Introduction

The rate at which diagnostic colonial-era Maya pottery changed has posed a difficult but important problem in the historical archaeology of this region. Yet the timing of ceramic attribute changes represents the foundation on which fine-grained interpretations of the lived experiences of early colonial Maya peoples must rest. Indigenous pottery of the Yucatan Peninsula is also important as a ubiquitous artifact of daily life and its close relationship with local cuisine.

Social change in the face of colonial encounters was not a universal phenomenon, nor was it unidirectional. Communities engaged variably with colonizer culture, influenced by factors of political geography and other contingencies of local history. Understanding ways in which the trajectories of indigenous colonial-era peoples converged and diverged at the community scale represents an anthropological inquiry of enduring importance within and beyond the Maya area (Farriss 1984; Restall 1997; T. Ferguson 2002; Mills 2002; Battle-Baptiste 2007; Dietler 2010; Silliman 2010; Liebmann 2013). The fates of individual colonial settlements were unpredictable during the 16th century due to factors of Maya-initiated or Spanish-mandated settlement shifts, relative rural and urban positions, variable effectiveness of native lords in garnering community advantages and stability, and the impacts of serial epidemiological and climatic hardships (Roys 1957; Jones 1989; Restall 1997:27,38; Hanson 2008; Quezada 2014; Hoggarth et al. 2017). Archaeologists now recognize the primary importance of documenting indigenous perspectives and strategies that determined the directions and outcomes of colonial encounters (Reitz and Scarry 1985; T. Ferguson 2002; Mills 2002; Battle-Baptiste 2007; Dietler 2010; Silliman 2010; Liebmann 2013; Sampeck 2015b:418; Keehnen et al. 2019).

In the Maya area, the lion’s share of archaeological research over the past century has focused on pre-Columbian sites, despite a rich documentary record for the contact and colonial periods. More recently, historical archaeological projects in the northern and southern Yucatan Peninsula take advantage of these documents and contribute robustly to understanding daily life via the analysis of material remains (Folan 1970; D. Chase and A. Chase 1988; Graham et al. 1989; Gallareta et al. 1990; A. Andrews 1991; Jones et al. 1996; D. Rice and P. Rice 2005; Hanson 2008; Graham 2011; Oland 2014; Pugh, Wolf et al. 2016; Dedrick 2019).

In this article, we review some of the problems with identifying and studying early colonial-era Maya life from the perspective of pottery traditions, and we present new data from three sites in northwest Yucatan (Fig. 1): Yacman, Hunacti, and Tichac (modern Telchaquillo). We reexamine the chronology of indigenous ceramic production changes, beginning after the conquest, and consider the implications of these findings for household economies and social identity, especially in the latter half of the 16th century A.D. We compare this timeline to that of the southeastern peninsula in Belize and argue that these changes were broadly contemporary, that is, postconquest.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Location of study sites Tichac/Telchaquillo, Yacman, and Hunacti, and others discussed in the text. Pre-Columbian Mayapan was also located in the vicinity of Telchaquillo, and darker gray shading indicates polities affiliated with this capital’s confederacy that ended around 1448. (Map adapted by Marilyn Masson from the original by Bradley Russell, 2010.)

Full size image

The Yucatan Peninsula’s Northern and Southeastern Early Colonial Maya Pottery Traditions

Two colonial-era pottery traditions have been defined for the northern and southeastern Yucatan (Belize) regions. Consensus has not been reached with respect to their timing and correlation within important, distinctive historical intervals. In northern Yucatan, the appearance of the Sacpocana Red and Yuncú Unslipped types marks the early part of the colonial period, specifically, the second half of the 16th century (R. Smith 1971:247). These types gradually replace pre-Hispanic forms with which they share significant similarities (Hanson 1991:2). The second tradition, defined in Belize at the sites of Lamanai and Tipu, is that of Yglesias-phase pottery (Graham 1987) that Elizabeth Graham (2011:50,56–57) now places no earlier than the contact period, most probably after 1544. We argue that the two indigenous colonial ceramic traditions thus emerged in the northern and southeastern portions of the peninsula during the first postconquest decades. Colonial Maya pottery has also been studied in the Petén Lakes region, although it appeared later in time (Pugh, Sánchez et al. 2012; Pugh, Wolf et al. 2016).

The contemporary northern and southeastern colonial pottery traditions emerged in the context of shared trials across the region, as populations contended with waves of epidemics of European diseases, periodic rebellions, conversion efforts, religious persecution, subjugation, climatic hardships, and heavy taxation and labor exploitation at the hands of Spaniards. Maya peoples departed from mission settlements with ongoing regularity in order to seek freedom in the zona despoblada (or montaña). Others returned to their hometown settlements, or cahob, leaving their missions behind (Restall 1997:27,38). These population movements contributed to the instability of the early colonial years (Jones 1989). The despoblada zone, so named by Spaniards to refer to areas of the interior and southern lowlands not yet under colonial control, included settlements of more-independent Maya peoples, some of whom may have had longstanding political or kin ties with families leaving the missions (Farriss 1984:83,304; Jones 1989; Hanson 1995). Indigenous populations were not mere victims of circumstance; residents of early colonial towns engaged external challenges with diverse strategies that varied within and between communities. Mission townspeople asserted their agendas and heritage in innovative ways that regenerated Maya society from within. Facets of architectural design and use, as well as material culture, daily life, and religious practice made mission towns and households into Maya spaces (Graham 1991:323, 2011:213,219; Restall and Gabbert 2017).

The fact that colonial Maya pottery vessel forms and general attributes can be recognized from site to site across swaths of the northern or southeastern parts of the peninsula testifies to shared participation in emerging production changes involving everyday goods essential to household activities. Pottery continued to be made at certain towns and traded to others, although significant variation in technological attributes implies greater numbers of producers and less standardization (Cruz Alvarado 2010) than in the preceding postclassic period (D. Chase 1982; D. Chase and A. Chase 1988:13,27,78; Masson 2001; Masson and Rosenswig 2005). Fewer decorative variants (appliqué, paint) and forms are present compared to the 15th-century precontact period, and a wider range of paste and slip colors implies that access to preferred clay resources may have been disrupted (Arnold 2015, 2018). Similarly, the pre-Hispanic periods experienced cycles of societal disjunction followed by the emergence of new pottery traditions (P. Rice 1987; Masson 2001; Masson and Mock 2004; Masson and Rosenswig 2005).

Timing of the Emergence of Colonial Maya Pottery

In the north, colonial Maya pottery appears after the onset of Spanish rule, following the establishment of the capital city of Mérida, Yucatan, in 1542. The conquest process continued for the subsequent century and beyond (Jones 1989; Chuchiak 2001; Alexander 2004:13,26; Graham 2011). Our data reveal that in this part of the peninsula, indigenous colonial pottery changes started gradually by the 1560s, first detectable in small quantities within assemblages that are numerically dominated by vessels representing continued pre-Hispanic traditions. By the mid-1600s, we suggest, colonial-era pottery had taken root in Yucatan, representing a greater proportion of indigenous assemblages. The 17th century is represented in our sample from the site of Tichac by ubiquitous colonial-period types that are associated with majolica dating to the mid-1600s. This chronological placement for northern Sacpocana Red and Yuncú Unslipped groups is not controversial in the published literature of the north, but neither is it well understood, given its sparsity at 16th-century sites. Cruz Alvarado (2010), following Robert Smith (1971:24), places these types—of the colonial Chauaca horizon—beginning, at the earliest, in 1500 and continuing at least through the 17th century. We argue here for a post-1550 origin. These colonial types were first defined by Robert Smith (1971) and subsequently described by Hanson (2008), Cruz Alvarado (2010:524), and Dedrick (2019). Newer studies by Cruz Alvarado (2010) and Dedrick (2019) observe that Sacpocana Red and Yuncú Unslipped pottery forms and attributes evolved through time from the early (late 1500s) to middle (mid-1600s) colonial intervals. Their scarcity in early colonial contexts represents a major finding of this article.

At Tiquibalon (Ek Balam), Craig Hanson (2008:10) defined the Hispanic (Chauaca) horizon based on the presence of European artifacts, given the low frequencies of indigenous pottery types and markers. Nevertheless, small quantities of Sacpocana Red and Yuncú Unslipped were sometimes present at this site in deposits dating to the latter half of the 16th century. It is noteworthy, as Hanson argues, that Tiquibalon was unusually affluent for a colonial Maya town, positioned advantageously to produce lime plaster for the major Spanish city of Valladolid nearby. For this reason, European artifacts were plentiful enough to enable Hanson to use them to identify colonial-period contexts. Poorer, more rural sites like Yacman and Hunacti are nearly devoid of European diagnostics in the first decades after the conquest (1542–1600), leaving archaeologists in need of a tighter indigenous ceramic chronology. Elsewhere, in the Izalcos region of El Salvador, urban sites had far more (Guatemalan-made) majolica than rural sites, and the manufacture of majolicas was Spanish controlled (Rodriguez-Alegria et al. 2003:76; Sampeck 2015a). In central Mexico, rural sites were also slower to change their household ceramic inventories (Hernández Sánchez 2012:97–98). At his investigations at Maní (Yucatan), Hanson (1991:2) describes the difficulty in distinguishing Sacpocana Red and Yuncú Unslipped sherds from pre-Hispanic (postclassic, 1200–1500) Mama Red and Navula Unslipped due to continuities observed in the two traditions. He states that the appearance of new decorative modes and greater variability in paste marks colonial-era pottery. In northwest Yucatan, there are fewer forms among colonial Maya assemblages compared to those of the postclassic, with jars, bowls, and tecomates continuing from the past, and comals eventually added in the 1600s (Cruz Alvarado 2010). The hallmark tripod-footed dishes of the postclassic, for example, are absent in studies of Sacpocana Red and Yuncú Unslipped.

Later 16th- or 17th-century sites also tend to have European diagnostics, given that, by this time, friars at mission sites had intensified their interaction with Christian Maya towns (Graham 2011:237). In the early colonial years these ties were weaker, given that fewer Spanish friars and resources were available for mission development among rural populations (Hanson 1995:17; Chuchiak 2002:7). Rural missionization expanded after 1547 (Hanson 1995:17). Fortunately, documentary sources assist with ascertaining the chronology of many early colonial sites on the peninsula, providing approximate dates of their establishment as mission or encomienda communities, and their abandonment.

Maya pottery associated with colonial occupations of the northern sites of Tiquibalon, Maní, and elsewhere include pre-Hispanic types (Xtabay complex) that continued to be made, including Mama Red, Tecoh Red on Buff, Yacman Striated, Navula Unslipped, and Chen Mul Modeled (Hanson 1991; deFrance and Hanson 2008; Hanson 2008:10; Dedrick 2019:48). Other, rarer postclassic types are occasionally present, some of which may be heirlooms from the contact era or the result of stratigraphic admixture with contact-period occupations. Postclassic types also continue through at least the contact period at Santa Rita Corozal, which was abandoned after a brief Spanish occupation in 1531 (D. Chase and A. Chase 1988:78). In the postconquest decades of the second half of the 16th century, postclassic types continue as the majority at northern sites, with low numbers of Sacpocana Red and Yuncú Unslipped present, as we demonstrate here.

Yglesias-phase pottery from Belize is distinguished by having more of a wash rather than a true slip (Graham 2011:56, figure 2.4), an attribute shared with some Sacpocana Red vessels of the north (Cruz Alvarado 2010). Unlike northern colonial Maya vessels, Belize ceramics often exhibit longer slits or wider vent openings in tripod vessel supports. Graham also points out that these vessels share many other features with late-postclassic pottery (just prior to contact) of the Belize region, and a similarly close relationship has been proposed for northern colonial vessels and their pre-Hispanic antecedents (Hanson 1991:2; Cruz Alvarado 2010; Dedrick 2019).

In the Belize region, reaching consensus regarding the timing of colonial pottery has been a slow process. Some works continue to uphold Graham’s (1987) original suggestion that this Yglesias-phase pottery, exhibiting modal, decorative, and slip changes, dated from the final pre-Hispanic decades into the colonial period (Oland 2009:112–114, 2016:112; Simmons et al. 2013). However, Graham (2011:57) now attributes the appearance of Yglesias-phase pottery to, at the earliest, the contact period (post-1492) at the site of Lamanai, although she notes that most of it postdates 1544. Located farther from Spanish administrative authority, postclassic pottery at the site of Tipu continued in use until at least 1544, and Yglesias colonial types appear after Tipu had become a Christian community for several decades (Graham 2011:50,56). Graham suggests they might appear earlier, at mid-16th-century sites closer to Spanish administrative outposts such as Lamanai.

Further support for Belize pottery dating to the latter half of the 16th century comes from the site of Santa Rita Corozal, which was closer than Lamanai to Bacalar, a Spanish administrative node in Quintana Roo. Santa Rita Corozal was known at contact as “Chetumal,” the capital of a polity of the same name extending across modern northeastern Belize and southeastern Quintana Roo, Mexico. This capital was abandoned after 1531, and no colonial Maya pottery types are found at this site (D. Chase and A. Chase 1988:78). In other words, postclassic pottery types were exclusively used at Santa Rita during the contact period. We agree that the modal changes of Yglesias-phase ceramics appeared after Santa Rita’s abandonment and, more likely, after the establishment of the first encomiendas in 1544 (Jones 1989:14). Spanish trade goods at Belize colonial sites also date to the mid- to late 1500s and into the 1600s (M. Smith et al. 1994:23,25,30–31, tables 2, 3), signaling an escalation of Franciscan efforts to convert and control mission settlements (Graham 2011:237) that triggered a cascade of social and economic impacts (Jones 1989).

It is reasonable to propose that social and economic changes affecting northern and southeastern Yucatan visita sites occurred within the same general time frames, such as the final pre-Hispanic decades, the contact period, and the early postconquest/colonial periods. Within these intervals, some variation may have existed across the region with regard to the impacts of colonial processes according to distance from Spanish centers, as Graham has proposed. The Belize region was a renowned frontier in which rebellions and Maya-instigated mission-site abandonment were endemic; the area was also a destination for those seeking freedom from northern Spanish strongholds (Jones 1989). This region’s relative underdevelopment (by Spaniards) compared to northern Yucatan suggests that changes to indigenous pottery may have been later, if not coeval, with those observed in the north.

Thus, proposing that these changes in Belize colonial Maya pottery predate those of northern traditions seems implausible. Oland (2012:179–183, 2016:112) argues that the fall of the pre-Hispanic capital of Mayapan (around 1448) set off a far-reaching economic depression and partial dissolution of social complexity for east-coast and Belize sites prior to contact, resulting in ceramic changes such as those of the Yglesias phase. Yet Spanish eyewitness accounts attest to prosperous post-Mayapan east-coast towns and market economies operating around the peninsula (Kepecs 2003; Graham 2011:123–134). Santa Rita Corozal (Chetumal) was one of the wealthiest contact-period states, and it was one of the few places in the Maya area from which Spaniards were able to recover significant quantities of gold (Roys 1972:54). Towns were closely packed and numerous in the neighboring polities to the north (in modern Quintana Roo) as well as in the Chetumal territory of southern Quintana Roo and northeastern Belize (E. Andrews and A. Andrews 1975:4,8–9,102, figure 1; Graham 2011:203). In the north there are multiple examples of contact-period native lords who wielded considerable power over labor and resources in the early colonial years (Roys 1952:155; Jones 1989:40,54,59; Restall 2001; A. Andrews 2002; Quezada 2014:27; Masson 2021). The despoblada zone beyond the northern missions had significant commerce in the contact and early colonial periods (A. Andrews 1991:357; Hanks 2010:51). Oland’s position exposes the need for finer resolution of colonial Maya pottery chronology. We argue here for relative contemporaneity of the appearance of colonial modes in northern Yucatan and Belize, attesting to parallel processes of social change. By contemporaneity, we mean that these pottery characteristics appeared, gradually, in the decades following the conquest.

To claim that colonial-era pottery changes were gradual over a period of decades in the second half of the 1500s is in keeping with comparative findings elsewhere. Changes in indigenous material traditions are often slow in the context of colonial encounters. In early colonial settings of the Maya area and elsewhere in the Americas, traditional material culture regularly continues largely unchanged from the past for decades or longer (R. Thompson 1951, 1956; Lee 1979; Pendergast 1993:126; Milanich 1996:64; T. Charlton, C. Charlton et al. 2005; T. Charlton, Fournier et al. 2007:446,454; Hanson 2008; Palka 2009:298; Hart et al. 2012; Sweitz 2012:124; Pugh, Wolf et al. 2016; P. Rice and Cecil 2018; Iverson 2019). In other instances, organized native revolts have purposefully promoted breaks with past material traditions, including pottery, as with the Pueblo Revolt (Mills 2002; Liebmann 2013). In the northern Maya case, despite ongoing resistance efforts at various scales, no such material transformations were formally instituted. Precontact traditions endured into the early colonial years. Prior to contact, similarly, no ceramic changes mark the collapse of Mayapan, the regional urban capital of the north until 1458. Pottery makers and users who lived in towns belonging to the multiple, smaller polities that appeared in the wake of the capital’s fall (Fig. 1) did not break from past material traditions during this pre-Hispanic political shuffle.

Historical Context of the Contact and Early Colonial Periods

Before discussing the specific histories and pottery of our three study sites, it is worth briefly reviewing the general chronology of events affecting the peninsula that provide context for the social changes of the 16th and 17th centuries. In essence, historical accounts suggest that the Spanish were slow to establish control over rural Maya sites. During the contact period, severe droughts impacted the region, especially after 1525, and these endured to 1560 (Roys 1967; Hoggarth et al. 2017:86). A demographic crisis subsequently struck the region during the next two decades, from 1560 to 1580, with a great hurricane in 1561 followed by dire droughts, famine, epidemic outbreaks, repeated plagues of locusts, and widespread deaths from 1570 to 1572 (Chuchiak 2002:10). These hardships severely curtailed colonial Spanish authorities’ pursuits of their objectives (Patch 1993:22,731–743; Chuchiak 2002:7,11,15, table 1; Quezada 2014:24; Hoggarth et al. 2017:89,97–98). Also during this interval, a draconian Franciscan inquisition against “idolatry” rounded up, punished, and sometimes killed accused practitioners of traditional faith, with confessions exacted under torture (Scholes and Roys 1938; Chuchiak 2003, 2004a, 2004b). More unusually harsh droughts continued in the years 1610–1630, 1640–1650, and 1660–1665 (Chuchiak 2002; Hoggarth et al. 2017).

The first Spanish convent centers were established at Mérida and Campeche in 1545, followed by one at Maní in 1547 (A. Andrews 1991:357), although the first church at Maní was built of perishable materials (Hanson 1995:18). Franciscan rural expansion began in 1547 and established remote visitas from bases of operation such as Maní. Only 8 friars were present in the region by 1546; by 1582 their number had increased to 22 (Collins 1977:237, table 7-1; A. Andrews 1991:357; Hanson 1995:17). Distances between convent centers and visita towns at first were prohibitive, with about 30 leagues (ca. 90 mi.) between them in 1582, decreased to 8 leagues by 1610 (Hanks 2010:46). Friars undertook arduous travel to reach rural visitas, and they did so only intermittently (Hanks 2010:41). Resistance or rebellion were an ever-present threat, even at convent centers such as Maní (Collins 1977:236).

Maya townspeople frequently employed a strategy of ambivalence (Ramirez Barbosa 2016:75), and indigenous schoolmasters (maestros cantores) placed in charge of congregations by absent friars were at peace with a blended, incorporative approach to the practice of traditional religion alongside church doctrine (Scholes and Roys 1938:605; D. Thompson 1954:102; Collins 1977:234,245; Jones 1989:148–149; A. Andrews 1991:371; Alexander 2004:96; Quezada 2014:50). These elite maestros cantores were sometimes regarded by their communities as “ah kin” (pre-Hispanic high priests); many of them were later punished for practicing traditional Maya religion behind closed doors (Collins 1977; Chuchiak 2003, 2004b). Native lords also oversaw secular administration in the early years at Maya towns (Scholes and Roys 1938; Quezada 2014). Spanish authorities designated one “principal” (a respected elder and authority) in towns of fewer than 50 residents; men in this office coordinated with regional Maya governors (or caciques) appointed by Spaniards (Hanks 2010:36).

These impediments to conversion and control suggest that material production changes for Maya peoples would have been gradual. Furthermore, European goods and/or majolicas made in central Mexico were rare in rural zones (Palka 2009:306). There were few foreign vessels to serve as models for potential emulation. The earliest Spanish materials that appear at comparable small, rural 16th-century sites in the Maya area probably date to no earlier than 1560. An olive-jar rim from Progresso Lagoon, Belize (Oland and Palka 2016:figure 2), is a form made after 1580 (James 1988:59, figure 9); glass beads from that site are also from the latter part of the 1500s to mid-1600s (M. Smith et al. 1994; Oland 2009:figure 5.16). Similarly, glass beads at sites like Tipu arrived or increased in number after 1568 (M. Smith et al. 1994:31).

Later in time, the household assemblages at Tichac during the 17th century have mixed assemblages of indigenous pottery and sherds of majolica, olive-jar, or other European-made or -inspired pottery (Table 3). The majolica sherds represent plates (flatware) that would have embellished food serving and consumption activities. The fancier, nonlocal vessels gained via exchange were used for more socially visible acts of food consumption (Dietler 2010; Blair and Thomas 2014:30). The bulk of the Tichac colonial assemblages, however, is made up of hollowwares, such as bowls, tecomates, and jars used to store, prepare, and cook food or drink. Hollowware vessels are ubiquitous in other colonial indigenous, enslaved, and African/native household assemblages, and they reflect a continuation of foodways that include the preparation of communal meals often consisting of liquid stews brewed in pots and the use of bowls or perishable accoutrements (gourds, wooden spoons) for consumption of individual portions (L. Ferguson 1992:95–100; Franklin 2001:97; Yaeger et al. 2004:8; Beaudoin 2014:320). Literature on the colonial Maya period reports few colonowares of the sort that reflect blending of European and indigenous attributes. The examples described here for Yacman are anomalous.

The Attributes of Early Colonial Maya Northern Ceramics

Examples of the Yuncú group (an Oxil Unslipped ware) were originally identified as fragments of wide-mouth, low-neck storage jars and tecomates (R. Smith 1971:24,247). Cruz Alvarado (2010:524) describes Yuncú group pottery in greater detail. It has two sets of paste attributes. One exhibits variable color, including red, reddish-brown, shades of gray, with calcite or stone particle temper. This variant can have differentially fired cores. A coarser version appears pink, sometimes with a gray interior and pink exterior, and has calcite temper. Forms include jars with flat or concave bases that tend to have tall necks and outward-curved flaring or parenthesis rims; they may have had handles. Orifice diameters of these forms range from 10–12 cm. These useful forms are similar to those of types common in the postclassic period (Navula Unslipped, Yacman Striated). Tecomates are also found in the Yuncú group, with flat or concave bases and orifice diameters of 22–36 cm. Basins are present in this group, sometimes with beveled or round rims and orifice diameters of around 28 cm. Hemispherical, incurving-rim bowls (16–18 cm orifice diameter) with round or angled lips are also identified.

Of significant interest is the presence of plates or comals, flat vessels used for cooking tortillas (Cruz Alvarado 2010:525). In our study area, they sometimes exhibit rims that slope upward. This form is not common in the assemblages of Mayapan, and, presumably, they were also scarce during the contact period preceding the conquest. Only a few examples are reported earlier in Yucatan from Chichen Itza (Brainerd 1958:206, figure 97k). Tamales were the primary corn food portrayed in the art and writing of the pre-Columbian Maya area, including the postclassic period (Love 1989; Taube 1989), whereas tortillas are common in the depictions of daily life of central Mexico, as illustrated in the Codex Mendoza (Berdan and Anawalt 1992). Comals (a type known as “Hubelna Unslipped”) were sometimes present in colonial pottery assemblages at Tipu (P. Rice and Cecil 2018:219). The increased use of comals to make corn flatbreads in colonial Yucatan attests to changing foodways, perhaps due to the tastes of Spaniards familiar with cuisine from central Mexico or the tastes of Nahuatl soldiers and servants brought to Yucatan by the Spaniards (Restall 2003, 2009). After this introduction, the preparation of tortillas would also reflect changing preferences in colonial Maya cuisine. Tamales likely continued to be made and eaten, given their enduring popularity today. The adoption of nonlocal foods in emergent colonial worlds was a complex and entangled process that varied among regions and settlements (Mills 2008; Dietler 2010:183–206). Tortillas would have been foodstuffs prepared and consumed at home, as they are today. Like tamales and corn breads in other indigenous societies of the Americas, tortilla preparation represents a significant investment of female home labor (Hanson 2008:322; Mills 2008; Dedrick 2019:33; Oas 2019:3,109,247). Telchaquillo locals strongly prefer to eat them hot, and, away from the home, men at work prepare pozole, a corn gruel mixed with cold water and consumed from a gourd.

Sacpocana Red (an Abala Red ware), originally reported by Robert Smith (1971:15,248), is a group that includes parenthesis-rim jars and hemispherical bowls. Cruz Alvarado (2010:528–529) recognizes two paste varieties in this group, although this pottery exhibits little standardization in paste colors, which can vary and appear as gray, light gray and brown mottled, or pinkish, with gray interiors and light brown or yellowish-pink exteriors. Sacpocana Red sherds, according to Cruz Alvarado, have calcite temper, and the slip is generally red in color and erodes easily. Forms of Sacpocana Red include jars with concave, convex, or flat bases, tall necks, and round or parenthesis rims. They sometimes have handles, and their orifice diameter ranges from 9–12 cm. Tecomates occur in the Sacpocana Red group, as do bowls (with round or beveled rims); the latter have vessel diameters of 12–16 cm. Cruz Alvarado observes that jars, tecomates, and bowls of this group have a more compact paste and uniform color than other forms. He identifies two decorated types of the Sacpocana Red group. One of these is referred to as Petectunich Appliqué Impressed: Petectunich variety, which features tecomates decorated with an exterior ornate band. The second type, Sacpocana Appliqué, has a filleted impressed exterior band; additional examples have applied designs that suggest an eyebrow motif and a geometric motif resembling a pull tab. Filleted impressed bands are a well-known appliqué design for pre-Hispanic ceramic traditions in the region (R. Smith 1971; Cruz Alvarado 2010).

A third type of colonial Maya pottery identified by Robert Smith (1971:15,248) includes the Oxcum group (Bolon Brown ware), which features comals and tecomates. Sherds of this type are rare in the region (Cruz Alvarado 2010:530; Dedrick 2019:appendix A) and were scarcely recovered at our study sites. They can exhibit a pink or pinkish-yellow paste with calcite temper and a slight red slip (or yellowish red) that can be well adhered or eroded. Jars are also identified. Robert Smith (1971:249) observes that these brown-slipped vessels are similar to Sacpocana Red (Abala Red ware) in surface color and finish, although they are browner and exhibit a more matte-like finish.

For the early colonial period, few (if any) hybrid (colonoware) vessels that combine traditional Maya production techniques and modes with European styles or forms have been reported in northern Yucatan. Indeed, we are unaware of any such examples in northern Yucatan, except for the two described here from Yacman. Such vessels were sometimes found in the southern Maya region, at Petén Lakes sites (Pugh, Wolf et al. 2016:60) and at Lamanai (Pendergast 1993:126–126,134–135; Graham 2011:154). Effigy ceramics of the early colonial period adopt some European characteristics in Aztec central Mexico (T. Charlton, Fournier et al. 2007; Palka 2009:306), unlike those at our study sites and in Belize (Graham 2011:254). Indigenous earthenwares in central Mexico and El Salvador also incorporated selected attributes of majolica vessels (Hernández Sánchez 2012:figure 29; Sampeck 2015a:40), but no evidence for this practice is previously reported for Yucatan in the early colonial period.

The History and Pottery of Hunacti, Yacman, and Tichac

We consider ceramics from three colonial-era sites. Two of these, Hunacti and Yacman, are ideal for such investigations as they have remained pristine since abandonment. Unlike many colonial towns, their occupations were short term, and they have not been impacted by continuous occupation to the present day (Roys 1952:157,163; A. Andrews 1991:356). The site of Tichac is now the modern village of Telchaquillo. Much of the 16th-century colonial town has been destroyed by subsequent occupation, although an old church still stands and remains in use. Some residential groups occupied in the 1600s are preserved in the southern margin of the town, however. They overlie a portion of the ruins of the late pre-Columbian site of Mayapan.

Hanson (1995:17) reports that most mission churches, initially made of perishable materials, were constructed between 1542 and 1579, as seems to have been the case for Hunacti and Yacman. Notably, both sites exhibit stone church constructions that are more elaborate than expected for their early dates. The stone walls of their naves suggest that they were founded a few years after the initial wave of rural missionization. Alternatively, these communities had access to sufficient labor and resources to build early churches with one or more stone walls.

Hunacti

Hunacti does not appear on the 1549 list of mission towns, but was probably part of a Spanish encomienda of Tixmehuac at that time according to Roys (1952:156), who suggests that Hunacti was established by 1557, when it appears in the Maní land treaty of 1557. It is located near the boundary of the Maní and Sotuta territories, 96 km southeast of Tichac (Fig. 1). The town center and church of Hunacti lie next to the small contemporary Maya village of Sisbic (Roys 1952:156, 1972:75). Its cacique from 1557 to 1561 was Don Juan Xiu, a close relative of the Maya governor of the province of Maní (under Spanish rule), Don Francisco de Montejo Xiu (Roys 1957). Don Juan Xiu was accused of practicing traditional Maya religion (including, purportedly, human sacrifice) and died during his trial by the Franciscan inquisition (Scholes and Adams 1938:179; Roys 1952:155). In the year 1565, a subsequent Hunacti cacique, Hernando Xiu, was also tried for idolatry; one other leader, Pablo Cen, is mentioned for the year 1572 (Roys 1957:75). Hunacti is not mentioned in Spanish documents post-1572, after which Roys (1957:75) suggests its residents resettled at the nearby town of Tixmehuac.

The visita of Hunacti was founded with a grand design (Figs. 2, 3, 4). Roys (1952:155) translates the name of this place as something great or unique that was erected, and he suggests that the place name likely predates the colonial period. The church has a domed sanctuary and two side rooms, and the town also had some gridded streets (Roys 1952:156, 1972:182). A. Andrews (1991:360) suggests such side rooms were spaces for a sacristy and baptistery; the side rooms gave the church a T-shaped plan (A. Andrews 1991:figure 17-6). A thatched ramada nave would have extended westward from the stone (frontal) portion of the church to shelter the congregation. Maya elites at Hunacti built three multiroom masonry houses in the style of Spanish architecture (Houses 1, 2, and 3), with arched entrances, windows, and/or plastered niches. Like the church, they exhibit mamposteria walls, a chink-and-mortar colonial construction technique (Fig. 4).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Map of colonial Hunacti. (Map by Timothy Hare and Marilyn Masson 2019.)

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

The church at Hunacti, framed in the plaza of pre-Columbian monumental architecture. (Map by Carlos Peraza and Marilyn Masson, 2019; photo by Carlos Peraza, 2014.)

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Colonial-style houses at Hunacti that were built and occupied by Maya town leaders. (Maps by Pedro Delgado Ku, 2018.)

Full size image

Probably due to the apostate behavior of its leaders and ongoing quests to resettle and concentrate rural mission populations, Hunacti was short lived, dating minimally from 1557 (or 1561) to 1572 or perhaps 1582 according to documentary sources (Roys 1952:156, 1957). For this reason its colonial architecture and deposits offer a small window of time from which to assess the material culture of the latter half of the 1500s. In 2018 we conducted excavations at Hunacti in the church, atrium, and at the three Spanish-style colonial dwellings (Figs. 2, 3, 4).

The nucleus of Hunacti’s colonial settlement, including the church and atrium, was spectacularly situated within the plaza of a large pre-Columbian monumental center. Immediately behind the church, a tall (20 m high, 48 m long, and 44 m wide) pyramid rises and dominates the landscape (Fig. 3). Just to the north of the church and atrium, a large range structure (18 m tall, 120 m long, and 50 m wide) frames the plaza. This built environment fits a common pattern in northern Yucatan, in which Spaniards and Maya builders strategically co-opted impressive monumental features of the past as settings for the establishment of churches. These intersecting symbols were powerful material representations of community and sanctified churches on older sacred ground (Roys 1952:152–153; A. Andrews 1991:355–356; Hanson 1995:15–17).

Yacman

Yacman was a probably a contact-period town in the orbit of the capital center of Maní (Roys 1957:67). The Relaciones histórico-geográfica de Yucatán states that Yacman (also known as “Yicman,” “Ycman,” “Yequeman”) was about 14.5 km north of Maní and about 12 km southeast of Mayapan/Tichac (Roys 1952:163; de la Garza et al. 1983[1]:252, [2]:448; Hanks 2010:map 8). It appears on the 1557 map of the Maní territory (Roys 1952:163, 1957:67, 1972:maps 5, 6, figures 18, 20; de la Garza et al. 1983[1]:252, [2]:448), entering the documentary record at the same time as Hunacti. Roys (1952:163, 1957:67) asserts that Yacman was of “some importance,” as the site is associated with a ruler prior to 1557 (probably in the contact period) who was named “Ah Ziyah Xiu.” He was the father of the early colonial-era Maya governor of Maní (Don Francisco de Montejo Xiu). Ah Ziyah Xiu may have been murdered by the Cocom ruler of Sotuta in 1536 in the last of several violent preconquest encounters between these two factions (Roys 1957:67). A cacique named “Diego Toz” was in charge of Yacman in 1565 (Quezada 2014:165), and the settlement was abandoned before 1656 (Roys 1952:163). Roys bases this end date on the fact that Yacman is not mentioned in López de Cogolludo’s (1868) 17th-century account. Yacman was most likely abandoned in the late 16th century, given that its material culture matches that of Hunacti (a 16th-century visita) and is unlike that of Tichac (a 17th-century settlement), as we describe in the body of this article.

In 2018, our team performed excavations within Yacman’s church, atrium, and apsidal (friary) structures (Structures 2, 6) in the atrium, and at a dwelling and shrine in one house group (Structures 7, 8). The residential group was probably occupied by the town leader, perhaps Diego Toz (Figs. 5, 6). Raymond Thompson found Yacman’s location in 1951, and our team relocated it in 2014 (R. Thompson 1951; Russell et al. 2018). Yacman was a small and more modest settlement than Hunacti. Its church has a tall stone wall behind the sanctuary, lower side walls, and a partially walled western side with space for a wide doorway (Fig. 5). Within the stone walls of the atrium, atop a rectangular platform of pre-Columbian origin, two colonial apsidal buildings were present near the southwest corner of the compound (Structure 2) and along the western wall (Structure 6). These apsidal buildings are marked by single-course wall foundations (Fig. 5). The larger of the two was likely a friary, built to house visiting priests. It was 14 m long and 6 m wide and would have had a pole-and-thatch superstructure.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Church and atrium at Yacman. (Map by Pedro Delgado Ku and Marilyn Masson, 2018; photo by Marilyn Masson, 2018.)

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Yacman Structure 7 (town-leader’s house) and Structure 8 (shrine). (Map by Pedro Delgado Ku and Marilyn Masson, 2018.)

Full size image

No examples of fine Spanish-style Maya houses like those at Hunacti are present at Yacman. The largest and best preserved house (Structure 7), 70 m south of the church, resembles larger, more common postclassic (Mayapan)-style houses in having double vertical-wall foundations, multiple rear rooms, a frontal gallery room, and a frontal terrace (Fig. 6Str. 7). This house group also had a shrine (Fig. 6Str. 8). We infer Structure 7 to represent the home of the village leader (or maestro cantor) at Yacman. Similar principal dwellings have been referred to as the homes of caciques, for example, at the Belize sites of Lamanai, Tipu, and Progresso (Pendergast 1993:119, figure 2; Graham 2011:224; Oland 2012:191). The domestic assemblages of such leaders tend to exhibit greater concentrations of nonlocal goods, including European-made or -inspired items, than other contexts on southern Maya sites. These concentrations indicate that town leaders brokered Spanish/Maya relationships to their advantage, acquiring prized new valuables in the process (Pendergast 1993; Graham 2011; Oland 2012; Awe and Helmke 2019). Historical sources also attest to such rewards gleaned from the political maneuvering of native lords (Scholes and Roys 1938; Quezada 2014; Zeitlin and Palka 2018).

House Structure 7 exhibits Spanish-style chink-and-mortar construction techniques on the wall of one rear room that date Structure 7 securely to the colonial period. Its plan otherwise replicates late pre-Columbian housing styles in the area (A. Smith 1962; Masson et al. 2014), expressing continuity with the past. Other dwellings at Yacman are simple rubble platforms that would have supported perishable architecture, as was typical for the humblest houses in the region throughout the pre-Columbian periods.

Colonial Yacman overlies the remains of an ancient site. Dispersed residential dwelling platforms from antiquity sprawl throughout the vicinity. They were formed by modifying natural hillocks into rectangular, level spaces with the addition of tons of limestone boulders and fill. Elite residential range structures with stone door jambs and pillars concentrate near one of Yacman’s two cenotes, representing the center of a pre-Columbian settlement at Yacman of late/terminal classic date (800–1050). This earlier site center is 300 m south of the church. Unlike Hunacti, Yacman’s church was not framed by earlier monumental buildings. A second cenote is located 50 m east of the church. The church and principal indigenous dwelling lie along an ancient road that extended from Tichac to Chapab and, from there, on to Maní.

Tichac

The 1557 map of the Maní territory also includes Tichac, which lay near the northern boundary of Xiu lands (Roys 1957:67). Colonial contexts to the south of town remain undisturbed (Fig. 7). Roys (1957:67) laments the paucity of references to Tichac in colonial documents, where it is also referred to as “Techaque” (de la Garza et al. 1983[1]:355). Situated along a major (colonial and modern) route from Mérida to points south, Tichac was significantly larger and longer lived (to the present day) than Hunacti or Yacman. A total of 22 contexts yielded colonial ceramics from Carlos Peraza’s salvage archaeology project (Fig. 7) along the modern highway transect running northwest–southeast through the pre-Hispanic site of Mayapan (Salvamento Merida-Chetumal 2015, or SMC15). The modern highway generally follows the pathway of an older historical road along which these colonial dwellings were situated. From our research, three additional contexts with indigenous colonial Maya pottery were identified elsewhere within the ruins of Mayapan’s postclassic-period city walls (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7
figure 7

Colonial contexts of the Tichac (Telchaquillo) community recovered within the city wall of pre-Columbian Mayapan, from which Yuncú Unslipped, Sacpocana Red, and/or majolica were recovered during two projects (SMC15 and Projecto Económico de Mayapán). (Map by Timothy Hare, 2019.)

Full size image

The heart of the Tichac community during colonial times would have been 1–2.5 km to the north of the dwellings in this study, around the church that still stands and remains in use. The Telchaquillo church is one of many examples in northern Yucatan with carved pre-Columbian stones incorporated into their frontal facades. Prior to the colonial period, Tichac had a long history as a pre-Columbian settlement. It was a Rank IV (minor) center during the late/terminal classic, with a broad (ca. 7 m tall) temple and two other sizable elevated platforms framing a plaza and cenote. The church lies in this plaza to the east of the temple and cenote. During the postclassic period, Tichac continued as a satellite center in the vicinity of Mayapan, located only 1 km to the north of the postclassic city wall, with rural settlement connecting the two sites (Russell 2008). At least half of the fill of its principal temple contained postclassic sherds (R. Smith 1954). Tichac’s occupation likely continued after Mayapan fell and into the contact and early colonial periods, when it was incorporated into the regional rural visita system.

Pottery Frequencies

The pottery assemblages from Hunacti and Yacman exhibit similar proportions of infrequent colonial Maya types and more ubiquitous, postclassic/contact-period types that continued to be made. This finding suggests their occupations were essentially coeval. Slightly more colonial Maya pottery is present at Hunacti. The stratigraphic contexts of Hunacti, especially the stucco floors of structure interiors, allow for fine-grained documentation of the coexistence of colonial and postclassic/colonial vessels used by the inhabitants of this visita settlement. In the Tichac contexts, colonial Maya pottery is ubiquitous and better defined, and is dated to the mid-1600s by association with European-style tin-enameled majolica sherds.

Hunacti

A total of 35 colonial Maya sherds (Yuncú Unslipped and Sacpocana Red) were identified from excavations encompassing 37 m2 at this site (Table 1). Figures 8, 9, and 10 illustrate examples of colonial- and postclassic-style sherds from Hunacti and Yacman. Colonial sherds at Hunacti represent 9.0% of the sample, with the remainder, representing the postclassic tradition, totaling 389 sherds. This sample includes all postclassic and colonial sherds and excludes terminal-classic or earlier ceramics intermingled from fill layers of the pre-Columbian occupation. All contexts providing these samples were within or adjacent to colonial architectural features (Figs. 3, 4). Hunacti, founded by 1557 and probably abandoned by 1572, thus has pottery mostly like that of the late pre-Hispanic (postclassic) era. Only one European sherd was recovered (from the atrium), a piece of Columbia Plain majolica of the sort that dates to the middle/late 1500s. Hanson (1991:8) also recovered a sherd of Columbia Plain from a surface collection at Hunacti during a brief visit to that site.

Table 1 Hunacti: Postclassic and colonial sherd types by context
Full size table
Fig. 8
figure 8

Comingled Mama Red, Navula Unslipped, Sacpocana Red, and Yuncú Unslipped sherds from Hunacti, Structure 3 (House 2), Levels 1 and 2 of Unit 4-B, above the final stucco floor. (Photo by Bradley Russell, 2019.)

Full size image
Fig. 9
figure 9

Censer sherds (Chen Mul Modeled) from colonial contexts at Yacman and Hunacti. (Photo by Bradley Russell, 2019.)

Full size image
Fig. 10
figure 10

Hybrid early colonial-era ceramics from Yacman: (A) Stone-encrusted, squiggly line incised sherd (neither motif has pre-Columbian origins) and (B) a drinking jar/mug with a European-style handle. (Photos by Bradley Russell, 2019.)

Full size image

At Hunacti, one context had a greater concentration of colonial sherds compared to other excavation units. This location was at House 2, in Unit 4-B, a refuse zone just outside the southern house wall, between the structure and the edge of the slope of the residential platform (Table 1) (Fig. 4). In the sample of 28 colonial sherds from this unit, there were 4 rim sherds of Yuncú Unslipped jars and 4 rim sherds of Sacpocana Red jars, along with sherds representing the necks, bodies, and bases of vessels of these forms. Of the Yuncú Unslipped sherds in all samples from Hunacti, at least two jars are represented (by two vessel bases) along with five tecomates and one bowl. The Sacpocana Red sherds from Hunacti represent at least three jars, one bowl, and one tecomate. No comals were present.

Yacman

Table 2 indicates that, at Yacman, 7 Yuncú Unslipped and Sacpocana Red sherds (7.1% of the postclassic and colonial sample) were recovered from 11 excavation contexts (46.25 m2) in the church, churchyard, and at the home of the probable town leader. The remaining 92.9% of sherds from these contexts were types of the postclassic tradition (totaling 1,440 sherds). Examples of the sherds from Yacman are shown in Figures 9 and 10. As for Hunacti, these materials come from within or next to colonial architectural features (Figs. 5, 6). The site of Yacman, founded by 1557 and abandoned by 1600, has similar proportions of colonial Maya pottery as found at Hunacti, with the majority representing continued pre-Hispanic postclassic types. The colonial sherds recovered at Yacman include at least two tecomates and one jar of the Yuncú Unslipped type, and at least one Sacpocana Red tecomate. No sherds of comals were present.

Table 2 Yacman: Postclassic and colonial sherd types by context
Full size table

Two examples of colonoware vessels were recovered from Yacman. The first is a single sherd recovered from the apsidal friary (Structure 2). The sherd exhibits two parallel wavy incised bands near the rim that enclose an inset design with encrusted stones, unlike any decorative motif known for the region (Fig. 10). The redware vessel represented by this sherd may have been made in central Mexico in the early colonial period, where stone-encrusted, red-paste vessels also have incised or stamped designs (Fairbanks 1966; Hernández Sánchez 2012:104). The Yacman example may derive from a chalice or some other form useful for church rites performed by Spanish friars, who likely brought the vessel to the site. In the Puebloan region, an indigenous-made chalice vessel was recovered from the church at Jemez (Liebmann 2013:32–35). It is reasonable to infer that, like the Jemez chalice, the sherd at Yacman derives from a vessel similarly intended for Christian purposes in the early colonial era. However, unlike the Jemez chalice, the stone-encrusted vessel at Yacman was not made locally.

The second hybrid vessel at Yacman was a mug recovered from a dwelling, Structure 7. It resembles a miniature jar with a globular body, a relatively tall, straight neck, and a pedestal base (Fig. 10). This vessel has a European-style curved handle, and its shape resembles pitchers of later periods, except that it lacks a spout and it is smaller than pitchers tend to be. It is noteworthy that handles and pedestal bases are among new elements added to indigenous redware ceramics in central Mexico (Hernández Sánchez 2012:figure 29m, q, r). Pedestal bases existed in Yucatan prior to contact, but mostly on incense burners (R. Smith 1971). Pre-Columbian jars also had handles, but these occurred in pairs (not singly, as with the Yacman vessel) and were oriented horizontally rather than vertically, as in the Yacman mug.

The Yacman mug’s calcite-tempered paste and surface are a light gray/buff color, and the exterior surface appears burnished. Robert Smith (1971:15) observes that burnishing occurs in Sacpocana Red and Oxcum Brown types, as do colors ranging to buff (for the latter type), but he reports no cup or mug forms. In a brief description of postconquest Maya pottery, Brainerd (1958:96) reports that “small, deep, cup-shaped vessels on flaring pedestals” appear in colonial deposits at the site of Maní, but we do not know if these match the vessel at Yacman. No cups are among Brainerd’s (1958:figure 33) illustration of colonial Maya vessels. Raymond Thompson (1958), in a study of 20th-century Maya pottery making, identifies a single-handled pitcher (with a slight spout) made in Mamá that bears a general resemblance to the Yacman vessel. Both have long necks relative to a shorter, rounded body, pedestal bases, and single handles. The Yacman example differs in having a wider pedestal base, a distinctive seam between the body and the neck, and it lacks the spout of the later Mamá vessel; the handles are also shaped differently. The Yacman vessel, 12 cm in height, is around half the height of the pitchers made in Mamá (R. Thompson 1958:44) and is of a convenient size for a drinking mug. Its pronounced globular body and long neck are also similar to the handled jarrito drinking vessel present in Spanish tableware of the 16th century (Worth 2019:figure 1).

The Yacman mug was a possession of the family of the (probable) town leader. Found beneath the house floor of an interior room of Structure 7 (Fig. 7), this vessel was perhaps purchased at the Maní or Mérida markets, obtained from a producer or peddler, or received as a gift. Although the two cultures were vastly separated by time and space, it is interesting that a handled mug with the body of a jar is among the vessels described by Leland Ferguson (1992:31,36) from African (or African/native) assemblages of the Carolinas.

Tichac

At Tichac, within the boundaries of the pre-Hispanic site of Mayapan, 25 contexts have yielded colonial-period pottery (Fig. 7) (Table 3). Of these, two structures were part of the same residential group (MP23/L-68b, MP24/L-68c). These domestic localities overlay ruins of the formerly densely settled postclassic center. Of 25 contexts, 22 are from the SMC15 project, and we focus on those samples here. The other three were small samples with few examples of colonial sherds.

Table 3 Colonial Maya and European-style pottery from Tichac
Full size table

As Table 3 indicates, seven of the Tichac contexts yielded majolica; some of these also had olive-jar sherds. Two types of majolica have been identified among these sherds, including San Luis Polychrome, distributed among five structures (MP31/R-8, MP34, MP35, MP36, MP39), and Abo Polychrome from one of the same structures (MP35). These types, made in Mexico City (F. Lister and R. Lister 1976:126), date to after 1650 (Deagan 1987:75–77,81,87). The Tichac majolica sherds help to date the associated Sacpocana Red and Yuncú Unslipped material to a period several decades later than examples from Hunacti and Yacman.

The slipped pottery of the Sacpocana group was present in 14 of 22 Tichac contexts (Table 3). In total, 3,011 Sacpocana fragments were identified, mostly from jars with parenthesis rims. Jar sherds formed 85.4% (2,572 sherds) of the Sacpocana assemblage and were from vessels probably used for the collection, transport, and storage of water. A lesser quantity of tecomates was indicated by 46 sherds (1.5%), and serving bowls represented 13.1% (393 sherds) of the sample.

Sherds of unslipped vessels of the Yuncú group were identified in 20 Tichac structures, represented by 4,543 fragments. Compared to the Sacpocana-group ceramics that consisted of jar sherds, the Yuncú group had few jars, with only 102 fragments (2.3%). Of these, 15 sherds were particularly diagnostic, including 3 rim, 8 neck, and 4 strap-handle sherds. The majority of Yuncú Unslipped sherds were from tecomates, probably used for cooking or heating, given that several examples had exteriors marked by smoke and soot. The Yuncú sample also had 27 bowl fragments (0.6%). Open plates or comals were represented by 193 sherds (4.3%); these items exhibit a slightly concave profile. Several comal sherds also retain smoky spots on the interior and exterior surfaces, similar to those observed on the Yuncú tecomates. The presence of comals is intriguing, given that this form is only rarely recovered in the region during earlier periods, and they were not present in the 16th-century assemblages of Hunacti and Yacman described above.

Ceramics of the Brown Oxcum group are sparsely represented by five sherds identified at Tichac in structure MP-26/L-81. No examples were definitively identified at Hunacti or Yacman. Ceramics of this group represent comals and tecomates (R. Smith 1971:15,248). These brown ceramics, as Robert Smith (1971:249) hinted in his description of them as more “modern,” may not have become popular until the later 1600s or 17th century.

The Tichac colonial sample is distinct from the other two sites in our study by the sheer quantity of material recovered: 7,544 Sacpocana and Yuncú sherds were present at Tichac, compared to 42 sherds combined for Hunacti and Yacman. This difference is unrelated to sample sizes. Compared to the two earlier sites (combined), approximately twice the volume of excavation was undertaken at Tichac, but far more than twice as many sherds were present there. Stratigraphic separation at Tichac is difficult due to the superposition of colonial occupations over structures built within the postclassic city (in some cases). For this reason, postclassic sherds in these contexts cannot be assigned a pre- or postcontact status. But the ubiquitous sample of colonial sherds at Tichac, as well as the presence of European pottery and the appearance of comals, clearly distinguishes this assemblage from those of the earlier sites in this study. The Tichac data point to the gradual evolution of Sacpocana and Yuncú in terms of frequency and functional variation from the late 16th to 17th centuries.

Stratigraphic Intermingling of Colonial and Traditional Pottery

The colonial Maya types of Sacpocana Red and Yuncú Unslipped at Yacman and Hunacti are comingled with enduring pre-Columbian (postclassic/contact-era) types. The latter include mostly Mama Red, Navula Unslipped, Yacman Striated (Fig. 8), and (less so) Kukula Cream (or a type within this group, Xcanchakan Black on Cream). Chen Mul Modeled effigy censer fragments were also present in some contexts (Fig. 9), as well as one non-effigy censer sherd. Tables 1 and 2 provide the contexts and excavation levels of pottery types, with examples shown graphically in Figure 11.

Fig. 11
figure 11

The relative proportions of colonial Maya diagnostic pottery and (colonial-era) postclassic-style ceramics from Hunacti demonstrate intermingling and contemporaneity; at House 1 (Unit 7-A, Level 3), colonial Maya pottery was found below a layer with exclusively postclassic-style sherds. (Figure by Marilyn Masson, 2019.)

Full size image

The upper levels of excavation units at Hunacti are of particular interest, given that they represent the latest occupations, including contexts above the final (interior, residential) stucco floors built during the colonial period, and surface deposits outside and adjacent to house walls (Fig. 4). The recovery of enduring preconquest pottery types in these stratigraphic contexts provides good evidence of their manufacture after the colonial-era structures were built and while they were in use. As Table 1 indicates, in one case at Hunacti, four sherds of colonial Maya pottery were recovered in Level 3 at House 1 (Structure 2, Unit 7A) beneath Levels 1 and 2 where exclusively postclassic types were recovered (Fig. 11). These levels lay above the final plaster floor of the interior of House 1 (Fig. 4). Colonial material was thus scarce to the degree that the final deposits lack it in this context, with only postclassic-style sherds present. Similarly, at Hunacti’s House 2 (Structure 3, Unit 4B), 26 colonial Maya sherds of Yuncú or Sacpocana Red are present in Level 2 along with 66 postclassic sherds (Table 1), and this quantity is overlain by 36 postclassic sherds and only 2 colonial sherds in Level 1 (less abundant than in the lower level). These frequencies underscore the case argued here that lingering postclassic types were made and used alongside the first discernable colonial-era types. Not only that, but the postclassic types were more numerous in these early contexts. At Yacman, only seven sherds of either Yuncú or Sacpocana were recovered from all units. These scarce materials were recovered in Levels 1 and 2 of two contexts, along with a majority of “postclassic” types of the early colonial era (Table 2).

For comparative purposes, Hanson’s (1991:3) findings from excavations in colonial Maní are relevant. In the earlier levels, he observes that Yuncú Unslipped (“Brushed”) is almost indistinguishable from Yacman Striated. The latter is a postclassic type present at contact and one that we argue continued into the early colonial years. Both Yuncú Unslipped and Sacpocana Red co-occur in the initial colonial levels of Hanson’s excavations as “interpenetrating” types (Hanson 1991:4). Hanson argues for a gradual increase of the proportions of colonial types through time relative to traditional postclassic/contact types. Similar to our results from Hunacti, a floor assemblage investigated by Hanson (1991:5) had 63% postclassic/contact-period pottery, with only seven sherds of Sacpocana Red present in the sample.

Discussion

Early colonial pottery from the latter half of the 1500s at the sites of Yacman and Hunacti reveal that Maya residents continued to rely on traditional pottery types and forms of the postclassic and contact periods. These findings affirm inferences made by earlier investigators (Hanson 1991; deFrance and Hanson 2008). During this period, gradual change is detected in the paste recipes, surface treatments, and subtle attribute changes that mark emergent new conventions. However, these newer vessels were slow starters and formed a minority of assemblages during the late 1500s alongside a majority of continued types from the past. Stratigraphic associations at Hunacti are clarified by assemblages from above the final stucco floors of this site, which was abandoned by 1572 (or 1582) during the demographic crisis of the late 16th century. Yacman, also predating 1600 (in our view), reveals parallel findings. The ubiquity of Yuncú Unslipped and Sacpocana Red at Tichac underscores the fact that this town postdates Yacman and Hunacti, as does Tichac’s majolica.

The sites compared in this study differ in their specific histories. Hunacti was founded as a community and with a grand design in mind. It is not the only such visita built to impress but having a short-term occupation (Graham 2011:237). Hunacti’s residents built an extraordinary stone sanctuary in an era when many Maya visitas had only thatch churches, and they framed their church within a majestic monumental plaza built in ancient times. Hunacti laborers further built several cardinally oriented, linear boulder-lined streets, and the elites of this town constructed fine Spanish-style dwellings for their families. Despite these ambitious constructions, other signs point to conflict and dissent, including Franciscan accusations against its Maya leaders and the relocation of Hunacti’s people to another town as soon as 10 years (1572) after Franciscan inquisition of idolatry in 1562. This community never achieved the wealth or cachet to match its founders’ vision. Yacman, similarly abandoned in the late 1500s, was founded with more modest objectives and means as a node on a radial network of rural places connecting Maní to Mérida. Like those at Hunacti, Yacman’s residents were neither fully converted to Spanish Christianity, nor were they rewarded with significant numbers of material goods of European origin or inspiration.

Peoples at both sites enacted hidden transcripts in terms of the continued practice of Maya religion. Traditional Maya effigy censers continued to be used for religious observances at home, not only at Yacman and Hunacti, but also at 16th-century sites across the Maya area (Chuchiak 2004b, 2009; Zeitlin and Palka 2018). Chen Mul Modeled censers were recovered from the principal residence of Yacman and from all three houses at Hunacti, in addition to the church atrium at the latter site (Tables 1, 2) (Figs. 9, 11).

Due to historical contingencies or, perhaps, the visibility of persons at Hunacti as targets for Spanish authorities, this site was swept up in a wave of regional religious persecution for apostasy (Scholes and Adams 1938:179; Roys 1952:155). There is no historical evidence to suggest that residents of Yacman were similarly embroiled in Franciscan trials, although the possibility exists, given their close familial ties to Maní. However, this site housed a small population with few conspicuous native Maya leaders to attract undue Spanish attention, at least none who were memorialized in historical accounts.

Despite these different community histories, residents of these sites, from the perspective of ordinary pottery, participated similarly in the economies of everyday life. Additional research is necessary to determine who made colonial Maya pottery after 1550, including the lingering types virtually indistinguishable from past traditions, and to what degree such vessels were obtained via exchange. Sourcing analysis of paste composition may prove useful in this regard. Whether made within or near to the sites discussed here, it is clear from our findings that, in early colonial household inventories, relatively few Yuncú Unslipped and Sacpocana Red vessels sat beside Mama Red, Navula Unslipped, and other continuing postclassic types. The presence of two examples of colonoware at Yacman indicates that residents of this site were aware of new styles and potential influences, which, for the most part, they rejected for the majority of vessels used in daily life.

The paucity of artifacts of European style or origin at Hunacti and Yacman is also telling, in regard to the regional economy of the early colonial period, as is the meager recovery of faunal remains from either site. Hunacti investigations turned up a few bones of European domestic animals in the fill of church and atrium floors, but animal bones were mostly absent from the dwellings at both sites and from the church and atrium of Yacman. The presence of cattle, pig, and horse at Hunacti attest indirectly to its status. Friars considered the site important enough to introduce animals, possibly for livestock raising. At other northern colonial sites, Maya nobles living near the center of mission towns were encouraged to undertake this activity (Dedrick 2019:34). Cattle, pig, and horse were important introductions at Mission San Bernabé in the Petén Lakes as well (Pugh, Wolf et al. 2016:64). A view is emerging of localized and variable agrarian lifeways at rural sites like Yacman and Hunacti, with few goods of value obtained by residents. Droughts, famines, and locusts repeatedly compromised agrarian stability in the early years, as did waves of epidemics that depleted the workforce and morale (Chuchiak 2002:11, Hoggarth et al. 2017:97–98).

The contexts of colonial materials from Tichac are understood in a limited way due to their recovery as part of salvage excavations. Linear settlement concentrations along roadways, as seen at Tichac, are reported elsewhere in colonial Yucatan (Dedrick 2019:309). More research at these contexts is needed to provide a broader assessment of household economies and social identities. Preliminary findings indicate that, by the mid-1600s, colonial Maya forms were better established and more ubiquitous in domestic contexts of the mission-town network. Contexts at Tahcabo with substantial densities of the colonial type, Yuncú Unslipped, also date to later in the colonial period (after the mid-1700s) according to Dedrick (2019:312). Note that this date is even later than that of our Tichac contexts (mid-1600s), pointing to the enduring utility of these types into the 18th century.

The Tichac contexts were inhabited by non-elites, ordinary people living on the edge of town. These families were able to acquire European-style pottery. Accessibility of such trade goods increased for rural Tichac in the mid-17th century compared to the 16th century at Yacman and Hunacti, despite climatic and epidemiological hardships of the 17th century (Patch 1993:22; Chuchiak 2002:7; Hoggarth et al. 2017:89). In contrast, majolica and other European-style goods remained primarily concentrated in the hands of elites in the southern periphery at sites in Belize (Awe and Helmke 2019), and they were scarce at rural sites in early colonial Mexico (T. Charlton, Fournier et al. 2007:433).

How does the implied increase in the number of producers of Maya pottery in the colonial period, suggested by a wide range of paste recipes, reconcile with evidence for a relatively connected 16th- and 17th-century economy implied by recognizable pottery types among sites? Greater colonial-era paste variation compared to that observed before 1550 suggests disrupted access to preferred clays, such as those at Ticul (Arnold 2008) and, perhaps, dispersal of potters, making fewer surplus pots for exchange (R. Thompson 1958:figure 1). It is doubtful that each town made its own pottery, as there is no historical evidence for this in the Maya area or central Mexico (T. Charlton, Fournier et al. 2007; Hernández Sánchez 2012). The presence of multiple paste characteristics in Sacpocana Red (especially) at individual sites suggests that household consumers were acquiring pots made at different locations. Indirectly, this pattern points to a reasonable degree of movement of locally made goods through marketplaces or via peddlers in Yucatan into the 17th century. Future studies of colonial-sherd paste composition and sourcing will potentially address these questions.

The recovery of comals at Tichac suggests that Maya peoples shifted their dietary preferences by adding tortillas to their cuisine in the 1600s. The popularity of tortillas may have been boosted by Spanish introductions from elsewhere in Mesoamerica, as has been suggested for Texas mission sites (F. Lister and R. Lister 1975:28; Fox and Ulrich 2008:21).

It is not surprising that traditions of daily life for Maya peoples persisted into early colonial years in Yucatan (Scholes and Roys 1938:589–595; Restall 2001; Quezada 2014). Research at other early colonial sites of Mesoamerica indicate the continuation of indigenous pottery (as well as stone tools, agricultural methods, and other institutions) during the first decades of life under Spanish rule (Restall 1997; T. Charlton, C. Charlton et al. 2005; Graham 2011:56–57). Lingering traditional pottery in the early colonial period is also reported from San Bernabé in the Petén Lakes (Pugh, Sánchez et al. 2012; Pugh, Wolf et al. 2016:54,60; P. Rice and Cecil 2018). While individual vessels at this Petén site represent new colonial forms, no recognizable pottery complexes emerge in the contact, early postconquest (1500s), or colonial periods (1525–1830), according to P. Rice and Cecil (2018:219)

Stratigraphic excavations at Tahcabo, Yucatan, also reveal postclassic pottery in colonial contexts along with Sacpocana Red, Yuncú Unslipped, and Oxcum Brown (Dedrick 2019:appendix A). As for Yacman and Hunacti, indigenous colonial pottery types appear, gradually, at Tahcabo amidst assemblages composed of traditional types and forms. Houses no longer occupied by the end of the 1500s lacked Yuncú and Sacpocana sherds at Tahcabo (Dedrick 2019:294), and this observation supports our argument that they were uncommon in the early colonial period. Dedrick’s (2019:276, figure 6.41) study offers important new insights for detecting transitional pottery attributes that bridge traditional and colonial Maya pottery.

Elsewhere in the Americas, in many different places, changes from traditional pottery to recognizable colonial-period vessels were also gradual, despite differences in the timing of the colonial era. At Texas mission sites, ceramic traditions of native peoples continued with few discernable changes, and they were the most common types of pottery at mission sites of the late 1600s and 1700s (Hester 1989:224; Fox and Ulrich 2008:27). Similarly, contact-period pottery continued at mission sites for decades in the southern Atlantic U.S. (Ashley 2009:137–139; Cobb and Depratter 2012:453; Cordell 2013). In central Mexico after conquest, indigenous redwares were significant for trade economies and household activities (T. Charlton, C. Charlton et al. 2005; T. Charlton, Fournier et al. 2007; Hernández Sánchez 2012). There, indigenous pottery exhibits more decorative innovations compared to that of the Yucatan, including the addition of lead glazes (Hernández Sánchez 2012:286–288,294,299–300). The embellishment of central Mexican assemblages makes sense, given the centrality of Mexico City as a center of colonial governance and commerce (T. Charlton, Fournier et al. 2007:462; Hernández Sánchez 2012). Even though Spanish potters tightly controlled the manufacture of majolica, indigenous redwares were commonly used and distributed in households of all ethnicities, and precontact forms continued to be made and used (Hernández Sánchez 2012:298). One such redware vessel likely made its way to Yacman.

Conclusion

This article provides evidence of the gradual appearance of recognizably different colonial Maya pottery from the 1550s to the late 16th and early 17th centuries. We argue that the majority of vessels used in everyday life during this interval represented types that continued from the postclassic and contact eras, with only scarce sherds of colonial types appearing in the second half of the 16th century. By the mid-1600s, derivative colonial Maya types Yuncú Unslipped and Sacpocana Red represent the majority of household vessels at Tichac. It is little wonder that ceramic production choices changed slowly in this region. During the occupations of Hunacti and Yacman, low numbers of Franciscans attempted to expand their domains to rural Maya towns beset by serial climatic and health crises that were worse than what the region had experienced in the previous 400 years (Hoggarth et al. 2017).

A postcolonial approach argues for the importance of the agency of indigenous peoples in the ongoing, dynamic processes unfolding in a colonial setting (Keehnen et al. 2019). Elites at both Yacman and Hunacti selectively incorporated elements of Spanish material culture as part of their emergent identities. At Hunacti, at least three Maya families constructed Spanish-style houses. At Yacman, one family possessed a hybrid drinking mug and built one wall of its dwelling with Spanish-style chink and mortar. Both settlements participated in acts that established newly built churches as the centers of community. Burial customs in the Yacman church nave changed from initial Christian positions, returning to earlier Maya traditions over time (Masson et al. [2021]). At Hunacti, members of the town built the church, in cooperation with the Spaniards, within an impressive pre-Columbian monumental center erected by ancestral populations. Yet aspects of daily life were conservative at both sites, especially for most ceramic objects used for daily food preparation and storage. Like the continued use of effigy censers in traditional rituals at both sites, ordinary vessel appearances and textures represented links to the past and enduring aspects of social identity.

Colonial processes that resettle and combine indigenous peoples from different towns and territories result in the emergence of new mission-period traditions for a variety of reasons. Such changes may take time (e.g., Saunders [2012]) or are prompted by major disjunctions (Liebmann 2008:366). Different colonial temporalities existed at various settlements and places in the Americas in the 16th century and beyond (Keehnen et al. 2019:10). Early colonial indigenous settings generally have mixed material signatures that suggest selective incorporation of new ideas, objects, or designs from colonizer culture (Scholes and Roys 1938:607; Silliman 2010; Hernández Sánchez 2012; Oland and Palka 2016; Alexander and Kepecs 2018; Zeitlin and Palka 2018; Keehnen et al. 2019). Franciscans in Yucatan in the 1500s embraced the “sanctity of poverty” for their own lifeways (Hanks 2010:9), and the sparse material culture present at Yacman and Hunacti suggests that this ethic also affected the households of Maya residents of rural towns, whether by choice or constrained opportunities.

The hybrid drinking mug and stone-encrusted redware sherd from Yacman reflect objects that were not part of a patterned, commonplace adoption of colonoware making like those identified at mission and plantation sites in the American Southeast (L. Ferguson 1992; Cobb and DePratter 2012). The colonoware examples at Yacman, as with comparative cases elsewhere, reflect the ambivalence of indigenous persons in the context of colonial encounters. Colonial experiences were inevitably rife with conflicting goals and inequality, although sometimes the interests of Europeans and indigenous peoples converged (Cobb and DePratter 2012:447,452). An attitude of ambivalence, “a complex mix of attraction and repulsion” that affects both colonizer and “colonized” alike, underlies the theoretical framework of hybridity (Liebmann 2011:200–201; Mambrol 2017). Thus, selected incorporation of material objects and ideas by indigenous persons in colonial settings occurs in the context of simultaneous or fluctuating attitudes that transcend simple dichotomies such as complicity and resistance (Mambrol 2017). Homogeneity and heterogeneity in material culture may thus emerge contemporaneously, whereby local peoples rework new concepts in an idiosyncratic fashion (Cobb and dePratter 2012:452–453). Mimicry represents one complex manifestation of this process (Loren 2013; Mambrol 2017).

Pottery making and use at the visitas of Yacman and Hunacti reveal a conservative adherence to past traditions. This conservativism was likely due to practical factors, including their relative rural locations, infrequent contact with friars, and relative scarcity of European-inspired everyday pottery in the peninsula at this time. On another level, whether intentional or not, the importance of enduring pre-Columbian household cooking and storage vessels represented meaningful links to the past in everyday practice. The gradual introduction of subtle technological modal changes in slip and paste marking identifiably colonial Maya ceramics likely reflects the relative instability of the late 1500s. At the same time, recognizable similarities in northern Maya ceramics from site to site indicate a degree of relative regional homogeneity in assemblages essential to daily life.