Upon understanding John Rowe's theory of horizons. I became a bit confused about what should be considered a culture. This concept isn't very clear to me.

According to John Rowe's, the earliest period is named Preceramic and it spans from Who knows when up to 9500 B.C and it does mention about the first evidence of human occupation.

This Preceramic period ends in 1800 B.C and from then on it mentions Chavin as a culture (properly) and begins to build up horizons or this is what I'm understanding.

However I'm still confused if according to this theory is it okay to assume that when humans started to settle in ancient Peru before 9500 B.C did they constitued a culture?. Other than John Rowe's is there any recorded evidence which suggests the use of that particular name to the humans who settled on that timeframe?.

Upon understanding John Rowe's theory of horizons, I became a bit confused about what should be considered a culture. This concept isn't very clear to me.

According to John Rowe, the earliest period is named Preceramic and it spans from Who knows when up to 9500 B.C., and it does mention the first evidence of human occupation.

This Preceramic period ends in 1800 B.C and from then on it mentions Chavin as a culture (properly) and begins to build up horizons, or this is what I'm understanding.

However, I'm still confused if, according to this theory, is it okay to assume that when humans started to settle in ancient Peru before 9500 B.C., did they constitute a culture?. Other than John Rowe's, is there any recorded evidence which suggests the use of that particular name for the humans who settled in that time frame?.