Ancient Mesoamerica, 9 (1998), 101-120

Copyright © 1998 Cambridge University Press. Printed in the U.S.A.

THE CERAMIC CHRONOLOGY OF EK BALAM,

YUCATAN, MEXICO

George J. Bey III/ Tara M. Bond,b William M Ringle/ Craig A. Hanson,d Charles W. Houck/ and
Carlos Peraza Lopee
^Department of Anthropology 8C Sociology, Millsaps College, Jackson, MS 39210, USA
b
Department of Geography S Anthropology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
department of Anthropology 8. Sociology, Davidson College, Davidson, NC 28036, USA
d
Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA
e
Centro Regional de Yucatan, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Merida, Yucatan, Mexico

Abstract
Since 1984, the Ek Balam Project has been investigating the organization and developmental history of a large Maya polity in the
northeastern part of the Yucatan Peninsula. The survey included both urban Ek Balam, the largest regional center during the Late
Classic period (A.D. 600-900), covering a minimum of 12 km 2 , and its rural hinterland. One result of this project has been the
construction of a preliminary ceramic history of the region, the subject of this report. Evidence supports a sequence of occupations
extending from the Middle Preclassic through the Hispanic period (600 B.C.-A.D. 1600). The ceramic sequence, constructed from a
type-variety analysis of more than a quarter of a million pieces of pottery from surface survey and excavations, consists of six
preliminary ceramic complexes. This ceramic analysis extends our understanding of Maya cultural development in the northern
Maya lowlands to a largely unknown area of the peninsula.

Our understanding of Maya cultural development in northeastern
Yucatan has lagged behind that of the rest of the northern Maya
lowlands. As recently as a decade ago, it was perhaps the least
known area in the region. With the exception of Chichen Itza, lo-
cated on the southwest edge of this zone, it has played little part in
discussions of Maya cultural developments (but see Andrews IV
1941; Sanders 1960; Webster 1978). Since 1980, however, a num-
ber of research projects have begun to fill in this gap in our un-
derstanding of the Maya. In addition to the our work in the Ek
Balam region (Figure 1), projects include those at Yaxuna (D. Frei-
del, project director), Isla Cerritos (Andrews et al. 1988), the Cu-
pul survey area (Andrews et al. 1989), the Chikinchel region (S.
Kepecs, project director), the Cancun-Merida Autopista survey (T.
Sierra, C. Peraza Lope, and L. Vargas, project directors), the Yala-
hau Project (S. Fedick, project director), and Yula (P. Anderson,
project director). Recently, extensive work under the direction of
Peter Schmidt, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia
(INAH), Mexico City, has also been carried out at Chichen Itza.
INAH has also initiated a program of architectural restoration at
Ek Balam under the direction of Leticia Vargas.
Northeastern Yucatan is now recognized as the scene of major de-
velopments beginning in the Middle Preclassic period, with popu-
lation peaking during the Late Classic. Research has also made it clear
that understanding this region is important for addressing many ba-
sic issues in the archaeology of the northern lowlands. Chronology,
for instance, has long been an issue of concern in the north, because
of apparently long-lived ceramic traditions, an imperfect under-
standing of ceramic distributions, and a lack of independent means
of dating phase boundaries. (As is well known, hieroglyphic dates
are scarce in Yucatan, and radiocarbon dates associated with ce-
ramic deposits even rarer.') However, as additional ceramic se-
quences have accumulated (Figure 2), it has become evident that
ceramic groups do often have restricted distributions and that the life-
time of a given type or group may differ significantly from site to
site. Although this poses additional problems for cross-dating ce-
ramics, it also permits an increasing refinement of our understand-
ing of the so-called eastern and western spheres of northern Maya
culture, thought to have been centered about the polities of Coba and
Chichen Itza (Andrews and Robles Castellanos 1985). Our present
view of the nature, extent, and duration of Itza influence has, in par-
ticular, been substantively modified by research in its peripheries.
Data presented below concern a key polity in the frontier between
these two spheres and are a valuable test of the validity of such broad
cultural divisions.
EK BALAM: SITE AND PROJECT
The Ek Balam site is located on a karst plain 51 km northeast of Chi-
chen Itza and 60 km northwest of Coba (see Figure 1). Ceramic and
architectural evidence indicates that, during its apogee in the Late/
Terminal Classic periods (A.D. 600-1050), Ek Balam and its sur-
rounding hinterland formed one of the larger and more powerful
1
See Grube (1994) for a recent compendium of hieroglyphic dates and
Andrews IV and Andrews V (1980:281-285) for radiocarbon dates.

101
102
• DZIBILCHALTUN
®T-HO .
* CHUNCHUCMIL
•OXKINTOK
YAXUNA
Figure 1. Archaeological sites of northern Yucatan.
polities in the northern Maya lowlands. The Ek Balam Project be-
gan on a small scale in 1984, and since that time has conducted six
field seasons under the direction of William Ringle and George Bey
III. Although investigations have focused on Ek Balam, the project
also includes a regional component under the direction of Charles
Houck and an interregional project focusing on the area between Chi-
chen Itza and Ek Balam directed by J. Gregory Smith.
Approximately 3.1 km2 of urban Ek Balam has been mapped so
far, including a 9.6-ha central precinct surrounded by a pair of en-
closure walls and adjacent settlement to a distance of at least
500 m beyond the walls (Figure 3). In addition, three sacbes and
adjacent structures have been mapped running roughly 1.8 km to
the north, east, and west. Survey of milpas at the extremes of the
north and west sacbes, as well as milpas far to the south and a
500 m2 quadrat more than 2 km to the east, reveals that Ek Ba-
lam 's urban occupation extended at least 1.8-2 km in all direc-
tions. The rural survey (Figure 4), focusing on an examination of
regional site hierarchy, has concentrated on an area within approx-
imately 15 km of Ek Balam's center. As of this writing, 10 sec-
ondary or tertiary centers have been mapped, surface collected,
and, in some cases, excavated and test pitted. The secondary site
Xuilub has been selected for specific attention, including a 32 ha
settlement sample. Additionally, the rural survey project tested ap-
proximately 60 milpas for occupation, concentrating in an 8- X
10-km tract 5 km west of Ek Balam. The interregional survey is
just beginning, and so far consists only of mapping and limited
test pitting and surface collections at the Ichmul de Morley site by
Bey et al.
® CHICHEN ITZA
50 km
Tomas Gallareta, Ringle, Hanson, and Hartzill-Scott in 1990, Don
Graff in 1994, and more extensively by Smith and Ringle during
the summer of 1997.
With a half-dozen subprojects currently underway, the goals are,
perforce, broad. However, a number of overarching goals link these
projects together. These include: (1) characterizing the nature of
the regional ceramic production-and-distribution system, (2) ex-
amining the nature of the transition between the Late and Termi-
nal Classic periods and the Postclassic, (3) testing the applicability
of the "segmentary state" model for understanding Maya sociopo-
litical organization, and (4) determining how the Maya accommo-
dated colonial rule.
This paper presents the preliminary results of the analysis of
ceramics collected between 1984 and 1995, focusing on our ef-
forts to construct a regional chronology. The long settlement his-
tory revealed by the ceramics indicates that the Ek Balam region,
and particularly Ek Balam, will be useful for examining the long-
term processes of development and change in northern Yucatan.
The appearance of social complexity in the Middle and Late Pre-
classic, the emergence of a regional capital and its decline during
the Classic, and the processes of continuity and transformation as-
sociated with the Postclassic and Hispanic periods can all be in-
vestigated in the Ek Balam region. Our interest here is largely
descriptive, focusing on the evidence for particular ceramic com-
plexes and their composition, although evidence of continuous vs.
discontinuous occupation of Ek Balam and the changing ceramic
affiliation of the site and region also are considered.
Ek Balam ceramic chronology 103

&y c° <^ \±* ^ ^ ^ ^

Cizin Colonial Colonial Colonial Chauaca

1500 — Chikinchel

Seco Postclassic Tomburro Mercante Chechem Tases

Xtabay Hocaba
11.0.0.O.I) - -

___^ ?
10.11.0.0.0 - - Terminal
Classic Sotuta
Sotuta Caban
Jotuto Guarnicion Zipche
JO 10.0 0.0 - - Occupation
1000
Oro
Ili.OH - - Terminal Cehpech Eznab
L. Yumcab Classic
10.0.0.0.0 - -
Coba Chacpel Recogida Copo II
Occupation
Imix
y no o o - -

Late Classic Motul

Copo I
9 10 0.0 0 - -
Palmas Vacio Ik
E. Yumcab
Early Trompillo
9.1.0.0.11 - -
Classic
500 - Salitre 3 -
Final
9.0 0 0 0 - -
Blanco Piim Cochuah
Early Manik
Salitre 2
Classic
Initial
Alux
Salitre 1 ? Cimi
Anejo
Xaumito
Nizuc Xculul Cauac

A.D. 1

Preclassic
Cienega Chuen
Late Tihosuco
Manab
Nabanche (to 800 B.C.)

Ek
Tzec
500 B.C. —
Balam Early
Nabanche

Figure 2. Comparative ceramic chronologies of northern Yucatan. Sources: Coba [Robies Castellanos 1990], Yaxuna (Johnstone 1995],
Isla Cerritos (Andrews et at. 1988], North Coast [Ball 1978], Dzibilchaltun [AndrewsV 1988], Mayapan [Smith 1971], and Tikal [Culbert
1993).
104
Southwest Group — .»_*-!- ^ » __^
' .••'
* • V*
-' ' *. ••• *: C*v
F G
Figure 3. The urban settlement survey zone of Ek Balam.
THE EK BALAM CERAMIC SEQUENCE
Potsherds recovered during the Ek Balam Project were classified
using the type-variety system established for the northern Maya
lowlands by Smith (1971), Ball (1977a, 1978), Robles Castellanos
(1990), and Andrews V (1988, 1989), among others. Sherds were
also identified as to vessel part (i.e., rim, neck, body, etc.), and
vessel form was identified when possible. Beginning in 1992,
weights of type aggregates were recorded in addition to sherd
counts. All information was computerized for later tabulations and
graphic presentations. In all, more than a quarter-million sherds
have been classified, making this one of the largest collections from
the northern lowlands yet examined.
Statements regarding both the chronological position of ce-
ramic types and the extent of occupation are based on excavations
and extensive surface collections. Stratigraphic excavations have
provided the firmest evidence for our sequence, but we have not
carried out a systematic test-pitting program. Instead, the majority
of our excavations have been concentrated in a few complexes of
civic architecture; although extensive, they may be biased. The
benefit, however, is that these larger buildings usually have sev-
eral construction phases and frequently contain substructures pro-
tecting well-preserved deposits. Settlement dating is based largely
on the analysis of materials from controlled surface collections of
Bey et al.
PROYECTO EK BALAM
Urban Survey 1986-1995
losure Walls
-•-•— « • •
H
most structures and a limited number of test pits, some of which
have, fortunately, been extremely revealing. Analysis of this ma-
terial is far from complete, but some of the most significant find-
ings to date are presented below.
Although our initial collections suggested that Ek Balam and
the surrounding region were occupied chiefly during the Late
Classic—similar to the Puuc area, the Chichen zone, and some
northern sites such as Chacchob (Webster 1978, 1985)—this view
proved to be incorrect. We have since recovered substantial ce-
ramic evidence from the Middle Preclassic-Early Hispanic peri-
ods throughout the Ek Balam region. Nevertheless, it is clear that
Ek Balam reached its population and construction peak during the
Late-Terminal Classic period (A.D. 600-1100).
The Ek Balam ceramic sequence consists of six ceramic com-
plexes (Table 1), although several of the complexes presented will
undoubtedly be subdivided in the future. Nonetheless, the present
sequence serves to present a broad overview of the ceramic his-
tory of the site and region, and to discuss some of the more inter-
esting problems associated with it. Ceramic groups, their compo-
nent types, and sherd frequencies are presented in detail in Tables 2
and 3. Our discussion concentrates on the groups and types that are
most significant for understanding the ceramic history of Ek Ba-
lam. It is noteworthy that, although the ceramic sequence for the Ek
Balam region broadly parallels those from other sites in the north-
Ek Balam ceramic chronology 105

i XKAN

x
A ^
D2adz Ceh

IXM«!I;N

Hurniku °

EK BALAM RURAL SURVEY

Sites 1987-1995
• Milpa survey ^ ^ T o

^ ^ Secondary Site
T Hacienda

Figure 4. Regional settlement survey around Ek Balam.

Table 1. Summary of the Ek Balam ceramic sequence

Significant Major Significant Minor

Phase Span Major Groups Present Groups Absent Minor Groups Present Groups Absent

Balam 600-450 B.C. Achiotes, Dzudzuquil, Saban (Chancenote).

Sierra, Chunhinta, Muxunal
Joventud
Manab 450 B.C.-A.D. 1/100 Sierra, Chunhinta, Saban Almeja. Tamanche Kin. Flor, Caribal. Tipikal, Aguacate
(Chancenote) Dzilam Verde,
Huachinango, Xanaba,
Polvero
Alux A.D. 1/100-500 Huachinango, Dzilam Xanaba, Sierra(?).
Verde, Carolina, Cetelac, Balanza, Aguila and Dos
Saban Arroyos polychromes
Early Yumcab A.D. 500-700 Early Slate, Batres, Muna, Chum (no Yokat),
Teabo, Saban(?) Fine Gray, polychromes,
Arena Red
Late Yumcab A.D. 700-1050/1100 Muna, Chum Chuburna Teabo, Dzibiac, Dzitas,
Sisal, Silho, Tohil, Vista
Alegre, Ticul
Xtabay A.D. 1050/1100-1555 Navula, Red Mama, Kukula Red Payil, Buff Polbox
Panaba
Cizin A.D. 1555-1610 Yuncu, olive jars Sacpokana, Spanish
glazed pottery
106 Bey et al.

Table 2. Aggregate type counts, Ek Balam Project, 1986-1995

Type-Variety/Group Counts Percent Type-Variety/Group Counts Percent

Achiotes Unslipped 1.539 .85 Carolina group (continued)

Achiotes group 1,539 .85 Early Slate 899 .50
Joventud Red: Joventud 136 .08 Unidentified Fluted Slateware 2 .00
Guitara Incised: Thin-Wall var. 13 .01 Tekit Incised 467 .26
Joventud group 149 .08 Xaya Gouged-Incised 6 .00
Dzudzuquil Cream-to-buff: Dzudz. 229 .13 Yaxnic Modeled 87 .05
Kuche Incised: Kuche 17 .01 Muna group 83,013 45.66
Majan Red-and-cream-to-buff: Maj 112 .06 Chum Unslipped 11,848 6.54
Tumben Incised: Tumben 26 .01 Encanto Striated: Yokat 8 .00
Bakxoc Black-and-cream-to-buff 32 .02 Halacho Impressed 8 .00
Dzudzuquil: v. n.s. 71 .04 Oxkutzcab Applique 131 .07
Canaima Incised Dichrome: Canaima 3 .00 Yokat Striated 30,893 17.07
Dzudzuquil group 490 .27 Yokat Striated: Inner neck stria. 22 .01
Muxanal Red-on-cream: v. n. s. 1 .00 Chum group 42,910 23.70
Muxanal group 1 .00 Vista Alegre Striated 275 .15
Chancenote Striated: Chancenote 5,811 3.21 Chen Rio 22 .01
Chancenote Striated: Chiquila 678 0.37 Vista Alegre group 297 .16
Chancenote: v. n.s. 1,469 .81 Eroded Ticul Thin-slate 41 .02
Saban Unslipped 26 .01 Tabi Gouged-incised 104 .06
Tancah Burdo 247 .14 Ticul Thin Slate 351 .19
Saban: v. n.s. 316 .17 Xul Incised 3 .00
Saban group 8,547 4.72 Ticul group 499 .28
Chunhinta Black 1,098 .61 Pink Paste-whitewashed 103 .06
Nacolal Incised: Nacolal 223 .12 Misc. Late-Terminal Classic 108 .06
Nacolal Incised: Postslip-Incised 4 .00 Unidentified Late Classic 211 .12
Uchben Incised Dichrome: Uchben 8 .00 Dzibiac Red 33 .02
Dzocobel Red-on-black: Dzocobel 77 .04 Xuku Groove-incised 3 .00
Chunhinta group 1,410 .78 Dzibiac Red group 36 .02
Kin Orange-red: Kin 1 .00 Balantun Black-on-slate 1 .00
Kin group 1 .00 Chacmay Incised 2 .00
Flor group 7 .00 Dzitas Slate 91 .05
Sierra Red: v. Laguna Verde Inc. 419 .23 Dzitas Slate group 94 .05
Sierra Red: v. Sierra 679 .38 Piste Striated 42 .02
Sierra Red: v. Uniden. Bichrome 154 .09 Sisal group 42 .02
Ciego Composite: Ciego 2 .00 Pocboc Gouged-incised 1 .00
Sierra Red: Black-and-red 15 .01 Pocboc Gouged-incised: Cream-slip 2 .00
Sierra: v. n.s. 5,612 3.10 Silho Orange 5 .00
Sierra group 6,881 3.80 Silho Fine Orange group 8 .00
Caribal 5 .00 Tohil Plumbate 1 .00
Caribal: v. n.s. 3 .00 Polvero Black: v. Polvero 206 .11
Caribal group 8 .00 Polvero: v. n.s. 243 .13
Xanaba Red: v. Xanaba 175 .10 Polvero group 449 .25
Xanaba group 175 .10 Aguila Orange 28 .02
Misc. unidentified Formative 2,950 1.63 Aguila group 28 .02
'Unidentified striated 5,643 3.12 Balanza Black 118 .07
Unidentified Formative 8,593 4.75 Paradero Fluted: v. Oak-burned 21 .01
Black Surface Striated 99 .05 Balanza group 139 .08
Unknown group 99 .05 Dos Arroyos Polychrome 3 .00
Dzilam Verde Incised: v. Dzilam Verde 377 .21 Dos Arroyos: v. n.s. 3 .00
Dzilam Verde: v. n.s. 382 .21 Cetelac Fiber-tempered 449 .25
Dzilam Verde group 759 .42 Cetelac: v. n.s. 71 .04
Huachinango Bichrome Incised 2,226 1.23 Cetelac group 520 .29
Huachinango: v. n.s. 6,616 3.65 Unidentified poly/bichrome 92 .05
Huachinango group 8,842 4.88 Misc. Early Classic 115 .06
Carolina Bichrome 839 .46 Unidentified Early Classic 207 .11
Carolina group 839 .46 Dos Caras Striated: Dos Caras 1 .00
Sacalum Black-on-slate 743 .41 Unspecified group (Dos Caras) 1 .00
Unidentified Painted Slateware 1,842 1.02 Batres Red: Batres 446 .25
Unidentified slateware 293 .16 Lakin Impressed Composite 17 .01
Unidentified Incised Slateware 55 .03 Lakin Impressed: v. n.s. 1 .00
continued
Ek Balam ceramic chronology 107

Table 2. Continued

Type-Variety/Group Counts Percent Type-Variety/Group Counts Percent

Unspecified group (Dos Caras) Black Sulche group 3 .00

(continued) Mama Red 2,557 1.41
Coba Composite 2 .00 Eroded Mama Red 329 .18
Oxkintok Applique Composite 3.00 Papacal Incised 16 .01
Batres: v. n.s. 251 .14 Red Mama group 2,902 1.60
Batres group 720 .40 Navula Unslipped 3,942 2.18
Tituc Orange Polychrome 1 .00 Navula: v. n.s. 198 .11
Timucuy Orange Polychrome 2 .00 Cehac-Hunacti Composite 49 .03
Orange Timucuy group 3 .00 Yacman Striated 1,523 .84
Chablekal Gray: Chablekal 6 .00 Navula group 5,712 3.16
Fine Gray: Type unspec. 52 .03 Chen Mul Modeled 953 .53
Gray Chablekal group 58 .03 Panaba Unslipped 12 .01
Arena Red 49 .03 Unslipped Panaba group 965 .53
Arena group 49 .03 Payil Red: Payil 2 .00
Saxche Orange Polychrome 1 .00 Red Payil group 2 .00
Saxche group 1 .00 Tecoh Red-on-buff 28 .02
Unspecified Fine Orange 140 .08 Buff Polbox group 28 .02
Pabellon Modeled-carved 6 .00 Unidentified Postclassic 801 .44
Altar group 6 .00 Red Sacpokana: v. n.s. 2 .00
Caribe Incised: Red-Paint 28 .02 Sacpokana Red 6 .00
Palizada Black-on-orange 6 .00 Red Sacpokana group 8 .00
Balancan group 34 .02 Yunca Unslipped: v. Yuncu 1,168 .65
Becal Incised 37 .02 Unslipped Yunca: v. n.s. 2 .00
Teabo Red 882 .49 Unslipped Yunku group 1,170 .65
Teabo: v. n.s. 94 .05 Cloth Impressed 1 .00
Tekax Black-on-red 1 .00 Unidentified Colonial 1 .00
Teabo group 1,014 .56 Spanish olive jar 553 .31
Akil Impressed 486 .27 Columbia Plain 10 .01
Black Slate: v. n.s. 360 .20 Ichtucknee Blue-on-blue 2 .00
Chumayel Red-on-slate 177 .10 Majolica 9 .00
Eroded slateware 22,037 12.17 Unidentifed Colonial 36 .02
Muna Slate 54,683 30.21 Spanish Colonial group 610 .34
Muna Slate: Incised 375 .21 Total identified 181,030 100.00
Muna Slate: Notched 377 .21 Unidentified 36,180
Nocacab Composite 114 .06 Eroded 50,929
Muna Slate: Unnamed gadrooned v. 10 .01
Tumbador Incised 2 .00 Grand total 268,139 —
Tohil group 3 .00
Sulche Black 2 .00
Pacha Incised: Pacha 3 .00

Note: Percentages are based on the total identified, excluding the final two unidentified categories. Counts are provisional, v. n.s. = variety not
specified.

ern lowlands, major differences exist between the ceramic history
of Ek Balam and that of its neighbors. The implications of these
similarities and differences are significant for understanding Ek
Balam's place in the cultural developments of the northern lowlands.
Preclassic Ceramics
Balam Ceramic Complex: 700-450 B.C. Andrews V (1990) argues
convincingly that the earliest pottery presently known from the north-
ern lowlands dates to no earlier than Middle Preclassic. Ek Balam is
no exception; our earliest pottery has been placed in the Middle Pre-
classic Balam ceramic complex, associated with the Mamom ce-
ramic sphere. First identified stratigraphically at Ek Balam during
the 1994 field season, largely undisturbed Balam Complex depos-
its have been recovered from several locations within the ur-
ban zone (see Figure 3) and at Xuilub (see Figure4) in the rural zone.
Mixed deposits containing small amounts of Middle Preclassic ce-
ramics have also been identified from elsewhere at the site and in ru-
ral collections. This suggests that Ek Balam was a sizable community
with an expanding hinterland during the Middle Preclassic, although
more test pitting is necessary to estimate population levels and de-
termine site extent.
Initial evidence came in 1994 from the subfloor excavations of
Structure GS-15, an elite residential platform in the Sacrificios
group (see Figure 3). The Balam-phase material was located in a
compact, 20-cm-thick, red soil lens at the bottom of the subfloor
trenches, apparently the prehistoric surface upon which Structure
GS-15 was constructed. These ceramics are also found in the fill
directly overlying the red soil lens and may represent the earliest
construction phase of Structure GS-15.
108 Bey et al.

Table 3. Comparative statistics of ceramic groups in urban and rural collections, 1987-1996

Complex Group Ek Balam Counts %Ek Balam Rural Counts %Rural Total Counts %Total

Balam Achiotes 808 .49 731 4.24 1,539 .85

Balam Joventud 102 .06 47 .27 149 .08
Balam/Manab Dzudzuquil 162 .10 328 1.90 490 .27
Balam Muxanal 0 .00 1 .01 1 .00
Balam-Alux Saban 7,236 4.42 1,311 7.60 8,547 4.72
Balam/Manab Chunhinta 1,201 .73 209 1.21 1,410 .78
Manab Kin 1 .00 0 .00 1 .00
Manab Flor 7 .00 0 .00 7 .00
Balam/Manab Sierra 6,024 3.68 857 4.97 6,881 3.80
Manab Caribal 8 .00 0 .00 8 .00
Manab Xanaba 159 .10 16 .09 175 .10
Unid. Form unidentified Formative 6,918 4.22 1,675 9.71 8,593 4.75
Alux Unknown 99 .06 0 .00 99 .05
Manab/Alux Dzilam Verde 752 .46 7 .04 759 .42
Manab/Alux Huachinango 8,616 5.26 226 1.31 8,842 4.88
Manab/Alux Carolina 837 .51 2 .01 839 .46
Alux Polvero 410 .25 39 .23 449 .25
Alux Aguila 28 .02 0 .00 28 .02
Alux Balanza 126 .08 13 .08 139 .08
Alux Dos Arroyos 5 .00 1 .01 6 .00
Alux Cetelac 447 .27 73 .42 520 .29
Alux unidentified Early Classic 165 .10 42 .24 207 .11
Yumcab n.s. 0 .00 1 .01 1 .00
Yumcab Batres 3 .00 717 4.15 720 .40
Yumcab Orange Timucuy 3 .00 0 .00 3 .00
Yumcab Gray Chablekal 6 .00 0 .00 6 .00
Yumcab Arena 41 .03 8 .05 49 .03
Yumcab Saxche 1 .00 0 .00 1 .00
Yumcab Fine Gray 47 .03 5 .03 52 .03
Yumcab Fine Orange 139 .08 1 .01 140 .08
Yumcab Teabo 666 .41 348 2.02 1014 .56
Yumcab Muna 78135 47.71 4,878 28.27 83,013 45.86
Yumcab Vista Alegre 288 .18 9 .05 297 .16
Yumcab Altar Fine Orange 0 .00 6 .03 6 .00
Yumcab Balancan Fine Orange 34 .02 0 .00 34 .02
Yumcab Chum 38,251 23.36 4,659 27.00 42,910 23.70
Yumcab Ticul 458 .28 41 .24 499 .28
Yumcab Uniden. Late Classic 209 .13 2 .01 211 .12
Sotuta Dzibiac Red 36 .02 0 .00 36 .02
Sotuta Dzitas Slate 63 .04 31 .18 94 .05
Sotuta Sisal 36 .02 6 .03 42 .02
Sotuta Silho Fine Orange 8 .00 0 .00 8 .00
Sotuta Tohil Plumbate 2 .00 1 .01 3 .00
Xtabay Black Sulche 3 .00 0 .00 3 .00
Xtabay Red Mama 2,791 1.70 111 .64 2,902 1.60
Xtabay Navula 5,118 3.13 594 3.44 5712 3.16
Xtabay Unslipped Panaba 925 .56 40 .23 965 .53
Xtabay Red Payil 2 .00 0 .00 2 .00
Xtabay Buff Polbox 28 .02 0 .00 28 .02
Xtabay Unidentified Postclassic 591 .36 210 1.22 801 .44
Cizin Red Sacpokana 7 .00 1 .01 8 .00
Cizin Unslipped Yuncu 1,166 .71 4 .02 1,170 .65
Cizin unidentified Colonial 1 .00 0 .00 1 .00
Cizin Spanish Colonial 603 .37 7 .04 610 .34
Unident unidentified/eroded 75,189 — 11,920 — 87,109 —
Total 238,961 29,178 268,139

Note: Percentages are based on the total identified, as in Table 2. Counts are provisional.
Ek Balam ceramic chronology 109

Lot No.
201895 _
(N=458)
198595 _
(N=302)
198695 _
(N=295)
198795 _
(N=292)
198895 _
(N=352)
198995 _
(N=559)
199095 _
CN=490)
199195 _
(N=565)
199295 _
(N=242)
199395 _
(N=221)
199495 _
(N=250)
199595 _
CN=294)
199695 _
(N=263)
199795 _
(N=142)
199895 _
(N=163)
199995 _
(N=276)
200095 _
(N=234)
204695 _
(N=229)
204795 _
(N=269)
204895 _
(N=65)

Manab mmnm Xtabay

Balam

Alux illlliililil Undefined/Unknown

Yumcab

Figure 5. Ek Balam, Structure HT-12, Operation 1, Pit 3-extension sherd frequencies.

Excavations in 1995 of Structure HT-12—a large, amorphous
house platform in the later locus of the colonial community (see
Figure 3)—yielded further deposits of this complex, which have
proved important in clarifying the composition of the Balam com-
plex. Balam-phase ceramics were recovered from several units,
but only Operation 1-3-extension is considered here (Figure 5).
Excavation of this unit passed through a midden that had formed
at the edge of an altillo that had been occupied from the Middle
Preclassic through the Hispanic period. Operation 1-3, a 2- X 2-m
unit, was excavated to bedrock in 20 arbitrary stratigraphic levels
of 10 cm. Ceramics exclusively associated with the Balam com-
plex first appeared in Level 11; ceramics recovered in Levels 16-20
are almost exclusively Balam-phase types.
In Xuilub Structure 20, substantial Balam deposits were recov-
ered from the bottom three levels (i.e., Levels 3-5) of a 2- X 2-m,
3.1-m-deep test pit. Level 3 was slightly mixed with Classic
materials, but Levels 4 and 5 were Middle Formative.2 Levels 3
2
Level 3, from 50 to 150 cm in depth, was dug through building fill. In-
terestingly, ofthe 11 bags of sherds recovered, all ofthe Classic material was
contained in only 3 bags, suggesting that they were removed from the upper-
most part of the unit. Level 4 does have some Alux-phase sherds from the
Xanaba and Huachinango groups. These types, however, are present in Level
3 in slightly higher concentrations. Because Levels 3 and 4 were in platforms
and were not separated from each other by any stratigraphic barrier, the later
sherds may have trickled down or perhaps fell from the excavation walls.
110
, , , % • •
; ; > , - - ^ , . * . . ,
and 4 came from below a plaster subfloor. While excavating Level
4, another floor and an associated retaining wall were encoun-
tered. Level 5 was sealed by this floor and extended to bedrock.
This level also included a burial. Ceramically, these levels were
extremely rich—yielding a total of 1,701 sherds.
Based on the analyses of materials from these excavations, seven
ceramic groups are associated with the Balam ceramic complex.
Three groups (i.e., Joventud Red, Achiotes, and Muxanal) are re-
stricted exclusively to this complex, the remaining four also form-
ing part of the Manab complex. The most common groups are
Achiotes, Chunhinta Black, Sierra Red, and Dzudzuquil. Present
in significantly smaller amounts is the Joventud Red ceramic group;
there is but a single example of the Muxanal group. Distinguish-
ing between Joventud Red and Sierra Red ceramics is often diffi-
cult (for a discussion of this problem, see Andrews V 1989), and
the percentages of Joventud Red should probably be higher. The
seventh group is the unslipped Saban group, whose main type is
Chancenote Striated. Although primarily associated with the fol-
lowing Manab complex, small amounts of Chancenote Striated are
found in sealed late Middle Preclassic Balam deposits from the
Xuilub Structure 20 test pit.
Achiotes is the primary Middle Preclassic unslipped group, and
the only one found in significant amounts in the Balam complex.3
The surface colors range from pale brown to pink to grayish brown.
The surfaee is primarily plain, with occasional light striations or
brush marks, or a reddish to grayish wash applied. The primary
vessel form for the Achiotes group is the globular jar.
There are four groups of monochrome pottery in the Balam com-
plex. The most common, in terms of frequency, is the Chunhinta
Black ceramic group, followed by the Sierra Red, Dzudzuquil, and
Joventud Red groups (Figure 6). The slip associated with these
groups is generally thick, hard, and opaque, adhering tenaciously
to the vessel surface (Andrews V 1989). Examples of waxy, trans-
lucent slips are occasionally found. Surface treatments vary. For
instance, Chunhinta Black, Ucu variety, the most common type in
the Chunhinta Black group, has no surface alterations. Less-
frequent Chunhinta types have surface treatments that include pre-
and post-slip incisions, red painted rims, and combination of these
' Andrews V (1988, n.d.) places Chancenote in the Achiotes group.
Bey et al.
• •
Rgure 6. Joventud Red, Joventud variety (recovered
from Structure HT-12, Operation I, Pit 3-extension).
%
II I I I I
0 5 cm
surface treatments. The cream-to-buff Dzudzuquil group has dec-
orative treatments similar to those of the Chunhinta Black group,
but also includes types that have Chunhinta Black and/or Joven-
tud Red slipped areas. Joventud Red group ceramics recovered from
Ek Balam include types that have no surface alterations, types that
are thin walled, and types with incisions. As stated above, Sierra
Red and Joventud ceramics are often difficult to distinguish from
each other. Sierra Red ceramics usually have an even colored red
slip, sometimes associated with dendritic rootlet markings and
darker, discolored areas. Included in the Sierra Red group is a black-
and-red-slipped type: one side of the vessel's surface has a Sierra
Red slip and the other has a Chunhinta Black slip. Also included
in the Sierra Red group is Laguna Verde Incised.
The most characteristic vessel forms of this complex's mono-
chrome pottery are flaring-walled dishes or bowls with direct or
everted rims. These bowls or dishes range in size from small to
large. In addition to the dishes or bowls, a few examples of jar and
tecomate fragments have been identified, but these are rare in all
groups except Sierra Red—which has a higher percentage of large
and small jars and tecomates than any of the other three mono-
chrome groups.
The best-characterized Middle Formative deposits in northern
Yucatan come from Komchen/Dzibilchaltun, in the northwestern
peninsula (Andrews V 1988, 1989), and we follow the nomencla-
ture developed for that site. Other contemporary complexes from
the north have been found at Yaxuna (Johnstone 1995), Becan (Ball
1977a), Loltun Cave (Velazquez V. 1981), and Mayapan (Smith
1971), but the existence of Middle Preclassic settlement in the north-
eastern peninsula has heretofore been largely a matter of specula-
tion (Ball 1978:122). A Middle Preclassic complex is yet to be
discovered at Coba (Robles Castellanos 1990), the Chikinchel re-
gion (Kepecs 1998), and across most of the northeastern coast,
including Isla Cerritos (Andrews and Robles Castellanos 1986; Ball
1978:122).
The Balam complex is similar enough to the Early Nabanche com-
plex from Komchen and Dzibilchaltun (Andrews V 1988, 1989),
dated to 700-450 B.C., that we are tentatively assigning a similar span
to our complex.4 There are both significant and minor differences
4
To date, we have no radiocarbon dates associated with ceramics.
Ek Balam ceramic chronology
between the complexes, yet the overall similarity of their typolog-
ical composition suggests an emerging northern regional-ceramic tra-
dition marked, in part, by the Dzudzuquil group unique to the area.
Perhaps the most significant difference to note at this point is be-
tween the Achiotes Unslipped sherds of Ek Balam and those from
Komchen (Saban variety in Andrews V 1988,1989). The Ek Balam
version is distinguished by its paste and, often, by a plum-colored
wash, differences sufficient to warrant distinction at the variety level.
We have designated our local variant as Achiotes Unslipped, Achiotes
variety. Andrews V (1988,1989) found substantial amounts of Chan-
cenote Striated in the Early Nabanche complex, whereas we see very
little until the succeeding Manab complex. As a result of the typo-
logical and chronological differences, we place Chancenote Stri-
ated in a different group, the Saban group.
Finally, although the percentages of Joventud Red at Ek Balam
may be higher than indicated because some may have been mis-
identified as Sierra Red, it is likely that Sierra Red is much more
common than is Joventud Red in the Balam complex. This sug-
gests another significant difference between our Balam complex
and the Early Nabanche complex at Komchen—where Joventud
sherds are numerous. This may be either a regional difference or
may indicate that the Balam complex dates to the latter part of the
Early Nabanche complex.
The Manab Complex: 450 B.C.-A,D. 1/100. As at Komchen, there
are significant typological continuities between the Middle and Late
Preclassic complexes at Ek Balam—including continuation of the
Sierra, Chunhinta, and Dzudzuquil groups, although in altered fre-
quencies (Dzudzuquil in particular diminishes markedly). Ek Ba-
lam's Late Preclassic Manab complex is associated principally with
the Chicanel sphere, or the Chakan sphere as it is called in the
northern lowlands (Robles Castellanos 1990). At Ek Balam, it is
defined stratigraphically principally from deposits recovered from
the previously discussed Structures GS-15 and HT-12, and addi-
tionally from Structure FT-27—a large elite platform located in
the Grupo Suroeste architectural complex (see Figure 3). Manab
materials were recovered from two trenches excavated into the
Structure GS-15 platform. The sherds are associated with Level 3
in both trenches, an approximately 80-cm-thick lens consisting of
platform fill and fine, gray, powdery soil. Although primarily
Manab, a preliminary analysis suggests that there may be some
mixing with later Alux materials. Structure HT-12, Operation 1-3-
ext, Levels 13-15 (see Figure 5) contained largely Manab pottery
and overlay Balam levels. In the Grupo Suroeste, Operation 1-3-
11, on the north side of Structure FT-27, was excavated to a depth
of 3.5 m through platform fill, with Manab-phase deposits encoun-
tered in the six lowest levels in association with a series of subfloors.
It has been apparent since Brainerd's (1958) ceramic survey
that the Late Preclassic was a period of major demographic growth
across the northern plains. At Ek Balam, Preclassic sherds are ubiq-
uitous, although it is often difficult to definitively separate Balam
and Manab ceramics. In the rural zone, Manab- or Balam-phase
sherds were found in well over half of the milpas examined and at
most of the secondary centers; totals outweighed those of the fol-
lowing Alux phase. In 1989, Carlos Peraza Lope test pitted a large
platform with triadic architecture in the secondary site of X-Huyub.
The limited number of sherds recovered were all Preclassic, prob-
ably Manab in age, suggesting that monumental architecture was
being erected by that time.
The Manab ceramic complex is composed of 10 ceramic groups
encompassing 20 types. Based on the sherds recovered from the
111
HT-12 and FT-27 excavations, the most common groups are the
Sierra Red group, the Chunhinta Black group, and the Saban group.
The Huachinango group first appears during this phase. Huachi-
nango Incised-dichrome (Figure 7) is the dominant dichrome re-
covered at Ek Balam in deposits from the Manab and the following
Alux phases. Ek Balam yielded a large variety of Huachinango-
group ceramics in surface decoration, paste, and firing. This ce-
ramic group is found virtually everywhere at Ek Balam and, based
on the analysis of the group over the entire northern Maya low-
lands by Bond (1996), Ek Balam may be near the center of its
distribution sphere.
The Saban group is the only unslipped ceramic group in the
Manab complex and consists primarily of jar forms. Chancenote
Striated is by far the most common member of the Saban group.
Chancenote Striated has definite striations, distinguishing it from
the Achiotes-group material in the Balam complex—which only
occasionally has light striations or brush marks. The unstipped type
(i.e., Saban Unslipped) is substantially less frequent at Ek Balam.
Two monochrome-slipped groups, Xanaba Red and Polvero
Black, first appear during this phase. The slip of the Xanaba Red
group is often flaky, soft, and bright red, although examples have
been recovered with reddish brown to olive brown slip. Slips of
the Polvero group are thin, often streaky black, dark brown, or
dark reddish brown. Except for the differences in slip, the two
groups are quite similar. The principal vessel form for both groups
is a bowl with outcurved or direct walls and, less frequently, a
globular jar. Incisions are occasionally found on the exterior of
Xanaba Red sherds.
Three dichrome ceramic groups appear in the Manab complex:
the Carolina, Huachinango, and Dzilam Verde groups. The pri-
mary vessel form for all three is an outflared, flat-bottomed bowl,
occasionally with a ring base. Huachinango Incised-dichrome ce-
ramics, with a dark to light gray paste, have a thick white or very
pale brown, sometimes grading to reddish yellow, slip on both the
interior and exterior of the vessels. Due to firing, brown and gray
mottled areas are also common. The decoration of Huachinango
ceramics consists of exterior incised, preslip geometric designs,
sometimes having punctations. (These include some of the earli-
est examples of the step-fret motif in Mesoamerica.5) The geomet-
ric designs are often highlighted by a red to orange slip background.
Dzilam Verde group ceramics, with a paste similar to Huachi-
nango Incised-dichrome, have a greenish yellow slip on the exte-
rior and interior, with red to reddish orange secondary slip on the
exterior and incised, preslip geometric designs. Carolina group ce-
ramics are distinguishable by a brown to red paste color, which
contrasts with the gray paste of the other two bichrome groups.
The Manab phase, as presently defined, lasted for more than
half a millennium; it is likely that major changes in ceramic pro-
duction, which we cannot yet distinguish, occurred during this
phase. Some defining characteristics, however, are clear. The out-
set of the phase is marked by the disappearance of the Joventud
group, leaving the Sierra Red group as the predominant red-
slipped pottery. Another important change is that striated sherds
become common only during the Manab phase, although some of
the Achiotes sherds during the previous phase have brush marks
5
The observation was made first by Brainerd (1958:240, Figure 64) with
respect to his "Flaky Bichrome/Incised Bichrome" ware, now generally clas-
sified as Valladolid Bichrome. Although differing in form and paste, surface
decoration is similar to Huachinango. Sharp (1978:159) echoes this in a com-
prehensive treatment of the motif in art. architecture, and ceramics.
112
Figure 7. Examples of Huachinango Incised-dichrome, Huachinango variety.
or light striations. Unslipped wares are now represented by the
Saban group, including Chancenote Striated, variety Unspecified,
and Saban Unslipped, variety Unspecified. During the later part of
the Manab phase, dichrome ceramics made their appearance and
continued to grow in importance during the following Alux ce-
ramic complex.
The Manab ceramic complex partially overlaps three ceramic
complexes from Komchen and Dzibilchaltun (i.e., the Ek [450-
350 B.C.], Late Nabanche [350-150 B.C.], and Xculul [150 B . C -
A.D. 250] complexes), the Xaumito ceramic complex (100
B.C.-A.D. 400) of Isla Cerritos, and the Afiejo complex (100 B . C -
A.D. 350) of Coba (see Figure 2). The Almeja and Kin ceramic
groups, which define the Ek ceramic complex at Komchen, are
virtually absent (n = 1) at Ek Balam. Other ceramic groups that
are rare or absent at Ek Balam when compared to Komchen are
the Xanaba (Xculul complex),6 Tamanche (Late Nabanche), Tip-
6
Xanaba Red ("Flaky Redware" in Brainerd 1958) is the diagnostic red
monochrome succeeding the Sierra Red tradition. It is particularly common
in northwest Yucatan. At Komchen, it represented 9.5% of the Formative pot-
tery, and 30% and more of the typical Xculul lots (Andrews V 1989). Chro-
nological placement of Xanaba Red has been problematic. Brainerd (1958:75)
placed Flaky Redware at the very outset of his "Early Regional" stage, per-
haps preceding the earliest calendrical inscriptions. At Komchen, Andrews
V (1988) preferred to limit it to the Terminal Preclassic, preceding a virtual
Early Classic abandonment of the site. Support comes from radiocarbon dates
and the paucity of Early Classic polychromes at Komchen and Dzibilchal-
tun. Others prefer a continuation of Xanaba Red into the Early Classic. Ball
(1977a: 101,1978:156), for instance, apparently suggests that the lack of or-
ange polychromes in the northwestern peninsula was a result of trade pat-
terns, whereas Taschek (1994:232-236) argues that the Piim complex is
largely an elite assemblage. At Coba, the Xanaba group was meagerly rep-
resented, but was placed in the late facet of the Afiejo and early Blanco phases
(Robles Castellanos 1990:71-72).
Bey et al.
I I 1 I I 1
5 cm
ikal (Terminal Nabanche and Xculul), and Aguacate (late Xcu-
lul) groups. Groups that are represented in greater frequency at
Ek Balam than at Komchen are the Polvero, Dzilam, and Hua-
chinango groups. The Sierra and Chunhinta groups are about
equally represented at both sites.
The Afiejo complex (Robles Castellanos 1990), although de-
fined from a limited number of contexts at Coba, suggests an emer-
gent eastern regionalism during the Late Preclassic that continued
in the Early Classic. Ek Balam parallels Coba in having a gener-
ally low frequency of the Xanaba group, a high frequency of the
Huachinango group, and the persistence of Sierra Red and Chun-
hinta. But in contrast, Ek Balam lacks several of the lesser types
from Coba, particularly the numerous types of reds, as does Kom-
chen. Ek Balam also has a higher frequency of Dzilam Verde than
was found at Coba. Thus, in contrast to the earlier close ties with
Komchen, the Manab complex suggests the emergence of an east-
ern interior/coastal sphere, but already with marked intersite dif-
ferences in minor ceramic types.
Classic-Period Ceramics
Alux Ceramic Complex: A.D. 100-500. The Alux ceramic complex
is the first of two Classic-period ceramic complexes defined for
Ek Balam. Alux deposits have been recovered from the subfloor
excavations of Structures GS-15, HT-12, FT-27, and GT-20. The
Alux complex is composed of nine ceramic groups—10 if the small
amounts of Sierra present at the outset are counted. The complex
is distinguished by high percentages of Chancenote Striated and
Huachinango-group sherds, the presence of Dzilam Verde Incised-
dichrome and Carolina Bichrome, the cessation of Sierra Red, and,
sometime during the phase, the appearance of early examples of
Muna Slate (Figure 8).
Ek Balam ceramic chronology
Figure 8. Examples of Early Slate (Muna group].
Although the Huachinango group ("Tancah Variegated" in San-
ders I960)7 has been dated to the Late-Terminal Preclassic period
by some authors (e.g., Andrews V 1988; Ball 1978:110, 1982:106;
R. E. Smith, in Sanders 1960:234), others have favored a signifi-
cant extension into the Early Classic period (e.g., Robles Caste-
llanos 1987:103; Sanders 1960:233-235, Chart 3). Our stratigraphic
evidence clearly supports the latter position. Although Huachi-
nango sherds do appear in the Late-Terminal Preclassic at Ek Ba-
lam, they are principally associated with Early Classic deposits, as
they are at Isla Cerritos (Robles Castellanos 1987:103) and other
East Coast sites (Peraza Lope 1993; Sanders 1960). Evidence for
a later placement includes a dramatic increase in its frequency cou-
pled with a discontinuation of Sierra Red and, in some deposits,
the appearance of Cetelac Fiber-tempered. Chancenote Striated con-
tinues as the predominant unslipped striated type.
Our analysis of the Alux ceramic complex indicates that it was
roughly coeval with the Piim complex (A.D. 250-700) at Dzibil-
chaltun, the Xaumito (100 B.C.-A.D. 400) and early Trompillo (A.D.
300-700) complexes at Isla Cerritos, the late Afiejo (100 B . C - 3 0 0 /
350 A.D.) and Blanco complexes (A.D. 300/350-550/600) at Coba,
and the Litoral complex (A.D. 300-600) at San Gervasio. With re-
gard to peninsular ceramic affiliations, the high percentages of di-
chrome pottery—particularly Huachinango group—is one of the
most important characteristics of the Alux complex. Huachinango
Dichrome is virtually absent at Dzibilchaltun and Yaxuna, and ex-
tremely prevalent at eastern sites like Coba and San Gervasio—
thus serving to differentiate eastern and western spheres during
the Early Classic. In contrast, western sites show a preference for
monochrome reds such as those of the Xanaba group. Ek Balam's
ties with the eastern sphere are reinforced by the presence of Ce-
telac, found by Brainerd (1958) at Yaxuna and Coba in quantity,
and identified by Robles Castellanos (1990:108) as being manu-
factured in northern Quintana Roo. (Varela Torrecilla [1988:80]
notes its absence in contemporary deposits from Oxkintok.)
7 8
Huachinango bears similarities to some examples of Brainerd's "Flak-
ly Dichrome," in particular a sherd from the "Mound near Merida" (Brainerd
1958:Figure6.3 [a.7]). Brainerd (1958:75) placed these at the outset of the
Early Regional stage, preceding Tzakol 1.
113
Cetelac Fiber-tempered sherds are associated with both the
Early-Classic Blanco and Middle-Classic Palmas phases at Coba.
At Ek Balam, a late Early Classic date for Cetelac finds further
support: virtually all of our examples from stratigraphic excava-
tions show it to be associated with slateware. Where conditions
have permitted finer discrimination, the frequency of slateware is
low, and the incidence of Huachinango sherds is waning.
The Alux complex is also characterized by a lack of Early Clas-
sic polychromes, although recent excavations in the walled site
center suggest that this is an artifact of sampling bias resulting
from the limited distribution of such exotic wares within the site.
Until 1995, excavations were primarily restricted to the area out-
side the walled site center of Ek Balam. In 1995, with the excava-
tion of Structure G-20—a platform located in the southwest corner
of the walled site center—impressive amounts of polychrome pot-
sherds were recovered, including a complete polychrome vessel
discovered beneath the floor of a possible council house located
on the platform. It thus appears, not surprisingly, that elite long-
distance tradewares are restricted to elite contexts within the walled
site center.
Structures with Alux-phase ceramics are surprisingly plentiful
at Ek Balam (Smith and Ringle 1996). No specific Early Classic
population locus has been detected, indicating that much of the
central area was already occupied. Alux ceramics appear, in con-
trast, to be much rarer in our rural collections, although this may
be an artifact of sampling. Alux pottery is present in many of our
small collections, but is scarce in our Xuilub units—whose total
is substantially larger than the rest of the rural sample combined.
Thus, the low Alux frequencies for the rural zone given in
Table 3 probably do not reflect their actual level had we a more
equitable sample.
Origins of the Yumcab Complex: A.D. 500-650/700. At both Dzi-
bilchaltun (Simmons and Bey 1998) and Coba (Robles Castellanos
1990), the Middle Classic prelude to the full Cehpech-sphere com-
plex is marked by high frequencies of Teabo Red and small amounts
of Muna Slate, a pattern that reversed during the Late-Terminal Clas-
sic. These two Middle Classic ceramic complexes are called Copo I
(A.D. 600-800) and Palmas (A.D. 550/600-700/730), respectively.
Yokat Striated, although evident throughout, is also much less fre-
quent in the early Middle Classic than in the late. At eastern sites,
Cetelac Fiber-tempered sherds persist into this period. Another im-
portant diagnostic is the Batres group. Brainerd (1958:10-11,48),
who characterized the Batres group as "Coarse Regional Redware,"
found substantial deposits of it at both Coba and Yaxuna. At Coba,
it was the most common Palmas phase diagnostic of the later INAH
excavations, and Robles Castellanos (1990:139) suggests that Coba
may have been a center of its manufacture. Batres-group sherds have
also been reported from Oxkintok, Acanceh, Mayapan, and Tancah
in the north, although in small quantities (Brainerd 1958; Robles
Castellanos 1990:139-146; Smith 1971:32). Because few or no
Batres-group sherds have been reported from Komchen,8 Dzibil-
chaltun, from recent excavations at Oxkintok (Varela Torrecilla
1988:80), Ball's (1977b) coastal survey, or the Isla Cerritos exca-
vations, Batres-group vessels appear to mark ties with the interior
of northern Quintana Roo. In addition, Robles Castellanos (1990:
139-146) and Brainerd (1958:10) point to the substantial similari-
Ball (1978:156) mentions their presence at Dzibilchaltun, but does
not indicate quantity. An unpublished seriation of Isla Cerritos by Robles
Castellanos (provided courtesy of A. Andrews) also indicates minor amounts
at that site.
114
ties of Batres-group vessels with contemporary domestic wares of
the central and western Peten and their conjunction with the pres-
ence of imported polychromes as reflecting a general southern ori-
entation of the eastern peninsula.
At Ek Balam, Batres Red is almost nonexistent. Substantial
quantities were found in the rural survey during the 1995 season,
however, especially at the secondary site Xuilub—where test pits
yielded nearly all the varieties identified by Robles Castellanos
(1990) at Coba. As with the Palmas and Copo I complexes, Batres
sherds co-occur with Teabo Red sherds and with low frequencies
of Muna and Yokat. Cetelac also persisted into this period. Thus,
our data tend to support Brainerd's (1958) and Robles Castella-
nos's (1990) placement of the Batres group in the Middle Classic,
rather than Smith's (1971:32) and Ball's (1977a: 156) placement in
the Early Classic.
Whether the absence of Batres-group sherds at Ek Balam is
due to our sampling strategy, to a chronological gap, or to regional
preferences remains to be determined. Batres sherds have a friable
slip that is easily eroded, and so may have been overlooked, but
the incised and composite varieties are distinctive and not easily
misidentified. It seems best at present to treat the rural lots with
significant amounts of Batres and Teabo sherds in conjunction with
low frequencies of Muna and Yokat as evidence of an early facet
of the Yumcab phase, rather than as a separate phase. At present,
we tentatively follow Robles Castellanos's (1990) earlier dates for
the Palmas complex of ca. A.D. 500-700 as best representing the
time period for the early part of the Yumcab complex.
Although an Early Yumcab complex has not yet been defined
within Ek Balam, there is other ceramic evidence for some type
of continuity between the late Yumcab and the preceding Alux
phase at Ek Balam. This is seen particularly in the in situ evolu-
tion of Muna Slate, a member of the Muna Slipped group. Re-
cently, Boucher (1989) summarized and analyzed evidence for
the existence of early and late varieties of slateware in the north-
ern lowlands. As she points out, her work, as well as that of
Brainerd (1958), Andrews IV (1965), and Robles Castellanos
(1990), suggests that slateware predates the Late Classic and may
extend as far back as the beginning of the Classic. At Ek Balam,
slateware's first appearance can be traced as far back as the later
part of the Alux phase, and certainly by early Yumcab times. Anal-
ysis of the ceramics recovered from the excavations of Structure
GS-15 identified substantial numbers of early slates in an Alux-
complex deposit. Some of these early slates have a slate-like sur-
face finish, but with a coarse-textured paste; although some of
the examples look like members of the Huachinango group, oth-
ers do not. A number of hitherto-unknown forms of slateware
have also been recovered from this Alux deposit, including ex-
amples of small bowls and dishes with fine Muna paste, but with
Alux lip forms, and ollas with necks that have a slate exterior
and a red specular hematite interior (see Figure 8). With these
examples as markers, it has been possible to identify probable
examples of early slateware on much of the site.
The analysis of early slateware is still in its preliminary stages,
and quantified attribute and chemical analyses that support this
hypothesis are lacking. Based on our present understanding, we
suggest that Muna Slate made its appearance during the Early or
Middle Classic in the Ek Balam region, evolving out of—or in
conjunction with—the dichrome tradition, rather than replacing it.
Late Yumcab Ceramic Complex: A.D. 700-1050/1100. The Late Yum-
cab ceramic complex, with a predominance of the Muna Slipped
Bey et al.
and Chum/Encanto9 Unslipped groups, is a typical representative
of the Cehpech sphere. Although the complex is composed of 14
ceramic groups, these two are by far the most common, compris-
ing 69% of all pottery recovered by the Ek Balam Project between
1987 and 1996. When compared to other complexes within the
sphere, the Late Yumcab complex is most like those from the Puuc
region and northwestern plains in that it contains a high percent-
age of Chum Unslipped/Yokat Striated and a virtual absence of
Vista Alegre Striated, a common type in the Cehpech-sphere com-
plexes defined for Coba and the East Coast (Robles Castellanos
1990:179). Although Coba was undergoing a marked westward shift
in ceramic-production techniques, participating in the larger Ceh-
pech sphere (Robles Castellanos 1990:259), the preponderance of
Chum/Yokat combined with the absence of Vista Alegre suggests
that Ek Balam had more pronounced ties with the western portion
of the peninsula during the Late and Terminal Classic periods (Bey
et al. 1992; Bond and Bey 1996). Tecomates are also a typical Vista
Alegre form, but one that is fairly rare at Ek Balam.
The paste of the Chum/Encanto group is coarse, with a porous
texture and large amounts of often-coarse calcite tempering. Sur-
face color is primarily blackish gray, with occasional examples of
beige, brown, and cinnamon. Jars are the most common vessel for
the group, the two most common types being Chum Unslipped
and Yokat Striated. Because the necks of Yokat Striated vessels
were often not striated, many necks identified as Chum Unslipped
were probably originally conjoined with Yokat Striated bodies.
The Muna Slate group, the most common slipped pottery from
the Yumcab complex, has a smooth, well-finished, slipped surface
(Figure 9). Dendritic markings often occur under the somewhat
translucent, "waxy-feeling" slip. Bowls and jars of various sizes
are found in the group, as are a variety of forms of surface treat-
ment. Although the most common type (Muna Slate, Muna vari-
ety) has no decoration, there are four incised or notched types and
two resist-paint types (a red and a black) found in the group. The
paste color of Muna Slate at different sites has traditionally been
used to differentiate eastern and western subspheres of the Ceh-
pech sphere (Andrews and Robles Castellanos 1986). This distinc-
tion has not been particularly useful at Ek Balam, where a wide
range of paste color (from pink to gray) is common (Bey et al.
1992). We are presently examining the chemical composition of
Muna Slate through the use of atomic absorption spectrometry in
order to determine whether differences in chemical composition
correlate with such other variables as form, location, and paste
color.
Other characteristics of the Yumcab complex are a low percent-
age of Ticul Thin Slate and a virtual absence of fine-paste wares.
Again, the absence of fine-paste wares, as well as other poly-
chromes, may be the result of sampling bias; the 1995 excavations
of Structure GT-20, discussed above, also produced samples of
Fine Orange and Fine Gray pottery (n = 121, .41 % of the GT-20
assemblage). These were our first excavations inside the walled
site center and the first significant amounts of either type recov-
ered. In comparison, the 1995 recovery of a very large midden
sample from Structure FT-27 (a substantial elite platform with
vaulted architecture just 200 m outside the walled center), pro-
9
Robles Castellanos (1990) and Andrews V (1988) view the differ-
ences between Encanto Striated, defined first in the southern lowlands, and
Yokat Striated, defined by Smith (1971) in northern collections, as insigni-
ficant at the type level. Both therefore treat Yokat as a local variety of En-
canto. See Robles Castellanos (1990:133-134) for a fuller discussion.
Ek Balam ceramic chronology
I • • 1 I I
0 10 cm
Figure 9. Examples of Muna group: top, Muna Slate; bottom, Sacalum
Black-on-slate.
duced far fewer fine-paste sherds (n = 22, .04 % of the Structure
FT-27 assemblage), suggesting fine-paste ceramics may be highly
localized in their distribution, even among elite assemblages.
The Yumcab complex dominates the landscape at Ek Balam
and the surrounding region, with 70% of all potsherds recovered
belonging to this complex; as indicated above, most of this con-
sists of just the Chum/Encanto and Muna groups. All quadrats and
virtually all structures show Yumcab occupation. In the rural zone,
Yumcab ceramics are equally dominant. It is clear that this ce-
ramic complex is associated with the apogee of Ek Balam and most,
if not all, of the final large constructions in the site center, includ-
ing most of the major structures defining the main plaza. Based on
the ceramics and the associated architecture, the Late Yumcab com-
plex was roughly contemporaneous with the Oro complex at Coba
(A.D. 730-1100), the Chacpel ceramic complex at Isla Cerritos (A.D.
700-900), and the Copo II ceramic complex at Dzibilchaltun (A.D.
800-1000). We tentatively place the Late Yumcab ceramic com-
plex at A.D. 700-1050/1100.
Arriving at a date for the Late Yumcab complex requires more
than merely cross dating it with other northern complexes. The
Late Yumcab ceramic complex is associated with at least three dis-
tinct architectural styles at Ek Balam. The first period is associ-
ated with a pre-Florescent style characterized by monumental
115
architecture with relatively poor stone construction, slab vaults,
and the extensive use of modeled stucco; the second with high
quality Florescent-style architecture characterized by cut-stone ve-
neer and cut-stone vaulting; and the third with substantially lower-
quality architecture that has similarities to that of the Postclassic
(Bey et al. 1990, 1997). Late Classic Uxmal also seems to be di-
vided into three architectural stages, although they are not directly
equivalent to ours and the third stage is mixed with roughly 10%
Sotuta-complex pottery (Bey et al. 1997; Huchim et al. 1995). At
Ek Balam, the first style probably spans the Early to Late Yumcab
ceramic transition and is architecturally similar to Structure 1-Sub
at Dzibilchaltun, which is dated to the Copo I period (Simmons
and Bey 1998). In fact, the ceramic evidence from Dzibilchaltun
also shows a tripartite division that approximately parallels the
three architectural stages of Ek Balam and the evidence from Ux-
mal. Stated very simply, slateware increased in frequency during
Copo I, and came to dominate in Copo II in a typical1 Cehpech-
sphere complex, but by Copo II facet 3 the Cehpech-sphere com-
plex became mixed with a significant quantity of Chichen Slate
Ware of the Sotuta sphere.
Because we, in fact, have very little evidence of Sotuta pottery
in our third stage, some discussion of the relationship among the
Sotuta ceramic complex, the Yumcab complex, and the greater Ceh-
pech sphere is warranted. The Sotuta complex was defined largely
on the basis of collections from Chichen Itza, and is associated
with the apogee of the site. This complex was long considered to
postdate the Cehpech sphere and, until recently, this was the or-
thodox interpretation. Although the minority view, the notion that
the two overlapped to some extent also has a lengthy history. The
idea that the difference between the Cehpech sphere and the So-
tuta sphere was a "geographical, not a temporal difference" (Ro-
bles Castellanos 1990) was, in fact, first raised by Sanders (1960)
almost four decades ago. Sanders arrived at this conclusion while
constructing his regional ceramic sequence for Quintana Roo:
Of great interest, and, I think, significant... is the fact that no
clear-cut ceramic complex of the Early post-Classic or Toltec-
Chichen Period was found in Quintana Roo . . . remains of that
period are almost entirely limited to the site of Chichen Itza, a
kind of isolated highland Mexican stronghold in an area where
the old Maya Classic culture possibly remained constant in sur-
rounding centers. . . . I suspect but cannot prove that the Vista
Alegre Complex spans this period [ca. 1000-1200] with Vista
Alegre Striated and a late persistence of Yucatan Slate [Sanders
1960:231].
Later, Andrews V offered a similar scenario when he suggested
the possibility that
the Modified Florescent [associated with the Sotuta complex]
was not a pan-Yucatan period and that it was limited to Chichen
Itza and the areas that fell under the sway of this polity . . . If
this was so, we would expect to find in some parts of the North-
ern Lowlands a ceramic sequence running from Puuc Slate
(Dzibilchaltun Copo 2) directly into Peto Cream (Dzibilchal-
tun Zipche 2 and Hocaba) and eventually Mayapan Red [ca.
1050-1200] [Andrews V 1981:337].
Despite a scarcity of evidence at the time, Andrews V (1981)
correctly surmised that the Sotuta sphere was not limited to Chi-
chen Itza. Comparison of ceramic frequencies available as of 1991
for sites throughout the north showed that Sotuta ceramics had a
116
distribution restricted to Chichen Itza, several coastal sites, and a
corridor between the two (Ringle et al. 1991). Especially notable
was their frequency at Isla Cerritos, a possible port for Chichen
Itza (Andrews et al. 1988), in the Cupul survey between Isla Ce-
rritos and Chichen Itza (Andrews et al. 1989) and in the neighbor-
ing Chikinchel region (Kepecs, this volume; Kepecs and Gallareta
Negron 1995), where Early Classic occupations are followed by
Sotuta occupations with no evidence of an intervening Cehpech
complex. In contrast, Sotuta sherds are extremely scarce in the col-
lections from the several northern inland sites, as summarized in
Ringle et al. (1991).
Based on similarities with the late architectural styles of Ux-
mal, the as-yet-undefined facet of the Yumcab complex associated
with the third or Terminal Classic construction period at Ek Balam
overlaps with the Sotuta sphere complexes found at Chichen Itza,
Uxmal, Isla Cerritos, and the Chikinchel-region sites discussed by
Kepecs (1998). (It will be remembered that Sotuta pottery is found
mixed with Cehpech at Uxmal during this third period.) Although
it is likely that the Sotuta sphere overlaps temporally with earlier
facets of the Yumcab complex, there is as yet little ceramic evi-
dence to support this assumption. At Ek Balam, evidence of Sotuta-
complex types is found associated with some buildings in the site
center (Leticia Vargas, personal communication 1994), but Sotuta
pottery is only about. 1 % of the identified pottery from our project.
A few pieces were, however, found sealed beneath floors associ-
ated with the enclosure walls, walls faced in part with well-cut
stones typical of our second architectural style. The predominance
of Cehpech-sphere pottery and virtual absence of Sotuta pottery is
also seen in the surrounding Ek Balam region.
At Dzibilchaltun, deposits producing a post-Cehpech and pre-
Hocaba-Tases ceramic complex have been tentatively identified
(Simmons and Bey 1998). This complex, known as Zipche I, is
characterized by Sotuta-sphere pottery. Given evidence suggest-
ing that the Sotuta complex arrived at such communities as Uxmal
and Dzibilchaltun well after its beginnings at Chichen, the "ortho-
dox" chronology has merit for sites such as these; the total overlap
scenario may not apply to all northern lowland communities. The
Zipche I complex suggests that, to some extent, Chichen Itza's pre-
dominance may have continued to some extent after the cessation
of Cehpech ceramics (Simmons and Bey 1998), and that the peo-
ple of Dzibilchaltun participated in the Sotuta ceramic sphere af-
ter a long history of participation in the Cehpech ceramic sphere.
An alternative possibility, however, is that Sotuta ceramics may
have been restricted to certain groups or strata within the site, while
others continued to use traditional Cehpech types. Kurjack's (1974:
Figures 5-7) settlement-distribution maps provide some support
for this position, because the majority of Sotuta samples cluster
near the main sacbes}0
Postclassic Ceramics
Xtabay Ceramic Complex: A.D. 1050/1250-1555. The Xtabay com-
plex consists primarily of types from the Unslipped Navula and
Red Mama groups. The two major Navula-group types found at
Ek Balam are Navula Unslipped and Yacman Striated. The Un-
10
This issue will be discussed in greater detail in a forthcoming paper
by Ringle, Gallareta Negron, and Bey HI. In brief, they suggest that the
distribution of Sotuta and later Hocaba sherds may have been related to
the spread of a religious cult and only secondarily to military conquest.
Bey et al.
slipped Navula group has a coarse-textured paste with large pieces
of calcite temper and colors ranging from light gray to cinnamon.
The surface of Navula Unslipped, Navula variety, the unstriated
type of this group, is fairly evenly smoothed, but never polished;
Yacman Striated, Yacman variety, is a striated version of Navula
Unslipped. The most common vessel form of both types is the jar.
The paste of the Red Mama group is coarse, with calcite tem-
pering and colors ranging from beige and pink to gray. Mama Red
surfaces are moderately well smoothed and usually slipped red,
although the color ranges from orange to brown. The primary ves-
sel forms include large and small jars and bowls. The remaining
major Xtabay type is Chen Mul Modeled, a member of the Un-
slipped Panaba group, usually in the form of an effigy censer. Aside
from censer fragments, a single Chen Mul turtle-effigy vessel (Fig-
ure 10) was recovered intact from the Structure GS-12 excava-
tions in the Sacrificios group. Other Xtabay types present in low
frequencies include Papacal Incised, Payil Red, and Tecoh Red-
on-buff.
Ek Balam's Postclassic occupation is modest when compared
to that of the Classic period. Postclassic architecture is found lightly
scattered across the Ek Balam monumental center, with evidence
of continued use of some earlier buildings within the central pre-
cinct and limited new construction. At least one vaulted temple,
built in the East Coast style on an earlier platform (i.e., Structure
GT-10), is thought to have been constructed during the Postclas-
sic. Several other small structures located in the site center and
associated with Postclassic incensario fragments were identified
as Postclassic shrines during our mapping of the site center and in
later INAH excavations of those structures (Thelma Sierra S., per-
sonal communication 1994). Outside the walled site center, Post-
classic architecture and pottery are known from the Sacrificios (Bey
et al. 1997) and Southwest Groups and, most importantly, the area
around the sixteenth-century Franciscan mission chapel east of the
central precinct.
The latter area is the focus of a study, by Craig Hanson, of the
Postclassic and early Hispanic occupation of Ek Balam. Most pot-
tery from this period comes from systematic surface collections
and shallow, areal excavations, but limited amounts also come from
Figure 10. Chen Mul Modeled (turtle-effigy vessel].
Ek Balam ceramic chranology
stratigraphic excavation. Ceramics are the most common evi-
dence of Postclassic occupation in this area, with the majority of
structures built of perishable materials on preexisting terraces and
platforms. Outside of Ek Balam, our sample of Xtabay ceramics is
about 10% of the Yumcab total, although they exceed the quantity
of Alux ceramics. Postclassic remains were, however, widely
distributed—coming from 13 of the 50 milpas tested and from 6
secondary centers. The site of X-Huyub, which has a later colonial
hacienda adjacent to it, has produced an especially large sample of
Postclassic materials. There is some indication of nonresidential
"shrine" construction atop some of the mounds framing the main
plaza of X-Huyub, not unlike those of Ek Balam.
Like the Coba Seco complex (A.D. 1100/1200-1500/1550), our
Xtabay complex spans the entire Postclassic period and represents
a regional variant of the Tases sphere, with few or none of the
types characterizing the Hocaba complex. Accordingly, we follow
Sanders (1960), Andrews V and Sabloff (1986), and Robles Cas-
tellanos (1990:219) in placing the beginning of the Postclassic,
and our Xtabay phase, in the later decades of the eleventh or the
opening decades of the twelfth century (see the discussion by An-
drews V and Sabloff 1986:451-455). It should be noted, however,
that we have no firm evidence for the timing of this transition other
than ceramic cross dating.
Smith (1971:194) originally defined the Middle (A.D. 1200-
1300) through Late (A.D.1300-1450) Postclassic ceramic com-
plexes in the northern lowlands on the basis of three stratigraphic
divisions that he encountered at Mayapan. He recognized "lower,
middle, and higher levels" that corresponded to "early, middle, and
late lots" (Smith 1971:194). Smith (1971) used the early and late
lots to define two distinct Postclassic complexes called Hocaba
and Tases, respectively. The primary difference between the two
complexes was the presence of Peto Cream Ware (Cream Kukula
group) in the earlier and its absence in the later. The middle lots
were transitional and were not clearly defined as a complex; Smith
(1971:194) referred to them as Hocaba-Tases ceramics.
Although Andrews V (1981:337) mentions the possibility that,
at some sites, the Hocaba complex might immediately follow the Ceh-
pech, others seem to show a direct transition from Cehpech to the
Tases complex, usually defined as Middle to Late Postclassic in age.
At Ek Balam, we find few of the typical Hocaba diagnostics, such
as Peto Cream, Mayapan Black, or Fine Orange wares. This is also
true for other sites (e.g., Coba), and does not necessarily indicate a
Hocaba abandonment. Peto Cream has a limited distribution, in the
majority of the cases being found at sites that earlier were part of the
Sotuta distribution system (Kepecs 1998;Ringleetal. 1991). When
present, they mark the Terminal Classic-Postclassic transition and,
perhaps, the persistence of "Itza" economic and political networks.
If Smith (1971) and Kepecs (1998) are correct in seeing the Cream
Kukula group as a direct outgrowth of the Sotuta manufacturing tra-
dition, then the extremely low incidence of Sotuta sherds at Ek Ba-
lam may indicate the existence of exchange barriers between the two
regions persisting from the Late/Terminal Classic well into the Post-
classic period.
Smith (1971) also assigned different type names to the com-
mon unslipped and monochrome types of the Hocaba and Tases
complexes. However, Andrews V (1988:64, Note 11) at Komchen
and Robles Castellanos (1988:71, Note 6) at Isla Cerritos did not
make typological distinctions between the Hocaba and Tases Red
Mama and Navula Unslipped groups, resolving the issue by effec-
tively combining the Hocaba with either earlier or later com-
plexes. Hanson (1991:2) took this same position with respect to
117
pottery recovered from Mani. We too have difficulty in distinguish-
ing consistent changes in Xtabay types and, at present, we cannot
further subdivide the phase. For the present, the Xtabay complex
represents the entire Postclassic sequence.
Dzibilchaltun demonstrates the succession of the Sotuta-affiliated
Zipche I complex with a Peto Cream-dominated facet, Zipche II
(Simmons and Bey 1998) not associated with Red Mama or Navula
types. In turn, the second facet of the Zipche is followed by the
Chechem ceramic complex and, although "the evidence is limited,
the sequence at Dzibilchaltun supports a breakdown of Chechem into
two facets, presumably corresponding to Hocaba and Tases" (Sim-
mons and Bey 1998). Clearly, the lesson to be learned is that where
it occurred, production of Peto Cream overlapped production of both
Sotuta- and Tases-sphere ceramics. Smith's (1971) definition of the
Mayapan Hocaba complex, for instance, incorporates both the Na-
vula and Red Mama groups, there being no evidence at that site that
Peto Cream preceded it (Smith 1971). Most probably, this indicates
that the founding of Mayapan postdated the introduction of Peto
Cream.
Cizin Ceramic Complex: A.D. 1555-1606. The final ceramic com-
plex, called the Cizin, is associated with the early Hispanic com-
munity at Ek Balam. The Franciscan chapel and friary complex
east of the monumental site center marks the area of the early His-
panic occupation of the site (see Figure 3; Hanson 1994, 1995:19;
Ringle 1994). The chapel complex is surrounded by numerous plat-
forms that have produced both Cizin and Xtabay ceramics, indi-
cating continuous occupation of this part of the site during the
transition from the Postclassic to the early Hispanic period. The
Cizin occupation at the cabecera of Ek Balam can be dated through
the documentary record to ca. 1555-1606 (Hanson 1989). The
chapel was established ca. 1555 by friars from Valladolid, but by
1606 the church was no longer registered and, administratively,
the encomienda became known as Hunuku. Although these admin-
istrative changes may indicate that the site was abandoned after
1606, it is also possible that people continued to live in the area
after that date. Cizin-complex materials have only been noted in
very small quantities (n = 12) in the rural zone, with material from
three milpas and three secondary centers.
Imported Spanish ceramics are important markers for the Cizin
complex. These wares, including glazed and unglazed storage and
serving vessels, were prestige items marked for the community elite.
Middle-style olive jar (Goggin 1960:11-17) fragments are the most
frequently recovered European ware. Far less common are sherds of
Columbia Plain bowls and plates (Goggin 1968:117-26), an un-
named green-glazed majolica (Ball 1978:104; Lister and Lister
1974:24), Sevilla (Ichtucknee) Blue-on-blue, and other unidenti-
fied majolicas. According to Goggin (1968:123), the association of
Columbia Plain and Sevilla Blue-on-blue dates these members of the
complex to the end of the sixteenth or beginning of the seventeenth
century. This reinforces the dating of the complex to the second half
of the sixteenth century, as provided by the documentary record.
In addition to these imported wares, locally produced post-
contact pottery found at Ek Balam includes the Unslipped Yuncu,
Red Sacpokana, and Brown Oxcum groups. Sacpokana Red is an
infrequent type in the complex, identified by ring-base bowl and
olla forms and a thinner red slip than that on Mama Red. The Un-
slipped Yuncu group at Ek Balam are hard, brown vessels pro-
duced in a variety of forms from small bowls to open plates. This
group is characterized by rims with flat lips and, often, by a lighter
brown wash on the exterior surface.
118
The Xtabay-phase Unslipped Navula and Mama Red groups
should probably also be included in the Cizin complex. Surface
associations between Spanish Colonial ceramics and members of
the Navula, Payil, and Mama Red groups have been noted at Cham-
poton along the Campeche coast (Ball 1978:79) and at Ecab and
El Meco on the East Coast (Robles Castellanos 1990:220, 230),
the former also in the context of early colonial architecture. Dif-
ferentiating contemporaneous deposition from remixed deposits
is always difficult at heavily reused landscapes, such as those that
characterize many Maya sites. Nevertheless, in addition to surface
deposits, we have a number of excavation units in which Navula
and/or Mama Red sherds co-occur with either Yuncu or Spanish
examples. The initial example was a small refuse deposit against
the chapel nave retaining wall, where a Mama Red and Olive Jar
sherd were found together (Ringle and Bey 1994:3-8). Since then,
Hanson's excavations in colonial house platforms and in a Colonial-
period noria have produced several other stratigraphic contexts
suggesting the contemporaneity of these types. Interestingly, Un-
slipped Yacman Striated seems to have declined in production and
may even have disappeared during the Cizin occupation. If so, it
was not replaced by another striated type, thus ending a continu-
ous tradition of striated domestic wares in the northern lowlands
that began during the Preclassic period. It is likely, however, that
basic Maya utilitarian and serving vessels continued to be pro-
duced for an indefinite time in the sixteenth century.
DISCUSSION
The sequence presented here provides the first step toward under-
standing the nature of cultural growth and development in the Ek
Balam region. Among the most important discoveries is that the
culture history of the region, and particularly of Ek Balam, was
marked by continuous occupation from the Middle Preclassic
through the Late Classic. The ceramic chronology of Ek Balam
and the Ek Balam region indicates that settlement first occurred
during the Middle Preclassic. In broad terms, Ek Balam shows an
early close affinity to the few other Middle Preclassic complexes
that have been described for the northern plains, particularly Kom-
chen. Andrews V (1990) notes that, generally, this was also the
time of closest resemblance between ceramics of the northern and
southern lowlands, which may reflect the arrival of culturally ho-
mogeneous groups of colonists.
Population expanded significantly during the next two phases,
and Ek Balam shows increasingly close production/distribution ties
with an emerging eastern ceramic sphere. The Huachinango, Sa-
ban Striated, and Sierra groups are the most common pre-Cehpech
ceramic groups found at Ek Balam, having been recovered in some
frequency from every area of the site examined thus far. They are
also the most common pre-Cehpech groups found in the greater
Ek Balam region. Although at present we are unable to determine,
except in a few cases, whether lots containing Huachinango and
Saban Striated are Manab or Alux in date, or whether the Sierra
Red is Balam or Manab in date, it is clear that there was a sub-
stantial occupation at Ek Balam during the Late Preclassic period
and that monumental architecture was being constructed by the
Early Classic, if not earlier. Evidence of Late Preclassic or Early
Classic monumental architecture and substantial occupation at the
secondary centers of X-Huyub and Kaax Ek indicate that Ek Ba-
lam may not have been the largest site in the region during this
time. It is doubtful that there was an Early Classic hiatus, although
whether populations decreased during this time is yet to be
determined.
Bey et al.
By A.D. 600 and perhaps as early as A.D. 250, Ek Balam came to
dominate the landscape as the capital of a densely populated re-
gional polity. As the slateware tradition became dominant, the broad
contrast between eastern and western ceramic production declined
across the peninsula, particularly at Ek Balam, which developed
close similarities with the ceramic inventories of the Puuc zone
and the northwest plains. The Yumcab complex is associated with
three distinct architectural periods and runs from approximately
A.D. 600 to 1050/1100, extending into the Terminal Classic and at
least partially overlapping the Sotuta-phase occupation of Chi-
chen Itza. Further examination of Yumcab deposits from the dif-
ferent architectural periods should allow us to detect variations in
the complex during this long time period.
By the Xtabay phase, monumental construction, with some mi-
nor exceptions, ceased—although a substantial population re-
mained in the northern part of the site and at some rural sites.
Nevertheless, the limited number of Xtabay ceramics suggests a
substantial decline in the extent of occupation by the Postclassic.
Absence of the Kukula group is noteworthy; this group seems to
characterize residual Itza settlement elsewhere on the peninsula.
Population decline continued into the Cizin phase (A.D. 1550-
1610), when it appears that most of Ek Balam's remaining occu-
pants were congregated in the colonial village to the east of the
walled site center, as the Relation de Ek Balam indicates (Lopez
deCogolludo 1983 [1579-1581]:2:135-140).
Although broad regional distinctions in ceramic distribution cer-
tainly have some validity, they often mask local variation both in
the duration and distribution of ceramic types that suggests a more
complex landscape. Although correlation of ceramic use with po-
litical and cultural behavior is hazardous, the ceramic sequence
agrees with other lines of evidence that suggest Ek Balam was
relatively autonomous for much of its past. To reiterate the point
made above by Sanders (1960), it appears that Ek Balam was one
of those northern cities that continued to follow the old ways. De-
spite the proximity of the highly distinctive architecture and ce-
ramics of Chichen Itza, and the claim in the Relation de Ek Balam
that Ek Balam eventually came under the rule of a Cupul king
(Lopez de Cogolludo 1983 [1579-1581]:2:139), Itza influence is
barely detectable in the archaeological record of Ek Balam." In-
stead, the ceramics of Ek Balam are typical of the general cultural
insularity of northern Yucatan. Outside the Itza sphere, northern
conservatism is reflected in long-lived ceramic traditions, a scar-
city of imports, the reduced importance of texts, and a quite dif-
ferent approach to urban organization than that in the southern
lowlands. This divergent tradition has its roots at least as far back
as the Late Formative period, and its distinctiveness is often over-
looked by southern lowland Mayanists, who, perhaps uncon-
sciously, continue to see the north as an extension—or even a
colony—of the southern centers. This is understandable given the
relatively limited amount of published information on northern ar-
chaeology, but the accumulation of information from new projects,
in conjunction with closer analyses of existing data, promise con-
tinued and dramatic change in our understanding of what clearly
was one of the most vibrant areas of ancient Maya culture.
1
' Terminal Classic architecture has been identified and excavated most
notably in the Sacrificios Group, although similar structures are found spo-
radically in the urban survey zone. C-shaped structures are characteristic of
this stage and appear to be part of a broad soical phenomenon affecing both
the northern and southern lowlands at the close of the Classic period (Bey
et al. 1997). The sacrificios ballcourt may also date to this period, and like
the other Terminal Classic structures, is of markedly poorer quality.
Ek Balam ceramic chronology
RESUMEN
Desde 1984, el Proyecto Ek Balam ha investigado la organzacion y desa-
rollo historico de un estado maya prehispanico en el noreste de Yucatan. El
reconocimiento incluye la zona urbana de Ek Balam, un centro regional im-
portante durante el clasico tardi'o (600-900 d.C.) que se extiende al menos
de 12 km2 ademas de su zona periferica. Un resultado de nuestro proyecto
es la formulacion de una secuencia ceramica preliminar de la region, lo que
discutimos en este arti'culo. La evidencia indica una secuencia de ocupa-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Ek Balam Project has been funded by the National Geographic Soci-
ety (Grants 3544-87, 3930-88, and 4737-92), the National Science Foun-
dation (Grant SBR-9321603), and faculty research grants from Davidson
and Millsaps Colleges. We particularly wish to thank Carlos Peraza Lope,
of the Centro Regional de Yucatan, INAH and co-principal investigator
during the 1989 and 1992 seasons, for his help with the ceramic analysis
during those years and his wide knowledge of northern Yucatan ceramics.
REFERENCES
Andrews, Anthony P., Tomas Gallareta N., and Rafael Cobos P.
1989 Preliminary Report of the Cupul Survey Project. Mexicon
XI:5:91-95.
Andrews, Anthony P., Tomas Gallareta Negron, Fernando Robles Caste-
llanos, Rafael Cobos Palma, and Pura Cervera Rivero
1988 Isla Cerritos: An Itza Trading Port on the North Coast of Yuca-
tan, Mexico. National Geographic Research 4:196-207.
Andrews, Anthony P., and Fernando Robles Castellanos
1985 Chichen Itza and Coba: An Itza-Maya Standoff in Early Post-
classic Yucatan. In The Lowland Maya Postclassic, edited by Arlen F.
Chase and Prudence M. Rice, pp. 62-72. University of Texas Press,
Austin.
1986 Excavaciones arqueologicas en El Meco, Quintana Roo, 1977.
Coleccion Cientffica, Serie Arqueologi'a. Instituto Nacional de
Antropologia e Historia, Mexico.
Andrews, E. Wyllys IV
1941 The Ruins of Culuba, Northeastern Yucatan. Notes on Middle
American Archaeology and Ethnology No. 3. Carnegie Institution of
Washington, Washington, DC.
1965 Archaeology and Prehistory in the Northern Maya Lowland: An
Introduction. In Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, Pt. 1, edited
by Gordon R. Willey, pp. 288-330. Handbook of Middle American
Indians, vol. 2, Robert Wauchope, general editor. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
Andrews, E. Wyllys IV, and E. Wyllys Andrews V
1980 Excavations at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico. Publication No.
48. Middle American Research Institute,Tulane University, New Or-
leans.
Andrews, E. Wyllys V
1981 Dzibilchaltun. In Archaeology, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff,
pp. 313-341. Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American In-
dians, vol. 1, Victoria R. Bricker, general editor. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
1988 Ceramic Units from Komchen, Yucatan, Mexico. Ceramica de
Cultura Maya 15:51-64.
1989 The Ceramics of Komchen, Yucatan. Manuscript on file, Middle
American Research Institute, Tulane Univeristy, New Orleans, LA.
1990 The Early Ceramic History of the Lowland Maya. In Vision and
Revision in Maya Studies, edited by Flora S. Clancy and Peter D. Har-
rision, pp. 1-20. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Andrews, E. Wyllys V, and Jeremy A. Sabloff
1986 Classic to Postclassic: A Summary Discussion. In Late Lowland
Maya Civilization, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and E. Wyllys An-
drews V, pp. 433-456. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquer-
que.
Ball, Joseph W.
1977a The Archaeological Ceramics ofBecan, Campeche, Mexico. Pub-
lication No. 43. Middle American Research Institute,Tulane Univer-
sity, New Orleans.
119
ciones desde el preclasico medio hasta la epoca colonial (600 a . C -
1600 d.C). La secuencia ceramica, construida por medio del analisis tipo-
variedad de mas de un cuarto de millon de tiestos provenientes de
excavaciones y recolecciones de superficie, se compone de seis complejos
ceramicos preliminares. Este analisis amplificanuestracomprension del de-
sarollo cultural de los Mayas en las tierras bajas del norte en un area poco
conocida de la peninsula.
E. Wyllys Andrews V also provided us with advice and with unpublished
data from Komchen and Dzibilchaltun. We have, in addition, benefited
from conversations with Sylviane Boucher, Tomas Gallareta Negron, Su-
san Kepecs, Fernando Robles Castellanos, Tony Andrews, Dean Arnold,
Charles Suhler, David Johnstone, and Traci Ardren. Thanks"also are ex-
tended to Scott Vickers, who worked on the figures.
1977b An Hypothetical Outline of Coastal Maya Prehistory: 300 B.C.-
A.D. 1200. In Social Process in Maya Prehistory, edited by Norman
Hammond, pp. 167-196. Academic Press, New York.
1978 Archaeological Pottery of the Yucatan-Campeche Coast. Stud-
ies in the Archaeology of Coastal Yucatan and Campeche, Mexico.
Publication No. 46. Middle American Research Institute, Tulane Uni-
versity, New Orleans, LA.
Bey, George J. Ill, Craig A. Hanson, and Rachel Hamilton
1990 The Postclassic at Ek Balam: The View from Structure 12. Paper
presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, Las Vegas.
Bey, George J. Ill, Craig A. Hanson, and William M. Ringle
1997 Classic to Postclassic at Ek Balam, Yucatan: Architectural and
Ceramic Evidence for Defining the Transition. Latin American An-
tiquity 8:237-254.
Bey, George J. Ill, Carlos Peraza Lope, and William M. Ringle
1992 Comparative Analysis of Late Classic Period Ceramic Com-
plexes of the North. Ceramica de Cultura Maya 16:11-17.
Bond, Tara M.
1996 The Distribution and Significance of Three Late Preclassic Pe-
riod Ceramic Groups from the Maya Archaeological Site of Ek Ba-
lam, Yucatan, Mexico. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of
Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University, Baton
Rouge.
Bond, Tara M., and George J. Bey III
1996 Ceramic Analysis at Ek Balam and Its Bearing on Current Issues
in Northern Maya Archaeology. Paper presented at the 61st Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.
Boucher, Sylviane
1989 Ceramica Pizara Temprana: Algunas precursores y variantes re-
gionales. Paper presented at thePrimer Congreso Internacional de Ma-
yistas, San Cristobal, Chiapas.
Brainerd, George W.
1958 The Archaeological Ceramics of Yucatan. Anthropological
Records, vol. 19. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Culbert, T. Patrick
1993 The Ceramics of Tikal: Vessels from the Burials, Caches, and
Problematical Deposits. Tikal Report No. 25, Part A. William R. Coe
and William A. Haviland, series editors. The University Museum, Uni-
versity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Goggin, John
1960 The Spanish Olive Jar: An Introductory Study. Publications in
Anthropology No. 62. Yale University, New Haven, CT.
1968 Spanish Majolica in the New World. Publications in Anthropol-
ogy No. 72. Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Griibe, Nikolai
1994 Hieroglyphic Sources for the History of Northwest Yucatan. In
Hidden among the Hills, edited by Hanns J. Prem, pp. 316—358. Acta
Mesoamericana, vol. 7. Verlag Von Flemming, Miickmuhl.
120
Hanson, Craig A.
1989 The Hispanic Horizon at Ek Balam. In Preliminary Report on
the Ruins ofEk Balam, Yucatan, Mexico: 1987 Field Season, pp. 4 6 -
47. Submitted to Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mex-
ico, and the National Geographic Society.
1991 Project Mani: The 1989 Field Season: An Initial Report on Ce-
ramics from Excavations in Mani and Surface Collections at Hunacti,
Yucatan, Mexico. Submitted to the Instituto Nacional de Antropoiogia
e Historia, Merida, and Middle American Research Institute, Tulane
University, New Orleans. LA.
1994 Community Structure in the Chapel Group. In Report on the
1992 Field Season of the Proyecto Ek Balam, edited by William M.
Ringle and George J. Bey, pp. 4-1-4-23. Submitted to the Instituto
Nacional de Antropoiogfa e Historia, Mexico, and the National Geo-
graphic Society.
1995 The Hispanic Horizon in Yucatan: A Model of Franciscan Mis-
sionization. Ancient Mesoamerica 6:15-28.
Huchim H., Jose, Lourdes Toscano H.. and Carlos Peraza L.
1995 Proyecto Uxmal: Reporte de la Temporada 1994. Unpublished
manuscript, Centro Regional de Yucatan, Instituto Nacional de
Antropologia e Historia, Merida.
Johnstone, David
1995 The Ceramics of Yaxuna: A Summary of Work to Date. In The
Selz Foundation Yaxuna Project Final Report of the 1994 Field Sea-
son, by James Ambrosino, David Freidel, David Johnstone. and Charles
Suhler, pp. 12-18. Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX.
Kepecs, Susan
1998 Diachronic Ceramic Evidence and its Social Implications in the
Chikinchel Region, Northeast Yucatan, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamer-
ica 9:121-135.
Kepecs, Susan M., and Tomas Gallareta Negron
1995 Una vision diacronica de Chikinchel y Cupul, noreste de Yucatan,
Mexico. In Memorias del Segundo Congreso Internacional de Ma-
yistas, pp. 275-293. Centro de Estudios Mayas, Universidad Nacio-
nal Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico.
Kurjack, Edward B.
1974 Prehistoric Lowland Maya Community and Social Organiza-
tion: A Case Study at Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico. Publication No.
38. Middle American Research Institute. Tulane University, New Or-
leans, LA.
Lister, Florence, and Robert Lister
1974 Majolica in Colonial Spanish America. Historical Archaeology
8:17-52.
Lopez de Cogolludo, Fray Diego
1983 [1579-1581] Relaciones historico-geogrdficas de la gober-
nacion de Yucatan {Merida, Valladolid v Tabasco). Edited by Mer-
cedes de la Garza, Ana Luisa Izquierdo, Maria del Carmen Leon, y
Tolita Figueroa. 2 vols. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico.
Mexico.
Peraza Lope, Carlos A.
1993 Estudio y secuencia del material cerdmico de San Gervasio, Co-
zumel. Unpublished licenciatura thesis, Facultad de Ciencias Antro-
pologicas. Universidad Autonoma de Yucatan, Merida, Mexico.
Ringle, William M.
1994 Investigations of the Colonial Chapel. In Report on the 1992
Field Season of the Proyecto Ek Balam, edited by William M. Ringle
and George J. Bey. Submitted to the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia
e Historia, Mexico, and the National Geographic Society.
Bey et al.
Ringle, William M., and George J. Bey
1994 Report on the 1992 Field Season of the Proyecto Ek Balam. Sub-
mitted to the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico,
and the National Geographic Society.
Ringle, William M., George J. Bey, and Carlos Peraza Lope
1991 An Itza Empire in Northern Yucatan?: A Neighboring View. Pa-
per presented in the Symposium "Chichen Itza: The Site and its En-
virons," 47th International Congress of Americanists, New Orleans.
Robles Castellanos, Fernando
1987 La secuencia ceramica preliminar de Isla Cerritos, Costa Centro-
Norte de Yucatan. In Papers from the 1985 Maya Ceramic Confer-
ence, edited by Prudence M. Rice and Robert J. Sharer, pp. 99-190.
BAR International Series 345(i). British Archaeological Reports, Ox-
ford.
1988 Ceramic Units from Isla Cerritos, North Coast of Yucatan.
Ceramica de Cultura Maya 15:65-71.
1990 La secuencia ceramica de la region de Cobd, Quintana Roo. In-
stituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico.
Sanders, William T.
1960 Prehistoric Ceramics and Settlement Patterns in Quintana Roo,
Mexico. Contributions to American Anthropology and History No. 60.
Publication No. 606. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washing-
ton, DC.
Sharp, Rosemary
1978 Architecture as Interelite Communication in Preconquest Oa-
xaca, Veracruz, and Yucatan. In Middle Classic Mesoamerica, A.D.
400-700, edited by Esther Pasztory, pp. 158-171. Columbia Univer-
sity Press, New York.
Simmons, Michael P., and George J. Bey III
1998 The Archaeological Ceramics of Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mex-
ico. Manuscript on file. Middle American Research Institute, Tulane
University, New Orleans, LA.
Smith, J. Gregory, and William M. Ringle
1996 Urban Settlement Survey at Ek Balam, 1992-1995: Results and
Interpretations. Paper presented at the 61st Annual Meeting of the
Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans.
Smith, Robert E.
1971 The Pottery of Mayapan. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Ar-
chaeology and Ethnology Vol. 66. Harvard University, Cambridge,
MA.
Taschek, Jennifer T.
1994 The Artifacts of Dzibilchaltun, Yucatan, Mexico: Shell, Polished
Stone, Bone, Wood, and Ceramics. Publication No. 50. Middle Amer-
ican Research Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA.
Varela Torrecilla, Carmen
1988 Notas sobre la ceramica de Oxkintok. In Oxkintok I, edited by
Miguel Rivera Dorado, pp. 72-82. Ministerio de Cultura, Madrid.
Velazquez V., Ricardo
1981 Etapas de functionali'dad de las Grutas de Loltun. In Memoria
del Congreso lnterno 1979, pp. 139-144. Instituto Nacional de
Antropologia e Historia, Mexico.
Webster, David
1978 Three Walled Sites of the Northern Maya Lowlands. Journal of
Field Archaeology 5:375-390.
1985 Ceramic Assemblages from Three Fortified Sites of Northern Yu-
catan. Ceramica de Cultura Maya 13:84-108.