JOURNAL OF WORLD PREHISTORY

application.
of data and
s..:::.:..(f
IoumtIf of World p,w,1.~..
the pl'ehistoty
.
.
--F IS 8lI IOlernal;cmal fOl'\lm for the
of. ~~horiron within II
b'

or 'Yot ctical) papers, wrillen by expe .'

.
lal'Jei~;~I':
~~~rcv~w~t1
rI
original ankles thaI synthesize
lee olea] advances of wide and general
I
, Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 8, No.1, 1994

induding the':;:~~: ~ashion. :Uib1C 10and of int",rcsl~~~~J e::h~':;, p.rovj~in~cPlh thoughtful development
10unrfIl of World P!dI"
from all (JCIds of ~~~
. ear Jopmcnl of complex societies wil gISts. e Journal focu"' on prehistory
SOUIW-fOl both sdlolan; and lellf;he~_11 ~r,?ad.roverage of all ftelds in spare and lime: 4
-01' 0 lime anti .1I1ho"lallve syntheses of research

EDITOR
A.pla £, c-. Southern Methodist UniYer&il,• DaJ'~.....
_ texas, USA Ford Revisited: A Critical Review of the Chronology
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
.. red WeHorf, Soulhem Me Ibodis I University, Dallas, TIlM$, USA
and Relationships of the Earliest Ceramic
EDITOIlIAL IIOOlD
Complexes in the New World, 6000-1500 B.C.
C. MehIlt "IbM. Univenily 0( 0
,..... A--., University of TotrqorJi Eugene, OrelWl, USA
0Ier ..... y-r, Hanrard U. . yo, okyo, Japan John W. Hoopes'
Beu......
Pfler Auslmlian ~1Ye.nity. Ca,:"b~ge, Massach\lletls, USA
J_ ......
1tkJllInI L
e, UniYenJty of ~lOllal Unwen,.,.
Canberra A r .
, V4k U~m;:m'N Duluth, Minne5Ola: U~s;,.~Ian Capllal Terrilory. Australia
Robert W.o. University 3'ae:;.Haven, ~nC<1iCUI, USA
~~
DDuIII
C1IIrk, Uniyel'liity of Califotnl:~.:e'::::'l.
FllzwiIliarn CoIIeF Ca billY'
Be~kshi~ United Kingdom
Callrorma, USA In 1969, Ford offered a comprehensive model for the dijfusion of ceramic pro-
L an,-., UniYersily of Wasb~ r &e, Uniled KingdOlD
::: :-':;'riftI.. Smithsonian lJl$titutio~~~Seaulc.
Mel....... Rke UI\ive' H
WlWIinllott, USA
nglon, D.C. USA
duction and Formative lifeways in the New World, Although criticized as sim-
plistic, it was echoed by other "unitary" models, such as Lathrap's spread of
.... _ Mw..--. SlaleU· .1II1y,DUslon.T~ USA
V. No MIan, Deeean n~l'lilly of New York, B Tropical Forest culture Durward from a lowland South American hearth, Radio-
AIIdnw M. T M College. Pune, India uIfalo, New York, USA
...... w:"""":'" .... Yale ofUniYenily New H avell, Conncclicul USA carbon dates suggest that the earliest American pottery appears in the Amazon

~=:.
~
• -..-

"-
Un~nity
Pe~ Uu~1y ofh~
~
X:=~m::'-USA
-.- .. tyofWIIi\:OIIIi
Ita-. Tcmple
., .......
'
basin as early as 6000 B.c. However, there is little support for an •'ex Ama-
zonas lux" spread of pottery technology, Dijfusionary models predict early
J
c."G":t.
'-" ....:::0........
s.bWr, UniYcnily of Pit...
U!IioIcrsity P1t~~
It.
Wilwnsin, USA
lJ!bm.
I'<:nlllylvania. USA
Soulhcm Metbodilt 'tD·PiIt~rsh, l'enllly!vania, USA
complexes will resemble one another at first and then diverge over time, but
comparative analysis reveals substantial variability even at the earliest time
no G. _ Polish Academy of ~rltlY, DaUas,Teus, USA
level. Heterogeneity anwng the earliest complexes indicates several likely hearths
an.. Do Cate Wettem. Re$CfYe U· Waruw, Poland
0IIJt ~ ~ ;"':.t~
Sm~hsocUan IlIIIitulioII, Clevcland, Ohio, USA for the independent evolution of ceramic production, including (l) lowland Bra-
~_&:..U
~';~~~::~iI,°~s~·C.,
USA zil, (2) northern Colombia, (3) coastal Ecuador, (4) coastal Peru, (5) central
.... nO'el'lill:y of ~ ridge. Cambridge U . . Panama, (6) southern Mesoamerica, (7) the southeastern United States, and
r S. W..... Univoe . of' I, Talence, France ' OIled KllIgdom
J, ...... WItIle, U . ~ Minl\l!l r (8) the central United States.
W. H. ww.. U nO'el'li1l)' of
MUlIIelota,
Sydney, llvdR_. po 15,
Minnesola, USA
niveally of New M~~ New So"lh Wales, Australia
qucrque, New MCllieo, USA KEY WORDS: ceramics; Americas; Early Fonnative; mdiocaroon dating.
=' 0{ w..., ~ "publiaIlcd

INTRODUCTION
Since the first stratigraphic excavations in Mexico and the southwestern
United States, ceramics and cultural chronologies in the New World have been
inextricably linked. The appearance of pottery is used to signal significant
boundaries in regional periodizations, as indicated by pottery's role in the def-
inition of the Early Woodland. Pueblo I. Early Fonnative. Early Preclassic, and

I Department of AnduopoIogy. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045.

0892.1S371Y4J0300-0001$07.00J0 © t994 PIeI>\Im Publishing CofpoDtiofI

 -
2 3
Hoopes Earliest Ceramic Complexes in the New World

Initial Periods. Interest in earl cerami advent of 14C dating helped anchor complexes in time, confirming that pottery
and waned as theoretical con~ms shi~e~O:lex~s of the New World has waxed
of culture process, but the examinati f m tlm~-space systematics to issues use had begun at Icast as early as 3000 D.C. Willey and Phillips (1958), while
decoration remains one of th on 0 patterns III ceramic manufacture and recognizing that ceramics and early agriculture did not always go hand in hand,
t hi e most useful method I . emphasized pottery as an important component of their Formative stage.
ure ISIol)'. Ford's (1936) observ . 0. ogles for investigating cul-
cultural variation in space and tim ehas tat cerarrucs can be used to measure Spinden's was but one of the first in a long line of diffusionistic models.
e By the mid-196Os, early dates suggested that the origins of New World ceramic
~ave ~n few evaluations of broad aas oog been la.ken for granted, but there
~a~smce his posthumous synthesi~ (l~:::
I to 6000 B.C. from the lower A '
0:;:;mlc
comp~exes in the Arner-
). New evidence for porte
technology were to be found not in Mcxico but South America-and possibly
Japan. Pottery from Ecuador dating to ca. 3000 B.C. was surprisingly sophis-
reev~lualion of the chronology and si ;.~on (Roosevelt et al., 1991) calls for; ticated. To Estrada et al, (1962; Meggers et ai., 1965; Meggers and Evans,
1966) and Ford (1969), similarities between Valdivia and Jomon pottery indi-
:l:~~onships between early societies gin' t~:n~::f .:rl~ ceramic.s for interpreting
T~me~e.nce and spread of pottery. or d, especially with regard cated that the former had been introduced to the Americas by seafaring colonists.
The hypothesis for a Japanese origin of Valdivia ceramics has been weakened
e ongin of ceramic technol .
of debate. A perusal of ogy m the Americas has Ion be by arguments that chance landings of Jomon fishermcn would have been highly
o~e" considered commo"C::"~:\e~;~ld /~h;"~'Y text, is reve~;"g e~/:~:t~~ unlikely (McEwen and Dickson, 1978) and by the fact that Jomon specialists
o ~ng-shaped shell mounds with fiber ~e e ( 992, p. 353), citing associations have been reluctant to offer it support. Advocates of this hypothesis have made
non em Colombia and in the so rh - empered pottery at Puerto Hormig . it difficult for others to evaluate their comparisons by failing to present jomon
early c . sou eastern U it d S ' a In and Valdivia assemblages in comparable detail and by neglecting to cite refer-
erarmcs from coastal Ecuador and the Teln ~tes, as well as dates for
Is Ilus simply a matter of . uacan Valley, asks ences that would permit an objective review of the Japanese data. Meggers
pendently discoverin two isolated groups of coasta (1987, 1992) remains adamant that ceramic resemblances indicate transpacific
make an excelleru n- g th~t, as repftcance experimem hI shellfish colleclors inde- diffusion. However, few archaeologists support her position, and she has yet to
these areas belween ~nng agent? Or can it be lhalt~ ave shown, vegetal fibers
cernmic techniques diffu~~ 2000 B:C. is no, a cOinci~e~:~ran~e of poUery in all
address recent evidence that indicates temporal priority for ceramic production
Th . . rom a smgle source? ' ut mseas shows that in Brazil and northern Colombia.
e actual situation is considerabl According to Ford's "Colonial pormative' model, ceramic-producing cul-
The earliest ponerv t y more complicated than th . tures from coastal Ecuador established colonies on the Caribbean coast of Co-
middens, but inlan~ I.n northern Colombia does not ese questions imply.
lombia that later selVed as points of origin for the fiber-tempered ceramic tech-
the.diet. Many Ofth:I:~s where shellfish were a relati:~me ~rom coastal shell nologies of Florida and Georgia. Northwestern South America was also the
Umted State" w ell fish collectors using ea 1 y mmor component of
" ere not on th r Y potten,' h source of inspimtion for Mesoamerican ceramic traditions (Ford, 1969, p. 185).
That potteru fi~t e Coast, but at inland s·t .'J In t e Southeastern
'J ,~appeared ", 1 I es WIth f h Meggers and Evans (1978), indefatigable supporters of this model, cited coastal
also a fallaey W. h m a I these are"'~ bet res water mollusks
.... It cal'b . ..., ween 3000 . Ecuador as the origin of a cultural expansion that skirted inland regions of South
p[excs appeared in I ra.tlon, the period dUrin . and 2000 B.C." is
America and led to the colonization of the coasts of Guyana and eastern Brazil
to over 2000 calend~olombla and the Southeaste; ~h.ICh early ceramic com-
by early ceramic-producing populations with coastal-oriented economies. From
and unifonn spread ~rars. What at one time appearen~ted States st~tches out
the evidence available in the 1950s through the 1970s, it was apparent that a
process occurring ove tech~ology has been reveal d to be a relatIvely rapid
disproportionate number of sites with early ceramics were characterized by shell
The adoption of :ea pe~od of several thousand: to be a highly variable mounds. This helped foster the perception that subsistence and settlement pat-
step toward the ramlC,s has frequently be . ears.
. emergen f en mterp d terns associated with these early complexes were relatively homogeneous. Pro-
regionally specialized I ce 0 complex society S. rete as an important ponents of these models included Meggers and Evans (1962; Meggers et af.,
and suggested that bo~~ tures emerged from a c~m pmd~n (1917) argued that 1965), Cae (1960,1961), and Ford (1969). The spirit, if not the specifics, of
sOU~hin the Americas f pottery and early agricUI:::~n h ase ~f village fanning their arguments appealed to a large number of scholars (cf. Lathrap et af., 1975;
ogmzed that the picture rom an ancient hearth in M . ad diffused north and
of understanding a co was far more complex, but ~X1CO. Vaillant (1934) rec- Lowe, 1975; Myers, 1978).
The model advocated by Ford and by Meggers and Evans saw a common
that there had been a I~mon C~~tural substrate. By"thnoWledged the importance
ng tradition o f ceramic Prod e'. late 1950 S, It . was clear origin in Jomon for Valdivia, Puerto Hormiga, and Stalling'S Island ponery, as
Uctlon 10 the Am encas. . well as that of Alaka (Guyana) and Mina (Braiil) (Meggers and Evans, 1978,
The
 4 Hoopes Earliest Ceramic Complexes in the New World 5

Fig. 12.3). Its principal critic was Lathrap (1971, 1973, 1977), for whom sim-
ilarities between Valdivia and early ceramics from the eastern slopes of the
Andes supported an origin for ceramic technology in lowland South America.
Linking ceramics with agriculture and belief systems, he proposed a unitary
model for the expansion of a Fonnative culture with its roots in the tropical
forests of the Amazon basin. It was his finn belief thai Precolumbian agriculture
and sedentisrn originated in the Amazon, where the tropical forest provided a
fertile environment for the evolution of rich mythologies and complex ideologies
that provided foundations for the first agricultural societies in Mesoamerica, the
Central Andes, and the southeastern United States (Lathrap, 1971, 1977, 1982,
1987). Among the attractions of this model was the notion of a common
Fonnative substrate for all New World complex societies. While the motivations
for such a model are complex, its theoretical underpinnings can be traced to
ideas such as Childe's (1942) concept of a "neolithic revolution" (Lathrop,
1966, p. 266) and Sauer's (1952) models for human dispersals of useful plants
and the demographic and technological trends that accompanied the domesti-
cation of plants and animals. This concept led to an implicit linkage of sedentism
and cerarmc production with agriculture, along with the notion that models for
the di~sio~ of ceramic technology could also be used to explain the spread of
Formative hfeways.
In the ~5years ~ince the publication of Ford's model, there has been a
pheno~enall~c~s~ In the qUal~tyand ~ua~tity of information on early pottery
producing societies tn the Amencas With mcrea'l·ngly detailed . & •
'. . I cu mrormatton on
spec.dic ~gl~nal sequences, the explanatory value of broad comparisons has
de~l.med significanrjy. What has emerged is a picture of enormous cultural vari-
ability among early ceramic-producing cultures Model, '0' th I ti h.
. '. . I'. e rea Ions IpS
a~ong c.eramlc style~, local Identities, cultural practices, and specific historical
trajectories have eclipsed models that seek to explain h I 1
d·ff ~--'
I UM;U outward from an ancestral hearth.
ow cu tura patterns
fired are not always preserved. Fiber-tempered pottery may not survive at all
in areas subject to periodic freezing and thawing (Reid, 1984; Skibo et ol.,
1989). Whole ceramic vessels from the earliest periods are prac.tically u~known.
Despite these problems, pottery is an important class of mf?~atlOn: The
constituent elements of ceramics, unlike knappable stone, are ubl~U1tous ill th.e
environment. Ceramics are thoroughly "cultural" in that the vanables of their
manufacture, form, and decoration are almost completely dependent on the ideas
of the potter for their expression. Pottery is common in Precolumbian ass~m-
blages. The plasticity of the medium and the additive aspects of decOl:atlOn,
together with the wide range of individuals who can produce these a~·t1facts,
make pottery especially informative. Ceramics can elucidate patterns m tec~-
nology and style as well as modes of production, distribution, an~ communi-
cation. Furthermore, ceramics tend to "stay in place." In societies that la~k
sophisticated distribution mechanisms, pottery remains. ~t the household or Vil-
lage level and is therefore likely to indicate local traditions. In the a?sence of
long-distance transport, ideas about technology, form, and decoration mo'.'e
more readily across the landscape than the objects themselves. Changes ill
ceramic style among early village cultures are more likely to represent the mo,:,e-
ment of people or ideas than the movement of objects. For this reason, ceramics
are especially useful for evaluating culture contact and culture change through
time and space. . .
From a methodological point of view, the problem becomes one of distin-
guishing between the diffusion of the idea behind t~e manufacture of fired. c~ay
vessels and the independent invention of technologies and styles. Recognizing
"contact" or "influence" requires one to establish relationship between cult~res
producing ceramics for the first time and possi?le donor. cultures '. If a given
ceramic vessel industry (that is, beyond just the Idea of finng clay) IS the result
of external influence, one should expect a large number of correspondences
between this industry and that of its "donor" culture with respect to

Interpreting Early Ceramics (I) techniques of ceramic production, including preparati~n of the p~ste
(such as addition of a particular temper), vessel forming (model 109,
There are several significant obstacles to th . .
prodUcing cultures The small numbe d di e mterpretation of early ceramic- coiling, etc.), and firing;
make sites difficulr to find Thei fre r an Ilspe.rsed nature of early populations (2) style and decoration, including vessel shapes, ~ppend.ages, .and surface
. Ir quent ocau . II .
ronmems renders most invisible to no on .m a UVial or VOlcanic envi- treatment (use of slipping, painting, and plastic mampulat1~n);. an~
nature makes them difficult to . . nnal reconnaissance and their ephemeral (3) broader cultural practices related to ceramic production, distribution,
mvesttgan, This hi . . .
taken into consideration Tho I I..~ las m SIte discovery must be and use.
b . arge numucr of earl '.
Y Coastal or riverine shell idd y ceramic sites represented
. ml ensmaYhavem t d . If such correspondences cannot be demonstrated bet~een cont~mporaneous
locate sites than with the nature f I ore 0 a with our ability to
lems are caused by bias in tho °hae"IY S~bsistence practices. Additional prob- ceramiC. comp Iex es" hypotheses for the diffusion of ceramic production are weak-
.
I arc eo oglcal rec rd Alth ened. If contemporaneous complexes show a high degree of. hete~genel~,
anger than SUbSistenceor habitational remains 0 '. oug~ they tend to last
, ceramiCS, especially when poorly hypotheses for independent invention may prove to be more parslmomous. ThiS

a
• Hoopes . lhe New World
Earliest Ceramic Complexes ID
7

is particularly true when antecedents for pottery containers in different materials,

such as gourds or stone bowls, are apparent.

DATING mE EARLIEST CERAMICS 6000-2500 B.C.

Radiocarbon dates in this article are given as ranges of calendar .yea~.
calibrated to 95% confidence intervals rounded to the nearest decade (Fig. ).
At first citation, they are presented with the sample laboratory number, the date
is uncorrected 14Cyears D.P., and the counting error in brackets. All dates have
been calibrated using the CALIB program (Revised Version 3.03) from. the
Quaternary Isotope Laboratory at the University of Washington, Se~ttle (St~lver
and Reimer, 1993), and a bidecadal curve recommended as the international
standard by the 12th International Radiocarbon Conference (Stuiver and ~ear-
son, 1993; Pearson and Stuiver, 1993). Uncorrected dates calculated With a
573Q-year half-life for 14C have been adjusted for a 5568-year half-life prio~ to
calibration. However, correction factors for southern hemisphere and manne
reservoir effects have not been applied.

The Amazon Basin

The earliest New World pottery is reported from Taperinha, a riverine site
with abundant shell on the lower Amazon near Sanrarem, Brazil (Roosevelt et
ai., 1991) (Fig. 2). Excavations in 1987 revealed 48 strata of shells, pottery,
and other organic remains. Taperinha ceramics have been dated by a series of
13 assays on charcoal, shell, and pottery. These include I conventional date on
shell fragments, II dates on various materials by accelerator mass spectrometry
(AMS), and 1 date from thennoluminescence (TL). Two of the AMS dates are
from organic residues on a single sherd (Hedges er al., 1992). Given the variety
of materials and techniques, the dates are surprisingly consistent. The AMS
dates range from 6110-5740 B.C. [OxA-1546: 7090 B.P. ± 80 years] to 5430-
5050 B.C. (OxA-1540: 6300 B.P. ± 90 Years], placing the dated portion of
the excavated assemblage squarely in the sixth millennium B.C. The single
conventional date, from shell excavated at the site in the late 19th century, is
4470-4270 B.C. [GX-12844: 5705 B.P. ± 50 years]. The TL date, on the sherd
1991),by AMS, is 7110 B.P. ± 1422 years (Ox-581a36J (Roosevelt et ai.,
dated

While excavations at Taperinha have been only partially published, there

are several ISSues to consider in the evaluation of these dates. The ceramic
sample from within and below the stratum that Produced the earliest date is
small (5 sherds in Test I). Taperinhg sherds were found throughout the stratig-
raphy, from the sUrface and upper levels (which also contained much later
Santarem pottery) to the bottom of Test I. The majority of Taperinha sherds
• Hoo"" Earnest Ceramic Complexe!! in tM New World
,
'0 Hoopes Earliest Ceremlc. Comp I'exes In tbe New World 11
12
800"" Earliest Ceramic Complexes in the New World l'
(62 %) came from above the most recently dated level. Since no dates have been
provided for the strata in which they appear, it is difficult to determine the full
range of time during which this pottery was manufactured. However, it is not
difficult to interpret Taperinha as a location utilized periodically over a period
of several centuries that was also attractive to much later Santarern peoples.
Of 383 Taperinha sherds, only 3% were decorated. Decoration, which
appears in one of the earliest strata, includes notched rims, curvilinear incision,
and fine punctation. Vessels included both incurving-rim and straight-sided jars
or bowls. Taperinha pottery is a fragile, sand-tempered, red-brown ware, report-
edly succeeded by an organic-tempered ware. The priority of sand-tempered
pottery in Brazil is the reverse of its relationship to fiber-tempered pottery in
northern Colombia. However, fiber-tempered pottery does not appear in the
earliest complexes from either Ecuador or southern Central America. There is
no reason to believe that fiber-tempered pottery should always appear before
other types of ceramics, although organic-tempered pottery may be preferred by
mobile groups for their lighter weight and greater durability (Skibo et al., 1989).
Post molds in the lowest excavation levels suggest Taperinha was a small
settlement supported by riverine foraging (Roosevelt et al., 1991, p. 1624).
Reliability of resources and permanence of occupation would have been advan-
tageous for pottery production. The site's location on a large river system would
also have facilitated the communication of technology and presumably the trans-
port of vessels. Given the early appearance of ceramics at Taperinha, it would
be surprising if related complexes were not widely distributed throughout the
Amazon basin. Although the data from Taperinha suggest great antiquity for
sedentary or semisedentary villages in the Amazon basin, they also support the
hypothesis that ceramic use and agricultural systems are not linked in New
World assemblages. It is unlikely that maize was cultivated in the Amazon basin
as early as the sixth millennium B.C. Even if present, the economic value of
maize as a grain at this time would have been low. Experimentation with manioc
for this time period remains undocumented, and there is no evidence that other
domesticates were utilized.
Following Taperinha pottery in time is that of the Mina phase, known from
shellmounds near the coast in mangrove swamps south of the mouth of the
Amazon (Simoes, 1981). Twelve 14C detenninations have been obtained from
charcoal and shell in direct association with Mina pottery at the sites of Porto
da Mina and Ponta de Pedras. Several were published by Simoes (1981); how-
ever, errors and exclusions have been corrected here using original records
(Smithsonian Institution Archives. Accession No. 87-035, Smithsonian Envi-
ronmental Research Center, Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory Records, ca. 1968-
1986, Box 9.) At Porto cia Mina, the nine earliest dates range from 4350-3390
[GX-2472, 5115 B.P. ± 195 years] to 3340-2790 [51-2544, 4380 B.P. ± 80
years]. At Ponta de Pedras, the earliest date was 3500-2910 B.C. [SI-I030:
 14 Hoopes Earliest Ceramic Complexes in the New World t5

45 OOB.P"t± ~dY'pars] (Simoes, 1981, p. 18). There is no indication that either materials from the site, the series cannot be rejected out of hand without also
o f . esethf 81 es lUII receramic occup a tiIons. TIle M·rna phase is defined on the rejecting several other early dates from lowland South America.
b asis 0 .. a samp e of 64,332 sherds ,060% f WhiIeh came from stratigraphic .. If the Taperinha dates are correct, it is clear that we are only beginning to
excavations. Unlike the much earlier T . h . appreciate the vast antiquity of ceramic traditions and semlsedentary or sedentary
pottery from northern Col bi " apenn a ceramics or contemporaneous
diff fro I C ?ffi
ia, It IS predominantly shell-tempered. Mina also settlements in the rich floodplains of the Amazon basin. However, recent pub-
I ers ill ear y olombian pottery' th b lications on ceramic topology and chronology in this region are notoriously poor.
latter part of the phase had d In at a ?ut 27% ofthe sample, from the
7M Much more needs to be learned (and published) about early Brazilian ceramics
2 [(Hill 1975) or Valdiv' ~
in the New World With":' sli
in South America until about 1
i:
wash. At this early date. Mina and Valdivia

~bo
ggers
~ta~.,1965)] are the only complexes
~'cw~'ChI,Snot ~own to appear elsewhere
before relationships between early pottery-producing cultures can be satisfac-
torily appraised. At present, gaps in time and space make it difficult to evaluate
possible relationships between Taperinha pottery and early ceramics of northern
differ significantly in that early valdi .' n spite of this s?ared trait, which may
Colombia and coastal Ecuador. If ceramic traditions do begin in lowland South
Mina pottery is described as l.~' rvia pottery has a thick, maroon slip while
..avmg a "red w h" M· America as early as 6000 B.C., one of their characteristics is a remarkable
forms are quite distinct M· I as, ina and Valdivia vessel conservativeness in techniques of ceramic decoration, with simple techniques
. ma vesse s are d 'bed
with incurving or (more comm I) e~cn as round, flat-based vessels
. on y outcurvmg di t ri of incision and punctuation enduring for several thousand years.
lips. Decoration includes bru hi . tree nms and flat or rounded
oes, 1981). s mg, scrapmg ' rouletti ing , an d some incising (Sim-
Northern Colombia
Meggers and Evans (1978 5 .
pottery and the shell-tempered A'IPk' 51) cite a strong affinity between Mina The earliest ceramics in Colombia come from several sites (Reichel-Dol-
h ave not bee n as well dated T a a phase cera'mrcs from Guyana. The latter
matoff, 1965a,b, 1985; Oyuela, 1987, 1990; Rodriguez, 1988; Legros et al.,
50 yea~] an~ 2880-2490 [Si-4~~:~~els5 o~ 4950--4730 [514333: 5965 B.P. ± 1988; Oyuela and Rodriguez, 1990), including Puerto Hormiga, Monsu. San
excavations m middens of f h .P. ± 50 years] were obtained from Jacinto I, San Jacinto 2, Puerto Chacho, Canapore, and Barlovento (Fig. 3).
15 16)' res water shell at B b"
- , an 1~land site located in a ran ara. ma (Williams, 1981, pp. These provide an almost-continuous sequence, although a high degree of local
Alaka ceramics with these dates l ge of small hills, but the association of variability makes it difficult to determine specific relationships between local
sherds at a depth of 35 cm thes IS not clear, Williams (1981, p. 21) notes two
assemblages.
below a. b untal and are attributed
' e same
to . as that of SI-4332 . However, they appear
2
The earliest pottery is from San Jacinto 1, a small (380-m ) site fanned
~xcavatlons ~t the site, reported ~Isturbance. Verrill (1918, p. 13), in earlier by the occupation of a point bar in a stream meander in the foothills south of
ItS. Further Investigation is requ J!O d .ry throughout the depth of the shell depos- the Canal del Dique near Cartagena. It is dated by three assays: 4940-4710
are to be esta?lished between th:~w~f temporal as well as stylistic correlations B.C. [PIT-0155: 5940 B.P. ± 60 years], 5450-3640 B.C. [Beta-20352: 5700
The earliest Taperinh . B.P. ± 430 years], and 4710-4350 B.C. [PIT-0154: 5665 B.P. ± 75 years]
ceramic com I' a dates are about 1400 . (Oyuela, 1990), all from charcoal in stratified occupational refuse. Excavations
P ex In Colombia (0 I years earlier than the oldest
about 1200 14Cyears between the yue a, 1987, 1990). There is also a gap of in 1992 revealed the existence of buried house floors and hearths in association
and the. oldest da re Ior Mina It· most recent . AMS d ate In . the Taperinha series with a larger ceramic sample. However, the excavator estimates that no more
the senes
. of 12 dat f .
es rom Taperinha IS only d'fair to not h
e t at the great antiquity of than 20-30 people were living at the site at a single time (Oyuela, personal
ear Ilest ceramic c I an ItS rang, communication, 1992). The initial pottery sample consisted of 352 sherds tem-
A I . omp exes in South A' re IatlVe
. to those for the next
n a tematlve inten\' menca immed' t I I ~red with chopped grass (Oyuela, 1987, 1990). Vessels included incurving-
chron I .,..retatlon is that there' Ia e y ca Is it into question.
o ogy. Howev' IS somethi nm bowls, globular neckless jars, and spouted jars decorated with deep incision,
(charcoal h II er, given that the dat d . ng wrong with the Taperinha excision, and modeled zoomorphic motifs. Decorative motifs are highly diverse.
,se ,ando' es envefrom be .
(albeit imp' rgaOic acids in th . anum r of matenals Oyuela suggests that, unlike the standardized motifs found on later pottery at
PDuery
reject the ~Ise! as well as both conve:r itself) and include a TL date
apennha seri IOnal and AMs da .. . Puerto Honniga and Monsd, this represents a period of experimentation.
Taperinha date es on technical tes, It IS difficult to Decorated fiber-tempered pottery similar to that from San Jacinto I was
s seem mu h grounds At fi t . .
can be demonstra c too early. But h . . rs conSideration, the also found at Puerto Chacho (Legros et ai., 1988) and nearby San Jacinto 2
ted that there has be ow early IS "too early"? Until it
en SOme syste . (Oyuela, 1987, 1990). At both sites, it was in deposits with sand-tempered
malic error in the dating of

1. 7
 I' Hoo,.. Earliest Ceramic Complexes in the New World t7

r-----,---- 4200 B.C. (5750-5350 B.P.), is similar to that on Canapote pottery, which
dates to ca. 2300 B.C. (Wippern, 1987; Rodriguez, 1988; Rodriguez, 1990;
Oyuela, 1990; Raymond et al., 1991). Two assays, one on bone associated
with Turbana ceramics beneath the above-mentioned sample (UCLA-2149C)
f
iJ
and dating to 3660-1740 B.C. [UCLA-2568F: 4170 B.P. ± 360 years] and one
on a shell artifact from overlying strata associated with Pangola phase pottery
I
~o
(Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1985, p. 175) of 2929-2500 B.C. [UCLA-2149B: 4200
B.P. ± 80 years], are more consistent with the later interpretation.
Puerto Honniga, also near the Canal del Dique, was one of the first sites
acknowledged to have third-millennium B.c. pottery (Reichel-Dolmatoff,
.co 1965b). Its principal occupation dates sometime between 4000 and 2500 B.C .•
based on five dates ranging from 3980-3670 B.C. [SI-153: 5040 B.P. ± 80
years] to 3780-2490 B.C. [1-1123: 4502 B.P. ± 250 years] (Reichel-Dolmatoff,
1965, p. 46). All were associated with undecorated fiber-tempered and deco-
rated, sand-tempered ceramics that fall into three principal "wares" (Reichel-
Dolmatoff, 1965b). The most abundant was tempered with long, thin fibers with
round cross sections that left tubular hollows and gave sherds a "sponge-like
san Jacinto 1 consistency" inimical to preservation. The second consists of stronger pottery
••
san Jacinto 2 tempered with short, flat leaves. The third, and least abundant, was sand-tem-
pered. Fiber-tempered vessels were formed by modeling and fired at low tem-
peratures. Only the sand-tempered pottery was coil-made and decorated.
Decoration on the sand-tempered Puerto Hormiga pottery includes shallow
Flg. 3. Sites with earl .
Y ceramics in nonhero Colombia. grooving with a red ocher fill. dentate rocker-stamping, shell-edge stamping,
and modeled zoomorphic appendages (Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1965b, p. 55). Cur-
vilinear motifs are common, and design elements include zoned areas of punc-
sherds. A date of 4310-3800 B
from de~its with ceramics at '~e[Beta-26200: 5220 B.P. ± 90 years] comes tation, stamping, and incised lines.
San Jacmto 2, a hilltop site that 110 Chacho (Oyuela and Rodriguez, 1990).
(Oyuela, personal ccrnm . . may represent a village of about 100 people Coastal Ecuador
H . umcabon 1992) d'ffi
ornuga, and Monsu in that " bas' ,1 ers from Puerto Chacho Puerto
Provided t no sh 11 . ' Some intriguing ceramic artifacts from coastal Ecuador raise further ques-
2030- two dates: 3510-2940 B C [e middens. Organic temper in sherds
tions about models for transpacific diffusion. At Altomayo, Damp and Vargas
1620 B.C. IPIT.{)361' 3505' B' PIT.{)362: 4565 B.P. ± 80 years] and
p ± 85 (1990) describe a strip of burned clay and a •'tangerine-sized piece of fired clay

z:e~~
separated' . .
with h In ume. However if the f ". years). The dates are widely
[that] clearly depicts the pattern of fingers pressed into a ball of soft clay" from
sand-~ ellis from Puerto H~nniga correct,. it suggests contemporaneity
preceramic levels. The authors interpret these to represent "a period of exper-
mpe,red pottery. ow), which also had both fiber- and
imentation with clay as a plastic medium ... formed and intentionally fired to
~on~u, south of Carta .
ceramiCs 10 So th gena, was onginall de . create ceramic objects." A flat stone object with incisions, described as a pre-
of 4330-3960 U America (ReiChel-DolmatoY scribed as having the earliest cursor to plain stone figurines characteristic of early Valdivia, is believed to
with M ,B.C. [UCLA-2149C' 5300 ff 1985) based on an early date
t
support the interpretation of these levels as pre-Valdivia. However, this evidence
onsu and earl' . B P ± 80
(1985, p. 17 le~TUrbana phase
is much t 5) thought It dated material
ceramics 00 :my ~n stylistic grounds
"
r years] on shell associated
ttery. Although Reichel-Dolmatoff
rom the end of the Monsu period, it
remains tenuous at best. The site, a camp for the seasonal exploitation of man-
grove resources, may be aceramic rather than Preceramic. Damp and Vargas
place the early levels of Altomayo in the Chuculunduy phase, intermediate
• which Relchel.Dolmatoff (l9SThe decoration on Turbana and Monsd
between the preceramic Vegas (8000-4650 B.C.) and the early ceramic Valdivia
5, p. 175) tentatively dated to ca. 4600-
18 Earliest Ceramic Complexes in the New World 1.
(3500-1650 B.C.) phases. However, without associated 14C dates the argument predate the ceramic occupation. The earliest accepted date comes from Lorna
that these levels represent th e beeinni
AAt. ginning 0f V aldivia
.. ceramic. technology
' remains Alta, a site with no shell middens located approximately 15 km inland, where
wear. a date of 4460--3700 B.C. [GX-7704: 5275 B.P. ± 175 years] was associated
Bischof and V' . (19 . with a Valdivia I household cluster (Damp, 1984a). This sample comes from
identified 27 I~en 72), dunng a ~xcavation of the Valdivia type site,
sherds In strata below ones With Valdivia pottery as a pre Valdivia a hearth at the base of cultural deposits and precedes a cluster of six dates
comp Iex called S Ped N .J •
between about 4000 and 3500 B.C. (see Stahl, 1984), that Damp (l984a, p.
four come from uan .roo 0 dates were reported for San Pedro levels, but
4535 B P 55 nderlymg ones. These range from 3490-3040 B.C. [Hv-4839: 574) interprets as representing "a well established Valdivia 1 occupation." Five
A1thou~·~ years] to 2900-2290 B.C. [Hv-4675: 4075 B.P. ± 110 years]. additional dates from stone cairns range from 4040-3540 B.C. [1-7076: 5010
later than so':: ~:~ deposits (Bischof, :972, p. 272), they are significantly B.P. ± 120 years] to 3640-2920 B.C. [ISGS-192: 4590 B.P. ± 120 years]
(Hill, 1975, Fig. 3). On the basis of these, Damp (1984a, p. 573) estimates
Pedro was found' ~~:. ~tes. Damp (l988) notes that pottery similar 10 San
of about 2400 B C. borvra 2 levels at Real Alto, for which he suggests a dale that Valdivia 1 lasted from about 5250 to 4650 B.P., or 4000-3400 B.C. It is
Recog iti . f a ut 1.000 years too late to be "pre-valdivia." important to note that the Valdivia phase as a whole lasts over 2000 years,
m on 0 the earliest phase f V ldi '. . ending around 1700 B.C.
problematic. Hill (1975) .0 a rvra ceramic production remains
I) as characterized b . sees the earliest facet of Valdivia ceramics (Valdivia
pottery On the be .y simple ' necked vesse 1stath have no resemblance to Jomon Central Panama
. SISof studies of I 11·
that the entire seque arge co ecnons of material she concludes
nee can be inte ed ' Monagrillo pottery has been identified in deposits stratified over Preceramic
not one introduced f b rpret as a product of in situ culture change-
levels at five rockshelters. It appears in environments as diverse as the Rio
argued that Hill's sena,?m
ti a .road (Hill, 1975, p. 25). Meggers (1988, 1992) has
Cobre shelter at over 1000 m in a humid montane forest and at five shell mounds
rialSfrom sUrfacecoli tion ISerroneous be cause .It was based primarily on mate-
in the coastal zone, including the Monagrillo type site and Zapotal (Cooke and
assemblage may not ec be ons and exc. ava t·Ions at
Punta Concepcion, a site whose
Ranere, 1992a, p. 270-271). There is a total of 18 dates from contexts with
However, Hill also mad repreSentallve of the full range of ceramic variation.
Monagrillo ceramics, which were also made over a span of 2000 years. The
Alta (see below). Unf< rtuna of less-problematic excavated materials from Lorna
earliest, 4450-3980 B.C. [51-2841: 5385 B.P. ± 95 years], is from the type
et al. (196S), is also 0 tely, the Valdivia type site, excavated by Meggers
and V' . a poor one for dati h b .. . . f site on Panta Bay. However, it comes from dispersed charcoal fragments in
.Iten(1972, p. 550) report st . ng t. e. egmmngs of this culture. Blsch~ reworked beach sediments and is unreliable (Hansell and Adams, 1980). A later
depoSitsand charcoal that rangraphlc Intrusions into underlying acere011C
date of 3780-3360 B.C. [TEM-119: 4800 B.P. ± 100 years}, from shells asso-
:hof, 1972, p. 271). It hasm::;nContaminate that of ceramic-bearing levels (Bis-
ciated with an occupational midden containing 383 sherds at the inland site of
f 4330-3640 B.C. [M-1320' g been noted that the oldest date from this site
Cueva de los Ladrones, is suggested by Cooke (1984) as the earliest acceptable
temp?~ly out of order (Bi~~150 B.P. ± 150 years] is stratigraphically and
date for pottery. At the base of the feature, charcoal from a preceramic hearth
remainmg 17 dates from Me of, 1972, p. 269; Hill, 1975, p. 7). Still the
dated to 3510-2910 B.C. [TEM-l24: 4520 B.P. ± 100 years], suggesting a
::~ 3~ to 2920 B.C. [M-I~~~ and co-workers' (1965) excavations range preceramic/ceramic transition at the site at around 3500 B.C. Three other dates
3O.4Q50B.P.±55yearsJ : 4620B.P. ± 140yea",jt0287D-24IOB.C.
from ceramic-bearing deposits are 2570-2050 B.C. [TEM-122: 3880 B.P. ±
RealThe ~iest dates for Valdi~i~thonly ~mal1 deviations in stratigraphic order. 80 years], 2570-2030 B.C. [TEM-121: 3860 B.P. ± 90 years], and 2460-1940
( Alto, m the Chanda V 1 ceramics are not from the type site but from
B.C. [TEM-120: 3770 B.P. ± 80 years]. Nine others have been obtained from
a1~etal., 1977, 1986~D~ey, and Lorna Alta, in the Valdivia Valley
6095~Iematic. Of two dates t' 1984a,b; Stahl, 1984). Several of these are
the type site. The earliest acceptable assays are 3340-2880 B.C. [51-2842: 4405
B.P. ± 75 years] (Ranere and Hansell, 1978), 3500-2500 B.C. [TEM-208:
Years .. ± 215 Y""j and 47 rom Real Alto, 5560-4600 B.C. [GX-5269; 4350 B.P. ± 165 years] (Cooke, 1984), 2900-2470 B.C. [SI-2844: 4135 B.P.
p. 57~ the filStISOUtof sequence 80-3830 B.C. [GX-5267: 5495 B.P. ± 200 ± 80 years} (Ranere and Hansell, 1978), and 2880-2460 B.C. [Y-585: 4090
house L~~gb
._"'" I~ aI
the second and conSidered to be too early (Damp, 1984a,
comes from id . . I
B.P. ± 70 years] (Deevey et al., 1959). These are followed by five dates ranging
SOSO-395Q' v idity is also d a rru den adjacent to a ValdiVia from 2190-1740 B.c. [51-2840: 3615 B.P. ± 80 years] to 1741-1268 B.c.
underlYing ~c. nS.GS448:5620 ~U~ted (Damp et ai., 1981, p. 811). A third, [SI-2843: 3245 B.P. ± 100 years] (Ranere and Hansell, 1978). Together, these
earliest Valdi . " ± 250 years] is from an aceramic level
Y1aoc' ' date Monagrillo to about 3500-1500 B.C.
cupatlOn (Lathrap et al., 1977) and maY
 20
u..... EarUest Cenunk: Complexes in the New World 21

Monagrillo pottery is described as "both conceptually conservative ~nd

regionally homogeneous" (Cooke and Ranere, 1992a, p. 271). Shapes are srm-
ple, lacking bases and collars. According to Cooke and Ranere (1992a, p. 271)
"it was made 'serendipitously,' that is, when needed for containing liquids,
drinking, and eating. Decoration is absent from the oldest assemblage at Cueva
de Ladrones, and it is believed that incised motifs and red paint on vessel rims
developed centuries after the pottery was first made (Cooke and Ranere, 1992a,
p. 271). Although Ford (1969, p. 157) saw Monagrillo as composed of elements
from supposedly earlier traditions in both Mesoamerica and South America
"brought to the south coast of Panama by early seafarers," its temporal priority
over any Mesoamerican complexes, technical inferiority to the earliest South
American pottery. and its presence at inland as well as coastal sites suggest a
local origin.
. -.,.,
Monagrillo pottery shows no clear correlation with either sedenrism or a
particular subsistence strategy, although there is evidence for increasing site size
and the use of domestic structures over time. This trend may be associated with • ~'''.
... ..
=
~

"maximization of coastal resources via technological improvements c. 4000

B.P." (Cooke and Ranere, 1992b, p. 126). Given evidence that slash-and-burn
~Q
.."..
••:

cultivation of maize and other crops caused significant alteration of the envi-
ronment around this same time, the makers of Monagrillo pottery may have
been incipient agriculturalists (Bush; cited by Cooke and Ranere, 1992a, p.
273).

Mesoamerica
I
!
r
a

I
In Mesoamerica, only two complexes have been interpreted as dating prior
to J.OOO B.C. These are Pox ceramics from Puerto Marquez and Zanja on the
t
I

Pacific coast of Guerrero, Mexico (Brush, 1965), and the Purron phase of the ~
TehuaClin Valley (MacNeish et al., 1970) (Fig. 4). Both are characterized by I
undecorated tecomates (neckless, incurving-rim jars based on gourd fonns) of
coarse appearance. However, although they may be the earliest ceramics in
•
Mesoamerica, there is a good chance that they have been placed 1000 years too
early. •
Both Puerto Marquez and Zanja are coastal sites, similar to some of the
,
early ceramic sites in Colombia, Panama, and Ecuador. Three dates were run
on sh~lIs from deep excavations at Puerto Marquez. Two come from preceramic
, . Nort,h Central , and South America.
Fig. 4. Early ceramic complexes m

deposits: 3970-3370 B.C. [H-1263: 4900 D.P. ± 130 years] and 3250-2460
B.C. [H-1264: 4200 B.P. ± 135 years]. (The first is from the bottom 20 ern • Neish, 1972). H-1264 and H-I~58 ~::t:::
1 t the 95% confidence interval (Cl).
between the two dates, the prec~-
of a fun meter of deposits completely devoid of ceramic artifacts) The third
at.~500-26~0 B.C. [H-1258: 4400 B.P. ± 140 years], is from the deepest level , If ceramics do appear at the site s
. .. probably occurs aroun
d 3000-2800 B.C. However, It
.
:-VI .ceramIcs, 40 c~ above the second date. Pottery was reported as abundant ramic/cerarmc transmon I .n both time and relative
th these two samples are c ose I
ID this and all supenmposed levels (Brush, 1956, p. 194; Johnson and Mac-
• is important to note at .
stratigraphic position and that their tempora a
1 nd stratigraphic orders do not

t
I
 H..... Earliest Ceramic Complexes in the New World 23

coincide. Shell middens are notorious for the vertical ..

alternative interpretation might be that aU th mob~lty of materials. An olina and Georgia, (2) the Orange tradition of northern Florida, and (3) the
occupation of the site, leaving Pox ceramic~n:: ~rtaid n to. thb1eprecerami,c Wheeler tradition of the Tennessee Valley. Fiber-tempered pottery has also been
later. POSSI Y a good bit reported from the Lower Missouri River (Reid, 1984). The oldest fiber-tempered
· Purr6n ceramics are dated by six as fro '. complex in North America is from Rabbit Mount, in the Savannah River Valley
mg from 2890-1880 B.C. [1-762' 3900 ~YS m two stratigraphic units, rang- of South Carolina (Stoltman, 1966). Here, Stallings Plain sherds were found in
[1-666: 3375 B.P. ± 200 e J. d .P. ± IgO years] to 2190-1170 B.C. association with two 14C dates: 3630-2880 B.C. [GXO-343: 4525 B.P. ± 135
aTS
310 years in the 95% CI YTh an overlapping from 2190 to 1880 B C or years] and 3610-2920 B.C. [GXO-345: 4540 B.P. ± 95 years). Orange pottery
, . e excavators h . . '"
2900 B.C. based on similarities to P ave suggested a beginning date of has been associated with a number of dates, the earliest of which include 2920-
Preceding Abejas phase (Johnson do~ and ~wo dates from the end of the 2350 [0-1047: 4125 ± 115] at Bilbo in Georgia (Bullen, 1961, p. 104), 2890-
overlap, the dates could well an acNelsh, 1972, p. 25). Given their 2460 [?: 4115 ± 77] at Grove's Orange Midden in Florida (Russo et al., 1992,
2000 B.C. However, the excav:~:s;:hafisho~.occupation beginning around p. 101), and 2910-2200 [G-599: 4050 ± 125] at the Palmer site in west Florida
modale a continuous sequence Th or a iberal interpretation to accom- (Bullen, 1961, p. 104). Wheeler series pottery has been associated with few 14C
1200yearslong, ending around 17; ~u~ge[~~oatthe Purr6n phase was about assays, but it is considered on the basis of cross-dating to have appeared at
p.21)]. . . B.P. (MacNeish et al., 1970, about 3000 D.P. (Sassaman, 1993, p. 21).
· Pox pottery is undecorated with th . The dates associated with Stallings pottery substantially overlap those for
shp. Its most diagnostic learn ~. e exception of occasional traces of red fiber-tempered pottery at Puerto Hormiga, and similarities in plastic decoration
re IS Its rough itted
o f s heros diagnostic as to &. ' pi surface, Although the sample have led several authors to postulate an introduction of fiber-tempered ceramic
.. ·th rorm was poor P I
er er sharply incurving neckless pot ,ox vesse s appear to have been technology to the southeastern United States from northern South America (Ford,
(Brush, 1965. p. 194). These forms are ~ o~ vessels with high, straight necks" 1966, 1969; Crusoe, 1972; Sears, 1977; Meggers and Evans, 1978; Lathrap,
but do not necessarily indicate tempo~lm . a~to those of other early complexes 1987). Ford (1966) hypothesized that early fiber-tempered ceramic complexes
?rated. The predominant vessel forma arepn~nty. Purron sherds are also undec~ in North America were derived from those to the south. He specifically sug-
Jars. and both flaring-wall and inc . .plam tecomatee, tall- and short-necked gested that Stalling's Island (Georgia) and Orange Incised (Florida) fiber-tem-
fired. urvmg-rim bowls. Pastes are friable and poorly pered pottery represented a combination of Puerto Hormiga technology with
For almost 30 years Pox and Pu~ Valdivia- and Machalilla-inspired styles. However, the origins of North Amer-
ceraml , "un ha .
IC assemblages with third m,·lle' ve remained the only Mexican ican ceramics are clearly more complex than a northward diffusion or population
w hy othe nmum dates Thi .
· . r contemporaneous assembla . IS raises the question of migration. The Thom's Creek tradition on the southern North Carolina coast-
nation IS that the dates b ges have not been identified 0 I once believed to have developed from earlier fiber-tempered wares-is now
M ave been rnisln . ne exp a-
arquez dates penain to th . terpreted. If all three of the Pu identified as a sand-tempered industry that was contemporaneous with Stallings
excaVator' r. e preceramlc occupati. erto
s pre erence for a continuous OD: and If we discount the and Orange throughout most of the third millennium B.C. (Trinkley, 1980;
~: ~rt~cupation discontinuous wi:1:~ce ~~ lDt~rpret the Purron levels Sassaman, 1993). Produced on the coast, its inception postdates the inland
v . ~? mUch earlier than 2000 jas, It .IS difficult to justify datin
• appearance of Stallings pottery by about 500-600 years. Although a date of
:":Ia~e. this mtetpretation is the most B.c:. U~ttl additional information i; 3650-1750 B.C. [UGa-584: 4170 ± 350] comes from Spanish Mount, it has
r tes (Clark and Gosser, 1993). parslmoDiOUS for its consistency with been questioned on the basis of its poor association and large error (Sassaman,
• 1993, p. 20). The earliest acceptable date associated with Thorn's Creek is one
of 2840-1990 [1-3047: 3890 ± 110] from the Small Ford Shell Ring (Calmes,
North America • 1969).
.
smce the first C da
1961' Bulle
I.
The antiqUity of ceramic
technology in Nonh Am .
tes for fibeNempered pott fro enca has been evident
• The principal vessel forms for fiber-tempered potte~ in. the southeastern
United States are large-mouthed, shallow, open bowls wtlh slIghtly rounded to
of fibe' n and StOltman, 1972) Sas ery m Florida (Bullen 1960 flat bases and straight or slightly incurving rims (Sassaman, 1993, p. 67). The
r-tempered
Stallings and St S~el)'
. saman (993) defi
Production in the south
. .'
nes ~ree distinct areas
, • three forms recognized for Thorn's Creek are shallow bowls. and d~p jars .with
. Imons traditions of the Sa east~m Umted States (1) the unrestricted orifices and a shallow bowl with a slightly restncted ontice. Flber-
vannah River Valley in South Car- • tempered wares are decorated with deep incision ("grooving"), and punctation

•
,.--------------------....,-----------------~
24
u...... Earllt'St Ceramic Complext'S in the New World 25

with a variety of implements. Decoration on both fiber-tempered did p. 59). Vessels were built from coils or strips and the paste was tempered with
tempered pottery includes starn in with an ear y san -
1993, p. 69). p g reeds. shells, and fingers (Sassaman, prairie tall-grasses and sedges. Apart from a small boss, the sherds are undec-
orated. Sherd size made it impossible to recognize vessel forms, but it seems
StatesAithth°ugh'dpotterywas made over a wide area of the southeastern United likely that Nebo Hill pottery is a local innovation unrelated to fiber-tempered
, e eVI ence suggests that th ad .
slow process, lasting over 2000 yeme Du°~tlonh?f ce~mi~technology was a wares from the southeastern United States. Furthermore, Reid (1984) and Skibo
and highly regionall'z~. hh I. nng t IS period, Its use was variable and others (1989) argue that freeze-thaw cycles may have destroyed most of the
~,WI vesse S varying id 1 ' , low-fired ceramics in more northern climates of North America, suggesting that
Sassarnao(1993) id ~J WI e y In rorm and decoration.
ProVI es the most complete di .
gesting that the a . '. ISCUSSlonof this variation, sug- the evidence for early inland complexes may be elusive.
ppearance and dlstnbutIon of .
artifacts reveal substantial co 1 " ceramic vessels and soapstone
the effects of social . . mp exrty Late Archaic exchange networks and
In
mteractlon on the adopti f Discussion
Bullen's (1960) argument fa th . d on 0 new technology. Furthennore,
eastern United States has reef • e d ependenr invention of pottery in the south- There is an enormous range of variability in the quality of the ceramics
erve support fro . identified as the earliest complexes in Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, Mexico,
~nge Midden in central Florida fired m recent eVidence:.At Grove's
Withdates of 4770-4350 B C [? '5691 Bbal1sand lumps of clay m association and the southeastern United States. Meggers has suggested that this variability
[1: 4399 B.P. ± 123 y•• ':]' .. .P. ± 85 years] and 3370-2690 B.C. results from a process analogous to the founder effect and genetic drift from a
........
" were recovered fro . common ancestor (Meggers er al., 1965, pp. 6-7; Meggers, 1975). If this were
not contain sherds but were stratified be m excavation levels which did
"Thus,. the deepest occupation levels at G~::~se con~ning early pottery. true, one would expect the greatest similarity among the earliest complexes,
the penod of transition from a pre . s range Midden may represent with increasing divergences over time. However, no uniform tradition of ceramic
'00 -cerarmc to . technology can be identified even for the earliest technologies in the period
pen .) society" (Russo et al, 1992 9 . a ceramlc,-producing (Orange
expenmentation and indepe d .' p": 9)-wlth a clear Implication for local between 4600 and 2500 B.C.
n ent mvenlIon f . There is a significant overlap between Monagrillo chronology and the
assays from the site suggest this Iran iti 0 ceramic vessels, Radiocarbon
~ng traditions of shellfish COll:t~:n occurred at about 3000-2500 B.C. majority of dates for Valdivia. However, the two complexes are different in
question of Why this technology did notg before po~ty was known raise the terms of technology and style. From Valdivia 2 on, the design and technical
(1993) suggests that the transnio ~ppear earlier than it did, Sassaman quality of Valdivia ceramics display a high level of sophistication. Monagrillo
n
s~one for indirect moist cooking ~~:e:emlc use resulted from the use of soap- pottery, on the other hand, is crude and poorly made (Ford, 1969, p. 155;
nons. There is evidence that earl e ~taty, ~unting-and-gathering popula- Cooke and Ranere, 1992a, p. 271). Necked jars, abundant in Valdivia, are
~echnologyalso appears well in~~x~nmentatlon with rudimental)' ceramic absent in Monagrillo and decoration is rare. Monagrillo shares several motifs
importantactivity. In the Munke C' 10 areas Where shellfishing was not an with Puerto Honniga, including incised lines ending in punctatlons, excised
Kansas (Schmus, 1978, pp. 12~2l~~~se of the Flint Hills of northeastern areas where lines meet, and spiral motifs (Ford, 1969, pp. 155-157; Cooke and
~ds and small figurines have bee' Itt~, 1982, pp. 124-126), fired clay Ranere, 1992, Fig. 7). However, it lacks the latter's modeled, stamped, punc-
dating to 5000 B P n associated with A ' tate, and hatched designs. Painted decoration, its most common manifestation
. . Experimentation du . an rehatc occupation
in Monagrillo being red-painted bowl rims, is absent on early Colombian
:~~~~~ in an independent developmen~:; ~e M~nk~rsCreek phase probably
Ne .rst appear between ca. 3300 and 1 ratnlCSm Kansas and Missouri, ceramics. No fiber-tempered stage has been recognized for Monagrillo, and
unlike the earliest Colombian ceramics, all Monagrillo pottery was shaped by
29~:~ p~se in the Missouri Valley has~ B~. (Reid, 1984, p. 71). The
and W" . ., 4550 B.P. ± 115 years] fro n ted by three dates of 3630- coiling.
In spite of their temporal overlap, the differences among Valdivia, San
from ;:ghtyt.19~1,p, ~ll), 2100-1690 B.C. ~~\;~:er-casey site (Schmits
2.3555 B.P. ± 65 years] Jacinto, Puerto Hormiga, Mina, Monagrillo, Stallings, Orange, and Thorn's
B p e pe Site(Reid, 1980, pp. 3()...31 a-
· . ± 490 years] from the Sahn site (R)'and 2460--20 A.D. [DIC~913' 2970
• Creek ceramics are more remarkable than their similarities. Even if the earliest
I
pernentedbyase' eeder,1978 91) . Colombian ceramics were dated 1000 years later, they would still differ from
~nd 1260 B.C. (B::~~o~ ~=I~~~escence dat:s ~'n Ch~rt~:~: t~ • contemporaneous Ecuadorian pottel)'. Modeling does not appear in the Ecua-
ry was found at all three sites, alth~ugh thepp· 669-670) .. Fiber-tempered pot- dorian sequence until Valdivia 6 (Staller, n.d.), and there is no evidence that
total sample ISsmall (Reid, 1984, • fiber+tempering was ever utilized as a manufacturing technique in Valdivia or

I
 " Earliest Ceramk Complexes in the New World 21

Monagrillo. The principal vessel shapes of San Jacinto 1 and Puerto Honniga invention of ceramics in each of these regions or the communication of little
are large, incurving-rim bowls. In contrast, the earliest Valdivia pottery consists more than the idea of fired clay ceramics without templates of fonn or decora-
[
~fdeep, thick-walled jars, some with everted necks (although small, incurving- tion. The earliest pottery in all areas was extremely simple and was not explicitly
,
"
nm bowls are present). Their decorative modes are also different. While wide. linked to a repertoire of formal or decorative modes, and no vessel form, except
bottomed groove-incision and channeling on unslipped vessels are common to perhaps large, simple, direct-rim bowls, is common to Valdivia, San Jacinto,
~ ~fthe early Colombian phases, the earliest decoration on Valdivia 1 ceramics Monagrillo, Mina, and Stallings.
IS simple "combing," standardized fine-line patterns and incising on everted It is not until around 2600 B.C. that the ceramics of the Ecuadorian coast
necks or the sides of bowls (Hill, 1975). In Hill's seriation, Valdivia 2 sees the resemble assemblages from northern Colombia. According to Hill (1975, p.
a~ o~lobed,beveled,andfoldedrims, "shoulderbosses," and "Val- 17), "semicircular, rectangular, or free form zones outlined by incision and
divia Pine Line Incised" .. __ ...._.
-rcnaracterized by cross-hatched zones of thin lines filled with small punctation are found exclusively in Valdivia 6," a phase dated
"en~~ed" into a maroon slip. The chief markers of the next Valdivia phase to approximately 2600-2500 B.C. [4100-3950 B.P. (Hill, 1975, p. 21)]. Recent
(Valdivia 3) are "piecrust" rims and the appearance of pottery figurines (Hill data (Staller, n.d.) indicates that these continue to the end of the Valdivia
1975, p. 4). '
sequence. Elaborate zoned punctation is an important diagnostic of decorated
di . Stylized figurines and necked jars with elaborate rim fonns typical of Val- Puerto Honniga sherds as well as those of Barlovento and appears in more
anen assemblages are absent from all other pre-2000 B.C. complexes. Any northern assemblages such as Tronadora, Dinarte, and Barra around or shortly
bi mpts to correlate stylistic changes between the Ecuadorian and the Colom- after 2000 B. C.
C~~il=n:s. are ~strated ~y major disjunctions. While some of the incised, In Mesoamerica, Pox and Purr6n have been viewed as credible examples
. • SIgns m San Jacinto, Puerto Honniga, and Monagrillo rna have of an incipient or experimental industry, foreshadowed by the use of stone
~IIDS~lled by the deeply i~ised motifs of Valdivia 4 pottery, they ar:
com- vessels (and probably gourd containers) in the preceding preceramic period.
p .de Y ddf~rent from a technical point of view. According to Hill's seriation However, both are apparently later than the other phases under discussion. The
::m:~ng does not. appear in Ecuador until Valdivia 4 (ca. 2600 B.C.): simplicity and probable later dates for the early Mesoamerican pottery argue in
for Puerto Ii:::
former and red ~
a~ts~~ce in Co~ombia. Modes strongly diagnostic
onagrillo cerarrucs-zoomOIphic modeling on the
favor of independent invention. Pox and Purr6n tecomates are far more similar
to gourds than any of the Central or South American vessels, suggesting a direct
pal bowl nms on the latter-are absent from the Valdivia inspiration from this form in these and related complexes like Espiridi6n of the
sequence. Large, open plates such as those ted th Oaxaca Valley (Marcus, 1983).
in northern Colombia are co let I no rough several phases at sites
The' II . mp e y unknown from Valdivia The tecomate and flat-based, flaring-wall bowl are clearly early forms in
10 owing was once a trois . "I· rha' .
pottery form in Colombia Peru am. t IS pe. Ps significant that the earliest the Tehuacan Valley and elsewhere in Mesoamerica. Ground stone prototypes
~tat., 1970, p. 29). As r:oted abo~ ~uador. IS ••• a. t~comate" (MacNeish of these forms, later to become the most common vessel shapes of the Meso-
american Fonnative, appear in Tehuacan sequence at around 6IX)() B.C. It is
Jan and shallow 1>0 I ' e earliest Valdivia vessels are necked
w s, not pumpkin~shaped possible that these (which may in tum have imitated gourds) influenced later
appear in northern Colombia u til th Ba teCOmates.True tecomates do not
. n e riovento phase d . al . ceramic fonns. Flat-based, flaring-wall bowls-ubiquitous in virtually all early
ceranuca were not gourd-shapej tee . ' an typic Monagnllo
Mesoamerican assemblages-are absent from Valdivia, Monagrillo, Colombian,
short, incurving rim bowls This ft~~edte~ffielther,but deep, straight-walled or
·
Iess .. . di erences betwee ked and southeastern U.s. assemblages. They appear to be a Mesoamerican inno-
Jar traditions suggests di .. n neck and neck-
e~isted as early as 3500 B.C~e~e=tlons .of Early Fonnative vessel shapes vation with a limited geographical distribution, characteristic of Mesoamerican
display more sophisticated 1" ore, given that most Valdivia ceramics assemblages almost from the inception of ceramic technology.
As MacNeish put it (MacNeish et aI., 1970, p. 25), "The source of Purr6n
Monagrillo, evidence for s~~~:l:~~ri~g ~an either Puerto Honniga or
Ecuador apparent!>' did not I " oglcal ~fonnation is limited. Coastal pottery and, for that matter, of Mesoamerican pottery in general, is one of
styles or technology to oth:ra~lg7~cant role IDthe transmission of ceramic archaeology's $64,000 questions." The two principal hypotheses have been
Differences between the earl' 0 e New World during Valdivia times. independent invention or diffusion from South America. Many scholars have
lornbia, and Panama aod lest pottery complexes in Brazil, Ecuador Co- favored the second explanation (cf. Lowe, 1975), but it can be ruled out on
a range of over 3000
the firstappe&ranceofceramics· ( , both chronological and stylistic grounds. Except for the gourd fonn itself, which
years ca. 6000-3000 B.C.) for
m each argue strongly for either the independent is present in Mesoamerica well before the earliest pottery, there are no South
 j
28 Hoop" Earliest Ceramic Complexes in tbe New World

, ! American ceramic prototypes for the Mesoamerican tecomate. The existence of the Louisiana Gulf Coast to northern Colombia and Ecuador bUI noted, "The
~Ione ~ gourd prototypes for early Purr6n supports the hypothesis of local Barra complex seems too well developed and too distinctive to be explained by
mvenuon. As noted a~v~, however, Mesoamerican ceramics may not appear direct diffusion from any other known pottery complex in the New World."
before 2000 B.C. By this time, technological antecedents are present throughout Coe (1960,1961) was more enthusiastic about long-distance connections, attrib-
i
much of the Central American isthmus. These probably began in central Panama
I to north, elimi~ting northwestern South America as the likely source
uting the shared attributes between Oc6s and Conchas and Chorrera to a direct
sea trade between La Victoria and the coast of Ecuador that resulted in the
I, or ~
of ongm for Mesoamencan ceramic traditions. introduction of iridescent painting, plain rocker-stamping, and "pinching" (Coe,
1961, p. 135), as well as a "Chavinoid" plastic decoration within curvilinear
zones (Coe, 1960, p. 372). However, Coe also (1960, p. 383) noted a sharing
REGIONAL EARLY FORMATIVE FWRESCENCE, 2500-1500 B.C. of "shell-stamping, zoned punctation, and the use of surface indentation or
depression, combined with raised ridges for zoning purposes" between Oc6s
and the Sarigua complex of central Panama. In addition to ceramic vessels, the
Mesoamerica
early Soconusco complexes are characterized by a rich figurine tradition. How-
Mesoamerica e . need . ever, it is important to note that these are stylistically unrelated to Valdivia
2000 and 1500 xpene. a ventable explosion of ceramic styles between
B.C. There IS a great deal of variety betw . di 'dual figurines and that early complexes in Central American and Colombia do not
plexes but a f ral . . een In IVI com-
'basi ew gene characteristics help to unite them These include (I) have figurines.
an emp s on plastic deco ti h '. . . After 1500 B.C., pottery was manufactured over a wide area of Meso-
stamping, punctation and ~ on, s?c. as d~ mcrsion, grooved zoning, rocker-
america. A review of all complexes dating before 1000 B.C. is beyond the scope
ment often Sui'
cont~1 of firi:;: 0:0:11:,
h ngemail impression; (2) a selective use of red pig-

dation (such as white-rimmed bf=:W

to decorate rims.
uce
0: zoned areas; (3) careful
c~ractenstic patterns of variable oxi-
of this article, but outside coastal Chiapas, only a few have been dated as early
as 1500 B.C. Espiridi6n, in the Oaxaca Valley, is contemporaneous with Purr6n
and may date as early as 2000 B.C. (Marcus, 1983). In western Mexico, Kelly
flaring-wail bowls and I' de
, cy 10 rs.
ares), and (4) true tecomates, flat-based,
(1980) suggests that Capacha ceramics from Colima may date as early as 1800
The earliest decorated ceramics ad' B.C. on the basis of a single 14C date of 22QO-1220 B.C. [GX-1784: 3400 B.P.
are available for this phase fro Pasowear unng the Barra phase. Three dates
± 200 years] and similarities with Machalilla ceramics of Ecuador. In central
1987): 2280-1330 B.C. [Beta-I~238' 34~ Ia Amada (Ceja, 1985; Clark" al.• Mexico, Tolstoy (1978, pp. 256-257) places the Justo phase as early as 1500
[1-8161: 3360 B.P. ± 225 yeats] a~d I~P, ± ISO years], 2270-1060 B.C.
160 yeats]. Barra is followed b i.oc 1200 B.C. [1-8162: 3300 B.P. ±
B.C. In the Maya area, the Swasey complex of Belize was originally dated to
2500 B.C. (Hammond et al., 1979), but a recent evaluation suggests that it may
ranging from 2180-1320 B.C.l&ta_:':lake, 1991), dated by five samples
date no earlier than the late second millennium B.C. (Andrews and Hammond,
930 B.C. !Beta-14243: 3040 B P ± I .3420 B.P. ± 170 years] to 1520-
1990; Law et al., 1991).
1680-1200 B.C. [Beta-13838. 3180 B 10 years]. SUbsequent Oc6s dates are
[Beta-16239: 3020 B P ± 100' ] .P. ± 100 years] and 1510-930 B.C.
. . years . The Barra/Lac .
dates from approximately 1850 to 1350 B . ona/Ocos senes therefore Costa Rica
Cherla and Cuadros the I . .C. It IS follOWed by two phases
1991, Fig. 2). ' alter of which tenninates around 1000 B.C. (Clark: In northwestern Costa Rica, the Tronadora complex is contemporaneous
with garra/Locone/Ocos to the north and with Monagrillo, Barlovento, Cana-
G~n and Lowe (1967, p. 74) initiall pote, and Valdivia 6 to the south (Hoopes, 1985, 1987). The type site provided
from earlier complexes to the south H y felt that Barra may have derived
nine dates, four of which pertain to a preceramic occupation and five of which
were nearly identical to ground st' owever, they also noted that vessel shapes
were from ceramic-bearing contexts. The preceramic dates range from 3610-
spherical bowls and" one prototypes of flat-bottom bowls hem,'-
. . ' COTnates They ttrib • 3050 B.C. [Tx-5275: 4600 B.P. ± 70 years] to 2390-1750 B.C. [SI-?: 3675
Imitation of gourds and squash' a n uted grooving and fluting to the
B.P. ± 100 years], suggesting a preceramic/ceramic transition around 2000
fro~ th~~uth was skill and li~ e~~ggested that "what may have diffused
B.C. The three useful dates associated with Tronadora pottery are 3350-2910

much of the congruity between Bar:;~~~:·

design similarities" (Green and 1..0 except a few rather close decorative
62). ~we (1975, p. 9) made
decorations and complexes from
B.C. [Tx-5276: 4450 B.P. ± 70 years]. 2460-1790 B.C. [Tx-5277: 3730 B.P.
± 100 years], and 2850-990 B.C. [Tx~5279: 3480 B.P. ± 320 years] (Hoopes,
 30
800"" Earliest Ceramic Complexes in the New World 31

1985, 1987), (A fourtb date 800 B C -A D 640

considered enuneous.) The 'first alili' " .(Tx~5081: 2030 ± 3001, is resemblance to other early Nuclear American wares"; however, it seems clearly
hearth and pottery with charcoal' 'doug~ foun~ III direct association with a outside of the development of more sophisticated ceramics from the same time
. resi ue, IS considered to be I period in Ecuador, Colombia, Peru, and Mesoamerica. Its clearest similarities
ramie charcoal in a stratum immedia I . too ear y. Prece-
possibility of contamination H te y below cerarmc levels leaves open the are with Curre, from southwestern Costa Rica (Cooke, personal communication,
. owever three date .
flows from a nearby volcano overleen s associated with pyroclastic 1993). Radiocarbon dates from ceramic contexts at the site of La Mula-Sarigua
dating the tephra stratum that ca s:' from,201D to 1670 B.C. at the 95% CI, includes two dates of 1120-840 B.C. [Beta-6006: 2820 ± SOl and 900-610
to around 1800 B.C. (Hoopes, 1~87)~
sented by an OCCUpationof short du ti
;~:I~~ Tronadora fea~res
nadora phase IS probably
and artifacts
repre-
B.C. [Beta-21898: 2640 ± 60] (Cooke and Ranere, 1992b, Table 2). However,
much more work needs to be done to clarify what was occurring with Pana-
Tronadc . ra on. manian ceramics between 2000 and 1000 B.C.
Ri ra pottery IS most closely related to Cha .
ca, ~ Montana, in the Atlantic W . parron, 18 northern Costa
and Dinarte, on Ometepe Island in r.::rsh,ed region (Snarskis, 1978. 1984), Nortbern Colombia
Other related Costa Rican I NIcaragua (Haberland 1966 1992)
compexes' I de B '..
(Snarskis, 1984), Naranjo at Sitio Me dee u arva in the central highlands The northern Colombian sequence is virtually continuous between 4000
raba-eoto B~s valley (Corrales, 1985~ ~;8~Norr, 1986), ~nd Cum in the Ter- and 1000 B.C., but relationships between phases are complicated. Early com-
Central America are with coastal Chia . )'. T~~adora s closest ties outside plexes have been identified from several sites to the southeast of Cartagena,
ma.tes and outtlaring~wall bowl ~as. SImd~tles include red-rimmed teco- including Puerto Hormlga, San Jacinto 1 and 2, Puerto Chacho, and Monsu.
tab.on, and dentate rocker-stam;in rouHo:attomed Incision, grooved rims, punc- As noted above, Turbana and Monsd, followed by a third phase called Pangola,
Chlapan teCOmates are sharply in~rvin ever, th~re are also distinct differences. were placed very early by Reichel-Dolmatoff (1985). However, these are less
a fe~ true tecomae rims were f d g and tYPically have tapered rims. Only convincing than either San Jacinto 1 or Puerto Honniga as incipient industries.
heavily exteriorly bolstered or comma- Tronadora Vieja. Most rims are either Furthermore, the decoration characteristic of Turbana (Reichel~Dolmatoff, 1985.
vessels ch~racteristic of Tronadora La SMhaped~ Tall, shell-stamped cylindrical Figs. 18-22) also appears on pottery from the Canapote (2500-2000 B.C.) and
coastal Chianas Th ' Ontana and O' Barlovento (1700-1000 B.C.) phases, with which Rodriguez (1990) and Oyuela
com I .,....... e greatest difference betweee, marte are not found in
Me p exes. IS the absence of figurines in the fom early Costa Rican and Chiapan (1990) now consider Turbana to be contemporaneous.
HOI~am~nc~n sites, solid figurine, are unkn°nne~. Although abundant at early Monsl1 yielded the first dates between those of Puerto Hormiga and Can-
;;; g.unnes did not appear in Costa R" own ~n Costa Rican assemblages apote. These would fill a long-standing chronological gap if they were not
e Picture presented b C . rca unhl 500-300 B.C' problematic. A date of 2920-2500 B.C. [UCLA-2149B: 4200 B.P. ± 80 years]
degree of earl . . Y asia Rican ceramic a b .
rese bl y regional diversity. While T do ssem lages suggests a high was associated with Pangola pottery in deposits overlying Turbana and Monsu
m ances to M· rona ra and Ch levels (Reichel~Dolmatoff, 1985, p. 175). A date of 3660-1740 B.C. [UCLA~
fonns and th esoamencan complexes the di aparmn have some
inland' sites eh~~ence of figUrines. Both COSta~' ffer in decoration. vessel 2568F: 4170 B.P. ± 360 years] on bone from the lowest excavated levels and
another rela;e: i: also differs from the pattern in c:,:n are
com~lexes found at
in association with Turbana pottery was rejected as too late. However, in spite
of its wide range of error, it may be more accurate than the early date of 4330-
griddles). and complex, differs further in the re tal Chlapas. La Montana,
p senee of budares (ceramic 3960 B.C. [UCLA-2149C: 5300 ± 80] that Reichel-Dolmatoff accepted for
Monsu. An almost-identical date of 2920-2490 B.C. [UCLA-2568A: 4175 B.P.
± 80 years] was obtained from a higher level. Although associated with Bar-
Central Panama lovento. it is much earlier than the majority of dates for this complex. At
~cCOrding to COOke(1984 Canapote, Barlovento ceramics were found above levels with Canapote and
sometime between 1400 ' p. 283), the site of Mo .
Fonnative Pan . and 1100 B.C. (3150-2900 B P nagnilo was abandoned Tesca ceramics-both of which are associated with dates later than UCLA-
mUlticomponen~~t1lan ceramic complex is Sarigu . ~ The only other Early 2568A and earlier than seven other dates for Barlovento contexts. Acceptance
unslipped and d site ?f La Mula-Sangua S . a, own from the larae of UCLA-2568A would place Barlovento ceramics closer in time to Pu~~o
• ecoratlan' . angua ceram' .... , Honniga, to which Bischof (1972) claims that they are closely related, but It IS
and applique ridges w'n ConSists of incision. shell-ed IC~ are thin and
. I ey (1971, p. 283) notes ilia sge ~tampmg, Punctation, inconsistent with the chronology of neighboring sites.
t angua ...~-- " Pottery from the successive phases of Canapote, Tesca, and Bariovento
~ ageneral
 32
800", Earliest Cenunk Complexes in tbe New World 33

was identified in strati hi d .

of Cartagena (BiSCho;'~~: le~;)lts ~tCanapote, a shellmound in the suburbs late Monagrillo, early 'I'ronadora, BarraiLocona/Oc6s, and early complexes on
two 14C ." anapore and Tesca phases are dated b the Peruvian coast (see below).
± 100 assays from the site. The first, at 2610-2040 B.C. [Y -1317: 3890 B : The Colombian and Central American assemblages share a large number
years], comes from a refuse layer t f 60 . . of specific decorative modes. However, vessel forms and the majority of dec-
and is considered to be late in th has op 0 em of Canapote deposits
[Y-1760: 3730B.P. ± 120 ears e p.ase. The second, 2470-1770 B.C. orations differ markedly. Barlovento signals a stylistic change. Polished ceramics
to the SUcceeding early T y h]' ove~les Canapote deposits and is assigned appear for the first time, and decoration includes curvilinear designs with nar-
esca p ase (Bischof 1972 2 row, deeply incised lines, comma-shaped punctation, and circular stamped
these, Bischof (1972, p. 273) se ',.' p. 78). On the basis of
2850 B.C., making it rou hi ~ropo d. a beg~nrung date for Canapote around marks. The Mensa assemblage is characterized by exuberant curvilinear volutes
Pangola phase at Monsu.gc~ oe~al With~elchel-~lmatotrs (1985, p. 175) and sigmoids with zoned incision and punctation (Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1985,
and occasional shell tempe Dec pottery IS, unpolished and hard, with sand Figs. 45-54), including shallow incisions filled with red ocher. Vessel lips on
r. oration COnsists f" '1' wide, open plates are broad and decorated with incised and punctate designs
e1ements, often combined' 0 CUI'Vt inear or rectilinear
·I ,, . In one pattern executed· h " (Reichel-Dclmatoff 1985, Figs. 55-56). Modeled decoration-an important
mes (BIschof, 1966, p. 487) Formsare. . In S arply incised narrow
vessels. Early Tesca porte : d are eX~luslvelyglobular, round-bottomed Puerto Hormiga mode-is absent in Canapore, rare in Tesca, but abundant in
d . l)' IS ecorated WIth b d i . early and middle Barlovento. Vessel forms consist primarily of large (40-cm~
esrgns are curvilinear. The fi t f rna incised lines, and most
diameter) mcurving-rim bowls with direct, tapered, or interior-thickened rims,
later decorations appears in the Tee 0 zoned hatchure, which is important for
, ,~ e esca ph (B' h deep, vertical-walled bowls, and open plates or possible budares (griddles). In
contemporaneouswith the El Pow ase ISC of, 1972, p. 277). Tesca is
all of these, Barlovento differs markedly from Tronadora. Bolstered rims,
of219()...1790[Beta-16125: 3650 ~ :7~~x in San Marcos, dated by an assay grooved rims, cylinders, and squat jars are absent. The complete absence of red
Barlovento pottero is kn f azas and Pelcheru, 1986).
'C ''/ ownromanubef' slipping or painting and any type of figurine tradition also distinguishes this
site, anapote, and Monsu. At Cana m r 0 SItes, especially the type complex from contemporaneous ones in Pacific Chiapas.
Tesca levels (Bischof 1966) At Mpote,Barlovento material was found above
PI' . onsu Barl
ango a phase levels. If we exclude th '. ovenro ceramics appear above

:arl~.st IS 21.30-1530B.C. [Y-1318: ;5~~

y. Ischof In 1962 from deposits ex
s:
(U~LA~2568A), &rlovento ceramic e earliest date cited by Reichel-Dolmatoff
by seven 14C samples. The
.. ± 100 years]. It was retrieved
Ecuador
Several samples date the end of Valdivia. Hill (1975, p. 21) sees the period
ending sometime after 2300 B.C. (3850 B.P.), based on two dates of 2870-
~e;hel-Dolmatotrs 1957excavations ~~ by the collapse of a profile from 1940 B.C. [L-1232H: 3900 B.P. ± 150 years] and 2570-1740 B.C. [L-1232I:
In e swamps to the north of Cartagen I o.v~nto,a group of six shellmounds 3750 B.P. ± 150 years] associated with Valdivia 7 assemblages at OGSE-
WasSUbsequentlydeemed acce ~. mtially thought to be too earl it • 46B-1. The most recent acceptable date for Valdivia from the type site is 2620-
:e IS~~are stmtigraphically cO~~~~~t:~:s~~~~_~~i6)' Three other dates
yea"J, 1680-1040B'.C [W- 743. 3140 B P B.C. [W-739, 3470 B..P
i~m 2280 B.C. [51-78: 3970 B.P. ± 65 years] (Meggers et al., 1965, p. 149). At
Loma Alta, a date of 2460-1930 B.C. [ISGS-19O: 3765 B.P. ± 85 yearsJ
850 B C [
. . . W-741: 2980 B.P. ± 120' .. ± 120 years], and 1510- associated with Valdivia 6 ceramics (Hill, 1975, Fig. 3) overlaps the two dates
stratifiedshell dates from Ba I yearsJ, and are SUpportedb t from OGSE-46B-l at the 95 % CI. Two dates from La Emerenciana in El Oro
625a: 3240 B P r Oventocontexts at M '. Y wo more

~~;~re:
.
~ ~:o
21490: 28~~~).
. . ± 60 yearsJ-from the onsu. 1670-1400 B.C [TK~
too early (UCLA_2568A)_an~a~;3~cavation level as the s'ample
most recent assay dates :~7~1~:S16TK-625b: 3230
province, 2490-1690 B.C. [SMU-2225: 3707 ± 148J and 2290-1009 B.C.
[SMU-2241: 3361 B.P. ± 246 years], come from Valdivia 8 contexts (Staller,
personal communication, 1993). These, together with a date on shell of 1890-
1620 B.C. [51-69: 3450 B.P. ± 50 years] at the Buena Vista site (Meggers et
a.lmoslcomplet~ly'overla years). (Reichel-Dolmatoff, 1985 B.C. [UCL~- al., 1965, p. 149), suggest a tenninal date for Valdivia as late as 1650 B.C.
site (W~741)in th 9 pped by the most recent Bad ' pp. 175-76). It IS
ov to (Staller, n.d.; personal communication, 1993). The most recent date associated
Barlovento aroundel 5% CI. Taken together, they su :: date f~m the type with Valdivia ceramics, 1260-800 R.C. [SI-20: 2805 B.P. ± 105 years], can
dates, and rejeetin 000 B.C. Given a conservative in7; t a t.ennmal date for
probably be rejected.
to approximatel I~ two early assays from Monsli :retatlon of the above Six dates are available for the succeeding Machalilla phase. Three are from
y 1000 B.C. It is therefore rou hi e can date Barlovento
g Y contemporaneous with the site of La Cabuya: 2030-1200 B.C. [SI-107: 3320 B.P. ± 170 years],

i
 id

'i
34 EarUest Ceramic Complexes in tbe New World 35

1530-810 B.C. [SI-108: 2980 B.P. ± 160 years) and 1120-850 B.C. [SI-67:
2830 B.P. ± 45 years] (Meggers et al., 1%5, p. 149). 51-107 and 51-108
overlap from 1530 to 1200 B.C. at the 95% CI. However, although both come
from charcoal residue on the same vessel, the excavators consider 51-107 to be
the most accurate. In the interest of a continuous chronological sequence, and
citing evidence for the cooccurrence of Machalilla and Late Valdivia ceramics,
they prefer an early interpretation and place Machalilla at approximately 2500-
1700 B.C. [3950-3450 B.P. (Meggers et al., 1965, p. 174)].
. A mo~ recent assessment based on three dates from La Ponga and a
reinterpretation of the La Cabuya dates places the phase somewhat later (Lippi
et al., 1984). These dates, 1380-900 B.C. [WIS-1l25: 2920 B.P. ± 80 years].
1300-840 B.C. [WIS-1141: 2880 B.P. ± 80 years], and 1150-800 a.c, [WIS-
1140:,2790 B.P. ± 80 years], are all from stratified midden deposits. Machalilla
~POSlts at ~ Ponga were overlain by Chorrera/Engoroy and Guangala ceramics,
d the earliest sample comes from a mixed context. However, the other two
were clearly associated WIith M ac halilla
an .' Although not in stratigraphic
ceranucs.
?rder, the .dates overlap from 1150 to 900 B.C. in the 95% CI. The excavators'
Interpre~tlon ofth:se samples dates Machalilla to 1400-900 B.C. (3150-2750
B.P.), With a.tennmal date for Valdivia of 1700 B.C. (Lippi et al., 1984, p.
118). Machahlla ceramics may date as early as 1600 B C· . style between Ecuador and Mesoamerica/Central
su rted b . ., an mrerpretauon
(S~ y recent research on the complex Valdivia/MachaIilla transition period
er, personal c~mmunication, 1993). This indicates that they are roughly
:~:mpo~~eous WI~ (and not prior to) the latter half of Monagrillo and the
e. an atter portions of Barlovento, Tronadora, and Locona/Oc6s
LI~e MBarlovento,MachaIilla ceramics are distinct from contemporary' com-
pi exes In esoamerica a d C rat A' .
smoothed, round-bottom~ ent . ~~nca. While. these are distinguished by
with fi h '" aroovc-mc.ston, Machahlla ceramics are decorated
ne, s arp mcrsions (Meggers and Evans 1962 p 187) T' . of independent invention and the transmission of technology and styles from
appear the stirrup-,pout I d h .' ,. . wo innovations
, vesse an t e carinated bo I C .
plex~silhouette vessels with am' . w. annated bowls-com-
in Valdivia 6 around 2500 B Carke~ mcurvmg angle at the shoulder-s-appear
(Villalba, 1988). On the north coast of Peru, Cupisnique is usually recognized
as the earliest complex with stirrup spouts, but its dating to 1600 B.c. represents
at best an educated guess. Lathrap (1971, p. 90) once suggested that double-
spout-and-bridge bottles found in Kotosh Waira-jirca and Early Tutishcayno
were ancestral to the stirrup-spout form in Ecuador. This hypothesis has been
weakened by the discovery of stirrup spouts in late Valdivia contexts, but it is
only fair to acknowledge that the relationship between the ceramics of southern
Ecuador and those of the north coast of Peru at this time remains poorly under-
stood.
At present, it is difficult to demonstrate clear relationships between Mach-
alilla and cultures either to the north or south. Although there are a number of
specific modes that are shared, the differences between Ecuadorian and other
northern South American complexes are greater than the similarities. This is
true even for northern Colombia. Barlovento, for example, lacks the polished,
fine-engraved, carinated bowls of Machalilla. Its large, unslipped, wide-grooved,
lncurving-rim bowls indicate vast stylistic differences between these contem-
poraneous complexes. However, although it is difficult to sustain models for
population migrations such as those suggested by Meggers and Evans (1966, p.
247), it is still premature to rule out interchanges of ceramic technology and
America during the Machalilla,
the Chorerra, and subsequent phases.
Peru
Although it seems likely that ceramic technology diffused into northern
Peru from Ecuador sometime prior to 2500 B.C., the manufacture of ceramics
in other regions of the central Andes appears to have resulted from a combination
areas in the eastern lowlands. The earliest dates associated with pottery in Peru
come from the northern highlands near Cajamarca. Kaulicke (1981) reports two

Kotosh Waira-jirca and Ea I ~ a z:

become common until Machal'll (~dl, 1975, p. 21). However, they do not
The carinated bowl is also found in
bowls do not appear in no;J: u~s IcaYR? (La~rap, 1971, p. 88). Carinated
dates of 2870-23 10 RC. [ZK-333: 4018 B.P. ± 80 years] and 2330-1070 B.C.
[ZK-334: 3393 B.P. ± 240 years] from Pandanche, both associated with hearths
and pottery. Each of these represents the weighted average of a pair of assays.
However, they were recovered in reverse stratigraphic order and overlap only
they are Rot prominent in ei~: coombla unt~1 the first centuries B.C., and
slightly in the calibrated 95% CI. An additional date of 2470-1920 RC. [?:
1000 B.C. It is difficult to sa w entrat Am~~ca or Mesoamerica until after
South America. y hether they ongmate on the coast or in lowland 3785 RP. ± 100 years] is reported for Pandanche A from the site of Machai-
pungo (Keulicke 1975, p. 50). If ZK-333 can be discredited on stratigraphic
The origins of stirrup spouts are uaIl v grounds, the remaining dates for Pandanche would not contradict an initial date
spout fragments have been < d eq Y ague. Spouted bottles and stirrup-
Be roun at La Emerenciana h of 2000 B.C., similar to that for other regions of Peru. The "Pandanche A"
uador, in association with late Valdi . .' on t e southern coast of
complex is characterized by both fine- and coarse-paste vessels. The forrner
~Staller, personal communication 199~~la.::ttery dating to ca. 1850-1650 B.C.
include tecomate-like vessels, small globular ollas, flat-based convex-waIl bowls,
In the Ecuadorian highland frorr . ey are also known from Cotocollao,
s, rom contexts dated stylistically to 1500-900 B.C. and carinated bowls with rounded bases. The latter are ollas with convex walls

1
 - ,--'

36 Earliest Ceramic Complexes in the New World 37

and rounded bases and vessels with "Sv-shaped profiles. Decorations include
~tal and crosshatch incision, finger-impressed fillets, fingernail impres-
II SIOllS, .shell-stamping, zoned punctation, and punctate button applique. Similar
, cenumcs have been reported from Pacopampa, also in the Cajamarca Valley
,I and Monte Grande, in the upper Jequetepeque Valley, but there are no I·C date~
j (fellenbach, 19.8~), and contnldi~ory evidence suggests that this material may
be .later than ongl~y hypothesized by Kaulicke (Burger, personal communi-
canon, 1~3!. Kaulicke suggests that Peruvian ceramics derive from southern
Ecuador, C1~~ parallels between Pandanche A, Late Valdivia, and Machalilla
~. This ieterpretation is supported by similarities between Pandanche A
cenu.m~ and late Valdivia pottery from southern EI Oro (Staller, personal com-
mumcati~, 1993). However, such contact need not date any earlier than the
second millennium B.C.
i i ~ghout the rest of the Central Andes region the dates for appearance
of ceranucs •. I· ' tunately, this pottery has been neither described nor illustrated. Five dates for
first are surpnsmg y consistent (see Burger 1992, Appendix). Ceramics
of,:::;ar
~
betw~n 2500 and.2000 B.C. on the central and north-central c~t
Pozorski and Pozorskl (1990, Table 1) report 22 dates for early ceramic
from24:"~ampa de Las Llamas~Moxeke in the Casma Valley. These range
4504: 3070 ~,~G;;7~3745 B.P. ± 85 yeaIS]t~1510-1040 B.C. [VGa-
dated by three Y . ]. At Las Haldas, the introduction of pottery is
130 assays, ranging from 2290-1610 B.C. [GaK-606' 3590 B P ±
rarnic occupation dated by two assays of 2140-1740 B.C. [UGa-4583: 3590
B.P. ± 75 years] and 2270-1790 B.C. [Tx-4447: 3670 B.P. ± 70 years]. The
earliest date for pottery contexts was almost identical, at 2190-1790 B.C.
[Tx-4448: 3650 B.P. ± 60 years] (Greider et al., 1988, p. 69). The Toril style
from Huaricoto in the highland portion of the Santa Valley is related to both
the early La Galgada and the Guaiiape ceramics. Although not associated with
14C dates, it was stratified between Late Preceramic and Initial Period deposits.
Toril ceramics are technically unsophisticated, consisting primarily of neckless
ollas with incomplete firing and a coarse quartz temper. Decoration is rare
(Borger, 1985, pp. 506-510; 1991; 1992, p. 58).
On the southern coast, the earliest pottery appears sometime between 2500
and 1400 B.C. Erizo, in the lea valley, has been dated by four assays ranging
from 2580-2040 B.C. [GX-0185: 3890 B,P. ± 90 years] to 1500-1030 B.C.
[UCLA~969: 3050 B.P. ± 80 years] (Rowe, 1967, Gayton, 1967, p. 1). Unfor-
the related Hacha pottery from the Acari valley date from 1410-1000 B.C.
[VCR-2088: 2990 ± 70J to 1010-790 B.C. [VCR-2089: 2730 ± 70] (Riddell
and Valdez, 1987, p. 7). Lanning (1967, p. 83) rejected the earliest two dates
and suggested an initial date for Hacha of 1700-1600 B.C. (3350-3450 B.P.)-
roughly contemporaneous with the Valdivia/Machalilla transition. Fung (1988,
p. 82) places Hacha and Erizo at 1400 B.C.

, ,
± st=l~;ai
95% CI Earl(
1978, p. 666) to 1930-1520 B.C. [Tx.631:
•• ,:_,975,99).
3430 B.P.
1kse overlap from 1930 to 1610 B.C. at the
Pottery appears in the southern highlands at the same time as on the south-
em coast. Marcavalle ceramics from the Cuzco, Puno, and Anadahuaylas regions
; r . y c......l41 pottery consists of Iarg 1 are reportedly similar to contemporaneous Erizo and Hacha (Fung, 1988, p.
(elongated rather than t sha e y undecorated neckless jars
.' ecomate- ped). In the V· - V - 83). The earliest levels at Waywaka in Andahuaylas date to 2140-1630 B.C.
ceramics were decorated with a li De ..." 1lU. alley, early Guanape [UCLA-1808E: 3550 B.P. ± 100 years] and contained neckless ollas, short-
punching or short incisions moZl'
,lOg,
q and zc or strips of clay with finger-
zoned punctatlon 1 ' necked ollas, small bowls, and vessels with spouts and strap handles (Grossman,
(8trong and Evans 1952) Whil fi near vesse nms
, . enger-punched fill ts ·'1 1985, pp. 53-58). At Mareavalle, the earliest pottery dates to around 1500 B.C.
on Pandanche A ceramics nl th e are SlDU ar to decorations (Fung, 1988. p. 83). Early pottery at Chiripa and Wankarani in western Bolivia
. ,0 y e zoned m..' ati (ode . .
on virtually all early ceramic I . y- -. on a m whose ubiquity
has been dated to around 1700 B.C. (Browman, 1980; Fung, 1988, p. 83).
Ecuadorian complexes. comp exes IS probably coincidental) is shared with
Lanning (1967, p. 87) suggested that the most likely routes of diffusion of Initial
On the central coast, the earliest dates c fro . Period pottery were up the Marafion and Huallaga Rivers. He also believed that
and Moseley, 1968' Mejia 1978) and orne m La Florida (Patterson the ancestry of Kotosh and Tutishcayno ceramics would eventually be tra.ced to
pottery at La Florida has bee da La Galgada (Grieder et al., 1988). Initial
the low montana or the Amazon lowlands (Lanning, 1967, p. 88).
B.C. [N-44: 3760 B P ± 17~ ted by four assays ranging from 2620-1690
In the highlands, the earliest pottery comes from the Kotosh waira-jirca
[GX-121O: 3680 ± ti5J'to~=] (Fung, 1988, If. 22) or 2290-1780 B.C.
phase at Kotosh and Shillacoto. Waira-jirca has five 14C dates, ranging from
(PaueISOO, 1985 p 64) H B.C. [GX-04456: 3645 B.P. ± 120 years]
" ,. . owever, there . . 2560-1910 B.C. [GaK-262, 3800 B.P. ± 110 years] to 1420-990 B.C. [TK-
correct Citation of samples N-44 <Patterso IS some uncertainty regarding the 108: 3000 B.P. ± 80 years], but is tentatively dated to 1700-1100 B.C. [3450-
N-87, the latter of which is said to n, personal conununication, 1993) and
2950 B.P. (Izumi and Terada, 1972, p. 307)]. Roughly contemporaneous phases
64) but has also been published as : from La Florida (Patterson 1985, p.
have been defined for La Pampa (Terada, 1979), Huacaloma (Terada and Gnuld.

with bridge handles (Mejia. 1978). ~~ u:

p. 337). New cet1Unic Conn. at La F1 .~ from Panocas (Yamasaki et al., 1966
nclude
small, do~ble-spouted bottle~
GaIgada, ceranucs overlie a prece~
1982), and Cerro Blanco (Terada and Onuld, 1988), all in the northern high-
lands. Early Huacaloma ceramics are dated by three assays: 1510-1120 B.C.
 J8
H..... ramie COf]Iplexes
. tbe New World
In •
"
d

[TK-34I" 3080 B.P. ± 70 years], 1440-260 B.C. [TK-34lb: 2720 B.P. ~ Earliest Ce . ed bowl tradition associate
240 years] and 1260-810 D.C. [TK-409: 2840 B.P. ± 90 years] (Terada an . e of a widespread cannat (Foster and Lathrap,
similarities to the tculture f the lowland tropical forest I 1984) suggests
Onuki, 1982, p. 258). At Cerro B1ancn, five dates for early pottery range ~~; with root-crop agncu· lture rom . Machalilla umes. (L''P pi et a.,
. I r agricultural
1880--1520 B.C. [TK-71O: 3390 B.P. ± 70 years] to 1010--800 B.C. [TK-. . 1973). However, mal
ize use 10
"tradition"
. k d t a parncu a
is not lin e 0 sa whether carinated
27
50 B P ± 60 years] (Terada and Onuki, 1988, p. 4). At all of these Sites, that the carinated bowl there are insufficient data to y
the earliest
. . vessels are large tecomates, short-necked Jars,
. an d ca.nna
cari ted bowls . orientation. As n~ted abo~eEcuador or east of the Andes.
bowls originated m coas
At La Pampa and Huacaloma. early decoration Includes applique fillets and
ribs, suggesting relations with Las Haldas and Guafiape (Terada .. 1979, P: 1?6).
In Waira-jirca, decorative techniques include incision, .pU~ctatlo.n, bumlshlD~, . ion
and plain rocker-stamping. The most distinctive decoration IS. s~h~ geometnc Discuss be related to Late
·. . e northern highlands of Peru may ttery on the Peru-
zoning, infilled with fine cross hatching. There are notable slmt!antJes between Ceramic traditions I~"h s in Ecuador. However, early: Ecuadorian coast
Waira·jirea pottery and that of the tropical forest lowlands to the east. The Early Valdivia/Machalilla tradition developments eith~r on sent the signifi-
Tutishcayno phase at Yarinacocha, on the central Ucayali at the western edge f: moved from . ilarities are pre, .
vian coast was ar re. Although general sum t striking differences IS
of the Amazon basin, is also similar to Waira-jirca (Lathrap, 1962, 1970, 1971). or in northern Colombia. I ked One of the mos ars over a thou-
Shared traits Include zoned hatchure with after-firing pigments, carinated bowls, cant differences cannot be ove.r 00 eve'n in northern Peru, a ppe it does in the
double·spouted jars with a bridged handle, the use of c1ose.hatched lines, and chronological. Pottery Production,
d region south 0f Ecuador. thbetween an 2500 an d
decorated ex.panded rims (Izumi and Terada, 1972, p. 307). Contact ~t~.een · the An ean sometime .
sand years later 10 does come into use, Irhln the space of Just a
Kotosh and lowland areas is suggested by assemblages with both Waira-jirca Valdivia culture. Once pottery rea of the Andes WI
and lowland sherds, such as at the Cave of the Owls (Lathrap and Roys, 1963). 2000 B.C., it appears over a large a . cultures in the emer-
Similarities between Waira-jirca, Early Tutishcayno, and Valdivia were
ers few centuries. fi d is the role of Ecuadonan striking relationships
noted by Megg and Evans (1961; Meggers et al., 1965), who attributed these What remains to be de ne.. Although there are ed gourds from
to a diffusion of technology into the eastern slopes of the Peruvian highlands . .c traditions. . mengrav .
gence of PeruvIan. ceranu h and Late precerarmc py elongated, incurvmg-
from Coastal Ecuador. In contrast, Lathrap (1971, p. %) believed that the origins between Valdivia iconograp y I 1975 p. 29), large, dorian sequence.
of Eady Tutishcayno were to be found "in the flood plains on the major rivers (Lathrap et a ." . the Ecua
the Peruvian coast ood precedents m. rds or basketry.
of the tropical forests of South America." The origins of Waira..,jirca ceramics rim bowls and tecomates have nOdgn'ved from precerarmc gcouolombiaunlikely.
are more complicated than a diffusion from either Ecuador or the Amazon. · h been e orthem l"k 1
These might eaSily .ave diffusion of styles !Wm n sibility, it is just as I ~ Y
Lathrap (1971, p. 93) saw them as a blending of eastern lowland traditions with
Geography makes a dU'eCt. II lands remams a pos t This is not readily
indigenous Central Andean traditions. Stylistic similarities to Valdivia and Pan- . . . b troplca ow vian coas . . ted in
While an anglO m t e. ndently on the Peru . manufacture eXlS
danche pottery suggest an influence from the north, via the highlands or possibly that pottery was invented md~pe Iy traditions of ceramiC Kotosh and lowland
the Mannion drainage. However, Roosevelt's dates for early Amazonian pottery apparent for the highlands. I ea~ between sites such as nd decorations-
supPOrt Lathrap's hypothesis of a lowland origin for ceramic technology. At the Amazon basin, the s ro t ng ties ·deas about ceranuc . foons
d from the east. Th'IS
a
present, the eadiest POttery from the Peruvian montana is the Cobichanque tha t least some I . traduce .
regions suggest t a . rna have been m. estern Amazoma.
complex from the Alto Pachitea (Allen, 1%8; Lathrap, 1970, pp. 96-98), where if not the technology Itself- dYted assemblages 10 W
at Casa de la Tia 67 sherds were asSOCiated with dates of 2320-1930 B.C. hypothesis awaits. suppo rt from a
[P-99I: 3728 B.P. ± 65 ye",]. 2190-1680 B.C. [P-992: 3587 B.P. ± 95
years], and 1880-1450 B.C. [P-990: 3368 B.P. ± 77 years]. Vessel fonns
CONCLUSIONS Id cultures was
inclUde simple and carinated boWls, slipped and IllgbIy polislted witb fine sand
and shellweak.
remains temper. They suggest an easHo--west diffusion, although the evidence . f pottery vessels b y New
I Wor . 5) .
or style (Fig.
In sum, the initial adop~lon 0 ct to either techno OgYdlYcharacterized as
neither rapid nor unJlorm
.£ With fi t pottery cann ot be broa d to similar site
respe . s by
Noting a Ptedominance of carlnated boWls in Late Tutishcayno, Lathrnp Contrary to earlier models, ~ sh~l1middens and th~n :re~ew World are sand-
(1%3, p. 239; 1970, p. 92; 1971, p. 89) also suggested conracts between tbe
haVing first appeared at cboast rl;est dated ceramicfs m emisedental)', freshwater
eastern Amazon and MachaJilla. In a subsequent PUblication, he attributed these '.
m'grahon or diffu·nTeea.
SIO. d' the contex toas
tempered wares that ap peare 10
i

I' ... Earliest Ceramic Complexes In the New World 41

I
shellfishing culture on the lower Amazon in Brazil between 6000 and 5000 B.C.
The next oldest pottery is a fiber-tempered complex that was manufactured at
••• seasonally-occupied inland sites in northern Colombia around 5000-4500 B.C .
""
"m Although there is evidence for earlier experimentation with fired clay, sand-
tempered ceramic vessels appeared at both inland and coastal sites in Pacific
""
''''
"., Ecuador around 4()(){)-35oo B.C. (about the same time as a shell-tempered
industry appeared together with sand-tempered wares on the Brazilian coast).
""
''''
~ In Panama, the earliest pottery is a crude, sand-tempered ware that appeared at
inland rockshelters around 3500 B.C. and shortly afterward at shellfishing set-
....""
"" tlements on the coast. In North America, the earliest ceramics from South Car-
olina and Florida date to ca. 3500-3000 B.C. and included both fiber- and sand-
""
"" tempered wares. A fiber-tempered technology also appeared in the central United
.,,,
"" States sometime between 3300 and 1900 B.C .
...."..
.,m Around 2000 B.C .. sophisticated, decorated wares were being manufac-

..""" tured in the highlands of northwestern Costa Rica. Given a revised interpretation
of the temporal placement for Pox Purr6n ceramics, ceramics may not have
appeared in Mesoamerica until this same time. However, after 2000 B.C., they
''''
""
4910 evolved rapidly and were adopted over a wide area-perhaps in conjunction with
the spread of competitive feasting practices (Clark and Blake, 1991; Blake et
""
,~.
"" at., 1992). The pattern is surprisingly similar in the central Andes. Although
the first pottery in the northern highlands of Peru may date as early as 2500
""
......
,,""
""
B.C., it was not until after 2000 B.C. that ceramic technology appeared through-
out the coast and in central and southern highland regions. However, within
500 years, elaborate pottery was being produced at a large number of sites
'"'
"" between the Pacific coast and the eastern slopes of the Andes.
""
s...
6110
If one were to consider the dates for only the idea of ceramic technology,
ignoring techniques of paste preparation, vessel fonn, and decoration-as well
.'"
."..."
"" as the even more important variable of cultural context-one could support
Lathrap's suggestion that the Amazon basin was an important hearth for New
World ceramic production only at a very general level. Plotting 14Cdates on a
""
...."" map, chronological contours might be interpreted as a spread of ceramic tech-
.... nology westward from eastern Brazil and then south- and northward (with a
~. Taperinll.~----~-:::=:------------ J~''''~
B• San J.... nc. IF.
C. VaidMo
Mo"'grilo
G· S~np L; l'andlo""he p. Lo Florida
71511
broad jump across the Caribbean from Colombia to Florida around 3500 B.C.).
However, the diffusionary model suggested by this archaic and simplistic
,.... H.NeboHIU ·Purrm, Q' ... approach would not go far toward explaining the tremendous variation evident
ISM. Thorn', Creel< - • ron ra
E • Puerto U...... p . ...J.. lolo 2 NCR - Ba,lo\<~10 in early complexes and their cultural contexts.
J -Ono0ll" 0: W"::7lrta S· Barno
The idea that clay could be baked to form permanent containers is so sim~le
NOlo: D.... er !!Iladjog illdictltes T. M.... olOl.
IIIId latest ~ted ranps belweeq intl:l"Cepts "th !be
data. Upte!' shadinC Indlcale:sIII i WI callbratiOll CU ...... for earliest
that it was probably widely known to Archaic societies. A closer look at specific
FIg. 5. Chronological ran s of axmu~cahoralcd 95"" oon6dence Interval. tempering technologies, vessel forms, and decorations reveals a wide variety of
ge ceramic compleltes cited in the text. vessel-making strategies. In Brazil and Ecuador, sand-tempered pottery appears
first (followed by shell-tempered pottery in Brazil). Fiber-tempered wares pre-
cede sand tempering in Colombia, but the two appear to be roughly contem-
 42
H~"" Earliest Ceramic Complexes in the New World 43

poraneous within circumscribed regions of the southeastern United States As highly complex social landscape of earlier, preceramic societies. The function
earl~ as 3500 B.C., Colombian potters showed a strong preference for modeled of early pottery in its multiple contexts in the New World varied as widely as
unsh~, open bowls decorated with wide grooving and applique, while their the plasticity of the medium and the range of human creativity. It is apparent
EcuadoR.an COU?terparts .were shaping coil-made, necked jars and vessels dec- that broad, diffusionary models such as Ford's are inadequate for explaining
orated with a thick red slip and fine incision. This divergent trend continues for either the mechanisms responsible for the appearance or the significance of early
ove~ ~ th~usand years, with significant differences between the neck] bo 1 pottery for the societies that used it. Further research on the detailed reconstruc-
tradition In rth
throughoutth:;'al:~ia s~
in technology f
o;:n:.
C 1 bi

d dq
ess
~d a well-develo~ necked-jar tra~it!on
. Y 2000 B.C., there IS tremendous vananon
w
tion of specific, regional histories is required if we are to understand the effects
of new technologies-such as ceramics-within their specific cultural contexts.
, crm, an ecoranon ranging from ki h ped
with brilliant red Ii . ' pump n-s a tecomates
appliqueon the ce~: ~:a~~~~ Chi:a.~o elongat~, neckless jars with fillet
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
nor the subsequent developm ~~. .CI e~the earliest forms and technologies
sionary trends T th en traJe~tones are suggestive of broad, diffu- This paper had its genesis in a graduate seminar with Gordon R. Willey,
. 0 e contrary the earliest ce . . th
acrerized by a hl·ghly . ' alized ranucs
regIOn l=u di . . In e Americas are char- to whom I would like to express my appreciation for his interest in the topic
manufacturing techniques from their l I~erslty In form, decoration, and and encouragement of my research. I would also like to thank Izumi Shimada
. etr tnceptrcn.
In SPiteof the apparent chronolo i al r and Rosemary Joyce, who helped guide my investigation of early pottery and
Variabilitysuggests that independe t i g c . c me, the great range of regional the pursuit of detailed chronological information. I am especially grateful to my
tion and development of ce . nthamventlO~ played a greater role in the adop- wife Lauren for her support throughout this project. I would also like to thank
ranucs n the widesp d diffu .
and styles suggested by authors such as Fo rea I sion of technologies John Clark, Richard Cooke, Jonathan Damp, Betty J. Meggers, Augusto Oyuela
The current status of archaeological' c rd, .Meggers and Evans, and Lathrap. C., Anthony J. Ranere, J. Scott Raymond, PaulaJ. Reimer, Anna C. Roosevelt,
how many different loci of . mrormation makes it diffi 1
I CUt to document Payson D. Sheets, John Staller, and several anonymous reviewers for their
ceranuc development . ed
we can recognizeat least ei ht stron . existed. However, for now, comments and assistance with various aspects of the manuscript. Finally, I
em Colombia. (3) coastal ~uador g candidates: (1) lowland Brazil, (2) north- would like to thank Angela Close for her help with the paper's final preparation.
Panama, (6) southern Mesomerica ' j4) the central coast of Peru, (5) central I assume complete responsibility for the opinions expressed and any errors in
the central United States. The broa'd(/ th~ sou~eastern United States, and (8) the text.
early pottery in the New World 000 year time span for the appearance of
in th I' ,as we I as1the range f .
e ear lest complexes throu h th 0 ceramic styles apparent
me d gout e America' b REFERENCES
n ous complexity of the Early Fo . S, IS em lematic of the tre-
accentuated WhenVariablessuch as sett1~t1ve .Iandscape. This complexity is Allen, W. L. (1968). A Ceramic Sequence for the Alto Pachitea, Peni, Unpublished Ph.D. disser-
for specific ecological zones and s b . ment SIZeand permanence, preference tation, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois. Champaign-Urbana.
(H ' U slstence strate . Andrews V, E. W.• and Hammond, N. (1990). Redefinition of the Swasey phase at Cuello, Belize.
copes. 1992). In Brazil Colo bi gies are taken into account American Alltiquiry 55(3): 570-584.
States th· ,m ra, Panama d th
. ' e earl.lestpottery was manut ,an e southeastern United Bischof, H. (1966). Canapote-An early ceramic site in northern Colombia. Preliminary report. In
WlthO~tany evidence of a strong reli aetured by ~easonally mobile foragers, Proceedings of the 36th Iraemationai Congress of Americanists, I, Seville, pp. 484-491.
Bischof, H. (1972). The origins of pottery in South America-Recent radiocarbon dates from south-
Geo~la, and Florida, ceramics were ::~e on horticulture. In South Carolina, west EcUlldor. Proceedings of the 40th International Congress of Americanists I, Rome. pp.
~nma before agricultural SOCietiesPeed n~ manufactUred for at least two mil- 269-281.
~~' monumental public architecture aO~I~a~ed ..On the other hand, in coastal Bischof, H., and Viteri G. J., (1972). Pre-Valdivia occupations on the southwest coast of Ecuador.
are ceramics were ever utilized n Imgalion agriculture were common American Antiquity 37(4): 548-551.
Blake, M. (1991). An emerging Early Formative chiefdom at Paso de la Amada. Chiapas, Mexico.
Rath tha .
er n emerging dendriticall . In Fowler, W. R. (ed.), The Formation of Complex Societ)' in Southeastern Mesoamerica,
~Ultu~ SUbstratelinked to paIticUlarYand. dIffusing outward with a unifonn CRe Press. Boca Raton, FL, pp. 27-46.
enu~licProduction in the New W Id subSistence and settlement strategies Blake. M., Clark, J. E., Chisholm, B.• and Mudar, K. (1992). Non-agricultural staples and agri-
1OCatlonsove' or emerged in a' . ' culntml supplements: Early Formative subsistence in the Soconusco region, Mexico. In Gebauer,
c t r a penod of at least 4000 y vanety of Situations and A. B.• and Price, T. D. (eds.), Transitions to Agriculture in Prehistory. Prehistory Press.
on exts for the emergence of ceram' ears. The enormous variation of social Madison, WI. pp. 133-151.
IC Production is readily apparent in the
Blakeslee. D. J., and Rohn, A. H. (1982). Man ond Environmellt in Northeastern Kansas: The
 44 45
"00,", Earliest Ceramic Complexes in the New World

Hillside Lake Project Vol 3 Draft . Crusoe, D. L. (1972). Interaction Networks and New World Fiber-Tempered Pottery, Ph.D. dis-
Kansas City District. ' " report submitted to the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers,
sertation, Department of Anthropology. University of Georgia, Athens.
Browrnan, D. L. (1980). Tiwanaku expansion d aI . I Damp, J. (l984a). Architecture of the Early Valdivia village. AmericlJ1lAntiquity 49: 573-585.
Jogicos 5: 107-120. lin up ano economic patterns. Estudios Arqueo-
Damp, J. (1984b). Environment variation, agriculture, and settlement processes in coastal Ecuador
Brush, C. F. (I96S).Pox pottery' Earliest iden if .
Bullen, R. P. (1961). The earli~t tt . t ed Mexican ceramic. Science 149: 194-195. (3300-1500 B.C.). Current Anthropology 25: 106-111.
case as an independent .
.
pc ery In southeastern United Stales 2000-1000 B C and its
•.....}"<llU<'1l inVentIOn, 6th lnternati ie' . .
Damp, J. (1988). Casa y Comunidad: Patrones Economicos. Arquitect6nicos e ldeol6gicos de Real
wg/cal ScieflCtS,Paris. ana angress of Anthropological and Ethno- Alto, Valdivfa Temprano, Corporacion Editorial Nacional, Quito.
Damp, J., and Vargas, P, (1990). Altomayo and Real Alto: The early ceramics of coastal Ecuador,
Bullen, R. P. (1961) Radiocarbon da
27: 104-106. . les for southeastern fiber-tempered pottery, American Antiquity Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Kansas, Lawrence.
Deevey, E. S., Gralenski, L. J., and Hoffren, V. (1959). Yale natural radiocarbon measurements,
Bullen, R P., and Stoltman, J. (eds.) (1972). Fiber-tern .
Sta~s and northern Colombia: Its origi pe~ pottery In the southeastern United IV. Radiocarbon Supplement, I, New Haven, CT.
SOCIetyPublications 6, part 2 The FJ ~ context, and ~lgnlficance. Florida Anthropological Estrada, E., Meggers, B. J., and Evans, C. (1962). Possible transpacific contact on the coast of
Burger, ~. L. (1985). Prehistoric' stylistico chan Amhropologm, Fon Lauderdale, Ecuador. Science 135: 371-372.
NatuJnalGeographic&search 1: 505-534 ge and cultural deVelopment at Huancoro. Peru. Fiedel, S. J, (1992). Prehistory of the Americas (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, New York.
Burger, R. L. (1991). The be inni of c .. . Ford, J. A. (1936). Analysis of Indian Village Site Collections from Louisiana and Mississippi,
B flOl6gica5: 259-266. g ng eranuc use m Peru as viewed from Huaricoto. Paleoet- Anthropological Study No.2, Department of Conservation, Louisiana Geological Survey.
urger, R. L. (1992). Chavfll and the 0 .. Ford, J. A. (1966). Early Formative cultures in Georgia and Florida, American Antiquity 31: 781-
C YOlk. ngms of Andean CiviliwtiOll' Thames
..... ~ and
,tu H U d son, N ew 799.
Ford, J. A. (1969). A comparison of Formative cultures in the Americas: Diffusion or the psychic
almes, A. (l968). Test excavations at three late . .
Ceo Beaufort County, South Carolina, Southeasle~hlllC shell-n.ng mounds on Hilton Head Island, unity of man? Smithsonian Contributions 10 Anthropology 11, Washington, DC.
Ja T., J. F. (1985). Paso de la Amada: An Ea Archaeolo~/(:al COllferenceBulletillS: 45-48. Foster, D. W., and Lathrap, D. W. (1973). Further evidence for a well-developed tropical forest
culture on the north coast of Colombia during the first and second millennium B.c. Journal
Chil~~rs of the New WorldArdweologi~al Fou~trec~asslc .site in the Soconuscc, Chiapas.

Clan, i. E.~i~~,2~~~f:;":: ;e=isto~. Mi~~~se~: :~I~:, ~~:~i~=~ity, Provo.

of the Steward Anthropological Society 4: 160-199.
Fung P., R. (988). The Late Preceramic and Initial Period. In Keatinge. R. W. (00.), Peruvian
Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 67-96.
~R~o:~ W. R. (00.), The FOl7>Klli:;;~~;ot::;rt~eSoconuscoEarlY Formative.
Clan J E ' Boca Raton, FL, pp. 13-26. ty III Southeastern Mesoamerica, Gayton, A. E. (1967). Textiles from Hacha, Peru. Nawpa Pacha 5: 1-14.
, . "and Blake, M. (1991) The Green, D., and Lowe, G. W. (1967), Altamira and Padre Piedra, Early Preclassic Sites in Chiapas,
gc:~~~ ~k societies in lowla'nd M=:;:n~~~I'hB'ge:mfiCOmpetitive
v··.,...llIlOll and Pol't' 1 ....-
generosity and the emer-
.......n Hiru rld el ' E., an d Fox, J. (eds.), FacliOlUJI
Mellico. Papers of the New World Archaeological FouruUllion, 20, Provo.
Grieder, T. (1975). A dated sequence of building and JXltlery at Las Haldas. Nawpa Paclw 13: 99-
Press llca L'f:velopment in the Ne
Clark J.E BI.I.- W 0 , New York, Cambridge University 112.
Grieder, T., Mendoza, A. B., Smith, C. E., Jr., and Malina, R. M. (988). La Galgada, Peru: A
M Oozy P Cu
,
Nacional de
.,
A"<lAC
,'" evas, M"andSalcOOo
file, New W ntropologla e .Historia of the Earl Precl '.
T (19 .
87~, Fmal report to the lnstituto Preceramic Culture ill Transition, Austin, University of Texas Press.
Clart J E and°~ A~haeologlcal Foundalion Bri\ ';SSIC Pacllic Coastal Project. Ms. on Grossman, J. W. (1985). Demographic change and economic transformation
highlands of Pre-Huari Peru. Nawpa Paclw 21: 45-126,
in the south central
the '58tl: Annual :;r, ~. (993). Re~nVentin;Me~~:eri:~: University, Provo.
Haberland, W. (1966). Early phases on Omelepe Island, Nicaragua. Proceedings of Ihe 36th Inter-
Cue, M. D. (1961) A ~tlD~ o~ the Society for American A~~;SIpoUery. Paper presented at
temala A .' ~ aeo oglcallinkages with North and ogy, SI. Louis. national Congress of AmeriClJ1lisls1: 399-403. Seville.
Haberland, W. (1992). The culture of Ometepe Island: Preliminary sketch (survey and ellcavations,
Cue, M. D: (:~ca) ~ ~l~ro,,?logist 62: 363-393. South America at La Victoria, Gua-
P ...... VIClona an earl . 1962-1963), In Lange, F. W., Sheets, P. D., Mal1fnez, A., and Abel-Vidor, S. (eds.), The
eabody MuselUnof Archa 'I Y sIte on the Pacific Coast f G Arclweology of Pacific Nicarogua, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 63~
Cooke, R. G. (1984) A ha e0.ogy and Ethnology, 53 Harvard o. u~lemala. Papers of the
problems. In ~g ~ F eologlcal resea~h in central 'and Ie UDlversuy, Cambridge, MA. 118.
America. Universi e, . W., and Stone, D. Z. (eds) eas m Panama: A review of some Hammond, N., Pring, D., Wilk, R., Donaghey, S., Soul, F., Wing, E., Miller, A., and Feldman,
L (1979). The earliest lowland Maya? Definition of the Swasey Phase. American Antiquity
COOke, R. G., and Ra: of:ew Mellico Press, Albuqueni~ The ~rChaeology of Lower Central
OfPanama(12,000-~' .J.(I99.2a).Theoriginofwealth~~ 6.3-304 .. 44(1): 92-110.
Hansell, P., and Adams, J. (1980). The application of sedimenl analysis to cultural deposits. Paper
WIth observations on Its !"eleva:chlerarchY.1D the central region
of Chibchan-speakjn '~i~P)"
Hierarchy in the 1m g POd.lies In Panama and elsewhere I
ington, OC, pp. 24;~:6Iale Area, Dumbanon Oaks R~:~h
r.a:
to the hIStory and phylogeny
Lf?~' F. W. (ed.), Wealth and
presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Society for American A~haeology, Philadelphia.
Hedges, R. E. M" Timie, c., and Housley, R. A. (1992). Results and methods in the radiocarbon
COOke, R. G" and Ranere A I rary and Collection, Wash- dating of JXltlery. Radiocarbon 34: 906-915.
forests of Panama Wo;/d' J. (1mb). Prehistoric human ada . Hill, B. (1975). A new chronology of the Valdivia ceramic compleJl> from the coastal lOne of
COll3l~s U., F. (985).' Pros A;chaeology 24: 114-113. j)tatJons to the seasonally dry Guayas Province, Ecuador. Nawpa Pacha 10-12: 1-39.
Dlquis, Costa R' pecc on Y excavaciones est . . Hoopes, J. W. (1985). EI complejo Tronadora: cenimica del perfodo Forrnativo Media en la Cuenca
Corrales U., F. 098~c)a .• ~(nculos ~I: 1-5. ratJgraficas en el Sitio Cul'Tl! (P-62-Cc!) Valle de Arenal, Guanacaste, Costa Rica. V[lIculos 11: 111-118.
O· I ...... Ocup8Clon A . Hoopes, J. W. (1987). Early Ceramics and the Origins of Village Ufe in Lower Central America,
Iqu s. Thesis presented gncola Tempnma del S' .
Rica, San Pedro, Costa
verslliad de C....,~ R'
Rf
or the degree of Licenciado in l~~
Arqueologico .Cum, Valle del
ca. Ms. on file, DepartalD',~ ._ A~ ropology, Umversity of Costa
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, University Microfilms

......... lea, ..nov "" Ant"""'l I . International, Ann Arbor, MI.

. - ......og a Y SOClologfa, Uni- Hoopes, J. W. (1992). Early Formative cultures in the intennediate area: A background to the
 iq

.. Hoop" Earliest Ceramic Comple~es In tbe New World

47
.

. Me ers EVlllls,andEslrada's(1965)Irl\llSOCellllIC
emergence of social complexity, In Lange, F. W. (ed.j, Wealth WId Hierarchy in the lmer- rth Pacific: Some nautical probl~~ With . gg -371.
mediate Area Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 43-84. . . No tact hypothesis. American AntiqUIty 43(4). K36~ (1970). The Prehistory of the Tehuacan
Izumi, S., andTe~, K. (1m). Andes 4. &camtionsat Kotosh, Peru, 1963 and 1966, University con F A and Flannery, .' .
MacNeish, R. S" Peterson, . : . f Texas Press, Austin. . In Flannery,
of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.
Johnson, F., and MacNeish, R. S. (1m). Chronometric Dating. In J~hnS?n, F. (ed.)
1h P h" ton.'
e re IS .. J
Valley, Vol. 3: Ceramic~, ymversl7 ~oand the origins orue
Oaxacan ~onnauftl~. Zapotec and
Marcus, J. (1983). The Espiridion comp e Cloud People: Divergent EvoJunon
o/w Teluuuan VaUey, Vol. 4: Chrcmolvgy and Irrigation, University of Texas Press, Austin, K V and Marcus J. (eds.), The rk 42--43 .
~~. .. .
Kaulicke, P. (1981). Kernmik der frohen Initialpenode aus Pandanche, Dpto.
C·~.
ejamatca.
MixJe~ Civiliwlions: Academi~ Pre.ss, ~~ ~:ld~':Penl: A~hitecture chronology. Amencon
Matsuzawa, T. (1978). The Formative site 0 . cultural disttibution
lkitmge zur allgemrim!1I und vergfeicJrenden Archaolagie 3: 363~389. .
Antiquity 43: 652-673.. . f the biological model of diversiflcallon to
Kelly, I. (1980). Ceramic Sequence in Colima: CapaduJ, An Early Phase, Anthropological Papers
of the University of Arizona, No. 37, Tucson. Meggers, B. J. (1975). Apphcauon 0 Biorropica 7: 141~161. ". U revaluaei6n. Boletill
in Iropicallowland South Amenca. . de la cerirnica Valdivia: na
Lanning, E. P. (1967). Peru Be/ore the Incas, Prentice Hall, Eng.lewood Cli~s.
~, D. W. (1962). Yarinacodta: Stratigraphic ExCOWllions In the PeruVIan Momofla, Ph.D. Meggen., B. 1. (1987). EI orige~ tran~:~~:: 1: 9-3\. tact? NEARA Jouma/17:
del MlUeo Chileno de Ane re~o. . Hannes: Convergence or con .
dissertation, Harvard University. Cambridge, MA. .
Meggers, B. J. (1992). Jomon-Yaldivia SlllU Earl Pormative complex on
Lathrap, D. W, (1963). Possible affiliations ofttle Machalilla Complex of coastal Ecuador. AmeTlcan
Antiqllity 29: 239-241. 23-22. 962 The Machalilla culture: An Y
Lathrap, D. W. (1966). Relationships between Mesoamerica and the Andean areas. In Ekholm,. G. Meggers, B. J., and Evans, C. ~I
the Ecuadorian coast. American
l'
(quily 28: 186--192. . 3000 B C Scient(fic American
n IA transpacific contaci In . .
F., and Willey, G. R. (eds.), Handbook of Mi4dle American Indians, Vol. 4. Arc/uJeologlcal
Meggers, B. J., and Evans, C. (1966). . Ih Antilles. In Jennings, J.
FrtJlltier$ rmd EneI'M! C01ll1eetitms, University of Teus Press, Austin, pp. 265-276.
Lathrap, D. W. (1970). "The Upper Amazon, Thames and Hudson, London. 214: 28-35. wland South Amenca and. e 543-592.
Lathrap, D. W. (1971). The tropical forest and the conte:\t of Chavfn. Io Benson, E. P. (ed.),
7
Meggers, B. J., and Evans, C. (19 8). La H Freeman, San F~CISCO, .pp. of coastal Ecuador:
D. (ell.), Mciem Native AmeTlcans, W. 1965). Early Fonnallve penod logy 1, Smithson-
Dumbanon Oaks Conference on Chavin, Dumbanon Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 73-100. Meggers, B. J., Evans, C., and ESlrada, E"t~sonian Contributions to Anthropo
Lathrap, D. W. (1973). The antiquity and imPOrtance of long distance !lade relationships in the
The Valdivia and Ma.chalil1a phases. Sml . " n el Valle de lima. 11I
moiSl tropics of Pre-Columbian South America. World Archaeology 5: 170-186. .
Lathrap, D. W. (1977). Our father the cayman, our mother the gourd: Spinden revisiled or a UOItal)' ian Institution, Washmgton,
Mejia Xesspe T (1978). Importanclll
OC:. h' !6rica de la "Huaca Flonda
pre IS,
e
Andino (firM 1977), Acta.!' Y
rrabajos 1: 493-
model for the emergence of agriculture in the New World. In Reed, C. A. (ed.), Origins of
Agriculture, MOIlIon, The Hague, pp. 713-752. Congreso "E'''mb,yiaCutura
Penwrw nO r . Area: Archaeo Igy
0
Lathrap, D. W. (1982). Complex iconographic features sl1luro by Olmec and Chavfn and some 520. .. tion spheres in the Intennedia~ Advances in Andean
Myers, T. P. (1978). Formati~e Penod Illt~ra~rica.ln Browman, D. L. (ell. , .
Specuillions on their possible reialionship. In Marcos, 1. G. and P. Nonon (eds.), Primer
of Central America and adjacent South 203-234. . ns in the Rio Na~JOI
Simposio de CorreUuiones MthropolOgicw Andino-Mesoamericano, Escuela Politecnica del
Utoral, SaliIl&li, Ecuador, pp. 301-328. Archaeology, Mouton, The H~gue, pp. and burial mound excavatlo nlhropological Socltry
Non l (l986) Arehaeological site survey J I of the Steward A
Lathrap, D. W. (1987). The introduclion of maize in Prehistoric North America: The view from ". I Cordillera. ouma la
Bijagua Valley of the Guanacas e de fibra vegetal. en
Amazonia and the Santa Elena Peninsula. In Keegan, W. F. (ell.), Emergent Honicultural
ECOllQmies of Ihe &stem Woodlands, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional 14: 1-2. . os con ceramica desgrasante 010 [a, Fumlacujn de
Paper 7, Southern Illinois University, Carbonda1e, pp. 345-371. Oyuela C., A. (1987). Dos silios arqu~l~gl~ Bolivar). Boletin de Arque g

Lalhrap, D. W., Collier, D., and Chandra, H. (1975). Mcient ECuador: Culture, Clay, and Crea- serranfa de San Jacinto (Departam~en 0, '(I): 5-26. Id Pa...... presented at the
I
tivity, 3000-300 B. c.,Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. IIVtstig(Uiones Arqueo IOgicas NaClOna Ies eramics in Ib e New Wor. Vegas'-'
Oyuela C., A. (1990). New evidence. of ear ~~rican Archaeolo~, Las r re~nted lltthe SiJ.~
Lathrap, D. W., Marcos, J., and Zeidler, J. (1977). Real Alto: An ancient ceremonial center.
A~ology 30(1): 2-13. 55th Annual Meeting of the SocIety for Shell midden formation. ~ ~ Smithsonian lostl-
Oyuela C., A., and Rodriguez R., C. (1990~ional Council for ArchaeoZ(lO 0 ,
Lathrap, D, W., Mareos, J., and Zeidler, J. (1986). Real Alto: Un centro ceremonial agro alfarero
International Conference of the Intema Donnan, C. (00.), ~riy
lemprana (Valdivia). In Marcos, J. (ell.), Arqueologia de la Costa Ecuatoriana: Nuevos
liIifoqu~s, Vol. I, Escuela Polil6cnica del Litoral, Centro de Estudios Arqueol6gicos y Anlro-
tution, Washington, DC.
Patterson, T. (1985). The Hu~ca La ~~
I 'd Rimac Valley, Pell.l·
aDumbarton Oaks Researe
1\
library and CollOCtlon,
the
polOgicos, GuayaqUil, Ecuador, pp. 51-84.
Ceremonial Architecture In the A , Earl Ceramic cullUreS of
Lalhrap, D. W., and Rays, l. (1963). The arehaeology of the Cave of Ihe Owls in the upper
montaila of Peru. Americ/Ut Antiqlliry 19: 27-38. Washington, DC, pp. 59-69. 968) Late Preceramic and Y . roon
Law, I. A .. Housley, R. A., Hammond, N., and Hedges, R. E. M. (1991). Cuello: Resolving the
Patterson, T., and Moseley: M. E. (ka ,.
'115-133.' a1ibration of the radloca
central coast of Pem. Nawpa Pac 3 'H' b.precision bidecadal c . ,'"
33: 303-315.through direct dating of conserved and low-eollagen bone by AMS. Radiocarbon
chroOOlogy ~.- G W
<<<lflIOn, .
_ .. S . r M (199).
., allU tolve, . .
Ig
rbon 35' 25-33. f fiber-tempe
red ov'dtNy \n In.-
t"-.- The
lime scale, 500-2500 B.C. RndIOCt! se . and technology o. mericans, Mouton,
Legros. T., Rodriguez, c., and Pauly, C. (1988). Arqucologfa del Formativo Temprano en las Peterson D A (1980) The introductIon, u, (ed) Early Na/lve A
. .lIllllufBSde~Carfbe Colombiano. Museo del Oro, SoleUn 16(1): 131-132, Bogota. souiliea~e~ United States. In Browmall, D. . , de San Marcos, sucre,'
liPPI, R. D.,. Bll~, R. McK., and Stemper, D. M. (19M). Maize recovered at La Ponga, an early
Ecuadorian site. AmeriC411 Mliquity 49: 118-124. .. .. gue, pp. 362-37 2 .
u. nhnica arcaica en las slibanas
. Nacionales l"')'
\"': 16--2n-.
Plazas, C., and Falchetti, A. M. (1~86)d;;nvestigaciones 1~que~ramiciCeramic penod tra
lowe, G. W. (1975). The Early Preclassic Bam phase of Altantira, Chiapas: A review with new
dala. P~rs of t~ New World Archaeological Foundalioll, 38, Provo. UT.
Bolelin de Arqueolog[a, Fundacujn R amining the cntl~ 91' 481.-491. tral
Pozorski, S., and Pazorski, T. (l990). ~ex rieon AnthropologIst 'the Pacific coast of cen
McEwllll, G. F., and Dickson, D. B. (1978). Valdivia, 10mon fishermen, and the nature of the sition: New data from coaslai PeN. ~e bsistence panems along
Ranere, A. J., and Hansell, P. (1978). Ear Y su
 '4

.. Heopes Earliest Ceramk Complexes in the New World 49

Panama. In Starlc, B. L" and Voorhies, B. (008.), Prehistoric Coastal Adnprarions: The Econ- Spinden, H. J. (1917). The origin and distribution of agriculture in America. Proceedings of the
amy of Maritime Middle America, Academic Press, New York, pp. 43-59. 19th lruemational Congress of Americanists, Washington, DC, pp. 269-276.
Raymond, J. S., Oyuela, C. A., and Carmichael, P. (1991). A comparison of the earliest ceramic Stahl, P. (1984). Tropical Forest Cosmology: The Cultural Context of the Early Valdivia Occu-
technologies of Ecuador and Colombia. Paper presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the pations at Loma Alta, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of lllinois,
Society for American Archaeology. New Orleans. University Microlilms International, Ann Arbor.
Reeder, R. (1978). The Sohn site, 23JAIlO, Jackson County, Missouri. Report submitted to the Stoltman, J. B. (1966). New radiocarbon dates for Southeastern fiber-tempered pottery. American
· Missouri Stale Highway Commission, Jefferson City. Antiquity 31: 872-874.
Reichel-Dclmatcg, G. (19650). Colombia, Praeger, New York. Strong. W. D., and Evans. C. (1952). Cultural stratigraphy in tile Vim Valley, northern Peru: The
Reichel-Dolmatoff: G. ,(l965b). Excavaciones arqueol6gicas en Puerto Honniga, Departamiento de Formative and Florescent epochs. Columbia University Studies in Archaeology and Ethnology
· Bolfvar. PublicaClOlleS de /a Universidad de Los Aruks, Antropologfa, 2, Bogolti. 4,
Reichel-Dclmetoff G. (1985). Mons": VII siuo arqueo16gico. Fonda de Promocroe de Ia Culmra Stuiver, M., and Pearson, G. W. (1993). High-precision bidecadal calibration of the radiocarbon
del Banco Popular, Bogofii. time scale, A.D. 1950-500 B.C. and 2500--6000 B.C. Radiocarbon 35: 1-23.
Reid,~. C. (1980). Nebo Hill, Archtlic Political EcOlWtrlyill the Riverine Midwest, Ph.D. disser- Stuiver, M., and Reimer, P. (1993). Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age
· tenon, Dept. of Anthropology, Univ.ersity of Kansas, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. calibration program. Radiocarbon 35: 215-230.
Reid, K. C. (1984). Fife and Ice: New evidence for the production and preservation of Late Archaic Tellenbach, M. (1981). Vobericht uber die erste Kampagne der Ausgrabung bei Montegrande im
. fiber-tempered pottery in the middle-latitude lowlands. Americall Amiquiry 49(1): 55-76. Jequetepeque-Tal, Nordperu. Beilrage zur Allegemeinen und Vergleichenden Archaologie 3:
Rlddcl~}., and Valdez, L. (1988). Hecha Y la ocupacfon temprana de Acari. Guceta Arqueol6gica 415--435.
A,wllla 16: 6-10. Terada, K. (1979). Excavations at La Pampa ill the North Highlands of Peru, 1975, University of
Rodriguez. R., C. (1988). Las tradiciones alfareras ternpranes en las lIanuras del Canbe Co- Tokyo Press, Tokyo.
lomaiano ., Bolet(1Ide Arqueologia, FuruJaciollde Illvestigaciones Arqueol6gicas del BaIlCOde Terada, K., and Onuki, Y. (1982). Excavations at Huacaloma ill the Cajamarca Valley, Peru,
fa Republica 3(2): 26-40, Bogota. 1979, University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.
Terada, K., and Onuki, Y. (1988). Las Excavaciones en Cerro Blanco y Huacaioma, Cajamarca,
Rod~ J:~~~~~990(C~~~I~~Chai con ceramrce tempranas en 10.llanura de desborde del Bajo
Peru, 1985, Univen;ity of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.
'0' A ' A h I Ique). Paper presented at the 5Sth Annual Meeting of the SociefV
I' mencan rc aeo ogy, Las Vegas. 'J Trinkley, M. B. (19W). A typology of Thom's Creek pottery for the South Carolina coast. South
R_Ei~elt:LA .. C,," ~ouseley, R. A., lmazio da Silveira, M., Maranca, S., and Johnson R (1991), Carolilla Allliquities 12: 1-35.
ghUJ AU ellJllum pottery from h' . h ' , Trinkley, M. B. (1986). llldiall and Freedmen Occupatioll at the Fish Haul Sire (38BU805), Beaufon
254: 1621-1624. a pre Istonc s ell midden in the BlUilian Amazon. Science County, South Carolina, Research Series 7, Chicora Foundation, Columbia, sc.
Rowe, 1. H. (l967). An inleiprelalion 0f md' rbo Vaillant, G. C. (1934). The archaeological selling of the Playa de los Muertos culture. Maya
Peru. In Rowe J H and Menz 1 D lOCO. n me~urements or archaeological samples from Research 1(2): 87-100.
Palo Alto, CA', ~p.·i6-30. e,. (cds.), Penwum Archneology: Selected Readings, Peek, Verrill, A. H. (1918). Prehistoric mounds and relics of the northwest district of British Guiana.
Russo, M.: Purdy. B. A:, Newson, L. A., and McBee, R. M. 1992 Timehri5: 11-17.
ArclllllC adaptatIOns m central-east Florida' Grove's Oran
11: 95-108. .
M( .~~f A reinterpretation of Late
ge I"""n. SoutheastemArchaeology
Villalba 0., M. (1988). Cotocollao: Una aldea Fonnativa del Valle de Quito. Miscelanea Anlro-
pol6gica EcuatoriaNJ, Serie MOllografica 2, Museos del Banco Central del Ecuador, Quito.
Sassaman, K. E. {l993). Early Pottery in the South . .. Willey, G. R. (1971). An IlItrodu,ctiollto American Archtleology, Vol. ll. South America, Prentice
TechllQIogy,Univen;ity of Alabama Pre T east. TraditlOIland lruwvatioll ill Cooking Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs.
S C 0 ss. uscaloosa Willey, G. R, and McGilll5ey. C. R. (1954). The Monagrillo culture of Panama. Peabody Museum
auer, . . (1952). Agricultural Ori' and D' . .
York. gins ISpersals, A~ncan Geographical Society, New Papers, 54, Cambridge, MA.
Schmits, L: J. (1978), The Coffey site: Environment . Willey, G. R, and Phillips, P. (1958). Method and Theory ill American Archaeology, Univen;ity
ArchaiC site. Midco/llilllmtalJounml of A htl wand cultural adaplalton at a Prairie-Plains of Chicago Press, Chicago.
SchmilS,L.J.,andC.A.Wright (1981 The rc eo gy3:~-185. Williams, D. (1981). Excavation of the Barabina shell mound North West District: An interim
little Blue Prehistory' Arcfu,eolog~' I I Tu~er-~asey site (23JA35). In Schmits, L. J. (ed.), report. Archaeology and Anthropology 4: 13-38.
Jackson County, Miss~Uri Draft re~~ s ;Ve~~altollS at Blue Sprillgs and Lollgview Lakes, Wippem, A. M. (1987). Debate sobre Monsu. Belet(1ICultural y Bibliogrdfico, Banco de la Repub-
City District. . u In! to the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, Kansas lica 24(12): 84-87. Bogota.
Witty, T. A., Jr. (1982). The Slough Creek, Two Dog and William Young sites, Council Grove
Seals, W. H. (1977). Seaborne contacts bet
Slates and middle through South A . ween early cultures in the lower southeastern United Lake, Kansas. Kansas State Historical Society Allthropological $erie.! 10.
b' H':'J menca. In Benson E P (ed) 7h ' Yamasaki, F., Hamada, 1., and Fujiyama, C. (1966). Riken natuml radiocarbon measurements II.
· Ian Qrw, Dumharton Oaks Research L"b ,. '. " e Sea III the Pre-Colum-
Skibo, J. M., Schiffer M B ••• R 'd K I rary and CollectIons, Washin"'on DC Radiocarboll 8: 324-339.
. ' . ., "'''' el, . C. (1989) n.... • 0·"
. study. Amencan Alltiquiry 54(1): 122-146 ......'l;anIC·lempered pollery: An experimental
Suuoes, M. F. (1981). Coletores- '.
Hminar. Bole/i'" dn Museu Pa~
SnafSk!s, M. J. (1978). The Archtle%
.;:e~~
0 IIU 10
do litoral do Salgado (Para): Nota Pre-
/dl, Noya Serie 78: 1-31.
dissertation, Columbia University ~ 1 the. Cell/~l Atlamic Watershed af Costa Rica Ph D
Snarskis, M. J. (1984). Cen'-J A .' .nThlvel'lntyMIcrofilms International, Ann Arbor M'I ' ,
Z (ed .. '" menca e lower Ca 'bbean ' .
. s.),"The Archaeology af w~r Ce n.. In Lange, F. W., and Stone, D.
Albuquerque, pp. 195-232. mral Amenca, University of New Mexico Press.