NEW WORLD PREHISTORY — WILLEY 573 



33. I. Rouse, J. M. Cruxent, J. M. Goggin, Proc. Internat. Congr. Americanists, 



32nd Congr., Copenhagen, pp. 008-515, 1958. 



34. W.D. Strong, Smithsonian Misc. Coll., vol. 93, No. 10, 1958. 



35. J. B. Bird, Geogr. Rev., vol. 28, p. 2.50. 1938. 



3G. See R. J. Braidwood, Science, vol. 127, p. 1419, 1958, and G. R. Willey and 

 P. Phillips, Amer. Anthropologist, vol. 57, p. 723, 1955, for discussion of 

 the "Preformative" stage. 



37. R. S. MacNeish, Preliminary archaeological investigations in the Sierra de 



Tamaulipas, Mexico, Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc, vol. 48, pt. 6, 1958, is the 

 basis for this summary of the Tamaulipas sequences. 



38. P. C. Mangelsdorf. Science, vol. 128, p. 1313, 1958. 



39. J. B. Bird, in A reappraisal of Peruvian archaeology, Soc. Amer. Archaeol. 



Mem. No. 4, pp. 21-28, 11V48. 



40. C. O. Sauer discusses this possibility in Agricultural origins and dispersals, 



Amer. Geogr. Soc, New York, 1952. 



41. G. Reichel-Dolmatoflf and A. Relchel-Dolmatoff, Rev. Colombiana Antropol., 



vol. 5, p. 109, 1956. 



42. R. M. Goslin, in The Adena people. No. 2, pp. 41-46, 1957. W. S. Webb and 



R. S. Baby, Eds., Ohio State Univ. Press. 



43. C. Evans and B. .7. Meggers, Archaeology, vol. 11, p. 175, 1958. 



44. For discussion of the Monagrillo pottery, see G. R. Willey and C. R. Mc- 



Gimsey, The Monagrillo culture of Panama, Peabody Mus., Harvard, 

 Pap., vol. 49, No. 2, 1954. 



45. For the radiocarbon dating, see E. S. Deevey, L. J. Gralenski, and V. Hoffren, 



Amer. Journ. Sci., Radiocarbon Suppl., vol 1, p. Y-585, 1959. 



46. The problem of the age of pottery in Middle America is complicated and 



by no means settled. Such relatively well-developed village-farming phases 

 as Early Zacatenco (Valley of Mexico) and Las Charcas (Guatemalan 

 Highlands) have radiocarbon dates which indicate an age of about 1500 B.C. 

 There are also contradictory radiocarbon dates which suggest that these 

 phases occurred several hundred years later. For a review of some of 

 these dates for Middle America, see G. R. Willey, Amer. Antiquity, vol. 23, 

 p. 359, 19.58, and E. S. Deevey. L. .T. Gralenski, and V. Hoffren (45). It 

 may be that other Middle American ceramic complexes, such as the Chiapa 

 I (Chiapas), Ocos (Pacific Guatemala), Yarumela I (Honduras), Yohoa 

 Monochrome (Honduras), and Pavon (northern Veracruz), are older than 

 either Early Zacatenco and Las Charcas, although there is no clear proof 

 of this. In figure 1, the dotted line indicating the inception of pottery 

 has been put as early as 2500 B.C. in Middle America. A recent discovery 

 in conflict with this comes from Oaxaca, where a preceramic site, possibly 

 representative of incipient cultivation, has radiocarbon dates of only aboxit 

 2000 B.C. This has been presented by .7. Tj. Ijorenzo, ITn sitio preceramico 

 en Yanhultlan, Oaxaca, Inst. Nac. Antropol. e Hist., Publ. No. 6, 195S. For 

 Peru, the earliest pottery appears on the north coast, at an average date 

 of about 1200 to 1000 B.C. See radiocarbon dates for early Peruvian 

 pottery as itemized by G. R. Willey, Amer. Antiquity, vol. 23, p. 356, 1058. 



47. R. S. MacNeish, in The Engigstcink site on the Yukon Arctic coast, Univ. 



Alaska Anthrop. Pap., vol. 4, No. 2, 19.56, has contributed to tlie solution 

 of this problem by the discovery of early Woodland-like pottery in tlie 

 far north. 



48. W. A. Ritchie, New York Mus. Sci., Circ. No. 40, Albany, N.Y., 19.55 ; see J. B. 



Griffin, The chronological position of the Hopewellian culture in the 

 eastern United States, Univ. Michigan Mus. Anthrop., Anthrop. Pap. 

 No. 12, 1958, p. 10, for a different view. 



