ARE THE KILNS “OUT BACK”?

A vast range of structures that relate to “industrial” as well as to domestic or agrarian functions must have stood in and around the core group of structures (plaza group) that formed most ancient Maya houses. The locations of structures such as kilns might be expected to be in open spaces at the far margins of a potter's house lot, but we have yet to decode the configuration of such residential plots. Linda Manzanilla's (1987) reviewed the importance of recognizing individual habitation units and the functions for the separate structures within them. Barba and Manzanilla (1987) expanded these studies by examining the Classic-period activity areas within several residential areas at Coba.

Evaluation of the pottery found in association with a structure has long been used to infer a building's function. Robert E. Smith (1971), while working at Mayapan, attempted to identify the functions of specific structures primarily based on the ceramic fragments found in direct association. Those structures identified by Smith as “kitchens,” and a wide range of structure platforms that he identified as ordinary dwellings, did seem to have a preponderance of utilitarian (unpainted) ceramic wares associated with their debris. However, the functions of the “elaborate dwellings” and large, supposedly religious structures were not clearly identified by associated pottery (Leventhal and Baxter 1988:54–55). The difficulties in this line of research into the function of individual structures that make up a house may derive from the failure to differentiate among structures on the basis of form or group membership (Becker 2002; Rivera Dorado 2001). These considerations of structure function have been of concern to many archaeologists, and in particular to ethnoarchaeologists interested in ceramic production (Longacre 1991).

Discussions of the origins of ceramic technology, whether in Mesoamerica (Clark and Gosser 1995) or anywhere else in the world, treat most firing as an extremely simple process. High-quality painted wares characterize the Maya Classic period and suggest the use of a complex firing technology such as that achieved using a true kiln. True kilns provide better control over the firing process, but as Philip Arnold (1999:112) points out, they are time-consuming to erect and maintain. Some modern potters Arnold has worked with prefer to use a neighbor's kiln. But this still requires that a kiln be built. Arnold also notes that an open firing has advantages even though it produces fewer vessels. All of the vessels produced in Arnold's study area were quite simple, and none resemble the hard-fired decorated wares of the Classic Maya.

A few definitions relating to pottery technology will help readers understand ceramic production in general. The term “kiln” can be applied to any oven, furnace, or heated enclosure used to process ceramics by firing (Pool 1997:149, 2000). The term “kiln” has been variably applied in the Maya literature, often including simple, open firing locations where pots are placed within a pile of fuel placed directly on the ground surface. Usually, the term “kiln” refers to a construction that has a firebox separated from a chamber or oven with a heat-resistant lining, commonly with a perforated “floor separating the two chambers” (Carter 2000:124). Since the term “kiln” often is applied to any firing system, I will use the term “true kiln” to describe those firing systems employing a separate firebox, no matter how crude. The term “sagger” refers to a crudely made, simply fired box or container made of fire clay, often of cylindrical shape, into which delicate ceramic pieces are placed to be fired. Saggers provide additional protection and separation for pots placed within the firing chamber of a kiln. Saggers are most commonly associated with true kilns, but a possible alternative method of use will be discussed later.

A pit kiln is simply a pit into which fuel is laid and pottery to be fired is placed on top or within the combustibles. A similar effect is achieved by simply piling brush and wood on the ground and placing pots among these firing materials, but a pit offers both insulation as well as some regulation of draft (also, see later). A trench kiln is simply a trench that is dug out of the ground, often into a slope, oriented along the direction of the prevailing winds. Pottery to be fired is placed downwind, and brush or other materials are placed windward in the trench. No formal separation is made of the pottery and the firing materials (see Purcell 1992). In theory, a pit or trench kiln could be divided into a firebox and separate oven that would act as a true kiln. The most simple updraft kiln directly resolves the dynamics of heat flow, whereas a trench kiln would depend on a sloping floor or prevailing winds to control the temperature of the pottery. Sandra López Varela and her colleagues (1999:230–233) also report the discovery in conjunction with these “kilns” of a number of possible tools for working pottery, themselves being made of ceramics, possibly reused sherds. Rice has suggested to me that she would expect ancient Maya kilns to have been located “below” ground. Stark's (1985) important paper on ceramic production, cited earlier, provides a basis for this line of research.

Olivier Gosselain's (1992) important observations on pottery-making processes are critical to this study. Gosselain studied the temperatures associated with five types of firing. These are (1) open firing (on the ground); (2) open firing with sherds covering the mass (see Stark [1985:174] regarding Tlacotalpan and other places where sherds are used as “kiln” furniture); (3) pit firing; (4) pit firing with sherds covering the mass; and (5) updraft “kiln” firing in which a rudimentary updraft system is created by piling pots above the fuel but not employing a separate firebox and oven. The first four all generate temperatures in the 600–950°C range. Number one is associated with the widest range of temperatures, while the number four has the tightest control. Only the updraft system, although it employs no separate oven chamber, can reach nearly 1100°C. Of equal importance to these critical data are Gosselain's notes on the use of these data. His goal was to cast doubt on the value of temperature tests, but his evidence shows that the most simple updraft system can generate temperatures higher than any of the other techniques. Regarding firing temperatures, Gosselain (1992:243) states that:

Simple testing of sherds from our sites could tell us a great deal about the possible types of firing systems that were used. Our failure to conduct such tests reflects Gosselain's (1992) note that we need to integrate scientific findings into archaeological interpretations.

The Maya archaeological record does not include reports of saggers or other kiln furniture, suggesting that no true kilns were in use. At sites such as Tikal, the apparent absence of kilns may, however, relate to the principal focus of excavations on elite and ritual structures. Marilyn Beaudry and Andres Ciudad (2001) make the important observation that, even at the huge urban center of Teotihuacan, open firing was the rule. Where kiln furniture such as saggers does appear, it may not be recognized, or it may be evaluated as large, coarseware censers. Note should be made of Lisa Ferree's observation (1972:197) that in the development of “censer technology,” the most important development “was the adoption of volcanic ash temper, in place of carbonate temper, toward the end of the Early Classic period.” Ferree believes that this finer, lighter ash renders clay “more workable and provides a more even distribution of heat during firing than does the heavy, coarser carbonate.” Ferree suggests that this technological change allowed the production of a new “form” of censer that was not technologically possible before this development. The idea of a “more even distribution of heat during firing” and changes in form might also be applied to saggers (Iglesias 2003). Many of the vessels that Ferree identified as censers may have been saggers. I suggest that saggers, or this “vessel” type, had a specific use—if not dual uses—in the firing process. I propose the term “sagger-kiln” to describe a firing process in which fine wares are placed into some type of sagger, then placed in a pit or any other firing context where no true kiln has been built.

Kiln wasters may be recycled as “kiln furniture” (Arnold et al. 1999:65; Stark 1985:165, 174). Wasters, defined as any vessels or objects broken or damaged in the production process, can be used as saggers, supports, or other types of “kiln” furniture. Wasters from true kilns commonly reflect warping, cracking, or blistering associated with high-temperature firing errors (Rye 1981:110–113). At times, the term “waster” only is applied to pieces distorted and blistered during the firing process. O. S. Rye observed (1981:118) that “firing loss” or breakage from open firing can be about 27% of the total, while losses from firing in a true kiln are lower, or about 20% (also see Arnold 1991:56). Rye's more general “firing loss” may be the more accurate description. Stark's (1985:174–176) data on waster rates should be noted. Dean Arnold and his colleagues suggest that every (built) kiln can be expected to have an associated waster pile, such as that beneath Tikal Structure 4H-2 (see later), but they suggest that “abandoned kilns have no waster piles” (Arnold et al. 1999:66). This may reflect the level of production, because it is not true for Pennsylvania's colonial potteries, where waster piles remain evident 300 or more years after a kiln was abandoned (Becker 1988). In the Maya Lowlands, wasters and other materials had their own value, particularly at a site such as Tikal, where even fill material was valuable and constantly recycled (Costin 2001a:322; Hayden and Cannon 1983; Moholy-Nagy 1997).

The nine architectural groups at Tikal that are on a peninsula jutting into the bajo Santa Fe (Becker 1999) form a naturally defined barrio within which the occupants produced and distributed finely painted ceramics. Group 4H-1, at the far tip of the peninsula, served as the residence and production center for the actual potters involved in the working of clay and the firing process. Important to the interpretation of social dynamics within this proposed ceramic-producing barrio at Tikal is Arnold's (1991:87–91) ethnographic study focusing on the description of the actual firing facilities and the tools used, linked with the results of the firing process. Essential are Arnold's (1991:99) observations on the spatial organization of ceramic production. His important note that variations in firing relate to spatial pressures at the household level are congruent with the limited evidence from Tikal, and it will be even more significant when examining areas where less space is available to the local potters. Quite possibly, fine pottery was produced only where space and resources were abundant.

Many archaeologists have inferred the general areas at a site where ceramics may have been made (for Copan, see Bill 1997:421). Of interest is an approach to ceramic-production sites used by some archaeologists that ignores or downgrades the direct archaeological evidence and relies on speculative evaluations based on indirect evidence. The paucity of direct evidence for kilns or any type of firing location leads us to consider the indirect evidence for pottery production (Bill 1997:465–476). Lisa Lucero (1992:144–145) considers five clues to ceramic-production areas. Her first three factors derive from the presence of fine polychromes rather than any evidence for their actual production. The presence of “kilns,” wasters, and molds in a group is the fourth factor on her list of indicators, and sherd density is the fifth. Lucero suggests that sherd densities may provide clues to possible firing locations. But even “specific” areas of production rarely have been identified, leaving Lucero and others to infer that numbers and distribution within sites, such as in graves, may reveal approximate points of origin. The focus of the following essay is on the documentation of fundamental data regarding ceramic production in the Maya area and the immediate socioeconomic aspects reflected by this “industry.” Before we look at the evidence, we should note the important statement of Gary Feinman and Andrew Balkansky (1997:129) regarding the lack of evidence for a simple evolution of firing technology from open firing to more complex systems. They repeat George Foster's (1967) observation that in ancient Mesoamerica, and particularly Mexico, a considerable array of firing techniques were employed, reflecting the wide diversity of cultures. Whether these techniques included true updraft kilns prior to about a.d. 900 remains to be verified.

FINE CERAMIC PRODUCTION ASSOCIATED WITH TIKAL GROUP 4H-1

Despite all we know about pre-Hispanic Maya ceramics, their specific production sites remain elusive. In fact, pottery “firing” areas are most commonly “identified” through sherd counts and identification of other materials presumed related to pottery production (Feinman and Balkansky 1997). Jacques Bordaz (1964) identified an actual kiln site in coastal Nayarit, Mexico, some 40 years ago (see the Appendix), but examples in the Maya region have been identified only recently. Although we now have evidence for several Lowland Maya structures that have been interpreted as kilns, most date from the Terminal and Postclassic periods. T. Patrick Culbert, Prudence M. Rice, and other scholars remain unconvinced that true kilns were used during the Classic period or that we can easily determine what an ancient Maya firing system might look like (Appendix).

Excavations at Group 4H-1 at Tikal in 1962 produced extensive indirect evidence for nearby ceramic manufacturing (Becker 1973, 1999:15–39, Figures 12–33). The primary clue was the discovery that fills beneath Structure 4H-2 in this group incorporate at least one huge waster pile, more than 1 m deep, composed almost exclusively of pieces of high-quality Classic-period polychrome ceramics. Very little earth infiltrated among these sherds. The extent of this large heap, covering an area at least 6 m × 12 m, is so great that it formed the entire foundation for Structure 4H-2. After the construction of Structure 4H-2, essentially over this sherd pile, the dump continued to build up behind the structure and extend out into the bajo (Becker 1999; Figure 2). Excavation of this group was briefly diverted to the “mining” of the ceramic dump when it was determined to be a stratified pile that had been used throughout much of the Classic period. Most significant is Culbert's observation (personal communication 2002) that his study of these sherds did not identify any “kiln-produced” (warped, blistered) wasters. Rye's data on “firing loss” noted earlier help explain the vast quantities of sherds from the Group 4H-1 dump. Because this deposit consists of nearly pure ceramic materials and runs along the entire north retaining wall of the group's platform (Becker 1999; Figures 2 and 4), the term “pottery dump” might provide a more appropriate description of these “wasters” from a large manufacturing system (Toll 2001).

The several pieces of indirect evidence for ceramic production in the immediate area of Group 4H-1 at Tikal that have been recovered to date are worth listing. Note should be made that once the volume and quantity of ceramics noted in this first item listed became known, the materials were directed to the Tikal Project ceramicist, T. Patrick Culbert, for analysis and review (Culbert 1993). Given the wide range of uses for broken ceramic materials, of which seven categories are listed by Michael Deal and Melissa Hagstrum (1995:114–115, 123), the accumulation in Group 4H-1 is particularly impressive (Stark 1985; Staski and Sutro 1991). Philip Arnold (1991:120, 122, 123) reviews disposal patterns for wasters among modern potters firing simple wares, noting surface distribution of artifacts as well as discrete refuse areas. Dean Arnold and colleagues (1999) suggest that waster fragments also might serve as “toilet paper,” among many possible uses, and that such sherds may be found toward the “rear of house lots” (Becker 2001).

1. Recovery of a huge volume (ca. 25 of an estimated 75 m³) of extremely high-quality sherds (fine or “elite” ceramics) from a vast waster pile, much of which had been incorporated into the basal platform of Structure 4H-2 (Becker 1999:15–16). Study of these ceramics, mostly dated to about a.d. 550–700 (Culbert 1993), suggest that they were not fired in a true kiln, as they show no warping, cracking, or other indications of firing errors.
2. The presence of fragments from a unique pair of decorative ceramic “masks” representing the face of the “Long Nosed” god. These ceramic masks appear to have been mounted on the facade of Structure 4H-4. These ceramic features are comparable in form, but not size, to stucco masks commonly adorning the facades of major temples at Tikal.
3. Fragments of five Classic-period molds for forming ceramic objects (1 censer and 4 figurine) were found in Group 4H-1, or 46% of the total of 11 found by the Tikal Project in excavations throughout the site (Greene 2000; McClung and Aguilar 2001). The Proyecto Nacional Tikal (PNT) has identified only three “figurine” fragments, all of Imix date and all at Group 7C-IX (María Josefa Iglesias and Juan Pedro Laporte, personal communication 1999).
4. Elevated numbers of what had been identified as censer fragments, relative to any other residential area of Tikal. H. Moholy-Nagy (personal communication 1999) thinks of these as “remnants of ceremonial behavior.” In the case of Group 4H-1 a “ritual” explanation for their presence seems less likely, given this location on the margins of the site (Figure 1) as well as the other information suggesting these are part of ceramic production. Whether some of these fragments represent saggers or are another type of ceramic product made at or near Group 4H-1 has not been explored.
5. Winged candeleros (formerly called “candlesticks”) are items identified as incense burners by Ferree (H. Moholy-Nagy, personal communication 1999). The numbers of these, plus large numbers of wall inserts or objects that look like flaring jar necks specially made and painted to be plastered to the insides of doorways where they were used to tie door hangings, suggest the range of painted wares made here. The numbers appear in very large quantities, far beyond any numbers that would be used “in a small structure group” (T. Patrick Culbert, personal communication 2000).
6. Inferred presence of clay sources in the adjacent Bajo Santa Fe.

Group 4H-1 at Tikal, the residence of ceramic producers (from Becker 1999). Scale 1:400.

We do not expect the survival of wooden tools, gourds, or other perishable items noted in the ethnographic record such as scrapers and other shaping tools used to decorate pottery surfaces. String used to cut clay is unlikely to survive. However, we might expect certain materials to be present in the archaeological record. Not evident among the artifact assemblage at this locus, but that would be expected in the household of potters producing fine quality wares, are the following:

1. Polishing or burnishing tools in the form of smooth stones or sherds, or even reused celts (Foster 1967; Stark 1985:179). Foster also notes that many of these tools also can be used in making baskets.
2. Evidence for pigment processing or production (Inomata 2001:326–329; Inomata and Stiver 1998). Although these may have been found associated with other groups on this peninsula (Figure 3), none has been specifically identified.
3. Tools that can be used in the application of paints.
4. Concentrations of fragments of burned daub, believed to represent clay used to seal a firing container or “kiln.” Examples have been noted by Christopher Pool (1997) in association with what I call the sagger kilns from Middle Classic-period Matacapan (Arnold 1989).

Identification in the area of Group 4H-1 of six of these ten possible material traits associated with pottery production is impressive evidence for the proximity of a ceramic production area (Arnold 1991). This constellation of traits is not described for any other Mesoamerican location, even from those few archaeological contexts that are in “direct” association with those pottery production sites now known from the Maya area (see later). Furthermore, the very location of Group 4H-1 at Tikal conforms to what Robert Fry (1969) predicted regarding the placement of pottery-production areas on the peripheries of that site. The potential for evaluating clay sources from this immediate area and comparing the chemical and mineralogical results with tests of the pottery from this dump should find them all of relatively homogenous composition (Reents-Budet et al. 2000). Group 4H-1 at Tikal merits excavation to bedrock to pursue the archaeological evidence indicating the production of polychrome pottery by its residents (Figure 1).

Excavations in the area of Group 4H-1 identified nine architecturally similar groups of structures, each conforming to the same Plaza Plan (PP) identified as PP2 (Becker 2002). PP2 groups at Tikal are characterized by a relatively small, relatively tall, relatively square “shrine” situated on the eastern side of the group's central plaza. The thesis that fine ceramics were a product of the householders in Group 4H-1 (Balkansky et al. 1997 on field methods) was elicited from the excavation data long after the excavations had been completed (Sillar 2000). The direct archaeological evidence from artifact assemblages in PP2 groups (Becker 1999) needs to be compared with assemblages from other groups, such as those that conform to PP3 (Haviland 2003; Haviland et al. 1985). In addition to the artifactual evidence, the residential complexes on the peninsula where Group 4H-1 is located appear to parallel the extended household plan described by Isabelle Druc (2000; Figure 2) for her site in modern Puebla. Druc depicts two households that face each other, noting that both were pottery-producing locations, and she infers that these groups served as residences for related families. Barbara Stark (1992) points out that the settlement patterns in southern Veracruz are similar to those noted from the Maya Lowlands but that the ecological setting is very different. The Maya settlement pattern follows a basic set of rules despite local environments, suggesting that the locations of outbuildings may be similar from region to region.

Section A–A' through Structure 4H-2, built over a “waster” pile (from Becker 1999). Scale 1:50.

ETHNOGRAPHIC ANALOGY

Arnold's (1991:51) important ethnographic ceramic-production data from the area of Los Tuxtlas, in which several small settlements were studied, indicates that the common mode was to fire “in the open or use a simple updraft kiln.” In fact, kiln (horno) firing was employed only at San Isidro, and only the simplest “above-ground, updraft facilities” were used (Arnold 1991:54). True kilns were used at San Isidro, but they are rudimentary structures made of a few stones, adobe, and clay. Scrap metal was used to separate the firebox from the firing chamber, producing what technically may be identified as a true kiln even though the average external diameter is only 103.75 cm. The archaeological remains of such a kiln, excluding the metal that is a late introduction into this area, would be little more than a pile of burned stones not terribly distinct from the remains of a lime burner's activities (also see Abrams and Freter 1996).

Other ethnographic evidence from Mesoamerica (Arnold 1988:359) suggests that the firing of ceramics was a dry-season activity. More significant are Arnold's (1990:926–927) findings on modern producers of simple domestic wares. At Los Tuxtlas in the twentieth century, ceramic firing was achieved using open fires in open-air sites that could be set up rapidly according to wind direction and other local conditions—or, in a single case, using a fixed location kiln. Arnold's observation that no ceramic producer used both systems is significant. This suggests that technology is a longstanding trait that is utilized within descent lines, an aspect not explored by Arnold.

Arnold's (1999) ethnographic research in the Tuxtla Mountains of Mexico leads him to suggest that the availability of space determines whether potters will use kilns or open firing systems in their ceramic production. This may be a choice available only when coarse wares are being produced, but Arnold suggests that the space variable also applies to pottery production at ancient Matacapan and Comoapan. “The archaeological site of Matacapan sprawls over seven square kilometers in the upper Rio Catemaco Valley” (Pool and Santley 1992:209). Arnold's data suggest that ancient potters who had limited space available in their residential groups would be more likely to use a fixed kiln system (Arnold 1999:113). But at Tikal and other Lowland Maya sites, potters had a great deal of area available for making ceramics (Figures 3, 4, and 5). They may have used flexible, open firing systems. Closed kilns provide vastly better control of the firing process and may be essential to the production of what are called elite painted wares in the Maya area, but known examples of these systems may be a post–1500 introduction.

House lots at Tikal divided according to Model A: the Contiguous (Thiessen style) type (Becker 2001:446, Figure 1).

House lots at Tikal divided according to Model B: the Commons type (Becker 2001:447, Figure 2).

House lots at Tikal divided according to Intermediate Model, or Model C: the Open type (Becker 2001:449, Figure 3).

Of particular note in the search for Maya kilns is Wesley Bernardini's (2000:365) work on “kiln firing groups” pointing out “the importance of searching for archaeological evidence of production beyond residential areas.” There is a large, flat, open area to the west of Structure 4H-1 in Tikal Group 4H-1 (Figure 4), a feature that suggests to me that this is an area that might be searched profitably for evidence of firing, if not an actual kiln site. Rice's suggestion (personal communication 2000) that firing areas would lie to the west of the producer's household is supported by Arnold's data (1991). I agree with Rice that the firing of these polychromes took place outside the group, and possibly “downwind.” The prevailing winds at Tikal are roughly from the east, so the firing space may have been in the wide, level area to the west of Structure 4H-1 (Figure 1; Carr and Hazard 1961). The possible location of kilns—or, at least, firing areas—near Group 4H-1 at Tikal has intrigued me for forty years, with recent research projects “refiring” my interest in this subject (Becker 2001). How were the fine ceramics found in Group 4H-1 produced? What are we searching for when looking for the actual location of the kiln or firing area? Raymond H. Thompson (1958) indicated that modern Yucatecan potters fired near the edges of their property. There is a great range of possibilities that no single location for testing can be inferred from extant data, but Stark (1985:173) summarizes a number of the early reports that relate the locations of suspected firing sites to houses that may be the residences of potters.

Ethnoarchaeological data may be of some use in suggesting a pottery-production site within Tikal Group 4H-1 (Arnold 1998; Bill 1997:421–444; David and Kramer 2001:273, 305–322). At modern Chinautla (Reina 1960), the simple pots that were produced for regional sale were fired in bonfire-like pyres in the courtyards of the households. This method burns the surface of the ground, perhaps leaving archaeologically detectable traces (Payne 1982:6; Stark 1985:173). However, open firing cannot produce the high temperatures and the control needed to make fine pottery. The inference that Classic-period Maya potters fired fine ceramics in open pyres has long been regarded as unlikely by anyone familiar with the production of high-quality vessels with elaborate polychrome painting. To date we have no direct evidence for the use of enclosed firing chambers in the Maya Lowlands until the end of the Classic period or later. A review of data relating to procedures used in producing fine pottery and notes regarding what is now known about firing technology in ancient Mesoamerica (Appendix) provide clues to the methods that may have been used by residents in this barrio at Tikal during the Classic period.

The massive ceramic dump beneath Tikal Structure 4H-2 continued to be used after the structure was built on it by discarding sherds behind the structure. The quality and general surface treatment of the polychrome pottery from this pile, like those fine wares common during the Late Classic period, reveal that these vessels were not fired in open pits surrounded by brush and other fuel (Reina and Hill 1978:24, 106–107). Open-pit firing is adequate for coarse and unpainted wares, but it produces uneven clay colors, clouded surfaces, and uncontrolled variations in painted surfaces. Ethnographic evidence from the Maya Highlands provides some extremely interesting data on production and distribution of utilitarian ceramics, particularly unslipped coarse wares (Reina 1960), but slipped wares also are noted (Reina and Hill 1978). Therefore, as Rice points out, fine wares require the controlled conditions of a true kiln to be made correctly—or, at least, they need to be fired while they are within saggers.

Polychrome production must have involved considerable use of pigments, which are primarily derived from inorganic sources and therefore are likely to survive in archaeological contexts. No evidence for pigments or for grinding or storing equipment was recovered from the limited excavation within and around the various structures of Group 4H–I. Note should be made of the impressive collection of objects relating to pigment preparation and paint application recovered from limited locations at Aguateca (Inomata and Stiver 1998). At Aguateca, “elite” residences appear to have been burned and abandoned, leaving in place a vast array of artifacts that reveal the types of activities that may have taken place. The authors note that pigments could have been used for pottery painting as well as for making written records, for wall or body painting, for ornamenting jade and other artifacts, and for application to almost any imaginable surface.

SAGGER KILNS: A POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE?

Rice (1997) provides a useful listing of the variety of known kiln types, all of which are built structures that conform to modern definitions as structures that are used to control heat (Kingery 1997). Although the use of large kilns had been postulated as the most efficient means by which Classic-period Maya pottery could be produced, other technology may have been employed, because there is a paucity of identified ancient Maya firing sites (Arnold and Santley 1993:328–329). Note should be made of Druc's (2000:Figure 10) description of a modern and permanent kiln from Puebla, Mexico, specifically because the form appears, to me, to resemble a large example of the “kiln” units described from Matacapan. Note also may be made that multiple firings may have been needed to produce polychrome wares. Clemency Coggins (1975) suggests that even the production of certain types of resist decorated wares may have required multiple firings, and such firing techniques would require significant control over the firing process.

Experimental refiring by E. Christian Wells (2000:33) provides important clues to the process of pottery production, but a number of questions are not well answered by the limited “direct” evidence now at hand. Ethnoarchaeological evidence from this area has been collected by Arnold (2000), who also provides an impressive and honest critique of the evidence as well as an excellent bibliography (Hayden and Cannon 1983). Given the dearth of direct evidence for kilns or even firing sites for ceramics in the Maya area, the modern Mexican Matacapan “kilns” discussed at length by Pool (1997) take on considerable importance. The configuration of the “fireboxes” identified at Matacapan are smaller than any true kilns known from the Old World.

If not in true kilns, then how was this fine-quality painted pottery at Tikal fired? Rice (1987:343–345, 427–429) suggests that an oxidizing kiln would be ideal for firing the high-quality ceramics known from the Classic period (Shepard 1976:104–107). A similar effect may be produced using sagger kilns as a means of controlling the firing process. Prudence Rice (personal communication 2000) suggests that ceramics ready for firing could have been placed within individual saggers or other coarse vessels to be placed in any type of firebox or trench. Today, vertical-walled, specialized types of saggers are in common use, but any oversize pot would serve the purpose. Ethnographic research among the Shipibo-Conibo of the upper Amazon in 1970 found that “pots are fired nearby, often singly in a bottomless pot that may be specially made for this purpose” (David and Kramer 2001:3; DeBoer and Lathrap 1979). Among the Maya, one fine vessel may have been placed in each sagger. Fragments of large, coarse vessels used as saggers might therefore be seen as “overfired,” but they might also be excellent indicators of the location of a firing station.

The use of small sagger kilns would be very much like the open system employed for firing any coarse wares in terms of the archaeological evidence that they might leave behind, with portable “fire boxes” being sufficiently small to allow them to be moved into locations seen as favorable to firing conditions on any given day. Sagger kilns may be an intermediate for ceramic production in other areas of the world. If sagger kilns were used in the Maya Lowlands to fire the fine wares that form such an impressive part of the Maya ceramic inventory, they would be exactly what Rice predicted. For interesting comparative data on small firing units, possibly in the size range of the units at Matacapan, see Karen Vitelli's (1997) useful work.

THE BAJO: A LAND OF OPPORTUNITY

Rather than viewing the bajos adjacent to Lowland Maya sites as hostile zones confining the local population, or acting as a barrier border, one may see bajos as providing access to valuable resources as well as providing communication routes to other sites for trade and exchange. In the lowlands, any bajo could provide both the clay and the fuel for this production of fine pottery. The periodic flooding of the bajo La Justa and others, rarely as extensive in this century as has been recently witnessed (Vilma Fialko, personal commumicantion 2000), acts to concentrate silts and form useful clay deposits. The specific deposits of clay used in the production of pottery in the Maya area remain as poorly known as the locations of firing areas. Reents-Budet and colleagues (2000) provide particularly useful data on the uniformity of ceramic paste recipes, and point out notable exceptions for “special purpose ceramics.”

Cassandra Bill (1997:496) notes that a wide range of clay types, each with a different composition, are available in the area immediately surrounding Copan, Honduras, and that some are still used by local potters. Eleanor Mather King (2000:Figures 32 and 34) indicates that several types of clays can be found in and around the swamps in the area of Colha, Belize. Locating clay sources may have been the least of the problems Maya potters faced. Wells (2000:34–35) has produced useful information on the relative locations of clay sources to kilns and residences, and that important line of research is expanding rapidly (Arnold et al. 2000; Culbert and Schwalbe 1986; Glowacki and Neff 1999). Dean E. Arnold and his colleagues studied contemporary potters in Yucatan during the period 1964–1994. Using neutron-activation analysis (NAA) to study “the link between behavior and compositional patterning” of contemporary ceramics (Arnold et al. 1999:64) they were able to trace procurement of raw materials such as clays and tempers. Their work sets the stage for more complex archaeological studies of markets and regional distribution patterns only hinted at in previous studies (Bill 1997).

Proximity to clay sources throughout antiquity must have been a fundamental concern of potters. Arnold and colleagues (1999:66) note that most of the modern potters whom they had observed used local clay sources. However, after 1992 some of them worked clays that had been dug from deposits located up to 80 km from their homes and that had been transported to them by truck. Druc (2000:79) also discusses modern ceramic-paste production by potters and notes that clay is now purchased from traders who haul it in trucks from considerable distances. That this clay trade is a very recent development is suggested by evidence from nineteenth-century producers of redware pottery in Pennsylvania who often relocated their homes and set up a new kiln simply to be closer to clay sources (Becker 1988).

Perhaps one of the more important discoveries associated with ceramic production at Matacapan is Pool's (1997:163–164) suggestion that palm leaves and stalks now are the fuel of choice and may have been so in the past. Virginia Greene (personal communication 2002) photographed pottery firing using palm leaves in 1962 at the village of Abrantes, outside Bahia, Brazil. Various types of palms dominate the plants found in the bajo. They provide the massive quantities of fuel needed by the Classic Maya potters, generating nutrient-rich ash that was a valuable byproduct of ceramic production. On modern fuel used at San Isidro, Los Tuxtlas, see Arnold (1991:59–60). Ruben Reina and Robert Hill (1978:123, 127) note the amounts of wood used by modern potters in Guatemala. Data on the use of bajo palms as fuel also may be tied to another observation made at Tikal. We have long been aware that PP2 groups constitute 14% of all known plaza groups at the site (Becker 1982). Individual PP2 groups appear randomly scattered throughout Tikal except for the nine examples that occupy the peninsular cluster (Becker 1971, 1999) and another recently identified cluster. Juan Pedro Laporte and María Josefa Iglesias (2001) report that a second “cluster” of PP2 groups lies in the southwestern part of Tikal (Laporte 2002). What is notable about this second cluster is that it is located adjacent to a bajo (Fry 1969). Possibly some of the extended families occupying PP2 groups at Tikal pursued occupations relating to resources extracted from bajos. Resources found in the bajo include high-quality pottery clays, firewood for household use, wood for stoking kilns, plants for food and fibers (McClung and Aguilar 2001), and wild animals for meat, skins, and feathers. The value of these resources may have generated economic advantages for families with immediate access to them. Thus, the recent discovery at Tikal regarding PP2 groups is of importance with regard to social and economic hierarchy. Although I doubt that there is any relationship between PP2 and ceramic production at other sites, where PP2 groups often form the majority of identified forms, the coincidence at Tikal in these two cases is worth noting.

Culbert suggests that parts of the bajos were farmed during the dry season. Extending our thinking and research goals beyond the architecture or individual buildings within each house lot provides a view of the Maya family that better reflects the social and economic organization of ancient Maya society. Recognizing how the bajo was used may be essential to our interpretation of the ethnographic data from the Maya Lowlands, particularly in the area of northern Peten. The importance of the bajo as a resource area was first considered in detail by Peter Harrison (1978), who recognized that bajos form a vital part of the Lowland Maya environment during the Classic period, and probably before. Other, similar zones exist in the Maya area, such as the wooded swamps (acalche) in the area of Coba (Kintz 1990:18) and the year-round “wetlands, referred to locally as sabanas” of the Yalahua region of northern Quintana Roo (Fedick 1998:111; Pohl 1990). Intensive work by Fedick and his team in this interesting wetland region (Fedick et al. 2000) has enormous potential for answering questions about the use of the bajos in the Tikal area and elsewhere.

CLUES TO HOUSE LOT CONFIGURATION AND FIRING LOCATIONS:

Importantes muestras de evidencia indirecta indican que uno de los grupos residenciales del período clásico de Tikal fue la residencia de una familia de alfareros que producían artículos pintados de alta calidad. La demarcación de los límites residenciales del Grupo 4H-1 a Tikal me conduce a postular que el “bajo” servía de importante zona para sacar recursos para la producción cerámica más bien que de rasgo para limitar el espacio. Esta familia de alfareros de alta calidad ha empleado el área del “bajo” circundante para sacar la arcilla y también para proveer el combustible para cocer la cerámica. La configuración de otros grupos cerca del Grupo 4H-1 sugiere que la gente que pertenecía a los varios grupos de esta península no sólo estaban emparentados, sino que todos ellos estaban involucrados en la producción, pintura y distribución de cerámica fina. Ahora se cree que estos varios grupos residenciales hacían parte de un “barrio” dentro de Tikal, cuyos ocupantes formaban un grupo familiar extendido que compartía el mismo enfoque económico en la producción de cerámica de alta calidad.

La búsqueda de los lugares de cocción asociados a la producción alfarera del Grupo 4H-1 constituye ahora un enfoque principal de la investigación. “Hornos” o lugares de cocción y otras características puede que sean entre los sitios hallados “afuera” o “más allá”, o localizados al margen del área del grupo residencial. Entre éstas pueden incluirse chozas o pequeños edificios situados afuera del perímetro formado por los edificios principales o grupo de estructuras frente a la plaza o series de plazas que constituyen los elementos más obvios de un caserío.

Un análisis del contenido de los depósitos de basura usados por los maya para construir un relleno, y un estudio de los restos arqueológicos encontrados al lado del grupo residencial de Tikal nos dirigen hacia el lugar de un horno o área de cocción específico. Los tiestos en el relleno de la estructura nos revelan más que la historia arquitectónica. En este ejemplo la cerámica indica la manera cómo otros aspectos de uno o más caseríos eran organizados y usados. En modo particular estos datos sugieren que a Tikal un conjunto de casas semejante en un “barrio”, con su centro ritual propio (Grupo 5G-I), llegó a alojar familias de productores de alfarería que habían establecido su residencia en directa proximidad del “bajo”.