Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-54qdv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T13:18:14.257Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Lowland Maya “Protoclassic”

A reconsideration of its nature and significance

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

James E. Brady
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA
Joseph W. Ball
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA
Ronald L. Bishop
Affiliation:
Conservation Analytical Laboratory, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, USA
Duncan C. Pring
Affiliation:
Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd., Swire House, 9 Connaught Road, C, Hong Kong
Norman Hammond
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, Boston University, 675 Commonwealth Avenue, Boston, MA 02215, USA
Rupert A. Housley
Affiliation:
Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, 6 Keble Road, Oxford OXI 3QJ, England

Abstract

The term “Protoclassic,” employed regularly but inexplicitly in the literature of lowland Maya archaeology, has become increasingly nebulous and ambiguous in both meaning and usage. This paper reviews the history and use of the term and presents a formal redefinition of the Protoclassic as a ceramic stage based explicitly and exclusively on ceramic criteria. Some suggestions regarding future use of the term also are offered. The paper further addresses and resolves a number of persisting questions regarding Protoclassic orange wares, including problems concerning the actual existence of the “Aguacate ceramic group.” and the relationships of Aguacate-group pottery to other emergent orange wares of the terminal Late Preclassic and initial Early Classic periods. The nature and significance of the “Holmul I Style,” the “Floral Park Ceramic Sphere.” and the relationships of the two to each other and the larger, redefined “protoclassic” ceramic stage also are examined. A spatial distribution for protoclassic ceramics considerably expanded over what has ever been reported previously is described, and Chronometric data are presented to support a revised chronology for the protoclassic ceramic stage. Finally, ceramic data are offered that suggest a real subdivision of the protoclassic ceramic stage into an early, emergent facet originating entirely within Late Preclassic lowland traditions, and a later, fully “Classic” facet corresponding to the early Tzakol (Tzakol 1) ceramic horizon.

Information

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable