Critical Reflections on Chronology and Temporality

Figurines have often been denigrated as some of the most static components of culture. Perhaps the most extreme of such characterizations is their blanket association with a “mother goddess” and concepts of female fertility transcending vast geographic, cultural, and temporal zones, stretching over many thousands of years, from the Upper Paleolithic to the Neolithic and beyond (Gimbutas Reference Gimbutas1982, Reference Gimbutas1989), a characterization much critiqued on a number of grounds (Conkey and Tringham Reference Conkey, Tringham, Goodison and Morris1998; Meskell Reference Meskell1995). In turn, because figurines in many parts of ancient Mesoamerica are recovered in domestic contexts, it is often easy to interpret such material objects as the bearers of long-term household traditions, in contrast to the event-driven politics of the state documented by the erection of monuments and by hieroglyphic texts detailing history within a formal calendar system (Clark and Colman Reference Clark and Colman2008; Iannone Reference Iannone2002). Nonetheless, Maya ceramic figurines and the practices surrounding them were anything but static. Such changes need to be viewed on a human scale to understand how different people experienced their lives, and the material culture that was a part of them.

One of the foundations of archaeological conceptions of time is a progressive chronology, identified through gradual changes in artifact styles, architecture, and archaeological assemblages. In general, Enlightenment notions of history underscore a linear movement of time, in which events and, in turn, material culture patterns, are seen as sequential. The etic chronologies of ceramic styles embody broad periods of time created not by a single generation, but by the seemingly unconscious collective actions of many generations (Binford Reference Binford1981). These large-scale temporal periods capture particular traditions, habitus, and structures (Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1977; Braudel Reference Braudel1960; Sahlins Reference Sahlins1985). The figurine chronologies established here are identified by ceramic vessel cross-dating, which have been tied to radiocarbon dates with assessments for the Late Classic (Tepeu 1 and 2 ceramic phases; ca. AD 600–830), Terminal Classic (Tepeu 3 ceramic phase, ca. AD 830–950/1000), and Postclassic (ca. AD 1000–1521) (see Rice and Forsyth Reference Rice, Forsyth, Demarest, Rice and Rice2004 for a comparison of ceramic phase chronologies by region). Because of poor stratigraphy and overlapping ceramic styles between the Early and Late Postclassic periods, the Postclassic is treated collectively here with some notes on whether or not figurine styles persist over the entire period.

One of the critiques of culture-historical typologies is that the people of the past are treated as undifferentiated masses with little agency. Thus, a major shift in archaeological conception of time has been to adopt a practice-based perspective following the work of Pierre Bourdieu, Anthony Giddens, and Marshall Sahlins, among others, in which change is centered on the day-to-day practices and actions of people who are structured by the weight of tradition but simultaneously rework these traditions, their habitual behaviors, and the structures of society (Hegmon and Kulow Reference Hegmon and Kulow2005; Pauketat Reference Pauketat2001; Robb Reference Robb2008).

Such reproductions may manifest on different temporal scales. Ruth Van Dyke (Reference Van Dyke2008), for example, refers to small-scale quantitative changes as a process of dialectical tensions that revolve around an attempt to maintain the status quo (compare also evolutionary biology ideas of punctuated equilibrium and Romer's rule). Small-scale quantitative changes, however, may intentionally or unintentionally lead to a tipping point in which dialectical tensions must be resolved by a total transformation, a large-scale qualitative change. Although the qualitative change appears abrupt, it emerges within the context of small, repetitive quantitative transformations. Indeed, changes in Maya ceramic figurines also exhibit different scales of change, with some shifts more abrupt than others.

Moreover, the experience of time is often uneven or jumbled because not all things start and end simultaneously and because references to the past are evoked to manage and reconstitute the present. The recent focus on social memory in archaeology, for example, has underscored the central role of heirlooms, forgotten or lost objects that are found, ruins, and ancient landscapes in remaking the present (Stanton and Magnoni Reference Stanton, Kathryn Brown and Pagliaro2008; Van Dyke and Alcock Reference Van Dyke and Alcock2003). Rather than a progression from old to new, older objects and landscapes coexist with newer ones. Walter Benjamin (Reference Benjamin2002:461), for example, promoted the idea of history as a montage in which a single moment holds elements of multiple, different pasts. Whereas many previous studies have examined the ways in which ancient people have treated objects and landscapes from distant pasts as sacred and as a means to evoke notions of ancestors and other worlds, I consider the juxtaposition and overlap of temporally close objects with social meanings and values that may be ambiguous due to their closer proximities in age.

Another way of examining temporal unevenness is to consider multiple scales of time and the intersection or tension between them. Annales School historian Fernand Braudel famously recognized multiple temporal scales in which history unfolds: the longue durée of geological and environmental structures, the medium-term socioeconomic cycles of conjunctures, and the short-term sociopolitical events or l'histoire événementielle (Braudel Reference Braudel1960; Knapp Reference Knapp1992). Despite his tendency to view the large-scale structures as determining, Braudel and other Annales School historians sought to bring ordinary people into history—people previously eclipsed by official histories presented as event-based narratives of kings and conquests (Bloch Reference Bloch1966; Braudel Reference Braudel1960, Reference Braudel and Reynold1992). Likewise, Michael Herzfeld's (Reference Herzfeld1991:10) study of cultural heritage on the Cretan coastal town of Rethemnos points to the ways in which social time, “the grist of everyday experience,” often comes into conflict with monumental time, an official history and conceptualization of the past promoted and controlled by the state. For the ancient Maya, rulers and priests meticulously recorded, presided over key ceremonial events and associated monumental public works projects marked in various calendar systems (Clark and Colman Reference Clark and Colman2008; Rice Reference Rice2008). In doing so, they sanctified a particular “monumental” temporal order and a collective way of experiencing the world.

What Herzfeld calls social time overlaps with what feminist and phenomenological studies have referred to as personal time (Gilchrist Reference Gilchrist1999; Gosden Reference Gosden1994)—the temporalities formed through more personal and more everyday events and routines. In turn, I use the term personal time to think about how figurines were implicated in everyday household routines and rituals and how such temporalities were linked to or contrasted with the monumental time of large-scale collective activities, public ceremonies, and officially sanctioned timekeeping. Before I explore such temporalities, I outline the chronology of figurine styles from the Late Classic to Postclassic periods.

Figurine Chronologies

Although changes in ceramic figurine pastes, technologies, iconographies, and forms are subtle between the Late Classic (Tepeu 1 and 2) and Terminal Classic (Tepeu 3) periods, an abrupt shift in ceramic figurine style occurred between the Terminal Classic and Postclassic periods. These changes roughly coincide with those found on decorated pottery and stone monuments. In contrast, utilitarian vessels and, to some extent, monochrome serving vessels often exhibit a more gradual progression and overlap between these temporal phases, at least in regions with continuous occupation (Cecil Reference Cecil2001; Graham Reference Graham, Rice and Sharer1987; Howie Reference Howie2012; Rice Reference Rice1987:90–91).

In most cases, Terminal Classic period ceramic figurines from central Petén were indistinguishable versions of earlier Late Classic precedents (Table 2). Terminal Classic figurine producers continued to make figurines with the same Petén Gloss Ware pastes as in earlier times. These pastes are similar to those used to produce serving wares and often contain ash temper or relatively fine-sized inclusions. Terminal Classic producers also continued to shape figurines using the same techniques to create the same array of figurine manufacturing types. Likewise, many of the iconographic themes were the same, with similar gender ratios, supernatural figures, zoomorphic characters, and human representations (Halperin Reference Halperin, Arroyo, Paiz and Mejia2012, Reference Halperin2014a; Horcajada Reference Horcajada2011; Sears Reference Sears2016).

Table 2.

General Central Petén Figurine Traits between the Late Classic, Terminal Classic, and Postclassic Periods

Nonetheless, a new suite of “diagnostic” Terminal Classic figurines appears alongside Terminal Classic period figurines that were replications of earlier Late Classic figurine styles (Figure 2). The diagnostic Terminal Classic figurines are a mix of Late Classic and new Terminal Classic features rather than a complete transformation. In this sense, they seem to manifest small, quantitative changes. As in earlier Late Classic figurine traditions, they are hollow, molded ocarinas (Type 1) with Petén Gloss Ware pastes, but they differ slightly in a number of features. One of their defining features is that they are larger in size than Late Classic figurines, although even size differences occur on a continuum (Supplementary Figure 1). They also sometimes depict long hair, parted in the center, with detailing of hair strands. Some possess tubular nose ornaments; or wear relatively simple clothing or adornment. Some of the male figurines wear decapitated heads, either around the neck or hanging from the belt, in addition to the holding of weapons (Figures 3, 4, 5). Although none of these features are without earlier precedent, certain trends reference a preference away from elaborate costuming, coiffures (such as the stepped haircut seen commonly on women or short bangs found on men), and headdresses (large, masked headdresses with fan-shaped feather sprays). This emphasis away from elaborate ornamentation and dress is shared by imagery in some Terminal Classic molded and modeled carved vessels and Terminal Classic stone monuments (Adams Reference Adams1971; Graham Reference Graham and Culbert1973; Just Reference Just2006; Proskouriakoff Reference Proskouriakoff1950) (Figures 3e, 5e, Supplementary Figure 5d).

Figure 2.

Comparison of Late Classic and diagnostic Terminal Classic style figurines from Terminal Classic contexts: (a) small Late Classic style broad-brimmed hat fragment, Nixtun Ch'ich’, NC082; (b) large, diagnostic Terminal Classic style, broad-brimmed hat figurine with center part and long hair, San Clemente, SCRF014; (c) small Late Classic style broad-brimmed hat figurine with stepped haircut, San Clemente, SCFC012; (d) large, diagnostic Terminal Classic broad-brimmed hat figurine with center part and long hair, Nakum, NKFC221; (e) Terminal Classic style seated ruler figurine, Tikal, PP7TT169; (f) Terminal Classic style ruler figurine head, Tikal, PP7TT190; (g) Terminal Classic style seated ruler figurine, San Clemente, SCFC010 [note: (e) and (g) are probably made from the same mold or mold replica]; (h) Late Classic style ruler seated figurine, Tikal, PP7TT122 (broad-brimmed hat figurines share scale bar; ruler figurines share the same scale bar). All photographs by the author. (Color online)

Figure 3.

Figures with long hair and/or tubular nose bars from Terminal Classic contexts: (a) diagnostic Terminal Classic figurine face with tubular nose bar and post-fire perforations, Yaxhá, YX065; (b) diagnostic Terminal Classic figurine head fragment with long hair and post-fire incisions, Zacpetén, ZP090; (c) diagnostic Terminal Classic figurine head with tubular nose bar, Nixtun Ch'ich’, NC090; (d) Jimba-style figurine with long hair and tubular nose bar, Altar de Sacrificios, MUNAE10095b; (e) Ceibal Stela 13 (after Graham Reference Graham1996:37); (f) diagnostic Terminal Classic warrior figurine with tubular nose bar, Nakum, NKFC164. All photographs by the author. (Color online)

Figure 4.

Figurines of warriors or officials wearing upside down decapitated heads from Terminal Classic contexts: (a) diagnostic Terminal Classic figurine with abstract decapitated heads suspended from the neck, Flores, FRS001; (b) Jimba-style figurine with single decapitated head suspended from the neck, Altar de Sacrificios, MUNAE10095a; (c) diagnostic Terminal Classic figurine with three decapitated heads suspended from the belt, San Clemente, SCFC063; (d) Late Classic style figurine with single decapitated head suspended from the neck, Tikal, PP7TT101; (e) diagnostic Terminal Classic figurine with single decapitated head suspended from the neck and accompanied by feathered cape, Tikal, PP7TT154. All photographs by the author. (Color online)

Figure 5.

Terminal Classic figures with simple dress and simple beaded necklaces (above) and wheeled figurines (below): (a) diagnostic Terminal Classic female figurine, Tikal, PP7TT273; (b) diagnostic Terminal Classic female figurine, Nakum, NKFC061; (c) Jimba-style Fine Orange female figurine, Altar de Sacrificios, MUNAE10098a; (d) diagnostic Terminal Classic female figurine, Yaxhá, YXFC057; (e) male reclining figure, Pabellon Molded-Carved vessel, Altar de Sacrificios (after Adams Reference Adams1971:Figure 67c); (f, h) frontal detail of feline head fragment and head fragment refit with body, Terminal Classic wheeled figurine, San Clemente, SCFC022&283; (g) Terminal Classic wheeled figurine foot, Tikal, PP7TT206. All photographs by the author. (Color online)

In comparison to other figurines in the Maya area, the diagnostic Terminal Classic figurines from central Petén are similar to Fine Orange or near Fine Orange “Jimba” figurines from Altar de Sacrificios, with the Jimba phase designated as circa AD 900–948 (Willey Reference Willey1972:55–57), and rare Fine Orange figurines from Ceibal (Willey Reference Willey1978:21–22). These Fine Orange figurines share features with the central Petén diagnostic Terminal Classic figurines, albeit produced with different pastes. Adoption of diagnostic Terminal Classic figurine styles, however, was uneven across the Southern Maya Lowlands. Although they appear at the sites of Nixtun-Ch'ich’, Nakum, San Clemente, Tikal, and Zacpeten, with parallels at Altar de Sacrificios and Ceibal, they have not been identified among figurine collections from other neighboring sites with Terminal Classic occupation, such as Motul de San José or Tayasal. Likewise, although diagnostic Terminal Classic figurines have been found at Tikal, none of these figurines appear to possess the tubular nose ornament. Thus, such new, albeit subtle, figurine changes were not homogeneously adopted in the same way everywhere.

Although the above discussion focuses on anthropomorphic figurines, another Terminal Classic figurine shift that occurred was the widening adoption of wheeled zoomorphic figurines throughout Mesoamerica. They appear in the Terminal Classic figurine assemblages from San Clemente (SC177, SC022), Nixtun-Ch'ich’ (NC087), and Tikal (PP7TT206; see also Sears Reference Sears2016:100–101 for the site of Cancuén; Figure 5). The earliest known appearance of wheeled figurines in Mesoamerica is at the end of the Classic period, in central Veracruz and at Teotihuacan. During the Terminal Classic/Early Postclassic period (ca. AD 950–1100), their distribution widened to northern Veracruz, other parts of central Mexico such as Tula, and El Salvador (Diehl and Mandeville Reference Diehl and Mandeville1987).

In contrast to the figurine changes from the Late to Terminal Classic periods, a substantial rupture in figurine style and use occured between the Terminal Classic and Postclassic periods, underscoring what Van Dyke (Reference Van Dyke2008) calls a large-scale quantitative change. Most Postclassic figurines from central Petén are not ocarinas. Instead they are hollow figurines that either stood on a flat surface or were suspended on a string. Perforated suspension holes are a common feature among Postclassic figurines throughout Mesoamerica (Klein and Lona Reference Klein, Victoria Lona, Halperin, Faust, Taube and Giguet2009; Overholtzer Reference Overholtzer2012; Parsons Reference Parsons, Spence, Parsons and Parsons1972; Patel Reference Patel2012:245–246), and the hollow shape with open base is a form shared with Postclassic figurines from northern Yucatan and northern Belize (Chase and Chase Reference Chase and Chase2008; Graham Reference Graham and Thomas1991; Masson and Peraza Lope Reference Masson, Peraza Lope, Joyce, Gallegos Gómora and Hendon2011, Reference Masson, Peraza Lope, Vail and Hernández2010:85–88; Smith Reference Smith1971:56–59, 98–99), as well as Late Classic figurines from the Pacific Coast of Guatemala (Castillo Aguilar et al. Reference Castillo Aguilar, Neff, Bishop, Sears, James Blackman, Pedro Laporte, Arroyo and Mejía2008).

Two major Postclassic figurine manufacturing types are noted: Type I and Type II (use of Roman numerals to distinguish them from earlier Late Classic typologies, but such an application should not be confused with Central Mexican or Veracruz typologies). Both versions were slipped to some degree. Such surface treatment is in contrast with earlier Late Classic and Terminal Classic figurines, which were unslipped, but sometimes post-fire painted.Footnote ¹ The Type I figurines are the most common and are characterized by molded fronts, plain, modeled backs, and openings at the base (Figures 6, 7, 8, Supplementary Figure 2). Their suspension holes indicate that the figurines may have been strung or hung, adding to their capacity to stand upright on a bench, altar, or some other type of flat surface. It is unlikely that these figurines served as rattles similar to Aztec Type I figurines (Otis Charlton Reference Otis Charlton, Stocker and Otis Charlton2001; Overholtzer Reference Overholtzer2012; Parsons Reference Parsons, Spence, Parsons and Parsons1972), because the central Petén figurine bases were left open.Footnote ² The suspension holes for central Mexican figurines have sometimes been interpreted in relation to Diego Durán's remarks that Aztec children wore figurines around their necks and wrists as part of rituals to ward off evil and illness and that Aztec people suspended idols over cornfields to ensure health and fertility (Klein and Lona Reference Klein, Victoria Lona, Halperin, Faust, Taube and Giguet2009; Otis Charlton Reference Otis Charlton, Stocker and Otis Charlton2001; Overholtzer Reference Overholtzer2012). Similar practices may have existed for the Postclassic Maya.

Figure 6.

Postclassic Type I molded (above) and Type II modeled (below) zoomorphic figurines: (a) Type I owl figurine, Ixlú, IX027 (drawing by Luis F. Luin); (b) Type I owl figurine, Barton Ramie, Belize (after Willey et al. Reference Willey, William, Glass and Gifford1965:Figure 255b,c); (c) Type I owl figurine, Flores, FRS022; (d) Type I owl figurine, surface collection near Trinidad, Casa de las Americas collection; (e) Type I owl or rabbit figurine, Nixtun Ch'ich’, NC102; (f) Type I owl figurine, Tayasal, TY260; (g) Type II mammal figurine, Structure 213, Santa Rita Corazal, Belize (after Chase and Chase Reference Chase and Chase1988:Figure 25); (h) Type II hollow jaguar figurine, Str. 183, Santa Rita Corozal, Belize (after Chase and Chase Reference Chase and Chase1988:Figure 33b); (i) Type II reptile figurine, Flores, FRS004; (j) Type II reptile figurine, Flores, FRS003; (k) Type II feline figurine head, Structure T247, Tayasal, TY200. a, c, d, e, f, i, k photographed by the author. (Color online)

Figure 7.

Postclassic Type I molded female figurines: (a) figurine with decorated quechquemitl (triangular tunic), Flores, FRS011; (b) figurine with quechquemitl, ornamented collar, possibly holding mirror, Tayasal, TY165; (c) figurine with quechquemitl, holding copal bag?, Tayasal, TY289; (d) figurine with double quechquemitl, skirt, and feathered headdress, Ixlu, Guatemala IX005 (drawing by Luis F. Luin); (e) figurine with quechquemitl, decorated skirt, and necklace, Tipu, Belize (after Graham Reference Graham and Thomas1991:Figure 15); (f) figurines with skirt and decorated headdress, Mayapan (after Smith Reference Smith1971:Figures 35-2, 35-3); (g) figurine with quechquemitl and ornamented collar?, Macanché Island, Guatemala (after Rice Reference Rice1987:Figure 68). All photographs by the author. (Color online)

Figure 8.

Type I Postclassic molded figurines with red slip: (a) Xiuhtecuhtli figurine, San Bernabé Museum, near Flores, Guatemala (appliqué added to molded figurine); (b) face fragment, Tayasal, TY288; (c) male body fragment with loincloth, Flores, FRS010; (d) male body fragment with loincloth, Flores, FRS012. All photographs by the author. (Color online)

A variety of sizes and styles exist among the central Petén Postclassic Type I figurines. Nonetheless, they share general traits with Postclassic styles broadly seen throughout Mesoamerica, such as stocky bodily forms, sharp angular facial features, and stiff poses (Boone and Smith Reference Boone, Smith, Smith and Berdan2003; Roberston Reference Roberston1970), straying from Classic period Maya artistic works in their realistic and more fluid treatments of the body. Some of the Postclassic figurines possess exposed, grimacing teeth (Figure 8b, Supplementary Figure 2f), also a feature of Postclassic Mesoamerican mural, sculptural, and manuscript styles that cross-cut cultural and linguistic boundaries. As in other time periods, the majority of detailing is found in the headdresses, which contain circular ornaments, beads, and feathers denoting status, rank, and identity (Supplementary Figure 2).

Type I figurines come in both anthropomorphic and zoomorphic varieties. The most common zoomorphic Type I figurines are small owls (Figure 6). These figurines date to both the Early and Late Postclassic period (Pugh et al. Reference Pugh, Rómulo Sánchez and Shiratori2012; Willey et al. Reference Willey, William, Glass and Gifford1965). Among the anthropomorphic examples for which gender can be identified (based on clothing style or anatomical features), a large majority appear to represent females (85%, n=11 female figurines; 15%, n=2 male figurines; figurines with gender unidentified not included [compare also Mayapan with 88%, n=143 female figurines; 12%, n=18 male figurines; 31 figurines with gender unidentified not included, Masson and Peraza Lope Reference Masson, Peraza Lope, Joyce, Gallegos Gómora and Hendon2011:Table 1]). This emphasis on molded feminine figures differs from earlier Late and Terminal Classic periods in which both males and females were more equally represented (Halperin Reference Halperin2014a). It also contrasts with other forms of Postclassic iconographic media, such as effigy ceramic censers, stone sculptures, murals, and manuscripts, which overwhelmingly depict male deities, noblemen, and warriors (Milbrath Reference Milbrath and Peraza Lope2007; Vail and Stone Reference Vail, Stone and Ardren2002; cf. Chase and Chase Reference Chase and Chase2008). Nonetheless, this new focus on feminine figurines is shared by Postclassic molded figurines throughout Mesoamerica, such as the Gulf Coast and Central Mexico (Klein and Lona Reference Klein, Victoria Lona, Halperin, Faust, Taube and Giguet2009; Masson and Peraza Lope Reference Masson, Peraza Lope, Vail and Hernández2010; Patel Reference Patel2012).

All Type I female figurines from the central Petén collection examined here wear a quechquemitl and skirt (Figure 7a–d, g). Such clothing styles were present in Central Mexico, Oaxaca, and the Gulf Coast region as early as the Classic period (Anawalt Reference Anawalt and Boone Hill1982; Martínez López and Winter Reference Martínez López and Winter1994), but did not become popular in the Petén until the Postclassic period. In most parts of Mesoamerica, this triangular tunic is reserved primarily for female deities, ritual specialists, and ceremonial wear (Anawalt Reference Anawalt and Boone Hill1982), and women engaged in quotidian activities are more often depicted with a skirt and exposed chest or a nontriangular huipil. Thus, the central Petén female figurines may depict esteemed and sacred figures because they also wear elaborate necklaces and headdresses (albeit often very eroded). One female figurine also holds a circular object, perhaps a mirror, and another holds a small bag, perhaps a copal bag (Figure 7b,c).

Despite the predominance of Type I female figurines, I have identified a small percentage of male Type I figurines (Figure 8). They possess flat exposed chests, loincloths, and necklaces. Because no complete examples in the collection exist, it is difficult to identify who these figures appear to have represented. A complete specimen housed in the Museo San Bernabé (Figure 8a), a private museum just off the shore of Flores, depicts the Late Postclassic deity of fire, Xiuhtecuhtli, identified by his horned headdress, fang-like teeth, and seated position, all features found on the Xiuhtecuhtli stone sculptures cached in the Templo Mayor from Tenochtitlan (López Luján Reference López Luján2005:139–148, 241–242). Another seated Xiuhtecuhtli figurine with red slip is currently housed at the American Museum of Natural History (Cat. No. 30.0/2217), and is reported as deriving from Flores, Guatemala. These museum specimens have a thick red slip, similar to some of the Postclassic figurines in the archaeological collection studied here, including the few male figurine bodies identified. Xiuhtecuhtli, like most deities, embodied time itself. He was the god of the year and served as the patron of the day Atl and the Trecena 1 Coatl in the 260-day calendar (Taube and Bade Reference Taube and Bade1991).

The other manufacturing type among the Postclassic figurines from central Petén is a modeled figurine labeled here as Type II (Figure 6i–k). Modeled figurines can be divided into zoomorphic specimens and extremely crude anthropomorphic specimens. In both cases, the figurines tend to have coarse pastes used for utilitarian vessels (such as Uaxactun unslipped wares and Montículo unslipped wares). For the zoomorphic figurines, modeling is relatively simple with globularly shaped bodies and facial forms that often follow the stylistic conventions of modeled Postclassic figurines from northern Belize, such as the bead-shaped eyes (Chase and Chase Reference Chase and Chase1988, Reference Chase and Chase2008; Pendergast Reference Pendergast and Mock1998). The crude anthropomorphic examples are extremely abstract with little detailing and resemble other crude examples from central Mexico (Brumfiel and Overholtzer Reference Brumfiel, Overholtzer, Halperin, Faust, Taube and Giguet2009:303–307; Olson Reference Olson, Gonlin and Lohse2007:Fig 9.3). Although crudely modeled figurine-whistles and -ocarinas do not appear to have received any special treatment during the Late and Terminal Classic periods, these seemingly simple figurines take on important sacred roles in the Postclassic period, as elaborated further below.

The Experience of Structural Change: Termination Deposits

In order to conceptualize how large-scale structural changes occurred over the course of the Late Classic to Postclassic periods, I situate figurines within the context of practice. As such, broad-based changes can be understood at the level of human decision-making, agency, and experience. Indeed, many material culture changes may have gone unnoticed, as Maya communities gradually reproduced and altered their practices, production techniques, and worldviews over time. Nonetheless, critical events can also encapsulate and serve to punctuate such broad changes in step-like fashion. One of the many critical events in the lifecycle of Maya households was the creation of termination deposits. I argue that these events disrupted the habitual routine of daily life to allow ancient people to reflect on their lives, and thus provided moments to either reproduce existing practices or shift course.

Ethnohistorical sources suggest that termination deposits were tied to key events in the calendar system. For example, Diego de Landa (Tozzer Reference Tozzer1941:151–152) reports that Yucatec Maya New Year's festivities were celebrated by throwing out household implements, sweeping homes, and discarding trash in a dump outside of town. Likewise, Bernardino de Sahagún and his Nahua collaborators detail how Nahua peoples commemorated the 52-year cycle with a New Fire ceremony in which household members ritually broke their household goods and disposed of them as part of a broader cycle of ritual cleansing and renewal events led by the Aztec state (Hamann Reference Hamann2008; Sahagún Reference Sahagún1970). These were key moments when personal and monumental time intersected, as the discarding practices of household routines were also coordinated and objectified on a more grandiose scale by the Aztec state.

In the archaeological record, termination deposits, sometimes labeled “termination rituals,” “ritual deposits,” and “special deposits” (Halperin and Foias Reference Halperin and Foias2016; Lucero Reference Lucero, Mills and Walker2008; Newman Reference Newman2015; Stanton et al. Reference Stanton, Kathryn Brown and Pagliaro2008), are recognized as on-floor trash deposits scattered and dumped over previously usable occupation surfaces. These deposits were often accompanied by extensive evidence of burning, depositions of white marl, or architectural destruction. The intentionality and meaning behind these deposits, such as whether or not they were acts of reverential destruction by building inhabitants, timed events related to ceremonial period endings, or violent acts, perhaps undertaken by those external to the household, remain controversial. It is not my intention here to add to these debates. Rather, I point to the underlying importance of these deposits in marking critical moments in the lives of those living in such buildings or participating in such acts, regardless of the intentionality behind them. They are critical because they mark a change from usable to unusable space and a disruption in the lives of those living there. Furthermore, the amount of trash left behind was often enormous, underscoring a substantial removal of goods from use and circulation.

Many of the Terminal Classic figurines within the archaeological collections examined here were a part of such domestic termination deposits. In the Plaza de los Siete Templos at the site of Tikal, Terminal Classic (Eznab ceramic phase, ca. AD 850–950) people reconfigured the Late Classic architectural layout of the southern buildings to convert them from open temples or administrative buildings to closed-room palaces suitable for habitation (Gómez Reference Gómez, Pedro Laporte, Arroyo and Mejía2007; Supplemental Figure 3). Over the course of living there, these Terminal Classic inhabitants left middens behind (to the south of) these buildings, as is typical of domestic midden deposition patterns in the Maya area. Archaeologists recovered 95 figurines (47% of Late-Terminal Classic figurines excavated from the Siete Templos excavations; 22,291 ceramic sherds were recovered with the figurines) in large on-floor trash deposits blocking the entrance of the southern palaces, with their greatest concentration in front of Str. 5D-90. This deposit was the final act before the building was permanently abandoned. These domestic trash deposits were unlike the domestic middens found behind the building; the size of the ceramic sherds was much larger, and there was a higher quantity of refits (sometimes as much as 95% of a vessel could be reconstructed).

Similarly, at the site of San Clemente, the largest quantities of artifacts recovered from the site derived from three large middens within an elite residential courtyard (Salas Reference Salas2006; Supplemental Figure 4). They were located directly on the patio floor and steps in front of Buildings III, IV, VII and XXIV as well as within the room of Building VII. Such heavy traffic areas would normally have been swept clean, but archaeologists recovered huge deposits of domestic trash 13–15 cm deep and containing over 23,000 sherds. Two hundred and fifty-five figurines were excavated from these on-floor deposits. Like the Tikal example above, a large number of ceramic vessel and figurine refits were identified. In addition, the deposit appears to have been burnt or associated with burning activities because the artifacts were mixed with a gray soil containing high concentrations of ash. These deposits were the final act before inhabitants abandoned this living space.

At Nakum, archaeologists uncovered figurines from a large Terminal Classic (Tepeu 3) midden deposit interpreted by archaeologists to be the result of a possible termination ritual. The deposit covered the floor of Structure 99 in the North Acropolis (Zralka and Hermes Reference Zralka and Hermes2012:174). In addition to figurines, it contained broken ceramic vessels, adzes, and fragments of manos (groundstone tools). Like the other deposits, some of the vessels could be almost fully reconstructed (Zralka and Hermes Reference Zralka and Hermes2012:Figure 21).

Although the Terminal Classic termination deposits clearly marked abrupt endings to some prominent households, such acts are not without precedent. Even though termination deposits are most abundant in the archaeological record during the Terminal Classic period, they have a long history dating back to the Preclassic period and were often part of the cycle of building dedication, destruction, and rebuilding (Lucero Reference Lucero, Mills and Walker2008; Stanton et al. Reference Stanton, Kathryn Brown and Pagliaro2008). Regardless of whether or not such deposits were part of rituals timed to calendar-period endings, part of violent acts by non-household members, or a way to dispose of household items before moving elsewhere, I suggest that they presented critical moments to reject or forget earlier practices and material culture, especially when such acts were paired with the physical displacement of inhabitants to new locations, such as in the cases mentioned above. Thus, while Terminal Classic period termination deposits have the potential to stimulate qualitative changes, they derive from larger structural patterns.

Temporal Juxtapositions

Some things change, but others may stay the same. In this sense, our experience of time is not just as a progression (cyclical or linear), but also as mixed and jumbled. Such temporal juxtapositions are apparent in the simultaneous use of diagnostic Terminal Classic and Late Classic style figurines during the Terminal Classic period. Juxtaposed styles have often been treated as differences between cultures, ethnicities, regional groups, or communities of producers. I propose that diagnostic Terminal Classic and Late Classic styles may have referenced ideas of newness and tradition that were contemplated in relation to one another. Unlike curated items, heirlooms, and ancient ruins which make reference to distant and sacred pasts, the “traditional” examined here may reference conservatism (Late Classic style within Terminal Classic contexts) caught within a changing social and political order (diagnostic Terminal Classic styles).

Both diagnostic Terminal Classic and Late Classic style figurines are found mixed in the same levels and in the same middens (Adams Reference Adams1971:144; Willey Reference Willey1972:55–57). Such mixing includes termination deposits, which appear to derive from use contexts rather than as a gradual accumulation of trash over the course of many generations. In this sense, the two styles appear to reference a co-existence during the Terminal Classic period rather than a simple replacement of one by the other. Likewise, while Gordon Willey (Reference Willey1972:55–57) placed the stylistically different Jimba phase (ca. AD 900–948) figurines in a later time period than the more traditional Late Classic style Boca phase figurines (ca. AD 800–900), he found that the two were consistently found mixed with each other and suggested that they were coeval. Such juxtapositions may even occur on the same figurine. For example, one Terminal Classic figurine from the site of Yaxha depicts two hairstyles on the same male figure: long flowing hair, which is more typical during the Terminal Classic period, and a short, fringed hairstyle, which is more typical of figurines of the Late Classic period (Supplementary Figure 5).

Such simultaneous temporal juxtapositions can be seen in other media, such as the ninth-century stone monuments of Ceibal, Petén, Guatemala.Footnote ³ Many of these monuments exhibit non-Classic traits, what John Graham earlier characterized as ‘Facies B’ representations (Figure 3e), which may have not only embodied a sense of foreignness, as has been previously considered, but also a sense of newness that contrasted with a more traditional or conservative order identified with a long history of Classic renderings of Maya rulership (Graham Reference Graham and Culbert1973; Just Reference Just2006; Proskouriakoff Reference Proskouriakoff1950:150–153). Bryan Just (Reference Just2006) finds that the emergence of non-Classic traits (such as the ¾ pose, square hieroglyphs, necklaces as a single string of round beads, as well as simply rendered clothing and hairstyles) in the ninth-century Ceibal monuments was piece-meal and eclectic, interspersed chronologically with more “Classic” stelae styles. In one unique example, these different styles are juxtaposed side-by-side on the same monument, Stela 17 (Supplementary Figure 5d). And as at many sites, older and newer monuments could be experienced simultaneously, as people moved through the different parts of the site (O'Neil Reference O'Neil2012). Site inhabitants and visitors from afar could reflect upon and reconstitute notions of old and new within the same physical space.

Such temporal juxtapositions also may have occurred in the Postclassic, although no clear examples of simultaneous use of Classic and Postclassic style figurines have been identified in the figurine sample under investigation. More evident, however, is the contrast between these two periods in the way in which figurines were incorporated into everyday life and official public rites and performances.

Personal and Monumental Time

Because figurines are small and unimposing, it is easy to assume that they were implicated in the intimate and personal experiences of those who produced and handled such objects. Yet, Maya figurines were both a part of monumental time, the collective experiences and objectification of a temporal order through official practices and media, and personal time, the more everyday, real-life experiences of individuals and more intimate social groups. The ways in which figurines intersected these domains, however, was different for the Late/Terminal Classic and Postclassic periods.

Most ceramic figurines were a component of the everyday imagery and material culture found in and around the household. Late and Terminal Classic period ceramic figurines from central Petén are most commonly recovered from domestic contexts where they have been excavated with other household trash in, around, and within the architectural fill of household compounds (Halperin Reference Halperin2014a). In general, they were not official instruments of the state because they are not depicted in monumental media, are absent from royal or public ritual caches, and are not recovered from on-floor contexts within temples dating to the Classic period. For example, archaeologists working in the Plaza of the Seven Temples of Tikal recovered Terminal Classic figurines from primary middens almost exclusively from the 5D-90, 5D-91, and 5D-92 southern buildings (97.5%, n=195 figurines), which had domestic functions during the Terminal Classic period. In contrast, they found only minute frequencies in primary middens surrounding the temples lining the eastern side of the plaza (2.0%, n=4 from eastern temples; 0.5%, n=1 from the central patio). Although their exact meanings and uses undoubtedly varied, their numerical frequency associated with household contexts indicates that figurines were likely seen, if not handled, by multiple members of the household (perhaps old and young, adults and children, men and women) on a regular basis.

Despite their ubiquity in household contexts in central Petén during this period, these same figurines bridged personal and monumental time. As I have argued elsewhere (Halperin Reference Halperin2014a, Reference Halperin2014b), many of the figurines depicted the lively public affairs of state pomp and ceremony, which likely included kingly accession ceremonies, period-ending events, and public festivities. In this sense, figurines brought monumental time and the ideologies of the state into the everyday household domains of work, ritual, entertainment, and play. The fact that Late and Terminal Classic figurines were likely centrally distributed (perhaps at festival-fairs, state ceremonies, or at markets in site centers) also suggests that even if they were used most commonly in the household, figurines may also have evoked monumental places and events long after their moment of acquisition (Halperin et al. Reference Halperin, Bishop, Spensley and Blackman2009). Most of the figurines during this period were ocarinas, wind instruments with the capacity for a limited musical repertoire. Although official musical ensembles are not depicted with musicians playing figurine-ocarinas, they may have been played in an unofficial capacity at large-scale ceremonial events as noisemakers by the crowd (Halperin Reference Halperin2014a, Reference Halperin2014b). In this sense, even people along the sidelines may have contributed to the overall success of public events.

During the Postclassic period, figurines continued to be an important part of household material culture and family practice (Masson and Peraza Lope Reference Masson, Peraza Lope, Joyce, Gallegos Gómora and Hendon2011; Smith Reference Smith1971). In contrast to the Late and Terminal Classic periods, I find that the role of Postclassic figurines became more specialized within households, perhaps serving as ritual implements used during specific rites of passage, curing rituals, or other household-organized rituals (Klein and Lona Reference Klein, Victoria Lona, Halperin, Faust, Taube and Giguet2009; Overholtzer Reference Overholtzer2012; Smith Reference Smith and Plunket2002). Such a shift is most apparent in the decrease in figurine frequencies from the Late and Terminal Classic to the Postclassic period (Table 3), signifying that such objects no longer possessed their previous ubiquity and accessibility. No longer were these figurines seen all the time. For example, at the Late Classic site of Aguateca, where there is evidence of rapid abandonment, figurines were found not only in kitchen and storage spaces, but also on benches and sleeping areas where everyday activities were undertaken (Triadan Reference Triadan2007).

Table 3.

Comparison of Postclassic and Late/Terminal Classic Figurine Frequencies*

*Sample selection limited to contexts in which ceramic vessel counts were available to the author

In contrast, I suggest that the Postclassic figurines may have been part of divining or healing kits, and perhaps were taken out and handled during times of need, illness, or life crises requiring safe passage into new states of being. At Tayasal, one of the female figurines (Figure 7b) was recovered with a crystal bead, celt, and projectile point from a possible altar found at the back of a residential building, T1106 (Shiratori Reference Shiratori2017). Kingsley (Reference Kingsley2014:184–186) found that Early Postclassic figurines from El Zotz clustered near the largest of the Postclassic residential buildings, L9-11, the only structure with a small altar. At the site of Mayapan, figurines were found not only in domestic middens, but also in household caches. For instance, a Postclassic female figurine was cached with five skulls in front of a small household shrine in Str. R-100 (Smith and Ruppert Reference Smith, Ruppert, Weeks and Masson2011:114–115; Figure 10.2, 10.9e). In turn, their common occurrence in residential burials at the site indicates that they commemorated the lifecycle of individuals at the final stage of their earthly existence (Masson and Peraza Lope Reference Masson, Peraza Lope, Joyce, Gallegos Gómora and Hendon2011:120–121). Such practices are in contrast to Late and Terminal Classic figurine practices in central Petén in that ceramic figurines were common components of middens, but only rarely deposited in household burials and caches (with the island of Jaina, Campeche, as an exception) (Halperin Reference Halperin2014a).

Ethnographic studies indicate that some contemporary Maya peoples manage and make sense of personal time with the aid of the 260-day calendar, the cycle of 20 days and 13 numbers whose use dates back to the Preclassic period (Tedlock Reference Tedlock1992). For example, the K’iche’ Maya residents of Momostenango consult with Maya day-keepers (ritual specialists) to understand the supernatural forces that rule particular day-number combinations and their relation to personal events such as births, illnesses, business affairs, marriage proposals, omens, and dreams. During the sixteenth century, Bishop Diego de Landa noted that Maya midwives or “sorceresses” put “idols of a goddess called Ix Chel” under the beds of women who were about to give birth (Tozzer Reference Tozzer1941:129). Ix Chel idols were kept in physicians’ and sorcerers’ medicine bundles, which also contained divining stones called am (Tozzer Reference Tozzer1941:154). These figurines appear to have been different from the ceramic incense-burning idols that were used during festivities and rituals centered at the temples (Tozzer Reference Tozzer1941:131, 157–161).

Some Postclassic figurines were also part of monumental time, however, in that they were used in official public rituals performed by priests, priestesses, and political leaders. Interestingly, it appears that Postclassic Maya peoples across the Maya Lowlands viewed modeled zoomorphic figurines as particularly appropriate for specialized, calendrically timed rituals, a contrast from the Late and Terminal Classic period. For example, at Tayasal, my excavations of a small Late Postclassic shrine (T247) recovered a modeled feline figurine head in the fill of the building (Figure 6k). Because the figurine head was located at the exact center-point of the building, and because the fill was clean of other debris, it appears to have been deliberately cached in the shrine. This shrine was located at the very eastern edge of Postclassic settlement at the site and may have been a boundary shrine for the site.

Many of the central Petén modeled zoomorphic figurines resemble those recovered in cache contexts from northern Belize (Pendergast Reference Pendergast and Mock1998: Figure 6.7, 6.8). Diane Chase and Arlen Chase (Reference Chase and Chase2008) argue that Postclassic structure caches were part of the celebration of calendar rituals at Santa Rita Corozal, Belize. These caches contained special vessels filled with modeled ceramic figurines and other ritual items. On the basis of their spatial arrangements, number of figurines, and figurine imagery, they argue that such deposits were a part of Uayeb or Maya New Year's ceremonies as identified in the Postclassic Maya codices and Diego de Landa's descriptions of such rites. Modeled zoomorphic figurines were the most dominant type of figurine in these contexts (73% of the ceramic figurines from caches [Structures 2, 5, 6, 24, 36, 37, 58, 81, 183, 213, and 218] were modeled zoomorphic figurines; 21% were modeled anthropomorphic humans or deities; the remaining 6% were modeled composite zoomorphic-anthropomorphic figurines). Similarly, Marilyn Masson and Carlos Peraza Lope (Reference Masson, Peraza Lope, Joyce, Gallegos Gómora and Hendon2011:121–122) note that the majority of zoomorphic ceramic figurines at Mayapan were recovered from public ceremonial architecture (temples, halls, and public shrines) alongside the debris of effigy incense burners, whereas anthropomorphic figurines dominated in domestic contexts.