Ladd] PARITA AND SANTA MARIA ARCHEOLOGY, PANAMA 229 



similar, the worked stone shows some similarities, and ceramic deco- 

 ration limited to incision-punctation and zoned red paint also repre- 

 sents a general resemblance between the two. Furthermore, such 

 traits of the more elaborate Formative cultures as dentate stamping, 

 figurines, basal flanges, tripod or tetrapod supports, and carved bone 

 or shell ornaments are missing at both sites. Carbon-14 dates place 

 the material from Barlovento in a fairly close but somewhat more 

 recent position than the one date for Monagrillo, i.e., from 1500 B.C. 

 to 1000 B.C. (Evans, Meggers, and Estrada, 1959, pp. 90-91). 



At a different level of comparison, however, the similarity ends. 

 The incised and punctated designs convey an impression very differ- 

 ent from the Monagrillo incision. Not only is the incision very 

 broad, but it usually encloses or borders punctated zones. Reed 

 punctation, finger pinching, and pigment-filled incisions are also pres- 

 ent in Barlovento pottery; all characteristics foreign to Monagrillo. 

 Barlovento paints apparently were applied in patches and splotches 

 rather than in the clearly defined geometrical forms of the Mona- 

 grillo Red. The stone industries of the two complexes do not share 

 major emphases. Thus, pebble choppers or grinding tools are a 

 major item in the Monagrillo inventory, but are minor if duplicated 

 at all at the Barlovento site (see Reich el-Dolmatoff, 1955, pi. 6, 7, 

 9, 12, for the closest similarity to Monagrillo pebble choppers), and 

 the characteristic stone artifact of Barlovento, an irregular-shaped 

 stone with small circular depressions hollowed out of the surface, is 

 missing entirely at the Monagrillo site. 



It appears that Monagrillo and Barlovento, when compared with 

 the more fully developed Valdivia and Momil, share a craft simplicity 

 or lack of elaboration along with a certain sophistication of ceramic 

 design, but that below this level of generalization the two are so un- 

 like in both stone and ceramics as to represent quite distinct cultures 

 which did not influence each other. 



For detailed comparisons further afield, the reader is referred to 

 Willey and McGimsey (1954, pp. 128-132). Their survey concluded 

 that the noteworthy resemblances between Monagrillo and other 

 phases were vague ones in both incision technique and design ele- 

 ments and were evident in such widely separated examples as Los 

 Barrancos of Venezuela, Miraflores of Guatemala, early incised pot- 

 tery of the Ulua Valley in Honduras, some of the simpler Chavin 

 types of Peru, and incised styles in southeastern United States. As 

 they point out (p. 132), at this level of comparison it is certainly 

 questionable whether one is dealing with the same historical 

 phenomena. 



Since the publication of the Monagrillo report, one Middle Ameri- 



693-817—64 16 



