Household Garbage: Classic period (ca. 300-900 CE) Maya Practices of Discard

Halperin, Christina T.; Foias, Antonia E.

doi:10.4000/palethnologie.520

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Tikal's residents developed several solutions to site maintenance. One of the most important was the incorporation of trash into construction fill, particularly in the Late Preclassic and Classic monumental temples and building platforms of the epicenter (Halperin and Foias 2016; Rathje and Murphy 1993). Until the Terminal Classic and the cessation of major construction, nearly all of our knowledge of Tikal's portable utilitarian and domestic material culture comes from middens incorporated into construction fill, especially the monumental architecture of the epicenter.…”

Section: Tikal Recovery Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Besides ritual and political intent, the disposal of durable trash could create large, dense deposits, often of thousands of sherds and other objects (Clayton et al 2005; Iglesias Ponce de León 1987; Laporte 1989). Rather than comparing these large deposits with site maintenance practices in modern Mesoamerican rural settlements (Clark 1991; Hayden and Cannon 1983) or regarding them as the remains of feasts (Guderjan 2004), more appropriate comparisons would be with the site maintenance practices of preindustrial cities of similar population size, structure density, and civic-ceremonial architecture, and that were characterized by the large-scale production and use of stone and pottery artifacts (Halperin and Foias 2016:151; Rathje and Murphy 1993). Humans can produce considerable amounts of biological and cultural waste.…”

Section: Tikal Recovery Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Much of the research on PDs has focused on the condition of the ceramics that typically were their largest component. The sherds are often of different ages, cannot be refitted to form reconstructible vessels, and may be burned and differentially weathered, all considered good indicators of secondary context (Clayton et al 2005; Halperin and Foias 2016). Most of these PDs can be assigned two dates: the date of the production of the contents and the date of their final deposition.…”

Section: Types and Subtypes Of Problematical Depostsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Problematical Deposits at Tikal, Guatemala: Content, Context, and Intent

Moholy‐Nagy

2019

Ancient Mesoam

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the Mesoamerican archaeological literature, collections of material regarded as somehow anomalous according to the archaeologist's expectations are often referred to as problematical deposits (PDs). Their problematical aspect originates in the researcher's current state of knowledge of the particular site, not in past behavior. PDs are site-specific, provisional classifications, and need further study to determine the function or intent of the activity that created them. A sample of 223 features designated as PDs by the University of Pennsylvania Museum's Tikal Project is examined here in an approach to understand their intent. A typology of the sample, based upon content, date, and variables of recovery context, indicates three principal intents broadly summarized as ritual, political, and site maintenance, and a category of PDs without intent. The study of PDs demands a wide-ranging approach. It provides an opportunity to reevaluate inadequate ideas and gain new insights into past cultural behavior.

show abstract

Section: Tikal Recovery Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Tikal Recovery Contextsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Types and Subtypes Of Problematical Depostsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Problematical Deposits at Tikal, Guatemala: Content, Context, and Intent

Moholy‐Nagy

2019

Ancient Mesoam

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the archaeological record, termination deposits, sometimes labeled “termination rituals,” “ritual deposits,” and “special deposits” (Halperin and Foias 2016; Lucero 2008; Newman 2015; Stanton et al 2008), are recognized as on-floor trash deposits scattered and dumped over previously usable occupation surfaces. These deposits were often accompanied by extensive evidence of burning, depositions of white marl, or architectural destruction.…”

Section: The Experience Of Structural Change: Termination Depositsmentioning

confidence: 99%

TEMPORALITIES OF LATE CLASSIC TO POSTCLASSIC (ca. AD 600–1521) MAYA FIGURINES FROM CENTRAL PETÉN, GUATEMALA

Halperin¹

2017

Latin Am. antiq.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maya figurine styles from the Late Classic to Postclassic periods (ca. AD 600–1521) from central Petén, Guatemala undergo an abrupt change at the Terminal Classic-Postclassic transition (ca. AD 830–1000). Despite the intimate association of figurines with households, such shifts parallel those on stone monuments and decorated vessels, underscoring the role of figurines in processes of political upheaval. Documenting figurine chronologies over broad periods of time, however, tells us little about how people in the past may have experienced temporal changes. Thus, in concert with a focus on figurine chronologies, this article explores the temporalities of figurines as manifested through their discard, the simultaneous experience of old and new figurine styles, and tensions between personal and monumental time.

show abstract

“…Such ambivalence comes out in various debates between Maya archaeologists in the interpretation of terminal ritual deposits. These deposits are identified by the deposition of often large amounts of trash, the smashing of vessels and other objects, and the dismantling of architecture in previously usable space, such as plazas, stairways of ceremonial buildings, and within residences (Halperin and Foias ; Kurnick ; Lamoureux‐St‐Hilaire ; Newman ). While some scholars have interpreted such deposits as evidence of violence and conflict by outsiders, others point to their reverential role in rituals of renewal where the occupants of the buildings or site destroy and throw away the “old” to rebuild anew.…”

Section: Tensions Of Collaboration and Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anthropological Archaeology in 2016: Cooperation and Collaborations in Archaeological Research and Practice

Halperin

2017

American Anthropologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ideas of collaboration and cooperation are often implicit, taken-for-granted elements in archaeological models and theorizing. Overshadowed by a growing archaeological preoccupation with warfare, violence, conflict, and crisis, cooperative acts and collaborative dispositions appear to lack the same emotional resonance and changestimulating properties that attract archaeological attention. Nonetheless, many archaeological publications in 2016 directly take on notions of collaboration in thinking about the past and our roles as archaeologists and as citizens of the future. This review underscores the significance of thinking about collaboration and cooperation as ambiguous, ambivalent, multiscalar, and dynamic. At issue is not just the creation of community but also of getting things done and, of course, celebrating, revising, or reworking the intended or unintended consequences of those actions over the generations. [archaeology, collaboration, cooperation] RESUMEN Las ideas de colaboración y cooperación son a menudo elementos implícitos, que se dan por sentados en los modelos y teorización arqueológicos. Opacados por una creciente preocupación arqueológica por la guerra, la violencia, el conflicto, y la crisis, a los actos cooperativos y disposiciones colaborativas parecen faltarles la misma resonancia emocional y propiedades estimulantes de cambio que atraen la atención arqueológica. No obstante, muchas publicaciones arqueológicas en 2016 empiezan directamente a tratar las nociones de colaboración, reflexionando acerca del pasado y nuestros roles como arqueólogos y como ciudadanos del futuro. Esta revisión enfatiza la importancia de considerar la colaboración y cooperación como ambiguas, ambivalentes, de múltiples escalas, y dinámicas. En cuestión no sólo está la creación de comunidad, sino también el lograr que se hagan las cosas, y por supuesto, celebrar, revisar, o rehacer las consecuencias planeadas o no planeadas de esas acciones sobre generaciones. [arqueología, colaboración, cooperación]

show abstract

Household Garbage: Classic period (ca. 300-900 CE) Maya Practices of Discard

Cited by 6 publications

References 42 publications

Problematical Deposits at Tikal, Guatemala: Content, Context, and Intent

Problematical Deposits at Tikal, Guatemala: Content, Context, and Intent

TEMPORALITIES OF LATE CLASSIC TO POSTCLASSIC (ca. AD 600–1521) MAYA FIGURINES FROM CENTRAL PETÉN, GUATEMALA

Anthropological Archaeology in 2016: Cooperation and Collaborations in Archaeological Research and Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About