RESPONSE TO SUGIYAMA, SUGIYAMA, AND SARABIA G.

Rebecca Sload

Contrary to Sugiyama et al., radiocarbon dates from the Sun Pyramid do not mean that the Pyramid was constructed later
than current estimates, nor that the Teotihuacan ceramic chronology should be changed.

Contrariamente a Sugiyama et al., las fechas de radiocarbono de la Pirámide del Sol no significan que la Pirámide fue
construida más tarde que las estimaciones actuales indican, ni que la cronología cerámica de Teotihuacan debería ser
cambiada.

I
thank Sugiyama and her colleagues for the
opportunity to debate events at the Sun Pyra-
mid (POS) and, more generally, radiocarbon
and ceramic chronologies. Two structures are
involved: the POS, excavated by Sugiyama and
colleagues; and the artificial cave beneath it,
explored by the Teotihuacan Mapping Project
(TMP). Different interpretations involve four
datasets: POS radiocarbon dates, POS ceramics,
cave ceramics, and cave radiocarbon dates. I con-
sider all the data and hypothesize that they reflect
construction and evolving use over roughly 200
years (ca. AD 50–250). Sugiyama and colleagues
reject some dates. They propose that only con-
struction is represented and that the POS was
built about AD 170–310. Their comment clarifies
that they seek to redate Tzacualli phase ceramics
by shifting the Teotihuacan ceramic chronology
forward to be in line with their interpretation of
six POS dates.
The Tzacualli ceramic phase is traditionally
dated to AD 1–150. Cowgill (2015:9–10) sug-
gests that Tzacualli was perhaps even shorter,
about AD 1–100. In contrast, Sugiyama and
colleagues propose that the Tzacualli phase is
much later. They would begin it 20–70 years after
its accepted ending. For them, Tzacualli ends
around the time of the third to fourth century tran-
sition. This breezes through the Miccaotli and
Early Tlamimilolpa phases, whose legitimacy
they accept, and lands in the time frame currently
assigned by Millon, Rattray, and Cowgill to Late
Tlamimilolpa.
Assigning years to a ceramic chronology
requires knowledge not only of the culture to
which it applies but also important comparative
data about other cultures whose own ceramic
chronologies are affected. At Teotihuacan, the
proposed change challenges the Bayesian analy-
sis of 33 dates by Beramendi-Orosco and col-
leagues (2009) that contributed to shortening
Cowgill’s chronology, as well as other radiocar-
bon dates that have associated ceramics (e.g.,
Manzanilla and López Luján 2001). Outside
Teotihuacan, it disorganizes ceramic chronology
concordances with other Mesoamerican cultures,
including those in the Basin of Mexico, Oaxaca
(see Rattray 1991:8), and the Maya region (e.g.,
Braswell 2003). A proposed change at Teoti-
huacan therefore requires collaborating evidence
from other parts of the city and from many other
sites.
Inside the cave, Sugiyama and colleagues
discuss “tertiary” contexts of dated charcoal.
Methods of selection for dating and of con-
struction of a contextual model are presented in
Sload (2007, 2015:225, 228–230, Supplemental
Material). The nearly finished report of TMP

Rebecca Sload PO Box 5022, Andover, MA 01810-9993, USA (rsload@hotmail.com)

Latin American Antiquity 29(2), 2018, pp. 401–402
Copyright © 2018 by the Society for American Archaeology
doi:10.1017/laq.2017.69

401
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:27:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.69
 402 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
work in the cave will provide more rebuttal. Here
I note that since the old wood effect pertains to
the sample itself, not its context, it is not a valid
reason to discard a class of cave dates defined by
context.
Within the POS, Sugiyama and colleagues
obtained seven samples for two time frames.
One date agrees with POS ceramics (Sugiyama
et al. 2013:425). Its context was reevaluated,
decided to be possibly “tertiary,” and so the date
was eliminated (Sugiyama et al. 2013:425). The
remaining six cluster well, and so are used to
date POS construction and realign the Tzacualli
phase. The appearance is that a subset of POS
dates drove interpretation of the POS and cave.
If all radiocarbon dates from the POS and
cave are accepted, the pyramid fits into a broader
explanation that includes a mid-third-century
termination of the cave (Sload 2007). The timing
accords with exterior architectural modifications
to the POS: addition of the fourth and fifth
cuerpos (as reconstructed) and construction of
the adosada platform. With the publication of
six contemporaneous dates from the interior
of the pyramid on the east–west centerline,
I hypothesize tunneling into the POS as part
of a grand plan to terminate the mountain
cave and rededicate it without the cave (Sload
2015).
Two puzzling “structures” were found within
the POS. Interpreted as “pre-Sun Pyramid” in
construction date (Sugiyama et al. 2013), sup-
porting data are equivocal. Carbon burned in
situ on top of one, a floor section, produced
two of the six clustered dates. Context implies
two possibilities for the age of the floor: it
may be earlier than the burning, or it may be
contemporaneous. The other structure, a wall
with connected floor section, is oriented to
Teotihuacan north. As Sugiyama and colleagues
(2013:415) note, structures along the Street of the
Dead known to predate the POS have different
orientations. Teotihuacan north is believed to
have originated with construction of the POS and
planning of at least the northern half of the cere-
monial avenue (Millon 1973:52). Sugiyama and
colleagues (2013) provide no evidence that the
“structure” was pre-pyramid. Thus, both features
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:27:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2017.69
[Vol. 29, No. 2, 2018
may relate to later hypothesized tunneling (Sload
2015).
The scenario presented in Sload (2015) is
a hypothesis. I believe it is less arbitrary than
Sugiyama and colleagues’ and accounts for more
evidence (Fogelin 2007). It maintains the Teoti-
huacan ceramic chronology, reconciles all cave
and POS radiocarbon dates, and is in accord with
cave and POS ceramics. In so doing, the basic
story regarding the timing and trajectory of the
growth of Teotihuacan is maintained.
References Cited
Beramendi-Orosco, Laura E., Galia Gonzalez-Hernandez,
Jaime Urrutia-Fucugauchi, Linda Manzanilla, Ana
Soler-Arechalde, Avto Goguitchaishvili, and Nick
Jarboe
2009 High-Resolution Chronology for the Mesoamerican
Urban Center of Teotihuacan Derived from Bayesian
Statistics of Radiocarbon and Archaeological Data.
Quaternary Research 71:99–107.
Braswell, Geoffrey E. (editor)
2003 The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early
Classic Interaction. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Cowgill, George L.
2015 Ancient Teotihuacan: Early Urbanism in Central
Mexico. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Fogelin, Lars
2007 Inference to the Best Explanation: A Common and
Effective Form of Archaeological Reasoning. American
Antiquity 72:603–625.
Manzanilla, Linda, and Leonardo López Luján
2001 Exploraciones en un posible palacio de Teotihuacan:
El Proyecto Xalla (2000–2001). Mexicon 23:58–61.
Millon, René
1973 Urbanization at Teotihuacan, Mexico, Vol. 1, The
Teotihuacan Map, Part 1: Text. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
Rattray, Evelyn C.
1991 Fechamientos por radiocarbono en Teotihuacan.
Arqueología 6:3–18.
Sload, Rebecca
2007 Radiocarbon Dating of Teotihuacán Mapping
Project TE28 Material from Cave under the Pyra-
mid of the Sun, Teotihuacán, México. Electronic doc-
ument, http://www.famsi.org/reports/06017/, accessed
November 1, 2017.
2015 When Was the Sun Pyramid Built? Maintaining
the Status Quo at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Latin American
Antiquity 26:221–241.
Sugiyama, Nawa, Saburo Sugiyama, and Alejandro Sarabia
G.
2013 Inside the Sun Pyramid at Teotihuacan, Mexico:
2008–2011 Excavations and Preliminary Results. Latin
American Antiquity 24:403–432.
Submitted October 6, 2017; Revised October 9, 2017;
Accepted October 13, 2017