Development of sedentary communities in the lowlands: Coexisting mobile groups and public ceremonies at Ceibal,

Takeshi Inomata (猪俣 健)a,1, Jessica MacLellana, Daniela Triadana, Jessica Munsonb, Melissa Burhama, Kazuo Aoyama (青山 和夫)c, Hiroo Nasu (那須 浩郎)d, Flory Pinzóne, and Hitoshi Yonenobu (米延 仁志)f

aSchool of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721-0030; bDepartment of Linguistics, University of California, Davis, CA 95616; cDepartment of Human Communication Studies, Ibaraki University, Mito 310-8512, Japan; dDepartment of Evolutionary Studies of Biosystems, SOKENDAI (Graduate University for Advanced Studies), Hayama 240-0193, Japan; eCeibal-Petexbatun Archaeological Project, , Guatemala; and fSchool of Natural and Living Sciences Education, Naruto University of Education, Naruto 772-8502, Japan

Edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff, Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, NM, and approved February 27, 2015 (received for review January 19, 2015) Our archaeological investigations at Ceibal, a lowland Maya site In the areas surrounding the Maya lowlands, including the located in the Pasión region, documented that a formal ceremonial southern Gulf Coast, the southern Pacific Coast, and northern complex was built around 950 B.C. at the onset of the Middle Pre- , settlements with ceramic use emerged between 1900 classic period, when ceramics began to be used in the Maya lowlands. and 1400 B.C. (8, 9). Some inhabitants of the Maya lowlands Our refined chronology allowed us to trace the subsequent social adopted and other domesticates possibly as early as 3400 changes in a resolution that had not been possible before. Many B.C., but did not accept sedentary lifeways and ceramic use for residents of Ceibal appear to have remained relatively mobile during many centuries (10). Once they began to establish villages with the following centuries, living in ephemeral post-in-ground structures ceramic use around 1000 B.C., the subsequent social change was and frequently changing their residential localities. In other parts of rapid. Within 1,000 y the lowland Maya developed numerous large the Pasión region, there may have existed more mobile populations centers with pyramids and centralized political organizations. Al- who maintained the traditional lifestyle of the preceramic period. though a few scholars have suggested the possibility that early Although the emerging elite of Ceibal began to live in a substantial sedentary villages in the Maya lowlands coexisted with mobile residential complex by 700 B.C., advanced sedentism with durable groups (11), the specific social configurations and the process of residences rebuilt in the same locations and burials placed under transition have not been well understood, partly because of the house floors was not adopted in most residential areas until 500 B.C., rapidity of social change and partly because of difficulty in in- and did not become common until 300 B.C. or the Late Preclassic vestigating early deposits deeply buried under later constructions. period. During the Middle Preclassic period, substantial formal cere- Since 2005 we have been conducting archaeological inves- monial complexes appear to have been built only at a small number tigations at the site of Ceibal, Guatemala, located in the Pasión of important communities in the Maya lowlands, and groups with region of the southwestern Maya lowlands (Fig. 1). Previous different levels of sedentism probably gathered for their construc- explorations by Harvard University in the 1960s demonstrated that tions and for public rituals held in them. These collaborative activities Ceibal was one of the earliest sedentary communities in the Maya likely played a central role in socially integrating diverse groups with lowlands and subsequently became a major center (12–14). Build- different lifestyles and, eventually, in developing fully established ing on this pioneering work, our deep, intensive excavations tar- sedentary communities. geted specific locations to reveal early constructions and deposits. Mesoamerican | sedentism | Maya | public ceremony | subsistence Significance

ecent archaeological investigations have shown that the de- The results of our research at the lowland Maya site of Ceibal add Rvelopment of agriculture and sedentism was more diverse than to the growing archaeological understanding that the transition the simple model of agriculture leading to sedentism and then to to sedentism did not necessarily occur simultaneously across social complexity. In Europe, for example, the farming lifestyle different social groups within a region and that monumental that originated in the Near East spread in complex ways, involving constructions did not always postdate fully established seden- the coexistence of farmers and foragers in relatively small areas tism. Whereas sedentary and mobile populations are, in many cases, interpreted to have maintained separate communities, our and differential adoptions of Neolithic cultural elements in dif- study suggests that groups with different levels of mobility ferent regions (1–3). Studies of early monuments, such as Göbekli gathered and collaborated for constructions and public ceremo- Tepe in Turkey, Watson Brake in Louisiana, and Caral and earlier nies. These data indicate that the development of sedentism was mounds in the Andes, show that large constructions involving a complex process involving interactions among diverse groups, significant collective labor could be built by preceramic people and that collaborative construction projects and communal who were still foragers or were at the early stage of farming ad- – gatherings played a critical role in this social transformation by aptation (4 7). These emerging understandings lead to important facilitating social integration among different groups. questions about how sedentary and mobile populations interacted and how their relations affected the process of social change. To Author contributions: T.I., J. MacLellan, D.T., J. Munson, and M.B. designed research; T.I., address these questions, researchers need fine-grained chrono- J. MacLellan, D.T., J. Munson, M.B., and F.P. performed research; T.I., J. MacLellan, D.T., logical information and a broad spatial coverage, which are not J. Munson, M.B., K.A., H.N., F.P., and H.Y. analyzed data; and T.I. wrote the paper. easy to obtain in many cases. A uniquely rich dataset obtained The authors declare no conflict of interest. from the Maya site of Ceibal (or ) suggests the possibility This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. that groups with different levels of mobility gathered and collab- Freely available online through the PNAS open access option. orated for constructions and public ceremonies, which contrasts 1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]. with the common assumption that sedentary and mobile groups This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10. maintained separate communities. 1073/pnas.1501212112/-/DCSupplemental.

4268–4273 | PNAS | April 7, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 14 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1501212112 Downloaded by guest on October 1, 2021 The center of this configuration is a so-called E-Group assem- blage, made up of a square or conical mound on the western side and an elongated platform on the east. Multiple large platforms are placed along the north–south axis of the E-Group assemblage (17). Our focused excavations examined whether an E-Group assemblage and other elements of the Middle Formative pattern were indeed present and, if so, when they were built. In addition, we have been investigating residential areas of Ceibal. Rich data from the settlement survey and excavations by Tourtellot during the Harvard project allowed us to design deep or extensive excavations in six residential groups at Ceibal and at the satellite site of Caobal (13) (Fig. S4). The combination of the broad sam- pling by the Harvard project and our more focused excavations provided one of the best datasets in the Maya lowlands with which to examine the development of sedentism. A high-resolution chronology is the key to understanding the rapid change that took place in the Maya lowlands. We found the previous chronology developed by Sabloff to be sound and reli- able (18), and our further study refined this sequence. We sub- divided the early Middle Preclassic period into the Real 1 (1000– 850 B.C.), Real 2 (850–800 B.C.), and Real 3 (800–700 B.C.) phases. The late Middle Preclassic period was subdivided into the Escoba 1 (700–600 B.C.), Escoba 2 (600–450 B.C.), and Escoba 3 (450–350 B.C.) phases. For the Late Preclassic period, we assigned the separate phase name of Xate to Sabloff’s Late Cantutse phase and defined the Cantutse 1 (350–300 B.C.), Cantutse 2 (300–250 B.C.), Cantutse 3 (250–1 B.C.), Xate 1 (A.D. 1–75), and Xate 2 (A.D. 75–225) phases. ANTHROPOLOGY Our excavations during the 2005–2012 seasons revealed the Fig. 1. Map of the Maya area with a close-up of the Pasión region. earliest version of a probable E-Group assemblage that was con- structed at the beginning of the Real 1 phase, around 950 B.C. (19). The western building [Structure (Str.) ] was a low With detailed stratigraphic information and ceramic data, as well as platform measuring 2.0 m in height. Its lower part was carved out through the Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates, we developed of a high point of natural marl, and the upper part was made of a high-resolution chronology of Ceibal, which we correlated with a fill of dark soil. The eastern long platform (Str. Xa’an) was also the archaeological sequences in other parts of the Maya lowlands carved out of natural marl, and probably measured 42–55 m in (SI Text, Figs. S1–S3,andTable S1). This refined chronology length. Its back wall, reinforced with limestone blocks, had allowed us to reconstruct social processes on a fine temporal scale a height of 1.0 m, and its front part, exposed during the 2013 and that was not possible before. 2014 seasons, was defined by two steps. This eastern building may In addressing the development of sedentism, we need to ex- have originally been conceived as a raised part of the plaza rather amine its multiple dimensions as continuums rather than cate- than a well-defined platform. The open plaza flanked by Strs. gorical divisions (15). In this regard, the lowland Maya of the Ajaw and Xa’an consisted of a scraped, leveled surface of natural Classic period (A.D. 250–950) possessed a particularly strong marl. Throughout the history of Ceibal, community members re- sense of attachment to fixed localities. Houses were repeatedly peatedly made substantial labor investments to renovate this cer- rebuilt over older ones in the same locations, and some of the emonial complex. The western building grew into a pyramidal dead were buried under house floors. In other words, kin-based temple with a height of 3–5 m during the Real 2 phase, and the groups, or at least their central members, were tied to fixed eastern building was moved twice to the east to provide wider locations physically and symbolically through generations, al- plaza spaces during the Real and Escoba phases. New plaza floors though this practice did not preclude certain members from were also frequently built up over the existing ones. From its in- moving out to establish new residences. Temples and public ception, the complex most likely served as a stage for communal plazas were also periodically rebuilt over previous ones, tethering rituals. Along the east-west axis of the complex, we uncovered 20 entire communities to fixed locations. In examining the trajec- caches containing greenstone axes and other objects dating to the tory leading to this system, we need to analyze diverse levels of Middle Preclassic period. residential mobility and the possible coexistence of different The first version of the A-24 platform (Platform Sulul), located modes, potentially including seasonal mobility without ceramic to the southwest of the E-Group assemblage, measured 1.3 m in use, residential relocations every few years with ceramic use, and height and may have been built at the beginning of the Real phase. the use of durable houses without transgenerational continuity. Within the excavated area, we did not find any traces of roofed These levels of mobility were most likely associated with differ- structures supported by this platform other than a dense con- ent subsistence strategies and different notions of property and centration of carbon, and it is not clear whether the platform land ownership (16). served as a residential complex. During the Escoba phase, a ren- ovated version of the platform (Platform Ch’och’) supported Ceibal and the Pasión Region multiple buildings associated with middens. Their arrangements, The primary focus of our excavations at Ceibal has been the however, are different from those of residential patio groups ceremonial core called Group A (Fig. 2). T.I. noted the re- prevalent in later periods, and we do not have sufficient evidence semblance of Group A’s layout to a configuration called the to judge whether these buildings were used as residences or Middle Formative Chiapas pattern, which is found at Middle communal buildings for feastings and other collective events. A Preclassic (1000–350 B.C.) centers located mainly in Chiapas. single burial (CB110) found in this platform was placed during

Inomata et al. PNAS | April 7, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 14 | 4269 Downloaded by guest on October 1, 2021 Fig. 2. The central 2 × 2-km area of Ceibal with a close-up of Group A. Modified from refs. 14 and 15.

either the Real 2 or Escoba 1 phase, and it is not clear whether it tants of the group apparently removed humus and used the represents a subfloor burial of a household member or not. exposed rough bedrock as occupation surfaces from the Real 2 Under the East Court located to the northeast of the through Escoba 1 phases (Fig. 3B). A burial (CB132) placed in E-Group assemblage, our excavation uncovered a small platform a cavity dug into bedrock contained three individuals and seven (Str. Fernando) carved out of natural marl, which may have been Real-3 ceramic vessels (Fig. 3C), but the recognizable artificial a dwelling (Fig. 3A). Newly obtained radiocarbon dates place this fills of structures, platforms, or floors found in our excavations building in the Real 3 phase. Str. Fernando was covered by all dated to the Escoba 2 phase or later. Although there may a large platform (Platform K’at), which was built during the Real still be architectural remains of earlier periods in unexcavated 3 phase and measured 1.6–1.9 m in height. During the Escoba areas, it is highly unlikely that any substantial structures were phase, Platform K’at supported multiple buildings surrounding built in this group before the Escoba 2 phase. We uncovered a patio and a midden was deposited to its north. This configu- four burials (CB128, 149, 157, and 160) deposited during the ration probably began during the Real 3 phase, and the platform Escoba 2 or 3 phase, and two of them were placed under a appears to have served as a residential complex of the emergent probable residence. elite. Two burials (CB116 and 117) placed in the patio during the Our excavations in the peripheral parts of Ceibal did not find Escoba 3 phase probably represent sacrificial victims (20), but any recognizable evidence of Real settlements. In Unit 54 the another Escoba interment (Burial 11) found by the Harvard earliest evidence of occupation was a large pit that contained project may have contained a resident of this complex. a burial (CB126) and dense refuse, including Escoba 2 ceramics. The Harvard research made clear that Real occupation was The earliest occupation documented so far in the Amoch group limited to the immediate vicinity of Group A and a nearby area (Unit 4E-14) dates to the Escoba phase. In the Muknal group called Group C (13). In our excavation in the northern part of (Units 4E-10/4F-15) and the Pek group (Units 4G-5/4G-12), Group A (Op. 202A), the earliest four floors dated to the Real- construction fills of the Cantutse phase were placed directly Escoba transition, and in the western part of Group A (Op. on bedrock. Extensive excavations in Group D by Damien Bazy 204A) the earliest three floors were built during the Real 3 confirmed Harvard archaeologists’ interpretation that recogniz- phase. We suspect that a significant part of the Real deposits able constructions in this area began during the Xate phase. The found by the Harvard project in Group A, with the exception of Harvard excavations uncovered no burial that is clearly datable to the E-Group assemblage and the A-24 Platform, dates to the the Real or Escoba phase, besides the aforementioned Burial 11. Real 3 phase. Our extensive excavations in the Karinel group At the minor site of Caobal, located 3.2 km to the west of (Unit 47), located near Group A, uncovered Real 2 ceramics de- Ceibal’s Group A, our excavation uncovered Real 2 or 3 ceramics posited in small concentrations directly on bedrock. The inhabi- mixed in construction fills. The deep excavation into Str. 1 exposed

4270 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1501212112 Inomata et al. Downloaded by guest on October 1, 2021 ANTHROPOLOGY

Fig. 3. Excavations in residential areas. (A) Str. Fernando (Real 3). (B) Rough bedrock in the Karinel Group, used as an occupation surface (Real 2–Escoba 1). (C) Burial CB132 found in the Karinel group (Real 3). (D) Postholes (Real 3?) dug into bedrock at Caobal and a low platform (Str. 1 Sub-8, Escoba 1) covering them.

postholes dug into the scraped surface of natural marl, with one Interpretations reaching a depth of 0.4 m (Fig. S4). An ephemeral dwelling was It appears that during the Early Preclassic period (before 1000 built, probably during the Real 2 or 3 phase (Fig. 3D). A low B.C.) the Maya lowlands were sparsely occupied by mobile pop- platform (Str. 1 Sub-8) that covered this part during the Escoba 1 ulations without the use of ceramics or substantial architecture. phase may have served as a dwelling. The probable first version of These populations cultivated some domesticates but relied heavily the pyramidal building (Str. 1 Sub-7), constructed during the on hunting, gathering, and fishing. Such foragers were certainly Escoba 2 phase, had an orientation slightly different from Str. 1 present in and possibly in northern Peten, but evidence is Sub-8. In the area of Str. 2, a low earthen platform (Str. 2 Sub-6) still ambiguous in most other parts of the Maya lowlands (10, 25, was built directly on scraped natural marl, most likely during the 26). In the Pasión region and the central lowlands, lake core data Escoba 2 phase. A fire pit dug in front of this building contained indicate a decline in taxa and an increase in soil erosion a large quantity of ceramics, lithics, and food refuse. The sub- starting between 2500 and 1500 B.C., but it is not clear whether sequent house platform (Str. 2 Sub-5), measuring 0.7 m in height, these changes were a result of anthropogenic effects or climate was probably constructed during the Escoba 3 phase, and a burial drying (27, 28). We need to consider the possibility that, before (AN4) was placed under its floor. maize became productive enough, the karstic lowlands were not In other parts of the Pasión region, evidence of occupation an environment desirable for foraging populations, whereas rivers and lakes in Belize provided enough resources. Although some with ceramic use during the Real-corresponding period has been archaeologists have argued that the use of ceramics began in the reported from , , and – Maya lowlands around 1200 B.C., we agree with Lohse that there (21 23). The majority of the ceramics from those sites corre- is no unequivocal evidence of ceramics in this area before 1000 sponds to the Real 3 phase in our refined chronology. For the B.C. (11). The nearly simultaneous adoption of ceramics marked Real 3-corresponding Xe phase at Altar de Sacrificios, archae- a major step in the transition toward sedentism in the Maya ologists found postholes and pits dug into sterile soils or thin lowlands. This social change may have been triggered by a heavier deposits placed directly on the natural ground level (Ops. 62 and reliance on more productive maize, which appears to have oc- 99). Xe fills measuring 0.6–1.0 m in thickness were found in a few curred around this time across (29–31). locations (Ops. 62, 85, and 90) and may represent platforms or The construction of a formal ceremonial complex at Ceibal other constructions. One probable Xe burial is reported (24), but around 950 B.C. represented a substantial change in this region. the ceremonial core of Altar de Sacrificios was not built until the Similarities in the construction method and the spatial configu- Escoba-corresponding San Felix phase. ration indicate that the Ceibal residents had close contacts with

Inomata et al. PNAS | April 7, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 14 | 4271 Downloaded by guest on October 1, 2021 the inhabitants of Chiapas and other areas to the west and that During the following Escoba phase, the number of settlements there may have been some migrants from those regions to Cei- with ceramic use increased substantially both in the peripheral bal. The Real pottery of Ceibal, however, exhibited somewhat areas of Ceibal and in the Pasión region (13). The examples from stronger affinities with ceramics from other parts of the Maya the Karinel group and Caobal show that some residents began to lowlands than with Chiapan materials. This observation leads us rebuild new structures over older ones and to place some burials to think that a significant part of the Ceibal community was under house floors, although the practice of placing the dead in made up of the original inhabitants of the Maya lowlands. De- preexisting underground cavities continued, as in the case of spite the extensive excavations conducted by Harvard University Unit 54. In other words, the residential pattern that character- and by ourselves, we have not found any unequivocal residential ized lowland of later periods was adopted by structures of the Real 1 and 2 phases at Ceibal. The only po- a broader range of the population during the Escoba phase. The tential exception is Platform Sulul, but it may have been used for construction of monumental ceremonial buildings started at communal activities. The presence of Real 1 sherds in the initial Caobal, at Altar de Sacrificios, and possibly in the Amoch group, fill of Str. Ajaw indicates that the use of ceramics began before indicating the spread of such constructions. During the sub- the construction of the ceremonial complex, but outside of the sequent Cantutse phase, this residential pattern and the broader E-Group assemblage and the A-24 Platform the earliest deposits distribution of ceremonial structures were firmly established. containing ceramics appear to date to the Real 2 phase or later. Based on these settlement data, Tourtellot estimates that the It is probable that during the Real 1 phase a substantial part of Escoba-phase and Cantutse-phase populations of Ceibal grew the Ceibal residents did not use ceramics regularly. 7-times and 40-times, respectively, larger than the Real-phase We by no means preclude the possibility that future inves- population (13). We, however, suggest that the adoption of more tigations will reveal early residential remains. Our argument is sedentary lifeways by previously mobile groups also contributed not that sedentary occupation was absent, but rather that mobile to this increase in archaeologically documented settlements. If populations persisted, potentially coexisting with more sedentary most residents lived in ephemeral structures built on exposed groups, after the construction of the ceremonial group. In this bedrock or marl during the Real phase, many of them probably regard, we find it significant that in the excavated areas outside remain undetected archaeologically. Their traces would be quickly Group A the earliest deposits dating to the Real 2 phase or later obliterated by tropical rains unless they were buried by later were placed directly on bedrock without any recognizable traces constructions. Once these inhabitants began to construct more of contemporaneous house platforms. The early occupants of substantial residences during the Escoba and Cantutse phase, they these areas most likely lived in post-in-ground structures like the became more easily recognizable by archaeologists. Moreover, the one found at Caobal or other ephemeral dwellings built on the annual construction volume of public constructions in Group A natural ground level. Although we do not know the specific pat- during the Real phase is estimated to be as large as those of the terns and cycles of the occupants’ residential mobility, the low Escoba and Cantutse phases (Table S2). Although such estimates labor investment in these buildings implies that the inhabitants may have considerable errors, the magnitude of construction moved their residences frequently. In addition, the use life of such is significant enough to indicate that a population substantially constructions in the tropical lowlands is limited because of larger than the one currently documented in the archaeological decays from high humidity and termite damage. Possible pat- data contributed to public construction projects during the Real terns may include seasonal mobility between different farming phase. If such an undetected population existed, a substantial plots or according to the farming and foraging seasons (32), and part of it was most likely made up of highly mobile groups. residential relocation every few years according to fallow cycles (33). Some groups may also have compensated reduced residential Discussion mobility with increased logistical mobility, that is, the frequency Although the adoption of ceramics and the initial transition to and length of foraging treks from the home bases (34). sedentism occurred nearly simultaneously around 1000 B.C. in At the very least, we can be reasonably confident that most various parts of the Maya lowlands, the subsequent processes residents of Ceibal had not started the practice of rebuilding their were diverse. Belize, in particular, witnessed the development of residences over the existing ones. Thus, it is likely that a sub- sedentism earlier than other regions. There, post-in-ground stantial portion of the Ceibal community maintained considerable structures were built at the beginning of the Real 1-corre- residential mobility even during the Real 2 phase, when the cer- sponding period and were soon followed by house platforms. emonial complex reached a monumental scale. Moreover, given Clear evidence of burials under house floors is also present at the apparent absence of settlements with ceramic use at Altar de least as early as the Real 2- or 3-corresponding period (35, 36). Sacrificios, Itzan, and Punta de Chimino during the Real 2 phase, Nonetheless, no formal ceremonial complexes earlier than 800 we need to consider the possibility that many inhabitants of areas B.C. have been confirmed in the Maya lowlands outside of outside of Ceibal maintained the traditional foraging lifestyle Ceibal. A similar pattern of early ceremonial constructions may without the use of ceramics, as many Ceibal residents possibly did have occurred at in northern Yucatan, but Komchen’s during the Real 1 phase. chronology remains imprecise (37). Whereas the early adoption During the Real 3 phase, some households began to live in of substantial residential structures in Belize probably derived somewhat more substantial residences built on low platforms, such from the region’s well-established populations dating back to the as Str. Fernando. Platform K’at, a probable elite residential preceramic period, the early construction of the ceremonial complex built later during the same phase, reflected more ad- complex at Ceibal was likely stimulated by close interactions vanced sedentism with the format of a patio group and the prac- with, or migrations from, Chiapas and the southern Gulf Coast. tice of repeated renovations in the same locations. Its residents, Despite these differences, the coexistence of different levels of however, may have not yet begun to place the dead under house sedentism seen in the Pasión region appears to have occurred in floors. The lifestyle of other Ceibal inhabitants changed slowly. other parts of the Maya lowlands as well (SI Text). Some started to place the dead near their residences as indicated The earliest known formal ceremonial complex with an by the find in the Karinel group, but most residents continued to E-Group assemblage in the Maya lowlands, after that of Ceibal, live in ephemeral structures. Settlements with ceramic use began was built at , in the central lowlands, during the Real at Altar de Sacrificios, Itzan, and Punta de Chimino. Thus, the 3-corresponding period (38). Slightly later, around the Real–Escoba Real 3 phase is characterized by the gradual spread of more transition, an E-Group assemblage was also built at sedentary ways of life and by more pronounced differences in the (39). Nevertheless, it was not until the Late Preclassic period level of mobility, particularly between the elites and other groups. that E-Group assemblages spread more widely to numerous

4272 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1501212112 Inomata et al. Downloaded by guest on October 1, 2021 settlements. During the early Middle Preclassic period, formal decisions regarding such subsistence practices were made pri- ceremonial complexes of substantial sizes appear to have existed marily by individual households or other small groups rather than only in a small number of important communities. These cere- by entire communities, different levels of mobility may have resulted monial centers may have attracted participants in construction within individual communities, at least in a short term. In the case of activities and public ceremonies not only from coexisting sed- the Pasión region, different political and subsistence strategies entary and mobile groups within their core communities, but chosen by certain groups, including the elites as opposed to non- also from other sedentary villages and more mobile groups of elites and migrants from other regions as opposed to local inhab- their regions. itants, may have contributed to the difference in mobility. Despite The coexistence of different levels of mobility has also been such intracommunity variation in mobility, all community members proposed for the Early Preclassic period in regions outside of the of Ceibal were tethered to the ceremonial complex once it was built. Maya lowlands, but with an important difference in inter- Different degrees of sedentism were probably related to differ- pretations (40, 41). Rosenswig suggests that, during the Early ent notions of property rights and land ownership. Then, the co- Preclassic period on the Pacific Coast, sedentary and mobile existence of different levels of mobility may have caused tensions populations formed separate groups with limited social integration and conflicts among community members. It is probable that public between them (41). Our data, however, strongly indicate that di- ceremonies, as well the construction of ceremonial complexes, verse groups with different levels of sedentism frequently gathered provided opportunities for groups with different lifestyles to gather and collaborated, possibly forming communities. Although diverse and collaborate (7). Such collective activities possibly played a processes of the transition to sedentism certainly occurred in dif- central role in facilitating social integration among diverse partic- ferent contexts, we suspect that intracommunity variation in resi- ipants and eventually, in spreading more sedentary ways of life. dential mobility, which became recognizable at Ceibal through a fine-resolution chronology, may have existed in some other ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. We thank two anonymous reviewers for thoughtful regions of Mesoamerica and of the world as well. In most cases, comments. Investigations at Ceibal were carried out with permits issued by the transition to sedentism did not represent a wholesale sub- the Instituto de Antropología e Historia de Guatemala and were supported sistence change with the abrupt replacement of foraging with by the Alphawood Foundation, the National Geographic Society, the Na- tional Endowment for the Humanities (RZ-51209-10), the National Science previously unknown farming practices, but typically involved shifts Foundation (BCS-0837536), Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and in scheduling and combination among preexisting subsistence Technology of Japan KAKENHI (21101003 and 21101002), and Japan Society options, including hunting, gathering, fishing, and cultivation. If for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI (21402008, 26101002, and 26101003). ANTHROPOLOGY

1. Gregg SA (1988) Foragers and Farmers: Population Interaction and Agricultural Ex- 23. Bachand BR (2006) Preclassic Excavations at Punta De Chimino, Petén, Guatemala: pansion in Prehistoric Europe (Univ of Chicago Press, Chicago). Investigating Social Emplacement on an Early Maya Landscape (Univ of Arizona, 2. Bollongino R, et al. (2013) 2000 years of parallel societies in Stone Age Central Europe. Tucson, AZ). Science 342(6157):479–481. 24. Smith AL (1972) Excavations at Altar De Sacrificios: Architecture, Settlement, Burials, 3. Robb J (2013) Material culture, landscapes of action, and emergent causation: A new and Caches (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA). model for the origins of the European Neolithic. Curr Anthropol 54(6):657–683. 25. Lohse JC, Awe J, Griffith C, Rosenswig RM, Valdez F, Jr (2006) Preceramic occupations 4. Schmidt K (2010) Göbekli Tepe—The Stone Age sanctuaries: New results of ongoing in Belize: Updating paleoindian and archaic period. Lat Am Antiq 17(2):209–226. excavations with a special focus on sculptures and high reliefs. Documenta Praehis- 26. Wahl D, Byrne R, Schreiner T, Hansen R (2007) Palaeolimnological evidence of late- torica 37:239–255. Holocene settlement and abandonment in the Mirador Basin, Peten, Guatemala. 5. Saunders JW, et al. (2005) Watson Brake, a Middle Archaic mound complex in Holocene 17(6):813–820. – northeast Louisiana. Am Antiq 70(4):631 668. 27. Dunning N, Beach T, Rue D (1997) The paleoecology and ancient settlement of the 6. Solis RS, Haas J, Creamer W (2001) Dating Caral, a preceramic site in the Supe Valley Petexbatun region, Guatemala. Anc Mesoam 8(2):255–266. – on the central coast of Peru. Science 292(5517):723 726. 28. Mueller AD, et al. (2009) Climate drying and associated forest decline in the lowlands 7. Dillehay TD (2011) From Foraging to Farming in the Andes: New Perspectives on Food of northern Guatemala during the late Holocene. Quat Res 71(2):133–141. Production and Social Organization (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK). 29. Blake M, Clark JE, Voorhies B, Love MW, Chisholm BS (1992) Prehistoric subsistence in 8. Coe MD, Diehl RA (1980) In the Land of the Olmec (Univ of Texas Press, Austin, TX). the Soconusco region. Curr Anthropol 33(1):83–94. ’’ 9. Clark JE, Cheetham D (2002) Mesoamerica s tribal foundations. Archaeology of Tribal 30. Arnold PJ, III (2009) Settlement and subsistence among the Early Formative Gulf Ol- Societies, ed Parkinson WA (International Monograph in Prehistory, Ann Arbor, MI), mec. J Anthropol Archaeol 28(4):397–411. – pp 278 339. 31. Rosenswig RM (2010) The Beginnings of Mesoamerican Civilization: Inter-Regional 10. Pohl MD, et al. (1996) Early agriculture in the Maya lowlands. Lat Am Antiq 7(4): Interaction and the Olmec (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK). 355–372. 32. Hard RJ, Merrill WL (1992) Mobile agriculturalists and the emergence of sedentism: 11. Lohse JC (2010) Archaic origins of the lowland Maya. Lat Am Antiq 21(3):312–352. Perspectives from northern . Am Anthropol 94(3):601–620. 12. Smith AL (1982) Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Major Ar- 33. Vickers WT (1989) Patterns of foraging and gardening in a semi-sedentary Amazonian chitecture and Caches (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA). community. Farmers and Hunters: The Implications of Sedentism, ed Kent S (Cam- 13. Tourtellot G, III (1988) Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Pe- bridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK), pp 46–59. ripheral Survey and Excavation, Settlement and Community Patterns (Harvard Univ 34. Binford LR (1980) Willow smoke and dogs’ tails: Hunter-gatherer settlement systems Press, Cambridge, MA). and archaeological site formation. Am Antiq 45(1):4–20. 14. Willey GR (1990) Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: General 35. Hammond N (1991) : An Early Maya Community in Belize (Cambridge Univ Summary and Conclusions (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA). Press, Cambridge, UK). 15. Kelly RL (2013) The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers: The Foraging Spectrum (Cambridge 36. Hammond N (1999) The genesis of hierarchy: Mortuary and offertory ritual in the Pre- Univ Press, Cambridge, MA). 16. McAnany PA (1995) Living with the Ancestors: Kinship and Kingship in Ancient Maya Classic at Cuello, Belize. Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Meosamerica, eds Grove DC, Society (Univ of Texas Press, Austin, TX). Joyce RA (Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC), pp – 17. Clark JE, Hansen RD (2001) Architecture of early kingship: Comparative perspectives 49 66. on the origins of the Maya royal court. Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, eds 37. Ringle WM (1999) Pre-Classic cityscapes: Ritual politics among the early lowland Inomata T, Houston SD (Westview Press, Boulder, CO), Vol 2, pp 1–45. Maya. Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Meosamerica, eds Grove DC, Joyce RA (Dumbarton – 18. Sabloff JA (1975) Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala: Ceramics Oaks, Washington, DC), pp 183 223. (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA). 38. Estrada Belli F (2011) The First : Ritual and Power before the Classic 19. Inomata T, Triadan D, Aoyama K, Castillo V, Yonenobu H (2013) Early ceremonial Period (Routledge, London). constructions at Ceibal, Guatemala, and the origins of lowland Maya civilization. 39. Laporte JP, Fialko V (1995) Reencuentro con Mundo Perdido, Tikal, Guatemala. Anc Science 340(6131):467–471. Mesoam 6:41–94. 20. Palomo JM (2013) Mortuary Treatments at the Ancient Maya Center of Ceibal, 40. Arnold PJ, III (1999) Tecomates, residential mobility, and Early Formative occupation Guatemala (Univ of Arizona, Tucson, AZ). in coastal lowland Mesoamerica. Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, eds 21. Adams REW (1971) The Ceramics of Altar De Sacrificios, Guatemala (Harvard Univ Skibo JM, Feinman GM (Univ of Utah Press, Salt Lake City), pp 159–170. Press, Cambridge, MA). 41. Rosenswig RM (2011) An early Mesoamerican archipelago of complexity. Early Meso- 22. Johnston KL (2006) occupation of the Itzan escarpment, lower Río de american Social Transformations: Archaic and Formative Lifeways in the Soconusco la Pasión, Petén, Guatemala. Anc Mesoam 17(2):177–201. Region, ed Lesure RG (Univ of California Press, Berkeley), pp 242–271.

Inomata et al. PNAS | April 7, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 14 | 4273 Downloaded by guest on October 1, 2021