Refining Kaminaljuyu Chronology: New Radiocarbon Dates, Bayesian Analysis, and Ceramics Studies

Abstract

Since Kaminaljuyu was first systematically excavated in the 1930s, the chronology of the site has been fraught with confusion and scholarly disagreement. In recent years, scholars generally adopted the chronology presented by Shook and Popenoe de Hatch (1999) as the most authoritative account. In 2014, however, Inomata and colleagues proposed a revision of this chronology by shifting its Preclassic portion (including the Las Charcas and Providencia phases) roughly 300 years later in time. In this article, we analyze a total of 108 radiocarbon dates with Bayesian statistics, tying them to detailed ceramic analysis. These dates include previously reported dates, measured after the year 2000, as well as 68 new radiocarbon dates obtained from Kaminaljuyu and nearby sites. The results largely support Inomata and coauthors’ (2014) revised Preclassic chronology, placing the Las Charcas–Providencia transition around 350 BC and the Providencia–Verbena transition around 75 BC. In addition, we present new dates on the Early Classic period, although some ambiguity remains for the Esperanza phase, when Teotihuacan-related elements were introduced to Kaminaljuyu. The revised chronology, combined with environmental data, suggests an explosive increase in population and construction activity during the Verbena and Arenal phases.

Harmful algal blooms and cyanotoxins in Lake Amatitlán, Guatemala, coincided with ancient Maya occupation in the watershed

“…To place our sediment core in archaeological context, biomarker stratigraphies were compared with periods of Maya prehistory [i.e., the Preclassic, Classic, and Postclassic, established by Coe and Houston (14)] and to highland archaeological phases, defined using pottery styles at Kaminaljuy u (34)(35)(36). The dates for the ceramic phases were based on an updated Bayesian dating model (35). Likewise, our core data were compared to previous paleolimnological work (36) and population reconstructions from archaeological findings in the Valley of Guatemala (44).…”

“…Population in the Valley of Guatemala was inferred from archaeological investigation of rural sites, and a chronology was developed using the obsidian dating technique (44). Dates assigned to population changes were corrected from the original publication, using the new chronology of Arroyo et al (35).…”

“…Multivariate statistics (PCA) show that Zones I and III were similar with respect to measured sediment components and that Zone II and most recent Zone IV were similar (14). Highland archaeological phases are based on pottery sequences and a Bayesian dating model (35). Paleoenvironmental changes were inferred from diatom, pollen, and geochemical variables (36) in a core collected from the a nearby site as the core reported here.…”

“…Paleoenvironmental changes were inferred from diatom, pollen, and geochemical variables (36) in a core collected from the a nearby site as the core reported here. Estimated ancient population numbers in rural areas of the Lake Amatitl an watershed (44), with dates modified using the updated dating model from Arroyo et al (35). Harmful algal blooms and cyanotoxins in Lake Amatitl an, Guatemala, coincided with ancient Maya occupation in the watershed (SI Appendix, Fig.…”

The Bayesian Inferential Paradigm in Archaeology

“…Similar methods have been used to examine ceramic traditions in Europe (Krol, Dee, and Nieuwhof 2020), Bolivia (Erik J. Marsh et al 2019), Guatemala (Arroyo et al 2020), and Papua New Guinea (Skelly et al 2018). The combination of chronological modelling and ceramic data has been used to examine the dispersal and spread of ceramic cultures (e.g., Méhault 2017;Binder et al 2018).…”