Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T04:16:28.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Peruvian Stylistic Influences in Ecuador

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2018

Donald Collier
Donald Collier*
Affiliation:
Chicago Natural History Museum, Chicago, Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Several attempts have been made in the past to recognize in prehistoric Ecuador the influence of various Peruvian horizon styles. These Peruvian influences, if real, are of considerable chronological and historical importance. It is my purpose to examine and assess them by considering three groups of Ecuadorean materials, namely, ceramics, gold, and gilded copper from Azuay, and carved stone from Manabí.

In order to interpret fully the meaning of Peruvian resemblances in Ecuador, it is necessary to know the relative chronological position of the Ecuadorean materials showing these resemblances. Unfortunately, despite the advantage of a widely distributed Inca horizon style in Ecuador, which serves to identify the terminal phases of regional archaeological sequences, there is no satisfactory chronological system for the country as a whole, nor for any one of its regions.

Type
Northern Peru
Information
Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology , Volume 4: A Reappraisal of Peruvian Archaeology , 1948 , pp. 80 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1945

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For example, Uhle (1920, p. 52, note; 19226, p. 112; 1931, p. 39), Jijón y Caamaño (1927, pp. Slff., 134; 1930, pp. 129, 166), and Means (1931, pp. 162-7) have postulated strong Tiahuanaco influence or a Tiahuanaco horizon in Ecuador. Tello (1943, pp. 154, 158) has identified the Chavín style in certain ceramics of southern Ecuador. For the most recent discussion of Peruvian horizon styles see Willey, 1945.

2 Bennett, 1946b, p. 78.

3 Jijón y Caamaño, 1927, 1930 (cf. p. 142 for statement on Ecuadorean distribution of Tuncahuán).

4 Jijón y Caamaño, 1927, 1930 (cf. pp. 141-2 for statement on distribution).

5 Jijón y Caamaño, 1927. Summarized by Collier, 1946, pp. 771-7; and Bennett, 1946b, pp. 76-7.

6 Jijón y Caamaño, 1930, pp. 132-40. Summarized in Collier, 1946, pp. 780-1. The full supporting evidence for this sequence has never been published.

7 Collier and Murra, 1943.

8 Bennett, 19466.

9 Verneau and Rivet, 1912-22, Vol. 2.

10 For references on the Inca horizon in southern Ecuador see Collier and Murra, 1943, pp. 26, 67, 77-8; see also Jijón y Caamaño, 1927, 1930; Verneau and Rivet, 1912-22; Dorsey, 1901.

11 Collier and Murra, 1943, p. 66.

12 See Note 1 for the pertinent references.

13 McCown, 1945, p. 342, Note 74.

14 Jijón y Caamaño, 1927, Vol. 2, pp. 36-7; 1930, p. 171.

15 Collier, 1946, p. 783, Note 9; Collier and Murra, 1943, Pis. 38-9; Strong and Corbett, 1943, Fig. 18 and Pl. 6.

16 Seler, 1893, Pis. 42-7; Schmidt, 1929, pp. 231-42; Bennett, 1944a, Fig. 32.

17 Willey, 1945, p. 55.

18 Jijón y Caamaño, 1927, Vol. 1, pp. 51ff., 134, Pl. XLVII.

13 Kroeber, 1944, p. 108, Note 1.

20 Bennett, 1944a, p. 105.

21 Saville, 1907-10, Vol/2, pp. 238-9, PL CXIV.

22 Saville, 1907-10, Vol. 2, p. 238, Pl. CXIV.

23 Bennett, 1944b, Fig. 13.

24 Saville, 1907-10, Vol. 2, p. 223, Pl. C.

25 Saville, 1907-10, Vol. 2, p. 224, Pl. CI.

26 Ferdon, 1945, p. 243.

27 Ibid.

28 Willey, 19476.

29 Collier and Murra, 1943, p. 28, PL 10. Rafael Larco Hoyle has expressed the opinion in conversation that it is not specifically Cupisnique in style.

30 Tello, 1943, pp. 158-9.

31 Uhle, 1931, Pl. 7.

32 Uhle, 1931, pp. 31-2, Pis. 1, 3-5; Collier and Murra, 1943, pp. 23-5, 58-62, 84, Pis. 5-7, 31-4.

33 Uhle, 1922a, Pis. 18-24.

34 Bennett, 19466 Figs. 7, 9, 11, 13.

35 Uhle, 1922a Pis. 24, 25; Bennett, 1946b, p. 57.

36 Uhle, 1922b, p. 112.

37 Uhle, 1922b, p. 113; Collier and Murra, 1943, pp. 81-2.

38 Verneau and Rivet, 1912-22, Vol. 2, Pis. 22-5; Saville, 1924.

39 Baessler, 1902-03, Vol. 1, Pis. 26-7, 145, 150, 157, 163; Lehman and Doering, 1924, Figs. 2, 12, Pis. 103-8; Schmidt, 1929, pp. 368-408; Keleman, 1943, Pis. 195-208.

40 Saville, 1924, Pl. 5 (also illustrated by Verneau and Rivet, 1912-22, Vol. 2, Pls. 23-4).

41 Saville, 1924, p. 14; Means, 1931, p. 167.

42 Keleman, 1943, Pis. 210-12.

43 Bergsøe, 1937, 1938.

44 Saville, 1907-10, Vol. 2, Pl. XLVII.

45 Baessler, 1902-03, Pl. 159; Schmidt, 1929, p. 419.

46 Saville, 1907-10, Vol. 2, Pl. XLVI.

47 Bennett, 1944a, Pl. 8.

48 Saville, 1907-10, Vol. 2, Pl. XCIX.

49 Saville, 1907-10, Vol. 1, Pl. XVII; Vol. 2, Pl. XLVI.

50 Bennett, 1944a, Pl. 8.

51 Bennett (1946b, p. 78) has already suggested that Manabi sculpture may furnish a link between highland Colombia and highland Peru.

52 Bennett, this volume, pp. 2-6.