Ceramics at Piedras Negras, Guatemala

The Pre-Classic

The ceramic chronology of Piedras Negras extends from approximately 650 B.C. to A.D. 850 and is divided into six ceramic complexes (Figure 1). The earliest definable ceramic complexes at Piedras Negras, Hol and Abal, are typologically equivalent to Late Middle Preclassic and Late Preclassic assemblages recovered from other Maya sites. The high typological similarity between these complexes and other equivalent complexes in the Maya Lowlands indicates that the residents of Piedras Negras and the surrounding area did participate in the Mamon and Chicanel ceramic spheres. A few sherds bearing some typological similarity to Xe phase ceramics from Altar de Sacrificios have been found at Piedras Negras, suggesting a greater time depth for settlement along this part of the Usumacinta than indicated by the Hol complex assemblage. Unfortunately, these materials are too rare and too widely scattered to allow the definition of a ceramic complex for this period.

The great majority of all Preclassic ceramics from Piedras Negras have been recovered from the South Group Court and South Group Plaza, and the associated structures. There is no noticeable difference in the distribution of late and middle Preclassic ceramics. Most Preclassic materials are recovered from mixed construction fill, the great majority related to the initial construction of low platforms that eventually supported many of the Early Classic monumental structures dominating both the South Group Court and South Group Plaza. Preclassic ceramics have also been recovered from a number of secondary sites in the immediate vicinity of Piedras Negras including El Cayo and El Porvenir (Webster and Kirker 1998; Lee and Hayden 1988). Taken together these data suggest the Preclassic occupation of the area was light and was restricted, in most cases, to areas immediately adjacent to the river.

Monochrome reds dominate Hol and Abal assemblages. Black and cream monochromes are also represented in these assemblages but in far lower frequencies. The current sample of diagnostic Hol ceramic material is small and rather fragmented. For this reason it is difficult to describe with great confidence the complete range of forms represented in this collection. The most common form appears to be thick walled bowls or plates with everted or out-curving rims. Other forms positively identified include small, slipped jars with short, nearly vertical necks, and large mouthed "cuspidors" similar to those known from Preclassic collections elsewhere. Surface penetration decoration such as incising, fluting, and gadrooning are the most common decorative modes and are found on all monochrome types. Resist decoration and bichrome painting are also known from Hol complex assemblages but are infrequent and make up a minority of types represented.

Abal complex assemblages are, in most respects, comparable to Late Preclassic assemblages recovered elsewhere in the Petén. Waxy monochrome red slips dominate Abal period assemblages. Monochrome blacks and creams are also in assemblages dating to this time, but in much lower frequency. Fire clouding and crazing are common and are most frequently observed on cream slipped vessels dating to this period. Bowls and plates with wide, everted rims are the most common forms. Other common forms include deep bowls with bolstered rims (Figure 2) and shallow dishes with direct or unmodified rims.

The most common decorative modes include parallel incised lines on everted rims. Other kinds of surface penetration decoration such as fluting or gadrooning are also known from assemblages dating to this period, but are found in lower frequency than in the assemblages belonging to the preceeding phase. Usulután like decoration, i.e. parallel rows of positive-painted wavy lines, is also known from this period and are typically found decorating the interiors of shallow plates with hooked and grooved rims. The presence of types decorated using this technique, as well as the stratigraphic position of lots containing this material suggests that it may be possible to facet Abal into late and early periods, with the later facet containing the Usulután materials. In comparative terms, late facet assemblages are roughly equivalent to Protoclassic I assemblages known from elsewhere.

The period of time following the Abal ceramic phase is still poorly understood. The period is distinguished primarily through stratigraphic placement and the presence of a limited number of diagnostic modes. These modes include Usulután like decoration, mammiform supports, the occasional presence of Aguila like orange slips and other early Tzakol diagnostics. In comparative terms, this period closely resembles Cimi and Salinas complex materials known from Tikal and Altar, respectively. It is important to point out, however, that one of the most diagnostic modes of this period from both of these sites, z-angle bowls or plates, are almost completely absent from the Piedras Negras collection. Holley (1983) notes the possibility of a pre-Naba ceramic complex at Piedras Negras but neither had sufficient materials in the Pennsylvania collection to adequately define a ceramic complex for this period. The extensive testing of the southern sector of Piedras Negras between 1997 and 2001 by the current project has lent credence to this idea, but a definition precise enough to merit full complex designation remains elusive.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page