern lowlands and the southern

highlands so the writing system may have encountered differences in evolution between the

highlands and the lowlands.

Figure 4 Salamá region is in the Maya highlands, between Maya periphery and Maya lowlands

Scribal Play & Symbolic Function

In an email correspondence through the FAMSI database in 2007, Tulane graduate Dr.

Bryan Just argues for the importance of considering pseudo-glyphs on a case-by-case basis. He

uses K171 (see figure 5) as an example of how clearly fine scribal showmanship may exhibit

meaningless hieroglyphs, around the rim in this case, in association with meaningful and

linguistically correct hieroglyphs on the body of the vessel.

Figure 5 K717, Tall cylindrical vase showing a scribal workshop, 7 Manic 5 Uo Calendar round date, other text encircling

the rim and meaningful text down the body

The repeating text around the rim reads Lakam-Tuun, which means “banner stone”, with slight

variations from one glyph to another. Just (2007) describes these variations as a scribal play on

showmanship by exploring variations while maintaining legibility. Through this example Just

(2007) goes on to suggest that these may be pseudo-glyphs serving the function of a primary

standard sequence (PSS) text on the rim of the vessel, and that the function of PSS-like

iconography enveloping the vessel is enough to finish off an elite vessel, whether or not the text

is linguistically meaningful (Just 2007).

Community Identity

All of these hypotheses have valid foundations but none are a sure match to explain

pseudo-glyphs in the collection analyzed in this thesis. As will be discussed later, the site of

Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán was inhabited by a group of pioneers to a new region (Earnest 1999).

This site differs from most common lowland Maya sites because the community had no previous

history there and the polychrome ceramics at Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán are a common good as

opposed to limited to an elite populace like those in the lowlands (Earnest 1999; Sampeck 2007).

Earnest et al (2008) argue that the presence of pseudo-glyphs in this region is a semantic part of

creating a community identity at this site of new inhabitants and, at a larger sphere, between

Salvadorians and Hondurans.

EXAMPLES OF PSEUDO-GLYPHS IN PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Tikal Dancer Plates

Tikal is a site in Northern Guatemala that was a polity during Preclassic into the

Postclassic periods. A relatively well documented element from this region is the presence of

what have come to be called Tikal dancer plates (see figure 6). These polychrome plates are

from the Late Classic period and contain different variations of maize god iconography. A

distinguishing trait of these plates is that they were massive ceremonial plates most often

produced specifically to be interred with a high status individual and many contain pseudo-glyph

bands. Pseudo-glyphs on this specific type of polychrome plate are especially interesting

because the plates had specific uses in an intimate and restricted social realm, yet the glyphs are

illegible (Boot 2003; Just 2009). These Tikal Dance plates differ from the Copador, Gualpopa,

and Arambala polychrome vessels from Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán because the latter were used in

every-day practices such as for holding foodstuffs, yet both contain pseudo-glyphs. Polychrome

vessels seen at the Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán assemblage show use-wear including repair holes

(Earnest 1999; K. Sampeck personal communication 2011) and one might assume that the

producers of these common polychromes were illiterate; but if illiterate persons are responsible

for pseudo-glyphs this begs the question to why the pseudo-glyphs on the elite-restricted Tikal

Dancer plates are illegible.

Figure 6 Example of Tikal Dancer Plate or Uxactún Dancer plate, wearing ball game belt, possibly resembling dance of

the Hero Twins (Boot 2003:3; Coe1982:89). Pseudo-glyphs are within rim band, top, left and right.

In an Annotated Overview of the “Tikal Dancer Plates,” Boot (2003) poses the possibility

that these pseudo-glyph bands may be a form of naming the Maize god. He supports this

suggestion by recording pseudo-glyph bands from a collection of plates and comparing the

linguistic elements to a nominal phrase found in Late Classic Maya Codices.

The Chamá Vase

Chamá describes a region in Guatemala as well as a short-lived ceramic style named after

the Chamá region. Chamá is more specifically located in the Petén region of Guatemala, and the

Chamá ceramic tradition is most often characterized by cylindrical vases decorated with a

distinctive black and white band with a red palette on a yellow-orange background (Danien

1998; Rice 2009). The Chamá region falls on a Maya trade route that may have developed as a

result of the devastating 425 C.E. Ilopango eruption in El Salvador (Danien 1998; Earnest 1999).

Danien (1998) argues that this style of polychrome art (see figure 7) and writing was brought to

the Chamá region by lowland colonists. This writing was initially thought to be pseudo-glyphic

in nature, but most vessels are now being deciphered as the writing was found to be a variant of

an Eastern Cholán lowland language family (Danein 1998).

Figure 7 Typical Chama color and style with inscriptions and Jaguar and water lily iconography (FAMIS, Kerr No. 3231)

Danien (1998) explains that there is a history of evidence for interaction between the

highland and lowland region, especially the Petén region. She goes on to argue that there are

many stylistic indications of lowland artists teaching individuals from the Chamá region ceramic

painting and calligraphy. One of these artistic indications is thicker brush strokes especially in

the outlines of glyph blocks. Additionally, the amount of archaeologically recovered Chamá

style vessels is relatively small, suggesting that this was not a locally derived style of

polychrome art, but that the style was introduced by outsiders and developed local variation by

those who were taught the new style. Local variation is shown by different iconography painted

on the vessels that varies from lowland art typical of Codex style vessels in that the Chamá style

vessels are often exaggerated, skewed or more static. One example of unique iconography

among the Chamá style is the repetition of one image on three different vessels. While there are

common themes repeated in lowland polychrome vessels, there are rarely, if ever, repetitions of

the exact same portrait. (Danien 1998).

RESEARCH APPROACH

An intensive study of pottery containing pseudo-glyphs was performed by Inga Calvin

(2006) in her PhD dissertation. That study provided a model for looking at pseudo-glyphs that

this thesis will follow. Her study included whole vessels and was focused on sites from the

southern highlands of Guatemala. This thesis is focused on Copador, Gualpopa, and Arambala

ceramics from El Salvador which were left out of Calvin‟s study. In addition to following

Calvin‟s (2006) model for determining the linguistic relevance of pseudo-glyphs this thesis also

considers work recording the surface decoration, especially glyph motifs, of Copador ceramics

(Beaudry 1983; Bill 1997; Longyear 1952).

Calvin (2006) provides a catalogue of pseudo-glyphs that will be utilized in this paper for

comparison to the ceramics I will be studying. In addition, I will utilize the Foundation for the

Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies Inc. (FAMSI) database. Specifically I will use the Justin

Kerr collection database and the Thompson catalog of Maya hieroglyphics (Thompson 1962).

The Kerr collection provides a search engine of Mesoamerican imagery to find and compare

iconography on different vessels. The photos are very useful as they display the actual ceramics,

describing their shape and also use 360° rollout photography to provide a flat view of

iconography on ceramics. Kerr has provided these photographs for various other ceramic

studies, and some of these will be used for additional comparison (Coe 1982). The Thompson

catalog of Maya hieroglyphics (1962) is the most complete catalog that has yet to be compiled.

It includes hieroglyphs from codices and monuments and is used for description of legitimate

glyphs in scholarly works by comparing a glyph to a “T” number, as each glyph in the catalog is

recorded by T1, T123, etc. This catalog is available on the FAMSI database.

THE SITE

The site of Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán (see Figure 1 and

Figure 8) appears to represent the initial re-colonization of

the region after the devastating Ilopango eruption in 425 C.E.

but lies outside of the highland region and thus outside of the

Maya cultural region (Earnest 1999). The Ilopango eruption

was an important part of Maya history as it provided an

opportunity for new populations to settle and create new

community identities (Earnest 1999; Sharer & Traxler 2006;

Sheets 1979).

The initial repopulation of the Ciudad Nuevo

Cuscatlán region has been termed the Regalado phase (AD 550-650) by Earnest (1999) and is

characterized by an abundance of Chancala polychrome. Chancala later becomes replace by

Gualpopa, Copador, and Arambala polychromes (Earnest 1999). The next phase, the Dueñas

phase (AD 650-850), is characterized by an increased presence of pseudo-glyphs on Gualpopa,

Copador, and Arambala ceramic types (Earnest 1999). All Three of these polychromes are

commonly found in Western El Salvador while the first two, Gualpopa and Copador, are very

common at Copán, Honduras during the height of its building and artistic activity (AD 600-750)

(Beaudry 1983; Bill 1997; Earnest 199).

Figure 8 view of region around Ciudad

Nuevo Cuscatlán

Ceren, located north east of Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán, is an example of a well-

documented site in El Salvador. The site is best known for its great preservation and

sophisticated agriculture. Like Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán, Joya de Ceren was abandoned before a

volcanic eruption (590 AD), so households demonstrate every-day life as an ancient Salvadorian

citizen. Prehistoric and Late Classic residents at Ceren had comparatively good lifestyle, which

can be seen by the great variety of foodstuffs and close access to a clean water source. One

striking feature about the prehistoric material is that more than 70 ceramic vessels were found

among the poorest households. This is significant because in most Maya regions ceramic vessels

were restricted to elite consumption up until the Late Classic period. At Ceren, the Late Classic

ceramics show a great amount of hematite use in decorated pottery, a trait common of Copador

ceramics (Sheets 1994).

During the Preclassic and Classic periods, one of the main trade routes from Central

America to the Maya lowlands and Mexico was believed to have gone through Honduras and

peripheral regions of El Salvador, but after the Ilopango eruption trade may have been re-routed

through Copán, Honduras. This new route may have been one of the reasons for Copán‟s rise in

social status, power, and wealth. Dr. Howard Earnest (1999) argues that the Ilopango eruption

was not a great factor in the collapse of the Preclassic Maya and the move into the Maya

lowlands as was once thought, but that the re-routing of trade was the more probable result.

An interesting attribute of this Early Late Classic site is the diversity in iconography

found among the ceramics. As one can see in appendix I and II, there are many artistic

differences among the pots recovered. All the pots in appendix I have distinct attributes that link

them to the Copador, Arambala, or the Gualpopa glyphic variation types. In addition to these

three visually similar polychromes the assemblage at Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán includes

utilitarian wares, or bigger heavy-duty ceramics used for cooking, and other ceramic types found

only in this region and (Earnest 1999) (see appendix III).

Ceramic Types at Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán and Associated Areas

The ceramics analyzed in this thesis from Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán are largely Copador,

Gualpopa, and Arambala polychrome. They are all made from a cream paste, are decorated with

many similar decorative motifs, and are specific to the Maya periphery (Beaudry 1983; Bill

1997; Earnest 1999; K. Sampeck, personal communication 2011; Rice 2009). The Maya

periphery describes regions that appear to have relatively fewer of the typical characteristics of

Maya settlement and material culture, though enough to indicate regular interaction with

securely Maya populations (K. Sampeck personal communication 2011). The ethnicity and

linguistic affiliation of these peripheral regions is a matter of debate. Copador ceramics

especially reflect an interaction between El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala because they are

found only in this region (Bill 1997; Neff et al 1999). The name itself was termed by Kidder and

is a mix of Copán, a major site in Western Honduras, and El Salvador (Neff et al 1999).

One distinguishing feature of Copador, Gualpopa and Arambala polychromes is the

iconography, including pseudo-glyphs, “swimming” or reclining persons, monkeys, birds, and

similar figures repeated along the rim and/or body of the vessel (Bill 1997; Beaudry 1983; Sharer

1978a). Copador vessels may belong to a cream-paste tradition or to a “Maya” polychrome

tradition. There are clear relationships between decorative treatments but Copador ceramics

remain separated from a “Maya” polychrome tradition because of technological features,

specifically paste texture, suggesting different sources for each (Bill 1997). Copador groups in

general can be distinguished by black and red hematite paint used for surface decoration on a

plain slipped base of cream, pale yellow, or light orange (Bill 1997). The best ways to

differentiate Copador, Gualpopa and Arambala polychromes is by the presence or absence of

hematite in the paint and to examine the color of the clay by looking at the profile of a potsherd

(Beaudry 1987; Bill 1997; K. Sampeck personal Communication 2011). If there is hematite in

the paint it gives of a clear sparkle and is usually Copador, and examining the profile of a

potsherd allows one to see the shade of the clay used and identify lighter clay as Copador or dark

orange clay as Arambala (Bill 1997). Ceramics from this site that contain pseudo-glyphs also

include some incised cylindrical pots (Earnest 1999), but the main focus is on the polychrome

ceramics.

Arambala polychrome was initially identified by Longyear (1952) and described by

Sharer (1978a). The former described Arambala as “imitation Copador” or “false Copador”

because the surface decoration involves very similar motifs to Copador but are sloppy and appear

hastily drawn (Beaudry 1983). Further investigation of the Arambala polychrome revealed that

it predates Copador ceramics in El Salvador. This may imply that Copador ceramics have an

origin in El Salvador because the decorative motifs are so similar to those of Arambala (K.

Sampeck, personal communication 2011). This finding is significant because Copador ceramics

were thought to originate and to be solely produced at Copán, Honduras (as is explained below)

while Arambala ceramics are only found in El Salvador (Beaudry 1983; Earnest 1999).

Arambala was initially described as an imitation Copador, but if in fact Arambala was the

precursor to Copador further investigation may find that Copador ceramics have an origin in El

Salvador.

Polychrome Ceramic Production in Honduras

The tradition of ceramic production is seen throughout Maya history. While Maya

history is also full of short- and long-distance trade, the Classic period shows evidence of an

increase in market exchange and increased trade interaction centered around great local polities.

In the case of Copador ceramics Marilyn Beaudry (1984) argues that during this time period the

majority of production took place in urban and rural areas around Copán for elites and citizens

alike. During the majority of the Classic period ceramics were produced exclusively for the elite

class. Chemical analysis of paste-type indicates that there were two major production centers of

Copador ceramics as well as dispersed household production throughout the Copán region of

Honduras. Beaudry (1984) goes on to explain that there may have been additional production for

specific export to El Salvador, and that Quiriguá, Guatemala, another polity to the north of

Copán, had a production center for imitation Copador ceramics, likely to avoid trade with Copán

because of a political split during this time (West 2002).

Copador ceramics (and other styles specific to this area and time period) show a distinct

break from previous polychrome ceramics in the Copán area with decorative techniques such as

simplified surface treatment, the presence of pseudo-glyphs, and repeated figures along the body

of a vessel (Bill 1997; West 2002:164). This break in tradition has been argued by Beaudry

(1948) to be standardization in surface treatment to appeal to the majority of consumers, thus

demonstrating this peripheral region‟s association with the Maya realm. This argument implies

that ceramic production responds to the changes in community and acts as coalescence in

response to a common social change in tradition. In other regions such as Tikal in Guatemala

and Palenque in Chiapas, Mexico data suggests that ceramic production from the Classic into the

Late Classic period likely shifted from elite-oriented to a market-exchange commodity (West

2002), and ceramics containing pseudo-glyphs have also been found at archaeological sites in

these regions (Calvin 2006).

Ceramic Production

The concept of market exchange itself is an explanation for the presence of pseudo-

glyphs on the mass produced Copador ceramics. As explained by Beaudry (1984) and Bill

(1997), ceramic production at a large scale results in a degree of local standardization and

simplification of iconography. In the case of Copador ceramics this level of simplification may

be the simplification of legitimate Mayan script for pseudo-glyphs. This explanation would also

be applicable if the major production of Copador ceramics was centralized in El Salvador, and an

oversimplification of iconography also suggests less emphasis on the legibility of glyphs and a

greater emphasis on the function and symbolic meaning of text and images.

Beaudry (1983) performed the first in-depth study of ceramics from the Southern Maya

periphery with an emphasis on Copador polychrome. She used chemical analysis of Copador,

Gualpopa, and other types of pottery to determine the “fingerprint” of the raw material used to

manufacture these pots. The analysis included neutron activation for element concentrations, x-

ray analysis, and temper analysis to determine that the majority of Copador ceramics were made

using clay from the Copán valley region. She explains that this data supports major production

out of the Copán region of Honduras but that there is the possibility of small-level production

centers from Quirigua and Western El Salvador that would have used the same source. While

Beaudry (1983) concludes that the zone of Copador production is the Copán valley she admits

that this was not supported by a compositional analysis, and that experimental firing of clay

sources is needed to definitively support this conclusion.

Bill (1997) takes a different approach to ceramic analysis by examining the patterns of

variation and change in dynastic period ceramics and ceramic production. Throughout the

Classic period at Copán, archaeological data shows a great import of ceramics from the Maya

lowlands and highlands specifically for the elite. The segue into the Late Classic period at

Copán reveals a transition away from the import of Maya vessels to an increase in frequency of

locally produced vessels from Honduras and Western El Salvador. This transition also

emphasizes the relationship between a great polity considered part of the Maya culture and sites

in El Salvador considered part of the culturally distinct Maya periphery. These locally produced

ceramics are also present among the commoner middens and burials that contain increasing

numbers of cream-paste and polychrome vessels, reflecting the transition of ceramics from

strictly elite goods to elite and commoner goods.

An interesting comparison between Copán and El Salvador is the cessation of Copador

production toward the end of the Coner phase (800-900 AD), a phase specific to ceramic

traditions (Bill 1997). In Copán there is an abrupt decline in the presence, and most likely

manufacture, of cream-paste and polychrome Copador ceramics, while no such decline has yet

been recorded in El Salvador (Bill 1997). No definite data on the Salvadorian side has been

examined, but Bill (1997) suggests that this abrupt decline at Copán may reflect a weakening in

the Copán-Salvadorian connection, mainly because vessels manufactured from other regions of

Honduras remain at Copán after this abrupt decline in Copador ceramics (Bill 1997). This data

conversely may imply that El Salvador was doing its own major manufacturing of Copador

ceramics because the Copador style remains at El Salvador while it stops in Copán.

While most literature discussing Copador ceramics argues that Copán is the main

producer with sites in El Salvador showing high concentrations of these ceramics because of

trade interaction, there are arguments for a different source. Additional analysis of Copador

ceramics may point to a much more intensive interaction between Copán and El Salvador with El

Salvador playing a bigger role than was once thought (K. Sampeck, personal communication

2011).

Ceramic Shapes and Uses

The majority of ceramics examined in this study will be hemispherical and recurved

bowls. In Calvin‟s (2006) study she performed statistical analyses to conclude that pseudo-

glyphs were most commonly found on rounded-bowls, which seems to hold true for the

collection at hand. Another observation was that there was a statistical difference in size of

vessels containing pseudo-glyphs versus those containing legitimate hieroglyphs (Calvin 2006).

Vessels containing pseudo-glyphs were generally smaller than those containing real hieroglyphs,

and when considering color used in pseudo-glyphic text there was more correlation between

pigments and vessel shape than with pigments and “legible” pseudo-glyphs (Calvin 2006). This

comparative analysis of the Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán collection will include different shaped

vessels from outside sources.

The function of Classic period ceramics in Mesoamerica can often be determined by the

shape and the iconography. Taller cylindrical vessels were most often used for drinking cacao,

and these vessels commonly had the name of the owner and imagery of cacao. Round bowls

were most often used for atole, a type of corn gruel or alcoholic drink made from corn, while

plates were often used for tamales (Calvin 2006). Depending on the time period and region,

functions included every-day food-use or special occasion religious use, such as food offerings.

In addition to the physical iconography it is important to consider the social context of ceramics.

For example, a large amount of elaborate vessels indicate higher status of the individual in a

burial (Lesur 2004). In the earlier example of Tikal Dancer plates (see Figure 6) the polychrome

ceramics were produced specifically as grave goods and are found only in elite burials (Boot

2003; Just 2009). At Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán most vessels were recovered from burials or in

association with the wall of a house, and similar polychromes have been found in middens of all

classes (Beaudry 1983; Bill 1997; Earnest 1999). In the former the polychrome plates were

burial goods to accompany the dead perhaps with an offering, while the latter show ever-day use

in context and physical appearance.

Linguistic Structure

As mentioned above, the most common form of hieroglyphic text on ceramics named the

owner and/or what the vessel was used for. This type of writing is Primary Standard Sequence

(PSS), which most commonly reads “this is so-and-so‟s cacao pot”. The PSS is made up of four

to more than twenty glyphs and is placed in a band below the rim of a vessel or in a vertical

column (Coe 1999). Other forms of text are “Primary Alternative texts, which may be sequences

of god names, Primary Repeat texts which are a repetition of one or two glyphs, and Secondary

Nonrepeat texts are usually placed near figures and may contain names, titles, actions, dates,

and/or Emblem Glyphs” (Coe 1982:11). The shorter forms of text commonly found on ceramics

are also called Secondary texts (Rice 2009). I will use this classification of text types when

comparing pseudo-glyphs to other ceramics with glyphic texts to see if they resemble known

structures of Maya writing.

In addition to this linguistic structure, I will follow Calvin‟s (2006) guidelines for

classifying pseudo-glyphs into three different categories.

“Category 1 is characterized by elements that do not match any legitimate hieroglyphic

signs identified by scholars… Category 2 consists of blocks composed, in whole or part,

of phonetic or logographic signs that lack an established meaning and do not form

pronounceable Southern Classic Mayan words… Category 3 involves glyph blocks

composed of pronounceable Southern Classic Mayan hieroglyphs with a deciphered

meaning, but have extremely limited or not readily understood communicative value…

more clearly identified as „pseudo-text‟ because the glyphic phrases lack coherent

structure.” (Calvin 2006:25)

Additional guidelines for these categories are highlighted in Calvin‟s (2006) dissertation and

involve amount of color used, repetition, outline, and linguistic structure such as was described

above.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS OF VESSEL A

Vessels in this study are examined through photographs as the actual whole vessels are

property of the Museo Nacional in El Salvador. A variety of ceramics were recovered from this

site but the focus of this paper is on the vessels that contain pseudo-glyphic elements. The

qualification of vessels was assessed by presence pseudo-glyph bands representing one or more

possible glyphic elements that resembled known hieroglyph bands or previously recorded

pseudo-glyph bands. Incised Surló ceramics with pseudo-glyphs bands are left out of this

analysis to keep a central focus on polychrome ceramics.

Vessels containing pseudo-glyphs that met the criteria for this study were recorded (Table

1; Appendix I) and compared to different linguistic structures (Coe 1999), known glyphs

(Thompson 1962), and pseudo-glyphs recorded by Calvin (2006) or seen in The Pearlman

Collection of Maya Ceramics (Coe 1982). While some plates and tall cylindrical vessels also

contained pseudo-glyphs, the emphasis of this study is on small hemispherical and recurved

bowls. Repetition of pseudo-glyphs was also taken into account. Repetition of glyphs within the

collection at hand, repetition between the collection and Calvin‟s (2006), and repetition between

the collection and the Pearlman Collection were all noted.

All compiled data can be seen in Appendix I at the end of this paper. The ceramics in

this collection were objectively recorded in a spread sheet illustrated below by Table 1

describing vessel A (Figure 9). Glyphs in a sequence were recorded in order represented by G1,

G2, etc. Each linguistic element that resembles a glyph or an affix is represented by a “G”

followed by a number, in numerical order from the beginning of a “phrase” to the end. When

glyphs were found on the outside and inside of a vessel, those on the inside were recorded with a

prime (G1‟). The feature column describes each glyph or linguistic element explained above.

For example, G1 comparatively resembles a glyph and G2 resembles a glyph that functions as a

postfix based on descriptions of known Maya glyph structure (Harris and Stearns 1992).

As a glyph band may have multiple affixes, each affix will be followed by a roman

numeral to specify that it is different from another. For example, postfix II was previously

identified on another vessel which contained two postfixes labeled postfix I and postfix II to

differentiate between them (see appendix I). There are two postfixes on the glyph band on the

outside of the bowl described below and they both appear to be the same postfix, which in turn

appears on another vessel.

Table 1 Description of Iconography, Pseudo-glyphs, and categorization of Copador bowl

Vessel

#2,

Register

223

Lot

Number

Feature Iconography Interior Outline Position Images on

Vessel

Text

Type

Glyph

Category

Type of

Pot

G1 95-

9/22/176/2

"glyph" Face of man

with

headdress

Orange,

red,

black,

none

red Exterior,

lip

"swimming"

man

PSS 2 Recurved

Bowl

G2 95-

9/22/176/3

postfix

II

Backwards

"c"

orange red Exterior,

lip

"swimming

Man "

G3 95-

9/22/176/4

"glyph" round face

with large

eye, NIK?

orange red Exterior,

lip

"swimming

Man"

G4 95-

9/22/176/5

postfix

II

Backwards

"C"

orange red Exterior,

lip

"swimming

Man "

G1' 95-

9/22/176/6

prefix I "C" orange red Interior None

G2' 95-

9/22/176/7

"glyph" Large oval

with curved

line through

middle,

PG73?

Orange,

red,

none

red Interior None

Figure 9 Example of Copador bowl with pseudo-glyphs

Iconography refers specifically to the feature in the same row, for example G1 is an

anthropomorphized glyph so it is described as the face of a man. Interior describes the interior of

the feature. The interior and outline colors are important because these are both criteria for

categorizing pseudo-glyphs; legitimate glyphs are most commonly made up of more than one

color (Calvin 2006). Position refers to the position of the iconography/glyph band on the vessel;

whether it is on the interior or the exterior, and where on the interior or exterior it is positioned.

As discussed earlier, the different positions of glyphs on vessels may reflect different text types.

The text type and glyph category columns differ from the other columns as they refer to

the glyph band as a whole and not each specific linguistic element. Text type refers to the

linguistic structure of the glyph band using the types explained earlier: Primary Standard

Sequence (PSS), Primary Alternative (PA), Primary Repeat Texts (PR), or Secondary Nonrepeat

Texts (SN). This assignment is made by how closely the structure of the glyph band conforms to

the definition of the text types (Coe 1982; Rice 2009) and by comparisons between pseudo-glyph

bands and vessels that have been assigned a text type found in the FAMSI database and other

photographs of vessels (Coe 1982). The glyph categories are assigned using the criteria

mentioned earlier that were laid out by Calvin (2006:25-26).

Archaeological Context

This (Figure 9) and all other pots from the Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán collection were

recovered from burials or associated with house structures or caches (see appendix IV). The soil

in this region of El Salvador is so acidic that no bones were preserved, but the location of the

goods was clearly in the context of a burial or in the case of feature 223 in the corner of a house

(see figure 10). This vessel, Vessel A, was recovered with one other pot. The second pot was

not polychrome but was a Guarumal vessel, characterized by its red coloration and white dot

decoration (see appendix II, feature 223) (Beaudry 1987; Sharer 1978c). Vessel A is classified

as a recurved bowl as it has a round body and a flared rim.

Figure 10 Feature 223 in situ close-up on left (Earnest 1999)

Linguistic Structure of Glyph Band

Primary standard sequence (PSS) usually runs along the lip of the vessel or vertically

while secondary texts may be found in association with images on the body of the vessel (Coe

1982). The glyph band on this vessel pictured above (Figure 9) is made up of four glyphs around

the outside rim. By definition four glyphs is the minimal number to make up a PSS. Despite

this, most vessels used for comparison show a sequence longer than four glyphs when they are

along the rim of the vessel. In addition, many vessels containing a PSS have more detailed

iconography on the vessel. That is, they generally show an action such as a ceremony or

multiple different individuals as opposed to one image (as seen in figure 9).

One issue with interpreting pseudo-glyphs is the absence of a clear start-marker. This is

common among different varieties of pseudo-glyphs and is specified as a characteristic of

Calvin‟s (2006) category 1 and 2 pseudo-glyphs. In the example above (Figure 9) there is no

clear start-marker and it is possible that G3 may be the start instead of G1. This being said, G1

was assigned using deductive reasoning and examples of legitimate glyph bands. Although it is

difficult to see, G1 is repeated at the end of the recorded sequence so it can be assumed that this

sequence is a repetition of the four glyphs. As G1 is situated above the edge of the “swimming

man” iconography, I assigned it as the potential beginning of the glyph sequence.

Additional glyphs are on the interior of the vessel and appear to be in reverse order to

those on the outside; that is, glyphs that appear as postfixes on the outside of the vessel are

positioned as prefixes on the inside of the vessel. When reading a glyph band on a vessel it is

read from left to right, as one would read a book in English. Glyphs that resemble a face “look”

to the left. When comparing the pseudo-glyphs in Figure 9 to known glyphs, one will notice that

the pseudo-glyphs are oriented in the opposite direction of known glyphs, so that the pseudo-

glyphs on the inside of the vessel in Figure 9 are actually facing the “right” direction when

compared to Classic Southern Lowland epigraphic rules.

Glyph directionality adds another complication to the process of interpreting pseudo-

glyphs. A combination of ambiguous directionality and unclear start-markers are further

complicated when number glyphs are added to the linguistic formula. When direction and

structure is clear, one can easily determine whether a bar and two dots stand for five or seven,

but in many cases of pseudo-glyph bands there are number glyphs that may have multiple values

depending on the direction of the text.

Categorizing Glyph Band

This glyph band (Vessel A, figure 9) is not readable but conforms to certain stylistic

properties that characterize Maya orthography. Although postfix II is a commonly repeated

element among pseudo-glyphs and may resemble a prefix or suffix seen in legitimate glyph

bands, there are no specific glyph elements that are known hieroglyphs and there is no specific

start-marker. G3 resembles a glyph (PG112) recorded in Calvin‟s (2006) catalogue which she

relates to a “NIK” glyph, and G2‟ resembles another pseudo-glyph (PG73) in Calvin‟s (2006)

catalog that does not necessarily resemble any legitimate known glyph (see figures 10 & 11).

Figure 11 Calvin 2006:281

Figure 12 Calvin 2006:280

Each of the pseudo-glyph blocks are outlined in red and are filled in with an orange-

yellow color; some containing red or black pigmentation with the background paste color

utilized as well in addition to the overall orange color of the whole glyph (see G1). This pseudo-

glyph band utilizes a total of three colors including the outline color, which gives it more

legitimacy than a category 1 pseudo-glyph band. For these reasons Vessel A (figure 9) may be

categorized in category 2 because it has multiple colors and resembles a possible variation of a

legible glyph. In Calvin‟s (2006) study she found no pseudo-glyphs containing more than four

colors, and no legible glyphs containing more than six colors. Similarly it was rare to find

pseudo-glyphs with four colors and legible glyphs with six colors, but there are instances of each

(Calvin 2006).

VESSEL B

Vessel B is a smaller round bowl with a sequence of repeating glyphs on the external

surface only along the rim of the vessel. It is a hemispherical bowl as it is rounded with no

flaring of the rim. It was found with one other polychrome vessel: a four-footed serving plate

(see appendix II, feature 232). This plate had detailed decoration on the inside, along the rim,

and underneath, but no pseudo-glyphs. On vessel B, G1 and G2 are commonly repeated

elements on vessels within the Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán collection, on vessels analyzed by

Calvin (2006) and on other Copador, Gualpopa, and Arambala polychromes (Beaudry 1983; Bill

1997; Longyear 1952). G1 is an odd shape that most closely resembles PG71 and G2 is another

example of a backwards “C” glyph which is commonly seen as a prefix or postfix. On vessel B

the “C” glyph appears as a postfix connected to G1. In Calvin‟s (2006) pseudo-glyph catalog

she records two plain glyphs that are variants of G2 here, and another with a darker outline that

is described to be similar to the prefix “yi” or a variation of T17/18 (Thompson 1962).

Figure 13 T17 Affix Variants (Thompson 1962)

Figure 14 Calvin 2006:280

When comparing the pseudo-glyphs on vessel B to those recorded by Calvin (2006) it may be

assumed that the glyph band on vessel C is backwards, as the postfixes in Calvin‟s (2006)

catalog are facing the opposite way as postfix I or G2 on vessel C.

Both glyphs are filled with a solid orange color and thickly outlined in red, again showing

the outline necessary to be considered text but showing minimal color. As mentioned above, G1

and G2 are repeated around the vessel so they fall into the primary repeat text type. They are

placed in Calvin‟s (2006) category 1 because they show no known phoneme or logograph and

cannot be readily pronounced or clearly read.

VESSEL C

This vessel is a small recurved bowl with a pseudo-glyph band running along the outside

rim and iconography of monkeys playing the ball game on the exterior body. The iconography

of a the ball game is common on funerary ceramics as it is reminiscent of the story from the

Maya sacred book, Popol Vuh, of the hero twins triumphing over Xibalba and their twin

brothers, who were turned into monkeys (Tedlock 1985).

This pseudo-glyph band is characterized by a thin black outline of the pseudo-glyphs and

black and red fill. The paired glyphs G4 and G5 are very similar to the primary repeat glyphs G1

and G2 on vessel B described above, but those on vessel C show a more clear execution than

those on vessel B. The variation in overall artistic execution and physical structure of the

pseudo-glyph bands is another aspect one should consider when analyzing pseudo-glyphs. There

are examples of pseudo-glyphs from other areas that differ from those in this thesis by showing

crooked order of glyphs and an overall sketchy structure.

G1 and G2 on this vessel together represent a value of seven as G1 is two circles that

stand for the value of two, and G2 is a vertical band that represents the value of five. These

number glyphs complicate the reading order of the glyph band as the number value could range

anywhere from two to nine, as G1 and G2 may be read together to sum seven and G1, G2, and

G3 may be read together to sum nine. The most likely reading order is that described by the

numbering of glyphs seen in Appendix I as number values are very often listed at the beginning

of a glyph band, although they are also found at different locations in the glyph band.

The text type is most likely a secondary text. It may fall under the category of primary

repeat because the whole sequence of glyphs is repeated and specifically G4 and G5 are the

closest to phonemes or logographs. The majority of vessels in the Kerr collection (FAMSI) with

primary repeat sequences show repetition of a short sequence, usually two glyphs. When

comparing Vessel C to these known glyph bands I suggest it is a secondary text repeated. While

the number glyphs are identifiable, they are not linguistically relevant so there are no known

phonetic or logographic signs that would place this band above pseudo-glyph category 1.

VESSEL D

This vessel was found in a feature 212 with

12 other vessels and a painted stone mano.

Four obsidian blades and an effigy clay head

were also recovered in this lot (see figures 15

& 16). In this feature were three other Copador

vessels, all round bowls with pseudo-glyph

bands along the exterior rim, including vessel

H described later. Vessel 7 of this feature is

similar to Vessel D in that it has a step fret design, a very

common geometric art design seen throughout Mesoamerica,

on the exterior body and a simplified glyph band on the same

position on the interior of the vessel. The exterior is also a

simple primary repeating pseudo-glyph band that differs from

most of the other vessels in this collection. Vessel 8 of this

feature has a singular pseudo-glyph repeating along the rim

with no interior decoration (See appendix II).

Vessel D shows a pseudo-glyph band along the outside

rim with very clean artistic execution and the use of multiple

colors and another pseudo-glyph band along the inside of the

vessel. There is a more simplified pseudo-glyph band on the

Figure 15 Effigy head from 95-9/22/79

Figure 16 Obsidian blades found in 95-9/22/79

interior of the vessel with larger pseudo-glyphs along the body instead of restricted to the rim.

The exterior body of the vessel is surrounded by a step fret band. The pseudo-glyph band

mimics the others in this collection in its location and by the presence number glyph bands.

Figure 17 Pseudo-glyph band of Vessel D

G1 represents the value of five while G2 and G5 represent the value of three. These

number glyphs are before and after the linguistically relevant glyphs G3 and G4. G3 appears to

be a variation of a “k‟u”, a polyvalent glyph that in this case stands for sacred or divine, as

similar variants are recorded in Calvin‟s (2006) catalogue (PG81, PG82) or in the Thompson

catalog (1962) as T1016. As on other pseudo-glyph vessels, G3 is facing the opposite way of

legitimate “k‟u” glyphs, and the comparison is made taking into account a simplification of the

pseudo-glyph when compared to the legitimate glyph.

Figure 18 Calvin 2006:280

Figure 19 Variant of T1016 "K'u" Glyph (Thompson 1962)

When comparing G4 to the Thompson catalog (1962) the closest match in regards to

position would be the T181 “ja” glyph, a phonetic sign known as the moon sign, but even that

comparison is not a close enough match to suggest legitimacy to G4 (M. Eberl, personal

communication 2011). As one will see, the comparison involves an additional oversimplification

of the legitimate glyph when compared to the pseudo-glyph.

Figure 20 Variant of T181 "Ja" Glyph (Thompson 1962)

The pseudo-glyphs on this vessel teeter between category 1 and category 2 because of the

recognition of pseudo-glyph G3 and G4 as likely variants of legitimate glyphs. As mentioned

earlier, the typology of this pseudo-glyph band has a more structured architecture than the

vessels B and C, specifically in the fineness of the glyph outlines, usually characteristic of a

more experienced scribe (Danien 1998). This vessel is assigned to category 2 because the

outline color contrasts the two different fill colors used, setting the color criteria above category

1, and because at least one of the glyphs is a likely variant of a known logograph. This vessel is

likely a repeated secondary text type for similar reasons as explained for vessel C.

VESSEL E

This vessel is also a small hemispherical bowl. The pseudo-glyph band is located on the

rim of the external surface like the rest of the vessels, and there is no iconography on the body of

the vessel, simply two red bands below the glyph-band. The only color used is black, which

outlines the glyphs and fills in G4; the circles have no fill color. The vertically paired circles

repeated in G1, G2, and G3 may appear to be number glyphs but they unusually have no color

fill. G4 is another example of a “C” shaped prefix or postfix seen in Vessels A, B, C, F, G, and

I, and recorded in Calvin‟s (2006) catalog (PG99).

Figure 21 Calvin 2006:281

Figure 22 Calvin 2006:281

When comparing this glyph band to legible hieroglyph bands and other pseudo-glyph

bands vessel E appears to have very little linguistic legitimacy. The lack of pigment use

relegates this pseudo-glyph band into Calvin‟s (2006) category1. While G4 is repeated among

other vessels containing pseudo-glyphs, this vessel lacks recognizable linguistic elements and it

does not conform to a primary repeat or the primary standard sequence. It is unlikely that the

text type is a primary alternative as the closest comparison that can be made to the pseudo-glyphs

in the band are to prefixes and postfixes only. The only possible text type on this vessel is a

secondary alternative text that repeats around the rim, although these pseudo-glyphs do not

represent any solid logographic or phonetic variants.

VESSEL F

This vessel is one of the simplest overall pots in the collection at hand. It was found with

three other vessels and is the only polychrome vessel in this feature (see appendix II, Feature

184). The pseudo-glyph band is clear and uses two colors (including the outline) but there is no

additional surface decoration below the pseudo-glyph band. The pseudo-glyph band begins with

an “X” glyph that is not recorded by Calvin (2006), except for an “X” very similar to G1 here

that is within another glyph (PG227), defined as a variant of part of T74 or “mak”, the glyph for

the thirteenth month of the Haab‟ calendar (Thompson 1962). The Haab‟ calendar is composed

of nineteen months adding up to 365-days that combine with a 260-day almanac to produce a 52-

year calendar round, or the short count calendar system (Sharer and Traxler 2006).

Figure 23 Calvin 2006:285

There are also variations of a legitimate cross glyph known as the Kan cross which

represents yellow, ripe, maize, mostly relating to corn or the corn god, but not an X. In the

Thompson catalog (1962) T552, a phonetic glyph for “at”, is the closest match as this glyph is

characterized by two crossed bands with an outline. Further information from the FAMSI

database proposes that this glyph stands for crossed bands, penis, or is also a phonetic sign for

“ta” and that this glyph may possibly be a logogram.

Figure 24 T552 “ta” glyph (Thompson 1962)

The following glyph is another variation of a “C” glyph but on this vessel G2 and G4

seem to have an affix-like structure on the backside of the “C” shape. G2 and G4 are on either

side of a circle with a black circle within it, showing only similarity to a simple circle pseudo-

glyph: PG20 (Calvin 2006:278). There seems to be little if any linguistic significance to this

glyph band except for the placement of the pseudo-glyphs in a band.

The linguistic structure of this glyph band most closely mimics a secondary alternative

text because it is a sequence of four glyphs that repeats along the rim. They fall into category 1

because there is only one color used that contrasts the outline color, there is no clear indication of

where the glyph phrase begins, and there are no clearly distinguishable linguistic elements to the

pseudo-glyphs (Calvin 2006).

VESSEL G

This vessel is the only other vessel in the Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán collection or in

Calvin‟s (2006) collection to show the “X” glyph discussed above on Vessel G. A Chorros red-

rimmed potsherd (a utilitarian ware of the Guazapa tradition) was also found in the same lot as

this vessel (Beaudry 1987; Sharer 1978c). The pseudo-glyph band placement remains along the

rim on the external surface of the vessel and there is no additional iconography on the vessel

body. The only additional surface decoration is a solid red band below the glyph band and a

geometric band of orange and red semicircles. The pseudo-glyphs are more spaced apart than

most pseudo-glyphs or legitimate glyphs on glyph bands.

The sequence of four pseudo-glyphs is repeated around the vessel and in regards to G2

the pseudo-glyphs are facing the opposite direction of legitimate glyphs. G1 and G3 appear to be

the same pseudo-glyph facing the opposite direction, either facing outwards to G2 or facing

inwards around G4. It is possible that this text type resembles a primary standard sequence, but

it is more likely that it is a secondary text. The most complex glyph is G2, an anthropomorphic

face with monkey-like features such as big lips and a large curved nose. This glyph is made up

of three colors (red, black, and orange) including the outline color and may be a variation of

Calvin‟s (2006) PG282 without the “ko” prefix. While this pseudo-glyph band is made up of

enough colors for it to fall into category 2 this is the only category 2 quality it exemplifies.

There is no distinct starting point and there are no recognizable linguistic elements, so this

pseudo-glyph band falls into category 1.

Figure 25 Calvin 2006:287

VESSEL H

This vessel was found in the same feature as vessel D along with twelve other vessels and

a painted mano. It shows another four-glyph sequence with the presence of two number glyphs.

The pseudo-glyph band begins with another variation of a “C” glyph, then a vertical band that

appears to be a five glyph, three filled in circles vertically stacked representing the value of three,

and a rectangular pseudo-glyph with two color fills, the use of background paste color, and an

eye so it is seemingly an anthropomorphized rectangle. The pseudo-glyph band is located on the

outer rim of the vessel and the iconography includes monkeys with claws, a curled nose and

external genitalia. As the monkeys are shown with a ball they most likely represent the

downfallen twins from the story of the hero twins and Xibalba (Tedlock 1985).

Red, black, and the paste color are used in the pseudo-glyph iconography. The unique

pseudo-glyph on this vessel is the rectangular G4. There are a few rectangular pseudo-glyphs

present in Calvin‟s (2006) catalog that show similarities to G4 (PG89, PG125, PG149), but none

close enough to confidently claim a variation. G4 also resembles a variation of the “k‟i” glyph

PG97, if the glyph were to be parted in half (Calvin 2006:281). This text type would be another

example of secondary text, and it falls into pseudo-glyph category 1.

Figure 26 Calvin 2006:281

Figure 27 Calvin 2006:281

VESSEL I

This is another vessel with a pseudo-glyph band and only a few solid bands below the

glyph band as surface decoration. It is a shallow recurved bowl with a repeating sequence of

four pseudo-glyphs. G1 is two circles vertically stacked with a black dot within them. This

feature is distinctly repeated in Calvin‟s (2006) PG106 (T141?) glyph, which she describes as a

variation of a syllabic prefix u-. The main difference between G1 on vessel I and Calvin‟s

(2006) PG106 is the thickness of the outer circle and the inner dot. As discussed earlier, brush

strokes are an important part in hieroglyphic calligraphy and variations in brush stroke or outline

thickness may be an indication of the artist‟s level of experience or other stylistic differences

between scribes (Danien 1998).

Figure 28 Calvin 2006:281

The next three pseudo-glyphs are unique to the Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán collection, and

within Calvin‟s (2006) catalog. G3 is the only pseudo-glyph with a possible variation. G2 and

G4 are hook-like affixes while G2 curves down and G4 curves up. This type of glyph is not seen

in Calvin‟s (2006) catalog or in a record of known glyphs (Harris and Stearns 1992; Thompson

1962). G3 may be another variation of a “k‟u” glyph such as the rectangular variation on vessel

D, resembling Calvin‟s (2006) PG81 or T1016 (1962) turned on its side.

The pseudo-glyph color is dominated by black, but G3, which resembles a logograph in

placement and detail, is black, orange, and red with the use of the background paste color. The

text type resembles a long primary repeat because the sequence of four glyphs are closely linked

together and repeated around the vessel rim. This is contrasted in previous vessels with

secondary text where the pseudo-glyphs are more spaced out and show more variation within the

pseudo-glyph phrase. The band falls under Calvin‟s (2006) category 2: there are two colors

used, in addition to the outline color, and G1 is an identifiable prefix.

VESSEL J

This vessel is another simpler vessel. There is one pseudo-glyph repeated around the rim

made up of only black, the outline color, and the paste background color. The only additional

iconography on the body of the vessel is a wavy band between two solid bands. The pseudo-

glyph is a primary repeat text type that resembles a kan cross. As mentioned earlier, round

bowls were most often used to hold atole or a type of corn gruel drink. A kan cross often stands

for anything having to do with corn, so it is possible that this may have been a bowl used to hold

atole. Despite these probabilities, the pseudo-glyph is not repeated in Calvin‟s (2006) catalog

and it falls into category 1.

Vessels K, L, M, and N

These four vessels come from a private collection for comparison to the Copador

ceramics seen at Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán. They will not be linguistically analyzed but will

instead serve as examples of additional variation of surface decoration. Vessel K was found at

Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán with only one other vessel: a taller hemispherical bowl with minimal

surface decoration (see appendix II, feature 6). Vessel L shows a more unique pseudo-glyph

band that is similar in appearance to the pseudo-glyph band of vessel I. The pseudo-glyph band

is a primary repeat of a glyph with a prefix and postfix, and it shows the use of at least black and

red pigmentation. The bowl itself, like Vessel I, is shallower than most bowls in the Ciudad

Nuevo Cuscatlán collection.

Vessel M is comparatively one of the more unique bowls. The pseudo-glyph band

conforms to legible glyph bands in the direction of the anthropomorphic heads as they face to the

left. The pseudo-glyph band on vessel N shows the use of multiple glyphic components

suggestive of literacy and faces to the right, like the rest of the pseudo-glyph band seen on the

ceramics in the Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán collection. The entire band appears to be a variation of

either Longyear‟s (1952) glyphic motif B or C, as seen below in figure 31.

CERAMIC TYPE COUNTS

Total Ceramic Types

To put these pots in reference I count excavated potsherds to give a relative idea of the

proportion of polychrome ceramic types with glyphic motifs at Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán. These

counts more specifically give an archaeological frame of reference regarding relative numbers of

ceramic types at this assemblage. One of these contexts includes vessel D (see figure17 &

appendix I) and together a total of ten contexts of potsherds collected from Ciudad Nuevo

Cuscatlán were analyzed. These counts can be seen in Appendix III.

In this analysis I used the third volume of Robert Sharer‟s (1978c ) Chalchuapa report

and additional work by Beaudry (1987) and Viel (1993) for reference when distinguishing

ceramic types based on wares and morphology (see figure 29). Some of these ceramic types

(San Antonio and Chanseñora) are specific to the Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán assemblage and were

termed by Earnest (1999).

Figure 29 Ceramic types recorded for potsherd counts of a ten-provenience sample examined

This data shows that the polychrome ceramics discussed here were very common,

especially Arambala. There is variation between the different types of polychromes but together

the total amount of polychrome potsherds per lot number is close to the number of utilitarian

potsherds of the Guazapa group. These Guazapa utilitarian wares include Obraje, Chorros and

Cashal Cream, and are used for everyday cooking (Beaudry 1987). The pseudo-glyphs are found

on the polychrome ceramics used for serving but not on the more heavy duty utilitarian wares

used for every cooking (Earnest 1999).

Polychrome Ceramics with Pseudo-Glyph Iconography

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

42

15 7

2 2 8

1 6

92

23 18 17

12

30

1 1 1 1 8

Po

tsh

erd

co

un

t

Ceramic type

Ceramic Types Combined

In the collection of recovered potsherds from Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán there were

previously sorted ceramics that were Copador only that represent a context with the ten whole

vessels analyzed (Earnest 1999). From these sets of potsherds, I sifted through the lot numbers

that were written on the sherds to check for any matches between these sherds and the lot

numbers of the vessels analyzed here and the bags counted above. No such matches were found.

With the rest of the Copador sherds I made a count of sherds containing pseudo-glyphs, those

with non-glyphic decoration, and those where the iconography on the sherd was not complete

enough to distinguish between decorative motifs and pseudo-glyphs or where there was no

visible decoration (Table 2) Decoration refers to any additional paint that is not the paste coat.

Table 2 Presence of pseudo-glyphs on Copador potsherds

Pseudo-glyph decoration 97

Non-glyphic decoration 25

Unidentified Decoration 52

No Decoration 22

Total 196

Figure 30 Graph of pseudo-glyph locations on potsherds

This data (Figure 30) illustrates the proportion of potsherds with pseudo-glyphs to those

without. When compared to non-glyphic iconography (decoration/surface decoration) potsherds

with pseudo-glyphs greatly outnumber those without. The category of unidentified decoration

included potsherds that may have contained parts of pseudo-glyphs but were not included in

pseudo-glyph decoration to avoid unprofessional presumptions. Almost fifty percent of the

potsherds in this collection contained clear pseudo-glyphs while almost thirty percent of the

potsherds could not be clearly assigned to glyphic or non-glyphic category. This prevalence of

pseudo-glyphic iconography is significant alone, possibly attributing to a deeper semantic

connotation.

RESULTS

Glyph Repetition and Comparisons

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pseudo-glyph decoration

Non-glyphic decoration

Unidentified decoration

No decoration

97

25

52

22

Nu

mb

er

of

Po

tsh

erd

s

Glyphic versus Non-glyphic Iconography

Copador Potsherd Iconography

As mentioned earlier, postfix II (G2 and G4 on Vessel A) is a variant on a glyph seen

within this collection and among other collections. Appendix I of Calvin‟s (2006) dissertation

has three similar variants of this glyph; one postfix (PG101) and two prefixes (PG99 and PG32).

Another variant of this glyph is seen on the Tikal Dancer Plate in Figure 3 above as a backwards

PG32 from Calvin‟s (2006) pseudo-glyph catalogue. The Pearlman Collection exhibits one

vessel that shows a repeating backwards facing glyph with different prefixes affixed (Coe

1982:38), and the majority of the collection from Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán exhibit backwards

facing glyphs as well.

Another pseudo-glyph repeated among the Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán collection and in

Calvin‟s (2006) dissertation is G1 of vessel B, resembling PG71. This specific pseudo-glyph

was first described by Longyear (1952) as an A glyph motif and is seen in almost every recorded

collection of Copador ceramics (Longyear 1944, 1952; Beaudry 1983; Bill 1997; Earnest 1999;

Sampeck 2007). This A glyph motif includes affix variants seen in Copador sherds recovered

from Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán. Longyear (1952) was one of the first to record and categorize

surface decoration motifs of Copador ceramics but did not find any linguistic meaning. He split

surface decoration into three main categories: glyphic, human, and bird motifs. The Ciudad

Nuevo Cuscatlán collection shows various Copador polychromes with both repeating human and

bird motifs, but these were left out of the study as the main focus was on glyphic motifs.

Longyear (1952) split glyphic elements into motifs A, B, and C, all of which are represented in

this study. Bill (1997) further differentiates Copador ceramics into 13 decorative varieties.

Figure 31 Glyph Motifs A, B, and C from top to bottom (Longyear 1952:125)

One striking resemblance is between the exterior glyph band of Vessel D and a pot sherd

in Bill‟s Figure 2.114 (1997:693), which shows only slight stylistic variation and a different

order of the number glyphs. This figure falls under Bill‟s (1997) Copador variety 5 and

Longyear‟s (1952) glyph motif C. There is another vessel in the Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán

collection that shows a clear resemblance to Vessel D as well: Vessel 8 of feature 265 (see

appendix II). In this feature there is also an example of a vessel (5) that shows both of the other

typical decorative motifs of humans and birds described by Longyear (1952). Bill‟s (1997)

Copador Variety 1 also shows great resemblance to vessels B and C and to Longyear‟s (1952)

glyphic motif C. Vessel A seems to resemble Bill‟s (1997) variety 1, although there were no

clear examples showing significant similarities, and vessel A shows a more striking similarity to

examples of Longyear‟s glyph motif B, specifically in regards to G1.

Tikal Dancer Plates

The basic make-up of pseudo-glyphs recorded by Erik Boot (2003) shows some

similarities to some of the pseudo-glyphs in the collection at hand. Boot (2003) explains that

most phrases begin and end with two or three vertical circles. Many vessels in the Ciudad Nuevo

Cuscatlán sample show an example of three vertical circles similar to the separation circles

described by Boot (2003) and seen in Figure 3, but in the case of this collection the circles are

next to a vertical bar and are situated much closer to the glyphs than on the Tikal Dancer plate

(Figure 3). This suggests that the circles in the Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán ceramics are more

likely number glyphs than separators or start-markers.

There are also prefixes and affixes that are characterized by two or three circles. To

distinguish numerical glyphs from prefixes or affixes on logographs or legitimate glyphs one can

consider the size of the circles, proximity of the circles to the glyph, and the detail of the circles.

Prefixes will be attached to the glyph as illustrated in Figure 2, while number glyphs will be

close to text glyphs but not attached to them. In the case of the Tikal Dancer plate described by

Boot (2003), the circles are too far away to be associated with the sequence of glyphs, so it may

be assumed that they act as separators.

Linguistic Relevance of Pseudo-glyph Bands

Data recorded from a comparison of pseudo-glyphs on ten vessels to legitimate glyphs

and to Calvin‟s (2006) category system for pseudo-glyphs indicates that these pseudo-glyph

bands have no definitive linguistic meaning. While some linguistic elements are identified and

comparisons can be made between one or two pseudo-glyphs per vessel to legible glyphs or

affixes, this is not enough to argue linguistic legitimacy. Eight of the ten vessels fell into

pseudo-glyph category 1 (Calvin 2006), meaning they had no recognizable hieroglyphic signs,

no distinct starting point and are the simplest of pseudo-glyph bands. The only repetitions or

comparisons made for vessels in category 1 were between other recorded pseudo-glyphs within

the Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán collection or outside records of pseudo-glyphs. Howerver, there is

insufficient data for one to accept a hypothesis that all pseudo-glyphs from the Maya periphery

have no linguistic meaning. In a later section titled “Additional Questions for Future Research” I

propose additional steps that may be taken to further analyze the linguistic significance of

pseudo-glyphs on Copador ceramics.

Ceramic Type Counts

The assemblage at Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán shows some ceramic types that are not found

at other regions, such as Copán, for example San Antonio utilitarian ware (Earnest 1999, K.

Sampeck personal communication 2011). This specific type diminishes in number into the Early

Late Classic leaving variants of the Guazapa group, a group characterized by a scraped paste

covered in cream or red-on-cream, as the dominant utilitarian group. Obraje, a red-on-cream

type, is the most abundant type in the contexts analyzed (see figure 29 & appendix III). As

mentioned earlier, the different polychromes are nearly as abundant as the utilitarian wares.

These numbers reinforce that polychromes with pseudo-glyphic motifs or other surface

decorations were used for every-day purposes. They were a common commodity and not limited

to elite consumption.

DISCUSSION: COPADOR CERAMICS, PSEUDO-GLYPHS, AND SOCIAL

RELATIONSHIPS

Until now I have focused on a comparative description at the glyph-level to test any

possible linguistic relevance to these pseudo-glyphs or inkling of a regional or dialectic variation

specific to the Maya highlands or periphery. Now I step back to consider the significance of a

site from the Maya periphery employing the use of pseudo-glyph, and to a larger extent the

tradition of Copador, Gualpopa, and Arambala (with a focus on Copador) ceramics and their

iconography (pseudo-glyphs, repeated figures, straight and wavy bands) at a social level.

There are various reasons why pseudo-glyphs mimicking standard Maya script have been

found in a city outside of the Maya region, and in what was most likely a culturally distinct

group. The first possibility is similar to the case in the Chamá region of Guatemala explored by

Danien (1998). A group of outsiders, most likely from a region with which there was clear

contact such as Copán, entered El Salvador and shared their tradition of calligraphy by physical

interaction or by ceramic trade. This case suggests that pseudo-glyphs are a result of ancient El

Salvadorians attempting to produce Maya script as a result of culture contact or trade interaction

with individuals from a truly “Maya” society.

Earlier in this thesis I addressed the major views on Copador ceramics and how they

reflect a trade relationship between El Salvador and Copán, and to a small extent Quiriguá. The

majority of literature suggests that the central producers of Copador polychrome are those

located around the polity of Copán, and that these centers also exported Copador goods to El

Salvador (Beaudry 1984; West 2002). Howerver, both the dissertations of Beaudry (1983) and

Bill (1997) admit to limited sample sizes of Copador ceramics from El Salvador and show subtle

inklings of El Salvador‟s underestimated role in the Copán-El Salvador relationship. Additional

analysis of Copador ceramics may indicate a much more intensive interaction between Copán

and El Salvador with El Salvador playing a greater role than was once thought. (K. Sampeck,

personal communication 2011).

The next potential explanation for the use of pseudo-glyphs in El Salvador coincides with

the modes of production. Analyses of cream-pastes used in Copador ceramics are more variable

than others, such as a Gualpopa, and have an increased frequency of finer-textured pastes. This

variation of cream-pastes is likely a result of Copador vessels being produced by different

workshops or potters employing distinctive practices (Bill 1997:509). An increased amount of

manufacturers will result in an increased variation of surface decoration, especially if the artists

are emulating hieroglyphs of a different culture.

While evidence from the sources discussed here explain that Copador ceramics were

likely manufactured in different workshops by various regional potters, it is interesting to

consider the repetition of glyphs and the consistency of the direction pseudo-glyphs face. The

concept that there were most likely various pottery workshops may also be used to argue against

the idea that pseudo-glyphs are a result of simplification for mass production and market

exchange. A possible explanation for the consistency of glyphic elements across the

Southeastern Maya periphery and Copán region is that these surface decorations have a still

unknown deeper meaning and potentially linguistic significance specific to the regions where

Copador ceramics are found.

In conclusion, there remains no conclusive answer to why there are decoration motifs in a

peripheral region of El Salvador that mimic linguistic structure of the ancient Mayan writing

system. This phenomenon nonetheless is significant in and of itself because an effort was made

to formulate glyphic elements that clearly resemble Southern Classic hieroglyphs onto Maya

polychrome pottery. The most parsimonious explanation is mimicry of some sort; but human

nature has an inherent creativity that needs not be limited to a common node for evolution of

cultural phenomena. The presence of pseudo-glyphs alone is used for the function of a primary

standard sequence, primary repeat, or other text type to give a vessel prestige, meaning, or

simply to finish off a vessel by enveloping it in glyph-like elements (Just 2007). The actual

meaning of these glyphs may not have been as important as their placement within the ceramic

surface decoration, or as important as their social significance.

Finally, the site discussed in this thesis was a novel population with no previous history

in this region. They were pioneers and created a new community. Considering this fact, pseudo-

glyphs and other decorative motifs seen on Copador, Gualpopa, and Arambala polychromes may

have acted as a semantic factor to create a sense of community identity at Ciudad Nuevo

Cuscatlán, or at a greater sphere, between this region and Copán, Honduras (Earnest et al 2008).

This claim has support in the prevalence of pseudo-glyphs on potsherds and the evidence of

these pseudo-glyphs on polychrome vessels in the Maya region of Copán.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

As discussed in this paper, the Maya periphery is an understudied region of the Maya

area as it is just that: a periphery. While this paper focuses on pseudo-glyphs in El Salvador, a

majority of the comparisons are made to ceramics of different traditions and from different

regions. It is clear that pseudo-glyphs are present throughout the Maya region, but it is important

for one to consider the particulars of each region when trying to understand the presence of

pseudo-glyphs and such decorative styles instead of suggesting one argument for all pseudo-

glyphs in general. Each change in ceramic tradition or surface decoration must be studied in its

own context and in relation to the societies or polities with which the context is shared.

Calvin‟s (2006) study focused on the linguistic significance (or lack thereof) of pseudo-

glyphs on ceramics from the Petén region of Guatemala and this comparative analysis sought to

apply this model to Copador ceramics from Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlán, El Salvador, with

comparisons to Copador ceramics of Copán, Honduras. There have been some significant works

that focused on Copador ceramics themselves and their surface decoration, but no other studies

have taken aim to make a large-scale study of the glyphic motifs and their linguistic relevance.

Despite the negative correlation between pseudo-glyphs and linguistic relevance in this thesis,

one must take note that this comparative analysis was limited to a small amount of data, or

vessels containing pseudo-glyphs, to account for a few months‟ time limit. Given more time it

would be beneficial to increase the sample size, make measurements of vessels with pseudo-

glyphs and vessels with legitimate glyphs for comparison (as seen in Calvin 2006), look for

correlations between external surface and internal surface decoration, and to compare pseudo-

glyphs found on Copador vessels found in Copán and El Salvador for a more in-depth study.

This thesis discusses multiple ceramic types but only expands on Copador ceramics.

Copador is only one ceramic type to exhibit pseudo-glyphic iconography so to expand on this

subject one should also look at Gualpopa and Arambala polychromes. With a more in depth

study one could compare the glyphic motifs between these polychromes and perhaps develop a

way to look at these pseudo-glyphs in a way that is specific to the region they are characteristic

of. With a greater sample size it would also be useful to examine the morphological

development and transition from the presence Arambala polychromes only to the presence of

Copador ceramics. Perhaps there Arambala was something of an evolutionary precursor to the

introduction of pseudo-glyphs on later polychrome ceramics.

Notes

I would like to extend my gratitude and appreciation for the extensive guidance and feedback of

Professor Jim Skibo, as well as for the continued comments of my colleagues and friends. I

would especially like to thank Dr. Kathryn Sampeck for her great support as a mentor and for

allowing me to work with the materials in this study.

References

Beaudry, Marilyn P.

1983 “Production and Distrubution of Painted Late Classic Maya Ceramics in the

Southeastern Periphery (Central America)”. PhD dissertation. Department of

Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.

1987 The Ceramics of the Zapotitán Valley In Archaeology and Volcanism in Central

America. Payson D. Sheets eds. Pp 161-190. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bill, Cassandra R.

1997 “Patterns of Variation and Change in Dynastic Period Ceramics and Ceramic Production

at Copan, Honduras”. PhD Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Tulane

University. Electronic Document,

Boot, Erik

2003 An Annotated Overview of “Tikal Dancer” Plates. Mesoweb

www.mesoweb.com/features/boot/tikaldancerplates.pdf.

Bricker, Victoria R.

1995 Advances in Maya Epigraphy. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:215-35.

Calvin, Inga.

2006 “Between Text and Image”: An Analysis of Pseudo-glyphs on Late Classic Maya

Pottery from Guatemala. PhD dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of

Colorado.

Carlson, John B.

1988 Skyband Representations in Classic Maya Vase Painting. In Maya Iconography.

Elizabeth P. Benson and Gillett G. Griffin eds. Pp 277-293. Princeton, New Jersey:

Princeton University Press.

Coe, Michael D.

1999 Breaking the Maya Code. New York: Thames & Hudson Inc.

Coe, Michael D. and Justin Kerr

1982 Introduction, Text and Photographs In Old Gods and Young Heroes: the Pearlman

Collection of Maya Ceramics. Jerusalem: American Friends of the Israel Museum.

1998 The Art of the Maya Scribe. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Incorporated.

Danien, Elin C.

1998 “The Chama Polychrome Ceramic Cylinders in The University of Pennsylvania

Museum” PhD Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania.

Earnest, Howard

1999 A Reappraisal of the Ilopango Volcanic Eruption in Central El Salvador. PhD

Dissertation. Department of Anthropology Harvard UniversityEarnest, Howard, Markus

Eberl and Kathryn Sampeck

2008 “Competing Styles, Competing Identities: Identity Formation on the Post-Ilopango

Frontier.” Paper delivered at Annual Meeting for the Society of American

Archaeologists, Austin, Texas

FAMSI Database

Nd. Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies Inc.

http://www.famsi.org/ accessed December 15, 2010.

Gates, William

1978 An Outline Dictionary of Maya Glyphs. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

Harris, John F. and Stephen K. Stearns

1992 Understanding Maya Inscriptions. Philadelphia: The University Museum of

Archaeology and Anthropology University of Pennsylvania.

Houston, Stephen

2000 Into the Minds of Ancients: Advances in Maya Glyph Studies. Journal of World

Prehistory 14(2):121-201.

Just, Bryan

2009 Mysteries of the Maize God. Record of the Princeton University Art Museum. Pp3-15.

Joyce, Rosemary A, ed.

2004 Mesoamerican: a Working Model for Archaeology. In Mesoamerican Archaeology

Theory and Practice. Julia A. Hendon and Rosemary A. Joyce eds. Pp 1-42.

Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Kelley, David H.

1976 Deciphering the Maya Script. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Lesure, Richard G.

2004 Shared Art Styles and Long-Distance Contact in Early Mesoamerica. In Mesoamerican

Archaeology Theory and Practice. Julia A. Hendon and Rosemary A. Joyce eds. Pp 73-

96. Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Longyear, John M. III

1944 Archaeological Investigations in El Salvador In Memoirs Volume IX. Harvard

University Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology. Cambridge,

Mass: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology.

1952 Copan Ceramics A Study of Southeastern Maya Pottery. Baltimore: The Lord

Baltimore Press.

Marci, Martha J. and Matthew G. Looper

2003 The New Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs Volume One. Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press.

Marci, Martha J. and Gabrielle Vail

2009 The New Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs Volume Two. Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press.

Marcus, Joyce

1995 Maya Heiroglyphs: History or Propaganda? In Research Fronteirs in Anthropology.

C.R. ember, M. Ember, and P. Peregrine eds. Pp 2-24. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:

Prentice Hall Publishing.

Miller, Arthur G.

1989 Comparing Maya Image and Text. In Word and Image in Maya Culture. William F.

Hanks and Don S. Rice eds. Pp. 176-188. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Miller, Mary and Karl Taube

1993 An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya.

New York: Thames and Hudson

Neff, Hector, James W. Cogswell, Laura J. Kosakowsky, Francisco Estrada Belli, and Frederick

J. Bove

1999 A New Perspective on the Relationships among Cream Paste Ceramic Traditions of

Southeastern Mesoamerica. Latin American Antiquity. 10(3):281-299.

Reents-Budet, Dorie

1989 Narrative in Classic Maya Art. In Word and Image in Maya Culture. William F.

Hanks and Don S. Rice eds. Pp. 189-197. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Rice, Prudence M.

2009 Late Classic Maya Pottery Production: Review and Synthesis. Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory 16(2):117-156

Robicsec, Francis and Donald M. Hales

1982 Maya Ceramic Vases from the Classic Period: The November Collection of Maya

Ceramics. Charlottesville, Virginia: The University Museum of Virginia Bayly

Memorial Building.

Robin, Cynthia

2004 Social Diversity in Everyday Life within Classic Maya Settlements. In Mesoamerican

Archaeology Theory and Practice. Julia A. Hendon and Rosemary A. Joyce eds. Pp 148-

168. Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Sampeck, Kathryn E.

2007 “Late Postclassic to Colonial Landscapes and Political Economy of the Izalcos Region,

El Salvador”. PhD Dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Tulane University.

Sharer, Robert J.

1978c The Prehistory of Chalchuapa, El Salvador Volume Three. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

1989 The Preclassic Origins of Maya Writing: A Highland Perspective. In Word and Image

in Maya Culture. William F. Hanks and Don S. Rice eds. Pp. 165-175. Salt Lake City:

University of Utah Press.

Sharer, Robert and Loa Traxler

2006 The Anxient Maya 6th

Edition. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Sheets, Payson D. ed.

1979 Environment and Cultural Effects of the Ilopango Eruption in Central America. In

Volcanic Activity and Human Ecology. Payson D. Sheets and Donald K. Grayson eds.

Pp 525-564. New York: Academic Press.

1994 Tropical Time Capsule: An Ancient Villiage Preserved in Volcanic Ash yields

Evidence of Mesoamerican Peasant Life. Archaeology. 47:4.

Tedlock, Dennis

1985 Popol Vuh: The Definitive Edition of the Mayan Book of the Dawn of Life and the

Glories of Gods and Kings, trans. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Thompson, J. Eric S

1962 A Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs. University of Oklahoma Press. Electronic Document

http://www.famsi.org/mayawriting/thompson/ThompsonGlyphCatalog.pdf

Viel, Rene

1993 Evolucion de la Ceramica de Copan, Honduras. Tegucigalpa, D.C.: Instituto Hondureño

de Antropologia e Historia.

West, Georgia

2002 Ceramic Exchange in the Late Classic and Postclassic Maya Lowlands: A Diachronic

Approach. In Ancient Maya Political Economies. Marilyn A. Masson and David A.

Freidel eds. Pp 140-196 Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

Appendix I: Ciudad Nuevo Cuscatlan Vessels and Descritpions

Vessel A

Vessel

#2,

Regist

er 223 Lot Number Feature Iconography Interior Outline Position

Images on

Vessel

Text

Type

Glyph

Category Type of Pot

G1 95-9/22/176/2 "glyph"

Face of man with

headdress

orange &

black red Exterior, lip

"swimming"

man “PSS” 2

Recurved

Bowl

G2 95-9/22/176/2 postfix II Backwards "c" orange red Exterior, lip

"swimming"

man

G3 95-9/22/176/2 "glyph"

round face with

large eye orange red Exterior, lip

"swimming"

man

G4 95-9/22/176/2 postfix II Backwards "C" orange red Exterior, lip

"swimming"

man

G1' 95-9/22/176/2 prefix I "C" orange red Interior None

G2' 95-9/22/176/2 "glyph" Similar to G1? orange red Interior None

Vessel B

Vessel

#5,

Feature

232 Lot Number Feature Iconography Interior Outline Position

Images

on Vessel Text Type

Glyph

Category Type of Pot

G1 95-9/22/208/5 "Glyph"

Bowl/Swirl

shaped Orange Red Exterior, Lip Monkeys

“Primary

Repeat” 1

Hemispherical

Bowl

G2 95-9/22/208/5 Postfix I Backwards "C" Orange Red Exterior, Lip Monkeys

Vessel C

Vessel

#2

Lot

Number Feature Iconography Interior Outline Position

Images on

Vessel Text Type

Glyph

Category

Type of

Pot

G1

95-

9/20/127

Two

Glyph

Two wide ovals on top

of each other Black black

Exterior,

lip

Monkeys playing

ball game

Secondary

Text 1?

Recurved

Bowl

G2

95-

9/20/127

Five

Glyph Vertical Bar red black

Exterior,

lip

Monkeys playing

ball game

G3

95-

9/20/127

Two

Glyph?

Two wide ovals on top

of each other black black

Exterior,

lip

Monkeys playing

ball game

G4

95-

9/20/127 "glyph" PG71-like red black

Exterior,

lip

Monkeys playing

ball game

G5

95-

9/20/127 postfix I Backwards "C" red black

Exterior,

lip

Monkeys playing

ball game

Vessel D

Vessel

#2,

Register

#12

Lot

Number Feature Iconography Interior Outline Position

Images on

Vessel

Text

Type

Glyph

Category Type of Pot

G1

95-

9/22/79/2

Five

Glyph Horizontal band red black

Exterior,

lip

Step fret

Band Secondary 2

Hemispherical

Bowl

G2

95-

9/22/79/2

Three

Glyph Three Circles, Vertical

green, red,

green black

Exterior,

lip

G3

95-

9/22/79/2 "glyph" Trapezoidal "face" red & green black

Exterior,

lip

G4

95-

9/22/79/2

postfix

III

Ventrally Compressed

backwards "C" green black

Exterior,

lip

G5

95-

9/22/79/2

Three

Glyph Three Circles, Vertical

Green, red,

green Black

Exterior

lip

G1’

95-

9/22/79/2 “glyph” Sideways “C”, A-motif Green/Yellow? Black?

Interior

Body

Primary

Repeat 1

G2’

95-

9/22/79/2 “glyph” Backwards “C” Orange Black?

Interior

Body

Vessel E

Vessel #2,

Register

167

Lot

Number Feature Iconography Interior Outline Position

Images

on Vessel

Text

Type

Glyph

Category Type of Pot

G1

95-

9/21/274 "glyph"

Two Circles on top of

each other None black

Exterior,

lip None Secondary 1

Hemispherical

Bowl

G2

95-

9/21/274

Repetition

of G1

G3

95-

9/21/274

Repetition

of G2

G4

95-

9/21/274 "glyph" Backwards "C" black black

Exterior,

lip None

Vessel F

Vessel G

Vessel #3,

Register

266 Lot Number Feature Iconography Interior Outline Position

Images

on Vessel

Text

Type

Glyph

Category Type of Pot

G1 95-9/22/511/5 "glyph"

Backwards thick

"C"/"B" red black

Exterior,

lip

None,

geometric

band Secondary 1

Hemispherical

Bowl

G2 95-9/22/511/5 "glyph"

Long-nosed

face/diety

red, orange,

black black

Exterior,

lip

Vessel #3,

Register

184 Lot Number Feature Iconography Interior Outline Position

Images

on Vessel

Text

Type

Glyph

Category Type of Pot

G1 95-9/21/21? “glyph”? "X" None black

Exterior,

lip None Secondary

1

Hemispherical

Bowl

G2 95-9/21/21? "glyph"

Thick C with prefix-

like affix red black

Exterior,

lip None

G3 95-95/21/21? "glyph" circle within a circle black/none black

Exterior,

lip None

G4 95-9/21/21?

Repetition of

G2

G3 95-9/22/511/5 "Glyph" Forwards thick "C" Red black

Exterior,

lip

G4 95-9/22/511/5 “glyph”? "X" None black

Exterior,

lip

Vessel H

Vessel

#3,

Feature

212 Lot Number Feature Iconography Interior Outline Position

Images on

Vessel

Text

Type

Glyph

Category Type of Pot

G1 95-9/22/101/3 "glyph"

Backwards "C" similar

to PG99 red Black

Exterior,

lip

Howler (?)

Monkey Secondary 1

Hemispherical

Bowl

G2 95-9/22/101/3

Five

glyph Horizontal bar red black

Exterior,

lip Five glyph

G3 95-9/22/101/3

Three

glyph Three Circles black black

Exterior,

lip

G4 95-9/22/101/3 "glyph"

Geometric retangle

with eye

red, black,

none black

Exterior,

lip

Vessel I

Vessel J

Feature

56

Lot

Number Feature Iconography Interior Outline Position

Images

on

Vessel

Text

Type

Glyph

Category Type of Pot

G1

95-

9/50/34 "glyph"

Oval with Cross,

Kan? None Black

Exterior,

lip

non,

band

Primary

Repeat 1?

Hemispherical

Bowl

Vessel

#7,

Feature

274

Lot

Number Feature Iconography Interior Outline Position

Images on

Vessel

Text

Type

Glyph

Category

Type of

Pot

G1 95-9/548/7

"glyph",

prefix?

Two Vertical circles with

eye inside, P106? None/black black

Exterior,

lip None PR

1

Recurved

Bowl

G2 95-9/548/7 prefix IV

Downard curving hook or

spine None/black black

Exterior,

lip

G3 95-9/548/7 "glyph" Circle with "eyes"? Ajah?

red, orage,

none black

Exterior,

lip

G4 95-9/548/7 postfix IV Upward curved "hook" None/black black

Exterior,

lip

Vessel K

Vessel L

Vessel M

Vessel N

Appendix II: Available Feature Details

Appendix III: Sherd counts for ceramic type context

95-9/22/79

Ceramic Type Sherd Count

Obraje (Guazapa)

16

Cashal Cream (Guazapa)

3

San Antonio 2

Ulua Polychrome

4

Arambala Polychrome

1

Unidentified 2

Total 28

95-9/21/Various

Ceramic Type Sherd Count

Cashal Cream (Guazapa)

5

Chancala Polychrome

7

Arambala Polychrome

4

Gualpopa Polychrome

2

Total 18

0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14 16

16

3 2

4

1 2

Po

tsh

erd

Co

un

t

Ceramic Type

95-9/22/79

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Cashal Cream

(Guazapa)

Chancala Polychrome

Arambala Polychrome

Gualpopa Polychrome

5

7

4

2

Po

tsh

erd

Co

un

t

Ceramic Type

95-9/21/Various

95-9/21/681

Ceramic Type Sherd Count

Ulua Polychrome 5

Copador Polychrome

1

Arambala Polychrome

1

Gualpopa Polychrome

4

Tapogua Mottled 1

Total 12

95-9/21/774

Ceramic Type Sherd Count

Surlo 2

Arambala Polychrome 11

Chanseñora Polychrome

4

Ulua Polychrome 8

Copador Polychrome 6

Gualpopa Polychrome 2

Machacal Purple Polychrome

1

Total 34

0 1 2 3 4 5

5

1 1

4

1

Po

tsh

erd

Co

un

t

Ceramic Type

95-9/21/681

0 2 4 6 8

10 12

2

11

4

8 6

2 1

Po

tsh

erd

Co

un

t

Ceramic Type

95-9/21/774

95-9/2/varoius

Ceramic Type Sherd Count

Surlo Polychrome

2

Arambala Polychrome

13

Ulua Polychrome 3

Chancala Polychrome

2

Jucalpa 1

Unidentified 2

Total 23

95-9/21/323

Ceramic Type Sherd Count

Obraje (Guazapa) 4

Guarumal 1

Arambala Polychrome

5

Ulua Polychrome 1

Copador Polychrome

1

Unidentified 1

Total 13

0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14

2

13

3 2

1 2

Po

tsh

erd

Co

un

t

Ceramic Type

95-9/2/varoius

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

4 4.5

5 4

1

5

1 1 1

Po

tsh

erd

Co

un

t

Ceramic Type

95-9/21/323

95-9/22/144

Ceramic Type Sherd Count

Obraje (Guazapa) 5

Arambala Polychrome

18

Chancala Polychrome

5

Kanazi ware 1

Total 29

95-9/21/542

Ceramic Type Sherd Count

Obraje (Guazapa) 9

Cashal Cream (Guazapa) 3

Balsamera (San Antonio) 1

Guarumal 2

Surlo 1

Arambala Polychrome 6

Chanseñora Polychrome 2

Chancala Polychrome 4

Ulua Polychrome 9

Copador Polychrome 4

Total 44

0 5

10 15 20

5

18

5 1

Po

tsh

erd

Co

un

t

Ceramic Type

95-9/22/144

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9

3

1 2

1

6

2

4

9

4

Po

tsh

erd

Co

un

t

Ceramic Type

95-9/21/542

95-9/21/593

Ceramic Type Sherd Count

Obraje (Guazapa) 8

Cashal Cream (Guazapa) 1

Guazapa orange-over-cream

1

Surlo 1

Gualpopa Polychrome 2

Arambala Polychrome 5

Chancala Polychrome 3

Copador Polychrome 5

Total 26

95-9/21/88

Ceramic Type Sherd Count

Obraje (Guazapa) 8

Chorros red-rimmed (Guazapa)

15

San Antonio 1

Guarumal 7

Gualpopa Polychrome 2

Chancala Polychrome 2

Arambala Polychrome 28

Copador Polychrome 1

Chanseñora Polychrome

11

Unknown 11

Total 86

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

8

1 1 1 2

5

3

5

Po

tsh

erd

Co

un

t

Ceramic Type

95-9/21/593

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

8

15

1

7

2 2

28

1

11 11

Po

tsh

erd

Co

un

t

Ceramic Type

95-9/21/88

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

42

15 7

2 2 8

1 6

92

23 18 17

12

30

1 1 1 1 8

Po

tsh

erd

co

un

t

Ceramic type

Ceramic Types Combined

Appendix IV: Archaeological Maps as Recorded by Dr. Earnest (1999)

Map 1: Feature 274: includes Vessel I 95-9/548/7

Map 2: Feature 56 in center of dark pink area. Includes Vessel J 95-9/50/34

Map 3: Feature 167 located in region 229: includes vessel E 95-9/21/274

Feature 266 located in region 312: includes vessel G 95-9/22/511