Locations

Countries and sites in the Ancient Cacao Map database that have directly dated cacao macro-botanical or micro-botanical samples or indirectly dated micro-botanical samples.

Country Sites Directly Dated Samples Indirectly Dated Samples Total Samples
Chemical samples Macro samples Micro samples Chemical samples Macro samples Micro samples
Argentina 7 0 8 0 0 0 0 8
Belize 4 0 3 0 0 0 4 7
Bolivia 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 3
Brazil 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Canada 6 0 8 2 0 0 2 12
Chile 7 0 11 0 0 0 0 11
Colombia 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
Costa Rica 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 4
Dominican Republic 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
Ecuador 7 0 2 5 0 0 17 24
Guatemala 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 10
Honduras 2 0 83 0 0 3 1 87
México 24 0 64 0 0 0 27 91
Panama 8 0 0 0 0 0 23 23
Perú 12 0 58 0 0 0 27 86
United States 79 0 307 10 0 0 5 324
Uruguay 2 0 0 1 0 0 5 6
17 174 0 544 21 0 3 133 704

Note

Directly Dated Samples:

These include all samples with AMS or conventional radiocarbon dates directly on maize macrobotanical fragments (such as cobs, kernels, etc.) as well as samples of microbotanical remains including phytoliths, pollen, and starch grains that are contained (or trapped) within directly dated organic residues. For example, microremains such as phytoliths or starch grains trapped inside residues adhering to pottery can be precisely dated when the organic residues containing them are themselves dated using AMS dating. We also include in this category direct dates on organic containers (for example, bags or baskets) and coprolites containing maize macroremains and/or microremains, where the maize sample itself has not been directly dated.

Indirectly Dated Samples:

This category includes only microbotanical remains: phytoliths, pollen, and starch grains. We include both AMS and conventional radiocarbon dates of organic material such as charcoal, wood, shell, or bone indirectly associated with maize microremains. In most cases the associated organic material is stratigraphically or contextually associated with the maize microremains, but does not trap or contain it, so there is a possibility that the radiocarbon dates may over- or under-estimate the true age of the maize sample. We do not include any indirectly dated samples of maize macrobotanical remains because these can now be directly dated with AMS dating.

Most recent update: February 20, 2017