the demise of the alaka initial ceramic phase has been greatly exaggerated response to d.williams

Society for American Archaeology

The Demise of the Alaka Initial Ceramic Phase Has been Greatly Exaggerated: Response to D.WilliamsAuthor(s): Anna C. RooseveltSource: American Antiquity, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 353-364Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/282517 .Accessed: 08/07/2011 21:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

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

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam

http://www.jstor.org/stable/282517?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam

THE DEMISE OF THE ALAKA INITIAL CERAMIC PHASE HAS BEEN GREATLY EXAGGERATED: RESPONSE TO D. WILLIAMS

Anna C. Roosevelt

Denis Williams writes to comment on my article on Archaic shell mound pottery in eastern South America (Roosevelt 1995). He states that he will "correct" my article by putting on record "new facts. " Rather than correct my article, Williams's comment misstates both the content of my article and that of earlier literature on Guyanese archaeology, and it merely repeats the data included in my article. In addition, Williams's comment presents some interesting but internally contradictorv elab- orations of his earlier interpretations of Guyanese archaeology but still without supplying the basic data on which his inter-

pretations are based. In essence, contrary to my article, Williams states that there is no such thing as a Guyanese Archaic shell mound pottery occupation, known in earlier literature as the Alaka Incipient Ceramic phase (Evans and Meggers 1960:25-64). Williams presents this conclusion as "fact, " but it contradicts the existing data from stratigraphy, pottery dis-

tribution, and radiocarbon dates in the shell mounds, and he furnishes no other specific data that support it. In my comment on his comment, I will document these various aspects of his comment and define the type of data that he needs to present to allow empirical evaluation of his assertions.

Denis Williams comenta mi articulo reciente sobre la cerdmica arcaica en los conchales de del este de Sudamerica (Roosevelt 1995). El sostiene que "corregird" mi articulo demostrando "nuevos hechos. " En lugar de corregir mi articulo, el comentario de Williams tergiversa tanto el contenido de mi articulo como la literatura mds temprana sobre arqueologia guyanesa y repite los datos por mi referidos. Ademds, el comentario de Williams presenta algunas elaboraciones interesantes perio internamenta contradictorias sobre sus previas interpretaciones de la arqueologia guyanesa, pero aun sin proporcionar los datos en los que estas se basan. En esencia, Williams sostiene, en contraste con mi articulo, que no existe tal ocupacion cerdmica de los conchales arcaicos, conocidos en la literatura previa como la Fase Cerdmica Incipients Alaka (Evans and

Meggers 1960:25-64). Williams presenta esta conclusion como "hecho" pero esta contradice los datos existentes en la

estratigrafia, distribucion cerdmica, yfechados radiocarbdnicos de los conchales, y el no proporciona datos especificos para sustentarla. En mi comentario sobre su comentario, yo documentare esos aspectos de sus comentarios y definire el tipo de datos que el necesita presentar para poder evaluar empiricamente sus proposiciones.

In my article in a book published by the Smithsonian Institution (Roosevelt 1995), I discussed the history of research on Archaic

pottery in Amazonia. In it I brought together both published and unpublished dates associated with pottery sherds in shell mounds at the mouth of the Amazon, along the Guyana coast, and along the Lower Amazon mainstream. Using citations both to the literature and to the radiocarbon records and correspondence, I showed that from the beginning of radiocarbon dating, Amazonia has had more secure dates, larger dates series, and more dated shell mounds with pottery than northwestern South America, the region usually credited with the earliest pottery in the Americas. I suggested that many archaeologists have been unaware of the

existence of Archaic Amazonian pottery because many of the dates associated with the pottery were published as preceramic or were not published.

As I pointed out in my article, the unpublished dates and dates published as preceramic were all run in the radiocarbon laboratory at the Smithsonian, the institution of Clifford Evans and Betty Meggers. Before the application of radiocarbon dating in Amazonia, these scholars developed the theory that the craft of pottery had been introduced along with agriculture to the Amazon from the Andes region in prehistoric times. Subse- quently, those scholars further developed the theory to say that pottery was introduced into the Americas by the arrival of fisherpeople from Japan in northwestern South America. In my article, I

Anna C. Roosevelt * Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, and Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois, 1007 West Harrison Street, Chicago, IL 60607-7139.

American Antiquity, 62(2), 1997, pp. 353-364. Copyright ? by the Society for American Archaeology

353

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

pointed out that the chronology and context of early pottery dates in South America did not fit Evans and Meggers's theories about the history of pottery utilization in South America.

Dating of Pottery in Guyanese Shell Mounds

Denis Williams is the archaeologist who submitted to the Smithsonian the dating samples from Guyanese shell mounds. He has been in charge of supervising access to archaeological resources in Guyana, and for many years, he has carried out important surveys and excavations at a wide range of archaeological and paleontological sites in his country.

Dating of Barambina Shell Mound

The first dates to be run for shell mounds in Guyana were apparently two from Barambina shell mound in 1980: 4115 ? 50 and 5960 ? 50 B.P.(uncalibrated, laboratory numbers are in Roosevelt 1995:Table 1).

The lab documents and correspondence state clearly and repeatedly that the samples were run in order to date the associated pottery and show how early the use of pottery was in the Amazon. I quoted excerpts from the Smithsonian lab records and correspondence that showed that the samples from the Barambina mound were submitted in order to date the early shell mound pottery from Guyana in comparison with the early shell mound pottery of the Mina phase at the mouth of the Amazon. The earlier of Williams's two dates was about 400 years earlier than the earliest Mina- phase date.

The records state the following about the Barambina samples:

Associated cultural materials: Food debris of bone and shell, stone implements, few plain potsherds. Importance of dating this sample: Establish temporal relationship of this early shell midden complex with some plain pottery in Northern South America and its relationship specifically with the Mina Phase of Mouth of the Amazon [Roosevelt 1995:120].

The two dated samples were recorded as coming from 35- and 65-cm depths, respectively. In my discussion of the Guyanese dates, I contrasted the archival information with what Williams gave when he published the dates in 1981. In his article Williams presented the dates as relating to a pre-

ceramic occupation. He also stated, as in his comment, that he found pottery only to a depth of 35 cm in the shell mound. This information did not jibe with the archival documents in the Smithsonian, which record a pottery association for both the 35- and 65-cm-deep radiocarbon samples. Neither in his articles nor in his comment does Williams give ceramic tables from his excavations at this site to show what levels contained pottery and what kind of pottery it was.

In his comment on my article, Williams states that "Barring the 'few plain sherds' mentioned by Clifford Evans on my submission forms, there is no pottery of any description in the shell deposit on Barambina Hill." Contrary to this statement, Williams's own article and the correspondence state that there is pottery in zone iia of the shell mound (Williams 1981:Figure 10). The Smithsonian records document a pottery association for the lower zones as well.

In contrast to what the archives state, in his article and comment Williams argues that the plain pottery sherds in the ca. 35-cm-deep shell mound levels dated by the later of the two radiocarbon dates were intrusions from the 16-cm-thick middle to late Mabaruma-phase Formative horticultural stage deposit that lay above the shell mound.

Williams is entitled to change his mind as new results come in, and any additional "facts," as he refers to them, are welcome. However, Williams has not published an analysis of the characteristics of the plain pottery from the shell mound nor a comparison of it with the horticultural phase pottery. Mabaruma pottery has characteristic pastes, often complex forms, and decoration, which the pottery sherds in the shell mound should share, if they are Mabaruma phase. Williams, however, to my knowledge, has not presented tables of the distribution of such pottery attributes in the levels of his excavations at Barambina. Both earlier accounts of the shell mound sherds at the site describe plain pottery lacking any characteristic decoration or elaboration that could be related to the Mabaruma phase. "The potsherds were all of drab color, bearing no decorative incising or mod- eling" (Osgood 1946:50). "Near the surface many fragments of plain and poorly-made pottery were found and these continued to the bottom of the shell deposits" (Verrill 1918:13).

Williams has not furnished any dates directly

354 [Vol. 62, No. 2, 1997]

COMMENTS

IMTERIOR

i I I

WAI WAI

TARUMA PHASE | A PHASEJ

_'_T_ _ _ .A _ I - _ ---

ABARY XORIABO

PHASE PHASE

PRE-

EUROPEAN PERIOD

ESTIMATED

1 TIME SCALE

- 2000 A.D.

---- I900

-- 100

- 1400

-1500

MASARUMA

PHASE

ALAKA PHASE

I I I I

- 1000

- 500

-O 0

---2-ZiiQAP

jr IPRECERAMIC LITHIC HORIZON I

Figure 1. Pre-radiocarbon chronology of British Guiana (Evans and Meggers 1960:334).

on the pottery from the shell mound, either with radiocarbon dating or thermoluminescence, even though pottery from shell mounds both in the Lower Amazon and at the mouth of the Amazon has been successfully dated by both methods and shown to be contemporary with dates on the associated biological remains.

Reliability of Osgood's Excavation Results at Barambina

Tabulations of pottery occurrence in the compo- nents at Barambina are particularly needed because there is conflicting information about this from different researchers. As I discussed in my article, Verrill and Osgood report different distributions of pottery in the Barambina shell mound. Verrill found pottery through to the base of the deposit, and Osgood found pottery only 25 cm into the deposit. Williams characterizes Osgood's account as more reliable than Verrill's and states that he found the "same" distribution as Osgood- no pottery below 35 cm.

However, Williams does not acknowledge in his comment that, in addition to not using any screens, Osgood carried out his 12-m-long, 1-to-2-

m-wide excavation to the base of the deposit with 12 workers in the space of a single day (Osgood 1946:49)! It is unlikely that reliable observations about pottery distributions could have been made in such a crude and hasty excavation. Williams states that he used 5 mm and larger aperture screens and still found no pottery below 35 cm, but, as I mentioned above, this conflicts with the submission records, and he does not document his assertion with tables of pottery distributions from his excavations at Barambina.

Relation of Seba Creek to Barambina

Williams suggests that I erroneously presented the Seba Creek peat dates as being from Barambina shell mound because I relied on lab records alone. However, I do not say those peat dates were from shell mounds but that they were from "peat layers that the excavator [i.e., Williams] associated with the early pottery-bearing layers" (Roosevelt 1995:118, Table 10.1, Note). And the association of the peat dates with Barambina shell mound is not just an error in sample forms, as Williams suggests, but it is a correlation cited in both Williams's articles as

355

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

N-S N-9 N-10 N-ll N-16

Pottery type 8

0Unclassfied Clay-

tempered Plai .. . 1

1E 2 16

Alaka Phase types: Sand Creek Plainh.... 7 1 7 10 8 8 ---- 7 --- --- --- --- --- ---- --- 48 Unclassified Clay-

tempered Plain-____-------- 1 2 --------- --- 13 -----------------.------- 16 Unclassified Carlap&-

tempered Plain -- - -- --- ---- 2 -- --- ---- -- --- ---- 2 Wanaina Plain --2 4 2 1 146 26 210 61 15 8 2 476 Unclassified Deco-

rated -- -- -- 1 - -- -- ----- --- -- - -- 1 Mabaruma Phase types:

Hosororo Plain--- ---- -- 15 ----21 6 1 43 Hotokawai Plain - -- -- ---- ---- -- 21------- 4 -- 25 Koberimo Plain - - ---- --- - 7 ---- 34 10 1 52 Mabaruma Plain -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --- 56-- - 35 7 2 100 Aruka Incised ------'--- 9 3- 8 2 _.. 22 Akawabi Incised and

Modeled----- -- --- ---- - --- --- --- --- 4 ---- ----- 7 Kaitima Incised and

Punctate---------- -- ---- -- 13 1 2 --- 16 Mabaruma Incised --- ----_---------- ------ 1 ---- 2

Total per level --- 7 1 8 15 12 10 1 7 259 53 214 61 123 33 6 810

Figure 2. Pottery distributions in Alaka-phase sites (Evans and Meggers 1960:Table A). The numbered sites are Alaka Creek, Alaka Island, Sand Creek, Hososoro Creek, and Akawabi Creek, respectively.

well as in his forms (Williams 1981, 1982). He states, for example, about Barambina, "The investigations at this mound ... attempted to correlate its development with the evolution of the neigh- boring peat swamps" (1982:83). And when writing about the peat samples, he refers to their significance for "the nearby Barambina shell mound" (1982:86).

My references to the samples refer to their relationship with Barambina essentially in the same manner as Williams did.

Barambina and the Long Chronology for Shell Mounds in Guyana

An interesting finding resulting from Williams's work at Barambina was that the Alaka phase dated more than 6,000 years earlier than the age Evans and Meggers estimated for the phase based on pre- radiocarbon data. He concluded from his radiocarbon dates that the Alaka phase probably dated between 7000 and 5000 to 4000 B.P., rather than between the time of Christ and A.D. 500, the age

estimate of Evans and Meggers (1960:334, Figure 126) (Figure 1).

Williams's Alaka-phase dates from Barambina and his Mabaruma-phase dates from Hososoro (see below) both showed a much longer chronology for Guyana than what the Smithsonian scholars had imagined. Nevertheless, when publishing his conclusions about the age of the Alaka and Mabaruma phases, Williams does not refer to Evans and Meggers's much younger age estimates for the

phases, nor compare his dating to that estimate.

Wares of Alaka Pottery A peculiarity of Williams's comment and publications is his discussion of the wares of Alaka pottery. In his article and comment, Williams states, contrary to Evans and Meggers (1960), that the only pottery associated with Alaka shell mounds was shell-tempered pottery. In fact, he argues that since there is no shell-tempered pottery at Barambina, there is no Alaka pottery at the site.

However, as I relate in my article, the earliest,

356 [Vol. 62, No. 2, 1997]

COMMENTS

Pottery Stone tools

Alaka Phase Percus-

Period Site Alaka and Percus- sion- Absent Phase Maba- sion- made

types ruma made and only Phase only abraded

types

Mabaruma Phase contact-------------- N-11 --------- X ---------- X N-16 - X ---- X

Incipient ceramic ----- - - N-9 X ------------------ N-8 X - N-10 - X ---- X

Preceramic------------- N-6 X --------- X

Figure 3. Periodization at Alaka-phase sites (Evans and Meggers 1960:Table B). The numbered sites are Hososoro Creek, Akawabi Creek, Alaka Island, Alaka Creek, Sand Creek, and Little Komaballi.

most predominant, and most characteristic pottery ware of the Alaka phase is sand-tempered, not

shell-tempered pottery. In his comment, Williams denies that this is true and states that I, unfortu-

nately, refer to no citation for my statement.

However, I not only cite the originators of this conclusion (Evans and Meggers 1960), but I also

quote them extensively. Contrary to Williams, the definition of the

Alaka wares was made by Evans and Meggers (1960), not by me, and it was based on seriation of the ceramics and lithics in the levels of the sites

(Figures 2 and 3). According to Evans and

Meggers, the shell-tempered pottery in the shell mounds was the latest pottery associated with Alaka lithic material. They state that the earliest and the predominant pottery in the shell mounds was plain, sand-tempered pottery with simple shapes. As quoted in my article, they wrote:

The predominant pottery type of the middens clearly associated with typical Alaka Phase stone artifacts is a mica and sand-tempered plain ware (Sand Creek Plain) . . . At (two) sites . . . shell-tempered sherds (Wanaina Plain) occur; pottery with this temper was not found in any other site in the whole of British Guiana. Since Sand Creek Plain is found at the largest number of sites, it might be considered the most characteristic pottery type of the Alaka Phase. Wanaina Plain, the shell-tempered ware, is the most abundant pottery at the end of the Alaka Phase [Evans and Meggers 1960:53-57].

Evans and Meggers record that the Alaka-phase

Sand Creek Plain ware lacked decoration and had differences in shape, temper, and color from

Mabaruma-phase pottery. To quote them:

"Although there are few sherds, distinctive fea- tures of paste, temper, etc., set them apart from

pottery types of other archaeological phases in the Northwest District and therefore they have been classified as separate pottery types."

This sand-tempered pottery ware in Alaka shell mounds was classed by Evans and Meggers as

Incipient Ceramic and placed in the middle part of their sequence of Alaka-phase sites (1960:Table B). They demonstrate that Incipient Ceramic

Alaka-phase deposits with a predominance of this

early ceramic ware lack Mabaruma-phase pottery. They show, in contrast, that Mabaruma-phase pottery is only found in late Alaka-phase levels that have a predominance of the shell-tempered pottery. Williams's claim that the plain, sand-tempered sherds in the shell mounds are intrusions from Formative levels does not jibe with this chronology of pottery tempering. The rare sand-tempered pottery from the shell mounds is distinct in tempering from the Mabaruma Formative pottery, much of which is tempered with crushed rock.

Interestingly, far from concluding that the Alaka

phase was primarily preceramic, as Williams claims, Evans and Meggers found pottery in the

upper parts of most of the six Alaka-phase shell mound sites they investigated. They state: "Five of the Alaka Phase sites produced pottery" (1960:59) (Figures 2 and 3). In their definition of the Alaka

phase, the presence of the sand-tempered pottery is

357

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

a salient characteristic. Based on the temper, shape, and shape of the pottery, they classified this pottery as Alaka phase, not as intrusive Mabaruma phase. Contrary to what Williams suggests, they conclude that it is not stratigraphically intrusive, based on the absence of Mabaruma traits in middle Alaka levels and the absence of Sand Creek Plain in Mabaruma levels.

In Williams's comment he reassigns Alaka Phase Sand Creek Plain to a position later than the Wanaina Plain, the shell-tempered pottery, contrary to Evans and Meggers seriation. Williams now has decided, contrary to earlier research, that there is no sand-tempered pottery in the middle levels of the shell mounds except for intrusive Mabaruma-phase pottery and concludes that, therefore, there is no Alaka Ceramic phase. It would be appropriate for him to refer to and present data that support this conclusion. Such data would include documentation of the paste and

shape of the sherds in comparison with Mabaruma

pottery and of their distribution in the layers of the shell mounds. But contrary to the claims in his comment, he has not presented such information. He would have us accept his assertions on faith, even though they contradict both earlier findings and the unpublished records and correspondence about his samples. But, as with all his assertions, he has neglected to present the necessary data on the distribution sand-tempered and shell-tempered pottery in the levels of his excavations.

Finally, in his discussion of Hososoro Creek, cited below, Williams states that Wanaina Plain ware is related to the shell-tempered pottery of the Mina phase, the Archaic shell mound culture at the mouth of the Amazon in Brazil (Sim6es 1981). Because the Mina phase starts about 1,500 years earlier than the dates that he presents for Wanaina Plain at Hososoro, Williams concludes that this

Guyanese pottery ware was introduced into

Guyana from the Mina phase. However, as the following section shows,

Williams does not have any dates for the first

appearance of Wanaina Plain pottery at Hososoro. In addition, he neglects to acknowledge that the Mina phase is characterized by sand-tempered as well as shell-tempered pottery. To quote Sim6es (1981:13-14), the author of the report on Mina

pottery: "The sand tempered pottery [Tijuca Plain] is present in practically all levels."

Thus, Williams's assertions about the nature, stratigraphy, and dating of initial pottery wares in both Guyana and Brazil are not supported by the existing evidence.

Hososoro Creek Site

In his comment, Williams describes Hososoro as the only pottery shell mound in Guyana. He characterizes it as a two-part archaeological site with a Mabaruma-phase Formative component stratigraphically placed above an Alaka-phase Archaic pottery shell mound component.

According to Williams's comment, the dates from this site prove that initial pottery is late in

Guyana and that therefore there is no such thing as Archaic Alaka-phase shell mound pottery in

Guyana, contrary to earlier sources. However, his own data, published previously, completely contradict his assertion about the age of pottery at Hososoro. The significant contradictions between Williams's text and his data emerge when the information about the site in his comment is com-

pared with the data in his 1992 article and in the archives. And even within his comment there are contradictions in his characterization of the site in relation to Guyana prehistory.

Dates of Initial Pottery at Hososoro Creek

The only dates Williams has published for the site are from the Mabaruma phase, or Formative, levels of his excavations (1992:243-244). He gives no dates for the levels that he classifies as the

Alaka-phase pottery shell mound, so the site's

existing dates postdate the age of shell mound pottery in Guyana. The specifics are as follows. Williams states that the dates and pottery distributions in the stratigraphy of the site show that the Wanaina Plain and Sand Creek Plain wares defined by Evans and Meggers as Alaka phase (see prior section) are too late in date to be of the Alaka

phase. The data, however, show no such thing. His

published tables, text, and his stratigraphic cross section in the archives show that all his dates are from Mabaruma, not Alaka, levels (Williams 1992:Table 1 and 244). In his comment, Williams dates the beginning of initial pottery at the site to ca. 4000, based on the 3975 B.P. date from the 70- cm depth of the Mabaruma-phase deposit in cut 2. He identifies the four dates from cut 3, which run from 3550 to 2660, as coming from 20- to 50-cm

358 [Vol. 62, No. 2, 1997]

COMMENTS

Cut 3 Cut 2 20 cm peat 3185?65 B.P. Sl-6635 20 cm peat 3550?65 B.P. B-20007 35 cm peat 2660?45 B.P. S-6636 70 cm peat 3975?45 B.R SI-6638B 50 cm shells 3550+50 B.P. Sl-6637 70 cm shells 3115?65 B.P. SI-6638A

80 cm peat 3385+60 B.P. Sl-6639

Note: The cut numbers and dates Sl-6639 and SI-8838A are from the Smithsonian Archives (Roosevelt 1995:117-118, Table 10.1). Only the other dates are given in Williams (1992:243-244). According to Williams and the archives, Cut 2 apparently had the Mabaruma-phase deposit directly on bedrock and lacked Alaka-phase deposits.

Figure 4. Mabaruma-phase radiocarbon dates from Hososoro Creek.

0

W.

o

F-

Ci I. -

W CU 0 0

u

a (A

0

0 C

'0 2 I.

9

0

0

2 o 3

c3

N

Ct 0

I

0

C3

U

0-10 10-20

< 20-30 18 30-40 50 1

pt 30-50 50 1 1 S 50-60 100 1

60-70 112 1 3 70-80 112 1 1 4 1 1 80-90 125 4 5 90-100 18 1 1

100-110 6 1 1

Figure 5. Classification of excavation levels according to phase in Cut 3 at Hososoro Creek (Williams 1992:Table 1).

depths, which he characterizes as the middle and upper part of the Formative Mabaruma-phase component. None of the dates, therefore, comes from what he classifies as the Alaka-phase component (Figure 4).

However, the majority of the pottery sherds in the Hososoro site are from his pre-4000 B.P. Alaka levels, not from his Mabaruma levels. His sherd distribution table by levels for the site show that far from having "few sherds," his Alaka layers held the majority of the pottery sherds in the cut (373 compared to 218 in Mabaruma layers) (Williams 1992:Table 1, 242) (Figure 5).

Williams claims that Alaka pottery is late, but where are the dates to show that? His dates from Hososoro Creek show, instead, that the Mabaruma phase there is early Formative, ca. 4000 to 2500 B.P. The Alaka-phase pottery, which lies in the shell mound deposit underneath the Mabaruma-

phase component, is not dated but must be sub- stantially earlier. If the Mabarauma levels of the site begin somewhat earlier than 4000 B.P., then the Alaka levels must date at least in the fifth millennium and therefore would overlap with the later dates of the shell-tempered and sand-tempered pottery wares of Pedra Pintada cave, whose later Formative pottery Williams correctly relates to his Mabaruma-phase pottery. Despite his protesta- tions, then, Hososoro does not show the lack of Alaka-phase pottery in Guyana. His stratigraphy, actually, supports the likelihood of its existence.

Why is Williams passing off Mabaruma-phase dates as dates for Alaka-phase initial pottery? And why has he not presented any dates for the Alaka- phase levels at Hososoro Creek, which he calls the only pottery shell mound in Guyana? Maybe his long-awaited monograph will answer these ques- tions.

359

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Date of Mabaruma Phase at Hososoro and the Chronology of Barrancoid Pottery in Eastern

South America

Similarly to the case with his Barambina dates for the Alaka phase, Williams's radiocarbon dates for the Mabaruma phase at Hososoro showed that the phase was more than 4,000 years earlier than what Evans and Meggers estimated before radiocarbon dating (Figure 1). They had estimated an age between A.D. 650 and 1650 for the phase (1960:334, Figure 126). Williams, in contrast, concluded on the basis of his radiocarbon dates that the phase dated between about 4,000 years ago and 2,500.

Williams suggests correctly that his dates from ca. 4,000 to 2,500 years ago from Hososoro Creek shed light on the history of the Formative Barrancoid ceramic series in eastern South America. What he neglects to acknowledge, however, is that these dates fit the long chronology dates for the Formative Saladoid-Barrancoid La Gruta tradition of the Middle Orinoco, published by Irving Rouse and myself in sources (Roosevelt 1980, 1996; Rouse and Allaire 1978) that Williams does not cite. In addition, he does not

acknowledge that his dates do not fit the short

chronology espoused by Sanoja (1979), an associate of Meggers, whom Williams does cite.

Contradictions about the Place of Hososoro Creek Pottery in the Alaka Phase

The contradictions and circularities in Williams's comment about Hososoro extend to his general- izations about its implications for the Alaka phase, as can be seen by the following quotations, which not only contradict each other but also contradict his 1992 article, which he cites as containing "facts" that contradict my article.

Initially, he states in his abstract that the shell mounds are preceramic. "I maintain that the

Guyana sites in question are preceramic and thus offer no support to Roosevelt's thesis." (this issue:342). Then, he says that, actually, there is one pottery-age shell mound. "Apart from the Hososoro Creek deposit, none of the 14 shell middens excavated so far ... can by any means be described as pottery-age shell middens" (this issue:348). Elsewhere he says, "the characteristics of the pottery from the late Archaic midden at

Hososoro Creek unequivocally attest affiliation to the Archaic Mina phase at the mouth of the Amazon, where identical pottery was already being made at least by 3000 B.C. (Simoes 1981)" (this issue:348). Later on, however, he wavers back to the "there is no Guyanese shell mound pottery" stance. "In fact, Roosevelt's 'Alaka Pottery phase' is unrepresented at any site .... Further, by virtue of its late date and demonstrable affiliation to the Mina phase, the place of Hososoro Creek in the Alaka phase must now be called into question." His reasoning is that since Wanaina Plain pottery at Hososoro Creek is Mina- phase pottery, not Alaka-phase pottery, therefore there is no such thing as Alaka-phase pottery.

The advisability of assigning a ware of Guyanese pottery to a distant Brazilian phase can

only be judged when Williams publishes provenienced pottery from the Hososoro shell mound levels, which he has not yet done. But regardless of whatever phase name Williams uses for the pottery wares in the shell mound, the fact remains that both his information and that of earlier investigations shows that pottery was indeed made during the Archaic shell mound occupation of Guyana.

On the basis of his assertion that only shell-

tempered pottery is related to Mina-phase shell mound pottery, Williams states, "Our evidence now shows that the relationship between Mina

pottery and pottery on the Western Guiana Littoral does not extend to any site of the Alaka phase, all of which are preceramic.... When contrasted with the preceramic cultural level of all other shellfish-

ing sites ... this very similarity of Wanaina Plain to the pottery of the Mina phase would appear to constitute unassailably good grounds for eliminat-

ing Hososoro Creek from any future characterization of the Alaka phase" [this issue:349] .... Had this aberrancy of Hososoro Creek . . . been real- ized earlier, it may have saved Roosevelt (1995:120) the futility inherent in drawing conclusions from the supposed link between the Mina and Alaka phases. There simply never was any connection between the two. . . . [The Alaka

phase] never therefore overlapped with or, of course, predated early Mina" (this issue:350).

But the dates Williams gives for the Barambina shell mound (7000 or 6000 to 4000 B.P.) are at least 1,000 years earlier than those he gives for the Mina phase (5000 to 2500 B.P.), so the Alaka

360 [Vol. 62, No. 2, 1997]

COMMENTS

phase certainly does predate the Mina phase, on his own evidence.

Reality of Alaka Shell Mound Pottery Williams presents the idea of an Alaka-phase ceramic period as an erroneous idea of my con- struction when actually it was the conclusion of Evans and Meggers. Although in his earlier article on Barambina, Williams (1981:14, 18, 29) already states that he thinks that the Barambina shell mound is preceramic, he nevertheless still acknowledges that the Alaka phase, as defined by Evans and Meggers, was characterized by the use of ceramics during both its middle and late periods. In his comment, however, he asserts that all Guyanese shell mounds are demonstrably preceramic.

The problem with his assertion is that it is at odds with most of the earlier literature and not documented by any data that he offers. Williams, Evans and Meggers, Osgood, and Verrill all found plain pottery sherds in the shell mounds that they excavated. Williams's tabulations from Hososoro show the presence of sherds to the base of the shell mound. And although Williams states that the pottery sherds in the shell mound levels at Barambina, Kabakaburi, and other sites were intrusive from Mabaruma levels, he does not show this with any comparisons of the characteristics of provenienced shell mound sherds vis-a-vis Mabaruma pottery or any tabulations of such characteristics in the levels. Even more striking is the absence of any tabulations that show the existence of shell mound layers without sherds.

What I pointed out (Roosevelt 1995) is that this claim that the Guyanese shell mound occupation is "demonstrably" preceramic is not documented with standard archaeological data. In none of the publications that he cites has Williams published ceramic tables showing a lack of pottery in the shell mounds that he has excavated. In addition, he acknowledges repeatedly that there is pottery in the shell mounds, and earlier research showed with tabulations and illustrations that the pottery is distinct in shape, temper, color, and decoration from the Formative ceramic phase that follows. He asserts, contrary to the earlier sources, that the pottery in the shell mounds is descended from Formative deposits above the shell mounds, but he has not shown this with his own tabulations of the distribution of pottery wares in his excavations.

Miscellaneous Misrepresentations

My Sources on Alaka-Phase Shell Mound Pottery

Williams repeats throughout his comment that my inferences about Guyanese shell mounds were based shakily on the Smithsonian records and not on his relevant publications. In fact, I cite as my sources both his published "interim report" about the excavations (Williams 1981) and the earlier publications by Evans and Meggers (1960) and Verrill (1918). The two publications that he cites that I do not cite (1982 and 1992) either repeat what was in the sources that I cited or elaborate his earlier interpretations without giving the relevant data to evaluate them.

In making this point, Williams misstates the content of the sources he cites. He asserts, for example, that "Since the excavators' notes on some of the submission forms indicate that the samples were associated with pottery, Roosevelt (1995:120) rejects published statements by Sim6es (1981) and Williams (1981)." Contrary to what Williams says, not only did the Barambina forms state that all the Barambina samples were associated with pottery but both of the publications he cites acknowledge that pottery was associated with samples. Williams himself (1981:18) acknowledges, "Although not numerous, potsherds occurred regularly in Zone i, with a few scattered specimens occurring also in the upper few centimeters of Zone iia." The upper few centimeters of zone iia is precisely the location of Williams c. 4000 B.P. date, whose context he argues is preceramic.

In both his comments on sources and on my statement that "preceramic cultures have not yet been scientifically documented at these sites," Williams misrepresents the content of Sim6es's article (1981), which he cites in support of the sci- entific documentation of preceramic shell mound cultures at the Amazonian sites. Contrary to Williams's assertion, Simoes did not publish evidence for a preceramic shell mound culture, nor did he claim that the Mina phase was preceramic. He states, instead, that the Mina phase is a phase of ceramic-age foragers, not preceramic foragers. And far from stating, as Williams suggests, that any of his samples were from preceramic levels, Simoes makes it perfectly clear in his article as

361

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

well as in his submission forms that all his radiocarbon samples were associated with pottery. In fact, Sim6es classifies Mina exclusively as an Archaic ceramic phase. He does not even mention the existence of a preceramic phase at any of the 43 sites he surveyed for the article.

By citing Sim6es in support of the existence of a preceramic shell mound phase and the nonexis- tence of a ceramic shell mound phase, Williams made what is, in essence, a false reference.

Excavations to Sterile Soil in Guyanese Shell Mounds

In a further misrepresentation about my article, Williams states, "Roosevelt asserts that none of the excavations was taken to sterile soil .. ." However, this statement is not in my article. On the page cited by him, I say, instead, that when the first Guyanese dates were run, none of the lower levels of Amazonian mounds had been dated, so that the dates of the time could not represent the earliest occupations (Roosevelt 1995:120). Nowhere do I refer to Barambina or any other

Guyanese site not being excavated to sterile. On the contrary, I state that all three researchers at Barambina-Verrill, Osgood, and Williams- made excavations at the site down to sterile.

Why Eastern South American Dates Are More Secure than Northwestern South American Dates

Williams further misrepresents my article when he states that I claim that "Amazonian early pottery . . [is] the most securely dated early pottery in the New World" merely because of the similarity in

age among the Alaka, Mina, and Lower Amazon shell mound dates.

What I say is quite different and much more

specific: that Amazonian pottery is the most securely dated early pottery because of three criti- cal characteristics: (1) It has a larger series of early Holocene dates associated with pottery in shell mounds, (2) it has dates on more types of materials, and, (3) it has the only early Holocene dates directly on the pottery by radiocarbon and thermoluminescence.

To quote from my article:

The completed 13-date sequence of Brazilian dates constituted a longer and more precise series than the Colombian and

Ecuadorian chronologies because numerous samples of charcoal and temper from pottery as well as shells were run, and all the sixth millennium dates were on charcoal or on the temper in pottery. Little charcoal and no pottery had been dated from sites in Colombia at this point . . . and the earliest dates were on shell, the less reliable material.... In fact, at this time the Colombian series had only five dates, compared to the Amazonian thirteen [Roosevelt 1995:118]. . . . With Taperinha and Pedra Pintada, Amazonia has even more dates ... on a wider range of material . . . confirmed by thermoluminescence and by radiocarbon dates directly on pottery [Roosevelt 1995:128].

Relation of Alaka- to Mina-Phase Pottery

In his comment, Williams also writes as if the sim-

ilarity of Alaka-phase pottery to the Mina-phase pottery is an idea that originated with me.

However, like the idea of the existence of Alaka-

phase pottery, this idea originated with Evans and

Meggers. Both they and their associate, Simoes, who published the Mina-phase dates, stated that the two phases were similar.

As early as 1975, Evans wrote about Mina pottery in a memo to his lab director: "The pottery is

important because it could be some of the oldest on the continent. We still can't understand the

early dates but soon might be forced to accept them. For all practical reasons the pottery fits the

early horizon material we had of Alaka phase for British Guiana..." (Roosevelt 1995:118). Simoes, citing Evans and Meggers, also referred to the connection when he published the Smithsonian dates on Mina pottery. He stated that "The Mina tradition [is] also related to the Alaka Phase of

Guyana" (Evans and Meggers 1960:25-54).

Meggers and Evans further commented on the relation in later articles (1978). Williams

(1981:14-15), himself, also earlier repeated approvingly the relationship between Alaka and Mina phase shell mound pottery. His comment

certainly misleads readers about the origin of the ideas at issue.

What Alaka Phase Dates Did Williams Publish?

Williams claims that he had already published seven of the dates that I published in 1995. Indeed, seven of the 16 Guyanese dates that I listed as

unpublished, based on information from the

362 [Vol. 62, No. 2, 1997]

COMMENTS

Smithsonian archives and from Betty Meggers, were published by Williams in his 1982 article (two dates) and in a volume published privately under the editorship of Betty Meggers in 1992 (five dates).

However, none of these seven dates is from the Alaka phase, according to Williams. The four from Hososoro Creek that Williams published in 1992 are from the Formative Mabaruma-phase component of the site, not from the Alaka-phase component. Williams represents the dates as dates for the immediately pre-Formative or Archaic pottery, but, as the figures in his publication show, the dates are from his Formative, not Archaic, component, from which he has published no dates (Figures 4 and 5). Also, he does not identify the excavation provenience of those dates, although I did.

The remaining one date, from Kabakaburi, was not published by Williams (1992:240) with any specific archaeological provenience. The archives show a provenience from cut 75 at a depth of 90 cm, but that is published only in my article. Williams states that I do not relate the two Kabakaburi site dates that I publish to early shell mound pottery. Contrary to what he says, I indeed present the dates from that site as early pottery dates (Roosevelt 1995:Table 10-1, 118). This site, according to the archives, has pottery sherds in the shell mound levels, contrary to what Williams asserts but does not document with any distribution tables.

The other two dates are from Seba Creek and are from a peat deposit, not from an archaeological site, as I reported in my article. Thus, they also, are not related directly to the age of the Alaka shell mound phase and its pottery.

Even the dates Williams has published are presented with scant information about their archaeological context. Without that context, the significance of the dates for Guyanese archaeology remains obscure.

Gaps in the Archaeological Chronologies Another misstatement in Williams's comment is his assertion of the existence of a gap between the Archaic shell mound pottery of the Lower Amazon and that of northwestern South America. Contrary to Williams, there is no gap between northwestern South American shell mound pottery, which dates between 6000 and

3000 B.P., and Lower Amazon shell mound pottery, which dates between 7500 and 4000 B.P. In addition, there is no chronological gap between the Mina-phase Archaic shell mound pottery from the mouth of the Amazon, whose reality Williams accepts, and Lower Amazon shell mound pottery.

Ironically, the chronology of shell mound pottery in eastern South America is much more con- sistent between regions than is Williams's periodization within Guyana, in which the dates of different phases vary greatly from one site to another.

Conclusion

Williams quotes from the conclusion of my article about the need to let go of theory to learn from the archaeological record. But if Williams really wants us to learn from his investigations of the archaeological record of Guyana in the 1970s, he needs to publish the necessary specific data:

1. cross sections of all the archaeological deposits, to show the stratigraphic context of both dates and artifacts in his excavations,

2. tables of the distribution of sherds in the stratigraphy of his excavations according to their temper, shape, and decoration,

3. illustrations of the profiles and faces of sherds, identified by provenience, and

4. the existing unpublished radiocarbon dates and some new direct dates on pottery sherds from shell mound levels by radiocarbon and thermoluminescence.

Such data would provide the basis for evaluat- ing his opinions about Guyana prehistory. Existing information, such as the published information and his correspondence, field notes, and submission forms in the Smithsonian archives present a body of data in conflict with his conclusions.

References Cited Evans, C., and B. J. Meggers

1960 Archaeological Excavations in British Guiana. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 177. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Meggers, B. J., and C. Evans 1978 Lowland South America and the Antilles. In Ancient

Native Americans, edited by J. D. Jennings, pp. 543-591. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.

Osgood, C. 1946 British Guiana Archaeology in 1945. Publications in

Anthropology 36. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.

363

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Roosevelt, A. C. 1980 Parmana: Prehistoric Maize and Manioc Subsistence

along the Amazon and Orinoco. Academic Press, New York.

1995 Early Pottery in the Amazon: Twenty Years of Scholarly Obscurity. In The Emergence of Pottery: Technology and Innovation in Ancient Societies, edited by W. Barnett and J. Hoopes, pp. 115-132. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

1996 The Excavations at Corozal, Venezuela: Stratigraphy and Ceramic Seriation. Publications in Anthropology 82. Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, in press.

Rouse, I., and L. Allaire 1978 Caribbean. In Chronologies in New World

Archaeology, edited by R. E. Taylor and C. W. Meighan, pp. 431-481. Academic Press, New York.

Sanoja O., M. 1979 Las Culturas Formativos del Oriente de Venezuela:

La Tradicion Barrancas del Bajo Orinoco. Academia Nacional de la Historia, Caracas, Venezuela.

Sim6es, M. 1981 Coletores-Pescadores Ceramistas do Littoral do

Salgado (Para). Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi 78:1-32.

Verrill, A. H. 1918 Prehistoric mounds and relics of the Northwest

District of British Guiana. Timehri 5:11-17. Williams, D.

1981 Excavation of the Barambina Shell Mound North West District: An Interim Report. Archaeology and Anthropology 4(1-2): 13-38.

1982 Some Subsistence Implications of Holocene Climate Change in Northwestern Guyana. Archaeology and Anthropology 5(2):83-93.

1992 El arcaico en el noroeste de Guyana y los comienzos de la horticultura. In Prehistoric sudamericana:Nuevas perspectivas, edited by B. J. Meggers, pp. 233-251. Taraxacum, Washington, D.C.

Received August 20, 1996; accepted September 30, 1996.

How Writing Came About BY DENISE SCHMANDT-BESSERAT

Praise for Before Writing, Volumes I and II:

"Schmandt-Besserat's discovery and its ramifications

... are crucial to understanding the development of civilizatio ...

" - Times Literay Supplement

For a wide public and classroom audience, here is Denise Schmandt-Besserat's groundbreaking theory that the cuneiform script invented in the Near East in the late fourth millennium B.C. - the world's oldest known

system of writing-derived from an archaic counting device. Based on the analysis and interpretation of a selection of 8,000 tokens or counters from 116 sites in Iran, Iraq, the Levant, and Turkey, it documents the immediate precursor of the cuneiform script. 27 b&w photos, 18 line drawings, 3 maps, 5 tables, 42 pages of charts $19.95 paperback

4vm University of Texas Press BOX 7819 AUSTIN, TX 78713

AT BOOKSTORES, OR CALL 800-252-3206.

I

364 [Vol. 62, No. 2, 1997]