Placeholder Image

Subtitles section Play video

  • Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

  • I'm Jeffrey Quilter, director of the Peabody Museum.

  • And welcome, tonight, to The Origins of Maya Civilization,

  • New Insights into Ceibal.

  • It is the Gordon R. Willey Lecture.

  • It's one of our two most prestigious lectures

  • of the year.

  • And it's presented this year by the Peabody Museum

  • of Archaeology and Ethnology, as well as the Museum of Science,

  • with its new exhibit on the Maya.

  • I'd also like to note, thanks to the Harvard Museums of Science

  • and Culture, with whom we partnered,

  • and who enables our public programs.

  • You can pick up a flyer on the Harvard Museums of Science

  • and Culture events, which include Peabody events, as well

  • as events at the Museum of Natural History at the table.

  • There should be a table over there.

  • Tonight, anthropologist Daniela Triadan

  • of the University of Arizona, as well as Takeshi Inomata,

  • will discuss their joint work at the sight of Ceibal,

  • a Maya site in Guatemala, and what this work is revealing

  • about Maya culture and society.

  • At the table, you can also sign up, by the way,

  • to join our mailing list and receive

  • regular updates about our lectures and other events.

  • We also have information about how

  • you can become a member of the Harvard

  • Museums of Science and Culture.

  • It gets you admission to all of our museums.

  • It also helps support our museum mission

  • to bring you public educational programs like this one.

  • Also, after the talk, there will be a reception in the Peabody

  • Museum on the third floor.

  • Please join us there.

  • I'd also like to invite you to join our museum's upcoming

  • events.

  • On March 12 at 6:00 PM, Stanley Ambrose,

  • Professor of Anthropology at the University of Illinois

  • Urbana-Champaign, will deliver the annual Hallam L. Movius

  • lecture, the second of our two prestigious talks.

  • Dr. Ambrose's talk will focus on human evolution,

  • and in particular, on the behaviors that

  • contributed to competitive advantage of modern humans

  • and the demise of the Neanderthals.

  • On Thursday, March 26, at 6:00 PM, Don LaRocca,

  • Curator of Arms and Armor at the Metropolitan Museum of Art,

  • and consultant to our exhibit The Arts Of War,

  • also on the third floor, will review how and why

  • armored weapons have been acquired, studied,

  • and preserved since the 16th century

  • by both private collectors and by museums.

  • And on Tuesday, March 31, Peabody curators Diana Loren

  • and Patricia Capone will discuss the findings of the Harvard

  • Yard Archaeology Project, an initiative that

  • seeks deeper knowledge of 17th century Harvard College

  • and the lives of its Native American and English students.

  • I'm now delighted to introduce William Fash, Charles P.

  • Bowditch Professor of Central American and Mexican

  • Archaeology, former Director of the Peabody Museum,

  • who will introduce our speakers tonight and tell you more

  • about them.

  • Thanks very much.

  • [APPLAUSE]

  • Good evening, all, and welcome.

  • Thanks for coming out on a less than ideal might.

  • Ceibal in the tropics this is not.

  • But we are happy to see you all, and I

  • know that we can count on some terrific questions

  • after the presentation.

  • So this evening's lecture, as Jeffrey mentioned,

  • will be given by Professor Daniela Triadan

  • of the University of Arizona, who

  • is also a research associate at the Smithsonian Institution.

  • The Gordon Willey Lecture is made

  • possible by the generous gift of his former student,

  • Richard Leventhal, now at the University

  • of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology,

  • who wanted to do honor to Gordon by sponsoring

  • an annual public lecture, as well as a seminar

  • presentation to members and students

  • of the Department of Anthropology.

  • So tonight, our good friend Daniela-- Dani to one and all--

  • will present the findings that she and her partner,

  • in life and in work, Takeshi Inomata,

  • also a professor at Arizona and Director

  • of Graduate Studies at the School of Anthropology there,

  • have been making through their research

  • at the archaeological site of Ceibal in Guatemala.

  • Takeshi, by the way, presented the seminar talk to us

  • earlier this afternoon.

  • So Takeshi and Dani are seated right here in the front.

  • And Takeshi has agreed to also help answer questions

  • after the presentation.

  • Dani received her PhD from the Free University of Berlin

  • in 1995, and her research interests

  • focus on the study of the sociopolitical development

  • of small sedentary societies and more hierarchical ones, as well

  • as prehistoric economic systems, with a specialization

  • in ceramic technology, provenance

  • studies, and the integration of material analyses

  • into archaeological research.

  • She's conducted extensive field and laboratory

  • research in the American Southwest,

  • as well as Mesoamerica.

  • In the Southwest, she works on two large scale

  • studies of late prehistoric polychrome ceramic production

  • and distribution, one centered on White Mountain redware

  • from East Central Arizona, and the implications

  • of that for transformations of the Pueblos

  • in the 14th century, and the other on Chihuahua polychrome

  • from the Casas Grandes region in Chihuahua, Mexico.

  • She was delighted to see the Casas Grandes

  • collections in the storage areas of the Peabody.

  • Her research in the Maya area includes

  • work in Belize and Guatemala, where

  • she co-directed the Aguateca Archaeological

  • Project with Professor Inomata.

  • The investigations at Aguateca have

  • been one of the most innovative and informative research

  • projects in lowland Maya archaeology for the past two

  • decades.

  • The many articles, book chapters,

  • and the technical monographs from that project

  • have addressed many significant research questions

  • of broad anthropological interest,

  • with a level of accuracy and attention to detail

  • that make them models for our field.

  • Dani has a well deserved reputation

  • for meticulous excavations and recording standards learned

  • and earned at the University of Arizona's Grasshopper Fiend

  • School, where I understand she was the TF for our very

  • own Bill Saturno, that bring great credibility

  • to the research and its presentation in published form.

  • She's the series coeditor with Takeshi

  • of the Monograph series, volume three of which

  • came out last year, entitled Life and Politics at the Royal

  • Court of Aguateca.

  • And the important 2010 volume, also,

  • Burned Palaces and Elite Residences of Aguateca.

  • Professor Triadan's research there

  • is geared toward examining social, political,

  • and economic organization, and its

  • changed through the analysis of domestic assemblages.

  • Excavations of elite residential structures

  • at the epicenter this rapidly abandoned

  • city-- amazing place-- have revealed

  • the richest in situ floor assemblages

  • found to date at a classic Maya site,

  • providing a unique opportunity for reconstructing

  • classic Maya household organization.

  • Presently, as co-director, with Takeshi,

  • of the ongoing Ceibal project, she works and directs

  • an international team investigating

  • the processes of the foundation of that important site,

  • and its political disintegration during the Terminal Classic.

  • It's providing new information on the foundation

  • of Maya civilization, the subject of tonight's talk,

  • as well as the so-called collapse or reorganization

  • at the end.

  • She's the author of numerous important publications

  • on the Maya and the southwest in the major peer reviewed

  • journals of our profession, a marvelous teacher and mentor,

  • and a very personable and popular colleague

  • in both Mesoamerica and the southwest,

  • sought after at meetings and any gathering of friends.

  • The list of her accomplishments goes on and on,

  • but let's cut to the chase.

  • Please join me in welcoming Professor Daniela Triadan.

  • [APPLAUSE]

  • Thank you so much, Bill.

  • I hope I can actually live up to the reputation

  • that you kind of laid out there for me.

  • It sounds like a person that I don't know, somehow or other.

  • But thank you so much, Bill, for your very kind words

  • and, really, major exaggerations in those accolades,

  • I have to say.

  • And thank you for coming out and braving the weather.

  • I have to say that maybe for the one time in my life,

  • I'm actually glad for my pack rat tendencies.

  • I was actually able to find winter clothes somewhere hidden

  • away before we came here.

  • We live in Arizona, as you've heard.

  • Let's just say today, it was 82 degrees.

  • I'm glad.

  • I'm glad I found my winter coat that

  • was still somewhere left over from our New Haven days early

  • on.

  • So we were actually fairly well equipped to get here and talk

  • to you tonight.

  • You can also see that we have slightly changed the title.

  • We have made it longer.

  • This is kind of a tendency, I guess, of professors.

  • But the point was we really wanted

  • to do honor to Gordon Willey, not just because it's

  • the Gordon Willey Lecture, but as Bill mentioned,

  • Gordon Willey was, of course, the uber archaeologist

  • when it comes to Maya archaeology.

  • And he and Harvard University had a long term project

  • at Ceibal in the 1960s.

  • So they've done very important work at Ceibal,

  • and our work there is really building

  • on what Harvard and Gordon Willey has done in Ceibal.

  • When we decided to go there, we could thankfully really

  • look at Harvard's research results,

  • and we didn't have to basically reinvent the wheel.

  • It was amazingly helpful to us.

  • So we came out with a good idea, and we

  • could develop a very specific research design

  • when we came in to work, again, at Ceibal,

  • after about 40 years when Harvard had been there.

  • And in this photo, just to cue you in,

  • we have Gordon Willey in the center right

  • here, Ledyard Smith.

  • I was informed, Dick Adams in the back.

  • And we have a very handsome and young Jerry

  • Sabloff on the left side of Gordon Willey, I have to say.

  • So some of the main protagonists of the Ceibal project.

  • So today, I'm going to talk about new ideas

  • that we're developing about origins of Maya civilization

  • based on our research in Ceibal.

  • The origins of Maya civilization,

  • as you probably know, and how the Maya became

  • what we call the Maya, is really one

  • of the big research questions of Mesoamerican archaeologists,

  • right?

  • I mean, this is one of the big things,

  • and people have been thinking about this

  • and researching this question for a long time.

  • So we're not the first ones, obviously.

  • And as I said, Harvard did a lot of work.

  • But we, building on Harvard, have come up

  • with some very interesting new data

  • that we would like to share with you today.

  • So just to orient you, Ceibal is in the southwestern part

  • of the Maya lowlands.

  • And the Harvard Project had shown

  • that it was one of the sites with the earliest occupations

  • for the Maya lowlands.

  • So that was one of the really important results that came out

  • of the Harvard project.

  • So we already knew that there were

  • early occupations at Ceibal.

  • Just to orient you timewise, when

  • we talk about origins of lowland Mayan civilization, most of you

  • are probably familiar with the classic period of the Maya.

  • This is where we have the big stelae.

  • We have kings.

  • We have nice buildings.

  • This is a stelae from Ceibal and a building from Ceibal

  • from the Classic period.

  • So this is the typical Maya expression

  • that everybody knows.

  • Texts, art, so on and so forth.

  • When we are starting to look at the origins

  • of these expressions, we know through new research--

  • relatively new research at the important site

  • of San Bartolo, where Dr. Saturno has been working,

  • who is in the audience-- as well as

  • research at the site of Mirador, that the foundations,

  • the fundamental things of Maya civilization,

  • were pretty much already in place in the period

  • that we call the Late Preclassic.

  • So what we see later, pretty much

  • we see already expressed fairly early on.

  • So when we're looking for the origins of these ideas

  • and the origins of Maya culture, we really

  • have to go farther back in time.

  • We have to go into a period that we call the Middle Preclassic.

  • Now, when we go there, we are talking about, really,

  • the earliest sedentary settlements in the Maya area

  • that are also using ceramics.

  • These are ceramics from Ceibal.

  • This is how they look like.

  • Not very impressive.

  • Now, I should remind you that while the Maya are doing

  • this type of thing-- they're just

  • starting to become villagers-- this is what's going on

  • in the Mexican Gulf Coast.

  • So when me talk about the Middle Preclassic,

  • we've already have several years of Olmec civilization,

  • with people who are schlepping giant heads over the landscape

  • for large, over long distances, maybe have had kings already.

  • We have the center of the major Olmec center of San Lorenzo.

  • So clearly, outside of the Maya area, people are much more,

  • quote unquote, "civilized," than what we are seeing-- already

  • civilized than what we're seeing in the Maya lowlands.

  • But really, when we're trying to look

  • at what's going on in the Maya area,

  • The middle Preclassic period is what we have to concentrate on.

  • So to do our research to really ask

  • questions of when and how Maya became Maya

  • and what the social processes were

  • that played a role in these developments,

  • as well as development of social complexity,

  • of different political organization,

  • one of the things that's really important is chronology.

  • We need good chronological detail and control

  • to try to trace what has been going on,

  • and to understand better what kind of processes

  • were involved in these developments.

  • So one of the foci of our research

  • has been to really work on a better chronology

  • for the Middle Preclassic.

  • And then, as I said, we're really

  • interested in the social changes that are taking place

  • during this time period.

  • And to some degree, they must have been dramatic, right?

  • We have a very dramatic change in lifestyles of people

  • who live in the Maya lowlands.

  • And specifically, when we're talking about social change

  • today, I'm going to focus on changes

  • in ritual and symbolism, as well as the development of sedentism

  • that happened in this early period.

  • So going back to Ceibal, I'm going

  • to talk a little bit about what kind of research

  • we have been doing there.

  • This is the map that Harvard created.

  • It's a marvelous map of the larger site.

  • It covers the center, as well as the peripheries of the site.

  • So, again, it was wonderful.

  • We didn't really have to do any of the bushwhacking and survey

  • in a lot of these areas.

  • We had a very accurate map that helped us a lot to structure

  • our research design.

  • As I mentioned, Harvard had found

  • that they had very early occupations at Ceibal,

  • and these very early occupations are

  • centered in what we call Group A. So

  • because we were looking for the roots

  • and foundations of Maya civilization,

  • we focused our own research predominately in Group A.

  • So this is a close up of Group A. What you see here on the map

  • is the latest configuration.

  • This is the classic period configuration.

  • This is what you see today on the ground.

  • And when we're looking a little bit closer on this map,

  • Dr. Inomata realized that when you look closely,

  • he saw a pattern that you also see in many sites in Chiapas--

  • Middle Preclassic sites in Chiapas in the Grijalva Basin.

  • What you see, basically, is this architectural compound

  • right here, which we call an E Group, surrounded

  • by large rectangular platforms.

  • An E group, in Maya understanding,

  • is a formal ceremonial complex that

  • consists of a smaller western platform or pyramid, and then

  • a range structure-- a long platform on the east side.

  • And many Mayanists think that these E groups

  • were aligned with solar-- that they had a solar alignment.

  • So they were basically recording equinoxes and solstices.

  • So he was looking at the pattern.

  • He's like, man, I think we have an E group here,

  • and then we have these platforms.

  • And this looks awfully like some of the patterns

  • that we see in Chiapas sites, especially

  • in the Grijalva Basin.

  • And this pattern is called by John Clarke

  • the middle formative Chiapas pattern.

  • So it's very typical for Chiapas sites.

  • So one of the questions that came up

  • was, hmm, so we have a Chiapas pattern site that

  • doesn't look very Maya.

  • What's going on?

  • We really want to figure out whether this was indeed

  • the early configuration at Ceibal.

  • These sites in Chiapas also often

  • have axe caches on the center line of the E groups

  • right here.

  • So that was another question that we were interested in.

  • So when we start to work there, we actually

  • find greenstone axe caches in Ceibal.

  • So with these questions in mind, as I said,

  • we focused our main excavations on group A.

  • And you see these little red things

  • all over the place, so we're focusing on the platforms

  • as well as on the E group-- potential E

  • group and the center line.

  • And we really wanted to know how early this E group was

  • and how far back some of these platforms actually went.

  • So to verify that, we were excavating

  • into the existing structure, especially on the west side.

  • And in this particular area, we had to tunnel.

  • This is a pyramid today that is about-- I'm probably

  • lying-- but it's about 15 to 18 meters high.

  • It's a massive structure.

  • And we have to get into the core of the pyramid

  • to get to the earliest construction of the E group.

  • So we tunneled into the bedrock.

  • We basically tunneled in bedrock.

  • We followed bedrock and then dug up a little bit.

  • So we had to kind of reverse stratigraphy.

  • We dug up a little bit and followed the bedrock area,

  • and we dug, and we dug, and we dug, and we dug.

  • And there was [INAUDIBLE], and there was nothing.

  • And we dug.

  • And we were about 20 meters inside this pyramid,

  • and we had a little grad student in there.

  • And he's like, it is so hot, and really, we're

  • never going to find anything.

  • We have bedrock, you know?

  • Until lo and behold, after about 20 meters in,

  • we finally see this bedrock rising.

  • And we're like, oh, something's going on here.

  • Is it natural?

  • Is it not?

  • Well, it turns out it is not.

  • It is actually a man-made ramp that was dug into bedrock

  • and led to the very first structure of the E group,

  • which you can see here.

  • This is about five to six meters farther west,

  • continuing the tunnel.

  • So we're up the ramp.

  • Here is the bedrock surface.

  • And what happened once they hit the height that they wanted?

  • They actually constructed a small platform

  • here out of clay.

  • So this is the very first construction phase.

  • This is the first floor.

  • And lo and behold, it dates to 950 BC.

  • Then, of course-- so we have the structure there.

  • Hooray.

  • Everybody's really happy.

  • But to make sure that it is an E group, we, of course,

  • have to find the eastern platform.

  • So we are digging in the center line,

  • and also on the east side.

  • And that also took a little bit of stamina and time,

  • because we found several versions

  • of an eastern platform.

  • The earliest is the closest to the western structure.

  • This is a shot of the plaza area where we were excavating

  • along the center line.

  • And so the earliest structure-- the back of it is about here.

  • It dates also to 950 BC.

  • And then we had several later iterations

  • that were not built on top of this early structure, but out.

  • So they are actually moving this eastern platform

  • towards the east.

  • They're making the plaza space bigger,

  • and they're building larger platforms.

  • So we have several versions of this eastern part

  • of the building.

  • This is the backside of the building,

  • similar to the Western structure.

  • A ramp cut into bedrock actually leads to this eastern building.

  • And again, the date is the same.

  • So looking at 950 BC, as of this day, as far as I know,

  • this is the earliest E group that we have

  • anywhere in the Maya lowlands.

  • We also excavated in the surrounding large platforms.

  • Again, we're trying to find out whether we have a Chiapas

  • pattern and how early that pattern is at Ceibal.

  • So one of our biggest excavations

  • was in this big platform in front of the largest

  • pyramid at Ceibal.

  • And it was a 10 by 8 meter excavation, very challenging.

  • You can imagine, we're trying to get

  • to the origins of Maya civilization

  • at a site that was occupied for 2,000 years.

  • This excavation, 8 by 10 meters, we actually

  • worked on for four field seasons.

  • It reached more than 8 meters when we went to bedrock.

  • We had to completely rethink our excavation strategies.

  • We came from Aguateca.

  • Everything was on the surface.

  • Lots of stuff, but easy to do.

  • Now, all of a sudden, we had to go down.

  • Quite challenging.

  • Took quite some time.

  • Very different situation.

  • I mean, just think about how we would get the dirt out

  • of this mega pit.

  • But what was actually most surprising

  • about this excavation was that the majority

  • of the construction that you see here

  • dates to the early part of the Middle Preclassic.

  • So more than 2/3 of the constructions

  • here date between 950 and 800 BC.

  • We're talking massive construction.

  • The earliest platform down here was a very large structure,

  • actually.

  • It was probably something like 30 by 20 meters or so.

  • So we have massive early constructions.

  • And in the later part here, we also

  • have-- you can see, maybe, these little flags-- we have floors

  • upon floors upon floors upon floors.

  • So we have a very detailed stratigraphic sequence

  • that is sealed with floors.

  • So we have, actually, a great situation

  • where we can look at chronology of stratigraphy

  • and those things.

  • We also excavated in the northeastern platform,

  • which is called the east court.

  • This thing is about 8 and 1/2 meters high right now.

  • It's all man-made.

  • And what we found here was very interesting, because here,

  • we found a series of small clay platforms

  • that were built onto larger clay platforms,

  • and that we think were actual residences.

  • So this is the first evidence of people actually living

  • on one of these platforms.

  • What they did is they remodeled a lot of these little platforms

  • constantly, and they built, also,

  • one structure on top of the other

  • in several different versions.

  • So once we are about 800 BC, and we're

  • looking at the east court, there seems

  • to be this sense of place.

  • People are now living there.

  • And not only that, but we have evidence

  • that these structures were actually forming a patio group.

  • We have other excavations at the E group,

  • and we found buildings that are on the same floors than the one

  • that I just showed you.

  • So we have a very early patio group

  • that, again, supports that we probably had people now living

  • there in houses.

  • We also think that the people who lived there

  • were people that had higher social status

  • than the rest of the community.

  • So these are what we tentatively call potential emerging

  • elites that lived in this eastern platform.

  • So to just summarize what was going

  • on here with the early layout of the site,

  • this is the early phase.

  • We have the earliest E group.

  • We have this big construction in the southwestern platform.

  • Then a little bit later, the E group gets bigger.

  • It gets moved towards the eastern structure,

  • gets pushed towards the east.

  • We have the addition of the east court platform

  • right here, which is now supporting

  • potential elite residences.

  • And then a little bit later, in what

  • we call the Escoba phase, which is also called the Mamon phase,

  • between 700 and 350, we have the full Chiapas pattern,

  • basically.

  • So it really looks as if we have this type

  • of middle formative Chiapas pattern early on at Ceibal.

  • The earliest version of the E group

  • was probably a relatively modest affair.

  • We think it was a communal construction,

  • but it was not very high.

  • It was carved out of bedrock.

  • And it was probably accessible and visible

  • to the majority of people who were doing rituals there.

  • So it was very community oriented, not very exclusive.

  • And as you may recall, I was also

  • talking about potential axe caches

  • on the center line of E groups, right?

  • And we were looking for them.

  • And what do you know?

  • Let's just say we found some axe caches on the center line.

  • So we were obviously, again, very excited about these finds.

  • So this whole idea about Chiapas pattern

  • with axe caches and everything really

  • played out nicely as Chiapas.

  • Within these caches, we have these caches

  • of greenstone celts, and we have additional caches

  • with some other objects.

  • But we found some very interesting Olmec style objects

  • in these caches.

  • So here you can see a pectoral, typical Olmec style,

  • and a perforator made out of jade.

  • We have these marvelous objects that

  • look incredibly Olmec to us, including

  • this upper object right here, which

  • looks like a typical Olmec spoon pendant.

  • And what's important about these objects

  • is that they're personal ornaments.

  • So we have them in these caches in the E group, which

  • to us indicate that we now have people who wear these objects,

  • potentially as personal adornment in rituals.

  • And to us, that indicates that, again, we

  • may have people now of slightly higher social status that

  • are more visible in the community already this early

  • on.

  • We also have this amazing Olmec stone figurine head which

  • was on the flyers for the talk.

  • And we have here on the right what I call the evil artifact.

  • This thing gives me the willies.

  • You have no idea.

  • I actually restored it.

  • It was the creepiest thing that I've ever had in my hands.

  • Seriously.

  • It really gives you bad vibes.

  • It's a spondylus shell that is carved to show

  • a head that is desiccating.

  • So you can see the teeth coming out

  • because the flesh is basically shrinking.

  • So it's probably the depiction of a trophy head.

  • It was worn upside down like this,

  • and it is actually an indication that people

  • this early on in the Middle Preclassic

  • were probably taking heads of people as trophies,

  • and we probably have some warfare going on.

  • So people were not always nice to each other during this time

  • period.

  • So I was mentioning chronology, and that this is very important

  • to address the questions that we're

  • having about the social changes and political changes that

  • are going on at the beginning of this Middle Preclassic period.

  • And we, in the project, actually concentrated a lot

  • of our efforts on refining the chronology for the Middle

  • Preclassic.

  • So we took a lot of radiocarbon samples.

  • We also were very careful about stratigraphy revisited

  • stratigraphy, which is why I was showing you

  • this picture with all these floors.

  • So we have a very fine grained stratigraphic control

  • of all of our excavations.

  • And we were also revisiting the ceramic chronology

  • and aligning it with dates-- radiocarbon dates

  • as well as with our very detailed stratigraphic record.

  • So Sabloff-- Jeremy Sabloff-- did a marvelous job

  • when he originally established the chronology for Ceibal.

  • He was mostly looking at ceramics

  • and correlating them with excavations.

  • And this general chronology still holds.

  • I mean, Sabloff was right on.

  • He was spot on.

  • But as you can see, those are pretty big time periods

  • that we're talking about.

  • And so this doesn't really give us a very fine grain picture

  • of what has been going on.

  • So with all of our efforts, we are now actually

  • able to subdivide Sabloff's phases into subphases,

  • and now we have, actually, a chronological control

  • of about 50 to 100 years in these phases,

  • and we can correlate it with ceramics.

  • So this is actually very good.

  • I work in the southwest.

  • We usually have about 50 year ceramic phases,

  • and everybody's envious about this.

  • We are close with this.

  • So we're getting to a point in this early time

  • in Maya archaeology where we get some very good time control.

  • So the chronology that we developed

  • is also important to revisit some

  • of the more regional and interregional interactions that

  • are going on and the social changes on a larger scale.

  • So we were using our new chronology

  • to reevaluate and reassess some of the ideas that

  • have been floating around when it

  • comes to the development of social complexity

  • in the Maya lowlands.

  • One of the ideas has been for a long time

  • that the Olmec, who by then are carving this type of things,

  • were instrumental in the Maya becoming civilized, right?

  • So the big question, really, is if we

  • think there was a connection between the Olmec--

  • at that time, we're talking about the center of La Venta--

  • is La Venta earlier or contemporaneous with Ceibal?

  • I mean, that's kind of it in a nutshell, right?

  • If there's influence, then it had

  • to be there before to influence Ceibal.

  • So to just give you a brief idea about how detailed

  • and how good our dates are, this is the radiocarbon sequence

  • of the dates for the E group.

  • Each one of these states is basically

  • shown with a 95% probability, so each one of these is a sample.

  • All of these are mass accelerator dates.

  • And you can see for the earliest construction

  • period in the western structure, the dates fall very nicely

  • in the majority around 950.

  • The next period-- the next construction phase--

  • we have two dates that are slightly later, which is great,

  • because that basically shows us that our first date

  • sequence is good.

  • We have a later construction.

  • It should date later, and it does.

  • And then we have dates from the back

  • of the eastern platform that are also falling

  • into this general range.

  • So we are very confident that our dating

  • of 950 for the earliest phase of the E group is correct.

  • Now look at the dates from La Venta.

  • These are dates from the Franco phase.

  • The Franco phase is the phase where

  • La Venta is supposed to have become a major center--

  • a major influential settlement in the Gulf Coast

  • and in surrounding regions.

  • And you can see there's not a single date here

  • that is before 800 BC.

  • So clearly, La Venta was probably

  • not the impetus for all the changes

  • that we are seeing in the Maya lowlands, because it wasn't

  • that La Venta didn't exist, but it wasn't a major player

  • before 800 BC.

  • We also looked at this chronology

  • and reevaluated some of the regional Maya chronologies

  • and ceramics sequences.

  • So this is the refined Ceibal sequence that you see here,

  • and these are the chronological sequences

  • and the ceramic complexes that go with them

  • from other early sites in the Maya lowlands, especially sites

  • in Belize.

  • And what you can see is that the colors are basically

  • showing ceramics that are similar to each other.

  • So they're very closely related.

  • They kind of look the same.

  • So they're all kind of overlapping.

  • But what you can see is that in many sites, especially

  • the Belize sites, people are pushing the dates earlier than

  • what we have in Ceibal.

  • So a lot of people think that these sites

  • started around 1200 BC.

  • And one site that I want to actually point out

  • is Nakbe, where we actually have a situation where

  • this middle part is pushed even farther back.

  • So Richard Hanson and colleagues think

  • that what they call Early Ox dates to about 1000 BC.

  • This is significant because major construction at Nakbe,

  • and Nakbe is a very big site in the late Middle Preclassic,

  • starts basically here.

  • So pushing it to 1,000 makes Nakbe

  • the earliest monumental site in the Middle Preclassic.

  • I have this slide up here to show you

  • that when we're doing this comparison using

  • our chronology, we pretty much have the same date ranges

  • at some of these Belizian.

  • We cover it all, except that we have 100 dates.

  • So we have the best data right now for the Maya lowlands.

  • We have the best dating sequence.

  • And when we look at the Ceibal sequence,

  • we really have to critically evaluate radiocarbon dates.

  • And Takeshi talked about this today in the seminar.

  • And by looking at these dates, we

  • have decided that these early dates

  • that we have are questionable.

  • So we are not using them.

  • We are not pushing the beginning of Ceibal to about 1100,

  • which we could easily do if we look at these dates.

  • So looking at some of the other dating sequences,

  • we argue that basically these dates are also too early,

  • and should be disregarded.

  • Getting back to Nakbe, these are the earliest ceramics

  • that they found in Nakbe.

  • This is the Ceibal sequence on the right side.

  • And I dare you to say that these look awfully the same, yeah?

  • So we are pretty convinced that what they have at Nakbe

  • is what we have here in Ceibal, and we have good dates.

  • And these things are later than 800 BC.

  • So we are convinced that the Nakbe sequence is not correct,

  • and it needs to be pushed up younger.

  • So when we look at all of this, again,

  • and we take into consideration that we

  • think some of these early dates need to be discarded,

  • and obviously the Nakbe situation,

  • as I've just described it, we really

  • think that the situation in the Maya lowlands

  • looks something like this.

  • So we really don't have any good dates that are before 1000.

  • And as you can see, there's a remarkable consistency,

  • actually, with these ceramic complexes.

  • So this, to us, makes much more sense, actually.

  • But it's also interesting, because something big

  • seems to be happening right around 1000 BC.

  • So to summarize this kind of regional picture,

  • I want to reemphasize that when we

  • talk about the beginnings in the Maya area, this is late.

  • Compared to the rest of America, these guys

  • are way behind the curve.

  • We have San Lorenzo starting at 1400, right,

  • in the Olmec big site.

  • San Lorenzo goes down around 1100 BC, disappears,

  • and as I mentioned, we really don't have a major Olmec center

  • until 800 BC.

  • So between 1100 and 800, we have some kind

  • of a vacuum in the Olmec coast.

  • We may have a power gap in this area.

  • And what's interesting is that a lot of these things that I've

  • been showing you-- the E groups and the Chiapas pattern--

  • seem to be happening precisely in this time gap.

  • And they're happening in the area between the Maya lowlands

  • and the Gulf Coast.

  • They're happening in this intermediate area.

  • So around 1000 BC, we have Ceibal, earliest E group,

  • and we have a site in the Grijalva Basin--

  • think Acapulco-- which may be the site that has the earliest

  • Chiapas pattern and dates, potentially, to the same time

  • period as Ceibal.

  • In the Pacific Coast, we have a site

  • called La Blanca, which also has a formal ceremonial complex

  • a little bit different from the Chiapas pattern.

  • This is about 1000 BC.

  • A little bit later, we're starting to see, around 800

  • BC, other sites in the Grijalva Basin

  • with now a Chiapas pattern, and also La Venta,

  • which may have adopted a Chiapas pattern.

  • Only after 800 BC are we starting

  • to see E groups in the rest of the Maya lowlands.

  • And interestingly, those sites like Ceibal and Tikal

  • only seemed to adopt the E group, but not the rest

  • of the Chiapas pattern.

  • So we have E groups, but we do not

  • have the platforms that we see in this area right here.

  • So to us, that actually indicates

  • that the idea of E groups did not originate in the Maya area.

  • This kind of coagulated somewhere

  • in this intermediate area-- this whole idea

  • of more formal architectural layout E groups--

  • and then some of these Maya centers

  • adopted part of these new ideas a little bit later on.

  • So what really is interesting to us, of course,

  • is when we're thinking about all these changes,

  • that this is an enormous time period and a very interesting

  • time period.

  • A lot of different things are going on,

  • and there's an enormous amount of social change

  • and organizational change going on in the Maya lowlands.

  • And the thing that we want to focus on in this talk

  • is changes in ritual and symbolism

  • that go on during this time period as well as sedentism,

  • and I'm going to talk about this in a little while.

  • So Mayanists have the tendency to have a relatively-- not

  • everybody-- but many Mayanists have a tendency

  • to have a relatively static view when we're talking about ritual

  • and symbolism, right?

  • They're coming from the classic, and we're

  • looking for signs in the time.

  • And they're seeing this kind of as a static development, right?

  • It's this kind of, oh, we have this there.

  • Oh, the roots go all the way back to the Middle Preclassic,

  • as if nothing ever changed.

  • And we really question this.

  • We really think in these early times in the Middle Preclassic,

  • a lot of things happened, and there were hundreds of changes.

  • It was very dynamic.

  • Mayanists also have the tendency to see E groups

  • as a solar alignment, often accompanied

  • by these axe caches and these cruciform caches

  • also as being aligned with cardinal directions

  • or with celestial type of symbolism.

  • But with our newer chronology, we have a much more fine

  • grained view, and we can tell you

  • that things actually changed.

  • They were not static.

  • So again, E groups probably originated here--

  • E groups and axe caches.

  • But what we actually see when we look

  • at the actual alignment of E groups is that in many cases,

  • they're not aligned to the north.

  • There's quite a bit of variability.

  • We have them either veering a little bit west of north,

  • as in these two cases, or in some cases,

  • they're actually veering east of north.

  • So what's going on?

  • If this is supposed to be a pattern, if it's

  • supposed to be solar alignment, why are these people-- I mean,

  • they can't find north?

  • I mean, what's going on here?

  • We have an even more extreme example in Tzutzuculi,

  • where they are really going towards the east.

  • So Michael Blake, a very esteemed colleague

  • and brilliant colleague, is actually

  • doing a study on E group alignments.

  • And he postulates that the main reference

  • in early times for E groups is not

  • a solar alignment, but our landscape references,

  • such as hills or mountains, so that we

  • have a very localized orientation that

  • references directly the surrounding

  • landscape for these E groups.

  • And then as a secondary reference,

  • we have a solar alignment.

  • So he's really arguing that in the early parts of these,

  • we have a more earthly symbolism.

  • And then the celestial part of this is secondary.

  • And if you look at landscape pictures--

  • this is the view from Chiapa de Corzo-- the E group is

  • aligned with a prominent hill.

  • The same is true for Izapa, where the E group is directly

  • aligned with the major volcano to the north of the site.

  • So clearly, it looks as if in these early places,

  • these kind of earthly landscape references were very important,

  • and people then also incorporated or tried

  • to incorporate some kind of a solar alignment.

  • Now, when we go to the Maya lowlands in Ceibal, earliest E

  • group, we basically have nothing on the horizon, right?

  • There are no landscapes.

  • We're sitting on a [INAUDIBLE] plane, and there's no hill.

  • And so at Ceibal, the E group actually

  • does have a solar alignment.

  • So more cardinal direction.

  • And if you go to La Venta, Olmec being Olmec,

  • they don't have any landmarks, either.

  • They're sitting in the coastal plain.

  • They're building their own landmark for the E group

  • with this gigantic mount that is to the north of the E group.

  • And that to us indicates that this whole idea

  • about the Chiapas pattern and the E groups

  • probably came from the south, and was not

  • invented by La Venta, because they're adopting

  • this kind of localized pattern.

  • They're creating a landmark, basically,

  • which is really not necessary, if you think about it.

  • So they're probably still thinking along those lines.

  • We see the same changes when we look at the caches.

  • These are axe caches from El Manati.

  • This is a site that is contemporaneous with San

  • Lorenzo and close to San Lorenzo.

  • These caches were placed in the spring,

  • so we have a very clear earthly reference.

  • And these caches are either in a flower shape

  • or they're in a horizontal alignment.

  • So probably some earthly references there.

  • With our new chronology at Ceibal,

  • we can actually sequence the caches.

  • We can look at stratigraphy and the dates,

  • and we can sequence our axe caches.

  • The early caches at Ceibal look like El Manati caches,

  • so they seem to be having these earthly type of references.

  • After 800 BC, we have cruciform caches.

  • So we have a direct change towards cardinal directions

  • and potential more celestial reference

  • when we talk about ritual.

  • This, by the way, is cache number seven, the famous cache

  • that was found by Gordon Willey and colleagues in the plaza.

  • We see the same change, by the way, using our chronology

  • and making the comparisons in other sites.

  • Now that we have a better idea about time,

  • we can actually see the same changes

  • at La Venta and some of the Chiapas sites.

  • They all go to cruciform caches.

  • So again, we see this change towards more celestial

  • symbolism.

  • But they also maintain some of the water

  • and earthly symbolism, because many of these cruciform

  • caches-- this is the one from Ceibal--

  • actually also have water jars in the directions.

  • So there's a change, but then there's

  • also this maintaining of some of the earlier symbolism.

  • We also start to see the cardinality in iconography.

  • You can see basically four axes right here.

  • And it looks as if we're starting

  • to see a connection with the maize god

  • from a symbolic perspective.

  • So to summarize, before 1000 BC, we

  • have this very earthly reference.

  • We have these caches in these type of formations.

  • No Chiapas pattern yet.

  • Around 1000 BC, we see the earliest Chiapas pattern,

  • E groups, still these type of firstly references

  • in the caches.

  • There's probably some solar alignment,

  • but it's not necessarily the primary reference.

  • And then after 800 BC, we see the fully fledged Chiapas

  • pattern and these cruciform caches.

  • So we see the shift towards a different meaning and symbolism

  • around 800 BC.

  • So clearly not a static situation.

  • I should also mention that around that time, again,

  • we have this eastern platform where

  • we may have the first elites that are directly

  • tied into some of the ritual performances that are going on.

  • So as a summary slide, we first have this earthly symbolism

  • expressed in the caches.

  • We're starting to see mounted complexes, E groups,

  • around 1000 BC, mostly connected with this.

  • In the lowlands, more solar or celestial symbolism.

  • We see a development to more standardization

  • in the architectural pattern and a clear change

  • from earthly symbolism to a more celestial symbolism.

  • So the second big question when we talk about social change

  • is sedentism, right?

  • I mean, how did people become sedentary?

  • Before about 1000 BC, we don't really

  • have any evidence for sedentary sites in the Maya lowlands.

  • Sorry, I'm losing my voice.

  • So going back to our now refined chronology

  • in the Maya lowlands, as I mentioned,

  • what's really striking here is that everything seems

  • to be happening around 1000 BC.

  • All the early sites seem to date, more or less,

  • around 1000 BC.

  • So what's going on?

  • Is there something fundamentally happening

  • that kind of synchronizes all of these people?

  • And one factor actually may be a change in maize productivity.

  • In this slide, we're looking at carbon isotopes

  • in human bone, which represent consumption of maize.

  • And as you can see, before 1000 BC,

  • there's very low maize consumption from samples

  • from the Pacific coast.

  • We have no data from the Maya area, by the way,

  • before 1000 BC.

  • But then around 1000 BC, all of a sudden,

  • we have a major jump in maize consumption.

  • It's still not a lot, but it is noticeable,

  • and it is a dramatic jump.

  • And we now have data from the Maya lowlands,

  • and it is very similar to what we see in the Pacific coast.

  • So many people think that around this time,

  • maize may have become more productive.

  • It may have been better adapted to the lowlands.

  • People now can use maize in the central lowlands,

  • which were probably not a very good place to live before that.

  • And people are starting to incorporate more maize

  • into their subsistence strategy, which gives them a basis

  • to become more sedentary.

  • So when we started to look at the distributions

  • of early occupations at Ceibal, we were really

  • becoming interested in how did the sedentism thing actually

  • happen?

  • I mean, did everybody come together, they

  • build the E group, and they became sedentary,

  • or what's actually going on?

  • So this slide shows you the areas

  • where we have real phase or early Middle Preclassic

  • constructions, or we have deposits.

  • And then we have some areas-- the ones

  • that are dotted lines here-- where we have ceramics,

  • but we don't have actual construction.

  • And the areas where we have blue circles

  • are areas that have been excavated or tested,

  • either by Harvard or by ourselves,

  • and there's no evidence of early occupation.

  • So it's a relatively restricted area, as you can see.

  • But I really want to draw your attention

  • to a couple of these outlying groups.

  • They're really very close to group A,

  • but they're a little bit farther away, especially

  • the Karinel group right here.

  • So we have E group 950.

  • We have this platform at 950.

  • We don't have much evidence for any sedentary buildings.

  • When we look at the Karinel group,

  • we have here no evidence of real phase construction.

  • But around 850, we have ceramics directly on bedrock.

  • So what this tells us is that we have

  • people in the area that are clearly there

  • at this time period, but they're not living there permanently.

  • So they're visiting the area, but they're still

  • actually moving around.

  • A little bit later, at a little temple group called Caobal,

  • we have post holes in the bedrock.

  • We don't have actual constructions

  • of the real phase, but we have ephemeral structures.

  • So people seem to be maybe doing a little bit more,

  • maybe be there for a few months, or who knows?

  • But they're clearly not permanently living there,

  • either.

  • At the same time, as at Caobal, for the first time,

  • we're starting to see burials in the Karinel group.

  • So people are burying their dead into bedrock,

  • which may indicate that they have a little bit

  • more ties to the place, but they're still not actually

  • building houses in this area.

  • So people are moving around.

  • They may be coming back to bury their dead,

  • but they're not permanently living

  • in these groups that are very close to the central part

  • of group A.

  • So if we were to construct this in a more fine grained way,

  • as I said, we have the E group right here.

  • We have this platform that date early.

  • We have no evidence for any type of actual sedentary occupation.

  • So they're building a major formal ceremonial complex which

  • probably involved quite a few people, quite a community,

  • but they're not living there permanently.

  • So we have ritual construction before we have actual sedentary

  • buildings.

  • In the next phase, we have this platform

  • that's built where we may have the first sedentary buildings

  • for Ceibal.

  • And as I said, those were potentially elites.

  • They were potentially directly tied

  • with activities in the E group.

  • And then we have burials in these areas.

  • But we're not really getting any kind

  • of more substantial evidence for residences

  • until we hit this period starting at 700 BC.

  • And even then, the area is relatively small.

  • Again, the blue here are excavated areas

  • where we do not have any evidence

  • for this type of occupation.

  • We have a very similar thing going on in the region.

  • Ceibal is the earliest site.

  • It has the earliest occupation with that E group complex.

  • We know now, again, based on our chronology,

  • that some of these other sites, especially

  • Altar de Sacrificios, where people actually

  • thought it was contemporaneous with Ceibal, is actually later.

  • And we don't have evidence for sedentism

  • before these later phases in these sites, either.

  • So it really looks that not only locally

  • do we have very little sedentary population, even though they're

  • investing into public ritual buildings,

  • but also in the region, we have still

  • people moving around all over the place.

  • And they may actually see Ceibal as a center point.

  • They may come to Ceibal, to that E group,

  • to do some kind of ceremonies and then go back out.

  • So to summarize, this, in our view,

  • is we have foraging going on in those southern Maya lowlands.

  • Around 1000, something dramatically

  • is starting to shift.

  • It may have to do with more productive maize.

  • We're getting more and more maize cultivation.

  • We're getting the first ceremonial complex investment

  • into these ritual constructions.

  • We are starting to see the first elite sedentary residents quite

  • a bit later, actually, and we may not reach full sedentism

  • in some of these communities until 700,

  • 600 BC-- so relatively late.

  • So sedentism-- this development is actually a very complicated

  • and a long term process.

  • But what's really important here is that in many models,

  • people, when they talk about development of sedentism,

  • they think we have people coming together

  • and they're starting to live at places longer and longer.

  • Eventually, they're starting to invest

  • into more monumental communal structures, ritual structures,

  • and these structures are used for community integration,

  • right?

  • That's usually the story that we are all familiar

  • with in the Near East or from other places in Mesoamerica.

  • So what's really amazing here is that we

  • seem to have the opposite.

  • We have the majority of people still moving

  • around the landscape for several hundred years.

  • But these same people-- these mobile people--

  • are building a very formal ceremonial complex.

  • So it's really kind of a reverse situation,

  • if you think about it.

  • And with this, I'm coming to my conclusions.

  • So when we talk about the chronology, some of the,

  • I think, for us, big, important things that we learned,

  • is that La Venta is about 150 years later than the first E

  • group instruction at Ceibal.

  • A lot of things are happening in this vacuum between San Lorenzo

  • and La Venta.

  • E groups and Chiapas patterns are getting developed.

  • So many new ideas seem to be kind of focusing precisely

  • in this, if you want, power vacuum, when we do not actually

  • have these Olmec people dominating the landscape

  • or whatever.

  • When we talk about social change,

  • we see clear dynamic changes in ritual and symbolism.

  • People are, early on, when they're still mobile,

  • potentially, building these kind of integrated structures,

  • but they're not static.

  • They're clearly changing the meaning and the symbolism

  • in relatively short periods of time,

  • and then things become more standardized.

  • And when we talk about sedentism,

  • it's a pretty complicated picture.

  • Yes, we all kind of agree that it takes some time,

  • but what's really amazing here is

  • that we seem to have the elites being the first people who

  • are sedentary.

  • They seem to be tied into ritual performances.

  • Maybe that's why they're sedentary.

  • They have to be close to the E group.

  • And then we see, for quite some time, still

  • mobile populations that are invested

  • into these communities, but they're not living there

  • on a permanent basis.

  • Thank you very much for your attention.

  • [APPLAUSE]

  • Thank you.

  • Thank you.

  • So, any questions?

  • I have a question for our speaker.

  • I'm the expert in radiocarbon dates.

  • He's the one who does the Bayesian voodoo.

  • What about the maize?

  • What about the sequencing genome?

  • Have you found any kernels or any evidence

  • of it changing genetically or the spread of that?

  • Yes.

  • That's a difficult question.

  • In the tropical area, the preservation is not great.

  • So we don't find much of those direct maize remains.

  • We have small fragments of maize,

  • but I don't know if anybody has succeeded

  • in recovering DNA from them.

  • Probably not.

  • The preservation is bad, so it's difficult.

  • It would be great if we can do it, yes.

  • So it's kind of circumstantial, right?

  • But we do see this major and pretty eye

  • popping change in consumption when we look at human bone.

  • So that's kind of why people-- they

  • don't know exactly what morphologically

  • happened to the maize, though.

  • But, you know.

  • I suggest that you repeat the question.

  • Oh, OK.

  • OK, yes.

  • Do we have a mobile mic?

  • No, just repeat.

  • Yeah.

  • So obviously this development of the sedentism-- I mean,

  • how did it evolve?

  • Where were people staying?

  • Were people coming periodically to the ceremonial center

  • for ritual, and were they living semi-permanently

  • somewhere else, or were they wandering around the area

  • and meeting up a couple of times a year?

  • Could you flesh that out a little bit?

  • So the question is about how we're envisioning this--

  • What would the [INAUDIBLE] be that changed [INAUDIBLE]

  • ended up in full sedentism?

  • Right.

  • So what the processes were, and how we actually

  • envision people on the landscape,

  • I assume, and what kind of movements

  • and so on and so forth.

  • So originally, people moving around, probably,

  • because we don't have any permanent buildings,

  • or we don't have ceramics during those early periods before 1000

  • BC.

  • But 1000 BC, we have ceremonial structure,

  • but we still don't have those residences.

  • We think that the people were still moving around,

  • although they are starting to do more maize cultivation.

  • Then, those mobile people are still

  • gathering for the construction of ceremonial center,

  • and then gathering for the rituals that happened there.

  • Then, gradually, people started to settle down.

  • But it's not that everybody started to settle down

  • at the same time.

  • Many people tend to think that the sedentism just happened.

  • Everybody started to adopt sedentism.

  • But it's not like that.

  • Some people started to settle down near the center,

  • but at the same time, there's still

  • people-- lots of people-- maintaining

  • a traditional way of life, doing lots of foraging.

  • Then, after about 400 years or so,

  • finally, large majority of people

  • settled down, focused more on maize cultivation.

  • So there was a long period of this mixed economy.

  • People do some maize cultivation,

  • but do lots of gathering, hunting, and fishing.

  • And then so there are those different kind of people.

  • On one side, sedentary people.

  • On the other side, still mobile people.

  • So that kind of situation.

  • But it may also very well be that they're

  • coming periodically together, because we have construction

  • phases of this E group, right?

  • They're actually enlarging it.

  • They're moving it out.

  • So there may be these communal events,

  • because you need, obviously, more than five people

  • to bring all this earth together.

  • So there may be, actually, these kind of periodic events

  • where people come together.

  • And they may even come, as I said, from farther away,

  • because we don't have the same type of early occupations

  • in these surrounding sites.

  • So it may actually involve more than just people all

  • around Ceibal.

  • It may be a more regional thing, even.

  • Yes?

  • Are you finding changes in art and weaponry

  • during this period?

  • And how, today, are these sites protected?

  • Good question.

  • Is there any change in arts and weaponry

  • that we're seeing, also, and how are the sites protected?

  • For the first question, we see clear changes

  • in the ceramics, which is why we have this very, very

  • fine grained chronology.

  • So it's dates, but it's also ceramics sequencing.

  • And we see changes in forms and slightly in decorations, which

  • is why we can narrow it down to these much smaller time

  • periods.

  • And it's pretty robust.

  • I mean, now we can look at ceramics

  • and can say, similar to what we do in the southwest,

  • oh, these look like this, so these have to be earlier.

  • This is this phase, right?

  • And so we can start to do some cross dating, which is also

  • what we're doing with some of these other ceramics sequences.

  • Because there are lots of similarities, actually.

  • And we see the changes pretty much in other sites, too.

  • So yes, there are changes.

  • Not so much in the lithics, but ceramics

  • tend to be a little bit more sensitive to time change.

  • Maybe people are just experimenting more,

  • and they're coming in with new ideas.

  • Site protection, big problem in [INAUDIBLE].

  • These lower levels are obviously well protected,

  • because we have 11 meters of later construction,

  • and you really, really have to work

  • very hard to get to the bottom.

  • But yeah.

  • I mean, looting-- in general, Maya sites, it's a big problem,

  • and especially in northern Guatemala, where, as many

  • of our colleagues know, they have situations

  • that are even worse than ours.

  • Guards are not there, or especially the out sites

  • are looted.

  • So it's a problem.

  • It's a big problem.

  • I was very impressed by the quality of the material

  • as well as the form of many of the [INAUDIBLE]

  • artifacts that you illustrated, specifically that some of them

  • were, to my eye, indistinguishable

  • from the so-called Olmec [INAUDIBLE] source we found

  • in Xalapa about 10 years ago.

  • Questions arise which isotopic systemics

  • might aid in resolving in terms of both

  • the isotopic geochemistry of these well treated lithics.

  • And also, just something far more speculative.

  • I hesitate, but now that you're here,

  • I was fascinated by the magnetic alignment issue.

  • I'd not seen that raised before.

  • Could you tell us a little about the sense

  • we do have evidence of Olmecs' spoon magnets

  • and magnetic materials that are basically magnetite

  • and [INAUDIBLE]?

  • Oh, for cardinal directions?

  • Yeah.

  • Yeah, as to whether the geomagnetic

  • variations around 1000 BC encompasses the variations

  • seen.

  • So the first question was about the jades and the Olmec style

  • artifacts.

  • They looked like the blue jade source,

  • and we think they're probably from the [INAUDIBLE].

  • They certainly overlap-- the ones

  • you showed overlap with the ones we've got here.

  • Yes, yes.

  • And we probably think that they're from the Motagua.

  • So the question is, where are these--

  • Not from the Motagua.

  • From Xalapa the new source.

  • Oh, the Xalapa.

  • Yeah.

  • OK.

  • So the question was, what's the source of these jades?

  • Yeah.

  • The idea has been for a long time

  • that they are coming from Guatemala.

  • There's a blue jade source there.

  • We don't know.

  • We haven't actually done any isotopic analysis

  • or any sourcing analysis on these artifacts.

  • But it was mentioned that with newer techniques,

  • we may actually be able to source some of them,

  • If I understood you correctly.

  • There are about 10 geochemical dates for different sources

  • now, so there is something to correlate.

  • sorry?

  • Dates.

  • Isotopic dates.

  • They're geochemical age of formation dates.

  • Ah, OK.

  • Yeah, yeah, right.

  • We've got them for about 10 different sources now.

  • For Motagua jade.

  • For the Xalapa jade.

  • Not for-- the Motagua turned out to be the wrong stuff.

  • The interesting ones are in Xalapa, in one fault

  • farther south.

  • And the most recently reported ones

  • are from an area about 50 miles west of Ceibal,

  • at an elevation of about 2,000 meters,

  • actually, in the highlands on the north

  • side of Motagua fault.

  • Hmm.

  • New information.

  • Yes.

  • I have to say that I wasn't aware of those new sources.

  • So he just said that there were new sources in Xalapa

  • as well as closer to the north side of the Motagua fault,

  • right?

  • Both sites.

  • So we haven't done any actual sourcing on the jades.

  • We, obviously, as you were mentioning, they look Olmec.

  • I mean, they could come from the Gulf.

  • If we had them somewhere in Gulf Coast sites,

  • nobody would raise an eyebrow.

  • They would basically say this is good.

  • But your second question--

  • The alignment of the--

  • Oh, the alignment.

  • The magnetism.

  • The geomagnetic drift of the first millennium

  • BC, does it correlate quantitatively

  • with the changes in alignment seen?

  • That we have been showing?

  • Yeah.

  • Well, I mean, but that's the whole point, right?

  • I mean, they're actually, interestingly enough,

  • these alignments of the E groups are not cardinal direction.

  • And this is Michael Blake's point.

  • They should be closer to whatever-- I mean,

  • if it was a truly cardinal point and celestial type

  • of symbolism, there's no reason why these E groups

  • couldn't be--

  • So actually, when we see the size of the one time,

  • there's a variation.

  • It's not that the change through time.

  • So in that sense, we cannot clearly correlate to change

  • in the magnetic directions.

  • Actually, we can see that each many of cases, they're

  • aligned to specific landmarks in the one place.

  • So that tells us that it was not aligned

  • to solar direction, primarily, or magnetic direction,

  • or any of those more standardized things.

  • It's really aligned to specific local [INAUDIBLE].

  • I understand.

  • The point simply is that magnetic north

  • varies several degrees--

  • Yes.

  • On a century time scale.

  • Right.

  • You just have to go and do the geomagnetic [INAUDIBLE].

  • Thank you.

  • It was a very, very interesting talk.

  • I'm curious about this transitional period

  • around 1000 BC, when people suggested to practice sort

  • of mobile maize agriculture.

  • And I was wondering, do you have paleontological evidence

  • that would tell you mobile it is, whether people are

  • disrupting the vegetation right there around Ceibal,

  • or if they're moving further out and coming in?

  • So the question is whether we can actually

  • see in the pollen record whether there has been deforestation

  • around 1000 BC, which would also support doing more maize,

  • doing more agriculture, even though people are still mobile.

  • That's actually a difficult question.

  • We take lake cores to reconstruct those vegetations

  • and climate-- those things.

  • Actually, possible change in forest starts around 1500 BC,

  • before the beginning of these sites.

  • Then, everybody thought that that's

  • the effect of people cutting down forest.

  • Then you get the different species.

  • You get more erosion refracted to these lake cores.

  • But now there's a different idea.

  • Actually, that time, there was a climate drying.

  • And because of climate drying, vegetation changed.

  • You get more erosion, starting around 1500, or even earlier.

  • It may not be done by people.

  • So there's still different opinions.

  • So then, there may not have been too many people

  • before 1000 BC around this time in this area,

  • because the lowland environment is not a good place to live.

  • You don't have much food unless you have good crop.

  • So there may not have been many people living there.

  • Then, 1000 BC, we start to see this new site.

  • But since this change in pollen and erosion happens earlier,

  • it's very hard to see what kind of change

  • in terms of vegetation is happening around that time.

  • But the change is not that clear around 1000 BC.

  • We think that the people are still

  • doing lots of this hunting and gathering.

  • They were cutting some forest.

  • But not to extensive levels.

  • Well, the isotopic signature is not that high.

  • I mean, the maize consumption is not really super high,

  • so they're not probably relying predominately on maize.

  • It's just more incorporation into the subsistence pattern,

  • [INAUDIBLE] thing right here.

  • We have time for one more question.

  • Yes.

  • Hi.

  • Could you elaborate a little bit on the postulated shift

  • in the symbolism going from earlier terrestrial emphasis

  • to then celestial?

  • Especially because afterwards in the Maya region,

  • we know that both of them are intricately related

  • [INAUDIBLE].

  • So what could explain these different [INAUDIBLE] emphasis?

  • Yes.

  • So the question is about this symbolism,

  • particularly in relation to earthly symbolism

  • to later celestial symbolism.

  • We are not really separating them clearly.

  • Of course, in Mesoamerican thought,

  • all those things go together.

  • You cannot separate them clearly.

  • What we are trying to say is that that's

  • a change in emphasis.

  • Early days, there's a stronger reference to earthly features,

  • like El Manati.

  • Those caches are placed in the spring--

  • a prominent earthly feature.

  • And their sites are oriented to mountains--

  • prominent earthly features.

  • But later time, the celestial reference

  • becomes important, particularly after 800 BC.

  • This solar directionality becomes important.

  • This cardinal symbolism, represented by cruciform,

  • becomes important.

  • To us, that seems to represent a more standardized way

  • of thinking, standardized way of representation.

  • If you are referring to individual local features,

  • those things change from one community to another.

  • But once people started to refer to the sun and stars,

  • you go to the next community, people

  • are talking about the same thing.

  • So that's actually, I think, an important process.

  • There's a more standardized way of ritual and religion.

  • That's probably sort of conditioned people

  • for more centralized political ways

  • or standardized political way, too.

  • I don't know if that answers your question, though.

  • Well, thank you again very much.

  • Please join us for the reception.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Subtitles and vocabulary

Click the word to look it up Click the word to find further inforamtion about it