searchable PDF - Association for Mexican Cave Studies
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

searchable PDF - Association for Mexican Cave Studies

searchable PDF - Association for Mexican Cave Studies searchable PDF - Association for Mexican Cave Studies

amcs.pubs.org
from amcs.pubs.org More from this publisher
12.07.2015 Views

88AMCS Bulletin 12 — Chapter 4easy, horizontal access to the flat cave floor. A crosswas engraved on the smooth surface of a calcite encrustedbedrock mound inside the cave (figure 4.19.1)and was the only evidence of cultural activity observed.This Christian-style cross may have markedthe small cave as an offertory site sometime betweenthe Colonial period and the present. Although no livespeleothems were observed, the cave could have beenused for drip water collection, much like Actun Zodznearby.4.20: CAVE SJ-4 (UNNAMED)This extremely small cave, which is located .5 kmeast of the community of San Juan de Dios, almostdid not merit inclusion in the survey. However, wemust keep in mind that peoples throughout Mesoamericahave appropriated even the smallest of niches,alcoves, and tunnels. This cave is essentially a low,flat crawl space that extends horizontally from thebottom of a small solution feature (or sinkhole) in thebedrock.Due to the nature of this confined space (whichmeasures no more than 4 m long, 3 m wide, and 80 cmfrom floor to ceiling), one would not expect to find featuresor deposits characteristic of activities performedinside the cave itself. Nevertheless, the stumps of hundredsof small stalactites were observed on the ceiling.The cave also contains a relative abundance ofpottery. However, it is difficult to determine whetheror not the material was introduced to the cave duringoffertory activities or was simply dumped there by nearbyancient residents. Such tiny, seemingly unimpressivecaves are enigmatic and merit further investigation.

AMCS Bulletin 12 — Chapter 5 89CHAPTER 5THE CERAMIC ANALYSISIntroductionThe analysis of the ceramics recovered by theYalahau Archaeological Cave Survey was a collaborativeeffort with José Manuel Ochoa Rodríquez, andwas conducted at the Ceramoteca of Centro INAHYucatán during summer 2000. A total of 5,474 sherdswere collected, of which 3,710 were typed (23 werenot typed while the remaining sherds were unidentifiabledue to their small size and/or eroded condition).The analysis revealed the presence of 87 ceramic types(including unspecified and special sherds within identifiedgroups), which are represented by 38 specifiedceramic groups. Presence of these types (by cave) isindicated in table 5.1, in which the groups are generallyarranged in chronological order. The quantitativetabulation of combined lots for all caves (by type andvariety) is presented in table 5.2.A more informative display of the chronologicalrelationships between groups is provided in table 5.3.With the exception of three test excavations in ActunToh, the pottery was recovered from surface collectionunits. Deeply stratified chronologically sensitiveexcavations have yet to be conducted in the Yalahauregion. Therefore, in lieu of an established regionalchronology, the temporal distribution of groups in table5.3 is based on ceramic cross-dating, using identified(or suggested) chronological units assigned to the specifictype collections referenced in this analysis. Thisstrategy is provisional and will no doubt be substitutedby regional complexes when they are establishedthrough future excavations.The typology is presented in a modified versionof the “short format” style used by Ball (1978:77).This efficient format, which will allow this chapter tobest function as a reference for other ceramists, isprimarily concerned with distinctions between thematerial being analyzed and corresponding materialanalyzed elsewhere. Readers new to Maya ceramic studiesare encouraged to consult Gifford (1976:1–43) fora thorough explanation of the type:variety approachand methodology used in this analysis. It is importantto note that the following typology represents the combinedpottery of all caves included in the collection(even though all caves are considered distinct sites).Again, this organizational strategy resembles that usedby Ball (1978). For individual lot locations and/ordescriptions by cave, see Chapter 4 of the dissertation.Each typological entry includes up to eleven possiblefields. Provided below is a brief explanation ofthe fields both adopted and created for this typology.For a more comprehensive explanation of such categories,see Robles Castellanos (1990:53–54).Type: VarietyGroup: Name of established ceramic group to whichthe type belongs.Established by: Name of the ceramist(s) who first identifiedand described (i.e. defined) the type and/orvariety. Year of corresponding publication or report.Regional Inter-Cave Distribution and Frequency: Thecave(s) in which this type and variety were identifiedand the number of sherds recovered.Regional Intersite Distribution: Other sites within theYalahau region (see figure 2.1 in Chapter 2) atwhich this type and variety have been identified.Representative General Distribution: This field mayinclude two kinds of references: 1) Limited selectionof sites at which the type:variety has beenreported and their corresponding parenthetical references.2) References for the reader to consult forexpanded and more inclusive lists of sites.Description: This field typically includes informationon various attributes including: paste, temper, surfacefinish, and decoration. True to the “short format”style, the reader is directed toward authoritativedescriptions of this type and variety as they appearelsewhere in the literature. Locally distinctive attributeswould be described in the “discussion”field below.Type Collection Reference: The specific type collectionat the Ceramoteca that was used to aid in theidentification of material from the cave collection.If the exact drawer number was not recorded, atleast the site and/or cajonera (cabinet) number isprovided.Forms Present in Caves: General vessel forms, as wellas lip and base diameter when available.

88AMCS Bulletin 12 — Chapter 4easy, horizontal access to the flat cave floor. A crosswas engraved on the smooth surface of a calcite encrustedbedrock mound inside the cave (figure 4.19.1)and was the only evidence of cultural activity observed.This Christian-style cross may have markedthe small cave as an offertory site sometime betweenthe Colonial period and the present. Although no livespeleothems were observed, the cave could have beenused <strong>for</strong> drip water collection, much like Actun Zodznearby.4.20: CAVE SJ-4 (UNNAMED)This extremely small cave, which is located .5 kmeast of the community of San Juan de Dios, almostdid not merit inclusion in the survey. However, wemust keep in mind that peoples throughout Mesoamericahave appropriated even the smallest of niches,alcoves, and tunnels. This cave is essentially a low,flat crawl space that extends horizontally from thebottom of a small solution feature (or sinkhole) in thebedrock.Due to the nature of this confined space (whichmeasures no more than 4 m long, 3 m wide, and 80 cmfrom floor to ceiling), one would not expect to find featuresor deposits characteristic of activities per<strong>for</strong>medinside the cave itself. Nevertheless, the stumps of hundredsof small stalactites were observed on the ceiling.The cave also contains a relative abundance ofpottery. However, it is difficult to determine whetheror not the material was introduced to the cave duringoffertory activities or was simply dumped there by nearbyancient residents. Such tiny, seemingly unimpressivecaves are enigmatic and merit further investigation.

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!