Caravaneros y Obsidiana

8/19/2019 Caravaneros y Obsidiana

1/971

University of California, Berkeley

From the SelectedWorks of Nicholas Tripcevich, Ph.D.

January 2007

Quarries, Caravans, and Routes to Complexity:Prehispanic Obsidian in the South-Central Andes(Ph.D. Dissertation, UC Santa Barbara

Anthropology)

Contact Author

Start Your OwnSelectedWorks

Notify Meof New Work

Available at: hp://works.bepress.com/tripcevich/8

http://berkeley.edu/http://works.bepress.com/tripcevichhttp://works.bepress.com/tripcevich/contact.htmlhttp://works.bepress.com/tripcevich/contact.htmlhttp://works.bepress.com/cgi/sw_user_setup.cgihttp://works.bepress.com/cgi/sw_user_setup.cgihttp://works.bepress.com/tripcevichhttp://works.bepress.com/tripcevichhttp://works.bepress.com/tripcevich/8http://works.bepress.com/tripcevich/8http://works.bepress.com/http://works.bepress.com/http://works.bepress.com/tripcevichhttp://works.bepress.com/cgi/sw_user_setup.cgihttp://works.bepress.com/tripcevich/contact.htmlhttp://works.bepress.com/tripcevichhttp://berkeley.edu/


2/971

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Santa Barbara

Quarries, Caravans, and Routes to Complexity:

Prehispanic Obsidian in the South-Central Andes

A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the

requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy

in Anthropology

by

Nicholas Tripcevich

Committee in charge:

Professor Mark Aldenderfer, Co-Chair

Professor Michael Jochim, Co-Chair

Professor Katharina Schreiber

Professor Keith Clarke

March 2007


3/971

The dissertation of Nicholas Tripcevich is approved.

____________________________________________Keith Clarke

____________________________________________Katharina Schreiber

____________________________________________Michael Jochim, Committee Co-Chair

____________________________________________Mark Aldenderfer, Committee Co-Chair

March 2007


4/971



Copyright © 2007

by

Nicholas Tripcevich

iii


5/971

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Acknowledgements go first to the people of the Colca valley who have kindly

welcomed the foreigners who hike through their lands and camp on the volcanoes that

ring the valley. I would like to acknowledge the support of my dissertation committee,

Mark Aldenderfer, Katharina Schreiber, Michael Jochim, and Keith Clarke, who

provided valuable guidance in this process. I am particularly grateful to my advisor

Mark Aldenderfer who shares my fondness for mountain environments and the people

who thrive there. My background was primarily in geography when Mark admitted me

to the program at UCSB, and I am grateful that he recognized the contribution that a

geographical emphasis can make to anthropological research. I would like to thank

Katharina Schreiber who has terrific enthusiasm for the Andes and for prehistory,

Michael Jochim has been willing to provide guidance and feedback at crucial

moments during this research, and Keith Clarke whose knowledge of geography and

enthusiasm for mobile geographical technologies were inspiring. Although not on my

committee, Charles Stanish has been consistently encouraging and has provided

valuable insights and a useful regional perspective.

This dissertation research was made possible by a doctoral dissertation improvement

grant from the Nation Science Foundation and a UCSB graduate division dissertation

fellowship. The fieldwork was conducted with a permit from the Instituto Nacional de

Cultura - Perú. The UC Santa Barbara Anthropology Department and Letters and

Science Information Technology, and the GIS division at URS Corporation/Santa

iv


6/971

Barbara have provided me with part-time work and have kindly put up with my odd

schedule during this writing up process.

The Titicaca Basin is an excellent introduction to the Andes as it possesses enduring

Andean cultural traditions, rich archaeology, and a collegial community of

archaeologists that work there. My thanks to the many colleagues who have shared

their insights and their data from the Titicaca Basin research, and to Cecilia Chávez

and Edmundo de la Vega at the Puno house. Ever supportive, Karen Doehner

contributed valuable advice and generously translated key documents. This research

project is regional in scope and it inevitably has resulted in debts of gratitude to many

people whose data and observations have contributed to this exploration of Chivay

obsidian and regional interaction.

Striking out from the Titicaca Basin to work in Arequipa was made easier by the

warm community and valuable facilities that I found there. The Centro de

Investigaciones Arqueológicas de Arequipa (CIARQ) was a important base for field

operations and a hospitable environment for lab analysis, and special thanks go to

Karen Wise and Augusto Cardona for establishing and continuing this valuable

facility. I am especially grateful for Augusto’s logistical support for this project, his

enthusiasm and expertise in Arequipa archaeology, and for his hosting of memorable

ceviche parties at CIARQ. The INC offices in Arequipa, in particular Marco Lopez,

Cecilia Quequesana, and Lucy Linares, helped to make the bureaucratic hurdles less

difficult.

This project was made possible by the energetic participation of a committed team

of researchers and students from many countries. The enthusiasm of co-director Willy

v


7/971

Yépez Alvarez made fieldwork at the high altitude source a pleasure, and made

subsequent lab work in Arequipa and coordination with the INC proceed smoothly.

Important contributions to the field research were made by Cheyla Samuelson and

Alex Mackay who generously contributed months, even years, away from their own

research goals to greatly advance this project and the data that has resulted from it.

The theoretical and methodological merit of the lithics analysis in this project is

largely due to Alex Mackay’s keen field observations, efficient lab procedures, and

unparalleled speed with the digital calipers. Saul Morales has been a valuable friend

and collaborator nearly every year since I first met him in Juli, Peru eight years ago.

As Saul anticipated in 1999, he was an important contributor to this field project, and

he was also an astute cultural mediator who relies sometimes on the axiom “en Perú,

todo es posible”. A sincere thank you is also due to all of the other tireless participants

of the Upper Colca project, a list that includes Ross Burley, Mirza del Castillo, Erik

Erwin, Brian Finucane, Guillermo Flores, Tamara Flores Ramos, Melissa Joubert,

Chris Lagen, Adan Lacunza, José Ubeda, and Daniel Zimbler.

A great deal of credit for turning this geographer into an anthropologist goes to my

colleagues at UCSB, in particular Elizabeth Klarich and Nathan Craig. I would like to

thank Liz Klarich for her friendship and because her explanations of theoretical and

regional subjects have been invaluable. Liz has been a reliable source of sound advice

about grad school since I first visited Santa Barbara through to consultation about

organizing this dissertation. Nathan Craig is a never-ending source of ideas for

original ways to apply GIS to anthropological problems, for training in meticulous

vi


8/971

excavation work, and for demonstrating how tough and focused work in the field can

be enjoyable.

I would like to thank Cynthia Herhahn for demonstrating how to supervise a project

and for field training when I worked for her in Juli, my first year in Peru. Thanks also

to Cynthia for joining us in 2003 in the Colca for a three day high altitude

survey/backpacking death march, and thanks for follow-up discussions of my research

as I wrote up this work. I am grateful also to Cindy Klink who provided advice and

shared results from her work in the Ilave and Huenque valleys. Justin Jennings has

been a good colleague, sharing material from his work in Cotahuasi as well as

valuable insights about working in Arequipa. I would like to thank Steve Wernke for

his friendship and collegiality, and for his advice about research and the community in

the Colca valley. Other colleagues that have provided advice and encouragement

include Matthew Bandy, David Browman, Michele Buzon, Augusto Cardona, Christi

Conlee, José Antonio Chávez, Miriam Doutriaux, Tobias Fischer, Sarah Fowler,

Anabel Ford, Martín Giesso, Michael Glassow, Paul Goldstein, Ian Lindsay, Michael

Malpass, Daniel Sandweiss, Ericka Simborth, Bruce Owen, Felix Palacios, Kurt

Rademaker, Frank Spera, Waldo Tobler, Robin Torrence, Tiffiny Tung, Hendrik Van

Gijseghem, Kevin Vaughn, and Ryan Williams. In the Colca valley, Timoteo and

Adriana Valdivia, Eliseo Vilcahuaman Panibra, la Familia Espinel, la Familia

Sotormayor, Saturnino Ordóñez, and Padre Franz Windischhofer all contributed in

important ways to the success of this project.

Acknowledgement is due as well to the efforts of Richard Burger and Sarah Brooks

and their collaborators in geochemistry for locating and first documenting the obsidian

vii


9/971

deposits in the Colca valley. Both researchers provided me with useful advice in

carrying out this project. Michael Glascock at M.U.R.R. and M. Steven Shackley at

UC Berkeley have both been generous with their time in educating me about

geochemical analysis, and in analyzing obsidian source samples from Peru. Spatial

data and imagery that were essential to this work was acquired from several agencies

free-of-cost, and thanks are due to NASA, USGS, NIMA, Digital Perú, DigitalGlobe

(GoogleEarth), and the IGS base station in Arequipa for GPS correction. Mark

Aldenderfer was generous with equipment and I wish to thank him for the loan of GPS

equipment and cameras for several seasons in a row, as well as for his truck that

served as our field vehicle.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Robert Tripp and Susan Ervin-Tripp, for

their interest, encouragement, and support through all stages of my research. My

brother Alexander and sister Katya were likewise supportive. I would like to

acknowledge the kind advice and direction from Laura Nader, family friend, and

advocate for an integrative view of anthropology. My deepest love and gratitude goes

to my wife Cheyla Samuelson who has contributed emotional support, encouragement,

and effort to advancing my Ph.D. project from the beginning. She enthusiastically

participated in the rigorous 5000m portion of the research, and her keen intellect and

constructive observations helped considerably in directing this project. Cheyla spotted

more than her share of projectile points during survey, and thanks to her concern for

the crew while camping at the obsidian source we can say that “no students were

permanently damaged in the making of this dissertation”!

viii


10/971

CURRICULUM VITAE

NICHOLAS TRIPCEVICH Anthropology [email protected] Santa Barbara 805-893-2257 (office)

Santa Barbara, CA 93106 805-893-8707 (fax)

Education

2007 Ph.D., Anthropology

University of California, Santa Barbara

Dissertation Title: Quarries, Caravans, and Routes to Complexity:


Committee Members: Mark Aldenderfer (chair), Michael Jochim, Katharina

Schreiber, Keith Clarke (Geography)2000 University of California, Santa Barbara

M.A. in Anthropology, May 2000. Archaeology specialization. 1994 University of Montana, Missoula

B.A. in Geography. Minor in Forestry–Wildland Studies.

Research Interests

Origins of social inequality, Andean prehistory, exchange theory, geographic information

systems, spatial analysis, lithic analysis.

Publications

In Review Spatial and Temporal Variation in Stone Raw Material Provisioningin the Chivay Obsidian Source area. By N. Tripcevich and A. Mackay

submitted to Advances in Titicaca Basin Archaeology, vol. 2, C. Stanish

and E. Klarich, eds., Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles, CA.2007 La fuente de obsidiana “Chivay” y su posición en los Andes Sur

Centrales. By N. Tripcevich and W. Yepez Alvarez. In Actas delSimposio Internacional de Arqueología del Area Centro Sur Andina,

edited by Augusto Belén Franco, Mariusz Ziolkowski, and Justin

Jennings, Instituto Francés de Estudios Andinos, Lima (in press).2004 Flexibility by Design: How mobile GIS meets the needs of

archaeological survey. Cartography and Geographical InformationScience , Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 137-151.

2004 Interfaces: Mobile GIS in archaeological survey. The SAA Archaeological Record , May 2004. Vol. 4, No. 3, pp 17-22.

Professional Presentations

2006 Mobility and Exchange in the Andean Preceramic: Insights from

obsidian studies. Paper presented at the 71th Annual Meeting of theSociety for American Archaeology, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

2006 Production and Exchange of Obsidian from the Colca Valley,Arequipa, Peru. Paper presented at the 46th Annual Meeting of the

Institute for Andean Studies, Berkeley, CA.

ix

mailto:[email protected]://www.anth.ucsb.edu/graded/index.htmlhttp://www.ucsb.edu/http://www.ucsb.edu/http://www.umt.edu/http://../research/papers/Tripcevich04_CAGIS31-3.pdfhttp://../research/papers/Tripcevich04_CAGIS31-3.pdfhttp://www.acsm.net/cagis/cagisonline.htmlhttp://www.acsm.net/cagis/cagisonline.htmlhttp://../research/papers/tripcevich04_ArchRecord4-3.pdfhttp://../research/papers/tripcevich04_ArchRecord4-3.pdfhttp://www.saa.org/publications/theSAAarchRec/http://www.saa.org/publications/theSAAarchRec/http://www.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/IAS/Tripcevich2006_IASberkeley.pdfhttp://www.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/IAS/Tripcevich2006_IASberkeley.pdfhttp://www.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/IAS/Tripcevich2006_IASberkeley.pdfhttp://www.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/IAS/Tripcevich2006_IASberkeley.pdfhttp://www.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/IAS/Tripcevich2006_IASberkeley.pdfhttp://www.saa.org/publications/theSAAarchRec/http://www.saa.org/publications/theSAAarchRec/http://../research/papers/tripcevich04_ArchRecord4-3.pdfhttp://www.acsm.net/cagis/cagisonline.htmlhttp://www.acsm.net/cagis/cagisonline.htmlhttp://../research/papers/Tripcevich04_CAGIS31-3.pdfhttp://../research/papers/Tripcevich04_CAGIS31-3.pdfhttp://www.umt.edu/http://www.ucsb.edu/http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/graded/index.htmlmailto:[email protected]


11/971

2005 Tripcevich, Nicholas and Willy Yepez Alvarez. Fuente de Obsidiana“Chivay” y su posición en los Andes Sur Centrales. Por "Simposio

Internacional sobre Arequeologia del Area Centro Sur Andina", Arequipa,

Perú.2005

Tripcevich, Nicholas and Alex Mackay. Spatial and TemporalVariation in Stone Raw Material Provisioning Around the ChivayObsidian Source. Paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the

Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City, UT.2004 Mobile GIS on Archaeological Survey. Paper presented at the

Archaeological Sciences of the Americas conference, University of

Arizona, Tucson. 2004 Chivay obsidian source and south-central Andean prehistory. Paper

presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Society for American

Archaeology, Montreal Canada.2003 Viewshed analysis in archaeology. Poster presented at the 68th Annual

Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Milwaukee Wisconsin.

Teaching Experience

2007 Lecturer, Origins of Complex Societies, UC Santa BarbaraDesigned and taught course surveying the theories and evidence

surrounding the origins of state-level societies in New and Old World.2006 Teaching Associate, GIS and Anthropology, UC Santa Barbara

Designed and taught class concerning the theory and application of

geospatial technology in anthropology.2004 Teaching Associate, Clash of Cultures, UC Santa Barbara

Designed and taught undergraduate course about the culture contact period.2003 Instructor, GIS and GPS workshops, Arequipa, Peru

Led two workshops in Spanish for Peruvian archaeologists and mountain

rescue personnel on the use of GIS and GPS in fieldwork. 2000 – 2004 Instructor, archaeological fieldwork and use of GIS technologyInstructed fieldwork participants in archaeological research projects using

GIS-based techniques for excavating, surveying, and labwork.1998 – 2004 Teaching Assistant, UC Santa Barbara, seven quarters

• Intro. to Archaeology • Intro. to Physical Anthropology

• Intro. to Cultural Anthropology • Understanding Cultural Differences

• Third World Environments • Cultural Ecology

• Peoples and Cultures of India

Professional Experience

7/05 – GIS Technician for URS Corporation.

Tasks include spatial analysis, mobile GIS development, hazardassessment, mitigation mapping, and map production for environmental

consulting office.6/04 – 7/04 Mobile GIS implementation, Proyecto Arqueológico Norte Chico.

Designed a archaeological survey site documentation method using ESRI

Arcpad for survey project directed by J. Haas and K. Nelson.

x

http://www.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/AQP/Tripcevich_Yepez2005_AQP.pdfhttp://www.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/AQP/Tripcevich_Yepez2005_AQP.pdfhttp://www.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/SAA/Tripcevich_MacKay2005_SAA.pdfhttp://www.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/SAA/Tripcevich_MacKay2005_SAA.pdfhttp://www.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/SAA/Tripcevich_MacKay2005_SAA.pdfhttp://colca.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/asas04/tripcevich2004_ASAS1.pdfhttp://titicaca.ucsb.edu/colca/research/talks/saa04/index.htmhttp://../research/papers/datapaper.htmhttp://www.anth.ucsb.edu/undergrad/highcourses.html#147http://www.fmnh.org/research_collections/anthropology/anthro_sites/PANC/default.htmhttp://www.fmnh.org/research_collections/anthropology/anthro_sites/PANC/default.htmhttp://www.anth.ucsb.edu/undergrad/highcourses.html#147http://../research/papers/datapaper.htmhttp://titicaca.ucsb.edu/colca/research/talks/saa04/index.htmhttp://colca.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/asas04/tripcevich2004_ASAS1.pdfhttp://www.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/SAA/Tripcevich_MacKay2005_SAA.pdfhttp://www.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/SAA/Tripcevich_MacKay2005_SAA.pdfhttp://www.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/SAA/Tripcevich_MacKay2005_SAA.pdfhttp://www.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/AQP/Tripcevich_Yepez2005_AQP.pdfhttp://www.mapaspects.org/papers_talks/AQP/Tripcevich_Yepez2005_AQP.pdf


12/971

7/03 – 8/04 Dissertation Research, Upper Colca Project. Fieldwork and analysis.Director of archaeological research project involving survey and test

excavations in vicinity of Chivay obsidian source, Arequipa, Peru, funded

by NSF award #0331181.3/03 – 4/03

Field Archaeologist, S.A.I.C., Twenty-nine Palms, CACultural resource survey in eastern California.8/02 – 9/02 Preliminary Dissertation Research at Chivay Obsidian Source

Investigated obsidian source and settlement distributions in adjacent

habitation areas in Colca valley, Arequipa, southern Peru.7/01 – 9/01 Field Archaeologist, Proyecto Ch’amak Pacha, Puno, Peru

Directors: M. Aldenderfer and N. Craig, UCSB.9/00 – 12/00 Field Archaeologist, Proyecto Ch’amak Pacha, Puno, Peru

Director: M. Aldenderfer, UCSB.7/99 – 9/99 Field Archaeologist, Proyecto Wiskachuni, Juli, Peru

Director: C. Herhahn, UCSB.8/95 – 2/97 Archaeological Cartographer, Schwab Consulting, Polson, MT

Compiled data for Native American land claims litigation. Designed

project area and site maps for cultural resource surveys.7/93 – 8/93 Trail Guide, Glaciological Field School, U. of Alaska, Juneau, AK

Physical geography research on geology, geomorphology and glacier

processes conducted during a seven week field season on the Juneau

Icefield.9/94 – 10/94 Field Archaeologist, Heritage Research Center, Black Hills, SD

Cultural resource survey and testing in the Black Hills National Forest.

Designed and produced site maps.4/93 – 11/97 Cartographer and G.I.S. technician, Missoula MT

Cartographer specializing in archaeological and recreational maps.5/92 – 9/92 Survey Crew Leader, Knowledge Northwest, Pendleton, OR

Archaeological cultural resource survey of National Forest land in

Oregon.6/91 – 8/91 Archaeological Field School, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins

Survey and excavation, Late Pueblo era kivas, Hovenweep area,

Colorado.

Grants and Awards

2006 Student SAA Paper of the Year, Int’l Association of Obsidian Studies

2006 Anthropology of Technology Prize, UC Santa Barbara Anthropology

2006 Graduate Division Dissertation Fellowship

2003 National Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement GrantArchaeological research project in the Peru, NSF grant #0331181.

2003 Proyecto Ch’amak Pacha, ESRI Special Achievement in GIS award .2002 Dissertation Proposal Writing Fellowship, UCSB Graduate Division

Support for proposal writing in order to facilitate advancing to candidacy.2001 California Space Grant

Funding for applying remote sensing technology to regional

archaeological research in the Andes.

xi

http://www.mapaspects.org/colca/https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showaward?award=0331181http://www.saic.com/http://www.mapaspects.org/colca/http://titicaca.ucsb.edu/chamak_pacha/http://titicaca.ucsb.edu/chamak_pacha/http://sscf.ucsb.edu/~herhahn/wiskachuni/http://www.montana.com/heritagehttp://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Anthropology/http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Anthropology/http://www.peak.org/obsidian/index.htmlhttp://www.anth.ucsb.edu/AnthTechPrize/https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showaward?award=0331181http://gis.esri.com/uc2002/sag/list/detail.cfm?SID=18http://gis.esri.com/uc2002/sag/list/detail.cfm?SID=18https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showaward?award=0331181https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showaward?award=0331181http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/AnthTechPrize/http://www.peak.org/obsidian/index.htmlhttp://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Anthropology/http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Anthropology/http://www.montana.com/heritagehttp://sscf.ucsb.edu/~herhahn/wiskachuni/http://titicaca.ucsb.edu/chamak_pacha/http://titicaca.ucsb.edu/chamak_pacha/http://www.mapaspects.org/colca/http://www.saic.com/https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showaward?award=0331181https://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showaward?award=0331181http://www.mapaspects.org/colca/


13/971

Professional Memberships

1998 – Society for American Archaeology 2000 – Professional Archaeologists of Peru, number DT-0176

Registro del Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Lima, Perú.

Relevant Experience

2004 – Mobile GIS development for varied applicationsImplementations for academic and corporate natural resources projects.

2005 – Reviewer for the National Science Foundation, American Antiquity, Latin American Antiquity, and Ñawpa Pacha.

2004 – 2005 Anthropology Graduate Student Association, Co-ChairChaired student group representing Anthropology graduate students at UC

Santa Barbara.

xii

http://www.saa.org/http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~nico/cv/nkt_registro.jpghttp://www.inc.gob.pe/index.htmhttp://www.inc.gob.pe/index.htmhttp://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~nico/cv/nkt_registro.jpghttp://www.saa.org/


14/971

ABSTRACT



by

Nicholas Tripcevich

Regional studies of obsidian artifacts in the south-central Andes have shown that

over 90% of the analyzed artifacts from the Lake Titicaca Basin belong to a single

geochemical obsidian type. A decade ago researchers identified the geological origin

of this obsidian type as the Chivay / Cotallalli source, located 180km west of Lake

Titicaca above the Colca valley in Arequipa at 71.5355° S, 15.6423° W (WGS84),

and at 4972 meters above sea level. This research project focused on the obsidian

source and adjacent lands within one day’s travel from the source. The project

included a 33 km2 survey, 8 test units, and in-depth lithic attribute analysis. Mobile

GIS (Arcpad) was used extensively during survey. A substantial quarry pit and an

obsidian workshop were examined closely, as were consumption sites in nearby

areas. The results of this study found that the earliest diagnostic materials at the

source date to the Middle Archaic (8000 – 6000 BCE) and that intensification of

obsidian production occurred earlier than previously recognized, at circa 3300 BCE

Increased obsidian production appears to have been focused on the acquisition of

xiii


15/971

large (> 20cm) and homogeneous obsidian nodules, although the formal tools

produced with obsidian were predominantly small projectile points. It is argued that

the acquisition of large, homogenous nodules was prioritized because the production

potential of large nodules was highest, and because obsidian was associated with

competitive display among early aggrandizers. The timing and economic associations

of obsidian production and circulation suggest that the possession of large obsidian

pieces in the Titicaca Basin was a demonstration of social connections to distant

resources, and to regional trade networks that emerged with regularized camelid

caravan transport networks. Obsidian artifacts were not inherently “prestige goods”;

rather , it is suggested here that obsidian was the least- perishable of a number of

cultural goods distributed by an expanding network of caravans that linked

communities in the region. The acquisition and consumption of these cultural goods

was a demonstration of economic connections and cultural influence during the

dynamic period of incipient social inequality between the Terminal Archaic (3300–

2000 BCE) through the Middle Formative (1300–500 BCE).

xiv


16/971

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CURRICULUM VITAE ......................................................................................................... ix ABSTRACT.......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... ........... .......... ........... ........... .......... ...... xiii TABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................................xv LIST OF FIGURES .......... .......... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... ........... .......... ........... ......xx LIST OF TABLES ........... ........... .......... ........... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... ........... ....xxvi LIST OF TABLES ........... ........... .......... ........... ........... .......... ........... .......... ........... ........... ....xxvi

CHAPTER 1 – LIKE SALT OR LIKE GOLD?......................................................................... 1

1.1. OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1. Prehispanic Economy...................................................................................................7 1.1.2. Chemical characterization work in the Andes........... .......... ........... ........... ........... ...... 12

1.2. STRUCTURE OF THE DISSERTATION .............................................................................. 13 1.2.1. Organization of presentation ..................................................................................... 13 1.2.2. Digital data availability ............................................................................................. 14 1.2.3. Dates .......................................................................................................................... 15 1.2.4. Spatial data ................................................................................................................ 15

1.2.5. Photographs and scale............................................................................................... 17 1.3. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 17

CHAPTER 2 – THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO

ECONOMY, EXCHANGE, AND RAW MATERIAL SOURCES......................................... 19

2.1. I NTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 19 2.2. A NTHROPOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO ECONOMY AND EXCHANGE ..........................21

2.2.1. Economies .................................................................................................................. 21 2.2.2. Transfer of goods and exchange value....................................................................... 28 2.2.3. Transfer of goods and socio-political complexity ...................................................... 46 2.2.4. Definitions of exchange.............................................................................................. 60 2.2.5. Exchange and social distance .................................................................................... 69 2.2.6. Territoriality and access to raw material sources ..................................................... 75 2.2.7. Discussion .................................................................................................................. 79

2.3. CHEMICAL PROVENIENCE AND EXCHANGE .................................................................. 81 2.3.1. Quantitative approaches to regional exchange.......................................................... 82 2.3.2. Other Distance Decay studies.................................................................................... 86 2.3.3. Site-oriented studies of exchange............................................................................... 91 2.3.4. Discussion .................................................................................................................. 98

2.4. THE VIEW FROM THE QUARRY.....................................................................................100 2.4.1. The specialization and efficiency framework for quarry studies................ ........... ... 102 2.4.2. Analysis of a production system............................................................................... 105 2.4.3. Specialization at a Mexican Obsidian workshop ..................................................... 108 2.4.4. A contextual approach to Neolithic axe quarries in Britain .................................... 110 2.4.5. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 118

CHAPTER 3 – THE REGIONAL CONTEXT OF

CHIVAY OBSIDIAN RESEARCH......................................................................................... 120

3.1. A NDEAN ECONOMY AND EXCHANGE.......................................................................... 124 3.1.1. Economic organization and trade in the Andes ....................................................... 126 3.1.2. Economy and exchange in mountain environments ................................................. 133

3.2. LONG DISTANCE TRADE ................................................................................................154 3.2.1. Household-level caravans........................................................................................ 157 3.2.2. Incentives for early caravan formation.................................................................... 159 3.2.3. Exchange between herders and farmers .................................................................. 162

xv


17/971

3.2.4. Types of products carried by caravans .................................................................... 164 3.2.5. Caravan travel distances and speeds ....................................................................... 165 3.2.6. Circuit mobility and role of the periphery................................................................ 169 3.2.7. Compadrazgo relationships and commerce............................................................. 172 3.2.8. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 177

3.3. R EGIONAL PATTERNS AND MAJOR SOURCES OF OBSIDIAN ...................................... 179 3.3.1. Obsidian and larger geographical associations ...................................................... 185 3.4. CHIVAY OBSIDIAN CONSUMPTION CONTEXTS .......................................................... 188

3.4.1. Asana........................................................................................................................ 188 3.4.2. Qillqatani rock shelter .............................................................................................190 3.4.3. Sumbay..................................................................................................................... 197 3.4.4. The Ilave Valley and Jiskairumoko.......................................................................... 199

3.5. A NDEAN OBSIDIAN DISTRIBUTIONS THROUGH TIME................................................ 203 3.5.1. Archaic Foragers in the South-Central Andes......................................................... 208 3.5.2. Early Agropastoralist obsidian distributions........................................................... 227 3.5.3. The Late Prehispanic ...............................................................................................252

3.6. OBSIDIAN USE IN THE SOUTH-CENTRAL A NDES........................................................ 268 3.6.1. Variability in Andean obsidian use .......................................................................... 269 3.6.2. Symbolic significance of obsidian ............................................................................ 281

3.7. MODELS FOR THE PROCUREMENT AND CIRCULATION OFCHIVAY OBSIDIAN IN PREHISTORY ....................................................................................288

3.7.1. Direct acquisition Model..........................................................................................289 3.7.2. Multiple Reciprocal Exchanges (Down the line) Model .......................................... 293 3.7.3. Independent Caravans Model ..................................................................................297 3.7.4. Elite-Sponsored Caravans Model ............................................................................ 302

3.8. SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 304

CHAPTER 4 – REGIONAL GEOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGYOF THE UPPER COLCA PROJECT AREA......................................................................... 306

4.1. THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE COLCA VALLEY STUDY AREA .......................................... 307 4.1.1. Climate across the study area .................................................................................. 311 4.1.2. Lower elevation biotic zones: Study Area Blocks 3 and 6.............. ........... .......... ..... 318

4.1.3. High Puna: Block 2 survey and adjacent Blocks 4 and 5 ........................................325 4.1.4. The Chivay Source: Block 1 ..................................................................................... 329 4.2. TECTONIC GEOLOGY...................................................................................................... 330 4.3. FORMATIONS IN THE UPPER COLCA VALLEY............................................................. 333

4.3.1. A geological descent of the upper Colca drainage .................................................. 335 4.3.2. Yura and associated sedimentary strata ..................................................................341 4.3.3. Oligocene and Miocene lavas .................................................................................. 342 4.3.4. Pliocene lavas – Barroso group............................................................................... 345 4.3.5. Pleistocene – Ampato group .................................................................................... 349 4.3.6 . Holocene stratovolcanoes ........................................................................................ 349 4.3.7 . Glaciation.................................................................................................................349

4.4. HOW OBSIDIAN IS FORMED ........................................................................................... 353 4.4.1. Chemical differentiation...........................................................................................356 4.4.2. Obsidian color..........................................................................................................357

4.5. PLIOCENE (BARROSO GROUP) OBSIDIAN IN THE COLCA VALLEY............................ 357 4.5.1. Chivay obsidian source observations....................................................................... 358

4.6. OTHER TERTIARY OBSIDIAN IN THE COLCA VALLEY................................................ 364 4.6.1. Tripcevich source sampling work............................................................................. 367

4.7. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 371

CHAPTER 5 – RESEARCH METHODS AND

DATA RECORDING STRATEGIES...................................................................................... 373

xvi


18/971

5.1. I NTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................373 5.1.1. Locus rather than Site-oriented survey methods......................................................374 5.1.2. Data recording in both categorical forms and field journals .................................. 375

5.2. GEOGRAPHICAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................ 377 5.2.1. Geographical datum and regional data sets ............................................................ 378

5.2.2. Regional datasets ..................................................................................................... 380 5.3. DATA RECORDING APPROACH...................................................................................... 380 5.3.1. Introduction..............................................................................................................380 5.3.2. Organization, sampling, and inference ....................................................................381 5.3.3. Aggregating by Sites versus Loci ............................................................................. 383 5.3.4. Site and Loci recording structure............................................................................. 384 5.3.5. The Primary Key: ArchID........................................................................................385 5.3.6. Site classification...................................................................................................... 387 5.3.7. Linking Field and Lab data: an example ................................................................. 388 5.3.8. Theoretical relevance of the provenience system..................................................... 389

5.4. SURVEY STRATEGY ....................................................................................................... 390 5.4.1. Goals of Survey and Testing..................................................................................... 390 5.4.2. Surveys types: Prospection, Statistical, and Spatial Structure...... ........... ........... ..... 392 5.4.3. Surveyor interval and sampling ............................................................................... 392 5.4.4. Survey design ........................................................................................................... 393 5.4.5. Testing the effectiveness of the B3 survey strategy......... ........... ........... ........... ......... 398

5.5. MOBILE GIS FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY .............................................................. 400 5.5.1. Standard survey practice.......................................................................................... 400 5.5.2. The contribution of mobile GIS ................................................................................402 5.5.3. Hardware configuration...........................................................................................403 5.5.4. Defining loci and sites.............................................................................................. 405 5.5.5. Attribute Forms ........................................................................................................ 406 5.5.6. Variability within a Locus........................................................................................407 5.5.7. Sampling High-density Loci..................................................................................... 411 5.5.8. Collection during survey .......................................................................................... 412 5.5.9. Other Data Types..................................................................................................... 413 5.5.10. Processing steps with mobile GIS .......................................................................... 413

5.5.11. Implications of Mobile GIS for Fieldwork ............................................................. 416 5.6. TEST EXCAVATION METHODOLOGY ........................................................................... 417 5.6.1. Excavation procedures............................................................................................. 418 5.6.2. Proveniencing of excavated materials ..................................................................... 419 5.6.3. Proveniencing for database management and quantitative analysis .......... ........... .. 421

5.7. LAB ANALYSIS................................................................................................................ 422 5.7.1. Phase I Lab work ..................................................................................................... 422 5.7.2. Phase II Lab work .................................................................................................... 423

5.8. SAMPLING IN UPPER COLCA WORK ............................................................................. 428 5.8.1. Sampling during survey............................................................................................ 429 5.8.2. Sampling during excavation..................................................................................... 429 5.8.3. Sampling during lab analysis................................................................................... 430

5.9. DERIVATIVE INDICES..................................................................................................... 431 5.9.1. Lithic density raster index........................................................................................ 433 5.9.2. Cumulative Viewshed Analysis and Exposure Index.............. ........... ........... .......... .. 437 5.9.3. Bifacial Thinning Flake index.................................................................................. 441

5.10. DATABASE STRUCTURE AND 1:M LABELING............................................................ 442 5.10.1. The All ArchID Centroids file ................................................................................443 5.10.2. VB Script for One-to-Many labeling ...................................................................... 446

5.11. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 448

xvii


19/971

CHAPTER 6 – SURVEY RESULTS FROM

RESEARCH IN THE UPPER COLCA................................................................................... 449

6.1. I NTRODUCTION TO DATA PRESENTATION................................................................... 449 6.1.1. Data presentation and cartographic conventions.................................................... 451

6.2. OBSIDIAN VARIABILITY IN THE STUDY AREA ............................................................ 455 6.2.1. Material type by survey block .................................................................................. 455 6.2.2. Production Indices ................................................................................................... 470 6.2.3. Projectile Points and obsidian variability................................................................473

6.3. SURVEY R ESULTS: ARCHAIC FORAGERS PERIOD (9000–3300BCE) ......................... 479 6.3.1. Block 1 – Archaic Source and adjacent high puna .................................................. 482 6.3.2. Block 2 – Archaic San Bartolomé ............................................................................ 508 6.3.3. Block 3 – Archaic Callalli and adjacent valley bottom areas............. ........... .......... 532

6.4. SURVEY R ESULTS: EARLY AGROPASTORALISTS PERIOD (3300BCE – AD400) ......576 6.4.1. Block 1 – Source....................................................................................................... 582 6.4.2. Block 2 – San Bartolomé.......................................................................................... 609 6.4.3. Block 3 – Callalli...................................................................................................... 621

6.5. SURVEY R ESULTS: LATE PREHISPANIC PERIOD (AD400 - AD1532)......................... 633 6.5.1. Block 1 – Source....................................................................................................... 634

6.5.2. Block 2 – San Bartolomé.......................................................................................... 648 6.5.3. Block 3 – Callalli...................................................................................................... 658 6.6. CHAPTER SUMMARY DISCUSSION ................................................................................ 672

CHAPTER 7 – RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

FROM TEST EXCAVATIONS ............................................................................................... 674

7.1. GOALS OF THE ANALYSIS OF PRODUCTION ................................................................ 675 7.2. GENERAL I NDICES OF PRODUCTION ............................................................................ 680 7.3. TEST EXCAVATION UNITS ............................................................................................. 684 7.4. BLOCK 1 TEST EXCAVATIONS AT MAYMEJA Q02-2 .................................................. 687

7.4.1. Q02-2, Test Unit 2.................................................................................................... 687 7.4.2. Q02-2, Test Unit 3.................................................................................................... 702 7.4.3. Summary Interpretation of A03-126 Workshop .......................................................743

7.5. B

LOCK2

T

ESTE

XCAVATIONS ATP

AUSAA02-39....................................................... 746 7.5.1. A02-39, Test Unit 1 and 2 ........................................................................................ 746

7.5.2. A02-39, Test Units 3 and 4 ....................................................................................... 747 7.6. BLOCK 3 TEST EXCAVATIONS AT TAUKAMAYO A02-26........................................... 757

7.6.1. A02-26, Test Unit 1 .................................................................................................. 757 7.6.2. Test Unit 2 ................................................................................................................ 768

7.7. COMPARISONS BETWEEN BLOCKS WITH SURFACE AND EXCAVATED DATA. ........ 769 7.7.1. Size of flaked stone artifacts..................................................................................... 769

7.8. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 771

CHAPTER 8 – MAJOR FINDINGS FROMTHE UPPER COLCA PROJECT........................................................................................... 773

8.1. I NTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................773 8.2. R EVIEW OF MAJOR FINDINGS ....................................................................................... 773

8.2.1. Archaic Foragers (10,000 – 3300 BCE) .................................................................. 775 8.2.2. Early Agropastoralist............................................................................................... 777 8.2.3. Late Prehispanic ...................................................................................................... 781 8.2.4. Discussion ................................................................................................................ 784

8.3. PRODUCTION AND INTERACTION ................................................................................. 785 8.3.1. Lithic raw material use in the vicinity of the Chivay source........... ........... .......... .... 785 8.3.2. Quarrying for non-local consumption...................................................................... 787 8.3.3. Site visibility at Maymeja and warfare in the Colca area........................................ 789

xviii


20/971

8.3.4. Quarry pit and associated workshop activities ........................................................ 792 8.3.5. Pottery and lithic production ................................................................................... 799 8.3.6. Projectile Points....................................................................................................... 800 8.3.7. Regional caravans and local interaction .................................................................803 8.3.8. Models of regional obsidian circulation ..................................................................809

8.4. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS FROM OBSIDIAN PROCUREMENT EVIDENCE ........... 820 8.4.1. Herder status and herd size...................................................................................... 821 8.4.2. The changing scale of regular interaction ............................................................... 822 8.4.3. Aggrandizing behavior.............................................................................................823

8.5. FUTURE RESEARCH ........................................................................................................ 826 8.5.1. Other Andean sources .............................................................................................. 827 8.5.2. Technological improvements.................................................................................... 828

8.6. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 829

APPENDIX A – ARCH ID AND LOT ID REGISTRY ........................................................ 831

A.1. ALL ARCH ID (CENTROIDS) VALUES .......................................................................... 831 A.2. LOT ID R EGISTRY.......................................................................................................... 859

APPENDIX B – SELECTED OBSIDIAN SOURCES

IN SOUTHERN PERU..............................................................................................................864 B.1. ACONCAGUA OBSIDIAN SOURCE ................................................................................ 864 B.2. ALCA OBSIDIAN SOURCE ............................................................................................. 864 B.3. CHIVAY OBSIDIAN SOURCE ......................................................................................... 865 B.4. UYO UYO OBSIDIAN SOURCE....................................................................................... 868

APPENDIX C – OBSIDIAN ARTIFACT EXAMPLES

AND REPRESENTATIONS FROM THE ANDES .............................................................. 869

REFERENCES CITED –.......................................................................................................... 877

xix


21/971

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1. Larger study region with modern towns and roads.. ............................................................ 3 Figure 1-2. Tobler's (1993) Hiking Function models foot travel velocity as a function of slope. ........ 16 Figure 2-1. Varieties of reciprocal exchange (after Sahlins 1972: 199). .............................................. 31 Figure 2-2. Modes of exchange from Renfrew (1975:520). ................................................................. 66 Figure 2-3. Network configurations...................................................................................................... 68 Figure 2-4. Model for inference about prehistoric exchange (from Torrence 1986: 5). ....................... 69 Figure 2-5. Log-Log fall-off curve of obsidian density (Sidrys 1976: 454). ........................................83 Figure 2-6. Stages of production from quarry, local area, and region (after Ericson 1984: 4). .......... 106 Figure 3-1. Chronologies discussed in the text. .................................................................................. 122 Figure 3-2. Contemporary types of Andean zonation (Brush 1977: 12)............................................. 136 Figure 3-3. Diagram of institutions of Andean complementarity (from Salomon 1985: 520)............ 138 Figure 3-4. Subsistence exchange for products by ecozone versus single-source, diffusive goods. .. 144 Figure 3-5. Known south-central Andean obsidian sources used in prehistory with least cost paths

(Tobler’s function on SRTM DEM data) from the three major sources to sites in the region.. 181 Figure 3-6. Cumulative frequency graph showing three major Peruvian obsidian sources by

consumption site altitude...........................................................................................................183

Figure 3-7. Qillqatani data showing percentage of bifacially flaked tools and percentages of debrismade from obsidian per assemblage by count (from Aldenderfer 1999c, in press). ................. 192 Figure 3-8. Sumbay pitchstone projectile points................................................................................. 198 Figure 3-9. Comparison of projectile point counts in the Ilave Valley and the Upper Colca. ............ 201 Figure 3-10. Projectile Point Typology with Titicaca Basin chronology (from data in Klink and

Aldenderfer 2005) ..................................................................................................................... 207 Figure 3-11. Chivay type obsidian distributions during the “Archaic Foragers” time (circa 10,000 –

3,300 BCE)................................................................................................................................ 211 Figure 3-12. Chivay type obsidian distributions during the “Early Agropastoralists” time (3,300 BCE

– AD 400).................................................................................................................................. 229 Figure 3-13. Chivay type obsidian distributions during the “Late Prehispanic” time (AD 400 – 1532).

................................................................................................................................................... 253 Figure 3-14. Type 5d projectile points from a Terminal Archaic level at Asana and Early Formative

levels at Qillqatani.....................................................................................................................275 Figure 4-1. View of the volcanic Chivay source area above the town of Chivay in the Colca valley.307 Figure 4-2. Survey blocks in the Upper Colca study area are shown with modern production zones

described in Table 4-1. .............................................................................................................. 310 Figure 4-3. Temperature by Altitude at mid- and high-altitude Arequipa meteorological stations.. .. 313 Figure 4-4. Comparison of Temperature highs, means, and lows for August and January). .............. 314 Figure 4-5. Mean monthly temperatures (°C) from data in ONERN (1973). ..................................... 314 Figure 4-6. Precipitation by Altitude (left), precipitation in the study area ........................................ 315 Figure 4-7. Latitude against barometric pressure................................................................................ 317 Figure 4-8. Exterior and interior of probable colonial pyrotechnical structure .................................. 321 Figure 4-9. Tuber cultivation at 4200 masl surrounded by large tuff outcrops. ................................. 323 Figure 4-10. ASTER scenes with the terminus of volcanic breccia outcrop. ..................................... 326 Figure 4-11. View of San Bartolomé (Block 2) area during the dry season... .................................... 328 Figure 4-12. Select raw material sources in the central Andes. ......................................................... 331

Figure 4-13. Rock groups in the Colca region (based on Palacios et al., 1993). ................................ 334 Figure 4-14. Legend showing geological map units in maps that follow. ......................................... 338 Figure 4-15. Geological map units and 2003 Survey Block boundaries (in gray) for the Upper Colca

project study area. Legend shown in preceding figure.............................................................. 339 Figure 4-16. Geological map units shown on ASTER scene from 28 Sept 2000; legend....................340

xx


22/971

Figure 4-17. Andesitic Tacaza deposits with breccias and tuff outcrops in the Quebrada de los Molinosdrainage. The Chivay obsidian source in later Barroso deposits is found high above, on the rightside of the photo. ....................................................................................................................... 343

Figure 4-18. The lower section of the Castillo de Callalli is known as “Cabeza de León”. ............... 344 Figure 4-19. Detail of Chivay source, Maymeja area with INGEMMET geological map. ................ 347

Figure 4-20. Glacial polish and striations (aligned towards camera) on lava flows adjacent to Maymejaworkshop on the southern end of the Maymeja area. ................................................................ 352

Figure 4-21 (a). Small box in lower-right gully shows Q02-1, an obsidian flow eroding out of ashy- pumaceous soils below western arm of Cerro Ancachita. (b). This obsidian is of limited use fortool making because it contains vertical, subparallel fractures. ................................................ 359

Figure 4-22. Obsidian gravels exposure in tephra soils east of Cerro Hornillo..................................361 Figure 4-23. Geological map units with Uyo Uyo sampling locations. See Figure 4-14 for legend.

Selected archaeological sites in the main Colca Valley shown in blue. ....................................365 Figure 4-24. Bivariate plot showing Dysprosium against Manganese for Tripcevich 2005 samples. 368 Figure 4-25. Map showing locations of Colca valley obsidian source samples analyzed by MURR in

2005...........................................................................................................................................369 Figure 5-1. Criteria in designing regional survey from three stage research proposal including obsidian

source survey, testing program, and concluding with the river valley survey........................... 395 Figure 5-2. GPS tracks from edges of most survey routes.................................................................. 397 Figure 5-3. An example of a pedestrian survey line following a river terrace at a 15 meter interval..401 Figure 5-4. Mobile GIS implementation with ESRI Arcpad 6.. ......................................................... 404 Figure 5-5. (a) Arcpad screen showing a large site with loci and points.. .......................................... 406 Figure 5-6. Maps for two different hypothetical sites recorded in less than one hour........................409 Figure 5-7. (a) Structure of the archaeological Shapefiles with names and descriptions.. ................. 409 Figure 5-8. (a) Example of proveniencing for four 50cm quads within a 1x1m unit. ........................ 419 Figure 5-9. Showing some of the percussive metrics, platform metrics, and measures of retouch

invasiveness for ventral side (after Clarkson 2002) used in the Phase II analysis.. .................. 426 Figure 5-10. Line of sight across hilly terrain results in specific cells and targets being in view or out

of view.......................................................................................................................................437 Figure 5-11. Viewshed is not necessarily reciprocal, as the individual and the left can see the person

on the right, but the opposite is not true. ................................................................................... 438 Figure 5-12. Cumulative Viewshed using 5000 random observers and 10 km viewing distance. .... 439

Figure 5-13. The All_ArchID_Centroids table provides a single reference layer for all the ArchIDnumbers used in the projecta. .................................................................................................... 444 Figure 6-1. Artifactual lithic material types in the Upper Colca Project study region........................ 456 Figure 6-2. Proportion of obsidian for four colors (shades) of glass, by count. ................................. 460 Figure 6-3. Proportion of obsidian material as Ob1 and Ob2 (heterogeneities), by count. ................ 462 Figure 6-4. Photographic comparison of the homogeneous Ob1 obsidian and the Ob2 obsidian with

heterogeneities........................................................................................................................... 464 Figure 6-5. Complete projectile point weights and lengths by material type for the entire project area.

Series 5 projectile points are excluded and chalcedony is combined with chert. ...................... 478 Figure 6-6. Projectile Point weights and lengths (when not broken) by material type for Block 1 and

adjacent high puna areas of Blocks 4 and 5. Series 5 projectile point types excluded..............482 Figure 6-7. Possible Chivay obsidian source camps during Archaic Forager times. .......................... 484 Figure 6-8. Middle Archaic obsidian projectile point from Maymeja area [A03-184]....................... 487 Figure 6-9. (a) Small rock shelter at “Molinos 2” [A03-580] is filled with debris from heavy runoff.

(b) A density of flakes, predominantly of obsidian, are found in profile in the flood channel. 492 Figure 6-10. Lithic scatters are associated with shelter provided by large boulders located along

moraines [A03-539]. One surveyor that is visible in blue provides scale. ................................ 494 Figure 6-11. Obsidian scatters were found along the base of these viscous lava flows at 5040 masl

[A03-291]. ................................................................................................................................. 495 Figure 6-12. Map of project area showing Reconnaissance Blocks 4 and 5 with diagnostic projectile

points and logistical sites from the Archaic Foragers period. ................................................... 499

xxi


23/971

Figure 6-13. Rock shelter [A03-229] passes behind the collapsed margin of the grey lava flow in thecenter of the photo. Walls are built to partially close off both of the two entrances. ................ 500

Figure 6-14. Multicomponent site of A03-910 "Collpa" among crystalline tuff outcrops.. ............... 504 Figure 6-15. Photo of moraines and bofedales of Escalera south-west of Chivay source. ................. 507 Figure 6-16. Projectile Point weights and lengths (when complete) by material type for Block 2..... 510

Figure 6-17. Archaic Forager sites in Block 2: Major sites described in the text. .............................. 512 Figure 6-18. A03-1050 consists of four rock shelters: A, B, C, and D...............................................515 Figure 6-19. Chiripascapa [A03-1014], Archaic Foragers occupation. .............................................. 516 Figure 6-20. Huañatira [A03-900] and vicinity, Archaic Foragers occupation. ................................. 522 Figure 6-21. Rock shelter of Huañatira with circular mortuary feature visible inside. One meter scale

showing on tape resting on rock along dripline (see also Figure 6-76). .................................... 525 Figure 6-22. Block 2 Archaic Foragers component from lithic evidence........................................... 528 Figure 6-23. Projectile Point weights and lengths (when complete) by material type........................ 534 Figure 6-24. Archaic Period in Blocks 3, 6 and 5 (valley): Sites described in the text. ..................... 536 Figure 6-25. Block 3: Early, Middle, and Late Archaic projectile points and Aceramic sites............ 537 Figure 6-26. Site of Kakapunku [A03-1000]. ..................................................................................... 539 Figure 6-27. The entrance of A03-1001 with looted cist tomb visible inside the rock shelter........... 540 Figure 6-28. Cueva de Quelkata was dynamited by Majes Project road crews in 1976. Two people are

visible for scale inside the shelter to the left of center. ............................................................. 543 Figure 6-29. Quelkata in 1975 redrawn from Chavez (1978: 20). Red dotted line shows estimated

border of the portion of the rock shelter that remains after the dynamiting for road widening. 543 Figure 6-30. Quickbird satellite image of Quelkata area in 2005. The shelter is under the tuff outcrops

immediately to the left of the bridge. Data courtesy of Google / Digital Globe........................ 545 Figure 6-31. A 65cm column of cultural deposits still exists at the back of Quelkata at a height of

approximately 1.8m above datum (at head height between the gravels and the tuff in photo). 547 Figure 6-32. Profile of extant deposits at Quelkata shown in terms of relative collection units......... 549 Figure 6-33. Cueva de Mollepunco (A02-3)....................................................................................... 554 Figure 6-34. Petroglyph of camelid on wall of Mollepunco............................................................... 554 Figure 6-35. View westward from “Callalli 11” across quebrada shows the eastern edge of Callalli.559 Figure 6-36. Callalli 11 [A03-599] on terrace on the east edge of the town of Callalli...................... 560 Figure 6-37. Chalcedony projectile point [A03-790] from Anccasuyo [A03-785]. ...........................561 Figure 6-38. Map of the Sullullumba [A03-806], an Archaic Foragers site showing lithic loci on

terrace edge 40m above the annual flood line. Image courtsey of Quickbird DG / Google...... 565 Figure 6-39. Sullullumba [A03-806] along terrace edge above the upper Río Colca. Yellow notebookand scale bar are visible in the center-rear of photo. ................................................................. 566

Figure 6-40. Projectile points from Sullullumba [A03-806]............................................................... 568 Figure 6-41. The high density lithic locus A03-808 consisted of aphanytic volcanics and chert....... 568 Figure 6-42. Block 6 Challacone - Ichocollo overview map .............................................................. 571 Figure 6-43. Ichocollo complex along Quebrada Ichocollo................................................................ 572 Figure 6-44. Photo looking northwest across Ichocollo creek............................................................ 574 Figure 6-45. Testing at Quarry Pit Q02-2 with 1x1 test unit Q02-2u3. Snow remains in the pit. ...... 584 Figure 6-46. A03-269 and A03-734 "Camino Hornillo" and modern trail system............................. 586 Figure 6-47. Apacheta (cairn) close to junction of the Escalera route with Cerro Hornillo. .............. 587 Figure 6-48. Camino Hornillo showing (a) A03-268 and (b) A03-734 segments. Photos were digitally

modified to highlight the route in red........................................................................................ 589 Figure 6-49. Block 1 possible Early Agropastoral settlement pattern with Series 5 projectile points.592 Figure 6-50. A03-126 "Maymeja 1" workshop and vicinity............................................................... 594 Figure 6-51. View of A03-126 "Maymeja" from north. Terraced area A03-334 on upper level. Test

Unit Q02-02 is just right of the orange bucket. Project tents are visible in corral A03-127. .... 595 Figure 6-52. (a) Workshop area of "Maymeja 1" showing proximity of bofedal, (b) Testing Q02-2U3,

with the quarry pit [Q02-2] visible among light ash 600m uphill in the background. ..............596 Figure 6-53. Base of structure [A03-335] is formed by fifteen large, partially buried stones and

measures 2.5m in diameter. ....................................................................................................... 599 Figure 6-54. A03-126, 209, 275 Maymeja workshop and vicinity..................................................... 602

xxii


24/971

Figure 6-55. View looking south from above at A03-201 "Saylluta" with excavation of test unit Q02-2u1 under way in top center of corral by the orange bucket. Site datum is on top of the large

boulder to the south of Q02-2u1 (just above test unit in the photo).......................................... 603 Figure 6-56. Blocks 4 and 5 showing Series 5 projectile point distribution.......................................607 Figure 6-57. Block 2 - Early Agropastoral occupation. ...................................................................... 610

Figure 6-58. Pausa [A02-39] showing raised oval structures, lithic concentrations, large rock formingwall bases, and test unit locations. Site mapped with Topcon total station and dGPS.............. 616

Figure 6-59. Circular structure A03-557 extends from 1m behind the tape to just below the largestrocks at the back of the photo....................................................................................................618

Figure 6-60. Testing u3 and u4 on north edge of structures A03-558 and A03-559. This photo is takenfrom above, from the base of the lava flow. .............................................................................. 618

Figure 6-61. Early Agropastoralist settlement in Block 3................................................................... 622 Figure 6-62. Taukamayo [A02-26], a multicomponent site partially destroyed by a landslide.......... 625 Figure 6-63. Overview of Taukamayo [A02-26] on slump along base of hillside. Grey box shows area

detailed in Figure 6-64, below................................................................................................... 626 Figure 6-64. Taukamayo [A02-26] detail showing two test units locations on cutbank margins of the

creep area. Excavators are visible on right-side at A02-26u1 and provide scale for photo. ..... 626 Figure 6-65. Non-local incised and stamped pottery from Taukamayo [A02-26], in the 2003

provenience it is A03-679. and A03-679.2. .............................................................................. 629 Figure 6-66. Sixteen large andesite hoes were found at Taukamayo [A02-26]..................................631 Figure 6-67. Block 1 Late Prehispanic features. ................................................................................. 636 Figure 6-68. Three levels of terracing in [A03-275] below glacier polished rhyolite flow. Yellow tape

shows 1m................................................................................................................................... 638 Figure 6-69. (a) Cutstone masonry [A03-339] from site A03-275 close to the workshop area at the

Chivay obsidian source. Yellow tape shows 50cm. (b) Rim sherds from an 18cm diameter Inka-Collagua plate were found adjacent to this corner. ................................................................... 639

Figure 6-70. Blocks 1 and 4 overview showing possible route of Late Prehispanic canal. ................ 644 Figure 6-71. Blocks 4 and 5 Reconnaissance - Late Prehispanic component. .................................... 646 Figure 6-72. Non-local sherd with geometric elements akin to Middle Horizon or LIP styles [A03-

1056.1]....................................................................................................................................... 650 Figure 6-73. Block 2 diagnostic artifacts from the Middle Horizon and Late Intermediate Period.... 651 Figure 6-74. Huañatira [A03-855]. Corrals, structures, and artifacts scatters wrap around the base of

the lava escarpment. A small figure is visible on the right edge for scale................................. 653 Figure 6-75. Huañatira A03-817 and A03-855 multicomponent site showing corral structures........ 654 Figure 6-76. Cist tomb with mortared stonework ............................................................................... 655 Figure 6-77. Block 2 diagnostic artifacts from the Late Horizon. ......................................................657 Figure 6-78. Block 3 Middle Horizon and Late Intermediate Period features.................................... 660 Figure 6-79. Recently looted cocoon-type interment from A03-815.................................................. 662 Figure 6-80. Block 3 Late Horizon diagnostic materials ....................................................................665 Figure 6-81. Callalli Antiguo [A03-662] and surroundings. .............................................................. 667 Figure 6-82. A03-662 north sector of Callalli Antiguo agricultural sector.........................................668 Figure 6-83. Base of walls of structure A03-663 in Callalli Antiguo................................................670 Figure 6-84. Collapsed wall of A03-663 structure. ............................................................................ 670 Figure 6-85. Cores at Callalli Antiguo [A03-662] and vicinity compared with all of Block 3........... 671 Figure 7-1. Principal lithic reduction in the northern African Gumu-sana assemblage (from B. A.

Bradley 1975: Fig. 1)................................................................................................................. 678 Figure 7-2. Bifacial sequences diverge based on the original nodule form with arrows showing

percussion direction (Pastrana and Hirth 2003: 204-205)......................................................... 679 Figure 7-3. Radiocarbon dates on charcoal from test excavations in 2003 showing uncalibrated and

calibrated dates as BCE from OxCal v3.9 (Ramsey 2003). ......................................................686 Figure 7-4 Map of quarry pit showing topographic surface acquired using a total station................. 688 Figure 7-5. (a) Perspective view of quarry pit, (b) Perspective view bisected with an inferred natural

slope. .........................................................................................................................................689

xxiii


25/971

Figure 7-6. The quarry [Q02-2] and workshop [A03-126] are 600m apart. In this image snow blanketsmost south-facing slopes but the quarry pit debris pile is visible protruding through the snowmantle. ....................................................................................................................................... 690

Figure 7-7. Diagram of Q02-2 quarry pit and position of the Q02-2u2 test unit ................................ 693 Figure 7-8. Q02-2, view of quarry pit and u2 test unit from the north. .............................................. 694

Figure 7-9. Q02-2u2 quarry pit south and west profile diagrams showing excavation levels............ 695 Figure 7-10. South profile of Q02-2u2 at quarry pit at the top of levels 11/12. ................................. 695 Figure 7-11. Location of test unit Q02-2u3 in site A03-126 workshop. ............................................. 705 Figure 7-12. Q02-2u3 workshop test unit west and north profile diagrams showing strata. ..............707 Figure 7-13. Q02-2u3 west profile at Maymeja workshop site [A03-126]......................................... 707 Figure 7-14. Proportions of Tech Classes in excavation levels by count in Q02-2u3. ....................... 709 Figure 7-15. Retouched artifacts by Excavation Level. ...................................................................... 714 Figure 7-16. Q02-2-u3 Cores by Level showing changes length and weight. .................................... 716 Figure 7-17. Canonical discriminant chart for core clusters from Q02-2u3. ...................................... 719 Figure 7-18. Boxplots showing three clusters of Q02-2u3 cores with size measures. The tabular shape

of C2 cores is apparent in their thinness relative to their length and width............................... 721 Figure 7-19. An example of a C1 core [L03-162.303], arrows indicate percussion........................... 722 Figure 7-20. An example of a C2 core [L03-162.305]. ......................................................................723 Figure 7-21. An example of a C3 core [L03-162.280] showing a small area of thin cortex. ............. 723 Figure 7-22. Clustered Cores from Q02-2u3 workshop test unit showing counts by level. ............... 724 Figure 7-23. Q02-u3: Graph showing means of complete cores and cortical flakes. .........................726 Figure 7-24. Q02-2u3: Graph showing means of measures on complete obsidian flakes. ................. 729 Figure 7-25. Canonical discriminant chart for complete flake clusters from Q02-2u3.......................733 Figure 7-26. An example of a flake from the F1 cluster [L03-162.21]. ............................................. 735 Figure 7-27. An example of a flake from the F2 cluster [L03-162.118]. ...........................................735 Figure 7-28. An example of a flake from the F3 cluster [L03-162.66]. ............................................. 735 Figure 7-29. Graph showing Flake clusters by excavation level. ....................................................... 737 Figure 7-30. A02-39u3 (upper unit in photo) and u4 (lower) at basal levels. Top of photo is east.... 747 Figure 7-31. Circular hearth (F1) in A02-39u4, level 5. Top of photo is north, unit is 1m on a side. 748 Figure 7-32. A02-39 "Pausa" – north, with Test Units 3 and 4, ovals, and inferred features. Compare

with larger map showing ovals in Figure 6-58. ......................................................................... 749 Figure 7-33. A02-39u4 Pausa test unit west profile diagram showing strata and levels. ................... 752

Figure 7-34. A02-39u3/u4 Bar graph showing counts of lithics classes by excavation level............. 753 Figure 7-35. Cumulative Frequency of A02-39 u3 & u4 showing Level 5 reduction against reductionfor all levels. .............................................................................................................................. 755

Figure 7-36. Test unit A02-26u1 is a 1x1m test unit placed on the edge of a creeping landslide with anirregular extension area (1x) on the south edge of the unit. Top of the photo is north. ............758

Figure 7-37. A02-26u1 Taukamayo test unit, north profile diagram showing strata and levels......... 760 Figure 7-38. A02-26u1 Technical Class by Excavation Level. .......................................................... 763 Figure 7-39. A02-26u1 Material Types by Excavation Level. ........................................................... 763 Figure 7-40. Obsidian at Taukamayo A02-26u1, Ob1 and Ob2 compared. ....................................... 764 Figure 7-41. Cumulative frequency comparing obsidian and non-obsidian flakes............................. 766 Figure 7-42. Flake metrics from Quarry area (Block 1) as compared with local consumption areas. 769 Figure 8-1. View westward from obsidian production area A03-210 towards main Colca valley..... 789 Figure B-1. Nodule from the Aconcagua source. Photo courtesy of Mark Aldenderfer. ................... 864 Figure B-2. Nodules of Alca obsidian with brownish tint. .................................................................865 Figure B-3. Nodule of Chivay obsidian from Maymeja weighing 1750g and 23.3 cm long.............. 866 Figure B-4. (a, L03-161.341) nodule from quarry pit area. ................................................................ 867 Figure B-5. Nodule of Uyo Uyo obsidian with irregularities perhaps caused by air bubbles in the

magma. ...................................................................................................................................... 868 Figure C-1. Obsidian projectile points from the Upper Colca survey project.. .................................. 870 Figure C-2. Obsidian point (Cat. 609) from Terminal Archaic context at Jiskairumoko. .................. 870 Figure C-3. Bifacially flaked obsidian “Wari style” points or knives from surface contexts. Photos

courtesy of Bruce Owen. ........................................................................................................... 871

xxiv


26/971

Figure C-4 Rollout of Tiwanaku q'ero showing bows and black-tipped arrows (top) near the rim ofvessel (Posnansky 1957: XXa).................................................................................................. 872

Figure C-5. Early Nasca ritual obsidian knife hafted to painted dolphin palate (Disselhoff 1972: 277).................................................................................................................................................... 873

Figure C-6. Representations of black-tipped projectiles are diagnostic to Nasca B1 and B2 ceramics

(Carmichael et al. 1998: 151). ................................................................................................... 874 Figure C-7. Paracas textile with figure holding black-tipped projectiles (Lavalle and Lang 1983: 95)................................................................................................................................................... 874

Figure C-8. Wooden hand mirror with obsidian inlay, Wari (Lavalle and Perú 1990: 185). .............875 Figure C-9. Obsidian point hafted on harpoon found in a Paracas necropolis, Ica, Peru (Engel 1966:

180c).......................................................................................................................................... 875 Figure C-10. An obsidian point embedded in a human lumbar vertebra (from Ravines 1967: 230). . 876 Figure C-11. Obsidian Point penetrating through arm muscle near left humerus found at Carhua in Ica,

Peru (Engel 1966: 212). ............................................................................................................ 876

xxv


27/971

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Three categories of exchange goods.................................................................................... 39 Table 2-2. Economic processes in political evolution .......................................................................... 47 Table 2-3. Characteristics of reciprocity and redistribution (from Renfrew 1975: 8). .........................65 Table 2-4. Household composition of raw materials should vary with different types of exchange.. .. 95 Table 2-5. Measurement indices for procurement system (after Ericson 1984: 4). ............................ 105 Table 3-1. Reported llama caravan loads, distances, and times. ......................................................... 166 Table 3-2. Three major Peruvian obsidian sources showing average and maximum distances and

times. .........................................................................................................................................183 Table 3-3. Obsidian in the north and south Titicaca Basin by counts and percents............................ 186 Table 3-4. Asana obsidian samples, collections, and associated 14C samples by level ...................... 189 Table 3-5. Qillqatani excavation levels, radiocarbon dates, and obsidian samples. ........................... 191 Table 3-6. Qillqatani periods by tools (bifacially flaked) and debitage (all othe

Documents

Caravaneros y Obsidiana