A Comparison of Formative. Ford. Low Resolution

7/24/2019 A Comparison of Formative. Ford. Low Resolution

1/282


2/282


3/282


4/282


5/282


6/282


7/282

A Comparison of Formative

Cultures in the Americas

DIFFUSION OR THE PSYCHIC UNITY OF MAN

James A. Ford

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION PRESS

City of Washington

1969


8/282

A Publication of the

S M I T H S O N I A N I N S T I T U T I O N

United States National Museum

LIB R A R Y O F C O N G R ESS 69 -60004

U N I T E D S T AT E S G O V E R N M E N T P RI N T I N G O F F I CE , W A S H I N G T O N , 1969

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Govemment Printing Office

Wash ington, D.C. 20402 - Price $7.75


9/282

Collaborators

Ripley P . Bul len , F lor ida S ta te Museum, Gainesvi l l e , F lor ida

Michael D. Coe, Yale Univers i ty , New Haven, Connect icu t

Cl i f ford Evans , Smi thsonian Ins t i tu t ion , Washington , D.C.

Ga reth Lov^^e, New Wo rld Archaeological Found at ion , T uxt ia Gut ier rez , Chiap as ,

Mexico

Richard S . MacNeish , Rober t S . Peabody Foundat ion , Phi l l ips Academy, Andover ,

Massachuset t s

Ramiro Matos M. , Univers idad Nacional del Cent ro del Peru , Huancayo, Peru

Bet ty J . Meggers , Sm i thsonian Ins t i tu t ion , W ashington , D .C.

Ge rard o Reichel-DolmatofT, U nivers idad de Los Andes , Bogota, Colomb ia

Wdl iam Sears , F lor ida At lant ic Univers i ty , Boca Raton , F lor ida

Paul Tolstoy, Queens College of the City of New York, New York


10/282


11/282

Preface

I hav e ha d an in teres t in the Am erican Form at ive cul ture for some years and h ave searched

for i t with l imited or no success in Colombia, Peru, Mexico, and the eastern United

States. However, I s tumbled into the present s tudy ent irely by accident . Meggers, Evans,

and Es t r ada ' s Early Formative Period of C oastal Ecuador was pub l is hed whde Ma t t hew

W allr ath , Alfonso Me dell in Z . , and I we re finishing the classification of several h un dr ed

thousand sherds from our excavat ions in Pre-Classic si tes on the coast of Veracruz, Mexico.

Wallrath was immediately impressed by the close resemblance of engraved wares from

the Machali l la Phase to those we were working with from the si te of Chalahuites. Upon

careful reading of this well-i l lustrated tome, a number of unexplained resemblances

between ceramics and o ther features of ear ly North , Cent ra l , and South A merican cul tures

began to crystal l ize into pat terns.

For six mo nth s after retu m ing to the Unite d States, I dut iful ly con tinue d to work o n

the repor t of the Mexican excavat ions . The problem of Format ive re la t ionships , however ,

occupied more and more of my at ten t ion , and by the spr ing of 1966 the Veracruz paper

had pract ical ly been shelved.

Co rresp ond enc e with other archeologists work ing on the For ma tive led to plans to

hold a week of discussion on this problem at th e Florida State M us eu m in Gainesv i l le.

A grant toward the expenses of t ravel was made by the Wenner-Gren Foundat ion for

An throp ologic al Resea rch of New York, an d the conference took place 17-22 Oc tob er

1966. Part icipants were the col laborators l is ted on p. v, with the exception of Gerardo

Reichel-Dolma toff, w ho was unab le to at ten d the session, bu t has act ively col lab orate d in

provid ing cr i t i c i sm and data . Those who came in the capaci ty of observers were James

B.

Grif fin, Univers i ty of Mic higa n; O t to Sch ondub e of the Museo de Arqueologia , Mexico

Ci ty ; Take shi U eno, U nivers ity of To kyo ; and Adelaide Bul len of the F lor ida S ta te

Museum. An agenda had been prepared in the form of prel iminary versions of most of

the charts included in this volume, and discussions of their shortcomings and implicat ions

were sp i r i t ed and lengthy .

The archeologists l is ted as col laborators have given generously of their t ime, informa

t ion, and opinions as this monograph developed. When each sect ion was completed in

tenta t ive form, i t was mimeographed and mai led to them for cr i t i c i sm and comment . In

most instances I have incorporated the changes suggested, for each consultant has a

unique knowledge of the prehistory of the regions where he has worked. St i l l , I cannot

say that al l col laborators are happy with the present form of this paper. A principal

disquiet arises from the fact that I have glossed over detaUs of chronological and areal

information in some cases where these are well known. For example. Sears points to the

fact tha t the east and w est coasts of the nor ther n p art of the Florid a Penin sula hav e dis

t inct chronologies . So have southern and cent ra l Veracruz. Coas ta l Ecuador should be


12/282

viii PREFACE

represen ted by a t l eas t f ive regional co lumns , and to a t t em pt to ref lect the com plex pr e

history of Peru in two columns is absurd. Then too, some perfect iy good chronologies

have been lef t off the char t s . An example i s the sequence in the Huas teca region of Mexico

develop ed by Ek holm (1944) and M acNe ish (1947) . This cr it i c ism is jus t ; I ad mi t to some

rather heavy-handed s impl i f i cat ion .

I t has become the admirable pat tern in archeological repor t s to segregate carefu l ly

and label the sect ions repor t ing factual data , compar i sons , conclus ions , and speculat ions .

This pat tern cannot be fo l lowed here , for the obvious reason that the ent i re paper con

sists of comparisons, conclusions, and speculat ions. The comparisons are frequentiy

i l lustrated by selected specimens, but I wish i t understood that these are merely samples.

The serious reader is advised to make extensive use of the field reports to which reference

is m ad e, and to jud ge for himself the degrees of rese mb lanc e. I do no t thin k th at very

often I have left myself open to the cri t icism of having chosen unique or divergent speci

mens for comparison in an at tempt to force conclusions.

M an y of the comp arisons would b e more effective if we had know ledg e of th e re lat ive

populari ty of the various features in al l areas. We do have this information for ceramics

in a number of chronologies , including the nor th coas t of Peru (Vi ru) , coas ta l Ecuador ,

Soconusco , Tehuacan, and the Lower Miss i ss ippi Val ley . Where avai lab le , th i s informa

t ion has been used.

The col laborators a l so are not to be accused of agreeing wi th a l l the impl icat ions

and conclus ions . MacNeish , for example , sugges t s that a long evolu t ionary development

of ceramics in nor thern South Ame rica wai t s to be d i scovered , of which the Pu er t o

Hormiga cul ture of Colombia may be a par t . Al ic ia and Gerardo Reichel -Dolmatoff a l so

suspect that this may be t rue.

In ad di t ion to the col laborators to whom m y debt i s obvious , I wish to a ckno wle dge

indebtedness to a number of o thers . F i rs t , to the F lor ida S ta te Museum and i t s Di rector ,

J . C . Dickinson, J r . , who has to lera ted my ra ther s ingle-minded preoccupat ion wi th th i s

problem. Also , I apprecia te the generous forebearance of the Nat ional Science Foundat ion

an d i ts P rog ram D irector for Anthrop ology, Ric har d L ieban . At the t ime of app ly ing for

Grant GS-1002, I fu l ly in tended to produce repor t s on excavat ions in Veracruz, Marks-

vi l le, and Poverty Point , Louisiana. Instead, the funds have been diverted into the

preparat ion of th i s paper .

For several years , Clarence Webb and I have been working on a repor t on addi t ional

specimens from the Poverty Point s i te in the Lower Mississippi Valley. I am great ly

indebted to Webb both for h i s pat ience a t the delay of the second Pover ty Poin t paper ,

and for permission to make advance use of some of the data.

S tephen Wi l l i ams of Peabody Museum, Harvard , made avai lab le the papers of

Antonio J . Waring on the archeology of the Georgia coas t in page proof, pe rm i t t i ng m e

to c i t e valuable data contained therein .

Ro be r t Heizer of the Univers i ty of Cal i forn ia , Berkeley , has provided inform at ion

on h i s and Phi l ip Drucker ' s recent work a t La Venta .

T o Wi l l i am G. H aa g of Louis iana S ta te Univers i ty , I owe than ks for h is in te res t

in the Format ive problem, and for unpubl i shed informat ion on the S ta l l ings Is land

cul ture .

Bruce Tr ickey an d Nicholas H. Holm es , J r . , h ave generous ly provid ed d ata on th e

Bayou La Bat re Phase of coas ta l Alabama.

Gregory Per ino has loaned unpubl i shed manuscr ip t s repor t ing on h i s ex tens ive work

on Il l inois Hopewell .

S he rwood Gag l i ano , R aym o nd B aby , and J un i us B i rd p rov i ded va l uab l e i n fo rm at i on

and answered a variety of quest ions.

Jo an B ooth, resear ch assistant , typist , an d lang ua ge cri t ic has wo rked consc ient iously,

and most in te l l igent iy on the preparat ion of th i s paper . Timothy Anderson, Paul F razier ,

Kathy Notes te in , and Bob Nininger have drawn the i l lus t ra t ions .


13/282

PREFACE

Anders Richter , Di rector , and S tephen Kraf t , Managing Des igner , of the Smi thsonian

Inst i tut io n Press wer e most genero us with advice on format , p art icu larly in rega rd to the

presentat ion of the large chronological charts for publicat ion. Final edi t ing and prepara

t ion of the man uscr ip t for the U.S . Gov ernm ent Pr in t ing Off ice was by Jo an Ho rn .

J am es A . F o rd

Florida State Museum

Gainesville, Florida

February

1968

POS TS C R IPT

Typing was nearly completed on the final draft of this manuscript when James Ford was

taken to the hospi tal , where he died a few days later on 25 February 1968. During the last

ten months of his l i fe, in spi te of increasing weakness, he labored on what many of his

col laborators bel ieve to be one of the milestones of New World archeology. The fact that

he succeeded in finishing it is a source of satisfaction to all of us, and a monument to the

courage as well as the vision of a remarkable man.

It remains to us only to rei terate the appreciat ion expressed by Ford to the National

Science Foundat ion , which has permi t ted cont inuat ion of h i s grant to cover remaining

costs of preparat ion and the t ransportat ion of the manuscript and i l lustrat ions to Wash

ington , an d to J . C. Dickinson, who supervised the final clerical work an d assured safe

del ivery of text and drawings to us.

Bet ty J . Meg gers

Clifford Evans

Smithsonian Institution

Washington, D.C.

March 1968


14/282


15/282

Contents

Page

I N T RO D U CT I O N 1

D eve lo pm en t of th e F orm at iv e c o n c e p t . . . . . . . 1

D efin ition of th e F o r m a t i v e . . . . . . 4

Selection of ev idence . . . . . . . . . . 5

Se t t ing the s tage for the Am erican Form at ive 6

C H R O N O L O G Y

AND RAD IOCARB ON D A TES . . . . . . . 9

T h e O h io c hr on olo gic al c ol um n . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Th e I l li no is c h rono log ic a l c o lumn . . . . . . 11

T h e G e o rg ia c oa st c h ro n ol og ic al c o lu m n . . . . . . 12

T h e n o rt h F l or id a c hr on ol og ic al c ol um n . . . . . . . 12

Mo bi le Bay-Flo r ida northwe st coast chronologica l column . . . . . - 13

T h e L o ui si an a c hr on ol og ic al c o lu m n . . . . . . . . 14

T h e V e ra cr u z c hr on ol og ic al c o lu m n . . . . . . . . . . 1 4

Th e Val ley of Mex ico chronologica l colum n . . 17

T h e T e h u a c a n c h ro n ol og ic al c o lu m n . . . . . . 18

T h e C h i ap a s c h ro n ol og ic al c o lu m n . . . . . . 18

Th e Soconusco, Gu atem ala chronologica l column 19

Th e nor th coast of Colom bia chronologica l column . . . 20

T h e c oa st al E c u a d o r c h ro n ol og ic al c o lu m n . . . . 2 1

T h e c e nt r al h i gh l an d P e ru c hr on o lo g ic al c o lu m n . . . 2 2

Th e nor th and centra l coast of Peru chronologica l column 22

G E O G R A P H I C A L

AND CHRON OLOG ICAL DISTRIBUTION OF SELECTED TRAITS . . . 41

Set t lem ent pa t te r n : Vi l lage p lan and ceremonia l const ruc t ions 41

S u m m a r y . . . . . . . 46

Com parisons . . . . 46

T oo ls . . . . . . . 47

C ore a n d b la de in du s t ry . . . . . . 47

S u m m a r y . . . . . . . . . 48

R ea me rs . . . . . 48

A xes a n d celts . . . . . . . 49

G ro ove d stone axes . . . . 4 9

T-shaped stone axes

Rectangular and pe ta lo id ce l ts

S um m ar y . . . . . 53

G rin din g stones for p re pa rin g food . . . 54

S u m ma r y . . . . ^7

Sm all o rn a m en ts a nd artifacts . . 5 7

La p ida ry indus t ry : be a ds ^7

Su mm ary . . "^

La p ida ry indus t ry : sma l l o rna me n t s .

50

50

61

S u m m a r y " ^

66

T oo ls of th e la p id a ry ind us try . . . . .

Sand stone saws . . . " "

Dri l l ing techniqu es . . " '

S um ma r y . . . . ' 0


16/282

PREFACE

Earspools and earplugs

S u m m a r y

Mir ro r s

S u m m a r y

C ompa r i sons

Finger r ings

S u m m a r y

C o m b s

S u m m a r y

D i s ti n c ti v e a r ti fa c ts . . . . .

F igu rine s . . . . . .

S u m m a r y

C o m pa ris o n . . . . . .

Tu bu la r a nd p l a t i o rm p ipe s .

S u m m a r y .

Fla t and cyl indrica l s tamps

S u m m a r y .

B ark b ea te rs . . . .

S u m m a r y . . . . . . .

Pot te ry and stone vesse ls and appendages

Sma l l w ide -mou th po t

S u m m a r y

Pa dd le - s t a mpe d W ood la nd a mphora

Tecomate or neckless ja r

S u m m a r y .

Fla t -bas e stone bowl . .

S u m m a r y

Fla t -base pa n . .

Composi te s i lhoue t te bowl

Sum ma r y . . .

R ound-ba se s imp le bow l

S um m ary . . .

Simple bowl with flat base

S um m ar y . . . .

V essel feet . . . . .

Sum ma ry . . .

R ing and pedesta l bases

S u m m a r y

St i r rup-spout bot t le

S u mm a ry . . . . .

S t ra ight-necked bot t le

Sum ma ry . .

Bridge-spout bot t le

S u m m a r y .

Teapot vesse l

Sum ma ry . . .

Pot te ry decor a t ion . . .

Re d slip an d zone d red slip .

Sum ma ry . . .

R ed p ai nt zon ed by incised lines . . .

Sum ma r y . .

U nz one d a nd z one d roc ke r a nd l i ne a r s t a mp ing

Su mm ary . . . .

Exc ised decora t ion

Sum ma r y . .

N e ga tive p a in t in g . . .

S u m m a r y .

Thi cken ed deco ra ted l ip , outf la r ing l ip wi th decora t ion , and lab ia l f lange

Sum ma r y . .

Broad-line incised designs

S u m m a r y

Page

70

74

74

76

76

76

77

77

78

78

78

82

82

82

83

83

85

85

86

86

86

90

91

92

95

95

98

98

101

105

105

109

109

111

112

115

115

117

117

118

119

120

121

122

122

123

123

123

125

125

127

128

131

131

133

133

135

136

138

138

141


17/282

CONTENTS xiil

Page

Z on ed -h at ch ed designs . . . . . . . . . 141

S um m ar y . . . . . . 142

Dou ble- l ine break mot i f 143

H um a n fac e on vesse l ne c k a nd shou lde r . . . . . . 143

S u m m a r y . . . . . . 145

Engra ve d z one d c ro ssha tc he d de signs . . . 146

S u m m a r y . . . . . 147

S u m ma ry of t r a i t d is t r ib u tions . . . . 148

C O L O N I A L

FOR MA TI VE DI FFUSI ON I N THE AMER I C AS 1 50

Arch eolog ical com plexes . . 151

T he Vald iv ia and M achal i l la Phases of coasta l Ecu ado r . . 151

Th e Pue rto Ho rm iga Phase of nor th coasta l Colom bia 152

Fiber and sand tempe ring 152

Vessel shape s 152

Scallop-shell stam pin g . 152

Ho riz ont al incised lines . . . . 153

P un cta te d d ec or at io n . . . . . 153

Fing er-m ade d imples 153

A dorn os . . . . 153

Dra g-an d-ja b inc ising . 153

Circle an d dot . 153

S u m m a r y . 1 5 4

Th e Mon a gr i l l o Pha se o f Pa n a ma 154

Bowl shape s 155

T e c o m at e -s h a p ed j a r s . . . . 1 55

Re d slip on bowls 156

Eng raved decora t ion 156

E x ci se d r e c ti l in e a r d es ig n s . . 1 5 6

Summa ry 157

Th e Sar igu a Phase of Pa nam a . 157

Com pos ite silhoue tte bowls 157

Ja rs wi th col la rs 157

App l ique deco ra t ion . . . . 158

Sca l lop-she l l s tam ping 158

Zone d punc ta t ing 159

B rushing . . . . 1 5 9

S u m ma ry . . . 159

Th e San J ua n Phase of nor th coasta l Peru 159

Zon ed la rge punc ta t ions . 159

Ho riz ont al incised lines 159

Applique fil lets 160

Sum ma ry . 160

The Negri tos s ty le of nor th coasta l Peru

160

Ap pliq ue fillets and nodes . 1^0

T he Pa ita style of no rth coastal Peru 160

Wi de-lin e incising ^"^

Cam bere d r ims . . 161

Ja rs wi th ang ular shoulders and indented bases 162

P a in t in g . . . . . 162

C ru de incision . . . . . ^62

Te com ate . . ^62

Sum ma r y ^ "2

Th e Kotos h si te, centra l Peruvian h ighlands 162

Loo ped or arch ed lines ^63

1 C O

Vessel shapes . loo

R e c ta n g u la r sp irals . . . ^"-^

Z ig -z ag m otifs a nd circle a nd d ot . . 1 6 4

Excision . . . . ^"

1 fi4.

In te rrupted horizonta l l ines

Sum ma r y . . '


18/282

170

171

171

CONTENTS

XIV

Page

T he Gu an ap e Phase of nor th coasta l Peru 165

Applique fil lets 1^^

App l ique nodes and f inger pun chin g 165

S u m m a r y

Th e C o lon ia l Fo rm a t ive ga p in Midd le A me r i c a l oo

T he Sta l l ings Is land complex of the Georgia coast 167

Simple and shouldered bowls . J 68

Pu nct atio ns in incised lines j6

D r a g - an d - ja b i nc is io n . . .

Punc ta t ions in rows and pane ls

Finger-pressed d imples

Pan eled incising, crossh atched incising |7U

L i ne - zo n ed h a tc h in g a n d c ro ss h at ch in g . . . . 1 70

S um m a ry . . .

T he Or ang e complex of Flor ida . .

F la t -ba se p a ns . . .

T ic k I slan d In cis ed . . . . 1 7 1

B roa d - l ine d i a mond s

^'^

A ya ngue t r a d i t i on ^'^

I nc is ed h er ri ng b on e m otifs . . . .

. ilo

Crossed b a n d s of incised lines . . . . . 173

Line-filled tr iangles . . . . 174

Do ts or t ick ma rks bor der ing motifs . . . . 174

H a tc h ed d ia m on ds o r s qu are s ' l i t

Z ig -z a g ba nds w i th ha t c he d ba c kg rounds

Crossha tched and ha tched bands

Lat e Or ang e fea tures .

R a r e O r a n g e d e co r at io n s . . . .

Discu ssion

The Fou rc he Ma l ine c omple x o f O k la homa

The Bayou La Batre complex of the Mobi le Bay region

F la ri ng - si de c u p . . . .

Globular pot . .

She ll s ta m p ing . . . . . . 178

S u m m a ry . . . . . . . . . . 178

Su mm ary and specula t ion abo ut the Colonia l For mat iv e 178

T h e T h e o c ra t ic F o rm a t iv e . . . . . . 180

C e r a m ic s o f P o v e rt y P o i n t, L o u i si a na . . 1 8 1

A H IS TO R IC A L R EC ON ST RU CT IO N . . . . . . . 1 83

L I T E R A T U R E

CITED . . . . . . . . . 195

C H A R T S

. . . . . . 213

Tables

1. Rad ioca rbo n da tes used for establ ish ing the Oh io chrono logica l colu mn . 24

2. Ra dio car bon da tes used for establ ish ing the I l l inois chronolo gica l col um n 26

3. Ra dio carb on da tes used for establ ish ing the Geor gia coast chrono logica l colu mn 28

4 .

Rad ioca rbo n da tes used for establ ish ing the nor th Flor id a chrono logica l colu mn 29

5 . Rad ioc arb on da tes used for establ ish ing the Mo bi le Bay -Flor ida northw est coast

c hr on ol og ic al c ol um n . . . . . . 2 9

6 . R a d io c a rbo n da t e s u sed for e s t ab l i sh ing the Lou i s i a na c h rono log ic a l c o lum n . . . 30

7.

Rad ioc arb on da tes used for establ ish ing the Val ley of Mex ico chrono logica l colu mn 33

8 . R a d ioc a rbon da t e s u se d for e s t ab l i sh ing the C h ia pa s c h rono log ic a l c o lum n . . . 34

9. Ra dio car bon da tes used for establ ish ing the Soconusco , Gu ate m ala chrono logica l

column . . . . . . . . 34

174

174

174

175

175

176

176

177

177


19/282

I L L U S T R A T I O N S X V

Page

10 . Rad ioca rbo n da tes used for establ ish ing the north coast of Colom bia chro nologica l

c o lu m n . . . . . . . . . 35

11 .

Rad ioca rbo n da tes used for establ ish ing the coasta l Ecu ado r chronologica l colum n 36

12 . Ra dio carb on da tes used for establ ish ing the centra l h ighland Peru chronologica l

col um n . . . 38

13 . Rad ioca rbo n da tes used for establ ish ing the nort h and centra l coast of Peru chron o

lo gica l c ol um n . . . . 3 9

Illustrations

F I G U R E S

Page

1. M ap showing loca t ions of know n Early Forma t ive se t tlements in No rth , Cen tra l , and

Sou th A me r i c a 8

2.

Rad ioca rbo n da tes f rom the La Ven ta and San Loren zo si tes , Vera cruz , Mex ico . . 16

3. Com parison of b i rd representa t ions in the Poverty Point -Hopewe l l and Olm ec-

Tla t i lco lapida ry indust r ies 62

4 .

Com parison of smal l b iom orphic ornam ents in the Poverty Point -H opewe l l and

O l m ec -T l at il co l ap id a ry i nd us tr ie s . . . . . 6 3

5.

Com parison of i tems of the Poverty Point -Hop ewel l and Olm ec lapidar y indust r ies . 65

6. Com parison of cam bered r ims in Marksv i l le -Hopewel l , Valdiv ia and the Peru vian

T i a hu a n ac o , P i ur a a n d G a ll in az o P ha se s . . . . . . 8 9

7. Com pariso n of double- l ine break motif, Mes oamerica and Valdiv ia , Ecu ado r . 143

8. Resem blances be tween vesse l shapes and decora t ions of the Puerto Horm iga Phase ,

Colom bia and the Valdiv ia Phase , Ecu ador 152

9. Resem blances be tween pot te ry decora t ions of the Puer to Hor mig a Phase , Colombia

and the Valdiv ia Phase , Ecu ador 154

10 .

Resem blances be tween vesse l shapes and decora t ions of the Monagr i l lo Phase of

Panama and the Puerto Hormiga Phase of Colombia , the ear ly par t of the Tehuacan

sequence in Mex ico , and the Valdiv ia and Mac hal i l la Phases of Ecu ado r 155

11 . Resem blances be tween pot te ry decora t ions of the Mo nagri l lo Phase of Pan am a, the

Puer to Ho rm iga Phase of Colom bia , and the Valdiv ia Phase of Ecu ado r . 157

12 .

Resem blances be tw een vesse l shapes and decora t ions of the Sar igua Phase of Pa na ma

and the Valdiv ia and Ma chal i l la Phases of Ecu ador . . 158

13 .

Resem blances be tween pot te ry decora t ions of the Sar igua Phase of Pan am a, the Bar-

lovento Phase of Golom bia , and the Valdiv ia Phase of Ecu ador . . 159

14 . Resem blances be tween pot te ry decora t ions of the San Ju an Phase of nor t h coasta l

P e r u a n d t h e V a l d iv i a P h a se of E c u a d o r . . 1 6 0

15 . Resem blances be tween pot te ry decora t ions of the Negri tos and Pa i ta Phases of nor th

co as tal P er u a nd th e V al div ia P ha se of E cu ad or . . . . . . . 161

16 .

Resem blances be tw een vessel shapes and pa in ted deco ra t ions of the Pa i ta Phase of

north coasta l Peru and the Valdiv ia -Ma chal i l la Phases of Ecua dor . . 161

17 .

Resem blances be tween pot te ry decora t ions of the Pa i ta Phase of nor th coasta l Peru

a n d t he V a ld iv ia a n d M a c ha li ll a P ha se s of E c ua d or . . . . . . 162

18.

Resem blances be tw een vessel shapes and decora t ions from the Kotos h si te, centra l

h ighlands of Peru , the Valdiv ia and Machal i l la Phases of Ecuador , and ear ly Te

h ua ca n, M exico . . . 163

19 . Resem blances be tween pot te ry decora t ions f rom ear ly phases of the Kotos h site , centra l

h ighlan ds of Peru , and the Valdiv ia and Ma chal i l la Phases of Ecu ador 164

20.

Resem blances be tween pot te ry decora t ions from the Kotosh si te , centra l h ighlands of

Peru , and the Valdiv ia and Ma chal i l la Phases of Ecu ador . . 165

21. Resem blances be tween pot te ry decora t ions of the Guafiape Ph ase , Viru Val ley , Peru

a nd t he V a ld iv ia P ha se of E c ua d or . . . . 166

22 .

Resem blances be tween vesse l shapes and decora t ions of the Sta ll ings Is land Phase ,

south At lant ic coast of No rth Am erica , the Puerto Ho rm iga P hase of Golom bia

and the Valdiv ia Phase of Ecu ador 168

23. Resem blances be tween pot te ry decora t ion s of the Sta l l ings Is land Phase , south At lant ic

coast of No rth Am erica , and the Valdiv ia Phase of Ecu ador 169


20/282

xvi ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

24 .

Resem blances be tween l ine-zoned ha tchin g and c rossha tchin g on engr aved bone p ins

of the StaUings Is land Phase , south At lan t ic coast of No rth Am erica , an d pot te ry

vessels of the Va ldiv ia and M ach alill a Phase s of Ec ua do r . . . . . 170

25. Resem blances be twe en vesse l shapes and decora t io ns of the ear ly pa r t of the O ran ge

Phase , so uth A t lant ic coast of No rth America , the Pu rron P hase of Te hu ac an ,

M e x ic o, a n d t he B a rl ov en to P ha se of C o lo m b ia . . . 172

26.

Resem blances be tween pot te ry decora t io ns of the Or ang e Phase , south At lan t ic coast

of N o r t h A m e r i c a , a n d t h e M a c h a l i ll a P h a se of c o a st a l E c u a d o r . 1 7 3

27 . Resem blances be tween inc ised decora t ions of the Or an ge Phase , south At ia nt ic coast

of No rth Am erica , and the Ma chal i l la Phase of coasta l Ecu ado r 174

28.

Resem blances be tween inc ised decora t ions of the Or ang e Phase , south A t iant i c coast

of No rth Am erica , and the Ma chal i l la and Valdiv ia Phases of coasta l Ec uad or 175

29 .

Resem blances be tween inc ised decora t ion s of the Or an ge Phase , south A t iant ic coast

of No rth Am erica , Veracruz region of Mex ico , an d the M acha l i l la Phas e of coasta l

Ec ua do r . . . . ^76

30 .

Resem blances be tween in te r locked T-f igures in decora t io ns of the Or ang e Phase , south

Atlant ic coast of No rth Am erica , and the Vald iv ia Phase of coasta l Ec ua do r . 176

31 .

Resem blances be twe en vesse l shapes and decora t io ns of the Bayou La Batre P hase ,

Gulf coast of North America , and those of the Valdiv ia Phase of Ecuador , the Momil

Pha se of C o lombia , t he O c os Pha se of G ua te ma la , a n d the Tra p ic h e P ha se , G u l f

coast of M ex ico . . . . . . . 177

32. Resem blances be tween vesse l fea tures and decora t ions of the Poverty Poin t Phas e ,

Low er Mississippi Val ley and the Valdiv ia Phase of Ec uad or 181

C H A R T S

1.

R a d io c a rbo n da t e s i n a g re e me n t w i th the da t ing a dop te d fo r t he c u l tu ra l pha se s c ompr i s ing

the regiona l chronologies.

2.

Se t t lem ent pa t te r n : v i l lage p lan and ceremo nia l const ruc t ions .

3. Core and b lade indust ry , bark bea te rs , and reame rs.

4 .

Axes an d celts.

5.

Gri ndi ng stones for prep ar ing food.

6 . Th e l a p ida ry indus t ry : bea ds .

7.

Sand stone saws, so lid and tubu lar dr il l s .

8 . Earspools and earplug s.

9 . Com bs, mirro rs , and f inger r ings.

10 . Figurines.

11 . Tu bu lar and p la t form pipes, f la t and cyl indrica l s tam ps.

12 .

Te c o ma te , sma l l w ide -mo u th po t , pa dd le - s t a m pe d W o od la nd a m pho ra .

13 . Fla t -base pan, s tone bowl , and composi te s i lhoue t te bowl .

14 .

Ro und -bas e and f la t-base simple bowl .

15 . Vessel feet, an d an nu lar base.

16 .

St i r rup-s pout , s t ra ight-necked or s imple , and br idge-spo ut bot t le , an d teapot vesse l.

17 .

Re d slip and zoned red slip.

18 .

Unz one d and l ine-zoned stam ping.

19 .

Excised decora t io n and nega t ive pa in t in g .

20. Labia l or media l f lange, outf la r ing l ip , and th ickened deco ra ted l ip .

21 .

Broad-l ine inc ising and zoned ha tching .

22.

Faces on vesse l wal ls and zoned c ro ssha tching .


21/282

A Comparison of Formative Cultures in the Americas

Diffusion

or

the Psychic Unity of Nlan

324- 7 88 O - 69 - 2


22/282


23/282

Introduction

DEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMATIVE CONCEPT

A hal f century ago, Herber t J . Spinden (1917) pre

sented to the Internat ional Congress of Americanists

held in Washington, a paper in which he postulated

that the high civdizat ions from the Andes to Middle

America were based on a common old cul tural

s t ra tum. This s t ra tum was supposed to have or ig i

nated in Middle America, specifical ly in the region of

the advanced Maya cul ture , and was thought to

include maize agr icu l ture , ceramics , crude handmade

figurines, and ceremonial centers marked by pyramids

tha t served as bases for tem ples. Spind en's theo ry seems

to have b een gree ted w ith si lence by his colleagues, a nd

he himself neglected to elaborate on i t in his later

work . Ten years l a ter the "Archaic" theory was

cri t icized by Lothrop, and as Vail lant (1935a, p.

293) says, the ensuing discussion "changed the status

of the 'archaic cul ture' from a conclusion to a prob

lem." Indeed i t could not be more, cons ider ing the

am oun t of data a nd chronological informat ion

avai lable.

At the t ime the Pueblo region of the United States

Southwes t was the br ight spot in American archeol

ogy, where the researches of Morris , Nelson, Fewkes,

and many others resul ted in the fi rst Pecos Conference

and Kidder ' s "Out i ine" (1924) . In the Eas t , Holmes '

(1903) regional review of ceramics was the handbook,

and C. B . Moore was tour ing Southeas tern r ivers

in the s teamboat Gopher an d pub lishin g h is field

notes with magnificent i l lustrat ions.

In Mexico, handmade figurines had been found

beneath the lava flow of the Pedregal , and strat i

graphic excavat ions by Gamio had demonst ra ted a

sequence of sub-Pedregal , Teot ihuac^n, and Aztec

cidtures. Uhle was making careful col lect ions on the

coast of Peru and had found rocker stamped pottery

in the shel l heaps at Ancon.

After Vail lant worked out the sequence for the

"Archaic" or "Pre-Glass ic" cu l ture for the Val ley of

of Mex ico in the 1920s, he an d Loth rop at te mp ted

the correlat ion of early cul tures in Middle America

in terms of the "q-complex", a group of specific

trai ts that they also t raced into the Mississippi Valley.

They do not seem to have been very serious about this

assay, and in any event were again frustrated by lack

of chronological information. Most of the "q-trai ts"

ci ted in the eastern United States fal l into qui te recent

t ime periods.

At the 23rd In ternat ional Congress of Americanis t s

held in 1928, Kroeber (1930) elaborated the thesis

of a comm on archaic agr icu l tural foundat ion , wi th

identical food plants and similar techniques in weav

ing , metal lurgy , and archi tecture .

The decades of the 1920s and 1930s saw the exca

vat ion of large si tes in Middle America (Monte

Alb^n, Teot ihuac^n, Uaxact i in , and many o thers ) ,

which provided the Classic and Post-Classic cul tural

periods with a relat ive t ime scale, and thus made

clearer the earl ier age of the Pre-Classic or Formative.

Smal ler scale but numerous excavat ions were con

ducted in the eastern United States and in Peru. As

evidence accumulated , var ious archeologis t s under

took synthesis of parts of regions and then of regions

as a whole. In the eastern United States, Cole and

Deuel (1937) defined an Early Woodland basic

cul tural pat tern and a later Mississippian pat tern.

This was a s ta tement of the then popular Midwes tern

Ta xon om ic scheme, an d this dicho tomy sti ll ha un ts

the archeology of the area.


24/282

SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS TO ANTHROPOLOGY

V O L U M E 1 1

Five years later Ford and Willey (1941) offered an

"out l ine" of Eas tern archeology, which a t t empted to

give chrono logy an d direct ion of cul tu ral diffusion.

Dates were wrong and data on the ear ly Bur ia l M ou nd

I and II s tages sketchy, but the reader wil l note an

essent ial agreement with the thesis of the present

paper. Rigidi ty of viewpoint is not the exclusive

prerogat ive of certain col leagues with whom the

writer tends to disagree. Phillips (1940) also assessed

Mesoamerican inf luences in the Southeas t .

In the same year George Vai l l an t (1941) sum

marized the "Middle Cul tures" of the Val ley of

Mexico in the opening chapters of The A ztecs of

Mexico, and t raced the chronology throug h succeed

ing phases up to the Conquest .

In 1941-1942 the Ins t i tu te of Andea n Research

coordinated the work of representat ives of various

insti tutio ns, vv^ho we re org aniz ed in to ten field p arties

spaced f rom Chi le to nor the rn M exico . Th e avo wed

purpose was to discover local chronologies and to find

evidence of early inter-American cul tural influences.

The first objective was achieved with fair success,

resu l t ing in a number of important papers . Those that

wil l be most useful here are Ekholm (1944) and Willey

and Corbet t (1954) . S t rong (1943) summarized the

accomplishments of the projects and cal led at tent ion to

ceramic decorat ive techniques and motifs that were

shared by the coastal Chavin of Peru, the Playa de

los Muer tos s i t e in Honduras , and the Hopewel l i an

Phase of the Mississippi Valley. These included zoned

rocker stamping, wide-l ine incising, and zoned red

painted designs.

About the same t ime, Tel lo (1943) described the

discovery of the spectacular Chavin cul ture of Peru

and poin ted to i t s importance as the ear ly pan-

Peruvian Format ive ( to use current t erms) . Rebecca

Carrion elaborated on the thesis in 1948.

In 1943, Dr uck er, St i rl ing, and others began to

publish the resul ts of excavat ions in the important

Olmec si tes on the Gulf coast of Mexico. The relat ive

ant iqui ty of th i s remarkable cu l tural phase , wi th i t s

great ceremonial centers , monumental sculp ture ,

dist inct ive art s tyle, and lapidary industry in jade,

began to be real ized. Some authori t ies , notably

Covarrubias (1946, p . 80) , recognized Olmec as

pr incipal ly ances t ra l to both Mexican and M ay an

civi l izat ions, a point of view now general ly accepted.

W. S . W eb b and Snow in 1945 publ i shed an im

por tant summary of the Adena cul ture of the Ohio

Valley. A second volume by Webb and Baby fol lowed

in 1957. Features of this eastern LIni ted States Forma

t ive Phase prompte d S pauld ing (1952) to propose th at

there had been a d i rect migrat ion f rom Mesoamerica .

Wil ley (1945) out i ined Peruvian archeology in terms

of horizon styles. The earl iest of these, Chavin, white-

on-red , and negat ive hor izons , are most per t inent

to the present discussion.

As the resul t of excavat ion in the remarkable Maya

s i te of Kaminal juyu on the outsk i r t s of Guatemala

Ci ty , Kidder (Kidder , Jennings , and Shook, 1946)

under took extens ive t ra i t compar i sons wi th o ther ear ly

Mesoamerican s i t es . His "General Discuss ion" sum

marized avai lab le know ledge of M ay a and Me xica n

prehis tory . A s imdar t ra i t survey wi th i l lus t ra t ions was

presented by Wauchope (1950) four years l a ter , and

th i s In turn was expanded by Sorenson (1955) .

Du rin g this period , Griffin (1946) publis hed an o ut

l ine of the prehistory of the eastern United States

which was fi l led with informative detai l , but gave a

flat picture of the cul ture periods. Facts were al lowed

to speak for themselves and in t rareg ional hypotheses

were avo i ded . The m onum en t a l Archeology oftheEastern

United States (Griffin, ed. , 1952) by Fa y-C oo pe r Cole's

students presents a s imilar picture.

The second cooperat ive pro ject of the Ins t i tu te of

Andean Research concent ra ted the work of archeolo

gists , ethnologists , and a geographer in the small Peru

vian coastal Valley of Vini In 1946-1947. This pro

duced knowledge of the Peruvian p rece ram ic (Bi rd ,

1948),

and a detaUed quant i t a t ive chronology for the

ceramic phases (Ford , 1949; S t rong and Evans , 1952;

Col li er , 1955) . T he Form at ive Ch avin or G upisn ique

Phase was fi rmly placed in relat ion to later cul tures,

and the work of Lar co Hoyle was subs ta nt ia ted an d

elaborated .

An invi ta t ional conference held In New York in

1947, coordinated the resul ts of the Viru project , and

as com parat ive back groun d, Armi l las (1948) con t r ib

u ted an out i ine of Me soam erican prehis tory a nd d i s

cussed possible cross-ties with th e Pe ru via n a rea , a

theme al so t reated by Bennet t , S t rong, and S teward .

Ot he r com par is ons were m ade by J i j 6n y C aa m a no

(1951b) in a paper presented a t the 29th In ternat ional

Congress of Americanists in 1949.

In 1948, Benn et t proposed the concept of a Per uvia n

co-tradi t ion, and with Bird (Bennett and Bird, 1949)

presented a more detai led prehistory of this region in

t he Am er i can Mus e um o f Na t u ra l H i s t o ry handb ook

series. This was fol lowed in 1951 by Willey's review

of the Chavin problem, which was s t i l l cons idered to

be uniquely Peruvian .

In 1953 Caso published a brief out i ine of Meso

american prehis tory , and MacNeish (1954) in a sec

t ion of his Panuco paper, fol lowed the pat tern set by

Ki dder and W auchope o f m ak i ng ex t ens i ve t r a i t com

par i sons to o ther ear ly Mesoamerican s i t es . This

adm i rab l e p rac t i ce was con t i nued by M. D . C oe

(1961) in his report on the Formative si te at La

Vi c t o r i a , Gua t em al a .


25/282

INTRODUCTION

In the decade of the 1930s, discoveries in brick

yard excavat ions in the nor thern suburbs of Mexico

City had brought the rich cemetery of Tlat i lco to the

at ten t ion of archeologis t s . A remarkable quant i ty of

Pre-Classic or Formative ceramics, f igurines, and

other art i facts have come from the commercial dig

ging, as well as control led excavat ions by the Mexican

Ins t i tu to de Ant ropologia . Por ter ' s (1953) repor t on

Tlat i l co made the f i rs t comprehens ive a t t empt to

descr ibe t ra i t s shared by the Mesoamerican Form

at ive , the Chavin hor izon of Peru , and the Hope

well ian cul tural manifestat ions of the eastern United

States.

In a paper prepared in honor of the 75th anniver

sary of the Anthropological Society of Washington,

Willey (1955) examined the question of the diffusion

of t rai ts between Mesoamerica and Peru. His l is t is

in part the same as that t reated by Porter: rocker

stamping, negat ive painted pot tery, t r ipod vessels ,

platform mounds, and metal lurgy. The possibi l i ty of

connect ion on the early l i thic horizons was also con

sidered. Wil ley concluded that contacts took place

from preceramic t imes to the date of the Spanish

Conques t .

Wil ley and McGimsey (1954) invest igated shel l

middens on the Pacific coast of Panama in a planned

search for early cul tures. The Monagri l lo Phase dates

about 2000 B.C., clearly early Formative. The ceramic

decorations feature scroll motifs made by incised lines

ending in punctuat ions, a s t range design for this early

date .

In 1955, G era rdo and Alicia Reichel-D olmatoff

began publishing the resul ts of their important ex

cavat ions in shel l middens on the north coast of

Colombia. In rapid sequence over the next ten years,

they developed a previously unsuspected ceramic

chronology that runs from the earl iest Formative at

ab ou t 3000 B.C . up into the e arly centuries of the

Christ ian Era. In their Momil paper (1956), extensive

t ra i t compar i sons are made to the Peruvian and

Mesoamerican regions , and the cul tural par t i c ipat ion

of Momil (700-1 B.C.) in the movement of middle and

late Formative influences is set forth.

The archeological career of Emil io Estrada of

Ecuador only extended from 1952 to his unexpected

de ath in 1961. Th is was a rem ark ably brief t ime for

his notable accomplishments. Prior to 1955 the pre

history of the coast of Ecuador was l i t t le known, and

most archeologists had the impression that , with the

exception of some Mesoamerican-l ike t rai ts in Es-

meraldas Province, i t was of minor importance. The

team of Meggers , Evans , and Es t rada have deta i l ed

in various publicat ions a chronological sequence

reaching back to 3000 B. C , which ap pears to be a

pr incipal key to the American Format ive problem.

Es t rada (1958, 1961; Es t rada, Meggers , and E vans ,

1962) was part icularly interested in the relat ionships

of the Ecuador ian Format ive to ear ly phases In Peru

and Mesoamerica, and in the quest ions of possible

connect ions with Asia. This lat ter aspect of the

problem receives extensive considerat ion in Meggers,

Evans , and Es t rada (1965) , where Vald iv ia ceramics

are compared to pot tery of the same age found on

the i s land of Kyushu, Japan. Meggers (1966) , and

Meggers and Evans (1964) have continued this in

terest in specific t rai t resemblances in the New World

Format ive .

Over approximately these same years , Engel has

conducted a program of research on the Peruv ian

coast , principal ly in the south. He (1963) has examined

the preceramic cul tural phases in admirable deta i l ,

and has invest igated the Chavin horizon both on the

north and central coasts and on the south coast , where

i t previously was unknown.

In 1958, Wil ley and Phil l ips pub lished Method

and Theory in American Archaeology,

the major

part of which was devoted to a historical-develop

mental in terpreta t ion of New W orld prehis tory . A

sequence of stages was used as an out i ine. "Forma

t ive"

is defined as the earl iest appearance of sedentary

vil lage l i fe based on agricul ture, and early cul tural

phases of North , Middle , and South America are de

scribed in terms of how well they conform to the

definition; discussion of diffusion of traits was

minimal .

About the same t ime. Ford , Phi l l ips , and Haag

(1955), and Ford and Webb (1956) described the

Poverty Point cul ture (1200^00 B.C.) of the Lower

Mississippi Valley. Although the authors were not

aware of the fact at the t ime, this exposed an ent irely

new facet of the Formative problem in eastern North

America .

Direc t com parison of potsherds from Ec uad or a nd

Guatemala wi th the unique decorat ive t echnique of

iridescent paint and other similari t ies almost as strik

ing, led Michael D. Coe (1960) to publish an art icle

on "Archeological Linkages wi th North and South

America a t La Victor ia , Guatemala ." In th i s he pro

posed that the t rai ts had been exchanged by means

of sea voyages about 1000 B .C The thesis seems sound,

for the materials are l i teral ly indist inguishable and

are not found in intervening regions.

In Mexico , meanwhi le , MacNeish began a twenty-

year campaign in search of the origin of the domest i

cated plants that were the principal basis of New

World agricul ture. He skdlful ly blocked out the

problem in a manner similar to a gold prospector

searching for the mother lode. Botanical evidence

suggested that maize had evolved from grasses nat ive

to the highlands. MacNeish's (1947, 1958) excava-


26/282


V O L U M E 1 1

t ions in dry caves In Tamaul lpas in nor thern Mexico ,

developed a c id tural sequence wi th domest icated

beans dat ing back to approximately 1000

B . C ,

maize

to 3000 B.C., a variety of squash to 6000 B . C , an d

bot t i e gourds probably to 7000 B .C Work in the Santa

Marta Cave in Chiapas , southern Mexico (MacNeish

and Peterson , 1962) demonst ra ted that maize had

arrived with the earl iest ceramics about 1500 B.C

On the basis of this information, the semi-arid

val ley of Tehuacan in the state of Puebla, central

Mexico, was selected as a probable region for maize

domest icat ion , and MacNeish

(1961,

1962) mounted

a three-year excavat ion program wi th an adequate

field staff and the active cooperation of 30 specialists

In various related discipl ines. The resul ts of the Te

huacan project , to be published in six volumes (Byers,

ed. , 1967-), wil l provide the most detai led chronology

avai lab le in Mesoamerica f rom deep cave depos i t s

s t re tch ing from 8000 B. C up thr oug h the ceram ic

phases. Calendrical dat ing is based on 130 radio

carbon assays. The domest icat ion and evolut ion of

maize beginning about 5000 B . C is clearly shown, and

the f i rs t appearance of o ther important domest icates

is also well dated. It is now clear that maize and other

important food p lants were cul t ivated in Mexico , and

another group of plants in Peru, well before the begin

n ing of the American Format ive .

By 1960 a considerable body of information was

avai lab le on New World prehis tory , and there was

general agreement that consol idat ion of knowledge

could be effect ively under taken. This was accom

plished in several symposia and volumes prepared

principal ly as texts .

In 1962 a symposium on "Prehistoric Man in the

New World" was held a t Rice Univers i ty in celebra

t ion of i ts semic entenn ial (Je nnin gs an d No rbec k,

edi tors, 1964). Eighteen part icipants deal t with the

var ious regions of the Americas , pr incipal ly in t erms

of the h i s tory of cu l tural develo pme nt .

Meggers and Evans (edi tors , 1963) organized a

s ym pos ium en t i tl ed "Abor i g i na l Gu l t u ra l Deve l op

m en t i n La t i n Am er i ca : An In t e rp re t a t i ve R ev i ew, "

for the 35th In tern at ion al C ongress of Am ericanis t s in

Mexico Ci ty . Again , t en papers deal t wi th reg ional

sequences as thou gh they were near ly ind epe nde nt .

Megger s (1963 ) con t r i bu t ed a s um m a ry t ha t de

tai led the earl iest occurrence of ten ceramic and five

other t ra i t s in chronologies spaced f rom nor thern

Mex ico to Arg ent ina . The se included th e s t i r rup spout ,

rocker s tamping, zoned red pain t , zoned hatching ,

excision, t r ipod bases, pedestal bases, white-on-red,

and negat ive and polychrome pain t . Later t ra i t s , the

use of cop per, elbow pipe s, f igurine m olds, axe m one y,

and shaft tombs were also discussed.

At this same 1962 Congress of Americanists , Prufer

(1964) and Dragoo (1964) evaluated the evidence for

der iv ing the Hopew el l cu l ture of the eas tern U ni ted

States , and the cus tom of mound bur ia l , f rom Meso

america or f rom Asia . Nei ther au thor thought the

avai lab le ev idence very convincing .

In present ing the fol lowing discussion, I shal l re

t race some of the compar i sons m ad e by S t ron g, Por ter ,

Wi l ley, the Reichel -Dolmatoffs , E s t rad a, E vans ,

Meggers , and o thers . Also , new i tems wdl be added.

Th a t t h i s can be done wi t h s om ew ha t m ore de t a i l , a nd

possibly clari ty, is du e to the fact th at th e pro pe r type

of informat ion has now accum ulate d to the poin t

where for the fi rst t ime a substant ial number of

chronologies located in s t ra teg ic geographical areas

are avai lab le . The Li tera ture Ci ted to ta l s about 360

pub l i ca t i ons . A rough coun t was m ade acco rd i ng t o

publ icat ion da te . F if teen perc ent dat e before 1940,

52 perce nt date 1941-1960, and 33 perc ent da te

1961-1968. This pap er could not have bee n w ri t t e n

In 1955; in 1975 i t could be done much bet ter.

D E F I N I T I O N O F F O R M A T I V E

Spinden cal led h i s pos tu la ted o ld agr icu l tural -pot tery

base the "Archaic ." Vai l l an t and o thers a l so appl ied

this term to the early ceramic cul tures of Mexico.

Vai l l an t l a ter proposed the t erm "Middle Cul tures ,"

leaving room for earl ier phases to be discovered.

Nei ther t erm, however , has been complete ly accepted

and the Mexicans have preferred "Pre-Class ic . " Mean

while, archeologists work ing in eastern No rth Am erica

have app rop r i a t ed t he nam e "Archa i c" fo r t he hun t

ing and gather ing c id tures that ex i s ted between the

Paleo-Indian and the f i rs t appearance of ceramics ,

a l though the Archaic somet imes was cons idered to

includ e early fiber-tempered po ttery .

"F o rm at i ve" has com e i n t o u s e t o deno t e wha t i n

the Old Wo rld w ould b e cal led ear ly or in i t i a l Ne o

l i th ic . Neol i th ic would be a perfect iy good name, but

Americanis t s have been very re luctant to commit

themselves to any terminology that would seem to

imply Old World re la t ionships .


27/282

INTRODUCTION

Willey and Phil l ips (1958, p. 144) have defined the

Format ive s tage "by the presence of maize and/or

manioc agricul ture and by the successful socioeconomic

integr at ion of such an ag ricul tu re Into well-establ ished

sede ntary v i l lage l i fe." Th is is a paral lel to Ch dde 's

defini t ion for the beginning of the Old World Neo

l i th ic as the poin t a t which man became a food pro

ducer ra ther than a predator . Wi l ley and Phi l l ips

were well aware of a certain ambiguity in this defini

tion, yet they applied it to the classification of cultures

with the consistency that any classificatory scheme

imposes.

For present purposes there are two major defects

in this defini t ion. Both in the Mexican highlands and

on the Peruvian coas t , agr icu l ture was pract iced many

centur ies before such commonly accepted Format ive

trai ts as ceramics and polished stone tools came on

the scene. The small set t iements seem to have been

sedentary, but perhaps were not "well-establ ished

sedentary vi l lage l i fe." In other words, the populat ion

explosion had not s tarted.

The second defect is that seemingly the earl iest

ceramics were not made by agr icul tural people a t a l l .

In i t i a l ly they were manufactured by and spread by

coastal groups who subsisted principal ly on shel lfish.

The marr iage of agr icu l ture and ceramics seems to

have taken p lace hal fway through the 3000-year long

Format ive in Andean South America , about 2000

B.C. in Mesoa me rica, a nd p rob abl y not unt i l 1000

to 500 B.C. in the southeastern United States, where,

as in Ecuador , pot tery had a l ready been made for a

mi l len ium.

For these reasons i t is preferable to define the For ma

tive more loosely as the 3000 years (or less in some

regions) during which the elements of ceramics,

ground stone tools , handmade figurines, and manioc

and maize agricul ture were being diffused and welded

into the socioeconomic life of the people living in the

region extending from Peru to the eastern United

States. At the start of this span of years, all these

people had an Archaic economy and technology;

at its end they possessed the essential elements for

achieving civi l izat ion. That civi l izat ion did not de

velop in the Mississippi Valley is probably due to its

relat ive isolat ion from the mutual cul tural s t imulat ion

that took p lace in Nuclear America .

Inevi tab ly the Format ive concept has been sub

jected to the t ripart i te divisions that have become

classic in archeology. People specik of "Early,"

"Middle ," and "Late" Format ive . Usual ly these are

t ied to specific cul ture areas as is M.D. Coe's

(1961,

p p . 133 -144 ) "P ro t o -F o rm at i ve , " "Ear l y F o rm at i ve , "

"Late Format ive ," and "Proto-Class ic" d iv i s ion for

Mesoamerica. These divisions, however, wil l not fi t

the in tercont inental p ic ture .

As the wri ter has pointed out in regard to the es

tabl ishment of pot tery types or any other useful his

torical device, the classificatory units must be selected

on the basis of a reasoned guess as to the actual se-

sequence of events (Ford, 1962). That there is an

empirical methodology for the select ion of "trai ts ,"

"types," or cul tural phases that wil l reveal the his

torical facts when properly manipulated is a fal lacy

tha t at the mom ent is wast ing thousa nds of dol lars

spent on computer t ime.

Obviously then, the division of the Formative wil l

be a statement of the wri ter 's guess as to what hap

pened in these critical centuries. WhUe this guess will

be used as a partial framework in the following dis

cussion, the evidence wUl be discussed in the con

clusions.

An a t temp t wUl be ma de to break the t r ip ar t i t e

formula and use only two terms: "Colonial Forma

t ive" and "Theocrat ic Format ive ." The Colonial

Form ative wUl be considered to extend from ab ou t

3000 B.C. to 1200 B.C., a period in wh ich ceram ics we re

being distributed over the Americas, apparent iy by

the establ ishment of seaborne colonies. The beginning

of the The ocra t ic Fo rma tive a t 1200 B.C. is ra th er

sharply defined by the fi rst appearance of mound

s t ructures and o ther app ur tenan ces of organiz ed

poli t ico-rel igious control . I ts ending , abo ut 400 B .C

in nuclear areas, later in peripheries, is not so clear,

but merges in to a "Proto-Class ic , " apparent ly a

per iod of reorganizat ion and preparat ion for l a ter

cul tural advance.

SELECTION OF EVIDENCE

If one were to at tempt a complete l is t ing of t rai ts

presen t du ring the Form ative Pe riod as defined here,

i ts length would be overwhelming. In a study such as

this,

a select ion obviously must be made. Many trai ts

are of local or regional distribut ion, and consequentiy

are i rrelevant for interregional comparison. Even a

list of more widely shared features is too long, and

select ion must be pract iced. The trai ts utUized here


28/282

SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS

TO

ANTHROPOLOGY

V O L U M E 11

in part reflect the author 's special famUiari ty with

par t i cu lar complexes ,

and in

part resul t from

the way

in which the p rob l em was ini t ial ly conceived.

As has been noted in the Preface, I s tumbled onto

the Colonial Format ive when my a t t en t ion was called

to resemblances in decorat ion between Vald iv ia and

Machal i l l a ceramics f rom coas ta l Ecuador and early

pot tery

of

Mex i co

and the

southeas tern U ni ted S ta tes .

Verificat ion of the correctnessof this initial impression

and in terpreta t ion of itssignificance requir ed detai le d

analysis of vessel shap e, decorat iv e tech niqu e, and

motif. As the case for diffusion became convincing to

m e ,

I wascur iousto seew ha t associated features m ight

also be shared . This led to exam i na t i on of site form

and composi t ion, s tone and pot tery ar t i fact s , manu

factur ing techniques , etc. Add i t ional reg ions were

added especial ly to the south (Pe ru) and nor thwes t

(Ohio, Il l inois),and the pro to typesof the large charts

a p p e n d e d

to

this volume were designed

to

provide

bet ter unders tanding of chronological s lopes in dis

t r ibut ion .

As

t ra i t s were added, pat tern ings

in

t ime

and space began to emerge.

In compi l ing a list of t rai ts for this purpose, it is

difficult to know where to stop. I have come nowhere

nea r to exhaus t ing the possibilities. Ceramic features

that havenot been ci ted include toy vessels, large oUas

with high outcurving necks, graters , interior decora

tion on bowls, pi tcher-spout t rays and bowls, duck

or shoe-shaped pots, candeleros,boa t-shap ed vessels ,

castel lated rims,andco l landers ,to sayno t h i ngofdeco

rat ive elements such as line and panel burni sh ing ,

brushing , p inched decorat ions , the split circle motif,

the U-motif perhaps represent ing an ear of corn , the

meander, white sl ip, burnished black surfaces,

ga-

droon i ng ,and polychrome. Among o ther k inds of cu l

tural e lements are the cons t ruct ion of vaul t s made of

stone or wood in m o u n d s , the use of red p i g m e n t in

bur ia l s , panpipes , potsherd d i sks , sp indle whorl s , s tone

cones, and

small animal effigies.

All of

these t rai ts

m oved on the Format ive level . Others wi l l cer ta in ly

becom e evident wi th more carefu l analys i sof ar t motifs

and wi th review ofphys ical an thr opolo gical ev ide nce.

Since archeologists have not ag reed upon a q u a n t i t a

t ive cri terion by w h i c h one may ju d g e w h e t h e r the

evidence

is

sufficient,

I

have s t opped

at the

poin t

w h e r e I felt that my thesiswas c lear ly es tab l i shed and

further examples merely fort i fied it.T h o s ewho r equ i r e

more extensive proofare invi ted top u r s u e the analysis

wi th someof the t rai ts l is ted above.

A word shouldbesa id abou ttheo r d e rof presentat ion

of the t rai ts , which may strike the r e a d e r as unsys te

m a t i c or illogical. I ful ly agree, bu t since the t rai ts

differ widely in cha rac t e r , t he re is no obvious order

of presentat ion in many cases . On e cons i de ra t i on ap

parent f rom the beginning , however , was t h a t If this

m a t e r i a lwas to be publ i shed it wou l d have to be p r e

sented visual ly in as c o m p a c t a m a n n e r as possible.

Principal ly, this involved inclusion

of the

d a t a

on the

m i n i m a l n u m b e r

of

chronological c har t s . S ince

the

co l um ns are s t andard i zed in w i d t h and the vert ical

chronological scale is un i fo rm bot h cons i de ra ti ons

i m p o r t a n t for com par i ng d i s t r i bu t i ons t he t r a i t s had

tofitin to these space requ i rem ents . Obv ious ly , there

fore, traitsof s imi lar t emporal an d chronological pos i

t ion , which occupy the same pos i t ions on the char t s ,

m us t be scat tere d over different ch arts and g rouped

with t rai ts having different spat ial

and

t em pora l d i s

t r ibut ions and wi th which they consequent iy may not

be associa ted . This procedure made it possible to p r e

sent all of the t rai ts on 22 cha r t s , but in some cases

produ ced s t range bed-fe l lows . WhU e

the

a r r a n g e m e n t

in the t ex t might have been changed, it seemed, l ikely

that reference to the cha r t s wou l d be facUitated if the

orde r r em ai ned the s a m e for bo t h .

SETTING THE STAGE FOR THE AMERICAN FORMA TIVE

Unspecial ized Mongoloid people , huntersof big gam e

(elephants, large ext inct bison, horses, and g round

sloths),

had

crossed

the

Ber ing S t ra i t l and br idge

at

least by 12,000 B. C By 9000 B.Cthey had r eached

the southernmost poin t of S ou t h Am er i ca . T he i r

art i facts , principal ly known from project i le points ,

wereofgenera l ized U pp er P aleol i thic styles: s temm ed

and bifacial ly chipped.

Paleo-Indian cul tures d i sappear at the t ime of the

ext inct ion of the Ple is tocene megafaun a, proba bly by

8000-7000B.C., and the i nhab i t an t s of the two cont i

nents se t t i ed in to what

has

been t e rm ed

an

" A r c h a i c "

w ayoflife: theh u n t i n gof the s m a ll e r m od ern an i m a l s ,

fishing, the gathering

of

plant foods,

and the

col lect ing

of sea p roduc t s a l ong the coasts . A l arge var ie ty of

projectUe points marks the Ear l y Archa i c in N o r t h

Am er i ca . None s hows the technical skUl of the

Paleo-Indian poin t s .

About 3000 to 2500 B.C w h a t may be an old

c i r cum po l a r com pl ex of ground s tone tools is a d d e d

to the Archaic inventory of the no r t heas t e rn Un i t ed

States and the St. Law rence R i ve r Va l l ey . Thes e


29/282

INTRODUCTION

include slate points and semUunar knives, as well as

adzes and curved-blade gouges . These and o ther

forms are made of nat ive copper in the Lake Super ior

region . The grooved s tone ax may have appeared

sl ight iy earl ier and is the principal ground stone tool

to diffuse over most of the East. Bola stones are

added to the l is t of weapons, and weights for the

at ia t i began to be ma de in the forms of "ba nne rs ton es"

and "boa t s t ones . "

In the ar id p la teau count ry of the wes tern Uni ted

States and down the highlands of Mexico, a dist inct ive

way of l i fe developed in response to the environmental

l imitat ions. This Desert cul ture utUized the avaUable

small game, but a large proport ion of subsistence

depended on the coUection of wild fruits and seeds.

Stone mortars and flat grinding stones are a common

tool of the Desert cul ture from an early date.

Desert ctUture people were interested in wUd seed

foods and now that the history of maize is known, i t

appears qui te logical that maize should have been

domesticated by people of this cul tural pat tern on the

cent ra l Mexican p la teau . The ear ly spread of pr imi

t ive and domest icated variet ies to New Mexico, where

they have been dated in Bat Cave between 3000 and

2000 B.C., is also understandable. The acceptance of

this improved seed food involved l i t t ie change in

subsistence.

The Archaic pat tern of l i fe is less well known in

South America . Lanning (1963a) has presented a

preceramic sequence for coastal Peru in which pres

sure-flaked project i le points are replaced by crude

percussion-flaked tools made from beach cobbles

about 4000 B .C T he col lect ion of wi ld seeds charac

ter izes the l a t t er par t of the South American "Ar

chaic," and mUling stones are typical . These art i facts

tend to d i sappear about 3000 B . C wi th the appearance

of cul t ivated p lants an d the establ ishm ent of per

manent coastal vUlages. On the north Peruvian coast

food came principal ly from the sea and was supple

mented by the roots of wild plants . Short iy before

3000 B.C. dom est icated squash, l ima b eans, an d bott le

gourds were cul t ivated . Cot ton appeared around

3000 B.C., but maize was not added unti l about

1400 B.C., after the beginning of ceramics. The

Peruvian Archaic also has yielded quanti t ies of

basketry, net t ing, and twined fabric. Fabric tech

niques and decorat ive designs show a high level of

sophist icat ion.

This then is a very brief summary of what is known

of condit ions in eastern North America, Middle

America , and the Andean region of South America

between 4000 and 3000 B.C., just prio r to the ap pe ar

ance of the earl iest ceramics. The ent ire region was

populated, doubtiess very thinly in less favorable

localities, but small vUlages had formed on sea coasts

where dependable food supplies were avaUable. A

hunting and gathering pat tern of l i fe had been es

tabl ished for thousands of years and the fact that the

people began to select seeds and plant some of the

formerly wUd vegetables seems to have had l i t t ie

effect on theh- way of l iving. Probably there was a

sl ight populat ion increase.

Social organizat ion undoubtedly was on the level

of l ineage bands. There is no evidence of organized

com mu nity effort , no mo und s, pyram ids, or tem ple

structures l ike those that later became so popular in

these regions. So far not even evidence of organized

community defense systems has been found. The

thes i s that per ipheral groups of nor thern North

America and southern South America have preserved

numerous e lements of the common American Archaic

pat tern has been developed in the researches of Nor-

denskiold. Cooper and others (summarized in Cooper,

1941). This seems to be a convincing reconstruct ion,

but most are customs that leave no archeological

record.


30/282

FIGURE 1.Map

showing locations of known Early Formative settiements in North, Central, and South America.


31/282

Chronology and Radiocarbon Dates

On the large fold-out charts (charts 1-22), fifteen

chronological columns represent a range of history

tha t supposedly l ies betw een 3000 B. C an d

A.D.

300.

The geographical locat ions of these columns are shown

on figure 1 an d the inset ma ps on each char t . E ach

column equates with a more or less restricted geo

graphical area, as wUl be explained, and has been

selected for inclusion in a very arbi trary fashion. The

first criterion is the quality of the information for the

t ime span in which we are interested. The second

cri terion has been that of geographical spacing. The

need to fairly represent events in approximately

7,000 mUes of prehistory in a synoptic form has made

it necessary to stand off from the data and view them

as though through the wrong end of a telescope.

Arbi t rary lumpings have been made and groserias

have been committed that set the teeth of area special

is ts on edge. I can only plead that the task would have

been easier i f manuscripts were st i l l published on long

scrol ls as in early Medieval t imes, so there would be

no l imit to the chronological columns that we could

align side by side.

Fortunately this problem of different iat ing regional

chronologies is comparat ively simple in the early

phases of the Formative, for the cul tural t rai ts being

in t roduced were new, and apparent ly had few or no

competing i tems to modify them. They retained,

therefore, a basic similari ty over distances much

greater than was the case later when regional special i

zation began to develop, as it did in all parts of the

Am ericas. T he Ch avin ceram ics of 500 B.C. are p rac

t ically pan -Peru vian ; by A.D.500 there is a bew ildering

number of dist inct ceramic t radi t ions in existence.

At A.D. 100 the number of area chronologies would

have to be mult ipl ied several t imes 15 to picture the

prehistory adequately, despi te the level ing influences

exerted by mUitary conquests such as appear to be

responsible for the wide spread of Mississippian,

Teo t i h uac i n , o r T i ahu anac o c i d t u res .

T he 22 large, fold-out char ts are all mad e from the

same mas ter drawing. Phase names are Indicated and

approximate t emporal l imi t s between phases are

shown by dashe d horizo ntal l ines. Jag ge d l ines ma rk

l imits of information. For example, in the MobUe

Bay colum n a fiber-tempered pha se Is kno wn , as is

the Bayou La Batre, but the presumed continui ty of

occupation has not been establ ished. The relat ively

wide bands of s lanted l ines indicate the t ime of the

beginning of ceramics, where this has been deter

mined.

I think it is safe to say that the relative dating of

the phase s is bey ond ques tion in all of these 15 colu mn s,

al thoug h the evidence varies in qual i ty from on e region

to the other. I t ranges from highly accurate quanti ta

t ively graphed ceramic sequences to superposi t ional

evidence discovered more or less by accident as in

Oh i o .

There may be some yet undiscovered phases

that wUl have to be sandwiched in, and earl ier phases

wUl be ident ified, l ike the new B arra Phase in C hiap as.

Then too the inevi table wUl occur. The next genera

t ion of graduate students, with or without real just i

fication, will recut the segments of these continuums

into what they hope wil l appear to be something new,

and wUl give these bloody vict ims of a lat ter-day

Solomon 's jud gm ent new nam es .

The dat ings of the phase l imits are educated guesses

made after considerable study of the opinions of the

archeologists best qualified to make a guess in each

region. For the most part , they fol low these opinions

very closely. These dating divisions were discussed at

considerable length by the part icipants in the 1966

Formative Conference held at GainesvUle, Florida,

and a corrected version of the basic chart was sub

mit ted to each for review several weeks later. These


32/282

10


V O L U M E 1 1

qualified opinions are of course based upon radio

carbon assays . Whi le rad iocarbon has in t roduced a

degree of precision formerly unknown, and makes pos

sible hemisphere-wide comparisons such as this wUl

at tempt to be, i t does not have the precision of a

tree-ring or calendrical date.

Some of the radiocarbon dates that are avai lab le

for the phases in these fifteen chronologies are plotted

on char t 1. Th e laboratory nu mb er has been p laced

at the indicated median date , and except where the

1-sigma range of probabUity was too short to extend

beyond the n um ber , i t is shown by a b lack bar . P rob

ably there is no need to rem ind th e reade r tha t the re

are two chances out of three that the actual date for

the mater ial un de r assay is with in the ran ge of the

black bars. One chance remains that i t is earl ier or

later.

T h e dates shown on char t 1 have been selected on

two bases. First , they are dates for which the 1-sigma

range runs into the temporal l imits of the phase i t is

supposed to date . For example , date C -137 is 335 21 0

B.C. and is supposed to date O hio H opew ell . Th e d ate

is earl ie r tha n the lower l imits we have d raw n for the

Hopewel l Phase , and i t s 1-sigma range lacks 25 years

of arriving at our lower temporal l imits for this phase.

We have, therefore, excluded i t from the chart and

l i s ted i t in the t abulat ion as a "bad date ." This date

is by no me ans as "b ad " as some o thers , but we have

fol lowed our rule in a strict and arbi trary fashion.

Some dates that agree perfect ly wi th our t emporal

arrangement have been lef t off the char t s imply be

cause th ere is n o t room for them . Fo r examp le, in the

tabulat ion there are n ine addi t ional "good" dates for

Ohio Hopewel l , which are not shown on the char t

because of lack of space.

St i l l other dates that have been left off the chart

are real ly bad, and by no stretching of the laws of

chance cou l d be m ade t o ag ree wi t h ou r t em pora l

p lacements . The chronology for Louis iana provides

an unus u a l num ber o f t hese . Th ey do no t ag ree wi t h

rela t ive chronology in the area , and the t emporal

p lacement they indicate makes no sense when com

par i son is ma de to o ther neigh bor in g chro nologies ;

they a l so cont radic t o ther rad iocarbon assays . Al l

these categor ies"good dates" l i s ted on char t 1 ,

"good dates" left off for lack of space, and "bad

dates"are tabulated on tab les 1-13 .

As is well known, there are several ways in which a

date can go bad . The archeologis t may make mis takes

as to cul tural or phase associat ion of the charcoal or

shel l specimen, contaminat ion may occur in the car

bon deposi ted in the cel ls of the organism, in the

ground, or in the handl ing of the specimens . I t usual ly

is impossible to make a guess as to what has gone

wrong. P ract ical ly a l l o f the dates being used here

have been evaluated by the archeologis t s who are in

the bes t pos i t ion to pass jud gm en t . F re que nt iy th i s

eva l ua t i on accom pan i es t he s am p l e des c r i p t i on pub

l i shed in Radiocarbon, volumes 1-8 . Other evalua

t ions are g iven in re levant monographs , and s tUl

others have been publ i shed f rom t ime to t ime as

s epa ra t e pape r s : W au cho pe , 1954 ; L i bby , 1955 ;

Radiocarbon Dates Associa t ion , Inc . , 1958; Bul len ,

1961;

Griffin, 196 4; Sto l tm an , 19 66; Coe , Diehl ,

and S tu iver , 1967; e tc . There would not be space here

to review these evaluat ions . Ins tead we merely d ia

gram and l i s t the avai lab le dates in a wholesale

fashion. It is hoped that this wUl give a rough idea of

the amount and qual i ty of the evidence for the

chronological f ramework.

THE OHIO CHRONOLOGICAL COLUMN

This column includes a port ion of New York State

lying near the Great Lakes, to show the earl iest

cordmarked Woodland pot tery that has been securely

dated (Ritchie, 1962, 1965). I t also takes in northern

Ke ntuc ky to include ear ly Ad ena (W ebb a nd Snow

1945;

Webb and Baby, 1957). In the centuries before

and after the beginning of the present era, the prin

cipal at te nt io n is directed to the Classic H ope we ll

Phase of central Ohio (Mil ls , 1907, 1909, 1916, 1922;

Mo oreh ead, 1922; Shet rone, 1926; M ag rat h , 1945;

WUloughby, 1922) . Informa t ion f rom the Hope wel l

s it es near Gr and Rap ids , M ichigan , is a l so cons idered

here (Qu imby , 1941; Prah l , 1966) .

Griffin (ed. , 1952) has been used extensively, but

the bes t recent summary of the archeology of the

M idw est is Griffin, 1964. Th is the wri ter has t ried to

fo l low in both re la t ive and calendr ical chronology for

both the Ohio and I l l inoi s co lumn.

For ty-seven radiocarbon assays are l i s ted here that

are appl icable to the Ohio chronological co lumn. Of

these 38 or 81 percent agree wi th the phase dat ing

shown on our char t s ( t ab le 1 , pp . 24-25) .

The Late Archaic cu l tures of the Ohio region

apparen t l y were bas ed on a hun t i ng and ga t he r i ng

econ om y; there is no evidence tha t agr icu l tu re w as

pract iced . The greates t concent ra t ions of people were


33/282


34/282

12


V O L U M E 1 1

part of the state consists of flat-base jars marked with

plai ted fabr ic impress ions , the Baumer ware . Along

the Il l inois River the early Black Sands ware is deco

rated with straight l ine designs incised over cord malle-

ated surfaces. This often has a rim decorat ion of nodes

raised by punching from the interior.

A cont inuing but changing ceramic t rad i t ion in I l l i

nois seems to lead direct iy to the Classic Hopewell

Phase (300 B . C - A . D . 300) . T he C ent ra l Bas in Phase

of early Hop ewe ll is found in Il linois , bu t not in O hio .

Dentate and oval -shaped s tamping are typical pot tery

decorat ion . Rims f requent iy have separate des igns ,

and nodes are common. Late Hopewel l in I l l inoi s i s

s imUar to that in Ohio: log tomb bur ia l In mounds ,

copp er earspools, coppe r j ack eted pan pipes , ef figy p la t

form pipes , and pot tery decorated wi th b i rd mot i fs

formed by zoned rocker s tamping are character i s t i c .

I l l inoi s appears to be the center f rom which Hope

well diffused not only to Ohio, but also to Wisconsin,

and southward down the Miss i ss ippi Val ley . About

A.D. 300 I l l inoi s Hopewel l d i sappeared , and Woodland

cul ture rep laced i t .

T H E G E O R G I A C O A S T C H R O N O L O G I C A L C O L U M N

The Georgia coast column rather specifical ly refers to

the region around Savannah. The S ta l l ings Is land

da ta are base d on M oor e (1897), Clafl in (1931 ),

Fai rbanks (1942) , S to l tman (1966) , and Waring ( in

WU liams, ed. , 1968). Referen ce infor mation for in

ter ior Georg ia is W auc hop e (1966) , and for N orth

Carol ina , J . L . Coe (1964) .

The radiocarbon dates for ear ly per iods on the

Georgia coas t have been evaluated by Bul len (1961) ,

and the a l ignments in the column given here are those

he has suggested both in print and verbal ly. Fifteen

dates are avaUable (table 3, p. 28). Of these, thirteen

or 87 percent fall within the temporal limits cisslgned

the several phases and are shown in chart 1.

T h e fiber-tempered po tte ry fi-om the shell he ap s

near Savannah, Georgia , has long been a puzzle to

archeologis t s , and the problem became more complex

when radiocarbon showed that th i s was the ear l i es t

pot tery in North America , dat ing back to more than

2000 B.C. Several wri ters h ave ci ted this as an exa mp le

A Comparison of Formative. Ford. Low Resolution

Documents

Transcript of A Comparison of Formative. Ford. Low Resolution