New Perspectives on Formative Mesoamerican Cultures 9781841718170, 9781407328096

Citation preview

BAR S1377 2005 POWIS (Ed.) NEW PERSPECTIVES ON FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES

B A R

New Perspectives on Formative Mesoamerican Cultures Edited by

Terry G. Powis

BAR International Series 1377 2005

New Perspectives on Formative Mesoamerican Cultures Edited by

Terry G. Powis

BAR International Series 1377 2005

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1377 New Perspectives on Formative Mesoamerican Cultures © The editor and contributors severally and the Publisher 2005 The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841718170 paperback ISBN 9781407328096 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841718170 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2005. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS List of Figures

iii

List of Tables

v

List of Authors

vii

Acknowledgements

ix

Formative Mesoamerican Cultures: An Introduction Terry G. Powis

1

The Preceramic to Early Middle Formative Transition in Northern Belize: Evidence for the Ethnic Identity of the Preceramic Inhabitants Harry B. Iceland Cunil: A Pre-Mamom Horizon in the Southern Maya Lowlands David Cheetham The Development of Middle Formative Public Architecture in the Maya Lowlands: The Blackman Eddy, Belize Example M. Kathryn Brown and James F. Garber

15 27

39

Perspectives on Olmec-Maya Interaction in the Middle Formative Period Richard D. Hansen

51

Gulf Olmec Variation and Implications for Interaction Philip J. Arnold III

73

The Formative Archaeological Cultures of the Guatemalan Highlands and Pacific Coast: Interregional Interaction and Cultural Evolution Eugenie Robinson, Hector Neff, Mary Pye, and Marlen Garnica

85

The Dichotomy of Formative Complex Societies in Pacific Guatemala: Local Development vs. External Relationships Frederick J. Bove

95

Interaction and Exchange as Evident at Yarumela, Honduras: The Ancient Chiefdom in the Borderland L.R.V. Joesink-Mandeville

111

Domesticated Plants and Cultural Connections in Early Mesoamerica: Formative Period Paleoethnobotanical Evidence from Belize, Mexico, and Honduras David L. Lentz, Mary E.D. Pohl, and Kevin O. Pope

121

Mesoamerican Formative Period Water Management Technology: An Overview with Insights on Development and Associated Method and Theory James A. Neely

127

Formative Cave Utilization: An Examination of Mesoamerican Ritual Foundations Ann M. Scott and James E. Brady

147

The Microcosmos of Formative Pottery from K'axob, Belize Sandra L. López Varela

159

Institutional Development in Late Formative Oaxaca: The View from San Martín Tilcajete Charles S. Spencer and Elsa M. Redmond

171

i

A Rural Perspective on Mesoamerican Integration During the Late and Terminal Formative Patricia Plunket, Gabriela Uruñuela, Michael Glascock, and Hector Neff

183

The North Gulf Lowlands of NE Mexico (La Huasteca) in the Formative Period Fred Valdez, Jr. and William J. Wagner III

195

The Formative Period in Mesoamerica: An Overview Joyce Marcus and R. E.W. Adams

203

ii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Figure 1.2 Figure 2.1 Figure 2.2 Figure 2.3 Figure 2.4 Figure 2.5 Figure 3.1 Figure 3.2 Figure 3.3 Figure 3.4 Figure 3.5 Figure 3.6 Figure 3.7 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 4.4 Figure 4.5 Figure 5.1 Figure 5.2 Figure 5.3 Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5 Figure 5.6 Figure 5.7 Figure 5.8 Figure 5.9 Figure 6.1 Figure 6.2 Figure 6.3 Figure 6.4 Figure 7.1 Figure 7.2 Figure 7.3 Figure 7.4 Figure 8.1 Figure 8.2 Figure 8.3 Figure 8.4

Map of Mesoamerica showing principle regions. Map of Mesoamerica showing principal sites mentioned in text. Northern Belize, with the Colha and Kelly sites, the Chert Bearing Zone, and other sites mentioned in text. Preceramic lithic production locale at the Kelly site (bottom), blade (top left), uniface preform (top right) refits. Early Middle Formative platform at Colha Op. 4046 (bottom), with burin cores recovered in platform fill (top). The Colha Lithic Tradition, showing continuity in beveled bit adze forms, bifacial celts, use of macroblade and macroflake blanks. left: Northern Belize, showing sites where constricted uniface adzes have been recovered (indicated by solid triangles); top: Constricted unifaces from Colha site. Map of the Southern Maya Lowlands locating key Pre-Mamom sites. Select early chronological sequences of the Maya Lowlands. All dates are uncalibrated. Reconstruction of Cunil Phase vessels from Cahal Pech, Belize (top), Eb phase vessels from Tikal, Guatemala (middle), and Réal Xe phase vessels from Seibal, Guatemala (bottom). Two diagnostic Cunil Horizon vessels forms: (a) Red-rimmed and Plain Colander bowls; (b) wide everted-rim plates. Cunil Horizon Motifs: (a) Lightning; (b) Shark Tooth; (c) Music Bracket. Cunil Horizon Motifs: (a) Kan Cross; (b) Cleft; (c) Flame Eyebrow; (d) Avian Serpent. Conceptual integration of Pre-Mamom Complexes/Phases. Blackman Eddy site core. Profile of Structure B1 at Blackman Eddy. Plan view of bedrock features at Blackman Eddy. Structures B-1-4th and B1-5th at Blackman Eddy. Structure B1-3rd at Blackman Eddy. The Mirador Basin, Peten, Guatemala. Bajos of the Mirador Basin, surrounding the major sites. Ceramic sequence of Nakbe. Map of Nakbe, Peten, Guatemala. Early Ox ceramics at Nakbe, Mirador Basin: a) Red rim-on-buff tecomates; b, c) Finger punctate vessels; d, e) Incised bowls (Chunhinta Group). Middle Ox ceramics at Nakbe and La Florida, Mirador Basin: a, b) Palma Daub; c) Chamfered tecomate, Pital Cream; d) Incised black, red, and cream bowl; e) Chevron incised-on-red (Juventud); f) Bichrome, dichrome, incised and chamfered bowls; g) General Middle Ox ceramics from Nakbe. Middle Formative (Early and Middle Ox) figurines from Nakbe: a) general figurines showing a variety of body shapes and figurine assemblages; b) Op. 51 C.09.02; c) 51 L.12.37; d) 51 H.13.63; e) 51 H.05.16; f) 51 H.12.48. Monumental block wall (Str.35), late Middle Formative period, Nakbe. Average block size: 98 cm x 47 cm x 45cm. Isla Stela 1, Middle Formative period (estimated). Note upward looking saurian monster, with eye, eyebrow, curled snout, and teeth. Map of the “Olmec Heartland" as defined by the distribution of megalithic sculpture. Contour map of the La Joya archaeological site. Reconstructed depiction of frontal “were-jaguar” from a whiteware cylindrical vessel recovered at La Joya. The site of La Venta (in white) overlaying the Middle Woodland Newark Earthworks in Ohio. Sites represented at the same scale. Map of Pacific Coastal Southern Mesoamerica showing archaeological sites and major rivers. Ceramics at Rucal and Urias. (a-b) red-rimmed tecomates; (c-e) Las Charcas Streaky Gray; (f-h) Las Charcas Polychrome; (i-k) Pallid Red; (l) red-on-buff; (m-p) El Balsamo Brown, Gashed Incised. INAA sample: (a-b) orange slipped bowls; (c) orange-on-cream painted bowl; (d) black incised tecomate fragment; (e) black incised; (f) conical support; (g) white slipped incised; (h) lufa impression. Principal Component Analysis. Early Formative sites in Pacific Guatemala. Pacific Guatemala ceramic phases. Middle Formative sites in Pacific Guatemala. Site maps of Anna and Vista Hermosa. iii

Figure 8.5 Figure 8.6 Figure 8.7 Figure 8.8 Figure 9.1 Figure 9.2 Figure 9.3 Figure 9.4 Figure 10.1 Figure 10.2 Figure 10.3 Figure 12.1 Figure 12.2 Figure 12.3 Figure 12.4 Figure 12.5 Figure 13.1 Figure 13.2 Figure 13.3 Figure 13.4 Figure 13.5 Figure 14.1 Figure 14.2 Figure 14.3 Figure 14.4 Figure 14.5 Figure 14.6 Figure 15.1 Figure 15.2 Figure 15.3 Figure 15.4 Figure 15.5 Figure 15.6 Figure 15.6 Figure 16.1

Late to Terminal Formative sites in Pacific Guatemala. Site maps of La Rubia and Giralda. Sites in Pacific Guatemala with and without plain stelae. Map of Pacific Coast Ceramic Traditions. Area map indicating the great Comayagua depression. Site map of Yarumela drawn with three meter contours, showing hypothetically reconstructed structures. Effigy potbelly jar. Map of Operation 3 showing domed oven/kiln on its cobble pavement overlying the trough stove. Map of Mesoamerica and Southeastern United States showing sites mentioned in text. Map of New World showing distribution of Zea mays parviglumis and Zea mays at contact. Map of New World showing the location of wild Anacardium progenitors in South America and the location of Yarumela in Mesoamerica. Map of Mesoamerica showing locations referenced in this text. Vessels recovered from Gordon's Cave #3, Copan, Honduras. Altar 4 from La Venta, Tabasco, Mexico. Monument 9 from Chalcatzingo, Morelos, Mexico. Burial in ossuary chamber in Cueva del Rio Talgua, Catacamas, Honduras. Location of K'axob and its nearest neighbors. A sample of Abelino Red: Abelino Variety showing coarse temper of grog (PPL, width of field 2.5 mm). A Timax Incised vessel of the Tierra Mojada Group. Vessels expressing the microcosmos of the Late Formative: a) Sierra Red: Unspecified Variety; b) Society Hall Red: Society Hall Variety. A sample of Aguacate Orange: Aguacate Variety showing a calcareous fine silty matrix with rounded grains of silty to sandy quartz and rounded cryptocrystalline aggregates of carbonates. The Oaxaca Valley, its subregions and surrounding regions, including some key archaeological sites. The archaeological sites of El Mogote (SMT-11a), El Palenque (SMT-11b), and Los Mogotes (SMT23), located near the present town of San Martín Tilcajete in the Ocotlan district of the Oaxaca Valley. Topographic map of El Mogote (SMT-11a), showing the plaza, lettered mounds, and numbered surface collections. Topographic map of El Palenque (SMT-11b), showing the plaza, lettered mounds, terraces, structure foundations (indicated with solid triangles), stone walls, and numbered surface collections. Schematic plan of the Area I palace complex at El Palenque, comprising Structure 7 along with eight other structures and associated features, all dating to the Late Monte Albán I phase. Schematic plan of Structure 16, a late Monte Albán I multi-room temple in Area G, Mound G, El Palenque. Plan of House 2 showing the triadic configuration typical of Tetimpa houses. Differences in chert at two Early Tetimpa phase houses. Differences in obsidian at two Early Tetimpa phase houses. Distribution of obsidian and chert at Late Tetimpa houses and kitchens. Funerary ceramics: a) local Brown; b) Lustrous Red-on-Brown; c) Gray; d) local black; and e) Thin Orange. Comparison of imported wares at six Early Tetimpa phase houses. Comparison of imported wares at six Early Tetimpa phase houses. Prehistoric Huastec Region.

iv

LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1 Table 2.1 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3 Table 3.4 Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 5.3 Table 7.1 Table 7.2 Table 8.1 Table 9.1 Table 10.1 Table 10.2 Table 11.1 Table 14.1 Table 14.2 Table 16.1

Chronological sequences of the Formative period for the principal regions of Mesoamerica mentioned in the text. All dates are uncalibrated. Radiocarbon dates from Colha Op. 4046. Radiocarbon dates from early building platforms at Cahal Pech, Belize. Slip color and incised frequencies among quantified Pre-Mamom ceramic complexes. Pre-Mamom vessel forms and salient attributes of the Belize Valley (Cunil), Central Peten (Eb), and Pasión River (Réal Xe) areas. Presence/absence of Cunil Horizon incised ceramic designs and motifs in the Belize Valley, Central Peten, and Pasión River areas. Construction phases of Structure B1 at Blackman Eddy. Radiocarbon dates from Blackman Eddy. Radiocarbon dates for the Early Ox phase at Nakbe, Guatemala. Radiocarbon dates for the Middle Ox phase at Nakbe, Guatemala. Radiocarbon dates for the Late Ox phase at Nakbe, Guatemala. Radiocarbon dates for Urias. Rucal and Urias chemical affiliations. Middle to Late Formative sites with and without plain stelae. Chronology sequence and correlation chart. Cultivated plant remains from three Formative sites (San Andrés, Cahal Pech, and Yarumela). Wild plant remains from three Formative sites (San Andrés, Cahal Pech, and Yarumela). Formative period Mesoamerican water management technology features and systems. Radiocarbon dates from San Martín Tilcajete, Oaxaca. Distributional analysis of Crema ceramics. Huastec cultural sequences.

v

vi

LIST OF AUTHORS Richard E.W. Adams Department of Anthropology University of Texas San Antonio, TX

L.R.V. Joesink-Mandeville Department of Anthropology California State University Fullerton, CA

Philip J. Arnold III Department of Anthropology Loyola University Chicago, IL

David L. Lentz Chicago Botanic Garden Glencoe, IL Sandra L. López Varela Department of Cultural and Social Anthropology Stanford University Stanford, CA

Frederick J. Bove Institute for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research University of California Santa Barbara, CA

Joyce Marcus Museum of Anthropology University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI

James E. Brady Department of Anthropology California State University Los Angeles, CA

James A. Neely Department of Anthropology University of Texas Austin, TX

M. Kathryn Brown Department of Sociology and Anthropology University of Texas Arlington, TX

Hector Neff Department of Anthropology California State University Long Beach, CA

David T. Cheetham Department of Anthropology Arizona State University Tempe, AZ; and New World Archaeological Foundation Brigham Young University Provo, UT

Patricia Plunket Departamento de Antropología Universidad de las Américas Cholula, Puebla, Mexico

James F. Garber Department of Anthropology Texas State University San Marcos, TX

Mary E.D. Pohl Department of Anthropology Florida State University Tallahassee, FL

Marlan Garnica Área de Arqueología, Escuela de Historia Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala Guatemala City, Guatemala

Kevin O. Pope GeoEcoArch Research Washington, DC Terry G. Powis Department of Sociology, Geography, and Anthropology Kennesaw State University Kennesaw, GA

Michael Glascock Research reactor Center University of Missouri Columbia, MO

Mary E. Pye New World Archaeological Foundation Brigham Young University Provo, UT

Richard D. Hansen Department of Anthropology Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID

Elsa M. Redmond Division of Anthropology American Museum of Natural History New York, NY

Harry B. Iceland Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs U.S. Department of State Washington, DC

vii

Eugenia Robinson Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminal Justice Montgomery College Rockville, MD Ann M. Scott Department of Latin American Studies, University of Texas Austin, TX Charles S. Spencer Division of Anthropology American Museum of Natural History New York, NY Gabriela Uruñuela Departamento de Antropología Universidad de las Américas Cholula, Puebla, Mexico Fred Valdez, Jr. Department of Anthropology University of Texas Austin, TX William J. Wagner III Department of Anthropology University of Texas Austin, TX

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This volume is the culmination of a double symposium held in 2001 at the 66th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in New Orleans. The symposia were entitled “Bridging Formative Mesoamerican Cultures”. The symposia were organized by myself and David McDow, both graduate students at the time at the University of Texas at Austin. A total of 25 papers were presented, covering such topics as trade, exchange, and interaction. After the meetings we decided to publish the papers together in a comprehensive volume, but David left the graduate program soon thereafter to pursue survey work full-time. Consequently, I decided to continue with the volume and the end result is presented in the pages that follow. There are a number of individuals who provided support and guidance. First, I am indebted to David McDow for being instrumental in the organization of these symposia. I want to express my gratitude to both the original participants of the symposia and those who contributed chapters in this volume. In particular, I want to thank our discussants, Drs. Joyce Marcus and Richard E.W. Adams, for their continued support and encouragement. Over the years, several colleagues have provided insightful comments, observations, and advice on the Formative period, including Jaime Awe, Joe Ball, Kat Brown, David Cheetham, John Clark, Jim Garber, Elizabeth Graham, Paul Healy, Thomas Hester, Bobbi Hohmann, Linda Howie, Joyce Marcus, Richard Meadows, James Neely, David Pendergast, Rhan-Ju Song, Norbert Stanchly, and Fred Valdez. I want to thank David Davison, Alice Doyle and the staff at BAR Publishing for their editorial aid. Finally, I want to thank Paul Healy, Bobbi Hohmann, and Norbert Stanchly for commenting on earlier drafts of my introductory chapter. I am especially indebted to one anonymous reviewer for their perceptive suggestions and comments. However, I take full responsibility for any errors in fact or in interpretation. Prior to the manuscript going to press, we heard of the passing of LeRoy Joesink-Mandeville. His untimely death in May of 2004 is a tragic loss for archaeologists working not only in the Maya area, but also in the southern borderland/interaction zone, where he was especially interested in the “non-Maya presence”. He will be missed. It is to him that I dedicate this volume.

ix

x

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES

Formative Mesoamerican Cultures: An Introduction Terry G. Powis the presence of agriculture, or any other subsistence economy of comparable effectiveness, and by the successful integration of such an economy into well-established, sedentary village life…Pottery-making, weaving, stone-carving, and a specialized ceremonial architecture are usually associated with these American Formative cultures (Willey and Phillips 1958:146).

The Formative period, spanning roughly the last two millennia B.C., is one of the least understood eras in the history of ancient Mesoamerican culture. The general lack of Formative period information, compared to other time periods, reflects the research biases of most early projects in Mesoamerica. Prior to the publication of Kent Flannery’s “The Early Mesoamerican Village” in 1976, most archaeological projects focused on the achievements of Classic Mesoamerican civilizations, such as the art, architecture, iconography, and elite material culture at large centers (Chase and Chase 1992; Hammond 1982). As a result, the pioneering efforts of the Formative period inhabitants and the cultural processes associated with their development were largely overlooked (Healy and Awe 1995:2).

Other contemporary archaeologists also chose the adoption of agriculture, presence of sedentary villages, and the use of ceramics as their principal characteristics for the Formative stage (Ford 1969:5; Sanders and Price 1968:20); however, some scholars cautioned that these traits may have been adopted earlier. In his book entitled “A Comparison of Formative Cultures in the Americas: Diffusion or the Psychic Unity of Man”, Ford (1969:5) had two main criticisms of Willey and Phillips’ definition of the Formative period. First, he stated that agriculture was practiced many centuries before such commonly accepted Formative traits as ceramics and polished stone tools were manufactured (Ford 1969:5). Thus, the mere presence of agricultural systems could not be a defining criterion on its own. Ford mentions the fact that small settlements seem to have been sedentary, but perhaps were not well-established sedentary villages. Second, the earliest ceramics were not made by agricultural people at all. According to Ford (1969:5), ceramics were “manufactured by and spread by coastal groups who subsisted principally on shellfish. The marriage of agriculture and ceramics seems to have taken place…about 2000 B.C. in Mesoamerica.” Consequently, Ford (1969:5) preferred to define the Formative period as:

During the past quarter century, intensified archaeological research on the Formative period has provided new perspectives on the social, political, and economic systems of early Mesoamerican cultures (Blake et al. 1995; Bove 1989; Clark and Cheetham 2003; Clark and Pye 2000; Clark et al. 2000; Coe and Diehl 1980; Flannery 1976; Flannery and Marcus 1994; Ford 1969; Fowler 1991; Grove and Joyce 1999; Hammond 1991; Healy and Awe 1995; Hirth 1984; Marcus 1995; McAnany 1995; Miller 1983; Sanders et al. 1979; Sharer and Grove 1989; Sanders and Price 1968; Sharer and Sedat 1987; Voorhies 1989). From these advanced studies it is now clear that the sophisticated, highly stratified Classic civilizations rested on a much more complex Formative period cultural base (Healy and Awe 1995:1). This paper is divided into two broad sections, one focusing on the early developments in Formative scholarship in Mesoamerica and the other describing the volume contents. In the first section, developments in Formative research are explored, from the introduction of the concept of the Formative period to characteristics that define this period of cultural development. The second section deals specifically with the organization of the volume, beginning with the basic chronometric and ceramic framework being used by the authors. This is followed by a description of the major themes being addressed and directions for future research.

the 3,000 years (or less in some regions) during which the elements of ceramics, ground stone tools, handmade figurines, and manioc and maize agriculture were being diffused and welded into the socioeconomic life of the people living in the region extending from Peru to the eastern United States. While the appearance of agriculture, ceramic production, and permanent villages were generally accepted as characteristics of the Formative period, archaeological research over the past fifty years has revealed that the timing and rate at which each of these traits developed varied from region to region within Mesoamerica (Hirth 1984:8). We now know that the origins of agriculture predate the Formative period by more than a millennium (Pope et al. 2001), which strongly suggests that Mesoamerican peoples were “clearing forests and experimenting with corn agriculture long before they made

The Concept of the Formative Period The first reference to the term “Formative” was made by Willey and Phillips in their seminal book on American Archaeology (1955:765, see also 1958:146). It was one of the five stages (Lithic, Archaic, Formative, Classic, and Postclassic) in their cultural development scheme for New World archaeology (see also Caso 1953). They defined the Formative period by: 1

FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES: AN INTRODUCTION pottery and lived in permanent villages” (Marcus 2003:78). If agriculture was the necessary requisite for future cultural development, then why don’t we see ceramic production and sedentary villages in the Archaic period? Marcus (2003:78) points out that it could have taken many millennia and considerable increase in cob length and kernel size before sociopolitical complexity arose in Mesoamerica. The links between agriculture and the development of complexity is a much debated topic, one that is taken up by several authors in this volume.

systems of prestige goods, competition and conflict between elites, greater control of labor by elites, and the rise of the first states. Given this new information on the Formative period, what questions are now being asked by archaeologists that are different from those of the previous generation? While some specialized studies continue to improve our knowledge regarding the changes observed in architecture, settlement, population, and subsistence, others are viewing the Formative as a “period of interrelated social processes and major socio-political evolution, which begins with simple village farming communities and ends with stratified state-level society” (Hirth 1984:10). The cultural evolution of early Mesoamerican societies and the linkages and exchange relationships that existed between Formative cultures is discussed throughout the volume.

The early studies by Ford (1969), Sanders and Price (1968), and Willey and Phillips (1955, 1958) provided the basic list of traits that define the Formative period in Mesoamerica. Now as more research has been conducted and theoretical and methodological advances have been made, scholars have added a number of features to this list, including: monumental architecture, public art, carved stone monuments, craft specialization, diversification of subsistence technologies, population growth and density, the emergence of social rank, long-distance exchange

“Formative” or “Preclassic” Mesoamerica With the exception of Mayanists, archaeologists and other

Figure 1.1: Map of Mesoamerica showing principle regions 2

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES scholars working in Mesoamerica continue to refer to the period of time between the Archaic and the Classic period as Formative, following Willey and Phillips’ (1958:146) original concept. Mayanists have traditionally preferred to use the term Preclassic, arguing that the Formative adheres to the old evolutionary model where society was still forming until it became or reached the level of civilization during the Classic. Many scholars believe that Formative is a pejorative term because in actuality some of the accomplishments in the Preclassic far exceed anything done in the Classic period. Joyce and Grove (1999:2) have stated that “…more than any period of time that followed, the Mesoamerican Pre-Classic witnessed the development of unprecedented features in site form, artifact inventory, and use of materials. Every later society developed within a framework that was laid down in the Pre-Classic.”

it is not culturally uniform with respect to ethnicity and language. Both communication and interaction played a major role among different ethnic groupings (Ford 1969). We know that most, if not all, Formative cultures were in contact and communication with one another and participated in an early interaction sphere by the end of the second millennium B.C. or slightly later (Adams 1977; Blake 1991; Clark and Blake 1994; Clark 1997; Clark and Cheetham 2001; Flannery and Marcus 2000; Fowler 1991; Grove 1987, 1993; Grove and Joyce 1999; Coe 1968, 1977, 1989; Hirth 1984; Joyce and Henderson 2001; Lowe 1981; Marcus and Flannery 1996; Pires-Ferreira 1976; Robinson 1987; Sharer 1983; Sharer and Grove 1989; Urban et al. 2002; Willey 1991). However, the timing, structure, and kind of interaction and interdependence between the different culture groups during the Formative period remain to be clarified.

Today, some archaeologists working in Mesoamerica, including the Maya area, use both of these terms interchangeably. In this chapter, I have chosen to use the term Formative, in keeping with the opinions of most Mesoamerican archaeologists that this period is basic to and formational toward later (additional) developments. This usage is not intended to imply that some (or perhaps the majority) of the developments identified in the Formative were not more advanced than what came later in the Classic period. Given the fact that both of these terms are commonly used in current archaeological literature and that scholars have strong opinions about the appropriate terminology, the decision has been left to the discretion of individual authors.

Temporal Boundaries The Formative period spans the interval between roughly 2000 B.C. and A.D. 250, as calibrated in calendar years (Stuiver et al. 1998). The temporal boundaries of the Formative period differ slightly from region to region, each being influenced by local chronologies and developments. Despite the regional differences, scholars have traditionally divided the Formative into three sub-periods: Early Formative (2000-1000/900 B.C.), Middle Formative (1000/900-400 B.C.), and Late Formative (400 B.C. - A.D. 250). Several of these sub-periods have been further divided into two or more facets or phases. Table 1.1 provides a listing of the sub-periods and several regional ceramic sequences in Formative Mesoamerica. The beginning and ending dates for each of these sub-periods remain fluid as researchers produce new data.

Cultural and Temporal Boundaries of Formative Mesoamerica Cultural Boundaries Mesoamerica has a distinctive culture content and patterning that defines it as a separate culture area within tropical America. The geographical extent of Mesoamerica includes the countries of Belize and Guatemala, the southern and central part of Mexico along with the Yucatan Peninsula, and the western regions of El Salvador and Honduras (Figure 1.1). The boundaries of Mesoamerica are based on Kirchoff’s (1943) original distributional study of culture traits which was formulated largely upon ethnographic and linguistic data known at the time of the Conquest.

There have been some inconsistencies in the reporting and comparison of dates in the literature on Mesoamerican archaeology, particularly in reference to radiocarbon dates. While some researchers report their findings using uncalibrated or conventional dates, others rely on corrected or calibrated dates. By offering one method at the exclusion of another, the reader faces the daunting task of converting the dates and possibly misinterpreting the data. One way to alleviate this problem is to provide two or more of the methods mentioned above in order to effectively compare one’s data with that of other sites, regions, and cultural phases.

What can be said about the preceding years, especially during the Formative period? How far back in time can a Mesoamerican culture area be recognized? We know that a great variety of linguistic and ethnic groups occupied Mesoamerica before the arrival of the Europeans. Despite the high degree of local and/or regional diversity, lying beneath the surface was a common thread that bound these traditions together. Linguistic data suggest that all languages in Mesoamerica may have been related prior to 4000 B.C., but after this time separate languages and dialects can be identified (Kaufman 1976; Wolfe 1959).

In this volume, the complete presentation of radiocarbon data is used whenever possible so that the reader is not burdened by the need to calibrate and/or de-calibrate radiocarbon time. A reference to where the original information was published is used to further help the reader access the data upon which the presented date is based. Raiocarbon dates are presented in the text if only a few dates are being presented. If many dates and sigma determinations are being discussed, they will be presented in a table format. It should be pointed out that not all contributors in this volume agree on how radiocarbon dating should be presented; some prefer to work with only

Therefore, it is important to recognize that although Mesoamerica has been defined by a specific list of traits, 3

FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES: AN INTRODUCTION

Table 1.1: Chronological sequences of the Formative period for the principal regions of Mesoamerica mentioned in the text. All dates are uncalibrated

4

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES uncalibrated dates. While each contributor may prefer his or her own system of reporting, the first time a date is mentioned the contributor will state whether it is cal or uncal and refer the reader to a table, where present, showing the alternative system of date(s). Authors use the B.C. (cal) or b.c. (uncal) designation according to their stated preference, thereby maintaining consistency in its application throughout the paper.

two-part symposium entitled “Bridging Formative Mesoamerican Cultures: Trade, Exchange, and Interaction” that was presented at the 2001 Society for American Archaeology meetings in New Orleans. The primary goal of this symposium was to provide a current cross-section of archaeological research on the nature and significance of inter- and intra-regional trade, exchange, and interaction between Formative Mesoamerican cultures. One of the underlying goals was to help clarify the connection between specific sites and regions during critical periods of transition in the Formative period (Figure 1.2), such as the move toward full-time sedentism, agricultural intensification, and ceramic production. In this volume, the papers have been revised and updated to include recent findings and new theories regarding Formative period interactions. It also includes specialized analyses of ceramic, lithic, and plant remains that address questions of trade and exchange directly. The volume is organized chronologically, beginning with papers focusing on the Early Formative and ending with those that pertain to the Late/Terminal Formative period.

In addition to radiocarbon dating, ceramic comparison is also used as a vital aid in dating contemporaneous sites, regions, and phases across Formative Mesoamerica. It has been noted (Flannery and Marcus 1994) that archaeologists are relying too much on radiocarbon dating and not enough on ceramic crossties for their chronology. According to Flannery and Marcus (1994:373), the over-reliance on radiocarbon dates “greatly undermines archaeologists’ traditional skills at correlating regional sequences by systematic comparison of ceramic types, attributes, and motifs.” Both absolute and relative dating techniques are employed throughout this volume in order to gain a better sense and reflection of real calendar time (and not just radiocarbon time) for the Formative period in Mesoamerica.

A Discussion of Major Themes

Organization of this Volume

The chapters in this volume address a range of topics from regions throughout Mesoamerica. The volume itself is

The papers included in this volume are the result of a

Fig 1.2: Map of Mesoamerica showing principal sites mentioned in text

5

FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES: AN INTRODUCTION divided into four sections, each of which focuses on a particular element of Formative cultural interaction. It is also organized temporally, with major themes from the Early and Middle Formative being discussed before the Late and Terminal Formative.

been population and linguistic continuity? Both population density and continuity of occupation in northern Belize has led some researchers to suggest that the eastern lowlands may have been the ancestral homeland of the Middle Formative Maya who occupied the lowlands after 900 B.C. (Iceland, this volume). By exploring the cultural trajectory of the northern Belize Preceramic inhabitants, Iceland has observed clear differences, both from a social and material culture standpoint, between the northern Belize Preceramic inhabitants and contemporaneous Early Formative occupations (e.g., the Olmec of the Mexico Gulf Coast region) found elsewhere in Mesoamerica (see Hammond 1999 for an alterative viewpoint). Why, for example, do we not find evidence of Olmec influence in northern Belize between 1500-900 B.C.? Clearly there is contact, communication, and trade occurring at this time between the Olmec of the Gulf Coast and populations living in the highland regions of Oaxaca, the Valley of Mexico, and the Mazatan region of coastal Chiapas (Blake 1991; Clark 1997; Clark and Blake 1994; Flannery and Marcus 1994). The idea that ethnic and linguistic boundaries may have played a critical role in the continued regional identity of the northern Belize population may help to explain why Preceramic peoples did not follow the same path as the Olmec chiefdom. As a result, the northern Belize Preceramic population continued along the path of an egalitarian society, but one which had become more sedentary and involved in widespread and intensive agricultural activity. The cultural practices of this Preceramic population were considerably different than that recorded for other culture groups across Mesoamerica who had adopted pottery, exotic trade goods, craft production, and public architecture by ca. 1800-1600 B.C.

Early and Middle Formative Periods Local Expressions, Regional Identities, and Cultural Affiliations The transition from the Preceramic to the period of Middle Formative pottery-making is poorly understood in some parts of Mesoamerica, especially the Maya area. However, recent research has focused on pre-Maya and early Maya occupation in both Belize and Guatemala and the relationships between these early settlers and those from distant regions such as the Gulf Lowlands, the Basin of Mexico, and the Pacific Coast of Chiapas. Through their fieldwork in both the lowlands and highlands, archaeologists are dispelling the commonly held notion that pre-Mamom and Mamom peoples were “late comers” to the developments of early Mesoamerican sociopolitical complexity (see Brown and Garber, Cheetham, Hansen, Iceland, and López Varela, this volume). Before discussing the cultural practices of the earliest Maya it is important to briefly outline what is known about preMaya populations in the Maya Lowlands. For decades, there have been two explanations posited for the origins of the earliest Maya. According to Willey (1982:261), they involve: a movement of pottery-making farmers from the Guatemalan highland region into the lowlands, or, alternatively, a movement of similar ceramicagriculturalists from the Olmec Veracruz-Tabasco Gulf Coast eastward into what was to become Maya country. Historical linguists seemed to favor the first possibility. In their view a proto-Mayan language, from which all later known Mayan languages were derived, had its formation in the Guatemalan highlands at about 2200 B.C. From this region Mayan speakers began to descend into the lowlands at some time between 1400 and 1000 B.C.

In related research, archaeologists working in the Belize Valley are exploring the origins and cultural affiliation of the earliest fully sedentary inhabitants of the Southern Maya Lowlands. They are grappling with the same set of questions about whether or not the earliest villages inhabited before the early Middle Formative period were founded by Maya peoples. Two sites in the Belize Valley have revealed pre-Mamom occupation, but investigators working at each of these sites have offered different scenarios for initial Maya settlement. Based on ceramic data from the site core of Cahal Pech, belonging to the Cunil phase ca. 1150-900 B.C., Awe (1992), Cheetham (1998), and Healy et al. (in press) have suggested that occupation was continuous in the valley (and the lowlands) from the late Preceramic period onwards. This information reinforces the contention by Iceland and rejects the longheld notion that the Maya area was occupied by small groups of immigrants from adjacent regions who brought ceramic technology with them around 900 B.C. A different scenario for initial settlement in the Maya Lowlands has been offered by researchers working at Blackman Eddy. Using late Early and early Middle Formative architectural data from this site, Brown and Garber (this volume) see a possible population movement and migration of non-Maya peoples into the valley from the west, perhaps Chiapas, Mexico or the highlands of Guatemala (see also Ball and

Andrews (1990:16) agrees with Willey (1982:261), postulating that early Maya farmers came from either eastern Chiapas or the northern highlands of Guatemala (see also Robinson et al., this volume); his argument is supported by the recent reconstruction of Mayan linguistic history (Kaufman 1976). The statement by Andrews contradicts that by Lowe (1977), who believes the origin of Maya culture, like that of Zoquean cultures, was the middle Usumacinta drainage of the northwestern lowlands. Recent evidence of Preceramic occupations from northern Belize, and that of early Cunil pottery from the Belize Valley, casts some doubt on this reconstruction. If there was a Preceramic-to-ceramic cultural continuity in Belize as the data seem to suggest, then could there have also 6

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES Taschek 2000). The evidence for non-Maya peoples living in the Belize Valley is derived from a pattern of temple burning and destruction of Structure B-1 during the transition between the Early and Middle Formative (ca. 1200-900 B.C.) at Blackman Eddy. One step toward resolving this issue is to conduct chemical, mineralogical, and technological analyses of the ceramic material recovered from the earliest contexts at Cahal Pech and Blackman Eddy. The results may help shed light on where the pottery originated; however, archaeologists at both sites have not subjected any of the Cunil phase material to such analyses. Until characterization and provenience studies are performed on pottery from good contextual units at these sites, like those from northern Belize (Angelini 1998; Lopez Varela, this volume; Powis et al. 2002; Reese-Taylor et al. 1993), no progress can be made regarding the origin of the earliest Maya settlers in the Belize Valley.

involved in competitive displays of sociopolitical and ideological power (comparable to Flannery and Marcus 2000). Essentially, while the Maya were aware of Olmec ideology and ritual behavior, they were autochthonous in their own contemporary cultural development. In this case, the concept of sister cultures more adequately describes Olmec-Maya interaction than that of the mother culture of Formative Mesoamerica (Cheetham, this volume; Clark 1997; Clark and Cheetham 2001). Mobility, Exchange, and Cultural Corridors Continuing along these lines, the Olmec origins model is also being debated in other regions of Mesoamerica. Discussions concerning the patterns that distinguish highland and lowland Mesoamerica during the Early Formative (1500-900 B.C.) have pervaded the literature for decades (Bernal 1968; Coe 1965; Coe and Diehl 1980; Flannery 1968; Grove 1989; Marcus 1989; Miller 1983; Sanders and Price 1968; Sharer 1983; Tolstoy 1989). One of the major debates among archaeologists is whether the Early Formative period represented a single “Early Horizon”, with the Gulf Olmec being at the center of cultural sophistication. Is there a case for parallel cultural development across the disparate regions of Early and Middle Formative Mesoamerica? Do current models focus too heavily on a “heartland homogeneity” and elite ritual behavior, and not on intra-regional variation, which may be a better characterization of intercommunication? Using artifact and settlement data from the Olmec site of La Joya in the Tuxtla Mountains of Veracruz, Arnold (this volume) discusses how residential mobility, exchange, and visitation account for the patterning in the intra- and interregional distribution of Early Formative Gulf Olmec artifacts, especially ceramics. The movement of material goods and ideas across the landscape points to the seasonal movement of people who did not rely heavily on maize agriculture (see also Robinson et al., this volume). According to Arnold, the dynamic nature of the sociopolitical and economic landscape during the Early Formative period may be the result of non-permanent occupations, rather than that of permanent occupations found at large ceremonial centers like La Venta and San Lorenzo.

Despite a growing body of data regarding the relationship between the Maya and their distant neighbors, little is known about how the Cunil Maya living in the Belize Valley interacted with their closest neighbors located in northern Belize. Although sites such as Colha, Cuello, K’axob, and Kichpanha exhibit evidence of Mamom pottery, no Cunil pottery has been found in this region (see Lopez Varela, this volume). As a result, the inhabitants living in northern Belize may have been unaware of the cultural practices in the Belize Valley or, perhaps, simply did not make the transition to village life until Cunil phase practices were on the decline around 900 B.C. The ceramic data from Blackman Eddy, Cahal Pech, and other pre-Mamom sites in the Central Peten (e.g., Tikal, Uaxactun) demonstrate that there was some degree of trade and exchange occurring between the Maya and Olmec as early as 900 B.C. This interaction is evidenced by Olmec-style incised motifs (e.g., natural and supernatural themes) found on Cunil wares (Cheetham, this volume; Brown and Garber, this volume). At present, there is still some debate as to whether the timing and nature of the motifs indicates that this symbolism was adopted by the Cunil Maya rather than being independently invented. Any description of Olmec-Maya interaction must include a discussion of the “Olmec origins” or “mother culture” model for Mesoamerican sociopolitical complexity (Clark and Cheetham 2001). While some Mayanists adhere to this model, others have challenged the validity of this model by critically evaluating the timing, nature, and extent of Olmec influence on the sociopolitical development in the Maya Lowlands. Specifically, what is the empirical evidence for the Olmecization of the Maya between 900-400 B.C.? Archaeologists working in the Mirador Basin of Guatemala have disputed the idea of direct contact with the Olmec. Richard Hansen’s argument (this volume) is contrary to the statements made by other scholars, including those presented by Cheetham in this volume. Hansen suggests that since Maya sociopolitical development was coeval with the apogee of Olmec society, then both cultures were

Other scholars are studying Early Formative developments in the Antigua Valley of the Guatemalan highlands. Early Formative ceramics have also been found in this region, but it is uncertain as to where the material originated (e.g., highland, piedmont, or Pacific coastal zones). Focusing on the earliest sedentary occupation at the sites of Urias and Rucal, Robinson et al. (this volume) have used neutron activation analysis and stylistic comparisons of pottery from the Early (1500-1000 B.C.) and Middle (1000-700 B.C.) Formative periods to determine that the repertoire of types and decorative motifs people carried with them were adopted from other groups they encountered on a seasonal basis across the highland-piedmont-coastal zone. Given the nature of the coastal affiliations of the pottery, Robinson and colleagues believe that the first settlers in the Antigua Valley were from the coastal zone of 7

FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES: AN INTRODUCTION Guatemala. The area between the highland, piedmont, coastal zones of Guatemala is often regarded as a cultural corridor because of its unique geography (e.g., differing environmental zones, access to subsistence and nonsubsistence resources). This corridor would have allowed for the movement of peoples, material goods, and ideas between coastal and inland populations. Along the Pacific Coast of Guatemala, Bove (this volume) has produced results similar to Robinson et al. In the Early Formative (1700-900 B.C.), local populations shared a number of ceramic traits which Bove views as being consistent with mobility and interaction among early settlers living between the eastern and western Pacific Coast. He supports local evolutionary developments for the rise of complexity in this region rather than a diffusion model focusing on a single place of origin, such as the Olmec heartland.

origins of agriculture has allowed researchers to analyze and interpret the complex relationships between humans and domesticated plants. By studying the distribution and genetic makeup of domesticated plants, scholars have been able to determine the movement or dispersion of certain plants across the vast cultural and continental frontiers of Mesoamerica. Studies of trade, exchange, and interaction in early Mesoamerica have generally focused on durable or nonperishable materials like ceramics, obsidian, jade/ greenstone, and shell, but the information gained from ancient plant use activities also contributes to our knowledge of economic development and increasing sociopolitical complexity (Lentz et al., this volume). Using molecular evidence, Lentz and colleagues have reported the center of plant domestication at three Formative period sites: Cahal Pech in Belize, San Andrés in Mexico, and Yarumela in Honduras. Cultigens identified include cashew, cotton, maize, and sunflower. Having established centers of domestication, researchers can trace the movement of each plant through human distribution and redistribution processes from one region to another. For example, paleoethnobotanical evidence has revealed that cotton is native to the Yucatan Peninsula of Mexico. Its recovery at the Belize Valley site of Cahal Pech around 900 B.C. indicates that it was purposely brought to this site and/or region where it is not native. In the case of the cashew, evidence indicates that it was transported from southern Brazil to Honduras, where it has been found at the site of Yarumela. Like non-perishable materials, domesticated plants clearly serve as indicators of regional and interregional interaction and exchange between cultures.

Sites that participated in a number of overlapping interaction spheres undoubtedly played more significant roles among Formative groups. Like the cultural corridor that runs through the highland, piedmont, and Pacific coastal zones of Guatemala, the Comayagua Valley of western Honduras also serves a similar function between Formative Mesoamerican cultures and lower Central American cultures. Research at borderland sites like Yarumela has provided much needed information on the types of interaction between Mesoamerica and cultures from peripheral areas (Joesink-Mandeville, this volume). His diachronic study shows that by 1000 B.C., Yarumela had closer associations with lower Central American ceramic complexes than to ones found in the southeast periphery of Mesoamerica, such as Copan’s Rayo and Uir/ Gordon complexes. By the Middle Formative (700-400 B.C.), connections with Mesoamerica were apparent, as evidenced by the presence of jade objects, ceramic earspools, low earthen platforms, and bottle-shape storage pits. Its borderland location appears to have facilitated the role of Yarumela in both regional and interregional interaction and exchange.

In any discussion of economic and sociopolitical development in early Mesoamerica, the role of water management must be considered. While a number of studies have concentrated on the various features and systems (e.g., canals, dams, drains, ridged fields, wells) being used by cultures across Mesoamerica, few studies have been published on Formative period agricultural systems, especially irrigation agriculture. With renewed interest in this topic over the past decade (Angulo V. 1993; Doolittle 1990; Kunen et al. 2000; Neely 2001; Nichols et al. 1991; Pohl 1990; Scarborough 1993), new site and regional comparisons are needed. In this volume, Neely presents data on Formative agricultural systems. Using case studies from highland Mexico and the Maya Lowlands for environmental, technological, and sociopolitical comparison, he notes the similar level of sophistication of water management and irrigation technology found across Mesoamerica (see also Doolittle 1990). There is no clear evidence for the diffusion of water management technology. Several factors may be responsible for this apparent lack of primacy, including the problems with dating, the small sample size, and area coverage. This has not stopped archaeologists from speculating about its point of origin and diffusion. Neely points out that with more research comes more viable models to explain the economic and sociopolitical process which will help us to

Plant Growers, Water Managers, and Cave Dwellers Moving from the cultural landscape to the natural one, this section discusses how different Formative cultures across Mesoamerica modified their landscape for political, socioeconomic, and/or religious purposes. Between 4400 and 3400 B.C. forest clearing, disturbance, and the cultivation of maize and other food plants began across Mesoamerica (Benz 2001; Hastorf 1999:69-70; Jacob 1995; Jones 1994; Marcus 2003:78; Piperno and Flannery 2001; Pohl et al. 1996; Pope et al. 2001). As stated earlier, the clearing of forests for cultivation did not necessarily indicate that Formative peoples, and their predecessors, were living in permanent villages and making pottery (see Pope et al. 2001). However, at some point early Mesoamericans made the decision to make maize farming their most important subsistence and economic activity, forever changing both settlement patterns and social institutions. This gradual change or shift occurred when the size of the corncob and its yield successfully outperformed other crops. Tracing the 8

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES understand how these features and systems functioned and the effort that went into their planning, construction, and maintenance.

Spencer and Redmond state that the Ocotlan/Zimatlan subregion, of which San Martin Tilcajete was the center, was not part of the Monte Alban polity during the Monte Alban I phase, but instead was a rival polity. This Rival Polity Model suggests that three major sub-regions (Etla/Central, Ocotlan/Zimatlan, and Tlacolula) were not integrated into a single state polity under Monte Alban’s control until the Monte Alban II phase (100 B.C. - A.D. 200) (Spencer and Redmond 2001). In fact, during the Early Monte Alban I phase, the relationship between Monte Alban and Tilcajete was less than hospitable as evidenced by raiding parties from the north that burned and destroyed structures at sites in the Ocotlan/Zimatlan sub-region. Spencer and Redmond also suggest that trade routes were cut-off between these two centers, as there is little regional exchange in ceramics and obsidian at this time.

While early residents of Mesoamerica frequently modified the land to increase productivity and food output, they also utilized and modified the subterranean landscape. Caves have been an important element in the ritual and political system in many regions of Mesoamerica since the Middle Formative. Evidence from a number of sites in highland Mexico reveals that cave motifs appear on early monuments and altars. Caves were also important landmarks in the sacred landscape as demonstrated by the location of structures and/or sites around them (e.g., the Pyramid of the Moon at Teotihuacan). In addition to caves being identified as important elements in Mesoamerican art and iconography and as places of settlement, caves also served as ossuaries and destinations of pilgrimages. Scott and Brady (this volume) provide evidence that indicates the formal practice of pilgrimage to cave sites in the Maya area occurred by the Middle Formative. Pilgrimage had an economic impact on the community as well. People would not only journey long distances to a sacred place for religious devotion, but also for participating in markets that were setup to attract buyers and sellers. Both interregional interaction and commerce were tied to the system of pilgrimage (Scott and Brady, this volume).

Although household exchange systems are not addressed with great frequency in the archaeological literature, data obtained from such contexts have the potential to yield considerable insights into local, regional, and interregional networks (Lopez Varela, this volume; Robinson et al., this volume). Using neutron activation analysis on Late Formative (50 B.C. – A.D. 100) ceramic, obsidian, and chert samples recovered from domestic structures at the site of Tetimpa, located in the state of Puebla, Mexico, Plunket and colleagues (this volume) have traced the movement of these materials between regions. Results show that residents procured ceramics, obsidian, and chert from a relatively long distance from the site. Plunket et al. demonstrate that the flow of goods into Tetimpa (e.g., gray wares, Otumba obsidian) was primarily coming from the northeastern part of the Basin of Mexico, which implies that the same exchange networks were being used and maintained throughout the entire Late Formative. The distributional patterns of obsidian, chert, and imported ceramics in at least six houses attest to the importance of the exchange relationships between the Tetimpeños and their trading partners to the north. According to Blanton et al. (1981:20), “the greater the flow through interconnecting channels, the greater the interdependence.”

Late and Terminal Formative Raiding Parties, Trade Routes, and External Influence Late Formative cultural intra-regional interaction and integration in the Valley of Oaxaca, the Puebla Valley, and the North Gulf Lowlands are discussed in this section. Taken separately, each of these areas has had varying amounts of research undertaken on regional trade and exchange in ceramics and obsidian. The Valley of Oaxaca, for example, has been the subject of intense study on these topics (Feinman 1980; Flannery and Marcus 1994; PiresFerreira 1976; Winter and Pires-Ferreira 1976), mainly as they pertain to the developments of social inequality and hierarchical political organization (see also Bernal 1965; Blanton 1978; Blanton et al. 1979; Blanton et al. 1999; Feinman 1998; Flannery 1968, 1998; Flannery and Marcus 2000; Marcus and Flannery 1996; Spencer 1998; Spencer and Redmond 2001; Wright 1977).

Compared to other regions in Mesoamerica, the North Gulf Lowlands or the Huasteca region is poorly understood by archaeologists. Little data exists for the extent of interaction between the Huastec and other regions of Mesoamerica. Despite its dynamic culture history, beginning as early as ca. 1600 B.C., the region has been marginalized and deemed less sophisticated in terms of its cultural development by archaeologists working elsewhere in Mesoamerica. The lack of data has led archaeologists to underestimate its complexity, a trend that often happens in poorly-known regions. Current research by Valdez and Wagner (this volume) provide information on the rise of Huastec culture and its external relationships during the Early, Middle, and Late Formative periods. In Middle Formative times, stone construction and ceramic styles show influence from the Gulf Coast and Maya regions. By the Late Formative, further contact, and possibly conflict, with groups from outside the North Gulf

Using ceramic, obsidian, and settlement data from nearly a decade of excavations at the sub-regional center of San Martin Tilcajete, located 25 km south of Monte Alban, Spencer and Redmond (this volume) have addressed the timing of the rise of the Zapotec state in the Valley of Oaxaca. This transition is generally believed to have occurred sometime during the Monte Alban I period, ca. 500-100 B.C., but little evidence exists for the precise time of the transformation to statehood, especially at the site of Monte Alban itself where these changes supposedly first occurred. Did this transition occur during the Early Monte Alban I phase (500-300 B.C.) or the Late Monte Alban I phase (300-100 B.C.)? 9

FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES: AN INTRODUCTION Lowlands is evident. Valdez and Wagner note that it is at this time the artifactual assemblages show considerable diversity, possibly indicating the migration of new groups into this frontier region.

of society. There is abundant household data from regions like the Valley of Oaxaca, the Valley of Mexico, and the Maya Lowlands, but information on this topic is lacking from areas like the Gulf Lowlands (e.g., Huastec, Olmec).

Future Directions

Third, more rigorous iconographic analysis is needed to bring into sharper focus individual actors and to trace their histories throughout the Formative. This kind of analysis has the potential to inform on shared histories and the mutual effect of historic interactions on the course of cultural developments (Cheetham and Clark 1999:7). With advances in bioarchaeology, we may be able to document “the movement of individual actors from region to region, providing new lines of evidence on inter-site marriage alliance and political usurpation.” (Marcus 2003:109). Perhaps future work on identifying different ethnic groups is also possible.

There are many topics in Formative Mesoamerican studies that need to be more fully addressed (e.g., mortuary practices, social identity, women’s roles, intensive forms of agriculture, settlement density, population estimates, warfare), but I believe that future Formative research should focus on four topics. First, more research needs to be aimed at clarifying periods of critical transition, such as the transition from the Early Formative to Middle Formative. Topics of interest during this transition include the origins of Maya peoples and the nature and extent of Olmec influence. For example, the transition from the terminal Early Formative to the beginning of the Middle Formative (ca. 1200-800 B.C.) is particularly important because there is a proliferation of highland Olmec motifs and designs across Mesoamerica despite the demise of San Lorenzo (Clark 2001:5). It remains to be determined what they represented, what they meant, or how they functioned in local societies. According to Clark (2001:5), how “we view the Olmec and their neighbors has everything to do with the meanings we ascribe to their art”.

Fourth, additional research is needed to further clarify the nature and extent of interaction and interdependence between different Formative Mesoamerican culture groups. One of the best methods for evaluating cultural interaction is the comparison of datasets that have good chronological control and meaningful context. Taken together, the papers in this volume allow comparison between the separate datasets and encourage their integration into a more comprehensive explanation of cultural interaction. Through inter-regional comparison, researchers try to account for seemingly unrelated, or even conflicting, patterns of data. It is hoped that each contribution in this volume shows the value of an interdisciplinary approach, achieved through the collaboration between archaeologists and researchers in other disciplines (e.g., botanists, chemists, linguists, art historians, iconographers, geomorphologists, ecologists, bioarchaeologists, and zooarchaeologists). The information gathered by this diverse array of scholars facilitates comparative analysis and inter-regional studies.

In addition to understanding Olmec influence between ca. 1200-800 B.C., the origins of the earliest Maya is another avenue of research that needs to be clarified. This is especially important because new research in Belize is split on whether or not early Maya occupation was founded on, and continued from, an earlier Archaic occupation. The transition from the Late Formative to the Early Classic, including the intermediary Protoclassic, is also a critical period in the development of Mesoamerican cultures. The block of time from ca. 400 B.C. to A.D. 250 is not well-understood in many areas of Mesoamerica, especially the Maya area where it is currently unclear whether the Protoclassic period now represents a ceramic stage or a temporal one.

References Cited Adams, Richard E.W. (editor), 1977, The Origins of Maya Civilization. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Andrews, E. Wyllys, V. 1990, The Early Ceramic History of the Lowland Maya. In Vision and Revision in Maya Studies, edited by Flora S. Clancy and Peter D. Harrison, pp. 1-20. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Angelini, Mary L. 1998, Crafting Pottery: A Study of Formative Maya Ceramic Technology at K’axob, Belize. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Boston University, Boston. Angulo V., Jorge, 1993, Water Control and Communal Labor during the Formative and Classic Periods in Central Mexico (ca. 1000 B.C. –A.D.650). In Economic Aspects of Water Management in the Prehispanic New World, edited by Vernon Scarborough and Barry Isaac, pp.151-220. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 7. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Second, more comparative work is still needed at the household level. Household based studies have increased dramatically in recent years with scholars focusing on topics such as the identification of activity areas, status differentiation, and the relationship between dwelling size and the number of inhabitants. However, more work needs to focus on social evolution which can be traced through household remains. Researchers should address the roles different segments of society (commoners and elites) played during the Formative period. What kind of houses were commoners and elites living in and did they possess similar artifact inventories? Functional and technological studies of pottery, obsidian, and chert can provide information on the differential accumulation and use of various types of material culture. These types of studies allow scholars to explore social, economic, and political relationships at the site level, particularly those between different segments 10

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES Awe, Jaime J.1992, Dawn in the Land Between the Rivers: Formative Occupation at Cahal Pech, Belize and its Implications for Preclassic Development in the Maya Lowlands. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, University of London, UK. Ball, Joseph W., and Jennifer T. Taschek, 2000, Pioneering the Belize Valley in the Early Middle Preclassic: Ceramics, Settlement, Interaction, and Culture History at a Mixe-Zoque-Maya Interface. Paper presented at the 65th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Philadelphia. Benz, Bruce F. 2001, Archaeological Evidence of Teosinte Domestication from Guila Naquitz, Oaxaca. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(4):2104-2106. Bernal, Ignacio, 1965, Archaeological Synthesis of Oaxaca. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, Archaeology of Southern Mesoamerica, Vol. 3, edited by Gordon R. Willey, pp.788-813. University of Texas Press, Austin. Bernal, Ignacio, 1968, Views of Olmec Culture. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 135-142. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Blake, Michael, 1991, An Emerging Early Formative Chiefdom at Paso de la Amada, Chiapas, Mexico. In The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica, edited by William R. Fowler, Jr., pp.2746. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Blake, Michael, John E. Clark, Barbara Voorhies, George Michaels, Michael W. Love, Mary E. Pye, Arthur A. Demarest, and Barbra Arroyo, 1995, Radiocarbon Chronology for the Late Archaic and Formative Periods on the Pacific Coast of Southeastern Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 6:161-183. Blanton, Richard E. 1978, Monte Alban: Settlement Patterns at the Ancient Zapotec Capital. Academic Press, New York. Blanton, Richard E., Jill Appel, Laura Finsten, Stephen A. Kowalewski,, Gary M. Feinman, and Eva Fisch, 1979, Regional Evolution in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 6:369-390. Blanton, Richard E., Gary M. Feinman, Stephen A. Kowalewski, and Linda Nicholas, 1999, Ancient Oaxaca: The Monte Alban State. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Blanton, Richard E., Stephen A. Kowalewski, Gary M. Feinman, and Jill Appel, 1981, Ancient Mesoamerica: A Comparison of Change in Three Regions. New Studies in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Bove, Frederick J., 1989, Formative Settlement Patterns on the Pacific Coast of Guatemala: A Spatial Analysis of Complex Societal Evolution. BAR International Series 493, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Caso, Alfonso, 1953, New World Culture History: Middle America. In Anthropology Today, edited by A.L. Kroeber, pp.226-237. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Chase, Diane Z., and Arlen F. Chase, 1992, Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment. University of

Oklahoma Press, Norman. Cheetham, David, 1998, Interregional Interaction, Symbol Emulation, and the Emergence of Socio-Political Inequality in the Central Maya Lowlands. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver. Cheetham, David, and John E. Clark, 1999, Early Olmecs and Their Neighbors: Strange Encounters, Convergent Histories, and the Propagation of the Mesoamerican Tradition. Paper presented at the 98th annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Chicago. Clark, John E. 1997, The Arts of Government in Early Mesoamerica. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:211-234. Clark, John E 2001, Olmec Supernaturals and Scholarly Muddles: Gods, Totems, Cults, or Clans? Paper presented at the 66th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. Clark, John E., and Michael Blake, 1994, The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel and John W. Fox, pp.17-30. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Clark, John E., and David Cheetham, 2001, Mesoamerica’s Tribal Foundations. In The Archaeology of Tribal Societies, edited by William A. Parkinson, pp.278-339. International Monographs in Prehistory, Archaeological Series No.15. Ann Arbor. Clark, John E., and Mary E. Pye (editors), 2000, Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica. Studies in the History of Art 58, Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts Symposium Papers 30, National Gallery of Art, Washington. Clark, John E., Richard D. Hansen, and Tomás Perez Suarez, 2000, La Zona Maya en el Preclásico. In Historia Antigua de México: Volumen I: El México Antiguo, sus Áreas Culturales, los Orígenes y el Horizonte Preclásico, edited by Linda Manzanilla and Leonardo López Luján, pp.437-510. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Coe, Michael D. 1965, The Olmec Style and its Distribution. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, Volume 3, edited by Gordon R. Willey, pp.739-775. University of Texas Press, Austin. Coe, Michael D 1968, San Lorenzo and the Olmec Civilization. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, pp.44-71. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Coe, Michael D 1977, Olmec and Maya: A Study in Relationships. In The Origins of Maya Civilization, edited by Richard E.W. Adams, pp.183-198. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Coe, Michael D 1989, The Olmec Heartland: Evolution of Ideology. In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by Robert J. Sharer and David C. Grove, pp.68-82. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 11

FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES: AN INTRODUCTION Coe, Michael D., and Richard A. Diehl, 1980, In the Land of the Olmec (Volume 1): The Archaeology of San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan. University of Texas Press, Austin. Doolittle, William H. 1990, Canal Irrigation in Prehistoric Mexico: The Sequence of Technological Change. University of Texas Press, Austin. Feinman, Gary M. 1980, The Relationship Between Administrative Organization and Ceramic Production in the Valley of Oaxaca. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, City University, New York. Feinman, Gary M. 1998, Scale and Social Organization: Perspectives on the Ancient State. In Archaic States, edited by Gary M. Feinman and Joyce Marcus, pp.95133. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. Flannery, Kent V. 1968, The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca: A Model for Interregional Interaction in Formative Times. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, pp.79110. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC. Flannery, Kent V. 1998, The Ground Plans of Archaic States. In Archaic States, edited by Gary M. Feinman and Joyce Marcus, pp.15-57. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. Flannery, Kent V. (editor), 1976, The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, New York. Flannery, Kent V., and Joyce Marcus, 1994, Early Formative Pottery of the Valley of Oaxaca. Museum of Anthropology Memoir 27, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Flannery, Kent V., 2000, Formative Mexican Chiefdoms and the Myth of the ‘Mother Culture’. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:1-37. Ford, James A. 1969, A Comparison of Formative Cultures in the Americas: Diffusion or the Psychic Unity of Man. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Fowler, William R. (editor), 1991, The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Grove, David C. 1987, Chalcatzingo in a Broader Perspective. In Ancient Chalcatzingo, edited by David C. Grove, pp.434-442. University of Texas Press, Austin. Grove, David C. 1989, Olmec, What’s in a Name? In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by Robert J. Sharer and David C. Grove, pp.8-14. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Grove, David C. 1993, “Olmec Horizons in Formative Period Mesoamerica: Diffusion or Social Evolution? In Latin American Horizons, edited by Don S. Rice, pp. 83-112. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Grove, David C.and Rosemary A. Joyce (editors), 1999, Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Mesoamerica. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Hammond, Norman, 1982, Ancient Maya Civilization.

Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick. Hansen, Richard D. in press, The First Cities: Incipient Urbanization and State Formation in the Maya Lowlands. In The Maya, edited by Nickolai Grube. Koeneman-Verlag, Germany. Hastorf, Christine A. 1999, Recent Research in Paleoethnobotany. Journal of Archaeological Research 7(1):55-103. Healy, Paul F., and Jaime J. Awe, 1995, Preclassic Maya of the Belize Valley: 1994-1995 Project Research Objectives. In Belize Valley Preclassic Maya Project: Report on the 1994 Field Season, edited by Paul F. Healy and Jaime J. Awe, pp.1-17. Trent University, Occasional Papers in Anthropology No.10. Peterborough, Ontario. Healy, Paul F., David Cheetham, Terry G. Powis, and Jaime J. Awe, 2004, Cahal Pech: The Middle Formative Period. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a Century of Archaeological Research, edited by James F. Garber, pp.70-85. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Hirth, Kenneth G. (editor), 1984, Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Jacob, John S. 1995, Ancient Maya Wetland Agricultural Fields in Cobweb Swamp, Belize: Construction, Chronology, and Function. Journal of Field Archaeology 22:175-190. Jones, John G. 1994, Pollen Evidence for Early Settlement and Agriculture in Northern Belize. Palynology 18:205211. Joyce, Rosemary A., and John S. Henderson, 2001, Beginnings of Village Life in Eastern Mesoamerica. Latin American Antiquity 12:5-24. Kaufman, Terrence, 1976, Archaeological and Linguistic Correlations in Mayaland and Associated Areas of Mesoamerica. World Archaeology 8:101-118. Kirchoff, Paul, 1943, Mesoamerica. Acta Americana 1:92-107. Kunen, Julie L., T. Patrick Culbert, Vilma Fialko, Brian R. McKee, and Liwy Grazioso, 2000, Bajo Communities: A Case Study from the Central Peten. Culture and Agriculture 22(3):15-31. Lowe, Gareth W. 1977, The Mixe-Zoque as Competing Neighbors of the Early Lowland Maya. In Origins of Maya Civilization, edited by Richard E.W. Adams, pp.197-248. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Lowe, Gareth W. 1981, Olmec Horizons Defined in Mound 20, San Isidro, Chiapas. In The Olmec and Their Neighbors: Essays in Honor of Mathew W. Stirling, edited by Michael D. Coe and David C. Grove, pp.231-256. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, DC. Marcus, Joyce, 1989, Zapotec Chiefdoms and the Nature of Formative Religions. In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by Robert J. Sharer and David C. Grove, pp.148-197. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 12

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES Marcus, Joyce, 1995, Where is Lowland Maya Archaeology Headed? Journal of Archaeological Research 3:354. Marcus, Joyce, 2003, Recent Advances in Maya Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 11(2):71-148. Marcus, Joyce, and Kent V. Flannery, 1996, Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Thames and Hudson, London. McAnany, Patricia A. 1995, Living with the Ancestors: Kinship and Kingship in Ancient Maya Society. University of Texas Press, Austin. Miller, Arthur G. (editor), 1983, Highland-Lowland Interaction in Mesoamerica: Interdisciplinary Approaches. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Neely, James A. 2001, A Contextual Study of the “Fossilized” Prehispanic Canal Systems of the Tehuacan Valley, Puebla, Mexico. Antiquity 75:505-506. Neely, James A. 1991, Watering the Fields of Teotihuacan: Early Irrigation at the Ancient City. Ancient Mesoamerica 2:119-129. Piperno, Dolores R., and Kent V. Flannery, 2001, The Earliest Archaeological Maize (Zea Mays L.) from Highland Mexico: New Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Dates and Their Implications. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(4):2101-2103. Pires-Ferreira, Jane W. 1976, Obsidian Exchange in Formative Mesoamerica. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by Kent V. Flannery, pp. 292-305. Academic Press, New York. Pohl, Mary .D. 1990, Interpretation of Wetland Farming in Northern Belize: Excavations at San Antonio Rio Hondo. In Ancient Maya Wetland Agriculture: Excavations on Albion Island, Northern Belize, edited by Mary D. Pohl, pp.187-278. University of Minnesota Publications in Anthropology. Westview Press, Boulder. Pohl, Mary D., Kevin O. Pope, John G. Jones, John S. Jacob, Dolores R. Piperno, Susan D. deFrance, David L. Lentz, John A. Gifford, Marie E. Danforth, and J. Kathryn Josserand, 1996, Early Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 7(4):355372. Pope, Kevin O., Mary D. Pohl, John G. Jones, David L. Lentz, Christopher von Nagy, Francisco J. Vega, and Irvy R. Quitmyer, 2001, Origin and Environmental Setting of Ancient Agriculture in the Lowlands of Mesoamerica. Science 292:13701373. Powis, Terry G., Linda A. Howie, and Elizabeth Graham, 2002, The Style and Petrography of Late Preclassic and Protoclassic Pottery at Lamanai, Belize. Poster presented at the 67th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver. Reese-Taylor, Katherine, Frances Meskill, and Fred Valdez, Jr. 1993, Innovation and Continuity in Preclassic Ceramics from Kichpanha. Paper presented at the 58th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis.

Robinson, Eugenia J. (editor), 1987, Interaction on the Southeast Mesoamerican Frontier: Prehistoric and Historic Honduras and El Salvador. BAR International Series 327. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley, 1979, The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press. Sanders, William T., and Barbara J. Price, 1968, Mesoamerica: The Evolution of a Civilization. Random House, New York. Scarborough, Vernon L. 1993, Water Management in the Southern Maya Lowlands: An Accretive Model for the Engineered Landscape. In Economic Aspects of Water Management in the Prehispanic New World, edited by Vernon Scarborough and Barry Isaac, pp.17-69. Research in Economic Anthropology, Supplement 7. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. Sharer, Robert J. 1983, Interdisciplinary Approaches to the Study of Mesoamerican Highland-Lowland Interaction: A Summary View. In Highland-Lowland Interaction in Mesoamerica: Interdisciplinary Approaches, edited by Arthur G. Miller, pp.241-263. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Sharer, Robert J., and David C. Grove (editors), 1989, Regional Perspectives on the Olmec. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Sharer, Robert J., and David W. Sedat, 1987, Archaeological Investigations in the Northern Maya Highlands, Guatemala: Interaction and the Development of Maya Civilization. University Museum Monograph 59, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Spencer, Charles S, 1998, A Mathematical Model of Primary State Formation. Cultural Dynamics 10:520. Spencer, Charles S., and Elsa M. Redmond, 2001, Multilevel Selection and Political Evolution in the Valley of Oaxaca, 500-100 B.C. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20:195-229. Stuiver, Minze, Paula J. Reimer, Edouard Bard, J. Warren Beck, G.S. Burr, Konrad A. Hughen, Bernd Kromer, Gerry McCormac, Johannes van der Plicht, and Marco Spurk, 1998, INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000-0 cal B.P. Radiocarbon 40(3):1041-1083. Tolstoy, Paul, 1989, Western Mesoamerica and the Olmec. In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by Robert J. Sharer and David C. Grove, pp. 275-302. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Urban, Patricia A., Edward M. Schortman, and Marne Ausec, 2002, Power Without Bounds? Middle Preclassic Political Developments in the Naco Valley, Honduras. Latin American Antiquity 13:131-152. Voorhies, Barbara, 1989, A Model of the Pre-Aztec Political System of the Soconusco. In Ancient Trade and Tribute: Economies of the Soconusco Region of Mesoamerica, edited Barbara Voorhies, pp.95-129. 13

FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES: AN INTRODUCTION University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Willey, Gordon R. 1982, Maya Archaeology. Science 215:260-267. Willey, Gordon R. 1991, Horizontal Integration and Regional Diversity: An Alternating Process in the Rise of Civilizations. American Antiquity 56:197-215. Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips, 1955, Method and Theory in American Archaeology. II: HistoricalDevelopmental Interpretation. American Anthropologist 57:723-819. Willey, Gordon R., and Philip Phillips, 1958, Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Winter, Marcus C., and Pires-Ferreira, Jane W. 1976, Shell and Iron-Ore Mirror Exchange in Formative Mesoamerica, with Comments on Other Commodities. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by Kent V. Flannery, pp. 311-328. Academic Press, New York. Wolfe, Eric R. 1959, Sons of the Shaking Earth. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Wright, Henry T. 1977, Recent Research on the Origins of the State. Annual Review of Anthropology 6:379397.

14

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES

The Preceramic to Early Middle Formative Transition in Northern Belize: Evidence for the Ethnic Identity of the Preceramic Inhabitants Harry B. Iceland

The timing of the arrival of ethnic Maya in the eastern lowlands of Yucatan, the Peten, and northern Belize has long been the subject of speculation. It was a long-held view that, with the exception of scattered bands of nonMaya hunter-gatherers, the Maya lowlands were largely unpopulated prior to the arrival of early Middle Formative farmers around 1000 B.C. (see, for example, Willey (1987 [1977]), on the consensus view of the 1974 “Origins” seminar of the School of American Advance Seminar Series).

data for early cultigens at neighboring Cobweb Swamp suggested that the inhabitants were not necessarily Archaic hunter-gatherers, but perhaps more settled folk, hence the more neutral evolutionary term “Preceramic.” The objectives of our CPP excavations at both sites were to characterize these Preceramic inhabitants from developmental and cultural perspectives, and to determine if they were in some sense the first Maya in the region. The evidence recovered at these sites supports the presence of a late Preceramic occupation dating to ca. 1500-900 B.C. (Note: These and other approximate dates given for the CPP are based on radiocarbon dates calibrated using Stuiver and Reimer [1993]; see Table 2.1). This evidence consists primarily of considerable amounts of lithic artifacts representing production and use locales, some associated features, paleobotanical and soil data collected by collaborating projects, and a series of radiocarbon dates associated with these various finds. Similar kinds of Preceramic data have been recovered at northern Belize sites by the Colha Project Regional Survey (CPRS), also directed by Hester and Shafer; the Rio Hondo Project, directed by Mary Pohl (Pohl et al. 1996); the Belize Archaic Archaeological Reconnaissance (BAAR) Project, directed by Richard MacNeish (1981); and by Robert Rosenswig and Marilyn Masson (2001) in the course of their Belize Postclassic Project. It must be noted that in some cases our chronological and developmental interpretations of these data are not entirely in agreement. This is largely because, in spite of the proliferation of Preceramic sites, radiocarbon dates remain scarce, stratigraphy is poor, domestic structures are unknown, and artifactual remains are limited to lithics.

Investigations at late Archaic or Preceramic sites in northern Belize, however, are changing this view. This study will report on the results of three seasons (19931995) of fieldwork at the Colha and Kelly sites in northern Belize (Iceland 1997). These excavations were conducted under the auspices of the Colha Preceramic Project (CPP) directed by Thomas Hester (University of Texas at Austin) and Harry Shafer (Texas A&M). Previous off-mound test excavations at the former site and reconnaissance at the latter had indicated the presence of early, aceramic occupations. The density of artifact remains and emerging

In contrast with the scarcity of data on the late Preceramic, the early Middle Formative period, ca. 900-600 B.C., is amply documented in the archaeological record in northern Belize and in neighboring northern Yucatan, the Peten, and western Belize (as summarized in Marcus 1995). Early Middle Formative occupations have been identified at Dzibilchaltún in northern Yucatan and at the Pasión River sites of Altar de Sacrificios and Seibal in the southern lowlands, all dating to ca. 800 B.C. or slightly earlier (Adams 1991). In western Belize, early Middle Formative components have been identified at the sites of Barton Ramie, Cahal Pech and Pacbitun, where they are dated somewhat earlier than 900 B.C. (Awe and Healy 1994). Perhaps the largest concentration of early Maya sites has been found in northern Belize, where early Middle Formative components with Bolay complex ceramics are

Figure 2.1: Northern Belize, with the Colha and Kelly sites, the Chert Bearing Zone, and other sites mentioned in text. 15

THE PRECERAMIC TO EARLY MIDDLE FORMATIVE TRANSITION IN NORTHERN BELIZE Sample number

Radiocarbon age B.P.

Provenience

Stratigraphy

Depth B.S.

Material

2620 ±38

Date (B.C., 1sigma range) 808-787

TX8295

1994 CH4046

Zone C

58-75 cm

soil humate

CAM S8397

2780 ±60

944-831

1993 CH4046

Zone C-1

71 cm

wood charcoal

CAM S8399

2930 ±60

1132-1046

1993 CH4046

Zone C

91-98 cm

humic fraction

TX8106

2936 ±169

1314-926

1993 CH4046

76.5 cm

charcoal

CAM S8398

2940 ±80

1135-1045

1993 CH4046

Zone B-4, top of C Zone C

91-98 cm

TX7371

2950 ±100

1263-1006

1991 CH4046

TX7459

3118 ±140

1517-1208

TX7460

3970 ±400

TX8020

4532 ±117

55-63 cm

1991 CH4046

Zone B-C interface Zone C

charcoal fraction charcoal

114-120 cm

soil humate

2933-1920

1991 CH4046

Zone D

122-127 cm

soil humate

3370-3078

1993 CH4046

Zone D

95-120 cm

soil humate

Table 2.1: Radiocarbon dates from Colha Op. 4046.

reported at Colha, Cuello, Kichpanha, K’axob, Pulltrouser Swamp, Nohmul, San Estevan, and Santa Rita Corozal (Valdez 1994) (Figure 2.1). While early Middle Formative Swasey phase (1200-900 B.C.) dates have been claimed for Cuello (Hammond et al. 1995), the balance of the radiocarbon and ceramic evidence appears to indicate that the early Middle Formative components at these northern Belize sites are approximately contemporaneous and date to no earlier than ca. 900 B.C. (Fedick and Taube 1992). The late Preceramic (1500-900 B.C ) period in northern Belize coincides closely with the Early Formative period in several other regions of Mesoamerica where ethnicity and cultural contacts are identified on the basis of elite material culture, such as decorated pottery, figurines, public architecture, and prestige trade items, sometimes accompanied by distinctive Olmec iconography (Grove 1981). There is no evidence of Olmec or any other elite material culture in northern Belize dating to this time, however, nor of imported highland raw materials such as obsidian, so possible interregional contacts remain an entirely open issue. The narrow range of Preceramic material remains makes ethnicity nearly as elusive. Were these Preceramic peoples in some sense proto-Maya? We do not yet have sufficient data to answer this question, but I will present several lines of evidence that bear upon it. The evidence tends to make two complementary points in this respect. First, the northern Belize data tend to show that the Preceramic occupation involved a substantial population, one that was involved in widespread and intensive agricultural activity and that was engaged in lithic production at some modest level of specialization. Second, it shows that those lines of evidence that are available to us, archaeological, soil and paleobotanical, lithic analysis, faunal, and settlement patterns (however weakly represented in the available record), tend to support a continuity of occupation from the late Preceramic to the early Middle Formative. This preliminary evidence, then, suggests that the Maya 16

population of northern Belize may have arrived in that region at least as early as the beginning of the late Preceramic period, ca.1500 B.C. Below I will discuss the results of these multidisciplinary efforts as they bear on the issue of Preceramic ethnicity: our excavations at the Colha and Kelly sites; soil studies carried out by John Jacob (1995) and paleobotanical studies by John Jones (1994) in Cobweb Swamp; radiocarbon dates from Colha and Cobweb Swamp; lithic studies leading to a proposed “Colha Lithic Tradition;” regional and intrasite settlement patterns; and Leslie Shaw’s (1991) study of Middle Formative faunal material from Colha. Taken together, these various lines of evidence permit us to discern the outlines of a late Preceramic society in northern Belize unlike its Mesoamerican contemporaries or its Archaic antecedents. Excavations at Colha and the Kelly site Colha is located near the northern end of the northern Belize chert-bearing zone, in which high-quality chert nodules of up to boulder size are accessible on the surface, in streambeds, and in seasonally wet low-lying aguadas. The Kelly site is located 40 km south of Colha, at the southern edge of the zone. Fieldwork beginning in the early 1970s revealed that during Late Formative and Late Classic times, the inhabitants of Colha were engaged in community-wide craft specialization in the mass production of stone tools for export to nearby farming communities and urban centers over a wider region (Hester and Shafer 1994). Finds of distinctive patinated lithic artifacts, especially constricted uniface adzes, in Middle Formative construction fill suggested earlier unknown occupations. Off-mound test excavations at Colha by Wood (1990) and Lohse (1995) confirmed the Preceramic origin of these artifacts. In the 1980s, reconnaissance by the CPRS and the BAAR in the southern pine ridge led to discoveries at Lowe Ranch, Sand Hill, and Ladyville, including the Kelly site. At these sites, lithic scatters with

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES highly patinated flakes, distinctive projectile points, sandstone bowls, constricted uniface adzes, and large blades were found in aceramic contexts presumed to date to an Archaic or Preceramic period (Kelly 1982; Zeitlan 1984).

In 1994, we excavated two adjoining units covering 12 square meters on the edge of the aguada at Op. 4046. These excavations included an early Middle Formative platform (Subop. 21) (Figure 2.3) which lies directly above, but is clearly separated from a late Preceramic component (Subop. 20). The aguada at Op. 4046 appears to have been exploited by Colha stone-workers throughout the occupation of the site. Aguadas probably served as quarries for high-quality (permanently wet), relatively easily accessible chert nodules. Knapping activities appear to have taken place on simple platforms of clay, unmodified cobbles, and stone production debris constructed around the edge of the aguada quarry.

Fieldwork at Colha and Cobweb Swamp in 1993-1994 and the Kelly site in 1995 recovered considerable amounts of late Preceramic chert lithic material representing both production locales and use areas. At Op. 4046 at Colha and at the Kelly site we found substantial knapping stations where large numbers of constricted uniface adzes were produced, as evidenced by the dense concentrations of heavily patinated flake debitage, cores and macroflake blanks, and adzes discarded in various stages of completion (Figure 2.2). These constricted unifaces are considered to be diagnostic of the late Preceramic in northern Belize.

The Subop. 21 platform is dated to the early Middle Formative based on the presence of large numbers of Bolay phase macroblade burin cores and burin spalls in the platform fill. Potter (1991) has shown that the production of burin spalls on prepared macroblade segments and smaller blades, and their use in the manufacture of small marine shell beads are diagnostic Maya Bolay phase Middle Formative industries at Colha. Stratigraphically, the platform is located entirely within a black clay Zone A/B matrix.

Op. 4046 is located near the edge of an aguada in the southeastern sector of the Colha site, about 300 m from the edge of Cobweb Swamp, which forms the eastern border of much of the site. In 1993, after some preliminary test-pitting, a 4x6 m block unit was opened about 15 m north of the aguada. Four stratigraphic layers identified in this block were designated Zones A-D. Zone D, corresponding to the earliest occupation at the site, is dated to approximately 3400-1900 B.C. Zone D is a yellow, marly clay containing dense, relatively undisturbed lithic quarry-production deposits representing debris from the production of blades of up to macro-size on carefully prepared cores. A principal end product of Zone D blade technology appears to be a pointed uniface scraper, made on macroblade blanks, several of which have also been recovered at aceramic surface sites such as Ladyville and Sand Hill in the pine ridge zone. A single Lowe point preform, a point type dated tentatively to 2500-1900 B.C. in the pine ridge (Kelly 1993), fits well with Zone D chronology. These distinctive large dart points have been found at several sites in northern Belize from Pulltrouser Swamp in the north to Ladyville in the south, where possible preforms have also been identified. This earlier occupation associated with Zone D is clearly a dynamic developmental period, but is not here considered part of our late Preceramic period.

Adjacent to the unit containing the platform (separated by a 30 cm balk), we excavated Subop. 20, a unit containing a dense concentration of late Preceramic lithic material including constricted unifaces with evidence of use-wear, constricted uniface preforms, macroflakes (the typical blank form), thinning flakes, and micro-size edge preparation flakes. This appears to have been either an in-situ production area or a midden of discarded production debitage on the edge of a work area. Most of this Preceramic material was located in a characteristic Zone C matrix, but dispersal of uniface production debitage upward into Zone B may be related to the construction of the early Middle Formative platform or to more recent disturbance. There was no early Middle Formative material in this unit, nor were there any Preceramic artifacts recovered in association with the early Middle Formative platform. A soil humate date from the relatively shallow Zone C layer in this unit provided a somewhat unexpectedly late date of 808-787 B.C. at 1-sigma, the latest date obtained on a Zone C sample at the site. The results of our excavations at Colha Subops. 20 and 21 further support a distinct but close chronological relationship between the Preceramic and early Middle Formative occupations in this area of the site and provide further insights into the activities taking place around the edge of the aguada.

The late Preceramic occupation, corresponding to Zone C aceramic levels, is dated to ca. 1500-900 B.C. Zone C is a distinctive stratigraphic matrix of olive green clay. It contains numerous constricted unifaces, many of which are unfinished and discarded in production while others are used, reworked, and exhausted. While lithic production, tool use, and habitation probably occurred in close proximity, no securely identified Preceramic structures, features, or non-lithic artifacts were recovered at Op. 4046. Soil humate and charcoal samples from Zone C provide a series of approximately consistent late Preceramic dates. Zones A and B at Op. 4046 contain abundant Middle Formative through Terminal Classic lithic and ceramic artifacts and construction debris.

Refitting studies demonstrate that production locales at both Colha Op. 4046 and the Kelly site were substantially undisturbed and also provide useful insights into constricted uniface production technology at these sites. The Kelly site lithic assemblage consists almost entirely of constricted uniface production debitage, including tested cobbles, macroflakes, broken preforms, and flake debitage. cobbles, macroflakes, broken preforms, and flake 17

THE PRECERAMIC TO EARLY MIDDLE FORMATIVE TRANSITION IN NORTHERN BELIZE

Figure 2.2: Preceramic lithic production locale at the Kelly site (bottom), blade (top left), uniface preform (top right) refits.

18

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES

Figure 2.3: Early Middle Formative platform at Colha Op. 4046 (bottom), with burin cores recovered in platform fill (top).

19

THE PRECERAMIC TO EARLY MIDDLE FORMATIVE TRANSITION IN NORTHERN BELIZE Several preforms on macroflake blanks could be refit with multiple thinning flakes and a single prepared drumshaped core was refitted with nine small flake-blades. At Colha Op. 4046, we recovered a greater range of lithic forms, including macrocores and blades and small bifacial celts. Macroblade production appears to begin during the earlier Preceramic occupation at the site, dating to shortly before the third millennium B.C., continues through the late Preceramic, and forms an important part of Formative and Classic workshop production at Colha (Hester and Shafer 1994). Small bifacial celts also appear initially during the late Preceramic and continue into the Formative. Ecological studies in Cobweb Swamp Paleobotanical (Jones 1994a, 1994b) and soil (Jacob 1995) studies on the edge of Cobweb Swamp provide complementary evidence concerning the timing of the introduction of various subsistence practices at the site. Useful data were obtained from cores taken in the open sawgrass marsh, as well as from excavations in a series of reticulated, island-like features, believed to be wetland fields and associated canals or channels, found in a narrow band along the swamp forest margin. A core taken at a distance of 300 m from the swamp margin provides a 9,000 year record of natural and human events in the area of the swamp and the surrounding region. The earliest section indicates a warm, dry climate with vegetation dominated by open grass and sedge savannah and scattered trees. High percentages of grass charcoal suggest that the savannahs may have been fire-maintained (Jones 1994b). By 6000 B.C., a semi-deciduous, upland forest environment had emerged with continued evidence of human-caused burning. “Around 2500 B.C. [uncalibrated]...,” Jones (1994b:2) finds, “the earliest farming inhabitants left their mark on the pollen record.” The evidence for early agriculture provided by the core includes the appearance of maize pollen (Zea mays), the replacement of forest elements by disturbance vegetation, and a large sustained peak of charcoal. He finds that some economically important plants, such as Spondias (hogplum), Sapotaceae genera, and some palms, may have been protected during the clearing process. Further palynological evidence of the first appearance of cultigens and later periods of intensification were recovered in a trench, Unit 4BB, in the area of reticulated features on the swamp margin. The lower of two buried fields, dated to about 2500-1000 B.C. by two radiocarbon dates, contains a pollen assemblage characterized by a reduction in forest taxa and an increase in disturbance taxa (Jones 1994a). Cultigens are absent, with he exception of a single manioc grain (Manihot esculentum). These dates can be re-calibrated, using Stuiver and Reimer (1993), to 3510-3416 B.C. and 1134-1066 B.C. at 1 sigma respectively. The earlier date would support a much earlier time for the inception of agriculture at Colha-Cobweb Swamp than was proposed by Jones and Jacob, though 20

similar evidence for the appearance of cultigens and deforestation at ca. 3400 B.C. (calibrated) is reported by the Rio Hondo Project (Pohl et al. 1996) at Cob Swamp, about 40 km to the northwest. This earlier date also coincides with the earliest core-blade lithic production at Colha Op. 4046 in the adjacent uplands. Soil studies carried out by Jacob (1995) on the swamp margin identified evidence of wetland modification that appears to date to the end of the Preceramic. He interprets the earlier buried field in Unit 4BB, dated to 1134-1066 cal B.C., as re-worked basal clay transported during efforts to ditch or raise the agricultural fields. Jacob recovered four constricted unifaces in this area of the swamp margin. While stratigraphy suggests they may be in secondary context, eroded from nearby upland areas, they exhibit no sign of abrasion from colluvial erosion, suggesting they may have been discarded in work areas on the swamp margin. Excavations in this area with Jones in 1994 identified a similar small ditch at a depth of 90 cm that may date to this time period. At Cob Swamp a bulk sediment sample from the bottom of a small ditch yielded a date of 1135-980 cal B.C., while a constricted uniface with an associated radiocarbon date of 1330-1200 cal B.C. was recovered about 30 km to the northwest at Pulltrouser Swamp (Pohl et al. 1996). The functions and chronology of these swamp margin features have not been firmly established, but these finds by the Rio Hondo Project at Cob and Pulltrouser Swamps suggest parallel evidence of the spread of similar wetland management practices across northern Belize during the ca. 1500-900 B.C. period. Although cultigens are absent in the pollen profile for the late Preceramic at Cobweb Swamp, there is some pollen, soil, and microfaunal evidence for continued rapid deforestation in the nearby uplands and soil erosion on the swamp margin during this period. It seems likely that the production and use of large numbers of unifacial adzes is directly related to these forest-clearing and wetland modification practices. Radiocarbon Dates from Colha and Cobweb Swamp A series of 18 radiocarbon dates bear on the Preceramicearly Middle Formative transition at Colha. Seven of these are associated with late Preceramic contexts at Op. 4046 (Table 2.1), two with wetland modification on the edge of Cobweb Swamp, and nine with early Middle Formative Bolay phase pottery contexts in and near the ceremonial center. Most significant is the absence of any chronological break between the Bolay phase dates and the Preceramic dates. The two sets of dates overlap, in fact, with the anomalously late ca. 800 B.C. date taken from the Preceramic production locale just below the level of the Bolay phase platform at Op. 4046. The actual transition between the late Preceramic and the Bolay phase appears to fall at about 900 B.C., or slightly later. The two earliest dates in the sequence, at ca. 1400 B.C.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES and 1700 B.C., may, respectively, mark the beginning of the late Preceramic and a terminus post quem for a rise in the water level of the swamp that may be associated with ditching activities on the swamp margin. Earlier radiocarbon dates, in the 3400-1900 B.C. range, are related to the initial appearance of cultigens in the swamp and lithic production at Op. 4046. The radiocarbon dates from Colha Op. 4046 are shown below. All are calibrated using Stuiver and Reimer (1993). The Colha Lithic Tradition There are important continuities as well as discontinuities in the tool forms and lithic production technologies represented in the late Preceramic and early Middle Formative lithic assemblages at Colha Op. 4046 and at the Kelly site. In fact, in spite of changes in tool forms over time, underlying technologies remain remarkably stable from earliest Preceramic times until the end of the Classic period. Perlés (1986:479-480), considering chipped stone assemblages as an index of cultural discontinuity in early Greek prehistory, proposes that: differences in traditions [her emphasis] can be best assessed by studying the initial steps in the production sequence [including choice of size and morphology of stone blanks],” while “the end product of these operations, the composition of the tool-kit itself, best reflects... functional answers to specific problems.

Figure 2.4: The Colha Lithic Tradition, showing continuity in beveled bit adze forms, bifacial celts, use of macroblade and macroflake blanks.

All of the elements of a “Colha Lithic Tradition” observed to characterize assemblages at the site from the Formative to the end of the Classic are present in the late Preceramic assemblage at Colha: blade and bifacial components, beveled-bit adze forms (the constricted uniface), bifacial celt forms, and the use of macroblade and macroflake blanks produced by hard-hammer percussion on prepared macrocores (Potter 1991) (Figure 2.4).

Significantly, the Early Postclassic (ca. A.D. 900-1150) newcomers who re-occupy Colha after a break in occupation associated with the Classic Maya collapse bring a different set of stone-working practices along with new traditions in other aspects of everyday life, including settlement, diet and ceramics (Hester and Shafer 1991). Early Postclassic lithic technology at the site differs from the Colha Lithic Tradition in several important respects: frequent use of soft-hammer percussion, use of imported chalcedony raw material, mixture of production debitage with domestic refuse, and the predominance in assemblages of projectile points made on flakes (Classic period points tend to be made on minimally retouched blades). This sharp break in lithic technology at the end of the Classic period, in contrast with continuity across the Preceramic, Formative, and Classic periods suggests that lithic traditions tend to parallel other components of cultural identity, rather than responding primarily to opportunities afforded by the rich chert resources of northern Belize or changing functional requirements.

The diagnostic tool form of the late Preceramic period is the constricted uniface, a unifacially flaked tool made on a macroflake or macroblade blank, with a broad convex bit and a steeply flaked constriction towards the narrower proximal end. Use-wear studies show that finished constricted unifaces were used in a variety of tasks, including woodworking and digging (Hudler and Lohse 1994). The constricted uniface is replaced in Middle Formative assemblages by the T-form and wedge-form adzes, made on macroblades with limited but characteristic bifacial trimming. The beveled bit was typically created on the striking platform of the original blade, with the ventral surface of the blade adjacent to the bit left unflaked. Both of these attributes are also found on the Preceramic constricted unifaces. In some respects the Middle Formative adzes may be viewed as technological descendants of the constricted unifaces, as well as forerunners of the tranchet tools that were mass-produced on large macroflakes in the Late Formative lithic workshops at Colha.

Settlement Patterns There are similarities between Preceramic and early Middle Formative settlement patterns at both the regional 21

THE PRECERAMIC TO EARLY MIDDLE FORMATIVE TRANSITION IN NORTHERN BELIZE and site levels that suggest the appearance of recognizably Maya material culture may not have involved a change in populations. Bolay complex pottery and its equivalents mark the appearance of early Middle Formative settlements at several sites in northern Belize, including Colha, Cuello, Kichpanha, K’axob (Pulltrouser Swamp), Nohmul, San Estevan, and Santa Rita Corozal (Valdez 1994). Consistent similarities among the early Middle Formative ceramic assemblages at these sites, along with distinctions from contemporaneous ceramics in neighboring regions, lead Valdez (1994) to suggest the establishment of a Bolay ceramic sphere.

Preceramic constricted unifaces have been found at a large number of sites across northern Belize (Figure 2.5). In some cases, such as Colha and Kichpanha, constricted unifaces have been recovered at sites with Bolay phase components, while in others, such as Pulltrouser Swamp, they share subregions and environmental zones. This holds most true for the band of sites across the north-central part of northern Belize, from Pulltrouser Swamp to Colha. This is not the case for the lowland pine ridge, where no early Middle Formative occupation has been identified, or for the northernmost part of the region, where no Preceramic sites have been located. Late Preceramic sites with constricted unifaces have been found both within and outside the chert-bearing zone, and representing a considerable variety of ecological zones in terms of soils, water, elevation, and other characteristics. Of 117 finished specimens included in this study, 77 were recovered in wetland and upland contexts in the north-central area of northern Belize, including Cobweb Swamp (4) and Pulltrouser Swamp (1), Colha (65), Maskall North/ Quashie Banner Creek (6), and Laguna de Cayo Francesa (1). Thirty-six were found in the southern pine ridge area, including Rockstone Pond (5), Davis Bank (1), Lowe Ranch (9), Sand Hill (3), and Ladyville (18), and just four examples from Cockloft Farm in western Belize, marginally outside the region. A total of four constricted unifaces, including two recently reported by Rosenswig and Masson (2001) at Doubloon Bank Lagoon and Laguna de On and two previously provided for study from Pulltrouser Swamp (Pohl et al. 1996) and Laguna de Cayo Francesa on Ambergris Caye (Guderjan 1995), are from sites located north of the chert-bearing zone, and may have been procured through regional exchange networks from quarryproduction locales within the zone, such as those found at Colha and at the Kelly site. At Colha there is evidence of close spatial congruence between Preceramic and early Middle Formative occupation and activity areas at the Op. 4046 aguada and in the area that became the Main Plaza of the site. We have seen how an early Middle Formative platform used in quarry and production activities on the edge of the Op. 4046 aguada was built virtually on top of a similar Preceramic quarry-production locale. Various operations in the Main Plaza similarly appear to have located structures from an early Middle Formative village that incorporated materials from an earlier Preceramic occupation. Excavations in the 1980s in the Main Plaza, located about 1.2 km north of Op. 4046, recovered a number of constricted unifaces in the construction fill of Middle Formative structures (Sullivan 1991). The Middle Formative domestic structures at Op. 2031 consist of circular and rectangular marl-block retaining and terrace walls enclosing marl and plaster surfaces with associated hearths and burials (Anthony and Black 1994). Burial goods include numerous shell beads, a jadeite celt, and a ceramic censor vessel, which, along with variability in

Figure 2.5: top: Northern Belize, showing sites where constricted uniface adzes have been recovered (indicated by solid triangles); bottom: Constricted unifaces from Colha site. 22

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES Summary and Conclusions

the size and elevation of domestic structures, suggest the appearance of status differences.

Investigations in northern Belize at Colha Op. 4046, adjacent Cobweb Swamp, and the Kelly site have identified a late Preceramic occupation dating to ca. 1500-900 B.C., based primarily on considerable amounts of lithics, some associated features, paleobotanical and soil data collected by collaborating projects, and a series of associated radiocarbon dates. None of these lines of evidence bear directly on the ethnic identity of the Preceramic inhabitants of the region. They do, however, provide evidence concerning population densities and continuity of occupation that suggests they are ancestral to the early Middle Formative Maya who are well established throughout most of northern Belize by 900-800 B.C.

Following the logic of “genealogies of places,” proposed by McAnany (1995:8), in which later residences were built over earlier ones to maintain potent links with powerful ancestors, we reasoned that this prominent place might have been the focus of the Preceramic occupation as well as the earliest known Maya structures. Of course, since the Main Plaza was located on top of one of the most extensive natural rises in the Colha area, it is not surprising that this would have been an attractive location for early inhabitants seeking to exploit wetland plant and fauna and aguada chert resources. Unfortunately, excavations to bedrock by the CPP in 1994 failed to locate Preceramic deposits underneath these Middle Formative levels. Possibly extensive later construction in this central area destroyed the remains of the earliest occupations. It seems likely, given the concentration of constricted unifaces second only to that at Op. 4046 (25 specimens of 117 included in this study), that this area was an important focus of Preceramic activity at Colha.

The diagnostic stone tool form of the late Preceramic period is the constricted uniface adze. Dense concentrations of flake debris, macrocores, macroflake blanks, and broken preforms are evidence of their intensive production at quarry locales on the edge of the aguada at Op. 4046 at Colha and at the Kelly site. While production intensity is not as great as that at the Late Formative and Classic period workshops with their massive debitage taluses, output appears to be greater than required for immediate household needs, suggesting some degree of specialization. Finished and used constricted unifaces were recovered at Op. 4046, on the margins of nearby Cobweb Swamp, and in Middle Formative construction fill in the Colha ceremonial center. In addition, large numbers of these distinctive tools have been recovered at numerous sites across northern Belize, from Pulltrouser Swamp in the north to Ladyville in the south, in a variety of environmental contexts.

Middle Formative Faunal Data and Preceramic Environmental Change Leslie Shaw’s (1991) work on the faunal data at Colha provides additional data bearing on population continuity across the Preceramic-Middle Formative transition at the site. Her faunal assemblages date to the Maya occupations at the site from early Middle Formative to Early Postclassic times. No faunal remains have been recovered from Preceramic contexts. She notes, however, that if the early Middle Formative residents were the earliest substantial population at the site, the faunal data should reflect exploitation of an environment minimally altered by humans. For example, the faunal assemblage from the Early Postclassic occupation at Colha, which followed an approximately 100 year abandonment of the site, resembles one of an occupation that succeeded a pristine ecosystem with relatively high frequencies of bones of species preferring undisturbed high forest habitat and bones from larger reptiles and fish.

The northern Belize late Preceramic is also a period of large-scale forest clearance and wetland modification at Colha/Cobweb Swamp, where maize and possibly manioc cultivation appear to have been introduced as early as 3400 B.C. Small-scale ditching and canal construction on the swamp margins may have taken place towards the end of the late Preceramic to counter the effects of increased runoff and erosion. Pohl et al. (1996) find parallel evidence of intensified agricultural activity at Cob and Pulltrouser Swamps, including evidence of ditching at Cob Swamp with an associated radiocarbon date of 1030 cal B.C. and a constricted uniface recovered at Pulltrouser Swamp with an associated date of 1275 cal B.C., virtually identical to the dates associated with wetland features and constricted unifaces at Colha/Cobweb Swamp. Microwear studies (Hudler and Lohse 1994) provide support for a link between the constricted unifaces and agricultural intensification.

She finds that the early Middle Formative samples, in contrast, reflect an environment already significantly impacted (in Preceramic times) by human landclearance and faunal exploitation. She suggests that the predominance of aquatic species in the faunal assemblage, especially turtles and fish, and the presence of white-tailed deer may indicate that “garden hunting” on the margins of wetland and upland agricultural fields may have become an important source of subsistence at Colha-Cobweb Swamp by the late Preceramic. Shaw’s Middle Formative faunal studies thus provide important evidence for significant Preceramic population densities continuing into the Middle Formative and a scenario for subsistence strategies during the transition to sedentism and maize agriculture.

Shaw’s (1991) study of early Middle Formative faunal remains at Colha provide similar evidence for increasing population densities and intensive land exploitation at late Preceramic Colha/Cobweb Swamp. She proposes that “garden hunting” of aquatic animals and deer around 23

THE PRECERAMIC TO EARLY MIDDLE FORMATIVE TRANSITION IN NORTHERN BELIZE wetland and upland fields made an important contribution to subsistence at this time. Interestingly, stable carbon isotope studies in northern Belize (Huebner 1992; Pohl et al. 1996) show that maize consumption may have remained fairly low in this region into the early Middle Formative, and even during the Late-Terminal Classic. It seem likely, then, that while maize farming was an important activity at late Preceramic Colha/Cobweb Swamp, a variety of wild food resources continued to be exploited as well, as they were throughout most of the occupation of the site. A series of 18 radiocarbon dates from Colha Op. 4046, wetland modification features at Cobweb Swamp, and early Middle Formative Bolay phase structures in the Colha ceremonial center provide further support for the contemporaneity and functional links between constricted unifaces and Preceramic swamp margin and upland cultivation and also for a proposed seamless transition from Preceramic to Middle Formative. A Middle Formative platform, likely used for quarrying and knapping activities, directly on top of a constricted uniface production locale on the edge of the Op. 4046 aguada further highlights the fine chronological separation and functional continuity of the Middle Formative and Preceramic occupations in this area of the site. Other continuities in settlement patterns on a site and regional scale have also been noted in the ceremonial center at Colha and the distribution of Bolay phase sites in northern Belize. The lithic assemblages, however, have provided our best indicators of cultural and social change and continuity through time at Colha and other lithic production sites in the northern Belize chert-bearing zone. Since technological analysis was initiated by the Colha Project in the early 1980s, the existence of a Colha Lithic Tradition, as well as the presence of distinctive time markers such as the constricted uniface, have been recognized by those working with lithics from the region. The Colha Lithic Tradition, as defined by Potter (1991), is characterized by the presence of blade and biface components, beveled-bit adze forms, bifacial celt forms, and the use of macroblade and macroflake blanks produced by hard-hammer percussion on prepared macrocores. All of these elements are present in the Preceramic lithic assemblages at Colha. Small celt bifaces appear during the Preceramic and continue until the end of the tradition. Beveled-bit adze forms, tapered from the bit and usually made on macroflake blanks with the bit placed near the distal end of the flake, developed out of the late Preceramic constricted uniface, becoming the “T-form” and “wedgeform” adzes of the early Middle Formative and the technological-advanced tranchet tools mass-produced during the Late Formative and Late Classic. We cannot answer the question as to whether the Preceramic occupation at Colha may have been sedentary. An abundance of chert for tool-making combined with wetlands and uplands that could be cultivated throughout the year must have made Colha a desirable place for 24

permanent settlement. Mann (1986:41), surveying the earliest farming settlements in the Near East, proposes that many of the first settlements may have been flint miners, and that “where trade routes, proximity to sources of flint and obsidian, and fertile land coincided, permanent settlement could result.” This combination of chert production and wetland cultivation dominates the Preceramic archaeological record at Colha/Cobweb Swamp, and their presence must have encouraged sedentism to control permanent resources at a time when population densities were surely rising. We must also ask ourselves why, if the Preceramic population of northern Belize was ethnically Maya, was their material culture so different, in important respects, from that of their Middle Formative Maya descendants and their Mesoamerican contemporaries on the Gulf Coast, the Pacific coasts of Chiapas and Guerrero, and elsewhere? The onset of the Early Formative at San Lorenzo on the Gulf Coast and at the Mokaya sites in the Mazatán region of Chiapas is marked by the appearance of pottery, exotic trade goods, craft production, and public architecture (Blake et al. 1995; Coe 1981). These features of Early Formative chiefdom-level society in these regions likely represent responses to the needs of elite groups and individuals to enhance prestige and legitimize increasing social inequalities and political centralization. The fact that none of these features of the Early Formative are present in northern Belize at this time suggests, at least in part, the persistence of more egalitarian social and political forms of organization in this region. Ethnic or linguistic boundaries may also have played a role in limiting the spread of Formative elite culture to northern Belize. Based on linguistic and ceramic evidence, Clark and Blake (1989) propose that at the onset of the Early Formative, ca. 1500 B.C., Mixe-Zoque speakers from the Pacific coast entered the south Gulf Coast, dividing the proto-Maya inhabitants of the region into northern and southern groups. These events would have divided the eastern Mesoamerican lowlands into two great culture regions, a proto-Maya-speaking region comprising northern Yucatan, the Peten, and Belize, and a MixeZoque-speaking region including the Olmec Gulf Coast and the Mokaya of the Pacific coast. Possibly just such dramatic events are reflected in the archaeological and ecological records of the late Preceramic in northern Belize, in the form of intensification of agricultural and lithic production and the appearance of new kinds of stone tools. In any case, these data are consistent with the arrival of new groups, population movements and clashes, and pressures towards regionalism in an environment of widespread instability. It is tempting to see the constricted uniface as a stylistic expression of a northern Belize regional identity at this time, anticipating the formation of a Bolay ceramic sphere at the close of the Preceramic, at which time the inhabitants of the Maya region adopt the elite cultural expressions of the Formative Mesoamerican world.

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES External Relationships. In Archaeological Views from the Countryside: Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, edited by Glen M. Schwartz and Steven E. Falconer, pp. 48-63. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Hudler, Dale B. and Jon Lohse, 1994, Replication and Microscopy: Determining the Function of Unifacial Chert Tools from Belize. Unpublished draft report on file at the Texas Archeological Research Laboratory. Huebner, Jeffrey A. and Harold W. Krueger, 1992, Terminal Classic Diet at Colha: Isotopic Analysis of the Skull Pit (Op. 2011, Feature 1) Population from Colha. Paper presented at the Symposium of the Texas Archeological Society. Iceland, Harry B. 1997, The Preceramic Origins of the Maya: The Results of the Colha Preceramic Project in Northern Belize. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin. Jacob, John S. 1995, Ancient Maya Wetland Agricultural Fields in Cobweb Swamp, Belize: Construction, Chronology, and Function. Journal of Field Archaeology 22(2):175-190. Jones, John G. 1994a, Pollen Evidence for Early Settlement and Agriculture in Northern Belize. Palynology 18:205-211. Jones, John G. 1994b, Settlement and Agriculture at Colha: Pollen Evidence from Cobweb Swamp. Paper presented at the 59th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeologists, Anaheim. Kelly, Thomas C. 1982, The Colha Regional Survey, 1981. In Archaeology at Colha, Belize: The 1981 Interim Report, edited by Thomas R. Hester, Jack D. Eaton, and Harry J. Shafer, pp. 85-97. Center for Archaeological Research, University of Texas at San Antonio and Centro Studi e Ricerche Ligabue, Venice. Kelly, Thomas C. 1993, Preceramic Projectile Point Typology in Belize. Ancient Mesoamerica 4(2):205:227. Lohse, Jon C. 1995, The Archaic of Northern Belize: A Reconsideration of the Functionality of Constricted Unifaces. Memorias del Segundo Congreso Internacional de Mayistas, pp. 181-194. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City. MacNeish, Richard S. 1981, Second Annual Report of the Belize Archaic Archaeological Reconnaissance. Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, Andover, MA. Mann, Michael, 1986, The Sources of Social Power. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Marcus, Joyce, 1995, Where is Lowland Maya Archaeology Headed? Journal of Archaeological Research 3(1):3-53. McAnany, Patricia A. 1995, Living with the Ancestors: Kinship and Kingship in Ancient Maya Society. University of Texas Press, Austin. Perlés, Catherine, 1986, New Ways with an Old Problem: Chipped Stone Assemblages as an Index of Cultural Discontinuity in Early Greek Prehistory. In Problems in Greek Prehistory, edited by Elizabeth B. French and Ken A. Wardle, pp. 477-488. Bristol Classical Press, Bristol, England.

References Cited Adams, Richard E.W. 1991, Prehistoric Mesoamerica. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK. Anthony, Dana, and Stephen L. Black, 1994, Operation 2031: The 1983 Main Plaza Excavations. In Continuing Archeology at Colha, Belize, edited by Thomas R. Hester, Harry J. Shafer, and Jack D. Eaton. pp. 39-58. Studies in Archeology 16, Texas Archeological Research Laboratory. University of Texas, Austin. Awe, Jaime J., and Paul F. Healy, 1994, Flakes to Blades? Middle Formative Development of Obsidian Artifacts in the Upper Belize River Valley. Latin American Antiquity 5(3):193-205. Blake, Michael, John E. Clark, Barbara Voorhies, George Michaels, Michael W. Love, Mary E. Pye, Arthur A. Demarest, and Barbara Arroyo, 1995, Radiocarbon Chronology for the Late Archaic and Formative Periods on the Pacific Coast of Southeastern Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 6(2):161-184. Clark, John E. and Michael Blake, 1989, El Origen de la Civilización en Mesoamérica: Los Olmecas y Mokaya del Soconusco de Chiapas, México. In El Preclásico o Formativo: Avances y Perspectivas, edited by M. Carmona Macías, pp. 385-404. Museo Nacional de Antropología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Coe, Michael D. 1981, San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, Supplement 1, Archaeology, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 117146. University of Texas Press, Austin. Fedick, Scott L. and Karl A. Taube, 1992, The Role of Radiocarbon Dating in Maya Archaeology: Four Decades of Research. In Radiocarbon After Four Decades: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, edited by Royal E. Taylor, Austin Long, and Renee S. Kra, pp. 403-420. Springer-Verlag, New York. Grove, David C. 1981, The Formative Period and the Evolution of Complex Culture. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, Supplement 1, Archaeology, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 373-391. University of Texas Press, Austin. Guderjan, Thomas H. 1995, The Setting and Maya Maritime Trade. In Maya Maritime Trade, Settlement, and Populations on Ambergris Caye, Belize, edited by Thomas H. Guderjan and James F. Garber, pp. 1-8. Maya Research Program and Labyrinthos, San Antonio and Lancaster, CA. Hammond, Norman, Amanda Clarke, and Sara Donaghey, 1995, The Long Goodbye: Middle Preclassic Maya Archaeology at Cuello, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 6(2):120-128. Hester, Thomas R. and Harry J. Shafer, 1991, Lithics of the Early Postclassic at Colha, Belize. In Maya Stone Tools: Selected Papers from the Second Maya Lithic Conference, edited by Thomas R. Hester and Harry J. Shafer, pp. 155-161. Prehistory Press, Madison. Hester, Thomas R. and Harry J. Shafer, 1994, The Ancient Maya Craft Community at Colha, Belize, and Its 25

THE PRECERAMIC TO EARLY MIDDLE FORMATIVE TRANSITION IN NORTHERN BELIZE Pohl, Mary D., Kevin O. Pope, John G. Jones, John S. Jacob, Dolores R. Piperno, Susan D. de France, David L. Lentz, John A. Gifford, Marie E. Danforth, and J. Kathryn Josserand, 1996, Early Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands. Latin American Antiquity 7(4):355372. Potter, Daniel R. 1991, A Descriptive Taxonomy of Middle Preclassic Chert Tools at Colha, Belize. In Maya Stone Tools, edited by Thomas R. Hester and Harry J. Shafer, pp. 21-30. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 1, Prehistory Press, Madison, WI. Rosenswig, Robert M., and Marilyn A. Masson, 2001, Seven New Preceramic Sites Documented in Northern Belize. Mexicon 23:138-140. Shafer, Harry J. and Thomas R. Hester, 1983, Ancient Maya Chert Workshops in Northern Belize, Central America. American Antiquity 48 (3):519-543. Shaw, Leslie, 1991, The Articulation of Social Inequality and Faunal Resource Use in the Preclassic Community of Colha, Northern Belize. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Sullivan, Lauren, 1991, Preclassic Domestic Architecture at Colha, Belize. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas, Austin. Stuiver, Minze, and Paula J. Reimer, 1993, Extended 14C Database and Revised Calib 3.0 14C program. Radiocarbon 35:215-230. Valdez, Jr., Fred, 1994, The Colha Ceramic Complexes. In Continuing Archeology at Colha, Belize, Studies in Archeology 16, edited by Thomas R. Hester, Harry J. Shafer, and Jack D. Eaton, pp. 9-16. Texas Archeological Research Laboratory, University of Texas, Austin. Wood, Greg P. 1990, Excavations at Op. 4046, Colha, Belize: A Buried Preceramic Lithic Deposit. Unpublished Master ’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Texas, San Antonio. Willey, Gordon R. 1987, Essays in Maya Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Zeitlin, Robert N.1984, A Summary Report on Three Seasons of Field Investigations into the Archaic Period Prehistory of Lowland Belize. American Anthropologist 86:358-368.

26

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES

Cunil: A Pre-Mamom Horizon in the Southern Maya Lowlands David Cheetham When initially asked to contribute to this volume, I eagerly set out to discuss issues of interregional trade and exchange involving the earliest or “pre-Mamom” communities of the Southern Maya Lowlands. I soon realized this would be an ill-advised effort. At the time, as now, an appraisal of early intraregional interaction seemed in order (and long overdue) before long-distance contact with distant Mesoamerican regions was considered. To appreciate the necessity of this seemingly lesser task, it is important to note that for over half a century archaeologists working in the Southern Maya Lowlands have pondered the origins and cultural affiliations of the region’s earliest fully sedentary inhabitants. Were these people indigenous Maya speakers or immigrants from neighboring regions of Mesoamerica where village life had flourished for centuries? Could the extent and frequency of interaction among pre-Mamom communities be discerned from the archaeological record? Although these and many related questions have yet to be conclusively answered, the prevailing explanation has wavered little over the past 35 years—small groups of immigrants from adjacent regions arrived with ceramic technology about 1000 bc, 1 encountered a relatively uninhabited tropical forest zone, and interacted sparingly during the first two centuries of established village life (Adams 1971:154; Andrews 1990:16; Lowe 1977:198; Sabloff 1975:10, 230; Sharer 1978:17; Sharer and Gifford 1970:446-454; Willey 1970:355, 1973:25-26, 1977a:136, 1977b:400-401). Given the inability to demonstrate comprehensive ceramic ties with neighboring regions, the proponents of this perspective point to the individuality of pre-Mamom pottery assemblages, each presumably the product of isolation and intermingled traditions that originated elsewhere. In essence, the Southern Maya Lowlands only became recognizably “Maya” after about 800 bc, with the universal production of Mamom pottery and, by implication, a dramatic increase in contact among communities. In the following pages I assemble ceramic data that seriously challenge this viewpoint and, in my estimation, provide an unmistakable case for an indigenous Maya culture horizon preceding Mamom times. As defined by Willey and Phillips (1958:33; see also Willey et al. 1967:305-306), a horizon consists of “…cultural traits and assemblages whose nature and mode of occurrence permit the assumption of a broad and rapid spread.” If a case can be made for a pre-Mamom horizon according to this definition, two prevailing notions will have been dispelled: the idea that the earliest ceramic assemblages are dissimilar entities, and its stubborn offspring, the theory that multiple migrations of non-indigenous groups is the best or only way to explain the differences. Only after liberation from 27

these decades-old misconceptions can we begin to understand the nature of early lowland Maya interaction with neighboring regions of Mesoamerica, a topic I briefly consider toward the end of this chapter. Of course, these introductory comments beg the question: If a pre-Mamom horizon is readily apparent on the basis of ceramic data then why was it not recognized years ago? Quite simply, comparative work of this nature only became feasible after the recent discovery and analysis of early pottery from the Belize Valley site of Cahal Pech (Cheetham and Awe n.d.) and two massive deposits of preMamom pottery at Tikal (Cheetham et al. 2003; Laporte and Fialko1993b). The ceramics of the initial phase at Cahal Pech (1000–800 bc), dubbed “Cunil” after a local Maya surname, are particularly instructive for they are plainly antecedent to Mamom pottery and, more importantly, were consistently found in stratified building platforms and associated features below deposits securely dated to the post-800 bc era (Awe 1992; Cheetham 1995, 1996; Healy et al. 2004). These contexts stand in marked contrast to the pre-Mamom deposits unearthed during the 1960s and 1970s, which consisted of basal deposits (Adams 1971; Willey 1970) and trash pits cut into bedrock (Culbert 1977, n.d.). In no instance was pre-Mamom pottery isolated in a lengthy sequence of architecture, although individual gravel-plaster floors (probable house platforms) and occupations directly on the old ground surface (probable “bush huts”) were encountered above bedrock at Seibal (Willey 1990:193) and Altar de Sacrificios (Adams 1971:79; Willey 1973:22-23), respectively. The largely non-episodic or accretive nature of these preMamom manifestations certainly did not preclude intersite ceramic comparison, but material of comparable age was rare and few radiocarbon determinations were available to anchor any of the region’s early ceramic complexes in time, preMamom or not. More than anything else, the prevailing notion of dissimilar pre-Mamom ceramic complexes is attributable to the scarcity of comparable data during the 1960s and 1970s. Of the better-known and published ceramic sequences at the time (Uaxactun, Guatemala [Smith 1955] and Barton Ramie, Belize [Gifford 1976]), only Barton Ramie was thought to have had a pre-Mamom component, named early facet Jenney Creek by the investigators (Sharer and Kirkpatrick 1976; Willey et al. 1965:325-332). Provisional linkage between these sherds and pre-Mamom pottery from Seibal and Altar de Sacrificios (e.g., Sharer 1976) was certainly logical at the time, considering that Early Jenney Creek pottery was the earliest encountered in the extensive excavations at Barton Ramie. Based on the stratigraphic priority of Cunil pottery at Cahal Pech, however, it is now certain that Early Jenney Creek is not

CUNIL: A PRE-MAMOM HORIZON IN THE SOUTHERN MAYA LOWLANDS

Figure 3.1: Map of the Southern Maya Lowlands locating key Pre-Mamom sites. the earliest ceramic complex of the Belize Valley, but the valley’s second ceramic complex (ca. 800–650 bc). Ceramic data at Cahal Pech also make it clear that Early Jenney Creek includes most hallmark and long-lived Mamom era ceramic groups (e.g., Juventud, Chunhinta, Pital, and Savana), all of which are lacking in pre-Mamom deposits at the site and elsewhere in the Maya Lowlands. With Early Jenney Creek removed from consideration, earlier claims of disjunctive pre-Mamom ceramic complexes become problematic. In short, with its unparalleled contexts and suite of associated radiocarbon dates (see below), Cunil pottery from Cahal Pech provides a comparative yardstick that until now has been lacking. It is precisely for this reason that throughout this paper I use Cunil to designate the ceramic complex and phase at Cahal Pech as well as the region’s first horizon, much the same as Mamom has been used for some fifty years to denote a phase at the site of Uaxactun (Smith 1955) and pan-regional horizon involving similar pottery and other culture traits. Distribution and Duration The Cunil horizon covered most areas of the Southern Maya lowlands (Figure 3.1). In the Pasión River area of Western Petén, Guatemala, the Réal Xe phase of Seibal (Willey 1970) and Xe phase of Altar de Sacrificios (Adams 1971) are included. In the Central Petén, Eb phase pottery from Tikal (Cheetham et al. 2003; Culbert n.d.; Laporte and Fialko 1993b)2 is at home in the Cunil horizon, as is 28

its little-known counterpart at Uaxactun (personal observations 2000). To the east, Cunil horizon traits characterize some Ah Pam phase pottery from several sites in the vicinity of Lakes Yaxha-Sacnab (e.g., Yaxha Hill [see Rice 1979], Ixtinto). In the Belize Valley, Cunil pottery is known from Cahal Pech and more recently the sites of Xunantunich (Strelow and LeCount 2001), Blackman Eddy (Brown and Garber, this volume),3 Pacbitun (Arendt et al. 1999:3-4; Powis 1996:3), and Barton Ramie (personal observations 2000). With the exception of Cahal Pech, Xunantunich, and possibly Blackman Eddy, the collections are from mixed basal deposits that include Mamom-related Early Jenney Creek phase pottery. One area of the southern lowlands where comparative ceramic data are available but do not fit the Cunil horizon pattern is northern Belize, in particular, the earliest pottery from Cuello (Pring 1976, 1977, 1979; Kosakowsky 1987; Kosakowsky and Pring 1991, 1998) and Colha (Valdez 1987, 1994). Evidently, the initial inhabitants of these communities were unaware of the cultural practices of their neighbors to the southwest, were aware but deliberately chose not to adopt traits then circulating, or simply did not make the transition to village life until Cunil horizon practices were in decline. The latter scenario seems most probable considering that some pottery attributes characteristic of the subsequent Mamom era (e.g., waxy slips, cuspidor forms) occur in the earliest deposits at Cuello (personal observations 2000; see also Andrews 1990:5-7; Clark and Cheetham 2002:322-323; Coe 1980:24-35; Marcus 1983:459-460, 1984; Zeitlin 1989).

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON FORMATIVE MESOAMERICAN CULTURES If true, the Late Preceramic period persisted in northern Belize for a century or more while village life flourished to the southwest (Clark and Cheetham 2002; Iceland, this volume). Finally, based on current data the Cunil horizon was at most 200 years in length (Figure 3.2), after which Mamom pottery began to be produced throughout the region. Several uncalibrated radiocarbon dates from stratified deposits within Structure B4 of the Cahal Pech site core (Table 3.1) help to bracket this horizon between about 1000–800 bc, in particular a date of 790±70 bc (Beta40865) from a carbonized building post associated with a late Cunil phase residential building platform. The proposed lower boundary of 1000 bc is more problematic, since it is based on a charcoal sample (980±50 bc [Beta77207]) from structural fill associated with the second building of this sequence. Still, the discovery of seven superimposed building platforms in this area of the early Cahal Pech village certainly suggests that considerable time passed during the Cunil phase. Whether this is typical of Cunil horizon communities in other areas of the southern lowlands will remain unknown until such time as stratified architectural remains and additional carbon dates are obtained. I have proposed a conservative starting date of 900 bc for these sites (see Figure 3.2), but like Cahal Pech they may well have been founded slightly earlier. In any case, it seems certain that ceramic technology was initially adopted by the inhabitants of one area of the lowlands sometime during the tenth century

PERIODS

years bc

500 LATE 550 MIDDLE PRECLASSIC M A 600 M O 650 M 700 EARLY 750 MIDDLE PRECLASSIC 800

EARLY PRECLASSIC

C 850 U N 900 I L 950

BELIZE VALLEY

Late Jenney Creek

Early Jenney Creek

bc, a distinctive ceramic tradition quickly emerged, and this tradition in whole or part spread as new communities were founded. Comparison of ceramic assemblages from several areas of the lowlands suggest that this process was very rapid, perhaps complete within a generation or two. Cunil Horizon Ceramic Traits Surface Treatment Two important traits linking all Cunil horizon ceramic complexes are surface treatment and slip color. With few exceptions, slips are dull and color is seldom uniform across the surface of large sherds. The former trait is not typical of the Mamom era when polished waxy slips were ubiquitous. The difference is stark and indicates technological innovation and rapid replacement of existing methods of manufacture. With the exception of Altar de Sacrificios, slip color preferences were consistent throughout the region during the Cunil horizon; unslipped pottery was most common, followed by red and then black-slipped vessels (Table 3.2). Although white-slipped pots were produced by all Cunil horizon Maya groups, they were most frequent in the Western Petén, perhaps reflecting intermittent contact with Zoque peoples to the west (modern Chiapas, Mexico) where white-slipped pottery was extremely popular at this time (Agrinier et al. 2000; Clark and Cheetham n.d.; Dixon 1959). All other lines of ceramic data, however, completely refute scenarios

SEIBAL

ALTAR de SACRIFICIOS

CUELLO/ COLHA

NAKBE

TIKAL

UAXACTUN

LAKES YAXHASACNAB

Late Tzec

Late Mamom

Yancotil II

Late Escoba

Late San Felix

Lopez/ Late Chiwa

Late Ox

Early Tzec

Early Mamom

Yancotil I

Early Escoba

Early San Felix

Bladen/ Early Chiwa

Early Ox

Swasey/Bolay Eb

Eb

?

?

Ah Pam

Reál Xe

Xe

Cunil ?

?

?

1000

LATE

1500

PRECERAMI C

1900

P R E C E R A M I C

3400

EARLY

Figure 3.2: Select early chronological sequences of the Maya Lowlands. All dates are uncalibrated. 29

CUNIL: A PRE-MAMOM HORIZON IN THE SOUTHERN MAYA LOWLANDS Laboratory Number

Sample Type

Provenience

Beta 40864

charcoal

Str. B4, 9-sub

Unit 4 (below floor)

Beta-40865

charcoal

Unit 4 (post, on floor)

Beta-77205

charcoal

Beta-56765

charcoal

Beta-77204

charcoal

Beta-77207

charcoal

Str. B4, 10csub Str. B4, 10asub Str. B4, 11sub Str. B4, 11sub Str. B4, 12sub

Radiocarbon Age

Associated Pottery

BP

bc

Calibrated Date (1-sigma)

E. Jenny Creek Cunil

2720 + 60

770

970-816 B.C.

2740 + 70

790

999-827 B.C.

PlazaU-94-1 (below floor)

Cunil

2800 + 50

850

1000-890 B.C.

Unit 5, (below floor)

Cunil

780

1070-800 B.C.

PlazaU-94-1 (below floor)

Cunil

760

980-795 B.C.

Unit 5 (below floor)

Cunil

2730 + 140 2710 + 120 2930 + 50

980

1200-1020 B.C.

Context

After Healy and Awe (1995:Table 2) and Awe (1992:Table 1), with modifications.

Table 3.1: Radiocarbon dates from early building platforms at Cahal Pech, Belize. in the Western Petén (Pasión River area), Central Petén, and Western Belize sub-regions made somewhat distinctive cooking and storage jars, which may denote tribal distinctions (Clark and Cheetham 2002). Serving and “special purpose” vessels, however, are remarkably similar from area to area (Table 3.3), undoubtedly the result of continuous interaction. A few of the shared forms include “mushroom stands,” chalice-shaped censers, pot stands or ceramic stools, and plates, dishes, bowls, and tecomates (neckless jars) with bolstered rims. Most of these forms were not produced during the subsequent Mamom era.

involving the colonization of this or any other area of the Maya Lowlands by Zoque or other non-Maya groups of Mixe–Zoquean stock during the Cunil and subsequent early Middle Formative eras (Cheetham et al. 2003; Cheetham and Lee 2004; Clark and Cheetham 2002), despite several recent and unsubstantiated claims to the contrary (Ball and Taschek 2000, 2003; Brown and Garber, this volume; Garber et al. 2004).

Aside from slipping, almost all surface decoration was accomplished with a simple yet distinctive technique that may have been completely divorced from the hands of the potter. A small percentage of pots were formed, slipped, Another shared vessel form was the colander bowl (Figure fired, and then at some later date etched with a fine-tipped 3.4a), presumably used to rinse lime-soaked maize tool—what is commonly known as postslip incising. (nixtamal) for tamales or some other steamed food. Although this occurred at every known Cunil horizon Although colanders have yet to be identified in the Western settlement, incised potsherds comprise about four percent Petén, they were fairly common households items in the of serving vessels in all quantified collections (see Table Central Petén and Western Belize sub-regions. By the 3.2), a remarkably consistent statistic. Why was the outset of the Mamom era these vessels were no longer frequency of incision so low when ownership of an etched produced, perhaps abandoned in favor of more efficient vessel was seemingly within the reach of anyone means of maize preparation that also involved prepossessing a sharp tool and a slipped pot? Intrasite treatment with lime. contextual data from Cahal Pech strongly suggest that incised pots were used— and likely incised—by a P ercent of Comp lex small segment of the Cunil Eb Réal X e Xe population that lived in Slip Color (Cahal P ech) (T ikal) (Seibal) (A ltar) † relatively elaborate households (Cheetham U nslip p ed 64 61 63 48 1996:24, 1998). Given near Red 16 28 23 5 identical frequencies of 6 3 24 Black 4‡ incised pottery, this scenario White 2