﻿784 
  SOUTH 
  AMERICAN 
  INDIANS 
  [B. 
  A. 
  B. 
  Bull. 
  143 
  

  

  Tiahuanaco 
  influence 
  there, 
  Peruvian 
  influences 
  prior 
  to 
  the 
  Inca 
  

   conquest 
  appear 
  to 
  have 
  been 
  surprisingly 
  slight. 
  11 
  In 
  general, 
  one 
  

   has 
  the 
  impression 
  that 
  Ecuador 
  affiliates 
  much 
  more 
  closely 
  with 
  

   Colombia 
  than 
  with 
  Peru. 
  

  

  The 
  greatest 
  need 
  in 
  Ecuadorean 
  archeology 
  is 
  for 
  more 
  thorough 
  

   descriptions 
  and 
  classifications 
  of 
  local 
  cultural 
  manifestations 
  and 
  

   the 
  establishment 
  of 
  additional 
  stratigraphic 
  sequences. 
  When 
  these 
  

   are 
  available, 
  comparative 
  studies 
  will 
  be 
  oq 
  a 
  sounder 
  and 
  more 
  

   fruitful 
  basis. 
  

  

  BIBLIOGRAPHY 
  

  

  Anthony 
  and 
  Rivet, 
  1908; 
  Bergs0e, 
  1937, 
  1938; 
  Collier 
  and 
  Murra, 
  1943; 
  

   Dorsey, 
  1901; 
  Ferdon, 
  1940, 
  1940-41, 
  1941 
  a, 
  1941 
  b; 
  Gonzalez 
  Suarez, 
  1878, 
  1892, 
  

   1908-10; 
  Grijalva, 
  1937; 
  Jij6n 
  y 
  Caamano, 
  1914, 
  1918, 
  1920, 
  1927, 
  1929, 
  1930; 
  

   Kidder, 
  1940 
  a; 
  Lothrop, 
  1940; 
  Rivet, 
  1908, 
  1912, 
  1922; 
  Saville, 
  1907-10, 
  1909, 
  

   1924 
  b; 
  Strong 
  and 
  Corbett, 
  1943; 
  Sullivan 
  and 
  Hellman, 
  1925; 
  Tello, 
  1943; 
  

   Uhle, 
  1920 
  a, 
  1920 
  b, 
  1922 
  a, 
  1922 
  b, 
  1923 
  a, 
  1923 
  b, 
  1927 
  a, 
  1927 
  b, 
  1928 
  a, 
  1928 
  b, 
  

   1931, 
  1933, 
  1935; 
  Verneau 
  and 
  Rivet, 
  1912-22. 
  

  

  11 
  Tello 
  (1943, 
  pp. 
  154, 
  158) 
  has 
  identified 
  the 
  Chavfn 
  style 
  in 
  ceramics 
  of 
  Uhle's 
  "Maya" 
  Period 
  in 
  southern 
  

   Ecuador. 
  Apparently 
  he 
  is 
  referring 
  in 
  particular 
  to 
  certain 
  incised 
  or 
  painted 
  curvilinear 
  and 
  step 
  designs 
  

   on 
  pottery 
  from 
  Azuay 
  (Uhle, 
  1922 
  b, 
  pis. 
  18-24, 
  36) 
  and 
  to 
  engraved 
  designs 
  on 
  pottery 
  from 
  Alausi. 
  The 
  

   former 
  style 
  was 
  included 
  by 
  Uhle 
  in 
  his 
  "Maya" 
  Period, 
  which 
  has 
  been 
  identified 
  as 
  Early 
  Cerro 
  Narrio. 
  

   The 
  latter 
  group 
  from 
  Alausi 
  (Uhle, 
  1931, 
  pp. 
  32-33, 
  35, 
  pis. 
  1, 
  3-5; 
  Collier 
  and 
  Murra, 
  1943, 
  pp. 
  23-25, 
  pis. 
  5-7) 
  

   comprised 
  several 
  pottery 
  types 
  identified 
  by 
  Collier 
  and 
  Murra 
  as 
  intrusive 
  in 
  Late 
  Cerro 
  Narrio 
  (Collier 
  

   and 
  Murra, 
  1943, 
  pp. 
  58-62, 
  84, 
  pis. 
  31-34). 
  There 
  is 
  no 
  clear 
  evidence 
  of 
  this 
  late 
  intrusive 
  group 
  south 
  of 
  

   Cafiar 
  (although 
  certain 
  engraved 
  designs 
  on 
  apparently 
  late 
  pottery 
  from 
  Azuay 
  (Collier 
  and 
  Murra, 
  1943, 
  

   pi. 
  9) 
  may 
  be 
  related 
  to 
  it) 
  , 
  and 
  its 
  closest 
  affiliations 
  seem 
  to 
  be 
  with 
  the 
  late 
  periods 
  to 
  the 
  north 
  in 
  Manabi. 
  

   A 
  stirrup-spout 
  jar 
  of 
  Cupisnique 
  type 
  has 
  been 
  found 
  in 
  Azuay 
  (Collier 
  and 
  Murra, 
  1943, 
  pi. 
  10), 
  but 
  its 
  

   exact 
  provenience 
  is 
  unknown 
  and 
  so 
  far 
  it 
  is 
  unique 
  for 
  this 
  region. 
  The 
  present 
  writer 
  is 
  not 
  greatly 
  

   impressed 
  with 
  the 
  Chavin 
  resemblances 
  claimed 
  by 
  Tello. 
  Furthermore, 
  it 
  is 
  necessary 
  to 
  account 
  for 
  the 
  

   great 
  time 
  gap 
  between 
  Chavin 
  in 
  Peru 
  and 
  these 
  relatively 
  late 
  pottery 
  styles 
  in 
  southern 
  Ecuador. 
  

  

  