Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Upper Mantaro and Tarma Drainages, Junín, Peru: The Tarama-Chinchaycocha Region, Vol. 1, Parts 1 and 2 9780915703494, 9781951519926

Citation preview

Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan Number 34

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Upper Mantaro and Tarma Drainages, Junin, Peru VOLUMEl

The Tarama-Chinchaycocha Region Part 1

Jeffrey R. Parsons Charles M. Hastings Ramiro Matos M.

Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan 2000

©2000 by the Regents of the University of Michigan The Museum of Anthropology All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America ISBN 978-0-915703-49-4 (paper) ISBN 978-1- 951519-92-6 (ebook) Cover design by Katherine Clahassey The two cover drawings are adapted from "El Primer Nueva Cr6nica y Buen Gobierno," c. 1615, by Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala. The left-hand picture is an adaptation of Guaman Poma's drawing no. 1165; the right-hand picture is based on his drawing no. 225. The University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology currently publishes three monograph series: Anthropological Papers, Memoirs, and Technical Reports, as well as an electronic series in CD­ROM form. For a complete catalog, write to Museum of Anthropology Publications, 4009 Museums Building, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1079. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Parsons, Jeffrey R.settlement patterns in the upper Mantaro and Tarma drainages, Junfn, Peru / Prehispanic Jeffrey R. Parsons, Charles M. Hastings, Ramiro Matos M. p. cm. -- (Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan ; no. 34) Includes bibliographic references ISBN 0-915703-49-1 (v. 1 : pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Indians of South America--Peru--Junfn (Dept.)--Antiquities. 2. Land settlement patterns, Prehistoric--Peru--Junfn (Dept.) 3. Archaeological surveying--Peru--Junfn (Dept.) 4. Ethnoarchaeology--Peru--Junfn (Dept.) 5. Junfn (Peru: Dept.)--Antiquities. I. Hastings, Charles M. II. Matos Mendieta, Ramiro. III. Title. IV. Series. F3429.l.J85P37 2000 [GN2.M52) 306 s--dc21 [304.2'0985'2409] 00-030886

The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the ANSI Standard Z39.48-1984 (Permanence of Paper)

dedicated to Lorenzo Rossell6 Truel mentor andfriend

Contents-Part I Preface, xv

Chapter 1: The Development of Our Research Design, 1 Conceptual and Developmental Background, 1 The Definition of Substantive Issues, 4 Definition of the Survey Area, 8 Summary, 9 The Project in Retrospect, 10 Chapter 2: Geography and Environment, 11 The Major Zones, 14 The Cordillera and the Puna, 14 The Kichwa, 14 The Ceja de Montana, 15

Geology, 15 Climate, 15 Paleo-Climate, 25

Wild Flora and Fauna, 26 The Puna, 27 The Kichwa, 30 The Puna-Ceja de Montana Transition, 30 The Higher Ceja de Montana, 30

Modern Land Use and Settlement Pattern in our Survey Area, 31 The Junfn Puna, 33 The Huaricolca Puna, 38 The Kichwa, 38

Overall Summary and Conclusions, 39 Chapter 3: The Study Area in Ethnohistoric Perspective, 41 Spanish Invasion, 41 Ethnic Tarama and Chinchaycocha, 43 Ethnic Population Size, 45 Ethnic Territories, 48 Ethnicity in the Ceja de Montana, 49 Ethnic Boundaries, 50 Warfare, 50 Regional Exchange, 51 Salt Procurement, 52

Ethnic Ritual and Mythology, 53 Summary, 55 Chapter 4: Modeling Central Andean Agriculture and Herding, 57 A Synopsis of Prehispanic Central Andean Cultural Development, 57 Early and Middle Formative Chiefdoms (Initial Period and Early Horizon), 57 Small States during the Late FormativelEarly Intermediate Period, 58 Large States in the Middle Horizon, 59 State Collapse and Rebuilding during the Late Intermediate Period, 60 The Inka Empire during the Late Horizon, 60 v

The Legacies of Spanish Colonialism and Industrial Capitalism, 61 Summary and Conclusions, 61

The Cultural Ecology of Historic-Period Central Andean Herders and Cultivators, 62 Agro-Pastoralists,62 The Complementarity of Herding and Cultivating Economies, 63 Herding Ecology, 64 Agricultural Ecology, 71 Exchange between Puna Pastoralists and Kichwa Agriculturalists, 76 Integration of Pastoral and Agricultural Economies through Ritual, 78 Summary, 79

Overall Summary and Conclusions, 80 The Expectable Archaeological Correlates of Andean Agriculture and Pastoralism, 81 The Technological Level, 81 The Sociological Level, 81

Chapter 5: Methodology, 83 The Tactics of Field Survey, 83 Survey Procedures, 84 Surface Collecting, 84 Recording Information in the Field, 85 Recording Corrals and Furrowed Fields in the Junfn Puna, 86 Reactions to our Fieldwork of Contemporary Inhabitants of the Survey Area, 86 The Field Headquarters, 87

Laboratory Procedures, 87 Writing Site Reports, 87 Ceramic Analysis in Lima, 88 Map-Making and Computations in Ann Arbor, 89 Site Classification, 89 The General Classification Rationale, 90 Chronological Problems, 90 Functional Considerations, 92 Herders vs. Cultivators, 92 Residential Occupation, 92 Permanent vs. Seasonalrremporary/SporadiclEphemeral Residence, and How Many Structures Comprise a Residential Household?, 93 Nonresidential Occupation, 93 Site Size, 94 Public Architecture, 98 "Defensive" Architecture, 99 The Site Typology, 99

Chapter 6: What Happened to the Formative?, 101 Methodological Considerations, 101 Ecological and Demographic Considerations, 102 Puna-Kichwa-Montana Interaction, 103 Summary, 105 Chapter 7: The Concentric Ring Sites: A Special Problem, 107 Dating the Concentric Ring Sites, 107 The Function of Concentric Ring Sites during the EIPIMH, 109 The Regional Configuration of the Concentric Ring Sites, III Summary, 112 Chapter 8: Post-Formative Occupation: Patterns and Trends, 119 Long-Term Population Trends, 119 Occupied Hectares, 119 Numbers of Households, 121

The Late Intermediate Period, 123 EIPIMH-LIP Occupational COlltinuity, 123 LIP Settlement Gaps, 123 LIP Occupation of the Junfn Puna vs. Huaricolca Puna, 124 LIP Settlement Clusters in the Junfn Puna, 127 LIP Settlement Clusters in the Kichwa, 129 Clusters of Ecologically Complementary LIP and LIP/LH Settlements, 129 LIP Special Function Settlements at the Puna-Kichwa Juncture, 131

vi

The Early Intermediate PeriodlMiddle Horizon, 132 EIPIMH Settlement Clusters in the Junin Puna, 132 EIPIMH Settlement Clusters in the Kichwa, 134 The EIPIMH Configuration of Ecological Complementary, 136 EIPIMH Pastoralists and Agriculturalists, 136

The Late Horizon, 138 LIP-LH Occupational Continuity, 138 Spacing of Inka Facilities, 140 Spacing of Local (Non-Imperial) Centers, 141

The Distribution of Middle Horizon Wari Tradewares, 142 The Distribution of LIP Wanka Tradewares, 142 Isolated Furrowed Fields and Camelid Corrals in the Junfn Puna, 142 The Impact of Climatic Change, 146 Overall Summary, 147 Chapter 9. The Definition of Public Architecture, 149 Inside~Settlement Public Architecture, 150 Classes of Inside-Settlement Public Architecture, 150 Age of Inside-Settlement Public Architecture, 155 Distribution of Inside-Settlement Public Architecture, 155 The Association of Multiple Classes of Public Architecture within Settlements, 158 Summary, 158

Outside Wall-Ditch Complexes: Defense or Social Border?, 160 The Case for a Defensive Function, 160 The Strategy and Tactics of Warfare, 166 Outer Wall-Ditches as Social Borders, 167 Summary, 172

Isolated Public Architecture: Tombs, Storage Facilities, and Shrines, 172 The Isolated Cemeteries, 172 The Regional Storage Facilities, 175 The Isolated Shrines, 179 Summary, 180

Overall Summary, 180 Chapter 10: The Archaeological Manifestations of Duality, 181 The Individual Settlement Level, 181 The Community and Multi-Community Levels, 183 Settlement Pairing, 183 The LIP and LIPILH Settlement Pairs, 183 The EIPIMH Settlement Pairs, 186 Summary, 186

Overall Summary, 187 Chapter 11: Summary and Conclusions, 189 General Trends within in Tarama-Chinchaycocha Region, 189 The Archaeological Definition of Site, Settlement, Community, Center and Polity, 190 Andean Chiefdom Development and State Origins, 192 The Lima and Wari States during the Early Intermediate Period and the Middle Horizon, 194 The Cuzco State and the Inka Empire during the Late Intermediate Period and Late Horizon, 195 Key Problems for Future Archaeological Research in the Tarama-Chinchaycocha Region, 197 Bibliography, 201 Glossary, 229

vii

Figures 1.1. 1.2. 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6. 2.7. 3.1. 3.2. 4.1. 5.1. 5.2. 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7 A. 7.5. 8.1. 8.2. 8.3. 804. 8.5. 8.6. 8.7.

Peru, modern cities and principal archaeological sites, 2 Tarama, Chinchaycocha, and Wanka regions, 3 Distribution of puna and kichwa zones in Peru, 12 Ecological zones in the Tarama-Chinchaycocha region, 13 Rainfall by month, puna stations, 24 Rainfall by month, kichwa staions, 24 Average monthly temperatures from puna stations, 25 Average monthly temperatures from kichwa stations, 25 Comparison of monthly temperature ranges, 26 Place names in the Upper Tarma drainage, 42 Sixteenth-century ethnic groups in central Peru, 46 The annual round of agricultural tasks, 74 Histogram of site building density, 95 Histograms of concentric ring site size, 95 Distribution of concentric ring sites, J08 Distribution of I-wall concentric ring sites, 114 Distribution of 2-wall concentric ring sites, 115 Distribution of 3-wall concentric ring sites, 116 Distribution of 4-wall concentric ring sites, 117 Distribution of LIP and LIPILH settlements, 125 LIP and LIPILH sites with EIPIMH occupation, 125 Distribution of EIPIMH settlements, 128 Sites with Inka-style pottery, 128 LIP and LIPILH ecologically complementary settlements, 133 LIP and LIPILH settlements at puna-kichwa juncture, 133 EIP/MH ecologically complementary settlements, 134

8.8. LIP sites with Wanka tradeware, 143 8.9. Distribution of old furrowed fields, 144 8.10. Distribution of isolated camelid corrals, 144 8.11. Detail of old furrowed fields, 145 9.1. Distribution of Class I public architecture, 152 9.2. Distribution of Class II public architecture, 153 9.3. Distribution of Class V public architecture, 153 9.3-A. Histogram of Class V public architecture, 154 9 A. Distribution of Class VI public architecture, 156 9.5. Distributions of Class II, III, and IV public architecture, 156 9.6. Sites with both Class V and VI public architecture, 161 9.7. Sites with both Class I and VI public architecture, 161 9.8. Sites with mUltiple classes of public architecture, 162 9.9. Distribution of unwalled LIP and LIPILH settlements, 165 9.10. Distribution of LIP and LIP/LH "internal" walls, 165 9.11. Distribution of LIP and LIPILH external tombs and external walltomb complexes, 169 9.12. Distribution of LIP isolated cemeteries, 174 9.13. Distribution of LIP regional storage facilites, 176 9.14. Distribution of LIP large special function settlements, regional storage facilities, and isolated cemeteries, 177 9.15. Distribution of isolated shrines, 177 10.1. Paired LIP and LIP/LH settlements, 182 10.2. Paired EIPIMH settlements, 182 11.1. Proposed LIP organizational hierarchy in the region, 191 11.2 Schematic plan of LIP organizational hierarchy, 191

Tables 2.1. Major geographic zones in the study area, 14 2.2. Rainfall in puna, kichwa, and ceja de montana zones, 16 2.3. Monthly rainfall, from kichwa stations, 16 204. Monthly rainfall, from puna stations, 17 2.5. Monthly rainfall at La Cima station, Junfn puna, 18 2.6. Monthly rainfall at Atocsaico station, Junfn puna, 18 2.7. Monthly rainfall at Casaracra station, Junfn puna, 19 2.8. Monthly rainfall at Jacayhuanca station, Junfn puna, 19 2.9. Monthly rainfall at Junfn station, Junfn puna, 20 2.10. Monthly rainfall Malpaso station, Junfn puna, 21 2.11. Temperature variation at Tarma station, kichwa zone, 21 2.12. Temperature variation at Huasahuasi station, kichwa zone, 22 2.13. Monthly temperatures, Upamayo station, Junfn puna, 22 2.14. Monthly temperatures, Atocsaico station, Junfn puna, 23 2.15. Monthly temperatures, Casaracra station, Junfn puna, 23 2.15-A. Days with nocturnal frost in the 1890s, 23 2.16. Wild plants from Archaic sites in the puna, 27 2.17. Wild animal bone in Archaic deposits in the puna, 28 2.18. Principal aquatic birds around Lake Junfn, 29 2.19. Modern Peruvian population, by ecological zone, 32 2.20. Population distribution by ecological zone, 32 2.21. Modern Junfn puna towns in or near survey area, 34 2.21-A. Population of Huaricolca, 34 2.22. Modern kichwa towns within survey area, 34

2.23. Modern kichwa towns just outside survey area, 35 2.24-A. Indigenous kichwa and lower puna cultigens, 36 2.24-B. Principal introduced kichwa cultigens, 36 2.25. The annual round from two kichwa districts, 36 2.26. Monthly agricultural activities in the kichwa, 37 2.27. Traditional land-preparation in the kichwa, 37 3.1. Early Colonial census records of ethnic populations, 45 3.2. Sixteenth-century depopulation of the Huanca and Yauyos, 47 4.1. Common foods of puna camelid pastoralists, 64 4.2. Herd composition in two puna communities, 65 4.3. Ideal household camelid-herd composition, 68 404. Sizes of household llama-sheep flocks, 68 4.5. Exterior dimensions of a typical herder's house, 68 4.6. Annual pasture requirements in the Junfn puna, 68 4.7. Sixteenth-century Quechua herding terms, 68 4.8. Agricultural tasks, 72 4.9. Agricultural zones in highland southern Peru, 72 4.10. Crop-fallow rotational sequence, 74 4.11. Trading expeditions from Chalhuanca, 77 4.12. Material correlates of Andean herding technology, 81 4.13. Material correlates of Andean agricultural technology, 81 4.14. Material correlates of Andean exchange technology, 81 5.1. Site report form, 88 5.1-A Typology for LIP settlements in the Mantaro Valley, 89

viii

5.2. Regional chronology, 91 5.3. Residential building density at LIP and LIP/LH sites, 96 5.4. Building density in well-preserved settlements (A. Agricultural settlements, B. Herding settlements, C. Special function settlements), 97 7.1. Surface pottery at concentric ring sites, 109 7.2. Architectonic character of concentric ring sites, 1I0 7.3. All concentric ring sites: wall categories, III 7.4. Very small concentric ring sites: wall categories, 1I2 7.5. Small concentric ring sites: wall categories, 1I2 7.6. Medium concentric ring sites: wall categories, II3 7.7. Large concentric ring sites: wall categories, 1I3 7.8. Composition of concentric ring site clusters, 113 8.1. Occupied hectares, EIP/MH vs. LIP, 120 8.1-A. Occupied hectares by ecological zones, 120 8.1-B. Occupied hectares by ecological zones, excluding LIP special function sites, 120 8.2. Estimated numbers of households, 122 8.2-A. Number of households by ecological zones, 122 8.2-B. Number of households by ecologycal zones, excluding LIP special function sites, 122 8.3. EIP/MH settlements with LIP occupation, 123 8.4. LIP and LIP/LH settlements with EIP/MH components, 124 8.5. Individual LIP and LIPILH settlements with EIP/MH components, 126 8.6. LIP and LIPILH ecologically complementary settlement clusters, 130 8.7. Types of LIP and LIP/LH settlements in ecologically complementary settlement clusters, 131 8.8. LIP and LIP/LH settlements atpuna-kichwajuncture, 131 8.9. EIP/MH clusters of ecologically complementary settlements, 135 8.9-A. Types of EIPIMH settlements in ecologically complementary clusters, 135 8.10. Elevations of EIP/MH settlement types, 136

8.11. Elevations of LIP and LIP/LH settlement types, 137 8.12. Elevations of EIP/MH, LIP, and LIP/LH settlements, 137 8.13. Sites with Inka-style pottery, 139 8.14. LIP-LH settlement continuity, 140 8.15. Elevations of LIP vs. LIPILH settlements, 141 8.16. LIP and LIPILH sites with Wanka tradewares, 142 9.1. Settlements with Class I, II, III, and IV public architecture, 150 9.2. Sites with Class V public architecture, 151 9.2-A. LIP, LIPILH settlements with Class V public architecture, 152 9.3. LIP, LIPILH settlements with Class VI public architecture, 157 9.4. Numbers and proportions of different types of LIP and LIPILH settlements with public architecture, 159 9.5. LIP, LIPILH settlements with mUltiple classes of public architecture, 159 9.6. Public architecture classes in LIP and LIPILH settlements, 159 9.7. LIP and LIPILH settlements without outer wall-ditch, 162 9.8. Possible walled EIPIMH settlements, 163 9.9. Un walled LIP settlements, 163 9.10. Settlements with internal walls, 164 9.11. Association of tombs and outer walls at "walled" settlements, 164 9.12. Association of tombs and site "edges" at unwalled settlements, 164 9.13. LIP, LIPILH settlements with external wall-tomb associations, 169 9.14. Distances from isolated cemeteries to nearest settlements, 170 9.15. Frequency of isolated shrine categories in Rowe (1980),178 9.16. Isolated shrines, 178 10.1. Sites with two topographically defined sectors, 183 10.2. Sites with double-ended wall-ditch complexes, 183 10.3. Paired LIP and LIPILH settlements, 184 10.4. Distances between paired LIP and LIPILH settlements, 186 10.5. Numbers and proportions of LIP and LIPILH in settlement pairs, 186 10.6. Paired EIPIMH settlements, 187 10.7. Distances between paired EIPIMH settlements, 187

Plates 1.1. Satellite image of the Peruvian sierra central, 5 2.1. Harvesting potatoes with chaquitaklla foot plow on east side of Lake Junfn,33 2.2. Mounted herdsmen at Tambo Colorado sheep ranch, 35 2.3. Llama caravan, 38

ix

Contents-Part II Appendix A: Site Descriptions, 231 Introduction, 231 The Individual Sites, 233 Appendix B: Ceramic Chronology, 519 The Early Intermediate PeriodlMiddle Horizon, 519 The Huacrapuquio Complex, 519

The Middle Horizon, 520 The Late Intermediate Period, 520 The San Bias Complex, 520 San Bias Fine Ware, 527 Tarma Plain Ware, 527 Form, 527 Decoration, 527

The Late Horizon, 528

Appendix Figures AI-A. Survey area, configuration of 1:25,000 base maps, 232 AI-B. Survey area basemaps, 233 A2. Site 16, schematic site plan from airphoto, 238 A3. Site 22, schematic site plan from airphoto, 240 A4. Site 23, schematic site plan from airphoto, 242 AS. Site 27, schematic site plan from airphoto, 245 A6. Site 31, schematic site plan from airphoto, 248 A 7. Site 31, plan of typical patio group, 250 A8. Sites 32 and 33, schematic site plans from airphoto, 250 A9. Site 34, schematic site plan from airphoto, 254 AlD. Site 44, schematic site plan from airphoto, 260 All. Site 52, schematic site plan from airphoto, 263 A12. Site 60-61-62, schematic site plan, 269 A 13. Site 60-61-62, schematic plan of detached storehouses, 271 A14. Site 60-61-62, Inka road and circular features, 271 A15. Site 60-61-62, schematic plan of three causeways, 271 A16. Site 82, schematic site plan, 282 A17. Site 83, schematic site plan, 283 A18. Site 89, massive outer wall and associated tombs, 288 A19. Site 105, schematic site plan from airphoto, 299 A2D. Site 112, plan and cross-section of hilltop structure, 306 A2l. Site 114, plan of typical rectangular buildings, 310 A22. Site 130, circular building with attached storehouse, 318 A23. Site 139, schematic site plan from airphoto, 324 A24. Site 140, schematic site plan from airphoto, 326 A25. Site 142, schematic site plan from airphoto, 328 A26. Site 156, schematic site plan, 339 A27. Site 166, schematic site plan, 345 A28. Site 176, schematic site plan, 352 A29. Site 187-188-189, schematic site plan, 357 A30. Site 208, schematic site plan, 364 A31. Site 215, schematic cross-section of subterranean tomb, 370 A32. Site 240, schematic site plan, 381

A33. Site 257, plan of crescent-shaped structures, 385 A34. Site 259, plan of structures at peak of hill, 386 A35. Site 261, schematic plan of a tomb-cluster enclosure, 388 A36. Site 277, plan of large rectangular structure, 394 A37. Site 292, site plan, 405 A38. Site 292, storehouse with conjoined structures, 407 A39. Site 304, schematic site plan, 416 A40-A. Hoja Chuquisyunga, "Early" sites, 460 A40-B. Hoja Chuquisyunga, "Late" sites, 461 A41-A. Hoja Cachipampa, "Early" sites, 462 A41-B. Hoja Cachipampa, "Late" sites, 463 A42. Hoja San Pedro de Cajas, 464 A43. Hoja Junin, "late" sites, 465 A44-A. Hoja Paccha-I, "Early sites, 466 A44-B. Hoja Paccha-I, "Late" sites, 467 A45-A. Hoja Palca, "Early" sites, 468 A45-B. Hoja Palca, "Late" sites, 469 A46-A. Hoja Acobamba, "Early" sites, 470 A46-B. Hoja Acobamba, "Late" sites, 471 A47-A. Hoja Palcamayo, "Early" sites, 472 A47-B. Hoja Palcamayo, "Late" sites, 473 A48-A. Hoja La Cima, "Early" sites, 474 A48-B. Hoja La Cima, "Late" sites, 475 A49. Hoja Atocsayco, 476 A50-A. Hoja Maco, "Early" sites, 477 ASO-B. Hoja Maco, "Late" sites, 478 A51-A. Hoja Tarma, "Early" sites, 479 ASl-B. Hoja Tarma, "Late" sites, 480 AS2-A. Hoja Palcapacha, "Early" sites, 481 A52-B. Hoja Palcapacha, "Late" sites, 482 A53-A. Hoja Paccha-II, "Early" sites, 483 AS3-B. Hoja Paccha-II, "Late" sites, 484 A54-A. Hoja Malpaso, "Early" sites, 485

x

A54-B. Hoja Malpaso, "Late" sites, 486 ASS-A. Hoja Ricran, "Early" sites, 487 ASS-B. Hoja Ricran, "Late" sites, 488 AS62a. Hoja Huaricolca, "Early" sites, 489 AS6-B. Hoja Huarico1ca, "Late" sites, 490 B 1. EIP/MH Huacrapukio-related decorated pottery, B2. EIP/MH Huacrapukio-related decorated pottery, 374,522 B3. EIP/MH Huacrapukio-related decorated pottery, B4. EIP/MH Huacrapukio-related decorated pottery, B5. EIP/MH plainware bowls, Site 288, 525

B6. EIP/MH plain ware jars, Site 288, 526 B7. LIP San Bias complex bowls, jars and jar handles, 529 B8. LIP San BIas complex bowls and jars, Site 150,530 B9. LIP San Bias complex fine ware, decorated bowls, 531 B 10. LIP San Bias complex fine ware, decorated bowls, Sites 168,254,532 B 11. LIP San BIas complex fine ware, decorated bowls, Site 150,533 B12. LIP San BIas complex fine ware, Site 60-61-62 (Chacamarca), 534 B 13. LH Inka-style pottery, Site 283 (Tarmatambo), 535 B14. LH Inka-style pottery, Site 283 (Tarmatambo), 536 B15. LH Inka-style pottery, Site 283 (Tarmatambo), 537

Sites 282, 290, 521 Sites 278, 287, 288, Sites 282, 288, 523 Site 288,524

Appendix Tables AI. A2. A3. A4. A5. A6.

Site 16, units and structure counts, 238 LJBR ceramic-period sites on Hoja San Pedro de Cajas, 265 LJBR ceramic-period sites on Hoja Pa1camayo, 336 Sites 243-2S0, unsurveyed, 383 Summary of survey data, 491 Site types by periods, 517

Appendix Plates A 1. Site 6. Circular structure, 234 A2. Site II. Facing southeast, 236 A3. Site 13. Circular depression, 236 A4. Site 19. Facing southeast, 239 AS. Site 20. Small structure, 240 A6. Site 22. Vertical view, 241 A7. Site 23. Vertical view, 242 A8. Sites 25 and 30. Facing southeast, 244 A9. Site 26. Facing east, 244 AIO. Site 27. Facing east, 244 All. Vertical view of Site 27, 245 A12. Vertical view of Site 31, 249 A 13. Site 31. Round structure, 250 A14. Site 31. Small circular structure, 250 A15. Site 31. Section of upper wall, 250 A16. Sites 32 and 33. Vertical view, 251 Al7. Site 33. Doorway, 252 A18. Site 33. Semi-subterranean structure, 253 A19. Site 33. Tower, 253 A20. Site 33. Stepped inner wall, 253 A21. Site 34. Vertical view, 255 A22. Site 37. Stone-slab stairway, 256 A23. Site 38. Tower, 256 A24. Site 44. Wall-ditch complexes, 259 A25. Site 44. Section of upper wall-ditch, 259 A26. Site 44. "Stepping stones," 259 A27. Site 44. Gateways, 259 A28. Site 44. Circular structure, 260 A29. Site 44. Small tomb structure, 260 A30. Site 52. Facing northeast, 262 A31. Vertical view of Site 52, 263 A32. Site 54. Ceramic vessel and deformed skUll, 264

A33. A34. A35. A36. A37. A38. A39. A40. A41. A42. A43. A44. A45. A46. A47. A48. A49. A50. A51. A52. A53. A54. A55. A56. A57. A58. A59. A60. A61. A62. A63. A64.

xi

Site 57-58. Corrals, 266 Site 59. Corral,266 Site 60-61-62. Circular structure, 267 Site 60-61-62. Rectangular structure, 267 Site 60-61-62. Cuzco-style pottery, 268 Site 60-61-62. Storage structures, 268 Site 60-61-62. Remnant of bridge (Feature 56-P), 270 Site 60-61-62. Facing east along causeway, 270 Site 60-61-62. Facing southeast along causeway, 270 Site 60-61-62. Facing north along linear feature, 270 Site 67. Facing east, 273 Sites 69 and 71. Facing southeast, 273 Site 69. Circular structure, 274 Site 69. Rectangular structure, 274 Site 73. Facing northwest, 275 Site 73. Section of narrow ridgecrest, 276 Site 73. Outer wall-ditch complex, 276 Sites 74 and 75. Facing southwest, 276 Site 74. Outer ditch and wall, 277 Sites 76 and 77. Facing north, 278 Site 78. Two-story rectangular structure, 278 Site 78. Doorway in rectangular structure, 278 Site 78. Ceramic vessel, 279 Site 79. Upper wall, 280 Site 81. Circular structure, 280 Site 81. Two massive walls, 280 Site 82. Old corrals, 281 Site 83. Facing south, 282 Site 83. Enigmatic circular structure, 282 Site 83. North end, 283 Site 84. Inner wall-ditch, 284 Sites 85 and 93. Facing northwest, 284

A129. A130. A131. A132. A133. A134. AI3S. A136. A137. A138. A139. A140. A141. A142. A143. A144. AI4S. A146. A147. A148. A149. AlSO. AlSI. AlS2. AlS3. AlS4. AlSS. A IS6. AIS7. AlS8. AlS9. A160. A161. A162. A163. AI64. AI6S. A166. A 167. A168. A169. A170. A 171.

A6S. A66. A67. A68. A69. A70. A71.

Site 8S. Section of original stone wall, 284 Site 86. Outer side of massive wall, 284 Site 86. Rectangular structure along inner side of massive wall, 285 Site 87. Two-story rectangular structure, 286 Site 87. Outer wall-ditch complex, 286 Site 89. Downhill side of wall-ditch, 287 Site 89. Uphill side of wall-ditch, 287 An. Site 92. Two-story rectangular structure, 290 A73. Site 92. Wall,290 A 74. Site 94. Facing southeast, 291 A 7S. Site 9S. Facing south, 292 A 76. Site 98. Facing southeast, 292 A 77. Site 98. Two-story rectangular structure, 292 A78. Site 101. Facing east, 294 A 79. Site 10 1. Circular structure, 294 A80. Site 101. Doorway in circular structure, 294 A81. Site 101. Rectangular structure in profile, 294 A82. Site 101. Rectangular structure, 295 A83. Site 101. Interior-protuding support stones, 295 A84. Site 101. Interior roof supports, 295 A8S. Site 101. Ditch at outer edge of outer wall, 295 A86. Site 101. Probable reservoir, 296 A87. Site 102. Row of tombs, 296 A88. Site 102. Well-preserved tomb structure, 297 A89. Site 102. Contiguous tombs, 297 A90. Site 102. Large rectangular tomb, 297 A91. Site lOS. Facing southeast, 298 A92. Site lOS. Inner faces of two massive walls, 300 A93. Site lOS. Circular structures, 300 A94. Site lOS. Two "towers," 300 A9S. Site 107. Facing southeast, 301 A96. Site 109. Tomb 1,302 A97. Site 109. Tombs 9 and 10,302 A98. Site 110. Tomb 4, 304 A99. Site 110. Tomb 9, 304 A 100. Sites 111 and 112. Facing southeast, 305 AI0l. Site Ill. East end of site, 305 A 102. Site Ill. Probable tomb, 305 A103. Site 112. Circular structures, 306 AI04. Site 112. Circular structures on terraces, 306 AlOS. Site 112. Stone-faced terracing, 308 AI06. Site 112. Preserved doorway, 308 A107. Site 112. Tomb,308 A108. Site 112. Contiguous tombs, 308 AI09. Site 112. Highest part of site, 309 All O. Site 112. Front face of unique structure, 309 Alli. Site lIS. Tombs,3lJ A112. Site 118. Multichamber tomb, 3lJ AI13. Site 119. Ceramic vessel, 312 A1l4. Site 12S. Near-vertical view, 314 AilS. Site 12S. Central site area, 314 A116. Site 126. Facing southeast, 315 A117. Site 127. Facing east, 315 A118. Site 128. Facing west, 316 A1l9. Site 129. Facing west, 316 A120. Site 129. Lower end of site, 317 A121. Site 129. Two-story rectangular structures, 317 A122. Site 130. Facing southeast, 318 A123. Site 130. Circular structure, 318 A 124. Site 130. Three-story rectangular structure, 319 AI2S. Site 130. Two-story rectangular structure, 319 A126. Site 130. Contiguous two- and three-story structures, 319 A127. Site 131. Facing southeast, 319 A128. Site 131. Center of site area, 320

Aln.

A173. A174. AI7S. A176. A177. AI78. A179. A180. A181. A182. A183. A184. AI8S. A186. A187. A188. A189. A190. A191. AI92.

xii

Site 133. Facing east, 320 Site 134. Terrace, 321 Site 13S. Terraces, 322 Site 136. Facing southeast, 322 Site 136. Wall-ditch complex, 322 Site 13711S9. Facing north, 323 Site 13711S9. Section ofIncaic(?) wall, 323 Site 139. Facing east, 324 Site 139. Circular structure, 324 Site 139. Three contiguous tombs, 324 Site 139. Section of outer wall, 325 Site 140. Circular structure, 326 Site 140. Small structure, 326 Site 142. Outer face of massive wall, 327 Site 143. Facing south, 328 Site 144. Facing east, 329 Site 144. Two-story rectangular structures, 329 Site 144. Rectangular structure, in profile, 329 Site 14S. North side of site, 330 Site 14S. Two-story rectangular structures, 330 Sites 147, 148, 149, and ISO. Facing southwest, 331 Site 148. Corral,331 Site 148. Stone-faced terrace, 332 Site 148. Circular structure, 332 Site 148. Cubicle side chamber, 333 Site 149. Facing northwest, 333 Site 149. Circular structure, 333 Site ISO. Circular structure, 333 Site ISO. Massive outer wall, 334 Site lSI. Facing northwest, 334 Site IS2. Facing west across site, 335 Site IS2. Section of double wall, 335 Site IS3. Facing south, 336 Site IS3. Corral,337 Site IS4. Small circular structure, 337 Site ISS. Facing east, 337 Site ISS. Two parallel walls, 338 Site IS6. Small circular structure, 338 Site IS7. Large circular structure, 338 Site IS7. Two-story tomb, 339 Site IS7. One-story rectangular structure, 339 Site IS7. Section of wall-ditch complex, 339 Sites 160 and 161. Facing north, 340 Site 161. West end of site, 341 Site 161. Circular structure, 341 Site 162. Section of outer wall, 342 Sites 163 and 164. Facing south, 343 Site 163. Stone-faced terrace, 343 Site 163. Two-story rectangular structure, 343 Site 163. Wall-ditch complex, 343 Site 164. Facing west, 344 Site 166. Corral, 346 Site 166. Concentric walls, 346 Site 168. Facing southwest, 347 Site 168. Large circular structure, 347 Site 168. Preserved doorway, 347 Site 168. Small circular structure, 347 Site 169. Facing south, 348 Site 169. Corrals on stone-faced terraces, 348 Site 169. Circular structure, 348 Site 169. Wall-ditch complex, 349 Site 170. Small circular structure, 349 Site 171. Facing east, 350 Site 17S. Looted tombs, 351

A193. Site 176. Facing east, 351 A194. Site 177. Facing southeast, 352 A195. Site 178. Facing southeast, 353 A196. Site 178. Early Intermediate slab figurine, 353 A 197. Site 181. Facing north, 354 A 198. Site 181. Circular structures, 354 A199. Site 181. Looted tomb, 355 A200. Site 185. Debris from looted tombs, 356 A201. Site 190. Facing northwest, 358' A202. Site 191. Facing southeast, 359 A203. Site 191. Gateway, 359 A204. Site 192. Corral,359 A205. Site 192. Old maca fields, 359 A206. Site 195. Facing northwest, 360 A207. Site 201. Circular structure, 362 A208. Site 201. Looted tomb, 362 A209. Site 208. Facing northeast, 364 A21O. Site 211. Primary and secondary walls, 366 A211. Site 211. Oval structure, 366 A212. Site 212. Facing south, 367 A213. Site 212. Circular structure, 367 A214. Site 212. Corrals, 367 A215. Site 213. Wall enclosing tomb, 368 A216. Site 213. Tomb inside walled enclosure, 368 A217. Site 213. Circular structures, 368 A218. Site 213. Outer wall, 368 A219. Site 214. Top of subterranean tomb, 369 A220. Site 215. Top of subterranean tomb, 370 A22!. Site 219. Facing northwest, 371 A222. Site 219. Corrals, 371 A223. Site 220. Two massive conjoined walls, 372 A224. Site 223. Looted subterranean tomb, 373 A225. Site 228. Debris from looted tombs, 375 A226. Site 228. Rectangular tomb, 375 A227. Site 228. Tomb Cluster 4, 375 A228. Site 228. Looted tomb, 375 A229. Site 229. Old maca fields, 376 A230. Site 229. Circular structure, 376 A231. Site 229. Rectangular structure, 376 A232. Site 231. Facing southwest, 377 A233. Site 231. Stone-faced terraces and circular structures, 377 A234. Site 231. Large wall, 377 A235. Site 231. Corrals, 378 A236. Site 231. Corrals, 378 A237. Site 234. Facing north, 379 A238. Site 236. Looted subterranean tomb, 379 A239. Site 237. Corral,380 A240. Site 238. Facing west, 380 A241. Site 239. Section of massive concentric wall, 381 A242. Site 239. Section of massive concentric wall, 381 A243. Site 240. Facing west, 382 A244. Site 241. Facing south, 382 A245. Site 245. Facing northeast, 383 A246. Site 257. Facing east, 384 A247. Site 258. Facing west, 385 A248: Site 260. Terrace remnants, 387 A249. Site 260. Boulder monolith, 387 A250. Site 265. Facing east, 390 A251. Site 269. Rectangular and circular structures, 391 A252. Site 270. Facing southwest, 391 A253. Site 270. Outer ditch, 392 A254. Site 273. Innermost ditch, 393 A255. Site 274. Facing east, 393 A256. Site 278. Facing northeast, 395

A257. Site 280. Terracing, 396 A258. Site 283. Lower part of site, 397 A259. Site 283. Two-story rectangular structure, 397 A260. Site 283. Storage structures, 397 A261. Site 283. Remnant of Inka road, 397 A262. Site 286. Facing east, 399 A263. Sites 287 and 288. Facing northeast, 400 A264. Site 291. Facing northwest, 401 A265. Site 291. Large circular structure, 401 A266. Site 291. Two-story rectangular structure, 402 A267. Site 291. Three concentric walls, 402 A268. Site 291. Outer wall-ditch, 402 A269. Site 292. Facing west, 403 A270. Site 292. Small circular structure, 403 A271. Site 292. Large circular structure, 404 A272. Site 292. Two-story rectangular structure, 404 A273. Site 292. Conjoined two-story structures, 404 A274. Site 292. Outer wall-ditch complex, 404 A275. Site 292. Stone-faced terracing, 406 A276. Site 292. Stone-faced terrace, 406 A277. Site 295. Facing north, 408 A278. Site 296. Facing east, 408 A279. Site 296. Facing north, 409 A280. Site 296. Two-story rectangular structure, 409 A281. Site 296. Stone-faced terracing, 409 A282. Site 296. Wall-ditch complexes, 409 A283. Site 298. Facing southeast, 410 A284. Site 298. Circular structures, 410 A285. Site 298. Two-story rectangular structure, 410 A286. Site 298. Looted tomb, 410 A287. Site 298. Massive outer wall, 411 A288. Site 298. Gateway in outer wall, 411 A289. Site 299. Facing northwest, 411 A290. Site 299. Two-story rectangular structures, 412 A291. Site 300. Facing west, 412 A292. Site 300. Corral,412 A293. Site 302. West side of site, 413 A294. Site 302. Three massive concentric walls, 414 A295. Site 302. Gateway in innermost concentric wall, 414 A296. Site 302. Circular structure, 414 A297. Site 302. Looted tomb, 414 A298. Site 304. Corrals, 415 A299. Site 304-A. Canal bed, 417 A300. Site 304-A. Stepped section of ancient canal, 417 A301. Site 305. South end of site, 418 A302. Site 305. Section of massive wall, 418 A303. Site 307. Three circular structures, 419 A304. Site 307. Stone-faced terraces, 419 A305. Site 310. Facing east, 420 A306. Site 311. Facing southeast, 421 A307. Site 311. Circular structures, 422 A308. Site 311. Circular structures on stone-faced terraces, 422 A309. Site 311. Looted tomb, 422 A31O. Site 311. Section of wall-ditch complex, 422 A311. Site 312. Facing north, 423 A312. Site 312. Stone-faced terraces, 423 A313. Site 312. Trapezoidal doorway, 423 A314. Site 313. Site area on ridgecrest, 424 A315. Site 313. Stone-faced terracing, 424 A316. Site 313. Corrals, 424 A317. Site 313. Section of outer wall, 424 A318. Site 315. Facing southeast, 425 A319. Site 316. Stone-faced terracing, 426 A320. Site 317. Looted subterranean tomb, 426

xiii

A321. Site 318. Looted tombs, 427 A322. Site 318. Looted subterranean tombs, 427 A323. Site 318. Section of outer wall, 427 A324. Site 319. Stone-faced terracing, 428 A325. Site 319. Corral,428 A326. Site 320. Looted tomb, 429 A327. Site 320. Wall-ditch complex, 429 A328. Site 320. Corrals, 429 A329. Site 323. Facing south, 431 A330. Site 323. Section of massive walls, 431 A331. Site 325. Outer wall-ditch, 431 A332. Site 332. Facing southwest, 434 A333. Site 332. Northwestern half of site, 434 A333-A. Site 332. Vertical view, 434 A334. Site 332. West side of site, 435 A335. Site 332. Two-story rectangular structure, 435 A336. Site 332. Conjoined two-story rectangular structures, 435 A337. Site 332. Interior of two-story structure, 435 A338. Site 332. Rectangular structures around courtyard, 436 A339. Site 333. Facing northwest, 436 A340. Site 337. Facing south, 437 A341. Site 337. Concentric walls, 437 A342. site 339. Facing northwest, 438 A343. Site 341. Facing north, 439 A344. Site 341. Stone-faced terracing, 439 A345. Site 341. Two-story rectangular structure, 440 A346. Site 341. Paired two-story rectangular structures, 440 A347. Site 342. Probable subterranean tomb, 440 A348. Site 344. Facing south, 441 A349. Site 344. East side of site, 442 A350. Site 344. Corrals, 442 A351. Site 345. Facing east, 443 A352. Site 345. Stone-faced terrace, 443 A353. Site 347. Facing south, 443

A354. A355. A356. A357. A358. A359. A360. A361. A362. A363. A364. A365. A366. A367. A368. A369. A370. A371. A372. A373. A374. A375. A376. A377. A378. A379. A380. A381. A382. A383. A384. A385. A386. A387.

xiv

Site 347. Circular structures, 443 Site 347. Circular structure, 444 Site 347. Outer wall, 444 Site 348. Facing north, 444 Site 348. Core sector of site, 445 Site 348. Corrals, 445 Site 349. North end of site, 445 Site 352. Looted tombs, 446 Site 352. Looted tombs, 446 Site 355. South side of site, 447 Site 355. Circular structure, 447 Sites 356 and 358. Facing east, 448 Site 357. Looted above-ground tombs, 449 Sites 362 and 364. Circular structures and general location, 450 Site 363. Facing west, 451 Site 369. Sections of parallel walls, 452 Site 373. Main site area, 454 Sites 378 and 379. Facing northwest, 455 Site 378. Bands of corrals, 455 Site 378. Corral and circular structures, 455 Site 378. "Alley" between walled enclosures, 456 Site 378. Stone masonry in circular structure, 456 Site 378. Looted above-ground tomb, 456 Site 378. Outer wall, 456 Site 378. Old maca fields, 457 Site 379. Circular structures, 457 Site 379. Stone-faced terraces, 457 Site 379. Corrals, 457 Site 379. Circular structures around courtyard, 458 Site 379. Looted above-ground tombs, 458 Site 380. Looted tomb, 458 Site 381. Facing south, 458 Site 381. Stone-faced terracing, 459 Site 381. Large walled enclosure, 459

Preface This present monograph is Volume 1 of what will eventually be a two-volume work: Volume 2, still in preparation, will present our survey data from the main Mantaro Valley (the Wanka Region), several dozen kilometers to the southeast of the Tarama-Chinchaycocha Region. Even though it covers only part of our 1975-76 survey area, this monograph has been a long time coming, and its preparation has been far from linear or straightforward. The field research was conceived in the early 1970s and carried out in the mid-1970s. Our data were initially tabulated, classified, and transferred to maps during the late 1970s and early 1980s. The final site descriptions were prepared in the mid-late 1980s. It was during the course of writing these detailed descriptions that we became more fully aware of the nuances of variability and patterning within our data. At this point we realized the need to become more familiar with the extensive Andean ethnographic and ethnohistoric literature as we searched for new insights into the meaning of an increasingly complicated set of interrelated archeological features. All this, in tum, required an extensive rethinking of our earlier views about the significance of our material -an exciting but time-consuming process that stretched across the 1990s as we revised our original maps and rewrote earlier manuscript drafts. We would have been profoundly shocked if anyone had told us, as we completed our fieldwork at the end of 1976, that the final results of our investigation would not be published for another quarter century. We have learned so much over the intervening decades that we sometimes wish that we could begin the fieldwork all over again. Nobody can be more aware than ourselves of the shortcomings of this monograph. We expect our readers to approach this work critically -as we do ourselves. At the same time, we hope that our empirical contributions will be discerned and appreciated. We see this monograph first and foremost as the publication of data by anthropological archaeologists who are primarily in the hypothesis-building business. Consequently, we have tried to present our material in such a way that others can both understand the bases for our interpretations and reinterpret our data as they see fit. Although we have attempted little of what might be considered analytically new or innovative, we try to present our material so that it might be so analyzed in the future. Indeed, as this monograph goes to press, we are in the final stages of a long process (about three academic years worth of half-time research-assistant effort) of compiling our information into a large GIS database. Although this database plays no role in this monograph, we expect that it will provide the basis for a series offollow-up analyses and interpretations that, hopefully, will be published much more rapidly than the initial monograph. The systematic collection of regional archaeological data in the Andean sierra is a difficult, and sometimes even heroic, business; it is not for the faint of heart. We do not expect a large number of comparable datasets to be generated anytime soon-indeed, despite the intervening decades, our project to this day remains as one of a small handful of systematic regional archaeological surveys ever carried out anywhere in the Central Andean highlands. All the more reason, then, for our concern with descriptive clarity and detail. We begin this monograph, in Chapter 1, with an explication of our overall research design. Here we look back to the empirical and conceptual climate of the early 1970s, the time when we formulated our investigation, and we critique our original design in the light of information and insights accumulated in subsequent years. Chapter 2 is a summation of the physical environment and modem land use of our study area. Our principal objectives are to clarify the region's ecological characteristics within the overall Central Andean setting. In Chapter 3 we xv

synthesize the available ethnohistoric information, paying particular attention to documented cultural variability, and to the relationships between different ethnic groups and different resource zones in our study area at the time of initial European contact in the sixteenth century. In Chapter 4 we use ethnographic and ethnohistoric information from throughout the Central Andes in order to better comprehend the two dominant "traditional" socioeconomic modes: kichwa agriculture and puna pastoralism. Here we attempt to develop broadly based expectations about the relationships between agriculturalists and pastoralists in highland Peru at different points in the precolumbian past, and about the material correlates of these relationships. Chapters 1-4 comprise the introduction to our archaeological study. Chapter 5 outlines our methodological procedures in the field and laboratory, and develops a site classification system rooted in ethnographic analogy; this provides the transition into our focus on specific archaeological issues in Chapters 6-10. The specific foci of these latter chapters developed gradually in our own minds, over the course of several draft revisions-in a sense they seemed to emerge "naturally" and logically from the empirical data. Those readers requiring fuller details will need to digest the contents of Chapters 6-10 in consultation with the individual site descriptions in Appendix A, and the details of ceramic chronology in Appendix B. In Chapter 11 we summarize our findings and relate them to some of the larger issues of Central Andean archaeology. The various sections of the monograph were written in approximately the following order: Appendix A, Chapter 1, Chapter 5, Chapter 3, Chapter 6, Chapter 7, Chapter 8, Chapter 9, Chapter 10, Chapter 2, Chapter 4, Chapter 11, Appendix B. In some cases, several years elapsed between the initial preparation of different chapters. We have tried to smooth out the disjunctures and inconsistencies inherent in such a protracted writing process, and so virtually all chapters have been substantially rewritten or modified in an effort to achieve overall continuity and consistency. Over the years this project has received a great deal of financial, logistical, and intellectual support. We are greatly indebted to the National Science Foundation (Grant SOC-7508758), the University of Michigan, and the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos for their support of our fieldwork and laboratory analyses. Our work was authorized and facilitated by the Peruvian Instituto Nacional de Cultura in Resoluci6n Suprema No. 3101. We were assisted in the field by Kurt Anschuetz, Clorinda Cocci, Ruben Garcia, Joseph Hines, Paul Liffrnan, Daniel Morales, Julia Medel, Mary H. Parsons, Juan Ramirez, John Rick, Christine Rudecoff, Philip Tugendrajach, David Wilson, and Diana Wilson. We thank Roberto Frisancho for the loan of his Toyota jeep for the entire 1975 field season. Our fieldwork intruded into the lives and daily routines of many resident individuals and officials-we greatly appreciate their considerable understanding, forbearance, and aid. Our laboratory assistants at the Gabinete de Arqueologia, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos included Vicky Perez and Niceda Mediano R. At the University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology our student assistants were John Alden, Zoe Crossland, Joseph Hines, Seung Og Kim, and Renato Kipnis. Kay Clahassey prepared most of the figures, and Sally Horvath edited the manuscript. The following individuals provided much appreciated insightful comments on earlier partial drafts of this monograph: Juan Albarracin-Jordan, Susan Alcock, Carmen Arellano, Joseph Bastien, Brian Bauer, David Browman, Elizabeth Brumfiel, Tom Dillehay, Terence D'Altroy, John Earls, Robert Feldman, Frances Hayashida, Daniel Julien, Jerry Moore, Patricia Netherly, Susan Niles, Mary H. Parsons, Deborah Poole, Lorenzo Rosse1l6, Inge Schjellerup, Helaine Silverman, Charles Stanish, Teresa Topic, Gary Urton, Lidio Valdez, and David Wilson. We thank Sergio Chavez, Gordon McEwan, William Isbell, John Janusek, Enrique Mayer, and Helaine Silverman for bibliographic assistance.

xvi

Chapter 1

The Development of OUf Research Design

Conceptual and Developmental Background

own settlement pattern data for contributing to the archaeological study of these ideological issues-something we had not actually thought much about at all during the design and implementation of our fieldwork. As we hope to demonstrate, this interest has come to be an important part of our overall contribution. We would probably not even have contemplated such an effort had we finished this monograph "on time" a decade and a half ago. Nevertheless, the quality of our data have, more than anything else, been determined by our objectives and priorities at the outset of our field research: it was these objectives and priorities which structured our research design and produced the crucial decisions about how to collect and record information. So, with the obvious advantages of hindsight (but also with the obvious disadvantages of having to reflect back over a quarter century), we will now attempt to provide the reader with some sense of what we thought we were doing as this project developed in the early 1970s. A paramount influence on the character of our research was a strong conviction that a systematic regional perspective was needed in the Andean sierra in order to provide a new basis for generating good hypotheses about long-term prehistoric cultural change. This conviction had grown during the 1960s and early 1970s as productive regional studies were undertaken in Mesoamerica (Adams 1961; Blanton 1972; Bullard 1960; Miles 1957; Parsons 1969, 1971; Sanders 1965; Spores 1969; Willey et al. 1965), Mesopotamia (Adams 1965; Adams and Nissen 1972; Johnson 1973; Wright 1969), North America ( Chang 1958, 1962; Dittert, et al. 1961; Fitting 1969; Herold 1961; Phillips et al. 1951; Ritchie 1961; Struever 1968; Winters 1967), Europe (Fleming 1971; Jones 1960, 1961), Oceania (Green 1967, 1970), Africa (Trigger 1965), and in several other parts of the world (including, of course, the Peruvian North Coast, where the path-breaking Viru Valley project [Willey 1953] had

This monograph is based upon fieldwork carried out between May and December of 1975 and May and December of 1976 in the Departamento de Junfn, Peru (Fig. 1.1). In the 1990s we have the advantage of a good deal of hindsight about Andean prehistory in particular and anthropological archaeology in general that was not available to us when our fieldwork was conceived and carried out. This added historical perspective enables us to understand more clearly than we could have in the 1970s the place of our own project within the larger enterprise of Andean prehistory. More importantly, it enables us to make use of the results of recent published research to assist in the interpretation of our own data. Furthermore, during the 1980s and 1990s computer technology has become routinely available for assistance in quantitative analysis, word processing, and mapmaking. We have benefited a great deal from these advances, and without them this monograph may never have seen the light of day in its present form. A very different kind of advance also took place within anthropological archaeology generally after the late 1970s: the growing interest of archaeologists in more systematically addressing questions of ideology and cosmology through fieldbased research. In the Andes this was manifested by greater attention of archaeologists to the rich ethnohistorical and ethnographic literature, the product of several preceding decades of impressive scholarly study (e.g., Bauer 1991, 1992a, 1992b; Conrad 1981; Dillehay 1976, 1979, 1990; W. Isbell 1978b, 1997; Isbell and Cook 1987; Kolata 1992). This trend was accompanied by the increasing interest of ethnohistorians who were using archaeological data to study precolumbian ideology and cosmology (e.g., Earls 1976, 1981; Sherbondy 1986; Zuidema 1977a; Zuidema and Urton 1976). As time passed, we began to consider the relevance of our

1

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junfn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

2

,.....

i-· .... ·,

-Quito

"

.

"

" \

I

ECUADOR

..... ."

,.,.

,

I

". , ~.

,.....

"

'.

COLOMBIA

, ,

"

...' '.

"

:,.- ...... ,

. ."" ....,

BRAZIL -Cajamarca

\

0MARCAHUAMACHUCO

0VIRAC~APA~MPA HO~COPAM\A

PER U

KOTaS SECHIN ) 0 0 C asma 0 CHAVIN

,. 0_._.-

'. I

Huanuco

- Cerro de Pasco

'-._._.' _'"

,"\ "

, .-"

1

J

.... .,.

,

.,..-.-~-.-.-.~.,.-.,

'"

•

' de Oi05

\. Nlllod(e

I

",

,.,.

,

PACIFIC OCEAN

BOLIVIA

I

-La Paz

~

Tarama-Chinchaycocha Region

o

Archaeological site

_

Modern town

o

500 1 ..._ _~_ _.L-_--,_ _-,-_ _-,I kms

Figure 1.1. Peru, showing modern cities and principal archaeological sites.

~.

3

Development of Research Design

t N

_

200 meter contour interval

~ "'-o

Figure 1.2. The survey area: Tarama, Chinchaycocha, and Wanka regions.

Survey border Modern town

5

10

20 !

kilometers

4

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un{n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

been carried out in 1946). Without exception, these regional studies had radically altered previous archaeological interpretations, and many of them had stimulated a whole new genre of archaeological research, which is ongoing. It is no great mystery why systematic regional studies had begun to be so important in archaeological research by the 1960s and early 1970s. Cultural systems are extensive in space, and even relatively egalitarian societies are composed of many different functional parts spread out over a broad area. Increasingly complex organizations, of course, comprise more different kinds of components distributed over larger regions, typically with comparatively rapid changes in composition over time. Any component part of such a system cannot be properly understood in isolation: individual sites or features must be placed within a larger space-time framework before their sociocultural significance becomes comprehensible. Once such a framework becomes available, a whole realm of new possibilities opens up for archaeological research in any given area or locality. Space-time frameworks, of course, have long been basic for archaeological research. However, with very few exceptions, prior to the 1960s regional distributional studies were usually not systematic; they generally involved individual artifacts or individual sites, rather than archaeological occupation in the fullest sense; and they were not really operationalized at a regional scale; that is, the great majority of them were based on the fortuitous accumulation of information generated by investigations carried out over preceding years, decades, or even longer periods, by scholars whose principal concerns were usually chronology building, architectural definition, artistic definition, technological studies, or even antiquarianism. A part of the qualitative change in anthropological archaeology during the 1960s was the realization, on the part of more than just a few investigators, that regions needed to be more precisely defined for study and that regional-level data on the full range of human occupation needed to be collected in a much more rigorous and systematic manner (e.g., Chang 1972; Parsons 1972; Trigger 1967; Willey 1956). In the early 1970s, as all three of us looked from our different perspectives at Andean South America, we realized (if only subconsciously) that regionally oriented archaeological research in this part of the world was not keeping pace with that in some other major culture areas. At that point in time Matos had already been involved for well over a decade in ethnohistoric and archaeological research in Junin and other parts of Peru. As a faculty member at the Universidad del Centro (in Huancayo), and later at the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos (in Lima), Matos had already developed a special interest in the Upper Mantaro and Tarma drainages, and had located many sites and carried out several excavations in the area between Lake Junin and Huancayo (Fig. 1.1). He had begun to interest several North American archaeologists in the research potential of Junin and other parts of highland Peru, and in the mid 1960s he had begun to collaborate with John Murra, Donald

Thompson, and Craig Morris in path-breaking archaeologicalethnohistoric investigations in the Huanuco region to the north of Lake Junin. Matos and Parsons had become acquainted in 1967, during Matos' visit to Mexico. At that time Parsons was conducting regional archaeological surveys in the eastern Valley of Mexico, and Matos was able to briefly visit and take part in that fieldwork. It was at that time that Matos acquired a serious interest in systematic regional survey and Parsons became more fully aware of the possibilities of Andean field research in the aftermath of an initial visit to Peru and Bolivia in 1966. Matos and Parsons had another opportunity to interact in 1970, at a time when Parsons was conducting excavations on the Peruvian central coast (Parsons and Psuty 1975), and during that year they made a general tour together in the area of Matos' particular interest between Cerro de Pasco, Tarma, and Huancayo (Figs. 1.1, 1.2). It was during this tour that a general plan was formulated for a systematic regional survey in Junin: Matos felt that such a project was an essential component oflong-term archaeological research in the Peruvian sierra central, and Parsons wanted to begin developing a regional Andean data set which might serve as a basis for making general comparisons between prehispanic cultural development in Mesoamerica and the Central Andes. For a few more years Parsons continued to be actively involved in Mesoamerican fieldwork, but by 1974 he felt ready for another Andean campaign. In 1973 Hastings had begun graduate work in anthropology at the University of Michigan. With an undergraduate degree from Cornell University, Hastings was already knowledgeable about Andean archaeology and ethnohistory, and had participated in two seasons of archaeological fieldwork in the Moche Valley on Peru's North Coast (Hastings and Mosley 1975; Mackey and Hastings 1982), including a significant amount of time doing settlement pattern survey. With such an experienced and committed field assistant available, Parsons felt even more strongly that the time was ripe to get underway with a regional survey in Junfn.

The Definition of Substantive Issues

When we designed our project in 1974 we were aware of what had already been accomplished by a number of regional full-coverage survey projects in several different parts of the world. We knew these projects had achieved some measure of success (1) in estimating popUlation change over time (at least in a relative sense); (2) in using information about site and artifact distributions to develop new inferences about land use and subsistence practices; (3) in using information about site size, architectural complexity, and artifact distribution to elaborate hypotheses about sociopolitical hierarchy and exchange at local and regional levels; (4) in developing useful ideas about sociopolitical divisions and subdivisions on the basis of settlement gaps and/or artifact changes across space; and (5) in pro-

5

Development of Research Design

/

/

Lake Junin

Lima

La Oroya

Junin

Plate 1.1. Satellite image of the Peruvian sierra central.

Tarma

6

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junfn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

vi ding the basic foundation for more intensive future research focused on evaluating, explicating, and developing specific hypotheses, ideas, problems, and issues generated by the original regional research. As we considered what had already been accomplished by archaeologists who had carried out regional studies in various parts of the world prior to 1974, it seemed to us that most of what had been done in this tradition might be considered as the second stage of a multistage research program. In the Valley of Mexico, for example, all the archaeological study prior to about 1960 could be considered as "first stage" research, in the sense that it was then that the basic foundations for future investigation were constructed: chronology building, site definition, artifact and architectural definition, etc. The systematic regional surveys carried out in the Valley of Mexico between 1960 and 1975 were "second stage" research in the sense that they defined the main outlines of the regional archaeological universe and produced a series of important new questions which could provide the foci for the next (the "third") stage of research. The principal product of this second stage research was the definition of regional settlement patterns (e.g., Blanton 1972; Parsons 1971; Parsons et al. 1982; Sanders 1965; Sanders et al. 1979). Similarly, one of the main objectives of the third stage of research in the Valley of Mexico (which got underway in the mid 1970s) would be the definition of regional settlement systems, in which the skeletal outlines provided by stage two investigations would be fleshed out by more intensive studies focused on function, community structure, and intercommunity relationships (e.g., Brumfiel1976, 1980,1986,1989; Charlton et al. 1991; S. Evans 1985, 1988; Hodge and Minc 1990;,Hodge et al. 1993; Parsons et al. 1985; Serra 1988). It was this overall research strategy which we desired to implement in Juntn. We saw our own proposed regional survey as a form of "stage two" research, which would build upon the earlier work of Matos, Browman and others; our main immediate objective would be to define regional settlement patterns; and our primary longer-term goal would be to provide a foundation for future stage three research. We were convinced that a systematic regional survey in Junfn could make significant contributions in several areas ofhypothesis development and problem definition. We were also convinced that a systematic surface survey would be feasible and productive: the region was a semi-arid highland zone, generally lacking thick vegetation that would obscure surface traces of prehispanic occupation; pioneering studies in the sierra central prior to the 1970s had noted the presence of impressive prehispanic centers with abundant stone architecture and distinctive ceramics (Bonavia 1964, 1966, 1970, 1972; Gutierrez 1935,1937; Guzman 1959; Horkheimer 1951; Kroeber 1944; Nomland 1939; Tello and Miranda 1923; Tello Devotto 1959; Wells 1940). Matos' earlier work (1959, 1966a 1966b, 1968a, 1968b, 1971, 1972a, 1972b, 1973; also Ravines 1971) had produced both many examples of individual sites of different ages and the general outlines of a ceramic sequence; Lumbreras'

(1960) regional synthesis had suggested a series of general chronological and developmental issues which future archaeological research in the area might usefully address; and, most importantly, Browman's pioneering survey (1970) in the Huancayo-Jauja (Wanka) region of the main Mantaro Valley had demonstrated that archaeological sites of different size and character could be recognized and dated on the basis of surface remains. In 1974, systematic archaeological field research had only been underway for about a decade in the Peruvian sierra central. In the northern part of this region, around the modern town of Huanuco (Fig. 1.1), two different projects had been operating for several years: (1) the ethnohistorical-archaeological studies at the Inka imperial center of Huanuco Pampa and its surroundings, being carried out by Murra, Morris, Thompson, and Matos (Morris 1966, 1972, 1973, 1974; Morris and Thompson 1970; Thompson 1967, 1968a, 1968b, 1970, 1972; Thompson and Murra 1966); and (2) the intensive study of Formative occupation at Kotosh and Shillacoto (Izumi 1971; Izumi et al. 1972; Izumi and Sono 1963; Izumi and Terada 1972; Lumbreras 1971). The latter work paralleled the ongoing studies further north at the highland Formative center of Chavin de Huantar (Amat 1976; Lumbreras and Amat 1969). On the one hand, these preceding studies had begun to flesh out the details of Inka imperial organization, including for the first time a direct focus on the specific interactions between imperial Cuzco and local populations. On the other hand, this work had provided much fuller descriptive details of the long highland Formative sequence in a series of deep, stratified deposits containing some of the earliest known examples of monumental public architecture in the Andean sierra. These investigations in the Huanuco region were very influential in the planning of our own fieldwork. In addition to the obviously important substantive information they provided about prehispanic architecture and artifacts, they clearly suggested that we might expect to encounter important Formative occupations in the valleys in the eastern and southern parts of our study area, in geographic settings comparable to those of Kotosh, Shillacoto, and Chavin de Huantar-indeed, Browman's (1970) surveys between Jauja and Huancayo in the main Mantaro Valley had already revealed an extensive Formative occupation in the area around Huancayo. At about that same time, Matos' (1973) excavations at the valley-floor site of Ataura, near Jauja, had indicated the presence of modest Formative public architecture. We expected that the Jauja and Tarma regions, in particular, might well contain a number of significant Formative settlements which could be identified by surface survey. Matos' earlier and ongoing work in the main Junfnpuna was also a key element in convincing us of the value of systematic survey in the high grasslands south of Lake Junfn. His exploratory work had made clear the size and complexity of the two previously little-known Inka provincial centers at either end of ,Lake Junfn: Bonb6n (Pumpu) on the north and Chacamarca on the south. While it was apparent that these sites were not nearly

Development of Research Design

so large or complex as the impressive Inka facility at Hminuco Pampa, it was equally clear that both were closely linked to the Inka presence in the sierra central. Furthermore, Morris' (1966, 1972), Matos' (1972a, 1972b) and Thompson's (1967, 1968a 1968b) work had already demonstrated the importance and productivity of studying modest Inka imperial facilities and, perhaps even more important for our purposes, they had shown how new insights into Inka imperial policy might be derived from the identification of local settlements and residential facilities where indigenous elites and their followers, who interacted in a variety of ways with Inka imperial authorities, continued to reside. At the other end of the chronological sequence, Matos' pioneering excavations at Pachamachay Cave and at the nearby deeply stratified San Bias site, both located in the high puna near Ondores on the western side of Lake J unin (Fig. 1.2), had revealed a long developmental sequence, extending from Formative times well back into the underlying preceramic (Archaic) era (Matos 1975, 1980; Morales 1977). Matos' efforts were closely followed by those of the Institut Francais d'Etudes Andines, under the direction of Daniele Lavallee. By 1974 this latter work had located and tested several additional rockshelters with Archaic and Formative deposits in the Junin puna (Lavallee and Julien 1975). Over the next few years this work was followed up by additional surveys and excavations, of both rockshelters and open-air sites (Bonnier and Rozenberg 1978a, 1978b; M. Julien 1980; Lavallee 1977; Lavallee et al. 1982, 1985), and by the mid 1970s several other scholars-most with Matos' direct encouragement-had begun to take a particularly serious interest in the long Archaic sequence, with its rich data relating to the dynamics of agricultural development, camelid domestication, and interregional exchange (Matos and Rick 1980; Rick 1980; Wheeler et al. 1976). Much of this latter work in the Junin puna was on-going at the time we began our own investigations. The results of this preceding fieldwork played a major role in our decision that we could make virtually no contribution to the study of preceramic occupation: our predecessors had already shown that the surface traces of open-air Archaic occupation were too subtle for our methodology, with its emphasis on extensive occupation, to detect in any consistent and predictable way with the time and resources available to us, either in the puna grasslands or in the agricultural kichwa valleys at lower elevations (see also Lynch 1967 and Browman 1970). However, we were encouraged by the extent to which Formative and some post-Formative occupation had turned up in the upper levels of several rockshelter excavations throughout the Junin puna. This indicated that the puna was definitely occupied by herders during the earlier part of the ceramic sequence. When John Rick informed us in 1974 about the open-air Formative site he had tested under the modern town of Ondores, we came to feel even more confident about the ability of our surface survey to deal effectively with the earliest part of the ceramic sequence. Earlier work in the ceja de montana along the eastern edge

7

of the sierra (Bonavia 1964, 1966, 1970, 1972; Isbell 1969; Lathrap 1968, 1970) had clearly indicated that this difficult terrain-with its rugged topography, thick forest vegetation, primitive modern transportation infrastructure, and meandering rivers that have obliterated and redeposited archaeological remains in floodplain zones-would not be amenable to systematic regional survey of the type we envisioned. Nevertheless, these previous studies had made it equally clear that the ceja de montana contained important archaeological sites that reflected both important local developments and long-term interaction with the adjacent sierra: for instance, the strong links between Early Formative ceramics in the Kotosh and Tutishcainyo regions (Lathrap 1970: 107) during the early second millennium B.C.; and the ethnohistorically documented importance of the ceja de montana as the main source of coca for Inka imperial needs during the fifteenthth and sixteenth centuries (e.g., Espinosa 1973; Murra 1980). We knew we would have to deal with the ceja de montana in some manner if we were going to be able to develop a comprehensive view of long-term cultural change in our study area. As previously noted, Browman's (1970) pioneering surface survey in the main Mantaro Valley played a vital role in our own decision to proceed with an expanded and more fully systematic regional study that would partly overlap with his. Browman's surveys, supplemented by Matos' long-term observations throughout the Mantaro Valley (Matos 1959, 1966b, 1971, 1972b, 1973, 1978), had revealed a long developmental sequence, with numerous known occupations from all major periods. One of Browman's major interpretive contributions was an intriguing hypothesis that transhumant pastoralism had preceded fully sedentary agricultural adaptations in the Mantaro Valley, and that the transition from one to the other dated from the end of the Early Intermediate Period as Wari state authority began to be felt in the region (Browman 1974, 1976). Although we did not agree with the general thrust of Browman's ideas (in part because his surveys had not extended into the prime pastoral terrain in the puna above the kichwa zone of the main Mantaro Valley), we nevertheless admired the cogency and appeal of his argument, and we felt that the only way we could evaluate his challenging hypothesis would be to generate a new data set which might provide a better basis for dealing with long-term economic and political changes at the regional level. The investigations of I. Flores (1959), Matos (1968a), Browman (1970), and Shea (1969) at the Middle Horizon Warirelated "ritual" sites at Wari-Willka and Calpish, near Huancayo in the main Mantaro Valley, were also important in our research design. Wari-Willka and Calpish appeared to be important ritual foci, strongly associated ceramic ally and architecturally with Wari during the Middle Horizon. These two sites seemed to represent a different kind ofWari regional "influence" than that suggested by planned administrative centers like Pikillaqta (McEwan 1991, 1996; Sanders 1973) or Viracochapampa (McCown 1945; T. Topic 1991). The presence ofWari Willka and Calpish near the southern end of our proposed study area in

8

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]unfn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

tbe main Mantaro Valley was intriguing, and we felt that one contribution of our work would be to clarify the nature of this poorly understood Wari "influence" in this part of the sierra

central. In 1974 the most detailed published archaeological reporting from the sierra central consisted of the work of Danielle Lavallee and her colleagues working in the main Mantaro Valley (Lavallee 1967) and in the Asto region to the southeast of Huancayo (Lavallee 1973; Lavallee and Julien 1973). This pioneering work was focused on the Late Intermediate Period (LIP), and provided us with concrete information about ceramics, architecture, and site characteristics. Even today this body of work stands as the single most comprehensive archaeological publication for the later part of the prehispanic sequence in the sierra central: it provides, for example, the only full details of Late Intermediate domestic architecture and domestic refuse, and our current interpretations of LIP site function depend very heavily on it. Since the late 1960s, the Ayacucho region, about 150 km southeast of Huancayo, had been the scene of important new archaeological fieldwork (Fig. 1.1). One project, carried out by R.S. MacNeish and his colleagues, focused on the Archaic sequence, with special emphasis on the origins and early development of agriculture (Garcia 1974; MacNeish 1969, 1970; MacNeish et al. 1975). A second group of investigators, W. Isbell (1974, 1977), L. Lumbreras (1972, 1974b) and their colleagues, were mainly interested in the development of the Wari urban center during the Early Intermediate Period and the Middle Horizon. Isbell's work, which addressed questions ofWari development from the perspective of a small, rural occupation, was particularly important for us because it had succeeded in studying an outlying settlement of the type which we expected to encounter in our own survey area. Isbell also illustrated the effectiveness of studying central questions (in his case, the nature of Wari imperialism) at small, comparatively peripheral sites of the sort which are so common throughout highland Peru. In sum, by the early 1970s, antecedent archaeological fieldwork throughout the sierra central had provided an excellent conceptual and methodological foundation upon which our own . project could build. We knew that sites of all ceramic periods could be located and dated on the basis of surface remains; we had a fair idea about the general artifact sequence in our own study area, and there was a basis for comparing our materials with those from adjacent regions; and a number of important hypotheses, problems, and questions about prehispanic cultural development had already been defined. Two comprehensive regional syntheses appeared at about the same time as our research design was being formulated and our fieldwork was getting underway: Bonavia and Ravines (1972) and MacNeish et al. (1975). These presented a number of new ideas about the long-term development of agricultural and pastoral societies. We were particularly interested in testing the suggestion (in MacNeish et al. 1975:56) that the middle first millennium A.D. in this region was characterized by a shift "from

pr,imary llama and alpaca pastoralism, with secondary hunting and horticulture, to an economic base of primary agriculture with secondary herding." Similarly, we hoped our data might illuminate their views (1975:56, 60, 65-66) on the strong regional.influence ofWari during the Middle Horizon, and of the regional isolation, raiding, and feuding that they saw as characteristic of the Late Intermediate Period.

Definition of the Survey Area As we planned our fieldwork we realized that the Upper Mantaro-Tarma drainage was not a particularly well-defined cultural area. It was not a key, nuclear region, like some other areas where productive regional studies had been (or were being) undertaken (e.g., the Valley of Mexico and the Valley of Oaxaca in Mesoamerica; or the core irrigated zones of southern Mesopotamia in the Near East). There were no major centers of pan-Andean significance, at any time period, known to be located here. It was fairly clear that our study area was never the heartland for any core state-building developments in Andean prehistory. On the other hand, ethnohistoric studies (Duviols 1973; Espinosa 1963, 1969, 1973, 1976a; Rostworoski 1975; Rowe 1946) had clearly indicated that the region contained a degree of ethnic and sociopolitical diversity at the time of European contact. The Inka's Wanka administrative province centered on the main Mantaro Valley was between Jauja and Huancayo; the Tarama province on the upper Tarma drainage; and Chinchaycocha Inka province on the puna surrounding Lake Junfn (Fig. 1.2). We felt that this documented ethnic and sociopolitical diversity might provide us with a good foundation upon which to integrate archaeological and ethnohistoric approaches in dealing with the dynamics of the development of small regional polities in the Andean sierra. We also became increasingly aware in the early stages of our planning that, unlike the Valley of Mexico or the Valley of Oaxaca in Mesoamerica, in the Upper Mantaro-Tarma drainage we were not dealing with a well-defined natural area which could be clearly demarcated on the ground and subdivided into convenient, topographically defined parcels which could facilitate the logistics of our field surveys: on the northwest the broad puna around Lake Junfnformed an immense undulating plain of such a large size that we could never hope to incorporate its totality into any reasonable survey operation; on the east the rugged Tarma drainage comprised a series of numerous small valleys of variable size and orientation, which formed a contorted and irregular landscape with no clear center or edges; only on the south, in the main Mantaro Valley between Jauja and Huancayo, was there a fairly well defined topographic unit formed by the broad northwest-southeast trending valley floor and its surrounding slopes leading up to high puna ridges on either side. However, even for the main Mantaro Valley it was difficult to determine clear-cut edges, borders, or internal sub-

9

Development of Research Design

divisions which would be useful for planning survey operations. On the other hand, it was quite clear that our study area contained a great abundance of environmental diversity distributed in three major blocks: (1) to the northwest, the high puna grasslands south of Lake Junfn, above 4000 m asl; (2) to the east, the rugged small valleys of the Tarma drainage, between 2700-3800 m asl; and (3) to the south, the main Mantaro Valley between Jauja and Huancayo at 3400-3800 m as!. The character and configuration of this natural diversity became key factors in planning our research, and we soon decided to incorporate into our survey as much of each major environmental block as possible in order to maximize our chances of understanding the role of natural diversity in long-term cultural change. In 1974 we were convinced that the most successful and productive regional studies were those which employed full-coverage survey techniques to generate settlement pattern data (Fish and Kowalewski 1990). We believed that full-coverage survey was the only way in which we could hope to capture, with any degree of confidence, the full outline of the prehispanic settlement systems which we eventually hoped to define more fully. As noted above, we were also convinced that our Upper Mantaro-Tarma study area was suitable for full-coverage survey. Consequently, we did not even consider the possibility of employing any form of regional sampling. This was probably a sound decision, but the lack of systematic regional survey experience anywhere in the Andean sierra at that time meant that we had very little idea during the planning stages of our research about how much surface area we could expect to cover per unit of time and labor. Consequently, we went into our fieldwork with only a vague notion of how large a region we would ultimately be able to deal with. This meant that the overall configuration of our survey area was dependent upon numerous tactical decisions reached in the field on many different occasions after the survey itself was underway. This resulted in too limited coverage in some localities, and perhaps proportionately too much in others. The two zones where our coverage turned out to be most notably deficient are (1) the juncture between the Junfn puna and the upper Tarma kichwa valleys, centering on the modern town of San Pedro de Cajas; and (2) the puna terrain bordering the main Mantaro Valley (Fig. 1.2). In particular, our failure to incorporate more of the puna-kichwa juncture zone into our survey area meant that we ended up with an inadequate view of a specific ecological niche that would subsequently prove to be especially critical to understanding changing relationships between puna herders and kichwa agriculturalists. In retrospect, we should have attempted to devise some better means of more rationally approximating the full extent and precise placement of our study area, before we were actually operating in the field, so that we would have been able to incorporate the full ecological diversity of the region. At the time we were planning and implementing our surveys, we simply did not realize the full significance of the puna-kichwa juncture zone.

Summary In 1974 we designed a systematic regional surface survey in a study area contained within the Upper Mantaro-Tarma drainage in the Peruvian sierra central. We selected this particular study area because of its potential to serve Matos' and Parsons' major research interests: the fundamental factors were (1) Matos' long-established interest in and familiarity with the ecology and prehistory of the area, and (2) Parsons' general interest in generating a regional data set in the Central Andean sierra which could facilitate the comparison of long-term cultural development in prehispanic Mesoamerica and Andean South America. We conceived this project as "stage two" research within a long-term, multistage archaeological research program: our own work grew out of "stage one" investigations, carried out over the preceding decades, which had provided the basic foundation for undertaking a systematic regional study; our overall goal was to define prehispanic regional settlement patterns in order to provide a conceptual and methodological foundation for more intensive "stage three" archaeological research directed at settlement systems definition in the same general region. From the outset we were committed to full-coverage surface survey, inspired and oriented by the proven productivity of such surveys in semi-arid regions of comparable cultural complexity in several other parts of the world. Earlier field studies in the Upper Mantaro by Matos, Browman, and others had suggested that full-coverage survey was both feasible and productive. Our immediate objective was to define regional settlement patterns over as large an area as possible in two field seasons from May through December, 1975 and 1976. We expected that our work would produce data which could serve to develop hypotheses about population size and change, local community structure, regional sociopolitical hierarchy, land use and subsistence practices, economic production and exchange, and the local impact of distant imperial centers at Wari and Cuzco during Middle Horizon and Late Horizon times, respectively. In retrospect, our bridging arguments linking what we expected to find and what we expected to find out remained implicit and incompletely developed, just as they had been at a comparable early stage of the Valley of Mexico investigations. We saw our primary objective as an attempt to develop sound ideas and hypotheses which could be tested and more fully developed by subsequent, more intensive research. Such ideas and hypotheses were not by any means lacking in the Andean sierra in the early 1970s, of course (e.g., Browman 1974, 1976; MacNeish et a!. 1975; Matos 1971, 1972b; Morris 1967, 1973; Morris and Thompson 1970; Thompson 1968a), but we felt that many existing hypotheses of that time lacked an adequate empirical foundation, and that few, if any, were adequately based on systematic regional settlement pattern data. Because we were mainly interested in problem definition and hypothesis development as a second stage in long-term re-

10

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junin, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

search, we decided very early on that we could not spend very much time at any single site during our 1975-76 fieldworkwe could not incorporate time-consuming operations such as intensive surface collecting, test pitting, map-making, or architectural drawings, which would necessarily detract from our ability to define general occupational patterns over as large an area as possible. Our orientation was explicitly extensive, not intensive. Perhaps the weakest parts of the formulation of our overall research strategy were (1) our inability to make reasonable predictions about how large our study area would be, and (2) our inability to determine how to configure our survey coverage so as to acquire a regional data set that would be fully representative of ecological and cultural variability. As it turned out, the full extent of our 1975-76 survey was roughly 1500 square kilometers. However, as we planned our fieldwork in 1974, we had no idea whether we could handle as little as a few hundred square kilometers or as much as a few thousand. Similarly, we had absolutely no idea about the cultural significance of the puna-kichwa juncture zone, an area of very difficult topography that was very tempting to avoid due to the sheer physical difficulties of surveying in areas of such exaggerated vertical relief. These uncertainties about scale and configuration meant that we had difficulty conceptualizing the kinds of issues we might (or might not) be able to address, or even to what points on the ground our surveys might ultimately extend. We knew that we wanted to cover contiguous blocks of terrain, each as large as possible, in the three principal environmental subdivisions which existed within the Upper Mantaro-Tarma drainage: th~ J unin puna, the small valleys in the Tarma drainage kichwa, and the main Mantaro Valley. However, as we began fieldwork in May 1975, we still had virtually no idea about the ultimate size or configuration of our completed survey, and so we remained uncomfortably uncertain about what our ultimate contributions might actually be. On the other hand, could it have been otherwise in such a pioneering effort?

The Project in Retrospect A quarter century has now passed since we first designed and implemented our survey in Junin. During that time a large body of literature has appeared concerning the strategy and tactics of systematic regional survey, and at least one major volume has explicitly considered the merits of "full coverage" vs. sampling survey (Fish and Kowalewski 1990). With the obvious advantage of hindsight, we now understand what we were then attempting to accomplish somewhat more fully than we did in the 1970s. Building on previous site-specific work, our

task was to define the "big picture" at the regional level, focusing on sites (as opposed to what now might be termed the "off site" phenomena-isolated artifacts, small concentrations of potsherds or lithics, or small linear features such as sections of canals or roads). We did not expect to be able to deal systematically with such off-site materials, but we did expect to encounter such material from time to time and to become at least aware of how future studies of subtle features might be designed (e.g., the impressive recent work by Klink [1997] and Klink and Aldenderfer [1996] aimed at defining Archaic-period occupation at the regional level in the Titicaca Basin). Just as they had previously done in places like the Valley of Mexico, we expected that full-coverage site-oriented surveys in Junin would serve to define the general outlines of population, land-use, and sociopolitical organization over an area of some hundreds of square kilometers-an area small enough to be managed by a project of modest size and resources, and yet large enough to provide insight into general patterns. We expected that our periodic encounters of off-site remains during the course of our site-oriented surveys would tell us what kinds of off-site materials were "out there." Such knowledge, in turn, could be expected to provide us with (1) some general understanding of what we might learn from the off-site remains, and (2) some specific indication of how we might discover their distribution by means of more intensive surface surveys in the future. Such future surveys would necessarily involve some form of sampling, simply because of the intensity of observation that would be needed to locate and record the subtle material remains. We continue to agree with our original belief that the only way we could fully cover a large area would be to focus exclusively on sites and other features that were visible from a distance of no less than 20-50 meters. What we most profoundly did not adequately appreciate at the outset of our work was the richness of the surficial architectural data that would be available to us. Even once this became apparent to us, early in our 1975 fieldseason, we were never able to record architectural information at a level of detail that would enable us to capture its most essential qualities, while at the same time permitting us to maintain our extensive survey coverage. We are also conscious that in some ways we have written this monograph "backwards"; we began without a fully appropriate rationale for our survey methodology because we were not fully aware of what our survey data might tell us. We acquired better understanding only long after the fieldwork itself had been completed. We all wish we could begin again, knowing what we now do. The primary contribution of our project has been to develop hypotheses that can serve as the foundations for future archaeological research, both regional and sitespecific, in the Andean sierra.

Chapter 2

Geography and Environment

Our study area is between 11 ° 10' and 11 °35' south latitude, and 75°30' and 76°10' west longitude (Figs. l.1, 2.1). It occupies a sector of the Peruvian sierra central lying between two primary northwest-to-southeast trending mountain ranges (Fig. 1.2). The westerly, and more distant, of these two ranges, the Cordillera Occidental, forms the continental divide separating the Pacific and Atlantic watersheds. Our survey area straddles the lower and less continuous easterly range, the Cordillera Oriental, and extends along its flanks and eastward into lower elevations that descend into the Amazon basin. We partition the diverse area east of the continental divide into six zones: cordillera, puna, kichwa, ceja de montana, montana, and selva (Table 2.1) (Bowman 1916; Dollfus 1981; Mayer 1985; Pulgar 1967; Tosi 1960; Troll 1958, 1960, 1968; Weberbauer 1936, 1945; Winterhalder and Thomas 1978). The last two zones do not directly concern us in this monograph. The term cordillera refers to high mountain ranges with glaciated terrain and craggy peaks between elevations of 4700-5700 m asl, with subfreezing temperatures every night of the year; permanent snowfields occur above approximately 5300 m asl. This is what Troll (1968:33) characterizes as the sterile "frost desert," above the limits of most vegetation growth, and hence economically useless to pastoralists and agriculturalists, except as the ultimate source of meltwater from glaciers and snowfields that provides moisture for pastures and cultivated fields at lower elevations. The term puna refers mainly to high, grass-covered plateaus with moderate-to-gentle vertical relief at elevations between roughly 3850 and 4700 m asl. There are a few small "oases" of grass and moss vegetation up to about 5200 m asl, but these are only locally or seasonally significant (Custred 1977:60). It is useful to distinguish between the lower puna (3850-4200 m asl), where effective cultivation of some tubers and hardy cereals (guinoa) is possible, and the higher puna grasslands (4200-4700 m asl), above the limits of effective agriculture, where herding 11

is the primary economic activity. Geological studies (Hansen et al. 1984; Wright 1980, 1983, 1984; H. E. Wright and Bradbury 1975; Wright et al. 1989) have indicated the powerful impact of Late Pleistocene glaciation in the formation of the puna landscape: the existing drainage network and lakes are products of glacial scouring and damming; glacial outwash fans and large fluvial-alluvial terraces cover much of the lower, flatter ground surfaces; many of the numerous hills and ridges are glacial moraines formed of coarse glacial deposits; and there is a high proportion of acidic soils of variable depth and texture (Matos 1994:41). The term kichwa refers to semi-arid intermontane valleys and lower ridges at elevations between about 2700 and 3850 m asl. In our study area, the upper elevation of the kichwa zone is partly determined by topography: beginning immediately below 3850 m asl there is usually high vertical relief, whereas above that altitude the terrain typically has gentle to moderate relief. It is useful to distinguish between lower and higher kichwa subdivisions: (a) the lower kichwa, 2700-3500 m asl, which has most of the best agricultural land on the valley-bottoms and lowermost slopes, and where effective maize cultivation is possible; and (b) the upper kichwa, 3500-3850 m asl, where the terrain is typically much steeper, the valley floors are narrow, soil cover is shallow, and maize cultivation is not effective. Matos (1994:41) notes unpublished ONERN studies that show a significant tendency in and around the Junfn puna for decreasing salinity and increasing organic content in soils below roughly 3900 m asl. Below approximately 2700 m asl the kichwa valleys in our study area descend into the moist and heavily vegetated ceja de montana and become deep canyons and narrow gorges separated by extremely steep ridges. At varying elevations the ceja de montana grades into the rugged lower foothills and broader valleys of the montana. The thickly forested selva may be said

12

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]unzn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

..

Ecuador

Colombia .. ...........

Brazil

. ;A'

'~::'-(-- . ,

.....................

,

#'

.

'

. ., : ,

......... Pacific Ocean

~

Lower Kichwa

0

Upper Kichwa & Lower Puna Upper Puna

" o

Cordillera

1 00

200

•

N

I

300

400

.'.....I=====-I.....'====~lkm

Figure 2.1. Distribution of puna and kichwa zones in Peru. Adapted from Pulgar 1967.

Geography and Environment

o

13

5 I I

I

km

limits of survey ~

C)

major rivers streams modern town

.. CJ c:J

High Puna, >4200 m asl Low Puna, 3850-4200 m asl Upper Kichwa, 3500-3850 m asl Lower Kichwa, 5300 3850-4700

Main Characteristics'

Above limits of herding and agriculture. "Frost desert." Janca/ Riti Nival Tropical 4 Permanent snow cover. Jalca,5 Paramo muy Humedo Grasslands with moderate to gentle relief. Puna Subalpino & Tundra Pluvial 6 Higher puna Jatun-JalcalPuna Alta7 4200-4700 Above limits of effective agriculture (Plate A34). Lower puna Llampu-JalcalPuna Baja' 3850-4200 Effective tuber cultivation. (Plate 2.1) Kichwa Bosque Humedo Montano' Intermontane valleys and lower ridges (Plate A44). 2700-3850 Suni/·9 Sallqa-Keshwa'o Upper kichwa 3500-3850 Above limits of maize cultivation (Plate A 149). Quechua,'·9 Keshwa'o Lower kichwa Effective maize cultivation (Plate A 114). 2700-3500 Keshwa-Baja" < 3000 Frost-free. Lowest kichwa Ceja de montana Yunga Fluvia'" Bosque muy ca. 2700-3500 Steep, moist, heavily vegetated (Plate A43.) humedo montano" 'Generally followll1g Troll 1968:33,' Pulgar Vidal 1967,' Matos 1994:51: ON ERN 1976,5 Matos 1994:22,6ToSI 1960: 136-43,7 Matos 1994:42-44,' Tosi 1960: 109-20,9 Dollfus 1981 :45-50,'0 Vallee 1970: 169," Tosi 1960: 148-56. Cordillera

3

to begin where the outermost hills of the montana meet the edge of the main plain of the Amazon Basin. As Troll (1958, 1968), Hastings (1985), and others have observed, the gradation between kichwa or puna and ceja de montana is very complex, with no fixed elevation limits and highly dependent upon the configurations of local topography that affect the patterning of wind, rainfall, cloud cover, and vegetation; variants of ceja de montana can be found at elevations up to about 3700 mas!. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show the distribution of these major ecological zones in Peru as a whole and in our survey area.

The Major Zones The Cordillera and the Puna The principal chains of cordillera in central Peru converge into a "knot" (nudo) in the vicinity of Cerro de Pasco (Figs. 1.1, 2.1). This Nudo de Pasco dips gradually southeastward into the Pampa de Bomb6n in the main Junfn puna north of Lake Junfn. The Pampa de Bomb6n forms the north half of a large plain containing Lake Junfn (4095 m as 1) (also called Lake Chinchaycocha). The Nudo de Pasco and Pampa de Bomb6n are part of an extensive plateau of relatively flat plains and moderately hilly terrain collectively referred to as the Junfn plateau or the Junfn puna. The western side of the Junfn plateau is rimmed by the Cordillera Occidental, a continuous range along the continental divide. The eastern side of the plateau has a much less prominent rini. (the Cordillera Oriental) dividing the lake basin, which drains southeast into the Mantaro River, from

three valley networks on the eastern, Amazonian flank: the Paucartambo, Ulcumayo, and Tarrna, from north to south (Fig. 3.1). The Cordillera Oriental is a disjointed series of short ranges opposite the Cordillera Occidental. The highest parts of this eastern cordillera in central Peru are Nevado Huaguruncho (5723 m asl) in a range bearing east from the Junfn plateau, and Nevado Huaytapallana (5557 m asl) near Huancayo. From Huaytapallana the Cordillera Oriental branches northwest to Cerro Apu Huayhuay (5105 m asl) and north through Cerro Runatullo (5100 m asl). The Runatullo arm continues far north and converges toward an eastern extenuation of the Huaguruncho Range, defining lateral limits of the Perene drainage. Subranges of cordillera within these limits are mostly perpendicular to the main axis of the Andes and partition the upper Perene watershed into several valley networks. Most of the main Junfn puna south of Lake Junfn and west of the Tarma watershed is drained by the upper Mantaro River and several of its tributaries, principally the Quebrada Telarnioj and the Quebrada Tingo (Fig. 2.2). North of these latter two drainages, a series of broad, shallow quebradas drain northward into the large, reed-covered swamps on the south side of Lake Junfn. At its far northwest corner, Lake Junfn feeds the uppermost end of the main Mantaro River. Virtually all waterways on the Junfn puna have permanent, year-round waterflow; except for Lake Junfn itself, none are navigable by watercraft. The Kichwa The valley network of the Tarma River is confined between two subranges, the Apu Huayhuay on the southeast and the

15

Geography and Environment

Jasajanca Range on the north. Widely branching valleys of the upper Tarma have advanced head ward through the large gap in the eastern cordillera into the gently rolling expanses of the Junin puna. Upper Tarma tributaries originate wholly within the Junfn puna. Most are interwoven with long, eastward ridge extensions of the puna. At 800-1200 m below the ridgecrests, the valleys between these ridges are typical kichwa agricultural terrain (Plate A44). The streams and rivers along valley and quebrada floors are of modest size, seldom exceeding 5 m in width and 1 m deep, and usually considerably smaller (Plate A1l4). The larger waterways, most of which head in permanent snowfields in the surrounding cordillera, have permanent, year-round flow, while many of the smaller streams only have water during and just after the rainy season (December through April).

The Ceja de Montana The main Tarma River deepens and widens considerably as it leaves our study area and descends within a deep canyon through the thickly forested ceja de montana from about the confluence of the Tarma and Huasahuasi rivers, dropping some 1500 m in 22 km, with the river running up to 2200 m below the level of the surrounding ridgecrests on either side (Plate A43). The transition into the forests of the ceja de montana is determined as much by topography as by elevation (Troll 1968). Forest growth extends far up the quebradas; conversely, the puna-kichwa grassland dips far down the crests of mountain spurs. Forests reach as high as 3500-3800 m asl on the sides of deep quebradas, but ridgecrests may be bare as low as 3300 m as!.

Geology Since the turn of the century, the lower Tarma has attracted attention as a profile through some of the oldest geological strata in the Central Andes (e.g., Douglas 1921; Harrison 1943, 1956; McLaughlin 1924, 1958; Steinmann 1904). Episodes of sedimentation, folding, intrusion, uplift, and erosion dating back to the Precambrian are preserved in exposed outcrops along the canyon walls below Tarma. The geological record of the Precambrian and Paleozoic eras is concealed on the Junfn plateau and upper Tarma valleys by as much as 4000 m of Mesozoic sedimentation, which was subsequently altered by several episodes of orogeny and volcanism. These deposits were then worn down into the relatively even puna surface during the Tertiary period (Petersen 1965:413-14). In the ceja de montana and montana zones, erosional processes have stripped away the thick Mesozoic deposition so widespread farther west. The present configuration of exposed geological strata between the puna and montana can be partitioned into three belts trending northwest to southeast (Petersen 1965 :411). The Central Andean Mesozoic Belt encompasses the puna, the major

cordilleras, and the Tarma kichwa. The Eastern Paleozoic Belt corresponds roughly to the ceja de montana, and the Eastern Mesozoic Belt to the montana. The transition between the Central Andean Mesozoic and Eastern Paleozoic belts is ordered by three structural complexes also aligned in a northwest-southeast direction. From southwest to northeast these are (1) the Tarrna Anticlinal Complex through Palcamayo, Leticia, and Tarma; (2) the Ricran Synclinal Complex from the upper Ricran Valley through Picoy and Acobamba; and (3) a continuation of the distant Comas Complex form the upper Tulumayo (Harrison 1943:13-16). These three complexes expose several series of Mesozoic limestones alternating with Paleozoic breccias, shales, and sandstones. Within the middle Tarma Valley, between Acobamba and Palca, Douglas (1921 :274) observed conglomerates, phyllites, quartzites, and black crystalline limestones. The sides of the valley are lined with granite and porphyritic intrusions from Palca to Carpapata in the upper Tarma Canyon (Capdevila et al. 1977:440). It is significant that, along with many other aspects of the environment, the underlying geological structure and composition of the land itself differ so much in the transition between the puna-kichwa zone, on the one hand, and the ceja de montana zone, on the other. One expected archaeological manifestation would be the distinction between pottery clays derived from the much older surface deposits in the ceja de montana, vs. those extracted from the younger deposits in the nearby kichwa and puna zones.

Climate The Central Andean climate is characterized by seasonal fluctuations in precipitation and diurnal fluctuations in temperature (Tables 2.2-2.15-A). The regional rainy season usually peaks between January and March, and the dry season is normally driest from June through August. At high elevations in tropical latitudes, temperature oscillations tend to be strong between day and night and weak between seasons (e.g., Troll 1958). Mild temperatures during the rainy season are due as much to the insulating cloud cover as to the timing of the astronomical summer. Temperatures drop to their lowest extreme on clear nights of the dry season, which corresponds to the austral winter (J uneAugust), but radiant, mid-day heating from relatively unfiltered sunlight is also most intense during these same months. Native inhabitants of the Tarma kichwa and puna generally regard the dry season as "summer" and the rainy season as "winter," although Phillips (1911 :340) claims a reversed local usage of these confusing labels. The montana and ceja de montana are kept wet most of the year by orographic rainfall produced during uplift of "tropical maritime" air masses (Haurwitz and Austin 1944:230-31). The outermost eastern foothills intercept air masses drifting off the Amazon Basin and are deluged with the highest amounts of

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junin, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

16

Table 2.2. Summary of average annual rainfall in the puna, kichwa, and ceja de montana zones Zone

Station' Atocsaico Casaracra Jacayhuanca Junin LaCima Mal paso Upamayo Huari Huasahuasi Oroya Pachacayo Tarma Yuncan'

Puna

Kichwa

Elevation (m as!) 4150 4100 4200 4125 4230 3870 4080 3650 3380 3750 3600 3000 1885

Std. Dev.

Average Annual Rainfall (mm) 860 719 583 848 720 817 832 594 440 590 664 369 1252

Interval of Observation 1952-1973 1957-1973 1957-1973 1952-1973 1952- I 973 1940-1973 1963-1973 1956-1967 1969-1972 1916-1972 1958-1972 1964-1972 5 yrs 1950s

(mm)

144 108 68 127 92 107 80 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Cejade montana See FIg. AI-B for locatIOns of meteorologIcal statIons. The Huari, Oroya, and Pachacayo stations are outside our survey area, in the Mantaro Valley kichwa between La Oroya and Jauja; the Atocsaico, Malpaso, and Upamayo stations are in the Junin puna, just outside our survey borders. 'All stations except Yuncan are from ONERN records. 'Hastings 1985: Table 2- I, taken from Drewes and Drewes 1957:66.

Table 2.3. Average and absolute maximum-minimum annual rainfall by month (in mm, rounded to nearest mm) from kichwa stations. Station Oroya 3750 m asl 1916-1972

Huari 3650 m asl 1956-1967

Pachacayo 3600 m asl 1958-1972

Range Max.

Jan 181

Feb 168

Mar 181

Apr 130

May 92

Jun 109

Jul 43

Au!!: 69

SeD 85

Oct 97

Nov 129

Dec 134

Total

Mean

92

90

86

41

25

16

II

15

34

50

54

76

590

Min. Max.

37 143

24 188

9 132

7 89

I 24

0 21

0 35

0 26

5 62

5 116

13 98

13 139

Mean

85

115

92

46

\3

6

II

9

27

67

49

75

Min. Max.

21 179

69 196

24 201

II 70

I 34

0 25

0 19

0 24

10 53

22 101

18 154

26 175

Mean

101

114

114

47

14

4

4

9

26

58

69

104

2

I

23

32

19

39

55

37

369

44

31

38

58

440

Min. 21 49 21 I I 0 0 0 Tarma 54 3000 m asl Mean 50 49 35 14 3 7 7 1964-1972 Huasahuasi 3380 m asl Mean 43 53 88 42 15 9 17 4 1969-1972 Adapted from ONERN 1976:Anexo I, Cuadro I; and from local records U1 Tarma. For station locations refer to Fig. A 1-8. Note that the Oroya, Huari, and Pachacayo stations are in the Mantaro Valley between La Oroya and area.

Jauja, south and west of study

594

664

17

Geography and Environment

Table 2.4. Average and absolute maximum-minimum annual rainfall by month (in mm, rounded to nearest mm), from puna stations in or around Juninpuna. Station Casaracra 4100 m asl 1958-1972

Atocsaico 4150masl 1954-1972

Jacayhuanca 4200 m asl 1965-1972

LaCima 4230 m asl 1953-1972

San BIas 4330 m asl 1956-1970

Ran!!e Max.

Jan 193

Feb 204

Mar 212

Apr 103

Mav 65

Jun 62

Jul 11

Au!! 100

Sep 97

Oct 120

Nov 125

Dec 158

Total

Mean

106

103

109

52

25

25

11

27

48

70

80

100

719

Min. Max.

nla 233

nla 262

nla 217

nla 141

n/a 76

n/a 74

n/a 87

n/a 103

nla 92

nla 176

n/a 180

nla 199

Mean

116

131

123

66

37

12

15

33

52

78

86

109

Min. Max.

22 120

70 129

27 162

5 79

10 82

0 24

0 48

1 41

20 60

22 91

4 64

36 97

Mean

85

82

90

51

28

9

26

26

31

63

48

74

Min. Max.

61 163

45 301

27 177

28 85

4 85

0 34

11 30

11 57

3 78

41 167

23 98

55 141

Mean

110

119

\00

49

36

11

11

23

43

55

91

Min. Max.

52 192

68 291

34 228

17 136

8 95

0 50

0 51

0 93

0 114

24 143

18 151

40 234

Mean

124

173

143

93

48

15

19

29

67

84

89

123

41

13

0

0

4

33

41

46

55

91 III 48 Min. Adapted from ONERN 1976:Anexo 1, Cuadro No.1. For station locations refer to Fig. A I-B.

rainfall in the region. Additional precipitation is released as this warm, humid air is forced upward (westward) to the full height of the outer ranges, but the total rainfall on the eastern side of the Cordillera Oriental diminishes with increasing elevation. At high, cooler elevations the rate of evaporation also decreases, resulting in greater dampness despite the lower precipitation. Kichwa valleys on the leeward (western) side of the outer ranges differ greatly from the perennially foggy mountainsides to the east. Relative to the ceja de montana, the kichwa climate is much drier, more seasonal variable, and somewhat cooler during the dry season. Much of the Tarma kichwa lies in the rainshadow of several prominent ridges, explaining its "surprising aridity" (Weberbauer 1945: 137). Seasonally clear skies over Tarma are also due partly to the northward advance of a more stable air mass from the south Atlantic. The timing of the rainy season is contingent upon the retreat of this stable, southerly air mass concurrent with a resurgence of humid air from the Amazon Basin (Haurwitz and Austin 1944:230). The Junfn puna is affected not only by the equilibrium between these two air masses from the Atlantic, but also by others from the Pacific that intermittently override the continental di-

71

859

609

720

1007

vide (Drewes and Drewes 1957:8). The Pacific air may bring additional moisture to the puna and effectively reduces the seasonality of precipitation relative to the adjacent kichwa valleys. Rain, sleet, or snow may fall in any month, and frost danger exists throughout the year (Rick 1980: 12-13). The upper limit of the ceja de montana is climatically unique. A common cloud formation in the cordillera immediately above this part of our study area is the "smoking mountain" or "banner cloud," which materializes on the lee side of a peak or ridgecrest and streams downwind (World Meteorological Organization 1956:60). These peaks commonly create their own weather independently of concurrent meteorological conditions at lower elevations to the east (ceja de montana) or west (kichwal puna). The peaks are well concealed by clouds much of the time, and the muffled rumble of thunder frequently emanates from their direction, even on days which are relatively clear at lower elevations. Snowstorms are fairly common on these peaks, and a few small snowfields above 4700 m asl may be virtually permanent. Evidence of former heavy glaciation in the high peaks along the Cordillera Oriental abounds in the form of cirques, V-shaped valleys, and moraines, some of which were briefly noted by

18

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un[n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Table 2.5. Monthly rainfall (to nearest mm), La Cima station,' Junin Puna, 4230 mas!. Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June Aug. Jul. 1953 163 120 121 45 II 14 13 20 1954 95 119 110 69 60 21 10 I 1955 115 301 177 37 85 14 13 13 1956 128 125 74 29 17 18 28 18 1957 129 180 68 64 61 24 8 48 1958 101 124 113 17 31 0 II II 1959 71 126 78 85 40 25 3 14 1960 141 93 34 50 25 0 22 29 1961 158 101 84 98 58 3 0 36 1962 123 68 110 57 24 I 0 20 1963 129 106 84 55 8 6 9 12 1964 52 5 139 125 29 40 0 36 1965 94 84 83 49 10 25 6 17 1966 114 70 98 32 75 0 0 28 1967 56 158 162 14 35 0 14 47 1968 102 81 119 21 18 19 4 57 1969 83 113 48 52 15 34 14 24 1970 134 64 92 81 49 18 30 0 1971 117 111 88 52 35 6 0 16 1972 112 83 151 55 27 9 9 17 1973 137 132 175 58 6 29 7 nfa mean 112 120 104 50 34 12 II 23 std. dev. 30 50 39 20 23 II 9 15 For locatIOn see Fig. A I-B 'Oficina Nacional de Evaluaci6n de Recursos Naturales, Lima. Unpublished records filed Tarma.

Sept. 28 35 62 61 57 28 24 45 54 21 61 73 78 40 36 30 48 49 0 39 nfa 43 19

Oct. 76 67 40 52 75 84 68 83 24 30 47 102 76

Nov. 56 76 32 40 49 45 59 98 59 49 46 58

71

73 19 72 52 71 18 56 nfa 55 20

167 94 36 63 89 68 nla 71 31

73

Dec. 71 138 78

58 98 57 141 40 137 103 95 87 90 64 96 119 98 68 107 78 nfa 91 28

Total 737 799 966 646 860 622 735 659 813 607 657 745 684 666 801 736 616 716 637 702 nfa 720 92

at local municipio office in

Table 2.6. Monthly rainfall (to nearest mm), Atocsaico station,' Junin Puna, 4150 mas!. Year Jan. Feb. 1952 77 156 1953 178 176 1954 130 95 1955 113 262 1956 164 217 1957 136 181 1958 86 140 1959 110 151 1960 168 122 1961 195 131 1962 168 74 1963 22 132 1964 81 106 1965 49 152 1966 101 70 1967 70 108 1968 89 81 1969 87 134 1970 233 97 1971 82 122 1972 127 122 1973 391 345 mean 161 144 std. dev. 156 64 For locatIOn see Fig. A I-B. 'Oficina Nacional de Evaluaci6n Tarma.

Mar. 98 150 123 27 103 106 167 217 121 105 155 113 142 75 88 179 145 136 68 116 159 406 136 73

Apr. 58 60 43 22 141 91 89 89 93 118 71 73 5 60 64 35 39 38 90 24 61 69 65 32

May 20 4 54 39 54 60 31 36 37 76 40 10 18 17 42 20 33 22 36 16 61 9 33 19

June 32 16 21 II

74 13 II

19 4 13 5 0 0 3 II

0 17 22 4 7 0 61 16 19

Jul.

9 8 25 7 87 25 4 7 6 I

3 0 9 36 0 34 10 15 0 4 4 49 16 21

Aug. 6 32 I

23 16 26 15 33 31 17 27 15 35 103 25 51 101 24 12 51 23 nfa 32 26

Sept. 58 29 71 43 48 75 43 37 85 51 25 68 76 82 34 41 38 26 92

40 20 nfa 52 22

Oct. 38 144 80 48 30 57 132 84 176 33 22 28 80 52 101 140 138 71 71 55 87 nfa 79 44

Nov. 133 75 90 39 73 51 126 56 168 115 4 93 73 79 59 42 135 106 60 85 180 nfa 86 46

de Recursos Naturales, Lima. Unpublished records filed at local municipio office in

Dec. 81 108 118 75 36 91 118 183 100 147 124 58 46 106 66 112 96 139 127 140 199 nfa 108 41

Total 763 979 849 708 1042 912 963 1021 1108 1002 717 612 670 813 660 832 921 819 891 743 104 nfa 860 144

19

Geography and Environment

Table 2.7. Monthly rainfall (to nearest mm), Casaracra station,' lunin Puna, 4100 m asL Year 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 mean std. dey.

Jan. nla 76 103 123 153 93 121 97 51 89 46 122 III 193 104 10 114 106 3

Feb. nla 106 94 93 80 65 109 90 91 89 204 105 123 134 96 61 134 105 34

Mar. nla 112 114 44 88 III 61 153 107 98 141 212 82 76 105 136 148 II 4

Apr. 56 23

56 38 85 50 65 15 40 50 29 50 72 51 54 10 102 55 25

Mav 38 26 25 13 39 18 4 27 10 65 48 23 6 32 22 10 II 25 I

June 18 3 24 0 2 0 4 I 2 0 7 62 9 13 10 I 22 10 6

Jul. 0 22 I 8 0 0 I 9 28 3 41 9 16 10 3 12 34 12 I

Au!!. 20 10 12 42 24 17 5 18 17 14 62 100 43 I 24 17 nla 27 25

Seot. 63 35 27 56 65 17 77 41 77 46 21 35 97 65 19 43 nla 49 24

Oct. 44 92

99 63 II 35 49 93 73 79 120 60 60 59 96 66 nla 69 28

Nov. 37 28 14 119 85 41 47 125 29 88 35 79 80 48 32 4 nla 58 3

120 114 135 100 115 nla 99 3

Total nla 611 727 636 737 590 588 701 640 730 845 977 812 817 664 713 nla 719 108

Dec. 46 43 134 33 88 90 68 46 89 55 74 97 71 56 77 71 n/a 71 25

Total n/a 544 723 573 516 530 494 498 585 574 694 587 599 581 573 677 n/a 583 68

Dec. 95 76 158 37 103 145 44 32 116 108 92

For locatIOn see Fig. AI-B. 'Oficina Nacional de Eyaluaci6n de Recursos Naturales, Lima. Unpublished records filed at local municipio office in Tarma.

Table 2.8. Monthly rainfall (to nearest mm), Jacayhuanca station\ lunin Puna, 4200 m asL May Apr. Jan. Feb. Mar. Year nla 30 40 1957 nla nla 22 90 33 1958 118 86 I36 186 71 1959 53 69 20 29 49 1960 147 143 50 22 87 56 58 1961 30 III 49 1962 91 69 54 49 30 1963 14 88 80 36 36 1964 45 88 4 105 49 63 75 1965 28 82 83 64 49 1966 28 135 35 1967 61 106 108 91 29 8 1968 66 27 79 13 76 129 1969 34 74 58 78 1970 120 42 29 100 98 95 1971 28 73 45 162 67 1972 105 56 9 1973 107 146 49 30 84 87 mean 88 std. dey. 47 17 22 33 30 For location see Fig. AI-B. 'Oficina Nacional de Eyaluaci6n de Recursos Naturales, Lima. Tarma.

June 0 6 14 I 5 0 13 0 I

0 24 15 9 8 15 3 19 8 8

JuI. 4 18 6 13 0 2 18 18 26 30 48 19 12 18 II

41 24 18 13

Aug. 35 5 21 21 6 14 19 19 41 3 23 34 19 5 10 34 nla 19 12

Sept. 29 19 54 26 60 14 50 33 58 34 30 16 60 16 5 27 n/a 33 18

Oct. 56 77 43 30 19 55 41 55 41 83 91 51 49 52 68 70 n/a 55 19

Nov. 9 28 36 61 65 5 51 43 32 64 41 55 55 62 23 57 nla 43 19

Unpublished records filed at local municipio office in

20

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Jun[n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Table 2.9. Monthly rainfall (to nearest mm), Junfn station,' Junfnpuna, 4120 m as!. Year

Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

Mav

June

JuI.

AU2.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

Total

1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973

128 169 153 90 148 110 131 78 142 203 120 170 65 102 90 76 128

212 228 182 248 169 198 132 146 132 129 107 119 197 128 65 183 89

110 138 119 244 69 54 104 181 49 115 150 70 153 99 93 133 85

53 66 85 78 65 106 48 81 94 74 65 51 15 62 48 33 42

17 25 22 64 38 40 15 59 34 27 26 6 37 2 55 49 23 16 67 49 26

16 11 21 21 18 20 4 17 0 0 3 0 1 7 5 3 12 30 30 6 14

11 0 15 14 30 4 0 4 19 3 1 8 17 18 22 32 19 30 31 12 5

27 23 0 27 11 31 8 9 36 22 34 9 20 43 8 29 43 41 1 25 28

57 38 48 44 52 70 47 20 63 24 27 57 70 76 30 53 32 46 54 28 47

60 97 67 32 53 73 103 91 82 39 4 25 79 80 61 116 112 45 88 154 65

67 63 122 26 58 59 79 49 108 95 52 80 102 101 82 60 76 94 69 40 28

72 113 131 83 32 94 95 176 108 214 146 64 66 155 55 111 111 131 160 147 62

830 970 966 971 744 857 766 910 868 945 776 659 821 872 614 878 772

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

11 10

14

23 13

75 31

72 26

n/a III

II

47 16

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

246 140 92 217 133 48

142 150 71 158 152 49

159 97 126 163 129 46

129 44 107 55 67 27

n/a 33 mean std. dev. 18 For location see Fig. AI-B. 'Oficina Nacional de Evaluaci6n de Recursos Naturales, Lima. Tarma.

45

n/a

1174 892 672 n/a

848 129

Unpublished records filed at local municipio office in

Harrison (1943:7-8). The longest advances oflocal valley glaciers may have been 7 kms, perhaps during the last glacial maximum, dated by Wright (1980:255) to about 10,000 B.C., on the Juntn plateau. Smaller glaciers have probably formed on more than one occasion since then. Moving from the upper ceja de montana westward into the adjacent kichwa and puna, conditions are correspondingly sunnier, drier, more seasonally varied and altogether more generally typical of the Central Andean sierra. The dry season is characterized by clear skies, very infrequent rainfall, dusty ground, nightly frosts, and the extremes of seasonal and diurnal temperature variation are notably more pronounced. This tremendous variation in local climate along an axis eastward from the puna through the kichwa and ceja de montana and into the montana and the main Amazon basin has significant implications for the complementarity of agricultural and herding production within our study area and adjacent parts of the sierra central. Figures 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.7 summarize our temperature and rainfall data graphically. Four patterns stand out particularly clearly from these data: (1) the marked differences at individual measuring stations in average monthly rainfall that

characterize the dry (May-Sept.) vs. the rainy (Oct.-April) seasons; (2) the variability in rainfall and temperature that can occur at the same period of time at different locations separated by only a few dozen kilometers, and from one year to the next at the same location; (3) the extreme diurnal temperature variation, especially during the dry season in the puna (this phenomenon has been aptly characterized as a condition of "day-summer" and "night-winter" by Fjeldsa and Krabbe [1990: 17]); and (4) the relative dryness of the deeper kichwa valleys (as exemplified at the valley-bottom Tarma and Huasahuasi stations, Tables 2.2, 2.3), presumably due to the rain-shadow effect of the surrounding high ridges. These patterns have significant implications for both pastoralists and agriculturalists: (1) there is only one main agricultural growing season; (2) agriculture and herding in the puna are constrained not only by the short growing season for cultigens, but also by low soil fertility caused by the slow chemical weathering and slow breakdown of organic elements characteristic of low temperatures (e.g., Dollfus 1981 :40; Matos 1994; Winterhalder and Thomas 1978:28-29); (3) the extremely ~old puna nights, especially when accompanied by dampness that increases rate of heat loss at these high elevations

21

Geography and Environment

Table 2.10. Monthly rainfall (to nearest mm), Malpaso station,' Junin puna, 3870 mas!. Apr. May Year Jan. Feb. Mar. 1940 n/a n/a 128 78 34 1941 224 109 100 119 84 1942 97 198 145 118 49 1943 64 34 102 129 105 1944 46 192 127 78 40 1945 177 166 26 98 9 1946 136 107 138 70 59 1947 105 24 80 89 69 1948 115 116 61 58 113 1949 129 92 97 58 16 1950 161 112 55 93 8 1951 117 121 60 25 129 1952 139 144 120 56 32 1953 143 184 85 59 19 1954 116 114 113 73 70 1955 114 122 19 60 138 1956 122 141 106 76 40 1957 161 30 46 85 53 1958 100 148 34 109 57 1959 99 148 139 88 27 1960 117 137 64 72 31 1961 139 113 130 107 56 1962 104 100 116 61 23 1963 132 116 46 39 18 1964 96 108 128 30 59 1965 63 128 55 16 108 1966 91 68 88 34 42 1967 62 194 155 34 48 1968 73 109 123 27 29 1969 97 105 72 13 59 1970 164 166 82 54 33 1971 102 80 87 40 34 1972 127 80 139 119 36 1973 153 120 103 16 148 mean 123 124 104 62 39 std. dev. 38 29 30 26 24 For locatIon see FIg. A I-B. 'Oficina Nacional de Evaluaci6n de Recursos Naturales, Lima. Tanna.

Jun. 17 10 19 54 4 1 29 20 27 70 5 22 18 22 21 6 17 11 5 25 1 12 3 6 1 10 5 8 65 14 23 12 4 25 17 17

JuI. 3 28 6 22 2 10 17 16 26 19 23 0 25 8 15 30 57 2 14 1 12 0 5 2 19 45 2 54 8 23 7 5 29 45 17 16

Sept. 44 85

Au~.

26 19 35 6 0 11 40 11 3 28 15

73

58 35 63 87 38 67 51 109 20 85 39 40 67 36 66 49 37 65 55 43 81 83 129 44 42 33 77 71 38 55 n/a 60 24

21 59 24 16 26 19 22 24 55 15 17 15 33 50 17 42 86 48 13 48 18 n/a 26 19

Oct. 115 99 92 46 100 33 42 58 78 90 61 63 67 60 69 62 24 81 108 94 63 22 25 56 103 47 94 107 85 69 71 120 52 n/a 71 27

Nov. 69 72 90 68 57 84 142 62 81 42 53 110 136 77 97 24 67 43 54 26 102 100 39 80 91 76 50 66 96 93 35 52 54 n/a 72 28

Dec. 82 88 89 99 89 212 155 57 35 88 85 115 81 119 115 61 43 86 110 168 64 152 144 72 55 113 107 150 128 130 130 137 109 n/a 105 39

Total n/a 1037 1006 785 770 890 1021 629 779 778 780 793 924 874 866 720 754 683 810 875 784 901 680 661 807 840 641 963 862 799 849 754 822 n/a 817 104

Unpublished records filed at local municipio office in

Table 2.11. Temperature variation (oC) at Tarma,' 3000 mas!. Apr. May Jan. Feb. Mar. Av. Temp. 12.5 12.5 12.0 11.7 10.9 Av. Max. 19.1 19.1 19.1 19.0 19.0 Av.Min. 8.0 7.9 7.5 7.0 5.2 Ab. Max 23.6 25.0 22.2 23.1 23.0 Ab.Min. 3.9 3.0 2.4 1.6 -0.4 Based on ON ERN tabulatIOns 1964-1972. For station location see Fig. A I-B. 'Unpublished records filed at local municipio office in Tarma.

Jun. 9.8 19.1 3.3 23.5 -5.0

Jut. 9.7 18.8 3.2 24.0 -5.2

Au~.

10.3 18.9 4.0 22.2 -1.3

Sept. 10.9 18.6 5.3 22.8 0.0

Oct. 11.9 19.4 6.6 24.0 0.1

Nov. 12.2 19.3 7.0 24.2 1.0

Dec. 12.1 19.0 6.5 26.0 1.8

Mean 11.4±1.0 19.0±0.2 6.0±1.7 23.6±1.1 0.2±2.4

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junfn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

22

Table 2.12. Temperature variation (0C) at Huasahuasi,' 3380 mas!. Jan. Feb. Mar. 12.2 Av. Temp. 12.3 12.1 16.8 16.6 Av. Max. 16.9 9.2 Av.Min. 9.9 9.7 19.2 19.3 20.4 Ab. Max. 6.4 Ab.Min. S.2 S.8 Based on ONERN tabulatIOns 1969-1972. For station location see Fig. A I-B. 'Unpublished records filed at local municipio

Apr. 12.1 16.8 9.0 19.4 6.2

May 11.3 16.6 7.2 20.1 3.4

Jun. 10.7 16.S 6.2 20.6 2.6

Jut. 10.4 16.S S.9 20.8 1.0

Aug. 10.6 16.1 S.6 19.2 2.0

Sept. 11.3 16.0 7.0 19.2 4.0

Nov. 12.7 18.2 9.2 21.3 6.0

Oct. 12.2 17.4 8.6 20.2 4.8

Dec. 12.S 17.9 9.3 19.0 6.2

Mean 11.7±0.8 16.9±0.7 8.1±1.6 19.9±0.8 4.S± 1.8

office in Tarma.

Table 2.13. Average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures (0C), Upamayo' station, 4080 m asl, northern Junfnpuna, outside survey area. May 12.3 11.7 12.3 13.2 12.S 12.2 12.0 nla 12.3

Jun. 13.2 12.6 12.0 12.8 11.9 12.4 12.1 nla 12.4

Jut. 13.1 11.8 11.1 12.1 11.8 11.9 12.0 nla 12.0

Aug. 13.4 11.7 11.3 11.8 12.4 11.9 13.1 nla 12.2

Sept. 12.9 11.1 11.9 12.S 11.3 12.8 11.7 nla 12.0

Oct. 12.4 11.4 12.2 12.8 13.2 12.2 12.8 nla 12.4

Nov. 13.0 13.3 12.2 13.4 12.7 12.8 13.6 nla 13.0

Dec. 13.0 12.2 13.4 11.7 11.8 10.S 11.7 nla 12.0

Ave. 12.8 11.7 11.7 12.S 12.1 11.9 12.0 nla

1966 Min. -0.7 1.9 1.5 2.0 -1.1 1967 Min. -1.3 1.0 1.9 1.4 -2.2 1968 Min. 1.4 1.7 0.4 0.3 -1.3 1969 Min. 2.1 -0.1 0.7 2.1 0.2 1970 Min. 2.1 2.1 0.2 1.6 -1.7 1971 Min. 1.0 1.2 2.0 -0.6 -1.0 1972 Min. 0.7 0.1 1.2 1.0 -2.0 1973 Min. 3.2 3.1 2.7 2.2 nla Av. Min. 1.5 1.7 0.3 -1.3 1.5 For station locatIOn see Fig. A I-B. 'Unpublished records filed at local municipio office in Tarma.

-7.1 -6.0 -6.0 -3.3 -3.S -S.I -4.4 nla -5.1

-8.6 -S.1 -S.S -6.6 -4.5 -7.4 -S.9 nla -6.2

-S.9 -3.0 -2.1 -4.1 -7.3 -5.0 -6.6 nla -4.9

-3.3 -2.2 -1.6 -3.2 -1.9 -4.3 -3.S nla -2.9

0.2 1.1 1.4 -1.0 -1.3 -1.6 -1.0 nla -0.3

-0.4 -1.0 1.0 -4.S -2.0 -3.2 -0.9 nla -1.6

1.0 -O.S 1.7 2.0 -0.1 0.1 1.5 nla 0.8

-1.7 -1.3 -0.7 -1.3 -1.4 -2.0 -1.6 nla

Year 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Av.

Range Max. Max. Max. Max. Max. Max. Max. Max. Max.

Jan. 12.8 11.6 10.S 12.3 II.S 12.1 11.1 11.6 11.7

Feb. 12.7 10.6 11.1 12.2 12.2 10.8 12.1 12.4 11.8

Mar. 12.2 11.2 10.0 12.6 12.0 11.7 10.7 12.1 11.6

Apr. 12.6 11.2 12.0 13.1 11.7 11.8 11.7 12.0 12.0

(Winterhalder and Thomas 1978:23-24), require fully adequate shelter for resident human beings and special care for vulnerable young camelids during the period of their birth and early development (Flores Ochoa 1979; Webster 1971, 1973); (4) on the other hand, it is these same cold puna temperatures that inhibit the parasites and bacteria that cause severe mortality in young camelids (Custred 1977 :66), and so, given proper care, the puna environment can be an unusually healthy one for domestic camelids; (5) because of their comparative dryness, the best agricultural lands with deep and fertile soils along the lower slopes of kichwa valleys, just above the poorly drained floodplains, are precisely those areas most in need of canal irrigation

and artificial drainage; and (6) the common temperature inversions in which unstable and unpredictable masses of frosty air may settle along the bottoms of deep kichwa valleys above 3000 m asl (e.g., Winterhalder and Thomas 1978:21-23) means that crops in these fertile lower valley lands are also the most strongly affected by frost damage, especially in the critical early stages of their growth. Although their discussion pertains to the highlands of southern Peru, Winterhalder and Thomas' (1978:27) characterization of fluctuating microclimates also seems apt for the Peruvian sierra central:

23

Geography and Environment

Table 2.14. Average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures (DC), Atocsaico' station, 4080 m asl, Junin puna, just northwest of survey area. Year 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 Av.

Ran2e Max. Max. Max. Max. Max. Max.

Jan n/a 12.3 12.2 13.0 12.6 12.5

Feb. n/a 12.3 12.0 13.0 13.9 12.8

Mar. n/a 12.1 11.3 11.0 12.6 11.8

1969 Min. nla n/a n/a 1970 Min. -3.0 -2.4 -1.4 1971 Min. -1.0 -4.0 -1.1 1972 Min. -1.0 -2.0 -0.1 -0.7 1973 Min. -1.3 -1.0 Av. Min. -1.1 -1.2 -2.5 For station location see Fig. A I-B. 'Unpublished records filed at local municipio office

Apr n/a 11.8 12.7 13.0 13.1 12.7

May 17.5 12.5 13.0 12.5 13.2 13.7

Jun

Jul.

17.0 13.6 11.0 12.0 13.1 13.3

17.0 12.7 11.1 13.5 12.8 13.4

Aug 15.0 12.7 12.0 13.2 12.3 13.0

Sept 17.0 11.0 12.5 11.6 12.0 12.8

Oct. 14.6 13.2 11.8 12.0 12.9 12.9

Nov 14.1 13.1 13.3 11.7 13.1 13.1

Dec. 12.5 12.4 12.7 12.8 12.1 12.5

Ave. n/a 12.5 12.1 12.4 12.8

n/a -1.0 -2.9 -1.0 -1.0 -1.5

-3.5 -3.0 -3.0 -2.3 -4.6 -3.3

-8.0 -5.0 -5.0 -6.0 -1.3 -5.1

-9.0 -4.3 -8.7 -9.1 -5.5 -7.3

-9.0 -6.8 -5.0 -6.7 -5.6 -6.6

-8.0 -0.2 -3.4 -2.3 -2.5 -2.9

-2.3 -1.9 -2.2 -1.5 -1.7 -1.9

-2.9 -1.9 -2.4 -2.2 -1.6 -2.2

-1.0 -0.7 -1.6 -0.9 -1.0 -1.0

n/a -2.6 -3.4 -2.9 -2.3

in Tarma.

Table 2.15. Average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures (DC), Casaracra' station, 4100 m asl, southern Juninpuna. May n/a 14.9 15.0 14.5 14.8

Jun. n/a 13.8 12.5 12.7 13.0

Jul. n/a 13.7 13.3 12.9 13.3

Aug. nla 13.7 14.5 13.8 14.0

Sep. n/a 13.7 13.6 13.1 13.5

Oct. 13.2 13.1 14.3 14.0 13.7

Nov 13.0 13.9 14.1 13.3 13.6

Dec. 13.8 15.0 14.6 16.1 14.6

Ave. n/a 13.8 13.9 13.8

nla nla nla nla Min. n/a 1970 -3.2 -10.6 -2.4 -0.8 -1.4 1971 Min. -4.8 -2.8 -3.1 -3.4 -3.9 1972 Min. -5.1 -4.6 -3.2 -4.1 -4.5 Min. 1973 -6.7 -2.3 -3.8 Min. -3.1 -3.4 Ave. For statIOn location see Fig. AI-B. 'Unpublished records filed at local municipio office in Tarma.

nla -4.3 -3.8 -3.7 -3.9

n/a -4.8 -4.5 -4.5 -4.6

n/a -5.2 -7.5 -6.2 -6.3

n/a -3.7 -6.0 -6.4 -5.4

-1.1 -3.2 -5.5 -6.5 -4.1

-1.2 -3.6 -6.1 -5.5 -4.1

-2.1 -4.0 -5.8 -2.3 -3.6

n/a -3.3 -4.8 -4.7

Year 1970 1971 1972 1973 Ave.

Range Max. Max. Max. Max. Max.

Jan. n/a 13.7 14.1 14.2 14.0

Feb. n/a 12.8 13.1 13.4 13.1

Mar. n/a 13.4 13.6 13.9 13.6

Apr. n/a 13.5 14.2 13.5 13.7

24

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un[n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

E E 140 120

E E

E

E

Malpaso 1940-1973 3870 m asl

Junin 1952-1973

Jacayhuanca 1957-1973

I;'/,

~/;/

7);/ / ;; /;/mi

//J-r-r-r--rrT'I/.~@ JFMAMJJASOND

E E

JFMAMJJASOND

E E

JFMAMJJASOND

E E

LaCima 1953-1973 4230 m asl

Atocsaico 1952-1973

140 120 100

Casaracra 1957-1973 4100 m asl

80 60 40 20 J

JFMAMJJASOND

FMAMJJASOND

JFMAMJJASOND

Figure 2.3. Average annual rainfall by month, puna stations.

E E

E E

140 120 100 80

140 120

Tarma 1964-1972 3000 m asl

100

JFMAMJJASOND

E

140 100

JFMAMJJASOND

E E

E

120

Huasahuasi 1969-1972

E E

140

140 120

Oroya 1816-1972

100

Huari 1956-1967 3650 m asl

120

80

80

60 40

60 40

40

20

20

20

JFMAMJJASOND

Pachacayo 1958-1972 3600 m asl

100 80 60

JFMAMJJASOND

JFMAMJJASOND

Figure 2.4. Average annual rainfall by month, kichwa stations.

25

Geography and Environment

21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14

21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10

Casaracra

/

maximum .......-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .~ .............. Atoc.saico

__ .-......... / _._._._.- ............. _._._._._ ..... -' -' -. - ~ _. -'

i!.7

Upamayo (4080 m asl) Aloesaieo (4080 m as I) Casaraera (41 00 m asl)

~6 a.

~5

......--

Huasahuasi

~-

12 11

()

;8

---------_/

/"

13

.......... maximum Upamayo maximum

()9

Tarma

-------------~maximum

10 9

----....

~8 ~ 7 ~6 ~ 5

Huasahuasi

-----"

minimum

"

....-

,...,..--

/' .......... _ - / /

Tarma minimum

>- 4

>-4

3 2 1

Upamayo ,'minimum

o

/..........

·1

"

.y""----

·2 ·3

.f

/i

·4 ·5 ·6 ·7

"

;' Atocsaico "' ../ /minimum

Casaraera minimum

./j

F

M

A

M

A

SON

D

Figure 2.5. Average maximum and minimum monthly temperatures from puna stations.

The sources of [climatic] variability include sharp gradients of altitude and topography, and meteorological changes which occur daily, monthly, or annually. When these various elements are superimposed and interacting, a finely scaled mosaic of climatic conditions emerges. One valley has different weather from the next, and valley floor is different from the slopes of the surrounding hills. On a single hillside, the banks of a small stream or shelter of a rock outcrop offer unique microclimates. These all change over time [our emphasis] ... the important point is that marginal availability of moisture and of protection from frost make these small changes critical to plants and animals, and to human horticulturalists and herders.

In sum, available climatic data suggest that herders and agriculturalists in our study area would always have benefited by maximizing their access over time to as many different productive zones as possible so as to counteract the potentially disastrous effects of serious and unpredictable local problems caused by frequent, albeit patchy, extremes of cold and drought. These considerations are common to the entire Central Andean highlands. Cultural responses to such climatic-induced stress may have included (1) technological innovations to increase local productive and surplus-storage capacity, and (2) sociological innovations, including new forms of land or herd tenure, inter-

3 2 1

o ·1

·2 ·3 ·4 ·5 ·6 ·7

Tarma (3000 m as I) Huasahuasi (3380 m as I)

F

M

A

M

A

SON

D

Figure 2.6. Average maximum and minimum monthly temperatures from kichwa stations.

zonal exchange, redistribution, long-term surplus storage, and increased tribute demands. Paleo-Climate Recent studies of glacial moraines on the Nevada Huaytapallana, in the main Mantaro Valley around 100 kilometers southeast of Tarma, have revealed two brief periods of glacial advance during the Late Holocene (Seltzer and Hastorf 1990; Wright et al. 1989). These were apparently the only significant advances since general deglaciation of this part of the sierra central by about 8200 years before present. The earlier, and less securely dated, of these advances occurred sometime prior to 680 A.D. (a period of c. A.D. 450-680 is suggested by Seltzer and Hastorf [1990:405]), while the second probably dates to between c. A.D. 1300 and 1500. The latter advance appears to have been accompanied by notably colder and drier conditions relative to the present day, with a downward vertical shift of modern climatic conditions of roughly 150 meters (Seltzer and Hastorf 1990:402). The climatic impact of the first advance remains uncertain. In Chapter 8 we will consider the implications of this climate change for agriculture and herding adaptations in our study area.

26

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un{n, Peru, Volume I, Part I

21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10

kichwa average max. range

9 ~ 8 ~

:l

~

7 6

~5

E ~ 4

3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6

-7

F

M

A

M

A

SON

D

Figure 2.7. Comparison of average monthly maximum and minimum temperature ranges at puna and kichwa stations.

Wild Flora and Fauna Modern settlement and land use have greatly affected the present-day distribution and abundance of wild plants and animals throughout the Andes (Dollfus 1981; Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990; Weberbauer 1936, 1945). Dollfus (1981 :55-56) has even called for an "arqueologfa de los paisajes" (archaeology oflandscapes) in order to reconstruct the long-term processes in landscape change. In the intensively cultivated and densely settled kichwa valleys many centuries of extensive burning, stone clearance, soil working, and terrace building have completely altered the landscape. Similarly, millennia of grazing in puna grasslands have produced a flora and fauna that are also largely anthropogenic. The indigenous vicuna (Vicugna vicugna) and guanaco (Lama guanacoe) have been largely replaced by flocks of domestic llamas (Lama glama) and alpacas (Lama pacos) over the past 5000 years (Lavallee et al. 1985; Matos 1975; K. Moore 1988, 1989; Rick 1980; Wheeler et al. 1976; Wing 1986). The long-term impact of camelid herding is even thought by some to have produced the predominantly grassland vegetation that now characterizes the Central Andean puna (these arguments are reviewed in Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990:23). Even

though most paleobotanists remain skeptical of this extreme position, it is commonly recognized that forests of low quinual (Polylepis sp.) trees were probably once far more widespread than the few surviving remnants still to be found in some more protected and isolated parts of the puna and upper kichwa. The development after the mid-sixteenth century of major mining centers at Huancavelica, and after the later eighteenth century at La Oroya and Cerro de Pasco (Burga 1983), with their huge and unprecedented needs for fuel, foodstuffs, and pack-animal transport, has undoubtedly resulted in substantial deforestation and additional land clearance for cultivation and pasture. Despite these alterations, we need to take note of the wild resources in our survey area because of their potential dietary and medicinal importance for both agriculturalists and pastoralists, and because of their obvious significance as fuel and construction materials (e.g., Gade 1975:68-70, 74-75,8289). Winterhalder and Thomas (1978:63), for example, have noted that today in the Nunoa puna region of southern Peru, "over 100 different [wild] plants ... are used either as food or for their medicinal properties ... approximately 20 [wild plan ts] appear almost daily in the diet." Although their caloric value is modest, in high altitude settings such wild plants continue to provide essential nutritional elements that are commonly derived from cultivated leafy vegetables at lower elevations. Such cultivated vegetables typically preserve and travel poorly, and consequently are not usually important in traditional interzonal exchange networks. Pearsall's (1980a, 1980b) analysis of plant remains in Archaic and early Formative archaeological deposits in the Junrn puna has revealed that local wild plants were used continuously in this region for millennia, with limited evidence for the exploitation of plants from lower elevations (Table 2.16). Brocket deer (Mazama gouazoubira) and huemal ("taruca") deer (Hippocamelus antisensis) have been hunted for millennia throughout the sierra central, but are now nearly extinct. Flocks of waterfowl, doves, and partridges (see below) continue to be locally abundant around the marshy shoreland of Lake Junrn and smaller lakes throughout the Junfn puna, where some species of edible marshland rodents also still survive. Significant numbers of the coati (Nasua montana), a relative of the North American raccoon, continue to inhabit the upper ceja de montana forests, possibly as high as 3000 m asl. Small numbers of condors (Vultur gryphus), hawks (Ocrus cinereus, Buteo spp., Falco spp.), and eagles (Geranaoaetus melanoleucus) are still sighted throughout the region, and small flocks of parrots are sometimes seen in the upper ceja de montana and lowermost edges of the kichwa. The pumas (Felis concolor) that once roamed the puna and kichwa are now virtually extinct, although there continue to be occasional reports of their presence in very limited numbers. Even rarer are reports of the ocelot (Felis pardaZis), jaguarundi (Felis jaguarundi), and spectacled bear (Tremarctos ornatus) that once occupied the upper ceja de montana. Foxes (Pseudalopex inca and Cerdocyon thous) and a weasel-like ani-

27

Geography and Environment

Table 2.16. Wild plants from Archaic-period sites in the Junin puna (Pearsall 1980a, b).' Category

Potential Food Plants

Medicinal Plants

Fuel Plants

Plant OfJuntiafloccosa Chenopodium Amaranthus Oxalis Scirpus Lupinus Leguminosae Cruciferae Plantago sp. Euphorbia Ranunculus PolYf!,onum Malvastrum Sisyrinchium Marf!Yricarpus strictus Schinus moUe Chuquiraga huamanpinta Ribes Dodonaea viscosa Prouslia punf!ens Polylepis (quinual) Ephedra americana Fesluca Stipa Calamaf!,rostis Scirpus Schi;'lUS moUe

Characteristics Cactus with edible fruit Wild quinoa-Iike plant Edible seeds Edible stalks and roots Reeds with edible seeds and stalks "Tawri silvestre" Edible seeds Edible seeds and roots

May not be indigenous to the puna zone Also has edible berries

Tree up to 5 m tall

Grass used for roof thatching Grass used for roof thatching Construction Plants Grass used for roof thatchin& Reeds used for walls and mats Wood used for building shelters. May not be indigenous to the puna zone. Polylepis Wood used for building shelters 'Rick (1980: 19) has also noted that three other species of puna wIld plants, not yet Identified In archaeological contexts, have potential (albeit minor) food value for humans: berries (Ribes), fruits (Muehlenbeckia volcanica), and tubers (Solanum acaule).

mal (the "comadreja" [MustelaJrenataD remain somewhat more abundant throughout the entire region. Fish populations have been drastically altered during the twentieth century due to pollution, over-exploitation, and restocking with introduced species (mainly trout). Rainbow trout were introduced into numerous small rivers and lakes by the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries and the Cerro de Pasco Corporation in the early decades of this century, and have since become the most commonly harvested fish of the central highlands. Indigenous Andean fish in the Junfn plateau and headwaters of the eastern drainages belong mainly to three genera (Eigenmann and Allen 1942): Pygidium, Astroblepus, and Orestias. The two former are catfish adapted to frigid, rushing waters at very high elevations. Both are exceptional climbers capable of ascending tumultuous rapids in the ceja de montana to small streams and lakes at higher elevations. Pygidium shares Lake Junfn with Orestias, a nonc1imbing fish which inhabits quiet waters up to 4900 mas!. Orestias is widely distributed

within the drainage basin of Lake Junfn and in tributaries of the upper Mantaro, but has not yet been found in the eastern watersheds. All three are moderately small fish in the range of 15-22 cms long. In the next three sections we will summarize the main characteristics of several types of wild plants and animals that have been, or might have been, important for the prehispanic inhabitants of the puna, kichwa, and ceja de montana zones in our study area. The Puna Three categories of wild puna resources stand out because of their economic importance: (I) the grasses and herbs that provide pasture for flocks of domestic camelids and sheep; (2) the abundant waterfowl concentrated around the shoreline of Lake Junfn; and (3) a variety of wild plants that provide construction materials and key nutritional supplements (Table 2.16).

28

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Jun[n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Table 2.17. Wild animal bone in Archaic-period deposits in the Junin puna. Cate20fY

Common Name Taruca (huemal deer) White-tail deer Vicuna Guanaco' Viscacha Guinea Pig (Cuy) Zorro Fox Comadreia Wildcat Puma Andean Chinchilla HuallataslHuashuas Partridge Airones Tortolas & Doves Garza Gull Tagua-Taguas Ducks

Comments Latin Name Hippocamelus antisensis Now almost extinct Large Mammals Odocoileus virRineanus Now scarce Vicugna vicugna Still found in small numbers Lama guanacoe (7) Now extinct in region LaRidium perucinum Large, burrowing rodent Domestic, wild, and feral variants Caviaspp. Dusicyon culpaeus Small Mammals Conepatus rex Mustela frenata Weasel-like animal Feless CR. iacobita F elia concolor Lagostomus crassus Now almost extinct Chloepha[?a melanoptera Nothoprecta spp. Casmerodious Land Birds Columba, Zenaida, Zanaidura Nycticoraz Larus serranus Pheonicopterus andinas Anas spp., Oxyurajamaicensis, Lophonetta specularoides Colimbo Pediceps spp. Waterfowl Ibis Ple[?adis ridgwayni Geese Chloepaga melanoptera "Polla del Agua" Gallinula chloropus Coot Fulica spp. Amphibians Frog Batrachophyrynus macrostomus Lakeshore and permanent streams Fish Bagres del Rio Trichomycterns dispar In lakes andjJermanent streams Adapted from Flannery 1975, Matos 1994:32-33, and K. Moore 1989. Flannery also reports nIne species of small rodents Identified In owl excrement. 'Moore prefers the term "large camelid," since the precise species identification remains in question.

There are also numerous other species of wild animals that have long been of secondary or tertiary economic importance (Table 2.17). The vicuna, in particular, is an animal that has been strongly associated with the Central Andean puna environment (Rick 1980), and this animal was a primary resource for Archaic hunters. The short perennial herbs and grasses required by the vicuna occur primarily at elevations above 3800 m asl (Koford 1957:160-61). Weberbauer (1936:39-40) has noted that, in marked contrast to the drier puna farther south, the puna in central Peru lacks great seasonal variation in vegetation cover: The change of seasons alters the aspect of the high-Andean vegetation but little .... [N]owhere does it cause a complete rest of vegetative processes. Humid places always retain their fresh green color. On water-poor soil the growth at the end of the dry period is less dense and of paler color than in the west season,

because many of the plants are dry, but new leaves are sprouting on plants of many species. The scant precipitation of the dry season also is useful to the high-Andean vegetation, for the vessels of these tiny plants are very short, and the tufts and cushions hold the water like sponges. Also, the precipitation is almost always in a frozen or half frozen state. Snow flakes and hail stones melt slowly, and consequently their moisture can be utilized more completely than quickly running rain water.

Because of low nighttime temperatures, strong winds, seasonal rainfall, and infertile soils, wild plants in the puna typically grow close to the ground surface and have large root systems in order to take advantage of the elevated soil temperatures (Weberbauer 1936:38). Following the lead of Weberbauer, more recent investigators (e.g., Rick 1980: 14-16; Matos 1994:30; and Pearsall 1980a, 1980b) have distinguished four principal ecological zones within the Junfn puna: (1) the

Geography and Environment

Table 2.IS. Principal aquatic birds around Lake Junin counted in a census taken in June 1967 by Dourojeanni et al. (l96S:3). S~ecies

Anas versicolor puna Gallinula chloropus f!;armani Fulica americana peruviana Anasjlaviroslris oxyptera Fulica ardesiaca Anas f!;eorf!;ica spinicauda Plef!;adis ridf!;Wayi Oxyurajamaicensisferruginea Podiceps chilensis morrisoni

Number 400,000 316,000 45,000 33,000 22,000 \6,000 S,OOO 5,000 4,000

lakeshore, (2) the open puna, (3) the sheltered rocky formations, and (4) the courses of permanent streams. These zones are conditioned by variation in local humidity and topographic protection against the elements, and each zone has a characteristic suite of flora and fauna. Matos (1980:98-99) notes that only the open puna lacks many wild plants directly useful to humans. (1) The Lakeshore Zone. The largest area of this type occurs around the edges of Lake Junin (with an open-water area of around 40 x 15 km), whose far southeastern edge lies at the far northwest corner of our survey area; smaller areas occur around the edges of numerous smaller lakes scattered throughout the region. A broad marshy band of approximately 300 square km surrounds the open water of Lake Junin, especially on the east and south sides (Hansen et al. 1983). Large bodies of water are particularly notable for their impact on plant and animal life because, in addition to their permanent moisture, they also conserve heat derived from intense daytime solar radiation in a region where much heat is otherwise lost during the nighttime cold at these high elevations (Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990: 17). The lakeshore zone is poorly drained and perpetually moist, with permanent vegetation dominated by bulrushes (Scirpus), reeds (Juncus), a variety of floating water plants, and a carpet, up to 10 cm thick, formed of intertwined roots and stems of Distichia muscoides and other low, water-loving plants. Portions of this dense mat of Distichia vegetation now comprise low-grade peat, and these peat bogs are commonly harvested for fuel; large piles formed by blocks of such fuel are still commonly seen next to houses in the region. Over three dozen species of waterfowl reside in and around the lakes' edges (Dourojeanni et al. 1968; Fjeldsa and Krabbe 1990; Morrison 1939). Waterfowl species such as coots (especially Fulica americana peruviana) and ducks (especially Anas versicolor puna and Gallinula chloropus garmani) are extraordinarily abundant, with populations in the tens of thousands (Table 2.18), and they continue to be important as sources

29

of meat and eggs. Apparently there is only limited seasonal variation in the quantity of these birds (Rick 1980:22). However, because of mating and reproductive behavior, birds may be relatively more concentrated during July and August, while their eggs may be especially abundant during January and February. (2) The Open Puna (Plates A34, A42). This forms the predominant puna landscape in our survey area, comprising most of the plains, hills, and slopes south and southeast of Lake Junin. Perennial grasses (termed "bunch grasses" by Weberbauer 1936:40-41, and commonly referred to as ichu) are the predominant vegetation: primarily species of Festuca, Calamagrostis, Stipa, Agrostis, Bromus, Lotium, and Poa. These grasses typically occur in clumps that vary widely in height and density according to grazing intensity and moisture availability; where not over-grazed, they may attain heights of around 70 cms (Rick 1980:14-16). Higher grasses commonly shelter lower herbaceous plants, such as Astragalus garboncillo, Perezia multiflora, Plantago spp., and Gentina spp. As Matos (1980:98) has emphasized, it is primarily through the intermediation of grazing herbivores that this great store of plant energy becomes available to humans. (3) The Rocky Formations (Plate A212). These formations are diverse in character and can be found in virtually any topographic setting: hilltops, slopes, valley bottoms, and even lakeshores. The largest concentrations are large bedrock exposures and boulder fields on the western and northwestern sides of Lake Junin, well outside our survey area (Matos 1994); nevertheless, small patches of rocky outcrops also occur south and southeast of the lake. Many surviving wild species of land mammals and birds occur in these relatively protected settings. Small forests of spiny bushy plants are common-e.g., Chuquiraga huamanpinta, Margyricarpus strictus, Ribes sp.many of which continue to be important sources of fuel and construction materials. Many types of small, herbaceous plants also occur-e.g., species of Ephedra, Senecio, Salpichroa, Nicotina, Urtica, Cajophora, Erodium, Saxifraga, Calcaclaria, Oxalis, Lupinus, and Descurainia. Because of the heat conservation of the concentrated rocky formations, grasses, herbs, and shrubs suitable for camelid pasture may occur up to 5000 m asl in such zones, well above the usual limit of 4700 m asl (Weberbauer 1936:41-42). Thus, these rocky zones can provide important extensions of seasonal pasture. Lichens, mosses, and ferns are also relatively abundant. It is also in protected rocky zones that some surviving stands of quinual (Polylepis sp.) and quishuar (Buddleina incana) trees occur. (4) The Stream Courses. Permanent streams and small permanent lakes occur throughout our puna survey area (Figs. A43, A44, A47-49, A52-54). Because of greater humidity, deeper soils, and sometimes a degree of topographic sheltering, the flora and fauna of this niche is distinctive within the puna zone. This is where Weberbauer's (1936:40) "puna mat" plant formation predominates: taller grasses and shrubs are relatively

30

Prehispanie Settlement Patterns in Junfn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

infrequent, and the low vegetation consists mainly of herbs and shrubs (often in the form of rosettes, tufts, or cushions-e.g., Baeeharis sp., Astragalus sp., and Ephedra sp.). Such locations probably formed the most important year-round feeding grounds for vicuna (Rick 1980). Some surviving groves of quinual trees (Polylepis sp.) and other woody shrubs (e.g., Gynoxys sp.) also are found in these zones. The Kiehwa At about 3850 m as1 there is a notable topographic and ecological transition in our survey area between the lower puna and upper kiehwa zones. Descending eastward from the rolling puna, one moves quickly into the uppermost tributaries of the Tarma drainage. These tributaries form valleys, at first shallow and with puna-like vegetation, then increasingly deep and steepsided and separated by high ridges, with steadily decreasing rainfall and a steady replacement ofhygrophilous grasses, herbs, and shrubs by xerophilous cactus, trees, and woody shrubs. Below about 3500 m asl the number and density of woody species and xerophytic vegetation increases notably in places that remain relatively undisturbed by agriculture. Weberbauer (1936:51) provides a succinct general description of wild flora in the Tarma drainage: the valley floor occupies an elevation between 2700-3800 meters. The lower region [below 3500 m asl] is distinguished by a treeless, herb-poor vegetation of cacti and rainy-green shrubs whose upper limit lies ... at 3300 meters. Above this succeeds the rainy-green formation of the grass steppe with scattered shrubs. At 3800 meters the transition to the puna takes place. Below 2700 meters the grass steppe and shrubwood, both rainy-green, provide a transition between the dry Tarma Valley ... and the moist evergreen regions to the east ...

Fjeldsa and Krabbe (1990: 19) offer a useful general description of vegetation in the intensively cultivated lower kichwa valleys in central Peru: the usual [wild] vegetation [on valley slopes] is low mesophytic shrub. The low bush Dodonea viscosa covers large areas, and other characteristic plants are bush Eupatorium, agaves, cacti, euphorbiads, and the introduced Spartiumjunceum. Pepper trees (Schinus molle) and thorny leguminaceous trees form a dense riparian vegetation. The small [agricultural] fields are often separated by hedgerows and small stands of Schinus and introduced Eucalyptus, and the ravines often have some coppice with [alder] Alnus acuminata. However, steep terrain of difficult access may have dense scrub, often thorny bushes (Cassia, Colletia, Barnadesia) or trees ( ... Ochroma and Bombax lagopus, and Escallonia in high parts). A few relict patches of true cloud forest can sometimes be seen on the ridges 1000-1500 meters above the valley bottoms.

The steeply sloping sides (typically 15°_30°) of kichwa valleys pose special problems for agriculturalists (Dollfus 1981 :4849). This terrain is subject to serious erosional problems, and soils tend to be thin, infertile, and subject to rapid drying-out.

Because the upper parts of the kiehwa valleys are the main channels for the descent of cold puna air masses, severe frost often interferes with plant growth. Because of topographic vagaries, differently facing slopes often have differing degrees of exposure to sunlight; slopes with limited sun exposure are often significantly cooler than neighboring slopes with greater exposure, and these differences may be exaggerated at certain seasons of the year according to whether the sun is low or high in the sky. Artificial terracing, canal irrigation, crop rotation, and soil fertilization are obvious mechanisms for dealing with these problems. Floodplains in the lower kiehwa valleys tend to be swampy and subject to annual flooding, and so they have limited agricultural potential unless they are artificially drained (Cardenas 1941:10; Phillips 1911:320). The Puna-Ceja de Montana Transition This conforms to what Weberbauer (1936:55-57, 72) termed the "microthermal grass steppe." The predominant flora are iehu bunch grasses, including species of Calamagrostis, Festuea, and Stipa. Iehu clumps tend to be more closely packed than in the puna proper. Under conditions of high moisture and minimal interference by people and livestock, grasses can become chest-high and almost too thick to walk through. The "puna mat formation" (see above) is present but relatively uncommon. A much more widespread formation is the Distiehia moor, in which firm, convex cushions of highly compact plants such as D. museoides form a wavy, evergreen mat on level, poorly drained ground. This moor is especially well developed in wetlands and lake margins at the headwaters of quebradas feeding into the eastern valleys. In many areas the iehu bunch grass yields to an irislike plant locally known as matara, possibly Othosanthus ehimboraseensis. Matara is adapted to slightly different conditions than are the iehu grasses, and is rarely seen at elevations above 3800 m asl. Upper sections of quebradas between 3500 and 3900 m asl may support a chaparral growth of gnarled, woody shrubs standing I-2m high. One of the most common is kasaqsiki ("frozen bottom"), possibly a member of the Melastomaceae family. Two others are ehaqehi blanco and ehaqehi amarillo (Berberis spp.); the latter is a thorny shrub with bright yellow wood, sometimes used for making a yellow dye for cotton and wool textiles (MacBride 1936:676). The Higher Ceja de Montana The present-day timberline is highly irregular. Small patches of forest are scattered along the lower reaches of the grass steppe, and open meadows (pajonaZes) may dip far into the forests. In many areas this transition is maintained as a sharply defined edge, either as a result of agricultural activity or occasional burning and over-grazing. In remote areas less affected by modern land use practices, the transition is often more gradual.

Geography and Environment

The grass steppe yields to low ferns, currants, blueberries, and other woody shrubs near the tree line on many mountain spurs. Thickets of high, nonwoody brambles are widespread and also produce an edible berry. Trees grade upwards into stands of stunted "bush forest" (Weberbauer 1936:71). The woody growth of this bush forest forms a single stratum of contorted tree trunks, gnarled branches, and commonly flattened crowns as little as 3 m high. Among the typical trees and shrubs named by Tosi (1960) for this zone are several which also tolerate cooler or drier conditions, including Berberis and Escallonia (noted above); currants (Ribes spp.); invading species of the hardy, formerly widespread quinuar tree (Polylipis) from the higher sierra; and the rapid-growing alder (aliso) (Alnus jorullensis) common in recently disturbed areas. Dwarfed trees include species of Podocarpus, Weinmannia, Ocotea, and Cecropiaall of which are more fully developed at lower elevations. The low forests of the upper ceja de montana appear as a virtually solid mass of soggy or dripping vegetation. Tree branches support great quantities of bromeliads, orchids, and epiphytic ferns (e.g., Tillandsia schimperiana). Numerous varieties of lichens thrive on the ground or on the bark of trees. The ground surface is totally covered by deep beds of spongy moss (e.g., Spagnum spp.), terrestrial ferns, and deep layers of decaying plant debris. Interspersed within the heavy superstructure of the forest are abundant tree ferns (including Alsophila), infrequent palms (Ceroxylon and Geonoma), stands of the bamboolike carrizo (Chusquea spp.), and many other tall, herbaceous plants such as Piper and Puyas. Carrizo is particularly abundant in abandoned clearings and along the sides of trails. The dense tangle of twisted branches, wiry vines, and exposed roots thickly coated with lichens, mosses, ferns, and hanging epiphytes is often referred to as the "cloud forest" (Goodspeed 1961:108; Hegen 1966:18; Tosi 1960:148). Wooded areas appear practically impenetrable unless a narrow pathway has been laboriously hacked through the undergrowth, and movement within this zone must have been even more difficult prior to the introduction of iron machetes and axes. In the faint lighting of the forest interior once can barely crawl between fallen limbs and ensnarling vines above an unseen jumble of boulders, uprooted tree stumps, and rotting, slippery logs. Rocky precipices masked by false floors of roots, matted leaves, and spongy layers of moss and lichens are an ever-present danger in such steep, irregular terrain. The most notable changes in the appearance of the forest at lower elevations in the ceja de montana are the greater stature of trees and lower density of underlying vegetation.

Modern Land Use and Settlement Pattern in our Survey Area As elsewhere in much of highland Peru, modem land use and population distribution in the Tarama-Chinchaycocha region have been greatly affected throughout the historic period by several

31

interrelated factors: (1) Spanish colonial policies (especially labor tribute [mita], settlement nucleation [reducci6n], and the elites' private rights to land and Indian labor service [encomienda]); (2) the high rate ofIndian popUlation loss caused by the introduction of European diseases (primarily smallpox, measles, diphtheria, and plague) and the severe conditions of Indian labor service in silver mines and textile workshops (Cook 1981, 1982; Dobyns 1963; Smith 1970); (3) the expansion of commercial mining (mainly silver from the Cerro de Pasco sources) and wool production for export after the early nineteenth century, capitalized largely by North American and European firms, with a consequent expansion of the need for foodstuffs produced on nearby agricultural lands; (4) a large expansion of aguardiente (cane alcohol) production in the ceja de montana during the U.S. Civil War in the 1860s when Peruvian coastal sugarcane lands were converted to the production of cotton for export to Europe; (5) the decreased access of Indian communities to productive lands increasingly appropriated by mestizo and European land-owners in the decades of political anarchy following the end of Spanish colonial rule in 1825; and (6) the proximity and increasing accessibility after the mid twentieth century of urban Lima and its huge market for agricultural and textile products (e.g., Brush and Guillet 1985; Fonseca and Mayer 1988; Gade and Escobar 1982; Long and Roberts 1984; Mallon 1983; Orlove 1977a, 1985; F. Wilson 1982). Consequently, less remains in our study area today of the traditional, subsistence-oriented agriCUlture and pastoralism that have been the focus of so much ethnographic study in more isolated regions. Most contemporary agriCUlture and herding in our study area is commercially oriented, and a high proportion of the regional population is urban in character and involved in administrative, commercial, and service functions. Sheep predominate over llamas among puna herders, and alpacas are virtually nonexistent. Burga's (1983) study shows that these modern conditions of highly commercialized production and orientation toward the Lima market did not prevail everywhere during the mid-nineteenth century in the sierra central. The mining centers in La Oroya and Cerro de Pasco that developed after the end of the eighteenth century did acquire most of their foodstuffs from the Tarma region, but Lima was more effectively supplied with agricultural produce by ship from Chilean ports than from the adjacent highland valleys, even after the building of railroads late in the nineteenth century; these railroads served mainly to move refined metal ores and sheep's wool down to the coast for export to North America and Europe. Throughout the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Indian families living near the Cerro de Pasco mining centers increasingly combined subsistence agriculture with wage labor in the mines (Long and Roberts 1984; Meyers 1986: 103). Much productive land remained in the hands of large, economically inefficient haciendas controlled either by old landowning families or by military leaders newly powerful as heads of republican armies. Not until the full advent of motorized truck

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junfn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

32

Table 2.19. Modern (1972) Peruvian population, by ecological zone.' Region Coast Yungas (western slopes) Kichwa (quechua)

Altitude (m asl) < 500 500-2000

Total Population 0/0 IOOOs 5929 43.8 926 6.9

2000-3500 2000-2500 2500-3000 3000-3500 3500-4000 4000-4500 > 4500 500-1000

4073 892 1171 2012 1325 192 13 371

30.1 6.6 8.7 14.8 9.8 1.4 0.1 2.7

Rural Population IOOOs % 17.0 1208 10.2 725 3215 625 1012 1578 1101 124 9 280

45.3 8.8 14.3 22.2 15.5 1.7 0.1 3.9

Suni Puna Cordillera High Jungle J.ceja de montana) Low Jungle < 500 5.2 444 6.3 709 (selva) TOTAL 100.0 13,538 100.0 7106 Adapted from FIgueroa 1982: 127, FIgure 5.2. 'This list includes zones on the Peruvian Pacific slope (Coast and Yungas) and lower Amazon Basin (Low Jungle) that do not occur in our survey area.

Table 2.20. Population distribution by ecological zone within our survey area. Zone

Elev. (m asl)

Area (km 2)

% Total Area

Population 1961 1963

% Total Pop. 1961 1993

Higher puna 4200-4700 376 28.9 22,262 31,554 30.1 25.2 Lower puna 3850-4200 440 36.1 Higher kichwa 3500-3850 256 19.7 51,631 93,830 69.9 74.8 Lower kichwa >3500 198 15.2 .. Puna and klchwa populatIOns estImated by addmg populatIOns of all puna and klchwa commUnItIes m Tables 2.21, 2.21-A, and 2.22; thus these are larger populations than for our actual survey area. Small areas of ceja de montana in the far northeastern corner of our survey area are included in our kichwa area.

transport and improved road construction after the mid-twentieth century did the Lima market become especially important for agriculturalists and herders in the Tarama-Chinchaycocha region. Arellano's (1988b) study of eighteenth-century documents pertaining to Tarma indicates a consistent pattern of Indian households being increasingly confined to one or two ecological zones (usually the kichwa or upper kichwa [sunil) because of growing pressures on the best puna pasture lands by European and mestizo landowners who were becoming more involved in commercial production of sheep's wool for export. This appropriation of puna pastures by large haciendas continued well into the twentieth century (Mayer 1979; Orlove 1977a). Most documented eighteenth-century references to camelids refer to llamas in use as pack animals. Arellano (1988b:80) suggests that this dearth of documented alpacas in the Tarma area may mean that these animals were then mainly confined to the highlands of southern Peru and Bolivia, as they are today (e.g.,

Flores 1988:18, Mapa 1). The largest and densest modern population in our study area is in the kichwa, especially along the valley floors with their improved road networks and intensive cultivation of maize and truck crops. Settlements are much smaller and more dispersed in the puna, where herding of sheep and a few camelids predominates. Outside a few roadside towns, the less accessible ceja de montana is also sparsely populated, with an orientation toward the commercial production of potatoes for the Lima market. F. Wilson (1982:193) reports an 1876 census of the Tarma administrative province (then an area of about 100 x 200 km) indicating a population density of 70 people per square km in the kichwa valleys vs. 2-6 people per square km in the adjacent puna and ceja de montana zones. The distribution of modern population in these different ecological zones in our survey area roughly parallels that for highland Peru as a whole (Tables 2.19 and 2.20).

Geography and Environment

33

Plate 2.1. Harvesting potatoes with chaquitakila foot plow on east side of Lake Juntn.

The Jun{n Puna

The importance of camelid herding in the Junin puna is well documented for the early through mid-sixteenth century (Dedenbach-Salazar 1990:87-95). According to Vazques de Espinosa (1948 [1628]:456): La provincia de Chinchaycocha es muy frfa tanto que en todo ella no se da un tan solo arbol, ni crfa maiz ni trigo; sino solo se da una rafz de hechura de nabo como hogazuela que los indios Haman macas; s610 esta se da en esta provincia y tiene en si tanto fuego que me certificaron los indios que donde siembra deja esterilizada la tierra.por 30 anos ... '

Unpublished ONERN studies indicate that approximately 1.5% of the entire Junin puna was cultivated in 1984 (Matos 1994:41). Most of this cultivation is in the form of small fields of bitter potatoes (Solanum andagenus sp.), locally known as chiripapa and mawnq, all produced for household subsistence (Plate 2.1); smaller quantities of the indigenous tuber maca (Lepidium mejenni Walp.) are also grown. Duviols (1976a:279) reports that dried maca lasts 3-4 years, and so surpluses from one harvest may be stored for later consumption or exchange. Most of this tuber cultivation occurs in low linear ridges (furrowed fields), standI [Our translation]The province of Chinchaycocha is so cold that no trees grow anywhere there, and neither are maize or wheat grown; only a hard tuber which the indians call maca will grow in this province, and it is so strong that the indians told me that the land where it is planted remains sterile for 30 years .. .

ing 15-20 em high, in relatively deep and well-drained soils at elevations below 4200 m asl along the eastern and northern sides of Lake Junin. There is almost no modern agricultural production within the puna component of our survey area Despite the very secondary importance of agriculture in the Junin puna today, it is important to remember that the lower puna (and to a lesser degree the uppermost kichwa) is the only zone where the production of chuno (freeze-dried potatoes) is feasible (Gade 1975:210; Mamani 1981; Troll 1958:36): chuno can only be processed where tuber cultivation overlaps with below-freezing night temperatures. Chuno is the only form in which tuber surpluses can be preserved for long periods of time (reportedly up to 20 years [Mamani 1981]), and it is primarily in this form that tubers are exchanged over longer distances and from one year to another. Most modern herders in the J unin puna Ii ve in scattered hamlets or household clusters (estancias), seldom comprising more than two dozen closely related people, and often just one or two nuclear family households. These corral-surrounded estancias are widely scattered, and most appear to be occupied only for a few weeks or a few months of the year as their owners periodically move back and forth to different pastures. In our surveys we also encountered small herding camps, consisting of little more than a hut and corral. In a few cases, particularly wellpreserved prehispanic structures have been adapted for living accommodations by modem puna herders (Plate Al 0 1). Many herder households in the JunIn puna today maintain

34

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un{n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Table 2.21. Modern Junin puna towns in or near our survey area. Town

1993 Population'

1961 Population'

Junin San Pedro de Cajas Malpaso Paccha Ondores 'Republica del Peru 1966:32. 'Webb and Fernandez 1995:124-25.

Urban

Rural

Urban

Rural

5,004 3,990 no data 738 856

2,584 3,505 no data 673 1,827

13,442 5,052 no data 1,476 2,271

3,201 793 no data 716 1,764

Table 2.21-A. Population of Huaricolca. 1961 Population' Urban Rural I 1,201 1,884 I 'Republica del Peru 1966:32. 'Webb and Fernandez 1995: 125.

1993 Population' Urban Rural I 1,174 1,665 I

Table 2.22. Modern kichwa towns within our survey area. Town

1961 Population' Urban 15,452 2,163 3 580 4

Rural 7,606

Tarma Tarmatambo Tupin Acobamba 2,029 6,780 Picoy 597 4 Pakamayo 2,520 2,959 Leticia/La Union 2,254 1,679 Huasahuasi 1,934 5,078 , Unless specIfied otherWIse, RepublIca del Peru 1966:32. 'Webb and Fernandez 1995:125. 3Republica del Peru 1966:60; unspecified as to "urban" vs. "rura!." 4Republica del Peru 1966:62; unspecified as to "urban" vs. "rura!."

substantial numbers of domestic guinea pigs (cuyes) (Cavia parcellus) at their more permanent residences (Matos 1994:47). Bolton and Calvin (1981 :273) and Gade (1967) report an average of 8-15 guinea pigs per rural household and occasionally up to several dozen per household, although numbers fluctuate widely. These extraordinarily prolific animals, which consume household garbage and attain reproductive maturity at the age of two months, provide a very significant quantity of the animal protein available to agriculturalists and herders, especially in the puna and upper kichwa zones. It appears that some puna herders also maintain houses in the large roadside towns of Junfn (at the far north end of our survey area) or in San Pedro de Cajas Gust beyond the northeastern edge of our survey area). These are the only urban puna

1993 Population' Urban Rural 45,056 9,773 No data No data No data No data 6,283 6,430 No data No data 2,784 3,567 3,421 1,620 4,515 10,381

communities of any size in our survey area (Table 2.21), although there are also two much smaller roadside towns just beyond the far southwestern limits of our survey area: Paccha and Malpaso. Two herding establishments within our survey area depart from the estancia norm sketched above: (1) the government cooperative sheep ranch at Tambo Colorado in the southern Junfn puna, and (2) the private hacienda (Chichausiri) southwest of the town of Junfn, near the north end of our survey area. The latter establishment is primarily a dairying operation, with a herd of several dozen Holstein cows in 1975-76, the only place with substantial numbers of cattle anywhere in our survey area. At the time of our survey the Tambo Colorado ranch maintained a flock of a few thousand sheep, together with a sizable complement of horses for the use of about a dozen resident herdsmen and their families (Plate 2.2).

35

Geography and Environment

Plate 2.2. Mounted herdsmen at Tambo Colorado sheep ranch.

Table. 2.23. Modern kichwa towns just outside our survey area. Town

1961 Population i Urban 1,793 752)

Rural 1,443 Ricran Congas Tapo 1,830 1,895 2,590 Palca 5 1,228 Llacasaca 210 4 iUnless specified otherwise, Republica del Peru 1966:32. 2Webb and Fernandez 1995 :125 . )Republica del Peru 1966 :74; unspecified as to "urban" vs. " rural." 4Republica del Peru 1966:68; unspecified as to "urban" vs. "rural." 5Partly ceja de montana.

Our impression is that periodic movements of herders and their flocks in the Junfn puna occur a few times a year over short distances. Our observations also suggest that this movement does not always include full households: sometimes just one or two family members or hired wage laborers are involved. The critical variable is apparently land rather than rainfall. Rainfall is normally sufficient to provide adequate pasture virtually everywhere throughout the year, and periodic movements are necessary primarily because animals exhaust available .grass within an area after a certain period of time (Flatmery et al. 1989; Matos 1994; Weberbauer 1936). This is different from the situation faced by

1993 Population 2 Urban 1,215 no data 1,613 2,013 no data

Rural 1,437 no data 3,897 5,649 no data

modem herders in the drier puna of southern Peru and western Bolivia where dry-season pastures are much more restricted (e.g., Flores 1979). Nevertheless, Dedenbach-Salazar (1990: 127) notes a 1534 documentary source that refers to seasonal transhumance of full-time pastoralists in the Junfn puna. Matos (1994:45) has noted recent unpublished ONERN data indicating that one sheep annually requires 5-10 ha of "improved pasture," while one domestic camelid requires 10-17 ha of "unimproved" pasture and 20-25 ha of marginal pasture over an annual cycle. These ONERN studies suggest to Matos that the 55% of the Junfn puna (roughly 7,000,000 ha) suitable for pas-

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junfn, Peru, Volume I, Part I

36

Table 2.24-A. Principal indigenous kichwa and lower puna cultigens. Category

Common Name(s)

Cereals

Maiz (Maize1 sara, sala Quinoa, kinuwa Papa (potato)

Effective Elevation RangeJm as)) Below ca. 3500 2770-3800 2 2600-4200 3

Scientific Name

Zea ma)lS Chenopodium quinoa Solanum tuberosum, etc. (Many variants) Maca Lipidium meyenii Mashua, aftu, isafto Tropaeolum tuberosum Olluco, ullucu Ullllcus tuberoslls Oca,oka Oxalis tuberosa Tubers Arracacha Arracacia xanthorrhiza Achira Canna edulis Polymnia sonchi{olia Yac6n Mauka Mirabilis expansa Ajipa Pachyrhizus ahipa Legumes Common bean (frijol) Phaseoilis vlll~aris Tarwi, tarhui, talwi Lupinus mutabilis 'From Hermann 1994 and Hastorf 1993:111-19, except where noted otherwIse. 'Gade 1975:154. 3Gade 1975:203. 'Mayer 1979:49, 50

4000-4500 2800-4000 2800-3800 2800-3800 1500-3000 2200-2800 2500-3000 ca. 3000 ca. 2000 below ca. 3450 2800-4000

Average yields' ke:/ha 180-1800 600-2000 329 1500-2500' N/a 5500-6525 629 2485-4500 n/a nla n/a n/a nla minor use 280-2200

Table 2.24-B. Principal introduced kichwa cultigens' Category

Common Name

Wheat Barley Oats Fava Bean (haba) Legumes Pea (Arveja) 'Adapted from Hastorf 1993. 'Hastorf 1993: 111-19. 3Gade 1975:166. Cereals

Scientific Name Triticum sp. Hordeum vul~are Avena sativa Viciafaba Pisum sativum

Elevation Range m asl 3300-3800 below 4000 below 4200 3200-3650 2800-3800-'

Average yieldS' kg/ha 800-1600 1000-1600 no data 315 442

Table 2.25. The annual round from two kichwa districts in central Peru. Crop Planting Cultivating Maize Nov.-Jan. Jan.-March Potatoes May-Sept. Aug.-Oct. Oca, olluco, mishua, August.-Oct. Nov.-Jan. Quinoa Jan.-Feb. April Barley, wheat, fava beans Jan.-Feb. n.d. After J. Matos et al. 1958:56-58, and Soler 1954:108-9.

ture today have a hypothetical carrying capacity of some 150,000-200,000 domestic camelids. Because of the deterioration through overgrazing of modern pastures, these figures may be lower than more favorable prehispanic conditions might have permitted. We have no data on the number of sheep or domestic

Harvesting May-July Nov.-Jan. April-June June-July Aug.-Sept.

camelids in the area today, but our casual observations suggest that these numbers are substantial (at least prior to the severe political instability of the 1980s and early 1990s). Although there is a great deal of information about the seasonality of camelid and sheep herding in southern Peru and ad-

Geography and Environment

37

Table 2.26. Month-by-month agricultural activities in a mestizo kichwa community at 3400 m asl in central Peru. Month January

Activity Harvest of "new" potatoes planted in July and August. Cultivation of potatoes, wheat, and barley. February Harvest of "new" potatoes. Harvest of arvejas verdes. Weeding wheat and potatoes. Hilling-up potatoes. March Harvest of potatoes, arvejas, and quinoa. Plowing. April Harvest of green maize, potatoes, arvejas, and ocas. Plowing offallow fields (with ox-drawn plow). May Harvest of maize and mashua. Beginning of barley harvest. June Harvest of barley and wheat in non irrigated fields. Harvest of maize, potatoes, fava beans, wheat, and alfalfa in low fields. July Clearing fields before planting. End of wheat and barley harvest. August Pasturing livestock on fallow fields. Planting maize (Cuzco variant) in low fields. Planting "new" potatoes in low fields. September Planting fava beans, oca, and mashua in low fields. October Planting maize, wheat, and potatoes in rainfall-watered fields. Planting fava beans, arveias, ocas, ollucos, and mashua in low fields. November Planting barley in rainfall-watered fields. Planting quinoa in low fields. Planting maize. First harvest of arvejas verdes in low fields. December Planting quinoa in low fields. Weeding and hilling-up maize. Final harvest of barley. Adapted from Escobar 1973 :64-66.

Table 2.27. Traditional agricultural crop and land-preparation activities in the kichwa valleys of the Peruvian sierra central. I Description and Timing Preparation of soil before planting. On higher, narrower fields this is done with hand tools (tacila, chakitaclla); on lower, larger fields ox- or horse-drawn plows are used. Begins in March after end of rainy season. Mounding up earth around maize and potato plants; usually done about one month after Aporque (cuspo) planting. Usually begins in April; administered by community officials. Irrigation (riego) Removing weeds and accumulated silt, and repairing damaged canal beds. A communityCleaning Irrigation Canals administered effort usually undertaken at the end of the rainy season (ca. April). ComptJed from Escobar 1973, J. Matos et al. 1958, and Soler 1954. Activity Barbecho (chacmo)

jacent Bolivia, much less has been published on this subject for the more humid puna of the sierra central. Even so, it is clear that the seasonal round of Andean pastoralists is primarily shaped by three aspects of animal care and reproduction (e.g., Custred 1977; Flores 1979; Palacios 1977a, 1977b): (1) the care required during and shortly after the birth period (December-February) when young animals are especially vulnerable to disease and predators; (2) the care required during the breeding period (about 11.5 months prior to birth), when different age and sex groups of the herd must be variously separated and brought together in

order to maximize fertilization and successful pregnancies; and (3) the labor intensity of wool shearing, which typically also occurs during the December-February period. The months of December, January, and February thus stand out as a time when herders are under especially intense pressure, with minimal time and energy available for other activities. We will return in Chapter 4 to these important issues of herding seasonality. There are two major salt sources at the edges of our study area in the Junfn puna: large saline springs at San Bias (northwest of Ondores) and at San Pedro de Cajas (Fig. 1.3). These

38

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un[n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Plate 2.3. Llama caravan in Ondores, October, 1970.

have both been exploited for millennia, from pre-Formative times through the present, and both are well-documented in the ethnohistoric literature (see Chapter 3).

The Huaricolca Puna This is a physically detached area of about 100 square kilometers of puna environment at the extreme southeastern end of our survey area (Figs. 1.2,2.2, AI-B). Its physical character and modern land use is much like that of the larger Junfn puna. The region is almost exclusively devoted to herding of sheep and a few camel ids, with a small population mostly dispersed in small, seasonally occupied estancias. The only relatively large town, Huaricolca, lies at the far north edge of the zone (Table 2.2l-A).

The Kichwa Most land below 3500 m asl (the lower kichwa) is irrigated and intensively cultivated in cereal and garden crops (including maize, barley, minor quinoa, potatoes and other tubers [mainly oca, olluco, and mashua], carrots, onions, fava beans, artichokes, and alfalfa) . The upper Kichwa (sun i) at 3500-3850 m asl is generally much less intensively cultivated, with little irrigation and less crop diversity--quinoa, barley, and tubers are predomi-

nant (Plates A44, AI14). We have no data on modern land tenure or on the size and management of the numerous small irrigation networks we encountered during our surveys. Many agriculturalist households also have small numbers of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, chickens, burros, and horses; domestic camelids are virtually absent, and guinea pigs appear to be decidedly less numerous than in the adjacent puna. The management of domestic herbivores and irrigation systems in the kichwa is an important and complex subject (e.g., Brush and Guillet 1985; Mitchell 1976; Mitchell and Guillet 1993; Treacy 1989), with significant implications for prehistoric cultural behavior; we will return to this theme at a more general level in Chapter 4. There are eight large, valley-bottom kichwa towns within our survey area, and an additional five just outside its borders (Fig. A I-B; Tables 2.22, 2.23). Tarma itself is an important regional center, with a high proportion of its urban population devoted to administrative, commercial, and service functions. Other towns also contain members of these groups, but include higher proportions of agriculturalists. Our impression is that the urban components of these towns account for roughly twothirds of the regional kichwa population; most of the rest Ii ve in small hamlets, usually of 1- 10 households, scattered along val'ley floors.

Geography and Environment

Table 2.24-A lists the most common indigenous cultigens in the Central Andean kichwa today; in most localities several kinds of introduced crops are also grown (Table 2.24-B). Numerous minor crops, both indigenous and introduced, are also cultivated. Although we have no specific data on modern agricultural practices or productivity within our immediate survey area, such information has been collected from several nearby communities (Tables 2.24-A, 2.24-B, 2.25, 2.26, 2.27). These practices and productivity figures are probably similar to those within the Tarma kichwa, although the latter area today seems to be more involved in the commercial production of garden crops (e.g., carrots, onions, alfalfa, and artichokes). The great variability in crop productivity, both within and between species, reflects the very diverse conditions and circumstances in which these plants are grown today. As Hastorf (1993:123-35) points out in her comprehensive ethnographic study carried out in the nearby main Mantaro Valley kichwa (the Wanka Region, roughly 3400-3800 m asl), differences in the conditions of soil fertility, the use of irrigation or drainage, the use of organic or chemical fertilizer, the use of crop rotation sequences, the quality of seed stock, the technology of planting and harvesting, the care and labor investment of agricultural work, the distances between residences and fields, the tenure of agricultural land, and even in perceptions about a particular crop's importance all have significant impacts on crop yields. Additional agricultural annual-round data from the Peruvian central highlands are summarized in Tables 2.25, 2.26, and 2.27. It is important to remember that one of the major documented uses of maize in the Central Andes is in the form of chicha. Since at least as long ago as Inka times, this mildly alcoholic beverage has been a key component of ritual at the household, community, and regional levels (Cutler and Cardenas 1981; Morris 1982; Murra 1960; Myerson 1990; Webster 1971; Yamamoto 1981: 105). Consequently, the cultural significance of maize and the energy devoted to its cultivation, acquisition, and redistribution have often been far greater than might seem warranted by its purely economic importance. The data summarized in Tables 2.25 and 2.26 show that agriculture work of one type or another in the kichwa zone occurs throughout the entire annual cycle. Because of the great altitudinal range, planting and harvesting and cultivating proceed throughout much of the year. Multiple harvests in fields at different altitudes, or in fields of different fertility where crop growth is more or less rapid and dependable, means that harvested crops are available throughout much of the year to people who have access to production from diffferent kinds of agriculturalland. We will return in Chapter 4 to the important question of the timing and scheduling of labor demands in traditional Central Andean agriculture and herding. The scheduling of complementary subsistence activities in the kichwa and puna zones has significant implications for herder-cultivator interaction, including the timing, frequency, and duration of interzone exchange activities and other forms of interaction, and the ability

39

of individual households or individual settlements to engage simultaneously in both herding and agriculture. For example, both herders and agriculturalists appear to be unusually busy at very different tasks during December and January. Thus, we can expect that households involved in both agriculture and herding come under unusual stress at this time of year, and that the timing of such stress might be a major factor in the separation of herders and cultivators into specialized components of a single multi community economy.

Overall Summary and Conclusions Our study area comprises a highland region of great natural diversity. Most of it consists of puna and kichwa landscapes, themselves internally varied in terms of rainfall, temperature, soil cover, and vegetation. In turn, these two main landscapes border and intermesh with much different zones that are either higher, colder, and virtually bare of vegetation (the cordillera), or lower, warmer, moister, and much more heavily vegetated (the ceja de montana). Paleoenvironmental research suggests that there may have been two Late Holocene episodes, both of several centuries' duration, of significantly colder climate: one in the middle first millennium A.D., and a second in the early to middle second millennium A.D. Throughout the historic period most of the inhabitants of our study area have been agriculturalists and pastoralists who have sought access to complementary products and materials through interhousehold, intercommunity, and interzonal interaction and exchange. Matos (1994:49-50) has emphasized the key role of llama-back transport in the traditional exchange of complementary products between puna, kichwa, montana, and coastal zones. Caravans of 20-30 llamas, each capable of carrying loads of 40 kg over distances of 25-30 km per day, continue to be important in regional and interregional exchange (Plate 2.3), as do motorized vehicles. In these networks, textiles, chuno, salt, dried meat, and animal skins from the puna move against maize, tubers, and other vegetables from the kichwa, and coca and a wide variety of sub-tropical and tropical products from the montana and Pacific coast. The historic period has also witnessed major transformations wrought by (1) the varied efforts of Spanish imperial administrators and elite landlords to impose order, collect tribute, and exploit Indian labor; (2) the long-term development of the commercial mining industry; and (3) after A.D. 1825, efforts to build an independent nation-state centered in Lima, 125 km to the west on the Pacific coast. Lima had, for close to 300 years, previously been the major center of Spanish imperial interests. Because of its proximity to Lima and its strategic location along the main axis of east-west transportation and communication across the Andes between Lima and its hinterlands, the Tarama-Chinchaycocha region has been strongly affected by the mainstreams of colonial and republican polity and economy. Spanish encomienda and reducci6n policies radically altered

40

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in }unfn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

indigenous settlement patterns and landuse, and commercialized agriculture, herding, and mining increasingly took hold in the nineteenth century, especially after an extensive railroad system had been completed by the beginning of the twentieth century. Over the past half century a steadily expanding network of improved roads has extended and intensified the strategic importance of valley-bottom towns, like Tarma, that had earlier remained outside direct railroad linkage with Lima. Agriculture is most productive in deeper soil areas at elevations below 3500 m asl, although some hardy tubers can be produced up to 4200 m asl, or even slightly higher. The best agricultural lands are on the lower slopes and bottom lands of the deep, relatively narrow and semi-arid kichwa valleys, especially where drainage, terracing, and canal irrigation have been implemented. Such prime agricultural land has supported the largest communities and most nucleated and urbanized populations in our study area throughout the historic period. In the nearby puna grasslands, at elevations mainly well in excess of 3900 m asl, herding of camelids and (after the midsixteenth century) sheep has long been the economic mainstay. Most of this modern herding-based population has remained modest and dispersed in small hamlets and seasonally occupied estancias; in our survey area to the south of Lake Junin such herders have only minimal involvement with agriculture. The only large puna town in the immediate study area (Junin, with a 1993 urban population of 13,442) owes much of its size and

importance to its strategic location on the railroad line linking the mining centers of La Oroya and Cerro de Pasco. San Pedro de Cajas, a puna-fringe town of 5,052 urban inhabitants in 1993, has prospered over the past half century as a regional center for the production of locally manufactured textiles, whose main market is Lima and other large population centers outside the study area. The upper ceja de montana, along the extreme northeastern edge of our survey area, remains marginal in terms of modern polity and economy. Over the past half century, the improved highway linking Tarma with the montana center of San Ramon has opened up the large Lima market to the fruits, vegetables, and other products of the tropical forest in this part of the sierra central. Although this has resulted in some additional land clearance and settlement in the ceja de montana, most new development of this sort is concentrated in the lower valleys of the montana that are much more suitable for commercial agricultural production. The rugged, heavily forested ceja de montana remains one of the most isolated and sparsely populated parts of the sierra central. The great ecological diversity of our study area provides the foundation for a great diversity of traditional subsistence strategies. The complementarity between products and production at different elevation zones is particularly important in terms of relationships between herding and agricultural lifeways. The changing nature of these relationships over time presents a very important problem for archaeological research in this region.

Chapter 3

The Study Area in Ethnohistoric Perspective

by Herdando's secretary, Miguel de Estete, are mainly limited to imperial installations along the Inka road. The Spaniards entered the Junfn puna from the northwest and stopped at two Incaic settlements a day's travel apart at either end of Lake Junfn. The northern and larger of these was Pumpu, also written "Pumbo" and later hispanicized into Bomb6n; the other was Xacama1ca (Chacamarca) (Fig. 3.1). Estete (1946: 101) noted that between these two establishments "there is a large, freshwater lake ... extending eight or ten leagues, completely surrounded by villages, near which are large herds, and in it are many varieties of water fowl and small fish." Half a day's journey beyond Chacamarca, Pizarro paused briefly in a small, unidentified tambo, probably Telarnioc. Thereafter the road angled down from the puna and led into the settlement of Tarama (Tarmatambo), "which is on the side of a ridge. There he was given lodging in a painted house which has very good accommodations" (Estete 1946:101). Assisted by porters provided in Tarama, Pizarro raced on to Xauxa (Jauja), the next major Incaic center, a full day's walk to the south. Six months later Francisco Pizarro led the main thrust of the Spanish invasion through the sierra central and into the heart of the Inka empire. Sixty-five mounted Spaniards spent a single night in the Incaic settlement of Tarama late in September amidst rumors of an impending ambush. The horsemen were greatly distressed at Tarama's "bad location ... on a tiny hillside surrounded by mountains for a league in every direction ... , with no flat ground except a plaza" (Sancho 1962:30). The group suffered through a wretched night but was beset only by a seasonal outbreak of bad weather: "everyone stayed on constant alert with horses saddled and nothing to eat, ... and no firewood, water, or shelter... , so that they nearly died from the cold, because it rained heavily early in the night and later snowed so much that their weapons and clothing became soaking wet" (Sancho 1962:31).

In this chapter we selectively examine a few of the published documentary sources that offer ethnohistoric insights into late prehispanic political and economic organization within our archaeological survey area. We make no attempt here to systematically review and analyze all of the currently available primary sources, and instead leave that formidable task to others with far better credentials for historical and archival research (e.g., Arellano 1984, 1988a, 1994; Boyden 1983; Wilson 1978). Indeed, we are only too aware that the enormous potential for intertwining archaeological and ethnohistoric research has yet to be realized for this area. Our inferences regarding the nature and extent of ethnic groupings, derived mainly from earlier studies by Hastings (1978, 1985, 1987) coincide in some, though not all, respects with independent research done over the past two decades by Arellano (1988a, 1988b, 1994, 1998; Arellano and Matos 1999; Matos et al. 1998). We invite the reader to consult these references for a more substantial and thoroughly documented discussion of Tarma and Chinchaycocha ethnohistory.

Spanish Invasion When the Spanish forces under Francisco Pizarro first arrived in 1533, most of the Peruvian sierra central had then been under Inka rule for about 70 years (Brundage 1963). The conquered native groups were formed into administrative provinces (waman) through which an imperial road network was constructed. Administrative centers were established along these roads, and smaller settlements (tambos) provided accommodations for travelers on state business. In March of 1533, a Spanish force under Hernando Pizarro crossed the Junfn plateau and descended into the upper Tarma drainage while in pursuit of Cha1cuchima, one of the principal Inka commanders, and his army. Geographical notes compiled 41

42

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]unzn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

__

~==~

__

c=~

___25

•

• Huancabamba

km

N

• modern town • modern village or hamlet ... major mountain peak with elevation (m as!)

I

HUAGURUNCHO

.

Chontabamba

•Oxabamba

.

Chacamarca

Figure 3.1. Place names in the Upper Tarma drainage.

Spanish authority in the central highlands was challenged early in 1534 by a seasoned Inka army led by Quisquis. Outraged at the execution of Atahualpa and the sacking of Cuzco, Quisquis attempted to overcome a small Spanish contingent in Jauja under the command of Alonso Riquelme, Pizarro's treasurer. The attacking forces were slaughtered in great numbers and withdrew to Tarama to regroup. Natives from the Jauja area, embittered over their long subjugation to the Inkas, joined the Spaniards in routing Quisquis from Tarama, but could not dislodge him from a stronghold near Bomb6n. Only after a few months had passed did this last Inka imperial army retreat farther north toward Quito (Hemming 1970: 140).

With all major military threats to Spanish supremacy eliminated from much of Tawantinsuyu, Francisco Pizarro set about administering the realm from his base of operations in Jauja. High-ranking members of the expedition who had distinguished themselves in battle were awarded grants of encomienda, which entitled them to the productive labor of a designated group of natives. These grants effectively carved the region into administrative units, even though the award was defined in reference to people, not land. In June of 1534, Riquelme received in encomienda the native population of most of the Junfn puna and the eastern valleys below it. At this early date the local population was designated in reference to rulers in each of the

The Study Area in Ethnohistoric Perspective

Incaic establishments along the main road. Pizarro's grant to Riquelme provides a roadside perspective of the ruling bureaucracy of caciques (curacas), or local rulers. To Tr~asurer Alonso Riquelme are granted the cacique Taparas, pnnc~pal caciq~e of Tarama and Pombo, with the caciques and pnnclpals of saId province, and of the villages of Chacamarca and Tambo [probably Warautambo, near Yanahuanca and just beyond the northern margins of the Junfn plateau] with all their Indians and villages of the land of Caxaconde, cacique who was from said province. [our translation] I

During the next several years the subjects of Riquelme's encomienda were caught up in the turmoil of rebellion. The Tarama and Bombon populations seem not to have instigated any of these uprisings and resistance movements, but were at least cooperative with them, in contrast to the fervently antiIncaic and pro-hispanic sentiments of their southern neighbors in the main Mantaro Valley around Jauja. Late in 1535 the puppet Inca Manco was imprisoned in Cuzco for conspiracy, but his foremost commander, Tiso, escaped northward and stirred the Tarama and Bombon populations into action. According to an eyewitness, "The Indians of these provinces ... were in revolt and did not wish to serve" (Espinoza 1977: 177). A Spanish task f~rce sent from J auja quelled the uprising but failed to capture TISO, who apparently eluded his pursuers by slipping into the jungle to the east (Herrera y Tordesillas 1950: Dec. v: Bk. 8: Ch. 3). Tiso was able to avoid the hostile population in the !auja are~ and return to Ollantaytambo near Cuzco. His escape IS the earlIest reported incursion into the montana below Tarama and Bombon, and is virtually the only sixteenth-century reference to this region that we have yet found. The first of Inca Manco's major rebellions occurred in 1536, during which Inka armies laid siege to Cuzco and attempted to drive Pizarro into the sea from Lima. Manco's com~ander Quizo Yupanqui annihilated several Spanish squadrons ill the central highlands, including the small garrison left in J auja. Incaic control was briefly restored over the region, including Tarama and Bombon, until the rebellion collapsed. Then in 1537 Illa Tupac, who had served as a leader in Quizo's army and earlier as an imperial governor of Hwinuco, established himself as a "war lord" of that province (Hemming 1970: 238, 358). Il.la Tupac joined Manco's second rebellion of 1538, extending hIS control southward over the provinces of Bombon, Tarama, and Atavillos. According to Cieza (1929: Ch. LXXIV),

'AI Tesorero Alonso Riquelme se Ie deposytan el caziaque Taparas, prencipal de Tarama e Pombo, con los caziques e prencipales de la dicha proumcla, e de los pueblos de Chacamarca e Tambo, con todos sus yndios e pueblos de la tierra de Caxaconde, cazique que fue de la dicha prouincia [Pizarro 1926:7-8] .

cazl~ue.

'See also Arellano (1988a:46-51, 1994) for an excellent discussion anc further documentation regarding the territory (territories) of the Tarama and Chmchaycocha.

43

Villatopa [IlIa Tupac] was tyrannizing over them with many barbanans who followed him, and had ruined many pueblos of these Indians. Others were moved to rise against the Spaniards and make war upon them.

Alonso de Mercadillo and his Spanish forces stormed mercilessly into Illa's domain later that year, "giving them such a lesson that some of them came to sue for peace." Tarama was prompted to ask its absentee encomendero, Riquelme, for protection against Mercadillo (Cabildos de Lima 1888:266]. Armed resistance in Tarama and Bombon probably ended at that time, although trouble persisted for several more years in nearby provinces to the north.

Ethnic Tarama and Chinchacocha2 With the demise of Incaic authority and the subsequent upheavals of civil wars between Spanish factions, much of the i~fr~structure of the Inka empire fell into disrepair. Many provIllclal centers and tambos that had been built and maintained to serve the Inka state were reduced to minor settlements if not altogether abandoned. Economic and administrative demands forced Spanish authorities to become more familiar with the land and people beyond these decaying imperial installations. Perhaps the earliest descriptive notes on the native population within the Riquelme encomienda are those of Pedro Cieza de Leon, who concerned himself mainly with the countryside and the hinterland population of the region, paying little attention to the imperial center-like Bombon, Chacamarca, or Taramathey once had served. Cieza passed through the central highlands twice in 1549, the first time as a soldier in the last of the Pizarro wars, and the second as an appointed "Cronista de Indias" charged with "learning and finding out the most important things of these provinces" (Victor von Hagen, in Cieza 1959: Ch. LIV). He (Cieza 1959: Ch. LXXXIII) described the "province of Bomb6n" as a "flat and very cold land" around a very large lake which was "some distance from the mountains." The native occupants, who had been a fierce, warlike people prior to the Inka conquest, were settled "in villages placed around the lake, with ~arge trenches and fortifications." These were primarily a herdmg people, as noted earlier by Estete, and "in high and unpopulated reaches of their land extensive wild herds are seen" as well. Due to the cold climate "maize yields poorly in this area, ... but they do not lack for other roots and staples, with which they sustain themselves." The principal root crop referred to here is likely to have been maca (Lepidium meyenii). Cieza also visited the "province of Tararna," where the milder climate "makes possible large harvests of maize and wheat, and other fruits that these natives customarily grow in these lands." :,azquez de Espinosa (1948:1368) later added that "this provIllce of Tarama ... produces much maize and wheat" and "has a spring-like, delightful climate, and is gifted with much bread fruits, meats, and fish." ,

44

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un[n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

A brief reference to Tarama by one of the later chroniclers further attests to the agricultural wealth of the province. During the reign of Topa Inka, a Tarama curaca renowned for his eating habits and consumption of chicha (maize beer) was ordered to partake in rituals conducted all over the empire in order to improve agricultural fertility. Collaccaguay, curaca of Tarama of Chinchaysuyu, was sent throughout the kingdom to taste food and drink with all the curacas, because this Collaccaguay was a great connoisseur of food and drink such as the Lord had created in these parts, and so he was dispatched by the Inca to improve agricultural production. [our translation]'

These passages from Cieza and others treat Tarama and Bombon as discrete and ecologically dissimilar territories. The provincia status accorded these geographical units should not necessarily be attributed to the former configuration of Inka imperial waman; Tarama and BombOn had probably belonged to the same Incaic province, since they were ruled by a single individual at the time of the initial grant of encomienda to Alonso Riquelme. Rather, this use of the term provincia seems more figurative, evoking the concept of "ethnic groups" widely established in current Andean anthropological literature. We use the term "ethnicity" with deliberate caution to avoid unwarranted assumptions about the nature of ethnic groups. Andean ethnic groups of the late prehispanic period are in general a poorly understood cultural category that is difficult to define with respect to territorial, political, or economic parameters. Ethnic territories cannot be assumed to have been bounded, nonoverlapping subdivisions of a region, and boundaries become even more complex if access to certain resources is shared among more than one group. Component communities of an ethnic group may have been politically fragmented into small, warring factions or united into one large polity (curacazgo) ruled by a single curacao Similarly, exchange relations and other economic arrangements need not necessarily have been sufficiently well developed among ethnically associated villages to differentiate them as a group from those of dissimilar ethnicity. Despite the uncertainties in the territorial, political, and economic structure of ethnic groups, ethnicity appears to have been a meaningful cultural category contributing to the conceptual ordering of some aspects of central Andean society. One's "roots" in the Andean world might be reckoned by his ayllu l •.• ymbia por todo el reyno a Col\acchaguay, curaca de Tarama de los Chinchaysuyos, para que prouase de comer y beber con todos los curacas, porque este Collaccaguay, como era gran comedor y bebedor que Dios abfa criado en estas partes, assi el ynga despacha para dar mas chacaras ... [Pachacuti Yamqui 1950:253]

2el cacique Runato con sus prencipales pueblos e yndios de Chinchacocha segun e de la manera que I dicho tesorero Alonso Riquelme los tuvo e poseyo al tiempo de su fin e muerte ... en esta encomienda ninguno de los yndios de la encomienda que yo hize en Lorenco Destopinan saluo de los de Chinchacocha como dicho ... [Tello de Sotomayor 1975:ff. 166r]

(descent group), his home village, the curaca he served, and his ethnic affiliation. Ethnic membership is said to have been readily distinguishable by the style of headdress or other aspects of personal adornment (Cieza 1946: Ch. XLV, 1973: Ch. XXII; Cobo 1890: V. 3, Ch. XXIV). Pedro Pizarro (1965:188) notes that the people of Atavillos, Tarama, and BombOn, which he lumps together as a single province, "wear kerchiefs around the head, their hair long; these kerchiefs are dyed yellow and red." Cobo concurs on the significance of these red-and-yellow headbands as ethnic markers, but associates them only with Bombon. The ethnic identity of the puna popUlation around Lake Junin is established in documentary sources contemporary with Cieza. During 1549, the same year that Cieza entered the central highlands, the Riquelme encomienda was partitioned and transferred in part to Riquelme's son-in-law, Juan Tello de Sotomayor. For his support in crushing the final Pizarro rebellion, the Crown awarded Tello the cacique Runato with his principal villages and Indians of Chinchacocha, in the same manner that the treasurer Alonso Riquelme possessed them at the time of his death ... this encomienda [includes] none of the Indians of the encomienda which I made to Lorenco Destopifian except for those of Chinchacocha as stated ... [our translationF

Whereas these natives had previously been designated in reference to the Incaic center at Bombon by Cieza and Pizarro, Tello's grant identifies them as the Indians of Chinchacocha. Yet confusion over their ethnic label persisted among Spanish chroniclers. Cobo (1890: Ch. XXIV), for example, continued to refer to the indigenous population as "those of BombOn," while Sarmiento (1960:Ch. 61) identifies the province and its occupants as "Chinchaycocha." Salinas y Cordova (1957:248) and Cobo (1890: 163) even list Bombon and Chinchacocha as separate provinces. Significantly, there was no such confusion among neighboring ethnic groups over the identity of the Junin plateau. Indigenous groups in the Huanuco area to the north consistently named "Chinchacocha" as a puna population with whom they traded, whereas "Bombon" was known only as an Inka imperial establishment where state produce had formerly been deposited (Ortiz de Zuniga 1967, 1972). Similarly, members of the Huanca ethnic group to the south spoke of exchange with the natives ofChinchacocha, not BombOn (Vega 1965: Ch. 30). Further clarification of the geographical terminology is provided in an early seventeenth-century ecclesiastical report (Fabian de Ayala 1976:276-79) describing the high plateau between eastern and western cordilleras as "the province of Chinchaycocha, which takes its name from a noteworthy lake" (now known as Lake Junin). Bombon at that time (early seventeenth century) designated the remarkably flat plain at the lake's northern end, within which the imperial center had been located. The name "Tarama" as used in the literature of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries may refer either to (1) the ethnic group or "province" southeast of the Chinchacocha, (2) the former

The Study Area in Ethnohistoric Perspective Incaic settlement (also Tarmatambo) within this province, or (3) the Spanish town which later became known as Tarma. The Tarama as an ethnic group were separated from the encomienda of the Chinchacocha probably soon after Riquelme's death in 1549, to be reassigned to another encomendero. The Incaic settlement of Tarama later became the village of Tarmatambo. The Spanish town of Tarma was laid out six kilometers below Incaic Tarama on a flat, marshy valley floor, much of which had to be drained to be rendered habitable (Cardenas 1941; Phillips 1911). Palomina Vega (1962: 13) proposes that Spanish Tarma originated in 1534 as a garrison charged with defending the new capital at Xauxa (Jauja) against attack by imperial Inka forces under Quisquis still at large near Bombon. Philipps (1908) argues instead that the town was formally founded in 1538, but neither date can yet be verified by incontrovertible documentaryevidence. References to the "doctrina de Tarma" in 1540 and the "pueblo de Tarma" in 1548 imply that Spanish Tarma had been established at least by mid-century (cited in Philipps 1912:123,359). If so, it is odd that neither the encomendero Riquelme nor his successor, Tello, ever lived there, but instead were legal residents of Lima and Huanuco, respectively (Cabildos de Lima 1888; Tello de Sotomayor 1975: ffI66r). Regardless of its founding date, a Spanish town variously known

as Tarma or Tarama had probably eclipsed Incaic Tarama (Tarmatambo) as the political and commercial center of the province by the latter part of the sixteenth century, if not before. Confusion between the two names lingered on through much of the seventeenth century. For example, Tarama is named as a town and a parish by a Dominican friar in 1657 (Olmedo 1956:68,75,84) and by a Franciscan in 1687 (VazavilI921:41O). The name of the ethnic group has since been inexplicably transformed into "Taruma" in the collective memory of its modern descendants, although no such name appears anywhere in the early documentary sources.

Ethnic Population Size Information on the size of the Tarama and Chinchacocha populations is derived mainly from a visita conducted in the early 1570s. Visitas, or official inspections, were undertaken on several occasions during the early decades of Colonial rule to gather demographic and economic information needed to assess the productive potential and tax base of rural areas. Both Tarama and Chinchacocha ethnic groups were included in a general visita conducted throughout Colonial Peru from 1570 to 1575 under orders of Viceroy Toledo. Original documents

Table 3.1. Early Colonial census records of central highland ethnic populations. 1570-1575' 16282 Total POD. Ratio Tributarios Total POp.3 Pop. Change Ratio 44,778 6.4 4,661 30,576 6.6 -32% 10,797 5.6 2,176 11,073 5.1 +3% 8,830 5.2 1,379 7,641 5.5 -13% 7,149 4.6 1,200 5,698 4.7 -20% 9,494 7.1 1,243 6,718 5.4 -29% 6,581 5.8 782 4,935 6.3 -25% 4,821 4.6 889 5,017 5.6 +4% 5,757 5.8 991 5,749 5.8 0 4,458 4.5 560 2,864" 5.1 -36% 4,751 5.2 508 2,895 5.7 -39% 4,808 5.4 758 3,553 4.7 -26% 4,080 5.1 600 3,153 5.3 -23% 3,592 4.9 432 2,185 5.1 -39% 2,508 4.9 310 1,209 3.9 -52% 2,152 5.6 353 2,272 6.4 +6% 1,956 5.0 248 1,340 5.4 -31% 721 5.3 134 719 5.4 0 C~na 489 4.4 73 429 5.9 -12% I .. 2 Copied from Toledo vlS/ta by Miranda (1975); Recorded m Vasquez de Espmosa (1948); 3 Sum of four age and sex categories; 4Sum of ;atunx~uxa, H.urinhuanca, and Ha~anhuanca; 5 Sum of Allauca-Gari and Icho-Guari; 6Entered as "Colpaschunga Macas" in Vazquez.; Combmed With Chaupeguaranga m Miranda; sum of Yaros and Chaupiguara entries in Vazquez.; 8These figures presume that the total number of women should read 1559 in Vazquez, not 559; -The 1549 visita tallied 1,200 tributarios (Ortiz 1967:305); IOSum of AllaucaPincos and Ichu-Pincos; "Sum ofYcho-Guanuco and Allaauca-Gminuco in three repartimientos. Two of these are entered as "Guanuco Obras" and "Pachas las canga" in Vazquez.; 12Sum of two repartimientos in the Corregimiento de Tarama y Chinchacocha and one in the Corregimiento de los Guamalies; '3 This group is of uncertain ethnicity and is identified only by the Incaic site of Waraut ambo; 14Sum of two repartimientos. Ethnic Group 4 Huanca Chinchacocha Guad Lampa Yauyos6 Canta Yaros 7 Tarama Ocros Chupachu Pincos'o Gmlnuco Huamalies l2 Tambo '3 Atavillos Yacha 14 Yanamate

"

Tributarios 6,953 1,912 1,705 1,569 1,343 1,137 1,041 999 987 905" 888 799 728 512 382 387 136 110

45

46

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junin, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Figure 3.2. Sixteenth-century ethnic groups in central Peru.

of this investigation may have been destroyed in the Lima archival fire of 1884, but some of the information is preserved in records of Toledo's successor, Martin Enriquez. Between 1582 and 1583, Enriquez' scribe Cristobal de Miranda produced two copies of tax and census records contained in the Toledo visita. One begins as a relatively detailed document on provinces in the southern Andes, but may have been abandoned as too laborious a task before regions farther north had been copied (Miranda 1975: XIV). The second version was completed for all provinces, including Tarama and Chinchacocha, but is little more than a statistical summary of the material in the original Toledo visita (Miranda 1925). Peru had by this time been carved into large administrative units known as corregimientos, which were further partitioned into repartimientos corresponding more-or-Iess to ethnic groups and/or encomiendas. The Miranda document records the name of each repartimiento, its encomendero, if any, and the principal villages within it. The population of each repartimiento is given as both the number of households and the total number of people. These figures are likely to be lower than the true population size; many families undoubtedly attempted to evade the census or to under-represent their head-count in order to reduce their oppressive tax burdens. The population size in the early 1570s was also assuredly substantially lower than that of the late 1520s due to the staggering casualties inflicted by Incaic and Spanish civil wars, rebellions against the Spaniards, and the spread of Eu-

ropean diseases (Crosby 1986; Dobyns 1963; Kubler 1946). The "Corregimiento de Jarama [sic] e Chinchacocha" was the southern of three administrative units within the district of the City of "Leon de Gw.lnuco," as Huanuco was then known. It was bounded on the north by the Corregimiento de Guamalies, also within the same district, and on the south by the Corregimiento de Xauxa within the district of the City of Los Rreyes (Lima). Its western neighbors on the far side of the Cordillera Occidental included, from north to south, the Corregimientos of Ambar y Caxatambo, Canta, and Yauyos, within the district of Lima. The Corregimiento de Tarama y Chinchacocha was composed of 13 repartimientos which included not only these two ethnic groups but also several others within the upper Huallaga and Marafion drainages to the north. Population statistics derived from the Toledo visita are presented in Table 3.1 for the Tarama, Chinchacocha, and a number of other ethnic groups within a few days' travel of these two (Fig. 3.2). By 1570 many repartimientos did not correspond neatly to whole ethnic groups, and in several cases the figures in the table represent two or three repartimientos corresponding to moieties or other divisions of the same ethnic group. Certain groups may be underrepresented if the repartimientos into which they were partitioned are not all identified by ethnicity. Apart from the Huanca, an exceptional ethnic group several times larger than any other in the region, there is a moderately even gradation in ethnic population sizes from about 2,000 to 11,000 persons. The Chinchacocha, with about 11,000 persons and 1900 tribute-payers, are the second-largest group in the central highlands. The Tarama fall well within the middle size range, with about 5,800 persons and 1,000 tribute-payers. The middle size range is spread between 4,000 and 7,000 persons, of whom 800 to 1,200 were responsible for payments of tribute. The ratio of total population to male adults counted in the tribute-paying age bracket varies between 4.5: 1.0 and 6.: 1.0 for most groups. This figure is about 5.7: 1.0 for the Tarama and Chinchacocha. Comparable census data are recorded for these same repartimientos in Vazquez de Espinosa's Compendio y Descripci6n de las Indias Occidentales written in 1628. These latter figures generally corroborate the earlier census data copied by Miranda and also provide a measure of the rate of population decline for each ethnic group. The population curve plotted by Kubler (1946: Fig. 32) indicates a decline of 19 percent in the entire indigenous population of the viceroyalty during this half-century. Losses were greater than this in most of the central highlands, and were particularly severe in the Upper Huallaga and Upper Marafion, where populations were reduced by as much as a third to a half. Yet the Tarama population size remained constant, and the Chinchacocha actually registered a slight increase. Two other ethnic groups in the northern fringe of the Juninpuna, the Yaros and Yanamate, were also apparently spared the drastic losses incurred elsewhere. In regional context, the relative demo-

47

The Study Area in Ethnohistoric Perspective

Table 3.2. Sixteenth-century depopulation ofthe Huanca and Yauyos ethnic groups.

1525

1570

Ethnic

Heads of

Demographic

Total

Group

Households

Ratio'

Population

Huanca 3

27,000

6.0

,

162,000

Heads of

Demographic

Total

Depopulation

Households

Ratio 2

Population

Ratio

6,953

44,788

3.6:1

10,000 6.0 60,000 6,717 6.2 41,289 I The ratio of persons per household in 1525 is arbitrarily set at 6.0, which is lower than the known ratio in 1570. The calculated population based on this low ratio should be a conservative estimate. 2This ratio is calculated from census records of the number of tribute payers in 1570 and the total population size at that time, presented in the adjacent column. 3Includes latunxauxa, Hurinhuanca, and Hananhuanca subdivisions of the Huanca ethnic group. 4Includes Guarochiri, Chacalla, Mama, Yauyos, Mancos, and Laraos, which together constituted the sixteenth-century Provincia de Yauyos.

1.5: I

Yauyos4

graphic stability of ethnic groups of the Junfn Plateau and adjacent eastern valleys stands out as an anomaly. To the extent that European diseases were likely to affect one indigenous group as severely as another, explanations for this anomaly might be sought in the impact of civil wars and labor drafts, which could vary regionally, or population movements induced by differing demands of encomenderos. Massive emigration from neighboring provinces into former Tarama and Chinchacocha territory might account for the observed differences, but could probably not have taken place after the first one or two chaotic decades of Spanish rule. This stability in Tarama and Chinchacocha population levels is encouraging with regard to the problem of estimating the prehispanic size of these groups. However, it is difficult to assess the impact of civil wars, culture shock, and disease between 1525 and 1570. A contingent of Tarama in the Inka Atahualpa's vanguard were among 7,000 natives slaughtered in the initial confrontation with Pizarro (Salinas y Cordova 1957:69). As already noted, the Tarama and Chinchacocha partook in uprisings led by Tiso and IlIa Tupac against the Spaniards. Native participants in the insurgency were terrorized and massacred in the subsequent reprisal spear-headed by Alonso de Mercadillo. The extent of Tarama and Chinchacocha participation in struggles between rival Spanish factions is unknown, but much of the bloodshed of the Incaic civil war was concentrated in this region. In decisive battles fought near Bomb6n and Xauxa in 1532, Atahualpa's forces, regarded by many as invaders from Quito, annihilated the vast army of Huascar, which was presumably supported by the Tarama and Chinchacocha (Sarmiento de Gamboa 1960: Ch. 63). Both groups may have suffered significant population losses even before the Spaniards reached the New World. Neither group submitted peacefully to lnka rule without challenging the military might of the empire. When the Inka army entered Tarama it encountered "natives who had taken up arms, and there was a battle in which many Taramentinos were captured

6.4

and killed and those of Cuzco emerged as conquerors" (Cieza 1973: Ch. L). Shortly before this calamity, both groups had also fought a rampaging army of the Chanca ethnic group fleeing northward from the Inka imperial forces. An army of 10,000 Chanca is said to have won great victories "in the area of Tarama and Bomb6n before withdrawing into the montana" (Cieza 1946: Ch. x; Garcilaso 1966: Ch. XXVI; Vasquez de Espinosa 1948: 1480, 1554; a conflicting account of this escapade is offered by Sarmiento 1960:243). These early encounters with immense, fully mobilized armies may have caused the first of many setbacks in Tarama and Chinchacocha population size between the close of the Late Intermediate Period in the 1460s and the Toledo census taken a century later. The impact of battlefield casualties in the total population was probably minor in comparison with the toll of Europeanintroduced smallpox, measles, influenza, diphtheria, and perhaps typhus. Smallpox apparently spread overland from Central America and wrought havoc throughout Tawantinsuyu sometime between 1524 and 1526, several years before Pizarro set foot in Peru. Dobyns (1963 :497) argues that the Andean population may well have been halved during this initial exposure to the disease, but conditions were presumably too chaotic at the time for lnka officials to assess the mortality rate. Several other epidemics swept across highland Peru prior to the census taken by Toledo, but none was so calamitous as the initial outbreak of smallpox. An especially severe series of epidemics struck relentlessly between 1585 and 1589, and undoubtedly contributed heavily to the general, post-Toledan decline in popUlation documented in 1628 for most ethnic groups. The uncertainties of quantifying population losses due to these diseases and military disruptions, along with widespread maltreatment at the hands of abusive Spaniards, are apparent in previous estimates of the rate of population decline. Native testimonies given in the late sixteenth century indicate the approximate numbers of households in two lncaic provinces in the central highlands-Huanca and Yauyos-just before the collapse of the

48

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]unfn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

empire (Table 3.2). Elderly Huancas boasted that the combined military strength of all Huanca subdivisions had formerly been 27,000 warriors (Vega 1965: 167). The province of Yauyos numbered 10,000 "tributary Indians, understood to be younger than 50 and older than 18 years of age" (Davila Brizefio 1965: Ch. 5). This was a multiethnic province composed of the Mancos, Laraos, Yauyos, Huarochiri, Mama, and Caclla.The warrior and taxpayer counts may both be different renderings of the standard Incaic enumeration of jatun runa ("able-bodied, married male heads of households") (Murra 1970:462). The total populations of both provinces in about 1525 have been estimated by Rowe (1946: Table 1) and Smith (1970: Table 4). Rowe assumes a demographic ratio of5.0 persons per household and arrives at popUlation reductions of 3: 1 for the Huanca and 1.5: 1 for the Yauyos between 1525 and 1571. Smith raises the demographic ratio to 9.0 and revises the depopulation ratios to 7.3:1 and 2.7:1, respectively. Neither author makes use of the census figures published in Miranda (1925), but instead derived his own population estimates for the 1570s from more dubious sources, some of which differ significantly from those of the census-takers. If population size in 1521 is calculated from a demographic ratio of 6.0, which is more in line with the 1570 ratios, the population decline with respect to the census data given by Miranda becomes 3.6: 1 for the Huanca and 1.5: 1 for the Province of Yauyos (Table 3.2). The questionable accuracy of the given totals of either jatun runa (warriors) and the somewhat arbitrary conversion factor used to estimate popUlation totals raise doubts about the validity of these depopulation ratios. Kubler (1946:339, Fig. 33) argues that historically known disruptive factors between 1531 and 1561 cannot have reduced the native population of Peru by much more than half. The relative stability of the Tarama and Chinchacocha populations between 1575 and 1628 raises the possibility that their losses prior to 1575 were less severe than the norm, in which case a ratio smaller than 2: 1 may be in order here. A ratio of 1.5: I-the same as that derived for the Yauyosshould yield conservative estimates for these groups. Accordingly, the number of Tarama under Inka rule would have been about 9,000, and the number of Chinchacocha about 16,000.

Ethnic Territories The early sources such as Estete (1946 [1533]), Sancho (1962 [1543]), and Cieza (1959 [1549]) refer to the locations of the Tarama and Chinchacocha, or Bomb6n, "provinces" only in very general terms. As noted above, the Chinchacocha are said to ha\'e occupied villages around a large lake within a high, broad plain well-suited for herding but too cold for most crops. Tarama territory is described as a much more mountainous area with a milder climate ideal for agriculture. Given the known locations of the imperial sites of Tarama and Bomb6n (Pumpu), it follows that Chinchacocha settlements lay within the Junfn puna and Tarama settlements within the network of Tarma valleys.

A more detailed account of the geographical distribution of these populations is not available for the period of the Toledo visita of 1570-75. By the time of this visita a major resettlement policy of the Spanish authorities had been mostly, if not fully, implemented. Natives were forcibly relocated from generally small, widely dispersed, and relatively inaccessible settlements to a small number of large, central, and easily accessible villages or reducciones. This facilitated tax collection and religious indoctrination and also undermined attempts to resist authority. The reduccion policy had been initiated in various parts of Tawantinsuyu under Inka administration (Cobo 1890:227; Gade and Escobar 1982) and was undertaken on a small scale during the first few decades of Spanish rule. It was given a high priority in Viceroy Toledo's restructuring of Colonial Peru in the 1570s, and by the time his visitadores reached the Tarama and Chinchacocha, these groups had for the most part already been "reduced." The Chinchacocha were resettled into five villages: Los Rreyes (now Junfn), San Juan de los Condores (now Ondores), Carhuamayo, Nincaca, and San Miguel (Fig. 3.1). The first four villages are scattered around the lake on or near the shoreline, all above 4100 m asl and fully within the puna. The Junfn Plateau was not exclusively the domain of the Chinchacocha. In the north, a tiny ethnic group called the Yanamate ("black gourd") lived in the vicinity of modern Cerro de Pasco (Fabfan de Ayala 1976:288; Miranda 1925, 1975; Vazquez de Espinosa 1948). The northern margins of the plateau were occupied mainly by the Yaros, including the reducciones named by Miranda within the upper Chaupiwaranga as well as others located by Duviols (1976a:288) in the Upper Huallaga near Huariaca. The ethnic status of the Repartimiento de Tambo (Warautambo) near the Chaupiwaranga headwaters is uncertain, but presumably is distinct from the Chinchacocha. Interestingly, the native occupants of this area today are regionally recognized as "the people who wear knee-breeches," perhaps reminiscent of sixteenth-century ethnic markers (Adelaar 1977 :339). Two lines of evidence suggest that Chinchacocha territory in the sixteenth century was not restricted to the puna environs of Lake Junfn. The first implies a continuous extension of the Chinchacocha into milder zones of the Paucartambo Valley, a kichwa valley well to the east-northeast of Lake Junfn. The 1549 grant of encomienda to Tello by the Licenciado Pedro de la Gasca specifies "the Cacique Runato with his principal villages and Indians of Chinchacocha ... as formerly held by the Treasurer Alonso Riquelme." Yet tribute obligations determined from the 1549 visita general were levied by La Gasca upon "Lunato, cacique of the Paucartambo Valley and his principals and Indians" (Tello de Sotomayor 1975: ff165r, ff167v). Runato of Chinchacocha and Lunato of Paucartambo are the same native ruler in the Tello encomienda. Furthermore, documented tribute obligations (tasa) include a number of items which could be produced within various zones of the Paucartambo Valley but not on the Junfn Plateau. Among these are small quantities of maize, coca, and wooden troughs. Vazquez de Espinosa (1948: 1366) visited the Paucartambo section of the Tello

The Study Area in Ethnohistoric Perspective

encomienda about 80 years after the imposition of this tasa and commented on the valley's "temperate climate ... excellent fruit, and nearby sugar mills." Although none of the reducciones named by Miranda lay within the Paucartambo, by 1601 the center of activity in the upper valley was a textile mill established in the vicinity of the modern town (Andrews 1963:60). The second argument in favor of an eastern, sub-puna extension of the sixteenth century Chinchacocha is based on the reducci6n of San Miguel, listed by Miranda and later by Vazquez de Espinosa (1948: 1366) as part of the Chinchacocha repartimiento. Its location is not made explicit, but appears from available evidence to have been in the upper Ulcumayo Valley. As early as 1621 "San Miguel de Ullucmayoc" is mentioned in connection with the extirpation of idolatries in the provinces of Tarama and Chinchacocha (Arriaga 1968:14-15). Eighteenth-century maps showing "Ullucmayo" and "Ullucumayo" in the locations of present-day U1cumayo substantiate this identity of sixteenth-century San Miguel (Ruiz 1952: PI. 9; Ortiz 1969:185). It follows that native occupants of the upper U1cumayo Valley had been collected into a single reducci6n administratively linked to villages on the plateau as part of the Repartimiento de Chinchacocha since at least 1575. Miranda (1925, 1975) names six reducciones wi thin the Repartimiento de Tarama: Santa Ana de Rribera, Santa Cruz de Tapo, San Miguel de Ocobamba (now Acobamba), San Cristoval de Pa1cantayo (now Pa1camayo), San Geronimo de Pixui (now Picoy), and "un pueblo de salineros." The latter refers to the settlement of Cacas (now San Pedro de Cajas). Cacas, Pa1camayo, Picoy, and Acobamba all lie within the Shaka-Pa1camayo tributary of the Tarma Valley. Tapo occupies a separate tributary, and only the location of Santa Ana de Rribera is uncertain. Santa Ana is the patron saint of the modern town of Tarma, but the sixteenth-century reducci6n was probably a separate settlement. Vazquez de Espinosa (1948: 1368) locates "Santa Ana de Pampas" above Acobamba in the main Tarma Valley and one league (about 5 km) below Tarama, which would place it in the vicinity of modem-day Tupin. Pa1camayo, Picoy, Acobamba, and probably Santa Ana were valley-floor settlements, whereas Tapo was situated relatively high on the side of a ridge and Cacas just below the rim of the Junin Plateau (Fig. 3.1). The distribution of Tarama reducciones notably excludes large areas of the Tarma drainage which archaeologically are known to have been extensively occupied in the Late Intermediate Period (see Chapter 8 and Appendix A). No reducciones are named in the Huasqui or Tarmatambo (Rio Seco) branches of the upper Tarma drainage, or in the densely settled Leticia side-valley (Quebrada Jacahuasi). Nor are any identified in the Huasahuasi drainage or the Tarma Canyon below Acobamba. Conceivably, former occupants of the excluded upper valleys had all been crowded into Santa Ana and those in the lower valleys into Acobamba and Tapo. Alternatively, and perhaps more likely, the list of reducciones and possibly the process of resettlement itself were incomplete in 1575. For instance, residents of three villages in the Vicora side-valley south of Tarma

49

are today said to be descendants of Tarrnatambo and the nearby site of Huanri, yet none of these villages is named as a sixteenth-century reducci6n (Adelaar 1977:323). These and other deficiencies in the reducci6n lists underscore the limitations of such data with respect to prehispanic or even pre-Toledan population distributions. Ethnicity in theCeja de Montana The Toledo visita and other documents discussed above are useful on a general level for establishing the ethnicity of sixteenth-century inhabitants of the puna and kichwa valleys. They are virtually silent, however, with regard to the ceja de montana. The evidence already presented suggests that Chinchacocha territory spilled over from the Junin Plateau at least into the upper sections of the Paucartambo and U1cumayo valleys. Coca and wooden troughs given as tribute by the Chinchacocha could possibly have been acquired by them through exchange with other groups, but more plausibly were produced by their own members within the lower zones of these valleys. Rostworowski (1975:75) explains the apparent access of a predominantly puna population to coca and carpentry items in terms of the vertical archipelago model. Yet such access need not have been maintained through truly outlying agricultural enclaves; the model becomes inappropriate if there was no hiatus or intervening ethnic group separating the Chinchacocha of the puna from their agricultural fields (chacras) or forest resources on the lower eastern slopes. Vazquez de Espinosa (1948: 1366) implies that the Tello encomienda domain in the Paucartambo Valley included sugar mills in relatively warm zones of the valley bordered by a land of "many heathen" farther east. The eastward extension of Chinchacocha territory into the Paucartambo, on which basis the Tello encomienda had been defined, would therefore appear to have been continuous as far down-valley as the cultural boundary with the lowland population. Tarama territory may also have extended into sub-sierra zones. A northern extension of the Apu Huayhuay cordillera separates the Tarma sierra on the west from forested slopes of the Tulumayo ceja de montana on the east. The village ofVitoc lies at the foot of this range in the Tulumayo extension of the montana upriver from San Ramon (Fig. 3.1). Sixteenth-century Vitoc is described in a visita as one of several eastern outposts occupied by members of the Hananhuanca repartimiento of the Huanca ethnic group (Francisco de la Guerra y Cespedes, in Vega 1965: 174). The Hananhuanca subdivision maintained seven or eight coca farmers in Vitoc, "in the jurisdiction of Tarma, in the Andes of said repartimiento." The stated inclusion of Vitoc within the Repartimiento de Tarama as early as 1582 strongly suggests that it had been ethnically affiliated at least as much with the Tarama as with the Huanca. The pass through the cordillera on the main route to Vitoc is only a few hours' hike from Tapo, the easternmost of the Tarama reducciones. The extent of Tarama occupation of Vitoc during the sixteenth century remains unknown, however.

50

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junin, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

As will be discussed below, the principal access to the lower Tulumayo was from the middle Tarma, and by the early seventeenth century Spanish Tarma, not Jauja, was pressing the frontier into the forests of Vitoc. The region of ceja de montana northeast of the Tarma sierra is of uncertain sixteenth-century ethnicity. With respects to Chinchacocha interests in the Paucartambo and U1cumayo valleys to the northwest, and Tarama interests in the lower Tulumayo to the southeast, the Tarma canyon is an intermediate area that might have been claimed by either group. The Huanca are a third possible source of colonization, given their documented presence in Vitoc, but the distances and topographic barriers separating the Huanca heartland around Jauja from the Tarma canyon are considerable. The presence of Tarama reducciones in the Tarma sierra, the nearest of which were Acobamba and Tapo, need not imply that other settlements far downriver on either side of the canyon were ethnically alike. The Huasahuasi Valley and the Tarma and Casca canyons are remarkably accessible to Junin, formerly the Chinchacocha reducci6n of Los Reyes. The eastern cordillera along the Tarma-U1cumayo divide affords a direct Chinchacocha route into the ceja de montana without ever dipping into sierra valleys of the Tarma watershed (Fig. 3.4). This potential connection between the puna and the eastern forests is supported by the geographical configuration of eighteenth-century parishes within the Provincia de Tarma. The province covered most of the former Corregimiento de Tarama y Chinchacocha and was divided into 13 parishes, each with one or more anexo villages (Ruiz 1952:85-86). The Chinchacocha ethnic group was subsumed within four or five parishes and the Tarama within two or three. Several of these eighteenth-century parishes spanned a range of ecological zones. The parish of Villa de Pasco, of former Yanamate and Yaros ethnic affiliation, included settlements on the northern puna and within the kichwa zone of the upper Huallaga. Two of the Chinchacocha parishes, Carhumayo and Ninacaca, had kichwa valley anexos (outliers) in the upper U1cumayo and a branch of the Paucartambo, respectively. The parish of Reyes was the most ecologically diverse, with three anexos in sub-puna zones. One was Cacas (modern-day San Pedro de Cajas), the village of salt workers formerly within the Repartirniento de Tarama. Another was the village of Racas, now an abandoned site near modern-day Chupan in an agriculturally fertile side-valley of the middle UIcumayo. Huasahuasi was the third, in the upper limits of the ceja de montana (Figs. 3.1, 3.2). The alignment of Huasahuasi with Reyes rather than Acobamba, a much closer parish in the Tarma heartland, may be culturally as well as ecclesiastically significant. These eighteenth-century ties with the Junln Plateau suggest that settlements within the Huasahuasi ceja de montana may traditionally have been at least as much a concern of the Chinchacocha as of the Tarama. However, the parish divisions postdate the arrival of Pizarro by more than two centuries and are, at best, only tenuous evidence of earlier indigenous relationships. The name Huasahuasi is a rendering of "washa way" in Tarma

Quechua (Adelaar 1977), meaning "the house in back," or "the house behind the hill." Modern residents of Huasahuasi explain that this is because the old route from Tarma into the valley crossed over the ridge above Acobamba; from the Acobamba perspective the settlement was "the house behind the hill." Clearly, Huasahuasi has long been accessible to communities in the upper Tarma drainage in the kichwa as well as the main puna; at times it has maintained close contacts with both areas. The parish distributions, though persuasive, are by no means unequivocal evidence that the ceja de montana of Huasahuasi, as well as the Casca and Tarma canyons, should be included within the former territory of the Chinchacocha.

Ethnic Boundaries Warfare Before the Incas rule them, ... fortresses called pucaras were built in the mountains, from which they would go to battle with one another, howling in strange languages, over farmland or for other reasons, and they would kill many, taking the spoils to be found and the women of the vanquished, with which they climbed triumphantly back to their mountaintop fortresses ... All lived in chaotic disorder, because for certain they say that they had no lords other than captains with whom they would go to war... [our translationJi

This rather negative impression of general pre-Incaic conditions in the Central Andes was given to Cieza by his informants in 1549. However, their recollections of oral history are of somewhat dubious reliability: they may be distorted or otherwise exaggerated through biases of the informants themselves, their predecessors, or even Cieza himself. Equally graphic descriptions of pre-Incaic political fragmentation, competition, and conflict were recorded by Toledo (1940 [1570]), specifically in reference to strife within the Huanca ethnic group. Toledo was yet farther removed than Cieza in time from the Inka imperial conquest and was strongly biased in his treatment of oral history, yet his information raises questions on the significance of ethnic boundaries in pre-Incaic warfare. Most other references to warfare in the central highlands during this era concern rivalries between ethnic groups, rather than internal strife within a single ethnic group. This may, of course, be more a consequence of deficiencies in the ethnohistoric record than a true measure of the balance of conflict and cooperation within groups at that time. References to warfare between ethnic groups include reports

1••• antes que los Incas los sefioreasen ... hacfan en los cerros castillos que lIaman pucaras, desde donde, ahullando con lenguas astrafias, salfan a pelear unos con otros sobre las tierras de labor 0 por otras causas y se matamban muchos dell os, tomando el despojo que hallaban y las mugeres de los vencidos; con todo 10 cual iban triunfando a 10 alto de los cerros donde tenfan sus castillos ... Todos ell os eran behetrfas sin orden, porque cierto dicen no tenfan senores ni mas que capitanes con los cuales sa\fan a las guerras ... [Cieza 1973:Ch. IV]

The Study Area in Ethnohistoric Perspective

of conflict among the Yauyos, Canta, Huanca, Tarama, Yaros, and perhaps the Chinchacocha. The corregidor of the Yauyos was informed that this group had waged war against both the Huanca and the Tarama prior to the Inka conquest (Davila Brizefio 1965:154). Surviving oral traditions of the northern Junfn puna claim that the Huanca believe their ancestors, who may have been ethnically linked to the Chinchacocha, fought the Canta and the Tarama (Andrews 1963:54). The status of the boundary between the Tarama and Chinchacocha is problematic, but there is no documentary evidence suggesting political unification of these groups prior to the Inka conquest. Their unity under a single ruler at the time of the initial formation of the Riquelme encomienda is likely to have been a product of Inka imperial administration rather than indigenous political development. On the other hand, while the Tarama certainly fought battles with enemies of differing ethnicity, no such warfare with their immediate Chinchacocha neighbors can yet be documented. Ethnographic studies from other parts of the world serve as reminders that warfare may fluctuate between interethnic and intraethnic levels. Animosities across Central Andean ethnic boundaries might have served to rally otherwise dissident factions of an ethnic group to a common military cause, promoting group solidarity in much the same fashion as has been observed for the tribal Tiv and Nuer societies of Nigeria and the Upper Nile, respectively. Different levels of the Tiv or Nuer segmentary lineage system may be articulated by warfare, depending on the ancestry and ethnicity of the principal parties initiating the dispute (Sahlins 1961). This particular lineage system and its political correlates may not have been paralleled in ancient Peru, but comparable degrees of instability in the level of political unification cannot be ruled out. More ethnohistoric data are needed on groups such as the Tarama and Chinchacocha to investigate the scale of component political units and the conditions, as yet unknown, under which political alliances might have formed along ethnic lines.

Regional Exchange Here we are mainly concerned with the significance of ethnic boundaries in the development of exchange networks, and in the possible role of exchange networks in the maintenance of these boundaries. Ethnic territories become economically meaningful units of analysis only if the boundaries between them affect, or are affected by, the flow of goods among communities. Traditional exchange networks within the region provide some insight into the economic significance of ethnicity. Spaniards familiar with the province of Chinchacocha in the early seventeenth century observed that maca, its principal cultigen, "does not provide sufficient sustenance for the natives, who must go to the neighboring provinces to obtain foods in exchange for wool, llamas, and other things" (Fabfan de Ayala 1976:279; Vazquez de Espinosa 1948:1367). Late sixteenth-century visitas

51

of ethnic groups to the north and south of the Chinchacocha amply document the existence of exchange networks across ethnic lines (Dedenbach-Salazar 1990:101). Ethnic boundaries evidently did not inhibit exchange to any great extent, yet transactions which crossed them seem to have been recognized as categorically distinct from those confined within the limits of a group. The Chinchacocha and their northern neighbors the Yaros traded wool, freeze-dried meat (charqui), livestock, fish, and salt to the Chupachu, Yacha, Quero, and other occupants of the upper Huallaga in return for maize, chili peppers, cotton, and coca (Ortiz 1967:63,73, 179,219; Ortiz 1972:43,50,58,63). Transactions were conducted informally and directly between households, as explained by a Chupachu official: There are no merchants among those who depend upon these exchange relations; rather, when the need arises, each goes, and the others come to them. [our translation] I Salt and maize were also major exchange items across the southern margin of the puna, according to Huanca testimony delivered in Xauxa (Jauja) province: Salt is obtained by exchange for maize which is traded to the Indians of Tarma and Chinchacocha, which are toward Gminuco, 16 leagues from this valley. [our translation] 2 It is likely that this is a reference to the provincia and corregimiento of Tarama and Chinchacocha as a single political unit encompassing many ethnic groups. Those within the corregimientos which were most likely to have participated in this exchange with the Huanca were the Chinchacocha and the Yaros, since both groups enjoyed direct access to salt springs but were unable to grow maize on most oftheir land. Exchange relations specifically with the Tarama, who were noted for their abundant maize production, cannot yet be documented with early Colonial sources. Traditional exchange across ecological zones of this region is also well documented in Quechua texts recorded during the 1940s, although by then ethnic distinctions had undoubtedly become blurred (Farfan 1949: 127-41). At that time a full-time herder from Ondores, a former Chinchacocha village on the southwest shore of Lake Junfn, would take mutton, wool, and textiles (mantas) down to kichwa settlements at Tarma, Acobamba, and Pa1camayo in the old Tarama heartland and to Paucartambo, which had perhaps been affiliated with the Chinchacocha, to trade for potatoes, caya (freeze-dried oca),

INo hay mercader entre ellos que viva de este trato sino que cuando 10 ha de menester cada uno va y los otros vienen a ellos. [Andres Yacolca, in Ortiz 1967:219] 2 Se proveen de sal por rescate de maiz que la rescatan de los indios de Tarma y Chinchacocha, questan hacia Guanuco, diez y seis leguas deste valle. [Vega 1965: Ch. 30]

52

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junin, Peru, Volume I, Part I

fava beans, and other foodstuffs. Part-time potters and herders in Huayllay, another puna village northwest of Lake Junfn, and also probably within ancient Chinchacocha territory, traded pottery for potatoes, ocas, caya, chuno (freeze-dried potatoes), maize and wheat produced in kichwa valleys to the north and east. More specifically, their trading partners were in (a) Yanahuanca, formerly within the Repartimiento de Tambo in the upper Chaupiwaranga and of uncertain ethnicity, (b) Huariaca, an upper Huallaga village in the lower margins of former Yaros territory, and (c) Ulcumayo, argued above to have been a kichwa valley component of the Chinchacocha domain. One part-time weaver and herder from the high puna village of Huaychao west of HuayUay, would trade blankets, rope, mantas, and heavy woolen cloth for potatoes, maize, and charcoal produced in upper valleys on the Pacific side of the continental divide. Goods were transported by his own llamas, and most transactions took place in the Pacific-slope valleys. His dependence on kichwa valley products is clearly expressed in the text: I would go to the quebrada when I had no more staples left in the house. I would bring potatoes and maize so that the children could eat. There is nothing here. This village is in high country. Here there are just llamas and sheep, but no food. This being high country, nothing grows here due to the frost. [Farfan 1949: 131; Hastings' translation from Farfan's Spanish translation of the original Quechua]

Further details on traditional exchange relationships between the Junfn puna and the eastern valleys are provided by informants in Paucartambo and the lower Ulcumayo. Prior to the completion of the road to Paucartambo in the early 1950s; herders would descend upon the village from Carhuamayo, Ninacaca, Junfn, Ondores, Huayllay, and Vico (Fig. 3.1); "the streets were so filled with llamas that one had a difficult time walking through them" (Andrews 1963:89, 149). Mutton, sheepskins, mantas, woolen sacks, socks, slings, black chuno, and pottery were bartered for potatoes and maize, primarily during the peak harvest months. In turn, much of the Paucartambo maize was grown from seed purchased in Tarma, and Paucartambo potatoes were preferably grown from Ulcumayo seed stock acquired in exchange for maize (Andrews 1963:84, 102). In summary, these ethnohistoric and ethnographic examples illustrate the considerable, centuries-old flow of goods across ecological transitions of the Junin puna, the adjacent kichwa valleys, and the eastern forests of the ceja de montana, and even a few highland Pacific-slope valleys across the continental divide. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century reports of multiethnic exchange networks are available for the northern and southern margins of the Junfn Plateau, but not for the eastern margins. Early contact-period exchange networks interconnecting the Junfn puna, the Tarma kichwa, and the Tarma ceja de montana cannot be documented at present, but traditional twentieth-century networks span the Tarma and parallel drainages to the north. These serve only to demonstrate the demand for goods not 10-

cally produced and illustrate traditional means of satisfying this demand. Some of the documented exchange freely crosses former ethnic boundaries which today are virtually forgotten and meaningless. Nor did such boundaries notably discourage exchange during the mid-sixteenth century, at least between peoples of the Junfn puna and those at lower elevations to the north and south. The economic significance of these boundaries under the differing political climates of pre-Incaic, Incaic, and early Colonial eras may be particularly illuminated by examining one component of the regional exchange network: salt. Salt Procurement Certain ethnic groups maintained access to salt sources outside their principal territorial limits and even stationed small numbers of individuals at these locations to insure a steady supply of salt. The major sources of salt were San BIas, Cacas (San Pedro de Cajas), and Yanacachi, three saline springs widely scattered across the Junfn Plateau (Fig. 3.1) (Duviols 1976a:28485). The San BIas source (formerly San BIas de Cochac) is within the main puna just a few kilometers from Lake Junfn and the former Chinchacocha reducci6n of Condores (now Ondores). The spring emanates from a large, deeply buried deposit of rock salt that was exposed and subsequently quarried in the late nineteenth century (Raimondi 1965:291). The second source is Cacas, a somewhat smaller spring just below the southeast margin of the puna. It has also been identified as Patamarca (F. Wilson 1978:87) and Cachiyacu (Stiglich 1922:163), meaning "salty water." The spring is located just outside San Pedro de Cajas, formerly the reducci6n of Cacas, in the headwaters of the Shaka Valley. The third source is Yanacachi ("black salt"), a spring in the far northern reaches of the plateau within the Huallaga headwaters some 70 kilometers north of San Pedro de Cajas. Until the quarrying of San BIas in the 1860s, salt in all three sources was processed by evaporation in huge ceramic vessels manufactured specifically for this purpose (Fabian de Ayala 1976:284-85). San BIas and Yanacachi lay well within the ethnic territories of the Chinchacocha and Yaros, respectively, while Cacas was on or near the boundary between the Chinchacocha and Tarama. Multiethnic access to these salt works is relatively well documented for Yanacachi, and may be inferred with some uncertainty from indirect evidence for Cacas. The documentary record as currently known is uninformative in this regard for San BIas. The 1549 and 1562 visitas in the greater Huanuco area unequivocally indicate that Yanacachi was inside the territorial limits of the Yaros. Native testimonies also confirm that at least 12 Chupachu salt workers were stationed on a long-term basis in two or more settlements on Yaros lands to extract salt from Yanacachi (Mori and Malpartida 1967:293; Ortiz 1967:64, 78, 175,231). The Quichua mitmaqkuna, who may have been resettled near Huanuco from the Cuzco area under Inka orders, may also have kept some salt workers at Yanacachi, but the Yacha seem not to have done so. The Chupachu and Quichua

The Study Area in Ethnohistoric Perspective

salt workers (cachicamayoc) were maintained in Yanacachi to produce salt that their curacas were required to deliver as tribute to the Spanish encomenderos. Notably, the tasas and retasas of 1549, 1552, 1553, and 1559 list salt among the tribute of the Chupachu and Quichua mitmaqkuna, but not of the Yacha (Ortiz 1967:314; Ortiz 1972:281-96). The Yacha traveled as far as the "salinas de Cochas," (probably San BIas de Cochac), to exchange for salt processed by the Chinchacocha (Ortiz 1972:132). The Chupachu and Quichua also acquired some of their salt through exchange, specifically by trading for Yanacachi salt processed by the Yaros (Ortiz 1967:210,219; Ortiz 1972:42,50,179). Relationships between the Yaros and Chupachu are for the most part unknown, but the Yaros resented the imposition of Quichua salt workers on their land. In 1562 the head curaca of the Quichua mitmaqkuna complained about the ordeal of procuring salt for tribute while the Yaros harassed his cachicamayoc, and a year later the salt obligations were dropped (Ortiz 1972:29,303). In this case, the Yaros evidently objected to Quichua infringement of their control over the Yanacachi salt source; this infringement had presumably been mandated by the Inka. Unless a higher authority was in command, the mutual access of the Quichua, Chupachu, and perhaps other groups to Yanacachi salt production was probably dependent upon the consent of the Yaros. Seventy kilometers south of Yanacachi, the salt works at Cacas appear to have been a multiethnic concern without such a clearly defined host group. The chronicler Sarmiento de Gamboa (1960) learned in 1570 that the Cacas salt works had been appropriated a century earlier by the Inka Pachacuti, who brought in nonlocal cachicamayoc to produce salt for the empire (F. Wilson 1978:87). These mitmaqkuna were threatened by the Tarama from below and the BombOnes (Chinchacocha) from above. In the early 1570s a village of cachicamayoc is listed among the reducciones of the Tarama in the Toledo visita (Miranda 1925). Yet in 1614 this village, identified as San Pedro de Cacas, was an anexo of the Chinchacocha reducci6n of Los Reyes (Fabian de Ayala 1976:285). Cacas remained associated with Los Reyes (Junfn) into the eighteenth century (Rufz 1952). Under Spanish rule the boundaries of Cacas were in constant dispute and evidently provoked fighting "more bitter and prolonged in this area than anywhere else in the province" (F. Wilson 1978:288). The earliest known land title granted to a native community in Tarma Province was awarded to residents of Cacas in 1627, probably for the purpose of resolving these disputes (F. Wilson 1978:138). The document was signed not only by ranking individuals of Cacas, but also by representatives from the Tarama reduccion of Palcamayo and the distant settlement of Quiparacra. The ethnicity of Quiparacra is unknown but may have been aligned with the Chinchacocha in much the same fashion as was neighboring Paucartambo. The interests of Quiparacra in Cacas are most remarkable, given that the Yanacachi salt source was so much closer and more accessible. This concern becomes more comprehensible if an ethnic boundary divided Quiparacra from Yanacachi but not Cacas, and if this boundary threatened or inhibited the village's access to Yanacachi salt.

53

In sum, the ambiguities and controversies over ethnic boundaries and access rights to the salt springs may also have pertained to valued production zones of the eastern slopes. Ethnic boundaries between groups in the puna and kichwa cannot confidently be extended into the ceja de montana on the basis of available ethnohistoric materials. With the possible exception of Vitoc, the archipelago model of verticality incorporating Yanacachi salt production is not demonstrably replicated in the Tarma, Ulcumayo, or Paucartambo forests. This model was developed largely from the multiethnic exploitation of the Chinchao coca zone north of Huanuco, but the ethnic intermingling of workers in that area may have been a relatively late development implemented under orders from Cuzco (Hastings 1978). One of the Chinchao settlements was of such exceptionally mixed composition that two or three of its residents were Tarama who had been relocated under Incaic directives (Mori and Malpartida 1967:299). Similar Inka imperial impositions and modifications of ethnic territories are to be expected in the eastern slopes below the Tarama and Chinchacocha, although they cannot yet be documented ethnohistorically.

Ethnic Ritual and Mythology Although difficult to demonstrate, ethnic differentiation may have been based largely on ritual, mythology, tradition, and ideology. Cieza's remarkable interest in the regional diversity of native customs and beliefs provides an early glimpse of Tara rna culture. Traditional weddings and the mourning period of widows are described in limited detail, whereas curaca burial customs are said to have been "of the same manner and sort as Marafi6n and Huallaga (Cieza 1946: Ch. LXXXIII). According to Cieza, the Tarama worshipped the sun, "which they call Mocha," yet the sun was generally known and worshiped as "Inti" throughout the empire. Perhaps the proper transcription should be "macha," a rendition of machay, in which case Cieza misunderstood what was being worshiped. Machay can assume various meanings, but in a religious context may be "a closet or vaulted niche which the Indians fashion in the rock for the mummies or funeral offerings to the dead" (Arriaga 1968:18n.). Garcilaso de la Vega (l966:Bk. 6, Ch. xI) and Herrera (1952:324-25) attribute these cultural practices to the Bombones (Chinchacocha) as well as the Tarama, even though their source is clearly Cieza. Cieza's ambiguity on this point underscores the difficulties of ethnohistorically differentiating these and other ethnic groups by such criteria. Guaman Poma de Ayala (1936) makes no attempt to do so in his pictorial record of Andean culture and instead draws attention to cultural peculiarities of Chinchasuyu as a whole, lumping the Tarama and Chinchacocha together with a long list of other groups in this division of the Inka empire. For information which is more ethnically specific, one must turn to the Jesuit literature generated in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries by the "extirpation of idolatries," a concerted effort to stamp out native religious prac-

54

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un{n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

tices entrenched beneath a thin veneer of Catholicism. The full impact of Jesuit iconoclastic zeal reached the Junfn Plateau early in the seventeenth century, when small teams of extirpators were dispatched on several occasions to root out and obliterate any and all vestiges of paganism in Chinchacocha society (Duviols 1976a). The Jesuits sought to document the widespread persistence of heathen beliefs and idol worship in order to more forcefully argue that drastic and ruthlessly repressive measures be undertaken. The few records of these campaigns which have survived are useful in identifying and describing some of the sacred localities and religious beliefs of the Chinchacocha, Yaros, and, to a limited degree, the Tarama. Sacrosanct objects and places of great spiritual or mythological importance were known generally as huacas. The principal huacas of the Chinchacocha had become known to the Spanish clergy a few decades before the Jesuit extirpators swept through the province. Sometime in the early 1580s Albornoz (1967:30) compiled an inventory of major huacas that had been discovered throughout Peru, including those of the Tarama and Chinchacocha. Most of the known Chinchacocha huacas were lakes. Albornoz names Lake Chinchacocha (Lake Junfn) as the principal huaca of that province. During the period of Inka rule, the Chinchacocha communities that were later merged into the reduccion of Los Reyes would consecrate a hundred vestments per year to Lake Junfn (Duviols 1976a:292). The same source also denounced Chinchacocha rites of ancestor worship still practiced at that time; old structures within the lake, presumably on an island, housed "a large quantity of bones that had been gathered to be worshipped as gods." Lake Auquivilca beside the village of Llaca is named by Albornoz as another huaca of the Chinchacocha and also as the mythological place of origin (pacarina) of the "indios caxamalcas." Two other lakes, Urcococha and Choclococha, were revered as places where the llama originated. Both were the object of offerings and sacrifices discovered by the Jesuits (Arriaga 1968: Ch. 8). The locations of Lakes Auquivilca, Urcococha, and Choclococha are uncertain, but all three were probably within the main Junin puna. Two other huacas revered by the Chinchacocha were the mountain peak of Raco, and a rock identified as Tumayricapac (Duviols 1976a; Rostworowski 1983:63-65). Cerro Raco is a striking landmark with a pyramidal peak overlooking the flat expanses north of Lake Junfn. This was one of the most sacred places on the puna. The Jesuits learned that the natives worshiped it "as a god of food, and they would beg its favor at planting time by offering it sacrifices which were all things to be eaten cooked and to be drunk" (Fabian de Ayala 1976:279); Duviols 1976a:290). The extirpators imply that Raco was a deity of the Chinchacocha, although the peak is so far north on the Junfn Plateau that it may have been venerated by the Yanamate or Yaros as well. Tumayricapac is included in Albornoz' list of huacas and is described as "a rock resembling a dressed Indian. It is in the village of Cochacaya, province of the Yaros." Duviols

(1976a:288) has determined that Cochacaya was a Yaros village not far from Huariaca in the upper Huallaga. Yet Sarmiento (1960:263) associates the "guaca Tomayrica" with the Chinchacocha in his account of the Inka Huayna Capac's mobilization of forces for a distant military campaign. The relationship of Tumayricapac to various ethnic groups is partially clarified in the Jesuit record of a myth about a spiritual being of that name (Fabian de Ayala 1976). This being is said to have fallen to earth onto a large boulder along the Inka road near Tarma. Tumayricapac proceeded to the western shore of Lake Junfn and assembled all the local huacas before continuing to Bomb6n, where he was transformed into an infant. The infant grew rapidl y under the care of a woman from Huaychao (near Huayllay) and soon asserted his supremacy over all the other huacas of the region. The Yanamate refused to submit at first, but were eventually intimidated into honoring him as their father. Tumayricapac descended into the upper Huallaga and received the Chupachu as his nephews. He was deified as a god of force, industry, fire, and fortune, and tales of his deeds became so numerous "that they are countless." A somewhat different version of the Tumayricapac myth was periodically reenacted by the Yacha of the upper Huallaga and Marafi6n in a traditional dance described and later banned by the Jesuits (Duviols 1971:341-42). The dance recounted the legend of Lliviac Cancharco, a mythical being who fell to the earth at Cerro Raco and was raised from infancy by a local herder. This deity, whose name Lliviac means "lightning," is closely associated with a large and somewhat nebulous cultural category known as Llacuaz (Duviols 1973). The origin of people of Llacuaz identity is said to be Cerro Raco, in keeping with the mythical landing point of Lliviac Cancharco. By the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the name Llacuaz appears to refer to an upper-level cultural classification that included several ethnic groups on both sides of the continental divide, from the Junfn Plateau northwest at least to Catatambo. Duviols (1973) asserts that both the Yaros and Chinchacocha were of Llacuaz heritage, which is associated with the puna, herding, lightning, and the deities Tumayricapac and Lliviac Cancharco, who may be the same being. In Catatambo province the Llacuaz coexisted with the Huari, a people whose cultural heritage and mythology were more closely associated with the kichwa zone and agricultural production. However, the Huari-Llacuaz distinctions were deeply rooted and could persist long after members of one category had been relocated into the ecological setting of the other (Duviols 1973). Thus, the Chupachu and Yacha, both with a predominantly agricultural economy in the upper Huallaga and Marafi6n valleys, identified more closely with the Llacuaz pantheon of mythical beings than with that of the Huari. Farther north in the agricultural zones of Recuay, Llacuaz existed sideby-side with Huari, but carried a connotation of "newcomer" or "outsider," in contrast to the indigenous implications of Huari (Tello 1967: 102). It is tempting to relate the ethnic boundary between the

55

The Study Area in Ethnohistoric Perspective

Chinchacocha and Tarama to the structural opposition of Huari and Llacuaz cosmologies, which appears regional in scope. The association of the Chinchacocha with Llacuaz is not difficult to accept, but the status of the Tarama in the Huari-Llacuaz dichotomy is unknown. The supposed Llacuaz affinity of the Chupachu and Yacha indicates that the agricultural, kichwa orientation of the Tarama need not necessarily identify this group with Huari. A Tarama-Llacuaz connection might even be considered on the basis of Tumayricapac's purported origin in the southwest periphery of Tarama territory near Tarmatambo. The Huari-Llacuaz dichotomy evident in the more northerly provinces presents an interesting depiction of cultural differentiation across the puna-kichwa interface, but with no real documentation on the status of the Tarama, its applicability to ethnic boundaries in the Tarma headwaters remains hypothetical. The only huaca specifically identified with the Tarama by the Jesuit extirpators is Guayoay Vi1ca, "principal huaca of the Tarama, it is a mountain across from the tambo ofTarama." J Guayoay Vi1ca very probably is an older name of Nevado Apu Huayhuay, the highest peak (5105 m asl) in the greater Tarma watershed. The mountain is actually a pair of snowcapped pinnacles some 25 km east of Tarmatambo in a range of the Cordillera Oriental. Though probably not within the territorial limits of the ancient Tarama, these twin peaks are a singular landmark visible from most high ridges within the Tarma drainage and from many of the former Tarama settlements, even as far as the ceja de montana. The modem name hints at the mountain's status as an important huaca: apu, a great lord or king, combined with huayhuay, a reduplicative form of the local gloss for house, connotes "the very home of the great lord or master." Apart from Apu Huayhuay, the most sacred locality in Tarma province during at least the past two centuries has been Muruhuay, part of a low mountain spur overlooking the confluence of the Tarma and Pa1camayo valleys near presentday Acobamba. A modem chapel completed in 1972 replaced an older structure that had been erected on the same site to commemorate the "miracle of Muruhuay," believed by many to have occurred sometime in the eighteenth century. Recurring themes in several versions of this miracle involve the brief appearance of an immaculate white horse and rider, the discovery of a crucifix either on a rock face or buried below ground, and the salvation of a quarantined, smallpox-infested community through the healing powers of a Muruhuay spring (Adelaar 1977:33037; Cardenas 1941:82-86; Palomina Vega 1976:38-47). In recent decades the Muruhuay chapel has become the focal point of pilgrimages from all over the central highlands. On the appropriate day in May designated exclusively for each district in the province, each barrio, comunidad, and village parades before its own master of ceremonies along the road to Muruhuay (Palomina Vega 1976:61-64). The antiquity of 'guaca prencipal de los taramas, es un cerro questa frontero del tambo de Tarama. [Albornoz 1967:30]

Muruhuay's prominence and centrality in Tarma ritual is uncertain. F. Wilson (1978:85, 92) maintains that Muruhuay had long been the most sacred huaca of the Tarama ethnic group, and that only in the early eighteenth century did the Catholic clergy of Acobamba acknowledge its status by declaring that a Christian miracle had taken place in the vicinity.

Summary Records of the first few Spanish expeditions across the Junfn Plateau establish the presence of four principal Inka imperial installations on the main roadway through this area: Pumpu (Bomb6n) and Xacama1ca (Chacamarca) at either end of Lake Junfn, and Tambo (Warautambo) and Tarama (Tarmatambo) just beyond opposite ends of the plateau. Subdivisions of the indigenous population of the region were identified at first by their association with one or another of these centers and by their curacao All four imperial centers had been governed by a single individual and may thus have constituted a single imperial province (waman), but the administrative unity of this province is unlikely to have had pre-Incaic antecedents. Pumpu was by far the largest of the four imperial settlements and was probably the highest-ranking center of the waman. The native population was generally sympathetic with resistance movements of remnant imperial Inka forces against the Spaniards, and therefore had probably been fully placated in the 70 years of Incaic rule. Later sources recognize two provinces within this waman which were ecologically and ethnically distinct: the kichwa province of Tarama and the puna province of Bomb6n (Chinchacocha). In current anthropological terminology these provinces are referred to as ethnic groups, as are the Yaros and Yanamate in the northern reaches of the Junfn Plateau. Forty years after the Spanish arrival there were about 6,000 Tarama and 11,000 Chinchacocha. Rough population estimates for these groups in about 1525, prior to the outbreak of the Incaic civil war and the initial onslaught of smallpox, might be 9,000 Tarama and 16,000 Chinchacocha. Spanish resettlement policies concentrated the Tarama into six reducciones within the maize-producing zone of the middle and upper valleys of the Tarma drainage area. The Chinchacocha were reportedly settled in villages around Lake Junfn at the time of Spanish contact, and were renowned as great herders of the puna. On the basis of these earliest observations, the distributions oflater reducciones, and the wording of encomienda documents, Chinchacocha territory was evidently concentrated in the puna around the lake, but probably also extended east of the plateau into the upper Paucartambo and Ulcumayo valleys. It follows that some of the Chinchacocha were predominantly kichwa agriculturalists. Conversely, in Chapter 8 we discuss archaeological evidence that some of the Tarama occupied herding villages on the rim of the Junfn Plateau in late prehispanic times.

56

Pre hispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un[n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

There is little doubt that both groups also exploited resources farther east in the ceja de montai'ja; indeed, the Chinchacocha were obliged to deliver some of these products as tribute to their Spanish encomenderos. The Chinchacocha might plausibly have had access to the upper forests of the Paucartambo and U1cumayo, and the prehispanic Tarama had quite likely penetrated the cloud belt east of the Apu Huayhuay Range en route to the Vitoc montana. However, the sixteenth-century ethnicity of transitional zones in the northeast part of the Tarma drainage area is more problematic. Colonial trail networks demonstrate the accessibility of the lower Tarma to the Chinchacocha heartland, and eighteenth-century ecclesiastical records assign the resident population of the lower Tarma drainage to a Chinchacocha parish. These few tenuous lines of evidence are inconclusive but do support a Chinchacocha alignment of prehispanic settlements in ceja de montana zones of the lower Tarma. It is unclear to what extent each ethnic group functioned as an economically integrated whole, in which all member factions were assured access to dispersed resources within ethnic boundaries. However, the documentary record leaves no doubt that since early in the sixteenth century there has been considerable demand for "external" products not produced within a group's ethnic territory. The demand for certain products from specific communities is based largely, but not entirely, on ecological constraints and the distribution of natural resources. For instance, Huayllay has become known not only as a village of herders and weavers, but also potters, while U1cumayo and Huasahuasi have established reputations as producers of superb seed potatoes sought by other potato farmers throughout the region. Since the fall of Tawantinsuyu in 1533, the movement of products between ecological zones and across ethnic boundaries in our study area has largely been managed as householdlevel exchange. Prior to the Inka conquest such exchange would surely have been affected by regional politics, and occasional breakdowns in both political and economic relations across ethnic boundaries could precipitate outbreaks of warfare. The Inka state is generally credited with restructuring these ethnic boundaries and the basic concept of territoriality. By establishing isolated outposts of one or more ethnic groups within remote zones formerly controlled exclusively by another group, boundaries and territorial rights became exceedingly more complex under Inka domination. Such complexity has been partially documented in salt springs on or just below the Junfn Plateau and in the Huallaga ceja de montana below Huanuco. Although comparable documentary evidence is not available for the lower Tarma drainage, imperial Inka tampering with ethnic boundaries and access rights should be suspected in this part of the ceja de montana as well.

I ••• en el eual dieho deposyto se entienda 10 que los naturales llaman horna y hurea, que quiere deeyr abaxo e arriba, con eualesquier pueblos que en ello hobiere, no pareseiendo estar deposytados en otras personas. [Pizarro 1926:8)

Several sacred landmarks and the associated mythology of the Chinchacocha are known. These local huacas and the beliefs attached to them may ultimately prove to be the crux of ethnic identity. On a different level, deities such as Tumayricapac or Lliviac Cancharco pertain to a broadly defined cultural category larger than any particular sixteenth-century ethnic group. The Chinchacocha probably were part of Tumayricapac's earthly domain and shared a puna-based cosmology with several other ethnic groups, some of which occupied sub-puna zones. The Tarama revered their own huacas, including a spectacular mountain peak of the eastern cordillera and undoubtedly others above Acobamba. Yet the pantheon of Tarama deities and related origin myths remain unknown, and consequently the Tarama-Chinchacocha relationship cannot yet be ethnohistorically defined in terms of the Huari-Llacuaz (cultivator-herderlkichwapuna) opposition documented farther north. It should be noted that this relationship seems to have been quite close from an ethnohistoric perspective, and from the archaeological perspective presented in later chapters the two groups are difficult to distinguish. The chroniclers seldom mention one without the other, and at one point Cieza (1 946:Ch. XC) even refers to the "comarca de Tarama y Bomb6n [Chinchacocha]" (district of Tarama and BombOn [Chincha-cocha]). The association of these two groups for administrative purposes probably began during Inka rule and continued well into the Colonial Period. An interesting qualifying statement included in Pizarro's initial grant of encomienda for this area may be relevant to the problem of the Tarama-Chinchacocha boundary. This grant takes into consideration what the natives call horna and hurca, which means below and above, with whichever villages are so affected, that they not appear to be granted to other persons. [our translation]'

The wording here is somewhat ambiguous, but the apparent need for clarification of homa and hurca suggests that certain Tarama or Chinchacocha settlements may have been located in zones outside their ethnic core area and could be confused on a strictly geographical basis with other encomiendas. Under these circumstances the boundary between these two groups might not correspond neatly to the puna-kichwa interface. Pizarro's concern may, however, have been with ethnic boundaries other than this one, for both the Tarama and Chinchacocha were being assigned to the same encomendero. In either case, it should not be expected that all settlements in the jurisdiction of any particular curaca, and therefore corresponding to a single "provincia" in the Spanish terminology of that period, would be distributed as one spatially continuous territorial unit.

Chapter 4

Modeling Central Andean Agriculture and Herding

This chapter seeks to provide a conceptual framework for the interpretation of the archaeological data presented in Appendix A. A few aspects of this effort were anticipated in Chapter 2. We are not searching for highly specific analogs between historic and prehispanic herding and agriculture. Our purpose is to highlight general patterns of production and zonal complementarity. Because economy and polity are so closely interrelated, we begin with a general overview of prehispanic Central Andean cultural development. This should help provide a basis for understanding which aspects of the historic-period patterns are most pertinent to our archaeological data. Because our fieldwork contributes nothing to the Archaic period, we extend our view back only to the beginning of the Formati ve era (c. 2000 B.C., Table 5.2). Because archaeological knowledge of the ceja de montana and montana zones remains limited, we will not discuss the prehistory of these regions.

A Synopsis of Prehispanic Cultural Development Both agriculture and camelid herding were fully established in much of the Central Andes by the beginning of Formative times (Flannery 1973; PearsaII1992; Wing and Wheeler 1988). TheJunfn puna was an early center of camelid domestication (K. Moore 1988, 1989; Wheeler et al. 1976), while remains of the full spectrum of Andean cultigens have been found in Late Archaic and Early Formative archaeological deposits in several kichwa valleys throughout Peru (Lynch 1980; MacNeish 1979, 1981). Early and Middle Formative Chiefdoms (Initial Period and Early Horizon) Prior to the late third millennium B.C. there is little indication of hierarchical organization anywhere in the Central Andes. The most complex South American societies of the third millennium

57

B.C. were concentrated in the far northwest, between Panama and Ecuador (Damp 1984; DeBoer 1996; Holm 1987; Lathrap and Marcos 1977; Meggers et al. 1965; Reichel-Dolmatoff 1965,1985; Schwartz and Raymond 1996; Zeidler 1991). By about 2000 B.C. there is clear evidence in several parts of Peru for public architecture, increases in the size and density of sedentary population, the intensification of agriculture and herding, and the expansion of inter-regional exchange (e.g., Fung 1969,1975,1988; Grieder et al. 1988; Matsuza 1978; Moseley and Willey i973; S. Pozorski and T. Pozorski 1979; Quilter 1985). By later Early Formative times (c. 1500-900 B.C.) the central and northern Peruvian coasts had emerged as the cores of a cultural florescence that included formal public architecture and formal ritual iconography (e.g., Burger 1992; Burger and Salazar-Burger 1991; Donnan 1985; Patterson 1985; S. Pozorski and T. Pozorski 1986, 1987, 1988, 1992; T. Pozorski 1975; T. Pozorski and S. Pozorski 1995; Ravines and Isbell 1975; Rossello 1997; Tello 1956). Some adjacent highland kichwa valleys participated in this florescence (e.g., Burger 1992; Fung 1975; Izumi et al. 1972; Izumi and Sono 1963; Izumi and Terada 1972; Kaulike 1975, 1976; Onuki 1985; Rosas and Shady 1970, 1974; Shady 1992; Tello 1960), but many others did not. The entire southern half of the Central Andes remained developmentally peripheral until the first millennium B.C. We conceptualize these Early Formative developments as the formation of chiefdom polities, rooted in Late Archaic tribal societies, that flourished most notably in the larger coastal valley deltas of central and northern Peru. The presence of small quantities of exotic marine, sierra, and montana materials in several archaeological sites attest to interzonal exchange across the full ecological spectrum from Pacific coast through the highlands and into the montana (e.g., Burger 1992; Matos 1968b). It is for this same time that Pearsall (l980a, 1980b) reports evidence from archaeological sites in the Junfn puna for an

58

Pre hispanic Settlement Patterns in ]unfn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

intensification of puna-kichwa plant exchange; comparable intensification is seen to be underway at several other excavated highland sites (e.g., Lynch 1980; MacNeish 1979, 1981). By the beginning of the first millennium B.C. the pace of these developments had accelerated throughout central and northern Peru, and had got underway as well farther south. The Chavin stylistic complex that spread selectively throughout northern Peru is one example (e.g., Burger 1988,1992; Lumbreras 1971), and the first presence of a well-defined sitesize hierarchy in the Titicaca Basin is another (Albarracin-Jordan 1996; Hastorf [ed.] 1998; Lemuz 1999; Mathews 1995; McAndrews et al. 1997; Stanish et al. 1997). Settlement pattern studies on the Peruvian north coast (Feldman 1983; Willey 1953; Wilson 1988, 1995) reveal impressive complexes of monumental public buildings, formal ritual iconography, the development of canal irrigation, and significant population growth. An increase of camelid meat in the diet of Middle Formative kichwa agriculturalists in north-central Peru suggests intensified interaction between puna herders and kichwa cultivators (Miller and Burger 1995). The trends toward growing cultural complexity accelerated and expanded during the Middle Formative. Just as impressive is the apparent absence of such development in many places, including the Tarama-Chinchaycocha region; there are many highland regions where Early and Middle Formative occupation is known to be absent or very modest (e.g., Meddens 1984, 1991; Schjellerup 1997; Schreiber 1987a; Stanish 1992; Valdez and Vivanco 1994). The causes of this variability remain unclear. Florescent Middle Formative developments appear to have occurred either in areas that were unusually productive in terms of Formative agriculture (e.g., larger coastal valleys with permanent rivers and irrigable floodplains), or where there was an unusual potential for the local combination of highly productive agriculture and highly productive herding (e.g., the circum-lakeshore region of the Titicaca Basin). The Early and Middle Formative florescence in northern Peru and southern Ecuador occurs where the combined width of the coast, sierra, and montana zones is narrower than anywhere else in the Andes (Fig. 2.l), and where the intervening mountain passes are much lower than farther south. Such settings may have been the best places for interzonal interaction between chiefly elites seeking prestige-building "foreign" exotica, but mainly dependent for their access to such exotica upon spatially restricted, kin-based networks. The Middle Formative inhabitants of the Tarama-Chinchaycocha region were apparently only modestly involved in such interzonal networking (e.g., Matos 1971). Small States during the Late Formative/Early Intermediate Period More complex polities developed late in the first millennium These include the Mochica culture on the Peruvian north coast (e.g., Billman 1996, 1999; Brennan 1980; Donnan 1976; Hocquenghem 1987; Shimada 1994; Uceda and Mujica 1994; B.C.

D. Wilson 1983, 1987, 1988, 1995), the Lima culture on the central coast (e.g., Earle 1972), the Nasca culture on the southcentral coast (e.g., Silverman 1992, 1993a, 1993b, 1996), the early stages of Wari's development in the Peruvian south-central highlands (Isbell 1985, 1987, 1988; Lumbreras 1974b), and the early stages of Tiwanaku's development in the Titicaca Basin (Albarracin-Jordan 1996; Albarracin-Jordan and Mathews 1990; Berman 1994; K. Chavez 1988; S. Chavez 1988; Kolata 1993; Stanish et al. 1997). All these developments were characterized by substantial population growth, impressive monumental public architecture, agricultural intensification, and formal ritual iconography. There is a clear and pervasive stylistic linkage between decorative motifs and vessel forms employed in some coastal Nasca and highland Wari ceramics (Knobloch 1991; Menzel 1964; Paulson 1983; Silverman 1988b). This hints at new forms of coastalhighland interaction in south-central Peru that may have included interzonal exchange based on something (e.g., tribute) other than seeking out "foreign" exotica through networks of kin-based reciprocity for purposes of chiefly prestige-building (e.g., Spencer 1982). The growing importance of domestic camelid meat in the diet of north-coastal Mochica populations may be another sign of new forms of coast-highland interaction (S. Pozorski 1979). Just as in the antecedent Early and Middle Formative, these Late Formative/EIP developments were uneven over space. Peruvian coastal valleys south of Nasca remained sparsely occupied, without major sites or monumental public architecture, as did many highland valleys and virtually all the puna except for the circum-lake portion of the Titicaca Basin. Just as in the Early and Middle Formative, coastal polities appear to have been notably more complex than their highland contemporaries in terms of the monumentality of their public architecture, the size of their settlements and regional popUlations, and overall agricultural productivity based on increasingly large-scale canal irrigation (e.g., Brennan 1980; Earle 1972; Moseley and Deeds 1982; Wilson 1983, 1988). With the possible exception of the Nasca-Wari linkage noted above, most of these coastal EIP states apparently did not expand significantly into the adjacent sierra (e.g., Dillehay 1976, 1979; Schadel 1985; 1. Topic and T. Topic 1983). Archaeologists cannot yet resolve the question of why some areas were in the "mainstream" of earliest Andean state development while others were not. The difficulties are compounded by the fact that the long EIP cannot always be subdivided into chronological phases short enough to perceive key developmental stages. Additional problems arise in terms of conceptualizing such overall variability; for example, if states developed in some areas and not in others, how were societies in the developmentally peripheral areas affected by the presence of new forms of political and economic organization in the core regions? These issues have only begun to be addressed in central and northern Peru (e.g., Dillehay 1976, 1979; Onuki 1985; Schadel 1985; Shimada 1985; J. Topic and T. Topic 1983).

Modeling Central Andean Agriculture and Herding

Large States in the Middle Horizon The predominance of the larger Peruvian coastal valleys in Andean state development ended definitively during the Middle Horizon. It was then that two highland centers, Wari and Tiwanaku, emerged as the foci of large polities that extended their influence across major coastal and highland zones in ways that earlier, coastal-centered states apparently had not. Marcahuamachuco in the Peruvian north highlands was another major Middle Horizen center, whose regional influence is less well understood O. Topic and T. Topic 1986; T. Topic and J. Topic 1987). The prevailing view is that during the Middle Horizon, Wari and Tiwanaku were centers of protoimperial polities whose expansive character and hierarchical organization foreshadowed the Inka (e.g., Browman 1985; Feldman 1989; Goldstein 1989, 1993; Isbell and Mcewan 1991; Kolata 1993; Moseley et al. 1991; Raymond 1992; Schreiber 1987a, 1987b). These scholars, and others, have marshaled much evidence in support of the protoimperial model. This includes the widespread distribution of distinctive ceramic and architectural styles; such as, the Wari-like architectonic configurations in distant highland sites like Pikillaqta in the south (McEwan 1988, 1989, 1991, 1996; Sanders 1973), Jincamocco in the south-central region (Schreiber 1991, 1992), and Viracochapampa in the far north O. Topic 1991; T. Topic 1991) (Fig. 1.1). Several other sites, such as Wari Willka in the Mantaro Valley near Huancayo (Matos 1968a; Shea 1969) and Honcopampa in Peru's northcentral highlands (Isbell 1989), also have strong ceramic and architectural linkages to Wari. In other cases, far-flung Wari "influence" is manifested exclusively in the form of decorated ceramics (e.g., Thatcher 1974,1977; J. Topic and T. Topic 1986). Shady (1988, 1989) has challenged the protoimperial model, arguing that Wari (and, by extension, Tiwanaku as well) was only one of several large, interactive Middle Horizon states. Shady's position is appealing in light of the substantial Peruvian central- and north-coastal Middle Horizon polities that appear to have developed and flourished in the absence of any significant influence from Wari (Bawden 1982, 1983; Shady 1982; Shimada 1978, 1981, 1985, 1994; Shimada and Cavallaro 1985; Willey 1953; Wilson 1988). Further support ofthis view comes from indications of the apparently autonomous development from local EIP antecedents of the major Middle Horizon center at Marcahuamachuco in the Peruvian north highlands O. Topic 1991; J. Topic and T. Topic 1986), and from the apparent absence of any Wari-related architecture or ceramics in many highland regions (including the Tarama-Chinchaycocha Region) The nature of the largest Middle Horizon states remains to be adequately comprehended. Nevertheless, there seems little doubt that there was a major difference between the relatively small ElP polities, on the one hand, and the larger, spatially and ecologically more extended Middle Horizon systems, on the other. For the first time the two largest regional centers-Wari and Tiwanaku-were situated in the southern highlands, a region that had previously been distinctly secondary in pan-

59

Andean developmental terms. From this point in time onward, the north Peruvian highlands, a region that had seen the development of some major Formative and EIP centers, was peripheral in terms of the growth and expansion of the largest polities; the latter were centered farther south, in or near the heartland of camelid pastoralism. Domestic camelids existed in the Peruvian north highlands, and even into Ecuador in prehispanic times (Norton and Stahl 1987; Stahl 1988), but pastoralism has always been of secondary importance in this northern region (Troll 1958, 1968). Figure 2.1 shows clearly that both Wari (the largest known Middle Horizon center in Peru) and Cuzco (the Inka capital during the Late Horizon) are at the junctures of major herding and agricultural zones. This suggests that the integration of large agricultural and herding economies lay at the foundation of both centers' dominance. As noted above, Tiwanaku's location is uniquely strategic in terms of the close proximity of unusually productive lakeshore agriculture (S. Chavez 1999) and camelid herding; there is also easy accessibility to ecologically complementary zones to the west and east of the Titicaca Basin, in a setting where regional integration would have been uniquely facilitated by waterborne transportation and communication (Parsons 1968). During the Middle Horizon the full integration of agricultural and herding economies was apparently beginning to be important in some strategic highland regions of south-central and southern Peru and western Bolivia. Arguably, only these particularly favored regions could have attained the high levels of overall productivity necessary for underwriting the costs of increased sociopolitical centralization; it was only in the southern half of the Central Andes that camelid pastoralism was of primary economic significance. From the Middle Horizon onward, coastal polities appear to have become increasingly peripheral in Central Andean sociopolitical development. This may be another indication of the growing importance of fully integrated specialized agricultural and herding economies. Some local camelid herding may have developed in later prehispanic periods on the Peruvian coasts (e.g., Shimada and Shimada 1985). However, the coastal valleys have always been marginal for camelid pastoralism because pasture is limited, harmful bacteria thrive in the warm climate, and coastal vegetation does not include the plants necessary for proper camelid diet. The Middle Horizon was clearly a time of radical cultural change. There may have been significant ideological changes accompanying the implementation of new forms of sociopolitical hierarchy, new forms of surplus generation and tribute extraction, and new forms of suprahousehold and supracommunity and interregional interaction. Hints of such change include the widespread distribution of Wari- and Tiwanaku-linked architectural and ceramic forms that may have been associated with public ritual, analogous perhaps to the lnka emphasis on ritual feasting in their provincial centers (e.g., Morris 1982). Archaeological evidence for ritual feasting at administrative centers occurs at least as early as late ElP times in Peru's north-central highlands (Gero 1986, 1990).

60

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un[n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

J. Topic and T. Topic (1986) and T. Topic (1991) have suggested that Marcahuamachuco in Peru's north highlands became a major regional center during the Middle Horizon because of its new role in mediating coast-highland interaction at a time of increased tensions. The radical architectonic innovations at Marcahuamachuco may reflect new forms of ritual and settlement pattern associated with changing forms of interregional linkage. The Topics' model may have some applicability as well to the changed roles Of Wari and Tiwanaku during the Middle Horizon. As noted earlier, Wari probably began to be important as a node in highland-coastal interaction during the later EIP.

State Collapse and Rebuilding during the Late Intermediate Period This period after the collapse of the large Middle Horizon polities centered at Wari and Tiwanaku is usually seen as a time of sociopolitical instability, decentralization, and intense warfare (e.g., Amat 1978; Parsons and Hastings 1988). The main exception was the large Chimu polity centered at Chan Chan on the north Peruvian coast (e.g., Moseley and Day 1982; Moseley and Cordy-Collins 1990; Rowe '1948). Several regional surveys on Peru's north coast (Keatinge 1982; Willey 1953; Wilson 1988, 1995) have revealed a consistent pattern of population decline after the Middle Horizon. On the other hand, reconnaissance in the far north coastal Lambayeque region (Shimada 1981) indicates substantial Late Intermediate Period (LIP) population growth. Highland surveys (Albarracin-Jordan 1996; Albaracin-Jordan and Mathews 1990; Earle et al. 1980; D. Julien 1994; Krzanowski 1985; Meddens 1984; Parsons and Hastings 1977; Stanish et al. 1997; Valdez and Vi vanco 1994) consistently indicate that the LIP was a period of significant popUlation growth in the sierra. By the beginning of the LIP, approximately A.D. 1000, state polities had existed for approximately a millennium in some parts of the Central Andes. There were probably few areas between western Bolivia and southern Ecuador that had not been significantly affected by states in varying stages of development, florescence, or collapse. How do we comprehend the societies that remained in the wake of the collapse of large states following a millennium-long period of state presence? Such societies may no longer have been centralized states, but the standard "chiefdom" model-with its emphasis on kinshipbased authority, generalized administration, and limited secular power-also seems inadequate (cf., Costin 1986; D' Altroy 1992; Earle et al. 1980, 1987; Hastorf 1993; Hastorf et al. 1989). The complicated and confusing sociopolitical landscape of nineteenth century West Africa (e.g., Forde and Kaberry 1967) may offer a better analogy, with its ever-shifting alignments and realignments of agriculturalists, herders, artisans, traders, warlords, and powerful outsiders seeking to extend and consolidate their influence from relatively stable core regions to unstable peripheries and interstitial zones where they found

themselves in competition with other forces comparable to themselves. This West African scene, like highland Peru during the LIP, defies easy typological classification, but it may be comparable to what Andean archaeologists must deal with during the three or four centuries after A.D. 1000. Although the early developmental stages of the Inka state remain unclear, there are now good indications that the Cuzco region was precocious in terms of population growth and settlement nucleation during the LIP (Bauer 1991, 1992b; Dwyer 1971; Kendall 1976b, 1996; Parsons and Hastings 1988). Furthermore, a recent synthesis of several dozen radiocarbon dates suggests that some far-flung Inka-related developments, previously regarded as chronologically Late Horizon, may actually of late LIP age (Adamska and Michczyski 1996). The LIP was clearly a time of significant change. Part of this change may have been related to the fracturing of longestablished networks following the collapse of Wari and Tiwanaku (and perhaps of other major centers as well) at the end of the Middle Horizon. The development of new organizational forms that grew out of these fractured networks ultimately gave rise to the Inka empire centered at Cuzco. Earle et al. (1980, 1987) have demonstrated that there were major organizational differences between earlier and later phases of the LIP in the Wanka region in Peru's central highlands; such a dichotomy was probably widespread. The inability to subdivide the 400-year long LIP often precludes us from defining the processes of change within this period. The fact that the Late Horizon imperial capital emerged at Cuzco, situated at the juncture of major kichwa and puna zones in the southern highlands (Fig. 2.1), and not in the Chimu domain on the Peruvian north coast, suggests that the large-scale integration of agriculture and camelid herding continued to play a key developmental role during the LIP. The apparent disinclination (or inability) of the Chimu to expand significantly into the adjacent north Peruvian highlands suggests that major LIP coastal polities continued to be economically based on largescale canal irrigation-an adaptation that does not seem to have been fully "competitive" in terms of Late Horizon pan-Andean geopolitics. Perhaps because the north Peruvian highlands have never been a major herding region, the irrigation-based Chimu would have had no opportunity to integrate large numbers of pastoralists into their political economy.

The Inka Empire during the Late Horizon Understanding of the Inka empire has come largely from documentary sources compiled during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (e.g., c. Julien 1983, 1988, 1991; D. LaLone 1982; M. LaLone andD. LaLone 1987; Murra 1958, 1972, 1980; Parssinen 1992; Rowe 1946; Wachtel 1973; Zuidema 1964, 1990; Zuidema and Poole 1982). Only since the late 1960s has archaeology made a significant contribution (e.g., Bauer 1991, 1992a, 1992b; D' Altroy 1992; Hyslop 1984, 1985, 1990; Morris 1967,1973, 1974, 1982; Morris and Thompson 1970, 1985;

Modeling Central Andean Agriculture and Herding

Morris and Von Hagen 1993). The Inka imperial structure continues to be seen as expansive, multi tiered, centralized, and highly bureaucratized, with a strong component of secular force and a command economy that included massive terracing and irrigation systems and craft workshops in many strategic localities (e.g., M. LaLone and D. LaLone 1987; Levine 1985, 1987). A network of formal roads, provincial centers, storage facilities, and waystations (tambos) provided an extensive transportation-communication infrastructure (Hyslop 1984, 1985, 1990; LePaige 1993; Levine [ed.] 1992; Lynch 1996; Stehberg and Carvajal 1986). Nevertheless, we now know that there was considerable variation within the empire in terms of local administration and linkage to Cuzco (e.g., Barcena 1992; Berberian 1991; D' Altroy 1992; Gonzales 1983; Hayashida 1995; D. Julien 1994; Levine 1985, 1992; Lorandi 1983; Lorandi and Cremonte 1991; Mallpass 1993; Morris and Thompson 1985; Niemeyer 1986; Niemeyer and Rivera 1983; Plaza 1976; Raffino 1982, 1993; Salomon 1986a, 1986b, 1987; SchjeUerup 1984; Stehberg and Carvajal 1986; Stehberg et al. 1986; Williams 1994; Williams and Lorandi 1986). The empire is now seen as far less monolithic than was formerly believed, and there is a growing awareness that the Inka imperial effort (including the organization of labor for agriculture, herding, craft production, and infrastructure maintenance) was shaped by the varied character of local polity, economy, and population size and density. Although Inka "conquest" could produce major transformations of local settlement and production (e.g., Hastorf 1990; Hastorf and Johannessen 1993), in other cases there appear to have been strong continuities with the pre-Inka past, especially in terms of local-level (as opposed to imperial-level) economies (e.g., Conrad 1977; Menzel 1959; Parsons 1998). The Legacies of Spanish Colonialism and Industrial Capitalism

In Chapter 2 we outlined the specific impacts of historicperiod transformations in the Peruvian central highlands. These included large population declines resulting from introduced diseases and forced labor in mines and textile workshops. By the later sixteenth century the Spanish policy of reducci6n (population resettlement) had begun to be fully implemented, resulting in the abandonment of many older settlements and the formation of new villages and towns modeled on Spanish urban planning. This was accompanied by Spanish efforts to extirpate indigenous religious ideology. By the time of independence from Spain in the 1820s, the impact of industrial capitalism began to be strongly felt, especially in mining and wool production. Remaining communally controlled resources, including agricultural lands and pastures, were increasingly alienated from indigenous people, many of whom became landless peasants and laborers. Even Indians who retained some control over productive resources became increasingly involved in the production of wool and foodstuffs for sale in local or regional commercial markets.

61

Summary and Conclusions

Our overview of Central Andean cultural development indicates six main stages: (1) The growth of simple chiefdoms during the Early Formative (2000-900 B.C.), with florescent developments in the major valleys along Peru's central and northern coasts. (2) The appearance of larger, more complex chiefdoms during the Middle Formative (900-400 B.C.). Although the lower valleys of Peru's central and north coasts remained at the core of this development, some parts of the adjacent highlands also participated, and similar societies began to develop in the unusually productive and strategically situated Titicaca Basin in the southern highlands. This development was characterized by formal public buildings, formal ritual iconography, population growth, and agricultural intensification through canal irrigation in the coastal valleys. Interzonal and interregional exchange expanded and intensified. Some coastal and highland areas remained peripheral, particularly in the southern half of the Central Andes. (3) The appearance of small states during the Late FormativelEarly Intermediate Period (400 B.C.-A.D. 600). The best known and most florescent of these polities (Mochica, Lima, and Nasca) were centered in the major coastal valleys. Nonetheless, some highland areas also witnessed more rapid change, particularly in the Wari region of the Peruvian south-central highlands where a strong stylistic linkage with decorated coastal Nasca ceramics suggests new forms of interzonal interaction. The coastal state heartlands witnessed rapid population growth and a major expansion of canal irrigation. The first presence of statelike polities in highland settings (Wari and Tiwanaku) may indicate new forms of interaction between more specialized herding and agricultural groups. (4) The development of large, expansive states during the Middle Horizon (A.D. 600-1000), with the major centers (Wari and Tiwanaku) situated in the southern half of the Central Andean highlands. From this point onward, northern Peru became increasingly secondary in pan-Andean geopolitical terms. These shifts suggest the full integration of more specialized puna herding and kichwa agricultural economies, and the emergence of strategic highland regions as the loci of dominant states or protoimperial systems. (5) An era of state collapse and rebuilding, comprising the Late Intermediate Period and the Late Horizon (A.D. 1000-1532), culminating in the Inka empire. Inka state building was deeply rooted in the LIP, and archaeologists are just beginning to understand more about this development. The Inka empire itself is now seen as internally varied, with imperial administration and organization of production constrained by the highly varied nature of local population, polity, and economy. The location of the Inka capital, Cuzco, at the kichwa-puna juncture indicates the continued importance of fully integrated, large-scale agricultural and herding economies. (6) The massive transformations after European contact in

62

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junin, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

A.D. 1532, beginning with the involuntary labor obligations, resettlement, and major declines of native population resulting from introduced diseases and overwork. The impact of industrial capitalism after the early nineteenth century produced further separation between indigenous people and strategic resources.

The Cultural Ecology of Historic-Period Central Andean Herders and Cultivators We are interested in the relationships between the size, composition, location, and boundary definition of interactive units of herders and cultivators. Most of the relevant ethnographic and ethnohistoric studies are from places where local production and consumption are not strongly integrated into the commercial economy. These studies may be most relevant to prehispanic contexts where strong centralized organization was weak or absent. Our discussion may thus be least applicable to the Late Horizon, when our study area was incorporated into the Inka empire, and perhaps also to the Middle Horizon, when Wari may have exercised some degree of supraregional control. Nevertheless, state institutions and commercial markets do have an impact, even in more remote modern communities: children often attend state schools; births, marriages, and deaths are registered by government employees; taxes (including military service) are sometimes paid to state authorities; laws prohibiting state-defined transgressions are typically well known and sometimes enforced by outside authorities; outside buyers often purchase crops, wool, and handicrafts; access to land is usually structured by externally imposed rules concerned with ownership and transference of property; money minted and printed by the state circulates and is used by virtually every household to purchase some necessities; opportunities for wage employment lure young people away to work in distant places; most rural Indians find themselves in the lowest stratum of an imposed socioeconomic hierarchy that constrains their upward mobility; and many local officials are partly empowered and legitimized through their roles as functionaries at the bottom rungs of state-imposed administrative structures. In most cases these external forces have been in play for centuries. Modern individuals, households, settlements, and communities are not unmodified remnants of prehispanic societies, nor do they behave according to purely local, or even purely regional, constraints and possibilities. From this perspective, our insights from historic-period data are probably least applicable to the Early and Middle Formative, a time before the existence of state organization anywhere in the Central Andes. Since the later sixteenth century, cattle and sheep have increasingly replaced domestic camelids, particularly at elevations below 4000 m asl (Flores 1980). Orlove (1977a) has noted the major increase of commercialized sheep and alpaca production over the past 150 years-with llamas relegated to a sec-

ondary role in most places. In some cases, herd expansion has encroached upon prime agricultural lands. Even in remote valleys in Peru's southern highlands the sale of alpaca wool is sometimes the dominant factor determining local settlement patterning (Webster 1971, 1973). Because many of the best agricultural and herding lands have long ago been overtaken by commercial operations, we lack good ethnographic analogies for the prehispanic use of these highly productive zones. This reduction of local community access to the most productive agricultural and herding lands began in the later sixteenth century with Spanish policies of resettlement and concentration (reducci6n) ofIndian populations (Gade and Escobar 1982; Molinie-Fioravanti 1986), and it accelerated after independence from Spain in the early nineteenth century when Western industrial capitalism extended its reach into the Central Andes (Orlove 1977a). This has had the effect of increasing competition between local Indian communities over remaining fields and pastures. Yamamoto (1981 :95), for example, describes the periodic ritualized checking and marking of community territorial borders-occasions that sometimes produce violent confrontations between neighboring groups that accuse each other of land encroachment. Dedenbach-Salazar (1990: 153-54) reports sixteenth century references to overt hostility between herding communities stemming from conflicts over formally marked pasture borders.

Agro-pastoralists The degree to which agriculture and herding are locally combined today in the Central Andean highlands varies a great deal. Some herders practice no cultivation at all, while others are committed about equally to both herding and agriculture; in other cases herding is dominant while cultivation is secondary; at the other end of the spectrum are predominantly agricultural households with a few domestic animals. People who live permanently above about 4200 m asl do little or no cultivation, especially if they live more than a few hours travel from productive agricultural land. Households in the lower puna and upper kichwa are likely to combine some mixture of herding and agriculture, particularly if they are not too far away from both pasture and agricultural land. Some modern households and settlements in the lower puna may be differentially involved in herding and agriculture because of historic factors. For example, in their discussion of the popUlation nucleation caused by Spanish colonial reducci6n policies, Gade and Escobar (1982:438) note that "mindful that pastoralism would undermine the efforts to control and acculturate the natives, the early colonial administrators tried to ensure that farming would be the primary mode of livelihood in the reducciones." Spaniards attempted to monopolize commerciallivestock production, and so Indian villagers were further discouraged from the pursuit of herding divorced from agriculture. Although many reducci6n villages had begun to break apart by the end of colonial rule, some degree of modern agro-

Modeling Central Andean Agriculture and Herding

pastoralism may be a legacy of these colonial policies. Gade and Escobar (1982:441-42) estimate that in the Peruvian southern highlands a typical nuclear-family agro-pastoral household, about equally dependent on both agriculture and herding and working with simple hand tools, can cultivate a maximum of approximately six hectares of land (a considerable portion of which is fallow at any given time) while maintaining a mixed flock of approximately 25 sheep, 4 llamas, 3 cows, and a horse; actual numbers of animals and size of cultivated plots vary widely. For inhabitants of the lower puna who are primarily sheep-llama herders, but who also have a secondary involvement in potato cultivation, Flannery et al. (1989: 1045) find that household llama flocks of 25 animals are about average, while flocks of 15 animals are considered "small," and flocks of 35-40 animals are "excellent" (the numbers of sheep are unspecified). Where agriculture and herding are combined today, the traditional agro-pastoral economy is almost always based on camel ids and tubers (Yamamoto 1985:91, 1988:144). Cereal cultivation is much less compatible with herding because maize, in particular, requires fertile soil, a warmer climate, and a labor intensity that conflicts strongly with herding activities (see S. Chavez 1999, for a significant exception in the Titicaca Basin). A typical situation for agro-pastoral communities in Peru's central and southern highlands is described by Fonseca and Mayer (1988). Individual households in each of these communities directly control agricultural fields and pastures situated between 2000 and 4000 m asl. Terrain above 4000 m asl is occupied by dispersed hamlets of full-time herders who exchange their wool, hides, textiles, dried meat, dung, and other animal products for potatoes, maize, a variety of vegetables, coca, and craft products produced or acquired by their agropastoral neighbors (Mayer 1971). Several writers (e.g., Camino 1980; Camino et al. 1981; Fujii and Tomoeda 1981; McCorkle 1987; Orlove 1977b; and Yamamoto 1981, 1985) describe agro-pastoral societies in which a community's major nucleated settlement is strategically placed at an intermediate elevation (typically between 3000 and 3600 m asl), while many people spend much of their time in smaller hamlets and camps at higher and lower elevations (2500-4500 m asl) engaged in different kinds of herding and agricultural tasks. Murra (1972:433) describes a similar mid-sixteenth-century community system in the north-central highlands of Peru. At any given time, segments of the entire community population (several hundred people grouped in scores of households) could be found widely dispersed throughout the entire community territory. In some cases the centrally located major settlement was used only for occasional residence by people cultivating crops in the vicinity or, on a few days each year, by the entire community for major ceremonies (Webster 1971, 1973). In another variant of modern agro-pastoralism, most members of a community spend virtually all their time at agricultural tasks in their kichwa settlements, while a few households (or even hired specialists) care full-time for the community's flocks herded together in neighboring puna pastures (e.g., Flores

63

1985:262; Fonseca and Mayer 1988; Guillet 1987). Most reports of modern kichwa agriculturalists who also keep domestic herbivores indicate that a high proportion of these animals are introduced species-----donkeys, horses, cattle, goats, and sheep (Custred 1977:77). These species may be more compatible with a more sedentary mode of life, and perhaps less dependent than domestic camelids on puna plants for their dietary needs-they supplement, rather than complement, agricultural production. More complex interactions between larger groups of socioeconomically integrated herders and agriculturalists are described by Bastien (1978a, 1978b), Harris (1982, 1985), and Platt (1982, 1986) in the highlands of western Bolivia. Here, specialized kichwa agriculturalists and puna pastoralists reside in separate settlements at different elevation zones between 2500 m asl and 4500 m asl. These settlements are integrated within multisettlement groupings (ayllus) whose territories extend over the full elevation range. The distances between herder and agricultural settlements are considerable, up to several dozen kilometers. Complementary agricultural and herding products move between these settlements through an intricate web of interhousehold linkages. These linkages are maintained through well defined rules of zonal exogamy and ritual focused on interzonal integration (see below). The Complementarity of Herding and Cultivating Economies

Because the Central Andes lies within tropical latitudes, ecological zones succeed each other rapidly with change in elevation (Rhoades and Thompson 1975). Unlike highland areas in temperate regions, there is often little or no spatial separation between herding and agricultural zones, and these zones often overlap and interdigitate. Central Andean herders can use most pastures during the entire annual cycle, unlike herders at temperate latitudes for whom many pastures are seasonally unavailable because of cold or aridity (e.g, Barth 1961; Vincze 1980). Consequently, Central Andean herders have little need for long-distance transhumant or nomadic mobility (lnamura 1986). Came1id pastoralists do not need to cultivate grain or grass for their animals-unlike many temperate-latitude herders who must store up fodder for the winter season (McCorkle 1987; Vincze 1980:392). Access to both herding products and cultivated plants is essential for highland populations (e.g., Flores 1979; Harris 1982, 1985; Nachtigall 1975; Thomas 1976; Tomoeda 1985; Winterhalder and Thomas 1978; Yamamoto 1985). Without herding, the entire puna zone would have remained marginalized and peripheral. Without access to dependable supplies of tubers and cereals produced in the kichwa, the diets of puna herders would be calorically and nutritionally incomplete (Table 4.1), especially since Andean herders do not consume the milk or blood of their living animals (Yamamoto 1988: 144). Furthermore,puna herders have historically relied on kichwa-produced maize for the chicha (maize beer) and maize-paste figurines commonly used in their rituals (e.g., Tomoeda 1985:295; Yamamoto 1985:94).

64

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]unfn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Table 4.1. Common foods for puna camelid pastoralists in southern Peru. Food (most are soups)

Contents

mikhuna

boiled water with ulluco, isaFIO, and chuno

chuno caldito

ground chuno with water, salt, and a little meat

chilli-haku

wheat and barley ground and mixed with alpaca blood

toktochi

flour and water, plus eggs and milk, boiled in oil

yawallongani

blood sausage, plus eggs and milk, boiled in oil

patas-kaldu

soup made by boiling alpaca feet and lower legs in water with toasted maize

kankachy

roast camelid or sheep meat

k'ispiilo

ground kaniwa, water, lime, and salt-molded into cakes for use in trading expeditions

tostado Source: Flores 1979:42

toasted wheat or maize flour

Conversely, without access to the wool, textiles, pack-animal transport, meat, skins, and dung (for fertilizer and fuel) produced in great quantities only by puna herders, kichwa cultivators would have lacked adequate supplies of basic raw materials for tools and clothing, and would have found their diets much less varied and appealing. They would also have been hard pressed to transport their harvested crops from field to storehouse, or to move heavy loads of animal dung for fertilizer at planting time. In the ritual realm, kichwa agriculturalists commonly make use of aborted camelid fetuses and live animals as offerings and sacrifices in ceremonies (Bastien 1978a:37). Nevertheless, Mazess and Baker (1964) found that only 2.5-3.5 percent of the diet of an isolated puna group in southern Peru consisted. of foods produced below 4000 m asl. Similarly, Yamamoto (1985:94) notes that potatoes comprise 80 percent of the diet for one lower puna community in southern Peru. Herding Ecology

Generally speaking, where puna and kichwa zones interdigitate closely and local vertical relief is relatively high, there is a greater tendency for herding and cultivating to be fully combined at the household and local settlement levels (e.g., Brush 1976; Fujii and Tomoeda 1981; Gade 1975; Inamura 1986; Orlove 1977b; Valle 1970; Webster 1971, 1973; Yamamoto 1981, 1985). Such an ecological configuration can occur anywhere, but it is most predominant in the northern third of the Central Andean highlands (Fig. 2.1), an area where herding and agriculture may always have been integrated at the local settlement level (McGreevy 1989). Where the puna and kichwa zones are separated by greater distances, and where local vertical relief is relati vely low, herders in the puna and cultivators in the kichwa are more likely to be specialized and separated (e.g., Browman 1974; Flannery et al. 1989; Flores 1979; Fuji and Tomoeda 1981; Harris 1985;

Platt 1982; Yamamoto 1985). Such ecological configurations are most predominant in central and southern Peru and adjacent Bolivia (Fig. 2.1). Part of this zonal specialization has to do with the conflicting labor demands of agricultural and herding tasks (McCorkle 1987). Inhabitants of the lower puna and upper kichwa often combine herding andagriculture and sometimes function as intermediaries between more fully specialized herders in the upper puna and more fully specialized agriculturalists in the lower kichwa (e.g., Flores 1985; Inamura 1981, 1986; Tomoeda 1985). Caring for Llamas vs. Alpacas. Recent ecological, skeletal, fiber, and DNA studies indicate that the two species of modern domestic camelids (llamas and alpacas) are descended from two similar species of prehispanic animals (Stanley et al. 1994; Wheeler 1995; Wheeler et al. 1995). These studies suggest that modern domestic camelids are the products of centuries of interbreeding between llamas and alpacas following the breakdown of more exacting prehispanic breeding practices. Today alpacas are generally much more numerous than llamas. This is because alpaca wool has such high commercial value, while coarser llama wool has very little. Consequently, llamas are used mainly as pack animals, and as a limited source of wool, meat, and hides for household use and interhousehold and intersettlement exchange. Casaverde's (1977:174) 1970 census in a highland district of southern Peru showed totals of 10,395 alpacas, 3,580 llamas, and 3,886 sheep (58 percent, 20 percent, and 22 percent, respectively). Similarly, Inamura (1986: 149) found in another puna locality that 70-80 percent of domestic animals were female alpacas, while the remainder consisted of male alpacas, llamas (of both sexes), and sheep. Inamura (1986: 151) has also noted the extent to which pastures reserved for alpacas have been improved through canal irrigation, while llamas are restricted to unimproved grazing land. This emphasis on alpacas is probably a product of modern commerce, and may not have characterized prehispanic herders.

65

Modeling Central Andean Agriculture and Herding

Table 4.2. Herd composition in two puna communities in northern Chile. Category

ALPACAS Females Sexed Males Castrated Males "Maltones" Young Subtotals Total % LLAMAS Females Sexed Males Castrated Males "Maltones" Young Subtotals Total % SHEEP Females Sexed Males Castrated Males "Ma1tones" Young Subtotals Total % OVERALL TOTAL Source. Gundennann 1988.104

Parinacota Community 4400 m asl AU2ust 1981 No. %

Sitani Community 3800 m asl Jan. 1977 No. %

Totals

No.

%

1240 161 251 103 351 2106

58.6 7.6 11.9 4.8 17.1 100.0 43.8

108 17 21 23 18 187

57.7 9.1 11.3 9.6 9.5 100.0 7.1

1348 178 272 126 369 2293

58.8 7.8 11.9 5.5 16.1 100.0 31.9

1183 132 141 121 265 1842

64.2 7.2 7.7 6.6 14.3 100.0 38.4

875 28 164 307 144 1518

57.6 1.8 10.8 20.2 9.5 100.0 57.8

2058 160 305 428 409 3360

61.3 4.8 9.1 12.7 12.2 100.0 43.6

529 59 20 48 199 855

61.8 6.9 2.3 5.6 23.2 100.0 17.8 100.0

742 25 29 123 6 925

80.2 2.7 3.1 13.3 0.6 100.0 35.3 100.0

1271 84 49 171 205 1780

71.4 4.7 2.8 9.6 11.5 100.0 24.4 100.0

4803

Flannery et al. (1989), for example, describe isolated modern herders in the Peruvian south-central highlands who combine llamas and sheep, with no alpacas. A more detailed breakdown of herd composition is shown in Table 4.2. Although these data derive from the arid South Andean puna, the high proportion of adult female animals and the low numbers of uncastrated adult males stand out consistently. Relative to alpacas, llamas are larger, stronger, and hardier, with less stringent dietary needs, a greater capacity to cope with predators, and an ability to carry burdens at elevations between sea level and 5000 m asl. In northern Chile and northwestern Argentina, llama flocks are routinely left unattended and uncorralled for weeks or months at a time (Gundermann 1988: 107). However, the common modern practice in the Central Andes, for both llamas and alpacas, is to corral them every night (e.g., Flannery et al. 1989; Flores 1979). Nighttime corralling of camelids is done for three primary reasons: (1) to provide protection from the cold and wet; (2) to protect flocks from their natural predators (mainly mountain lions, foxes, and condors); and (3) to discourage human rustlers. The nightly penning of camelids in corrals also facilitates dung collection

2630

7433

(for use as fuel and fertilizer), earmarking for identification, and checking on females' pregnancy status. At elevations below 4200 m asl, dung-rich corrals are commonly used as agricultural plots every few years (Orlove 1977b:95). McCorkle (1987 :71) reports that camelids are more capable than sheep of caring for themselves because they "will not stray far, will keep together in a group, and will often return home at night of their own volition ... and [they possess] a strong dominance hierarchy and a tendency to recognize only one or two human masters and ... a [camelid] band leader, and [consequently] they are more difficult to rustle." Nonetheless, the consequences for inadequate care of camelid flocks can be very severe. Palacios (1977b:61), for example, notes that prolonged droughts and serious snowstorms can produce losses of 50-60 percent. Alpacas are much more delicate and demanding in terms of care and diet, and they are never used to carry burdens. They are more susceptible than llamas to diseases and infections, especially newborns and the very young. Flores (1979:90, 95) reports that young alpacas are seriously affected by mites and diarrhea, and have a mortality rate of 50-90 percent during the first three months of life; Custred (1977 :66) reports annual mor-

66

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junin, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

tality rates of 25-40 percent. Llamas are also affected by mitelinked diseases, but are more resistant to them. The severity of mites amongst modern camelid flocks may relate to the introduction of some parasites along with sheep in the mid-sixteenth century; consequently, prehispanic camelid herds may have been significantly less affected (Flannery et al. 1989: 102-4). Nevertheless, several sixteenth century sources refer to a serious, mangelike disease (earache) that affected camelid herds (Dedenbach-Salazar 1990:121-22). Because they must consume herbaceous plants that grow only at high elevations (Custred 1977:68-69; Palacios 1977b:20; Webster 1971: 177), and because they are so sensitive to microorganisms that flourish at lower elevations, alpacas are rarely found below 4000 m asl. The optimal elevation range for alpacas is between 4370-4700 m asl, and the only region below 4100 m asl where they have been successfully raised in historic times is the Titicaca Basin, at 3850-4000 m asl (Custred 1977:67). Llamas, on the other hand, thrive on a much more diverse diet, and can survive in marginal pastures that could not suppport alpacas. Palacios (1977b:20) notes that llamas can even digest certain cactus species (e.g., Opuntia sp.) and tala bush (Lepydophylum quadrangulare), fare that would be completely unpalatable for alpacas. Male animals of both species are typically taken to more marginal and distant pastures, while females with their young are pastured much closer to their corrals and in areas with better vegetation and more water. Because domestic camelids are gregarious and imitative of the behavior of a herd's dominant animal, one experienced shepherd can care for up to several hundred animals (Palacios 1977b:42). Most herds today are in the range of a few score to a few hundred animals. This size range has considerable time depth. A seventeenth-century source from the puna of western Bolivia (Dedenbach-Salazar 1990: 145-46) indicates that individual camelid herds were separated by sex and comprised 200400 animals; other seventeenth-century sources indicate the importance of dogs in herding. The grazing habits of llamas and alpacas are different enough so as to require different kinds of shepherding care. Palacios (1977b:39) notes that alpacas tend to cluster tightly in small groups within a restricted area while feeding, while llamas move much more widely and continuously. Adult male and female camelids are usually kept separated while grazing and while corralled in order to avoid two problems: (1) copulations that would produce "out of season" births during the dry season when colder temperatures and more limited pasture make it more difficult to care for very young animals; and (2) male sexual disinterest that can be caused by continuous, daily contact with females. Male llamas lose their sexual interest in females if they are herded together continuously for more than approximately eight days (Palacios 1977b:36). Consequently, successful mating can only occur by keeping uncastrated males and sexually receptive females separated most of the time. Some adult alpacas are shorn annually, usually in December and January, and yield about 1.5 kilos of wool; animals that are

shorn once every two years yield about 3 kilos of wool (Flores 1979:93). Because alpaca wool is so valuable commercially, alpaca herders devote great attention to the breeding and reproduction of their animals. This involves not only maximizing successful pregnancies and births, but also maintaining desirable wool quality (length, thickness, and color). Since white wool is the commercially most desirable, some effort is made to maintain herds of pure white animals (Flores 1979:91). Flannery et al. (1989: 112) note the abundant ethnohistoric evidence that in late prehispanic times camel ids of different colors and color combinations were preferred for different ritual activities. This may also have required additional care to prevent the indiscriminate intermixing of male and female animals of different colors. Alpaca herding requires the separation of animals of different sexes, ages, maturation stages, and reproductive status, and the penning of different categories of animals in separate corrals (e.g., Custred 1977:67-68). Specific tasks include: (1) mate selection to maintain desired vigor and wool color; (2) placing appropriate males and sexually receptive females together in special corrals for mating at intervals during December through February; (3) separating uncastrated adult males from pregnant females and unweaned young animals (in order to prevent assaults by the adult males); (4) castrating unruly males; and (5) caring for adult females and newborns in special facilities (usually small corral and hut attachments to larger corrals) during the birth period (December-February) when the very young animals are particularly susceptible to diseases and predators. Inamura (1986: 154) notes that young animals are sometimes placed in unoccupied corrals where mud, damaging to the animals' health, has not built up. Although llama herders have little concern with the color of their animals, they still need to separate receptive adult females from aggressive males (Flannery et al. 1989:96-97). They accomplish this by castrating most male animals at three to four years of age, leaving only a few sexually active adult males, selected for their more docile dispositions. Most castrated male llamas become pack animals. Special care for pregnant females and very young animals is also critical because of the low overall fertility of domestic camelids. Flannery et al. (1989:99) report, for example, that on average llamas give birth only once every other year, with no more than 4-6 offspring per individual animal during her lifetime; Flores (1979:90) indicates that female alpacas typically have 5-7 lifetime pregnancies. Palacios (1977b:34, 36) reports a fertility rate of about 85 percent for llamas vs. only about 50 percent for alpacas. Some domestic camelids in southern Peru are presently classified in 53 named categories, according to variations in sex, color, age, reproductive status, and species type (Flores 1986: 147). This complex classification terminology reflects herders' concern with maintaining the physical integrity of different categories of their animals. A four-category classificatory scheme for animals that need to be herded separately may

Modeling Central Andean Agriculture and Herding

be more typical today (Inamura 1981:69): (1) female alpacas and their immature offspring; (2) uncastrated male camelids; (3) female llamas and their immature offspring; and (4) cargo llamas (castrated males). Camelid Meat and Hides. Adult llamas weigh between 75125 kilos (Palacios 1977b:34); adult alpacas are aproximately two-thirds to three-quarters this size. Domestic camelids are usually killed for their meat and skins when they are too old to be useful anymore for breeding purposes or as cargo animals, or (in the case of alpacas) when they cease to yield sufficient wool. For llamas this occurs at no more than about 15 years of age (Flannery et al. 1989:99); alpacas are usually slaughtered by the time they are eight years old (Palacios 1977b:36). Such unproductive camelids are annually culled from the herd at the beginning of the dry season (May and June). Palacios (1977a: 157 -59) reports that on average about 15 percent percent of a camelid herd is butchered annually. Flores (1979:41) has found that a "relatively poor" herder family consumes the meat of 3-4 animals per year, while "the well-to-do are accustomed to slaughtering up to one animal a month" for their household needs. Some camelid meat is dried and salted, for both household use and for sale or exchange, and this activity is best done at the coldest, driest time of the year (June and July). Such freeze-dried meat (charki) can be stored for "a number" of years (Orlove 1977b:92-93). The Camelid Herders' Annual Round. This summary represents an "average," "typical" round; specific details may vary somewhat over time and space (Custred 1977; DedenbachSalazar 1990:121-22; Flores 1979; Palacios 1977b:42-48; and Tomoeda 1985). (1) Birth, breeding, and shearing during the wet season (December, January and February). Females about to give birth are removed to better pastures and drier quarters where there are fewer parasites and fewer opportunities for very young animals to drown in streams, ponds, or swamps. For alpacas, human assistance is often needed during the birth process itself; llamas are apparently more self sufficient in this regard. Special vigilance over newborns is desirable during the first few weeks of life to prevent their straying and being seized by predators. Adult female animals are sexually receptive within about 24 hours after giving birth; the gestation period is 11.5 months. Uncastrated males are mixed with receptive females for several days. Pregnant animals are identified with special colored cords, and are then kept separated from the males. Adult virgin females, not naturally receptive to males, are mixed with males for impregnation in special ceremonies. Shearing is usually done during this same period, when nighttime temperatures are relatively high and the newly shorn animals are exposed to a minimum of extreme cold. (2) Census of new Iambs, curing of sick animals, and ownership marking of new animals. These activities are carried out in the context of ceremonies during March and April. (3) Taking animals to dry-season pastures. These movements begin in early May. Adult males and females are kept

67

separated. Older animals are slaughtered during May, and their meat is dried, to be exchanged later in the year for agricultural products. Slaughtering is best done by two-person teams. (4) Routine dry-season pasturing care, May-November. At least two separate herds must be identified and maintained by herders who possess both llamas and alpacas: (a) adult females and their young (alpaca and llama females can be herded together); and (b) uncastrated adult males. After young animals are weaned at an age of about 8 months (usually beginning in September), they are separated from other animals in order to prevent rough treatment by their mothers and a loss of sexual interest by maturing males if they remain with adult females. These still immature animals cannot be put with the herd of uncastrated adult males because the latter are too aggressive and rough. Each of these groups requires its own shepherd. Overly aggressive adult males, or males which do not appear to be good breeding studs, are castrated and then herded together with adult females. (5) Trading expeditions to acquire agricultural products and other goods from kichwa settlements occur throughout the year, although most are in the dry-season (beginning as early as March and April, and extending at intervals through September and October). Camelids per Household. For specialized puna herders, primarily dependent on domestic animals for their livelihood, Custred (1977:69-70) finds that "wealthy" households have flocks containing upwards of 200 llamas, 180 alpacas, and 20 sheep; maximal household herds are up to 500 alpacas and 200300 llamas. "Poor" herding families, who usually work parttime as seasonal laborers for "rich" households, may have small flocks of 3-5 llamas and 3-5 alpacas. Yamamoto (1981:130) notes that herder households in southern Peru, with no involvement in agriculture, have camelid flocks averaging 200-300 animals. Other puna households in the region who combine camelid herding with some cultivation of bitter potatoes, have flocks averaging 100-200 animals. Palacios (1977b:63) reports that a herd of 250 camelids is the preferred size for adequate maintenance of a primarily herding household, while 150 animals/household is said to be the minimal number required for full-time herders. A typical household camelid herd potentially yields a maximum of 160 new animals/year (Table 4.3). For the much drier puna of southwestern Bolivia, in a region averaging 3700 m asl that provides inadequate pasture for alpacas, and where herders also cultivate a few potatoes and some quinoa, T. West (1988) reports that the size of household llamasheep flocks varies as shown in Table 4.4. The importance of camelid dung as household fuel in the almost-treeless puna cannot be over-emphasized. Winterhalder et al. (1974: 10 1) calculate that a typical herder household requires access to the dung output of approximately 75 llamas in order to obtain the 30 kilos of fuel needed daily for domestic cooking. Dung fuel is supplemented today by peat and kerosene.

68

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junin, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Table 4.4. Size of household llama-sheep flocks in southwestern Bolivia, according to T West (1988·192) Household Wealth No. Llamas No. Sheep "Rich" 100-200 100-200 "Average" 40-50 40-50 "Poor" 15-30 15-30

Table 4.5. Exterior dimensions of a typical herder's house, after Arangueren (1975:123-24). Meters Section of house rear length 4.2 front length 3.4 left-side width 2.3 right-side width 2.1

Table 4.6. Annual pasture requirements in the Juninpuna.

one camelid 20-25 ha of "least favorable" asture Source: Matos 1994:45 (based on unpublished 1984 ONERN studies).

Settlement Patterns. Modern puna herder communities typically comprise several score households configured in two principal types of settlements: (1) a large, centrally situated nucleated village or small town, in which each household maintains its own infrequently used residence; and (2) numerous small hamlets (estancias), spaced several kilometers apart, usually made up of one extended family or several related households (e.g., Flannery et al. 1989; Flores 1975, 1979; Fonseca and Mayer 1988; Gade and Escobar 1982; Inamura 1981, 1986). The central village/town is a focal point for interaction between herders and higher levels of regional and national administration; it is also a source for certain necessities (e.g., radios, batteries, metal tools, medicines, and some items of clothing) that cannot be obtained elsewhere. Modern herders' hamlets typically comprise clusters of nuclear-family households headed by closely related men (e.g., Flannery et al. 1989:50). These households pool their labor for tasks associated with herd management, house and corral building and repair, caring for aged relatives and children, and trading expeditions. Groupings of a few dozen hamlets typically comprise a local "district" community-whose existence is often recognized as the lowest rung of the state-imposed admin-

istrative hierarchy. Community cohesion is also achieved through integrative rituals that involve all members petitioning or giving thanks to the supernatural forces (wamani) that control the well-being of themselves and their herds (see below). Most puna pasture controlled by Indian herders is communally owned, with some areas reserved for common grazing while others are designated for the exclusive use of particular extended family groups (e.g., Ossio 1983:50-52). This form of land tenure has sometimes resulted in local-group endogamy in order to conserve traditional land titles. A common pattern over the past century has been for sons to inherit their fathers' rights to herds, pastures, and herding tools, while daughters inherit their mothers' rights to agricultural lands and equipment (Ossio 1983:57). In other cases, local exogamy functions to link puna herders to kichwa agriculturalists (Bastien 1978b; Flores 1975: 14). The interplay between endogamous and exogamous tendencies produces considerable variability in local social structure. The hamlets are occupied for periods ranging from a few weeks to a few months, according to the frequency with which flocks must be moved to fresh pastures. Outlying camps are often used as temporary shelters for shorter periods. Inamura (1981 :69-70, 1986: 153-54) describes a pattern of household transhumance in which, during the dry season, each family moves back and forth between its main hamlet residence and one or more secondary residences (astanas or cabanas) located about a half-hour's walk apart. During the wet season a family often occupies its secondary residence(s), normally situated in more marginal pastures that are inadequate during the dry season. Dedenback-Salar (1990:145) notes sixteenth century references to long-term residence of youthful herders living in small huts in remote pastures, well removed from their families' main households. In the wetter puna of central Peru, the movement of herds is typically less frequent and over shorter distances than in the drier puna of southern Peru and Bolivia. Animals are often moved between higher and lower elevations and between swampy and non-swampy zones where different quantities and qualities of vegetation are seasonally available. Herders reside alternatively in larger or smaller settlements according to the interplay between their animals' needs and pasture availability. Puna herding settlements tend to be much less nucleated than agriculturalists' settlements in the kichwa (e.g., Flores 1975: 15; Gade and Escobar 1982:446-47). This difference relates to the herders' need for movement between pastures, and to the agriculturalists' dependence upon irrigation with permanent canal and terrace facilities that require community administration and cooperative maintenance. During the wet season (DecemberMarch) suitable pasture is potentially available virtually everywhere in the Central Andean puna (Custred 1977). Herders must periodically move their flocks as pasture in any given locality becomes inadequate for one of two reasons: (1) because less vegetation is available during the dry season (May-September); or (2) because flocks exhaust the available grass within

Modeling Central Andean Agriculture and Herding

a few kilometers from the corrals to which they return every night. Well-watered pastures-along stream and lakeshores, around the edges of swampy ground (bofedales)-are always at a premium. Such localities are invariably sought after by herders because they provide the richest, most dependable, and most continuously available sources of feed for their animals. Bofedal pastures are often extended and improved through artificial irrigation and ponding (Flores 1984; Palacios 1977a; Orlove 1977b:95-96). Palacios (1977a: 166) describes two community pasture-irrigation systems that provide water to an area totaling about 2200 hectares through two main canals of 17 and 16 km in length. Efforts to control access to such improved pastures can produce intercommunity conflicts requiring the mediation of outside authorities (Custred 1977). Comparable competition over improved pastures is documented for the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (Dedenbach-Salazar 1990: 153-56). Herders' hamlets range from three to ten households (Custred 1977). The largest and most-occupied settlements are invariably near the best watered pastures, often strung out along stream or river margins (Inamura 1981 :68); the smallest and least frequently occupied settlements are usually found in more marginal pastures. The larger settlements typically contain the largest, most numerous, and most substantial human dwellings grouped somewhat apart from the camelid corrals. Houses are often rectangular in plan, with mortared stone walls, separate cooking and sleeping areas, and space for the long-term storage of cooking and eating implements, food, wool, textiles, dried meat, skins, and tools (Flores 1979:46-48; Inamura 1986:154). Such structures may also be constructed of sod blocks (S. Chavez 1998). These rectangular dwellings range from 2-3 m on a side up to 5.5 x 3 m (Flores 1979:48-49) (Table 4.5). These larger settlements, situated as they are near the best pastures, are usually occupied during the dry season, when more marginal pastures are least productive. Smaller herders' settlements typically contain rustic dwellings occupied by less than a full complement of household members. These buildings are often circular and casually constructed, with lower stone walls, suitable only for sleeping and light cooking; they are often constructed immediately adjacent to small corrals (Custred 1977; Flannery et al. 1989:43-45). These settlements are often supplemented by temporary camps where one or two individuals remain for short periods caring for animals in pastures too far from the hamlets for daily commuting. Such camps often comprise little more than a hut and a small corral (Inamura 1986:153). Camelid corrals are quite variable in size. Most have stone walls standing 0.8-1.0 m high, measuring 0.2-0.3 m thick, and enclosing areas between 80-1000 square meters; most corrals are 100-250 square meters in area; some corrals in the lower puna may be built of rectangular sod blocks (Orlove 1977b:95). Corral area is related to both function and flock size.-For example, some of the smallest corrals are set aside for giving birth and caring for very young animals and some corrals are used mainly for ceremonial purposes. Corrals in larger settlements

69

tend to be relati vely large and rectangular, while those in smaller settlements are likely to be smaller and circular (e.g., Flannery et al. 1989:43-57). In the relatively moist puna of Peru's central highlands, we might expect to find less differentiation between wet-season and dry-season herders' settlements, because herders are less constrained in where they can pasture their animals during the dry season. Nevertheless, as noted in Chapter 2, DedenbachSalazar (1990: 127) cites a 1534 documentary source referring to seasonal transhumance of full-time pastoralists in the Junfn puna. Over the annual cycle, individual herder households move back and forth between their residences in different-sized hamlets and camps, alternatively breaking apart and coalescing according to the dictates oftheir herds' pasture needs and to whatever constraints may be imposed by land tenure arrangements. Precise information on the camelid carrying capacity of different puna environments is scarce. Palacios (1977a:159, 1977b:60) indicates that humid bofedal (swamp-edge) pasture in southern Peru can sustain three camelidslha during the dry season. This compares with 1 camelidlha on non-bofedal pasture during the wet season. For the upper kichwa in the central highlands, Browman (1974:195) has estimated an average camelid carrying capacity of 50-125 animals per square kilometer (.5-1.25 animalslha); he suggests that it might be reasonable to double these figures. Matos (1994) has reported recent studies of annual pasture requirements for sheep and camelids in the Junfn puna (Table 4.6). It is difficult to generalize about camelid carrying capacity from these diverse figures. The most comprehensive general estimate is probably that of Matos (1994:45) who calculates that some 3,850,000 ha of available pasture in the Junfn puna is presently capable of sustaining 150,000-200,000 camelids (an average of 04-.5 animalslha) on a long-term basis. Matos suggests that the prehispanic carrying capacity of this same area may have been significantly higher, owing to modern environmental deterioration caused by over-grazing. Herders' Cosmology and Ritual. Herders strive to insure an adequate supply of healthy animals by performing formal rituals to propitiate and thank the supernatural forces that control animal life. In common with kichwa agriculturalists, puna herders share a belief in a primary life-giving force (a remote being, usually referred to as Pacha Mama), and a hierarchy of more approachable regional and local spirits, usually referred to as Apu or Wamani (e.g., Flannery et al. 1989: 182; Flores 1977:229; Gow and Gow 1975:148-49; Matos 1994:39; Zuidema and Quispe 1967). The wamani, who are considered to be the ultimate "owners" of camelid flocks, are typically associated with prominent hills, but also with lakes, cliffs, quebradas, springs, and other natural features (e.g., Duviols 1984:208-9; Rowe 1980), and it is commonly to these places that rituals are directed, or where they are performed. Landscapes are traditionally visualized in anthropomorphic terms, as living organisms comprised of different componentsincluding natural features, animals, and humans (both living

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un{n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

70

Table 4.7. Some sixteenth-century Quechua terms relating to camelid herding. Quechua Terms llama sapa michi-q or llama michi-q llama kamayuq llama-yuq llama chakraruna llama kama-yuq qhapaq llama wakcha llama aklla huk kancha llama llama kancha kancha kancha Huk t'aka sinri llama chunku or chunku chunku-lla chunku-paya apa apa-ntin muchi-ku-q-mi-quaru

Meaning herd of camel ids "Ia persona que guarda y pastorea al ganado" the person who guards and pastures the flocks herder serving the state "ganadero que tiene ganado" institutional or individual herder who owns animals "el ganadero en ganadaos y no en chacras" herder without agricultural fields "ovejero diestro en criar las ovejas de la tierra" herder skilled in raising camelids "los rebanos del estado," or "duenos ricos" state herds, or rich owners non-state herds or non-wealthy owners herders who care for flocks linked to Inka religious cults different kinds of camelid corrals

terms having to do with managing cargo llamas, or herding groups of camel ids in general

"enviar el ganado de dia al pasto para volver a la noche" take animals out to pasture by day and return at night qarqu-waylla-man "echar al pasto muchos dias" take out to pasture for many days, without returning to main base wa)llla pasture llaqta common pasture panpa communal pasture Source: Dedenbach-Salazar 1990: 123-51 (our English translations).

and dead) that must interact appropriately in order for the whole organism to survive and function (e.g., Bastien 1977a). Ritual performances (including pilgrimages, dances, fighting, offerings, and feasting) often occur at, or near, shrines placed at locations deemed to be particularly important within the anthropomorphized landscapes. Such places are often at ecological junctures (e.g., between puna and kichwa zones), or along major quebradas that separate sociopolitical territories. Rituals are organized on household, community, regional, and interregionallevels. The herders' shrines themselves are diverse: they may consist of subterranean chambers (Quispe 1984; Valderrama and Escalante 1988: 142-40); miniature houselike structures (Gow and Gow 1975:150); small chapels (Paz 1988; Poole 1982; Quispe 1984:6lO); boulder cairns (Flannery et al. 1989:172); special corrals (Flannery et al. 1989:172; Flores 1977:233-34; Quispe 1984:611-12); cemeteries or isolated tombs (Bastien 1978a: 182; Duviols 1976a:287); freestanding boulders (Duviols 1984:208-9); simple natural openings into the earth's surface, or holes covered with rocks (Bastien 1978a:57). These shrines often comprise a complex of widely dispersed features, to which

people from related households and hamlets periodically come in processions to deposit offerings (Quispe 1984). Herders' rituals take several different forms, but almost always include feasting and the deposition of offerings. Offerings include small stones (sometimes bezoar stones, removed from camelid intestines), zoomorphic stone or ceramic figures, small figurines made of maize paste or grass, marine shells, coca leaves, camelid fetuses, sacrificed adult camelids or parts of these animals, cloth, flowers, maize beer (chicha), or other forms of alcohol (e.g., Arangueren 1975; Nachtigall 1975). These offerings symbolize the essential generative life force (enqa) that is necessary for successful animal reproduction, growth, and well being. The life force of the material objects slowly seeps away, and so must be periodically renewed through ritual performances associated with the deposition of new offerings (Flores 1975, 1977). If these ritual performances are not carried out properly, the camelid herds "on loan" from their wamani owners will desert their human caretakers. In her study of two early seventeenth-century documents that describe herders' rituals in the Junfn puna, Dedenbach-Salazar (1990:220-21) notes the special role of Lake Junfn, and neighbor-

Modeling Central Andean Agriculture and Herding

ing smaller lakes, as the places of origin and residence of wamani spirits. Participants in ritual dances used slings to hurl special stones, or anthropomorphic figures made of straw, into the lakes. Ethnohistoric Perspectives on Herd Management. Murra's (1965) and Dedenbach-Salazar's (1990) ethnohistoric studies offer insights into camelid herd management at the time of European contact. The sixteenth- and seventeenth-century sources reflect the powerful impact of Inka imperial administration. Murra (1965:189) has emphasized that in the Inka domain, "there were at least two dimensions to Andean animal husbandry: that of the defeated ethnic groups, now a peasantry, and that of the Inca state. Access to animals and to herding services must be viewed in both contexts." The abundant sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Quechualanguage terminology related to herding makes clear distinctions between different categories of herds, herders, and pastures (Table 4.7). This terminology indicates that herding was a pillar of highland Andean economy, from the local community to the overarching Inka empire. Herders, animals, and pastures had different statuses according to how they related to different organizational levels. Differential wealth and prestige were defined by different degrees of access to camelid resources. Some herders were members of local communities who contributed their shepherding labor as tribute to the state; others were more closely linked to Inka state institutions as herding specialists. Some animals and pastures were identified with local communities, while some were granted directly to individuals in return for different kinds of service to the state; others were associated with different kinds of state secular or religious institutions. Murra's (1965:192) examination of sixteenth century documentary sources pertaining to the Titicaca Basin shows herds in the 1560s ranging up to 500-1700 camelids per household, with modal sizes between 10-20 and 50-100 animals. The herders (akllu) who cared for flocks belonging to religious shrines sometimes managed herds of over 500 animals (Murra 1965:202). Some form of communal grazing of flocks totaling several hundred, or even several thousand animals, was practiced at that time, with specific ownership of individual animals denoted by distinctive ear-markings. It seems unlikely that the very large size of some documented sixteenth century communal herds in the Titicaca Basin (up to 16,846 animals in one case) could ever have been duplicated elsewhere: pastures in other parts of the Central Andean puna are simply not extensive enough to accommodate such large numbers of animals in any localized area. Murra (1965:197-98) reports that during the early to midsixteenth century in the Lupaca region (western Titicaca Basin), large communal herds estimated at 600-3,750 animals were cared for by approximately 15 herders. These herders were probably "sent out on rotation for each ayllu within the moiety ... [and] performed herding duties as part of traditional reciprocity." Under the Inka, Murra suggests, such rotating shepherds were probably replaced by full-time herders.

71

Agricultural Ecology In Table 2.24-A we summarized the altitudinal and productive ranges of indigenous cereals and tubers. Only a few tuber species are important in the lower puna; above 4200 m asl agricultural production is insignificant because of cold temperatures. Except for the lakeshore zone of Lake Titicaca (S. Chavez 1999), highly productive agriculture is confined to the kichwa, below 3850 m asl. Because of the uncertainties of rainfall, canal irrigation is often necessary to achieve high agricultural productivity. At elevations above 3000 m asl the unpredictable onset and termination of frosts compound agricultural problems. High agricultural productivity is maintained through the application of fertilizers (e.g., animal dung, ashes, household wastes, and grasses) and the maintenance of fallowing regimes. The high proportion of sloping terrain means that terracing is often needed. Because there are so many different altitude-defined crop niches, and because there is such great altitude variation within short horizontal distances, agriculturalists who seek to exploit multiple niches face a complicated schedule of field preparation, fertilizing, planting, weeding, caring for growing crops, guarding and harvesting mature crops, and maintaining an infrastructure of terraces, irrigation canals, and field walls (Camino 1980; Camino et al. 1981; J. Matos et al. 1958). Different variants of cereals and tubers have different planting and harvesting times. Many tasks must be performed at the same times as some of the most demanding activities related to herding. Growing and standing crops can be seriously menaced by the predations of domestic animals. Consequently, where herding and cultivation are locally combined, cultivated fields must be strongly fenced and/or the daily movements of local flocks must be carefully controlled (McCorkle 1987). The advantage of multi-niche cultivation is that different crops are available over a large part of an annual cycle, and poor harvests in one place may be offset by good harvests in another. Traditional agriculture employs a variety of sectorial fallowing regimes that maintain long-term soil fertility and minimize the risk of poor harvests for individual households (e.g., Camino 1980; Camino et al. 1981; Goland 1992; Guillet 1981; Mayer 1985; OrIove and Godoy 1986). These regimes demand considerable investment in administration, definition and protection of community territory, and walking back and forth between scattered fields. Additional walking and camping time are necessary if some members of agricultural households devote themselves to the care of domestic animals in higher pastures well away from their main residences. Agricultural Tasks. Table 4.8 lists the principal agricultural tasks, not including the maintenance of irrigation, drainage, and terrace facilities. Much agricultural land in the Andean highlands is terraced. Some terraces, especially where irrigation is used, are wellmade, stone-faced features. Less elaborate terraces are also abundant: e.g., the "andenes rusticas" (rustic terraces) described by Fonseca and Mayer (1988:70). The latter features lack stone

Pre hispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un{n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

72

Table 4.8. Agricultural tasks. Activity

Name of Task Abonamiento

Fertilizing, with animal dung, grass, or ashes'

Barbecho or Chakmay

Breaking ground usually with a foot plow

Siembra Aporque

Planting Mounding earth up around plant stalks

Deshierbe

Weeding

Cosecha

Harvest

Source: Camino et al. 1981: 176. 'Small quantities of commercial fertilizers are now also used.

Table 4.9. Agricultural zones in highland southern Peru.

B, "Luki Manda"

Elevation (m asl) 3800-4100

C, "Dray Manda"

3200-3800

0, "Anexo,,2

3200-3400

E, "Tierras de Maiz"

2600-3200

Zone

F

Crops mainly bitter potatoes plus oca and izano Potatoes', izafto, oca, olluco, habas 2 types of potatoes minor maize mainly maize3; some potatoes; minor beans, squash, yacon, and racacha coffee coca for cash sales

Below 2000 Source: Cammo et al 1981: 176-87. 'Up to 30 varieties of potatoes are planted. 2This sector is 12 kms distant, and therefore less intensively used than "C." 3Several varieties of maize are planted and kept separated.

retention walls, and take advantage of naturally occurring breaks in slope whose level or gently sloping surfaces are stabilized by rows of bushes, cactus, or small trees. These latter features are similar to what R. West (1968) has called "semi-terracing" in highland Mexico. Traditionally, fertilizer is applied in three main ways: (1) by setting up temporary corrals atop the terraced fields and placing livestock there for a few days; (2) by hauling animal dung from pastures to fields on pack animals; and (3) by covering the fields with cut grass (both local, and brought in from the puna), which is allowed to dry and then turned under during the barbecho. Ashes from household cooking hearths are also used. Since the mid1970s there has been minor use of commercial fertilizers. There are few detailed studies of vegetal fertilizers in contemporary Andean agriculture. This is an important topic that merits more investigation. King (1911 :202-12), for example, documented the critical importance of "green manure" (grasses, weeds, stalks, leaves) in the intensive agriCUlture of eastern Asia in the early twentieth century, before the advent of chemical fertilizers in that region, and in a context where animal dung

Cultivation Practices 6 rotating sectors; I in cultivation and 5 in fallow 6-sector rotational sequence (see Table 4.10) 6-sector rotational sequence I yr. of potatoes, followed by several years of maize interplanted with minor crops. Use of oxdrawn plows. Far from community; commercial use only

(including human) was insufficient relative to the need to maintain continuously high productivity. King's study suggests that the systematic and large-scale application of green manure could have been much more important in precolumbian Central Andean agriculture than it seems to be today. Land preparation prior to planting is usually done with the traditional Andean foot plow (chaquitaclla). Typically this hard work is performed by a husband-wife team: the man thrusting the iron-tipped tool into the earth to bring up the clods of fresh earth, and the woman overturning the clods to fully expose the newly turned soil. Planting is similarly done in a field that has been plowed some weeks or months earlier, with the woman inserting the seed into the turned (or re-turned) earth. The hilling-up of crops is generally undertaken about a month or so after initial planting (Yanamoto 1981: 126). Here the footplow is employed to open a shallow ditch (surco), about 30 cms wide and 20 cms deep, alongside each row of plants. The earth from this ditch is then thrown up around the sides of the growing plants with a J-shaped wooden mattock tipped with an iron blade (Orlove 1977b:93-94). This operation serves to reduce

Modeling Central Andean Agriculture and Herding

the number of plant stems and to prevent the buildup of excessive humidity around the growing plant. Mature tubers are dug out of the earth with a mattock. Some are taken directly to the dwellings for consumption and storage, but many are placed in grass-lined, brush-covered pits in or near the field. Layers of tubers, usually separated by grass layers according to variety, are placed within such pits, from which they are removed as needed. These pits typically measure 1.2 m in diameter and 1.5 m deep (Fujii and Tomeada 1981:47-48). Mature stands of wheat, barley, and quinoa are cut with an iron sickle, and are commonly threshed and winnowed in or near the fields. Threshing is accomplished by dumping the cut grain onto stone floors where it is trod upon by oxen or beaten with wooden rods. Winnowing is performed by tossing the threshed grain and chaff into the air with wooden forks so that the wind removes the lighter chaff, while the heavier grains sink back to the earth. Quinoa grains and adhering chaff are tossed by hand into the air from a small, circular screen device, onto which the chaff-free seeds fall back. Mature maize ears are left to dry on the stalks in the fields, then detached by hand and carried to the permanent residences where they are stored until used (about 70 percent for making chicha) (Fujii and Tomoeda 1981:45). Agricultural Zones. Camino's (1980) and Camino et al.'s (1981) five-division classification of agricultural zones in southern Peru appears to have broad applicability (Table 4.9). Ideally, each household has direct access to fields in each of the five zones within its community territory. Zone C is by far the most important in economic terms. Zone A, not listed in Table 4.9, is uncultivated herding land above 4100 m asl. Sectorial Fallowing Regimes. Orlove and Godoy (1986: 171, 185) summarize the general characteristics of 51 ethnographically known sectorial fallowing regimes in the kichwa and lower puna between central Peru and western Bolivia: (1) Each of the sectorial fallowing systems is a land-use system which consists of a set of lands associated with a set of households. (2) The set of lands are divided into a number (n) of sectors. The lands which make up each sector are contiguous. (3) All households own plots in most or all sectors. (4) There is a sequence of n-year-long uses for the lands. Some of these uses consist of the planting of a specific annual crop or small number of annual crops. The set of crops may be different among the successive cropping uses out of the total set of uses. The other uses are fallowing, combined with grazing. All the fallowing uses occur after all the planting uses. (5) All n sectors pass through the same sequence of n-yearlong uses. In any given year, one and only one sector will have each cropping use, and the number of sectors which are fallowed is equal to the number of fallow uses in the n-year cycle. (6) When a sector is used for planting, each household has access to usufruct rights to its plot or plots in that sector. (7) When a sector is used for fallowing and grazing, all households have access and grazing rights to the entire sector. (8) This land use is maintained and enforced by institutional means.

73

These fallowing systems occur only where rainfall-based cultivation predominates, and an average of 350 households participate in each system. Irrigated land tends to be privately controlled (Fonseca and Mayer 1988:78-80; Guillet 1981: 142). Where commercial agriculture has made substantial inroads, there has been a considerable deterioration of traditional sectorial fallowing (e.g., Guillet 1987:86-87; Mayer 1979). Guillet (1981: 145) argues that community oversight is necessary in order to maintain the long-term integrity and viability of sectorial fallowing regimes: the adherence of individual households to rules about fallowing, planting sequences, and grazing rights affects the well-being of the entire community. Individual households are often dependent upon infrastructural facilities (terraces, canals, roadways, fences) that can only be adequately maintained built and maintained through community effort. The communities studied by Camino et al. (1981) employ a six-sector fallowing system. This means that communal lands are subdivided into six different sectors. Each designated sector follows a specific crop-rotational sequence (Table 4.10), and at any given time each of the other five sectors in the zone is at a different point in its rotational cycle. This deliberately produces a maximum mix of crops and fallowed land over time and space-a result which buffers against crop failures caused by unpredictable and highly localized climatic variations. For each household at any given time, all available cultigens are growing somewhere within its usufruct holdings, while some of its lands are always lying fallow. Fonseca and Mayer (1988:72-74) provide a detailed description of an eight-sector fallowing system in central Peru. In any given year there are three sectors in use and five in fallow. Individual households maintain use rights in each sector. Each year a new sector is opened to a six-year rotational cycle, and each year a sector that was cultivated the previous year begins a three-year fallow period, whose conclusion will bring the full six-year cycle to a close. Community management is crucial to viability of the enterprise. The great variability of sectorial fallowing regimes reflects the flexibility of these systems as they are periodically readjusted according to changes in community and household demography (Mayer 1971). The basic factors that underlie and sustain sectorial fallowing systems are (1) low soil fertility, because of the slow buildup of organic material in soils of cold climates; (2) the scarcity and expense of fertilizer; and (3) the danger of erosion if sloping lands are cultivated or grazed too intensively (Fonseca and Mayer 1988:75). These circumstances are somewhat alleviated on irrigated land, and this is one reason why such land is usually not included in sectorial fallowing regimes. Locally elected officials (camayoq) enforce rules about planting, fallowing, crop rotation, and grazing by making frequent tours of inspection (Fujii and Tomoeda 1981:54). As recompense for their services, these officials are provided with residential structures and a small share of each household's crop. The Annual Round. Figure 4.1 graphically depicts a typical annual round of agricultural tasks in the south Peruvian region

74

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un(n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Table 4.10. Rotational sequence in 6-year cycle in Zone C (see Table 4.9). Year

Crops

Tasks

1

potatoes interplanted with izafio

2 aporques (I st in Oct. 2nd in Nov.-Dec.)

2

mainly oca; sometimes olluco or izafio

no barbecho; no fertilizer applied

3

oca, olluco, izafio; sometimes fava beans

no fertilizer applied

4

fava beans

some fertilizer applied

5

fallow, grazed by livestock

6

fallow

grazed by livestock barbecho and main application of fertilizer

Source: Cammo et al. 1981: 179-82. After Year 6, the cycle begins again with Year I.

Elevation Jan Dec Elevation (masl) +----=:.:::.._....L___=....:..::_....I....~=-=:..:...-....I....---=~~....I....---=:..;:.!.._...l-_=..:;,;,,:..:_.L...----=~_.l.-_'_":..;,..;._'_____='_____JI___ ____'_ _ ___l._ _ __t_ (masl)

..........•..................

5000+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------r 5000

•••••••••••••••••••••

4100f-------------------------------~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·~·,·-·-·-·-·--·-·-·-·-·-·-·--·-·--~~--------------14100 3800+-------__------------------~~--~~~~~~~-----~~------~~~--. .~~~~---------r3800

3200+---~~------~~------~~~L--------~~----------------~~.-~~~~---3L-~'"--~~~3200

2300+-------------------~~----------~~------~~~------------------~~--~~--------~~~2300

KEY • •• IIII

wvvw _

I:S33J

herding activities barbecho (mainly with foot plow) harvest hilling-up plants planting preparation of chuno and ccalla

Figure 4.1. The annual round of agricultural tasks in highland southern Peru (adapted from Camino et al. 1981: 188-89, Fig. 6). Each activity unit is shown as a discrete lineal segment that pertains to a specific crop in the specific sector rotation cycle. This diagram illustrates the tasks engaged in by each household within a sectorial fallowing regime. No information is available about the timing of barbecho below 3200 mas!.

studied by Camino el al. (1981: Fig. 6) (excluding infrastructural maintenance tasks, such as cleaning irrigation canals or repairing terraces). This iIIustrates three key points. (1) Agricultural work is virtually continuous through the year, although there is comparatively more activity during two periods: March-June, and September-November. The least busy time, late June through early August, is the time when chuno (freeze-dried potatoes) and ccalla (dried oca) are prepared.

(2) Tuber harvesting is nearly continuous during the year, excepting only October and November. Within any given sector and for any given crop variant, tuber harvesting begins earliest at lower elevations, and extends to fields at higher elevations through the year. (3) Two main agricultural-task seasons can be distinguished (especially within the economically most important terrain between 3200-3800 m asl): (a) February-July, a time ofland prep a-

Modeling Central Andean Agriculture and Herding

ration and harvesting; and (b) August-December, a time of planting and weeding. Harvesting invariably proceeds from lower to higher elevation for given sectors and crop variants; land preparation, planting, and weeding for given sectors and crop variants begin at higher elevation and proceed to lower elevations through the year. This dichotomy in the timing of agricultural tasks reflects the additional time required for plants to reach maturity in the colder, less fertile soils at higher elevations. Occasionally labor demands exceed a household's capacity, and temporary outside workers must be hired, or reciprocal labor exchanges made with other households. Another response, for households that also have small herds of llamas or sheep, is to bring these animals to the fields during the busiest harvest periods: the animals can be cared for at the harvest site, and immediately put out to graze and defecate in the stubble of the harvested fields (Yamamoto 1981: 123-24). In some cases, kichwa households that combine herding and agriculture find it convenient to combine all their flocks under the care of a few shepherds during periods when agricultural tasks are particularly demanding (McCorkle 1987:65). Settlement Patterns. For most households, many different agricultural tasks are likely to be going on at the same time and in widely scattered fields. Many households also have some involvement in herding activities above 4100 m asl. The household thus faces a major challenge in its efforts to effectively apportion and direct its labor force toward dispersed activities that often overlap in time. McCorkle (1987:59) has suggested that the complexities of labor allocation may select for extendedfamily household structures, in which more people can cooperate in the performance of essential tasks that are dispersed in space and time. The Catholic ritual calendar, with its numerous saint's days and fiestas distributed over the year, is an important reference for beginning and ending different agricultural activities (Camino 1980:29). The scheduling of labor demands produces a dispersed settlement pattern, typically with a large, centrally situated settlement of a few hundred people situated at 3000-3600 m asl in the heart of the most important tuber-producing zone, and numerous small hamlets (estancias) scattered widely at higher and lower elevations. Many households also have intensively cultivated kitchen gardens close to their houses inside the large villages (McCorkle 1987:62). Most people spend most of their time at the main settlements, but there is usually some permanent occupation of the smaller hamlets as well, although often not by complete households. As previously noted, some central settlements are actually mostly vacant much of the time, while most people spend most of their time in small hamlets concentrated at higher elevations where it is more convenient to care for camelid herds (Webster 1971, 1973). In the Cuzco region, small huts for temporary residence typically measure about 4 x 2 m in area, with stone walls and a thatched roof, a cooking hearth and grinding stone. New roofing thatch and portable kitchen utensils are brought to the structure for use during the time of its occupation (Yamamoto

75

1981: 119-20). Seed potatoes are usually stored in stone bins or atop straw mats at or near dwellings in the lower puna, where low temperatures prevent premature sprouting and rotting (Yamamoto 1981: 124). At the appropriate time, these seed potatoes, together with loads of animal dung for fertilizer, are transported on pack animals to fields at lower elevations. Because domestic camel ids defecate in a single locality in both corrals and pastures, it is particularly convenient to collect their dung. Water Management. Irrigation has greatly expanded agricultural production in the kichwa and lower puna; in many cases irrigation canals are directly incorporated into extensive systems of terraced fields (e.g., Fonseca and Mayer 1988; Mitchell and Guillet 1993; Treacy 1989). Unlike irrigation systems on the desert coast (e.g., Netherly 1984), highland irrigation systems are usually small scale, fed by springs or puna lakes. They are usually managed at the local community level, with annual communal canal-cleaning and repair operations overseen by locally elected officials (Fuji and Tomoeda 1981 :56-57; J. Matos et al. 1958:63). Irrigation management can be difficult. Skar (1982: 150-51), for example, has noted that "more than 10 households sharing the same irrigation ditch tends to lead to trouble." Irrigation networks often provide the economic foundations for important social units, and the canals themselves often serve to physically delineate and symbolize these units on the ground (B. Isbell 1974; Ossio 1978a, 1978b; Sherbondy 1982, 1986, 1993; Zuidema 1986). Fonseca and Mayer (1988:78-80) distinguish two different types of irrigation systems: intensive (watara) and extensive (vichka). Watara land typically comprises 10-20 percent of a community's total irrigated terrain and is cultivated every year. The irrigated fields are on well-built terraces, close to the largest settlements, and are heavily fertilized with household wastes and animal dung. Multihousehold work groups usually cultivate these watara fields cooperatively, and also work together to maintain the irrigation canals. Vichka land is farther away from the settlements, with casually built terraces, less irrigation, little or no fertilization, periodic fallowing, and with fields worked by single household units. A lesser-known form of Andean water management is the qocha system, described by Flores (1984) for the lower puna of the northern Titicaca Basin. Qochas are shallow depressions (usually circular, averaging about 100 m in diameter) that collect rainwater runoff. It is uncertain whether these features are natural or artificial. The ponded water soaks into the underlying earth and provides sufficient moisture for crops. Today, in an area just northwest of Lake Titicaca, some 256 square km of these depressions (approximately 20,000 individual qochas) remain in use, planted with rotational sequences of potatoes, quinoa, kafiiwa, wheat, and barley; an additional 128 square km are found nearby in an abandoned state (Flores 1984:89). Qochas also seasonally provide household water, and they are prized as pastures during fallow years. Flores (1984:94) notes how easy it is to miss seeing remains of abandoned qochas-we may easily have overlooked them in our own surveys in the Junin puna.

76

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junin, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Qochas appear to be much larger than the qochawina discussed by Orlove (1977b:95-96). The latter average only 7-10 square m in area and 1-2 cm deep. Like Qocha, they function to collect rainfall run-off. Commonly "several" are found in an area of 1-2 hectares in the lower puna. The qochawina are mainly a form of improved pasture, although tubers are occasionally grown in them. Swampy zones in several parts of the Central Andean highlands contain numerous prehispanic ridged fields (Erickson 1987, 1988; Hastorf and Earle 1985; Kolata 1986). These fields, analogous to Mexican chinampas (Armillas 1971; Parsons et al. 1985), apparently did not continue to be used in historic times. Agriculturalists' Cosmology and Ritual. Like herders, agriculturalists are concerned with propitiating and thanking wamani spirits who are associated with neighboring hills, lakes, and other places. The wamani are ultimately responsible for the supply and well being of crops and domestic animals. As in the case of herders, Christian beliefs and ceremonies have become part of modern agriculturalists' ritual performances. Duviols (1973:167, 171, 178-79) has emphasized the degree to which herders' and agriculturalists' cosmologies were strategically integrated to facilitate complementary exchange between the two groups in the seventeenth century. B. Isbell's (1974,1978) study of the Chuschi community in south-central Peru provides a good example of the kichwa agriculturalists' vertically structured local universe. There are four ecological zones: (1) the main settlement itself (pueblo), situated at 3150 m asl; (2) the quichwa, agricultural land where maize can be grown, immediately surrounding the village at elevations between 2600-3300 m asl; (3) the mayo patan~ a zone of low-lying land, below 2600 m asl, along the river; and (4) the sallqa, more distant terrain between 3300-4000 m asl, where maize cannot be grown. Each of these four principal zones is, in tum, subdivided into two sectors, referred to as "upper" (hanay) and "lower" (uray). Variations on this vertical zonation are widely known throughout the Central Andean highlands. In many cases these local universes also contain a puna herding niche, at elevations above the limits of effective agriculture (e.g., Bastien 1978a; Harris 1978, 1982, 1985; Platt 1982, 1986; Skar 1982; Valderrama and Escalante 1988; Valle 1970). Zonal subdivisions are typically complementary in their functions-for example, the upper and lower sectors of the main village contain, respectively, the architectural centers of religious (the church) and secular (the district administrative building) authority. In Chuschi, the borders of these ecological divisions and subdivisions are often physically marked with shrines (often small chapels) where formal rituals are performed. Integrative ritual performances focus on the saints images and crosses associated with the main church and with many of the borderdefining chapels. At intervals the "minor" saints and crosses are brought in ritual processions from the small chapels to the main church, where they are briefly reunited with their "mother" images.

Many of these community rituals are associated with communally performed tasks, such as cleaning irrigation canals. Other components of community ritual focus on water sources (springs and lakes) to which offerings (including coca and chicha) are carried in formal processions from one chapel to another, where offerings are made and where the minor saints' images are replaced after their stays in the main church. Processions to and from the chapels typically begin and end at the main settlement, where additional offerings and feasting often occur. Ritual significance is often attached to points where major irrigation canals converge, and community cemeteries may be placed at such locations. Exchange between Puna Pastoralists and Kichwa Agriculturalists Today herders and agriculturalists exchange their complementary products and services in three main ways: (1) through impersonal buying and selling at commercial marketplaces in towns and larger villages; (2) through noncommercial expeditions that link trading partners along traditional routes traversed by llama pack trains; and (3) labor and product exchanges between relatives living in different ecological zones (Bastien 1978a; Flores 1985; Fonseca and Mayer 1988; Harris 1982, 1985; Mayer 1971; Platt 1982, 1986). Before the advent of motorized transport, large annual or semiannual regional fairs were held in strategic places (usually in puna localities with adequate pasture for hundreds of pack animals for 1-3 weeks) in order to redistribute nonlocal products for which there was only infrequent demand (Wrigley 1919). Commercial markets and fairs probably have little relevance for prehispanic exchange, but trading expeditions and interhousehold exchange may provide more useful analogies. Trading Expeditions. It is puna herders who invariably organize and undertake trading expeditions today. Traditionally, pack llamas have been the only effective way to move quantities of material through rugged highland landscapes. Even today the high cost of gasoline and the absence of adequate roads in many areas means that motorized vehicles cannot always move effectively. Donkeys are apparently never used as pack animals in these trading expeditions. Because of the high costs for their feed and breeding, horses and (especially) mules are economically viable as freight carriers only in commercial or state-sponsored enterprises. Only puna camelid herders possess large numbers of cargo llamas. Because these herders typically are situated between ecologically complementary zones (kichwa, montana, and desert coast), they occupy a strategic position vis a vis the interzonal movement of complementary products. These herders continue to be important as transporters of goods between agricultural communities at lower elevations. Individual pack llamas are capable of carrying burdens of 25-55 kg, depending on length of journey. Llamas begin to be trained for transport work at about two years of age, and are

77

Modeling Central Andean Agriculture and Herding

Table 4.11. Trading expeditions from the Chalhuanca community in 1970.

Areas

Costa

Communities Visited

Sihuas

Cam amI

Months of trip Duration Mode of transport

March-April 15 days llamas

Feb.-Apr. 8 days truck

Goods offered

meat

meat, money figs, aji, rice

maize, fruit

purchase

barter

figs, maize, wheat, barter and purchase Source: Casaverde 1977:179.

Goods obtained Form of exchange

Upper Kichwa

Kichwa (CoHca Quebrada) Cabanaconde Huanca Tapay Huambo Liuta May-July May-July 12 days 10 days llamas llamas meat, wool, meat, wool, cloth cloth

usually ready for full service when they are three years old. Groups of related men in herding communities organize trading expeditions, usually comprised of 20-30 pack animals (up to 50 can be managed by a single experienced man), covering 10-30 km/day in daily marches of 8-10 hours. Llamas can go without food or water for several days on such journeys. Packtrain management is greatly facilitated by the presence of welltrained lead animals who are easily managed and who help keep subordinate animals in order. Caravan routes are typically marked by the presence of stone-walled corrals, placed at intervals of a day's travel, intended for overnight encampments (Concha 1975:87; Flannery et al. 1989:106; Flores 1979:94-95; Inamura 1981:69). Inka imperial caravans of the early sixteenth century comprised 400-800 pack llamas (Dedenbach-Salazar 1990: 168). The management and infrastructural support of such large caravans would have been much more complex than the comparatively small modern undertakings. According to Murra (1965 :20 1), in the Lupaca region of the western Titicaca Basin, under Inka administration "every year, after the rainy season was over, hundreds of llamas were dispatched to the [Pacific] coast, carrying wool, potatoes, charki (dried meat), and other highland commodities in exchange for maize ... " Groups of 40-50 men, supplied from the various local ayllu communities, accompanied the llamas on trips lasting 2-3 months. Although these sixteenth-century exchanges were in the context of administered relationships between core zones in the Titicaca Basin and outlying colonists in the coastal valleys, some degree of indi vidual barter exchange also occurred during such expeditions. This seems comparable to Duviols' (1973:173-74) and Dedenbach-Salazar's (1990:101) reports of seventeenth-century exchanges between herders in the Junin puna and agriculturalists at lower elevations (see Chapter 3). Today, trading expeditions vary in length between a few days and a few weeks, and typically involve groups of 3-10 related men and their animals. They move along traditional routes be-

maize, wheat, barley barter

Cororaque

Paucartambo

july-August 8 days llamas meat, wool, cloth, coca, sugar, barley, wheat, beans barter

Aug.-Oct. 40-60 days llamas figs, aji, meat, cloth, llamas chuno potatoes barter and purchase

tween their established trading partners at lower elevations from whom they acquire maize, quinoa, potatoes, fruit, coca, and pottery in exchange for dried meat, wool textiles, salt, dung, and harvest-transport services. Boys often accompany their fathers or uncles in order to learn the routes and procedures, and to meet the trading partners and their families, with whom they eventually will come to have personal ties themselves. The typical pattern is to make several short expeditions, of a few days' duration, to nearby upper-kichwa areas, and a few longer expeditions, up to several weeks in length, to more distant places at lower elevations in the kichwa, the Pacific coast, and ceja de montana (e.g., Bandelier 1910:87; Casaverde 1977; Concha 1975; Flannery et al. 1989: 108; Flores 1979; Inamura 1981; Tomoeda 1985). Salt is commonly moved in trading expeditions between its puna source areas and consumers in the kichwa (e.g., Matos 1994:35-37). Some puna herders spend significant amounts of time in extracting and packaging salt. Concha (1975:74-76) and Inamura (1981 :73), for example, note that some puna herders make special expeditions of 2-8 days duration to salt sources they control in order to acquire quantities sufficient for their trading expeditions. Because salt sources occur primarily in the puna, and because only puna herders control large numbers of pack llamas, in traditional Andean economies only puna herders can acquire and move salt in any quantity. Table 4.11 illustrates the trading acti vities of a typical herding community in southern Peru. Two patterns emerge from these data. First, most trading expeditions occur during the dry season, especially for those of greater than one week's duration. The only wet-season expeditions undertaken by the Chalhuanca herders are to the rainless Pacific coast. Second, although much of what these herdertraders carry for exchange are puna products (meat, skins, cloth, llamas), they also supply their trade partners with products from other zones (e.g., coca, sugar, fruit) that the herders acquire in

78

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un[n, Peru, Volume i, Part i

the course of their travels from one lower-elevation community to another. Concha (1975:82) notes that the puna herders who organize and undertake trading expeditions usually lack good information about (1) the precise time of the main crop harvests in specific kichwa agricultural settlements, and (2) the relative success or failure or availability of specific crops in specific settlements. Analogous uncertainties also exist for the kichwa agriculturalists, at the other end of the exchange relationship, who are dependent upon the puna-based traders for key goods and services (including transporting harvested crops from fields to storehouses). It is difficult for the agriculturalists to plan the precise timing of their harvests if they remain uncertain about when the herder-traders will actually arrive to assist them in this essential task (Inamura 1981 :70-72). These uncertainties produce great concern and stress on the part of those involved. integration of Pastoral and Agricultural Economies through Ritual When specialized herders and cultivators live in close proximity (within a day's travel), it becomes possible for them to exchange complementary goods and services in more regular and predictable ways. As in the case of the long-distance trading expedition described above, these relationships are often defined and validated in ritual terms and through affinal ties between intermarried households. In such cases, specific groups of puna herders supply specific groups of kichwa agriculturalists with such things as dung and animal transport at planting or harvesting times when agriculturalists most urgently require them for fertilizing their fields and carrying their crops from field to storehouse. Such visits are also occasions when herders bring dried meat, textiles, and other things to their agriculturalist neighbors. In return, the visiting herders are supplied by their kichwa hosts with lodging and meals, and with supplies of recently harvested tubers and cereals to take back home. Harvest times are particularly appropriate for this kind of herder-cultivator interaction. It is at this time when the stubble and weeds of recently harvested fields serve as excellent fodder, when the harvested fields are in need of the manuring provided by a few days of animal grazing, and when the agriculturalists are most likely to have surplus supplies of the tubers and cereals needed by herders (McCorkle 1987:66-67). The extent of intermarriage between puna herders and kichwa agriculturalists varies greatly today. Tomoeda and Fujii (1985:301), for example, report that no more than 1 percent of all marriages in one district they studied are of this type. In other nearby places, however, the puna-kichwa intermarriage rate is as high as 60 percent (Inamura 1981:76). Intermarriage between herders and agriculturalists obviously facilitates access to complementary products and resources that become available through the normal channels of kin-based sharing and reciprocity. On the other hand, community exogamy can dis-

perse rights to land, fields, and herds-basic resources that often can remain fully concentrated and consolidated only through community endogamy. The difficulties of establishing bonds of intermarriage between puna herders and kichwa agriculturalists are often overcome through building other kinds of reinforcing linkages, typically defined and validated through formal ritual, between these complementary groups. We will now consider several interrelated aspects of such ritual. Anthropomorphic Landscapes. Ethnographic studies of the isolated Qollahuaya in western Bolivia (Bastien 1978a) describe local groups (ayllus), typically comprising many hundreds of individuals, that occupy well-defined territories extending over areas measuring several dozen kilometers in length and width. These ayllu groups incorporate dispersed settlements of specialized puna herders and kichwa cultivators into integrated socioeconomic units with interhousehold exchange between relatives living in different zones. Ayllu borders are defined by major quebradas where ritual performances linking adjacent ayllus occur. The QoUahuaya are particularly well described in this regard, but comparable anthropomorphized landscapes in other parts of the central Andes have also been observed (e.g., Allen 1982; Gow and Gow 1975; and Vokral 1991). Classen (1993) and Zuidema (1983) suggest that a living landscape metaphor is deeply rooted in Andean cosmology and polity. Qollahuaya ayllus maintain their territorial integrity and socioeconomic integration through belief systems that emphasize the role of human beings as components of anthropomorphized landscapes. Both living and dead human beings are key agents in maintaining the well being of these landscapes. The Ii ving accomplish this essential task by adhering to rules about marriage, residence, exchange, burial, and ritual. People, places, and products are all endowed with complementary qualities that derive in large part from their origin in different elevation zones, and all components ofthe living landscapes are "nourished" by their associations over time and space with people, products, and places possessing ecologically complementary qualities. It is by means of ritual offerings at ayllu shrines that the living landscape is nourished. Each such ritual offering involves products from all of the main ecological zones, as well as the presence and participation in the ri tual of people who are associated with each of these zones. The largest shrines and the most important rituals typically occur at intermediate locations on, or near, the puna-kichwa border. Burial Ritual. The importance of deceased ancestors and their mummified or interred remains in household, community, and imperial ritual is well documented (Allen 1982; Bandelier 1904; Dillehay (ed.) 1995; C. McEwan and Van der Guchte 1992; Salomon 1995; Zuidema 1973, 1977a, 1990). These ethnographic and ethnohistoric sources describe the public veneration of ancestor mummies, public feasting, and public renewal of burial offerings. Regional Pilgrimages. Several studies (e.g., Poole 1982, 1991; Reinhard 1985; Sallnow 1987, 1991; Zuidema and Poole

79

Modeling Central Andean Agriculture and Herding

1982) emphasize the importance of major ecological junctures (often where principal puna and kichwa zones border one another) as the loci of regional pilgrimage shrines. These pilgrimages typically incorporate multicommunity groupings of puna herders and kichwa cultivators who interact at these strategic loci to insure continued productivity and interaction through feasting, dancing, material exchanges, and ritual offerings. Ritual Fighting. An extensive literature (e.g., Gorbak et al. 1962; Hopkins 1982; Orlove 1994; Platt 1986; Skar 1982) describes practices, extending back at least 200 years, of regularly scheduled intracommunity and intercommunity ritualized conflicts (tinku). These feature confrontations between groups of young men armed with slings, bolas, whips, or clubs, who are supported by groups of women and older men who perform dances, prepare feasts, and encourage the fighters. The total number of participants varies from several dozen to several hundred. Serious injuries and even deaths occur, and there is some indication that these, and the flow of human blood in general, are esteemed as signs of future good harvests or successful animal breeding. These ritual battles are often competitions between moieties of dually structured communities. When intravillage moieties are involved, the individual settlement itself becomes the "stage" for ritual fighting, and the centrally located cemetery and church situated on the border between the two moiety divisions are the loci for fighting, feasting, or avoidance. There are also reports (Hopkins 1982; Platt 1986; Skar 1982) of ritual conflicts between more distantly linked, multi village groupings who share common sociopolitical borders along which ritual fighting occurs. Duviols (1973) notes a deep-seated distinction in the seventeenth century between adjacent groups of puna herders ("los lacuaz") and kichwa cultivators ("los huari") in the Peruvian central highlands. This dual opposition was manifested in several ways, including occasional physical violence; marked distinctions in language, costume, and association with different supernatural forces and different sacred places; exchange of complementary products; and bi-ethnic communities. Of particular interest is the "Danza de Guari-Libiac" ("Danza de Guerra"), an important ceremony in the integration of potentially hostile groups of herders and cultivators (Duviols 1973:175). This ritual-fighting performance appealed to the long-standing differences between puna herders and kichwa cultivators, emphasizing their traditional enmity while providing a ritualized basis for enduring interaction. The seventeenthcentury Danza de Guari-Libiac might be an ancestral form of modern ritual fighting, and perhaps a descendant of prehispanic forms of ritualized herder-cultivator interaction. Structures of Duality and Tripartition. There is an extensive literature on Andean structural duality and tripartition at all organizational levels (e.g., Gow 1978; Harris 1985; Izko 1992; Murra 1968; Netherly 1990, 1993; Paerregaard 1992; Palomino 1971; Rostworowski 1983; Sallnow 1991; Wachtel 1973;

Zuidema 1964). We have already noted the significance of structural duality in ritual fighting and in the performance of other integrative Andean ritual. We have also referred to the differentiation between puna herders and kichwa cultivators in the conceptualization and definition of this duality. Any formal distinction between two sectors can create a formally defined border that may function as a third division. In some cases this border zone becomes the location where public ritual linking the two sectors is performed at cemeteries, churches, shrines, processional routes, or feasting rooms. Summary (1) Herding and agriCUlture are basic, complementary components of Central Andean highland economy. Neither is complete or sufficient in isolation. (2) Agriculturalists who attempt to exploit more than one or two vertically defined subzones will tend to disperse their settlements so as to maximize access over the annual round to essential cultivation tasks at different times in fields at different altitudes. Herders are similarly obliged to disperse their settlements and corrals because of their need to move their flocks from one pasture to another. When nucleated, permanently inhabited settlements occur, it is likely that socio-political factors, not economic ones, are paramount as the determinants of settlement pattern. (3) Herding and agriculture may be combined within a single household or settlement. However, several factors encourage specialization and physical separation between puna herders and kichwa cultivators. Of particular importance is the difficulty of apportioning household labor to different essential tasks that overlap in time and are often widely separated in space. (4) Ideology and ritual playa major role in the integration of specialized puna herders and kichwa cultivators. Ecological variability, structural duality and tripartition, and the metaphor of living landscapes provide the conceptual foundation for this integrative ritual. The fundamental purposes of ritual performances are (a) to define and maintain social borders, and (b) to insure continued productivity of the bordered units and ongoing interaction between them. Moiety borders and the junctures of puna and kichwa zones stand out as the loci where these rituals are performed. Rituals include making material offerings at shrines, feasting and dancing in association with ancestral tombs andlor mummies, and engaging in ritual battles and pilgrimages.

Overall Summary and Conclusions Over 20 years ago, Morris (1978:20) posed "what may well be the single most interesting and difficult question in Andean studies: What constitutes the community?" It seems clear that traditional "communities" in the Central Andean highlands must be regionally defined, even at the local level. In part this is

80

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in iunin, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

because neither agriculture nor herding alone provides an adequate economic base for local groups that are parts of large, hierarchically organized societies in a highly vertical landscape. Integrating agricultural and pastoral economies requires a complicated scheduling of labor for diverse tasks that are so overlapping in time and so extensive in space that they often cannot be effectively managed or performed when they are locally administered. Two recent statements nicely articulate these problems. ... incorporating higher and lower zones into an overall [household or local community] production strategy ... increases the difficulties of scheduling labor. For example, in areas where two agricultural zones are exploited, variation in rates of plant growth and length of rainfall in relation to altitude produces a separate agricultural calendar for each vegetation zone. The problems of integrating an agricultural with a pastoral calendar are even greater. As a result, conflicting demands on household time and labor and the necessity for continuous vertical movement create an extremely complex scheduling problem. These disjunctions become a serious obstacle to the intensification of agro-pastoral production [in the context of household or local community management]. [Guillet 1987:84]

... access to labor may be more problematic than access to land. Grazing lands [in the puna] are communally held and freely available. However, their location vis-ii-vis agricultural workplaces often engenders spatial and ... labor disjunctions between cultivation and herding for the peasant household. Some of these disjunctions can be offset by choice of pasturing regime, at least partially or seasonally. Beyond this, certain socio-organizational strategies may be called into play. Predictably enough, most strategies involve aggregating animals and dividing up daily herding duties across two or more households. In other words ... households must forego their "ideal" of productive autarchy and seek assistance beyond the "domestic mode of production" ... in the ... "supra-household" sphere. Although villagers' small-scale pastoral associations are designed to combat dialectical disjunctions, they do so only imperfectly ... They are usually quite costly, not only materially, but also socially ... [and] they open the way to serious internecine conflict over animals and their care-due to the informal, dyadic nature of these contracts. Indeed, village pastoral associations not infrequently collapse from such conflict, leaving bitter feelings that may ripple distrust and factionalism through the entire community, and [that] may last for generations. [McCorkle 1987:72-73] Local economic autonomy during the historic period in the Central Andean highlands has often been imperfectly achieved. The ethnographic and ethnohistoric sources indicate that the difficulties of full agricultural-pastoral integration have often been alleviated through a variety of ritualized relationships between consanguineal, affinal, and fictive kinsmen living in ecologically complementary zones. However, these sources inform us most clearly only about possibilities that are feasible within the frameworks of Spanish colonial and Peruvian-Bolivian re-

publican state organization. These administrative systems have usually managed to keep the peace fairly well, but they have privileged distant elites: absentee landlords, or directors of extractive tributary or industrial enterprises. How are we to model relationships between puna herders and kichwa cultivators who might be embedded within other sociopolitical forms: e.g., pre-states (tribal or chiefdomlike polities), or more localized states in which elites live locally? For pre-state, kinship-based societies, we might expect to have a much greater predominance of household management of both production and exchange, with modest centralized redistribution of sumptuary materials, but where nobody is "keeping the peace" at the regional or interregional levels. In small states, local elites may have sought to implement acceptable levels of production, consumption, and redistribution in settings where good-will between elites and commoners may have been far more important for overall stability than during the historic period. In both cases, we might also expect more reliance than historically observed upon intercommunity raiding or warfare to secure whatever was locally in short supply. The historic-period data on local production and interzonal exchange derive from contexts where local and regional peace are externally imposed and maintained. Where such imposition is absent-as it probably was during much of the prehispanic era-we should question the full applicability of the historically observed arrangements. In the Central Andean highlands, the varied stresses of fully integrating agricultural and pastoral economies would appear to have evolutionary potential. Because such integration is both (a) so desirable, and (b) so difficult to achieve, we might expect that efforts directed at attaining it could have produced significant organizational change. The expected locus of such change would appear to be well above the level of the local settlement or the local community. Consequently, it is to the regional level and the supralocal community that we should direct our efforts to understand how and why this kind of organizational change may have occurred in the prehispanic past.

The Expectable Archaeological Correlates of Andean Agriculture and Pastoralism The discussion in this chapter suggests that there are two levels at which this problem might be addressed: the technological and the sociological. The former is relatively straightforward, while the latter is more complicated.

The Technological Level The tool kits associated with traditional Andean herding and agriculture are simple. Both herders and agriculturalists require sheltered domestic space within which to prepare and cook food, sleep, and perform some of their work. Herders need to pen up their animals nightly (although recall the llama herders in north-

81

Modeling Central Andean Agriculture and Herding

Table 4.12. Material correlates of Andean herd'mg techno I0 Activity Penning and Shearing Wool Separating Animals Material Correlate

Stone-walled corrals of different sizes and in different locations

Backed stone knives

~y.

Spinning and Weaving Spindle whorls (stone, bone, ceramic); weaving tools of wood or bone

. Itura tech no Iogy. Table 4.13. Material correlates of Andean agncu Activity Planting Ground Preparation Material digging sticks wi wooden digging Correlate stone weights; sticks; wooden foot-plows wi stone hoes wi stone or metal tips blades

Table 4.14. Material corre ates 0 f Andean exchange techno Iogy. Activity Transport Material Correlate wool and leather "saddle" bags; fiber and leather ropes

west Argentina who let their animals remain loose and uncorraled for weeks or months at a time [Gundermann 1988: 107]), and to keep different categories of camelids separated at certain times of the year. They also need to shear wool, spin and weave wool, slaughter and butcher older animals, castrate a majority of male animals, prepare hides and meat, and store surpluses. Some herders also need to accumulate and transport salt and dung, both for their own use and for exchange with cultivators at lower elevations. Agriculturalists need to prepare the ground for planting, plant their crops, weed their fields, harvest their crops, and store their surpluses. Agropastoralists need to do some of everything. Tables 4.12, 4.13, and 4.14 summarize our expectations about herding, agricultural, and exchange technology. Some items are obviously either perishable or so general in purpose that their specific functions might be difficult to infer in archaeological contexts.

The Sociological Level Our examination of historic Andean herders and agriculturalists reveals that the potential arrangements and spatial configurations of herding and cultivation operations are quite diverse and difficult to predict in any straightforward way; they are comprehensible only within the larger sociopolitical and economic settings in which they are embedded. This chapter also suggests that our best hope for resolving something of this complexity in prehistoric contexts is through settlement pattern archaeology. Nevertheless, there are some universal conditions and requirements that all herders and cultivators must cope with. They must have access to adequate pasture and fields. This means, for example, that herders must move their animals, and some-

Slaughtering, butchering, and castrating Backed stone knives

Preparing Hides

Storage of Surplus

Stone or wood scrapers and knives

Space in residences or out-buildings

Weeding

Harvesting

Storage of Surplus

wooden hoes wi stone blades; digging sticks

backed stone knives; wood "shovels" and hoes, some wi stone blades

space in residences or outbuildings; pits in fields or near residences; large ceramic vessels

Caravan Routes clusters of isolated, stone-walled corrals and huts at intervals of one-day's walk; patterned distribution of artifacts among linked households in different ecol.1 above 4000 m elevation

Figure 7.4. Distribution of 3-wall concentric ring sites.

Geography and Environment

o I

5 I I

I

km

limits of survey

• Four-Wall Concentric-Ring Sites

...-....- major rivers streams

I,'

I above 4000 m elevation

Figure 7.5. Distribution of 4-wall concentric ring sites.

117

118

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junfn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Chapter 8

Post-Formative Occupation Patterns and Trends

Here we are concerned with what the general configuration of occupation over time and space contributes to an understanding of long-term cultural change. After an initial discussion of long-term population trends, we will consider the Late Intermediate Period, our archaeologically best-known period, and from there proceed backward and forward in time.

Long-Term Population Trends There seems little doubt that there was substantial population increase in our survey area from the Early Intermediate through the Late Intermediate periods. Despite the difficulties involved, we will attempt to quantify this general impression. Because relative population size during the short Late Horizon remains much less certain (due to our inability to identify Late Horizon occupation which may lack Inka-style pottery), we will not make any further attempt to estimate Late Horizon population. In the following discussion, all LIPILH sites are lumped together with those of the LIP. Although the EIPIMH may encompass a period of time over twice as long as the LIP or LIP/ LH, we believe that most of our EIPIMH occupation actually dates to approximately the last 500 years of that era, a period of time much more comparable in length to that of the LIP. Consequently, a direct comparison of overall population estimates for the EIPIMH and LIP seems justified. Overall EIPIMH and LIP populations can be compared on the basis of two measures: (1) the total number of occupied hectares, and (2) the total number of households. Neither estimate can be made with great confidence, and both are subject to considerable qualification. Estimates of occupied hectares are simpler to make, and so we proceed first with this; however, we think that our subsequent estimates of household numbers are more realistic and useful as measures of relative population size.

Occupied Hectares Table 8.1 indicates that the number of LIP and LIPILH occupied hectares is 1.7 times that for the EIPIMH (365.3 vs. 210.9, respectively). Assuming equivalent overall occupational density for the residential settlements of both periods, this ratio implies an overall LIP and LIPILH population roughly 1.7 times that of the EIPIMH. For herding settlements, this ratio is 1.5:1, and for agricultural settlements it falls to 1.3:1. These figures suggest that the single most important component in the long-term population growth was the expansion of the LIP "special function settlements," a category of occupation seemingly unrepresented in EIPIMH settlement. This rapid expansion of the special function settlements dovetails with other indications of the growing importance of these sites (see below). In addition to concerns over chronological problems, our main reservation about the utility of the occupied-hectares measure as an index of relative population is our extremely poor control over the density of residential occupation at virtually all EIPIMH sites. Thus, we have little confidence in any assumption about equivalent residential densities for the EIP/ MH and LIP; even within the LIP we can detect considerable intersettlement variability in occupational density (Table 5.3). In Tables 8.1-A and 8.1-B we tabulate the occupied hectares by ecological zone for each period. These breakdowns suggest several tendencies. One is the relatively sparse occupation of the lower puna zone during the EIPIMH as contrasted with the distinct attraction of this same zone for later periods. Interestingly, this atttraction declines significantly when we remove the LIP special function settlements (most of which are situated in the lower puna) from consideration. The latter procedure may be warranted in view of our suggestion below that the special function settlement may not have included many

119

120

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un{n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1 Table 8.1. Occupied hectares, EIP/MH, LIP, and LIP/LH. Agricultural Settlements

Herding Settlements

Total

Special Function Settlements

Period No. Sites Hectares Hectares No. Sites No. Sites Hectares No. Sites 96 EIP/MH 35 74.2 61 136.7 174 LIP' 58.0 276.3 17 58 61.9 99 LIP2 174 S8.0 180.0 17 S8 61.9 99 36 13.0 4 LIP/LH' 19 32.4 13 28.0 36 13.0 4 LIP/LH 2 19 32.4 13 20.0 210 21 71.0 LIP & LIP/LH' 94.3 112 304.3 77 210 21 71.0 LIP & LIP/LH' 77 94.3 112 200.0 Camps included; uncertain sites not included; EIP/MH herding settlements include concentnc nng-sltes. 'Herding settlements: where they are separately distinguished, core and periphery components of individual sites are counted together for calculating no. of sites; total hectares include both components. 2Herding settlements: where they are separately distinguished, core and periphery components of individual sites are counted together for calculating no. of sites; total hectares include only core components. LIP herding settlement core components: 16 sites/31.0 hectares LIP herding settlement periphery components: 16 sites/96.1 hectares LIP/LHherding settlement core components: 3 sites/41.0 hectares LIP/LH herding settlement periphery components: 3 sites/8.0 hectares

Hectares 210.9 396.2 299.9 73.4 65.4 469.6 365.3

Table 8.I-A. Proportions of occupied hectares by ecological zones, including all settlements. Period

Lower Kichwa %of % of Total Survey Occupied Area Ha. for Period. IS.2 22.9 IS.2 12.7 IS.2 27.9 IS.2 IS.3

Upper Kichwa % of Total % of Survey Area Occupied Ha. for Period 19.7 26.S 6.S 19.7 14.1 19.7 19.7 7.8

Lower Puna % of Survey % of Total Area Occupied Ha. for Period 36.1 18.S 36.1 45.S 36.1 43.6 36.1 45.2

Upper Puna % of Total % of Survey Occupied Area Ha. for Period

EIP/MH 28.9 LIP 28.9 LIP/LH 28.9 LIP + 28.9 LIP/LH Camps lllcluded; uncertalll sites not lllcluded; EIP/MH herdlllg settlements mclude concentnc rmg sites; core components used for herding settlements. The few settlements in the ceja de montana zone at the far northeastern corner of our survey area are included within the kichwa.

32.1 3S.3 14.4 31.7

Table 8.1-B. Proportions of occupied hectares by ecological zones, excluding LIP special function settlements. Period

EIP/MH LIP LIP/LH LIP +

Lower Kichwa %of % of Total Survey Occupied Area Ha. for Period. IS.2 22.9 IS.2 IS.9 IS.2 3S.S IS.2 19.2

Upper Kichwa % of Survey % of Total Area Occupied Ha. For Period 19.7 26.5 19.7 8.1 19.7 18.0 19.7 9.8

Lower Puna % of Survey % of Total Area Occupied Ha. For Period 36.1 18.S 36.1 34.2 36.1 28.1 36.1 33.2

Upper Puna % of Survey % of Total Area Occupied Ha. or Period 28.9 28.9 28.9 28.9

LIP/LH Camps lllcluded; uncertalll sItes not included; E1P/MH herding settlements include concentric ring sites; core components used for herding settlements. The few settlements in the ceja de montana zone at the far northeastern corner of our survey area are included within the kichwa.

32.1 41.8 18.4 37.8

Post-Formative Occupations: Patterns and Trends

full-time residents during the LIP. Without the special function settlements, the proportion of LIP occupied hectares in the lower puna more closely matches the occupation figures of this zone within our survey area. A second tendency is the notably low proportion of LIP occupation in the upper kichwa zone-less than half what would be expected on the basis of the areal proportion (19.7%) of this zone within our survey area. For both earlier and later periods, the proportion is much more in keeping with the areal proportion of zone within our survey area. A third tendency is the distinctly lower topographic placement ofLIPILH occupation (that may be primarily Late Horizon), for both puna herders and kichwa agriculturalists, relative to that of all earlier periods. These tendencies dovetail with other lines of evidence (see below), suggesting that puna herders and kichwa agriculturalists were physically and culturally separated during the ElP/ MH, and more integrated, partly through the strategically placed special function settlements, during the subsequent LIP. We will also see below that our impression of a distinctly lower placement of Late Horizon population conforms to occupation distribution in several other parts of the Andean highlands.

Numbers of Households Estimating numbers of residential households is a less direct process than that of deriving occupied hectares, especially for our EIP/MH settlements where architectural preservation is usually so poor. For a sizable minority of LIP sites, with unusually good architectural preservation, it is fairly easy to estimate the numbers of households by simply counting the structures which are presumed to be residential in function and assuming that one residential structure is equivalent to one familial household (Table 5.3). Following such a procedure in Chapter 5, we were able to derive five categories of settlements based on the number of component residential households: Class A (over 100 households), Class B (51-100 households), Class C (21-50 households), Class D (6-20 households), and Class E (1-5 households). Our household estimates in Table 8.2 are based on the following simplified equivalencies. These are rough-and-ready estimates, and we claim no more than a roughand-ready utility for them: Class A-I50 households/settlement Class B-75 households/settlement Class C-35 households/settlement Class D-I5 households/settlement Class E-3 households/settlement For estimating households in the enigmatic concentric ring sites, we have used the following equivalencies: Very large concentric ring sites-Class A Large concentric ring sites-Class B Medium concentric ring sites-Class C

121

Small concentric ring sites-Class D Very small concentric ring sites-Class E On this basis, the overall LIP & LIPILH: EIPIMH population ratio rises to 3.2: I (Table 8.2). Just as for the occupied hectares, a major difference between the two periods derives from the appearance of the LIP special function settlements; for agricultural and herding settlements the LIP & LIP/LH ratio of increase is 3.0: 1 and 1.9: 1, respectively. The ratio of herding to agricultural households declines from 2.8: 1 for the EIP/MH to 1.8: 1 for the LIP & LIPILH. Tables 8.2-A and 8.2-B show the distribution of households by ecological zone. These figures reinforce our impressions that: (1) the lower puna zone increased in importance during LIP and LIPILH times when all settlements are considered, and decreases significantly in importance when the special function settlements are removed from consideration; and (2) LIP/ LH occupation generally occurred at lower altitudes, especially within the puna zone where we see only very limited population in the upper puna. This distribution of households also clearly suggests that the kichwa zone in general, and especially the upper kichwa, was noticeably underoccupied during the LIP, even when the special function settlements are removed from consideration (Table 8.1-B). We will return below to further consideration of the significance of these trends. We cannot go much beyond very crude approximations of absolute population on the basis of numbers of households. We are left with the overall impression of substantial long-term growth, which probably amounted to at least a two- to threefold population increase over the long period of approximately A.D. 500 to 1500. Whether this increase was achieved gradually, or in a more punctuated, uneven fashion, we cannot now determine. We could take this procedure one step farther and derive absolute population figures from the estimated numbers of households by multiplying the latter by an appropriate figure for people/household. This, of course, will produce an even more suspect figure. An average offive people/household would produce an estimate of about 8200 inhabitants for the EIP/MH and 26,400 for the LIP & LIPILH. This converts to roughly 6.3 people/km2 for the EIPIMH and 20.3 people/km2 for the LIP & LIPILH for the entire survey area. These figures compare with an LIP density of about 30 people/km2 reported for a survey area of 350 square kilometers in primarily kichwa terrain in the upper Chicama Valley of the northern Peruvian highlands (Krzanowski 1985:84-85). Grosboll (1988: 167 -77) has used ethnographic data on household composition, sixteenth-century census figures, and archaeological data from 17 well-preserved Late Horizon settlements in the HWlnuco region in the highlands of north-central Peru in an attempt to define archaeological households ("residential compounds") and to estimate their population. She calculated that a modal Late Horizon residential compound in her study area comprised 1.5-1.8 structures and a mean of 5.4 people.

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un[n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

122

Table 8.2. Estimated numbers of households. Agricultural Settlements

Period

EIP/MH LIP LIP/LH LIP & LIP/LH

Total

Special Function. Settlements

Herding Settlements

No. Households

No. Sites

No. Households

-

-

17 4 21

1335 295 1630

89 143 30 173

1654 4243 1028 5271

No. Sites

No. Households

No. Sites

No. Households

No. Sites

34 49 17 66

438 799 514 1313

55 77 9 86

1216 2109 219 2328

EIP/MH herding settlements include the concentric ring sites; camps and uncertain sites not included.

Table 8.2-A. Proportions of households by ecological zone, including all settlements. Period

Lower Kichwa % of Total % of Survey Households Area for Period 15.5 15.2 15.2 8.5 19.6 15.2 10.4 15.2

Upper Kichwa % of Total Households Area for Period 16.8 19.7 7.4 19.7 22.0 19.7 9.9 19.7

% of Survey

Lower Puna % of Total Households Area for Period 21.4 36.1 36.1 52.5 36.1 54.6 36.1 52.8

% of Survey

Upper Puna % of Total Households Area for Period 46.2 28.9 31.7 28.9 28.9 3.9 26.9 28.9

% of Survey

EIP/MH LIP LIP/LH LIP + LIP/LH EIP/MH herding settlements include the concentric ring sites; camps and uncertain sites not Included. The few settlements In the ceJa de montana zone at the far northeastern corner of our survey area are included within the kichwa.

Table 8.2-B. Proportions of households by ecological zone, excluding LIP special function settlements. Period

Lower Kichwa % of Total Area Households for Period 15.2 15.5 15.2 12.2 15.2 27.1 15.2 15.0

% of Survey

Up~er

% of Survey

Area

Kichwa % of Total Households for Period 16.8 10.6 32.7 14.3

Lower Puna % of Total Area Households for Period 21.4 36.1 36.1 36.5 36.1 32.4 36.1 35.8

% of Survey

Upper Puna % of Total Area Households for Period 46.2 28.8 40.7 28.9 5.8 28.9 34.9 28.9

% of Survey

EIP/MH 19.7 LIP 19.7 LIP/LH 19.7 LIP + 19.7 LIP/LH EIP/MH herding settlements include the concentric ring sites; camps and uncertain sites not included. The few settlements in the ceja de montana zone at the far northeastern corner of our survey area are included within the kichwa.

She also found (1988:251, 257-58) that a good estimate of site population could be derived from site area, and computed four formulas for making such calculations. Although we were tempted to make use of these formulas, we decided that none of our archaeological data are sufficiently precise to warrant the effort. Working with five large LIP sites they mapped in the middle Mantaro Valley, about 100 kilometers southeast of Huancayo, Lavallee and Julien (1983: 118-19) estimated six buildings per household, and a range of 6-10 people/household. On this basis they estimated site populations ranging from 800 to 5000 people.

The problem of inadequate chronological control in making even rough population estimates is well illustrated by data from the Wanka region of the nearby main Mantaro Valley. Here LeBlanc (1981) and Hastorf et al. (1989) had subdivided the LIP into early and late phases: Wanka I and Wanka II. Although the overall impression had previously been that the LIP in that region was a time of substantial population growth (Matos and Parsons 1979; Parsons and Hastings 1977; Parsons and Matos 1978), the refined chronology indicated that the early LIP (Wanka I phase) was actually a time of significant population decline, with an even more marked expansion than originally suspected during the late LIP (Hastorf et al. 1989:87).

123

Post-Formative Occupations: Patterns and Trends

Table 8.3. EIP/MH settlements with LIP occupation. EIP/MH Site Type

All Sites Concentric Ring Sites Very Large Large Medium Small Very Small Subtotal Agricultural Selllements Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Camp Subtotal Herding Selllements Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Camp Subtotal

Number

w/LiP or L1P/LH

%

96

81

84.4

I

I

3 6 18 10 38

3 6 17 8 35

100.0 100.0 100.0 94.4 80.0 92.1

-

-

-

3 20 11

2 15 8 1 26

66.7 75.0 72.7 ]00.0 73.4

]

35

-

-

-

2 2 6 7 6 23

1 2 6 6 5 20

50.0 100.0 100.0 85.7 83.3 87.0

Sites of uncertain status not included.

The Late Intermediate Period There is an extensive LIP occupation throughout our survey area (Figs. 8.1). There were substantial populations of puna herders and kichwa cultivators, and in addition we located a total of 21 large sites (the special function settlements) at several places along the puna-kichwajuncture. There are few major zones without LIP occupation-the two major exceptions are the broad plains of the main Junin puna at the far northwestern end of our survey area, and along some of the lower reaches of the Tarma Valley, the Pa1camayo Valley, and the Huasahuasi Valley. The Huarico1ca puna, at the far southeastern corner of our survey area, was also rather sparsely occupied, but to a lesser degree than the virtually empty plains south of Lake Juntn. EIPIMH-LIP Occupational Continuity There appears to be a high degree of continuity between EIPI MH and LIP occupation (Fig. 8.2). Nearly 85% of all EIPIMH settlements show indications ofLIPILH occupation (Table 8.3), and over half of all LIP settlements have some form of probable EIPIMH antecedent (Tables 8.4, 8.5). In general terms, this continuity seems to be higher at larger LIP agricultural and special function settlements, and lower at herding settlements (Table 8.4 )-perhaps reflecting the greater mobility of pastoral

occupation. Nevertheless, there is also an unusually high degree of EIPIMH-to-LIP continuity in our Class C and Class D herding settlements and Class D agricultural settlements, suggesting that some locations were particularly desirable over long periods. For example, for herders this may reflect particularly good dry-season pasture, and for agriculturalists possibly unusually good supplies of irrigation water. This EIP/MH-LIP settlement continuity is seemingly paralleled in the adjacent Wanka region in the main Mantaro Valley (LeBlanc 1981 :249), but differs radically from the abrupt settlement shifts between MH and LIP occupation reported by Schreiber (l987b, 1991) for the Carahuarazo Valley, and by Valdez and Vivanco (1994) for the Pampas Valley, both in the highlands of south-central Peru. Obviously, any further consideration of the apparent long-term EIP/MH-LIP settlement continuity in our survey area must await refinement of the chronological sequence. LIP Settlement Gaps There is a notable dearth of LIP occupation in the plains south of Lake Junfn (Figure 8.1). This area oflow vertical relieflacks good drainage, and so much of it may simply have been too swampy for permanent settlements. This same region was also quite sparsely settled during the antecedent EIPIMH (Fig. 8.3), but it was here that the Inka established their main provincial

124

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junin, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Table 8.4. LIP and LIP/LH settlements and camps with EIP/MH components. Site Type All Sites Agricultural Settlements Class A Class 8 Class C Class D Class E Camp Subtotal Special Function Settlements Class A Class 8 Class C Subtotal Herding Settlements Class A Class 8 Class C Class D Class E Camp Subtotal

Number

w/EIP/MH

%

217

114

52.5 100.0

I

I

-

-

-

19 30 16 12 79

9 18 5 4 37

47.4 60.0 31.3 33.3 46.8

5 8 8 21

4 2 3 9

80.0 25.0 37.5 42.9

6 4 18 27 31 31 117

3 2 13 18 14 18 68

50.0 50.0 72.2 66.7 45.2 58.1 58.1

EIP/MH sites of uncertain status are included.

center at Chacamarca (Site 60-61-62) during the subsequent Late Horizon (Fig. 8.4). The lack of LIP occupation along most of the lower kichwa valleys probably relates to two topographic factors: (1) the swampy condition of the poorly drained main valley floors prior to large-scale drainage operations carried out during historic times (e.g., Phillips 1911; Cardenas 1941), and (2) the very steep sides and extremely narrow floodplain of the lower Huasahuasi Valley, which must have discouraged intensive occupation. It is also possible, of course, that deep alluvial fill in the lowermost valley floors has completely buried prehispanic occupation there. There may also be a major LIP settlement gap in the Seco Valley to the south of the modern town of Tarma at the far southeastern end of our survey area. The only major LlPILH settlement in this region is Site 273 (Figures 8.1, 8.4). The presence of definite Inka-style pottery at this latter site may indicate that it dates primarily, or even exclusively, to the Late Horizon. Even if Site 273 was fully occupied during LIP times, the overall population in the Seco Valley would still have been comparatively sparse. This sparse settlement may have been caused by the same frontier effect which seems to have produced highly nucleated LIP occupation in the Huaricolca puna a few kilometers to the south (Fig. 8.1). During LIP times this entire zone may have been too insecure for any substantial sedentary occupation because of the many uncertainties produced by hostile relationships the Wanka and the Tarama peoples. As in the sparsely occupied region south of Lake Junin, it was precisely

in the lightly settled valley of the Rio Seco that the Inka subsequently established one of their major provincial centers during the Late Horizon (Tarmatambo, Site 283) (Figure 8.4). LIP Occupation of the Junin Puna vs. the Huaricolca Puna The map of overall LIP settlement (Fig. 8.1) indicates a notable difference in settlement pattern between herders inhabiting the Junin puna vs. those in the Huaricolca puna. 1 In the surveyed Huaricolcapuna, LIP residential occupation is almost entirely confined to three Class A herding settlements (Sites 378,379, and 381). In the Junin puna, by contrast, LIP occupation is much more evenly dispersed in a series of herding settlements belonging to all size classes (A, B, C, D, and E). In seeking to explain this contrast, it is useful to recall that pottery found at the LIP settlements in the Huaricolca puna is almost exclusively Wanka-affiliated, while the Junin puna settlements belong ceramically to the Tarama-Chinchaycocha tradition (see Appendix B). The Huaricolca puna and the adjacent upper Rio Seco drainage marks the northern frontier of Wanka pottery, and a few kilometers to the north the LIP ceramic assemblage changes abruptly as San Bias Red! Buff replaces the Wanka decorated pottery types.

'Because we surveyed only a small part of latter, our impression of settlement in the Huaricolca puna may not be fully representative.

Post-Formative Occupations: Patterns and Trends

o

5

LLLLLJ km (Camps and questionable sites not Included)

limits at survey major rivers

[==.J

... Agricultural settlement - A, B .. Agricultural settlement - C, D, E

streams

• •

above 4000 m elevation

o

Herding settlement - A, B Herding settlement - C, D, E

Special Function Settlement - A, B o Special Function Settlement - C

Figure 8.1. Distribution of LIP and LIP/LH settlements.

o

5

LLLLLJ km

limits of survey major rivers

•

LIP and LlP/LH Sites with EIP/MH Occupation

streams

c=J

above 4000 m elevation

Figure 8.2. LIP and LIP/LH sites with EIP/MH cccupation.

125

126

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in lunfn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Table 8.5. Individual LIP & LIPILH settlements with EIPIMH components. Site No. 10 16 23 27 28 30 32 33 36 37 38 40 41 49 52 65 71 76 79 80 81 83 85 87 89 92 93 101 103 III

112 113 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 136 139 142 143 147 151 152 158 162 163 164 166 171 174 176 177 178 181 186 190

Hoja Chuquisyunga Chuquisyunga Cachipampa Cachipampa Cachipampa Cachipampa Cachipampa Cachipampa Cachipampa Cachipampa Cachipampa Cachipampa Cachipampa Cachipampa Cachipampa Paccha-I Palca Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Pa1camayo Pa1camayo Palcamayo Pa1camayo Pa1camayo Pa1camayo Pa1camayo Palcamayo Palcamayo Pa1camayo Pa1camayo Palcamayo LaCima LaCima LaCima LaCima LaCima LaCima LaCima

Elev. (m asl) 2410 4050 3940 4080 4015 3200 3850 3950 3280 3200 3200 3180 3325 3150 4135 4090 2760 3230 4200 4250 4300 4000 3020 3200 3050 3870 3050 3640 3200 3900 3950 3400 3175 3210 3875 3635 3560 3150 4065 3840 3450 3740 4305 3780 3460 3980 3625 3560 3710 4155 4100 4040 4245 4400 4490 4515 4340 4215 4350 4355 4450

LIP or LIPILH Classification Agr. Sett., Class D Spec. Func. Sett., Class A Spec. Func. Sett., Class B Herd. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class C Agr. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class D Spec. Func. Sett., Class C Agr. Camp Agr. Sett., Class D Agr. Sett., Class C Agr. Sett., Class E Agr. Camp Agr. Sett., Class E Spec. Func. Sett., Class C Herding Camp Agr. Camp Agr. Sett., Class D Herd. Sett., Class D Herd. Sett., Class D Herd. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class E Agr. Sett., Class D Agr. Sett., Class C Agr. Sett., Class D Herd. Sett., Class D Agr. Setl., Class D Agr. Sett., Class C Agr. Sett., Class E Spec. Func. Setl., Class A Spec. Func. Sett., Class A Agr. Sett., Class D Agr. Sett., Class D Agr. Sett., Class C Herding Camp Agr. Sett., Class D Agr. Sett., Class D Agr. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class D Herd. Sett., Class E Agr. Sett., Class C Agr. Sett., Class D Herd. Sett., Class C Herding Camp Agr. Sett., Class E Herd. Sett., Class E Agr. Sett., Class D Agr. Setl., Class D Agr. Setl., Class D Herd. Sett., Class D Spec. Func. Sett., Class A Spec. Func. Sett., Class B Herd. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class D Herd. Sett., Class D Herding Camp Herd. Sett., Class D Herding Camp Herd. Setl., Class A Herd. Sett., Class E Herding Camp

Post-Formative Occupations: Patterns and Trends

127

conI

Site No.

193 195 201 209 211 219 220 231 234 238 240 254 256 260 267 269 273 274 286 287 291 297 299 301 302 304 305 307 310 311 312 315 318 319 320 321 322 323 325 329 334 337 341 344 345 370 373 379

Hoja

LaCima LaCima La Cima LaCima LaCima LaCima La Cima La Cima LaCima La Cima La Cima Maco Maco Tarma Tarma Tarma Tarma Tarma Tarma Tarma Tarma Palcapacha Palcapacha Palcapacha Palcapacha Palcapacha Palcapacha Paccha-II Paccha-II Paccha-II Paccha-ll Paccha-II Paccha-ll Paccha-II Paccha-II Paccha-ll Paccha-ll Paccha-ll Paccha-ll Paccha-ll Paccha-II Paccha-ll Paccha-ll Malpaso Malpaso Huaricolca Huaricolca Huaricolca EIP/MH sites of uncertam status are

Elev. (m asl)

4375 4450 4425 4555 4410 4300 4470 4420 4350 4405 4445 3800 3900 4065 3920 3330 3625 3200 3950 3265 3955 3640 3340 4195 4260 4165 4450 4390 4055 4150 4070 4230 4365 4255 3965 3965 4265 4405 3985 4120 3885 4170 3990 4350 3950 3970 4180 4125

LIP or L1P/LH Classification

Herding Camp Herding Camp Herd. Sett., Class B Herd. Setl., Class E Herd. Setl., Class 0 Herd. Setl., Class 0 Herd. Sett., Class 0 Herd. Setl., Class A Herding Camp Herding Camp Herd. Setl., Class E Agr. Sett., Class D Agr. Sett., Class E Spec. Func. Sett., Class C Herding Camp Agr. Sett., Class C Agr. Sett., Class A Agr. Camp Herd. Sett., Class E Agr. Sett., Class 0 Agr. Sett., Class C Agr. Sett., Class 0 Agr. Sett., Class 0 Herd. Sett., Class E Herd. Sett., Class C Herding Camp Herd. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class 0 Herd. Sett., Class E Herd. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class 0 Herd. Sett., Class E Herd. Sett., Class C Herding Camp Herd. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class E Herd. Sett., Class B Herd. Sett., Class E Herd. Sett., Class E Herding Camp Herd. Sett., Class 0 Herd. Setl., Class C Herd. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class 0 Herd. Sett., Class 0 Herding Camp Herding Camp Herd. Sett., Class A

mcluded.

Thus, for the Juninpuna and the Huaricolcapuna we appear to be comparing LIP herding populations belonging to different major sociopolitical/ethnic groupings. The observed contrast in settlement pattern may thus be a product of two factors: (1) different organization of herders within the two polities or ethnicities; and (2) the pressures of "frontier" life in the HuaricoIca puna, where insecure conditions may have required residence in large, nucleated settlements which could be much more readily defended and secured, and from whence aggressive actions (e.g., raids into nearby Tarama-Chinchaycocha territory) could be more effectively organized and launched.

LIP Settlement Clusters in the Junin Puna Within the main Junin puna there are four major clusters of LIP herding settlements (Fig. 8.1): (1) a southwestern cluster, along the eastern side of the Rio Mantaro; (2) a central cluster, along the eastern side of the Quebrada Tingo; (3) a northeastern cluster, along the eastern side of the Quebrada Telarnioj; and (4) a northern cluster, in the uppermost Quebrada Huachucancha, which drains northwestward into Lake Junin. Each cluster contains one or two large settlements (Class A or B) and several smaller settlements within an area roughly 8-10 km long and 4-5 km wide,

128

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un{n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

o

5 LL.LLLJ km

EIP/MH - All Settlements (Camps and uncertain sites not included) limits of survey

•

Herding Settlements

streams

@

Concentric-Ring Sites

above 4000 m

.. Agricultural Settlements

major rivers

~

elevation

Figure 8.3. Distribution of EIPIMH settlements.

km

limits of survey major rivers streams ~

above 4000 m elevation

@ Provincial Center .... Tambo • Smaller settlements • Larger settlements

Figure 8.4. Sites with Inka-style pottery.

Post-Formative Occupations: Patterns and Trends

perhaps 200-plus households within an area of 30-50 square kilometers, surrounded by more extensive grasslands without settlements (but often containing herding camps, which are not shown on Fig. 8.1). Each cluster might be considered a local herding "community," or ayllu, or some other type of local territorial unit. Our survey may have partially overlapped onto the territory of another comparable settlement cluster at the far southeastern edge of the Junfn puna where two large herding settlements (Sites 168 and 169) lie at the arbitrary border of our survey area; another survey project (Bonnier and Rozenberg 1978a, 1978b) identified several nearby "villages" immediately to the north, which probably belong to this cluster. The three large herding settlements in the Huaricolca puna at the southeast end of our survey area may represent another herding cluster of roughly comparable size in terms of population, but which, as we noted above, had a very different internal configuration. Almost all settlements in the three LIP herding clusters found along major quebradas in the Junfn puna are situated on the eastern sides of these quebradas. This pattern is so regular and consistent that it seems unlikely to be a result of mere coincidence (Netherley and Dillehay 1986 note an analogous phenomenon in a Peruvian north coastal setting). Such an eastside pattern is not seen for the LIP Agricultural Settlements along the kichwa valleys to the east: these valleys contain occupational clusters, but settlements are found on both sides of the major streams. We cannot account for this east-side configuration in the Junfn puna in terms of any straightforward topographic or environmental factors. Such a configuration has the effect of putting a major waterway between each of the main LIP settlement clusters in the Junfn puna. Was this a defensive consideration, or was it related in some way to the sociological definition of each local group? Bastien (l978a), for example, has found that major streams form borders between present-day Qollahuaya ayllus in the Bolivian sierra, and these borders derive in part from the role of streams as ritually sanctified passageways for living and deceased human beings in an anthropomorphized landscape. LIP Settlement Clusters in the Kichwa The LIP agricultural settlements in the kichwa zone east of the Junfn puna (Fig. 8.1) also tend to form local clusters along several of the principal valleys: most notably, the middle and upper Huasahuasi Valley, the middle and upper Palcamayo Valley, and the middle and upper Quebrada Jacahuasi. These are roughly comparable in overall area and popUlation to the herding settlement clusters in the Junfn puna; each cluster measures approximately 10-15 km long and 3-5 km wide, containing lOIS settlements belonging to several different class sizes, and a total population of 200-plus households. The scarcity of large (Class A and B) agricultural settlements is notable: there is only one such site (Site 273), and because this contains Inkastyle pottery, it may actually be primarily Late Horizon. So, although puna herders and kichwa cultivators tended to be

129

grouped in clusters of roughly equal overall size during LIP times, the kichwa cultivators tended to live in smaller and more numerous settlements. As previously noted, except for a secondary buildup at the mouth of the Pa1camayo Valley and its environs, the lowermost parts of the kichwa in our survey area remain sparsely occupied. In addition to potential problems of alluviation and poor drainage, it is also possible that these low-lying zones were spatial buffers between local territorial units. Clusters of Ecologically Complementary LIP and LIPILH Settlements While most puna herders lacked close access to good agricultural lands, many kichwa cultivators did have access to at least some puna pasture. This is because of the several long ridges which extend for many krn eastward from the main J umn puna, and which form fingerlike zones of high grassland between the major kichwa valleys (Fig. 8.1). As we noted in Chapter 4, during historic times many Central Andean kichwa populations have been able to combine herding and cultivation by means of grazing their animals in recently harvested and fallow agricultural fields (e.g., Brush 1976; Brush and Guillet 1985; Camino 1980; Camino et al. 1981; Goland 1992; McCorkle 1987); presumably such an option would also have been potentially available to many prehispanic kichwa agriculturalists in our survey area. Thus, while most LIP inhabitants of the main Junfn puna would have had little opportunity for direct involvement in highly productive agriculture, people living in the upper and middle sectors of kichwa valleys only a few dozen kilometers away could easily have maintained their own small camelid herds. The presence of numerous small LIP herding settlements along the ridgecrests bordering the Huasahuasi, Pa1camayo, and Jacahuasi valleys raises the possibility of a close and direct integration of herding and agricultural production in this part of our survey area during LIP times. We have defined 16 LIP and LIPILH ecologically complementary settlement clusters (Fig. 8.5; Tables 8.6, 8.7). These are groupings of closely spaced agricultural and herding settlements that are distributed over a wide range of elevation, so that while some sites in the cluster are at relatively high elevations in the puna, others are situated at much lower elevations in the kichwa or ceja de montana. In the definition of these clusters we have generally assumed that settlements on the same major ridge and on the same side of major quebradas would have been more closely linked socioeconomically than sites of comparable proximity on opposite sides of such quebradas. This assumption finds support in the historically documented significance of major topographic and hydrographic features as boundaries between ayllus and other local social units in traditional Andean highland societies (e.g., Bastien 1978a, 1978b). Because of our belief that our special function settlements can only be understood as regional-level centers, we have not included any of them in these local-level settlement clusters.

130

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un[n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Table 8.6. LIP and LIPILH agricultural and herding settlements in ecologically complementary local settlement clusters (refer to Figure 8.5). Cluster

Component Sites

A

20 21 24 26 25 27 30 31 43 45 76 77 79 80 81 83 86 89 82 85 98 99 99 100 129 130 93 94 131 139 140 141 142 143 147 148 149 151 263 264 264 270

B

C D E

F

G

H

I J

K

L

M

N

0 P

Classification Herd. Set!. Class E Agr. Set!. Class D Herd. Set!. Class D Agr. Setl. Class D Agr. Setl., Class E Herd. Sett. Class C Agr. Setl. Class C Herd. Set!. Class B Agr. Setl., Class E Herd. Setl. Class D Agr. Sett. Class D Agr. Camp Herd. Set!. Class D Herd. Set!. Class D Herd. Set!. Class C Herd. Set!. Class E Agr. Setl. Class D Agr. Camp Herd. Set!. Class D Agr. Set!. Class D Agr. Sett., Class D Herd. Set!. Class E Herd. Set!. Class E Agr. Setl. Class E Agr. Setl. Class C Herd. Set!. Class D Agr. Setl. Class D Herd. Camp Herd. Set!. Class E Herd. Sett Class C Herd. Set!., Class C Agr. Camp Herd. Camp Agr. Sett. Class E Herd. Setl. Class E Herd. Sett. Class C Herd. Set!., Class E Agr. Setl. Class D Agr. Sett. Class E Herd. Sett. Class E Herd. Setl. Class E Agr. Setl. Class C

A comparison of Figures 8.1 and 8.5 shows that some LIP settlements seem to have been parts of ecologically complementary settlement clusters, while others apparently were not (Table 8.7). In part, the basis for this contrast is clear: settlements in the main Junfn puna are far from the nearest kichwa or ceja de montana terrain, and those in the lower kichwa valleys are well away from the puna; such settlements cannot cluster with ecologically complementary settlements on the basis of spatial propinquity simply because the ecologically complementary landscapes are physically so far apart. Nevertheless, approximately three-quarters of our kichwa agricultural settlements apparently are not paired with complementary herding settlements in the immediately adjacent puna (Table 8.7), at least not on the basis of spatial proximity.

Elevation .im as\) 4120 3900 3870 3170 3600 4080 3200 4090 3450 3950 3230 3425 4200 4250 4300 4000 3260 3050 4160 3020 3740 4160 4160 3575 3150 4065 3050 3300 3840 4305 4225 3940 3780 3460 3980 3940 3900 3625 4060 4130 4130 3970

Comments

Also part of Cluster B

Also part of Cluster J Also part of Cluster r

Low elevation

Also part of Cluster P Also part of Cluster 0

Why are about a quarter of our kichwa agricultural settlements paired with nearby puna herding settlements, while the rest apparently are not? The low frequency of ecologicalcomplementary pairing is undoubtedly partially due to the close proximity of many sites to the arbitrary survey borders: there may be still undiscovered complementary pairs immediately beyond the limits of our survey coverage. However, there are many unpaired LIP kichwa agricultural settlements that are not close to the survey border. Unlike the ecologically unpaired herding settlements in the main Junfn puna, most of this non pairing of agricultural settlements cannot be understood on the basis of simple geographic distance: the great majority of our kichwa agricultural settlements are relatively close to some puna pasture. This configuration leads us to suspect that most

Post-Formative Occupations: Patterns and Trends

131

Table 8.7. Types of LIP and LIP/LH agricultural and herding settlements in ecologically complementary local settlement clusters Site Category Agr. Sell. Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Camp Subtotal Herd. Set!. Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Camp Subtotal Total

Total No.

% in Cluster

No. of Sites in Cluster

0.0

I

0

-

-

-

19 30 16 12 78

3 8 5 3 19

15.8 26.7 31.3 25.0 24.4

6 4 18 27 31 31 117

0 5 6 7 2 21

0.0 25.0 27.8 22.2 22.6 6.5 17.9

195

40

20.5

I

Table 8.8. Clusters of major LIP and LIP/LH agricultural, special function, and herding settlements at the main puna-kichwa juncture.

Category

Agricultural Settlements

Spec. Function Settlements

Herding Settlements

Sites

Classification

292 291 296 160 161 155 157 163 164 298 169 168 166 302

Agr. Set!. Class C Agr. Set!. Class C Agr. Set!. Class C Agr. Sett. Class C Agr. Set!. Class C Spec. Func. Set!. Class Spec. Func. Set!. Class Spec. Func. Set!. Class Spec. Func. Set!. Class Spec. Func. Set!. Class Herd. Set!. Class B Herd. Set!. Class A Herd. Set!. Class C Herd. Sett. Class C

ecological complementary was achieved at the regional-level as opposed to the local level during LIP times. Did the puna-kichwa juncture zone playa special developmental role due to the special advantages it offers for facilitating the full integration of pastoral and agricultural economies? Might it be the case that the ecologically complementary site clusters we have identified represent occupation during the earlier part of the LIP, at a time when puna-kichwa complementarity was achieved primarily at the local level? It might logically follow that ecologically unpaired kichwa agricultural settlements were mainly occupied during the later part of the LIP, when regional-level socio-economic integration was achieved. Only more intensive fieldwork and chronological refinement can resolve such questions.

Elevation (m asl)

B B A B A

3945 3955 3650 3870 3945 4195 3890 4100 4040 4140 4345 4290 4245 4260

Our LIP ecologically complementary local settlement clusters are similar in size and composition. Most comprise a single pair of small settlements extending over a linear area 2-5 km long; with a few dozen to a few score households; a few are somewhat larger, but only slightly. These figures might be taken as rough approximations of a basic suprahousehold socioeconomic unit-something which might correspond to what is often termed the ayllu in historic Andean societies. LIP Special Function Settlements at the Puna-Kichwa Juncture We suspect that the cluster of five large LIP special function settlements (Sites 155, 157, 163, 164,298) at the main puna-

132

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un(n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

kichwa juncture also had sociopolitical significance at the very highest organizational level within our survey region. In this regard, it is probably significant that an Inka provincial center (Site 137/159, Chancha) was established on the valley floor immediately below the arc of large special function settlements which probably comprised the principal LIP regional sociopolitical focus-a kind of Inka reducci6n which substantially reconsolidated and reorganized the existing political structure, but which maintained the center of regional power in the same, strategically placed location at the puna-kichwa juncture. As suggested above, where topographic conditions permitted, close and direct relationships could have prevailed between herders and cultivators during LIP times; but where herding and agricultural zones were physically further apart, other kinds of linkages must have functioned to redistribute complementary products of the different elevation zones. We believe that the typically large size and unusual architectonic characteristics of our LIP special function settlements, all of them strategically placed at the puna-kichwa juncture, may be related to their role in administering these longer-distance relationships (see below). We have just suggested that five of the largest LIP special function settlements may have played especially important socioeconomic and sociopolitical roles at the regional level. An additional sixteen special function settlements-all situated at the puna-kichwa juncture-would presumably have functioned similarly (Fig. 8.1). It might someday be possible to show that our eight smaller (Class C) special function settlements (Sites 33, 34,44,52, 105, 150,260, and 364) date primarily to the earlier LIP, at a time when only relatively small-scale punakichwa integration had been achieved. Bonnier (1986) has suggested that LIP settlements near the kichwa-puna border along the eastern edge of the Junin puna may have specialized in the production of maca (Lepidium meyenii), a tuber which is productive at the uppermost limits of Central Andean agriculture. If so, such sites (some of which have impressive terrace remains) would have been important agricultural components of economically integrated local communities comprised of multiple settlements of herders and cultivators. However, there is also some reason to think that the special function settlements, as a class, were more concerned with regional-level than with local-level concerns. If, as we believe, the special function settlements at the puna-kichwa juncture played an important role in puna-kichwa integration at the regional level, the main development of these sites may date primarily to a later phase of the LIP. The near absence of large (Class A and B) LIP agricultural settlements may be functionally linked to the presence along the puna-kichwa juncture of 21 LIP special function settlements. Several of these are quite large, and none is smaller than our Class C range. As noted above, fi ve of the largest special function settlements (Sites 155, 157, 163, 164, 298) are concentrated over a linear distance of about five kilometers in the headwaters of the Quebrada Jacahuasi (Fig. 8.6); four more are situated in the upper Palcamayo Valley (Sites 105, 111, 112, 150);

seven others occur around the upper edges of the Huasahuasi Valley (Sites 16, 22, 23, 33, 34, 44, 52); and five are in the upper Ricran drainage and nearby Tarma drainage (Sites 257, 260,347,355,364) (Fig. 8.1). These sites are particularly interesting because they do not "make sense" in terms of local ecology. Although the special function settlements comprise some of the very largest sites in our survey area, they are situated in some of the locally least productive terrain in the entire region: they are much too high for productive agriCUlture, and there is only limited pasture available on the narrow supporting ridgecrests. This contrasts markedly with the relatively dense concentrations of agricultural settlements adjacent to the region's best kichwa agricultural lands, and to the largest herding settlements which invariably are surrounded by the largest expanses of good pasture land in the puna. We conclude that the LIP special function settlements, as a class, were more concerned with regional-level, as opposed to local-level, economy and polity. They had limited direct access to good agricultural land and good pasture, but maximal accessibility to the natural and demographic resources of the entire region. Consequently, they would have been strategically placed so as to be able to control and manipulate these resources at the regional level.

The Early Intermediate PeriodlMiddle Horizon In Chapter 7 we concluded that the concentric ring sites were probably EIPIMH herding settlements, peculiar to the Junin puna and grouped in territorial clusters within a regional sociopolitical hierarchy. We now turn to a consideration of the entire survey area during EIPIMH times (Fig. 8.3). EIPIMH Settlement Clusters in the ]un(n Puna Our concentric ring sites occur exclusively in the Junfn puna and around its eastern fringes. Since there are only three additional (non-concentric-ring) EIPIMH settlements in the Junfn puna (Sites 318, 312, and 165), it appears that the concentric ring sites comprise a substantial proportion of the EIPIMH occupation of this part of our survey area. Furthermore, there is a fair degree of continuity between EIPIMH and LIP occupation in the Junfn puna: over 90 percent of all concentric ring sites seem to have significant LIP occupation (Table 8.3), and well over half our LIP herding settlements have some form of EIP/ MH occupation (Tables 8.4, 8.5). The three main LIP settlement clusters in the Junfn puna which we defined in an earlier section (Fig. 8.1) all overlap in a general way with several of the EIPIMH concentric ring site clusters in the same region (Figs. 7.1, 8.3): the LIP Rio Mantaro cluster partly overlaps with concentric ring Cluster F (although this overlap is less than in the other cases); the LIP Quebrada Tingo cluster partly overlaps with concentric ring clusters A and E; and the LIP Quebrada Telarnioj cluster partly overlaps

Post-Formative Occupations: Patterns and Trends

o

5 lLLLLJ km

limits of survey

Local Clusters of LIP & LIP/LH Ecologically Complementary Agricultural and Herding Settlements

major rivers

streams

CJ

•

Settlement

above 4000 m elevation

Figure 8.5. Local clusters of LIP and LIPfLH ecologically complementary agricultural and herding settlements.

o

5 lLLLLJ km

limits of survey

Clusters of Major LIP & LlP/LH Herding, Special Function, and Agricultural Settlements at Main Puna-Kichwa Juncture

major rivers streams ~

•

Sites

above 4000 m elevation

Figure 8.6. Clusters of major LIP and LIPfLH herding, special function, and agricultural settlements at the main puna-kichwajuncture.

133

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un(n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

134

o

5

LLLLLJ km

~-~--.

limits of survey

~

major rivers streams

_ ~

Local Clusters of EIP/MH Ecologically Complementary Settlements

• Settlement

above 4000 m elevation

Figure 8.7. Local clusters of EIPIMH ecologically complementary settlements.

with concentric ring Cluster C; further east there is a high degree of overlap between concentric ring Cluster G and the subsequent LIP occupation near the end of the massive ridge separating the Huasahuasi and Paicamayo Valleys. Only in the case of concentric ring Cluster D is there a lack of occupational continuity from EIPIMH into LIP times. Interestingly, Cluster D is the only EIPIMH settlement cluster in the Junfn puna which is situated on the west side of a major quebrada, and it is the only EIPIMH settlement cluster which was completely abandoned by the LIP (as noted earlier, all LIP settlement clusters in the Junfn puna are found on the eastern sides of major quebradas). On the other hand, concentric ring Cluster B has only very limited continuity into the LIP. Furthermore, the core of the LIP settlement cluster at the head of the Quebrada Huachucancha lacks EIP/MH antecedents, and is situated about midway between concentric ring Clusters Band D: does it represent an LIP consolidation and reconfiguration of two EIP/MH local polities? So, while there is general spatial continuity between EIPIMH and LIP occupation of the Junfn puna, there are several notable exceptions. EIP/MH occupation of the Junfn puna immediately south of Lake J unfn, and of the entire Huaricoica puna as well, appears to have been virtually nonexistent: we found no EIPIMH sites in this part of the Junfn puna, and the only sites we located in the Huaricoica puna were along its far northern fringes (in the upper reaches of the Rio Seco drainage) (Fig. 8.3). Both these regions were also sparsely occupied during the subsequent LIP, although neither was as "empty" as during EIPIMH times. We

are perplexed by the very low EIPIMH occupational density of these puna zones, but it is consistent with both the subsequent LIP and antecedent Formative occupations of these same regions. EIPIMH Settlement Clusters in the Kichwa

Our EIPIMH kichwa occupation appears to have been highly concentrated in the Paicamayo Valley (Fig. 8.3). There are also settlements in the main Tarma Valley and in several adjacent tributary quebradas, and in the Huasahuasi Valley as well, but the dominant EIPIMH occupational focus is clearly along the Rfo Paicamayo. Thus, there is greater contrast between EIPI MH and LIP occupation in the kichwa valleys than in the Junfn puna. We have no ready explanation for this pattern. We must wonder, of course, about the degree to which alluviation of lowlying sites in the main Tarma Valley and its environs may have obscured EIPIMH occupation there. Given the impressive degree to which EIP/MH occupation is visible in the Pa1camayo Valley, however, we suspect that alluviation is a relatively minor problem for the visibility of EIPIMH valley-floor occupation. If we are correct in our assessment of the Formative as a time of very limited occupation throughout our survey area (see Chapter 6), then it may not be so surprising to see such a modest EIPIMH occupation. In fact, what is more surprising from this perspective is the impressive growth and expansion ofEIPI MH occupation in the adjacent Junfn puna from such a limited

Post-Formative Occupations: Patterns and Trends

135

loglca ' IIIy complementary sett ements ( re tIer to Igure 87) eco Table 8.9. EIP/MH clusters 0 f Comments EIP/MH Classification Elevation Cluster Sites (m asl) Herd. Sett., Class D 83 Agr. Sett., Class D 89 Agr. SetL, Class D B 93 Herd. SetL, Class C 131 Agr. Sett., Class C C 95 Herd. Sett., Class C 131 Agr. Sett., Class C D 97 130 Herd. Sett., Class E 129 Agr. SetL, Class E E Herd. SetL, Class E 130 Agr. SetL, Class D F 125 Herd. SetL, Class D 126 112 Herd. Sett., Class B G 113 Agr. Sett., Class E Herd. SetL, Class B H 112 152 Agr. Sett., Class D I 286 Herd. SetL, Class E Agr. SetL, Class E 289 ] 286 Herd. Sett., Class E 287 Agr. Sett., Class D 277 Herd. SetL Class C K Agr. Sett. Class D 278 Sites of uncertain status not included.

4000 3050 3050 3840 3100 3840 3150 4065 3150 4065 3210 3875 3950 3400 3950 3560 3950 3230 3950 3265 3715 3810

A

Table 8.9-A. Types ofEIP/MH settlements in ecologically complementry local c Iusters. Total Number No. in Cluster Site Type Agr. Set!. A B

-

-

C D

3 20

E

II I

2 6 3 0

35

II

-

-

Camp Subtotal Herd. Sett. A

1 2 C 2 2 D 2 6 E 7 2 Camp 6 0 7 23 Subtotal Total 18 58 ConcentrIc nng sItes and sItes of uncertam status excluded B

Formative base (and here, of course, our uncertainty about the age and character of the concentric ring sites comes back into play). It would appear that (1) herding society in the puna developed at a quicker pace than did agricultural society in the kichwa during the EIPIMH; and (2) the earliest fully sedentary agricultural adaptation in our survey area dates to the Early Intermediate Period, and that it was in the Palcamayo Valley where this adaptation attained its florescence. Because the only locality where we found definite early EIP pottery (Usupukio phase)

near survey border near surv~ border Also in Cluster C Also in Cluster B Also in Cluster E Also in Cluster D

Also in Cluster H Too small? Also in Cluster G Also in Cluster] Also in Cluster I

Too high?

%

66.7 30.0 27.3 0.0 31.4

50.0 100.0 33.3 28.6 0.0 30.4 31.0

is Site 97, situated at the edge of the floodplain in the middle Palcamayo Valley, we suspect that this valley may also have been the locus of the earliest fully sedentary agricultural society in our entire survey area. We have no further insights about why the Palcamayo Valley may have been particularly attractive to these early agriculturalists, or about why herders in the nearby Junfn puna may have expanded more rapidly than kichwa agriculturalists during EIPIMH times. As we suggested in Chapter 6, it may have

136

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un{n, Peru, Volume ], Part]

Table 8.10. Mean elevations ofEIP/MH residential settlement types and camps. Site Type Agr. Set!., Class A Agr. Set!., Class B Agr. Set!., Class C Agr. Set!., Class D Agr. Set!., Class E Agr. Camp Herd. Set!., Class A Herd. Set!., Class B Herd. Set!., Class C Herd. Set!., Class D Herd. Set!., Class E Herd. Camp Concentric Ring, Very Large Concentric Ring, Large Concentric Ring, Medium Concentric Ring, Small Concentric Ring, Very Small

Number

Mean Elev. (m asl)

Std. Dev. (m)

-

-

-

3 20 II I

3352 3399 3392 3200

263 284 324

-

-

2 2 6 7 6

3920 3778 3973 4031 4072 4470 4350 4398 4282 4260

1

3 6 18 10

had something to do with the long time depth of highly efficient camelid herding in the Junin puna during the Archaic period (Lavallee and Julien 1975; Lavallee et al. 1982,1985; Matos 1992; K. Moore 1989; Rick 1980; Wheeler et al. 1976), at a time when a less efficient, more generalized hunter-gatherer adaptation apparently persisted in the adjacent kichwa valleys. The EIPIMH Configuration of Ecological Complementarity Local clusters of EIPIMH ecologically complementary agricultural and herding settlements are comparatively uniform and small. Almost all comprise a single pair of complementary settlements within a linear cluster some 2-3 km in length, (Table 8.9; Fig. 8.7); each cluster would contain a few dozen households. As seen in Table 8.9-A, roughly a third of all EIPIMH herding and agricultural settlements (excluding the concentric ring sites) exist within ecologically complementary clusters-a significantly higher proportion than for the LIP (Fig. 8.7). Outside the main Junin puna, we seem to have groups of herders and cultivators in closer spatial proximity (both horizontally and vertically) than for complementary LIP settlements. This might imply that many of the EIPIMH herder and agricultural settlements were occupied by members of the same households with the same households, or household clusters, carrying out both herding and cultivating in close spatial proximity along the steeply sloping valley sides. If such were the case, then over an annual cycle the individual herding and agricultural settlements within our EIP/MH clusters may have been occupied less permanently and by less completely constituted household groups relative to those of the subsequent LIP. In such cases, individual EIPI MH households or components of household clusters would have moved

42 88 220 89 213

82 138 146 224

between settlements within clusters in accordance with the varied seasonal demands of herding and agricultural tasks. Most of the EIP/MH settlements we classify as "herding settlements" (apart from the concentric ring sites in the main Junin puna) occur at elevations between 3778 and 4072 m asl (Table 8.10). This is particularly notable along the juncture between the Huaricolcapuna and the Ricran kichwa (e.g., Sites 253,277,278,349,358,359,374), but occurs throughout our survey area (e.g., Sites 92, 126, 131,286). On the other hand, virtually no concentric ring sites can be assigned to any of the local EIP/MH ecologically complementary settlement clusters. Most of our concentric ring sites are situated well up in the main Junin puna. Only for Site 291 (a small concentric ring site, in Cluster 0) is there any suggestion, based on spatial proximity, of linkage between puna herders and lower-lying EIPI MH agricultural settlements. This configuration suggests that herding was conducted on two very different bases during the EIPIMH: (1) herding specialists living in the concentric ring sites in the main Junin puna; and (2) agricultural-herder generalists living along the major kichwa valleys, in which complementary herding and cultivating activities were carried out from the same settlement, or within pairs of closely spaced settlements. Such a pattern immediately raises the question of how the seemingly more specialized herders in the main Junin puna may have contrived to access kichwa agricultural products. EIPIMH Pastoralists and Agriculturalists When we compare the elevations of different kinds of EIPI MH vs. LIP settlements (Tables 8.10-8.12), we find that LIP agricultural settlements are, on average, some 160 m higher than

Post-Formative Occupations: Patterns and Trends

137

Table 8.11. Mean elevations of LIP and LIP/LH settlement types. Site Type

Agr. Setl., Class A Agr. Setl., Class B Agr. Setl., Class C Agr. Setl., Class D Agr. Setl., Class E Agr. Camp Herd. Sett., Class A Herd. Sett., Class B Herd. Sett., Class C Herd. Setl., Class 0 Herd. Sett., Class E Herd. Camp Spec. Func. Setl., Class A Spec. Func. Setl., Class B Spec. Func. Setl., Class C

n

Mean Elev. (m as I)

Std. Dev. (meters)

-

I

3625

-

-

19 30 16 12 6 4 18 27 31 31 5 8 8

3525 3460 3530 3535 4251 4281 4185 4196 4170 4242 4028 4084 3996

313 402 304 449 121 143 155 203 194 245 101 122 115

Table 8.12. Mean elevations of EIP/MH, LIP, and LIP/LH settlements and camps. Period

Agricultural Settlements

Herding Settlements

n

Elevation (m as/)

n

Elevation (m asl)

LIP

58

3572 ± 375

104

4192 ± 204

LIP/LH

20

3479 ± 342

13

4135 ± 161

EIP/MH

35

3387 ± 285

61

4187± 227

EIP/MH herdIng settlements Include concentnc nng sites. Sites of uncertain status not included.

their EIPIMH counterparts, while the mean elevations of herding settlements are about the same for both periods (Table 8.12). This suggests a significant expansion into higher elevations within the kichwa zone by LIP kichwa agriculturalists, combined with an "in place" intensification of herding in the puna during the same period. This trend is partly the result of a notable shift during the LIP of agriculturalists' residences into hilltop settlements (see below). However, it undoubtedly also reflects the expansion of agricultural production along the edges of the low-lying valley floodplains (where a combination of higher temperatures, greater soil fertility, and more secure water availability probably favored early cultivation) onto the higher slopes (where thinner soils, lower temperatures, water scarcity, shorter growing season, and greater erosion would have posed new challenges for productive agriculture). We will address the question of herder-cultivator interaction more fully in later chapters. For the moment, we merely note our general impression that puna herders and kichwa agriculturalists were physically separated to a greater degree during the EIPIMH

than they were during the LIP (Figs. 8.1, 8.3). In particular, the eastern fringe of the Junfn puna, and the northern edge of the Huaricolca puna, both contained very little EIPIMH occupation; in contrast, these same zones during the subsequent LIP were "filled in" by the impressive special function settlements. We have identified EIPIMH herding settlements (in addition to the concentric ring sites), but almost all of these are situated below (north of) the northern edge of the main Huaricolca puna or below the crests of the long ridges which extend eastward from the main Junfn puna. We suspect that these latter herding settlements reflect the maintenance of small camelid herds by EIPIMH populations who were predominantly kichwa agriculturalists, but who supplemented their agricultural production through direct involvement in small-scale herding along the far eastern fringes of the Junfn puna, where small amounts of permanent pasture were directly available to them on the nearby high ridges above the valley floors. As previously noted, this latter kind of herding activity must have been quite different from that practiced by the EIPIMH

138

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junin, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

groups who inhabited the concentric ring sites in the main Junin puna-the latter were probably full-time herders, with little or no direct involvement in agriculture (and perhaps with continuing heavy dependence on lacustrine resources), and who probably had few close socioeconomic links with their contemporaries in the adjacent kichwa zone. If this scenario is valid, then the eastern-most concentric ring sites (the three sites in Cluster G, plus Sites 52, 139, 142, and 291) take on further significance. If the concentric ring sites were occupied by puna herders who were culturally and ethnically distinct from the kichwa cultivators living along the valley floors below, these easternmost concentric ring sites could represent an early focus of more intensive EIPIMH puna-kichwa interaction of the type which appears to have intensified and expanded during the subsequent LIP.

The Late Horizon Inka-style pottery appears in low frequencies at 49 sites throughout our survey area (Fig. 8.4; Table 8.13). Of these, only five are definitely exclusively Late Horizon, and all five are clearly related directly to the presence of Inka imperial authority: the three Inka provincial centers (Site 60-61-62 [Chacamarca], Site 137/159 [LeticiaiChancha], and Site 283 [Tarmatambo]), and two Inka tambos (Site 183-184 and Site 187-188-189). Virtually all others (excepting only Site 375, a small herding camp) contain predominantly local LIP ceramic types. These latter are the sites we refer to as LIPILH, and for these we remain uncertain about whether they are exclusively Late Horizon, or whether they also were fully occupied during LIP times. Although we have not computed precise figures for the percentages of Inka-style ceramics in our surface collections from LIPILH sites, we suspect that LeBlanc's (1981: 167) finding that such pottery rarely exceeds 2% of the diagnostic sherds in collections from Late Horizon sites in the Wanka region of the main Mantaro Valley is roughly applicable to the TaramaChinchaycocha region. LeBlanc (1981 :234) also notes that Inkastyle pottery is widely distributed in these low frequencies at Late Horizon sites throughout the Wanka region, just as it is in the Tarama-Chinchaychocha region.

LIP-LH Occupational Continuity Inka-style pottery occurs at less than a fifth of all settlements with LIP ceramics (Tables 8.13, 8.14), and these sites are distributed fairly evenly throughout our survey area (Fig. 8.4). This is markedly different from the nearby Wanka region in the main Mantaro Valley, where there are more Late Horizon sites (identified by the presence ofInka-style ceramics) than LIP (Hastorf et al. 1989:86-89). Assuming that we have identified all sites with Inka-style pottery (probably not a very good assumption in view of the low frequency of this pottery throughout our survey area), there may have been a great deal of site abandon-

ment after LIP times, and possibly an overall population decline. Our impression of LH population decline must be considered against the fact that the Late Horizon is a much shorter period of time relative to the antecedent LIP. Such a population decline, if real, would imply that, unlike the Juli-Pomata survey area in the Titicaca Basin (Stanish et al. 1997:119), the Tarama-Chinchaycocha regin was not an area into which immigrant mitimaes groups were moved by Inka imperial authority-an inference that receives additional support from the strong continuities we find in the local LIP and LIPILH ceramic assemblages. Neither can we yet detect any clear suggestions of large-scale relocation of local people, analagous to the findings of D' Altroy (1992) and Hastorf et al. (1989) in the nearby Wanka region. Late Horizon settlements, in both herding and agricultural categories, are distinctly lower in elevation relative to their LIP antecedents (Tables 8.12, 8.15), almost certainly reflecting the abandonment of some hilltop settlements. The most dramatic examples of this are (1) the possible abandonment of Site 231 and the founding of Site 229 at the base of the same ridge, and (2) the possible abandonment of Site 112 and the founding of Site III at the base of the same ridge. This trend which seems to parallel that in the nearby main Mantaro Valley (0' Altroy 1992; Hastorf 1990, 1993; Hastorf and Johannessen 1993). Agricultural settlements and special function settlements show a distinctly higher degree of LIP-to-LH occupational continuity (26.9 and 25.0 percent, respectively) than do herding settlements (11.1 percent) (Table 8.14). In general terms, larger settlements of all types tend to have greater continuity than smaller ones (Table 8.14). These trends may reflect, in part, the greater locational stability of cultivators relative to herders. The placement of the three Inka provincial centers hints at both continuity and abrupt change relati ve to regional sociopolitical and economic priorities during the antecedent LIP. The provincial centers at Site 60-61-62 (Chacamarca) and Site 283 (Tarmatambo) are precisely in those areas that most notably lacked any substantial LIP occupational bnildup: the broad pampa immediately south of Lake Junfn, and the Seco Valley below the north edge of the Huaricolca puna. It seems highly significant that both these nearly empty areas were selected by the Inka as the loci for two of their three regional capitals in our survey area-this parallels, to some degree, the placement of the large Inka center of Hwinuco Pampa (Morris 1973; Morris and Thompson 1970, 1985) in a sparsely occupied locality, and probably reflects the same predominance of strategic over local concerns in Inka geopolitics. The placement of Chacamarca in the vast Junfn pampa, for example, might reflect the great importance of adequate pasture for large numbers of camelids in expanding imperial herds. The placement of the Tarmatambo center is additionally interesting because it appears to be precisely at the LIP WankaTarama frontier (see above). This makes us wonder if the Chacamarca center in the Junfn puna might not also occupy some sort of LIP sociopolitical frontier, one that is not pres-

Post-Formative Occupations: Patterns and Trends

139

Table 8.13. Sites with Inka-style pottery (refer to Figure 8.4). Site No. 37 38 55 60-61-62 63 64 65 71 72 76 78 85 87 105 III

125 129 1371159 143 148 151 160 183-184 187 -188-189 201 211 229 252 254 260 269 270 273 274 277 283 292 295 312 320 321 324 332 350 352 355 359 363 375

Hoja

Elev. (m as I)

Cachipampa Cachipampa Junin Junin Junin Junin Paccha-I Palca Palca Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Palcamayo Palcamayo Palcamayo Palcamayo La Cima La Cima LaCima LaCima La Cima Maco Maco Tarma Tarma Tarma Tarma Tarma Tarma Tarma Tarma Tarma Paccha-II Paccha-II Paccha-II Paeeha-II Paeeha-II Ricran Rieran Ricran Rieran Rieran Huarieolea

ently so apparent to us. In any event, in both cases the Inka appear to have been attracted for the placement of their provincial capitals to terrain which was not closely identified with any local LIP polity. This may represent a deliberate Inka strategy, undertaken for the purpose of securing greater credibility and legitimacy for the new administrative authorities, in the eyes of all the local inhabitants of a region, by avoiding any

3200 3200 4200 4150 4125 4090 4090 2760 3030 3230 3330 3020 3200 3885 3900 3210 3150 3550 3460 3940 3625 3870 4170 4105 4425 4410 4315 3830 3800 4065 3330 3970 3625 3200 3715 3490 3945 3810 4070 3965 3965 3980 4230 4090 4100 4105 3830 3825 4130

LIP/LH Classification Agr. Sett., Class D Agr. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class C Inka Proy. Center Herding Camp Herding Camp Herding Camp Agr. Camp Uncertain Agr. Sett., Class D Agr. Sett., Class E Agr. Sett., Class D Agr. Sett., Class C Spec. Func., Class C Spec. Func., Class A Agr. Setl., Class C Agr. Setl., Class C Inka Proy. Center Agr. Setl., Class E Herd. Sett., Class C Agr. Setl., Class D Agr. Setl., Class C Inka Tambo Inka Tambo Herd. Setl., Class B Herd. Setl., Class D Herd. Sett., Class B Agr. Camp Agr. Setl., Class D Spec. Func., Class C Agr. Setl., Class C Agr. Setl., Class C Agr. Sett., Class A Agr. Camp Uncertain Inka Proy. Center Agr. Setl., Class C Agr. Setl., Class E Herd. Setl., Class D Herd. Setl., Class C Herd. Setl., Class E Small Isolated Cemetery Herd. Sett., Class D Small Isolated Cemetery Large Isolated Cemetery Spec. Fune., Class B Uncertain Agr. Setl., Class D Herding Camp

close spatial association with specific settlements, monuments, and areas which had close identity with one or another of the components of the local LIP sociopolitical landscape. Conversely, it might simply reflect the greater ease of establishing imperial facilities in areas less subject to competing local claims. The third Inka provincial center, Site 137/159 (Chancha, or Leticia), is seemingly quite different in this regard. Although it

140

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junfn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Table 8.14. LIP-to-LH settlement continuity Site Category

All Settlements

% with

No. LIP and L1P/LH Sites

No. L1P/LH Sites

216

39

18.13

I

LH Occupation

Agricultural Settlements Class A Class B Class C Class 0 Class E Camp Subtotal

I

-

100.0

19 30 16 12 78

8 5 4 3 21

42.1 16.7 25.0 25.0 26.9

Herding Settlements Class A Class B Class C Class 0 Class E Camp Subtotal

6 4 18 27 31 31 117

0 3 2 3 4 13

0.0 25.0 16.7 7.4 9.7 12.9

Spec. Func. Settlements Class A Class B Class C Subtotal

5 8 8 21

2 1 2 5

I

-

Il.l

40.0 12.5 25.0 25.0

Spacing of Inka Facilities is also situated on topographically low-lying, previously unoccupied terrain, the Chancha center lies directly below the arc of five large special function settlements at the main puna-kichwa juncture (Sites 155, 157, 163, 164, and 298) which, in their totality, may have formed the dominant LIP regional administrative center. In this case, the Inka authorities seem to have been attracted, as had their LIP counterparts before them, to this unusually strategic setting from which the maximal number of both puna herders and kichwa cultivators could be manipulated at the regional level. Significantly, none of our surface collections from the five large LIP special function settlements (Sites ISS, 157, 163, 164, 298) on the high ridges immediately west of the Inka center at Chancha contain any Inka-style pottery-a finding suggestive of the quick abandonment of these regional-level LIP centers as their functions were quickly replaced and extended by those of the Inka at their new Chancha center. In addition, as Hastings (1985:555) has earlier noted, we found almost no Inka-style pottery at any of the numerous LIP settlements clustered around the edges of the Quebrada Jacahuasi (on whose main floor the Chancha center is located). This is much different from adjacent kichwa valleys (Fig. 8.4), where Inka-style pottery is much more abundant. This, too, is suggestive of a relocation of local population into the strategic new Inka center at Chancha.

The relatively uniform spacing between the five Inka administrative facilities may reflect considerations of administrative efficiency at the regional level. Tarmatambo (Site 283) is about 14 km (straight-line distance) from Chancha (Site 1371 159); Chancha is about 17 km from the two small tambos on the Junln puna (Site 183-184 and Site 187-188-189); the latter two tambos are about 15 km from Chacamarca (Site 60-61-62) (Fig. 8.4), approximately the distance of a typical day's journey with heavily laden carriers (human or camelid); furthermore, the precise placement of the two small tambos appears to have been determined by the need to provide a convenient overnight stopping point for heavily laden personnel at a point about midway between two provincial centers (Chacamarca and Chancha). It is also notable that all formal Inka-administered storage in our Tarama-Chinchaycocha survey area appears to have been tightly concentrated at the imperial centers and tambos. This is similar to the situation at Hminuco Pampa (Levine 1992; Morris 1973; Morris and Thompson 1970, 1985), but stands in marked contrast to the nearby main Mantaro Valley (Browman 1970; D' Altroy 1992; Earle et al. 1980; Levine 1992; Parsons and Hastings 1977), where such storage facilities are physically much more dispersed. The different configurations of imperial storage probably reflect regional variability in imperial admin-

141

Post-Formative Occupations: Patterns and Trends

Table 8.15. Mean elevations of LIP vs. LIP/LH settlements and camps. Site Category All Sites Agricultural Settlements Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Camp Subtotal Herding Settlements Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Camp Subtotal

LIP Sites n 179

-

mean & std. dey. (m asl) 3958 ± 409

-

-

-

11

LIP/LH Sites n 37 I

mean & std. dey. (m as I) 3764 ± 189

-

-

25 13 9 58

3554 ± 3444 ± 3529 ± 3626 ± 3512 ±

277 442 324 425 375

8 5 3 3 20

3484 ± 3536 ± 3533 ± 3263 ± 3479 ±

6 3 15 25 28 27 104

4251 ± 121 4233 ± 130 4215 ± 143 4192 ± 205 4176± 197 4177 ± 262 4192±204

-

-

I

4425 4035 ± 4240 ± 4115 ± 4098 ± 4135 ±

Spec. Func. Settlements Class A 4 Class B 7 Class C 6 Subtotal 17 Sites of uncertain status not included.

4060 ± 4081 ± 4003 ± 4048 ±

82 132 123 117

istration. The underlying causes of such variability probably relate to the differences in population density and sociopolitical hierarchy which the Inka encountered in different parts of their expanding domain. The distribution of old furrowed fields and isolated corrals in the Junln puna (see below) suggests that both agricultural production and herding in the puna may have intensified during the Late Horizon. If so, this might imply that local subsistence autonomy for the Inka provincial center at Chacamarca and for the nearby tambo facilities were major concerns of the imperial authorities. Although we had not expected to find possible evidence for such large-scale agricultural production anywhere in the Junin puna, this would appear to be in keeping with overall Inka strategies of local subsistence autonomy throughout the core regions of the empire (e.g., D' Altroy 1992; LaLone 1982; Murra 1972). It is possible, for example, that a sizable number of the residents at Chacamarca devoted their labor to tuber cultivation in the extensive furrowed fields which surrounded the Inka center. On the other hand, it appears that imperial herding may have operated out of more dispersed bases concentrated in the southern part of the Junin puna (see below). Spacing of Local (Non-Imperial) LH Centers The distribution of large, non-imperial settlements (Class A and B) with Inka-style pottery shows a fairly evenly spaced

3 2 3 4 13 I I

2 4

372 303 248 538 342

143 170 184 18 161

3900 4105 3975 ± 127 3989 ± 113

configuration of five such sites (Sites 111,201, 229,273, and 355) (Fig. 8.4). Two of the sites (Sites 201 and 229) are more closely spaced, but these might be considered the dual foci of a single regional center in the Junin puna. Three of the five sites (Sites 201, 273, and 355) are ridgecrest settlements, reminiscent of the older LIP pattern; while two sites (111 and 229) are in topographically low-lying locations which may lack LIP occupation. Assuming that these five sites are the only large Late Horizon settlements (aside from the Inka provincial centers) in our survey area, they might be taken as good candidates for the loci of subimperial capitals, from whence local elites administered their own domains within the overall regional hierarchy. If so, there would appear to be one such subimperial capital centered at closely spaced Sites 201 and 229 in the main Junin puna; another centered at Site 111 in the upper Palcamayo Valley at the puna-kichwa juncture; another at Site 273, near the puna-kichwa juncture in the upper Tarma drainage; and another at Site 355, at the puna-kichwa juncture in the upper Ricran drainage. The notable and unique close proximity of Site 273 to the Inka provincial center at Tarmatambo (Site 283) might indicate that imperial and subimperial administration operated in a comparatively autonomous fashion. If that were the case, the regularly spaced Inka provincial centers were placed according to imperial needs, while the placement of subimperial centers reflected another, quite different set of strictly local concerns which did not necessarily require even spacing between

142

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un{n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

sites at different administrative levels. This pattern dovetails with suggestions about dual economies and dual settlement systems under Inka domination that have been proposed for other parts of the Central Andean highlands (e.g., Earle et al. 1980; Hastorf 1990; M. LaLone 1985; Mathews 1989).

The Distribution of Middle Horizon Wari Tradewares We did not find a single distinctive piece of Wari-style pottery anywhere in our survey area. This negative finding is similar to that of several other investigators in the sierra central (e.g., Hastings 1985; Hastorf et al. 1989; Lavalle 1979), but differs from some parts of the north, central, and south Peruvian highlands where significant quantities of Wari-style ceramics and architecture have been reported from localities well outside the Wari heartland (e.g., Browman 1970; Feldman 1989; Isbell 1989, 1991; MacNeish et al. 1975; McEwan 1991; Menzel 1964; Moseley et al. 1991; Schreiber 1991; Shady 1988; Thatcher 1974; J. Topic 1991; T. Topic 1991). Our negative data simply serve to reinforce the obvious pattern that the distribution of Wari-style pottery throughout the Central Andes is highly variable and, outside the Wari heartland area, is largely confined to a few strategic centers (which are themselves quite diverse in character).

The Distribution of LIP Wanka Tradewares The overwhelming majority of LIP sites in our survey area are characterized by the presence of San Bias Red/Buff pottery, plus several other ceramic types characteristic of the TaramaChinchaycocha region (see Appendix B). The main exceptions are those sites at the far southeastern corner of our survey area, where Wanka ceramics are predominant (LeBlanc 1981). During LIP times this latter area comprised the ethnohistorically documented Wanka-Tarama frontier. However, Wanka pottery also occurs in very small quantities at several LIP sites where Tarama-Chinchaycocha ceramic types are predominant (Fig. 8.8; Table 8.16). In these contexts, the label "tradeware" seems appropriate. Because of its low frequency, it is doubtful that we succeeded in identifying all sites where Wanka tradeware occurs. Nevertheless, its apparent distribution is interesting. Figure 8.8 shows that Wanka tradeware occurs in only two widely separated parts of our survey area: at two sites along the Rio Mantaro in the far southwestern corner, and at nine sites in the far northeastern corner. Table 8.16 indicates that this tradeware occurs very predominantly at small agricultural settlements. Perhaps the most interesting exception to the general pattern is Site 332 (a large regional storage facility, in the southern Junin puna). This distributional pattern is counterintuitive. Wanka tradeware is apparently absent at almost all of the largest TaramaChinchaycocha settlements (excepting only Site 23, a Class B

Table 8.16. LIP and LIP/LH sites with Wanka tradeware (refer to Figure 8.5). Site No.

Hoja

Classification

10

Chuquisyunga Cachipampa Cachipampa Cachipampa Cachipampa Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba Paccha-I1 Malpaso

Agr. Settlement, Class 0 Spec. Func. Settlement, Class B Herd. Settlement, Class 0 Agr. Settlement, Class 0 Agr. Settlement, Class E Agr. Settlement, Class 0 Agr. Settlement, Class 0 Agr. Settlement, Class E Agr. Settlement, Class C Large Regional Storage Facility Herd. Settlement, Class 0

23 24 37 49 75 76 100 101

332 344

special function settlement), which might be expected to have had the most intense and enduring interregional relationships. Could the apparent absence of such relationships be explained on the basis of hostile relationships which precluded material exchanges? If so, how are we to ex plain the presence of Wanka tradewares at the small agricultural settlements at the northeastern corner of our survey area? The reality of this latter distributional pattern is reinforced by Hastings' (1985) finds of Wanka tradewares at small sites scattered throughout lower elevations in the adjacent kichwa and ceja de montana further to the north and east. Might this more far-flung distribution ofWanka pottery reflect ties between more distant groups, between whom there was no intense hostility, and which were more ecologically complementary? Were the Wanka, for instance, interested in the coca which would have been available directly from the ceja de montana (Hastings 1985, 1987; Levine 1979). Does the presence of Wanka trade ware along the Mantaro Valley in the far southwestern corner of our survey area reflect the general importance of this large valley as a major avenue of interregional exchange and sociopolitical interaction in this part of the sierra central? We believe, for example, that the Wanka tradewares at Site 332 (a large regional storage facility) may reflect multiethnic/multipolity rituals and exchanges performed at or near there (see Chapter 9).

Isolated Furrowed Fields and Camelid Corrals in the Junin Puna The Junin puna is a comparatively undisturbed landscape and contains many isolated "old" camelid corrals and extensive zones of long-abandoned "furrowed" fields (Parsons 1985, 1998). Few of these have been formally designated as sitesusually because they lacked surface pottery, or were otherwise chronologically questionable. Nevertheless, we were impressed enough by these remains to record them on our survey air pho-

143

Post-Formative Occupations: Patterns and Trends

tos, and we have plotted their distributions to assist our overall interpretations (Figs. 8.9, 8.10). We have not found anything comparable to the large areas of nucleated walled enclosures reported by Cardich (1975) on the high plains of the Lauricocha region at the far north end of the J unin puna. Cardich interprets these latter features, which typically measure .25-.5 ha in area, and which sometimes contain subterranean canals, as irrigated agricultural fields. These "fields" are superficially similar to the features we call "corrals," but appear to be larger than ours and much more nucleated. Our maps of furrowed fields and isolated corrals are not highly accurate; we did not record them in a precise way. Nevertheless, we provide these schematic maps because they offer a good general impression of the overall distribution of these archaeological features. The features we designate as ancient camelid corrals proved fairly easy to recognize and identify as such. These were typically low, dry-laid stone walls, usually preserved only one or two courses high and heavily overgrown with lichen, grass, and moss, forming enclosures of variable size, usually on open, topographically low-lying ground. Some long-abandoned, historic-period corrals can look very "ancient," even though they may be entirely post-hispanic. Lavallee and Julien (1983:5859) report similar features at high elevations along the middle Mantaro drainage southeast of Huancayo. The furrowed fields are quite similar to those still being constructed and used in the area today, mainly for the cultivation of maca (Lepidium meyenii Walp.), a hardy tuber which can be

raised up to about 4400 m asl (Leon 1964). Modern and ancient furrowed fields in the Junfn puna tend to be 10-30 m long (although there can be considerable variation according to local micro-topography), measuring 2 m from crest to crest, with a maximum local relief of 30-40 cm (bottom of trough to top of adjacent crest), and they are constructed approximately parallel to the topographic contours (today potatoes are planted in similar fields, but with the furrows perpendicular to the contours). Today these furrowed fields are created by heaving up blocks of earth and sod with a traditional Andean foot-plow (chaquitaklla) and the tubers are planted in the raised earth (Plate 2.1). The abandoned furrowed fields typically occur in closely packed blocks which sometimes extend continuously over large areas (Fig. 8.9; Plates A205, A229, A245, A378; see also Rick 1980: 15, Fig. 2.2). The overwhelming majority of old furrowed fields occur in the form of large, contiguous blocks on the broad plains south of Lake Junfn (Fig. 8.11). These fields also occur in many other parts of the Junfn puna, almost invariably in the form of small, isolated patches that are seldom more than a few hectares in area. There is no large-scale clustering of old fields around archaeological settlements dating to EIPIMH or LIP times. Some localized clustering does occur: e.g., around Sites 322, 181, 55,57-58, and there are possible associations at Sites 311, 240, and 344. This distributional pattern suggests that maca cultivation was relatively unimportant during most of the prehispanic period in the Junfn puna, but that it may have played a secondary subsistence role at some point(s).

___ ""r"c,)~,",X:

.•

.:• •

R_

",

Huasal1U , / ' .. ---_

/

(/'" .-'"'--':~­--",

o

5

LLLLLJ km

------

limits of survey

_____

major flvers

_

streams

c=J

•

Sites with Wanka tradeware

above 4000 m elevation

Figure 8.8. LIP sites with Wanka tradeware.

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junfn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

144

,

furrowed fields limits of survey

major rivers

@ Chacamarca

streams

~ above 4000 m elevation

Figure 8.9. Distribution of old furrowed fields.

Figure 8.lD. Distribution of isolated camelid corrals.

145

Post-Formative Occupations: Patterns and Trends

,-

I N

t 10 I meters

~

depression

Figure 8.11. Detail of old furrowed fields.

Nevertheless, the large concentration of old furrowed fields on the plains south of Lake Junin is very impressive. The only archaeological site of any size in this entire region is the Inka provincial center at Chacamarca (Site 60-61-62). This site is situated at the approximate midpoint of the largest contiguous expanse of old fields (Fig. 8.9), and we could infer a direct relationship between the fields and the Inka center. This would imply an impressive expansion of agricultural production around Chacamarca during the Late Horizon directly related to the imposition ofInka authority. The remains of a prehispanic stonelined irrigation canal (Site 304-A) associated with one large concentration of ancient furrowed fields is also suggestive of intensive maca production in the region. Some, many, or even most of these furrowed fields may date to historic times. Matos (1980:105, citing Rostworoski 1975) notes the documented importance of maca production in this zone during the mid-sixteenth century. At that time there was an annual tribute to the Spanish colonial authorities of some 300 "cargas" of locally produced maca. Such high production during the colonial period may, or may not, have had prehispanic antecedents. It may, for example, reflect the purely hispanicperiod need to supply large mining communities at nearby La Oroya and Cerro de Pasco (Rostworowski 1975).

The distribution of isolated old corrals (Fig. 8.10) is less revealing. There is, however, a suggestion of a greater concentration of corrals in the southern part of the Junin puna. Isolated old corrals are not absent from the plain immediately south of Lake Junin-e.g., the sizable cluster north of Site 57-58, and a more modest concentration south and west of Site 55 (Fig. A43). Nevertheless, the great majority of these corrals is situated in the southern Junin puna, and thus their overall distribution is complementary to that of the old furrowed fields. This might mean that most of the isolated corrals, as most of the furrowed fields, are Late Horizon in age, and reflect Inka imperial authority. Perhaps under the Inka the Junin puna was divided so that maca cultivation under imperial auspices predominated in the northern part of our survey area, while Inka-administered herding was dominant in the south. If most of our isolated corrals are actually Late Horizon, this might imply that a different pattern of herding prevailed under Inka control relative to that of LIP times: a two-tier herding economy, with a state-managed herding system in which (1) some herds and herders were less closely tied to residential settlements, and (2) a locally managed system, using different pastures, which continued to be based more directly from residential settlements.

146

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]unfn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

The Impact of Climate Change Recent geomorphological and paleoclimatological studies (e.g., Hansen et a1. 1984; Thompson et a1. 1985, 1992; H. E. Wright 1983, 1984; Wright et a1. 1989) indicate that there were two brief periods of pan-Andean glacial advance during later prehispanic times. Seltzer and Hastorf (1990:405) estimate that the earlier of these advances occurred A.D. 450-680 and the later (and better dated) A.D. 1290-1500. The earlier glacial advance was apparently accompanied by an especially severe panAndean drought (Shimada et a1. 1991). Much of the late EIP and later LIP in our survey area would apparently have been characterized by significantly cooler and drier conditions relative to the present-Seltzer and Hastorf suggest that climatic zones in the sierra would have been vertically depressed by up to 150 m relative to those of modern times. Citing Eddy's (1977) studies (not all of which conform to the results of the more recent work referenced above), Burger (1992:24) and Cardich (1985:316-23) infer that much of the Formative (Late Initial Period and Early Horizon) and the Middle Horizon were significantly colder than present. Both episodes noted by Seltzer and Hastorf appear to correlate with notable changes in settlement patterning in the TaramaChinchaycocha region: (1) the general expansion of occupation during the later EIP (or perhaps the Middle Horizon) which occurred throughout our survey area, but which was especially pronounced in the Junin puna; and (2) the LIP florescence throughout our survey area, which probably dates mainly to the second half of that long period. In both cases, it appears that expansion and florescence took place during periods of environmental stress; or if, as we suggested earlier, most of our EIP/ MH settlement is actually Middle Horizon, then the expansion we see for that era would have occurred shortly after the abatement of the unusually cold and dry conditions. Are we justified in seeing these external climatic stresses as causal factors for the population growth, expanding settlement, changing socioeconomic relationships between herders and agriculturalists, and increased sociopolitical complexity which we have inferred from our survey data? Obviously, before we can even begin to answer this question, we will need much better chronological controls, better paleoenvironmental data, more information about household and community economies, and better insights into sociopolitical organization at the local and regional levels. Even so, we suspect that environmental stresses may have played a significant role in the long-term trends and changes we observe in the Tarama-Chinchaycocha region, just as they appear to have done in the nearby Wanka region in the main Mantaro Valley. We have in mind two complementary kinds of problems which cooler and drier conditions could have produced in our survey area. First, an increased need for new levels of sociopolitical control which could have been produced by greater competition within the kichwa and puna zones over access to more restricted agricultural and herding terrain, respectively. Secondly, an increased need for

new organizational mechanisms to insure access for all households and all communities to both kichwa and puna products in the face of increased physical separation between herding and agricultural zones as the maximal elevations for effective cultivation were lowered by up to 150 m. It is probable, of course, that there were quite different kinds of responses to stress produced by cooler and drier climate during the two periods in question. Relative to the LIP, the EIP/ MH was apparently a time of lower population density and different sociopolitical organization. Consequently, it is likely that climatic stresses would have had very different impacts and very different solutions in the sixth or seventh century A.D. than they would have had in the thirteenth or fourteenth century. In fact, if most of our EIP/MH occupation is actually Middle Horizon, then the main impact of the climatic stresses during the later EIP may have been to suppress continued agricultural development from the very modest Formative and early Erp foundation. In that context, such development may have been possible only after warmer and wetter conditions returned during the Middle Horizon (cf. Cardich 1985). On the other hand, the presumably larger and more complex systems of the LIP may have been able to implement radical organizational and technological change in the face of the same problems which had "defeated" or constrained decision makers 700 years earlier in the same region. One factor does seem relatively constant when thinking about the potential impacts of cooler and drier climate in the TaramaChinchaycocha region: agricultural production would probably have been more seriously affected than herding. Thus, it may have been during the two periods of cooler, drier climate that herding and herders in the puna came to enjoy a privileged position relative to agriculture and agriculturalists in the kichwa. It may have been at these times when kichwa agriculturalists would have attempted to emigrate into the adjacent puna, or when they may have attempted to diversify their household economies by expanding their camelid flocks in nearby puna grasslands and/or at higher elevations within the kichwa valleys which were becoming increasingly marginal for cultivation. It may have been at these times when kichwa cultivators would have found it necessary to develop new technological and organizational mechanisms for intensifying agricultural production and for dealing with puna herders. Similar considerations probably apply to changing relationships between kichwa and ceja de montana populations (Hastings 1985, 1987). Puna herders may also have been forced to modify their traditional practices in the face of cooling and drying conditions that constricted the size and availability of prime, permanent pasture land, and necessitated more frequent movement of flocks from one location to another as local carrying capacities were reduced. It may also have been at these times that puna herders, finding it increasingly difficult to acquire agricultural products by means of normal exchange relationships with their kichwa neighbors, would have begun to resort to more forceful means, per-

Post-Formative Occupations: Patterns and Trends

haps emboldened by their growing strength relative to the decline fortunes of the kichwa agriculturalists. It may have been the kichwa leaders, in the face of the particularly serious consequences of climatic change which they faced, who were most highly motivated to devise new mechanisms for dealing in a non-violent way with their puna neighbors so as to preserve their own positions in the face of changing circumstances. In these ways, the climatic stresses of the LIP may have contributed to new forms of herder-cultivator interaction in our survey area. Overall Summary Our data suggest a doubling or tripling of population within our survey area over the thousand-year period, roughly A.D. 500-1500. This expanion was accompanied by (1) the movement of agriculturalists into higher elevations within the kichwa zone, (2) an intensification of specialized herding in the puna, and (3) a particularly impressive buildup of unusually large sites (the special function settlements) along the puna-kichwa juncture. The initial occupation of the kichwa by sedentary groups during the EIP/MH appears to have been both chronologically delayed, spatially restricted, and developmentally simplified

147

relative to that of more numeruous, more widely distributed, and more hierarchically organized herders in the adjacent puna. The impact of Middle Horizon Wari in our survey area remains problematical. It appears that during the LIP, regional-level socioeconomic and sociopolitical integration of kichwa agricultural and puna herding groups was achieved for the first time, with strategically placed special function settlements functioning as centers for the linkage of agricultural and herding communities that were themselves hierarchically structured. The Inka conquest is manifested by an overlay of new imperial provincial centers connected by a road network. These new centers were strategically placed so as to facilitate the regional integration of puna and kichwa economies and to accomodate the existing local sociopolitical structure. There are hints of distinctive imperial-level and local-level sociopolitical and socioeconomic systems operating in comparative autonomy during the Late Horizon. There was some relocation oflocal population under Inka administration, but no indications of substantial movements of either indigenous or immigrant (mitimaes) groups. The impact of climate change remains uncertain, but cooling and drying episodes in the middle first millennium and early second millennium A.D. may have provoked some organizational and technological changes.

148

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junin, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Chapter 9

The Definition of Public Architecture Public architecture provides the archaeologist with an especially useful index of prehistoric social differentiation. Prestige and dominance are often validated or claimed through elite-sponsored performances in formal and awe-inspiring public settings. In most known hierarchical societies, individuals and institutions seeking to gain or hold or extend their prestige and authority do so by underwriting public festivities symbolic of their achievements, capabilities, or aspirations. Such public performances are often intended to be as impressive as possible so as to provide large groups of observers and participants with information about the status of those who sponsor the fe:tivities, and in so doing to sanction the continued support or subservience of followers, or to suppress the aspirations of potential competitors (e.g., Forde and Kaberry 1967; Helms 1979). In general, archaeologists have come to assume that the greater the degree of differentiation and hierarchy within a sociocultural system, the greater the variety and scale of public architecture associated with elite prestige and administrative functions (e.g., De Montmollin 1987; Flannery and Marcus 1976; Spencer 1990; H. T. Wright 1984). By virtue of its scale and complexity, public architecture is often readily identifiable. Ironically, however, the very factors which often facilitate the archaeological investigation of public architecture also have the potential to obscure its recognition and comprehension in contexts where public functions may take place in facilities which are architecturally subtle, or simply radically different from what the archaeologist may have expected to encounter. Consider, for example, the simple open spaces in south-central Chile, little modified by artificial construction and lacking permanent architectural installations, which Dillehay (1990) describes as the loci for important twentieth century Mapuche regional ceremonies; or the slightly modified hilltops described by Silverman (1993b: 112) as characteristic of the Peruvian southcoastal Nasca culture during the EIP; or the massive, but archi-

tecturally subtle, Classic-period formal entrances into the Cuicatlan Canada in southern Mexico (Spencer 1982). Similarly, ethnologists such as Sallnow (1991) and Poole (1982, 1984, 1991) have provided rich documentation of public pilgrimages and ritual dance performances, critical for the definition and maintenance of local- and regional-level socioeconomic and sociopolitical hierarchies in contemporary highland Andean society, that are performed in isolated places and with very modest architectonic facilities. Their accounts are especially notable for the importance in public ritual played by topography: e.g., places which, by virtue of their particularly good views of distant hilltop shrines, become important points along pilgrimage routes, or passes between major drainage divides, and ranges of mountains, that are seen as the physical demarcations between moieties, ethnic groups, or kichwa agriculturalists and puna pastoralists. We have already noted the virtual absence in our survey area of anything comparable to the formal prehispanic Mesoamerican plaza-temple complex. Rudecoff(1982) and Grosboll (1988:82-85) report a similar scarcity of such architecture at post-EIP settlements in the Huallaga-Higueras drainage in the Peruvian north-central sierra. For the Wanka region near Jauja in the main Mantaro Valley, LeBlanc (1981: 65-66, 73) reports probable public buildings at Hatunmarca (a large LIP center) in the form of unusually large circular structures associated with low-frequency rectangular buildings. She also (1981: 110) describes two formal plazas (40 x 45 m and 35 x 15 m in area) associated with large rectangular buildings at nearby Tunanmarca, another large LIP center. Even so, D' Altroy (1992:57) calls attention to the dearth of large-scale public architecture during late LIP times (Wanka II phase) in the same region. He suggests that for the fourteenth and fifteenth century Wanka, "large-scale mobilizations of group labor were invested primarily in defensive construction and military activity. "

149

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un{n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

150

Table 9.1. Sites with Class I, II, III, or IV public architecture. Class

I

II

III

IV

Site No. 67 112 125 139 140 178 208 213 219 220 237 257 262 273 291 292 307 313 362 33 38 44 89 105 139 150 101 135 260 44 260

Main Component LIP LIP LIP/LH LIP LIP LIP LIP LIP LIP EIP/MH

LIP LIP LIP LIP/.LH LIP L1P/LH LIP LIP LIP LIP LIP LIP LIP L1P/LH LIP LIP LIP LIP L1P/LH LIP L1P/LH

Classification Agr. Sett., Class D Spec. Func. Sett. Class A Agr. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class C Herding Camp (?)_ Herd. Sett., Class D Herd. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class D Very Large Concentric-Ring Site Herd. Sett., Class D Spec. Func. Sett., Class B Agr. Sett., Class E Agr. Sett., Class A Agr. Setl., Class C Agr. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class D Herd. Selt., Class E Herd. Sett., Class C Spec. Func. Selt., Class C Agr. Sett., Class C Spec. Func. Selt., Class C Agr. Setl. Class D Spec. Func. Sell., Class C Herd. Selt., Class C Spec. Func. Selt., Class C Agr. Sett., Class C Isolated Agr. Terraces Spec. Func. Setl., Class C Spec. Func. Sell., Class C Spec. Func. Selt., Class C

Lumbreras (1990:240) has suggested that there was a contrast between the forms of Middle Horizon public architecture in the Peruvian north coast vs. the south-central highlands: a north coastal tradition of plazas, temples, and palaces in regions less influenced by Wari, vs. a south-central highland tradition of hilltop shrines associated with zones of Wari domination. His observations may point to broad regional contrasts in the architectonic character and emphases of public ritual activities. In our Tarama-Chinchaycocha survey area, we seem to have comparatively subtle architectonic manifestations of prehispanic public functions. So subtle, in fact, that in the field we never recognized anything which we regarded as definitive public architecture. Our suggestions about what may constitute such architecture are based on ca..-eful re-examinations of our field notes years after fie:dwork was completed. Our after-the-fact identifications of public architecture are partly based on greater familiarity than we had in the mid-1970s with the Andean ethnohistoric and ethnographic literature, which emphasizes the importance of sacred hills, the supernatural role of deceased ancestors, the character and social composition of local and regional festivities and the nature of their accompanying rituals and ritual offerings.

Comments circular building unique 2-story building tomb complex tomb complex lunate building tomb complex tomb complex tomb complex tomb complex tomb complex; also has LIP componenl tomb complex lunate building tomb complex square-rectangular building square and rectangular buildings square building tomb tomb complex circular structure 2 "towers" 4 "towers" 7 "towers" 2 "towers 4 "towers" 1 "tower" 2 "towers '1 plaza plaza plaza stone monolith plaza with stone monolith II

Our in-the-field insensitivity to the full significance of architectural features probably means that our recording of potentially important architectural features was not done as systematically as we now wish it had been. Furthermore, our ability to infer public architecture is certainly much better for LIP and LIPILH sites than it is for EIPIMH sites whose architectural remains are usually poorly preserved. Clearly, our inferences based on the distribution of public architecture are suggestive rather than definitive.

Inside-Settlement Public Architecture Classes of Inside-Settlement Public Architecture

We have identified six main classes of inside-settlement architecture which might qualify as "public." All this architecture lacks obvious "monumentality," and all is physically quite modest in scale. Class 1 (n= 19 sites )-Hilltop architectural complexes (Table 9.1; Fig. 9.1). Complexes of unusually large or unusually styled stone-walled buildings (usually either circular or square-to-rect-

151

The Definition of Public Architecture

Table 9.2. Sites with Class V public architecture (multistOlY rectangular storehouses). Hoja

Elev. (m as I)

Classification

No. of storehouses

Approx % Storehouses

32

Cachipampa

3850

LIP: Herd. Setl., Class 0

I

Total Structures (excl. tombs) 16

69 73 78 84

Palca Palca Acobamba Acobamba

4180 3630 3330 3225

I 2-3 (?) I (?) 3-plus

c. 18 45 ? c. 20 (?)

5.6 6.7 ? 20.0

86 87

Acobamba Acobamba

3260 3200

2 c.35

c . 10 (?) c. 75

20.0 46.7

89 92

Acobamba Acobamba

2930 3865

I-plus 10-plus(?)

c. 25 c.20

8.0 50.0

93

Acobamba

3050

c. 4

c.20

20.0

98 99 101

Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba

3740 4160 3640

6-8(?) 2-plus c.20

c.20 c. 8 c. 70

35.0 25.0 28.6

120

Acobamba

3330

c. 3 (7)

c. 20 (?)

15.0

123 128 129

Acobamba Acobamba Acobamba

3430 3560 3150

c. 35 I-plus 6-10(?)

c. 38 c. 15 (7) c. 50

92.1 13.3 16.0

130

Acobamba

4065

6-10(7)

c.25

32.0

132

Acobamba

3450

c. 5(7)

c. 50

10.0

144

Palcamayo

3865

8-10

c.IO

90.0

145 153 155 160 161 163

Palcamayo Palcamayo Palcamayo Palcamayo Palcamayo Palcamayo

3890 4225 4195 3870 3945 4100

12-15 I I-plus (7) 2-3 (7) 5-8 (?) 15-20

c. 15 c.30 c.35 c.40 c. 50 c. 150

93.3 3.3 5.7 7.5 14.0 12.0

164

Palcamayo

4040

10-plus

c. 60

18.3

269

Tarm

3330

c. 5 (?)

c. 50

10.0

291

Tarma

3955

2-3 (7)

c. 50

6.0

292 296 298 299 321

Tarma Tarma Pa1capacha Palcapacha Paccha-II

3945 3650 4140 3340 3965

10 5-6 5-10 c. 2 c. 3

c.45 c. 55 c. 150 c. 20 (?) c. 8

322

Paccha-II

4265

c. 15

c.90

332 338 341 347

Paccha-II Paccha-II Paccha-II Ricran

4230 4050 3990 4085

LIP: Agr. Setl., Class 0 LIP: Agr. Setl., Class C LlP/LH: Agr. Setl., Class E EIP/MH: Agr. Setl., Class 0 LIP: Uncertain LIP: Agr. Setl., Class 0 EIP/MH: Uncertain LlP/LH: Agr. Setl., Class C LIP: Agr. Setl., Class 0 EIP/MH: Herd. Setl., Class 0 LIP: Herd. Sett., Class D EIP/MH: Agr. Setl., Class D LIP: Agr. Setl. Class D LIP: Agr. Setl., Class 0 LIP: Herd. Set!. Class E EIP/MH: Uncertain LIP: Agr. SetL, Class C EIP/MH: Agr. Setl., Class 0 LIP: Uncertain LIP: Large Regional Storage Facility LIP: Agr. Setl., Class D EIP/MH: Agr. Setl., Class E LlP/LH: Agr. Setl., Class C EIP/MH: Herd. Setl., Class E LIP: Herd. Setl., Class 0 EIP/MH: Agr. Setl., Class D LIP: Agr. Setl., Class C EIP/MH: Uncertain LIP: Small Regional Storage Facility LIP: Small Regional Storage Facility LIP: Herd. S~tt., Class D LIP: Spec. Func. SeU., Class B LlP/LH: Agr. Setl., Class C LIP: Agr. Setl., Class C EIP/MH: Uncertain LIP: Spec. Func. Setl. Class A EIP/MH: Uncertain LIP: Spec. Func. Setl., Class B EIP/MH: Uncertain LlP/LH: Agr. Setl., Class C EIP/MH: Small Concentric-Ring Site LIP: Agr. Setl., Class C LlP/LH: Agr. Setl., Class C LIP: Agr. Setl., Class C LIP: Spec. Func. Set!., Class A LIP: Agr. Set!. Class D EIP/MH: Uncertain LlP/LH: Herd. Setl., Class E EIP/MH: Small Concentric-Ring Site LIP: Herd. Set!., Class B LIP: Large Regional Storage Facility LIP: Large Regional Storage Facility LIP: Herd. Set!. Class C LIP: Spec. Func. Set!., Class B

65-70 c.40-50 c. 8 4-5

c. c. c. c.

Site No.

80 55 63 65

6.3

22.2 10.9 5.3 10.0 37.5

.

16.7 85.0 81.8 7.7

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un{n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

152

Table 9.2-A. LIP and LIP/LH settlements with Class V public architecture (distribution by category). Category

Total No. Sites

Agr. Set!. Class A Agr. Set!., Class B Agr. Set!., Class C Agr. Sett., Class D Agr. Set!., Class E Subtotal Herd. Set!., Class A Herd. Set!., Class B Herd. Sett. Class C Herd. Set!., Class D Herd. Sett' L Class E Subtotal Spec. Func., Class A Spec. Func., Class B Spec. Func., Class C Subtotal Uncertain

I

0 19 30 16 66 6 4 18 27 31 86 5 8 8 21

o

No. Sites w/Class V Public Architecture 0 0 II 3 0 14 0 I 0 3 2 6 2 5 0 7 2

Modal No. of Storehouses

9.6±9.3 4.3±2.1

15

-

6.7±4.2 3 13.0±5.0 6.0±3.7

3

5

U-L.l....L.J km

limits of survey major rivers streams ~

Class I Public Architecture • Sites with Class I "Public Architecture"

above 4000 m elevation

Figure 9.1. Distribution of Class I public architecture.

% with Class V Public

Architecture 0 0 57.9 10.0 0 21.2 0 25.0 0 11.1 6.5 7.0 40.0 37.5 0 33.3

-

The Definition of Public Architecture

o

5

LLLLJ..J km

Class II Public Architecture

limits of survey

major rivers

•

streams

Sites with Exterior Wall"Towers"

above 4000 m

elevation

Figure 9.2. Distribution of Class II public architecture.

o

5

LLLLJ..J km

Class V Public Architecture

limits of survey major rivers streams

CJ

•

Settlements with Multi-Story Rectangular Storage Buildings

above 4000 m elevation

Figure 9.3. Distribution of Class V Public Architecture.

153

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junin, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

154 All Sites Percent of Storehouses Interval: 5

10-r--------------------------------------, 9

8 7 6

c

5

o

Storage Facility

5 4

3 2

o o

20

40

60

80

100

% Storehouses

Figure 9.3-A. Histogram of Class V public architecture (rectangular storehouses).

angular in form, but occasionally of lunate or crescent shape) or tombs, situated at or very near a site's topographically highest point. Morris (1972:388) reports similar hilltop architectural complexes at an important LIP/LH settlement in the Huanuco region in the highlands of north-central Peru. Class II (n=7 sites)-Massive exterior walls with attached "towers" (Table 9.1; Fig. 9.2). These are unusually large, freestanding stone walls at a site's perimeter, usually constructed across a ridgecrest approach, which incorporate one or more massive "towers" placed along the wall's exterior side Class III (n=3 sites)-"Plaza" (Table 9.1). Three sites (101, 135, and 260) contain open, empty areas, relatively large and comparatively centrally situated, with signs of artificial leveling, to which the term "plaza" seems applicable. Class IV (n=2 sites)-Stone monolith (Table 9.1). Two sites (44, 260) contain unusually large pieces of unworked stone set up vertically, in one case (Site 260) at the edge of a small "plaza." Casana (1976:138) illustrates a similar feature from the Yaros site in the sierra central. Class V (n=35 sites)-Two- and three-story rectangular storehouses (Tables 9.2, 9.2-A; Fig. 9.3). These structures typically measure 2.0-2.5 m wide, 3.0-3.5 m long, and 2.5-3.5 m high. Each story contains a single chamber, and each chamber has an external entrance, measuring about 50 x 50 cm, usually through one of the building's long sides. Where they occur, such structures typically comprise less than 20% of all the non-tomb buildings within a settlement. However, in five unusual sites (Sites 123, 144, 145, 332, and 338) they comprise 82-93 percent of the buildings-these are the sites we classify as regional storage facilities (see below). Inside settlements the rectangular buildings sometimes occur as isolated single structures, but of-

ten also in clusters of up to five conjoined individual structures (Plate AI26). We have already discussed the basis for our view that these rectangular structures were storehouses (see Chapter 5): their two- and three-story configuration and small entrances seem ill-designed for domestic needs. Neither do they appear to have functioned as tombs because, unlike some other kinds of nonresidential structures, we rarely find human skeletal remains inside them (one building at Site 163 is the single exception). This leaves storage, more or less by default. We still have no evidence for what materials might actually have been stored in these buildings. We consider these rectangular structures under the heading of "public" architecture for three main reasons: (1) their large size (each chamber has a volume of roughly 8-14 cubic meters); (2) their well-built and rather uniform and formal appearance; and (3) their highly structured spatial distribution (residential settlements contain only a small proportion of rectangular structures, while buildings at five unusual sites-regional storage facilites-are predominantly rectangular). Finally, as can be seen in Figure 9.3, the great majority of settlements which contain rectangular storehouses are clustered at relatively low elevations in the Tarma drainage, or at somewhat higher elevations immediately around the eastern and southern edges of the main Junfn puna. These considerations all seem to argue against the role of these buildings in strictly household-level storage, and in favor of their role in settlement-level, community-level, or even regional-level storage functions. At a few LIP settlements, rectangular storehouses appear to be directly attached to individual houses of "ordinary" size and character (e.g., Site 130, Fig. A22). Such a configuration might imply household-level storage, but it could also be the case that the few houses with attached rectangular storehouses were the residences of elites who played some role in the management of community stores. In any case, such suggestions of household-level storage seem secondary relative to what can be construed as much more abundant evidence for community-level storage organization. These distinctive multistory rectangular structures are apparently absent in the Wanka region in the nearby main Mantaro Valley. We found none in our own surveys there, and LeBlanc (1981 :64) reports that of the 2,238 mapped structures at the LIP center of Hatunmarca, only 61 (2.7%) are rectangular, and all of these are one-story buildings. Their restricted distribution and association with unusually large circular structures at Hatunmarca suggest some sort of public function at that site as well. The overall distribution of multistory rectangular buildings may symbolize LIP Tarama ethnicity or polity. Class VI (n=33 sites)-Tombs associated with settlement peripheries (Table 9.3; Fig. 9.4). In light of the ethnohistorically and ethnographically documented importance of suprahousehold ritual associated with deceased ancestors, there are good reasons to consider many tombs as "public" architecture. Here we make a distinction between tombs which occur at, or near, a

The Definition of Public Architecture

settlement's periphery (Class VI) and those that are clearly well inside site borders. Our rationale for this separation is the ethnographically well-documented importance of edges as formal borders between different kinds of social units in highland Andean society (see Chapter 4). There are numerous reported examples of archaeological tombs and cemeteries at or near settlement peripheries througout the Central Andean highlands (e.g., Buikstra 1995; Reichlen and Reich1en 1949; Stanish 1992:148; Stanish et al. 1997). For the westem Titicaca Basin, Hyslop (1977b:154) feels that the "lack of any easily defined ceremonial area in habitation sites that are associated with the chulpas [burial towers] suggests that the chulpa areas, usually on the edge of or near those habitation areas, may have been centers of ceremony." A major cemetery near Lake Titicaca, apparently with at least two different tomb types and near the edge of a large archaeological site (Ciriapata), is partially illustrated by Bandelier (1910: 118-19, Plate xxvI). Although there are many "inside-settlement" tombs, we have not designated such tombs (except when they occur at a site's highest point) as a separate class of public architecture for two reasons: (1) many inside-settlement tombs are attached to individual residential buildings, and thus may relate primarily to household-level (nonpublic) ritual; and (2) because of the typical jumble of architectural remains inside settlements, our recognition and recording of within-settlement tombs-which are usually the smallest and least obtrusive structures at any given siteare likely to have been less complete and less systematic than for any other category of architecture. Future studies should pay close attention to the probability that inside-settlement tombs may also have constituted a distinct class of public architecture. We will return in a later section of this chapter to a consideration of the relationship between peripheral tombs and external settlement walls. Age of Inside-Settlement Public Architecture With one exception, all the public architecture we have recognized appears to be definitely or probably LIP or LIPILH in date. The exception is a Class I wall-tomb complex at Site 220, whose primary occupation is classified as an EIPIMH very large concentric ring site. In a few other cases public architecture occurs at multi component sites where both major chronological components are well represented and where there is thus some uncertainty about its age. This predominance of LIP and LIPILH public architecture is expectable in view of the generally much better architectural preservation characteristic of these later periods relative to earlier times. It remains impossible for us to characterize long-term changes in public architecture. Distribution of Inside-Settlement Public Architecture Settlements with Class I (hilltop complexes) public architecture are widely distributed within the upper Tarma drainage, and in the southern Junfn puna; they are quite scarce in the

155

Huaricolca puna (Fig. 9.1). Class II public architecture (massive walls with "towers") are notably quite restricted: all seven sites are in the kichwa or puna-edge zones of the Palcamayo and Huasahuasi valleys (Fig. 9.2). This tight clustering of Class II architecture might suggest a highly localized ritual pattern or sociopolitical (ethnic?) affiliation associated primarily with LIP kichwa agriculturalists in the northeastern quadrant of our survey area (see Hastings 1987 for further consideration of these "tower" features in a larger regional context). The area defined by the distribution of Class V public architecture (multistory rectangular storehouses) is isomorphic with the distribution of Classes II, III, and IV (Figs. 9.2, 9.3, 9.5). There are so few Class III (plazas) and Class IV (stone monoliths) sites, that very little can be said about the significance of their distribution. A fairly distinct complex of "public" architecture appears to characterize kichwa or puna-edge settlements in the Tarma drainage. Its main components include (1) unusually massive exterior walls with attached "towers," and (2) multistory rectangular storehouses. The fact that these architectural forms do not extend very far into either the Junfnpuna, the Huaricolca puna, or the outlying Huasahuasi drainage might be taken as evidence for their significance as a collective set of architectonic symbols reflecting some form of LIP ethnic, sociopolitical, or territorial identity. Such identify may have found its clearest expression through the performance of distinctive public rituals associated with the architecture now under consideration. The distribution of Class V public architecture (Table 9.2) (the multistory rectangular storehouses) suggests that during the LIP, storage was formally organized at both community and multicommunity levels: the community level being manifested by the rectangular storehouses within the borders of individual settlements, and the multi community level by the five regional storage facilities (see below) where massive storage is physically well removed from any individual residential settlement. Rectangular storehouses occur within many different kinds of settlements (Tables 9.2, 9.2-A): several large and strategic settlements have significant numbers of them (e.g., Sites 87, 101,163, 164,298, and 322), but they also occur at many small and unprepossessing settlements in our Classes D and E. Conversely, there are some large settlements which are well within the distributional zone of the rectangular storehouses but which apparently have few structures of this type, or none at all (e.g., Sites 155 and 157) (Table 9.2). Table 9.2-A indicates that relatively high proportions of Class C agricultural settlements and Class A and B special function settlements contain multistory rectangular storehouses; there is also a suggestion that larger settlements contain numerically and proportionately more rectangular storehouses relative to smaller settlements in the same classification category. Figure 9.3-A indicates a clearly bimodal distribution of multistory rectangular storehouses: (1) a normally distributed settlement mode (with a mean between 5 and 15%), and (2) a regional storage facility mode (with a mean of about 90%).

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junfn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

156

o

5

u...LLLJ km

Class VI Public ArchlltelctulrEl,

limits of survey major rivers

•

streams

c=J

LIP and LlP/LH Settlements with Peripheral Tombs

above 4000 m elevation

Figure 9.4. Distribution of Class VI public architecture.

km

Classes II, III, IV Public Architecture

limits of survey major rivers

streams

E=:J

•

Sites with "Public Architecture"

above 4000 m elevation

Figure 9.5. Combined distributions of Classes II, II, and IV public architecture.

157

The Definition of Public Architecture

Table 9.3. LIP and L1P/LH settlements with Class VI public architecture (peripheral tombs). Site No. 16 24 27 28 31

Main Component LIP LIP LIP LIP LIP

Classif. of Main Component Spec. Herd. Herd. Herd. Herd.

32 33 34 40 44 48 51 73 86 87

LIP LIP LIP LIP LIP LIP LIP LIP LIPlLH LIP

Herd. Sett., Class D Spec. Func., Class C Spec. Func., Class C Agr. Sett., Class E Spec. Func., Class C Agr. Sett., Class C Agr. Sett., Class C Agr. Sett., Class C Agr. Sett., Class D Agr. Sett., Class C

101

LIP

Agr. Sett., Class C

112 169 208 211 257 260 298 302 311 318 320 321 328 341 347 356 379

LIP LIP LIP (?) L1P/LH LIP LIP/LH LIP LIP LIP LIP LIP/LH LIP/LH LIP LIP LIP LIP LIP

Spec. Func., Class A Herd. Setl., Class B Herd. Sett., Class D Herd. Sett., Class D Spec. Func., Class B Spec. Func., Class C Spec. Func., Class A Herd. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class C Herd. Sett., Class E Herd. Sett., Class D Herd. Sett., Class C Spec. Func., Class B Herd. Sett., Class D Herd. Sett., Class A

Func., Class A Sett., Class D Sett., Class C Sett. Class C Sett., Class B

Comments tomb complex outside external wall tomb complex at one end of site tomb complex outside external wall detached cemetery iust "outside" site three tomb complexes, two at either end, & another c. 110m "outside" site tomb near edge of site tomb complex between pairs of external walls tomb complex between two pairs of external ditches tomb complex on inner face of external ditch tomb complex on inner face of external wall tomb complex on both sides of external ditch tomb complex along inner ditch of external oair of ditches tomb comolex along external wall tomb complex along inner face of massive external wall tomb complex along outer side of external ditch, and along inner face of massive external wall cemetery c. 100 m "outside" external wall, and tombs at either end of site tomb complex at one end of site tomb complex at edge of site detached cemeterv c. 20 m "outside" site tomb comolex at outer edge of external wall tomb comolex iust inside external wall tomb comolex along external wall tomb complex along external wall tomb complexes on both sides of external wall tomb comolexes on both sides of external wall tomb complex along external wall tomb complex on inner edge of external wall detached cemetery at north end of site tomb complex near external wall cemetery iust outside external wall tomb clusteriust inside external wall detached cemetery outside external wall tomb complex c. 100 m "outside" site

If formal architectural facilities for community-level storage were spatially restricted, does this mean that there was no comparable scale of community-level storage in those areas where Class V public architecture is absent: the main Juntn puna, the Huaricolca puna, and the outer Huasahuasi drainage? If these parts of our survey area lacked such a function, why? Since two of the areas which lack inside-settlement rectangular storehouses are puna herding zones, could there have been some significant difference between herders and agriculturalists in the organization of community-level storage during LIP and LIPI LH times? Could such differences mean that in LIP herders' settlements storage facilities were physically so different from those of agriculturalists that we do not yet perceive them archaeologically? For example, did some of the structures which we presently classify as "above-ground tombs" actually function as storage facilities in areas where the distinctive rectangular storehouses

were not used? This is an important issue, which can only be answered with better information about the character and contents of these structures. Many such "tombs," for example, lack associated skeletal remains, even where recently looted. Even now we are aware, at a very general level, of considerable architectural variability within our category of "above-ground tombs," and it is quite possible that our still-imprecise typology may camouflage important functional differences within this category of structure. Thompson (1973: 119), for example, identifies two different categories (small rectangular tombs and beehive-shaped tombs) of above-ground tombs in LIP settlements from the upper Maranon drainage of the Peruvian north-central highlands. Settlements with "above-ground tombs" are abundant throughout our survey area, including areas where examples of Class II, III, IV, and V public architecture are absent or sparse. This distributional pattern suggests that LIP public ritual func-

158

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in iunin, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

tions may be manifested by very different forms of architecture, some of it still unrecognized as such, in different parts of our survey area. This, in turn, raises the possibility that different kinds of public rituals characterized these different areas in later prehispanic times. The Association of Multiple Classes of Public Architecture within Settlements Only three settlements in our survey area contain more than two types of public architecture: (1) Site 44, a Class C special function settlement at the puna-kichwa juncture in the middle Huasahuasi Valley, with Classes II, IV and VI public architecture; (2) Site 101, a Class C agricultural settlement in the middle Huasahuasi Valley, with Classes III, V, and VI public architecture; and (3) Site 260, a "Class C special function settlement" on the high ridge separating the Tarma and Ricran Valleys, where Classes III, V, and VI co-occur. Settlements with two types of public architecture, while still uncommon, are more numerous (Tables 9.4, 9.5, 9.6). As seen in Table 9.6, the most common association is between Classes V (rectangular storehouses) and VI (peripheral above-ground tombs) at five sites; less common is an association between Classes I (hilltop complexes) and VI (peripheral above-ground tombs) at three sites, and between Classes I (hilltop complexes) and V (multistory rectangular storehouses) at two sites. Although many different types of settlements contain two types of public architecture, Table 9.4 indicates that some classes of this architecture co-occur more commonly at some types of settlements than at others. In particular, relatively high proportions of all special function settlements contain more than one class of public architecture. In addition, relatively high proportions of these settlements contain at least one type of public architecture. This suggests that special function settlements, as a class, were particularly important as foci of public functions. Table 9.4 also shows that larger (Class A, B, and C) LIP and LIP/LH agricultural and herding settlements also tend to contain high proportions of public architecture (especially Classes V and VI), and that this is particularly notable for herding settlements with Class VI architecture. The proportion of agricultural and herding settlements with multiple classes of public architecture is notably less (except at Class C agricultural settlements) than for the special function category. While this pattern tends to reinforce the overall sociopolitical importance of larger agricultural and herding settlements, it also suggests that, relative to the special function settlements, less diverse kinds of public functions were associated with them. The fact that some Class C, D, and E herding and agricultural settlements also contain public architecture, and even multiple forms of public architecture, suggests that some forms of public activity associated with these architectural forms were organized at the community or subcommunity level and were thus replicated at many different kinds of settlements. LIP and LIP/LH settlements with some multiple classes of

public architecture tend to be quite widely dispersed, most notably in the case of Classes V-VI and Classes I-VI, the most common associations (Table 9.6; Figs. 9.6, 9.7). On the other hand, several multiple-class groupings are restricted to kichwa and puna-fringe settlements (Classes I-V, II-VI, II-V, I-II, 11IV-VI, and III-V-VI) (Fig. 9.8). The latter closely parallels the previously noted distribution of Classes II, III, IV, and V public architecture (Figs. 9.3, 9.5). The significance of these distributions is unclear; however, there is a suggestion of (1) a broad dispersal of public ceremonies which featured varied rituals relating to integration of socioeconomically diverse regional populations, and (2) a significant differentation between puna herders and kichwa agriculturalists in terms of their respective within-settlement public rituals. Summary Our discussion in this section has raised five interrelated major points. (1) Although we can recognize categories of inside-settlement architecture for which the term "public" seems appropriate, this architecture is distinctly subtle and generally lacking in monumentality, and we still do not understand the specific nature of the associated public functions. Furthermore, we are not highly confident that we have succeeded in identifying all inside-settlement public architecture, and we still have a very poor idea of the nature of public architecture prior to the LIP. (2) The fact that public architecture occurs at very different types of settlements (including some which are quite modest in size) suggests that some public functions were organized and performed at community and subcommunity levels during LIP and LIPILH times. (3) One multiclass complex of inside-settlement LIP public architecture is spatially restricted: Classes II, III, IV, and V. This complex occurs at predominantly agricultural settlements at lower elevations in the Tarma drainage and along the eastern fringes of the Junfn puna, and is virtually absent in the main Junfn puna (Figs. 9.3, 9.5). A very similar distribution is noted when one considers the settlements where several specific classes of public architecture co-occur (I-V, II-VI, I-II, II-IV-VI, and III-V-VI (Fig. 9.8). These distributional patterns might reflect the presence of complementary agricultural vs. herding public ritual. (4) Many settlements with public architecture are not particularly large, and many physically large settlements contain little or no recognizable public architecture. This might call into question the utility of using the distribution of our public architecture as a dependable guide to local and regional sociopolitical hierarchy. Most of what we have identified may pertain to public functions organized at the community and subcommunity levels. Also, we may have simply failed to identify the remains of public architecture in a consistent manner. However, in some cases large settlements do contain public architecture (and occasionally notably more than smaller settlements), and so in at least some cases overall settlement size and architectural complexity

The Definition of Public Architecture

159

Table 9.4. Numbers and proportions of LIP and L1P/LH settlements with public architecture. Settlement Class Agr. Set!. Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Subtotal Herd. Setl. Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Subtotal Spec. Func. Sett. Class A Class B Class C Subtotal Overall Total

Total No.

I

Class I

Class II

Class III

No.

%

No.

%

-

0.0

1 1

5.3 3.3 0.0 3.0

-

I

100

-

-

19 30 16 66

3 1 1 6

15.8 3.3 6.3 9.1

6 4 18 27 31 86

-

0.0 0.0 22.2 14.8 3.2 10.5

4 4 1 9

5 8 8

1 1

21 173

-

20.0 12.5 0.0

2 11

9.5 6.7

2

-

1

1

-

0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 1.2

No.

-

%

0.0

-

-

-

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

-

1

1

-

4

0.0 0.0 50.0

4 7

19.0 4.0

1 2

-

Class IV

1

0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 l.2

0.0 0.0 12. 5 4.8 1.2

Table 9.5. LIP and L1P/LH settlements with mUltiple classes of public architecture. Site No. 33 44 73 89 101 112 139 208 257 260 291 292 298 321 341 347

Classification Spec. Func. Set!., Class C Spec. Func. Sett., Class C Agr. Seu., Class C Agr. Set!., Class D Agr. SeU., Class C Spec. Func. Sett., Class A Herd. Set!. Class C Herd. Set!., Class D Spec. Func. Sett. Class B Spec. Func. Set!. Class C Agr. Setl., Class C Agr. Setl. Class C Spec. Func. Sett., Class A Herd. Setl., Class E Herd. Setl. Class C Spec. Func. Setl. Class B

Classes of Pu blic Architecture II, VI II, IV, VI V, VI II,V III, V, VI I, VI I, II I, VI I, VI III, IV, VI I V I, V V, VI V, VI V VI V VI

do directly complement and rereinforce each other. Especially notable is the fact that special function settlements are more consistently associated than any other site category with public architecture and with multiple classes of such architecture; this, in turn, suggests that the special function sites were particularly important regional foci during LIP and LlPILH times. (5) We continue to be uncertain about the contemporaneity of the different classes of public architecture. If one or more

No.

-

-

-

2 2 2

Class V %

No.

%

No.

%

-

0.0 21.1 3.3 0.0 7.6

-

0.0

-

-

57.9 2.3 6.3 28.8

5 1 1 7

26.3 3.3 6.3 10.6

4 1

0.0 25.0 5.6 14.8 6.5 10.5

I 2 7 6

-

17

16.7 50.0 38.9 22.2 3.2 19.8

2 1 1 4

0.0 0.0 11.1 3.7 3.2 4.7

-

40.0 37.5 0.0

3 2 4

60.0 25.0 50.0

2 1 4

40.0 12.5 50.0

5 32

23.8 7.2

9 33

42.9 19.1

7 16

33.3 9.2

-

0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

11 7 1 19

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

-

0.0 0.0 25. 0 9.5 1.2

%

No.

-

0.0

Multiple Classes

Class VI

1 1 4 2 9

2 3

-

1

-

5

-

Table 9.6. Combinations of public architecture classes in LIP and LIP/LH settlements. Classes in Combination V, VI I, VI I, V II, VI II,V I, II II, IV, VI Ill, V, VI Total

No. of Sites 5 3 2 I I

1 2 I 16

Sites 73,298,321,341,347 112,208, 257 291,292 33 89 139 44,260 101

classes are not fully contemporaneous, then a whole series of other, radically different conclusions might be reached about the long-term development of public functions. For example, the widespread Class I architecture (hilltop complexes) might be associated with an earlier, more widespread, and long-persisting form of ritual focused on hilltop ceremonies; while Class II architecture (the periphery-wall "towers") might constitute the manifestation of a later form of activity which was more tightly linked with a specific social unit, and which did not exist for as long.

160

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Jun{n, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

Outer Wall-Ditch Complexes: Defense or Social Border? There is a long tradition in Andean archaeology of associating walled sites with defensive functions (e.g., Bandelier 1907; Bawden 1982; Bennett and Bird 1949; Earle 1972; Haas 1981; Lanning 1967; Mason 1957; McCown 1945; Moseley 1983, 1992; Sanders 1973; J. Topic and T. Topic 1978, 1987; Tello and Miranda 1923; Willey 1953; Wilson 1987, 1988). This has been particularly true for highland LIP sites, many of which are walled and situated on hilltops (Casana 1976; Earle et al. 1987; Earls 1981; Grossman 1983; Hastings 1987; Hastorf 1983, 1993; Hastorf and Johannessen 1993; Hastorf et al. 1989; Kolata 1993; Lathrap 1970; LeBlanc 1981; Lumbreras 1990:243,258; Matos and Parsons 1979; Morris and Thompson 1985; Parsons and Hastings 1988; Ravines 1982; Schreiber 1987b, 1991; Stanish 1992; Thompson 1972, 1973; Valdez et al. 1990; Valdez and Vivanco 1994). One exception to this general rule has been Wilson's (1988:258-59) reinterpretation of the "Great Wall" in the Santa Valley on Peru's north coast (a feature which is not directly associated with any hilltops or residential settlements) as a regional territorial marker. Hyslop (1990) has also raised the same issue with respect to walled Inka sites, and J. Topic and T. Topic (1987; T. Topic 1991) and Mackenzie (1985) have questioned the strictly defensive function of some walls, ditches, and hilltop locations for sites in northern highland Peru. However, until we closely examined our own data on walled sites, we had little reason to question the long-standing traditional view. The great majority (about 80%) of all LIP and LIPfLH settlements in our survey area are walled hilltop sites (Table 9.7). Furthermore, most of the remaining unwalled settlements are also situated on hilltops or ridgecrests, and thus might also be considered highly defensible. In addition, most outer walls at our LIP settlements are directly associated with ditches, and often there are double wall-ditch complexes. Typically walls are placed so as to impede easy access into the settlements: that is, the surrounding steep slopes almost always remain unwalled. This appears to be characteristic of LIP hilltop sites in some other parts of the Peruvian sierra (e.g., Thompson 1973:364). However, Earle et al.(l980, 1987) and D' Altroy (1992) indicate that more fully walled settlements are the norm in the Wanka region of the main Mantaro Valley, as they are in parts of the north Peruvian sierra (Bandelier 1907; Schjellerup 1997). Our pattern of walled hilltop settlements is notably different from the LIP settlement pattern defined by Stanish et al. (1997) in the Titicaca Basin in the far southern highlands of Peru: clusters of topographically low-lying, unwalled settlements grouped around strategic walled hilltop "refuges." Only the largest of such refuges have evidence for significant residential occupation, and Stanish et al. suggest that most may have been intended only for temporary occupation in times of crisis. There also seem to be a substantial number of walled EIP/ MH sites (Table 9.8), especially in the Junfn puna, where almost all substantial EIPIMH settlements (including all the con-

centric ring sites) are walled (and situated on hilltops). In contrast, the walled sites noted in Table 9.8 account for only about 16% ofEIPIMH kichwa settlements in the Tarma drainage. At first glance all of this might be taken as pretty solid evidence for the long-term importance of settlement defense in a context of intensifying local and regional warfare. Nevertheless, when the data are examined more closely, several patterns emerge which seem inconsistent with narrowly construed defensive functions for outer walls.

The Case for a Defensive Function It is usually assumed by archaeologists that ancient people would not have lived permanently on high hilltops surrounded by walls and ditches unless they were highly motivated to do so by strong fears for their own safety or that of their possessions. Agriculturalists and herders do not typically carry out their most productive activities on hilltops, and it is wearisome to ascend and descend steep slopes in the course of daily activities. Access to water is sometimes difficult in hilltop settings (e.g., Bandelier 1907:26) (although virtually all the hilltop settlements in our survey area are close to still-functioning springs), and at higher elevations hilltops are notoriously cold, windy, and exposed-altogether undesirable. Other than defensibility, perhaps a hilltop's only inherent desirable quality, from the perspective of western archaeologists, might be the typically excellent view which such a setting provides (at least one such archaeologist [Daggett 1987] has suggested that such good views of one settlement from another may have been important in terms of regional sociopolitical integration). The comments of several sixteenth-century chroniclers are another important source of support for the presence of intensive warfare and defensive settlements in highland Peru during the late pre-Inka period. Writing in the 1540s, Cieza de Leon (1959:109), for example, stated that: They tell that many of these tribes were brave and strong, and that before the Incas brought them under their rule many and cruel battles were fought between them, and that in most places the villages were scattered and so remote that there were not relations between them except when they met for their gatherings andfeasts [our emphasis]. On the hilltops they built their strong places and fortresses from which they made war on one another at the slightest pretext.

Even more telling, LeBlanc's study (1981:349-52) of Spanish visitas in 1570 and 1582 to the Wanka region of the nearby main Mantaro Valley (Toledo 1940; Vega 1965) suggests that warfare concerned with land, flocks, women, and material booty was common there in the late pre-Inka period. These documentary sources also suggest that multi community military alliances were important among the Wanka, and that military confrontation may have been the main basis for the establishment of hierarchical relationships between communities throughout the Wanka region. D' Altroy (1992), Hastorf (1993), and Hastorf and Earle (1985) extend

The Definition of Public Architecture

o

5

LLLLLJ km

limits of survey major rivers

•

streams

CS2I

Settlements with both Class V and Class VI "Public Architecture"

above 4000 m

elevation

Figure 9.6. Distribution of sites with both Class V and Class VI public architecture.

o

5

LLLLLJ km

limits of survey

major rivers

streams

I=::::J

•

Settlements with both Class I and Class VI "Public Architecture"

above 4000 m elevation

Figure 9.7. Distribution of sites with both Class I and Class VI public architecture.

161

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]unzn, Peru, Volume 1, Part 1

162

o

5

LlLLLJ km

limits of survey major rivers streams

E:=J

above 4000 m elevation

•

Settlements with I-V, II-VI, II-V, I-II, II-lV-VI, or III-V-VI Classes of Public Architecture

Figure 9.8. Distribution of sites with I-V, II-VI, II-V, I-II, II-IV-VI, and III-V-VI multiple classes of public architecture.

Table 9.7. LIP and LlP/LH settlements without outer wall-ditch (camps not included). Site Type Agr. Sett. Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Subtotal Herd. Sett. Class A Class B Class C Class D Class E Subtotal Spec. Fuoc. Sett Class A Class B Class C Subtotal Total

Total No.

No. Without Outer Wall-Ditch

% Without Outer

1

0

0,0

-

-

-

19 30 16 66

0 5 9

0.0 16.7 25.0 ]3,6

6

31 86

3 0 2 9 8 22

50.0 0.0 11.1 33.3 25.8 25.6

5 8 8 21 173

0 1 1 2 33

0,0 12.5 12.5 9.5 19.1

4

18 27

4

Wall-Ditch

163

The Definition of Public Architecture

Table 9.8. Possible walled EIP/MH settlements (in addition to concentric ring sites). Site No. 84 92 114 126 131 133

Occupational Components EIP/MH & LIP (?) EIP/MH & LIP EIP/MH & LIP EIP/MH & LIP EIP/MH & LIP EIP/MH

Agr. Sett., Class D Herd. Sett., Class D Agr. Set!., Class D Herd. Set!., Class D Herd. Set!., Class C Isolated Agr. Terraces

Palcamayo Valley Tarma Valley Palcamayo Valley Palcamayo Vallt!2" Tarma Valley Tarma Valley

277 286 287

EIP/MH & LIP/LH EIP/MH & LIP EIP/MH & LIP

Herd. Setl., Class C Herd. Sett., Class E Agr. Sett., Class D

Upper Tarma Drainage Tarma Valley Tarma Valley

EIP/MH Classification

Location

Comments

walls may be LIP very minor LIP very minor LIP very minor LIP unique assoc. between wall and nonresidential occupation minor LIPILH walls may be LIP walls may be LIP

Table 9.9. Unwalled LIP settlements. Site No. 128 167 172 177 180 181 208 212 231 237 254 255 262 263 285 294 295 297 299 312 316 321 333 334 340 344 345 348 355 356 362 364 379

LIP Classif. Agr. Set!. Class D Herd. Set!., Class E Herd. Set!., Class E Herd. Set!., Class D Herd. Set!., Class E Herd. Set!., Class A Herd. Setl., Class D Herd. Setl., Class D Herd. Set!., Class A Herd. Set!., Class D Agr. Set!. Class D Agr. Set!. Class E Agr. Set!., Class E Agr. Set!. Class E Herd. Set!., Class E Agr. Set!., Class D Agr. Set!., Class E Agr. Setl., Class D Agr. Sett., Class D Herd. Set!., Class D Herd. Setl., Class E Herd. Setl., Class E Herd. Set!., Class E Herd. Set!., Class D Herd. Set!., Class E Herd. Set!. Class D Herd. Set!., Class D Herd. Set!., Class C Spec. Func. Set!. Class B Herd. Set!., Class D Herd. Set!., Class C Spec. FUllc. Set!., Class C Herd. Set!., Class A

Location Palcamayo Valley Eastern Junfn puna Southern Junfn puna Juninpuna Junin puna Junfn puna

Southern Junin puna Southern Junfn puna Junfn puna Junfn puna Tarma Drainage Tarma Drainage Tarma Drainage Tarma Drainage Tarma Drainage Tarma Valley Tarma Valley Tarma Drainage Tarma Valley Southern J unin puna Southern J un in puna Southern Junin puna Southern J unin puna Southern Junin puna Southern Junin puna Southern Junin puna Southern Junin puna Huaricolca puna Upper Ricran Drainage Upper Ricran Drain'-

e Canal Segment

Figure A54-B. Hoja Malpaso, "Late" Sites.

A.,

'::':::::::::' Swamps

[J] Road Segment/Facility

Uncertain function

I Border of survey area Modern Roads

--- Maca Fields

ffi

~ ~

...... -

"r Agricultural Terraces

Isolated Cemetery

+

N

Miscellaneous

Isolated Features ~* Corrals

,6. Agricultural Camp

Herding Settlernent

3

0

Lakes Seasonal stream

III

Permanent stream

487

Appendix A

o~

Ricran

o

2

"Early" Agricultural Settlement

~A £.s .A.c

Concentric-Ring Site

.... D .. E

@@@@

eA .S .C o

• D eE

Herding Camp

Special Function Settlement

OA OS

Oc

Regional Storage Facility

~ ~

*

""'=

Sorder of survey area Modern Roads Modern Towns and Villages

.-.. Maca Fields

EI1

Inka Provincial Center Tambo

Miscellaneous •••••

~ Agricultural Terraces

Isolated Cemetery

EB

Isolated Features ~f~ Corrals

1::.. Agricultural Camp Herding Settlement

3

km

"Shrine

.....• ;:

[J] Road SegmenVFacility

*

9

Canal Segment

Uncertain function

Figure ASS-A. Hoja Ricran, "Early" Sites.

o

Swamps Lakes

Seasonal stream

III

Permanent stream

488

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junfn, Peru, Part 2

o~

a Ricran

o

2

"Late" Agricultural Settlement

Concentric-Ring Site

.A. .... B.&C

A .&.0 ..t.E 1:>. Agricultural Camp

Isolated Features

@@@@

eA .B 0

.C eO

Herding Camp

Special Function Settlement

OA OB

Oc

-

Regional Storage Facility

~ ~ Inka Provincial Center Tambo

*

Border of survey area Modern Roads

,r Agricultural Terraces =

ffi E9 eE

Miscellaneous

....'

~f~ Corrals

Isolated Cemetery Herding Settlement

3

km

*

CI8J

Maca Fields "Shrine

"

[I] Road Segment/Facility

9

Canal Segment

Uncertain function

Figure ASS-B. Hoja Ricran, "Late" Sites.

0

Modern Towns and Villages Swamps Lakes Seasonal stream

[II

Permanent stream

489

Appendix A

HuariCOlca~

e374

~

I

: • :•

·•· · ,··•·• ·

\. "

......

\\

\

\

••

".\

..\

Huaricolca

o

2

"Early" Agricultural Settlement

Concentric-Ring Site

"'A "'B . . C

.... D ... E

f:,.

@@)@

EB

eA o

eB

.C

•

Herding Camp

Special Function Settlement

OA

OB

Oc

D eE

~

~ ~

*

I

=

Border of survey area Modern Roads Modern Towns and Villages

--- Maca Fields

Regional Storage Facility

Inka Provincial Center Tambo

•••••

~ Agricultural Terraces

Isolated Cernetery

. . Shrine

Swamps

[I] Road Segment/Facility

*

e Canal Segment Uncertain function

Figure A56-A. Hoja Huaricolca, "Early" Sites.

+

N

Miscellaneous

Isolated Features ~f~ Corrals

@

Agricultural Camp

Herding Settlement

3

km

l--:J

Lakes

Seasonal stream

III

Permanent stream

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junin, Peru, Part 2

490

Huaricolca

o

2

"Late" Agricultural Settlement

.6.A 1::,.

~B Ac

km

Concentric-Ring Site

.... D ... E

@CW@@

eA .B .C

ffi

o

.DeE

Herding Camp

Special Function Settlement

OA OB

Oc

Regional Storage Facility

~ ~

*

. . Shrine

*

Canal Segment

Uncertain function

Figure A56-B. Hoja Huaricolca, "Late" Sites.

=

Border of su rvey area Modern Roads

Swamps

ill Road Segment/Facility

e

I

Modern Towns and Villages

--- Maca Fields

Ell

Inka Provincial Center Tambo

•••••

" , Agricultural Terraces

Isolated Cemetery

+

N

Miscellaneous

Isolated Features ~f~ Corrals

Agricultural Camp

Herding Settlement

3

C~ Lakes Seasonal stream

ill

Permanent stream

3680 3830 3000 2780 2410

3600 3860 4070 4010 4050

3830 3650

444600 E, 8763100 N; 11-11-19 S, 75-30-37 W 444200 E, 8763000 N; 11-11-23 S, 75-30-40 W 439200 E, 8762800 N; 11-11-29 S, 75-33-25 W 442400 E, 8760400 N; 11-12-47 S, 75-31-40 W 442200 E, 8758700 N; 11-13-43 S, 75-31-43 W 443800 E, 8759500 N; 11-13-17 S, 75-31-10 W

440200 E, 8757900 N; 11-14-8 S, 75-32-52 W 438200 E, 8759000 N; 11-13-33 S, 75-33-58 W 437400 E, 8761000 N; 11-12-27 S, 75-34-24 W 438100 E, 8762500 N; 11-11-39 S, 75-34-1 W 437900 E, 8762600 N; 11-11-35 S, 75-34-8 W 437400 E, 8762500 N; 11-11-39 S, 75-34-24 W

435800 E, 8761700 N; 11-12-5 S, 75-35-17W 436000 E, 8761000 N; 11-12-27 S, 75-35-11 W

Chuquisyunga

Chuquisyunga

Chuquisyunga

Chuquisyunga

Chuquisyunga

Chuquisyunga

Chuquisyunga

Chuquisyunga

Chuquisyunga

Chuquisyunga

Chuquisyunga

Chuquisyunga

Chuquisyunga

Chuquisyunga

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

6.0

0.3

EIPIMH: ? LIPILH: 9.0

Age uncertain, agricultural settlement, Class C(?)

Age uncertain, agricultural settlement, Class C

EIPIMH: ?, LIP: special function settlement, Class A

Unsurveyed; age uncertain, agricultural settlement, Class D

LIP(?): agricultural settlement, Class D

0.4 ?

Age ucertain, agricultural settlement, Class C

Age uncertain, agricultural settlement, Class C

LIP: agricultural settlement, Class C

EIPIMH: ? LIP: agricultural settlement, Class D(?)

LIP: agricultural settlement, Class D

Age uncertain, agricultural settlement, Class E(?)

Age uncertain, isolated agricultural terraces

Age uncertain, agricultural settlement, Class D

Age uncertain, agricultural settlement, Class D(?)

Unsurveyed; age uncertain, agricultural settlement, Class D(?)

Classification

1.6

0.8

0.6

EIPIMH: ? LIP: 0.4

1.1

0.1

0.5

?

?

?

?

Area (ha)

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column. "Site area less than 0.1 ha.

3080

3720

3880

434300 E, 8768200 N; 11-8-33 S, 75-36-6 W

Chuquisyunga

4

3725

435400 E, 8768200 N; 11-8-33 S, 75-35-30 W

Chuquisyunga

3

3780

441400 E, 8767500 N; 11-8-56 S, 75-32-12 W

Chuquisyunga

3430

441900 E, 8768500 N; 11-8-23 S, 75-31-56 W

Elevation (m asl)

2

Chuquisyunga

TABLE A5. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W. Long. (0_'_") Site No. Hoja

oj::,.

N

.....

"'!

>:l

'"0

-~

~

'"0

~'

;:l

~

'"Si'

~

...;;:-~

~

~

~

~

;:t.

~

...

V:l

;:l ;::;.

>:l

'"0

~ ;:.~.

~

3900 4220 3940 3870 3600 3170 4080

4015

3630 3200

4090

3850

3950

3865

427100 E, 8765200 N; 11-10-10 S, 75-40-4 W 426300 E, 8764400 N; 11-10-36 S, 75-40-30 W 427400 E, 8763800 N; 11-10-56 S, 75-39-54 W 427000 E, 8763500 N; 11-11-5 S, 75-40-7 W 428700 E, 8762900 N; 11~11-25 S, 75-39-11 W 429300 E, 8763500 N; 11-11-6 S, 75-38-51 W 427000 E, 8762500 N; 11-11-38 S, 75-40-7 W

427100 E, 8761800 N; 11-12-1 S, 75-40-4 W

428600 E, 8761800 N; 11-12-1 S, 75-39-14 W 430100 E, 8761700 N; 11-12-4 S, 75-38-25 W

427300 E, 8761100 N; 11-12-23 S, 75-39-57 W

429400 E, 8758700 N; 11-13-42 S, 75-38-48 W

429200 E, 8758300 N; 11-13-55 S, 75-38-55 W

430000 E, 8757700 N; 11-14-14 S, 75-38-29 W

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

EIPIMH: ? LIP: special function settlement, Class C LIP: special function settlement, Class C

1.3

EIPIMH: ? LIP: herding settlement, Class D

LIP: herding settlement, Class B

EIPIMH: ? LIP: agricultural settlement, Class C

LIP: agricultural camp(?)

EIPIMH: ? LIP: herding settlement, Class C

EIPIMH: ? LIP: herding(?) settlement, Class C

Age uncertain, agricultural settlement, Class D

LIP(?): agricultural settlement, Class E

LIP: herding settlement, Class D

EIPIMH: ?, LIP: Special Function Settlement, Class B

LIP: special function settlement, Class B

LIP: agricultural settlement, Class D

Age uncertain, herding(?) settlement, Class E

Age uncertain, agricultural settlement, Class C(?)

Classification

EIPIMH: ? LIP: 2.0

EIPIMH: ? LIP: 0.6

core: 1.8 periphery: 8.2

EIPIMH: ? LIP: 1.0

0.5

EIP/MH: ? LIP: 2.7

EIPIMH: ? LIP: 0.6

0.2

0.6

2.1

6.0

2.0

4.3

0.3

2.1

Area (ha)

--Site area less than 0.1 ha.

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column.

4120

426400 E, 8765800 N; 11-9-50 S, 75-40-27 W

Cachipampa

20

3160

433900 E, 8758300 N; 11-13-55 S, 75-36-20 W

Chuquisyunga

Elevation (m asl)

19

TABLE A5. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W. Long. (0_'_") Site No. Hoja

Vol

\0

.j:>.

;:t..

~.

;:! ~

~

-6" 'tl

3200

3275 3180

3325

425300 E, 8756900 N; 11-14-40 S, 75-41-4 W

425100 E, 8758700 N; 11-13-41 S, 75-41-10 W

424900 E, 8759300 N; 11-13-22 S, 75-41-17 W 424400 E, 8759600 N; 11-13-12 S, 75-41-33 W

423700 E, 8759300 N; 11-13-22 S, 75-41-56 W

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

** 0.9

4050

3950 3360 3350 3325 3150

3750

421600 E, 8759400 N; 11-13-18 S, 75-43-6 W

421800 E, 8759600 N; 11-13-12 S, 75-42-59 W 423600 E, 8760700 N; 11-12-36 S, 75-41-59 W 423800 E, 8761200 N; 11-12-20 S, 75-42-9 W 423100 E, 8761300 N; 11-12-17 S, 75-42-16W 422000 E, 8762100 N; 11-11-51 S, 75-42-52 W

421600 E, 8762300 N; 11-11-44 S, 75-43-5 W

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

48

49

50

UP(?): agricultural settlement, Class D

EIPIMH: ? LIP: agricultural settlement, Class E

UP: agricultural settlement, Class C

UP(?): small isolated cemetery

UP(?): small isolated cemetery

LIP(?): herding settlement, Class D

...

LIP: special function settlement, Class C

LIP: agricultural settlement, Class E

UP: agricultural settlement, Class E

EIPIMH: ? LIP: agricultural camp

EIPIMH: ? LIP: agricultural settlement, Class E

UP(?): agricultural settlement, Class E

EIPIMH: ? UPILH(?): agricultural settlement, Class C

EIPIMH: ? LIPILH: agricultural settlement, Class D

EIPIMH: ? LIP: agricultural camp

Age uncertain, isolated shrine(?)

Classification

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column. --Site area less than 0.1 ha.

0.3

EIPIMH: ? UP: 0.5

**

0.5

EIPIMH: ? UP: 1.3

0.8

3450

423200 E, 8759600 N; 11-13-12 S, 75-42-13 W

0.2

3170

EIPIMH: ? LIP: 0.5

EIPIMH: ? UPILH: 0.5

0.2

EIPIMH: ? LIPILH(?): 2.l.

EIPIMH: ? UPILH:0.6

EIPIMH: ? UP: 0.3

**

Area (ha)

424000 E, 8759700 N; 11-13-9 S, 75-41-46 W

3200

3280

431100 E, 8758400 N; 11-13-52 S, 75-37-52 W

36

Cachipampa

Cachipampa

35

4075

Elevation (m asl)

428600 E, 8758300 N; 11-13-55 S, 75-39-15 W

TABLE A5. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W. Long. (0_'_") SiteNo. Hoja

~

N

...'"

;;p

;!"'

~' '"tl

?;:t

'" S·

"'~

;:t

..."' ;;p ...

~

..."'V:l ~

r:;.

;:t

~

;:s~.

'"tl

""'~

LIPILH: herding settlement, Class C LH: Inka road segment

? 8.7

**

3650

3830 3960 3980 4250 4230 4200 4160

419700 E, 8765400 N; 11-10-3 S, 75-44-8 W

410200 E, 8759000 N; 11-13-30 S, 75-49-21 W 409800 E, 8756500 N; 11-14-52 S, 75-49-35 W 409200 E, 8756300 N; 11-14-58 S, 75- 49-55 W 408300 E, 8757600 N; 11-14-16 S, 75-50-24 W 408700 B, 8758500 N; 11-13-47 S, 75-50-11 W 404800 E, 8756900 N; 11-14-38 S, 75-52-20 W 398200 E, 8759200 N; 11-13-23 S, 75-55-57 W 397700 E, 8757500 N; 11-14-18 S, 75-56-14 W

Cachipampa

San Pedro de Cajas

San Pedro de Cajas

San Pedro de Cajas

San Pedro de Cajas

San Pedro de Cajas

San Pedro de Cajas

San Pedro de Cajas

San Pedro de Cajas

San Pedro de Cajas

San Pedro de Cajas

San Pedro de Cajas

San Pedro de Cajas

Junin

Junin

54

UBR-37

UBR-78

UBR-81

UBR-85

UBR-46

UBR-38

UBR-82

UBR-28

UBR-3

UBR-26

UBR-27

UBR-6

55

56

4000

410800 E, 8759500 N; 11-13-47 S, 75-49-2 W

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

?

0.2

1.3

Age uncertain, "village"

Age uncertain, isolated cemetery

Age uncertain, ''village''

Age uncertain, "village"

Age uncertain, "village"

Age uncertain, "village"

Age uncertain, "village"

Age uncertain, "village"

Age uncertain, "village"

Age uncertain, isolated cemetery

Age uncertain, "village"

Age uncertain, "corrals"

LIP: small isolated cemetery

LIP(?): agricultural settlement, Class D

··Site area less than 0.1 ha.

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column.

4450

4250

4300

4375

4450

4300

412800 E, 8758300 N; 11-13-53 S, 75-47-56 W

417900 E, 8756500 N; 11-14-53 S, 75-45-8 W

405600 E, 8762800 N; 11-11-26 S, 75-51-53 W

407400 E, 8763300 N; 11-11-10 S, 75-40-53 W

411100 E, 8763300 N; 11-11-11 S, 75-48-51 W

3750

420500 E, 8764600 N; 11-10-29 S, 75-43-41 W

EIPIMH: small concentric ring site(?) LIP: special fu!,!ction settlement, Class C

Cachipampa

EIPIMH: ? LIP: 1.4

53

4135

421000 E, 8762800 N; 11-11-28 S, 75-43-25 W

LIP: agricultural settlement, Class C

Cachipampa

0.9

Classification

52

3685

Area (ha)

Cachipampa

421600 E, 8763200 N; 11-11-15 S, 75-43-5 W

Elevation (m asl)

51

TABLE AS: Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W. Long. (0_'_") Site No. Hoja

\Q

Ul

"'"

)..

~

~

~

)..

~

393500 E, 8760800 N; 11-12-30 S, 75-58-32 W 392800 E, 8766800 N; 11-9-15 S, 75-58-54 W

Junfn

Junfn

Junfn

Paccha-1

Paccha-I

60-61-62

63

64

65

66

67

2950

4180 3575 2760

3030

3630 3535 3300 3230

438500 E, 8754600 N; 11-15-56 S, 75-33-49 W

436000 E, 8755500 N; 11-15-26 S, 75-35-11 W

434100 E, 8751900 N; 11-17-23 S, 75-36-14 W

433400 E, 8756100 N; 11-15-7 S, 75-36-37W

432000 E, 8754400 N; 11-16-2 S, 75-37-23 W

432300 E, 8745800 N; 11-20-42 S, 75-37-14 W

432600 E, 8743600 N; 11-21-54 S, 75-37-4 W 428700 E, 8756300 N; 11-15-0 S, 75-39-12 W 428900 E, 8755800 N; 11-15-16 S, 75-39-5 W 429100 E, 8753900 N; 11-16-18 S, 75-38-59 W

Palca

Palca

Palca

Palca

Palca

Palca

Palca

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

0.6

0.3

0.6

1.8

EIPIMH: 2.0 UPILH: ?

0.6

0.7

0.9

0.1

0.3

0.1

EIPIMH: ? UPILH: 0.3

0.2

0.5

12.2

0.3

1.5

Area (ha)

EIPIMH: ? UPILH: agricultural settlement, Class D

LIP: agricultural settlement, Class D

LIP: agricultural settlement, Class C

UP: agricultural settlement, Class q?)

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class D, UPILH: ?

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class E(?) UPILH: agricultural camp(?)

EIPIMH(?): agricultural settlement, Class E

UP(?): agricultural settlement, Class D

Age uncertain, agricultural camp

UP: agricultural settlement, Class D

LIP: herding camp

EIPIMH: ? UPILH: herding camp or lacustrine camp

UPILH(?): herding camp, or lacustrine camp(?)

UPILH(?): herding camp(?)

LH: Inka provincial center

UP: herding camp

UP: herding settlement, Class E, plus small isolated cemetery

Classification

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column. --Site area less than 0.1 ha.

3125

4150

4090

4090

4125

386500 E, 8763100 N; 11-11-15 S, 76-2-22 W

387000 E, 8765800 N; 11-9-47 S, 76-2-6 W

391000 E, 8767700 N; 11-8-45 S, 75-59-54 W

4400

394300 E, 8757100 N; 11-14-31 S, 75-58-6 W

Junfn

59 4150

4550

397600 E, 8763900 N; 11-10-50 S, 75-56-16 W

Jumn

Elevation (m asl)

57-58

TABLE A5. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W. Long. (0_'_") Site No. Hoja

N

~

~

~

~

..s'

?;:s

S·

~

~

~ .... ~ ....

~

~

~

r)'

§

~.

~

~

"1:;

~

ElPIMH{?): 0.5 LIP: 0.7 0.5 0.8

1.6

2.2

0.5 EIPIMH: ? LIPILH: 2.1 0.5 2.0

0.5

4300

4160 4000

3225

3020

3260 3200

2930 3050

2925

430300 E, 8749200 N; 11-18-51 S, 75-38-19 W

429300 E, 8748400 N; 11-19-17 S, 75-38-52 W 430000 E, 8747200 N; 11-19-56 S, 75-38-29 W

428900 E, 8746400 N; 11-20-22 S, 75-39-6 W

429100 E, 8745800 N; 11-20-42 S, 75-38-59 W

430800 E, 8745600 N; 11-20-48 S, 75-38-3 W 431700 E, 8746600 N; 11-20-16 S, 75-37-33 W

430200 E, 8745100 N; 11-21-5 S, 75-38-23 W 431100 E, 8745100 N; 11-21-5 S, 75-37-53 W

430600 E, 8744900 N; 11-21-11 S, 75-38-10 W

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

Age uncertain, agricultural camp

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class D(?) LIP: agricultural settlement, Class D(?), probably with regional ritual focus

LIP(?): agricultural camp

EIPIMH: ?, LIPILH: agricultural settlement Class C, probably with regional ritual focus

LIP(?): agricultural settlement, Class D(?), probably with regional ritual focus

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class D(?) LIP: agricultural settlement, Class D(?) LH: ?

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class D LIP(?): ?

EIPIMH: herding settlement, Class D(?) LIP: herding settlement, Class E

LIP: herding settlement, Class D

EIPIMH(?): very small concentric ring site LIP: herding settlement, Class C

EIPIMH(?): small concentric ring site LIP: herding settlement, Class D

ElPIMH{?): very small concentric ring site LIP(?): herding settlement, Class D(?)

LIPILH: Agricultural settlement, Class E

LIP: agricultural camp

Classification

"Site area less than 0.1 ha.

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column.

1.3

4250

429200 E, 8750800 N; 11-17-59 S, 75-38-56 W

Acobamba

80

0.8

4200

428600 E, 8752500 N; 11-17-4 S, 75-39-15 W

Acobamba

79

0.5

3330

428000 E, 8754100 N; 11-16-11 S, 75-39-35 W

Acobamba

78

0.1

3425

429500 E, 8753400 N; 11-16-34 S, 75-38-45 W

Acobamba

77

Area (ha)

Elevation (m asl)

TABLE AS. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W. Long. (0_'_") Hoja Site No.

-.]

\0

.j>.

).

~.

[

).

~

3870

3050

3300 3100 3050 3150

4160 3575 3640

3700

3300 3885 3575 3480

428500 E, 8743000 N; 11-22-13 S, 75-39-19 W

428000 E, 8745700 N; 11-20-45 S, 75-39-35 W

427100 E, 8745800 N; 11-20-42 S, 75-40-5 W 426400 E, 8746800 N; 11-20-9 S, 75-40-28 W 425800 E, 8748100 N; 11-19-27 S, 75-40-48 W 425400 E, 8748000 N; 11-19-30 S, 75-41-1 W 424600 E, 8750800 N; 11-17-59 S, 75-41-27 W 425000 E, 8752200 N; 11-17-13 S, 75-41-14 W 425900 E, 8754000 N; 11-16-15 S, 75-40-44 W 426200 E, 8754900 N; 11-15-45 S, 75-40-34 W

425900 E, 8754900 N; 11-15-45 S, 75-40-44 W 426400 E, 8756200 N; 11-15-3 S, 75-40-27 W

425300 E, 8756000 N; 11-15-9 S, 75-41-4 W 420100 E, 8752900 N; 11-16-50 S, 75-43-56 W 419700 E, 8752200 N; 11-17-13 S, 75-44-9W 420000 E, 8752000 N; 11-17-19 S, 75-43-59 W

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

**

LIPILH: special function settlement, Class C

Age uncertain, small isolated cemetery

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class E(?) LIP: agricultural settlement, Class E(?)

LIP(?): large isolated cemetery, with possible regional ritual focus

EIPIMH: ? LIP: agricultural settlement, Class C, with possible regional ritual focus

LIP: agricultural Settlement, Class E

LIP(?): herding settlement, Class E

LIP: agricultural settlement, Class D

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class D(?)

Age uncertain, small isolated cemetery

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class C

LIP(?): herding camp(?)

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class D(?) LIP: agricultural settlement, Class D

EIPIMH: herding settlement, Class D LIP: herding settlement, Class D(?)

LIP(?): herding settlement, Class E(?)

Classification

**

2.0

**

0.4

1.2

EIPIMH: ? LIP: 2.2

0.6

0.8

0.7

2.8

**

6.7

4.0

EIPIMH: 1.5 LIP: 3.0

2.0

0.8

Area (ha)

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column. --Site area less than 0.1 ha.

3200

3740

3990

429.40 E, 8742500 N; 11-22-29 S, 75-38-50 W

Acobamba

Elevation (m asl)

91

TABLE AS. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W. Long. (0_'_") Site No. Hoja

~

N

~

;! ~

"l:l C1I

~\

?;:s

'" S·

;!

~

~

....;:s

C1I

~

C1I

~

~

;::;.

;:s

~.

"l:l

~ ;::..

-I:>.. 10 00

3380 3320 3330

3575 3680 3430

420800 E, 8751000 N; 11-17-52 S, 75-43-33 W

420800 E, 8752500 N; 11-17-3 S, 75-43-32 W 421300 E, 8752300 N; 11-17-9 S, 75-43-16 W 421100 E, 8752300 N; 11-17-10 S, 75-43-23 W 421200 E, 8752200 N; 11-17-12 S, 75-43-19 W 421500 E, 8750800 N; 11-17-58 S, 75-43-10 W 421800 E, 8750500 N; 11-18-8 S, 75-42-0 W

421400 E, 8750500 N; 11-18-8 S, 75-43-13 W 422100 E, 8752600 N; 11-17-0 S, 75-42-50 W 422800 E, 8750400 N; 11-18-11 S, 75-42-27 W

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobama

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

3400

3425

3420

3710

3400

3950

3900

3500 LIP: small isolated cemetery

**

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

** **

LIP: large regional storage facility

age uncertain, small isolated cemetery

** 1.3

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class 0 3.4

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class O(?) LIP: ?

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

**

EIPIMH: 0.6 LIP: ?

LIP: isolated agricultural terraces

LIP: small isolated cemetery

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class O(?) LIP: ?

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class E(?) LIP: agricultural settlement, Class O(?)

EIPIMH: herding (?) settlement, Class B(?) LIP: special function settlement, Class A

0.6

0.5

EIPIMH: 3.5 LIP: ?

EIPIMH: ? LIP: 0.7

EIPIMH: 4.5, (?) LIP: 6.8

EIPIMH: ? LIPILH: special function settlement, Class A

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

**

EIPIMH: ? LIPILH: 5.6

LIP: small isolated cemetery

Classification

0.1

Area (ha)

"Site area less than 0.1 ha.

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column.

418300 E, 8751000 N; 11-17-52 S, 75-44-55 W

418700 E, 8751800 N; 11-17-26 S, 75-44-42 W

418700 E, 8751800 N; 11-17-16 S, 75-44-42 W

418700 E, 8751800 N; 11-17-26 S, 75-44-42 W

3485

110

420200 E, 8752000 N; 11-17-19 S, 75-43-52 W

Acobamba

3480

109

420300 E, 8752000 N; 11-17-19 S, 75-43-49 W

Elevation (m asl)

Acobamba

w. Long. (0_'_")

108

TABLEA5. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), Site No. Hoja

~

\0 \0

.j::..

;t..

~.

;:s I:l..

~ 'tl

3390

420500 E, 8734400 N; 11-26-52 S, 75-43-44 W

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba

Acobamba and Palcamayo

133

134

135

136

137/159

EIPfMH: ? LIP: agricultural settlement, Class D(?) EIPfMH: agricultural settlement, Class D(?) LIP: ? LH: Inka provincial center

EIPfMH: ? LIP: 2.3 EIPfMH: 4.0 LIP: ? LH: 49.5

UP: isolated agricultural terraces

Age uncertain, isolated agricultural terraces

0.1 1.0

EIPfMH: isolated agricultural terraces

EIPfMH: agricultural settlement, Class D(?) LIP: agricultural settlement, Class C(?)

EIPfMH: herding settlement, Class C LIP(?): herding settlement, Class E

EIPfMH: herding settlement, Class E UP: herding settlement, Class D

EIPfMH: agricultural settlement, Class E(?) LIPILH: agricultural settlement, Class C

EIPfMH: agricultural settlement, Class E(?) LIP: agricultural settlement, Class D

EIPfMH: agricultural settlement, Class E(?) LIP: agricultural settlement, Class D

EIPfMH: herding settlement, Class D(?) LIP: herding camp(?)

EIPfMH: agricultural settlement, Class D(?) LIPILH: agricultural settlement, Class C

EIPfMH: agricultural settlement, Class E(?) LIP: agricultural settlement, Class D(?)

Classification

8.1

EIPfMH: 3.4 LIP: 6.8

EIPfMH: 21.6 UP:?

EIPfMH: 1.3 LIP: 2.5

EIPfMH: 2.2 LIPILH: 4.4

0.7

0.8

EIPfMH: 1.6 LIP: ?

EIPfMH: 2.2 LIPILH: 4.5

EIPfMH: 1.0 LIP: 2.1

Area (ha)

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column. --Site area less than 0.1 ha.

3550

3450

423800 E, 8744200 N; 11-21-33 S, 75-41-54 W

Acobamba

132

418000 E, 8742500 N; 11-22-28 S, 75-45-6 W

3840

425600 E, 8745600 N; 11-20-48 S, 75-40-55 W

Acobamba

131

3740

4065

423900 E, 8747100 N; 11-19-59 S, 75-41-51 W

Acobamba

130

418700 E, 8743300 N; 11-22-2 S, 75-44-42 W

3150

424000 E, 8748700 N; 11-19-7 S, 75-41-47 W

Acobamba

129

3725

3560

420000 E, 8749700 N; 11-18-34 S, 75-43-59 W

Acobamba

128

419300 E, 8744600 N; 11-21-20 S, 75-44-23 W

3635

420700 E, 8749300 N; 11-18-47 S, 75-43-36 W

Acobamba

127

3670

3875

421800 E, 8749000 N; 11-18-57 S, 75-43-0 W

Acobamba

126

420100 E, 8744100 N; 11-21-36 S, 75-43-56 W

3210

422500 E, 8749400 N; 11-18-44 S, 75-42-37 W

125

Acobamba

Acobamba

124

3175

Elevation (m asl)

423000 E, 8749500 N; 11-18-41 S, 75-42-20 W

TABLE AS. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W. Long. (0_'_") Site No. Hoja

'"

tv

\:l

':::t"

j!

'"

;:,: ~'

?

~ ;:! '"S·

;0

~

~

~

....

Vol

c:;.

;:,:

\:l

~.

~ ;:s-

\J)

g

EIPIMH:0.6 LIP: 0.6 ?

3625

3560

4080

416700 E.875 1600 N; 11-17-32 S, 75-45-48 W

409500 E, 8755600 N; 11-15-21 S, 75-49-45 W .

Pa\camayo

Pa1camayo

152

UBR-4

150 414900 E, 8752600 N; 11-16-59 S, 75-46-47 W

Palcamayo

149

Age uncertain, "village"

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class D(?) LIP: agricultural settlement, Class D

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class C(?) LlPILH: agricultural settlement, Class D(?)

LIP: special function settlement, Class C

LIP: herding settlement, Class E

LIPILH: herding settlement, Class C

EIPIMH: ? LIP: herding settlement, Class E

LIP: agricultural settlement, Class E(?)

LIP: small regional storage facility

ElPIMH: ? LIP: small regional storage facility

EIPIMH: ? LIPILH: agricultural settlement, Class E(?)

EIPIMH(?): very small conentric ring site LIP(?): herding camp(?)

LlP(?): agricultural camp

LIP: herding settlement, Class C

EIPIMH(?): large concentric ring site LIP: herding settlement, Class C

Classification

"Site area less than 0.1 ha.

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column.

EIPIMH: 6.0 LIPILH: 2.8

1.8

2.8

2.3

EIPIMH: ? LIP: 1.1

0.8

Pa\camayo

Palcamayo

148

3550

2.5

151

Palcamayo

147

414700 E, 8754600 N; 11-15-54 S, 75-46-53 W

3890

3880

Palcamayo

146

414100 E, 8755000 N; 11-15-41 S, 75-47-13 W

EIPIMH: ? LIP: 0.8

415300 E, 8753200 N; 11-16-40 S, 75-46-30 W

Palcamayo

145

3860

414400 E, 8755000 N; 11-15-41 S, 75-47-3 W

1.7

0.1

Palcamayo

Palcamayo

144

3460

416100 E, 8753300 N; 11-16-37 S, 75-46-7 W

3780

0.3

3900

Palcamayo

143

416400 E, 8753900 N; 11-16-17 S, 75-45-57 W

3940

3.1

414100 E, 8753800 N; 11-16-20 S, 75-47-13 W

Palcamayo

142

416400 E, 8754300 N; 11-16-4 S, 75-45-57 W

4225

6.6

3940

Pa\camayo

141

416500 E, 8755100 N; 11-15-38 S, 75-45-54 W

4305

414300 E, 8753800 N; 11-16-20 S, 75-47-7 W

Palcamayo

140

416200 E, 8756000 N; 11-15-9 S, 75-46- 4 W

Area (ha)

3980

Palcamayo

139

Elevation (m asl)

414700 E, 8753700 N; 11-16-23 S, 75-46-54 W

no site

138

TABLE A5. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W. Long. (0_'_") Hoja Site No.

.....

VI

0

~

~ ~.

;.

;J:..

LIP(?): isolated corrals

LaCima

4330

397900 E, 8744500 N; 11-21-21 S, 75-56-9 W

LaCima

208

1.5

'"!:l..;:s

~ ~

LIP(?): isolated corrals

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

4160

399000 E, 8742700 N; 11-22-20 S, 75-55-32 W

LaCima

207

0.2

**

4260

399000 E, 8743400 N; 11-21-57 S, 75-55-32 W

LaCima

206

LIP: isolated corral and small isolated cemetery

0.2

4480

4245

400000 E, 8743000 N; 11-22-10 S, 75-54-59 W

LaCima

205

LIP(?): isolated corrals, and possibly a small isolated cemetery

1.0

395900 E, 8744700 N; 11-21-15 S, 75-57-15 W

4300

400400 E, 8742700 N; 11-22-20 S, 75-54-46 W

LaCima

204

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

**

EIPIMH: medium concentric ring site LIP(?): herding settlement, Class E

4290

400700 E, 8742400 N; 11-22-30 S, 75-54-36 W

LaCima

203

LIP(?): isolated corrals

2.3

EIPIMH: medium concentric ring site(?) LIPILH: herding settlement, Class B

3.0

4290

399500 E, 8743500 N; 11-21-54 S, 75-55-16 W

LaCima

202

EIPIMH: ? LIPILH: core: 1.5 periphery: 2.0

Age uncertain, isolated corral

4555

4425

399700 E, 8744000 N; 11-21-38 S, 75-55-9 W.

LaCima

201

0.1

EIPIMH: ? LIP: small isolated cemetery

**

LIP(?): herding settlement, Class D, and small isolated cemetery

4260

401100 E, 8746700 N; 11-20-10 S, 75-54-23 W.

LaCima

200

Classification

Area (ha)

0.4

4160

400900 E, 8743800 N; 11-21-44 S, 75-54-30 W.

Elevation (m asl)

LaCima

w. Long. (0_'_")

198-199

TABLE AS. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), Hoja Site No.

1.1 EIPIMH: ? LIP: core: 4.5 periphery: 26.2

4300

4470

4180

4230 4215 4250 4230 4300 4300 4315 4320 4420

393800 E, 8745200 N; 11-20-58 S, 75-58-24 W

394300 E, 8745900 N; 11-20-35 S, 75-58-7 W

393700 E, 8744700 N; 11-21-14 S, 75-58-27 W 392900 E, 8745000 N; 11-21-4 S, 75-58-53 W 392700 E, 8745800 N; 11-20-38 S, 75-59-0 W 393500 E, 8745700 N; 11-20-42 S, 75-58-34 W 393400 E, 8745800 N; 11-20-38 S, 75-58-37 W 393600 E, 8746000 N; 11-20-32 S, 75-58-30 W 393500 E, 8746300 N; 11-20-22 S, 75-58-34 W 397800 E, 8750100 N; 11-18-19 S, 75-56-11 W 397900 E, 8750200 N; 11-18-16 S, 75-56-8 W 397000 E, 8750400 N; 11-18-9 S, 75-56-38 W 396400 E, 8750800 N; 11-17-56 S, 75-56-57 W 395500 E, 8750600 N; 11-18-2 S, 75-57-27 W

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

228-A

229

230

231

LlP(?): small isolated cemetery

**

When all components of a mUlticomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column. "Site area less than 0.1 ha.

EIPIMH: ? LIP: herding settlement, Class A

LIPILH(?): herding settlement, Class E

LH(?): herding settlement, Class B

LIP: small isolated cemetery

**

4.6

LlP(?): small isolated cemetery

**

LIP: agricultural camp

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

**

0.4

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

**

4250

LIP: large isolated cemetery

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

**

4180

2.0

LlP(?): small isolated cemetery

EIPIMH: very large concentric ring site LIP: herding settlement, Class D(?)

EIPIMH: large concentric ring site LIP: herding settlement, Class D

**

EIP/MH: 12.0 LIP: core: 1.3 periphery: 12.0

6.0

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

**

219

4330

394100 E, 8745100 N; 11-21-1 S, 75-58-14 W

LaCima

218

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

**

4330

217

LIP(?): isolated corrals

Classification

0.8

394200 E, 8744900 N; 11-21-8 S, 75-58-11 W

LaCima

216

LaCima

Area (ha)

4330

Elevation (m asl)

394500 E, 8744600 N; 11-21-18 S, 75-58-1 W

TABLE A5. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'- "), W. Long. (0_'_") Site No. Hoja

v,

"1:l

!:l ~ N

"1:l

~

(1)

.ii'

~

?

S·

~

~

~

~

(1)

...

~

(1)

...::to

ri' ~

~

!:l

~.

"1:l

~ ;:ro

C 0\

4350

4425

4405

4370 4445

397400 E 8752000 N; 11-17-17 S, 75-56-24 W

396000 E, 8752000 N; 11-17-17 S, 75-57-10 W

396400 E, 8754400 N; 11-15-59 S, 75-56-57 W

395600 E, 8755200 N; 11-15-33 S, 75-57-23 W 393400 E, 8755500 N; 11-15-23 S, 75-58-36 W

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

LaCima

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

4390

3540 3380 3920 4140 3900 3900

392300 E, 8751500 N; 11-17-33 S, 75-59-13 W

442800 E, 8742400 N; 11-22-33 S, 75-31-27 W 443400 E, 8741400 N; 11-23-6 S, 75-31-8 W 440900 E, 8738200 N; 11-24-50 S, 75-32-30 W 438900 E, 8736100 N; 11-25-58 S, 75-33-36 W 437000 E, 8736000 N; 11-26-1 S, 75-34-39 W 441200 E, 8734700 N; 11-26-44 S, 75-32-21 W

LaCima

Maco

Maco

Maco

Maco

Maco

Maco

243

244

245

246

247

248

?

?

?

?

?

?

0.1

**

8.0

1.1

2.5

0.7

**

**

0.1

0.2

**

Area (ha)

Unsurveyed; age uncertain, herding settlement, Class 0

Unsurveyed; age uncertain, herding settlement, Class D(?)

Unsurveyed; age uncertain, herding settlement, Class D(?)

Unsurveyed; age uncertain, herding settlement, Class D(?)

Unsurveyed; age uncertain, agricultural settlement, Class D(?)

Unsurveyed; age uncertain, agricultural settlement, Class D(?)

LIP: small isolated cemetery LIP(?): isolated maca field

LIP(?): herding camp

EIPIMH: large concentric ring site LIP: herding settlement, Class E

EIPIMH(?): small concentric ring site

EIPIMH: medium concentric ring site(?) LIP(?): herding camp(?)

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery; and herding settlement, Class 0

LIP: small isolated cemetery

LIP: herding camp

EIPIMH(?): herding camp(?) LIP: herding camp

LIP(?): Camp (?)

LIP(?): isolated shrine

Classification

--Site area less than 0.1 ha.

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column.

4360

4375

4290

393700 E, 8751300 N; 11-17-39 S, 75-58-26 W

394900 E, 8752500 N; 11-17-1 S, 75-57-47 W

393800 E, 8746400 N; 11-20-19 S, 75-58-24 W

4225

234

398500 E, 8752000 N; 11-17-17 S, 75-55-48 W

LaCima

4550

233

395200 E, 8751300 N; 11-17-40 S, 75-57-37 W

LaCima

Elevation (m asl)

232

TABLE AS. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W. Long. (0_'_") Site No. Hoja

0 -...l

VI

;:t.

~.

~

;:s

~ ~

EIPIMH: ? LIP: isolated shrine Age uncertain, agricultural settlement, Class E

0.7 0.5

0.1

3950 4060 4130 4040

3850

430500 E, 8740000 N; 11-23-51 S, 75-38-13 W 429900 E, 8739500 N; 11-24-7 S, 75-38-33 W 429200 E, 8739500 N; 11-24-7 S, 75-38-56 W 430600 E, 8738700 N; 11-24-33 S, 75-38-10 W

431500 E, 8738100 N; 11-24-53 S, 75-37-41 W

Tarma

Tarma

Tarma

Tarma

Tarma

262

263

264

265

266

LIP: herding settlement, Class E

LIP: agricultural settlement, Class E

LIP: agricultural settlement, Class E

LIP: large isolated cemetery

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column. "Site area less than 0.1 ha.

0.4

0.6

1.2

3980

430200 E, 8740700 N; 11-23-28 S, 75-38-23 W

Tarma

261

EIPIMH: ? LIPILH: special function settlement, Class C

EIPIMH(?): ? LIPILH: 1.4

Tarma

260

4065

429400 E, 8741400 N; 11-23-5 S, 75-38-50W

Tarma

259 430200 E, 8741000 N; 11-23-18 S, 75-38-23 W

3525

418500 E, 8741500 N; 11-23-1 S, 75-44-49 W

Tarma

258

EIPIMH(?): herding camp(?) LIP: agricultural settlement, Class E(?)

LIP: isolated shrine

4200

436200 E, 8737800 N; 11-25-3 S, 75-35-5 W

Maco

257

0.2

LIP: agricultural settlement, Class E

**

3900

431800 E, 8738400 N; 11-24-43 S, 75-37-31 W

Maco

256

0.4

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class E(?) LIPILH: agricultural settlement, Class D(?)

4200

3815

433500 E, 8739400 N; 11-24-10 S, 75-36-34 W

Maco

255

1.8

Site 252: LIPILH(?): agricultural camp Site 253: EIPIMH(?): agricultural settlement, Class E

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class D

3800

432900 E, 8739700 N; 11-24-1 S, 75-36-54 W

Maco

254

Site 252:" Site 253: 0.4

Age uncertain, agricultural camp

1.1

3830

431900 E, 8740300 N; 11-23-41 S, 75-37-27 W

Maco

252-253

0.1

Unsurveyed; age uncertain, herding settlement, Class D

Unsurveyed; age uncertain, herding settlement, Class D

Classification

LIP: special function settlement, Class B

3380

431900 E, 8742100 N; 11-22-42 S, 75-37-27 W

Maco

251

?

?

Area (ha)

3.3

4230

437900 E, 8729600 N; 11-29-30 S, 75-34-10 W

Maco

250

4320

439300 E, 8733600 N; 11-27-20 S, 75-33-23 W

Maco

Elevation (m asl)

249

TABLE A5. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W. Lang. (0_'_") SileNo. Hoja

V,

N

:::t

~

;!

." ~

~~

~ ;:s

'"S·

~

~

...

...~

~

~

~

~

::t

~

V:l

o·

;:s

\:l

~.

~

(\l

."

00

a

LIP: isolated shrine(?) EIPIMH: small(?) isolated cemetery

0.5 0.1 1.5

3845 4150 3515

426600 E, 8729800 N; 11-29-22 S, 75-40-23 W 431800 E, 8738400 N; 11-24-43 S, 75-37-31 W

Tarma

Tarma

281

282

279

LIP: isolated agricultural terraces

EIPIMH: herding camp(?)

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class D(?)

--Site area less than 0.1 ha.

When all components of a mUlticomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column.

0.5

0.6

EIPIMH: herding settlement, Class C(?) LIPILH: uncertain

429900 E, 8728800 N; 11-29-55 S, 75-38-34 W

Tarma

278

EIPIMH: 3.6 LIPILH: ?

LIP: agricultural campO)

Age uncertain, agricultural(?) settlement, Class E

Tarma

Tarma

277

0.7

0.7

EIPIMH: agricultural camp(?) LIPILH: agricultural camp(?)

280

Tarma

276

3940

430100 E, 8731200 N; 11-28-37 S, 75-38-27 W

0.5

EIPIMH: ? LIPILH: agricultural settlement, Class A

3840

Tarma

275

3200

425800 E, 8734200 N; 11-22-6 S, 75-40-48 W

EIPIMH: ? LIPILH: 3.2

LIP(?): isolated shrine

428900 E, 8729600 N; 11-29-24 S, 75-35-7 W

Tarma

274

3625

426600 E, 8734600 N; 11-26-24 S, 75-38-27 W

**

EIPIMH: herding settlement, Class D LIP: ?

Tarma

Tarma

273

4220

430100 E, 8735300 N; 11-26-24 S, 75-38-27 W

EIPIMH: 1.3 LIP: ?

LIPILH: agricultural settlement, Class C

3810

Tarma

272

3715

427500 E. 8741500 N; 11-23-2 S, 75-39-52 W

1.6

EIPIMH: ? LIPILH: agricultural settlement, Class C

429700 E, 8730600 N; 11-28-57 S, 75-38-41 W

Tarma

271

3970

427800 E, 8739300 N; 11-24-13 S, 75-39-43 W

EIPIMH: ? LIPILH: 1.6

Age uncertain, agricultural camp(?)

3715

Tarma

270

3330

427300 E, 8737800 N; 11-25-2 S, 75-39-59 W

0.2

EIPIMH: herding camp(?) LIP: herding camp(?)

Classification

428200 E, 8729900 N; 11-29-19 S, 75-39-30 W

Tarma

269

3900

428900 E, 8738700 N; 11-24-33 S, 75-39-6 W

0.4

Area (ha)

3840

Tarma

268

3920

431800 E, 8737900 N; 11-24-59 S, 75-37-47 W

Elevation (m asl)

428000 E, 8730900 N; 11-28-47 S, 75-39-37 W

Tarma

267

TABLE A5. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W. Long. (0_'_") Hoja Site No.

\0

VI

0

)..

~.

\:)..

;::

~

~

-6-

3265

3160

3330

3955

3945 3600. 4005 3875 3810 3650

424100 E, 8737500 N; 11-25-12 S, 75-41-45 W

425000 E, 8738500 N; 11-24-39 S, 75-41-15 W

422800 E, 8737800 N; 11-25-2 S, 75-42-28 W 419900 E, 8737900 N; 11-24-58 S, 75-44-3 W

420300 E, 8740100 N; 11-23-47 S, 75-43-50 W

421000 E, 8740600 N; 11-23-30 S, 75-43-27 W 422500 E, 8740000 N; 11-23-50 S, 75-42-37 W 421200 E, 8740900 N; 11-23-1 S, 75-43-20W 419000 E, 8740600 N; 11-23-30 S, 75-44-33 W 418500 E, 8740900 N; 11-23-20 S, 75-44-49 W 419400 E, 8741400 N; 11-23-4 S, 75-44-20 W 418000 E, 8741300 N; 11-23-7 S, 75-45-6 W

Tarma

Tarma

Tarma

Tarma

Tarma

Tarma

Tarma

Tarma

Tarma

Tarma

Tarma

Palcapacha

287

288

289

290

291

292

292-A

293

294

295

296

297

1.0

1.3

0.2

0.2

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class D LIP: agricultural settlement, Class D

LIP: agricultural settlement, Class C

LIPILH: agricultural settlement, Class E

UP: agricultural settlement, Class D

LIP(?): isolated shrine

LIP: isolated shrine

** 0.1

LIPILH: agricultural settlement, Class C

EIPIMH(?): small concentric ring site UP: agricultural settlement, Class C

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class C(?) UP:?

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class E

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class D(?) LIP: ?

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class D(?) LIP: agricultural settlement, Class D(?)

EIPIMH: herding settlement, Class E LIP: herding settlement, Class E

LIP: herding settlement, Class E

LIPILH(?): herding camp

EIPIMH: ? LIP(?): ? LH: Inka provincial center

Classification

0.6

1.4

EIPIMH: 11.6 LIP: ?

0.4

EIPIMH: 2.6 LIP: ?

EIPIMH: 2.8 LIP: 2.4

1.2

0.9

0.2

EIPIMH: ? LIP: ? LH: 31.2

Area (ha)

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column. ··Site area less than 0.1 ha.

3640

3230

3950

422400 E, 8736300 N; 11-25-50 S, 75-42-41 W

Tarma

286

4180

422700 E, 8733700 N; 11-27-15 S, 75-42-31 W

Tarma

285

4090

423200 E, 8730600 N; 11-28-56 S, 75-42-15 W

Tarma

284

Elevation (m asl) 3490

w. Long. (0_'_")

425400 E, 8731900 N; 11-28-14 S, 75-41-2 W

Tarma

283

TABLE A5. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'- "), Site No. Hoja

V,

N

.......

"1:l $::)

~

"1:l (1)

~'

?;:s

'"s·

(1)

$::) .... .... 3

"1:l

~

(1)

~

(1)

::::::

(1)

.-

Vl

Fi·

;:s

$::)

~.

~

"1:l (;1

C

......

4150 4195

4260

4260 4165

4120 4450

4440 4280 4390

4000 4405 4055

414600 E, 8739400 N; 11-24-9 S, 75-46-58 W 408300 E, 8739700 N; 11-23-59 S, 75-50-26 W

408100 E, 8740800 N; 11-23-23 S, 75-50-32 W

407300 E, 8741200 N; 11-23-10 S, 75-50-59 W 407100 E, 8742100 N; 11-22-40 S, 75-51-5 W

407300 E, 8742300 N; 11-22-34 S, 75-50-59 W 404800 E, 8736700 N; 11-25-36 S, 75-52-22 W

404700 E, 8736500 N; 11-25-42 S, 75-52-25 W 400900 E, 8742300 N; 11-22-33 S, 75-54-30 W 399600 E, 8742300 N; 11-22-33 S, 75-55-13 W

403400 E, 8741600 N; 11-22-56 S, 75-53-7 W 401400 E, 8741100 N; 11-23-12 S, 75-54-13 W 403500 E, 8739800 N; 11-23-55 S, 75-53-4 W

Palcapacha

Palcapacha

Palcapacha

Palcapacha

Palcapacha

Palcapacha

Palcapacha

Palcapacha

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

300

301

302

303

304

304-A

305

30S-A

306

307

308

309

310

1.2

0.5

0.1

EIPIMH: 1.5 LIP: core: 1.5 periphery: 10.0

1.5

**

EIPIMH: 1.5 LIP: core: 1.5 periphery: 2.5

**

0.5

**

EIPIMH: 1.5 LIP: core: 1.5 periphery: 2.0

EIPIMH: 1.0(?) LIPILH: 2.0

0.2

EIPIMH: ? LIPILH: 2.7

2.0

Area (ha)

EIPIMH: small concentric ring site LIP: herding settlement, Class E

EIPIMH(?): very small concentric ring site

Age uncertain, herding camp

EIPIMH(?): small concentric ring site, LIP: serding settlement, Class D

LIP: isolated corrals

LH: road facility

EIPIMH: small concentric ring site, LIP: herding settlement, Class C

LH(?): canal segment

EIPIMH(?): herding camp(?) LIP: herding camp

LH(?): road facility

EIPIMH: small concentric ring site LIP: herding settlement, Class C

EIPIMH: small concentric ring site(?), LIPILH: herding settlement, Class E

LIP: herding camp

EIPIMH: ? LIPILH(?): agricultural settlement, Class D(?)

LIP: special function settlement, Class A

Classification

"Site area less than 0.1 ha.

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column.

3340

418100 E, 8737300 N; 11-25-18 S, 75-45-3 W

Palcapacha

299

4140

416300 E, 8740500 N; 11-23-33 S, 75-46-2 W

Palcapacha

Elevation (m asl)

298

· TABLE A5. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W Long. (0_'_") SiteNo. Hoja

I.JI ..... .....

~

>;.

>:I..

;:!

tl>

~ '15

**

EIPIMH: ? LIPILH: core: 1.5 periphery: 3.5 EIPIMH: ? LIP: core: 1.1 periphery: 2.5

4120 4365

4255

3965

3965

4265

395400 E, 8742200 N; 11-22-36 S, 75-57-31 W 391100 E, 8738800 N; 11-24-26 S, 75-59-54 W

390900 E, 8738200 N; 11-24-46 S, 76-0-0 W

392800 E, 8737800 N; 11-24-59 S, 75-58-58 W

393100 E, 8737500 N; 11-25-9 S, 75-58-48 W

394800 E, 8736300 N; 11-25-48 S, 75-57-52 W

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

317

318

319

320

321

322

EIPIMH: small concentric ring site LIP: herding settlement, Class B

EIPIMH(?): ? LIP: herding settlement, Class E

EIPIMH(?): ? LIPILH: herding settlement, Class C

EIPIMH: herding camp(?) LIP: herding camp(?); or possible isolated shrine

EIPIMH: herding settlement, Class D(?) LIP: herding settlement, Class C

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

LIP: herding settlement, Class E

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column. --Site area less than 0.1 ha.

EIPIMH: 1.5 LIP: core: 1.5 periphery: 2.5

EIPIMH:0.2 LIP: core: 0.2 periphery: 1.5

EIPIMH: 1.6 UP: core: 1.6 periphery: 4.9

0.4

4065

397600 E, 8741400 N; 11-23-2 S, 75-56-19 W

Paccha-II

316

EIPIMH: small concentric ring site LIP: herding settlement, Class E

EIPIMH: 1.0 LIP: core: 1.0 periphery: 3.5

4230

398200 E, 8741300 N; 11-23-5 S, 75-55-59 W

Paccha-II

315

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

**

398800 E, 8739300 N; 11-24-11 S, 75-55-39 W

Paccha-II

314

EIPIMH: herding settlement, Class E(?) LIPILH: herding settlement, Class D

4150

4460

401900 E, 8735800 N; 11-26-5 S, 75-53-58 W

Paccha-II

313

EIPIMH: ? LIPILH: 0.7

EIPIMH: ? LIP: herding settlement, Class C

Classification

LIP: herding settlement, Class E, and isolated shrine

4070

401000 E, 8737800 N; 11-25-0 S, 75-54-27 W

Paccha-II

312

EIPIMH: ? UP: core: 1.5 periphery: 4.0

Area (ha)

0.8

4150

402400 E, 8739800 N; 11-23-55 S, 75-53-41 W

Paccha-II

Elevation (m asl)

311

TABLE A5. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W. Long. (0_'_") Site No. Hoja

v,

;::t

N

:::1

;p

~ ~

~\

§

s·

3 to

~

;p

...

s. ""~

~

;:;.

§

~.

~

~

"tl

'tv

4230

4025 3885

3925 4170

397000 E, 8732300 N; 11-27-58 S, 75-56-40 W

396300 E, 8732600 N; 11-27-48 S, 75-57-3 W 395200 E, 8733200 N; 11-27-29 S, 75-57-39 W

394700 E, 8734300 N; 11-26-53 S, 75-57-55 W 394700 E, 8734500 N; 11-26-46 S, 75-57-55 W 395400 E, 8734700 N; 11-26-40 S, 75-57-32 W

393800 E, 8733700 N; 11-27-12 S, 75-58-25 W 398800 E, 8735400 N; 11-26-18 S, 75-55-40 W

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

Paccha-II

326

327

328

329

330-331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

EIPIMH: very small concentric ring site LIP(?): herding settlement, Class D

LIP(?): large regional storage facility

1.8 0.4

EIPIMH: small concentric ring site LIP: herding settlement, Class C

EIPIMH: 1.1 LIP: 1.8

LIP: herding camp

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

** 0.2

EIPIMH: ? LIP: herding settlement, Class D

LIP: herding settlement, Class E

LIP: large regional storage facility LHlHistoric(?): herding settlement, Class D

EIPIMH: ? LIP: herding camp

EIPIMH: ? LIP: herding camp

LIP: herding settlement, Class D

EIPIMH: ? LIP: 2.3

3.0

core: '2.5 periphery: 2.5

EIPIMH: ? LIP: 2.5

0.2

0.2

LIP: herding camp

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

EIPIMH(?): very small concentric ring site ? LIP(?): herding settlement,Class E

LIPILH(?): small isolated cemetery

EIPIMH(?): small concentric ring site LIP: herding settlement, Class E(?)

Classification

"Site area less than 0.1 ha.

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column.

4435

4050

3910

4270

4120

398700 E, 8733700 N; 11-27-42 S, 75-56-23 W

397500 E, 8732800 N; 11-27-42 S, 75-56-23 W

4215

399400 E, 8735100 N; 11-26-27 S, 75-55-20 W

0.4

**

398'1 4060

0.7

**

1.0

Area (ha)

3985

398800 E, 8735400 N; 11-26-18 S, 75-55-40 W

396900 E, 8735700 N; 11-26-8 S, 75-56-43 W

396800 E, 8735900 N; 11-26-1 S, 75-56-46 W

Paccha-II

325

3980

396700 E, 8736100 N; 11-25-55 S, 75-56-49 W

Paccha-II

324

4405

397700 E, 8737700 N; 11-25-3 S, 75-56-16 W

Paccha-II

Elevation (m asl)

323

TABLE A5. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W Lang. (0_'_") Site No. Hoja

Ul

W

.......

~

~.

I:l..

"';:s

~

:g

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column. "Site area less than 0.1 ha.

LIP: herding settlement, Class D, plus possible small isolated cemetery

1.2 4030

434800 E, 8725300 N; 11-31-50 S, 75-35-53 W

Ricran

356

LIPILH: special function settlement, Class B 4.0

4105

434500 E, 8725100 N; 11-31-56 S, 75-36-2 W

Ricran

355

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

** 4060

434300 E, 8725000 N; 11-31-59 S, 75-36-9 W

Ricran

354

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

** 4060

434000 E, 8725300 N; 11-31-49 S, 75-36-19 W

Ricran

353

LIPILH(?): large isolated cemetery

0.2

4100

434200 E, 8725400 N; 11-31-46 S, 75-36-12 W

Ricran

352

LIPILH(?): small isolated cemetery

**

LIP(?): large(?) isolated cemetery

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class D

LIP: herding settlement, Class C

LIP: special function settlement, Class B

Age uncertain, isolated shrine

ElPIMH(?): ? LIP: herding settlement, Class D

0.8

core: 1.0 periphery: 1.0

2.4

**

EIPIMH: ? LIP: 0.5

EIPIMH(?): ? LIP: herding settlement, Class D

LIP(?): large isolated cemetery

** EIPIMH: ? LIP: 1.8

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

EIPIMH: ? LIP: herding settlement, Class C, plus large isolated cemetery

LIP: herding settlement, Class E

Classification

**

EIPIMH: ? LIP: core: 1.7 periphery: 2.0

0.2

Area (ha)

0.3

4090

433700 E, 8725400 N; 11-31-46 S, 75-36-29 W

Ricran

351

4090

433200 E, 8725100 N; 11-31-56 S, 75-36-45 W

Ricran

350

3840

434700 E, 8726800 N; 11-31-1 S, 75-35-56 W

Ricran

349

4110

432600 E, 8726800 N; 11-31-1 S, 75-37-5 W

Ricran

348

4085

435900 E, 8727600 N; 11-30-35 S, 75-35-16 W

Ricran

347

4235

433100 E, 8728600 N; 11-30-2 S, 75-36-48 W

Ricran

346

3950

390200 E, 8737600 N; 11-25-5 S, 76-0-23 W

Malpaso

345

4350

Malpaso

344

390600 E, 8740600 N; 11-23-27 S, 76-0-10 W

Malpaso

343

4400

4450

389700 E, 8742000 N; 11-22-42 S, 76-0-39 W

Malpaso

342 390800 E, 8740800 N; 11-23-21 S, 76-0-0 W

3990

391600 E, 8735900 N; 11-26-1 S, 75-59-37 W

Paccha-ll

341

3975

393200 E, 8735700 N; 11-26-7 S, 75-58-45 W

Paccha-ll

Elevation (m asl)

340

TABLE A5. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W. Long. (0_'_") Site No. Hoja

tv

::t

I:l

"tl

.i:!

~' "tl (\)

?;:3

'" S·

~

~

~

;:3

...

(\)

~

(\)

::t

(\)

1)' V:l

;:3

~. I:l

~

"tl ~

-I:>..

v, .......

3830

4115 3825 4140 4095 4100 4100

4115 4290 4190 3970

3925 4250

435500 E, 8724500 N; 11-32-16 S, 75-35-29 W

434800 E, 8723300 N; 11-32-55 S, 75-35-53 W 433100 E, 8722600 N; 11-33-17 S, 5-36-49 W 435700 E, 8722800 N; 11-33-11 S, 75-35-23 W 437500 E, 8722700 N; 11-33-14 S, 75-34-24 W 436600 E, 8721300 N; 11-34-0 S, 75-34-53 W 436300 E, 8721000 N; 11-34-10 S, 75-35-3 W 435700 E, 8721200 N; 11-34-3 S, 75-35-23 W 436300 E, 8721800 N; 11-33-44 S, 75-35-3 W

437500 E, 8721300 N; 11-34-0 S, 75-34-24 W 434800 E, 8721100 N; 11-34-6 S, 75-35-53 W 427800 E, 8728200 N; 11-30-15 S, 75-39-43 W 425100 E, 8728100 N; 11-30-18 S, 75-41-13 W

425700 E, 8727400 N; 11-30-40 S, 75-40-53 W 425200 E, 8726500 N; 11-31-10 S, 75-41-9 W

Ricran

Ricran

Ricran

Ricran

Ricran

Ricran

Ricran

Ricran

Ricran

Ricran

Ricran

Huaricolca

Huaricolca

Huaricolca

Huaricolca

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

366-A

367

368

369

370

371

372

EIPIMH: ? LIP(?): small isolated cemetery LIP(?): small isolated cemetery LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

** ** **

0.7

0.6

2.8

Age uncertain, herding camp

EIPIMH: herding settlement, Class E

EIPIMH: herding settlement, Class E LIP: herding camp(?)

UP: herding settlement, Class E

LIP: small isolated cemetery

0.2

2.5

LIP(?): large isolated cemetery

LIP: special function settlement, Class C

LIPILH: agricultural settlement, Class D(?)

LIP(?): herding settlement, Class C(?)

LIPILH(?): herding settlement, Class E

LIP(?): agricultural(?) camp

EIPIMH: agricultural settlement, Class D(?) LIPILH: ?

EIPIMH: herding settlement, Class D LIP: ?

UP(?): small isolated cemetery

Classification

0.2

3.0

0.5

3.0

0.9

0.5

EIPIMH: 1.0 LIPILH: ?

EIPIMH:2.5 LIP: ?

0.1

Area (ha)

··Site area less than 0.1 ha.

When all components of a multi component site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column.

4060

3960

4015

435600 E, 8725200 N; 11-31-53 S, 75-35-26 W

Ricran

358

4090

434800 E, 8724700 N; 11-32-9 S, 75-35-53 W

Ricran

Elevation (m asl)

357

TABLE A5. Sum11Ulry of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_,- "), W Long. (0_'_") Site No. Hoja

,.... U\

U\

;:t:..

~.

I:l...

n:. ;:s

~

-6"

Age uncertain, herding camp LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

0.1

**

** 6.0

4130 4225 4120 4140 4125

4060 4180

4306ooE, 87525OON; 11-17-4S, 75-38-9W 430000 E, 8724000 N; 11-32-31 S, 75-38-31 W 429400 E, 8723500 N; 11-32-48 S, 75-38-51 W 431300 E, 8722800 N; 11-33-11 S, 75-37-48 W 430900 E, 8722800 N; 11-33-11 S, 75-38-1 W

430300 E, 8722800 N; 11-33-11 S, 75-38-21 W 431100 E, 8717000 N; 11-36-19 S, 75-37-55 W

Huaricolca

Huaricolca

Huaricolca

Huaricolca

Huaricolca

Huaricolca

376

377

378

379

380

381

u, '-

~ LIP: herding settlement, Class A

N

:4.

~

~

~

~' '""t:l

?;:s

S·

~

~

.....

;:s

~

~

~

r;.

§

~.

~

~

'""t:l

0'1

LIP(?): small isolated cemetery

EIPIMH: ? LIP: herding settlement, Class A

LIP: herding settlement, Class A

LH: herding camp

When all components of a multicomponent site are judged to have the same surface area, a single figure is given in the "area" column. --Site area less than 0.1 ha.

EIPIMH: ? LIP: 5.6

2.7

0.2

EIPIMH: herding settlement, Class B(?)

Huaricolca

4.8

375

374

3890

Huaricolca

373

430200 E, 8727100 N; 11-30-50 S, 75-38-24 W

EIPIMH: herding settlement, Class E LIP: herding camp(?)

Classification

Huaricolca

EIPIMH: 2.7 LIP: ?

Area (ha)

4180

Elevation (masl)

427800 E, 8726800 N; 11-31-0 S, 75-39-44 W

TABLE A5. Summary of Survey Data. UTM Coordinates; S. Lat. (0_'_ "), W. Long. (0_'_") Site No. Hoja

Appendix A

517

TABLE A6. Site Types by Periods Site Type

EIPIMH No.

%

LIP No.

LIPILH %

Agricultural Settlement A

No.

%

1

2.2

LIP & LIPILH No. %

1

0.3

LHlHistoric

LH No.

%

No.

%

Age Uncertain No.

%

Total No.

%

1

0.2

B

C

3

2.1

11

4.0

8

17.4

19

6.0

5

13.5

27

5.2

D

20

13.7

25

9.2

6

13.0

31

9.7

8

21.6

59

11.5

E

11

7.5

12

4.4

4

8.7

16

5.0

3

8.1

30

5.8

Camp

1

0.7

9

3.3

3

6.5

12

3.8

4

10.8

17

3.3

6

2.2

2

1.4

3

1.1

1

2.2

Herding Settlement A B

6

1.9

4

1.3

C

2

1.4

15

5.5

3

6.5

18

5.6

D

6

4.1

25

9.2

2

4.3

27

8.5

E

7

4.8

28

10.3

3

6.5

31

9.7

Camp

6

4.1

27

9.9

4

8.7

31

9.7

1

8.3 1

1

100.0

8.3

6

1.2

7

1.4

20

3.9

34

6.6

1

2.7

39

7.6

4

10.8

42

8.2

1.0

Special Function Settlement A

3

1.1

2

4.3

5

1.6

5

B

7

2.6

1

2.2

8

2.5

8

1.6

C

6

2.2

3

6.5

9

2.8

9

1.7

Concentric Ring Sites Very Large

1

2.6

1

2.6

Large

3

7.9

3

7.9

Medium

6

15.8

6

15.8

Small

18

47.4

18

47.4

Very Small

10

26.3

10

16.3

1

0.7

Isolated Cemetery Large Small Regional Storage Facility Large Small

8

2.9

1

2.2

9

2.8

51

18.7

2

4.3

53

16.6

4

10.8

9

1.7

58

11.3

3

1.1

3

0.9

3

0.6

2

0.7

2

0.6

2

0.4

Inka Prov. Center

3

25.0

3

0.6

Tambo

2

16.7

2

0.4

Isolated Sites Corrals Agric. Terraces

1

0.7

7

2.6

7

2.2

3

8.1

10

1.9

4

1.5

4

1.3

2

5.4

7

1.4 0.4

Maca Fields

1

0.4

1

0.3

I

2.7

2

Shrine

9

3.3

9

2.8

2

5.4

11

2.1

3

0.6

Road Facility Canal

3

25.0

1

8.3

1

0.2

Uncertain

48

32.9

11

4.0

2

4.3

13

4.1

1

8.3

62

12.0

Total

146

100.0

273

100.0

46

100.0

319

100.0

12

100.0

515

100.0

1

100.0

37

100.0

AppendixB

Ceramic Chronology

We make no attempt to provide a full description or analysis of the surface pottery recovered in our survey. As indicated in Chapter 5, this still badly needs to be done. The closest approximation to date for such an effort is in Hastings' (1985) doctoral dissertation based on his 1979-80 surveys in the ceja de montana and montana zones to the east and north of our 1975-76 study area. There Hastings encountered several kinds of ceramics that are absent or rare in the Tarama-Chinchaycocha region; conversely, some of our most common pottery types are of secondary importance at the lower elevations where Hastings subsequently worked. Here we describe only those categories of pottery that we found useful in inferring occupational chronology on the basis of our surface collections in the Tarama-Chinchaycocha region. This follows the approach used by Robert M. Adams and his colleagues (Adams 1965; Adams and Nissen 1972) in their regional surveys in Mesopotamia. Like Adams and his colleagues, we work at a very coarse-grained level of chronology, and leave the much-needed detailed ceramic studies for future investigators. As indicated in Chapter 5 (Table 5.2), we distinguish only four general time periods on the basis of ceramics: (I) Formative (Initial Period and Early Horizon), (2) Early IntermediatelMiddle Horizon (which can sometimes be separated into early EIP and late EIP/MH components), (3) Late Intermediate Period, and (4) Late Horizon (defined exclusively by Inka-style pottery). Because we found no Formative pottery anywhere in our Tarama-Chinchaycocha surface survey, we are generally working with only three main chronological divisions. The remainder of this appendix is devoted to a description of the ceramic categories that we used to define these divisions. The reader is referred to LeBlanc (1981) for a discussion of the Wanka pottery that is common in the far southeastern part of the Tarama-Chinchaycocha region.

The Early Intermediate PeriodlMiddle Horizon The Huacrapuquio Complex The term "Huacrapuquio" was introduced by Browman (1970) to identify a ceramic complex found at the Huacrapuquio type site near Huancayo and widespread throughout much of the main Mantaro Valley between Huancayo and Jauja. Very similar pottery has also been found well beyond the latter area. A large number of whole collections and components of collections from surveyed sites in the Tarma drainage kichwa are provisionally classified as Huacrapuquio, pending more intensive investigations into local ceramic variability.

519

Huacrapuquio constitutes the third of three phases into which Browman partitioned the Early Intermediate Period occupation in the Huancayo-Jauja sector of the upper Mantaro Valley. He designated the two earlier EIP phases as Usupuquio and Uchupas (subsequently lumped as Huacrapuquio I by Hastorf et al. 1989) (Table 5.2). However, the Usupuquio-Uchupas has yet to be securely established as a fully synchronic phase across the upper Mantaro-upper Tarma drainages. Furthermore, the chronological ordering of Huacrapuquio relative to panAndean developments in the Middle Horizon remains uncertain. Huacrapuquio-related ceramics are associated with the first major buildup of sedentary occupation in most of the Tarma kichwa and define the first major episode of widespread, substantial, and archaeologically recognizable settlement in this area. Dozens of sites with Huacrapuquio components have been discovered within the middle and upper Tarma drainage. The greatest densities are in the lower Pa1camayo Valley, although sites are. also dispersed throughout other valleys farther up the Tarma (Fig. 8.3). The scatter of sites with Huacrapuquio-related ceramics continues up the southeastern tributaries of the upper Tarma and,judging from very limited evidence, up the full length of the Ricran VaHey, probably leaving a gap in the Huarico1ca puna between the Tarma and upper Mantaro populations. Current research by Manuel Perales Munguma (pers. comm.) near Ricran itself provides additional support for our inferences on this geographical distribution. Huacrapuquio ceramic types are less visible in the surveyed Junin puna, but nonetheless are weakly represented in several puna sites. One problem is simply that archaeological surface pottery of any kind is generally quite scarce at puna sites that are almost all uncultivated and thickly grass-covered. The paucity of Huacrapuquio-related material in the headwaters of the Pa1camayo along the eastern edge of the J unin puna is evident in the concern expressed by Lavallee and Julien (1975:108) over a suspiciously long hiatus between a significant Formative occupation of excavated cave sites in that area and the influx of LIP San Bias pottery (discussed below). During the early 1970s, excavations were carried out by Matos (1975) and Morales (1977, 1978,1998) at Pachamachay Cave and San Bias (a longused salt-making site near Ondores on the western side of Lake Junfn); additional excavations were undertaken by John Rick in the 1970s at Pachamachay Cave, and during the early 1980s at nearby Panalauca Cave. At the San Bias excavations, there were at least two localities with clear stratigraphic sequences: the northwest and southeast sectors. The southeast sector contains mainly LIP (San Bias Tardio, typified by San Bias Red/Buff pottery) and Late Horizon occupations (estimated at A.D. 1200-1550). The northwest sector at San Bias reveals an occupation from late Preceramic (with one uncalibrated radiocarbon date of 2200 B.C.), through

520

Pre hispanic Settlement Patterns in ]unfn, Peru, Part 2

the Formative (associated with an uncalibrated radiocarbon date of 1650 B,C.), and into the Early Intermediate Period (estimated at c, A,D, 200), There is another uncalibrated radiocarbon date of 1450 B,C. associated with a small, open-air Formative occupation at nearby Ondores (excavated by John Rick in the mid-1970s), The EIP ceramics at San Bias are related to the Huacrapuquio phase in the main Mantaro Valley (Browman 1970; Bocek 1985; Morales 1978: Laminas 5, 6, 1998), The Pachamachay and Panalauca cave excavations, like those of Lavallee and Julien (1975) at several caves in the adjacent southern Junfn puna (Telarmachay, Cuchimachay, Tilarnioc), all show notable occupation gaps between Formative and LIP, Only at the open-air sites of San Bias, Ondores, and Pari-corral (north of Ondores) have excavations thus far provided partial exceptions to this general pattern. Huacrapuquio-related ceramics may also have been found in the Chillon Valley on the Pacific slope of the continental divide, but only in trace amounts: Dillehay (1976, 1979) calls attention to a few exotic sherds from an outlying sector of Huancayo Alto, an important site in the middle Chillon, that may be Huacrapuquio. This part of the Huancayo Alto site is thought to have been a barrio of highlanders from somewhere in the upper Chill on Valley, probably in occasional contact with communities east of the cordillera that produced Huacrapuquio pottery, Moving north-eastward across our survey area, the contrasting distributions of the Huacrapuquio complex on either side of the massive ridge between the Palcamayo and Huasahuasi valleys are striking (Fig, 8,3), Unlike the Huacrapuquio-phase occupation of the lower Palcamayo, the few sites tentatively classified as EIP in the Huasahuasi drainage are very small, poorly defined, and generally only weakly within the Huacrapuquio range of pottery types, The Huacrapuquio complex is well established only about as far northeast as the Tarma-Ricran confluence (Hastings 1981) and does not constitute a well-defined set of ceramic types into the adjacent ceja de montana, where it is apparently replaced by the distinctive Malambo complex (Hastings 1985), The most distinctive Huacrapuquio-related pottery in our survey area occurs in the form of shallow bowls decorated with black, or purplish-black, geometric and simple linear painted interior designs applied onto a cream or orange slip. Most of these vessds are relatively small, with rim diameters of less than 25 em, and overall vessel heights averaging 8-10 cm, The vessels are moderately well finished, with unmodified rims and thin, slightly curved walls, lacking either handles or supports; a smaller number are larger vessels, with thickened rims and long, vertical black lines (Figs, Bl, B2, B3, B4), Geometric designs in the same purplish-black paint are applied to distinctive anthropomorphic slab figurines (e,g" Plate AI96), virtually identical to those reported from the main Mantaro Valley (Browman 1970: Figs, 106, 107), Such figurines are not common, but we found recognizable examples at two EIP sites in the Junfn puna (Sites 178 and 312). Huacrapuquio-related plainwares are abundant, typically comprising both sloppily smoothed, simple brown bowls (Fig. BS) and roughly finished jars with thickened, everted rims (Fig, B6a-u), Some of these jars have strap handles (Figure B6v-y); we also noted some with tab handles extending directly off the rim. These jars are typically brown to gray-brown in color, occasionally with an interior cream or orange-cream slip, and commonly with a distinctive whiteparticle temper. Plain wares are less well fired, usually with gray cores.

The Middle Horizon As indicated in Chapter 5, it is difficult to identify Middle Horizon occupations on the basis of archaeological ceramics, Diagnostic Wari-related decorative pottery is virtually absent from our study area, some 250 km northwest of the Wari center itself. The dearth of archaeological investigation in the large area between Huancayo and Wari, a distance of some ISO km means that we have very limited understanding of Middle Horizon ceramic variability in the intervening middle Mantaro drainage, Within the central highlands, Warirelated decorated ceramics are clearly present only in the southern end of the upper Mantaro, most conspicuously at the "temple" complexes of Wari Willka

and Calpish near Huancayo (Browman 1970; Flores Espinoza 1959; MacNeish et aL 1975:60; Matos 1978a; Shea 1969), Kroeber (1944:98) noted a type of pottery from the main Mantaro Valley, with geometric black and red painted decoration, that seemed to him to be Nazca-related, and which he referred to as the Huancayo style, This pottery is similar to the Okros style from Ayacucho, and could be considered Middle Horizon, Several pottery fragments found at Wari Willka correspond to the Huancayo, or Okros style, Browman (1970:146-47) reports that three out of four foreign wares dating exclusively to his Middle Horizon Calpish phase, all with highly diagnostic Wari decoration, have been found only at Wari Willka and Calpish. Examples of the fourth ware are found scattered in several other sites as well, but all are within the Huancayo area, less than 10 km from either Wari Willka or Calpish. Our systematic survey in 1975-1976 around Jauja and north and northwestward into the southern Junfn puna and upper Tarma drainage yielded no clearly recognizable Wari-related sherds. In subsequent excavations near Jauja, only three such sherds were recovered, all from a single site (Pancan) (Earle et aL 1977:52; Earle et aL 1980:17), and intensified surface studies in the Jauja area during the 1980s produced only a tiny number of Wari or Wari-related sherds (Hastorf et aL 1989:87). Hastings (1985 :540) found a single Wari sherd in his extensive investigation of the lower Tarma ceja de montana). In the main Junfn puna beyond our survey area at the north end of Lake Junfn, Matos recovered one unmistakably Wari sherd in the course of his intensive survey at the Inka site of Bombon (Pumpu) (Matos 1994:66), and he also noted a tiny handful of such sherds from excavations at Pachamachay Cave and at Ondores. Farther north, no such material has been forthcoming in several archaeological investigations in the upper Huallaga (Grossboll 1988; Rudecoff 1989; Thompson 1968b). However, even farther north, Wari influence is evident in collections from the Tantamayo tributary of the Upper Marafion (Shady and Ruiz 1979:683), and from higher tributaries of the middle Marafion in the general vicinity ofCajamarca (Thatcher 1975,1977). We suspect that some elements of our locally defined Huacrapuquio complex are chronologically Middle Horizon. Future fieldwork should be explicitly directed at this obviously important question. In the meantime, we call attention to Lavalee's (1979: 117) important precautionary note based on her excavations at several cave sites around San Pedro de Cajas along the eastern fringe of the Junfn puna: one thing is certain: ceramic types characteristic of the Wari expansion are not found [in her upper Palcamayo research area]. This is not to say that Wari influence was not felt in the area, but that hardly any such influence was expressed in the ceramics, which demonstrate notable continuity from the Early Intermediate until the Inca empire. [our translation]

The Late Intermediate Period The San Bias Complex In 1937 a collection of 350 sherds was taken from a dense pottery surface scatter around the Cerro de Pasco Corporation's San Bias salt works near Lake Junfn and delivered to the University of California at Berkeley, where it is still housed. This material first appeared in the archaeological literature shortly thereafter in two brief reports, first by Nomland (1939) and subsequently by Kroeber (1944:96-97). Kroeber divided the collection into two categories, one a dark, well-smoothed ware with stamped, impressed, and punctate designs (which is now known to be mainly Formative in age), and the other a "red-on-buff' ware featuring red paint over a buff-colored slip (which is now considered mainly, or wholly, Late Intermediate Period in age). Both categories have assumed the name San Bias in different contexts, but should not be confused as the same tradition. Virtually all the San Bias ceramics encoun-

521

Appendix B

a.

b.

o

5 "'"- - - - - - - -..' em

Figure B 1. EIP/MH Huacrapukio-related decorated pottery. a, b: Site 290; c, d: Site 282.

522

Pre hispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un{n, Peru, Part 2

a.

b.

.......

~.: ~ "u

\

_

, u

,,~,

......................... ,

c.

7'

.... __ .................... ..

d.

5 em

.·7 .'

f.

\ Ci7

I

Figure B2. EIPIMH Huacrapukio-related decorated pottery. a, b: Site 288; c: Site 374; d: Site278; e: Site 287; f, g: Site 288.

AppendixB

523

... . ····1 .q ~

,l···..·•.· .·•· · ...

,;'

-:,"

::(

,

a.

, :

e.

f.

~)

j.

' :

~1 r.

')

J ~l ~-.' .. ..

~J~) n.

h.

g.

0.'

.

m.' "

q.

:

bOl OJ1 ~,' s.: :

u.

t.

o w.

"

Figure B3. EIP/MH Huacrapukio-related decorated pottery. a-v: Site 288; w: Site 282.

5

~-----' em

1..0'

524

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junfn, Peru, Part 2

·

~J b.

"

a.

@}Wl . :

e.

f.

------

h.

g.

i.

l~"? k.

j.

.

L

10m

.•,

!

~] e) . ,)~ .) m. .

n.·

~J ~ .J" s.

p.,'

0..'

~

/

q.

.'!

...J t.

..

u

~J~-~ v.

.:

Dl .

y. : : Figure B4. EIP/MH Huacrapukio-related decorated pottery. All from Site 288.

525

Appendix B

!

q.

:

r.

..: s.

m.

p.

Figure BS. EIPIMH plainware bowls. All from Site 288.

t. 5 : em

--~--~~--~--

526

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junin, Peru, Part 2

a.

v. w.

o.'____

~

5 __~__' em

Figure B6. EIPIMH plainware jars. All from Site 288. a-u: rim profiles; v-y: handles.

527

Appendix B

tered in our survey belong to Kroeber's LIP red-on-buff variety. Between 1963 and 1974, archaeologists from the Universidad del Centro del Peru (in Huancayo) and the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos (in Lima) excavated deep trenches into dense midden at the San Bias site. A collection of some 400 sherds currently housed at the Smithsonian Institution, originally excavated by Ramiro Matos during the 1963-1964 fieldseasons, includes material from both wares differentiated by Kroeber. Pottery from the 1974 excavations was studied in greater depth than that from preceding seasons (Morales 1978, 1998), but the major focus of all archaeological research at San Bias has been on early periods preceding the red-on-buff ceramics. Later surveys in kichwa and puna zones of the upper Tarma drainage have drawn more attention to the painted ware, now referred to variously as (a) "San Bias Red-on-Buff' (also, Rojo sobre Crema or Rojo sobre Bayo) in research associated with the University of Michigan (Hastings 1981, 1985; Parsons and Hastings 1977; Parsons and Matos 1978); (b) "Palcamayo" in the context of French projects within one valley where this pottery is especially abundant (Bonnier and Rozenberg 1978a; Lavallee 1979; Lavallee and Julien 1975); and (c) "San BIas Pintado" in archaeological circles within the Universidad de San Marcos (Matos and Parsons 1979; Morales 1978, 1998; provisionally designated "Pasco" in Matos 1975:S0). On the basis of current survey coverage, the core area of the San Bias Complex appears to be in the kichwa zone in the western tributaries of the upper Tarma drainage and the southern sections of the Junin puna. This is the area where San Bias Red-on-Buff pottery is both abundant and dominant at LIP sites. The geographical centrality of these surveyed areas to the entire regional distribution of San Bias Red-on-Buff cannot yet be determined until the limits of its distribution can be better defined. The extent of western penetration of San Bias ceramics into or beyond the Cordillera Occidental is not known, although no such material was reported on the Peruvian central coast from Dillehay's (1976, 1979) brief reconnaissance in the upper Chill6n Valley on the Pacific slope. Towards the east, this pottery has been found in abundance as far as the montana margin in the lower Tarma and Ulcumano valleys, and trace amounts show up even lower in the Chanchamayo montana bottomlands (Hastings 1985, 1987). On the south and southeast, our surveys indicate that San Bias Red-on-Buff is replaced by distinctive LIP ceramic types associated with the Wanka Region core between Jauja and Huancayo-most notably Mantaro Base Clara and Mantaro Base Roja (LeBlanc 1981)-along a line extending roughly from the Rio Seco and upper Ricran drainages on the east across the Huaricolca puna to the upper Mantaro south of Paccha below the southernmost edge of the Junin puna. The northern limits of San Bias Red-on-Buff remain more conjectural. Hastings has recently encountered sites of this complex as far north as Ninacaca and Huach6n, but the upper Huallaga and upper Marafion areas investigated by Thompson (1968a, 1968b, 1970) and Cardich (1960,1964) are clearly beyond these limits (Fig. 1.1). The LIP San Bias Complex is easily recognizable, in both ware and form. Its most obvious characteristic is the abundance of San Bias Fine Ware. This pottery is usually associated with ample Tarma Plain Ware, and occasionally very small quantities of Mantaro Base Roja ware-the latter being highly diagnostic of LIP occupation in the Wanka Region of the adjacent main Mantaro Valley (LeBlanc 1981).

San BIas Fine Ware A high-quality ware, easily distinguished from most other pottery by the contrast of its gray core against a buff or beige-colored exterior. San BIas non plastic inclusions typically consist of fine, moderately sparse granules of quartzite seldom larger than O.S mm in diameter. A few minute particles of white limestone may also be present. Most clay is entirely free of mica particles, but a few collections are weakly micaceous. The pottery is evidently fired in a reducing atmosphere for an extended period, producing a striking gray core found in most sherds. Subsequent ventilation of the heated vessels is probably responsible for the oxidation of a thin outer layer into the characteristic buff color, commonly SYR 6/6 and 7.SYR 7/6 on the Munsell soil

color chart. The finished product is generally rather hard and durable. The interior and exterior surfaces are almost always well-smoothed, and one or both surfaces may have been burnished to a dull sheen. The buff-colored exterior resembles a slip in some sherds but cannot be positively identified as such. Depending on the vessel type (described below), simple designs may be painted with reddish designs on either the interior or exterior surface, or both. The coloration of the red paint varies with the density of the wash and is typically IOYR 4/3, 4/4, or 4/6.

Tarma Plain Ware This is a broad, nondescript category with locally variable clay composition and surface treatment. It is strongly associated with certain vessel forms and is a major component of most LIP sites in the study area; it usually occurs as the prevalent undecorated complement to San Bias Fine Ware. Clays used for this ware contain unidentified gravel, quartzite, and occasionally a small amount of gray or red shale. A few collections contain a substantial number of weakly micaceous sherds, but most are essentially non micaceous. The most common particle size is about 1 mm, and in most sherds the largest particles are barely 2 mm. Most Tarma Plain Ware is only moderately hard. Sherd thickness tends to be slightly greater than that of the San BIas wares but tends to be quite variable within each collection. Sherds with gray, reduced cores form a minority of most collections, but are nevertheless common. The ceramic density of this pottery is low, and most sherds seem to be lighter than those of many other wares. The most distinct aspect of this ware is the appearance of the pottery surface. Typical sherds are well smoothed on at least one side. A small but significant number are burnished, some with visible streak marks left by the burnishing implement. The surface is hard rather than chalky and may exhibit a slight sheen. The particulate matter in Tarma Plain Ware is virtually never visible on the pottery surface. This is probably attributable to the smoothing process performed while the unfired clay was still damp; some sherds are even slightly crazed, as though substantial water had been drawn up to the surface. Surface coloration is generally dull and dark and most often falls within SYR S/3 to SIS. Other common shades include SYR SI6 to 6/6, SYR 312, and 7.SYR S/4. With only a very few exceptions, no painted decoration appears in the Tarma Plain Ware collections.

Form The major vessel forms defining the San Bias complex are bowls and jars (Fig. B7). Rim forms include bowls with incurving, straight, or outcurving walls (Fig. B7a-m). San Bias Fine Ware rims are mainly of two forms: incurving rims of simple round bowls (Fig. B8a-p), and straight or outcurving rims of jars with a flaring neck, even rim thickness, and rounded lip shape (Fig. B7nt).

In general, however, the most abundant jar rim form is outcurving, moderately steep, of even thickness and square at the lip, and with a rounded base (Fig. B7w-z; Fig. B8q-y). This type accounts for all, or most, Tarma Plain Ware in the San Bias Complex and is relatively rare among San BIas Fine Ware jars. The flat or convex San BIas Fine Ware handle (Fig. B7 H-a) is restricted to San BIas Fine Ware. The concave handle form (Fig. B7H-b) is associated mainly with Tarma Plain Ware. The bases of most vessels in the San Bias Complex appear to be more rounded than flat. Exceptions include at least some San BIas Fine Ware bowls that are essentially flat-bottomed.

Decoration San BIas Fine Ware has a relatively high incidence of burnishing and painting. Paint found on San Bias Fine Ware is generally a dark shade of red hastily

528

Pre hispanic Settlement Patterns in ]un{n, Peru, Part 2

applied in conformity with a limited repertoire of design elements. On exterior surfaces these include a broad, horizontal band just beneath the rim of bowls as well as jars. This band often overlaps the lip and extends a few mm onto the interior surface. Jar exteriors may be decorated with a parallel series of such bands that continue down the full height of the neck and alternate with unpainted, buff-colored bands of similar width (Figs. B9, BIO). The interior surface of bowls and flaring jar necks mdY be partitioned into zones by broad vertical bands extending down from the rim. Zones between these vertical bands are often then filled with simple, often sloppily executed "U" or "V" motifs (e.g., Fig. B9a, b, c, j). These are widely variable in size and thickness, sometimes varying considerably even within a single zone. On some sherds they are reduced virtually to repetiti ve dots or short vertical bars (e.g., Fig. B9d, e). On others they may be systematically run together within rows, forming continuous wavy lines. A less common, but still widespread, motif is a series of two or three concentric circles sometimes interspersed among "U" elements (e.g., Figs. B9a, d; BlOa). Many potters sought to fill all open space within a zoned area with one or both motifs. However, some RedlBuff bowl interiors are characterized by simple broad horizontal or vertical bands (Fig. B lOi, n, q; Fig. B l1d, n, 0, p). A few examples of decorated San Bias Fine Ware have already been illustrated in the literature. Nomland (1939: Fig. 3S, H) presents a small but representative sample of interior painted designs, as well as a ladle handle and one bowl rim with an unusual lug handle. Other examples of interior red-on-buff decoration in the original San Bias collection are reproduced by Kroeber (1944: Plate 43J-R). Lumbreras (1960: Lamina VII:K-M) published photographs of three more bowl interiors from the same collection.

The Late Horizon We define Late Horizon occupation on the basis of the presence of Inkastyle pottery. A small (but still unknown) percentage of this pottery may have been imported from the Cuzco area (e.g., the sherd from the Chacamarca provincial center [Site 60-61-62], Plate A37). However, our impression is that the great majority of it was produced somewhere within the local region, though

what place or places is unknown. Such regional state-controlled workshops might be similar to those identified a few kilometers from the Inka provincial center at Hatun Xauxa in the Wanka Region (D' Altroy 1992), at the large provincial center of Huanuco Pampa in the upper Huallaga (Morris 1973; Morris and Thompson 1970, 1985), and to those investigated by Hayashida (1995) in the Peruvian north coastal Lambayeque Valley. Most of the Inka-style pottery is easily identified as such: vessel forms and decorative motifs are similar to those found at hundreds of known Inka-related sites from northern Chile, northwest Argentina, and southern Bolivia (e.g. Raffino 1982, 1993) to northern Ecuador (A. Meyers 1976; Plaza 1976), most of which conform fairly closely to well known stylistic canons of the Cuzco region itself (e.g., Alcina et al. 1976; Baca 1971; Rowe 1944). As shown in Figure 8.4, sites with Inka-style pottery are widely distributed throughout our study area. Substantial quantities and high proportions of this material occur only at Inka state facilities (notably at Chacamarca [Site 60-61-62], Tarmatambo [Site 283], and Chancha [Site 1371159], and two small tambos [Site 183-184 and Site 187-188-189]); elsewhere in our survey area, Inka-style pottery occurs only in very small quantities in assemblages dominated by local LIP types. Hastings (1985:554-56) has shown that the frequency of such Inka-style pottery drops off notably eastward into the adjacent ceja de montana. The most common Inka-style ceramics in the Tarama-Chinchaycocha region are well made vessels with painted polychrome decoration in the form of aryballoid jars and shallow bowls or dishes, some with knobby, zoomorphic handles (Figs. B12, B13, B14, BI5). Most of these vessels are well made: smoothly burnished, thin-walled, well fired, and carefully painted-clearly the work of competent professional potters. The most abundant Inka-style decoration consists of simple triangles or concentric triangles painted in blackon-red or red-on-natural. Also common are checkerboard, fernlike, and stylized llama designs, groupings of two or three parallel lines, and panels filled with points and broken lines referred to as "missa" by present-day local inhabitants. At the Inka provincial centers, Inka "imperial" styles, with direct links to Cuzco, are commonly found in about equal proportion with Inka "provincial" styles that have only generalized resemblances with Cuzco pottery. Inkastyle pottery throughout our survey area comprises a distinct minority of the still poorly defined overall Late Horizon ceramic assemblage.

529

Appendix B

., g.

a.

p.

__

H-a.

o

5 .'----~~-,--' em

~ v.

H-b.

H-c. H-d.

H-e.

q

Figure 87. LIP San

Bla~

Complex, bowls (a-m), jars (n-z), and jar handles (H-a - H-f).

7

H-f.

530

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]unzn, Peru, Part 2

-----,-----,. . .' em

Figure B8. LIP San Bias Complex, bowls (a-p) and jars (q-y). All from Site 150.

Appendix B

531

b.

c.

d.

e.

" ..

"'

, •f

"• f.

em Figure 89. LIP San BIas Complex Fine Ware, decorated bowls.

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in ]unzn, Peru, Part 2

532

J

.

..

:

,J ~l

b.

.

:

.••• ,e o

5

I . '- - - - - - - - - . '

em

k. ,.

p.

,.

.

:

Figure BID. LIP San BIas Complex Fine Ware. decorated bowls. a-m: Site 168; n-q: Site 254.

1

q.

533

Appendix B

~1 a.:

:

o

5 ... ' -------.-----,.......' em

1 ~

k. "

:

1

m.' ,

"

Figure B 1l. LIP San BIas Complex Fine Ware, decorated bowls. All from Site 150.

I ,,

.

534

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junfn, Peru, Part 2

.7 .'

~

w

d.

..

I :

~

c.

e.

Figure B12. LH Inka-style pottery. a-d: Site 76; e: Site 60-61-62 (Chacamarca).

535

Appendix B

a.

__

I

. ..

g.

~

____

f.

h. Figure B13. LH Inka-style pottery. All from Site 283 (Tarmatambo).

~

_____5: em

Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in Junin, Peru, Part 2

536

a.

(]p1

.-

.

b.

d. . ..

em

..

,

.,

g.

Figure B14. LH Inka-style pottery. All from Site 283 (Tarmatambo).

~..

537

Appendix B

a.

b.

5 ~~----~----~: em

.. 8.

~,.... f.

g. Figure B 15. LH Inka-style pottery. All from Site 283 (Tarmatambo).