SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 A Comparison of Formative Cultures in the Americas DIFFUSION OR THE PSYCHIC UNITY OF MAN James A. Ford SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS City of Washington 1969 A Publication of the SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION United States National Museum LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 69-60004 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1969 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govemment Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $7.75 Collaborators Ripley P. Bullen, Florida State Museum, Gainesville, Florida Michael D. Coe, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut Clifford Evans, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Gareth Lov^ e^, New World Archaeological Foundation, Tuxtia Gutierrez, Chiapas, Mexico Richard S. MacNeish, Robert S. Peabody Foundation, Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts Ramiro Matos M., Universidad Nacional del Centro del Peru, Huancayo, Peru Betty J . Meggers, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Gerardo Reichel-DolmatofT, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogota, Colombia Wdliam Sears, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida Paul Tolstoy, Queens College of the City of New York, New York Preface I have had an interest in the American Formative culture for some years and have searched for it with limited or no success in Colombia, Peru, Mexico, and the eastern United States. However, I stumbled into the present study entirely by accident. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada's Early Formative Period of Coastal Ecuador was published whde Matthew Wallrath, Alfonso Medellin Z., and I were finishing the classification of several hundred thousand sherds from our excavations in Pre-Classic sites on the coast of Veracruz, Mexico. Wallrath was immediately impressed by the close resemblance of engraved wares from the Machalilla Phase to those we were working with from the site of Chalahuites. Upon careful reading of this well-illustrated tome, a number of unexplained resemblances between ceramics and other features of early North, Central, and South American cultures began to crystallize into patterns. For six months after retuming to the United States, I dutifully continued to work on the report of the Mexican excavations. The problem of Formative relationships, however, occupied more and more of my attention, and by the spring of 1966 the Veracruz paper had practically been shelved. Correspondence with other archeologists working on the Formative led to plans to hold a week of discussion on this problem at the Florida State Museum in Gainesville. A grant toward the expenses of travel was made by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research of New York, and the conference took place 17-22 October 1966. Participants were the collaborators listed on p. v, with the exception of Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff, who was unable to attend the session, but has actively collaborated in providing criticism and data. Those who came in the capacity of observers were James B. Griffin, University of Michigan; Otto Schondube of the Museo de Arqueologia, Mexico City; Takeshi Ueno, University of Tokyo; and Adelaide Bullen of the Florida State Museum. An agenda had been prepared in the form of preliminary versions of most of the charts included in this volume, and discussions of their shortcomings and implications were spirited and lengthy. The archeologists listed as collaborators have given generously of their time, informa? tion, and opinions as this monograph developed. When each section was completed in tentative form, it was mimeographed and mailed to them for criticism and comment. In most instances I have incorporated the changes suggested, for each consultant has a unique knowledge of the prehistory of the regions where he has worked. Still, I cannot say that all collaborators are happy with the present form of this paper. A principal disquiet arises from the fact that I have glossed over detaUs of chronological and areal information in some cases where these are well known. For example. Sears points to the fact that the east and west coasts of the northern part of the Florida Peninsula have dis? tinct chronologies. So have southern and central Veracruz. Coastal Ecuador should be viii PREFACE represented by at least five regional columns, and to attempt to reflect the complex pre? history of Peru in two columns is absurd. Then too, some perfectiy good chronologies have been left off the charts. An example is the sequence in the Huasteca region of Mexico developed by Ekholm (1944) and MacNeish (1947). This criticism is just; I admit to some rather heavy-handed simplification. It has become the admirable pattern in archeological reports to segregate carefully and label the sections reporting factual data, comparisons, conclusions, and speculations. This pattern cannot be followed here, for the obvious reason that the entire paper con? sists of comparisons, conclusions, and speculations. The comparisons are frequentiy illustrated by selected specimens, but I wish it understood that these are merely samples. The serious reader is advised to make extensive use of the field reports to which reference is made, and to judge for himself the degrees of resemblance. I do not think that very often I have left myself open to the criticism of having chosen unique or divergent speci? mens for comparison in an attempt to force conclusions. Many of the comparisons would be more effective if we had knowledge of the relative popularity of the various features in all areas. We do have this information for ceramics in a number of chronologies, including the north coast of Peru (Viru), coastal Ecuador, Soconusco, Tehuacan, and the Lower Mississippi Valley. Where available, this informa? tion has been used. The collaborators also are not to be accused of agreeing with all the implications and conclusions. MacNeish, for example, suggests that a long evolutionary development of ceramics in northern South America waits to be discovered, of which the Puerto Hormiga culture of Colombia may be a part. Alicia and Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff also suspect that this may be true. In addition to the collaborators to whom my debt is obvious, I wish to acknowledge indebtedness to a number of others. First, to the Florida State Museum and its Director, J. C. Dickinson, Jr., who has tolerated my rather single-minded preoccupation with this problem. Also, I appreciate the generous forebearance of the National Science Foundation and its Program Director for Anthropology, Richard Lieban. At the time of applying for Grant GS-1002, I fully intended to produce reports on excavations in Veracruz, Marks- ville, and Poverty Point, Louisiana. Instead, the funds have been diverted into the preparation of this paper. For several years, Clarence Webb and I have been working on a report on additional specimens from the Poverty Point site in the Lower Mississippi Valley. I am greatly indebted to Webb both for his patience at the delay of the second Poverty Point paper, and for permission to make advance use of some of the data. Stephen Williams of Peabody Museum, Harvard, made available the papers of Antonio J . Waring on the archeology of the Georgia coast in page proof, permitting me to cite valuable data contained therein. Robert Heizer of the University of California, Berkeley, has provided information on his and Philip Drucker's recent work at La Venta. To William G. Haag of Louisiana State University, I owe thanks for his interest in the Formative problem, and for unpublished information on the Stallings Island culture. Bruce Trickey and Nicholas H. Holmes, Jr., have generously provided data on the Bayou La Batre Phase of coastal Alabama. Gregory Perino has loaned unpublished manuscripts reporting on his extensive work on Illinois Hopewell. Sherwood Gagliano, Raymond Baby, and Junius Bird provided valuable information and answered a variety of questions. Joan Booth, research assistant, typist, and language critic has worked conscientiously, and most intelligentiy on the preparation of this paper. Timothy Anderson, Paul Frazier, Kathy Notestein, and Bob Nininger have drawn the illustrations. PREFACE Anders Richter, Director, and Stephen Kraft, Managing Designer, of the Smithsonian Institution Press were most generous with advice on format, particularly in regard to the presentation of the large chronological charts for publication. Final editing and prepara? tion of the manuscript for the U.S. Government Printing Office was by Joan Horn. James A. Ford Florida State Museum Gainesville, Florida February 1968 POSTSCRIPT Typing was nearly completed on the final draft of this manuscript when James Ford was taken to the hospital, where he died a few days later on 25 February 1968. During the last ten months of his life, in spite of increasing weakness, he labored on what many of his collaborators believe to be one of the milestones of New World archeology. The fact that he succeeded in finishing it is a source of satisfaction to all of us, and a monument to the courage as well as the vision of a remarkable man. It remains to us only to reiterate the appreciation expressed by Ford to the National Science Foundation, which has permitted continuation of his grant to cover remaining costs of preparation and the transportation of the manuscript and illustrations to Wash? ington, and to J. C. Dickinson, who supervised the final clerical work and assured safe delivery of text and drawings to us. Betty J. Meggers Clifford Evans Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C. March 1968 Contents Page INTRODUCTION 1 Development of the Formative c o n c e p t . . . . . . . 1 Definition of the F o r m a t i v e . . . . . . 4 Selection of evidence . . . . . . . . . . 5 Setting the stage for the American Formative ? 6 CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATES . . . . . . . 9 The Ohio chronological column . . . . . . . . . . . 10 The Illinois chronological column . . . . . . 11 The Georgia coast chronological column . . . . . . 12 The north Florida chronological column . . . . . . . 12 Mobile Bay-Florida northwest coast chronological column . . . . . - 13 The Louisiana chronological column. . . . . . . . 14 The Veracruz chronological column. . . . . . . . . . 14 The Valley of Mexico chronological column . . 17 The Tehuacan chronological column . . . . . . 18 The Chiapas chronological column . . . . . . 18 The Soconusco, Guatemala chronological column 19 The north coast of Colombia chronological column . . . 20 The coastal Ecuador chronological column . . . . 21 The central highland Peru chronological column . . . 22 The north and central coast of Peru chronological column 22 GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS . . . 41 Settlement pattern: Village plan and ceremonial constructions 41 Summary . . . . . . . 46 Comparisons . . . . ? 46 Tools . . . . . . . 47 Core and blade industry . . . . . . 47 Summary . . . . . . . . . 48 Reamers . . . . . ? ? 48 Axes and celts . . . . . . . 49 Grooved stone axes . . . ? ? . 4 9 T-shaped stone axes Rectangular and petaloid celts Summary . . . . . 53 Grinding stones for preparing food . . . 54 Summary . . . . ? ? ^7 Small ornaments and artifacts . . 5 7 Lapidary industry: beads ? ^7 Summary . . ? "^ Lapidary industry: small ornaments . 50 50 61 Summary "^ 66 Tools of the lapidary industry . . . . . Sandstone saws . . . " " Drilling techniques . . " ' Summary . . . . ' 0 PREFACE Earspools and earplugs Summary Mirrors Summary Comparisons Finger rings Summary Combs Summary Distinctive artifacts . . . . . Figurines . . . . . . Summary Comparison . . . . . . Tubular and platiorm pipes . Summary . Flat and cylindrical stamps Summary . Bark beaters . . . . Summary . . . . . . . Pottery and stone vessels and appendages Small wide-mouth pot Summary Paddle-stamped Woodland amphora Tecomate or neckless ja r Summary . Flat-base stone bowl . . Summary Flat-base pan . . Composite silhouette bowl Summary . . . Round-base simple bowl Summary . . . Simple bowl with flat base Summary . . . . Vessel feet . . . . . Summary . . . Ring and pedestal bases Summary Stirrup-spout bottle Summary . . . . . Straight-necked bottle Summary . . Bridge-spout bottle Summary . Teapot vessel Summary . . . Pottery decoration . . . Red slip and zoned red slip . Summary . . . Red paint zoned by incised lines . . . Summary . . Unzoned and zoned rocker and linear stamping Summary . . . . Excised decoration Summary . . Negative painting . . . Summary . Thickened decorated lip, outflaring lip with decoration, and labial flange Summary . . Broad-line incised designs Summary Page 70 74 74 76 76 76 77 77 78 78 78 82 82 82 83 83 85 85 86 86 86 90 91 92 95 95 98 98 101 105 105 109 109 111 112 115 115 117 117 118 119 120 121 122 122 123 123 123 125 125 127 128 131 131 133 133 135 136 138 138 141 CONTENTS xiil Page Zoned-hatched designs . . . . . . . . . 141 Summary . . . . . . 142 Double-line break motif 143 Human face on vessel neck and shoulder . . . . . . 143 Summary . . . . . . 145 Engraved zoned crosshatched designs . . . 146 Summary . . . . . 147 Summary of trait distributions . . . . 148 COLONIAL FORMATIVE DIFFUSION IN THE AMERICAS 150 Archeological complexes . . 151 The Valdivia and Machalilla Phases of coastal Ecuador . . 151 The Puerto Hormiga Phase of north coastal Colombia 152 Fiber and sand tempering 152 Vessel shapes 152 Scallop-shell stamping . 152 Horizontal incised lines . . . . 153 Punctated decoration . . . . . 153 Finger-made dimples 153 Adornos . . . . 153 Drag-and-jab incising . 153 Circle and dot . 153 Summary . 1 5 4 The Monagrillo Phase of Panama 154 Bowl shapes 155 Tecomate-shaped jars . . . . 155 Red slip on bowls 156 Engraved decoration 156 Excised rectilinear designs . . 1 5 6 Summary 157 The Sarigua Phase of Panama . 157 Composite silhouette bowls 157 Jars with collars 157 Applique decoration. . . . 158 Scallop-shell stamping 158 Zoned punctating 159 Brushing . . . . 1 5 9 Summary . . . 159 The San Juan Phase of north coastal Peru 159 Zoned large punctations . 159 Horizontal incised lines 159 Applique fillets 160 Summary . 160 The Negritos style of north coastal Peru 160 Applique fillets and nodes . 1^0 The Paita style of north coastal Peru 160 Wide-line incising ? ^"^ Cambered rims . . ? 161 Jars with angular shoulders and indented bases 162 Painting . . . . . 162 Crude incision . . . . . ^62 Tecomate . . ? ^62 Summary ? ^"2 The Kotosh site, central Peruvian highlands 162 Looped or arched lines ^63 1 CO Vessel shapes . loo Rectangular spirals . . . "^-^ Zig-zag motifs and circle and dot . . 1 6 4 Excision . . . . ^" 1 fi4. Interrupted horizontal lines Summary . . ' 170 171 171 CONTENTS XIV Page The Guanape Phase of north coastal Peru 165 Applique fillets 1^^ Applique nodes and finger punching 165 Summary The Colonial Formative gap in Middle America loo The Stallings Island complex of the Georgia coast 167 Simple and shouldered bowls . J 68 Punctations in incised lines j6 Drag-and-jab incision . . . Punctations in rows and panels Finger-pressed dimples Paneled incising, crosshatched incising |7U Line-zoned hatching and crosshatching . . . . 170 Summary . . . The Orange complex of Florida . . ? ? ? Flat-base pans . . . ? ? ? Tick Island Incised . . . . 1 7 1 Broad-line diamonds ? ^'^ Ayangue tradition ^'^ Incised herringbone motifs . . . . ? . ilo Crossed bands of incised lines . . . . . 173 Line-filled triangles ? ? . . . . 174 Dots or tick marks bordering motifs . . . ? . 174 Hatched diamonds or squares ' l i t Zig-zag bands with hatched backgrounds Crosshatched and hatched bands Late Orange features . Rare Orange decorations . . . . Discussion ? ? ? The Fourche Maline complex of Oklahoma The Bayou La Batre complex of the Mobile Bay region Flaring-side cup . . . . Globular pot . . Shell stamping . . . . . . 178 Summary . . . . . . . . . . 178 Summary and speculation about the Colonial Formative 178 The Theocratic Formative . . . . . . ? 180 Ceramics of Poverty Point, Louisiana . . 1 8 1 A HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION . . . . . . . 183 LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . 195 CHARTS . . . . . . 213 Tables 1. Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Ohio chronological column . 24 2. Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Illinois chronological column 26 3. Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Georgia coast chronological column 28 4. Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the north Florida chronological column 29 5. Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Mobile Bay-Florida northwest coast chronological column . . . . . . 29 6. Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Louisiana chronological column . . . 30 7. Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Valley of Mexico chronological column 33 8. Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Chiapas chronological column . . . 34 9. Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Soconusco, Guatemala chronological column . . . . . . . . . 34 174 174 174 175 175 176 176 177 177 ILLUSTRATIONS XV Page 10. Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the north coast of Colombia chronological column . . . . . . . . . 35 11. Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the coastal Ecuador chronological column 36 12. Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the central highland Peru chronological column . . . 38 13. Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the north and central coast of Peru chrono? logical column . . . . 39 Illustrations FIGURES Page 1. Map showing locations of known Early Formative settlements in North, Central, and South America 8 2. Radiocarbon dates from the La Venta and San Lorenzo sites, Veracruz, Mexico . . 16 3. Comparison of bird representations in the Poverty Point-Hopewell and Olmec- Tlatilco lapidary industries 62 4. Comparison of small biomorphic ornaments in the Poverty Point-Hopewell and Olmec-Tlatilco lapidary industries . . . . . 63 5. Comparison of items of the Poverty Point-Hopewell and Olmec lapidary industries . 65 6. Comparison of cambered rims in Marksville-Hopewell, Valdivia and the Peruvian Tiahuanaco, Piura and Gallinazo Phases . . . . . . 89 7. Comparison of double-line break motif, Mesoamerica and Valdivia, Ecuador . 143 8. Resemblances between vessel shapes and decorations of the Puerto Hormiga Phase, Colombia and the Valdivia Phase, Ecuador 152 9. Resemblances between pottery decorations of the Puerto Hormiga Phase, Colombia and the Valdivia Phase, Ecuador 154 10. Resemblances between vessel shapes and decorations of the Monagrillo Phase of Panama and the Puerto Hormiga Phase of Colombia, the early part of the Tehuacan sequence in Mexico, and the Valdivia and Machalilla Phases of Ecuador 155 11. Resemblances between pottery decorations of the Monagrillo Phase of Panama, the Puerto Hormiga Phase of Colombia, and the Valdivia Phase of Ecuador . 157 12. Resemblances between vessel shapes and decorations of the Sarigua Phase of Panama and the Valdivia and Machalilla Phases of Ecuador . . 158 13. Resemblances between pottery decorations of the Sarigua Phase of Panama, the Bar- lovento Phase of Golombia, and the Valdivia Phase of Ecuador . . 159 14. Resemblances between pottery decorations of the San Juan Phase of north coastal Peru and the Valdivia Phase of Ecuador . . 1 6 0 15. Resemblances between pottery decorations of the Negritos and Paita Phases of north coastal Peru and the Valdivia Phase of Ecuador . . . . . . . 161 16. Resemblances between vessel shapes and painted decorations of the Paita Phase of north coastal Peru and the Valdivia-Machalilla Phases of Ecuador . . 161 17. Resemblances between pottery decorations of the Paita Phase of north coastal Peru and the Valdivia and Machalilla Phases of Ecuador . . . . . . 162 18. Resemblances between vessel shapes and decorations from the Kotosh site, central highlands of Peru, the Valdivia and Machalilla Phases of Ecuador, and early Te? huacan, Mexico . . . 163 19. Resemblances between pottery decorations from early phases of the Kotosh site, central highlands of Peru, and the Valdivia and Machalilla Phases of Ecuador 164 20. Resemblances between pottery decorations from the Kotosh site, central highlands of Peru, and the Valdivia and Machalilla Phases of Ecuador . . 165 21. Resemblances between pottery decorations of the Guafiape Phase, Viru Valley, Peru and the Valdivia Phase of Ecuador . . . . 166 22. Resemblances between vessel shapes and decorations of the Stallings Island Phase, south Atlantic coast of North America, the Puerto Hormiga Phase of Golombia and the Valdivia Phase of Ecuador 168 23. Resemblances between pottery decorations of the Stallings Island Phase, south Atlantic coast of North America, and the Valdivia Phase of Ecuador 169 xvi ILLUSTRATIONS Page 24. Resemblances between line-zoned hatching and crosshatching on engraved bone pins of the StaUings Island Phase, south Atlantic coast of North America, and pottery vessels of the Valdivia and Machalilla Phases of Ecuador . . . . . 170 25. Resemblances between vessel shapes and decorations of the early part of the Orange Phase, south Atlantic coast of North America, the Purron Phase of Tehuacan, Mexico, and the Barlovento Phase of Colombia . . . 172 26. Resemblances between pottery decorations of the Orange Phase, south Atlantic coast of North America, and the Machalilla Phase of coastal Ecuador . 1 7 3 27. Resemblances between incised decorations of the Orange Phase, south Atiantic coast of North America, and the Machalilla Phase of coastal Ecuador 174 28. Resemblances between incised decorations of the Orange Phase, south Atiantic coast of North America, and the Machalilla and Valdivia Phases of coastal Ecuador 175 29. Resemblances between incised decorations of the Orange Phase, south Atiantic coast of North America, Veracruz region of Mexico, and the Machalilla Phase of coastal Ecuador . . . . ^76 30. Resemblances between interlocked T-figures in decorations of the Orange Phase, south Atlantic coast of North America, and the Valdivia Phase of coastal Ecuador . 176 31. Resemblances between vessel shapes and decorations of the Bayou La Batre Phase, Gulf coast of North America, and those of the Valdivia Phase of Ecuador, the Momil Phase of Colombia, the Ocos Phase of Guatemala, and the Trapiche Phase, Gulf coast of Mexico . . . . . . . 177 32. Resemblances between vessel features and decorations of the Poverty Point Phase, Lower Mississippi Valley and the Valdivia Phase of Ecuador 181 CHARTS 1. Radiocarbon dates in agreement with the dating adopted for the cultural phases comprising the regional chronologies. 2. Settlement pattern: village plan and ceremonial constructions. 3. Core and blade industry, bark beaters, and reamers. 4. Axes and celts. 5. Grinding stones for preparing food. 6. The lapidary industry: beads. 7. Sandstone saws, solid and tubular drills. 8. Earspools and earplugs. 9. Combs, mirrors, and finger rings. 10. Figurines. 11. Tubular and platform pipes, flat and cylindrical stamps. 12. Tecomate, small wide-mouth pot, paddle-stamped Woodland amphora. 13. Flat-base pan, stone bowl, and composite silhouette bowl. 14. Round-base and flat-base simple bowl. 15. Vessel feet, and annular base. 16. Stirrup-spout, straight-necked or simple, and bridge-spout bottle, and teapot vessel. 17. Red slip and zoned red slip. 18. Unzoned and line-zoned stamping. 19. Excised decoration and negative painting. 20. Labial or medial flange, outflaring lip, and thickened decorated lip. 21. Broad-line incising and zoned hatching. 22. Faces on vessel walls and zoned crosshatching. A Comparison of Formative Cultures in the Americas Diffusion or the Psychic Unity of Nlan 324-788 O - 69 - 2 Introduction DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMATIVE CONCEPT A half century ago, Herbert J. Spinden (1917) pre? sented to the International Congress of Americanists held in Washington, a paper in which he postulated that the high civdizations from the Andes to Middle America were based on a common old cultural stratum. This stratum was supposed to have origi? nated in Middle America, specifically in the region of the advanced Maya culture, and was thought to include maize agriculture, ceramics, crude handmade figurines, and ceremonial centers marked by pyramids that served as bases for temples. Spinden's theory seems to have been greeted with silence by his colleagues, and he himself neglected to elaborate on it in his later work. Ten years later the "Archaic" theory was criticized by Lothrop, and as Vaillant (1935a, p. 293) says, the ensuing discussion "changed the status of the 'archaic culture' from a conclusion to a prob? lem." Indeed it could not be more, considering the amount of data and chronological information available. At the time the Pueblo region of the United States Southwest was the bright spot in American archeol? ogy, where the researches of Morris, Nelson, Fewkes, and many others resulted in the first Pecos Conference and Kidder's "Outiine" (1924). In the East, Holmes' (1903) regional review of ceramics was the handbook, and C. B. Moore was touring Southeastern rivers in the steamboat Gopher and publishing his field notes with magnificent illustrations. In Mexico, handmade figurines had been found beneath the lava flow of the Pedregal, and strati? graphic excavations by Gamio had demonstrated a sequence of sub-Pedregal, Teotihuac^n, and Aztec cidtures. Uhle was making careful collections on the coast of Peru and had found rocker stamped pottery in the shell heaps at Ancon. After Vaillant worked out the sequence for the "Archaic" or "Pre-Glassic" culture for the Valley of of Mexico in the 1920s, he and Lothrop attempted the correlation of early cultures in Middle America in terms of the "q-complex", a group of specific traits that they also traced into the Mississippi Valley. They do not seem to have been very serious about this assay, and in any event were again frustrated by lack of chronological information. Most of the "q-traits" cited in the eastern United States fall into quite recent time periods. At the 23rd International Congress of Americanists held in 1928, Kroeber (1930) elaborated the thesis of a common archaic agricultural foundation, with identical food plants and similar techniques in weav? ing, metallurgy, and architecture. The decades of the 1920s and 1930s saw the exca? vation of large sites in Middle America (Monte Alb^n, Teotihuac^n, Uaxactiin, and many others), which provided the Classic and Post-Classic cultural periods with a relative time scale, and thus made clearer the earlier age of the Pre-Classic or Formative. Smaller scale but numerous excavations were con? ducted in the eastern United States and in Peru. As evidence accumulated, various archeologists under? took synthesis of parts of regions and then of regions as a whole. In the eastern United States, Cole and Deuel (1937) defined an Early Woodland basic cultural pattern and a later Mississippian pattern. This was a statement of the then popular Midwestern Taxonomic scheme, and this dichotomy still haunts the archeology of the area. SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 1 1 Five years later Ford and Willey (1941) offered an "outline" of Eastern archeology, which attempted to give chronology and direction of cultural diffusion. Dates were wrong and data on the early Burial Mound I and II stages sketchy, but the reader will note an essential agreement with the thesis of the present paper. Rigidity of viewpoint is not the exclusive prerogative of certain colleagues with whom the writer tends to disagree. Phillips (1940) also assessed Mesoamerican influences in the Southeast. In the same year George Vaillant (1941) sum? marized the "Middle Cultures" of the Valley of Mexico in the opening chapters of The Aztecs of Mexico, and traced the chronology through succeed? ing phases up to the Conquest. In 1941-1942 the Institute of Andean Research coordinated the work of representatives of various institutions, vv^ ho were organized into ten field parties spaced from Chile to northern Mexico. The avowed purpose was to discover local chronologies and to find evidence of early inter-American cultural influences. The first objective was achieved with fair success, resulting in a number of important papers. Those that will be most useful here are Ekholm (1944) and Willey and Corbett (1954). Strong (1943) summarized the accomplishments of the projects and called attention to ceramic decorative techniques and motifs that were shared by the coastal Chavin of Peru, the Playa de los Muertos site in Honduras, and the Hopewellian Phase of the Mississippi Valley. These included zoned rocker stamping, wide-line incising, and zoned red painted designs. About the same time, Tello (1943) described the discovery of the spectacular Chavin culture of Peru and pointed to its importance as the early pan- Peruvian Formative (to use current terms). Rebecca Carrion elaborated on the thesis in 1948. In 1943, Drucker, Stirling, and others began to publish the results of excavations in the important Olmec sites on the Gulf coast of Mexico. The relative antiquity of this remarkable cultural phase, with its great ceremonial centers, monumental sculpture, distinctive art style, and lapidary industry in jade, began to be realized. Some authorities, notably Covarrubias (1946, p. 80), recognized Olmec as principally ancestral to both Mexican and Mayan civilizations, a point of view now generally accepted. W. S. Webb and Snow in 1945 published an im? portant summary of the Adena culture of the Ohio Valley. A second volume by Webb and Baby followed in 1957. Features of this eastern LInited States Forma? tive Phase prompted Spaulding (1952) to propose that there had been a direct migration from Mesoamerica. Willey (1945) outiined Peruvian archeology in terms of horizon styles. The earliest of these, Chavin, white- on-red, and negative horizons, are most pertinent to the present discussion. As the result of excavation in the remarkable Maya site of Kaminaljuyu on the outskirts of Guatemala City, Kidder (Kidder, Jennings, and Shook, 1946) undertook extensive trait comparisons with other early Mesoamerican sites. His "General Discussion" sum? marized available knowledge of Maya and Mexican prehistory. A simdar trait survey with illustrations was presented by Wauchope (1950) four years later, and this In turn was expanded by Sorenson (1955). During this period, Griffin (1946) published an out? line of the prehistory of the eastern United States which was filled with informative detail, but gave a flat picture of the culture periods. Facts were allowed to speak for themselves and intraregional hypotheses were avoided. The monumental Archeology of the Eastern United States (Griffin, ed., 1952) by Fay-Cooper Cole's students presents a similar picture. The second cooperative project of the Institute of Andean Research concentrated the work of archeolo? gists, ethnologists, and a geographer in the small Peru? vian coastal Valley of Vini In 1946-1947. This pro? duced knowledge of the Peruvian preceramic (Bird, 1948), and a detaUed quantitative chronology for the ceramic phases (Ford, 1949; Strong and Evans, 1952; Collier, 1955). The Formative Chavin or Gupisnique Phase was firmly placed in relation to later cultures, and the work of Larco Hoyle was substantiated and elaborated. An invitational conference held In New York in 1947, coordinated the results of the Viru project, and as comparative background, Armillas (1948) contrib? uted an outiine of Mesoamerican prehistory and dis? cussed possible cross-ties with the Peruvian area, a theme also treated by Bennett, Strong, and Steward. Other comparisons were made by Jij6n y Caamano (1951b) in a paper presented at the 29th International Congress of Americanists in 1949. In 1948, Bennett proposed the concept of a Peruvian co-tradition, and with Bird (Bennett and Bird, 1949) presented a more detailed prehistory of this region in the American Museum of Natural History handbook series. This was followed in 1951 by Willey's review of the Chavin problem, which was still considered to be uniquely Peruvian. In 1953 Caso published a brief outiine of Meso? american prehistory, and MacNeish (1954) in a sec? tion of his Panuco paper, followed the pattern set by Kidder and Wauchope of making extensive trait com? parisons to other early Mesoamerican sites. This admirable practice was continued by M. D. Coe (1961) in his report on the Formative site at La Victoria, Guatemala. INTRODUCTION In the decade of the 1930s, discoveries in brick? yard excavations in the northern suburbs of Mexico City had brought the rich cemetery of Tlatilco to the attention of archeologists. A remarkable quantity of Pre-Classic or Formative ceramics, figurines, and other artifacts have come from the commercial dig? ging, as well as controlled excavations by the Mexican Instituto de Antropologia. Porter's (1953) report on Tlatilco made the first comprehensive attempt to describe traits shared by the Mesoamerican Form? ative, the Chavin horizon of Peru, and the Hope? wellian cultural manifestations of the eastern United States. In a paper prepared in honor of the 75th anniver? sary of the Anthropological Society of Washington, Willey (1955) examined the question of the diffusion of traits between Mesoamerica and Peru. His list is in part the same as that treated by Porter: rocker stamping, negative painted pottery, tripod vessels, platform mounds, and metallurgy. The possibility of connection on the early lithic horizons was also con? sidered. Willey concluded that contacts took place from preceramic times to the date of the Spanish Conquest. Willey and McGimsey (1954) investigated shell middens on the Pacific coast of Panama in a planned search for early cultures. The Monagrillo Phase dates about 2000 B.C., clearly early Formative. The ceramic decorations feature scroll motifs made by incised lines ending in punctuations, a strange design for this early date. In 1955, Gerardo and Alicia Reichel-Dolmatoff began publishing the results of their important ex? cavations in shell middens on the north coast of Colombia. In rapid sequence over the next ten years, they developed a previously unsuspected ceramic chronology that runs from the earliest Formative at about 3000 B.C. up into the early centuries of the Christian Era. In their Momil paper (1956), extensive trait comparisons are made to the Peruvian and Mesoamerican regions, and the cultural participation of Momil (700-1 B.C.) in the movement of middle and late Formative influences is set forth. The archeological career of Emilio Estrada of Ecuador only extended from 1952 to his unexpected death in 1961. This was a remarkably brief time for his notable accomplishments. Prior to 1955 the pre? history of the coast of Ecuador was little known, and most archeologists had the impression that, with the exception of some Mesoamerican-like traits in Es- meraldas Province, it was of minor importance. The team of Meggers, Evans, and Estrada have detailed in various publications a chronological sequence reaching back to 3000 B . C , which appears to be a principal key to the American Formative problem. Estrada (1958, 1961; Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1962) was particularly interested in the relationships of the Ecuadorian Formative to early phases In Peru and Mesoamerica, and in the questions of possible connections with Asia. This latter aspect of the problem receives extensive consideration in Meggers, Evans, and Estrada (1965), where Valdivia ceramics are compared to pottery of the same age found on the island of Kyushu, Japan. Meggers (1966), and Meggers and Evans (1964) have continued this in? terest in specific trait resemblances in the New World Formative. Over approximately these same years, Engel has conducted a program of research on the Peruvian coast, principally in the south. He (1963) has examined the preceramic cultural phases in admirable detail, and has investigated the Chavin horizon both on the north and central coasts and on the south coast, where it previously was unknown. In 1958, Willey and Phillips published Method and Theory in American Archaeology, the major part of which was devoted to a historical-develop? mental interpretation of New World prehistory. A sequence of stages was used as an outiine. "Forma? tive" is defined as the earliest appearance of sedentary village life based on agriculture, and early cultural phases of North, Middle, and South America are de? scribed in terms of how well they conform to the definition; discussion of diffusion of traits was minimal. About the same time. Ford, Phillips, and Haag (1955), and Ford and Webb (1956) described the Poverty Point culture (1200^00 B.C.) of the Lower Mississippi Valley. Although the authors were not aware of the fact at the time, this exposed an entirely new facet of the Formative problem in eastern North America. Direct comparison of potsherds from Ecuador and Guatemala with the unique decorative technique of iridescent paint and other similarities almost as strik? ing, led Michael D. Coe (1960) to publish an article on "Archeological Linkages with North and South America at La Victoria, Guatemala." In this he pro? posed that the traits had been exchanged by means of sea voyages about 1000 B.C The thesis seems sound, for the materials are literally indistinguishable and are not found in intervening regions. In Mexico, meanwhile, MacNeish began a twenty- year campaign in search of the origin of the domesti? cated plants that were the principal basis of New World agriculture. He skdlfully blocked out the problem in a manner similar to a gold prospector searching for the mother lode. Botanical evidence suggested that maize had evolved from grasses native to the highlands. MacNeish's (1947, 1958) excava- SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 tions in dry caves In Tamaullpas in northern Mexico, developed a cidtural sequence with domesticated beans dating back to approximately 1000 B . C , maize to 3000 B.C., a variety of squash to 6000 B . C , and bottie gourds probably to 7000 B.C Work in the Santa Marta Cave in Chiapas, southern Mexico (MacNeish and Peterson, 1962) demonstrated that maize had arrived with the earliest ceramics about 1500 B.C On the basis of this information, the semi-arid valley of Tehuacan in the state of Puebla, central Mexico, was selected as a probable region for maize domestication, and MacNeish (1961, 1962) mounted a three-year excavation program with an adequate field staff and the active cooperation of 30 specialists In various related disciplines. The results of the Te? huacan project, to be published in six volumes (Byers, ed., 1967-), will provide the most detailed chronology available in Mesoamerica from deep cave deposits stretching from 8000 B .C up through the ceramic phases. Calendrical dating is based on 130 radio? carbon assays. The domestication and evolution of maize beginning about 5000 B .C is clearly shown, and the first appearance of other important domesticates is also well dated. It is now clear that maize and other important food plants were cultivated in Mexico, and another group of plants in Peru, well before the begin? ning of the American Formative. By 1960 a considerable body of information was available on New World prehistory, and there was general agreement that consolidation of knowledge could be effectively undertaken. This was accom? plished in several symposia and volumes prepared principally as texts. In 1962 a symposium on "Prehistoric Man in the New World" was held at Rice University in celebra? tion of its semicentennial (Jennings and Norbeck, editors, 1964). Eighteen participants dealt with the various regions of the Americas, principally in terms of the history of cultural development. Meggers and Evans (editors, 1963) organized a symposium entitled "Aboriginal Gultural Develop? ment in Latin America: An Interpretative Review," for the 35th International Congress of Americanists in Mexico City. Again, ten papers dealt with regional sequences as though they were nearly independent. Meggers (1963) contributed a summary that de? tailed the earliest occurrence of ten ceramic and five other traits in chronologies spaced from northern Mexico to Argentina. These included the stirrup spout, rocker stamping, zoned red paint, zoned hatching, excision, tripod bases, pedestal bases, white-on-red, and negative and polychrome paint. Later traits, the use of copper, elbow pipes, figurine molds, axe money, and shaft tombs were also discussed. At this same 1962 Congress of Americanists, Prufer (1964) and Dragoo (1964) evaluated the evidence for deriving the Hopewell culture of the eastern United States, and the custom of mound burial, from Meso? america or from Asia. Neither author thought the available evidence very convincing. In presenting the following discussion, I shall re? trace some of the comparisons made by Strong, Porter, Willey, the Reichel-Dolmatoffs, Estrada, Evans, Meggers, and others. Also, new items wdl be added. That this can be done with somewhat more detail, and possibly clarity, is due to the fact that the proper type of information has now accumulated to the point where for the first time a substantial number of chronologies located in strategic geographical areas are available. The Literature Cited totals about 360 publications. A rough count was made according to publication date. Fifteen percent date before 1940, 52 percent date 1941-1960, and 33 percent date 1961-1968. This paper could not have been written In 1955; in 1975 it could be done much better. D E F I N I T I O N O F F O R M A T I V E Spinden called his postulated old agricultural-pottery base the "Archaic." Vaillant and others also applied this term to the early ceramic cultures of Mexico. Vaillant later proposed the term "Middle Cultures," leaving room for earlier phases to be discovered. Neither term, however, has been completely accepted and the Mexicans have preferred "Pre-Classic." Mean? while, archeologists working in eastern North America have appropriated the name "Archaic" for the hunt? ing and gathering cidtures that existed between the Paleo-Indian and the first appearance of ceramics, although the Archaic sometimes was considered to include early fiber-tempered pottery. "Formative" has come into use to denote what in the Old World would be called early or initial Neo? lithic. Neolithic would be a perfectiy good name, but Americanists have been very reluctant to commit themselves to any terminology that would seem to imply Old World relationships. INTRODUCTION Willey and Phillips (1958, p. 144) have defined the Formative stage "by the presence of maize and/or manioc agriculture and by the successful socioeconomic integration of such an agriculture Into well-established sedentary village life." This is a parallel to Chdde's definition for the beginning of the Old World Neo? lithic as the point at which man became a food pro? ducer rather than a predator. Willey and Phillips were well aware of a certain ambiguity in this defini? tion, yet they applied it to the classification of cultures with the consistency that any classificatory scheme imposes. For present purposes there are two major defects in this definition. Both in the Mexican highlands and on the Peruvian coast, agriculture was practiced many centuries before such commonly accepted Formative traits as ceramics and polished stone tools came on the scene. The small settiements seem to have been sedentary, but perhaps were not "well-established sedentary village life." In other words, the population explosion had not started. The second defect is that seemingly the earliest ceramics were not made by agricultural people at all. Initially they were manufactured by and spread by coastal groups who subsisted principally on shellfish. The marriage of agriculture and ceramics seems to have taken place halfway through the 3000-year long Formative in Andean South America, about 2000 B.C. in Mesoamerica, and probably not until 1000 to 500 B.C. in the southeastern United States, where, as in Ecuador, pottery had already been made for a millenium. For these reasons it is preferable to define the Forma? tive more loosely as the 3000 years (or less in some regions) during which the elements of ceramics, ground stone tools, handmade figurines, and manioc and maize agriculture were being diffused and welded into the socioeconomic life of the people living in the region extending from Peru to the eastern United States. At the start of this span of years, all these people had an Archaic economy and technology; at its end they possessed the essential elements for achieving civilization. That civilization did not de? velop in the Mississippi Valley is probably due to its relative isolation from the mutual cultural stimulation that took place in Nuclear America. Inevitably the Formative concept has been sub? jected to the tripartite divisions that have become classic in archeology. People specik of "Early," "Middle," and "Late" Formative. Usually these are tied to specific culture areas as is M.D. Coe's (1961, pp. 133-144) "Proto-Formative," "Early Formative," "Late Formative," and "Proto-Classic" division for Mesoamerica. These divisions, however, will not fit the intercontinental picture. As the writer has pointed out in regard to the es? tablishment of pottery types or any other useful his? torical device, the classificatory units must be selected on the basis of a reasoned guess as to the actual se- sequence of events (Ford, 1962). That there is an empirical methodology for the selection of "traits," "types," or cultural phases that will reveal the his? torical facts when properly manipulated is a fallacy that at the moment is wasting thousands of dollars spent on computer time. Obviously then, the division of the Formative will be a statement of the writer's guess as to what hap? pened in these critical centuries. WhUe this guess will be used as a partial framework in the following dis? cussion, the evidence wUl be discussed in the con? clusions. An attempt wUl be made to break the tripartite formula and use only two terms: "Colonial Forma? tive" and "Theocratic Formative." The Colonial Formative wUl be considered to extend from about 3000 B.C. to 1200 B.C., a period in which ceramics were being distributed over the Americas, apparentiy by the establishment of seaborne colonies. The beginning of the Theocratic Formative at 1200 B.C. is rather sharply defined by the first appearance of mound structures and other appurtenances of organized politico-religious control. Its ending, about 400 B .C in nuclear areas, later in peripheries, is not so clear, but merges into a "Proto-Classic," apparently a period of reorganization and preparation for later cultural advance. SELECTION OF EVIDENCE If one were to attempt a complete listing of traits present during the Formative Period as defined here, its length would be overwhelming. In a study such as this, a selection obviously must be made. Many traits are of local or regional distribution, and consequentiy are irrelevant for interregional comparison. Even a list of more widely shared features is too long, and selection must be practiced. The traits utUized here SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 in part reflect the author's special famUiarity with particular complexes, and in part result from the way in which the problem was initially conceived. As has been noted in the Preface, I stumbled onto the Colonial Formative when my attention was called to resemblances in decoration between Valdivia and Machalilla ceramics from coastal Ecuador and early pottery of Mexico and the southeastern United States. Verification of the correctness of this initial impression and interpretation of its significance required detailed analysis of vessel shape, decorative technique, and motif. As the case for diffusion became convincing to me, I was curious to see what associated features might also be shared. This led to examination of site form and composition, stone and pottery artifacts, manu? facturing techniques, etc. Additional regions were added especially to the south (Peru) and northwest (Ohio, Illinois), and the prototypes of the large charts appended to this volume were designed to provide better understanding of chronological slopes in dis? tribution. As traits were added, patternings in time and space began to emerge. In compiling a list of traits for this purpose, it is difficult to know where to stop. I have come nowhere near to exhausting the possibilities. Ceramic features that have not been cited include toy vessels, large oUas with high outcurving necks, graters, interior decora? tion on bowls, pitcher-spout trays and bowls, duck or shoe-shaped pots, candeleros, boat-shaped vessels, castellated rims, and collanders, to say nothing of deco? rative elements such as line and panel burnishing, brushing, pinched decorations, the split circle motif, the U-motif perhaps representing an ear of corn, the meander, white slip, burnished black surfaces, ga- drooning, and polychrome. Among other kinds of cul? tural elements are the construction of vaults made of stone or wood in mounds, the use of red pigment in burials, panpipes, potsherd disks, spindle whorls, stone cones, and small animal effigies. All of these traits moved on the Formative level. Others will certainly become evident with more careful analysis of art motifs and with review of physical anthropological evidence. Since archeologists have not agreed upon a quantita? tive criterion by which one may judge whether the evidence is sufficient, I have stopped at the point where I felt that my thesis was clearly established and further examples merely fortified it. Those who require more extensive proof are invited to pursue the analysis with some of the traits listed above. A word should be said about the order of presentation of the traits, which may strike the reader as unsyste? matic or illogical. I fully agree, but since the traits differ widely in character, there is no obvious order of presentation in many cases. One consideration ap? parent from the beginning, however, was that If this material was to be published it would have to be pre? sented visually in as compact a manner as possible. Principally, this involved inclusion of the data on the minimal number of chronological charts. Since the columns are standardized in width and the vertical chronological scale is uniform?both considerations important for comparing distributions?the traits had to fit into these space requirements. Obviously, there? fore, traits of similar temporal and chronological posi? tion, which occupy the same positions on the charts, must be scattered over different charts and grouped with traits having different spatial and temporal dis? tributions and with which they consequentiy may not be associated. This procedure made it possible to pre? sent all of the traits on 22 charts, but in some cases produced strange bed-fellows. WhUe the arrangement in the text might have been changed, it seemed, likely that reference to the charts would be facUitated if the order remained the same for both. SETTING THE STAGE FOR THE AMERICAN FORMATIVE Unspecialized Mongoloid people, hunters of big game (elephants, large extinct bison, horses, and ground sloths), had crossed the Bering Strait land bridge at least by 12,000 B.C By 9000 B.C they had reached the southernmost point of South America. Their artifacts, principally known from projectile points, were of generalized Upper Paleolithic styles: stemmed and bifacially chipped. Paleo-Indian cultures disappear at the time of the extinction of the Pleistocene megafauna, probably by 8000-7000 B.C., and the inhabitants of the two conti? nents settied into what has been termed an "Archaic" way of life: the hunting of the smaller modern animals, fishing, the gathering of plant foods, and the collecting of sea products along the coasts. A large variety of projectUe points marks the Early Archaic in North America. None shows the technical skUl of the Paleo-Indian points. About 3000 to 2500 B . C what may be an old circumpolar complex of ground stone tools is added to the Archaic inventory of the northeastern United States and the St. Lawrence River Valley. These INTRODUCTION include slate points and semUunar knives, as well as adzes and curved-blade gouges. These and other forms are made of native copper in the Lake Superior region. The grooved stone ax may have appeared slightiy earlier and is the principal ground stone tool to diffuse over most of the East. Bola stones are added to the list of weapons, and weights for the atiati began to be made in the forms of "bannerstones" and "boatstones." In the arid plateau country of the western United States and down the highlands of Mexico, a distinctive way of life developed in response to the environmental limitations. This Desert culture utUized the avaUable small game, but a large proportion of subsistence depended on the coUection of wild fruits and seeds. Stone mortars and flat grinding stones are a common tool of the Desert culture from an early date. Desert ctUture people were interested in wUd seed foods and now that the history of maize is known, it appears quite logical that maize should have been domesticated by people of this cultural pattern on the central Mexican plateau. The early spread of primi? tive and domesticated varieties to New Mexico, where they have been dated in Bat Cave between 3000 and 2000 B.C., is also understandable. The acceptance of this improved seed food involved littie change in subsistence. The Archaic pattern of life is less well known in South America. Lanning (1963a) has presented a preceramic sequence for coastal Peru in which pres? sure-flaked projectile points are replaced by crude percussion-flaked tools made from beach cobbles about 4000 B.C The collection of wild seeds charac? terizes the latter part of the South American "Ar? chaic," and mUling stones are typical. These artifacts tend to disappear about 3000 B.C with the appearance of cultivated plants and the establishment of per? manent coastal vUlages. On the north Peruvian coast food came principally from the sea and was supple? mented by the roots of wild plants. Shortiy before 3000 B.C. domesticated squash, lima beans, and bottle gourds were cultivated. Cotton appeared around 3000 B.C., but maize was not added until about 1400 B.C., after the beginning of ceramics. The Peruvian Archaic also has yielded quantities of basketry, netting, and twined fabric. Fabric tech? niques and decorative designs show a high level of sophistication. This then is a very brief summary of what is known of conditions in eastern North America, Middle America, and the Andean region of South America between 4000 and 3000 B.C., just prior to the appear? ance of the earliest ceramics. The entire region was populated, doubtiess very thinly in less favorable localities, but small vUlages had formed on sea coasts where dependable food supplies were avaUable. A hunting and gathering pattern of life had been es? tablished for thousands of years and the fact that the people began to select seeds and plant some of the formerly wUd vegetables seems to have had littie effect on theh- way of living. Probably there was a slight population increase. Social organization undoubtedly was on the level of lineage bands. There is no evidence of organized community effort, no mounds, pyramids, or temple structures like those that later became so popular in these regions. So far not even evidence of organized community defense systems has been found. The thesis that peripheral groups of northern North America and southern South America have preserved numerous elements of the common American Archaic pattern has been developed in the researches of Nor- denskiold. Cooper and others (summarized in Cooper, 1941). This seems to be a convincing reconstruction, but most are customs that leave no archeological record. FIGURE 1.?Map showing locations of known Early Formative settiements in North, Central, and South America. Chronology and Radiocarbon Dates On the large fold-out charts (charts 1-22), fifteen chronological columns represent a range of history that supposedly lies between 3000 B.C and A.D. 300. The geographical locations of these columns are shown on figure 1 and the inset maps on each chart. Each column equates with a more or less restricted geo? graphical area, as wUl be explained, and has been selected for inclusion in a very arbitrary fashion. The first criterion is the quality of the information for the time span in which we are interested. The second criterion has been that of geographical spacing. The need to fairly represent events in approximately 7,000 mUes of prehistory in a synoptic form has made it necessary to stand off from the data and view them as though through the wrong end of a telescope. Arbitrary lumpings have been made and groserias have been committed that set the teeth of area special? ists on edge. I can only plead that the task would have been easier if manuscripts were still published on long scrolls as in early Medieval times, so there would be no limit to the chronological columns that we could align side by side. Fortunately this problem of differentiating regional chronologies is comparatively simple in the early phases of the Formative, for the cultural traits being introduced were new, and apparently had few or no competing items to modify them. They retained, therefore, a basic similarity over distances much greater than was the case later when regional speciali? zation began to develop, as it did in all parts of the Americas. The Chavin ceramics of 500 B.C. are prac? tically pan-Peruvian; by A.D. 500 there is a bewildering number of distinct ceramic traditions in existence. At A.D. 100 the number of area chronologies would have to be multiplied several times 15 to picture the prehistory adequately, despite the leveling influences exerted by mUitary conquests such as appear to be responsible for the wide spread of Mississippian, Teotihuacin, or Tiahuanaco cidtures. The 22 large, fold-out charts are all made from the same master drawing. Phase names are Indicated and approximate temporal limits between phases are shown by dashed horizontal lines. Jagged lines mark limits of information. For example, in the MobUe Bay column a fiber-tempered phase Is known, as is the Bayou La Batre, but the presumed continuity of occupation has not been established. The relatively wide bands of slanted lines indicate the time of the beginning of ceramics, where this has been deter? mined. I think it is safe to say that the relative dating of the phases is beyond question in all of these 15 columns, although the evidence varies in quality from one region to the other. It ranges from highly accurate quantita? tively graphed ceramic sequences to superpositional evidence discovered more or less by accident as in Ohio. There may be some yet undiscovered phases that wUl have to be sandwiched in, and earlier phases wUl be identified, like the new Barra Phase in Chiapas. Then too the inevitable wUl occur. The next genera? tion of graduate students, with or without real justi? fication, will recut the segments of these continuums into what they hope will appear to be something new, and wUl give these bloody victims of a latter-day Solomon's judgment new names. The datings of the phase limits are educated guesses made after considerable study of the opinions of the archeologists best qualified to make a guess in each region. For the most part, they follow these opinions very closely. These dating divisions were discussed at considerable length by the participants in the 1966 Formative Conference held at GainesvUle, Florida, and a corrected version of the basic chart was sub? mitted to each for review several weeks later. These 10 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 1 1 qualified opinions are of course based upon radio? carbon assays. While radiocarbon has introduced a degree of precision formerly unknown, and makes pos? sible hemisphere-wide comparisons such as this wUl attempt to be, it does not have the precision of a tree-ring or calendrical date. Some of the radiocarbon dates that are available for the phases in these fifteen chronologies are plotted on chart 1. The laboratory number has been placed at the indicated median date, and except where the 1-sigma range of probabUity was too short to extend beyond the number, it is shown by a black bar. Prob? ably there is no need to remind the reader that there are two chances out of three that the actual date for the material under assay is within the range of the black bars. One chance remains that it is earlier or later. The dates shown on chart 1 have been selected on two bases. First, they are dates for which the 1-sigma range runs into the temporal limits of the phase it is supposed to date. For example, date C-137 is 335 ?210 B.C. and is supposed to date Ohio Hopewell. The date is earlier than the lower limits we have drawn for the Hopewell Phase, and its 1-sigma range lacks 25 years of arriving at our lower temporal limits for this phase. We have, therefore, excluded it from the chart and listed it in the tabulation as a "bad date." This date is by no means as "bad" as some others, but we have followed our rule in a strict and arbitrary fashion. Some dates that agree perfectly with our temporal arrangement have been left off the chart simply be? cause there is not room for them. For example, in the tabulation there are nine additional "good" dates for Ohio Hopewell, which are not shown on the chart because of lack of space. Still other dates that have been left off the chart are really bad, and by no stretching of the laws of chance could be made to agree with our temporal placements. The chronology for Louisiana provides an unusual number of these. They do not agree with relative chronology in the area, and the temporal placement they indicate makes no sense when com? parison is made to other neighboring chronologies; they also contradict other radiocarbon assays. All these categories?"good dates" listed on chart 1, "good dates" left off for lack of space, and "bad dates"?are tabulated on tables 1-13. As is well known, there are several ways in which a date can go bad. The archeologist may make mistakes as to cultural or phase association of the charcoal or shell specimen, contamination may occur in the car? bon deposited in the cells of the organism, in the ground, or in the handling of the specimens. I t usually is impossible to make a guess as to what has gone wrong. Practically all of the dates being used here have been evaluated by the archeologists who are in the best position to pass judgment. Frequentiy this evaluation accompanies the sample description pub? lished in Radiocarbon, volumes 1-8. Other evalua? tions are given in relevant monographs, and stUl others have been published from time to time as separate papers: Wauchope, 1954; Libby, 1955; Radiocarbon Dates Association, Inc., 1958; Bullen, 1961; Griffin, 1964; Stoltman, 1966; Coe, Diehl, and Stuiver, 1967; etc. There would not be space here to review these evaluations. Instead we merely dia? gram and list the available dates in a wholesale fashion. It is hoped that this wUl give a rough idea of the amount and quality of the evidence for the chronological framework. THE OHIO CHRONOLOGICAL COLUMN This column includes a portion of New York State lying near the Great Lakes, to show the earliest cordmarked Woodland pottery that has been securely dated (Ritchie, 1962, 1965). It also takes in northern Kentucky to include early Adena (Webb and Snow 1945; Webb and Baby, 1957). In the centuries before and after the beginning of the present era, the prin? cipal attention is directed to the Classic Hopewell Phase of central Ohio (Mills, 1907, 1909, 1916, 1922; Moorehead, 1922; Shetrone, 1926; Magrath, 1945; WUloughby, 1922). Information from the Hopewell sites near Grand Rapids, Michigan, is also considered here (Quimby, 1941; Prahl, 1966). Griffin (ed., 1952) has been used extensively, but the best recent summary of the archeology of the Midwest is Griffin, 1964. This the writer has tried to follow in both relative and calendrical chronology for both the Ohio and Illinois column. Forty-seven radiocarbon assays are listed here that are applicable to the Ohio chronological column. Of these 38 or 81 percent agree with the phase dating shown on our charts (table 1, pp. 24-25). The Late Archaic cultures of the Ohio region apparently were based on a hunting and gathering economy; there is no evidence that agriculture was practiced. The greatest concentrations of people were CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATES 11 near river shoals where shellfish were avaUable. Bannerstones (atiati weights), adzes, and grooved stone axes are typical tools. Mound buUding was not practiced and the dead were placed in round pits in the refuse deposits. A curious phase of the Late Archaic is the "Old Copper Culture" that centers in Wisconsin. Tools manufactured from native free copper were widely traded. A more complicated burial complex appears in this area about 1000 B . C This includes cremation (pop? ular in the later Adena Phase), red ochre scattered over the remains, and deposits of grave goods includ? ing tubular pipes, plummets, gorgets, birdstones, etc. A thick, crude pottery with cord wrapped paddle impressions on both exterior and interior surfaces and straight sided amphoras with conoidal bases, were being manufactured in small quantities in the region from Minnesota to New England about 1000 B.C Ritchie (1962) has described this as Vinette i ware, the name that is used here. The Adena Phase begins about 800 B.C The nature of the territory chosen for occupation suggests a dependence on agriculture, but there is no direct evidence. Ceramics are rare, and feature a plain ware that contrasts with the textured conoidal base Wood? land pottery. The Adena people had brachycephalic skulls and practiced cranial deformation, a decided contrast to the more slender long-headed population of the Late Archaic. Some cultural items continue on from the Late Archaic, but new ones were added. The Adena population and culture are quite clearly intruders into the Ohio-Kentucky region where they are found. Central America has been suggested as a possible origin. It appears more probable to the present writer, however, that, whUe the original population and basic elements for the phase (such as burial mound building) probably came from the Mississippi Valley from a culture related to the Poverty Point variety of early Formative, most of the development of Adena occurred in the Ohio-Kentucky region. From early to late in this phase, the burial mounds became larger. Although Adena was replaced by the Hopewell Phase in Ohio about 200 B.C., it continued to thrive in Kentucky. The HopeweU Phase (200 B .C-A.D. 300) Is the earliest of the two cultural climaxes in eastern North America, and occurred in its most elaborate form in southern Ohio. It seems to have been a fusion of the local, already well-developed Adena traits, with ceramics and other features that came in from Illinois or the Mississippi Valley to the south. It is character? ized by large geometrical earthworks, mound burial in elaborate log tombs, use of exotic stone such as obsidian, art forms made of copper, sUver, and mica, copper helmets and breast plates, beautiful realistic carvings of animals and birds particularly on platform pipes, a core and blade industry, and ceramics dec? orated with line-bordered areas of rocker stamping depicting birds. Domestic pottery continued the cord- marked Woodland tradition. Basic elements of the Hopewell culture extend over a large portion of the Mississippi Valley, from central Michigan to Louisiana and Florida, and from New York State weSt to the vicinity of Kansas City. By A.D. 300 the Hopewellian traits have disappeared from the Ohio area, and the population reverted to a rather drab Woodland type of existence with a sud? denness that suggests a relaxing of the social control that had produced the great earth monuments. T H E ILLINOIS C H R O N O L O G I C A L C O L U M N The alignment of the Illinois column is based upon Griffin's (1964) comparison of cultures and evaluation of radiocarbon dates. This column wUl be particularly difficult for the regional specialist to accept, for the somewhat different sequence in southern Illinois (Cole, et al., 1951; Fowler, 1959a, b ; Griffin, 1941, 1952a, c, 1964; Maxwell, 1951; McKern, Titterington, and Griffin, 1945) is presented in the same frame as the chronology for the lUinois River Valley, where early phases of HopeweU are found (Cole and Deuel, 1937; Deuel, ed., 1952; McGregor, 1957; Bluhm, ed., 1960; Caldwell and Hall, 1964). The information from the Hopewell phase sites on Cedar River in Wisconsin (McKern, 1931) is also incorporated. Of the 43 radiocarbon dates listed on chart 1, 35 or 81 percent agree with the temporal alignments used here (table 2, pp. 26-27). The Illinois chronology is based on chance dis? coveries of superposition, and does not have a quanti? tative base. The contents and dating for the Early Woodland phases are not entirely clear. Some heavy crude cordmarked pottery similar to Vinette i of New York State has been found, and it is thought that this is associated with red ochre burials, but direct evi? dence is lacking. The earliest pottery in the southern 12 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 part of the state consists of flat-base jars marked with plaited fabric impressions, the Baumer ware. Along the Illinois River the early Black Sands ware is deco? rated with straight line designs incised over cord malle- ated surfaces. This often has a rim decoration of nodes raised by punching from the interior. A continuing but changing ceramic tradition in Illi? nois seems to lead directiy to the Classic Hopewell Phase (300 B . C - A . D . 300). The Central Basin Phase of early Hopewell is found in Illinois, but not in Ohio. Dentate and oval-shaped stamping are typical pottery decoration. Rims frequentiy have separate designs, and nodes are common. Late Hopewell in Illinois is simUar to that in Ohio: log tomb burial In mounds, copper earspools, copper jacketed panpipes, effigy plat? form pipes, and pottery decorated with bird motifs formed by zoned rocker stamping are characteristic. Illinois appears to be the center from which Hope? well diffused not only to Ohio, but also to Wisconsin, and southward down the Mississippi Valley. About A.D. 300 Illinois Hopewell disappeared, and Woodland culture replaced it. T H E G E O R G I A COAST C H R O N O L O G I C A L C O L U M N The Georgia coast column rather specifically refers to the region around Savannah. The Stallings Island data are based on Moore (1897), Claflin (1931), Fairbanks (1942), Stoltman (1966), and Waring (in WUliams, ed., 1968). Reference information for in? terior Georgia is Wauchope (1966), and for North Carolina, J . L. Coe (1964). The radiocarbon dates for early periods on the Georgia coast have been evaluated by Bullen (1961), and the alignments in the column given here are those he has suggested both in print and verbally. Fifteen dates are avaUable (table 3, p. 28). Of these, thirteen or 87 percent fall within the temporal limits cisslgned the several phases and are shown in chart 1. The fiber-tempered pottery fi-om the shell heaps near Savannah, Georgia, has long been a puzzle to archeologists, and the problem became more complex when radiocarbon showed that this was the earliest pottery in North America, dating back to more than 2000 B.C. Several writers have cited this as an example of the independent invention of ceramics (Bullen, 1960). Eight of the sites are doughnut-shaped shell rings, and excavation has shown that the oldest pottery is plain and is followed by drag-and-jab decorated ceramics. The balance of the culture content is typical of the Late Archaic sites of the Southeast: bannerstones, grooved axes, stemmed projectUe points, etc. Stallings Island seems to have been a long phase, ending about 500 B . C It is succeeded by the Deptford Phase, which has not been thoroughly described, but is known from Its ceramics. These are paddle marked, as is the early Woodland pottery to the northward, but the designs are large checks or check patterns in which the bands on the paddle are cut deeper in one direction than the other. Four feet appear on these vessels after 500 B . C The inland location of Deptford sites suggests a degree of dependence on agriculture. At about A.D. 100 the Deptford Phase is succeeded by the Swift Creek, in which the characteristic paddle stamped designs become curvUinear as well as rec? tangular and much more complex. Hopewellian traits are found in early Swift Greek burial mounds. T H E N O R T H F L O R I D A C H R O N O L O G I C A L C O L U M N This is another example of combining distinctive regional chronologies: the St. Johns area on the east coast at the base of the Florida Peninsula, where the early fiber-tempered Orange ceramic complex is followed by the rather colorless St. Johns phases (Wyman, 1875; Moore, 1894; Griffin and Smith, 1954; Goggin, 1952; Bullen, 1955, 1959; Bullen, A. and R., 1961), is lumped with the corresponding stretch of the Gulf coast, where the more spectacular Crystal River site is located and the Weeden Island complex existed several centuries after A.D. 1 (Moore, 1903, 1907; Greenman, 1938; WUley, 1949a; Sears, 1962; Bullen, 1953, 1966). Rouse (1951) and Ferguson (1951) have served as supplementary information for the Orange complex. CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATES 13 Time changes within the span of the early fiber- tempered ceramics on the St. Johns are rather well controlled by good vertical stratigraphy, and the radiocarbon dating discussed by BuUen (1961) is consistent. Bullen's dating has been followed for the early St. Johns phases, but the Transititional Phase he has proposed (1959) has been left out because simUar transition is also found in other chronologies. To record them all would cut up our diagram to an excessive extent. Fourteen radiocarbon runs are avaUable for the north Florida chronology (table 4, p. 29). Of these, twelve (86 percent) conform to the phase dating used here. The Orange complex of ceramics, most character? istic of the large shell mounds on the St. Johns River, also begins with a plain fiber-tempered ware, but it appears to start a century or so later than does the Stallings Island complex. Decorations, which start about 1600 B.C., are completely different from Stallings, as are the vessel shapes. By about 400 B.C. there has been a gradual change in the ceramics, and the untempered pottery of the Early St. Johns has be? come dominant. Some decorations continue from the Orange, but Influence is also apparent from the Deptford pottery to the north and Tchefuncte from the west. At A.D. 1 attention wUl turn from the St. Johns phases to the Gulf coast, where Crystal River and related sites were being buUt. Sears (1962) has been followed in dividing the data into Yent and Green Point Phases. The Yent Phase (A.D. 1^00) has typical Hopewell features, including cut animal jaws, copper jacketed panpipes, and bi-cymbal copper earspools. In addition to vessels with four feet, plain rocker and zoned rocker stamped decoration, and some unique vessel forms, there are several examples of negative painted pottery. The burials are in what Sears calls "continuous use" mounds, in contrast to the Green Point custom of making a central deposit of bones with a pottery deposit to the east and covering this with a small mound. The crude stele at Crystal River were also erected in the Yent Phase. The Green Point Phase has less distinctive traits and some of the ceramics show relationship to the early Swift Creek Phase of Georgia and TroyvUle of the Lower Mississippi. M O B I L E BAY-FLORIDA NORTHWEST COAST C H R O N O L O G I C A L C O L U M N The geographical area represented by this chrono? logical column Is fairly restricted, being confined to the region of Mobile Bay on the Alabama coast, and adjacent Florida. Early description of cultural con? tent is provided by Moore (1901, 1902), and the first chronological alignment was by WUley (1949a). More precise chronology, running from several centuries after the beginning of the Christian Era untU almost the time of the arrival of the Europeans, has been worked out by Trickey (1958). Wimberly (1960) has described the ceramics of the Bayou La Batre and succeeding periods. Trickey and his associate Holmes have provided much additional unpublished data, in? cluding the new radiocarbon dates used on chart 1. Wimberly and Tourtelot (1941) have described the contents of the McQuorquodale Burial Mound, which has Hopewellian affiliations. Sound vertical stratigraphy and seriation provide good control for the relative chronology. Continuity appears to exist in the data, except for a possible break between the early plain fiber-tempered pottery and the beginning of the Bayou La Batre. Four radiocarbon dates are avaUable for this column (table 5, p. 29). Of these, three or 75 percent agree with our phase dating. Assay M-824, 2150 ?250 B.C. is from preceramic levels at the stratified Bryant's Landing site. M-823, 1140?200 B.C is from the Bayou La Batre cultural level. This has only one decorated pottery type, which features stamping with a large scallop shell. The Santa Rosa Phase is dated from 100 B .C to A.D. 400. This is the time of arrival of Classic Hope? well traits, including the construction of burial mounds, zoned rocker stamped ceramics, panpipes, platform pipes, copper earspools, etc. These traits were diffusing out of the Mississippi Valley Hopewellian centers. In western Florida and the Lower Mississippi Valley, the Santa Rosa-MarksvUle Phases are suc? ceeded by the widespread Weeden Island-TroyvUle Phases about A.D. 400. 14 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY THE LOUISIANA CHRONOLOGICAL COLUMN VOLUME 1 1 For the purpose of this study, the Louisiana or Lower Mississippi Valley chronological column wUl include information that extends geographically from the Gulf coast to about the latitude of Memphis, Tennessee. It is quite true that there is considerable regional varia? tion in the prehistory over this wide expanse of terri? tory, but most of it developed after the close of the MarksvUle-Hopewell Phases about A.D. 400. In the earlier centuries in which we are interested here, there was considerable cultural homogeneity. The Lower Mississippi comparisons wUl be based on Ford (1936, 1951, 1952, 1963); Ford and Quimby (1945); Ford and Webb (1956); Ford, PhUlips, and Haag (1955); Ford and Willey (1940); PhUlips, Ford, and Griffin (1951); Gagliano and Saucier (1963); and Mclntire (1958). In addition, data from extensive new private collections from the Poverty Point site wUl be used. From the beginning of the Tchefuncte Phase (400 B.C.) to the period of aboriginal contact with the Euro? pean settiers, there is a detaUed quantitative ceramic chronology based on both stratigraphy and seriation. The priority of the Poverty Point Phase is well demon? strated by vertical stratigraphy at the Jaketown site (Ford, PhUlips, and Haag, 1955), but there is as yet littie time control within this long phase. The radiocarbon dates for the Lower Mississippi Valley are more inconsistent and contradictory than for any other of the chronologies under consideration here. Of a total of 46 dates that supposedly apply to the phases shown on chart 1, only 23 (50 percent) fall within the time ranges assigned (table 6, pp. 30-32). Why this should be true is difficult to determine. Some of the charcoal specimens that were supposed to date the Tchefuncte Phase were selected from museum storage some ten years after excavation, so that contamination may have occurred. Other specimens, particularly those submitted to the Humble OU Company Labora? tory from the delta of the Mississippi River, are not from excavated sites. Their association with ceramics and thus their cultural significance was determined by surface collections, and there may be errors in these identifications. Ford and Webb (1956) were inclined to accept a date of about 800-600 B . C for the Poverty Point Phase, despite the fact that the radiocarbon results range from about 1200 to 400 B.C. Gagliano and Saucier (1963) have obtained dates ranging between 1800 and 1500 B . C for what appear to be preceramic Poverty Point culture sites near Lake Pontchartrain. For this reason it now seems more logical to accept the dates from the Jaketown and Poverty Point sites at their face value. The Poverty Point site is a complex geometrical earthwork, which If the datmg is correct (1200-400 B.C.) stands out as a startiing contrast to other sites and cultures in the eastern United States at that time. The site and culture bear precisely the same relation to their rather primitive neighbors as do the Olmec ceremonial centers of southern Veracruz and the coastal and highland Chavin sites of Peru. The Poverty Point ceramic complex wUl be de? scribed in the following pages. There is a small pro? portion of fiber-tempered pottery, but most is clay- tempered and soft. Four feet, crude unzoned rocker stamping, and nodes around the rim are characteris? tic. It seems to be another Formative ceramic complex younger than, but comparable to Stallings, Orange, and Bayou La Batre. The Tchefuncte Phase (400-100 B.C.) has simple burial mounds. Some sites are located in the interior, where agriculture may have been practiced, but others are coastal shell middens. The ceramic com? plex includes nearly all of the decorative techniques and motifs that were in the earlier Stallings, Orange, Bayou La Batre, and Poverty Point complexes. The Marksville Phase (100 B . C - A . D . 400) is the Lower Mississippi Valley version of Classic Hopewell. The features that characterize this horizon are so simUar that it seems likely that the complex was developed in a fairly restricted geographical area and diffused from there. MarksvUle burials were in log tombs at the base of conical mounds buUt in two stages. Instances of two or more babies or chUdren accompanying the bones of an adidt are frequent enough to suggest child sacrifice. Some cremation was practiced. T H E V E R A C R U Z C H R O N O L O G I C A L C O L U M N An excellent relative chronology on the Mexican coast of the Gulf of Mexico has been left out of this com? parison, both for lack of space and because on the Formative time level this region seems to be somewhat CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATES 15 on the periphery of events This is the Tampico se? quence in the Huasteca developed by Ekholm (1944), and added to by MacNeish (1954). The Veracruz column on chart 1 represents the area from the vicinity of Zempoala in the central part of the state southward to the Coatzacoalcos River in the heart of the Olmec country. The northern part of the area includes the work of Garcia-Payon (1966) at the sites of El Trapiche and Chalahuites, and recent unpublished excavations made by Ford, Medellin, and Wallrath at Chalahuites, Viejon, and Limoncito. For the southern portion there is avaUable the work of the Smithsonian Institution group at La Venta (Drucker, 1947, 1952; Drucker, Heizer, and Squier, 1959); Cerro de las Mesas (Drucker, 1943b, 1955); and Tres Zapotes (Drucker, 1943a; Weiant, 1943). In addition, Michael Coe has provided unpublished data from excavations under way at the San Lorenzo site. As with most of our columns, this one covers two closely related but distinctive ceramic provinces on the Formative level: the Zempoala region in the north, and the Olmec region in the south. In neither part of this region has an accurate relative chronology based on ceramics been established, but the general outiines of the sequence seem clear enough. Here the writer has followed the interpretation of M. D. Coe (1965) for the Olmec region, and his verbal advice during the 1966 GainesvUle conference. This is already modified, however, by new radiocarbon dates. The mounds built on this portion of the Gulf coast of Mexico from approximately 800 to 400 B . C are not placed In any apparent order and have almost every shape except that of the rectangular flat-top pyramid. There are flat top L-shaped mounds, steep cones with pointed peaks, and elongated mounds with long ridge tops so narrow that they could not possibly have served as buUding foundations. The purpose for which these mounds were constructed is not clearly under? stood. The phase names used in our Veracruz column are those that apply to the southern end of this region in the Classic Olmec country. As a result of the first year of work and new radiocarbon dates, M. D. Coe (1966) has defined a San Lorenzo Phase that dates 1200 to 900 B.C. Michael Coe (1966, pp. 4?5) says The bulk of San Lorenzo pottery is extraordinarily close to that of the Cuadros and Jocotal phases on the Pacific coast of Guatemala, where it has been radiocarbon dated to 1000-800 B.C. Shared here are brushed or striated tecomates, the dominant type at both Salinas La Blanca and San Lorenzo Tenochitl in; the use of interior finger punching or dimpling on the upper wall of these tecomates; tecomates slipped in a 7.5 R 4/4 red color; red-rimmed tecomates; plain rocker stamping (rare in San Lorenzo); abundant white-rimmed black ware; and deep bowls with exteriorly bolstered rims. These ceramic traits are also shared with the Chiapa i or Gotorra phase. A more 'typically' Olmec pottery is also found in the San Lorenzo phase, a flat-bottomed bowl in black, grey, or white- rimmed ware with excised designs in the form of X's or stylized jaguar paws. This kind of pottery is well known at such Olmec influenced highland sites as Tlatilco or Las Bocas and has usually been thought to be Middle Formative. However, Gareth Lowe informs me that these excised designs occur with the type Pampas Black-and-white at the site of Altamira on the Pacific coast of Chiapas; this type belongs to the Cuadros phase there and at Salinas La Blanca in Guatemala. I now believe that the entire complex represented by Las Bocas (including the large hollow baby face figures), and present in the earlier graves at Tlatilco, belongs on an Early Formative horizon. To return to the San Lorenzo phase, in the same deposits as these ceramics are many fragments of hollow and solid pottery figurines; the heads are in the purest Olmec style. It should be noted, however, that the style of eyes is very different from the usual La Venta or Conchas (Middle Forma? tive) type, no punching being evident. A notable feature of the La Venta Phase (1100-800 B.C.) is the formal arrangement of the mounds and ridges symmetrically about a center line that bears S? west of north (Drucker, Heizer, and Squier, 1959, fig. 4). The Laguna de los Cerros site near Acayucan, Veracruz, has simUar arrangement and orientation (Medellin, personal communication). These people were very good engineers. The extremely rich content of Olmec culture is impossible to summarize in these pages. The ceramics are not too well known due to poor preservation at La Venta, but parallel the complex briefly described for El Trapiche. The characteristic representations of baby-faced dwarfs range in size from large stone heads seven feet in diameter to small jade figures with a typical bent-knee stance. Some clay figurines show individuals with simUar features. Particularly Im? pressive is a lapidary industry: the manufacture of beads and other small ornaments of jade. When it was first discovered, many Mesoamerican archeolo? gists thought this sophisticated culture must date in the Classic Period. An early date, however, has now been demonstrated and most investigators agree that Olmec culture is the principal ancestor of later high cultural developments (M. D. Coe, 1963). The naming of a Tres Zapotes and Cerro de las Mesas Phase is quite arbitrary. The two sites appear to overlap considerably in time. The "Tres Zapotes Phase" is principally what Coe has called "Tres Zapotes I," Weiant (1943) "Middle Tres Zapotes A," and Drucker (1943a, pp. 118-120) "Lower Tres Zapotes." M. D. Coe (1965, p. 694) places this in the Late Pre-Classic Period and says: Strong continuities with the Middle Preclassic of the area are evident, but in general most resemblances lie with other Late Preclassic phases of Mesoamerica, such as Chicanel of the lowland Maya area, Chiapa iv and v at Chiapa de Corzo, and 16 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS T O ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 TIME AND CULTURE PERIOD LATE PRECLASSIC 3 0 0 BC MIDDLE PRECLASSIC 4 0 0 , 5 0 0 . 6 0 0 7 0 0 8 0 0 BC LA VENTA SITE LA VENTA REFUSE DEPOSIT SAN LORENZO RIVERBANK REFUSE DEPOSIT 9 0 0 1000 _ MOO - A ^ 1 - _ 0(? T (M 00 EARLY PRECLASSIC 1200 _ 1300 _ 1400 _ (HO O T O 00 1500 BC FIGURE 2.?Radiocarbon dates from the La Venta and San Lorenzo sites, Veracruz, Mexico (after Berger, Graham, and Heizer, 1967). terminal Preclassic manifestations in the Valley of Mexico. Olmec and other Middle Preclassic phenomena are either absent or very weak, such as rocker-stamping, the double-line break, and the tecomate, although some Olmecoid clay figurines are still being manufactured. In the place of the Olmec art style is a new one, Izapan, which has a wide representation at this time in southern Mesoamerica. The ceramic content is very succinctiy described by Coe (1965). It clearly has developed out of the pre? ceding La Venta Phase pottery, and tan, brown, black, and red slipped monochrome wares continue. Painted designs begin but no more than two colors are used. Some of the significant changes in form are the development of decorated labial flanges on bowls, and the appearance of pots with spouts, but without bridges. Figurines are handmade and continue to be principally nude females. At the Tres Zapotes site. Mound o, a flat top earth pyramid faced with cut stone, seems to be of this phase. A stone stairway leads up the side. Olmec style large monuments are being replaced with Izapan style carvings. The Cerro de las Mesas Phase is Proto-Classic. To quote M . D . Coe's summary (1965, p . 696): . . this is the famous Q-complex of Vaillant and Lothrop, with its pottery traits being swollen, mammiform supports, bridged spouts, spool-shaped pot stands, and lavish use of polychromed stucco. This complex is very well represented in the more luxurious tombs of the period in Mesoamerica (see the tombs of Chiapa vi?the Horcones phase?at Chiapa de Corzo, Lowe 1962), but is hardly to be found in the refuse deposits of more humble persons. The elaborate burials in a circular mound at Cerro de las Mesas are described by Stirling (1941) and Drucker (1943b). It is worth noting that this is approximately the time level of the Hopewell Phase in the Mississippi Valley, Miraflores in Guatemala, and San Agustin in highland Colombia. CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATES 17 Temporal alignment of the Olmec region periods is based on the dates for the San Lorenzo site (Coe, Diehl, and Stuiver, 1967), which indicate a time range of approximately 1200-800 B . C , and the ten- year old set of Michigan dates publised by Drucker, Heizer, and Squier (1959) for La Venta, which sug? gest a range for the major occupation from 800-400 B.C. After charts were completed, Berger, Graham, and Heizer (1967) published re-assays of some of the same samples used in the earlier runs and some addi? tional results from the University of California, Los Angeles Laboratory. These indicate that the La Venta site was in principal use between 1100 and 800 B . C , coeval with San Lorenzo. The current information Is summarized by Berger, Graham, and Heizer (1967) in a chronology graph reproduced here as figure 2. As the situation has been thoroughly discussed by these authors, the writer shall not review it in any detaU. As a consequence, it appears that the San Lorenzo- La Venta sequence shown in the Veracruz column of the twenty-two charts, is incorrect. The information, however, was received after the charts were completed and to change them was not practical. Considerable doubt also attaches to the exact dating of the succeed? ing phases in this column. THE VALLEY OF MEXICO CHRONOLOGICAL COLUMN VaUlant's work at Zacatenco (1930), Ticom^n (1931), and El ArbolUlo (1935) has been the classic example for stratigraphic work in Mexico for many years, but StiU presents a somewhat unclear picture of the Pre- Classic that has been difficult to interpret. The dis? covery and excavation of the extraordinary TlatUco Cemetery has added to the complexity (Porter, 1953; Pina Chin, 1958; Lorenzo, 1965). In recent years Tolstoy has been reexcavating in an effort to clarify this portion of the chronology. In the most recent analysis, Tolstoy and Guenette (1965) reanalyze Pina Chin's data, and conclude that three phases may be recognized in the prehistory of the Valley between 1000 and 400 B . C Oldest to latest these are Iglesia, Totolica, and Atoto. Iglesia and Totolica are thought to be roughly coeval with El ArbolUlo ii and are preceded by El ArbolUlo i. Tolstoy and Guenette conclude that the ceramics and other material from the TlatUco Cemetery are either specialized burial furniture or are the product of an intrusive group of people, and that the site dates within the Atoto Phase and was of very short duration between 500 and 400 B . C This view seems justified by the majority of the radiocarbon dates avaUable. The Valley of Mexico chronology is now in a process of refinement and the phase names presented on chart 1 are already out of date. Of the 21 dates, 16 (71 percent) fall within the time range assigned (table 7, p. 33). The time at which ceramics first appear in the Valley of Mexico is not known. VaUlant's El ArboliUo i Period has sophisticated monochrome pottery. Most common is a reddish brown "bay" ware (78 to 96 percent), which is made of "heavy coarsely kneaded clay, with a sandy temper that includes many crys? talline particles" (VaiUant, 1935, p. 219). Tecomates or neckless jars, and oUas with necks seem to be com? mon forms. Russet ware, black ware, and a very small percentage of white ware are accompanying features. Painted wares include white-on-red and red-on-yellow. VaUlant's ceramic descriptions are difficult to use for comparative purposes, but apparently his early phase conforms fairly well to early ceramics in other parts of Mesoamerica. The TlatUco ceramic assemblage described by Porter (1953) and Pina Chin (1958) is clearly a specialized ceremonial complex, as Tolstoy and Guenette have concluded, but it is of very special interest because the exotic items show relations to Olmec of the GiUf coast and Chavin of Peru. The earliest mound in the Valley of Mexico seems to be a small flat top pyramid at Tlapacoya, built in stages. It contained a tomb. This was followed a few centuries later at CuicuUco by the 22-meter high truncated circular mound buUt of earth and faced with stone. Several centuries before the beginning of the Christian Era, the typical, highland ceremonial complex of temple pyramids arranged around courts became crystallized and culminated in the great struc? tures at Teotihuacin. 18 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY THE TEHUACAN CHRONOLOGICAL COLUMN VOLUME 11 More than 130 radiocarbon assays have been made to date the various phases of the excellent 10,000-year long sequence established by MacNeish and his co? workers in the VaUey of Tehuacin in the state of Puebla, Mexico. Probably the dating of this sequence is more accurate than any other in the Americas. The Tehuacan dates have not yet been published, but even if they were, it would be impossible to present them in the small space avaUable here. For the Tehuacan column, the phase temporal limits shown by MacNeish (1964) have been foUowed. This placement was re? viewed by MacNeish at the 1966 Gainesville meeting. The primary contribution of the Tehuacin project has been the information on the domestication and evolution of the many New World food crops. It has been shown that maize, domesticated about 4000 B . C , evolved from a wUd form that had a cob less than an inch in length. Chili pepper, avocados, gourds, amaranth, tepary beans, yellow zapote, and probably black and white zapote were all domesticated in the Coxcatiin Phase (5200-3400 B . C ) . The first ceramics appear in the Purron Phase (2300-1500 B.C.). This is a crumbly, very crude ware with forms imitating the earlier stone vessels. Twenty years ago, archeologists would probably have in? terpreted this as another instance of the independent invention of ceramics, but MacNeish offers the possibility of earlier (as yet unfound) pottery in some other region. In the succeeding Ajalpan Phase (1500-900 B . C ) , the ceramics conform to a pattern that is widespread over Mesoamerica: well-made polished monochrome wares with occasional examples of red slip, reddish brown, black, tan, and rarely white. Usual forms are tecomates, flat-base pans, and jars. Decoration is rare and consists of rocker stamping, brushing, and in? cising. Female pottery figurines began to be made. The Santa Maria Phase dates from 900 to 200 B.C The settiement pattern consists of small hamlets of wattie and daub dwellings clustered about larger towns provided with ceremonial centers in the form of rectangular flat top pyramids with temples on them. The pottery is now white or gray in color. The flat-base pan is the dominant form and the balance are ollas, water botties, and composite sUhouette bowls. Bowls are incised on the interior of the bottom; there is some plain rocker stamping on the rim, and the techniques of engraving and negative painting occur. Farming is now the subsistence base, and woven cotton cloth is found. Systematic irrigation was practiced by the time of the Palo Blanco Phase (200 B . C - A . D . 700). Tomatoes, peanuts, lima beans, guavas, and turkeys were added to the list of domesticated items. Religious centers be? come more elaborate and have a larger population, which probably consisted of specialists and techni? cians. Pyramids, ball courts, and plazas are typical of the Mexican "Classic Period." Earlier pottery types begin to disappear and new forms arrive, including tripod bowls, bottles with spouts, and vertical-sided jars with slab legs. THE CHIAPAS CHRONOLOGICAL COLUMN The cultural content of the Chiapas column is based entirely on the work of the New World Archaeological Foundation under the direction of Lowe. An excel? lent quantitative ceramic chronology provides good control for the phases, which are assigned both numbers and names. We are here interested in phases Chiapa i through Chiapa viii. Most of the information comes from papers in the Foundation series by Dixon (1959), Sanders (1961), MacNeish and Peterson (1962), Peterson (1963), Agrinier (1964), and Lowe (1962). In addition, Lowe has provided new data. The phase calendrical limits shown here are based upon the estimates given by Peterson (1963, pi. 13) as modified by Lowe at the 1966 GainesvUle meeting. Ten radiocarbon dates are avaUable for the Chiapas sequence (table 8, p. 34). Of these, eight (80 percent) conform to the phase dating used here. The earliest ceramics in the Chiapa de Corzo se? quence are white ware flat-base pans with low vertical or slightiy outflaring side walls, a few of which have red paint, white monochrome jars with low necks, and large, unslipped neckless jars or tecomates. Sixty-six percent of the latter have decoration about the mouth: brushing; pinching; simple incised designs; a band of red slip; and smooth rocker stamping. The lips of these jars have the typical "comma-shape" thickening. A concise resume of the Chiapas ceramic sequence CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATES 19 is given by Warren (1961) and quoted In part by Peterson (1963, pp. 121-123). In brief, it follows the pattern already famUiar in the Tehuacan and Vera? cruz coastal regions. About 500 B.C rather hard-fired white, brownish, and reddish orange mottled ceram? ics appear. There is a black slipped ware, and negative painting is Introduced. Volcanic ash tempering re? places the sand of the earlier phases. New forms in? clude the cuspidor bowls, chamferred cylindrical ves? sels, whistiing jars, composite sUhouette bowls, and incense burners with handles on the interior. Solid cylindrical and flat stamps with handles appear; fig? urines become abundant. Labial and medial flange bowls are an innovation in Chiapa v (200-100 B . C ) . White rim black ware was first made at this time, and Warren suggests that it developed from earlier examples at La Venta. Painted two-color wares have a variety of curvUinear decorations. Chiapa vi (lOD-1 B . C ) has the features that mark the beginning of the Mesoamerican Proto-Classic. The wide variety of vessel shapes and decoration includes features retained from earlier times as well as new ones. New items are Usulutan ware, mammi? form bowls with tetrapod supports and effigy decora? tions, stucco-decorated vessels, vessels with carved designs, conical tripod feet, jars with bridge spouts, effigy necks, and Monte Alban i gray ware. There is an increase in popularity of the white rim black ware bowls. In his brief summary of the Chiapas sequence, Lowe (1959a) places the earliest use of platform mounds as bases for structures at 500 B . C , and notes that this is also the first occurrence of burials with offerings. He equates this period with the early Mamon Phase of the Peten in Guatemala. The complexity of ceremonial center sites and pyramidal structures increased rapidly, and the use of cut lime? stone for facing the pyramids was well developed at the Chiapa de Corzo site by the beginning of the present era. T H E SOCONUSCO, G U A T E M A L A CHRONOLOGICAL C O L U M N The cultural content of the area chronology for the northern part of the Pacific coast of Guatemala is based on M. D. Coe (1961) and Coe and Flannery (1967), as modified by verbal information at the 1966 GainesvUle conference and later by correspondence with M. D. Coe, Lowe, and Susanna Ekholm (1966). The calendrical limits used in this paper are those suggested by Coe and Lowe. Seven radiocarbon assays are avaUable for dating the Conchas and Cuadros Phases. All seven fall within the proper limits in this temporal framework (table 9, p. 34). The early Barra Phase has recentiy been discovered by Lowe and his staff. This ceramic consists prin? cipally of flat-base pans and tecomate jars; the latter have brushed and incised decoration and comma- shaped lips. There is also a white slipped ware. The most important site in this sequence is La Victoria, near the town of Ocos on the coast of Guatemala, reported by M. D. Coe (1961). It has ten low rounded mounds scattered about with no appar? ent arrangement, which contain superimposed floors and quantities of refuse. Stratigraphy was clear and showed four phases running from about 1400 B.C. to A.D. 200. Ceramics of the early Ocos Phase include the flat-base pan, and the neckless jar or tecomate. There were also smaller globular pots, which had long tripod legs. Decoration includes some unusual items: fabric marking, which is frequently zoned, and iri? descent painting, which may or may not be zoned by incised lines. Rocker stamping was principally done with the edge of a scallop shell. Specular red slip is diagnostic. While this paper was in preparation, Coe and Flannery (1967) interposed a Cuadros (1100-850 B.C.) and a JocotcU (850-800 B . C ) Phase between the sequence of Ocos-Conchas i. Cuadros has the typical large tecomates, some of which have rows of bosses bordering the mouth area raised by punching from the interior. A hard white ceramic and bowls with tripod feet also occur. A polished black ware extends through Ocos and the following Conchas Phases. Excised decorations and engraved lines are filled with red pigment in the Conchas Phase. The large neckless jars are an un- burnished red, and there is a white-to-bufF ware. Fine wares begin. Composite silhouette bowls appear and the highly polished black ones have grooved side walls. Everted lips with incised decoration on the lip flange become prominent in the Conchas ii Phase. Figurines, which were nude females in the Ocos Phase, some? times wear wrap-around skirts in Conchas. In the latter phase there are also napkin-ring earspools. Coe set up a Crucero and Marcos Phase on the basis of material from the upper levels of the site. 20 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 The phase definitions are not clear, however, due to the scarcity of material and the fact that it is mixed with artifacts from the Conchas levels. The compara? tive section of the volume (M. D. Coe, 1961, pp. 120-136) is a thorough review of the Formative of Mesoamerica. Near identity between iridescent-painted bowls, fingernaU punctating, rocker stamp decoration, nap? kin-ring earspools, black polished composite sUhouette bowls with grooved side walls, cuspidor-shaped bowls, line-burnished decoration, negative painting, red and white slip decoration, and grater bowls, prompted M. D. Coe (1961) to postulate that there had been direct contact by sea between the coast of Guatemala and of Ecuador in Ocos-Conchas and Chorrera- Tejar Phases (900-300 B . C ) . This evidence seems to be unusually clear. The items compared are on the proper time level, they are complex, nothing simUar is found in the intervening regions, and the traits are new in the areas to which they seem to have diffused. THE NORTH COAST OF COLOMBIA CHRONOLOGICAL COLUMN This column has been allowed to cover a rather long portion of the Caribbean coast of Colombia from the vicinity of BarranquUla at the mouth of the Magda? lena River westward to the Isthmus of Panama. Here, Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff has reported on the ex? cavation of the important sites of Barlovento (1955) and Puerto Hormiga (1961, 1965), and with his wife, Alicia, the site of Momfl (1956). Angulo Vald6s (1962a, b) has described the site of Malambo. In some Instances information wUl be Included in this column from the burial mound of Cupica, which the Reichel- Dolmatoffs (1962) excavated on the north Pacific coast of Colombia. The relative chronology for the north coast of Colombia has not been presented as a quantitative sequential continuum, but there seems to be little doubt about the temporal sequence of the various cultural phases. The outiine presented by Angulo Vald^s (1963) has been foUowed. In making the calendrical estimates for the several phases, however, the dating given in Meggers and Evans (1963, fig. 8) has been used rather than the estimates indicated in the text. This alignment seems to agree better with the apparent cultural connections of the Colombian phases to other regions. Nine of the dates available for the north coast of Colombia column agree with the phase dating used here and seven do not (table 10, p. 35). Five of the seven come from the Malambo site, and if taken at face value would Indicate that this phase dates about 1000 years later than it has been placed. Obviously either dates or relative placement are in error. Of the re? maining two dates, that from the second level of the Cupica Mound seems to be too late and one date from Puerto Hormiga is too early for the round figure of 3000 B.C., which has been selected as the beginning date for the Puerto Hormiga Phase. Its 1-sigma range, however, lacks only 20 years of touching this date and it is excluded only by the strict rule being applied here. Obviously it is perfectiy valid. In the course of their work, the Reichel-Dolmatoffs have been very much aware of the problem of relating their newly discovered cultural phases not only to the littie information that was avaUable on Colombian prehistory before they began work, but also to known cultures in Peru, Ecuador, and Mesoamerica. The dis? cussion in their Momil paper (G. and A. Reichel- Dolmatoff, 1956, pp. 269-303) is the first considera? tion of the intercontinental diffusion of a long list of traits, many of which will be discussed later in this paper. The Puerto Hormiga paper (Reichel-Dolma? toff, 1965, pp. 45-53) also has a most informative review of the Early Formative in North and South America. The following brief condensation of the north coast of Colombia sequence is taken in part from Angulo Vald^s (1963) and in part from the several papers of the Reichel-Dolmatoffs. The Puerto Hormiga site is a ring-shaped shell midden located on the coast be? tween the Magdalena and Sinu Rivers. Approximately half of the crude ceramics are tempered with vegetable fibers and are undecorated. The other half are heavily sand tempered and sometimes decorated with drag- and-jab incisions, zoned dentate rocker stamping, shell edge stamping, and parallel lines ending in punctations. Fairly elaborate animal heads are mod? eled on the ends of boat-shaped vessels. Most of the shapes seem to be hemispherical bowls with short borders slightiy mclined toward the interior. They are either round or oval. In the Barlovento Phase the people also seem to have subsisted, during part of the year at least, on shellfish. The pottery is globular, of a tecomate-lUie shape, and has decoration about the mouth consisting of scrolls formed by broad incised lines with punctated background. Red pigment was rubbed in the lines after firing. CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATES 21 Angulo Vald^s (1963, fig. 8) places a San Jacinto Phase between Barlovento and Malambo; this we have not done for the sake of simplifying the chart. Appar? ently a very short phase, it sees the continuation of the incised curvUinear decorations, and the intro? duction of spouted vessels and zoomorphic lugs. In the Malambo Phase the modeled and incised zoomorphic adornos reach the peak of elaboration. The ceramics and other features indicate strong relations with the Barrancoid cultures of Venezuela and the Orinoco River delta. Abundance of griddle fragments suggests dependence on the cultivation of manioc. Subsistence in the Momil i and ii Phases also seems to have been based on manioc. At this time there appear suggestions of contacts with Meso? america and the Andean region to the south. Red and black-on-white curvUinear painted designs appear for the first time. There is also a variety of zoned engraved designs, into which red pigment has been rubbed, and zoned dentate stamped designs. Tubular pipes, roller and dentate stamps, small figurines, and a core and blade flint industry are also found. The San Agustin Phase, located six hundred mUes to the southward near the headwaters of the Magda? lena River, yielded pottery very similar to that of Momfl I and n (Duque Gomez, 1964, pp. 462-466). Dates for San Agustin range between 555 B .C and A.D. 1200. The Classic Period, in which Duque thinks the numerous monuments and the burial mounds with central stone vault tombs were constructed, apparently dates from approximately A.D. 500-800. Angulo Vald^s (1963, fig. 8) has placed Cupica Phases i and ii between A.D. 1 and 500. This is a small mound buUt in stages, with burials interred from each stage, located in the Bay of Cupica on the north Pacific coast of Colombia. The mound was excavated and reported by Gerardo and Alicia Reichel-Dolmatoff (1962). THE COASTAL ECUADOR CHRONOLOGICAL COLUMN The excellent quantitative chronologic EU column that exists for coastal Ecuador has been developed in the last twelve years and is principally the work of three investigators: Estrada (1957, 1958, 1961, 1962); Estrada, Meggers, and Evans (1962, 1964); Estrada and Meggers (1961); Evans and Meggers (1957); Evans, Meggers, and Estrada (1959); Meggers (1964); Meggers and Evans (1962, 1964); and Meggers, Evans, and Estrada (1965). An excellent summary written for the layman is Meggers (1966). The calendrical subdivisions shown in the Ecua? dorian column are taken from Meggers, Evans, and Estrada (1965, pp. 147-156, fig. 94). Thirty-eight radiocarbon assays are available and 32 (86 percent) of these fall within the limits of the phase they are supposed to date (table 11, pp. 36-37). For the remaining six dates, the 1-sigma range does not touch the temporal limits that have been set for the corresponding phase. It is difficult to maintain this strict rule for one date lacks only 35 years of being "good." Although the authors divide Valdivia into four sub- stages, there are only minor changes in the ceramic assemblage. It begins at 3000 B.C with simple bowl and pot shapes, a hard well-fired polished ware that has an extraordinary variety of decoration. This in? cludes techniques of broad-line incising, engraving with red pigment rubbed in the lines, excising, shell stamping, pebble polishing, red slipping, modeling, combing, and finger grooving. Somewhat later are rocker stamping, zoned punctating, applique fUlets, brushing, and carving. The Machalilla Phase, which begins at 2000 B . C , introduces new vessel shapes that include the composite sUhouette bowl, and both straight neck and stirrup-spout bottles. Decorations are engraved, filled with red pigment, made Vkdth a multiple point tool, and for the first time, red paint on the natural vessel surface. At approximately 1500 B.C. Estrada and Evans (1963, pp. 80-81) conclude that the pattern of lU"e on the Ecuadorian coast was changed by invasion of cultural traits, if not people, from Mesoamerica. The Valdivia culture disappeared and traits such as napkin- ring pottery earspools, small obsidian blades struck from prepared cores, fridescent painting, zoned red and black painting, annular ring bases on vessels, and the cuspidor-shaped bowl apparentiy arrived from Mesoamerica to form the Chorrera Phase. The most important introduction appears to have been maize agriculture, a probabUity deduced from the fact that vUlages began to be established back from the coasts in terrain suitable for planting. As maize is known to have been domesticated in highland Mexico and has been identified in Peru as early as 1400 B.C., this seems a reasonable conclusion. The Regional Developmental Period begins at 500 B.C., when seven specialized and distinctive cultures emerge on the Ecuadorian coast. White-on-red and negative decorated pottery are horizon markers. The 22 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 Bahia Phase seems to have developed the widest geo? graphical contacts, for it includes such exotic Meso? american features as stone-faced platforms, figurine styles, pottery masks, and pottery stamps. There is also evidence for contact with the southern Peruvian coast. About 200 B.C. there is additional evidence suggesting transpacific contact (Estrada and Meggers, 1961). The RegioncU Developmental Period ends about A.D. 500 and the succeeding and more complex Ecuadorian pre? history is not of interest here. THE CENTRAL HIGHLAND PERU CHRONOLOGICAL COLUMN The prehistory of the Peruvian highlands is best known in the north central part of the country, and the greatest amount of information comes from the excavations of W. C. Bennett (1944a), more exten? sively Tello (1943) at Chavin de Huantar, and the recent work of the University of Tokyo archeologists at Kotosh. It is the work at Kotosh that has given us the longest and oldest sequence and all of the avaU? able radiocarbon dates (Izumi and Sono, 1963). Recent summaries wUl be found in Kidder, Lum- breras, and Smith (1963), and in Kidder (1964). Thirteen radiocarbon assays are avaUable from the Kotosh sequence (table 12, p. 38). Most have been made by the University of Tokyo laboratory, and the information is in the form of mimeographed lists supplied through the courtesy of Professor Seiichi Izumi. Nine of these dates, or 69 percent fall within the calendrical limits assigned the phases and four do not. The Archaic cultures of the Peruvian highlands are by no means as well known as those on the coast. Masonry construction of platforms, stafrways, and buildings with wall niches precedes the appearance of pottery in the Kotosh Mito Phase (ca. 2000 B . C ) . Ceramics are first found at 1800 B.C and are by no means primitive. The neckless jar is a popular form, bowls and bridge-spout bottles occur, and decoration consists of burnishing, wide-line incising, and shallow incising. Evidence of maize agriculture is certain by 1200 B.C., the beginning of the Kotosh Kotosh Phase. Clay spindle whorls, jet mfrrors, polished stone knives, and clay figurines are also found. Post-fired painting of pottery is common. The Classic Chavin Phase dates between 800 and 250 B . C For this phase evidence from Chavin de Huin ta r (Tello, 1960) sup? plements that from Kotosh. Very complex buUdings were constructed of cut stones, and stone was exten? sively carved, both in relief and the round. The feline with prominentiy displayed fangs appears. Izumi and Sono (1963, pp. 156-157) treat the Kotosh Sajara-patac and San Bias Phases (200-1 B . C ) together and their example Is followed here: manos and metates; T-shaped stone axes; star-shaped and spherical polished stone club heads; and personal ornaments of mica and turquoise appear. Kotosh Well Polished, which has dominated the Chavin Period, lessens in frequency and its characteristic flat-base, stirrup-spout botties disappear. Chocolate brown, zoned unpainted, and polished red slipped pottery are diagnostic. Bowls and neckless jars are usual shapes. A white-on-red decorated ware may be related to the white-on-red horizon style of the coast (WUley, 1948, p. 10). Metal work begins in the Kotosh Higueras Phase at A.D. 1. On pottery, negative painting, applique fillets representing human faces, and zoomorphic adornos are frequent. Izumi and Sono (1963, p . 11) suggest that this period equates with the negative painted ceramic horizon of the coast. THE NORTH AND CENTRAL COAST OF PERU CHRONOLOGICAL COLUMN The high degree of simUarity throughout coastal Peru in the centuries before the beginning of the present era makes it feasable to present the dates available from the north coast as far north as Chicama Valley and the central coast southward to Ancon on one chronological column. Discussion of late preceramic times wUl range as far south as Engel's (1963) work in the VaUey of Asia. Bird (1948) has provided much of the information on the preceramic culture of the Chicama and Vfru Valleys in the north. Most of the content of the coastal Chavin or Cupisinque Phase of this same region is the work of Larco Hoyle (1941, 1945b), who also has reported on grave goods of the Salinar-Puerto Moorin Phase (1944). The reports of CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATES 23 the Vfru Valley project In 1946 and 1947 by W. C. Bennett (1950), CoUier (1955), Ford (1949), Strong and Evans (1952), and WUley (1953) have been used. TeUo (1943) and Carrion Cachot (1948) deal with the Chavin Phase sites of Moxeke, Sechin, and Pallka in Casma. Uhle (1913) and WUley and Corbett (1954) have described work in the Ancon and Supe shell heaps. Excavations at Las Haldas are by Ishida, et al. (1960). Engel (1956) has reported on work at Curayacu. Radiocarbon dates for the Vini VaUey sequence are discussed by CoUier (1955, pp. 24-26). In general, the radiocarbon dating for the Peruvian coast is almost as contradictory as that for the Lower Mis? sissippi Valley, but there are fewer assays involved. Out of 23 avaUable, ten (43 percent) agree with the calendrical limits for the phases used here, and thirteen (57 percent) do not (table 13, pp. 39-40). As in Mesoamerica, agriculture was practiced by the people living along the Peruvian coast a number of centuries before ceramics appeared. WhUe the sea continued to provide a major part of the food supply, bottie gourds, a species of squash, lima beans, pepper, jack beans, and probably achira seem to have been cultivated. Cotton makes its appearance about 3000 B.C. and seems to be crossed with an Asiatic variety with 13 chromosomes (Kidder, Lumbreras, and Smith, 1963, p. 92). Stonework was very crude, prin? cipally the manufacture of large rough flakes knocked off beach cobbles. Maize has been dated back to 1200 B.C. and it is now clear that this was an impor? tation from highland Mesoamerica, where its evo? lution has been demonstrated. For the dating of the earliest ceramics on the Peru? vian coast, I have foUowed Matos (1962, and personal communication), who places the early pottery at Ancon at 1700 B . C , a few centuries after the earliest ceramics at Kotosh in the highlands. The resemblances are close. This interpretation views the period of initial plain ceramics in Viru Valley and Las Haldas (dated at 1200 B.C.) as a result of stimulus diffusion. The increasing importance of agriculture as a way of life, undoubtedly due to the arrival of maize, is shown by the fact that principal sites began to be located away from the beach, back up the alluvial valleys, where there is arable land capable of being irrigated. Stone masonry buUdings had already been in use in preceramic times, but the first appearance of re? ligious architecture is about 800 B.C By the beginning of the Classic coastal Chavin, Guafiape-Cupisnique Phase (800-400 B . C ) , modest adobe flat-top pyramids are being constructed in north coast valleys, but in Casma Valley the large and complex pyramids are comparable to the highland Chavin site. The temple structures at Moxeke and Sechin are decorated with large sculptures in clay, and stele-lUce stones have human figures engraved on them in Chavin style. Coastal Chavin ceramics have been well described and Ulustrated by Larco Hoyle (1941). Highly polished flat-base, stirrup-spout bottles are a typical form. Dec? orative techniques include wide-line incising, rocker stamping, brushing, and red painted areas zoned by incised lines. Already, there is a difference between domestic and religious ceramics, which becomes more pronounced in later phases. Regional specialization of ceramics begins at the end of the Chavinoid Phase, about 400 B.C Larco Hoyle (1944) describes the north coast phase in Chi? cama as Salinar: it was named "Puerto Moorin" in Vini Valley. Vessel forms continue from the preced? ing Chavinoid Phase, as does zoned red decoration. White-on-red painted decorations and bottles with spouts and flat bridges mark this horizon. The popu? lation of the flat valley floors where crops may be irrigated was increasing rapidly. Izumi and Terada (1966) have recentiy published descriptions of three early phases investigated on the Rio Tumbes, just south of the Ecuador-Peru frontier. Although the writer shall not present a chronological column for that region, the material is of great interest for comparative purposes. The earliest phase, marked by San Juan Coarse Incised ware (op. cit., pi. 25a), features broad-line incising with simple motifs, including the paneling of horizontal lines suggestive of Valdivia Incised. Red slip was also present. A radiocarbon date of 1830ib 130 B.C. (sample BC42, op. cit., p. 71) seems to be about right. The Pechiche Phase has two dates: 370?130 B . C ; and 850dbl20 B.C (op cit., p. 71). This phase saw the introduction of white-on-red painting, negative painting, painting after firing, engraving, and pedestal bases for bowls. The Garbanzal Phase shows many features shared with the RegionaU Developmental phases of Ecuador. On the basis of these resemblances, it should date between 500 B.C and A.D. 500, but the four dates obtained from the top level of the Pechiche site in Garbanzal context, cluster about A.D. 1000-1100. The probable reasons for these apparent errors are dis? cussed by the authors (op. cit., pp. 71, 73). 24 TABLE 1 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS T O ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 ?Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Ohio chronological column. Dates rejected as not in agreement with the chronology are cited, as well as those from which examples were selected for inclusion on chart 1. (RC designates the journal, Radiocarbon.) Ih ar t 1 u o c i 1/3 V Q a IM 1 fro m C pa ce * ^ '??1 ?a ? P J4 0 % S^ r3 Q "0 13 > P E R I O D Ohio Hopewell- Late Adena Ohio Early Adena Vinette i Archaic Ohio Hopewell- Late Adena LAB. NO. owu-62 c-136 M-928 c-139 c-214 M-650 owu-51 M-974 M-929 c-759 c-942 c-760 c-923 M-19 c-192 v-981 M-586 M-561 c-874 M-194 M-908 M-570 UCLA-679A UCLA-679B ucLA-688 M-1075 M - 9 0 9 REFERENCE RC, 1964, vol. 6, p. 346 Libby, 1955, p. 94 RC, 1961,vol. 3, p . I l l Libby, 1955, p . 95 Libby, 1955, p . 94 RC Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC, 1964, vol. 6, p . 345 RC, 1961, vol. 3, pp. 116-117 RC, 1961, vol. 3, p . I l l Libby, 1955, p . 99 Libby, 1955, p. 104 Libby, 1955, p. 99 Libby, 1955, p . 104 RC Dates Assoc, Inc., 1958 Ritchie, 1962, p . 584 Ritchie, 1962, p . 584 Ritchie, 1962, p. 584 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 Libby, 1955, p . 100 RG Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RG Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC, 1965, vol. 7, p. 341 RC, 1965, vol. 7, p. 341 RC, 1965, vol. 7, p . 338 RC, 1962, vol. 4, p. 189 RC, 1961,vol. 3, p. 113 SITE McGraw Site Hopewell Md . Group Hopewell Md. Group Hopewell Md. Group Cowan Creek Md. Rocky Fork Lake Mound City Cresap Md. Clough Md. MS27 Toepfner Md. MS27 Toepfner Md. Drake Md . Oberlander No. 2 Hunter Orient Bland Cave Florence Md. Pt. Peninsula Gaines Md. Wagner Merk Md. McGraw McGraw McGraw Gaines Md . Gaines Md. C U L T U R E Ohio Hopewell Ohio Hopewell Ohio Hopewell Ohio Hopewell Late Adena Ohio Hopewell Ohio Hopewell Late Adena Early Adena Early Adena Early Adena Early Adena Early Adena Early Adena Vinette i Vinette i Vinette i Archaic Late Adena Ohio Hopewell Late Adena Late Adena Ohio Hopewell Ohio Hopewell Ohio Hopewell Late Adena Late Adena D A T E A.D. 435 ? 1 6 6 1 B.C. ? 2 0 0 A.D. 120 ? 2 0 0 9 4 B.C. ? 2 5 0 A.D. 441 ? 2 5 0 A.D. 6 0 ? 2 0 0 A.D. 178 ? 5 3 70 B.C. ? 1 5 0 170 B.C. ? 2 0 0 700 B.C. ? 1 7 0 8 3 0 B.C. ? 4 1 0 219 B.C. ? 1 7 5 4 2 7 B.C. ? 1 5 0 2 5 0 B.C. ? 2 5 0 9 9 8 B.C. ? 1 7 0 852 B.C. ? 6 8 1043 B.C. ? 3 0 0 1080 B.C. ? 2 5 0 A.D. 525 ? 2 5 0 2 3 0 B.C. ? 3 0 0 25 B.C. ? 2 0 0 A.D. 9 0 ? 2 0 0 A.D. 140 ? 8 0 A.D. 190 ? 8 0 A.D. 280 ? 8 0 A.D. 390 ? 2 0 0 120 B.C. ? 2 0 0 CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATES 25 TABLE 1.?Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Ohio chrorwlogical column. Dates rejected as not in agreement with the chronology are cited, as well as those from which examples were selected for inclusion on chart 1.?Continued 8 Bl CU CO o M CO u ?2 o s ^ T3 O m itt e S ^j T3 ali > t O a o to c ' ? i j Q V V) C4 O H J 2 t w itl jre em en < .3 o a V C8 Q P E R I O D Ohio Early Adena Vinette i Ohio Hopewell- Late Adena Vinette i Archaic LAB. N O . M-517 M-518 M-519 M-520 M-521 M-975 M-976 M-640 w-543 Y-1171 c-126 ucLA-685 ucLA-679c M-1432 owu-61 c-137 c-794 Y-582 Y-583 REFERENCE R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RG Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC, 1961, vol. 3, p. 116 R C , 1961,vol. 3, p. 116 RC, 1959, vol. 1, p. 183 Ritchie, 1962, p. 584 RC, 1963, vol. 5, pp. 331-332 Libby, 1955, p. 94 RC, 1965, vol. 7, p. 338 R C , 1965, vol. 7, p. 341 RC, 1965, vol. 7, p. 130 RC, 1964, vol. 6, p. 346 Libby, 1955, pp. 94-95 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 R C , 1959, vol. 1, p. 160 R C , 1959, vol. 1, p. 161 SITE Toepfner Md. Toepfner Md. Toepfner Md. Toepfner Md. Toepfner Md. Cresap Md. Cresap Md. Morrow Orient Morrow Drake Md. McGraw McGraw Green Point McGraw Hopewell Md. Group Hunter Lagoon Pond Lagoon Pond C U L T U R E Early Adena Eiu-ly Adena Early Adena Early Adena Early Adena Early Adena Early Adena Vinette i Vinette i Vinette i Late Adena Ohio Hopewell Ohio Hopewell Middle Woodland Ohio Hopewell Ohio Hopewell Vinette i Vinette i Preceramic DATE 350 B.C. ?200 330 B.C. ?200 250 B.C. ?200 400 B.C. ?200 460 B.C. ?200 240 B.C. ?200 290 B.C. ?150 570 B.C. ?250 763 B.C. ?220 630 B.C. ?100 A.D. 782 ?150 (too late) 230 B.C. ? 8 0 (too early) A.D. 440 ? 8 0 (too late) 530 B.C. ?120 (too early) A.D. 481 ? 6 5 (too late) 335 B.C. ?210 (too early) 2450 B.C. ?260 (too early) A.D. 920 ? 7 0 (too late) A.D. 520 ? 6 0 (too late) 26 TABLE 2. SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS T O ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 -Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Illinois chronological column. Dates rejected as not in agreement with th? chronology are cited, as well as those from which examples were selected for inclusion on chart L (RC designates the journal. Radiocarbon.) c o CO CO o a o Bl Q P E R I O D Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell LAB NO. A-SOA A - 8 0 B M-560 M^53 M-20 M-378 M-579 M-378 M-758 M-183 c-152 M-164 M-15 M-439 M^43 M-444 M^t45 M-446 M-545 M-548 M-558 M-559 M-578 M-580 REFERENCE R C , 1959, vol. l , p . 60 RC, 1959, vol. l , p . 60 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC, 1959, vol. 1, p. 179 RG Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC, 1959, vol. 1, p. 177 RC, 1961, vol. 3, pp. 111-112 RC, 1961, vol. 3, p. 112 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 Libby, 1955, p. 95 RC Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC, 1961, vol. 3, pp. 111-112 RC Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC, 1959, vol. l , p . 180 RC, 1961, vol. 3, p. 112 RC, 1961, vol. 3, p. 112 RG Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC, 1959, vol. l , p . 176 RC, 1959, vol. l , p . 177 RC, 1959, vol. l , p . 177 SITE Dickison Dickison Rutherford Md. Liverpool Md. Havana Steuben Kuhne Steuben McDougal Har tman Md. Pool Havana Knight Pool Steuben Bedford Bedford Bedford Bedford Md. Steuben Steuben Wilson Md. Wilson Md. Kuhne Kuhne C U L T U R E Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell D A T E A.D. 50 ?350 130 B.C. ?200 A.D. 425 ?200 A.D. 480 ?200 250 B.C. ?250 A.D. 290 ?250 260 B.C. ?250 A.D. 300 ?350 320 B.C. ?200 A.D. 210 ?250 386 B.C. ?250 A.D. 250 ?300 550 B.C. ?300 160 B.C. ?200 A.D. 20 ?250 A.D. 10 ?250 A.D. 230 ?250 A.D. 400 ?250 A.D. 50 ?200 60 B.C. ?200 1 B.C. ?200 50 B.C. ?200 A.D. 280 ?200 A.D. 160 ?300 CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATES 27 TABLE 2.?Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Illinois chronological column. Dates rejected as not in agreement with the chrorwlogy are cited, as well as those from which examples were selected for inclusion on chart 1?Continued. 3h ar t ;s O m itt ed fr om ( r L ac k o f Sp ac e rt '^ Q V al id n C ha rt D at in g o I P ha se ] le nt w ith . A gr ee ir es n o t in D at P E R I O D Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell LAB N O . M-759 M-760 M-1038 M-1039 M-1040 M-1041 M-1154 M-1155 M-1161 M-1487 M-256 L ^ 3 1 c M^WO M-4'41 M^89 M-714 M-1160 M-1355 REFERENCE RC, 1961, vol. 3, p. 112 RC, 1961, vol. 3, p. 112 RC, 1962, vol. 4, pp. 186-187 RC, 1961, vol. 4, p. 187 RC, 1962, vol. 4, p. 187 RC, 1962, vol. 4, p. 187 RC, 1963, vol. 5, p. 231 RC, 1963 vol. 5, p. 231 R, 1963, vol. 5, p. 233 RC, 1965, vol. 7, p. 131 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC, 1959, vol. 1, p. 21 RC, 1961, vol. 3, p. 112 R C , 1961, vol. 3, p. 112 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC, 1962, vol. 4, p. 187 RC, 1963, vol. 5, p. 233 R C , 1964, vol. 6, p. 6 SITE Renchville Md. Caterpillar Md. Kamp Md. Kamp Md. Kamp Md. Kamp Md. Snyders Snyders Klunk Md. Snyders Weaver Twenhafel Steuben Steuben Irving Snyders Klunk Md. Klunk Md. C U L T U R E Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell Illinois Hopewell DATE 40 B.C. ?200 60 B.C. ?150 A.D. 190 ?200 A.D. 10 ?150 30 B.C. ?150 A.D. 140 ?150 A.D. 60 ? 7 5 A.D. 230 ? 7 5 A.D. 175 ? 7 5 A.D. 100 ?120 350 B.C. ?250 (too early) A.D. 510 ?100 (too late) A.D. 625 ?200 (too late) A.D. 675 ?200 (too late) A.D. 770 ?250 (too late) A.D. 640 ?150 (too late) 920 B.C. ? 7 5 (too early) A.D. 600 ?110 (too late) 2g SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 TABLE 3.?Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Georgia coast chronological column. Dates rejected as not in agreement with the chronology are cited, as well as those utilized on chart 1. (RG designates the journal, Radiocarbon.) ? ti X! o c o ^ ^ CO Q fl ? fl ? fl ? 6 ? w,- at es gr ee it h] at in ha rt Q < ^ Q O P E R I O D Deptford Stallings Island- Plain Fiber Archaic Stallings Island- Plain Fiber LAB NO. c-933 M-39 Gxo-345 M-236 O-1047 M-1278 M-267 Gxo-343 M-1112 M - l U l M-1109 M-1279 M-1277 O-1046 REFERENCE R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 Stoltman, 1966, p. 872 RG Dates Assoc. Inc. 1958 Bullen, 1961, p. 104 RC, 1965, vol. 7, p. 134 RC Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 Stoltman, 1966, p. 872 RC, 1963, vol. 5, pp. 239-240 RC, 1963, vol. 5, pp. 239-240 RC, 1963, vol. 5, p. 239 RC, 1965, vol. 7, p. 134 RG, 1965, vol. 7, p . 134 Bullen, 1961, p . 104 SITE Booger Bottom Sapelo Is. Rabbit Mount Dulany Bilbo Stallings Is. Refuge Rabbit Mount BUbo BUbo Bilbo Stallings Is. Stallings Is. BUbo C U L T U R E Deptford Plain Fiber Plain Fiber Plain Fiber Plain Fiber Plain Fiber Stallings Is. Plain Fiber Plain Fiber Plain Fiber Plain Fiber Preceramic Preceramic Plain Fiber D A T E 154 B.C. ? 1 4 0 1750 B.C. ? 2 5 0 2515 B.C. ? 9 5 1820 B.C. ? 2 0 0 2175 B.C. ? 1 1 5 1780 B.C. ? 1 5 0 970 B.C. ? 2 0 0 2500 B.C. ? 1 3 5 1780 B.C. ? 1 2 5 1870 B.C. ? 1 2 5 1750 B.C. ? 1 2 5 2750 B.C. ? 1 5 0 2500 B.C. ? 1 5 0 3550 B.C. ? 1 1 5 (too early) CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATES 29 TABLE 4.?Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the north Florida chronological column. Dates rejected as not in agreement with the chronology are cited, as well as those utilized on chart 1. (RC designates the journal. Radiocarbon.) C ha rt 1 c c is Sh ow 4mt Q i _ A gr t [la se ha rt ot in it h P on C c ? he Q S Q P E R I O D Yent Orange Tick Island Archaic Tick Island Archaic LAB NO. 1-1366 1-1367 1-1916 1-1464 1-1464 M-215 M-394 G-596 G-598 G-597 M-1014 G-600 G-599 M-264 REFERENCE Personal comm. Ripley Bullen Personal comm. Ripley Bullen Personal conam. Ripley Bullen Personzd comm. Ripley Bullen Personal comm. Ripley Bullen R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 Bullen, 1961, p . 104 Bullen, 1961, p. 104 Bullen, 1961, p . 104 RC, 1962, vol. 4, p. 192 Bullen, 1961, p. 104 Bullen, 1961, p. 104 RC Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 SITE Crystal River Crystal River Crystal River Crystcil River Crystal River Gotten J - 5 , Zone 9, Chattahoochee R. Palmer Palmer Palmer Summer Haven Palmer Palmer Bluffton C U L T U R E Yent Yent Yent Yent Yent Late Dec. Fiber Transitional Early Dec. Fiber Early Dec. Fiber E J2 1 i> o C H ^ 4-) c ?p PL| ^ > o CL, LAB NO. 0-24 0-25 0-148 0-143 M-1196 M-1197 M-1199 M-1198 0-49 M-243 O-30 L-195 L-114 0-66 L-272 M-216 M^03 Schatzman Schatzman 0-41 G-578 G-579 G-580 REFERENCE Greengo, 1964, p. 104 Greengo, 1964, p . 104 Greengo, 1964, p . 104 Greengo, 1964, p. 104 RC, 1963, vol. 5, p. 240 RC, 1963, vol. 5, p. 240 RC, 1963, vol. 5, p. 241 RC, 1963, vol. 5, p. 241 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RG Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 Ford and Webb, 1956, p. 121 Ford and Webb, 1956, p. 121 Ford and Webb, 1956, p. 121 Ford and Webb, 1956, p. 122 RG Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 Ford and Webb, 1956, p. 121 RG Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 Ford and Webb, 1956, p. 122 Ford and Webb, 1956, p. 122 Ford and Webb, 1956, p. 121 Haag, pers. comm. (un? published Humble Oil) Haag, pers. comm. (un? published Humble Oil) Haag, pers. comm. (un? published Humble Oil) SITE Thornton Thornton Mabin Manny Helena Crossing Helena Crossing Helena Crossing Helena Crossing Magnolia Md. Big Oak Is. Tchefuncte Poverty Point Jaketown Poverty Point Poverty Point Jaketown Poverty Point Poverty Point Poverty Point Jaketown Linsley Site, 16 O r ^ O Linsley Site, 16 Or-40 Linsley Site, 16 Or-40 C U L T U R E Troyville TroyvUle Troyville Troyville Marksville Marksville Marksville Marksville Marksville Tchefuncte Tchefuncte Poverty Point Poverty Point Poverty Point Poverty Point Poverty Point Poverty Point Poverty Point Poverty Point Poverty Point Poverty Point Poverty Point Poverty Point D A T E A.D. 540 ? 1 0 0 A.D. 530 ? 1 0 0 A.D. 650 ? 1 0 0 A.D. 690 ? 1 0 0 A.D. 210 ? 7 5 150 B.C. ? 7 5 A.D. 20 ? 7 5 A.D. 325 ? 7 5 A.D. 120 ? 1 0 0 270 B.C. ? 2 0 0 250 B.C. ? 1 1 0 910 B.C. ? 1 0 0 400 B.C. ? 8 0 1200 B.C. ? 1 2 0 710 B.C. ? 8 0 880 B.C. ? 3 0 0 900 B.C. ? 2 5 0 389 B.C. ? 2 0 0 735 B.C. ? 2 1 0 610 B.C. ? 1 1 0 1900 B.C. ? 1 3 0 1600 B.C. ? 1 2 0 1750 B.C. ? 1 2 0 CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATES 31 TABLE 6.?Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Louisiana chronological column. Dales rejected as not in agreement with the chronology are cited, as well as those utilized on chart 1. (RC designates the journal, Radiocarbon.)?Continued ? rt O fl o be tin CH Q V rt X OH X '% c e re e he < fl 'Z o c te s rt Q P E R I O D V s o ^ V '> .id LAB NO. M-383 0-7 0-26 0-71 0-77 O-104 c-143 c-154 O-80 O-90 O-102 O-107 0-123 REFERENCE Ford and Webb, 1956, p. 120 Mclntire, 1958, p. 107 Greengo, 1964, p . 104 Mclntire, 1958, p. 107 Mclntire, 1958, p. 107 Mclntire, 1958, p. 107 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 Ford and Webb, 1956, p. 120 Ford and Webb, 1956, p. 120 Mclntire, 1958, p. 107 Mclntire, 1958, p. 107 Mclntire, 1958, p. 107 Mclntire, 1958, p. 107 SITE Manny Perdue Ridge Thornton River Aux Chenes River Aux Chenes Miller Crooks Bynum Magnolia Md. Metairie Ridge Metairie Ridge Loutre Ridge Magnolia Md. C U L T U R E Troyville Troyville Troyville Troyville Troyville Troyville Marksville Marksville Marksville Marksville Marksville Marksville Marksville DATE 470 B.C. ?300 (too early) 800 B.C. ?110 (too early) A.D. 770 ?100 (runs off chart) A.D. 20 ?110 (too early) A.D. 1090 ?100 (too late) A.D. 960 ?100 (too late) A.D. 792 ?250 (too late) A.D. 674 ?150 (too late) A.D. 1050 ?100 (too late) 370 B.C. ?110 (too early) A.D. 510 ?100 (too late) 250 B.C. ?110 (too early) A.D. 900 ?100 (too late) 324-788 O - 69 - 4 32 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS T O ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 1 1 TABLE 6.?Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Louisiana chronological column. Dates rejected as not in agreement with the chronology are cited, as well as those utilized on chart L (RC designates the journal, Radiocarbon.)?Continued C ha rt 1 iti ng o n It w ith Ph as e D c D at es n o t in A gr ee m er P E R I O D 4-1 O c a XI > P O PH CL, LAB NO. c-150 c-151 M-218 O - 1 2 A 0-28 o ^ 2 0-76 o-lOl ucLA-687 0-46 REFERENCE R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RG Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 Mclntire, 1958, p . 107 Ford and Webb, 1956, p. 121 Ford and Webb, 1956, p. 121 Ford and Webb, 1956, p. 121 Mclntire, 1958, p. 107 R C , 1965, vol. 7, p. 339 Ford and Webb, 1956, p. 121 SITE Tchefuncte Tchefuncte Little Woods Liberty Bayou Tchefuncte ST-12 Or -7 Jaketown C U L T U R E Tchefuncte Tchefuncte Tchefuncte Tchefuncte Tchefuncte Tchefuncte Tchefuncte Tchefuncte Tchefuncte Poverty Point D A T E A.D. 1317 ? 1 5 0 (too late) A.D. 717 ? 2 5 0 (too late) A.D. 380 ? 2 5 0 (too late) 825 B.C. ? 1 1 0 (too early) A.D. 50 ? 1 1 0 (too late) A.D. 1150 ? 1 0 0 (too late) A.D. 520 ? 1 0 0 (too late) 1850 B.C. ? 1 2 0 (too early) 750 B.C. ? 9 0 (too early) 200 B.C. ? 1 1 0 (too late) CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATES 33 TABLE 7.?Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Valley of Mexico chronological column. Dates rejected as not in agreement are cited, as well as those utilized on chart L (RC designates the journal, Radiocarbon.) _ t x: O fl o te s Sh ow n rt Q V X OH 4-> '%- g 2 sa A gr e< go n .S-B l? te s rt 0 P E R I O D ? T c ?>rt o rt 3 J '4-1 0 H T? Q" -4-1 0 < c ?-"^rt T 6 " 0 0 .y ,1 A rb ol i w ? T fl ?rt 0 fl o ti H _o 1 A rb ol i i-i i ijq LAB N O . Y-644 st-162 UCLA-609 Y-437 UCLA-610 M-1283 M-1118 M-663 UCLA-611 M-662 Y-1629 Y-1626 M-661 M-660 Y-1627 Y-1628 c-203 c-422 c ^ 2 3 c-190 c-199 REFERENCE RC, Supp., 1960, vol. 2, p. 57 RC Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC, 1965, vol. 7, p. 344 RG Supp., 1959, vol. 1, pp. 161-162 RG, 1965, vol. 7, p. 344 RC, 1963, vol. 5, p. 249 RC, 1964, vol. 6, pp. 13-14 RC Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC, 1965, vol. 7, p. 344 RC Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 Tolstoy and Guenette, 1965, p. 91 Tolstoy and Guenette, 1965, p. 91 RG Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 Tolstoy and Guenette, 1965, p. 91 Tolstoy and Guenette, 1965, p. 91 Libby, 1955, pp. 128-129 Libby, 1955, p. 129 Libby, 1955, pp. 129-130 Libby, 1955, p. 129 Libby, 1955, p. 128 SITE Oztoyahualco Teotihuacan Calle de los Muertos Tlalpam Plaza de la Luna Pyramid of the Sun Oztoyahualco Pena Rock Quarry Plaza de la Luna Zacatenco Tlatilco Tlatilco Tlatilco Tlatilco Tlatilco Tlatilco Pyramid of the Sun Atetelco Sun Temple Tlatilco Tlatilco C U L T U R E Teotihuacan i Teotihuacan 11 Teotihuacan i Teotihuacan i Teotihuacan 11 Teotihuacan i Teotihuacan i Teotihuacan i Teotihuacan in Tlatilco Tlatilco Tlatilco Tlatilco Tlatilco Tlatilco Tlatilco Teotihuacan Teotihuacan 11 Teotihuacan Tlatilco Tlatilco DATE A.D. 20 ? 8 0 A.D. 230 ? 6 5 A.D. 150 ? 8 0 A.D. 25 ? 6 0 A.D. 200 ? 8 0 A.D. 80 ? 7 5 A.D. 145 ?120 90 B.C. ?200 A.D. 250 ? 8 0 500 B.C. ?250 810 B.C. ?160 410 B.C. ?120 990 B.C. ?250 575 B.C. ?250 710 B.C. ? 5 0 480 B.C. ? 6 0 484 B.C. ?500 (too early) 294 B.C. ?180 (too early) 1474 B.C. ?230 (too early) 4440 B.C. ?300 (too early) 1457 B.C. ?250 (too early) 34 TABLE 8, SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 1 1 ?Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the Chiapas chronological column. Dates rejected as not in agreement with the chronology are cited, as well as those utilized on chart 1. (RG designates the journal, Radiocarbon.) ar t 1 1 o n Ch ? .fl m ^ 0 c 4-> fl M C ? i ? ^Z u ?j - . 3 a a bo.a ci xi P E R I O D Chiapa vii Chiapa iii Chiapa i and ii Chiapa i and ii LAB NO. GrN-1589 M-977 GrN-1524 GrN-1512 L-427 GrN-774 M-978 GrN-1172 GrN-1056 GrN-1525 REFERENCE RC, 1964, vol. 6, p. 364 RC, 1961, vol. 3, p. 120 RC, 1964, vol. 6, p. 364 RC, 1964, vol. 6, p. 363 RCSupp . , 1959, vol.1 p. 22 RC, 1964, vol. 6, p. 363 RC, 1961, vol. 3, p. 120 Dixon, 1959, p. 41 RC, 1964, vol. 6, p. 363 RC, 1964, vol. 6, p. 364 SITE Chiapa de Corzo Santa Marta Cave Chiapa de Corzo Chiapa de Corzo Chiapa de Corzo Chiapa de Corzo Santa Marta Cave Chiapa de Corzo Chiapa de Corzo Chiapa de Corzo C U L T U R E Proto-Classic Classic Chiapa ii and iii Chiapa i, ii Chiapa i, ii Chiapa i Chiapa i Chiapa i, ii Chiapa i Chiapa i, n D A T E A.D. 30 ? 4 5 A.D. 80 ? 2 0 0 560 B.C. ? 4 5 1060 B.C. ? 5 0 780 B.C. ? 1 5 0 1060 B.C. ? 1 5 0 1330 B.C. ? 2 0 0 935 B.C. ? 6 0 420 B.C. ? 6 0 (too late) 220 B.C. ? 5 0 (too late) TABLE 9.?Radiocarbon dates used for C ha rt fl o lo w n CO te s Q PERIOD Conchas Cuadros LAB NO. w-836 w-837 Y-1151 Y-1166 Y-1154 Y-1150 Y-1167 establishing the Soconusco, Guatemala chronological column. (RG designates the journal, REFERENCE R C , R C , RC, RC, RC, RC, RC, 1960, vol. 2, p. 181 1960, vol. 2, p. 181 1963, vol. 5, p. 333 1963, vol. 5, p. 333 1963, vol. 5, p. 333 1963, vol. 5, p. 333 1963, vol. 5, p. 333 SITE La Victoria La Victoria Salinas La Blanca Salinas La Blanca Salinas La Blanca Salinas La Blanca Rio Naranjo C U L T U R E Conchas ii Conchas ii Cuadros Cuadros Cuadros Cuadros Cuadros Radiocarbon.) DATE 200 B.C. ? 2 4 0 130 B.C. ? 2 4 0 765 B.C. ? 1 0 5 814 B.C. ? 9 0 928 B.C. ? 1 0 5 978 B.C. ? 1 0 5 790 B.C. ? 7 0 CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATES 35 TABLE 10.?Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the north coast of Colombia chronological column. Dates rejected as not in agreement with the chronology are cited, as well as those utilized on chart 1. (RC designates the journal, Radiocarbon.) ?' J 3 fl o J a te s Sh e Q o n C ha rt 1 be '4-1 rt Q CO 0L| .? '% 4-> c g V )t in A gr fl u Q P E R I O D Malambo Barlovento Puerto Hormiga Cupica Malambo Puerto Hormiga LAB N O . M-1176 Y-1318 Y-1317 w-743 w-739 w-741 1-1123 1-445 SI-152 si-151 M-1313 M-117 M-1175 M-1177 M-1178 SI-153 REFERENCE RC, 1963, vol. 5, pp. 248-249 Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, p. 53 Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, p. 53 RC, 1960, vol. 2, p. 180 RC, 1960, vol. 2, p. 180 RC, 1960, vol. 2, p. 180 Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, p. 53 Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, p. 53 Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, p. 53 Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, p. 53 RC, 1964, vol. 6, p. 17 RC, 1963, vol. 5, p. 248 RC, 1963, vol. 5, p. 248 RC, 1963, vol. 5, p. 249 RC, 1963, vol. 5, p. 249 Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, p. 53 SITE Malambo Barlovento Canapote Barlovento Barlovento Barlovento Puerto Hormiga Puerto Hormiga Puerto Hormiga Puerto Hormiga Cupica Malambo Malambo Malambo Malambo Puerto Hormiga C U L T U R E Malambo Barlovento Barlovento Barlovento Barlovento Barlovento Puerto Hormiga Puerto Hormiga Puerto Hormiga Puerto Hormiga Cupica II Malambo Malambo Malambo Malambo Puerto Hormiga DATE 1120 B.C. ?100 1560 B.C. ?100 1940 B.C. ?100 1190 B.C. ?120 1520 B.C. ?120 1030 B.C. ?120 2552 B.C. ?250 2925 B.C. ?170 3020 B.C. ? 7 0 2870 B.C. ?100 A.D. 1215 ?100 (too late) A.D. 650 ? 7 5 (too late) A.D. 60 ?100 (too late) A.D. 1600 ? 7 5 (too late) A.D. 565 ? 7 5 (too late) 3090 B.C. ? 7 0 (too early. 20 years) 36 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 1 1 TABLE 11.?Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the coastal Ecuador chronological column. Dates rejected as not in agreement with the chronology are cited, as well as those utilized on chart L ar t 1 X fl o c o CO Vi OJ D at ( P E R I O D "^ c s _o > Q 19 fl o (U (i^ Ul Ul O X O rt "^ > LAB NO. M-734 si-49 M-1315 si-55 M-1316 si-52 M-1319 w-834 w-833 si-35 s i ^ 3 1307 SI-107 M-1317 si-83 SI-84R w-631 si-22 M-1322 si-84 w-630 REFERENCE Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 153 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 153 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 153 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 153 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 153 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 153 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 153 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 153 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 153 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 153 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 153 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 153 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 SITE Tarqui Esteros Esteros Esteros Esteros Esteros Esteros Esteros Esteros Pepa de Huso Pepa de Huso V61iz La Cabuya Valdivia Valdivia Valdivia Valdivia Valdivia Valdivia Valdivia Valdivia C U L T U R E Bahia Bahia Bahia Bahia Bahia Bahia Bahia Bahia Bahia Late Chorrera Late Chorrera Late Chorrera Machzililla-Chorrera Valdivia A Valdivia A Valdivia A Valdivia A Valdivia A Valdivia A Valdivia A Valdivia B D A T E 220 B.C. ? 2 0 0 350 B.C. ? 6 5 100 B.C. ? 1 2 0 480 B.C. ? 6 0 170 B.C. ? 1 2 0 400 B.C. ? 6 5 160 B.C. ?120 250 B.C. ? 2 4 0 200 B.C. ? 2 4 0 575 B.C. ? 1 0 5 590 B.C. ? 1 2 5 850 B.C. ? 1 1 5 1370 B.C. ? 1 7 0 2530 B.C. ? 1 4 0 2580 B.C. ? 5 5 2590 B.C. ? 1 5 0 2500 B.C. ?200 2500 B.C. ? 9 0 2670 B.C. ? 1 4 0 2440 B.C. ? 6 0 2100 B.C. ? 2 0 0 CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATES 37 TABLE 11.?Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the coastal Ecuador chronological column. Dates rejected as not in agreement with the Chronology are cited, as well as those utilized on chart L?Continued ? 4-1 Ul rt x: U fl o fl o Vi ci Q bX5 _c n Ph as e 1 ? It C-S au "^ c bo _C o c S Q P E R I O D rt ? > ?'3 1 rt 3 ?a X2 O s 2 ^ > LAB NO. si-82 M-1318 si-80 M-1321 si-81 si-85 si-18 SI-16 w-632 si-69 si-78 SI-108 si-67 M-1320 si-112 si-20 si-71 REFERENCE Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 RC, 1965, vol. 7, p. 250 RC, 1964, vol. 6, p. 186 Meggers, Evans, Estrada, 1965, p. 149 SITE Valdivia Valdivia Valdivia Valdivia Valdivia Valdivia Valdivia Valdivia Valdivia Buena Vista Valdivia La Cabuya La Cabuya Valdivia Valdivia Valdivia Buena Vista C U L T U R E Valdivia B Valdivia B Valdivia B Valdivia B Valdivia B Valdivia B Valdivia B Valdivia B Valdivia B Valdivia c Valdivia c Machalilla c Machalilla c Valdivia A Valdivia A Valdivia A, B Valdivia c DATE 2170 B.C. ? 6 5 2220 B.C. ?140 2190 B.C. ? 6 0 2150 B.C. ?140 2320 B.C. ? 6 0 2220 B.C. ? 6 5 2280 B.C. ?100 2270 B.C. ?100 2240 B.C. ?200 1500 B.C. ? 5 0 2020 B.C. ? 6 5 1030 B.C. ?160 (too late) 880 B.C. ? 4 5 (too late) 3200 B.C. ?150 (50 years too early) 1400 B.C. ?200 (too late) 855 B.C. ?105 (too late) 2090 B.C. ? 5 5 (35 years too early) 38 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS T O ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 1 1 TABLE 12.?Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the central highland Peru chronological column. Dates rejected as not in agreement with the chronology are cited, as well as those utilized on chart L D at es Sh ow n o n C ha rt 1 D at es n o t in A gr ee m en t w ith Ph as e D at in g o n Ch ar t 1 PERIOD Kotosh Higueiras Kotosh Chavin Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh Waira-jirca Kotosh Mito Kotosh Sajara-patac Kotosh Chavin Kotosh Mito LAB NO. N-62 N-65-2 N-66-a N-67-2 Gak-261 N-69-2 Gak-262 Gak-765 Gak-766b N-63-2 Gak-263 Gak-766a Gak-764 REFERENCE Unpublished list provided by Izumi Unpublished list provided by Izumi Unpublished list provided by Izumi Unpublished list provided by Izumi Unpublished list provided by Izumi Unpublished list provided by Izumi Unpublished list provided by Izumi Unpublished list provided by Izumi Unpublished list provided by Izumi Unpublished list provided by Izumi Unpublished list provided by Izumi Unpublished list provided by Izumi Unpublished list provided by Izumi SITE Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh C U L T U R E Kotosh Higueras Kotosh Chavin Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh Kotosh Waira-jirca Kotosh Waira-jirca Kotosh Waira-jirca Kotosh Mito Kotosh Sajara-patac Kotosh Chavin Kotosh Mito Kotosh Mito D A T E A.D. 70 ? 2 0 0 870 B.C. ? 1 2 0 920 B.C. ? 2 3 0 890 B.C. ? 1 7 0 1120 B.C. ? 1 1 0 1150 B.C. ? 1 3 0 1850 B.C. ? 1 1 0 1830 B.C. ? 9 0 1950 B.C. ? 1 0 0 A.D. 260 ? 1 4 0 (too late) 1200 B.C. ? 1 5 0 (too early) 1670 B.C. ? 1 0 0 (too late) 90 B.C. ? 1 0 0 (too late) CHRONOLOGY AND RADIOCARBON DATES 39 TABLE 13.?Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the north and central coast of Peru chronological column. Dates rejected as not in agreement with the chronology are cited, as well as those utilized on chart L t n C h o fl o .a CO V Q XI 11 4J X BO U C bb ? < 5P fl 'C ? rt D at es n o Ph as e ] P E R I O D Haldas- Curayacu Ancon Asia-Huaca Prieta Puerto Moorin Middle Guanape- Cupisnique Haldas- Gurayacu LAB N O . oak-106 L-122C L-116A c-315 c-313 c-316 c-318b c-362 c-598 L-116B L ^ 0 4 A L-122A L-122B oak-107 REFERENCE RC, 1962, vol. 4, p. 91 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 Libby, 1955, p. 132 Libby, 1955, p. 132 Libby, 1955, p. 132 Libby, 1955, p. 132 Libby, 1955, p. 132 Libby, 1955, p. 133 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC, 1962, vol. 4, p. 91 SITE Las Haldas Huaca Negra Huaca Prieta Huaca Prieta Huaca Prieta Huaca Prieta Huaca Prieta Huaca Prieta Huaca Prieta Huaca Prieta Chanquillo Huaca Negra Huaca Negra Las Haldas C U L T U R E Haldas-Curayacu Upper Early Guanape Asia-Huaca Prieta Asia-Huaca Prieta Asia-Huaca Prieta Asia-Huaca Prieta Asia-Huaca Prieta Asia-Huaca Prieta Asia-Huaca Prieta Asia-Huaca Prieta Puerto Moorin Middle Guaiiape Middle Guaiiape No cultural identifica? tion DATE 730 B.C. ?150 1350 B.C. ?200 1830 B.C. ?100 1622 B.C. ?220 2307 B.C. ?250 2430 B.C. ?270 1600 B.C. ?600 2094 B.C. ?300 2348 B.C. ?230 1910 B.C. ?100 350 B.C. ? 8 0 (too early) 1200 B.C. ? 9 0 (too early) 3800 B.C. ?180 (too early) 1630 B.C. ?130 40 TABLE 13. SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 -Radiocarbon dates used for establishing the north and central coast of Peru chronological column. Dates rejected as not in agreement with the chronology are cited, as well as those utilized on chart 1?Continued ?' t: -C fl o bo _c Ph as e D al 4 - J % c e A gr ee .s 'Z c CO PERIOD Ancon Asia-Huaca Prieta LAB NO. L-122D L-122F L-122G L-384A c-75 C-318A c-321 c-322 c-323 REFERENCE R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 R C Dates Assoc. Inc., 1958 RC, 1961, vol. 3, p. 71 Libby, 1955, p. 133 Libby, 1955, p. 132 Libby, 1955, p. 132 Libby, 1955, p. 133 Libby, 1955, p. 133 SITE Huaca Negra Huaca Negra Huaca Negra Ancon Huaca Prieta Huaca Prieta Huaca Prieta Huaca Prieta Huaca Prieta C U L T U R E Upper Early Guafiape Lower Early Guanape Lower Early Guaiiape Ancon Asia-Huaca Prieta Asia-Huaca Prieta Asia-Huaca Prieta Asia-Huaca Prieta Asia-Huaca Prieta DATE 2550 B.C. ? 2 0 0 (too early) 2050 B.C. ? 1 5 0 (too early) 3550 B.C. ? 2 0 0 (too early) A.D. 560 ? 1 6 0 (too late) 715 B.C. ? 2 0 0 (too late) 39 B.C. ?196 (too late) 1016 B.C. ?300 (too late) 1360 B.C. ? 2 0 0 (too late) 682 B.C. ? 3 0 0 (too late) Geographical and Chronological Distribution of Selected Traits SETTLEMENT PATTERN: VILLAGE PLAN AND CEREMONIAL CONSTRUCTIONS C H A R T 2 Prior to 3000 B.C. the population of the Americas was sparse and probably for the most part the hunters and collectors wandered seasonally over a limited range of territory to take advantage of several natural food sources, as did the recent hunters of Canada and acorn collectors of California. MacNeish (1964) found that even the developing maize agriculturalists of the Mexican highlands occupied cave shelters only sea? sonally in their food quest. It seems safe to picture these people as organized into small kinship bands, many of which probably had a home village with permanent houses, which were not, however, perma? nently occupied. Exceptions to this pattern occurred where the en? vironment provided stable, readily available sources of food. At many favorable points along the sea coasts of all the Americas, there are large accumulations of seashells mixed with camp refuse that predate the appearance of ceramics. Such shell middens are also found near river shoals, as along the Tennessee River, where mussels formed the staple of diet. Even where Archaic people concentrated in sub? stantial numbers, there is litde or no evidence of village plan, and there are no monuments that would reflect community organization of political or religious motivation. The shell heaps show that dwellings were strung out along water fronts, apparently arranged more for ready access to the food supply than for de? fense. Hostilities must have been fairly frequent during this time, but perhaps social control was so unde? veloped that it could not be used for the effective planning of either offense or defense. The volunteer raiding parties of the historic peoples of northern North America or of eastern and southern South America were probably the pattern of the time. Islands in rivers and other naturally defensible localities were occupied, but compact deposits of refuse in areas that could have been readily defended by stockades are not a usual pattern. Compact, almost circular, sea coast villages are a feature of the preceramic occupation of the Peruvian coast. Engel (1958, pp. 19-26) describes a number of localities, often on the shores of old filled-in bays, where compact deposits of refuse cap small rocky natural elevations or sand dunes. Huaca Prieta de Brujo excavated by Bird (1948) had retaining walls made of beach pebbles, and the sides of this 12-meter high refuse pile were so steep that they must have constituted an effective defense feature. Partially washed away by the sea, the remains of this big mid? den measure 125 by 50 meters. The similar but slightly smaller "TeU" of Pulpar is located a few kilometers up the beach, also in Chicama Valley. As is fairly common in preceramic times on the Peruvian coast, the houses were small subterranean structures of stone. While these compact settlements were occupied before ceramics and maize agriculture appeared about 1200 B.C., they have not been dated before 2500 B.C. and so are coeval with the Valdivia and Machalilla occupations of the Ecuadorian coast, where a compe? tent ceramic was being manufactured by coastal dwelling fishermen. Although the Valdivia and Machalilla sites typi? cally have a refuse deposit less than 2 meters deep, they also were usually placed on the crests of low hills along the beach, or the old shores of filled-in 41 42 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 bays. According to Meggers, Evans, and Estrada (1965, p. 15), "The deposit typically consisted of powdery soil containing large amounts of shell, sherd and other kinds of natural and cultural refuse. No evidence was found of walls, floors, or other kinds of structures, and no significant natural stratigraphy could be identified at any of the sites." Burials were occasionally found. An impressive feature of these middens is that they are quite compact and are roughly circular in form, a hundred meters or less in diameter. These villages could have been defended by stockades; whether they actually were is not known. The Punta Arenas site, occupied about 1500 B . C , is located on a small natural 50 by 80 meter rise in salt marsh on the north shore of the Gulf of Guayaquil, and was almost surrounded by the sea when it was occupied (chart 2-19). The midden deposit, slightly less than 50 centimeters deep, was around the edge of this low elevation, and the central part of the almost level area was free from refuse. This suggests that the dwellings were arranged around an open court. The Puerto Hormiga site on the north coast of Colombia is located on a slight elevation alongside a marsh, which seems to be a filled-in arm of the Carib? bean. Radiocarbon dates range from 3090 B.C. to 2552 B.C. Reichel-Dolmatoff (1965, pp. 7-8, fig. la -b) describes the midden as a ring 77 meters in diameter north to south, 85 meters east to west (chart 2-17). Shell and soil have been deposited to a depth of about 1.20 meters. Width of the ring varies from 16-25 meters. On the east side, there is a low place in the accumulation suggesting a gap in the circle of dwell? ings. The center of the ring was free of refuse. The Barlovento site located on the coast near Cartagena, Colombia, has yielded radiocarbon dates from 1560-1030 B . C (Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1955, pp. 247-272). It also is located beside a swamp that seems formerly to have been a waterway giving access to the beach a few hundred meters distant. Reichel- Dolmatoff (op. cit., p . 251) describes the site as fol? lows: "The circle formed by the accumulations of these shells consists of six elevations, almost sym? metrical, and more or less equidistant, in the forms of mounds connected with one another at their bases [chart 2-16]. The average elevation over the level area in the center of this circle is about 3 meters. . . . The total area covered by the shell heaps is about 100 X 100 meters; the level central court measures 15 X 20 meters." The Monagrillo site on Parita Peninsula, Pacific coast of Panama, dating about 2000 B . C , has been described by Willey and McGimsey (1954). The shell midden occupies a low peninsula about 150 meters long and 80 meters wide, which now projects into tidal flats, formerly Parita Bay. The shell midden forms two parallel ridges that run lengthwise on the low natural elevation. The shallow "trough" between the ridges proved to be deeper on excavation than it appeared on the surface. This suggestion of houses arranged about a central court is by no means as clear as in the sites described above. Waring (in Williams, 1968, pp. 253-254) sum? marizes the fiber-tempered sites of coastal Georgia and adjacent South Carolina in the following words: (a) scattered occupations along marsh edges and bluffs (b) marsh middens (c) shell rings The scattered occupations are frequently quite extensive and suggest a looser, more open communal plan than do the great shell concentrations of Alabama and Tennessee. The marsh middens are shell deposits, some irregularly circular in shape, situated out in the marsh near the head waters of creek systems . [elsewhere described as 75 to 150 feet in diameter and 4 to 7 feet deep]. Of the shell rings, eight have survived. These are circular enclosures of shell from fifty to three hundred feet in diameter, the walls of the enclosure being from two to nine feet in height [chart 2-3]. The area enclosed was apparently kept scrupulously clean. The walls themselves in cross-section show extensive evidence of fires and primary midden deposits. The great shell ring on Sapelo [Island] was one of three and was the center of extensive low midden deposits running two to three hundred yards in each direction. Moore (1897, pp. 71-73) describes the Sapelo shell ring as follows: . . . a diameter, including the walls, of something over 300 feet. The walls have an average height of from 5 to 7 feet, and a thickness of about 50 feet at the base. They are flattened on the top where at present they have an average width of from 10 to 15 feet. They are covered with forest trees and are composed exclusively of shells, mainly those of oyster, with the usual midden refuse intermingled, such as fragments of bone, bits of earthenware, and the like. Waring and Larson report on their reexcavation of this ring in some detail (in Williams, 1968, pp. 263- 278). The two shell specimens from this excavation gave an average date of 1750 ?250 B . C (op. cit., p. 329). It is tempting to suggest that the use of camp circles by North American Plains people, and the circular villages of the Amazon Basin may be retentions of an Early Formative or possible Archaic village plan. Thus far, no hint of the practice of artificial mound construction has come from sites of the Early Forma? tive dating before 1200 B . C The circular and ring- shaped villages described above resulted from the care? less, unplanned discarding of shells and other refuse around dwellings. At various times after 1200 B . C , the Indians in the three Americas began to waste untold millions of man hours in the erection of tremendous monuments of earth, adobe brick, and stone that served no practical purpose. This is not unique, as attested by the pyra- GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 43 mids of Egypt or the Medieval cathedrals located in small European towns. The spread of efficient maize agriculture, with the resultant population increase and increase of "leisure" time, are the factors that made this possible. It is also obvious that the strict social and political controls necessary to accomplish such great constructions have a religious base, complete with specialist priest-rulers. The striking art styles that accompanied early mound building also indicate mark? ed craft specialization, including architects, engineers, sculptors, and artists. Where cultural elements originated to spark this first burst of monument building is not yet known. Cultural isolationists may see it as a consequence of the improved food supply. Those inclined to cultural continuity can point to some striking Old World parallels. There is a clear evolutionary sequence in settlement patterns in relation to the temple mound centers of the eastern United States, Mesoamerica, and the An? dean region. Upon first appearance, the pyramids and their superimposed buildings tend to be used solely as religious centers. The populations they served lived scattered in small villages through the surrounding territory; the inhabitants of the centers were relatively few, probably functionaries and servants of the reli? gious. Various centuries later a trend toward urbani? zation of these centers developed, and they became in some instances large cities. Chan-Chan, Pachaca- mac, and Arpule in Peru, and Teotihuacan, Monte Alban, and Tenochtitlan in Mexico are examples. According to present information, the earliest large scale ceremonial mound building was in the Olmec region on the Gulf coast of Mexico. At the San Lorenzo site, located on a small isolated plateau above a branch of the Coatzacoalcos River, Coe, Diehl, and Stuiver (1967) have obtained five radiocarbon dates that range between 1200 and 800 B.C Stirhng (1955, p. 9) describes the structures as follows: "The principal mound is conical in shape, although it may originally have been a pyramid. It is about 25 feet [7.5 m.] in height and stands at the south end of a rectangular plaza which is enclosed by earthen embankments. . . . A few other small mounds are erected near this central plaza, but they are without apparent regularity of orientation." In addition, there are nine small reservoirs or borrow pits, hexagonal in shape. The original set of radiocarbon dates published by Drucker, Heizer, and Squier (1959, pp. 264-267) for La Venta has been supplemented by some reruns and additional dates by Berger, Graham, and Heizer (1967). These suggest that the site was occupied between 1100 and 800 B . C , essentially coeval with the San Lorenzo site. La Venta, located on an island in a swamp near the coast, was much larger than San Lorenzo, but follows and elaborates its basic plan. The principal feature was first thought to be a flat-top pyramid (Drucker, Heizer, and Squier, 1959, pp. 6-15), but recent re? examination of the cleared structure proves it to be a large earth cone about 32 m. high with a very small flattened summit. Most unusual is the fact that the sides show 10 pronounced lobes or flutes extending from the summit to the base, a sort of "cupcake shape," quite unlike any other known mound struc? ture (Heizer and Drucker, 1968). The arrangement of structures at La Venta is com? plex and formal (chart 2-8). The excavators observed that the auxiliary features were symmetrically placed on either side of a center line that runs through the middle of this pyramid northward, bearing 8 degrees west of true north. Aligned with the outer edges of the pyramid are two linear mounds that extend parallel for 100 m. to the north. Between them is a low mound; beyond the linear mounds are two low platform mounds with enclosures formed by rows of columnar basalt. Outside of these, extending further north, are sym? metrically arranged bracket-shaped ridges, also capped with basalt columns. Beyond, about 164 m. from the toe of the big fluted cone and directly on the center line, is a low mound that contained a basalt tomb provided with rich offerings to accompany the burials. An elaborate complex of mask-like pavements and offerings was placed on, or symmetrically to, either side of this line at various points. A variety of bril? liantly colored earth was used in construction. Stone paving block and basalt columns were brought in from considerable distance, and unfired adobe bricks were also employed in construction. Shortly after this time, mound building was widely practiced along the Gulf coast of Mexico. On the coast north of Veracruz, in the Valley of the Actopan River where Garcia Payon (1966) has reported on excava? tions at El Trapiche and Chalahuites, there are dozens of impressive earth structures. Group plans are not discernible, probably due to the 4 to 6 meter sheet of alluvium that has buried their bases. The mounds range up to 15 meters high and are conical, cones resting on platforms, elongated mounds with steep sides and narrow-ridged tops; almost every form ex? cept the flat-top pyramids arranged about rectangular plazas that are usually thought of as the typical Meso? american plan. While some of these coastal mounds could and did serve as platforms for buildings, others are too steep and narrow at the summit. None have been carefully excavated and their use is unknown. The arrangement of rectangular pyramids about courts seems to begin about A.D. 300-500, when the early phases of such sites as Tajin were built. 44 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 There is no evidence for pyramid building having been associated with the Valley of Mexico Pre-Classic sites of Tlatilco, Ticoman, El Arbolillo, or Zacatenco. Armillas (1964, pp. 304ff) suggests that the isolated ceremonial center mounds, such as Cuicuilco and Tlapacoya, furnished the model on which true cities with large populations developed. Most notable of the cities in the valley is Teotihuacan. Millon, Drewitt, and Bennyhoff (1965, p. 34) offer evidence that the tremendous Temple of the Sun (chart 2-9) was built between A.D. 100 and 200. Apparently Teotihuacan had assumed its urban character by these dates, and thus may be the oldest true city in the Americas. The residence areas are apartment houselike buildings arranged in carefully laid out rectangular blocks, with city streets running at right angles. Streets and courts were paved with stone and cement, and underground drains were provided for water. The Monte Alban site in Oaxaca is located on a steep hilltop, and apparendy during its early phase (ca. 800-1 B.C.) was primarily a ceremonial center with temple pyramids. During Phase ii (200 B . C - A.D. 100), the process of urbanization began, but the population concentration never equaled that of Teotihuacan. Street arrangement was less precise due to the unevenness of the terrain. In Tehuacan Valley the use of modest rectangular temple bases in groups of two or three, arranged about courts, began in the Santa Maria Phase (800-200 B . C ) , more than a thousand years after the introduction of ceramics. During the Palo Blanco Phase (200 B . C - A.D. 700), MacNeish (1964, p. 537) says: "They lived in wattle-and-daub villages or hamlets either oriented toward or adjacent to large hilltop ceremonial centers having elaborate stone pyramids, plazas, ball courts, and other structures. Some of these ruins covered whole mountain tops and in terms of population might be considered cities, albeit sacred cities." In Chiapas, the first low field-stone platforms were constructed as building foundations between 1000 and 500 B.C. (Lowe, 1959b, pp. 11-21). Arrangement is not clear, and it is uncertain whether these were re? ligious structures or not. By 600 B.C., however, the pyramids constructed at the site of Chiapa de Corzo form a well-developed ceremonial nucleus. By the Horcones Phase (Chiapa vi, ca. A.D. 1) the low pyramids had cut-stone facings, and contained large tombs with adobe brick walls and timbered roofs (chart 2-12; Lowe, 1959a). The elaborate tombs show that the idea of erecting mounds for temple substruc? tures had been combined with the simple conical earth mound erected over a central vault as at La Venta. Pyramids sometimes continued to have tombs, as at Kaminaljuyu and Palenque. A true urban phase, with cities comparable to Teotihuacan or Chan-Chan, does not seem to have developed in Chiapas. There is no evidence of pyramid construction during the Ocos Phase on the Pacific coast of Guate? mala (M. D. Coe, 1961). Low clay platforms for houses began in the Jocotal Phase (850-800 B.C.), and one site had a single rectangular pyramid 4 meters high (chart 2-15). Coe and Flannery (1967, pp. 89-90) state: By Crucero times a significant population decrease had taken place in the Ocos area and most settlements had moved inland to the piedmont. The late Formative in the Guatemalan high? lands and along the foot hills of the Pacific coast (the so-called 'Boca Coast') of both Guatemala and Chiapas, was a time of substantial pyramid building and monumental sculpture. Kaminaljuyu in the Miraflores Phase, Monte Alto, El Baul and Izapa are some of the most impressive ceremonial sites of this period, and made important contributions to the develop? ment of Maya civilization. In Lower Middle America, south of the Maya area, mound building never became popular. Baudez (1963, p. 47) says that in Costa Rica large burial mounds dating between 300 B.C. and A.D. 300 have been reported at Puerto Nuevo. Ceremonial centers with temples built on platform mounds seem never to have developed to any great extent in Colombia. The Cupica Mound on the northern Pacific coast, reported by Alicia and Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff (1962), was a low 1.5 meter high domed structure built in four levels. Burials were made in pits cut down from each level, and apparendy the locality was occupied for several centuries. Al? though no evidence of structures was found, the amount of refuse scattered through the soil and the method of building suggest the house mounds of Mesoamerica. The earliest artificial mounds on the Ecuadorian coast appear to be associated with the Bahia Phase of the Regional Developmental Period (500 B .C-A.D. 500). Estrada (1962, p. 72, fig. 116) describes and illus? trates a group of low rectangular or irregularly shaped earth platforms at Esteros, which have since been destroyed. Jijon y Caamano (1951b, figs. 23-24) provides plans for two rectangular platform mounds formerly existing in nearby Manta. Unlike the Esteros group, the latter had a stone facing and a stairway at one end. A clear example of mound arrangement around a plaza is provided by La Tolita, on the ex? treme north coast of Ecuador. Here, some 40 mounds ranging from 1-75 m. high and from 6 to 41 m. in diameter surround a broad plaza. Unfortunately, the dating of these constructions has not been ascertained. In the late period, mound building became wide? spread on the coast. During the Milagro Phase (A.D. GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 45 700-1500) large mounds were erected for burial and as platforms for ceremonial structures. Neither stone facings nor stairways or ramps occur. In the highlands, however, extremely large earthworks were constructed, which characteristically included approach ramps (Jijon y Caamano, 1951a, pp. 346-349). Unfortu? nately, dating is once again undetermined. Construction with stone began quite early in both coastal and highland Peru; however, the imposing early constructions at the site of Kotosh are not true pyramids, but rather platforms with stone retaining walls, built against the sides of steep hills. Although some of the buildings placed on these platforms may have been ceremonial, the majority were clearly dwellings. House platform construction, necessitated by the terrain, remained a common Andean feature throughout aboriginal history. The earliest true pyramid construction in the high? lands may be represented by such complex buildings as Chavin de Huantar. If this sophisticated structure of cut stone was completely erected in the Chavin Phase (800-200 B.C.), it certainly represents the earliest example of advanced architecture in the Americas. In the contemporary Olmec culture of Mexico, mounds were being constructed of earth and infre- quentfy had cobblestone facings. Tello (1960) makes it clear that the refuse on the site indicates occupation until the time of the Recuay Phase (ca. A.D. 1). Comparable large Chavin Phase buildings con? structed on adobe and stone-faced pyramids are found on the north coast of Peru (Carrion Cachot, 1948). Examples are Moxeke (chart 2-22), Sechin, and Pallka in Casma Valley. These remarkable constructions are varied in plan and details, and are even more sophisticated than later Peruvian pyra? mids. Emphasis is placed on details of ornamenta? tion, such as niches and sculptured figures, and on the superimposed buildings rather than sheer mass of the supporting pyramid. In these respects and in the imaginative variation of plan, the Chavin Phase constructions resemble early Maya pyramids. The later Mochica (A.D. 1-600) pyramids of the north coast, by their simplicity and sheer size, are reminis? cent of the pyramids of Teotihuacan. The Chavin or Gupisnique Phase pyramids exam? ined by the writer and Willey (1953) in Viru Valley on the north coast of Peru are much more modest than those just described (chart 2-21). These were flat-top square mounds, 1-3 meters high, with earth fill and conical adobe and fieldstone facings. No stairways are evident and details of the buildings once placed on top are not clear. They were built in groups of one to three in defensible, elevated local? ities, and sometimes were surrounded by stone walls strategically placed for defense. The large Las Haldas site, located on the dry coast south of Casma Valley, has yielded a radiocarbon date of 1842 B . C ?100 from plant refuse that in? cluded gourds, cotton, and beans, but no maize or pottery. Here, Engel (1963, p. 11) found seven modest platforms inside a compound. Many of the early Gupisnique Phase mounds in Chicama and Vini, typically built of conical adobes on valley floors distant from the rocky hillsides, have been covered with later manties of construction dating into Mochica times. Mochica Phase (A.D. 1-600) pyramids constructed of rectangular adobes in Chicama Valley rose to over 30 meters. The Temple of the Sun in Moche Valley is the largest structure of this period. Although these pyramids have terraced sides and usually stairways, as in Mesoamerica, the arrange? ment about a plaza did not develop to any marked extent on the Mochica time level. The big pyramids stood alone, although large walled rectangular courts were attached to some (chart 2-20). After about A.D. 1000, when the coastal Tiahuanaco or Wari cultural phase blanketed the Peruvian coast, the construction of apartment dwellings within large, rectangular high walled quadrangles became the prevalent pattern. Many have a central court running the length of the quadrangle, with an adobe pyramid at either end. The ceremonial center had become incorporated into the dwelling unit. The large Chimii Phase sites of Chan-Chan in Moche, Apurie in Lambayaque, and many other late sites consist of numerous dwelling compounds planned on this pattern. While compact, nearly circular shell middens are fairly common in the Late Archaic and early ceramic phases in the eastern United States, simple ring-type dwelling areas are not known aside from the Stallings Island examples. However, the same principle of town planning is employed in the elaborate and unique Poverty Point site, located on an old channel of the Mississippi River over 200 miles from the Gulf of Mexico (Ford and Webb, 1956). Radiocarbon dates range from 1200-400 B .C , and while direct evidence is lacking, it seems likely that the economy of this large town was based on maize agriculture. Particular artifact resemblances to the Olmec Phase of the Gulf coast of Mexico will be cited, and a maize-based economy for that highly developed culture is clear. The dwelling areas at the Poverty Point site consist of six concentric ridges, built of alternating layers of normally deposited refuse and intentionally added soil. They formed a circular town, 1.2 km. in diameter on the exterior (chart 2-7). The central court is about 800 meters in diameter. The ridges were 46 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 originally interrupted for about 30 m. at eight points, so that eight level "aisles" gave access to the center. Between the gaps, the arc of the ridges was slightly flattened, forming a figure intermediate between circle and octagon. On the west side of the town, there is a large earth mound, apparently a bird effigy, 23 m. high and headed west. About one mile to the north is a second bird-like mound, apparendy unfinished, 18 m. high and headed north. Air photographs show that the engineering layout was perfectly symmetrical. The large western mound is about 8 degrees south of due west; the northern mound the same angle west of true north. While the basic plans are entirely different, the precise engineering and 8 degree west of north orientation are features of the Olmec sites of La Venta (Drucker, Heizer, and Squier, 1959, pp. 13-15, figs. 3-5), and Laguna de los Cerros (Alfonso Medellin Z., personal communication). Although about 15 other sites of the Poverty Point Phase are now known, only one, the Teoc Creek site, has a suggestion of a circular village plan. Still, it seems probable that this and the less complex Stallings Island ring villages provided the pattern for the geometrical earthworks built during the later Adena and Hopewell Phases (900 B . C - A . D . 200). "Sacred circles," characteristic earthworks of the Adena Phase in the upper Ohio River Valley (chart 2-2), were so named by Squier and Davis (1848) because they could find no evidence for their practical use. Webb and Snow (1945, pp. 29-33), in their re? view of this feature, are almost equally at a loss. The earth embankments are narrow, vary from barely discernible rises to 2-3 meters high and from 16 m. to 100 m. in diameter. The average for 76 circles was 64 m. A borrow ditch is usually inside the ridge, impractical for a defensive work as Squier and Davis pointed out over a century ago; refuse is almost never associated with these earthworks in sufficient quantities to indicate their use as dwelling areas. On the east side, there is frequendy a gap or gateway in the construction. Conical burial mounds were erected inside the circles or nearby. Similar constructions of unknown use, but of more sophisticated geometric design, are common features of the Hopewell Phase in the Ohio Valley. The en? closures are circles, squares, or octagons, which are sometimes connected into complex figures (chart 2-1). The walls, which sometimes have ditches in? side, range up to 5 m. in present height, and often have symmetrically located gaps or gates at corners and other points. Parallel ridges form "roadways" that lead from one group to another. As in the Adena Phase, conical burial mounds are usually associated. These geometric earthworks are most common in the Ohio Valley from 100 B . C to A.D. 200 and are also found at this time in Louisiana (chart 2-6). A series of mound groups featuring "roadways" and semi? circles is located near Lake Okeechobee in southern Florida (chart 2-4). In contrast to the circular villages and towns of an earlier date, these ceremonial centers have litde associated dwelling refuse. Geometrical earthworks disappear from the eastern United States after the close of the Hopewellian Phase about A.D. 200-300. Hilltop fortifications with earth or stone walls began to be built in eastern North America during the Adena Phase, and were occasionally constructed by later people. These are clearly defensive works, not to be confused with the class of geometrical earthworks. Summary Despite considerable variation in detail, there is a general consistency in the changing pattern of settle? ment plan and ceremonial centers in the Americas. During the Colonial Formative, ceremonial centers did not exist, and settlements were typically circular villages, sometimes with central courts. Religious construction started suddenly about 1200 B . C and seems to be earliest in the Olmec area. There was wide variation in mound form and plans for both structures or groups were unformalized. The spread of mound building apparently was accompanied by maize agriculture. In North America, the earliest construc? tions were conical mounds erected to cover tombs; later geometrical earthworks probably grew out of the earlier circular villages. These were religious centers, not true towns. The flat-top rectangular pyramid spread through Mesoamerica and into Peru on the Chavin time level, also as an isolated religious center. True urban con? centrations around these centers apparently began in Mexico about A.D. 200 and flourished in the Peruvian area after the Wari Phase (A.D. 1000). A Middle American pyramid-temple pattern entered the Mississippi Valley about A.D. 400 and became popular after A.D. 900. By 1300, true urban centers surrounding the temple mounds had developed in that region also. Comparisons Takeshi Ueno and Kazuo Terada of the University of Tokyo have informed me that a number of Middle and Late Jomon sites are shell rings, or more commonly horseshoe-shaped with the opening toward the beach. For example, the Early Jomon site of Minamibori in central Japan is a crude C-shaped semicircle of pit houses about 50 meters in diameter, occupying the top of a small plateau. GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 47 The northern half of the Kasori site in the same region has a shell ring about 130 meters in diameter capping a roughly circular hill beside an old beach line. The shells were for the most part scattered out? side the circle of pit houses. This portion of the site is dated as Middle Jomon. Immediately to the south lies a C-shaped ring of shell of Late Jomon date. This also crowns a knoll and is about 150 meters in diameter. The Horinouchi shell midden is similarly situated around an elevated plateau near the beach. It is horseshoe-shaped, and dates early in Late Jomon. Relative dating would not argue against the impor? tation of this circular village concept from Japan. Also the isolated occurrence of Eskimolike pit houses on the north Peruvian coast is brought to mind. The similar Basket Maker in pit houses in northern New Mexico might be explained by diffusion from the Arctic (Roberts, 1929). If the Peruvian examples are not independent invention, they are probably related to the Jomon houses. TOOLS Core and Blade Industry CHART 3 The making of parallel-sided flint blades, prismatic in section, evidently diffused into the Americas at 10,000 to 8000 B.C. This is a tool-making technique of the late phases of the Old World Paleolithic, and in a miniature form was particularly characteristic of the Mesolithic. It is an element of the British Mountain complex of the western Arctic (MacNeish, 1959). Long flint blades have been found from the Clovis type site in levels that yield bones of mammoth (Green, 1963). Blades are also dated about 8000 B.C in the Tehuacan sequence of central Mexico. In highland Ecuador they appear to be part of the El Inga complex described by Bell (1960), and are found at an early date in the preceramic sequence at Ancon on the central Peruvian coast (Lanning, 1967, p. 41). Burins are an occasional accompanying tool. This blade tradition is somewhat poorly defined, due to the apparent lack of cores. It is by no means as clear as is the microlithic blade tradition with tongue-shaped cores that entered the American Arctic about 4000 B.C This latter did not spread southward and seems to have no connection with the history to be described below. Evidently blades were a part of the initial spread of bifacially chipped projecdle points on the Clovis time level (10,000-8,000 B . C ) , but they rapidly dis? appeared in North America and are completely missing from the long Archaic sequences. In South America, bifacial chipping also completely disappears from the northern part of the Pacific coast in pre? ceramic times. Continuity in this tradition seems to exist only in highland Mexico. In the Tehuacan sequence, Mac? Neish (1961) found flint, prismatic blades dadng continuously back to 8000 B.C in the Ajuereado Phase. These were detached from cores on which the striking platform formed an angle of less than 90? with the working face (chart 3-23). True cylindrical fluted cores and the use of obsidian rather than flint, which were characteristic of the Aztec industry that lasted until Spanish contact, date after 2000 B.C. (chart 3-21). The practice of drawing blades of obsidian from prepared cores does not begin in the Chiapas sequence until Chiapa ii (1000 B . C ; chart 3-25). A similar initial date prevails for the Soconusco sequence, where the first blades are found in Conchas i (800- 600 B.C.; chart 3-26). They are completely missing in the earlier Ocos Phase. On the north coast of Colombia, the Reichel- Dolmatoffs (1956, pp. 235-238) found an abundant flint working industry confined to the Momil i Phase (700-400 B.C.; chart 3, 29-31). This included cores with an angle of less than 90? between the striking platform and the face, from which blades were detached. It also included the detached blades and used blades, which had been worn down to the shape of "perforators." These latter will be described from the Poverty Point complex of the Mississippi Valley. That this industry is confined to Momil i, which shows a number of other Mesoamerican traits, is quite striking. The technique does not continue in the Colombian sequence. The blade technique was reintroduced on the coast of Ecuador after 1500 B.C (chart 3-33). Meggers (1966, p. 56) says: Small obsidian blades and flakes abound in Chorrera Phase refuse, another sharp contrast with the Early Formative situa? tion. Although obsidian was the preferred material for stone implements in the highlands during preceramic times, it was not employed by people of the Valdivia and Machalilla Phases. Since both the material and the technique of chipping have deep 48 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 roots in Mesoamerica, their appearance constitutes additional evidence of Mesoamerican contact. As often happened, the Ecuadorians outstripped their teachers, and many of the thin obsidian blades are straight, sharp-edged and as transparent as window glass. So far as available evidence indicates, this core and blade industry did not rediffuse south of Ecuador on the Formative time level. In the Valley of Mexico, Vaillant (1935, pp. 239- 244) describes obsidian knives from Zacatenco and El Arbolillo. The knives are long blades pressed off a conical core. Flint fragments are quite rare. Most of the obsidian is streaked white-gray or golden green; black obsidian comprised only 10 percent of the Ticoman specimens. Only 21 examples of long thin obsidian blades are described by Lorenzo (chart 3-19; 1965, pp. 33-34) from Tlatilco. Apparendy cores were not found; but judging from the illustrated blade, they were of the cyclindrical variety. This industry lasts until Aztec times. It is probable that both in the Valley of Mexico sequence and in Veracruz, this technique extends back into preceramic times and connects up with the Paleo- Indian phase as at Tehuacan. Data are lacking, however, and for this reason the bars on chart 3 have not been extended back beyond the limits of chron? ological knowledge. Cores and blades are found in the earliest levels of excavations at El Trapiche and Chalahuites on the Veracruz coast (chart 3, 16-17). In these lower levels, in the excavations of Medellin, Wallrath, and the writer, there was a small portion of flint blades, but the majority were made of black obsidian. Higher up in the strata cuts, black was replaced by a translucent smoky gray obsidian (chart 3-15). Drucker (1952, p. 145) notes that black and gray obsidian were quite common in the La Venta excavations. No fragments with greenish tints were found. None of the blades were complete; all showed signs of extensive use. As in the highlands, this technique continues through succeeding periods. Flint cores, blades, and worn-out blades (called "perforators") are the most abundant artifacts of the Poverty Point culture of the Lower Mississippi Valley (chart 3, 10-12; Ford and Webb, 1956). From the type site, 23,183 specimens of the industry have been collected and studied. Of these, 409 are cores, con? sisting of flint pebbles with a striking platform that forms an angle of about 50? with the face from which blades were detached. More common than unused blades are those with the edges extensively worn until they have the form called "perforators." In the Lower Mississippi this industry is confined to the 1200 to 400 B.C. period. In the Upper Mississippi Valley and the Ohio area, it is a marker of the Hopewellian Phase and dates from about 200 B . C - A . D . 300 (chart 3, 1-4). At this time flake knives are found in Hopewell burial sites from western New York State to the eastern border of Kansas, and from the Great Lakes to the Florida Gulf coast (chart 3-7). Detailed references are too numerous to be listed here (Griffin, ed., 1952). Most of the cores in the Upper Mississippi Valley Hopewell have an acute angle between striking platform and the face from which blades were de? tached (chart 3-6). However, in Ohio Hopewell sites particularly, there are cores of cylindrical form (chart 3-2). These are principally of obsidian. Obsidian blades are also common. The core and blade industry disappears from the eastern United States at the end of the Hopewellian Phase, about A.D. 300. Summary The late Paleolithic-Mesolithic technique of striking long parallel-sided blades from prepared cores ap? parently was introduced into both North and South America on a Paleo-Indian time level, but was quickly abandoned everywhere except in highland Mexico. Here it continued until Formative times and had a secondary diffusion into northern South America. It continued into later phases on the Ecuadorian coast. The secondary diffusion into North America passed through the Lower Mississippi Valley between 1200 and 400 B.C to become an element of the Hope? well culture, and as such, spread to a large part of the eastern United States between 200 B.C. and A.D. 300. It disappeared from the eastern United States after the decline of Hopewell. Reamers C H A R T 3 Beginning at the middle of Period A of the Valdivia Phase and extending into the Machalilla Phase on coastal Ecuador, Meggers, Evans, and Estrada (1965, p. 29, figs. 14, 69, pi. 20) found a number of reamers made of fine-grain sandstone and coquina (chart 3 - 34). These are described as about 5 cm. long, with a crudely shaped circular or oval handle with flattened sides. The working end is always circular in section, tapered toward the tip, and shows the effects of rotary use. One use of these tools is clearly apparent at Valdivia. They were obviously used to manufacture the C- shaped shell fishhooks characteristic of early Pacific coast occupations from Chile to central California. Various stages in fishhook manufacture are shown by the authors (op. cit., fig. 19). A shell disk about 3 cm. in diameter was first roughed out and a small hole drilled in the center. This hole was then enlarged by GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 49 rotary use of the reamers. The outer edge was smoothed off in a somewhat less accurate curve until the fishhooks assumed their final form. At Tlatilco, Lorenzo (1965, pp. 34-35, fig. 40) found among the offerings of various burials eight reamers made of sandstone, basalt, obsidian, and flint (chcirt 3-18). The evidence of rotary motion indicated their use for the enlarging of small drilled holes. Nine reamers have been found at the Poverty Point site in the Lower Mississippi Valley (chart 3-9). These are all made of sandstone, have roughly shaped handles enlarged at one end, and a tapered point showing rotary wear at the other. As no bone or shell is preserved at this locality due to the acid soil, whether or not fishhooks were manufa^ctured must remain in doubt; however, the utility of these tools for enlarging drilled holes in stone objects is obvious. The distribution of stone reamers is rather spotty, but it may be significant that they appear to be con? fined to the early part of the Formative. So far as is known, this apparendy useful tool was not employed after 500 B . C Axes and Celts CHART 4 In the Americas, three general classes of ground stone tools were provided with handles and used for wood? working. Earliest in North America seems to be the adze group, tools that have the blade hafted at right angles to the handle. These are both chipped and ground, and include the curved blade gouges that are an element of the Late Archaic in the New England and Great Lakes areas. Adzes are a characteristic of the Old Copper culture of Wisconsin, where they were made of both copper and stone, and date back to perhaps 3000 B.C. The ground stone adze has a re? spectable antiquity in Arctic sequences and along the Northwestcoast.De Laguna (1947, pp. 154-162) has argued convincingly that this is a circumpolar culture element. Although the adze reached the Gulf coast of North America in the Poverty Point Phase, it does not seem to have diffused very strongly to the south. The second group of woodworking tools is repre? sented by full grooved and three-quarter grooved axes. The third group contains the ungrooved celts. In South America there is a special form, the T-shaped axe. Perforated axes are quite late in the Andean region and will not be considered here. Grooved Stone Axes Crudely chipped stone axes are a fairly common ele? ment of the Late Archaic in the eastern United States (chart 4-19). These have a constriction about the middle for the attachment of a handle; this is some? times polished, possibly representing a stage toward the development of the full ground axes. In North Carolina, J . L. Coe (1964, p. 113, fig. 110) places these in the Guilford complex, which is assigned a date of about 4000 B .C Byers (1959, p. 239) in discussing the Adantic coast of North America states that "Early horizons of this postulated coastal Archaic are char? acterized by choppers; grooved axes which in the earliest forms are chipped but not polished; . . ." In the Midwest they apparendy last until the Fourche Maline Phase (Griffin, ed., 1952, fig. 131k). Fully grooved ground stone axes are recognized as a persistent element of the Late Archaic in eastern North America, but the precise date of their appear? ance has not been determined to the satisfaction of all of the investigators. At the Modoc Rock Shelter in southern Illinois, Fowler (1959a, p . 36) found a polished stone axe in a context that suggests an age of about 5000 B .C (chart 4-13). Griffin (1964, p. 231) indicates that grooved axes were in the New England area by 2300 B .C They were well established on the coast of Georgia by the time of the introduction of ceramics at about 2400 B . C , and are an element of the preceramic of the Late Archaic Indian Knoll culture of Kentucky. Griffin (1952b, p. 356) suggests that at the end of the Archaic three-quarter grooved axes have begun to replace the fully grooved. This question is reviewed by Wauchope (1966, pp. 176-179), who illustrates a number of examples. Ground stone axes lasted in the eastern United States until the centuries immediately preceding the beginning of the present era, when they were replaced by the celt. While celts predominated in the Poverty Point Phase of Louisiana (110 examples), grooved stone axes were also in use, as is shown by the finding of four specimens (chart 4?30). These axes do not seem to be an element of the earlier Desert culture of the southwestern United States, but at about the dme they disappear in the East, three-quarter grooved axes appear in the Pioneer stage of Hohokam, and run through the sequence (Gladwin, et al., 1937, fig. 44). This same type of axe is also an element of the Anasazi culture. In this region the celt form was never used. There is no evidence in the Arctic regions to indicate that this element was introduced from Asia by way of the Bering Strait. The typical Arctic woodworking tool is the adze. In the Valley of Mexico, two completely grooved stone axes were found in the Tlatilco Cemetery excavations (chart 4-37; Lorenzo, 1965, p. 25, fig. 16). They should date somewhere between 1200 and 400 B.C. Celts, however, were much more numerous in these deposits. There was a single example of an adze. 50 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 1 1 M. D. Coe (1961, p. 107, fig. 42c) describes a fragment of a grooved axe from the Conchas ii deposits (600-300 B . C ) at La Victoria, Guatemala (chart 4?42). In his discussion, he cites A. V. Kidder's (1943) survey of grooved axes from Mexico to Nic? aragua. The three-quarter grooved axe of the south? western United States pattern is quite common in northern Mexico. Most of those found, however, from Mexico City southward are fully grooved like the earlier eastern North American Archaic form. Apparently the only temporally defined examples are those from Tlatilco and La Victoria. The history of grooved ground stone axes in South America is not entirely clear. They are lacking in the early phases along the Pacific coast, which seems to be the diffusion route of many of the Formative traits we are tracing. Gonzalez (1963, pp. 110-111) suggests that they may have spread down the eastern edge of the Andes into northwestern Argentina where, along with pipes, they occur in the Early Ceramic Period (500 B . C - A . D . 800). That these items arrived in highland Bolivia, where the T-shaped axe was already established at a fairly early time, is evinced by their occurrence in Classic Tiahuanaco (W. C. Bennett, 1946, pp. 115-116), which dates in the first centuries of this era. Tello (1960, pp. 306-308, figs. 137-138) found five or more fully grooved axes at Chavin de Huantar. Their precise date is dubious, however, for they were in water-deposited fill at the east and west ends of Building A, mixed with sherds of Chavin and Recuay styles. Tello thinks they were swept down from the building platform. If they are associated with Recuay ceramics, they date near the beginning of the present era. Finds of grooved axes in lowland Bolivia by W. C. Bennett (1936, pp. 373, 385) seem to be in Incaic contexts, and a similar late date is obtained for grooved stone axes found near Huamachuco, northern highlands of Peru (McCown, 1945, p. 303, pi. 160). Estrada (1958, fig. 54, 4-5) illustrates three-quarter grooved axes as elements of the Milagro Phase (A.D. 500-1500) in the Guayas Basin of Ecuador (chart 4 ,47-48) . T-shaped Stone Axes Stone axes with projecting ears to assist in lashing to the handle are an Andean trait that apparently never diffused north of Panama. Earliest examples of this form come from the Valdivia Phase deposits in coastal Ecuador (chart 4-54; Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pp. 28-29, fig. 18, pi. 19q-r). They were made of gray-black diorite, pecked and polished. Engel (1958, pp. 35, 37) in a survey of preceramic sites on the coast of Peru says that hatchets and axes with handles are lacking. Crude hand axes were found by Bird (1948) at Huaca Prieta in Chicama and also occur on the south coast. Brown (1926) describes earred stone axes in an apparent pre? ceramic context from near the Ecuadorian border. As fragments of stone bowls accompanied them, however, this may be of a later preceramic date, possibly after 3000 B . C The T-shaped stone axe has not been reported from the Chorrera Phase, but Estrada (1962, fig. 98) illustrates a large possibly ceremonial axe of this shape from the Bahia Phase (500 B . C - A . D . 500), on the north coast (chart 4?49). At Kotosh in highland Peru, Izumi and Sono (1963, p. 147, pis. 104-105a-b) say "this lithic tool is almost absent before the Sajara-patac Period" (chart 4-58). The T-shaped axes illustrated by Tello (1960, pp. 306-308, figs. 138b, 139a-c) from Chavin have the same dubious provenience as has been described for the grooved axes; they came from water-deposited fill with Chavin and Recuay ceramics. The Recuay date would correlate better with the dating of these tools at Kotosh. W. C. Bennett (1946, p . 114) found a T-shaped axe in the early levels of his stratigraphic excavations at Tiahuanaco in Bolivia (ca. A.D. 1). T-shaped and grooved axes continue on through the Classic Tia? huanaco, and the T-shaped axe, made of bronze as well as stone, became a characteristic tool of the Inca. Strangely enough this tool is entirely missing from early phases on the Peruvian coast. Lathrap (1958, p . 385) found T-shaped axes in all phases of the Yarinacocha sequence on the Ucayali River at the eastern foot of the Andes. The date of the earliest phase. Early Tutishcainyo, is uncertain. The history of the T-shaped axe in Colombia is not clear. Duque (1964, p . 395, fig. 27-80) illustrates examples along with celt-shaped axes from tombs in San Agustin. He states that axes in general pertain to the late period, Mesitas Superior, which is given an approximate date of after A.D. 800 or 900. T- shaped stone axes appear in tomb collections from Narifio, where they accompany negative painted pottery (W. C. Bennett, 1944b, p . 53). These axes also occur in collections from tombs in the Quimbaya region of the Lower Cauca (op. cit., p. 76). They probably date somewhere between A.D. 500 and 1000. Rectangular and Petaloid Celts Celts, or ungrooved polished stone axes, are not found in the preceramic levels in either North or South America. These tools can usefully be divided GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 51 into two classes, one of which tends to be rectangular in oudine with almost parallel sides, slighdy curved bit, and squared-off poll. The other, usually called a petaloid celt, has a rounded blade, generally a fat oval cross-section, and a tapered poll. The rectangular celt, like the grooved and T-shaped stone axe, is usually made of fine-grain gray or black diorite or other tough metamorphic stone. The earliest examples come from the Valdivia Phase of Ecuador (chart 4-55; Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pp. 28-29, pi. 19o-p). These are small blades, much smaller than are usual for this category, and it is possible that they were hafted in an der or bone socket pieces. Estrada (1958, fig. 54) illustrates larger rectangular axes chipped and incompletely polished, that run through the Late Formative and the Regional De? velopmental Periods (chart 4, 52-53). These are thin rectangles in section, and some of the blades are asymmetrically sharpened suggesting that they may have been hafted as adzes. Estrada (1962, fig. 97) also illustrates rectangular hatchets with carved human features (chart 4-51) from the Bahia culture (500 B .C-A .D . 500) in Manabi on the north coast of Ecuador. These are reminiscent of the anthropomor? phic celts of the Olmec sites on the Gulf coast of Mexico. One similar celt, rectangular in section, polished, and with a sharp edge, came from the Chavin Period deposits at Kotosh (chart 4-59; Izumi and Sono, 1963, pis. 106c-2, 166-12). Celts in general are extremely rare at Kotosh, and this example conforms more closely to the Chorrera style of Ecuador than it does to the rectangular celts with thick oval cross- section. Polished stone celts are conspicuously absent on coastal Peru. The earliest celts in the north coast of Colombia sequence are in the Momil i and ii Phases (700-1 B . C ; chart 4, 4 5 ^ 6 ) . These are of rectangular form with slighdy curved blade and squared-off head. In cross- section, they are oval and fairly thick. This is the typical cross-section of Mesoamerican celts, in con? trast to the thin rectangular section of the hatchets from Ecuador and Peru (Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. and A., 1956, pis. 26-11, 27, 8-9). Similar celts with squared polls come from the middle and late phase tombs of San Agustin, after A.D. 500 (chart 4 ^ 4 ; Duque, 1964, p. 395, drawing 27, 75-78). A single celt of petaloid form (chart 4 ^ 3 ) is illustrated in Duque (op. cit., fig. 74). A single rectangular celt came from Phase iii in the Cupica Burial Mound (Reichel- Dolmatoff, G. and A., 1962, pi. 17-1). This accom? panied Burial No. 5 and dates after A.D. 600. W. C. Bennett (1944b, p. 76) describes polished celts as occurring in the collections of the Quimbaya area. The shape of these tools is uncertain, for no illustrations are given. Trapezoidal celts, but with a rectangular section, are listed from most of the late sites that the Reichel-Dolmatoffs (1955, p. 241) examined in the Santa Marta region. Ground celts were not found in the Monagrillo Phase of Panama. Willey and McGimsey (1954, p. 85, figs. 20a-b, 50m-o, r) illustrate very crude, generally rectangular examples made of fine-grained gray and black colored stone, which come from the Alvina and later phases. This seems to date approximately coeval with the Sitio Conte Phase after A.D. 500 (Ladd, 1964, pp. 201-202, pi. 18a-f). On the Pacific coast of Guatemala, polished celts are lacking from the Ocos Phase, but do occur in Conchas i and ii (chart 4 - ^ 1 ; M. D. Coe, 1961, pp. 106-107, fig. 60q). These are made of greenish black stone, are oval in cross-section and are quite small, measuring about 3 cm. across the blade. As the polls are missing, it is uncertain as to whether they should be classified as rectangular or petaloid. MacNeish and Peterson (1962, p. 28, pi. 5Ba) found a very small celt made of a hard volcanic stone in level 1 from the Santa Marta Rock Shelter. This zone has a radiocarbon date of about A.D. 90. Minia? ture celts, as well as the bit fragment of a medium- sized greenstone celt, were found by Sanders in the Chiapilla Phase (Chiapa iv-v, 450-100 B . C ; chart 4-4-0; Sanders, 1961, p. 43, pi. l l B r - u ) . Although functional celts have not been reported before 800 B .C in the Chiapas sequence, Lowe has given the information verbally that poorly smoothed celts are found in caches in Chiapa ii (800-550 B . C ) . The placing of celts in caches is a feature of Olmec sites of the Mexican Gulf coast, as will be discussed later. MacNeish provides the information that the small cutting tools that run from the beginning of the Ajalpan Phase (1500 B.C.) to the end of Santa Maria (200 B.C.) are adzes. Celts with square polls run from 800 B.C. to about 1 B . C (chart 4-39). Petaloid celts with tapered polls date from 200 B .C to A.D. 500 (chart 4-38). Lorenzo (1965, pp. 24?26, figs. 15-18) describes a single adze with curved cutting edge from the excava? tions at Tlatilco. This is reminiscent of the gouges of the North American Archaic. The most popular type of axe is a celt made of fine-grained stone with a thick oval cross-section. The polls seem to be squared off, which places these tools in the rectangular celt category. Vaillant (1930, p i . 45) illustrates three rectangular celts from the middle levels of Zacatenco (chart 4, 35- 36). One is made of jade, one of jade or serpentine, and the third of diabase. Ticoman celts are shown in 52 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 Vaillant's plate (1931, pi. 88). Similar specimens came from El Arbolillo (Vaillant, 1935, p. 244, table 18). Celts are particularly characteristic of the Olmec sites on the Gulf coast of Mexico. Coe has informed me verbally that petaloid celts occur in the San Lorenzo Phase (1200-800 B . C ) . This information comes from investigations still under way. Frequendy at La Venta they are found in caches. Drucker (1952, pp. 164?166, pis. 55, 56a) points out that the beautifully polished examples made of jade are probably not workaday implements, but may have been regarded as articles of value. A considerable number are made of soft serpentine which, if the condition is not due to decom? position, could never have served as tools. Most of the Olmec celts have tapered polls, thick oval cross- sections, and curved blades giving a petaloid shape (chart 4, 31-32). A minority have the squared polls that place them in our rectangular class (chart 4?34). A pale bluish gray jade is the usual material. Celts made of soft serpentine tend to be larger and cruder than those of jade. "Several hundred" celts were found in the course of the first two seasons work at La Venta. Of these, four were decorated. Additional offerings of celts were found by Drucker, Heizer, and Squier in later excavations (1959, pp. 133ff, figs. 32-34). For example. Offering Number 1 had 20 large, roughly made "pseudo celts" of serpentine; Offering Number 2 had 51 neatiy placed in layers. Wedel and Stirling found one offering with 253 celts. A cache of both celts and "pseudo celts" of serpentine were found beneath Monument 21 at San Lorenzo by M. D. Coe (personal communication). The celts reported by Weiant (1943, p. 120, pi. 72, 1-14) from Tres Zapotes (chart 4?33) were made of fine-grained hard stone and conform to the rec? tangular category. Apparendy only one jade axe is in the collection. This is perhaps nearer to the petaloid form than are the other axes. Celts were quite rare at Cerro de las Mesas (Drucker, 1955, pp. 58-60, pi. 48k). An unusual carved jade celt was, Drucker suggests, hafted like an adze. From El Trapiche and Chalahuites, Garcia Payon (1966, p. 171, pi. 81, 6-7) found several "chisels" made of hard stone. These are round in section and have narrow bits. As he says, there are no points of comparison with the celts from Tres Zapotes and La Venta. MacNeish found no celts in his excavations at Panuco. Ekholm (1944, p. 490, fig. 56a-p) describes both adzes, rectangular in section with asymmetrical blades, and small rectangular celts, oval in section. All come from Periods 5 and 6 (A.D. 900-1500). One adze was made of gray-green jade, while the remainder as well as the celts were "of fine-grain stones." The adzes of the Poverty Point Phase in the Lower Mississippi Valley were of chipped stone with little or no evidence of grinding on the blade (Ford and Webb, 1956, p . 89, figs. 29f-g, 31 a-c) . The 69 items mistakenly described as "ground stone adzes" (op. cit., pp. 89-91) are in reality what Drucker called "pseudo celts" at La Venta: crudely smoothed and made of soft green stone that could have had no utility for cutting wood. In one instance a cache of six of these objects was found at the Callion site in Arkansas. This is reminiscent of their common occurrence in caches at La Venta. To date, 129 of these crude green stone celts have been found at Poverty Point. This compares with 45 complete rectanguloid celts, 76 fragments, and two very handsome petaloid celts, one of serpentine, the other of hard gray stone. Both of these latter are thick oval in cross-section, and have slighdy rounded symmetrical blades (chart 4-27). Chipped stone celts continue into the Marksville Phase (Ford and Willey, 1940, p . 105, fig. 47o-r). Ground stone celts with oval cross-section, made of gray-green diorite and other igneous rock, were also found (chart 4?26, 4-28). One of these approaches the petaloid form (op. cit., fig. 49a). Celts are not common in the Troyville Phase, for the blade of only one occurred in the extensive excavation at Green? house, and none came from Greengo's (1964) excava? tions in the Yazoo Basin. Willey (1949a, pp. 393, 449, pi. 42h-i) in his summary of the northwest coast of Florida, illustrates celts of oval section and pointed polls (chart 4, 23-24) from the Santa Rosa and Weeden Island Phases (100 B.C-A.D. 700). A celt with more rounded poll (chart 4?25; op. cit., pi. 42j) is illustrated for the Fort Walton Phase (ca. A.D. 1200), and this form also occurs in Weeden Island. Goggin (1952, pp. 115-116) notes that celt-like cutting tools were made of the heavy lip of the pink conch, Strombus gigas. Stone celts made of hard local limestones and igneous and other imported rock, occur in the St. Johns i and II Periods (chart 4, 21-22). Most fall into the rec? tangular class (op. cit., pi. 6e-g), but "an occasional one is similar in form to the petaloid celt of the West Indies (pi. 6 H ) . " The Hopewellian Mandeville site located in the lower Chattahoochee River Basin yielded pointed poll greenstone celts, oval in section, which conform to what we are here calling petaloid (chart 4-20; Kellar, Kelly, and McMichael, 1962, fig. 3L-M) . Wauchope (1966, pp. 180-185, figs. 114, 251a-m) describes two classes of polished celts in north Georgia. Those with oval section and squared or tapered polls first occur in "Late Archaic or Early Woodland con? text." The second class is thin, flat, and rectangular in section. GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 53 In a summary of Archaic traits. Fowler (1959a, table 10) places chipped stone adzes as beginning by at least 6000 B . C , ground stone adzes at about 4000 B.C., and celts at 2000 B . C , based on their occurrence in the Kentucky Archaic shell middens. The latter date is probably a thousand years too early, since these items first appear consistently over the Midwest with the earliest Hopewell and Adena cultural manifestations. Polished stone celts are first recorded in the Baumer Phase of Early Woodland about 1000 B . C (Fowler, 1961, p. 17, fig. 4), where they are rectangular in shape (chart 4?10). The celt with pointed poll, thick and oval in section (chart 4?8), occurs in the fully developed Hopewell beginning about 300 B . C (McGregor, 1961, fig. 6), but the rectangular form continues. Copper celts are an element of Illinois as well as Ohio Hopewellian. These are thin, rectangular in section, and the blades were evidentiy sharpened by hammering, which produced a characteristic splaying (Mills, 1907, figs. 28-30). This feature was sometimes copied in the oudine of the stone celts. Webb and Snow (1945, p. 88) mention "celts of granite, and other igneous rock" as a common Adena trait. The Adena type was short and rectangular. The stone celts from the Ohio Hopewell sites are usually fairly long, thick oval in cross-section with tapered polls and rounded bits (chart 4, 2 -3 ; She? trone, 1926, figs. 4 1 ^ 4 ; Mills, 1907, fig. 62). Celts with squared polls were also made, but tend to have elongated proportions, rather than the short rec? tangular form. They were made of granite and other igneous stone. Apparently hornblende and other greenstones are not common. Both pointed poll and square poll celts of oval cross-section last on into the Mississippian phases in the eastern United States (A.D. 900-1700). They are occasionally made of greenstone. Monolithic stone axes, in which both blade and handle are carved, are an element of the Southeastern Cult dating about A.D. 1400. Small chipped axe blades with sharp round cutting edges appear in the Lower Mississippi Valley at this same time. Summary Full-grooved stone axes appear in the late phase of the North American Archaic, shortly before 4000 or 5000 B.C., and their origin is not clear. These are joined about 1000 B.C by three-quarter grooved axes, a form that enters southwestern United States chronologies a millenium later. The occurrence of full-grooved stone axes in Mesoamerica is securely dated in only two instances about 1200-500 B.C This form may have spread down the eastern side of the Andes into highland Peru and northwestern Argentina about A.D. 500. T-shaped stone axes apparently began about 2500 B.C. in Ecuador, but there is a gap in information of 1500 years before they become a fairly common ele? ment in the highland Peruvian cultures. In stone and bronze forms, they are characteristic tools of the Inca. Diffusion seems to be northward into Colombia, where they date after A.D. 500. It is possible that the earlier celt-like tools of South America, beginning in the Valdivia culture and spreading briefly into Peru in the Chavin Phase, were hafted as adzes. The origin of the stone celt with eliptical cross- section is obscure. We are distinguishing here between rectangular and petaloid outlines. Both first appear at 1200 B.C. in the Olmec area of Veracruz, where jade petaloid celts are particularly abundant. They are found rather sparingly in other Mesoamerican chro? nologies. The diffusion seems to be southward, as they arrive on the north coast of Colombia about 800 B.C. in rectangular form, and in petaloid form about A.D. 500. Both rectangular and petaloid celts occur in the Poverty Point Phase in the Lower Mississippi Valley between 1200 and 400 B.C They apparentiy begin on the northwest coast of Florida after 500 B.C , and in the Mobile Bay area there is a suggestion that the petaloid form may be older than the rectangular. This same date (500 B . C ) seems to hold for coastal and North Georgia. In the Illinois and Ohio areas, the rectangular form of celt seems to be the earlier, beginning about 900 B .C , and was joined by the petaloid form at the start of Classic Hopewell (ca. 300-200 B.C.). It is perhaps significant that many of the celts in North America on the Hopewell horizon are made of a greenish serpentine hornblende, the available material most similar in appearance to the jade so commonly employed on the Mexican Gulf coast a few hundred years earlier. Caches of what Drucker calls "pseudo celts," so abundant at La Venta (1200^00 B . C ) , are reported for Chiapas ii (800-550 B . C ) , and for Poverty Point (1200^00 B . C ) . He (1952) has sug? gested that La Venta celts were probably objects of value. This may be the origin of the copper axe money found in the Milagro Phase of the coast of Ecuador and in western Mexico. Functional copper axes were also in use in the Andes at this time. Celts with curved human faces reminiscent of those found at La Venta, occur in the Regional Developmental Period (500 B.C-A.D. 500) on coastal Ecuador. 54 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 Grinding Stones for Preparing Food C H A R T 5 Among peoples who partially subsisted on wild seeds, some method of grinding was a necessity. From the dinosaurs up through the birds, nature provided a gizzard, and stones were ingested to grind the food, but unfortunately evolution did not give man this convenient device. It is useful to differentiate between milling stones, which are irregularly shaped, flat slabs of rock on which a natural cobble handstone was used with a rotary motion; mortars, which tend to be deeper stone containers and on which a pestle was used with a pounding motion; and metates, flat slabs of stone on which a mano was used with a back and forth motion. In eastern North America, milling stones are absent in Paleo-Indian sites and first occur in the Early Archaic. In the Stanfield-Worley Rock Shelter of northern Alabama, they are lacking in Dalton complex levels, which have dates of 7690?450 B.C and 6970?400 B.C (Dejarnette, et al., 1962, p. 85). In the upper levels of this locality, both grinding stones with small dimple-like depressions (called "nutting stones"), and bell-shaped pesties occur. While milling stones were not found, this lack is probably the luck of excavation. The initial date for the appearance of these items at this site is not known. For comparison with his work at Modoc Rock Shelter in southern Illinois, Fowler (1959a, table 10) has analyzed the occurrence of grinding stones in early sites in southern Illinois, western Kentucky, and eastern Missouri. Radiocarbon dates indicate that "simple grinding stones" (milling stones), "pitted grinding stones" (deeper milling stones), nut stones, pebble hand stones, and bell-shaped pesties all appear between 8000 and 6000 B.C In the Piedmont region of North Carolina, J. L. Coe (1964, p. 115) found the earliest nut stones and large flat slabs on which "the grinding stone or mano was used with a circular motion" in his Halifax com? plex, which has a radiocarbon date of 3484 ? 3 5 0 B.C (M-523). The milling stones of the Eastern Archaic were presumably used for the grinding of wild seeds and nuts. Positive evidence of maize agriculture dates from about the beginning of the present era, but indirect evidence in the form of large sites in terrain suitable for agriculture, suggests that this practice was intro? duced into the East by 1200 B.C The discovery of a Mesoamerican Formative type metate fragment and loaf-shaped mano at the Poverty Point site, reinforces this suggestion. The fragment was rectangular with rounded corners, 35 cm. long, 6 cm. thick, and dished on one side (chart 5-20). A similar metate, oval in shape, 10 cm. thick, and 40 cm. long, is described by Wimberly and Tourtelot (1941, p. 14) from the McQuorquodale Mound (chart 5-14; Hopewell, ca. A.D. 1). This had been used on both faces, and in addition to the major concavity, there was a small nut-stonelike dimple at one end on each face. If these are introduced examples of the Meso? american back and forth mano-metate method of grinding, they had no permanent influence on the customs of later agriculturalists in eastern North America, for milling stones continued to be typical artifacts on village sites until the end of the aboriginal period. The bell-shaped pestle, however, disappears from this tradition before 1000 B . C In historic times, the wooden mortar and pestie were in common use. Just when this practice began is not known. Sears reports the finding of a wooden pestle at the Fort Center site in south Florida. This has Hope? wellian affiliations and should date A.D. 100. Jennings (1964) has summarized the Archaic Desert culture in the southwestern United States. Flat milling stones and pebble handstones are char? acteristic of the small-seed harvesting culture, and at Gypsum Cave have been dated back to 8500 B . C They are also characteristic of the Sulphur Spring stage of the Cochise culture dating about 5000 B . C , where they were found associated with remains of the American horse, dire wolf, and mammoth. Jennings (op. cit., pp. 161-162) says that in the Great Basin after A.D. 1, the flat milling stone gave way to the mortar and pestle. He thinks that the use of mortars among many groups marked a greater em? phasis on larger seeds, acorns, and pine nuts and reduced dependence on grass seed. Mortars, rather deep and crude versions of the stone bowls made during the Snaketown sequence, run from Pioneer (A.D. 1) to recent periods. Basin-type metates with an eliptical basin in which a short handstone was used with a rotary motion, gradually decrease in frequency and end at the beginning of the Classic Period (A.D. 1100). The manos were short and loaf-shaped. Trough metates with elongated manos used with a back and forth motion, appear in the Pioneer stage and run through the Classic (A.D. 1-1300). These metates are obviously of the Meso? american Formative type. None have the feet that developed between 1000 and 1 B .C in that region. On the California coast, Heizer (1964, pp. 126ff) describes flat slab metates and bowl mortars in the Early Horizon of the Sacramento Valley (ca. 4000- 2000 B.C.). The Middle Horizon (2000 B . C - A . D . 300) has slab metates, but deep wooden mortars with stone pestles are the most common seed grinding tool. Large stone mortars, both bowl and slab forms with GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 55 a basketry hopper attached, are characteristic of the Late Horizon after A.D. 300. The preceramic cultures of Mesoamerica are best known from MacNeish's excavations in Tamaulipas, Chiapas, and particularly Tehuacan. The Tehuacan sequence gives the clearest picture of seed grinding techniques. MacNeish (1961, fig. 15) indicates that milling stones run from approximately 6000-3000 B.C. The bell-shaped pestie was in use between 6000 and 4000 B .C (chart 5-28). The flat metate replaced the milling stone about 4000 B.C and lasted until approximately 1000 B.C (chart 5-27), when it was replaced by the metate with legs (chart 5-26). It is worth noting that the adoption of the metate on which grinding was done by back and forth motion, is correlated with an increased dependence on maize agriculture. Also beginning slightiy before 6000 B.C in the Tehuacan sequence are deep globular stone vessels, which may have been used as mortars in this early phase, but by 3000 B.C before the appearance of ceramics, these had clearly developed into well- made, thin-walled containers. The early deep stone mortars resemble those of the California coast of the same time range. Trough metates came from the excavations by Medellin, Wallrath, and Ford at Chalahuites and Limoncito on the coast of Veracruz. Garcia Payon (1966, p. 171, fig. 80) also found some very crude examples from Chalahuites and El Trapiche. He il? lustrates a long cylindrical mano (chart 5-22). From Tres Zapotes, Weiant (1943, p. 118, pis. 66-5, 67-2, 68-13) found three metates with tripod feet. These had long manos, which extended over the edge (chart 5-21); they came from the upper levels of the site. In reference to his "Middle Cultures" in the Valley of Mexico, Vaillant (1931, pi. 46) says that "The metates, manos, and grinding stones do not show any very visible change from one period to another. The Early Period deposits do not yield nearly so many fragments as the Middle or Late Period debris, but this may not be significant in the development of material culture, for the Early Period strata showed more evidence of discarded rubbish than of occupa? tion. The support of metates is tripod. . . ." The metates Lorenzo (1965, pp. 35-40) describes from Tlatilco were the trough type with both ends closed (chart 5-25). Outline was rectangular or oval and specimens showed varying degrees of use. There were flat-based metates as well as those having two legs to give them the inclination desirable for grind? ing. Manos, classified in some detail, range from oval to square in section and are the short form consistent with the trough-type metate. In regard to mortars at Tlatilco, Lorenzo (op. cit., p. 38) says, " I t appears that the inventiveness of the people of Tlatilco rose to a great height." Examples are circular, oval, or rectangular in shape, and some have three or four feet. The pestles are conical or bell-shaped. These items are not shown on chart 5, but it is clear that they are related to the late Mesoamerican mortars and pestles rather than to the crude tools of the Archaic. In Teotihuacan times, metates still retained the feature of legs, but generally were used with long cylindrical manos that extended over the edges of metates, so that they wore flat surfaces rather than the troughs characteristic of the Formative. In the Santa Marta Rock Shelter, MacNeish and Peterson (1962, p. 28, pi. 5Ac) found river pebble mullers that had been used with a circular motion (chart 5-31). The milling stones were crude irregular slabs. The authors note: "Mullers or metates made in the same manner and probably used for the same purpose are common in northern Mexico in pre? ceramic complexes in the period from 8000 to 4000 years ago." There were also two nut stones from the lower levels, which date between 6770 B.C. and the beginning of ceramics at about 1500 B.C. (chart 5-32). Dixon (1959, fig. 53e-g) found trough-shaped metates in Pit 50 at Chiapa de Corzo (Chiapa i, 1400-800 B.C.). These are crudely shaped, but are clearly metates rather than milling stones (chart 5-30). Exactly when trough metates acquired feet or were replaced by flat metates in the Chiapas sequence is not clear. Agrinier (1964) mentions metate fragments in discussing the burials, but gives no details. Crude milling stones or metates, rectangular and circular in outiine, were found by M. D. Coe (1961, p. 102) in the Ocos Phase deposits at La Victoria on the coast of Guatemala (chart 5-36). He notes that these are similar to examples found by MacNeish in Tamaulipas. Small bell-shaped pesties were an associated artifact (chart 5-35; op. cit., p. 102, fig. 51p). Trough-shaped metates and short manos begin in Cuadros (Coe and Flannery, 1967, p. 63, pi. 21k, 1), and last into the Conchas Phase (chart 5-34; M. D. Coe, 1961, p. 106, fig. 43). Just when metates with legs were introduced into Guatemala is not clear, but trough metates, both oval somewhat crude ones and rectangular very well-made forms with three legs, come from the Esperanzo Phase (A.D. 400) at the site of Kaminaljuyu (chart 5-33; Kidder, Jennings, and Shook, 1946, pp. 140-141). The manos are short. Two large mortars were also found. At the Puerto Hormiga site on the north coast of Colombia, Reichel-Dolmatoff (1965, pp. 38-39, pi. 7) found four examples of milling stones, which were flat slabs 15-20 cm. in diameter and 3-4 cm. thick with an oval depression on one face (chart 5-40). 56 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 1 1 He says, " I t is evident that the movement of the handstones utilized for grinding was circular." Forty-one oval stones were found that showed use as hammers, but which may also have been used for grinding. Like Puerto Hormiga, the Barlovento site was a village of coastal dwelling people who subsisted on seafood. Milling stones were not found. Instead, there were 17 examples of oval cobbles, flattened on two faces. Many of them not only had a depression in each of the flat faces but also similar depressions worked into the edges. Although these resemble nut stones of the North American Archaic, the symmetrical arrangement of the depressions is unusual (chart 5-39). In the Momil ii Phase, Gerardo and Alicia Reichel- Dolmatoff (1956, p. 229, pi. 26-1) describe and illustrate typical Mesoamerican Formative metates; 20 examples were found. They are large sheets of rock, roughly oval or rectangular in shape, approximately 20 by 20 cm. (chart 5, 37-38). There were 59 manos showing extensive signs of use. These are oval or rec? tangular, 15-18 cm. long, 5 cm. in diameter, and taper to the ends. This is the time (500-1 B . C ) that numerous ceramic resemblances to Mesoamerica first appear on the north coast of Colombia. The fact that flat plates, which may be manioc griddles (op. cit., fig. 15), disappear when metates come into the Momil sequence, suggests that the cultivation of maize replaced manioc at the beginning of Momil ii. The metate and mano do not seem to persist into the later periods. In Colombia, in fact, grinding stones are extremely rare. The economy of the Valdivia sites on coastal Ecuador was oriented toward the sea, and maize agriculture did not arrive on the north coast of Peru until about 1500 B .C For this reason, it is somewhat unexpected to find what appear to be Mesoamerican- type metate and mano fragments running through the Valdivia Phase. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada (1965, p. 27, fig. 11, pi. 16d-f) say that the metates are ovoid or rectangular in outline with round corners (chart 5 - 41). They have been used on one face, so that they have the trough form. The corresponding manos are flattened ovals in section and are well worn on one face. In the Machalilla Phase, there were no metates, but an oval handstone was found that had been pecked into shape. The wear implies that this mano was rubbed across a large grinding slab (op. cit., p. 112). Estrada (1958, p. 107) indicates that metates with feet come from the Chorrera Phase. This seems, however, to be based on an example found by Dorsey from the island of La Plata, and the dating is uncer? tain. Two metate fragments are listed by Estrada, Meggers, and Evans (1964, p. 497) from the Jambeli Phase of the Regional Developmental Period (500 B . C - A . D . 500). These have concave working surfaces. Meggers (1966, p. 104) also lists trough-shaped metates for the Tolita Phase of this same period. They evidentiy lasted into the Mantefio Phase of the Inte? gration Period (A.D. 500-1500). Estrada (1957, p. 144) describes Manteno manos as extending beyond the edges of the metates, having protuberances on the ends. He makes a comparison to Ekholm's Huasteca sequence. Periods ii-vi. Grinding stones and manos are also found in the Puruha Phase in the central highlands. Izumi and Sono (1963, table 11, p. 148, pi. 177) found 12 manos and metates in the two upper levels of Mound KT at Kotosh in highland Peru. These are first in the Sajara-patac-San Bias Periods (200-1 B . C ) . Some of the so-called metates illustrated (op. cit., pi. 177-3, 6) have circular depressions, and the grinding was probably done with a rotary motion. Others, however, are clearly of the Mesoamerican trough type, and consistentiy have closed ends (chart 5-42). The authors state (op. cit., p. 125) that most examples are more than 30 cm. in diameter; the largest measures one meter in diameter and weighs 441 pounds. Shape is circular, elliptical, or rectangular. Rough globular, oval, or cylindrical manos were found, and some of them in place on the metates. Also illustrated from Kotosh are a few stones with small pits, superficially similar to the nut stones of the North American Archaic (op. cit., pis. 175, 12-13; 176, 1-2). Their use is uncertain and since they are not listed in chronological tabulations, this feature is not shown on chart 5. Stone containers that Tello (1960, pp. 300-304) terms ceremonial mortars are a feature of Chavin culture both in the highlands and on the coast. These range from vertical-sided flat-bottom bowls to elabo? rately carved birds and pumas with the bowls ex? cavated in their backs. Exterior surfaces are engraved. That these were actually used for grinding food seems doubtful. Their small size and excellent finish argue against rough household use. The presence of maize is demonstrated at Kotosh by a drawing on a bottie from the earlier Kotosh Kotosh Phase (ca. 1000 B . C ) , and it seems strange that the arrival of the Meso- american-type metate was delayed for six to eight centuries. Manos and metates do not seem to last into later times in the Peruvian highlands. The making of breads is not a common Andean custom as it is in Mesoamerica, and the Peruvian Indians often consume their corn in the form of chicha. Engel (1958, p . 38) says that metates appear in the preceramic levels of Culebras and Otuma, but are very slightly developed. The examples he illustrates GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 57 from the Valley of Asia (1963, figs. 174-175) have oval depressions and look more like milling stones than true metates (chart 5-43). The handstones (op. cit., fig. 169) used with them are oval beach cobbles that suggest a circular grinding motion. Willey and Corbett (1954, pi. 10m) illustrate a "stone metate" from the Aspero midden in Supe. Its details cannot be determined from the illustration, and the object is not described. A sandstone grinding slab came from the Huaca Negra site in Vini (Strong and Evans, 1952, p. 22). This had two faces, but again the method of grinding is not clear. Both were in a coastal Chavin context. Grinding stones do not occur in the later phases of the Peruvian coast. Summary Milling stones are quite characteristic of the Archaic of North America, coming into use after the end of the Paleo-Indian occupation (ca. 8000-6000 B . C ) . They are accompanied by nut stones (use unknown), and in the Late Archaic by small bell-shaped pesties. Milling stones continue in the eastern United States until historic times, and the wooden pestie and mortar began to be employed by the beginning of this era, if not before. Deep stone mortars appear on the North American Pacific coast about 4000 B.C Milling stones and occasionally nut stones are found in the Late Archaic in the Andean region, but disappear after the begin? ning of pottery-making. But for one anomaly, the history of the mano and metate would seem to be quite clear. The trough metate with a short mano begins in the highland Mexican area about 4000 B .C , and is associated with developing maize agriculture. Between 1000 and 500 B.C. the metate is provided with legs, and later the basin changes from the trough with either open or closed ends to the flat form used with a mano that projects beyond the sides. This latter remains in use in Middle America today. The early trough metate intrudes weakly into the Mississippi Valley between 1200 and 400 B.C Diffusion to South America is somewhat stronger, and it appears on the north coast of Colombia and in the central highlands of Peru shortly after 400 B.C. The anomaly in the distribution is the unexpected presence of trough metates on the coast of Ecuador at 2000 B.C Here, this tool continued in use until contact times. In Peru, it went out of use shortiy after A.D. 500. SMALL O R N A M E N T S A N D ARTIFACTS The Lapidary Industry: Beads CHART 6 While beads made of shell are a characteristic trait for the Late Archaic of the eastern United States, the manufacture of beads of hard stone is rare. Where they are found, there is reason to suspect a late date and possible Theocratic Formative influence. At the Carlson Annis shell mound in Kentucky, W. S. Webb (1950, pp. 300, 304) lists 9,646 shell beads, 1 copper bead, and 62 stone beads. These latter are made of soft stones: limestone, slate, and sandstone, and a substantial number are fossilized crinoid stems, a natural bead form that only needs drilling. This lack of emphasis on small stone ornaments seems to be paralleled in the Desert culture of western North America, which extended from Oregon to southern highland Mexico in Late Archaic times. The use of olivella and haliotis shell for ornaments is characteristic, but in his survey, Jennings (1964) makes no mention of stone beads except in the Congdon ii Phase of Oregon, where they are associated with other probably Formative traits (nephrite celts, figurines, tubular pipes, cremated burials). MacNeish's (1958; with Peterson, 1962) work in preceramic deposits in Tamaulipas and Chiapas, Mexico, and his unpublished excavations in Tehuacan Valley, seem to support the picture of a virtual absence of small beads and other ornaments carved of hard stone in the Archaic Period. The preceramic cultures are poorly known or un? known for lower Middle America and the northern part of the Andean region. It is doubtiess significant, however, that beads made of hard stone are missing from the early ceramic phases. For example, Willey and McGimsey (1954) do not report them from either the Monagrillo or Alvina Phases in Panama. They also are lacking from all of the early ceramic phases on the north coast of Colombia. On the Ecuadorian coast stone beads are not found before the beginning of the Regional Developmental Period at 500 B.C Engel (1958, p. 39) does not list stone beads in his survey of preceramic sites on the Peruvian coast, but did find crude beads of lapis lazuli, steatite, and 58 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 jadite in Unit 1 in Asia (Engel, 1963, pp. 54-55, fig. 122). As Chavinoid elements such as jet mirrors were also found, these beads may reflect this influence. A radiocarbon date of 1225?25 B.C for this excava? tion confirms this impression. Beginning about 1200 B.C. what may very well be termed a lapidary industry appears in the American Formative. In addition to the beads made of hard and rare stone that will be the central theme of this discussion, a variety of small pendants, realistic carvings of birds, and other items were manufactured. Evidence of this industry is most abundant and perhaps earliest in the Olmec sites on the Gulf coast of Mexico. Here, emphasis was not only on monu? mental stone carving, but also on the manufactuie of beads, pendants, earspools, and small masks of mottled green and white, yellowish green, and pale bluish green jade, serpentine, hematite, rock crystal (quartz), amethyst, and obsidian. Drucker (1952, pp. 166-168) says that the two basic forms of beads at La Venta were subspherical (chart 6, 13-14) and cylindrical (chart 6, 18-19). In addition he illustrated thin disk beads (chart 6-15). These three classes will be used here for descriptive purposes. Barrel-shaped beads will be included in the rubric subspherical. Bead perforations are usually biconical. No in? stances were found of cylindrical drilling, which would indicate the use of a hollow drill. Although a few of the spherical beads are gadrooned, plain cylindrical beads from 3-6 cm. long are most common. Some have been modified by forming raised nodes on them suggesting sections of bamboo stem. Others have grooves around them at intervals as though the intention was to cut them into a number of pieces. These however, were ornamental. Two beads were carved in the form of duck heads. Large tubular beads were occasionally associated with earspool flares at La Venta (Drucker, 1952, p. 168). A similar association at Kaminaljuyu (Kidder, et al., 1946, p. 113) suggests that these were used for ear pendants. The excavations by Drucker, Heizer, and Squier (1959) added substantially to examples of the Olmec lapidary industry, but discovered no new bead forms. Beads were manufactured by sawing into form, probably with sandstone saws (op.cit., pi. 44a), and then drilled from either end. From Tres Zapotes, Weiant (1943, p. 120, pi. 75) illustrates roughly spherical jade beads and small pendants. They are said to be moderately abundant, especially at the Ranchito site. Beads are fairly prominent in the Cerro de las Mesas offerings (Drucker, 1955, pp. 60-67, pis. 5 1 - 54); 303 were found. The poor grade of jade, usual at La Venta, was less commonly used. Other types of stone included calcite, serpentine, and a blue and white material that looked like turquoise. There was one alabaster bead. Many of the beads were irregular, unshaped pebbles; others approached the spherical form (chart 6, 11-12), and some of these were gad? rooned; in one case the grooves were spiral. Tubular (chart 6-16) and "barrel-shaped" examples graded into one another. Several of the tubular beads are decorated. One has a face made by sawed lines and drill pits (chart 6-17). Three have spiral grooves, while five have encircling grooves cut at one or both ends. Drucker notes that although the Cerro de las Mesas lapidary industry seems to have a definite Maya flavor, there are no specimens that can be recognized as trade pieces. In view of the comparative lack of the manufacture of beads, earspool flares, pendants, and other small objects in jade in the Chiapas sequences in southern Mexico, it might be suggested that the early Maya industry as illustrated by Kidder, et al. (1946, figs. 143-153), is probably derived directiy from the Olmec area. The Olmec lapidary industry also pro? vides a very probable source for the later beads, earspools, and other ornaments so common at the later highland sites of central Mexico. The flat disk form of bead seems to be confined to the La Venta site, and this shape is also missing in the early Maya site of Kaminaljuyu. Considering the large number of burials uncovered in the Tlatilco Cemetery in the Valley of Mexico, beads of stone or shell are remarkably scarce. Lorenzo (1965, pp. 47-53, figs. 60-89) describes 100 small irregular-shaped disk beads, which came from a collar about the neck of one burial (chart 6, 21-22). These have flat faces, angular roughly shaped edges, bi? conical perforations, and are made of an unidentified green stone. They resemble the greenish slate beads from Poverty Point. The terminology used here is different from Lorenzo's: The single globular bead (op. cit., fig. 61) is a disk bead in my terminology, while his cylindrical bead (op. cit., fig. 62) conforms to my class of globular. Only three globular beads, all made of green jadite, were found at Tlatilco. The discovery of an oval bead (op. cit., fig. 63), two imita? tion teeth, and a bird bead will be discussed later. Beads are equally scarce in Vaillant's Valley of Mexico sites. At El Arbolillo he found one of the crude flat discoidal beads and another spherical bead from the burial of a baby of late El Arbolillo i date (Vaillant, 1935, p. 244, fig. 25, 8-9). A "jaguar-tooth pendant" was purchased at the site. From Zacatenco he obtained one large bead or pendant made of soapstone (Vaillant, 1931, pi. 41-5). At Ticoman there were a few pottery beads and only two of stone, apparentiy spherical in form. One was of jade, the only jade GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 59 ornament at the site. Vaillant (1935, p. 245) notes that in addition to jade ornaments, turquoise, pyrites, and "lucky stones" of quartz, opal, etc. were fairly fre? quent. The fact that cylindrical beads have not been described for this horizon may be a matter of chance. Most references are simply to "beads." Beads are not very abundant in the Pre-Classic Chiapas sequence. Sanders (1961, p. 43) lists a large tubular bead crudely carved from limestone, ap? parentiy from Phases iv and v (Chiapilla). Lowe (1962, pi. 6b') illustrates a small jade bead of un? certain shape that dates in Phase vii. Although he does not deal with stone work, Peterson (1963, p. 114) reports that pottery beads, while scarce at Mirador, were found in levels iv and v. Both spherical and tubular shapes are present. Navarette (1959, p. 5) found a few cylindrical jade beads in the tomb from the San Agustin site which seem to date Late Pre-Classic (Chiapa iv-v) . Agrinier (1964) lists the archeological burials from Chiapa de Corzo. While the number of burials for each phase varies con? siderably, a review of the occurrence of hard stone beads shows that most are of jade, and the greatest number occur in the Francesca Phase (Chiapa iv, 450-250 B.C.). While the shapes of most beads are not indicated, a necklace formed of 153 tubular jade beads (chart 6, 24?25), a bracelet made of 126 smaller tubular jade beads for the left arm, and 32 small circular beads for the right arm were found with Burial 115. This also had 50 tiny "circular" (disk) jade beads (chart 6-23) and 40 small olivella shells were in the pelvic region (op. cit., pp. 24-25). M. D. Coe (1961, p. 108) and Coe and Flannery (1967) have analyzed 27,500 sherds from the La Vic? toria site, and 66,220 from Salinas La Blanca, covering the time from 1400 B . C - A . D . 200 on the coast of Guatemala. In these refuse deposits they found only two beads; one a small, biconically drilled green jade globular bead (chart 6-26), the other a cylindrical pottery bead. The jade bead came from Conchas ii levels. This is the more remarkable because these sites are very near the early Maya region of highland Guatemala, where a few centuries later beads and other work in jade are abundant. Stone beads are not found in the sites of the Forma? tive sequence on the north coast of Colombia. Gerardo and Alicia Reichel-Dolmatoff (1956, pp. 230-233), however, list small pendants, buttons, and other orna? ments made of green slate, steatite, fossilized wood, green diorite, and other stone materials in the Momil phases (700-1 B . C ) . Apparently, the use of stone for the manufactured ornaments first becomes popular at this time on the north coast of South America. In addition, there are a number of ornaments and small objects of unknown use made of shell and bone (op. cit., pp. 244?253). Stone beads are also lacking in San Agustin, Cupica, and other Colombian sites dating before A.D. 500. They do, however, become fairly abundant in the Quimbaya Phase of the Lower Cauca Valley (W. C. Bennett, 1944b, p. 76). Small ornaments do not appear in the Ecuadorian sequence before the beginning of the Regional Developmental Period at 500 B.C Shell pendants, disk beads, and small bird and human figures were found in the Jambeli culture (Estrada, Meggers, Evans, 1964, pp. 491-502). In this same phase are beads made of basalt, shale, serpentine, and chlorite schist (op. cit., fig. 13). These are both disk and globular shaped (chart 6, 27-28). Beads and pendants of ceramics, bone, and stone came from all levels at the Kotosh site. There were 26 ceramic beads, 7 made of bone, and 19 tubular beads of stone (Izumi and Sono, 1963, p. 126, tables 11-13). The illustration of stone beads (op. cit., pi. 110b, 1-21) shows globular (chart 6, 29-30), tubular (chart 6-32), and disk forms (chart 6-31). The type of stone is not specified. In addition to beads, there are a number of thin stone pendants of rectangular, triangular, and circular shapes as well as small bead-like objects carved in the form of birds' heads. While in accordance with the distribution listed in Izumi and Sono's (1963) table 11, the bars representing the several stone bead types (chart 6) start at about 1500 B . C ; the earlier phases are represented by one example only, and it is by no means certain that the manufacture of stone beads extends back this far in the Peruvian highlands. Beads made of bird wing bone, both disk and tubular, fish vertebrae, shell, and stone, described by Engel (1963, pp. 52-54, figs. 118-123), are fairly common in the preceramic site excavated in the Valley of Asia on the south coast of Peru. Stone beads were discoidal, tubular, trapezoidal, oval, and sub- rectangular. Materials are lapis lazuli, reddish brown steatite, green serpentine, and crude jadite. This excavation has a terminal radiocarbon date of 1200 B.C. Engel (1958, p. 30) notes that polishing is confined to jewelry, particularly beads of semiprecious stone. He suggests that they probably had been traded from the highlands. His statement that biconical drilling of hard stone appears at the end of the preceramic seems to date these items. In their excavations at Ancon and Supe, Willey and Corbett (1954) found bird bone beads, but none made of stone. Carving of small objects of hard stone is a feature of the Gupisnique Phase on the north coast of Peru. Larco Hoyle (1941, fig. 149; 1946, p. 153) illustrates a plate of the more unusual bead forms. These are made of colored quartz, turquoise, porphyry, lapis lazuli, slate, and anthracite, and are in a variety of 60 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 shapes: globular (chart 6, 33-34), with incised circle and dot decoration or gadrooned, disk (chart 6, 35- 36), human feet, small bird figures, human figures, human teeth, and ladles. There are also small buttons provided with two holes drilled at an angle from the back side so that they intersect. In addition, there are small cups and boxes carved of hard stone, both elaborately decorated (Carrion Cachot, 1948, pi. 24). This highly developed lapidary industry on the Peruvian coast is the more striking because it did not continue through the phases immediately following Chavin. Beads from the Poverty Point sites in the Lower Mississippi are made predominantly of red jasper, but also of crystal quartz, fluorite, brown jasper, and a few of obsidian. Softer stone such as red and green slate was also used. Shapes range from long tubular (chart 6, 9-10), barrel-shaped (chart 6-6), and globular, to thin disks (chart 6-7). There are also hour-glass forms and tubular beads decorated by low spiral or zig-zag ridges (chart 6-8). In addition, some tubular beads have been carved into what seems to be a bird form. Small jasper bird figures resembling seated owls, with a perforation through the back of the neck, are a characteristic item. There are also small bird heads very similar to the jade items that Drucker called bangles, found at La Venta (Drucker, 1952). The Poverty Point lapidary industry includes a number of additional ornamental items that are not properly beads, and which will be discussed in a following sec? tion (Ford, Phillips, and Haag, 1955, p. 126; Ford and Webb, 1956, pp. 101-103, figs. 37-38). Considerable new information on the Poverty Point lapidary industry is being prepared for publication by Webb and Ford (ms). Included is a remarkable find of what seems to be a bead-maker's kit. This consists of pieces of red and green slate, which were in the process of being cut into long bars by sawing from both sides. Bars of this material are in various stages of being polished into cylindrical shape, and one bead blank 8 cm. long was partially drilled from both ends. As in all of the Poverty Point stone work, a solid drill is employed leaving a tapering hole. Stone beads are not a feature of the succeeding Tchefuncte Phase, and are very rare in the Marksville Phase sites that have been excavated in the Lower Mississippi Valley (Ford and Willey, 1940, pp. 124- 125). Copper (chart 6-5) and shell beads are present in all of these phases. Stone beads do not again become popular in the Lower Mississippi until after A.D. 1200. While a few shell beads are found along the Gulf coast of Florida, and copper beads and other orna? ments are found in the Santa Rosa Phase in the first centuries of this era, beads made of stone are very uncommon. Goggin (1952, p. 120) describes a few for the St. Johns area, but they are not placed in time. A single jasper bead is reported by Ferguson (1951, p. 44) from a context that might be early St. Johns. Since both Claflin (1931) and Williams (ed., 1968) have now adequately reported on the Stallings Phase, it is safe to say that stone beads are not a prominent element of this complex. In his survey of northem Georgia, Wauchope (1966, pp. 205-207) lists only two stone beads. Shell, bone, and pottery beads were found in the Georgia sites in the Mississippian Phase. Along the lower Tennessee River in northern Ala? bama, beads are most characteristic of the burials found in shell mounds such as the Perry site (Webb and Dejarnette, 1942, pp. 58-69). Thirty occurrences of shell beads are listed and 16 stone beads. Most of the latter were long tubular or globular beads made of jasper. Precise dates of these occurrences are un? certain. On the Hopewellian horizon in the eastern United States, there seems to be a tendency to make jewelry items such as earspools and finger rings of copper. This is reflected in the manufacture of beads (chart 6, 1-2). In general there are two types of copper beads found on this horizon. One is small and spherical, a drilled nugget, and the other is long and cylindrical, usually made by rolling a copper sheet. Rolled sheet copper beads were found by Wimberly and Tourtelot (1941, p. 8) in the Hopewellian McQuorquodale site in southern Alabama (chart 6-4). Although copper earspools, panpipes, and em? bossed plates came from the Crystal River site in Florida, beads were not found. They are, however, an element of the Hopewellian complex at the Mande? ville site on the lower Chattahoochee River in Georgia (chart 6 -3 ; Kellar, Kelly, and McMichael, 1962, fig. 3d). In Illinois, beads are usually of shell in the Late Archaic and Early Woodland phases. Crinoid stems were also used (Fowler, 1961, fig. 4). Tubular and globular copper beads begin in Early Woodland, but become typical of the "Middle Woodland" or Classic Hopewell Phase (McGregor, 1959, fig. 5). At the Caterpillar Mound, Bluhm and Beeson (1960, fig. 5) found tubular copper beads on a string wound about the end of a wooden staff (chart 6-2). Usually, how? ever, they are found at the neck, wrist, or ankles. Bone, shell (particularly conch columella), silver, and pearl beads are also characteristic of Illinois Hopewell. While stone beads are not mentioned in the exten? sive tabulations of Adena Phase elements (Webb and Snow, 1945; Webb and Baby, 1957), there are numer? ous listings of pearl, shell, and copper beads. GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 61 The people of the Hopewell Phase of Ohio placed great emphasis on personal adornment, and beads were rather common. Many of these were made of the seashell marginella and the columella or Gulf coast conchs. Both tubular and globular copper beads were common (chart 6-1). Pearls were popular, and imitation pearls were made of clay and coated with powdered mica. Bird bones were also extensively used. Stone beads, however, are notable for their relative absence. It seems unnecessary to give a long list of references to demonstrate this point. The various types of beads so abundant in Ohio Hopewell mounds are adequately illustrated from the Hopewell group by Shetrone (1926, figs. 75-79). ?Summary Tubular, disk, and spherical beads were made prin? cipally of jade in the Olmec area beginning at 1200 B.C. They appear in the Formative levels of other Mesoamerican chronologies, although they are less abundant and other stones than jade are frequently used. Beads of hard stone are also a characteristic of the Chavin culture of Peru. Drilling with a solid drill is consistentiy found, except for one string found by Coe at the San Lorenzo site in the Olmec area. Similar beads made of hard stone, usually jasper, are abundant at Poverty Point in the Lower Mississippi Valley, and are occasionally found in the Late Archaic phases of the eastern United States. The Hopewell culture features beads, both tubular and globular, made of copper, shell, pearls, and more rarely of silver and meteoric iron. While shell and some stone beads continue in use, copper beads are quite rare in the eastern United States after A.D. 300. The Lapidary Industry: Small Ornaments FIGURES 3-5 In the Hopewell, Poverty Point, Olmec, Kotosh, and Gupisnique Phases, a number of small ornaments besides beads were manufactured of hard stone, and these show varying degrees of resemblances from one region to another. A careful comparison of the lapidary industries of these three regions would be highly desirable. Unfortunately the material from the Chavin-Cupisnique complex, principally in the collec? tions of the Museo Rafael Larco Herrera of Lima, has not been completely published, and existing publica? tions are not very clearly illustrated. In this section, therefore, the principal comparisons will be made of the Olmec and Poverty Point industries. Bird motifs are fairly common among the small stone carvings at La Venta. Drucker, Heizer, and Squier (1959, p. 148, pi. 27a) illustrate and describe a green? ish gray opaque jade plaque that represents a long- necked water bird (fig. 3_^ ). Drucker (1952, pp. 169- 170, fig. 48) also illustrates a fluted obsidian core upon which is engraved a very realistic representation of an eagle or other raptorial bird. Small seated owls similar to the jasper examples from Poverty Point were not found at La Venta; how? ever, the technique of suspending a figurine by means of a biconical hole drilled through the back of the neck, is present on some of the famous jade human figurines (Drucker, Heizer, and Squier, 1959, pi. 26). Weiant (1943, p. 120, pi. 74-3) illustrates "A nicely carved small parrott, of a hard yellow stone, perforated at the back of the neck, . . . said to have been found about a half mile north of Tres Zapotes" (fig. 3/). In the earlier excavations of La Venta, a large number of small carved pieces of jade were found, each with two or more perforations, ranging in length from 1-2 cm., and only about 2 mm. thick (fig. 3i; Drucker, 1952, p. 171, pi. 58). One face is polished, and the small perforations are conical or biconical. Drucker postulated that they were intended to be sewn to clothing. In the excavation of Drucker, Heizer, and Squier (1959, p. 166, pi. 37), 13 additional "spangles" were found in Offering No. 5. The authors remark that "Some of them more obviously represent birdheads than do those of the 1943 season. One which is particularly noteworthy is quite clearly intended to represent the head of a duck and has two small bits of crystal set into the perforations." The resemblance of these jade spangles to the 114 red jasper spangles from Poverty Point is striking. Tubular beads in the form of birdheads are also found at La Venta (fig. 3j; Drucker, 1952, p. 168, pi. 57 A p-q) . A brief discussion of realistic and "bird-monster" motifs in Olmec art is given by Drucker (op. cit., pp. 194-195). Small stone carvings are not particularly abundant in the Tlatilco Cemetery. Lorenzo (1965, pp. 48-49) illustrates a small limestone bird figure carved in the round (fig. 3h), 3.5 cm. long. This has a hole drilled through the breast for suspension. The Poverty Point complex in the Lower Mis? sissippi, and particularly the Poverty Point site, is famous for the dozens of small jasper bird effigies that have been found (fig. 3a-b). These range from 1.0-2.5 cm. in height, are carved in the round from hard jasper, and are realistic representations of small fat- bellied owls. A biconically drilled hole through the back of the neck provides suspension. In other cases the bird figures are drilled lengthwise, so that in reality they are tubular beads. This drilling is also biconical. A third group of Poverty Point bird repre? sentations consists of thin birdheads also made of 62 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS T O ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 1 1 Poverty Point-Hopewell Olmec - Tlatilco FIGURE 3.?Comparison of bird representations in the Poverty Point-Hopewell and Olmec-Tlatilco lapidary industries, a-c, f-h. Bird effigies, d, i. Thin spangles with bird features. e,j. Tubular beads, {a, after Ford and Webb, 1956, fig. 38i. b, d-e, after Webb and Ford, ms. c, after Mills, 1916, fig. 4 7 . / , after Weiant, 1943, pi. 74-3. g, after Drucker, Heizer, and Squier, 1959, pi. 27a. h, after Lorenzo, 1965, fig. 68. i-j, after Drucker 1952: i, pi. 58; j , pi. 57A-p.) jasper. These range from quite realistic representa? tions to T- and L-shaped objects, which would not be suspected of representing birds (fig. 3d) if the transi? tional forms were not present. A fourth type of carved tubular bead at Poverty Point, also biconically drilled and made of jasper, is not so clearly a representation of a bird. In fact, it is not so certain what is represented. At the Crystal River site of Florida, Moore (1903, p. 399, fig. 46) found a rock crystal pendant, which he suggests was carved to represent a bird. The abun? dance of pendants and beads from Crystal River (A.D. 1-600) probably justifies citing this complex as having a lapidary industry. Willey (1949a, p. 547), in reference to this time horizon for the Gulf coast of Florida says, " I n general, articles like stone beads, bar amulets, stone gorgets, stone pipes, and rock-crystal ornaments were more usual in Santa Rosa-Swift Creek than in Weeden Island." In the Classic Hopewell complex of Ohio, birds were realistically carved as the bowls for platform pipes (fig. 3c). A substantial number of these pipes have been found and the representation is so excellent that the species can usually be identified. They range from ducks to small perching birds. Although there is considerable work in small pieces of stone, particularly green slate, in the Momil Phases on the north coast of Colombia, there are no repre? sentations of birds in this material. An interest in birds as well as animals, however, is shown by pottery rim adornos (Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. and A., 1956, fig. 13). On the coast of Ecuador, small stone carving is rare before the beginning of the Regional Developmental Period at 500 B.C Small representations of birds and human figurines are in the Jambeli culture carved in shell (Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1964, figs. 8-9). Work in stone is somewhat more common in the Kotosh Phase of highland Peru. Among the objects illustrated by Izumi and Sono (1963, pi. 1 1 0 B - 2 2 , -27) are what appear to be small birdheads, which are suspended by holes through the eyes. The use of animal claws and teeth as pendants is a fairly common trait in many cultures. Representation of these items in bone and shell is also widely spread in time and space in the Americas. Imitations carved in jade, quartz, jasper, and other hard stones seem to have a more limited distribution, and are a peculiarity of certain Formative horizons in the Americas. Representations of animal canines, jaguar canines according to Drucker (fig. 4A;; Drucker, 1952, p. 162, pi. 57), occur at La Venta in pairs associated with earspools found accompanying burials, and apparently were pendants attached to these orna? ments. All of these representations are made of jade, and in several cases are hollowed on the back so that GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 63 the canines are translucent. In addition to the sets found in the early excavations, Drucker, Heizer, and Squier (1959, pi. 39) illustrate another set of jewelry, which also included canine representations. A single stone canine tooth came from Tres Zapotes (Weiant, 1943, pi. 76-13). Lorenzo (fig. 4:j; 1965, p. 48, fig. 64) records two stone canine teeth from Tlatilco. One is made of a green stone, the other of an unidentified stone. The perfora? tion on one tooth is biconical, on the other single- conical. Vaillant (fig. 4/; 1931, pi. 40; 1941, pi. 16) also illustrates a jade canine tooth ornament from Zacatenco. Five representations of either canine teeth or per? haps animal claws, have been collected from the Poverty Point site (fig. 4a-^) . One of these is green slate, another quartz crystal, and the remainder are red jasper. Three of these are somewhat more comma-shaped than are the realistic jade canine teeth of the Olmec culture, and in this respect more nearly resemble ceramic decorative motifs found on ceramics and carved in copper and mica in the Classic Hopewell of the Upper Mississippi Valley. The people of the Hopewell culture of Ohio were very much interested in animal teeth. They imported the canines of grizzly bears from the Rocky Mountains, and alligator teeth from the Lower Mississippi. Bear teeth are very commonly drilled and set with pearls. Imitation bear teeth of stone were found in the Hopewell Mound Group (Moorehead, 1922, fig. 35), and were represented in mica (Shetrone, 1926, fig. 139). Drilled dog, bear, and wolf canines, sometimes also set with pearls, are characteristic of the Classic Hopewell Phase of Ilhnois (Walker, 1952, pi. 8; Neumann and Fowler, 1952, pi. 77). As an interesting sidelight, Drucker (1952, p. 162, fig. 46a, pi. 52) illustrates a typical set of Olmec jewelry consisting of jade beads, a human dwarf figurine, and pulley-shaped earspools. In this instance the pendants represent animal jaws (fig. 4m), perhaps deer jaws with teeth and incisors indicated. These resemble two objects of bituminous shale from a Marksville Phase (100 B .C-A .D . 400) burial mound (fig. 4e), which Ford and Willey (1940, fig. 5lf) illustrate and describe as probably grasshopper effigies. It now seems clear that these items are shown upside down, and that the lines thought to represent division in the thorax of the insect really mark the molar teeth. The canines are broken off. These also are imitation animal jaws. Apparentiy the Formative people of the South American Andean region were littie interested in canine teeth as ornaments, either taken from the animal or imitation. This seems a littie strange in view of the common representation of the cat demon with his -^ J -'^^^^-^f-i'X^A^i'&.fti^i: Poverty Point-Hopewell Olmec-Tlatilco FIGURE 4.?Comparison of small biomorphic ornaments in the Poverty Point-Hopewell and Olmec-Tlatilco lapidary industries. a-d, j-l, Animal canines or claws, e, m, Animal jaws. / , n-o, Human masks, g-h, p, Hearts or leaves, i, Foot, q, Hand, {a, after Moore? head, 1922, fig. 35. b, after Deuel, ed., 1952, pi. 77h. c-d, g-i, after Webb and Ford, ms. e, after Ford and Willey, 1940, fig. 5If . / , after Ford, 1936, fig. \5m.j, after Lorenzo, 1965, fig. 64. k, m,p-q, after Drucker, 1952: k, pi. 57a; m, pi. 57c; p, pi. 57A-r; q, pi. 54b. /, after Vaillant, 1931, pi. 40. n, after Drucker, Heizer, and Squier, 1959, fig. 43d. 0, after Drucker, 1955, pi. 34b) 324-788 O - 69 - b 64 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 1 1 canine teeth always prominently displayed. The only examples, however, seem to be the large tooth-shaped stone pendants of the Bahia Phase, coastal Ecuador (Estrada, 1962, fig. 97 a, c), also shown on some figurines (op. cit., figs. 50a, 85). These date from the Regional Developmental Period (500 B . C - A . D . 500). In some of the offerings of jewelry found at La Venta, a small jade figurine seems to have formed the central piece, which probably was suspended around the neck (Drucker, 1952, pi. 52). In other sets, a small jade mask with Olmec style human features and a hollowed-out back (fig. 4n-o), seems to have been the principal item (Drucker, Heizer, and Squier, 1959, fig. 43, pis. 37-40). Several biconically drilled holes probably served to attach these masks to clothing or a perishable backing. Similar small jade masks, thicker, and with a suspension hole transversely through the head, come from Kaminaljuyu in Guate? mala (Kidder, Jennings, and Shook, 1946, fig. 149d-e). Only one mask, similar but somewhat simpler and made of a brown chert, has been collected from the Poverty Point Phase of the Lower Mississippi Valley (fig. 4/). This is illustrated in Ford (1936, fig. 15m), where it is mistakenly identified as belonging to the Caddoan Phase. Some of the Olmec jade masks were hollow on the back. Apparentiy this made the stone translucent and enhanced its beauty. Willoughby (1917, p. 498, pi. 11) describes small owl, beetle, and deerhead objects from Hopewell mounds in Ohio, which are carved in the round and have been similarly hollowed out, apparentiy through very small perforations. Two are made of serpentine, one of calcite, one of red slate, and two are of antier. Drucker (1952, pi. 54) illustrates a pair of human hands beautifully carved of jade (fig. 4^). There are no perforations and the use of these items is uncertain. An L-shaped thin jasper pendant with a single per? foration from Poverty Point may represent a human foot (fig. 40 . In the Hopewellian culture of Ohio, realistic human hands are cut from sheet mica (Shetrone, 1926, fig. 144). A bird foot (op. cit., fig. 143) is also realistically represented in this material. Designs cut from thin sheet copper appear to be bear paws (op. cit., fig. 152-7), and Moorehead (1922, fig. 38) shows a human thumb carved of cannel coal. Representations of spare parts are not common in the Formative of South America. Larco (1941, fig. 149), however, illustrates a stone bead that seems to be a crude animal or human foot from the Gupisnique Phase of coastal Peru. From the tomb at La Venta, Drucker (1952, p. 169, pi. 57A-r) shows a small flat piece of pale blue-green jade, which he says represents either a heart or a leaf (fig. 4p). He does not specify whether or not this ob? ject has a perforation in the stem from which it might have been suspended. Similar objects come from Poverty Point. One made of a gray stone has the stem perforated in the plane of the flattened body (fig. 4^). Nine others of jasper have drilled holes in the stem at right angles to the plane of flattening (fig. 4h). Thin circular, rectangular, and triangular pendants with a single drilled hole are also found at Poverty Point. Similar pendants are described by the Reichel- Dolmatoffs from Momil (1956, pp. 230-233), where they are usually made of green slate, a dark green stone, or steatite. Similar thin perforated tablets are illustrated by Izumi and Sono (1963, pi. 169). All of these items have conical or biconical drilled holes. The typical Olmec technique of attachment for jade ornaments was to drill small holes close together at angles so that they met in the interior of the object. This is quite common on the edge of figurines and small jade masks. In Offering No. 2 at La Venta, Drucker, Heizer, and Squier, (1959, p. 149, pi. 28) found five small rock crystal objects slightiy over 1 cm. in length which had pairs of "blind-drilled" holes at the ends and one side (fig. 5/). Although not identical these are very reminiscent of the fourteen small jasper buttons from Poverty Point (fig. 5a-b). They are circular or oval in outiine and average about 1.0-1.5 cm. in diameter. The flat side has two blind- drilled holes; the other side is either strongly curved or rounds up to a definite ridge. Some specimens have the holes centered and in others they are placed near one edge. While most of the buttons are red jasper, a few are galena. While stone buttons are not common in the Upper Mississippi Valley, buttons made of stone, clay, and wood, and coated with a thin plating of copper, silver, or meteoric iron, were "numerous" in the Hopewell Mound of Ohio (Shetrone, 1926, p. 170, fig. 98; Moorehead, 1922, pp. 120-121, fig. 16). These were flat on one face and domed on the other, similar to the jasper buttons from Poverty Point. The attaching string passed through holes in the flat face. It is probable that these objects were ornaments rather than true buttons. In any case it seems sig? nificant that after the decline of the Hopewell Phase, about A.D. 200, buttons of this shape were no longer made in the eastern United States. The buttons that the Reichel-Dolmatoffs describe from Momil (1956, pp. 248, 251, figs. 14-15, 17, 20), were of shell and bone, and were made more like shirt buttons, being thin circular disks with a depres? sion in one face in which two small holes were drilled. Among the quartz and turquoise beads from the Gupisnique Phase of coastal Peru, there is one object GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 65 that appears to be a small stone button with two connecting drill holes made from one face. From the columnar basalt tomb excavated at La Venta, Drucker (1952, p. 163, pi. 53a-b) illustrates half of a clam shell beautifully carved from light grayish blue jade (fig. 5^). A very small representation of a clam shell was found in Offering No. 7 excavated in 1955. This was about 1.5 cm. long made of "a very clear emerald-green jade" (Drucker, Heizer, and Squier, 1959, p. 174, pi. 40). Two additional clam shells made of jade came from the offering at Cerro de las Mesas (Drucker, 1955, pp. 49-50, pis. 40a-a' , 46e). In discussing these finds, Drucker (op. cit., p. 66) suggests that they are earlier Olmec specimens kept as heirlooms. C. H. Webb and the writer, in the process of preparing a second paper on specimens from the Poverty Point site in Louisiana, had been puzzled by two small pieces of red jasper about 1 cm. in diameter, thin, flat on one face, slightiy rounded on the other, with one edge broken (fig. 5d). Each had a pair of drilled holes. The recent discovery of an unbroken specimen from Poverty Point solved the problem (fig. 5c). These are jasper representations of open shells. Their shapes are more similar to symmetrical seashells than to the mussels found in local rivers. Drucker (1952, p. 163) describes, but does not illustrate, what seem to be two turtie effigies from La Venta: "At either end of a string of beads found in 1943 were two small rectangular pendants of jade with rounded corners, flat on one side, and a very low ridge down the axis on the other. A faint channel marking off the border on the ridged side increases the appearance of a turtle carapace. One of these objects has a sizable biconical perforation at the center of one end. The other is said to be perforated also . . . ." A fragment of a very realistic turtle carapace from the Poverty Point site is made of polished brown limonite (fig. 5e). Complete, this object would have been about 6 cm. in diameter, flat on the bottom, and domed on the other side to about the proportions of the living animal. Incised lines mark off the plates of the shell in a realistic fashion. The edge of the broken part shows half of a conical drilled hole that passed through the carapace near one end. / 1 / Jade Turtles / Verbal Description ^ Drucker 1952 pl63 h Poverty Point Olmec FIGURE 5.?Comparison of items of the Poverty Point and Olmec lapidary industries. a-b,f. Buttons, c-d, g. Clam shell effigies, e, h, Turtle effigies, (a-e, after C. H. Webb, 1968. / , after Drucker, Heizer, and Squier, 1959, fig. 37. g-h, after Drucker, 1952: g, pi. 53a; h, p. 163) Summary Between 1000 and 1 B . C , an interest in the making of small ornaments of rare hard stone is manifested from Peru to the Mississippi Valley. Manufacture was by sawing and perforating with a solid drill. While the use of jade was confined to Mesoamerica, particularly the Olmec region, the softer green stone often employed in other regions may reflect a peculiar value for this material. A lapidary industry continues in the Maya area and Mexico. In Peru and the Mississippi Valley it disappears at the end of the Formative, but was revived at a later date in both regions. 66 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 Tools of the Lapidary Industry Sandstone Saws CHART 7 The primary methods of roughing out hard stone among the American Indians were sawing and drill? ing. Pieces were then finished and brought to a degree of polish by use of abrasive. The method of sawing particularly characteristic of the Old World Meso? lithic utilized the burin, a flint tool provided with a single tooth. This diffused into the American Arctic by 4000 B.C. It seems to have intruded southward into the middle of the continent at an early date, and has survived to recent times as the Eskimo splitting knife. Grooves were cut on opposite sides of material, and when they were sufficientiy deep, the connecting area was broken away. Saws were em? ployed in a similar manner. Emmon (1923, p. 43) describes bone and flint slab saws used with sand and water as an abrasive among the Eskimo. Kidder, Jennings, and Shook (1946, pp. 118-124), in an extensive discussion of jade work at Kaminal? juyu, show that sawing is a very prominent technique and was employed in the same manner as used by the Eskimo. They suggest an additional technique, the use of string saws for which an abrasive was applied. It is probable that a variety of edged artifacts was used for the cutting of softer materials. An ordinary looking flint projectile point was included in the bead-maker's kit found at the Poverty Point site. The accompanying slate materials show the sawing technique very clearly. Lack of abrasion on the edges of the projectile point is probably due to the relative hardness of the chert and slate. It is apparent that saws made of wood and other perishable material leave no archeological record; however, saws of thin natural lamina of sandstone have been preserved. These are found from Peru to the Mississippi Valley in the same centuries as the first flourishing of the lapidary industry described above, and it is probable that they were an impor? tant tool in the production of beads and other jewelry. It also seems significant that they disappeared from most chronologies at about the beginning of the present era, when the lapidary industry also declined. Twenty years ago De Laguna (1947, pp. 167-168) reviewed the distribution of saws in the Kachemak Bay III cultural phase of southern Alaska, possibly in the Dorset culture of the central Arctic, on the coast of California, and in Hohokam Vahki to Sacaton Phases. At Pecos they came from Pueblo iii-iv. Based on the report of early saws in Manchuria, eastern Mongolia, and Japan, she considered the possibility that all of the American examples had diffused by way of the Bering Strait. De Laguna's discussion ends, however, with a very penetrating comment: "It may be that there were two centers of invention and dif? fusion; one in northern Asia, affecting Mongolia, Manchuria, Korea (?), and Japan, and which was probably the source from which the Aleut, Pacific Eskimo, Tena, and Salish types were derived; the other, perhaps as far south as Middle America (?), from which were derived the Hohokam, Pueblo, and southern California examples." Giddings' (1964, p. 174, pi. 61, 1-2) discovery of sandstone saws in the Norton culture near the Bering Strait (date about 500 B . C ) , lends additional weight to the possibility that this trait did come into North America by this route. The earliest examples of sandstone saws elsewhere in the Americas are from Periods B and c of the Valdivia Phase of coastal Ecuador (chart 7-9; Meg? gers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pp. 29-32, fig. 15). They are also a feature of the Machalilla culture, 2000-1500 B.C. (op. cit., p. 112, fig. 70). If these thin lamina of fine-grain sandstone with one beveled edge, dating about 2200 to 1500 B.C on the coast of Ecuador, are an additional trait brought from southern Japan with the ceramic complex, then it appears that De Laguna's second thesis might be correct, and the diffusion was from the south as well as the west. The apparent gap in the occurrence of sandstone saws in the Ecuadorian Chorerra Phase may be due to the absence of complete reporting on the 1500-500 B . C interval. One is described in the Jambeli culture beginning about 500 B . C (chart 7-8; Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1964, pi. 6d). Sandstone saws are not reported for the Kotosh or Chavin sites of highland Peru. Earliest on the Peruvian coast seem to be the saws found by Strong and Evans (1952, pp. 41, 44, fig. 7F) in the Huaca Negra site in Viru Valley. They disappear after the close of the Chavin-Cupisnique Phase. On the north coast of Colombia, sandstone saws occur in Momil i and ii (chart 7-7). The Reichel- Dolmatoffs (1956, pp. 226-227, pi. 27, 5-6) found 36 examples in their excavation: lamina of gray sand? stone 10 to 12 cm. long, about half as wide, and thickness up to 2 cm. The straight bifacial sawing edge was along only one side of each instrument. Apparentiy these tools do not continue in use in later phases. It will be recalled that while the lapidary industry of Momil is certainly modest as compared to Gupisnique or Olmec, it marks the first appearance of the manufacture of small stone ornaments in the region. While sandstone saws seem to be absent from the Soconusco sequence, M. D. Coe (1961, pp. 101, 105), GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 67 and Coe and Flannery (1967, pp. 64-65) describe and illustrate "sherd abraders," which they suggest may have been used for sawing. These range from the Ocos to Crucero Phases. As the edges of some of these objects are curved rather than straight, and judging from the photographs do not have the char? acteristic bifacial tapering of the edge, they have not been cited as examples of the class of tools under consideration. In any event, a lapidary industry does not seem to have existed during these phases. While sandstone saws have not been encountered in any of the sites reported by the New World Archae? ological Foundation in Chiapas, Lowe has informed me that a set came from the site of San Isidro, and dates in the Chiapa iv Phase (450-300 B . C ) . There is a similar lack of published information for the Tehuacan chronology, but MacNeish has pro? vided the information that these tools begin in the Ajalpan Phase shortiy before 1000 B.C and run into the Palo Blanco Phase. No illustrations are available. Lorenzo (1965, p. 34, fig. 38) illustrates and de? scribes 16 examples of sawlike tools from Tlatilco (chart 7-6). Materials were of "fine-grained stone," and sedimentary sandy slate. These clearly fall into our class of sandstone saws. Vaillant apparently did not find these tools. A detailed discussion of the techniques for manu? facturing small ornaments of jade and other hard stone is given by Drucker (1952, p. 172). That this is so closely comparable to Kidder, Jennings, and Shook's description of techniques at Kaminaljuyu, is another indication of a close relationship between the Olmec and Maya cultures. Many of the Olmec carvings exhibit cuts that could have been made with these tools, and at La Venta sandstone saws were discovered in the refuse (chart 7-5; op. cit., pi. 44a-b). Potsherd saws are also found (op. cit., pi. 42e-f, h), recalHng the items in the Soconusco sequence. Saws are a characteristic artifact of the Poverty Point Phase (chart 7, 3-4). A total of 111 have been collected from the type site. These tools last through the succeeding Tchefuncte Period (chart 7-2; Ford and Quimby, 1945, pp. 41, 43, fig. 1 Ib-c, f), but after 100 B.C. disappear from the Lower Mississippi se? quence. (The statement in the reference to the effect that they are found in later phases is incorrect.) Numerous stone fragments in the Poverty Point Phase, and bone, shell, and antier artifacts in Tchefuncte, clearly demonstrate the use of these tools. Saw cuts were made on opposite sides, and as they approached the center of the material, the remaining septum was broken. Webb and Snow (1945, p. 90) describe stone saws from the Adena Phase (chart 7-1): sandstone or lime? stone slabs about 7 mm. thick. The working edge is straight, beveled from both sides, but is most unusual in that it is notched very regularly with 14-22 notches in each 5 cm. Saws do not last into the Hopewell Phase, and have not been reported from later cultures of the Midwest. The writer has no new information to add to De Laguna's citation of the occurrence of these tools in the Southwest beginning in the Vahki Phase (3100 B.C.) in Hohokam, and Pueblo in in Anasazi (A.D. 1000). It is quite possible that these items did come from the south as she suggests. The occurrences are a number of centuries too late to account for the earliest saws in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Drilling Techniques CHART 7 While chipped stone drills of a variety of handle shapes are quite common in the Archaic complexes, par? ticularly in North America, it seems that they were principally used for perforating bone and other soft materials. Hard stone was drilled by two principal types of points. It is uncertain whether the bow or pump drill was in use, and the simple twirling of the drill stem between the hands lasted in Mesoamerica until contact times for ceremonial fire-making. The two most common types of drill points are the solid drill and hollow drill. Solid drills, probably wood with a sand abrasive, produced a characteristic taper? ing hole. Hollow drills were probably sections of bamboo or tubular bones, such as those from bird wings. Also used with an abrasive, these produced drill holes with parallel sides and a projection of the stock material in the center of the hole. These two types of drill points seem to have different histories in the Americas. Hollow drilling is particularly characteristic of the bannerstones (atiati weights) that first appear in the late phase of the eastern United States Archaic about 5000 B.C Joffre Coe (1964, pp. 54, 80-81, fig. 70) indicates that polished and drilled bannerstones were in use during the Stanley Phase in the Carolina Piedmont. Only one specimen, however, was finished and drilled with the cylindrical hole typical of the hollow drill. Coe estimates a date of the Stanley occupation as about 5000 B.C At the Modoc Rock Shelter in Illinois, Fowler, and Winters (1956, table 1) found a hollow-drilled winged bannerstone in Zone 2. This has radiocarbon dates of 3675 B.C and 6219 B.C. Fowler (1959b, p. 262) estimates that this banner- stone and the accompanying full-grooved polished axe, date about 5000 B.C Although Griffin (1964) cites these figures, he seems to favor a more conserva? tive dating for the Late Archaic, perhaps 3500-1000 B.C. From New England through the Midwest, 68 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 bannerstones with characteristic tubular drilling are a common feature of Late Archaic preceramic sites. Bannerstones occur in the Late Archaic on the Green River of northern Kentucky, but both this artifact and the method of drilling, seem to disappear with the appearance of the Adena Phase, when boatstones apparentiy replace bannerstones as atiati weights. The small attachment holes drilled in these later forms are tapering. It must be admitted that many of the published descriptions of artifacts do not specify the type of drilling, and judgment here is based on illustrations. From these it seems that the conical drill was the dominant form of tool through the Adena and Hope? well Phases (800 B . C - A . D . 300) in the Ohio area. In Illinois bannerstones began at 5000 B.C and persist into the Late Archaic, where they disappear shortiy after 1000 B.C With the early Baumer ceramics of southern Illinois, thin gorgets become a prominent stone artifact (Cole, et al., 1951, fig. 65), as they are in the Kentucky Adena. These consistently have tapered drill holes made from one side. Solid drilling is prominent in the Illinois Hopewellian Phase and lasts on into the later Mississippian cultures. A similar initial date for bannerstones is indicated for the south Atiantic coast. They are a common feature of the Late Archaic of north Georgia (Wauc? hope, 1966, p. 185, figs. 118, 252b). Waring found one in his excavation at Sapelo Island (in Williams, ed., 1968, fig. 93e). They persist into the time of the fiber-tempered Stallings Island complex, and Claflin (1931, pis. 45-46) gives an excellent illustration of a bannerstone broken during the drilling process. This shows the small central projection of stone left by the hollow part of the tubular drill. Flat gorgets, apparentiy with tapered drill holes, were an accompanying artifact (Claflin, 1931, pi. 54h-j). This seems to be the beginning of the solid drilling technique which persists through the early ceramic phases of Georgia prehistory (Wauchope, 1966, pp. 185-187, fig. 119). Bannerstones are listed by Goggin (1952, p. 43) as an element of the preceramic Mt. Taylor horizon. The type of drilling is not specified, but the hollow drill can be safely inferred. Ground stone artifacts are very rare in Orange Phase shell middens along the St. Johns River in Florida, but a winged bannerstone fragment of a banded slate was reported by Bullen (1955, p. 11, fig. 3e) from the Bluffton site. This fragment does not include the central perforation, and again the method of drilling must be inferred. A similar in? ference is necessary for the flat gorgets that Moore (1903, pp. 399, 413) found at the Crystal River site. These probably had holes drilled with a solid drill. Two tubular drilled bannerstones come from the lower level of the Mandeville site in southern Georgia (Kellar, Kelly, and McMichael, 1962, p . 344, fig. 3 o-p). This Hopewellian date is somewhat late for this artifact, suggesting peripheral survival, or that these bannerstones may be heirlooms. Two "drilled atiati weights" were found in levels 6 and 8 of Zone A at the Stanfield-Worley Rock Shelter in northern Alabama (Dejarnette et al., 1962, table 19). These atiati weights are fairly com? mon on a Late Archaic time horizon in the shell middens of northern Alabama along the Tennessee River, where they accompany tubular pipes, two- hole slate gorgets perforated with a solid drill, and steatite vessels (Webb and Dejarnette, 1942, pp. 69-80, pi. 94). Precise dates are not available. Neither bannerstones nor hollow drilling have been reported from the Bayou La Batre Phase of the Mobile Bay region, but the bar has been allowed to end shordy after 1000 B.C on the presumption that this absence reflects the small amount of work that has been done. Wimberly (1960, fig. 68) illustrates a flat red slate gorget with a biconically drilled hole from the type-site. From the nearby McQuorquodale Mound, a Hopewellian Phase burial site, Wimberly and Tourtelot (1941, p. 13, fig. lOa-c) illustrate three additional gorgets with biconical solid drilling. The Late Archaic of the Lower Mississippi Valley has not been worked out, and in general bannerstones or other artifacts showing hollow drilling are rare. Twenty-three bannerstones and fragments have been collected from the Poverty Point site, and where technique can be determined, these show evidence of hollow drilling. In addition, two beads have cylin? drical perforations implying the same type of tool; however, the great majority of the 698 hard stone beads, 300 gorgets, and dozens of other pendants, buttons, etc., that have come from the site, show the use of the solid drill. Drilled artifacts are less abun? dant from Marksville sites, but this same technique was employed (Ford and Willey, 1940, fig. 50; Ford, 1963, fig. 14). In discussing manufacture techniques employed in making jade jewelry at the Olmec site of La Venta, Drucker (1952, p. 172) says: Drilling was another frequently used process. No identifiable drills have been found, but it seems clear they were small and of some hard material, and were not like the hollow tubular drills that seem to have been so characteristic of highland Guatemala and Oaxacan jade carving. It seems likely that drill? ing was used to lay out features on the figurine blanks. One or more holes were drilled at the eyes, for each nostril, to mark the corners of the mouth, and in one instance along the line sepa? rating the arms from the body of the figurine. When Drucker wrote this, the age of the Olmec cul? ture was uncertain. It is now clear that Olmec jade is GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 69 earlier than the jade ornaments from Monte Alb^n in Oaxaca and the early Maya sites of highland Guate? mala. Corroboration of the relative lateness of tubular drilling in Gulf coastal Mexico is offered by the cache of jade ornaments from Cerro de las Mesas. Objects of Olmec style exhibit solid drilling (Drucker, 1955, pis. 27-54). Some items of Cerro de Las Mesas date, how? ever, show the use of the tubular drill for making the eyes (op. cit., fig. 31c, g), and for lengthwise drilling (op. cit., fig. 37a-b). M.D. Coe (personal communica? tion) reports examples of tubular drilling of magnetite beads from San Lorenzo. The lapidary industry from the Tlatilco Cemetery in the Valley of Mexico is very modest in comparison to Olmec. Lorenzo (1965, pp. 47-51, figs. 60-75) carefully specified that biconical perforations are found in the three types of beads, in a jade banner- stone-like object, in imitation animal teeth, a quartz ornament, and hematite plates. Apparentiy the tubu? lar drill was not known. In discussing craftmanship in general, Vaillant (1941, p. 143) says, "The Middle American people also developed tubular drills of bone and reed, which rotated by a bow and aided by an abrasive, could hollow out vases or bore out places that were otherwise inaccessible to the clumsy tools of the time." This statement obviously applies to the Post-Formative. Both solid and cylindrical drilling occur in the Tehuacan sequence in highland Mexico, but there seems to be no lapidary industry in this sequence, and precise information as to the dating of these two drilling techniques is not yet available. It will, doubt? less, be provided in MacNeish's forthcoming publica? tions. Lowe (personal communication) has stated that the solid drill was in use from Chiapa i to the end of the sequence. A considerable amount of hollow drilling appears in the Chiapa vi Phase (100 B.C.), and con? tinues on into the end of the sequence. Mason (1960, p. 29, pi. 12b) reports drill cores of white stone, probably marble, as "The most charac? teristic stone artifact . . ." from Mound 12, Chiapa de Corzo. He thinks they are by-products of the manu? facture of earspool flares. Hicks and Rozaire (1960, pp. 17-18, pi. 2g) report 13 cyhnders of white marble about 13 mm. in diameter from their excavations in Mound 13. These came from the Istmo Phase (Chiapa VII, A.D. 1-200). The Soconusco sequence is remarkably lacking in work in hard stone. M. D. Coe (1961, figs. 51, 59) illustrates a few examples of drilling but these are potsherd disks, which could have been perforated with an ordinary stone point. This cannot be con? sidered evidence of a true drill. Coe (op. cit., p. 108) describes a single jade bead from the Conchas Phase, which was biconically perforated; also, canine teeth of carnivores with the same type of drilling. This limited evidence is insufficient to indicate methods of drilling in the Soconusco column. Kidder, Jennings, and Shook (1946, pp. 111-124) discuss the methods of manufacturing beads and other small ornaments of jade at Kaminaljuyu. Both solid and hollow drilling were employed. For roughing out, objects were both sawed and drilled. They suggest that the cores produced by hollow drilling were utilized in the manufacture of beads. In other in? stances two holes were drilled and the material be? tween them was then cut by string sawing. Solid drills were apparently employed for small perforations in beads and pendants, while hollow drills were com? monly used for making the large holes in earspool flares and the bowl-like cuts in the backs of carvings to render them translucent. Figurine eyes and other features (op. cit., fig. 48) were also indicated by hollow drill marks. The Kaminaljuyu sequence begins at about the Christian era. While drilled shell beads and pendants are recorded for Puerto Hormiga on the north coast of Colombia (Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, fig. 4, 1-2), and a drilled potsherd came from the Barlovento Phase (Reichel- Dolmatoff, 1955, pi. 5-4), the first examples of drilling of stone are in the Momil Phase. Gerardo and Alicia Reichel-Dolmatoff (1956, p. 230) describe four disk- shaped ornaments of green slate, which were perforated with a tubular instrument. Pendants, usually of this same material but also of other stone, show tapered holes. Biconical holes are also found in ornaments made from the wall of the conch shell (op. cit., p. 262). Information on later ornamental stone work in Colom? bia is very scarce. It seems, however, that both solid and hollow drilling continue. Gerardo and Alicia Reichel-Dolmatoff (1951, pi. 31-3) show an example of hollow drilling from the Magdalena region. Solid drilling occurs on the Placas Sonajeras of the Santa Marta region, and also in the perforation of beads (Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. and A., 1955, p. 211, pi. 3). While a few perforated shell objects are reported from the early Formative phases of coastal Ecuador, there are no examples of drilled stone. The earliest occur in the Regional Developmental Period (500 B.C.), and are quite rare. From the Jambeli culture, Estrada, Meggers, and Evans (1964, pp. 501-502, fig. 13) illustrate basalt, shale, serpentine, and chlorite schist beads, which are stated to be biconically perforated. A drilled stone axe from the Milagro culture has a tapered hole (Estrada, 1958, fig. 54-1). The stone work from the Cerro Narrio Phase in highland Ecuador is illustrated by Collier and Murra (1943, pi. 47). Several of these objects show both sawing technique and solid drilling. 70 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 Judging by the illustrations in Izumi and Sono (1963, pis. 169-175), the solid drill was extensively employed in the Kotosh sequence for the manufacture of stone beads, pendants, and even for club heads, which had quite large central holes. All of these perforations taper from one or both sides, and a number of the objects are unfinished. Similar drilling is found in the stone work shown by Tello (1960, figs. 126, 134, 136) from Chavin, where drilled pits were extensively used in stone carvings to represent eyes, a trait shared with Olmec culture. In the report on the late site of Huamachuco, McCown (1945, pp. 303-306) goes into admirable detail as to drilling methods. Apparently by this time hollow drills were in use for the making of large holes, such as in stone club heads, and solid drills were used for the perforation of beads. The precise date for the introduction of tubular drilling into highland Peru is not clear. Circular ornaments on the skirt of a statue found by W. C. Bennett (1946, pi. 36) at Tiahuanaco, and circles on Pucara style sculpture (op. cit., pi. 38), look as though they might have been made with a large hollow drill. All of the drilling illustrated by Engel (1963, figs. 122, 165) from the preceramic of the Valley of Asia was done with the solid drill. In his survey of a number of preceramic sites along the Peruvian coast, Engel (1958, p. 46) states that the beads of this horizon show biconical holes. The method of drilling used in manufacturing the beads and pendants of the Cupisnique-Chavin in? dustry in Chicama Valley, is not entirely clear from Larco's (1941, fig. 149) illustration. It is probable that all were biconically drilled. The few stone orna? ments found by Strong and Evans (1952, figs. 7-8) from this phase show this technique. The same is true for the scanty material from the succeeding Puerto Moorin and Gallinazo Phases (op. cit., figs. 15, 26). Apparently even the large holes of the carved stone mace heads have been drilled from either end in the characteristic manner of solid drilling (op. cit., p. 56; CoDier, 1955, pp. 84-85, fig. 42). Turquoise beads from a Mochica Phase burial were also bi? conically drilled (op. cit., p. 166). Worked stone artifacts of any kind are amazingly rare in the Post-Chavin phases on the north coast of Peru. Beads and elaborate massive earspools are found in Mochica graves, but aside from these items, the later Peruvians made littie use of ornamental stone work. Summary Apparentiy the major tools employed in the lapidary industry that seem to have spread from the Olmec area of Mesoamerica into the Mississippi Valley and the Andean region between 1000 and 1 B.C., had different histories. Sandstone saws are first found in Ecuador about 2300 B . C , possibly an import from Asia, and after 1000 B . C diffuse both into the Peruvian highlands and northward through Mesoamerica to the Mississippi Valley. Between 500 and 1 B . C , they fall into disuse in all regions. It seems clear that drilling with a solid tool, perhaps a piece of hardwood with a sand abrasive, was the preferred method during the initial spread of the lapidary industry. It is quite possible that the tech? nique of solid drilling extends further back in time than we have indicated for several of the columns, but if so it was not used for hard stone. Drilling with a tubular instrument has been dated to 5000 B.C. in North America, where it is charac? teristic of the perforated bannerstones, but was temporarily replaced in popularity after 1000 B.C by conical drilling, characteristic of the lapidary industry. Through Mesoamerica, cylindrical drilling does not begin until about the start of the present era (with the exception of Tehuacan). It is fairly common after 500 B . C on the north coast of Colombia, but does not reach the Peruvian highlands until quite late in the Pre-Columbian sequence. Earspools and Earplugs C H A R T 8 Ear ornaments seem to be completely lacking in the preceramic Archaic of both North and South America, and in the Colonial Formative pottery- making cultures that date before 1500 B . C The possible exception is two pairs of wood earplugs painted red, which Engel (1963, table 14, fig. 127) found in the fourth level of his excavations in Asia on the south coast of Peru. Just where the use of ear ornaments originated in the Americas is not entirely clear, but they are certainly most abundant at an early date in the Olmec area on the Gulf coast of Mexico. The early forms are far from primitive experiments. Drucker (1952, pp. 160-161, fig. 43, pis. 52, 56) describes and illustrates beautifully made earspool flares and addi? tional specimens were found in the later excavations of Drucker, Heizer, and Squier (chart 8-13; 1959, pis. 37-40). These are usuaUy carved of jade, are quite thin, and have a cylindrical body on one side of which the material expands into a disk. In some cases the body and disk are made in two parts. A second disk or knob would have been necessary to hold the flares in the ear lobes, and it is thought that this was probably made of perishable materials. When found with burials, earspools usually were GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 71 accompanied by pendants, long tubular bead-like cylinders, carved jaguar canines of jade, or similar items. From the burials at Kaminaljuyu, Kidder, Jennings, and Shook (1946, pp. 106-111, figs. 43, 45) describe the early Maya jade earspools, frequently made up of four or more parts, and these later and more complex ornaments aid greatiy in understanding the probable ways in which Olmec flares were assembled. Although earspools are mentioned very casually in Drucker's (1943a, p. 88) discussion of clay ornaments from Tres Zapotes, almost every figurine from this site is shown with earspools. It is not possible, however, to determine whether these are of the flare or pulley type. In the Cerro de las Mesas offering (Drucker, 1955, pp. 51-58, pis. 41-57), there were 36 large earspool flares and 10 small ones, as well as large jade disks with central perforations, which probably formed a backing for the ear ornaments. From the poorly finished specimens, Drucker was able to deduce the methods of manufacture: sawing, drilling, and polishing. While napkin-ring or pulley-type earspools ap? parentiy were not found at La Venta, they do occur in the later Chalahuites site on the central coast of Veracruz. Medellin, Wallrath, and the writer found that fairly thick small, pulley-shaped spools crudely made of clay (chart 8-12) were succeeded by thin highly polished pulley-shaped spools of black ware (chart 8-11). One specimen from the later levels was made of obsidian; none were of jade. Vaillant (1935, p. 237, fig. 25, 11-14) found long tubular earspools with turned-up ends (chart 8-16), apparentiy a variation of the napkin-ring type, in his El Arbolillo i and ii Phases (1200-600 B . C ) . In Late El Arbolillo i he found a pair of flare-type earspools accompanying the burial of a baby (chart 8-18; op. cit., p. 244, fig. 25-7). A fragment of a similar earspool came from late deposits at Zacatenco. At Ticoman, Vaillant (1931, p. 399, pi. 82) observed a sequence in earspool forms. Solid plain disks of pottery with a groove around the periphery came from early Ticoman (chart 8-17), while decorated disks (chart 8-14) and true napkin-ring or pulley-shaped forms (chart 8-15) were found in the middle periods. These types persisted through late Ticoman, where earspool disks with cut-out designs also were made. It is certainly remarkable that no earspools have been found with the dozens of richly furnished burials excavated in the Tlatilco Cemetery. Lorenzo (1965, p. 49, fig. 73) describes and illustrates a single frag? ment of a thin, tubular earspool; however, they are commonly shown on the figurines (Porter, 1953, pi. 5; Pina Ch^n, 1958, vol. 2, figs. 15-16, 20, 29). In the Huasteca sequence, short cylinders with slightly flared ends (in other words a variety of napkin-ring earspool) seem to range in time from about 500 B.C. to A.D. 800 (Periods i-iv; Ekholm, 1944, pp. 467-469, fig. 47). Long clay tubes without flared ends date Panuco ii (ca. A.D. 1). Tubular ear- spools with tongue-like flanges on one end, also made of clay, are a characteristic of Period v (ca. A.D. 1000). These, of course, are a Post-Classic type. The plain, solid disk-type spool with a groove around the periphery, similar to those found by Vaillant at Ticoman, date in the Huasteca from Periods ii-vi (A.D. 1-1500). Apparently the typical Olmec jade flares are missing from the north coast of Mexico. Ear ornaments of any kind are absent from the Poverty Point and Tchefuncte Phases in the Lower Mississippi Valley. The first examples are found in burial mounds of the Marksville Period (chart 8-9). They are made of copper and are the typical earspool of the Hopewellian culture throughout the eastern United States. In the Crooks site in Louisiana, Ford and Willey (1940, p. 123, fig. 55b-d) state: The five spools found with burials are badly corroded. In shape they are similar: single concavo-convex discs about 4 cm. in diameter, and about 3 mm. thick (fig. 55c-d). A small hole had been pierced through the center of each. In four instances small masses of wood or shell were found adhering to the interior sides of the spools. It seems likely that these were the remains of small buttons which were fastened to the copper cones by strings through the central holes, thus keeping the flattened cones against the lobe of the ear. This suggests that the "copper flares" were assembled in a manner quite similar to the jade earspool flares of the La Venta site. The Hopewellian artisans, how? ever, were quick to take advantage of the malleability of copper, and most of the earspools consist of two copper flares connected by tubular copper rivets, or by inserting the ends of tubes formed on the flares into one another. Hopewellian copper earspools frequentiy had string wound around the central axis, possibly to protect the ear lobe from the metal. In some instances, they are not beside the skulls of the burials but are held in the hands (Ford, 1963, p. 17, fig. 11). This led Sears (personal communication) to suggest that these artifacts are not earspools but yo-yos, a toy that seems to have originated in the Philippines. The writer hesitates to take a stand on this interesting suggestion. On the Lower Mississippi, copper earspools are replaced at the beginning of the Troyville Period by small solid clay plugs with a slight depression around the periphery (chart 8-10), which, except for the fact that they are thicker, suggest the clay disk spools of Ticoman and Huasteca Periods n-vi (Ford, 1951, p. 108, fig. 42a-c). Large pulley-shaped earspools some- 72 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 times plated with copper, are found in the later Mississippian phases, as are elaborate solid spools. Along the Gulf coast of Florida, earspools first appear in the Santa Rosa Phase (100 B .C-A .D . 400). They are usually bicymbal in shape, and are made of copper, sometimes plated with hammered silver or meteoric iron. A single cymbal-shaped spool or "flare" came from the McQuorquodale Burial Mound in southern Alabama (chart 8-8; Wimberly and Tourte? lot, 1941, p. 8, fig. lOd). These items disappear about A.D. 400, at the beginning of the Weeden Island Phase. Both cymbal and bicymbal copper earspools are a feature of the Yent Phase of the Gulf coast of north Florida, but do not continue into the Green Point (Sears, 1962, p. 13). These items are also reported from the lower levels of the Mandeville site in south Georgia (chart 8-6; Kellar, Kelly, and McMichael, 1962, fig. 3b). As in other sites reported by Moore, they are in a typical Hopewellian context that in? cludes copper-jacketed panpipes, flake knives, figu? rines, platform pipes, and cut sheets of mica. In the Florida State Museum collections, there is a fragment of a pulley-shaped earspool made of clay, 8 cm. in d i a m e t e r , which came from the St. Johns I level of the Bluffton site (chart 8-7). A unique specimen for the Southeast, it resembles rare earspools from Illinois and Ohio. Earspools do not arrive in the Georgia area until the Mississippian Period (A.D. 1000) when they have large disk forms, are made of wood or stone, and are plated with copper. Shell pins with a knob on one end, made from conch columella, are also a typical ear ornament of the Mississippian culture throughout the Southeast (Wauchope, 1966, pp. 196-198, figs. 135-137). Copper earspools are a persistent feature of the fully developed Hopewell Phase of Illinois (McGregor, 1959, fig. 5). They are usually bicymbal (chart 8-5), sometimes have silver or meteoric iron plating, and string is frequently wound around the connecting axis. Again, at the Rutherford Mound (Fowler, 1957, p. 24, pi. 9), these objects were found in the hands of a skeleton rather than at the ears (chart 8-3). From the same site came a cache of nine beautifully made, thin, pulley-shaped earspools of cannel coal, sandstone, and pottery (chart 8-4). These range from about 7-18 cm. in diameter. One ring had pairs of delicate holes drilled at four points, spaced about its circumference. The rings were neatly stacked. While the small ones may well have been ear orna? ments. Fowler is of the opinion that the larger ex? amples are too big to have served this purpose (op. cit., pp. 31-33, table 3, pi. 14). Nevertheless, they have distinct grooves around the periphery. Webb and Snow (1945) do not list either copper or stone earspools as a trait of the Adena Phase of Kentucky and Ohio. I 'he achondroplastic dwarf depicted on the famous Adena pipe is clearly wearing a pair of large pulley-shaped earspools, but this may date late in the phase, coeval with Ohio Hopewell. Copper earspools are an outstanding characteristic of the Classic Hopewell Phase of Ohio (100 B .C-A .D . 300), and hundreds have been found. Willoughby (1917, pp. 493-495, pi. 5) discusses and illustrates the different ways in which the earspool halves were fastened together. In some instances, the hollow spaces were filled with clay, and both silver and meteoric iron were used as plating. Again, string is sometimes wound around the axis. The high degree of resemblance in earspools over the entire Hopewell territory, from Michigan to Florida, and from western New York State to the eastern border of Kansas, argues that most were probably manufactured in a restricted locality and diffused by trade. The Lake Superior region was the source of the copper, and the Ohio region was prob? ably the center of this industry between 100 B .C and A.D. 300. It is perhaps unfortunate for Sear's yo-yo theory that realistic Hopewell figurines, such as those from the Turner group of Ohio, or the "Knight" figurines from Illinois, are shown wearing earspools of the copper bicymbal types. A less popular type of earspool is a pulley-shaped ornament of stone. Pairs made of light red pipestone and black shale, 4-5 cm. in diameter, were found in the Tremper Mound (chart 8 - 1 ; Mills, 1916, pp. 375-376, figs. 106, 108-109). Earspools disappear from the Ohio Valley at the end of the Hopewell Phase, and ear ornaments were not used again until the time of the Mississippian culture, when shell earpins were the most popular form. The pulley-type earspool is found in the Estrella to Sacaton Phases of Hohokam in southern Arizona (Gladwin, et al., 1937, p . 128, pi. 18d). These orna? ments are also worn by the figurines of this culture. Returning to southern Mexico, the figurines from Chiapa Periods iv-v (450-250 B . C ) almost all wear earspools, but few of the actual artifacts have been recovered. Dixon (1959, fig. 51) found a stone figurine head with shapeless appendages that might be ear- spools, but there are no certain indications of these ornaments from the early pits 50 and 38 at Chiapa de Corzo. Agrinier (1964), in his study of burials at Chiapa de Corzo, lists six pairs of earspools ranging in date from Chiapa iv-vii (450 B . C - A . D . 200), but does not illusti:-ate them. At San Agustin, Navarette (1959, p. 5, fig. 10a) illustrates two translucent jade GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 73 ear flares (chart 8-20), 3 cm. in diameter, which date 450-1 B .C Sanders (1961, p. 43, pi. llBp-q) found fragments of two long tubular pulley-shaped spools (chart 8-19) dating in Period v at the Santa Cruz site. One was made of dull gray stone, the other of white alabaster. Peterson (chart 8-21; 1963, p. 112, fig. 168) states that "A fair number of clay earplugs were found at Mirador, several in test pits. It is not known when the use of earplugs began, although figurines of Mirador iii and later periods usually wear them. The earliest examples found at Mirador to date were located in Mirador iv levels. These clay earplugs generally have a tubular body with a wide flare on the front end, and are, on the average, quite small." In the Soconusco on the Pacific coast of Guatemala, earspools are absent in the Ocos Phase, but are fairly abundant in Conchas i and ii (M.D. Coe, 1961, pp. 103-104, tables 10-14, figs. 42d, 60a-b). They are of pottery, thin, polished, and vary in color from black to orange (chart 8-23). Diameters range from 2.6-7.0 cm. A few are decorated by incised lines filled with red or white pigment. In this same time range (800-300 B.C.), there are a lesser number of disk earspools (chart 8-22), 1-5 cm. in diameter, and 1-3 cm. in thickness. These are flat to slightly con? cave around the border, and are less well made than the napkin-ring type. Coe postulates that they might have been used to stretch the ear lobes. The earliest earspools in the north coast of Colombia sequence are those represented in the ears of figurines of Momil Phases i and ii (700-1 B . C ; Reichel-Dolma? toff, G. and A., 1956, pi. 22). These clearly show a type of earspool with a marked depression in the center (chart 8-24). The Reichel-Dolmatoffs have hesitated to identify any objects as actual earspools; still, in the same deposit, they found 320 examples of small hollow cones of shell, 3-4 cm. in diameter at the base (chart 8-25; op. cit., pi. 31, 3-4). Some have holes through the peak of the cone. It is possible that these shell cones may be earspool flares used with an attached retaining disk, as were the jade flares of Mesoamerica. No earspools have been found in either the Valdivia or Machalilla (3000-1500 B . C ) sites on the coast of Ecuador, nor are they shown on figurines. This negative evidence is weakened somewhat by the fact that most are females with long hair falling to their shoulders and hiding the ears. The earliest earspools in the Ecuadorian sequence occur in the Chorrera Phase. They are thin, highly polished pottery cylinders 3-5 cm. in diameter, which are flared somewhat more strongly at one end than at the other (chart 8-27). These are identical to the pottery earspools of the Conchas Phases of the coast of Guatemala (Evans and Meggers, 1957, p. 240, fig. 4), and are one of the several items that led M. D. Coe (1960) to postulate direct connection between the two regions. Figurines of the Mate type of the Chorrera culture also are shown with earspools (Estrada, 1962, figs. 72-73). These also wear helmet? like turbans reminiscent of the coeval figurines of Mesoamerica. Earspools were in common use on the coast of Ecuador in some of the Regional Developmental phases. Again, this usually is shown in the figurines. They are illustrated, for example, from the Jambeli culture (Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1964, figs. 17b, 18a) and Manabi and Esmeraldas (chart 8-26; Estrada, 1957, fig. 86). A conical type made of pottery and shaped like a golf tee is especially charac? teristic of the Bahia culture (op. cit., fig. 35). During this phase, earspools tend to become large disks, and to have decorated faces, paralleling the evolution of these ornaments in Mesoamerica after A.D. 1. Estrada (1958, pp. 104?105) indicates that the clay earspool of the type "Chorrera-Zacatenco" extends into the Bahia Phase of the Regional Developmental. From Kotosh in the Peruvian highlands, Izumi and Sono (1963, pp. 128-129) describe three "pufley- shaped" objects made of pottery, about 3.5 cm. in diameter, with a groove around the edge (chart 8, 28-30). While two are ring-shaped, one has four spokes in it like a wheel (op. cit., pis. 98a, 1-2; 155, 4?5). Three earspools of stone from the same upper levels (op. cit., pis. 110b, 29-31; 169, 20-21) are ring-shaped with grooves around the edges. One is black while another is red, and both are well pol? ished. These come from the late San Bias and Higueras Phases. Although the authors seem uncertain as to the use of these objects, they are clearly earspools of the fully developed pulley type, such as are found near the beginning of the present era in Ecuador, Mesoamerica, and the Hopewell region. Typical Chavin style stone carvings from the sites of San Pablo and Kuntur Wasi show stylized heads with prominentiy displayed fangs and wearing ear- spools (Carrion Cachot, 1948, figs. 16-17). Larco (1941, fig. 55) illustrates a human effigy wearing earspools from coastal Peru. In one article (1945a, p. 17), Larco shows a pair of ear ornaments probably made of bone, with a monkey-like figure carved in low relief on the disk-shaped face of each (chart 8-31). Exactly how these were held in the ears is not clear from the illustration. Other ear ornaments from Gupisnique tombs are mosaic orna? mental plaques of shell and turquoise (op. cit., p. 18). Although earspools seem to have been in use by 500 B.C. on the north Peruvian coast, the precise form is not clear from the available publications. 74 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 Apparently they are not the simple napkin-ring or flare types common in the Formative to the north? ward, but rather are disk-shaped with decorated faces, more similar to the Early Classic spools of Mesoamerica. In later Peruvian phases earspools become quite elaborate, and the gold ornaments with inlay of turquoise and shell made during Mo? chica times are true works of art. Summary The delicate jade flares of the Olmec region may be the earliest form of earspools in the Americas. The source of this influence is unknown, and it first appears about 1000 B.C. Apparently, the custom of making these ornaments spread to the eastern United States on the Hopewell horizon about 200-100 B . C , and as native copper had been worked for a number of centuries before, earspools were manufactured from this material. The typical Hopewell earspool consists of two flares permanentiy joined together. While the Olmec flare could not be held in the ear lobe without a backing, it seems to have developed into a delicate napkin-ring type of spool, usually made of pottery, several centuries before 500 B.C. These spools are turned outward sufficiently on the inner periphery to hold them in the ear lobe and they characteristically flare outward more strongly on the outer edge giving them a tapering profile. This type of earspool, which occurs in the Valley of Mexico between 1000 and 500 B . C , spread to the coast of Guatemala between 800 and 300 B.C., and apparently was carried by sea to the people of the Chorrera Phase on the coast of Ecuador. True pulley-shaped spools, pottery or stone rings 3 cm. or more in diameter with a definite groove about the periphery, seem to date from a few centuries before the beginning of the present era in the Hopewell phases of Ohio and Illinois, in the Ticoman Phases in the Valley of Mexico, in the Regional Developmental Period of Ecuador, and the San Bias and Higueras Phases of the Peruvian highlands. The form of early earspools on coastal Peru is not clear. After A.D. 500, very elaborate metal and stone earspools with disk faces carved or set with mosaics were being manu? factured in Mesoamerica and the Andean area. Spools of this type were also made in the Mississippi Valley after A.D. 900. Less well-made solid earplugs, usually of clay, were used on the coast of Guatemala about 500 B . C , in the Valley of Mexico about the same date, and in the Lower Mississippi Valley about A.D. 500. Mirrors C H A R T 9 The first mirrors appear in American prehistory about 1000 B.C. The region where they seem to be most highly developed and probably the earliest, is that of the Olmec culture on the Gulf coast of Mexico. The seven mirrors found at the La Venta site are the subject of a special study by Gullberg (pp. 280-283, in Drucker, Heizer, and Squier, 1959). These are disk-shaped thin plates of magnetite, hematite, or ilmenite, 4?12 cm. in diameter, and less than 1 cm. thick. One face has been ground and polished in a concave form. Focal length ranges from approxi? mately 6-57 cm. (chart 9-14). Gullberg says, "The polish of the specimen is excellent and probably represents the limit of perfection that the material will allow." Although there are minor irregularities of the curvature, he judges that the mirrors could be used for reflecting the sun to start a fire, or to reflect a picture in a camera obscura. The radius of the curvature becomes progressively greater toward the edges of the convexity similar to modern para? bolic reflectors. Drucker, Heizer, and Squier (op. cit., pp. 181-183) discuss the method in which these mirrors were worn. A seated female figure shown in Drucker (1952, pi. 46-1) has an actual mirror on her chest, apparently suspended around her neck. Monument No. 23 (Drucker, Heizer, and Squier, 1959, fig. 58) appears to be wearing a mirror in a similar manner. From the Valley of Mexico, Tolstoy provides the data that the small pyrite mirrors have come from his excavations at El Arbolillo. These are thin disks with flat faces. No examples of mirrors seem to have been found in the Tlatilco Cemetery. Lowe (personal communication) says that pyrite mosaic mirrors occur in the Chiapas sequence begin? ning in Period iv about 450 B . C Lowe also provides the unpublished information that the earliest mirrors known in the Soconusco area are of the mosiac pyrite type, and date in the Izapa Phase. Gerardo and Alicia Reichel-Dolmatoff (1956, p. 297) describes plates of conch shell from the Momil deposits, which are highly polished, and which they suggest were used as mirrors. Meggers and Evans state (personal communica? tion) that mirrors made of obsidian are an element of the Jama-Coaque Phase in Manabi on the north coast of Ecuador which belongs in the Regional Developmental Period. Although no illustrations are available, these appear to be mirrors of the Formative pattern, and the appropriate symbol has been placed GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 75 in the Ecuadorian column. Later, in the Integration Period, pyrite mirrors had silver frames. Five jet mirrors were unearthed in a fragmentary state at Kotosh in the Peruvian highlands. All of these came from Kotosh Kotosh levels (1200-800 B.C.), and examples are illustrated by Izumi and Sono (1963, p. 126, pi. 106b, 10-11, d-4). One mirror was circular, about 8 cm. in diameter (chart 9-21): the other squared with rounded corners, about the same size. They seem to be quite thin. In the Valley of Asia, Engel (1963, p. 83, figs. 195-196, 201) found a baked clay rectangular tablet and a small rectangular slate plaque with polished mirrors fastened in them (chart 9-25), as though set in frames. The frames were decorated with glued-on disk beads made of shell and greenstone. Engle points to the fact that while Unit 1 is nominally preceramic, the tablet holding one mirror is of fired clay. The end date for this deposit is about 1200 B . C , and in several traits in addition to the mirrors, it shows Chavin influence. Wniey and Corbett (1954, pp. 66, 68, pi. 90) found a complete jet mirror and two fragments in their excavations at Ancon. The complete mirror was rectangular with rounded corners, 7.7 cm. long, 5.5 cm. wide, and 1.4 cm. thick. One surface is flat and highly polished, the other rough and round. Larco Hoyle (1941, p. 99) describes the jet mirrors of the coastal Chavin or Gupisnique sites in Chicama Valley. These are both rectangular and rounded, and some have a projection on the back that serves as a handle. The faces are highly polished and some of them are convex (Larco Hoyle, 1945a, p. 10). In Vini Valley, Strong and Evans (1952, p. 43, fig. 7h-k) found three jet mirror fragments at the Huaca Negra site. Two are rectangular and one is circular. Two have project? ing handles carved on the back (chart 9-24). No study has been made of the concave mirrors of the Chavin Phase to compare to Gullberg's analysis of Olmec mirrors. The fact, however, that concave mirrors were made in these two contemporary cultural phases is quite impressive. Mirrors do not continue in use in the Peruvian sequences after the close of the Chavin Phase about 400 B.C Among the exotic materials that were widely traded during the Hopewell Phase (ca. 100 B .C-A .D . 200) in the eastern United States was sheet mica. The prob? able sources are in the Appalachian Mountains. In Hopewell sites of Ohio, particularly the Hopewell and Turner, this material is found cut into a variety of ornamental shapes (Willoughby, 1917, pp. 496-497, pi. 9). Generafly, however, in the HopeweUian "prov? inces," mica is found in the form of sheets the size of the hand or larger, with or without cut edges. While uncovering a burial in a Hopewell mound near Helena, Arkansas, that had such a sheet of mica about 11 cm. in diameter over one shoulder, the writer was impressed with the probability that these plates functioned as mirrors (chart 9-12). As soon as the earth was brushed off, a reflection of the excavator's ugly face could be plainly seen (Ford, 1963, p. 27, fig. 2Id). These mica sheets are fragile and may have been provided with wood backs. One of the burials in the McQuorquodale Burial Mound near Mobile Bay had a triangular-shaped mica plate in the region of the pelvis (chart 9-11; Wimberly and Tourtelot, 1941, p. 5, fig. 9). From the Hopewellian Mandeville site in south Georgia, Kellar, Kelly, and McMichael (1962, pp. 344, 346, fig. 3h) say that from the early levels a large quantity of mica was found, some with cut edges. Mica sheets also came from the Crystal River site at the base of the Florida Peninsula (chart 9-10; Moore, 1907, p. 419). McGregor (1959, fig. 5) illustrates mica sheets as typical artifacts of the Hopewellian Phase in Illinois. For example, in the Wilson Burial Mound, a sheet with cut edges was found at the head of what seemed to be the most important, or at least the most richly provided individual in Mound 5 (chart 9-9). This sheet measured 16x28 cm. (Neumann and Fowler, 1952, p. 188, pi. 59b). In some instances mica was placed in the Hopewell mounds of Ohio in great quantities. Moorehead (1922, pp. 91-92) describes a deposit, apparentiy as? sociated with a log tomb which he estimates as com? prising 3000 sheets of mica. "They filled two barrels when packed for shipment to Chicago." Some sheets were 50 cm. in diameter, and 15 cm. thick. In refer? ence to mica in the Ohio Hopewell mounds, Willough? by (1917, p. 496) says, "The crystals or plates are often of large size, and are frequentiy found with skeletons or as sacrificial deposits in the mounds." While mica is occasionally found in burial deposits dating after the close of the Hopewellian Phase (A.D. 300HtOO), it is rare and not in large sheets. There is no indication that mica mirrors continue in use. On the Classic time level and probably lasting well after A.D. 1000, a type of circular stone plaque, 7 to 25 cm. in diameter with thin sheets of pyrite glued on one face as a mosaic, is distributed from Panama to Pueblo Bonito in New Mexico. Kidder, Jennings, and Shook (1946, pp. 126-133, figs. 52-53, pis. 155-156) found a number of these items, beginning with the Esperanza Phase (A.D. 500) at Kaminaljuyu. They express doubt that these objects were actually re? flecting mirrors due to the difficulty of setting the pieces of the mosaic in precisely the same plane; how- 76 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 ever, these must have been very brilliant ornaments. When found, the pyrite had usually oxidized into a yellow ochre, and only occasionally were the pyrite laminae preserved. Thin circular stone disks of sandstone, slate, and fine grain gneiss occur in a Mississippian context (after A.D. 1000) through the central part of the Southeast. Webb and Dejarnette (1942, pp. 287-291, table 36, figs. 92-94) describe the distribution of these items: Nearly all are notched on the edges, and a few are elaborately engraved. Some are concave on one face as if used as palettes for grinding paint. Many have been found with lead or iron oxides smeared on them. Most of them have been found in graves. A few are drilled with a single hole for suspension. Many are dec? orated with one or more concentric incised circles. Such circles usually occur on the 'reverse' side, that is, opposite to the en? graving, if any, or opposite the notches, where the notches are not duplicated on both sides. It seems clear, to the writer at least, that these "paint palettes" are really backings that had mosaics of either galena or pyrite fastened on one face. These materials oxidize to white and yellow pigment respec? tively. The circles inscribed on the undecorated faces are the limits of the area of mosaic precisely as in the Mesoamerican examples. That some show slight con? cavity suggests that the tradition of concave reflectors persisted for a number of centuries. Although Kidder, Jennings, and Shook may be quite correct that these composite reflectors would not be useful for arranging one's hair or face paint, it is probable that the primary function of aboriginal mirrors was to reflect sunlight. It also seems likely that the mosaic type developed from the one-piece Formative type mirror, perhaps in Mesoamerica, and had a secondary distribution which carried it to northern New Mexico and to eastern Tennessee. Summary One-piece mirrors of the Formative type have an erratic distribution through the Formative cultures between 1000 and 1 B .C In the two areas where they were most popular, Olmec and coastal Chavin, they are occasionally convex. Mirrors in eastern North America are on the Hopewell horizon (100 B . C - A . D . 300), and were made of mica. Between A.D. 500-1500 composite mirrors, mosaics with reflecting material glued to stone disk backing, diffused through Central America and the United States Southwest and East. Comparisons Mirrors are a common element of the Chou Dynasty of China, and were being traded into Japan in the first century A.D. (J, E. Kidder, 1957, p. 129.) Finger Rings CHART 9 Every small boy who has preempted the family television to watch cowboy and Indian classics is well aware that while the American aborigines were fond of personal adornment, finger rings are not usually considered a proper item of costume. As a matter of fact, they seem to be limited to the Forma? tive horizon except in the Maya region. The source of the custom of making and wearing finger rings is not known, nor is it clear just where they first appear in the Americas. In this respect rings parallel the earspools previously discussed. Apparentiy they never became as popular as the ear ornaments, for rela? tively few have been found. Probably the earliest example in Mesoamerica is a rather crude porous brown pottery specimen found by Vaillant (1930, pi. 41, bottom row, 4) in the early levels at Zacatenco (chart 9-16). Another ring made of stalactite came from the middle Zacatenco deposits (chart 9-15; op. cit., pi. 40-1). In the Veracruz area, Weiant (1943, pp. 117-118, pi. 65) reports pottery finger rings from the Tres Zapotes site. One had a monkey's head modeled on it (chart 9-13), and two others were simple clay circlets. Drucker (1943b, p. 69) describes small "double rings" of brown or black ware, which have the plane of their loops placed at right angles to one another. It is uncertain as to whether these were finger ornaments or not. Both shell and stone finger rings are found in the Hohokam culture of Arizona. Some of the shell rings are elaborately carved. Gladwin, et al. (1937, pp. 128, 144-145, fig. 57, pi. 18b) placed both varieties of rings in the Santa Cruz and Sacaton Phases. This should date from about A.D. 700-1000, considerably later than the occurrences in Middle and South America. Webb and Snow (1945, pp. 26, 99) list 15 finger rings from seven different Adena burial mounds in the Kentucky-Ohio area. These are made of thin copper wire, which forms 1-3 spiral loops. This reflects the tendency in this region to make jewelry of copper rather than other materials. Fowler (1957, p. 24, pi. 9c) describes a skeleton that held copper earspools in each hand in the Rutherford Mound in Illinois. In each hand also were fragments of what appear to be finger rings cut from shell (chart 9-7). In Chiapas, Mexico, Sanders (1961, p . 43, pi. llBx) iUustrates a small ring made of shell, which he tentatively identified as an earplug flare (chart 9-17). The possibility that it might be a finger ring seems equally good. This dates in the Chiapilla Phase (Chiapa iv-v, 450-100 B . C ) . GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 77 At the La Victoria site, coastal Guatemala, in the Conchas Phase deposits, M. D. Coe (1961, p. 98, fig. 42a) found a pottery ring (chart 9-19) . . . of a size which would fit comfortably on the thumb but would be too big for the other fingers. On one part of the exterior is a strange face which is masked on the lower part below the nose. A more typically Conchas face with RE features is clearly of Tlatilco type, both in the type D eye treatment and in the masking (see Porter, 1953, pi. 5f). Faces with masks over the lower part also appear in Tres Zapotes (Weiant, 1943, pi. 25, 1-6) in a Formative context. Pottery rings of the same kind are known from Tres Zapotes (Weiant, 1943, pi. 65) and from the Las Charcas (Raul Moreno Collection) and Sacatepequez (Mata Amado Coll.) phases in the Valley of Guatemala area. It would seem to be late Conchas 2 in date at La Victoria. Finger rings of bone are listed by Engel (1958, p. 39) as being an element of the preceramic culture in the Valley of Asia, coastal Peru. He says they con? tinue into the Paracas Phase, where they are double so that they fasten the fingers together. Larco Hoyle (1941, figs. 171-172) illustrates carved bone rings found on the fingers of Gupisnique Phase burials (chart 9-22). These have Chavin style motifs. It seems probable that the rings found by Engel do not predate the Gupisnique Phase, for several other typical traits such as mirrors also come from the Asia preceramic deposits. Summary Finger rings are found sporadically from the Ohio Valley to coastal Peru, and were confined to the Chavin, Olmec, Adena-Hopewellian time level (1000- 1 B.C.). They are made of bone in coastal Peru, of pottery in Mesoamerica, while in the Ohio region, like other ornaments such as earspools and beads, they were manufactured of copper. Combs CHART 9 De Laguna (1947, pp. 222-224) has given a thorough discussion of the distribution of the one-piece comb, usually made of bone or similar material, and the composite comb in which the teeth are fastened to the back. She points out that the one-piece comb has a wide occurrence in northern Asia, and goes back in time to Erteb011e culture in northern Europe and the Chou Bronze Age in China. The historic distribution in North America extends southward to the Iroquois, and in New York State it is first known from the Laurentian Archaic culture (3000-1000 B . C ) . The composite comb is an element of the Jomon culture in Japan. Birket-Smith (1937) has studied its distribution and finds that it is common in South America on the ethnological level. In North America it is distributed from the Aleutians down into the Northwest Plateau to such groups as the Nez Perce. It is also found among the Angmassalik Eskimo of east Greenland. De Laguna suggests that possibly the composite comb is the more ancient type and its distribution has been interrupted by the more recent introduction of the solid comb. As composite combs are frequentiy made of wood they are difficult to trace archeologically, and too much emphasis cannot be placed on their absence. On the north coast of Peru composite combs go back at least to the begin? ning of ceramics between 1500 and 1000 B .C , and as they have not been found between Peru and the Northwest Plateau region in North America, it is possible that this trait entered the New World both by way of the Bering Strait and directiy across the Pacific to South America, as ceramics seem to have done. The one-piece combs of the New York area tend to follow the Eskimo pattern in that they are elongated rectangles with decorated handles, and the teeth are formed on the end, not the side of the rectangle. This pattern continues into the time of the Iroquois culture, when the handles were frequentiy carved to represent deer or other animals. On the relatively late prehistoric level, combs have been found in Fort Ancient sites on the Ohio River and at the Rose Mound in the Lower Mississippi Valley (Griffin, ed., 1952, fig. 123s). In the Ohio area the oldest combs occur in the Adena Phase (chart 9, 3-4). Webb and Snow (1945, pp. 25, 96-97) list nine specimens from four different sites. These combs were commonly made of heavy bone in two parts, which seem to have been bound together side by side. The authors suggest that these may either have been for personal grooming, or for carding wool for spinning. Moorehead (1922, fig. 12b) illustrates a "carved object" of tortoise shell found with a burial in the Hopewell Mound Group (chart 9-2). This has a number of teeth projecting on one side and appears to be a rather elaborate type of comb. A comb closely resembling the one illustrated here from the Point Peninsula Phase of New York State, comes from a Hopewell Phase mound in Virginia (Griffin, ed., 1952, fig. 22n). Perino (letter of November 9, 1966) reports from his unpublished work on Hopewell sites in Illinois: "Bone combs probably occur with Illinois Hopewell as one was recentiy found at Snyders which looks much like the Fort Ancient combs. We found a set of bone pins in Klunk Mound 6 that may have been bone scarifiers or the teeth of a comb having had a wooden handle" (chart 9-8). 78 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 Bone combs are rare in Mesoamerica. Sanders (1961, pi. llB-y) illustrates a crude example from a Chiapa iii (550-450 B . C ) context (chart 9-18). Combs extend from Engel's (1963, table 14, p. 87) preceramic deposits in the Omas Valley through the Chavin Phase on coastal Peru. Carrion Cachot (1948, pi. 24) illustrates an elongated bone comb with teeth in the end from Ancon. A similar type from Gupisnique deposits is shown by Larco Hoyle (1945a, fig. 19). Willey and Corbett (1954, p. 70) describe wooden teeth from composite combs from the Lighthouse site (chart 9-23). Similar composite combs were found by Larco with Gupisnique burials in Chicama Valley. In the Peruvian highlands, an elongated bone comb is illustrated by Izumi and Sono (1963, pi. 162-8) from Sajara-patac-San Bias levels in the Kotosh site (chart 9-20). As we have noted above, Birket-Smith (1937) describes numerous examples of combs from South American ethnological records; and Meggers and Evans inform me that shell combs are found in the Guangala Phase in Ecuador (500 B.C-A.D. 500). Summary The relative absence of both one-piece and com? posite combs in lower North America, Mesoamerica, and northern South America, may indicate that this trait was brought into the New World through the Bering Strait before 2000 B . C , and was introduced onto the coast of Peru a few centuries before 1000 B.C. The time of earliest popularity seems to be in the Hopewell Phase in North America and the Chavin- Cupisnique of the Andean region. DISTINCTIVE ARTIFACTS Figurines C H A R T 10 Figurines have been extensively used for determining cultural relations and chronological sequence. This is particularly true in Mesoamerica where they are abundant, and archeologists have tended to follow Vaillant's example of setting up detailed classifica? tions. While very useful for correlating closely related phases, an attempt to use these classifications in a general survey of the Americas would lead to consider? able confusion. On chart 10 I have not attempted to impose any sort of classificatory arrangement, and merely placed arbitrarily selected examples in ap? proximate time position in each of the columns. It will be noticed that interest flagged in Middle and South America after A.D. 1, when the custom of mak? ing figurines in molds became common. In the Valdivia Phase of Ecuador, both stone and pottery figurines occur (chart 10, 79-86; Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pp. 95-96). Stone figurines are divided into three types which form a sequence through Phases A and B (3000-2000 B . C ) from thin, flat natural slabs with a few lines engraved on them to represent arms or legs (op. cit., fig. 50, pis. 117a-q, 187h-j), through slabs notched at the lower ends to represent legs, to those that have crude but recogniz? able human faces and arms. The earliest simple form has parallels in Japan, as the authors point out (op. cit., pi. 187). The pottery figurines are associated with Valdivia Periods B-D (chart 10, 79-84; op. cit., pp. 96-107, figs. 64-65). In contrast to the stone figurines, there is a decrease in realistic representation through the four types described. Beginning at 2000 B . C the nude females have elaborate hair arrangements, sometimes hanging down to the waist, and well-modeled torsos. Between 2000 and 1500 B . C the heads become con? ventionalized, torsos are stylized, and legs are reduced to short stubs. After 1500 the features are even less clearly depicted. Estrada (1962, fig. 7) gives a chronological diagram of the sequence of figurines in Ecuador. This shows that solid and hollow figurines with helmet-like head? gear (chart 10, 73-74; op. cit., fig. 71) first appear in the Late Formative (Chorrera), shortiy before 500 B.C. Variation multiplies between 500 and 1 B .C and includes male figures seated with crossed legs, wearing beards, and peaked caps (chart 10-70). Some of the female figures wear ankle length skirts; others are nude. Mold-made figurines appear in the first cen? turies of the present era, and the variety of types con? tinues, both hollow and solid. Animal figurines be? come part of the complex also, and human features are engraved on stone celts (chart 10-72). Figurines are relatively rare in the Peruvian se? quences. At Kotosh, Izumi and Sono (1963, pp. 125- 126, pi. I l i a ) found four of stone, which resemble the stone figurines of Valdivia. Also, principally in the Kotosh Kotosh Phase (1200-800 B . C ) , they found 111 GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 79 fragments of human figurines, and one fragment of an animal (chart 10, 88-89). Both standing and seated figures occur and examples are hollow as well as solid. Some are crudely modeled seated females with poorly represented arms and legs, but judging from illustra? tions, the typology is not very clear. Wide incisions, sometimes ending in pits as in the Mesoamerican Olmec, were used to represent the mouth, and decora? tive incisions are common on face and body, some filled with white, red, or yellow post-fired paint. Tello (1960, fig. 134) illustrates a crude stone figurine from Chavin de Huantar (chart 10-87). This again has drilled pits at the ends of lines that represent the eye? brows. He mentions its resemblance to the figurines of Ancon and Paracas, where they are associated with Chavin style pottery. An early figurine from the north coast, dating about 1200 B . C , was found by Bird (1962, fig. 52c) in the Huaca Prieta site; it is made of pottery, seated, knees raised, hands on knees, and wearing a pointed cap (chart 10-93). In Colombia, adornos modeled in the form of animals and occasionally human heads, begin in Puerto Hormiga and are particularly prominent in the Malambo Phase (1000-700 B . C ) . Angulo Valdes (1963, pi. 7a) illustrates a human head that might have come from a figurine (chart 10-69). The first certain occurrence of figurines (chart 10-68) is in Momil i (800-400 B.C.): they are solid, and are made of a cream colored clay without slip (Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. and A., 1956, p. 294, pis. 22-23). The heads have curious lateral projections, which in some examples clearly represent pulley-shaped earspools (chart 10- 67). Eyes are the slashed coffee-bean type, and noses are prominent. Figures are usually seated, legs spread apart, arms akimbo, and hands resting on knees. Heights vary from 4-8 cm. Fragments of larger hollow figurines with red slip are in Momil ii (400-1 B . C ) . They also have coffee-bean eyes and seem to represent nude females, as did the preceding Momil i type. Considering the fact that the people of the San Agustin Phase cut so many large human representa? tions from hard stone, figurines are remarkably rare. While the early phase, Mesitas Inferior, clearly is coeval with Momil, it does not have the Momil figurine types. Duque (1964, drawings 12-2, - 3 , -9) illustrates three clay figurine fragments and shows small crude stone figures (op. cit., drawing 30) which are so large that they can be considered miniature statues. Figurines do not seem to be an element in the Monagrillo-Sarigua Phases of Panama, which appar? entiy date from 2000 to possibly as late as 1000 B .C They are also lacking in the Cupica sequence, just south of Panama on the Pacific coast of Colombia. This begins in the first centuries of the present era. Small solid hand-made female figurines were not too common in the Ocos Phase (1400-1200 B.C.) on the Pacific coast of Guatemala; only 41 were found. The heads were fairly well formed, faces were some? times caricatures, and the eyes were slits with very small punctations to represent the pupils (chart 10, 65-66). Figures were nude and in one case, appar? ently pregnant (M. D. Coe, 1961, p. 92, fig. 39). For some unknown reason figurines are absent from the Soconusco sequence during the Cuadros and Jocotal Phases. Conchas Phase figures (op. cit., pp. 93-98, figs. 54-58) are more abundant and show more variation (chart 10, 62-64). Most are solid, but a few are hollow. The faces tend to be plump, mouths are represented by a wide incision so that they appear open, and the pupils of the eyes are made with large punctations. Many seem to wear caps or headgear, and one has a cap with a pointed peak. The bodies, which could not be associated with heads, are again nude females; breasts are modeled, and the navel is indicated by a large punctation. In some instances, hands and feet are crudely modeled; in others, arms and legs taper to a point. There are also small bird and animal heads that probably come from effigies. Larco (1941, fig. 153) shows a seated stone figure, which he tentatively identified as Gupisnique. From the coastal site of Las Haldas, Ishida (1960, figs. 60-61) illustrates fragments of a solid standing figu? rine that should date about 1200 B .C (chart 10-92). Hands are folded on the chest as seems to be common on early South American figurines, but sex and state of dishabille are not apparent. From Ancon, Carrion (!^achot (1948, pi. 25, 23-24) illustrates two standing figurines that seem to be hollow. One is a nude female (chart 10-90), the other of undetermined sex (chart 10-91). She mentions the similarity to figu? rines of Paracas. On the north coast molded figurines began to be made in the Mochica Phase after A.D. 500 (Strong and Evans, 1952, pp. 181-184, fig. 32). These are both hollow and solid and represent males and females, usually nude (Bennett, 1939, figs. 5a-b, d-e, 8g). The Post-Chavin figurines of Peru are comparatively rare, frequently are hollow, and meas? ure from 15-30 cm. high. This larger size is charac? teristic for hollow figurines wherever they are found in the Americas. Crude female figurines with coffee-bean eyes are an element of the Candelaria of northwestern Argen? tina (Alcina Franch, 1965, fig. 558). This probably has a late date judging from Inca resemblances in the associated pottery. From the early Pit 38 at Chiapa de Corzo, Dixon (1959, p. 38, fig. 51) describes eight clay figurine fragments; arms, legs, and the head of a stone figurine 80 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME U (chart 10-61). This latter has a round blank face, apparentiy wears a cap, and has globular projections at either side that represent earplugs. Other pottery fragments were found in the earlier Pit 50 at Chiapa de Corzo (op. cit., p. 18, fig. 53a-b); these include two heads, flattened on the back, one of which has definite Olmec characteristics (chart 10-60). Appar? entiy figurines were not very common in the Chiapas sequence between 1400 and 550 B .C At Santa Cruz, Sanders (1961, p. 44) recovered only six examples of Pre-Classic figurines, including two heads. One is grotesque (chart 10-56); the other wears a headdress, and has plump facial features and punctated eyes similar to the Conchas examples from Guatemala (chart 10-55). Peterson (1963, pp. 78-110, figs. 114-165) gives a very comprehensive discussion of the figurine sequence from the Mirador site, which extends from Mirador IV (450 B.C.) to Post-Classic times. Figurines from Phases iv-vi are predominantly nude females, and are shown both standing and seated, in some cases with legs crossed in the "lotus position." Breasts are prominantiy molded, and hands and feet poorly finished. Heads are flattened at the back, eyes indi? cated by slashes and punctations, and the figures frequentiy wear necklaces and earspools. Elaborate turban-like caps are usual. One figurine is holding an infant. The Early Classic Santa Cruz Phase examples (Chiapa viii-ix; A.D. 200-600) wore turban head? dresses, and one had a beard. A large hollow head shows the nicely modeled face of an old man, and there are figurine representations of a dog, frog, and a monkey. The complete figurine sequence from the excava? tions of Tehuacan Valley is not yet available. Mac? Neish (1961, fig. 15) has given a schematic presenta? tion of figurine head types. Figurines appear in Late Ajalpan (chart 10, 51-54), and are solid, nude females as well as larger hollow figures (chart 10-53). Helmet-like headgear is characteristic and some of the heads are the Olmec baby-face type. Figurines continue on into later phases, but full details are not yet available. Figurines are a prominent feature of the Valley of Mexico Formative, and Vaillant's typology has been followed rather closely by all who have worked in the area. Tolstoy (1958b, p. 87, graph 7) has seriated Vaillant's pottery samples, and has obtained a very clear-cut picture of the parallel figurine type sequence. Nearly all of the figurines are nude females wearing elaborate turban headdresses and earspools (chart 10-45). A few are seated, but most are standing. There is an extensive use of applique strips to form eyes, mouth, and ornaments. About 500 B . C there is a tendency for the legs in some of the types to become unnaturally swollen below the hips, a form that recalls the bulbous legs on tripod vessels that developed shortiy after this time. There is also a tendency for bodies to be represented by flattened slabs of clay rather than shown in the round. At Gualupita, George and Suzanna Vaillant (1934, pp. 50-53, figs. 14-15) found the large some? times hollow realistic Olmec style figurines accompany? ing burials. They were somewhat at a loss to place these in the Valley of Mexico sequence, a difficulty still facing present-day investigators. Porter (1953, pp. 42-43, pis. 4-5) illustrates typical figurines from Tlatilco, most of which are found with burials, an unusual use for these objects in Mesoamerica. Other examples are given by Pina Chan (1958, vol. 2, pis. 13-23). These include typical male Olmec figures (chart 10-44), women holding babies, and female figurines of Type D, the realistic, graceful style that Vaillant places early in the sequence (Vaillant, 1930, pp. 115-119). The Pre-Classic hand-modeled figurines are succeeded by molded figurines, which are particu? larly characteristic and numerous at Teotihuacan. From La Venta, Tres Zapotes, and Cerro de las Mesas, Drucker (1952, pp. 132-141, pis. 23-41; 1943a, pp. 76-90, pis. 26-27; 1943b, pp. 63-66, fig. 155, pis. 27-43, 49-52; Weiant, 1943, pp. 84-111, pis. 1-45) established a figurine classification modeled after Vaillant's, which to this reader at least, makes littie contribution to problems of chronology. There is a basic similarity to the Valley of Mexico Pre- Classic in that most are nude females, standing, with poorly modeled arms and feet, and usually wearing turbans, somewhat simpler in arrangement than those in the highlands. The baby-face, droopy mouth Olmec figures wearing helmets are somewhat more common, as are males with beards and a curious peaked cap (chart 10-31). The old man or "Lirios" type is particularly common from Tres Zapotes (Drucker, 1943a, pis. 55-61). Headdresses in many cases re? semble helmets, and the pupils of the eyes and the corners of the mouths are usually indicated by large punctations (chart 10, 33-34). Hollow figurines occur at Tres Zapotes (chart 10-32) and Cerro de las Mesas. The jade figurines at La Venta are usually found in caches or in burials. All represent baby-faced males, who are either seated with legs crossed or standing with the bent knees of the achondroplastic dwarf. Large hollow baby-faced figurines, solid Olmec baby faces, and ball players decorated wdth asphalt were found by M. D. Coe at San Lorenzo (chart 10, 38-39). Punched eyes are absent; these seem to be a GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 81 local marker for the 800-500 B .C time horizon, being also characteristic of Conchas i in Guatemala. Garcia Payon (1966, pp. 125-167) gives a thorough discussion of the figurines found at El Trapiche and Chalahuites on the central coast of Veracruz. Although his classification is simpler and occurrences are tabu? lated by levels, the chronology seems to be littie clearer than that in the Olmec area, and approxi? mately the same types are illustrated. Animal figurines are found in small numbers in both these complexes. In marked contrast to these simple Pre-Classic figu? rines are the large, hollow, complex figures illustrated by Medellin Zenil (1960) from the Proto-Classic sites of central Veracruz. MacNeish (1954, pp. 586-589) analyzed the figures from his and Ekholm's (1944) excavations in the Huasteca for chronological differences, and developed 18 sequential types (MacNeish, 1954, fig. 20). The Olmec-like "pseudo baby face" type, falls in the Aguilar Phase dating about 800 B . C The related negroid type runs from about 800-1 B.C In general MacNeish's and Ekholm's figurines are quite compa? rable to those of the Olmec area and the Valley of Mexico, and it is probable that a similar sequence prevailed in both regions. Over 500 figurines were found in the excavation of the Snaketown site of southern Arizona (Gladwin, et al., 1937, p. 233, pi. 195-207). These rather simple handmade nude females are obviously crude imita? tions of the Mesoamerican Formative examples. Many are armless, have exaggerated hips, and the legs end in points rather than modeled feet; others are seated. Figurines run through the Hohokam sequence and the changes in form have been worked out by Haury (op. cit., fig. 114). Even cruder female figurines are rare in the Basket Maker iii sites of the San Juan River region in north? em New Mexico. Obviously an introduced trait, figurines did not become a feature of the succeeding Anasazi. After A.D. 500 clay figurines are found in Oregon in the Wakemup ii Phase (Butler, 1959). The earliest figurines in the eastern United States are from the Poverty Point Phase in the Lower Mississippi Valley (1200-400 B . C ; chart 10, 24-27). While 13 are discussed by Ford and Webb (1956, pp. 49-50, fig. 16), additional collections now make a total of 91 fragments available for study. There is no difficulty about the classification of Poverty Point figurines, for they all conform to one type. They represent nude females, sometimes pregnant, seated, with arms and legs shown by rounded projections. The hips are wide, but other sexual features are poorly represented. Most of the heads are broken off and few have been found. Heads attached to torsos are poorly modeled, and features are represented by simple slashes. On some there appears to be a belt around the waist. A red jasper figurine from the Jaketown site has facial features represented by incising (chart 10-23), but the body is a simple rectangular slab. A similar but cruder sandstone slab figurine comes from the succeeding Marksville Phase (chart 10-20), as does a standing figure made of quartz (chart 10-22). There is also a fragment of the head of a hollow figurine (chart 10-21). Rare clay figurines were made in the Lower Mississippi until about A.D. 600 (chart 10, 16-19; Ford, 1951, fig. 44). Figurines are a fairly rare trait in fully developed Hopewell sites (100 B .C-A .D . 200) in Illinois and Ohio. The remarkable figurines from Knight Mound, Illinois, described by McKern, Titterington, and Griffin (1945), are well modeled and represent both standing males and females, and females seated in a peculiar position with the legs bent to the side (chart 10, 5-8). The men wear breechcloths and the women, wrap-around skirts. Similar but cruder figures from other Illinois sites represent standing figures with the knees slightiy flexed, a position very reminiscent of the standing jade figures from the Olmec site at La Venta (chart 10, 10-11). Realistic figurines are illustrated by Willoughby from the Turner group of earthworks in Ohio (chart 10, 1-4; Willoughby, 1922, pp. 71-74, pis. 20-21). Male figures wear breechcloths, earspools, and a sort of headdress with knobs on it. They are shown standing, or seated, either cross-legged or with knees drawn up to the chest. One figure is kneeling, seated on his feet. A complete female figure wears a wrap? around skirt and has the hair arranged in a bun on the back of the head. These figures, as well as the "Knight" figurines from Illinois, were painted. From the Mandeville site in Georgia, dating in Hopewell times, there is another realistic female dressed in a wrap-around skirt, and the upper torso and head of a figure wearing an elaborate turban (chart 10, 14-15; McMichael, 1964, pi. 8a, j - k ) . In the Weeden Island burial mounds (A.D. 400- 600), along the northwest coast of Florida, Moore (1902) found a series of hollow, standing male or female figures, 9-24 cm. high (chart 10, 12-13). These sometimes wear cap-like headdresses and have openings in the backs of their head so that they could serve as containers. These are several centuries later than the small solid Hopewell figurines, and their plump proportions are reminiscent of the Late Formative hollow figurines of Mesoamerica and Ecuador. Hunchback hollow human figure vessels, frequentiy kneeling and sometimes with spine showing as though they represent preserved bodies, occur in the eastern United States on the late Mississippian time level in Tennessee and Missouri. Small solid 82 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 human and animal adornos attached to vessel rims have a similar date; however, true figurines are extremely rare after A.D. .500. Summary In general terms, there is a certain consistency in the Formative figurine sequences. Stone figurines, while rare, tend to be early. More attention is given to faces than to other parts of the body. The earliest clay figurines are nude females, sometimes obviously pregnant. Arms and legs either taper to points or in some cases are missing. Later in each sequence, both sexes are represented, and the figures wear clothing: wrap-around skirts for the females, and breechcloths for the males. Except in the Olmec region, large hollow figures also tend to be a late element. There are some inter-areal comparisons of interest. Hair arrangement is emphasized in the Early Forma? tive of South America, while helmets and caps are more popular in Mesoamerica. The Valdivia female figurines have the parting of the hair indicated by a wide groove. This trait is also present in Olmec figurines which do not wear head covering. Coe has suggested that this is an attribute of the were-jaguar. I t could be explained, however, as a possible heritage from the earlier representations. This same parting of the hair is found on Poverty Point figurines from the Mississippi Valley. Many examples of two-headed females come from Valdivia and Tlatilco. This may be representation of a rare biological phenomenon, but perhaps it is significant in that so far as is known, it is confined to the Early Formative in both regions. While the earliest figurines in both South America and North America are small and solid, and the larger hollow figurines appear at a later date, the two classes are found together at the beginning of the Veracruz and Tehuacan sequences in Mesoamerica. Male figurines with beards and wearing peaked caps date about A.D. 1 on coastal Ecuador and Vera? cruz. Occasional representations of beards are found earlier on the large Olmec stone heads at La Venta, and later in the Mochica Phase of north coast Peru. 01ro.ec figurines, usually made of jade on the Gulf coast of Mexico, represent achondroplastic dwarfs standing with the knees flexed. This flexed-knee stance is found on the famous Adena stone pipe (chart 10-9), and nearly all of the pottery figurines that have come from the Illinois and Ohio Hopewell sites. The relative abundance of figurines can be measured only subjectively. Fairly common in Ecuador, hand? made figurines are rare in the early phases of Peruvian Formative, and absent thereafter. They are rather common through the Mesoamerican Formative, and become abundant when the molding technique began to be used in the early centuries of this era. In the Mississippi Valley and the eastern United States, hand-made figurines are practically confined to the Poverty Point-Hopewellian time level, where they are fairly infrequent, and disappear after A.D. 500. As in Peru, this looks like an introduced trait that lost its popularity after a few centuries. Mold-made figurines were never made in North America. Comparison Nude female figurines, which later acquire clothing, are a feature of Middle and Late Jomon in Japan. There is also a tendency toward exaggeration of the hips and thighs as is seen in Late Formative Meso? american examples (J. E. Kidder, 1957, pp. 41-47, figs. 40-43). A detailed chronological comparison should prove most interesting. Tubular and Platform Pipes C H A R T 11 In 1948 Porter published Pipas Precortesianas, a definitive study of available information on the history of smoking pipes in the Americas. The principal defect of this study was that, in the absence of the radio? carbon dates, she accepted the too late calendrical guesses of Ford and Willey (1941) for eastern North America. The basic thesis seems to be correct. Pipes developed from tubular to platform, to elbow and block forms in the eastern United States. The change from a one-piece "self pipe" to those having inserted wood stems is an important marker for early and late forms. Then about A.D. 900 platform pipes, which had survived and acquired characteristic forms on the Texas periphery, spread rapidly to Mexico and to South America as far as the Argentine and Chile. Spaulding (1946) has suggested that the tubular pipe, the earliest form preserved to archeology, de? veloped from the bone tubes used by shamans of north? ern Siberia and the Dorset culture of the American Arctic for extracting evil spirits in curing ceremonies. This seems a probable theory since it would account lor the ceremonial and curing aspects of pipe smoking among the historic Indian groups. What may be the earliest examples of tubular and elbow pipes of stone are found in the Congdon ii Phase of Oregon, which Butler (1959) thinks begins somewhere between 1500 and 1000 B.C Meighan (1959) has discussed the distribution of pipes in coastal California. Long tubular steatite pipes first appear in the Late Horizon, which runs from A.D. 300 to the beginning of the Historic Period. In the GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 83 Southwest, stone tubular pipes first occur about A.D. 300 in the Basket Maker of the Four Corners region and in the Pine Lawn Phase of southwest New Mexico (Reed, 1964). In the eastern United States, Grifiin (1964, pp. 234-235) says that tubular stone pipes date from the Glacial Kame sites of the Late Archaic shortly before 1000 B.C Ritchie (1965, p. 178) states that cigar-shaped and the specialized blocked-end types appear in New York State at about 1000 B.C , the time of the earliest ceramics. Tubular pipes, sometimes in effigy form, are an element of the Adena culture (chart 11-3) of the central part of the Ohio River (800-100 B . C ) . Simple tubular pipes of stone and pottery are found on this same time level in Illinois (chart 11-6), and reach the Gulf coast in Poverty Point (1200-400 B . C ; chart 11, 12-13) and St. Johns I times (400-1 B . C ; chart 11-8). In the eastern United States, the tubular is succeeded by the platform pipe on the Hopewellian time level (chart 11-2, 5, 7, 9-10) at approximately 100 B . C - A . D . 300. Just how the development from tubular to platform shape occurred is not clear. There are no transitional forms. There seem to be no pipes from Formative sites in Middle America. The nearest pipes in South America occur on north coastal Colombia. In the Momil i levels, Gerardo and Alicia Reichel-Dolmatoff (1956, p. 219, pi. 19, 7-11) found 80 fragmentary cylinders that tapered to one end and had a very small perfora? tion running through them (chart 11-33). All were broken at the other end, so that the authors were un? certain whether they were spouts for vessels or the mouth ends of tubular pipes. As no evidence was found for attachment to vessels, it seems probable that these are pipes from which the thin-walled tobacco chamber has been broken. Tubular pipes are found in the Lake Valencia region of Venezuela in the Cabrera Phase, dating about 500 B.C. (Sanoja, 1963, p. 73). Meggers (1966, p. 98) says that elbow pipes (chart 11-38) are a rare artifact in the Jama-Coaque Phase of the Regional Developmental of Ecuador (500 B.C-A.D. 500). "The bowl is usually located in the body of a human or animal figure, but some pipes take the form of a human arm with the mouthpiece in the extended thumb." Izumi and Sono (1963, p. 128, table 12, pis. 98b; 155, 1-3) found "fragmentary cylindrical clay ob? jects" in "considerable quantity" (chart 11, 40-41). They say that "There are three kinds of shapes: some have a cylindrical shape with only one end open and the others are open at both ends; among the latter, there are some pieces having one end outflared like a trumpet (pi. 98a-14). The use of these objects is unknown." It seems quite clear that the cylindrical objects with flared ends were tubular pipes. These date from Chavin times to the end of the Kotosh sequence (800 B .C-A .D . 500). Gonzalez (1963, p. 109) notes that pipes first appear in all complexes of his early ceramic period beginning between 500 and 1 B . C , and is of the opinion that along with grooved stone axes, pipes reached north? west Argentina from the north along the eastern slope of the Andes. He states that "From northwestern Argentina they crossed the cordillera into Chile and were incorporated into the Molle culture, an event that must have taken place during Molle I" (ca. A.D. 250). As mentioned at the beginning of this section, Porter (1948) has given a picture of the later distribu? tion of pipe forms, which seems to have occurred after A.D. 900 from east Texas, and to have involved the variations on the monitor or platform type of pipe. Summary The tubular "self pipe" without an inserted stem seems to be one of the elements that originated in North America and diffused directly to northern South America between 1000 and 1 B.C Whether tobacco accompanied this original diffusion is not known. A later southward movement of platform pipe forms seems to have occurred about A.D. 1000. Unlike the earlier diffusion, this did involve Meso? america. Flat and Cylindrical Stamps C H A R T 11 The use of stamps for impressing designs, perhaps on the skin or on fabrics, seems to be earliest and most common in Mesoamerica, where it goes back to about 1200 B.C. These stamps are of two principal varieties: flat, either with or without projections on the back to serve as handles; and cyhndrical, either solid or with a central perforation provided for an axle. The material is usually pottery, sometimes stone. Porter (1953, pp. 41-42, pi. I3a-c) describes both these principal types from the Tlatilco site in the Valley of Mexico. Flat stemmed, perforated cylin? drical, and solid cylindrical stamps were found. Designs were both negative and positive. The motifs included the hand, snake, scroll, and geometrical designs, and were quite bold. Several of the flat stamps were shaped like a human foot (chart 11, 21-22). Drucker, Heizer, and Squier (1959, p. 258) list flat clay stamps as missing from La Venta and cyhndrical 84 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 Stamps as rare. The two fragments found in strata excavation (Drucker, 1952, pp. 141-142) have heavy carving and deep design. Coe, who has recently reviewed Drucker's collection, informs me that in his opinion the bottie neck shown by Drucker (op. cit., fig. 40b) is a roller stamp (chart 11-19). If true, this not only adds a third stamp to the La Venta collection, but at the same time eliminates botties with tall necks. Both cylindrical (chart 11-16) and flat stamps were fairly common at Tres Zapotes. The flat stamps had square, elongated, rectangular, or circular faces (chart 11-18; Weiant, 1943, pp. 116-117, pis. 62-63). Drucker (1943b, pp. 67-68, figs. 200-208) says that stamps are relatively rare at Cerro de las Mesas, but both flat and cylindrical varieties (chart 11-15, -17) appear in collections of material purchased from the local people. Apparently Garcia Payon (1966) did not find stamps in his excavations at Chalahuites and El Trapiche. The re-excavation of Chalahuites by Medellin, Wallrath, and Ford had similar results. At Las Flores site in the Huasteca, Ekholm (1944, p. 472, fig. 48k-n) found five plain flat rectangular stamps. All date in Period v (A.D. 1000). In the Chiapas sequence at Santa Cruz, Sanders (1961, pp. 43-44, pi. l lAa-b , llBf-h) found two examples of cyhndrical stamps (chart 11, 26-27). One of these came from the Burrero Period (Chiapa II, 800 B.C.), the other from Burrero-Chiapilla (ca. 400 B.C.). The carving on the cylinders is deep and wide, similar to that on the cylindrical stamps at Tlatilco. He also found three flat rectangular stamps (chart 11, 23-25), which date in the Chiapilla Period (ca. 450-250 B . C ) . These have more delicate rec? tilinear designs. M. D. Coe (1961, p. 105, fig. 59m), in the Soco? nusco of Guatemala, found fragments of large hollow cylindrical stamps in the Conchas ii Phase (chart 11-29). They seem to last on into Crucero. Coe's comparative comments are worth quoting: "the distribution of roller stamps in time would lead one to believe that they are usually, if not always, con? fined to the Formative in Middle America. I strongly suspect that alleged occurrences of these objects in Classic contexts are due to redeposition." He points out that the bold deeply cut designs such as were found at Tlatilco, are confined to Chiapa ii in the Chiapas region, which means they probably date between 1000 and 500 B.C Other occurrences are cited at Kaminaljuyu and Copan. They are lacking at Zacaleu, which has no Formative levels. A single circular flat stamp with a spiral design (chart 11-28; op. cit., p. 109, fig. 61a) came from the Crucero- Marcos levels. Similar circular stamps are illustrated in the Valley of Mexico and Veracruz areas. Circular flat stamps are also found at Zacaleu, and they seem to last up to Conquest times. Coe further states that long rectangular flat stamps persist into quite late times in the Guatemalan highlands. At the Momil site on the north coast of Colombia, Gerardo and Alicia Reichel-Dolmatoff (1956, p. 222) found a single flat circular stamp in Momil i deposits (chart 11-30). This had a conical back, which served as a handle. Also from eariy Momil deposits was a single cylindrical stamp, which had a crude zig-zag design and was not perforated (chart 11-32). In Momil II, however, hollow cylindrical stamps are characteristic. These are made of a fine clay and have a variety of deeply incised designs, which were positive. That is, the printing surfaces express the design rather than making a colored background (chart 11-31). Meggers (1966, pp. 75, 89, 98, 105, 115, 128) details the cylindrical and flat pottery stamps found in various phases of the Regional Developmental Period (500 B . C - A . D . 500) on the coast of Ecuador (chart 11, 34-37), where they are a rather charac? teristic artifact. Patterns tend to be both bold and fine checkerboards, squares and zig-zags, as well as naturalistic curvilinear patterns of birds, monkeys, and floral designs. The flat stamps are provided with handles on the back, and are circular, long rectangu? lar, or irregular in shape. Both flat and cylindrical stamps disappear from the Ecuadorian sequences after A.D. 500. A single flat circular stamp was found by Izumi and Sono (1963, p. 130, pi. 154-12) at Kotosh in the Peruvian highlands (chart 11-39). This was small and crudely carved to produce a circle and dot design. It dates in the Kotosh Chavin Phase (800-400 B . C ) . With the earliest pottery in Huaca Prieta on the north coast of Peru, Bird (1948, p. 27) found both roller and flat stamps. Larco (1946, p. 153) states that stamps are a Gupisnique trait, but does not specify the type. Carrion Cachot (1948, pi. 24t) illustrates a flat stamp with handle from Ancon (chart 11-42), which bears S-figures. Only one flat stamp is known from the Poverty Point complex of the Lower Mississippi Valley (chart 11-14). This is made of stone and has a flat round face on which is carved a cross and four circles. The upper part tapers to provide a handle. Twelve engraved flat thin tablets have been found in the Adena sites in a quite restricted region of the central Ohio River Valley (chart 1 1 ^ ) . Webb and Baby (1957, pp. 83-101) describe these in some detail. Four show the head and beak of a raptorial bird, and four have formalized hand and foot forms. These are boldly engraved, and the use of the circle and dot is unusual for North America. The authors (op. cit., p. GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 85 96) note that two tablets have dark red stam on the face, and concluded that they were probably stamps used for decorating clothing or body. Stirangely enough, cylmdrical stamps occur in the same region. They are usually made of stone, some perforated, some solid cylinders, and some spool- shaped as though intended for impressing designs on arms or legs. Holmes (1903, fig. 28) illustrates exam? ples. Baby provides the infornjiation that those in the Ohio Historical Society collections and a large collec? tion in the hands of a local collector are recorded as surface finds on Fort Ancient sites, (A.D. 1300-1600). With the exception of circles and dots and small S-figures in Chavin, none of these Formative stamps were used to make impressions on pottery. A carved paddle probably made of wood was used in the southeastern United States for impressing pottery beginning about 500 B .C and lasted up to the Historic Period. The model for this treatment is clearly the Woodland cord-wrapped and carved-face paddle. Paddle-impressed pottery is found quite late in the Peruvian coastal sequence, where it is associated with mold-made designs. This probably has no direct connection with the stamping tradition under discussion. Summary Both flat and cylindrical stamps appear in Meso? america about 1200 B.C. Their diffusion into South America seems to date about 800 B.C Evidence of this influence into North America is much weaker: a single circular stamp from Poverty Point, and the flat tablets of the Adena Phase, which are not provided with handles on the back. The very late occurrence of roller stamps in the Fort Ancient Phase of the Ohio River Valley is one of those curious unexplained phenomena. Bark Beaters CHART 3 For the past several years, Tolstoy has been engaged in a study of the world-wide distribution on the several methods of manufacturing cloth by malleating the inner bark of certain trees such as the mulberry. A preliminary summary was published by the New York Academy of Sciences (Tolstoy, 1963). Bark beaters in the American Formative conform to a single type, which also has an extensive diffusion through the Pacific Islands. A complete example was found by MacNeish in a dry cave deposit dating in the Palo Blanco Phase (200 B . C - A . D . 900) in Tehuacan Valley (chart 3-20; MacNeish, 1961, figs. 13-1, 15). This had a rectangular stone head, with parallel ridges cut into both flat faces, and was strongly grooved around the periphery. A flexible withe handle was in place, bent around the peripheral grooves and tied securely where it crossed. Both ends extended about a foot and were tied together to form a handle. One piece of bark cloth was found in Santa Maria deposits. Garcia Payon (1966, p. 175, pi. 84?3) found one fragment of a bark beater in his excavation at El Trapiche. This was in Cut B, Level 12, well toward the bottom of the deposit in association with rocker stamped ceramics (op. cit., table 3). Weiant (1943, p. 120, pi. 72, 15-17) in reporting on the excavation at Tres Zapotes says, "Several bark beaters were found, ranging in shape from rectangular to oval. These were grooved around the outer edge. The ridges on the beating surfaces are typically finely spaced on one side and widely spaced on the other. The excavated specimens were associated with upper Tres Zapotes ceramics" (chart 3-13). Similar stone bark beaters were encountered by Ekholm (1944, pp. 490, 493, fig. 56v-w) in his excavation in the Huasteca. These are described as grooved around the edges for hafting and with a scoring placed closer together on one face than on the other. Ekholm assigns these elements to his Period v and possibly the latter part of Period iv (ca. A.D. 1000). In the past, it has usually been thought that bark beaters and bark cloth belong to the Classic and Post- Classic in Mesoamerica. As Vaillant (1941, p. 195) points out, many of the folding books, or tonalamatl, which survived the Spanish Conquest, are written on paper made from the bark of the amate or wild fig tree. Bark cloth is not reported in the ethnological records of the eastern United States, and nothing resembling the typical Mesoamerican bark beater has been described in archeological reports. In a forthcoming paper on additional collections from the Poverty Point site, Webb and the writer (ms) will describe three oval stone objects about 7 cm. long, which have grooves around the edges and two faces that are slightly domed. These faces do not have the scoring lines usual on the Mesoamerican type of bark beater, and for that reason, Tolstoy has expressed some doubt that they actually were used for this purpose. Yet it is clear that these tools were hafted in the typical bark beater fashion. If they were not employed to malleate the cortex of bark, they must have been used for a similar purpose. In the Plains area, a heavy grooved maul is used for crushing bones before they are boiled to render the grease. These are discussed by De Laguna (1947, pp. 164-166). Apparentiy they diffused southward from the Arctic. Gladwin, et al. (1937, p. 104, pi. 45) 86 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME I I found seven grooved "hammerstones" in the Santa Cruz and Sacaton Phases at Snaketown. These are quite late and while some have markedly arched faces, others are nearly flat and could have served as bark beaters. They are much flatter than the grooved mauls, and it is possible that, like so many Snaketown traits, they diffused from Mesoamerica. In the Chiapas sequence, four bark beaters of this type have been reported from a Chiapa vii context (A.D. 1-200). This information is provided by Lowe. M. D. Coe (1961, fig. 41c) illustrates what may be a small fragment of a bark beater from Ocos Phase deposits (chart 3-27). A second artifact, more clearly a bark beater, of rectangular shape, grooved edges and scored flat faces, came from the surface of the Ocos site making dating uncertain (chart 3-28; op. cit., p. 110, fig. 42b). On the coast of Ecuador, Estrada, Meggers, and Evans (1964, pp. 497, 539, pi. 6b-c) illustrate grooved face bark beaters from the Jambeli culture of the Regional Developmental Period (500 B . C - A . D . 500). They say that the "two bark beater fragments are from sites that occupy an early and a later position, suggesting that this trait was present throughout the sequence." These beaters are somewhat anomalous in that the edges are squared and flat rather than grooved to provide for the handle. A similar example comes from the contemporary Bahia Phase (chart 3-32, op. cit., pi. 6a). On the north Peruvian coast. Bird (1948, p. 25) found fragments of bark cloth in late preceramic context, but no beaters. This implies an age of slightly more than 1200 B .C In recent times bark cloth was extensively made and used by tribes in the Amazon Basin, and it is possible that the specimens found by Bird were trade items from this source. Summary Although evidence is somewhat scattered, it appears that bark beaters, and by inference the manufacture of bark cloth, were introduced into the American Formative about 1000 B .C In the selva regions east of the Andes, the custom of making bark cloth is still practiced today. This industry also lasted through the Classic and Post-Classic in Mexico, was used for book-making by the Aztecs, and today the Otomi Indians make bark cloth, which is purchased by art students at the National University of Mexico and painted with flowers and cock fight scenes. The introduction of bark cloth manufacturing into North America in the Poverty Point Phase and late in the sequence at Snaketown is a possibility. POTTERY A N D STONE VESSELS A N D A P P E N D A G E S Small Wide-mouth Pot C H A R T 12 Small pots with globular bodies, in which the height is very nearly equal to the diameter, with wide mouth and short nearly vertical rims, are one of the two major shape groups in the Valdivia Phase of Ecuador between 3000 and 1500 B.C (Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 54, 13-23). Variations on the bowl form are the second major group. The paste of the Valdivia pots varies from a rather sandy texture, Punta Arenas Plain (op. cit., pp. 4 3 ^ 4 ) , and San Pablo Plain (op. cit., p. 45) to a paste that contains only a small amount of fine sand, Valdivia Plain (op. cit., pp. 72-74). In size these vessels range from about 10 cm. in diameter to 28 or 30 cm. Usually they tend to be small, between 14 and 24 cm. From 3000 to 2000 B.C. more than 30 percent of the Valdivia pots have folded rims (chart 12, 49-52; op. cit., p. 90), and a number of these have either delicate notching formed by impressing an instrument in the lip at close intervals (op. cit., fig. 37-2), or the lip edges have been formed into a scalloped pie crust form by the fingers. It will be noted that these features of sandy paste and finely notched rims are early in the life cycle of this pot form in other regions where it will be described. Later, from 2000 to 1500 B . C , the folded rims are replaced by rims that are not thickened, but have a definite channel on the interior (chart 12^8 ) . This form is usually called a cambered rim. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada divide these curved rims into two classes: "angular cambered" and "curved cambered." Wide-mouth pots with cambered rims comprise about 20 percent of the Valdivia vessels at this time. A substantial proportion of these pots are deco? rated, and the association of decorations with the several forms is given by Meggers, Evans, and Estrada (1965) in their table A. The earlier folded rim pots have decoration just below the rim fold GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 87 and extending a short way down the vessel neck in the form of short vertical bands of combed lines, short vertical grooves made with the finger, narrow bands of fingernail punctations, scallop-shell stamp impressions that run horizontally and are arranged in panels, incised lines made with a pointed instru? ment similarly arranged in panels, and striated polishing. A notable decorative effect is named Valdivia Modeled (op. cit., pp. 66-67). This consists of a single row of nodes formed a short distance below the rim fold by pushing the vessel surface out from the interior with the fingertips. Finger impressions show plainly in the interior and the protuberances range from barely perceptible rises to pronounced bulges (op. cit., pi. 78). This treatment is confined to the early periods of Valdivia and does not continue into the late periods, where cambered rims are usual. On the pot shape, the two variations of the later cambered rim vessels also are frequentiy decorated. The decoration, however, is usually on the exterior of the rim, rather than below as with the folded rims. Applique fillets, fingernail punctating, broad-line incising, and nicked broad- line incising are usual decorations. Brushing, also found on both curving and angular cambered rims, is usually applied slanting on the rims, and on the body is carelessly crosshatched. A row of punctations at the lower edge of the decorated rims may be a replacement for the punched-out nodes (op. cit., fig. 35-1). There is another change in vessel form in Valdivia pottery over this same range in time, but it occurs on bowl shapes, rather than the wide-mouth pot under discussion. This begins with four short, solid feet placed on plain or red-slipped simple bowls (chart 12-53). This feature had its maximum popularity between 3000 and 2000 B . C , and tends to be replaced between 2000 and 1500 B .C by bases that have been pushed into a concave form. Both of these variations in base form disappear after 1500 B .C (op. cit., p. 92). As will be pointed out later in other regions and at later times, these base forms are associated with the wide-mouth pot. The wide-mouth pot form apparently is not found to the north in ceramics that date much before 1000 B.C. It is absent from the Puerto Hormiga and Barlovento complexes of northern Colombia, the Barra, Chiapa i, El Arbolillo, and San Lorenzo- La Venta of Mesoamerica, as well as the fiber- tempered Stallings Island and Orange complexes of the southern Atlantic coast of North America. After the beginning of the Christian Era, this small wide-mouth pot is found on the Pacific coast of Colombia, but how the tradition was maintained after its apparent disappearance at the end of the Valdivia Phase in Ecuador at 1500 B.C. is not clear. In the bay of Cupica, in the humid jungle of the north Pacific coast of Colombia, Gerardo and Alicia Reichel- Dolmatoff (1962) excavated a small mound that had been constructed in four levels. Burial pits had been dug from each level and the ceramics that accom? panied these burials showed a clear sequence of forms. Radiocarbon dates are not available but Angulo Valdes (1962b, fig. 8) estimates that Phases i and ii date between A.D. 1 and 500. Phase i has the small, wide-mouth pot form (chart 12-44; Reichel-Dolma- off, G. and A., 1961, pis. 3 -1 , -4 , - 5 , - 8 ; 4, 1-3, 5-6; 5-2, -5) . Bodies are almost globular and the low rims that rise to the wide mouths have lightly notched lips, an added scalloped fillet, and are decorated with punctations. From the illustrations, it appears that two may have slightly cambered rims (op. cit., pis. 3 -1 ; 4?6). On the shoulders of some of the vessels, there is a row of nodes formed by pushing out the vessel wall from the interior with the fingers. Decora? tion on the body consists of bands of straight lines, punctations, or curving bands of zoned hatching. Dentate stamping is zoned by incised lines in what looks like a bird motif (op. cit., pi. 5-3). This small, wide-mouth pot form runs through the four phases of the Cupica Burial Mound (op. cit., pi. 14?2) and is also in the Murillo, Martincito, and Minguimalo Phases at the Minguimalo site on the San Juan River on the Pacific slope of the Andes. Two radiocarbon dates for the early and late phases of this stratified site are A.D. 832 and 1252, respectively, but Formative features are preserved to a remarkable extent. In the Murillo Phase some of the pots are decorated between lip and shoulder with incised con? centric square and fret motifs (op. cit., fig. 4, pi. 2-1). The only painted designs are formed by narrow, red lines on the natural clay surface. The most remarkable feature is the extensive use of nodes punched through from the interiors of the pots in the two latter phases of the Minguimalo site. These are made with a small, cylindrical instrument and the interior wall of the vessel is usually smoothed over so that the small protuberances that appear on the exterior wall have a hollow space behind them. More rarely the nodes are made inside the vessel lip. As is so often true with the similar nodes of the Alexander complex of the Tennessee River Valley, or in Early Illinois Hopewell of the eastern United States, the tops of the nodes are frequently knocked off with use of the vessels so that the hollow space is revealed. In Colombia several rows of nodes are ar? ranged on the pot necks running parallel to the rim (op. cit., pp. 29-30, pis. 3-9). Crudely incised designs with rectangular motifs, or punctations and angular zoned hatching are accompanying decorative treat- SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 ments. The small globular pot is described by Duque (1964, pp. 332-335) at the San Agustin site in the Central Cordillera of Colombia, and assigned to the phase Mesitas Medio. The time is probably near A.D. 1. Momil-like decoration characterizes Duque's (op. cit., pi. 2) early phase, and nodes punched from the interior also occur. The tradition of the small globular-bodied, wide- mouth pot continued in the highland Colombia, probably right up to the time of the Spanish Con? quest. They are illustrated by Cubillos (1959, pi. 19a, c) from tombs in the adobe brick pyramid of Tulcan, on the outskirts of Popayan at the head of the Cauca River Valley. Also they are a part of the Rio Bolo complex examined by Bennett and the writer further down the Cauca Valley (Ford, 1944, pi. I A - 1 ) . There are no radiocarbon dates for these occurrences, but it is doubtful if they predate the Spanish Conquest by more than a century or so. Matthew and Marion Stirling (1964a) illustrate small, wide-mouth pots with globular bodies from a tomb in Code Province, Panama. One bears an excised design. Admittedly on the basis of littie evi? dence, they consider that this ware is early. Vessels of similar proportions but considerably larger (15 to 30 inches in diameter) were found on Taboga and Taboguilla Islands, located a few miles from the Pacific entrance to the Panama Canal (Stirling, M. and M., 1964b). Brushing, simple crosshatched in? cising made with a multi-pointed tool, zoned cross- hatching, tick marks on the edge of decorated areas, applique fillets, and stamping with the edge of a scallop shell look like Colonial Formative decorations. One vessel has shoulder bosses pushed out from the interior. A row of nodes punched from the interior occasion? ally occurs in Mesoamerica on other vessel forms. Some of the large tecomates of the Barra Phase (1600-1400 B.C.) in the Soconusco have a single row bordering the rim, made with the finger. This feature continues on into the Cuadros and Jocotal Phases, where it is characteristic of Guamuchal Brushed (1200-800 B.C.; Coe and Flannery, 1967, pp. 28-30, decoration 11). From Tres Zapotes, Drucker (1943a, p. 59) describes similar nodes on ollas. About 1000 B.C. the ceramics of the eastern United States were very limited as to decorations, shapes, and also geographical distribution. The cordmarked, pointed-base Woodland amphora was in use near the Great Lakes. The fiber-tempered, Stallings Island complex on the coast of Georgia has been described. The characteristic decoration is drag-and-jab punctat? ing, which has been compared to Valdivia Drag-and- j a b Punctate. Only two shapes are known: simple bowls and simple bowls with inturned upper rim. These forms have also been compared with those in Valdivia (see p. 109). The Orange complex, also fiber tempered, was well established along the St. Johns River in Florida. The rather varied assemblage of incised decorations has been compared with the Machalilla complex of Ecuador, and it has been pointed out that the usual flat-base pan form is one that is early in the Mexican ceramic sequence. The Bayou La Batre complex of the Mobile Bay area and the Poverty Point complex of the Lower Mississippi also were in existence at this time. The typical decorations have been described: characteristic? ally scallop-shell rocker stamping for La Batre and crude rocker stamping for Poverty Point. A row of nodes below the rim area, formed by punching out the vessel wall from the interior, is found at Poverty Point (chart 12-30), but not at La Batre. Both complexes, however, share vessel shapes that contrast with the two early complexes to the east. These are a small vase with flat bottom and outslanting walls, and a small pot form (Wimberly, 1960, fig. 40). This latter has the size and proportions of the small, wide-mouth pot that is under discussion, but in a number of cases varies in the detail of base shape (chart 12, 23-33). Bases seem to be flattened and are provided with low crude rings, tetrapodal supports, or polypodal supports, this latter a sort of compromise between the ring base and feet. In most instances, bases appear to be absurdly small for the size of the vessels. It is possible that globular bodies are also present in these complexes, but as shape studies have thus far been dependent on sherds, this point remains obscure. In the Lower Mississippi Valley, in the Illinois area, and probably in the intervening region as well, an apparent evolution of the wide-mouth pot form and of its associated decorations may be traced. The early phases have a tendency toward sand tempering of the paste, four feet, ring bases, or small, flat, heel bases. The rims are often thickened by folding, are bordered by a row of nodes punched from the interior, and lips are nicked or notched (chart 12, 10-12). The late phase is the Classic Hopewell pot with rounded shoulders and a small, flat base, which is either circular or square (chart 12, 7-8). Four feet are rare. The thickened rim was superseded by a thin cambered rim. and the row of bosses by a row of large puncta? tions (fig. 6 a-e). The scratchy, straight-line rim decoration is replaced by delicate incising that usually forms a crosshatched pattern. Rocker stamp and linear stamp decorations are associated with this form in its early phase; zoned rocker stamping forming bird motifs in the later one. GEOGRAPHICAL AND CHRONOLOGICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS 89 f g h i J k Mississippi Valley Marksville - Hopewell Phase CO. A.D. 100 , pi. 150g; h, after Byers, ed., 1967-, vol. 3, fig. 7) 156 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 By the start of the Barlovento Phase (1900 B.C.), it is popular on the north coast of Colombia, and it reached highland Peru by 1800 B .C in the earliest Kotosh ceramics. That this form reached Panama from the northwest about 2000 B . C appears probable. Red Slip on Bowls MonagrUlo Red (WUley and McGimsey, 1954^ pp. 65-67, fig. I2e-j, 47d- l ) consists of "Medium-deep bowls, probably 20-30 cm. in diameter, and sub? globular bowls," to which red slip has been applied either to cover the outside, inside, or both surfaces, or to restricted portions of the surface, usually bands about the lip (fig. lOd-e). Other simple arrange? ments include horizontal bands encircling vessels, pendant triangles, semicircles attached to rim bands, and vertical panels. Incised line zoning was not practiced. Red slip was sometimes applied to the sand- tempered pottery of Puerto Hormiga, but it was evidently of poor quality and motifs cannot be determined. Overall red slip, frequently well pol? ished (Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pp. 76-80), runs through the Valdivia sequence. Red bands or areas are rare and restricted to Period A. Arched bands of painted lines begin in Machalilla at 2000 B.C. (fig. lOz^'), but bands are somewhat more narrow than those of MonagrUlo Red. Engraved Decoration About 18 percent of the sherds from the Valdivia deposits were decorated (Meggers, Evans, and Es? trada, 1965, p. 42). This ratio ran 6.2 percent in Puerto Hormiga (Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, p. 28). Of the approximately 20,000 sherds from MonagrUlo, about 70 were incised and several hundred sherds had red slip. This is a propordon substantially below 1 percent. The 70 sherds of MonagrUlo Incised ware tend to "average somewhat finer temper particles, the ex? terior surfaces are almost always well-smoothed, and the ware is somewhat thinner (6-7 mm.)" (WUley and McGimsey, 1954, p. 65). Decoration forms a band below the lip, as is usual in Puerto Hormiga and much of early Valdivia. The technique of MonagrUlo Incised (op. cit., pp. 63-65, figs. I2a-d, 46, 47a-c, 48a-d) is the scratching of lines into the hard dry vessel surface, probably before firing. I am using the term "engraving" for this treatment. Motifs are predominandy curvUinear scrolls, meanders, and keys (fig. I la), but rectilinear elements are also present. Dot punctations at the ends of lines are common (fig. 11^), triangular areas are excised where lines meet, and some examples have red pigment rubbed into incisions. The new discoveries of early ceramics since WUley and McGimsey (op. cit., pp. 128-132) wrote their comparative section on MonagrUlo have provided no potential direct ancestor for MonagrUlo Incised. Most of the essential elements however, existed in northern South America before 2000 B . C , with the possible exception of the curvilinear scroll motif with roughened background. CurvUinear motifs in general are late and rare in the Valdivia-MachalUla sequence. They are present in Puerto Hormiga, with shell stamping used to roughen line-zoned areas, but sherds are too small to determine the decorative patterns. Engraved lines, the excision of triangular areas where lines meet, and red pigment rubbed into the depressed areas are present in Puerto Hormiga (fig. 1 Id) and frequent in Valdivia. Round punctations at the ends of lines were common in Puerto Hormiga, where the lines were broad incisions (Reichel- Dolmatoff, 1965, pis. 3, 8-9; 4; 5, 5-6, 8-9); they are less common in Valdivia, where excised lines often end in broad triangular-shaped excised areas (fig. 111?; Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pis. 56n, 59h-k). That scroll motifs were developing in the north Colombian coastal region at this time is further indi? cated by the frequency of this arrangement in the Barlovento Phase (1900-1500 B . C ) , which features broad-line incising, scroll and undulating band motifs with background roughened by punctations or paraUel lines, and red pigment in incisions. Neckless jars or tecomates are the dominant vessel form (Reichel- Dolmatoff, 1955, pis. 3-5). Excised Rectilinear Designs MonagrUlo sherds with rectUinear undulating bands combined with excised areas (fig. \lc; Willey and McGimsey, 1954, figs. 12c, 48a) have paraUels in Valdivia Excised (fig. 11/), which dates prior to 2000 B.C. (Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pi. 59a). Willey and McGimsey (1954, p. 131) cite re? semblances between MonagrUlo incised and the engraved black-brown ware of the Ar6valo to Mira? flores Phases (800 B . C - A . D . 100) of highland Guate? mala. It may be noted that the same elements are also found along the Gulf coast of North America in the Weeden Island Phase (A.D. 400-600). Possibly this reflects the northwestern diffusion of a decorative family featuring a curving scroll motif with the back? ground hatched or punctated, and punctations at ends of lines. The eastern branch, which also features COLONIAL FORMATIVE DIFFUSION IN THE AMERICAS 157 broad-line incising, adornos, etc., is represented by the Barrancoid ceramics of Colombia, Venezuela, and the AntUles. as having been composed of a selection from this background, brought to the south coast of Panama by early seafarers. Puerto Hormiga Monagrillo Valdivia FIGURE 11 .?Resemblances between pottery decorations of the Monagrillo Phase of Panama, the Puerto Hormiga Phase of Colombia, and the Valdivia Phase of Ecuador, a, d. Curvilinear scrolls, b, e, Enlarged termination of incisions, c, f, Undulatmg bands combined with excision, (a-c, after Willey and McGimsey, 1954: a, fig. 46c; b, fig. 47a; c, fig. 12c. d, after Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, pi. 5-3. e-f, after Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965: e, pi. 59 1;/, pi. 59a) Summary Since the elements of MonagrUlo Phase ceramics were in existence in northwestern South America and Middle America (the tecomate form) at 2000 B .C , the most economical theory is to regard the complex The Sarigua Phase of Panama WUley and McGimsey (1954, pp. 105-110) have described a single site of the Sarigua Phase, a small shell midden located in a filled-in marsh in Parita Bay, Panama. The pottery is simple, and bears no resemblance to MonagrUlo or any other known com? plex in lower Middle America or Colombia. It seems clear that the Sarigua complex precedes the painted ware pottery assemblages in Panama, and WUley and McGimsey argue that it probably follows MonagrUlo. As the latter has an approximate age of 2000 B . C , Sarigua probably dates around 1500 B.C. It seems appropriate then to search for compara? tive traits on this general time level. Composite Silhouette Bowls Fifty-four percent of the 275 sherds found are plain, tempered with quartz sand and quite thin (4-8 mm. with an average of 5 mm.). Surfaces are well smoothed and polished. The most common shape is a medium deep bowl with rounded base. Rims are outcurved and some show the marked shoulder angle of the composite sUhouette bowl (fig. 12a), but whether this was the only bowl form or not, is uncertain. The history of composite sUhouette bowls is shown on chart 13. They first appear in the MachalUla Phase (2000-1500 B.C.) on coastal Ecuador (fig. 12/; Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 90, 9-10). Jars with Collars The authors thought that some of the rims from Sarigua represented "globular jars with restricted orifices and short collars" (fig. 12^). Globular jars with wide mouths reached a popularity of 30-40 percent about 1400 B.C toward the end of the Val? divia Phase and are also found in MachalUla (fig. 12^; Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 54-17). Sarigua Plain shares the features of sandy paste, unusual thinness (4-8 mm. Sarigua; 3-6 mm. Punta Arenas), folded rims, and most vessel shapes with the Valdivia type Punta Arenas Plain. Range of firing color, dark gray to light tan, is also simUar (op. cit., pp. 4 3 ^ 5 ) . Punta Arenas Plain appears in the Val? divia sequence between 2000 and 1500 B.C., and became the dominant type with a maximum fre? quency of about 55 percent after 1500 B.C (op. cit., fig. 52). 158 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 Machalilla Sarigua Valdivia FIGURE 12.?Resemblances between vessel shapes and decorations of the Sarigua Phase of Panama and the Valdivia and Machalilla Phases of Ecuador. a,f. Composite silhouette bowls, b, g, Globular wide-mouth jars, c-e, h-j, Applique decoration, (a-e, after Willey and McGimsey, 1954: a, fig. 28 c, 1, i; b, fig. 28 j - k ; c, fig. 48n; d, fig. 48s; e, fig. 2 9 b . / - j , after Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965: f, fig. 90-9, 10; g, fig. 90-11, 13; h, pi. 88 1; i, pi. 27 l;j, pi. 88k) Applique Decoration The decoration named Sarigua Applique (WUley and McGimsey, 1954, p. 109, figs. 29d-e, 48n-o, s) consists of applique ridges that usually run vertically (fig. I2c-d). Additional clay was applied to the smoothed vessel surface and the fluting seems to have been formed by drawing the close-pressed finger tips down the vessel wall. Applique strips were also used in other Sarigua types to bound areas of punctation, shell-edge stamping, and brushing (fig. 12^). Applique fillets are used in two Valdivia Phase types: Valdivia Applique Fillet (Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pp. 4 5 ^ 6 , fig. 23, pis. 27-29), and one variety included in Valdivia Nicked Rib or Nubbin (op. cit., pp. 69-70, fig. 39, pi. 88). In both types the ridges seem to have been applied as small ropes of clay rather than having been squeezed up between the fingers as in Sarigua (fig. I2h-j). These fillets were pressed down with fingers or a tool, giving a scalloped effect. Like Sarigua Applique, the ridges were sometimes placed on a brushed surface, and in the "Nicked Rib" variety bound areas of crude in? cising. Parallel vertical arrangements are common in Ecuador and Panama. Both the Valdivia decorations have their maximum popularity around 1500 B.C. Thus they are near in time to the presumed age of the Sarigua ceramic complex. These applique decorations are continued on the north coast of Colombia in the Momil Phase (Reichel- Dolmatoff, G. and A., 1956, pp. 141-144, pis. 6-3, 5-7; 10, 2-5, -8 ) . A curious simUarity to the typical Sarigua fingertip-raking treatment is found in the Fulton Phase of Caddoan ceramics (A.D. 1200-1700) of northwestern Louisiana (C. H. Webb, 1959, pp. 136-139, fig. 113). Scallop-shell Stamping Sarigua shell stamping comprised 9 percent of the complex. Somewhat carelessly applied impressions of the edge of a scallop shell are divided into rectUinear or curving zones by low applique ridges (figs. 12 ,^ 13a). Shell stamping zoned by broad incised lines was introduced on the Caribbean coast of Colombia in the Puerto Hormiga Phase considerably earlier than the Sarigua examples, and bounding of incised areas dates about 1500 B .C on the Coast of Ecuador as noted above. Both the applique ridge technique and stamping with the edge of scallop shell are in the Valdivia Phase (fig. \3d); however, they are not used in combination. COLONIAL FORMATIVE DIFFUSION IN THE AMERICAS 159 Zoned Punctadng Sarigua Punctate (WUley and McGimsey, 1954, p. 109, fig. 29a) has a popularity of less than 4 percent. In this type applique ridges bound dot, teardrop, and short slashes made with a pointed tool (fig. I3b). Once again the elements, but not the precise zoning arrangement, are avaUable in the earlier Valdivia ceramics. SimUar punctations zoned by incised lines occur in the Barlovento Phase of northern Colombia, where they date approximately 1900-1000 B . C (fig. 13^; Reichel Dolmatoff, 1955, pis. 4-5). Valdivia Barlovento Sarigua Valdivia FIGURE 13.?Resemblances between pottery decorations of the Sarigua Phase of Panama, the Barlovento Phase of Colombia, and the Valdivia Phase of Ecuador, a, d, Scallop .shell stamping, b, e. Zoned punctation. c,f, Brushing, (a-c, after Willey and McGimsey, 1954: a, fig. 48u; b, fig. 48q; c, fig. 48w. d,f, after Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965: d, pi. 113k;/, pi. 45n. e, after Reichel-Dolmatoff', 1955, pi. 5-8) Brushing Sarigua Striated, with about 15 percent frequency, features combing or brushing of the vessel surface with a stiff brush (fig. I3c). Applique ridges do not seem to be associated. SimUar brushing is one of the principal Valdivia Phase techniques about 1500 B .C (fig. 13/; Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pp. 51-52). As in the Sarigua type, this is applied at various angles to roughen the vessel surface. Summary Sarigua ceramics, quite distinct from the earlier MonagrUlo complex of Panama, appear to have drawn upon a different set of features that were avaUable in Ecuador at a date shortly after 1500 B .C The San Juan Phase of North Coastal Peru In Tumbes, the northernmost of the Peruvian coastal river oases, actually on the south side of the Bay of Guayaquil, a team of archeologists from the University of Tokyo found a simple, and apparently early ceramic which was named San Juan Coarse Incised (Izumi and Terada, 1966, pp. 18-25, 69-70, pi. 25a). A charcoal sample from this level dated at 1830 ? 130 B.C. (op. cit., p. 71). The sherd sample was limited and as no rim sherds were found, the vessel shapes are not known. The ware is described as thin, tem? pered with fine sand, very friable, and ranging from red-brown to buff. Surfaces are smoothed, but not polished. Izumi and Terada consider that this San Juan material dates in the early Formative, and the fact that parallels to this simple assemblage occur in the nearby Valdivia complex suggests that they are correct. Zoned Large Punctations The carelessly drawn punctations bordered by broad incised lines (fig. \4a-b; Izumi and Terada, 1966, pi. 25a, 6-7, 9) are simUar to the sherds that Meggers, Evans, and Estrada (1965, pp. 86-87, pi. I l3p-r) have described as Technique 2 of Valdivia Zoned Incised (fig. 14^-/). Valdivia sherds are hard and have polished surfaces, in contrast to the soft and poorly smoothed San Juan material. Horizontal Incised Lines One San Juan sherd appears to have crudely incised horizontal lines that are broken so that they form panels (fig. 14c). If true, this can be equated with Valdivia Incised, MotU 3 (fig. 14^; Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pp. 63-66, pi. 74a-f, 75b, k). 160 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 Applique Fillets The two San Juan sherds with applique strips applied to the surface and impressed along the ridge top (fig. I4d) are comparable to what Meggers, Evans, and Estrada (1965, pp. 69-74, pi. 88) describe as a variant of Valdivia Nicked Rib or Nubbin (fig. 14A). a Son Juan Valdivia FIGURE 14.?Resemblances between pottery decorations of the San Juan Phase of north coastal Peru and the Valdivia Phase of Ecuador, a-b, e-f, Zoned large punctations. c, g. Horizontal incised lines, d, h, Applique fillets, (a-d, after Izumi and Terada, 1966: a, pi. 25a-9; b, pi. 25a-7; c, pi. 25a-2; d, pi. 25a-10. e-h, after Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965: e, pi. 113r;/ , pi. 113q; g, pi. 75b; h, pi. LUce the early applique strip decorated vessels of the Guanape Phase further down the Peruvian coast, the San Juan examples are not associated with brushing or incising. Summary Izumi and Terada conclude that the radiocarbon date of ca. 1800 B.C. is correct for the San Juan complex, and that it belongs to the early Formative. The resemblances they have cited, and which are essentially repeated above, support their conclusion. The Negritos Style of North Coastal Peru On the coasts of the Piura and Chira Valleys, some 200 kUometers down the coast from Tumbes and the Ecuadorian border, Lanning (1963b) has presented a ceramic chronology based on presence and absence seriation of surface collections. Earliest in this se? quence he places the Negritos style, represented by only 13 decorated sherds (op. cit., pp. 152-153). The ware is rather soft, thin, and heavily tempered with sand with some quite large white particles. Interior surfaces were wiped and the exteriors of half were smooth, half brushed. Lanning (op. cit., pp. 198-199) points to the fact that the limited range of decorations resembles certain Valdivia motifs to the north, and less closely Early and Middle Guaiiape in Viru Valley to the south. Applique Fillets and Nodes Resemblances between Negritos and Valdivia include finger-pressed applique fillets, sometimes with straight- line incisions on the surrounding vessel surface (fig. 15 a, e). Punctated nodes or ridges pushed out with the fing^s from vessel interior in a row around the base of the vessel neck occur on one sherd (fig. 15^). The only rim appears to be from a jar with a short neck. The method of forming the nodes is similar to Valdivia Modeled (fig. 15/; Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pp. 66-67, pi. 78). The Paita Style of North Coastal Peru Valdivia resemblances continue in the early half of the succeeding Paita style, which is divided into Phases A-D (Lanning, 1963b, pp. 153-165). Jars with flaring or "concave" cambered necks are the prominent form. These latter are late in the Valdivia Phase. The applique ridge decoration now more nearly resembles the Guafiape variety (fig. 17c), but also has parallels in Valdivia (fig. 17/). Rows and zones of small punctations, notched fillets, and rows of hollow protuberances are other typical Paita decorations. COLONIAL FORMATIVE DIFFUSION IN THE AMERICAS 161 Wide-line Incising Lanning (1963b, fig. 21a, k-m) Ulustrates examples of wide-line incising from the Paita B Phase (fig. 15^-^) that resemble Valdivia Broad-line Incised (fig. I5g-h; Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pp. 47-51). Cambered Rims The channeled or cambered jar rims that are late in the Valdivia sequence (fig. 16 g-h; Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 54, 21-23) have counterparts in the Paita D Phase (fig. 16c; Lanning, 1963b, fig. 4b), and become popular later (op. cit., figs, l i b , 12i, 15d, 16d-g, 20). The distribution of this feature is discussed in more detaU elsewhere (pp. 86-87). Valdivia FIGURE 15.?Resemblances between pottery decorations of the Negritos and Paita Phases of north coastal Peru and the Valdivia Phase of Ecuador, a-b, e-f, Applique fillets and nodes, c-d, g-h. Wide-line incising, (a-d, after Lanning, 1963b: a, pi. lb ; b, pi. Ic; c, fig. 2d; d, fig. 21a. e-h, after Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965: e, pi. 89 1;/, pi. 78b; g, pi. 39j; h, pi. 38c) Valdivia - Machalilla FIGURE 16.?^Resemblances between vessel shapes and painted decorations of the Paita Phase of north coastal Peru and the Valdivia-Machalilla Phases of Ecuador, a, e. Jars with angular shoulders, b, f, Indented base, c, g-h, Cambered rim. d, i. Red banding, (a-d, after Lanning, 1963b: a, fig. 3; b, fig. 21f; c, fig. 4b; d, pi. 4 1. e-i, after Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965: e, figs. 36, 8 4 - 6 ; / , fig. 43b; g, fig. 26-5; h, fig. 35-6; i, pi. 150s) 162 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 Jars with Angular Shoulders and Indented Bases Lanning's (1963b, figs. 3, 5a, 9, 21 g-h) Ulustrations indicate that by Phase c the Paita jars have developed an angular shoulder at the point of maximum circum? ference (fig. 16a). This feature is not found in Valdivia jars, which have globular bodies, but does occur in some MachaliUa jar forms (fig. 16pe (1950), Willey (1955), Reichel-Dohna- toff (1957), Meggers, Evans, and Estrada (1965, pp. 157-178), and others have discussed portions of this history in considerable detail. They all have con? cluded that there was evidence for cultural connec? tions for the geographical regions they have considered. WhUe much of the same ground will be covered, the writer will not presume to repeat all of their argu? ments, but will attempt to present some new ones. At about 3000 B . C after a long sea voyage from the southwestern Japanese Islands, a group of fisher? men landed on the coast of Ecuador. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada (1965), who have presented the evidence in support of this happening, so novel in terms of currently accepted theory about New World cultural development, have modestly suggested that perhaps this was a single boadoad of fishermen, lost at sea in a storm,^ who were unwUlingly brought to the shores of America bv the North Pacific ocean current. There is reason to suspect,, however, that this might have been more in the nature of an exploring and colonizing expedition involving a number of individuals of both sexes and varied skills. Subsequent events in the Americas suggest that these people had a seafaring, explornag, and colonizing tradition, simi? lar to tPiat of the later Polynesians and VUcings. Solheim (1964, pp. 360, 376-384) has offered statisti? cal evidence to show that one of three sources of the Malayan and Polynesian ceramic traditions was in? fluenced from the Japanese Islands at an estimated date of 1000 to 500 B-.C. The extensive spread of this "Sa-huynh-Kalany" tradition in the southwestern Pacific certainly implies a seafaring tradition. Most of the ceramic shapes, decorative elements, and design motifs are simUar to those postulated to have spread to the Americas between 3000 and 1000 B.C The compact roughly circular vUlages that the immigrants established were clustered along a limited stretch of the coast of Ecuador, and evidence of the complex sophisticated ceramic tradition extends to the initial levels of the deeper middens that have been tested. Rather than a few castaway fishermen being cordially received by local people to whom they taught the art of ceramics, this suggests that competent artisans were in charge of this industry from the start. The ceramic arts do not degenerate, as occurred during some of the later movements inside the Americas, but after about 2300 B.C. pottery is actually better made than the con? temporary wares on the Japanese Islands. The remarkable variety of the Valdivia ceramics suggests that more than one or two individuals, or lineages, founded and maintained this tradition. The 183 184 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME U highly selective fashion in which certain elements of the complex were spread to other parts of the Ameri? cas, also argues that specialization in this craft had already developed. Furthermore, as varied as it is, the Valdivia ceramic complex does not represent the entire range of pottery manufactured at 3000 B.C. in southwestern Japan. As with the early English settle? ment at Jamestown in Virginia, the products manu? factured corresponded to the experience and training of the craftsmen brought from the mother country. Compact, almost circular villages or C-shaped arrangement of houses with the open side of the C facing the beach, are characteristic of the Middle Jomon of Japan (information from Takeshi Ueno and Kazuo Terada). While the clustering of houses close together for defense may be a practical feature without historical significance, the modest plan of arrang? ing dweUings about an open court may have been a trait imported to the Americas at this time. At about 3000 B . C cotton appears in preceramic sites on the coast of Peru to the south. The botanical evidence suggests that this may be the result of a cross between a 13-chromosome Asiatic cotton and a lintless South American relative. Asiatic cotton seeds may well have been part of the baggage of the setdei^ on the Ecuadorian coast (Silow, 1953; Hutchinson, 1963). The people living along the desert coast of Peru before 3000 B . C collected wild food plants as well as produce of the sea. Just as in Mesoamerica at this time, selection of superior plants, and probably planting and cultivation, had developed to a limited extent so that a primitive sort of agriculture was already being practiced. The plants domesticated in? cluded bottle gourds, a species of squash, Uma beans, peppers, jack beans, probably a variety of canna, and a number of other plants. While the series of crania available to Munizaga (1965, p. 228) from Valdivia sites was limited in number, he concludes that it "represents a very homogeneous brachycranic type that probably cor? responds to a family group." Still more impressive is the fact that these earliest round-headed people contrast markedly with the still earlier dolichoce? phalic peoples of both the North and South American preceramic or Archaic phases. Munizaga continues: "This new group may be to a large degree the source of the brachycrany observed in populations associated with the later potterymaking periods on the Peruvian coast." This would be quite an achievement for a single boatload of lost fishermen. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada (1965) have presented an excellent ceramic chronology for the 1500-year span of the Valdivia ceramic complex, and this shows that the Middle Jomon-like features are not all present from the earliest known levels. Some are in? jected into the development at later times. Unless this is a consequence of sampling error, it raises the possibility that there may have been repeated contacts with the Japanese Islands. The Valdivia ceramic complex, which appears suddenly about 3000 B.C. in a limited region on the coast of Ecuador, is by no means primitive. The unusually extensive range of decorations comprises a large part of the techniques (aside from painting) employed in the Americas in the succeeding centuries. These include applique fillets, wide-line incising, brushing, pattern brushing, engraving, excising with red pigment rubbed in lines, fingernail punctating, tool punctating, nodes pushed fi"om the interior, applique nodes, drag-and-jab incising, track polishing, red slipping, scallop-sheU stamping, and rocker stamping. A minor technique of cord impression was to have no effect on later design. The design motifs are also quite fanuliar to those who have worked with American ceramics. I t is notable that they are almost entirely limited to rectUinear arrangements; lines paraUel to vessel rim often broken to form panels, rectangles, undulating fi-ets, interlocking T-shaped designs, zig-zags, stepped designs, slanting arrange? ments of parallel lines, triangles filled with cross- hatching, and both incised and modeled human faces. Vessei shapes of the Valdivia complex are less varied. They include simple and shouldered bowls, sometimes provided with four short feet, and globular- bodied wide-mouth pots. These latter initially have folded and later cambered rims; loop handles are occasionally provided. Nicked, scalloped, and castel? lated rims occur on both bowls and pots, as do dimpled bases; however, a number of vessel shaj?s later to become popular are missing. Within a few years a group of people appears to have proceded up the Pacific coast of South America and established a colony on the Caribbean coast of present-day Colombia. At the Puerto Hormiga site, a small ring-shaped village was placed on an inlet a short distance from the sea. A limited selection of Valdivia ceramic features was introduced: sand tempering, the simple deep bowl form, scallop-sheU stamping, horizontal incised lines, punctated designs, finger node dimples, modeled adornos, drag-and-jab incising, and circle and dot made by excising the background. The zoning of scallop-sheU edge stamping by wide incised lines has not been found in the parent ceramics, but the elements are present. The use of vegetable fibers as tempering and the making of oval, boat-shaped vessels are new items. It has been suggested in the foregoing that perhaps the boat- shaped vessels were copies of wooden bowls carved from small tree trunks. Tha t fiber tempering was A HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION 185 practiced in Early Jomon in Japan may or may not be significant. About 2400 B.C. a remarkably long voyage was made on the Adantic coast of the Americas. The point of origin is not known, but it was probably within a few hundred miles of the Isthmus of Panama. It should be a small coastal circular village where a broader spectrum of Valdivia ceramic features was manufactured than at Puerto Hormiga, but which shared with this latter complex the practice of mixing vegetable fibers with the pottery clay. The route probably passed through the straits of Yucatan, around western Cuba, through the Florida straits, and northward to the mouth of the Savannah River. The Gulf Stream would certainly have assisted, and may have been the reason that a landing was not made on the nearer coasts of the Gulf of Mexico. On offshore islands, islands in the Savannah River, and on old channels now changed to swamp, some 20 or more characteristic small circular compact settle? ments were founded, and shell middens began to accumulate. At least eight villages were ring-shaped. Which and how many localities were established by colonists, and which may have been occupied by local people in process of acculturation is not known. At any rate, undecorated pottery underlies decorated in some deposits. In others, notably the type site, decorated sherds are found in the bottom levels. Except for the fiber tempering, in which it resembles Puerto Hormiga, the Stallings Island pottery shapes and decorations are remarkably similar to a small part of the Valdivia assemblage. The former include deep simple bowls and similar bowls with sharply inturned rims. Decorations are lines incised parallel to the rim with punctations spaced in them, horizontal wide drag-and-jab lines sometimes made with a double-pointed tool and arranged in panels, zig-zag lines, narrow incisions arranged horizontally in panels, careless crosshatching, and point punctations sometimes arranged in panels. In a few examples, rim decoration differs from that on the vessel body. More complex engraved decorations on the heads of the associated bone pins resemble Valdivia incised ceramic designs. The stone artifacts in these early Savannah area sites are typical of the late phase of the Archaic culture that extended over the eastern United States at 2500 B.C. These include stemmed projectile points, "bannerstone" adad weights, and grooved stone axes. Apparently, there was close contact with the preexisting population. The method of burial found by Claflin (1931)? skeletons flexed in small pits with very litde grave goods?conforms to the usual Southeastern Archaic pattern. However, in so far as could be judged, the skeletons themselves do not. It is now well known that the Late Archaic and preceramic population was dolichocephalic. Claflin (op. cit., pp. 4 3 ^ 4 ) states that despite the fragmentary nature of the bones of some 80 burials uncovered, "it can be said in general that the Stallings Island people were brachy? cephalic and did not as a rule practice cranial de? formation." Also somewhat remarkable for the time and place is an adult skull fragment showing circular trephination in the parietal region. The first stages of healing had occurred before the patient succumbed, according to Hooton (in Claflin, op. cit., p. 45). No trephination has been found in the limited cranial material from the early Ecuadorian sites. To the south the first adequate sample of human crania of an early date has been reported by Engel (1963, pp. 10, 67-69) from late preceramic deposits in the VaUey of Asia. The date is before 1200 B . C , but apparently well within the time limits of the ceramic phases. Fifty skulls were studied. They have tabular deformation, and two have been trephined, one of them twice. It was also at this early date, about 2300 B . C , that the art of pottery-making arrived in the highlands of central Mexico, where MacNeish (1964) has re? ported simple, crude "crumbly" ceramics in the Purron Phase (2300-1500 B . C ) in Tehuacan Valley. He (op. cit., p. 536) states: "The pottery, the earliest thus far found in Mesoamerica, has the same vessel forms as the stone bowls and ollas of the previous period. This pottery may not be the first modeled in Mexico, but only an imitation of still earlier pottery (yet unfound) in some other areas." This seems to be a very astute guess, and the source of such influence should be a coastal locality inhabited by seafaring people who had brought the techniques from the coasts of northwestern South America. Whether Brush's (1965) discovery of initial ceramics above nonceramic levels at Puerto Marquez near Acapulco, with a date of 2440 ?140 B . C , represents such a colony is uncertain; forms include the highland "tecomate" or neckless olla, suggesting influence from the highlands rather than the reverse. Probably the spread of the knowledge of ceramic technology inland from a colony on one of the coasts of Mexico was a diffusion process, not the direct movement of groups of people such as is postulated for the coastal settlements. Already established in the highlands were populations who, some two millenia earlier, had begun to improve their lot as typical Desert pattern collectors of wild seeds by selecting and intentionally planting superior varieties. This experimentation with wild foods seems to have been widespread in the Late Archaic of the Americas. The domestication of principally root-type food plants in 186 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 Peru has been mentioned. Just when wild plant col? lectors become agriculturalists is a matter of the degree of dependence placed on cultivated plants. The people of the central Mexican highlands were not full-fledged agriculturalists in 2300 B . C , but in addition to canavalia, beans, and probably pumpkins, they had developed a primitive maize past the point where it had crossed with the wild grass, teocendi. By 1500 B.C. these and additional plants, among them cucur? bits, amaranth, chili, avocado, zapote, and cotton, permitted major dependence on agriculture. These highland Mesoamericans already had a tradition of containers in the form of stone vessels carved into three distinctive shapes. One was a globular jar without a neck, or as the modern Mexican name indicates, a gourd-like vessel or "tecomate." Another was a bowl or pan-like vessel with flat base and low slightly outslanting side walls. These may also have been carved in wood, in view of the fact that wooden flat-base pans are still in use in the Coatzacoalcos River region of southern Veracruz. Simple bowls were the third shape. When the diluted and filtered knowledge of ceramics reached the emerging highland agriculturalists, pottery began to be manufactured in these traditional forms. A fourth form was a small, crude, wide-mouth olla, possibly a poor imitation of the Valdivia olla. Decoration was not applied. By 1500 B.C. or the beginning of the Ajalpan Phase in Tehuacan, ceramic technology had achieved a higher level of competence, agriculture had advanced, and certain unique Mesoamerican vessel forms had spread to Florida in North America and to central Peru. There is evidence that maize agriculture was a prominent factor in this diffusion, particularly to Peru. One supporting item is the fact that the typical Mexican mano and metate made a temporary in? trusion into both Peru and the Mississippi Valley. These container forms and maize agriculture also became associated with the first wave of highly organized and demanding religion to sweep the Americas. In 2100 B.C., the association of ceramics with full- fledged agriculture and the building of even modest ceremonial centers was centuries in the future. The Monagrillo village, established on a peninsula in what is now a filled-in arm of Parita Bay on the Pacific coast of Panama, was clearly the home of people dependent on the sea. Bowl forms, red slip, and decorations made by engraved lines, excising, and rectUinear motifs were Valdivia-related. However, the Mesoamerican neckless jar or tecomate was also present as a minor shape, suggesting that by 2100 B.C. it had begun to spread southward along the Pacific coast. By 1800 B.C., neckless jars had become the principal form of the Barlovento Phase, which replaced Puerto Hormiga on the north coast of Colombia. These have bands of wide-line incised decorations in rectUinear and curvilinear motifs around the mouth. Barlovento is also a vUlage that was arranged in a crude circle. At this time (1800 B . C ) , small settlements appeared along the Peruvian coast. The San Juan Phase of Tumbes has pottery decorations featuring horizontal incised lines broken so that they form panels, large punctations zoned by broad incised lines, and applique fillets, all Valdivia-derived decorations. At the mouths of the Piura and Chira rivers, further to the south, the poorly known Negritos Phase shows Valdivia ceramic resemblances. During this long stretch of time from 3000 to 1200 B.C., many of the Archaic peoples of the north Peru? vian coast continued their former way of life, showing little inclination to adopt the blessing of pottery avail? able a few hundred miles to the north in Ecuador, as well as at rare settlements nearer at hand. They did acquire cotton, and two carved gourds found by Bird (1962) in Huaca Prieta preceramic levels have Valdivia rectangular face decorative motifs. Collection of seafood and the rather casual cultivation of cotton, botde gourds, squash, achira {Canna edulis), and several varieties of beans, provided the subsistence. At about 1800 B . C ceramics reached the central highlands of Peru, where people were already living in masonry apartment house-like villages. The earli? est pottery is by no means primitive, and while the wide-line incised decorations have rectilinear motifs reminiscent of Valdivia, they are not such exact copies as those found in coastal colonies. Also, the earliest Kotosh ceramics show resemblances to a quite different portion of the Valdivia complex than do the coastal colonies cited above. Here, it was the wide-line incised and zoned-hatched motifs that were adopted. The small wide-mouth pot and the open bowls may well be copies of Valdivia forms, but there are two additional shapes not found in the Ecuadorian sequence. One is the large globular tecomate with scraped and crudely polished surfaces and curving (looped and arched) wide-line decora? tion about the mouth. The second is the flat-base pan with slightly outflaring sides. This latter has the smaller diameter and relatively higher sides charac? teristic of the Andean version of this form. Exactly how these two vessel shapes of Meso? american origin became part of the Kotosh complex is not clear. They occur in the earliest ceramic com? plexes on the central and north Peruvian coasts, but the full range of Valdivia-derived decoration repre? sented at Kotosh is lacking. Also, for the most part, the radiocarbon dates are too late. Meggers, Evzms, A HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION 187 and Estrada (1965, p. 175) have suggested that possibly these influences entered Peru via the Andes. Some vessels have pitcher-like spouts, as at TlatUco in Mexico, but this does not become a popular American feature. Similar spouts are common in Japan at this time. At about 2000 B . C a second group of people landed on the Guayas coast of Ecuador, bringing with them the MachaliUa culture. These were also round-headed people, but they introduced a custom apparendy unknown earlier in the Americas. This was the practice of deforming the skulls of babies by applying pressure to the back of the head and to the frontal region. This somewhat bizarre method of beautification in varied forms was to become the hallmark of the people having the highest developed civUizations in the Americas: the Inca, Maya, and Aztec. The custom spread into North America to the Pueblo peoples of the Southwest, and the Missis? sippian peoples of the East. In the Amazon Basin, some remote tribes still continue the practice. The MachalUla viUages were placed along the same stretch of coast already occupied by the Valdivia people. These newcomers also subsisted on products of the sea and left small circular to ovoid shell middens. A remarkable fact is that in spite of the close prox? imity of the two peoples, and apparently peaceful relations, their ceramic traditions maintained their complete individuality for some 500 years (2000-1500 B.C.). Machalilla ceramics were on about the same level of competence as the Valdivia ones, and their distinc? tive shapes and decorations were to produce a marked effect on later traditions. Shapes included composite sUhouette bowls, bottles with straight necks, and stirrup-spout bottles. Decorations were principally applied after the vessel surface was polished and hard. The engraved designs, referred to here as the "Ayangue tradition," featured hatched and cross- hatched triangles, squares, diamonds, and bands of parallel lines in simple but characteristic slanting arrangements. Simple angular motifs engraved with a double-pointed tool are also part of this tradition. The other principal decoration of the MachalUla Phase is red paint applied in simple designs on natural vessel surfaces, which were then polished causing the paint to smear. The origin of the Machalilla people and their dis? tinctive pottery is not known at present. Similar ceramics in early Mesoamerican complexes all date after 1500 B . C , at least 500 years too late to be an? cestral. In the engraving technique, some decorative motifs, and some simple vessel forms, MachalUla has a basic simUarity to Valdivia. Possibly it represents a second colonizing venture from some unknown point on the coast of Asia. A seafaring tradition need not have been confined to the Japanese Islands. At about 2000 B.C or shortly thereafter, a second colonization by pottery-making people seems to have occurred on the south Atlantic coast of North America. Evidence is centered in a series of deep shell middens spaced along the shores of the St. Johns River, in what is now the state of Florida. Like the StaUings Island settlements 150 miles to the north, established some 400 years earlier, the crude pottery that was first deposited in these middens was tempered with plant fiber. A similar developmental sequence also prevails, in that plain pottery is the first to appear (in some middens at least), and this was followed, perhaps from 1800 to 1600 B . C , by decorated types. These general parallels exhaust the similarities between the two complexes. After an initial period in which the only decoration resembles that of the Barlovento Phase of Colombia, the varied Orange decorations are clearly derived from the Ayangue tradition of Machalilla. The makers of the Orange ceramic did their best to achieve a polished surface finish comparable to the model, and succeeded re? markably well considering the nature of the fabric. The dominant vessel shape, however, is not one found in the early Ecuadorian Formative. It is instead the Mesoamerican flat-base pan, which here was some? times made square instead of circular. As with the Stallings Island immigrant group, it is necessary to postulate an undiscovered way-station, perhaps on the Caribbean coast of Central America, where the traits of fiber tempering, the Barlovento decorative motifs, and the characteristic vessel shape were acquired. Orange and Stallings Island coexisted on the southern Atlantic coast only 150 miles apart for 1,500 years (2000-500 B . C ) and neither ceramic complex seems to have had the least effect on the other. This isolationism is directly comparable to that of the Valdivia and Machalilla ceramic com? plexes on the coast of Ecuador between 2000 and 1500 B.C. It is quite evident, however, that the Orange potters were not cut off from stylistic trends occurring to the south. After 1300 B . C , they began to provide their pan-shaped vessels with wide flat lips decorated with the straight-line motifs fashionable at this time in Mesoamerica and northern South America. They also adopted the angular zoned-hatch motifs that became popular there at about the same time. If the original group of MachalUla people did follow the Valdivia group to the coast of Ecuador, this sequence of events appears to have been repeated several generations later in migrations to the south Atlantic coast of North America. 188 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 Between the initial settlement and about A.D. 500, there seems to have been only a limited diffusion of the two fiber-tempered ceramic traditions in the Southeast. The Stallings Island complex probably did not spread more than 100 miles from the Savannah River region. Orange is thinly dispersed over the northern half of the Florida Peninsula as far south as Indian River. There does, however, seem to have been a colony of people with Orange tradition ceramics established on the Fourche Maline River in what is now the eastern part of the state of Oklahoma. A few centuries after 1500 B . C , the American cultures received a shock that was to change their character profoundly. This was the sudden intro? duction of a religio-political system demanding great public works. It is not known with certainty where this first appeared, but the Olmec region on the Gulf coast of Mexico seems to be the best guess. At least, it was here that a remarkable ceremonial complex, infinitely advanced over anything else in the Americas at that date, had developed by 1200 B.C Appearance of organized religion marks the end of what is here called the Colonial Formative and the start of the Theocratic Formative Period. As a result of recent excavations at the San Lorenzo site and new series of radiocarbon dates, Coe, Diehl, and Stuiver (1967) have concluded that the peak of Olmec art with its monumental stone carvings did not occur toward the end of the phase, but was already flourishing between 1200 and 800 B .C New dates for the La Venta site support a similar time range. We are in ignorance as to what sparked the Olmec civilization. Some have speculated that the cultiva? tion of maize, spread down from the Mexican plateau, provided an adequate subsistence base, and the development of such a sophisticated culture was a normal and inevitable result. This seems unlikely for several reasons. First, the seasonally hot and humid jungles of the Coatzacoalcos River are a most un? likely environment. Most of the later civilizations reached their highest development in the more temperate mountain valleys. Secondly, pre-Olmec cultural phases are not known on the coast, but have been well studied by MacNeish and his associates in Tehuacan Valley (in Byers, ed., 1967-), a short distance inland. In this sequence there is no hint of earlier developmental stages that would lead to the unique features of Olmec. The third argument against the independent, local development of Olmec is an example of circular reasoning. Instances of the spontaneous and inde? pendent invention of cultural items, such as ceramics, are becoming increasingly rare. It now seems that they exist only where archeologists have not yet discovered the steps that led up to the event. Ex? perience thus argues against the probabUity of the spontaneous development of Olmec ceremonialism. Exotic elements in the Olmec culture include the construction of complex ceremonial centers, involv? ing rectangular, conical, and "linear" mound arrange? ments precisely engineered and accurately oriented. The principal mound at La Venta is 80 m. high and has the form of a fluted cone. It does not seem to be a temple base and its primary purpose is un? known. Colored earth was used in different stages of mound construction, and elaborate offerings were made. Huge basalt blocks weighing up to 20 tons were transported 80 miles, carved into full round baby-faced heads, and set up in the ceremonial plazas. When the San Lorenzo site was abandoned about 800 B.C., dozens of statues of a variety of forms were buried. The La Venta site, larger than San Lorenzo, has a simUar basic plan. Orientation of this and another Olmec site is 8 degrees west of true north. Pavements in the form of jaguar masks appear to have been intentionally buried and ceremonial caches of jade carvings, and particularly celts, were encountered arranged symmetrically on the center line of the site. A mound at the north end of La Venta had been erected over a tomb made of columnar basalt. This early example of tomb building was to be followed in later centuries by wood, adobe, or stone tombs for important personages in the Maya area, in Co? lombia, and in the Mississippi Valley. Principal burials were covered by cinnabar, and the bones of juveniles suggest child sacrifice, also a practice of the Mississippi Valley Hopewell Phase. It was the Olmec who provided the Maya with the long count cyclical calendar. It should be mentioned (U with a casually skeptical air), that the initial date for this device is 3113 B . C (Moriey, 1946, p. 284), rather close to the estimated date of the first appear? ance of ceramics in the Americas. Small carvings in jade and other rare types of stone, baby-faced figurines, earspools, beads, repre? sentations of animal teeth and claws, and a variety of other ornaments are among the outstanding art objects produced in pre-Columbian America. This is also the time and place of the first appearance of two animal deities that continued to dominate the American pantheon for centuries. These were the jaguar or cat god, and a rapacious bird. Mirrors, finger rings, panpipes, flat and cylindrical stamps appear at this time. Olmec figurines of fired clay show that cranial deformation was extensively prac? ticed. In addition to the baby-faced representation, there are men wearing neat Van Dyke beards. Bearded figurines are late in the phase. A HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION 189 While the traits cited are new, most of the Olmec ceramic complex is not. In addition to the Meso? american flat-base pan and tecomate shapes, it includes traits derived from both the Valdivia and MachalUla ceramic traditions. In vessel shapes, these are composite sUhouette bowls, ring bases, botdes, and wide-mouth ollas. In decoration, they include broad-line incising, engraving with Ayangue tradi? tion motifs, excision, rocker stamping, and differential polishing. Some vessels have white slip, whUe bowls of reddish brown or black ware have light colored oxidized rims; however, tripod pots with both long and short legs, highly polished black ware, and the complex negative technique of ceramic decoration are new. Shortly after 1500 B . C , a unique pottery decora? tion appears briefly on the Pacific coast of Guatemala in the Ocos Phase. A cord or fabric textured surface was first produced. Broad incised lines were then drawn to outline zones. Finally, the texturing was erased within the line bordered zones with a polish? ing tool. This technique for making zoned decoration did not spread, so far as avaUable evidence indicates. It is remarkably similar to what J . E. Kidder (1957, pp. 123, 149, fig. 26) calls zoned or erased cord impressed in the Horinouchi ceramic style of central Japan. Most Mesoamerican specialists now agree that Olmec, with its vigorous art and emphasis on cere? monialism, was a principal ancestor for both Maya and highland Mexican civilization. Apparently, it also had a profound effect on cultures in both North and South America on the same time level (1200-500 B.C.). People in the Mississippi Valley and Peru re? ceived the blessings of maize agriculture during this period, but in turn paid the price of being saddled with ceremonial systems that must have absorbed just about all the spare time gained by the acquisition of a more efficient and reliable food source. Some archeologists have been reluctant to accept indirect evidence for the practice of maize agriculture. Yet when people begin to establish sizable villages back from the coast in terrain eminently suited for cultivation, as they did in Ecuador after 1500 B . C , it seems logical to presume that this is the point at which they adopted the subsistence pattern known to have prevailed through the following centuries. The simul? taneous appearance of other Mesoamerican traits, particularly metates and manos, strengthens the as? sumption that maize had been added to the list of cultivated plants native to the northern Andean region. Finds of preserved cobs show that maize arrived on the north coast of Peru about 1400 B . C , to be followed two centuries later by the first ceramics, which in? corporated a very modest and limited selection of applique and other decorations from the Valdivia tradition. It is notable, however, that the two promi? nent vessel forms were Mesoamerican in origin: the flat-base pan and the tecomate. As is shown by a realistic drawing of an ear of corn and the appearance of metates and manos, maize arrived at the highland site of Kotosh about 1000 B.C., 800 years after the beginning of pottery manu? facture. This obviously was not the beginning of agri? culture for this region, which has an impressive list of plant domesticates to its credit, including the potato. It is a long way from the Olmec area of southern Mexico to the coast and highlands of Peru, where the remarkable Chavin culture phase flourished from 800 to about 200 B . C , but the evidence suggests that there was direct communication that had little or no immediate effect on the lives of the people be? tween. While the respective dates (1200-500 B .C and 800-200 B . C ) suggest that influences flowed from the Mexican center to Peru, the Chavin people were not passive imitators of Olmec, but developed vigorous modification of the basic patterns as the new features spread over northern Peru. The precise steps by which Chavin developed are not yet known, but it apparendy crystallized rather rapidly. The pyramids built in some of the coastal valleys for temple bases were modest affairs. In the valleys of Nepefia and Casma, however, the sites of Cerro Blanco, Moxeke, Sechin, and Pallka were large stepped pyramids decorated with nitches containing sculptured figures or with large stone slabs carved in bas-relief Most remarkable is the pyramid temple of Chavin de Huintar, which has given its name to the culture. Located in the central highlands, this is a complex stepped pyramid faced with cut stone, provided with stairways, and decorated with carved stone heads that project from the walls. Buildings, courts with standing carved stele, and a complex of subsurface galleries are notable features of this struc? ture. While the date of these buildings within the Chavin Phase is not known, the sculptural detail, as well as accompanying ceramics, identify them with this culture. The emphasis in Chavin constructions is on the pyramid rather than the arrangement of mound structures about courts as in Olmec. This differential emphasis continued in succeeding cul? tural phases in both regions. The baby-faced individual is not present in Chavin sculpture, which features the jaguar with the canine teeth prominently displayed and birds usually identi? fied as condors. These two animals have relatively minor roles in Olmec. The third animal, which later 190 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 became prominent in Mesoamerican art, is common in Chavin, but rare in Olmec. This is the serpent. Superior engineering skill is evident in the con? structions in both regions. The San Lorenzo site (Olmec) and Chavin de Huantar are both precisely oriented with the cardinal directions. Resemblances of the Chavin ceramic style to pot? tery of this time level in Mesoamerica, particularly at the Tlatilco Cemetery, have been cited by Porter (1953, pp. 74?79) and later writers. While some of the shared traits may derive from the common ce? ramic heritage, the simultaneous appearance of heavy curvilinear version of the wide-line incised tradition and the extensive modeling of vessel bodies into human, animal, and vegetable representations, sug? gest a reestablishment of communications. In the preceding pages, several traits have been cited that seemed to have spread rapidly through the Americas on the 1000 to 1 B .C time level, and then for the most part to have disappeared or changed form radically. Items that arrive with the Chavin horizon in Peru and are also found in Olmec include a lapidary industry represented in beads and small pendant ornam.ents made of hard, rare stone, sand? stone saws for manufacturing these items, finger rings, mirrors ground and polished from one piece of black stone with both flat and concave faces, pulley-shaped earspools, mosaic work (jade plaques in Olmec, turquoise in Chavin), roller and flat stamps, and several ceramic features such as rocker stamping zoned by broad incised lines forming curvUinear realistic motifs, and red slip treated in a similar fashion. Neither the Olmec nor the Chavin art style was formalized and repetitive, unlike those which de? veloped later in both Mesoamerica and Peru. Both emphasized feline motifs. There was a wide range of variation, within stylistic limits; stone carving in the round tended to be realistic, if imaginative. The same was true for modeling in ceramics; there was little repetition. Heine-Geldern (1959a, b) has pointed out both stylistic and motif resemblances to the con? temporary Middle and Late Chou Period art of China, and an Asiatic origin for this entire new religious complex is not to be ruled out. The vigor of the Chavin culture is demonstrated by the short space of time in which it spread over a greater part of the Peruvian highlands and coast. Geographically it covered much more territory than the Olmec florescence in Mexico. The minor extent to which the ceramics and other features were modified indicates that it was accepted as a markedly new and superior block of cultural features; apparently nothing existed that offered successful competition. There is litde evidence of mUitary construction, suggesting that the adoption was voluntary. This is in marked contrast to the warfare that characterized the later pan-Peruvian cultural horizons: the Huari or Tia? huanaco, and the Inca. Chavin is now recognized as the principal base for the later developments of civUization in Peru. The construction of ceremonial centers continued, the pyramids became larger, but not more tastefully ornamented. The engineering seems to have de? generated. By Tiahuanaco times the people on the coast apparently could measure the sides of their large quadrangles with fair accuracy, but the corners were never right angles, and precise orientation was neglected. A physical anthropological study of Formative populations, as well as of the practice of cranial de? formation, is badly needed. Munizaga (1965) shows that while fronto-occipital deformation initially spread down the Peruvian coast about 1400 B . C , it was followed by the more pronounced cuneiform or Chavin-Cavernas variety about 800-700 B . C The Chavin variety of deformation resembles the few ex? amples that Munizaga described from the Machalilla Phase. Stewart is cited to the effect that intentional deformation decreases in frequency in later periods on the Peruvian coast. While skeletal material has not been preserved in the Olmec heartland, some of the figurines show pro? nounced fronto-occipital deformation (Drucker, 1952, pi. 29), and this same type of deformation is dominant in the Tlatilco Cemetery. Duque (1964, p. 458) has shown that while the occupation of San Agustin in highland Golombia ex? tended from about 500 B . C to A.D. 1200, the majority of the remarkable sculptures and mounds with central tombs probably date A.D. 400-900. The comparison that he makes to the megalithic art of both Olmec and Chavin clearly demonstrates affiliations with these two prior traditions. San Agustin was a ceremonial center but, as Duque (op. cit., pp. 418-421) has pointed out, it is a center or rather a fairly extensive region marked by tombs of the dead, which were buried both in subterranean vaults and in central stone vaults in conical mounds. San Agustin lacks the formal arrangement of Olmec or Chavin sites, and pyramids constructed as temple bases are also absent. However, the conical mounds A HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION 191 with central vaults made of stone are reminiscent of Mound A-2 at the Olmec site of La Venta. Mono- Uthic sarcophagi have been found at both sites. The people of eastern North America began to be relieved of the boredom of spare time about 1200 B . C , when the Poverty Point site was settied in the Lower Mississippi Valley. Although a few coastal shell mid? dens at the mouth of the river incorporated charac? teristic traits of this culture as earlv as 1500 B . C , it was only three centuries later that sites began to appear upriver, in terrain better suited for agriculture. A typical Mesoamerican metate and mano suggest that maize and perhaps other Mexican cultigens were added to what apparently was a preexisting primitive agricultural pattern. The Poverty Point site was a larsre town, 1207 meters in diameter, built on six concentric ridges forming a slighdy curved-sided octagon, perhaps reflecting the simple ring village form established in the Southeast in the earlier Stallings Island Phase (2400-500 B.C.). The tremendous amount of earth moved to form the 18.6 km. of dweUing ridge and to buUd the 23 m. and 18 m. high bird effigy mounds certainly indicates strict control of the community. The possibility exists that other symmetrically arranged effigies lay to the east and south sides of this town, in terrain now erased by river action. The accurate engineering of Poverty Point, and the placement of the mounds 8 degrees to the left of true cardinal directions, are reminiscent of the Olmec sites, La Venta and Laguna de los Cerros, which were symmetricaUy buUt about center lines that also bear 8 degrees west of true north. The single 6 meter high conical mound at Poverty Point is slighdy apart from the formal arrangement and covers a fire bed that served for the cremation of human remains. A similar conical structure of this date excavated near Baton Rouge, Louisiana, gave clear evidence of a crematory fire on the floor of a rectangular buUding 9 meters square. Evidence for the practice of cremation is lacking at Olmec sites thus far investigated, and the purpose of the numerous conical mounds of Formative age along the Mexican Gulf coast is not known. As direct burial is relatively rare there, cremation remains a possibility. A number of the artifacts used by the Poverty Point people are clearly inherited from the preceding Eastern Archaic. These include boatstone and banner? stone types of adad weights, bola weights, the so- called gorgets, a variety of projectUe point shapes, and the grooved axe. At the same time, the complex has tools and ornaments new for the East, but which show relations to the Formative pattern to the south. Among these are celts, the "pseudo celt" crudely shaped of soft green colored stone, a prepared core and blade industry (which disappears at the end of the HopeweU Phase, A.D. 300), pottery female figurines, sandstone saws, and the use of solid drUls for perforating hard stone. Monumental stone work is lacking, but the lapidary industry shows striking parallels to Olmec. Where the early Mexican people employed jade, the harder jasper was generally used at Poverty Point. The Poverty Point obsession with birds, as shown in mound construction, stone vessel decoration, and smaU jasper beads, was to continue through the later Hopewell Phase. It was during this millenium preceding the be? ginning of the present era that several North American Archaic traits spread to South America. These include the grooved axe and the drilling of stone with a tubular, rather than solid bit. Tubular pipes ap? parently skipped Middle America and diffused direcdy to northern South America. From there they seem to have spread along with grooved axes east of the Andes to northwest Argentina. Probably the bola, so characteristic of Eastern Archaic, followed the same route. Missing in Mesoamerica, it disappears from eastern North America after A.D. 500. The rare and crude ceramics of Poverty Point also show relationships to the Formative to the south, although not specifically to the Olmec area. Unzoned rocker stamping is rare but widespread in Meso? america at this time. The wide-mouth pot form, four feet, and the practice of punching a row of nodes below the rim with a small tool are somewhat more common in northwestern Colombia. The typical Mesoamerican nodes are on the tecomate jar and are made with the fingers. However, there are a few examples of tecomate-shaped jars with thin walls and the typical comma-shaped lip in the Poverty Point complex. By 1000 B.C. the practice of mound burial had diffused to the western Great Lakes. Cremation was generally practiced, and when bones were deposited they often were liberally sprinkled with red ochre. This latter practice gave its name to the "Red Paint" culture of New England and the "Red Ochre" burials of Illinois. A similar use of red coloring matter is found in burials of the Olmec Phase of Mexico and the Cupisnique-Chavin of coastal Peru. 324-788 O - 69 - 14 192 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 1 1 The practice of burial mound building (and pos? sibly a rudimentary sort of maize agriculture) seems to have preceded Formative ceramics into the Upper Mississippi Valley. At first, this very well may have been diffusion from the Lower Mississippi, a modest reflection of Poverty Point mound building practices. Tubular pipes, gorgets, birdstones (probably atiati hooks), and the use of galena cubes were other traits of the period. Another element already in the area was stimulated to a greater or at least a more obvious expression by the arrival of the new cultural pattern. This was a pottery modeled and compacted by malleating the vessel walls with a paddle. Characteristically, this paddle was wrapped with cords or netting fabric, or had a design carved on it. Paddled "bag-shaped" pottery seems to have circumpolar distribution. It is oldest in northern Europe, where it is the characteristic Erteb^Ue vessel of the Mesolithic. In the Lena Basin of nothern Siberia, it first appears in the Early Neolithic (Tolstoy, 1958a). By the Serovo Phase (3000 B . C ) , this pottery still has conoidal bases, and is simple and fabric stamped, cordmarked, or dentate stamped, some? times with a row of nodes punched from the inside. Adzes and gouges of nephrite, stone fish lures, lamel? lar perforators, compound fishhook shanks, and sandstone shaft straighteners are typical tools. The remarkable resemblance of these northern Siberian cultural phases of about 5000-3000 B .C to the American Woodland cultures of the Great Lakes region has caught the attention of several American archeologists (including the writer), and caused them to postulate Bering Strait as the probable route by which ceramics entered the Americas. Increased chronological information and adequate radiocarbon dating have required modification of this thesis, but have not negated it entirely. It now appears that at least two major ceramic traditions existed in Asia, and that before 3000 B.C. both had influenced the Japanese Islands (Fairservis, 1959, pp. 88-91). The paddle-stamped northern tradition has just been described. Cordmarking and punched-out nodes from this tradition entered into the Jomon complex of the northern Japanese Islands. The southern tradition consisted of coiled, predominantly plain, incised, punctated, and later painted wares in olla, bowl, and bottle forms. This latter was the principal source of the Valdivia and MachalUla ceramics which played the dominant role in early American ceramic history. The knowledge of ceramic history in the Bering Strait region extends back only to about 600 B.C., when Norton Check-stamped pottery was being made. StUl, it appears probable that elements of the paddle-molded bag-shaped Arctic pottery and some accompanying traits had passed that way several centuries earlier, for they were in the Great Lakes- New England region when southern influences began to arrive about 1000 B . C Once awakened and stimulated by the arrival of agriculture, the Woodland pottery tradition rapidly became popular and dominant in the region north of the Ohio River, and with only two temporary inva? sions of the southern plain ware were to remain dominant until the end of aboriginal pottery after A.D. 1700. Webb and Snow (1945, pp. 31 Off) bring out quite clearly the fact that the population of the Adena Phase of the central Ohio River Valley was brachy? cephalic with high skull vaults, and practiced occipital and fronto-occipital cranial deformation. At about 900 B.C. the sudden appearance of this practicaUy pure population into eastern North America where (with the exception of the Stallings Island group) slender-bodied longheads had been the only type of man, led the authors to postulate a direct migration from Central America, a thesis that Spaulding (1952) supported. The writer considers this hypothesis to be sound, but suggests the Poverty Point Phase of the Lower Mississippi as a way-station. Unfortunately there is, as yet, no evidence as to a Poverty Point physical type. Traits brought into the Ohio Valley by the Adena people, or which preceded them a century or so by diffusion, include large conical mounds built over cremations on the floors of buildings (rectangular in Poverty Point; sometimes rectangular, but usually circular in Adena), "sacred circles," the celt form of axe, sandstone saws, bird motifs, and very probably, maize agriculture. Other traits of probable Meso? american origin not yet found in Poverty Point in? clude tablet-like stamps and finger rings. Adena ceramics are another element of southern origin. They consist predominantly of crude, plain, flat-based pots, which sometimes have four small feet and small punched-out nodes about the rim. Rare incised decoration resembles a variety of the fiber- tempered Orange ware of Florida, as Griffin has noted. As might be expected, there is a minority of cord- and fabric-marked Woodland ware in these A HISTORICAL RECONSTRUCTION 193 sites; whether it is early or late in the phase is not known. About 500 B.C. the isolationism of the Stallings Island, Orange, and Poverty Point ceramic com? plexes was broken down, and the respective techniques began to spread to other parts of the Southeast. Rocker stamping and tetrapodal supports diffused into Florida, whUe elements of all three ceramic com? plexes combined in the Lower Mississippi to form the Tchefuncte complex (400-1 B . C ) . This breakdown of barriers may have been effected by the arrival of productive maize agriculture, as occurred a thousand years earlier on the coast of Ecuador. The earliest direct evidence of maize in the East, however, dates only a century or so before the beginning of the present era in Ohio and Virginia. The population of the Tchefuncte Phase was a mixture of the earlier longheaded Archaic peoples and the new broadheaded ones (Snow, in Ford and Quimby, 1945; Collins, 1941). Snow (Webb and Snow, 1945, pp. 310-343) found a similar mixture in the Classic Hopewell population of Ohio and ap? provingly quotes Collins to the effect that this is a blending of the Archaic longheaded populations with the broadheaded people who practiced de? formation and entered the Southeast from Mexico. Evidently the endogamy that characterized the Adena population started breaking down about 500 B.C., when this formerly "pure" group started mixing with the local population. By 400 B.C. the Poverty Point Phase had disappeared from the Lower Mississippi to be replaced by the unspectacular Tchefuncte, which blends the Poverty Point, Stallings Island, and Orange ceramic tradi? tions. Our interest consequently moves to the Upper Mississippi where the Hopewell culture was develop? ing. At the same time the Adena culture was becom? ing established in the Ohio Valley, the Central Basin version of Early HopeweU was appearing in Illinois. Ceramic features such as nodes punched from the interior, dentate stamping arranged in panels, and incising of the Orange-Tchefuncte tradition were being placed on Woodland-shaped vessels with cord and fabric-marked bodies. Presumably, there was also a mixture of native and intrusive populations. About 200 B.C. the fully developed Hopewell culture replaced Adena in what is now the state of Ohio, and began the 300-year climax that was to influence the entire eastern United States. Mound groups were still isolated ceremonial centers, but extensive geometric earthworks were built. Important burials were placed in log tombs and provided with rich grave goods, which included items traded from distant places, like conch shells, obsidian, grizzly bear teeth, mica, and copper ornaments. The finding of children in tombs with a bundle of bones from an adult suggests human sacrifice. The Hopewell tombs are reminiscent of the basalt- log tomb at La Venta, the log tombs at Kaminaljuyu, and the stone vaults in the mounds at San Agustin in Colombia. Earspools and finger rings made of copper are Mesoamerican traits introduced during the earlier Adena Phase. Mirrors of mica and pan? pipes jacketed with copper are confined to Hopewell. Panpipes are found on this time level on the Gulf coast of Mexico and coastal Ecuador, and later became popular in the Andean region, but despite their abundance in eastern North America from 100 B.C. to A.D. 300, they did not subsequently continue in use. Another Mesoamerican trait that vanished from North America after the close of the Hopewell Phase is the striking of blades from pre? pared cores, which was introduced at 1200 B .C into Poverty Point. Hopewell thus appears to be a several centuries delayed efflorescence of the Olmec-Chavin religio- political stimulus. WhUe the latter cultures provided the foundations in their respective regions on which the later civUizations were constructed, Hopewell was submerged by the awakened Woodland cultures about A.D. 300, and the prehistory of most of the eastern United States entered a very dreary phase until the arrival of fresh Mesoamerican influences at A.D. 900, this time coming overland through Texas. WUley and PhUlips (1958) have outlined the later history of the Americas. In Mesoamerica and the Andean region of Peru and Bolivia, the Middle Formative cultural wave gave rise to vigorous devel? opments in the early centuries of the present era. Regional specialization rapidly occurred, strong po? litical control developed, and arts entered a Classic stage. By A.D. 800 to 1000 a warfare pattern had developed, cultural emphasis moved from religious to more secular interests, and small empires began to rise. These in turn were forcibly merged into larger units, a process that the Spanish terminated in the early 16th century when they destroyed the "barbaric" civUizations of the Aztec and Inca. This then, is how a part of the avaUable evidence on the history of the spread of Early Neolithic or Formative culture traits in the Americas appears to the writer. There doubtiess are many errors of fact 194 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 and interpretation, but the major outline seems fairly clear, although it is certain that a substantial number of American archeologists will not agree. Particularly wUl they be repelled by the fact that a considerable part of this interpretation reinforces the thesis that a substantial part of American high culture development is based on the trans-Pacific importa? tion of knowledge, techniques, and undoubtedly people. These gentlemen, who prefer the traditional con? cept that American civUization arose independently of Old World developments, or that Aztec and Inca civUizations had little common foundation, should be reminded that an alternative explanation was provided a century ago by Adolf Bastian, who be? lieved that "the psychic unity of mankind constantly impelled societies to duplicate one another's ideas" (Lowie, 1937, p. 29). If this is ture, it appears that the Middle Jomon-Valdivia ceramic comparisons and a number of the other examples cited in this paper support to a remarkable degree the "psychic unity" of mankind. Archeologists have shown little interest in examin? ing the philosophic bases of their studies. WhUe utilizing the thesis that trait resemblances (in adjacent geographic regions) are evidence for contact, when faced with an unexplainable origin of a trait they have fallen back on independent invention theory. The origin of American civilizations has a signifi? cant bearing on an important anthropological question that remains in debate after a century of development of the discipline. Did man create his culture out of innate capabilities responding to needs and desires, or is culture a superorganic phenomenon that has evolved according to its own laws, with man's role that of a more or less fortunate inheritor, depending on the time and place in which he chanced to live? Literature Cited AGRINIER, PIERRE 1964. The archaeological burials at Chiapa de Corzo and their furniture. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, no. 16, publ. no. 12. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. ALCINA FRANCH, JOSE 1965. Manual de arqueologia americana. AguUar, S.A. de ediciones. Madrid. ANGULO VALDES, CARLOS 1962a. Evidencias de la serie Barrancoide en el norte de Colombia. Revista Colombiana de Antropologia, vol. 11, pp. 73-88. Bogota. 1962b. Evidence of the Barrancoid series in north Colombia. In The Caribbean: Contem? porary Colombia, edited by A. Curtis Wilgus, pp. 35-46. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. 1963. Cultural development in Colombia. In Aboriginal cultural development in Latin America: An interpretative review, edited by Betty J. Meggers and Cliff"ord Evans. Smithsonian Misc. CoU., vol. 146, no. 1, pp. 55-66. Washington, D.C. ARMILLAS, PEDRO 1948. A sequence of cultural development in Mesoamerica. In A reappraisal of Peruvian archaeology, edited by Irving Rouse. Society for American Archaeology Memoir 4, pp. 105-111. 1964. Northern Mesoamerica. In Prehistoric man in the New World, edited by Jesse D. Jennings and Edward Norbeck, pp. 291-329. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. BAKER, FRANK; GRIFFIN, JAMES B.; MORGAN, RICHARD C ; NEUMANN, GEORG K . ; and TAYLOR, JAY L . B . ? r U 1941. Contributions to the archaeology of the lUinois River Valley. Transactions ot the American Philosophical Society, vol. 32, part 1. Philadelphia. BAUDEZ, CLAUDE F . , , i J i * 1963 Cultural development in lower Central America. In Aboriginal cultural development in Latin America : An interpretative review, edited by Betty J. Meggers and Clifford Evans. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 146, no. 1, pp. 45-54. Washington, D.C. BELL, R . E . . A ? ? I OA l%0. Evidence of a fluted point tradition in Ecuador. American Antiquity, vol. ^b, pp. 102-106. BENNETT TOHN W 1945. Archaeological explorations in J o Daviess County, Illinois. University of Chicago Publications in Anthropology: Archeology Series. Chicago. BENNETT, WENDELL C . , * , i ? i r>or.?.-c 1936. Excavations in Bolivia. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, vol. 35, pp. 329-507. New York. 1939. Archaeology of the north coast of Peru. American Museum of Natural History, An? thropological Papers, voL 37, part L New York. 195 196 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 BENNETT, WENDELL C.?Continued 1944a. The north highlands of Peru: Excavations in the Callejon de Huaylas and at Chavin de Huantar. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, vol. 39, part I. New York. 1944b. Archaeological regions of Colombia: A ceramic survey. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, no. 30. New Haven. 1946. The archeology of the central Andes. In Handbook of South American Indians, edited by Julian H. Steward. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, no. 143, vol. 2, pp. 61-147. Washington, D.C. 1948. The Peruvian co-tradition. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, no. 4, pp. 1-7. 1950. The Gallinazo group: Virii Valley, Peru. Yale University Publications in Anthropol? ogy, no. 43. New Haven. BENNETT, WENDELL C , and BIRD, JUNIUS B . 1949. Andean culture history. American Museum of Natural History, Handbook series, no. 15. New York. BERGER, RAINER; GRAHAM, JOHN A; and HEIZER, ROBERT F . 1967. A reconsideration of the age of the La Venta site. In Studies in Olmec archaeology. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research FacUity, no. 3, pp. 1-24. Berkeley. BIRD, JUNIUS 1948. Preceramic cultures in Chicama and Viru. In A reappraisal of Peruvian archaeology, assembled by Wendell C. Bennett. Society for American Archaeology Memoir, no. 4, pp. 21-28. 1962. Art and life in old Peru: An exhibition. Curator, vol. 2, pp. 147-210. New York. BIRKET-SMITH, K A J 1937. The composite comb in North America. Ethnos, vol. 2, pp. 33-37. Stockholm. BLUHM, ELAINE A., editor I960. Indian mounds and viUages in lUinois. lUinois Archaeological Survey Bulletin, no. 2. University of Illinois, Urbana. BLUHM, ELAINE A., and BEESON, WILLIAM J. 1960. The excavation of three Hopewell mounds at the Caterpillar Tractor Company. In Indian Mounds and Villages in lUinois, edited by Elaine A. Bluhm. Illinois Archae? ological Survey Bulletin, no. 2, pp. 1-24. University of Illinois, Urbana. BROWN, CHARLES BARRINGTON 1926. On stone implements from northwest Peru. Man, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 97-101, London. BRUSH, CHARLES F . 1965. Pox pottery: Earliest identified Mexican ceramic. Science, vol. 149, pp. 194?195. Washington, D.C. BULLEN, RIPLEY P. 1953. The famous Crystal River site. Florida Anthropologist, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 9-37, Florida Anthropological Society. 1955. Stratigraphic tests at Bluff"ton, Volusia County, Florida. Florida Anthropologist, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1-16. Florida Anthropological Society. 1959. The transitional period of Florida. Newsletter, Southeastern Archaeological Confer? ence, vol. 6, pp. 43-53. Chapel Hill. 1961. Radiocarbon dates for Southeastern fiber-tempered pottery. American Antiquity, vol. 27, pp. 104-106. 1963. The earliest pottery in Southeastern United States, 2000-1000 B.C. and its case as an independent invention. VI* Congres International des Sciences Anthropologiques et Ethnologiques, 1960, volume 2, no. 1, pp. 363-367. Paris. 1966. Stelae at the Crystal River site, Florida. American Antiquity, vol. 31, pp. 861?865. BULLEN, ADELAIDE K . , and RIPLEY P. 1961. The Summer Haven site, St. John 's County, Florida. Florida Anthropologist, vol. 14, nos. 1-2, pp. 1-15. Florida Anthropological Society. BUSHNELL, G . H . S. 1951. The archaeology of the Santa Elena peninsula in south-west Ecuador. Cambridge University Press. LITERATURE CITED 197 BUTLER, ROBERT R . 1959. Lower Columbia Valley archaeology: A survey and appraisal of some major archaeo? logical resources. Tebiwa: Journal, Idaho State University Museum, vol. 2, pp. 6-24. Pocatello. BYERS, DOUGLAS S. 1959. The eastern Archaic: Some problems and hypotheses. American Antiquity, vol. 24, pp. 233-256. BYERS, DOUGLAS S., editor 1967-. The prehistory of the Tehuacin Valley. Vol. 1, Environment and subsistence. Vol. 2, The non-ceramic artifacts. Vols. 3-6, in preparation. University of Texas Press, Austin. CALDWELL, JOSEPH R . , AND HALL, ROBERT L . , editors 1964. HopeweUian studies. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, vol. 12. Springfield. CAMPBELL, JOHN M . , editor 1962. Prehistoric culmral relations between the Arctic and Temperate zones of North America. Arctic Institute of North America, Technical Paper, no. 11. Washington, D.C. CARRION CACHOT, REBECA 1948. La cultura Chavin: Dos nuevos colonias: Kuntur Wasi y Ancon. Revista del Museo Nacional de Antropologia y Arqueologia, vol. 2, no. 1, Primer semestre, pp. 99-172. Lima. CASO, ALFONSO 1953. New World culture history: Middle America. In Anthropology Today, edited by A. L. Kroeber, et al., pp . 226-237. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. CLAFLIN, WILLIAM H . , J R . 1931. The Stallings Island mound, Columbia County, Georgia. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1?47. Cambridge, Massachusetts. CoE, J O F F R E L . 1952. The cultural sequence of the Carolina Piedmont. In Archaeology of Eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1964. The Formative cultures of the Carolina Piedmont, Transactions of the American PhUosophical Society, voL 54, part 5. Philadelphia. C O E , MICHAEL D . 1960. Archaeological linkages with North and South America at La Victoria, Guatemala. American Anthropologist, vol. 62, pp. 363?393. l % l . La Victoria, an early site on the Pacific coast of Guatemala. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, vol. 53. Cambridge, Mass. 1962. An Olmec design on an early Peruvian vessel. American Antiquity, vol. 27, pp. 579- 580. 1963. Cultural development in southeastern Mesoamerica. In Aboriginal cultural develop? ment in Latin America: An interpretative review, edited by Betty J . Meggers and Cliff"ord Evans. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol, 146, no. 1, pp. 27^14. Washington, D.C. 1965. Archaeological synthesis of southern Veracruz and Tabasco. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 3, part 2, pp. 679-715. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1966. Preliminary report on the first season's work at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, Veracruz (mimeographed). COE, MICHAEL D . , and BAUDEZ, CLAUDE F . 1961. The zoned bichrome period in north western Costa Rica. American Antiquity, vol. 26, pp. 505-515. COE, MICHAEL D . ; DIEHL, RICHARD; and STUIVER, MIZE 1967. Olmec civilization, Veracruz, Mexico; Dating of the San Lorenzo phase. Science, vol. 155, no. 3768, pp. 1399-1401. Washington, D.C. COE, MICHAEL D . , and FLANNERY, KENT V. 1967. Eariy cultures and human ecology in south coastal Guatemala. Smithsonian Contri? butions to Anthropology, vol. 3. Washington, D.C. 198 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS T O ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME l l COLE, FAY-COOPER; BELL, ROBERT; BENNETT, J O H N ; CALDWELL, J O S E P H ; EMERSON, NORMAN; MACNEISH, RICHARD; O R R , KENNETH; and WILLIS, ROGER. 1951. Kincaid: A prehistoric Illinois metropolis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. COLE, FAY-COOPER, and DEUEL, THORNE 1937. Rediscovering lUinois: Archaeological explorations in and around FiUton County. University of Chicago Publications in Anthropology: Archeology Series. Chicago. COLLIER, DONALD 1955. Cultural chronology and changes as reflected in the ceramics of the Viru Valley, Peru. Fieldiana: Anthropology, vol. 43. Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago. 1962. The central Andes. In Courses toward urban life: Archaeological considerations of some cultural alternatives, edited by Robert J . Braidwood and Gordon R. WiUey. Viking Publications in Anthropology, no. 32, pp. 165-176. New York. COLLIER, DONALD, and MURRA, JOHN V. 1943. Survey and excavations in southern Ecuador. Field Musetmi of Natural History, Anthropological Series vol. 35. Chicago. COLLINS, HENRY B. , J R . 1937. Archeology of St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Smithsonian Misc. CoU., vol. 96, no. 1. Washington, D.C. 1941. Relationships of an early Indian cranial series from Louisiana. Journal of the Washing? ton Academy of Sciences, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 145-155. Washington, D.C. COOPER, J O H N M . 1941. Temporal sequence and the marginal cultures. Catholic University of America, Antthropology Series, no. 10. Washington, D.C. COVARRUBIAS, MIGUEL 1946. Mexico south: T h e isthmus of Tehuantepec. New YorL 1950. TIatilGo: El arte y la ciUtura preclasica del vaUe de Mexico. Cuademos Americanos, vol.. 51, pp., 149^162, CUBILLOJS CHAPARRO, JULIO CESAR 1959, EI Morro de TuJtan (piramide prehispanica). In Arqueologia de Popayan, Cauca- Colbmbia. Revista Colombiana de Anthropologia, voL 8, pp. 215?357. Bogota- CuMwiNGs,. BRYON^ 1933 .^ CuicuUco and the archaic cultures of Mexico. University of Arizona Social Science Bulletin, no. 4. DEJARNE^TTE, DAVID L . ; KURJACK., EDWARD B . ; and CAMERON, JAMES W . 1962, Standfield-Worley Bluff" Shelter excavations. Journal of Alabama Archaeology, vol. 8, nos. I and 2. University of Alabama. D E LAGUNA,. FREDERICA L947. The prehistory of northern North America as seen from the Yukon. Society for Ameri? can Archaeology Memoir 3. DEUEL, THORNE, editor 1952, Hopewellian communities in Illinois. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, vol. 5. Springfield. DIXON, KEITH A. 1959. Ceramics from two preclassic periods at Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, number 5, publication no. 4. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 1964. Culinary shoe-pots: The interamerican diff'usion of a cooking technique. Actas y Memorias I, X X X V Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, Mexico, 1962, pp. 579-586. Mexico, D.F. DRAGOO, DON W . 1964. Relationship of the eastern North American burial cult manifestation to Central America and the Old World. Actas y Memorias I, X X X V Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, Mexico, 1962, pp. 101-111. Mexico, D.F. DRUCKER, PHILIP 1943a. Ceramic sequences at Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology BuUetin, no. 140. Washington, D.C. 1943b. Ceramic stratigraphy at Cerro de las Mesas, Veracruz, Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, no. 141. Washington, D.C. LITERATURE CITED 199 1947. Some implications of the ceramic complex at La Venta. Smithsonian Misc. CoU., vol. 107, no- 8. Washington, D.C. 1952. La Venta, Tabasco: A study of Olmec ceramics and art. Bureau of American Eth? nology BuUetin, no. 153. Washington, D.C. 1955. The Cerro de las Mesas offering of jade and other materials. Bureau of American Edinology BuUetin, no. 157, pp. 25-68. Washington, D.C. DRUCKER, PTOLLIP; H E E E R , ROBERT F . ; and SQUIER, ROBERT J . 1959. Excavations at La Venta, Tabasco, 1955. Bureau of American E t h n o l o ^ Bulletin, no. 170. Washington, D.C, DUQUE GOMEZ, LUIS 1964. Exploraciones arqueologicas en San Agustin. Revista Colombiana de Antropologia, Suplemento no. I. Bogota. EIKHOLM, GORI>ON F . 1944. Excavations a t Tampico and Panuco in the Huasteca, Mexico. American Museum of Natural History, Aiithrojprological Papers, vol. 3:8, part 5, pp. 321-506, New York. EKHOLM, SUSANNA M . 1966. Moimd 30a and the early middle Preclassic ceramic sequence at Izapa, Chiapas, Mexico. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Columbia University, New York. EMMON, G . T . 1923. J ade in British Coliinnhia and Aladca aimd its iiae toy the natives. Iiodiain Notes and Monographs, no. 35, Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York. ENGEL, FREDERIC 1956. Curayacu, a Chavinoid site. Archaeology, vol. 9, (EMJX. 2, pp. 98-105, 1958. Algunos datos con referencia a los sitios preceramicos de la costa Peruana. Arqueolo? gicas No. 3., Instituto de Investigationes Antropologicas. Museo Nacional de Antropologia y Arqueologia. Lima. 1963. A preceramic setdement on the central coast of Peru: Asia, unit I. Transactions of the American PhUosophical Society, new series, vol. 53, part 3. Philadelphia. ENGLE, NANCY 1957. Prehistoric human figurines of the eastern United States and their significance. Un- prablished Masters Thesis, University of IlUnois, Urbana. ESTRADA, EMILIO 1957. Prehistoria de Manabi. Publicacion del Museo Victor Emilio Estrada, no. 4. Guayaquil. 1958. Las culturas pre-clasicas, formativas o arcaicas del Ecuador. Publicacion del Museo Victor Emilio Estrada, no. 5. Guayaquil. 1961. Nuevos elementos en la cultura Valdivia: Sus posibles contactos transpacificos. Pub? licacion del Sub-Comite Ecuatoriano de Antropologia, Instituto Pan Americano de Geografia e Historia. Guayaquil. 1962. Arqueologia de Manabi central. Publicacion del Museo Victor EmiUo Estrada, no. 7. Guayaquil. ESTRADA, EMILIO, and EVANS, CLIFFORD 1963. Cultural development in Ecuador. In Aboriginal cultural development in Latin America: An interpretative review, edited by Betty J. Meggers and Cliff"ord Evans. Smithsonian Misc. CoU., vol. 146, no. 1, pp. 77-88. Washington, D.C. ESTRADA, EMILIO, and MEGGERS, BETTY J. 1961. A complex of traits of probable transpacific origin on the coast of Ecuador. American Anthropologist, vol. 63, pp. 913-939. ESTRADA, EMILIO; MEGGERS, BETTY J . ; and EVANS, CLIFFORD 1962. Possible transpacific contact on the coast of Ecuador. Science, no. 135, pp. 371-372. Washington, D.C. 1964. The Jambeli culture of south coastal Ecuador. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, vol. 115, no. 3492, pp. 483-558. Washington, D.C. EVANS, CLIFFORD, and MEGGERS, BETTY J . 1957. Formative period cultures in the Guayas Basin, coastal Ecuador. American Antiquity, vol. 22, pp. 235-247. 200 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME i i EVANS, CLIFFORD; MEGGERS, BETTY J . ; and ESTRADA, EMILIO 1959. Cultura Valdivia. Publicacion del Museo Victor EmUio Estrada, no. 6. Guayaquil. FAIRBANKS, CHARLES H . 1942. The taxonomic position of StaUing's Island, Georgia. American Antiquity, vol. 7, pp . 223-231. FAIRSERVIS, WALTER A., J R . 1959. The origins of Oriental civUization. The New American Library of World Literature, Inc. New York. FERGUSON, VERA MASIUS 1951. Chronology at South Indian Field, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthro? pology, no. 45. New Haven. FORD, JAMES A. 1936. Analysis of Indian village site collections from Louisiana and Mississippi. Department of Coniseirvation, Louisiana Geological Survey, Anthropol t^cal Study, no. 2. New Orleains. 1944. Excavations in the vicinity of Cah', Colombia. Yale University Publications in Anthro? pology no. 3L New Haven. 1949. Cultural dating of prehistoric sites in Virii VaUey, Peru. In Surface survey of the Viru VaUey, POTIIL American Museum, of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, vol. 43, part I, pp . 31-89. New York. 1951. Greenhouse: A TroyviUe-Coles Creek period site in AvoyeUes Parish, Louisiana. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, vol. 44, part 1. New York. 1952. Measurements of sO'm:e prehistoric design developments in the southeastern states. American Musetina of Natural History, Anthropological Pap>ers, vol. 44, part 3. New York. 1962. A quiantitatrve method! for deriviag cultural chronology. Technical Manual I, Dept. of Social Affairs, PS-n American Union, Washington, D.C. 1963, Hopewell culture burial mounds near Helena, Arkansas. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, vol. 50, part I. New York. 1966. Early Formative cultures in Georgia and Florida. American Antiquity, vol. 31, no. 6, pp . 781-799', FORD, JAMES A.;, PHILLIPS, PtniLip; and HAAG, WILLIAM G . 1955. The Jaketown site in west-central Mississippi. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, vol. 45, part 1. New York. FORD, JAMES A., and QUIMBY, GEORGE I., J R . 1945. The Tchefuncte culture: An early occupation of the Mississippi Valley. Society for American Archaeology Memoir no. 2. FORD, JAMES A., and WEBB, CLARENCE H . 1956. Poverty Point, A late Archaic site in Louisiana. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, vol. 46, part 1. New York. FORD, JAMES A., and WILLEY, GORDON R . 1940. Crooks site: A MarksviUe period burial mound in La SaUe Parish, Louisiana. De? partment of Conservation, Louisiana Geological Survey, Anthropological Study, no. 3. New Orleans. 1941. An interpretation of the prehistory of the eastern United States. American Anthro? pologist, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 325-363. FOWLER, MELVIN L . 1952. The Clear Lake site: Hopewellian occupation. In HopeweUian communities in Illinois, edited by Thorne Deuel. lUinois State Museum Scientific Papers, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 131-173. Springfield. 1957. Rutherford mound, Hardin County, Illinois. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, vol. 7, no. 1. Springfield. 1959a. Summary report of Modoc Rock Shelter 1952, 1953, 1955, 1956. Illinois State Museum Report of Investigations, no. 8. Springfield. 1959b. Modoc Rock Shelter: An early Archaic site in southern lUinois. American Antiquity vol. 24, pp. 257-270. 1961. The early Woodland period. lUinois Archaeology Survey Bulletin, no. I, pp. 17-20. University of Illinois, Urbana. LITERATURE CITED 201 FOWLER, MELVIN L . , and WINTERS, HOWARD 1956. Modoc Rock Shelter preliminary report. Illinois State Museum, Report of Investiga? tions, no. 4. Springfield. GAGLIANO, SHERWOOD M . , and SAUCIER, ROGER T . 1963. Poverty Point sites in southeastern Louisiana. American Antiquity, vol. 28, pp. 320-327. GARCIA PAY6N, JOSE 1950. Restos de una cultura prehistorica encontrades en la region de Zempoala, Veracruz. UNI-VER, Organo de la Universidad Veracruzana, Tomo 2, no. 15, pp. 90-130. Jalapa. 1966. Prehistoria de Mesoamerica, Excavaciones en Trapiche y Chalahuites, Veracruz, Mexico, 1942, 1951, y 1959. Cuademos de la Facultad de Filosofia, Letras y Ciencias, Universidad Veracruzana, vol. 31, Jalapa. GEDDENGS, J . L. 1964. The archeology of Cape Denbigh. Providence, Rhode Island. GLADWIN, HAROLD S. 1937. Independent invention versus diffusion. American Antiquity, vol. 3, no. 2, pp . 15^160 . GLADWIN, HAROLD S.; HAXJRY, EMIL; SAYLES, E . B.; and GLADWIN, NORA 1937. Excavations at Snaketown: Material culture. Gila Pueblo MedaUion Paj>ers, no. 25. Globe, Arizona. GOGGIN, JOHN M . 1948. Some pottery types from central Florida. GainesvUle Anthropological Association, BuU. 1 (mimeographed), Gainesville. 1952. Space and time perspective in northern St- John's archaeology, Florida. Yale Uni? versity Publications in Anthropology, no, 47. New Haven. GOGGIN, J O H N M . , and SOMMER, FRANK H . , nr 1949. Excavations on Upper Matecumbe Key, Florida, Yale University Publications in Anthropology, no. 41. New Haven. GONZALEZ, ALBERTO R E X 1963. Cultural development in northwestern Argentina. In Aboriginal cultural develooment in Latin America: An interpretative review, edited by Betty J . Meggers and Clifford Evans. Smithsonian Misc. CoU., vol. 146, no. 1, pp. 103-117. Washington, D.C. GREEN, F . E . 1963. The Clovis blades: An important addition to the Llano complex. American Antiquity, vol. 9, pp. 145-165. GREENGO, ROBERT E . 1964. Issaquena: An archaeological phase in the Yazoo Basin of the Lower Mississippi VaUey. Society for American Archaeology Memoir, no. 18. GREENMAN, EMERSON F . 1938. HopeweUian traits in Florida. American Antiquity, vol. 3, pp. 327-332. G R I F F I N , J A M E S B . TT- ? I O ? i I i 1941. Additional HopeweU material from lUinois. Indiana Historical Society, vol. 11, no. 3. Indianapolis. 1943 The Fort Ancient aspect: Its cultural and chronological position in Mississippi VaUey archaeology. Ann Arbor. 1945. The significance of the fiber-tempered pottery of the St. John's. Journal of the Wash? ington Academy of Sciences, vol. 35, no. 7, pp. 218-223. Washington, D.C. 1946 Cultural change and continuity in eastern United States archaeology. In Man in Northeastern North America, edited by Fredrick Johnson. Papers of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, vol. 33, pp. 37-95. Andover, Mass. 1947 The Spruce Run earthworks: A forgotten Adena site in Delaware County. Archaeo? logical and Historical Society Quarteriy, vol. 56, pp. 188-200. Columbus. 1952a Some eariy and middle Woodland pottery types in Illinois. In Hopewellian communi? ties in lUinois, edited by Thorne Deuel. lUinois State Museum Scientific Papers, vol. 5. Springfield. TT ? J 1952b Culture periods in eastern United States archeology. In Archeology of eastern United States edited by J . B. Griffin. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1952c A preview of the ceramic relationships of the Snyders Site, Calhoun County, lUinois. In The Snyders site, Calhoun County, lUinois. The Greater St. Louis Archaeologi? cal Society, St. Louis, Missouri. 202 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME u GRIFFIN, JAMES B.?Continued 1964. The northeast Woodlands area. In Prehistoric man in the New World, edited by Jesse D. Jennings and Edward Norbeck, pp. 223-258, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. GRIFFIN, JAMES B. , editor 1952. Archeology of eastern United States. University of Chicago Press. GRIFFIN, JAMES B. , and KRIEGER, ALEX D . 1947. Notes on some ceramic techniques and intrusions in central Mexico. American An? tiquity, vol. 12, pp. 156-168. GRIFFIN, JOHN W . , and SMITH, HALE G . 1954. The Cotton site: An archaeological site of early ceramic times in Volusia County, Florida. Florida State University Studies in Anthropology, no. 16, pp. 27-60. TaUahassee HAAG, WILLIAM 1939. Type description Alexander Incised. News Letter of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference, vol. 1, no. 1. HEIMLICH, MARION DUNLEVY 1952. Guntersville Basin pottery. Geological Survey of Alabama, Museum Paper 32. Mont? gomery. HEINE-GELDERN, ROBERT 1959a. Chinese influences in Mexico and Central America: The Tajin style of Mexico and the marble vases from Honduras. Actas del 33rd Congreso Internacional de Ameri? canistas, Costa Rica, 1958, pp. 195-206. San Jose. 1959b. Representation of the Asiatic tiger in the art of the Chavin culture: A proof of early contacts between China and Peru. Actas del 33rd Congreso Internacional de Ameri? canistas, Costa Rica^ 1958, pp. 321?326. San Jose. HEIZER, ROBERT F . 1964. The western coast of North America. In Prehistoric man in the New World, edited by Jesse D. Jennings and Edward Norbeck, pp. 117-148. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. HEIZER, ROBERT F . and DRUCKER, PHILIP 1968. The La Venta fluted pyramid. Antiquity, vol. 42, no. 165, pp. 52-56 and pi. 12. HICKS, FREDERICK, and ROZAIRE, CHARLES E . 1960. Mound 13, Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New World Archaeo? logical Foundation, no. 10. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. HOLMES, WILLIAM H . 1894. Earthenware of Florida: CoUections of Clarence B. Moore. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. voL 10, part 1, art. 2, pp. 105-128. PhUadelphia. 1903. Aboriginal pottery of the eastem United States. Bureau of American Ethnology Annual Report, vol. 20, pp. 1-120. Washington, D.C. HUTCHINSON, JOSEPH 1963. The history and relationships of the world's cotton. Annual report of the Smithsonian Institution 1962, pp. 497-515. Washington, D.C. ISHIDA, EIICHIRO, et al. 1960. Andes, The Repwart of the University of Tokyo Scientific Expedition to the Andes in 1958, no. I .Tokyo. IZUMI, SEIICHI, and SONG, TOSHIHIKO 1963. Andes 2: Excavations a t Kotosh, Peru, 1960, University of Tokyo Scientific Expeditions to the Andes. Tokyo. IZUMI, SEIICHI, and TERADA, KAZUO 1966. Andes 3 : Excavations a t Pechiche and Garbanzal, Tumbes VaUey, Peru, 1960. Uni? versity of Tokyo Scientific Expeditions to the Andes. Tokyo. JENNINGS, JESSE D . 1964. The desert west In Prehistoric man in the New World, edited by Jesse D . Jennings and Edward Norbeck, pp . 149-174. JENNINGS, JESSE D . , and NORBECK, EDWARE), editors 1964. Prehistoric man in the New WorM. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. JIJON Y CAAMANO, JACINTO 1951a. Antropologia prehispanica del Ecuador. Quito. LITERATURE CITED 203 1951b. Las civilizaciones del sur de Centro America y el noroeste de Sud America. Papers of the 29th International Congress of Americanists, New York, 1949, pp. 165-172. New York. KELLAR, J . H. ; KELLY, A. R.; and MCMICHAEL, E . V. 1962. The MandevUle site in southwest Georgia. American Antiquity, vol. 27, pp. 336-355. KIDDER, A. V. 1924. An introduction to the study of Southwestern archaeology, with a preliminary account of the excavation at Pecos. Papers, Southwestern Expedition, Phillips Academy, no. 1. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1943. Grooved stone axes from Central America. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnology, no. 29. Washington, D.C. KIDDER, ALFRED V.; JENNINGS, JESSE D.; and SHOOK, EDWIN M . 1946. Excavations at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publi? cation no. 561. Washington, D.C. KIDDER, ALFRED, II 1964. South American high cultures. In Prehistoric man in the New World, edited by Jesse D. Jennings and Edward Norbeck, pp. 451-486. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. KIDDER, ALFRED, II ; LUMBRERAS, LUIS G.; and SMITH, DAVID B . 1963. Cultural development in the central Andes'?Peru and Bolivia. In Aboriginal cultural development in Latin America: An interpretative review, edited by Betty J . Meggers and Clifford Evans. Smithsonian Misc. CoU., vol. 146, no. 1, pp. 89-101. Washington, D.C. KIDDER, J. EDWARD, J R . 1957. The Jomon pottery of Japan. Artibus Asiea, Supplementum 17, Institute of Fine Arts, New York. KING, ARDEN R . 1948. Tripod pottery in the central Andean area. American Antiquity, vol. 14, pp. 103-116. KRIEGER, ALEX D . 1946. Culture complexes and chronology in northern Texas, with extension of Puebloan datings to the Mississippi Valley. University of Texas, Publication no. 4640. Austin. KROEBER, ALFRED L . 1930. Cultural relations between North and South America. Proceedings of the 23rd Inter? national Congress of Americanists, New York, 1928, pp. 5-22. New York. LADD, JOHN 1964. Archeological investigations in the Parita and Santa Maria zones of Panama. Bureau of American Ethnology BuUetin, no. 193. Washington, D . C LANNING, EDWARD P. 1963a. A pre-agricultural occupation on the central coast of Peru. American Antiquity, vol. 28, pp. 360-371. 1963b. A ceramic sequence for the Puira and Chira coast, north Peru. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 135-284. Berkeley. 1967. Peru before the Incas. Prentice HaU, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. LARGO HOYLE, RAFAEL 1941. Los Cupisniques. Casa Editora "La Cronica" y "Variedades" Lima. 1944. Cultura Salinar. Sintesis monografica. Buenos Aires. 1945a. Los Cupisniques. Sociedad Geografica Americana. Buenos Aires. 1945b. La cultura Viru. Sociedad Geografica Americana. Buenos Aires. 1946. A cultural sequence for the north coast of Peru. In Handbook of the South American Indians, edited by Julian H. Steward. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin, no. 143, vol. 2, pp. 149-175. Washington, D.C. 1948. Cronologia arqueologica del norte del Peru. Hacienda ChicUn, Trujillo, Peru. LARSEN, HELGE, and RAINEY, FROELICH G . 1948. Ipiutak and the Arctic whale hunting culture. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, vol. 42. New York. L A T H R A P , D O N A L D W . ? A ? ? I OO 1958. The cultural sequence at Yarinacocha, eastern Peru. American Antiquity, vol. 23, pp. 379-388. 204 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS T O ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME l i LATHRAP, DONALD W.?Continued 1963. Possible afliliations of the MachalUla complex of coastal Ecuador. American Antiquity, vol. 29, pp. 239-241. LEWIS, THOMAS M . N . , and LEWIS, MADELINE KNEBERG 1961. Eva: An Archaic site. University of Tennessee Study in Anthropology. KnoxviUe. LIBBY, WILLARD F . 1955. Radiocarbon dating. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. LONGYEAR, JOHN M . , HI 1952. Copan ceramics. A study of southeastern Maya pottery. Carnegie Institution of Wash? ington, Publication 597. Washington, D.C. LORENZO, JOSE L . 1965. Tlatilco m, los artefactos. Serie Investigaciones no. 7, Instimto Nacional de Antro? pologia e Historia, Mexico, D.F. LOWE, GARETH W . 1959a. The Chiapas project, 1955-1958. Papers of the New World Archaeological Founda? tion, no. 1, publication no. 3. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 1959b. Archaeological explorations of the Upper Grijalva River, Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation no. 2, publication no. 3. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. 1962. Mound 5 and minor excavations, Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation no. 12, publication no. 8. Birgham Young University, Provo, Utah. LowEE, ROBERT H . 1937. The history of ethnological theory. Farrar and Rinehart, Inc., New York. MACNEISH, RICHARD S. 1947. A preliminary report on coastal Tamaulipas, Mexico. American Antiquity, vol. 13, pp. 1-15. 1954. An early archaeological site near Panuco, Veracruz. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 44, part 5, pp. 539-641. PhUadelphia. 1958. Preliminary archaeological investigations in the Sierra de Tamaulipas, Mexico. Transactions of the American PhUosophical Society, vol. 48, part 6. Philadelphia. 1959. Men out of Asia, as seen from the northern Yukon. University of Alaska Anthropologi? cal Papers, vol. 7, no. 2. 1961. First annual report of the Tehuacan archaeological-botanical project. Project Reports, no. 1. Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, Andover, Mass. 1962. Second annual report of the Tehuacan archaeological-botanical project. Project Reports, no. 2. Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, Andover, Mass. 1964. Ancient Mesoamerican civUization. Science, vol. 143, pp. 531-537. MACNEISH, RICHARD S., and PETERSON, FREDRICK A. 1962. The Santa Marta rock shelter, Ocozocoantla, Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, no. 14, publication no. 10. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. MAGRATH, WILLIS H . 1945. The North Benton mound: A HopeweU site in Ohio. American Antiquity, vol. 11, pp. 40-47. MASON, J . ALDEN 1960. Mound 12, Chiapa de Corzo, Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New World Archaeo? logical Foundation, no. 9. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. MATOS MENDIETA, RAMIRO 1962. La ceramica temprana de Ancon and sus problemas. Tesis de grado en la Facultad de Letras, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima. MAXWELL, MOREAU S . 1951. Woodland cultures of southern lUinois. Logan Museum Publications in Anthropology BuU. 7. Beloit College, Beloit. 1959. The late Woodland period. In Illinois Archaeology. Illinois Archaeological Survey Bulletin, no. 1, pp. 27-32. University of Illinois, Urbana. McCowN, THEODORE D . 1945. Pre-Incaic Huamachuco: Survey and excavations in the region of Huamachuco and Cajabamba. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 223^00 . Berkeley. LITERATURE CITED 205 MCGREGOR, JOHN C . 1941. Southwestern archaeology. John WUey and Sons, New York. 1952. The Havana site. In HopeweUian communities in lUinois, edited by Thorne Deuel. lUmois State Museum Scientific Papers, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 43-91. Springfield. 1957. Prehistoric viUage distribution in the lUinois River VaUey. American Antiquity, vol. 22, pp. 272-279. 1959. The middle Woodland period. In Illinois archaeology, edited by Elaine A. Bluhm. lUinois Archaeological Survey BuUetin, no. 1, pp. 21-28. University of lUinois, Urbana. MCINTIRE, WILLIAM G . 1958. Prehistoric Indian settlements of the changing Mississippi River delta. Louisiana State University Studies, Coastal Studies Series, no. 1. Baton Rouge. M C K E R N , W . C . 1931. A Wisconsin variant of the Hopewell culture. BuUetin of the Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 185-328. Milwaukee. 1937. An hypothesis for the Asiatic origin of the Woodland culture pattern. American Antiquity, vol. 3, pp. 138-143. M C K E R N , W . C ; TITTERINGTON, P. F. ; and GRIFFIN, JAMES B . 1945. Painted pottery figurines from Illinois. American Antiquity, vol. 10, pp. 295-304. MCLLTRKAN, BURNEY R.; FIELD, W . T . ; and WOODALL, NED J. 1966. Excavations in Toledo Bend reservoir. Papers of the Texas Archaeological Salvage Project, no. 8. Austin. M C M I C H A E L , EDWARD V. 1964. Veracruz, the Crystal River complex, and the Hopewellian climax. HopeweUian Studies, lUinois State Museum Scientific Papers, vol. 12, pp. 123-132. Springfield. MEDELLIN ZENIL, ALFONSO 1960. Ceramicas del Totonacapan: Exploraciones arqueologicas en el centro de Veracruz. Universidad Veracruzana, Instituto de Anthropologia, Jalapa. MEGGERS, BETTY J. 1963. Cultural development in Latin America: An interpretative overview. In Aboriginal cultural development in Latin America: An interpretative review, edited by Bettv J . Meggers and Clifford Evans. Smithsonian Misc. CoU. vol. 146, no. 1, pp. 131-145. Washington, D.C. 1964. North and South American cultural connections and convergences. In Prehistoric man in the New World, edited by Jesse D. Jennings and Edward Norbeck, pp. 511-526. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1966. Ecuador. Ancient Peoples and Places series, vol. 49. Praeger, New York. MEGGERS, BETTY J., and EVANS, CLIFFORD 1962. The Machalilla culture: An early Formative complex on the Ecuadorian coast. American Antiquity, vol. 28, pp. 186-192. 1964. Especulaciones sobre rutas tempranas de difusion de la ceramica entre Sur y Meso? america. Hombre y Cultura, Tomo 1, no. 3, pp. 1-15, Revista del Centro Investi? gaciones Antropologicas de la Universidad Nacional, Panama. MEGGERS, BETTY J., and EVANS, CLIFFORD, editors 1963. Aboriginal cultural development in Latin America: An interpretative review. Smith? sonian Misc. Coll., vol. 146, no. 1. Washington, D.C. MEGGERS, BETTY J.; EVANS, CLIFFORD; and ESTRADA, EMILIO 1965.' Early Formative period of coastal Ecuador: The Valdivia and MachaliUa phases. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, vol. 1. Washington, D.C. MEIGHAN, CLEMENT W . , , . * ? * ? ? , o^ 1959. Californian cultures and the concept of an archaic stage. American Antiquity, vol. 24, pp. 289-305. MILLON, R E N E ; DREWITT, BRUCE; and BENNYHOFF, JAMES A. 1965 The Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan; 1959 investigations. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 55, part 6. Philadelphia. MILLS, WILLIAM C . . . , , ? , , TT- . ? i C ? . / - > , * 1902. Excavations of the Adena mound. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society Quarter? ly vol 10 no 4, pp. 452-479. Columbus. 1907 The explorations of the Edwin Harness mound. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society Quartedy, vol. 16, pp. 113-193. Columbus. 206 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS T O ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 11 MILLS, WILLIAM C.?Continued 1909. Explorations of the Seip mound. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society Quarterly, vol. 18, pp. 269-321. Columbus. 1916. Exploration of the Tremper mound. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 263-398. Columbus. 1922. Exploration of the Mound City group. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society Quarteriy, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 423-584. Columbus. MOORE, CLARENCE B . 1893. Certain shell heaps of the St. John's River, Florida, hitherto unexplored. The American Naturalist, vol. 27, pp. 605-624. Philadelphia. 1894. Certain shell heaps of the St. John's River, Florida, hitherto unexplored. American Naturalist, vol. 28, part 5, pp. 15-26. PhUadelphia. 1897. Certain aboriginal mounds of the Georgia coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences, vol. 10, part I, pp. 4-138. Philadelphia. 1901. Certain aboriginal remains of the northwest Florida coast, part I. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences, vol. 11, part 4, pp. 419-497. Philadelphia. 1902. Certain aboriginal remains of the northwest Florida coast, part I I . Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences, vol. 12, part 2, pp. 125-335. PhUadelphia. 1903. Certain aboriginal mounds of the Florida central west-coast. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of PhUadelphia, vol. 12, pp. 361-438. Philadelphia. 1907. Crystal River revisited. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of PhUadelphia, vol. 13, part 3, pp. 406-425. PhUadelphia. 1908. Certain mounds of Arkansas and of Mississippi. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of PhUadelphia, vol. 13, part 4, pp. 481-600. PhUadelphia. 1912. Some aboriginal sites on Red River. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 482-640. PhUadelphia. 1918. The northwestern Florida coast revisited. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, vol. 16, part 4, pp. 514-577. MOOREHEAD, WARREN K . 1922. The HopeweU mound group of Ohio. Field Museum of Natural History Publication 211, Anthropological Series, vol. 6, no. 5. Chicago. MORLEY, S Y L V A N U S G . 1946. The ancient Maya. Stanford University Press. MUNIZAGA, JUAN R . 1965. Skeletal remains from sites of Valdivia and MachaliUa Phases. Smithsonian Contribu? tions to Anthropology, vol. I, appendix 2. Washington, D.C. NAVARETTE, CARLOS 1959. Explorations at San Agustin, Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New World Archaeo? logical Foundation, no. 3, publication no. 3. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. NEUMANN, GEORG K . , and FOWLER, MELVIN L . 1952. Hopewellian sites in the Lower Wabash Valley. In Hopewellian communities in Illinois, edited by Thorne Deuel. Scientific Papers, Illinois State Museum, vol. 5, pp. 175-248. Springfield. NEWELL, PERRY H . , and KRIEGER, ALEX D . 1949. The George C. Davis site, Cherokee County, Texas. Society for American Archaeology Memoir 5. NEWKUMET, PHIL J . 1940. Preliminary report on excavation of the Williams mound, Leflore County, Oklahoma. Oklahoma State Archaeological Society, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1-9. Tulsa. O R R , KENNETH G . 1952. Survey of Caddoan area archaeology. In Archaeology of eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, pp. 239-255. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. PARSONS, LEE A. 1963. A doughnut-shaped vessel from Kaminaljuyu, with a distributional analysis of this unusual form. American Antiquity, vol. 28, pp. 386-389. PETERSON, FREDRICK A. 1963. Some ceramics from Mirador, Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New World Archeo? logical Foundation, no. 15, publication no. 11. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. LITERATURE CITED 207 PHILLIPS, PHILIP 1940. Middle American influences on the archaeology of the southeastern United States. In The Maya and their neighbors, pp. 349-367. D. Appleton-Century, New York. PHILLIPS, PHILIP; FORD, JAMES A.; and GRIFFIN, JAMES B . 1951. Archaeological survey on the lower Mississippi AUuvial Valley, 1940-1947. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 25, Harvard University. PINA CHAN, ROMAN 1958. TlatUco. Serie Investigaciones, vol. I and 2, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia. Mexico, D.F. PORTER, MURIEL NOE (see also Weaver, Muriel Porter) 1948. Pipas precortesianas. Acta Antropologica, vol. 3, no. 2. Mexico, D.F. 1953. Tlatilco and the preclassic cultures of the New World. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, no. 19. New York. PRAHL, EARL J . 1966. The Muskegon River survey: 1965 and 1966. The Michigan Archaeologist, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 183-210. Ann Arbor. PRUFER, O L A F H . 1964. HopeweU versus Meso-America and Asia. Actas y Memorias I, X X X V Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, Mexico, 1962, pp. 113-120. Mexico, D.F. QUIMBY, GEORGE I., J R . 1941. The Goodall focus: An analysis of ten HopeweUian components in Michigan and Indiana. Indiana Historical Society Prehistoric Research Series, vol. 9, no. 1. Indianapolis. RADIOCARBON DATES ASSOCIATION, INC. 1958. Key-sort cards of radiocarbon dates. Quincy MaU Advertising Co. Braintree, Mass. R,ADIOCARBON (formerly Radiocarbon Supplement) 1959-1968. Volumes 1-10. American Journal of Science, Yale University. RADIOCARBON MEASUREMENTS 1967. Comprehensive Index, 1950-1965. American Journal of Science. Yale University, New Haven. REED, ERIK K . 1964. The greater Southwest. In Prehistoric man in the New World, edited by Jesse D. Jennings and Edward Norbeck, pp. 175-191. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. REICHEL-DOLMATOFF, GERARDO 1955. Excavaciones en los conchales de la costa de Barlovento. Revista Colombiana de Antropologia, vol. 4, pp. 247-272. Bogota. 1957. MomU: A Formative 'sequence from the Sinu Valley, Colombia. American Antiquity, vol. 22, pp. 226-234. 1961. Puerto Hormiga: Un complejo prehistorico marginal de Colombia (nota preliminar). Revista Colombiana de Antropologia, vol. 10, pp. 347-354. Bogota. 1965. Excavaciones arqueologicas en Puerto Hormiga (Departmento de Bolivar). Antro? pologia 2, Ediciones de la Universidad de los Andes. Bogota. REICHEL-DOLMATOFF, GERARDO and ALICIA 1951. Investigaciones arqueologicas en el Depto. del Magdalena, Colombia'?1946-1950. Boletin de Arqueologia, vol. 3, nos. 1-6. Bogota. 1955. Investigaciones arqueologicas en la Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, part 4. Revista Colombiana de Antropologia, vol. 4, pp. 189-245. Bogota. 1956. MomU: Excavaciones en el Sinu. Revista Colombiana de Antropologia, vol. 5, pp. 109-333. Bogota. 1961. Investigaciones arqueol6gicas en la costa Pacifica de Colombia i: El sitio de Cupica. Revista Colombiana de Antropologia, vol. 10. pp. 237-330. Bogota. 1962. Investigaciones arqueologicas en la costa Pacifica de Colombia ii: Una sequencia cultural del bajo Rio San Juan. Revista Colombiana de Antropologia, vol. 11, pp. 9-72. Bogota. RTTPHTE WILLIAM A. 1946 A stratified prehistoric site at Brewertown, New York. Research Records of the Roch? ester Museum of Arts and Sciences, no. 8. Rochester. 324-788 O - 69 - 15 208 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME i i RITCHIE, WILLIAM A.?Continued 1962. The antiquity of pottery in the Northeast. American Antiquity, vol. 27, pp. 583-584. 1965. The archaeology of New York State. The Natural History Press, Garden City, New York. ROUSE, IRVING 1951. A survey of Indian River archaeology, Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthro? pology, no. 44. New Haven. ROUSE, IRVING, and CRUXENT, JOSE M . 1958. An archeological chronology of Venezuela. Social Science Monograph vi. Pan Ameri? can Union, Washington, D.C. SANDERS, WILLIAM T . 1961. Ceramic stratigraphy at Santa Cruz, Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, no. 13, publ. no. 9. Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah. SANOJA, MARIO 1963. Cultural development in Venezuela. In Aboriginal cultural development in Latin America: An interpretative review, edited by Betty J . Meggers and Clifford Evans. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 146, no. 1, pp. 67-76. Washington, D.C. SEARS, WILLIAM H . 1962. Hopewellian affiliations for certain sites on the Gulf coast of Florida. American Antiq? uity, vol. 28, pp. 5-18. SEARS, WILLIAM H . , and GRIFFIN, JAMES B . 1950. Fiber-tempered pottery of the Southeast. In Prehistoric pottery of the eastern United States, edited by James B. Griffin, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor. SHETRONE, HENRY C . 1926. Explorations of the Hopewell group of prehistoric earthworks. Ohio State Arch? aeological and Historical Quarterly, vol. 35, no. I, pp. 5-227. Columbus. SiLOW, R . A. 1953. The problems of trans-Pacific migration involved in the origin of the cultivated cottons of the New World. Proceedings of the Seventh Pacific Science Congress of the Pacific Science Association, vol. 5, pp. 112-118. Wellington, New Zealand. SMITH, ROBERT E . 1955. Ceramic sequence at Uaxactun, Guatemala. Middle American Research Institute Tulane University, vol. 1, publ. no. 20. New Orleans. SOLHEIM, WILHELM G , II 1964. Pottery and the Malayo-Pclynesians. Current Anthropology, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 376-384. SORENSON, JOHN L . 1955. A chronological ordering of the Mesoamerican Pre-Classic. Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University Publication, no. 18, pp. 41-70. New Orleans SPAULDING, ALBERT C . 1946. Northeastern archaeology and general trends in the northern forest zone. In Man in northeastern North America, edited by Frederick Johnson. Papers of the Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology, vol. 3, pp. 143-167. Andover, Mass. 1952. The origin of the Adena culture of the Ohio VaUey. Southwestern Journal of Anthro? pology, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 260-268. SPINDEN, HERBERT 1917. The origin and distribution of agriculture in America. Proceedings of the 19th Inter? national Congress of Americanists, Washington, D.C. 1915, pp. 269-276. Wash? ington, D.G. SquiER, EPHRAIM G . , and DAVIS, EDWIN H . 1848. Ancient monuments of the Mississippi VaUey. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowl? edge, vol. I. Washington, D.C. STIRLING, MATTHEW W . 1941. Expedition unearths buried masterpieces of carved jade. National Geographic Maga? zine, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 277-302. ^ 1955. Stone monuments of the Rio Chiquito, Veracruz, Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnol? ogy Bulletin, no. 157, pp. 1-68. Washington, D.C. STIRLING, MATTHEW W . and MARION 1964a. El Limon, an early tomb site in Code province, Panama. Bureau of American Ethnol? ogy Bulletin, no. 191, pp. 247-254. Washington, D.G. LITERATURE CITED 209 1964b. Archeological notes on Almirante Bay, Bocas del Toro, Panama. Bureau of American Ethnology BuUetin, no. 191, pp. 255-284. Washington, D.C. STOLTMAN, JAMES B . 1966. New radiocarbon dates for Southeastern fiber-tempered pottery. American Antiquity, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 872-874. STRONG, WILLIAM DUNCAN 1943. Cross sections of New World prehistory. Smithsonian Misc. CoU., vol. 104, no. 2, pp. 1^6. Washington, D.C. STRONG, WILLIAM DUNCAN, and EVANS, CLIFFORD 1952. Gultural stratigraphy in the Viru Valley, northern Peru: The Formative and Flores- cent epochs. Columbia Studies in Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 4. Columbia University Press, New York. STRONG, WILLIAM DUNCAN; KrooER, ALFRED, II ; and PAUL, A. J. D. 1938. Preliminary report on the Smithsonian Institution-Harvard University archeological expedition to northwest Honduras, 1936. Smithsonian Misc. CoU., vol. 97, no. 1. Washington, D.C. SUHM, D E E ANN, and KRIEGER, ALEX D . 1954. An introductory handbook of Texas archeology. Bulletin of the Texas Archeological Society, vol. 25. Austin, Texas. TELLO, JULIO C . 1943. Discovery of the Chavin culture in Peru. American Antiquity, vol. 9, pp. 135-160. 1960. Chavin, ciUtura matriz de la civilizacion andina. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, primera parte. Lima. TOLSTOY, PAUL 1953. Some Amerasian pottery traits in north Asia prehistory. American Antiquity, vol. 19, pp. 25-39. 1958a. The archaeology of the Lena Basin and its New World relationships, part I. American Antiquity, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 397-418. 1958b. Surface survey of the northern Valley of Mexico: The Classic and Post-Classic periods. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 48, part 5. Philadelphia. 1963. Gultural parallels between southeast Asia and Mesoamerica in the manufacture of bark cloth. Transactions of the New York Academy of Science, Series ii, vol. 25, pp. 646-662. New York. TOLSTOY, PAUL, and GUENETTE, ANDRE 1965. Le placement de TlatUco dans le cadre du Pre-Classique du Bassin de Mexico. Journal de la Societe des Americanistes, tome 54-1, pp. 47-91. Paris. TRICKEY, BRUCE E . 1958. A chronological framework for the MobUe Bay region. American Antiquity, vol. 23, pp. 388-396. U H L E , M A X 1913. Die muschelhugel von Ancon, Peru. 18th International Congress of Americanists, London 1912, pp. 2 2 ^ 5 . London. VAILLANT, GEORGE C . 1930. Excavations at Zacatenco. Anthropological Papers vol. 32, part 1, pp. 1-197. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1931. Excavations at Ticoman. Anthropological Papers vol. 32, part 2, pp. 199-451. Ameri? can Museum of Natural History, New York. 1935a Early cultures of the Valley of Mexico: Results of the stratigraphical project of the American Museum of Natural History in the VaUey of Mexico, 1928-1933. Anthro? pological Papers, vol. 35, part 3, pp. 281-328. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1935b. Excavations at El Arbolillo. Anthropological Papers, vol. 35, part 2, pp. 137-279. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 1941. Aztecs of Mexico. Doubleday-Doran and Co. New York. VAILLANT, GEORGE C. and SUZANNA B. , . , ? , ^ . , , , IQC ? 1934. Excavations at Gualupita. Anthropological Papers, vol. 35, part 1, pp. 1-135. American Museum of Natural History. New York. 210 SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS T O ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME i i W A L K E R , W I N S L O W M . 1952. The Dickinson mound group, Peoria County. In Hopewellian communities in Illinois, edited by Thorne Deuel, Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers, vol. 5, pp. 1 3 ^ 1 . Springfield. WALLACE, DWIGHT T . 1962. Cerillos, an early Paracas site in lea, Peru. American Antiquity, vol. 27, pp. 303-314. WARREN, BRUCE W . 1961. The archeological sequence at Chiapa de Corzo. In Los Mayas del sur y sus relaciones con los Nahuas meridionales. Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia, VI I I , Mesa Redonda, pp. 75-83. Mexico, D.F. WAUCHOPE, ROBERT 1950. A tentative sequence of Pre-Glassic ceramics in Middle America. Tulane University, Middle American Research Institute, publication 15, pp. 211-250. New Orleans. 1954. Implications of radiocarbon dates from Middle and South America. Tulane University, Middle American Research Records, publ. 18, vol. 29, pp. 17-40. New Orleans. 1966. Archeological survey of northern Georgia with a test of cultural hypothesis. Society for American Archaeology Memoir 21. WEAVER, MURIEL PORTER (see also Porter, Muriel) 1967. Tlapacoya pottery in the museum collection. Indian Notes and Monographs, no. 56. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, New York. WEBB, CLARENCE H . 1944. Stone vessels from a northeast Louisiana site. American Antiquity, vol. 9, pp. 386-394. 1959. The Belcher mound, a stratified Caddoan site in Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Society for American Archaeology Memoir 16. 1968. The extent and content of Poverty Point culture. American Antiquity, vol. 33, pp. 297-321. WEBB, CLARENCE H . , and FORD, JAMES A. MS. Poverty Point culture and the American Formative. WEBB, WILLIAM S. 1940. The Wright mounds: Site 6 and 7, Montgomery County, Kentucky. The University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology, vol. 5, no. I. Lexington. 1950. The Carlson Annis mound: Site 5, Butler County, Kentucky. The University of Kentucky Reports in Anthropology, vol. 7, no. 4. Lexington. WEBB, WILLIAM S., and BABY, RAYMOND S. 1957. The Adena people, no. 2. Ohio State University Press, Columbus. WEBB, WILLIAM S., and DEJARNETTE, DAVID L . 1942. An archeological survey of Pickwick Basin in the adjacent portions of the states of Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Bureau of American Ethnology BuUetin, no. 129. Washington, D.C. WEBB, WILLIAM S., and FAUKHOUSER, W . D . 1931. The Tolu site in' Crittenden County, Kentucky. The University of Kentucky Reports in Archaeology and Anthropology, vol. 1, no. 5. Lexington. WEBB, WILLIAM S., and HAAG, WILLIAM G . 1939. The GhiggervUle site: Site 1, Ohio County, Kentucky. Reports in Anthropology, vol. 4, no. 1. University of Kentucky, Lexington. WEBB, WILLIAM S., and SNOW, CHARLES E . 1945. The Adena people. University of Kentucky Reports in Archaeology and Anthropology, vol. 6. Lexington. WEIANT, C . W . 1943. An introduction to the ceramics of Tres Zapotes, Veracruz, Mexico. Bureau of Amer? ican Ethnology BuUetin, no. 139. Washington, D.G. WicKE, CHARLES R . 1965. Pyramids and temple mounds: Mesoamerican ceremonial architecture in eastern North America. American Antiquity, vol. 30, pp. 409-420. WILLEY, GORDON R . 1945. Horizon styles and pottery traditions in Peruvian archaeology. American Antiquity, vol. 11, pp. 49-56. 1948. Functional analysis of "horizon styles" in Peruvian archaeology. In A reappraisal of Peruvian archaeology. Society for American Archaeology Memoir 4, pp. 8-15. LITERATURE CITED 211 1949a. Archeology of the Florida Gulf coast. Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 113. Washington, D.G. 1949b. The southeastern United States and South America: A comparative statement. In The Florida Indian and his neighbors, edited by John W. Griffin, pp. 101-106. Interamerican Center, Rollins College, Winter Park, Florida. 1949c. Excavations in southeast Florida. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, no. 42. New Haven. 1951. The Chavin problem: A review and critique. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 103-144. 1953. Prehistoric settlement patterns in the Viru VaUey, Peru. Bureau of American Eth? nology Bulletin, no. 155. Washington, D.C. 1955. The interrelated rise of the native cultures of Middle and South America. In New interpretations of aboriginal American culture history, Anthropological Society of Washington, 75th Anniversary volume, pp. 2 8 ^ 5 . Washington, D.C. 1962. The early great styles and the rise of pre-Columbian civilizations. American Anthro? pologist, vol. 64, pp. 1-14. 1966. An introduction to American archaeology, volume 1: North and Middle America. Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. WILLEY, GORDON R . , and CORBETT, JOHN M . 1954. Early Ancon and early Supe culture. Columbia Studies in Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 3. Columbia University Press, New York. WILLEY, GORDON R . , and MCGIMSEY, CHARLES R . 1954. The Monagrillo culture of Panama. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, vol. 49, no. 2. Cambridge, Mass. WILLEY, GORDON R . , and PHILLIPS, PHILIP 1958. Method and theory in American archaeology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. WILLIAMS, STEPHEN, editor 1968. The Waring papers: The collected works of Antonio J . Waring, J r . Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, vol 58. Cambridge, Mass. WILLOUGHBY, CHARLES G . 1917. The art of the great earthwork builders of Ohio. Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, 1916, pp. 489-500. 1922. The Turner group of earthworks, Hamilton County, Ohio. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 8, no. 3. Harvard University. Cam? bridge, Mass. WIMBERLY, STEVE B . 1960. Indian pottery from Clarke County and MobUe County, southern Alabama. Alabama Museum of Natural History, Museum Paper 36. University, Alabama. WIMBERLY, STEVE B. , and TOURTELOT, HARRY A. 1941. The McQuorquodale mound: A manifestation of the HopeweUian phase in south Alabama. Geological Survey of Alabama, Museum Paper 19. University, Alabama. WOOD, RAYMOND W . 1962. A stylistic and historical analysis of shoulder patterns on Plains Indian pottery. American Antiquity, vol. 28, pp. 25-40. "^^RIGHT T. \^? 1967. The Laurel tradition and the Middle Woodland period. National Museum of Canada BuUetin, no. 217, Anthropological Series 79. Ottawa. WYMAN, JEFFRIES ^, . , -^r ? r i T ^ ^ j 1875 Fresh-water shell mounds of the St. John's River, Florida. Memoirs of the Peabody Academy of Science, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 1-94. Salem, Mass. o RADIOCARBON DATES USED FOR ESTABLISHING THE REGIONAL CHRONOLOGIES ? C H A R T 1 Black bars represent the 1-sigma range for each date; where there is no black bar, the laboratory number occupies an area equal to or greater than the 1-sigma range. References for all dates are provided on tables 1-13. OHIO 500 t ILLINOIS GEORGIA COAST NORTH FLORIDA MOBILE BAY FLA. N.W. COAST 500 1 1000 K////\ 1500 2 0 0 0 2500 %%:%%5%^^:%%%%%^ 3 0 0 0 '/////////. CERAMICS BEGIN V^V/VN- INFORMATION LIMIT I CJ ?k. I II CVJ _ M ? .1 ! ? <*oy/////////y^, v///,iHy//fswy///y/^- I LOUISIANA? 7 ? o ir VERACRUZ VALLEY OF MEXICO TEHUACAN CHIAPAS SOCONUSCO, GUATEMALA N. COAST COLOMBIA COASTAL ECUADOR CENT. HIGHLAND PERU N. AND CENT. COAST PERU ^.- := 1 ?au-I % % % % % % % % % } % % ! I r? (n ?k. \ I CJ . ??t_ I I vvA/v^^l JOCOTAL >- ? ? ' V S A ^ N A ' ^ - ^ ^ V ^ " " ^ I CO 00 \ I CO I ? i I CM I . ' ? ? l l ? ? I ^ ? to r I ' ? ^ I '^ S ^ | l CO I" fe i I o i I ??,o^o _ ? ? ^ ^ "S 0 ' . TML ?'? ? ^^ z ^^^ ? - ^ = a ^ Z = 1 M o = * ^ ir S Z = 1 = '/////////////////////////////, 1 o < 5 ' < 1 1 ? TUBULAR STONE BEAD ?;? SPHERICAL STONE BEAD ^ DISK-SHAPED STONE BEAD = COPPER BEAD ////////// CERAMICS BEGIN / V ' W INFORMATION LIMIT 1 CJ 1 - LL 9 CO 1 a o H UJ 1 1 z CO ?9 -1 -1 ^V ;ri y///////////////////////////A 500 500 1000 y///////////////^////////////. 1500 2000 2500 3000 FIGURINES CHART 10 1. WUloughby, 1922, pi. 2Ig 48 2. Willoughby, 1922, pi. 2la 49 3. WiUoughby, 1922,pl. 21f 50 4. Willoughby, 1922, pi. 21b 51 5. McKern, Titterington, and Griffin, 1945, pi. 24 52 6. McKem, Titterington, and Griffin 1945, pi. 22 53 7. N. Engle, 1957 54 8. N. Engle, 1957 55 9. Webb and Baby, 1957, fig. 22 56 10. N. Engle, 1957 57 11. Drucker, 1952, pi. 49 58 12. Moore, 1902, fig. 32 59 13. Moore, 1902, fig. 22 60 14. McMichael, 1964, pi. 8A 61 15. McMichael, 1964, pi. 8J 62 16. Ford, 1951, fig. 44f 63 17. Ford, 1951, fig. 44i 64 18. Ford, 1951, fig. 44a 65 19. Ford, 1951, fig. 44c 66 20. Ford and Willey, 1940, fig. 51a 67 21. Ford and Willey, 1940, fig. 53b 68 22. McLurkan, Field, and WoodaU, 1966, fig. 14j 69 23. McCormick CoUection 70 24. Ford and Webb, 1956, fig. 16k 71 25. Poverty Point, unpublished notes 72 26. Ford and Webb, 1956, fig. 16d 73 27. Ford and Webb, 1956, fig. 16f 74 28. Drucker, 1943b, pi. 29 75 29. Drucker, 1943b, pi. 35 76 30. Drucker, 1943b, pi. 42a 77 31. Drucker, 1952, pi. 28L 78 32. Garcia Payon, 1966, pi. 69-24 79 33. Garcia Payon, 1966, pi. 62-1 80 34. Garcia Payon, 1966, pi. 53-1 81 35. Garcia Payon, 1966, pi. 60-2 82 36. Drucker, 1952, pi. 56 83 37. Photograph provided by Michael Coe 84 38. Photograph provided by Michael Coe 85 39. Photograph provided by Michael Coe 86 40. MiUon, Drewitt, and Bennyhoff, 1965, fig. 106a 87 41. Millon, Drewitt, and Bennyhoff, 1965, fig. 101-1 88 42. Vaillant, 1931, pi. 55 89 43. Vaillant, 1931, pi. 64 90 44. Piiia Chan, 1958, vol. 2, pi. 16 91 45. Piiia Chan, 1958, vol. 2, pi. 20 92 46. Pina Chan, 1958, vol. 2, pi. 28 93 47. MacNeish, 1961, fig. 15 MacNeish, 1961, fig. 15 WUley, 1966, fig. 3-14g Willey, 1966, fig. 3-14a MacNeish, 1961, fig. 15 Willey, 1966, fig. 3-13k WiUey, 1966, fig. 3-15 WUley, 1966, fig. 3-13j Sanders, 1961, pi. lOB-e Sanders, 1961, pi. lOB-m Peterson, 1963, fig. 114a Peterson, 1963, fig. 119d Peterson, 1963, fig. 119c Dixon, 1959, fig. 53a Dixon, 1959, fig. 51 M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 57c M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 54b M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 57f M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 39j M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 40f Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, pi. 22-6 Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, pi. 22-14 Angulo Valdes, 1962b, pi. 7a Estrada, 1962, fig. 128a Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1964, fig. 15a Estrada, 1962, fig. 97E Estrada, 1962, fig. 71 Photograph provided by Clifford Evans Photograph provided by Clifford Evans Photograph provided by Clifford Evans Estrada, 1962, fig. 71 Estrada, 1962, fig. 71 Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pi. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pi. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pi. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pi. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pi. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pi. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pi. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pi, Tello, 1960, fig. 134 Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 100c Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 111, 4-5 Carri6n Cachot, 1948, pi. 25-23 Carrion Cachot, 1948, pi. 25-24 Ishida, 1960, nos. 60-61 Bird, 1962, fig. 52c 118q 158a 120a 125a 123cc 123u 118j 118b 500 5 0 0 1000 1500 2 0 0 0 2500 3 0 0 0 CENT. HIGHLAND COASTAL ECUADOR PERU N. AND CENT COAST PERU ?NyVvv / ' ^ ^sy^A / y//////////////////////////// y////////////////////////////. 500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3 0 0 0 TUBULAR AND PLATFORM PIPES, FLAT AND CYLINDRICAL STAMPS CHART 11 1. Holmes, 1903, fig. 28 2. Mills, 1916, fig. 10 3. Griffin, 1952b, fig. 31b 4. Webb and Baby, 1957, fig. 38 5. McGregor, 1959, fig. 5 6. Perino, personal communication 7. Sears, 1962, fig. 2m 8. Moore, 1894, fig. 112 9. KeUar, KeUy, and McMichael, 1962, fig. 3e 10. Ford and Willey, 1940, fig. 52a 11. Ford and Quimby, 1945, fig. 7k 12. Ford and Quimby, 1945, fig. 7a 13. Ford and Quimby, 1945, fig. 7c ' 14. Poverty Point, unpublished notes 15. Drucker, 1943b, figs. 203, 205 16. Weiant, 1943, pi. 62 17. Drucker, 1943b, fig. 202 18. Weiant, 1943, pi. 63 19. Drucker, 1952, fig. 40b 20. VaUlant, 1931, pi. 83e 21. Porter, 1953, pi. 13c 22. Porter, 1953, pi. 13b 23. Peterson, 1963, fig. 170 24. Sanders, 1961, pi. l lB-g 25. Peterson, 1963, fig. 170 26. Peterson, 1963, fig. 170 27; Sanders, 1961, pL 11 A-b 28. M.D. Coe, 1961, fig. 61a 29. M.D. Coe, 1961, fig. 59m 30. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, pi. 20-3 31. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 11-1 32. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, pi. 20-8 33. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, pi. 19, 10-11 34. Estrada, 1958, fig. 51-2 35. Estrada, 1962, fig. 93 36. Meggers, 1966, pi. 36 37. Meggers, 1966, pi. 36 38. Estrada, 1957, fig. I l l 39. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 154-12 40. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 98b-13 41. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 98b-14 42. Carrion Cachot, 1948, pi. 24-t OHIO ILLINOIS GEORGIA COAST MOBILE BAY FLA.NW COAST SOCONUSCO, GUATEMALA CENT. HIGHLAND COASTAL ECUADOR PERU N. AND CENT COAST PERU 500 0 . ^ 5 0 0 1000 1500 2 0 0 0 2500 3 0 0 0 500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3 0 0 0 TECOMATE, SMALL WIDE-MOUTH POT, AND PADDLE-STAMPED WOODLAND AMPHORA CHART 12 1. Griffin, 1952b, fig. 40 2. Griffin, 1952b, fig. 32s 3. WUloughby, 1922, pi. 22 bottom 4. Webb and Snow, 1945, fig. 2 5. Ritchie, 1946, p. 13, pi. 8-5 6. Griffin, 1952b, fig. 37u 7. Perino, personal communication 8. McGregor, 1959, fig. 5 9. Griffin, 1952b, fig. 37n 10. Griffin, 1952a, pi. 32a 11. Cole and Deuel, 1937, pi. 1-7 12. Griffin, 1952b, fig. 37g 13. Fowler, 1959a, fig. 4 14. Wauchope, 1966, fig. lOf 15. Wauchope, 1966, fig. 6c 16. Wauchope, 1966, fig. 6b 17. Florida State Museum Collection 18. Florida State Museum Collection 19. Florida State Museum Collection 20. Florida State Museum Collection 21. Willey, 1949a, pp. 388-389 22. WiUey, 1949a, fig. 42c 23. Wimberiy, 1960, figs. 40-41 24. Wimberiy, 1960, fig. 40 25. Wimberiy, 1960, fig. 39d 26. Ford, 1951, fig. 16a 27. Ford and Willey, 1940, fig. 21 28. Ford and Willey, 1940, fig. 3lc 29. Ford and Quimby, 1945, fig. 17b, pi. 2a 30. Poverty Point Site, Alexander Collection 31. Poverty Point Site, Alexander Collection 32. Ford and Quimby, 1945, fig. 18b-c 33. Poverty Point Site, Alexander Collection 34. Weiant, 1943, fig. 19d 35. Florida State Museum Collection 36. Florida State Museum CoUection 37. VaUlant, 1930, pi. In;Tolstoy,personal communication 38. Porter, 1953, fig. 14 39. Vaillant, 1930, pi. In;Tolstoy, personal communication 40. MacNeish chart, personal communication 41. MacNeish, 1961, fig. 15 42. Dixon, 1959, fig. 1 43. M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 29n 44. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1961, pis. 3-1, 4-1 45. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 12-7 46. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 10-1 47. Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1955, pis. 3-5 48. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 35-6 49. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 41-5 50. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 41-2 51. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 43b 52. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 36-1 53. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 42-2 54. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 124-1 55. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pis. 50b, 139-8 56. Ford, 1949, fig. 9 -i, 57. Ishida, 1960, p. 195, fig. 6 OHIO ILLINOIS GEORGIA COAST NORTH FLORIDA MOBILE BAY FLA NW COAST LOUISIANA VERACRUZ VALLEY OF MEXICO TEHUACAN CHIAPAS 500 500 1000 ////////////////////////////// 1500 2 0 0 0 2500 sail! y//////////////////////////// 3 0 0 0 PADDLE-STAMPED WOODLAND AMPHORA LARGE NECKLESS JAR OR TECOMATE SMALL WIDE-MOUTH POT y////////, CERAMICS BEGIN y\Ay^ INFORMATION LIMIT SOCONUSCO, GUATEMALA N. COAST COLOMBIA COASTAL ECUADOR CENT. HIGHLAND PERU N. AND CENT COAST PERU _ ^ y//////////////m//////////j VVA/VvAA^ NyVNV^v -v^ / ^ /V y//////////////////////////// y////////////////////////////. 500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3 0 0 0 FLAT-BASE PAN, STONE BOWL, AND COMPOSITE SILHOUETTE BOWL CHART 13 1. Shetrone, 1926, p. 129, figs. 56-57 2. Ritchie, 1965, pp. 158-161, pi. 52 3. Wauchope, 1966, fig. 131-B 4. Florida State Museum Collection 5. Florida State Museum Collection 6. Florida State Museum Collection 7. Ford and Webb, 1956, fig. 40-1 8. Ford and Webb, 1956, fig. 41 -a 9. Drucker, 1943a, pi. 17d 10. Weiant, 1943, fig. 19f 11. Weiant, 1943, fig. 17e 12. Weiant, 1943, pi. 66-12 13. Florida State Museum Collection 14. Florida State Museum Collection 15. Florida State Museum Collection 16. M.D. Coe, 1966, (unnumbered pages) 17. Piiia Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 45n 18. VaUlant, 1931, pi. 74n 19. Pina Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 37e 20. VaiUant, 1930, pi. 6h 21. Pifia Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 34c 22. MacNeish, chart, personal communication 23. MacNeish, chart, personal communication 24. MacNeish, chart, personal communication 25. MacNeish, 1964, p. 536 26. Dbcon, 1959, fig. 22f 27. Sanders, 1961, fig. 22 28. Lowe, 1962, pi. 25c-3 29. Dixon, 1959, fig. 1-c 30. Dixon, 1959, fig. 1-d 31. M.D. Coe, 1961, fig. 35i 32. M.D. Coe, 1961, fig. 35i 33. M.D. Coe, 1961, fig. 271 34. M.D. Coe, 1961, fig. 32 35. M.D. Coe, 1961, figs. 4la-b, 51 q-r 36. M.D. Coe, 1961, figs. 20, 22p 37. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 9-5, 16 38. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 6-8 39. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia 1956, fig. 6-4 40. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 7-o 41. Estrada, 1958, fig. 41-1 42. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 80-2 43. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 84-7 44. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pi. 16b 45. Tello, 1960, fig. 132 46. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 111 c-4 47. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 131-2 48. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 131-1 49. Izumi and Sono, 1963, fig. 46-9 50. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 133-3 51. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 145-43 52. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 43b 53. Strong and Evans, 1952, figs. 35-4, 36-3 54. Tello, 1943, fig. 17b 55. Strong and Evans, 1952, p. 41 56. F. Engel, 1963, fig. 145 57. Suhm and Krieger, 1954, pi. 25j 58. Suhm and Krieger, 1954, pi. 57i 59. Ford, 1951, fig. 24j OHIO ILLINOIS GEORGIA COAST NORTH FLORIDA MOBILE BAY FLA.NW COAST LOUISIANA VERACRUZ VALLEY OF MEXICO TEHUACAN CHIAPAS SOCONUSCO, GUATEMALA N. COAST COLOMBIA CENT. HIGHLAND COASTAL ECUADOR PERU N. AND CENT COAST PERU 500 ^?___ 5 0 0 1000 1500 2 0 0 0 2500 1 3 0 0 0 FLAT BASE PAN STONE BOWL COMPOSITE SILHOUETTE BOWL y//////// CERAMICS BEGIN /?^r^ INFORMATION LIMIT 500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3 0 0 0 ROUND-BASE AND FLAT-BASE SIMPLE BOWL CHART 14 1. Shetrone, 1926, fig. 53 2. Griffin, 1952b, fig. 101 3. McGregor, 1959, fig. 6 4. Wauchope, 1966, fig. 13d 5. Claflin, 1931, pi. 18 6. Moore, 1903, fig. 25 7. Wimberly, 1960, fig. 46 8. Ford, 1951, fig. 20a, d, h 9. Ford, 1936, fig. 37 10. Ford and WiUey, 1940, fig. 29b 11. Ford and Willey, 1940, fig. 40 12. Drucker, 1943a, pi. 15d 13. Drucker, 1943a, pi. 15f 14. Drucker, 1943a, pi. 15h 15. Garcia Payon, 1966, pi. 46-23 16. Vaillant, 1931, pi. 76-f 17. Pifia Chan, 1958, vol. I, fig. 40a 18. Pifia Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 37a 19. MacNeish chart, personal communication 20. MacNeish chart, personal communication 21. MacNeish chart, personal communication 22. MacNeish chart, personal communication 23. MacNeish chart, personal communication 24. MacNeish chart, personal communication 25. Sanders, 1961, fig. 23 26. Sanders, 1961, fig. 18, p. 19 27. Sanders, 1961, fig. 21b 28. Sanders, 1961, fig. 33 29. Sanders, 1961, fig. 43 30. Sanders, 1961, fig. 23 31. Sanders, 1961, fig. 18 32. M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 37f 33. M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 29a 34. M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 29f 35. M . D . Coe, 1961, fig. 23f 36. M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 22n 37. Angulo Valdes, 1962b, pi. la 38. Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1955, p. 257 39. Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1964, fig. 39-4 40. Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1964, fig. 39-7 41. Estrada, 1962, fig. 45b 42. Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1964, fig. 39-5 43. Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1964, fig. 39-1 44. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 54-3 45. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 54-6 46. Meggers and Evans, personal communication 47. Meggers and Evans, personal communication 48. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 22-6 49. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 24-1 50. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 24-2 51. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 119-19 52. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 123-12 53. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 128-4 54. Izumi and Sono, 1963, fig. 46 VA 55. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 132-11 56. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pi. 128-1 57. Ford, 1949, fig. 9 58. Ford, 1949, fig. 9 59. Ford, 1949, fig. 9 OHIO ILLINOIS GEORGIA COAST NORTH FLORIDA MOBILE BAY FLA. N.W. COAST LOUISIANA VERACRUZ VALLEY OF MEXICO TEHUACAN CHIAPAS SOCONUSCO, GUATEMALA N. COAST COLOMBIA CENT. HIGHLAND COASTAL ECUADOR PERU N. AND CENT COAST PERU 500 5 0 0 1000 ///////////////////////////// 1500 2 0 0 0 2500 y//////////////////////////// 3 0 0 0 SIMPLE BOWL, ROUND BASE SIMPLE BOWL, FLAT BASE y////////. CERAMICS BEGIN - V v W INFORMATION LIMIT y//////////////////////////// 500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3 0 0 0 VESSEL FEET AND ANNULAR BASE CHART 15 1. Griffin, 1952b, fig. 32s 2. Fowler, 1957, pi. 11 3. Phillips, Ford, and Griffin, 1951, fig. 105r 4. PhUlips, Ford, and Griffin, 1951, fig. 105f 5. Phillips, Ford, and Griffin, 1951, fig. 105p 6. PhiUips, Ford, and Griffin, 1951, fig. 103i 7. Phillips, Ford, and Griffin, 1951, fig. 103k 8. Wauchope, 1966, fig. 6b 9. Goggin, 1952, pi. 3A 10. Florida State Museum Collection 11. Wimberly, 1960, fig. 40 12. Wimberly, I960, fig. 40 13. Ford and Quimby, 1945, fig. 18c, p. 52 14. Alexander Collection 15. Ford and Willey, 1940, fig. 22b 16. Louisiana State University Collection 17. Alexander Collection 18. Ekholm, 1944, fig. fix 19. Drucker, 1943b, fig. 12k 20. Drucker, 1943b, fig. 12k' 21. Drucker, 1943a, pi. 15k 22. Florida State Museum Collection 23. Drucker, 1943b, fig. 81 24. Drucker, 1943a, fig. 30a 25. Drucker, 1952, fig. 41d 26. Vaillant, 1931, pi. 71g 27. Pina Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 36t 28. Piiia Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig 34a 29. Pina Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 36j 30. Vaillant, 1931, pi. 76m 31. Porter, 1953, fig. 3 32. Vaillant, 1930, pi. 4a 33. Vaillant, 1935b, p. 227 34. MacNeish chart, personal communication 35. MacNeish chart, personal communication 36. MacNeish chart, personal communication 37. MacNeish chart, personal communication 38. MacNeish chart, personal communication 39. Lowe, 1962, fig. 14c 40. Lowe, 1962, fig. 8d 41. Agrinier, 1964, fig. 80-3 / 42. Lowe, 1962, fig. l i b 43. M . D . Coe, 1961, fig. 26k 44. M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 14 \ 45. Coe and Flannery, 1967, fig. 35a, c 46. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 10-32 47. Duque, 1964, fig. 79, p. 329 48. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 10, 17-18 49. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and AHcia, 1956, fig. 11-14 50. Reichel Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1962, pi. 3-2 51. Reichel- Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 10-4 52. Angulo Valdes, 1962b, pi. Id 53. Estrada, 1957, fig. 51 54. Estrada, 1962, fig. 57 55. Estrada, 1962, fig. 56 56. Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1964, fig. 20-8 57. Estrada, 1958, fig. 55 58. Estrada, 1957, fig. 19a 59. Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1964, fig. 21-12 60. Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1964, fig. 21-13 61. Estrada, 1958, fig. 41-1 62. Estrada, 1958, fig. 43-5 63. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 44-5 64. Strong and Evans, 1952, fig. 68-1 65. Bennett, 1944a, fig. 32D-2 OHIO ILUNOIS GEORGIA COAST NORTH FLORIDA MOBILE BAY FLA.NW. COAST LOUISIANA VERACRUZ VALLEY OF MEXICO TEHUACAN CHIAPAS SOCONUSCO, GUATEMALA N. COAST COLOMBIA COASTAL ECUADOR CENT. HIGHLAND PERU N. AND CENT COAST PERU 500 I J 5 0 0 1000 /////////////////////////////y 1500 2 0 0 0 2500 y//////////////////////////// \ X I 3 0 0 0 TETRAPODAL SUPPORT TRIPOD SUPPORT ANNULAR BASE y///////// CERAMICS BEGIN V v M / INFORMATION LIMIT y//////////////////////////// 500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3 0 0 0 STIRRUP-SPOUT, SIMPLE, AND BRIDGE-SPOUT BOTTLES, AND TEAPOT VESSEL CHART 16 1. PhiUips, Ford, and Griffin, 1951, fig. 106a 2. Phillips, Ford, and Griffin, 1951, fig. 106b 3. Phillips, Ford, and Griffin, 1951, fig. 113b 4. Phillips, Ford, and Griffin, 1951, fig. U3i 5. Holmes, 1903, pi. 46 6. NeweU and Krieger, 1949, fig. 31a ' 7. Drucker, 1943b, fig. 12x 8. Weiant, 1943, fig. l i d 9. Drucker, 1943a, fig. 24d . , 10. Porter, 1953, fig. 12 11. Porter, 1953, pi. IOE 12. Porter, 1953, pl. 6H 13. Porter, 1953, pl. 7B 14. Pina Chan, 1958, vol. I, p.76 15. MacNeish chart, personal communication 16. MacNeish chart, personal communication 17. MacNeish, personal communication 18. MacNeish chart, personal communication 19. MacNeish chart, personal communication 20. Lowe, 1962, fig. 7a 21. Lowe, 1962, pl. 14i 22. Lowe, 1962, fig. 28, pl. 25a-l 23. Lowe, 1962, fig. 10b 24. Coe and Flannery, 1967, fig. 8 25. Bennett, 1944b, fig. 13d 26. Bennett, 1944b, fig. I3e 27. Estrada, 1962, fig. 50a-b 28. Estrada, 1957, fig. 52 29. Estrada, 1957, fi^. 25A 30. Estrada, 1962, fig. 115 31. Estrada, 1958, fig. 55 32. Estrada, 1958, fig. 39 33. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 78-8 34. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 88-12 35. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, fig. 88-11 36. Izumi and Sono, 1963, fig. 46 37. TeUo, 1960, pl. 48 38. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 128-6 39. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 129-9 40. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 135-2 41. Larco, 1945a, p. 14 42. Ford, 1949, fig. 9 43. Larco, 1945a, p. 12 44. Strong and Evans, 1952, fig. 57-9 45. Strong and Evans, 1952, fig. 58e 46. Strong and Evans, 1952, fig. 55-11 47. Ford, 1949, fig. 9 48. Larco Hoyle, 1945a, p. 10 49. Larco Hoyle, 1945a, p. 15 OHIO CENT. HIGHLAND PERU N. AND CENT COAST PERU 500 5 0 0 1000 mz 1500 2 0 0 0 2500 3 0 0 0 500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3 0 0 0 RED SLIP AND ZONED RED SLIP CHART 17 1. Griffin, 1952a, pl. 35-R 27. 2. Moore, 1902, fig. 155 28. 3. Goggin, 1952, p. 102 29. 4. WiUey, 1949a, pl. 26h 30. 5. Moore, 1902, fig. 270 31. 6. Ford, 1951, pl. 11-6 32. 7. Ford and Willey, 1940, fig. 40 8. Ford, 1951, fig. 19a-e 33. 9. Ford and Quimby, 1945, pp. 54-56 34. 10. Florida State Museum Collection 11. Florida State Museum Collection 35. 12. M. D. Coe, 1966 (unnumbered pages) 36. 13. Pina Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 44h 37. 14. Porter, 1953, fig. 8 38. 15. Porter, 1953, pp. 35-36; Pina Chan, 1958, vol. 1, 39. pp. 44-46 40. 16. Vaillant, 1931, pl. 73f, 76k 41. 17. Pifia Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 16d, f, i 42. 18. MacNeish chart, personal communication 19. MacNeish chart, personal communication 43. 20. Sanders, 1961, pp. 20-23 44. 21. Dixon, 1959, fig. 1 45. 22. M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 33p 46. 23. M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 34b 47. 24. M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 17g 48. 25. M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 17k 49. 26. Coe and Flannery, 1967, fig. 8 Coe and Flannery, 1967, fig. 8 Coe and Flannery, 1967, fig. 8 M. D. Coe, 1961, pp. 51-53 Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 2-8 Angulo Valdes, 1962, p. 43, pl. 3n Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1961, pp. 269- 271 Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 7J Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, pp. 151- 152, figs. 7-1, 8FF, 8GG Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1955, pp. 257-258 Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, pp. 25-26 Estrada, 1958, fig. 43-6 Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 145d Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 145o Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1964, p. 530 Estrada, 1962, fig. 56 Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pp. 76-80, pis. 97-99 Tello, 1960, fig. 169 I Izumi and Sono, 1963, pis. 36f, 116-6 Larco Hoyle, 1948, p. 21 Larco Hoyle, 1945a, p. 14 F. Engel, 1956, fig. 11D Willey and Corbett, 1954, fig. 8e Willey and Corbett, 1954, fig. 8h 500 5 0 0 1000 1500 2 0 0 0 2500 3 0 0 0 OHIO V IN E TT E 1 1 EA R LY A D EN A ' H O PE W EL L 1 ///////////////////////////// u < < ILLINOIS EA RL Y W O O D LA N D 1 M O R TO N 1 EA R LY H O P E W E LL LA TE 1 W EA VE R y//////////////////////////// < ' 5 < 1 1 RED SLIP 1 ?:? ZONED RED SLIP 1 '////////, CERAMICS BEGIN 1 -y\/\r^ INFORMATION LIMIT ? GEORGIA COAST NORTH FLORIDA MOBILE BAY FLA.NW. COAST LOUISIANA VERACRUZ VALLEY OF MEXICO TEHUACAN CHIAPAS SOCONUSCO, GUATEMALA N. COAST COLOMBIA CENT. HIGHLAND COASTAL ECUADOR PERU N. AND CENT COAST PERU 500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3 0 0 0 UNZONED AND LINE-ZONED STAMPING CHART 18 1. Florida State Museum Collection 2. Moorehead, 1922, fig. 70 3. McGregor, 1952, pl. 24a 4. McGregor, 1959, fig. 5 5. McGregor, 1952, pl. 2la-b 6. Griffin, 1952b, fig. 179e 7. Sears, 1962, fig. 3j 8. Florida State Museum Collection 9. Willey, 1949a, fig. 22d 10. WiUey, 1949a, fig. 24 11. Wimberiy, 1960, fig. 42 12. Wimberiy, 1960, fig. 40-41 13. Ford, 1951, fig. 13c 14. Ford and Willey, 1940, fig. 3Id 15. Ford and WiUey, 1940, fig. 28f 16. Ford and Willey; 1940, fig. 39a 17. Ford and WiUey, 1940, fig. 29c 18. Ford and Quimby, 1945, fig. 17a 19. Alexander Collection 20. Alexander Collection 21. Florida State Museum Collection 22. Florida State Museum Collection 23. Florida State Museum CoUection 24. Florida State Museum Collection 25. Florida State Museum Collection 26. Pifia Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 37d 27. Porter, 1953, pl. 1 IF 28. Sanders, 1961, pl. 7A, fig. 19 29. Coe, 1961, fig. 48b 30. Coe, 1961, fig. 47f 31. Coe and Flannery, 1967, fig. 8 32. Coe and Flannery, 1967, fig. 8 33. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1961, pl. 3-5 34. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1961, pl. 5-3 35. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, pl. 9-6 36. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, pl. 11-2 37. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, pl. 9-5 38. Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, pl. 3-4 39. Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, pl. 3-10 40. Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, pl. 3-3 41. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, pl. 8-9 42. Estrada, 1962, fig. 41a 43. Estrada, 1962, fig. 41b 44. Estrada, 1962, fig. 41c 45. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. I09d 46. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 108b 47. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pp. 82-84 48. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pp. 82-84 49. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pp. 82-84 50. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 113b 51. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 113k 52. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 113c 53. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 69a-3 54. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 69a-4 55. Larco Hoyle, 1941, fig. 113 56. Larco Hoyle, 1945a, p. 9 OHIO ILUNOIS GEORGIA COAST NORTH FLORIDA MOBILE BAY FLA.NW COAST LOUISIANA VERACRUZ VALLEY OF MEXICO TEHUACAN CHIAPAS SOCONUSCO, GUATEMALA N. COAST COLOMBIA COASTAL ECUADOR CENT. HIGHLAND PERU N. AND CENT COAST PERU 500 500 1000 ////////////////////////////// 1500 2 0 0 0 2500 y//////////////////////////// 3 0 0 0 UNZONED STAMP LINE-ZONED STAMP '//////// CERAMICS BEGIN / \ / \ ^ INFORMATION LIMIT y//////////////////////////// y//////////////////////////// y////////////////////////////. 500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3 0 0 0 EXCISED DECORATION AND NEGATIVE PAINTING CHART 19 1. Perino, personal communication (Snyders Site); Griffin, 1952c 2. Griffin, 1952b, fig. 108M 3. Griffin, 1952b, fig. 81b 4. Sears, 1962, fig. 3-d 5. Sears, 1962, fig. 3-E 6. Goggin, 1952, p. 103 7. Florida State Museum Collection 8. Florida State Museum Collection 9. NeweU and Krieger, 1949, fig. 31A 10. NeweU and Krieger, 1949, fig. 32T 11. Drucker, 1943b, fig. 139 12. Florida State Museum Collection 13. Drucker, 1943b, fig. 115 14. Garcia Payon, 1966, pl. 25-14 15. Garcia Payon, 1966, pl. 25-12 16. Millon, Drewitt, and Bennyhoff, 1965, fig. 114A 17. Vaillant, 1931, pL 70-r 18. Pifia Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 49 19. Pifia Chan, 1958, Vol. 1, fig. 49 20. Sanders, 1961, fig. 36-1 21. Peterson, 1963, fig. 11a 22. Lowe, 1962, pl. 15v 23. Coe and Flannery, 1967, fig. 25c 24. M . D . Coe, 1961, fig. 34i 25. Coe and Flannery, 1967, fig. 32e 26. M . D . Coe, 1961, fig. 28e 27. M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 28e 28. Duque, 1964, drawing 11 29. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 4-10 30. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 4-4 31. Willey and McGimsey, 1954, fig. 12c 32. WUley and McGimsey, 1954, fig. 46g 33. Estrada, 1962, p. 39, fig. 54e 34. Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1964, fig. 30e 35. Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1964, fig. 30c 36. Estrada, 1958, fig. 11 37. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 58E 38. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 59K 39. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 59E 40. Izumi and Sono, 1963, p. 158, pl. 117-4 41. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 76-4 42. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 84-2 43. Larco Hoyle, 1945b, p. 8 OHIO CENT. HIGHLAND PERU N. AND CENT COAST PERU 500 5 0 0 1000 1500 2 0 0 0 2500 3 0 0 0 500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3 0 0 0 LABIAL OR MEDIAL FLANGE, OUTFLARING LIP, AND THICKENED DECORATED LIP CHART 20 1. Griffin, 1952b, fig. 11 Op 2. Griffin, 1952b, fig. 125e 3. Florida State Museum Collection 4. Florida State Museum Collection 5. Florida State Museum Collection 6. Ford, 1936, fig. 37 7. Ford and Webb, 1956, fig. 42 8. Drucker, 1943b, fig. 93 9. Drucker, 1943b, fig. 92 10. Weiant, 1943, fig 41c 11. Weiant, 1943, fig. 42d 12. Garcia Payon, 1966, pl. 14-2 13. Florida State Museum Collection 14. Florida State Museum Collection 15. Garcia Payon, 1966, pl. 19-22 16. Pifia Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 8o 17. Pifia Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 18q 18. Pifia Chan, 1958, vol 1, fig. 18p 19. Pifia Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 15o 20. MacNeish chart, personal communication 21. MacNeish chart, personal communication 22. Lowe, 1962, fig. 17f 23. Peterson, 1963, fig. 46 24. Sanders, 1961, fig. 23 25. Dixon, 1959, fig. 27c 26. Dixon, 1959, fig. 40a 27. Dbcon, 1959, fig. 49b 28. Dixon, 1959, fig. 27a 29. Sanders, 1961, fig. 21a 30. Coe and Flannery, 1967, fig. 31f 31. Coe and Flannery, 1967, fig. 31h 32. M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 32e 33. M . D. Coe, 1961, fig. 32k 34. M . D. Coe, 1961, fig. 23r 35. Coe and Flannery, 1967, fig. 3Id 36. M . D. Coe, 1961, fig. 23s 37. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 9-10 38. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 9-16 39. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 9-5 40. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 9-8 41. Angulo Valdes, 1962b, pl. 2a 42. Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 6-1 43. Estrada, 1962, fig. 46b 44. Estrada, 1958, fig. 46-3 45. Meggers and Evans, notes 46. Estrada, 1958, fig. 27-1 47. Estrada, 1958, fig. 46-5 48. Estrada, 1958, fig. 27-3 49. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 40c 50. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 40a 51. Meggers and Evans, notes 52. Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1964, fig. 23b 53. Tello, 1960, fig. 155 54. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 133-6 55. Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 133-5 OHIO ILLINOIS GEORGIA COAST NORTH FLORIDA MOBILE BAY FLA.NW COAST LOUISIANA VERACRUZ VALLEY OF MEXICO TEHUACAN CHIAPAS SOCONUSCO, GUATEMALA N. COAST COLOMBIA COASTAL ECUADOR CENT. HIGHLAND PERU N. AND CENT COAST PERU 500 5 0 0 1000 1500 2 0 0 0 2500 3 0 0 0 ^ eS^^. y//////////////////////////// y////////////////////////////. 500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3 0 0 0 BROAD-LINE INCISING AND ZONED HATCHING CHART 21 1. Perino, personal communication (Snyder's site); 35. Griffin, 1952c 36. 2. Cole, etal . , 1951, fig. 61 37. 3. Cole, etal . , 1951, fig. 60-8 38. 4. Williams, ed., 1968, fig. 63d 39. 5. Sears and Griffin, 1950 (unnumbered pages) 40. 6. Florida State Museum Collection 41. 7. Willey, 1949a, fig. 35a 42. 8. Webb and Dejarnette, 1942, pl. 167 1-c 43. 9. Willey, 1949a, fig. 22f 44. 10. Moore, 1902, fig. 228 45. 11. Moore, 1912, fig. 6 46. 12. Ford and Willey, 1940, fig. 35e 47. 13. Ford and Willey, 1940, fig. 36e 48. 14. Ford and Quimby, 1945, pl. 4f 49. 15. Haag, 1939 (unnumbered pages) 50. 16. Drucker, 1943b, fig. 100, pl. 20a-b 51. 17. Drucker, 1943b, fig. 99 52. 18. Florida State Museum Collection ^ 53. 19. Weiant, 1943, fig. 4a 54. 20. Weiant, 1943, fig. 48e 55. 21. Weiant, 1943, fig. 45e 56. 22. Drucker, 1952, fig. 25d 57. 23. Pifia Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 16f 58. 24. Pifia Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 33m 59. 25. Pina Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 39w 60. 26. Pifia Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 39u 61. 27. Porter, 1953, fig. 7 62. 28. Vaillant, 1935b, fig. 19 63. 29. Peterson, 1963, fig. 55c 64. 30. Peterson, 1963, fig. 56a 65. 31. Peterson, 1963, fig. 84d 66. 32. Sanders, 1961, pl. I IB-C 67. 33. Dixon, 1959, fig. 16b 68. 34. Dixon, 1959, fig. 5e M.D. Coe, 1961, fig. 50k Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1962, pl. 3-5 Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1962, pl. 6-11 Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, pl. 18-13 Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, pl. 18-5 Angulo Valdes, 1962b, pl. 7d Angulo Valdes, 1962b, pl. 3m Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1955, pl. 5-2 Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1955, pl. 3-5 Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1955, pl. 3-7 Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 188 L Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, pl. 4-1 Estrada, 1962, fig. 54b Estrada, 1962, fig. 60 Estrada, 1962, fig. 54c Estrada, 1962, fig. 41 d Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 135 L Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. I32g Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 36c Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 38b Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 38j Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 32a Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 42a Izumi and Sono, 1963, fig. 46 Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 63b-12 Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 43f Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 47f Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 82b-4 Izumi and Sono, 1963, fig. 46 Izumi and Sono, 1963, fig. 46 Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 83b-12 WiUey and Corbett, 1954, fig. Ij WiUey and Corbett, 1954, fig. 8b Larco Hoyle, 1941, fig. 79 OHIO ILLINOIS GEORGIA COAST NORTH FLORIDA MOBILE BAY FLA.NW COAST LOUISIANA VERACRUZ VALLEY OF MEXICO TEHUACAN CHIAPAS SOCONUSCO, GUATEMALA N. COAST COLOMBIA CENT. HIGHLAND COASTAL ECUADOR PERU N. AND CENT COAST PERU 500 5 0 0 1000 ////////////////////////////// 1500 2 0 0 0 2500 y//////////////////////////// 3 0 0 0 BROAD-LINE INCISING ZONED HATCHING //////// CERAMICS BEGIN V / M / INFORMATION LIMIT y//////////////////////////// LOCATIONS OF CHRONOLOGIES 500 500 1000 1500 2000 ? 2500 3 0 0 0 FACES ON VESSEL WALLS AND ZONED CROSSHATCHING CHART 22 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Mills, 1916, fig. 92 Mills, 1916, fig. 113 Moorehead, 1922, fig. 59 Webb, 1959, fig. 108h Ford, 1936, fig. 20r Ford, 1936, fig. 9j Williams, ed., 1968, fig. 63b Florida State Museum Collection Rouse, 1951, fig. 14D WiUey, 1949a, pl. 26c Ford, 1936, fig. 35a Ford, PhUlips, and Haag, 1955, fig. 50 Drucker, 1943b, fig. 84 Weiant, 1943, fig. 13b Weiant, 1943, fig. 50d Weiant, 1943, pl. 56-5 Drucker, 1952, fig. 64 Drucker, 1952, fig. 29, pl. 18b Porter, 1953, pl. 6a MiUon, Drewitt, and Bennyhoff, 1965, fig. 95 Pifia Chan, 1958, vol. 1, fig. 35y Sanders, 1961, fig. 33 Sanders, 1961, fig. 23 Sanders, 1961, fig. 23 Sanders, 1961, fig. 34 Lowe, 1962, fig. 7b Peterson, 1963, fig. 173c M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 33c Coe and Flannery, 1967, pl. 27L M. D. Coe, 1961, fig. 40g 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. W. C. Bennett, 1944b, fig. 25b W. C. Bennett, 1944b, fig. 14d Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, pl. 7-9 Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, pl. 2-7 Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 13-19 Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo and Alicia, 1956, fig. 13-12 Angulo Valdes, 1962b, pl. 6i Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, pl. 5-9 Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965, pl. 4-1 Estrada, 1957, fig. 9 Estrada, Meggers, and Evans, 1964, fig. 29c Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. I33v Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 62b Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 63n Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 41a Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 89d Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 4lh , Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, 1965, pl. 57d Estrada, 1958, fig. 15-4 Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 92-19 Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 94a-l Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 94a-7 Izumi and Sono, 1963, pl. 130-3 Larco Hoyle, 1941, fig. 99 Strong and Evans, 1952, fig. 51e Strong and Evans, 1952, fig. 63j Strong and Evans, 1952, fig. 64c WiUey and Corbett, 1954, fig. 8d WUley and Corbett, 1954, fig. 2f Bird, 1962, fig. 7 OHIO ILLINOIS CENT. HIGHLAND COASTAL ECUADOR PERU 500 5 0 0 1000 ? i 1500 2 0 0 0 2500 3 0 0 0 N. AND CENT COAST PERU y////////////////////////////. 500 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3 0 0 0