The Boasian anthropology of the 1920's influenced academia to favor independent invention over diffusion models to account for New World cultures and technologies. Yet, the genesis of this trend began in the late 19th century when archaeologists accepted a cultural continuity model to account for awe-inspiring New World remains (Trigger 1989). Cultural continuity opposed the Lost Race'? theory propagated by racists and fanciful thinkers of the 19th century. Stemming from the acceptance of cultural continuity and the new Boasian paradigm, which rejected diffusionism, independent invention claimed a secure foothold on popular scientific thought. As a result, models for diffusion were unfairly, and perhaps unconsciously, tethered to absurd theories of the past. This has persisted despite the fact that diffusion theories do not necessarily contradict models for cultural continuity, nor models for extensive independent invention. The unfair association between diffusion models and the lunatic fringe has stymied scientific speculation on political grounds, and not due to lack of evidence. In fact, the evidence in support of precolumbian culture contact is vast, but uniformly ignored. One such example is Meggers, Evans, and Estrada's Valdivia-Jomon hypothesis formulated in the 1950's and 60's. The purpose of this paper is examine Meggers, Evans, and Estrada's Valdivia-Jomon hypothesis, and to argue that trait comparison of style, form, and technique is a sound method for providing indisputable evidence in support of a transpacific diffusion model as an explanation for the development, or partial development, of some Ecuadorian cultures and technologies. One of the best known cases in support of precolumbian culture contact is the Valdivia-Jomon comparison done by the Smithsonian's Betty Meggers, Clifford Evans, and Emilio Estrada. Beginning in 1956 and concluding in 1961, a research team led by Meggers excavated several Early Formative sites in coastal Ecuador. The sites investigated belonged to the Valdivia and Machalilla culture phases located in the Guayas and southern Manabi Provinces. The Valdivia phase dates from between 5,000 ybp to about 3,000 y bp (Meggers et. al 1965: 157).

Meggers' theoretical approach follows a biological analogy. Simply speaking, she draws parallels between biological evolution and culture change. She states that, 'biologists have made considerable progress toward unraveling the complicated fabric of evolution, thereby making it possible to suggest some of the techniques by which it was produced. Four basic or primary evolutionary forces are now recognized: mutation, gene flow (or recombination), selection and drift"? (Meggers, et. al. 1965: 6).

According to Meggers, these evolutionary forces can be applied to culture change. Mutation and gene flow can be equated to invention (discovery) and diffusion (acculturation). Similarly, drift can account for variability and change within geographically linked culture groups, while selection can be viewed as 'individual variability in capacity to behave in accord with the cultural ideal"? (Meggers, et. al. 1965:6). Meggers clarifies that although selection is usually thought of as a process for change, it also acts as a process for stability. This is seen when a group is exposed to a new technology, but for various reasons, refuse the technology in favor of the status quo.

One example of selection is the apparent lack of the wheel in South America. According to Paul Shao of Iowa State University (1983: vi), there is evidence that South American cultures had either invented, or been exposed to the wheel, but did not adopt it due to a shortage of draft animals. Human foot transportation was more effective and efficient in traversing the difficult native terrain than wheeled transportation. As a result, the wheel was not selected for and traditional transportation methods remained stable.

Another important evolutionary principle is the concept of parallelism. Parallelism happens when similar culture changes occur between two or more groups that have a similar common ancestry. It is also important to note that this change is because of the common ancestry. 'As in biology, the result is a tendency to channel changes in a certain direction. Since new elements result principally from modifications and combinations of old ones, the changes of duplication will be greater in groups sharing a similar background than in groups without a common heritage"? (Meggers, et. al. 1965: 7). In other words, parallelism occurs between geographically distinct groups that share a common antecedent culture and subsequently experience similar change, although the groups are no longer in contact. Meggers proposes that parallelism explains the appearance of the nicked broad-line incision technique used by the Jomon, Valdivia, and Monagrillo ceramic complexes of Japan, Ecuador and Columbia (Meggers, et. al. 1965: 7).

Although no longer the case, in 1965 it was believed that pottery made a first and sudden appearance about 5,000 years ago into the preceramic and preagricultural Ecuadorian social contexts (Meggers 1966: 43). The shellfish gathering and fishing communities present at the time were rapidly transformed by the appearance of pottery and became what is called the Valdivia culture. According to Meggers (1965: 157), 'This early pottery contains a large number of unusual kinds of decoration, both in terms of technique and motif, as well as several distinctive rim and vessel shapes."? Some of the decorative techniques are described as: Shell Stamped, Fine-Line Incised, Combed, Cut and Beveled Rim, Red Incised, Molded, Embossed, Pseudo-Corrugated, Finger Grooved, Fingernail Decorated, Corrugated, Incised, Brushed, and Broad-Lined Incised. Meggers classifies the rim shapes as follows: Indented Rim, Broad Exteriorly Thickened Rim, Direct Rim with Flat or Squared Lip, Folded-Over Rim, Folded-Over Finger-Pressed Rim, Short Necked Direct Jar Rim, and Cambered Rim Bowl. Meggers states that (1965 p. 43), 'In general, Valdivia pottery is competently made and pleasing in form and decoration--far removed from what might be expected of people just beginning to learn the pottery art."?

In December of 1960, the Smithsonian team was conducting excavations at a Valdivia site known as G-31. It was here that Meggers discovered the rim of a Valdivia Red Incised vessel. She delivered the sherd to Emilio Estrada, a Ecuadorian archaeologists with the Museo Arqueologico, who was doing ceramic analysis for Meggers. While examining the vessel, Estrada noticed a similarity to Japanese pottery of the Middle Jomon period. A preliminary comparison was made between early Valdivia and Early Middle Jomon pottery complexes. This survey revealed a greater number of trait similarities between Valdivia and Jomon ceramics than to any other New World complex. The vast majority of Jomon trait similarities seemed to be concentrated on the islands of Kyushu and Honshu. Although communication barriers hamper initial attempts to cooperate with Japanese archaeologists, in 1963 Meggers and Evans visited Japan and did a trait comparison firsthand. Unfortunately, Emilio Estrada, who first proposed a cultural connection to the Jomon, unexpectedly died in November 1961 shortly after their final season of fieldwork in Ecuador. Despite this setback, the trip to Japan was fruitful. According to Meggers (1965: 158), 'Fortunately, it was possible for us to visit Japan and to examine and photograph pottery from a number of Early and Middle Jomon sites on Kyushu, with results that have supported the hypothesis of transpacific origin for Valdivia Phase pottery beyond all reasonable expectation."?

Meggers asserts that (1965: 160), 'Words do not adequately express the degree of similarity between early Valdivia and contemporary Jomon pottery, and only photographs do justice to the remarkable resemblances."? In the Smithsonian Institute's 1965 publication, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology Vol. I -- Early Formative Period of Coastal Ecuador: The Valdivia and Machalilla Phases, by Meggers, Evans, and Estrada, hundreds of photographs of potsherds reveal striking similarities between the Valdivia and Jomon cultures.

The primary elements of comparison between Valdivia and Jomon pottery were decoration and vessel shape. Almost immediately it was determined that Late Jomon remains bear little or no resemblance to Valdivia ceramics. It was the Early and Middle Jomon samples from the island of Kyushu that showed the greatest similarity. There were also trait similarities found on the island of Honshu, but these samples were scattered and unevenly represented. On the island of Kyushu, all the Valdivia trait characteristics previously listed were present, except for four: Pseudo-Corrugation, Braid Impression, Fine-Line Incision, and Tapered Rim in vessel shape. Meggers notes that some Valdivia traits were present throughout most Jomon sequences (e.g., Broad-Line Incision, Finger Grooving, Corrugation, Rim Lobing, Shell Stamping), while others were restricted to specific time periods. For example, Rocker Stamping and Brushing are exclusively Early Jomon, while Fingertip and Fingernail Punctation correlate with Middle Jomon only (Meggers, et. al. 1965: 160).

Single-trait style characteristics are not the only similarities found between the two complexes. Specific style and technique combinations are also present. For example, the Valdivia Incised and Broad-line Incised types share incision techniques with Jomon samples, as well as motifs and motif combinations. According to Meggers (1965: 160), 'In most categories of decorative technique, examples can be found so similar in appearance that they might almost have come from the same vessel."? However, despite the great resemblances, there are noted differences. For example, the differences in Finger Grooved, Combed, and some incised decorations imply an 'evolutionary relationship"? from Jomon to Valdivia.

Valdivia Phase pottery is broadly composed of two incised designs: (1) Broad-line incised, and (2) Incised. These two techniques differ in their incision width and surface treatments, the former usually being polished and the later unpolished. However, Early and Middle Jomon display a consistency in surface treatment and incision technique. The differences between Valdivia Phase ceramics infer a divergence from a single influencing source. 'In other words, the Jomon incised style can be viewed as a common ancestor out of which the two Valdivia types have differentiated"? (Meggers et. al. 1965: 161). A similar relationship can be drawn between Finger Tip Punctation and Pseudo-Corrugation stylistic techniques.

With the exception of some mild differences, there exists an extraordinarily large number of similarities between the two complexes. There are examples of technique and motif design that are nothing short of identical. On this topic, Meggers states that (1965: 162),

'Excision makes use of the same crudely gouged out 'hour-glass"? or 'dog-bone"? elements. Red slipped vessels have interlocking rectilinear designs in broad-line incision alike in all details. Rocker stamping appears in the unusual 'dragged"? variant, as well as the more familiar form, and is applied either as overall treatment or in isolated straight or meandering bands."?

Along with stylistic and technique resemblances, similarity in form is equally as striking. The rim and vessel shape comparisons between Early and Middle Jomon and early Valdivia are almost identical. There is also a notable similarity in association between rim profiles and types of decoration. Such compound similarities are difficult to dismiss as a result of chance alone. Variation exists in thickness, orientation, and lip form between the two complexes, but both Jomon and Valdivia samples exhibit the full range of variability. Meggers and her team also found tetrapod feet base forms represented in both Jomon and Valdivia samples. Although the Jomon bases are larger and somewhat cruder, Meggers speculates they may have served as early prototypes upon which the Valdivia culture elaborated.

The compelling feature that originally caught the attention of Emilio Estrada was the Castellated Rim treatment. This distinctive style is extremely rare in the Valdivia complex and is limited to the earliest parts of its first period. There are two extreme variants present within the Valdivia rim samples: (1) a slender vertical 'prong,"? and (2) an outflaring point. Both of these variants, as well as all the variation between these extremes, are present in the Jomon complex (Meggers et. al. 1965: 164).

In addition to ceramic form, style, and technique, there are other parallels between the Valdivia and Jomon complexes. Late Jomon stone and pottery plaques from various sites on Honshu display decorations that resemble motifs found on Valdivia Phase stone figurines and pottery. Some of these decorative motifs include spirals, concentric semi-circles, inverted T-shaped patterning, as well as an array of anthropomorphic figures. Many of the anthropomorphic beings of similar style date to pre-Jomon times and are found on Shikoku island, located between Kyushu and Honshu islands (Meggers et. al. 1965: 165-6). The figurines not only mark similarities in manufacturing technique, but may also demonstrate a parallel in symbolic significance.

The Valdivia and Jomon cultures also exhibit parallels in burial positions. Both groups bury their dead with legs tightly contracted and arms extended to the side. This position is represented in Late Valdivia Phases, but is only one of several positions found throughout Jomon sites. Due to the limited number of Valdivia burial sites excavated, this preliminary parallelism may simply be coincidence. However, it is interesting to note that physical anthropologists have discovered a stark contrast in skulls from Valdivia Phase sites and those from the preceramic culture living in Ecuador prior to the arrival of the Valdivia complex. At the time Meggers published her findings , this comparative study was limited in scope because it lacked a sufficient number of specimens to examine. Consequently, any real significance was premature to report (Meggers et. al. 1965: 167). An important factor for consideration when looking for parallels between the Valdivia and Jomon complexes are correlations in dating. When Meggers' Smithsonian review was published in 1965, no carbon-14 dates from Jomon sites on Kyushu island had yet been attained. However, dates were taken from sites on Honshu and Hokkaido islands. By looking at the established dates for certain artifacts on Honshu and Hokkaido, Meggers was able to date sites on Kyushu through artifact association. This method is critical in that the Jomon artifacts with the greatest similarity to Valdivia wares were located on Kyushu.

The most significant date from Japan was taken at the Kamo Shellmound on Honshu. This site produced a carbon-14 date of 5102 ybp, plus or minus 400 years, falling into the Early Middle Jomon period. This date correlates well with the earliest Valdivia date of 5150 ybp, plus or minus 150 years. Some Jomon sites with ceramics similar to Valdivia were dated far earlier, in excess of 9000 years. In light of the earliest Valdivia dates, such sites were not considered. However, these early Jomon dates might support Meggers' evolutionary model (Meggers et. al. 1965: 160).

Based on their accumulation of evidence, Meggers, Evans, and Estrada proposed the following scenario. Around 5,000 years ago, a boatload of fishermen paddled out from the island of Kyushu in search of a catch. It is possible they were headed into deep waters, as the bones of deep sea fish have been found in Jomon middens. It is also likely, according to Meggers, that they used a dug-out canoe. Jomon groups were known to have used such crafts, and the earliest canoe found dates to about 3,000 B.C. It may have been in either October or November which have the strongest currents in the North Pacific and traditionally hosts the greatest number of typhoons. Meggers speculates that a strong current or wind whisked the canoe deep into the Pacific and ultimately on a easterly route bringing it north of Hawaii towards the North American continent. Had the currents been different, the canoe may have settled in California or Mexico, but due to the conditions that year, the unlucky fishermen were carried all the way to Ecuador. According to Meggers, the entire trip would have taken many months at a minimum. It was probably their knowledge of the ocean and their fishing expertise that kept the castaways alive. Upon arriving in Ecuador, the Japanese fishermen found a native population in a very similar developmental stage as the one they had recently departed from. The locals welcomed the foreign arrivals and the Jomon soon integrated. Their technologies, as well as belief systems, were exchanged and the Valdivia culture was born (Meggers et. al. 1965: 167-8).

Meggers, Evans, and Estrada's controversial theory has been the subject of much debate. It has been strongly challenged on several grounds. In 1966, Ferdon pointed out the general lack of archaeological information from northwest South America as a whole, implying that any claim of diffusion as a factor for culture development is premature. Coe (1967), Bischof (1967), and Pearson (1968) criticize the ceramic parallels. Lyon (1972-1974) revealed errors in the Smithsonian report itself, while Lathrap (1967, 1973) and Muller (1968) attacked their strategraphic interpretations. McEwan and Dickson (1978) published on the unlikelihood of Jomon fishermen surviving a transpacific journey. In addition, archaeological finds in Ecuador (Lathrap, Collier, and Chandra 1975; Marcos, Lathrap, and Zeidler 1976) have revealed an agrarian subsistence base and ceramic manufacture in northwestern South America that likely predates Valdivia samples. In Columbia, researcher s (Reichel-Dolmatoff 1965, cited in Lathrap 1973: 1761) have made similar finds.

The contention of most of these criticisms is a general opposition to the notion that pottery was first introduced to South America by an outside source. And, more importantly, that indigenous populations did not independently invent pottery for themselves. Whether Valdivia pottery was or was not the first pottery in South America, or whether New World populations independently invented pottery or not, is irrelevant to this discussion. These issues have no bearing on whether a precolumbian culture contact occurred, and whether a degree of diffusion took place. Such critiques cloud the real issues which concerns the role of diffusion in Ecuadorian culture development and the potential of early transoceanic crossings.

The most important objections are those that examine and criticize Meggers, Evans, and Estrada's ceramic parallels. It is the belief of this author that the sound trait comparisons between the Jomon and Valdivia complexes cannot be ignored in light of Meggers' other theoretical weaknesses. For instance, whether the Jomon arrived in small numbers across the North Pacific as Meggers proposes, or with a fleet across the South Pacific is, again, completely irrelevant. Problems with mode of transport and specific circumstances surrounding the contact cannot refute the ceramic parallels. Superfluous complaints do not dismiss striking trait similarities. For this reason, I will examine those criticisms that attack the diffusion theory of as a explanation for Jomon and Valdivia trait similarities.

In an article published in 1968 in American Anthropologist, Richard Pearson of the University of Hawaii, criticizes Meggers, Evans, and Estrada's ceramic parallels. His article, Migration From Japan to Ecuador: The Japanese Evidence, takes a detailed look at Jomon archaeological data and the Smithsonian's teams inconsistencies and errors. Pearson states that (1968: 86), '...the Jomon traits they have selected in no way demonstrate the existence of a prehistoric community from which migrants could have drifted to the New World."?

Pearson points out that the chronological periods for Jomon complexes on Honshu are quite different for those on Kyushu, where the bulk of samples with Valdivia similarities were found. As a result, Meggers' dating of potsherds on Kyushu by association to Early Jomon wares on Honshu could be erroneous and are premature. Additionally, Pearson reiterates that no radiocarbon dates have been taken for Jomon sites on Kyushu. Therefore, any comparison between Valdivia dates and possible Kyushu dates were pure speculation when Pearson published his criticism (Pearson 1968: 85).

Most importantly, Pearson looks at the 'imprecise time control"? with regard to Jomon design techniques. Meggers and her team report that incision and finger-nail impression techniques can be used as temporal indicators for Early and Middle Jomon phases. According to Pearson, these techniques have combined and recombined over a vast expanse of time and do not necessarily, in and of themselves, represent one phase over another. Pearson also explains that Jomon motifs are extremely limited temporally. He points out that this created a problem for Meggers when she examined the Rocker Stamping technique. Meggers could not explain why Rocker Stamping, a specific motif design, appears in Early Jomon, but does not appear until the Valdivia C phase. This creates an incongruence because many Middle Jomon motifs appear in Valdivia A and B phases (Pearson 1968: 85). Simply put, the sequence is skewed. Pearson also notes that a similar 'juggling"? of sequences is done with the stone figurines. He infers that the importance of the stone figurine correlates published by Meggers is somewhat deceiving.

One of the most important criticisms made by Pearson deals with a specific trait characteristic which is absent in Valdivia samples. Pearson states (1968: 85),

'One of the features of Middle and Late Jomon pottery in Kyushu regarded as especially distinctive and significant by Japanese archaeologists is the tapered rim, the diagnostic feature of the Ichiki series, common at the Izumi site. The absence of this trait in Valdivia, mentioned in passing by Meggers, Evans, and Estrada (1965: 157), is probably more significant than the presence of other convergent motifs, yet the authors, without a thorough investigation of the Kyushu Jomon, were unable to do any weighting of the traits."?

Here Pearson is criticizing Meggers, Evans, and Estrada for their general lack of knowledge about Jomon archaeology, and for an unfamiliarity of the important trait characteristics relating to specific Jomon phases. He argues that the Smithsonian team's 'loose"? grasp of Early and Middle Jomon complexes erodes their credibility. For these reasons, their transpacific diffusion theory is highly suspect (Pearson 1968: 85-86).

Although Pearson raises several interesting topics, he fails to explain the Jomon-Valdivia trait similarities. He points out chronological problems, imprecise time control, and a common Jomon trait characteristics which is missing in Valdivia samples. However, Pearson fails to explain why there are so many parallels between Jomon and Valdivia traits. Despite Meggers, Evans, and Estrada's forced presumptions on dating and sequencing problems, these flaws do not negate the importance of their trait comparison analysis. For example, the absence of the Tapered Rim in Valdivia sites could be explained a variety of ways. A sample with this trait may not have been located yet. Additionally, the Jomon immigrants may have been from a community that did not use the Tapered Rim. Until the comparative study between the Jomon and Valdivia complexes is sufficiently challenged, most reported inconsistencies need but a slight tweaking to make Meggers' model cohesive. The onus of responsibility falls on the critic to refute the comparisons directly, not by circumstance and peripheral arguments alone.

A 1972 article in American Antiquity, Pre-Valdivia Occupations on the Southwest Coast of Ecuador, examines Valdivia ceramics and touches on Meggers' theory of transpacific contact. According to the authors, Henning Bischof and Julio Viteri Gamboa, their 1971 excavation at Valdivia revealed pre-Valdivia ceramics and evidence of occupation. Bischof and Gamboa conducted further digs at the G-31 site where much of Meggers' Jomon-esque pottery was first discovered. They found 27 sherds in the 100 cm of refuse strata beneath the earliest Valdivia layers. Although occurring with considerably less frequency than Valdivia sherds, these remains represented enough of a difference from Valdivia samples to 'deserve a separate denomination"? (Bischof and Gamboa 1972: 549). They called this complex the 'San Pedro"? phase, after a nearby village.

According to Bischof and Gamboa, San Pedro pottery is hard in tensile strength, grey or dark brown and displays trapezoidal outlines. These features seem to indicate that San Pedro phase pottery was manufactured in a different manner than Valdivia phase pottery. However, many motif similarities exist between the phases indicating cultural continuity, including fine-line incision, as well as zoned hatched and cross-hatched bands. 'San Pedro pottery, although more primitive than Valdivia pottery, is a good quality and scarcely represents an incipient stage of ceramic manufacture"? (Bischof and Gamboa 1972: 549).

Bischof and Gamboa make a number of conclusions based on their excavation at G-31. They resolve that San Pedro pottery represents an antecedent phase to Valdivia pottery. San Pedro samples indicate a time when ceramics lacked in significance relative to their importance during the Valdivia phase. They argue that the good quality of San Pedro pottery and the lack of prototype samples, combined with the general scarcity of San Pedro sherds, indicates that the pottery had been manufactured elsewhere. It was only adopted into the preceramic inventory when its need arose. According to Bischof and Gamboa, this need is marked by a change in food preparation. Pre-Valdivia layers have high charcoal residues, while Valdivia phase layers do not. This might represent a change from roasting fish over an open fire to cooking fish in ceramic vessels--vessels with which they were already acquainted. Bischof and Gamboa conclude that (1972: 551),

'Pottery does not seem to make a sudden appearance at Valdivia. This would argue against the hypothesis that it was introduced there by a single long-range, possibly even trans-Pacific contact with pottery-making groups. The decorated sherds do not seem to demonstrate particularly close Yomon (Jomon) affiliations"?

Although Bischof and Gamboa's criticism should be seriously considered, there are a few problems evident. They even admit that, 'the scarcity of sherds in the overlying San Pedro strata, and the relatively small size of our excavation, could be cited to question the significance of our evidence"? (Bischof and Gamboa 1972: 550)... Their conclusions are based on a total of 27 sherds found in an area only 2x2 m and 100 cm deep. Any broad conclusion would seem premature under these circumstances.

Another issue of concern is their creation of the San Pedro classification. One might question whether the differences were such that a separate denomination was deemed necessary. Bischof and Gamboa note that some of Meggers' samples from Valdivia phase sites were identical to San Pedro samples. The author of this paper examined the samples that Bischof and Gamboa assert are San Pedro, and in comparison to the Valdivia samples, found little recognizable difference. None of the San Pedro potsherds appear to fall outside the range of Valdivia phase variability. In fact, Meggers published photographs of potsherds literally identical to the San Pedro phase samples and identified them as Valdivia wares.

Bischof and Gamboa state that any intrusion of Valdivia sherds from younger strata would have made the denomination of San Pedro pottery impossible because of their similarities.

'It might be pointed out that due to the extremely low density of sherds in the San Pedro midden, and the high sherd density in the Valdivia phase layers, the undetected intrusions of any Valdivia deposits into the lower part of our excavation would have made the separate existence of the San Pedro pottery period unrecognizable"? (Bischof and Gamboa 1972: 549).

One might question the justification of separate classifications if intrusion would obscure the two phases to the point of being 'unrecognizable"?. Creating the San Pedro classification was a judgment call on Bischof and Gamboa's behalf. Whether the differences between San Pedro and Valdivia samples truly warrant separate classifications is not thoroughly discussed in the publication.

Bischof and Gamboa barely touch on the transpacific contact hypothesis. They argue that San Pedro pottery represents a Valdivia antecedent, eliminating the 'sudden"? appearance of fully-formed Valdivia phase pottery. However, they also acknowledge that San Pedro pottery 'scarcely represents an incipient stage of ceramic manufacture"? (Bischof and Gamboa 1972: 549). As a result, their hypothesis still begs for a origin, but the authors do not suggest nor speculate where the initial manufacture actually took place. We are still left without a developmental stage or phase for Valdivia or San Pedro, as San Pedro is a mature complex. Due to their failure to fully justify the separate classification of San Pedro from Valdivia, one cannot eliminate Japan as a possible origin. In other words, it is possible that both phases (if indeed there are two phases) have transpacific origins. The increased utilization of pottery can be explained any number of ways, as can its rare use represented in the earlier strata. None of these facts eliminate diffusion as a means of introduction.

The authors briefly mention that San Pedro wares lack in resemblance to Jomon wares. Under the circumstances, this claim seems difficult to uphold. If the similarities between San Pedro and Valdivia are great enough to justify a cultural continuity or antecedence, then the likelihood that San Pedro samples vary sharply from Jomon samples is not great, given the strong resemblance Meggers has demonstrated between the Valdivia and Jomon complexes. For the sake of argument, even if there are not significant similarities between San Pedro samples and Jomon samples, it does not explain the resemblances between Valdivia and Jomon samples. One dissimilarity does not necessarily deny another similarity. In this light, Bischof and Gamboa do not even tackle the question of Valdivia and Jomon similarities, nor refute Meggers' culture contact theory.

In conclusion, the detailed comparative study conducted by Meggers, Evans, and Estrada is not sufficiently countered with any of the criticisms put forth. Certainly, it appears that inconsistencies and errors are likely present in their study and conclusion, but these problems fail to adequately explain the vast number of similarities between the Jomon and Valdivia complexes demonstrated by Meggers, Evans, and Estrada. At this point, the only theory put forth to explain the resemblances is the theory of diffusion from Japan proposed by the Smithsonian researchers. Most criticisms only serve to distract from their diffusion theory and do not attempt to tackle an alternative explanation for the correlations. Although independent invention is the only other explanation, this issue is skirted by critics in the literature. The focus of most critiques are peripheral topics unrelated to the uncanny Jomon and Valdivia similarities. Meggers, Evans, and Estrada's trait comparison of style, form, and technique still serves as a reminder that sound theory, properly applied, can produce inarguable results, despite the controversial nature of the conclusions.

References

Bischof, Henning and Julio Viteri Gamboa  (1972)  Pre-Valdivia Occupations on 
the Southwest coast of Ecuador.  AA Vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 548-551.


Bischof, Henning  (1967)  Review of Early Formative Period of Coastal 
Ecuador:  The Valdivia and Machalilla Phase.  American Journal of Archaeology 
Vol. 71, no. 1, pp. 216-219


Bohannan, Paul, and Mark Glazer, editors  (1988)  High Points in 
Anthropology, 2nd Edition.  McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.


Eggan, Fred  (1977)  The History of Social/Cultural Anthropology.  
Perspectives on Anthropology 1976.  American Anthropological Association, no. 
10, pp. 1-13.


McEwan, Gordon F. and Bruce Dickson  (1978)  Valdivia, Jomon Fishermen, and 
the Nature of the North Pacific:  Some Nautical Problems with Meggers, Evans, 
and Estrada's (1965) Transoceanic Contact Thesis.  AA Vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 
362-371.


Meggers, Betty J.  (1966)  Ecuador.  Frederick A. Praeger Publishing, New 
York.


Meggers, Betty J., Clifford Evans, and Emilio Estrada  (1965) Early Formative 
Period of Coastal Ecuador:  The Valdivia and Machalilla Phases.  Smithsonian 
Contributions to Anthropology 1. Washington D.C. 


Pearson, Richard  (1968)  Migration From Japan to Ecuador:  The Japanese 
Evidence.  American Anthropologist, Vol. 70, pp. 85-86


Shao, Paul  (1983)  The Origin of Ancient American Cultures.  Iowa State 
University Press, Ames.


Tolstoy, Paul  (1999)  Asia and the Americas Trans-Pacific Contacts:  What, 
Where and When?  The Review of Archaeology, Vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 19-30.


Trigger, Bruce G.  (1989)    A History of Archaeological Thought.  Cambridge 
University Press, New York.


Willey, Gordon R. and Jeremy A. Sabloff  (1993)  A History of American 
Archaeology.  W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.