Maney Publishing

The Preceramic of Mesoamerica

Author(s): Richard S. MacNeish and Antoinette Nelken-Terner
Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1983), pp. 71-84
Published by: Maney Publishing
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/529749 .
Accessed: 04/02/2015 17:18

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.

Maney Publishing is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Field
Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:18:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Preceramicof Mesoamerica

Richard S. MacNeish
Boston University
Boston, Massachusetts
and
Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archaeology
Andover, Massachusetts

Antoinette Nelken-Terner
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique de France
Mexico City, Mexico

Thispaper is an attemptto summarizeand synthesizethe Preceramic(more

than40,000 years ago to ca. 4,000 B.P. in radiocarbontime)for the major
New Worldculturearea, Mesoamerica.In attemptingto do this, the authors
have dividedthe period into two general stages: EarlyMan, withfour sub-
stages, and Archaic, with threesubstages.Each of these substagesseems to
have some general developmentalcharacteristicsin termsof technology,sub-
sistence, and culturethat are reflectedin their artifactcomplexes.Further-
more, each substageafter thefirst two seems to have more thanone cultural
traditionthat may reflectsome sort of adaptationto naturalareas or eco-
zones. Throughoutthe sequence, there is not only a developmentof more
complextechnologyand subsistencesystems,but more traditionsoccur, so
thatat the thresholdof village-agriculturewith ceramics, thereare two ma-
jor super traditions a highlandone and lowlandone. These two traditions
form the base on whichMesoamericancivilizationwas built.

Introduction Early Man: the Lithic Stage

In discussing the Preceramic period of Mesoamerica,
it seems advisable from the standpoint of cultural de-
velopment to divide this long period into two stages ---
Early Man, or Lithic, from roughly 9,000 B.P. to as much
as 40,000 years ago and the Archaic from roughly 4,000
B.P. in radiocarbon time to the time of the extinction of
the Pleistocene megafauna between 9,000 and 10,000
years ago in radiocarbon time (all dates, since most are
before 7,000 years ago, are uncorrected). Again we be-
lieve there were developments within each of these large
general stages with there being four substages of the
Lithic and three of the Archaic. Finds are still meager
for all these substages and more research will better de-
fine them or, perhaps, even further subdivide them. We
describe here what we understand on the basis of the
present (1982) evidence, knowing full well that both the
evidence and our Wnderstandingwill continue to grow.
In Mesoamerica,traces of early man are not numer-
ous, and most of them were discoveredduringthe last
20 years. Nevertheless, there are hints that here also
earlyman went througha series of technologicalstages
thatare relatedto orSare the same as ones that seem to
exist for the rest of the New World.1
The earlieststage elsewherecharacterizedby chop-
ping-choppertools is still almost unknown, and hy-
potheticallyit shoulddate before 30,000 or 40,000 B.P.
(FIG. 1). It has been suggestedby J. Epsteinthatsome of
his earliestfinds fromthe San Isidrosite in Nuevo Leon
may belong to this earlieststage,2and perhapsthey do.
1. Richard S. MacNeish, ''Early Man in the New World," AmSci
63:3 (1976) 316-327.
2. J. F. Epstein, "The San Isidro site: An early man campsite in
Nuevo Leon, Mexico," Anthropological Papers of the University of
Texas,No. 1(1969)111-123.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:18:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
72 The Preceramic of MesoamericalMacNeish and Nelken-Terner

Figure 1. Sites of the Lithic Stage (Substages1-3). Substage1 (_), chopping-chopper tool assemblagesmore than
30,000 years old: 1) E1Bosque, Nicaragua;2) possiblyearliestSan Isidro(Nuevo Leon);3) possiblythe Diablo
Complex(Tamaulipas);4) possiblyearliestTlapacoya,Mexico (D.F.). Substage2 (A), unifacialbone tool
assemblages,ca. 30,000-15,000 B.P.: 1) earliestValsequillo(Puebla);2) Tlapacoya,Mexico (D.F.); 3) possiblyearliest
SantaMarta(Chiapas);4) possibly earliestLoltunCave (Yucatan);S) possiblyE1Cedral(San Luis Potosi);6) possibly
SantaLucia, Mexico (D.F.). Substage3 (a), leaf bifacialpoint, blades, burinassemblages,ca. 15,000-11,000 B.P.:
1) early Ajuereado,Tehuacan(Puebla,Mexico);2) Unit IE, Hueyatlaco(Puebla);3) next to earliestSantaMarta
(Chiapas);4) possiblyearliestSan Juan,San NicholasCave (Queretaro); S) possiblyzone F of CuevaBlanca, Mitla
(Oaxaca).

They are not in excavatedcontexts, however, nor have
they been dated. Epstein also suggests that these finds
arerelatedto the poorlydocumentedDiablo complexof
Tamaulipas,which includeda few artifactsin high ter-
race gravels of the CanyonDiablo, indicativeof some
antiquity.But mostof the Diabloartifactsareunifaces-
types characteristicof the second stages and further-
more,high terracegravelsareprobablyless than30,000-
40,000 years old. L. Mirambellhas also suggestedthat
some of the basalt and andesite artifacts from various
tests on the slopes above Tlapacoya are older (33,500)
than those dated at 20,000 B.P. and may be of this stage.3
Unfortunately, if so, there is no documentation in print
of this speculation.
Perhaps more reliably representative of this hypothet-
ical first stage are the E1 Bosque remains from Nicara-
3. Lorena Mirambell, "E1 Hombre en Tlapacoya desde hace nuos 20
mil anos, " Boletin INAH 4 ( 1973) 1 1-14.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:18:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

gua.4Hereat least one pebbleor flakechopperandsome
workedbone from good context were associatedwith
bones of extinct sloth (Eremotherium andMegalonychi-
dae), mastodon (Stego mastodon), and horse (Amer-
hippus). Dating these finds, however, presents some
problems,as the radiocarbondates range from 18,000
+ 500 B.P. to more than 35,000 B.P.S Only time and
moreresearchwill tell just how reliablethese finds are
and if they really do representthis first stage.
Oursecond hypotheticalstage, however, seems to be
representedby some fairly reliabledata which dates in
the rangefrom 15,000 to 40,000 years ago (FIG. 1). It is
characterized by bone tools and a unifacialindustryand
is best evidencedin good datedcontext at Valsequillo,
which was excavatedby CynthiaIrwin-Williams.6She
found 13 unifacialartifacts,such as points, burins,side
scrapers,wedges, end scrapers,andspokeshave-likeob-
jects in associationwith extinctanimalsat five locations:
El Horno, Mirador,Tecacanco, lower Hueyatlacoand
Caulapan.Furthermore,shell near the flake artifactat
Caulapandated to 21,850 + 850 B.P. (W1895). Juan
Armenta,workingin the same area, but often at other
locations,also foundunifacialstone choppersas well as
many bone tools and pieces of workedbone of extinct
animals.7Carbon-14dateson these remainsrangefrom
23,940 + 1,000 B.P. (W1911) to morethan 35,000 B.P.
Althoughthe context of these is not as good as that of
Irwin-Williams'material,there is no denying the fact
thatthis culturalcomplex existed at thattime.
Whatis more, this Stage II type of artifactoccurs at
a numberof early sites in otherpartsof Mexico, includ-
ing, in our opinion, the Diablo complex of Tamaulipas
thatwas mentionedabove. The most publicizedof these
is Tlapacoya,with its datesof 21,700 + 500 B.P. (L449)
and 24,000 + 4,000 B.P. (A794).8 Unfortunately,there
werefew artifactsfoundin theseearlycomplexes,mainly
andesiteflakes. In fact, one of the most publicizedof
these artifactswas an obsidianblade that was actually
4. RuthGruhn,"A note on excavationsat E1Bosque, Nicaraguain
1975," in Early Man in America, A. D. Bryan, ed. (Universityof
Alberta:Edmonton,Alberta1978) 261-262.
5. JorgeEspinosa,''ExcavacionesArqueologicasen E1Bosque," In-
Nicaraqua1976)
forme No. 1, InstitutoGeografico Nacional (Manaqua,
22-55.
6. C. Irwin-Williams,''Associationof earlyman with horse, camel,
andmastodonatHueyatlaco,Valsequillo(Puebla,Mexico)," in Pleis-
tocene Extinctions, P. S. Martin,ed. (Yale UniversityPress:New
Haven 1967) 337-347.
7. (Camacho)JuanArmenta,''Vestigiosde LaborHumanaen Hueso
de AnimalesExtintosde Valsequillo,Puebla,Mexico," Consejo Ed-
itorial de Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, Mexico (1978) 1-123.
8. Mirambell,loc. cit. (in note 3).
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:18:56 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 10, 1983 73
foundin the screen, not in situ. Again, althoughan ad-
equatedescriptionof these finds has yet to get into print,
ffierewas indisputable associationof man'sunifacialtools
with the bones of extinctanimalssuch as the mammoth,
mastodon,horse, etc.
It might be added that there are two other possible
examplesof this stage thathave also not been reported.
One includesthe lower levels of the Santa Martacave
of ChiapaswhereMirambellput in a test thatprevented
the seniorauthorfromrediggingit with an NSF grant.9
Again therewere but a few unifacialtools and no date,
but the stratigraphywas clear: these levels lay under
stratathat dated to 9,000 B.P. The lower levels of this
cave need to be dug once again with the same sensitive
techniquesused in the initial testings,10and should, at
that time, producea more adequatelydocumentedex-
ampleof StageII. Somewhatsimilararethe lower levels
of Loltun Cave in Yucatan, where NorbertoGonzales
found unifacial tools in associationwith bones of the
extinct horse, mammoth,etc., as well as the pointed
horse-bonetool at El Cedralin San Luis Potosi datedat
21,960 + 540 B.P. (I10436), nine otherpossible pieces
of workedbone, anda possiblescraperplanein a stratum
datedat 33,270 + 1800 B.P. (GX7684). Also, the flakes
at SantaLucianearLakeZumpangoNW of Mexico City,
dated 23,400 + 600 B.P. (I10427) and 26,300 + 880
B.P. (IX6628), mightbe of this stage.1l
Thus, Stage II does exist. AlthoughC.V. Haynes12
and D. Stanford13 have theirdoubts,they cannotignore
the facts and wish14these finds out of existence. While
none of these finds has yieldedlargeinventoriesandthe
stageis ill-defined,therearea numberof sites that,upon
excavation,will give us bettersamplesof artifactsand
ecofactsso thatthe whole mattermaybe settledto every-
one's satisfactionshortly.
9. JoaquinGarcia,DianaSantamaria,Ticul Alverez, ManuelReyes,
and FernandoSanchez,"Excavacionesen E1Abrigode SantaMera,
Chiapas",INAH Dept. de Prehistora Informes, No. 1 (Mexico 1976)
1-21.
10. RichardS. MacNeishand FrederickA. Peterson, "The Santa
MartaRock Shelter, Ocozocoautla,Chiapas," Papers of the New
World Archaeological Foundation 14 (1962) 1-46.
11. Jose Luis Lorenzo,"E1Cedral,Mexico, SLP, Mexico-un sitio
presenciohumanade mas de 30,000 B.P.," paperat Union Interna-
X Congress(Mexico
tionalde CienciasPrehistoricus,Protohistoricas,
City 1981) 16-22.
12. C. V. Haynes, "The earliestAmericans,"Science 166 (1969)
709-715.
13. RobertL. HumphreyandDennisStanford,Pre-Llano cultures of
the Americas: Paradoxes and Possibilities (The AnthropologicalSo-
ciety of Washington:Washington,D .C. 1979) 147- 150.
14. As P. Martin,"The discoveryof America,"Science 179 (1973)
969-974.
 and Nelken-Terner
74 The Preceramicof Mesoamerica/MacNeish
In ourschemeof things,the finaltwo EarlyManstages
arecharacterized by specializedbifacialprojectilepoints
as well as other tools (see FIG. 6). The first of these is
not well documentedandmightdatebetween10,000 B.P.
and 15,000 or 20,000 B.P.; it shouldbe characterizedby
blades, burins,and leaf-shapedpoints. EarliestAjuere-
ado of the TehuacanValley of Puebla,15perhapssome
Lermacomponentsof Tamaulipas,l6Unit 1E of Huey-
atlacoof Puebla,17Zone F of CuevaBlancain Oaxaca,18
and perhapsthe next to earliest levels of Santa Marta
Cave19may be examplesof this stage. A possible ham-
mer from Cedralthat is from a deposit said to date to
ca. 15,000 B.P. may also belong to this stage.20
One salientfeatureof this Stage III is the presenceof
bifacial leaf-shapedLerma points, althoughobviously
this type is not very distinctiveandlasts way beyondthis
time period (FIG. 1). Whetherfutureresearchwill find
othertypes, such as fluted (:lovis-like,2l Meadowcroft-
like,22or Fells (:ave-like23points is unknown,but the
fact remainsthatin this stage, the firstbifacialpointsdo
appearand may well reflect not only new lithic manu-
factunngtechniques,but also new ways of hunting.Other
bifacial tools also occur in this hypotheticalStage III,
which also reflectthese new lithic techniques.
Perhapsmore significantfor this stage in terms of
lithic manufacturing techniquesis the seeminginitiation
of the blade-burintechniqueof manufacture.Here is a
whole field yet to be adequatelystudied, and its impli-
15. Richard S. MacNeish, Antoinette Nelken-Terner, and Inngard
Johnson, The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Vol. 2, Nonceramic
Artifacts (University of Texas Press: Austin, Texas 1967) 227-245.
16. Richard S. MacNeish, "A synopsis of the archaeological se-
quence in the Sierra de Tamaulipas," Revista, Mexico de lnstituto
Anthropologia XI (Mexico City 1958) 79-96.
17 Irwin-Williams, loc . cit. (in note 6) .
18. Kent V. Flannery, "Preliminary archaeological investigation in
the valley of Oaxaca, Mexico," report to the National Science Foun-
dation, mimeographed (1969) 10-24.
19. Joaquin Garcia-Barena, "Una panta acanalaca de le cueva Los
Grifos Ocozocoautla, Chiapas," Dept. de Prehistoria Cuadernos 17
(Mexico City 1981) 1-19.
20. Lorenzo, op. cit. (in note 11) 121.
21. C. V. Haynes, "Geochronology of man-mammoth sites and their
bearing on the origin of the Llano complex," Pleistocene and Recent
Environment of the Central Great Plains, W. Dort, Jr., ed. (New
York City 1970) 83- 111.
22 J. M. Adovasio, J. D. Gunn, J. Donahue, and R. Stuckenrath,
''Excavations at Meadowcroft Rockshelter, a Progress Report?Penn-
sylvania Archueology 45:3 (1975) 1-93.
23. J. B. Bird, ''The archaeology of Patagonia," Handbook of South
American lndians, BHEB 143, J. Steward, ed. (Washington, D.C.
1946) 17-24.
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:18:56 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
cations are not well understood.Obviously, one impli-
cation is thatthe burinsappearto reflect a new kind of
bone or shell industry,but the details of this are still
unknown. Second, the well-made, snub-nosed end
scrapersandblade scrapersof this stage probablyimply
new skin-workingtechniques. Because of the limited
numberof finds, however,andthe lackof in-depthstudy
of what we have found, we are, in fact, certainof very
little aboutthe cultureof this stage, includingwhether
or not therewas a highland-lowlandculturaldichotomy
at this time, as our Belizeanand some Guatemalansites
suggest.24Nevertheless,the ever-increasingfinds of hy-
potheticalStage IV, with its numerousregionaladapta-
tions, had commencedduringStage III.
In fact, it is only with our final hypotheticalStage IV
that we have even a semblanceof an adequateset of
artifactsfrom a numberof sites that allows us to hy-
pothesizeaboutregionaltraditions(FIG. 2). On a general
level, this finalPreceramicstagehadmanymorespecial-
ized bifacial projectile points Clovis, Agate Basin,
Plainview, Golondrina,Lerma, Madden Lake, Fells
(:ave, etc. as well as a numberof othertools such as
mullersand milling stones (see FIG. 6) which show that
these people had other subsistenceoptionsbesides big-
game huntingand that they may have had specialized
adaptationsto variousecozonesor environmentalzones.
In spite of these generalities,workingout the details
of the traditionsin Mexico at this time is still very dif-
ficult at this stage of our research.In 1966 we thought
therewas only one (Sordilleran.25 By 1974, we thought
therewere two, an easternone Planoid-(Sordilleran-
and a western one-Llanoid-Cordilleran26-and now,
with our work in Belize, we see a third-the Fishtail-
pointtradition.27 Whoknowswhattomorrowwill bring?
In fact, all we can do now is to describe, and in part
repeat,what we have said before.
In terms of representativesof the easterly tradition,
the best documentedexampleis the late Ajuereadocom-
plex of the TehuacanValleyof east centralMexico, and,
althoughno carbon-14datesaredirectlyassociatedwith
it, bracketingdates suggest that it existed roughlyfrom
24. Richard S MacNeish, S. Jeffrey K. Wilkerson, and Antoinette
Nelken-Terner, First Annual Report of the Belize Archaic Archaeo-
logical Reconnaissance (Robert S. Peabody Foundation for Archae-
ology: Andover, Massachusetts 1980) 27-68.
25 MacNeish, Nelken-Terner, and Johnson, op. cit. (in note 15)
334-344.
26. MacNeish, op. cit. (in note 1) 322-327.
27. Richard S . MacNeish, Second Annua} Report of the Belize Archaic
Archaeological Reconnaissance (Robert S. Peabody Foundation for
Archaeology: Andover, Massachusetts 1981) 26-72.
 Journal of Field Archaeologyl Vol. 10, 1983 75

Figure 2. Lithic Stage, Substage4, ca. 11,000-9,600 B.P. Planoid-Cordilleran Tradition (-): 1) Late Ajuereado,
Tehuacan (Puebla); 2) Valsequillo (Puebla); 3) Tlapacoya (Mexico; D.F.); 4) Iztapan, Mexico (D.F.); 5) possibly San
Juan (Queretaro); 6) Lerma (Tamaulipas); 7) San Isidro (Tamaulipas); 8) Devil's Mouth, Texas; 9) earliest La Calzada
(Nuevo Leon; 10) Guila-Naquitz, Cueva Blanca (Oaxaca). Llanoid-Cordilleran Tradition (A): 1) Rancho Colorado
(Chihuahua); 2) Samalayucan (Chihuahua); 3) Guaymas (Sonora); 4) Rancho Weicker (Durango); 5) San Marces
(Jalisco); 6) Los Tapiales (Guatemala). Fishtail Point Tradition (_): 1) Los Grifos (Chiapas); 2) Lowe-Ha complex,
Belize; 3) Quiche Basin, Guatemala; 4) Esperanza, Honduras; 5) Turrialba, Costa Rica; 6) Madden Lake, Panama.

12,000 B.P. to 9,000 s.P.28AlthoughindigenousLerma dominantsubsistenceactivities, in thatorder,in all sea-

points(namedafterone of the majorsites in Tamaulipas)
predominatein this latterpartof the phase, Flacco and
Plainviewpointsthatwere probablyderivedfromNE of
Mexico have also been found. Crude blades, burins,
gravers,spokeshaves,and a host of special end-scraper
types were used, andthe huntingof herdanimalsby the
lance-ambushingtechnique, rabbit (or other animal)
drives, and the collecting of small animalsare the pre-
28. MacNeish, Nelken-Terner, and Johnson, loc. cit. (in note 15).
sons, in all environments.29
Proportionsof deer bones,
as comparedwith horse and antelope, increase in the
floor layers, suggestingnew huntingstrategiessuch as
stalkingindividuallarge animals using atlatl-propelled
dartswith barbedandpointedforeshafts.Mortars,grind-
ing stones, andmullersappearin associationwith spring
29. Richard S. MacNeish, Excavations and Reconnaissance, Vol. 5,
The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley (University of Texas Press:
Austin, Texas 1975) 361-374.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:18:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 76 ThePreceramicof Mesoamerica/MacNeish
and Nelken-Terner
seeds, agave, and opuntia leaves; and the presence of
fall fruits suggests seed-collecting, leaf-cutting, and fruit-
picking subsistence activities. The leg bones of some of
the smaller animals are broken in a manner that suggests
the use of traps.30All these late additions strongly sug-
gest that these groups had new supplementary subsis-
tence options that could be seasonally and environmen-
tally adaptive.
The matenals from the nearby Valsequillo region, dated
at just before 9, lS0 s.P., are less numerous.31A stemmed
point with a concave base found along with laurel-leaf
points among numerous horse and antelope bones sug-
gests that a process similar to that of Ajuereado was
unfolding. The data from the valley of Mexico, also
meager, are from two sites: the Iztapan Mammoth Kill,
dated ca. 9,250 s.p.32 and Tlapacoya II, a campsite dated
ca. 9,920 s.P.33Both sites seem related to the above and
indicate similar developments .34 Although household
tools, including an obsidian blade, gouge, semi-lunar
knife, and end-of-blade scraper, were found at Iztapan,
it was obviously a kill site and not a camp. Furthermore,
the occurrence in the same mammoth, of an Agate Basin,
of a Lerma-type leaf point, and a trianguloid point of the
Plano tradition of the United States suggests multiple
hunting techniques, the former points being used for
lance-ambushing and the latter for dart-stalking. These
remains, obviously related to those from just across the
lake at Tlapacoya, may belong to a different seasonal
subsistence pattern, for while Lerma points, blades, and
semi-lunar knives still occur at Tlapacoya, choppers,
grinding stones, and mortars are found in association not
only with extinct megafauna, like horse and tapir, but
also with deer and rabbit bones.35
Also possibly related is a fluted point from Tlaxcala36
and another that occurred in the Valley of Tlacolula,
30. Ibid. 234-245.
31. C. Irwin-Williams, "A summary of archaeological evidence from
the Valsequillo region, Puebla, Mexico." Proceedings of the 9th In-
ternational Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences,
Chicago (Mouton: The Hague 1967) 7-22.
32. Luis Aveleyra and M. Maldonado-Koerdell, "Association of ar-
tifacts with mammoth in the Valley of Mexico," AmAnt 18:4 (1953)
332-341.
33. Mirambell, loc. cit. (in note 3).
34. Christine Niederberger, Zohapilco: Cinco Milenios de Ocupacion
AIumana en un sitio Lacustre de la Cuenca de Mexico, Dept. de
Prehistoria, Coleccion Cientifica, Arqueologia 30 (Mexico City 1976)
23-49.
35. Mirambell, loc. cit. (in note 3).
36. Angel Garcia Cook, "Una punta acanalada en E1 Estado de Tlax-
cala, Mexico," FAIC No. 9 (Pueblo, Mexico 1973) 25-26.
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:18:56 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Oaxaca37 might be of this stage,38 but again better ar-
chaeological contexts are needed.
There is some evidence that this Plano-Cordillerantra-
dition, documented for central Mexico, extended as far
north as the Rio Grande in NE Mexico. Although the
evidence is poor, a related complex of Lerma points,
blades, burins, choppers, and snub-nosed scrapers was
found in the lowest levels of San Nicolas Cave, near San
Juan del Rio in Queretaro39associated with large and
small extinct and modern mammalian remains.40
Somewhat betterevidence comes from the Lerrnaphase
of Tamaulipas, dated ca. 9,270 s p 4l Here extinct beaver
and deer bones were associated with Lerma points that
perhaps were fastened to lances, and with other chipped-
stone tools. Both a triangular Plano-type point that per-
haps tipped an atlatl dart and one of the pebble ham-
merstones that might well have functioned as a pestle
may indicate supplementary subsistence options. North
of Tamaulipas, toward the Rio Grande, although the eco-
logical data are less secure, there are hints from sites
like San Isidro, La Calzada, and Devil's Mouth that the
Planoid-Cordilleran gave way to Plano and other spe-
cialized complexes.42
Most of the more northeasterly Mexican sites in latest
Pleistocene times form a unit, although they seem to
have been increasingly influenced by the many special-
ized contemporarycomplexes in the cental United States,
such as Plainview, Agate Basin, Scottsbluff, and Eden,
all of which might be called Plano.
How far south this Planoid-Cordillerancomplex or tra-
dition extended is unknown, but some of the dates (un-
corrected) 8,100 B.C., 8,780 B.C., 8,960 B.C., and 9,050
B.C. from Cueva Blanca and Guila-Naquitz in Oaxaca
seem to be as early as those in the complexes just men-
tioned.43The projectile points, however, are very few
37. Marcus C . Winter, personal communication, 1982.
38. Roberto Garcia Moll, "Analysis de los Materiales Arqueologicos
de la Cueva del Texcal, Puebla," Dept. de Prehistoria, Coleccion
Cientifica Arqueologia No. 56 (Mexico City 1977) 9-89.
39. Cynthia Irwin-Williams, personal communication, 1965.
40. MacNeish, Nelken-Terner, and Johnson, op. cit. (in note 15)
238-239.
41. Richard S. MacNeish, "Preliminary archaeological investigations
in the SiexTade Tamaulipas, Mexico," TAPhA48 (Philadelphia 1958)
152-203.
42. Jeremiah F. Epstein, T. R. Hester, and Carol Graves, eds., Pa-
pers on the Prehistory of Northeastern Mexico and Adjacent Texas,
Centerfor Archaeological Research, Report No. 9 (University of Texas
at San Antonio 1980) 1-153; LeRoy Johnson, "The Devil Mouth
Site, " Archaeological Series, Department of Anthropology, University
of Texas, No. 6 (Austin, Texas, 1964) 46-57, figs. l5, l7.
43. Kent V. Flannery, Joyce Marcus, and Stephen A. Kowalewski,

LermaandPedernales and manyof the otherartifacts,
lildethose fromTexcal Cave, phaseI, seem as relatedto
our El Riego remains as to latest Ajuereado from
Tehuacan.
Equallydifficultto documentis the EarlyMan tradi-
tion in NW and sw Mexico, but Clovis pointsfoundat a
number(ca. 19) of surfacesites (RanchoWeicker,Dur-
ango; Guaymas,Sonora;Rancho Coloradoand Sama-
layucan,Chihuahua; etc.) in NW Mexico,44a flutedpoint
in associationwith about 14 Lerrnapoints, blades, bur-
ins, and otherartifactsfound at Los Tapialesin Guate-
mala, dated ca. 10,710 s.P.45 hint that the basic
Cordillerancomplex of westernMexico and the Pacific
drainageareaof Guatemalawas undergoinga similarset
of influencesfromthe north.In this case, however, the
sourceof the influenceseems to have been the Folsom
and/orClovis (Llano)complexesof the westernUnited
States. Perhapsthis should be called Llanoid-Cordil-
leran.Exactdefinitionof this latterhypotheticaltradition
must await more adequateexcavationwith bettersam-
ples and artifacts.Thus, much that is new may be ex-
pectedfrompeople digging in the NW of Mesoamerica.
The southernborderof both these Cordillerantradi-
tions, on the basis of the Los Grifos,Chiapasfinds, may
be somewherein Guatemalaand southernMexico and
just northof our thirdtraditionthatis literallyjust com-
ing out of the groundin CentralAmerica.Earlyfinds by
Ripley Bullen near Esperanzain Hondurashinted that
suchexistedas he foundsurfacesites with flutedFishtail
points.46In Panama,the finds of MaddenLake, etc.,47
as well as thoseat Turrialba,CostaRica,48indicatedthat
this new traditionalso existedin these CentralAmerican
countries, and K. Brown's recent finds in the Quiche
Basin of Guatemalashowed that somethingsimilarex-
isted there.49Los Grifos Rock Shelterhas producedin
"The Preceramic and Formative of the Valley of Oaxaca," AIandbook
of Middle American Indians-Archaeology Supplement No. I (Uni-
versity of Texas Press: Austin, Texas 1981) 48-93.
44. Garcia-Barena, op. cit. (in note 19) 1-12.
45. Ruth Gruhn and Alan Lyle Bryan, "Los Tapiales: A Paleo-Indian
campsite in the Guatemalan Highlands," Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society 121 :3 (Philadelphia 1977) 235-271.
46. Ripley P. Bullen and William W. Plowden, Jr., "Preceramic
Archaic Sites in the Highlands of Honduras," AmAnt 28:3 (1963)
382-385.
47. Junius B. Bird and Richard Cooke, "The occurrence in Panama
of two types of Paleo-Indian projectile points," in Early Man in Amer-
ica, A. D. Bryan, ed. (University of Alberta: Edmonton, Alberta
1978) 263-272.
48. Michael J. Snarkis, "Turrialba a Paleo-Indian Quarry and
Workshop in Eastern Costa Rica," AmAnt 44 (1979) 125-138.
49. Kenneth L. Brown, "A brief report on Paleoindian archaic oc-
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:18:56 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Field ArchaeologytMol. 10, 1983 77
unitIS, thatdlatesperhapsfrom8,900-9,300 B.P., a fluted
point like those of Fell's Cave and E1 Inga as well as
two MaddenLake-likeFishtailpointsandsome "40,000
other so-called artifacts."50Althoughthe tools are in-
adequatelydescribed,some of the scrapersseem iden-
tical to those of the Lowe-hacomplexof Belize.51Good
contextsand exact dates, so far, are totally missing. In
Belize our Lowe-hacomplex promisesto betterdefine
the tradition,52but what we have now are mainly ma-
terialsfrom surfacecollections53and about200 artifacts
from tests. In summary,we have found so far: Fishtail
(bothMaddenLakeandFell's Cave vaneties)andPlain-
view-likepoints,snub-nosedend scrapers(SantaMarta's
parabolicend scrapers),stemmedend scapers(like Los
Grifos), fine bifacialknives, half-moonchoppers,coup
de pong-like pointedchoppers,and side scrapers,both
big and little. In fact, the complex is all so new and so
ill-definedthatit is best to say no more.
We know poorly early man in Mesoamerica,but we
do know he was there. Our hopes for the future are
runninghigh. In fact, one of these days we may even
be able to describeearly man and his culturesdunng
each substagein Mesoamerica.The best is yet to come
for this first stage, so now let us turn to the second
stage the Archaic which is a little betterdocumented
by artifacts,but still only known from a few excavated
components.
The ArchaicStage
The generalstage sees the shift frombasicallya hunt-
ing subsistencesystemto one of collectingand, with it,
fewerprojectilepointsandan emphasison grindingtools.
Also accompanyingthis shift is a scheduledsubsistence
system, band life, the domesticationof plants with the
concomitantrise of agriculture,and a sedentaryway of
life.
The firststage, ArchaicI, commenceswith the end of
the Pleistocene,the extinctionof the megafauna,a shift
to a scheduledcollecting way of life, and a seasonal
micro-macroband settlementpattern(FIG. 3). The new
cupations in the Quiche Basin, Guatemala," AmAnt 4s (1980)
313-
324.
50. Diana Santamaria, "Preceramic occupations at Los Grifos Rock
Shelter, Ocozocoautla, Chiapas, Mexico," paper at Union Interna-
tional de Ciencas Prehistoricos y Protohistoricos X Congress, October
19-24(Mexico City 1981) 1-14.
51. MacNeish, Wilkerson, and Nelken-Terner, loc. cit. (in note 24).
s2. MacNeish, loc. cit. (in note 27).
s3. Thomas R. Hester, Thomas C. Kelly, and Giancarlo Ligabue,
"A Fluted Paleo-Indian projectile point from Belize, Central Amer-
ica," Center for Archaeological Research, Working Papers No. I
(University of Texas at San Antonio: San Antonio 1981)1-16.
78 The Preceramic of MesoamericatMacNeish and Nelken-Terner

Figure 3. Archaic Stage, Substage1, ca. 9,600-7,000 B.P. Maritime Tradition (_): 1) Sand-Hill, Belize and Orange
Walk complex, Belize; 2) possibly Concheros (Vera Cruz). Santa Marta (a): 1) Santa Marta (Chiapas); 2) Jicaras
(Oaxaca). E1 Reigo (A): 1) E1 Riego, Tehuacan (Puebla); 2) Texcal (Puebla); 3) possibly Playa I, Mexico (D.F.);
4) Hidalgo, Tecolote Cave (Hidalgo). Infiernillo Tradition (A): 1) Infiernillo (Tamaulipas); 2) San Isidro (Nuevo
Leon); 3) Cueva de la Zorra (Neuvo Leon). Cochise Tradition: Sulphur Springs.

adaptationto the Holocene flora and fauna in various
eco-areasled to the rise of a numberof culturaltraditions
in the generalperiod from ca. 9,000 to 7,000 B.P. (in
radiocarbontime).
One of these phases in the coastal ecozone of Belize
was Sand Hill, roughly9,500-8,000 B.P. While it had
large, wide, La Mina-likeand Pedernales-likepoints, it
is characterized by a host of largemacrobladesthatoften
seem to have been used in woodworking(see FIG. 6).
These plus gouges, adze-likeend scrapers,and the lo-
cation of sites on an island suggest boat building.Thus
thereis a hint of a maritime-adapted aspectto theirsub-
sistence,butthe majorityof sites wereinland,suggesting
some sort of seasonal plant collecting to go with their
seasonal inland hunting. Closely relatedto and devel-
oping out of Sand Hill are the Orange Walk phases
(8,000-7,000 B.P.), also with boat buildingand wood-
working tools and macroblades.Lowe, Trinidad,and
San Nicolas points; small crescentic end scrapersand
pestles;milling stones;and mullersalso occurred.Now
theirseason-roundcollectionincludedseeds, buthunting
and maritimesubsistenceactivities still occurred.The
extensionof these complexes from Belize is unknown,
but some of the earliestremainsin Cubaand Haiti may
be relatedbecausethey, too, have macrobladesandsim-
ilar scrapers.So far, no remainsof this time periodhave
been found in otherpartsof the Gulf or Pacific coasts,
but we wouldnot be surprisedif such, when found, will

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:18:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

be relatedto that which has been just discovered in coastal
Belize.54
Perhaps physically closest to this complex and of the
same time period is the Santa Marta complex, found in
Santa Marta Cave near Ocozocoautla in highland Chia-
pas.55This complex is characterizedby Trinidadand San
Nicolas contracting stemmed points (called Almagre in
the original report), as well as Abasolo, Matamoros, and
Nogales points, fine blades, small scraper planes, and
grinding stones. The Jicaras complex from Oaxaca with
its Pedeinales, Trinidad, San Nicolas, and La Mina points
and small scraper planes also is of this same tradition
and C-14 dates are roughly of the same period (6,500-
9s000 s.P.).56 How far south this tradition extends, we
do not know, but the Oaxaca finds may represent the
northernedge, for just north of this complex are ones of
the El Riego tradition. Like it, this Santa Marta tradition
seems to have basically a scheduled subsistence system
with hunting and plant collecting and, in some of its later
periods, pumpkins and runner beans were perhaps being
cultivated in Oaxaca.
North of this Santa Marta tradition in the central high-
lands of Mexico is one called the El Riego tradition that
includes the El Riego phase of Tehuacan,s7 perhaps the
earliest remains from Texcal Cave of northernPuebla,sS
maybe the earliest part of the poorly represented Playa I
of the Valley of Mexico,59 and the Hidalgo complex of
Tecolote Cave of Hidalgo.60 All seem to date from
roughly 9,000 B.P. to 7,000 B.P. Hidalgo, El Riego,
Flacco, and Trinidad points characterize this complex as
do scraper planes, bifacial choppers, crude blades, mull-
ers, and milling stones. Data from Tehuacan suggest a
seasonal microband-macrobandsettlement pattern, buri-
al ceremonialism, and a seasonally scheduled subsist-
ence system with perhaps avocado, chile, and cucurbita
mixtabeing cultivated andlor domesticated. Again, exact
northern extension of this tradition is unknown, but in
southern Tamaulipas there seems to be a new phase,
Infiernillo.
This phase seems to represent a new tradition-In-
fieinillo, dated at roughly the same period 9,000-7,000
54. RichardS. MacNeish,Third Annual Report of the Belize Archaic
Archaeological Reconnaissance (RobertS. PeabodyFoundationfor
Archaeology:Andover,Massachusetts1982) 1-53.
55. MacNeishand Peterson,loc. cit. (in note 10).
56. Flannery,Marcus,and Kowalewski,loc. cit. (in note 43).
57. MacNeish, Nelken-Terner,and Johnson, op. cit. (in note 15)
366-372.
58. GarciaMoll, loc. cit. (in note 38).
59. Niederberger,op. cit. (in note 34) 247-252.
60. CynthiaIrwin-Williams,personalcommunication,1965.
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:18:56 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Field ArchaeologylVol. 10, 1983 79
B.P.-that may extend up the Sierra Madre de Tamau-
lipas on the south to as far north as La Calzada and San
Isidro in Nuevo Leon.61 While Abasolo, Trinidad, and
Nogales, scraperplanes, grinding stones, and twined bags
and baskets occur in it as well as in the E1 Riego tradi-
tion, Infiernillo Diamond and Almagre points are unique
to this northerncomplex as are mortars and pestles, Fue-
gan nets, and twined baskets. Again, these people seem
to have been seasonally scheduled collectors who may
have been domesticating pumpkins, seteria, and perhaps
chile.
Perhaps to the NS the Sulphur Springs phase of the
Cochise tradition may extend down from Arizona and
New Mexico, and it as well as the Infiernillo, E1 Riego,
and Santa Marta traditions-all of the highlands-seem
closely related. In fact, they all had been earlier classi-
fied as of the Desert Culture tradition on the basis of
their general similarities.62To better understandcultural
developments, however, we have subdivided this more
general tradition. But even our subdivisions are poorly
documented and much research is needed for this stage
in many more parts of Mesoamerica.
That situation is equally true for the second substage,
5,000-3,500 B.C., that is characterized by local plant
domestication, stone bowls, and larger numbers of arti-
facts (FIGS.4, 6). Again to the NS, extending down from
the sw, would be the Chiricahua phase of the Cochise
tradition, but in NE Mexico would be the Repelo tradi-
tion.63The Repelo tradition would be represented by the
Ocampo phase in sw Tamaulipas, La Perra and Nogales
in eastern Tamaulipas, with the latter extending down
the coast as far as Laguna Chila near Tampico, Vera
Cruz.64Some of the remains from La Calsada65and Cueva
de la Zona66 of Nuevo Leon may also belong to this
tradition. Characteristicof this traditionare Abasolo (Ca-
tan), Nogales, and Tortugas (Matamoros)points, gouges,
small discoidal scraper planes and choppers, grinding
stones, a seasonally scheduled subsistence system in-
cluding domesticates like corn, beans, squash and pump-
kins, and a macro-microband settlement pattern.
Probably north of this complex in Coahuila and ex-
tending into Texas was the Pecos River tradition with its
61. MacNeish,loc. cit. (in note 41).
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid.
64. Ibid.
65. C. Roger Nance, "La Calzadaand the PrehistoricSequencein
NortheastMexico," in Epstein,Hester,andGraves,eds., op. cit. (in
note 42) 41-57.
66. BurneyB. McClurkan,"The Archaeologyof la Cuevade la Zona
de Derrumbes,"in Epstein, Hester, and Graves, eds., op. cit. (in
note 42) 59-69.
80 ThePreceramicof MesoamericalMacNeish
and Nelken-Terner

Figure4. ArchaicStage, Substage2, ca. 7,000-5,500 B.P. BelizeanTradition(A): 1) Belize Complexsite, Belize;
2) PalmasSola (VeraCruz).TehuacanTradition(*): 1) Coxcatlan;2) Texcal (Puebla);3) Blanca(Oaxaca);4) Playa2
and 1, Mexico (D.F.); 5) Tecolote. Repelo Tradition(*): 1) Negales (Tamaulipas);
2) La Perra(Tamaulipas);
3) Ocampo(Tamaulipas);4) Cuevade la Zorra(Nuevo Leon);5) La Calzada(Nuevo Leon);6) LagunaChila(Vera
Cruz).Pecos Tradition(+): 1) FrightfulCave (Coahuila);CochiseTradition:Chiricahua.

distinctiveLangtrystemmedpoints,butno agriculture.67 Hidalgo,69Playa I and II in the Valley of Mexico,70

Basically,this traditionis out of the realmof Mesoamer- Texcal II in northernPuebla,7lthe CoxcatlanCave in
ica, but south of the Abasolo traditionoccurs the Te- theTehuacanvalley,72andthe Blancaphase73in Oaxaca.
huacantradition,which is typical of ArchaicSubstage EverywhereareHidalgo,Garyito,La Mina, Pelona,and
II in the highlandsof Mesoamerica.68Although more
datamay allow subdividingthis tradition,it seems to be 69. CynthiaIrwin-Williams,personalcommunication,1965.
representedby the Tecolote phase of Tecolote Cave in
70. Niederberger,loc. cit. (in note 34).
71. GarciaMoll, loc. cit. (in note 38).
67. Walter W. Taylor, "Archaic Cultures Adjacent to the North-
eastern Frontiers of Mesoamerica," Handbook of Middle American 72. RichardS. MacNeish,The Science of Archaeology (DuxburyPress:
Indians, Vol. 4 (University of Texas Press: Austin 1966) 59-94. Belmont,California1978) 146-151 .
68. MacNeish, Nelken-Terner, and Johnson, loc. cit. (in note 15). 73. Flannery,Marcusand Kowalewski,loc. cit. (in note 43).

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:18:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Coxcatlanpoints, small scraperplanes, manos, metates,
millingstones, mullerstonebowls, a seasonalscheduled
subsistencesystem with the plantingof many domesti-
cates, and a macro-microband settlementpattern.The
manyplantsdomesticatednow spreadfrom each of the
areasof initial domesticationto all the partsof the tra-
dition. Domesticatedplantsinclude amaranthand corn;
common,tepary,andrunnerbeans;moschataand mixta
squash;pumpkins,avocados, black and white zapotes,
and manyothers.
Whetherthis traditionextendedsouth of Oaxacainto
highlandsouthernMexico and CentralAmericaor there
is anothertraditionin that sub-areais at present un-
known. A couple of distincttraditionson the Gulf coast
in thisperiodandcollectionsfoundnearSantaMartaand
Los Grifos in Chiapas,however, suggest there may be
yet anothersouthernhighlandArchaicSubstageII to be
foundby futureinvestigations.
Now let us turnto the Mesoamericanlowlandswhere
SubstageII remainsarevery rare.One of the complexes
on the coast of Belize is calledthe Belize phase (7,000-
6,000 B.P.), with Nogales and San Nicolas-likepoints,
gouges, scraperplanes, large ovoid-flakeend scrapers,
grindingstones, and stone bowls.74While these people
seem to have exploited the coast and inlands, perhaps
seasonally,there is no evidence of plant domestication
or any kind of agriculture,incipientor otherwise.Ten-
tativelywe considerthemto be of anotherwadition,which
tentativelywe havenamedBelizean.It contrastsnot only
with those traditionsin the highlands,but also with an-
other complex found on the Gulf coast that may be of
this timeperiod.Herewe areconcernedwiththe remains
found originallyby J. Ford and Medellin Zenil on the
surfaceat PalmaSola on the centralcoastof VeraCruz.75
This collection includedGaryito,Pedernales,and Cox-
catlanpoints, obsidianblades, and scraperplanes, and
no grindingstones. The points suggest it is of the time
periodof SubstageII, and if it is a viable entity, then it
must be yet anothertradition.Definitionof such a hy-
potheticaltradition,however,mustawaitarchaeological
investigationin this area. Also, we need evidence for
this period for the Pacific coast. So, much needs to be
done.
As incompleteas is our knowledgeof SubstageII of
the Archaic, however, it is better than what we have
fromSubstageIII, thatcrucialtransitionalperiodleading
to village agriculturewith ceramics.SubstageIII existed
roughlyfromca. 5,500 B.P. to 4,300 B.P. in radiocarbon
time (FIG. 5). Exactly why we have so few remainsof
this substage, we do not understand,but perhapsit is
74. MacNeish,loc. cit. (in note 54).
75. MacNeish,Nelken-Terner,and Johnson,loc. cit. (in note 15).
This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:18:56 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Journal of Field Archaeology/Vol. 10, 1983 81
becausethe relativelylimitedremainsof this periodare
burieddeeplyunderthe huge stratifiedsites of sedentary
agricultureof later ceramicperiods. Be that as it may,
the only adequatesample of remainswe have of this
substageare from the Abejasphase of Tehuacan.76For
this reason, this traditionis called the Abejas tradition
and our meagercomparativematerialssuggest that the
MartinezremainsfromOaxaca,77the Texcalfromnorth-
ern Puebla,78and the Zohapilco from the Valley of
Mexico79arealso of this traditionin the centralhighland.
Projectilepoints at this time are relativelyrare, being
Garyito,Pelona, Shumla,Matamoros,and Catantypes,
as are scraperplanes, but grindingbowls aboundsuch
as mortars,pestles, mullers,milling stones, manos, me-
tates, tecomates, and hemisphericaland outflaring-rim
stone bowls (FIG. 6). Fine blades also occur, as do dis-
tinctive coiled basketsandpetates. While seasonalcol-
lecting still took place, much of the subsistencecame
from hybridcorn agricultureof the incipientor subsist-
ence type. People were beginning to settle down and
become sedentaryin base campsor hamlets, and burial
ceremonialismcontinued. Here is the base on which
highlandvillage agriculture(with ceramics)was to be
built.
Closely relatedto these remains are those from the
upperPreceramicSan Nicolas complexfroma cave near
San Juandel Rio in Queretaro.80 This complexhas sim-
ilar and more projectilepoint types, but lacks the wide
varietyof grindingstones and evidence of agriculture.
Thismaybe representative of anotherundefinedtradition
of this final Archaicsubstage.To the northarethe other
phases Almagrein the Sierrade Tamaulipas,the Flacco
and Guerracomplexof the SierraMadreof sw Tamau-
lipas and the Abasolo complex in northernTamaulipas
that may be put in the Abasolo tradition.8lHere Mata-
morosand Catanpredominate.Here are grindingtools,
scraper planes, and corn agriculture and possible
sedentarism.
As is obvious, all these complexesand phases of the
highlandsin the final Archaicstagearerelativelysimilar
even thoughwe have classified them into separatetra-
ditions. This highlandtraditioncontrastswith the few
meager remainswe have from lowland sub-areas,the
latterof whichresembleone another.In fact, it is in this
76. MacNeish,op. cit. (in note 72) 151- 155.
77. Flannery,Marcus,and Kowalewski,loc. cit. (in note 43).
78. GarciaMoll, loc. cit. (in note 38).
79. Niederberger,loc. cit. (in note 34).
80. CynthiaIrwin-Williams,personalcommunication,1965.
81. MacNeish,loc. cit. (in note 41).
82 The Preceramicof Mesoamerica/MacNeish
and Nelken-Terner

Figure 5. Archaic Stage, Substage3, ca. 5,500-4,300 B.P. Abejas Tradition (|): 1) Abejas phase (Tehuacan);
2) Martinez phase (Oaxaca); 3) Texcal (Puebla); 4) Valley of Mexico: Zohapilco (D.F.). San Nicholas: 1) San
Nicholas. Abasolo (v): 1) Flacco phase (Tamaulipas); 2) Guerra phase (Tamaulipas); 3) Almagre (Tamaulipas);
4) Abasolo (Tamaulipas); Cochise Tradition: San Pedro. Maritime Tradition (v): 13 Matanchen (Nayarit); 2) Ostiones
(Guerrero); 3) Chantuto (Chiapas); 4) Palo Hueco (Vera Cruz); S) Melinda, Belize; 6) Progreso, Belize; (*) 7) Cerro
Mangote, Panama.

period or substage that the highland-lowland dichotomy
that carries through ceramic times was born. Unfortu-
nately, the three or four complexes from as many low-
land areas, which perhaps are of as many traditions, are
very poorly known and documented. All, however, seem
to represent complexes or traditions with a sedentary way
of life based on a maritime subsistence system with little
evidence of agriculture.
On the Pacific coast, Preceramic remains have been
found at three places and all are basically shell mounds
with very few artifacts. At the Matanchen shell midden
at Ceboruco on the coast of Nayarit, in layers dated ca.
3,710 B.P., were found four flakes, three worked cob-
bles, and seafood remains.82 This has been called the
Matanchen complex and whether or not it is related to
the Ostiones remains, dated ca. 2,920 + 130 B.C. at
Puerto Marquez in Guerrero, is unknown. We say this
because all that was found in the so-called Ostiones com-
plex were flakes and a piece of ground-stone metate with
the burned clay floor of some sort of house.83 Further
82. JosephB. Mountjoy,R. E. Taylor, and LawrenceH. Feldman,
"MatanchenComplex:New RadiocarbonDateson EarlyCoastalAd-
aptationsin West Mexico" Science 175 (1972) 1242-1243.
83. CharlesF. Brush, "A Contributionto the Archaeologyof Coast
Guerrero,Mexico," unpublishedPh.D. Dissertation,Departmentof
Anthropology,ColumbiaUniversity(New York 1969) 1-175.

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:18:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
_ Substage
15,000
4,300 i14_ B.R B.P.
j 21 S¢ , , .
l00000000 . 11: . S , \\\\\\\\\W\X\\XX(;
large, , , , _ X flake
, , . - *

83
of Field Archaeology/Vol. 10, 1983
Journal

I
OF MESOAMER/CA
SURAREAS
and
Stages
Puebla Valley of Veracruz north-
Substages Panama interior Belize a Yucatan Chiapas Oaxaca Mexico Gulf east
south-
north- south Mexico interior interior
coast a Central Central Central Coast Mexico
westwest America east -
coast
Mexico Mexico a America America
Gulf Gulf Gulf
Mexico Central Coast
Radiocarbon America Coast Coast
Dates

<g. g,
ARC/iA/C F

<
A
3Jusage2 :

> 3
'\ t
ng <31uC

W X
i i
stone gde
Wet| 4t g DOME STICAT{ON
|
9,600 B.P. j ;R *
Psw:s,:

D -s

L/T/i/C X- %gtR-
-

Substage4 = R-
. . . . .
/ s .
/ / / / /

§ * * * * * * * * * * * .
/ / / / / /
/ / iS / y /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / /

-__-
B.P. _____
11,000
S S
* . ¢ .t g g
L/T///C | *@ . endscraper . . . . . . . . crude . .burin.

Substage 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * *

i g X S
5i
L/Tf//C flake ' bone ' 9 ' side-scraper
' side- ^ point spoke-shave-like
scraper point
______ ______
_ _,
more than 30,000 B*P.
-fe,%

L/TH/C X chopper
Substage I
I
in Mesoamerica.
Figure 6. Sequence of Archaic Traditions

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:18:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 84 The Preceramic of MesoamericalMacNeish and Nelken-Terner

east on the same Pacific coast in Chiapaswere the more
abundantshell-moundremains of the Chantutocom-
plexes thatdatebetween5,100 B.P. and4,000 B.P.84 Here,
workedflakes andnebulousground-stonetools occurred
in extensive shell-mounddeposits at a numberof sites.
Thus there are late Preceramiccoastal remainson the
Pacific coast that seem differentfrom the contempora-
neous highlandremains,but just what culturesor tradi-
tions such maritime remains belong to cannot be
determinedon the basis of these very meagerremains.
The samemaybe saidof the nebulouschipsandscrap-
ers found in the Preceramicstratifieddeposits at Palo
Hueco on the TlacolutlaRiver in the centralVera Cruz
Gulf coast thatdate about5,000 s.P.85
The other remainsfrom the Gulf coast are from the
Belize Gulfcoast andbelongto two complexes:Progreso
(5,000X,000 B.P.) and Melinda(6,000-5,000 B.P.). Both
are mainly surface collections, so they, too, are only
tentativelydefined.86The earlierMelindacomplex,which
in largepartcomes from one excavation,seems to have
Shumlapoints, discoidalscrapersandchoppers,gouges,
grlndlngstones, a marltlmesubslstencesystem, andper-
. . . . .
hapsa sedentaryway of life on the coast. This complex
may developinto the Progresocomplexon the coast and
along the rivers, which perhapshad a sedentaryway of
life based on agriculture.Progresomay have evolved
into the early Swasey ceramicscomplex, for both have
a numberof stone tools in common such as Progreso
points, keeled end scrapers,scraperplanes, blades, and
manos and metates. All this is very tentative,however,
and will remain so until excavationsare completedin
the region.Then, perhaps,we will be ableto refinethese
complexes and determinetheir relationshipsto other
coastalcomplexes,includingthe CerroMangoteremains
to the southin Panama.87
30,000 to 40,000 years. Limitedexcavationsin a few
areasdefinea sequenceof EarlyManandArchaicstages
and substages,but the coverage is very limited and of
varyingquality. Most of what we have, however, has
been amassedin the last 20 years and if new data con-
tinue to be acquiredat the same rate for the next 10
years, then our conclusionsshouldbe on a muchfirmer
foundation.
RichardStocktonMacNeishis the Directorof the
RobertSingletonPeabodyFoundationfor Archaeology
in Andover,Massachusetts,as well as Professorof
Archaeologyin the Departmentof Archaeologyof
Boston University,Boston, Massachusetts.He received
his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. from the Universityof
Chicago.He has workedthroughoutthe New World
for 45 years and has publishedover 214 articles or
monographson his varied research.His interests
includethe origin of New Worldagricultureand the
Preceramicto which this articlepertains.
AntoinetteNelken-Terneris a charge'de recherche
of the CentreNationalde la RechercheScientifiquede
France in Mexico City. She receivedher trainingand
degreesat the Sorbonnein Paris and at the Escuela de
Antropologiaof Mexico. She is a specialistin the
period of the neolithicrevolutionand has done
fieldworkin Mexico and Peru.

ConcludingRemarks
It is readily apparentthat much researchis needed,
not only for the final stage of the Archaicin Mesoam-
erica, but for all of the Preceramic.All we can say now
is thatPreceramicremainsdo exist in Mesoamericaand
have existed for a considerablelength of time, perhaps

84. Barbara Voorhies, "The Chantuto People: An Archaic Period

Society of the Chiapas Li Horal, Mexico," in Papers of the New
World Archaeological Foundation 41 (Provo, Utah 1976) 1-147.
85. S. Jeffrey K. Wilkerson, "Pre-agricultural Village Life: The Late
Preceramic Period in Veracruz," Contributions of the University of
California Archaeological Facility, No. 27 (Berkeley, California 1975)
111-122.
86. MacNeish, loc. cit. (in note 54).
87. Charles R. McGimsey, "Cerro Mangote: A Preceramic site in
Panama," AmAnt 22 ( 1956) 15 1-161 .

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Wed, 4 Feb 2015 17:18:56 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions