Excavations conducted by the Holmul Archaeological Project (including the sites of Holmul, Cival, La Sufricaya, K'o, Hamontun, T'ot, Riverona, Hahakab, and Dos Aguadas) revealed a number of previously undefined ceramic types and varieties. Michael G. Callaghan and Nina Neivens de Estrada have produced a comprehensive ceramic report of the pottery from those excavations and vessels from Merwin's original excavations in the early twentieth century. In addition to defining ceramic types, varieties, and modes, Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada have three overarching goals: (1) to produce a ceramic chronology that can be used across the Holmul region; (2) to produce a ceramic chronology that can be used across the southern Maya lowlands; and (3) to examine the social and ecological changes in the Holmul region beginning in the Middle Preclassic period, with a focus on polychromes, the nature of Teotihuacan influence in the region, Late Classic period interregional politics, and the abandonment of the sites during the Terminal Classic period (p. 1).
Following the ceramic sequences produced and used by some Maya archaeologists since the 1970s, the authors use the type-variety-mode classification scheme throughout the report. They state that by incorporating modal analysis, one can better understand the choices (physical and social) made during pottery manufacture because modes tend to persist through time, are less affected by cultural change, and most closely reflect folk classifications (pp. 21–23). The modes that Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada emphasize are paste, form, and firing. They state that a modal analysis is a more effective method of classification, one that gets at social and political issues, because unlike wares it crosscuts types and varieties and is therefore not hierarchically nested.
Given this methodology, the authors categorized 47,761 diagnostic samples, 151 whole vessels, and vessels from Merwin's collection to define five ceramic complexes and one subcomplex dating from the Early Middle Preclassic (pre-Mamon) to the Terminal Classic periods. The authors follow the conventional method of recording ceramic descriptions (established group, ware, complex, sphere, ceramic group frequency, principal identifying attributes, paste, firing and temper, surface finish and decoration, forms, intraregional locations and contexts, interregional locations and contexts, comments, and illustrations).
The K'awil Complex (chapter 2) represents the earliest pottery excavated from the Holmul region. Neivens de Estrada names and describes the majority of the five wares (one unspecified), 12 groups, and 30 type-varieties. This pottery exhibits modes that are the foundation for pottery making in the region (p. 196) and demonstrates similarities to pottery from the Belize River Valley and Tikal.
Chapter 3 describes the pottery of the Yax Te Complex (800–400 BC) and is defined by four wares (one unspecified), seven groups, and 21 type-varieties. Based on the type, variety, and modal characteristics, Callaghan suggests that this pottery represents choices made by local Maya potters, although the potters participated in the greater manufacturing traditions of the Mamon sphere in the southern Maya lowlands. In the summary comments about this complex, Callaghan makes an interesting note about volcanic ash temper (pp. 200–201). He suggests that the ash temper used in these vessels most likely resulted from an ash fall rather than trade. He also suggests that the ash connected the supernatural sky forces to the pottery used in rituals to celebrate those forces.
The Late Middle to Terminal Preclassic periods are represented by the Itzamkanak Complex (chapter 4) and the Wayab Subcomplex (chapter 5). The Itzamkanak Complex is represented by two wares, seven groups, and 20 type-varieties. Modally, this complex is similar to the previous one because of the presence of the red, black, cream, and unslipped traditions. Conversely, Maya potters used carbonate pastes and produced a diversity of forms, demonstrating a shift in manufacturing choices. Pottery from this complex is found at all of the studied sites, suggesting a large population increase in the Holmul region.
Callaghan defines a subcomplex (Wayab), which extends from the Terminal Preclassic to the Early Classic periods (AD 120–230), based on modal similarities. This subcomplex is based on the analysis of rare Early Classic polychrome serving vessels from ritual contexts and represents two wares, five groups, and eight type-varieties. Callaghan suggests that the presence of the Petén Gloss wares in the region is indicative of changing levels of pottery production and feasting (pp. 208–210).
The K'ak Complex (chapter 6) dates to AD 230–550 and is represented by three wares (one unspecified), eight groups, and 25 type-varieties. Pottery from this period represents modal changes from the previous complexes. For the first time, portable censers are being manufactured. Due to the similarities with Tzakol pottery from Uaxactún as well as forms and decorative modes borrowed from Teotihuacan, Callaghan suggests that the Maya from the Holmul region frequently interacted with other Mesoamerican cultures.
The final ceramic complex defined in the Holmul region is the Chak Complex (AD 550–950). Three wares, nine groups, and 24 type-varieties represent this complex, which resembles Tepeu 1–3 sphere pottery. While Tepeu pottery is divided into three distinct complexes, the Chak pottery has three facets that do not rise to the level of distinct complexes (p. 216). The Late Classic pottery reflects a complex level of internationalism and interaction in the Maya lowlands. It is during this period that the Holmul regional polychromes style occurs. Conversely, Terminal Classic period pottery suggests a change to increased regionalism, as seen throughout the lowlands.
This volume provides a complete ceramic description of pottery at Holmul and its surrounding sites. The authors achieved their initial goals and have documented social and political changes as indicated by the ceramic record. They have demonstrated that there is value in modal analysis; more researchers will need to use this methodology, however, to ensure its dissemination. The authors should be commended for producing the volume, as should the University of Arizona Press for taking a chance on its publication. Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada are right to point out that the field needs more of these publications as well as willing publishers.
