Textile-Clay Laminates:  A special-use material in ancient Mesoamerica

Data Set Limitations

Material recognition and classification
As a material type unknown to those excavating it, laminate samples carry the obvious risk of going unrecognized, and only certain fragments might capture attention and be classified in ways that would enable them to be located later. As an example, J. Brady noted that the limited number of fragments from Cueva de los Quetzales was likely a function of sorting and not representative of the total occurrence, the three standing out by their oddly sculptural qualities (personal communication, 2001). Other fragments from this context may well have been misclassified. If identified as ceramic and put in populous categories such as "figurines" or "incensarios," their later retrieval would be problematic. The one confirmed sample classified as a figurine fragment was found by serendipity, from Piedras Negras, an unexpected site.

Starting with inventories of box contents and container labels to narrow my search of selected collections, I ultimately located fragments in a range of categories. Several unassuming laminate fragments were found in a random review of "burned daub." Most of the new samples were located in boxes designated "other" or "miscellaneous." In Aguateca’s case, a rapidly abandoned site with complex deposits and of necessity a painstaking record-keeping system, the material had been classified as "other material." It was described in notes as "máscara" (after 1998), once the material’s similarity was recognized. While that description carries the risk of prematurely pigeonholing the object type, it did enable fragments of interest to be easily sorted from the inventories.

Field recovery
The fragments ranged from brittle and fragile (cracker-like) to solid and robust, directly affecting their response to archaeological recovery, packaging, handling and initial finds processing choices. Any unfired or poorly fired materials might not survive archaeological burial, which provides degradative factors, such as water and biological agents, for both textile and clay components. In the case of Aguateca, its disproportionate representation in the data set is likely due to favorable depositional circumstances and to archaeological processing well tailored for comprehensive recovery. This included provisions for a conservator to be present, enabling fragile materials to be lifted more effectively. Under any circumstances, recognition of the material’s inherent fragility would be expected to favorably influence its handling in the field.

Post-excavation processing
Finds processing protocols are generally established on the basis of material category and perceived fragility. To compound issues of inherent vulnerability and retrieval state, misclassified laminate fragments might not survive being packed in bags with potentially dissimilar material. Those sorted as ceramic might likely have been washed, a potentially disastrous choice for poorly fired materials or those particularly weakened during burial. Those that were located in this study had been packed with some care, and those that appear to have been washed were clearly robust examples of the technology.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page