The Early/Middle Formative Kanocha Phase (1200-850 B.C.) at Blackman Eddy, Belize
James F. Garber, M. Kathryn Brown, and Christopher J. Hartman

The Kanocha Phase (1200-850 B.C.)

The Kanocha phase represents the initial occupation of Blackman Eddy. Two wares are present in the Kanocha Complex; one utilitarian with calcite and quartzite temper and the other a dull-slipped ware characterized by ash temper (Figure 6 and Figure 12). Major forms include; lugged and strap-handled jars with short necks, tecomates, colanders, bowls of various forms, and flat-bottom plates with out-curving sides and wide everted rims. Decoration techniques include appliqué fillets and post-slip incising. The predominant utilitarian ware shows strong parallels to Jocote of Jenny Creek and appears to be its developmental precursor. Some of the dull-slipped types show strong developmental ties to the succeeding Mars Orange group as well.

Several aspects of these ceramics such as dating, origins, and relationship to subsequent complexes have been the subject of considerable discussion and debate. The radiocarbon dates from Blackman Eddy (Table 2, Figure 13) support the proposed beginning date for the appearance of these ceramics at 1000 B.C. and may appear as early as 1200 B.C. The same is true for the Cunil Complex at Cahal Pech (Awe, 1992). Prior to these discoveries, the earliest deposits of the valley were those of early facet Jenny Creek at 800 B.C. (Gifford, 1976) and thus, the Kanocha phase at Blackman Eddy and Cunil phase at Cahal Pech both predate Jenny Creek. These early ceramic types have also been recovered at Xunantunich (Strelow and LeCount, 2001), Pacbitun (Powis, personal communication, 2000), and in the BVAP excavations at Floral Park.

The issue of origins is more complex. There are four basic possibilities: (1) these ceramics were developed in-situ with no, or little, outside influence; (2) the underlying concepts of ceramic production were introduced into the valley from Maya groups in adjoining regions; (3) ceramics and/or the underlying concepts of ceramic production were introduced into the valley from non-Maya groups in adjoining regions or beyond through interaction and; (4) this portion of the Maya Lowlands was settled by non-Maya groups, bringing with them the concepts of ceramic production.

The iconography and general quality of the Kanocha phase ceramics represent a well-developed technology; not a first attempt at producing ceramics. There is no evidence for ceramic experimentation. The first possibility above, can reasonably be ruled out on the basis of clear iconographic ties to other regions of Mesoamerica. Moreover, non-local exotics were encountered within the Kanocha phase at Blackman Eddy and the Cunil phase at Cahal Pech (Awe, 1992) suggesting interaction with outside regions. With ceramic producing populations surrounding the Maya Lowlands it seems logical that the early inhabitants of the valley would have had an understanding of ceramic technology. The fact that cultigens and associated technologies were spreading all over Mesoamerica is ample evidence of considerable interaction even at an early date.

The second possibility, that the underlying concepts of ceramic production were introduced into the valley from Maya groups in adjoining areas, flows from "conventional wisdom" among Mayanists in a very simple general working assumption that if something occurs in the Maya Lowlands it must be Maya. We would expect to find preceramic deposits in the valley indicating an earlier lifeway more dependent on wild resources. Such finds are present, but scarce, and the density and significance of these Archaic valley populations has not been determined. Compelling evidence that the early settled villagers were well adapted to the local environment of the valley lends support to this possibility.

Distinct external influences on the Classic, Postclassic, and Historic periods are well documented and thus the third and fourth possibilities, both of which involve non-Maya groups, should be given careful consideration. Ball and Taschek (2000; in press) present an intriguing reassessment of the Middle Formative ceramics of the valley that may shed some light on this issue. They suggest that the earliest permanent settlers of the valley were not Maya or at least not the Maya of the Classic period. Furthermore, they suggest that the ceramics in use between 950-500 B.C. of the valley are not of a single complex, the result of a "closed-system", but rather represent multi-system composites.

While the Kanluk [Cahal Pech Jenny Creek] and Jenny Creek ceramic complexes as defined are based on stratigraphic depositional associations, they do not represent one-to-one equivalents of local Middle Preclassic production-consumption assemblages but depositional composites made up of locally manufactured and used pottery plus additions resulting from local exchange, long-distance trade, possible gifting, the curation of heirlooms or antique vessels, and other processes. The evidence for some of these processes is easily recognized, that for others is not. However, what should be realized is that the compositional character of a Middle Preclassic complex like Jenny Creek or Kanluk really is no different from that of a central lowlands Terminal Classic complex that includes fine orange, plumbate, or thin-slate ceramics, or a northern lowlands Late Complex with inclusions of Palmar or Petkanche group polychromes or fine-paste wares from outside the immediate region of archaeological discovery. (Ball and Taschek, 2000:6)

According to their argument, what has been regarded as a single complex may actually be made up of two distinct production systems; one Maya, the other non-Maya. The ceramic groups that make up these complexes appear to be a part of a "generic Middle Preclassic" ceramic tradition with a wide distribution that extends across the isthmus as opposed to a "Maya Middle Preclassic" tradition. This pattern would be analogous to the situation in the Copan Valley where the earliest ceramics (Rayo and Gordon complexes) have been linked to complexes of Chalchuapa (Demarest, 1987; Fash, 1991), and Xe ceramics linked to Mixe-Zoque groups most likely from eastern Chiapas or the northern highlands of Guatemala (Andrews, 1990). In these models, the Mixe-Zoque groups were absorbed or replaced by Maya groups expanding from Mamom based ceramic systems which had developed out of Peten based or Swasey pre-Mamom roots. The validity of this model for the Belize Valley ultimately rests on a comprehensive analysis of the ceramic material coupled with a thorough comparison to neighboring areas and beyond. Such an analysis is currently in progress (Joseph Ball, personal communication, 2001).

In the initial description of the Cunil phase at Cahal Pech, Awe (1992) describes a set of motifs and elements of the incised types as well as those on greenstone artifacts of the same phase. Subsequently, these motifs were the subject of a more detailed analysis and the incised types were defined as the Chitam sub-complex of Cunil (Cheetham, 1998). The Kan cross and avian-serpent have been identified on the Kanocha phase ceramics at Blackman Eddy (Figure 14). Both are part of a widespread generic Middle Formative system found in several regions of Mesoamerica including; Chiapas, Pacific Coast, Gulf Coast, El Salvador, Morelos, Valley of Mexico, and Oaxaca. The Kanocha (Figures 15, 16, 17, and 18, shown below) and Cunil phase figurines are stylistically similar to examples from the Northern Guatemalan highlands, Western El Salvador, and Central Chiapas and are quite unlike those from the Gulf Coast and the Southeastern Pacific Coast (Awe, 1992; Cheetham, 1998).

The distribution of these motifs indicates that the iconographic program was not Maya in origin but rather was a part of a larger pan-Mesoamerican Middle Formative symbol system. These symbols are not a part of the Swasey Complex in Northern Belize (Kosakowsky, 1987; Kosakowsky and Pring, 1998). Furthermore, they are not a part of Jenny Creek at Barton Ramie or Blackman Eddy, Kanluk (Jenny Creek at Cahal Pech), Mamom, or Bolay. Cheetham (1998) believes these pan-Mesoamerican motifs were adopted by the resident Maya population of the valley. Although we do not reject this hypothesis, we leave open the possibility that the earliest settlers of the valley (Maya or other) arrived with these iconographic concepts as a part of their cultural baggage. Given the above reassessment by Ball and Taschek and the possible problems with our current understanding of who the earliest settlers of the valley were, where they might have come from, and what groups they may have been influenced by, we reserve judgment on the possible explanations for the origin of the early ceramics of the valley pending further analysis and excavation.

Kanocha artifacts include retouched flakes, scrapers, drills, burins, chert macro-blades, hammerstones, quartzite and granite manos, tecomate stone bowls, polished greenestone, marine and freshwater shell disk beads, bone needles, bone rings, stingray spines, stone pendants, ceramic ocarinas, and molded ceramic figurines. From the establishment of their initial settlement, the early Middle Formative inhabitants of the valley were involved in long distance trade. Exotic goods include greenstone, obsidian, and marine shell. The presence of greenstone from the Blackman Eddy Kanocha phase and Cahal Pech Cunil phase (Awe, 1992) is one of the earliest uses of greenstone in the Maya Lowlands. The marine shells are predominantly Strombus, available on the Caribbean coast. The early occurrence and diverse origins of these exotic goods imply that an extensive system of long distance trade and exchange had been established in the Maya Lowlands by the beginning of the first millennia B.C.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page