228 BUREAU OF AMERICAN ETHNOLOGY [Bull. 193 



griddles, and bowls with divided interiors. Surfaces are decorated 

 with a variety of both plastic and painting techniques, the latter 

 ranging from the use of a simple red slip through resist dye painting 

 to bichromes (red on white, black on white, and black on red) and 

 polychromes (black and red on white). Among the plastic decorative 

 techniques, not only do the incised designs for the most part differ 

 from those of Monagrillo,^^ but they extend beyond the use of simple 

 incision and excision to include pigment-filled incision, dentate roulette 

 stamping and zoned crosshatching. Additional proliferation in the 

 crafts is evident in the clay human figurines, bar-shaped clay pendants, 

 pottery rattles, clay disks with designs, and the numerous articles of 

 worked bone including awls, disks, antler tools, and a carved bone 

 monkey from Momil I-b levels. Shell was fashioned into cups, spoons, 

 picks, and buttons, although it is not clear whether these shell objects 

 may be assigned to the Momil I Period. The stone industry, as at 

 Monagrillo, includes the category of pebble tools, but unlike the 

 Panama site also included microlithic points. 



The general impression given above is certainly that of a more fully 

 developed culture than at Monagrillo, an impression supported in 

 some ways by the chronological position of 1,000 B.C. to the time of 

 Christ suggested by Reich el-Dohuatoff for Momil I on the basis of 

 comparative materials. However, even if this dating should be 

 shifted back in time as a result of carbon-14 analysis, I do not believe 

 there are sufficient significant resemblances between Monagrillo and 

 Momil I to indicate cultural diffusion between the two. 



To the east, on the Isla de los Indios, a small island far in from the 

 coast on the lower Magdalena River, the Reichel-Dolmatoffs exca- 

 vated 64 badly eroded sherds, 22 of which were decorated (Reichel- 

 Dolmatoff, G. and A., 1953, pp. 61-62). Most of these were incised 

 in a fairly broad line technique with rectangular designs, parallel lines, 

 or crosshatching, none of which particularly resembles Monagrillo 

 Incised. One sherd had a combed surface. Apparently no other cul- 

 tural remains were found and the chronological position is unknown. 

 Since the only similarity between this admittedly meager assemblage 

 and the Monagrillo pottery is the ubiquitous trait of incised decora- 

 tion, there is no reason to postulate a connection between the two, 

 and to do so unnecessarily clutters up the search for more reliable 

 affinities. 



On the other hand, the shell heap at Barlovento on the Colombian 

 coast near Cartagena in a general way parallels Monagrillo (Reichel- 

 Dolmatoff, G., 1955, pp. 249-272). The coastal shell heap sites are 



" Examples of both fine line Incision and engraving ("Incisa Grabada") which are reminiscent of Mona- 

 grillo designs, but do not include the dot termination of lines, may be seen in plate 7, 8, 10-13, and in plate 

 14, 1, S, of Reichel-DolraatofE, Q. and A., 1956. 



