Among the specialized types of Late Classic Maya vessels (a.d. 550–900) are small bottle-shaped containers known as “flasks.” Current interpretations of their uses, for example as poison bottles or medicine bottles, are speculative. In some cases, such interpretations rely on analogical comparisons with other Native American containers based on their formal similarities of shape or construction. This paper presents research on basic construction methods of flasks, a set of correlations between the various social mediation roles in which such flasks are depicted in Classic-period artwork, their material correlates (the vessels themselves), and a report of their specific contents. We also provide evidence of the first discovery of nicotine in an ancient Maya vessel, which is the first empirically demonstrated proof for the presence of tobacco contained in a clay vessel from this cultural tradition. The codex-style flask yielding this evidence bears a text that appears to read yo-'OTOT-ti 'u-MAY-ya, spelling y-otoot 'u-mahy “the home of his/her tobacco.” This is only the second case in which residue analysis has shown a Maya vessel to hold the same content as is indicated by a hieroglyphic text on the same vessel.

Traditionally, cups have been the primary artifact through which beverage consumption has been inferred or defined, regardless of the numerous other artifacts that may be involved in beverage production, preparation, and service. Conversely, not all cup-shaped artifacts were intended to be used as drinking vessels, nor were all of them necessarily intended to contain a liquid. For the Maya Classic period (a.d. 250–900) decorated cylinder vessels in particular, this paper shows that the residues of their former contents do not agree with epigraphers’ interpretations of what have been taken as self-referential statements about their contents and uses. This disparity between expectations and data indicates that we have misunderstood both the vessels and the text, and perhaps that we have failed to recognize one or more classes of vessels. The research presented here suggests that we need to rethink the generally accepted interpretation that all cylinders were drinking vessels and that those that are currently referred to as “chocolate” vessels were never used for the consumption of liquid cacao beverage. These results provide a new context for interpreting the use, function, and purpose of these vessels. Methods drawn from both the natural and social sciences are used to relate archaeological materials, residues of their ancient contents, their hieroglyphic texts, ceramic imagery(/iconography), and past behavior. This diversity of methods accentuates that combining data from all these sources constrains the interpretations of each, and shows that our initial expectations about vessels with hieroglyphic tags have been overly specific. Determining the functions and uses of these vessels is not as simple as we have been supposing, but distinctions that prove to be relevant give us access to more complex systems of cultural practice.

No abstract

No abstract

Archaeologists have likely collected, as a conservative estimate, billions of artifacts over the course of the history of fieldwork. We have classified chronologies and typologies of these, based on various formal and physical characteristics or ethno-historically known analogues, to give structure to our interpretations of the people that used them. The simple truth, nonetheless, is that we do not actually know how they were used or their intended purpose. We only make inferences—i.e., educated guesses based on the available evidence as we understand it—regarding their functions in the past and the historical behaviors they reflect. Since those inferences are so fundamental to the interpretations of archaeological materials, and the archaeological project as a whole, the way we understand materiality can significantly bias the stories we construct of the past. Recent work demonstrated seemingly contradictory evidence between attributed purpose or function versus confirmed use, however, which suggested that a basic premise of those inferences did not empirically hold to be true. In each case, the apparent contradiction was resolved by reassessing what use, purpose, and function truly mean and whether certain long-established functional categories of artifacts were in fact classifying by function. The resulting triangulation, presented here, narrows the scope on such implicit biases by addressing both empirical and conceptual aspects of artifacts. In anchoring each aspect of evaluation to an empirical body of data, we back ourselves away from our assumptions and interpretations so as to let the artifacts speak for themselves.