Society for American Archaeology

British Guiana Archaeology: A Return to the Original Interpretations Author(s): Clifford Evans and Betty J. Meggers Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 30, No. 1 (Jul., 1964), pp. 83-84 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/277634 . Accessed: 14/02/2014 13:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.102.135.210 on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:55:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FACTS AND COMMENTS BRITISHGUIANA ARCHAEOLOGY: A RETURN TO THE ORIGINAL INTERPRETATIONS

CLIFFORD EVANS AND BETTY J. MEGGERS ABSTRACT The reinterpretation of the Mabaruma phase, British Guiana, by Lathrap does not introduce new evidence that requires abandonment of the original estimate of about A.D. 500 for its introduction from the Orinoco delta. AS A GENERAL RULE, we prefer not to reply to articles or comments disagreeing with our evaluation of archaeological evidence and to allow the interested reader to arrive at his own conclusions. However, since two successive issues of American Antiquity have carried reinterpretations of our work in such diverse and widely separated areas as Ecuador and British Guiana by Donald Lathrap (1963, 1964) with a footnote announcing more to come, our silence must be broken. A detailed analysis of the origin, development, and affiliations of the Machalilla phase of Ecuador is in preparation as a monograph, in which the inaccuracies in Lathrap's derivation of Machalilla from Tutiscainyo will be discussed. Here we wish to comment on his recent article entitled, "An Alternative Seriation of the Mabaruma Phase, Northwestern British Guiana" in which Lathrap attempts to give the impression that he has fundamentally changed the seriated sequence for the Mabaruma phase, and that this revision makes it possible to establish a greater antiquity for the phase than we had suggested. Since he has not in fact done either of these things, and since our British Guiana monograph is now out of print and consequently not readily available to interested readers, we wish to comment on the differences between his analysis and ours. The two sequences are as follows:
Evans and Meggers N-12, 0- 8 cm. 8-16 cm. 16-24 cm. 24-32 cm. 32-40 cm. N-20, 0- 8 cm. 8-16 cm. 16-24 cm. 24-32 cm. N-13, 0-15 cm. 15-30 cm. 30-45 cm. 45-60 cm. N-1, N-4, N-1, 0-8 cm. 0- 8 cm. 8-16 cm. 16-24 cm. N-4, 8-16 cm. 16-24 cm. N-1, 24-32 cm. 32-40 cm. 40-48 cm. 48-56 cm. Lathrap N-13, 0-15 cm. 15-30 cm. N-12, 0- 8 cm. 8-16 cm. N-13, 30-45 cm. N-12, 16-24 cm. 24-32 cm. 32-40 cm. N-20, 0- 8 cm. 8-16 cm. N-13, 45-60 cm. N-20, 16-24 cm. 24-32 cm. 0- 8 cm. 0- 8 cm. 8-16 cm. 16-24 cm. N-4, 8-16 cm. 16-24 cm. N-i, 24-32 cm. 32-40 cm. 40-48 cm. 48-56 cm. N-, N-4, N-I,

The relative position of sites and levels differs in only one respect: we placed N-13 before N-20 and N-12, while Lathrap interdigitates it with the upper two sites. To do this, he is obliged to dismiss as "minor" the temper differences that identify the various pottery types used to form the basis for our seriation. He does so on the ground that they "are at least as likely to be related to facts of geography (the local availability of particular kinds of sand and rock) as to cultural choice" (Lathrap 1964: 354). There are two arguments against such dismissal of the cultural significance of temper. First, steatite-tempered Hotokwai Plain and mica-tempered Koberimo Plain cannot be characterized as showing "minor" differences from sand-tempered Mabaruma Plain and Hosororo Plain. In fact, they are some of the most distinctive wares we have encountered anywhere in South America. Neither of these specific forms of temper occurs naturally in clay, and sources had to be sought out. That their use is not an accidental result of geography is demonstrated by marked differences in occurrence at sites in close physical proximity. For example, mica-tempered Koberimo Plain is absent at N-1 except in the upper two levels, where it reaches only 1.4% frequency. At N-12, which occupies the same small hill, it increases to 27.8%. Similarly, at N-13, steatite-tempered Hotokwai Plain reaches 59.5%, while at N-14 and N-15, a little downstream, it constitutes only 25.2 and 25.6% of the sherd samples. Acceptance of Lathrap's alternative placement of N-13 not only requires dismissal of these marked differences as unimportant but restricts the burden of chronological evidence to less than 13.8% of the total sherds in any level, this being the frequency of decorated sherds for the Mabaruma phase. Since the total sherd sample per level is not large and since there are four decorated types represented, we felt that possibilities of error derived from so small a sample were considerable, and consequently that trends could be considered at best only suggestive. We do not take the position that shape and decoration show a "capricious distribution through time" (p. 358) but rather that evidence for shape and decoration may show such a distribution because of the small size of the available sample. Interestingly, Lathrap's reseriation leaves intact all the temporal differences in vessel shape and decoration that emerged from our seriated sequence. Furthermore, he supports our correlation of the latter part of the sequence with the Apostadero style in the Orinoco delta (Evans and Meggers 1960: 150). The principal point of conflict between Lathrap's analysis and ours is the correlation between the early Mabaruma phase and the Barrancoid sequence of the Orinoco. It is difficult to see how his disagreement here can be a "by-product" of the reseriation, since the relevant lower portion of the sequence is exactly the same in both arrangements. The only argument he offers in support of a preference for contemporaneity with Barrancas dated at 850 B.c., rather than tos Barrancos dated

83

This content downloaded from 190.102.135.210 on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:55:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

84

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[ VOL.30, No. 1, 1964

at A.D. 500, is his impression that one form of rim (referred to by Lathrap as "labial flange") is typical of Barrancas, but much less common in Los Barrancos (pp. 358-9). According to Cruxent and Rouse (1958: 228), however, Los Barrancos resembles Barrancas in that "a triangular flange at the rim is again diagnostic," so that this trait does not provide a good basis for identification. There are, on the other hand, a number of diagnostic features distinguishing Barrancas from Los Barrancos, and these provide a basis for determining the affiliation of the Mabaruma phase. Barrancas, for example, is typified by body-wall thickness averaging 12 mm., dominance of modeling combined with incision expressed in large heavy adornos, predominantly curvilinear motifs, widely spaced incisions, punctation rare and almost never in the form of lines terminating in dots, and a 13% occurrence of red slipping, often zoned with incision (Cruxent and Rouse 1958: 225). Los Barrancos is characterized by body-wall thickness averaging 8 mm., modeling in low rather than high relief and definitely subordinate to incision, incisions closely spaced and frequently ending in dots, and absence of red slipping (Cruxent and Rouse 1958: 228-9). The early Mabaruma phase shares all the characteristics of Los Barrancos and lacks all those typical of Barrancas except for the red slip. Identification of early Mabaruma phase pottery with Period III in Venezuela and Los Barrancos by Cruxent and Rouse (1958: 31) before final publication of our results has not been changed in a more recent volume (Rouse and Cruxent 1963: 89). Until a detailed analysis of the Barrancoid style appears in print, they are the only ones in full control of the evidence. Since Lathrap has offered no new evidence, their Period III correlation of the early Mabaruma phase would seem to be the most acceptable at the present time, and the date of about A.D. 500 for the entrance of this phase into British Guiana from the Orinoco delta remains more acceptable than Lathrap's new estimate.
ROUSE CRUXENT,J. M. ANDIRVING 1958 An Archeological Chronology of Venezuela, Vol. 1. Social Science Monographs, Pan American Union, No. 6. Washington. ANDBETTY J. MEGGERS EVANS,CLIFFORD 1960 Archeological Investigations in British Guiana. American Ethnology, Bulletin 177. Washington. DONALDW. LATHRAP, 1963 Possible Affiliations of the Machalilla Complex of Coastal Ecuador. American Antiquity, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 239-41. Salt Lake City. 1964 An Alternative Seriation of the Mabaruma Phase, Northwestern British Guiana. American Antiquity, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 353-9. Salt Lake City. M. CRUXENT ANDJOSE ROUSE,IRVING Yale Caribbean 1963 Venezuelan Archaeology. Haven.

PRE-COLUMBIAN BALL-GAME HANDSTONES: REJOINDERTO CLUNE

STEPHAN F. DE BORHEGYI ABSTRACT On the basis of ethnohistorical data, Clune has questioned the identification and use of pre-Columbian Mesoamerican stone objects formerly known as "padlock stones" or "sling stones" and recently designated by de Borhegyi as "ball-game handstones." According to de Borhegyi, these stones were used by players in the Mesoamerican ball game to deflect or propel a higharching ball. Archaeological evidence strongly supports the inference that "ball-game handstones" and such ballgame paraphernalia as stone yokes and palmate stones were used in the ball game as it was played during Early and Late Classic times (A.D. 200-900) along the Gulf coast of eastern Mexico and in the Maya area. The indiscriminate use of Spanish and other early ethnohistoric records may be misleading in the reconstruction and interpretation of cultural events that occurred centuries earlier in a variety of places. CLUNE (1963) has questioned my interpretation of the use of certain loop-handled pre-Columbian stone objects which I christened "ball-game handstones" (Borhegyi 1961). My study of these artifacts indicates that they were not used as sling stones nor as pestles or grinding stones as previously supposed. Their archaeological association with such well-known Mesoamerican artifacts as palmate stones, stone yokes, and thin stone heads clearly indicates their connection with pre-Columbian ball-game ceremonies or with the game itself. The Spanish chroniclers who saw the Mexican ball game in action describe a secularized version of the game in which no stone paraphernalia was used. As a matter of fact, archaeological evidence indicates that the use of stone ball-game paraphernalia was discontinued centuries earlier at the beginning of the post-Classic period. It must therefore be taken into consideration that any colonial eyewitness reference to the ball game describes an already altered form of the game that was played by different tribal groups under different conditions. It is as difficult and conjectural to reconstruct from such accounts the rules of the ball game as played during Early and Late Classic times around the Gulf of Mexico and in the Maya area as it is to reconstruct the early rules of the polo game as played in Persia or India from modern polo played in the United States or Great Britain. There is now sufficient evidence to convince all but the most sceptical that the stone yokes, like the Puerto Rican stone "collars" or belts, were actually worn by players during the game (Ekholm 1961). These heavy objects fit remarkably well about the waist, where any weight is most easily carried and, instead of hindering the mobility of the player, they provide a much-needed striking surface with which to hit the heavy rubber ball and also protect the vulnerable abdominal area. According to Ekholm (1961: 365), when a large solid-rubber ball (about 18 cm. in diameter and weighing about

Bureau of

Series, 6. New

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

Washington, D.C. February, 1964

This content downloaded from 190.102.135.210 on Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:55:17 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions