Sie sind auf Seite 1von 324

INTRASITE SPATIAL ORGANIZATION AT CHAVN DE HUANTAR DURING THE ANDEAN FORMATIVE: THREE DIMENSIONAL MODELING, STRATIGRAPHY AND CERAMICS

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL SCIENCES AND THE COMITEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Christian Mesa September 2007

Copyright by Christian Mesa 2007 All Rights Reserved

ii

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Signed in original (John Rick) Principal Adviser

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Signed in original (Ian Robertson)

I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Signed in original (William Durham) I certify that I have read this dissertation and that, in my opinion, it is fully adequate in scope and quality as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Signed in original

(Luis G. Lumbreras)

Approved for the University Committee on Graduate Studies.

iii

ABSTRACT

The ceremonial center of Chavn de Huntar is located in the north central Peruvian highlands at 3,200 m.a.s.l. I have investigated the Wacheqsa sector, located immediately to the north of the monumental core with the objective of understanding the archaeological deposits that formed this area, and to analyze their chronological and spatial relationships. This research presents a new methodology for the investigation of intrasite space organization of stratigraphic components. I demonstrate that careful sampling programs can be extremely advantageous in investigating intrasite variation, in particular when all stratigraphic records are modeled using computer aided design (CAD). I identify five prehistoric spatial analytical units in the Wacheqsa Sector: Early Platforms, Water Flood, Late Platforms, Stone Rooms and Midden. I use bivariate kernel density estimations in order to investigate ceramic modalities and comprehend the nature of the activities developed in each unit, crossreferencing this line of evidence with the distribution of archaeological materials. I also use the Boone index as a measure of diversity in order to quantitatively segregate the analytical units identified. The Wacheqsa Sector was occupied from 1200 BC to 500 BC, during the Middle and Late Formative Periods. I have divided the prehistoric occupation into two phases. The oldest one (Urabarriu 1200-800 BC) encompasses the Early Platforms and Water Flood analytical units. The Early Platforms unit represents the oldest domestic settlement located in this sector. The Water Flood analytical unit provides evidence regarding canalization of the Wacheqsa River during this phase. The latest occupation phase (Janabarriu 800-500 BC), encompasses the Late Platforms, Stone Rooms and Midden analytical units. The Stone Room analytical unit represents a late settlement in the Wacheqsa Sector, the Midden provides evidence for suprahousehold food and beverage consumption and the Late Platforms unit seems to be a buffer area between these two units. In addition, the dating of these units shows that Chavn was contemporary with ceremonial centers of the Andean area during the Middle and Late Formative. It also demonstrates that the Janabarriu ceramic phase is 400 years earlier than previously suggested, being contemporary with the largest architectural phase at monumental core.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My doctoral research at Chavn de Huntar was supported by a Stanford University School of Humanities and Social Sciences Graduate Research Opportunity Grant, the Department of Anthropological Sciences, the Center for Latin American Studies and the Stanford Archaeology Center. This dissertation could not have been completed without the help of several people. I thank the members of my dissertation reading committee, especially my main advisor, John Rick, for his valuable insight and for sharing his data and views about Chavn de Huntar with me. His support and advice during my years at Stanford have been extremely helpful and I value our extensive discussions regarding Chavn, statistics, digital models and Andean prehistory. Ian Robertson was instrumental in developing the statistical approach used in this dissertation, and I thank him for our long conversations regarding the value of quantitative methods in archaeology. William Durham offered valuable comments regarding the anthropological nature of the stratigraphic record; his support has been unfailing since I arrived at Stanford. Luis Lumbreras spent several hours discussing with me the significance of Chavn in Andean prehistory, the sites ceramic chronology, and the caution that must be exercised when interpreting absolute radiocarbon dates. His guidance and insights were tremendously helpful. At Chavn the Huntar, the towns residents welcomed me with warm hospitality. The Arana and Rosemberg families kept my team and I very well rested and fed. I thank my field crew, Maritza Prez, Ivan Falcon, Victor Hugo Rojas, Lizbeth Tepo, Adriana Aguayo, Diana Sandoval, Laura Driscoll, Diana Galindo, Lise Mesz, Zozimo Meljarejo, Fortunato Garay, Roger Garay, Andres Caurino, Benigno Dionisio, Gaspar Cruz Virgilio Dionisio, Nando Dionisio, Florencio Melgarejo, and Andrs Daz for their support and professionalism. Rosa Mendoza and Maria Mendoza were crucial in organizing field and laboratory logistics and their friendship is invaluable. In Lima, the Museo Nacional de Arqueologa, Antropologa e Historia del Per (MNAAH) provided me with space for analyzing the Chavin ceramic assemblage. The MNAAH also granted me access to its archives. Special thanks go to its former Director, Carlos Del guila, for granting me permission to conduct research at the Museum as well as to Fedora Martinez and its former director Enrique Gonzles Carr for their generous help with this phase of the project. The Museo de Arqueologa y Antropologa at the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos allowed me to review the Chavn collection excavated by Rosa Fung. Its former Directors Ruth Shady and Javier Alcalde granted the permits necessary

to conduct such research and established a space within which to work. The Tello Archive at the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos approved access to review Tellos fieldnotes. I thank Rafael Vega Centeno and Victor Paredes for making all the arrangements necessary for my research in the archives. Rosa Fung kindly shared her insights regarding the Wacheqsa sector, providing helpful information of her unpublished excavations. Likewise, Silvia Kembel shared her insights regarding the architectural sequence at Chavn. Their willingness to share their data without reservations has been truly inspiring. Reimman Ramirez illustrated part of the ceramic collection at the lab in Chavn and Ivan Falcon, Adriana Aguayo, Karla Alarcn, Natal Ramrez, and Gabriela Ferrando drew ceramics at the Museo Nacional. Karla Alarcn and Patricia Quintana drew those ceramics that were reviewed at the San Marcos Museum. Ceramic drawings were redrawn in CAD by Ivn Falcon. Several excavation profiles and plans were drawn by MaFe Crdova. Csar Trigoso, Jose Luis Cruzado and Mara Mendoza were instrumental when laptops and desktops refused to work 10 days before filing this dissertation; to all of them I extend my greatest appreciation. Matthew Velasco and Megan Kane read drafts of this dissertation and provided valuable assistance with English grammar and vocabulary. They shared with me the frustration of completing our respective projects in the midst of power outages at Chavn; to them I offer my endless thanks. I am grateful to my fellow graduate students, Daniel Contreras, John Wolf, Nikki Slovak, Ignacio Cancino, Fernando Amstrong and Silvana Rosenfield for their friendship and support over the years; their camaraderie and sense of humor have been unparalleled; graduate school would not have been the same without them. I also thank Matt Sayre for his friendship during these years of graduate studies and fieldwork. Jennifer Kidwell, Mary Cahill and Nancy Lonhart provided endless amounts of advice throughout graduate school; their warmth, kindness and advice are greatly appreciated. I am also grateful to The Global Heritage Fund (GHF), who provided me with registered licenses of Autodesk Land and Autodesk Map software. I also thank Herbert Hass and Greg Hodgins for their assistance with the radiocarbon dates.

vi

Finally, my mother has been a never-ending source of support and encouragement; she taught me that the only way to achieve a goal in life is through hard work. To her, my deepest thanks in every imaginable way.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGMENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1 1.1.1 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5 1.2.6 1.2.7 1.3 1.3.1 1.3.2 2 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 4 4.1 4.2 INTRODUCTION, RESEARCH HISTORY AND RESEARCH DESIGN Introduction Research History at Chavn de Huntar Early Accounts Travelers The Archaeologists arrive After the Aluvin more archaeologists arrive A New Turning Point The Stanford Archaeological Project Where do we stand now? Research Design Research Process Research Questions THE ANDEAN FORMATIVE The Concept of Formative in Andean Prehistory Early Formative (1800-1200 BC) Middle Formative (1200-800 BC) Late Formative (800-500 BC) Final Formative (500-50 BC) THE WACHEQSA SECTOR AT CHAVN DE HUNTAR Wendell Bennetts excavations Julio C. Tellos excavations Rosa Fungs excavations THEORY AND METHODS Theory of the Archaeological Record Data Processing iv v viii xiii xviii 1 1 2 2 4 6 9 12 13 14 14 14 16 18 17 20 23 28 32 34 36 36 38 41 41 44

viii

4.2.1 4.2.2

Stratigraphic analysis Digital Models and Archaeology Geographic Information System and Stratigraphic Modeling CAD Modeling

44 45 50 50 51 54 56 56 56 59 63 65 65 65 66 67 68 70 70 69 71 71 73 73 73 75 75 75 76 77 78 79 79

4.2.2.1 GIS and CAD 4.2.2.1.1 4.2.2.1.2 4.2.3

4.2.2.2 Modeling the Wacheqsa Sector Quantitative analysis

4.2.3.1 Analysis of Deposits 4.2.3.2 Boone Index 4.2.3.3 Kernel density estimates (KDE): univariate and bivariate 5 5.1 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 5.1.7 5.1.8 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS Units Excavated WQ-01 (N 849, E 484.5) WQ-01 (west extension) (N 847, E 483) WQ 02 (N 852, E 483) WQ-03 (N 830, E 481) WQ-4 (N 821, E 466) WQ-5 (N746, E432) WQ-6 (N786, E430) WQ 07 (N771, E434) Unit 1 (N777, E435) Unit 4 (N763, E441)

5.1.8.1 Sector I 5.1.8.1.1 5.1.8.1.2

5.1.8.2 Sector II 5.1.8.2.1 5.1.8.2.2 Unit 1 (N770, E444) Unit 4 (N764, E 451)

5.1.8.3 Sector III 5.1.8.3.1 5.1.8.3.2 5.1.8.3.3 5.1.8.3.4 Unit 1 (N760, E 435) Unit 2 (N758, E441) Unit 4 (N753, E451) Unit 4A (N756, E 440)

5.1.8.4 Sector IV 5.1.8.4.1 Unit 3 (N754, E445)

ix

5.1.8.4.2 5.1.9

Unit 4 (N754, E441)

81 83 83 85 88 88 89 89 89 91 92 92 95 96 98 98 99 99 100 103 104 105 106 106 107 108 109 110 110 111 112 111 113

Unit WQ-8

5.1.10 Unit WQ-9 5.1.11 Unit WQ-10 6 6.1 6.1.1 INTRASITE COMPLEXITY Spatial Intrasite Complexity Prehistoric Occupation Water Flood Early Platforms

6.1.1.1 Urabarriu Phase 6.1.1.1.1 6.1.1.1.2

6.1.1.2 Janabarriu Phase 6.1.1.2.1 6.1.1.2.2 6.1.1.2.3 6.1.2 Midden Late Platforms Stone Rooms

Modern Phase

6.1.2.1 Aluvion 6.1.2.2 Modern Canal 6.1.2.3 Agricultural Land 6.2 6.3 6.3.1 Boone Index Measurement Ceramic intrasite complexity OSC

6.3.1.1 Midden 6.3.1.2 Stone Rooms 6.3.1.3 Early Platforms 6.3.1.4 Water Flood 6.3.1.5 Late Platforms 6.3.2 Bowls

6.3.2.1 Midden 6.3.2.2 Stone Rooms 6.3.2.3 Early Platforms 6.3.2.4 Water Flood 6.3.2.5 Late Platforms 6.3.3 Jars

6.3.3.1 Midden 6.3.3.2 Stone Rooms 6.3.3.3 Early Platforms 6.3.3.4 Water Flood 6.3.3.5 Late Platforms 6.3.4 Bottles

114 114 115 115 116 117 118 119 119 120 120 121 122 122 122 122 123 123 124 124 125 125 125 129 129 129 130 132 133 134 136 136 137

6.3.4.1 Midden 6.3.4.2 Stone Rooms 6.3.4.3 Early Platforms 6.3.4.4 Water Flood 6.3.4.5 Late Platforms 6.3.5 Cups

6.3.5.1 Midden 6.3.5.2 Stone Rooms 6.3.5.3 Early Platforms 6.3.5.4 Water Flood 6.3.5.5 Late Platforms 6.3.6 Plates

6.3.6.1 Midden 6.3.6.2 Stone Rooms 6.3.6.3 Early Platforms 6.3.6.4 Water Flood 6.3.6.5 Late Platforms 7 7.1 7.1.1 THE WACHEQSA SECTOR AS A MULTICOMPONENT AREA Inferred Activities Feasting Activities

7.1.1.1 Ceramics 7.1.1.2 Faunal Remains 7.1.1.3 Narcotic Paraphernalia 7.1.1.4 Exotic Items 7.1.2 Domestic Activities

7.1.2.1 Early Platforms 7.1.2.2 Stone Rooms

xi

7.1.3 7.1.4 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.2.3

Water Flood Intermediate Area Implications and Relevance Feasting and Power The Wacheqsa Sector as a domestic area Radiocarbon Dates

139 139 140 140 145 150 150 152 152 153 153 155 158 164 276

7.2.3.1 Early Platforms 7.2.3.2 Water Flood 7.2.3.3 Midden 7.2.3.4 Stone Rooms 7.2.3.5 Late Platforms 7.2.4 8 Regional Chronological Implications CONCLUSIONS

APPENDIX A. ILLUSTRATIONS BIBLIOGRAPHY

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 01: Chronological chart according to Guaman Poma and Buenaventura Salinas Table 02: Proposed chronological chart of the Andean Formative Table 03: Historical development of digital technologies in archaeology Table 04: Cultural History of digital technologies Table 05: Stratigraphic summary of unit WQ-01 Table 06: Stratigraphic summary of unit WQ-0, West Extension Table 07: Stratigraphic summary of WQ2 Table 08: Stratigraphic summary of WQ3 Table 09: Stratigraphic summary of WQ4 Table 10: Stratigraphic summary of WQ5 Table 11: Stratigraphic summary of WQ6 Table 12 Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SI-U1 Table 13: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SI-U4 Table 14: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SII-U1 Table 15: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SII-U2 Table 16: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SIII-U1 Table 17: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SIII-U2 Table 18: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SIII-U4 Table 19: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SIII-U4A Table 20: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SIV-U3 Table 21: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SIV-U4 Table 22: Stratigraphic summary of WQ8 Table 23: Stratigraphic summary of WQ9 Table 24: Stratigraphic summary of WQ9 Table 25: Chronological chart of the Wacheqsa Sector Table 26: Water Flood analytical unit strata Table 27: Densities of archaeological materials from the Water Flood analytical unit Table 28: Early Platform analytical unit strata Table 29: Densities of archaeological materials from Early Platforms analytical unit Table 30: Midden analytical unit strata Table 31: Densities of archaeological materials from Midden analytical unit

18 20 46 46 65 66 67 67 68 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 76 77 78 79 82 83 85 85 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

xiii

Table 32: Late Platforms analytic unit strata Table 33: Densities of archaeological materials from Late Platforms analytical unit Table 34: Stone Rooms analytic unit strata Table 35: Densities of archaeological materials from Stone Rooms analytical unit Table 36: Aluvin analytical unit strata Table 37: Layers that are part of the Modern Canal analytical unit Table 38: Strata that are part of the Modern Canal analytical unit Table 39: Densities of archaeological classes per analytical unit Table 40: Students t test Least Significant Difference threshold matrix. Table 41: Students T test connecting lines report Table 42: Students T test ordered differences report Table 43: Distribution of sampled sherds Table 44: Distribution of ceramic types sampled per analytical unit Table 45: Percentages of ceramic types sampled per analytical unit Table 46: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements OSC Table 47: Modal clustering table of OSCs Table 48: Measurements of total population of OCSs types Table 49: Types of OCSs Table 50: Middens OSC. Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 51: Modal clustering table of Middens OSC Table 52: Measurements of OCSs types from the Midden Analytical Unit Table 53: Types of OCSs from the Midden Analytical Unit Table 54: Results of Stone Rooms univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 55: Modal clustering table of Stone Rooms OSCs Table 56: Measurements of OCSs types from the Stone Rooms Analytical Unit Table 57: Results of Early Platfforms OSC univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 58: Modal clustering table of Early Platfroms OSCs Table 59: Measurements of OCSs types from the Early Platforms Analytical Unit Table 60: Types of OCSs from the Early Platforms Analytical Unit Table 61: Results of Water Flood OSC univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 62: Modal clustering table of Water Flood OSCs Table 63: Measurements of OCSs types from the Water Flood Analytical Unit Table 64: Types of OCSs from the Water Flood Analytical Unit

95 96 97 98 98 99 99 100 102 102 102 103 103 103 104 104 104 104 105 105 105 105 106 106 106 106 107 107 107 107 107 108 108

xiv

Table 65: Results of Late Platforms univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 66: Modal clustering table of Early Platforms OSCs Table 67: Measurements of OCSs types from the Late Platforms Analytical Unit Table 68: Types of OCSs from the Late Platforms Analytical Unit Table 69: Measurements of different types of ollas sin cuello per analytical unit Table 70: Sizes of ollas sin cuello per analytical unit Table 71: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements Table 72: Modal clustering of total bowl sample Table 73: Results of Middens bowls univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 74: Modal clustering of bowl sample from Midden Table 75: Results of Stone Roomss bowls univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 76: Modal clustering table of bowl sample from Stone Rooms Table 77: Results of Stone Rooms bowl univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 78: Modal clustering of bowl sample from Early Platforms Table 79: Measurements of bowl types from Early Platforms Table 80: Types of bowls from Early Platforms Table 81: Results of Water Floods bowl univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 82: Modal clustering table of bowls from Water Flood Table 83: Measurements of bowl types from Water Flood Table 84: Types of bowls from Water Flood Table 85: Results of Late Platforms bowls univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 86: Modal clustering table of bowls from Late Platforms Table 87: Measurements of bowls types from Late Platforms Table 88: Types of bowls from Late Platforms Table 89: Measurements of different types of bowls per analytical unit Table 90: Sizes of bowls per analytical unit Table 91: Results of Jars univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 92: Modal clustering table of jars Table 93: Results of Midden jars univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 94: Modal clustering table of jars from Midden Table 95: Results of Stone Rooms jars univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 96: Modal clustering table of jars from Stone Rooms Table 97: Results of Early Platforms jars univariate KDE for diameter and thickness

108 108 108 108 109 109 109 109 110 110 110 111 111 111 111 111 112 112 112 112 112 113 113 113 113 113 113 114 114 114 114 115 115

xv

Table 98: Modal clustering table of jars from Early Platforms Table 99: Measurements of jars types from Early Platforms Table 100: Types of jars from Early Platforms Table 101: Results of Water Flood jars univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 102: Modal clustering table of jars from Water Flood Table 103: Measurements of jars types from Water Flood Table 104: Measurements of jars types from Water Flood Table 105: Measurements of jar sample from Late Platforms Table 106: Measurements of jars types from Late Platforms Table 107: Measurements of jars types from Late Platforms Table 108: Measurements of overall jars types per analytical unit Table 109: Jar types per analytical unit Table 110: Results of Bottles univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 111: Modal clustering table of bottles Table 112: Results of Middens bottle univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 113: Modal clustering table of bottles from Midden Table 114: Measurements of bottles spouts types from Midden Table 115: Types of bottles spouts types from Midden Table 116: Measurements of bottle sample from Stone Rooms Table 117: Measurements of bottle sample from Early Platforms Table 118: Measurements of bottle sample from Water Flood Table 119: Measurements of bottle spouts per analytical unit Table 120: Bottle spouts types per analytical unit Table 121: Results of cups univariate KDE for diameter and thickness Table 122: Modal clustering table of cups Table 123: Modal clustering table of cups from Midden Table 124: Measurements of cup types from Midden Table 125: Types of cups from Midden Table 126: Measurements of types of cups per analytical unit Table 127: Types of cups per analytical unit Table 128: Results of plates univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements Table 129: Modal clustering table of plates Table 130: Modal cluster table of plates from Midden

115 115 115 116 116 116 116 116 117 117 117 117 118 118 118 119 119 119 119 120 120 121 121 121 121 122 122 122 123 123 123 124 124

xvi

Table 131: Measurements of type of plates from Midden Table 132: Measurements of plate rims from Stone Rooms Table 133: Measurements of types of plates from Stone Rooms Table 134: Types of plates from Stone Rooms Table 135: Measurements of plate rims from Early Platforms Table 136: Measurements of plate rims from Water Flood Table 137: Measurements of type of plates per analytical unit Table 138: Types of plates per analytical unit Table 139: Summary of vessels type from Midden Table 140: Summary of vessels type from Stone Rooms Table 141: Summary of vessels type from Early Platforms Table 142: Summary of vessels type from Water Flood Table 143: Summary of vessels type from Late Platforms Table 144: Students t test of faunal remains. LSD threshold matrix Table 145: Students t test of faunal remains. Ordered differences report

124 124 125 125 125 125 126 126 126 126 127 127 127 132 132

xvii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 01 Satellite photograph of Chavn de Huntar Figure 02: Map of the monumental core of Chavn de Huntar Figure 03: The Wacheqsa sector viewed from the site of Shallapa,

165 166 167

Figure 04: The Wacheqsa sector viewed from the top of Mound D at Chavn de Huntar 167 Figure 05: Garagay date associated to Janabarriu-like ceramics Figure 06: Garagay dates Figure 07: Examples of Janabarriu-like ceramics from the Wacheqsa sector Figure 08: Chavn dates recovered by Burger Figure 09: Huars date GIF-1079 Figure 10: Dates from the site of Kotosh Figure 11: Dates from the site of La Pampa Figure 12: Kunturwasi dates from the Kunturwasi phase Figure 13: Huars dates published by Lau (2002) Figure 14: Map of the Wacheqsa Sector Figure 15: The modern town Chavn and the Wacheqsa sector after the 1945 landslide Figure 16: Tellos excavations at the Wacheqsa Sector Figure 17: Terracing of the Wacheqsa Sector Figure 18: Agricultural fields delimeted by parkas Figure 19: Agricultural terraces Figure 20: Retention wall along the Wacheqsa Sector Figure 21: Retention wall along the Wacheqsa Sector Figure 22: Map of Bennetts, Tellos and Fungs inferred excavations Figure 23: Tellos excavation profile and associated ceramics recovered Figure 24: Ceramics recovered by Rosa Fung. Unit H2, Layer 5, level 2 Figure 25: Ceramics recovered by Rosa Fung. Test pit 3, layer 2 and level 2 168 168 169 169 170 170 171 171. 171 172 173 173 174 175 175 176 176 177 178 178 179

Figure 26: Screenshot of the process of modeling stratigraphy from the Wacheqsa Sector 180 Figure 27: Texture subsurface strata modeled with Autodesk Land Figure 28: Wireframe model of strata from the Wacheqsa Sector Figure 29: Same strata after textures are applied Figure 30: Excavations at the Wacheqsa Sector Figure 31: Wacheqsa Sector before excavations started in 2003 180 181 181 182 183

xviii

Figure 32: Systematic sampling strategy used in year 2005 Figure 33: Location of units WQ1 and WQ2 on the north edge of the Wacheqsa sector Figure 34: Stone platform located on WQ1 Figure 35: Excavation of Feature 1 in WQ1-AW Figure 36: South profile of WQ1 and WQ1-WE Figure 37: Visible walls at the northern edge of the Wacheqsa sector Figure 38: Exposed deposits in WQ2 before excavations started Figure 39: Feature 02 in WQ2, Layer 03 and exposed section of Floor 2. Figure 40: Excavation of WQ3 and WQ4 Figure 41: Excavation of aluvin layer in WQ3 Figure 42: Stone platform (layer 2a) associated to wall (Feature 01) Figure 43: Stone platform, wall (Feature 01) and floor associated Figure 44: Plan of exposed architecture in WQ4 Figure 45: Stone room, associated floor and wall (Feature 2) that delimits an alley Figure 46: Layer 8 and associated Features 03 and 04 Figure 47: WQ4, east profile Figure 48: Location of WQ5 Figure 49: Hearth excavated in WQ6 Figure 50: Panoramic view of WQ7 Figure 51: Profile of WQ7, SI, U1 Figure 52: Plant drawing of stone platform Figure 53: Stratigraphic section of WQ7, SI, U1 Figure 54: Profile of WQ7, SII, U1 Figure 55: Plan of architecture exposed in WQ7, SII, U1, Figure 56: Stone platform in WQ7, SIII, U2 Figure 57: Profile of WQ7, SIII, U4 Figure 58: East profile of WQ7, SIII, U4A Figure 59: Excavation unit WQ7, SIII, U4A Figure 60: Excavation WQ7, SIII 2, 4 and 4A Figure 61: South profile of WQ7, SIV, U3 Figure 62: Stratigraphic detail of WQ7, SIV, U4 Figure 63: WQ8, plan of architecture exposed Figure 64: Spatial distributions of analytical units in the Wacheqsa Sector

183 184 184 185 186 187 188 188 189 189 190 191 192 191 192 193 194 194 195 195 196 196 197 197 198 198 199 199 200 201 202 203 204

xix

Figure 65: Water Flood analytical unit Figure 66: Water Flood analytical unit. Common depositional events in units excavated Figure 67: Detail of WQ4. Stone Rooms analytical unit on top of Early Platforms Figure 68: Ceramics recovered in unit WQ-1 WE, layer 8 Figure 69: Stone miniature found in WQ4, layer 6 Figure 70: Ceramics recovered in WQ4, layer 7 Figure 71: Ceramics recovered in WQ4, layer 6 Figure 72: Idem Figure 73: Stratigraphic relationship Midden and Water Flood analytical units Figure 74: Stratigraphic modelling of Midden analytical unit Figure 75: Slate projectile points recovered in Midden analytical unit Figure 76: Bone artefacts recovered in the Midden Analytical Unit Figure 77: Slate projectile point recovered in WQ7, SIII, U4A, L10 Figure 78: Molded Frieze recovered in WQ7, SIII, U4A, L16 Figure 79: Ceramics found in the Midden Analytical unit Figure 80: Ceramics found in the Midden Analytical unit Figure 81: Ceramics found in the Midden Analytical unit Figure 82: Fragments of columns Figure 83: Fragments of burnt architectural features (floors) Figure 84: Ceramics retrieved from WQ4, L2 Figure 85: Ceramics retrieved from the Stone Rooms analytical unit Figure 86: Fragment of unworked chrysocolla. Figure 87: Fragment of cooper ore Figure 88: Spatial distribution of Stone Rooms analytical unit in relation with Late Platforms and Midden units Figure 89: WQ8, stratigraphic relationship between Early Platforms and Stone Room analytical units Figure 90: Aluvion and Agricultural Land sections Figure 91: Stratrigraphic Harris Matrix of strata recorded Figure 92: Volume excavated per Analytical Unit Figure 93: Density of archaeological materials per Analytical Unit Figure 95: Distribution of analytical units according to sample size (log) Figure 96: Distribution of analytical units according to Hi values

205 206 207 208 208 209 209 210 211 212 213 213 214 214 215 216 217 217 218 218 219 220 220

221

222 223 224 225 225 227 227

xx

Figure 97: Confidence interval (90%) of Hi values Figure 98: Probabilities of Hi [p(Hi)] values after 10000 Figure 99: Distribution (log) of p(Hi) values per analytical unit Figure 100: Percentage of ceramic types sampled per analytical unit Figure 101: KDE plot of rim diameters of ollas sin cuello Figure 102: KDE plot of rim thicknesses of ollas sin cuello Figure 103: Bivariate KDE plot of ollas sin cuello. Figure 104: Rim diameters of ollas sin cuello from Midden Figure 105: Rim thicknesses of ollas sin cuello from Midden Figure 106: Bivariate KDE of OSCs from Stone Rooms Figure 107: Rim diameters of ollas sin cuello from Stone Rooms Figure 108: Rim thicknesses of ollas sin cuello from Stone Rooms Figure 109: Bivariate KDE of OSCs from Stone Rooms Figure 110: Rim diameters of ollas sin cuello from Early Platforms Figure 111: Rim thicknesses of ollas sin cuello from Early Platforms Figure 112: Bivariate KDE of OSCs from Early Platforms Figure 113: Rim diameters of ollas sin cuello from Water Flood Figure 114: Rim thicknesses of ollas sin cuello from Water Flood Figure 115: Bivariate KDE of OSCs from Water Flood Figure 116: Rim diameters of ollas sin cuello from Late Platforms Figure 117: Rim thicknesses of ollas sin cuello from Late Platforms Figure 118: Bivariate KDE of OSCs from Late Platforms Figure 119: Rim diameters of bowls Figure 120: Rim thicknesses of bowls Figure 121: Bivariate KDE of bowls Figure 122: Rim diameters of bowls from Midden Figure 123: Rim thicknesses of bowls from Midden Figure 124: Bivariate KDE of bowls from Midden Figure 125: Rim diameters of bowls from Stone Rooms Figure 126: Rim thicknesses of bowls from Stone Rooms Figure 127: Bivariate KDE of bowls from Stone Rooms Figure 128: Rim diameters of bowls from Early Platforms Figure 129: Rim thicknesses of bowls from Early Platforms

228 228 229 229 230 230 231 231 232 232 233 233 234 234 235 235 236 236 237 237 238 238 239 239 240 240 241 241 242 242 243 243 244

xxi

Figure 130: Bivariate KDE of bowls from Early Platforms Figure 131: Rim diameters of bowls from Water Flood Figure 132: Rim thicknesses of bowls from Water Flood Figure 133: Bivariate KDE of bowls from Water Flood Figure 134: Rim diameters of bowls from Late Platforms Figure 135: Rim thicknesses of bowls from Late Platforms Figure 136: Bivariate KDE of bowls from Late Platforms Figure 137: Rim diameters of jars Figure 138: Rim thicknesses of jars Figure 139: Bivariate KDE of jars Figure 140: Rim diameters of jars from Midden Figure 141: Rim thicknesses of jars from Midden Figure 142: Bivariate KDE of jars. Arrow indicates the mode identified Figure 143: Rim diameters of jars from Stone Rooms Figure 144: Rim thicknesses of jars from Stone Rooms Figure 145: Bivariate KDE of jars from Stone Room. Figure 146: Rim diameters of jars from Early Platforms Figure 147: Rim thicknesses of jars from Early Platforms Figure 148: Bivariate KDE of jars from Early Platforms Figure 149: Rim diameters of jars from Water Flood Figure 150: Rim thicknesses of jars from Water Flood Figure 151: Bivariate KDE of jars from Water Flood Figure 152: Rim diameters from bottles Figure 153: Rim thicknesses from bottles Figure 154: Bivariate KDE of bottles Figure 156: Rim thicknesses of bottles from Midden Figure 157: Bivariate KDE of bottles from Midden. Figure 158: Rim diameters of cups Figure 159: Rim thicknesses from cups Figure 160: Bivariate KDE of cups. Arrows indicate modes identified Figure 161: Rim diameters of cups from Midden Figure 162: Rim thicknesses of cups from Midden Figure 163: Bivariate KDE of cups from Midden.

244 245 245 246 246 247 247 248 248 249 249 250 250 251 251 252 252 253 253 254 254 255 255 256 256 257 258 258 259 259 260 260 261

xxii

Figure 164: Rim diameters of plates Figure 165: Rim thicknesses of plates Figure 166: Bivariate KDE of plates. Arrows indicate the modes identified Figure 167: Rim Diameters of plates from Midden Figure 168: Rim Thickness of plates from Midden Figure 169: Bivariate KDE of plates. Arrow indicate the mode identified Figure 170: Density of faunal remains per analytical unit (log) Figure 171: Fragment of a small spoon retrieved in WQ7,SIV, U3, L11 Figure 171: Fragment of a small spoon retrieved in WQ7,S III, U4A, L16 Figure 172: Polished bone tube retrieved in WQ7,SIII, U4A, L19 Figure 173: Polished bone tube retrieved in WQ7, SIII, U4A, L18 Figure 174: Polished bone tube retrieved in WQ7, SIII, U4A, L11 Figure 174: Polished bone tube retrieved in WQ7, SIII, U4A, L12 Figure 175: Bottle fragment found associated to hearth in WQ-6 Figure 176: Ceramics associated to hearth in WQ-6 Figure 177: Ceramic associated to hearth in WQ-6 Figure 178: Ceramics from WQ1, layer 5 Figure 179: Ceramic sherd from WQ1, Floor 3 Figure 180: Ceramic sherds from WQ4, layer 6 Figure 181: Ceramic sherds from WQ5, layer 6 Figure 182: Ceramics sherds from WQ7, SIV, U4, layer 20 Figure 183: Ceramics retrieved from WQ-7, SIII, U4, layer 8 Figure 184: Ceramics retrieved from WQ-7, SIV, U4, layer 14 Figure 185: Ceramics retrieved from WQ-7, SIV, U4, layer 10 Figure 186: Ceramics retrieved from WQ8, layer 3 Figure 187: Ceramics retrieved from WQ-7,SIII, U1, layer 9 Figures 188: Urabarriu dates retrieved by Burger Figure 189: Wacheqsa Sector radiocarbon dates

261 262 262 263 263 264 264 265 265 266 266 267 267 268 268 269 269 270 270 271 271 272 272 273 273 274 274 275

xxiii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION, RESEARCH HISTORY AND RESEARCH DESIGN

1.1

Introduction The ceremonial center of Chavn de Huntar is located in the province of Huari,

department of Ancash, in the north central Peruvian highlands at 3,200 meters above sea level at the junction of the Wacheqsa and Mosna Rivers (figure 01). Since the work of Peruvian archaeologist Julio C. Tello in 1919, Chavn has been a pivotal element in the discussion of the origins of social complexity in the Andes, as the Andean mother culture (Tello 1942, 1943, 1960), as a derivative of social development started in Mesoamerica (Uhle 1902), as a synthesis of previous Peruvian coastal and highland developments (Burger 1988; Burger 1992), or as a place where authority was being crafted and transmitted (Kembel and Rick 2004; Rick 2005, 2006). Either as a mother culture or as a synthetic culture, Chavn de Huntar1 has been constantly present in any discourse regarding early social complexity in the Peruvian Andes. One cannot help but ask the question, why is Chavn so preeminent in Andean archaeological studies? The reason for this extensive interest in Chavin lies in its engraved sculpture, and monumental architecture characterized by superimposed platforms, impressive buildings, underground galleries, and open plazas (figure 02). As a result of its impressive architecture, most of the archaeological work in Chavin has focused upon the monumental area (Bennett 1944; Kembel 2001; Lumbreras 1989, 1993; Lumbreras and Amat 1965; Rick, et al. 1998), trying to understand the construction sequence of the site, the meaning of the iconography, and the relative chronological sequences. However, a limited amount of research has been carried out in the areas surrounding the site of Chavn de Huntar (Burger 1984; Burger 1998; Espejo 1941). The nature of the social activities believed to have been carried out in these areas varies according to the location and proximity to the ceremonial area. For instance, the contexts identified at La Banda located at the east bank of the Mosna river are primarily domestic but with a ceremonial imprint (Rick 2005), while the contexts identified at the West Field mostly have ceremonial components (Contreras 2007). Along the same lines, the location of an extensive Chavn domestic area was suggested by Rivero (Rivero de Ustariz 1851) and confirmed by Richard Burger who excavated samples of an extensive domestic settlement to the north of the
1

From now on, Chavn de Huntar will be referred to as the archaeological site unless otherwise stated.

101

Wacheqsa river where the modern town of Chavn lies (Burger 1984; Burger 1998). The investigation of the immediate periphery provides important information regarding the different activities that have surrounded the monumental core, varying from sacred to domestic, that are no less complex than those carried out in the architectural center. Following this line of research, I investigated the Wacheqsa sector, located immediately to the north of the ceremonial core, and enclosed by the Mosna River, the Wacheqsa River and the northern platform of the monumental area (figures 03 and 04). The main objective of my investigation has been the understanding of the archaeological deposits that have formed this area, and analyzing their chronological and spatial relationships. The goal of my investigation is the development of contextual information previously unknown in Chavn de Huntar and a clear understanding of this sectors role during the Middle and Late Formative periods. This information is relevant for the comprehension of power strategies developed by the authorities of Chavn de Huntar for enticing foreign elites and local population into their religious system and also provides relevant data about the chronology of Chavn de Huntar and the relationships of the ceremonial center with others of the Middle and Late Formative (1200 500 BC).

1.2

Research History at Chavn de Huntar In this section I intend to explore the historical development of knowledge constructed

about Chavn de Huntar and how specific historic moments have marked qualitative and quantitative changes in the comprehension of the site. I consider this information relevant in order to have a clear understanding of how interpretations about the site have changed from the early Spanish accounts to the present. Also I would like to provide an updated research history that can be used in conjunction with the excellent overview published by Lumbreras in 1989 (Lumbreras 1989)

1.2.1

Early Accounts The first account of the archaeological site comes from Pedro Cieza de Len who in

1553 wrote Crnica del Per (Cieza de Len 1553 [1984]). As part of his duties as a soldier of the Spanish army, he extensively traveled across the Inca Empire, writing in his free time the impressions of his traveling experiences. He describes an old fortress located eight leguas from the province of Piscobamba in the Callejn de Conchucos,

Among the old rooms, a big fortress can be seen, which is like a block and had 140 steps and was even wider, and in many places of them are faces and human sculptures, everything beautifully made, and some natives say that the Incas, as a sign of victory, built this memorial 2 (Cieza De Len, 1553: 271. Emphasis added) The references to walls covered by sculpted faces as well as the location that Cieza provides are compelling enough to state that the site described by him is actually Chavn de Huntar. He not only described the site but assigned a rough chronological placement to the site. Cieza believed that Chavn de Huntar was constructed long before the time of the Incas, Others tell and have it more certain, that this is not true, that in very ancient times, long before the Incas ruled there were in those lands men like giants, so tall that they show it in the stone sculptures but with time and the big war they had with those who are rulers now, the giant lords weakened and disappeared3 (Cieza De Len, 1553: 271) After Ciezas account, in 1593, Toribio Alfonso de Mogrovejo, head of the Archdioceses of this region arrived at the town of San Pedro de Chavn, visiting the archaeological site (Mogrovejo 1593 [1920]). Unlike Cieza, Mogrovejo assigns Chavn de Huntar the category of huaca, a sacred place, Near this town, there is an ancient huaca, which is in a fortress and inside this huaca, there are several passages under it, and there are stories that the huaca has had a lot of richness; it [the huaca] has not been completely discovered and some parts are contaminated4 (Toribio de Mogrovejo, 1593: 412. Emphasis added) Adding more information regarding the sacred nature of Chavn de Huntar, Father Antonio Vsquez de Espinoza wrote in 1630 that Chavn de Huntar was a pilgrimage center, similar to Rome or Jerusalem (Vzquez de Espinoza 1616 [1948]). In 1631 the Catholic Jesuit order took control of San Pedro de Chavn until 1650 when Limas Archbishop took over. During this time, Jesuits actively worked in the extirpation of idolatries mandated by Viceroy Toledo, and the effects of their work can be seen in a large trench dug in the middle of Building A with the attempt to discover false idols venerated by native populations. Stone pieces were even used as construction materials for the local church (Meja 1945). The reason for the active presence of clerics in this section of the Callejn de Conchucos is that this valley
2 3

My translation. My translation. 4 My translation.

occupied a strategic position as an alternative route to the Maran valley, in the eastern slopes of the Cordillera de los Andes (Polo 1900). Peru freed itself from the Spanish in 1821 a year afterwards the National Museum was created, with Mariano Rivero Ustarz as its first director. In 1840 he visited San Pedro de Chavn5 and Chavn de Huntar, attracted by chroniclers accounts. His observations were published in 1851, in the book called Antigedades Peruanas (Rivero de Ustariz 1851)6. There are three elements that must be emphasized in Riveros account: a) a description of the inner rooms of the main building (Building A), b) the identification of the town of San Pedro as an extension of the civic ceremonial center, and c) the linking of the puna settlement of Pojoc with Chavn de Huntar (Rivero 1851: 284). He is the first scholar who attempted to link Chavns surroundings with the site, he mentioning that the town of San Pedro was constructed above a web of aqueducts and that Pojoc probably had the same function as Chavn. However, he does not state which function this was.

1.2.2

Travelers Polo de Ondegardos presence in 1871 marks the beginning of a time characterized

by several travelers accounts of Chavn de Huntar. While he was in town as a public officer, he found a rectangular stone slab that depicted a supernatural being in frontal position, wearing a headdress and holding one staff in each hand. This stela was found in the house of Lazaro Palacios, an inhabitant of Chavn who used it as a dinner table and it was taken to Lima in 1873. Currently this slab is known as the Raimondi Stone. Polo de Ondegardo also visited Chavn de Huntar and provided a description of it. Here lie the remains of an ancient building called El Castillo. Judging from the terrain, the rubble and the underground galleries, it looks like the site was almost rectangular, 150 m long and 60 m 70 m wide, with the main faade probably looking towards the Puccha and towards Posoc [] The entrance must have been guarded by two wings oriented to the river as secondary constructions, giving the whole building the shape of an E. There are several galleries and rooms running in different directions creating a labyrinth, it has to be noted that these galleries intersect at a central point7 (Polo 1900: 220).

When referring to the modern town of Chavn de Huntar I will use its original name, San Pedro de Chavn. 6 This is the first book ever written about Peruvian archaeology. 7 My translation.

The central point where the four galleries join is the Lanzn gallery, a gallery where a stone sculpture (the Lanzn) more than fours meter high sits at the conjunction. the first description of the Lanzn. There is monolith that looks like a big lance [lanzn], 2.20 m high. Its lower part has three sides, stretching towards its upper portion; it fits the ceiling leaning towards a rounded stone that supports it. It resembles an oxs head, and engravings of fangs, staffs, snakes, lizards and even condor heads and monkeys can be noticed on its sides8 (Polo 1900:222) One of the main characteristics of Chavn art is the recurrent use of zoomorphic images as metaphors for anthropomorphic parts (Rowe 1962a); the snakes, fangs, condors and monkeys that Polo refers to are metaphors of body sections of an anthropomorphic deity sculpted in the Lanzn. In 1873, the Italian traveler Antonio Raimondi arrived at San Pedro de Chavn, attracted by the fame of Chavn de Huntar. He stated that the site had at least a military component as part of it and that, Crossing the smaller river [Wacheqsa] there is a big wall towards the side of the road, built with quarried stones, joint together without clay. This wall is just a small detail of the splendid construction. Judging from the remains existing, it looks like this castle had a rectangular form with two wings oriented towards the river, giving the whole structure the shape of an open parallelogram. In front of the wings, and almost at the shore of the river, there are two platforms which are the remains of two fortresses9 (Raimondi, 1873: 211. Emphasis added). In 1875, French traveler Charles Wiener arrived at San Pedro de Chavn, attracted by Riveros descriptions. Wiener indicated that Chavn de Huntar was composed of two terraces, the lower one located 11 m above the Wacheqsa River, and that the upper one was crossed by several ducts. Wiener paid attention to the iconography depicted in different slabs dispersed across the site. He thought that the images represented on these architectural elements were depictions of a Chavn god, leading Wiener to conclude that Chavn was not a fortress but a temple (Wiener 1880 [1993]) At this point most of the accounts of Chavn de Huntar were merely descriptions of its architecture with the possible exception of Rivero making few references to its iconography. The situation dramatically changed with the arrival of Ernst Middendorf who Polo offers

8 9

My translation My translation.

tried to link Chavn de Huntar with other archaeological sites he explored during his travels across Peru. Middendorf paid special attention to sites on the coast, hypothesizing the existence of two kingdoms, one on the coast, and one in the Callejn de Conchucos that maintained close contacts in a time before the Incas. He based his interpretations on the iconography depicted on the Lanzn and in other lithic art scattered across Chavn de Huntar and in its architecture. He recognized that the construction technique and art styles from Chavn were very different from those used by the Incas and consequently Chavn de Huntar must have been constructed in a pre-Inca time. Middendorf believed that Chavn de Huntar functioned as a temple and as a palace but not as the capital of the Kingdom of the Callejn de Conchucos (Middendorf 1893 [1974]).

1.2.3

The Archaeologists arrive As might be expected, the arrival of trained professionals triggered a quantitative and

qualitative jump in the knowledge of Chavn de Huntar. Archaeologists formally entered Chavn de Huntar in 1919. Julio C Tello, then- Director of the San Marcos University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology stopped in Chavn on his first archaeological expedition to the Maran River. He did not carry out excavation work, but rather cleaned one of the staircases of the main building, collected dispersed stone sculptures from the site and the town of San Pedro de Chavn, and excavated the foundations of the Lanzn, exposing 2.23 additional meters to the already exposed 2.20 m. of the sculpture (Tello 1940). This was in a true sense an exploratory field season, but also productive enough to allow Tello to make some crucial interpretations about the nature of Chavn de Huntar, interpretations that would frame the debate about the origins of social complexity in the Andes for several years. Based on his experience in Chavn and his knowledge of Andean ethnography, Tello wrote an essay named Wiracocha meant to explain the unique character of the Andean religious system that was grounded in the worshiping of a divinity that lasted from the origins of Andean civilization until Inca times. Tello argued this divinity was represented on the Lanzn and Tello obelisk, the latter being an elongate carved stone he found in one of the plazas of Chavin that depicted two zoomorphic deities incorporating different crop plants and animals (Tello 1923) Chavn de Huntar was, therefore, conceptualized by Tello as the place where Andean civilization originated under the cult of the Jaguar or Dragon, entities later reinterpreted by the Incas as Wiracocha. Chavn acted as the core of civilization from where

the Jaguar/Dragon religion spreads to the civilizing Andean population. In 1929 Tello defined Chavn as part of the Megalithic Culture described in the XVII century by Guaman Poma de Ayala (Poma de Ayala 1992 [1613])and Father Buenaventura Salinas (Salinas y Crdoba 1957 [1630]). Inca oral tradition recorded by these two chroniclers mentions a first age of Andean history characterized by monumental stone architecture, which led Tello to identify Chavn as part of this early age, named as Auca Runa by Poma and Buenaventura. Tello used Chavn as evidence against the exogamic interpretations of Andean social complexity of Max Uhle. In 1902 the German archaeologist Uhle wrote that civilization in Peru was a product of migrating populations coming from Mesoamerica, an explanation that Tello opposed using Chavn as evidence not only of the antiquity of Andean civilization but also as the center from where Andean culture spread to the rest of the Andes (Tello 1929) In 1925 a landslide from the east bank of the Mosna River modified the course of the river and in 1930 a similar event destroyed the east portion of Building E, exposing an architectural cross-section of the structure (Tello 1940). This event was crucial in Tellos understanding of Chavn de Huntar. When Tello arrived for a second visit in 1934 he studied the stratigraphy of the cut left in the building by the river, noticing the presence of ceramics under the exposed architecture. Before this event Tello was willing to concede that ceramics from the coast may have been earlier than Chavn, because in his first visit in 1919 he did not find in situ Chavn ceramics. He was concerned about the viability of the model that he had constructed for Chavn de Huntar of Chavn as a mother culture. The discovery of these sherds in stratigraphic layers gave him the elements needed not only to solidify his model of Chavn as the core and the coast as the periphery but also to elaborate on the long construction tradition that had occurred at Chavn (Tello 1943). In 1938, Wendell Bennett arrived at Chavn de Huntar and excavated 16 test pits in 28 days, two of them located in the Wacheqsa sector which I will treat separately. Bennetts excavations were based on coarse arbitrary levels of 50 cm. each. The materials he recovered were presented as a whole with no differentiation of context or excavation unit in which they were found (Bennett 1944). In a 1943 paper he stated that the archaeological site of Chavn de Huntar was the manifestation of a distinctive lithic and ceramic style present in different areas of the Andean region, but in contrast to Tello, it was not necessarily the origin of these styles (Bennett 1943). Bennett established the chronological position of Chavn de Huntar based mostly on correlations with materials coming from different areas rather than from Chavn itself, arguing, Excavations in Chavn itself have so far shed little light on the

ultimate chronological position of this period (Bennett 1943: 323). Bennett found Chavn to be the oldest pan-Andean style, older than Tiahuanaco and the white on red style identified by Willey on the central coast. In late 1940 Tello returned to Chavn for the third and last time with the main task of repairing the Mosna retaining wall that was destroyed by landslides in 1925 and 1930. Tello uses this project as an excuse to carry out excavations in different sectors of Chavn. Tello benefited from this visit by excavating in different areas and creating the first museum at Chavn which reflected the importance that Chavn had for him and how museums fit his political agenda (Mesia 2006). Tello inaugurates the Museo de Sitio de Chavn on November 14, 1940, declaring, At first we thought in building a small fence in the main square; later we received the suggestion of cleaning one of the galleries to store the stone sculptures; at last we decide to take over the chapel on top of Mound B (Tello 1940:9) Tello cleaned the western faade, the south faade and north section of the eastern faade of Building A. He also conducted research in the Wacheqsa sector10. Like Wiener, Tello noted the presence of a complex web of canals extending within almost all the monumental core, even to the west, in the West Field: If there are canals along the Wacheqsa edge, whose upper part is 15 m above the river, it is to be expected there will be canals crossing these lands [West Field lands] in order to drain water to the Puchka River [Mosna] and not destroy the lands and buildings built in this area11 (Tello 1940:26). Upon finishing his fieldwork at Chavn, Tello proposed the first architectural growth sequence for the site, composed of three phases: What appears in this faade [Building A], are the remains of three buildings joint together. It is possible that these buildings not only occupy the eastern section of the monument but even the western portion. One of my excavations exposed the complete eastern faade and recorded its foundations and lower walls, allowing the uncovering of these three joint buildings, which nowadays form a quadrangular platform (Tello 1940:63). Tello offered a well-thought-out summary of his interpretations in the paper Origen y Desarrollo de las Civilizaciones Prehistricas Andinas, published in 1942 (Tello 1942). In
10 11

The nature of this research will be discussed in chapter 3. My translation.

this work Tello amply elaborates several lines of diffusion derived from Chavn de Huntar. Chavn became the foundation from which two early civilizations develop: the Paracas-Cusco and the Pucara-Tiahuanaco. According to Tello, these cultures emerge between 1000 BC and the beginnings of our era. The importance of these statements is that for the first time there is an attempt to place Chavn in calendar years. In spite of having been developed from a combination of relative chronologies, his temporal construction is reasonably accurate.

1.2.4

After the aluvin, more archaeologists arrive In 1945, a landslide coming from the mountains west of Chavn nearly completely

covered the ceremonial center, destroying the site museum and taking with it 155 archaeological sculptures, including tenon heads, engraved slabs, stone mortars and other artifacts, not to mention the loss of life due to this unfortunate natural disaster. The archaeological site was completely covered by mud and rocks and had to be uncovered all over again. Tello, as Director of the National Museum, gave local disciple Marino Gonzales the task of recovering Chavn from the landslide sediments. Gonzales was very active between the years of 1947 and 1968, carrying on diverse excavations in the monumental core, some of them under the label of cleaning operations. Regrettably, there are no major sources of information about points are known (Lumbreras 1989). this work, but some salient

In 1958 Gonzales discovered the Rocas Canal, the

major drain of the monumental core. In 1959 he and Manuel Chavez Balln excavated the north faade of Building A with the purpose of finding a doorway similar to the one located in the eastern faade of Building A. Gonzales and Balln found an entrance without columns, and the Stairway Gallery. This gallery was excavated by Gonzales in 1961, revealing its stairs and walls covered by yellow plaster (Lumbreras 1989). Unfortunately, the total scope of Gonzaless work is yet unknown and awaits careful scrutiny of Gonzales field notes and photographic record. In 1961 and 1963 John Rowe made short but important visits to Chavn. He excavated near the Mosna River, but unfortunately, there are no published accounts about the outcome of these excavations (Lumbreras 1989). However, Rowes relevance to Chavn studies does not derive from excavation but from his observations on Chavn architecture and lithic art. Like Tello, Rowe proposed that the architectural seams in the east faade of Building A defined chronological differences and, as Tello before him, Rowe suggested the presence of three architectural phases. However, unlike Tello, Rowe included the rest of the

buildings that are part of the monumental core, establishing the pivotal architectural sequence for Chavn: Old temple, Old Temples south extension, and New Temple (Rowe 1962a). Rowe also continued with what Tello had left unfinished in Wiracocha and established a diachronic dimension of the lithic art proposing four phases of Chavn stone art. The anchor point in this sequence is phase D, for which sculptures of the Black and White portal serve as a standard comparison [] For phase C at Chavn the standard of comparison is the most elaborated single monument at Chavn art, the so called Tello Obelisk [] Phase AB includes all examples of Chavn art which are earlier than the Tello Obelisk, while EF includes all those which are later than the Black and White portal. Among the monuments assigned to AB by these criteria are the cornice blocks from the main structure of the new temple [] The Great Image in the old temple can be assigned to Phase AB [] Phase EF includes the famous Raimondi Stone (Rowe 1962a:14) Even though his statements were mainly supported by superficial observations and objects with no contexts, this sequence, as well as the architectural one, would be highly influential in years to come. In 1966, Luis Lumbreras and Hernn Amat began a long-term project in the civic ceremonial center. Lumbreras carried out excavation in the Old Temples atrium and the Ofrendas Gallery located immediately at the north of the same atrium. While excavating in the atrium, Lumbreras and his team identified a circular sunken court or circular plaza covered by two extensive post Chavn domestic settlements, one settled above Chavn abandonment layers and the other above this last one (Lumbreras 1989, 1993). The

abandonment layers to which Lumbreras refers are composed by the collapse of the walls of the Old Temple (layer G) and by the collapse of the plaster and molded friezes that may have covered the walls (layer H), (Lumbreras 1989). He only excavated 15% of layer H in the Circular Plaza, the rest of this layer was excavated by John Rick between 1998 and 2004 (Kembel and Rick 2004; Rick 2005). On the north arc of the Circular Plaza Lumbreras found five vertical engraved slabs and nine horizontal engraved slabs below the vertical ones. On the vertical slabs, there are representations of a crowned personage, an individual grasping a strombus, and another human-like entity holding a hallucinogenic cactus likely to be that known as San Pedro. These individuals seem to represent a hybridization of felines and human beings following the conventions of Chavn art. On the horizontal slabs, a set of felines are represented with

strictly zoomorphic features. Given the iconographic nature of the Circular Plaza slabs,

10

Lumbreras thought that they could be dated to phase C in Rowes sequence, even suggesting that the Tello Obelisk was placed in the middle of the circular plaza, surrounded by the individuals represented on the slabs (Lumbreras 1993). As mentioned before, Lumbreras also excavated the Ofrendas Gallery, where he found, in a sealed context, a group of 681 broken, but mostly complete ceramic vessels, 191 human bones, and 171 non-ceramic artifacts (Lumbreras 1993). He identified seven ceramic styles among the vessels recorded: Dragoniano, Ofrendas, Qotopuquio, Floral, Pucaorqo, Mosna, Wacheqsa, Raku y Puchka. The first five are labeled as local styles while the remaining four were identified as foreign. The foreign pottery makes up 27% of the total sample and three of the styles have been assigned to the North Coast while the other one (Mosna) to the northern highlands (Lumbreras 1989, 1993). At the same time Hernn Amat worked in the New Temple excavating the Rocas Canal (Lumbreras and Amat 1965). Regrettably there are no major publications resulting from the work of Hernn Amat in Chavn12. In front of the Black and White Portal he excavated what Rick et. al. (Rick, et al. 1998) have interpreted to be a small rectangular plaza built with cut granite and limestone. Under this plaza there is a set of rectangular stone-walled rooms, though disappointingly there is no information about their contexts. Amat also excavated at the south of Building E, again with no published references. Lumbreras excavations terminated abruptly at the moment he began excavating the Caracolas Gallery, located at the opposite side of Circular Plaza from the Ofrendas Gallery. He found engraved fragments of strombii scattered in the gallery in his very brief excavations there. The gallery was later fully excavated in 2001 by John Rick with startling results (Rick 2005). In 1973, Rosa Fung began her work at Chavn de Huntar, excavating in the Loco galley in Building C, where she found three archaeological layers laying above the floor of its passages; no other contexts were found. She also excavated at the north edge of the Wacheqsa Sector. The results of her excavations in this sector will be treated separately. She worked in Chavn again in 1974, 1975 and 1976, and the results of her excavations in the ceremonial center and the Wacheqsa sector are still unpublished.

12

He has only published some accounts regarding post-Chavn contexts at Chavn (Amat 2004)

1 1

1.2.5

A New Turning Point Since the death of Julio C. Tello, knowledge about Chavn de Huntar had notably

increased. Chavn had an improved architectural sequence, and new ceramic and lithic chronologies tied to carbon dates were obtained from Lumbreras excavations.In 1975 Richard Burger began excavations in the town of San Pedro de Chavn with the purpose of obtaining absolute and relative chronologies, defining the extent of the ancient settlement and finding information relating to Chavns economy and subsistence (Burger 1998). With these objectives in mind, Burger excavated 13 units scattered mainly in the modern town of Chavn de Huntar (A1/2/3, A/4/5/6, B1/2/3/5, B5/6/7, B/8 y B/9), southwest of the monumental core (D1, D2 y 20-A1), La Banda (4-A1 y 4-B1), west of the monumental core (19-A1) and northeast of it (E1). These excavations were supplemented by surface collections and observations of the profiles exposed by civic works in town. Burger confirmed what Rivero had stated in 1851, also identifying one area of craft production located in the northern section of town, Another activity of the residents of this locus was the production of bone tools and ornaments. This is amply demonstrated by the cut bone cylinders and articulated ends of mammal bones as byproducts of the workshops (Burger 1984: 227). He also recorded platforms to the southeast of the monumental core associated with offerings (Burger 1984, 1992, 1998). Regrettably there is no information about the units he excavated in La Banda. A result of his fieldwork is the documentation of the complex and continuous archaeological occupation around the monumental core within a range of one kilometer, which not only confirmed what Rivero had already suggested but also added more information. However, not only are Riveros interpretations expanded, but also those of Rowe and Lumbreras. Burger identified three prehistoric moments, associating every one of these phases with one of Rowes architectural periods. He also established the chronological limits for Chavn de Huntar between 900 200 BC, based on ten radiocarbon dates. In 1985, Burger proposed the concept of Chavn as synthesis rather than as mother culture, based on the observations Carlos Williams made in 1980. Williams noticed that in the monumental core of Chavn de Huntar there were architectural forms that originated between 3000 and 1000 BC (Williams 1980); among these forms are the circular plaza, quadrangular plaza and stepped platforms. Burger took a step further and indicated that the presence of these architectural forms was due to the collapse of social formations in the coast that obliged 12

coastal inhabitants to find more suitable lands in the highlands (Burger 1985). In a way what he proposed was closely related to Larco regarding the nature of the Chavn phenomenon (Larco 1945, 1948) Until this time the knowledge about Chavn could be summarized in the following points: Chavn chronology falls within the period of 900 200 BC. The architectural phases developed by John Rowe correlate one-on-one with the ceramic phases defined by Richard Burger. Chavn is the result of the migration of coastal groups that abandoned their original settlements due to an environmental stress. Chavn thus is the synthesis of older coastal archaeological traditions. Chavn reached its peak during 400 200 BC, exerting a tremendous influence in the central Andes at that time.

1.2.6

The Stanford Archaeological Project After a very long hiatus, research at Chavn resumed with the work of the Stanford

Archaeological Project, directed by John Rick. This work started with the production of a three-dimensional map that allowed Rick to recognize that the architectural complexity was more intricate than Rowe and others imagined. In order to add more information to the threedimensional model, Rick excavated 10 test pits in the architectural seams that are known in the facades of Buildings A, B, and C in order to evaluate Rowes growth hypothesis. Along the same lines, Silvia Kembel researched the growth of the monumental core from the inside, examining the patterns of distribution, and growth of the galleries located inside the different buildings. The outcome of this architectural research is as follows: The monumental core was built in 5 stages, 15 phases and 51 construction events. Rowes architectural and lithic art sequences, although hinting in some right directions, are too incomplete and erroneous to remain the underpinning of Chavn chronology. Construction began perhaps as early as 1500 BC, with the ceremonial center ceasing to function at such around 500-600 BC. Thus, Burgers hypothetical peak of Chavn influence at 400-200 BC does not correspond to the ritual use of the civic ceremonial center of Chavn.

1 3

With this, research at Chavn de Huntar came to a new turning point. Excavations not only in the monumental core but also in the near-periphery added more information regarding the nature of the activities carried on in Chavn de Huntar. The West Field, La Banda, the South Area and the Wacheqsa sectors continue to be explored, while the work in the monumental core focuses on the Rocas canal, Circular Plaza and East Atrium. Recent work has led Rick to propose the existence of a very well crafted convincing system developed by the authorities of Chavn de Huntar. This system was materialized in the external and internal spaces of the civic ceremonial center, which was a kind of stage or theater meant to impress initiates who sought in Chavn the mechanisms to exert power and authority, in many cases over remote polities. In order to accomplish success, the authorities of Chavn perverted shamanistic traditions, using them as a faade in order to give a sense of continuity from older traditions to Chavn times (Rick 2005, 2006).

1.2.7

Where do we stand now?

Research at Chavn has moved forward a long way since the first accounts written by Spanish chroniclers, travelers and even archaeologists. It has reached a new level basically due to the extensive work in the surrounding areas, complemented by ongoing research in the monumental core. Long-standing Chavn paradigms have been challenged, and this dissertation only hopes to add more data to the current debate.

1.3 1.3.1

Research Design Research Process My research at Chavn de Huntar is focused on the Wacheqsa sector, located

immediately to the north of the monumental core. This area is enclosed by the Mosna and Wacheqsa rivers which in turn separate the Wacheqsa sector from the ancient domestic settlement described first by Rivero and then by Burger (Burger 1984; Rivero de Ustariz 1851). This space was actually part of the ceremonial center but lacked any sort of surface monumental architecture, eluding any major investigation through the research history of Chavn de Huntar. Nevertheless it has been hypothesized that this area was either the settlement of workers, craftspeople or even priests that lived there while the ceremonial center was functioning (Bennett 1944; Burger 1984; Fung 1975, 2006; Lumbreras 1993; Tello 1940, 1960). My research has tried to define the nature of the occupations in this specific area in relation with the ceremonial center, while also trying to identify the specific roles or roles that

14

this sector had in the prehistory of Chavn de Huntar during the Middle and Late Formative periods. In this regard, I see the Wacheqsa sector as an active social space defined by activity areas in which humans socially reproduced themselves, developing actions that would allow the origination, altering or maintaining of their roles within the social order(s) in which they participated. In general, social spaces can be places of social change depending on different elements such as the current material conditions of existence, the economic and/or religious effectiveness of the social system in which the social agent lives, and the interests of those who socially reproduce themselves at a given time. I have investigated the Wacheqsa sector with the premise that it was a social space that was within the sphere of those who held authority in Chavn de Huntar and who created different mechanisms of control of the people that lived there. Conversely, the archaeological record recovered in the Wacheqsa sector equally shed light about luring mechanisms out by those who held power and authority at Chavn de Huntar developed towards foreign elites that wanted to participate in the Chavn religious system. The religious component has been understood as the main character of Andean societies in general and of Formative societies in particular (Burger 1992; Kaulicke 1994; Lumbreras 1989; Tello 1923). During the Andean Formative, specifically during the Middle Formative (1200 800 BC), there is a major profusion of ceremonial centers on the Peruvian North Coast, Central Coast, North Highlands and Central Highlands, where religious systems regulated the social life of the Andean people. In most cases these centers satisfied a religious need in exchange for allegiance represented in labor in the form of goods or manpowerneeded by the religious system to survive and prevail among others. As stated by Burger and Burger (Burger and Salazar-Burger 1991), ceremonial centers are generators and receivers of an intense social life that regulate diverse aspects of human nature such as those related to spiritual satisfaction and the productive apparatus necessary for an adequate functioning of the social system From a more skeptical view, this basic need for social cohesion (Durkheim 1947) can be the subject of a conscious manipulation by those who want to benefit from the other segments of the social system (Marx 1973). Through the use of three dimensional stratigraphic modeling, I have been able to identify five prehistoric spatial analytical units in the Wacheqsa sector. In order to infer the activities carried on in these units I have examined the intrasite variation of the archaeological record, focusing primarily on ceramic distinctions using bivariate kernel density estimations of diameter and thickness from ceramic rims. Then I associate these results with the distribution

1 5

of different classes of archaeological materials in each analytical unit and I assign specific activities and/or functions to each unit. Subsequently, I discuss the nature of the activities inferred in relation with the ceremonial center. I frame the discussions from two perspectives: chronological and political. Using a set of ten dates coming from radiocarbon samples collected from deposits excavated at the Wacheqsa sector, I examine the relationships

between the Wacheqsa sector and the monumental core, putting emphasis on the existing ceramic and architectural sequences (Burger 1984; Burger 1998; Kembel 2001). Next I

discuss the political implications of the inferred activities in the Wacheqsa sector in relation with the power strategies exerted by the authorities of Chavn de Huntar. Lastly I elaborate on the relationships among the ceremonial center of Chavn de Huntar and other ceremonial centers during the Middle and Late Formative. The results of these analyses shed light on the ways the Wacheqsa sector was used by the authorities of Chavn de Huntar, the chronological positioning of the ceremonial center, the political strategies used by its authorities of Chavn de Huntar for enticing followers into their system, and the relationships of the ceremonial center with other similar centers during the Middle and Late Formative periods.

1.3.2

Research Questions

This dissertation addresses the following questions related to the Wacheqsa sector during the time the ceremonial center of Chavn de Huntar was in function: What are the archaeological contexts created in the Wacheqsa sector during the Formative period? Are these contexts isolated or can they be grouped into spatial units based on the variation of its archaeological components? Do they reflect intrasite variation? And if so, how do they relate to each other in terms of space and time? Based on the intrasite variation of the archaeological record, what were the activities carried out in the Wacheqsa sector? How did the Wacheqsa sector evolve through time? Does this change relate to changes in the ceremonial area? How do these activities inform us about social organization and political strategies within Chavn de Huntar? Do absolute dates from the Wacheqsa sector support the chronological parameter of the existing ceramic sequence? How do they relate to the architectural sequence of the ceremonial center?

16

How do the materials recovered inform us about chronology and regional interaction between Chavn de Huntar and other ceremonial centers of the Middle and late Formative periods?

Finally, I evaluate the answers to these questions and address their implications for the understanding of the social processes that occurred during the Middle and Late Formative period in the Andes.

1 7

CHAPTER 2 THE ANDEAN FORMATIVE

In this chapter I intend to summarize of the Andean Formative in order to contextualize my research in relation to the social processes that characterize this period. I provide a brief historical overview of the evolution of the Formative concept in the study of the Andean past, and then give a general updated account of the Andean Formative and its chronological subdivisions. This chapter itself provides the background for answering the research questions laid out in the previous chapter but also addresses the following aspects with a strong emphasis: The architectural and ceramics antecedents of Chavn de Huntar during the Early Formative. The contemporaniety of Chavn de Huntar with ceremonial centers from the Middle and Late Formative. The chronological location of the Janabarriu phenomenon. At the end of this chapter I provide a summary of the state of the art regarding the aforementioned topics, setting the tone of the discussion for the upcoming chapters.

2.1

The Concept of Formative in Andean Prehistory In 1919 archaeologist Julio C. Tello first visited the site of Chavn de Huntar and

reported being impressed by its monumentality and the complexity of the lithic art associated with the ceremonial center (Tello 1929). Tello argued that the site dated from a pre-Inca Megalithic Age and was related to the first of the four ages proposed by chroniclers Guaman Poma de Ayala and Buenaventura Salinas in 1613 (Poma de Ayala 1992 [1613]; Salinas y Crdoba 1957 [1630]). According to these chroniclers, Andean history had four ages, as shown in the following chart:

Epochs Auca Runa Purun Runa Wari Runa Wari Wiracocha Runa

Guaman Poma 1000 BC 2100 BC 3400 BC 4200 BC

Buenaventura Salinas 0 1000 BC 1500 BC 2500 BC

Table 1: Chronological chart according to Guaman Poma and Buenaventura Salinas

18

Tello calculated the years of duration of each age in western calendar years based on the information provided by Guaman Poma and Buenaventura (Tello 1929:19). Inspired by the aforementioned chroniclers Tello equally proposed 4 epochs of Andean prehistory that he named first, second, third and fourth, equating the first epoch with Chavn de Huntar (Tello 1929, 1942). Since the work of Tello the study of the chronological aspects of Andean prehistory have greatly improved either by refining the stylistic study of archaeological materials associated with solid stratigraphic columns (relative chronology) or by the use of carbon dates (absolute chronology). The use of the term Formative began in the decade of the 1940s (Steward 1948; Strong 1948), the typical society from this period being one oriented towards a priest-temple complex, as evidenced by mounds of somewhat dispersed settlements (Steward 1948:103). Evidently at the time the term was defined there was no information regarding the complex architectural developments of the Late Archaic (Hass and Creamer 2006; Shady, et al. 2001). An alternative for the use of the term Formative was discussed by John Rowe, who in 1962 suggested the use of the terms Initial Period and Early Horizon (Rowe 1962b). Rowe proposed a new chronological framework of Andean archaeology based on the chronological sequence of the Ica Valley. According to him, the Initial Period is formed by the space of time between the introduction of ceramics in the Ica valley until the beginning of the Chavn influence in there. This Chavn influence comprises the Early Horizon until the abandonment of post fire decoration in favor of polychrome slip decoration in the same valley. There are three different criteria implied in this classification: material (ceramics), stylistic (Chavn style) and technological (post fire and polychrome slip decoration) (Kaulicke 1994:259). Lately the use of this chronological framework has been complicated by the addition of the term Chavn Horizon, The Chavn horizon style is presumed to have begun during the final epochs of the Initial Period and continued during the first five or six epochs of the Early Horizon if we follow the Ocucaje sequence (Burger 1993:54). The use of terms likes Early Horizon and Chavn Horizon together is complicated and cumbersome when considering that the Early Horizon is defined on the grounds of a not very well-known master sequence and that the Chavn Horizon has been defined on the grounds of incorrect readings of carbon dates and conflicting stratigraphy, as I will explain later in this chapter. Nevertheless, the term Formative is still widely accepted and extensively used in Andean archaeology. It seems to be the most familiar for archaeologists investigating the time

1 9

framework of 1800 200 BC (Kaulicke 1994; Lumbreras 1989), hence thats the term that will be used in this dissertation. The Formative period in the Central Andes encompasses approximately 1600 years and given the variability of the archaeological record and the way it changes through time, it is necessary to subdivide such a lengthy period of time. In this sense I use the following chronological subdivisions inspired by the works of Kaulicke (Kaulicke 1994) and Lumbreras (Lumbreras 1989),

Years (B.C.) 500-0 900-500

Period Final Formative Late Formative

1200-900

Middle Formative

Definition Post Chavn ceramic styles Black and White Stage at Chavn de Huntar, particularly the styles related to the Janabarriu phase. Pre Black and White stages of Chavn de Huntar Pre Chavn

Ceramic Styles Late Janabarriu?, White-on-Red Janabarriu, Late Cupisnique

1800-1200

Early Formative

Kotosh-Kotosh, Urabarriu, Idolo, Early and Middle Cupisnique Pandanche A, Kotosh Wairajirka, Chira, Haldas, Sechn

Table 2: Proposed chronological chart of the Andean Formative

This chart uses the subdivisions proposed by Lumbreras and Kaulicke but centers the chronological sections on Chavn de Huntar. Even though this emphasis on Chavn can be criticized. I argue that centering the chronological sections on Chavn will help to understand the processes and regional interactions to be discussed in the following pages. Although the Formative period is a time of great complexity and it is difficult to simply summarize it in a few pages, centering the discussion on Chavn will improve the comprehension of the role of Chavn in the Andean Formative and will provide a good model for the role of ceremonial centers during the Formative, especially during the Middle and Late Formative periods.

2.1.1

Early Formative (1800-1200 B.C.) The chronological marker for the beginning of the Formative period has been the

introduction or/and invention of ceramic and metal technologies, as well as the appearance of textiles made with looms (Bonavia 1991; Burger 1992; Burger and Gordon 1998; Morales 1993; Rosas 1970). Early ceramics appear in the site of Pandanche (Kaulicke 1975, 1994) 20

showing resemblances with the ceramics from Ecuador, specially with the Early Machalilla 8 and Valdivia 8 phases (Burger 1992), Toril (Burger and Salazar 1985), Kotosh (Izumi and Sono 1963), Yarinacocha (Lathrap 1960b), Chira Villa (Lanning 1953), Ancn (Rosas 1970), La Pampa (Terada 1979) and La Florida (Patterson 1985). ` These early ceramic developments can be segregated into two trends: elaborate and rudimentary. Early ceramics in the sites of Pandanche, Tutishcainyo, and Kotosh present complex forms and elaborate decoration while ceramics from the sites of Guaape, Ancn, Toril, La Pampa and Chira Villa are characterized by their simple and limited array of forms and plain decoration. Early complex ceramics in areas where there are no signs of previous ceramic technological experimentation may indicate that this technology was brought from other areas or at least give insights into regional contacts. In this vein, Donald Lathrap (Lathrap 1960b) has argued that at around 2000 B.C. people from the central Ucayali drainage had contacts with the Hunuco area, with the same decoration being found on Early Tutishcainyo at Yarinacocha and Kotosh-Waira-Jirca pottery at the site of Kotosh. He has traced the changes in these pottery assemblages and found that they occur at the same time in both areas, suggesting a continuing cultural contact. Along the same lines he has also argued that the Early Tutishcainyo ceramics resemble ceramics from the Colombian tropical forest regions (Lathrap 1960a, b) which would explain the form and iconographic assemblage of this phase. In the case of the North Highlands, ceramics from Pacopampa and Huacaloma show similarities to Early Pandanche ceramics that are related to Ecuadorian traits. On the other hand, there seems to be evidence of localized initial ceramic development in the sites of Ancn, Chira Villa, Toril, La Pampa and Guaape (Burger and Salazar 1980; Morales 1993; Rosas 1970; Strong and Evans 1952; Terada 1979). Unlike ceramics, monumental architecture is present in the Central Andes before the Formative Period in the Late Archaic period (3000 B.C. 1800 B.C) in which large ceremonial centers were part of the cultural landscape of coastal valleys, especially in the region between the north central coastal valleys of Supe and Fortaleza (Haas, et al. 2004; Hass and Creamer 2004, 2006; Shady 1997, 2004; Shady, et al. 2001; Shady and Leyva 2003; Vega-Centeno 2007; Williams 1980) and at a minor scale in the highlands (Bonnier 1983, 1997; Burger and Salazar 1980, 1985; Izumi and Sono 1963). On the coast the following architectural features were the basic units of any sort of construction: platforms, mounds, and circular plazas during the Late Archaic (Williams 1980) while in the highlands, rectangular buildings with central hearths were the most recurrent unit of monumental architecture. These

2 1

rectangular buildings were relatively small but the constant closure of old structures and construction of new ones created large mounds that in some cases reached 12 m height (Izumi and Sono 1963). This architectural feature has also been described as the Mito Architectural Tradition (MAT) (Bonnier 1997) which was part of what Richard Burger has called the Kotosh Religious Tradition (KRT) (Burger and Salazar 1985). These rectangular buildings are also present in the central coast and have been reported in the valley of Supe and the coast of Ancash (Pozorski and Pozorski 1987; Shady and Leyva 2003). During the Initial Formative, the basic architectural units of the Late Archaic were rearranged creating new architectural patterns of monumental architecture. For example, in the central coast the U-shaped building architectural tradition dominated the landscape of the valleys of Lurn, Rmac, Chilln and Chancay (Burger and Salazar-Burger 1991; Ravines and Isbell 1975; Silva and Garca 1997; Williams 1980). This tradition was characterized by a terraced central mound flanked by two long platforms enclosing a large quadrangular plaza, in some cases with a small vestibule in front of the central mound. Additionally, circular sunken plazas were located either in the quadrangular plaza or to the sides of the flanking platforms (Scheele 1970; Williams 1980). The scale of the these buildings was massive, for example the Huaca La Florida, represents an investment of at least 6.7 million persons-days, and this excludes the labor needed to level the area and to plaster and/or decorate the outer surfaces of the buildings. La Florida is by no means the largest of the U-shaped pyramidal mounds. San Jacinto in the Chancay valley, is four times larger, and it would have required almost 2 million cubic meters of materials just to level the 30 ha plaza (Burger 1992:61) In the Lurn valley, U-shaped complexes tended to be present in closely spaced pairs: La Candela, Buenavista; Mina Perdida, Parka; Cardal, Manchay Bajo; Piedra Liza, Anchucaya (Mesia 2000). In the Rmac valley ceremonial centers are mostly located at the north of side of the river and not as closed as the ones in the Lurn Valley (Silva and Garca 1997). This architectural tradition persists during the Middle Formative in which iconographic designs related to the iconography represented in ceramics found at Chavn de Huntar adorn the facades of the central mound. In the Casma valley, a set of ceremonial centers was constructed following a different pattern than the one presented in the U-shaped ceremonial buildings of the central Peruvian coast. The sites of Sechn Alto, Taukachi-Konkan and Pampa de las Llamas share an architectural pattern of one longitudinal axis with a high mound along the ends of the axis and 22

a set of superimposed platforms with large rectangular plazas in front of the main mound with an array of symmetrically positioned rooms interpreted as domestic units positioned along the superimposed platforms (Pozorski and Pozorski 1998). There are examples of mural painting in the Casma valley, for example, the site of Moxeque, displayed on its faade molded friezes 2.5 m high. The friezes flanked the front staircase that gave access to the summit of the mound. They represented human images wearing tunics, small skirts and unfastened mantles, and one of the images is holding in both hands bicephallic snakes with forked tongues (Tello 1956). The Casma valley during the Early Formative must have been similar to what it was in the Supe valley during the Late Archaic, with a large number of massive ceremonial centers scattered in a relatively small area. On the north coast in the middle Jequetepeque Valley, the site of Montegrande is one of the most important ceremonial centers of the Early Formative in the northern Andes. It is composed of platforms interconnected by stairways, large buildings, a sunken quadrangular plaza, and rectangular domestic units surrounding the complex. The ceramics found are similar to the ones from Pandanche and Early Huacaloma (Kaulicke 1975; Tellenbach 1986; Terada and Onuki 1982). The Early Formative is characterized by the continuation of construction practices developed during the Late Archaic. There is a strong emphasis on monumental architecture with large plazas and decorated facades. Public architecture seems to be the most accurate definition as it provided spaces necessary for public ceremonies of religious nature (given the type of iconography depicted). The religious nature of the ceremonies could have been just a filter that encompassed the economic and political aspects of these societies. This trend is maintained during the Middle and Late Formative, and as we will see later, it practically defined the ceremonial aspects of Chavn de Huntar.

2.1.2

Middle Formative (1200-800 BC) The Middle Formative is characterized by the construction of the ceremonial center of

Chavn de Huntar and its associated iconography as well as the surfacing of a set of coastal sites that have been previously identified as Cupisnique. The chronological start of this period should be readjusted according to new dates available. Cupisnique was recognized for many years as a coastal manifestation of Chavn de Huntar. Julio C. Tello believed that early social development on the north coast was based on a Chavin expansion. He called all the material elements that showed some resemblance with the expressions found in Chavn de Huntar

2 3

Chavin costeo13 (Tello 1960). These ideas were challenged by Rafael Larco who, based on his excavations in the Cupisnique and Chicama Valleys, proposed that the Cupisnique term should be applied to early developments in Chicama and the immediately surrounding area (Larco 1945). Unlike Julio C. Tello, Larco argued for the coastal development of what had been understood as coastal Chavn derived from the sierra. if we were to analyze carefully the different cultures that have been claimed to be included within the so- called Chavn Civilization, we would reach the conclusion that, although they have cultural elements in common, they have others in greater quality that allows us to distinguish one culture from another (Larco 1948:16)14 Instead of looking at Cupisnique as a consequence of highland migration, Larco saw the opposite, the emergence of Chavn as a consequence of Cupisnique influence. Critical review of Cupisniques absolute dates (Bischof 1998), especially the ones coming from the Cupisnique site of Huaca de los Reyes (Pozorski 1975) argues for a contemporary development of Cupisnique sites and Chavn de Huntar. Further, the analysis of Huaca de los Reyes architecture made by William Conkin indicates that instead of two architectural sequences, the site encompassed eight phases, with the iconography depicted in all of them related to the Middle Formative (Conklin 1985). Huaca de los Reyes is part of the Caballo Muerto complex that encompassed seven more mounds (Pozorski 1975), and it appears to be the pre-eminent Cupisnique center, as it was, one of the main inter-regional centers or the main center in the Cupisnique heartland. It seems probable that this represented an initial centralization of Classic Cupisnique culture under a religious hierarchy or authority. Maybe this pattern was also common in the neighboring valleys. (Elera 1998:276) Other impressive examples of Cupisnique architecture can be found in the sites of Poro Poro, Puruln, Limoncarro, Huaca Lucia and Huaca el Gallo (Alva 1988a, b; Barreto 1984; Shimada, et al. 1983; Zoubek 1997). In general, these ceremonial centers were built on low-tiered platforms, with massive central inset stairways leading to rectangular forecourts, and with the presence of colonnades, which are distinctive elements of early North Coast monumental architecture (Burger 1992). This local tradition of material culture may have been restricted to the north coast, where centers were sharing material and ideological elements but maintaining their political
13 14

Coastal Chavn. My translation

24

independence. This may have been started during the Middle Formative, when the first material elements of the Cupisnique tradition were found. Elera (Elera 1998) suggests that during the early development of Cupisnique, populations surrounding ceremonial centers probably consisted of autonomous political units. As complexity emerged on the north coast by the end of the Middle Formative, the area was full of small, powerful, and rich polities. The end of this social tradition is not clear yet. According to Elera (Bird 1987; Elera 1998; Inokuchi 1998; Onuki 2001), Cupisnique centers were abandoned as a result of a mega El Nio event: [In the Cupisnique sequence] there is a clear cultural continuity from the late Preceramic to the Middle Formative periods, which ended abruptly as a result of a natural catastrophe that forced the abandonment of coastal settlements. (Elera 1998:257) In the north coast sites of Huaca Negra, Huaca Prieta, Temple of the Llamas, Puemape and others from the Moche Valley, there is evidence of abandonment, associated with the lack of mussel shell in the archaeological record. From the Late Archaic through the Middle Formative, coastal populations sought species from the cold Peruvian current, which according to Carlos Elera and Robert Mc Bird is reflected in the archaeological record (Bird 1987; Elera 1998). These species include fish, birds, and sea mammals and the disappearance of some of these in the record can be interpreted as evidence of an El Nio event: One of the consequences of this natural disaster was the almost complete elimination of mollusks adapted to the typical cold Peruvian waters (Elera 1998: 274). Bird elaborated on the possible date of this event, suggesting that it happened around 800 B.C; he based his assumptions on radiocarbon dates from Las Haldas, Huaca Prieta, and Huaca de los Reyes which correlate with evidence of sudden abandonment and haphazard resettlement on the North Coast (Bird 1987). Bird recognizes the problems that radiocarbon dating has in this particular time it must be remembered that all radiocarbon dates relating to the Early Horizon should be treated with caution because there are two anomalies in the long term shift in 14C levels (Bird 1987:286). The presence of an El Nio on the north coast seems probable but the dating of this phenomenon has to be considered with extreme caution. According to Nials et al, this phenomenon occurred at around 500 B.C., reflecting tensions between this and Birds interpretations (Neils, et al. 1979a, b). Currently it is common to refer to nearly all the materials of the Middle Formative from the Vir Valley to the Lambayeque drainage as Cupisnique. The populations from these valleys shared a host of material elements whose traits are limited to the north coast such 2 5

as stirrup bottles which appear for the first time in the north coast at around 1500 B.C (Elera 1998). Even though the understanding of the social processes that occurred on the north coast is still in an initial stage because the lack of data, it can be said that around 1200 B.C. the north coast shared a common set of material manifestations, known as Cupisnique, that were not present in other sites of the central Andes. Parallel to this north coast development, on the central coast the Early Formative Ushaped building tradition persisted and new U-Shaped buildings were being constructed. Among this new set of sites are Cardal and Manchay Bajo in the Lurn Valley (Burger and Gordon 1998). The site of Cardal had at least three superimposed atriums in the central mound; the earliest one could not be excavated and the later one was damaged by the time archaeological work began at the site. Excavations in the middle atrium presented impressive molded friezes, the iconography adorning its faade represented A mouth band of interlocking triangular teeth and massive upper fangs. A lower horizontal band, painted red and probably representing the lower lip, runs below the teeth, and a parallel upper lip once existed above them, judging from a few poorly preserved fragments in the western part of the landing (Burger and SalazarBurger 1991:283). The two mouths depicted flanked the entrance of the atrium. The iconography described above suggests resemblance to the mouths engraved in the central sections of the two principal mythic animals depicted in the Tello Obelisk found at Chavn de Huntar. Richard Burger indicates that the Middle Atrium, and consequently, its mural decoration may have been completed around 970 B.C. (Burger and Salazar-Burger 1991). This date is roughly contemporary to the beginnings of the Black and White phase at Chavn de Huntar (Kembel 2001; Rick 2005). Cardal is not the only U-shaped building that shows Chavn related iconography on its facades; another example is found in the archaeological record of Garagay. Garagay is located in the lower Rmac valley and was first excavated by Manuel de Ontaneda and Aquiles Ralli from Perus National Museum of Archaeology in 1959 and then by William Isbell and Roger Ravines in 1974 (Ravines and Isbell 1975). Central Mound B had a height of 23 m while the mounds that flank it (mounds A and C) had 6 and 9 m heights respectively. Two superimposed atriums were present in the central mound, the latest one partially excavated by Ontaneda and Ralli and the middle Atrium excavated by Isbell and Ravines. Regrettably the latest atrium was destroyed before it could be completely excavated.

26

Excavations at the Middle Atrium revealed that a set of colored friezes molded in low relief decorated its walls, the images represented showing strong resemblances to the supernatural beings depicted on ceramics belonging to the Dragoniano style identified in Chavn de Huntar (Lumbreras 1989, 1993). These images are anthropomorphic faces with feline mouths with three fangs separated by geometric panels. Interestingly enough, Lumbreras has argued that the supernatural being of three fangs represented in Dragoniano ceramics is actually the female version of what Tello called the Chavn Dragon (Lumbreras 1993; Tello 1942). Hence the relation with Chavn might be more evident than hypothesized by Burger or Ravines who have recognized Garagay as a pre-Chavn site (Burger 1981; Burger 1992; Ravines, et al. 1982; Ravines and Isbell 1975). Ceramic analysis from Garagay has recognized six ceramic wares, two of them according to Ravines related to the diffusion of the Chavn style (Janabarriu), characterized by the presence of rocker stamping, impressed circles with and without dots (Ravines, et al. 1982). Ravines also identified four ceramic stages at Garagay but he only provides chronological control for the latest one which is composed by two Janabarriu like wares indicating that the chronological position of this phase is uncertain; however, a carbon date associated with fills that contained ceramics associated with this phase gave a date of 780 BC (Ravines, et al. 1982:227). Interestingly enough, Janabarriu related ceramics at Garagay are dated before the 400200 BC mark stated by Burger as the dispersion of Janabarriu-like ceramics in the Central Andes. When calibrated, the two sigma range of this date is 1132 761 BC (figure 05). Ravines does provide three other carbon dates but there is no indication of their proveniences or associated ceramics, rendering them of little utility other than suggesting that Garagay had architectural stages that go back to the Early Formative (figure 06). The first two ceramic phases of Garagay are related to central coast Early Formative ceramic styles such as Curayacu A (Lanning 1953; Ravines, et al. 1982) and the Florida and Hacha phases from Ancn (Rosas 1970). The ceramic assemblage at Garagay is consistent with what happened at Ancon, where local ceramics are replaced by Janabarriu-like ceramics, or as Rosas calls them, Chavinoid ceramics (Rosas 1970). Unfortunately Ravines has not indicated which ceramic assemblage was associated with the Dragoniano friezes uncovered in the Middle Atrium but its close iconographic similarities with Dragoniano ceramics at Chavn suggests at least its contemporaniety with the Black and White stage at Chavn de Huntar, if not earlier. Lumbreras has also pointed out the contemporary relationship between Garagay

2 7

and Chavn, indicating that Garagay is not that pre-Chavn and that at least it was contemporary with the deposition of the offerings at the Ofrendas Gallery (Lumbreras 1989:107). Nevertheless, the U-shaped building tradition continues in the Central Coast during the Middle Formative but it is associated with Chavn-related iconography and in some cases like Garagay, going further into the Late Formative, associated with Janabarriu-like ceramics. Also, excavations in Ancon have shown the replacement of Early Formative ceramic assemblages with Chavn related ceramics (Lumbreras 1989) In the north highlands the situation is different. There is also monumental architecture in the sites of Pacopampa, Kuntur Wasi and Huaca Loma. It is not as massive in volume but certainly involved major energy expenditure, especially in working with clean or cut stone. For example, in the site of Kuntur Wasi, during the Middle Formative, the ceremonial center consisted of two rectangular platforms and a sunken rectangular plaza constructed on top of sterile soil (Onuki 1995). The ceramics associated with these structures are very similar to the ones in the Late Huaca Loma phase at Huaca Loma and in the Pacopampa I phase at Pacopampa (Inokuchi 1998; Seki 1998; Seki, et al. 2006), which are derived from the north highlands ceramic styles of the Early Formative. At the site of Pacopampa the situation is very similar, with only a platform identified as a Middle Formative architectural component (Seki, et al. 2006). There is a sense of stability in the ceramics and architecture of the north highlands during the Middle Formative. Ceramics maintain their close relationship with the Ecuadorian area while monumental architecture remains stable, with no major change within the Middle Formative. This situation will drastically change during the Late Formative where there are major changes in architectural design associated with the introduction of Cupisnique-related ceramics and Chavn-related ceramics in the area.

2.1.3

Late Formative (800-500 BC) The Late Formative period is the time of the Black and White stage at Chavn de

Huntar and the appearance of Janabarriu-related ceramics in the Central Andes (figure 07). According to Richard Burger, the Janabarriu phase at Chavn de Huntar reflected the time when the ceremonial center reached its maximum development, being surrounded by a proto city that had 42 ha at that time (Burger 1984; Burger 1998). Following Burger, the ceremonial center attained such prestige during these years that people from different areas were going there, leaving offerings and transporting materials (or ideas) from Chavn to their

28

own places. Burgers perspective would thus explain the presence of Janabarriu diagnostic elements in areas like Kuntur Wasi, Paracas, Ayacucho, Lima, etc. (Burger 1993). As we have seen, at Chavin de Huantar construction of the ceremonial center may have begun during the Middle Formative (Kembel 2001; Rick 2005) but its apogee and subsequent decline happened during the Late Formative (Kembel 2001; Rick, et al. 1998). As I will show in the following pages, the Black and White phase can be equated with Burgers Janabarriu phase. Richard Burger defined Janabarriu as the last Formative ceramic phase at Chavn de Huntar indicating that the Janabarriu materials make up the majority of our excavated and collected sample from the valley floor. The richness of the sample provides a comparatively complete glimpse of a large inventory of forms and decoration, which dwarfs the two previous phases [Urabarriu and Chakinani] in sheer variety (Burger 1984). This phase was recorded in five excavated units, but only one of them was dated unit D1, located 100 meters south of the ceremonial center. This date, ISGS-506, comes from a layer on top of a floor associated with a wall, which is covered by a platform that contains Janabarriu ceramics as part of its refuse and in the mortar of its walls. Above this platform an offering of guinea pigs and Spondylus was placed. There were other two dates, UCR-748 and UCR-747 taken from units D2 and E1 which Burger considered too young to be acceptable. This date was also rejected by Burger as, The resulting measurement of 2520+100 radiocarbon years: 570 BC (ISGS-506) for the Janabarriu carbon sample conflicts with the internal stratigraphy of the excavation from which it is taken, as well as being at odds with the estimate for the Janabarriu phase (Burger 1981:596) The date of ISGS-506 resulted earlier than the samples taken from lower levels assigned to Chakinani ceramics in the same unit. Burger not only rejected dates UCR-748 and UCR-747 but also rejected date ISGS-506, as it was conflicting with the stratigraphy of the unit (figure 08). The question at hand is how was this phase dated? He used the Chakinani dates and a date from the immediate post Chavn occupation (Huars) in order to create early and late ends of the Janabarriu phase. The early end would be the late end for the Chakinani phase and the late end of the Janabarriu phase would be the early end of the Huars occupation. The Huars date he used was GIF-1079 which has one sigma of 383 BC-70 AD, but two sigmas of 209 BC 3 AD). When looking at figure 09, one can not help but to think that the one sigmas value was the one Burger used to squeeze in the Janabarriu date.

2 9

In observing the absolute dated sequences of Kotosh, La Pampa, Kuntur Wasi, Garagay and the relative dated sequences of Ancon, it can be noted that Janabarriu equivalent materials do not date as late as Richard Burger has suggested, and in this situation Bischofs statement is compelling: Late Chavn, meaning Janabarriu, could have ended towards 500 and even 600 cal BC, way before the III century as proposed by Burger (Bischof 1998:68) The implications of a relocation of Janabarriu as an early phenomenon does not only have to do with Chavn de Huntar itself but also with regional processes of social complexity for the Andean Formative. For example, lets now look at the site of Kotosh, specifically the Kotosh-Chavn phase, which has two carbon dates, GaK-263 and N-65-2. In terms of ceramic elements, the Kotosh-Chavn phase is characterized by the same elements that define the Janabarriu phase at Chavn de Huntar, Along with plain rocker stamping, dentate rocker stamping appears. Stamping designs in circle-and-dot, double circles, S-shapes, hook shapes, etc, are very popular (Izumi and Sono 1963). The dating of this phase is problematic as it falls within the same time framework established for the Kotosh-Kotosh phase which unfortunately has sigmas that are separated in some cases by 600 years, GaK-150, N-66-a and N-67-2 (figure 10). The ceramics from the Kotosh-Kotosh phase have been identified as related or predecessor to the ceramic style known as Urabarriu at Chavn de Huntar, located stratigraphically under Janabarriu deposits (Burger 1984; Burger 1998; Lumbreras 1993). It can be argued that the superimposition shown in Chavn is also represented in the Kotosh site with Urabarriu-like materials under Janabarriu-like materials. Following this line of thought it can be argued that the ceramics from the Kotosh Chavn phase are in fact Janabarriu materials, as the ceramics from this phase, claim very close kinship with the pottery from Chavn de Huntar and coastal Chavn sites. It is true that the preceding Kotosh-Kotosh period shows a marked Chavinoid impact. However when viewed in a wider context, we are inclined to think that the Kotosh Well Polished [Kotosh-Chavn] type stands alone in the Kotosh sequence; it shows little relationship with other Kotosh pottery types but rather more affinities with other Chavn sites (Izumi and Sono 1963:156) The dates for both phases have the problem of the broadness of their sigmas, but still it is quite suggestive how the dates for the Kotosh-Chavn phase even with that broadness

30

stated above are not in the chronological framework stated by Richard Burger of 390-200 BC (Burger 1984:277) but rather in a much earlier one. Another example that needs to be considered is the site of La Pampa, located at the department of Ancash, province of Corongo at 1800 m.a.s.l. It is composed of nine semiartificial mounds with an estimated size of 100 ha (Terada 1979:1). The cultural history of the site is divided in four phases, Yesopampa, La Pampa, Tornopampa and Caserones (Terada 1979). Janabarriu like ceramics appear in La Pampa during the La Pampa phase. There are two radiocarbon dates from this phase TK 176 and TK 195; these dates fall within the Late Formative (figure 11) and coincide perfectly with the estimated age of this period which is related to the Chavn culture as was evidenced by pottery types. (Terada 1979: 177. Emphasis added). During the La Pampa phase there were substantial changes in architecture, including changes in construction techniques such as the alteration of the orientation of platforms and the types of stones used in walls, which has led Terada to argue that there was a strong impact coming from outside (Terada 1979). At Kuntur Wasi, ceramics that can be identified as Janabarriu appear for the first time during the Kuntur Wasi phase. The presence of Janabarriu ceramics together with a major investment in architecture defines the Kuntur Wasi phase. There are five radiocarbon dates coming from the Kuntur Wasi phase, TK 913, TK 908, TK 912, TK 909 and TK 910. According to Onuki the Kuntur Wasi phase dates from 950 BC to 540 BC (Onuki 1995), but if we look at fig 12, we will realize that it would make more sense to locate it at the range between 800-400 BC. Either way the presence of Janabarriu-like materials in Kuntur Wasi, with the data available, started at least 600 years earlier than what Burger stated for the Janabarriu phase at Chavn de Huntar. If the Janabarriu phase was situated between 390 and 200 BC, it would be contemporary with the Copa phase at Kuntur Wasi, but, the characteristics that are representative of the Janabarriu phase are present in the Kuntur Wasi phase and the Sangal complex, which are chronologically earlier than the Janabarriu phase at Chavn de Huntar (Onuki 1995:270) This introduction of Janabarriu-related ceramics in the north highlands is associated with a major transformation of architectural design in the area. The Kuntur Wasi phase at Kuntur Wasi is not only characterized by the presence of this ceramic complex but by the construction of an impressive ceremonial center composed of imposing platforms and plazas.

3 1

This architectural project marks a radical transformation compared with the two-platform structure of the previous Idolo phase. The same situation happens at Pacopampa where most of the visible architecture is related with the Pacopampa II phase: the quadrangular plaza, the retaining wall of the third platform and most likely, the rest of the retaining walls of all platforms that surround the upper platform and the rest of the minor structures (rooms, courtyards) (Seki, et al. 2006:17) Seki et al. place the Pacopampa II phase within the range of 850 585 BC, which is consistent with the argument stated in the previous pages. The ceramics associated with this phase are Janabarriu-related with the presence of impressed circles with and without dots. The Late Formative can be equated to a distribution of Janabarriu related ceramics in the Central Andes. Final Formative (500 50 BC) The final Formative is a post-Chavn/Cupisnique world in the Central Andes. At Chavn de Huntar, the ceremonial center ceases to function as such and is inhabited by squatters living in the circular plaza associated with a post-Chavn ceramic style locally defined as Huars that appears extensively in the Ancash region (Amat 2004; Bennett 1943; Lau 2002; Lumbreras 1993). However, layer H in the circular plaza excavated by Lumbreras may suggest the possibility of a Late Janabarriu phase associated with the collapse of the ceremonial center. We suppose that layer H represent a period in which the site was abandoned [] period in which the plaster of the walls started to fall down and people threw away food waste and broken ceramics. We propose the hypothesis that this trash is contemporary with the latest occupation of the Chavn (Lumbreras 1989:147). The ceramics associated to this layer are decorated bowls with stamped horizontal S, stamped circles, stamped concentric circles as well as vessels with red slip and broad incised lines with graphite in the incisions (Lumbreras 1989). Further studies are needed in order to differentiate the Janabarriu components contemporary with the use of Chavn as a ceremonial center and those components that are contemporary with the collapse and abandonment of the ceremonial use of the site. Nonetheless, after this layer H is formed in the circular plaza, this area is occupied by the squatters mentioned above, associated with the Huars ceramic assemblage which is very different from Chavn-related ceramics,

2.1.4

32

As a horizontal influence it pertains to ceramics and is characterized by the use of white-painted decorations on a natural red or redslipped ground color. Another decorative technique, the use of thin incised lines to outline the painted areas, is often associated. The simplicity of the geometric design elements and certain vessel forms are also a means of identifying the White-on-Red horizon and its various contexts (Wiley 1948:10) At a regional scale, this distinctive style has been defined as White-on-Red, having been found in the sites of Kotosh, San Blas, Puerto Moorin, Baos de Boza, Chonta Ranra Punta, Cerro Trinidad, Pashash, La Pampa, Huaricoto, Kuntur Wasi and Salinar (Burger and Salazar 1985; Inokuchi 1998; Izumi and Sono 1963; Morales 1993; Strong and Evans 1952; Terada 1979; Wiley 1948). Unlike the Late Formative in which Janabarriu related ceramics can be associated to the florescence of Chavn de Huntar, the distribution of white-on-red ceramics over the Andes does not seem to be related to a particular ceremonial center. According to Wiley the presence of this style could have been linked to a technological shift related to the open kiln firing of ceramics rather than keeping the reduction-firing tradition that was pervasive over the Middle and Late Formative (Wiley 1948). In assessing the absolute dating of the red-on-white style in the Ancash region, Lau uses four dates: Gif-1079 (Chavn de Huntar), AA-32484 (Chonta Ranra), Beta-31354 (Queyash Alto) and Beta-31357 (Queyash Alto) (Lau 2002:183). Interestingly enough, these dates better support an early date for the white-on-red style in the Ancash region (figure 13). In Kuntur Wasi after the Kuntur Wasi phase, the Copa phase is dominated by a ceramic assemblage that is predominantly white-on-red that co-exists with ceramics that are reminiscent of the Kuntur Wasi phase and consequently to the Janabarriu-related styles, being characterized by a great variety of designs that combine straight horizontal, vertical and curvilinear lines, triangles, stairs, rectangles and concentric circles and circles with dots. This phase is dated from 450 to 250 BC (Inokuchi 1998; Onuki 1995). When considered along with the previous review of the Janabarriu phase, an early date of the white-over-red style seems logical, and is well supported by the dates available. Thus the red-over-white style at the Ancash region may have started around 500 BC and continued until the appearance of the styles associated with Recuay towards the beginnings of the modern era. Janabarriu-related styles may have not been completely replaced by whiteover-red ceramics as shown in Kuntur Wasi and probably Chavin, but were drastically reduced in the archaeological record, favoring the new white-on-red style.

3 3

The social landscape of the Central Andes drastically changed during the Final Formative, the pattern of large civic-ceremonial centers in the North Highlands appears to be replaced by a more fragmented social landscape based on small communities and territories (Lau 2002). This transformation set the pace for the development of regional social processes characterized by state level societies during the first 600 years AD. This summary was intended to provide a road map towards the following points: Chavn de Huntar is earlier than previously suggested. The Janabarriu phase at Chavn de Huntar is at least 600 years earlier than suggested. Cupisnique and central coast U-shaped buildings from the Middle Formative are not Pre-Chavn but contemporary to the ceremonial center. There was a complex network of ceremonial centers interacting among themselves during the Middle Formative and especially during the Late Formative that included Coastal sites as well as Highland sites These points are implicit just by doing a critical revision of the literature published and examining carbon dates and their respective ceramic associations. In the upcoming chapters I intend to make these points rather explicit using the data retrieved from my research at the Wacheqsa sector of Chavn de Huntar. Nevertheless, what I have presented in the previous pages is intended as a summary of the Formative period. Certainly, many details could not have been covered given the space constraints of the present dissertation but at least I hope to have covered the basic elements that gave form and shape to the Formative, mixed with my personal observations on the issues discussed above.

34

CHAPTER 3 THE WACHEQSA SECTOR AT CHAVN DE HUNTAR

In this chapter I intend to give a specific background regarding the Wacheqsa sector and the archaeological interventions previous my own research. The Wacheqsa sector is located immediately to the north of the monumental core, enclosed by the Wacheqsa River to the north and the Mosna River to the east (figure 14). Tello describes it as a trapezoidal field, 60 m long and 50 m wide looking towards the Wacheqsa river and 30 m from Mound D15 (Tello 1960:317). Spatially, this sector is located between the monumental core and the domestic settlement that stretched north into the land occupied now by the modern town of San Pedro de Chavn. It encompasses an area of 1.4 ha; it has an overall slope of 15.85 downwards towards north and a difference of eight meters between its south and north ends. The modern topography of this sector is the outcome of the 1945 landslide which practically changed the topography of the entire sector (figure 15). This statement is supported by Tellos field notes, pre-landslide pictures and my own excavations. In his unpublished field notes Tello stated that there were at least three major platforms in 1940, covered by small agricultural fields where farmers were raising corn, passing the north side building [he may mean either Building C or D], there is a land divided among two or three platforms, that are used as farming lands16 (Tello 1940:25). He went further and stated that this land is only flat in some portions, in others it has a marked step towards the river (Tello 1940:27). In the map that is provided in his posthumous 1960 publication Chavn Cultura Matrz, Tello showed two terraces and a probable one extending to the north (Tello 1960:49) while today no terrace is observed in this sector unless we count the one that serves as the south boundary of it. The land was heavily used and occupied in 1940 as can be observed in figure 16 in which a pirka serves as a delimiting element between two agricultural fields. Also, there are two eucalyptus trees in the figure. Today eucalyptus trees are only located on the shores of the Wacheqsa and Mosna rivers and not in the middle of the sector. Figure 17 gives a broader portrait of the pre landslide terracing in the Wacheqsa Sector as well as the presence of eucalyptus trees. Figures 18 and 19 equally show the terracing as well as the houses of the owners of the agricultural land or chacras, and figures 20 and 21 show the prehistoric retention walls constructed along

15 16

My translation. My translation.

3 5

the Wacheqsa river in order to protect the land from river flooding. Looking at the figures and at Tellos map, it looks like the Wacheqsa sector had at least three platforms before the 1945 landslide, which is totally different than what can be seen at present. Also, there was major canalization at work along the Wacheqsa River, as evidenced by the retaining walls shown in figures 18 and 19. The evaluation of Tellos descriptions and photographs, taken before 1945, support the assertion that what is observed now is not how the Wacheqsa sector was before 1945. This modification was not the only one that the sector witnessed over its history as intense land use and occupation occurred in this sector during the periods known as Middle and Late Formative. As I will elaborate in this dissertation, topographic modification was a constant cultural endeavor over time in the Wacheqsa sector.

3.1

Wendell Bennetts excavations The site was first investigated by Wendell Bennett in 1938. He excavated one unit,

Ch-15 that was located approximately 100 m north of Building D with an extension of 4 x 1.5 m (figure 22). He indicated that great numbers of sherds were recovered in the first 1.5 m depth, decreasing in amount below that depth until totally disappearing at more than 2.00 m depth. Interestingly enough, Bennett indicates that the cross-section shows no obvious layers (Bennett 1944:80) and that the materials seem to be house refuse (Bennett 1944:80). Bennett dissected this unit using horizontal arbitrary levels of 50 cm each, recovering 1465 ceramic sherds in total mixed with animal bones, charcoal and sections of small and large stones (Bennett 1944:80). The use of arbitrary levels is not ideal in sites with complex

stratigraphies, as the stratified contexts and archaeological materials are not properly identified and mixed with no relation to natural deposits. Nevertheless, judging from the materials he recovered such as charcoal, animal bones and fragments of large stones it is possible that these materials were produced by the discharge of food consumption activities either at the household or suprahousehold levels; regrettably there were no major indicators of the nature of the contexts excavated or the locations of these elements within the layers. Julio C. Tellos excavations In 1940 Julio C. Tello excavated one unit sized 4 x 3 m, four meters south of where Bennett excavated unit Ch-15. Tello had two hypotheses regarding the nature of the Wacheqsa

3.2

36

Sector. He thought, as Bennett, that it probably served as the location of the domestic settlement related to the Ceremonial Center: [The Wacheqsa sector] must correspond to the places where hamlets and houses were. The kind of trash found there can be followed around the contours of the ruins and domestic wares can be observed. It does not show up in the plaza or next to the buildings17 (Tello 1940: 25. Emphasis added). His second hypothesis was, These extensive cultivated lands have a thick layer of agricultural dirt and abundant domestic ceramic sherds on surface, and for those reasons these lands could be considered as trash areas. This brownish or chocolate land only tends to appear at the edge of main buildings18 (Tello 1940: 25) It is necessary to note that these hypotheses are not mutually exclusive, as this brownish matrix is only present in the edges of the main buildings, it probably was an ancient trash area and consequently the area where the domestic settlement was located19 (Tello 1960: 317). Tello also thought that the Wacheqsa sector was contemporary with the deposits exposed by the Mosna River under Building E, mainly because of the similarities between stratigraphies and associated materials, assuming that it was also an area were domestic thrash was deposited. The lands aspect is similar to the trash layer with incised ceramics under the foundations of Building E, and to the land on which Building A was built. Thus, this type of land with black, grey and red incised ceramic sherds must belong to the same period, whose age is difficult to establish20 (Tello 1960: 146) Marino Gonzales was the person in charge of supervising the unit Ch-1 in the Wacheqsa sector (Tello 1940), identifying four archaeological strata. The first layer is basically agricultural land in which post Chavn material (Recuay) was recovered. The second layer produced Chavn ceramics, specifically the ones identified as Janabarriu by Richard Burger (Burger 1984, 1988; Tello 1960: figs 152, 164, 167 and 169), in this layer Tello also finds faunal remains of camelid and deer mixed with fragments of stone clubs and stone mortars. He writes that the ceramics are highly polished with fine shallow engravings on the
17 18

My translation. My translation. 19 My translation. 20 My translation.

3 7

surface that belong to the classic Chavn period (Tello 1960:317). According to Tello, this layer could be considered as the remains of a large midden (Tello 1940:27) . The third layer also contained Chavn ceramics, but in this case I note the presence of a mixture of decoration and forms later identified by Burger as Urabarriu and Janabarriu (Burger 1984, 1998; Tello 1960: figs 153, 155, 156 and 160). These materials were found in a green matrix that according to Tello seemed to be the product of an alluvial flood that destroyed some domestic settlement located on the upper part of the civic ceremonial center (Tello 1960). Below the third layer there was nothing but sterile soil according to Tello (Tello 1960) (figure 23). The excavations in the Wacheqsa sector reached a depth of 1.00 m below surface, recording 4 stratigraphic layers. During my own research, I excavated near the area Bennett and Tello excavated, finding for example in a 2x2 m unit, a total of 24 stratigraphic layers in average depth of 3.50 m. The stratigraphic complexity in the Wacheqsa sector is greater than the one Tello and Bennett recorded. I believe this has to do with the excavation procedures at that time, which employed arbitrary levels and were focused on obtaining of cultural change in the archaeological materials. Nevertheless, Tellos profile is indicative of a patterning observed during my own excavations: the presence of a midden deposit on top of what seems to be an area where water either was running or was deposited. While Tello recorded the midden deposit and the water flood deposit as single stratigraphic layers, I have been able to reconstruct the depositional history of these two analytical units through careful excavations, confirming Tellos rough stratigraphical estimations but adding a new level of complexity to what was already known. In general, 44 stratigraphic deposits have been identified as part of the Midden and 17 stratigraphic deposits as part of the Water Flood area.

3.3 Rosa Fungs excavations After Tellos intervention the entire site of Chavn de Huntar was covered by the 1945 landslide, and the Wacheqsa Sector was entirely eroded and filled by mud to its current condition. Research in this sector occurred again in 1973, 1974 and 1975, conducted by

archaeologist Rosa Fung. None of her data has been published yet, but the materials she recovered are accessible in the storage rooms of the Archaeology and Anthropology Museum of the San Marcos National University. Rosa Fung excavated 39 units (regrettably there is no information regarding the size of the units), located at the north edge of the Wacheqsa sector. Following Burgers sequence, the majority of the levels excavated yielded ceramics similar to the shapes and decorations identified as Urabarriu while a few upper layers contained

38

ceramics related to those recognized by Burger as Janabarriu. Rosa Fung believes she found a Kotosh-Kotosh component in her excavations, below a domestic floor that covered the Kotosh-Kotosh contexts; during our last excavations at Chavn de Huantar, in domestic areas, we have found Kotosh-Kotosh ceramics in deep strata, but it cannot be said that the superimposed Chavn ceramics descends from them (Fung 1975:199. Emphasis added). There are indeed ceramics resembling the styles associated with the Kotosh phase in Hunuco, specifically the Kotosh Grooved style but these items are present in a mixed deposit with ceramics showing Janabarriu components (concentric circles with central dot) in layer 2, test pit 3. The ceramics Fung recovered (figures 24 and 25) suggest a strong Urabarriu component along the north edge of the Wacheqsa sector, a fact that was confirmed by my own excavations in the same area during the beginning of my research. Rosa Fung also identified a cremation area (Fung 2006) characterized by the presence of pale gray ashes that according to her might have been derived from the burning of human remains. Lumbreras takes this idea and suggests that some of the carbonized human remains found in the Ofrendas Gallery might have been processed in the Wacheqsa sector (Lumbreras 1993).

Before my research started, the existing information regarding the Wacheqsa sector could be summarized in the following way: A midden associated with Janabarriu like ceramics is located at the southern section of the Wacheqsa sector. This midden is characterized by the presence of finely decorated Janabarriu wares and abundant faunal remains (camelid and deer). Under the midden, an area with evidence of water flooding is associated with Urabarriu like materials. A domestic component is located on the northern edge of the Wacheqsa sector. This component is mostly associated with Urabarriu like ceramics and Kotosh-Kotosh ceramics. The information presented in this chapter has been used as a basis for my own research in the Wacheqsa sector, in which I have been able to confirm and expand Bennett, Tello and Fungs assertions regarding the Wacheqsa sector. The Wacheqsa sector was truly a multicomponent area that was consistently used by the authorities of the ceremonial center. Activities occurring in the Wacheqsa sector could be easily monitored from the tops of Buildings C and D in the monumental area. Its geographical location allowed it to be a buffer

3 9

zone, keeping the ceremonial center and the prehistoric domestic settlement apart from each other. These ideas are further elaborated in Chapter 7, but for now, allow me to switch gears towards the theory and methods that have guided the present research.

40

CHAPTER 4 THEORY AND METHODS

Archaeology as a social science seeks to comprehend the social processes responsible for the existence of the archaeological record. In the pursuit of this endeavor archaeologists have developed different sets of theoretical and methodological tools in order to accurately and efficiently investigate the nature of this archaeological record. In this chapter I seek to elaborate the theoretical grounds upon which my investigation has been developed, as well as to elaborate on the methodological frameworks used to systematize the data retrieved in the field and lab.

4.1

Theory of the Archaeological Record An archaeological site is a spatial cluster of material culture and contexts that are

spatially and stratigraphically distributed. It is the product of a systemic context, that through social practices give origin to the elements that together form the archaeological record. The systemic context is an aggregation of social actions that is part of a behavioral chain, and which [] labels the condition of an element which is participating in a behavioral system. Archaeological context describes materials which have passed through a cultural system, and which are now the objects of investigation of archaeologists (Schiffer 1972:159) But the systemic context by itself is more than a behavioral chain; it is generated by a temporal chain of social practices that in turn emerges from a set of specific historical and material conditions that induce men and woman to organize themselves and to create social institutions. As part of a social environment, the amount of energy invested and the way it is invested in producing the elements archaeologists find in the archaeological record is, conditioned by the circumstances in which men [and women] find themselves, by the productive forces already won, by the social form which exists before they do (Marx 1973:4) The social nature of the archaeological record is not self evident and needs to be extracted from the record itself. In doing this the degree to which the record is a manifestation of the activities that created them needs to be considered. In ideal cases, Binfords dictum may be appropriate

4 1

The loss, breakage and abandonment of implements and facilities at different locations, where groups of variable structure performed different tasks leaves a fossil record of the actual operation of an extinct society (Binford 1964:425) Regrettably there are several conditions that need to be taken into consideration regarding the exact nature of the archaeological record and how these conditions may have altered the original disposition of the record and how they can bias our interpretations. This problem was briefly addressed by Binford (Binford 1968) and extensively discussed by Schiffer (Schiffer 1972, 1983, 1988) who labeled the study of the affecting conditions of the archaeological record as Formation Processes. Formation process theory is probably one of the most important contributions to the understanding of the archaeological record, being crucial in the elucidation of behavioral and social practices. According to Schiffer, (Schiffer 1983:676-678) there are three areas, in which Formation Processes can be grouped: entropy, statistical sampling and transformation. Entropy refers to the process of deterioration that the archaeological record goes through since its original formation and the moment it is excavated by the archaeologist. In 1970 Cowgill drew a distinction between 1) the events that occurred in the past, 2) the artifacts created and deposited and 3) the artifacts that are uncovered by the archaeologist. Regarding the latter he stated that physical finds populations depend on ancient human activities, but also on subsequent events, human and non-human, and on the techniques, concepts, and equipment of investigators (Cowgill 1970:163). According to him, it is the task of the archaeologist to distinguish the discontinuities between these three populations and to think about those discontinuities in terms of sampling problems (Cowgill 1970). The discontinuities are due to a sampling bias that progressively acted towards the reduction of the quantity and quality of the archaeological record in relation to its original form. Entropy and statistical sampling are both related to the transformation of the archaeological record because of time, preservation or human and non human events. Entropy and statistical sampling can be subsumed into a transformational approach towards formation processes (Schiffer 1983). Cultural and noncultural post depositional events create new patterns of artifact organization, new associations and may even alter the soil composition of the deposits transforming entirely the original fossil record deposited. But also it has to be clear that Formation Processes are not entirely related to post depositional events but also to the original events that created the archaeological record.

42

The nature of the archaeological record sometimes does not allow the perfect identification of the activities that originated it, but it is equally important to identify the patterning of the record and its intrinsic spatial variation in horizontal and vertical planes. We may not be able to specify or determine what specific activities resulted in observed differential distributions, but we can recognize that activities were differentiated and determine the formal nature of the observed variability (Binford 1964:425) In the case of my research, I have chosen to study the intrasite variability of the Wacheqsa sector, taking into account two dimensions that are intrinsically connected: spatial and vertical distribution of deposits, Beyond the representation of excavation units and their usual components (such as soil, color, inclusions and texture), the spatial relationships of the excavation units, be either horizontal or vertical is crucial to field archaeologists (Losier, et al. 2007:273) This approach is useful for the understanding of the deposits of the Wacheqsa sector and how they vary in their depositional context, in their depositinal history and functionally. As well as how the deposits that are part of the site differ in: artifact quantity or the variability within any class of features, artifact diversity or the formal content of the population of features, artifact density of deposits and non-cultural composition of the deposit (i.e. type of dirt, types of inclusions, etc). Ultimately, the basic analytical unit in my research will be the archaeological deposit. For the purposes of my research, a deposit will be interpreted as a context that is a bounded and qualitatively isolated unit that exhibits a structural association between two or more cultural items and types of nonrecoverable or composite matrices (Binford 1964:431) For example, the relationships existing among waste materials in a midden deposit need to be analyzed in relationship with their context and with the specific quantities of each element. Artifacts themselves are products of specific actions like extraction of raw materials, the preparation and transformation of those materials into final products, and use and discard processes; these actions require a social organization capable of mobilizing labor. Each artifact is a product of a social process but many analyses of individual artifacts yield only sterile sequences of typological and stylistic change. With a contextual approach, hierarchical levels of analysis can aid in the comprehension of the social processes that generated at a minor scalethe archaeological deposits, andat a major scalethe archaeological site. In this

4 3

respect the analysis of deposits provides a better understanding of social processes as it poses the following questions: why are these artifacts in the same deposit; what produced the deposit; and what is the contextual significance of this deposit? The analysis of associations has to do with the association of materials making up the artifacts within a discrete context, it also refers to the relationships that artifacts have within a context rather than disconnected delimited elements; if the context changes, the relationships do too. Thus, if archaeology is the study of the material remains of a social activity, by definition, the unit [of analysis] should be any association that reveals the result of the social event that originated it21 (Lumbreras 2005:84. Emphasis added)

4.2 4.2.1

Data Processing Stratigraphic Analysis Even though I place the Stratigraphic Analysis section under the label of Data

Processing, the scrutiny of archaeological strata begins during the process of excavation; the outcome of the analysis will rely not only on the post-field data analysis, but also upon the analysis of the stratigraphic deposits and their excavation as such. This depends upon the units having been recognized and separated in the field (Warburton 2003:57). The purpose of stratigraphic analysis is to establish the spatial and chronological changes in the site before, during and after its use. The understanding of those processes are, in fact, what almost every archaeologist attempts to accomplish during an excavation, breaking the stratigraphic sequence down into contexts, and representing their relationship in a matrix (Clark 2000:157). In order to do that, it is necessary to reassemble and synthesize the units recorded, structuring the constituent parts into groupings. Elaborating on Pearson and Williams

(Pearson and Williams 1993), and Herzog (Herzog 2004) the nomenclature and structure imposed on the stratigraphic sequence that will be used in the present work is as follows: a) feature, b) deposit, c) analytical units. A feature is a set of associated artifacts that were deposited together as part of the same social event; a deposit is a stratigraphic layer that can be visually distinguished from the sediments above, below and beside it, differing from these other sediments by definition (Warburton 2003:6); an analytical unit is an assemblage of deposits that can be segregated in groups or clusters based upon their physical characteristics, artifact content and chronology. Analytical units can be also grouped into chronological blocks that will determine the phases of the site.
21

My translation.

44

In order to elaborate part of this stratigraphic analysis I have used a computer program called Stratify (Herzog 2004) that generates a Harris Matrix using the data entered by the user. The following data is processed by the software per feature or deposit: Minimum and maximum x, y, z coordinates. Logical relationships among deposits (earlier than, later than, equal to, part of). The procedure I have for understanding the stratigraphic relationships of deposits in the Wacheqsa sector is as followed is: A stratigraphic matrix was constructed for each excavation unit using the laws of superposition, original horizontality and original continuity (Harris 1992) Using Stratify I have merged individual matrices in order to create a single matrix for the Wacheqsa sector. Using a 3D Computer Aided Design (CAD) model and quantitative methods I have grouped deposits into Analytical Units and Analytical Units into chronological blocks (phases) in order to reconstruct the site formation of the Wacheqsa and the stratigraphic relationships of the deposits. Each deposit has a correlative number within each analytical unit. For example deposit 101, 102, 103n belong to the same analytical and deposits 201, 202, 203 n belong to a different one.

4.2.2

Digital Models and Archaeology

The understanding of past social processes can be partly an outcome of reconstructing the depositional history of a site. This has also been elaborated by Warburton, who indicates that Although [it is] generally assumed that stratigraphy is about time, stratigraphy can also provide substantial information about architectural space (Warburton 2003:29) and I would go even further to argue that stratigraphy not only reflects time and architectural space but also strategies of terrain modification. In this sense I have chosen to explore the stratigraphy of the Wacheqsa sector at Chavn de Huntar through the integration of a stratigraphic matrix into a CAD digital model that will allow the accurate reconstruction of the excavated areas with the potential to reveal intrasite correlations of the different strata excavated and recorded, taking into consideration that the visualizing process resulting from solid modeling can sometimes reveal relationships within an archaeological reconstruction more clearly than any other current methods of display (Malinverni, et al. 2002:411)

4 5

The use of digital models in archaeology allows the representation of the real world in a compact an efficient package, the efficient modeling and simulation of real world processes in order to understand complex interacting processes of humans and their environments. Additionally, they allow one to count, do statistics, manipulate and evaluate measurements in a variety of summary and analytical forms. Zubrow (Zubrow 2006) makes an interesting culture history of the development of digital technologies in archaeology and its correlation with trends of archaeological thought through time.
Date Pre-1930 1930-65 Archaeological Thought Natural observation Culture history Types of Problems Descriptive Temporal and geographic gapsmanship as well as reconstructive Systemic, hypothetical, nomethetic, behavioral group oriented Individual, interpretative HardwareSoftware Calculating machines Mainframes, Fortran, Cobol Subjects of Use Statistical analysis Statistical analysis, data storage and manipulation

1965-80

Processual

Minis Vaxs, PC, Pascal, C, Basic PCs, C++, Prolog

Causation, modeling, simulation GIS

1980-95

Post-processual

Expert systems, noncausative, AI, field use, GIS

Table 3: Historical development of digital technologies in archaeology according to Zubrow.

In the same vein Gary Lock also tries to trace the relationship between computerized technologies and archaeology schools of thought (Lock 2003). The following chart is a modified version of the one Lock presents in the referenced publication,
Year 1960s 1970s Theoretical School Cultural history Processual Theoretical Tools Classification Typology Quantification Confirmatory Theory led Exploratory Non confirmatory Technological Tools Multivariate statistics Mainframe computers Microprocessors Increased software Graphics Visualization Multimedia Virtual reality World wide web

1980s -90s

Postmodern

Table 4: Cultural History of digital technologies, adapted and modified from (Lock 2003:8)

46

One can argue about the accuracy of this chronological chart, but what is evident is that the use of technologies in archaeology has not been theoretically agnostic, at least at its beginning. Theoretical orientations define the type of problems to be investigated but the development of a particular theoretical trend exists in a particular time that has a set of available technologies existing for the resolution of those problems. On a very general level, a theory can be understood as a proposed explanation of why things are the way they are; in this sense archaeology offers different brands of explanations that are translated into competing visions of social systems and human behavior. Technological methods profusely populated the realm of archaeology during the onset of processualism as a predominant theoretical school; the search of new, accurate ways of exploring archaeological data was an endeavor necessary for acquiring an appropriate understanding of the social processes responsible for the archaeological record, related with a scientific/objective approach to data. In this regard, the use of the scientific method formalized the testing of hypotheses invoking the objective nature of archaeology as a scientific discipline. With the formalization of archaeology a new set of tools borrowed from other disciplines started to be part of the methodological toolkit necessary for the construction of scientific knowledge. Principles, methods, and techniques from fields as diverse as systems theory, biological ecology, information theory, and locational geography now frequently punctuate the archaeological literature. Although the ultimate utility of many of these ideas remains to be demonstrated, such borrowings are inevitable and necessary (Reid, et al. 1975:865) Nowadays the use of technologies in archaeology is still as theoretically oriented as it was at its onset. Postprocessualism has emphasized the need of experiencing the data (Shanks and Tilley 1992) in order to engage the archaeologist/public with the archaeological record and investigate the nature of the relationship within individual perception and data; in the same vein technology has been used to build interactive reconstructions of complete or partial archaeological sites in order to communicate the past to the public (Campo 2004; Guipert, et al. 2004; Lock 2003; Meister and Bastian 2004; Meister 2004). The same technologies can be used also for analytical purposes as I have done in this dissertation with Computer Aided Design (CAD)

4 7

Before going into the details of the modeling method I have used with the data I recorded from my excavations, I believe it is worthwhile to explore the different modeling methods available for the archaeologists in order to explain why I have chosen Computer Aided Design (CAD) technology for my work. In 1989 Paul Reilly introduced the concept of virtual archaeology referring to the use of three dimensional computer assisted models of archaeological data, arguing for their intrinsic potential not only for research but also for conservation and management of cultural heritage given the fact that it is an unfortunate irony that in order to reveal what lies below, the archaeological excavator must remove, and thereby destroy, what lies above (Reilly 1989:569) Given this destructive nature, archaeologists have developed a set of guidelines regarding archaeological excavations, which warrants not only an adequate extraction of information but also the exchange of information within the academic community. When put in practice, these guidelines result in a vast set of information that can be segregated into graphic and written records that need to be dissected into different categories for further storage, questioning, elucidation, and presentation. It is in these aspects (format, storage capacity, availability and manipulation) that digital technologies have increasingly become attractive for archaeologists from different theoretical fences. The archaeologist never sees the entire site during the excavation process but only portions of it, and these portions are conditioned by sampling choices made in determining which site or which portion of a site to excavate (Binford 1964; Cowgill 1970; Orton 2000; Schiffer 1983). Part of the site is removed, out of view or buried beneath the exposed surface. Computer technologies offer an analytical tool that allows a virtual reconstruction of the features excavated, simulating their original deposition and superposition of strata according to ways the data was retrieved. Three-dimensional reconstruction of archaeological stratigraphy has been an undertaking since the mid 80s, as shown in a seminal paper published in Nature (Ottaway, et al. 1986) in which computer graphics designed for protein crystallography were used for three dimensional visualization of archaeological stratigraphy. This approach was used with data coming from a Bronze Age pit from Altheim in Bavaria, Germany. The basic principle was the displaying of color-coded three dimensional contour maps of archaeological layers, the storage of the information in digital format and the modification of the model when new information was available (Ottaway, et al. 1986).

48

The next attempt of three dimensional stratigraphic reconstructions was the Winchester Geographic System (WGS) relational database management system linked to graphic facilities. This system was previously used in chemistry and medicine fields (Colley 1988) and was developed by the IBM United Kingdom Scientific Centre (Reilly 1989). The system was composed on three main elements 1) a relational database, 2) a 3D graphics system, and 3) a bridge software that links the relational database with the graphics system. Every record in this database holds a three dimensional position coordinate, an orientation, and a potentially large set of additional attributes including length, width, weight and fabric. The data can be scrutinized from various locations and viewpoints, many of which are inaccessible in the physical world. WGS was tested in the middle Saxon site of Hamwic, specifically in a single midden pit of 1.5 x 2.0 m wide and 1.2 m deep that had 17 strata recorded. Descriptions and positions of materials recorded in a trash pit were entered into WGSs database; the basic units of analyses were the shapes of stratigraphic layers and the location of selected items. Each query into the database would generate a graphic image of the spatial relationship of the layers/items queried (Colley 1988:101). The WGS system operated under an extensive hardware that included a mainframe computer and terminals controlled by mini computers. The early days of different technological experimentation ceased with the availability of CAD and GIS tools. With the sophistication and extensive distribution of software available to archaeologists, there has been a massive increase in experimentation with visual models that allow the investigation of the ways human have manipulated the space and constructed it according to their needs. The trigger for visualization has been the search for better ways to communicate the existing knowledge to the public. The model needs to be a representation of real data. The more reliable the data, the more useful the resulting model. The user not only moves within the model but also extracts information about different aspects of the model. In the case of stratigraphic modeling, the virtualization of the deposits is significant because, Displaying three-dimensional excavation units could be an important aid in understanding stratigraphical relationships and identifying potential patterning. These kinds of systems would also allow us to perform metric analysis, to validate interpretations or to formulate new ones since archaeologists would be able to revisit their site in immersive reality (Losier, et al. 2007:273)

4 9

4.2.2.1 GIS and CAD In the next pages I will focus in three technologies that to a certain degree are similar in the creation of virtual models: GIS and CAD which share the following advantages in spite of their particularities: capture of data, modeling of data, storing of data, sharing of data, analyzing data, displaying geo-referenced data.

4.2.2.1.1

Geographic Information System and Stratigraphic Modeling

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) is a broad term that covers a wide variety of software that works with geo-referenced digitized coverages. GIS works mainly with raster images but lately there is an increased integration of raster and vector data. GIS is designed to integrate the spatial data with an attribute database so that spatial data elements can have large amounts of text (and image) data associated with them (Lock 2003:54) One example of GIS use for stratigraphic reconstruction is the case of the site of Tell Leilan (Potzolu, et al. 2004). An excavation of a trench of 9 x 1 m was modeled using the following assumption Assuming that the surfaces between the western and eastern sections (separated by just one meter) had a regular slope, the sections upper and lower profile of each stratigraphic unit [layer] was enough for the interpolation of the final surfaces (Potzolu, et al. 2004:435) The modeling process went trough a series of complicated steps that can be summarized as follows: Digital photography of profiles Recording of control points on each profile using a EDM Raster rectification and mosaic creation using Rolleimetric Vectorization raster mosaic in GIS environment Geo-referencing of vector images in CAD environment Attribute data base creation in GIS Conversion of profile shapefiles into 3D polylines in CAD Creation of Triangular Irregular Networks in GIS environment. GIS approach to stratigraphic recording (no less complicated) has

Another alternative

been proposed by Doneus and Neubauer (Doneus and Neubauer 2004) who recommended the following procedures:

50

Single surface mapping of every surface excavated Digital photography of each surface. Digital rectification of each image. EDM recording of surface boundaries, topography and positioning of features. Geo-referencing of images in GIS.

Stratigraphical reconstruction with GIS technology is cumbersome and time expensive when compared with reconstructions made using CAD technologies, [..] CAD tools and GIS systems perform differently in 3D spatial modeling context. GIS software is usually employed with larger data sets whereas CAD tools are exploited in local applications. (Losier, et al. 2007:274) GIS technologies seem to be more appropriated in analyzing large geographical areas with ample data sets while CAD is more suited for site specific data sets. This quality of CAD will be discussed in the following pages.

4.2.2.1.2

CAD Modeling

Computer Aided Designs (CAD) is a vector based system in which primary data is composed by points and lines. It works with a referenced coordinate system22 (Lock 2003:53) that can either be global UTM values or arbitrary site grids. Initially it was merely a two dimensional tool until 3D exploration was developed allowing the creation of complex surface and three dimensional models. The computer models created are composed by different drawings that are stored into databases; they are geometric models in which the level of accuracy of the model depends on the number of points recorded per entity. EDMs allow enough precision if the surveyor records as many points as possible if surfaces are highly curved and decrease the number of points once the surface flattens. CAD models are entirely flexible, as entities can be grouped into different drawing layers which can be selectively hidden from the users view, allowing the creation of different views that can be segregated either contextually or chronologically or using any criteria that the archaeologist thinks is useful. A more detailed description of the methodology used for modeling stratigraphy at

22

X and Y values for north-south and east-west positions and z values for heights in reference to any assigned datum.

5 1

Chavn de Huntar will be developed later in this chapter but for the moment I believe it is pertinent to cite Eiteljorg in order to have a big picture of what CAD can do visually, As the model is created, the underlying base of a 3D coordinate system means that the complete geometry of the item being modeled is always retained. Furthermore, CAD programs have the capacity to provide a view of the model from any point in space, using the geometric information and the rules of geometry and perspective to generate any desired view on command. The view can be a plan, elevation, axonometric, or perspective view, at the pleasure of the user (Eiteljorg II 2007:154) The current sophistication of CAD models comes from a long experience in adjusting this technology to be efficient in the fields of architecture and engineering. Architecture is one of the types of data that archaeologists deal with and it is to be expected that archaeologists would embrace this technology and exploit its potential. It was not too long before archaeologists started to experiment with other types of data using CAD technology, stratigraphy being one of those types of data. An early example of stratigraphic analysis with the aid of Computer Assisted Design (CAD) programs was published in 1989 and according to his developer combines the philosophy of the Harris Matrix with single context plan elements to reconstruct composite plants and three dimensional models for investigation and analysis (Alvey 1993). This system was named Hindsight and tested in the site of Stakis in York (UK). Hindsight worked under a CAD platform allowing the digitizing of composite plans or single context plans, each plan has a unique height that is contrasted with the height of the different plans drawn in order to create an isometric view of the strata surfaces superimposed displaying the sequence of deposition on the site. It is important to note that Hindsight is essentially a visualization of a Harris Matrix, in which strata surfaces retain their scale but the vertical or superimposed representation does not represent depth but the position of each surface in the matrix. Hindsight allows the management of strata according to their position in the Matrix which is generated when the depths of each single deposit are entered. Each deposit immediately is recorded into a database and when a stratum is called from the database Hindsight checks its stratigraphic position (confronted basically by heights) in order to look for inconsistencies. As with any CAD application, the view on the screen can be rotated and viewed from an assortment of angles and directions that can be plotted. Hindsight has the ability to texture strata using different colors and hatching grids which act as a useful tool for segregation of phases or groups in the three dimensional Harris Matrix. The limitations on

52

Hindsight lie in the impossibility to carry out spatial analysis of deposit distribution; it does not allow for the possibility of intrasite analysis as deposits are visualized in a vertical relationship that does not display horizontal complexity. Deposits from different sectors of a site are shown in a chronological relationship but not in a spatial relationship. Hindsight is basically a three dimensional Harris Matrix that worked very well in the field of archaeological visualization. In 1994 William Beex stated that the main tasks of using CAD tools in archaeology needed to be related with the creation of a rapid general view, linked with attribute databases and capable of reconstructing the recorded archaeological remains (Beex 1994). The advantage of digitizing excavation plans lies in: the production of an unlimited amount of hard copies, the possibility of dealing with multiple coordinate systems and the opportunity of transforming maps of different scales into one single scale since the input will follow any chosen basic unit. The uniformity of a single scale will allow the identification of measuring mistakes. The novelty of this approach lies in the possibility of organizing strata into surface models with specific colors but most importantly it allows the comparison of surface models from different excavation units. It was suddenly possible to carry out intrasite analysis on extensive areas. In 2000, Mikhail Zhukovsli tested the use of CAD stratigraphic modeling in the site of Gnzdovo that has an extension of 16 ha divided in four groups of mounds built during 800 and 1100 AD (Zhukovsky 2001). The decision of using CAD over GIS technology was made on CADs coordinate geometry (COGO) engine that satisfies strict requirements for accurate and fast direct recording of excavation records (Zhukovsky 2001:433. Emphasis added). The software used was AutoCAD 2000 which has the ability to support vector and raster data and also has better three dimensional modeling and analytical capacities than GIS. The area excavated was a trench of 40 m and the strata was recorded following traditional hand made drawings that were digitized into CAD. Each strata surface was measured using a grid of 40 x 40 cm in order to take as many points as possible for an accurate modeling of it. Data was collected manually and with the help of an EDM. Surfaces were modeled following these steps: 1) surface points and surface boundaries were integrated into a triangulated irregular network (TIN), 2) an extrapolation grid was created with 20 x 20 cm cell density and 3) these two elements were merged together giving shape to three dimensional surface deposits (Zhukovsky 2001) 433. The application of CAD technology in

5 3

the site of Gnzdovo was restricted to the 40 m excavated, additional areas were not excavated in order to test the intrasite possibilities of the application of CAD modeling for stratigraphic analysis, but this approach has set the grounds for this kind of analytical approach. A more sophisticated analysis was recently published by Losier at al (Losier, et al. 2007). The authors used a non commercial software named GoCAD with data from the site of Tell Acharneh, Syri. They chose to model adjacent excavation units of 5 x 5 m that were recorded using a Trimble 5800 Real-Time Kinematic (RTK) Surveying GPS . GoCAD allow the modeling of stratigraphic units as solid models using either voxels or equilateral tetrahedrons23. Voxels models are usually extremely heavy and also show holes and empty spaces in the solids when the voxel size is too small. Tetrahedron models on the other side are not as heavy as voxel models and they are faithful to the limits of the surface model because nodes used to create the tetrahedron pass exactly by the control points since tetrahedrons honor complex geometry of objects (Cattani, et al. 2004:282). Stratigraphic analyses and visualizations have been greatly improved with the use of digital technologies: they allow the storage of records in a more durable format, strata can be visually reconstructed the way they were before archaeological excavations started, layers can be observed from different perspectives usually inaccessible in the real world and they can be segregated into spatial analytical units of horizontal or vertical distribution allowing the examination of intrasite variation.

4.2.2.2 Modeling the Wacheqsa Sector The model I have constructed is an empirical model based on direct information recorded through archaeological excavation. In order to construct this model I have chosen to do it using Autodesk Land software which works under a CAD environment. The reasons for using this particular technology are its availability, flexibility and its excellent resources and wide range of technical manuals. But most importantly it allowed me to build a three dimensional model of the strata recorded, to perform spatial and stratigraphic quantifications and to identify analytical units. Archaeological deposits are composed of layers, features and interfaces that have surfaces and volume information. The task of the archaeologist is at first to accurately record these elements in order to initiate the interpretive process of the archaeological record. The

23

A tetrahedron is a polyhedron formed by four triangular faces, three of which converge at each vertex.

54

procedure of model building is useful for articulating ideas about the original structure of archaeological features. Geometric reconstructions necessitate that the archaeologist identify explicitly each and every element in the model and their spatial relationship with one another. The definition of the model forces archaeologists to reconsider the original data, which can focus attention on problematic areas and gaps, causing them to observe, or record in a different manner, specific categories of data in future investigations (Eiteljorg II 2007). All stratigraphic deposits in the Wacheqsa sector were modeled as a three dimensional geometric representation of its upper and lower surfaces (figures 26, 27, 28 and 29). In Autodesk Land surface models are made of triangles created when the program connects the points that structure the surface data, these triangles form a triangulated irregular network (TIN) surface, the lines that form these triangles are known as TIN lines (Autodesk 2006). The points used for the creation of a stratigraphic surface model were taken in the field during the excavation process. In general points should be taken segregating two types, the boundary and the surface itself, a boundary is the polygon selected as surface boundary which is read as a two dimensional item, the contour is the three dimensional information that the surface polygon carries. When created, the program records the number of lines that make up the polygon, the elevation range of the surface contour and its maximum and minimum coordinates. Points can be either entered manually into CAD at the time of creating the surface model or can be organized into an ASCII text file or an Access database. The boundary points are identified as contour vertices and integrated into the surface model as breaklines that prevent triangulation lines from crossing the contours. It is very important to define the boundary of a stratigraphic surface model as it controls how the surface extends to its external limits. Contour vertices are joined with three dimensional polylines, each of these polylines have an x, y, z value in the plan that when joined create a three dimensional polygon (3DP). Once the 3DP is produced a surface model can be created. Autodesk Land has a feature called Terrain Model Explorer (TME) that manages the creation of surface models. Before the creation of a surface model, data must be entered into the TME. In adding surface data to the TME the user determines which points, breaklines, contours or boundaries are parts of the surface model. These items are entered separately per surface model into the TME. After choosing and entering the information the user wants to include in the surface, the program is ready to start building the surface model. CAD-LAND process the data entered and

5 5

calculates the surface triangulation combining the boundary and contour information interpolating the results. In addition to the information already provided, in the process of building the contour of the surface model when a surface is built, the following information is provided: 1) Number of triangles, the number of triangles in the surface TIN; 2) two dimensional surface areas, the apparent surface area if one looks at the surface from plan view. It is obtained by projecting the visible triangles onto the XY plane along the Z axis and summing the areas of the triangles. If areas on the surface are hidden within boundaries, then these areas are not included in the surface area; 3) three dimensional surface areas, it is the true area of the surface and accounts for variations in the surface elevation. The 3D area is the sum of the areas of each of the visible triangles in the surface without projecting the triangles. The greater the variation in elevations, the more the 3D area differs from the 2D area.; 4) Mean Elevation, the mean elevation of the surface; 5) minimum triangle area, the area of the smallest triangle in the surface TIN; 6) maximum triangle area, the area of the largest triangle in the surface TIN; 7) minimum grade, the minimum grade of the surface, in Autodesk-Land a grade is always expressed as a percentage, a value of 5 would imply a 5% grade which is translated into 5 vertical units every 100 horizontal units; 8) maximum grade, the maximum grade of the surface model; and 9) the average grade of the surface model. The model allows the visualization of the totality of the surface strata spatially and stratigraphically located as they were prior the excavation. Measurements can be performed and deposits can be segregated according to their spatial organization, geometry and grade. This is important to understand the complexity of the entire Wacheqsa sector and also for planning strategies of future excavations.

4.2.3

Quantitative Analyses

4.2.3.1 Analysis of Deposits Frequency densities of class artifacts were tabulated in order to identify patterns of distributions per deposits and analytical units. Frequency densities per deposit were entered into JMP Statistical Package and plotted against the analytical units identified in order to see the variation in artifact density per analytical unit.

4.2.3.2 Boone index The Boone index was first conceived for the analysis of midden deposits; however, I have adapted it here in order to use it with stratigraphic units. In Boones original estimation,

56

each midden will constitute the unit of analysis, while in this dissertation the unit of analysis will be each stratigraphic deposit. Boone measured the number of artifacts and the number of classes of artifacts per midden while I have measured the same items but for each stratigraphic deposit. The purpose of this index (Hi) is to compare the individual provenience units (deposits) of artifacts with the cumulative distribution of all deposits combined. Larger values of Hi indicate a high measure of homogeneity (the prevalence of one class over the rest) and lower Hi values will in turn indicate a low measure of it (Boone 1987). Spatial variation in occupational density within a settlement would be an obvious reason for non uniform distribution and size of classes within deposits in a given area. Deposit size refers to the number of artifacts present in the deposit. Elaborating on Boone (Boone 1987), perfect heterogeneity (Hi value of 0) is reached when all defined categories or entities in a population are present in equal quantities. Perfect homogeneity (Hi value of 1) exists when the population consists almost entirely of only one category. Consequently, in analyzing a series of stratigraphic deposits at the Wacheqsa sector, a measure of heterogeneity was followed in which the site-wide artifact mix, that is, the relative proportion of artifacts over the whole site is considered heterogeneous in that it reflects the relative proportion of deposit-producing activities over a given area (in this case, the Wacheqsa sector). Having this expression of site-wide artifact mix, it is possible to measure the differences of Hi values among deposits and even among analytical units grouping all Hi values of each analytical unit in order to see how they behave in comparison with each other. In calculating this index, the following procedure is followed: Primary data consists of frequency counts (denoted yij) from a range of artifact classes (j) which were retrieved from a number of distinct deposits (i). Site-wide totals of each artifact are denoted Yj An expression of site-wide relative frequencies is obtained by calculating the ratio of one class total to each remaining class. This ratio becomes the weighting factor (Wj). Wj is calculated for every class from every deposit. Weighed percentages (pij) of each class in each deposit are obtained by dividing each individual weighed value by the sum of all weighed values from a given deposit. The difference between 1 and the number of classes recorded (j) is calculated.

5 7

Finally, the index (Hi) is calculated upon the sum of the squared deviations of pij minus Pj.
Wj= yij Yj Wj Wj 1 j

pij=

Pj=

Hi= [ (pij-Pj) ] yij= class artifact frequency counts per deposit (number of certain class artifact per deposit) Yj= site wide totals of each artifact class (total number of certain class artifact in all deposits) Wj= ratio of one class total to each class total pij= weighed percentage of each class in each deposit. j=number of classes

The first two steps were followed according to Boone (Boone 1987), while the last three are suggestions recommended by Ian Robertson (Robertson 2007). Ten classes of artifacts have been considered: decorated ceramic sherds, diagnostic ceramic sherds, obsidian, burnt clay, anthracite mirrors, mollusks, lithics, projectile points, bone artifacts and chrysocolla. The null hypothesis to test while using this index is that all spatial analytical units are composed of deposits that have the same Hi value, meaning that all deposits of each analytical unit have equal proportions of classes of archaeological materials. Before trying to evaluate the richness of the deposits of the Wacheqsa sector, it is necessary to follow Cruz-Uribe when he states that the relationship between sample size and diversity and richness should be investigated prior to any interpretation (Cruz-Uribe 1988:194). Sample size can seriously affect measures of diversity as large deposits may contain a larger number of classes (Boone 1987; Kintigh 1989; Orton 2000); moreover, given two populations with an equal number of classes, one of which has equal frequencies for all classes, and the other for which high frequencies are concentrated in a small subset of the classes, for small sample sizes the former case will give raise to smaller values of Hi than the latter.

58

Once Hi values have been calculated, I generated a 90% confidence interval in order to identify those deposits that are outside the confidence interval expected by sample size. Normally this would be enough for testing sample size bias but I have gone a step further. Once the expected richness (Hi) and associated confidence intervals are generated, I repeatedly sampled from the observed population using a Monte Carlo routine in order to determine whether Hi values calculated could reasonable be due to sample size bias. Monte Carlo routines are particularly useful for testing the significance of a test (in this case the Boone index) as with a Monte Carlo test the significance of an observed test statistic is assessed by comparing it with a sample of test statistics obtained by generating random samples using some assuming model (Manly 1991:21. Cited by Shennan 2006:64). Using a Monte Carlo routine I was able to elucidate if the Hi values observed in the Boone Index and even those observed outside the 90% confidence interval, are representing a real behavior of the archaeological materials within deposits and analytical units or if it is just a reflection of a simple size bias. Either way I consider it important to test this measure of diversity in order to clarify its validity and application in the archaeological assemblage of the Wacheqsa sector. All calculations (Boone index and Monte Carlo routines) were made using R statistical software package.

4.2.3.3

Kernel density estimates (KDE): univariate, bivariate A sub set (n=3020) of the total population of diagnostic ceramic sherds (n=12017)

was tabulated using the following parameters: strata, analytical unit, shape, diameter, thickness and phase in order to find patterns of association between the categories of diameter and thickness per type of ceramic vessel and to identify possible differences of those patternings among analytical units. In this regard the following ceramic shapes have been identified: neckless jar, bowl, jar, cup and plate. I have used Kernel Density Estimates (KDE) for the purpose of identify modalities in diameters and thickness per type in each analytical unit. KDE can be separated into univariate and bivariate. A univariate KDE can be understood as a smoothed histogram that avoids the constraints of a histogram (Baxter 2003; Baxter, et al. 1997; Shennan 2006; Wand and Jones 1995). Given n points X1, X2, . . . , Xn situated on a line a KDE can be obtained by placing a bump (essentially a uni-modal density function) at each point and then summing the height of each bump at each point on the X-axis. The kernel is usually a symmetric probability

5 9

density function (Baxter, et al. 1997). The spread of the bump is determined by a window- or band-width, that is analogous to the bin-width of a histogram. The determination of the kernel band-width is very important as the size of the band width will determine the output of the estimation. There is no uniform theory on how to regulate the band-width size but it is appropriate to do it intuitively trying to find the balance between undersmoothed and oversmoothed results (Baxter 2003; Baxter, et al. 1997; Shennan 2006). In order to do that it is necessary to begin with a large band-width and to decrease the amount of smoothing until fluctuations that are more random than structural start to appear (Wand and Jones 1995:58) If univariate analysis can be regarded as an alternative to the histogram, It might be argued that, with univariate data, the advantages of using a KDE as opposed to a histogram for data representation are not so great as to cause them to be preferred on a routine basis. For bivariate data the case for using KDEs is much stronger (Baxter, et al. 1997:347) The potential of KDE is stronger in bivariate analysis; KDE can be very effective when applied to scatter plots, showing concentrations of points or modality in the data, especially for large data sets as it is difficult to make sense of scatter plots. Bivariate KDE are straightforward to contour in terms of inclusion of specific percentages of the most densely clustered points, KDE can be used as an informal kind of clustering method that does not impose structure on the data in the way that more formal methods often do (Wand and Jones 1995). Univariate KDE plots of diameter and thickness were built per type in each analytical unit using R statistical software package and bivariate KDE were build using JMP statistical software package. Bivariate KDE plots a smooth surface that describes how dense the data points are at each point in that surface; these plots can be used for producing contour plots which leads to graphical representations of the data examined (Baxter, et al. 1997:349). In creating this graphical representation JMP adds a set of contour lines showing densities around the modes identified. Optionally the contour lines are quantile contours in 5% intervals with thicker lines at the 10% quantile intervals. This means that about 5% of the points are below the lowest contour, 10% are below the next contour and so forth. The highest contour has about 95% of the points below it (Sall, et al. 2005). With this information a mesh plot can be created, which is basically the three dimensional representation of the bivariate KDE. This nonparametric density method is relatively costly for a small number of points, being this

60

reason why a selective approach has to be used with this method in regards to sample size, having a low number of points scattered will only fabricate modes. The steps in the method are as follows: JMP divides each axis into 50 binning intervals, for a total of 2,500 bins over the whole surface, counts the points in each bin, decides the smoothing kernel standard deviation using the recommendations of Bowman and Foster (1992),runs a bivariate normal kernel smoother using a Fast Fourier Transformation algorithm (FFT) and inverse FFT to do the convolution, and creates a contour map on the 2,500 bins using a bilinear surface patch model (Sall, et al. 2005). Based on the KDE

estimates JMP performs a modal clustering analysis in which clusters or density concentrations are translated into a table where the definitive modes are identified. Ultimately, these modes are the ones that represent the ceramic behavior regarding diameter and thickness relationships among the ceramic types identified in the Wacheqsa sector. It is important to mention the reason why I decided to work with both univariate and bivariate KDE. I wanted to test if the modalities observed in univariate KDE were replicated using bivariate KDE using thickness in addition to diameter. I also wanted to test whether diameter was a good indicator of vessel size modality as it has been used consistently in the literature (Blitz 1993; Drennan 1996; Longacre 1999; Mills 1999; Potter 2000; Rosenswig 2007). I expected that the modalities reflected by using diameter would resist when adding thickness as a new dimension, so both measurements combined would replicate the patterns observed when only diameter was considered.

In closing this chapter I would like to enumerate the methodological contributions of the present dissertation: Three-dimensional stratigraphic modeling: allows the visual reconstruction of the strata recorded as well as the observation of strata distribution either horizontally or vertically. Harris Matrix: allows the chronological organization of the deposits excavated. In a stratigraphically complex area as the Wacheqsa sector, the use of a Harris Matrix is almost imperative. When combined with three-dimensional stratigraphic modeling, the understanding of the archaeological deposits is spatially and chronologically clearer than using traditional methods such as bi-dimensional trench profiles or bidimensional composite plans; it allows the segregation of spatial analytical units based on strata spatial organization.

6 1

Density distribution of the archaeological artifacts. The measurement of density indexes per each class of artifact within each deposit allows the characterization of each analytical unit in terms of artifact distribution.

Boone Index of diversity: allows the measurement of diversity indexes per each artifact class within each deposit. When these indexes are grouped into analytical units, it should be possible to identify artifact behavior in each analytical unit. Higher Hi values would indicate homogeneity within the archaeological record while lower Hi values would indicate heterogeneity. Homogeneity can be interpreted as indicative of tasks that involved only certain archaeological materials while heterogeneity would indicate activities that involved a diverse array of archaeological artifacts. Sample size bias should be addressed before interpreting the results of the Boone Index.

Kernel Density Estimations: the use of bivariate KDE in a large subset (n=3020) of diagnostic ceramic sherds (rims) accurately identify the predominant ceramic modes within each analytical unit, characterizing the particularities of their ceramic assemblages and shedding light regarding the activities that characterized each unit.

The outcome of the use of these methods is described, explained and discussed in chapters 6 and 7. For now, let me turn to the description of the excavations and strata recorded in the Wacheqsa sector.

62

CHAPTER 5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATIONS

The present research at the Wacheqsa sector started in year 2003 with three excavation units of 4 x 1.5, 2 x 2 m and 4x4 m (WQ-1, WQ-1 WE and WQ-2) located at the north edge of the sector. These excavations had the goal of tracing early deposits reported by Rosa Fung (Fung 1975, 2006) and cited by Lumbreras (Lumbreras 1993) and Burger (Burger 1984; Burger 1998). In year 2004 four units were excavated (WQ-3, WQ-4, WQ-5 and WQ6), two of them located 15 meters south of the north edge, another located over the terrace that serves as the south edge of the sector, and a last one placed over the west end of the sector (figures 30 and 31). These six units excavated between years 2003 and 2004 provided a rough idea of the nature of the archaeological deposits present in this sector but were insufficient for characterizing either the degree of variability inherent in them, or the social processes responsible for their depositions. The sampling strategy used in this first stage of research can be considered informal purposive sampling, as the choice [of the areas to excavate] may be based on archaeological criteria or those of time, cost and convenience, or a combination of them (Orton 2000:2). Orton defined two types of informal sampling: purposive and haphazard. Purposive sampling is related to the excavation of areas carefully selected given topographical features while haphazard sampling is related with the excavation of areas where there are concentrations of archaeological materials on surface. Hence the first stage of excavations at the Wacheqsa sector was an informal purposive sampling as excavation units were laid out either according to their proximity to Fungs original excavations, or to their proximity to archaeological features such as exposed walls or platforms. Concentrations of archaeological materials were not distinguishable on surface as the surface land was entirely covered by the 1945 landslide. These excavations represent only 66m (0.45%) of the total extent of the site. The main difficulty with this sampling strategy is that it lacked the potential of generalization for an entire population of 14600 m, however it allowed me to hypothesize preliminarily the Wacheqsa sector as a multicomponent deep stratified archaeological unit.

6 3

These units impose a challenge in sampling them as, even under the most favorable excavation conditions deeply buried occupations cannot be as extensively excavated as surface occupations because of the great expense in opening large exposures and because of the inordinate future commitment to pursuing such a vast objective (Brown 1975:157) Given the deeply stratified nature of the Wacheqsa sector, it was necessary to elucidate a sampling program that would allow me to make general inferences about the activities developed in the Wacheqsa sector taking into account not only the spatial horizontal variation of the archaeological record but also its vertical characteristics. Additionally, the elucidation of a sampling strategy at the Wacheqsa sector needed to take into consideration the sites conservation, time and finances. Chavn de Huntar is an UNESCO world heritage site with specific regulations on what can be done and what cannot be done in terms of excavation and conservation, similarly large area excavations in deeply stratified archaeological units require not only the investment of time but also financial resources that were not under the possibilities of the project. As a result I decided to sample systematically the central section of the Wacheqsa Sector, an area of 3500 m. Systematic sampling simplify[ies] or speeds up the process of selection by choosing units at equal intervals throughout the sampling frame with only the first one being selected at random (Orton 2000:21). Fieldwork in years 2003 and especially 2004 hinted at the probability of the existence of stone structures associated with Janabarriu-like ceramics covered by platforms. With the goals of finding more of these structures, investigating in detail their associations, and examining the cultural deposits prior to the construction of these structures, the south central section of the Wacheqsa sector was targeted as a systematic sample area for excavations. A sampling area of 400 m (20 x 20 m) was defined in the south central section, not only for the purpose of finding potential structures but also in order to cover the south section of this sector from which I had no information (figure 32). The 20 x 20 m unit (WQ-7) was divided into 4 segments which had four 2 x 1 m units arranged equidistant from each other. The units were deemed to be big enough to provide a good likelihood of feature discovery, and small enough not to be too time-costly to excavate. Once an archaeological context was identified, the units could be expanded in order to accurately record its associations. Not all the units were excavated; only eight were investigated and expanded reaching in some cases 6 m. This sampling is purposive and flexible because the criteria for the location of the 20 x 20

64

m is none other than the knowledge gained from past field season. It is also systematic because there is formal criterion of location of small units within the chosen sampled area and it is also flexible as I was able to expand excavation units according to the findings identified. With this sampling strategy I excavated an additional 0.22 % of the entire site (32 m). In addition to this systematic sampling program, an informal purposive sampling strategy was used in order to add more information to the one that was being retrieved in WQ-7. These units (WQ-8, WQ-9 and WQ-10) added an extra 0.24% (36 m) to the total area sampled. In total, from years 2003 to 2005, an area of 0.91% (132 m) of the entire Wacheqsa sector has been excavated

5.1

Units Excavated In this section I present crude stratigraphic descriptions of all layers excavated in the

Wacheqsa sector. At the same time the exact location of the NW corner of every unit is given, in reference to the site grid; all color codes given are Munsell soil color codes.

5.1.1

WQ-01 (N 849, E 484.5) This unit had an area of 6m (4 x 1.5 m) and reached a depth of 1.90 m below surface.

It was composed by two strata deposited on top of a stone platform (figure 33).

Layer 01

Soil Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form.

Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1)

02 03

Matrix mixed with a low density of angular rocks and cobbles of different sizes. Stone platform built with angular rocks of medium and small sizes joined together without any clay. It covered the entire extension of the initial 4x1 m trench. The excavation had to stop in this feature in order to preserve the platform.

Reddish Brown (5Y 5/3)

Notes It was deposited by the natural aluvin slide of 1945. Agricultural land. The platform was designated as Feature 1 in this unit.

Table 05: Stratigraphic summary of unit WQ-01

5.1.2

WQ-01 (west extension) (N 847, E 483) This unit had also 4m (2 x 2 m) and was located adjacent to the west of Unit WQ-01.

The excavations in this unit reached a depth of 3.56 m below surface (figures 34-36)

6 5

Layer 01

02 03 04 Feature 01

Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form. Coarse matrix mixed with a low density of angular rocks and cobbles of different sizes. Loose clayish matrix mixed with coarse sand and abundant small and middle sized angular rocks Loose coarse sand mixed with dirt and small angular rocks Stone wall conformed by three superimposed rows of large sized cobbles; the upper row includes a batan (large concave stone used as a surface to grind grains ) reused as a wall component. The stones are joined with mud.

Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1) Reddish Brown (5Y 5/3) Very dark brown (10YR 3/6) Brown (10YR 3/6)

Notes Aluvin slide of 1945. Agricultural land Agricultural land

05

Semi compact soil composed by coarse sand mixed with middle and large sized angular rocks Ashes, burnt earth and carbon

Very dark gray (10YR 3/1) Very dark gray (10YR 3/1)

06

This feature has a north-south orientation and served as a retaining wall for the platform recorded in WQ-1 (Feature 1). Date AA75385 was taken from this level. Located in the south west section of the unit.

07

08 09

Rocky deposit, composed mainly by small and medium sized angular rocks, with almost no soil among the rocks Clayish matrix mixed with small and medium sized angular rocks Coarse sand mixed with abundant large sized cobbles

Brown (10YR 3/6) Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)

Sterile soil

Table 06: Stratigraphic summary of WQ1 (west extension)

5.1.3

WQ 02 (N 852, E 483) This unit of excavation had an area of 16m (4 x 4m). It was located on the northern

edge of the Wacheqsa sector, intersecting a drop of 2.10 m that marks the end of the Wacheqsa northern platform. This drop is delimited on its north side by a zigzag stone wall that extends 100 m along this northern end; this wall is on the lower end of the drop. The unit was placed in this area to document the stratigraphy of the northern end of the Wacheqsa sector and to uncover the archaeological deposits that were associated with the zigzag. Unlike the rest of the units excavated in the Wacheqsa sector (with the exception of unit WQ-5), it was not oriented towards the north but towards the NE in order to intersect the drop more efficiently. This unit was divided in four sections of 4 x 1 m each, numbered from west to east, in order to have a better control of the drop (figures 37-39).

66

Layer 01 02 03 04

Feature 01

05

06 07

Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form. Matrix mixed with a low density of angular rocks and cobbles of different sizes. Medium and large sized cobbles mixed with angular rocks and a clayish soil Damaged white clay floor. It was found in a very poor condition most likely due to the fill (Layer 3) that was sitting upon it NE-SW stone wall, 0.47 m wide. The rocks that form the wall are quarried rectangular ones that are joined with clay. This wall sits on the surface of Layer 4 and an extension of 1.75 m was exposed and was found in quads 3 and 4. Clay floor found immediately under Layer 4. Found in much better conditions than the previous floor (Floor 1) exposed in the excavation of Layer 4. Clay floor, similar as the preceding one Semi-compact soil mixed with a low density deposit of small and medium sized angular rocks and cobbles Very compact soil mixed with a low density of small angular rocks Coarse sand mixed with abundant large sized cobbles

Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1) Reddish Brown (5Y 5/3) Reddish Brown (5Y 5/3)

Notes Aluvin slide of 1945.

Similar layer 2 Floor 1

two

Floor 2

Floor 3. Date AA75386 . Pale brown (10YR 6/3) Brown (10YR 3/4) Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)

08 09

Sterile soil

Table 07: Stratigraphic summary of WQ2

5.1.4

WQ-03 (N 830, E 481) This unit had an area of 16 m (4 x 4m). The purpose of this unit was to sample the

central north section of the Wacheqsa sector. The excavations in this unit reached a depth of 3.40 m below surface and each square meter was given a number in order to keep track of the findings and/or contexts (figures 40-43).

Layer 01

02a

Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form. Platform floor made of medium sized quarried rocks. The disposition of the rocks on the surface has a formal arrangement Very compact clayish soil

Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1) Reddish (2.5 YR 4/3) Dark greenish gray (10GY 4/1)

Notes Aluvin slide of 1945.

02b

Table 08: Stratigraphic summary of WQ3

6 7

Layer Feature 1

03 04 05 06

Description Stone wall composed by large sized angular rocks. Same wall that appears in WQ-01 (Feature 1) and WQ-2 (Feature 1). It has a north-south orientation; it defines the eastern boundary of the stone platform that appears in the west half of the unit (layer 2a). The wall has a doorway located at the south end of the wall. Floor associated at Feature 1 Semi compact matrix mixed with medium and small sized angular rocks. Clayish matrix mixed with medium sized cobbles and small fragments of slate Coarse sand mixed with abundant large sized cobbles

Color

Notes

Reddish brown (2.5Y 5/4) Dark brown (7.5 YR 3/3) Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)

Floor 1

Sterile soil

Table 08 (continuation): Stratigraphic summary of WQ3

5.1.5

WQ-4 (N 821, E 466) This unit was located at 14 m southwest of WQ-3, and equally had an area of 16 m (4

x 4 m). Each square meter was given a number in order to keep track of the findings and/or contexts. This unit reached a total depth of 4.40 m below surface (figures 44-47).

Layer 01

Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form.

Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1)

02

Platform floor made of medium sized quarried rocks. The disposition of the rocks on the surface has a formal arrangement

03

Very compact clayish soil

The soil between the rocks was reddish (2.5 YR 4/3) Dark greenish gray (10GY 4/1)

Feature 01

Rectangular room partially excavated; only the southwestern section was found. Its walls were built with middle sized quarried rectangular stones, the width of the walls ranged between 0.6 m. and 0.7 m. The N-S wall had three superimposed row of stones while the W-S had only two, these stones were joined together with mud. The room was totally covered by Layer 2. Table 09: Stratigraphic summary of WQ4

Notes Aluvin slide of 1945. Excavated in the entire unit. Excavated in the entire unit. Covered Feature 1 Present in quads 13, 14, 15 and 16. Located in quads 3, 4, 7, 8 and 11 and 12

68

Layer

Description

Color

Notes

Feature 02

Stone wall composed by middle sized rectangular quarried stones joined together with mud mortar.

04

Clayish compact floor.

Dark brown 3/2)

reddish (5YR

05

Semi compact matrix mixed with medium and small sized angular rocks.

Reddish brown (2.5Y 5/4)

05a

Loose clayish soil mixed with a low quantity of small sized angular rocks Clayish and sandy semi compact soil mixed with abundant small sized cobbles and angular rocks

Dark brown (10YR 3/3) Reddish brown (2.5 YR 4/3)

06

07

Medium and small sized angular rocks and cobbles mixed with loose fine grain sandy soil

Brown 3/4)

(10YR

08

Very compact clayish soil mixed with fine sand and small sized angular rocks Large boulder sitting on top of Layer 8 and covered by Layers 4-7

Dark brown (10YR 2/2) Black 2.5/1) (2.5Y,

Feature 03

Feature 04 09

Burnt soil immediately next to Feature 1 Very compact clayish soil. No rocks of any kind were found Reddish brown (2.5Y 5/4)

10

Loose soil mixed with abundant small sized angular rocks and a small amount of medium sized angular rocks Semi compact clayish soil mixed with coarse grain sand and abundant small sized angular rocks.

Light gray (2.5Y 7/2)

11

Reddish brown (2.5Y 5/4)

12

Loose soil, mixed with fine grain sand and abundant small sized angular rocks.

Dark brown 2.5/3)

reddish (2.5YR

13

Coarse sand mixed with abundant large sized cobbles

Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)

Located on the south profile of the unit. Floor 1. Only excavated in quads 6, 10, 15 and 16. Only excavated in quads 6, 10, 15 and 16 Only excavated in quad 6. Only excavated in quads 6, 15 and 16. Only excavated in quads 15 and 16. Excavated in quads 6, 15 and 16. This feature extends to quads 10, 11, 14 and 15. Found in quad 6. Only excavated in quads 15 and 16 Only excavated in quads 15 and 16 Only excavated in quads 15 and 16 Only excavated in quads 15 and 16 Sterile soil

Table 09 (continuation): Stratigraphic summary of WQ4

6 9

5.1.6

WQ-5 (N746, E432) This unit had an area of 4 m (2 x 2) and was located at the bottom of the massive wall

that marks the south border of the Wacheqsa sector. The purpose of this unit was to understand the nature of the deposits that lie under the wall in order to relate them with the rest of the stratigraphy recorded in the Wacheqsa sector. The excavation in this unit reached a depth of 2.27 m below surface (figure 48).

Layer 01 02

Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form. Loose soil mixed with small angular rocks

Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1) Reddish brown (2.5 YR 5/4).

Notes Aluvin slide of 1945.

03

Feature 1

This layer was located exclusively at the bottom of the southeast section of the massive wall. It had a semicircular shape of approximately 0.30 m of diameter. There was the presence of modern materials (fragments of plastic bags) on the surface as well as remains of burnt animal bones (deer?). The surface of the layer has a reddish color as if was the subject of fire. Double face north-south wall of 1.20 m long and 0.40 m wide, located perpendicularly to the massive east-west wall. This wall separated layers 3a and 3b.

The west boundary of this layer is marked by Feature 1.

The wall was build using rectangular and quadrangular stones. Dark brown (7.5 YR 3/2) Yellowish brown (10.5 YR 5/4) The excavation stopped due to the instability of the profiles.

03a 04

Very compact clayish soil Loose soil matrix with abundant small sized angular rocks Organized massive stone fill. Vertical lines of medium sized cobbles separated massive fills composed by small sized cobbles and angular rocks. The spaces in between the vertical accommodations of cobbles were of 0.25 m in average

05

Table 10: Stratigraphic summary of WQ5

5.1.7

WQ-6 (N786, E430) This unit is located at the west section of the Wacheqsa sector and had an area of 4 m

(2 x 2 m). The purpose of this unit was to understand the stratigraphic depositions in this particular area in relation with the other units excavated. The excavation in this unit reached a depth of 3.40 m below surface (figure 49).

70

Layer 01

02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Feature 3

Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form. Very compact matrix. Very compact matrix. Loose matrix Semi compact matrix mixed with medium sized angular rocks. Semi compact matrix mixed with medium quantities of small sized angular rocks. Very compact matrix mixed with a few small angular rocks and cobbles. Loose matrix mixed with abundant small sized angular rocks. Semi compact matrix with a low density of small sized angular rocks. Very loose soil mixed with abundant small sized angular rocks. Very loose soil mixed with abundant small sized angular rocks. Abundant medium sized angular rocks mixed with a loose matrix. Semi compact matrix mixed with abundant small sized angular stones. Elongated fireplace, reddish surface, abundant charcoal.

Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1)

Notes Aluvin slide of 1945.

Reddish (2.5Y 5/4) Greenish (5Y 6/4) Greenish (5Y 6/4) Olive brown (2.5Y 4/3) Olive gray (5Y 4/2) Dark reddish brown (2.5YR 5/3) Reddish (2.5Y 5/4) Reddish (2.5Y 5/4) Dark brown (10YR 3/3) Grayish brown (10YR 4/2) Very dark gray (10YR 3/1) Dark reddish brown (2.5YR 5/3)

14

Coarse sand mixed with abundant large sized cobbles

Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)

It surrounded Feature 1. Date GX31647 was obtained from this feature. Sterile soil

Table 11 Stratigraphic summary of WQ6

5.1.8

WQ 07 (N771, E434) This unit was located at the south central section of the Wacheqsa sector and had an

area of 400 m. The unit was divided and numbered clockwise into four sectors starting from the northwest one. This unit was systematically sampled, placing 2 x 1 units every five meters within each sector. When required the units were expanded (figure 50).

5.1.8.1 5.1.8.1.1

SECTOR I Unit 1 (N777, E435)

This unit was excavated until reaching 5.10 m below surface and had an area of 2 m (2 x 1 m) with a west-east orientation (figures 51-53).

7 1

Layer 01

Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form

Black 2.5/1)

Color (2.5Y,

02

03

Dry and compact clayish matrix mixed with small size Very dark gray rocks. It has several micro layers deposited (Gley 1 3N) homogeneously one above each other given the impression of a layer originated by water sedimentation, produced either by a low gravity canal or by water accumulation over time Semi compact coarse sand Yellowish (10YR 5/5)

Notes It was deposited by the natural aluvin slide of 1945. Excavated in the entire unit. Unevenly distributed, located only at the east and south sides of the unit Similar distribution than previous layer.

04 05 06 07

Similar than layer 02 Similar than layer 03 Similar to layers 02 and 04 Loose clayish matrix.

Very dark gray (Gley 1 3N) Gray (10YR 5/1)

08 09 10

11

12

Compact matrix mixed with small angular rocks and cobbles. Semi compact clayish matrix mixed with small sized angular rocks and cobbles. Stone platform. Surface made of large sized cobbles arranged with their flat faces up. The interior of the platform was made of a clayish matrix mixed with small and medium sized angular rocks. Rocky layer, composed by medium sized angular rocks. In several cases the rocks show signs of decomposition giving the layer an orange-reddish coloration. The soil among the rocks was wet coarse sand Semi compact matrix mixed with large sized angular rocks

Dark brownish (10YR 4/2) Dark reddish brown (5YR 3/3) Olive (5Y 5/3)

Its distribution and orientation is similar to that of layer two, three, four, five and six. Agricultural land.

Orange-reddish (10YR 4/3)

Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4)

A block of crude limestone was found in this layer, weighing 3 kg The excavation had to be stopped at this level as the profiles were not stable enough.

Table 12: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SI-U1

72

5.1.8.1.2

Unit 4 (N763, E441)

This unit was excavated to 3.50 m below surface and had an area of 2 m (2 x 1 m) with a west-east orientation.

Layer 01

Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form Semi compact clayish soil mixed with a low density of angular rocks of different sizes Loose matrix mixed with abundant middle sized cobbles and angular rocks Compact matrix mixed with abundant middle sized cobbles and angular rocks. Rocky layer composed by abundant middle sized angular rocks mixed with a compact matrix. Semi compact clayish matrix mixed with abundant small cobbles and angular rocks Compact matrix mixed with abundant small and middle sized angular rocks

Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1)

Notes
Aluvin slide of 1945. Excavated in the entire unit.

02 03 04 05 06 07

Reddish (5Y 5/3) Grayish (2.5Y 5/2) Grayish (2.5Y 5/2) Dark gray 4/1) Grayish (10YR 5/2) Grayish (10YR 4/2)

brown brown brown (10YR brown brown

Agricultural Land

An 80 kg block of crude limestone was recovered

08 09 10

Very compact clayish matrix mixed with small Dark gray (2.5Y sized angular rocks 4/1) Similar to layer 6 Stone platform. Surface made of large sized cobbles Olive (5Y 5/3) arranged with their flat faces up. The interior of the platform was made of a clayish matrix mixed with small and medium sized angular rocks.

Similar to layer 10 in unit 1. The excavation was stopped at this layer due to the instability of the profiles.

Table 13: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SI-U4

5.1.8.2 SECTOR II 5.1.8.2.1 Unit 1 (N770, E444)

This unit had an area of 6 m (3 x 2 m) with a west-east orientation. This unit was excavated to a depth of 3.40 m below surface. In order to have a better control of the stratigraphy and features to be found in the unit, the unit was subdivided in 6 quads of one meter each (figures 54 and 55).

7 3

Layer 01

Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form

Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1)

02

Semi compact clayish soil mixed with a low density of angular rocks of different sizes N-S wall, with a flat face toward the west. The wall was built using medium sized cut stones

Reddish brown 5/3)

(5Y

Feature 1

Feature 2

03a

W-E wall composed by small sized angular rocks lacking the formality of Feature 1. This wall joins the southern end of Feature 1 forming a corner Dried semi compact matrix mixed with angular rocks of different sizes mixed with a small amount of cobbles. Similar to layer 3a but with a major amount of rocks

Dark brownish gray (2.5Y 4/2) Dark brownish gray (2.5Y 4/2) Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2) Olive brown (2.5Y 4/3) Dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) Very dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) Dark brown clayish wet soil (7.5YR 3/2) Dark grayish brown

03b

04

Loose clayish matrix mixed with small sized angular rocks Large amount of small angular rocks, loose consistency and easy to excavate Clayish matrix mixed with angular rocks of various sizes mixed with small sized cobbles. Rocks of larger size are located on the two upper thirds of the layer. Semi compact matrix mixed with angular rocks of different sizes. Semi compact matrix mixed with abundant medium sized angular rocks and a little amount of small sized cobbles Similar to the previous layer but with a major amount of cobbles

05

06

Notes Aluvin slide of 1945. Excavated in the entire unit. This layer was excavated in all quads. This Feature was found in quads 2, 3 and 5. This Feature was found in quads 1 and 2 Located towards the east of Feature 1 Located towards the west of Feature 1 Only excavated in quads 1 and 2 Only excavated in quads 1 and 4. Only excavated in quads 1 and 4. Only excavated in quads 1 and 4. Only excavated in quads 1 and 4. The excavation was stopped at this layer due to the instability of the profiles.

07

08

09

Table 14: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SII-U1

74

5.1.8.2.2

Unit 4 (N764, E 451)

This unit was excavated reaching 3.20 m below the surface and had an area of 4 m (2 x 2 m). The unit was divided into four quads in order to have a better understanding of the stratigraphy and features to be recorded.

Layer 01

Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form

Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1)

02

Semi compact clayish soil mixed with a low density of angular rocks of different sizes Loose matrix mixed with abundant middle sized cobbles and angular rocks Compact matrix mixed with abundant middle sized cobbles and angular rocks. Very compact clayish matrix.

03

04

05

06

Loose matrix mixed with medium sized angular rocks Very compact matrix mixed with angular rocks and cobbles of different sizes Very compact matrix mixed with angular rocks of different sizes

Reddish brown (5Y 5/3) Grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) Grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) Very dark gray (5YR 3/1) Dark brown (7.5 YR 4/2) Reddish gray (5 YR 5/2) Brown (10YR 4/3)

07

08

Notes Aluvin slide of 1945. Excavated in the entire unit. This layer was excavated in all quads. Only excavated in quads 1 and 2 Only excavated in quads 1 and 2 Only excavated in quads 1 and 2 Only excavated in quads 1 and 2 Only excavated in quads 1 and 2 Only excavated in quads 1 and 2. The excavation was stopped due to the instability of the profiles.

Table 15: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SII-U2

5.1.8.3 SECTOR III 5.1.8.3.1 Unit 1 (N760, E 435)

Unit with an area of 2 m (2 x 1 m), it had a west-east orientation and was excavated until reaching a depth of 2.7 m below surface.

7 5

Layer 01

Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form Semi compact clayish soil mixed with a low density of angular rocks of different sizes Loose matrix mixed with abundant middle sized cobbles and angular rocks Compact matrix mixed with abundant middle sized cobbles and angular rocks. Loose matrix mixed with abundant large sized angular rocks Similar than previous but with a different coloration Large sized angular rocks (4) and large sized cobbles (3) concentrated in the west section of the unit mixed with coarse sand.

Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1)

Notes
Aluvin slide of 1945. Excavated in the entire unit.

02 03 04 05 06 07

Reddish brown (5Y 5/3) Grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) Grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) Dark brown (2.5Y 4/2) Olive brown (2.5Y 4/3) Grayish dark brown (2.5Y 4/2)

There was not formal organization of these elements.

08 09

Compact matrix mixed with large sized angular rocks. Compact matrix mixed with decomposed cobbles

Dark grayish brown (2.5Y 3/2) Brown (10YR 3/4)

The excavation was stopped at this layer.

Table 16: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SIII-U1

5.1.8.3.2

Unit 2 (N758, E441)

This unit had an area of 4 m (2 x 2 m). The excavation in this unit reached a depth of 1.10 m below surface (figure 56).
Layer 01 02 03 Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form Semi compact clayish soil mixed with a low density of angular rocks of different sizes Loose matrix mixed with abundant middle sized cobbles and angular rocks Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1) Reddish brown (5Y 5/3) Grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) Notes Aluvin slide of 1945.

Feature 01

Stone platform floor made of middle and large sized cut rocks.

This layer was sitting on top of Feature 1 The excavation was stopped at this Feature

Table 17: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SIII-U2

76

5.1.8.3.3

Unit 4 (N753, E451)

Unit with an area of 2 m (2 x 1 m), it had a west-east orientation. The excavation in this unit reached a depth of 3.0 m below surface (figure 57).

Layer 01

Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form Semi compact clayish soil mixed with a low density of angular rocks of different sizes Loose matrix mixed with abundant middle sized cobbles and angular rocks Small angular rocks and cobbles mixed with dry coarse sand

Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1)

Notes Aluvin slide of 1945.

02 03 04

Reddish brown (5Y 5/3) Grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) Reddish brown (5YR 4/3)

Located in the central section of the unit

05 06

Loose fine grain sand mixed with small angular rocks. Very compact matrix mixed with coarse sand and a large amount of medium sized angular rocks.

Dark grayish brown color (10YR 4/2) Gray (7.5YR 5/1)

Located towards the west side of the unit.

07 07a 08

Compact clayish matrix mixed with coarse sand and small and medium sized angular rocks. Similar than the previous layer but less compact. Loose matrix mixed with abundant large and small sized angular rocks.

Dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) Dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) Brown (10YR 4/3)

Located towards the east side of the unit

09 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Clayish compact matrix mixed with a large amount of small and medium sized angular rocks Semi compact clayish matrix mixed with coarse sand and a large amount of medium sized angular rocks. Semi compact matrix mixed with abundant medium sized angular rocks Compact matrix mixed with coarse sand and abundant large sized angular rocks. Semi compact matrix mixed with coarse sand and abundant small sized angular rocks Loose matrix mixed with fine sand and middle sized angular rocks Similar to layer 12 Compact matrix mixed with abundant small sized angular rocks Compacted fine sand

Reddish brown (7.5 YR 4/4) Reddish brown (2.5 YR 4/3) Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) Black (5YR 2.5/1) Reddish brown (5YR 5/4) Very dark brown (7.5 YR 2.5/2) Black (5YR 2.5/1) Weak red (10YR 4/3) Greenish gray (Gley1 5/10Y) It was not excavated.

Table 18: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SIII-U4

7 7

5.1.8.3.4

Unit 4A (N756, E 440)

This unit had an area of 6 m (3 x 2 m). The excavation in this unit reached a depth of 4.20 m below surface. In order to have a better control of the stratigraphy and features to be found in the unit, the unit was subdivided in 6 quads of one meter each (figures 57-60).

Layer 01

02 03 05 06

07

Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form Semi compact clayish soil mixed with a low density of angular rocks of different sizes Loose matrix mixed with abundant middle sized cobbles and angular rocks Loose fine grain sand mixed with small angular rocks. Very compact matrix mixed with coarse sand and a large amount of medium sized angular rocks Semi compact clayish matrix mixed with small cobbles and medium sized angular rocks. Similar to the previous layer but found below layers 8, 10 and 13. Compact coarse sand mixed with abundant large sized angular rocks.

Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1)

Notes Aluvin slide of 1945..

Reddish brown (5Y 5/3) Grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) Gray (7.5YR 5/1)

Dark grayish (2.5Y 4/2) Dark grayish (2.5Y 4/2) Brown (10YR 4/3)

soil

07b

soil

08

09

Clayish matrix mixed with abundant medium sized angular rocks

Reddish (7.5YR 4/4)

brown

10

Semi compact clayish matrix mixed with fine sand and a few small sized angular rocks Compact clayish matrix mixed with fine sand and gravel. Loose matrix mixed with abundant large and small sized angular rocks. Very similar to layer 7

Reddish (2.5YR 4/3)

brown

10a

Olive brown (2.5YR 4/3) Brown (10YR 4/3)

11

12

Dark grayish (2.5Y 4/2)

soil

This layer was recorded in all quads This layer was recorded in all quads Found in quads 1, 2, 3 and 4. Recorded in quads 1, 2, 5 and 6. Date AA 75389 was taken from this layer. It was recorded in quads 3, 4, 5 and 6. It is located in quads 2, 3 and 5. It was located t in quads 2, 4 and 6. It was located in quads 2, 4 and 6. It was recorded in quads 1, 3 and 5

Table 19: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SIII-U4A

78

Layer 13

Description Loose fine sand.

Color Gray (5Y 6/1)

14 15

Loose coarse sand Loose matrix mixed with abundant large and small sized angular rocks. Similar to layer 11.

Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4) Brown (10YR 4/3)

17

Compacted fine sand

Greenish gray (Gley1 5/10Y) Light brownish (2.5Y 6/2) Brown (7.5YR 4/3) gray

18

Compacted coarse sand

Notes It was recorded in quads 3 and 5 Recorded in quad 6 It was recorded in quads 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. It was recorded in all quads Located in quads 3, 4, 5 and 6

19

20 21

Loose matrix mixed with medium sized angular rocks. It has an irregular circular shape with an approximate diameter of 1 m Coarse compacted sand Compacted sand

Light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) Greenish gray (Gley1 5/10Y) Greenish gray (Gley1 5/10Y) Yellowish (10YR 5/6) Light brownish (10YR 6/2) brown

22

Medium and large sized angular rocks mixed with compacted sand. Clayish semi compact matrix mixed with decomposed rocks and cobbles Coarse sand mixed with abundant large sized cobbles

23

24

gray

Located in quads 1, 2 Located in quads 3, 4, 5 and 6 Located in quads 3, 4, 5 and 6 Located in quads 3, 4, 5 and 6 Sterile soil

Table 19 (continuation): Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SIII-U4A

5.1.8.4 SECTOR IV 5.1.8.4.1 Unit 3 (N754, E445)

This unit had an area of 4 m (2 x 2 m). The excavation in this unit reached a depth of 4.03 m below surface. This unit was subdivided in four quads enumerated from west to east starting in the NW quad (figure 61).
Layer 01 Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form Semi compact clayish soil mixed with a low density of angular rocks of different sizes Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1) Notes Aluvin slide 1945. of

02

Reddish brown (5Y 5/3)

Table 20: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SIV-U3

7 9

Layer 03 04

Description Loose matrix mixed with abundant middle sized cobbles and angular rocks Very compact soil mixed with small sized cobbles

Color Grayish (2.5Y 5/2) Grayish (2.5Y 5/2)

Notes brown brown Recorded in quads 1 and 3 and partially units partially in quads 2 and 4. Recorded in units 2 and 4 Located partially in quads 1 and 2. It was not excavated. Located in quad 1 and partially in quad 3 Located in quads 2, 4 and partially in quad 3. Located in quads 1, 2, 4 and partially in quad 3. Located partially in quad 3. Located in quads 1, 2 and partially in quads 3 and 4 It was partially located in quad 4 Located in quads 1, 3 and partially in quads 2 and 4. Partially located in quads 3 and 4. Present in all quads

05 06

Loose matrix mixed with large sized angular rocks. Compact clayish surface.

Dark gray (10YR 4/1) Brown (10YR 4/3)

07

Compact matrix with very small angular rocks and coarse sand Compact matrix with fine sand, coarse sand and small sized angular rocks Compact matrix with medium sized angular rocks.

Grayish brown (10YR 5/2) Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) Grayish (2.5Y 5/2) brown

08

09

10

11

12 13

Compact matrix formed by fine sand and coarse sand. There was a total absence of rocks in this layer. Compact matrix formed by coarse sand mixed with abundant small sized angular rocks Loose matrix formed by fine sand mixed with coarse sand. It was similar to layer 8 Loose matrix mixed with abundant large and small sized angular rocks. Clayish matrix formed by coarse sand mixed with abundant gravel. Loose matrix formed by fine sand and coarse sand mixed with gravel. In this layer a line of medium size cobbles was identified and left as a witness. Loose matrix composed by fine sand mixed with gravel. Clayish matrix formed by fine sand mixed with small sized angular rocks.

Dark gray (10YR 4/1) Grayish brown (10YR 5/2) Dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) Brown (10YR 4/3)

14 15

Brown (7.5YR 5/2) Brown (10YR 4/3)

16

Dark brown (2.5Y 6/2) Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)

17

Partially in quads and 4. Partially in quads and 4.

present 1, 2, 3 present 1, 2, 3

Table 20 (continuation): Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SIV-U3

80

Layer 18

Description Loose matrix formed by fine sand mixed with gravel and medium sized angular rocks. Compacted fine sand

Color Gray (2.5Y 5/1)

19

Greenish gray (Gley1 5/10Y)

20

Compacted fine sand.

Gray (Gley1 5/N)

21

Compacted coarse sand

Light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) Brown (7.5YR 5/6)

22

Coarse and fine sand mixed with small sized angular rocks.

23

Coarse sand mixed with small sized angular and rocks and cobbles.

Pale olive (5Y 6/2)

24

Deposit of fine sand mixed with gravel and small angular rocks.

This deposit had a gray coloration (5Y 6/1). Yellowish brown (10YR 5/6)

25

Clayish semi compact matrix mixed with decomposed rocks and cobbles

26

Fine sand mixed with gravel.

Pale brown (10YR 6/3)

27

Coarse sand mixed with gravel.

light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2)

28

Coarse sand mixed with abundant large sized cobbles

Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)

Notes Partially present in quad 3. Partially present in quads 1, 2, 3 and 4. Partially present in quads 1, 2, 3 and 4. Partially present in quad 3. Partially present in quads 1, 2, 3 and 4. Partially present in quads 1, 2, 3 and 4. Partially present in quads 1, 2, 3 and 4. Partially present in quads 1, 2, 3 and 4. Partially present in quads 1, 2, 3 and 4. Partially present in quads 1, 2, 3 and 4. Sterile soil

Table 20 (continuation): Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SIV-U3

5.1.8.4.2

Unit 4 (N754, E441)

This unit had an area of 4 m (2 x 2 m). The excavation in this unit reached a depth of 4.20 m below surface (figure 62).

8 1

Layer 01

02

03 04 05

Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form Semi compact clayish soil mixed with a low density of angular rocks of different sizes Loose matrix mixed with abundant middle sized cobbles and angular rocks Clayish matrix mixed with small and medium sized angular rocks. Semi compact deposit formed by coarse sand mixed with gravel and medium sized angular rocks. Compact clayish matrix without rocks of any type. Semi compact matrix formed by gravel mixed with fine sand and medium sized angular rocks. Semi compact matrix mixed with medium sized angular rocks. Loose matrix mixed with abundant presence of angular rocks. Loose sandy matrix, mixed with gravel.

Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1)

Notes Aluvin slide of 1945. (5Y Excavated in the entire unit. Excavated in the entire unit. Excavated in the entire unit. Located in quad 1, partially located in quads 2 and 3. Partially located in quads 1 and 2. Partially present in quads 2, 3 and 4. Partially located in quad 2. Partially located in quads 2 and 4. Located in quad 1, partially located in quads 2 and 3. Located in quads 1, 2 and partially in quads 3 and 4. Located in quads 1, 2 and partially in quads 3 and 4. Date AA75382 was taken from this layer Located in quad 4 and partially in quad 3.

Reddish 5/3)

brown

Grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) Dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) Very dark gray (5YR 3/1)

05a 06

Light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2) Brown (7.5YR 4/2)

06a 07 08

Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2) Reddish gray (5YR 5/2) Reddish gray (2.5YR 6/1)

09

Semi compact matrix mixed with small sized angular rocks Loose matrix mixed with abundant large and small sized angular rocks.

dark gray (5YR 4/1)

10

Brown (10YR 4/3)

11

Very compact clayish matrix mixed with fine sand. Compact clayish mixed with a small amount of medium sized angular rocks. Semi compact matrix, mixed with abundant angular rocks of various sizes mixed with coarse sand Loose matrix formed by coarse sand mixed with medium and large sized angular rocks.

Gray (7.5YR 5/1)

12 13

Gray (10YR 6/1) Light brownish (10YR 6/2) Light brownish (10YR 6/2) gray

14

gray

Date AA75384 was taken from this layer

Table 21: Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SIV-U4

82

Layer 15 16 17 18 19

Description Compacted fine sand Loose matrix mixed with small sized angular rocks. Fine sand mixed with abundant gravel. Similar to layer 15. Semi compact clayish matrix located in the central portion of the unit, below layer 16; it had an irregular circular shape. Fine sand mixed with gravel

Color Gray (Gley 1 5/10Y) Dark brown (7.5YR 3/3) Gray (2.5Y 6/1) Greenish gray (Gley 1 5/10Y) Dark brown (7.5YR 3/3) Grayish green (Gley 1 4/10Y)

Notes

20

21

Coarse sand mixed with abundant large sized cobbles

Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)

Date AA75383 was taken from this layer Sterile soil

Table 21 (continuation): Stratigraphic summary of WQ7-SIV-U4

5.1.9

WQ-8 (N794, E453) This unit had 16m (4 x 4 m) and it was located 19 m north of WQ-7. In order to have

a better control of the stratigraphy and features to be found in the unit, the unit was subdivided in 16 quads of one meter each (figure 63).

Layer 01

02

Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form Platform floor made of medium sized quarried rocks. The disposition of the rocks on the surface has a formal arrangement Very compact clayish soil

Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1) The soil between the rocks was reddish (2.5 YR 4/3) Dark greenish gray (10GY 4/1)

Notes Aluvin slide of 1945. Excavated in the entire unit. Present in all quads. It covered a set of stone structures. Located in quads 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 but excavated only from quad 5 to quad 12. In these latter quads a passage associated to a set of stone structures was recorded. Date AA75390 was taken from this layer.

03

Table 22: Stratigraphic summary of WQ8

8 3

Layer

04

Description Clayish compact floor associated to the architecture exposed in this unit

Color

Notes

Dark reddish brown (5YR 3/2)

Floor 1. Until this layer, the unit was excavated in its entirety. A 1m cut was excavated in quad 9 in order to explore the deposits under the floor.

Feature 1

Feature 2

Feature 3

Feature 4

Feature 5

05

06

07

08 09

W-E wall recorded in quads 1, 2, 3 and 4. This wall had an average with of 0.55 m and crossed the entire W-E axis of the unit. It had a double face and was built using rectangular cut stones. W-E wall joined to the south face of Feature 1. This wall was an addition to Feature 1. Feature 2 had an average with of 0.8 m. It was made of similar materials than Feature 1. Platform located in quads 13, 14, 15 and 16. It was delimited in its north edge by a set of nicely cut rectangular stones. Towards its west half (quads 13 and 14) the surface is composed by the stones that form the platform while on the east half (quads 15 and 16) there was clay floor. Rectangular cist (0.52 x 0.6 m) located in quads 11 and 12. This cist was built next to Feature 3, using the platform face as its south wall. The cist lacked formality and was built with reused cut stones similar to the ones that formed Features 1 and 2. Small N-S wall located in quad 4 and 6. This wall was 1.27 m long and 0.53 m (average). It was joined to the north face of Feature 1 and looked like it was retaining an unexcavated fill located at its east side Loose clayish deposit mixed with gravel. Dark reddish brown (5YR 3/2) Medium and large sized cobbles and Dark reddish angular rocks mixed with coarse sand. This (2.5YR 3/6) layer had a moist texture. Wet clayish matrix mixed with small Dark reddish angular rocks and gravel. brown (2.5 YR 3/4) Clayish compact matrix. Olive (5Y 4/3) Coarse sand mixed with abundant large sized cobbles Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)

This feature was present in quads 5, 6, 7 and 8.

This platform was not excavated

Floor 1, associated Only excavated in quad 9 Only excavated in quad 9 Only excavated in quad 9 Only excavated in quad 9 Sterile soil

Table 22 (continuation): Stratigraphic summary of WQ8

84

5.1.10 WQ-09 (N799, E509) This unit had an area of 4m (2 x 2) and was located at the back of Marino Gonzaless house at the eastern side of the Wacheqsa sector. This unit was excavated until reaching 3.04 m below surface
Layer 01 Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. At a depth of 0.50 m medium size rocks appear in an irregular form Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1) Notes It was deposited by the natural aluvin slide of 1945. Excavated in the entire unit. It covered a partially destroyed stone floor.

02

Very compact deposit formed by a clayish matrix mixed with coarse sand and medium sized angular rocks and cobbles. Stone floor located at the south section of the unit. Composed by medium sized flat angular rocks, that had an average width of 2 cm Loose coarse sand, small and medium sized cobbles and gravel.

Brown (10YR 4/3)

Feature 1

03

Dark grey (2.5 Y 4/1)

04

Coarse sand mixed with abundant large sized cobbles

Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)

Located towards the north portion of the unit Sterile soil

Table 23: Stratigraphic summary of WQ9

5.1.11 WQ-10 (N751, E438) This unit had an area of 6 m (6 x 1). It was a trench located immediately south of WQ-7, perpendicular to the wall that marks the north end of the Wacheqsa sector. The main purpose of this unit was to establish the stratigraphic relationships between the deposits uncovered in sectors III and IV of WQ-7. In order to have a better control of the architecture and deposits to be recorded, the unit was divided in 6 quads of one meter each starting from the northern quad.

Layer 01 Feature 1

Description Matrix mixed with small rocks. W-E wall located in quad 2. This wall was built using middle sized cut stones as well as middle sized boulders.

Color Black (2.5Y, 2.5/1)

Notes Aluvin slide of 1945.

Table 24: Stratigraphic summary of WQ10

8 5

Layer 02

Description Semi compact clayish soil mixed with a low density of angular rocks of different sizes

Color Reddish brown (5Y 5/3)

Notes Located immediately at the north of Feature 1 in quads 1 and 2

03 04

Loose matrix mixed with abundant middle sized cobbles and angular rocks This is a massive fill formed by medium and large sized angular rocks and cobbles.

Grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2) Located immediately at the south of Feature 1, in quads 3 and 4. Located at the south of layer 4 and under the wall that delimits the south edge of the Wacheqsa sector in quads 5 and 6 Located at the north of Feature 1, in quads 1 and 2 under layer 3. Located at the south of Feature 1, under layers 4 and 5 in quads 3, 4, 5 and 6

05

Massive fill composed only by small and medium sized cobbles. Larger cobles were placed at the junction with layer 4 separating both layers.

06

Dried compact matrix mixed with coarse sand. It was located

Gray 5/1)

(7.5YR

07

Clayish matrix mixed with medium sized angular rocks and large sized cobbles.

Very dark gray (10YR 3/1)

08 09

Loose matrix mixed with medium sized angular rocks and large sized cobbles Coarse sand mixed with large sized cobbles

Brown (10 YR 4/3) Light brownish gray (10YR 6/2)

The excavation had to stop due to the instability of the profiles. It could not be confirmed if it was the sterile soil.

Table 24 (continuation): Stratigraphic summary of WQ10

Strata from Units WQ-5, WQ-9 and WQ-10 were not considered when calculating densities, Boone index or kernel density estimations. The reason for this exclusion lies in their characteristic. These units were located on architectural features such as the massive wall that

86

serves as a southern frontier of the Wacheqsa sector which had massive architectural sterile loose fills made of large sized cobbles (WQ5 and WQ10) and on a stone floor constructed on top of sterile soil (WQ9). These units were more informative regarding construction techniques than regarding the social nature of the occupation in the Wacheqsa sector. In total 200 layers and 23 features have been considered for analysis in the present dissertation, recorded in a total excavated area of 132 m (0.9% of the entire site). This high level of stratigraphic complexity posed and interpretative challenge for the elucidation of the nature of the archaeological record, the way the different components of this record interact with each other and the nature of the social activities that originated the record. These topics will be treated in the next chapter.

8 7

CHAPTER 6 INTRASITE COMPLEXITY

This chapter is divided in three sections. The first section provides an account of the phases and spatial analytical units identified in the Wacheqsa Sector. The horizontal and vertical spatial relationships within the analytical units identified were inferred from the computer-aided design (CAD) stratigraphic model described in Chapter 4 and translated into a Harris Stratigraphic Matrix. Each analytical unit has been recognized through examination of the following strata characteristics: nature of the sediment, count density of the total archaeological materials per m, and density of each of the classes of archaeological materials per m as stated in chapter 4; on the other hand phases have been assigned in the Wacheqsa sector based upon the examination of superposition of strata, analytical units and ceramic features present in each of them. The second segment covers the results of Boone index calculations as measurements of heterogeneity for deposits and analytical units as a whole. This measure has the potential to reinforce the patterns of spatial segregation inferred from the analysis of deposits, volumes and densities. The third section of this chapter exclusively deals with the intrasite patterning of ceramic vessels identified in all prehistoric analytical units, emphasizing size and thickness as explained in chapter 4. The variability of ceramic form and size is notable between the different spatial analytical units. Also as mentioned in Chapter 4, each deposit has been codified with a correlative number within each analytical unit identified. For example deposits 101, 102 n belong to the same analytical and deposits 201, 202 n belong to another one. 6.1 Spatial Intrasite Complexity The Wacheqsa Sector has been divided in three phases and eight analytical units, which are described in detail in the following pages.

Dates Modern era 800 -500 BC 1200 800 BC

Phase Modern Janabarriu Urabarriu

Analytical Units Agricultural land, Modern Canal and Aluvin Midden, Stone Rooms, Late Platforms Early Platforms, Water Flood

Table 25: Chronological chart of the Wacheqsa Sector

88

6.1.1

Prehistoric Occupation It is composed of two phases, five analytical units, seven features and 151

stratigraphic layers (figure 64). It covers the entire Wacheqsa sector and was formed over the course of 700 years, from about 1200 to 500 BC (calibrated C14 years). 6.1.1.1 Urabarriu Phase This phase is composed of two analytical units, containing 57 stratigraphic layers and four features identified separately across the units excavated. It was identified in both the north and south sections of the Wacheqsa sector. Both analytical units are spatially differentiated, found in different excavation units and located on top of sterile soil; they represent the earliest occupation in the Wacheqsa Sector. This phase spans from 1200-800 BC (calibrated C14 years)

6.1.1.1.1

Water Flood

This analytical unit is located at the south end of the Wacheqsa Sector and has been identified in WQ7-SIIIU4A, SIVU3 and SIVU4. It encompasses an estimated area of 48 m and an estimated volume of 46 m. The area estimate has been calculated by adding the area of units excavated with the area that is located between these units, and the estimated volume has been calculated by multiplying the estimated area with the average bottom depth of the unit (I followed the same procedure for further similar calculations). The average depth of this unit inferred from the depth of the surface of the upper stratum of each unit excavated- was 3.05 m below surface. It had 20 strata distributed among the excavation units mentioned above:
Unit WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIV4 WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIV4 WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIV4 WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIV4 Layer 19 15 20 18 17 22 21 18 23 20 22 23 19 24 20 Harris Matrix Code 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314

Table 26: Water Flood analytical unit strata

8 9

Unit WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIV4

Layer 25 26 24 27 21

Harris Matrix Code 315 316 317 318 319

Table 26 (continuation): Water Flood analytical unit strata

It was characterized by a succession of compact layers of grey and greenish sand alternated with fine and coarse gravel. No concavity or structure containing these strata has been found, hence I hesitate to name this analytical unit Prehistoric Canal or Urabarriu Canal, on the other hand the characteristics of the strata recorded indicate the flowing of water (as suggested by Tello in 1940), thus I have decided to label this as Water Flood. At least three major flooding events or major water currents have been identified in this analytical unit. Strata 300, 301, 302 are part of the same depositional episode; strata 304, 305, 306, are part of another depositional event, and strata 312, 313 and 314 conform to a different depositional episode. The first major depositional event is identified as Water Flood 1 and formed by layers 300, 301 and 302. The second major depositional event has been identified as Water Flood 2 and the third one as Water Flood 3. The slope of these flooding events was towards the east (figures 65 and 66). Among these principal depositional episodes there are eight sub-flood events identified independently in the units excavated that could not have been correlated as part of a larger event. In total, 5.72 m of this analytical unit were excavated, recovering 330 artifacts with an average density of 57 artifacts per m.

Material Animal bones Decorated ceramic sherds Diagnostic ceramic sherds Burnt Clay Obsidian Anthracite Shells Projectile points Worked bones Chrysocolla Lithics

Total Recovered 7.6 kg 66 217 22 20 0 0 1 1 0 9

Density 1.33 kg/m 11.54 sherds/m 37.9 sherds/m 3.85 fragments/m 3.49 fragments/m 0 fragments/m 0 fragments/m 0.2 fragments/m 0.2 fragments/m 0 fragments/m 2 fragments/m

Table 27: Densities of archaeological materials from the Water Flood analytical unit

90

The ceramics identified in this analytical unit resemble the ones defined as Urabarriu by Richard Burger (Burger 1984; Burger 1998), no Janabarriu related ceramic component was present in these deposits. 6.1.1.1.2 Early Platforms

Located in the north and central sections of the Wacheqsa Sector and has been identified in units WQ1, WQ2, WQ3, WQ4, and WQ6. It encompasses an estimated area of 1100 m and an average depth of this unit was of 2.04 m below surface (figure 67). This analytical unit has 57 stratigraphic layers and four features.

Unit WQ4 WQ6 WQ8 WQ4 WQ6 WQ3 WQ4 WQ6 WQ8 WQ4 WQ3 WQ6 WQ4 WQ4 WQ6 WQ6 WQ4 WQ6 WQ4 WQ6 WQ4 WQ6 WQ4 WQ4 WQ6 WQ8 WQ8 WQ6 WQ4 WQ3 WQ8 WQ1 WQ1 WQ1 WQ1

Layer 05 04 05 5a 05 04 04 06 06 07 05 07 F3 F4 08 09 08 10 09 11 10 12 11 12 13 07 08 14 13 06 09 03 04 06 05

Harris Matrix Code 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 539 604 605 606 607

Table 28: Early Platform analytical unit strata

9 1

Unit WQ2 WQ1 WQ1 WQ2 WQ2 WQ1 WQ2 WQ2 WQ2 WQ1 WQ2

Layer 03 F3 07 04 05 08 06 07 08 09 09

Harris Matrix Code 608 609 610 611 612 615 613 614 616 617 618

Table 28 (continuation): Early Platform analytical unit strata

It is characterized by a sequence of deposits of almost flat surfaces with small sized angular rocks as fills and a low density of archaeological materials. In total 20.3 m were excavated, recovering 978 artifacts (figures 68-72) with an average density of 48 artifacts per m.
Material Animal bones Decorated ceramic sherds Diagnostic ceramic sherds Burnt clay Obsidian Anthracite Shells Projectile points Worked bones Chrysocolla Lithics Total Recovered 6.8 Kg 266 591 50 31 1 3 0 8 0 45 Density 0.33 kg/m 13.10 sherds/m 29.11 sherds/m 2.42 fragments/ m 2 fragments/m 0.1 fragments/m 0.2 fragments/m 0 fragments/m 0.4 fragments/m 0 fragments/m 2 fragments/m

Table 29: Densities of archaeological materials from Early Platforms analytical unit

6.1.1.2 Janabarriu Phase This phase is composed of three analytical units, 97 strata and 13 features. It is distributed over the entire area and is the latest prehistoric occupation in the Wacheqsa Sector. 6.1.1.2.1 Midden

This analytical unit is located at the south end of the Wacheqsa Sector, on top of the Water Flood analytical unit, and has been identified in units WQ7-SIIIU4, SIIIU4A, SIVU3 and SIVU4. It encompasses an estimated area of 48 m, and an estimated volume of 83 m, close to 2 m average thickness. The surface of this analytical unit is located at 1 m below surface on average; it had 44 strata distributed among all units excavated. It is characterized

92

by a semi-compact to compact matrix mixed with middle and large sized angular stones and cobbles and a high density of fragmented archaeological materials.

Unit WQ7SIV4 WQ7SIII4 WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIV4 WQ7SIV4 WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIV4 WQ7SIII4 WQ7SIII4 WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIV4 WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIV4 WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIV4 WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIV4 WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIII4 WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIII4 WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIII4 WQ7SIII4 WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIV4 WQ7SIII4 WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIV4 WQ7SIV4 WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIV4 WQ7SIII4A

Layer 4 6 6 6 6a 7 7 7 4 5 8 5 9 10 8 10 10a 9 9 12 11 11 7 8 14 7a 7b 9 8 11 12 13 10 10 15 12 13 16 18 14 15 17 14 19

Harris Matrix Code 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155

Table 30: Midden analytical unit strata

9 3

As mentioned in Chapter 3, this Midden was identified by Julio C. Tello when he excavated the Wacheqsa sector in 1940 (Tello 1960). Three major depositional episodes have been identified in all units excavated. The first and oldest depositional event is represented by strata 152, 153 and 154 and has a gradient towards the east; this depositional event has been recognized as Midden I. A second major depositional event has been identified as Midden II, also with a gradient towards the east, represented in strata 140, 141, 142, 143 and 144. The latest main depositional event is represented by Midden III, identified in strata 112, 113 and 114. As Midden I and II, Midden III has a gradient towards the east. Between Middens I and II there are seven midden-type depositional events represented by strata 146, 147, 148, 149 and 150. Between Midden II and Midden III there are 25 small midden-type depositional events represented in strata 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138 and 139. Middens I, II and III have been identified on the grounds of similarities in the nature of the sediments among the four units excavated. In other words they are the same stratum identified in different units. Between each one of these large depositional events, small ones have been located. It is necessary to mention that even though these small midden-type deposits were not located in all units, there is the possibility that some of them are part of large depositional events that have not been located in the sampled area (figures 73-74). In total 22.03 m were excavated, recovering 15814 fragments of archaeological materials, having a general density of 718.18 fragments per m (figures 75-81).

Material Animal bones Decorated ceramic sherds Diagnostic ceramic sherds Burnt clay Obsidian Anthracite Shells Projectile points Worked bones Chrysocolla Lithics

Total Recovered 184.2 kg 4417 8567 2136 554 138 6 15 62 15 235

Density 8.27 kg/m 200.49 sherds/m 388.87 sherds/m 96.96 fragments/ m 25.15 fragments/ m 6.26 fragments/ m 0.27 fragments/ m 0.68 fragments/ m 2.81 fragments/ m 0.68 fragments/ m 10.66 fragments/ m

Table 31: Densities of archaeological materials

A striking characteristic is the high density of burnt clay recovered in this analytical unit, 79 fragments per m which is 11 times more the density of the Stone Rooms analytical

94

unit, the analytical unit with the next highest density of burnt clay fragments. This class of artifact represents fragments of floors, walls, columns and even a fragment of a molded frieze (fig 78, 82 and 83). Most of these fragments have portions of vitrified surface, which mean that they were exposed to high temperatures. In some cases fragments were plastered with white and red color. The majority of fragments show the imprints of canes in their interiors, suggesting that the construction technique used in the structures involved clay tempered with straw and fired to a very hard consistency. The presence of these types of structures should not be surprising, since in 1944. Bennett reported the existence of a structure made of burnt clay plaster walls (Bennett 1944:77) located on top of Mound D, and Tello reported the occurrence of these fragments on deposits located in front of the faade of Building A (Tello 1960).

6.1.1.2.2

Late Platforms

This analytical unit is located in the south central section of the Wacheqsa sector, and has been identified in units WQ7-SIU1, SIU4, SIIU1, SIIU4, and SIIIU1. It encompasses an estimated area of 223 m with an estimated volume of 276 m.
Unit WQ7SII1 WQ7SIII1 WQ7SI4 WQ7SII4 WQ7SII1 WQ7SIII1 WQ7SI4 WQ7SII4 WQ7SI4 WQ7SIII1 WQ7SII1 WQ7SII4 WQ7SII4 WQ7SIII1 WQ7SII1 WQ7SI4 WQ7SII4 WQ7SIII1 WQ7SII1 WQ7SI4 WQ7SII4 WQ7SIII1 WQ7SII1 WQ7SI4 Layer 3a 3 3 3 3b 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 6 6 5 6 7 7 6 7 8 8 7 8 Harris Matrix Code 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439

Table 32: Late Platforms analytic unit strata

9 5

Unit WQ7SIII1 WQ7SII1 WQ7SI4 WQ7SI1 WQ7SI4 WQ7SII1 WQ7SIII1 WQ7SI1 WQ7SI1 WQ7SI1

Layer 9 8 9 9 10 9 10 10 11 12

Harris Matrix Code 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449

Table 32 (continuation): Late Platforms analytic unit strata

It is situated between 1.5 m and 2 m below surface; it had had 34 strata distributed among all the units excavated which are characterized by compact matrices mixed with abundant middle and large sized angular stones and cobbles and a very low density of fragmented archaeological materials. In total 5.88 m were excavated, recovering 102 fragments of archaeological materials, having a general density of 17.3 fragments per m. This analytical unit has the lowest density of archaeological materials.

Material Animal bones Decorated ceramic sherds Diagnostic ceramic sherds Burnt clay Obsidian Anthracite Shells Projectile points Worked bones Chrysocolla Lithics

Total Recovered 3.21 kg 29 35 1 3 7 0 1 1 0 53

Density 0.55 kg/m 4.93 sherds/m 5.95 sherds/m 0.17 fragments/ m 0.51 fragments/ m 1.19 fragments/ m 0 fragments/ m 0.17 fragments/ m 0.17 fragments/ m 0 fragments/ m 9.01 fragments/ m

Table 33: Densities of archaeological materials

6.1.1.2.3

Stone Rooms

This analytical unit is located in the central section of the Wacheqsa sector, above the Early Platforms analytical unit, and has been identified in units WQ3, WQ4, WQ6 and WQ8. It encompasses an estimated area of 1717 m, and an estimated volume of 668.47 m.

96

Unit WQ3 WQ6 WQ8 WQ4 WQ3 WQ4 WQ8 WQ8 WQ8 WQ8 WQ8 WQ4 WQ4 WQ3 WQ6 WQ6 WQ8 WQ4 WQ3 WQ6 WQ8

Layer 02a 02 02 02 02 03 03 F4 F3 F2 F5 F1 F2 F1 F2 F1 F1 04 03 03 04

Harris Matrix Code 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224

Table 34: Stone Rooms analytic unit strata

This analytical unit is located between 1.8 m and 2 m below the surface; it had 10 stratigraphic layers and 12 features among all units excavated. Stone rooms and interconnected alleys are part of the earliest occupation in this analytical unit. Alleys were covered by fill made of loose matrix mixed with middle sized cobbles and angular stones. Once alleys were filled, rooms and alleys fills were covered by a platform almost entirely made of quadrangular middle sized rocks mixed with scarce loose matrix. Rooms and alleys were cleansed before being filled, archaeological materials recovered in this analytical unit come from alleys and platforms fills (figures 84-89). There are two types of fills in this analytical unit, the fill that covered the alleys, which is composed by a very compact clayish matrix mixed with small medium sized angular rocks located on top of stone rooms floors; and the platform fill that covered room and alley deposits, this fill was composed of medium sized quarried angular stones. In total 22.3 m were excavated, recovering 3425 fragments of archaeological materials, giving an overall density of 154 fragments per m

9 7

Material Animal bones Decorated ceramic sherds Diagnostic ceramic sherds Burnt clay Obsidian Anthracite Shells Projectile points Worked bones Chrysocolla Lithics

Total Recovered 8.22 kg 1015 2039 130 123 31 2 1 18 7 54

Density 0.37 kg/m 46.07 sherds/m 91.43 sherds/m 5.83 fragments/ m 5.52 fragments/ m 13.90 fragments/ m 0.9 fragments/ m 0.04 fragments/ m 0.81 fragments/ m 0.31 fragments/ m 2.42 fragments/ m

Table 35: Densities of archaeological materials

6.1.2

Modern Phase The Modern Phase has been extensively identified in all units excavated. It is

composed of three analytical units containing 35 stratigraphic layers.

6.1.2.1 Aluvin This analytical unit is composed of 15 strata that share the same characteristics, which is a dark gray matrix mixed with small rocks but with larger rocks at the bottom of each stratum. This analytical unit was formed on January 17, 1945, and it is the product of a landslide that covered the entire site of Chavn de Huntar as well as parts of the town. As mentioned in Chapter 3, this natural disaster transformed the topography of the Wacheqsa sector. Layers in this analytical unit were not sifted in order to improve excavation efficiency.

Unit WQ7SIII4 WQ7SIII4A WQ7SIV3 WQ7SIV4 WQ3 WQ4 WQ6 WQ8 WQ7SI1 WQ7SI4 WQ7SIII1 WQ7SII4 WQ7SII1 WQ1 WQ2

Layer 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01

Harris Matrix Code 101 102 103 104 200 201 202 203 400 401 402 403 404 600 601

Table 36: Aluvin analytical unit strata

98

6.1.2.2

Modern Canal This analytical unit was only found in unit WQ7, SIU1. It was composed by six

superimposed strata (405, 406, 407, 408, 409 and 410).

These layers were deposited in a

concavity that intruded into Layer 427. The concavity had an elongated shape 1.73 m long oriented southwest/northeast with a gentle slope of five degrees downwards toward the southwest. The layers deposited in the concavity were an alternation of very dark gray clayish soil with semi compact yellowish coarse sand similar to the deposits of the Water Flood analytical unit. The concavity has been identified as an irrigation canal and the layers as evidence of seasonal episodes of water flow with their associated gravel sedimentation. The layer intruded into (427) is part of the agricultural land that was subject to irrigation prior to the landslide of 1945. Only 0.31 m of this analytical unit was excavated and 50 fragmented objects were recovered.
Unit WQ7SI1 WQ7SI1 WQ7SI1 WQ7SI1 WQ7SI1 WQ7SI1 Layer 2 3 4 5 6 7 Harris Matrix Code 405 406 407 408 409 410

Table 37: Layers that are part of the Modern Canal analytical unit

6.1.2.3 Agricultural Land This analytical unit is sitting on top of the prehistoric occupation of the Wacheqsa Sector. It is composed of 11 strata, 105, 106, 107, 108, 411, 412, 413, 414, 415 602 and 603 independently identified in units WQ1, WQ2, WQ4, WQ5, WQ6, WQ7SIU1, WQ7SIU4, WQ7SIIU1, WQ7SIIU4, WQ7SIIIU1, WQ7SIIIU4, WQ7SIIIU4A, WQ7SIVU3, WQ7SIVU4 and WQ8. The surface of this analytical unit represented the topographic configuration of the Wacheqsa sector before the 1945 landslide. Excavations have confirmed the hypothesis that the topography of the Wacheqsa sector was different from present times as seen in figure 90. The section represented in this figure was constructed from the surface elevations of the agricultural land strata identified across excavations. This analytical units surface represents the surface configuration of the Wacheqsa sector prior the 1947 landslide, used as agricultural land and also as living places in the first half of the 20th Century,

9 9

Currently, [November 18, 1940] maize is being harvested in this area. Its surface shows signs of furrows left by plowing activities and a multitude of small rocks, roots and maize roots are present. This agricultural field is filthy and neglected (Tello 1940:27) The following table shows general densities of archaeological materials per analytical unit, each number is referred to a measure per cubic meter:

Analytical Unit Midden Stone Rooms Late Platforms Water Flood Early Platforms

DE 200 46 5 12 13

DI 389 91 6 38 29

O 31 9 0.3 4 2

BC 79 6 0 4 2

A 5 1 0.7 0 0.1

S 0.22 0.1 0 0 0.2

L 8 2 6 2 2

PP 1 0.04 0.1 0.2 0

WB 2 1 0.1 0.2 0.4

C 1 0.3 0 0 0

Table 39: Densities of archaeological classes per analytical unit, De, decorated ceramic sherds; Di, diagnostic ceramic sherds; O, Obsidian fragments; BC, burnt clay fragments; A, anthracite; fragments; S, shell fragments; L, lithic fragments; PP, projectile points; WB, worked bone fragments; C, chrysocolla fragments

Finally, figure 91 shows the stratigraphic Harrix Matrix with all strata and features organized according to the methods described in the previous chapter and figures 92 and 93 summarize the volume excavated per analytical unit as well as the density of materials retrieved. .

6.2

Boone Index Measurement As described in Chapter 4, I am suing this measurement to test the null hypothesis that

all spatial analytical units are composed by deposits that have similar Hi values. In order to do that I have compared the individual provenience units (deposits) of artifacts with the aggregated distribution of all deposits combined. This comparison allowed the creation of a measure of diversity of all provenience units in relation to artifact classes. In this sense -- as noted in the previous section -- ten classes of artifacts have been identified in the Wacheqsa sector, all of which have been weighed using the Boone index. This measure of diversity serves the purpose of observing if the deposits of the analytical units previously identified form clusters along Hi values. Figure 94 shows clusters of analytical units are formed along Hi values with bounding lines that encompass 50% of deposits per analytical unit. The analytical unit with the lowest Hi value is the Midden while the Late Platform value is the one with the highest Hi value. Early Platform and Water Flood

100

analytical units almost entirely overlap and show very similar behaviors with Hi values that range from 0.2-0.85. The Stone Room analytical unit is tightly clustered along the 0.4 and 0.42 values partially overlapping the Midden analytical unit. At first look it is observed a clear segregation of Hi values per analytical unit, but how much of this pattern is due to a sample size bias? Figure 95 plots the sample size of the five prehistoric analytical units, a careful look at this plot compared with figure 96 shows that the difference of sample size among each analytical unit is actually the segregation shown when calculating the Boone index. Analytical units with small sample sizes have high Hi values while analytical units with high sample sizes have low Hi values. As mentioned in Chapter 4 in, the first step taken in order to control for sample size bias was to calculate a 90% confidence interval; strata outside the confidence interval supposedly are anomalies to the expected pattern of sample size given by the confidence interval (figure 97). The confidence interval gave me the parameters under which strata could be categorized as an outlier taken into account sample bias. Still, I needed to make sure that the clustering of analytical units observed when the Hi values were calculated was not due to sample bias. For this reason I repeatedly sampled from the observed population using a Monte Carlo routine in order to determine whether Hi values calculated could reasonably be due to sample size bias. As explained in Chapter 4, Monte Carlo routines are particularly useful for testing the significance of a test (in this case the Boone index). Using this routine I drew 10,000 samples to see what the expectable range of variability would be, based on the actual sample from which I was working Figure 98 shows the probability of Hi values [p(Hi)] after the Monte-Carlo routine was performed, the distribution of Hi are drastically different from those shown in figure 94, Hi values are not similar to p(Hi) values. This confirms that that original Hi values were generated by sample size but also indicates that in general terms all prehistoric analytical units are highly diverse. Figure 99 shows logged distribution of p(Hi) values per unit. The general mean and median p(Hi) values are 0.225 and 0.1275 respectively. Two observations stand out. The first one is that the five prehistoric analytical units have low p(Hi) values, and the second is that the Stone Rooms and Early Platforms have significantly different p(Hi) values and the rest of analytical units values are between them, confirmed by a Students T test performed on p(Hi) values of each analytical unit as shown in Tables 40-42.

1 0 1

Abs(Dif)-LSD Late Platforms Water Flood Early Platforms Midden Stone Rooms

Late Platforms -0,15680 -0,09393 -0,04499 -0,02606 0,03875

t 1,98667 Water Flood -0,09393 -0,17689 -0,12982 -0,11148 -0,04396

Alpha 0,05 Early Platforms -0,04499 -0,12982 -0,11734 -0,09700 -0,03820

Midden -0,02606 -0,11148 -0,09700 -0,09917 -0,04337

Stone Rooms 0,03875 -0,04396 -0,03820 -0,04337 -0,18553

Table 40: Students t test Least Significant Difference threshold matrix. Positive values show pairs of means that are significantly different. Analytical Unit Late Platforms Water Flood Early Platforms Midden Stone Rooms Students T Value A AB AB AB B Mean 0.28521429 0.21200000 0.19172000 0.18008571 0.07470000

Table 41: Students T test connecting lines report. Levels not connected by same letter are significantly different Level Late Platforms Water Flood Early Platforms Miden Late Platforms Late Platforms Late Platforms Water Flood Water Flood Early Platforms Level Stone Rooms Stone Rooms Stone Rooms Stone Rooms Midden Early Platforms Water Flood Midden Early Platforms Midden Difference 0,2105143 0,1373000 0,1170200 0,1053857 0,1051286 0,0934943 0,0732143 0,0319143 0,0202800 0,0116343 Lower CL 0,038750 -0,043961 -0,038203 -0,043367 -0,026059 -0,044987 -0,093934 -0,111483 -0,129819 -0,096999 Upper CL 0,3822787 0,3185612 0,2722428 0,2541381 0,2363158 0,2319752 0,2403623 0,1753113 0,1703785 0,1202676 p-Value 0,0168701 0,1358649 0,1377046 0,1627272 0,1148805 0,1832020 0,3865037 0,6594398 0,7889888 0,8319903

Table 42: Students T test ordered differences report

Stone Rooms analytical unit is the most diverse of the five, while the Late Platforms unit is the least diverse of the five. Water Flood, Early Platforms and the Midden are located between the ones mentioned before. The null hypothesis (all spatial analytical units are composed by deposits that have similar Hi values) is therefore rejected. Even though all the means of the analytical units are below the 0.3 value (and therefore suggesting high diversity in their contents), within this diversity there are differences among these analytical units, difference that are not due to sample size bias but rather to behavioral reasons will be discussed in the next chapter.

102

6.3

Ceramic Intrasite Complexity

A subset of 3020 diagnostic sherds were used to generate univariate and bivariate kernel density estimates of rim diameter and wall thickness in order to identify patterns of distribution and variation of ceramic vessels within the spatial analytical units described in previously. The following table addresses the distribution of the ceramic sample per spatial analytical unit
Analytical Unit Early Platform Late Platform Midden Room Water Flood n 118 42 2441 317 102

Table 43: Distribution of sampled sherds

The next Table addresses the variation of ceramic forms per analytical unit
Analytical Unit Early Platform Late Platform Midden Room Water Flood Total Bowls 36 14 1263 143 40 1496 OSC 58 20 656 111 37 882 Jars 16 6 338 51 14 425 Bottles 5 1 101 4 8 119 Cups 0 1 37 1 1 40 Plates 2 0 46 7 2 57 Total 118 42 2441 317 102 3020

Table 44: Distribution of ceramic types sampled per analytical unit

The next Table shows the same distributions showed above but with percentages,
Analytical Unit Early Platform Late Platform Midden Room Water Flood Bowls 30.51 33.33 51.74 45.11 39.22 OSC 49.15 47.62 26.87 36.27 36.26 Jars 13.56 14.29 11.19 16.09 13.73 Bottles Cups 5.08 0.00 2.27 2.38 3.34 1.52 1.26 0.32 7.84 0.98 Plates 1.69 0.00 1.88 2.21 1.96

Table 45: Percentages of ceramic types sampled per analytical unit

Interesting enough, early and late platforms are characterized by a high Predominance of OSCs while Midden, Stone Room and Water Flood Analytical Units are characterized by the Predominance of bowls. Jars are the third most prevalent class in all analytical units, the fourth being bottles. Cups and plates have very low percentages and are almost inexistent in the sample (figure 100).

1 0 3

Having the basic distribution of vessel forms, the next step is to recognize specific patterns of size/thickness variability in analytical units. In doing that I used modal clusters extracted from bivariate kernel density estimations. As explained in Chapter 4, I used univariate and bivariate KDE because I wanted to test if the modalities observed in univariate KDE were replicated using bivariate KDE via thickness in addition to diameter. I had the expectation that the modalities reflected by using diameter would resist when adding thickness as a new dimension. The results indicate that when thickness is added a slightly different set of modes appear. Thickness acts as a controlling measurement clustering modes according to the diameter/thickness association.

6.3.1

OSC Overall sample of OSC (n=751). Table 46 shows the results of KDE for diameter and

thickness measurements. Figures 101 and 102 indicate these modes and the way they overlap.
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 15 cm 0.5 Mode 2 25 cm 1.2 cm Mode 3 absent absent

Table 46: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When these two measurements (diameter and thickness) are plotted in a bivariate kernel density estimation plot, three mode peaks appear as shown in table 47 and figure 103.
Thickness 0.61074 0.8906 1.17046 Diameter 11.68 14.56 26.08 Count 60 229 436

Table 47: Modal clustering table of OSCs Small 12/0.6 Medium 16/0.9 Table 48: Measurements of total population of OCSs types Large 28/1.3

Types Small and large

Predominance Large

Table 49: Types of OCSs

104

There is a third cluster that is hinted in the plateau between the two peaks in the bivariate KDE plot. Conservatively there are two major size groups of OSC in the overall population. But in order to address specific variation in the ranges of diameters and thickness, I will segregate this population in each analytical unit identified previously. 6.3.1.1 Midden There are 549 OSC sherds in the Midden unit. The following table illustrates the results of KDE for diameter and thickness measurements. Figures 104 and 105 point out these modes and the way they overlap.

KDE Diameter Thickness

Mode 1 10 cm 0.5

Mode 2 30 cm 1.3 cm

Mode 3 absent absent

Table 50: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When these two measurements (diameter and thickness) are plotted in a bivariate kernel density estimation plot, three mode peaks appear as show in table 51 and figure 106. The plateau observed in the bivariate KDE plot of the total population of OSC is presented here as an independent peak.
Thickness 0.5612 0.8888 1.3256 Diameter 11.68 15.52 28 Count 97 61 377

Table 51: Modal clustering table of Middens OSC Small 12/0.6 Medium 16/0.9 Large 28/1.3

Table 52: Measurements of OCSs types from the Midden Analytical Unit Types Small, medium and large Predominance Large

Table 53: Types of OCSs from the Midden Analytical Unit

Three types of OSC are identified in the Midden analytical unit, small ones, medium ones and large ones, each of these sizes are associated with a particular value of thickness that increases as the diameter gets larger.

1 0 5

6.3.1.2 Stone Rooms There are 103 OSC sherds in the Stone Rooms unit. Table 54 shows the results of KDE for diameter and thickness measurements. Figures 107 and 108 indicate these modes and the way they overlap.
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 15 cm 0.6 cm Mode 2 25 cm 1.0 cm Mode 3 40

Table 54: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of three clusters of diameter/thickness relationship as seen in Table 55 and fig 109.
Thickness 0.58348 0.95284 1.13752 Diameter 10.56 16.32 25.28 Count 17 25 30

Table 55: Modal clustering table of Stone Rooms OSCs

The same segregation of small, medium and large is repeated in the room analytical unit. There is a higher presence of large and thicker OSC in this analytical unit, followed closely by medium size OSC.
Small 11/0.6 Medium 16/1.0 Large 25/1.1

Table 56: Measurements of OCSs types from the Stone Rooms Analytical Unit

The third mode observed in the univariate diameter KDE did not resist the bivariate KDE analysis.

6.3.1.3 Early Platforms There are 52 OSC sherds in the Early Platforms unit. Table 57 shows the results of KDE for diameter and thickness measurements. Figures 110 and 111 indicate these modes and the way they overlap.
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 15 cm 0.8 cm Mode 2 25 cm 1.2 cm Mode 3 absent 1.6

Table 57: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

106

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of two of diameter/thickness relationship as seen in Table 59 and figure 112
Thickness 0.8746 1.0412 Diameter 14.6 24.72 Count 37 7

Table 58: Modal clustering table of Early Platfroms OSCs

OSC population in the Early Platform context can be dissected into two types small and large with a high Predominance of small ones.
Small 15/0.9 Large 25/1.0

Table 59: Measurements of OCSs types from the Early Platforms Analytical Unit Types Small and large Predominance Small

Table 60: Types of OCSs from the Early Platforms Analytical Unit

6.3.1.4 Water Flood There are 30 OSC sherds in the Water Flood unit. Table 61 shows the results of KDE for diameter and thickness measurements. Figures 113 and 114 show these modes and the way they overlap.
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 12 0.8 cm Mode 2 27 1.2 cm Mode 3 absent absent

Table 61: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of two of diameter/thickness relationship as seen in Table 62 and figure 115.
Thickness 0.7998 1.1268 Diameter 12.68 26.72 Count 15 6

Table 62: Modal clustering table of Water Flood OSCs

Two types of OSC are quantitative detectable in this analytical unit, large and small with a Predominance of small ones.

1 0 7

Small 13/0.8

Large 27/1.1

Table 63: Measurements of OCSs types from the Water Flood Analytical Unit Types Small and large Predominance Small

Table 64: Types of OCSs from the Water Flood Analytical Unit

6.3.1.5 Late Platforms This analytical unit by definition is characterized by its low density of archaeological materials per cubic meter. There are 17 OSC sherds in the Early Platforms unit. Table 65 shows the results of KDE for diameter and thickness measurements. Figures 116 and 117 indicate shows these modes and the way they overlap.
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 13 cm 0.3 cm Mode 2 20 cm 1.1 cm Mode 3 absent absent

Table 65: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of three of diameter/thickness relationship as seen in Table 66 and figure 118. It has to be noted that given the small sample from this analytical unit, the clusters obtained have to be considered as highly preliminary until the sample size is expanded with further excavations.
Thickness 0.735 0.811 1.02 Diameter 14.2 19.8 11.12 Count 3 6 5

Table 66: Modal clustering table of Early Platforms OSCs

There are three types of OSC coming from this context: small, medium and large. With a high Predominance of medium sized vessels.
Small-Thick 11/1.0 Medium 20/0.8 Large 25/1.1

Table 67: Measurements of OCSs types from the Late Platforms Analytical Unit Types Small, medium and large Predominance Large

Table 68: Types of OCSs from the Late Platforms Analytical Unit

108

Summary of OSC per Analytical Unit


Analytical Unit Midden Room Early Platform Water Flood Late Platform Small 12/0.57 11/0.58 14.5/0.87 13/0.80 11/1.0 Medium 16/0.9 16/1.0 18/1.5 absent 20/0.8 Large 28/1.3 26/1.1 25/1.0 27/1.1 25/1.1

Table 69: Measurements of different types of ollas sin cuello per analytical unit Analytical Unit Midden Stone Rooms Early Platform Water Flood Late Platforms Types Large, medium, small Large, medium, small Large and small Large and small Medium and small Predominance Large Large, medium Small Small Small

Table 70: Sizes of ollas sin cuello per analytical unit

6.3.2

Bowls General population of bowls (n=1334). Table 71 shows the results of KDE for

diameter and thickness measurements. Figures 119 and 120 show these modes and the way they overlap.
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 17 0.5 cm Mode 2 Absent Absent Mode 3 Absent Absent

Table 71: Results of bowls univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of one diameter/thickness relationship as seen in Table 72 and figure 121
Thickness 0.4318 Diameter 15.2 Count 1275

Table 72: Modal clustering of total bowl sample

A medium bowl size predominates in the total bowl sample, characterized by a diameter of 15.2 cm and a thickness of 0.43 cm.

1 0 9

6.3.2.1 Midden The bowl midden sample is composed of 1114 rim fragments. Table 73 shows the results of KDE for diameter and thickness measurements. Figures 122 and 123 show these modes and the way they overlap.
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 17 0.4 Mode 2 Absent 0.6 Mode 3 Absent Absent

Table 73: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of two of diameter/thickness relationship as seen in Table 74 and figure 124.
Thickness 0.4318 Diameter 15.2 Count 1063

Table 74: Modal clustering of bowl sample from Midden

This is the same concentration evident in the general bivariate bowl kernel density estimation. Given that midden bowls make 84.66% of the total bowl sample, this is hardly surprising. The population of bowls in the Midden Analytical Unit is characterized by a very predominant presence of medium size vessels of 15.2/0.43 cm.

6.3.2.2 Stone Rooms The bowl Stone Rooms sample is composed of 143 rim fragments. Table 75 shows the results of KDE for diameter and thickness measurements. Figures 125 and 126 show these modes and the way they overlap.
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 15 0.5 Mode 2 Absent Absent Mode 3 Absent Absent

Table 75: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of one diameter/thickness relationship as seen in Table 76 and figure 127

110

Thickness 0.4972

Diameter 14.8

Count 126

Table 76: Modal clustering table of bowl sample from Stone Rooms

The population of bowls in the Stone Rooms analytical unit is characterized by a very predominant presence of medium size vessels of 15.2/0.50 cm, very similar to the sample from the Midden analytical unit.

6.3.2.3 Early Platforms The Early Platform bowl sample is composed of 36 rim fragments. Table 77 shows the results of KDE for diameter and thickness measurements. Figures 128 and 129 show these modes and the way they overlap.
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 15 0.5 cm Mode 2 Absent 0.8 cm Mode 3 Absent Absent

Table 77: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of two of diameter/thickness relationship as seen in Table 78 and figure 130.
Thickness 0.53 0.57 Diameter 10.8 14.64 Count 20 9

Table 78: Modal clustering of bowl sample from Early Platforms

Small bowls are the most predominant size vessel in this analytical unit.
Small 11/0.5 Medium 15-/0.6

Table 79: Measurements of bowl types from Early Platforms Types Small and medium Predominance Small

Table 80: Types of bowls from Early Platforms

1 1 1

6.3.2.4 Water Flood The bowl Early Platform population is composed of 40 rim fragments. Table 81 shows the results of KDE for diameter and thickness measurements. Figures 131 and 132 show these modes and the way they overlap.
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 15 0.5 cm Mode 2 25 0.8 cm Mode 3 Absent Absent

Table 81: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of two diameter/thickness relationships as seen in Table 82 and figure 133.
Thickness 0.3898 0.4724 Diameter 15.12 23.28 Count 10 18

Table 82: Modal clustering table of bowls from Water Flood

These values can be summarized in the following tables:


Types Medium and large Predominance Large

Table 83: Measurements of bowl types from Water Flood Medium 15/0.39 Large 23/0.47

Table 84: Types of bowls from Water Flood

6.3.2.5 Late Platforms A population of 14 bowl rims was recovered from this analytical unit. Table 85 shows the results of KDE for diameter and thickness measurements. Figures 134 and 135 show these modes and the way they overlap.
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 15 0.5 cm Mode 2 25 0.8 cm Mode 3 Absent Absent

Table 85: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, results indicate the presence of two diameter/thickness relationships as seen in Table 86 and figure 136.

112

Thickness 0.4928 0.5792

Diameter 17.2 12.16

Count 5 4

Table 86: Modal clustering table of bowls from Late Platforms

All univariate and bivariate kernel density estimations from this analytical unit must be taken with extreme caution given the tiny sample size.
Types Small, medium Predominance medium

Table 87: Measurements of bowls types from Late Platforms Small 12/0.50 Medium 17/0.49

Table 88: Types of bowls from Late Platforms

Summary of bowls:
Analytical Unit Midden Room Early Platform Water Flood Late Platform Small absent absent 11/0.52 absent 12/0.50 Medium 15/0.43 15/0.50 15/0.60 15/0.40 17/0.49 Medium Large absent absent absent 23/0.47 absent

Table 89: Measurements of different types of bowls per analytical unit


Analytical Unit Midden Room Early Platform Water Flood Late Platforms Types Medium Medium Small, medium Medium and large Small, medium Predominance Medium Medium Small Large Medium

Table 90: Sizes of bowls per analytical unit

6.3.3

Jars The total jar sample is composed of 425 rim sherds. Table 91 shows the results of

KDE for diameter and thickness measurements. Figures 137 and 138 show these modes and the way they overlap.
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 10 0.4 cm Mode 2 Absent 0.6 cm Mode 3 Absent 0.9

Table 91: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

1 1 3

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of one diameter/thickness relationship as seen in Table 92 and figure 139.
Thickness 0.5392 Diameter 9.24 Count 355

Table 92: Modal clustering table of jars

In order to identify the patterning of jar distribution within the prehistoric analytical units of the Wacheqsa sector, each analytical unit will be independently analyzed as done with previous ceramic types.

6.3.3.1 Midden Jar population in this analytical unit is composed of 338 fragments. Table 93 shows the results of KDE for diameter and thickness measurements. Figures 140 and 141 show these modes and the way they overlap.
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 10 0.4 cm Mode 2 Absent 0.6 cm Mode 3 Absent 0.9

Table 93: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of one diameter/thickness relationship as seen in Table 94 and figure 142.
Thickness
0.5392

Diameter
8.46

Count
282

Table 94: Modal clustering table of jars from Midden

6.3.3.2 Stone Rooms The jar sample in this analytical unit is made up of 51 rim sherds. Table 95 shows the results of KDE for diameter and thickness measurements. Figures 143 and 144 show these modes and the way they overlap.
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 10 cm 0.4 cm Mode 2 15 cm 0.6 cm Mode 3 23 cm 0.9

Table 95: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

114

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of one diameter/thickness relationship as seen in Table 96 and figure 145.
Thickness
0.5347

Diameter
11.65

Count
36

Table 96: Modal clustering table of jars from Stone Rooms

6.3.3.3 Early Platforms The sample size in this analytical unit is very low, and the results should be considered as preliminary and be taken with caution as the jar population is composed of only 16 rim sherds. Table 97 shows the results of KDE for diameter and thickness measurements. Figures 146 and 147 show these modes and the way they overlap.
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 6 cm 0.4 cm Mode 2 15 cm 0.8 cm Mode 3 absent absent

Table 97: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of two diameter/thickness relationship as seen in Table 98 and figure 148.
Thickness 0.4112 0.7136 Diameter 6 7.8 Count 5 4

Table 98: Modal clustering table of jars from Early Platforms

These results can be organized in the following manner,


Very Small 6/0.41 Small 8/0.7

Table 99: Measurements of jars types from Early Platforms Types Very small and small Predominance Very small

Table 100: Types of jars from Early Platforms

6.3.3.4 Water Flood The same caution stated for the previous analytical unit has to be repeated for the Water Flood analytical unit as the population of jars is composed of 14 rim sherds. Table 101

1 1 5

shows the results of KDE for diameter and thickness measurements. Figures 149 and 150 show these modes and the way they overlap.
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 6 cm 0.2 cm Mode 2 11 cm 0.6 cm Mode 3 absent absent

Table 101: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of three diameter/thickness relationships as seen in Table 102 and figure 151.
Thickness 0.56 0.59 0.61 Diameter 9.96 6 8.04 Count 3 2 2

Table 102: Modal clustering table of jars from Water Flood

These values can also be organized in the subsequent way,


Very Small 6/0.59 Small 8/0.6 Medium 10/0.56

Table 103: Measurements of jars types from Water Flood Types Very small, small and medium Predominance Medium

Table 104: Measurements of jars types from Water Flood

6.3.3.5 Late Platforms The jar sample in this analytical unit is composed of only five cases; with such a small sample there is no need for analysis beyond examining the data table to find the patterning of jars within this analytical unit. Nevertheless it is necessary to state that these values should be taken with caution and considered preliminary until the sample is expanded.

Diameter 8 18 8 6 6

Thickness 0.32 0.9 0.32 0.42 0.92

Table 105: Measurements of jar sample from Late Platforms

116

These values can be organized in the following way,


Very small 6/0.6-0.9 Small 8/0.32 Large 18/0.9

Table 106: Measurements of jars types from Late Platforms Types Very small, small and large Predominance Medium

Table 107: Measurements of jars types from Late Platforms

As a summary of the intrasite jar distribution in the Wacheqsa sector, the following tables are offered,
Analytical Unit Midden Stone Rooms Early Platforms Water Flood Late Platforms Very Small absent absent 6/0.4 6/0.6 6/0.6-0.9 Small 8/0.5 absent 8/0.7 8/0.6 8/0.3 Medium absent 12/0.5 absent 10/0.6 absent Large absent absent absent absent 18/0.9

Table 108: Measurements of overall jars types per analytical unit Analytical Unit Midden Stone Rooms Early Platforms Water Flood Late Platforms Types Small Medium Very small and small Very small, small and medium Very small, small and large Table 109: Jar types per analytical unit Predominance Small Medium Very small Medium Medium

6.3.4

Bottles The total population of bottles is composed of 119 rim sherds, from which 101

(84.9%) are part of the Midden Analytical Unit. Given the reduced number of the bottle rim sherds in the other analytical units (Early Platform 5, Late Platform 1, Stone Rooms 4 and Water Flood 8), only the data set tables will be shown and patterns will be extracted from them without doing kernel density estimations. It could also be argued that the non-Midden units do not contain a significant proportion of the bottle population. Figures 152 and 153 show these modes and the way they overlap.

1 1 7

KDE Diameter Thickness

Mode 1 4 cm 0.4 cm

Mode 2 6 cm 0.6 cm

Mode 3 8 cm 0.9 cm

Table 110: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of two diameter/thickness relationships as seen in Table 111 and figure 154.
Thickness 0.3718 0.4822 Diameter 3.92 5.84 Count 82 20

Table 111: Modal clustering table of bottles

In order to identify the patterning of bottle distribution within the prehistoric analytical units of the Wacheqsa sector, each analytical unit will be independently analyzed as done with previous ceramic types, but before going further I consider it necessary to indicate that with bottles I am dealing primarily with spout variation, which is rather different from the inference of overall size variability implied for the other vessel forms. The results obtained, rather than being significant in the sense of size bottle variation, are going to be meaningful in the segregation of spout variation in the bottle sample as wide and narrow spouts can reflect either vessels of quite similar or varied overall size.

6.3.4.1 Midden
As mentioned before a sample size of 101 rim sherds makes up the bottle population of the Midden Analytical Unit. Given the predominance of the Midden component in the overall sample, a similar tendency for bottles is not surprising. Figures 155 and 156 show these modes and the way they overlap.

KDE Diameter Thickness

Mode 1 4 cm 0.4 cm

Mode 2 6 cm 0.6 cm

Mode 3 8 cm 0.9 cm

Table 112: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of two diameter/thickness relationship as seen in Table 113 and figure 157.

118

Thickness 0.358 0.4822

Diameter 3.92 5.96

Count 67 17

Table 113: Modal clustering table of bottles from Midden

Two types of spouts have been identified in this analytical unit, with a Predominance of small-spouted sized bottles:
Small 4/0.4 Medium 6/0.5

Table 114: Measurements of bottles spouts types from Midden

Types Small and medium

Predominance Small

Table 115: Types of bottles spouts types from Midden

6.3.4.2 Stone Rooms The sample size in this analytical unit is composed of only four rim fragments. Given the small nature of the sample size, no univariate or bivariate kernel density estimations were made.
Diameter 6 3 3 3 Thickness 0.6 0.42 0.36 0.51

Table 116: Measurements of bottle sample from Stone Rooms

The data from this analytical unit correspond to the small and medium spout types identified for bottles in the Midden analytical unit. The small sized ones are more numerous if that term can be applied to such a small sample size.

6.3.4.3 Early Platforms As in the Stone Rooms Analytical Unit, the sample size does not justify the use of kernel density estimations for the bottles class in this analytical unit. In this case the total population of bottle cases is made up of six rims,

1 1 9

Diameter 4 4 4 4 4 4

Thickness 0.49 0.65 0.57 0.33 0.25 0.4

Table 117: Measurements of bottle sample from Early Platforms

All the cases from this analytical unit can be related with the small spout type recognized for bottles in the Midden analytical unit.

6.3.4.4 Water Flood As in the previous analytical units, the sample size of bottle population from this analytical unit does not warrant the use of kernel density estimations.

Diameter 4 4 4 3 6 6

Thickness 0.43 0.38 0.41 0.34 0.36 0.34

Table 118: Measurements of bottle sample from Water Flood

The values from the table above indicate the presence of small and medium-sized spouts, according to the values established for the Midden analytical unit.

6.3.4.5 Late Platform The population of rim bottles from this analytical unit is composed by only once case which measurements are 5/0.24. These numbers can be placed in the medium-sized spout identified for the Midden analytical unit.

The following summary of bottle sizes per analytical unit is offered. It has to be stated again that the values coming from Stone Rooms, Early Platforms, Water Flood and Late Platforms must be taken with caution given their sample sizes.

120

Analytical Unit Midden Room Early Platforms Water Flood Late Platforms

Small 4/0.4 4/0.4-0.5 4/0.3-0.7 3-4/0.3-0.4 absent

Medium 6/0.5 6/0.6 absent 6/0.3-0.4 5/0.2

Table 119: Measurements of bottle spouts per analytical unit Analytical Unit Midden Stone Rooms Early Platform Water Flood Late Platforms Types Small, medium Small, medium Small Small, medium Medium Predominance Small Small Small Small Medium

Table 120: Bottle spouts types per analytical unit

6.3.5

Cups The entire population of cups is composed by 40 rim sherds, of which 37 (92.5%)

belong to the Midden Analytical Unit. Given the reduced number of the cup rim sherds in the other analytical units (Early Platform 0, Late Platform 1, Stone Rooms 1 and Water Flood 1), only the values from those contexts will given. The extreme low frequency of this vessel type suggests that their presence was not significant in the Wacheqsa cup population. Table 121 shows the values obtained with univariate kernel density estimations of diameter and thickness (figures 158 and 159)
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 4 cm 0.4 Mode 2 6 cm absent Mode 3 8 cm absent

Table 121: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate the presence of five diameter/thickness relationship as seen in Table 122 and figure 160.
Thickness 0.2996 0.3968 0.44 0.5372 0.6236 Diameter 5.94 8.04 3.98 5.94 8.04 Count 5 7 10 7 2

Table 122: Modal clustering table of cups

1 2 1

It has to be noted that the small mode is incredible small and may represent miniature vessels. It is expected that these same values will be replicated in the Midden analytical unit given the preponderance of Midden cups in the entire cup population.

6.3.5.1 Midden As mentioned before the population of cups is composed of 37 rim sherds. As expected univariate and bivariate kernel density estimations (figures 161 and 162) replicate the patterns observed for the entire population of cups and the modal clustering analysis effectively replicate the values shown before (figure 163):
Thickness 0.2996 0.386 0.4184 0.548 0.6236 Diameter 5.52 8.04 3.84 5.94 8.04 Count 5 7 10 3 2

Table 123: Modal clustering table of cups from Midden

These values can be better understood looking at the following tables,


Small 4/0.4 Medium 6/0.3-0.6 Large 8/0.4-0.6

Table 124: Measurements of cup types from Midden Types Small, medium and large Predominance Small

Table 125: Types of cups from Midden

6.3.5.2 Stone Rooms Only one cup rim sherd makes up the sample size of this analytical unit. Its value is 4/0.43 cm. It fits in the category of small cups from the Midden analytical unit.

6.3.5.3 Early Platforms No cups were observed in this analytical unit.

6.3.5.4 Water Flood The cup population of this analytical unit is composed of only one rim fragment. Its value is 4/0.31 and it is located within the range of small cups from the Midden analytical unit.

122

6.3.5.5 Late Platforms As the Stone Room and Water Flood analytical units, the population of cups is composed by only one rim. Its value is 6/0.53 which locates it within the medium-thick range of Midden cups.

With the reservations stated before regarding sample size, the cup population of the Wacheqsa sector can be organized in the following ways,
Analytical Unit Midden Room Early Platforms Water Flood Late Platforms Small 4/0.4 4/0.4 absent 4/0.3 absent Medium 6/0.3-0.6 absent absent absent 6/0.5 Large 8/0.4-0.6 absent absent absent absent

Table 126: Measurements of types of cups per analytical unit Analytical Unit Midden Stone Rooms Early Platform Water Flood Late Platforms Types Small, medium and large Small Small Medium Predominance Small Small Small Medium

Table 127: Types of cups per analytical unit

6.3.6

Plates The entire population of plates is composed of 57 rim sherds, of which 46 (80.1%)

belong to the Midden Analytical Unit. Given the reduced number of plate rim sherds in the other analytical units (Early Platform = 2, Late Platform = 0, Stone Rooms = 7 and Water Flood = 2), only the values from those contexts will be mentioned. Also, the extremely low densities suggest that plates do not make up a significant proportion of the overall sample. Table 128 shows the values obtained with univariate kernel density estimations of diameter and thickness (figures 164-166)
KDE Diameter Thickness Mode 1 15 cm 0.6 cm Mode 2 25 cm 0.8 cm Mode 3 absent absent

Table 128: Results of univariate KDE for diameter and thickness measurements

1 2 3

When diameter and thickness are plotted together in a bivariate KDE plot, the results indicate two diameter/thickness relationship as seen in Table 129 and figure 166
Thickness 0.5724 0.615 Diameter 12.4 22 Count 6 40

Table 129: Modal clustering table of plates

There are two modes in the plate sample that I expect to be replicated in the Midden analytical unit given the predominance of Midden plates in the entire plate sample.

6.3.6.1 Midden As mentioned before the population of Midden plates is composed of 46 rim sherds. As expected, the univariate and bivariate kernel density estimates fairly well replicate the patterns observed for the entire sample of plates, and the modal clustering analysis nearly replicate the values showed before (figures 167-169),
Thickness 0,615 0,9132 Diameter 22 22 Count 38 3

Table 130: Modal cluster table of plates from Midden

The main difference lies in the absence of the mode represented in the values 12/0.57 which belongs to a different analytical unit. That being said, large plates were the only mode identified in the sample of Midden plates examined
Small absent Medium absent Large 22/0.6-0.9

Table 131: Measurements of type of plates from Midden

6.3.6.2 Stone Rooms The population of plates is composed by six rim sherds with the following values,
Diameter 22 26 24 18 10 10 Thickness 0.82 0.63 0.82 0.63 0.4 0.27

Table 132: Measurements of plate rims from Stone Rooms

124

These measurements can be organized in the following manner:


Small 10/0.4 Medium 18/0.6 Large 22-26/0.9

Table 133: Measurements of types of plates from Stone Rooms Types Small, medium and large Table 134: Types of plates from Stone Rooms Predominance Large

This classification has to be taken with extreme caution given the small size of the population of plates in this analytical unit.

6.3.6.3 Early Platforms The population of plates in this analytical unit is composed by two rim sherds with the following measurements,
Diameter 12 24 Thickness 0.56 0.69

Table 135: Measurements of plate rims from Early Platforms

These values fall with the range of small and large plates identified for the overall plate sample.

6.3.6.4 Water Flood Again, only two cases are present in the Water Flood analytical unit with the following values,
Diameter 26 14 Thickness 0.51 0.92

Table 136: Measurements of plate rims from Water Flood

These measurements fall within the small and large plates identified in the overall plate sample. 6.3.6.5 Late Platforms No plates were identified in this analytical unit.

1 2 5

The following is a synopsis of plate distribution per unit. It cannot be stated too strongly the importance of being cautious with the values that come from Stone Rooms, Early Platforms, Water Flood and Late Platforms units given their sample sizes.

Analytical Unit Midden Room Early Platforms Water Flood Late Platforms

Small absent 10/0.4 12/0.6 14/0.9 Absent

Medium absent 18/0.6 absent absent absent

Large 22/0.9 22-26/0.9 24/0.7 26/0.51 absent

Table 137: Measurements of type of plates per analytical unit Analytical Unit Midden Stone Rooms Early Platform Water Flood Late Platforms Types Large Small, medium and large Small and large Small and large absent Predominance Large Large Small and large Small and large absent

Table 138: Types of plates per analytical unit

There is a clear variation in the ceramic assemblage analyzed that may reflect different functions and uses of each of the prehistoric analytical units identified.

Vessel OSC Bowl Jar Bottle Cup Plate

Sizes Small, medium and large Medium Small Small and medium Small, medium and large Large

Predominance Large Medium Small Small Small Large

Table 139: Summary of vessels type from Midden Vessel OSC Bowl Jar Bottle Cup Plate Sizes Small, medium and large Medium Medium Small, medium Small Small, medium and large Predominance Large Medium Medium Small Small Large

Table 140: Summary of vessels type from Stone Rooms

126

Vessel OSC Bowl Jar Bottle Cup Plate

Sizes Small and large Small and medium Very small and small Small absent Small and large

Predominance Small Small Very small and small Small Small and large

Table 141: Summary of vessels type from Early Platforms Vessel OSC Bowl Jar Bottle Cup Plate Sizes Small and large Medium and large Very small, small and medium Small Small Small and large Predominance Large Large Medium Medium Small Small and large

Table 142: Summary of vessels type from Water Flood Vessel OSC Bowl Jar Bottle Cup Plate Sizes Small, medium and large Small, medium Very small, small and large Medium Medium absent Predominance Large Medium Medium Medium Medium absent

Table 143: Summary of vessels type from Late Platforms

In this chapter I have provided evidence of the intrasite variability that exists in the Wacheqsa sector that can be summarized as follows:

Eight spatial analytical units have been identified on the grounds of spatial distribution of strata, examination of types of soil and density estimates of archaeological artifacts.

These analytical units are segregated in three chronological phases. Prehistoric analytical units have high values of diversity according to the Boone Index calculated per each stratum. All analytical units present high diversity of archaeological materials suggesting that the activities carried on in these spaces involved a wide array of materials. No single unit is characterized by an exclusive value of homogeneity.

Nevertheless, in spite of this shared diversity, prehistoric units show intrasite variation. This variation can be inferred examining the density values per each class of archaeological materials but in order to test this intrasite diversity I have used kernel

1 2 7

density estimations on a subset of 3020 ceramic sherds trying to identify the patterns of variation within each analytical unit and among themselves.

One cannot help but wonder what is the relevance of these inferences? What are the social implications of this data? The answers to these questions are in the next chapter in which I discuss the implications of this variability as well as the anthropological meaning of the intrasite variation identified.

128

CHAPTER 7 THE WACHEQSA SECTOR AS A MULTICOMPONENT AREA

This chapter discusses the results obtained in the present research, contextualizing them into archaeological and anthropological frameworks. First I explain the activities that have been inferred from the materials analyzed, and then I discuss the implications of these activities for the understanding of Chavn de Huntar. Next, I lay out the contributions of the Wacheqsa Sector for the general comprehension of the chronological framework of Chavn de Huntar and the Middle and Late Formative periods. Lastly, I summarize the results of my research.

7.1

Inferred Activities I will identify activities in the Wacheqsa sector primarily based on ceramic bivariate

kernel density estimations, modal clustering, vessel modalities, and frequencies and densities of different classes of archaeological materials retrieved during the excavation process. Based on these results I have inferred two different activities from the archaeological record of the Wacheqsa sector. I argue that each activity is a reflection of a different power strategy exercised by the authorities of Chavn de Huntar.

7.1.1

Feasting activities Evidence for feasting activities has been identified in the Midden analytical unit. In

this unit densities of archaeological materials are extremely high when compared with densities of other analytical units, which immediately separates this unit from the rest. The ceramic assemblage from the Midden corresponds to the types previously defined by Richard Burger as Janabarriu (Burger 1984; Burger 1992; Burger 1998; Burger and Matos 2002) Middens can either be formed by the aggregation of waste from different areas of a site or by the aggregation of waste coming from one specific area (Boone 1987); they do not reflect an in situ location of the archaeological materials but rather a secondary one. If a midden is the aggregation of materials brought from a different place or different places, one can expect to find materials that are the results of several/multiple different activities. When the physical characteristics of these deposits are variable, one can argue for different behaviors producing different records. On the other hand if densities of archaeological materials as well of their distributions are homogeneous, one can argue for a common behavior or activity as

1 2 9

source of the waste present in the deposits. In the case of the Midden analytical unit of the Wacheqsa sector, deposits reflect a homogenous behavior in terms of soil composition (see Chapter 5) as well as density of archaeological materials per stratum excavated (see Chapter 6). The physical characteristics of the Midden analytical unit, as well as the consistent density of archaeological materials in the included strata point towards the identification of the Midden mostly as a product of a singular activity that was repeated over time. Most of the strata were compacted with abundant soil matrix between the refuse materials, suggesting that its deposition was gradual. The question at hand is what kind of activity this was and where the deposits were coming from. I will argue that deposits from the Midden analytical unit were formed from waste produced by collective consumption of food and drink, in other words, suprahousehold feasts. As Dietler and Hayden indicate, it is important to differentiate communal consumption from everyday domestic meals and from the simple exchange of food without communal consumption (Dietler and Hayden 2001:3). Large quantity of food items, unusually large numbers of serving and cooking vessels of large size, exotic items as well as narcotic paraphernalia together are indicators of feasting activities (Blitz 1993; DeBoer 2001; Dietler and Herbich 2001; Hayden 2001; Mills 1999; Potter 2000; Rosenswig 2007). I will examine these indicators in the following pages, based on the data retrieved from the Midden analytical unit at the Wacheqsa sector

7.1.1.1 Ceramics Six general types of ceramic vessels have been identified in the five prehistoric analytical units, and I have demonstrated intrasite variability in their distributions. Among these types, ollas sin cuello, bowls, and jars are consistently present in all prehistoric analytical units, while bottles, cups and plates are not significantly present in any but the Midden analytical unit The most ubiquitous ceramic vessel present in the Midden is the bowl, with a unimodal distribution of medium sized bowl that makes up more than 50% of the analyzed Midden sample. The second ubiquitous type is the olla sin cuello that make up 26% of the analyzed sample with bimodal distribution but with a high predominance of large sized vessels. Third is the jar type that makes up 11% of the ceramic sample analyzed with a

130

unimodal distribution of small jars24. The other types of ceramics are under 5% of the sample analyzed. The elevated number of bowls and specially the large quantity of medium-sized bowls indicate a) the consumption of large amounts of food, and b) the use of a standardized serving ration. Bowls are serving vessels that can be either used for solid food or liquids (DeBoer 2001; Lumbreras 2005). Ollas sin cuello can be either used as cooking or storage (Blitz 1993; Lumbreras 2005). Bowls posses unrestricted mouth orifices unrestricted vessels are an advantage not only in getting the contents out, but also in putting materials in (Rice 1987: 241). Additionally unrestricted vessels, such as bowls, show the contents of the vessels which is important for serving vessels. The bimodal distribution of oscs, points towards the cooking/storage of either different types of food and/or for smaller and larger amounts of people. The size of an olla not only reflects the amount of food being cooked/stored but also the type of food prepared/stored. Size in ollas can be a function of amount and type of aliments, The relation between use and capacity of a vessel can be conceived in terms of the kind of materials the vessel contains, the amount, the length of time it is to be contained, the number of anticipated users of the material during that time and micro environmental factors such as availability of water and other necessities (Rice 1987:225) As ollas sin cuello, jars were fundamentally storing/serving vessels but primarily for liquids. Jars are restricted vessels with necks that prevent the contents to be spilled. They are significant in the ceramic midden assemblage and as seen in the previous chapter the most typical jar in this analytical unit is the mid-sized one. Interesting enough, bottles only make 3% of the sample analyzed indicating that jars, rather than bottles, were the more popular type of vessel for storing and/or serving liquids. Food may have been cooked and/or carried in ollas sin cuellos to the feasting facility where it would have been distributed in bowls. It is not uncommon to find fragments of ollas sin cuello in the analyzed sample with evidence of firing on their surfaces. Jars may have been used for storing beverages consumed during the feasting activity from which liquids could have been poured into bowls, or more probably cups.25 (An interesting analogy is how ceremonial drinking now occurs in the Andes liquids are poured from containers into a
24

Regarding jars there is no a direct correlation between the volume of liquids that a jar can contain and its orifice diameter. A direct correlation has been found between height and volume (Mills 1999) but regrettably jar sherds analyzed are not big enough to provide information regarding jar heights. 25 Cups only make 1.5% of the sample analyzed.

1 3 1

very restricted number of cups/glasses, in sequential or multi-partnered reuses of shared consuming vessels. The archaeological record of this would yield very few consumer

containers compared with the source bottles). Even though there are very few plates in the analyzed ceramic subset, it is interesting that the higher mode of plates represented is the large one. Plates may have been used for serving special types of food or for serving food for especial attendees. There are unusually large numbers of cooking and serving vessels in the Midden analytical unit, midden bowls conform 84% of the entire bowl population and midden oscs make up 74% of the osc population.

7.1.1.2 Faunal Remains The ceramic data is more compelling when cross referenced with the weight of faunal remains recovered in the Midden which is extremely high when compared with the rest of prehistoric analytical units, as seen in fig 170 and tables 145-146. Students t tests of these measurements indicate that the means of the deposits excavated are significantly different.

Abs(Dif)-LSD Midden Water Flood Early Platforms Rooms Late Platforms

Midden -2670,7 2554,7 5657,6 4536,2 5236,1

t Alpha 1,98498 0,05 Water Flood Early Platforms 2554,7 5657,6 -4763,8 -1917,2 -1917,2 -2884,6 -2755,8 -3974,7 -2167,4 -3286,3

Rooms 4536,2 -2755,8 -3974,7 -4996,3 -4419,2

Late Platforms 5236,1 -2167,4 -3286,3 -4419,2 -4079,5

Table 144: Students t test. Least significant difference threshold matrix. Positive values show pairs of means that are significantly different.

Level Midden Midden Midden Midden Water Flood Water Flood Water Flood Early Platforms Rooms Early Platforms

- Level Late Platforms Rooms Early Platforms Water Flood Late Platforms Rooms Early Platforms Late Platforms Late Platforms Rooms

Difference 8683,948 8542,161 8437,329 6416,508 2267,440 2125,653 2020,821 246,620 141,787 104,832

Lower CL 5236,14 4536,17 5657,62 2554,74 -2167,44 -2755,82 -1917,15 -3286,33 -4419,23 -3974,67

Upper CL 12131,76 12548,15 11217,04 10278,28 6702,33 7007,13 5958,79 3779,57 4702,81 4184,33

p-Value 0,0000026 0,0000529 0,0000026 0,0013658 0,3127186 0,3895406 0,3109436 0,8900858 0,9509248 0,9594244

Table 145: Students t test. Ordered differences report

132

A measure of density is more reliable than a measure of weight as weight can be influenced by the excavation volume of each deposit while density measures the amount of remains per standardized unit, in this case a cubic meter. These results could be considered evidence of substantial food consumption that align with what Mercer and Hayden have suggested regarding faunal remains as a signature for banquets as feasting activities. Feasting foods as well as actual feasts can often be recognized by copious food leftovers and much greater wastage than usual (Mercer 1985:100) and that feasting refuse tends to occur in considerable quantities in single deposits (Hayden 1995:138). The Midden analytical unit is composed of strata of similar characteristics in which faunal remains tend to occur in considerable quantities. However, the faunal evidence alone is not conclusive for feasting, but when cross-referenced with the vessels modalities explained above, the argument is more robust. Special care was taken during the excavation process in separating possible human remains, not finding any human remain as part of the Midden bone assemblage. Further analyses will indicate what kinds of animals were consumed during feasting activities at Chavn de Huntar, but I believe it is safe to hypothesize that a large proportion are probably camelids (Burger 1998; Miller and Burger 1995).

7.1.1.3 Narcotic Paraphernalia Bone artifacts (n=62) were also present in the Midden archaeological assemblage. Many of which are small fragmented spoons and bone tubes of different sizes (figures 171174). The presence of polished bone tubes and small spoons is interesting and may indicate the presence of drug consumption during feasting activities, The equipment for the inhalation of psychoactive powders consists of a distinct set of implements: a small tray, a snuffing tube, a spoon, and leather pouches as containers for the powders (Torres and Repke 2006:11) Based on ethnographic evidence from South America and the Caribbean, Torres and Repke point out two general methods for snuffing powders: self-administered and

cooperative. Self administered consumption requires inhalers made of bird bone and wood which can be single tubes or double tubes, while the collaborative way usually requires long bird bones preloaded with powder that one individual blows into the nose of other individual (Torres and Repke 2006). Evidence from the Midden deposit suggests self administered consumption of psychoactive elements, possibly anadenanthera as suggested by Torres, Repke and Rick (Rick 2006; Torres and Repke 2006). Anadenanthera beans need to be

1 3 3

roasted until desiccated, then the outer case is removed and the inner tissue is ground until a fine powder is produced, large particles are removed and then the powder is ground again, finally the substance is ready to be mixed with lime in order to be consumed (Torres and Repke 2006). Similar equipment has been also found in La Banda and has also been interpreted as evidence of consumption of psychoactive substances (Rick 2006).

7.1.1.4 Exotic Items Mollusks are present in the midden deposit as well, although extremely rare. Six fragments of Mesodesma donaceum were found. Richard Burger pointed out that the presence of mollusks at Chavn de Huntar was due mostly to ceremonial reasons rather than nutritional motivations as it is very costly to bring them from the coast and keep them fresh during the trip (Burger 1998). According to Sheila Pozorski, it is possible to carry fresh seafood from the coast to Chavn if they are maintained in a saline and moist environment which aggravates the cost of transport (cited by Burger as personal communication in Burger 1998: 242). Travel between the coast and Chavn can be done in four to seven days (Burger 1998), which would allow the shellfish to be fresh on arrival to Chavn if the above stated precautions are taken. The extreme low density of shells in the Midden can be explained by their fragile nature. Large amounts of waste were thrown into the midden, which in turn will most likely disintegrate fragile materials reducing the frequencies of retrievable materials. Another line of evidence that reinforces the interpretation of shells as ritual or even elite artifacts is that 90% of the sample in previous excavations of domestic units was located in structures identified as belonging to elite households (Burger 1984; Burger 1998). Rare items also include slate projectile points, chrysocolla beads and anthracite mirrors which are ubiquitous only in the Midden analytical unit. There is also a very small amount of what can be considered bone pendants, probably worn around the neck. Examined together, the quantity and quality of the archaeological materials suggest that the Midden analytical unit resulted from activities that involved suprahousehold consumption of food and probably use of psychoactive substances Feasting activities by their very nature produce copious amounts of distinctive refuse at the locations where they occur, and feasting locations are often associated with notable ritual structures (Dietler and Hayden 2001:9) The evidence of large ollas sin cuello, medium sized bowls, abundant jars, unusually high densities of faunal remains, narcotic paraphernalia and exotic artifacts points towards 134

supra household consumption of food and liquids.

Isolated, these remains are not strong

indicators of this activity, but found together in stratigraphically controlled deposits makes the case compelling for the occurrence of feasting at Chavn de Huntar. Nevertheless, there is only one set of materials that do not correspond in a clear way to supra household food consumption activities: large fragments of columns, walls, and floors made of clay that in some cases show signs of fire. As explained in Chapter 6, these fragments are present in the Midden analytical unit with a mean density of 96.96 fragments per cubic meter. They came from larger structures, finely plastered in white and red colors. Tello found similar materials in front of Building A that most likely were the remains of architecture and plaster that was part of the faade of Building A although Tello hypothesized that they were product of a big fire at Chavn de Huntar. In front of the staircase [south staircase in Buildings A faade] abundant pieces of burnt clay appear, several of them heavily burnt and amorphous, suggesting that the combustion was very high and does not correspond to preparation techniques of wall plastering through firing. Most likely, either an intentional or unintentional fire was responsible of firing evidence in these materials26. (Tello Ms [1940]: 50) A small fraction of the wall and floor materials found in the Midden analytical unit, show signs of vitrification on their surfaces, suggesting high temperatures in their combustion,. How can these elements be related with feasting activities? Would these fragments be part of the structures were banquets occurred? Was some sort of ritual destruction involved in banquets? Or simply put, do these materials come from a different set of contexts? Ceremonial breaking of vessels has been recorded for the Middle Horizon (700 1100 AD) site of Conchopata in which ritual vessels were broken and then buried or disposed, all this in a context of supra household feasting (Cook 2004). In extending this analogy to the architectural fragments mentioned above, would it be that portions of structures associated with feasting activities were disposed after the conclusion of the ceremony? These are more open questions than conclusive statements given the lack of comparative examples. Nevertheless in spite of the presence of these materials I find that the evidence for feasting still stands. Ceramic modalities, extremely high densities of faunal remains and evidence of psychoactive consumption together and not considered independently, point towards feasting as one reasonable explanation.

26

My translation

1 3 5

7.1.2

Domestic Activities Early platforms contain evidence of domestic activities and may have been used as

7.1.2.1 Early Platforms

domestic areas before the Black and White stage. Decorated ceramics can be related with the types defined by Richard Burger as Urabarriu (Burger 1984; Burger 1998). The olla sin cuello is the most prevalent ceramic type of the Early Platforms consisting of 49% of the Early Platforms ceramic sample. The distribution of this type is characterized by size bimodality of small and large sized vessels, with a bias towards the small-sized mode. Bowls make up 30% of the Early Platforms sample size and have a bimodal distribution represented by small and medium sized vessels with a strong bias towards small bowls. Jars make up 14% of the Early Platform ceramic sample and have a unimodal distribution represented by small jars. Bottles and plates together make up less than 7% of the sample of the Early Platform analytical unit. Based on the ceramic assemblage analyzed it can be inferred that mainly cooking activities were carried out on these platforms. The small osc predominant mode points towards the preparation of food for small numbers of people in comparison to the food prepared for the feasting parties represented in the Midden analytical unit. This interpretation is reinforced by the small-sized mode prevalent in the bowl distribution; hence consumption of food was probably here carried out at the household level. That being said, it is important to point out the presence of a small but nevertheless consistent large vessel size mode in the ollas sin cuello form. Equally important is the presence of a second, medium size bowl mode. These results may indicate the occasional consumption of food at a slightly larger scale. Faunal remains are also present in this analytical unit but on a smaller scale than in the Midden. Only 32 kg of animal bone were recovered with a mean density of 1.5 kg per m excavated in this analytical unit, contrasting with the Midden unit. Three fragments of Mesodesma donaceum were recovered. As discussed before preservation of these remains is affected by their fragile character and the humid conditions of the highlands. Nevertheless the presence of these objects in this analytical unit is interesting. As discussed previously shells can be considered as status artifacts in the highlands given the costly effort in bringing them from the coast and in conserving their freshness during their transport. But even, if the shells were not consumed and only used for artisan shell usage elaboration of shell artifacts for example- shells would still be considered exotic and probably status artifacts given their costly transportation. Shell artifacts are even more difficult to find

136

in the archaeological record (there were no shell artifacts identified in the Wacheqsa sector) because the shell is reduced in its form. Small size shell artifacts would have disappeared from the archaeological record given their small size, fragile structure and humid conditions of Chavn de Huntar. The waste produced by shell work would similarly have the same low chances of survival in the archaeological record. Fragments of burnt clay have been also retrieved in this analytical unit. These fragments are smaller than the ones retrieved from the Midden analytical unit and do not show signs of vitrification. As discussed before, fragments recovered in the Midden deposits show signs of being exposed to very high temperatures that left evidence of vitrification on their surfaces and were part of non domestic architectural features such as large, formal columns, plastered walls and floors. The fragments recovered in the Early Platforms differ sharply, being characterized by their small size but overall narrow thickness (<1.0 cm), suggesting a distinct architectural origin rather than being the result of site formation processes27. Some of them have imprints of canes which indicate that probably were part of structures made of dried mud with large wooden canes providing the internal structure. These types of structures are still ubiquitous in the modern town of Chavn de Huntar, where low stone walls serve as foundations for a wattle-and-daub superstructure. Regrettably, the foundations of the domestic units have yet to be found. Only a small hearth found in stratum 524 has been recorded. One of the reasons for the lack of structures in the Early Platforms, could be that they did not have solid foundations having their bases disappeared or that the sampling program could not find any structure given the organization of the excavation sampling design.

7.1.2.2 Stone Rooms Bowls make up almost 50% of the ceramic assemblage analyzed in the Stone Room analytical unit, having a unimodal distribution representing the medium sized bowls. Bowls dominate the ceramic assemblage, emphasizing the serving nature of the activities that originated the deposits. Ollas sin cuello make up 36% of the ceramic assemblage. Having a multimodal distribution as revealed in the bivariate kernel density plots. The predominant mode is the one represented by large-sized vessels closely followed by medium-sized ones. Jars have a unimodal distribution with a mode represented by medium-sized vessels. Bottles,
27

Several fragments of burnt clay retrieved in the Midden analytical unit are of small size but thicker (>1.0 cm) suggesting that they were part of thicker and more solid walls.

1 3 7

cups and plates together make up less than 5% of the ceramic assemblage. Judging from the ceramic evidence, it can be said that the consumption of food was one of the activities carried on in these rooms. Medium sized bowls were likely used for this function. The Early Platform osc ceramic assemblage indicates the consumption of foodstuffs at a household level while the ceramic assemblage in the Stone Rooms analytical unit may indicate consumption of food by a larger number of people. Medium sized bowls and large ollas sin cuello characterize the ceramic assemblage from the Stone Rooms analytical unit while small ollas sin cuello and small bowls are predominant in the Early Platforms. Cautiously, it can be suggested that change in ceramic modalities can be interpreted as an increase in the population living in the Wacheqsa sector or a change of the type of inhabitants living there. A change from small to large ollas sin cuello and bowls indicates that more food and liquids were being produced and stored, if more food was being cooked (ollas sin cuello) and served (bowls) it can be argued that more people were being fed or that a small number of people was abundantly consuming food. An accurate estimation of mnv (minimum number of vessels) will shed light towards this complex issue. Additionally, prestige items such as obsidian, shells and anthracite mirrors are present in this analytical unit. Anthracite mirrors are almost absent in the Early Platforms but are present in the Stone Room analytical unit, seven fragments were recovered. Although this is a large number when compared to the Early Platforms, it is small when compared to the anthracite Midden assemblage (n=139). Other special elements in the record of this analytical unit are beads made of chrysocolla. Chrysocolla is a hydrated copper silicate often used as an ornamental stone. I put special importance on three pieces of unworked chrysocolla, the only fragments of this type found in the Wacheqsa area (figure 86). Another special material is a fist-sized fragment of native copper ore (figure 87). There are three reported cooper ore sources less than a kilometer from Chavn de Huntar that could have been perfectly exploited in order to get raw materials for the production of cooper artifacts. These items are important because they give indications of the occurrence of metallurgy at the Wacheqsa sector during the Janabarriu phase. In terms of diversity, the Stone Rooms analytical unit also shows the lowest p(Hi) mean, indicating that their deposits were highly diverse within the already high diversity stated for all five prehistoric analytical units. This points out that the unique character of artifact distribution in this analytical unit is best explained in reference to the activities carried on inside the rooms rather than sample size bias.

138

In summarizing the information presented in the last few pages, I propose that during the Urabarriu phase a support population lived in the Wacheqsa sector

7.1.3

Water Flood As mentioned in the previous chapter, this analytical unit is composed of strata

representing water-originated sedimentation. It is, thus, likely that the archaeological materials present in these strata were transported by water from other areas. Interestingly enough, all decorated ceramics recovered in this analytical unit are related to ceramic types identified as Urabarriu (Burger 1984; Burger 1998), a conclusion that is reinforced by the stratigraphic position of these deposits below the Midden deposits. It is difficult to assess if all the materials were carried from a single area or from different areas, but there is a clear pattern in the frequency distribution of ceramic types that may suggest a common origin. This pattern is represented in the following way. Bowls and ollas sin cuello have almost equal proportions in the ceramic assemblage analyzed (39% and 36% respectively). According to kernel density estimations, bowls present a bimodal distribution of medium and large sizes with a bias towards the large size. Ollas sin cuello show a bimodal distribution too, representing small and large-sized vessels with a bias towards small-sized ones, large size bowls and small ollas sin cuello dominate the ceramic assemblage of this analytical unit. Obsidian and fragments of burnt clay are present in these deposits, the burnt clay fragments are similar to those found in the Early Platforms rather than in the Midden, suggesting that these fragments did not come from any sort of large architecture.

7.1.4

Intermediate Area Archaeological materials are extremely scarce in the Late Platforms analytical unit.

Their density is only 17 artifacts per m excavated. The small number of ceramics analyzed (n=42) point towards an emphasis on cooking activities for a small number of people, given the bias towards small ollas sin cuello and small bowls, but caution needs to be exercised given the extreme low frequencies of materials recovered. Only one fragment of burnt clay was found indicating that virtually no structures were associated with this analytical unit. It seems that this area was kept clean for the most part, given the extremely low density of archaeological materials. The Late Platforms analytical unit is spatially located between the Midden and Stone Rooms analytical units. It may have served just as an area of intercommunication or separation between the Midden and Stone

1 3 9

Room analytical units. Further excavations in this particular unit will shed light towards its actual function.

7.2

Implications and Relevance As mentioned at the onset of this chapter, one of my goals is to discuss the

implications of these inferred activities for the understanding of Chavn de Huntar. In that sense this section brings together the specific data interpretation of the Wacheqsa sector in relation with the ceremonial center, elaborating an anthropological framework for the Wacheqsa sector and the ceremonial center combined. After this discussion is concluded I will then discuss the carbon dates retrieved from the five prehistoric analytical units in order to assess their distribution in absolute chronological dates.

7.2.1

Feasting and Power Evidence from the Midden analytical unit suggests that suprahousehold food

consumption occurred at Chavn de Huntar. Feasting seems to be a plausible interpretation of the archaeological record of this analytical unit, however special care has to be taken in making a conclusive statement until faunal remains had been analyzed. Nevertheless, the occurrence of supra household feasting at Chavn de Huntar would not be surprising. The occurrence of feasting at Chavn the Huntar carries implications for the interpretation of power strategies and corporate activities sponsored at Chavn during the Andean Formative. Potential feasting facilities are present at Chavn de Huntar: a) a quadrangular plaza located in front of Building A and surrounded by Buildings E and F resembling the form of the U-shaped buildings of the central coast; this plaza could hold up to 1500 people (Burger 1992) and b) a circular plaza located in front of Building B, between buildings C and A. Following Kembels architectural sequence (Kembel 2001), these two plazas were contemporary, constructed as part of the Black and White phase. As mentioned in Chapter 1, the Black and White phase was the architectural phase in which the largest construction effort was made in Chavn de Huntar;. This architectural project involved the modification of the Mosna Rivers course in order to gain space for the construction of the quadrangular plaza (Kembel 2001; Kembel and Rick 2004; Rick 2005). Additional evidence of this displacement of the river has been retrieved by Daniel Contreras in his investigations at Chavn de Huntar (Contreras 2007). Unlike the quadrangular plaza that is in the open, the Circular Plaza is located in a more intimate environment (an intimacy reinforced by its modest

140

21 m diameter). Its visual isolation is evident in the plaza floors location around two meters below the East Atrium. The plaza is surrounded by engraved stone slabs of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic images of the Chavn religious world, creating a sacred space where much of the world is distant; this plaza may have held up to 500 people (Burger 1992) . These plazas have been interpreted as locations for ceremonies and festivities related with to rituals performed and staged at the ceremonial center (Burger 1992; Kembel 2001; Kembel and Rick 2004; Lumbreras 1989, 1993; Rick 2005; Rowe 1962a; Tello 1960) and they were reasonable locations for supra household feasting activities. Additionally it is important to note that during the Black and White stage there was an architectural emphasis towards the construction of open spaces: Prior to the Black and White stage, the focus on galleries, small gallery patios outside their entrances, and their restricted access, suggest they were designed for individuals or small groups to use the space. The shift to the Black and White stage, with its plazas, terraces, and flanking mounds with staircases ascending directly from ground level, likely represents a shift in the emphasis to creating larger open spaces to accommodate more people (Kembel 2001:223) It is worthy of note that the Circular Plaza is flanked by the Ofrendas and Caracolas Galleries. The first one was the locus of a ritual offering of 681 ceramic vessels accompanied with food remains and probably liquids as well as shells, stone and wooden artifacts (Lumbreras 1989, 1993) . The Caracolas Gallery was the repository of 20 Strombus shell trumpets that showed evidence of heavy, extended use and which most likely were used in the ceremonies carried on in the ceremonial center (Rick 2005). In the Ofrendas Gallery only two Janabarriu related ceramic vessels were found while the rest of the ceramics are representative of ceramic styles from the north coast, northern highlands and central coast. In the Wacheqsa midden deposits the typical Janabarriu designs of stamped circles, stamped concentric circles, impressed concentric circles with dots and stamped Ss overwhelmingly dominate the decorated ceramic assemblage while designs related to the iconography depicted in the ceremonial center architecture or related to the ceramic styles identified in the Ofrendas gallery are not ubiquitous. The presence of highly religiously loaded ceramics in the Ofrendas gallery and the presence of foreign pottery and the near absence of Janabarriu ceramics suggests the different nature of the Janabarriu ceramics when compared to the ceramics found in the Ofrendas gallery. The architectural environment in which the Circular Plaza is located seems to be of a more sacred nature than the quadrangular plaza and the Midden deposits do not show a significant presence of sacred items (when I use this term sacred I mean similar to 1 4 1

the objects identified in the Ofrendas Gallery or even in the Caracolas gallery). Janabarriu ceramics are not common in religious contexts at Chavn de Huntar. Granted, that the only evidence of in situ ceramic remains in the architecture comes from the Ofrendas Gallery. The extreme low frequency of Janabarriu ceramics in the Ofrendas Gallery suggests their different nature when compared to the Ofrendas or Draganiano styles that are heavily loaded with zoomorphic and anthropomorphic figures. Even though the Plaza Mayor can be considered a ceremonial area, the difference between its size and that of the Circular Plaza suggests than not all the participants of ceremonies in the quadrangular plaza were allowed to enter to the circular plaza. It is probable but not conclusive that the midden represents evidence of feasting activities carried out in a space other than the Circular Plaza, probably the Plaza Mayor. Nevertheless is necessary to be cautious. Even thought the Plaza Mayor seems to be an interesting candidate there is no evidence that links the Plaza with the Midden deposits other than educated assumptions. But, why would the authorities of Chavn have invested in holding large feasts? In Chapter 2 I illustrated how the ceremonial centers populating the Andes during the Late Formative shared a basic iconographic set that has been characterized as chavinoid or cupisnicoid. Richard Burger has suggested a peer polity interaction among ceremonial centers during the Early and Middle Formative and John Rick and Silvia Kembel have argued for the presence of a competitive condition among ceremonial centers during this period (Burger 1988; Kembel and Rick 2004; Rick 2005). Competition is one of the many ways that peer polity interaction can manifest itself (Renfrew and Cherry 1986). The reason for this competitive process lies in the need to gain prestige in order for the survival of the belief system sponsored by authorities. Prestige is connected to reputation; reputation is internalized by a social group that develops acceptance or rejection towards the religious system that is materialized in the ceremonial center that possesses prestige, competition for prestige consists of rivalry for continual public recognition by supporters [] vying for prestige is the equivalent of competing for people or their labor, power and support (Clark and Blake 1996:260). Translating this to the case of a ceremonial center, competition could increase a centers prestige in order to lure more people into their religious system. In most cases newcomers would contribute economically to the center in the form of labor or offerings. Individuals had to decide which center to support or contribute to. Why were these social systems inclined to ally with any center? The answer to this question is derived from the

142

definition of the concept of power. Power can be understood as the ability to do or influence something or anything, or to operate upon a person or thing, it is the probability that one actor within the social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests (Weber 1978:53). The capacity to influence different ceremonial centers was also responsible for a centers prestige. Ceremonial centers presumably were initiating newcomers into their religious cult (Kembel and Rick 2004; Rick 2005); this model indicates that elites were arriving at Chavn de Huntar in order to be initiated in a belief system that would give them legitimate authority and therefore rightful power. The system was supported on the strategic manipulation of traditional concepts (Rick 2005:3) such as shamanism. Authority emerged in Chavin as a result of this manipulation that in a sense would have created a collective consciousness among members of the belief system some aspects of Chavn iconography and perhaps ritual activity derive from shamanistic origins, but it is doubtful that this monument and its features can be seen as a result of system-serving activities of a problem solving group of shamans. I believe that the familiarity of shamanism, and its pre-existing acknowledgement of human contact with powerful natural elements is a credible foundation for arguments that those involved with Chavn practice (priests at the site, inductees into the cult) could be imbued with nature-derived powers, or perhaps even descendant from powerful natural ancestors (Rick 2005:80) According to Rick (Rick 2005), the use of drugs may have served to present an alternative reality in which the connections with nature-derived powers and the relationship with powerful ancestors would appear real and legitimate. In this regard, authority is legitimized through the manipulation of ancient practices; people from different places would have traveled to Chavn in order to participate in the system (Rick 2005). A major issue for this Chavn strategy would have been how to materialize power and prestige in a competitive environment. DeMarrais et al. (DeMarrais, et al. 1996) have argued that power and authority can be materialized through ceremonial events, symbolic objects, public monuments and writing. In the case of Chavn, obviously, writing has to be left out as a materialization of power that was lacking. Nonetheless, at Chavn de Huntar the impressive architecture can be considered by itself a statement of authority, and as previously discussed the plazas served as places where attendees to ceremonies gathered, witnessed and participated in events prepared by Chavn authorities. In this regard, food events can be considered one of the activities sponsored by Chavn authorities as a part of their political strategy. Supra-household feasting

1 4 3

provides an opportunity for display of success as it implies an effective organization of labor as well as the presence of a well-supported economic base, trying to impress attendees means obtaining and preparing labor intensive foods, drinks, serving vessels, prestige items and ritual items (Hayden 2001:30). As expensive as the organization and practice of feasting activities may have been for the authorities of Chavn, they had an adaptive value; adaptive values are referred to behavior that generates some practical benefit for survival, reproduction, health or standard of living (Hayden 2001:28). In a context of regional competition, any possible displays of success are a good way to advertise the benefits of a system of beliefs, especially when trying to convince others to be part of it. Numerous aspects of feasting operate as public counting and ordering devices, which in turn reduce the vagueness of social and political situation by promoting social comparison. For example, depending upon the quantity and quality or resources mobilized for communal feasts and the frequency which they are mobilized, feasting can be a quantitative measure of the abilities of the host as an efficient, skilful, vital and generous leader (Potter 2000:472) Sponsored feasts can serve as environments in which ritual and knowledge are controlled and also manipulated. Jar frequencies suggest that along with large amounts of food, large amounts of beverages were consumed, alcoholic beverages being likely as they are pervasive in world-wide feasting ceremonies (Blitz 1993; DeBoer 2001; Dietler and Hayden 2001; Hayden 1995; Jennings, et al. 2005; Potter 2000). Jars are to be the more appropriate recipients for liquids as they have necks and restricted mouth orifices which are useful for keeping the contents and are adaptations for containing liquids (Rice 1987). Bone tubes provide evidence of the presence of psychoactive drugs involved in feasting activities. Feasting at Chavn de Huntar was a way to materialize power. It was an avenue for authorities propaganda, a way to control ritual knowledge and entice people into the system, an opportunity for display of success. It was part of the convincing system created in order to attract followers and contributions that came with them. Feasts and other give-aways are settings where rank is made clear by serving order like present-day pachamancas, the order in which a person get his/her food and the amount of food given directly reflects rank in most cases. Feasting was a conscious, important way of creating a competitive advantage that allowed the authorities of Chavn de Huntar to maintain the prestige of the ceremonial center and the flow of practitioners and their contributions to the site. I propose that Chavn elites sponsored feasts to gain prestige and attract followers. Feasting may have occurred in the rectangular plaza or even in the circular plaza of the ceremonial center as they seem to be the

144

most appropriate places. But others areas still unknown may have been the focus of these activities. Authorities provided food and beverages to elites that traveled to Chavn to be inducted into the Chavn religious system, developed by the authorities of the center in order to self-serve themselves from it.

7.2.2

The Wacheqsa Sector as a domestic area Before recent research in the Wacheqsa sector, domestic activities were only

suggested but never confirmed. Bennett and Tello (Bennett 1944; Tello 1960) thought that the deposits they excavated were formed by domestic refuse but as I have shown, they only excavated the Midden analytical unit. Other documentation of the presence of a domestic area in the Wacheqsa sector came from Rosa Fung, who stated that the northern edge of the Wacheqsa sector was a domestic area located on top of a pre-Chavn occupation During our last excavations at Chavn de Huantar, in domestic areas, we have found Kotosh-Kotosh ceramics in deep strata, but it cannot be said that the superimposed Chavn ceramics descend from them (Fung 1975:199). It is important to point out that at the time Rosa Fung excavated at Chavn de Huntar, the Urabarriu phase had not yet been recognized. The ceramic sequence at Chavn was based on the vessels found in the Ofrendas Gallery and the Rocas Canal, and with correlations mainly with the Kotosh sequence at Hunuco (Lumbreras and Amat 1965, Lumbreras 1972, Izumi 1962). Burgers excavations retrieved imported Kotosh-Kotosh vessels associated with Urabarriu ceramics, indicating that ceramics identified by Burger as Urabarriu were probably contemporary with the Kotosh-Kotosh phase at Kotosh. I concur with Burger when he states that Urabarriu and Kotosh-Kotosh phases were contemporaries. This in turn would indicate that the domestic units reported by Rosa Fung were actually Chavn rather than pre Chavn. In describing the extent of the earliest domestic settlement at Chavn de Huntar, Richard Burger stated that The residential zone nearest the old temple extended to the banks of the Huacheqsa River. Part of the sector nearest the monumental architecture was probably occupied by the people responsible for the religious activities and the construction and maintenance of the buildings (Burger 1992: 159) The evidence recovered in my research indicates that Fung and Burger are correct in stating the existence of an early domestic area in the northern area of the Wacheqsa sector, a domestic area that occupied the north half of the Wacheqsa sector as suggested by the

1 4 5

extension of the Early Platforms analytical unit. But who were the inhabitants and what was their relationship with the temple? As quoted previously, Burger has suggested that people living in this area were either responsible for the religious activities or responsible for the construction and maintenance of the temple. This statement has two inferences, on one hand, it can be understood that authorities lived in this sector, and on the other, that the laborers lived there. If authorities lived in the Wacheqsa sector during the Urabarriu phase, one can expect the presence of expensive constructions, high quality ceramics and a fair quantity of prestige items. Ceramics recovered in the Early Platforms are not sumptuous; the great majority is formed by small ollas sin cuello. House foundations have not been found but a fair number of wall fragments made of clay have been retrieved suggesting that house foundations were made of nonresistant materials. Food consumption was at the household level given the small predominant mode of osc and bowls existing in the ceramic assemblage, inhabitants had access to special materials such as shells and obsidian, but there is an absence of chrysocolla and anthracite artifacts. During Janabarriu times the situation changed drastically and the Stone Room analytical unit provides relevant information. Structures are ubiquitous above the early Urabarriu domestic settlement; they were made of two or three rows of quadrangular mediumsized rocks. It seems that clay or mud was still used for construction of walls given the evidence recovered. There is an increase in obsidian artifacts and the additional presence of chrysocolla and anthracite artifacts previously unseen in the Early Platforms analytical Unit. It is important to mention that chrysocolla and copper ore were present as raw materials which is another difference from contrast to the Early Platforms analytical unit. Certainly the raw material evidence is too limited to conclusively state that artisans were living in these structures but it is a possibility that needs to be seriously considered. Nevertheless it can be said that inhabitants of the stone structures had more access to special items such as obsidian and anthracite mirrors as well as to raw materials like chrysocolla and copper ore. As previously explained the ceramic assemblage analyzed from this analytical unit indicates that food was consumed on a larger scale than the food consumed at the Early Platforms. The inhabitants of the Stone Rooms analytical unit had durable structures and had access to items such as anthracite, chrysocolla and copper ore that were not present in the Early Platforms analytical unit. The appearance of previously unknown archaeological materials in the Stone Rooms analytical unit is contemporary with the Black and White stage. During this stage the

146

ceremonial center peaked in terms of space utilization and monumentality. This is represented by major transformations imposed on the landscape in order to accommodate new structures, and is best exemplified in the modification of the Mosna River course and the leveling of the terrain for the construction of the Plaza Mayor (Kembel and Rick 2004; Rick 2005). But, why to be located in the Wacheqsa sector? The Wacheqsa sector was part of the ceremonial center, located in a tinkuy, a geographical point where two rivers meet. Tinkuys have been interpreted as important landmarks in Andean landscapes (Burger 1992; Lumbreras 1989). The Wacheqsa sector is also located in an area that can easily be monitored from the top of Buildings C and D. In this regard, Kembel and Rick have argued that constant construction at the ceremonial center could have been a representation of the Chavn rulers prestige and power and that it was part of the well-crafted, convincing system created by the rulers (Kembel and Rick 2004). Analogously, the continuous display of activities related to the maintenance of the ceremonial center in the Wacheqsa area could have served the same ends. Given the growing nature of the ceremonial center, it would not be surprising to find evidence of a permanent support population living in the Wacheqsa area. Among the various questions that may be asked regarding the relationship between these inhabitants and the authorities of the ceremonial center I would like to select two. What were the social statuses of the people living in this area, and what social mechanisms did the authorities of Chavin utilize in order to exert control over them? Residents of the Wacheqsa sector were occupying an area immediately adjacent to the monumental core, an area enclosed by the Wacheqsa and Mosna Rivers. As previously mentioned, this fact allowed elites of the ceremonial center close control over the activities developed in the Wacheqsa area. Residents were probably attached to the ceremonial center, fulfilling the needs of those who were in charge of it. Inhabitants of the Wacheqsa sector

probably came voluntarily to Chavn after being enticed by a convincing system developed by elites a strategy that John Rick calls a devotional system. In this devotional system the societies individuals were deeply committed to, and willing to invest resources in a temple center because of their intrinsic adherence to the religious concepts on which the system rests (Rick In press). According to John Rick, this system would have served for gaining local support rather than attracting elites from distant areas.

1 4 7

Ritual at Chavn was not only directed toward the delivery of information from priests to recipients, as in oracular consultation, but also in ceremonies meant to increase the devotion of a supporting populace. In addition, the site served as a convincing system particularly aimed at a small but key group of initiates to the cult, of both local and distant origin. (Rick 2005:108, emphasis added) Indeed, the devotional system hypothesis is useful at the local level because it explains how people were mobilized to work for the temple. This convincing system would have produced different results according to the specific material conditions and motivations of the people who were exposed to this system and the emergence of a devotional system should be evident in areas local to the temple. This system could be related to a persuasive theory of labor control that Focus[es] on the proactive role of nascent elites who use a variety of strategies such as the assumption of ideological power, cooption of separate divine descent, the control and strategic redistribution of exotic goods, the creation of economies of scale, and so forth. (Stanish 2003:224) The Wacheqsa area is enclosed by the junction of the Wacheqsa and Mosna rivers, which provides a space of physical confinement for the people established there (Burger 1992). It also provides a space where the authorities can observe the inhabitants activities, perhaps with control in mind. Arnold suggested that, As rising elites begin to accrue power, privilege and status, they draw increasingly economically dependent sectors of the population into important production roles of labor intensive group activities. If rising elites learn to control the information or technology critical to economic success and thus orchestrate networks of interdependencies that limit power outside their small circle, then nonelites become marginalized from positions of substantial political or economic influence (Arnold 1995: 208) In Chavn, the religious was a specialized institution. It acted not only in matters of religion, but also assumed the traditional roles and responsibilities of both a political, as well as an economic system. The Chavn system was therefore a multiple system as it was comprised of the functions of segregated systems in one agglomeration, the core of which was fixed in the religious aspect but that also comprised the other institutions functions. While these institutional activities are present in every social system, the preeminence of one above the others gives a system its specific identity. Employing the multiple, the power structure in the Chavn system acted primarily to normalize and validate the interests of

148

authorities. Its tools for enforcement and propagation of the power structure primarily included deceptive actions, such as the abovementioned devotional system (to attract workers), the deliberate physical location of laborers in a controllable area, the creation of an outer world through impressive monumental architecture and the creation of a different convincing system meant to entice authorities or elites from other areas. Going a little further in my interpretation, I could hypothesize that under Chavns multiple system, the rulers visual control and the strategic location of laborers would both reinforce the hierarchical relationship between the elites and the ruled and also create a compelling environment in which laborers would feel bound to increase their productivity. Stanish noted that in the absence of pressures or inducements to the contrary, households substantially underproduce and underconsume relative to their economic capacity (Stanish 2003: 23). Elites managed labor, information and transportation. They also chose what to give and what to place in circulation, therefore subjecting people to their authority. As mentioned before, there were different facets of the Chavn multiple system, one of those facets being the economic one. The inclusion of laborers in an internal circulation network of prestige-building events within the system would produce and reinforce the dependent relationship between workers and rulers but, in return, would have also provided workers with a different status in comparison with those who do not participate in this internal system. That would explain the presence of maritime resources, obsidian, chrysocolla, anthracite and copper ore in the Early Platforms and Stone Rooms analytical units. During the Janabarriu phase, the inhabitants of the Wacheqsa sector were part of at a craft specialist establishment located in the northern half of it.

These theoretically driven reconstructions have the purpose of putting the domestic settlements of the Wacheqsa sector and its midden in a broader anthropological perspective in relation with the ceremonial center. The Wacheqsa sector was not isolated from what happened at the monumental core, rather these two sectors were intimately related as I have tried to explain in the previous pages. As I have mentioned in this chapter and in the previous one, the analytical units identified in the Wacheqsa sector not only are spatially but also chronologically segregated. Each of the analytical units is associated with a specific ceramic assemblage which has chronological implications. Early Platforms and Water Flood analytical units are associated with ceramics related to the Urabarriu ceramic phase, while Midden, Late

1 4 9

Platforms and Stone Rooms units are associated with Janabarriu ceramic phase. These two ceramic phases were previously defined by Burger (Burger 1984; Burger 1998). As mentioned in Chapter 2, Burger placed the Urabarriu phase between 850-460 BC and the Janabarriu phase between 390-200 BC. He also proposed a third phase located between the Urabarriu and Janabarriu ones, with a range of 460-390 named Chakinani. I have not found any analytical unit exclusively associated with ceramics identified with this particular ceramic phase which leads me to suspect that the Chakinani phase is not a good chronological marker, especially after examining the carbon dates obtained from the Wacheqsa sector. In the next section I discuss a set of 10 radiocarbon dates obtained from the Wacheqsa sector, attempting to shed light on the absolute chronological markers of the occupations identified in the Wacheqsa sector, as well as their associated materials. I believe these dates are highly relevant, not only for the relationship between the ceremonial center and the Wacheqsa sector, but also for the overall chronology of Chavn, the ceramic sequence and the regional relationship between Chavn de Huntar and other sites from the Andean Formative.

7.2.3

Radiocarbon Dates Ten carbon samples were submitted for carbon dating with results falling within the

range of 1200 800 BC for the Pre Black-and-White/Urabarriu phase and 800-500 BC for the Black and White/Janabarriu phase. These dates have been calibrated using C14 calibration software called OxCal V 4.0 (http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=oxcal.html) and the results are presented using a probability range of 99.7% (three sigmas). The curve used for calibration was the south hemisphere SHCal 04 recommended by Leon (Leon 2006). In the next few pages I will revise these dates in relation with each prehistoric analytical unit identified.

7.2.3.1 Early Platforms Four dates have been obtained from the Early Platforms analytical unit. The oldest one (GX-31647) has a range of 1209-969 BC and it was obtained from a hearth located on top of sterile soil in unit WQ-6. This hearth represents the oldest occupation of the Wacheqsa sector. The ceramics associated with this hearth can be related to those identified as belonging to the Urabarriu phase by Burger (1984, 1998), especially a bottle rim that is identical to type B1 in Burgers typology (figures 175-177).

150

The second date (AA-75385) obtained from the Early Platforms analytical unit comes from a layer (layer 5) characterized by a semi-compact coarse sand mixed with medium and large sized angular rocks located in WQ-1. This layer has been dated between 1000 and 833 BC and the ceramics recovered there are similar to the ones identified by Richard Burger as belonging to the Urabarriu phase (figure 178) (Burger 1984; Burger 1998) A third date (AA-75386) was obtained from the top of a clay floor (floor 3) associated with a zig-zag wall located in the northern edge of the Wacheqsa sector in Unit WQ-2. The date obtained falls within the range of 895-794 BC. A ceramic sherd that does not resemble any Janabarriu-related type was found on top of this layer in direct association with the carbon sample (figure 179). A fourth date (AA-75387) was obtained from a clayish and sandy semi compact soil mixed with abundant small sized cobbles and angular rocks, located in WQ-4 (layer 6). The date obtained falls within the range of 836-538 BC. As the rest of the strata dated from this analytical unit, there are no Janabarriu-like ceramics present in its ceramic assemblage, only Urabarriu- like ones (figures 72, 180-181). As previously stated there are no Janabarriu ceramics present in any of the strata recorded from this analytical unit. These dates seem fairly consistent with the exception of date AA-75387 which has too broad a range that overlaps with the Stone Rooms analytical unit located stratigraphically above the Early Platforms analytical unit. Stratigraphic relationships position this layer - where date AA-74387 was retrieved- below the Stone Rooms analytical unit which as I will show has been dated between 794 413 BC and has an overwhelming presence of Janabarriu like ceramics. Layer 6 in WQ4 is located stratigraphically below Layer 3 in WQ8. Layer 3 in WQ8 is part of the same stone architectural group present in WQ4 that is also present in WQ3 and WQ-6 which has been identified as the Stone Rooms analytical unit. There is one layer between the floor associated with the stone architectural group and layer 6 in WQ4. Two units stratigraphically located one above the other may overlap in terms of carbon date ranges but cannot overlap in terms of use, especially when there is another stratum between them. As McBird stated Radiocarbon dates from the Early Horizon are particularly hard to interpret due to two important short-term increases in the C14:C12 ratio peaking at 370 and 730 BC (Bird 1987:297). These short term increases in the aforementioned ratio create a horizontal plateau that prevents more precise dates within this time range (730-370 BC).

1 5 1

Consequently given the ranges of the other deposits dated in this analytical unit and the range of the Stone Rooms analytical unit, a terminal date of 800 BC for the construction/use of the Early Platforms seems to be appropriate. Dates obtained from the Early Platform analytical and stratigraphic relationships indicate that it was probably formed between 1200 and 800 BC. Based on this date, it is logical to state the Early Platform analytical unit is associated with Urabarriu-related ceramics and was occupied before the ceremonial centers Black and White/Janabarriu stage.

7.2.3.2 Water Flood One date (AA-75383) was obtained from the earliest water flood episode and fell within the range of 900-798 BC. I would have expected for this deposit to be in the range of GX-31647 (1209 -969 BC) as it sits on top of sterile soil. The explanation that I can offer is that the area where the Water Flood analytical unit is located had a previous use and later transformed into some sort of canal or water repository, probably for water coming from the Wacheqsa River. The ceramics associated with this deposit resemble the ones identified as belonging to the Urabarriu phase by Burger (figure 182) (Burger 1984; Burger 1998)

7.2.3.3 Midden Three dates were obtained from this analytical unit, dating it within the range of 800500 BC. Date AA75389 gave a range of 811-551 BC and was retrieved from WQ-7, SIII, U4, L8. The ceramics associated with this deposit are similar to the ones identified by Burger as Janabarriu (figure 183) (Burger 1984; Burger 1998). Date AA75384 falls within the range of 791-521 BC. It was retrieved from WQ7, SIV, U4, L14. The ceramics associated to this deposit are similar to the ones identified by Burger as Janabarriu (figure 184) (Burger 1984; Burger 1998) and Date AA75382 falls within the range of 770- 486 BC. It was retrieved from WQ7-SIV, U4, L10. The ceramics associated to this deposit are similar to the ones identified by Burger as Janabarriu (figure 185) (Burger 1984; Burger 1998) Dates point towards the formation of the Midden analytical unit between 800 and 500 BC, establishing the feasting activities inferred from this unit as contemporary with the architectural Black and White stage of the ceremonial center.

152

7.2.3.4 Stone Rooms One date (AA75390) has been retrieved from this analytical unit. It came from a deposit located on top of a floor associated to a stone room alley located in unit WQ-8. This deposit has been dated within the range of 790-510 BC and the ceramics associated are similar to the ones identified by Burger as Janabarriu (figure 186) (Burger 1984; Burger 1998)

7.2.3.5 Late Platforms One date (AA 75388) was retrieved from this analytical unit. It came from WQ7,SIII, U1 layer 9 which was a very compact surface whose fill was composed of a cobble fill. This stratum had a special character as it was the one with major density of decorated ceramic sherds and therefore gave me indications of its relative chronological position. The ceramics retrieved from this layer were Janabarriu-related ceramics although there is particular punctuated sherd that may be Urabarriu related (figure 187). This deposit gave a date of 980 772 BC. It is most likely dating the first construction episodes of the Late Platforms analytical unit given its stratigraphic depth. This early date is quite surprising. I would have expected for these platforms to be at least contemporary with the early dates of the Midden analytical unit. These dates may indicate a partial overlapping between the Late Platform analytical unit and the Early Platforms one. This date does not mean that the Late Platform analytical unit functioned during the range established by this date as the deposit dated is one of the earliest ones in stratigraphic terms. Upper strata in this analytical unit are located at the same stratigraphic level as deposits in the Midden and even Stone Rooms analytical units. What is certainly remarkable is such an early date for Janabarriu related ceramics that might have overlapped in time with the last portion of the Urabarriu phase. It would not be surprising to find late Urabarriu contexts contemporary with early Janabarriu ones as people do not stop producing types and designs in an abrupt way, transitional times are the ones in which early and late styles meet and coexist together. However caution needs to be exercised regarding this date until more contexts in this analytical unit are dated in order to corroborate this early chronological marker. The dates from the Wacheqsa sector point towards the segregation of two ceramic components distributed in five analytical units. Urabarriu ceramics have been found in the Early Platforms and Water Flood analytical units and these analytical units have a chronological range of 1200-800 BC. Dates obtained from the Wacheqsa sector put the earlier of these two components at Chavn de Huntar as early as 1200 BC which confirms Rick and

1 5 3

Kembels assertion of the antiquity of Chavn de Huntar (Kembel 2001; Kembel and Rick 2004; Rick 2005, 2006). A close examination of the Urabarriu dates published by Burger will also support this claim. Dates obtained from excavations outside the ceremonial center, ISGS493 (1446-802 BC), ISGS-486 (1122-801 BC) and UCR-694 (1133-746 BC), although problematic because of their broad standard deviation, are quite consistent with the Urabarriu related dates from the Wacheqsa sector. Date UCR-705 (906-411 BC) is problematic given the broadness of its standard deviation falling right into what I consider the chronological limits of the Janabarriu phase. Date ISGS-510 (361-272 BC) falls right in what I consider post-Chavn times and has been rejected by Burger (Burger 1981). But if we only consider the 1200 BC limit for Burgers Urabarriu phase, this is a phase that lasts at least 400 years (figure 188). There would have to have been an unusual stability within the social processes occurring at Chavn de Huntar to maintain the ceramic unity of a phase for that long. Lumbreras suggested that the ceramic styles defined as Urabarriu are not understood in detail and that there probably is more than one phase in the Urabarriu assemblage excavated by Burger which would make sense given the notably long 400 year period (or 700 year period if we consider the outer limits of sample ISGS-493): it is evident that the Urabarriu phase as presented by Burger is unsatisfactorily known and certainly contains components of more than one phase that are susceptible to be analyzed (Lumbreras 1993:354). Nevertheless, these dates obtained in the site periphery need to be related to dates obtained inside the monumental core to

establish the absolute chronology of the pre-Black and White architectural stages identified by Silvia Kembel (Kembel 2001) Janabarriu-related ceramics appear in the Wacheqsa archaeological record in three analytical units: Midden, Late Plaforms and Stone Rooms. Unfortunately the Janabarriu dates fall within the calibration plateau mentioned above making it difficult to precisely determine the overall date range. Nevertheless the dates and their ranges all come before the 400-200 BC span established by Richard Burger as the chronological range for the Janabarriu phase at Chavn de Huntar. In a broader sense, it can be stated that the Midden was formed between 800 and 500 BC while the Stone Room analytical unit probably dates to around 790-510 BC. The Wacheqsa dates establish Janabarriu-related ceramics as contemporary with the Black and White Stage as defined by Kembel (Kembel 2001). It also puts the major topographical transformation event in the Wacheqsa sector contemporary with the Black and White Stage. Feasting activities identified at the Midden analytical unit and the Janabarriu domestic settlement identified were also contemporary with the Black and White stage. As

154

suggested in Chapter 2, I believe it is fair to equate the Black and White stage with the Janabarriu ceramic phase as dates indicate that contexts associated with Janabarriu related ceramics are contemporary with the maximum construction effort at Chavn de Huntar represented in the Black and White stage. Also in Chapter 2 I explored the relocation of the Janabarriu ceramic phase that has been explicitly suggested by Bischoff and Inokuchi (Bischof 1998; Inokuchi 1998) and suggested by a close examination of the dates and ceramic assemblages recovered in the sites of Kotosh, Garagay, La Pampa, Pacopampa and Kuntur Wasi (Izumi and Sono 1963; Onuki 1995; Ravines, et al. 1982; Seki, et al. 2006; Terada 1979). This relocation of Janabarriu is not surprising considering the limitations in the original dating by Burger who stated that the principal weakness of the hypothetical [Chavn ceramic] sequence comes from inconsistent readings on the Janabarriu samples (Burger 1981:595)

7.2.4

Regional chronological implications

Chavn has been understood either as a Mother Culture, as a derivation from Cupisnique or as synthesis from of north and central coast developments (Burger 1988; Burger 1992; Larco 1945; Tello 1942). Dates obtained from the Wacheqsa sector and even the Urabarriu dates obtained by Richard Burger put Chavn in a contemporary relationship with most of the centers of the north and central coast, at variance with what Richard Burger has previously stated: An evaluation of the radiocarbon measurements available suggests that the ceremonial centers of Caballo Muerto, Haldas, and Garagay were prospering on the coast of Peru between 1200 B.C. and 900 B.C. In contrast, the earliest phase of the religious center at Chavin de Huantar is estimated as lasting from 850 B.C. to 460 B.C., on the basis of two sets of radiocarbon analyses28 (Burger 1981:596) Granted the U-shaped building architectural tradition seems to come very early in the Early Formative according to the dates of La Florida and Mina Perdida (Burger and Gordon 1998; Patterson 1985), but nevertheless, dates from Cardal and Garagay place them roughly at the same time that the Urabarriu phase at Chavn de Huntar in the Middle Formative. In the North Coast the situation is no different. As mentioned in Chapter 2, a reevaluation of carbon dates made by Bischof points towards the placement of Huaca de Los
28

However, it is important to indicate that Burger used uncalibrated carbon dates in making these assertions. The use of uncalibrated dates adds a different level of complexity that has to be taken into consideration as it assumes that the level of atmospheric C14 has always remained constant. The calibration of radiocarbon dates have a consistent aging effect (Zilkowski et al 1994).

1 5 5

Reyes into the Middle Formative rather than into the Early Formative as postulated by Pozorski (Bischof 1998; Pozorski 1975); the architectural critique of Conklin (Conklin 1985) also reinforces Bischofs argument. Huaca de los Reyes or to a larger extent the architectural complex of Caballo Muerto- has been understood as the typical, and possibly the most important Cupisnique center during the Andean Formative. There are grounds to see Chavn de Huntar as contemporary with Huaca de los Reyes and that the chavinoid murals and sunken plaza from Huaca de los Reyes did not precede, but were contemporary with Chavn de Huntar. If Chavn was contemporary with Cupisnique, Larcos hypothesis of Chavn as a product of Cupisnique diffusion does not stand. Late Archaic ceremonial centers as well as Early Formative centers from Casma and the central coast contradict Tellos hypothesis of Chavn as a Mother Culture. It is pretty clear that Chavn was not the source from where civilization radiated but is also clear that Chavn was not a derivative of Cupisnique or a product of north coast and central coast population displacement as suggested by Larco and Burger respectively (Burger 1981, 1988; Larco 1945). In this regard my findings are in agreement with Kembel when she states that Neither a precursor to the monumental centers of the late Initial Period [Middle Formative] and the early Early Horizon [Late Formative], nor the late consequence of their collapse, the monumental center at Chavn de Huntar appears to have been coeval to these centers, and part of a network of centers that declined by the middle of the first millennium B.C. (Kembel 2001) The dates from the Wacheqsa sector indicate that Chavn de Huntar emerges at the onset of the Middle Formative, contemporary with the complex monumental architecture of the north highlands, north coast and central coast.

In this Chapter I have provided evidence regarding the use of the Wacheqsa sector as a domestic settlement and waste area for suprahousehold eating and drinking activities during the Middle and Late Formative periods. I have located these activities not only in spatial but also in chronological terms which in turn label the Wacheqsa Sector as a multicomponent area within the ceremonial center of Chavn de Huntar. I have argued that these activities have implications for the understanding of power relationships in Chavn de Huntar, one aimed towards local populations and the other towards foreign elites. The dating of these activities is also tremendously important for the chronological location of Chavn within the Andean

156

Formative and for the understanding of processes of regional interaction during this period. I expand these conclusions in the next Chapter, hoping that they will instigate further debates regarding Chavn de Huntar and the Andean Formative in the future.

1 5 7

CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS

My research presents a new methodology for the investigation of intrasite space organization of stratigraphic components recorded through sampling programs. I have

sampled 132 m (0.9%) of a total population of 1.4 ha, recorded 200 strata, and 23 features. These elements have been grouped into eight analytical units which encompass three chronological phases. I have demonstrated that careful sampling programs can be extremely advantageous in investigating intrasite variation, in particular when all stratigraphic record is modeled using computer aid design (CAD) which allows the spatial reconstruction of stratigraphic spatial distribution in a flexible model. I emphasize the word flexible as the model can be observed from different visual perspectives that provide views that in many cases are unachievable in the real world. As emphasized in this dissertation, stratigraphic modeling is particularly useful at the level of intrasite examination of deposits and the relationships among themselves, in particular when identical strata are identified in different areas within the site. Sampling programs allow this identification and CAD modeling tools allow the spatial reconstruction of this relationship which has been recorded in a dispersed way during the sampling program. Why is this important? The advantages of this joint methodology are particularly relevant not only in as a research tool but also as a conservation one. Complete site excavation is a problematic endeavor, not only in financial aspects but also in conservation ones. In this regard sampling programs can be particularly efficient in extracting information when area excavations are not feasible due to financial constraints or conservation issues. It is necessary to emphasize the archaeologists responsibility in protecting archaeological sites and in many cases this protection implies restrictive excavations. The site of Chavn de Huntar is part of the UNESCO world heritage list and therefore special care had to be taken in carrying my research, being this one of the reasons why I decided to sample the sector instead of planning for large area excavations. Currently a Management Plan is being elaborated for Chavn, plan that among many things- will regulate what can be excavated and how it can be excavated. With the increase number of management plans being developed for different archaeological sites across the world, more restrictions will be enforced by these plans, and sampling programs emerge not only as excavation tools but also as conservation one. But with each sampling program there is a risk. Large sampling programs face the problem of organizing

158

large data sets that in many cases are spatially dispersed. For regional sampling programs, digital modeling tools such as GIS are most recommended given its potential for working at a regional level, but at the site level and specially at the subsurface level, CAD modeling is the most adequate three dimensional modeling tool as allows the modeling of small strata and large strata with equal level of detail and flexibility and allows the management of large stratigraphic data sets obtained through sampling than can be better comprehended with the used of CAD modeling technologies. But most important, the conclusions I present in this chapter can be tested in the field as 99% of the Wacheqsa sector is untouched and awaiting further careful research. With the information extracted through careful purposive and systematic sampling, together with the three dimensional stratigraphic modeling, I have segregated eight spatial analytical units, five prehistoric and three modern ones. I have demonstrated that all prehistoric analytical units (Early Platforms, Water Flood, Midden, Stone Rooms and Late Platforms) show indexes of high diversity according to the calculated Boone index for each deposit. But there is variability within this diversity. Deposits in each analytical unit in spite of showing nearly similar values of diversity reflect variation in their archaeological assemblages. I used bivariate kernel density estimations in order to investigate ceramic modalities for each prehistoric analytical unit and comprehend the nature of the activities developed in each unit cross referencing this line of evidence with the distribution of archaeological materials in each prehistoric unit. Using these methods, I have determined that during 1200-800 BC the north section of the Wacheqsa sector was the focus of a settlement inhabited by people whose ceramic assemblage can roughly be labeled as Urabarriu. They were cooked in small ollas sin cuello, ate on small bowls, and had access to exotic resources such as shells, chrysocolla and obsidian. The hypothesis of a settlement located in this section was previously suggested by Wendell Bennett, Julio C. Tello, Rosa Fung, Richard Burger and Luis Lumbreras (Bennett 1944; Burger 1984; Burger 1998; Fung 1975, 2006; Lumbreras 1989; Tello 1960) and my research has demonstrated that there was an occupation of domestic nature judging by the archaeological materials recovered. Towards the end of the Urabarriu phase around 1000-800 BC, the southern portion of the Wacheqsa sector was used as a water flooding area, probably canalizing water coming from the Wacheqsa River, as inferred by Tello (Tello 1960). The ceramics found in this canal can be related to the ceramics defined by Richard Burger as Urabarriu. These two analytical units encompass the Urabarriu phase at the Wacheqsa sector

1 5 9

that spanned from 1200 to 800 BC according to the associated carbon dates. Then, approximately by 800 BC, there was a reconfiguration of the occupation in the Wacheqsa sector. Inhabitants cooked their aliments in large ollas, used medium sized bowls as serving vessels, built their structures using solid foundations, and continued to have access to shells, chrysocolla, and obsidian, but also had access to copper ore and anthracite mirrors. Chrysocolla and cooper ore found in these structures are present in the form of raw materials. It is tempting to hypothesize that people living in the Wacheqsa sector around 800 BC were craftspeople producing artifacts required by the authorities of Chavn, it would not be surprising at all given the geographic convenience of the Wacheqsa sector for holding craftspeople as it is an area that could easily be monitored from the ceremonial center and it is conveniently close. I have hypothesized that the inhabitants of the Wacheqsa sector during Urabarriu and Janabarriu times were people affiliated with the ceremonial center, who were developing specifics activities yet to be determined. I base this assertion on the on the geographical division imposed by the Mosna and Wacheqsa rivers between areas inside and outside of the ceremonial center, the visual control that can be exerted from monumental core Buildings C and D, the evidence of structures and the evidence of food consumption represented in large cooking and serving vessels as well as the presence of faunal remains in the archaeological assemblage. Around the time of the Janabarriu domestic settlement, a large amount of garbage in the form of a large midden was discarded on top of the Urabarriu period canal. Large

cooking vessels, medium sized serving vessels, a large number of jars plus an unusually high density of faunal remains suggest that together these materials are the remains of supra household eating and drinking events. Additionally indirect evidence of psychoactive drug consumption during these events in the form of small polished bone tubes have been found associated with the elements mentioned above, probably related with the consumption of anadenanthera as suggested by other researchers (Rick 2006; Torres and Repke 2006). The ceramics recovered in the midden are related to the ceramic assemblage defined by Burger as Janabarriu, locating the Janabarriu phase at around 500-800 BC. There is no further archaeological occupation in the Wacheqsa sector in other prehistoric periods, although a handful of Huaraz and Recuay sherds were found in the agricultural land analytical unit. In terms of the relation of these analytical units and their phases with the architectural core, the Urabarriu occupation at the Wacheqsa sector cannot be equated yet with a specific

160

architectural stage at the monumental core. However, it can be stated that the Early Platforms and Water Flood analytical units are Pre-Black and White stage given the carbon dates available and their pre-Janabarriu ceramic assemblage; further dates from the monumental core will accurately relate the early architectural stages of the monumental core to the Urabarriu phase from the Wacheqsa sector. On the other hand, it is possible to correlate the Midden, Late Platforms and Stone Rooms analytical units to the Black and White stage at the monumental core. Dates from the Midden and Stone Rooms analytical units are consistent with the dates coming from Black and White structures at the monumental core. Also the occurrence of feasting activities during the Black and White stage is consistent with the change of emphasis in the monumental architecture, shifting the focus from small gallery patios and volumetric construction to large open areas in which rituals, ceremonies and feasts might have taken place but caution is needed in linking the feasting remains found in the midden with any of the plazas from Chavn. Although this hypothesis seems logical, there is no evidence of such activities found in any of the plazas, probably because of the heavy postChavn occupation of the Circular Plaza and the use of the Plaza Mayor as agricultural land for several centuries. The construction of the Late Platforms analytical unit started at the beginning of the Janabarriu phase based on one associated carbon date and the ceramic assemblage found in one of its deposits. The extreme low density values of archaeological materials precludes me from making more inferences other than to state that this analytical unit was kept clean for almost the whole duration of the Janabarriu phase. This was an intermediate area between the Stone Rooms and Midden analytical units, probably a small buffer zone between the residential area and the large midden deposit. The Midden, Stone Rooms and Late Platform analytical units constitute the Janabarriu phase deposits of the Wacheqsa sector. The correlation between the largest architectural project and the Janabarriu ceramic style(s) and its regional distribution serves to partially solve the problem regarding the disjunction between ceremonial architecture and Janabarriu-related ceramics (Kembel 2001; Kembel and Rick 2004). The ceramic assemblage that belongs to the Janabarriu phase is for the most part contemporary with the Black and White phase and represents a time of intense regional interaction that Burger has labeled as the Chavn Horizon. He placed this horizon chronologically between 400 and 200 BC, which as I showed in this dissertation is a time range that is definitely post-Chavn. Radiocarbon dates from the Wacheqsa sector indicate that Chavn de Huntar was contemporary with the Cupisnique settlements from the North Coast

1 6 1

and with the U-Shaped buildings from the central coast, not to mention the early architectural phases of Kuntur Wasi and Pacopampa. This contemporaniety requires a reevaluation of the concept of Burgers Chavn Horizon. Chavn de Huntar was neither the origin of social complexity in the Andes, nor a product of coastal migration nor a synthesis of early social developments derived from the north and central coast. There is new evidence that suggests a long settlement history that goes back to the Late Preceramic in La Banda (Wolf 2005)and in the modern town of Chavn de Huntar (Rick and Mesia 2006) which in turn indicates that Chavn de Huntar had a support population inhabiting the Conchucos valley before the Formative, a population that is likely to have been ancestral to those who constructed the ceremonial center of Chavn de Huntar. My research has also allowed me to propose that the existing ceramic sequence at Chavn de Huntar needs to be revised in the light of the new evidence available. Quantitatively and qualitatively more data has been retrieved since the late 1970s that needs to be included in a reconstruction of the existing ceramic sequence. The Urabarriu phase is not only older than thought by Burger but also broader in terms of duration. In general terms I have observed two broad ceramic assemblages in the Wacheqsa sector, Urabarriu and Janabarriu; the phase labeled as Chakinani is not present in the Wacheqsa sector. As mentioned in the precedent chapter, a refined subdivision of the ceramics belonging to the Urabarriu ceramic phase is needed in order to accurately assess ceramic changes in a 400 year period. As stated above, further ates from early architectural stages will help to illuminate the relationship within the Wacheqsa sector and the monumental core during the Urabarriu phase. But the Urabarriu ceramic phase is not the only one that needs to be revised. Excavations at the Circular Plaza (Lumbreras 1989) uncovered a layer formed by the abandonment of the ceremonial center associated with Janabarriu related ceramics on top of it (Lumbreras 1989).This evidence suggests the existence of a late Janabarriu component that is actually from after the formal ritual use of the ceremonial center. The segregation of Chavn and any post-Chavn Janabarriu components is important not only for understanding the ceramic sequence of Chavn de Huntar but also for the comprehension of the abandonment of Chavn as a ceremonial center and for the refinement of regional relative chronologies in order to accurately identify the late Janabarriu ceramic assemblages in other formative sites. In terms of political strategies, I propose that at the Wacheqsa sector there is evidence of two convincing strategies developed by the authorities of Chavn de Huntar, one aimed towards gaining local support and the other aimed towards gaining the support of elites from

162

out of Chavn. Large eating and drinking parties were material manifestations of power and prestige, a symbol of labor organization and access to resources. Chavn was offering wealth29, but different types of wealth to different classes of people. As proposed by Rick and Kembel (Kembel and Rick 2004; Rick 2005) elites from outside the Conchucos area came to Chavn in order to be initiated in the Chavn religious system and legitimize their authority in their local areas; they obtained the wealth of authority and authority became a commodity. On the other hand, inhabitants of the Wacheqsa sector worked for the ceremonial center, having access to resources most likely provided by the authorities of Chavn in exchange for their labor and in addition they obtained religious fulfillment by their participation in the maintenance of the temple. The management of these two strategies by the authorities of Chavn was the key to their success during the Middle and Late Formative. The results of the present research lead me to conclude that the Wacheqsa sector was occupied for 700 years (1200-500 BC) during the Middle and Late Formative periods and its occupation was contemporary with the ceremonial center of Chavn de Huntar. It ceased to be occupied and used as a dumping area by no later than 500 BC, which is consistent with estimates for the collapse of the ceremonial center (Kembel 2001; Kembel and Rick 2004; Rick 2005) . Further research on the Wacheqsa sector needs to segregate the different ceramic styles present in the Urabarriu and Janabarriu pottery assemblages. The vast sample size excavated from stratigraphically controlled deposits (6272 decorated sherds and 12017 diagnostic ones) provides an excellent opportunity to quantify, segregate and identify stylistic variation within each analytical units chronological level. Needless to say this analysis needs to be heavily quantitative in order to arrive at sound qualitative results. The same needs to be done with the 215 kilos of faunal remains recovered in order to make statistically significant assertions regarding intrasite consumption patterns in the Wacheqsa sector. These two lines of research will be crucial in the years to come to add more relevant information to that provided in this dissertation. The topics discussed in the present dissertation are important for the understanding of the social processes that occurred in the Wacheqsa sector and Chavn de Huntar during the Middle and Late Formative. Equally these topics are important for the general understanding of the Formative period. Hopefully some of the information presented here will shed light towards a better comprehension of this fascinating period in Andean prehistory.
29

I am using Stanishs definition of wealth what people will work for (Stanish 2004: 20)

1 6 3

APPENDIX A: ILLUSTRATIONS

164

Figure 01: Satellite photograph of Chavn de Huntar showing the different sectors of the site. The modern town is located at the north of the site

166

Figure 02: Map of the monumental core of Chavn de Huntar. Redrawn from Kembel 2001: Figure 1.3.

165

Figure 03: The Wacheqsa sector viewed from the site of Shallapa, west of the Chavn de Huntar.

Figure 04: The Wacheqsa sector viewed from the top of Mound D at Chavn de Huntar.

167

Figure 05: Garagay date associated to Janabarriu-like ceramics

Figure 06: Garagay dates (arrow indicates date associated with Janabarriu-like ceramics)

168

Figure 07: Examples of Janabarriu-like ceramics from the Wacheqsa sector

Figure 08: Chavn dates recovered by Burger. Black circle indicates the only Janabarriu valid date. Red circle indicates the other two Janabarriu dates. Blue circle indicates Chakinani dates. Note how the Janabarriu date is earlier than the Chakinani dates

169

Figure 09: Huars date GIF-1079

Figure 10: Dates from the site of Kotosh. Black circle encloses dates from the Kotosh-Chavn phase. Blue circle indicates dates from the Kotosh-Kotosh phase.

170

Figure 11: Dates from the site of La Pampa. Black circle encloses dates from La Pampa phase. The rest of the dates are from the Yesopampa phase.

Figure 12: Kunturwasi dates from the Kunturwasi phase.

Figure 13: Huars dates published by Lau (2002). Note how they occupied time slot between 390200 BC.

171

Figure 14: Map of the Wacheqsa sector

Figure 151: The modern town of San Pedro de Chavn, the Wacheqsa River and the northern portion of the Wacheqsa sector after the 1945 landslide.

172

Figure 16: Tellos excavations at the Wacheqsa sector. Note the pirka wall behind the workers as well as the two eucalyptus trees. At the background the quebrada of the Wacheqsa River can be seen2.
1

Tello Archive, MNAAHP, AT-595-2001.

Figure 17:3Terracing of the Wacheqsa sector. Note the cop plantations on its surface.

2 3

Tello Archive, MNAAHP, AT-594-2001. Tello Archive, MNAAHP, AT-595-2001

174

Figure 18: Agricultural fields delimited by pirkas4

Figure 19: Agricultural terraces. Notice the old chapel on top of Mound B. 5
4

Tello Archive, MNAAHP, AT-595-2001

175

Figure 20: Retention wall along the Wacheqsa River. Notice the houses on the Wacheqsa sector. 6

Figure 21: Retention wall along the Wacheqsa River 7

5 6

Tello Archive, MNAAHP, AT-595-2001 Tello Archive, MNAAHP, AT-595-2001 7 Tello Archive, MNAAHP, AT-595-2001

176

Figure 22: Map of Bennetts, Tellos and Fungs inferred excavations. Fungs units are inferred from personal communication.

Figure 23: Tellos excavation profile and associated ceramics recovered.

177

Figure 24: Ceramics recovered by Rosa Fung. Unit H2, Layer 5, Level 2

Figure 25: Ceramics excavated by Rosa Fung. Test Pit 3, Layer 2, and Level 2

179

Figure 26: Screenshot of the process of modeling stratigraphy from the Wacheqsa sector. Green surface represents the modern surface.

Figure 27 Texture subsurface strata modeled with Autodesk Land

180

Figure 28: Wireframe model of strata from the Wacheqsa sector

Figure 29: Same strata as above after textures are applied.

181

182

Figure 30: Excavations at the Wacheqsa Sector

Figure 31: Wacheqsa sector before excavations started in 2003 seen from the southwest. On the foreground to the south (from left to right) Marino Gonzales house, Mound D and Mound C.

183

Figure 32: Systematic sampling strategy used in year 2005.

Figure 33: Location of units WQ1 (left) and WQ2 (right) on the north edge of the Wacheqsa sector. Notice Building B in the background.

Figure 34: Stone platform located on WQ1.

185

Figure 35: Excavation of Feature 1 in WQ1-AW

186

Figure 36: South profile of WQ1 and WQ1-WE

187

Figure 37: Visible walls at the northern edge of the Wacheqsa sector

188

Figure 38: Exposed deposits in WQ2 before excavations started

Figure 39: Feature 02 in WQ2, Layer 03 and exposed section of Floor 2.

189

Figure 40: Excavation of WQ 3 (left), and WQ 4 (right). On the background, Mound B is observed

Figure 41: Excavation of aluvin layer in WQ 3. Notice the Wacheqsa River on the background.

190

Figure 42: WQ 3, stone platform (Layer 2a) associated to wall (Feature 01).

Figure 43: Stone platform, wall (Feature 01) and floor associated

191

Figure 44: Plan of exposed architecture in WQ4

Figure 45: Stone room, associated floor and wall (Feature 2) that delimits an alley

192

Figure 46: Layer 8 and associated Features 03 and 04

193

Figure 47: WQ-4, East Profile

194

Figure 48: Location of WQ 5

Figure 49: Hearth excavated in WQ 6

195

Figure 50: Panoramic view of WQ 7

Figure 51: Profile of WQ7, SIU1

196

Figure 52: Plant drawing of damaged stone platform (Layer 09)

Figure 53: Stratigraphic section of WQ7, SIU1

197

Figure 54: Profile of WQ 7, SIIU1

Figure 55:. Plan of architecture exposed in WQ 7, SIIU1

198

Figure 56: Stone platform in WQ7, SIII, U2

Figure 57: Profile of WQ7, SIII, U4

199

Figure 58: East profile of WQ7, SIII, U4A

Figure 59: Excavation unit WQ7, SIII, U4A

200

Figure 60: Excavation units WQ 7, SIII, 2, 4A and 4 (from left to right)

201

Figure 61: South profile of WQ7-SIV-U3

202

Figure 62: Stratigraphic detail of WQ7-SIV-U4

203

Figure 63: WQ8, plan of architecture exposed

204

Figure 64: Spatial distribution of analytical units in the Wacheqsa Sector

204

Figure 65: Water Flood analytical unit

205

Figure 66: Water Flood analytical unit. Common depositional events in units excavated.

206

Figure 67: Detail of WQ 4. Stone Rooms analytical unit on top Early Platforms

207

Figure 68: Ceramics recovered in unit WQ-1 WE, layer 8

Figure 69: Stone miniature found in WQ-4, layer 6

208

Figure 70: Ceramics recovered in WQ4-layer 7

Figure 71: Ceramics recovered in WQ4-layer 6

209

Figure 72: Idem

210

Figure 73: Stratigraphic relationship Midden analytical and Water Flood analytical units

211

Figure 74: Stratigraphic modelling of Midden Analytical Unit.

212

Figure 75: Slate projectile points recovered in the Midden Analytical Unit

Figure 76: Bone artefacts recovered in the Midden Analytical Unit

213

Figure 77: Slate projectile point recovered in WQ7, SIII, U4A, L10

Figure 78: Molded Frieze recovered in WQ7, SIII, U4A, L16

214

WQ7, SIII, U4, L5

WQ7, SIII, U4, L7a

WQ7, SIII, U4A, L15

WQ7, SIV, L13 WQ7, SIII, U4A, L7 Figure 79: Ceramics found in Midden Analytical unit

215

WQ7, SIII, U4A, L15

WQ7, SIII, U4A, L12

WQ7, SIV, U4, L14

Figure 80: Ceramics found in the Midden Analytical unit

216

Figure 81: Ceramics found in the Midden Analytical unit

Figure 82: Fragments of columns

217

Figure 83: Fragments of burnt architectural features (floors)

Figure 84: Ceramics retrieved from WQ4, L2

218

WQ-4, L 2

Figure 85: Ceramics retrieved from the Stone Rooms analytical unit

219

Figure 86: Fragment of unworked chrysocolla.

Figure 87: Fragment of cooper ore

220

Figure 88: Spatial distribution of Stone Rooms analytical unit in relation with Late Platforms and Midden units

221

Figure 89: WQ8, stratigraphic relationship between Early Platforms and Stone Room analytical units

222

Figure 90: Aluvion and Agricultural Land sections

223

Figure 91: Stratrigraphic Harris Matrix of strata recorded

224

Volume Excavated
25 20 Cubic Meters 15 10 5 0 Water Flood Early Platforms Midden Late Platforms Stone Rooms Prehistoric Analytical Units

Figure 92: Volume excavated per Analytical Unit

Density of Archaeological Materials per m


800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Water Flood Early Platforms Midden Late Platforms Stone Rooms

Series1

Prehistoric Analytical Units

Figure 93: Density of archaeological materials per Analytical Unit

225

1 Analytical Unit Early Platforms Late Platforms 0.9 Midden Rooms Water Flood 0.8

0.7

0.6

Hi

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8

10

20

30

40 50 60

80 100

200

300 400 500 700

1000

2000

3000 4000

Sample Size

Figure 94: Analytical Units Boone Index. Note the spatial clustering of deposits bounded by colored lines.

226

log(sampSize)

10

50

100

500

5000

EP

LP

MD

RM

WF

Figure 95: Distribution of analytical units according to sample size (log)

Hi 0.0 0.2 0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

EP

LP

MD Analytical Unit

RM

WF

Figure 96: Distribution of analytical units according to Hi values

227

Hi 0.0 1 0.2 0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

10

50

100

500 1000

5000

sample size

Figure 97: Confidence interval (90%) of Hi values. Upper section contains 85% of the confidence interval; lower section contains 5% of it

p(H i) 0.0 1 0.2 0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

10

50

100

500 1000

5000

sampSize

Figure 98: Probabilities of Hi [p(Hi)] values after 10000 repetitions using a Monte-Carlo routine.

228

p(Hi)

0.005

0.010

0.020

0.050

0.100

0.200

0.500

1.000

EP

LP

MD

RM

WF

Figure 99: Distribution (log) of p(Hi) values per analytical unit

60.00 50.00 Bowls 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 Early Platform Late Platform Midden Room Water Flood OSC Jars Bottles Cups Plates

Figure 100: Percentage of ceramic types sampled per analytical unit

229

Rim Diameters of OSC's

Density

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

10

20

30

40

50

60

N = 749 Bandwidth = 2 Range of Rim Diameters of OSC's

Figure 101: KDE plot of rim diameters of ollas sin cuello

Rim T hicknesses of OSC's

D ensity

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

N = 727 Bandwidth = 0.1 Range of Rim Thicknesses of OSC 's

Figure 102: KDE plot of rim thicknesses of ollas sin cuello

230

50

40

Diameter

30

20

10

0 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 Thickness 1,4 1,6 1,8 2 2,2 2,4

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 103: Bivariate KDE plot of ollas sin cuello. Arrows point to the modalities identified

Rim Diameters of OSC's from M idden


0.04 D ensity 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03

10

20

30

40

50

60

N = 548 Bandwidth= 2 Range of Rim D iameters from Midden

Figure 104: Rim diameters of ollas sin cuello from Midden

231

Rim T hicknesses of OSC's from M idden

D ensity

0.0 0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

N = 539 Bandwidth = 0.1 Range of Rim Thicknessesfrom Midden

Figure 105: Rim thicknesses of ollas sin cuello from Midden

60

50

40

Diameter

30

20

10

0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 Thickness

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 106: Bivariate KDE of OSCs from Stone Rooms. Arrows indicate the modes identified

232

Rim Diameters of OSC's from Stone Rooms

D ensity

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

10

20

30

40

50

N = 103 Bandwidth = 3 Range of Rim Diametersfrom Stone Rooms

Figure 107: Rim diameters of ollas sin cuello from Stone Rooms
Rim T hicknesses of OSC's from Stone Rooms

Density

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

N = 93 Bandwidth = 0.1 Range of Rim Thicknesses from Stone Rooms

Figure 108: Rim thicknesses of ollas sin cuello from Stone Rooms

233

50

45

40

35

30 Diameter

25

20

15

10

0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Thickness 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 109: Bivariate KDE of OSCs from Stone Rooms. Arrows indicate the modes identified

Rim Diameters of OSC's from Early Platforms


0.08 Density 0.00 0 0.02 0.04 0.06

10

20

30

N = 52 Bandwidth = 2.5 Range of Rim Diameters from Early Platforms

Figure 110: Rim diameters of ollas sin cuello from Early Platforms

234

Rim T hicknesses of OSC's from Early Platforms


1.4 Density 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

N = 49 Bandwidth = 0.1 Range of Rim Thicknesses from Early Platforms

Figure 111: Rim thicknesses of ollas sin cuello from Early Platforms

30

25

Diameter

20

15

10

.4

.6

.8

1 Thickness

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 112: Bivariate KDE of OSCs from Early Platforms. Arrows indicate the modes identified

235

Rim Diameters of OSC's from Water Flood


0.04 D ensity 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03

10

20

30

40

50

N = 30 Bandwidth = 5 Range of Rim D iameters from W ater Flood

Figure 113: Rim diameters of ollas sin cuello from Water Flood
Rim T hicknessesof OSC's from Water Flood

Density

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

N = 30 Bandwidth = 0.15 Range of Rim Thicknesses from W ater Flood

Figure 114: Rim thicknesses of ollas sin cuello from Water Flood

236

40

35

30

25

Diameter

20

15

10

0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Thickness 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 115: Bivariate KDE of OSCs from Water Flood. Arrows indicate the modes identified
Rim Diameters of OSC's from Late Platforms

Density

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

10

15

20

25

30

N = 16 Bandwidth = 2 Range of Rim Diameters from Late Platforms

Figure 116: Rim diameters of ollas sin cuello from Late Platforms

237

Rim T hicknesses of OSC's from Late Platforms


1.4 Density 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

N = 16 Bandwidth = 0.19 Range of Rim Thicknesses from Late Platforms

Figure 117: Rim thicknesses of ollas sin cuello from Late Platforms

25

20

Diameter 15 10 .2

.4

.6

.8 Thickness

1.2

1.4

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 118: Bivariate KDE of OSCs from Late Platforms. Arrows indicate the modes identified

238

Bowl Rim Diameter KDE

Density

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

10

20

30

40

50

60

N = 1334 Bandwidth = 2 Bowl Diameter Range

Figure 119: Rim diameters of bowls


Bowl Rim T hickness KDE

Density

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.0

0.5

1.0 N = 1284 Bandwidth = 0.1 Bowl Thickness Range

1.5

2.0

Figure 120: Rim thicknesses of bowls

239

60

50

40

Diameter

30

20

10

.2

.4

.6

.8

1 Thickness

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 121: Bivariate KDE of bowls. Arrow indicates the mode identified
Rim Diameters of Bowls from Midden
0.07 Density 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

10

20

30

40

50

60

N = 1114 Bandwidth = 2 Range of Rim Diameters of Bowls from Midden

Figure 122: Rim diameters of bowls from Midden

240

Rim T hicknesses of Bowls from Midden

Density

0.0 0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

N = 1068 Bandwidth = 0.05 Range of Rim Thicknesses of Bowls from Midden

Figure 123: Rim thicknesses of bowls from Midden

60

50

40

Diameter

30

20

10

.2

.4

.6

.8

1 Thickness

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 124: Bivariate KDE of bowls from Midden. Arrow indicates the mode identified

241

Rim Diameters of Bowls from Stone Rooms KDE


0.06 Density 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

10

20

30

40

50

60

N = 140 Bandwidth = 3 Range of Rim Diameters of Bowls from Stone Rooms

Figure 125: Rim diameters of bowls from Stone Rooms

Rim T hicknesses of Bowls from Stone Rooms KDE

Density

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

N = 137 Bandwidth = 0.1 Range of Rim Thicknesses of Bowls from Stone Rooms

Figure 126: Rim thicknesses of bowls from Stone Rooms

242

50

40

Diameter

30

20

10

0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1 Thickness 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 127: Bivariate KDE of bowls from Stone Rooms. Arrow indicates the mode identified

Rim Diameters of Bowls from Early Platforms KDE

Density

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

10

20

30

40

50

60

N = 34 Bandwidth = 3.5 Range of Rim Diameters from Early Platforms

Figure 128: Rim diameters of bowls from Early Platforms

243

Rim T hicknesses of Bowls from Early Platforms KDE


4 Density 0 1 2 3

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

N = 34 Bandwidth = 0.05 Range of Rim Thicknesses from Early Platforms

Figure 129: Rim thicknesses of bowls from Early Platforms

50

40

Diameter

30

20

10

.4

.5

.6 Thickness

.7

.8

.9

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 130: Bivariate KDE of bowls from Early Platforms. Arrows indicate the mode identified

244

Rim Diameters of Bowls from Water Flood

Density

0.00 0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

10

15

20

25

30

35

N = 34 Bandwidth = 2 Range of Rim Diameters from Water Flood

Figure 131: Rim diameters of bowls from Water Flood


Rim T hicknesses of Bowls from Water Flood
3.0 Density 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

N = 33 Bandwidth = 0.05 Range of Rim Thicknesses from Water Flood

Figure 132: Rim thicknesses of bowls from Water Flood

245

35

30

25

20 Diameter 15 10 5 0 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 Thickness .6 .7 .8 .9 1

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 133: Bivariate KDE of bowls from Water Flood. Arrows indicate the modes identified
Rim Diameters of Bowls from Late Platforms
0.08 Density 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06

10

15

20

25

30

35

N = 12 Bandwidth = 2.5 Range of Rim Diameters from Late Platforms

Figure 134: Rim diameters of bowls from Late Platforms

246

Rim T hicknesses of Bowls from Late Platforms


3.5 Density 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

N = 12 Bandwidth = 0.06 Range of Rim Thicknesses from Late Platforms

Figure 135: Rim thicknesses of bowls from Late Platforms


30

25

20 Diameter 15 10 0

.2

.4 Thickness

.6

.8

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 136: Bivariate KDE of bowls from Late Platforms. Arrows indicate the modes identified

247

Rim Diameters of Jars


0.10 Density 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

10

20

30

40

50

N = 379 Bandwidth = 2 Range of Rim Diameters of Jars

Figure 137: Rim diameters of jars

Rim T hicknesses of Jars

Density

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

N = 370 Bandwidth = 0.05 Range of Rim Thicknesses of Jars

Figure 138: Rim thicknesses of jars

248

40

30

Diameter 20 10 0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 Thickness 1 1.2 1.4

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 139: Bivariate KDE of jars. Arrow indicates the mode identified
Rim Diameters of Jars from Midden

Density

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

10

20

30

40

50

N = 299 Bandwidth = 2 Range of Rim Diameters of Jars from Midden

Figure 140: Rim diameters of jars from Midden

249

Rim T hicknesses of Jars from Midden

Density

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

N = 294 Bandwidth = 0.05 Range of Rim Thicknesses of Jars from Midden

Figure 141: Rim thicknesses of jars from Midden

40

30

Diameter 20 10 0 0 .2 .4 .6 .8 Thickness 1 1.2 1.4

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 142: Bivariate KDE of jars. Arrow indicates the mode identified

250

Rim Diameters of Jars from Stone Rooms


0.08 Density 0.00 0 0.02 0.04 0.06

10

15

20

25

N = 50 Bandwidth = 1.5 Range of Rim Diameters of Jars from Stone Rooms

Figure 143: Rim diameters of jars from Stone Rooms


Rim T hicknesses of Jars from Stone Rooms

Density

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

N = 47 Bandwidth = 0.05 Range of Rim Thicknesses of Jars from Stone Rooms

Figure 144: Rim thicknesses of jars from Stone Rooms

251

30

25

20

Diameter

15

10

0 0 .2 .4 .6 Thickness .8 1 1.2

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 145: Bivariate KDE of jars from Stone Room. Arrow indicates the mode identified
Rim Diameters of Jars from Early Platforms

Density

0.00 0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

10

15

20

N = 15 Bandwidth = 2 Range of Rim Diameters of Jars from Early Platforms

Figure 146: Rim diameters of jars from Early Platforms

252

Rim T hicknesses of Jars from Early Platforms

Density

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

N = 14 Bandwidth = 0.1 Range of Rim Thicknesses of Jars from Early Platforms

Figure 147: Rim thicknesses of jars from Early Platforms

20

15

Diameter

10

0 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 Thickness .6 .7 .8 .9 1

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 148: Bivariate KDE of jars from Early Platforms. Arrows indicate the modes identified

253

Rim Diameters of Jars from Water Flood

Density

0.00 2

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

10

12

14

16

N = 10 Bandwidth = 1.3 Range of Rim Diameters of Jars from Water Flood

Figure 149: Rim diameters of jars from Water Flood

Rim T hicknesses of Jars from Water Flood

Density

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

N = 10 Bandwidth = 0.1 Range of Rim Thicknesses of Jars from Water Flood

Figure 150: Rim thicknesses of jars from Water Flood

254

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 Diameter 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 Thickness .6 .7 .8 .9 1

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 151: Bivariate KDE of jars from Water Flood. Arrows indicate the modes identified
Rim Diameters from Bottles
0.35 Density 0.00 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

10

N = 113 Bandwidth = 0.7 Range of Rim Diameters from Bottles

Figure 152: Rim diameters from bottles

255

Rim T hicknesses from Bottles

Density

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

N = 110 Bandwidth = 0.04 Range of Rim Thicknesses from Bottles

Figure 153: Rim thicknesses from bottles

10

6 Diameter

0 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 Thickness 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 154: Bivariate KDE of bottles. Arrows indicated the modes identified

256

Rim Diameters of Bottles from Midden


0.35 Density 0.00 0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

10

N = 95 Bandwidth = 0.7 Range of Rim Diameters of Bottles from Midden

Figure 155: Rim diameters of bottles from Midden

Rim T hicknesses of Bottles from Midden


3.0 Density 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

N = 93 Bandwidth = 0.04 Range of Rim Thicknesses of Bottles from Midden

Figure 156: Rim thicknesses of bottles from Midden

257

10

6 Diameter

0 0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 Thickness 0,6 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 157: Bivariate KDE of bottles from Midden. Arrows indicated the modes identified
Rim Diameters from Cups

Density

0.00 0

0.05

0.10

0.15

10

12

N = 35 Bandwidth = 0.9 Range of Rim Diameters from Cups

Figure 158: Rim diameters of cups

258

Rim T hicknesses from Cups


2.5 Density 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

N = 33 Bandwidth = 0.07 Range of Rim Thicknesses from C ups

Figure 159: Rim thicknesses from cups

10

Diameter

2 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 Thickness 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 160: Bivariate KDE of cups. Arrows indicate modes identified

259

Rim Diameters of Cups from Midden

Density

0.00 0

0.05

0.10

0.15

10

12

N = 33 Bandwidth = 0.9 Range of Rim Diameters of Cups from Midden

Figure 161: Rim diameters of cups from Midden

Rim T hicknesses Cups from Midden


2.5 Density 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

N = 33 Bandwidth = 0.07 Range of Rim Thicknesses of Cups from Midden

Figure 162: Rim thicknesses of cups from Midden

260

10

7 Diameter 6 5 4 3 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 Thickness 0,5 0,6 0,7 0,8

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 163: Bivariate KDE of cups from Midden. Arrows indicate modes identified

Rim Diameters from Plates

Density

0.00 0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

10

20

30

40

N = 54 Bandwidth = 2 Range of Rim Diameters from Plates

Figure 164: Rim diameters of plates

261

Rim T hicknesses from Plates

D ensity

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

N = 53 Bandwidth = 0.07 Range of Rim Thicknesses from Plates

Figure 165: Rim thicknesses of plates

40

35

30

25 Diameter 20 15 10 5 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 Thickness 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9

Quantile Density Contours

Figure 166: Bivariate KDE of plates. Arrows indicate the modes identified

262

Rim Diameters of Plates from M idden


0.07 Density 0.00 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

10

20

30

40

N = 44 Bandwidth = 2 Range of Rim Diametersof Plates from Midden

Figure 167: Rim Diameters of plates from Midden

Rim T hicknesses of Plates from M idden

Density

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

N = 43 Bandwidth = 0.07 Range of Rim Thicknesses of Plates from Midden

Figure 168: Rim Thickness of plates from Midden

263

40

35

30

25 Diameter 20 15 10 5 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5 0,6 Thickness 0,7 0,8 0,9 1

Figure 169: Bivariate KDE of plates. Arrow indicate the mode identified

100000
40000

10000 Bone Weight


4000

1000
400

100
40

10 Late Platforms Midden Early Platforms Water Flood Rooms


4 2

Analytical Unit

Figure 170: Density of faunal remains per analytical unit (log)

264

Figure 171: Fragment of a small spoon retrieved in WQ7,SIV, U3, L11

Figure 171: Fragment of a small spoon retrieved in WQ7,S III, U4A, L16

265

Figure 172: Polished bone tube retrieved in WQ7,SIII, U4A, L19

Figure 173: Polished bone tube retrieved in WQ7, SIII, U4A, L18

266

Figure 174: Polished bone tube retrieved in WQ7, SIII, U4A, L11

Figure 174: Polished bone tube retrieved in WQ7, SIII, U4A, L12

267

Figure 175: Bottle fragment found associated to hearth in WQ-6

Figure 176: Ceramics associated to hearth in WQ-6

268

Figure 177: Ceramic associated to hearth in WQ-6

Figure 178: Ceramics from WQ1, layer 5

269

Figure 179: Ceramic sherd from WQ1, Floor 3.

Figure 180: Ceramic sherds from WQ4, layer 6

270

Figure 181: Ceramic sherds from WQ5, layer 6

Figure 182: Ceramics sherds from WQ7, SIV, U4, layer 20

271

Figure 183: Ceramics retrieved from WQ-7, SIII, U4, layer 8

Figure 184: Ceramics retrieved from WQ-7, SIV, U4, layer 14

272

Figure 185: Ceramics retrieved from WQ-7, SIV, U4, layer 10

Figure 186: Ceramics retrieved from WQ8, layer 3

273

Figure 187: Ceramics retrieved from WQ-7,SIII, U1, layer 9

Figures 188: Urabarriu dates retrieved by Burger

274

Figure 189: Wacheqsa Sector radiocarbon dates

275

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alva, W. 1988a Excavaciones en el Santuario del Tiempo Formativo Udima-Poro Poro en la Sierra Norte del Per. In: Beitrage Zur Allgemeinen Und Vergleichden, edited by Kava, pp. 301-349. vol. 8. Verlag Philipp Von Zabern-Mainz Am Rhein, Mainz.

1988b Investigaciones en el Complejo Formativo con Arquitectura Monumental de Puruln, Costa Norte del Per. In: Beitrage Zur Allgemeinen Und Vergleichden, edited by Kava, pp. 283-298. vol. 8. Verlag Philipp Von Zabern-Mainz Am Rhein, Mainz.

Alvey, B. 1993 Interpreting Archaeology with Hindsight: The Use of Three Dimensions in

Graphic Recording and Site Analysis. In: Practices of Archaeological Stratigraphy, edited by E. Harris, M. Brown III and G. Brown, pp. 218-228. Academic Press, Cambridge.

Amat, H. 2004 Huars y Recuay en la secuencia cultural del Callejn de Conchucos. In:

Arqueologa de la Sierra de Ancash, edited by B. Ibarra, pp. 97-120. Instituto Cultural Runa, Lima.

Autodesk 2006 Autodesk Land Desktop: Getting Started. Autodesk Inc.

Barreto, D. 1984 Las Investigaciones en el Templete de Limoncarro. In: Beitrage Zur

Allgemeinen Und Vergleichden, edited by V. P. V. Z.-M. A. Rhein, pp. 541-547. KAVA, Mainz.

Baxter, M. 2003 Statistics in Archaeology. First ed. Arnold Publishers, New York.

276

Baxter, M. J., C. C. Beardah and R. V. S. Wright 1997 Some Archaeological Applications of Kernel Density Estimates. Journal of

Archaeological Science 24(4):347-354.

Beex, W. 1994 From Excavation Drawings to Archaeological Playground: CAD Applications

for Excavations. Paper presented at the Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology.

Bennett, W. 1943 The Position of Chavin in Andean Sequences. Proceedings of the American

Philosophical Society 86(2) Symposium on Recent Advances in American Archaeology): 323-327..

1944

The North Highlands of Peru, Excavations in the Callejon de Huaylas and

Chavin de Huantar. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 39. The American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Binford, L. R. 1964 A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design. American Antiquity

29(4):425-441.

1968

Archaeological Perspectives. In New Perspectives in Archaeology, edited by

S. Binford and L. R. Binford, pp. 5-32. Aldine Publishing, Chicago.

Bird, R. M. 1987 A Postulated Tsunami and Its Effects on Cultural Development in the

Peruvian Early Horizon. American Antiquity 52(2):285-303.

277

Bischof, H. 1998 El Periodo Inicial, el Horizonte Temprano, el Estilo Chavn y la Realidad del

Proceso Formativo en los Andes Centrales. Paper presented at the I Encuentro Internacional de Peruanistas. Estado de los Estudios Histrico-Sociales sobre el Per a fines del siglo XX.

Blitz, J. H. 1993 Big Pots for Big Shots: Feasting and Storage in a Mississippian Community.

American Antiquity 58(1):80.

Bonavia, D. 1991 Lima. De los Orgenes al Siglo XV. First ed. Per, Hombre e Historia I. Edubanco,

Bonnier, E. 1983 Piruru: Nuevas Evidencias de la Ocupacin Temprana en Tantamayo, Per.

Gaceta Arqueolgica Andina 8:8-10.

1997

Preceramic Architecture in the Andes: The Mito Tradition. In Archaeologica

Peruana 2, edited by E. Bonnier and H. Bischof, pp. 120-144, Mannheim.

Boone, J. L., III 1987 Defining and Measuring Midden Catchment. American Antiquity 52(2):336.

Brown, J. 1975 Deep-site Excavations Strategy as a Sampling Problem. In: Sampling in

Archaeology, edited by J. Mueller, pp. 155-169. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Burger, R. 1981 The Radiocarbon Evidence for the Temporal Priority of Chavin de Huantar.

American Antiquity 46(3):592.

278

1984

The Prehistoric Occupation at Chavn de Huntar, Peru. University of

California Publications, Anthropology 14. University of Berkeley, Berkeley.

1985

Concluding Remarks: Early Peruvian Civilization and Its Relation to the

Chavn Horizon. In: Early Ceremonial Architecture in the Andes, edited by C. Donnan, pp. 269-289. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington.

1988

Unity and Heterogeneity within the Chavin Horizon. In: Peruvian Prehistory:

An Overview of Pre-Inca and Inca Society, edited by R. Keatinge, pp. 99-144. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1992

Chavin and the origins of Andean civilization. Thames and Hudson, London.

1993

The Chavin Horizon: Stylistic Chimera or Socioeconomic Metamorphosis?

In: Latin American Horizons, edited by D. S. Rice, pp. 41:82. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington.

1998

Excavaciones en Chavn de Huntar. Pontificia Universidad Catlica del

Per, Lima.

Burger, R. and R. B. Gordon 1998 Early Central Andean Metalworking from Mina Perdida, Peru. Science

282(5391):1108.

Burger, R. and R. Matos 2002 Atalla: A Center on the Periphery of the Chavin Horizon. Latin American

Antiquity 13(2):153.

Burger, R. and L. Salazar-Burger 1991 The Second Season of Investigations at the Initial Period Center of Cardal,

Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology 18(3):275.

279

Burger, R. and L. Salazar 1980 Ritual and Religion at Huaricoto. Archaeology 33(6):26-32.

1985

The Early Ceremonial Center of Huaricoto. In: Early Ceremonial

Architecture at the Andes, edited by C. Donnan, pp. 111-138. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington.

Campo, P. 2004 Computer... What For? Virtuality vs. Reality in Archaeology. In [Enter the past]: The e-way into the Four Dimensions of Cultural Heritage: CAA 03 Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology., edited by W.

Stadtarchologie, pp. 192-196. Archaeopress, Vienna.

Cattani, M., A. Fiorini and B. Rondelli 2004 Computer Applications for a Reconstruction of Archaeological Stratigraphy

as a Predictive Model in Urban and Territorial Contexts. Paper presented at the [Enter the past]: The e-way into the Four Dimensions of Cultural Heritage: CAA 03 Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology.

Cieza de Len, P. 1553 [1984] Crnica del Per. Primera Parte. Pontificia Universidad Catlica del

Per, Academia Nacional de Historia, Lima.

Clark, J. and M. Blake 1996 The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Rank

Societies in Mesoamerica. In: Contemporary Theory in Archaeology: A Reader, edited by R. Preucel and I. Hodder, pp. 258-281. Blackwell Publishing.

Clark, P. 2000 Post-Excavation Analysis: Moving from the context to the Phase. In:

Interpreting Stratigraphy, Site Evaluation, Recording Procedures and Stratigraphic Analysis, edited by S. Roskams, pp. 157-160, Oxford.

280

Colley, S. M. 1988 Three-Dimensional Computer Graphics for Archaeological Data Exploration:

An Example from Saxon Southampton. Journal of Archaeological Science 15(1):99.

Conklin, W. 1985 The Architecture of Huaca de los Reyes. In: Early Ceremonial Architecture in

the Andes, edited by C. Donnan, pp. 139-164. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington.

Contreras, D. 2007 Geomorphologic and Sociopolitical Change at Chavn de Huantar. Ph.D

Dissertation, Stanford University.

Cook, A. 2004 Wari Art and Society. In: Andean Archaeology, edited by H. Silverman, pp.

146-166. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Cowgill, G. 1970 Some sampling and reliability problems in archaeology. In Archeologie et

calculateurs: problemes semiologiques et mathematiques., pp. 161-175. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.

Cruz-Uribe, K. 1988 The use and meaning of species diversity and richness in archaeological

faunas. Journal of Archaeological Science 15(2):179-96.

DeBoer, W. 2001 The Big Drink: Feast and Forum in the Upper Amazon. In: Feasts,

Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics and Power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 215-239. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

281

DeMarrais, E., L. J. Castillo and T. Earle 1996 Ideology, Materialization, and Power Strategies. Current Anthropology

37(1):15-31.

Dietler, M. and B. Hayden 2001 Digesting the Feast-Good to Eat, Good to Drink, Good to Think: An

Introduction. In: Feasts, Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics and Power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 1-22. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Dietler, M. and I. Herbich 2001 Feasts and Labor Mobilization: Dissecting a Fundamental Economic Practice.

In: Feasts, Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics and Power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 240-266. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

Doneus, M. and W. Neubauer 2004 Digital Recording of Stratigraphic Excavations. In: [Enter the past]: The eway into the Four Dimensions of Cultural Heritage: CAA 03 Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, edited by W. Stadtarchologie, pp. 113116. Archaeopress, Viena.

Drennan, R. 1996 Statistics for Archaeologists, A Common Sense Approach. First ed. Plenum

Press, New York.

Durkheim, . 1947 The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study in Religious Sociology.

Free Press, New York.

Eiteljorg II, H. 2007 Archaeological Computing. Center for the Study of Architecture.

282

Elera, C. 1998 The Poemape Site and the Cupisnique Culture: A Case Study on the Origin

and Development of Complex Society in the Central Andes, Peru. Ph D, University of Calgary.

Espejo, J. 1941 Exploraciones Arqueolgicas en las cabeceras del Pukcha. Bachelor in

Humanities, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.

Fung, R. 1975 Excavaciones en Pacopampa, Cajamarca. Revista del Museo Nacional

41:129-210.

2006

Personal Communication, Lima.

Guipert, G., M. A. d. Lumley, H. d. Lumley and B. Mafart 2004 Three-Dimensional Imagery: A New Look of the Tauntavel Man. In: [Enter the past]: The e-way into the Four Dimensions of Cultural Heritage: CAA 03 Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology., edited by W. Stadtarchologie, pp. 100-102. Archaeopress, Vienna.

Haas, J., W. Creamer and A. Ruiz 2004 Dating the Late Archaic occupation of the Norte Chico region in Peru. Nature

432(7020):1020-1023.

Harris, E. 1992 Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. Second ed. Academic Press,

London.

Hass, J. and W. Creamer 2004 Cultural transformations in the Central Andean Late Archaic. In: Andean

Archaeology, edited by H. Silverman, pp. 35-50. Blackwell Malden.

283

2006

Crucible of Andean Civilization: The Peruvian Coast from 3000 to 1800 BC.

Current Anthropology 47(5):745-776.

Hayden, B. 1995 Feasting in Prehistoric and Traditional Societies. In: Food and the Status

Quest, edited by P. Wiessner and W. Schiefenhovel, pp. 127-148. First ed. Berghahn Books, Oxford.

2001

Fabulous Feasts: A Prolegomenon to the Importance of Feasting. In: Feasts,

Archaeological and Ethnographic Perspectives on Food, Politics and Power, edited by M. Dietler and B. Hayden, pp. 23. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.

Herzog, I. 2004 Group and Conquer A Method for Displaying Large Stratigraphic Data Sets.

In: Enter the Past. The E-way into the Four Dimensions of Cultural Heritage, edited by W. Stadtarchologie, pp. 423-426. Archaeopress, Vienna.

Inokuchi, K. 1998 La Cermica de Kuntur Wasi y el problema Chavn. Boletn de Arqueologa

PUCP 2:161-180.

Izumi, S. and T. Sono 1963 Andes 2, Excavations at Kotosh Peru 1960. University of Tokyo, Tokyo.

Jennings, J., K. L. Antrobus, S. J. Atencio, E. Glavich, R. Johnson, G. Loffler and C. Luu 2005 "Drinking Beer in a Blissful Mood": Alcohol Production, Operational Chains,

and Feasting in the Ancient World. Current Anthropology 46(2):275-303.

Kaulicke, P. 1975 Pandanche. Un Caso del Formativo de los Andes de Cajamarca. Seminario

de Historia Rural Andina. Universidad nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.

1994

Los Orgenes de la civilizacin andina I. Editorial Brasa, Lima.

284

Kembel, S. 2001 Architectural Sequence and Chronology at Chavin de Huantar, Peru. Ph D,

Stanford University.

Kembel, S. and J. Rick 2004 Building Authority at Chavn de Huntar: Models of Social Development in

the Initial Period and Early Horizon. In: Andean Archaeology, edited by H. Silverman, pp. 51-76. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.

Kintigh, K. 1989 Sample Size, Significance, and Measures of Diversity. In: Quantifying

Diversity in Archaeology, edited by R. Leonard and G. Jones, pp. 25-36. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lanning, E. 1953 Chronological and Cultural Relationships of Early Pottery Styles in Ancient

Peru. Ph D, Dissertation University of California Los Angeles.

Larco, R. 1945 Los Cupisniques. Sociedad Geogrfica Americana, Buenos Aires.

1948

Cronologa Arqueolgica del Norte del Per. Sociedad Geogrfica

Americana, Buenos Aires.

Lathrap, D. 1960a Alternative Models of Populations Movements in the Tropical Lowlands of

South America. Paper presented at the XXXIX Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, Lima.

1960b The Upper Amazon. Thames and Hudson, London.

285

Lau, G. F. 2002 The Recuay Culture of Peru's North-Central Highlands: A Reappraisal of

Chronology and Its Implications. Journal of Field Archaeology 29(1/2):177-202.

Leon, E. 2006 Radiocarbono y calibracin: Potencialidades para la Arqueologa.

Arqueologa y Sociedad (17):67-89.

Lock, G. 2003 Using Computers in Archaeology, Towards Virtual Pasts. First ed. Routledge,

London.

Longacre, W. 1999 Standardization and Specialization: What's the Link? In: Pottery and People,

A Dynamic Interaction, edited by J. Skibo and G. Feinman, pp. 44-58. Foundations of Archaeological Inquiry. University of Utah Press, Utah.

Losier, L. M., J. Pouliot and M. Fortin 2007 3D geometrical modeling of excavation units at the archaeological site of Tell Acharneh (Syria). Journal of Archaeological Science 34(2):272.

Lumbreras, L. 1989 Chavn de Huntar en el Nacimiento de la Civilizacin Andina. Instituto de

Estudios Andinos, Lima.

1993 Mainz.

Chavn de Huntar, Excavaciones en la Galera de las Ofrendas. KAVA,

2005

Arqueologa y Sociedad. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Lima.

Lumbreras, L. and H. Amat 1965 Informe Preliminar sobre las Galeras interiores de Chavn. Revista del Museo

Nacional 34:143-197.

286

Malinverni, E., G. Gagliardini and G. Fangi 2002 Virtualization of an Archaeological Site. Paper presented at the Close-range

Imaging, Long Range Vision.

Manly, B. 1991 Randomization and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. Chapman and Hall,

London.

Marx, K. 1973 On Society and Social Change. The Heritage of Sociology. The University of

Chicago Press, Chicago.

Meister, C. and A. Bastian 2004 Quicktime Virtual Reality (QTVR) and the Documentation of Rock Art

Localities In: [Enter the past]: The e-way into the Four Dimensions of Cultural Heritage: CAA 03 Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology., edited by W. Stadtarchologie, pp. 548-551. Archaeopress, Vienna.

Meister, M. 2004 On Using State of the Art Computer Game Engines to Visualize

Archaeological Structures in Interactive Teaching and Research. In: [Enter the past]: The e-way into the Four Dimensions of Cultural Heritage: CAA 03 Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology., edited by W.

Stadtarchologie, pp. 505-509. Archaeopress, Vienna.

Meja, T. 1945 El Estado Actual del Conocimiento sobre las Ruinas de Chavn. Apuntes

hechos por M.T Meja Xesspe, por indicacin del Dr. Julio C. Tello, con motivo de la catstrofe ocurrida en 1945, pp. 12. vol. Bulto 53, Cuadernillo 11. Archivo Tello, Museo de Arqueologa y Antropologa de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.

287

Mercer, R. 1985 A Neolithic fortress and funeral center. Scientific American 252(3):94-101.

Mesia, C. 2000 Anchucaya: Una Aproximacin Terica a un Complejo con Planta en U.

Arqueolgicas 24:45-52.

2006

Julio C. Tello: Teora y Prctica en la Arqueologa Andina. Arqueologa y

Sociedad 17:141-158.

Middendorf, E. 1893 [1974] Per. Observaciones y Estudios del Pas y sus habitantes durante una

permanencia de 25 aos. 3 vols. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.

Miller, G. R. and R. L. Burger 1995 Our Father the Cayman, Our Dinner the Llama: Animal Utilization at Chavin

de Huantar, Peru. American Antiquity 60(3):421.

Mills, B. 1999 Ceramics and Social Contexts of Food Consumption. In Pottery and People,

A Dynamic Interaction, edited by J. Skibo and G. Feinman, pp. 99-114. Foundations of Archaeological Inquiry. University of Utah Press, Utah.

Mogrovejo, T. A. d. 1593 [1920] Diario de la Segunda Visita que hizo de su Arquidicesis el Ilst. seor

don Toribio Alfonso de Mogrovejo, Arzobispo de Los Reyes. Libro de Visitas, 1593. Revista del Archivo Nacional del Per 1:401-419.

Morales, D. 1993 Historia Arqueolgica del Per. First ed. Compendio Histrico del Per I.

Editorial Milla Batres, Lima.

288

Neils, F., E. Dees, M. Mosely, S. Pozorski, T. Pozorski and R. Feldman 1979a El Nio: The Catastrophic Flooding of Coastal Peru. Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History 50(7):4-14.

1979b El Nio: The Catastrophic Flooding of Coastal Peru. Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History 50(8):4-10.

Onuki, Y. 1995 Kuntur Wasi y Cerro Blanco, Dos sitios del Formativo en el Norte del Per.

Hokusen-Sha, Tokyo.

2001

Una Perspectiva del Perodo Formativo de la Sierra Norte del Per. In:

Historia de la Cultura Peruana, pp. 103-126. vol. I. Congreso de la Repblica del Per, Lima.

Orton, C. 2000 Sampling in Archaeology. First ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ottaway, S., L. Sawyer and A. Miller 1986 Archaeology Gets Graphic. Nature 323(16):651-652.

Patterson, T. 1985 The Huaca La Florida, Rimac Valley, Per. In: Early Ceremonial

Architecture in the Andes, edited by C. Donnan, pp. 59-69. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington.

Pearson, N. and T. Williams 1993 Single-Context Planning: Its Role in On Site Recording Procedures and in

Post-excavation analysis at York. In: Practices of Archaeological Stratigraphy, edited by E. Harris, M. Brown III and G. Brown, pp. 89-103. Academic Press, London.

Polo, J. T. 1900 La Piedra de Chavn. Boletn de la Sociedad Geogrfica de Lima 9:199-232.

289

Poma de Ayala, G. 1992 [1613] Mexico DF. El Primer Nueva Cornica y Buen Gobierno. Siglo Veintiuno,

Potter, J. M. 2000 Pots, Parties, and Politics: Communal Feasting in the American Southwest.

American Antiquity 65(3):471-492.

Potzolu, C., A. Mc Carthy and L. Ristvet 2004 Volumes of History: Volume Calculations from 3D Sections at the Tell Leilan

City Gates Excavation. In: [Enter the past]: The e-way into the Four Dimensions of Cultural Heritage: CAA 03 Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, edited by W. Stadtarchologie, pp. 434-438. vol. 1227. Archaeopress, Viena.

Pozorski, S. and T. Pozorski 1987 Early Settlement and Subsistence in the Casma Valley, Peru. University of

Iowa Press, Iowa.

1998

La Dinmica del Valle de Casma durante el Perodo Inicial. Boletn de

Arqueologa PUCP 2:83-100.

Pozorski, T. 1975 El Complejo Caballo Muerto y los Frisos de Barro de la Huaca de los Reyes.

Revista del Museo Nacional 41:211-252.

Ravines, R., H. Engelstad, V. Palomino and D. Sandweiss 1982 233. Materiales Arqueolgicos de Garagay. Revista del Museo Nacional 46:135-

Ravines, R. and W. Isbell 1975 Garagay: Sitio Temprano en el Valle de Lima. Revista del Museo Nacional

41:253-272.

290

Reid, J. J., M. B. Schiffer and W. L. Rathje 1975 Behavioral Archaeology: Four Strategies. American Anthropologist

77(4):864-869.

Reilly, P. 1989 Data Visualization in Archaeology. IBM Systems Journal 28(4):559-579.

Rice, P. 1987 Pottery Anaysis, a socurcebook. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Rick, J. 2005 The Evolution of Authority and Power at Chavin de Huantar, Peru. In: Foundations of Power in the Prehispanic Andes, edited by Vaughn K., D. Ogburn and C. Conlee. pp. 71-89. vol. 14. American Anthropological Association, Los Angeles.

2006

Chavn de Huntar: Evidence for an Evolved Shamanism In: Mesas and

Cosmologies in the Central Andes, edited by D. Sharon. pp. 101-112. vol. 44. San Diego Museum, San Diego.

In press. Context, Construction and Ritual in the Development of Authority at Chavn de Huntar. In: Transformation in Chavn: Art and Culture, edited by W. Conklin and J. Quilter. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Rick, J., S. Kembel, R. Mendoza and J. Kembel 1998 La Arquitectura del Complejo Ceremonial de Chavn de Huntar: Documentacin Tridimensional y sus Implicancias. Boletn de Arqueologa PUCP 2:181-214.

Rick, J. and C. Mesia 2006 Informe Preliminar de las Excavaciones realizadas en la Plaza de Armas de

Chavn de Huntar. Informe presentado al Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Lima.

291

Rivero de Ustariz, M. 1851 Antigedades Peruanas, Lima.

Robertson, I. 2007 Personal communication.

Rosas, H. 1970 La Secuencia Cultural del Periodo Formativo en Ancn. Bachelor Thesis in

Archaeology, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.

Rosenswig, R. M. 2007 Beyond identifying elites: Feasting as a means to understand early Middle

Formative society on the Pacific Coast of Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26(1):1.

Rowe, J. 1962a Chavin Art, an Inquiry into its Form and Meaning. The Museum of Primitive Art, New York.

1962b Stages and Periods in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 18(1):40-54.

Salinas y Crdoba, F. B. d. 1957 [1630] Memorial de las Historias del Nuevo Mundo, Pir. Universidad

Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.

Sall, J., L. Creighton and A. Lehman 2005 JMP Start Statistics, A Guide to Statistics and Data Analysis Using JMP and

JMP IN Software. Third ed. Tompson Brooks Cole, Belmont, CA.

Scheele, H. 1970 The Chavin Occupation of the Central Coast Peru. Ph.D. Dissertation in

Anthropology, Harvard University.

292

Schiffer, M. B. 1972 165. Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37(2):156-

1983

Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity

48(4):675-706.

1988

The Structure of Archaeological Theory. American Antiquity 53(3):461-485.

Seki, Y. 1998 El Periodo Formativo en el Valle de Cajamarca. Boletn de Arqueologa

PUCP 2:147-160.

Seki, Y., W. Tosso, J. Villanueva and K. Inokuchi 2006 Proyecto Arqueolgico Pacopampa'05: Avances y Correlaciones Regionales. Arqueologa y Sociedad 17:149-177.

Shady, R. 1997 La Ciudad Sagrada de Caral-Supe en los Albores de la Civilizacin en el

Per. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.

2004

Caral: La Ciudad del Fuego Sagrado. Centura, Lima.

Shady, R., J. Haas and W. Creamer 2001 Dating Caral, a Preceramic Site in the Supe Valley on the Central Coast of

Peru. Science 292(5517):723-726.

Shady, R. and C. Leyva (editors) 2003 La Ciudad Sagrada de Caral-Supe: Los Origines de la Civilizacin Andina y

la Formacin del Estado Prstino en el Antiguo Per. First ed. Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Lima.

293

Shanks, M. and C. Tilley 1992 Re-Constructing Archaeology, Theory and Practice. Second ed. Routledge,

London.

Shennan, S. 2006 Quantifying Archaeology. Second ed. University of Iowa Press, Iowa.

Shimada, I., C. Elera and M. Shimada 1983 Excavaciones efectuadas en el Centro de Huaca Luca-Cholope del Horizonte

Temprano, Batan Grande, Costa Norte del Per. Arqueolgicas 19:109-208.

Silva, J. and R. Garca 1997 Huachipa-Jicamarca: Cronologa y Desarrollo Sociopoltico en el Rmac.

Instituto Francs de Estudios Andinos 26(2):195-228.

Stanish, C. 2003 Ancient Titicaca. The Evolution of Complex Society in Sourthen Peru and

Northern Bolivia. University of California Press, Los Angeles.

Steward, J. 1948 A Functional-Developmental Classification of American High Cultures. In: A

Reappraisal of Peruvian Archaeology: Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, edited by W. Bennett, pp. 103-105. Society for American Archaeology and the Institute of Andean Research, Wisconsin.

Strong, D. 1948 Cultural Epochs and Refuse Stratigraphy in Peruvian Archaeology. In: A

Reappraisal of Peruvian Archaeology: Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, edited by W. Bennett, pp. 93-103. Society for American Archaeology and the Institute of Andean Research, Wisconsin.

294

Strong, D. and C. Evans 1952 Cultural Stratigraphy in the Vir Valley Northen Peru: The Formative and

Florescent Epochs. Columbia University Press, New York.

Tellenbach, M. 1986 Las Excavaciones En El Asentamiento Formativo De Montegrande, Valle De

Jequetepeque En El Norte Del Peru. Materialien Zur Allgemeinen Und Vergleichenden Archaologie 39. Verlag Philipp von Zabern GmbH, Mainz am Rhein.

Tello, J. C. 1923 Wiracocha. Reimpreso de la Revista Inca ed. Universidad Nacional Mayor de

San Marcos, Lima.

1929 Lima.

Antiguo Per, Primera poca. 1 ed. Comision Organizadora del Segundo,

1940

Expedicin a Chavn (del 7 de Noviembre al 14 de Diciembre de 1940), pp.

101. vol. Bulto 53, Cuadernillo 5. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Archivo Tello, Lima.

1942

Origen y Desarrollo de las Civilizaciones Prehistricas Andinas. Liberia e

Imprenta Gil, Lima.

1943

Discovery of the Chavin Culture in Peru. American Antiquity 9(1, Countries

South of the Rio Grande):135.

1956

Arqueologa del Valle de Casma, Culturas: Chavn, Santa o Huaylas Yunga y

Sub Chim. Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.

1960

Chavn Cultura Matriz de la Civilizacin Andina. Universidad Nacional

Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.

295

Terada, K. 1979 Excavations at La Pampa in the north highlands of Peru, 1975. Univesity the

Tokyo, Tokyo.

Terada, K. and Y. Onuki 1982 Excavations at Huacaloma in the Cajamarca Valley, Peru 1979. First ed.

University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.

Torres, C. and D. Repke 2006 Anadenanthera : Visionary Plant of Ancient South America. Haworth Herbal

Press, New York.

Uhle, M. 1902 Types of Culture in Peru. American Anthropologist 4(4):753.

Vzquez de Espinoza, F. A. 1616 [1948] Compendio y Descripcin de las Indias Orientales, Washington.

Vega-Centeno, R. 2007 Construction, labor organization, and feasting during the Late Archaic Period

in the Central Andes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26(2):150-171.

Wand, M. and C. Jones 1995 Kernel Smoothing. First ed. Chapman & Hall, London.

Warburton, D. 2003 Archaeological Stratigraphy, A Near Eastern Approach. First ed. Recherches

Et Publications Neuchatel, Bern.

Weber, M. 1978 Economy and Society I. University of California Press, Los Angeles.

296

Wiener, C. 1880 [1993] Per y Bolivia. Instituto Francs de Estudios Andinos, Lima.

Wiley, G. 1948 A Functional Analysis of Horizon Styles in Peruvian Archaeology. In: A

Reappraisal of Peruvian Archaeology, edited by W. Bennett, pp. 8-15. Memoirs of the Society of American Archaeology. vol. 4. Society of American Archaeology, Menasha.

Williams, C. 1980 Arquitectura y Urbanismo en el Antiguo Per. In Historia del Per, edited by

J. Meja Baca, pp. 369-385. vol. 8. Editorial Meja Baca, Lima.

Wolf, J. 2005 Redefining Chavn's Ceramic Sequence: Insights from a Formative Urban Settlement at Chavn de Huntar. Paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Zhukovsky, M. 2001 Handling Digital 3-D Record of Archaeological Excavation Data. Paper presented at the Archaeological Informatics: Pushing the Envelope CAA 2001.

Zilkowski, M., M. Pazdur, A. Krzanowski, and A. Michczyfiski 1994 Andes. Radiocarbon Database for Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru. Andean

Archaeological Mission of the Institute of Archaeology, Warsaw University & Gliwice Radiocarbon Laboratory of the Institute of Physics, Silesian Technical University, Warsaw-Gliwice.

Zoubek, T. A. 1997 The Initial Period Occupation of Huaca El Gallo/Huaca La Gallina, Vir

Valley, Peru and its Implications for the Guaape Phase Social Complexity Ph.D Dissertation, Yale University.

297

Zubrow, E. 2006 Digital Archaeology: A Historical Context. In: Digital Archaeology, Bringing

Method and Theory, edited by T. Evans and P. Daly, pp. 10-32. Routledge, London.

298

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen