The interval from roughly a. d. 800 to 1000, which is known as the “Terminal Classic” in the southern lowlands, does not have the same name or connotations to the north. In the northern lowlands, this interval is at the core of a slightly longer (ca. a. d. 700-1050/1100) period usually known as “Florescent” or “Pure Florescent,” alluding to the flowering of the Puuc centers in the northwestern comer of the Yucatan peninsula (see Brainerd 1958).
Just as the timing of cultural florescence in the north varies from that in the south, so too does the focus of ceramic inquiry. The major issues that have preoccupied ceramicists in the northern lowlands are not related to societal “collapse,” but rather concern the cultural and chronological relations of its two major Terminal Classic ceramic spheres, Cehpech (previously Copo) and Sotuta, and the sites with their constituent complexes. During the Classic period, much of the pottery in the northern lowlands demonstrated relations with the southern lowlands and its gloss wares and polychromes. By the end of the Late Classic, however, sometime around ca. a. d. 700-800, these ties to Peten diminished and there began what can be seen as either the “general homogenization of ceramic [slate ware] production” (Ringle et al.. Chapter 21, this volume) or the “regional differentiation” of Cehpech complexes (Cobos, Chapter 22, this volume) throughout the northern peninsula.
Most chronological, political, and socioeconomic inferences are based on the distribution of several kinds of ceramics known as slate wares or pizarra. Named after the “slaty” gray-brown color of their slipped surfaces, these ceramics are found throughout the northern lowlands in the Terminal Classic/Early Postclassic period(s). These wares seem to have their origins considerably earlier than the Late Classic, however, according to evidence from northwestern Campeche (Williams-Beck 1998: 28-31; see also Brainerd 1958: 52-53) and Ek Balam (Bey et al. 1998: 114). Slate wares represent a significantly new and relatively standardized set of forms and technological styles. Different kinds of slate wares, recognizable by slip color, paste color, and temper, are characteristic of the Cehpech and Sotuta spheres, and lingering questions concern degrees of geographical and temporal “overlap.”
Many of the problems with existing “Terminal Classic” ceramic chronology in the north can be traced back to the site of Chich’en Itza and the work of Carnegie Institution of Washington archaeologists there (see Anderson 1998). From the time of Sylvanus Morley and even earlier, lowland Maya prehistory had been reconstructed in terms of the “Old and New Empires.” In the north, this was recognized in the building sequence of Chich’en Itza as an indigenous Maya occupation with Puuc-style architecture, followed by a foreign, “Toltec” occupation (see Tozzer 1930, 1957; Valliant 1927, 1933). Consequently, the Terminal Classic Cehpech ceramic complex, associated with sites in the Puuc hills to the west, was seen to be followed by the Early Postclassic Sotuta complex of “Toltec”
Chich’en Itza, which was then followed by Hocaba, representing the Middle Postclassic occupation of Mayapan (see Smith 1971).
Shortly after the Mayapan ceramic report was published, this simple linear and ethnic sequencing was challenged by Ball (1979a, 1979b), who suggested temporal overlap of the Cehpech and Sotuta complexes. In a “partial overlap” model, Cehpech and Sotuta were largely coeval, succeeded by Hocaba; in the “total overlap” model all three complexes overlapped to some degree (see discussions in Lincoln 1986, 1990; Schmidt 1994; Anderson 1998). What is of concern here (and in several papers in this volume) is not the late end of this sequencing, involving Early and Middle Postclassic complexes, but rather the beginning of it in the Terminal Classic. Of particular interest is the degree of chronological overlap and the likelihood that the ceramic spheres were contemporaneous regional variants, Cehpech largely in the west (Puuc Maya) and Sotuta in the east (“Toltec” Chich’en Itza). Ball’s questions about chronological overlap were stimulating formulations on which to base new investigations. In turn, the fruits of these new investigations are seen in more detailed reconstructions of, and still more questions about, the geographical and temporal variability evident in Terminal Classic ceramic assemblages throughout the northern lowlands.
Cehpech Ceramic Sphere
Cehpech sphere ceramics are found throughout most of the Yucatan peninsula, especially in the west in the Puuc hills region, with a distribution extending as far southward as Champoton and the Rio Bee area (Ball 1979a; Andrews and Robles 1985: 65). Cehpech also has an eastern manifestation seen at Ek Balam and Yaxuna and extending to Coba near the coast, and southward into northern Belize (Chase and Chase 1982).
First defined at the Puuc sites of Uxmal and Kabah, the Cehpech complex and sphere is particularly identified with Thin Slate ware and Fine Orange of the Balancan and Altar groups. On this basis, the complex has been said to resemble an elite or fine ware subcomplex, that is, the domestic service ware and/or mortuary pottery of a socially elite group (Ball 1976: 328-329). Its distribution, in turn, has been thought to represent “the actual movements of a small, mobile group of warrior-merchants, ultimately of southern Campeche-Tabasco coastal plain origin” (ibid.). Most of the characteristic wares, groups, and types have names drawn from the Puuc geographical area: Puuc Slate ware (Tekit Incised), Puuc Unslipped ware (Yokat Striated), Puuc Red ware (Teabo Red), Ticul Thin Slate, and so forth.
Cehpech slate wares such as Muna Slate from the Puuc region, described most succinctly by Kepecs (1998: 125-126; see also Smith 1971: 28; Robles and Andrews 1986; 77-78), have primarily gray or brown pastes and a slightly translucent, waxy-feeling, gray or brown slip. In contrast, eastern (Coba) Cehpech slates have brown or reddish paste and a brown slip, and slightly different forms.
Cehpech slate wares from both eastern and western regions are usually calcite tempered, although they sometimes may have volcanic ash temper like the Sotuta wares. The western Cehpech sphere also has an imitation slate ware, the sherd-tempered Cauich Coarse-cream ware.
One of the earliest well-defined ceramic sequences within the Cehpech sphere comes from the site of Becan in the Rio Bee region (Ball 1977). In the equivalent of Tepeu 1, the region participated peripherally in the Tepeu sphere, but the trend toward regionalization was increasingly evident through time. Becan’s Late Classic Chintok complex was not abundant, usually occurring in poor condition and in mixed lots. Overall, it showed “more differences than similarities” to Tepeu 2, with the major monochrome being brown-slipped (Traino Brown; Campeche gloss ware) and the beginnings of slate wares replacing gloss wares (Ball 1977: 161).
Becan’s Terminal Classic Xcocom complex, beginning in the early ninth century, is a member of the Cehpech sphere and, even in the early facet, represented a considerable break with the previous Peten-related complex. Characterized as “a radical revitalization and reorientation of the local ceramic tradition” (Ball 1977: 7), the Xcocom complex featured “an entire battery of new types and modes,” including graters, Ticul Thin Slate, and Fine Orange ware (Ball 1977: 162-163). Early-facet Xcocom is similar to Cehpech in types, forms, and decoration; late-facet Xcocom is contemporary with Sotuta but shows little in common with it (Ball 1977: 164). Late Xcocom continues many of the same types and groups as before, but with later imports such as Silho Fine Orange and Tohil Plumbate (ibid.).
In the extreme northwestern part of the Yucatan peninsula, Dzibilchaltun’s Terminal Classic Copo ceramic complex was originally seen to have “strong linkages” to complexes in Peten, both Eznab and Boca (Willey, Culbert, and Adams 1967: 303). Copo is now regarded as a member of the Cehpech sphere by virtue of the presence of Puuc Slate, Muna Slate, Teabo Red, and Chablekal Gray (Fine Gray). The end of the late facet, Copo II, saw the addition of some Sotuta ceramics. Sotuta may have been restricted to certain groups or strata within the site of Dzibilchaltun, because, the ceramics were found mostly near main sacbes (Bey et al. 1998: 116).
To the northwest of Becan, Edzna shares the typical western or Puuc Cehpech sphere Terminal Classic diagnostics, including Puuc Unslipped, Puuc Slate, Thin Slate, Puuc Red, Cauich Coarse-cream, and Fine Orange wares (Forsyth 1983: 212). Slate types frequently bear trickle decoration in red or black. There are few polychromes and virtually no apparent ties to Peten spheres such as Eznab or Boca.
In the eastern part of the peninsula, the Cehpech sphere presents a different picture. The east coastal variant of Cehpech is best known from the Oro complex (a. d. 730-1100) of Coba in northern Quintana Roo. During much of the Late Classic and into the Terminal Classic, Coba had pronounced architectural as well as ceramic ties to central Peten. However, the dominant Terminal Classic ceramics of Coba and other contemporaneous complexes, such as the San Miguel complex at Tancah (Sanders 1960), are slate wares, particularly those associated with western Cehpech. These include Puuc Slate and Thin Slate, as well as non-slate types like Puuc Red ware and Vista Alegre Striated. Eastern Cehpech slate wares are distinctive, as noted above, by virtue of their brown or reddish paste and brown slip, rather than gray colors.
Inland, the Terminal Classic complex at Yaxuna, twenty kilometers southwest of Chich’en Itza, is referred to as Yaxuna IV and has two facets. The Yaxuna IVa or Initial Terminal Classic complex (a. d. 730-900) is believed to represent colonization from the Puuc area; ceramics include a mix of eastern and western Cehpech influences, with eastern forms predominating (Suhler, Ardren, and Johnstone 1998: 178). During Yaxuna IVb, the Late Terminal Classic facet (a. d. 900-1100), the site is believed to have been taken over by Chich’en Itza, and Sotuta complex ceramics were recovered, though largely from ritual contexts (ibid.).
Ek Balam, located almost equidistant from Coba and Chich’en Itza, reached its apex during the late facet of the Yumkab phase, roughly a. d. 700-1050/1100. The late Yumkab ceramic complex shares considerable similarity with the Puuc Cehpech sphere, with Muna Slate and Chum/Encanto Unslipped wares accounting for 69 percent of the material (Bey et al. 1998: 114). However, there is comparatively little fine paste ware or Ticul Thin Slate, charaeteristic of western Cehpech, while Vista Alegre Striated, which is common at Coba and eastern Cehpech sphere sites, is nearly absent also (ibid.). Significantly, the site’s investigators note that “Itza influence [in the form of Sotuta sphere ceramics] is barely detectable in the archaeological record of Ek Balam” (Bey et al. 1998: 118).
Sotuta Ceramic Sphere
The Terminal Classic to Early Postclassic ceramic sphere encompassing much of the northern and eastern Yucatan peninsula is the Sotuta sphere, associated with Chich’en Itza’s “Toltec” florescence and its allied sites. Sotuta ceramics are found from Tabasco and western Campeche across northern Yucatan to northeastern coastal Quintana Roo, at least as far south as El Meco and possibly Cozumel (Andrews and Robles 1985: 69-70). This area includes Isla Cerritos on the north coast, and a corridor of sites between Chich’en and the northeastern coast, including the Chikinchel province (Kepecs 1998). They are not known from Coba, however, in the east coastal peninsula. Nonetheless, farther to the south in Belize, Sotuta sphere ceramics are present at Ambergris Cay and possibly at Nohmul.
The principal diagnostics of the Sotuta complex at Chich’en Itza and the Sotuta sphere as a whole are a series of slate wares and red-slipped wares, plus some distinctive trade wares. These include Chichen Slate (some with black “trickle” decoration), Dzitas Slate, and Chichen Red, along with Tohil Plumbate and Silho Fine Orange. Sotuta slate wares, such as Dzitas, have a red paste that almost invariably has volcanic ash temper and a lighter, cream-colored slip (Kepecs 1998: 125-126; see also Smith 1971: 28; Robles and Andrews 1986: 77-78). Although eastern Cehpech slates sometimes may have volcanic ash inclusions, “Chichen Itza and the western sites had a type of [volcanic] ash temper that is markedly distinct from that of Coba and Yaxuna, suggesting separate sources of supply” (Andrews and Robles 1985: 69). The Sotuta sphere also includes an “imitation” slate ware, calcite-tempered Peto Cream ware.
With respect to Cehpech-Sotuta overlap, questions are still very much alive, although most archaeologists seem to have accepted the reality of some degree of overlap. As additional scientific excavations are done, the greater the likelihood that considerably more local, regional, and chronological variability will be discerned and understood. For example, at Yula, only five kilometers south of Chich’en Itza, Cehpech and Sotuta ceramics were found together in the same stratigraphic levels. While sherds of Sotuta types were clearly dominant (by counts), they occurred in the same relative percentages in upper and lower strata, with 10-12 percent Cehpech and 88-90 percent Sotuta (Anderson 1998: 158). And, as Rafael Cobos explains in his contribution to this volume (Chapter 22), there may be early and late facets of Sotuta at Chich’en Itza and elsewhere. The early facet is marked by the presence of Thin Slate, Chichen Unslipped, Chichen Red, and Fine Orange wares; the late facet is characterized by Chichen Slate ware and Plumbate, while Chichen Unslipped and Fine Orange wares continue.
So, at the end, what can be said about the overlap issue? It appears that Cehpech and Sotuta are largely coeval spheres that share what might be called similar “technological styles” of wares (slate wares, red wares) but different resources (red - versus gray-firing clays, calcite versus volcanic ash). Careful stratigraphic excavations and ceramic analyses appear to have revealed that in some sites/areas there are geographical subspheres of Cehpech (eastern and western) as well as chronological faceting that can be correlated with different architectural styles. It also appears that Sotuta either lasts longer than Cehpech or replaces it at several sites. In a number of sites/areas (Dzibilchaltun, Uxmal, Ek Balam, Yaxuna), Sotuta appears at the very end of a Terminal Classic occupation that had been Cehpech-affiliated, and a chronological division of Sotuta into early and late facets is therefore highly probable. Given the fairly restricted distribution of these late-Sotuta ceramics at Dzibilchaltun and Yaxuna, it is also likely that they represent a socially or functionally specialized subcomplex.
World History
