Inomata 2017. Maya Ceibal. Standardized Spatial Plans

Ancient Mesoamerica, 28 (2017), 329–355
Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2017

doi:10.1017/S0956536117000049
THE EMERGENCE OF STANDARDIZED SPATIAL

PLANS IN SOUTHERN MESOAMERICA:
CHRONOLOGY AND INTERREGIONAL
INTERACTIONS VIEWED FROM CEIBAL,
GUATEMALA
Takeshi Inomata
School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, 1009 E. South Campus Dr., Tucson, AZ 85721-0030
Abstract
Our investigations at the lowland Maya center of Ceibal have demonstrated that a formal spatial pattern consisting of an E-Group
assemblage and large platforms started around 1000 b.c. and gradually expanded over the next several centuries. A re-evaluation of
ceramic and radiocarbon data from other lowland Maya sites suggests that the beginning of sedentary life and ceramic use in various parts
of the Maya lowlands started roughly simultaneously around 1000 b.c., which may have been triggered by a change in maize productivity.
The standardized spatial pattern including the E-Group assemblage probably developed in the Isthmian Interaction Sphere, encompassing
the southern Gulf Coast, central Chiapas, the Chiapas-Guatemalan Pacific Coast, and Ceibal, during the transitional period between the
decline of San Lorenzo and the rise of La Venta as a major center (1200–800 b.c.). Most of the lowland Maya communities adopted the
E-Group assemblage after 800 b.c., but not other elements of the standardized spatial pattern.
INTRODUCTION who apparently did not use ceramics or substantial buildings.

Instead of gradually transitioning from a small village to a more for-
The results of our recent investigations at Ceibal, Guatemala, as dis-
malized spatial pattern, the residents of Ceibal built a formal ceremo-
cussed in the papers of this special section, provide important
nial center as soon as they adopted a sedentary way of life. This spatial
insights into the social processes regarding the establishment of sed-
pattern is similar to that of the Chiapas centers, consisting of an
entary communities and the growth of centralized polities in the
E-Group assemblage and large platforms located along the north-
Maya lowlands during the Preclassic period. Important findings
south axis of the E Group (see Inomata et al. 2017a), which Clark
include: (1) Ceibal was founded as a formal ceremonial center at
(Clark and Hansen 2001) called the Middle Formative Chiapas
the beginning of its occupation around 1000 b.c. (Figure 1); (2)
(MFC) pattern. Similarities to neighboring regions are also seen in
the architecture and ritual deposits suggest a close connection
the construction methods. The early Ceibaleños constructed build-
with the Grijalva basin in Chiapas; (3) some buildings at Ceibal
ings by carving the natural marl and by placing additional clay.
reached a monumental scale between 850 and 775 b.c.; (4) by
Subsequent early Middle Preclassic structures were built mainly of
700 b.c., the residents of Ceibal established an even more formal-
clay and earth. The use of clay and earth was common at contempo-
ized spatial pattern which closely resembled those of centers in
raneous settlements in Chiapas, as well as on the Gulf Coast, on the
Chiapas; and (5) during the late Middle Preclassic period
southern Pacific Coast, and in the Guatemalan highlands. In addition,
(700–350 b.c.), Ceibal maintained this formal plan but, in terms
the Ceibal residents deposited greenstone axe caches at the beginning
of construction methods and ceramics, the Ceibal residents strength-
of site occupation, which resembled later deposits at La Venta, San
ened affinity with the rest of the Maya lowlands.
Isidro, and Chiapa de Corzo. It appears that interactions with
Our investigations have demonstrated that the earliest versions of
central Chiapas and other neighboring regions were critical for this
an E-Group assemblage (see Inomata et al. 2017a, for the definition
social transformation at Ceibal. Nonetheless, it is important to note
of the E-Group assemblage) and the A-24 platform were built at the
that these early buildings at Ceibal were relatively small, and they
beginning of occupation at Ceibal around 950 b.c., that is, the incep-
appear to represent minimal elements of the MFC pattern. Ceibal
tion of the early Middle Preclassic period (Inomata et al. 2013;
still did not have a pyramid on the western side of the E-Group assem-
Inomata et al. 2017b; Triadan et al. 2017). This represented a substan-
blage, and the north-south orientation typical of the fully developed
tial social transformation. During the previous period, the area was
MFC pattern with multiple platforms was not clearly manifested. In
either uninhabited or occupied sparsely by mobile horticulturalists
addition, it lacked a northeastern platform, a characteristic of later
MFC sites (Clark and Hansen 2001; Inomata et al. 2017a). These
Email correspondence to: inomata@email.arizona.edu observations suggest that the residents of Ceibal did not simply
329
Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 01 Jun 2017 at 17:20:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956536117000049
330 Inomata
Figure 1. Chronological chart for the Maya lowlands and the surrounding areas. The chart represents the author's view of ceramic
cross-dating rather than the original chronologies presented by researchers of individual sites.
accept a spatial pattern developed elsewhere, but they actively partic- CHRONOLOGY OF THE PASIÓN REGION
ipated in interregional interactions and contributed to the formaliza-
Ceibal Sequence
tion of the MFC pattern.
During the Real 2 phase (850–775 b.c.), some of the buildings at Detailed stratigraphic information obtained in our excavations allowed
Ceibal reached a monumental scale. The expanded version of the us to subdivide the ceramic phases originally proposed by Sabloff
western building of the E-Group assemblage (Structure B’ehom) (Sabloff 1975:229). We analyzed 73 radiocarbon dates from the
appears to have taken a pyramidal shape. Platform Ch’och’ under Middle Preclassic contexts at Ceibal. The accelerator mass spectrom-
the A-24 Platform also went through a series of renovations etry (AMS) radiocarbon dates of those samples were obtained at the
during this period, and reached a total fill thickness of 3.5 m in University of Arizona AMS laboratory (AA), Poznan Radiocarbon
Op. 200B and roughly six meters in Op. 200A. It was during the fol- Laboratory, Poland (Poz), and Paleo Laboratory Co., Japan (PLD)
lowing Real 3 phase (775–700 b.c.) that the northwestern platform, (Inomata et al. 2013:Table S1; Inomata et al. 2015b:Table S1). We
K’at, was added and a more developed form of the MFC pattern applied Bayesian statistics to refine the radiocarbon dates. The
with multiple platforms was established. Ceibaleños continued to Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates incorporates information on
deposit greenstone axe caches, but the size of the axes tended to ceramic phases and stratigraphic relations to narrow down the probabil-
be smaller. The three cruciform caches with semi-translucent jade ity distributions of calibrated dates for each radiocarbon measurement,
axes (Caches 7, 160, and 171) probably belong to this period. and estimates the starting and ending dates of a given temporal phase.
In this paper, I attempt to situate these finds at Ceibal in the The analysis, however, does not rectify errors resulting from external
broader data set from the Maya lowlands and surrounding regions factors, such as sample contamination, the lack of stratigraphic integ-
to develop a better understanding of social processes. For this rity, and old wood. Thus, outliers (dates found outside of expected
purpose, chronological evaluations and correlations across different ranges) should be excluded from models. Researchers need to build
regions are critical. Building on important earlier syntheses a model based on various assumptions about the radiocarbon dates
(Andrews 1990; Cheetham 2005), here I present my chronological that they analyze, including phases (time spans to which multiple
reconstruction for the Maya lowlands and the surrounding regions samples belong to), sequences (temporal orders between radiocarbon
based on available data on ceramic sequences and radiocarbon samples or phases), and contemporaneity (onetime events/deposits
dates (Figures 1 and 2). All dates discussed in the paper are cali- to which multiple samples belong). For our analysis we used the
brated dates unless indicated otherwise. The chronological relations OxCal 4.2 program with the IntCal13 calibration curve (Bronk
with the southern Gulf Coast, central Chiapas, and the southern Ramsey 2013; Reimer et al. 2013). Inomata et al. (2013:Supplement;
Pacific Coast were discussed in detailed in a previous publication 2015:Supporting Information; 2017c:Supporting Information) pro-
(Inomata et al. 2013), and they are not repeated here. vides lists of radiocarbon dates and specifics of our Bayesian model.
The Emergence of Standardized Spatial Plans in Southern Mesoamerica 331
Figure 2. Map of the Maya lowlands and the surrounding areas with the location of the sites discussed in the text. Map by author.
To establish a sound chronology, we tried to eliminate or from contexts belonging to roughly the same time, we generally
reduce potential errors in radiocarbon dating resulting from: (1) the chose younger dates assuming that older dates may have resulted
contamination of samples and unreliable measurements; (2) the from old wood or re-deposition of older materials.
re-deposition of old materials; (3) old wood effects; and (4) marine Freshwater reservoir effects present another problem. The prev-
and freshwater reservoir effects. In collecting samples, we mainly tar- alent limestone bedrock in the Maya lowlands appears to contribute
geted primary depositional contexts, including on-floor deposits, substantially to freshwater reservoir effects on radiocarbon dates
on-floor burning remains, shallow middens, burials, and caches. Our (Ascough et al. 2007; Cook et al. 2001; Culleton 2006; Keaveney
second preferences were refuse dumps within construction fills consist- and Reimer 2012; Philippsen 2013). It is estimated that freshwater
ing of nearly contemporaneous materials without substantial mixes of organisms from central Peten lakes, such as shell and fish, show
older or heavily weathered sherds. The Bayesian statistics help us iden- measurements 1400 to 1800 radiocarbon years older than those
tify outliers, that is, problematic dates resulting from re-deposition, con- of terrestrial plants, and those from lakes in the northern Yucatan
tamination, or measurement errors. For the samples submitted to the Peninsula around 1200 radiocarbon years older (Curtis and Hodell
Poznan Lab and Paleo Lab, Hitoshi Yonenobu examined wood mate- 1996; Curtis et al. 1998; Hodell et al. 1995; Islebe et al. 1996).
rials and selected samples that were less likely to be old wood. In addi- Some researchers favor human bones for radiocarbon dating
tion, we dated multiple samples from each ceramic phase to evaluate because they are less likely to represent re-depositions of older
and reduce the effects of old wood. Within a range of dates obtained materials. Nonetheless, the freshwater reservoir effect causes older
332 Inomata
radiocarbon date measurements of human bones proportional to the debate. Sabloff (1975:229) and Willey (1990:195) originally sug-
consumption of freshwater organisms in relation to other food gested that the Altar de Sacrificios materials are similar to those
sources. Currently we do not have enough data with which to eval- from upper layers of the Real contexts at Ceibal and Adams
uate offsets resulting from freshwater reservoir effects. Although we (1971:117, 146) also noted that the Xe ceramics corresponded to
measured radiocarbon dates of some human bones, we did not the late part of the Real ceramics. Andrews (1990), however, sug-
include these dates in our Bayesian model. gested that the Xe and Real ceramics derived from those in
Real 1 phase (1000–850 b.c.) ceramics are characterized by the Chiapas or the northern Guatemalan highlands, and that the Altar
common presence of dull white-slipped vessels (Huetche White), as materials, located closer to Chiapas, were earlier than the Ceibal
well as those with matte red slips (Abelino Red) (Figure 3). Postslip ceramics. Our Real chronology firmly supports the former view,
incisions are common, but most of them are simple hatching or and I correlate the Xe phase of Altar de Sacrificios to our Real 3
curved lines, and specific symbolic motifs like those seen in the phase. My observations of Altar ceramic samples stored at the
Cunil ceramics are rare. Common vessel forms include tecomates, Instituto de Antropología e Historia in Guatemala City confirmed
jars with flaring necks, and bowls with direct or exterior-folded or that the Xe ceramics showed relatively glossy slips similar to
exterior-thickened rims. Ten radiocarbon dates associated with the ear- some of the Real 3 materials. The report of the Altar ceramics
liest buildings—the initial constructions of Structures Ajaw and Xa’an, (Adams 1971) also shows typical Real 3 markers, including
and Platform Sulul (including those on maize grains)—concentrate double line breaks and other grooved motifs, shallow plates with
around 950 b.c. with an approximate error range of ± 50 years, chamfering or small horizontally everted rims, bowls with
whereas those associated with subsequent construction episodes of fingernail-like impressions, and the prominence of black slip and
those structures range between 950 and 850 b.c. I consider the three dichromes. The Xe ceramics at Altar de Sacrificos were found in
samples ranging between 1100 and 1000 b.c. to be old wood. The a small number of deposits without internal stratigraphic sequences
presence of ceramics in the fills of the earliest building stages suggests comparable to those at Ceibal (Adams 1971:79–84). This pattern
that the use of ceramics started slightly earlier than these constructions. probably reflects a shorter duration of the Xe occupation at Altar
Although the time span between the initial ceramic use and these build- than that of Real.
ings may be shorter than 50 years, I chose 1000 b.c. as the beginning Outside of Ceibal and Altar de Sacrificios, sporadic occurrence
date of the Real 1 phase to avoid a false sense of precision. of pre-Mamom ceramics has been reported in the Pasión region.
Most traits of the Real 1 ceramics continued into the Real 2 phase At Punta de Chimino, Bachand (2006, 2007) uncovered
(850–775 b.c.), but the ratio of white slipped vessels to red slipped Xe-corresponding materials, which he named Colonia ceramics.
ones gradually declined and that of thicker vessels increased. A This complex is also characterized by Real-3 markers. At Itzan,
handful of large horizontally everted rims appear to date to this Johnston (2006:Figure 11) found a small quantity pre-Mamom
phase. Although Clark and Cheetham (Cheetham 2005; Clark and ceramics, which most likely correspond to the Real 3 phase. At
Cheetham 2002) suggest that this type of rim is a horizon marker the minor settlement of Caobal in the periphery of Ceibal,
of pre-Mamom ceramics, their frequency is extremely small at Munson and Pinzón G. (2017) unearthed a small amount of Real
Ceibal. We obtained eleven dates from Real 2 levels of Platform ceramics. Some of them clearly belong to the Real 3 phase although
Ch’och’, consisting of a series of thin, superimposed floors. Most the occupation may have started during the Real 2 phase. No build-
of these floors were burned, and we assume that most of our ings on raised platforms or mounded structures dating to the Real
carbon samples derived from on-floor burning. It is unlikely that phase have been found at any of these sites beside Ceibal.
they represent re-deposited old carbon. This stratigraphic information, It appears that for a few centuries Ceibal was the only settlement,
along with three additional dates from other areas and the steep slope or one of a few, in the Pasión region with substantial architecture
of the radiocarbon calibration curve, made the Bayesian analysis and the use of ceramics. Much of the region probably continued
highly effective, resulting in a tight date range of 850 to 775 b.c. to be inhabited by mobile groups who maintained the traditional,
These high-precision dates provide a solid basis for our argument preceramic lifeway without the use of ceramics and substantial
that the residents of Ceibal built monumental architecture by 800 b.c. architecture (Inomata et al. 2015a, 2015b). Lohse (2010) has also
During the Real 3 phase (775–700 b.c.), postslip incisions were suggested the co-existence of sedentary and mobile populations in
largely replaced by preslip grooves. Shallow plates became a other parts of the Maya lowlands, and Arnold (1999, 2000, 2009)
characteristic form of this period, and some of them were decorated and Rosenswig (2010, 2011) have pointed out similar situations
with chamfering, small horizontally everted rims, or grooved on the southern Gulf Coast and the Pacific Coast during the Early
double-line-breaks. Other markers of the Real 3 phase include the Preclassic. At Ceibal, we have not found any Real-1 structures
increased importance of black slips (Crisanto Black) and dichromes that can be confirmed to have been residential. The only potential
(Toribio Red-and-cream and Muxanal Red-and-cream), and plain or exception is Platform Sulul under the A-24 Platform, but it is not
partially red-slipped composite silhouette bowls and jars with clear whether this broad platform was used for communal, ritual,
fingernail-like impressions (Baldizon Impressed, Yalmanchac or residential purposes (Triadan et al. 2017). The excavation of
Impressed). Bowls with exterior-thickened rims nearly disappear. the Karinel Group (Platform 47-Base) located next to Group A by
Mamom-like ceramics with waxy slips began to appear in small MacLellan (2012) revealed artifact deposits and a burial dating to
quantities during this phase. Because of the flattening of the calibra- the Real 2 and 3 phases, but occupation during the Real 1 phase
tion curve, it is difficult to determine the end of this phase precisely. has not been confirmed. The Excavations and survey by the
I arbitrarily assigned an end date of 700 b.c. Harvard team showed that Real remains are concentrated in
Groups A and C, and Tourtellot (1988) estimated that the population
of Ceibal during the Real phase was less than 500 people. Given the
Pasión Region
findings from our excavations, much of the remains found by
The relative chronology of the Xe ceramics at Altar de Sacrificios Harvard researchers may date to the Real 2 and 3 phases. The ear-
and the Real ceramics from Ceibal has long been a point of liest building at Ceibal that can be reasonably interpreted as a
Figure 3. Ceramics from Ceibal. (a) Real 1-2 phases (1000-800 BC): (a1) Achiotes Unslipped; (a2) Abelino Red and Pico de Oro Incised,
with postslip incisions; (a3–a4) Huetche White and Comistun Incised, with postslip incisions; (a5) Crisanto Black. (b) Real 3 (800-700
BC) and Escoba 1 (700-600 BC) phases: (b1) Yalmanchac Impressed; (b2) Abelino/Juventud Red and Pico de Oro/Guitarra Incised
(preslip incisions); (b3) Ditale Dichrome; (b4) Huetche White; (b5) Crisanto/Chunhinta Black and Chompipi/Deprecio Incised, with
preslip incisions. Achiotes Unslipped jars and bowls with direct rims continue into the Real 3 and Escoba 1 phases. Many characteristic
shapes and decorations of the Real 3 phases continue into the Escoba 1 phase, but the latter is defined by the predominance of waxy
slips and the appearance of Tierra Mojada Resist. Drawing by Alfredo Román.
334 Inomata
dwelling is Platform K’at, found under the East Court, which dates My estimated date of 1000 b.c. for the beginning of occupation
to the Real 3 phase and probably served as a residential complex for at Ceibal, as opposed to 1200–1100 b.c. proposed for Cuello, Cahal
the emerging elite (Triadan et al. 2017). Pech, and Blackman Eddy, does not result from the lack of early
I suggest that a significant portion of the Ceibal community radiocarbon dates but from our conservative evaluation of them.
maintained relatively mobile lifeways during the Real phase (see This pattern should be clear when we compare the age-ordered dis-
Inomata et al. 2015a, 2015b for more detailed discussion). These tributions of radiocarbon dates from these sites (Figure 4). This
mobile groups may have visited Ceibal for construction projects figure does not include dates from Ceibal older than 1500 b.c.
and public rituals organized by the emerging elite, who may have that are obviously unreliable possibly because of the small
adopted the sedentary way of life earlier than the rest of the commu- amount of carbon (less than 0.5 mg). The figure shows that at
nity. There is a growing understanding among archaeologists across Ceibal we have six or seven radiocarbon dates with a range nearly
the world that the construction of ceremonial complexes does not completely falling before 1000 b.c. (the specific number depends
necessarily require the presence of sedentary agriculturalists. on whether we reject PLD-22107 as natural-origin carbon included
Some of the earliest monumental ceremonial complexes in in soil used for construction fill), whereas Cuello has three and
various parts of the world, including the pre-pottery Neolithic Blackman Eddy has one radiocarbon date with a range nearly
shrines at Göbekli Tepe in Turkey, preceramic temples in the completely predating 1000 b.c. (for Cuello, problematic dates for
Andes, and monumental mounds in the southeastern United samples collected before 1976 are excluded; see Andrews and
States, were built by hunter-gatherers, those practicing mixed sub- Hammond 1990; Hammond 2002). At Cahal Pech, more recently
sistence, or mobile horticulturalists (Burger and Rosenswig 2012; obtained dates show pre-1000 b.c. dates (1120–910 b.c.,
Clark and Knoll 2005; Izumi and Sono 1963; Schmidt 2010; 1280–1010 b.c., 1360–1350 b.c., and 1310–1050 b.c.) (Sullivan
Shady Solis et al. 2001). While this possibility has rarely been dis- and Awe 2013), but their conventional radiocarbon dates and spe-
cussed in the Maya area, relevant data should be further explored. cific stratigraphic information have not been published, and they
are not included in Figure 4.
The application of Bayesian statistics allows us to evaluate the
EARLY LOWLAND MAYA CERAMICS
radiocarbon dates from these sites more rigorously. The following
Early Middle Preclassic ceramics from the Maya lowlands outside discussion is based on radiocarbon dates, stratigraphic sequences,
of the Pasión region include the followings: (1) the Swasey and and ceramic chronologies as reported for Cuello (Bronk Ramsey
Bladen complexes and related materials reported from Cuello et al. 2002:91–92; Hammond 1991; Hammond et al. 1995),
(Kosakowsky 1987; Kosakowsky and Pring 1998), Colha (Valdez Blackman Eddy (Brown 2001, 2007; Brown and Garber 2005;
1987), K’axob (López Varela 2004), San Estevan (Cruz Alvarado Garber et al. 2004a), and Cahal Pech (Awe 1992; Healy and Awe
and Rosenswig 2009; Rosenswig 2008), and Ka’Kabish (Haines 1995; Healy and Awe 1996; Healy et al. 2004b; Sullivan and
et al. 2014); (2) the Cunil and Early Jenney Creek complexes and Awe 2013). Lohse (2010) also lists most of those dates.
related materials from Cahal Pech (Awe 1992; Cheetham 2005;
Healy et al. 2004b; Sullivan et al. 2009), Blackman Eddy (Brown
Northern Belize
and Garber 2005; Garber et al. 2004a, 2004b), Pacbitun (Healy
1990; Healy et al. 2004a; Powis et al. 2009), Xunantunich The detailed stratigraphic description of excavations of Platform 34
(LeCount and Mixter 2016), Actuncan (LeCount and Mixter at Cuello (Hammond 1991) provides a solid basis for Bayesian
2016), and Holmul (Callaghan and Neivens de Estrada 2016; modeling (Figure 5). The Swasey phase consists of Phases 0, I,
Estrada-Belli 2012; Neivens de Estrada 2014); (3) the Eb complex and II in terms of the stratigraphic sequence, whereas the strati-
from Tikal (Culbert 1977; Laporte and Valdés 1993), Uaxactun graphic positions of the North Square old land surface
(Cheetham 2005), Nakum (Źrałka et al. 2012), and the Ah Pam (OxA-4452, 4453, 4454, and 4542) from the 1993 excavation are
complex or Eb-related materials from the Peten Lake region (D. not clear. Two measurements from Phase IA, as well as Burial
Rice 1976; P. Rice 1979, 2009, 2015); (4) the Chiuaan complex 159/167, exhibit ranges roughly between 900–800 b.c., which
from the Middle Usumacinta region (Rands 1987, 2002); and (5) may reflect the span of the Swasey phase. An evaluation of possible
the Ek complex and related materials from Komchen and Kiuic outliers is critical for the assessment of whether the Swasey ceram-
(Andrews et al. 2008) (see Figure 2). Among them, Cuello, Cahal ics started before 1000 b.c. Carbon sample Q-1916 (2895 ± 200)
Pech, and Blackman Eddy provide a substantial number of early was collected from a fire pit from Phase II and its date, substantially
radiocarbon dates, and have been foci of chronological discussion. earlier than those from Phase I, is clearly out of sequence. In addi-
For those sites, dates of 1200 to 1100 b.c. have been suggested tion, its wide range of uncertainty makes this date problematic, and
as the beginning of ceramic use (Cheetham 2005; Garber et al. it is best excluded from the model.
2004a; Hammond 1991; Healy et al. 2004b), but I agree with the Two dates taken from human bones found in Burials 62 and 179
recent assessment by Lohse (2010) that there are no reliable radio- are particularly important for this discussion: 2840 ± 100
carbon dates indicating sedentary occupation and ceramic use in the (OxA-2103; bone) and 3040 ± 80 (OxA-4461; bone) (Hammond
Maya lowlands prior to 1000 b.c. Although some scholars prefer to et al. 1991a:31). Lohse (2010) has suggested that these two
place these ceramics in the Early Preclassic period (Brown 2007; burials without ceramic offerings are probably from preceramic
Garber and Awe 2009), I believe that it make more sense to call occupation. I suspect, however, that they are more likely from the
the period after 1000 b.c. the Middle Preclassic and to characterize Swasey or Bladen phases and these dates should probably be
these ceramics as Middle Preclassic materials as well. Significant rejected as unreliable measurements. Burial 62 was found in a
economic and political changes took place around 1000 b.c. bedrock cleft, and its stratigraphic position is not clear (Hammond
across southern Mesoamerica (Rosenswig 2010), and the emer- et al. 1991a:31). The investigators originally obtained a date of
gence of lowland Maya ceramics can also be understood in this 2460 ± for this bone, which they considered unacceptable.
broader context, as discussed below. Problems derive from the fact that bones from this burial were
Figure 4. Probability distributions of calibrated radiocarbon dates from Ceibal, Cuello, Blackman Eddy, and Cahal Pech. Only radio-
carbon dates older than 2600 are shown. For Ceibal, unreliable date measurements due to small amount of carbon (less than
0.5 mg) are excluded. The bars under the probability distributions represent 95.4 percent probability ranges.
treated with consolidants, polyvinyl acetate (PVA) and polyvinyl burials (Burials 176, 177, and 178) all placed within a small area
alcohol (PV-OH). As petroleum-based materials, PVA/PV-OH some 2 meters across. The investigators consider the fact that the
would give an older date than the real age. Re-measurement of burials were tightly clustered together, but did not intrude upon each
this skeleton through a standard pretreatment (the extraction of other, and reason that they were interred within a short period, possibly
crude collagen) yielded a date of 3750 ± 70 (OxA-1648) under an earth-floored precursor of Bladen-phase Structure 322a.
(Hammond et al. 1991a:31). Law et al. (1991) applied subsequent Burial 178 contained two Bladen-phase bowls, and their Bladen
treatments to the samples, which improved the measurements. The dates are generally consistent with radiocarbon dates from bones,
extraction of crude gelatin (this still contains a portion of PVA/ OxA-4458 (2600 ± 75) from Burial 176, OxA-4459 (2545 ± 70)
PV-OH) OxA-1649 yielded a date of 3000 ± 60, considered ade- from Burial 177, and OxA-4460 (2620 ± 75) from Burial 178
quate by the excavators (see Hammond et al. 1991a:32). Samples (Hammond et al. 1995:124). The excavators suggest that Burial 179
OxA-2103 and OxA-2166, amino acids from ion-exchanged belongs to a period before 1000 b.c. and that the other interments
gelatin, yielded dates of 2840 ± 100 and 2830 ± 70 (Law et al. were placed later under the same building (Hammond et al. 1995:
1991:311), respectively. The most reliable date should be the one 127). It is highly unlikely, however, that one structure continued to
on extracted amino acids that falls around 1000 b.c., not the one serve as a burial place with an interval of roughly five centuries
on crude gelatin that completely predates 1000 b.c. Even for the between interments. Most importantly, the excavators note that “the
date on extracted amino acids, Law et al. (1991:314) note that grave floors were just above bedrock, but the shafts were cut from a
“the four 14C dated burials from Cuello (7, 10, 62, 123) [which higher, albeit undetermined, level” which indicates that Burial 179
have been treated with PVA/PV-OH], should be considered with does not belong to the earliest phase in the stratigraphic sequence
some caution.” Thus, Burial 62 most likely does not substantially (Hammond et al. 1995:126). The contextual information implies that
predate 1000 b.c. I suggest that these contaminated samples Burial 179 is more likely contemporaneous with the nearby
should be excluded from chronological consideration. Bladen-phase burials, and its radiocarbon date is probably unreliable.
Burial 179, a female placed with an infant (Burial 180), was found In addition, human bones from Burials 148 and 173 have yielded
in the 1993 excavation of the North Square, along with three other old radiocarbon dates. Burial 148 was cut into the floor of Structure
336 Inomata
Figure 5. Bayesian-modeled calibrated radiocarbon dates from Cuello (from Hammond 1991; Hammond et al. 1995; Bronk Ramsey et al.
2002). Although the figure only shows dates for the Swasey and Bladen phases, the Bayesian model included dates from the
Lopez-Mamom phase to narrow down the transition date between the Bladen and Lopez phases. The possible ranges for the Swasey and
Bladen phases are based on ceramic cross-dating in addition to the radiocarbon dates. Outliers excluded from the Bayesian model are indi-
cated by ”?” at the end of the sample names. The premodeled distributions of calibrated date probabilities are indicated by light shadows,
whereas the modeled (after the application of Bayesian statistics) distributions of calibrated date probabilities are shown by solid fills. Dates
measured by Beta Analytic were indicated by a shortened lab code (B).
315b in the North Square that was associated with Lopez Mamom date ranges of 800–400 b.c.; in the case of a few samples the earliest
ceramics (Hammond et al. 1991b:355). The excavators originally end of the 95.4 percent probability range barely reaches 900 b.c.
dated this burial to the Lopez Mamom phase because of its associ- Cudjoe Composite in the Bladen complex with a band of fingernail
ation with Structure 315b and the presence of a Pital Cream vessel impressions and partial red slip closely resembles Yalmanchac
as a grave good (Hammond et al. 1991b:358), but in the publication Impresses at Ceibal, which is a good temporal marker for the Real
of its radiocarbon date they placed it in the Bladen phase (Bronk 3 (775–700 b.c.) and Escoba 1 (700–600 b.c.) phases. I suspect
Ramsey et al. 2002:92). Its contextual information makes its that the Bladen phase is largely contemporaneous with those
Mamom date more likely. Even when we accept its Bladen place- phases at Ceibal. Comparison of ceramics from Cuello and Cahal
ment, its radiocarbon date (3070 ± 80) is substantially older than Pech has suggested to Kosakowsky (Laura Kosakowsky, personal
most Swasey and Bladen dates, and should be rejected. Burial communication 2013) that the Bladen phase corresponds to the
173 found in the South Trench contained a Consejo Red Estrella late part of the Cunil phase and the Early Jenney Creek phase,
variety of the Bladen phase (Hammond et al. 1995:122). The exca- reflected mainly in the presence of Tower Hill Red on Cream
vators suggest that its radiocarbon date (3215 ± 65) is too old vessels in the two regions (Ball and Taschek 2003). This observa-
(Bronk Ramsey et al. 2002:92). Burial 174 located nearby may tion puts the Bladen phase roughly between 800 and 600 b.c. If
have been coeval to Burial 173. Its radiocarbon date, (2715 ± 75), so, the Swasey phase may be roughly contemporaneous with the
is older than most other Bladen dates. These data indicate that a con- early part of the Cunil phase, dating to 1000–800 b.c.. Although
siderable number of radiocarbon dates on human bones from Cuello my view of the Cuello chronology is somewhat different from
tend to show dates significantly older than the expected ranges. that of its excavators, I should note that such a re-evaluation was
Various factors may have contributed to the old dates on Burials only possible because of the systematic application of radiocarbon
62, 179, 148, 173, and 174, including contaminations, measurement dates and the exemplary reports of contexts and stratigraphy by
errors on small amounts of carbon, and freshwater and marine res- Hammond and his team.
ervoir effects resulting from the consumption of riverine and
marine organisms.
Belize River Valley
A possibly early date based on charcoal is OxA-4454 (2800 ±
70) found in the 1993 excavation of the North Square. This The excavators of Blackman Eddy date the Kanocha phase,
sample was collected from a 1 × 1 m test block excavated in six five- which is closely tied to the Cunil complex, to 1100–900 b.c.,
centimeter arbitrary levels down to bedrock. OxA-4454 came from the Early Jenney Creek phase to 900–700 b.c., and the
the fourth level from bedrock whereas another sample, OxA-4453 Mamom-corresponding Late Jenney Creek phase to 700–350 b.c.
(2485 ± 70) originated in the fifth level. In the North Square, two (Garber et al. 2004a). The claim of the pre-1000 b.c. occupation
other samples from comparable levels show ages younger than at Blackman Eddy is largely based on a single date, 2990 ± 60
OxA-4454: OxA-4452 (2540 ± 70) and OxA-4542 (2650 ± 60). It (Garber et al. 2004a:29), which is substantially earlier than the
appears that OxA-4454 is old wood or re-deposited old material. other Kanocha-phase dates. Although some publications report
Two samples with date ranges around 1000 b.c. were collected that this sample was collected from a pit dug directly into
from Bladen-phase contexts: OxA-4455 (2745 ± 75) and bedrock, Brown (Kathryn Brown, personal communication 2013)
OxA-1918 (2750 ± 110). They are significantly older than confirmed that it was taken from a pit cut into a plaza floor associ-
samples from the same contexts and should be considered as old ated with Structure B1–6th (see Garber et al. 2001:Figure 10). Thus,
wood or re-deposited materials (Hammond et al. 1995:124). the deposit does not belong to the earliest level in the construction
After excluding these outliers, the Bayesian model exhibits a rel- sequence of this site and is out of sequence. This date should prob-
atively tight date distribution for each phase (Figure 5). The Swasey ably be excluded from chronological consideration as an outlier
phase IA dates range from 900–780 b.c., the Swasey phase II from (Figure 6). The three other samples obtained from Kanocha contexts
780–700 b.c., and the Bladen phase from 700–600 b.c. Many of the have date ranges falling largely between 1000–800 b.c. Thus, there
radiocarbon dates from Cuello were obtained in the late 1970s and is no clear evidence that sedentary occupation with ceramic use
early 1980s when measurements were less accurate and less precise began at Blackman Eddy before 1000 b.c. Likewise, there is little
than today, and this chronology may change when more additional evidence to support the argument that the Early Jenney Creek
dates from northern Belize are collected. Still, it is reasonable to say phase started at 900 b.c. The date of 900 b.c. corresponds to the
that reliable evidence of ceramic use before 1000 b.c. at Cuello is highest probability of the three Kanocha-context samples, and the
lacking in the current data set. Joyce and Henderson (2001) argue 95.4 percent probability range of all the samples from the Early
for the Early Preclassic date of the Swasey phase by referring to Jenney Creek contexts fall squarely in the period between
the presence of pattern-burnish decorations (Patchchacan 800–400 b.c. Early Jenney Creek pottery shares temporal markers
Pattern-burnished) in the Swasey ceramics and the Chotepe with the Real 3 ceramics, including shallow plates and preslip
complex at Puerto Escondido, Honduras, which they date to grooves (Ball and Taschek 2003; Gifford 1976). The Early
1100–900 b.c. The pattern burnish technique, however, continues Jenney Creek phase likely dates to 800–700 b.c., contemporaneous
into the Middle Preclassic period in Honduras, including the with the Real 3 phase.
Chilcal complex at Yarumela (Joesink-Mandeville 1993), the The excavations of Plaza B and Structure B4 at Cahal Pech
Achiote complex in the Naco valley (Urban et al. 2002), and the yielded four radiocarbon measurements predating 1000 b.c.
Sula complex at Playa de los Muertos (Kennedy 1981:136). Thus, (Healy and Awe 1995; Sullivan and Awe 2013). Three of them
the presence of pattern burnishing at Cuello does not necessarily came from Level 12 or below under Structure B4; in Level 13 of
indicate Early Preclassic dates. this area excavators found abundant chert debitage but no ceramics.
For the Bladen phase, I see little evidence to support its begin- Cheetham (1995:27; see also Healy et al. 2004b) suggests that this
ning date of 900 b.c. suggested by the excavators of the site layer may correspond with a preceramic occupation. If so, we need
(Hammond 1991). Most acceptable Bladen dates have unmodeled to consider the possibility that the samples from Level 13 represent
338 Inomata
Figure 6. Bayesian-modeled calibrated radiocarbon dates from Blackman Eddy (from Garber et al. 2001, 2004a). Although the figure
only shows dates for the Kanocha and Early Jenney Creek phases, the Bayesian model included dates from the Late Jenney Creek phase
to narrow down the transition date between the Early and Late Kanocha phases. The possible ranges for the Kanocha and Early Jenney
Creek phases are based on ceramic cross-dating in addition to the radiocarbon dates.
the dates of the preceramic occupation and the one from Level 12 Preclassic period (Brown 2007; Garber and Awe 2009). The cross-
was re-deposited from this earlier period (Lohse 2010). Other dates dating of Cunil and other lowland ceramics with those of the sur-
with a clearer association with the Cunil ceramics fall around 1000 rounding regions is difficult because the transition from the Early
b.c. or later, corresponding fairly well with the Real 1 phase to Middle Preclassic ceramics is gradual in many areas, and the
(Figure 7). The single Early Kanluk phase (corresponding to the ceramic chronologies of most regions do not have sufficient tempo-
Early Jenney Creek phase) date from Cahal Pech completely over- ral resolution and precision. Still, various lines of evidence favor the
laps with the Cunil dates, and is likely old wood or a re-deposited placement of the Cunil pottery in the Middle Preclassic rather than
material. The Early Kanluk phase is better placed after 800 b.c., in the Early Preclassic. First, in the Early Preclassic complexes
as indicated by the dates of the equivalent Early Jenney Creek of many regions before 1000 b.c., including the Chiapas-
phase from Blackman Eddy. Guatemalan coast, the northern Maya highlands, and the southern
Until more radiocarbon dates with unequivocal association with Gulf Coast, tecomates were predominant, whereas necked jars
ceramics are obtained, I concur with Lohse (2010) that the Cunil were rare or absent. During the Middle Preclassic after 1000 b.c.,
complex should be placed in the period after 1000 b.c., contempo- necked jars became increasingly common, although tecomates
raneous with the Real ceramics. I thus disagree with those research- also continued (Bryant et al. 2005; Clark and Cheetham 2005;
ers who have suggested that the Cunil ceramics belong to the Early Coe and Flannery 1967; Sharer and Sedat 1987; von Nagy 2003).
Figure 7. Bayesian-modeled calibrated radiocarbon dates from Cahal Pech (from Healy and Awe 1995). Although the figure only shows
dates for the possible preceramic, Cunil, and Early Kanluk phases, the Bayesian model included dates from the Late Kanluk phase to
narrow down the transition date between the Early and Late Kanluk phases. The possible ranges for the Cunil and Early Kanluk phases
are based on ceramic cross-dating in addition to the radiocarbon dates.
The predominance of necked jars in the Cunil complex over teco- in the Middle Preclassic complexes after 1000 b.c. (for example,
mates (Sullivan et al. 2009:163) suggests their Middle Preclassic, Arroyo and Paiz 2010:Figures 6.15–6.16, 6.28, 6.34 and, 6.43;
that is, post-1000 b.c. date. Second, the Cunil ceramics apparently Clark and Cheetham 2005:Figure 42a; Coe and Diehl 1980:
lack characteristic Early Preclassic modes, including rocker- Figures 178d and 178q; Love 2002:Figures 77c–77e, 78k, 80h,
stamping and carved or scraped designs that are present on the and 84b). The presence of horizontally everted rims in the Real 2
southern Gulf Coast, on the Chiapas-Guatemalan Coast, in central phase at Ceibal indicates that incised motifs on such rims and on
Chiapas, and in the northern highlands (Baudez and Bequelin associated vessels at Cahal Pech most likely belong to the Middle
1973; Bryant et al. 2005; Clark and Cheetham 2005; Coe and Preclassic. At Ceibal most incised patterns are simple lines and
Flannery 1967; Love 2002; Lowe 2007; Sharer and Sedat 1987). cross-hatching and the specific iconographic motifs reported from
Third, characteristic Cunil forms, bowls with large horizontally Cahal Pech are less common. This divergence most likely resulted
everted rims, are found in a small number during the Real 2 from regional variations in aesthetic preferences, not from a tempo-
phases (850–775 b.c.) of the Middle Preclassic period at Ceibal. ral difference.
This form may have been adopted later at Ceibal than in the These observations suggest to me that the Real phase of Ceibal
Belize River valley, but it is unlikely that there exists a substantial and the Cunil phase of the Belize River valley are largely contem-
temporal gap in the appearance of this characteristic mode in the poraneous, although I do not dismiss the possibility that the emer-
two areas. Fourth, the published figurines from Cahal Pech and gence of ceramics was slightly earlier in Belize than at Ceibal.
Blackman Eddy are ones with punched eyes (Garber et al. 2004a: There is substantial evidence that Archaic populations without
Figure 3.3; Healy et al. 2004b), a characteristic temporal marker ceramic use were well established in Belize in the period before
of the Middle Preclassic period after 1000 b.c. across wide areas 1000 b.c. (Iceland 1997; Lohse 2010; Lohse et al. 2006;
(see Pinzón González 2011; Rosenswig 2010, 2012). The Rosenswig et al. 2014), whereas comparable evidence is currently
pan-Mesoamerican Olmec style with slit eyes of the Early absent at Ceibal. It is possible that the well-established Archaic pop-
Preclassic period is apparently lacking (Rosenswig 2010, 2012) ulations in Belize facilitated the earlier adoption of ceramics there.
although figurines were rare during the Cunil phase and the apparent The difference in timing of ceramic adoption in Belize and at
absence of Early Preclassic figures does not preclude the possibility Ceibal, however, if it existed, was likely fairly small.
of Early Preclassic dates. Fifth, although it has been suggested that
various iconographic motifs by postslip incisions belong to a
Central and Northern Peten
pan-Mesoamerican symbolic system of the Early Preclassic period
(Cheetham 1998, 2005; Garber and Awe 2009), such incised The Eb complex from Tikal and the closely related Ah Pam ceram-
motifs continued into the Middle Preclassic period and do not ics from around Lakes Yaxha and Sacnab do not have reliable radio-
serve as tight horizon markers. Postslip incised motifs become carbon dates, but their early facet share similarities with the Real
common after 1200 b.c. on the Chiapas-Guatemalan coast and in and Cunil ceramics. My observation of the Eb ceramic collections
central Chiapas (Clark and Cheetham 2005; Coe and Flannery at the University of Arizona and at Tikal gave me the impression
1967) and possibly earlier in central Mexico and Oaxaca that Calam Buff, along with Bil White, from Tikal exhibit similar-
(Flannery and Marcus 1994; Niederberger 1976), but they continue ities to Huetche White from Ceibal. Although many of Calam Buff
340 Inomata
vessels lack white slip (though some may have weak white wash), Mamom-corresponding Late Jenney Creek phase, including
their self-slip derived from a fine cream paste gives an appearance complex shapes and elaborate decorations with grooves. Early
similar to that of Huetche White. Bowls with exterior thickened forms dating to the early part of the Early Jenney Creek phase,
or nearly everted rims represent a predominant form for Calam such as bowls/plates with outcurving walls-rims with unslipped
Buff and other types in the Early Eb complex, a characteristic exteriors, are almost absent. These observations suggest that the
shared by the Real 1–2 ceramics from Ceibal. Huetche-like white- Late Eb complex is closer to early Mamom ceramics than to the
slipped vessels and exterior folded rims are also present in the Ah Real 3 complex. Hermes (Bernard Hermes, personal communica-
Pam complex (P. Rice 1979:Figures 4a–4d). Unslipped short- tion 2013) also suggests that the Late Eb ceramics correspond to
necked jars with smooth neck-wall juncture are similar to those early Mamom. If so, the Early Eb phase may be divided into the
from Ceibal, although the Ceibal Real collection includes medium- early facet corresponding to the Real 1–2 phase (1000–775 b.c.)
necked jars as well. Tikal’s relation with the Belize River valley is and the late facet contemporaneous with the Real 3 phase
reflected in the considerable frequency of horizontally everted rim (775–700 b.c.), and the Late Eb complex should be aligned with
bowls/plates and the common use of soft, fine pastes, some with the early part of the Escoba-Mamom complex (700–600 b.c.). In
volcanic ash temper. Tikal’s examples of horizontally everted this regard, ceramics from Operation 27B of the University of
rims, however, typically have angled junctures with the wall, cir- Pennsylvania Project (Culbert 1977) include a substantial number
cumferential grooves, and lips slightly thickened into round profiles, of sherds with dull slips, but the early traits, including horizontally
which are different from the Belizean ones with smooth junctures everted rims and exterior folded rims, are rare or absent. Bowls with
and postslip incisions (Cheetham 2005:Tables 3.3 and 3.4; outflaring walls and direct rims appear to be common in this collec-
Culbert 1977; Laporte and Valdés 1993; P. Rice 1979:Figures tion, and typical Real 3-phase traits, such as shallow plates and
4w, 4cc, 4dd, 5a, and 5c). A small number of everted rims found chamfering, are present. These materials, classified as part of the
at Ceibal closely resemble Tikal examples (Figure 8). These obser- Early Eb complex, may represent the Real-3 corresponding phase
vations suggest that the Early Eb complex involves a mix of traits at Tikal. Although the Tikal chronology needs to be refined
shared with the Belize River valley and the Pasión region. Unique further with more stratigraphic information and radiocarbon dates,
Tikal characteristics include jars with striations covering the exterior I would tentatively date the Early Eb phase to 1000/900–700
and interior of the neck and Cob Impressed with zoned impressions b.c. and the Late Eb phase to 700–600 b.c.
of small semi-circular instruments and red slip, which are some- In the western part of the Peten Lake region, the excavation of
times referred to as fish-scale impressions or reed impressions. Nixtun-Ch’ich’ by Prudence Rice (2009, 2015) revealed related
Figurines from the Early Eb phase exhibit the punched eyes charac- materials. The earliest level of this excavation (Level AA) contained
teristics of the Middle Preclassic (Laporte and Fialko 1995: 45 unslipped sherds, which Rice (P. Rice 2009:406) describes as
Figure 5). much cruder than other pre-Mamom pottery in the lowlands such as
An evaluation of the Late Eb ceramics is difficult because the Cunil and Swasey. Two charcoal samples from this level provided
specific proveniences of most samples stored at the University of radiocarbon measurements: 2930 ± 40 and 2870 ± 40, with the
Arizona and at Tikal are not clear. These Late Eb collections highest probability falling around 1100 to 1050 b.c. (Figure 9; Rice
include a substantial number of sherds with Mamom-like glossy/ 2009:408). These samples may possibly represent the earliest
waxy slips, however, as well as Tierra Mojada Resist that clearly lowland Maya ceramics, dating slightly earlier than 1000 b.c.
belong to the Escoba-Mamom phase at Ceibal. A fair number of Nonetheless, this assemblage includes necked jars with outcurving
Mars Orange ware sherds probably originating in the Belize River rims, which tend to characterize Middle Preclassic ceramic complexes
valley are present, but nearly all of them seem to be of late forms dating after 1000 b.c. in southern Mesoamerica. In addition, the fol-
dating to the later part of the Early Jenney Creek phase or the lowing stratigraphic level, Platform ZZ1-sub-8, appears to date to
Figure 8. Horizontally everted rims of bowls or plates from Ceibal (top), Tikal (middle), and the Belize River valley (bottom). Cahal Pech
example redrawn by Alfredo Román from Awe 1992:Figures 56 and 57.
Figure 9. Bayesian-modeled calibrated radiocarbon dates from Nixtun-Ch’ich’ (P. Rice 2009).
pre-Mamom-Mamom transition (P. Rice 2009:408; and my personal to wait for their full publications, the currently available evidence
observation), which I would place around 700 b.c. It would be odd strongly suggests that they date to 800–700 b.c. Forsyth (Don
to have a temporal gap of more than 300 years between these strati- Forsyth, personal communication 2013), the ceramicist of the
graphic levels. When we consider the possibility of old wood, it Mirador project, has also reached the same conclusion regarding
appears more likely that these ceramics date to the early Middle the chronological placement of the Early Ox ceramics. The presence
Preclassic between 1000–700 b.c. rather than to a pre-1000 b.c. of maize pollens in lake cores dating before 1000 b.c. (Wahl et al.
period. For the ceramics of the pre-Mamom-Mamom transition 2007, 2014, 2016) suggests that the northern Peten was inhabited
period, Prudence Rice (2015) emphasizes dissimilarities to ceramics by Archaic populations before the adoption of ceramics. I suspect
from the eastern part of the Peten Lake Region. The presence of that the pre-1000 b.c. radiocarbon dates from Nakbe represent mate-
cream/white slipped vessels in a significant number and of Tierra rials from preceramic occupations, as well as old wood.
Mojada Resist suggests that the western region of the lake area Hansen (2005) dates the subsequent Middle Ox complex to
had closer connection with the Pasión region than their eastern 800–600 b.c. It is characterized by typical Mamom types with
counterparts did. waxy slips, including Desvario Chamfered and Ajal Resist closely
It is necessary to comment on ceramics from Nakbe. The earliest related to Tierra Mojada Resist of the Pasión region (Don Forsyth,
ceramics, the Ox complex, at this northern Peten site are character- personal communication 2013). At Ceibal, Tierra Mojada Resist
ized by glossy/waxy slips and other characteristics of the Mamom starts in the Escoba-Mamom 1 phase (700–600 b.c.). This type is
ceramic sphere (Forsyth 1993). Hansen (2005) argues that the closely related to the Nicapa Orange Resist ware in central
Early Ox phase dates to around 1000 b.c., based on a series of radio- Chiapas, and resist decorations are far more common in the
carbon dates with six of them showing ranges around 1400–1000 Pasión region than in the central and northern Peten. It is unlikely
b.c. The possible presence of Mamom-like ceramics at this early that a resist type appears at Nakbe earlier than at Ceibal.
date has puzzled researchers (Clark et al. 2000:501). Since the strati- Moreover, chamfered plates are characteristic of the Escoba 1
graphic contexts of the radiocarbon samples from Nakbe have not
been reported, Bayesian statistics would not be of much help.
According to Hansen (2005:Figure 5.5), the Early Ox ceramics
were found extremely sparsely. Hansen notes the presence of
red-rimmed tecomates; similar neckless jars with a red band on the
rim represent a long tradition in Mesoamerica dating back to the
Early Preclassic period (Figure 10). Red-rimmed tecomates,
however, are also present in the Real 3 complex (775–700 b.c.) at
Ceibal, and they do not serve as a good temporal marker. Other char-
acteristic vessels of the Early Ox phase that he shows include
red-rimmed restricted vessels with fingernail-like impressions and
black bowls/plates with double-line-break incisions/grooves.
These are diagnostic modes of the Real 3 phase in the Ceibal
sequence. Fingernail-like impressions are present during the Early
Preclassic in central Chiapas and the Soconusco region, but the spe-
cific vessel forms and arrangements of impressions that Hansen illus-
trates and that I observed in his lab are nearly identical to those of
Yalmanchac Impressed found at Ceibal and Caobal (see Munson
and Pinzón G. 2017:Figure 9), which are good temporal markers of
the Real 3 (775–700 b.c.) and Escoba 1 (700–600 b.c.) phases. In
addition, the published Early Ox figurines have the punched eyes
characteristic of the Middle Preclassic (Hansen 2005:Figure 5.7). Figure 10. Early Ox ceramics from Nakbe. Redrawn by Alfredo Román
Although a more detailed evaluation of the Early Ox ceramics has from Hansen 2005:Figure 5.5.
342 Inomata
Figure 11. Line break motifs on Real 1-2 phase ceramics from Ceibal. Drawing by Alfredo Román.
phase at Ceibal although they are also present during the Real 3 and date the beginning of the Early Nabanche phase to 1000 b.c.,
phase. I suggest that the Middle Ox complex should be placed citing the comparable date for the Early Ox complex of Nakbe.
between 700–600 b.c., contemporaneous with the Escoba 1 phase. As noted above, this chronology for Nakbe is unlikely. In addition,
a small number of pre-800 b.c. radiocarbon dates from the northern
lowlands that Ceballos and Robles cite have wide ranges of uncer-
Middle Usumacinta Region tainty, and their reliability is questionable.
Investigations at Tierra Blanca, Trinidad, Zapatillo, and other sites During my initial observation of Ek ceramics, I received an
by Rands (1987, 2002; see also Englehardt 2011) recovered a sig- impression that they are close to Real 3-phase materials at Ceibal
nificant amount of Preclassic materials. Olmec-style figurines because (1) their slips are relatively glossy and (2) there appear to
found at Tierra Blanca (Rands 1977:Figures 7.1a–7.1b) indicate be no other materials in the Komchen sequence corresponding to
the presence of Early Preclassic occupation in this area with possible Real 3 ceramics of Ceibal. After examining the extensive
connections with the Gulf Coast Olmec, but the contents of related Komchen collection at the INAH ceramoteca in Mérida, however,
ceramic assemblages are not clear. The Chiuaan complex includes I am more inclined to agree with Andrews and Bey in that they
tecomates, incised vessels, and white-slipped bowls similar to are contemporaneous with the Real 2 phase or even with the Real
Huetche White, some with exterior-thickened rims similar to Real 1 phase. I now agree with Andrews and Bey that the common use
ceramics. The importance of black slips and the presence of differ- of postslip incisions on Ek vessels potentially aligns them with
entially fired white-rimmed black vessels indicate affinity with the Real 1 or 2 ceramics (1000–775 b.c.) and contemporaneous com-
southern Gulf Coast. The Chiuaan complex probably corresponds plexes, such as Cunil and Eb. The relatively glossy appearance of
to the Real 1 and 2 phases (1000–775 b.c.). The following Xot Ek ceramics may be due to their preservation conditions. Ek ceram-
complex includes matte red slips similar to Abelino Red of the ics are fairly well fired, which, along with the drier condition of
Real complex. Although waxy slips are apparently absent, cloudy Yucatan, probably contributed to their better preservation. Some
resist orange rounded bowls show similarities to Tierra Mojada of the slipped Real 1 and 2 ceramics also show glossy or lustrous
Resist of the Escoba complex and the Nicapa Orange Resist of appearance immediately after they are unearthed, but they quickly
central Chiapas. The Xot complex may correspond to the Real 3 turn dull as they dry. In other words, many of the Ek and Real
phase (775–700 b.c.) and the beginning of the Escoba 1 phase 1–2 slipped ceramics (and possibly other related ceramics from
(700–600 b.c.). Alternatively, the Xot phase may correspond to the southern Maya lowlands) originally had comparable glossy sur-
the middle to late parts of the Escoba 1 phase when the residents faces, but archaeological samples of Real materials show dull or
of the Middle Usumacinta region might have begun to adopt matte appearance because of poor firing and poor preservation.
some modes of Chiapas and the Maya lowlands and incorporated Eroded Ek ceramics appear similar to Real 1–2 materials.
them with local types of slip. The Chacibcan complex is character- In addition, the Komchen collection includes ceramics possibly
ized by waxy slips typical of the Mamom sphere. In sum, the Middle corresponding to Real 3 materials, and there might have been a con-
Usumacinta region appears to have maintained affinity with both the tinuous ceramic tradition in northwestern Yucatan, spanning from
Pasión region and the southern Gulf Coast during the early Middle Real 1/2 to Escoba-Mamom-corresponding periods. Specifically,
Preclassic period, and was incorporated in the lowland Maya black-slipped ceramics with rectilinear line breaks at Komchen
ceramic sphere during the late Middle Preclassic. may be contemporaneous with the Real 3 phase (775–700 b.c.).
The Komchen collection contains a fair number of plates/dishes
with three or more circumferential postslip or preslip incisions abut-
Northern Maya Lowlands ting five or so vertical incisions on the interiors of outflared everted
A re-evaluation of ceramics excavated at Komchen and new finds or direct rims. They seem to appear almost exclusively on black
from Kiuic have led Andrews et al. (2008, 2017) to re-define the dishes/plates or black dishes/plates with a red band on the rim.
Ek complex, which is characterized by postslip incisions common At Ceibal, similar rectilinear line breaks made of postslip incisions
in pre-Mamom ceramics. Ek ceramics were found in construction are found in small numbers on direct rim interiors of red and white
fills of substantial platforms at Komchen, and related materials dishes/plates during the Real 1 and 2 phases (Figure 11). During the
have been identified at Kiuic and other sites. After examining Real 3 phase they are replaced by preslip incision double line breaks
early ceramics from Cuello, Cahal Pech, Tikal, and Ceibal, on the interiors of outflared everted rims or horizontally everted
Andrews et al. (2017) have concluded that the closest similarities rims typically of white/cream plates with a red band on the rim
are found with the Real 2 ceramics. Ceballos Gallareta and or of black plates. These combinations of incised motifs, colors,
Robles Castellanos (2012), however, argue that the Ek types and vessel shapes continue into the Escoba 1 phase. It is unlikely
belong to the Mamom-corresponding Early Nabanche complex that these line break motifs at Komchen date to the Real 1 or 2
corresponding period because these vessels have glossy/waxy slips and 2-corresponding period (ca. 1000–800 b.c.) exhibited more het-
nearly identical to Early Nabanche ceramics. Their color schemes erogeneity than those from subsequent periods.
and vessel shapes more closely correlate with those of the Real 3 When we compare the ratio of white/cream-slipped vessels to
(775–700 b.c.) and Escoba 1 (700–600 b.c.) phases. The use of other colors (see Cheetham 2005:Table 3.2), the substantially
both postslip and preslip incisions for line break motifs on higher ratio in the Pasión region gives an impression that this
Komchen black ceramics suggest that at least some of them date western area was distinct from other parts of the Maya lowlands
to the Real 3-corresponding period. and had closer affinity with central Chiapas. Although some con-
nections between the Pasión region and Chiapas are undeniable,
unslipped or self-slipped Calam Buff found in central Peten and
in the Belize River valley, as well as Bil White and Cocoyol
Early Middle Preclassic Chronology of the Maya Lowlands Cream, probably represent a concept similar to Huetche White
from Ceibal. When we consider this similarity, the differences
The foregoing review indicates that there is no unequivocal evidence between these regions may be considerably smaller than the fre-
for ceramic use and fully sedentary settlements in the Maya lowlands quencies of slip colors imply. At the same time, I maintain my
during the Early Preclassic period or prior to 1000 b.c. The Middle earlier view that Cheetham (2005:31) over-emphasized the impor-
Usumacinta region, with a probable Early Preclassic occupation, was tance of the horizontally everted rim as a defining attribute of the
more closely related to the southern Gulf Coast in those early days. lowland Maya ceramics. This specific form is confined largely to
The absence of clear evidence does not necessarily deny the presence the Belize River valley and central-eastern Peten, and it is rare or
of earlier settlements, and I am open to the possibility that the materials absent in other parts of the Maya lowlands. Important characteris-
from the lower levels of Cahal Pech and other sites will prove to be tics of the pre-Mamom ceramic sphere include the presence of
earlier than 1000 b.c. Still, we need to recognize potential pitfalls in necked jars along with tecomates, relatively simple forms of
the study of the earliest settlements. Whereas radiocarbon dates from bowls and plates for serving vessels, dull or matte slips with
later occupations can be checked against those from earlier levels for a general preference for red colors, and the prevalence of postslip
the identification of old wood and other problematic dates and for a incisions over preslip ones. More regionalized traits include
higher precision, such independent tests are not available for dates the common use of exterior-thickened rims for bowls in the
from the earliest settlements in a region. Thus, we need to examine Pasión region and central Peten (also possibly in the Middle
these dates rigorously and conservatively by obtaining a sufficient Usumacinta region), horizontally everted rims in the Belize
number of radiocarbon measurements and by scrutinizing dated mate- River valley and central-eastern Peten, and pattern burnishing in
rials, contexts, and associations to eliminate various factors that may northern Belize and Yucatan. The frequencies of specific postslip
cause older dates, including old wood, re-deposited materials, freshwa- incision motifs vary from one region to another, which largely
ter and marine reservoir effects, contamination, and unreliable measure- reflects different cultural preferences among various regions
ments. If there was preceramic occupation at a site, which may be the rather than temporal differences.
case at Cahal Pech and Nakbe, separating dates associated with ceram- The transition to the Real 3 and the Early Jenney Creek complexes
ics and those originating from earlier occupation would be particularly happened fairly simultaneously around 800 b.c., and I suspect compa-
challenging. As a general rule, if a set of radiocarbon dates from a given rable changes also occurred in central Peten and Yucatan about the
context exhibits inconsistent dates, we should choose the younger dates same time. These changes represent a move toward more homogenous
as valid ones rather than the older ones, which may have resulted from ceramics across the Maya lowlands with the increasing use of glossier
old wood or re-deposited materials. slips, the stronger emphasis on red slips in the regions where white slips
The currently available evidence suggests to me the roughly con- were popular, the replacement of postslip incisions with preslip
temporaneous appearance of the first ceramics and subsequent grooves, and the more common use of shallow plates and composite
ceramic changes across the Maya lowlands. The early ceramics, silhouette shapes. This period also witnessed an increase in certain
including Real, Early Eb, Ah Pam, Swasey, and Cunil, emerged types of decoration, including fingernail-like impressions, filleting,
in a relatively short time span around 1000 b.c., although Ek may double line break and related motifs, chamfering, and the more
have started slightly later. We should remember that, despite this common use of bichromes, although the distribution of specific
simultaneity across the Maya lowlands, there may have been kinds of decoration varied. In this general trend, the Belize River
varying processes of transition to sedentism and ceramic use valley exhibited a somewhat unique trajectory with the predominance
within each region; there appear to have existed groups who resisted of Mars Orange ware. During this period the mobile populations of the
the adoption of the new ways of life and maintained mobile life Maya lowlands increasingly adopted the fully sedentary way of life as
ways in various areas for a few centuries (Inomata et al. 2015a, indicated by the emergence of new sites, including Altar de Sacrificios,
2015b). The ceramics from various parts of the Maya lowlands Nakbe, and K’axob. This trend led to the development of more homo-
exhibit certain variations among them, but there are also substantial geneous Mamom ceramics across the Maya lowlands around 700 b.c.,
commonalities shared among them. In this regard, my earlier eval- although we should note that the determination of its precise date is dif-
uation based largely on published information (Houston and ficult because of the flattening of the radiocarbon calibration curve.
Inomata 2009:69) may have over-emphasized differences among The transition to Mamom ceramics was gradual which caused some
those complexes. After examining various ceramic collections inconsistency in ceramic periodization and the use of terminology
from the Maya lowlands and the surrounding regions, I agree with among researchers, reflected in the different beginning dates for
Cheetham and Clark (Cheetham 2005; Clark and Cheetham 2002) various Mamom-corresponding phases in Figure 1. In other words, I
that the early Middle Preclassic ceramics from various parts of the suspect that the inconsistency in the beginning dates of
Maya lowlands shared more similarities among them than with those Mamom-corresponding phases is due largely to the different ways
from the southern Gulf Coast, central Chiapas, the Guatemalan high- researchers classified ceramics. The pace of transition was probably
lands, and Honduras, although lowland Maya ceramics of Real 1 fairly consistent across the Maya lowlands.
344 Inomata
SOCIAL CHANGE DURING THE EARLY MIDDLE tropical trees with stone axes requires substantial work (Carneiro
PRECLASSIC PERIOD 1979; Denevan 1992). Unless productive maize provided adequate
returns for such labor, forest dwellers probably did not have much
Beginning of Agrarian Settlements
incentive to cut substantial areas of forest although this does not pre-
The problem of ceramic chronology in the Maya lowlands is tied to clude practices of small-scale horticulture as indicated by lake-core
the larger issue of social change in Mesoamerica. The question of data. Various scholars have speculated that an increase in maize
whether the first ceramics appeared nearly simultaneously around productivity was a critical factor for the emergence of fully seden-
1000 b.c. across the Maya lowlands or whether they emerged tary settlements in the Maya lowlands (Houston and Inomata
gradually at varying rates in different regions has important implica- 2009:74; Puleston and Puleston 1971; Ringle 1985:183–188).
tions in this regard. 1000 b.c. appears to mark a critical point of Although hard evidence for this argument is scarce, the analysis
transformation in Mesoamerican history. Various scholars argued of Bladen-phase skeletons from Cuello shows a range of ϭ13C
that for much of the Early Preclassic period Mesoamerican groups between −13.6 and −11.2‰, which is comparable to those from
relied on diverse food resources and, as maize productivity the contemporaneous Soconusco region (Tykot et al. 1996; Van
increased, maize became a major staple at the beginning of the Der Merwe et al. 2000). The chronological reconstruction presented
Middle Preclassic around 1000 b.c. (Arnold 2000; Blake 2006; here, suggesting the general contemporaneity in the emergence of
Rosenswig 2006). sedentary settlements with ceramics across the Maya lowlands,
Although there is a growing consensus on this point, a remaining accords with the hypothesis that this social transformation occurred
question is whether the adoption of maize as a dominant staple hap- as maize crossed a productivity threshold around 1000 b.c. If
pened gradually during the Early Preclassic or whether there was a pre-1000 b.c. settlements with ceramics are proven to exist, it
drastic change at the beginning the Middle Preclassic around 1000 would make the effect of maize productivity on social change some-
b.c. The analysis of human bones from the Chiapas-Guatemalan what more gradual than I currently suspect. Still, such settlements, if
Coast appears to support the latter hypothesis. Throughout the they existed, must have been extremely sparse, and they may not
Early Preclassic period ϭ13C values of bones (which largely substantially change my interpretation.
reflect the proportion that maize occupied in diet) remained rela- I should add that this was not necessarily an environmentally
tively stable between −22 and −18‰, but they jumped to −13 to deterministic process. Higher-productivity maize possibly made
−10‰ during the Middle Preclassic (Blake et al. 1992; Chisholm the formation of sedentary communities a viable option, and some
and Blake 2006). The data on grinding stones are consonant with groups indeed took this trajectory. There appear to have been
this result; the overall quantity of grinding stones or those special- other groups, however, who chose to keep the traditional mobile
ized in maize grinding increased substantially from the Early way of life after 1000 b.c. (Inomata et al. 2015a, 2015b). Cultural
Preclassic to Middle Preclassic (Arnold 2009; Rosenswig 2006, and political negotiations among diverse groups and individuals
2012). In the Tehuacan valley, the frequency of maize remains did play an important role in this process.
increased significantly around 1000 b.c. (Mangelsdorf 1974).
These data led Clark et al. (2007) to suggest that maize did not
become a major staple until it crossed a productivity threshold at Development of Monumental Architecture and Communal
the Early to Middle Preclassic transition around 1000 b.c. Such Ceremonial Complexes
subsistence change would have had major social impacts. Taube The chronologies presented here and in a previous publication
(1996, 2000) notes that it was during the Middle Preclassic period (Inomata et al. 2013:Supplementary Information) provide a basis
that iconography representing maize symbolism developed, and from which to examine the emergence of standardized spatial
Rosenswig (2012) argues that the beginning of the Middle plans and pyramidal architecture. Dating to around 950 b.c.,
Preclassic witnessed significant political centralization in the Structures Ajaw and Xa’an at Ceibal are the earliest known civic
Soconusco region. Settlement data from the Gulf Coast, however, buildings in the Maya lowlands and the earliest known E-Group
may point to a more gradual process. Various survey projects in assemblage in Mesoamerica to date. Platform Sulul, measuring
the region have consistently shown that, though concentrated in 1.5 m in height around 950 b.c. and 1.9 to 2.5 meters in height
floodplains during the early part of the Early Preclassic, occupation and more than 34 meters in width by 850 b.c., was substantially
gradually shifted to upland areas during the latter part of the Early larger than any known contemporaneous buildings in the Maya low-
Preclassic and the Middle Preclassic (Borstein 2001; Kruger lands. During the Real 2 period (850–775 b.c.) the Ceibal residents
1996; Symonds 2000). This shift in settlement to uplands most built a pyramid, Structure B’ehom, possibly reaching a height of 3
likely correlates with a change from a subsistence system based to 5 meters, and a monumental platform, Ch’och’, measuring 3.5 to
largely on riverine resources to one relying more heavily on agricul- 6 meters in height. Platform Ch’och’ appears to have supported
ture, particularly maize cultivation (Arnold 2009; Borstein 2001: multiple rectangular buildings. During this period, excavations at
184). If so, the use of maize may have intensified gradually most other lowlands Maya sites have uncovered only humble resi-
during the Early Preclassic period. dential structures supported by low platforms. For example, at
Although we need more data for a better understanding of these Cuello the earliest constructions around 1000–900 b.c. consisted
processes, the Maya lowlands may represent environmental condi- of postholes in the old land surface and soon the inhabitants built
tions in which the threshold effect of maize productivity on social 0.2 to 0.5 meters high circular or apsidal platforms that probably
processes is particularly likely. In contrast to the Gulf Coast and supported residential structures (Hammond 1991; Hammond and
the Pacific Coast, where riverine, estuarine, and coastal resources Gerhardt 1990). It was not until the Lopez-Mamom phase at
are abundant, the karst topography of the Maya lowlands is Cuello that rectangular platforms measuring nearly one meter in
limited in natural food resources. Until maize crossed a productivity height were constructed. The sequence at Blackman Eddy also
threshold, the Maya lowlands may not have been an adequate area to shows a transition from ground-level postholes to low circular or
support a population larger than small mobile groups. Cutting hard apsidal platforms less than 0.5 meters high (Garber et al. 2004a,
2004b). At Cahal Pech, Structure B-4/10-sub, dating to the late carried out at the same time as the construction of the E Group.
Cunil phase, was a rectangular or square platform measuring 0.6 Estrada-Belli (2012:222) reports two radiocarbon dates associated
to 1.0 meters in height, which the excavators interpret to be the with this construction. A date of 2670 ± 40 was obtained from
most elaborate residential structure during this phase (Healy and human bone from a burial covered by the leveling fill (Burial 33),
Awe 1995; Healy et al. 2004b). In the central Peten, researchers and a date of 2520 ± 40 was derived from charcoal taken from the
have found no building remains dating to the Early Eb phase at stucco floor sealing Cache 4 (Figure 12). With only two dates, it
Tikal. In the Peten Lake region, Don Rice (1976:Figure 6) reports is difficult to evaluate effects of freshwater reservoir and old
a 0.5 m tall probable platform dating to the Early Ah Pam phase. wood, and these measurements leave a wide range of possible
At Nakbe, structures of the Early Ox phase, which I would date dates from 800–400 b.c.
to 800–700 b.c., consist of postholes on the natural ground Comparison with the cruciform caches from Ceibal (Caches 7,
surface (Hansen 2005:62). During the Middle Ox phase (700–600 132, 160, 171, and 183) is suggestive in this regard. All but one
b.c.), low platforms with retaining walls with two to three courses (Cache 183) of those cruciform caches at Ceibal date to the Real
of stones were built (Hansen 1998:Figure 57). In other words, sub- 3 or Escoba 1 phase dating to 775–600 b.c. Although Cache 183,
stantial structures were probably not built at Nakbe before 600 b.c. dating to the Real 1 phase, had a cruciform pit, its arrangement of
The only exception outside of Ceibal may be Komchen. There a offerings, with a preform for a spoon-shaped pectoral and an axe
large platform, Structure 24G1 measuring 1.2 to 1.4 meters in placed in the central depression, is different from those of the
height, and Structure 23F1 reaching a height of 0.6 m were con- other caches with greenstone axes in each arm of the cruciform
structed during the Ek phase (Andrews et al. 2008). If the evaluation arrangement. Cache 183 may represent a precursor of better-
of related ceramics by Andrews, Bey, and myself are correct, these established cruciform caches. The Harvard project obtained a radio-
substantial constructions possibly date to 1000–800 b.c. These carbon date of 2610 ± 75 for Cache (Berger et al. 1974:472). Based
buildings may have continued to grow during the Real 3-corre- on this measurement, Harvard researchers chose 900 b.c. as the
sponding period. Komchen suffered substantial modern destruction, beginning date for the Real phase, which turned out to be a fairly
and it is not clear whether its early buildings had an E-Group good estimate. We should note, however, that this radiocarbon mea-
arrangement. surement shows a wide range of possible dates comparable to those
Civic buildings and E-Group assemblages that have been found from Cival. A charcoal piece found in Cache 160 gave a radiocarbon
at other lowland sites so far date to the Real 3-corresponding period date of 2475 ± 20 uncal bp (PLD-22110, 763–421 cal b.c.). Given
(800–700 b.c.) or later, although the Belizean site of Actuncan may these wide date ranges, we need to rely largely on the ceramic chro-
have had an E-Group assemblage contemporaneous with the earliest nology to date the Cival E-Group and the related cruciform caches.
E Group at of Ceibal (LeCount and Mixter 2016). During the Real The ceramics contained in the massive leveling fill covering
3 phase at Ceibal, the pyramidal structure B’ehom was renovated Cival Burial 33 appear to correspond to Real 3 or Escoba 1 materials
to Structure A-20 Sub 6, and another monumental platform, K’at, (personal observation). Both Cache 4 of Cival and Cache 7 of
supporting multiple rectangular structures was constructed. At Ceibal contained five water jars in addition to greenstone axes:
Blackman Eddy, excavators uncovered rectangular platforms 0.25 four black-slipped and one red-slipped at Cival and all black-slipped
to 0.5 meters high dating to the Early Jenney Creek phase. In the at Ceibal (Sabloff 1975:Figure 64; Smith 1982:243). Ceibal Cache
transition from the Early to Late Jenney Creek phases, this building 171 contained three water jars: one red and two black. During the
was covered by what appears to be the first civic structure, B1–5th, Real 1 and 2 phases at Ceibal, slipped jars were not common, and
which measured 1.5 m in height (Garber et al. 2004b). At Cahal black-slipped ones in particular were rare. They became signifi-
Pech, excavators interpret Structure B-4/9-sub dating to the Early cantly more common during the Real 3 phases. In addition, the
Kanluk phase to be the first temple building. Before the end of fill of Cache 171 contained Tierra Mojada sherds, characteristic of
the Early Kanluk phase, this building received a renovation and the Escoba phase. These observations suggest that those cruciform
the resulting Structure B-4/8-sub reached a height of 2.0 to 2.5 caches were placed in the Real 3- and Escoba 1-corresponding
meters (Healy and Awe 1995; Healy et al. 2004b). In the Lake phases, and the Cival E Group was built sometime between 800
Yaxha-Sacnab region, a platform from the previous phase grew to and 700 b.c.
1.3 m in height during the Late Ah Pam phase, possibly correspond- The next oldest known E-Group assemblage in the Maya low-
ing to the Escoba-1 phase (D. Rice 1976). At Nixtun-Ch’ich’, the lands is probably the Mundo Perdido complex at Tikal. The first
earliest building, Platform ZZ1-sub-8, measuring 0.9 to 1.8 version of this E-Group assemblage represents the earliest architec-
meters in height, appears to date to the Escoba 1-corresponding tural remains uncovered so far at Tikal (Laporte and Valdés 1993;
phase (P. Rice 2009). Laporte and Fialko 1995). The western structure measured 3 m in
The oldest known E-Group assemblage in the Maya lowlands height and 23 m in width. This complex dates to the Late Eb
after that of Ceibal was found at Cival. Again, Actuncan may repre- phase, which, as discussed above, appears to correspond to the
sent an earlier example (LeCount and Mixter 2016), but its full con- Escoba 1 phase (700–600 b.c.). No greenstone axe caches were
firmation will depend on future investigations. The first version of found in this complex despite extensive excavations, which may
the western building of the Cival E-Group assemblage measured also imply a somewhat later date than that of the Cival E-Group
one to two meters in height, and its eastern counterpart was assemblage. The E-Group complex at the nearby site of El Palmar
carved out of soft limestone bedrock in a manner comparable to may have been construction about the same time (Doyle 2012,
Structures Ajaw and Xa’an (Estrada-Belli 2012). Deposited in 2013:144). The E-Group assemblages at Nakbe are unlikely to be
front of this building was a cruciform cache (Cache 4) containing earlier. During the Middle Ox phase, which I would place
greenstone axes, greenstone pebbles, and ceramic jars (Estrada between 700–600 b.c., settlements at this site expanded and plat-
Belli 2006). Although these ceremonial buildings are unimpressive, forms up to two meters high were built. It was during the following
we should note that the largest construction effort at Cival was the Late Ox phase that major constructions, including an 18 m high
leveling of the area with fills reaching up to eight meters in thickness pyramid, took place (Hansen 1998, 2005). This phase should be
346 Inomata
Figure 12. Calibrated radiocarbon dates for cruciform caches. Cival Cache 4 dates from Estrada-Belli 2011; Ceibal Cache 7 dates from
Berger et al. 1974. The rectangle indicates the possible date range for Cival Cache 4 and Ceibal Caches 7 and 160 based on radiocarbon
dates and ceramic cross-dating.
placed in the common time span of Mamom ceramics, 600–400 b.c. the architectural development leading to this site plan during 1000
Although more specific evaluations of the Nakbe sequence have to to 800 b.c.
wait for the full publication of excavation results, it is unlikely that
E-Group assemblages at this site date prior to 700 b.c.
Recent excavations have shown that the magnitude of Middle Ceibal and Interregional Interactions
Preclassic settlements and constructions in the northern lowlands Ceibal was probably not the sole origin of the E-Group assemblage
has been grossly underestimated. Excavations at Ek Balam, and the MFC pattern. After all, the area around Ceibal did not even
Yaxuna, Xocnaceh, Poxila, Xtobo, Kiuic, and other sites have have fully sedentary settlements before this period. Interactions with
revealed substantial constructions dating to the late Middle and inspirations from other groups must have been critical. I have
Preclassic (700–350 b.c.) (Anderson 2011; Andrews et al. 2008; argued elsewhere that Ceibal was part of a network of interregional
Bey et al. 1998; Stanton and Ardren 2005; Suhler et al. 1998). interaction, including the southern Gulf Coast, central Chiapas, and
The early structures at Komchen represent precursors to these the Chiapas-Guatemalan coast, which may be called the Isthmian
impressive developments in the northern lowlands. Ek-related Interaction Sphere (Inomata et al. 2013). In addition to the shared
ceramics at most of these sites, however, are rare or absent, and sub- plan of the MFC pattern, the close connection of Ceibal with
stantial constructions prior to 700/600 b.c. were probably limited in these western regions can be seen in construction techniques. The
this area (see Ceballos Gallareta and Robles Castellanos 2012). use of earth and clay in construction fills seen at Ceibal had a
Architectural developments at many other sites in the Maya low- long tradition in the southern Gulf Coast, central Chiapas, and the
lands were probably even later. At Uaxactun, for example, the Soconusco region, and the technique was also adopted in the
first version of its E Group, E-VII-Sub-1, is dated to the early Guatemalan highlands and Honduras. At Ceibal during the early
Chicanel period (Laporte and Valdés 1993). Middle Preclassic period, the use of stone in fills was limited
In sum, Structures Ajaw and Xa’an, dating to 950 b.c., represent although stone retaining walls were present during the Real phase.
the earliest documented E-Group assemblage in Mesoamerica while Floors typically consisted of densely packed limestone gravel
the potentially contemporaneous E-Group at Actuncan awaits mixed with earth (Triadan et al. 2017). This technique of floor con-
further confirmation. The construction sequence at Ceibal appears struction closely resembles earlier constructions seen at San
to represent the developmental history of the MFC pattern, starting Lorenzo (Cyphers 1997a:Figure 4.2). Some of the earthen floors
from the central element of an E-Group assemblage and one exten- at Ceibal were burned for hardness, and similar techniques are
sive platform around 950 b.c. and taking more developed forms of reported from Chiapas (Agrinier 2000; Littmann 1967). These
the MFC pattern with the addition of the northeastern platform building techniques contrast with those of the rest of the Maya low-
around 800 b.c. and of more platforms around 700 b.c. This lands, which emphasized masonry constructions and the use of
process indicates that Ceibal was not a passive recipient of a stucco. This lowland Maya tradition was not obvious when perma-
spatial plan and ritual practice developed elsewhere. Early nent buildings emerged around 1000 b.c., but it quickly crystallized
Ceibaleños actively contributed to this process. In most other within a few centuries. The excavators of Cahal Pech report that
parts of the Maya lowlands, E-Group assemblages and other types Structure B-4/10-sub dating to the late Cunil phase already had a
of civic complexes probably did not emerge until 800 b.c. or plastered floor using burned lime (Awe 1992; Healy et al. 2004b).
later. When the residents of Ceibal began to develop a first At Cuello and Blackman Eddy, platform constructions involved
pyramid and monumental architecture around 850–800 b.c., most the use of masonry retaining walls and lime plaster at least by the
communities in the rest of the lowlands appear to have had only beginning of the Bladen and Early Jenney Creek phases (Garber
humble buildings. When those in other parts of the lowlands et al. 2004a; Hammond 1991). At Ceibal and the nearby sites, it
began to build E-Group assemblages and other civic complexes, was not until the Escoba phase that the more extensive use of
they did not adopt the other elements of the MFC pattern, that is, masonry construction and of stucco floors gradually became
large platforms, nor greenstone axe caches with the exception of common (Bachand 2006:518–534; Munson 2012:252, 302;
Cival. Our understanding of this period is fragmentary, and future Inomata et al. 2017b).
investigations may certainly unearth more early civic buildings at Currently available evidence suggests that the Olmec center of
other lowland Maya sites. The apparent absence of the MFC pat- San Lorenzo did not have pyramids or ceremonial complexes
terns at most Maya sites, however, possibly implies that the resi- similar to the MFC pattern (Coe and Diehl 1980; Cyphers 1997b;
dents of most parts of the Maya lowlands did not participate in Cyphers and Di Castro 2009). New concepts of architecture began
to emerge after the retreat of San Lorenzo’s influence from central This chronological reconstruction indicates that significant inno-
Chiapas and Soconusco around 1200 b.c. The Soconusco region vations in architecture, and probably associated social practices,
may have been important for the initial development of the later took place during the gap between the heydays of San Lorenzo
standardized site plan (see Bachand and Lowe 2012; Inomata and La Venta. This potential gap between those Gulf Coast
2016). There during the Jocotal period (1200–1000 b.c.) substantial centers has been suggested by Clark and elaborated by others
mounds were built at sites along estuaries (Lesure 2009; Pye et al. (Cheetham 2010; Clark and Pye 2000; Rosenswig 2010). In
1999), and the earliest pyramids known in Mesoamerica were earlier views of the Preclassic chronology, researchers saw two hori-
erected at Ojo de Agua where the building arrangement exhibits a zons associated with San Lorenzo and La Venta (Lowe 1989;
vague resemblance to the MFC pattern (Hodgson et al. 2010). Tolstoy 1989). In their chronological revisions, Clark and others
After the abandonment of Ojo de Agua, the new center of La insert an additional period between them. Clark and Pye (2000:
Blanca developed across the Guatemalan border, and the first 241) argue that the Jocotal phase on the Pacific Coast, possibly
version of its large pyramid, Mound 1, may be roughly contempo- around 1200 b.c., marks the beginning of this new period. They
raneous with Structures Ajaw or B’ehom (Love 2002). As this site suggest that central Mexico became an important source of inspira-
suffered serious modern destruction, it is not clear whether it had an tion and suggest the name of the Manantial horizon. Rosenswig
E-Group assemblage or other elements of the MFC pattern (Love (2010), however, emphasizes changes around 1000 b.c. and calls
2013). Although no MFC patterns have been identified on the the period between 1000 and 800 b.c. Horizon II. My view overlaps
Guatemalan Pacific Coast, the map of the Middle Preclassic site with these two proposals. I estimate that the retreat of San Lorenzo
of Vista Hermosa shows a MFC-like arrangement (Bove 2005: influence began around 1200 b.c. and that the absence of a domi-
Figure 8.4), and the involvement of this area in the development nant power on the Gulf Coast continued until 800 b.c. I simply
of standardized spatial plans needs to be further investigated. call this span the transitional period as I am not convinced of the
An important area for the development of the MFC pattern was appropriateness of the term horizon for this era (Inomata et al.
central Chiapas along the Grijalva River (Clark and Hansen 2001; 2013). I agree with Clark and Pye (2000) that new forms of archi-
Inomata 2016; Lowe 1977). The earliest known pyramid forming tecture and related social practices were emerging around 1200
an E-Group assemblage in this area was found at Chiapa de b.c. It is probable that the absence of dominant centers allowed a
Corzo. Bachand and Lowe (2012) date this construction to the new form of interaction among diverse groups in southern
Dzemba phase, which appears to be roughly contemporaneous Mesoamerica. At the same time, I concur with Rosenswig (2010)
with the Real 3 phase. Some buildings at Tzutzuculi on the that this change accelerated around 1000 b.c., possibly tied to the
Pacific Coast and San Isidro may have been built about the same increase in maize productivity.
time (Lowe 1981; McDonald 1983). At Chiapa de Corzo and San
Isidro, greenstone axe caches similar to those from Ceibal and La
MAYA AND OLMEC: THE QUESTION OF IDENTITY
Venta have been found. An even earlier E-Group assemblage may
have existed at Finca Acapulco, where larger Early Preclassic settle- Our brief summary of the research results from Ceibal published
ments have been identified (Lowe 2007). Other sites in central elsewhere (Inomata et al. 2013) appears to have caused some misun-
Chiapas, including Mirador and La Libertad, adopted well developed derstandings among the general public and archaeologists, and here
versions of the MFC pattern with multiple platforms after 700 b.c. I would like to make my views clearer. First, I am not arguing that
(Agrinier 2000; Bryant et al. 2005). It is interesting to note that at the lowland Maya civilization developed independently from the
the beginning of the Middle Preclassic occupation at Chiapa de Olmec. On the contrary, my contention is that interregional interac-
Corzo its central part was leveled off, and scraped surface soils tions, including the residents of the southern Gulf Coast, were crit-
along with remains of the Early Preclassic occupation were ical, and that the legacy of San Lorenzo played an important role.
dumped to the slope near the ceremonial core (Lowe and Agrinier Second, I am not suggesting that the E-Group assemblage was a
1960). This way of preparing a ceremonial area is similar to the Maya invention (Inomata 2016). Instead, it was a product of interac-
pattern found at Ceibal, and in both cases the Middle Preclassic tions among diverse groups. Third, our main contention was that we
inhabitants appear to have emphasized a break from the previous era. should move away from the dichotomized debate of whether
The involvement of the southern Gulf Coast in the initial devel- lowland Maya civilization developed from Olmec influence or inde-
opment of the MFC pattern is not clear. La Venta does not appear to pendently. It is misleading to impose overarching group identities,
have become a major center until 800 b.c. (Inomata et al. 2013; Rust including “Olmec,” “Maya,” and “Mixe-Zoquean speakers,” and to
2008). It is still possible that La Venta as a small, not so influential consider them as units of social action. Certain labels are necessary
center, as well as other settlements of the region, participated in this for the sake of description, but they should not serve as a basis of
architectural development between 1000 and 800 b.c. Bachand and explanation.
Lowe (2012:66) point out the possible existence of E-Group assem- During the Early-Middle Preclassic transitional period, various
blages and MFC patterns at Laguna de los Cerros (Bove 1978) and groups in southern Mesoamerica selectively adopted and modified
in the Chimalapa region of northeastern Oaxaca. The southern Gulf the legacies of the previous era closely tied to San Lorenzo and
Coast was probably not the dominant source of one-directional experimented with new ideas. Important elements tracing back to
influence prior to 800 b.c., however. La Venta exhibits the most the previous period include deposits of greenstone axes seen at El
elaborate and largest version of the MFC pattern (Clark and Manatí, La Merced, and Canton Corralito (Cheetham 2010; Ortíz
Hansen 2001), and numerous greenstone axe caches and other and Rodríguez 1999; Rodríguez and Ortíz 2000). Although Early
ritual deposits were placed there (Drucker 1952; Drucker et al. Preclassic offerings of greenstone axes appear to have been depos-
1959). When La Venta became a major center around 800 b.c., it ited primarily outside of settlements, they began to be placed in cer-
appears to have re-incorporated the architectural and ritual innova- emonial cores around 1000 b.c. The deposits of axes and other
tions made through interregional interactions and then became an greenstone objects outside of settlements probably continued
important point of cultural production between 800 and 400 b.c. during the Middle Preclassic as seen in the offerings found at
348 Inomata
Arroyo Pesquero, and our understanding of this practice remains explanatory framework that supersedes the dichotomous debate
extremely fragmentary. Another significant element is a set of ico- between Olmec influence and Maya independent development. A
nography, probably associated with certain religious concepts, again relevant issue is the assumption of a Mixe-Zoquean ethnic block
closely tied to San Lorenzo. Many groups continued to use or newly occupying the southern Gulf Coast, Chiapas, and the Soconusco
adopted this iconographic system while modifying specific forms region proposed by Gareth Lowe and others (Clark and Pye 2000;
and executions, for example, from the common use of carved Clark and Pye 2011; Lowe 1977). The revision of historical linguis-
motifs to that of incised ones on ceramics. tic data by John Robertson and Stephen Houston (Robertson 1993;
An important new development around 1000 b.c. was the estab- Robertson and Houston 2003) indicates that the Wastekan speakers
lishment of standardized ceremonial complexes, including the had close contacts with the Ch’olan-Tzeltalan branch of the Mayan
E-Group assemblage. These spaces probably had their roots in the language family and that the Wastekans moved to their current home-
earlier tradition of public plazas and ceremonial courts found at land around northern Veracruz later than previously thought. These
San Lorenzo and on the southern Pacific Coast (Clark 2004; data compel us to consider the possibility that Maya speakers were
Cyphers and Di Castro 2009), but the Middle Preclassic version present in Chiapas earlier than the Mixe-Zoquean block hypothesis
was characterized by a high degree of standardization across assumes. More importantly, we need to question the assumption
various regions and was well-marked by highly visible mounds underlying the ethnic block hypothesis that large groups of
and eventually by pyramids. They most likely served as spaces for Mixe-Zoquean or Mayan speakers acted as important units of histor-
communal gatherings and rituals. The symbolic and practical ical actions. Love (2011) and Demarest (2011) cogently highlight its
focus was on the plaza, and surrounding buildings also served as problems, including: (1) the distribution of styles of objects do not
stages and backdrops for public performances. The construction always correspond with that of ethnic or language groups; (2) lan-
sequence of Structure Ajaw makes it clear that it was originally guages contribute to the formation of group identities but they may
designed as an easily accessible, open platform, and the later pyra- not be the sole or most important factor; there can be diverse ways
midal form was an end-result of sequential renovations (see Joyce in which languages, material cultures, and real or imagined historical
2004). The well-defined spaces were probably tied to coordinated roots are intertwined in identity formation; (3) the historical trajecto-
collective actions and may have contributed to the formation of a ries of language and ethnic groups do not necessarily exhibit a den-
new social order (Love 1999). In particular, the close similarities dritic pattern, in which descendent groups branch out from a single
evident in greenstone caches found at Ceibal, Chiapa de Corzo, progenitor group; they often go through complex networks of interac-
San Isidro, and La Venta, are suggestive. Unlike architecture that tions among multiple groups (see Law et al. 2006, 2014 for historical
was constantly present and was easily copied any time, these depos- linguistic and epigraphic data); and (4) ethnicity as an overarching cat-
its became invisible once they were sealed. The replication of egory binding large populations is mainly a phenomenon that became
similar forms would have been impossible without direct contact. prominent with the establishment of nation states in modern times; the
Certain individuals probably visited other communities, possibly presence of ethnic blocks as primary units of social interaction should
participating in others’ ritual. The MFC pattern, and the E-Group not be assumed but needs to be demonstrated. We need to examine
assemblage as its central element, developed in this Isthmian how collective identities are formed, negotiated, and transformed
Interaction Sphere as results and media of exchange and adoption through diverse actions and multiple media, including languages, his-
of ideas and practices. torical narratives, material representations, and embodied practices.
Groups in other parts of the Maya lowlands began to adopt the The study of social processes at Ceibal and the surrounding
E-Group assemblage around 800–700 b.c. when the MFC pattern regions require a flexible perspective that allows for dynamic and
was well developed in the Isthmian Interaction Sphere and La complex negotiations among various groups and individuals. The
Venta was a major center. They selectively adopted the E-Group debate regarding the origins of sedentism with a fully developed
assemblage, but not the other architectural elements of the MFC ceramic technology in the Maya lowlands has focused on the ques-
pattern or, in most cases, greenstone axe caches. In addition, the tion of whether they resulted from immigrations from the surround-
lowland Maya built early E-Group assemblages with masonry and ing areas or from local developments among the indigenous
stucco construction techniques unlike the earthen structures at populations of the lowlands (Andrews 1990; Cheetham 2005;
Ceibal and other western centers. These observations present impor- Clark and Cheetham 2002; Willey 1977). We probably need to con-
tant implications. First, currently available evidence suggests that sider how a mix of those two processes affected the social trajectory.
the inhabitants of the Maya lowlands outside of Ceibal contributed The residents of Ceibal from 1000 to 800 b.c. appear to have shared
little to the initial development of the E-Group assemblage. I should, considerable similarities in ceramics with other lowland Maya
however, add that if Actuncan is confirmed to have an E-Group groups, but in terms of architecture and ritual deposits they were
assemblage contemporaneous with that of Ceibal, or if other E more closely tied to the western regions. Whereas the construction
Groups dating to 1000–900 b.c. are found in the Maya lowlands, techniques of civic architecture and types of ritual deposits may
we may need to consider the possibility that a broader range of closely reflect interactions among the emerging elites of Ceibal
lowland Maya groups participated in the initial development of and their counterparts in other areas, the ceramics are probably
these standardized spatial formats. Second, the adoption of this more indicative of preferences and practices of a broader body of
architectural form around 800–700 b.c. probably did not result community members. If mobile horticulturalists inhabited the
from unidirectional influence from Ceibal, La Venta, or other region before 1000 b.c., a substantial part of the Ceibal residents
western centers (Demarest 1989). The lowland Maya actively may have consisted of indigenous populations of the area. We
adopted this architectural form and modified it in their own way. need to consider the possibility, however, that at least some
After its initial adoption, E-Group assemblages became central portion of this new community, particularly the emergent elites
foci of communal life at many lowland Maya settlements. who may have led construction projects and communal rituals,
These patterns of interaction during the Early-Late Preclassic were made up of immigrants from the west. In addition, if the
transitional period were highly complex, and they call for an removal of remains from the previous era prior to the construction
of new centers at Ceibal and Chiapa de Corzo was a conscious state- the orange resist ware. By the end of the Middle Preclassic
ment of a break from the past, this action could have entailed signif- period, the MFC pattern at Ceibal appears to have lost its original
icant tensions among groups harboring different values and meaning and use, and Ceibal was fully part of the lowland Maya cul-
perceptions. Alternatively, if the area around Ceibal did not tural sphere, although continuing relations with Chiapas, the Maya
support substantial populations before 1000 b.c., the community highlands, and the Pacific Coast could be seen in Protoclassic ritual
of Ceibal during the Real phase may have consisted largely of deposits, as evidenced by stone spheres. The increasing material and
migrants from other parts of the Maya lowlands, Chiapas, and practical similarities probably fostered a sense of relatedness among
other neighboring regions. Negotiation among diverse groups— the inhabitants of the Maya lowlands, although it does not equate
immigrants, local, sedentary residents, and mobile traditionalists— with the ethnic identity seen in the modern times. This cultural iden-
must have been a critical part of the social process. In this social tity of the lowland Maya was then a dynamic process tied to the
setting, small groups, rather than overarching ethnic blocks, were history of interactions rather than a pre-existing condition of
probably more important for decision-making and coordinated action. social processes.
Over time the Ceibaleños’ affinities with the rest of the Maya This historical trajectory of interactions presents another important
lowlands grew stronger. The building methods became more homo- implication. The residents of Ceibal maintained close connections
geneous across the Maya lowlands with the full adoption of with the regions to the west when dominant Gulf Coast centers
masonry construction and lime stucco during the late Middle were absent between 1000 and 800 b.c., and then they strengthened
Preclassic, and ceramics exhibited more commonalities through ties with the rest of the Maya lowlands during the heyday of La Venta
the Real 3 complex to the Mamom-corresponding Escoba pottery. between 800 and 400 b.c. This pattern indicates that the inhabitants
The practice of caching greenstone axes was nearly abandoned at of the Maya lowlands were not passive recipients of unidirectional
the beginning of the Escoba phase, although ceramics still influence from La Venta but were active agents who engaged selec-
showed considerable similarities to those in central Chiapas with tively in interregional interactions and local politics (P. Rice 2015).
RESUMEN
Nuestras investigaciones en el sitio maya Ceibal han demostrado que un patrón de las tierras bajas mayas fueron aproximadamente simultáneos, el cual
espacial formal que consistió de un complejo tipo Grupo E y plataformas pueda haber sido estimulado por un cambio en la productividad de maíz. El
grandes comenzó alrededor de 1000 a.C. y expandió gradualmente durante desarrollo temprano de Ceibal probablemente resultó de su vinculó fuerte
los siguientes siglos. Una re-evaluación de datos cerámicos y fechas de radio- con las áreas del oeste, incluyendo la Costa Sur del Golfo, Chiapas central,
carbono reportados de otros sitios de las tierras bajas mayas sugiere que no hay y la Costa Pacífica de Chiapas y Guatemala. El patrón espacial estandarizado
evidencia segura para ocupaciones sedentarias y el uso de cerámica en esta incluyendo el complejo tipo Grupo E parece haber desarrollado en esta red de
área antes de 1000 a.C. y que no se han confirmado edificios públicos de intercambio, que puede ser llamada como la Esfera de Interacción de Istmo,
tamaños significativos que fechan antes de 800 aC afuera de Ceibal. Los durante un período de transición entre el declive de San Lorenzo y el surgi-
inicios de comunidades sedentarias con el uso de cerámica en varias partes miento de La Venta como un centro grande (1200–800 a.C.).
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Investigations at Ceibal were carried out with permits issued by the Instituto and Tomás Barrientos for the Universidad del Valle collections; Bruce
de Antropología e Historia de Guatemala and were supported by grants from Bachand, Lynneth Lowe, John Clark, and Kim Goldsmith for ceramics
the National Geographic Society, the National Science Foundation from Chiapa de Corzo and the NWAF lab collection; Wyllys Andrews,
(BCS-0750808), the National Endowment for the Humanities George Bey, William Ringle, and Tomás Gallareta for Ek and related ceram-
(RZ-51209–10), Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, the Alphawood ics; Sylviane Boucher and Yoly Palomo for the INAH Mérida ceramoteca;
Foundation, and the Agnese Nelms Haury Program of the University of Ronald Bishop for Robert Rands’s ceramic samples; Rodrigo Liendo and
Arizona awarded to Inomata and Daniela Triadan, as well as funds from Roberto López for the Middle Usumacinta region materials; Barbara Fash
the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and and Susan Haskell for the Peabody Museum collection; Simon Martin for
Technology KAKENHI (21101003 and 21101002) and Japan Society for the University of Pennsylvania Museum collection; Don Forsyth for Nakbe
the Promotion of Science KAKENHI (21402008 and 26101003) awarded and El Mirador ceramics; Prudence Rice for Nixtun-Ch’ich’ ceramics;
to Kazuo Aoyama. I thank Norman Hammond, Prudence Rice, and an anon- Patrick Culbert, Oswaldo Gómez, and Elizabeth Marroquín for Tikal ceram-
ymous reviewer for thoughtful comments on earlier drafts. I am grateful for ics; Jarosław Źrałka and Bernard Hermes for Nakum ceramics; Francisco
the colleagues who allowed me to examine their ceramic samples and shared Estrada-Belli, Niña Neivens, and Michael Callaghan for Holmul and Cival
their knowledge: Rebecca Gonzalez for materials from La Venta; James ceramics; Jaime Awe for Cahal Pech ceramics; Laura Kosakowsky for
Krakker for the Smithsonian La Venta collection; Anne Cyphers for con- Cuello ceramics; Kathryn Brown for information on Blackman Eddy; Lisa
struction methods at San Lorenzo; Rita Casas for the IDEAH ceramoteca; LeCount for materials from Xunantunich and Actuncan; and Nobuyuki Ito
Bárbara Arroyo for Kaminaljuyu ceramics; Marion Popenoe de Hatch and Akira Ichikawa for Chalchuapa and San Andrés ceramics.
REFERENCES
Adams, Richard E. W. Mexico. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, Vol. 58.
1971 The Ceramics of Altar De Sacrificios, Guatemala. Papers of the Brigham Young University Press, Provo.
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 63, Anderson, David S.
No. 1. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. 2011 Xtobo, Yucatan, Mexico, and the Emergent Preclassic of the
Agrinier, Pierre Northern Maya Lowlands. Ancient Mesoamerica 22:301–322.
2000 Mound 27 and the Middle Preclassic Period at Mirador, Chiapas, Andrews, E. Wyllys, V
1990 Early Ceramic History of the Lowland Maya. In Vision and
350 Inomata
Revision in Maya Studies, edited by Peter Harrison and Flora Clancy, John E. Staller, Robert H. Tykot and Bruce F. Benz, pp. 55–72.
pp. 1–19. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Academic Press, New York.
Andrews, E. Wyllys, V, George J. Bey III, and Christopher Gunn Blake, Michael, John E. Clark, Barbara Voorhies, Michael W. Love, and
2008 Rethinking the Early Ceramic History of the Northern Maya Brian S. Chisholm
Lowlands: New Evidence and Interpretations. Paper presented at the 1992 Prehistoric Subsistence in the Soconusco Region. Current
73rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Anthropology 33:83–94.
Vancouver. Borstein, Joshua A.
2017 The Earliest Ceramics in the Northern Maya Lowlands. In 2001 Tripping over Colossal Heads: Settlement Patterns and
Pathways to Complexity: A View from the Maya Lowlands, edited by Population Development in the Upland Olmec Heartland.
M. Kathryn Brown and George J. Bey III. University Press of Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Florida, Gainesville. In press. Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
Andrews, E. Wyllys, V, and Norman Hammond Bove, Frederick J.
1990 Redefinition of the Swasey Phase at Cuello, Belize. American 1978 Laguna De Los Cerros: An Olmec Central Place. Journal of New
Antiquity 55:570–584. World Archaeology 2:1–56.
Arnold, Philip J., III 2005 The Dichotomy of Formative Complex Societies in Pacific
1999 Tecomates, Residential Mobility, and Early Formative Guatemala: Local Development Vs. External Relationships. In New
Occupation in Coastal Lowland Mesoamerica. In Pottery and Perspectives on Formative Mesoamerican Cultures, edited by Terry
People: A Dynamic Interaction, edited by James M. Skibo and G. Powis, pp. 95–111. BAR International Series, Vol. 1377. British
Gary M. Feinman, pp. 159–170. University of Utah Press, Salt Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
Lake City. Bronk Ramsey, Christopher
2000 Sociopolitical Complexity and the Gulf Coast Olmecs: A View 2013 OxCal 4.2. Software, http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=
from the Tuxtla Mountains, Veracruz, Mexico. In Olmec Art and oxcal.html#updates.
Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Bronk Ramsey, Christopher, T. F. G. Higham, D. C. Owen, A. W. G. Pike,
Pye, pp. 117–135. National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC. and R. E. M. Hedges
2009 Settlement and Subsistence among the Early Formative Gulf 2002 Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry
Olmec. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28:397–411. Datelist 31. Archaeometry 44:1–149.
Arroyo, Bárbara, and Lorena Paiz Brown, M. Kathryn
2010 Cerámica. In Entre cerros, cafetales y urbanismo en el Valle de 2001 Investigations of Middle Preclassic Public Architecture at the
Guatemala: Proyecto de rescate Naranjo, edited by Bárbara Arroyo, Site of Blackman Eddy, Belize. Report submitted to the Foundation
pp. 103–183. Academia de Geografía e Historia de Guatemala, for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI).
Guatemala. Electronic document, http://www.famsi.org/reports/96052/index.html,
Ascough, Philippa L., Gordon T. Cook, Mike J. Church, Andrew J. accessed August 1, 2013.
Dugmore, Thomas G. McGovern, Elaine Dunbar, Árni Einarsson, Adolf 2007 Ritual Ceramic use in the Early and Middle Preclassic at the Sites
Friðriksson, and Hildur Gestsdóttir of Blackman Eddy and Cahal Pech, Belize. Report submitted to
2007 Reservoirs and Radiocarbon: 14C Dating Problems in FAMSI. Electronic document, http://www.famsi.org/reports/02066/.
Mývatnssveit, Northern Iceland. Radiocarbon 49:947–961. Brown, M. Kathryn, and James F. Garber
Awe, Jaime J. 2005 The Development of Middle Formative Architecture in the Maya
1992 Dawn in the Land between the Rivers: Formative Occupation at Lowlands: The Blackman Eddy, Belize Example. In New
Cahal Pech, Belize, and its Implications for Preclassic Development Perspectives on Formative Mesoamerican Cultures, edited by Terry
in the Maya Lowlands. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Powis, pp. 39–49. BAR International Series, Vol. 1377. British
Archaeology, University of London, London. Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
Bachand, Bruce R. Burger, Richard L., and Robert M. Rosenswig (editors)
2006 Preclassic Excavations at Punta De Chimino, Petén, Guatemala: 2012 Early New World Monumentality. University Press of Florida,
Investigating Social Emplacement on an Early Maya Landscape. Gainsville.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Bryant, Douglas B., John E. Clark, and David Cheetham
2007 The Pre-Classic Ceramic Sequence of Punta De Chimino, Petén, 2005 Ceramic Sequence of the Upper Grijalva Region, Chiapas,
Guatemala. Mayab 19:5–26. Mexico. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, Vol.
Bachand, Bruce R., and Lynneth S. Lowe 67. Brigham Young University Press, Provo.
2012 Chiapa De Corzo’s Mound 11 Tomb and the Middle Formative Callaghan, Michael G., and Niña Neivens de Estrada (editors)
Olmec. In Arqueología reciente de Chiapas: Contribuciones del 2016 The Ceramic Sequence of the Holmul Region, Guatemala.
encuentro celebrado en el 60° aniversario de la Fundación University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Arqueológica Nuevo Mundo, edited by Lynneth S. Lowe and Mary Carneiro, Robert L.
E. Pye, pp. 45–68. Papers of the New World Archaeological 1979 Tree Felling with the Stone Ax: An Experiment Carried Out
Foundation, No. 72. Brigham Young University, Provo. among the Yanomamo Indians of Southern Venezuela.
Ball, Joseph W., and Jennifer T. Taschek Ethnoarchaeology:21–58.
2003 Reconsidering the Belize Valley Preclassic: A Case for Ceballos Gallareta, Teresa, and Fernando Robles Castellanos
Multiethnic Interactions in the Development of a Regional Culture 2012 Las etapas más tempranas de la alfarería Maya en el Noroeste de
Tradition. Ancient Mesoamerica 14:179–217. la Península de Yucatan. Ancient Mesoamerica 23:403–419.
Baudez, Claude, and Pierre Bequelin Cheetham, David T.
1973 Archéologie de los Naranjos, Honduras. Collection Etudes 1995 Excavations of Structure B-4, Cahal Pech, Belize: 1994
Mesoamericaines 2. Mission archéologique et Ethnologique Française Operations. In Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the
au Mexique, Mexico City. 1994 Field Season, edited by Paul F. Healy and Jaime J. Awe,
Berger, Rainer, Suzanne De Atley, Reiner Protsch, and Gordon R. Willey pp. 18–44. Occasional Papers in Anthropology, Vol. 10. Department
1974 Radiocarbon Chronology for Seibal, Guatemala. Nature 252: of Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.
472–473. 1998 Interregional Interaction, Symbol Emulation, and the Emergence
Bey, George J., III, Tara M. Bond, William M. Ringle, Craig A. Hanson, of Socio-Political Inequality in the Central Maya Lowlands.
Charles W. Houck, and Carlos Pereza Lope Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology,
1998 The Ceramic Chronology of Ek Balam, Yucatan, Mexico. Ancient University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
Mesoamerica 9:101–120. 2005 Cunil: A Pre-Mamom Horizon in the Southern Maya Lowlands. In
Blake, Michael New Perspectives on Formative Mesoamerican Cultures, edited by
2006 Dating the Initial Spread of Zea Mays. In Histories of Maize: Terry G. Powis, pp. 27–38. BAR International Series, Vol. 1377.
Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize, edited by 2010 America’s First Colony: Omec Materiality and Ethnicity at
Canton Corralito, Chiapas, Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Past 3500 Years, and Implications for Maya Cultural Evolution.
Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Quaternary Research 46:37–47.
Chisholm, Brian S., and Michael Blake Curtis, Jason H., Mark Brenner, David A. Hodell, Richard A. Balser, Gerald
2006 Diet in Prehistoric Soconusco. In Histories of Maize: A. Islebe, and Henry Hooghiemstra
Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Prehistory, Linguistics, 1998 A Multi-Proxy Study of Holocene Environmental Change in the
Biogeography, Domestication, and Evolution of Maize, edited by Maya Lowlands of Peten, Guatemala. Journal of Paleolimnology 19:
John E. Staller, Robert H. Tykot, and Bruce F. Benz, pp. 161–172. 139–159.
Academic Press, New York. Cyphers, Ann
Clark, John E. 1997a La arquitectura olmeca en San Lorenzo Tenochtitlán. In
2004 Mesoamerica Goes Public: Early Ceremonial Centers, Leaders, Población, subsistencia y medio ambiente en San Lorenzo
and Communities. In Mesoamerican Archaeology: Theory and Tenochtitlán, edited by Ann Cyphers, pp. 91–117. Universidad
Practice, edited by Rosemary A. Joyce and Julia A. Hendon, Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.
pp. 43–72. Blackwell, Malden. 1997b Olmec Architecture at San Lorenzo. In Olmec to Aztec:
Clark, John E., and David Cheetham Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands, edited by Barbara
2002 Mesoamerica’s Tribal Foundations. In Archaeology of Tribal L. Stark and Philip J. Arnold III, pp. 96–114. University of Arizona
Societies, edited by W. A. Parkinson, pp. 278–339. Archaeological Press, Tucson.
Series, Vol. 15. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Arbor. Cyphers, Ann, and Anna Di Castro
2005 La cerámica del formativo de Chiapas. In La producción alfarera 2009 Early Olmec Architecture and Imagery. In Art of Urbanism: How
en el México antiguo, edited by Beatriz L. Meino Carrión and Ángel Mesoamerican Kingdoms Represented Themselves in Architecture and
García Cook, pp. 285–435. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Imagery, edited by William L. Fash and Leonardo López Luján,
Historia, Mexico City. pp. 21–52. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection,
Clark, John E., and Michelle Knoll Washington, DC.
2005 The American Formative Revisited. In Gulf Coast Archaeology: Demarest, Arthur A.
The Southeastern United States and Mexico, edited by Nancy M. 1989 The Olmec and the Rise of Civilization in Eastern Mesoamerica.
White, pp. 281–303. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by Robert J. Sharer
Clark, John E., and Richard D. Hansen and David C. Grove, pp. 303–344. Cambridge University Press,
2001 Architecture of Early Kingship: Comparative Perspectives on the Cambridge.
Origins of the Maya Royal Court. In Royal Courts of the Ancient 2011 The Political, Economic, and Cultural Correlates of Late Preclassic
Maya, Volume 2: Data and Case Studies, edited by Takeshi Inomata Southern Highland Material Culture: Evidence, Analysis, and
and Stephen D. Houston, pp. 1–45. Westview Press, Boulder. Controversies. In The Southern Maya in the Late Preclassic: The
Clark, John E., and Mary E. Pye Rise and Fall of an Early Mesoamerican Civilization, edited by
2000 The Pacific Coast and the Olmec Question. In Olmec Art and Michael Love and Jonathan Kaplan, pp. 345–387. University Press of
Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Colorado, Boulder.
Pye, pp. 217–251. National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC. Denevan, William M.
2011 Revisiting the Mixe-Zoque: A Brief History of the Preclassic 1992 Stone Vs. Metal Axes: The Ambiguity of Shifting Cultivation in
Peoples of Chiapas. In The Southern Maya in the Late Preclassic: Prehistoric Amazonia. Journal of the Steward Anthropological
The Rise and Fall of an Early Mesoamerican Civilization, edited by Society 20:153–165.
Michael Love and Jonathan Kaplan, pp. 25–46. University Press of Doyle, James A.
Colorado, Boulder. 2012 Re-Group On “E-Groups”: Monumentality and Early Centers in
Clark, John E., Richard D. Hansen, and Tomás Pérez Suárez The Middle Preclassic Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 23:
2000 La Zona Maya en el Preclásico. In Historia antigua de México, 355–379.
edited by Linda Manzanilla and Leonardo López Luján, pp. 437–510. 2013 The First Maya “Collapse”: The End of the Preclassic Period at
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. El Palmar, Petén, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Clark, John E., Mary E. Pye, and Dennis C. Gosser Anthropology, Brown University, Providence.
2007 Thermolithics and Corn Dependency in Mesoamerica. In Drucker, Philip
Archaeology, Art, and Ethnogenesis in Mesoamerican Prehistory: 1952 La Venta, Tabasco: A Study of Olmec Ceramics and Art. Bureau of
Papers in Honor of Gareth W. Lowe, edited by Lynneth S. Lowe and American Ethnology Bulletin, Vol. 153. Smithsonian Institution,
Mary E. Pye, pp. 23–42. Papers of the New World Archaeological Washington, DC.
Foundation, Vol. 68. Brigham Young University, Provo. Drucker, Philip, Robert F. Heizer, and Robert H. Squier
Coe, Michael D., and Kent V. Flannery 1959 Excavations at La Venta, Tabasco. Bureau of American Ethnology
1967 Early Cultures and Human Ecology in South Coastal Guatemala. Bulletin, Vol. 170. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.
Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, Vol. 3. Smithsonian Press, Englehardt, Joshua D.
Washington, DC. 2011 Archaeological Epigraphy and Epigraphic Archaeology:
Coe, Michael D., and Richard A. Diehl Tracing Interaction, Innovation, and the Development of the
1980 In the Land of the Olmec. University of Texas Press, Austin. Mayan Script through Material Remains. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Cook, Gordon T., Clive Bonsall, Robert E. M. Hedges, Kathleen Department of Anthropology, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
McSweeney, V. Boronean, and Paul B. Pettitt Estrada Belli, Francisco
2001 A Freshwater Diet-Derived 14C Reservoir Effect at the Stone Age 2006 Lightning Sky, Rain, and the Maize God: The Ideology of
Sites in the Iron Gates Gorge. Radiocarbon 43:453–460. Preclassic Maya Rulers at Cival, Peten, Guatemala. Ancient
Cruz Alvarado, Wilberth, and Robert M. Rosenswig Mesoamerica 17:57–78.
2009 Análisis preliminar de la cerámica preclásica del sitio 2011 The First Maya Civilization: Ritual and Power before the Classic
arqueológico de San Estevan, norte de Belice. Los investigadores de Period. Routledge, London.
la cultura Maya 17:165–176. 2012 Early Civilization in the Maya Lowlands, Monumentality, and
Culbert, T. Patrick Place Making: A View from the Holmul Region. In Early New World
1977 Early Maya Development at Tikal, Guatemala. In Origins of Maya Monumentality, edited by Richard L. Burger and Robert M.
Civilization, edited by Richard E. W. Adams, pp. 27–43. University of Rosenswig, pp. 198–230. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Flannery, Kent V., and Joyce Marcus
Culleton, Brendan J. 1994 Early Formative Pottery of the Valley of Oaxaca. Memoirs of the
2006 Implications of a Freshwater Radiocarbon Reservoir Correction Museum of Anthropology, No. 27. Museum of Anthropology,
for the Timing of Late Holocene Settlement of the Elk Hills, Kern University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
County, California. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:1331–1339. Forsyth, Donald W.
Curtis, Jason H., and David A. Hodell 1993 The Ceramic Sequence at Nakbe, Guatemala. Ancient
1996 Climate Variability on the Yucatan Peninsula (Mexico) during the Mesoamerica 4:31–53.
352 Inomata
Garber, James F., and Jaime J. Awe Healy, Paul F., Bobbi Hohmann, and Terry G. Powis
2009 A Terminal Early Formative Symbol System in the Maya 2004a The Ancient Maya Center of Pacbitun. In The Ancient Maya of
Lowlands: The Iconography of the Cunil Phase (1100–900 b.c.) at the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited
Cahal Pech. In Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology, Volume 6: by James F. Garber, pp. 207–227. University Press of Florida,
Papers of the 2008 Belize Archaeology Symposium, edited by John Gainesville.
Morris, Sherilyne Jones, Jaime Awe, George Thompson, and Healy, Paul F., David Cheetham, Terry G. Powis, and Jaime J. Awe
Christophe Helmke, pp. 151–159. Institute of Archaeology, National 2004b Cahal Pech: Middle Formative Period. In The Ancient Maya of
Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited
Garber, James F., M. Kathryn Brown, and Christopher J. Hartman by James F. Garber, pp. 103–124. University Press of Florida,
2001 Investigations of Middle Preclassic Public Architecture at the Site Gainesville.
of Blackman Eddy, Belize. Report submitted to Foundation for the Hodell, David A., Jason H. Curtis, and Mark Brenner
Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. (FAMSI). Electronic 1995 Possible Role of Climate in the Collapse of Classic Maya
document, http://www.famsi.org/reports/96052/96052Brown01.pdf. Civilization. Nature 375:391–394.
Garber, James F., M. Kathryn Brown, Jaime J. Awe, and Christopher J. Hodgson, John G., John G. Clark, and Emiliano Gallaga Murrieta
Hartman 2010 Ojo de Agua Monument 3: A New Olmec-Style Sculpture from
2004a Middle Formative Prehistory of the Central Belize Valley. In The Ojo de Agua, Chiapas, Mexico. Mexicon 32:139–144.
Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Houston, Stephen, and Takeshi Inomata
Research, edited by James F. Garber, pp. 25–47. University Press of 2009 The Classic Maya. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Florida, Gainesville. Iceland, Harry B.
Garber, James F., M. Kathryn Brown, W. David Driver, David M. Glassman, 1997 The Preceramic Origins of the Maya: The Results of the Colha
Christopher J. Hartman, F. Kent Reilly III, and Lauren A. Sullivan Preceramic Project in Northern Belize. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
2004b Archaeological Investigations at Blackman Eddy. In The Ancient Department of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin.
Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, Inomata, Takeshi
edited by James F. Garber, pp. 48–69. University Press of Florida, 2017 The Isthmian Origins of the E Group and its Adoption in the Maya
Gainesville. Lowlands. In Early Maya E Groups, Solar Calendars, and the Role of
Gifford, James C. Astronomy in the Rise of Lowland Urbanism, edited by David A.
1976 Prehistoric Pottery Analysis and the Ceramics of Barton Ramie in Freidel, Arlen A. Chase, Anne S. Dowd, and Jerry Murdock.
the Belize Valley. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, University Press of Florida, Gainesville. In press.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Inomata, Takeshi, Daniela Triadan, and Kazuo Aoyama
Haines, Helen R., Alice Gomer, and Kerry Sagebiel 2017a After 40 Years: Revisiting Ceibal to Investigate the Origins of
2014 “Plant Thou no Roses at My Head”: A Discussion of the Middle Lowland Maya Civilization. Ancient Mesoamerica 28:187–201.
Formative Period Buried Deposits at Ka’Kabish, North-Central Inomata, Takeshi, Daniela Triadan, Kazuo Aoyama, Victor Castillo, and
Belize. In Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology, Vol. 11, edited Hitoshi Yonenobu
by John Morris, Jaime Awe, Melissa Badillo and Jeorge Thompson, 2013 Early Ceremonial Constructions at Ceibal, Guatemala, and the
pp. 337–346. Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan. Origins of Lowland Maya Civilization. Science 340:467–471.
Hammond, Norman Inomata, Takeshi, Daniela Triadan, Jessica MacLellan, Melissa Burham,
2002 Closing Down Cuello. Context 16:10–15. Kazuo Aoyama, Juan Manuel Palomo, Hitoshi Yonenobu, Flory Pinzón, and
Hammond, Norman (editor) Hiroo Nasu
1991 Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize. Cambridge 2017c High-Precision Radiocarbon Dating of Political Collapse and
University Press, Cambridge. Dynastic Origins at the Maya Site of Ceibal, Guatemala. Proceedings
Hammond, Norman, Amanda Clarke, and Cynthia Robin of the National Academy of Sciences 114:1293–1298.
1991b Middle Preclassic Buildings and Burials at Cuello, Belize: 1990 Inomata, Takeshi, Flory Pinzón, Juan Manuel Palomo, Ashley Sharpe, Raúl
Investigations. Latin American Antiquity 2:352–363. Ortíz, María Belén Méndez, and Otto Román
Hammond, Norman, and Juliette Cartwright Gerhardt 2017b Public Ritual and Interregional Interactions: Excavations of the
1990 Early Maya Architectural Innovation at Cuello, Belize. World Central Plaza of Group A, Ceibal. Ancient Mesoamerica 28:203–232.
Archaeology 21:461–481. Inomata, Takeshi, Jessica MacLellan, Daniela Triadan, Jessica Munson,
Hammond, Norman, Juliette Cartwright Gerhardt, and Sara Donaghey Melissa Burham, Kazuo Aoyama, Hiroo Nasu, Flory Pinzon, and Hitoshi
1991a Stratigraphy and Chronology in the Reconstruction of Preclassic Yonenobu
Developments at Cuello. In Cuello: An Early Maya Community in 2015a Development of Sedentary Communities in the Maya Lowlands:
Belize, edited by Norman Hammond, pp. 23–69. Cambridge Coexisting Mobile Groups and Public Ceremonies at Ceibal,
University Press, Cambridge. Guatemala. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
Hammond, Norman, Sara Donaghey, and Amanda Clarke United States of America 112(14):4268–4273.
1995 The Long Goodbye: Middle Preclassic Maya Archaeology at Inomata, Takeshi, Jessica MacLellan, and Melissa Burham
Cuello, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 6:120–128. 2015b The Construction of Public and Domestic Spheres in the
Hansen, Richard D. Preclassic Maya Lowlands. American Anthropologist 117:519–534.
1998 Continuity and Disjunction: The Pre-Classic Antecedents Islebe, Gerald A., Henry Hooghiemstra, Mark Brenner, Jason H. Curtis, and
of Classic Maya Architecture. In Function and Meaning in David A. Hodell
Classic Maya Architecture, edited by Stephen D. Houston, 1996 A Holocene Vegetation History from Lowland Guatemala. The
pp. 49–122. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Holocene 6:265–271.
Washington, DC. Izumi, Seiichi, and Toshihiko Sono
2005 Perspectives on Olmec-Maya Interaction in the Middle Formative 1963 Andes 2: Excavations at Kotosh, Peru. Kadokawa, Tokyo.
Period. In New Perspectives on Formative Mesoamerican Cultures, Joesink-Mandeville, LeRoy V.
edited by Terry G. Powis, pp. 51–72. BAR International Series, Vol. 1993 Comayagua Valley. In Pattery of Prehistoric Honduras: Regional
1377. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Classification and Analysis, edited by John S. Henderson and Marilyn
Healy, Paul F. Beaudry-Corbett, pp. 234–248. Institute of Archaeology Monograph,
1990 Excavations at Pacbitun, Belize: Preliminary Report on the 1986 Vol. 35. University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
and 1987 Investigations. Journal of Field Archaeology 17:247–262. Johnston, Kevin L.
Healy, Paul F., and Jaime J. Awe (editors) 2006 Preclassic Maya Occupation of the Itzan Escarpment, Lower Río
1995 Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1994 Field de la Pasión, Petén, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 17:177–201.
Season. Occasional Papers in Anthropology, Vol. 10. Department of Joyce, Rosemary A.
Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough. 2004 Unintended Consequences?: Monumentality as a Novel
1996 Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1995 Field Experience in Formative Mesoamerica. Journal of Archaeological
Season. Occasional Papers in Anthropology, Vol. 12. Department of Method and Theory 11:5–29.
Anthropology, Trent University, Peterborough.
Joyce, Rosemary A., and John S. Henderson Preclassic: The Rise and Fall of an Early Mesoamerican
2001 Beginnings of Village Life in Eastern Mesoamerica. Latin Civilization, edited by Michael Love and Jonathan Kaplan,
American Antiquity 12:5–24. pp. 47–77. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Keaveney, Evelyn M., and Paula J. Reimer 2013 La Blanca and the MFC Architectural Pattern. Paper presented at
2012 Understanding the Variability in Freshwater Radiocarbon the 78th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
Reservoir Offsets: A Cautionary Tale. Journal of Archaeological Honolulu.
Science 39:1306–1316. Lowe, Gareth W.
Kennedy, Nedenia C. 1977 The Mixe-Zoque as Competing Neighbors of the Early Lowland
1981 The Formative Period Ceramic Sequence from Playa De Los Maya. In The Origins of Maya Civilization, edited by Richard E. W.
Muertos, Honduras. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Adams, pp. 197–248. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana. 1981 Olmec Horizon Defined in Mound 20, San Isidro, Chiapas. In The
Kosakowsky, Laura J. Olmec and their Neighbors, edited by Michael D. Coe and David
1987 Preclassic Maya Pottery at Cuello, Belize. University of Arizona Grove, pp. 231–256. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Press, Tucson. Collection, Washington, DC.
Kosakowsky, Laura J., and Duncan C. Pring 1989 The Heartland Olmec: Evolution of Material Culture. In Regional
1998 The Ceramics of Cuello, Belize: A New Evaluation. Ancient Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by Robert J. Sharer and David C.
Mesoamerica 9:55–66. Grove, pp. 33–67. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kruger, Robert P. 2007 Early Formative Chiapas: The Beginnings of Civilization in the
1996 An Archaeological Survey in the Region of the Olmec, Veracruz, Central Depression of Chiapas. In Archaeology, Art, and
Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Ethnogenesis in Mesoamerican Prehistory: Papers in Honor of
Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Gareth W. Lowe, edited by Lynneth S. Lowe and Mary E. Pye,
Laporte, Juan Pedro, and Vilma Fialko pp. 63–108. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation,
1995 Reencuentro con Mundo Perdido, Tikal, Guatemala. Ancient Vol. 68. Brigham Young University, Provo.
Mesoamerica 6:41–94. Lowe, Gareth W., and Pierre Agrinier
Laporte, Juan Pedro, and Juan Antonio Valdés (editors) 1960 Mound 1, Chiapa De Corzo, Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New
1993 Tikal y Uaxactún en el Preclásico. Universidad Nacional World Archaeological Foundation, No. 8. Brigham Young University,
Autónoma de México, Mexico City. Provo.
Law, Danny, John S. Robertson, and Stephen Houston MacLellan, Jessica
2006 Split Ergativity in the History of the Ch’olan Branch of the Mayan 2012 Excavaciones en el grupo residencial de la Plataforma 47-Base:
Language Family. International Journal of American Linguistics 72: Operacion CB211. In Proyecto Arqueológico Ceibal-Petexbatun:
415–450. Informe de la Temporada de Campo 2012, edited by Victor Castillo
Law, Danny, John S. Robertson, Stephen D. Houston, Marc Zender, and Aguilar and Takeshi Inomata, pp. 193–215. Report presented to the
David Stuart Instituto de Antropología e Historia de Guatemala, Guatemala City.
2014 Areal Shifts in Classic Maya Phonology. Ancient Mesoamerica Mangelsdorf, Paul C.
25:357–366. 1974 Corn: Its Origin, Evolution, and Improvements. Belknap Press,
Law, I. A., R. A. Housley, Norman Hammond, and R. E. M. Hedges Cambridge.
1991 Cuello: Resolving the Chronology through Direct Dating of McDonald, Andrew J.
Conserved and Low-Collagen Bone by AMS. Radiocarbon 33: 1983 Tzutzuculi: A Middle-Preclassic Site on the Pacific Coast of
303–315. Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New World Archaeological
LeCount, Lisa J., and David W. Mixter (editors) Foundation, Vol. 47. New World Archaeological Foundation,
2016 Actuncan Archaeological Project: Report of the 2015 Field Season. Brigham Young University, Provo.
Report submitted to the Belizean Institute of Archaeology, Belmopan. Munson, Jessica
Lesure, Richard G. (editor) 2012 Building on the Past: Temple Histories and Communities of
2009 Settlement and Subsistence in Early Formative Soconusco: El Varal Practice at Caobal, Petén, Guatemala. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
and the Problem of Inter-Site Assemblage Variation. Cotsen Institute of School of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.
Archaeology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles. Munson, Jessica, and Flory Pinzón
Littmann, Edwin R. 2017 Building an Early Maya Community: Archaeological Investigations
1967 Patterns in Maya Floor Construction. American Antiquity 32: at Caobal, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 28:265–278.
523–533. Neivens de Estrada, Niña
Lohse, Jon C. 2014 A Tangled Web: Ceramic Adoption in the Maya Lowlands and
2010 Archaic Origins of the Lowland Maya. Latin American Antiquity Community Interaction in the Early Middle Preclassic as seen in the
21:312–352. K’Awil Complex from Holmul, Peten, Guatemala. In Settlement
Lohse, Jon C., Jaime Awe, Cameron Griffith, Robert M. Rosenswig, and Patterns, Architecture, Hieroglyphic Texts, and Ceramics, edited by
Fred Valdez Jr. Geoffrey E. Braswell, pp. 177–200. Routledge, London.
2006 Preceramic Occupations in Belize: Updating Paleoindian and Niederberger, Christine
Archaic Period. Latin American Antiquity 17:209–226. 1976 Zohapilco: Cinco milenios de ocupación humana en un sitio
López Varela, Sandra L. lacustre de la Cuenca de México. Instituto Nacional de Antropología
2004 Ceramic History of K’axob: The Early Years. In K’axob: Ritual, e Historia, Mexico City.
Work, and Family in an Ancient Maya Village, edited by Patricia A. Ortíz C., Ponciano, and María del Carmen Rodríguez
McAnany, pp. 169–192. Monumenta Archaeologica, Bk. 22. Cotsen 1999 Olmec Ritual Behavior at El Manatí: A Sacred Space. In Social
Institute of Archaeology, University of California Los Angeles, Los Patterns in Pre-Classic Meosamerica, edited by David C. Grove and
Angeles. Rosemary A. Joyce, pp. 225–254. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library
Love, Michael W. and Collection, Washington, DC.
1999 Ideology, Material Culture, and Daily Practice in Pre-Classic Philippsen, Bente
Mesoamerica: A Pacific Coast Perspective. In Social Patterns in 2013 The Freshwater Reservoir Effect in Radiocarbon Dating. Heritage
Pre-Classic Meosamerica, edited by David C. Grove and Rosemary Science 1:1.
A. Joyce, pp. 127–153. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Pinzón González, Flory M.
Collection, Washington, DC. 2011 Una tipología de las figurillas antropomorfas de La Blanca, Ocós,
2002 Early Complex Society in Pacific Guatemala: Settlements and San Marcos, y su evidencia iconográfica. Unpublished Licenciatura
Chronology of the Río Naranjo, Guatemala. Papers of the New thesis, Escuela de Historia, Universidad de San Carlos, Guatemala.
World Archaeological Foundation, Vol. 66. Brigham Young Powis, Terry G., Paul F. Healy, and Bobbi Hohmann
University, Provo. 2009 An Investigation of Middle Preclassic Structures at Pacbitun. In
2011 Cities, States, and City-State Culture in the Late Preclassic Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology: Papers of the 2008
Southern Maya Region. In The Southern Maya in the Late Belize Archaeology Symposium, edited by John Morris, Sherilyne
354 Inomata
Jones, Jaime Awe, George Thompson, and Christophe Helmke, Lifeways in the Soconusco Region, edited by Richard G. Lesure,
pp. 161–168. Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of Culture pp. 242–271. University of California Press, Berkeley.
and History, Belmopan. 2012 Materialism, Mode of Production, and a Millennium of Change in
Puleston, Dennis E., and Olga S. Puleston Southern Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 19:1–48.
1971 An Ecological Approach to the Origins of Maya Civilization. Rosenswig, Robert M., Deborah M. Pearsall, Marilyn A. Masson, Brendan J.
Archaeology 24:330–337. Culleton, and Douglas J. Kennett
Pye, Mary E., Arthur A. Demarest, and Barbara Arroyo 2014 Archaic Period Settlement and Subsistence in the Maya Lowlands:
1999 Early Formative Societies in Guatemala and El Salvador. In New Starch Grain and Lithic Data from Freshwater Creek, Belize.
Pacific Latin America in Prehistory: The Evolution of Archaic and Journal of Archaeological Science 41:308–321.
Formative Cultures, edited by Michael Blake, pp. 75–88. Washington Rust, William F.
State University Press, Pullman. 2008 A Settlement Survey of La Venta, Tabasco, Mexico. Unpublished
Rands, Robert L. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of
1977 The Rise of Classic Maya Civilization in the Northwestern Zone: Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Isolation and Integration. In Origins of Maya Civilization, edited by Sabloff, Jeremy A.
Richard E. W. Adams, pp. 159–180. University of New Mexico 1975 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala:
Press, Albuquerque. Ceramics. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
1987 Ceramic Patterns and Transitions in the Palenque Area. In Maya Ethnology, Vol. 13, No. 2. Gordon R. Willey, series editor. Harvard
Ceramics: Papers of the 1985 Maya Ceramic Conference, Vol. 1, University, Cambridge.
edited by Prudence M. Rice and Robert J. Sharer, pp. 203–238. Schmidt, Klaus
British Archaeological Reports International Series, Vol. 345. BAR 2010 Göbekli Tepe – The Stone Age Sanctuaries: New Results of
Publishing, Oxford. Ongoing Excavations with a Special Focus on Sculptures and High
2002 Palenque and Selected Survey Sites in Chiapas and Tabasco: The Reliefs. Documenta Praehistorica 37:239–255.
Preclassic. Report presented to the Foundation for the Advancement of Shady Solis, Ruth, Jonathan Haas, and Winifred Creamer
Mesoamerican Studies Inc. (FAMSI). Electronic document, http:// 2001 Dating Caral, a Preceramic Site in the Supe Valley on the Central
www.famsi.org/reports/97032. Coast of Peru. Science 292(5517):723–726.
Reimer, Paula J., Edouard Bard, Alex Bayliss, J. Warren Beck, Paul G. Sharer, Robert J., and David W. Sedat
Blackwell, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Caitlin E. Buck, Hai Cheng, R. 1987 Archaeological Investigations in the Northern Maya Highlands,
Lawrence Edwards, and Michael Friedrich Guatemala: Interaction and the Development of Maya Civilization.
2013 IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves University Museum Monograph, Vol. 59. University Museum,
0–50,000 Years Cal BP. Radiocarbon 55:1869–1887. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Rice, Don S. Smith, A. Ledyard
1976 Middle Preclassic Maya Settlement in the Central Maya Lowlands. 1982 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Major
Journal of Field Archaeology 3:425–445. Architecture and Caches. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of
Rice, Prudence M. Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 15, No. 1. Gordon R. Willey,
1979 Ceramic and Nonceramic Artifacts of Lakes Yaxha-Sacnab, El series editor. Harvard University, Cambridge.
Peten, Guatemala. Part I. the Ceramics. Section A. Introduction and Stanton, Travis W., and Traci Ardren
the Middle Preclassic Ceramics of Yaxha-Sacnab, Guatemala. 2005 The Middle Formative of Yucatan in Context: The View from
Cerámica De Cultura Maya:1–36. Yaxuna. Ancient Mesoamerica 16:213–228.
2009 Mound ZZI, Nixtun-Ch’Ich’, Petén, Guatemala: Rescue Suhler, Charles, Traci Ardren, and David Johnstone
Operations at a Long-Lived Structure in the Maya Lowlands. Journal 1998 The Chronology of Yaxuna: Evidence from Excavation and
of Field Archaeology 34:403–422. Ceramics. Ancient Mesoamerica 9:167–182.
2015 Middle Preclassic Interregional Interaction and the Maya Sullivan, Lauren A., and Jaime J. Awe
Lowlands. Journal of Archaeological Research 23:1–47. 2013 Establishing the Cunil Ceramic Complex at Cahal Pech, Belize. In
Ringle III, William M., Ancient Maya Pottery: Classification, Analysis, and Interpretation,
1985 The Settlement Patterns of Komchen, Yucatan, Mexico. edited by James J. Aimers, pp. 107–120. University Press of Florida,
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane Gainesville.
University, New Orleans. Sullivan, Lauren A., M. Kathryn Brown, and Jaime J. Awe
Robertson, John S. 2009 Refining the Cunil Ceramic Complex at Cahal Pech, Belize. In
1993 The Origins and Development of Huastec Pronouns. International Research Reports in Belizean Archaeology, Volume 6: Papers of the
Journal of American Linguistics 59:294–314. 2008 Belize Archaeology Symposium, edited by John Morris,
Robertson, John S., and Stephen D. Houston Sherilyne Jones, Jaime Awe, George Thompson, and Christophe
2003 El problema del Wasteko: Una perspectiva lingüística y Helmke, pp. 161–169. Institute of Archaeology, National Institute of
arqueológica. In XVI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Culture and History, Belmopan.
Guatemala, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, Héctor L. Symonds, Stacey C.
Escobedo, and Héctor E. Mejía, pp. 723–733. Ministerio de Cultura 2000 The Ancient Landscape at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlá, Veracruz,
y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia, and Asociación Mexico: Settlement and Nature. In Olmec Art and Archaeology in
Tikal, Guatemala City. Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, pp. 55–73.
Rodríguez, María de Carmen, and Ponciano Ortíz National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC.
2000 A Massive Offering of Axes at La Merced, Hidalgotitlán, Taube, Karl A.
Veracruz, Mexico. In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, 1996 Olmec Maize God: The Face of Corn in Formative Mesoamerica.
edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, pp. 155–167. National RES:Anthropology and Aesthetics 29–30:39–81.
Gallery of Art, Washington, DC. 2000 Lightning Celts and Corn Fetishes: The Formative Olmec and the
Rosenswig, Robert M. Development of Maize Symbolism in Mesoamerica and the American
2006 Sedentism and Food Production in Early Complex Societies of the Southwest. In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by
Soconusco, Mexico. World Archaeology 38:330–355. John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye, pp. 297–337. National Gallery of Art,
2008 Recent Excavations at San Estevan, Northern Belize. In Research Washington, DC.
Reports in Belizean Archaeology: Papers of the 2007 Belize Tolstoy, Paul
Archaeology Symposium, edited by John Morris, Sherilyne Jones, 1989 Coapexco and Tlatilco: Sites with Olmec Materials in the Basin of
Jaime Awe, and Christophe Helmke, pp. 261–268. Institute of Mexico. In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by Robert J.
Archaeology, National Institute of Culture and History, Belmopan. Share and David C. Grove, pp. 85–121. Cambridge University Press,
2010 The Beginnings of Mesoamerican Civilization: Inter-Regional Cambridge.
Interaction and the Olmec. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tourtellot, Gair, III
2011 An Early Mesoamerican Archipelago of Complexity. In Early 1988 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala:
Mesoamerican Social Transformations: Archaic and Formative Peripheral Survey and Excavation, Settlement and Community
Patterns. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and and Community within the Grijalva Delta. Unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
Ethnology, Vol. 16. Gordon R. Willey, series editor. Harvard tion, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans.
University, Cambridge. Wahl, David, Roger Byrne, and Lysanna Anderson
Triadan, Daniela, Victor Castillo, Takeshi Inomata, Juan Manuel Palomo, 2014 An 8700 Year Paleoclimate Reconstruction from the Southern
María Belén Méndez, Mónica Cortave, Jessica MacLellan, Melissa Burham, Maya Lowlands. Quaternary Science Reviews 103:19–25.
and Erick Ponciano Wahl, David, Roger Byrne, Thomas Schreiner, and Richard Hansen
2017 Social Transformations in a Middle Preclassic Community: 2007 Palaeolimnological Evidence of Late-Holocene Settlement and
Elite Residential Complexs at Ceibal. Ancient Mesoamerica 28: Abandonment in the Mirador Basin, Peten, Guatemala. The Holocene
233–264. 17:813–820.
Tykot, Robert H., Nikolaas J. van der Merwe, and N. Hammond Wahl, David, Richard D. Hansen, Roger Byrne, Lysanna Anderson, and
1996 Stable Isotope Analysis of Bone Collagen, Bone Apatite, and Thomas Schreiner
Tooth Enamel in the Reconstruction of Human Diet: A Case Study 2016 Holocene Climate Variability and Anthropogenic Impacts from
from Cuello, Belize. In Archaeological Chemistry: Organic, Lago Paixban, a Perennial Wetland in Peten, Guatemala. Global and
Inorganic, and Biochemical Analysis, edited by M. V. Orna, Planetary Change 138:70–81.
pp. 355–365. ACS Symposium Series 625, American Chemical Willey, Gordon R.
Society, Washington, DC. 1977 The Rise of Maya Civilization: A Summary View. In The
Urban, Patricia, Edward Schortman, and Marne Ausec Origins of Maya Civilization, edited by Richard E. W. Adams,
2002 Power without Bounds? Middle Preclassic Political Developments pp. 383–423. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
in the Naco Valley, Honduras. Latin American Antiquity 13:131–152. 1990 Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: General
Valdez, Fred, Jr. Summary and Conclusions. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of
1987 Ceramics of Colha, Belize. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 17, No. 4. Gordon R. Willey,
Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge. series editor. Harvard University, Cambridge.
Van Der Merwe, Nikolaas J., Robert H. Tykot, Norman N. Hammond, and Źrałka, Jarosław, Wiesław Koszkul, and Bernard Hermes
Kim Oakberg 2012 Nakum y su importancia en el mundo Maya: Resultados de los tra-
2000 Diet and Animal Husbandry of the Preclassic Maya at Cuello, bajos realizados por el Proyecto Arqueológico Nakum entre 2006 y
Belize: Isotopic and Zooarchaeological Evidence. In Biogeochemical 2011. In Proceedings of the 1st Cracow Maya Conference
Approaches to Paleodietary Analysis, edited by Stanley H. Ambrose Archaeology and Epigraphy of the Eastern Central Maya Lowlands
and M. Anne Katzenberg, pp. 23–38. Advances in Archaeological February 25–27, 2011, Cracow, edited by Christophe Helmke and
and Museum Science, Vol. 5. Plenum Press, New York. Jarosław Źrałka, pp. 9–47. Contributions in New World Archaeology,
von Nagy, Christopher L. Vol. 3. Polish Academy of Arts and Sciences and Jagiellonian
2003 Of Meandering Rivers and Shifting Towns: Landscape Evolution University, Kraków.

Inomata 2017. Maya Ceibal. Standardized Spatial Plans

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Inomata 2017. Maya Ceibal. Standardized Spatial Plans

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Inomata 2017. Maya Ceibal. Standardized Spatial Plans

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ancient Mesoamerica, 28 (2017), 329–355

Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2017

THE EMERGENCE OF STANDARDIZED SPATIAL

INTRODUCTION who apparently did not use ceramics or substantial buildings.

You might also like