Society for American Archaeology

Integration of Archaeological Phase Information and Radiocarbon Results from the Jama
River Valley, Ecuador: A Bayesian Approach
Author(s): James A. Zeidler, Caitlin E. Buck and Clifford D. Litton
Source: Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 9, No. 2 (Jun., 1998), pp. 160-179
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/971992 .
Accessed: 16/06/2014 07:29

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Latin
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 -
INTEGRATIONOF ARCHAEOLOGICAL PHASE
RADIOCARBONRESULTSFROMTHE JAMAINFORMATION AND
RIVERVALLEY,
ECUADOR:A BAYESIANAPPROACH
JamesA. Zeidler, Caitlin E. Buck, and Clifford
D. Litton
Archaeological syntheses of western Ecuadorian
prehisto7yhave been hamperedby a lack of
and detailed cultural sequencesfor many key reliable absolute chronologies
areas, one of which is northernManabf
ritory of the Jama-Coaque cultural tradition. Province, knownprincipally as the ter-
This study presents a seven-phase cultural
of northernManabf that spans over 3,600 sequencefor the Jama River valley
calendar years. A statistical model relating the
is established, based on prior knowledge successive archaeological phases
of the stratigraphyand ceramic seriation
the valley. A Bayesian statistical approach from key archaeological sites throughout
is then employed to calibrate 37
estimatingcalendar datesfor the limits of these radiocarbon determinationsfor the purpose of
phases. Apartfrom its contributionto the
theanalysis illustrates the value of a prehistoryof a poorly studied area,
probabilistic Bayesian approach to radiocarbon
minationsrelate to archaeologically predefined calibration, especially when the deter-
phases. It also demonstratesthe dangers of
periodizationschemes to specific sequences of uncritically applying generalized
historical development and highlights the need
chronologythroughmore precise interregional for reassessing Ecuadorian
correlations.
Lassfntesis arqueologicas de la
prehistoria del occidente ecuatoriano han sido
absolutasconfiables y secuencias culturales entorpecidas por la falta de cronologfas
detalladas para muchas areas claves, una de las
dela Provincia de Manabf, conocido cuales es el sector meridional
principalmente como el territorio de la tradicion
presentauna secuencia cultural de siete fases cultural Jama-Coaque. Este estudio
para la cuenca del Rfo Jama de Manabf
calendaricos.Se establece un modelo estadfstico, de norte, la cual abarca unos 3,600 anos
rivado de conocimiento previo de la
desitios arqueologicos claves por todo estratigraffay la seriacion ceramica
el valle, el eual relaciona las fases
empleaun enfoque estadfstico Bayesiano para arqueologicas sucesivas. Posteriormente, se
la calibracion de 37 fechamientos
fechascalendaricas correspondiente.sa los radiocarbonicos con el fin de estimar las
Ifmitesde cada fase. Aparte de su contribucion
conocida,el analisis ilustra el valor de un a la prehistoria de un area poco
enfoque probabilKsticoBayesiano para la
mente cuando los fechamientos disponibles provienen calibracion radiocarbonica, especial-
de faves predefinidas arqueologicamente.
groen aplicas; con falta de sentido Tambiendemuestra el peli-
crKtico,los esquemas de periodificacion
desarrollohistorico, y destaca la necesidad de evaluar generalizados a secuencias espeefficas de
nuevamentela cronologfa ecuatoriana mediante
regionalesmas precisas. correlaciones inter-

n e of the principalobstacles to macrore-

Coaque culture a series of complex chiefdoms
{ Xgional understandingof Ecuadorianpre-
with an elaborate ceramic tradition
5 _ history has been the uneven coverage spanning
of some 2,000 years regional time/space
sustained
archaeologicalresearchover the past 40 systemat-
ics have been poorly understood until
years
and the resultinglack of absolutechronolo- quite
recently.
gies
for key areas (Feldmanand Moseley 1983).
Although a basic culturalsequence was devel-
NorthernManabi Province, located on the upper oped for this area as early as the late
central
coast, is one such area. In spite of its 1950s
(Estrada 1957; see also Estrada 1958:7-20), it
renown as the territory of Ecuador's Jama-
was based on limited fieldwork at a few
sites
James
A. Zeidler * Departmentof Anthropology,
109 Davenport Hall, 607 South Mathews
Urbana,
IL 61801 Avenue, University of Illinois,
Caitlin
E. Buck * School of History and
Archaeology, University of Wales, P.O. Box 909,
Kingdom CardiffCF1 3XU, Wales, United
Clifford
D. Litton * Departmentof Mathematics,
Universityof Nottingham,University Park,
United
Kingdom NottinghamNG7 2RD, England,

LatinAmericanAntiquity,9(2), 1998, pp.

160-179.
Copyright(C)by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

160

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPORT 161

along the coastal strip and provided only a very appears as an empty "no man's land" or buffer
general cultural sequence lacking both internal zone between the intrusive cultures. Again, no
subdivisionsand radiocarbondeterminations.The discussion of these temporaUspatialsystematicsis
culturalmanifestationsidentifiedby Estradawere provided, nor is the nature of these "intrusive"
placed in the nascent "functional-developmental" occupationsdocumented.
periodization scheme of Ecuadorian prehistory As archaeological research progressed else-
(Estrada 1957:CuadroNo. 2), and their chrono- where in coastal Ecuador during the 1960s and
logical placement on an absolute timescale was 1970s, northernManabi languished while illegal
subsequently extrapolated from absolute looting of archaeological sites continued
chronologies developed elsewhere in western unabated(Zeidler 1982). As a result, many schol-
Ecuador (Evans and Meggers 1961; Meggers arly interpretationsof Jama-Coaqueculturehave
1966). In this scheme, three basic periods were been based largely on studies of looted museum
identified, with one internal subdivision: the pieces that "float"in the untested chronological
Formative period, subdivided into the Early frameworkof the original periodizationscheme.
Formativeperiod (3000-1500 B.C.) and the Late This situationhas fosteredconsiderableconfusion
Formativeperiod (150(}500 B.C.); the Regional and misinformation regarding temporaUspatial
Development period (500 B.C.-A.D. 500); and understanding, developmental trajectories, and
the Integrationperiod (A.D. 50(}1500) (Evans interregional interaction in northern Manabi
and Meggers 1961:149; see also Meggers (Zeidlerand Pearsall 1994).
1966:25). Thus the initial cultural sequence for Without denying the heuristic utility of the
northern Manabi was composed of a Late pan-Ecuadorianperiodizationscheme for general
Formative component, termed "Tabuchila"by purposesof synthesis,ourresultsillustrateits fun-
Estrada,followed by two long occupationscalled damental inadequacy for organizing and inter-
"Jama-CoaqueI and II," correspondingrespec- preting regional prehistories where baseline
tively to the Regional Development and archaeological research has not been imple-
Integrationperiods (Estrada1957:24, 79-11). mented. Although not the intent of its early pro-
Although essentially correct in broad outline, ponents (Evans and Meggers 1961), the scheme
this regional sequence had no absolute chronol- tends to overgeneralize time/space systematics
ogy of its own; rather,it was assumedto sharethe from better studied areas by projectingthem into
temporal placement of comparable sequences areas where they have never been adequately
from other, better studied areas of western tested throughsustainedfield research.The early
Ecuador, particularly Guayas Province to the caveats of Evans and Meggers (1961) in this
south. Confusion in the identificationof cultural regard deserve lengthy quotation and should be
manifestations was introduced in a subsequent contemplated by all current users of the peri-
publication, where Estrada's pan-Ecuadorian odization scheme:
chronological chart (1962:Cuadro No. 1) rele- The acceptance of a chronological frameworkfor the
gates Jama-Coaqueto the Regional Development coast of Ecuador, which consists of three long gen-
period and replaces the Integration-periodJama- eral periods, does not imply that it should be taken
without proof, or that culturalchange progressed at a
CoaqueII with a hypothesizedintrusiveAtacames
uniform rate over this entire area. In the same way
occupationemanatingfrom EsmeraldasProvince that radiocarbondates are approximationssubject to
to the north. No justification is provided, how- errorsof a magnitudethat at times reaches 500 years
ever, for this rather substantial turnabout in plus or minus, the transition between the Formative
Estrada'sunderstandingof northernManabipre- and the Regional Development, or between the latter
and the Integration period, could have taken place
history.This interpretationis repeatedin a subse-
earlier in one area than in another.... It is a fact that
quent influential synthesis of Ecuadorian divisions between periods are somewhat artificial,
prehistoryby Meggers (1966:Figure3), but in this but that does not diminish their utility for the organi-
case a southwardintrusionof Atacamenopeoples zation of archaeological data in chronological terms
into northernManabiis coupled with a northward [Evans and Meggers 1961:151-152; our translation].
expansion of Manteno peoples (Meggers In spite of its early use as a valuable heuristic
1966:Figure 36). Curiously, the Jama Valley device for organizinga wealth of new and rapidly

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
162 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
accumulatingarchaeologicaldata, the functional-
developmentalperiodizationscheme soon gained
general acceptance after its publication by
Meggers (1966) and has come to be applied
uncriticallyto all areasof Ecuadorin popularand
academic literaturealike.
Four problematic assumptions of the pan-
Ecuadorian scheme are notable. It assumes (1)
continuous cultural occupation, (2) directional
and cumulative change, (3) uniform chronologi-
cal placement of period breaks, and (4) uniform
or parallelsociopolitical developmentimplied by
the period nomenclature (i.e., Formative,
Regional Development, and Integrationperiods).
The establishmentof detailed cultural sequences
based on calibratedradiocarbonfindings demon-
strates the untenable nature of the first three
assumptions for specific areas such as northern
Manabi.As we shall see, the sequence is not con-
tinuous but is punctuatedby a series of hiatus
periods markedby probablevalley abandonment
and, in some cases, catastrophicchange (three
volcanic airfalls and the Spanish conquest).
Comparablehiatusperiods also have been argued
for the Santa Elena Peninsula during the
Integrationperiod(Paulsen 1970, 1976), although
in this case they were droughtinduced. Because
of these abruptphase breaks and hiatus periods,
no simple directional or cumulative change is
revealedin the archaeologicalrecord.Rather,cul-
tural change seems to follow an ebb-and-flow
patternof social complexity throughtime, at least
with respect to regional centralization(see, for
example, DeBoer 1996).
Chronological placement of the traditional
period breaks at 500 B.C. and A.D. 500 also is
problematic.The beginningdate was extrapolated
from 11 radiocarbondeterminationspertainingto
the early Bahia cultureof central Manabi (Evans
and Meggers 1961) at a time well before the
developmentof calibrationprocedures.The latter
date was based on obsidian hydrationdetermina-
tions that actually span A.D. 500 to 700 (Evans
and Meggers 1961:151; see also Meggers 1966).
While these estimatedperiod breaksstill serve as
a general guide to major transitions in coastal
Ecuadorianprehistory, they must be employed
cautiously. The 500 B.C. estimate is directly
applicable only to the coastal area of central
Manabi where the radiocarbon determinations
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 9, No. 2, 19981
originated, while the A.D. 500 estimate only
approximatesthe time of transitionfor any areaof
westernEcuador.More recentchronometricstud-
ies conductedthroughoutEcuador,such as north-
ern Manabi (discussed here), Esmeraldas
Province (e.g., DeBoer 1996; Guinea 1989;
Tolstoy and DeBoer 1989; Valdez 1987), southern
Manabi (e.g., Norton 1992; Norton et al. 1983),
the Guayas coast (e.g., Aleto 1988; Lippi 1983;
Paulsen 1970, 1976), the Guayas Basin (e.g.,
Muse 1991; Stemper1989; Zedeno 1985), and the
northernhighlands (e.g., Buys 1988; Echeverria
1981; Lumbreras1984), consistentlydemonstrate
discrepancieswith the temporalestimates of this
periodizationscheme.
Herewe presentnew chronometricinformation
that clarifies the natureof time/space systematics
and interregionalinteractionin northernManabi.
Questions regardingthe fourth assumption(uni-
form or paralleldevelopment)can then be raised
(see also LopezAguilar 1990). By implication,the
notion of sociopolitical "integration"extending
from A.D. 500 to Spanishconquest can be evalu-
ated ratherthan assumed. Throughchronological
refinement, the unique historical processes that
shaped the prehistory of the Jama River valley
can be delineatedmore precisely.
Chronology construction is one of the most
fundamentaltasks in archaeologicalresearch,yet
one thatis never finished. Whethera phase-based
chronology, a site-based chronology (Plog 1979;
Read 1979), or a continuous chronology (Braun
1985; Plog and Hantman 1986, 1990) is being
constructed,it is a cumulative process whereby
furtherrefinementsin scaling are possible as new
archaeological evidence and independently
derived dates become available. Where the latter
include radiocarbondeterminations,their conver-
sion to a calendar timescale is not straightfor-
ward.The commonly adopted"interceptmethod"
for obtaining calibratedradiocarbondates is not
always adequate;at best it provides only a tem-
poral range for a given radiocarbondetermina-
tion. The magnitudeof thatrangeis subjectto the
vagaries of the part of the calibration curve at
which the particular determinationhappens to
fall. As Bowman (1990:47) notes, "The intercept
method does not fully utilize the data:it does not
take into account the Gaussiandistributionof the
uncalibratedresult, so that all dates in the calen-
 REPORT 163

northernManabiProvince,Ecuador.
Figure1. The Jama Rivervalleystudy area,

pre-
to tistics to delineate phase boundariesfor the
dar ranges seem equally likely."As a solution for the Jama
calibration methods historicculturalsequence developed
this problem, probabilistic
the River valley on centralcoastal Ecuador.
have been advancedthat attempt"to quantify
distributionof the radiocarbon dates" (Bowman The Jama Valley Research
1990:47) and provide more precise chronological and
As a result of recent archaeological survey
informationon a calendricaltimescale. Bayesian valley of northern
of the site testing in the Jama River
statisticalmethods have proven to be one been
and robust approaches to this cali- Manabi(Figure 1), substantialprogress has
most powerful of a regional cul-
(see Buck et al. 1996). In this made toward the development
bration problem and Pearsall 1994). The
sta- turalchronology (Zeidler
paperwe explore the applicationof Bayesian

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
164 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
ultimategoals of the currentresearchare to docu-
ment the intravalley settlement dynamics and
agriculturalproductionbase of the Jama-Coaque
chiefdoms and theirFormative-periodprecursors,
and elucidate the spatial and temporalfeaturesof
political centralizationin these differentperiods.
Before such questionsof historicalprocess can be
meaningfullyaddressed,however,it is imperative
to establisha fine-grained,reliable, chronological
framework for the Jama Valley study area and
adjacent areas of northernManabi so that syn-
chronic and diachronicvariabilityare clearly dis-
tinguished in the regional archaeologicalrecord.
Seven major archaeologicalphases have thus far
been defined, spanningabout 300 to 3,600 radio-
carbonyears B.P., and theirrelationshipsare well
understood(Zeidler 1994a, 1994b). Furtherdelin-
eation of internalsubdivisionsfor these phases is
currently in progress. The nomenclature of the
seven phases is based on perceived differences in
their associated ceramic complexes (Zeidler and
Sutliff 1994). These are as follows: Piquigua,per-
taining to the Early FormativeTerminalValdivia
culture; Tabuchila, pertaining to the Late
Formative Chorrera culture; and Muchique 1
through Muchique 5, which pertain to the long
Jama-Coaquetradition. The latter encompasses
the Regional Development and Integrationperi-
ods in the traditionalperiodization scheme and
appearsto extend well into the Colonial period.
Our field investigationsin the JamaRiver val-
ley, and elsewhere in northernManabi,have con-
firmed the earlier supposition of Estrada
(1957:20, Cuadro No. 2; see also Estrada
1958:7-20) that a long Jama-Coaque tradition
spans both the Regional Development period and
the Integrationperiodin northernManabiand can
be subdivided into separate cultural entities-
Jama-CoaqueI and II, respectively (Zeidler and
Pearsall 1994). On the basis of his limited col-
lecting and subsurface testing at sites along the
coastal strip,Estrada(1957:20; translationby pre-
sent authors) states that during the Integration
period, "the Manteno culture apparentlydid not
extend to the northernzone of Manabi.Neither in
collections from Cojimies (in far northern
Manabi),nor in our excavations at Coaque,Jama
and collections from Tabuchilaand Chone have
we observedMantenotraits."In contrast,our own
researchhas demonstratedthatthe distinctivepot-
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 9, No. 2, 1998]
tery of the Mantenoculturedoes, in fact, occur at
a few localities in the Jama River valley during
the late Integrationperiod (Muchique 4). Some
Atacameno pottery is present as well. However,
the relatively small quantities of each of these
pottery varieties appear to represent intensified
regional interactionwith the Jama-CoaqueII cul-
ture rather than a complete population replace-
ment by Mantenoand/orAtacamenopeoples as is
commonly assumed in the literature(for example
Feldman and Moseley 1983; Hosler et al. 1990;
Meggers 1966; Porras 1980; Willey 1971). The
precise natureand timing of this interactionwith
neighboringpolities to the northand to the south
remaina majortopic of ongoing research,but the
level of macroregional"integration"implied by
the traditionalperiodizationscheme seems not to
have occurredin northernManabi.
Table 1 provides relative chronological infor-
mation for this archaeologicalperiodizationand
phasing scheme (Harris 1979:82, 89), which is
based on regional chronostratigraphic data, quali-
tative ceramic seriation by modal analysis, and
automatedceramic seriationby multidimensional
scaling (MDS) methods (Zeidler 1994a, 1994b;
Zeidler and Sutliff 1994). The process was initi-
ated through deep stratigraphicexcavations and
the establishmentof a "master"ceramic sequence
at the San Isidro site in the uppervalley, which is
thought to have functioned as a major regional
civic-ceremonial center throughoutmuch of the
period under investigation here (Zeidler and
Pearsall 1994). On the basis of that provisional
sequence, the subsequentarchaeologicalinvesti-
gations followed a three-stepcyclical procedure
for each successive field season of survey and site
testing (1988-1991).
(1) Site-specific stratigraphicsequences were
establishedin new partsof the JamaRiver valley
study area;(2) these site-specific sequences were
correlatedand groupedacross the valley by refer-
ence to their artifact content (primarilythrough
seriatedceramics), as well as theirrelationshipto
three tephro-stratigraphichorizon markers; and
(3) suitable samples of wood charcoal from
archaeologicalcontexts on these sites were sub-
mitted for radiocarbondating. In each loop of the
cycle, improvementwas made in chronological
understanding. These improvements took the
form of increased knowledge about the relative
 REPORT
Table 1. PrehistoricCulturalSequence of the JamaRiver Valley.
Cultural Ceramic
Component Phase
Campace? Muchique5
Jama-CoaqueII Muchique4
Jama-CoaqueII Muchique3
Jama-CoaqueII Muchique2
Jama-CoaqueI Muchique 1
Chorrera Tabuchila
Valdivia8 Piquigua(late)
Valdivia8 Piquigua(early)
chronology of sites in the study area and the
accumulation of ever-increasing numbers of
radiocarbon determinations.These radiocarbon
determinationswere not used in establishing a
relative chronology. Nevertheless, the collection
of charcoal samples ensured that calendar dates
were obtainedfor all segments of the chronologi-
cal sequence. However, withoutcalibrationof the
accumulated radiocarbon information, precise
chronological placement of the archaeological
phases on a calendar timescale has (for reasons
specified below) remainedunclear.
Tephra Deposits as Chrono-Stratigraphic
Horizon Markers
One of the most crucial bodies of data used for
establishing the relative chronology on a valley-
wide scale consisted of the distinct layers of vol-
canic ash commonly encountered in our
excavationsor observedin exposed cuts along the
banks of major waterways. Their utility as time
horizon markers cannot be overemphasized, as
they representcriticaljunctures or "stratigraphic
ruptures"(Gasche and Tunca 1983) in the Jama
River valley culturalsequence. The Jamatephras
do not exhibit the variationsin grain size andbed-
ding characteristicsthat are found in pyroclastic
deposits in close proximity to a source eruption
(see, for example, Hart and Steen-McIntyre
1983). Located some 200 km directly west of
their probablesource eruptions,the Jama tephras
are composed of fine-grained volcanic airfall
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
165
Disjuncture Period
Colonial
Spanish
conquest
Integration
Integration
Integration
TephraIII
Regional
Development
TephraII
Late Formative
hiatus
Early Formative
TephraI
Early Formative
deposits (Isaacson 1994; Zeidler and Isaacson
1997). The potential role of such deposits in
archaeological chronology building has been
cogently described by Hart and Steen-McIntyre
(1983:3>31):
An airfall layer is deposited in an instant of geologi-
cal time. It falls over the whole landscape, heedless
of topography or environment. In excavation it usu-
ally appears as a light-colored band, a "chalk-line"
against the darkersediments. If the age of the unit is
known, it forms a time horizon that is independentof
locally-derived radiometricdates .... Once a sample
of unworked ash has been identified . . ., an age . . .
can be confidently assigned to artifactsdirectly asso-
ciated with it in the sediments. When the tephra has
been identified in two or more sites, be they meters or
hundreds of kilometers apart, then intersite correla-
tion becomes possible and, for artifacts directly
above or below the ash, at a date that can rival the
best radiometricdates for accuracy and precision.
Beyond their utility as "markerdates" (Baillie
1991), however, lies the issue of their differential
effect on the valley populations existing at the
time of the threeeruptions,and the specific behav-
ioral response or adjustment to these effects
(Burton et al. 1978). As we shall see, it is these
effects and the ensuing humanresponsethatinflu-
ence the continuity or discontinuity of cultural
occupation,ratherthan the volcanic event per se
(Isaacson 1987, 1994; Zeidlerand Isaacson 1997).
The Radiocarbon Data
Thirty-sevenradiocarbondeterminationsare cur-
rently available.lAll but one of these derive from
 166
LATINAMERICANANTlQUITY [Vol. 9, No. 2, 1998]

archaeologicalresearchin the Jama River valley. the aberrantresults and the high sigma values
Sample HO-1307, processed by the Humble Oil obtained (2 300 years). The two assays in ques-
Company,was recoveredby Ecuadorianarchaeol- tion are listed in Table 2 in uncalibrated
chrono-
ogist Emilio Estrada(1962) at the Veliz site in the logical orderratherthanby stratigraphic
context.
lower Chone River drainage (Figure 1). It is Conversion of these radiocarbonresults to a
included here as it is the only previous radiocar- calendartimescale can be accomplishedusing
the
bon determinationfor northernManabi and pro- internationallyrecognized high-precision
calibra-
vided corroboratingevidence for the datingof the tion curve (Pearsonand Stuiver 1986;
Pearsonet
Late FormativeTabuchilaphase. The remaining al. 1986; Stuiver and Pearson 1986).
However,
36 determinationsderive from 16 archaeological undertakingthis calibrationand
interpretingthe
sites in the JamaValley, althoughthey are appor- results are less than straightforwardtasks
since
tioned somewhat unevenly among the seven "thecalibrationcurves are nonlinearand
not even
phases. Key sites having long stratigraphic monotonic"(Naylor and Smith 1988:588).
While
sequences and multiple radiocarbondetermina- uncalibrated radiocarbon determinations
have
tions are present in both the upper and lower Gaussianor normaldistributions,this is
no longer
reachesof the valley (Figure 1). For the upperval- the case when these are transformedto
the calen-
ley they include the regionalcentersof San Isidro, dar scale (Bowman 1990; Dehling
and van der
Capaperro,and Pechichal. For the lower valley, Plicht 1993). This problem is especially
vexing
they include La Mina, El Tape,La Ladrillera,and when archaeologicalinterestcenters
on groupsof
Don Juan.In selecting charcoalsamplesfor radio- associateddates and, in particular,on
questionsof
carbonanalysis, high prioritywas placed on sam- "phasing,"i.e., estimatingthe beginning
and end-
ples from tightly controlledstratigraphiccontexts, ing dates for a series of
archaeological phases
preferably from discrete archaeological features (Buck et al. 1991; Buck et al. 1992;
Buck et al.
such as pits, hearths,burials,and the like. Where 1996; Litton and Leese 199; Naylor
and Smith
specimens of this type were not available, care 1988). As Buck et al. (1991:812-813) note,
"The
was takento ensurethatthe samples at least came statisticallikelihood function for
such a problem
from a secure stratigraphiccontext. is usually irregularandmultimodal,"and the stan-
Table2 providesthe laboratoryreferencenum- dardcomputationalroutinesused
to calculate the
ber for the 37 samples, theirradiocarbondetermi- estimates cannot distinguish
between many dif-
nation, and their associated site number and ferent alternative"highly likely"
parameterval-
name, provenience, valley location (upper or ues. In such cases, clear
archaeological model
lower), and phase assignment.Only two of these building coupled with a
Bayesian statistical
determinations (PITT-870/871 and PITT-890), approachcan provide an effective solution
to the
both from the Capaperrosite in the upper Jama problemof archaeological
phasing on a calendar
Valley, were deemed aberrant,in that they post- timescale. Figure 2 shows the
Jama River valley
dated their respective stratigraphiccontexts and radiocarbondeterminations
alongside the appro-
associated cultural materials by a considerable priate section of the high-precision
calibration
margin.The PITT-870/871 specimenpertainsto a curve.
Valdivia 8 (Piquigua phase) burial context
(Feature 2), thus the determinationof 2125 + Bayesian Statistics and Archaeological Phasing
300 B.P. is probablysome 1,700 calendricalyears Mostarchaeologists,when
approachingthe inter-
too late. The PITT-890 specimen pertains to a pretationof a new data set,
seek to make use of a
reworkedtephra layer (Deposit 7) that overlies widerange of a priori
information.In the case of
the burial context, but is still clearly within the theJamaRiver valley
radiocarbondatingproject,
Valdivia8 component.In this case the determina- thisprior information
took the form of personal
tionof 1170 + 340 B.P. probablypostdates this field experiences,
experiences of colleagues
context by some 2,800 calendrical years. Both workingin the region, and
the writtenreportsof a
charcoalspecimens were small in size and com- rangeof experts in Ecuadorianarchaeology.To
priseddispersedflecks of charcoal.The natureof makebest use of the radiocarbondata from the
thespecimens undoubtedly was responsible for project,the a priori relative chronological infor-

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 .

Table 2. RadiocarbonDeterminationsfrom the JamaRiver Valley Shown with TheirAssociated ContextualIn

Site Name Site No. Provenience Valley Component Ceramic Lab No.
San Isidro M3D2-001 XII/C11, Dep 31 Middle Valdivia8 Piquigua ISGS-1221
San Isidro M3D2-001 XII/C11, Dep 32 Middle Valdivia8 Piquigua ISGS-1222
San Isidro M3D2-001 XII/C11, F 15 pit Middle Valdivia8 Piquigua ISGS-1223
San Isidro M3D2-001 XX/B 1, Dep 12 Middle Valdivia8 Piquigua PITT-426
San Isidro M3D2-001 XII/C11, Dep 29 Middle Valdivia8 Piquigua ISGS-1220
La Mina M3B3-001 F7 pit Lower Chorrera Tabuchila ISGS-2366
San Isidro M3D2-001 XXXI/A1, F22 pit Middle Chorrera Tabuchila AA-4140
Veliz none Cut B, 40-60 cm Chone R. Chorrera Tabuchila HO-1307
Mocoral M3B4-031 TP2, Dep 10/11 Middle Chorrera Tabuchila ISGS-2377
Don Juan M3B2-001 F7, Burial l Lower Jama-CoaqueI Muchique 1 PITT-1128
La Cabuya M3B3-009 F1 pit Lower Jama-CoaqueI Muchique 1 PITT-1125
Capaperro M3D2-065 F2, Burial l Middle Jama-CoaqueI Muchique 1 PITT-870/8
(unnamed) M3B4-037 F1 pit Lower Jama-CoaqueI Muchique 1 ISGS-2372
Don Juan M3B2-001 F20 pit Lower Jama-CoaqueI Muchique 1 ISGS-2376
Don Juan M3B2-001 TP1, F2 pit Lower Jama-CoaqueI Muchique 1 AA-4138
(unnamed) M3B4-043 F22 midden Lower Jama-CoaqueI MuchiqueI ISGS-2373
E1Tape M3B3-002 F4 floor Lower Jama-CoaqueII Muchique2 ISGS-2367
La Ladrillera M3B3-029 F9 pit Lower Jama-CoaqueII Muchique2 ISGS-2370
Jama M3B3-003 F4 pit Lower Jama-CoaqueII Muchique2 ISGS-2368
La Ladrillera M3B3-029 F5 oven Lower Jama-CoaqueII Muchique2 ISGS-2371
Pechichal M3B4-011 F5-s pit Middle Jama-CoaqueII Muchique2 PITT-710
Pechichal M3B4-011 F5-r pit Middle Jama-CoaqueII Muchique 2 PITT-709
E1Tape M3B3-002 60-80 cm (Dep 3) Lower Jama-CoaqueII Muchique2 PITT-410
Pechichal M3B4-011 F6 pit Middle Jama-CoaqueII Muchique2 PITT-708
Capaperro M3D2-065 F4 floor Middle Jama-CoaqueII Muchique 3 PITT-869
Capaperro M3D2-065 Dep 7 Middle Jama-CoaqueII Muchique 3 PITT-890c
La Mina M3B3-001 TP1, Dep 4 Lower Jama-CoaqueII Muchique3 PITT-417
La Mina M3B3-001 TP1, F5 oven Lower Jama-CoaqueII Muchique 3 AA-4137
E1Tape M3B3-002 TP1, F2 hearth Lower Jama-CoaqueII Muchique 3 AA-4136
Don Juan M3B2-001 Dep 2/3, Elem. 11 Lower Jama-CoaqueII Muchique 3 PITT-1127
Pablo Munoz M3B4-022 F1 pit Middle Jama-CoaqueII Muchique 3 PITT-711
Don Juan M3B2-001 Dep 3 Lower Jama-CoaqueII Muchique 3 PITT-1126
Pasaborracho M3B3-045 cut-bankprofile Lower Jama-CoaqueII Muchique 3 ISGS-2375
E1Acropohs M3B3-012 TP1, 40-60 cm (Dep 3) Lower Jama-CoaqueII Muchique 3 PITT-1129
Moncayo M3B4-001 F1 pit Middle Jama-CoaqueII Muchique4 PITT-707
La Mina M3B3-001 TP1, Dep 3 Lower Jama-CoaqueII Muchique4 PITT-415
La Mina M3B3-001 TP1, Elem. 1 Lower Campace? Muchique S PITT-414
aISGS= Illinois StateGeological SurveyIsotope GeochemistryLaboratory;PITr = Universityof PittsburghRadiocarbonLaboratory;HO = H
of ArizonaAcceleratorMass SpectrometryFacility.
bThesephase numbersare employed only for purposesof statisticalnotationin our Bayesian analysis and are not intendedas permanentpha
for the JamaValley culturalsequence.All referencesto the latterare made using the correspondingceramic phase nomenclature.
cTheseradiocarbondeterminationsarejudged to be aberrantbased on stratigraphiccontext and associated ceramic material.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 9, No. 2, 19981
168

m 3000- ° 9
= 8 \
o \
._ I

ct O <

a, 2000
.; A
c0 # X
wc #l 9
o 1 000- -t

X + W
x >

l l l l
4000 3000 2000 1000
Calibrateddate BP
Figure 2. The radiocarbon determinations from the Jama River valley shown beside the appropriate portion of the
high-precision calibration curve. C]= Phase I, O = Phase II, * = Phase III, # = Phase IV, * = Phase V, + = Phase VI, and
x = Phase VII.

mation had to be synthesized.A coherentframe-
work was needed so that the relative and absolute
dating evidence could be brought together and
chronologicalinferences made.
The Bayesian approachto statistics offers just
such a frameworkin which we can make explicit
statements about prior beliefs, collect data, and
combine the two in a logical mannerto arrive at
posteriorbeliefs. To make use of this framework,
the problem at hand must be formalized to
develop a statistical model that represents our
understandingof the processes that created the
data.Such models have been developed for radio-
carbondatingand areexplainedin a range of pub-
lications including Naylor and Smith (1988),
Littonand Leese (1991), Buck et al. (1991), Buck
et al. (1992), and Buck et al. (1996).
In essence, relationshipsbetween data (repre-
sented by x) and what we wish to learn about
(called parameters and represented by 0) are
posited. Bayesian statisticiansthen use probabili-
ties to make statementsabout these relationships
that reflect the uncertainty in our knowledge
about the parameters,both a priori and a posteri-
ori. Using a standardtheorem (known as Bayes'
theorem), we can then combine these different
kinds of information(priorbeliefs andthe data)to
arrive at posterior probability statements from
which inferences can be made.
Briefly, the Bayesian approach to statistics
requiresthatthe user be able to supply (usually in
collaboration with a statistician) the following
three components:
(1) The likelihood a mathematicalfunction,
representedby statisticiansas p(x I 0 ). This is a
statement about the probability we attach to
obtainingspecific data values given specific val-
ues of the unknownparameters.
(2) The prior also a function, representedby
statisticiansas p(0). This is a statementabout the
probabilitywe attachto obtainingspecific values
of the unknownparameterspriorto obtainingthe
data.
(3) The posterior this is what we wish to
obtain and is represented by statisticians as
p(0 Ix). This is a statementabout the strengthof

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPORT
belief in specific values of the unknownparame-
ters after obtainingthe data.
With the likelihood, prior,and data defined in
this way, the key to all Bayesian statisticalinves-
tigations is Bayes' theorem, which can be
expressed as
p(0lX)p(Xi 0)xp(0)
where the symbol Ocmeans "proportionalto."
Thus the posteriorcan be obtainedby multiplying
the likelihood by the prior and then normalizing
so that the probabilitiesadd up to one.
To adopt a Bayesian approachfor interpreting
the Jama River valley radiocarbon determina-
tions, we first explicitly statethe natureof the rel-
ative a priori chronological information that is
available.In consideringthe details of the a priori
evidence, recall that the radiocarbondetermina-
tions were obtainedfor this study in the hope of
estimating the calendar dates for the beginning
and ending of each of the archaeologically
defined phases, and not simply for dating the
samples themselves. For convenience here we
label the phases I throughVII so that Piquiguais
phase I, Tabuchila is phase II and so on until
MuchiqueS is phase VII. If we are to gain infor-
mation about the beginning and ending dates of
each phase, then we assume that each phase is
bounded by two events (the startand the finish).
We label each of these events so that the startof
phase I is Event 1, the end of phase I is Event 2,
and so on so thatthe startof phase VII is Event 13
and the end of phase VII is Event 14. Thus, seven
phases are defined by 14 events where each event
is the startor finish of a particularphase. The cal-
endar dates for the events of interest are labeled
tI for Event 1, t2 for Event 2, and so on so that
the calendardate associatedwith Event 14 is t14.
These labels representthe items about which we
wish to obtain chronological information using
the radiocarbondeterminations.
In addition to the radiocarbondeterminations
relatingto the seven archaeologicalphases, a con-
siderable amount of stratigraphicand artifactual
informationpertainsto the relationshipsbetween
the 14 events under discussion. Detailed treat-
ment of this archaeologicalinformationis beyond
the scope of the present paper. The 13 samples
collected before and duringthe 1988 season have
alreadybeen discussed togetherwith a contextual
evaluationof the radiocarbonsamples themselves
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
169
(Zeidler 1994a, 1994b; Zeidler and Sutliff 1994).
Pertinentcontextualinformationon the remaining
samples from the 1989-1991 seasons will be pro-
vided in a separatepublication.
In the earlierpartof the time spanunderinves-
tigation, the stratigraphicand artifactualevidence
indicatesthatthe phases were sequential(Table 1)
and represent three distinct cultural manifesta-
tions having markedly different ceramic com-
plexes. Culturaloccupation of the valley began
with a colonizationby Valdiviapeoples in the ter-
minal phase (Valdivia 8) of that coastal
Ecuadoriansequence (phase I herein). Valdivia 8
ceramics have been described in earlier research
in Guayas and southernManabi Provinces to the
south (Hill 1972-1974; Lathrap et al. 1975;
Meggers et al. 1965) and provide strongdiagnos-
tic markers for this temporal affiliation. In the
Jama River valley, this occupation has been
termed the Piquiguaphase (Zeidler 1988, 1992),
and its associated ceramic complex is well
defined (Jadan 1986; Zeidler and Sutliff 1994).
As Table 1 indicates, this relatively short-lived
phase is itself separatedinto early and late sub-
phases by volcanic airfall deposits that represent
the first of three such volcanic events in the val-
ley sequence. The Valdivians seem to have sur-
vived the immediate negative effects of the
volcanic airfall,as Valdivia8 occupationsurfaces
occur immediatelyon top of the volcanic ash lay-
ers at San Isidro.
Phase I (Piquigua)activity ceased well before
phase II (Tabuchila)started(Table 1). The break
in occupationis markedby a long temporalhiatus
and distinct stratigraphicdisjunctureat the San
Isidro site (Zeidler 1994a:Table5.1), as well as
othersites in the uppervalley. This gap also man-
ifests itself in an abruptchange in the nature of
the ceramic complexes above and below the cul-
turally sterile deposits (Zeidler and Sutliff 1994).
Late Formative Chorreraceramics are qualita-
tively distinct from, and considerablymore com-
plex than, those of the Early FormativeValdivia
tradition.Temporallyspeaking, they are usually
separatedfrom one anotherby a spanof up to 500
years making up the Middle Formative period
(Lathrapet al. 1975). In the coastal regions of
Guayas and southern Manabi, the Middle
Formativeperiod is representedby the Machalilla
culture (Bischof 1975; Feldman and Moseley
 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
170
1983; Lathrapet al. 1975; Lippi 1983;
Meggers
1966; Norton 1992; Paulsenand McDougle
1981;
Porras 1983; Willey 1971). Curiously, no
diag-
nostic Machalillapottery has been found in
con-
trolled archaeological excavations nor
in
systematicregional survey in the JamaRiver val-
ley, and peoples of thatcultureappearnot to
have
extendedtheir range into northernManabi.
At the end of phase II (Tabuchila),the break
in
activity before phase III (Muchique 1) is marked
by a second major volcanic airfall and
another
abrupt change in the ceramic complex
(Zeidler
and Sutliff 1994). The temporal span of
this
stratigraphichiatus at San Isidro is unclear, but
datafrom other sites in the valley suggest that
the
phase breakwas probablyof relatively short
dura-
tion. In any case, it is very likely thatthe
volcanic
airfall was largely responsible for the demise
of
the Late Formative Tabuchila phase
(Isaacson
1994; Zeidler and Isaacson 1997). The
succeed-
ingMuchique 1 phase representsa complete
pop-
ulationreplacementby the Jama-Coaquecultural
tradition(Table 1), even though a few Chorrera
ceramictraitspersisted(Zeidlerand Sutliff 1994).
Since the chrono-stratigraphic evidence for the
Jama-Coaquetradition indicates a duration of
overtwo millennia, it was importantto
subdivide
itinto discreteoccupationalphases.
Ceramicseri-
ation,based on the combined results of
modal
analysisand multidimensional scaling methods
(MDS),was essential in making the initial dis-
tinctionson which the five-phase Muchique
ceramiccomplex is based (Zeidler and Sutliff
1994).Seriationresearchis still in progressin
an
effortto refine the present sequence into
sub-
phases of shorterinterval.
The beginning of phase III (Muchique 1)
marks the onset of the Regional Development
period in the Jama River valley sequence (Table
1)and ushers in a new and elaborate
ceramic
complex. The end of phase III (Muchique 1) is
associated with a thirdmajorvolcanic airfall,but
this
time, the ceramic changes in the succeeding
phase (Muchique 2) were much more gradual,
withthe maintenance of the same basic Jama-
Coaque
tradition(Table 1). A numberof attributes
ofvesselform and decorative style indicate
con-
tinuity
with slight modificationsacross the phase
transition
while other ceramic traits typical of
Muchique 1 completely disappearedin Muchique
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 9, No. 2, 1998]
2 (Zeidler and Sutliff 1994). In spite of the
conti-
nuity in overall cultural tradition, however,
the
stratigraphicdiscontinuity of the volcanic event
presents a plausible reason for a phase brealcat
this point in the sequence. Subsequentto
phase
III, the transitionsbetween phases overlap
some-
what. The archaeological evidence for
change
from phase IV (Muchique 2) to phase
V
(Muchique 3) is less abruptthan those that pre-
cede it, being marked by no hiatus in
activity,
only a gradual but discernible change in
the
ceramic tradition A similartransitionis observed
between phases V and VI (Muchique4) (Zeidler
and Sutliff 1994).
The breakbetween phase VI (Muchique4) and
phase VII (Muchique 5) is poorly represented
in
the archaeologicalrecord but correspondsto
the
arrival of the Spanish in coastal Manabi.
We
knowthat these two phases abutat this point,
and
thebreakis signaledby a notable
impoverishment
of ceramic arts and a probabledrastic
decline in
populationdue to introduced epidemic disease.
Althoughthe sample of ceramicsthatdefines this
terminalphase (Muchique 5) is quite small, it
nonetheless demonstrates certain continuities
withthe precedingphase and is clearly partof
the
Jama-Coaque tradition. It probably corresponds
tothe ethnic unit known in the
postconquesteth-
nohistoricliteratureas the Campaces (Table 1),
whoinhabited the coastal hill country
between
CaboSan Francisco in southernEsmeraldas
and
Cabo Pasadojust south of the Jama River valley
in
northernManabf(CabelloBalboa 1945 [1583];
Carranza 1897 [1569]; see also Alcina Franch
1979; Alcina Franchand de la Pena 1979).
In summary,then, we have extremely
detailed
archaeological information that relates the 14
eventswe wish to date.This informationis graph-
ically
representedin Figure3 and in mathematical
formin the next section.
Mathematical Statement of the
APrioriKnowledge
In
thissection we explain how the
archaeological
information, based on stratigraphicand ceramic
evidence,is explicitly representedusing mathe-
maticalnotation. Following the basic notation
introducedin the previous section, let t2,-1 and t2,
denote
the beginning and ending dates (measured
B.P.)
of phase j, respectively (1= I, II,...,VII).

| Piquigua | t Tabuchila | } Muchique 1 1
1 2 3 4
Figure3. Schematicrepresentationof the archaeologicalphase informationfrom the Jama River valley. Piquiguais
the oldest phaseand Muchique5 the latest.
There is sound archaeologicalevidence suggest-
ing thatphase I precedesphase II, which precedes
phase III, which in turnprecedes phase IV. As all
the calendardates are measuredB.P., this implies
that
tl, t2> = t3> t4> = t5> t6> = t7> t8(1)
Furthermorephases IV, V, and VI are such that
phase IV begins before phase V, which begins
before phase VI. Moreover, there is strong evi-
dence that phase IV ends before phase V and that
phase V ends before phase VI. This is modeled as
t7>t9>tll,andts>tl0>tX2 (2)
In addition, phase VII abuts phase VI. Thus we
have
t12 = t13 (3)
Also we have forj = I, II,...,VII
t2j-1 > t2j (4)
since the beginning of phasej is always before its
end.
Bayesian Approach to Calibrating
Radiocarbon Determinations
The statistical problem here is to estimate the
beginning and ending dates of the phases (the
tj S) on the calendar scale using both the prior
archaeologicalinformationaboutthe tj S and the
radiocarbon determinations. We follow the
Bayesian methodology as applied to radiocarbon
dating in Buck et al. (1991) and Buck et al.
(1992). The details of the approachused in this
particular study are given in Buck et al.
(1996:201-252), where the reader also will find
explanations of the Bayesian paradigm and its
applicationto a rangeof archaeologicalproblems.
Further examples of this methodology can be
found in Buck and Litton (1995), Buck et al.
(1994), Christen (1994a, 1994b), and Christen
and Litton (1995).
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REPORT
171
| Muchique 2 1
5 6 7 8
| Muchique 3 |
f9 10
t Muchique4 { Muchique S |
1 1 12 14
try
T 13
Here it is sufficient to note that the analysis
requires mathematical models that relate the
radiocarbondata(x + cr) to the calendardates of
the samples in question (0) and, in turn, relate
these to the calendar dates of the phase bound-
aries of interest(t). This can be summarizedas
p(0,tlx,¢2)p(X1 0, 2)p(01t)p(t).
If recently developed computer techniques
(explained in detail in Buck et al. [1996]) are
employed, these posterior probability distribu-
tions can be computedand the resultsfor the para-
meters of interestcan be summarizedas follows.2
Results
The results obtainedfrom a Bayesian analysis are
usually referred to as "posterior distributions."
Plots of such distnbutions,in which we represent
informationfor each of the related events inde-
pendently, are known as "marginalplots"; his-
togram-likeversions of these are shown in Figure
4. All of these distributionsare unimodal,but they
also are generally skewed and so cannot be ade-
quately summarizedin terms of means and stan-
dard deviations.A better summarymechanismis
to reportintervalsthat,for a given probability,are
as short as possible and containparametervalues
that are more likely (on the bases of the current
data and priorinformation)than those outside the
interval. Such intervals are known as "highest
posteriordensity" (HPD) regions and are always
reportedfor a specific probability.In Table 3 we
reportthe 95 percent HPD regions together with
the modal (most likely) values. Note that because
Event 12 and Event 13 are modeled as having the
same calibrated date, their associated marginal
plot, 95 percent highest posteriordensity region,
and modal values are identical.
In additionto the marginalposteriorprobabil-
 L F2

LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY lVol. 9, No. 2, 19981

172

, I

l - l

I __ f

l - b - vs l

I _S W61

[ _@ YX7 1

1f8 _ l

| sv9 _i i

f1o s l

u _ l

I\UI2

fl3 _ |

S814 F;

400() 3()()0 2()()() 1()()0

Calibrated date BP

Figure 4. Marginal posterior density plots for calendar dates of the 14 phase boundary events based on both archae-
ological and radiocarbon information.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPORT 173

Table 3. The 95% Highest PosteriorDensity (HPD) Regions all of the histogramsdepicted in Figure 4 span at
and Modal Values for the Distributionsof CalendarDates least two centuries,and some of them as many as
Shown in Figure 4. seven centuries. For this reason, it is important
Ceramic Phase Event 95% HPD Modal
thatthe modal values be interpretedin light of the
Phase No. No. Region B.P. Date B.P. span and the form of their corresponding95 per-
1 4270 to 3830 3980
cent highest posteriordensity regions. With these
Piquigua I uncertainties in mind, the modal values can
2 3950 to 3490 3830 nonethelessserve as a basis from which to discuss
3 3680 to 2970 3250 the absolute chronology for the prehistoricoccu-
Tabuchila II pationof the JamaRiver valley. Table4 shows the
4 3000 to 2240 2700
5 2570 to 2050 2190
modal calendar dates for each phase boundary
Muchique 1 III (within their 95 percent HPD regions) alongside
6 2000 to 1600 1860 the archaeological phase information to which
7 1720 to 1400 1530 they relate.
Muchique2 IV On the basis of the modal estimates, the Early
8 1250to960 1160
9 1310 to 980 1070
Formative Piquigua phase (Valdivia 8) extends
Muchique 3 V from 2030 to 1880 cal B.C., an estimatedspan of
10 770 to 520 690 about 150 years. During that time, the first vol-
11 1000 to 550 660 canic airfall (TephraI) blanketedthe valley, seg-
Muchique4 VI regating the Piquigua occupation into early and
12 590 to 330 520
13 590to330 520
late subphases. As mentioned earlier the
Muchique5 VII Valdivians seem to have survived the negative
14 410 to 40 310 effects of the volcanic event, at least for a short
Note: All values are to the nearest 10 years. time, as there is clear stratigraphicevidence at
San Isidro for late Piquigua occupation surfaces
and mound-building activity subsequent to the
ity distributions,we also can provide information volcanic airfall. The modal date for the apparent
about the phase relationships.For phases IV, V, Valdivianabandonmentof the Jama River valley
and VI (Muchique2, 3, and 4), the archaeological is about 1900 cal B.C. They apparentlyleft the
model indicates that there is some overlap of the valley for reasons unrelatedto the TephraI vol-
phases, but does not specify the nature of that canic episode, and their ultimate fate is poorly
overlap. On the basis of the archaeological and understood.In other areas of coastal Ecuadorfar-
radiocarboninformation,there is a probabilityof ther south, a smooth transitionbetween Terminal
about .6 thatphase IV completely precedes phase Valdivia and the succeeding Machalilla culture
V. In addition, it is almost certain that phase IV has been found (Marcos 1989; Staller
completely precedes phase VI; the probability 1992-1993). No archaeologicalevidence for such
that phase V precedes phase VI is just under .5. a transitionor for a succeeding Machalilla occu-
We also can compute the probabilitythat two pation has been noted in the JamaRiver valley.
phases overlap, but that one phase both begins After an occupational hiatus of roughly 600
and ends before the other. For phases IV and V years, the modal date for the start of the Late
this probabilityis about .4, about zero for phases FormativeTabuchilaphase (Chorrera)in the Jama
IV and VI, and just over .5 for phases V and VI. River valley is 1300 cal B.C., andit extends about
Thus, on the basis of the radiocarbonand archae- 550 years to a modal end date of 750 cal B.C. The
ological evidence, we are not able to deduce end of this phase is markedstratigraphicallyby a
whether phases IV and V and phases V and VI second volcanic airfall (TephraII) that has been
overlapped or abutted. We are, however, fairly correlated throughout the valley by chemical
confident that phase IV completely precedes characterizationanalysis (Isaacson 1994; Zeidler
phase VI. and Isaacson 1997). Tabuchila-phase activity
While the modal values are clearly the most apparently continued up until this event. Thus
likely dates at which each of the events occurred, Tephra II serves as a convenient tez7ninus ante

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 9, No. 2, 1998]

Table4. The 95% Highest PosteriorDensity Regions (and Modal Values) for Each Phase
Boundary,Shown with the ArchaeologicalPhase Informationto Which They Relate.

Cultural Ceramic 95% HPD Region (and

Component Phase Disjuncture Modal Values) cal B.C./A.D.
A.D. 1540 (1640) 1910
Campace? Muchique5
A.D. 1360 (1430) 1620
Spanish conquest
A.D. 1360 (1430) 1620
Jama-CoaqueII Muchique4
A.D. 950 (1290) 1400
A.D. 1180 (1260) 1430
Jama-CoaqueII Muchique 3
A.D. 640 (880) 970
A.D. 700 (790) 990
Jama-CoaqueII Muchique2
A.D. 230 (420) 550
TephraIII (hiatus)
50 B.C. (90) A.D. 350
Jama-CoaqueI Muchique 1
620 (240) 100 B.C.
TephraII (hiatus)
1050 (750) 290 B.C.

Chorrera Tabuchila
1730 (1300) 1020 B.C.
hiatus
2000 (1880) 1540 B.C.
Valdivia8 Piquigua(late)
TephraI
Valdivia8 Piquigua(early)
2320 (2030) 1880 B.C.

quem for the preceding Tabuchilaphase in the
Jama River valley and marks the beginning of a
majordiscontinuityin the culturalsequence. The
volcanic airfall provides a plausible explanation
for the demise of the Chorrerapeoples in northern
Manabi and the short hiatus period of valley
abandonmentthat succeeds them.
Following the TephraII event, the Regional
Development Muchique 1 phase appearedin the
valley and represents a complete population
replacement and new ceramic tradition. The
modal date for the start of this phase is 240 cal
B.C., and it extends some 330 years, with a modal
end date of 90 cal A.D. The modal beginningdate
for Jama-CoaqueI in northernManabi is some-
what later than the estimated date usually given
for the beginning of the Regional Development
period. According to the traditionalEcuadorian
scheme (Meggers 1966), thatperiod begins at ca.
500 B.C. in other areas of coastal Ecuador, an
estimatethat still falls within the 95 percentHPD
region of our date. On stratigraphicgrounds,this
phase may be longer (by about200 years), but no
radiocarbondeterminationsexist from the more
recent stratigraphiclayers. Thus, the estimated
ending date and total occupation span should be
regardedas provisionalat this time.
Priorto the beginning of Muchiquephase 2, a
third volcanic airfall (TephraIII) blanketed the
valley. Our modal date for the startof Muchique
2 is 420 cal A.D., and, based on stratigraphicevi-
dence, TephraIII is thought to date immediately
prior to that time. In the traditionalEcuadorian
periodization scheme, the break between the
Regional Development and Integrationperiods is
roughly placed at 500 A.D. This estimate falls
within the 95 percentHPD region of our estimate
for this break, although no macroregional"inte-
gration" should be assumed for the succeeding
phases in the Jama Valley. Muchique 2 extends

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPORT
until a modal date of 790 cal. A.D., with an esti-
mated occupationspan of some 370 years.
The modal beginning date for Muchiquephase
3 is 880 cal A.D., some 90 years after the esti-
mated ending date for Muchique 2. However, no
occupationalhiatus can be inferred in this case,
since the corresponding histograms (Figure 4)
exhibit considerable overlap. Muchique 3 spans
an estimated380 years, until a modal end date of
1260 cal A.D.
Muchique phase 4 has modal beginning and
ending dates of 1290 and 1430 cal A.D. respec-
tively, with an estimatedoccupationperiodof 140
years. This phase is believed to have extended up
to the Spanish conquest at A.D. 1532. However,
our absolute chronologicalinformationis limited
due to the paucity of radiocarbondeterminations
for the later part of the occupation (i.e., that
immediatelyprecedingthe conquest).
Finally, since it is thought to abut the preced-
ing phase at the time of Spanish conquest, the
poorly understoodMuchiquephase 5 is assigned
a modal beginning date of 1430 cal A.D. Its
modal ending date is 1640 cal A.D., spanning
some 210 years. As is the case with the previous
phase, this informationshould be seen as provi-
sional and likely to change in the light of any
additionalradiocarbonevidence that arises from
Muchiquephase 5.
Althoughit is quitereasonableto base archaeo-
logical interpretationof the Jama River valley
radiocarbonresultson the informationprovidedin
Figure4 andTables3 and4, it shouldbe notedthat
the sensitivity of the interpretationto changes in
the data or modeling informationcan be further
exploredthroughsensitivity(or robustness)analy-
sis based on the radiocarbonevidence alone (see
Buck et al. 1996). This involves relaxing some of
the assumptionsderivedfrom priorarchaeological
informationandthenrecalculatingthe probabilities
of certain phase relationships. We conducted
extensive sensitivity analyses of the modeling
assumptions made in this study, all of which
demonstratedthat the results presented here are
statisticallyrobust.The only issue highlightedby
the sensitivityinvestigationrelates to the fact that
thereis only one radiocarbondeterminationavail-
able for Muchique5; if we wish to increaseconfi-
dence in the chronology of this part of the
sequence,furtherdeterminationsmustbe obtained.
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
175
Conclusion
In this paper we have advocated the use of a
Bayesian statistical approach to probabilistic
radiocarbon calibration of determinationsfrom
archaeological contexts on 16 sites in the Jama
River valley. Our specific purpose has been to
provide calendricalchronologicalinformationfor
the seven archaeologically defined phases. In
using the Bayesian framework to achieve this
aim, we have been able to combine information
from both archaeologicaland radiocarbonsources
thathas provedmost useful. We have been able to
provide 95 percent highest posterior density
regions and modal values for the dates of each of
the phase boundaries and have calculated the
probability of specific phase relationships that
were left unspecified by the archaeologicalinfor-
mation alone.
The probabilisticapproachto radiocarboncal-
ibrationis preferableto the traditionalapproach
whereby a date in radiocarbonyears and its asso-
ciated standarderrorare simply assumed to be a
good representationof the calendar date of the
deathof the object in question.It also is more pre-
cise than the commonly used practice of conver-
sion to the calendar scale using the "intercept
method."The approachadvocatedhere is prefer-
able as it provides estimates of calendardates for
the events in questionon the basis of well-defined
models. Apartfrom its specific applicabilityto the
calibration and phasing problem, the Bayesian
approachto chronology constructionalso confers
anotheradvantage.Bayesian statisticalinference
is, by nature,a cumulative procedure.Thus it is
"closely geared to the research process itself"
(Iversen 1984:76), in the sense that accumulating
data from ongoing research can be continually
accommodatedin furtherrefinementsof the orig-
inal statisticalmodel. As such, it is suited to the
long-termarchaeologicaltask of chronologycon-
struction that itself should be driven by other
research questions. Smith (1992:29) has argued
this point in the following terms:
Chronology-building and chronological refinement
should proceed in a dialectical fashion with other
research activities.... As new research goals and
issues arise out of the results of fieldwork, analysis,
interpretation,or theory-building, finer chronologies
may or may not be needed.... If the existing
sequence is not adequate, it can be amended,
176 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
extended, or even replaced by a more sensitive peri-
odization. For this reason, archaeological chronolo-
gies should not be viewed as final and unchanging,
but ratheras working constructs whose modification
or abandonment will probably be needed periodi-
cally.
The calendardates resultingfrom the Bayesian
analysis of the Jama River valley radiocarbon
determinationsprovide a regionally specific cul-
tural sequence that is firmly groundedin detailed
priorknowledge.As such it can be profitablycon-
trastedwith the generalized absolute chronology
established for the pan-Ecuadorianperiodization
scheme as a means of highlighting the parallels
and the discrepanciesbetween the two. In terms
of the level of chronological precision currently
employed (or at least sought after) by most
archaeologistsworkingin Ecuador,the traditional
periodizationscheme is graduallylosing its utility
as "a device for organizinga vast amountof data
in an orderly manner...." (Meggers 1966:26).
At this juncture, it may be wise to take a fresh
look at different regional archaeological
sequences throughoutthe country,as carriedout
recentlyin Colombia(Botiva et al. 1989), without
concernfor retainingan ill-fittingpan-Ecuadorian
chronological scheme having "functional-devel-
opmental"overtones. For purposes of synthesis,
then, these regional sequencescould be regrouped
into a meaningful series of macroregionswhose
prehistoric sequences share basic similarities of
environment, physiography, subsistence prac-
tices, ceramic design and manufacturingtech-
niques, and external influences. Period
nomenclaturefor these macroregionscould then
follow a neutral terminological system with no
uniform temporalbreaks and no single develop-
mental trajectory imposed across the national
landscape. The establishmentof such a chrono-
logical scheme lies well beyond the scope of the
present study. Here we have illustrated how
detailed stratigraphicand chronometricstudy in
one coastal river valley accentuatesthe need for
such a scheme.
Acknowledgments.Zeidler's archaeological research in the
Jama River valley has been supportedby the Archaeological
Museum of the Banco Central del Ecuador (Quito), the
Fulbright Scholar Program (Washington,D.C., and Quito),
and, most recently, by the National Science Foundation
(Washington,D.C.), undergrantnumbersBNS-870949, BNS-
8908703, and BNS-9108548. These NSF grantswere awarded
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
[Vol. 9, No. 2, 1998]
jointly to Zeidler and Deborah M. Pearsall (University of
Missouri, Columbia). Buck's researchwas carriedout at the
University of Nottinghamand was supportedby the Science-
based Archaeology Committee of the UK Science and
Engineering Research Council under grant number
GR/G142426. The support of these institutions is gratefully
acknowledged. We thank Evan Engwall (University of
Illinois) for kindly providinga crucialradiocarbonsample and
contextual informationfrom his dissertationresearch at the
site of Mocoral site (M3B4-031) and his recent radiocarbon
determinationsfrom the Dos Caminos site (M3D2-008). We
thank Marie J. Zeidler for kindly preparing Figure 1.
Radiocarbondeterminationswere providedby the University
of Pittsburgh Radiocarbon Laboratory, the Illinois State
Geological Survey Isotope GeochemistryLaboratory,and the
University of Arizona Accelerator Mass Spectrometry
Facility. We thank the late R. Stuckenrath,J. Liu, and A. J.
Hull, of those respectivelaboratoriesfor theirdiligence in pro-
cessing these carbonsamples. However, we alone are respon-
sible for the archaeological interpretation and Bayesian
statisticalmodeling of the resultingradiocarbondates. Finally,
the constructiveeditorialcommentsof GaryFeinmanand sev-
eral anonymousreviewers are gratefullyacknowledged.
References Cited
Alcina Franch,J.
1979 La arqueologda de Esmeraldas (Ecuador): intro-
duccion general. Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores,
Madrid.
Alcina Franch,J., and R. de la Pena
1979 Patrones de asentamientos indigenas en
Esmeraldas, durante los siglos XVI y XVII. Actes du
XLII Congres International des Americanistes IX-A,
pp. 283-301. Paris
Aleto, T.
1988 The Guayaquil Phase Ceramic Complex: The Late
Formative Period in the Gulf of Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology,University of Illinois, Urbana.
Baillie, M. G. L.
1991 Marking in Marker Dates: Towards an
Archaeology with Historical Precision. World
Archaeology 23:233-243.
Bischof, H.
1975 E1Machalilla tempranoy algunos sitios cercanos a
Valdivia. Bonner Amerikanistche Studien 3:41-62.
Bonn.
Botiva Contreras,A., G. Cadavid,L. Herrera,A. M. Groot de
Mahecha,and S. Mora
1989 Colombia prehispa'nica: regiones arqueologicas.
Colcultura and the Instituto Colombiano de
Antropologia, Bogota.
Bowman, S.
1990 Radiocarbon Dating. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Braun,D. P.
1985 Absolute Seriation: A Time-Series Approach. In
For Concordance in Archaeological Analysis: Bridging
Theory, Technique, and Data Structure, edited by C.
Carr,pp. 509-539. WestportPress, Kansas City.
Buck, C. E., W. G. Cavanagh,and C. D. Litton
1996 Bayesian Approach to InterpretingArchaeological
Data. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester,England.
 REPORT
Buck, C. E., J. B. Kenworthy,C. D. Litton,andA. F. M. Smith
1991 Combining Archaeological and Radiocarbon
Information: A Bayesian Approach to Calibration.
Antiquity65:808-821 .
Buck, C. E., and C. D. Litton
1995 The Radiocarbon Chronology: Further
Considerationof the Danebury Data Set. In Danebury:
An Iron Age Hillfort in Hampshire,vol. 6, edited by B.
Cunliffe, pp. 130-136. Report No. 102. Council for
British Archaeology, London.
Buck, C. E., C. D. Litton, and S. J. Shennan
1994 A Case Study in Combining Radiocarbon and
Archaeological Information: The Early Bronze Age
Settlement of St. Veit-Klinglberg, Land Salzburg,
Austria. Germania 2:427-447.
Buck, C. E., C. D. Litton, and A. F. M. Smith
1992 Calibration of Radiocarbon Results Pertaining to
Related Archaeological Events. Journal of
Archaeological Science 19:497-512.
Burton,I., R. W. Kates, and G. F. White
1978 The Environment as Hazard. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Buys, J.
1988 Quito, en el remoto pasado. In Quito antes de
Benalcazar, edited by I. Cruz, pp. 15-26. Serie
Monografica No. 1, Ano 1. Centro Cultural Artes,
Quito.
Cabello Balboa, M.
1945 [1583] Verdadera descripcion y relacion de al
provincia y tierra de Esmeraldas. Obras de Miguel
Cabello Balboa, vol. 1, edited by J. Jijon y Caamano,
pp. 1-76. Editorial Ecuatoriana,Quito.
Carranza,M. de
1897 [ 1569] Relacion de las provincias de las
Esmeraldas que fue a pacificar el Capitan Andres
Contero. In Relaciones geogra'ficasde Indias-Peru, vol.
3, edited by M. Jimenez de la Espada, pp. 87-91.
Ediciones Atlas, Madrid.
Christen,J. A.
1994a Bayesian Interpretation of 14C Results.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Mathematics, University of Nottingham, Nottingham,
England.
1994b Summarizinga Set of RadiocarbonDeterminations:
A Robust Approach.Applied Statistics 43:489-503.
Christen,J. A., and C. D. Litton
1995 A Bayesian Approachto Wiggle Matching.Journal
of Archaeological Science 22:719-725.
DeBoer, W. R.
1996 Traces behind the Esmeraldas Shore: Prehistory of
the Santiago-Cayapas Region, Ecuador. University of
Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Dehling, H., and J. van der Plicht
1993 Statistical Problems in Calibrating Radiocarbon
Dates. Radiocarbon 35:239-244.
Echeverria,J.
1981 Breves anotaciones sobre la cronologia de las
unidades culturales de la Sierra Norte del Ecuador.
Sarance 9: 11-22. Otavalo, Ecuador.
Estrada,E.
1957 Prehistoria de Manabi. Museo Victor Emilio
Estrada,Publicacion 4. Guayaquil, Ecuador.
1958 Las culturas Pre-Cla'sicas, Formativas, Arcaicas
del Ecuador. Museo Victor Emilio Estrada,Publicacion
5. Guayaquil, Ecuador.
1962 Arqueologia de Manabl' central. Museo Victor
Emilio Estrada,Publicaci6n 7. Guayaquil, Ecuador.
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
177
Evans, C., and B. J. Meggers
1961 Cronologia relativa y absoluta en la costa del
Ecuador. Cuadernosde Historia y ArqueologfaX
(27):147-152. Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Feldman,R. A., and M. E. Moseley
1983 The NorthernAndes. In AncientSouthAmericans,
edited by J. D. Jennings, pp. 139-177. W. H. Freeman,
San Francisco.
Gasche, H., and O. Tunca
1983 Guide to ArchaeostratigraphicClassification and
Terminology: Definitions and Principles. Journalof
FieldArchaeology10:325-335.
Guinea, M.
1989 Valoracion de las evidencias de intercambio en la
desembocadura del Rio Esmeraldas: el problema
cronologico. In Relacionesinterculturales en el a'rea
ecuatorialdel Paefficodurantela e'pocaPrecolombina,
edited by J. F. Bouchard and M. Guinea, pp. 127-146.
BAR InternationalSeries 503. British Archaeological
Reports, Oxford.
Harris,E. C.
1979 Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy.
Academic Press, London.
Hart,W. J. E., and V. Steen-McIntyre
1983 Tierra Blanca Joven Tephra from the AD 260
Eruption of Ilopango Caldera. In Archeologyand
Volcanismin CentralAmerica:TheZapotitanValleyof
El Salvador,edited by P. Sheets, pp. 14-34. University
of Texas Press, Austin.
Hill, B. D.
1972-1974 A New Chronology of the Valdivia Ceramic
Complex from the Coastal Zone of Guayas Province,
Ecuador.NawpaPacha 10-12:1-32.
Hosler, D., H. Lechtman,and O. Holm
1990 Axe-Moniesand TheirRelatives.Studies in Pre-
Columbian Art and Archaeology No. 30. Dumbarton
Oaks, Washington,D.C.
Isaacson,J. S.
1987 VolcanicActivityand BumanOccupationof the
Northern Andes: The Application of Tephro-
stratigraphicTechniquesto the Problemof Human
Settlement in the Western Montana during the
EcuadorianFormative.Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana.
University Microfilms International,Ann Arbor.
1994 Volcanic Sediments in Archaeological Contexts
from Western Ecuador. In RegionalArchaeologyin
NorthernManabf,Ecuador,Volume1: Environment,
CulturalChronologyandPrehistoricSubsistencein the
JamaRiverValley,edited by J. Zeidler and D. Pearsall,
pp. 131- 140. Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology
No. 8. University of Pittsburgh,Pittsburgh.
Iversen, G. R.
1984 BayesianStatisticalInference.Sage Publications,
Newbury Park, California.
Jadan,M.
1986 La cera'mica del complejoPiquigua(Fase8) de la
culturaValdiviaen San Isidro,norte de Manabf:un
ana'lisis modal. Unpublished Licenciatura thesis,
Centro de Estudios Arqueologicos y Antropologicos,
Escuela Superior Politecnica del Litoral, Guayaquil,
Ecuador.
Lathrap,D. W., D. Collier, and H. Chandra
1975 AncientEcuador:Culture,Clay, and Creativity,
3000-300 BC. Field Museum of Natural History,
Chicago.
Lippi, R.
178 LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 9, No. 2, 1998]

1983 La Ponga and the Machalilla Phase of Coastal
Ecuador. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Anthropology,University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Litton, C. D., and M. N. Leese
1991 Some Statistical Problems Arising in Radiocarbon
Calibration.In ComputerApplicationsand Quantitative
Methods in Archaeology 1990, edited by K. Lockyear
and S. Rahtz, pp. 101-109. BAR InternationalSeries Plog, S., and J. L. Hantman
565. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
Lopez Aguilar,F.
1990 Elementos para una construccion teorica en
arqueologfa. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e
Historia. Mexico, D.F.
Lumbreras,L. G.
1984 Consideraciones cronologicas y recomendaciones
para el estudio arqueologico de Cochasqui (Ecuador) y
su cultura. Informe al Proyecto RLA/83/002 (Proyecto
Regional del Patrimonio Cultural, PNUD/UNESCO),
Lima.
Marcos,J. G.
1989 Informe arqueologico. In Proyecto San Lorenzodel
Mate, edited by J. G. Marcos, pp. 1-19. Fundacion
Pedro Vicente Maldonado, Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Meggers, B. J.
1966 Ecuador. Thames and Hudson, London.
Meggers, B. J., C. Evans, and E. Estrada
1965 Early Formative Period of Coastal Ecuador: The
Valdivia and Machalilla Phases. Contributions to Read, D. W.
Anthropology No. 1. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington,D.C.
Muse, M.
1991 Productsand Politics of a Milagro Entrepot:Penon
del Rfo, Guayas Basin, Ecuador.Research in Economic
Anthropology 13:269-323.
Naylor, J. C., and A. F. M. Smith
1988 An Archaeological Inference Problem. Journal of
the American Statistical Association 83 :588-595.
Norton, P.
1992 Las culturas ceramicas prehispanicas del sur de Staller,J. E.
Manabi. In 5000 anos de ocupacion: Parque Nacional
Machalilla, edited by P. Norton and M. V. Garcia, pp.
940. Centro CulturalArtes and Ediciones Abya-Yala,
Quito.
Norton, P., R. Lunnis, and N. Nayling
1983 Excavaciones en Salango, provincia de Manabi,
Ecuador. Miscelanea Antropologica Ecuatoriana
3:9-80. Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Paulsen,A. C.
1970 A Chronologyof Guangala and Libertad Ceramics Stuiver,M., and G. W. Pearson
of the Santa Elena Peninsula in Southern Coastal
Ecuador. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Anthropology,Columbia University, New York.
1976 Environment and Empire: Climatic Factors in Stuiver,M., A. Long, and R. S. Kra (editors)
PrehistoricAndean CultureChange. WorldArchaeology
8:121-132.
Paulsen,A. C., and E. J. McDougle
1981 A Chronology of Machalilla and Engoroy
Ceramics of the South Coast of Ecuador. Paper pre-
sented at the 9th Annual Midwest Conference on Valdez,F.
Andean and AmazonianArchaeology and Ethnohistory,
Columbia, Missouri.
Pearson,G. W., J. R. Pilcher,M. G. L. Baillie, D. M. Corbett,
and F. Qua
1986 High-Precision 14C Measurementsof Irish Oaks to
Show the Natural 14C Variationsfrom AD 1840-5210
BC Radiocarbon 28:911-34.
Pearson,G. W., and M. Stuiver
1986 High-Precision Calibration of the Radiocarbon
Time Scale, 500-2500 BC. Radiocarbon 28:839-862.
Plog, F.
1979 Alternative Models of Prehistoric Change. In
Transformations:MathematicalApproaches to Culture
Change, edited by C. Renfrew and K. L. Cooke, pp.
221-236. Academic Press, New York.
1986 Multiple Regression Analysis as a Dating Method
in the AmericanSouthwest. In Spatial Organizationand
Exchange, edited by S. Plog, pp. 87-113. Southern
Illinois University Press, Carbondale.
1990 Chronology Construction and the Study of
Prehistoric Culture Change. Journal of Field
Archaeology 17:439456.
Porras,P. I.
1980 Arqueologfa del Ecuador. Ediciones Gallo
Capitan,Otavalo, Ecuador.
1983 Arqueologia del sitio La Ponga. In Arqueologia
Palenque (Los Rfos), La Ponga (Guayas), by P. I.
Porras, pp. 141-240. Centro de Investigaciones
Arqueologicas, Pontifica Universidad Catolica del
Ecuador (PUCE), Quito.
Ramsey,C. B.
1995 Radiocarbon Calibration and Analysis of
Stratigraphy: The OxCal Program. Radiocarbon
37:425430.
1979 The Effective Use of Radiocarbon Dates in the
Seriation of Archaeological Sites. In Radiocarbon
Dating: Proceedings of the Ninth International
Conference, 1976, edited by R. Berger and H. E. Seuss,
pp. 89-94. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Smith, M. E.
1992 Braudel's Temporal Rhythms and Chronology
Theory in Archaeology. In Archaeology, Annales, and
Ethnohistory, edited by A. B. Knapp, pp. 23-34.
CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.
1992-93 El sitio Valdivia Tardio de La Emerencianaen
la costa sur del Ecuadory su significacion del desarrollo
de complejidad en la costa oeste de Sudamerica.
Cuadernos de Historia y Arqueologfa 4647: 14-37.
Stemper,D. M.
1989 The Persistence of Prehispanic Chiefdom
Formations, Rfo Daule, Coastal Ecuador. Ph.D. disser-
tation, Department of Anthropology, University of
Wisconsin. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
1986 High-Precision Calibration of the Radiocarbon
Time Scale, AD 1950-500 BC. Radiocarbon
28:805-838.
1993 CalibrationIssue. Radiocarbon 35: 1-244.
Tolstoy, P., and W. R. DeBoer
1989 An Archaeological Sequence for the Santiago-
Cayapas River Basin, Esmeraldas, Ecuador.Journal of
Field Archaeology 16:295-308.
1987 Proyecto arqueologico "La Tolita" (1983-1986).
Museo Arqueologico del Banco Central del Ecuador,
Quito.
Willey, G. R.
1971 South America. An Introduction to American
Archaeology, vol. 2. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Zedeno, M. N.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 REPORT
1985 Ana'lisisde cera'micaChorreradel sitio Penon del
Rfo. Licenciatura thesis, Centro de Estudios
Arqueologicos y Antropologicos, Escuela Superior
Politecnica del Litoral (ESPOL), Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Zeidler,J. A.
1982 Pothuntingand Vandalismof Archaeological Sites:
An Ecuadorian Example. In Rescue Archaeology:
Papers Presented at the First New WorldConferenceon
Rescue Archaeology, edited by R. L. Wilson and G.
Loyola, pp. 49-58. Preservation Press, Washington,
D.C.
1988 Feline Imagery, Stone Mortars and Formative
Period Interaction Spheres in the Northern Andean
Area. Journal of Latin American Lore 14:243-283.
1992 The Piquigua Phase: A Terminal Valdivia
Occupation in Northern Manabi (Ecuador). Paper pre-
sented at the 57th Annual Meeting of the Society for
AmericanArchaeology, Pittsburgh.
1994a Archaeological Testing in the Middle Jama Valley.
In Regional Archaeology in NorthernManabf, Ecuador,
Volume 1: Environmental, Cultural Chronology and
Prehistoric Subsistence in the Jama Valley,edited by J.
Zeidler and D. Pearsall, pp. 71-98. Memoirs in Latin
AmericanArchaeology No. 8. University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh.
1994b Archaeological Testing in the Lower Jama Valley.
In Regional Archaeology in NorthernManabf, Ecuador,
Volume 1: Environmental, Cultural Chronology and
Notes
1. After completion of our Bayesian analysis, two additional
radiocarbon determinations were obtained for the Jama
Valley by Evan Engwall (personal communication 1996).
Both derive from Late Formative Tabuchila-phase strati-
graphic contexts at the Dos Caminos site (M3D2-008) adja-
cent to San Isidro in the middle Jama Valley. These
Laboratory Radiocarbon
Number Provenience Determination
ISGS-3310 TP 3, Dep SA 2880 + 70 B.P.
ISGS-3309 F7 pit 2930 + 80 B.P.
2. The software used to undertakethese investigations was
custom written and runs on a SunSparc workstation under
the UNIX operating system. The computation time is very
dependent on processor speed but is on the order of hours,
not minutes. The specific software used is in a proprietary
form not suitable for use by others. The second author and
colleagues are currently working on making both the soft-
ware and necessary C.P.U. available to others, see
http://bcal.cf.ac.uk. In the meantime, those interested in
Bayesian radiocarbon calibration should investigate the
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.90 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 07:29:27 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
179
Prehistoric Subsistence in the Jama Valley,edited by J.
Zeidler and D. Pearsall, pp. 99-109. Memoirs in Latin
AmericanArchaeology No. 8. University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh.
Zeidler,J. A., and J. S. Isaacson
1997 Settlement Process and Historical Contingency in
Formative Period Ecuador. In Dumbarton Oaks
Conferenceon the Archaeology of Formative Ecuador,
edited by J. S. Raymond and R. Burger. Dumbarton
Oaks, Washington,D.C., in press.
Zeidler,J. A., and D. M. Pearsall
1994 The Jama Valley Archaeological/Paleoethno-
botanical Project: An Introduction. In Regional
Archaeology in Northern Manabf, Ecuador, Volume1:
Environmental, Cultural Chronology and Prehistoric
Subsistence in the Jama Valley,edited by J. Zeidler and
D. Pearsall, pp. 1-12. Memoirs in Latin American
Archaeology No. 8. University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh.
Zeidler,J. A., and M. J. Sutliff
1994 Definition of Ceramic Complexes and Cultural
Occupation in the Jama Valley. In Regional
Archaeology in Northern Manabf, Ecuador, Volume1:
Environmental, Cultural Chronology and Prehistoric
Subsistence in the Jama Valley,edited by J. Zeidler and
D. Pearsall, pp. 111-130. Memoirs in Latin American
Archaeology No. 8. University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh.
determinations are provided below along with their corre-
sponding laboratorynumbers,provenience information,and
calibrateddates. Calibrationwas carriedout using the prob-
abilistic calibrationroutine in OxCal, version 2.10 (see note
2 below), and is based on the calibrationcurve provided in
Stuiver et al. ( 1993).
CalibratedDate (cal B.C.)
68.2% conf. 95.4% conf.
1127 (1.00) 928 B.C. 1260 (.98) 897 B.C.
875 (.02) 852 B.C.
1257 (.07) 1238 B.C. 1380 (.03) 1345 B.C.
1217 (.93) 1004 B.C. 1318 (.97) 913 B.C.
OxCal software package developed by C. B. Ramsey for
IBM-compatible DOS-based computers. Details can be
found in Ramsey (1995) and on the World Wide Web at the
following address:http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/oxcal_h.html.
In addition, we have preparedtwo technical appendixes
for this paper that can be supplied on request to the second
named author.
Received June 9, 1994; accepted January 31, 1996; revised
March27, 1997.