Reassessing the Developmental and Chronological Relationships of the Formative of Coastal Ecuador

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW

Journal of World Prehistory [jowo] PP270-346283 October 27, 2001 20:2 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2001

Reassessing the Developmental and ChronologicalRelationships of the Formative of Coastal Ecuador

John Edward Staller1

The Ecuadorian Formative was initially interpreted as a result of long-distancediffusion, and migration, more recent research has changed our perceptionof the Valdivia, Machalilla, and Chorrera culture complexes. In this analy-sis, these archaeological investigations are reassessed in order to reevaluateour understanding regarding the nature of these prehistoric cultures. Forma-tive chronologies, distributions, interrelationships are reviewed in the light ofPre-Hispanic occupations in El Oro Province. Previous investigations on theEcuadorian littoral are examined. Results indicate (1) Valdivia and Machalillaare part of the same ceramic tradition and (2) the interrelationships of thesecomplexes to Late Formative Period ceramic sequences are more complexthan previously assumed. (3) A major adaptive shift related to an increaseddependence upon agriculture occurred during Valdivia VI–VIII, and contin-ued into the Late Formative with the widespread distribution of Chorrerarelated material culture. (4) Long-distance interaction with the Ecuadorianhighlands resulted in the spread of what may be termed a Chorrera horizonand formed the basis of subsequent Andean cosmology where it was symbol-ically represented according to local and regional artistic canons and over avast area of Andean South America.

KEY WORDS: Ecuadorian prehistory; Formative ceramics; radiocarbon dating.

INTRODUCTION

Before the mid-1960s most of what was known about pre-HispanicEcuador centered around Inca expansion, and more recent coastal and

1Department of Anthropology, The Field Museum, 1400 S. Lake Shore Dr., Chicago, Illinois60605.

193

0892-7537/01/0600-0193$19.50/0 C© 2001 Plenum Publishing Corporation

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


194 Staller

highland culture complexes (Bennett, 1946a,b; Bushnell, 1951; Collier, 1947,1948; Collier and Murra, 1943; Dorsey, 1901; Ferdon, 1940a,b, 1941a,b, 1942;Jijon y Caamano, 1919, 1920, 1941, 1952; Kroeber, 1948; Murra, 1946; Rowe,1946; Saville, 1909, 1910; Stirling, 1963; Uhle, 1920a,b, 1922a,b,c, 1923, 1924,1937). It was the pioneering research of Estrada, Evans, and Meggers thatgreatly revised our understanding of the prehistory of coastal Ecuador(Estrada, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1962a, 1962b; Evans et al., 1959; Evans andMeggers, 1958; Evans and Meggers, 1982; Meggers, 1987; Meggers et al.,1965; Meggers and Evans, 1962). In their investigation of archaeologicalsites in coastal Guayas Province, these archaeologists recorded a previouslyunsuspected chronological depth along the littoral, documenting the exis-tence of precocious ceramic innovation associated with the Early FormativePeriod Valdivia Phase. Much has been written about the origins and devel-opmental associations of the Valdivia Phase and of the Formative sequenceof Ecuador in general. Recent research in various subregions of the coast hasgreatly revised our understanding of these developmental relationships andit is for this reason that this synthesis has been generated. With the goal offacilitating dialogue among specialists in the field, discussion of the ValdiviaPhase in this study will be in terms of the eight phase ceramic sequence ofHill (1972/74) since it is the most widely cited chronology by Ecuadorianspecialists. The Hill seriation is based upon ceramic diagnostics from a num-ber of sites in the Santa Elena Peninsula and the coastal regions of GuayasProvince (Fig. 1, Table I).

It should be stated at the outset, that the geology and geomorphol-ogy of coastal Ecuador are tectonic and at times highly active and haveover the course of time affected sociocultural development along the lit-toral, sometimes in dramatic and highly significant ways (Damp et al., 1990;Issacson, 1994; Staller, 1994); however, the extent to which such geomor-phological evidence has been integrated into archaeological reconstructionis limited compared to coastal Peru (see Moseley, 1983; Moseley et al., 1981).These differences in research foci are perhaps due in part to the extensiveprehistoric irrigation canals in coastal Peru. Detailed analysis of irrigationnetworks has called attention to geomorphological changes through theireffects upon such systems. Irrigation features are absent in coastal Ecuadorexcept for the lowlands of the Gulf of Guayaquil, where they appear withMilagro Quevedo culture as extensive networks of raised fields (Denevanand Mathewson, 1985). Despite the fact that tectonic events, including ig-neous volcanic eruptions, coastal uplift as well as subsidence have dramati-cally altered the coastal landscape during different times in prehistory, thetiming and nature of such geological events and their consequences for so-ciocultural development are only now being more closely examined.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


The Formative of Coastal Ecuador 195

Fig. 1. Coastal provinces and major streams of the Ecuadorian littoral.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


196 Staller

Table I. Chronological Table of the Early Formative Period Valdivia Phase

Note. Based primarily upon the Hill, 1972/74 seriation.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



ORIGINS, DIFFUSIONS, INVASIONS, AND MIGRATIONS

All archaeological phases in coastal Ecuador are based upon changingsettlement patterns, diagnostic ceramic frequencies, and associated radio-carbon dates. However, the origins of these ceramic phases were initiallyinterpreted before regional-temporal variations in settlement patterns, ce-ramic attributes, and the associated cultural chronologies were firmly estab-lished. Consequently, the origins of the Ecuadorian Formative were initiallyperceived as a result of diffusion, migration, or invasion (Uhle, 1922c, 1923,1924). Meggers, Evans, and Estrada (1965, pp. 157, 167–168) interpreted ce-ramic innovation in the Valdivia Phase as a result of diffusion, in this casetranspacific contact from the Jomon culture of coastal Japan. In support ofthis hypothesis, Meggers, Evans, and Estrada (1965) illustrated striking sim-ilarities between Valdivia and Jomon diagnostics (also see Estrada et al.,1962; Evans and Meggers, 1966, p. 63; Meggers, 1987). The Valdivia ceramictradition was subsequently credited with having influenced similar techno-logical processes elsewhere in the hemisphere through stimulus diffusion(Ford, 1969). The Middle Formative Period Machalilla Phase was similarlyperceived as the result of migrations of ceramic bearing cultures from re-gions outside of the coast (Meggers et al., 1965). On the basis of excavationsat La Chorrera, the elaborately crafted zoomorphic and anthropomorphicvessels and whistling bottles of the Late Formative Period were similarly in-terpreted as having Mesoamerican origins (Evans and Meggers, 1957, 1966,1982; Meggers, 1966, pp. 61–62; Meggers and Evans, 1962, see also Uhle,1920b, 1922c, 1924). Other scholars projected a variety of different routesand historical factors surrounding the spread of Formative pottery tech-nology to and from the Ecuadorian coast (Bischof, 1967, 1972, 1975, 1980;Coe, 1960; Collier, 1968; Grove, 1982; Lathrap, 1963, 1967, 1970, 1973, 1974;Lathrap et al., 1975; Uhle, 1923). On the basis of these various interpretations,the Formative of coastal Ecuador was initially conceived of as transplantedfrom other regions and environments that supported more complex forms ofsocial organization. Remnants of such diffusionary explanations of the pastremain. Table II summarizes the most recent archaeological evidence regard-ing the developmental interrelationships of the various cultural sequences.

POLITICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SUBREGIONSOF COASTAL ECUADOR

In the following analysis, coastal Ecuador has been divided into variousarchaeological subregions (Fig. 2). Archaeological research on Ecuadorianprehistory has generally been discussed in reference to provincial boundaries.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


198 Staller

Table II. Chronological Table of Archaeological Phases of Coastal Ecuador

However, in this study the various coastal regions are also differentiated interms of sociocultural development and the distributions of the various For-mative culture phases. I have identified a total of six subregions. They include(1) SW coastal Ecuador, which incorporates the Santa Elena Peninsula andSW coastal Guayas Province, especially the area between the Rıo Verdeand Rıo Valdivia, and coastal regions to the SE. It is this subregion thathas received the most attention by archaeologists and contains late prece-ramic and the earliest Formative occupations. In fact, the late PreceramicPeriod Las Vegas complex is peculiar to this subregion (Stothert, 1976, 1983,1985). The Formative ceramic sequences derived from this area of the coastconstitute the most detailed database of what has been published regard-ing the Ecuadorian Formative. (2) Southern Manabı Province refers to thearea around the towns of Manta and Machalilla as well as La Plata Islandand the coastline and coastal hills extending to Bahia de Caraquez and thearea around the Rıo Chone. Southern Manabı has also been extensivelyinvestigated and the settlement patterns and ceramic diagnostics indicatean intense post Early Formative Period occupation. (3) Northern Manabı

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



Fig. 2. Various archaeological subregions of Ecuador discussed and defined in this study.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


200 Staller

Province refers to the regions between the Rıo Chone to the provincialboundary with Esmeraldas Province. Archaeological research in this sub-region has been for the most part concentrated along the Rıo Jama. (4)Esmeraldas Province has been the subject of extensive archaeological re-search by various scholars but is in a general sense environmentally and cul-turally distinct from the rest of coastal Ecuador. (5) The Gulf of Guayaquil,which refers to those regions, river valleys, inlets, islands and coastlines thatempty into and surround the gulf to the regions north of the Straits of Jambelı.The Gulf of Guayaquil includes portions of Guayas Province and in thisanalysis incorporates the Guayas Basin as well. In the later periods thissubregion is climatically, developmentally, and culturally distinct from theother subregions within Guayas Province. Archaeological research on theFormative has been rather sporadic, primarily focused on Puna Island andin and near the cities of Milagro and Guayaquil. Our understanding of theprehistory of this region has generally lagged behind other areas of the coast.Survey and excavations on Formative Period sites have been largely focusedwithin the immediate vicinity of the Rıo Daule and/or Rıo Babahoya. How-ever, the Punta Arena Peninsula was the focus of concentrated research inthe early 1960s to the mid-1970s (Fig. 1). Nevertheless, the area north andeast of Guayaquil, especially the regions between the eastern side of theColonche Hills and the yungas along western corridor of the Andes Moun-tains have received only limited archaeological research. (6) Coastal El OroProvince refers to the barrier island estuary of the Straits of Jambelı, specif-ically the area between the Rıo Jubones near the city of Machala, and theborder of Peru at the Rıo Zarumilla. Most archaeological research in thissubregion has been relatively recent and centered in the vicinity of the low-lands and coastal hills between the Rıo Arenillas and Rıo Buenavista. Thesevarious subregions directly correspond to areas of archaeological, environ-mental, and climatic variability.

All the aforementioned subregions except Esmeraldas Province are di-rectly pertinent to this synthesis of the Ecuadorian Formative. Archaeolog-ical research in the Santiago–Cayapas Region of Esmeraldas Province ap-pears to reflect a prehistory largely distinct from the rest of coastal Ecuador(DeBoer, 1996; Ferdon, 1941a; Ferdon and Corbett, 1941; Saville, 1909; Uhle,1923; Valdez, 1987, 1992). These distinctions are evident in the materialculture, which in later periods appear to reflect stylistic influences fromMesoamerica and Colombia and such affiliations are also implied by var-ious technological innovations as well. Complex sociocultural developmentappears to have been for the most part post-Formative (DeBoer, 1996).However, when evidence of complexity does appear in the archaeologi-cal record it is in the form of earthen mound constructions, finely craftedceramic vessels and figurines, and personal adornments made of precious

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



metals (Ferdon and Corbett, 1941; Jijon y Caamano, 1941; Saville, 1909,1924; Valdez, 1992). As a result, archaeological sites in this subregion havebeen extensively looted and constitute major collections in museum exhibits.This is particularly the case with ancient objects associated with the La Tolitaculture, which is renown for the finely crafted objects of precious metal as-sociated with funerary and ceremonial contexts (Ferdon and Corbett, 1941;Saville, 1909, 1924; Valdez, 1992). Although such technological innovationshave much in common with pre-Hispanic cultures of Colombia, the finelycrafted anthropomorphic and zoomorphic vessels of the La Tolita culturealso have clear stylistic affinities to assemblages from other subregions of theEcuadorian coast (Ferdon and Corbett, 1941; Valdez, 1992). Valdez (1987)also carried out excavations at the type-site and the chronology developedfrom this research is presented in Table II. Although the Formative basein Esmeraldas Province has been designated as the Chorrera Phase, it is asyet not well defined in terms of diagnostic attributes. In a synthesis of themost recent archeological evidence from the region, DeBoer, (1996, p. 68)has stated that the evidence for Early Formative occupation consists of twosherds which are “vintage Valdivia” from a mixed deposit. DeBoer (1996,pp. 68–70; Fig. 4.2) states that one of the sherds was found near a site with a3580 B.P. date, but the contextual association and the dated deposit are prob-lematic. The earliest established ceramic horizon in Esmeraldas Provincedates to the latter half of the third millennium B.P.

Most of what is known about the Formative of coastal Ecuador is de-rived from archaeological investigations centered in SW coastal Ecuador andS Manabı. As research has spread to other subregions our understanding ofthe pre-Hispanic sequences has become increasingly complex in recent years.Early interpretations of Formative prehistory were perceived as a result ofmigrations and diffusion. The more recent ceramic and archaeological ev-idence from coastal El Oro and northern Manabı have challenged most ofthese interpretations. Since the initial perceptions of these Formative cul-tures to one another and to prehistoric cultures in other regions were basedupon diffusion and migration as primary causal factors in culture change,few syntheses have appeared that incorporate more recent results. The pri-mary objective of this analysis of the Ecuadorian Formative is to reassessthe pre-Hispanic sequence in light of the most recent research.

CLIMATE, ENVIRONMENT, AND ECOLOGYIN COASTAL ECUADOR

The primary factors effecting the climate and environmental zones ofcoastal Ecuador are the cold Humboldt Current which runs along the eastern

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


202 Staller

Pacific and variations in the geographic distance of the Andean Cordillerato the coast lowlands.

Annual precipitation patterns over most of SW and S coastal Ecuadordepend upon the changing ocean currents that push moisture in the formof clouds along the western edges of the Andean Cordillera. When the coldwater of the Humboldt Current comes into contact with the warm tropicalair temperatures near the equator, it condenses into fog (garua) and formslow lying clouds that move to the east toward the coastal hills and foothillsof the cordillera. In SW coastal Ecuador, the clouds usually dissipate east ofthe coastal hills but reform along the western edge of the Andean Cordillerawhere they build up and release moisture in the form of precipitation in thehigh sierra. The precipitation is carried as fresh water by stream channels orabsorbed into the groundwater and underground aquifers that feed into thelowland savanna (pampa) and eventually empty into the sea.

The Humboldt Current generally runs parallel to the western coast ofSouth America until it reaches the Santa Elena Peninsula at about 2◦ SouthLatitude in SW coastal Ecuador. The ocean currents then flow westwardtoward the Galapagos Islands, and beyond along the equatorial South Pacific.During periods of El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon, thecold water of the Humboldt Current is initially replaced by the warm water ofthe El Nino countercurrent along western South America in the area of theSanta Elena Peninsula. ENSO has a history of greatly affecting the climate,ecology (both marine and terrestrial) and the human carrying capacity over avast area of western South America (Fagan, 1999; Holmgren et al., 2001; Kerr,1999; McPhaden, 1999; Zuta et al., 1976). Although all of coastal Ecuador isto some extent affected by ENSO, the subregions most directly affected areS Manabı, SW coastal Ecuador, and coastal El Oro Province (Rollins et al.,1987; Sandweiss, 1986, p. 18; Zuta et al., 1976 ) (Fig. 2).

Since the archaeological subregions along the Ecuadorian coast de-scribed above also roughly correspond to regions of climatic and environ-mental variation, they are discussed below in terms of the distribution ofFormative archaeological remains, and in terms of their carrying capacityand potential for agricultural intensification.

Esmeraldas Province, Northern Manabı, and the Gulf of Guayaquilare the wettest subregions of coastal Ecuador, while S Manabı, SW coastalEcuador, and coastal El Oro are the most arid (Jijon y Caamano, 1952,Fig. 2, map 1). The climate in S Manabı, SW coastal Ecuador, and coastal ElOro is characterized as semiarid, distinguished by marked annual variationof rainy and dry seasons (Canadas Cruz, 1983; Ferdon, 1950). The naturalvegetation has been classified as dry tropical forest, with hygrophytic or drypremontane forest in higher elevations (>100 masl), and concentrations ofdiverse tree species and shrubs along the banks of the major coastal streams

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



(Canadas Cruz, 1983; Jijon y Caamano, 1952, Fig. 2 map 1). The vegetationregimes in these regions of coastal Ecuador consist of a dry tropical xero-phytic formation, made up of a variety of succulents, trees (Jacuinia andCapparis spp.), shrubs, and a diverse array of columnar cacti (Canadas Cruz,1983; Ferdon, 1950; Parker and Carr, 1992). The coastal ecology over most ofEcuador is characterized by a high incidence of endemic plants and animals(Parker and Carr, 1992, p. 39; Svenson, 1946, p. 415).

In SW Ecuador, the coastal streams are for the most part seasonal.The shoreline in SW coastal Ecuador, and N and S Manabı, are separatedfrom the Andes by a range of coastal hills referred to as the Cordillerade Colonche and ranging between 100 to 300 masl (Fig. 3A). In the Gulfof Guayaquil, coastal El Oro Province and the regions north of the RıoChone in N Manabı, the various stream channels flow year-round. Differ-ences in stream flow in N Manabı and coastal Esmeraldas Province arerelated to a higher (>1000 mm) average annual precipitation in those re-gions (Delavaud, 1982; Zeidler and Kennedy, 1994). Consequently, NorthernManabı and the Gulf of Guayaquil are much more adapted to year-roundplant cultivation.

Differences in annual stream flow in these various subregions are alsorelated to the geographic proximity of the Andean Cordillera to the coast-line. In areas of coastal Ecuador where the coastal lowlands are separatedfrom the cordillera by coastal hills there is greater variability in precipita-tion (Fig. 3A). In coastal El Oro and the lowlands to the north in the Gulf ofGuayaquil the foothills of the cordillera begin their ascent only 15 km fromthe seashore (Fig. 3B). The topography and geography of these regions ofcoastal Ecuador more closely approximate the conditions in far north coastalPeru (see Burger, 1992, Fig. 10).

The proximity of the cordillera to the coast and differences in over-all oceanic depth in these subregions has significance for the distributionsand densities of maritime species at different periods of the annual cycle.They also have important effects upon the lowland vegetation, since manyendemic species are adapted to the moisture provided by the coastal fog.These geographic differences also have variable effects at the top of thefood chain especially upon human adaptation and population density.

The Andean Cordillera represents the dominant physiographic featurein western South America and is generally a formidable dispersal barrierfor plants and animals (Fig. 4). However, just south of El Oro Province, be-tween 4◦ and 6◦ S Latitude, the spine of the Andean Cordillera shifts from anortheast–southwest to a northwest–southeast direction. Botanists and ge-ologists refer to this area of the cordillera as the Huancabamba Deflection orDepression (Sagastegui et al., 1999). The mountain valleys east and south ofcoastal El Oro are the narrowest and lowest in altitude of the entire Andean

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


204 Staller

Fig. 3. Topographic profiles of the western Andean Cordillera in Ecuador. (A) Topographiccharacteristics of S Manabı and SW coastal Ecuador, (B) Topographic characteristics of El OroProvince at Santa Rosa. The dotted line at 3200 masl represents the maximum altitude for thecultivation of most South American varieties of maize.

Cordillera (see Figs. 3B and 4). The local geography, ecology, and environ-ment of coastal El Oro and the eastern portion of the Gulf of Guayaquilsubregion provide an ideal setting for the movement of human populationsand cultural plants between the coast, western highlands (yungas), and theUpper Amazon (ceja de montana).

Species diversity and a high incidence of endemic plants and animals(Parker and Carr, 1992, p. 39–40) characterize the ecology in the southern re-gion of the Ecuadorian cordillera. Such ecological complexity is believed to

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



Fig

.4.T

opog

raph

icpr

ofile

ofth

eA

ndes

Cor

dille

rain

Ecu

ador

.The

profi

leill

ustr

ated

repr

esen

tsth

ew

este

rnsp

ine

ofth

eA

ndes

.The

cord

iller

aea

stof

the

Gul

fofG

uaya

quil

and

agai

nin

the

sout

hin

ElO

rois

the

part

ofth

eA

ndes

that

has

the

low

esto

vera

llal

titu

de.T

heA

ndes

inE

lOro

Pro

vinc

ees

sent

ially

repr

esen

tsth

eno

rthe

rnpo

rtio

nof

the

Hua

ncab

amba

Defl

ecti

on.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


206 Staller

be due to habitat heterogeneity and fragmentation (Sagastegui et al., 1999).The Huancabamba Deflection is the only area of the Andes where relatedAmazonian and Pacific versants have been reported on both the western andeastern sides of the cordillera. The environmental zones in coastal El OroProvince and the eastern portion of the Gulf of Guayaquil are more “tightlypacked” than in SW coastal Ecuador or S Manabı. Such environmental andecological differences have important implications for settlement patterningand population densities, as well as long-distance exchange with inland so-cieties. Various lines of botanical and archaeological evidence suggest thatthe environmental and ecological conditions that characterize the Huan-cabamba Deflection appear to have facilitated the long distance exchange,plant cultivation, and movement of plants and subsistence resources on bothsides of the cordillera.

Coastal El Oro Province, SW coastal Ecuador, and S Manabı are aridcoastlines distinguished by a marked variation of dry and rainy seasons.Coastal El Oro is somewhat distinct since it has a true transitional envi-ronment or ecotone (Staller, 2001). Rainfall significantly increases northof Machala into the tropical lowlands of the Guayas Basin, and becomesincreasingly arid towards Peruvian border (Table III, c–e). A rainfall gradi-ent also exists from east to west exemplified by a 30% reduction in annualprecipitation between Machala and Puerto Bolivar despite an overland dis-tance of only 5 km, and a 75% annual reduction between Puerto Bolivar andZorritos, Peru, a N–S distance of only 35 km (Staller, 1994). Over 90% of theannual precipitation along the coast occur during the 3-month long rainy sea-son. The growing cycle in coastal El Oro, SW coastal Ecuador, and S Manabıis limited by the dry season, which extends from early April to late December(Table III).

The precipitation cycles in coastal El Oro, SW coastal Ecuador, andS Manabı are normally insufficient to sustain year-round cultivation with-out irrigation and detailed analyses of aerial photos and systematic regional

Table III. Average Monthly Precipitation in S. Manabı, SW Coastal Ecuador, and Coastal ElOro Province

Weatherstation Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

(a) Manta 69 64 64 21 4.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 5.0(b) La Libertad 35.3 92.9 84.5 17 2.3 0.8 0.5 1.2 1.0 1.0 2.5 6.3(c) Machala 109.9 156.9 177 105.9 46.9 19 17 20 16 18 9.9 11.9(d) P. Bolivar 66 134.8 160 87.9 11.9 13.9 9.9 8.8 9.9 13.9 7.1 10.9(e) Zorritos, Peru 18 56.1 33 17 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0

Note. All Measurements are in mm. (after Wernstedt 1972). Average annual precipitation:Manta (213.2 mm.); La Libertad (245.4 mm.); Machala (708.9 mm.); Puerto Bolivar (505.9 mm.);Zorritos, Peru (129 mm.).

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



Table IV. Average Monthly Temperatures in S. Manabı, SW Coastal Ecuador, and Coastal ElOro Province

Weatherstation Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

(a) Manta 25.8 24.7 24.6 24.6 24.1 23.9 23.9 24 24.4 25.2 25.2 25(b) La Libertad 25.9 26.2 26.3 26.3 26.1 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.7 25.8 23.7 25.7(c) P. Bolivar 25.8 26.5 26.6 26.5 25.5 23.8 23.2 22.7 23 23.2 23.7 25(d) Zorritos, Peru 26.6 26.8 27.1 26.1 25.6 24.2 23 22.7 22.7 23.2 23.3 25.1

Note. All Measurements are in ◦C. (after Wernstedt 1972). Average annual temperatures: Manta(24.6◦); La Libertad (25.9◦); Machala (24.7◦); Puerto Bolivar (24.7◦); Zorritos, Peru (24.7◦).

surveys indicate an absence of pre-Hispanic irrigation technology in thesevarious subregions. However, artificial earthen retention ponds referred to asalbarradas have been identified in SW coastal Ecuador and appear to date tothe Late Formative Period (Stothert, 1995, pp. 148–149). Such features prob-ably provided year-round water for consumption, but were apparently notdesigned for agriculture. In the wetter, more semitropical Gulf of Guayaquilsubregion extensive systems of pre-Hispanic raised fields have been identi-fied but are believed to be post-Formative (Denevan and Mathewson, 1985;Marcos, 1987).

The average monthly temperatures throughout coastal Ecuador are sta-ble ranging from 22.7 to 27.1◦C and average 24.7◦C (Table IV), and the rel-ative humidity in these latitudes generally ranges from 70 to 90% (CanadasCruz, 1983; Delavaud, 1982, p. 19). The general stability of the air temper-atures is directly related to the cold Humboldt Current, which produces adense fog most of the dry season throughout all of coastal Ecuador. Evenduring the driest months, cloud forests along the lower western slopes of theAndes trap and recycle huge quantities of moisture (Lippi, 1998, p. 52). Incoastal El Oro, such conditions maintain a high water table, which also playsa role in the year-round discharge of the local streams. These geographic,climatic, environmental, and ecological conditions select for a high degree ofeconomic flexibility and played an important role in the early developmentof sedentism, complex social organization, and long-term subsistence adap-tation. This detailed discussion of the coastal climate, environment, ecology,geography and geomorphology is in response to much of what has been writ-ten in the archeological literature regarding pre-Hispanic Formative adap-tation, diet, and settlement patterns. These factors have historically showna selection for adaptive flexibility rather than intensification and specializa-tion and such long-term adaptive patterns are supported by the ethnographicliterature.

Coastal and inland societies in the various subregions of the Ecuado-rian littoral show a clear pattern of economic interdependence (Lathrapet al., 1977; Staller, 1994, 2001). Seashore fishing communities are primarily

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


208 Staller

adapted to maritime and aquatic resources, and carry out reciprocal ex-change and resource sharing with agricultural communities dispersed fur-ther inland along the coastal streams. Such cultural and economic interde-pendence has been recorded ethnographically over most all of coast andvarious lines of archaeological evidence suggest that such a pattern may beof great antiquity (Damp, 1984a; Lathrap et al., 1977; Raymond, 1988; Staller,1994, 2000a, 2001). The seasonal availability of maritime and terrestrial plantand animal resources are complimentary in various ways. Such adaptive in-terrelationships are evident by the cyclical variations in annual subsistencestrategies in coastal El Oro reconstructed on the basis of ethnographic ev-idence generated in the field by the author and illustrated in Fig. 5. Theethnographic evidence suggests that the availability of seasonally specificresources is in various ways complimentary, and is adjusted by either so-lar and/or lunar cycles. The near-shore mangrove and estuary environmentsalong S Manabı and SW coastal Ecuador are not of the scale and density asthose of the other subregions, and consequently appear to have maintainedlower population densities.

Archaeological evidence and stable carbon isotope data derived frompre-Hispanic skeletons at numerous coastal sites indicate a distinct pat-tern. They suggest that the archaic Las Vegas culture and the early ValdiviaI–III adaptation was primarily focused upon hunting and seasonal gathering(van der Merwe et al., 1993). During the later portion of the Early Forma-tive Period, sedentary pottery-bearing societies along the coast had vari-able adaptive patterns, but were more focused upon maritime resources andsmall-scale plant cultivation. Furthermore, once the overall adaptive patternshifts to sedentism along the coast, the economic and cultural interdepen-dence between maritime societies and inland farmers appears to increase andthen become stable. This pattern of interdependence exists in the present,and it may extend back to the Early Formative Period (Damp, 1984a, 1988;Lathrap et al., 1977; Meggers et al., 1965; Raymond, 1988; Staller, 1994). Infact, various lines of evidence suggest that the economy that formed the ba-sis for sedentism along the Ecuadorian coast involved the year-round avail-ability of maritime resources, seasonal hunting, and small-scale cultivation(Estrada, 1956, 1958; Lanning, 1967; Meggers, 1966; Meggers et al., 1965;Staller, 1994, 2001).

CRITICAL RESOURCES AND PATTERNS OF EXCHANGE INCOASTAL ECUADOR

The economic terrestrial and aquatic resources along the coast aredistinct from those in the highlands and such differences appear to have

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



Fig. 5. Annual subsistence cycles in southern coastal El Oro Province.

promoted long-distance interaction early in the pre-Hispanic sequence. Ex-change in cotton, salt, fish, and certain species of marine bivalves providedan early stimulus to interaction with the inter-montane and highland valleys(Staller, 1994, p. 186). Domesticated cotton has ancient origins in coastalEcuador and was no doubt essential in the manufacture of fishing nets and

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


210 Staller

textiles (Damp and Pearsall, 1994; Marcos, 1979, p. 18; White, 1985, p. 50).Consumption of maritime and aquatic resources provides the necessary io-dine lacking in the bland high carbohydrate diets of agricultural populationsliving inland from the coast or in the Andean highlands (Burger, 1992, p. 32;Knapp, 1988). Salt is another important source of iodine and was often usedas a preservative for meat and fish. Salt occurs naturally on the salt flats (sal-itral or pampa) and inter-tidal zones throughout SW Ecuador and coastal ElOro. Maritime commodities and salt appear to have been exchanged withhighland populations for a variety of resources (both economic and exoticsumptuary goods) adapted to or derived from higher elevations as well as thetropical forest in the later periods. The earliest direct evidence of lowland–highland interaction is in the form of obsidian flakes derived from outcropsnear the valley of Quito (Asaro et al., 1994; Burger et al., 1994). Highlandobsidian has been found in various Valdivia VI–VIII sites in coastal El Oro,SW coastal Ecuador, and N Manabı (Burger et al., 1994; Staller, 1994, 2001;Zeidler et al., 1994). In the highlands, evidence of exchange appears in theform of marine shell and ceramic diagnostics with clear coastal affinitiesat sites such as Cotocollao in the valley of Quito, and at Cerro Narrio andPirincay in the southern near Cuenca (Bruhns et al., 1990; Collier and Murra,1943; Villalba, 1988).

Certain indigenous species of marine shellfish such as the Thorny Oys-ter (Spondylus princeps), and the Strombus Conch (Strombus galeatus) werecentral to Andean cosmology and religion (Marcos, 1978; Marcos andNorton, 1981; Paulsen, 1974). Such species were probably exchanged alongwith salt as sumptuary items in long-distance interaction between the coast,highlands, and ceja de montana. Ethnohistorians and archaeologists (Marcosand Norton, 1981; Norton, 1981; Salomon, 1977/78, 1986) have documentedthe existence of an institution of status traders (mindala) who carried outlong-distance interaction between the coast and the highlands in the laterperiods, although the antiquity this Andean institution has yet to be deter-mined (see also Norton 1981).

Salomon (1985, Fig. 23.1) introduced a spatial and hierarchical modelof uses of goods and exchange for highland societies involving direct accessto commodities in terms of their material constituents and intrinsic and eco-nomic value. The framework for analysis involves the extent to which goodsare locally available, or arrive into the center from distant peripheries. Thepatterns of exchange are then categorized as an indirect reflection of the de-gree of complexity of the societies involved in the long-distance interaction.Commodities from the center included locally available consumables, maize,wood, etc., at one end of the spectrum to exotic sumptuary goods that con-note rank and “generosity” usually brought in from different environmental

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



zones in distant peripheries. Sumptuary goods from remote regions are gen-erally associated with the elite and closely involved in religious cults andthe legitimization of social rank. According to Salomon (1977/78, 1985) thenecessity for direct access to such commodities created a vested interestfor extra cordillera linkages with the tropical forest (selva tropical) and thelittoral.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL THEORY AND CULTURE PROCESS INCOASTAL ECUADOR

Some archaeologists held that the early origins of pottery technologyin coastal Ecuador the result of stimulus diffusion. Ceramic innovation wasinitially perceived as spreading from regions of greater social complexity,such as the Andean highlands, to areas thought to be peripheral socioculturalcomplexity, such as the tropical forest and coastal lowlands (Estrada, 1958;Estrada et al., 1962; Meggers, 1971, 1987; Meggers et al., 1965; Meggers andEvans, 1966a,b; Uhle, 1922a,b, 1923, 1924).

Ceramic technology has generally been perceived as a marker of seden-tary village life and an agricultural economy (Ford, 1969; Lathrap, 1970;Willey, 1971). The great antiquity of Valdivia ceramics therefore conflictedwith the preconceptions of many in the field regarding the necessary precon-ditions for Formative development, since it was apparently associated witha nomadic fishing and shellfish collecting culture (Estrada, 1956, 1957; Ford,1969; Meggers et al., 1965).

Andean archaeologists generally perceived complexity as synonymouswith urbanization. Their focus was usually based upon environmental dif-ferences seen as the key to understanding sociocultural development andinterpreting culture change. The general consensus had been that only thewetter, more densely vegetated lowland regions of Esmeraldas Province andthe Gulf of Guayaquil were amenable to intensive agriculture, and there-fore social stratification and cultural innovation (Evans and Meggers, 1957;Meggers, 1966; Raymond et al., 1980; Saville, 1909). Early sedentism alongthe Ecuadorian littoral was perceived as directly related to the year-roundavailability of maritime resources (Meggers, 1966, pp. 20–21, 1971).

After these pioneering studies, a large body of archaeological data wasreported establishing the existence of early sedentary populations associ-ated with the Valdivia culture (Damp, 1979, pp. 10–11, 13–14, 1984a, p. 106,1984b, pp. 574–576; Damp and Vargas, 1995, Fig. 13.2; Lathrap et al., 1977,pp. 6–7; Raymond, 1989, pp. 9–12, 1993; Stahl, 1991; Stahl and Zeidler, 1990;Zeidler, 1977, 1984, 1987). Archaeologists also recorded direct evidence

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


212 Staller

of the remnants of Valdivia domestic structures and reported in detail onvarious related household activities (Damp, 1979, 1984a, 1988; Stahl andZeidler, 1990; Zeidler, 1984). A number of archaeological investigations atsites such as Real Alto, San Isidro, San Lorenzo del Mate, and LaEmerenciana also presented evidence of artificial earthen mounds and long-term continuity in associated ceremonial and ritual practices (Cruz andHolm, 1982; Damp, 1979, 1984a, pp. 574–576; Damp and Vargas, 1995,Fig. 13.2; Lathrap et al., 1977, pp. 6–7; Marcos, 1988a,b; Marcos et al., 1976;Marcos et al., 1999; Raymond, 1989, pp. 9–12, 1993; Stahl, 1984, 1985, 1986,1991; Zeidler, 1984, 1987; Staller, 1992/93, 1994; Zevallos-Menendez andHolm, 1960). Archaeologists digging at Real Alto, recorded a “U” shapedsite plan consisting of domestic habitations surrounding a central plaza(Lathrap et al., 1977; Marcos, 1988a,b; Marcos et al., 1976). Similar site planswere later identified in Upper Upano drainage of eastern Ecuador (Salazar,1998). Linear riverine distributions were reported for Valdivia settlementpatterns in various subregions of the coast (Damp, 1984b; Raymond, 1989;Stahl, 1981; Zeidler, 1977). These lines of evidence supported the assertionof an agricultural Valdivia economy based upon the cultivation of maize(Lathrap et al., 1975, 1977; Marcos et al., 1976; Marcos et al., 1999; Raymond,1988; Zevallos, 1971; Zevallos et al., 1977). Maize kernels were found to havebeen used to create stylistic patterns on Valdivia VI pottery (Lathrap et al.,1975; Zevallos et al., 1977) and was implied by the numerous milling stones(manos and metates) found in excavation and on the surfaces of variousValdivia sites (Lathrap et al., 1977; Norton, 1982). However, such imple-ments have never been examined as to what kinds of plants were beingprocessed. Many in the field challenged evidence of a Valdivia subsistenceeconomy primarily based upon the cultivation of domestic plants. More re-cent, stable isotope analysis of Valdivia skeletons and ethnobotanic analysisof carbon residues on Valdivia VII–VIII sherds indicate that the integrationof maize in the subsistence economy was during the final part of the EarlyFormative Period and that it was a secondary plant central to rituals of ex-change (Staller, 2001; Staller et al., 2000; Staller and Thompson, in press;Thompson and Staller, 2001).

PLANT CULTIVATION IN COASTAL ECUADOR

Later archaeological evidence for the precocious development of plantdomestication, particularly the early introduction of domesticated maizeinto South America, were derived from the analysis of plant microfossilsfrom archaeological soils (Pearsall, 1978, 1979, 1992, 1993, 1994; Pearsall

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



and Piperno, 1990; Piperno, 1991, 1994). These data suggested maize was in-troduced into coastal Ecuador as early as 8000 B.P. and that it was presentin the Ecuadorian Amazon by 6000 B.P. with at least two species exist-ing on the coast by 5500 B.P. (Bush et al., 1989; Pearsall, 1978, 1979, 1991,1992, 1993; Piperno, 1991, 1994). Subsequent isotope and ethnobotanicalresearch has challenged the contextual and methodological evidence for anearly introduction of maize in coastal Ecuador (Staller et al., 2000; Stallerand Thompson, in press). Early Ecuadorian dates for maize have also beenchallenged by data from other regions. Although AMS dates (dendrocali-brated) and morphological analysis of maize cobs from the Coxcatlan levelsat Tehuacan suggest it was fully domesticated before about 3540 ± 40 B.C.

(Benz, 1998; Benz and Iltis, 1990; Benz and Long, 2000, Table 1, p. 461;Long et al., 1989; Smith, 1998). Rates of change slowed considerably duringthe period 4770–1850 B.P. (Benz and Long, 2000, Fig. 1, G-C, C-D). Un-der conditions of incipient cultivation increased grain number would onlyenhance fitness when there was deliberate human intervention (Benz andLong, 2000). An implication of this evidence is that there was not deliberateselection for certain varieties in these early time periods. The contextual,chronological, and methodological issues surrounding the introduction ofmaize into South America remain unresolved, but it is generally accepted(because of the great antiquity of ceramic innovation) that plant cultivationhas relatively ancient origins in coastal Ecuador (Lathrap, 1970; Zevallos,1971).

The most recent interpretation regarding early plant domestication sug-gests the Valdivia economy was mixed, based upon plant cultivation, huntingof terrestrial mammals and birds, and the intense exploitation of maritimeresources (Stahl and Zeidler, 1990; Pearsall and Piperno, 1990; van derMerwe et al., 1993). Early sedentism appears to be largely related to arich, stable maritime resource base, hunting of terrestrial fauna, and somesmall-scale cultivation, supporting earlier interpretations of the subsistenceeconomy (Lanning, 1968, pp. 77–79; Meggers, 1966, pp. 34–37; Meggers et al.,1965).

THE FORMATIVE OF COASTAL ECUADOR

Most research on the Formative of coastal Ecuador has been focusedupon the Early Formative Period Valdivia complex. Despite the intensity ofresearch on Valdivia, the chronology and range of material culture diagnosticof the final portion of the sequence were established only recently (Marcos,1989; Marcos et al., 1999; Staller, 1992/93, 1994, 2001; Zeidler and Sutliff,

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


214 Staller

1994). Moreover, the developmental relationships of the various Formativecultures remain unclear, as did their origins. It is the Early Formative Periodsettlement patterns and ceramic diagnostics that are the most extensivelydocumented and the Valdivia chronology is now firmly established.

Although various ceramic seriations have been reported for the ValdiviaPhase (Damp, 1984a; Lanning, 1968; Meggers et al., 1965), the most widelyaccepted analysis is the eight-phase sequence developed by Hill (1972/74).This seriation was based upon the analysis of surface and excavated col-lections from SW coastal Ecuador (Table I). However, the final portionsof the Valdivia sequence, Phases VI–VIII, have not been well establishedin this subregion. The most recent ceramic evidence suggests considerableregional variability in stylistic and formal attributes during the final portionof the sequence (Marcos et al., 1999; Staller, 2001; Zeidler and Sutliff, 1994).Such regional variability continues into the later periods and has importantramifications for interpreting the developmental relationships of the variousFormative culture complexes and their chronological extent in the differentsubregions of the coast.

Victor Emilio Estrada (1956, pp. 9–10, 1958, pp. 7, 12, 21, 24–29) firstidentified the Valdivia Phase from investigations at the type-site and cor-rectly surmised that the ceramic tradition represented the Early FormativePeriod. Subsequent 14C dates supported his conclusions, and but furtherrevealed Valdivia as one of the earliest ceramic complexes of the pre-Hispanic New World (Bischof, 1972, pp. 269–273, Fig. A, 1980, p. 335; Bischofand Viteri, 1972, p. 549; Damp, 1979, pp. 15–26, 89–109, 1984a, p. 106, 1984b,pp. 573–574; Damp and Vargas, 1995, pp. 157, 159–160, Figs. 13.3, 13.4,Table 13.1; Estrada, 1956, pp. 9–10, 1958 pp. 21–42; Evans et al., 1959, pp. 7,15–17; Evans and Meggers, 1962, p. 182; Ford, 1969; Hill, 1972/74, p. 7;Lanning, 1967, pp. 76–77, 81, 85, 1968, pp. 10–11, 37–42; Lathrap et al., 1975,p. 16; Lathrap et al., 1977, pp. 6–7; Marcos, 1978, 1988a,b; Marcos et al., 1999;Meggers, 1966, Fig. 4; Meggers et al., 1965, p. 149; Norton, 1972, 1977, 1982;Raymond et al., 1980, p. 701; Raymond et al., 1991, p. 9; Stahl, 1984, pp. 190–226, Figs. 61, 62). An analysis of the Valdivia diagnostics stored at the MuseoAntropologico in Guayaquil by the author indicate that the initial exca-vations carried out by Estrada at the type-site were primarily taken froma late (Phase VI–VIII) occupation layer. Estrada (1958, pp. 7, 12, 1962b)initially considered the diagnostics to be contemporaneous with Initial Pe-riod cultures at Ancon and Guanape in the Viru valley of coastal Peru (see,for example, Willey and Corbett, 1954). Most of the subsequent researchon Valdivia has until recently been primarily focused upon determining theorigins of the culture sequence and the earliest pottery diagnostics ( Damp,1979, 1984a, 1988; Damp and Vargas, 1995; Lathrap et al., 1977; Marcos, 1978;Meggers et al., 1965; Raymond et al., 1991; Stahl, 1984).

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



THE VALDIVIA TRADITION: DIAGNOSTIC FEATURESTHROUGH TIME AND SPACE

The earliest Valdivia pottery was well made, aesthetically pleasing, andexhibits clear stylistic and formal standardization among distinct vessel shapecategories (Lathrap et al., 1975; Meggers et al., 1965). It was in part dueto these characteristics that Meggers et al. (1965) interpreted the originsof the ceramic tradition as being derived from outside of the Ecuadoriancoast. Even the so-called “pre-Valdivia” pottery excavated by Bischof andViteri (1972) at San Pedro is not technologically simple. Although the SanPedro assemblage consisted of only 27 sherds, this pottery, like other earlydiagnostics, shows no indication of any experimentation, but rather gives theimpression of a fully developed ceramic technology. However, Damp andVargas (1994, Fig. 13.4) have identified Phase II diagnostics in excavations atReal Alto that are identical to the San Pedro diagnostics and they concludedthat these sherds were intrusive.

Phase I pottery from the Valdivia sites of Real Alto and Loma Alta con-sists of untreated or red slipped open bowls and jars with constricted or con-cave necks, and fine line incising in geometric motifs (see Damp and Vargas,1995, Fig. 13.3). Four distinct bowl forms have been identified and they aredifferentiated on the basis of the angle of the vessel walls and rims. Fireclouding on some of the basal sherds of such bowls indicates they were usedin food preparation and do not only function as serving vessels. Perhapsthe most detailed description of the stylistic characteristics of the Valdiviaceramic tradition was presented by Lathrap et al., (1975, pp. 27–33), whoemphasized a conceptual distinction between open bowls and jars with con-stricted necks (see also Staller, 1996b). Such forms occur throughout theentire ceramic sequence but are temporally differentiated by their associ-ated stylistic attributes.

Phase II is characterized by the presence of large engraved open bowlswith low tetrapod feet, found at various sites in SW coastal Ecuador (seeLathrap et al., 1975, Fig. 19; Meggers et al., 1965, Plate 103). Other Phase IIdiagnostics include cooking pots with piecrust rims and shoulder bossesand elaborately decorated jars with castellated rims (Meggers et al., 1965,Plate 103). Phases I and II diagnostics represents a long-term stability inthe technological and stylistic development of the ceramic tradition relativeto the later portion of the ceramic sequence. These early phases comprisea period of over a thousand years, essentially constituting over half of theceramic sequence and are all derived from sites in SW coastal Ecuador.

The middle portion (Phases III–V) of the Valdivia ceramic sequence wasalso primarily defined on the basis of diagnostics from SW coastal Ecuador.There is a proliferation of Valdivia settlements inland in SW coastal Ecuador

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


216 Staller

and also evidence of expansion into other subregions, particularly S Manabı,the Gulf of Guayaquil, and coastal El Oro during this portion of the culturesequence.

Valdivia III–V pottery is characterized by a conspicuous elaboration ofstylistic motifs and a dramatic increase in vessel shape variability in both bowland jar forms (see Hill, 1972/74, Plate V and Plate VI, Figs. 40–47; Marcoset al., 1999, Figs. 2c, and 3a,b). Distinctions include an increase in open bowlforms, some with cut and beveled as well as undulating rims, and concavebottoms and the appearance of anthropomorphic motifs (see Lathrap et al.,1975, p. 28, Fig. 20). Anthropomorphic motifs on Valdivia Phase III–V openbowls often mimic stylistic patterns found on the facial treatment of the fig-urines. Some bowl forms are also clear imitations of halves of carved bottlegourds (Lathrap et al., 1975, p. 29). Stylistic motifs primarily consist of geo-metric designs. However, the design motifs on bowls were usually made whenthe clay was leather hard, while those on jars were made when the clay wasstill moist (Staller, 1996b). Color differences are also evident. Open bowlsare generally brown slipped while jars are red-or maroon-slipped (Staller,1996b). Such technical and stylistic attributes are particularly characteris-tic of the decorative treatment of ritual and ceremonial bowls and jars andmay have metaphorical reference to the Spondylus/Strombus dyad (Paulsen,1974; Staller, 1996b). The contrasting use of red slip zones and intentionalsmudging also begins to appear during the middle of the Valdivia sequenceand continues with later Chorrera ceramics. Cooking pots (ollas) and storagevessels of Phase V of the Valdivia sequence introduce tall neck forms withgeometric motifs and externally thickened rims (Marcos et al., 1999, Fig. 3b).Frequently, both sides of the rim are treated with a red or maroon slip whilethe rest of the vessel is the natural color of the fired clay (Lathrap et al., 1975,Fig. 21). Jars with constricted necks continue from the earlier phases, but theassociated stylistic trend changes to incorporate patterns found on bowls.

During the final portion of the culture sequence Valdivia settlementsexpanded inland in the subregions of SW coastal Ecuador, the Gulf ofGuayaquil, coastal El Oro, and S. Manabı (Fig. 6). In N Manabı, there is anoccupational expansion along the riverine environments during Phase VIII.Ceramic diagnostics pertaining to the final portion of the Valdivia sequenceindicate considerable stylistic and formal variability among subregions.

Valdivia VI–VIII diagnostics indicate an even greater variability in ves-sel forms and stylistic attributes than the middle portion of the sequence(Fig. 7). Jars with cambered rims and deeply concave necks and jars withloop handles appear during Phase VI and continue to Phase VIII overmost of coastal Ecuador. However, after Phase VI striking technologicalchanges occur, including a proliferation of composite forms, and a shift froma strictly coiling based technology to forming techniques that include the

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



Fig. 6. Distribution of Early (Phases I–III) and Late (Phases IV–VIII) Valdivia Phase sites incoastal Ecuador.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


218 Staller

Fig. 7. Diagnostic vessel forms of the Valdivia VII–VIII Jelı Phase complex identified at LaEmerenciana.

use of paddles and hand modeling. Such technological changes are mostapparent in coastal El Oro and the Gulf of Guayaquil. It is also in thesesubregions that the earliest bottle forms appear in association with ValdiviaVII–VIII diagnostics at sites such as La Emerenciana, La Cadena, MilagroI, and San Lorenzo del Mate (Fig. 8). The three basic shapes of ValdiviaVII–VIII bottles are long neck single spouts, carinated spouts, and stirrup-spouts (Gonzalez de Merino, 1984, p. 97; Marcos, 1989, p. 16; Marcos et al.,1999, Fig. 4; Reindel and Guillaume-Gentil, 1995; Staller, 1994, Figs. 45–53,2001, Figs. 22–28). Single spout and carinated spouts were identified at LaCadena, Milagro I and at San Lorenzo del Mate, while all three kinds of bot-tle forms are present in the Jelı Phase complex from La Emerenciana. Froma developmental standpoint, single spouts are diagnostic of the later Chor-rera and related ceramic complexes, however stirrup-spouts were initiallythought to be solely restricted to the Machalilla tradition (Lathrap et al., 1975,Fig. 31; Meggers et al., 1965, Plate 155). Phase VII–VIII diagnostics also

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



Fig. 8. Diagnostic vessel forms from the Valdivia VII–VIII component atSan Lorenzo del Mate located in the Rıo Mate Valley, within the Gulfof Guayaquil subregion and the Phase VII component from Real Altolocated along the Rıo Verde in SW coastal Ecuador. (a) Phase VII diag-nostics (b) Phase VIII diagnostics (after Marcos et al., 1999, Fig. 4).

include bowls and jars with externally everted rims and hollow stirrup han-dles, bowls with vertical walls and flat bottoms, as well as constricted bowls,bowls with pedestal bases and plates with out-flaring walls (Lathrap et al.,1975, p. 31, Figs. 38, 43, 44; Staller, 2001, Figs. 16b, 17, 19–21, 27c, 29; Zeidlerand Sutliff, 1994, Fig. 7.1a,b). Pedestal bowls continue to be manufacturedwith the later Formative assemblages, as do the externally everted jars andopen bowls with vertical or slightly incurving walls.

Neckless cooking pots (ollas) or tecomate forms also appear in SWcoastal Ecuador, the Gulf regions, and coastal El Oro for the first time duringValdivia VI–VIII (Marcos, 1989, p. 16; Marcos et al., 1999, Fig. 4; Meggerset al., 1965, Plate 99c; Staller, 2001, Fig. 18). Such ollas are found with theMachalilla Phase (Lathrap et al., 1975, Fig. 29) and are diagnostic of earlyInitial Period pottery from the North and Central coast of Peru. Phase VII–VIII stylistic and decorative trends include zoned punctation and incision,step motifs, shell scraping, engraving, brushing, combing and the earliestevidence of polychrome decoration on bowls, and shoulder bosses, nubbinappliques, and applique fillet strips on jar forms. All of these attributes ap-pear during Phase VI and continue to the end of the sequence in coastalEl Oro and the Gulf of Guayaquil. Other distinctive Valdivia VII–VIIIattributes in these subregions include the use of post fired paint, red slippedbands, and anthropomorphic and zoomorphic effigy vessels. Effigy vesselsare the hallmarks of the later Machalilla and Chorrera ceramic complexes,and the use of post fired paint and red slip bands are particularly diagnos-tic of Machalilla. The stylistic and technological attributes that characterizeValdivia pottery from the subregions of SW coastal Ecuador, coastal El Oro

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


220 Staller

and the Gulf of Guayaquil strongly suggest that the various Formative ce-ramic traditions are developmentally related.

Valdivia VIII Piquigua Phase (3700–3570 B.P.) pottery from the Rıo Jamadrainage in N Manabı has developmental similarities to late Valdivia potteryfrom coastal El Oro and the Gulf of Guayaquil, but is also distinct in variousways (Zeidler, 1992, 1994, Table 6.2; Zeidler and Sutliff, 1994, Fig. 7.1). It isclear that the Piquigua Phase complex is directly derived from the earlier,more well known Valdivia VIII diagnostics from S Manabı and SW coastalEcuador. Zeidler and Sutliff (1994, pp. 112–114, Fig. 7.1) have identified sixvessel shapes associated with this component (Fig. 9). All but the curvilinearollas with nubbin appliques on the shoulders and neck are present in the JelıPhase ceramic complex from coastal El Oro. However, the elaboration of

Fig. 9. Diagnostic vessel forms of the Valdivia VIII Piquigua Phase complex atSan Isidro and related sites of the Rıo Jama Valley in N Manabı (after Zeidlerand Sutliff, 1994, Fig. 7.1).

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



decorative techniques and the predominance of motifs consisting of zonedincision and punctation (especially on bowls) and the apparent absence ofany bottle forms or neckless ollas distinguish the northern tradition. Otherdistinguishing features include elaborately incised cooking pots with un-dulating rims and decorated ceramic lids such as those from San Lorenzodel Mate (Fig. 8). Stylistic attributes associated with Piquigua Phase pot-tery include, certain bowl forms, and decorative attributes such as post firedpaint, shell scraping, red banding, and fillet appliques. However, associatingPiquigua Phase diagnostics to the later Tabuchila Phase ceramic complexesis more problematic than with the Valdivia VI–VIII traditions from the Gulfof Guayaquil and coastal El Oro. Developmental discontinuity is relatedto a presumed 500-year hiatus resulting from a volcanic eruption (Issacson,1994). Furthermore, Machalilla sites have not as yet been identified in thissubregion.

Valdivia diagnostics pertaining to Phase VI–VIII indicate greater re-gional variation in formal and stylistic attributes in the subregions (Cruz andHolm, 1982; Jadan, 1986; Marcos, 1989; Porras-Garces, 1973; Spath, 1980;Staller, 1994; Zeidler and Sutliff, 1994). When attempting to explain thissome archaeologists have cited environmental differences, culture drift, ordiffusion and migration (Lathrap, 1970; Meggers et al., 1965; Spath, 1980).On the Punta Arena Peninsula, and at El Encanto on Puna Island PhaseVI–VIII Valdivia sherds were examined by Spath (1980, pp. 71–74, 167)and interpreted as a regional variant of Valdivia. Technological and stylis-tic differences from the better-known Valdivia diagnostics of SW coastalEcuador and S Manabı were initially perceived as related to economic dif-ferences. Societies adapted to the Gulf of Guayaquil were “more dependent”upon maritime resources than Valdivia societies in SW coastal Ecuador andS Manabı who were perceived as almost totally dependent upon plant cul-tivation (Lathrap et al., 1975; Marcos et al., 1976; Marcos et al., 1999; Spath,1980; Zevallos et al., 1977).

Valdivia occupation in the Gulf of Guayaquil was interpreted as anexample of cultural drift, a regional variant affected in various ways byindependent historical developments (Porras-Garces, 1973; Spath, 1980).Rather than focus upon sociocultural development, chronology, or cultureprocess, most archaeologists implicitly assumed that the total range of vari-ability for the Valdivia tradition had been already documented (Ledergerber,1983). However, the notion that regional differences in the Phase VI–VIIIpottery assemblages from the Gulf of Guayaquil were a result of greatermaritime resource exploitation was contradicted by faunal evidence, whichshows a continued maritime focus (at least by coastal communities) in SWcoastal Ecuador and S Manabı (Byrd, 1976; Lanning, 1968; Meggers et al.,1965; Staller, 1994). The most recent evidence from faunal analysis, analysis

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


222 Staller

of shellfish, and site distributions in the various subregions, during differ-ent periods suggest the Valdivia economy was always mixed, involving theexploitation of a variety of distinct environmental zones, during differentseasons.

In a study of the development of pottery technology in the New World,Hoopes (1994) maintains that with increasing information regarding specificregional sequences, the ability to make broad comparisons among potterysequences significantly declines. Such regional diversity is already apparentby the final portion of the Valdivia Phase and unequivocal by Late Forma-tive times (Beckwith, 1996). The most recent analyses of Valdivia VI–VIIIpottery from outside SW coastal Ecuador indicate that ceramic innovationwas influencing and influenced by a variety of diverse historical and culturalprocesses beyond the Ecuadorian coast (Staller, 1994, pp. 391–399). Sometime between 4200 and 3650 B.P. ceramic innovation spread throughout thelowland and highland regions of western South America. It is also at thistime that the first clear evidence of complexity appears in the archaeologicalrecord of the Andes.

Most specialists on the Ecuadorian Formative recognize a significanttechnological and stylistic divergence in Valdivia ceramics during and afterPhase III (Lathrap et al., 1977; Marcos and Manrique, 1988; Staller, 1994;Zeidler, 1984) featuring increased variability in vessel shape and in thedegree of elaboration of decoration and stylistic attributes. In southern ElOro and the Gulf of Guayaquil there is also a dramatic proliferation ofcomposite forms after Phase VI characterized by a shift from a coil basedceramic technology to a variety of different forming techniques during thefinal portion of the ceramic sequence throughout coastal Ecuador (Staller,1994, 2001). However, such technological changes were not as apparentin the Phase VII–VIII diagnostics from SW coastal Ecuador and N andS Manabı. The differences between Phase VII–VIII diagnostics from differ-ent subregions in part explain why a developmental transition between Val-divia and the later Formative ceramic traditions was so elusive for so manyyears.

Another important factor influencing the regional variability evidentduring Valdivia VI–VIII is related to changes in the subsistence adaptation.Geographic expansion by Valdivia populations into the Gulf of Guayaquiland coastal El Oro after Phase III, and into N Manabı after Phase VII im-plies a greater focus upon plant cultivation by riverine communities locatedinland. These subregions have a higher average annual precipitation thanSW coastal Ecuador and are generally more amenable to agriculture. An-other important factor affecting the regional variability and is related tolong-distance interaction and the development of more complex forms ofsocial organization (Staller, 1992/93).

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



The early settlement surveys in SW coastal Ecuador and southernManabı indicated that Valdivia VI–VIII sites were fewer and smaller thansites with earlier occupations (Damp, 1984a; Estrada, 1956; Lanning, 1968;Lathrap et al., 1977; Schwarz and Raymond, 1996). For example, Meggerset al. (1965) emphasized pottery diagnostics from late Valdivia sites in thePunta Arena Peninsula to define their Period D. They explained these occu-pations as a result Valdivia migrations from SW coastal Ecuador into the Gulfof Guayaquil. Later, Columbia University surveys in SW coastal Ecuador un-covered similar chronological patterns in Valdivia settlement and indicatedthat Phase VI–VIII sites were rare, and restricted to small coastal localities(Lanning, 1968). Although Lanning (1968) isolated Phase VI diagnostics hefound them to be rare in the Santa Elena Peninsula. Later investigations inthis subregion (Damp, 1984a; Damp et al., 1990; Ferdon, 1981; Schwarz andRaymond, 1996) imply that the rarity of post Phase V occupations may bereflecting a reduction of mangrove habitats due to either ENSO, geomor-phological change and/or human overexploitation (Staller, 1994). Today, themangrove formation that once existed in SW coastal Ecuador has all butdisappeared. The apparent ancient degradation of this habitat supports thepremise that coastal populations continued to exploit maritime resourceseven after inland populations had shifted to a mixed economy partly basedupon plant cultivation.

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTIONS AND SUBREGIONALCHRONOLOGIES

The Valdivia Phase was originally divided into four subphases desig-nated from early to late as Periods A–D (Meggers et al., 1965). Subsequentlya number of other chronologies were presented (Table V). The most recentresearch indicates that these various chronologies may be reflecting dif-ferences in the intensity of archaeological research as well as pre-Hispanicoccupation in the various subregions (Staller, 1994). On the basis of regionalsurvey and laboratory analysis of artifact collections of Formative materialculture from SW coastal Ecuador, S Manabı, and the Gulf of Guayaquil,Lanning (1968) proposed a preliminary ceramic sequence of nine phases.Lanning (1960, 1963, 1968) had a regional perspective unique among Andeanscholars of his generation. He was the only North American archaeolo-gist to study the early Formative pottery of coastal Ecuador, as well as theearliest Initial Period ceramics from far north and the North and CentralCoasts of Peru. On the basis of this analytical background, he correctlysurmised that Valdivia pottery technology was a precocious coastal phe-nomenon that evolved in situ and, furthermore, despite an absence of direct

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


224 Staller

Table V. Valdivia and Machalilla Ceramic Chronologies

evidence, that the Machalilla tradition developed out of Valdivia (Lanning,1968).

Later, Hill (1972/74) reanalyzed the Columbia University collectionsand presented a revised eight phase (Phase I–VIII) ceramic seriation. Thisanalysis was based upon stylistic attributes, vessel forms, themes, and decora-tive patterns (see Rowe, 1960, 1961). Hill found a discontinuous frequencycurve between fillet applique and brushed attributes when attempting tomerge Period C diagnostics from Buena Vista, with those excavated at theValdivia type-site (Hill, 1972/74, pp. 19, 24). She attributed the discontinu-ity to mixed layers in the Cut 1 excavations at the site of Buena Vista byMeggers et al. (1965). The Cut 1 excavation was in arbitrary increments ona sloping river terrace at the base of a steep hill (Meggers et al., 1965, p. 18).Hill (1972/74, pp. 19–20, 25) further contended that inverted stratigraphy orsecondary deposits indicated that late Period C diagnostics were in fact earlyPeriod C or Phase VI.

The preference for the eight-phase sequence over the Period A–D se-riation is related in part to the recognition that Period C at Buena Vistaactually corresponds to Phase VI (Fig. 10). On the other hand, weaknesseswith the Hill seriation, include small sample sizes, and an absence of strati-graphic evidence and dates to establish phase distinctions due to shallow,disturbed archaeological deposits, which Hill (1972/74, p. 15) mentions inthe published report. Phase VIII diagnostics were solely based upon surface

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



Fig. 10. SW and S Coastal Ecuador: Showing the approximate locations of Formative sitesmentioned in the text.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


226 Staller

finds from OGSE-46B a small coastal locality a few meters from the sea inLa Libertad on the Santa Elena Peninsula (see also Ferdon, 1940a,b, 1941b,1942). The middle portion of the sequence (Phases III–V) was based uponsurface finds from four disturbed middens west of La Libertad (Hill, 1972/74,pp. 20–21). Phase divisions were arbitrary since reliable temporal differenceswere stylistically based primarily from surface collections (Hill, 1972/74,pp. 13, 15).

A series of 21 uncalibrated 14C dates ranging between 4950 and 2950B.P. initially established the Valdivia cultural chronology (Evans et al., 1959;Meggers, 1966, pp. 34–42; Meggers et al., 1965, pp. 149, 151). Columbia Uni-versity excavations at two sites (G-42A and G-172) reported dates rangingfrom 4750 to 3250 B.P. (Lanning, 1967, p. 85; Willey, 1971, p. 270). However,later dates from Loma Alta placed the beginning of the culture sequence tobetween 5450 and 5250 B.P. (Damp, 1979, 1984a; Norton, 1972, 1977, 1982;Stahl, 1984). Early estimates for the end of the ceramic sequence were basedupon several Machalilla 14C dates, as well as some Chorrera dates (Meggers,1966; Meggers et al., 1965).

Phase VII and VIII of the Valdivia culture sequence was tentativelypostulated by Hill from two corrected dates from site OGSE-46B, a 2870–1940 B.C. [L-1232H; 3900 B.P. ± 150 years] date, and another 2570–1740 B.C.

[L-1232I; 3750 B.P.± 150 years] date associated with Phase VII pottery (Hill,1972/74, p. 21). These dates were rather imprecise, suggesting the culturesequence ended sometime after 4250 B.P. (Hill, 1972/74). A shell samplefrom Buena Vista with a date of 1890–1620 B.C. [SI-69; 3450 B.P. ± 50 years]still placed the end date at ca. 3650 B.P. (Meggers et al., 1965, p. 149). Despite apaucity of 14C dates for the end of the culture sequence, most archaeologistshave contended Machalilla was later than and probably a developmentaloutgrowth of the Valdivia tradition (Bischof, 1967, p. 217, 1975; Lanning,1967, p. 9, 1968, pp. 39, 41–42; Lathrap, 1971, pp. 84–85; Lathrap et al., 1975,pp. 16, 33–34; Lathrap et al., 1977, p. 6; Pearsall, 1979, p. 6). The dividing linebetween Valdivia and Machalilla Phase cultures was initially estimated atca. 3450± 200 B.P., with Machalilla terminating at ca. 2950 B.P. (Willey, 1971,p. 353).

Geographic, cultural and developmental factors explain the difficultyin documenting the end of the Valdivia culture sequence. Most of the earlyresearch was confined to the SW coast where settlement surveys and excava-tions recorded the presence of the earliest Valdivia occupations (see Fig. 6).It is now possible to see the relative scarcity of late Valdivia occupation in SWcoastal Ecuador as related in part to a reduction of the mangrove formation,and to settlement expansion after Phase III to the N, S, and SE, and finallyinto N Manabı (Staller, 1994, 2000a). Changes in the geographic distribution

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



of Valdivia occupation is suggested to be related to an increased dependenceupon plant cultivation by inland populations especially after Phase VI, whenmaize appears in the various subregions (Staller and Thompson, in press).

The 14C measurements of samples from the site of San Isidro inN Manabı Province give an end date for the Valdivia Phase of between3500 and 3630 B.P. (Marcos, 1988a, p. 79; Zeidler, 1994, p. 107). These datesare consistent with those reported from Valdivia VIII contexts at site ofAyalan and the Anllulla shell mound in the Gulf of Guayaquil (Lubensky,1980, 1995). Similar results were also derived from 14C assays and AMSdates from Phase VII–VIII layers at La Emerenciana in coastal El Oro. Thecalibrated 14C measurements and AMS dates from La Emerenciana suggestan end date of ca. 1450 B.C. for the Valdivia culture sequence (Staller, 2001,Tables 1 and 2; Staller and Thompson, in press). All of these calibrated 14Cmeasurements taken together suggest an end date ranging between 1650–1450 B.C. (Table VI).

Table VI. Radiocarbon Dates of Valdivia VII–VIII Occupations From VariousSubregions of Coastal Ecuador

14C No. laboratory Uncalibrated (B.P.) Calibrated(material) provenience 14C Age (years) 1–δ Age B.C.

14C No. SMU-2225 (charcoal) 3707 ± 148 2288 ± 2245(La Emerenciana)




14C No. N-2908 3665 ± 95 2148 ± 1920(charcoal) (Ayalan)

14C No. N-2909 3630 ± 105 2115 ± 1871(charcoal) (Ayalan)

14C No. ISGS-1220 3500 ± 70 1869 ± 1754(charcoal) (San Isidro)




Note. All SMU dates are standard assays and are calibrated using Calib 4.1.2 (Stuiveret al., 1998) with a minus 24-years Southern Hemisphere atmosphere sample adjust-ment and are at the one sigma range. Staller (1994, Table 15, pp. 393–394, 396) providesmore specific information on the 14C that is adjusted for a 5568 year half-life prior tocalibration (after Macros, 1988a, p. 79 and Staller, 2001, Table 1).

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


228 Staller

VALDIVIA–MACHALILLA: A TRANSITION OR A TRADITION?

Most of the initial hypotheses regarding sociocultural development ofthe Formative cultures of coastal Ecuador were ensconced in acultural-historical diffusionary framework. Technological innovations wereassumed to be based upon a Formative substrate reflected by the degree ofstylistic and formal similarities among the various Formative ceramic com-plexes (Hoopes, 1994). Such reasoning led to many differing interpretations.For example, Lathrap (1970, p. 67) suggested that the Machalilla culturewas of tropical origin, citing stylistic affinities between Machalilla and lateTutishcainyo and Sanidine pottery in the Ucayali valley, and sherds fromthe earliest levels at the southern highland site of Cerro Narrıo (Collierand Murra, 1943, Plates 16–17). However, the stylistic trends and distinctvessel forms that differentiated Machalilla from Valdivia, such as red slipbands, engraving, post fired paint, ceramic bottle forms, and a proliferationof composite forms already begin to appear in the Valdivia VI–VIII diag-nostics from the Gulf of Guayaquil and coastal El Oro subregions. In otherpublications, Lathrap has stated that Valdivia and Machalilla were both aresult of a diffusion of floodplain farmers from the tropical forests east ofthe Andes (Lathrap, 1971, 1973, 1974). Linking the Valdivia and Machalillacomplexes to the early ceramic cultures of the tropical forests was at the timea provocative alternative to traditional ways of thinking about diffusion andmigrations, but little was known about the antiquity of pottery bearing cul-tures in eastern Ecuador.

Recent research has indicated that Machalilla related sites are solely re-stricted to the subregions of S Manabı, SW coastal Ecuador, and the PuntaArenas Peninsula in the Gulf of Guayaquil, and coastal El Oro (Fig. 11). Itis precisely in these subregions that Meggers et al., (1965) concentrated theirresearch, and it has been assumed that Machalilla and Valdivia related siteswere similarly distributed. The research has now indicated that the chronol-ogy and distribution of Machalilla related sites are much more complex thanhad been thought. Moreover, there is strong stylistic evidence that the earlypottery at Cerro Narrio and Cotocollao in the Ecuadorian Andes has strongaffinities to Machalilla (Lathrap, 1970, 1973; Lathrap et al., 1975; Villalba,1988).

The Machalilla Phase was initially identified by Bushnell (1951,pp. 17–21) from excavations at two sites near La Libertad on the Santa ElenaPeninsula. Machalilla ceramic diagnostics were later described by Estrada(1958, pp. 13, 53) from excavations at the type-site (M-24). NumerousMachalilla shell middens have been identified in SW coastal Ecuador andS Manabı Province (Estrada, 1958; Meggers et al., 1965, Fig. 2). He (Estrada,1958, pp. 55, 94) assigned Machalilla an intermediate chronological position

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



Fig. 11. Distribution of Machalilla Phase sites in coastal Ecuador.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


230 Staller

between Valdivia and Chorrera, asserting that red banded and engravedsherds represented a single ceramic complex. Estrada (1958, pp. 55, 111) ini-tially interpreted Machalilla as a developmental outgrowth of the Valdiviatradition, and later speculated that the corrugated wares were stylisticallysimilar to those from the mouth of the Rıo Amazon. Machalilla was laterseen as a result of the diffusion of pre-Hispanic societies from Mesoamericainto coastal Ecuador at approximately the same time that Valdivia mate-rial culture was disappearing from the region (Estrada et al., 1962, p. 174).Therefore, Machalilla was perceived as having Mesoamerican origins, andseveral archaeologists took an identical position for the succeeding Chor-rera Phase (Bushnell, 1982; Coe, 1960, pp. 368–369; Evans and Meggers,1957, p. 243, 1966, pp. 203–204; 1982, p. 125; Lathrap, 1960, p. 126; Meggers,1972, pp. 74–75).

The most recent evidence from coastal El Oro and the Gulf of Guayaquilindicates Machalilla and Chorrera developed out of the Valdivia tradition.Such a developmental scenario is also consistent with evidence from coastalEl Oro and the Gulf of Guayaquil, but is more problematic in N Manabı,where Machalilla is apparently absent and there is a hiatus between earlyChorrera and Valdivia VIII. Although most Ecuadorian specialists now per-ceive Valdivia and Machalilla as part of the same ceramic tradition, a devel-opmental transition has yet to be identified in SW coastal Ecuador.

A transition was elusive because early Machalilla ceramic diagnosticswere absent at the type-site and at La Cabuya (G-159) (Meggers and Evans,1962). Meggers et al. (1965) defined the Machalilla tradition on the basis oftype frequencies, dividing the sequence into three subphases A to C, rangingbetween 3950 to 3000 B.P. (Table VI).

A 14C assay [W-630; 4050 B.P.± 200 years] taken from late Valdivia lev-els thought to contain Machalilla trade sherds indicated a date for the pre-sumed arrival of Machalilla migrants into coastal Ecuador (Meggers et al.,1965, p. 172; Meggers and Evans, 1962, p. 191). The presence of presumedMachalilla “trade” pottery in late Valdivia stratigraphic layers at both LaCabuya and Buena Vista led to the conclusion that the two earliest Machalillasubphases (A and B) were coeval with Valdivia C and D (Meggers et al., 1965,p. 87). Meggers et al. (1965, pp. 173–178) further suggested that Machalillawas coeval with and chronologically later than Valdivia, a result of a culturaldiffusion from an undetermined region beyond the coast (see also Meggers,1966, pp. 47–51). Despite a presumed overlap of some 600–700 years, stylisticand technological similarities were surprisingly absent, and Machalilla cul-ture was interpreted as completely distinct from Valdivia (Estrada, 1962a,p. 64; Meggers, 1966, pp. 47–51, 62; Meggers et al., 1965, pp. 18–21, 110–146;Meggers and Evans, 1962, p. 191). Stirrup-spout fragments and sherds withred slip bands from the surface and uppermost layers of the Valdivia type-site

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



also supported their hypotheses regarding the origins and developmental re-lationships of these culture phases (Estrada, 1958, Cuadro 2; Meggers et al.,1965, pp. 110–146). Machalilla sherds in the uppermost levels of Period DValdivia occupation layers were considered to represent the early portionof the ceramic sequence (Estrada, 1958; Hill, 1972/74; Meggers et al., 1965).The chronological range for Machalilla was therefore initially establishedby 14C measurements from samples taken from Valdivia C and D deposits.The presumed early Machalilla diagnostics were likewise sherds taken fromlate Valdivia occupation layers. On the basis of the ceramic evidence fromcoastal El Oro and the Gulf of Guayaquil, it is now apparent that what wereinitially assumed to be early Machalilla diagnostics could just as well havebeen late Valdivia.

Many archaeologists challenged the assertion that Valdivia andMachalilla were coeval, maintaining instead that the presumed overlap wasrather a result of mixing or inverted stratigraphy (Bischof, 1967, p. 219, 1975,p. 50; Collier, 1968, p. 271; Hill, 1972/74, p. 19; Lanning, 1968, p. 47; Lathrap,1967, p. 98; Paulsen and McDougle, 1974, pp. 4–5). Some cited the excava-tions at Buena Vista, which was dug on a sloping river terrace at the base ofa hill, and pointed out that only 21 of the 9800 sherds recovered from below80 cm were Machalilla diagnostics (Hill, 1972/74, pp. 19–20; Lathrap, 1967,p. 98). Rather than representing an intrusion, the evidence could also inferthat Machalilla succeeded Valdivia chronologically (Bischof, 1967, p. 217;Hill, 1972/74, p. 19; Lanning, 1967, p. 9, 1968, pp. 47–50; Lathrap, 1967, p. 98,1971, pp. 84–85; Lathrap et al., 1975, p. 33). Moreover, 14C measurements atLa Cabuya are inverted, also suggesting the possibility of mixing in those ex-cavations (Meggers et al., 1965, pp. 149–152). Furthermore, Machalilla layersat many sites in SW coastal Ecuador were unusually thin, ranging betweenonly 5 and 25 cm in thickness and they were often separated from underlyingValdivia deposits by a thin sterile layer (Lippi, 1983). The presumed mixingof Machalilla and Valdivia layers was attributed to these typically shallowoccupation layers (Estrada, 1958, p. 55; Lanning, 1968). Early estimates forthe end of the Valdivia sequence were also indirect, based upon a series 14Cmeasurements of samples taken from Machalilla layers at the sites of LaLibertad and La Cabuya (Meggers et al., 1965; Meggers, 1966). A dividingline was arbitrarily placed at 3450 ± 200 years, with Machalilla terminatingat ca. 2950 B.P. (Meggers et al., 1965, p. 149; Willey, 1971, p. 353).

Some scholars were concerned with the possibility of a developmentallink between Valdivia and Machalilla. One of the first and perhaps mostsuccessful tests of the hypothesis was by Bischof (1975, p. 51). The focusof his investigations at Palmar 3 (G-88) a locality near Valdivia (G-31) wasdefining early Machalilla diagnostics. However, this goal was complicated bya stratigraphic separation between the Valdivia and Machalilla occupation

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


232 Staller

layers at that site. The total absence of early Machalilla diagnostics made theresults of this research inconclusive (Bischof, 1975, pp. 54–55). Using ceramicdiagnostics and radiocarbon dates, he divided Machalilla into five 150–200year periods, with an initial date at 3750–3550 B.P. for Phase II (Bischof, 1975,p. 51). A hypothetical transition consisting of stylistic attributes such as fil-let applique, brushing, red slip banding, and shell scraping was presented.Significantly, the Jelı Phase diagnostic attributes and 14C measurements fromLa Emerenciana are to a large degree consistent with such a transition(Staller, 2001), and the single and stirrup-spout bottles, carinated jars, andconstricted bowls identified with the Jelı Phase complex appear to providea developmental link between these ceramic components (Staller, 1994,2001).

Paulsen and McDougle (1974, 1981) also reported a stratigraphic sepa-ration between late Valdivia and early Machalilla at two sites in SW coastalEcuador. On the basis of their excavations they subdivided Machalilla intofive subphases (Table VI) ranging between 3250 and 2850 B.P. (Paulsen andMcDougle, 1974, pp. 7–14). Supporting Lanning (1968) and others (Bischofand Viteri, 1972, p. 549; Lathrap, 1967, p. 97) Paulsen and McDougle (1981)contended they were not coeval, but rather chronologically distinct cultures.

Archaeological investigations at two sites in SW coastal Ecuador byLippi (1982, 1983) produced radiocarbon measurements ranging between3150 and 2750 B.P. However, the excavations at Rıo Perdido and La Pongaalso recorded a stratigraphic separation between Machalilla and Valdivialayers (Fig. 10). On the basis of this inconclusive evidence Lippi (1983,p. 39) concluded that Machalilla was an in situ development representingthe Middle Formative Period, and presented a cultural sequence rangingbetween 3350 and 2750 B.P. for SW coastal Ecuador. In the context of thisresearch he introduced a revised pottery seriation subdividing Machalillaceramics into eight phases averaging 50 years each (Lippi, 1983, p. 354).

The difficulty in documenting a developmental transition between theValdivia and Machalilla ceramic complexes was related to a number of fac-tors: (1) One of the critical factors was where the early research was concen-trated. There appears to have been a clear disjunction between late Valdivia–early Machalilla site locations in S Manabı and SW coastal Ecuador and mostall of the early research on the Ecuadorian Formative was restricted to thesesubregions. Changes in late Valdivia and early Machalilla settlement patternsin these subregions appear to coincide with the disappearance of Valdiviadiagnostics and predominance Machalilla material culture particularly alongthe S Manabı coast. Stratigraphic and faunal evidence from La Emerencianasuggest that such widespread changes in site location may be related in partto climatic and environmental factors, perhaps to ENSO. Stratigraphically,the uppermost layer at La Emerenciana represents a sudden transgressive

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



event in what is an overall progradational stratigraphic sequence. A dramaticreduction in the distribution and size of various marine shell species associ-ated with this uppermost layer infer climatic and environmental changes to acalibrated date of approximately 1450 B.C. (Staller, 2001, Table 1; Staller andThompson, in press, Tables 9A and 9B). (2) Changes in coastal geomorphol-ogy may be another primary factor affecting the changes in site location.SW coastal Ecuador and S Manabı have undergone significant geologicalchanges since the beginning of the Holocene (Damp et al., 1990), related toperiods of intense flooding, short-term changes in sea levels brought on byENSO cycles, as well as tectonic uplift and subsidence. Such changes couldhave a profound effect on the hydrology and consequently on pre-Hispanicsite location. It is apparent from the Machalilla occupational debris found onsummits of steep cliffs along S Manabı Province that such geomorphologicalchanges coincided with this time period. Such geological changes may be inpart responsible for the disappearance of the mangrove formations (Dampet al., 1990; Ferdon, 1981; Staller, 1994; Willey, 1971, p. 247). (3) There wasa gradual, but nevertheless widespread adaptive change to a greater depen-dence upon agriculture throughout the coast between 4150 and 3500 B.P.

(4) Finally, the prevailing theoretical assumption that culture change andthe spread and early development of technological innovation was directlyrelated to migrations, diffusions, and invasions. Another assumption wasthat the spread of technological innovation was from regions of greater so-ciocultural complexity and richer more highly productive environments toareas with more limited carrying capacity and less complex forms of socialorganization (Hoopes, 1994).

Archaeological research in the subregions of coastal El Oro and theGulf of Guayaquil has greatly revised our perceptions regarding ceramicdevelopment during the final epochs of the Valdivia tradition, particularlythe investigations by Cruz and Holm (1982) at the Valdivia VII–VIII cere-monial center at San Lorenzo del Mate. This important site is on an ancientbeach terrace on the eastern banks of the Rıo Mate (Cruz and Holm, 1982;Marcos, 1989; Staller, 1998, 2000b). An artificial earthen mound measuring8 m in height and 60 m in diameter called attention to the late Valdiviacomponent and the Phase VII–VIII diagnostics have affinities to the JelıPhase at La Emerenciana (Marcos 1989; Marcos et al., 1999; Staller 1998,2000b). When these are compared to the ceramic diagnostics from San Isidroit is obvious that the final portion of the ceramic sequence represents a dra-matic technological and stylistic departure from diagnostics pertaining tothe earlier part of the sequence. A significant developmental trend is theappearance of composite forms including a variety of ceramic bottles and ashift from a strictly coil based technology to a variety of forming techniques.Such technological changes also appear in the Valdivia anthropomorphic

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


234 Staller

figurines (Evans et al., 1959; Lathrap et al., 1975; Marcos and Manrique, 1988;Meggers et al., 1965). Valdivia figurines were initially manufactured using adouble coiling technique, while the torsos and heads of Valdivia VII–VIII Fe-line Style figurines at San Lorenzo del Mate are made of composite parts andlike later Machalilla figurines have eyes made from clay coffee bean appliquepellets (Staller, 1998, 2000b, Figs. 8–10). Such technological characteristicsand stylistic attributes indicate a clear developmental link to later Machalillaand Chorrera anthropomorphic figurines, further supporting an in situ cul-tural development for the Ecuadorian Formative (Staller, 1998, 2000b).

THE LATE FORMATIVE PERIOD

Chorrera Phase represents the Late Formative Period of coastalEcuador. Many stylistic and technological elements found in Chorrera andChorrera related ceramics have their basis in the earlier Machalilla andValdivia Phases (Bischof, 1982; Evans and Meggers, 1982, p. 122; Lathrapet al., 1975, p. 34). Most scholars perceive Chorrera as the artistic pinnacleof pre-Columbian Ecuadorian ceramic art (Estrada, 1958; Lathrap et al.,1975; Meggers, 1966). The tradition incorporates a wide variety of sophisti-cated and finely crafted bowls, whistling bottles, and elaborately constructedzoomorphic and anthropomorphic effigy forms (Lathrap et al., 1975, p. 34).Because of the aesthetics of the pottery and figurines much of what is knownabout Chorrera Phase comes from unprovenienced private and museum col-lections. Relatively little is known regarding regional settlement patterns,subsistence, or sociocultural development (Beckwith, 1996, p. 1; Engwall,1995; Weinstein, 1998). This also led scholars of pre-Columbian art to formdistinct opinions with regard to the appearance of Chorrera material culture.More recent research has shown that Chorrera Phase, as currently defined,is much more variable in terms of certain vessel forms and associated deco-rative motifs (Beckwith, 1996). Such regional differences in Late Formativepottery may be seen as a direct outgrowth of the regional variability initiallymanifest during Valdivia VII–VIII times, indicating the developmental in-terrelationships of the Formative Period cultures of coastal Ecuador areextremely complex and highly regional in nature. These regional differencesare primarily present in the utilitarian vessels, cooking pots and particularlybowls (Beckwith, 1996). It is however the stylistic and symbolic similari-ties in the whistling bottles, effigy vessels, and anthropomorphic figurinesthat appears to unite the Late Formative regional phases ideologically andstylistically.

Bushnell (1951) initially reported on the Late Formative Period fromexcavations at the Engoroy cemetery in the Santa Elena Peninsula, and

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



classified the ceramic complex as the Engoroy Phase (see, also, Zevallos,1965/66). Later, Evans and Meggers (1957) defined the Chorrera Phase fromexcavations at the Hacienda La Chorrera located along the Babahoya River.Estrada (1957, 1958, 1962a) carried out extensive research on Late FormativePeriod sites in various subregions classifying the ceramic complexes in the Nand S Manabı coasts, as well as on the western cordillera (yumbos) near SantoDomingo de los Colorados as, Olon, Veliz, and Tabuchila. On the basis of thisresearch, Estrada (1958, p. 69) concluded that regional ceramic complexessuch as Engoroy, Olon, and Tabuchila shared broad stylistic characteristics,which were subsumed under the single rubric of Chorrera Phase (also seeMeggers, 1966, pp. 55–61; Evans and Meggers, 1954, 1957, 1982, p. 124).Although this was meant to be a heuristic device, it has become reified overtime into a concept of a Chorrera style (Cummins, 1992, pp. 67–78; Engwall,1995).

ORIGINS AND DISTRIBUTION OF THE CHORRERA PHASE

Initially, Estrada (1958) perceived Chorrera as the quintessentialEcuadorian pottery complex but later, along with Evans and Meggers in-terpreted Chorrera culture as a migration from Mesoamerica on the basisof stylistic similarities to Ochos Phase pottery from coastal Guatemala (seeCoe and Flannery, 1967). Subsequently, archaeological investigations on theChorrera Phase have focused upon the recovery of artifacts from single sitesthroughout coastal Ecuador and the Guayas Basin. Principal contributionshave consisted of descriptive studies of Late Formative Period material cul-ture and the establishment of local chronologies (Aleto, 1988; Beckwith,1996; Bischof, 1975; Cummins, 1992; Engwall, 1992, 1995; Marcos, 1982;Parducci and Parducci, 1975; Paulsen and McDougle, 1981; Simmons, 1970;Zedeno, 1985, 1987; Zeidler and Sutliff, 1994; Zevallos, 1965/66).

Late Formative Period sites classified as the Tachina Phase have alsobeen identified in the north in coastal Esmeraldas Province (Lopez ySebastian and Caillavet, 1979). However, inland sites have yet to be identi-fied in that region (Engwall, 1996). With the exception of the recent researchin northern Manabı, the relative paucity of systematic large-scale researchon the Late Formative Period is surprising given the elaborate Chorreramaterial culture and the fact that it is the most widespread complex in pre-Hispanic Ecuador (Cummins, 1992; Engwall, 1995; Estrada, 1958). VelizMendoza (1990, p. 31) and Staller (2000a) indicate that Late Formative oc-cupations are distributed throughout the river drainages in the Guayas Basinextending south to the Peruvian border (Fig. 12). In Far North Peru, Izumiand Terada (1966) have identified the Pechiche Phase ceramic complex,

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


236 Staller

Fig. 12. Distribution of Chorrera Phase sites and some of the related ceramic complexesin coastal Ecuador.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



which has clear stylistic affinities to complexes on the Ecuadorian side ofthe frontier of the same time period (Staller, 2000a). Although the Late For-mative Period Arenillas Phase, and Jubones Phase are undefined in termsof stylistic and technological attributes, these finely crafted ceramics havesimilarities to what has been reported from La Chorrera (Fig. 10) and maybe seen as regional expression of a Chorrera style (Staller, 1994, 2000a).The early diagnostics from Cerro Narrio and the nearby site of Pirincay alsohave clear affinities to late Valdivia–early Machalilla and Chorrera relatedassemblages on the coast (Bruhns et al., 1990; Collier and Murra, 1943).When archeological investigations were being carried out at Cerro Narriothe antiquity of the early occupations at that site was unknown (Collierand Murra, 1943, pp. 11–15). More recent comparative analysis by the au-thor of the Cerro Narrio collections has indicated that ceramic innovationin highland Canar and Azuay Province shows stylistic and technologicalinfluence from the Valdivia VII–VIII Jelı Phase complex from coastal ElOro and that such stylistic affinities continued throughout the Late For-mative Period. In the valley of Quito to the north, Formative pottery atCotocollao also indicates strong stylistic influences with coastal assemblagesfrom various subregions (see Villalba, 1988, p. 241, Figs. 92–93, 95, 114–115, 134–135). The Chorrera style, thus, is a widespread phenomenon andthat it may be properly defined as a horizon (Meggers, 1966, p. 65; Willey,1962).

Having established Chorrera as a widespread entity (Estrada, 1957,1958, 1962a; Evans and Meggers, 1954; Meggers, 1966), Meggers et al. (1965)explained the dispersal in terms of a bifurcated wave: one extending alongthe coast and another wave extending inland along rivers with rich alluvialsoils and ample precipitation. Chorrera migration was assumed to have beenrapid, constituting a horizon style (also see Meggers, 1966, p. 65). Anotherinference drawn for a “horizon” is that the spread of material culture is insome way related to religious or cult activity which is culturally integratedby disparate populations (Burger, 1988; Cummins, 1992; Willey, 1962). Chor-rera style is a horizon to the extent that the ritual and ceremonial vesselsand figurines appear to have considerable symbolic homogeneity amongdifferent regional phases, a pattern consistent with an interregional integra-tion of a cult or set of religious beliefs (Cummins, 1992, pp. 15–18). Signifi-cantly, many Chorrera effigy vessels and polished stone mortars suggest theconsumption of a variety of psychotropic plants consistent with shamanicpractices (Cummins, 1992, Illustrations 33, 35, 37, 46, pp. 68–73; Weinstein,1998). However, it is at this point premature to make any general state-ments about cosmology before a regional synthesis of the ceramic style hasbeen published. If Chorrera is a horizon style, then it begs the question ofwhat makes up its material constituents. Bowls with annular bases, and thin,

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


238 Staller

highly polished, red slipped vessels are widespread, but attributes and fea-tures which can be designated as widely distributed chronological markersare still unidentified (Engwall, 1996). One characteristic that distinguishesLate Formative pottery from the late Valdivia and early Machalilla wares isthe thinness of the vessel walls and their overall fine craftsmanship, even ofthe utilitarian vessels. Such technological distinctions point to the develop-ment of full-time craft specialists.

Lanning (1968) was among the first to object to the notion of a Late For-mative horizon, classifying Engoroy as a distinct regional entity. Lathrap andothers (1975, p. 15) concurred maintaining Engoroy was unrepresentativeand a less elaborate, variant of Chorrera. Subsequently, a number of schol-ars have come to prefer to discuss the Late Formative pottery complexes interms of regional manifestations rather than under the rubric of Chorrera(Aleto, 1988; Beckwith, 1996; Bischof, 1975; Cummins, 1992; Engwall, 1995,1996; Lippi, 1983; Paulsen and McDougle, 1981; Simmons, 1970; Stothert,1995). However, given the previously outlined regional distributions anddevelopmental affinities, the regional variability of the pottery style may beexplained to chronological and developmental differences. Estrada (1958)excavated more Late Formative Period sites than any other investigatorbefore or since, and therefore had a breadth of knowledge regarding theregional assemblages that was unique among archaeologists. Estrada choseto label these regional phases under the rubric of Chorrera. As with ce-ramic complexes of the earlier periods, the most complete descriptions ofthe Late Formative pottery come from sites in SW coastal Ecuador andS Manabı (Beckwith, 1996; Bischof, 1975; Bushnell, 1951, 1982; Paulsen andMcDougle, 1981) biasing the archaeological record.

CHORRERA CHRONOLOGY

The chronology of the Late Formative Period of coastal Ecuador wasinitially based upon forty-four 14C and obsidian hydration dates from var-ious subregions (Meggers, 1966, Fig. 4). Meggers derived a chronologicalrange on this basis (Meggers, 1966, pp. 55–66). However, the 1840± 540 B.P.

date was derived from obsidian hydration, and the earliest 14C measurement2800 ± 115 B.P. has been questioned on contextual grounds (Meggers, 1966,Fig. 4; Meggers et al., 1965, Table H). Subsequently, the chronological rangefor the Late Formative was challenged. Archaeological investigations at SanIsidro produced a [2845± 95 years AA-4140] date from the earliest Chorrerasecurely excavated contexts (Zeidler and Sutliff, 1994, p. 115). Bischof (1982,p. 162) also places the end of the Machalilla Phase and beginning of the LateFormative at approximately 2850 B.P., pointing out that the 2800± 115 B.P.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



date from Veliz that may actually be derived from late Machalilla occupa-tions at La Cabuya. Paulsen and McDougle (1974, 1981) also report similarearly dates for the Engoroy occupation at OGSE-46D and suggest a chrono-logical range of 2850 to 2250 B.P. for this subregion. Along the Jama River inN Manabı, Engwall (1995) obtained a [2500 B.P.± 160 years; ISGS-2377] datefrom a layer of volcanic tephra to mark the end of the Tabuchila Phase. Thisdate agrees with the terminal date for the early estimates. Excavations atDos Caminos (M3D2-008) produced three of the earliest dates for any LateFormative Period complex. The uncalibrated dates [ISGS-3308; 2930 B.P. ±80 years], [ISGS-3309; 2930 B.P. ± 80], [ISGS-3310; 2880 B.P. ± 70 all pointto an initial date of ca., 2900 B.P. (Engwall, 1995). Zeidler (1994) concludesthat the Late Formative Period Tabuchila Phase also begins at around thistime and ends at about 2300 B.P. This estimate is based upon the presence ofvolcanic tephra overlying Tabuchila Phase occupation layers. In N Manabı,Valdivia VIII and early Late Formative Tabuchila Phase layers are strati-graphically separated by a tectonic event (Issacson, 1994; Zeidler, 1994).

In SW coastal Ecuador and southern Manabı, Late Formative occupa-tions most often directly overlay Machalilla Phase occupation layers(Bischof, 1975, 1982; Estrada, 1957, 1958, 1962a; Evans and Meggers, 1957;Lanning, 1968; Paulsen and McDougle, 1974, 1981). However, in coastal ElOro and the Guayas Basin Late Formative Period occupations tend to over-lay late Valdivia layers (Gonzalez de Merino, 1984; Reindel and Guillaume–Gentil, 1995; Staller, 1994, 2000a).

In coastal El Oro, Late Formative Period Arenillas Phase occupationsare reported and associated with multicomponent sites with Valdivia VII–VIII occupations (Staller, 1994, 2000a). At La Florida, Late FormativeArenillas Phase deposits are directly superimposed upon Valdivia VII–VIIIJelı Phase and early Machalilla occupations (Staller, 2000a, pp. 250–251).Moreover, stylistic similarities in a number of vessel forms between these var-ious components appear to reflect developmental continuity (Staller, 1994).

In the Guayas Basin at Penon del Rıo, a diverse ceramic assemblage hasbeen reported, including evidence of mound building and domestic habita-tions (Muse, 1989; Zedeno, 1985, 1987). Despite an extensive Late Formativeoccupation in this very large site, there is no evidence of Machalilla materialculture. Similarly, Evans and Meggers (1957, 1982) did not report any evi-dence of Machalilla occupation at La Chorrera, and Late Formative occupa-tions are directly over a Valdivia VIII occupation at Milagro I (Gonzalez deMerino, 1984). On the basis of this archaeological evidence we may infer thatMachalilla style pottery does not appear in this subregion and is marginallyrepresented in areas to the south. The evidence from the eastern portionof the Gulf of Guayaquil and coastal El Oro suggests a direct developmentfrom Valdivia VIII to Chorrera.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


240 Staller

In conclusion, early estimates suggest a chronological range of 3500–2500 B.P. for the Late Formative Period (Meggers, 1966, Fig. 4), while thechronological range for the Engoroy complex is placed at around2750–2050 B.P. (Paulsen and McDougle, 1981). On the basis of radiocar-bon dates Currie (1985, 1992) estimates the end of the Late Formative ataround 2250 B.P. in coastal El Oro, and Zeidler (1994) reports a compara-ble estimate for Tabuchila Phase occupation in N Manabı. The continuousFormative occupation in coastal El Oro and the Gulf of Guayaquil supportsan estimated range of ca. 3400–3250 B.P. for the beginning of the Late For-mative Period in these regions. Over the rest of coastal Ecuador, specificallyin areas of Machalilla related material culture, or in N Manabı where thereis a chronological hiatus, the Late Formative appears to begin at ca. 2950–2750 B.P.

Some have dismissed the obsidian hydration date from La Chorreraas due to a fault in dating technique (Beckwith, 1996, Table 2.1, pp. 15–18). However, given the apparent absence of Machalilla in the Jama Riverdrainage, and the brief duration of occupation of the complex to the southin El Oro (Staller, 1994, 2000a), it is possible to explain such seeming dis-crepancies in the archaeological record in other terms.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Previous analyses of Formative chronologies, ceramic seriations, andsettlement patterns suggest the earliest ceramic occupations are coastal andconcentrated between the Verde and Valdivia Rivers in SW coastal Ecuador.This subregion represents the nucleus of Valdivia sociocultural development(Fig. 6). Valdivia regional surveys further indicate a decline in settlementsrelated in part to an adaptive shift during the final portion of the Valdiviaculture sequence. This change in site locations strongly suggests a greaterreliance upon agriculture, and may be related in part to climatic, environ-mental, and geomorphologic changes after Phase V times (Staller, 1994).The only Valdivia VI–VIII ceremonial center in SW coastal Ecuador is LaCentenela. However, the diagnostics and stratigraphic occupations of this in-land site have not been reported in any detail. A seeming absence of ValdiviaVIII ceremonial centers in SW coastal Ecuador and S Manabı suggests on-going changes in population density reflecting a reduction in the mangroveformation, and changes in the environment and in the subsistence economy(Ferdon, 1981; Staller, 1994). In contrast, major Phase VII–VIII ceremo-nial centers are present in coastal El Oro, the western side of the Gulfof Guayaquil, and N Manabı, supporting the hypothesis of fundamental

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



changes in the geographic locus of sociopolitical development. Changes insettlement to a more inland riverine pattern, and expansion into N Manabı,the Guayas Basin, and southern coastal El Oro in part also explains whydocumenting a developmental transition between Valdivia and the subse-quent Machalilla culture complex was initially so elusive, because most ofthe early research was concentrated in SW coastal Ecuador.

During Phase VII–VIII there appears to have been a relative declineof previously established long-distance maritime interaction along the coast,and a concomitant intensification and elaboration of long-distance exchangewith the northern and southern highlands of Ecuador and northern highlandsof Peru (Staller, 1992/93, 1994, 1996a, 1996b; Villalba, 1988; Zeidler, 1988,1991). Complicating the issue of a transition were thin layers of Machalillarefuse with almost all late Valdivia occupations south of the Rıo Valdiviaand north of the Rıo Verde (Bischof, 1975; Cliff et al., 1987; Lanning, 1968;Lippi, 1982, 1983; Paulsen and McDougle, 1981; Schwarz and Raymond,1996; Zeidler, 1977). The archaeological patterning in SW coastal Ecuadorhad a profound effect upon hypotheses regarding a developmental link be-tween the Valdivia and Machalilla Phases. The ceramic evidence presentedhere indicates substantial regional diversity by late Valdivia VI–VIII timesand dramatic technological changes during Phase VII–VIII. Current ceramicdata suggest that the cultural history of late Valdivia societies in coastal ElOro, the Gulf of Guayaquil, and N Manabı were developmentally, and tosome extent, chronologically distinct from those of SW coastal Ecuador andS Manabı. However, during the final portion (Phases VII–VIII) of the se-quence, it is the continuity in stirrup-spouts, carinated vessels, compositeforms, and stylistic attributes such as fillet applique, zoned punctation, fineline incision, and excision, as well as the figurines from Chacras, San Lorenzodel Mate, and other sites, that link the Valdivia and Machalilla traditions(Staller, 1994, 1996b, 1998, 2000b, 2001). These Formative components cantherefore be seen as derived from a single tradition.

The regional Late Formative complexes appear to have developed di-rectly from a Valdivia VIII base in some regions of the Ecuadorian lowlandsand from Machalilla in other subregions (Staller, 1994). Pedestal bowls, ev-erted jars, and single spout bottles of the Jelı Phase complex suggest a contin-uous tradition associating Valdivia with the Late Formative components insouthern coastal El Oro and in the Gulf of Guayaquil (Staller, 1994, 2000a,2001; Weinstein, 1998). On the other hand, the developmental association iswith Machalilla in SW coastal Ecuador and S. Manabı. These regional dif-ferences beg the question of how Machalilla should be understood in termsof Ecuadorian prehistory both from a historical as well as a cultural stand-point. I suggest that Machalilla may be seen as a chronological and cultural

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


242 Staller

extension of Valdivia (see also Lathrap et al., 1975). In N Manabı and overmost of the Guayas Basin, the Valdivia–Machalilla traditions develop di-rectly into what may be properly termed a Chorrera style. The transition inthese subregions and in areas to the south, as far as the Piura coast in Peru,appears to be much earlier dating to ca. 3400–3250 B.P. although this estimateis not directly based upon dates from Late Formative contexts. Machalillaoccupation is most intense and of longest duration in the areas around theRıo Valdivia and further to the north in S Manabı especially in the imme-diate vicinity of the coastal village of Machalilla (Estrada, 1958; Evans andMeggers, 1958; Meggers et al., 1965). It is in precisely these areas that theLate Formative regional phases begin to appear at about ca. 2950–1700 B.P.

Similar early dates for the Late Formative Period appear to characterize NManabı, but here the reasons are not so much developmental as they areenvironmental and geological.

With regards to Valdivia, the regional chronological patterns suggest aspread into N and S Manabı Province but this radiation must be understoodin terms of factors related to the decline of mangrove and geomorphologicchange in the coastal areas of SW Ecuador and S Manabı. The areas of mostintense Machalilla occupation coincide with those portions of the coast inwhich tectonic uplift has occurred, but where mangrove formations per-sist along the coastal lowlands, and where aquatic and maritime resourcesare most accessible. The adaptive pattern of coastal populations appears tohave been focused upon maritime resources and small-scale farming andthis pattern is essentially a continuation of the earlier Valdivia VII–VIIIadaptation.

Future investigations should more closely analyze the development andintegration of ceramic innovation in other regions of the Ecuadorian low-lands as being derived from the Valdivia–Machalilla tradition as Lathrap andothers (1975) had suggested. Such phasing will then encompass the greaterportion of the Ecuadorian lowlands (south of Esmeraldas Province) moreprecisely, since all but the Tabuchila Phase appear to be directly derivedfrom this ceramic tradition. The extent to which Tabuchila is derived fromPiquigua Phase Valdivia VIII components is at this time problematic giventhe hiatus in occupation in this region. If the Tabuchila Phase is not derivedfrom a local Early Formative Period tradition, we must consider the pos-sibility that it may have originated in this region from the spread of LateFormative Period agricultural societies from the eastern side of the coastalhills and ultimately from the Guayas Basin. Since regional variation in theLate Formative ceramic complexes is only now beginning to be understood,such developmental connections need further consideration as more system-atic research is undertaken.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



Although the role of the Valdivia ceramic tradition has generally beenoverlooked by scholars who focused upon the later periods, the impor-tance of other aspects of the ritual complex which included Spondylus andStrombus shell, psychotropic (San Pedro Cactus) and narcotic plants (coca,Datura spp.), feline and avian symbolism, ritual consumables (red pepper,maize, and salt), and various ceramic bottles is apparent (Staller, 1994,Tables 9 and 10). It was initially assumed that Valdivia ceramics played a ma-jor role in the development of ceramic innovation outside of the Ecuadorianlowlands. As more research on the final portion of the Valdivia sequence be-comes available, it will be increasingly apparent that the Valdivia–Machalillaceramic tradition was central to the development of ceramic innovations andincipient complexity in other regions of western South America.

In conclusion, the synthesis of Formative Ecuador presented here sug-gests the following: (1) A regional divergence in Valdivia material cultureduring Phases VII–VIII directly supports the premise of a ceramic transitionlinking Valdivia to the subsequent Machalilla Phase and demonstrates thesecomplexes are part of the same ceramic tradition. It is now apparent that theValdivia–Machalilla transition is characterized by a proliferation of distinctvessel forms and stylistic attributes, as well as changes in the pottery technol-ogy. (2) A major adaptive shift occurred during Phase VI–VIII times. Thechanges in subsistence are related to an increased dependence upon agricul-ture by inland Valdivia populations. During this adaptive shift there is a con-comitant reduction in hunting and gathering of wild plants and animals andan increased dependence upon estuarine and maritime resources by coastalpopulations. (3) In association with changes in the subsistence adaptationis a reduction of Valdivia settlements in SW coastal Ecuador between theRıo Verde and Valdivia, related in part to geomorphologic changes and a re-duction or possible extinction of the mangrove forest around Phase V times.Changes in the distributions and densities of Valdivia settlement correspondto chronological and regional differences in the locus of sociocultural devel-opment. (4) There is a developmental link between the Valdivia–Machalillaceramic tradition and the Late Formative Period sequences in far north Peru,coastal El Oro, the Gulf of Guayaquil as well as the northern and southernhighlands of Ecuador. (5) These developmental associations are related tothe establishment of long-distance interaction with the Andean highlandsand later the ceja de montana of eastern Ecuador. A central feature of thisinteraction was the spread of a ritual and religious cult expressed archaeo-logically by Chorrera related material culture over a vast geographic area.The ritual complex associated with the spread of this cult also involved a cos-mology associated with the Strombus galeatus and Spondylus princeps dyad,and included various consumable and sumptuary plants and resources. The

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


244 Staller

sudden appearance of finely crafted polished zoomorphic stone mortars con-taining feline and avian symbolism indicates that some of these plants wereassociated with Andean ritual ceremony. Similarly, the ideology and cos-mology of this early cult is also symbolically expressed in the finely craftedzoomorphic and anthropomorphic ceramic bottles and serving vessels. Theearly spread of ceramic innovation associated with Valdivia VII–VIII andChorrera related material culture is evident archaeologically by the inte-gration of composite forms such as constricted jars, elaborately decoratedopen bowls with vertical walls, and ceramic bottles (especially stirrup spoutand single spout forms) and elaborate mold made effigy vessels over a largegeographic area (Fig. 13). It is suggested that the ideology associated withthis ritual complex formed the basis of Andean cosmology over a vast areaof western South America in subsequent periods where it was symbolically

Fig. 13. Diagnostic vessel forms of the Valdivia VII–VIII Jelı Phase complex from LaEmerenciana. These diagnostics appear to have significance to the spread of ceramic inno-vation, (a) Single spout bottle, (b) Neckless olla, (c) Constricted Olla or Jar, (d) Two-tieredstirrup-spout bottle, (e.) Stirrup-spout bottle (globular), (f) Open Bowl with vertical wall andflat bottom, (g) Constricted bowl with decorated bottom, and (h) Everted bowl with decoratedbottom.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



represented according to local and regional artistic canons in a mosaic ofcultural expressions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I extend my deepest appreciation to Fulbright-Hays, the Department ofAnthropology at Southern Methodist University, Dallas, and to the MuseoAntropologico del Banco Central del Ecuador, Guayaquil for making thearchaeological research I carried out in El Oro province possible. I alsoexpress sincerest thanks to the anonymous reviewers, their comments andinsights made this a better synthesis of the Formative of coastal Ecuador.

REFERENCES

Aleto, T. F. (1988). The Guayaquil Phase Complex: The Late Formative Period in the Gulf ofGuayaquil, Ecuador, PhD dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana.

Asaro, F., Salazar, E., Michel, H. V., Burger, R. L., and Stross, F. H., (1994). Ecuadorian obsid-ian sources used for artifact production and methods for provenience assignments. LatinAmerican Antiquity 5(3): 256–277.

Beckwith, L. A. (1996). Late Formative Phase Ceramics From Southwestern Ecuador, PhDdissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

Bennett, W. (1946a). The archaeology of the central Andes, In Steward, J. H. (ed.), Handbook ofSouth American Indians, Vol. 2, Bulletin 143, Bureau of American Ethnology, SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, DC, pp. 61–148.

Bennett, W. (1946b). Excavations in the Cuenca Region, Ecuador, Yale Publications in Anthro-pology, Vol. 35, Yale University Press, New Haven.

Benz, B. F. (1998). On the origin, evolution, and dispersal of maize. In Blake, M. (ed.)., PacificLatin America in Prehistory: The Evolution of Archaic and Formative Cultures., WashingtonState University Press, Pullman, pp. 25–38.

Benz, B. F., and Iltis, H. H. (1990). Studies in archaeological maize. I. The “wild” maize fromSan Marcos Cave reexamined. American Antiquity 55: 500–511.

Benz, B. F., and Long, A. (2000). Prehistoric maize evolution in Tehuacan Valley. CurrentAnthropology 41(3): 459–465.

Bischof, H. (1967). Review of “Early Formative Cultures of Coastal Ecuador” by Meggers,Evans, and Estrada, 1965. American Journal of Archaeology 71(2): 216–219.

Bischof, H. (1972). The origins of pottery in South America—Recent radiocarbon dates fromSouthwestern Ecuador. Proceedings of the 40th International Congress of Americanists,Vol. 1, Rome/Genoa, pp. 269–281.

Bischof, H. (1975). El Machalilla temprano y algunas sitios cercanos a Valdivia. In von Oberem,U. (ed.), Estudios sobre la arqueologıa del Ecuador, BAS 3 Estudios Americanistas deBonn, pp. 43–61.

Bischof, H. (1980). San Pedro und Valdivia—fruhe keramik Komplexe an der Kuste sudwestEkuadors. Beitrage zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archaologie, Vol. 1, DeutschesArchaologisches Institut, Munchen, pp. 335–389.

Bischof, H. (1982). La Fase Engoroy—periodos, cronologıa y relaciones. In Marcos, J. G.,and Norton, P. (eds.), Primer Simposio de Correlaciones Antropologicas Andino-Mesoamericano, Salinas, Ecuador, ESPOL, Guayaquil, Ecuador, pp. 135–176, Junio, 1971.

Bischof, H., and Viteri-Gamboa, J. (1972). Pre-Valdivia occupations on the southwest coast ofEcuador. American Antiquity 37(4): 548–551.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


246 Staller

Bruhns, K. O., Burton, J. H., and Miller, G. R. (1990). Excavations at Pirincay in the Pautevalley of southern Ecuador, 1985–1988. Antiquity 64(3): 221–233.

Burger, R. L. (1988). Unity and heterogeneity within the Chavın horizon. In Keatinge, R. W.(ed.), Peruvian Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 99–144.

Burger, R. L. (1992). Chavın and the Origins of Andean Civilization, Thames and Hudson,London.

Burger, R. L., Asaro, F., Michel, H. V., Stross, F. H., and Salazar, E. (1994). An initial consid-eration of obsidian procurement and exchange in pre-Hispanic Ecuador. Latin AmericanAntiquity 5(3): 228–255.

Bushnell, G. H. S. (1951). The Archaeology of the Santa Elena Peninsula in South-West Ecuador,Cambridge Museum Occasional Papers, No. 1, Cambridge, England.

Bushnell, G. H. S. (1982). Semejanzas y relaciones entre Mesoamerica, el ecuador y el peru:Unas observaciones en la cultura. In Marcos, J. G., and Norton, P. (eds.), Primer Simpo-sio de Correlaciones Antropologicas Andino-Mesoamericano, Salinas, Ecuador, ESPOL,Guayaquil, Ecuador, pp. 37–40, Junio, 1971.

Bush, M. B., Piperno, D. R., and Colinvaux, P. A. (1989). A 6000 year history of Amazonianmaize cultivation. Nature 340(6231): 303–305.

Byrd, K. M. (1976). Changing Animal Utilization Patterns and Their Implications: S.W., Ecuador6500BC–AD1400. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida,Gainesville, Florida.

Canadas Cruz, L. (1983). El mapa bioclimatico y ecologico del Ecuador, MAG-PRONAREG,Quito.

Cliff, M. B., Staller, J. E., and Marks, A. (1987). A Preliminary Report on Early Occupation Northof Real Alto, Ecuador, Unpublished manuscript, Department of Anthropology, SouthernMethodist University, Dallas Texas.

Coe, M. D. (1960). Archaeological linkages with North and South America at La Victoria,Guatemala. American Anthropologist 62: 363–393.

Coe, M. D., and Flannery, K. V. (1967). Early Cultures and Human Ecology of South CoastalGuatemala, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, Vol. 3, Smithsonian InstitutionPress, Washington, DC.

Collier, D. (1947). The archaeology of Ecuador. In Steward, J. H. (ed.), Handbook of SouthAmerican Indians, Vol. 2, Bulletin 143, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian In-stitution Press, Washington, DC, pp. 767–784.

Collier, D. (1948). Peruvian influences in Ecuador. Memoirs of the Society for American Ar-chaeology 13(4): 80–86.

Collier, D. (1968). Review of “Ecuador” by Meggers 1966. American Antiquity 33(3): 269–271.

Collier, D., and Murra, J. (1943). Survey and Excavations in Southern Ecuador, Field Museumof Natural History Publication 528, Chicago.

Cruz, F., and Holm, O. (1982). Un informe muy preliminar: San Lorenzo del Mate, Provincia delGuayas, Unpublished manuscript, Museo Antropologico del Banco Central del Ecuador,Guayaquil, Ecuador.

Cummins, T. (1992). Tradition in Ecuadorian Pre-Hispanic Art, the ceramics of Chorrera andJama-Coaque. In Valdez, F., and Veintimilla, D. (eds.), Amerindian Signs 5000 years ofPrecolumbian Art in Ecuador, Ediciones Colibri, Paris, pp. 63–133.

Currie, E. J. (1985). La cultura Jambelı con referencia particular al conchero Guarumal. InMoreno Yanez, S. E. (ed.), Memoria del Primer Simposio Europeo Sobre Antropologıa delEcuador, Instituto de Antropologıa cultural de la Universidad de Bonn, Ediciones AbyaYala, Quito, Ecuador, pp. 31–46.

Currie, E. J. (1989). Cultural Relationships in Southern Ecuador 300 BC-AD 300: Excavations atthe Guarumal and Punta Brava Sites, PhD dissertation, Institute of Archaeology, UniversityCollege, London.

Currie, E. J. (1992). New Evidence on the Late Formative in El Oro Province, SouthwesternEcuador, Unpublished manuscript, Department of Archaeology, University of York,England.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



Damp, J. E. (1979). Better Homes and Gardens: The Life and Death of the Early ValdiviaCommunity, PhD dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary,Alberta.

Damp, J. E. (1984a). Environmental variability, agriculture, and settlement processes of coastalEcuador (3,300–1,500 B.C.). Current Anthropology 25: 106–111.

Damp, J. E. (1984b). Architecture of the Early Valdivia village. American Antiquity 49: 573–585.Damp, J. E. (1988). La primera ocupacion Valdivia de Real Alto: Patrones economicos, arqui-

tectonmicos e ideologicos, Biblioteca Ecuatoriana de Arqueologıa, Corporcion Editora,Nacional, Quito.

Damp, J. E., Jackson, D., Vargas S. P., and Zambrano, P. (1990). On the waterfront: Quaternaryenvironments and the Formative occupation of southwestern Ecuador. Geoarchaeology 5:171–185.

Damp, J. E., and Pearsall, D. M. (1994). Early cotton from coastal Ecuador. Economic Botany48(2): 163–165.

Damp, J. E., and Vargas S. P. (1995). The many contexts of early Valdivia ceramics. In Barnett,W. K., and Hoopes, J. W. (eds.), The Emergence of Pottery, Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, DC, pp. 157–168.

DeBoer, W. R. (1996). Traces Behind the Esmeraldas Shore. Prehistory of the Santiago-CayapasRegion, Ecuador, The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa and London.

Delavaud, A. C. (ed.). (1982). Atlas del Ecuador, Les Editions J. A., Paris and the Banco Centraldel Ecuador, Quito.

Denevan, W. M., and Mathewson, K. (1985). Preliminary results of the Samborondon Raised-Field Project. In Darch, J. P. (ed.), Drained Field Agriculture in Central and South America,British Archaeological Reports, International Series 189, Oxford, pp. 167–203.

Dorsey, G. A. (1901). Archaeological Investigations on the Island of La Plata, Field Museum ofNatural History, Fieldiana, Vol. 2(5), Chicago.

Engwall, E. C. (1992). Archaeological Investigations of Chorrera culture: Tabuchila Phase Ce-ramics from Northern Manabı, Ecuador, Paper presented at the 57th Annual Meeting ofthe Society for American Archaeology, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

Engwall, E. C. (1995). The Tabuchila Phase: Late Formative Chorrera Culture in the Jama RiverRegion, Manabı. Ecuador, Paper presented at the 60th Annual Meeting of the Society forAmerican Archaeology, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Engwall, E. C. (1996). Coalescence and Chaos: Toward a Model of Chorrera Style(s), Paperpresented at the 61st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, NewOrleans, Louisianna.

Estrada-Ycaza, V. E. (1956). Valdivia un sitio Arqueologico Formativo en la Costa de la Provinciadel Guayas, Ecuador, Publicacion del Museo Victor Emilio Estrada Publicacion No. 1,Guayaquil, Ecuador.

Estrada-Ycaza, V. E. (1957). Prehistorıa de Manabı, Publicacion del Museo Victor EmilioEstrada, Publicacion No. 4, Guayaquil, Ecuador.

Estrada-Ycaza, V. E. (1958). Las Culturas Pre-Clasicas, Formativas o Arcaicas del Ecuador,Publicacion del Museo Victor Emilio Estrada, Publicacion No. 5, Guayaquil, Ecuador.

Estrada-Ycaza, V. E. (1962a). Arqueologıa de Manabı Central, Publicacion del Museo VictorEmilio Estrada, Publicacion No. 7, Guayaquil, Ecuador.

Estrada-Ycaza, V. E. (1962b). Correlaciones entre la arqueologıa de la costa del Ecuador yPeru. Humanitas 2(2): 31–61.

Estrada, V. E., Meggers, B. J., and Evans Jr., C. (1962). Possible transpacific contact on the coastof Ecuador. Science 135: 371–372.

Evans, C., Jr., and Meggers, B. J. (1954). Informe preliminar sobre las investigaciones Ar-quelogicas Realizadas Engoroy la Cuenca del Guayas, Ecuador. Cuadernos de Historia yArqueologıa 4(12): 1–30.

Evans, C., Jr., and Meggers, B. J. (1957). Formative period cultures in the Guayas Basin, coastalEcuador. American Antiquity 22: 235–247.

Evans, C., Jr., and Meggers, B. J. (1958). Valdivia—An Early Formative culture of Ecuador.Archaeology 11: 175–182.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


248 Staller

Evans, C., Jr., and Meggers, B. J. (1966). Mesoamerica and Ecuador. In Wuachope, R., Ekholm,G. F., and Willey, G. R. (eds.), Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 4, Universityof Texas Press, Austin, pp. 243–264.

Evans, C., Jr., and Meggers, B. J. (1982). Tecnicas decorativas diagneosticas y variantes re-gionales chorrera, un anealisis preliminar. In Marcos, J. G., and Norton, P. (eds.), PrimerSimposio de Correlaciones Antropologicas Andino-Mesoamericano, Salinas, Ecuador, ES-POL, Guayaquil, Ecuador, pp. 121–133, Junio, 1971.

Evans, C., Jr., Meggers, B. J., and Estrada E. (1959). Cultura Valdivia, Publicacion del MuseoVictor Emilio Estrada No. 6, Guayaquil, Ecuador.

Fagan, B. (1999). Floods, Famines, and Emperors, El Nino and the Fate of Civilizations, BasicBooks, New York.

Ferdon, E. N., Jr. (1940a). Investigacion arqueologica en el Ecuador. Boletın de la AcademiaNacional de Historia 29(55): 103–108.

Ferdon, E. N., Jr. (1940b). The archaeological survey of Ecuador. El Palacio 47(6): 137–144.Ferdon, E. N., Jr. (1941a). Reconaissance in Esmeraldas. El Palacio 47(12): 257–274.Ferdon, E. N., Jr. (1941b). The excavations at La Libertad. El Palacio 48(2): 38–42.Ferdon, E. N., Jr. (1942). Ecavaciones arqueologicas cerca de La Libertad, provincia de Guayas.

Boletın de la Academia Nacional de Historia 22(59): 75–81.Ferdon, E. N., Jr. (1950). The climates of Ecuador. School of American Research and Museum

of New Mexico, Bulletin 15: pp. 35–63.Ferdon, E. N., Jr. (1981). Holocene mangrove formations on the Santa Elena Peninsula,

Ecuador. Pluvial indicators or ecological response to physiographic changes. AmericanAntiquity 46(3): 619–626.

Ferdon, E. N., Jr., and Corbett, J. M. (1941). Depositos arqueologicos de La Tolita. Boletın dela Academia Nacional de Historia 21(57): 5–15.

Ford, J. A. (1969). A Comparison of Formative Cultures in the Americas, Smithsonian Contri-butions to Anthropology. Vol. 11, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Gonzalez de Merino, J. (1984). Investigacion Cientifica de Arqueologica en el Sitio Milagro 1,Canton Milagro, Provincia del Guayas, Primera Parte: Informe Preliminar; Segunda Parte:Informe Final, Universidad de Guayaquil.

Grove, D. (1982). The Mesoamerican Formative and South America. In Marcos, J. G.,and Norton, P. (eds.), Primer Simposio de Correlaciones Antropologicas Andino-Mesoamericano, Salinas, Ecuador, Junio, 1971, ESPOL, Guayaquil, Ecuador, pp. 279–301.

Hill, B. (1972/74). The new chronology of the Valdivia ceramic complex from the coastal zoneof Guayas Province, Ecuador. In Nawpa Pacha, Vol. 10–12, Institute of Andean Studies,Berkeley, 1–32.

Holmgren, M., Scheffer, M., Ezcurra, E., Gutierrez, J. R., and Mohren, G. M. J. (2001). El Ninoeffects on the dynamics of terrestrial ecosystems. Trends on Ecology & Evolution 16(2):89–94.

Hoopes, J. W. (1994). Ford Revisited: A Critical Review of the Chronology and Relationshipof the Earliest Ceramic Complexes in the New World, 6000–1500 B.C. Journal of WorldPrehistory 8(1): 1–49.

Issacson, J. S. (1994). Volcanic Sediments in Archaeological Contexts from Western Ecuador.In Zeidler, J. A., and Pearsall, D. M. (eds.), Regional Archaeology in Northern Ecuador,Volume 1: Environment, Cultural Chronology and Prehistoric Subsistence in the JamaRiver Valley, University of Pittsburgh, Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology No. 8,Pittsburgh, pp. 131–140.

Izumi, S., and Terada, K. (1966). Andes 3 Excavations at Pechiche and Garbanzal, TumbesValley, Peru, 1960, Kadokawa, Tokyo.

Jadan, M. (1986). La ceramica del Complejo Piquiqua (fase 8) de la cultura Valdivia en SanIsidro, norte de Manabı: Un analisis modal, Thesis, Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral,ESPOL, Guayaquil, Ecuador.

Jijon y Caamano, J. (1919). Contribucion al conocimiento de las lenguas indigenes que sehablamos en el Ecuador interandino y occidental, con anteriormente a la conquista espanol.Boletın de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Estudios Historicos 2(6): 340–413.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



Jijon y Caamano, J. (1920). Contribucion al conocimiento de los aborıgenes de la provinciade Imbabura. Boletın de la Sociedad Ecuatoriana de Estudios Historicos 4(10): 1–120, and4(11): 183–248.

Jijon y Caamano, J. (1941). El Ecuador Interandino y occidental, Vol. 1, Quito.Jijon y Caamano, J. (1952). Antropogia Prehispanica del Ecuador, Embajada de Espana Agencia

Espanola de Cooperacion International, Museo Jacinto Jijon y Caamano, Quito. Reprinted1997.

Kerr, R. A. (1999). El Nino grew strong as cultures were born. Science 283: 467–468.Knapp, G. (1988). Ecologıa cultural prehispanico del Ecuador, Biblioteca de Geografia Ecua-

toriana, Vol. 3., Banco Central del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.Kroeber, A. (1948). Review of “Archeologie de la province d’ Esmeraldas, I’ I’Equateur by

D’Harcourt 1947. American Antiquity 14(2): 139–140.Lanning, E. P. (1960). Chronological and Cultural Relationships of Early Pottery Styles in Ancient

Peru, PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.Lanning, E. P. (1963). A Ceramic Sequence for the Piura and Chira Coast, North Peru, Uni-

versity of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.

Lanning, E. P. (1967). Peru Before the Incas, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Lanning, E. P. (1968). Informe preliminar de la Peninsula de Santa Elena, Unpublished

manuscript, Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana, Nucleo de Guayas, Guayaquil, Ecuador.Lathrap, D. W. (1960). Review of: Valdivia: by Evans, Meggers, and Estrada, 1959. American

Antiquity 26(1): 125–127.Lathrap, D. W. (1963). Possible affiliations of the Machalilla complex of coastal Ecuador. Amer-

ican Antiquity 29(2): 239–241.Lathrap, D. W. (1967). Review of “Early Formative Cultures of Coastal Ecuador” by Meggers,

Evans, and Estrada 1965. American Anthropologist 69(1): 96–98.Lathrap, D. W. (1970). Upper Amazon, Thames and Hudson, London.Lathrap, D. W. (1971). The tropical forest and the cultural context of Chavın. In Benson, E. P.

(ed.), Dumbarton Oaks Conference on Chavın, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library andCollection, Washington, DC, pp. 73–100.

Lathrap, D. W. (1973). The antiquity and importance of long-distance trade relationshipsin the moist tropics of Pre-Columbian South America. World Archaeology 5(2): 170–186.

Lathrap, D. W. (1974). The moist tropics, the arid lands, and the appearance of the great artstyles of the New World. In King, M. E., and Traylor, I., Jr. (eds.), Art and Environment inNative America, Texas Tech University Museum, Lubbock, pp. 115–158.

Lathrap, D. W., Collier, D., and Chandra, H. (1975). Ancient Ecuador Culture, Clay, and Cre-ativity 3000—300 B.C., Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.

Lathrap, D. W., Marcos, J. G., and Zeidler, J. E. (1977). Real Alto: An ancient ceremonial center.Archaeology 30(1): 2–13.

Ledergerber, P. (1983). El origen de mas de un cuarto siglo de investigaciones sobre la culturaValdivia. Boletın de la Academia Nacional de Historia LXV: 25–40.

Lippi, R. D. (1982). A New Machalilla Ceramic Sequence, Paper presented at the 47th AnnualMeeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Minnesota.

Lippi, R. D. (1983). La Ponga and the Machalilla Phase of Coastal Ecuador, PhD dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Lippi, R. D. (1998). Una Exploracion Arqueologica del Pichincha Occidental Ecuador, MuseoJacinto Jijon Caamano, Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador, Quito, Ecuador.

Long, A., Benz, B. F., Donahue, J., Jull, A., and Toolin, L. (1989). First direct AMS dates onearly maize from Tehuacan, Mexico. Radiocarbon 31: 1035–1040.

Lopez y Sebastian, L. E., and Caillavet, C. (1979). La fase Tachina en el contexto cultural dehorizonte Chorrera. Actes du XLII Congress International des Americanistes, Paris, 1976,Vol. IX-A, pp. 199–215.

Lubensky, E. (1980). Shell mound excavation at Ayalan, Unpublished manuscript, MuseoAntropologico del Banco Central del Ecuador, Guayaquil, Ecuador.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


250 Staller

Lubensky, E. (1995). The Anllulla Shell Mound in Coastal Ecuador, Manuscript distributedat the Precolumbian Symposium on the Archaeology of Formative Ecuador, DumbartonOaks, Washington, DC, October 7–8, 1995.

Marcos, J. G. (1978). The Ceremonial Precinct at Real Alto: Organization of Time and Spacein Valdivia Society, PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois,Urbana.

Marcos, J. G. (1979). Woven textiles in a late Valdivia context (Ecuador). In Rowe, A. P., Benson,E. P., and Schaffer, A. L. (eds.), The Junius B. Bird Pre-Columbian Textile Conference,Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 18–26.

Marcos, J. G. (1982). Los Morros. In Marcos, J. G., and Norton, P. (eds.), Primer Simposiode Correlaciones Antropologicas Andino-Mesoamericano, Salinas, Ecuador, Junio, 1971,ESPOL, Guayaquil, Ecuador, pp. 177–201.

Marcos, J. G. (1987). Los campos elevados de la cuenca del Guayas, Ecuador. In Denevan,W., Mathewson, K., and Knapp, G. (eds.), Pre-Hispanic Agricultural Fields in the AndeanRegion, British Archaeological Reports, International Series 359, Oxford, pp. 217–224.

Marcos, J. G. (1988a). Real Alto: la historia de un centro ceremonial Valdivia, Biblioteca Ecuato-riana de Arqueologıa, Primera Parte ESPOL Guayaquil, Corporacion, Editora Nacional.

Marcos, J. G. (1988b). Real Alto: la historia de un centro ceremonial Valdivia, BibliotecaEcuatoriana de Arqueologıa, Segunda Parte ESPOL Guayaquil, Corporacion EditoraNacional.

Marcos, J. G. (1989). Informe arqueologico. In Marcos, J. G., and Alvarez, S. (eds.), ProyectoSan Lorenzo del Mate, Fundacion Pedro Vincente Maldonado, Guayaquil, pp. 1–20.

Marcos, J. G., and Garcia de Manrique, M. (1988). De la Dualidad Fertilidad-Virilidad a loExplicitmente Femenino o Masculino: La Relacion de las Figurinas con los Cambios en laOrganizacion Social Valdivia, Real Alto, Ecuador. In Miller, V. (ed.), The Role of Genderin Pre-Columbian Art and Architecture, University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 35–51.

Marcos, J. G., Lathrap, D. W., and Zeidler, J. E. (1976). Ancient Ecuador revisited. In FieldMuseum of Natural History Bulletin 47(6), The Field Museum, Chicago, pp. 3–8.

Marcos, J. G., and Norton, P. (1981). From the Yungas of Chincay Suyo to Cuzco: The roleof La Plata Island in Spondylus trade. In Browman, D., Burger, R. L., and Rivera, M. A.(eds.), Social and Economic Organization in the Prehispanic Andes, British ArchaeologicalPapers, International Series no. 194, Oxford, pp. 7–20.

Marcos P., J. G., Perez, A., and Spinolo, G. (1999). La produccion durante el Formativo tem-prano: El desarrollo agrıcola, artesanal y el intercambio de exoticos en Real Alto. InLedergerber-Crespo, P. (ed.), Formativo Sudamericano Una Revaluacion., ProduccionesDigitales UPS, Abya-Yala Editing, Quito Ecuador, pp. 97–113.

McPhaden, M. J. (1999). Genesis and evolution of the 1997–1998 El Nino. Science 283: 950–954.Meggers, B. J. (1966). In Daniel, G. (ed.), Ecuador, Ancient peoples and places series, Vol. 49,

Praeger, New York.Meggers, B. J. (1971). Amazonia: Man and Culture in a Counterfeit Paradise, Aldine-Atherton,

Chicago.Meggers, B. J. (1972). Prehistoric America, Aldine-Atherton, Chicago.Meggers, B. J. (1987). El origen transpacifico de la ceramica Valdivia: Una revaluacion. Boletın

del Museo Chileno de Arte Precolombino 2: 9–31.Meggers, B. J., and Evans, C., Jr. (1962). The Machalilla culture: An Early Formative complex

on the Ecuadorian coast. American Antiquity 28(1): 186–192.Meggers, B. J., and Evans, C., Jr. (1966a). A transpacific contact in 3000 B.C. Scientific American

214: 28–35.Meggers, B. J., and Evans, C., Jr. (1966b). Transpacific origin of Valdivia Phase pottery on coastal

Ecuador, 36th Congreso Internacional de Americanistas Actas y Memorias, Vol. 1, Sevilla,Spain, pp. 63-67.

Meggers, B. J., Evans, C., Jr., and Estrada, V. E. (1965). Early Formative of Coastal Ecuador:The Valdivia and Machalilla Phases, Smithsonian Contributions in Anthropology, Vol. 1,Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



Moseley, M. E. (1983). The good old days were better: Agrarian collapse and tectonics. AmericanAnthropologist 85: 773–779.

Moseley, M. E., Feldman, R. A., and Orcliff, C. R. (1981). Living with crisis: Human perceptionof process and time. In Biotic Crises in Ecological and Evolutionary Time, Academic Press,New York, pp. 231–267.

Murra, J. (1946). The tribes of Ecuador. In Steward, J. H. (ed.), Handbook of South AmericanIndians, Vol. 2, Bulletin 143, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, DC, pp. 785–822.

Muse, M. C. (1989). Cronologıa regional y relaciones de territorialidad en al region oeste delarea septentrıonal andina, siglo XVI. In Bouchard, J. F., and Guinea, M. (eds.), Relacionesinterculturales en el area ecuatorial del pacifico durante la epoca precolumbino, BritishArchaeological Reports, International Series 503, Oxford, pp. 187–197.

Norton, P. (1972). Early Valdivia middens at Loma Alta, Ecuador, Paper presented atthe 37th Annual Meetings of the Society for American Archaeology, Bal Harbour,ME.

Norton, P. (1977). The Loma Alta connection, Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting ofthe Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, LA.

Norton, P. (1981). The Chiefdom of Canlangone and the League of Merchants: The Spondylus—Balsa Wood Cartel, Paper presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the American Anthro-pological Association, Los Angeles, CA.

Norton, P. (1982). Preliminary observations on Loma Alta, an early Valdivia midden in GuayasProvince, Ecuador. In Marcos, J. G., and Norton, P. (eds.), Primer Simposio de CorrelacionesAntropologicas Andino-Mesoamericano, Salinas, Ecuador, ESPOL, Guayaquil, Ecuador,pp. 101–120, Junio, 1971.

Parducci, R., and Parducci, I. (1975). Vasijas y elementos diagnosticos, Fase Guayaquil. InCuadernos de Historia y Arqueologıa, Vol. 42, Casa la Cultura, Guayaquil, Ecuador,pp. 155–284.

Parker, T. A., III., and Carr, J. L. (1992). In Parker, T. A., and Carr, J. L. (eds.), Status offorest remnants in the Cordillera de la Costa and adjacent areas of Southwestern Ecuador,Rapid assessment program (RAP working papers 2) Conservation International, October1992.

Paulsen, A. C. (1974). The Thorny Oyster and the voice of God: Spondylus and Strombus inAndean Prehistory. American Antiquity 39: 597–607.

Paulsen, A. C., and McDougle, E. J. (1974). The Machalilla and Engoroy Occupations of theSanta Elena Peninsula in South Coastal Ecuador, Paper presented at the 39th AnnualMeeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC.

Paulsen, A. C., and McDougle, E. J. (1981). A Chronology of Machalilla and Engoroy Ceramicsof the South Coastal Ecuador, Paper presented at the 9th Annual Midwest Conference onAndean and Amazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory, Columbia, Missouri.

Pearsall, D. M. (1978). Phytolith analyses of archaeological soils: Evidence of maize cultivationin Formative Ecuador. Science 199: 177–178.

Pearsall, D. M. (1979). The Application of Ethnobotanical Techniques to the Problem of Sub-sistence in the Ecuadorian Formative, PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology,University of Illinois, Urbana.

Pearsall, D. M. (1991). Prehistoric Subsistence and Agricultural Evolution in the Jama RiverValley Manabı Province, Ecuador, Paper presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of theSociety for American Archaeology, New Orleans, LA.

Pearsall, D. M. (1992). The origins of plant cultivation in South America. In Wesley Cowan,C., and Watson, P. J. (eds.), with the assistance of Benco, N. L., The Origins of Agriculture:An International Perspective, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC and London,pp. 173–205.

Pearsall, D. M. (1993). Contributions of phytolith analysis for reconstructing subsistence: Ex-amples from research in coastal Ecuador. In Pearsall, D. M., and Piperno, D. R. (eds.),Current Research in Phytolith Analysis: Applications in Archaeology and Paleoecology,MASCA, University of Pennsylvania Museum, pp. 109–122.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


252 Staller

Pearsall, D. M. (1994). Issues in the analysis and interpretation of archaeological maize in SouthAmerica. In Johannesson, S., and Hastorf, C. A. (eds.), Corn and Culture in the PrehistoricNew World, Westview Press, Boulder, pp. 245–272.

Pearsall, D. M., and Piperno, D. R. (1990). Antiquity of maize cultivation in Ecuador: Summaryand reevaluation of the evidence. American Antiquity 55(2): 324–337.

Piperno, D. R. (1991). The status of phytolith analysis in the American tropics. Journal of WorldPrehistory 5(2): 155–191.

Piperno, D. R. (1994). On the Emergence of Agriculture in the New World. Current Anthro-pology 35(5): 637–643.

Porras-Garces, P. I. (1973). El Encanto-La Puna: Un sitio insular de la fase Valdivia asociadocon una conchero anular, Quito., Ediciones Huancavilca 5, Serie La Puna.

Raymond, J. S. (1988). Subsistence patterns during the Early Formative in the Valdivia Val-ley, Ecuador. In Kennedy, B. V., and LeMoine, G. M. (eds.), Diet and Subsistence: Cur-rent Archeological Perspectives, Archaeological Association of The University of Calgary,Calgary, pp. 159–164.

Raymond, J. S. (1989). Early Formative Societies in the Tropical Lowlands of Western Ecuador:A View From the Valdivia Valley, Paper presented at the Circum-Pacific Prehistory Con-ference, Seattle, Washington, August 1989.

Raymond, J. S. (1993). Ceremonialism in the Early Formative of Ecuador. In Millones, L.,and Onuki, Y. (eds.), El Mundo Ceremonial Andino, Senri Ethnological Studies, Vol. 37,National Museum of Ethnology, Osaka, Japan, pp. 25–43.

Raymond, J. S., Marcos, J. G., and Lathrap, D. W. (1980). Evidence of formative settlement inGuayas Basin, Ecuador. Current Anthropology 21: 700–701.

Raymond, J. S., Oyuela-Caycedo, A., and Carmichael, P. (1991). A Comparison of the EarliestCeramic Technologies of Ecuador and Columbia, Paper presented at the 56th AnnualMeeting of the Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, LA.

Reindel, M., and Guillaume-Gentil, N. (1995). El proyecto arqueologico La Cadena: Estudiossobre la secuencia cultural de la cuenca del Rıo Guayas. In Alvarez, A., Alvarez, S., Fauria,C., and Marcos, J. G. (eds.), Primer encuentro de investigadores de la costa Ecuatorianaen Europa, Arqueologıa, Ethnohistorıa, Antropologıa Sociocultural, Abya-Yala, Quito,pp. 143–177.

Rollins, H. B., Sandweiss, D. H., Richardson, J. B., III. (1987). Growth increment and stableisotope analysis of marine bivalves: Implications for the geoarchaeological record of ElNino. Geoarchaeology 2(3): 81–197.

Rowe, J. H. (1946). Inca culture at the time of the Spanish Conquest. In Steward, J. (ed.),Handbook of South American Indians, Vol. 2, Bulletin 143. Bureau of American Ethnology,Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., pp. 183–330.

Rowe, J. H. (1960). The classification of artifacts in archaeology. American Antiquity 25(3):313–323.

Rowe, J. H. (1961). Stratigraphy and seriation. American Antiquity 26(3): 324–330.Sagastegui-Alva, A., Dillon, M. O., Sanchez-Vega, I., Leiva-Gonzalez, S., Lezama-Asencio, P.

(1999). Diversidad Floristica del Norte de Peru, Tomo I, World Wildlife Fund, Peru.Salazar, E. (1998). De vuelta al Sangay investigaciones arqueologicas en el Alto Upano

Amazonia Ecuatoriana. Bulletın de Instituto Frances Etudes Andines 27(2): 213–240.Salomon, F. L. (Fall 1977/Spring 78). Pochteca and Mindala: A Comparison of Long-Distance

Traders in Ecuador and Mesoamerica. Journal of Steward Anthropological Society 9(1/2):231–248.

Salomon, F. L. (1985). The dynamic potential of the Complimentary Concept. In Masuda, S.,Shimada I., and Morris, C. (eds.), Andean Ecology and Civilization: An interdisciplinaryPerspective on Andean Ecological Complimentarity, University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo,pp. 511–531.

Salomon, F. L. (1986). Native Lords of Quito in the Age of the Incas: The Political Economy ofNorth Andean Chiefdoms, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Sandweiss, D. H. (1986). The beach ridges at Santa Peru: El Nino, uplift, and prehistory. Geoar-chaeology 1(1): 17–26.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



Saville, M. H. (1909). Archaeological researches in the coast of Esmeraldas. Sixteenth Congressof the Americanists, Vienna, pp. 337. ff.

Saville, M. H. (1910). Antiquities of Manabı, Ecuador Volume II, Contributions to South Amer-ican Archaeology, Heye Foundation, New York, NY.

Saville, M. H. (1924). The gold treasure of Sigsig, Ecuador. Leaflets of the Museum of theAmerican Indian 3.

Schwarz, F. A., and Raymond, J. S. (1996). Formative settlement patterns in the Valdivia Valley,SW coastal Ecuador. Journal of Field Archaeology 23: 205–224.

Simmons, M. P. (1970). The Ceramic Sequence From La Carolina, Santa Elena Peninsula,Ecuador, PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson.

Smith, B. D. (1998). Emergence of Agriculture, Scientific American Library Publication,Freedman, New York.

Spath, C. D. (1980). The El Encanto Focus: A Post-Pleistocene Maritime Adaptation to Ex-panding Littoral Resources, PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University ofIllinois, Urbana.

Stahl, P. W. (1984). Tropical Forest Cosmology: The Cultural Context of the Early ValdiviaOccupations at Loma Alta, PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University ofIllinois, Urbana.

Stahl, P. W. (1985). Native American cosmology in archaeological interpretation: Tropical forestcosmology and the Early Valdivia phase at Loma Alta. In Thompson, M., Garcia, M. T.,and Kense, F. J. (eds.), Status, Structure and Stratification: Current Archaeological Recon-structions, Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference, The Archaeological Associationof the University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta., pp. 31–37.

Stahl, P. W. (1986). Hallucinatory imagery and the origin of early South American figurine art.World Archaeology 18(1): 134–150.

Stahl, P. W. (1991). Arid landscapes and environmental transformations in ancient southwesternEcuador. World Archaeology 22: 346–359.

Stahl, P. W., and Zeidler, J. A. (1990). Differential bone refuse accumulation in food preparationand traffic areas on an early Ecuadorian house floor. Latin American Antiquity 1(2): 150–169.

Staller, J. E. (1992/93). El sitio Valdivia tardio de la Emerenciana en la Costa sur del Ecuador ysu significacion del desarrollo de complejidad en la costa oeste de Sudamerica. Cuadernosde Historia y Arqueologia (Parte 1) 46–47: 14–37.

Staller, J. E. (1994). Late Valdivia Occupation in El Oro Province Ecuador: Excavations atthe Early Formative Period (3500–1500 B.C.) site of La Emerenciana, PhD dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University Dallas, Texas.

Staller, J. E. (1996a). El sitio Valdivia tardio de la Emerenciana en la Costa Sur del Ecuador ysu significacion del desarrollo de complejidad en la costa oeste de Sudamerica. Cuadernosde Historia y Arqueologia (Parte 2) 48–50: 65–118.

Staller, J. E. (1996b). An Analysis of Cosmological and Gender Related Stylistic Attributesin the Jelı Phase: A Phase VII–VIII Valdivia Ceramic Complex From La Emerenciana,Paper presented at the 51st Annual Northeast Conference on Andean Ethnohistoryand Archaeology, Rainey Auditorium, University of Pennsylvania Museum, Philadelphia,Pennsylvania.

Staller, J. E. (1998). Feline Symbolism in Valdivia Phase VIII Figurines From the Site of SanLorenzo del Mate, Paper presented at The Institute of Andean Studies 38th Annual Meet-ing, The University of California, Berkeley.

Staller, J. E. (2000a). Political and prehistoric frontiers: How history influences our understand-ing of the past. In Boyd, M., Erwin, J. C., and Hendrickson, M. (eds.), The Entangled Past:Integrating History and Archaeology, Proceedings of the 30th Annual Chacmool Con-ference Calgary, Alberta, The Archaeological Association of The University of Calgary,Alberta, pp. 242–258.

Staller, J. E. (2000b). Figurinas Valdivia VII–VIII del sitio San Lorenzo del Mate, provinciadel Guayas, y la transicion Valdivia–Machalilla. Miscelanea Antropologica Ecuatoriana 9:99–133.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


254 Staller

Staller, J. E. (2001). The Jelı Phase Complex at La Emerenciana, a late Valdivia site in southernEl Oro Province, Ecuador. In Andean Past, Vol. 6, Cornell University, Latin AmericanStudies Program, pp. 117–174.

Staller, J. E., and Thompson, R. G. (in press). A multidisciplinary approach to understandingthe initial introduction of maize into coastal Ecuador. Journal of Archaeological Science.

Staller, J. E., Tykot, R. H., and Thompson, R. G. (2000). A Multidisciplinary Approach to Explor-ing the Early Introduction and Role of Maize in Western South America, Paper presentedat the 27th Annual Midwestern Conference on Andean Ethnohistory and Archaeology,University of Central Michigan, Mt. Pleasant.

Stirling, M. W. (1963). A new culture in Ecuador. Archaeology 16(3): 170–175.Stothert, K. E. (1976). The early prehistory of the Santa Elena Peninsula: Continuities between

the preceramic and ceramic cultures, Actas del XLI Congreso Internacional de American-istas, Vol. 2, Mexico, pp. 88–98.

Stothert, K. E. (1983). Review of the Early Preceramic Complexes of the Santa Elena Peninsula,Ecuador. American Antiquity 48(1): 122–127.

Stothert, K. E. (1985). The Preceramic Las Vegas Culture of Coastal Ecuador. AmericanAntiquity 50(3): 613–637.

Stothert, K. E. (1995). Las Albarradas tradicionales y el manejo de aguas en la Peninsula deSanta Elena. Miscelanea Antropologica Ecuatoriana 8: 131–160.

Svenson, H. K. (1946). Vegetation of the Coast of Ecuador and Peru and its Relationship to Thatof the Galapagos Islands, Contribution No. 104 Brooklyn Botanic Garden, New York.

Thompson, R. G., and Staller, J. E. (2001). An analysis of opal phytoliths from food residues ofselected sherds and dental calculus from excavations at the site of La Emerenciana, El OroProvince, Ecuador. Phytolitharien, Bulletin of the Society for Phytolith Research 13(2/3):8–16.

Uhle, M. (1920a). Los principios de las antiguas civilizaciones peruanas. Boletın de la SociedadEcuatoriana de Estudios Historicos 4(12): 448–458.

Uhle, M. (1920b). Los principios de la civilizacion en la sierra peruana. Boletın de la SociedadEcuatoriana de Estudios Historicos 4(13/14): 44–56.

Uhle, M. (1922a). Sepulturas ricas de oro en la provincıa del Azuay. Boletın de la AcademiaNacional de Historia 4(9): 108–114.

Uhle, M. (1922b). Las Huacas de Canar. Journal de la Societe des Americaniste de Paris 14:242–244.

Uhle, M. (1922c). Influencias mayas en el alto Ecuador. Boletın de la Academia Nacional deHistoria 5(10–11): 205–240 and 5(12, 13, and 14): 1–3.

Uhle, M. (1923). Civilizaciones mayiodes de la costa pacifica de Sudamerica. Boletın de laAcademia Nacional de Historia 6(15, 16, and 17): 87–92.

Uhle, M. (1924). Cronolologıa y relaciones de las antiguas civilizaciones suramericas. Boletınde la Academia Nacional de Historia 9(24, 25, and 26): 190–207.

Uhle, M. (1937). Las ruinas de Cochasquı. Revista del Museo Nacional de Lima 6: 86–91.Valdez, F. (1987). Proyecto Arqueologico “La Tolita” 1983–1986, Fondo Arqueologico del

Museo del Banco Central “Guillermo Perez Chiriboga,” Quito, Ecuador.Valdez, F. (1992). The Tolita ceramic tradition. In Valdez, F., and Veintimilla, D. (eds.),

Amerindian Signs 5000 years of Precolumbian Art in Ecuador, Ediciones Colibri, Paris,pp. 135–189.

van der Merwe, N., Lee-Thorp, J. A., and Raymond, J. S. (1993). Light, Stable Isotopes and thesubsistence base of formative cultures at Valdivia, Ecuador. In Lambert, J. B., and Grupe,G. (eds.), Prehistoric Human Bone Archaeology at the Molecular Level, Springer-Verlag,New York, pp. 63–97.

Veliz-Mendoza, A. (1990). El Cacique Guayaquile: El Pueblo y el Rıo de su nombre. Culturas dela epoca a la llegada de los conquisdadores espanoles, Fundacion Ecuatoriana de EstudiosSociales Feso, Quito, Ecuador.

Villalba, M. (1988). Cotocollao: Una Aldea Formativa del Valle de Quito, MiscelaneaAntropologica Ecuatoriana, Serie Monografica, Vol. 2, Museo del Banco Central delEcuador, Quito, Ecuador.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW



Weinstein, E. (1998). Images of Women in Ancient Chorrera Ceramics: Mythological ContinuityAcross 2 millennia in the Tropical Forest of South America, Paper presented at the 26thAnnual Midwest Conference on Andean and Amazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory,University of Illinois, Urbana.

Wernstedt, F. L. (1972). World Climatic Data, Climatic Data Press.White, A. (1985). Herbs of Ecuador: Medicinal Plants, Edicions Libri Mundi, Quito, Ecuador.Willey, G. R. (1962). The great art styles and the rise of Pre-Columbian civilization. American

Anthropologist 64(1): 1–14.Willey, G. R. (1971). An Introduction to South American Archaeology, Vol. 2: South America,

Prentice-Hall, New York.Willey, G. R., and Corbett, J. M. (1954). Early Ancon and Early Supe Culture. Chavin Horizon

Sites of the Central Peruvian Coast, Studies in Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 3, ColumbiaUniversity Press, New work.

Zedeno, M. N. (1985). Analisis de ceramica Chorrera del sitio Penon del Rıo, Thesis, Centro deEstudios Arqueologicos y Antropolgicos, ESPOL, Guayaquil.

Zedeno, M. N. (1987). Analisis termino diferencial de la ceramica Chorrera. Gaceta Ar-queologica Andina 13: 8–9.

Zeidler, J. A. (1977). Early Formative Settlement in the Chanduy Valley, Southwestern Ecuador,Paper presented at the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,New Orleans, LA.

Zeidler, J. A. (1984). Social Space in Valdivian Society: Community Patterning and DomesticStructure At Real Alto, 3000–2000 B.C., PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology,University of Illinois, Urbana.

Zeidler, J. A. (1987). La evolucion local de asentamientos Formativos en el litoral Ecuatoriano:El caso de Real Alto. In Marcos, J. G. (ed.), La Arqueologıa de la Costa Ecuatoriana:Nuevos Enfoques, Corporacion Editoria Nacional, Quito, Ecuador.

Zeidler, J. A. (1988). Feline imagery, stone mortars, and Formative Period interaction spheresin the Northern Andean Area. Journal of Latin American Folklore 14(2): 243–283.

Zeidler, J. A. (1991). Maritime exchange in the Early Formative period of coastal Ecuador;geopolitical origins of uneven development. Research in Economic Anthropology 13: 247–268.

Zeidler, J. A. (1992). The Piquigua Phase: A Terminal Valdivia Occupation in Northern Manabı,Paper presented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,Pittsburgh, PA.

Zeidler, J. A. (1994). Archaeological testing in the Lower Jama Valley. In Zeidler, J. A., andPearsall, D. M. (eds.), Regional Archaeology in Northern Ecuador, Vol. 1: Environment,Cultural Chronology and Prehistoric Subsistence in the Jama River Valley, University ofPittsburgh, Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology No. 8., Pittsburgh, pp. 1–12.

Zeidler, J. A., and Kennedy, R. C. (1994). Environmental Settings. In Zeidler, J. A., and Pearsall,D. M. (eds.), Regional Archaeology in Northern Ecuador, Vol. 1: Environment, CulturalChronology and Prehistoric Subsistence in the Jama River Valley, University of Pittsburgh,Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology No. 8., Pittsburgh, pp. 13–42.

Zeidler, J. A., and Pearsall, D. M. (1994). The Jama Valley Archaeological/PaleoethnobotanicalProject. In Zeidler, J. A., and Pearsall, D. M. (eds.), Regional Archaeology in NorthernEcuador, Vol. 1: Environment, Cultural Chronology and Prehistoric Subsistence in the JamaRiver Valley, University of Pittsburgh, Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology No. 8.,Pittsburgh, pp. 1–12.

Zeidler, J. A., and Sutliff, M. J. (1994). Definition of ceramic complexes and cultural occupationin the Jama Valley. In Zeidler, J. A., and Pearsall, D. M. (eds.), Regional Archaeology inNorthern Ecuador, Vol. 1: Environment, Cultural Chronology and Prehistoric Subsistence inthe Jama River Valley, University of Pittsburgh, Memoirs in Latin American ArchaeologyNo. 8., Pittsburgh, pp. 111–130.

Zeidler, J. A., Giauque, R. L., Asaro, F., and Stross, F. H. (1994). Trace element analysis ofobsidian artifacts from the San Isidro site. In Zeidler, J. A., and Pearsall, D. (eds.), RegionalArchaeology in Northern Manabı, Ecuador, Vol. 1: Environment, Cultural Chronology and

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


256 Staller

Prehistoric Subsistence in the Jama River Valley, University of Pittsburgh, Memoirs in LatinAmerican Archaeology No. 8, Pittsburgh.

Zevallos, M. C. (1965/66). Informe Preliminar sobre el Cementerio Chorrera, Bahıa de SantaElena, Ecuador. In Revista del Museo Nacional, Vol. 34, Mexico City, pp. 20–27.

Zevallos, M. C. (1971). La Agrıcola en el formativo temprano del Ecuador (Cultura Valdivia).Talleres graficos de la Casa la Cultura Ecuatoriana, Nucleo del Guayas, Guayaquil.

Zevallos, M. C., Galinat, W., Lathrap, D. W., Leng, E. R., Marcos, J. G., and Klumpp, K. M.,(1977). The San Pablo Corn Kernel and its friends. Science 196: 385–389.

Zevallos-Menendez, C., and Holm, O. (1960). Excavaciones Arqueologicas en San Pablo, In-forme Preliminar, Guayaquil.

Zuta, S., Einfield, D., Valdivia-Lagos, J. P., and Blandin, C. (1976). Aspectos fisicos del fenomeno“El Nino” 1972–1973. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Fisheries Reports185: 3–61.

Reassessing the Developmental and Chronological Relationships of the Formative of Coastal Ecuador

Documents

Transcript of Reassessing the Developmental and Chronological Relationships of the Formative of Coastal Ecuador