8/12/2019 Evans y Meggers (1964) British Guiana Archaeology a
Return to the Original Interpretations
2/3
FACTS AND COMMENTSBRITISH GUIANA ARCHAEOLOGY:A RETURN TO THE
ORIGINALINTERPRETATIONS
CLIFFORD EVANS AND BETTY J. MEGGERSABSTRACT
The reinterpretation of the Mabaruma phase, BritishGuiana, by
Lathrap does not introduce new evidencethat requires abandonment of
the original estimate ofabout A.D. 500 for its introduction from
the Orinocodelta.AS A GENERAL RULE, we prefer not to reply to
arti-cles or comments disagreeing with our evaluation of
ar-chaeological evidence and to allow the interested readerto
arrive at his own conclusions. However, since twosuccessive issues
of American Antiquity have carriedreinterpretations of our work in
such diverse and widelyseparated areas as Ecuador and British
Guiana by DonaldLathrap (1963, 1964) with a footnote announcing
moreto come, our silence must be broken. A detailed analysisof the
origin, development, and affiliations of the Macha-lilla phase of
Ecuador is in preparation as a monograph,in which the inaccuracies
in Lathrap's derivation ofMachalilla from Tutiscainyo will be
discussed. Here wewish to comment on his recent article entitled,
AnAlternative Seriation of the Mabaruma Phase, North-western
British Guiana in which Lathrap attempts togive the impression that
he has fundamentally changedthe seriated sequence for the Mabaruma
phase, and thatthis revision makes it possible to establish a
greater an-tiquity for the phase than we had suggested. Since hehas
not in fact done either of these things, and sinceour British
Guiana monograph is now out of print andconsequently not readily
available to interested readers,we wish to comment on the
differences between hisanalysis and ours.
The two sequences are as follows:Evans and Meggers
N-12, 0- 8 cm.8-16 cm.16-24 cm.24-32 cm.32-40 cm.N-20, 0- 8
cm.8-16 cm.16-24 cm.24-32 cm.N-13, 0-15 cm.15-30 cm.30-45
cm.45-60cm.
N-1, 0-8 cm.N-4, 0- 8 cm.N-1, 8-16 cm.16-24cm.N-4, 8-16
cm.16-24cm.N-1, 24-32cm.32-40cm.40-48 cm.48-56cm.
LathrapN-13, 0-15 cm.15-30 cm.N-12, 0- 8 cm.8-16 cm.N-13,
30-45cm.N-12, 16-24 cm.24-32 cm.32-40 cm.N-20, 0- 8 cm.8-16
cm.N-13, 45-60 cm.N-20, 16-24cm.24-32 cm.N-, 0- 8 cm.N-4, 0- 8
cm.N-I, 8-16 cm.16-24cm.N-4, 8-16 cm.16-24cm.N-i, 24-32cm.32-40
cm.40-48cm.48-56cm.
The relative position of sites and levels differs inonly one
respect: we placed N-13 before N-20 and N-12,while Lathrap
interdigitates it with the upper two sites.To do this, he is
obliged to dismiss as minor the temperdifferences that identify the
various pottery types usedto form the basis for our seriation. He
does so on theground that they are at least as likely to be related
tofacts of geography (the local availability of particularkinds of
sand and rock) as to cultural choice (Lathrap1964: 354). There are
two arguments against such dis-missal of the cultural significance
of temper. First, stea-tite-tempered Hotokwai Plain and
mica-tempered Kober-imo Plain cannot be characterized as showing
minordifferences from sand-tempered Mabaruma Plain andHosororo
Plain. In fact, they are some of the most dis-tinctive wares we
have encountered anywhere in SouthAmerica. Neither of these
specific forms of temperoccurs naturally in clay, and sources had
to be soughtout. That their use is not an accidental result of
geog-raphy is demonstrated by marked differences in occur-rence at
sites in close physical proximity. For example,mica-tempered
Koberimo Plain is absent at N-1 exceptin the upper two levels,
where it reaches only 1.4% fre-quency. At N-12, which occupies the
same small hill,it increases to 27.8%. Similarly, at N-13,
steatite-tem-pered Hotokwai Plain reaches 59.5%, while at N-14
andN-15, a little downstream, it constitutes only 25.2 and25.6% of
the sherd samples.
Acceptance of Lathrap'salternative placement of N-13not only
requires dismissal of these marked differencesas unimportant but
restricts the burden of chronologicalevidence to less than 13.8% of
the total sherds in anylevel, this being the frequency of decorated
sherds forthe Mabaruma phase. Since the total sherd sample perlevel
is not large and since there are four decorated typesrepresented,
we felt that possibilities of error derivedfrom so small a sample
were considerable, and conse-quently that trends could be
considered at best only sug-gestive. We do not take the position
that shape anddecoration show a capricious distribution through
time(p. 358) but rather that evidence for shape and decora-tion may
show such a distribution because of the smallsize of the available
sample. Interestingly, Lathrap's re-seriation leaves intact all the
temporal differences in ves-sel shape and decoration that emerged
from our seriatedsequence. Furthermore,he supports our correlation
of thelatter part of the sequence with the Apostadero stylein the
Orinoco delta (Evans and Meggers 1960: 150).The principal point of
conflict between Lathrap'sanalysis and ours is the correlation
between the earlyMabaruma phase and the Barrancoid sequence of
theOrinoco. It is difficult to see how his disagreement herecan be
a by-product of the reseriation, since the rele-vant lower portion
of the sequence is exactly the samein both arrangements. The only
argument he offers insupport of a preference for contemporaneity
with Bar-rancas dated at 850 B.c., rather than tos Barrancos
dated
83
This content downloaded from 190.102.135.210 on Fri, 14 Feb 2014
13:55:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
8/12/2019 Evans y Meggers (1964) British Guiana Archaeology a
Return to the Original Interpretations
3/3
AMERICAN ANTIQUITYMERICAN ANTIQUITYat A.D. 500, is his
impression that one form of rim (re-ferred to by Lathrap as labial
flange ) is typical ofBarrancas,but much less common in Los
Barrancos (pp.358-9). According to Cruxent and Rouse (1958:
228),however, Los Barrancos resembles Barrancas in that atriangular
flange at the rim is again diagnostic, so thatthis trait does not
provide a good basis for identification.There are, on the other
hand, a number of diagnosticfeatures distinguishing Barrancas from
Los Barrancos,and these provide a basis for determining the
affiliationof the Mabaruma phase. Barrancas, for example, is
typi-fied by body-wall thickness averaging 12 mm., dominanceof
modeling combined with incision expressed in largeheavy adornos,
predominantly curvilinear motifs, widelyspaced incisions,
punctation rare and almost never inthe form of lines terminating in
dots, and a 13% occur-rence of red slipping, often zoned with
incision (Cruxentand Rouse 1958: 225). Los Barrancos is
characterized bybody-wall thickness averaging 8 mm., modeling in
lowrather than high relief and definitely subordinate to in-cision,
incisions closely spaced and frequently ending indots, and absence
of red slipping (Cruxent and Rouse1958: 228-9). The early Mabaruma
phase shares all thecharacteristics of Los Barrancosand lacks all
those typicalof Barrancas except for the red slip. Identification
ofearly Mabaruma phase pottery with Period III in Vene-zuela and
Los Barrancosby Cruxent and Rouse (1958: 31)before final
publication of our results has not beenchanged in a more recent
volume (Rouse and Cruxent1963: 89). Until a detailed analysis of
the Barrancoidstyle appears in print, they are the only ones in
fullcontrol of the evidence. Since Lathrap has offered nonew
evidence, their Period III correlation of the earlyMabaruma phase
would seem to be the most acceptableat the present time, and the
date of about A.D. 500 forthe entrance of this phase into British
Guiana from theOrinoco delta remains more acceptable than
Lathrap'snew estimate.CRUXENT, . M. AND RVINGROUSE
1958 An Archeological Chronology of Venezuela, Vol. 1.
SocialScience Monographs, Pan American Union, No. 6.
Wash-ington.EVANS,CLIFFORDNDBETTY . MEGGERS
1960 Archeological Investigations in British Guiana. Bureau
ofAmerican Ethnology, Bulletin 177. Washington.LATHRAP,DONALDW.
1963 Possible Affiliations of the Machalilla Complex of
CoastalEcuador. American Antiquity, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 239-41.Salt
Lake City.1964 An Alternative Seriation of the Mabaruma Phase,
North-western British Guiana. American Antiquity, Vol. 29, No.3,
pp. 353-9. Salt Lake City.
ROUSE, RVING NDJOSEM. CRUXENT1963 Venezuelan Archaeology. Yale
Caribbean Series, 6. NewHaven.
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTIONWashington, D.C.February, 1964
at A.D. 500, is his impression that one form of rim (re-ferred
to by Lathrap as labial flange ) is typical ofBarrancas,but much
less common in Los Barrancos (pp.358-9). According to Cruxent and
Rouse (1958: 228),however, Los Barrancos resembles Barrancas in
that atriangular flange at the rim is again diagnostic, so thatthis
trait does not provide a good basis for identification.There are,
on the other hand, a number of diagnosticfeatures distinguishing
Barrancas from Los Barrancos,and these provide a basis for
determining the affiliationof the Mabaruma phase. Barrancas, for
example, is typi-fied by body-wall thickness averaging 12 mm.,
dominanceof modeling combined with incision expressed in largeheavy
adornos, predominantly curvilinear motifs, widelyspaced incisions,
punctation rare and almost never inthe form of lines terminating in
dots, and a 13% occur-rence of red slipping, often zoned with
incision (Cruxentand Rouse 1958: 225). Los Barrancos is
characterized bybody-wall thickness averaging 8 mm., modeling in
lowrather than high relief and definitely subordinate to in-cision,
incisions closely spaced and frequently ending indots, and absence
of red slipping (Cruxent and Rouse1958: 228-9). The early Mabaruma
phase shares all thecharacteristics of Los Barrancosand lacks all
those typicalof Barrancas except for the red slip. Identification
ofearly Mabaruma phase pottery with Period III in Vene-zuela and
Los Barrancosby Cruxent and Rouse (1958: 31)before final
publication of our results has not beenchanged in a more recent
volume (Rouse and Cruxent1963: 89). Until a detailed analysis of
the Barrancoidstyle appears in print, they are the only ones in
fullcontrol of the evidence. Since Lathrap has offered nonew
evidence, their Period III correlation of the earlyMabaruma phase
would seem to be the most acceptableat the present time, and the
date of about A.D. 500 forthe entrance of this phase into British
Guiana from theOrinoco delta remains more acceptable than
Lathrap'snew estimate.CRUXENT, . M. AND RVINGROUSE
1958 An Archeological Chronology of Venezuela, Vol. 1.
SocialScience Monographs, Pan American Union, No. 6.
Wash-ington.EVANS,CLIFFORDNDBETTY . MEGGERS
1960 Archeological Investigations in British Guiana. Bureau
ofAmerican Ethnology, Bulletin 177. Washington.LATHRAP,DONALDW.
1963 Possible Affiliations of the Machalilla Complex of
CoastalEcuador. American Antiquity, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 239-41.Salt
Lake City.1964 An Alternative Seriation of the Mabaruma Phase,
North-western British Guiana. American Antiquity, Vol. 29, No.3,
pp. 353-9. Salt Lake City.
ROUSE, RVING NDJOSEM. CRUXENT1963 Venezuelan Archaeology. Yale
Caribbean Series, 6. NewHaven.
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTIONWashington, D.C.February, 1964
PRE-COLUMBIANBALL-GAMEHANDSTONES: REJOINDERTO CLUNESTEPHAN F. DE
BORHEGYI
ABSTRACTOn the basis of ethnohistorical data, Clune has
ques-tioned the identification and use of pre-Columbian
Meso-american stone objects formerly known as padlockstones or
sling stones and recently designated byde Borhegyi as ball-game
handstones. According tode Borhegyi, these stones were used by
players in theMesoamerican ball game to deflect or propel a
high-arching ball. Archaeological evidence strongly supportsthe
inference that ball-game handstones and such ball-game
paraphernalia as stone yokes and palmate stoneswere used in the
ball game as it was played during Earlyand Late Classic times (A.D.
200-900) along the Gulfcoast of eastern Mexico and in the Maya
area. The in-
discriminate use of Spanish and other early ethnohistoricrecords
may be misleading in the reconstruction andinterpretation of
cultural events that occurred centuriesearlier in a variety of
places.CLUNE (1963) has questioned my interpretation of theuse of
certain loop-handled pre-Columbian stone objectswhich I christened
ball-game handstones (Borhegyi1961). My study of these artifacts
indicates that theywere not used as sling stones nor as pestles or
grindingstones as previously supposed. Their archaeological
asso-ciation with such well-known Mesoamerican artifacts aspalmate
stones, stone yokes, and thin stone heads clearlyindicates their
connection with pre-Columbian ball-gameceremonies or with the game
itself.The Spanish chroniclers who saw the Mexican ballgame in
action describe a secularized version of thegame in which no stone
paraphernalia was used. As amatter of fact, archaeological evidence
indicates that theuse of stone ball-game paraphernalia was
discontinuedcenturies earlier at the beginning of the
post-Classicperiod. It must therefore be taken into
considerationthat any colonial eyewitness reference to the ball
gamedescribes an already altered form of the game that wasplayed by
different tribal groups under different condi-tions. It is as
difficult and conjectural to reconstruct fromsuch accounts the
rules of the ball game as played duringEarly and Late Classic times
around the Gulf of Mexicoand in the Maya area as it is to
reconstruct the earlyrules of the polo game as played in Persia or
India frommodern polo played in the United States or Great
Britain.There is now sufficient evidence to convince all butthe
most sceptical that the stone yokes, like the PuertoRican stone
collars or belts, were actually worn byplayers during the game
(Ekholm 1961). These heavyobjects fit remarkably well about the
waist, where anyweight is most easily carried and, instead of
hinderingthe mobility of the player, they provide a
much-neededstriking surface with which to hit the heavy rubber
balland also protect the vulnerable abdominal area. Accord-ing to
Ekholm (1961: 365), when a large solid-rubberball (about 18 cm. in
diameter and weighing about
PRE-COLUMBIANBALL-GAMEHANDSTONES: REJOINDERTO CLUNESTEPHAN F. DE
BORHEGYI
ABSTRACTOn the basis of ethnohistorical data, Clune has
ques-tioned the identification and use of pre-Columbian
Meso-american stone objects formerly known as padlockstones or
sling stones and recently designated byde Borhegyi as ball-game
handstones. According tode Borhegyi, these stones were used by
players in theMesoamerican ball game to deflect or propel a
high-arching ball. Archaeological evidence strongly supportsthe
inference that ball-game handstones and such ball-game
paraphernalia as stone yokes and palmate stoneswere used in the
ball game as it was played during Earlyand Late Classic times (A.D.
200-900) along the Gulfcoast of eastern Mexico and in the Maya
area. The in-
discriminate use of Spanish and other early ethnohistoricrecords
may be misleading in the reconstruction andinterpretation of
cultural events that occurred centuriesearlier in a variety of
places.CLUNE (1963) has questioned my interpretation of theuse of
certain loop-handled pre-Columbian stone objectswhich I christened
ball-game handstones (Borhegyi1961). My study of these artifacts
indicates that theywere not used as sling stones nor as pestles or
grindingstones as previously supposed. Their archaeological
asso-ciation with such well-known Mesoamerican artifacts aspalmate
stones, stone yokes, and thin stone heads clearlyindicates their
connection with pre-Columbian ball-gameceremonies or with the game
itself.The Spanish chroniclers who saw the Mexican ballgame in
action describe a secularized version of thegame in which no stone
paraphernalia was used. As amatter of fact, archaeological evidence
indicates that theuse of stone ball-game paraphernalia was
discontinuedcenturies earlier at the beginning of the
post-Classicperiod. It must therefore be taken into
considerationthat any colonial eyewitness reference to the ball
gamedescribes an already altered form of the game that wasplayed by
different tribal groups under different condi-tions. It is as
difficult and conjectural to reconstruct fromsuch accounts the
rules of the ball game as played duringEarly and Late Classic times
around the Gulf of Mexicoand in the Maya area as it is to
reconstruct the earlyrules of the polo game as played in Persia or
India frommodern polo played in the United States or Great
Britain.There is now sufficient evidence to convince all butthe
most sceptical that the stone yokes, like the PuertoRican stone
collars or belts, were actually worn byplayers during the game
(Ekholm 1961). These heavyobjects fit remarkably well about the
waist, where anyweight is most easily carried and, instead of
hinderingthe mobility of the player, they provide a
much-neededstriking surface with which to hit the heavy rubber
balland also protect the vulnerable abdominal area. Accord-ing to
Ekholm (1961: 365), when a large solid-rubberball (about 18 cm. in
diameter and weighing about
844 [ VOL.30, No. 1, 1964VOL.30, No. 1, 1964
This content downloaded from 190.102.135.210 on Fri, 14 Feb 2014
13:55:17 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
