WHEN WAS THE SUN PYRAMID BUILT?

MAINTAINING THE STATUS QUO AT TEOTIHUACAN, MEXICO

Rebecca Sload

The traditional view based on ceramics is that construction of the Sun Pyramid at Teotihuacan commenced in the first
century A .D. Likewise, radiocarbon dates from the artificial cave beneath the Pyramid indicate that it was created at about
the same lime. Both Pyramid and cave are seen as having a role in the founding of the city. Recent excavation inside the
Pyramid produced radiocarbon dates that cluster in the mid-third century A.D. Members of the Sun Pyramid Project inter-
preted the dates as representing initial construction of the structure, moving it significantly later in time than previously
thought. They also reinterpreted the dates for the construction of the cave, making it contemporaneous with the revised
Pyramid construction. This paper adds radiocarbon dates from the cave to the original set and employs Bayesian analysis.
The initial interpretation is supported: the dates reflect a cycle of cave creation through termination that began in the mid-
first century and lasted about 200 years. I interpret the dates from the Pyramid as reflecting ritual associated with cave ter-
mination and a concomitant redefinition of the Pyramid that involved architectural modifications and tunneling. Pyramid
and cave dates are reconciled with each other, with ceramics, and with the ceramic chronology. The traditional timing of
first century Pyramid construction is maintained, along with its social, political, and economic implications.

Los estudios tradicionales basados en la cerdmica han determinado que la construccion de la Pirdmide del Sol de Teotihuacan
comenzo alrededor del siglo uno d.C. De la misma manera, losfechados radiocarbonicos de la cueva artificial ubicada debajo
de la pirdmide indican que dicha cueva fue construida contempordneamente a la pirdmide. Se considera que ambas jugaron
un rol importante en laformacidn de la ciudad. Las excavaciones recientes dentro de la pirdmide han arrojado fechados radio-
carbonicos correspondientes a mediados del siglo tres. El Proyecto Pirdmide de Sol interprets estos fechados como el inicio
de la construccion de la pirdmide, modificando lo previamente establecido. El Proyecto Pirdmide tambien reinterprets los
fechados obtenidos en la cueva y concluyo que estos son del mismo periodo que los nuevos resultadospreviamente mencionados.
En este arttculo se presenta un conjunto mas completo de fechados radiocarbonicos obtenidos a partir de muestras adquiridas
de la cueva y se analizan los datos utilizando una inferencia bayesiana.Los resultados de dicho andlisis apoyan la interpretacion
original: los fechados indican que el ciclo de creacion, uso y terminacion de la cueva comenzo a mediados del siglo uno y
duro aproximadamente 200 ahos. Losfechados obtenidos en la pirdmide se interpretan como momentos que representan los
rituales de terminacion de la cueva y la contempordnea redefinicion de la pirdmide, la cual incluyo modificaciones arquitec-
tonicas, asi como la excavacion de tuneles. De esa forma, los fechados de la pirdmide y de la cueva se concilian entre si, con
las cerdmicas y con la cronologia cerdmica. El tiempo de inicio de construccion de la pirdmide en el siglo uno se mantiene,
junto con las implicaciones sociales, politicas y economicas.

T
he Sun Pyramid at Teotihuacan is one of de Antropologfa e Historia (INAH) Sun Pyramid

the largest pyramids in the world and one Project (PPS) celebrated the bicentennial,
of the most recognized monuments in Latin The PPS obtained radiocarbon dates from in-
America. A towering presence on the skyline, it side the Pyramid and proposed an interpretation
contributes to making Teotihuacan the most visited that challenges long-held ideas about the timing
archaeological site in Mexico. Study of the Pyra- of its construction (Sugiyama et al. 2013).
mid began more than 100 years ago with a recon- Sugiyama and colleagues also reinterpreted ra-
struction that commemorated the 1910 centennial diocarbon dates from the artificial cave beneath
of Mexican independence (Batres 1995 [1906]). the Pyramid published by Sload (2007). They
One hundred years later, the Instituto Nacional moved construction of Pyramid and cave out of
Rebecca Sload • P.O. Box 5022, Andover, MA 01810-9993 (rsload@hotmail.com)
Latin American Antiquity 26(2), 2015, pp. 221-241
Copyright © 2015 by the Society for American Archaeology
DOI: 10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221

221

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
 222 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
the first century A.D. to around the beginning of
the third, "much later than previously suggested"
(Sugiyama et al. 2013:428). This article reiterates
the traditional viewpoint of a first-century initia-
tion of construction of both Pyramid and cave,
and it offers a corresponding interpretation of the
PPS dates.
The timing of construction of the Sun Pyramid
has implications that extend beyond the monument
itself. Sugiyama et al. (2013:429) propose con-
temporaneous construction at Teotihuacan's three
largest pyramids—the Sun Pyramid, the Feathered
Serpent Pyramid (FSP), and the Moon Pyramid—
during a "period of rapid monumental expansion"
that occurred on a "massive scale between A.D.
170-310." Moving the construction of the Sun
Pyramid to the beginning of the third century con-
tradicts the traditional view that Teotihuacan ur-
banism developed during the first two centuries
A.D. as a result of rapid population growth linked
to construction of the gigantic Sun Pyramid
(Cowgill 1992,2000; Millon 1981,1992).
Background
Sun Pyramid
One of the earliest references to the Sun Pyramid
is Almaraz (1865), who measured the Pyramid
before Batres' reconstruction early in the twentieth
century. The removal of thousands of tons of soil
and stones from the Pyramid during reconstruction
(Bastien 1967:62; El Imparcial 1995:122 [1906])
does not appear to have been symmetrical. Batres
(1995:101-102 [1906]) found remains of the stair-
cases of the Pyramid on the front or western
facade, suggesting that he altered this face less
than the other three. Sugiyama (2010:Figure 11.5)
offers support: one of the east-west measurements
of the outer Pyramid is close to Almaraz's mea-
surement of 224 m.
Other projects also focused on the exterior of
the Pyramid. In 1966, as part of INAH's Proyecto
Teotihuacan, Acosta (1966:12) cleared the plaza
in front of the Pyramid and found the original
staircase of the adosada platform. Matos's (1995)
INAH Proyecto Especial Teotihuacan 1992-1994
worked on a large scale, consolidating the enor-
mous U-shaped platform that surrounds the Pyra-
mid and establishing the relationship between
them. Two minor excavations clarified the rela-
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
[Vol. 26, No. 2, 2015
tionship between the current Pyramid and the
outer Pyramid. Also as part of the Proyecto Teoti-
huacan, a trench dug by Salazar cut into the north
side of the Pyramid (Smith 1987:Figures 6-7).
Millon's Teotihuacan Mapping Project (TMP) test
excavation (TE) 16 subsequently cut into the
southeast corner of the Pyramid (Millon 1970:23).
In both cases, ceramics indicated that the outer
Pyramid was probably built during the Late
Tlarnimilolpa phase (Millon 1970:24; Smith
1987:258).
A number of projects examined the interior of
the Pyramid on the east-west centerline. The two
largest were INAH tunnels at the base of the Pyra-
mid. Beginning in 1917, Gamio excavated from
the back or east face, and in 1933, Noguera entered
the Pyramid from the west under the staircases
(Figure 1; Gamio 1922; Noguera 1935; Perez
1935). Noguera (1935:53) noted that the ceramic
fill of the adosada platform dates later than the
fill from the Pyramid itself. Rattray (2001:375)
dates construction of the adosada platform to
Early Tlarnimilolpa times, while Millon
(1992:393) places it in the Miccaotli phase,
slightly earlier than the FSP in the Ciudadela.
Inside the tunnels dug by Gamio and Noguera,
Kroeber dug a number of pits to collect additional
ceramics, and Valliant, Bastien, and possibly oth-
ers excavated short exploratory tunnels near the
center of the Pyramid (Millon et al. 1965:16-18).
In the summer of 1959, Millon and Drewitt in-
vestigated the tunnels. A stone-faced wall, the pur-
pose of which has yet to be determined, was found
in association with an offering in the tunnel dug
by Noguera (Millon et al. 1965:21-25, Figures
37^10). Acosta tunneled north and south of the
wall, perpendicular to Noguera's tunnel. The pro-
ject was completed by Smith (1987:4, Table 27).
Between 2008 and 2011, the PPS excavated the
floor of Noguera's tunnel, digging parallel or per-
pendicular supplementary tunnels as needed
(Sugiyama et al. 2013). All excavations found that
ceramics in the first cuerpo of the Pyramid dated
almost exclusively to Tzacualli (Teotihuacan I;
Millon 1970:22; Millon et al. 1965:6-7; Noguera
1935; Rattray 2001:Table 5; Smith 1987:4, Table
27; Sugiyama et al. 2013:429, Table 1). For every-
one except Sugiyama and colleagues, this trans-
lated into a Tzacualli phase construction for the
bulk of the Pyramid.
 Sload] WHEN WAS THE SUN PYRAMID BUILT?
adosada platform
Figure 1. Profile view of the Pyramid and cave along the east-west centerline of the Pyramid (after Millon 1993:Figure
5a).
Two projects investigated the east-west cen-
terline at higher elevations. In 1962, Smith
(1987:5) tunneled from the east to the approximate
center of the Pyramid at the base of the fifth
cuerpo (Figure 1). Ninety-five percent of ceramics
dated to Tzacualli; Miccaotli and Tlamimilolpa
were minor components (Smith 1987:Table 27).
This work indicated that the majority of the Pyra-
mid dates to Tzacualli and that the top appears a
bit later.
TMP TE22 corroborated the scenario. In 1968
a 4-m-deep test pit was made in the floor of Smith's
tunnel (Figure 1; Millon 1970:22; Rattray
2001:55). At a depth of about 2 m a great earthen
talud with a mud plaster surface began to appear
in the south wall (Millon 1992:Figure 5). The talud
gradually sloped down to the north for 2 m until it
nearly filled the pit and forced excavation to stop
(Millon 1970:22). The talud indicated the existence
of a buried structure with a base that rested ap-
proximately on the top of the Pyramid's third
cuerpo (Figure 1). Location, shape, size, and fin-
ished surface pointed to a temple base on the sum-
mit of an earlier Pyramid. Twin temples almost
certainly existed, as determined by the presence
of an east-west talud located just south of the cen-
terline of the Pyramid sloping down to the north
(Millon 1992:360, 390, Figure 5). This implies
both a corresponding east-west talud sloping down
to the south near the south edge of the top of the
third cuerpo and a corresponding temple platform
just north of the east-west centerline. Both the
change in ceramic composition and the existence
of sizable structures on top of the Pyramid's third
cuerpo indicate that the fourth and fifth cuerpos
were later additions. These facts, as well as the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
223
Smith KT tunnel
Gamlo tunnel
later ceramic fill in the adosada platform, are im-
portant to the hypothesis presented here.
Cave
INAH archaeologists accidentally discovered the
cave beneath the Pyramid in 1971. For more than
two decades it was thought to be a natural forma-
tion, a lava tube, as evaluated by Mooser (Heyden
1975:131). Geophysical surveys demonstrated that
the cave was human-made (Chavez et al. 2001;
Manzanilla 1994; Manzanilla et al. 1994; Man-
zanilla et al. 1996). Regardless, few dispute that
the location of the cave on the east-west centerline
of one of the largest pyramids in the world indi-
cates a ritual function. The idea that the artificial
cave of the Sun Pyramid was the most important
mountain cave (Alfaro et al. 2003:494) fits with a
growing body of evidence that suggests ancient
Mesoamericans did not distinguish between nat-
ural and human-made ritual caves. Both func-
tioned interchangeably as key elements of the cos-
mos (Brady 1997,2003a, 2003b, 2012; Brady and
Ashmore 1999; Brady and Veni 1992; Moyes
2013). Conquest period texts make the same point.
The Aztecs identified eight types of caves, ac-
cording to Sahagiin (1963:275-277). Two types,
Xaloztotl and Tepetlaoztotl, were clearly human-
made and yet bore the same Nahua word for cave,
oztotl, as the other six. The apparent emic view-
point of no distinction is adopted here, and the
artificial cave is referred to simply as a cave be-
cause that was its function.
Soon after discovery, INAH cleared the 6.5-
m-deep entrance shaft of the rubble that had sealed
the cave since the last prehistoric visitors and
commenced a multi-year program of consolidation
 224 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 26, No. 2, 2015

AreaD Area A

AreaC
AreaB

adosada
platform

CHAMBERS
North

East
South

Figure 2. Map of cave showing the blockages, four Areas of TE28, and the two sets of walls—the excavated cave walls
and the stacked rock walls (adapted from TMP map of cave, copyright Rene Millon).

and exploration. The former made the cave safe Conundrum

for entry. INAH installed a metal staircase and
electric lights and cleared the centers of the block-
ages to ground level. It erected a block-and-tackle
system at the cave entrance to remove the sub-
stantial amount of surface material, which was
reported as "truckloads" and as containing nothing
important (Millon 1981:233-234). Exploration
included Acosta's excavation of the terminus, the
most significant findings of which are reported
by Heyden (1973,1975,1981).
In 1976, the TMP made a surface collection of
the cave, followed by the excavation of TE28 in
1978 (Figure 2). A 2006 Foundation for the Ad-
vancement of Mesoamerican Studies (FAMSI)
grant funded selection and radiocarbon dating of
charcoal from TE28 (Sload 2007). The dates pro-
duced a timeline for the cave that aligned with
the ceramic chronology and ceramics from the
cave, which show an absence of Patlachique and
an overwhelming presence of Tzacualli and Mic-
caotli materials (Figure 3; Sload and Cowgill
2009). 1 dated Sow moTe of fee YAMSI cViatcoa\
samples with private funding in 2009 to explore
questions raised by the first 16 (Sload 2011).
The PPS assumed at the outset of excavation that
material from the lowest levels of the Pyramid
would date its initial construction, estimated at
100-150 A.D. during the Tzacualli phase (Sarabia
and Sugiyama 2011:10). Six of the seven PPS
Pyramid dates did not meet expectations: they
consistently date to the mid-third century (Table
1), significantly later than Tzacualli (Figure 3).
The conundrum is resolved by proposing that con-
struction of the Sun Pyramid occurred "over a
century later" than currently assumed (Sugiyama
et al. 2013:429). Sugiyama et al. (2013:416,428)
view Pyramid construction as "a long process"
that occurred around the beginning of the third
century within a time frame of A.D. 170-310.
The core of the issue is how to reconcile the
unexpectedly late radiocarbon dates with the Tza-
cualli fill of the Pyramid and the ceramic chronol-
ogy (Figure 3). Sugiyama et al. eschew the tradi-
tional method of dating the Pyramid, whereby the
TzacuaWi fi\\ radicates aTzacuaWi time frame.
They propose that construction occurred signifi-
cantly later, contemporaneous with the FSP and

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
 Sload] WHEN WAS THE SUN PYRAMID BUILT?
Time Period Ceramic Phase
700
600 Metepec
500 LateXolalpan
Early Xolalpan
LateTlamimilolpa
Early Tlamimilolpa
200 Miccaotli
100 Late Tzacualli
A.D.
Early Tzacualli
Patlachique
200
Figure 3. Teotihuacan ceramic chronology (after Carballo
2011:Figure 22).
Moon Pyramid Building 4 (Sugiyama et al.
2013:429).
The FSP was most likely built during the Early
Tlamimilolpa phase (Cowgill 2003:319; Cowgill
and Cabrera 1991; Gazzola 2009:227). Moon
Pyramid Building 4 was built at the same time or
perhaps at the end of Miccaotli, depending upon
whether ceramic fill or radiocarbon dates are the
primary guiding tool (Sugiyama 2010:141;
Sugiyama and Cabrera 2007:120, Tables 1-2).
Sugiyama and colleagues imply that old Tzacualli
fill was used for the Sun Pyramid during the same
time period that Miccaotli or Miccaotli/Early
Tlamimilolpa fill was being used in the other two
pyramids. This seems unlikely.
Surface construction at Teotihuacan relied on
the constant reuse of material from local dumps
(Rattray 2001:43). As a result, undisturbed strati-
fied deposits often contain ceramics from phases
earlier than the actual phase of construction. While
assignment of building phases based on ceramic
fill is thus not entirely precise, it is the method
used to date virtually all substantial construction
at Teotihuacan. It is the traditional basis for dating
the Sun Pyramid, as seen above. Rattray (2001)
used it to date construction associated with the nu-
merous TMP test excavations. It established con-
struction sequences at monuments like the FSP
and Moon Pyramid that have a series of radiocar-
bon dates (Sugiyama 1998:149, Table 13.1;
Sugiyama and Cabrera 2007). Ceramic stratigraphy
produced chronological orderings of construction
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
225
sequences that underlie our understanding of the
life cycle of the city. Sugiyama and colleagues
suggest that the Sun Pyramid is an exception.
The Sun Pyramid is immense, with an esti-
mated volume of 1,270,000 m3 (Barba and Cor-
dova 2010:Apendice G). This is about four times
larger than the final Moon Pyramid (Building 7),
estimated at 329,000 cubic meters, and 35 times
larger than the FSP, estimated at 36,000 cubic me-
ters (Barba and Cordova 2010:Apendice G). At
least four independent projects at the Sun Pyramid
found that 95-100 percent of ceramics date to
Tzacualli. Combined with the pattern of constant
reuse of refuse, it seems unlikely that the massive
fill requirements of the Sun Pyramid were met
exclusively through the use of previously ignored
Tzacualli dumps, while the simultaneous fill re-
quirements of the much smaller Moon Pyramid
Building 4 and FSP were met through the use of
contemporary Miccaotli/Early Tlamimilolpa
dumps.
The solution to the conundrum is to hypothe-
size that the "late" PPS dates do not mark initial
construction of the Pyramid. Rather, they date rit-
uals associated with cave termination and a con-
comitant redefinition of the Pyramid that involved
additions of the adosada platform and the fourth
and fifth cuerpos. This interpretation maintains
the traditional viewpoint that Tzacualli fill indi-
cates Tzacualli construction. Exposition begins
with the TE28 radiocarbon dates.
TE28 Radiocarbon Dates
Sload (2007) hypothesizes a timeline for cave cre-
ation, use, and termination that begins around the
middle of the first century A.D. and ends about
the middle of the third. Analysis is rooted in the
position that undisturbed cave contexts represent
Teotihuacano behavior. Sugiyama and colleagues
disagree and eliminate from analysis more than
half of the original TE28 dates. They assert that it
is difficult to date construction and use of the cave
due to its "highly disturbed context" and "lack of
many primary contexts" (Sugiyama et al.
2013:425). Indications are that neither argument
applies to the TE28 radiocarbon-dated charcoal.
Not all areas of the cave are equally disturbed.
The most affected areas are the two ends. Acosta
completely excavated the terminus (Figure 4a).
 o>

Table 1. TMP and PPS Radiocarbon Dates Bayesian Modelled and Calibrated to One and Two Standard Deviations.

Calendar Years
Sample
BC/AD Conventional
I II I II II Radiocarbon
II Age
-100
CAVE MODEL
CREATION
Beta 220744 A 1970+/-40 118.7

Beta 220754 C:E 1970+/-40 118.8

Beta 220743 A 1930+/-40 117.8

Beta 220766 D 1930+/-40 117.7

>
USE s
Beta 208984 C:E 1920 +/- 60 120.4 m
3)
o
Beta 220747 B 1910+/-40 116.3 >
z
>
Beta 220764 D 1890 +/- 40 126 z
H

use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221

Beta 220750 B 1870+/-40 117.1 D
c
Beta 220746 B:NE Pit 1840 +/- 40 83.9 H
-<
TERMINATION

Beta 220745 A 1830+/-40 83.8

Beta 220760 C:W 1830 +/- 40 83.8

Beta 266129 C:W 1810+/-40 106.2

Beta 220753 C:E 1810+/-40 106.1

Beta 220749 B 1810+/-40 106

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
 o

Sample C a l e n d a r Years
BC/AD Conventional
I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I II Radiocarbon
-100
I II Age
100 200 300 400
TERMINATION
Beta 220758 C:W 1790 +/- 40 126.6
~1 1
Beta 266128 CiNwall 1760 +/- 40 114.5

Beta 220763 D 1760+/140 114.4

X
Beta 220756 C 1750+/140 105.6
m
z
Beta 266127 C:E 1730 +/- 40 87.S I
CA
Beta 266130 C:W 1700 +/- 40 57.2 H
X
END CAVE MODEL m
CO
EARLY PPS
c
z
•D
PPS-7 Pit 6 — m iniiiiiiiii | 1900 +/- 40 <
- ' I 31
>

use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221

PPS-8 Cave 1870 +/- 40
5
CO
"LATE" PPS MODEL
PPS-3 Offering 1 2150 +/- 50 108.7
c
PPS-2 Floor 2 1820 +/-40 93.9

PPS-5 Burial 4 1820 +/- 40 93.8

PPS-1 Floor 2 1780+/-40 113.9

I I
PPS-6 Burial 2 1760 +/" 40 109.7

PPS-4 Posthoie 1700 +/- 40 77.2

II III 11II III II I I I I

-1O0 BC/AD 200 400

-J

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
 228 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 26, No. 2, 2015

Figure 4. Heavily disturbed areas of the cave: (a) the completely excavated terminus, as viewed from the East Chamber;
(b) cave entrance, with the Teotihuacan step (chalk mark on riser), foot of the modern staircase, and large INAH consol-
idation masonry on the south wall (patch is lighter); and (c) cave entrance, with first flight of modern staircase and talud
excavated by the PPS, defined by wood beam at top and INAH patch at base (light colored masonry; all photographs by
Rebecca Sload [1978], copyright Rene Millon).

The entrance underwent substantial consolidation
work, summarized above, as well as at least two
excavations or patches (Figure 4b-c).
Evidence is elusive to support claims of heavy
looting during Teotihuacan times (Sugiyama
2011:185, 188-190; Sugiyama et al. 2013:407-
408), or at any other point. The only known fact
about the possibility of looting is Heyden's
(1975:131) comment that, at the time of cave dis-
covery, the blockages had openings in their upper
halves apparently made "long ago by vandals."
The two TMP ceramic collections-TE28 (273
sherds) and the 1976 surface collection (148
sherds)—contain no ceramics later than Early
Tlamimilolpa that cannot be explained as ex situ.
Most "late" cave ceramics were found near the
entrance, suggesting introduction probably as a
result of consolidation. While people clearly en-
tered the cave between the time it was blocked
off and modern discovery, their intentions are un-

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
 Sload] WHEN WAS THE SUN PYRAMID BUILT? 229

Figure 5. Integration of Teotihuacan concrete on west faces of blockages with excavated cave: (a) west face of Blockage
10 and south wall of cave, with concrete of blockage merging with concrete of cave floor after Drewitt cleaned the floor;
and (b) west face of Blockage 5 with north wall and south ceiling of cave (all photographs by Rebecca Sload [1978], copy-
right Rene Millon).

known and either intrusion left no traces or the
traces were cleared during consolidation. The sug-
gestion of heavy looting may be true, but it is
based less on evidence than, seemingly, on ex-
pectation (Sugiyama 1998,2011).
The cave is traversed on a modern packed-
earth floor that formed from consolidation and
foot traffic. Beneath it a Teotihuacan concrete
floor (made of compact earth mixed with an ag-
gregate of gravel composed of crushed volcanic
scoria) runs essentially the length of the cave,
from the entrance to at least as far as Blockage 2
near the terminus (Figures 4b and 5a; Sload
2007:Figures 6, 8, 12, 13).1 The concrete floor
provides an effective barrier against casual intru-
sion. It is inaccurate to designate as looted those
contexts found beneath an intact concrete floor or
in undisturbed areas beneath cleared blockages,
because clearing occurred during consolidation.
TE28 encountered minor pits, one of which con-
tained a nail (Altschul 1978a:38), but intrusions
were neither widespread nor particularly destruc-
tive of stratigraphy other than in the terminus
(Figure 2, Area B).
Multiple lines of evidence indicate that Teoti-
huacanos laid the concrete floor and built the
blockages contemporaneously. Concrete covers
the west but not the east faces of blockages, and
concrete flooring does not exist beneath blockages
(Supplemental Figure 1). Integrity exists between
blockages and concrete floor and between cave
walls and blockages (Figure 5; Supplemental Fig-
ure 1). Mud mortar bonds the rocks that form the
cores of blockages (Figure 5). Drewitt (1978)
found it adhering to the middle of the cave ceiling
at Blockage 16. Teotihuacanos built the blockages
from floor to ceiling, and construction necessarily
began in the terminus. They sealed evidence of
initial use beneath the concrete floor (Sload 2011),
and they blocked off the cave east of the Trans-
verse Chambers (Figure 2). Teotihuacan concrete
effectively closed the cave. It is hypothesized to
be the final step in the ritual termination of the
cave.
The concrete floor thus separates the initial use
of the cave—defined as all activity through
termination—from use or entry occurring after-
wards. The objective of TE28 was to explore the
initial use. Excavation cut through the concrete
floor and examined all content to the bedrock.
Many "under the concrete" contexts remain undis-
turbed, a situation in direct contrast to the highly
disturbed areas of the entrance, terminus, and top
of the concrete floor for the length of the cave. I
dated TE28 charcoal to determine initial use, and
the first selection criterion was undisturbed context
(Sload 2007:12).2
Sugiyama et al. (2013:425) contend that the
cave lacks primary contexts. Surface archaeology
at Teotihuacan was seen to be characterized by

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
 230 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
the reuse of fill from local dumps. Nonetheless,
multiple lines of evidence indicate that Teotihua-
canos did not use redeposited fill in "under the
concrete" contexts. The undisturbed cave ceramic
assemblage is homogeneous: more than 95 percent
phases to Tzacualli-Miccaotli, 87 percent of
shapes are ollas or bowls, and fine wares are no-
tably absent (Sload and Cowgill 2009). This uni-
formity suggests that ceramics were not a com-
ponent of fill, but rather represent use in the cave.
"Under the concrete" layers are patterned. The
TE28 field crew first noticed the consistency and
established naming conventions. In general,"1"
layers are surface deposits; "2" layers are the con-
crete floor; "5" and "3" layers are cascajo (crushed
volcanic scoria) fill that contains lesser amounts
of silt, tepetate (indurated volcanic ash), and small
volcanic rocks; and "4" layers are crushed tepetate
with minor amounts of silt and cascajo. The layers
were deposited sequentially. Supplemental Figure
2 illustrates a typical configuration. These con-
sistencies indicate a purposefulness that is missing
from redeposited fill.
Another consideration is the origin of the ma-
trices of "under the concrete" deposits. These are
the "3," "4," and "5" layers that contain undis-
turbed cultural material, including the dated TE28
charcoal. The cascajo, tepetate, and volcanic rocks
that comprise the matrices are natural to the cave,
as well as occurring below ground throughout the
Teotihuacan Valley (Barba and Cordova 2010).
Thus, their presence provides no indication as to
whether they come from the excavation of the
cave or were imported from elsewhere. But other
factors do.
In evaluating probable origin it must be re-
membered that cave creation involved the removal
of material, not the addition that occurred in sur-
face construction. Geophysical surveys recorded
clear signs of the extraction of cascajo—the pri-
mary building material for surface architecture—
from within the cave. This is actually one of the
lines of evidence for establishing the artificial na-
ture of the cave. While it is theoretically possible
that Teotihuacanos brought in "under the concrete"
matrices from another underground cavity, it
seems more likely that they obtained the fill from
inside the cave by knocking material off the walls
and ceiling.
The distinction is important because it impacts
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
[Vol.26, No. 2, 2015
embedded cultural material. If the matrices of
undisturbed layers are foreign to the cave, then
their contents may represent extraneous behavior.
If the matrices are indigenous to the cave, then
embedded cultural material was likely brought
into the cave deliberately, reflecting purpose and
correct timing with respect to activities occurring
in the cave. Excavation data support this line of
thought (see the detailed discussion in Supple-
mental Appendix 1).
All indications are that "under the concrete"
cave deposits do not have the same characteris-
tics as surface fill. Ceramics seem purposeful,
and matrices are organized, patterned, and prob-
ably of internal origin. Embedded artifacts are
likely in the cave because of use in the cave. An
added consideration for carbon is that the cave
is almost entirely dark, except at the entrance,
necessitating artificial light. The hypothesis is
that "under the concrete" deposits are primary.
They are not quite as informative about ancient
behavior as in situ features because of some loss
of context, but they are reliable for absolute dat-
ing purposes. Combined with the fact that "under
the concrete" deposits suffered little disturbance,
the objections of Sugiyama et al. are unfounded.
All dates from TE28 deserve consideration.
Bayesian Modelling
I used the OxCal 4.2 Bayesian statistical program
to estimate absolute time frames for creation, use,
and termination of the cave (Bronk Ramsey 2009).
The sequential model was chosen. It assumes a
chronological order to the groups in which one
starts after the previous one ends, with the possi-
bility of a gap. PPS dates (Sugiyama et al.
2013-.Table 2) were modelled separately. The six
"late" dates, PPS-1 through PPS-6, were one group.
PPS-7 and PPS-8 were each set as a "group" of
one, which produced identical calibrated and mod-
elled ICT and 2a ranges for each sample.
The Bayesian program used the IntCall3 cali-
bration curve and, for PPS-3, the Marinel3 calibra-
tion curve (Reimer et al. 2013). I ran multiple analy-
ses using slightly different prior models of TE28
dates. The results support the reported posterior
model. To confirm methodology, Sugiyama et al.'s
(2013:423) model was first reproduced using the
IntCal09 and Marine04 calibration curves they used.
 Sload] WHEN WAS THE SUN PYRAMID BUILT? 231

200 100 BC/AD 100 400 500

cave creation

cave use

c ^
<V 0

i§ cave termination

JL.
.005 h PPS-l - PPS-6
0-

200 BC,UD tOO' 200' 300' 400 500

modelled date (BC/AD)

Figure 6. Posterior probability densities for boundaries of groups in cave model and for the "late" Sun Pyramid group,
dates PPS-l through PPS-6. Beginnings are black lines and endings are shaded curves. Boundaries reported at 2o\

Results are presented in two formats. Table 1
gives the dates organized by group. Each date is
represented by two bars. The bottom bar is the un-
modelled calibrated date and the top bar is the
Bayesian modeled date. Each bar reports one and
two standard deviations rounded to the nearest five
years: ICT is the shaded area and 2a the unshaded.
Figure 6 gives the modelled 2CT duration of each
group, separated into probability estimates for the
start and end. The data are used to evaluate the
TE28 dates and their relationship to the PPS dates.
TE28 Dates
Charcoal was abundant in the cave, accounting
for nearly one-third of the approximately 250 lots
of cultural material collected by TE28. Equipped
with the strong a priori suspicion that undisturbed
layers represent primary contexts (Altschul
1978a: 135), the goal of sample selection was to
bracket "under the concrete" cave use. After de-
termining undisturbed location, I chose samples
that seemed to have the best chance of defining
the beginning and ending of initial cave use (Sload
2007:10-12).
The results of the first iteration of radiocarbon
dating were promising. Fifteen of the 16 charcoal
samples were chronologically ordered as expected.
The absolute dates indicated time frames for cave
creation and termination corresponding to the mid-
dle of the first and third centuries A.D., respec-

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
 232 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 26, No. 2, 2015

lively (Sload 2007:25-26, 28-29). Beta 220760 ror in the stratigraphy (Bronk Ramsey 1995:427).
was the anomaly. It is discussed below. The four Beta 266130 has an agreement index of 57.2. Beta
charcoal samples dated in 2009 indicated termi- 266130 and Beta 266129 are charcoal samples
nation activity, and that was their group identity dated in 2009 to help clarify Beta 220760. All
for Bayesian analysis. three samples have "early" stratigraphic locations
The hypothesis is that the first four dates in and "late" absolute dates. I hypothesize that the
Table 1 represent activity associated with cave disconnect indicates that termination activity im-
creation and initial leveling of the floor, back-to- pacted fill to bedrock in this particular section of
back operations that prepared the cave for use. the cave (details are in Supplemental Appendix 1
The charcoal was in cascajo fill layers resting on and Supplemental Figure 3).
bedrock. Represented areas are A, C, and D (Fig- Beta 266130 has a marginal agreement index
ure 2). Table 1 shows that the modelled dates have because it is the latest TE28 date. When Beta
a consistent 1 a range of cal A .D. 30-70/75, and a 266130 is excluded from the Bayesian model, the
2a range of cal A.D. 0/5-90. Likewise, Figure 6 most noticeable change occurs within the time pe-
illustrates that cave creation most likely occurred riod for termination. The separate minor peak dis-
during the middle decades of the first century appears from the beginning boundary, and the
A.D. These results match the initial analysis and time period becomes essentially the major peak
support the hypothesis that cave creation and ini- from A.D. 130-250 (Figure 6). For the end bound-
tial leveling of the floor were likely completed ary, the beginning changes from A.D. 235 to 180,
within several decades (Sload 2007:28). while the end remains at A.D. 350. The effect on
The next five dates in Table 1 have contexts boundaries is a larger overlap between the end of
amenable to use. Represented areas are B, C, and the beginning, which remains unchanged, and the
D (Figure 2). Supplemental Appendix 1 describes beginning of the end, which moves earlier by 70
the excavation contexts. The modelled dates at years (Figure 6). The duration of termination at
2a encompass the time period from cal A.D. 70 2a does not change. The interpretation that ter-
to the last decade of the second century. The l a mination occurred around the middle of the third
range is from around cal A.D. 85 to 130. Likewise, century remains.
Figure 6 indicates that cave use immediately fol- Another effect of eliminating Beta 266130
lowed cave creation and ended sometime during from the model is that the next latest date, Beta
the second century. Because sample selection fo- 266127, becomes more nonconforming. Its agree-
cused on defining the two ends of initial cave use, ment index changes from 87.5 to 67.4. As with
it is likely that this middle period is underrepre- Beta 266130, there are no grounds for doubting
sented. Dating more "use" charcoal may expand its undisturbed context. Since both dates have 2a
the period. ranges that fall within the hypothesized period of
Eleven dates are hypothesized as relating to termination, the best model seems to be the one
termination activities. Represented areas are A, that includes all dates and is shown in Table 1.
B, C, and D. Sload (2007) discusses the contexts Another consideration in dating termination is
of the initial charcoal samples. Supplemental Ap- Beta 220758 (Figure 7; Bronk Ramsey 2009). The
pendix 1 provides context for the 2009 samples. sample was charcoal from the Layer 3a fire pit
Modelled dates for termination at 2a span the pe- centered under Blockage 12 (Supplemental Figure
riod cal A .D. 170 to 325. The 1 a range is cal A .D. 1). The fire pit was huge by cave standards, ex-
213 to 274. Table 1 shows a consistent modelled tending 1.75 m east-west and covering the entire
mid-third century range for termination. Figure 6 excavated north-south dimension of the Area C
also indicates that the highest probability for ter- West pit (Altschul 1978b:24). As discussed by
mination is the middle of the third century. The Millon (1981:234, 1988, 1993:22), spatial and
initial hypothesis is supported. contextual data clearly indicate a ritual function
The last column in Table 1 gives the agreement associated with cave termination. Figure 7 shows
index (A). It indicates the extent to which the pos- that the fire pit most likely dates to the middle of
terior distribution overlaps with the original dis- the third century, agreeing with the modelled re-
tribution. A value under 60 indicates a possible er- sults of the 11 hypothesized termination dates.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
 Sload] WHEN WAS THE SUN PYRAMID BUILT? 233

OxCal v4.2,4 Bronk Ramsey (2013): r:5: lntCa!13 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al 2013)

2000-

S
c
g
CO 1800-
c
-I—'
CD
•o
C 1600
o
CO
o
g
CO
1400-
a:

1BC/1AD 101 201 301 401

Modelled date (BC/AD)

Figure 7. Posterior probability distribution for Beta 220758. On the x axis the bars represent lo- and 2o-, light gray curve
is the calibrated date, and dark gray curve is the modelled date when the sample is a member of the termination group
in the cave model.

Several general comments support the cave
model. Independent evidence indicates that the
model is generalizable to unexcavated sections of
the east-west cave path. A radar study of the cave
showed that the path contains fill that has an av-
erage depth of 70 cm (Barba 2009). Thus, the en-
tire path of the cave appears modified. The model
may have some mixing between use and termina-
tion dates. This includes the possibility that some
fire pits were used during both time periods. The
practical effects are likely not serious because the
calibrated but unmodelled dates for use and ter-
mination trend chronologically, as expected (Table
1). The cave model seems fairly robust. The time
span from cave creation through termination
seems fairly well defined. Experiments with elim-
inating some termination dates from the model
did not result in changes that entail restating the
model. Bayesian analysis of 20 TE28 radiocarbon
dates does not change the initial interpretation
based on 16 dates (Sload 2007). This supports
Steier and Rom's (2000:197) observation: "If the
samples are already well resolved in time by the
14
C measurement alone, the Bayesian sequence
algorithm does not change the data." The cave
model seems to comply.
PPS Model
The PPS obtained eight radiocarbon dates, seven
from the Pyramid and one from the cave (Table
1). Six dates from the Pyramid, PPS-1 through
PPS-6, are significantly later than the expected
time frame of the Tzacualli ceramic phase, the first
century A.D. (Figure 3). Sugiyama and colleagues
used Bayesian analysis to model these six dates as
one group. The modelled 1CT range was cal A.D.
169-308, which translates into the hypothesis that
"the Sun Pyramid was constructed around A.D.
170-310" (Sugiyama et al. 2013:429).
Sugiyama et al. (2013:412-419) construct
phases to explain data from the PPS Pyramid ex-
cavation. As its name implies, the "Pre-Sun Pyra-
mid" phase encompasses features hypothesized
as existing prior to construction of the Pyramid.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
 234 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 26, No. 2, 2015

Tunnel 2
Summit Structure 1
Floor 1
jWerin^l

5th cuerpo Pit 6 Burial 4

4th cuerpo
Offering 2
Posthole (Pit 9)
3rd cuerpo

1st cuerpo

meters

Figure 8. Schematic drawing of cave superimposed on west face of Sun Pyramid, with PPS features added (after Altschul
1999; Sugiyama 2011:Figure 6.7; Sugiyama et al. 2013:Figure 2).

These include Floor 2 (PPS-1 and PPS-2), Struc-
ture 1, Floor 1, and Burial 2 (PPS-6). The "Con-
struction of the Sun Pyramid" phase includes Bur-
ial 3, Burial 4 (PPS-5), Offering 1 (PPS-3), and
Offering 2. Figure 8 shows all features; cross-ref-
erencing with Table 1 gives the dates.
By definition, Bayesian modelling assumes
that all members of a group belong to the same
phase. Sugiyama and colleagues' model, however,
mixes dates from the Pre-Sun Pyramid and Con-
struction of the Sun Pyramid phases. They strati-
graphically confirm that Burial 2 (PPS-6) pre-

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
 Sload] WHEN WAS THE SUN PYRAMID BUILT?
dates the construction of Structure 1 (Sugiyama
et al. 2013:415). Having a Pre-Sun Pyramid con-
text and acceptable date, they include PPS-6 in
the Bayesian model. This inconsistency is not
addressed.
PPS-7 also stratigraphically pre-dates Structure
1 (Sugiyama et al. 2013:425). Dating to Tzacualli,
PPS-7 was the "only radiocarbon sample that
agrees with the ceramic results" (Sugiyama et al.
2013:425). Having a Pre-Sun Pyramid context
and an unacceptable date, it was excluded from
the Bayesian model. Sugiyama et al.'s model does
not reconcile their stratigraphic data to their dates.
The following model does.
A Unified Hypothesis
The following hypothesis accepts that TE28 dates
represent undisturbed behavior from the cave and
that PPS Pyramid samples reflect "secure dates
taken from primary contexts from either pre-Sun
Pyramid or Sun Pyramid contexts" (Sugiyama et
al. 2013:423). The explanation maintains the tra-
ditional view that construction of the main mass
of the Pyramid occurred during the Tzacualli
phase. All dates are consistent with each other,
the ceramics, and the ceramic chronology.
Since the hypothesis focuses on the "late" PPS
dates and their integration with TE28 dates, ex-
position begins with the "early" PPS dates. These
are PPS-7 from the Pyramid and PPS-8 from the
cave (Table 1). PPS-7 can be interpreted as an in
situ burning event occurring either at the outset
of construction of the Tzacualli mass of the Pyra-
mid or just before. PPS-7 corroborates the tradi-
tional time frame for Pyramid construction. PPS-
8 aligns more with TE28 cave use than with cave
creation. Interpretation is difficult due to two types
of contextual ambiguities.3
Table 1 and Figure 6 visually indicate that the
"late" PPS group aligns with the TE28 termination
group. The conventional radiocarbon age (CRA)
provides quantification. Setting aside PPS-3 be-
cause it was shell and used a different calibration
curve (which aligned the sample to the group),
the "late" PPS samples have CRAs ranging from
1820 ± 40 to 1700 ± 40. These match almost ex-
actly the range of the 11 cave termination dates,
whose CRA range is 1830 ± 40 to 1700 ± 40
(Table 1). The implication is that activity in the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
235
interior of the Pyramid corresponds to cave ter-
mination. Is this possible?
Tunneling
In order for the "late" PPS dates to relate to cave
termination activities, Teotihuacanos would have
had to have tunneled into the base of the Pyramid.
Before summarizing the evidence, it is important
to understand the limitations of the data.
At the time of Millon et al.'s (1965:11) tunnel
investigations in 1959, INAH was in the process
of walling in the Noguera tunnel as a result of
significant weakening caused by the 1957 earth-
quake. The job was completed several years later
(Millon et al. 1965:11), and their publication pro-
vides the only existing profile data for the tunnel.
The Noguera tunnel is only 1.2 m wide, pro-
ducing the practical effect of a single east-west
cross section of the Pyramid (Millon et al.
1965:12). The ability to ascertain the existence of
ancient Teotihuacano tunneling rests on the width
of the Noguera tunnel capturing a dividing line
between original fill of the Pyramid and the hy-
pothesized refill resulting from a mid-third century
tunneling operation. In that case, the north and
south profiles of the Noguera tunnel would exhibit
differences. If the Noguera tunnel was totally sub-
sumed within the hypothesized Teotihuacan tun-
nel, the profiles on both sides of the tunnel would
likely be the same, reflecting the refilling.
About 50 m from the entrance to the Noguera
tunnel, an inclined plane appeared a short distance
above the tunnel floor (Millon et al. 1965:15).The
slope of the plane rose gently but steadily to the
east for 6.5 m. It reached a maximum height of
1.35 m and ended at the stone-faced wall associated
with the offering mentioned earlier (Millon et al.
1965:15). (This is Sugiyama et al.'s [2013:412]
"Wall Consolidated by Millon.") The inclined
plane appeared only in the north wall of the runnel,
not the south (Millon et al. 1965:15). The covering
fill seemed similar to the material found in the
prior 17 m, while the south wall profile indicated
fill containing more abundant ceramics and less
sand (Millon et al. 1965:15). It is of course possible
that the differences reflect distinct but contempo-
raneous fill sources, but it is also true that they
could reflect two temporally separate fill opera-
tions. The ramp remains unexplained.
PPS-4 dated wood from a posthole located
 236 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
around 80 m from the entrance of the Noguera
tunnel (Sugiyama et al. 2013:425). It belongs to
the "late" PPS group of dates (Table 1). Perez
(1935:92) found five postholes between meters
56 and 80. These may indicate a tunneling opera-
tion that required the use of supports in this section
of the tunnel. Bastien excavated a tunnel near the
center of the Pyramid around 1946 (before the
earthquake), which Millon et al. (1965:16) found
to be in good condition with no supports. The
suggestion is that bracing may not have been
needed throughout a Teotihuacano tunnel.
Data are scant because of the complete walling
in of the Noguera tunnel and the sampling nature
of Sugiyama et al.'s (2013:412) excavation strat-
egy. Given the limitations, it is surprising that
possible indications exist of Teotihuacano tunnel-
ing. The possibility cannot be ruled out.
Spatial Relationships of the "Late" PPS Dates
In tracing the construction sequence of the Pyra-
mid, it was seen that the adosada platform and
fourth and fifth cuerpos were later additions. Ex-
cept for the posthole, PPS features spatially align
with the modifications (Figure 8).
Millon first suggested that the adosada plat-
form was built to seal the cave (Heyden
1975:134). Acosta's work in the plaza demon-
strated that Teotihuacanos centered the staircase
of the adosada platform on the cave entrance
(Millon 1981:231, Figure 7.9). The staircase also
aligns with the west end of the cave (Figure 9).
PPS Floor 2 spans the junction between the
adosada platform and the Pyramid, a location that
also corresponds to the North and South Trans-
verse Chambers in the cave (Figure 8).41 hypoth-
esize that these spatial relationships are deliberate.
PPS Floor 2 had no apparent function, the east
and west ends seemed deliberately cut, and a high
concentration of broken artifacts occurred just be-
yond the eastern end (Sugiyama et al. 2013:413).
PPS-1 and PPS-2 are "late" dates from in situ
burning on Floor 2 (Table 1; Sugiyama et al.
2013:Figure 5). Cutting, breaking, and burning
are termination rituals at Teotihuacan. The hy-
pothesis is that Floor 2, PPS-1, and PPS-2 associ-
ate with rituals necessitated by cave termination.
The location may indicate termination of the Tza-
cualli Pyramid or of the meaning of the intersec-
tion in the cave between the main east-west path
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
[Vol. 26, No. 2, 2015
and the North and South Transverse Chambers
(Figure 8).
Approximately contemporaneously with con-
struction of the adosada platform, Teotihuacanos
added two cuerpos to the top of the Pyramid as
currently reconstructed. The addition did not sub-
stantially increase the volume of the Pyramid be-
cause the first cuerpo alone makes up about half
the Pyramid's mass (Millon et al. 1965:12). This
relatively minor modification created a major spa-
tial dislocation between the cave and the Pyramid.
Whereas the cave terminus reached the summit
of the "old" Tzacualli Pyramid, now it no longer
does (Figure 8). Adding cuerpos to the Pyramid
effectively moved the cave terminus out of the
"center."
I hypothesize that Offering 2 commemorated
this event (Figure 8). Offering 2 is not dated, but
it was the richest offering found by the PPS (Sara-
bia and Sugiyama 2011; Sugiyama et al.
2013:417^18,428). The quality of Offering 2 is
matched by multiple significant spatial alignments.
Offering 2 aligns with the cave terminus, even to
the extent that both are south of the centerline
(Figure 8). Offering 2 also aligns with the junction
of the third and fourth cuerpos. The location is
the point at which the "old" Pyramid meets the
"new," and it was the summit prior to cave termi-
nation. A mask in Offering 2 suggests a termina-
tion ritual. The right cheek and eye appear to be
pierced by a series of miniature projectile points
(Sugiyama et al. 2013:417, Figure 11).
Beyond Offering 2, several PPS features have
"late" dates (Table 1): Offering 1 (PPS-3), Burial
2 (PPS-6), and Burial 4 (PPS-5). The features spa-
tially align with the fifth cuerpo and are well east
of the cave terminus (Figure 8). The hypothesis is
that they reflect a ritual that dedicated the "new"
Pyramid summit.
"Late" PPS features have spatial relationships
with contemporaneous Pyramid modifications.
The hypothesis is that the decision to terminate
the cave necessitated a concomitant redefinition
of the Pyramid. Teotihuacanos accomplished this
in two ways: architectural modification and tun-
neling. Modifications to the Pyramid blocked off
access to the cave (Figure 9) and changed the spa-
tial relationship between the cave and the Pyramid
(Figure 8). Tunneling on the east-west centerline
of the Pyramid at ground level permitted a ritual
 Sload] WHEN WAS THE SUN PYRAMID BUILT? 237

W£i r^lr'
¥u

: » - • :

r
JS

•jf"«r '

Figure 9. Original north end of Pyramid's adosada platform staircase and its first three steps, showing relationships of
staircase to cave entrance (metal door) and Noguera tunnel (gap in background; photograph by Rene Millon [1976],
copyright Rene Millon).

deemed necessary to terminate the mountain cave
and dedicate the "new" Pyramid sans cave. "Late"
PPS features captured this ritual. The number and
patterning of spatial and temporal relationships
between cave architecture, Pyramid architecture,
and PPS features suggest that Teotihuacanos cre-
ated sacred space by establishing spatial relation-
ships and terminated the sacred space by severing
these relationships.
Conclusion
My hypothesis has multiple components. It main-
tains that all PPS and TE28 radiocarbon dates re-
flect undisturbed archaeological contexts. The
TE28 dates indicate that cave creation, use, and
termination occurred over a period of about 200
years, from approximately the middle of the first
century A.D. to the middle of the third. Construc-
tion of the main mass of the Pyramid commenced
contemporaneously with cave creation in the first
century A.D. "Late" PPS radiocarbon dates reflect
modifications to the Pyramid occurring as a result
of cave termination. The decision to terminate the
cave produced a multi-pronged and well-coordi-
nated termination of the Tzacualli phase Pyramid
as well.
Retaining the traditional time frame for con-
struction of the Sun Pyramid during the Tzacualli
ceramic phase maintains its hypothesized impact
on the process of city and state formation. Tradi-
tionally, these processes have been most clearly
ascertained by population changes and monumen-
tal architecture (Cowgill 2004,2007; Millon 1981,
1988; Sanders et al. 1979:303). Explosive popu-
lation growth occurred during Tzacualli times
(Cowgill 1992:97-98). At the beginning of the
Tzacualli phase, the city covered an area of
roughly 8 km2 and had a population estimated be-
tween 20,000 and 40,000 individuals (Cowgill
1997:133). By ca. A.D. 200 the city covered
around 20 km2 and had a population estimated at
80,000-100,000 (Cowgill 2004:533). Not much
later, Teotihuacan attained its maximum popula-
tion of around 125,000, becoming more dense but
not growing much beyond the urban area estab-

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
 238 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
lished during the Tzacualli phase (Cowgill
1997:129-130; Millon 1992:344).
Other population patterning suggests causality
linked to the Sun Pyramid. The last pre-Teotihua-
can ceramic phase in the Teotihuacan Valley is
Cuanalan (ca. 500-150 B.C.). The largest known
Cuanalan period settlement had a maximum pop-
ulation of 1,000-2,000 and a location affording
good access to the perennial springs in the Valley
(Cowgill 1992:Figure 5.1,89-90,2000:262). Dur-
ing Patlachique, the first Teotihuacan ceramic
phase, settlement in the Valley abruptly shifted
more than 2 km further north (Cowgill 1992:Fig-
ure 5.1,2000:262). The clear shift away from the
easily understood Cuanalan location to one that
sacrificed easy access to prime farmland and had
no obvious defensive advantage (Cowgill
2000:262) requires other explanation. The Pat-
lachique settlement pattern foreshadowed that of
Tzacualli (Cowgill 1992:96). It may be partially
explained by a '"sacred mountain' syndrome"
(Cowgill 1992:93) that fully materialized in Tza-
cualli times with the construction of the mountain
cave at the Sun Pyramid. During the Tzacualli
period, settlement depopulation occurred repeat-
edly throughout the Basin of Mexico concomitant
with the concentration of population at Teotihua-
can (Cowgill 2004:533). Although the reasons for
the location of Teotihuacan are not understood, it
is likely that the population movement was related
to the initiation of construction of the "enormous"
Sun Pyramid (Cowgill 2000:262).
The traditional view is evolutionary. Beginning
in the first or second century B.C. Teotihuacan
began to grow, becoming in less than 500 years
one of the largest cities in the world (Millon
1993:33). At its height, the polity was a regional
state or possibly a hegemonic empire (Cowgill
2004:529,2007). The Sun Pyramid was likely the
locus of power during the Tzacualli phase
(Cowgill 1992:99), followed by a shift in Early
Tlamimilolpa times to the Ciudadela and the FSP
(Cowgill 1983:336,1992; Millon 1992:390-395;
Pasztory 1993:46-47, 50; Sugiyama 2005:39).
The political, social, and economic changes oc-
curring during the Tzacualli phase had an
ideational component linked to the Pyramid and
cave (Millon 1981:231-232). The traditional view
provides a behavior- and belief-based mechanism
for early city and state formation at Teotihuacan.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
[Vol. 26, No. 2, 2015
It is supported by a model for the Sun Pyramid
and cave in which ceramic chronology and cave
and Pyramid ceramics, spatial alignments, and ra-
diocarbon dating are all in agreement.
Acknowledgments. The impetus for this paper greatly bene-
fited from a discussion with Jim Brady. I thank him for that,
as well as for review comments. Special thanks to Rene
Millon for his support in all matters concerning the cave.
Thanks to Jeff Altschul, Luis Barba, Warren Barbour, LAQ
editor Geoff Braswell, George Cowgill, Giora Davidovits,
Seth Davidovits, Emily McClung de Tapia, Daniel Ruiz, Ale-
jandro Sarabia, and Martha Sempowski for their assistance. I
appreciate the varied perspectives of the anonymous review-
ers; all contributed to a better argument.
Data Availability Statement. TMP data are stored at the ASU-
sponsored Teotihuacan Archaeological Research Center in
San Juan Teotihuacan. Please contact the author with any in-
quiries.
Supplemental Materials. Supplemental materials are linked
to the online version of the paper, which is accessible through
the SAA member login at www.saa.org.
Supplemental Appendix 1. TE28 excavation and radio-
carbon data.
Supplemental Figure 1. Area C West pit north profile,
east of west face of Blockage 12.
Supplemental Figure 2. Typical undisturbed cave stratig-
raphy: Area C East pit east profile.
Supplemental Figure 3. TE28 Area C West pit.
References Cited
Acosta, Jorge R.
1966 Proyecto Teotihuacan. Informe de los trabajos real-
izados en la zona arqueol6gica de Teotihuacan en 1966.
Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico.
Alfaro, R., E. Arrieta, Luis Barba P., A.D. Becerril, E. Belmont,
I. Carrillo, J.I. Cabrera M., O. Esquivel, V. Grabski, J.M.
Lopez R., Linda Manzanilla N., A. Martinez D., A. Men-
chaca R., M. Moreno, R. Nunez C , J.C. Plascencia, M.
Rangel, and M. Villoro
2003 Searching for Chambers and Caves in Teotihuacan's
Sun Pyramid. In Particles and Fields: Tenth Mexican
School on Particles and Fields, edited by U. Cotti, M.
Mondragon, and G. Tavares-Velasco, pp. 493-49. American
Institute of Physics, Melville, NY.
Almaraz, Ramon
1865 Apuntes sobre las piramides de San Juan Teotihuacan.
In Memoria y trabajos realizados por la Comision
Historica de Pachuca, pp. 349-358, Mexico.
Altschul, Jeffrey H.
1978a Original unpublished field notes from the 1978
TMP Field Season - TE28. Manuscript onfile,Teotihuacan
Archaeological Research Center, San Juan Teotihuacan,
and Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson.
1978b TE28: Test Excavation in the Cave Underneath the
Pyramid of the Sun. Unpublished manuscript on file, Sta-
tistical Research, Inc., Tucson.
1999 Statistical Explanation, Ideology, and the Cave un-
derneath the Pyramid of the Sun, Teotihuacan, Mexico.
 Sload] WHEN WAS THE SUN PYRAMID BUILT?
Paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Society
for American Archaeology, Chicago.
Baker, George T. Ill, Hugh Harleston Jr., Alfonso Rangel,
Matthew Wallrath, Manuel Gaitan, and Alfonso Morales
1974 The Subterranean System of the Sun Pyramid at
Teotihuacan: A Physical Description and Hypothetical
Reconstruction. Paper presented at the XLI Congreso In- Cowgill, George L.
ternacional de Americanistas, Mexico, Dp. Copies available
from Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson.
Barba Pingarron, Luis Alberto
2009 Geological Environment and the Tunnel under the
Pyramid of the Sun. Paper presented at the 74th Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, At-
lanta.
Barba Pingarron, Luis Alberto, and Jose Luis Cordova Frunz
2010 Materiales y Energia en la arquitectura de Teotihuacan.
Universidad Nacional Aut<5noma de Mexico y Institute
Investigaciones Antropologicas, Mexico, D.F.
Bastien.Remy
1967 The Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan: A New In-
terpretation. In The Civilizations of Ancient America,
edited by Sol Tax, pp. 62-67'. Cooper Square, New York.
Batres, Leopoldo
1995 [1906] Piramide del Sol. In La pirdmide del Sol
Teotihuacan, edited by Eduardo Matos, pp. 100-117. In-
stituto Cultural Domecq, A.C, Mexico.
Brady, James E.
1997 Settlement Configuration and Cosmology: The Role
of Caves at Dos Pilas. American Anthropologist 99:602-
618.
2003a In My Hill, In My Valley: The Importance of Place
in Ancient Maya Ritual. In Mesas & Cosmologies in
Mesoamerica, edited by Douglas Sharon,pp. 83-91. Mu-
seum of Man, San Diego.
2003b La importancia de las cuevas artificiales para el
entendimiento de los espacios sagrados en Mesoamerica.
In Espacios Mayas: Usos, Representaciones, Creencias, Cowgill, George L., and Oralia Cabrera Castro
edited by Alain Breton, Aurore Monod Becquelin, and
Mario Humberto Ruz, pp. 143-160. Centro de Estudios
Mayas, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico/Centre Drewitt, Bruce
D'Etudies Mexicaines et CentrameYicaines.
2012 Under Ground in Ancient Mesoamerica. In Fanning
the Sacred Flame: Mesoamerican Studies in Honor ofH.
B. Nicholson, edited by Matthew A. Boxt and Brian
Dervin Dillon, pp. 269-290. University Press of Colorado,
Boulder.
Brady, James E., and Wendy Ashmore
1999 Mountains, Caves Water: Ideational Landscapes of
the Ancient Maya. In Archaeologies ofLandscape, edited
by Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 124—145.
Blackwell, Oxford.
Brady, James E., and George Veni
1992 Man-Made and Pseudo-Karst Caves: The Implications
of Subsurface Features within Maya Centers. Geoar-
chaeology: An International Journal 7:149-167.
Bronk Ramsey, Christopher
1995 Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of Stratigraphy:
The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon 37:425-430.
2009 Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon
51:337-360.
Carballo, David M.
2011 Obsidian and the Teotihuacan State: Weaponry and
Ritual Production at the Moon Pyramid. University of
Pittsburgh Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology
No.21, Center for Comparative Archaeology, Department
of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, and Instituto
de Investigaciones Antropologicas, Universidad Nacional
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
239
Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico, D.F.
Chavez, R. E., M. E. Camara, A. Tejero, L. Barba, and L.
Manzanilla
2001 Site Characterization by Geophysical Methods in
The Archaeological Zone of Teotihuacan, Mexico. Journal
of Archaeological Science 28:1265-1276.
1983 Rulership and the Ciudadela: Political Inferences
from Teotihuacan Architecture. In Civilization in the
Ancient Americas, edited by Richard M. Leventhal and
Alan L. Kolata, pp. 313-344. University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque, and Peabody Museum of Archaeology
and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge.
1992 Toward a Political History of Teotihuacan. In Ideology
and Pre-Columbian Civilizations, edited by Arthur
Demarest and Geoffrey Conrad, pp. 87-114. School of
American Research, Santa Fe.
1997 State and Society at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Annual
Review ofAnthropology 26:129-161.
2000 The Central Mexican Highlands from the Rise of
Teotihuacan to the Decline of Tula. In The Cambridge
History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, Vol. 2,
edited by Richard E. W. Adams and Murdo J. MacLeod,
pp. 250-317. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
2003 A Perspective from Outside the Maya Region. In
The Maya and Teotihuacan, edited by Geoffrey Bras well,
pp. 315-335. University of Texas Press, Austin.
2004 Origins and Development of Urbanism: Archaeological
Perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology 33:525-
549.
2007 The Urban Organization of Teotihuacan, Mexico. In
Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert Mc-
Cormick Adams, edited by Elizabaeth C. Stone, pp. 261-
295. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of Cali-
fornia, Los Angeles, and the Oriental Institute of the Uni-
versity of Chicago.
1991 Excavaciones en el Frente B y otros materiales del
analisis de la cerfimica. Arqueologia 6:41-52.
1978 Original unpublished field notes TMP TE28, July
1978. Manuscript on file, Teotihuacan Archaeological
Research Center, San Juan Teotihuacan.
El Imparcial
1995 [ 1906] Visita del Senor General Diaz. In La pirdmide
del Sol Teotihuacan, edited by Eduardo Matos, pp.118-
125. Instituto Cultural Domecq, A.C, Mexico.
Gamio, Manuel
1922 La Poblacion del Valle de Teotihuacan, Vol. 1. Sec-
retaria de Agriculture y Fomento, Direction de Antropologia,
Mexico.
Gazzola, Julie
2009 Caracteristicas arquitectonicas de algunas construc-
ciones de fases tempranas en Teotihuacan. Arqueologia
42:216-233.
Heyden, Doris
1973 ^Un Chicomostoc en Teotihuacan? La Cueva bajo
la Piramide del Sol. Boletiin - Instituto Nacional de
Antropologiia e Historia, epoca II(6):3—18.
1975 An Interpretation of the Cave Underneath the
Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan, Mexico. American
Antiquity 40:131-147.
1981 Caves, Gods, and Myths: World-View and Planning
in Teotihuacan. In Mesoamerican Sites and World-Views,
edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 1-39. Dumbarton
Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington,
D.C.
 240 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Manzanilla, Linda
1994 Geografia sagrada e inframundo en Teotihuacan.
Antropologicas Nueva Epoca 11:53-65.
Manzanilla, Linda, Luis Barba, Rene Chavez, Andres Tejero,
Gerardo Cifuentes, and Nayeli Peralta
1994 Caves and Geophysics: An Approximation to the
Underworld of Teotihuacan, Mexico. Archaeometry
36(1):141-157.
Manzanilla, Linda, Claudia Lopez, and AnnCorinne Freter
1996 Dating Results from Excavations in Quarry Tunnels
behind the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan. Ancient Sahagun, Fray Bernardino de
Mesoamerica 7:245-266.
Matos, Eduardo
1995 Excavaciones recientes en la Piramide del Sol,
1993-1994. In La pirdmide del Sol Teotihuacan, edited Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley
by Eduardo Matos, pp. 312-329. Instituto Cultural
Domecq, A.C, Mexico.
Millon, Rene
1970 Progress Report Won Teotihuacan Mapping Project. 2011 Se localizan una mascara y diversas ofrendas en la
Submitted to Departmento de Monumentos Prehispanicos,
Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia. By De-
partment of Anthropology, University of Rochester. Man-
uscript on file, ASU-sponsored Teotihuacan Archaeological
Research Center, San Juan Teotihuacan.
1981 Teotihuacan: City, State, and Civilization. In Ar-
chaeology, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 198-243.
Handbook of Middle American Indians, Supplement 1,
Victoria Reifler Bricker, general editor, University of
Texas Press, Austin.
1988 Where Do They All Come From? The Provenance
of the Wagner Murals from Teotihuacan. In Feathered
Serpents and Flowering Trees, edited by Kathleen Benin,
pp. 78-113. Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, San
Francisco.
1992 Teotihuacan Studies: From 1950 to 1990 and Beyond. Sload, Rebecca, and George L. Cowgill
In Art, Ideology, and the City of Teotihuacan, edited by
Janet Catherine Berlo, pp. 339^119. Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C.
1993 The Place Where Time Began. In Teotihuacan: Art
from the City of the Gods, edited by Kathleen Berrin and
Esther Pasztory, pp. 17^-3. Fine Arts Museums of San
Francisco, San Francisco.
Millon, Rene, Bruce Drewitt, and James A. Bennyhoff
1965 The Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan: 1959 Inves-
tigations. Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society, New Series Vol. 55, Part 6, Philadelphia.
Moyes,Holley
2013 Introduction. In Sacred Darkness, edited by Holley
Moyes, pp. 1-11. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Noguera, Eduardo
1935 Antecedentes y Relaciones de la Cultura Teotihuacana.
El Mexico Antigua III (5/8):3-90.
Pasztory, Esther
1993 Teotihuacan Unmasked. In Teotihuacan: Art from
the City of the Gods, edited by Kathleen Berrin and
Esther Pasztory, pp. 44-63. Fine Arts Museums of San
Francisco, San Francisco.
Perez, Jose R.
1935 Exploracion del tunel de la Piramide del Sol. El
Mexico Antiguo III (5/8):91-94.
Rattray, Evelyn Childs
2001 Teotihuacan: Ceramics, Chronology and Cultural
Trends. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia,
Mexico, D.F., and University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
Reimer, Paula J., Edouard Bard, Alex Bayliss, J Warren Beck,
Paul G. Blackwell, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, Caitlin
E. Buck, Hai Cheng, R. Lawrence Edwards, Michael
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
[Vol. 26, No. 2, 2015
Friedrich, Pieter M. Grootes, Thomas P. Guilderson,
Haflidi Haflidason, Irka Hajdas, Christine Hatte, Timothy
J. Heaton, Dirk L. Hoffmann, Alan G. Hogg, Konrad A.
Hughen, K. Felix Kaiser, Bernd Kromer, Sturt W. Manning,
Mu Niu, Ron W. Reimer, David A. Richards, E. Marian
Scott, John R. Southon, Richard A. Staff, Christian S. M.
Turney, and Johannes van der Plicht
2013 IntCal 13 and Marine 13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration
Curves 0-50,000 Years Cal BP. Radiocarbon 55:1869-
1887.
1963 Florentine Codex. Book 11 - Earthly Things. Translated
by Charles E. Dibble and Arthur J. O. Anderson. University
of Utah and the School of American Research.
1979 The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the
Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York.
Sarabia, Alejandro, and Saburo Sugiyama
Piramide del Sol. Arqueologla Mexicana 107:10-11.
Sload, Rebecca
1978 Original unpublished field notes and photograph
log from the 1978 TMP Season - TE27 and TE28. Man-
uscript on file, Teotihuacan Archaeological Research
Center, San Juan Teotihuacan.
2007 Radiocarbon Dating of Teotihuacan Mapping Project
TE28 Material from Cave under the Pyramid of the Sun,
Teotihuacan, Mexico. Final Report submitted to FAMS1.
Electronic document, http://www.famsi.org/reports/0601 II
06017Sload01 .pdf, accessed December 3,2014.
2011 Activity Areas in the Cave under the Pyramid of the
Sun, Teotihuacan. Paper presented at the 76th Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Sacra-
mento.
2009 Ceramics from the Cave under the Pyramid of the
Sun, Teotihuacan: Spatial and Statistical Analyses of
Teotihuacan Mapping Project Data. Paper presented at
the 74th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Ar-
chaeology, Atlanta.
Smith, Robert Eliot
1987 A Ceramic Sequence from the Pyramid of the Sun
Teotihuacan, Mexico. Papers of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 75. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge.
Steier, Peter, and Werner Rom
2000 The Use of Bayesian Statistics for 14C Dates of
Chronologically Ordered Samples: A Critical Analysis.
Radiocarbon 42:183-198.
Sugiyama, Nawa, Saburo Sugiyama, and Alejandro Sarabia
G.
2013 Inside the Sun Pyramid at Teotihuacan, Mexico:
2008-2011. Excavations and Preliminary Results. Latin
American Antiquity 24:403^132.
Sugiyama, Saburo
1998 Termination Programs and Prehispanic Looting at
the Feathered Serpent Pyramid in Teotihuacan, Mexico.
In The Sowing and the Dawning, edited by Shirley Boteler
Mock, pp. 146-164. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
2005 Human Sacrifice, Militarism, and Rulership: Mate-
rialization of State Ideology at the Feathered Serpent
Pyramid, Teotihuacan. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge.
2010 Teotihuacan City Layout as a Cosmogram: Preliminary
Results of the 2007 Measurement Unit Study. In The Ar-
chaeology Of Measurement, edited by Iain Morley and
 Sload] WHEN WAS THE SUN PYRAMID BUILT?
Colin Renfrew, pp. 130-149. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
2011 Interactions between the Living and the Dead at
Major Monuments in Teotihuacan. In Living with the
Dead, edited by James L. Fitzsimmons and Izumi Shimada,
pp. 161-202. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Sugiyama, Saburo, and Ruben Cabrera Castro
2007 The Moon Pyramid Project and the Teotihuacan
State Polity. Ancient Mesoamerica 18:109-125.
Sugiyama, Saburo, and Alejandro Sarabia
2011 Teotihuacan: La ciudad con una cosmovision
mesoamericana. Arqueologi'a Mexicana 107:39^45.
Notes
1. Labeling of blockages follows the TMP practice, which
continued that of Baker et al. (1974). It reflects the order of
blockage construction, with numbering starting at the terminus
and continuing westward. Sugiyama et al. (2013:Figure 1) re-
verse the labeling, numbering the last built as thefirst.Evidence
for the existence of Blockage 1 is inconclusive.
2. See Sload (2007:12,21-24) for an explanation of sample
selection in Area B, which has no concrete floor.
3. PPS-8 consisted of "carbon fragments" found within
the nucleus of the talud that defines the west end of the cave
(Sugiyama 2013:428). INAH patched the base of the talud
during consolidation and exploration (Figure 4c), introducing
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL AUTONOMA DE MEXICO, on 28 Oct 2021 at 05:24:34, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.7183/1045-6635.26.2.221
241
one type of contextual ambiguity. The second relates to the
fill matrix of PPS-8, which is described as tepetate, rocks,
stones, lenses of dirt, sand, carbon, and artifacts, mostly ce-
ramics (Sugiyama et al. 2013:408). This description sounds
more like redeposited surface fill than undisturbed "under the
concrete" "3," "4" or "5" layer matrices. While PPS-8 aligns,
interpretation is much less clear than for TE28 dates, as dis-
cussed in Sload (2007) and here.
4. The Moon Pyramid Project's total station map of the
Sun Pyramid cave (Sugiyama 2011; Sugiyama and Sarabia
2011) made minor changes to the TMP map, if considered
relative to the huge mass of the Pyramid. The Bonfil and Oteo
map published by Heyden (1975:Figure 1) has the cave length
at 103 m; the TMP map, 100 m (Millon 1981:231); the new
map, 97 m (Sugiyama and Sarabia 2011:44). Superposing any
of these maps onto the front face of the Pyramid changes little
regarding the spatial relationships between cave and Pyramid.
This is especially true if it is remembered that the most im-
portant factor is the connections Teotihuacanos believed they
had achieved. Figure 8 schematically reflects the most recent
data.
Submitted July 29, 2014; Revised December 9, 2014;
Accepted January 28, 2015.