In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

 C a r n e g i e I n s t i t u t i o n o f Wa s h i n g t o n D i v i s i o n o f H i s t o r i c a l R e s e a r c h Theoretical Approaches to Problems No. 3 February 1947 Cultures and Peoples of the southeastern Maya frontier John M. Longyear III His line ran just east of the lower Ulua River from the Atlantic coast to northern Lake Yojoa, thence to the Lempa River border of El Salvador by way of Sensenti, and finally down the Lempa to the Pacific. Although he clearly indicated that his “boundary” marked “maximum expansion . . . without regard to period” (Lothrop 1939, Fig. 3), this same line has since become quite generally adopted as the southeastern boundary of the Maya at the time of the conquest . At first this was done with due reservation, and only because no better information was available , but now “Lothrop’s Southeastern Frontier” is rapidly approaching cliche status, with danger of its being accepted blindly and with no reservations whatsoever as “one of the things we all know about the Maya.” Considerable archaeological work has been carried on in this frontier section, especially Honduras, in the past decade, and we are fortunate in that some of this investigation has included contact sites as well as the older, classic material. Although the work was done by many people, without any coordinated plan, the results, together with our previous knowledge of the region, should greatly clarify our understanding of what went on in western Honduras and eastern El Salvador during and before the conquest. the ulua-yOjOa POlyChrOMe COMPlex This term distinguishes a large body of polychrome pottery, collected to date mainly from the banks of the lower Ulua River and the northern end of Lake Yojoa. None of the various attempts at classification of these CONteNts Ulua-Yojoa Polychrome Complex Peoples Along the Southeastern Frontier Summary Most linguistic maps of Central America attempt to represent the range and boundaries of peoples at, or shortly after, the Spanish conquest. This is only natural , since most of the information on which the maps are based has been gleaned from accounts written by itinerant Spanish soldiers and priests during the sixteenth century. When these accounts fail us, archaeological remains are commonly used to fix boundaries. This practice, of course, necessitates the assumption that major linguistic groups also form distinct archaeological complexes, an assumption which, I think, we are justified in making, at least in our present state of knowledge. An assumption we cannot always make, however, is that archaeological remains reflect sixteenth-century boundaries. They do not, simply because the great bulk of our digging, especially in the Maya area, has been conducted in sites abandoned long before the conquest. This is especially true of frontier regions, where we most need “contact” material to supplement historical data. Theoretically, archaeology should be of benefit to the linguist and historian in these very areas, as a clearly worked-out sequence of cultures would enable him to trace the movements of peoples, not in space alone, but also in time. What we now regard as the southeastern frontier of the Maya was established, almost a decade ago. • • • John m. LongyEar iii  wares has been entirely successful, and only one was made on a stratigraphic basis (Strong, Kidder, and Paul 1938). The classification given below is based on shape, and is intended merely to list the most typical forms of the complex, together with the decorative styles especially peculiar to each. a. thick-Walled bowls and Vases. form: Bowls with vertical to slightly flaring walls, dimpled bases; cylinder vases with three low, hollow slab feet; both forms characterized by incurving lip (Strong, Kidder, and Paul 1938, Pls. 12b,d,e). Design: Grotesque birds, quadrupeds, and serpents ; rather grotesque humans; textile patterns. b. thin-Walled bowls and Vases. form: Bowls with flaring halls, dimpled bases; cylinder vases, usually flat-based, without supports; straight lip (Strong, Kidder, and Paul 1938, Pls. 8a,b, 12e). Design: Very stylized human processional and “dancing?” figures; rows of stylized heads; interiors with “counters” pendent from lip. C. tripod Plates. form: Flat plates, supported on three long, hollow cylinder legs (Strong, Kidder, and Paul 1938, Pl. 8e,f). Design: Intricate serpent patterns. D. handled “bulge” bowls. form: Globular body, usually with sharp shoulder ; straight neck; two vertical loop handles...

Share