Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-26T03:51:12.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bayesian Refinement of a Stratified Sequence of Radiometric Dates from Punta De Chimino, Guatemala

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2016

Bruce R Bachand
Bruce R Bachand*
Affiliation:
New World Archaeological Foundation, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, 800 SWKT, Provo, Utah 84602, USA. Email: [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Bayesian analysis of 6 radiocarbon and 2 luminescence determinations from Punta de Chimino's acropolis provides subcentury chronometric accuracy for a Protoclassic hiatus and a more decisive, incipient Early Classic abandonment. For the latter event, sensitivity tests and a redundant modal value pattern reduce the period of historical interest from a few centuries to several decades. The findings aid in selecting between 2 historical scenarios and demonstrate that improved chronological accuracy is attainable for sites and contexts lacking calendrical dates.

Type
Articles
Information
Radiocarbon , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , 2008 , pp. 19 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona 

References

Anderson, A, Higham, T, Wallace, R. 2001. The radiocarbon chronology of the Norfolk Island archaeological sites. In: Anderson, A, White, P, editors. The Prehistoric Archaeology of Norfolk Island, Southwest Pacific. Sydney: Australian Museum. p 33–42.Google Scholar
Bachand, BR. 2006. Preclassic excavations at Punta de Chimino, Petén, Guatemala: investigating social emplacement on an Early Maya landscape [PhD dissertation]. Tucson: University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Bayliss, A, Bronk Ramsey, C, McCormac, FG. 1997. Dating Stonehenge. In: Cunliffe, B, Renfrew, C, editors. “Science and Stonehenge.” Proceedings of the British Academy 92:39–59.Google Scholar
Bayliss, A, McAvoy, F, Whittle, A. 2006. The world recreated: redating Silbury Hill in its monumental landscape. Antiquity 81(311):26–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayliss, A, Bronk Ramsey, C, van der Plicht, J, Whittle, A. 2007a. Bradshaw and Bayes: towards a timetable for the Neolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(Supplement S1):1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayliss, A, Whittle, A, Wysocki, M. 2007b. Talking about my generation: the date of the West Kennet Long Barrow. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(Supplement S1):85–101.Google Scholar
Bowman, S. 1990. Radiocarbon Dating. Berkeley: University of California Press. 64 p.Google Scholar
Brady, JE, Ball, JW, Bishop, RL, Pring, DC, Hammond, N, Housley, RA. 1998. The Lowland Maya “Protoclassic”: a reconsideration of its nature and significance. Ancient Mesoamerica 9(1):17–38.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1995. Radiocarbon calibration and analysis of stratigraphy: the OxCal program. Radiocarbon 37(2):425–30.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 1998. Probability and dating. Radiocarbon 40(1):461–74.Google Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2000. Comment on “The use of Bayesian statistics for 14C dates of chronologically ordered samples: a critical analysis.” Radiocarbon 42(2):199–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2005. OxCal program v 3.10 manual. http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/arch_str.htm#warn. Accessed 9 February 2008.Google Scholar
Buck, CE, Blackwell, PG. 2004. Formal statistical models for estimating radiocarbon calibration curves. Radiocarbon 46(3):1093–102.Google Scholar
Buck, CE, Kenworthy, JB, Litton, CD, Smith, AFM. 1991. Combining archaeological and radiocarbon information: a Bayesian approach to calibration. Antiquity 65(249):808–21.Google Scholar
Buck, CE, Litton, CD, Smith, AFM. 1992. Calibration of radiocarbon results pertaining to related archaeological events. Journal of Archaeological Science 19(5):497–512.Google Scholar
Buck, CE, Litton, CD, Shennan, SJ. 1994. A case study in combining radiocarbon and archaeological information: the Early Bronze Age settlement of St. Veit-Klinglberg, Land Salzburg, Austria. Germania 72(2):427–47.Google Scholar
Buck, CE, Cavanagh, WG, Litton, CD. 1996. Bayesian Approach to Interpreting Archaeological Data. Barnett, V, editor. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 402 p.Google Scholar
Dean, JS. 1978. Independent dating in archaeological analysis. In: Schiffer, MB, editor. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory. Volume 1. New York: Academic Press. p 223–55.Google Scholar
Demarest, AA. 2006. The Petexbatún Regional Archaeological Project: A Multidisciplinary Study of the Maya Collapse. Demarest, AA, editor. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. 256 p.Google Scholar
Dunning, NP, Beach, T, Rue, DJ. 1997. The paleoecology and ancient settlement of the Petexbatún region, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8(2):185–97.Google Scholar
Foias, AE. 1996. Changing ceramic production and exchange systems and the Classic Maya collapse in the Petexbatún region [PhD dissertation]. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
Howson, C, Urbach, P. 2006. Scientific Reasoning: The Bayesian Approach. Chicago: Open Court Publishing Company. 492 p.Google Scholar
Lu, X, Guo, Z, Ma, H, Yuan, S, Wu, X. 2001. Data analysis and calibration of radiocarbon dating results from the cemetery of the Marquises of Jin. Radiocarbon 43(1):55–62.Google Scholar
Marcus, J. 2003. Recent advances in Maya archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 11(2):71–148.Google Scholar
Martin, S. 2003. In line of the founder: a view of dynastic politics at Tikal. In: Sabloff, JA, editor. Tikal: Dynasties, Foreigners, and Affairs of State. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. p 3–45.Google Scholar
Mathews, P, Willey, GR. 1991. Prehistoric polities of the Pasión region: hieroglyphic texts and their archaeological settings. In: Culbert, TP, editor. Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 30–71.Google Scholar
Reimer, PJ, Baillie, MGL, Bard, E, Bayliss, A, Beck, JW, Bertrand, CJH, Blackwell, PG, Buck, CE, Burr, GS, Cutler, KB, Damon, PE, Edwards, RL, Fairbanks, RG, Friedrich, M, Guilderson, TP, Hogg, AG, Hughen, KA, Kromer, B, McCormac, G, Manning, S, Bronk Ramsey, C, Reimer, RW, Remmele, S, Southon, JR, Stuiver, M, Talamo, S, Taylor, FW, van der Plicht, J, Weyhenmeyer, CE. 2004. IntCal04 terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 cal kyr BR Radiocarbon 46(3):1029–58.Google Scholar
Sabloff, JA. 1975. Ceramics. In: Willey, GR, editor. Excavations at Seibal, Department of Peten, Guatemala. Cambridge: Harvard University. p i–261.Google Scholar
Shott, MJ. 1992. Radiocarbon dating as a probabilistic technique: the Childers site and Late Woodland occupation in the Ohio Valley. American Antiquity 57(2):202–30.Google Scholar
Smith, RE, Gifford, JC. 1966. Maya Ceramic Varieties, Types, and Wares at Uaxactún: Supplement to “Ceramic Sequence at Uaxactún, Guatemala.” New Orleans: Tulane University. 49 p.Google Scholar
Steier, P, Rom, W. 2000. The use of Bayesian statistics for 14C dates of chronologically ordered samples: a critical analysis. Radiocarbon 42(2):183–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, A, Bayliss, A. 2007. The times of their lives: from chronological precision to kinds of history and change. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(1):21–8.Google Scholar
Wright, LE, Bachand, BR. 2008. Strontium isotope identification of an Early Classic migrant to Punta de Chimino, Guatemala. Maya Archaeology (in press).Google Scholar
Zeidler, JA, Buck, CE, Litton, CD. 1998. Integration of archaeological phase information and radiocarbon results from the Jama River Valley, Ecuador: a Bayesian approach. Latin American Antiquity 9(2):160–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar