Contributions

The Bedrock Vase:

lconography of a Classic Period Maya Vase from Northern Belize
Helen R. Haines
ln 1996, a cylinder
vase

with carved, low relief images was

2001, Ryan Mongelluzzo conducted test excavations in the

main plaza atB e dro ck, that documented dep o sits dating from the Late Formative (400 B.C.-A.D. 250) to the Late Classic (A.D. 600-8 3 0) in front of the maj or structures (Guderj an 2002 : personal communication). Reported to have come from a smallchultun located near one of the strucfures on the main plaza,the vase was named for the site where it was allegedly recovered. Descriptions of thechultun are limited and it is possible, based on its reported location near one ofthe central strucfures that it had served as a burial chamber, a feature noted at other sites in the region

recovered fromthe Bedrock Site innorthwestemBelize. Carved vases, while known, are rare in Maya ceramic assemblages, making it difficult to assign them to a tlpe or variety. Classihcation and identification of these vessels is further complicatedby the lack ofprovenience information for many obj ects (see Robicsek and Hales 198 1 ; Schele and Miller 1986; Tate

1985), a condition from which the Bedrock Vase forlunately does not suffer. Although currently little can be said about the vase, I believe that the unusual composition and the relative lack of stylistically similar vessels from this region, coupled with our ability to firmly locate the Bedrock Vase geographically in the Maya landscape, makes this vase an important contribution to the extant corpus of ancient Maya iconography. The pulpose of this paper is to provide a description of the images and the history of the vase.

(Gray 2000; Hageman and Rich 2001; Hunter-Tate 1994; Sullivan 2002). Several of these burial chultuns contained
elaborate ceramic vessels (Sullivan 2002 : 204 21 1 ), although none were of a similar design to the Bedrock Vase which currently is curated in the Maya ResearchProgram facilities in North-western Belize. In the following section the fotm, iconography, and composition ofthe Bedrock Vase are discussed to determine a possible date for the creation of this vase.

History and Origin of the Vessel

Brought to the attention of the Maya Research Proj ect in I 996,

the vase was recovered by Mennonites during a forestclearing proj ect in nofihwestem Belize that included the identifiedMaya centre ofBedrock (Fig. 1). Situated on a limestone promontory that extends south between two, interconnected bajos the Bedrock site consists of 27 structures distributed aroundtwo pl azasandlwe courlyards (Fi 9.2) (Gtderjanet al. 1994:11 , 19). This site was reported by the Maya Research Program in 1993 as parl oftheirregional survey work (Guderjan et al. I994). In recent years, the site has suffered considerable
damage from agricultural activities resulting in the truncation

Vessel Date
The most distinctive attribute of the Bedrock Vase is its form, which is similar in shape to a cylindrical vase with a flat base and no supports of any kind. Despite being recovered in fragmentary state, no feet or other indications were noted that would suggest the vase may have been a slab-foot tripod vessel (a form known from the later facet of the Early Classic period fGifford 1 976 ; Hellmuth I 988 ; Laporte and Fialko 1 987 ; Laporte andlglesias 1992; Reents-Budet 1994; Smith 19551). Although cylindervases are characteristic ofthe Late Classic, and are considered akeydiagnostic marker forthis period, with a diameter of I 5 cm and a height of roughly 1 7 cm the Bedrock

of at least one structure (Guderjan et al. 1994:46), and the exposure ofbedrock in several locations around the site. In

Vase is stockier than the quintessential Late Classic cylinder vase (Fig. 3). Although the form of the vessel may suggests that the Bedrock Vase is not of Early Classic period origin, stylistic and compositional aspects of the imagery more closely echo the arlistic canons of the Early Classic period. The images are
carved in low-relief onto the surface ofthe vessel, likely during

the drying process when the clay would have been leathery.

The removed surfaces are not smooth, showing signs of

J
t,
Tikala

striations from the carving process. Carved vessels have been documented in many different areas of the Maya world and exhibitan equallybroadtemporal span (C oe1973 Schele and
1986; Smithand Gifford 1965:507;Tate 1985:124). Although this surface treatment is temporally broad, vessel forms and imagery (both context and style) are not, and

Miller

examination ofthese elements permits us to narrow the temporal range olthese ceramics. Fig. 1. Map of northwestem Belize

11
Vol XXXIII

mexicon o

Februar 2011

Vessel and lconographic Description

Decoratedwith elaborately car-ved images divided among four sections (two wide panels separated by two narower panels), the Bedrock Vase is of a style not previously seen in northwestern Belize (Fig. 4). Each of the large panels is dominated by an anthropomorphic figure, while the narrow bands contain columns of images potentially stacked head-variant .glyphs , . For ease ofdiscussion the panels are designated panels 1 and 2, while thebands are refenedto as Column AandColumnB. The vase was carved, likely in a leather-hard state, with shallow bas-reliefimages less than 1 cmdeep. Standing l7 cmhighthe
vessel has an exterior diameter ofroughly 1 5 cm giving the vase

[J

no

Stnll
I
2

srr.

F=iI
Str. 9

Stn l-l

$ st.. rr

Fm'".'L![
Str. 16

6r,..,,

tr..rOffi

rf

Sh'.21

a squat, square appearance. The surface was coated with a blackish-red slip that has faded to apurple colour. The following section will detail the imagery discovered on the Bedrock
Vase.

Str.,l

Str.

r:::st..rolf---j^
SfrI

StL l8

*".3Fory,

[/

,/roPI \z\

\''"t

r,"rr:tJ;:l'r.
Srn27E!

Panel

1fr"'n,,,.r,

Jm

Fig. 2. Bedrock Site Plan Map

This panel is dominated by a large kneeling figure with a zoomorphic head and a human body. The large knotted bow on the hip ofthe figure in Panel I on the Bedrock Vase suggests that the loincloth is meant to be construed as a cloth gament. God rnarkings embellish the arms and legs of the principle figure, clearly indicating that this is a supematural entity (cf.
CoeandVanStone200l : 109; ScheleandMiller 1986: 43,fig. 20). The figure has scalloped eyebrows and a large squarish eye with a scroll representing the iris. Protruding from the maxilla premolar), while

The presence of incised lines paraileling, and thereby accentuating, the contours of the figures in the decorative panels suggests an Early Classic period association for the Bedrock Vase. These lines are a stylistic attribute associated with Early Classic period iconography, and are virlually absent in the Late Classic period. Also typical of the Early Classic
period is the use of head-variant glyphs, present in Columns A and B of the Bedrock Vase. Although head-variant and full-

is a sharp, pointed incisor, and a large tooth (possibly a a curved element emanates from the corner of

the mouth and reaches backwards onto the cheek. This group

figure variant, glyphs do occur in the Late Classic (most notably at Quirigua, Copan, and Palenque), nominal headvariants are more predominant in the Early Classic period. Although the iconographic characteristics and details are
Early Classic in nafure the composition and amangement ofthe images on the Bedrock Vase are more clearly suggestive of early Late Classic period styles. Elaborate and crowded compositions, where the figures and their regalia overwhelm the panels and leave little ofthe background visible are typical of Early Classic pieces (Schele and Miller 1986:193, 206 20:' plates 73 and73a),while scenes on Late Classic vessels often provide a more ample view of the background (Schele and Miller 1986:287,296,plates I 16and 1 16a).Althoughthescenes onthe BedrockVase maximize the available space, leaving little background visibie, they lack the intricacy of Early Classic period images. Fufiher, the fluidity and naturalistic rendering

ofattributes is characteristic ofGodI ofthe palenque Triad (c/ Berlin 1963; Coe andVan Stone2001 : 1 I 1 ; MartinandGrube 2000: 159, fig. GI; MillerandTaube t993: 129 130; Scheleand Miller 1 986: 48 49, 60 no. 53 ; Joraiemon cited in Robicsek and Hales 1988: 266), and it may be this individual who is represented here.

wryt'"::r'

of the anthropornorphic forms is stylistically closer to Late

Classic period painted polychrome vessels. Based on the fusion of Early Classic period iconographic styles and Late Classic period vessel form and composition the BedrockVase isbelievedto dateto eitherthe end ofthe Tzakol 3 period(A.D. 450 600), ortheearlypafi oftheTepeu 1 period (A.D. 600 700)(see Smith 1955; SmirhandGifford 1965: 503). In the absence ofsecure ceramic associations and contextual

data, the temporal placement

of the vase must, however,

Fig.3. Photograph ofBedrock Vase (photograph by Bill Collins
couftesy of Maya Research Program)
o

12

remain tentative as it relies solely on the appraisal ofits stylistic attributes, without any corroborating evidence from a related artefact assemblage.

mexicon r Vol. XXXIII

Februar 201

The principal difference between the representation of the deity on the Bedrock Vase, and images of GI, is the earflare worn by the Bedrock figure. GI is more commonly depicted wearing a Spondylus shell as an earflare (Coe and Van Stone

The face of this figure is dominated by a large and downward

pointing snout, enhanced by a skeletal mandible. Below the

mandible is a pointed element, protruding from the maxilla is a curved tooth, or possibly a tusk, and a pointed tuft ofhair rises from the forehead. The nose is marked by a single large scroll signalling a nostril from which emanate two tubular projections with circlespossibly signifzing breath (Taube 2004). The eye is squarish with a scroll serving to represent the iris and is sirnilar to that belonging to the figure in Panel 1. The figure is wearing an elaborate and possibly beaded loincloth and is adorned with a beaded necklace, earflare, and bracelet. On its head the figures wears what appears to be an elaborate headdress flowing up and back from the body. The alternating long and short segments, the finely incised lines, and fluid form are similar to the feathers depicted in many Classic period headdresses (see Taube I 992, specifically figs.

2001: I I 1;Schele and Miller 1986:49), butonthe BedrockVase, the figure is shown with a more typical, presumably jadeite, earflare assemblage. This difference may be a temporal one, as the shell earflare is systematically represented on Late Classic

depictions of GI but is used sporadically in Early Classic

examples

(y' Macleod 1990 : 64011,

fig. 2-7 d-f;Marlin and

Grube2000: l59,seefig. GI; ScheleandMiller 1986: fig. 3 lb). The individual in Panel I is shown holding a zoomorphic skull in an offertory gesture. An element may be seen flowing fromthe skull's mandible suggesting that the zoomorphic skull was wrapped in a cloth bundle that has been untied, revealing the skull. Rising from the lambdoidal suture of the offertory skull is a down-turned scroll. The skull 's face is dominated by a large projecting and slightly uptumed snout. Piercing the forehead ofthe skull is a smallbutnoticeable celt-like element. The position ofthe central figure coupled with the unwrapped skull suggests the scene is intended to portray the presentation ofa sacrificial bundle. Beneath the skull offering is an unidentified component, possibly a second zoomorphic skull, that may be intended to function as an altar and supports the idea presented above that the scene represents an offering, or display of a sacrificial bundle. The drooping eyelids and gaping mouth are reminiscent of the skull altar seen on a vessel in the Kimbell Ar1 Museum (Schele and Miller 1986: 287 ,297 , plate I 16). Although the position of the element is in keeping with an altar, it lacks any fuither identifying features or characteristics that would securely indicate that this object was intended to represent a sacrificial altar (Coe 1973; Robicsek and Hales 1988). Directly above this skull is a double Omega-shaped element (similar to glyph T67 ln Thompson 1962 446) that represents a cleft mountain and may indicate that this skull
element may fonn
a

4e, 5c,5d, and l3e). An altemative interpretation of this

headdress may be a vegetal motif, similar to that worn by the Classic period Pax god (Taube 2005: fig. 5b). As with the figure in Panel 1 , the overall pose is suggestive

of an offerlory gesture. Crouched, the hgure leans forward,

proffering
an

object in its outstretched hands. The exact nature

of the offering is difficult to identify but it appears to be composed ofa central disk and, by virtue ofthe knots represented at the mid-section and summit, to be made at leastparlly ofcloth. Above this element, and above and in front ofthe face, is a third element. This is a round circle with what appear to be two lengths of cloth, woven together in the centre of the disk. The position of the hands, coupled with the bent body, seern indicative of a position of supplication or surrender.

Columns A and B Between the decorative panels are two columns (identified as A and B) each containing three glyph blocks (Fig. 4). These appear to be Early Classic head-variants, and Grube (personal communication) has noted the first glyph in both columns appears to be a form of u possessive pronoun. The following glyphs in each column are currently not interpreted and, due to the difficulty with deciphering early texts may be undecipherable (Howton2004 : 249,2004: 299).Houston (200 4: 299) has noted that the Maya script changed over time with signs disappearing or changing meaning. These dramatic alterations in writing forms are correlated with periods of cultural disturbance or discontinuity such as "the rupture between the

toponymic reference (Grube 200

8:

personal

communication).

Panel 2

A large crouching figure dominates Panel 2 and leaves little

room for additional iconographic elements (Fig. 4). Although the body of this figure appears anthropomorphic, the suppleness ofthe posture is more suggestive ofa supernatural entity.

Column A

Panel2

Column B

Fig. 4. Illustration of Bedrock Vase (illustration by Christophe Helmke)

mexicon o Vol. XXXIII

Februar 2011

Early and Late Classic period" (Houston 2004:299) and result in making early Maya texts "notoriously challenging to interpret" (Houston2004 : 299).

ofthe Society forAmericanArchaeology, April 18 22,2001, New Orleans, Louisiana. Hellmuth, Nicholas M. 1988 Early Maya Iconography on an Incised Cylindrical Tripod. In Maya Iconography, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson and

a definitive interpretation ofthe iconography ofthe Bedrock Vase. Rather the intent is to presentto the Maya scholarly community anew image for incorporation into the corpus of Maya iconography and make the vessel available for future study. If, as Stuart notes "narratives from Classic Maya mythology were fairly localized constructs" (Stuart 2005: 160), then we have a rare sliver of information about how the Maya in norlhwestern Belize may have conceptualized their myths. Although correlations between the images depicted on the Bedrock Vase and

Summary and Conclusion It is not the intention of this paper to provide

Gillett G. Griffin: 152 l'74. Princeton University

Princeton.

Press,

Houston, Stephen D. 2004 Writing in Early Mesoamerica. In The First Writing: Script Invention as History and Process, edited by Stephen D. Houston: 274 309. CambridgeUniversityPress, Cambridge,

MA.
200

An Example of Preclassic Mayan Writing? Sci ence 3 I I

249

t250.
Hunter-Tate, Clarissa C. 1994 The Chultuns ofCaracol. In Studies in the Archaeology of Caracol, Belize, editedbyDiane Z. Chase andArlenF. Chase: 64-7 5.Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, Monograph 7. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco. Laporte, Juan Pedro, and Velma Fialko 1981 La cer6mica del cl6sico temprano desde Mundo Perdido, Tikal: unareevalucation. In Maya Ceramics:Papers from the 1985 Maya Ceramics Conference, edited by Prudence M. Rice and Robert J. Sharer: 1 23-l 82. BAR Intemational Series 345(I), Oxford. Laporte, Juan Pedro, and Maria Josefa Iglesias 1992 Unidades cer6micas de la fase Manik 3, Tikal, Guatemala. Cer6mica de Cultura Maya l6: 69 101.

mythological events recorded on vessels from elsewhere in the Maya world has yet to be determined, it is clear that the addition ofnew iconographic images is important ifwe are to
continue to expand our understanding of Classic period Maya

ideology.

Acknowledgements
I would like to offer special thanks to Christophe Helmke for providing the illustration of the vessel and for his extremely helpful comments and contributions that lead to the completion ol this work. I would also like to thank Joel Palka, Antonio Curet, and Lorelei Friesen for their
assistance in reading and offering revisions on early drafts ofthis paper, and to Nikolai Grube for his advice regarding the nature of the glyphs in Columns A and B. Thomas Guderjan is also deserving of special thanks both for providing access to the vessel in question and for his patience during the long process of getting the description of the vase to print. I am very grateful to the Institute of Archaeology (Drs. Jaime Awe and John Morris) for their support and kindness in allowing me to work in

Martin, Sirnon, andNikolai Grube

2000

Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynasties oftheAncientMaya. Thames andHudson, London. Deciphering the Primary Standard Sequence. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas Austin. University Microfilms International, Ann

their country.

Macleod, Barbara

1990 References
Berlin, Heinrich

Arbor.

1963

The Palenque Triad. Joumal de la Socidtd des Amdricanistes, 52:91 99. Paris.

Miller, Mary E. 1986 The Murals of Bonampak. Princeton University

Princeton.

Press,

Coe, Michael D.

19'73 The Maya

York.

Scribe and His World. The Grolier's Club, New

Miller, Mary E. and Karl A. Taube

I

993

2001

Coe, Michael D. and Mark Van Stone Reading the Maya Glyphs. Thames and Hudson, New York
and London.

The Gods and Symbois of Ancient Mexico and the Maya: An illustrated Dictionary ofMesoamericanReligion. Thames and

Hudson, New York and London. Reents-Budet. Dorie

Gifford, J. C.
197

1994

Painting the Maya Universe. Duke University Press, Durham,

Ceramics ofBaton Ramie. Peab6dy Museum ofArchaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

NC, Robicsek, Francis and Donald Hales

Gray, Nadine

1981 TheMayaBookoftheDead:TheCeramicCodex. University 1988

of Virginia Art Museum, Charlottesville. A Ceramic Codex Fragment: The Sacrifice of Xbalanque. In Mayalconography, editedby Elizabeth P. Benson and Gillett G. Griffin: 260 276. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

2001

Into the Darkness: Investigations of Maya Chultunob from X-Ual-Cani1 (Cayo Y), Belize. Unpublished MA Thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. University Microfilms Intemational, Ann Arbor.

Guderjan, Thomas H., Helen R. Haines, M. Lindeman, E. Rub1e, D. Pastrana, and P. Weiss 1994 Excavations at the Blue Creek Ruin, Northwestem Belize. 1 993 Interim Report. Maya Research Program, San Antonio.
Hageman, Jon B., and Michelle E. Rich

Schele, Linda and Mary E. Miller 1986 The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual among the Ancient Maya. Kimbell Art Museum, in association with Sotheby's,

Fort Wofih.
Smith, Robert E.

2001

I4

FamilyMatters: Idnetificationand Significance oflate Classic Maya Lineages. Paper presented at the 66d' Annual Meeting

1955

Cerarnic Sequence atUaxatun, Guatemala. Middle American Research Institute, Publication 20. Tulane University, New Orleans.

mexicon I

Vol.

XXXIII .

Februar 2011

Smith, Robert E. and James C. Gifford 1965 Pottery ofthe Maya Lowlands. In Archaeology of Southem Mesoamerica, Paft 1, edited by Gordon R. Willey: 498 534. Handbook ofAmerican Indians, Vol. 2, general editorRobert Wauchope. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Tedlock, Dennis (trans.) 1996 Popol Vuh: The Mayan Book of the Dawn of Life. Revised Edition. Simon and Schuster. New York and London. Thompson, J. Eric S. 1962 Catalogue of Maya Hieroglyphs. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman and London.

Stuat, David

2005 The Inscriptions from Temple XIX at

Palenque. PreREsunrsn: En 1996. una cer6mica extraordinaria fue descubierta en Bedrock, un sitio Maya en el noroeste de Belice. La cerdmica se pude fechar tentativamente durante el periodo de transici6n entre el Cldsico Temprano (es decir, Tzakol 3, ca. 450-600 d.C.) y el Cl6sico Tardio (es decir, Tepeu l, ca. 600 700 d.C.). La decoraci6n de la ceriimica se divide en cuatro paneles. Los dos principales grupos de escenas retratan seres sobrenaturales entregando ofrendas, mientras que los dos paneles miis pequeflos contienen seis irn6genes de cabezas. E1 objetivo del presente articulo es presentar un an6lisis descriptivo del Vaso Bedrock y agregar una pieza importante m6s al corpus de la iconografia maya.

Columbian Art and Research Institute. San Francisco. CA. Sullivan, L. A. 2002 Dynamics ofRegional Integration inNorthwestem Belize. In Ancient Maya Political Economies, edited by M. A. Masson and D. A. Freidel: 197222. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek. CA. Tate, Carolyn 1985 The Carved Ceramics Called Chochola. In Fifth Palenque Round Table, 1983, edited by Merle Greene Robertson and Virginia Fields: 123 134. Herald Printers, Pebble Beach.
Taube, Karl A. 1 992 The MajorGods ofAncientYucatan. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology, No. 32. Dumbafion Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington DC. 2004 Flower Mountain: Concepts of Life, Beauty, and Paradise Among the Classic Maya. RES,45: 69 98. 2005 The Symbolism of Jade in Classic Maya Religion. Ancient Mesoamerica, 16: 23 50.

ZusllrunNr-,tssuNc: Im Jahr 1996 wurde in der archiiologischen Statte Bedrock im Nordwesten von Belize ein auBergervdhnlichcs Gefaif3
gefunden. Das KeramikgefiiB datiert ungcf)ihr in die Ubergangszeit von friiher Klassik (Tzakol 3, ca. 450 600 n. Chr.) zur friihen spiiten Klassik (Tepeu 1, ca.600 700 n. Chr.). Das GefiiR ist mit vier groBen Pancls dekoriert. Die beiden grol3en Panels zeigen iibematilrliche Wesen, die Opfergaben darbringen- Die beiden kleinen Panels er.rthalten jeweils sechs Kcipfe. Das Ziel des vorliegenden Artikels ist es, das ungew6hnliche Gelii8 vorzustellen und damit eine wichtige Ergiinzung zum Korpus der Maya-Ikonographie zu machen.

Excavating the Acropolis at Rfo Viejo, Oaxaca, Mexico

Arthur A. Joyce and Sarah B. Barber
In this paper we discuss archaeological research conducted
during the summer of 2009 in the ancient urban center of Rio

Viejo in the lower Rio Verde Valley on the Pacific coast of

Oaxaca, Mexico (Fig. I). Our2009 heldworkinvolvedexcava-

tions on the acropolis at Rio Viejo, which was the civicceremonial center of the site during the Terminal Formative period and again inthe Late Classic (Joyce2006,2008,2010). The 2009 research was designed to investigate the constmction, use, and abandonrnent of the acropolis. As the seat of regional political authority, excavations on Rio Viejo's acropolis are crucial for understanding the early development, organizalion, and collapse of centralized polities in the region. Previous research in the lower Rio Verde Valley shows that a complex regional polity first developed during the Terminal Formative period ( 1 50 B.C.-A.D. 250; Joyce 20 1 0). The polity seat was located at the urban center of Rio Viejo, which grew to 22 5 ha dur ing this period. Excavati ons at Rio Vi ej o an d other Terminal Formative sites suggest that centralized political authority was built by mobilizing support through the sponsoring of communal rituals and works projects (Barber 2005; Barber andJoyce2007; Joyce 2008). By farthe largest ofthese communal projects was the construction and use of the huge central acropolis at Rio Viejo that we have designated Mound 1 (Fig. 2). The acropolis was a massive architectural complex covering an area of 350 x 200 m. It supported two large substructures, designated Structures I and 2, respectively, which rose to at least 1 7 m above the floodplain as well as a large

I
Es1!aalet,

Lile!, ftrler5

I
I

ICN

fi:iop.arnphi. Lln

ll,,

!ei!rn, traineqe

offi
RioViejo

Fig. l. Map of the lower Rio Verde Valley showing the site of

I,

mexicon o

Vol XXXIII

Februar

20ll