I thank Sugiyama and her colleagues for the opportunity to debate events at the Sun Pyramid (POS) and, more generally, radiocarbon and ceramic chronologies. Two structures are involved: the POS, excavated by Sugiyama and colleagues; and the artificial cave beneath it, explored by the Teotihuacan Mapping Project (TMP). Different interpretations involve four datasets: POS radiocarbon dates, POS ceramics, cave ceramics, and cave radiocarbon dates. I consider all the data and hypothesize that they reflect construction and evolving use over roughly 200 years (ca. AD 50–250). Sugiyama and colleagues reject some dates. They propose that only construction is represented and that the POS was built about AD 170–310. Their comment clarifies that they seek to redate Tzacualli phase ceramics by shifting the Teotihuacan ceramic chronology forward to be in line with their interpretation of six POS dates.
The Tzacualli ceramic phase is traditionally dated to AD 1–150. Cowgill (Reference Cowgill2015:9–10) suggests that Tzacualli was perhaps even shorter, about AD 1–100. In contrast, Sugiyama and colleagues propose that the Tzacualli phase is much later. They would begin it 20–70 years after its accepted ending. For them, Tzacualli ends around the time of the third to fourth century transition. This breezes through the Miccaotli and Early Tlamimilolpa phases, whose legitimacy they accept, and lands in the time frame currently assigned by Millon, Rattray, and Cowgill to Late Tlamimilolpa.
Assigning years to a ceramic chronology requires knowledge not only of the culture to which it applies but also important comparative data about other cultures whose own ceramic chronologies are affected. At Teotihuacan, the proposed change challenges the Bayesian analysis of 33 dates by Beramendi-Orosco and colleagues (Reference Beramendi-Orosco, Gonzalez-Hernandez, Urrutia-Fucugauchi, Manzanilla, Soler-Arechalde, Goguitchaishvili and Jarboe2009) that contributed to shortening Cowgill's chronology, as well as other radiocarbon dates that have associated ceramics (e.g., Manzanilla and López Luján Reference Manzanilla and Luján2001). Outside Teotihuacan, it disorganizes ceramic chronology concordances with other Mesoamerican cultures, including those in the Basin of Mexico, Oaxaca (see Rattray Reference Rattray1991:8), and the Maya region (e.g., Braswell Reference Braswell2003). A proposed change at Teotihuacan therefore requires collaborating evidence from other parts of the city and from many other sites.
Inside the cave, Sugiyama and colleagues discuss “tertiary” contexts of dated charcoal. Methods of selection for dating and of construction of a contextual model are presented in Sload (Reference Sload2007, Reference Sload2015:225, 228–230, Supplemental Material). The nearly finished report of TMP work in the cave will provide more rebuttal. Here I note that since the old wood effect pertains to the sample itself, not its context, it is not a valid reason to discard a class of cave dates defined by context.
Within the POS, Sugiyama and colleagues obtained seven samples for two time frames. One date agrees with POS ceramics (Sugiyama et al. Reference Sugiyama, Sugiyama and Sarabia G.2013:425). Its context was reevaluated, decided to be possibly “tertiary,” and so the date was eliminated (Sugiyama et al. Reference Sugiyama, Sugiyama and Sarabia G.2013:425). The remaining six cluster well, and so are used to date POS construction and realign the Tzacualli phase. The appearance is that a subset of POS dates drove interpretation of the POS and cave.
If all radiocarbon dates from the POS and cave are accepted, the pyramid fits into a broader explanation that includes a mid-third-century termination of the cave (Sload Reference Sload2007). The timing accords with exterior architectural modifications to the POS: addition of the fourth and fifth cuerpos (as reconstructed) and construction of the adosada platform. With the publication of six contemporaneous dates from the interior of the pyramid on the east–west centerline, I hypothesize tunneling into the POS as part of a grand plan to terminate the mountain cave and rededicate it without the cave (Sload Reference Sload2015).
Two puzzling “structures” were found within the POS. Interpreted as “pre-Sun Pyramid” in construction date (Sugiyama et al. Reference Sugiyama, Sugiyama and Sarabia G.2013), supporting data are equivocal. Carbon burned in situ on top of one, a floor section, produced two of the six clustered dates. Context implies two possibilities for the age of the floor: it may be earlier than the burning, or it may be contemporaneous. The other structure, a wall with connected floor section, is oriented to Teotihuacan north. As Sugiyama and colleagues (Reference Sugiyama, Sugiyama and Sarabia G.2013:415) note, structures along the Street of the Dead known to predate the POS have different orientations. Teotihuacan north is believed to have originated with construction of the POS and planning of at least the northern half of the ceremonial avenue (Millon Reference Millon1973:52). Sugiyama and colleagues (Reference Sugiyama, Sugiyama and Sarabia G.2013) provide no evidence that the “structure” was pre-pyramid. Thus, both features may relate to later hypothesized tunneling (Sload Reference Sload2015).
The scenario presented in Sload (Reference Sload2015) is a hypothesis. I believe it is less arbitrary than Sugiyama and colleagues’ and accounts for more evidence (Fogelin Reference Fogelin2007). It maintains the Teotihuacan ceramic chronology, reconciles all cave and POS radiocarbon dates, and is in accord with cave and POS ceramics. In so doing, the basic story regarding the timing and trajectory of the growth of Teotihuacan is maintained.
You have
Access
I thank Sugiyama and her colleagues for the opportunity to debate events at the Sun Pyramid (POS) and, more generally, radiocarbon and ceramic chronologies. Two structures are involved: the POS, excavated by Sugiyama and colleagues; and the artificial cave beneath it, explored by the Teotihuacan Mapping Project (TMP). Different interpretations involve four datasets: POS radiocarbon dates, POS ceramics, cave ceramics, and cave radiocarbon dates. I consider all the data and hypothesize that they reflect construction and evolving use over roughly 200 years (ca. AD 50–250). Sugiyama and colleagues reject some dates. They propose that only construction is represented and that the POS was built about AD 170–310. Their comment clarifies that they seek to redate Tzacualli phase ceramics by shifting the Teotihuacan ceramic chronology forward to be in line with their interpretation of six POS dates.
The Tzacualli ceramic phase is traditionally dated to AD 1–150. Cowgill (Reference Cowgill2015:9–10) suggests that Tzacualli was perhaps even shorter, about AD 1–100. In contrast, Sugiyama and colleagues propose that the Tzacualli phase is much later. They would begin it 20–70 years after its accepted ending. For them, Tzacualli ends around the time of the third to fourth century transition. This breezes through the Miccaotli and Early Tlamimilolpa phases, whose legitimacy they accept, and lands in the time frame currently assigned by Millon, Rattray, and Cowgill to Late Tlamimilolpa.
Assigning years to a ceramic chronology requires knowledge not only of the culture to which it applies but also important comparative data about other cultures whose own ceramic chronologies are affected. At Teotihuacan, the proposed change challenges the Bayesian analysis of 33 dates by Beramendi-Orosco and colleagues (Reference Beramendi-Orosco, Gonzalez-Hernandez, Urrutia-Fucugauchi, Manzanilla, Soler-Arechalde, Goguitchaishvili and Jarboe2009) that contributed to shortening Cowgill's chronology, as well as other radiocarbon dates that have associated ceramics (e.g., Manzanilla and López Luján Reference Manzanilla and Luján2001). Outside Teotihuacan, it disorganizes ceramic chronology concordances with other Mesoamerican cultures, including those in the Basin of Mexico, Oaxaca (see Rattray Reference Rattray1991:8), and the Maya region (e.g., Braswell Reference Braswell2003). A proposed change at Teotihuacan therefore requires collaborating evidence from other parts of the city and from many other sites.
Inside the cave, Sugiyama and colleagues discuss “tertiary” contexts of dated charcoal. Methods of selection for dating and of construction of a contextual model are presented in Sload (Reference Sload2007, Reference Sload2015:225, 228–230, Supplemental Material). The nearly finished report of TMP work in the cave will provide more rebuttal. Here I note that since the old wood effect pertains to the sample itself, not its context, it is not a valid reason to discard a class of cave dates defined by context.
Within the POS, Sugiyama and colleagues obtained seven samples for two time frames. One date agrees with POS ceramics (Sugiyama et al. Reference Sugiyama, Sugiyama and Sarabia G.2013:425). Its context was reevaluated, decided to be possibly “tertiary,” and so the date was eliminated (Sugiyama et al. Reference Sugiyama, Sugiyama and Sarabia G.2013:425). The remaining six cluster well, and so are used to date POS construction and realign the Tzacualli phase. The appearance is that a subset of POS dates drove interpretation of the POS and cave.
If all radiocarbon dates from the POS and cave are accepted, the pyramid fits into a broader explanation that includes a mid-third-century termination of the cave (Sload Reference Sload2007). The timing accords with exterior architectural modifications to the POS: addition of the fourth and fifth cuerpos (as reconstructed) and construction of the adosada platform. With the publication of six contemporaneous dates from the interior of the pyramid on the east–west centerline, I hypothesize tunneling into the POS as part of a grand plan to terminate the mountain cave and rededicate it without the cave (Sload Reference Sload2015).
Two puzzling “structures” were found within the POS. Interpreted as “pre-Sun Pyramid” in construction date (Sugiyama et al. Reference Sugiyama, Sugiyama and Sarabia G.2013), supporting data are equivocal. Carbon burned in situ on top of one, a floor section, produced two of the six clustered dates. Context implies two possibilities for the age of the floor: it may be earlier than the burning, or it may be contemporaneous. The other structure, a wall with connected floor section, is oriented to Teotihuacan north. As Sugiyama and colleagues (Reference Sugiyama, Sugiyama and Sarabia G.2013:415) note, structures along the Street of the Dead known to predate the POS have different orientations. Teotihuacan north is believed to have originated with construction of the POS and planning of at least the northern half of the ceremonial avenue (Millon Reference Millon1973:52). Sugiyama and colleagues (Reference Sugiyama, Sugiyama and Sarabia G.2013) provide no evidence that the “structure” was pre-pyramid. Thus, both features may relate to later hypothesized tunneling (Sload Reference Sload2015).
The scenario presented in Sload (Reference Sload2015) is a hypothesis. I believe it is less arbitrary than Sugiyama and colleagues’ and accounts for more evidence (Fogelin Reference Fogelin2007). It maintains the Teotihuacan ceramic chronology, reconciles all cave and POS radiocarbon dates, and is in accord with cave and POS ceramics. In so doing, the basic story regarding the timing and trajectory of the growth of Teotihuacan is maintained.