monumental structures and volcanic activities: excavating the … · el boquerón eruption the el...

ARTICLE

Monumental Structures and Volcanic Activities: Excavating the Campana atSan Andrés in the Zapotitán Valley, El Salvador

Akira Ichikawa

This article presents stratigraphic data and radiocarbon dates combined with Bayesianmodeling from San Andrés in the Zapo-titán Valley, El Salvador, focusing on the Campana Structure, the largest and longest-used monumental structure at the site.These data refine the regional chronology of the valley and provide insights into the emergence, development, and abandon-ment of this pivotal center in southeastern Mesoamerica and its potential links to three related volcanic eruptions: Ilopango,Loma Caldera, and El Boquerón. These distinct volcanic events had pronounced effects on local people who innovated newmonumental construction projects and used new volcanic debris as construction material after major eruptions. It is suggestedthat these monumental public building projects played an important role in the post-disaster recovery of societies by helpingfoster a sense of corporate identity. The use of volcanic material in constructions at San Andrés and the building of these mas-sive structures may also have helped keep these events alive in the communal memory.

Keywords: monumental structure, volcanic activities, radiocarbon dates, Bayesian analysis, San Andrés

Este artículo presenta los datos estratigráficos y fechas de radiocarbono con estadísticas Bayesianas del sitio arqueológicoSan Andrés en el Valle de Zapotitán, El Salvador, enfocándose en La Campana, la cual es la estructura monumental másgrande del sitio. Estos datos brindan información sobre el surgimiento, desarrollo y abandono de este centro fundamentalen el sureste de Mesoamérica y sus vínculos potenciales con tres erupciones volcánicas: Ilopango, Loma Caldera y ElBoquerón. Estos eventos volcánicos tuvieron efectos pronunciados en los pueblos prehispánicos que innovaron en nuevosproyectos de construcción monumentales y utilizaron nuevos materiales volcánicos como material de construcción despuésde las erupciones. Lo anterior sugiere que los proyectos de construcción monumentales y públicos tuvieron un papel impor-tante en la recuperación de las sociedades después de los desastres, ya que ayudaron a fortalecer una identidad corporativa. Eluso de materiales volcánicos en las construcciones y dichas estructuras masivas, también pueden haber formado parte de lamemoria colectiva de los pobladores del valle, en la época prehispánica.

Palabres claves: estructuras monumentales, actividades volcánicas, fechas de radiocarbono, análisis bayesiano, San Andrés

Volcanism is one of the most studied haz-ardous events in archaeology; one rea-son is that volcanic products make this

phenomenon relatively easy to recognize. Suchevents cause unpredictable and catastrophicdamage to human societies (e.g., Balmuth et al.2005; Cooper and Sheets 2012; Grattan and Tor-rence 2007; Oliver-Smith and Hoffman 1999).However, some recent studies show that volcanicdisasters may also be seen as social rather thanenvironmental phenomena (e.g., Grattan and

Torrence 2007:2; Torrence 2019). Socioculturalresponses to hazardous events and the sub-sequent recovery processes vary considerablyover time and space, and such responses toabrupt environmental changes remain a challeng-ing research topic (Kintigh et al. 2014:18).Recent social-science-based research has tendedto emphasize the need to avoid overly sensation-alistic interpretations of the catastrophic impactof volcanic events (Grattan 2006; Grattan andTorrence 2007), because the scale of eruptions

Akira Ichikawa ([email protected]) ▪ Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado Boulder, 1350Pleasant St., 233 UCB, Boulder, Colorado 80309, USA

Latin American Antiquity, pp. 1–20Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Society

for American Archaeology. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attributionlicence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any

medium, provided the original work is properly cited.doi:10.1017/laq.2021.28

1

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2021.28Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 08 Sep 2021 at 22:47:25, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5667-3704

mailto:[email protected]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2021.28

https://www.cambridge.org/core

is not always proportional to their negativeimpacts on human societies (Sheets 2012).

Volcanic events tend to be prime movers ofsociocultural changes (Hoffman 1999; Oliver-Smith 1996; Torrence 2019). The first-centuryAD eruption of Popocatepetl in Mexico triggereda large-scale movement of refugees in the Basinof Mexico, contributing to the development oflarge cities such as Teotihuacan, with its impres-sive monumental architecture (Plunket andUruñuela 2005). This indicates that disasterscompellingly motivate social actions, creatingnew power relations and leaders (Torrence2019:260). Furthermore, volcanos or mountainsbecome part of the human landscape, shapingthe worldview of religions, belief systems, andcommunal memory in both past and present(Scarth 1999). For instance, in Mesoamerica,pyramids were artificial sacred mountains (Fashand López Luján 2009; Freidel et al. 1993) thatwere closely intertwined with diverse entitieslike peoples, deities, ancestors, natural worlds,and forces (Joyce 2020; Plunket and Uruñuela2008). It is challenging to investigate such per-ceptions, embedded as they are in oral history,religion, cosmology, and the knowledge of whatto do after the sudden occurrence of such hazardousevents (Sheets 2016:154). Additionally, novelforms of construction or agricultural techniquesmay be invented as a consequence of socialresponses or the adaptation to new landscapescreated by volcanic eruptions (Chester et al. 2005).

In research on social responses to volcaniceruptions, detailed studies—using a long-termperspective—of individual environmental set-tings where multiple volcanic events haveoccurred have recently gained importance (Tor-rence 2019:263). These provide insightful datathat are challenging assumptions regardinghuman–volcanic interactions, such as the deci-sion to stay or seek refuge elsewhere, whoreoccupied post-eruption vacant landscapes, thedevelopment of a sense of place, relocation ofagricultural land and living space, and food pro-curement in devasted areas (Chester et al.2005:102–103; Sheets 2016:153–154; Torrence2019:262–263). The Zapotitán Valley in El Salva-dor is an ideal place to study such phenomenabecause of its proximity to several volcanic events(Ferrés et al. 2011; Miller 2002; Sheets 2004,

2008; Sofield 2004), and Sheets and colleagueshave already undertaken significant research oneruptions that affected this area (Sheets 2004,2009, 2012; Sheets et al. 2015)—yet even such rela-tively recent studies tend to emphasize the physicalcharacteristics of eruptions and their negativeimpacts, overlooking human creativity. Notably,however, recent advances in archaeological datingtechniquesandBayesiananalysesprovideopportun-ities to refine local carbon dating chronologies andestablish more accurately the timing of eruptionsand subsequent post-eruption recovery processes.

This study aims to understand the interactionof volcanic disasters with the rise, development,and decline of San Andrés in El Salvador’sZapotitán Valley, one of the most important pri-mary centers in southeastern Mesoamerica. Itseeks to refine the local site chronology in rela-tion to volcanic events by analyzing new excava-tions from monumental contexts and radiometricdating data obtained by the author at San Andrésfrom 2015 to 2019. The results suggest thatmonumental building projects played an impor-tant role in the recovery process after all threevolcanic events. The participation of local popu-lations in monumental building projects, usingvolcanic products as construction material, mayhave been a means of reconstituting group iden-tities after the disaster and of producing durablemonuments that anchored the memories ofthese disasters in local identities at San Andrés.

Volcanic Activities and the ZapotitánValley

The Zapotitán Valley is located in central El Sal-vador between the Santa Ana and San Salvadorvolcanic complexes and is surrounded by othersmall volcanoes (Figure 1). These volcanoeshave an active history over the last 36,000 years(Ferrés et al. 2011; Sofield 2004), with threemajor volcanic events from the prehispanic pe-riod geologically identified and dated: the TierraBlanca Joven (TBJ), Loma Caldera (LC), andEl Boquerón (EB) eruptions. Detailed descrip-tions of the deposits and isopach maps showingthe distribution of eruptive products from theseeruptions are available in other studies (e.g.,Dull et al. 2019; Ferrés et al. 2011; Miller2002; Pedrazzi et al. 2019; Sofield 2004).

2 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY





Tierra Blanca Joven Eruption

The TBJ eruption, from the Ilopango caldera, isthe largest known volcanic eruption in the Amer-icas (Dull et al. 2001, 2019; Pedrazzi et al. 2019;Smith et al. 2020), with a volcanic explosivityindex (VEI) of 6＋ (Dull et al. 2019). Recentresearch has provided competing dates for theeruption, including AD 431 (Smith et al. 2020)and AD 539–540 (Dull et al. 2019). One reasonfor the difficulty in precisely determining theTBJ eruption date is that the dates fall within aplateau on the 14C calibration curve, betweenAD 420 and 540 (1600–1550 yr BP).

The TBJ event had a devastating impact onwestern El Salvador and also affected more dis-tant regions. Tephra deposits greater than 35 cmfrom the eruption covered an area of more than20,000 km2 (Dull et al. 2019:8). Combining thefindings from previous and more recent excava-tions carried out by the author and others (Begleyet al. 1997; Boggs 1943; McKee 2007), the TBJtephra in San Andrés ranges from a depth of 0 to52 cm and is divided into four units according tothe definition of Dull and colleagues (2019).Unit II is the basal unit composed of pumicelapilli (or unit B; Pedrazzi et al. 2019); unit III

(or unit D; Pedrazzi et al. 2019) comprises alower pyroclastic surge succession (IIIa) and anupper ash fallout succession (IIIb); unit V (orunit E; Pedrazzi et al. 2019) is a double pumice-lapilli fallout; and unit VII (unit G; Pedrazzi et al.2019) is awhite vitric ash layer recognized acrossEl Salvador. A pyroclastic flow deposit, whichhad a deadly impact on human lives elsewhere,has not been recorded in the valley.

Dull and colleagues (2019:12) argued that theTBJ eruption forced the abandonment of manysites in western-central El Salvador, with thereoccupation of major sites with monumentalarchitecture only occurring in the mid-seventhcentury. Additionally, Sheets (2004, 2008, 2009)suggested that Cerén was the first site occupiedafter the TBJ eruption in the Zapotitán Valley and,based on the similarities of cultural components,was not founded by pre-eruption villagers’ directdescendants but instead was colonized by Mayaimmigrants from the Copan Valley. In contrast,Smith and colleagues (2020:6) argued that local toregional impacts appear to have been restricted toareas within a few hundred kilometers of the vent,meaning the effect of the eruption would havebeen significantly less drastic on a regional scale.

Figure 1. Map of the Zapotitán Valley, El Salvador.

Ichikawa 3MONUMENTAL STRUCTURES AND VOLCANIC ACTIVITIES





Loma Caldera Eruption

The Loma Caldera (LC) is 600 m north of theCerén site and 5 km north of San Andrés. TheLC eruption magnitude was VEI 2, and itsdeposit covered areas within 6 km of the LomaCaldera crater (Miller 2002:14–15). The Cerénsite radiocarbon data indicate a probable datefor the LC eruption ranging between AD 610and 671 (95% probability; McKee 2002:8).The well-studied LC tephra is divided into14 units (Miller 2002), and its thickness asrecorded in San Andrés is approximately 25 cmor less. According to Miller (2002), two unitsare identified in San Andrés; the lower part isunit 3, an indurated, laminated, and grayish-brown ash layer, and the upper part, unit 4, isblack scoria lapilli. The eruption’s magnitudewas smaller than the TBJ eruption, coveringjust a few square kilometers, but more than 5 mof volcanic deposits completely buried Cerén(Sheets 1983, 2002, 2008). Based on thestratigraphy of El Cambio site’s, 2 km south ofCerén, human reoccupation occurred soon afterthis eruption (Sheets 2008:79). However, theregional impact of the LC eruptions remainsunclear.

El Boquerón Eruption

The El Boquerón volcano (EB) forms part of theSan Salvador volcanic complex, and its eruptionmagnitude was VEI 3. Based on the radiocarbondating of a tree trunk buried by the eruption,Ferrés and others (2011:842) dated the EB erup-tion to AD 964–1040 (95% probability), and itsvolcanic deposits cover a range of 200–300km2 (Ferrés et al. 2011:843; Sofield 2004:151).The eruption’s volcanic product is knownlocally as “San Andrés Talpetate Tuff” (Sofield2004:151), a term used to describe indurated vol-canic tuff (Ferrés et al. 2011:841). To clarify itscorrespondence with the eruption, this studyuses the term “El Boquerón (EB) tephra.” TheEB tephra is widely recorded in the ZapotitánValley and is roughly 10–150 cm thick depend-ing on the distance from the vent. It is made upof two units (Ferrés et al. 2011:842–843): oneis a dark-gray, well-sorted, normally graded, ves-icular lapilli deposit, and the other is composedof multicolored, very fine ash layers at the base

with abundant traces of plants. The latter unitwas widely recorded in the valley and mayhave affected agricultural activities, being com-pact and hardened (Sheets 2004:116). It wasaround 10–30 cm thick in San Andrés. Excava-tion of San Andrés Mound B suggests that SanAndrés’s reoccupation occurred several decadesafter the eruption because a 5 cm thick layer ofsedimentary soil was recorded between the EBtephra and the base of Mound B (Card1997:53). However, the timing and impact ofthe EB eruptions have not yet been determinedbecause of the lack of radiocarbon dates andarchaeological data.

Human History of Zapotitán Valley

Based on the ceramic samples found at SanAndrés (Begley et al. 1997), the early occupationof the Zapotitán Valley can be traced back to atleast the Middle Preclassic period (1000–400BC). In the Late and Terminal Preclassic (400BC–AD 250), several sites spread out on the val-ley’s flood plain; El Cambio—with an earthenmound that was 12 m high and four lowmounds—was a possible Preclassic ceremonialcenter in the valley (Chandler 1983). In addition,previous studies reported extensive agriculturalfields at San Andrés, Nuevo Lourdes Poniente,and other small sites (McKee 2007; Shibataand Herrera 2019). Regional ceramics sharedtraits with Chalchuapa and other southern Meso-american sites, such as Izalco Usulután dec-oration modes and nubbin/conical supports(Begley et al. 1997).

It is difficult to determine the characteristicsand extent of occupation during the Early Classicperiod (AD 250–600) because of uncertaintyregarding the TBJ eruption date and a lack ofunequivocable occupation evidence. However,several ceramic groups corresponding to theEarly Classic period; Guazapa, Chilanga, andHuiscoyol ceramic groups in the VEC phase inSharer (1978) have been reported under andabove the TBJ tephra in San Andrés and nearbysites in the Zapotitán Valley (Begley et al. 1997;Yagi et al. 2015). These findings suggest thatresearchers should pay more attention to the con-text before and after the TBJ eruption whileresearching its date and impact. In the following






sections, this article provides new data relevantto this obscure period.

By the Late Classic period (AD 600–900/1000), large numbers populated the valley;based on settlement patterns, the valley’s totalpopulation at this time is estimated at 40,000–100,000 (Black 1983:82). San Andrés becamethe political, economic, and religious center ofthe region, covering more than 3 km2. Its corecomprises the Acropolis; the North (or Great)Plaza; four rectangular mounds measuring 30–50 m in length, 10–15 m in width, and 3 mhigh (possibly elite residences); and the largestmonumental structure in the valley known asthe “Campana Structure” (Structure 5, asshown in Figure 2). The core area was sur-rounded by a commoner residential area(McKee 2007). Monumental public buildingswere made of adobe and mud plaster, exceptfor Structure 7, which was built of large cut-stoneblocks. Previous scholars link San Andrés to theMaya site of Copan based on its layout and animpressive cache that included a highly elaborateeccentric flint, a stingray spine, Spondylus shells,and Copador Polychrome vessels (Begley et al.1997; Boggs 1943; Dimick 1941; McKee2007; Mejia 1984). Although the settlement sur-vey recorded other Late Classic sites in the valley(Black 1983), only Cerén, a commoner villageentirely buried by the LC eruption, has beeninvestigated in detail (Sheets 1983, 2000, 2002;Sheets et al. 2015). It has been assumed thatCerén commoners attended special ceremoniesat San Andrés and obtained exotic items fromfar away, such as obsidian, jade, and CopadorPolychrome vessels, through participation in abroad economic network (Sheets 2000; Sheetset al. 2015). The use of volcanic material atCeren has also been pointed out: the sacbe(“white road” in Yucatec Mayan) was builtwith material from the TBJ eruption (Sheetset al. 2015:355). However, relations betweenSan Andrés and Cerén remain unclear becauseof the lack of investigation at San Andrés.

During the Early Postclassic period (AD 900/1000–1200), the valley’s population is estimatedat 38,000–90,000 (Black 1983:82). San Andrésmay still have been the primary center in the val-ley but was likely influenced by Pipil migrantsfrom Central Mexico (Black 1983:89). Local

architectural materials and techniques drasticallychanged, from earthen materials to the use of cutvolcanic tuff blocks (Begley et al. 1997). In ad-dition, Mixteca-Puebla-style ceramics, locallyknown as Bandera Polychrome, have beenreported for this period (Begley et al. 1997;Camacho and Díaz 2015). The EB eruptionoccurred between AD 964 and 1040 (Ferréset al. 2011:842). However, the causal link orlinks, if any exist, between the Pipil migration,changes in materials and techniques, and theEB eruption are still unknown.

As described previously, prolonged and con-secutive human activities have been recorded inthe volcanically active Zapotitán Valley. How-ever, we do not yet understand when and howsocial complexity arose in the region, whenSan Andrés became the primary regional center,or about the process of its development and col-lapse. Furthermore, how these events relate to theaforementioned periodic volcanic events isunclear. To fill these gaps, this study presentsnew data clarifying our understanding ofthe architectural sequences, construction tech-niques, and radiocarbon dating at San Andrés,focusing on the largest monumental structureknown as the Campana and its surroundings.These results challenge the previous understand-ing of the site’s history and of relationshipsbetween human and volcanic activities in thevalley.

Excavating and Dating San Andrés

Datasets

This article examines two datasets: (1) excava-tion data from the Campana Structure and its sur-rounding area at San Andrés carried out by theauthor and his colleagues during 2015–2019and (2) new and existing Zapotitán Valley radio-carbon assays. Given that the Acropolis wasalready extensively excavated and reconstructed(Amaroli 2015; Boggs 1943; Dimick 1941),our excavations focused on theCampana Structure,a pyramidal structure atop a large basal platform.The platform measures approximately 85 × 65mand is 7m high in its final form, and the pyramidalstructure measures approximately 35 × 40m andis 13 m in height (Figures 2 and 3). Previousexcavations of the Campana Structure carried






out by Begley and colleagues (1997) focused onthe pyramidal structures and the south half of theplatform’s west face. However, its dimensions,forms, and architectural sequences, especiallyin relation to its initial construction, remainunclear. To fully reveal the structure’s construc-tion history, excavations were carried out in2015–2019 on the centerline and north half ofthe west face, as well as on the north and east

faces of the platform. Four rectangular structuresand the North Plaza, areas never before investi-gated, were excavated to better understand thesite’s development; other open areas were alsoinvestigated to determine early occupation. Theon-mound excavation units were 2 × 4 m longand, if necessary, were extended to better under-stand architectural features or sequences. Off-mound units, especially on the North Plaza and

Figure 2. Plan of San Andrés showing structures and excavated areas.






open areas, were 2 × 2 m long and extended asneeded. They were excavated at arbitrary 20 cmlevels unless cultural features or stratigraphicchanges were detected. In total, excavationsuncovered an area of 631 m2 and 1–8 m deepdepending on the unit: they included eightexcavation units on the Campana Structure,10 in the North Plaza, and four on low rect-angular mounds surrounding the North Plaza(Figure 2). The stratigraphic and architecturalsequences of the Campana Structure andother structures are shown in SupplementalFigure 1.

The other dataset consists of 27 radiocarbondates from the Campana Structure and other pub-lic buildings in San Andrés (SupplementalTable 1). Sixteen charcoal samples from theCampana Structure came from different con-struction phases: the TBJ and earth phase, theTBJ and stone-faced phase, and the adobephase. Another six charcoal samples came fromStructure 6, a rectangular adobe structure onthe North Plaza built above the LC tephra andrenovated at least twice. Structures 9 and 10,two additional adobe superstructures built onthe North Plaza above the LC tephra, each

Figure 3. Plan and sections of the Campana Structure (Structure 5): (a) north section of Tr.6, (b) plan of the CampanaStructure, and (c) north sections of Tr.3 and Tr.5.






provided one charcoal sample. Finally, two sam-ples came from the context under the TBJ, andone sample was recovered in the Late Classicbell-shaped pit uncovered near Mound B. Allsamples were run using accelerator mass spec-trometry (AMS) radiocarbon techniques at theLaboratory of Radiocarbon Dating at the Univer-sity of Tokyo Museum, Japan.

Also included in this analysis were four ad-ditional radiocarbon dates for samples recoveredfrom burned middens located in a residentialarea (McKee 2007:285, 296). Two were foundbeneath the EB tephra, and the other two werebeneath approximately 10–20 cm thick volcanicdeposits called the talpetate inferior, possiblyfrom an eruption of the San Salvador volcanocomplex, probably Los Chintos (McKee 2007:50).However, considering other geological and vul-canological studies in the Zapotitán Valley (Ferréset al. 2011; Miller 2002; Sofield 2004) and thestratigraphic location between the TBJ and EBtephra, this layer could be the LC tephra. Asseen in Supplemental Table 1, the calibrateddates of A-12580 and A-12581 are AD 425–650(95% probability), supporting this assumption.

Additionally, this study includes and reex-amines previous radiocarbon assays to assess theregional chronology (Supplemental Table 2).Eight Cerén samples and two from El Cambiowere analyzed (McKee 2002:7; Sheets 1983:7;Slotten 2015:72). Given that the LC eruptionentirely buried Cerén, the dating of these samplesis near the eruption date. The El Cambio samplesare from the test pits but were stratigraphicallylocated between the LC and EB tephra (Chandler1983:111). Three human skeletal remains fromNuevo Lourdes Poniente were also includedin this study (Ichikawa et al. 2014): these threeburials were associated with the Late Classicpolychrome vessels (Gualpopa and Arambalagroup in Sharer [1978]) found at the site. Finally,four samples associated with the EB tephrawere included. These samples are carbonizedtree trunks recovered 2.5 km north of the ElBoquerón crater (Ferrés et al. 2011:842). Cali-bration of the radiocarbon dates was carried outusing OxCal v.4.4.2 and the IntCal20 calibrationcurve (Bronk Ramsey 2020; Reimer et al. 2020).

This study uses Bayesian statistics to refinethe chronology and the estimated construction

phase dates in relation to volcanic activities. Tothis end, identifying problematic samples isimportant because contaminated materials, suchas old wooden materials or materials from oldcontexts (e.g., Inomata et al. 2014), are oftenintroduced at sites with long and successiveoccupations. Considering the stratigraphy, asso-ciated ceramic types, and quality of the samples(especially their 13C value) and of the datedmaterials, an inconsistent date known as an “out-lier” can be identified before Bayesian modelingis conducted. This process identified samplesTKA-17789, 17794, 17795, 17797, and 19377as outliers. Human remains from Nuevo LourdesPoniente have low 13C values, suggesting thesesamples could be problematic. However, strati-graphic data, calibrated dates, and associated ce-ramics are consistent, making them suitable forthe Bayesian model.

Bayesian analysis with OxCal can also iden-tify problematic dates through the statistical like-lihoods of outliers called “agreement indices,”which need to be 60% or higher for the agree-ment to be considered good (Bronk Ramsey2009:1025). The analysis identified TKA-17793, 19376, 19381, and 21284 as outliersand reached the most plausible model by incorp-orating stratigraphic information and archaeo-logical materials. Owing to the uncertaintyof the TBJ eruption date, this study used AD420–540 as the uniform distribution in themodel, meaning that the event could haveoccurred at any point within this time periodwith equal probability (Bronk Ramsey2009:1026). For the LC eruption, Cerén’s dateswere combined into the model (McKee 2002;Sheets 1983; Slotten 2015). However, only twosamples used current AMS dating techniques(A-10743 and AA105791). Because the conven-tional age ranges for other Cerén data tend to belarge due to the limitations of the technologyavailable at that time, those with ranges of±100 years above (ELS-40 and TX3120) areexcluded from the model. To calculate the EBeruption date, data provided by Ferrés and col-leagues (2011) were included.

Stratigraphic and Architectural Sequence

Excavations reveal more evidence of Preclassicperiod occupation than previously thought






(Black 1983:88). The amount (around 30% ofthe ceramic sample) and variations of ceramictypes in the Late and Terminal Preclassic periodsuggest a significant presence. Yet, despite thissignificant evidence of Late and Terminal Pre-classic occupations (e.g., Begley et al. 1997;McKee 2007), excavations have not found Lateand Terminal Preclassic monumental architec-ture in San Andrés; it was likely a village duringthis time. Preliminary ceramic analysis suggeststhat during the early part of the Early Classic,before the TBJ eruption, activities at San Andrésmay have declined, as indicated by a small quan-tity of ceramic types from this period.

Subsequently, the Zapotitán Valley wasentirely covered by a large amount of TBJ tephra(Ferrés et al. 2011; Dull et al. 2019). Excavationsin different areas at San Andrés confirmed that theprimary TBJ tephra’s thickness varied and was ashigh as 52 cm and that the tephra directly coveredthe agricultural fields (McKee 2007). According tothe TBJ tephra definition (Dull et al. 2019), units II,III, V, and VII were recorded in San Andrés.

Excavation data indicate that the first monu-mental public building at San Andrés was con-structed after the TBJ eruption and that it wasestablished directly on primary TBJ tephra.Stratigraphic data in Trench 6 show this structurewas built with TBJ tephra redeposits and earth(Figures 3a and 4). The builders first mixed dif-ferent units of tephra from the TBJ deposit andthen deposited and compacted these soils as con-struction fill. Variable TBJ tephra thicknesses atthe site suggest that builders may have intention-ally extracted the TBJ tephra from surroundingareas and redeposited it to construct thismonumental public building. Another earthenstructural fill material was yellowish-brown orbrown, clayey, and compacted. The TBJ tephra-earth phase of the Campana Structure was reno-vated at least three times, finally reaching 6 m inheight. The floors, approximately 5 cm thick,were composed of dark-brown clay with pumiceinclusions. Because of the limited excavation,the form and volume of the TBJ-earth phasearchitecture remain unclear. Ceramics of the Chi-langa andMachacal groups, corresponding to theEarly Classic period (Sharer 1978), were recov-ered from the construction fill, although in lowquantities.

The subsequent building was constructed ofan approximately 5 m thick TBJ redeposit facedby cut-stone blocks (Figures 3b, 3c, and 5).The TBJ redeposit had slightly different compo-sitions (Figure 4). For instance, one area consistsof only unit VII, whereas another one mixes unitsII and VII, suggesting the presence of differentprimary TBJ tephra units. Only four small,scraped slip potsherds (Guazapa group) wererecovered from the TBJ redeposit, suggestingthat the TBJ redeposit was carefully mixed,deposited, and compacted. The cut-stone blocksincluded volcanic tuffs and slabs. Their sizesvaried (20–70 cm length, 20–50 cm width, and10–20 cm height), their form was irregular, andcut-stone blocks were placed directly on theTBJ construction fill. These materials are avail-able from the eastern slope of the San Salvadorvolcanic complex, although further explorationis needed to verify whether this actually wasthe source. The TBJ and stone-faced phasearchitecture were used to build a platform meas-uring approximately 80 × 55 m and 6 m high(Figure 3b). Based on the architectural features,the platform’s volume is at least 24,000 m3,accounting for approximately 75% of theCampana Structure’s volume. The platform hadfour terraces and a central staircase on its westside that is 16 m wide (Figures 3b, 3c, and 6).

Notably, the TBJ and stone-faced construc-tion described in the previous paragraph islocated under the LC tephra. The primary LCtephra recorded in the Campana Structure wasapproximately 25 cm thick. According to theCerén sequence (Miller 2002:21), these unitscorrespond to units 3 and 4. This stratigraphicrelation indicates that the TBJ and stone-facedphase of the Campana Structure must havebeen contemporaneous with Cerén. Excavationdata from elsewhere at San Andrés have as yetfailed to uncover other monumental structuresdating to the period between the TBJ and LCeruptions.

After the LC eruption, a large-scale monu-mental public construction project was initiatedat San Andrés. Architectural materials, tech-niques, styles, and probably labor organizationsubstantially changed. Buildings were con-structed using adobe bricks and mud plaster(except for Structure 7, which was made of






large cut-stone blocks); TBJ tephra was nolonger used as a construction material (Supple-mental Figure 1). The Campana Structureplatform was expanded to approximately 85 ×65 m and 7 m in height (Figure 3b). Excavationsalso encountered ritual offerings associated withthe adobe construction phase, most likely depos-ited during the initial construction stage, such asan offering in a slab-lined pit on the platform’s

centerline (Figure 3b). Offerings included twovessels, one containing a jade-carved double-headed serpent; another incomplete jade artifact;two Spondylus shells; and a stone ball with redpigment (Figure 5).

The size of the adobe at San Andrés variedfrom 46 to 64 cm in length, 25 to 35 cm inwidth, and 15 to 18 cm in thickness (Ichikawaand Rodas 2020). Furthermore, different colors

Figure 4. Large amount of the TBJ tephra redeposited found at Tr.5. (Photographs by Akira Ichikawa.)






and textures could indicate that the recipe formaking the adobes varied. The mud plaster(average thickness, 5 cm) was composed ofroughly 60% black or brown lapilli, measuring5–15 mm, and silty clay. Ceramics recoveredfrom adobe construction fill are mainly of theGuazapa group but also include several poly-chromes such as Copador, Gualpopa, andCampana ceramics, time indicators of the LateClassic period in western-central El Salvador(Sharer 1978).

The excavation data provide informationabout the collapse of the Late Classic monumen-tal core of San Andrés. Only the Campana Struc-ture platform’s first terrace was well preserved,and layers between the floor and the El Boquerón(EB) tephra, which is 0.5–1.0 m thick, includecollapse debris. Other excavated areas in SanAndrés also indicate that layers between the EBtephra and the final phase of construction includecollapse debris. such as adobes and mud plasters(Camacho and Díaz 2015). This suggests that the

Late Classic monumental core of San Andréswas highly eroded long before the eruption(Figure 6).

Architectural and stratigraphic data show thatthe monumental core of San Andrés was reoccu-pied during the Early Postclassic, maybe a fewcenturies after the Late Classic abandonment,and after the EB eruption. The Mound B plat-form, located west of the Campana Structure,rests on the EB tephra (Card 1997:53). Further,approximately 5 cm of black soil was recordedbetween the platform’s basal part and the EBtephra (Card 1997:53). This black soil locatedbetween the EB tephra and subsequent construc-tion was also confirmed in the Acropolis (Amar-oli 2015:255). This indicates a time lapsebetween these two events. Mound B, measuringapproximately 25 × 15 m and at least 1.4 m inheight, is constructed with volcanic tuff locallyknown as talpetate. The characteristics, sizes,and forms of these volcanic tuff blocks differfrom those used for the TBJ and stone-faced

Figure 5. Central staircase of TBJ stone-faced phase, adobe phase, and cache 1 at the Campana Structure. (Photographsby Akira Ichikawa.)






phases of the Campana Structure. The Mound Btalpetate blocks are porous; their size and formare fairly standardized and rectangular, measur-ing 40 × 25 × 20 cm. The blocks were observedin the pyramidal structure on the Campana Struc-ture platform and the Acropolis. The ones usedfor the Campana Structure are interpreted as evi-dence of reconstruction during the prehispanicperiod, because they were placed on top of theoriginal adobe and mud-plastered finish thathad eroded substantially (Card 1997:42).Mixteca-Puebla-style potsherds were recoveredonly above the EB deposit, suggesting thatPipil migrants or local groups influenced by Cen-tral Mexican traditions may have occupied thearea after the EB eruption.

These excavation data significantly enhanceour understanding of the rise, development, andfall of San Andrés. The results of 26 radiocarbon

dates from this and other Zapotitán Valley sitespresented in the next section further enhanceour understanding of these events.

Radiocarbon Dates

The Bayesian analysis results are shown inFigures 7 and 8 and the OxCal code in Supple-mental Text 1. The final Bayesian model producedin OxCal has both a good model agreement indexvalue (Amoldel = 88.7%) and individual agreementvalue (Aoverall = 86.5%).

The Bayesian model indicates that the TBJeruption may be dated to around AD 539–540and the TBJ-earth construction phase to aroundAD 545–570. Although these carbon samplesmay be extracted from old contexts, the modelsuggests that the TBJ-earth construction phasebuilding project began within decades of theTBJ eruption. The TBJ and stone-faced

Figure 6. First terrace of adobe construction phase coating by mud plaster. (Photograph by Akira Ichikawa.)






construction phase are dated to approximatelyAD 570–620. These carbon samples weredated to after the 14C calibration curve plateau(1600–1550 yr BP), indicating they were clearlyfrom after the TBJ eruption. Bayesian modelingindicated that the LC eruption was plausiblyaround AD 620. These data imply that a monu-mental building project and its renovation

occurred within a few decades—within a max-imum of 80 years—after the TBJ eruption. Theadobe phase of construction is dated to AD625–800. El Cambio and Nuevo LourdesPoniente correspond to this period. Carbon sam-ples from layers between the final floor level andthe EB tephra are dated to approximately AD900–1050. Evidence of considerable erosion of

Figure 7. Bayesian model for San Andrés chronology.






the Campana Structure and no further buildingrenovation in this period indicates decline orabandonment of the site. Unfortunately, esti-mates for the date of the EB eruption rangewidely, from AD 1050 to 1250, and will needto be revised in the future to obtain a more ac-curate estimate.

Discussion

TBJ Eruption

New excavation and radiometric data suggestthat San Andrés was a small village dedicatedto ceramic production and agriculture duringthe Late/Terminal Preclassic period. In the firstportion of the Early Classic period before theTBJ eruption, social activities at San Andrésprobably declined, as suggested by the low quan-tities of Early Classic ceramics. The relativelylarger quantities of such ceramics found in

other sites, such as Nuevo Lourdes Ponienteand El Cambio, suggest they may have been ofgreater importance and also that Early Classicsettlement may have been more scattered thanpreviously thought. It is important to note thatGuazapa, and Chilanga ceramics, usually foundin the context above the TBJ tephra (Sharer1978), began to be produced before the TBJeruption in the Zapotitán Valley.

The Bayesian model using available data sug-gests an approximate date of AD 539–540 for theTBJ eruption. However, more data are needed toverify this model, so the alternative estimate ofAD 431 (Smith et al. 2020) should not be dis-carded. Although the TBJ eruption’s magnitudecould have been catastrophic, it is unlikely thatexisting societies in the Zapotitán Valley werecompletely wiped out, as previously proposed(Dull et al. 2019; Pedrazzi et al. 2019; Sheets2004, 2012). Excavations and radiometric dates

Figure 8. Bayesian model for sites in the Zapotitán Valley.






suggest the TBJ-earth architecture was built inAD 545–570 and, subsequently, the TBJ andstone-faced architecture in AD 570–620. Thisis significant because it demonstrates that monu-mental architecture was constructed earlier thanthe mid-seventh century, as argued by Dull andcoworkers (2019). In addition, as Dull and col-leagues estimated (2019:14), if the ZapotitánValley population had drastically decreased, lim-ited numbers of people would have been avail-able to construct the structure. This wouldmean that people reoccupied San Andrés andwere cooperating to build monumental architec-ture within a remarkably quick 30 years or, atthe latest, 80 years after the eruption if the AD539–540 date were accepted. Even if the dateof AD 431 proposed by Smith and colleagues(2020) is correct, the site was still reoccupiedwithin around 120 years of the eruption or evenearlier, as indicated by the significant continuityof ceramic groups such as the dominant utilitar-ian Guazapa ceramic group.

Furthermore, these results give us reason toquestion previous theories about the identitiesof the valley’s Late Classic populations. It hasbeen proposed, based on material and architec-tural similarity, that the first reoccupants of theZapotitán Valley after the TBJ eruption wereCh’orti’ immigrants from the Copan Valley(Sheets 2009). However, the Guazapa ceramicgroup, the dominant utilitarian vessel in Cerénand other Zapotitán Valley sites, existed beforethe TBJ eruption and continued to be used afterthe eruption, and other significant ceramic con-tinuities exist between contexts above andbelow TBJ deposits. Thus, the impact of theeruption in the Zapotitan Valley may not havebeen as severe as once thought; some local popu-lations may have survived there. Alternatively,descendants of pre-TBJ populations may havefirst evacuated and then later reoccupied theirhomeland. Additional research is required toexplore these scenarios more rigorously.

This work also highlights the use and reuse ofvolcanic material as a construction material. Theuse of considerable amounts of TBJ tephra forthe Campana Structure’s monumental architec-ture may have had important practical and sym-bolic implications. The presence of volcanicfumes, fires, a landscape completely covered

with white volcanic ash, and (in all likelihood)frequent earth tremors would have had a signifi-cant psychological impact on survivors or subse-quent colonizers in the region (Dull et al.2019:14). Volcanoes/mountains are deeplyembedded in ancient Mesoamerican life (Freidelet al. 1993; Joyce 2020; Plunket and Urñuela2008), and the use and reworking of volcanicmaterial by builders may have preserved memo-ries of catastrophic volcanic disasters in the col-lective memory. The variations in the mixedTBJ redeposit indicate that different workgroupsparticipated in this building project, which wouldhave reinforced a corporate identity among them.However, the practical qualities of TBJ tephra as aconstruction material must also be mentioned. AsSheets and colleagues (2015:354) point out, theTBJ tephra has excellent compaction propertiesand is still used for construction today. Likewise,variations in the TBJ redeposit were also observedin Cerén, suggesting different workgroups orbuilding episodes (Sheets et al. 2015:355).

Cerén and San Andrés

The new stratigraphic data from San Andrés raisequestions about the relationship between Cerénand San Andrés. It has been assumed that SanAndrés’s elite rulers controlled the political andeconomic aspects of the valley when the Cerénvillage existed (Sheets 2009). However, excava-tion data suggest that the Acropolis, the NorthPlaza (possibly a marketplace), eccentric flint,and other rich ritual offerings in San Andrés cor-respond to the post-LC eruption context. Previ-ous research at the Acropolis indicated that itcomprises several architectural units madeentirely of adobe and mud plaster (Amaroli2015; Boggs 1943; Dimick 1941). The onlystructure as yet identified as contemporary withCeren is the Campana Structure’s TBJ and stone-faced phase. Furthermore, the archaeologicalmaterial recovered from the context of the LCand TBJ eruptions is very limited. This suggeststhat when Cerén existed, San Andrés may havebeen a focal point of the materialized memoryof previous catastrophic eruptions and had aregional community identity as a symbol of thepost-TBJ eruption recovery process. It is, how-ever, far from clear that San Andrés was a polit-ical or economic center by this time. Cerén






commoners may have had greater autonomy thanonce proposed to develop connections with otherdistant primary centers such as Chalchuapa andCopan.

San Andrés’s Apogee: Loma Caldera Eruption

After the LC eruption, around AD 620, SanAndrés became the Zapotitán Valley’s primaryreligious, political, and economic center. Theeruption, earthquakes, and villages buried in vol-canic tephra must have had a strong psycho-logical impact on the people in the valley.However, the environmental impact was lessthan that of the TBJ eruption; a large cultural dis-juncture did not occur (Sheets 2008:79), and thepopulation increased by 40,000–100,000 (Black1983). The use of TBJ tephra and stone-facingtechniques was discontinued. Instead, monu-mental public constructions were constructedwith adobe and mud plaster. Adobe productionexisted before the LC eruption in Cerén, but atthat time these adobes were probably propertyintersection markers (Sheets et al. 2012:265,271) and not used for construction. Mud-plastering techniques also existed prior to theLC eruption in limited contexts such as hardenedfloors.

Adobe and mud-plaster techniques wereexclusively used for monumental public build-ings in the valley after the LC eruption. Largeamounts of adobe blocks indicate that SanAndrés was a locus of significant labor invest-ment. In addition, different adobe sizes andmaterials suggest that different adobe artisansin the valley gathered at San Andrés to constructmonumental public buildings (Ichikawa andRodas 2020). The quality of the mud-plasteringtechniques was enhanced using black lapilli,whose inclusion seems to have been inspiredby the LC tephra, which contains large amountsof lapilli units. This use of a new material pro-duced as a result of the volcanic eruption mayhave been for both religious and practicalreasons.

During the construction of the CampanaStructure and the Acropolis, multiple audiencescould have shared ritual practices, as evidencedby human sacrifices, several offering vessels,ceramic incense burners, and carved sculpturesof serpents, a parrot, a frog, and a human figure

(Boggs 1943). These practices could have con-tributed to forming local identities and, simulta-neously, formalizing social inequality and thecentralization of regional political authority.With restricted access and limited visibilityfrom outside the Acropolis, the Acropolis plazawas probably used for elite rituals, suggestingthat political power became more exclusivethan previously (Boggs 1943).

However, the political system centered at SanAndrés had likely disintegrated by AD 800, longbefore the subsequent EB eruption. No radiocar-bon samples from adobe structures from after AD800 have been run. Furthermore, the layersbetween the final level of the mud-plasteredfloor and the EB tephra recorded in the CampanaStructure and the Acropolis have a maximumthickness of 1 m; they consistently contain a con-siderable amount of collapsed debris, suggestingthat the monumental core of San Andrés washighly eroded by the time of the EB eruption.In addition, there is evidence that the terminalphase of the Acropolis may have been burned(Amaroli 2015:265). Thus, the EB eruptionwas clearly not responsible for the abandonmentof the ceremonial core at San Andrés. Other sug-gested causes are the arrival of immigrants fromCentral Mexico (though clear evidence of thatonly appears after the EB eruption) or a declinedue to internal problems (though this last ispurely speculative)

El Boquerón Eruption

Bayesian modeling estimated the EB eruptiondate as AD 1050–1250. The layers between theEB tephra and the talpetate block constructionin Mound B and the Acropolis suggest thatreoccupation of San Andrés’s monumental coremay have occurred several decades after the EBeruption. This is because the compactness andhardness of the tephra would have damaged agri-culture (Sheets 2004:116). The timing of the LateClassic decline, the recovery of agriculturalfields, and the lack of Late Postclassic materialsuggest the eruption presumably occurredaround AD 1050 or earlier, as indicated by Ferrésand colleagues (2011). Although a recent studybased on the isopach map suggests that21,000–54,000 people were affected by the erup-tion, demographic recoveries from the EB






eruption occurred a few decades later with nocultural disjuncture (Sheets 2004:117).

However, after the EB eruption, migrants or anew group influenced by Central Mexican tradi-tions may have occupied San Andrés, renovatingmonumental architecture built a few centuriesbefore, including the Campana Structure andAcropolis. New occupants used talpetate blocks,which were not available before the eruption(Begley et al. 1997:103), to repair and reusethese earlier structures, treating earlier sacredspaces with reverence. Although it is not certainwhether the new builders, who probably weremigrants or members of new groups influencedby Central Mexican traditions, witnessed theEB eruption, they might have conceived theinnovative use of talpetate blocks, products ofthe EB eruption, and reconstructed old sacredspaces.

Conclusions

New excavation and radiocarbon data signifi-cantly clarify the development, rise, and declineof San Andrés and the impacts of volcanic erup-tions on its settlement history and culture. Thesedata suggest that populations in San Andrés wereaffected and possibly displaced multiple timesby volcanic eruptions, yet resilient populationsquickly reoccupied and rebuilt the site in the dec-ades after these eruptions. These periods ofrenewal led to novel architectural—and, likelyby extension—social, and ritual practices at thesite. As several scholars argue (Hoffman 1999;Oliver-Smith 1996; Torrence 2019), the datasuggest that abrupt environmental changescaused by volcanic eruptions, especially theTBJ and LC eruptions, were opportunities forlocal leaders to create new communal affiliationsand regional-scale corporate identities, ratherthan resulting in periods of total societal col-lapse. These periods of centralization are evi-denced by the monumental public buildingprojects, requiring large amounts of labor,which seem to have been rapidly organizedafter each eruption. The EB eruption was notresponsible for the Late Classic collapse of SanAndrés, and its timing and impacts need to beinvestigated further. The new occupants seemedto have been inspired by the volcanic products

that covered the valley and, using this material,reconstructed old sacred spaces. The principalfactor in the choice of construction materials isoften its environmental availability (Blake1988:36). During different eruption periods inthe Zapotitán Valley, as in the Mediterranean(Chester et al. 2005), people used new innovativeconstruction materials, volcanic products, andmethods of labor organization to constructmonumental architecture as a social response toeruptions. This use of volcanic products as con-struction material embraced a religious/symbolicmeaning, as well as a practical use.

Obtaining more radiocarbon dates fromsecure contexts and combining them with otherarchaeological evidence are required to advancethis research. Using Bayesian modeling, thisstudy prefers the AD 539–540 for the TBJ erup-tion, but the possibility of the AD 431 eruptiondate should not be discarded (Smith et al.2020). If the earlier date is correct, the socialresponse in the Zapotitan Valley was initiatedearlier than the assumption proposed here, andthe recovery process was slower or more gradualrather than drastic. To advance the discussion,data from Chalchuapa, Cara Sucia, and Que-lepa—regional primary centers affected by theTBJ eruption—should be included. Recent dis-cussions have focused only on eruption dates.However, discussions based on archaeologicalevidence alone are insufficient due to the lackof archaeological investigations focusing onthe TBJ eruption. Further AMS radiocarbondating is also needed to date the LC eruption.This study argues that the EB eruption didnot cause the Late Classic abandonment orsocial change during the Early Postclassicperiod. Nevertheless, further data will beneeded to develop a similar discussion forother eruptions.

The data presented here and future research inSan Andrés will provide useful information forreimagining southeastern Mesoamerica’s socialdynamics and human responses to volcanic erup-tions. Further investigation at San Andrés willenhance our understanding of the political andeconomic dynamics at Cerén and give a broaderunderstanding of the degree and extent of thepower of the Copan dynasty in El Salvador andsoutheastern Mesoamerica.






Acknowledgments. I am grateful to the Dirección de Arqueo-logía de la Dirección Nacional de Patrimonio Cultural, Min-isterio de Cultura, El Salvador; Nagoya University; and theUniversity of Colorado Boulder for their invaluable support.This research was supported by grants from the JSPSKAKENHI (#26101003, 19H05734, and 19K13400), Mitsu-bishi Foundation, and Inamori Foundation in Japan. I alsogratefully acknowledge helpful feedback on early drafts ofthis article and encouragement from Arthur Joyce, PaysonSheets, Erlend Johnson, and Shigeru Kitamura. Finally, Ithank the three anonymous reviewers for their insightful com-ments that improved this article.

Data Availability Statement. The excavated materials areavailable in the Dirección de Arqueología de la DirecciónNacional de Patrimonio Cultural, Ministerio de Cultura, ElSalvador. All digital and analysis data were generated bythe author and are available for research purposes by contact-ing him.

Supplemental Material. To view supplemental material forthis article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/laq.2021.28.

Supplemental Figure 1. Matrix indicating the strati-graphic relations and radiocarbon samples.

Supplemental Table 1. Radiocarbon dates from SanAndrés.

Supplemental Table 2. Radiocarbon dates from sites inthe Zapotitán Valley.

Supplemental Text 1. OxCal code (OxCal v.4.4.2).

References Cited

Amaroli, Paul2015 Arqueología de El Salvador. FUNDAR, ElSalvador.

Balmuth, Miriam S., David K. Chester, and PatriciaA. Johnston (editors)

2005 Cultural Responses to the Volcanic Landscapes:The Mediterranean and Beyond. Archaeological Insti-tute of America, Boston.

Begley, Christopher, Roberto Gallardo, Jeb Card, Alex Wil-son, Linda Brown, and Norman Hermann

1997 Proyecto Arqueológico San Andrés: Informe 1997.Report prepared for the Patronato Patrimonio Cultural,El Salvador.

Black, Kevin D.1983 The Zapotitán Valley Archeological Survey. InArcheology and Volcanism in Central America: TheZapotitán Valley of El Salvador, edited byPayson Sheets, pp. 62–98. University of Texas Press,Austin.

Blake, Susan1988 House Materials, Environment, and Ethnicity inSoutheastern Chiapas, Mexico. In Ethnoarchaeologyamong the Highland Maya of Chiapas, Mexico, editedby Thomas A. Lee Jr. and Brian Hayden, pp. 21–37.New World Archaeological Foundation, BrighamYoung University, Provo, Utah.

Boggs, Stanley H.1943 Notas sobre las excavaciones en la Hacienda “SanAndrés” Departamento de la Libertad. Tzunpame3:104–126.

Bronk Ramsey, Christopher2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocar-bon 51:337–360.

2020 OxCal v.4.4.2. Released 2020 August 19. OxfordRadiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). Electronicdocument, http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk, accessed January10, 2021.

Camacho, Oscar, and Hugo Díaz2015 Análisis de los materiales arqueológicos de lasTemporadas 2011–2012, del Proyecto ArqueológicoSan Andrés, Valle de Zapotitán, El Salvador. In XXVIIISimposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guate-mala, edited by Bárbara Arroyo, Luis Méndez Salinas,and Lorena Paiz, pp. 433–440. Museo Nacional deArqueología y Etnología, Guatemala City.

Card, Jeb J.1997 Excavations on Mound B. In Proyecto ArqueológicoSan Andrés: Informe 1997, edited by Christopher Begley,Roberto Gallardo, Jeb Card, Aixa Wilson, Linda Brown,and Nicholas Herrmann, pp. 50–67. Report prepared forthe Patronato Patrimonio Cultural, El Salvador.

Chandler, Susan M.1983 Excavations at the Cambio Site. In Archaeology andVolcanism in Central America: The Zapotitán Valley ofEl Salvador, edited by Payson Sheets, pp. 98–118. Uni-versity of Texas Press, Austin.

Chester, David K., Angus M. Duncan, and John E. Guest2005 Responses to Eruptions of Etna from the ClassicalPeriod to 1900. InCultural Responses to Volcanic Land-scapes: The Mediterranean and Beyond, edited byMiriam S. Balmuth, David K. Chester, and PatriciaA. Johnston, pp. 93–108. Archaeological Institute ofAmerica, Boston.

Cooper, Jago, and Payson D. Sheets (editors)2012 Surviving Sudden Environmental Change: Answersfrom Archaeology. University Press of Colorado,Boulder.

Dimick, John1941 Notes on Excavations at Campana-San Andrés, ElSalvador. In Carnegie Institution of Washington YearBook No. 40: July 1, 1940–June 30, 1941, pp. 298–300. Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC.

Dull, Robert A., John R. Southon, Steffen Kutterolf, Kevin J.Anchukaitis, Armin Freundt, David B. Wahl, PaysonSheets, Paul Amaroli, Walter Hernandez, Michael C.Wiemann, and Clive Oppenheimer

2019 Radiocarbon and Geologic Evidence Reveal Ilo-pango Volcano as Source of the Colossal “Mystery”Eruption of 539/540 CE. Quaternary Science Reviews2221–2217.

Dull, Robert A., John R. Southon, and Payson Sheets2001 Volcanism, Ecology and Culture: A Reassessmentof the Volcán Ilopango TBJ Eruption in the SouthernMaya Realm. Latin American Antiquity 12:25–44.

Fash, Williams, and Leonardo López Luján (editors)2009 The Art of Urbanism: How Mesoamerican King-doms Represented Themselves in Architecture andImagery. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Ferrés, Dolores, Hugo Delgado Granados,Walter Hernández,Carlos Pullinger, Hugo Chávez, Rafael CastilloTaracena, and Carlos Cañas Dinarte

2011 Three Thousand Years of Flank and Central VentEruptions of the San Salvador Volcanic Complex (ElSalvador) and their Effects on the El Cambio Archeo-logical Site: A Review Based on Tephrostratigraphy.Bulletin of Volcanology 73:833–850.





http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk

http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk




Freidel, David A., Linda Schele, and Joy Parker1993 Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on theShaman’s Path. William Morrow, New York.

Grattan, John2006 Aspects of Armageddon: An Exploration of the Roleof Volcanic Eruptions in Human History and Civiliza-tion. Quaternary International 151:10–18.

Grattan, John, and Robin Torrence2007 Beyond Gloom and Doom: The Long-Term Conse-quences of Volcanic Disasters. In Living under theShadow: The Cultural Impacts of Volcanic Eruptions,edited by John Grattan and Robin Torrence, pp. 1–18.Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.

Hoffman, Susanna1999 After Atlas Shrugs: Cultural Change or Persistenceafter a Disaster. In The Angry Earth: Disaster inAnthropological Perspective, edited by Anthony Oliver-Smith and Susanna Hoffman, pp. 302–325. Routledge,London.

Ichikawa, Akira, Roberto Gallardo, Hugo Díaz, andJulio Alvarado

2014 Nuevo datos de radiocarbono relacionados con laerupción del Volcán Ilopango. Anales del Museo Nacio-nal de Antropología “Dr. David J. Guzmán” El Salva-dor 53:160–175.

Ichikawa, Akira, and Angel Rodas2020 Manufacturing Adobe Bricks in Mesoamerica:Archaeological and Experimental Analysis from SanAndrés, El Salvador. Mexicon 42:153–160.

Inomata, Takeshi, Raul Ortiz, Bárbara Arroyo, and EugeniaJ. Robinson

2014 Chronological Revision of Preclassic Kaminaljuyú,Guatemala: Implications for Social Processes in theSouthern Maya Area. Latin American Antiquity25:377–408.

Joyce, Arthur2020 Assembling the City: Monte Alban as a Mountain ofCreation and Sustenance. In New Materialism, AncientUrbanisms, edited by Susan M. Alt and TimothyR. Pauketat, pp. 65–93. Routledge, London.

Kintigh, Keith W., Jeffrey H. Altschul, Mary C. Beaudry,Robert D. Drennan, Ann P. Kinzig, TimothyA. Kohler, W. Fredrick Limp, HerbertD. G. Maschner, William K. Michener, TimothyR. Pauketat, Peter Peregrine, Jeremy A. Sabloff, TonyJ. Wilkinson, Henry T. Wright, and Melinda A. Zeder

2014 Grand Challenges for Archaeology. AmericanAntiquity 79:5–24.

McKee, Brian R.2002 Introduction: Appendix 1A: Radiocarbon Datingand Chronology. In Before the Volcano Erupted: TheAncient Cerén Village in Central America, edited byPayson Sheets, pp. 7–8. University of Texas Press,Austin.

2007 Volcanism, Household Archeology, and FormationProcesses in the Zapotitán Valley, El Salvador. PhD dis-sertation, Department of Anthropology, University ofArizona, Tucson.

Mejia, Jorge1984 Las ruinas de San Andrés: Excavaciones en laEstructura No. 7. Flama 14(48):33–47.

Miller, C. Dan2002 Volcanology, Stratigraphy, and Effects on Struc-tures. In Before the Volcano Erupted: The AncientCerén Village in Central America, edited by PaysonSheets, pp. 11–23. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Oliver-Smith, Anthony1996 Anthropological Research onHazards andDisasters.Annual Review of Anthropology 25:303–328

Oliver-Smith, Anthony, and Susanna M. Hoffman (editors)1999 The Angry Earth: Disaster in Anthropological Per-spective. Routledge, London.

Pedrazzi, Dario, Ivan Sunye-Puchol, Gerardo Aguirre-Díaz,Antonio Costa, Victoria C. Smith, Matthieu Poret,Pablo Dávila-Harris, Daniel P. Miggins, Walter Hernán-dez, and Eduardo Gutiérrez.

2019 The Ilopango Tierra Blanca Joven (TBJ) Eruption,El Salvador: Volcano Stratigraphy and Physical Charac-terization of theMajor Holocene Event of Central Amer-ica. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research377:81–102.

Plunket, Patricia, and Gabriela Uruñuela2005 Recent Research in Puebla Prehistory. Journal ofArchaeological Research 13:89–127.

2008 Mountain of Sustenance, Mountain of Destruction:The Prehispanic Experiencewith Popocatépetl Volcano.Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research170:111–120.

Reimer, Paula J., William E. N. Austin, Edouard Bard, AlexBayliss, Paul G. Blackwell, Christopher Bronk Ramsey,Martin Butzin, Hai Cheng, R. Lawrence Edwards,Michael Friedrich, Pieter M. Grootes, Thomas P. Guil-derson, Irka Hajdas, Timothy J. Heaton, Alan G.Hogg, Konrad A. Hughen, Bernd Kromer, Sturt W.Manning, Raimund Muscheler, Jonathan G. Palmer,Charlotte Pearson, Johannes van der Plicht, Ron W.Reimer, David A. Richards, E. Marian Scott, John R.Southon, Christian S.M. Turney, LukasWacker, FlorianAdolphi, Ulf Büntgen, Manuela Capano, Simon M.Fahrni, Alexandra Fogtmann-Schulz, Ronny Friedrich,Peter Köhler, Sabrina Kudsk, Fusa Miyake, JesperOlsen, Frederick Reinig, Minoru Sakamoto, AdamSookdeo, and Sahra Talamo

2020 IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere Radiocarbon AgeCalibration Curve (0–55 cal kBP). Radiocarbon62:725–757.

Scarth, Alwyn1999 Vulcan’s Fury: Man against the Volcano. Yale Uni-versity Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

Sharer, Robert J.1978 The Prehistory of Chalchuapa, El Salvador, Vols. I–III. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Sheets, Payson D.2000 Provisioning the Cerén Household: The VerticalEconomy, Village Economy, and Household Economyin the Southeastern Maya Periphery. Ancient Meso-america 11:217–230.

2004 Apocalypse Then: Social Science Approaches Volcan-ism, People, and Cultures in the Zapotitán Valley, El Salva-dor. In Natural Hazards in El Salvador, edited byWilliamI. Rose, Julian J. Bommer, Dina L. López, Michael J. Carr,and Jon J. Major, pp. 147–158. GSA Special Papers Vol.375. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado.

2008 People and Volcanos in the Zapotitan Valley, El Sal-vador. Living under the Shadow: Cultural Impacts ofVolcanic Eruptions, edited by John Grattan andRobin Torrence, pp. 67–89. Routledge; London.

2009 Who Were those Classic Period Immigrants into theZapotitán Valley, El Salvador? In The Ch’orti’ MayaArea: Past and Present, edited by Brent E. Metz, Cam-eron L. McNeil, and Kerry M. Hull, pp. 61–77. Univer-sity Press of Florida, Gainesville.






2012 Responses to Explosive Volcanic Eruptions bySmall-to-Complex Societies in Ancient Mexico andCentral America. In Surviving Sudden EnvironmentalChange: Answers from Archaeology, edited by JagoCooper and Payson D. Sheets, pp. 43–63. UniversityPress of Colorado, Boulder.

2016 Thoughts and Observations on Volcanic Activityand Human Ecology. Quaternary International 394:152–154.

Sheets, Payson D. (editor)1983 Archaeology and Volcanism in Central America:The Zapotitán Valley of El Salvador. University ofTexas Press, Austin.

2002 Before the Volcano Erupted: The Ancient Cerén Vil-lage inCentral America. UniversityofTexas Press,Austin.

Sheets, Payson D., Christine Dixon, David Lentz, RachelEgan, Alexandria Halmbacher, Venicia Slotten, RocioHerrera, and Celine Lamb

2015 The Sociopolitical Economy of an Ancient MayaVillage: Cerén and Its Sacbe. Latin American Antiquity26:341–361.

Sheets, PaysonD., David Lentz, Dolores Piperno, John Jones,Christine Dixon, George Maloof, and Angela Hood

2012 Ancient Manioc Agriculture South of the Ceren Vil-lage, El Salvador. Latin American Antiquity 23:259–281.

Shibata, Shione, and Rocío Herrera2019 Continuidad o abandono? El centro ceremonial deTazumal, El Salvador C.A. después de la erupción delVolcán Ilopango entre el siglo V-VI d.C.Kóot 10:92–135.

Slotten, Venicia2015 Paleoethnobotanical Remains and Land Use Asso-ciated with the Sacbe at the Ancient Maya Village of

Joya de Cerén. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthro-pology, University of Cincinnati, Ohio.

Smith, Victoria C., Antonio Costa, Gerardo Aguirre-Díaz,Dario Pedrazzi, Andrea Scifo, Gill Plunkett, MattieuPoret, Pierre-Yves Tournigand, Dan Miles, MichaelW. Dee, Joseph R. McConnell, Ivan Sunyé-Puchol,Pablo Dávila Harris, Michael Sigl, Jonathan R. Pilcher,Nathan Chellman, and Eduardo Gutiérrez.

2020 The Magnitude and Impact of the 431 CE TierraBlanca Joven Eruption of Ilopango, El Salvador.PNAS 117:26061–26068.

Sofield, Darrel J.2004 Eruptive History and Hazards of Volcan San Salva-dor, El Salvador. In Natural Hazards in El Salvador,edited by William I. Rose, Julian J. Bommer, DinaL. López, Michael J. Carr, and Jon J. Major, pp. 147–158. GSA Special Papers Vol. 375. Geological Societyof America, Boulder, Colorado.

Torrence, Robin2019 Social Responses to Volcanic Eruptions: A Reviewof Key Concepts.Quaternary International 499:258–265.

Yagi, Hiroaki, Shione Shibata, and Liuba Moran2015 La cerámica de El Cambio, Valle de Zapotitán, ElSalvador. In XXVIII Simposio de InvestigacionesArqueológicas en Guatemala 2014, edited by BárbaraArroyo, Luis Méndez Salinas, and Lorena Paiz, pp.855–863. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología,Guatemala City.

Submitted August 17, 2020; Revised January 27, 2021;Accepted February 25, 2021






monumental structures and volcanic activities: excavating the … · el boquerón eruption the el...

Documents