Sampling Cerros' Demise: A Radiometric Check on the Elusive Protoclassic

General Interpretation of Chronology

While a detailed description of each dated context lies outside the scope of this report, some relevant comments can be made about our general understanding of Cerros in light of these results. In terms of chronology, the data supports Freidel's general sequence. The village seems to have been settled sometime after 400 BCE. It grew accretionally for generations until a shift to rapid expansion occurred around 50 BCE. It is also clear that the site center saw a rapid depopulation ca. 150 CE, and, in fact, there is some indication the site may have been under economic or political stress for a couple of generations before that. Cerros has not produced any usable carbon samples to date later occupations, although Early Classic, Terminal Classic and Postclassic settlement distributions are known (Walker 1990).

A word about ceramic phases is also in order. Robertson-Freidel (1980) analyzed only Late Preclassic ceramics for her dissertation research. Her detailed work identified a three phase sequence for the Late Preclassic (Ixtabai, C’oh, and Tulix). Subsequent work at Cuello (Kosakowsky 1987; Pring 2000) and elsewhere in northern Belize (Valdez 1987; Meskill 1992; Lopez Varela 1996) could not replicate the sequence in such detail. Robertson (pers. comm. 1988) has since indicated that Ixtabai and C’oh Phases should be conflated, and that the ceramic differences noted may be in part functional or status-related, and not necessarily chronological. The paucity of radiocarbon dates available to Robertson at the time precluded unequivocal interpretation. Chronologies reproduced since 1990 have included only C’oh and Tulix Phases for the site.

Current work in progress by the author (Walker, in prep.), in tandem with the new radiocarbon dates, supports an additional conflation of C’oh and Tulix Phases. Rather, two facets of a single Tulix Phase make more sense in terms of dating, ceramic context and function. Such a change makes the Cerros data more accessible to researchers at other sites. This conflation is reflected in the updated chronology provided with this report. Early Tulix at Cerros is represented by what is often called "baseline Chicanel", including such types as Sierra Red, Polvero Black and Flor Cream. For the Late Tulix facet, after Kosakowsky (1987:63), the major red type known as Cabro Red at Cerros will be renamed Sierra Red: Big Pond Variety. This follows ceramic nomenclature practice in the Maya area, ceding the name to the first to publish. Big Pond Variety appears in northern Belize in the latest portion of the Late Preclassic, correlating well with Late Tulix at Cerros (50 BCE - 150 CE). Other ceramic changes to the Tulix Complex are contemplated, but they are beyond the scope of this report.

Documenting a date range for Hubul Phase is still difficult. The two best contexts in the present research are the dated termination deposits at Str. 4 (AMS process Beta-188403, Beta-188406). Y-intercept data for these are 115 CE and 80 CE respectively, while their two sigma ranges reach into Hubul Phase (45-230 CE, 5-155 CE). The later date (Beta-188403) was literally carved from a puddle of melted plaster at the base of Str. 4B.  We have interpreted this puddle as melt from a plaster façade similar to those known from Str. 5C-2nd (Figure 11). Embedded in the plaster melt are fragments of an Ixcanrio Orange Polychrome bowl with complex polychrome design and mat-style incision. It is difficult to imagine how the charcoal or the pottery could have become embedded at different times; the concrete-like material was extremely hard to excavate. It is possible; however, that the charcoal may have been introduced into the plaster façade during its production, as other plaster chunks retrieved from the context exhibited charcoal flecks. Thus, the charcoal at earliest dates the production of the masks, at latest the destruction lens which must have accreted over the course of years in a tropical clime. Whatever the case, the 2-Sigma date range includes most of Early Hubul as proposed by Reese-Taylor and Walker (2002), and these dates are maintained in the current chronology.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page