01 14

PURDUE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL

Thesis/Dissertation Acceptance

Thesis/Dissertation Agreement.Publication Delay, and Certification/Disclaimer (Graduate School Form 32)adheres to the provisions of

Department

Verity Hren Whalen

Re-Becoming Nasca: A Household-Based Analysis of the Transformation of Community andTradition at a Late Nasca Village, Peru

Doctor of Philosophy

Kevin J. Vaughn, Chair

Ian Lindsay

H. Kory Cooper

Steven A. Wernke

Kevin J. Vaughn

Melissa J. Remis 05/27/2014

!!!! !!RE-BECOMING NASCA: A HOUSEHOLD-BASED ANALYSIS OF THE

TRANSFORMATION OF COMMUNITY AND TRADITION AT A LATE NASCA VILLAGE, PERU!!!!

A Dissertation!

Submitted to the Faculty!

of!

Purdue University!

by!

Verity H. Whalen!

!!!In Partial Fulfillment of the!

Requirements for the Degree!

of!

Doctor of Philosophy!

!!!August 2014!!

Purdue University!!West Lafayette, Indiana!

!ii

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!For my parents and Sparky.

!iii

!!!!!ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS"!!!

" Dissertations truly are a communal effort. My name is the only one on the title

page, but I would not be sitting here writing this were it not for the family, friends,

mentors, and colleagues who were there every step of the way. I would like to first and

foremost thank Kevin Vaughn. Over the years Kevin has been a devoted advisor and has

become both mentor and friend. He never failed to provide constructive criticism,

pushing me to become a better scholar and encouraging me to fight for my ideas. He

introduced me to Nasca archaeology and helped to integrate me into a wonderful

community of scholars. Thank you, Kevin, for guiding me through this process. There is

not enough room here to list the many ways you have aided in this dissertation and

shaped me as an archaeologist, so I will end with the most important one. Thank you for

being an excellent role model for what a scholar should be."

" I have also been fortunate to have a constructive and encouraging dissertation

committee. Over the past seven years, Ian Lindsay and Kory Cooper have always made

insightful and useful suggestions, and opened a number of theoretical doors. Steve

Wernke provided my first introduction to Andean field archaeology and graciously

served as an external committee member. The experiences I had on his project and his

insightful input since have influenced the methodological and theoretical approach of

this dissertation. Michele Buzon kindly served on my committee for a brief time of

transition and provided thoughtful input."

" While not members of my committee, many other Andean scholars have

generously donated their time and energy to my research. Patrick Carmichael shared

archival photos, gave excellent advice, and provided stimulating conversation on Nasca

pottery and society. He also read and thoughtfully commented on the ceramic analysis

chapter of this dissertation. Patrick has been a constant supporter of my research and his

!iv

encouragement and devotion to nurturing young Nasca scholars is unparalleled. Donald

Proulx and Dwight Wallace were also very receptive to the inquisitiveness of a budding

academic. Katharina Schreiber has always provided constructive criticism and support

of my research, which I have deeply appreciated. Kathe identified Cocahuischo on

survey in 1986 – nearly 30 years ago. Since then, she has suggested it as a dissertation

site to a number of her students. Lucky for me, none of them ever took her up on the

offer! Great thanks must also go to William Isbell, Patricia Knobloch, Juan Leoni, and

Anita Cook for circling the Wari wagon when I needed help figuring out Ayacucho

ceramics. Bill, Pat, and Anita graciously sent me photos of specimens from museum

collections and their own fieldwork. Pat later devoted time to examining some of the

Cocahuischo pottery and provided thoughtful and detailed analysis. "

" Matthew Edwards gave me my start in Nasca fieldwork when I was a young and

inexperienced student. Along with Steve Wernke, Matt taught me much of what I know

about rigorous archaeological method. Matt also spent a long day generously scouting

dissertation sites with me in 2009 and introduced me to Cocahuischo. Even though we

accidentally visited a small Early Nasca village instead, I am thankful that Matt got me

excited about Late Nasca. I have also greatly benefited from discussions of Nasca pottery

and Middle Horizon research with Christina Conlee, Nicole Couture, Johny Isla

Cuadrado, Justin Jennings, and Jorge Olano Canales. I feel very fortunate to be a part of

a wonderful community of brilliant scholars and I am deeply thankful for the support

they have given this dissertation."

" Fieldwork at Cocahuischo was carried out over two seasons: a pilot project in

2010 and excavations and laboratory analysis in 2012. Funding was provided by the

National Science Foundation Dissertation Improvement Grant (#1155710) and an

Explorer’s Club Exploration Fund Grant. When I think about all the people who helped

make that fieldwork possible, I am simply humbled. I truly appreciate the support and

guidance that I and the project received from Susana Arce Torres and Ruben Garcia Soto

at the Ica Regional Museum. I am also indebted to my project co-director, Luis Manuel

González La Rosa. Luis Manuel was with me in the field every single day during the

2012 season. Without his tenacity during the permit application process, constant

!v

feedback and consultation in the field, and eternally high spirits, this project would

never have happened. Muchísimas gracias, Luisma! The 2010 and 2012 field crews also

consisted of Stefanie Bautista San Miguel, Francisco Cardenas, Patricia Chirinos Ogata,

James Davenport, Shawna Follis, Alicia Gorman, Kasey Heiser, Jessica Kaplan, Corina

Kellner, Sarah Kerchusky, Cassandra Beth Koontz, Deborah Spivak, Meghan Tierney,

Hendrik Van Gijseghem, and Yoshiko Tsuji."

" Francisco, in particular, epitomizes the spirit and dedication of Team

Cocahuischo. In 2010, he shattered the bone in his fingertip into four pieces while

excavating a tomb. In spite of the fact that his finger swelled to a purple rock-hard lump,

he brushed it off in the field and continued excavating until 4:30pm. Not until that night

did he acknowledge that perhaps he should see a doctor. Cocahuischo is not an easy site

to get to or to excavate. The morning hike involved climbing over river boulders while

holding buckets and screens, and summiting what can only be called a cliff. Multiple

people acquired a mysterious skin disease during excavations and endured awful

itching and sores with brave toughness. I cannot express how much I have appreciated

everyone’s tenacity and dedication, and most importantly, their good spirits. "

" Both in and out of the field, I have deeply benefited from my friendships and

collaborations with these wonderful folks. Patricia Chirinos Ogata was our steadfast lab

director on Team Cocahuischo during 2010 and 2012. Patty spent endless hours

meticulously drawing every single sherd and even made the heroic trek up to

Cocahuischo to dig with us for a day in 2010. Over the years, we have talked pottery and

Wari for more hours than I can count and I am eternally grateful for her contributions

and friendship."

" Stefanie Bautista San Miguel did the GIS work for the Cocahuischo site map in

2010 and provided constant advice and feedback as I was getting my feet wet as project

director. In 2012, we did our dissertation fieldwork during overlapping seasons in

Nasca. Stef shared her field house with me as I was getting started and we swapped

gear, people, time in the field, storage space, advice, and moral support throughout the

spring and summer. We endured more things together than I can put down on paper,

!vi

but I know that wherever our lives take us, we will always be able to share a Cusqueña

and talk about it."

" I am also grateful to Hendrik Van Gijseghem, who has always brought a

charming sense of humor to fieldwork and archaeology. During the 2010 season,

Hendrik spent five whole days alone on the opposite side of the valley with the total

station as we mapped Cocahuischo. Yet each day he recounted Quebec folklore and

Chuck Palahniuk stories to Jessica Kaplan and I via walkie talkie, one sentence per point,

for entertainment. Our stimulating debates over the years have challenged my thinking

and improved my ability to academically ‘stand my ground.’ More basically, Hendrik

was the smiling face we came home from the field to each day in 2012, and he has

provided endless moral support throughout my dissertation."

" Corina Kellner joined us as project bioarchaeologist when we discovered the

unlooted cemetery at Cocahuischo in 2010. She endured the grueling hike and the

mysterious skin disease to dig some rock-filled, grave good-less tombs, and has

provided continual support, advice, and collaboration since then. We are now beginning

a new project in Nasca, at a site with much better presentation and less rocks. Corina has

been both friend and mentor, and I feel incredibly lucky to be working with her."

" Over the years, I have also enjoyed stimulating conversations with Deb Spivak

about all things Nasca and Loro. Her research and continual feedback has inspired my

own thinking on Nasca. I am indebted, as well, to the two people who were there

throughout the entire 2012 season. Alicia Gorman was my right hand lady in the field

and braved the loss of luggage (and life in Nasca with no clothes for a week) with

eternally good spirits and humble nature. Kasey Heiser had boundless energy and

brought a much needed lithic expertise to the Cocahuischo project. I greatly appreciated

his analysis of the Cocahuischo obsidian and the work that Alicia has done with the

Cocahuischo pottery."

" I truly feel fortunate to have worked with such talented and intelligent young

scholars. While they put in time at Cocahuischo, Stefanie, Patty, James, Alicia, Kasey,

Jessica, Sarah, Beth, Deb, and Meghan are all presently working on dissertation projects

of their own, spread throughout the Andes. I have no doubt that their own work will be

!vii

as great as their contributions to my own and I look forward to having them as

colleagues and friends for many years to come. "

" These acknowledgements would also be remiss without recognizing the Nasca

community and the many people who welcomed us and helped make this research

possible. I greatly appreciate the hospitality of Rosario Canales, who provided us with a

home in what remains, in my opinion, the most beautiful and impeccably clean house in

Nasca. I am likewise indebted to the continued hospitality of the Burgos family: Lucha,

Cesar, and Wilma. They gave us a home in 2010 and made sure we were well fed every

night. Last but not least, Ismael Elías and his son, Ismael Jr., drove us to and from

Cocahuischo every day for four months in 2012. While Ismael found the idea of me

driving his truck downright comical, he was a constant and loyal supporter of the

project who I could not have done without."

" Lastly, I want to acknowledge all the people behind the scenes, who contributed

to my general sanity and provided immeasurable support throughout my graduate

career. My time at Purdue was made infinitely better thanks to the company and

friendship of Blair Daverman, Stacey Enslow, Carolyn Jost Robinson, Ryan Pliss, Sarah

Schrader, Katie Smith, and my fellow Andeanists, Kyle Jones and Diana Steele. While we

came from all different anthropological walks of life, together we made the stresses of a

doctoral program tolerable. Katie, Carolyn, Ryan, Sarah, and Blair in particular were

always steadfast friends ready to share a beer, watch a royal wedding, and talk research

or give advice. Over the years Sarah has been both a great friend and roommate who

kept me sane during countless semesters when we otherwise might have ended up in

the lab in Civil War gear or chewing on flip flops. Patrick Brennan also provided

immeasurable moral support during the formative years of my graduate career. While I

was never at Purdue at the same time as them, I am also happy to have Beth Grávalos,

Shawna Follis, and Marcela Poirier as my academics sisters. "

" Back in New York, Amanda Preston, Alana Durland, and John Rozzoni always

made sure I remembered there was a real world out there (and made certain I enjoyed it

at least two nights a year). Most importantly, I want to thank my family, Cathy, Mike,

and Marcus Whalen, for their constant and unconditional love and support. I have the

!viii

most devoted set of parents a person could ask for and over the years they have been

there for me regardless of what I have pursued. Their interest in my research has gone

beyond parental duty and my mother has carefully edited more than one manuscript

with an attention to detail that I can only hope I inherited. Every time I felt myself

getting worn down, their faith and pride in me kept me going. I cannot put into words

how deeply grateful I am for my family and it is to them that I dedicate this dissertation.

!ix

!!!!!!TABLE OF CONTENTS"!! !

Page"

LIST OF TABLES" ….…………………………………………………………………..…….. xiv"

LIST OF FIGURES"….…………………………………………..……………………..…….. xvii"

ABSTRACT" ….…………………………………………..…..…………..………..….…… xxviii"

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH PROBLEM" …………….…….….. 1"

1.1" An Archaeology of Communities in Transition"…………………..……………….. 1"

1.2" Cultural Reformation and Late Nasca Society" …………….…………..………..… 2"

1.3" An Introduction to Cocahuischo" ………………..…..…….…………..………….… 6"

1.4" Structure of the Dissertation"…………………..……………..……………………… 7"

CHAPTER 2. PLACING COCAHUISCHO IN SPACE AND TIME: A CULTURE

HISTORY OF THE SOUTH COAST" ……………………………………………………….… 9"

2.1" Paleoenvironmental Context"……………………………………..……..…………… 9"

2.2" History of Research" ……………………………………..………………….……….. 11"

2.2.1" Discover and Early Exploration of the Nasca Drainage"….…..…..…….. 11"

2.2.2" The Development of the Nasca Chronology"….……………..…..………. 15"

2.2.3" Site Surveys and Settlement Patterns"….…………………………..…..…. 16"

2.2.4" Excavations and Current Research Programs" …………….….………..… 18"

2.2.5" Summary" …………………………………………..……………..…….…… 22"

2.3" First Settlers and the Origins of Social Complexity"……………………………… 23"

2.3.1" Archaic Period" …………………………………….……………….……….. 23"

2.3.2" Initial Period" ………………………………………….……………..………. 23"

2.3.3" Early Horizon/Formative Period" ………..………..……………………… 24"

2.3.4" Proto Nasca" ……………………………………………….………..……….. 28"

!x

2.4" The Early Intermediate Period and Emerging Polities"………………………….. 30"

2.4.1" Early Nasca" ……………………………………….………..……………….. 30"

2.4.2" Middle Nasca" ………………………………………………..……………… 33"

2.4.3" Late Nasca" …………………………………………………….…………….. 35"

2.4.4" Estrella" …………………………………………………………………….… 38"

2.4.5" Ayacucho During the Early Intermediate Period" ……..………………… 38"

2.5" The Middle Horizon and the First Andean Empires"………………..…..……….. 40"

2.5.1" The Emergence of Wari Colonialism" ………………………..……..…….. 40"

2.5.2" The Wari Presence on the South Coast" …………………………..………. 41"

2.6" Disintegration, Reformation, and Conquest" ………………………..……………. 43"

2.6.1" The Late Intermediate Period and Late Horizon" …………..……..…….. 43"

2.6.2" The Spanish Conquest" ……………………………………….…………….. 45"

2.7" Summary"………………………..…………………………………………..……….. 45"

CHAPTER 3. (RE)CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY AND TRADITION: THEORETICAL

AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS"………….…………………………..… 46"

3.1" Community and Daily Practice"………………………………………..…………… 46"

3.1.1" Conceptualizing Community" ………………………………………..…… 49"

3.2" Inter-Regional Interaction as Imagined Community" …………….……..….……. 51"

3.3" Sociopolitical Change and Cultural Reformation in Middle Range Societies" … 53"

3.4" Archaeology of the Everyday: Research Strategy and Methodology"………….. 55"

3.4.1" The Archaeological Community" ………………………………………..… 56"

3.4.2 " The Archaeological Household" …….…………………………..…………. 57"

3.4.3" Materiality of Identity and Tradition" …………………………………..… 59"

3.4.4" Architecture, Status, and Social Organization"……….……………..…… 60"

3.5" The Present Research"…………………………..…………………..…..…………… 62"

CHAPTER 4. NEGOTIATING STYLE AND TIME: POTTERY AND CHRONOLOGY ON

THE SOUTH COAST" ………………..……………………………………………………….. 64"

4.1" Introduction"……………………………………………………….…………….…… 64"

4.2" Early Intermediate Period Pottery Styles" …………………………..……………. 65"

4.2.1" The Nasca Ceramic Sequence" …………………………..……..…….…….. 65"

!xi

4.3" Temporal and Geographic Variability in Nasca Pottery" …………….…….…..… 72"

4.4" Correlating Style and Time"……………………………………..……..……………. 77"

4.5" Summary"……………………………………………………..…………..………….. 79"

CHAPTER 5. SURFACE ANALYSIS AND EXCAVATIONS"……………………………… 80"

5.1" Introduction to Cocahuischo"……………………………………………………..… 80"

5.1.1" Mapping and Sectors of the Site" ……………………………………..……. 88"

5.2" Surface Collections and Architectural Analysis"……………………………..…… 94"

5.2.1" Surface Collections" ……………………………………..…..….……..……. 94"

5.2.2" Architecture Analysis" ……………………………………………..………. 104"

5.3" Excavation Methodologies & Results" ………………………………..……..…… 120"

5.3.1" Introduction" ……………………………….………..………………..……. 120"

5.3.2" 2010 Excavations" …………………………………..………………..…….. 122"

5.3.3" 2012 Excavations" …………………………………………..………..…….. 140"

5.4" Temporal Occupation of Cocahuischo" ………………………………………..… 202"

5.4.1" Radiocarbon Dates" …………………………………………………..…… 202"

5.4.2" Founding and Abandonment of the Site" ……………………………….. 203"

5.4.3" Chronological Implications" ………………………………………………. 204"

5.5" Discussion" …………..…………………………………………………..………….. 206"

5.5.1" Architecture, Mortuary Practices, and Status" ………………………..… 206"

5.5.2" The Social Division of Space" …………………………………………..… 209"

5.5.3" Summary" ………………………………………………………………..… 211"

CHAPTER 6. CERAMIC ANALYSIS"……………………………………….…………..….. 212"

6.1" Materials and Analytical Procedure"……………………………………..……….. 212"

6.2" Analysis of Forms" …………………………………………….…………………… 214"

6.2.1" Introduction" ……………………………………………………….………. 214"

6.2.2" Bowls" ……………………………………………………………………….. 216"

6.2.3" Goblets" …………………………………………………………..…..…….. 224"

6.2.4" Jars & Ollas" ……………………………………………………………..….. 224"

6.2.5" Vases" ……………………………………………………………………..…. 231"

6.2.6" Bottles" …………………………………………….…………………..…….. 231"

!xii

6.2.7" Modeled Effigies" ……………………………………………..……………. 233"

6.2.8" Miniatures" …………………………………………………..………..…… 233"

6.2.9" Other Ceramic Artifacts" ……………………………..……..…..………… 235"

6.3" Stylistic Analysis"………………………………………………………..……..…… 239"

6.3.1" Introduction" ……………………………………………….…..…..………. 239"

6.3.2" The Cocahuischo Pottery Styles" …………………………………....……. 240"

6.4" Technological Analysis"……………………………………….……………..…….. 278"

6.4.1" Ceramic Pastes" …………………………………………..………..…..…… 279"

6.5" The Spatial Distribution of Pottery Styles" ……………………………………….. 283"

6.6" The Intersection of Paste Group and Style" ……………………………………… 289"

6.7" Discussion "………………..………………………..……………………..…..…….. 291"

6.7.1" Form and Function in the Cocahuischo Assemblage" ……………..…… 291"

6.7.2" Style in the Cocahuischo Assemblage" ………………………………..… 293"

6.7.3" The Social Role of Pottery in Nasca Society" ……………………………. 294"

6.7.4" Ceramic Production and Consumption at Cocahuischo" ……………… 295"

6.7.5" Summary" ……………………………………………………………..…… 298"

CHAPTER 7. NON-CERAMIC ARTIFACT ANALYSIS" ………………………..…..…… 300"

7.1" Lithics" …………………………………………………..…………..……….……… 300"

7.1.1" Classes of Lithic Artifacts" ………………………………..……………….. 301"

7.1.2" Material Types" …………………………………………………..…………. 302"

7.1.3" Tool Types and Standardization" …………………………………………. 309"

7.1.4" Spatial Patterns of Lithic Artifacts" ………………………………………. 310"

7.2" Faunal Remains" ………………………………………….………..………………. 315"

7.2.1" Animal Bone" ………………………………..………………..…………….. 315"

7.2.2" Shell" ………………………………………………………..…………..…… 317"

7.3" Botanical Remains"…………………………………………………….……..…….. 317"

7.4" Textiles" …………………………………………………………………..……..…… 319"

7.5" Tools, Toys, and Adornments"………………………………………………….….. 320"

7.5.1" Spatial Patterns of Tools, Toys, and Adornments" ……………………… 323"

7.6" Minerals"………………………………………………………..……………..…….. 323"

!xiii

7.7" Human Skeletal Remains"……………………………………..………………..…. 325"

7.7.1" Osteological Analysis" …………………………………………………..… 325"

7.7.2" Isotopic Analysis" ………………………………………….…..………….. 327"

7.8" Discussion" ………………..………………………………………..……………….. 328"

7.8.1" Food, Drink, and Craft Production" ……………………………………… 328"

7.8.2" Artifact Assemblages and Status" ………………………………………… 335"

7.8.3" Summary" ………………………………………………………………..… 338"

CHAPTER 8. COCAHUISCHO AS A COMMUNITY IN TRANSITION:

INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS" ……..…………………………………..…. 340"

8.1" Social Organization, Status, and Leadership in Late Nasca Society" …….……. 340"

8.2" Communities and the Transformation of Tradition at Cocahuischo"……..…… 345"

8.3" Late Nasca Imagined Communities"…………………………….…………….….. 350"

8.4" Implications and Future Research" ……………………………………………..… 354"

BIBLIOGRAPHY" …………………………………….……………………..………….……. 358"

APPENDICES" ……………………………………………….………………………………. 397"

Appendix A: Numbered Map of Cocahuischo Structures and Patio Groups" ….… 397"

Appendix B: Surface Ceramic Data" .………………………………..…………………. 401"

Appendix C: Architectural Data" …………………………..….………….……………. 404"

Appendix D: Catalog Number Registry" .…………………..………………..….…….. 428"

!xiv

!!!!!!LIST OF TABLES"!!

Table" Page" Table 2.1" Traditional chronology used by Nasca scholars (following DeLeonardis

2000; Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003; Van Gijseghem and Vaughn "2008; Vaughn 2009)" ………………………………………..…………….…….. 10"

Table 4.1 " Radiocarbon dates from archaeological sites in the Nasca drainage" ..…… 74" Table 4.2 " Published radiocarbon dates from Wari affiliated sites throughout the

Andes"…………………………………………………………………………… 76" Table 4.3 " Comparative chronology of the EIP and MH (and associated pottery "

styles) as they are understood to have occurred in the SNR, CNR or "Palpa region, and Ayacucho"…………………………………..…………..….. 87"

Table 5.1" Distribution of patio groups and structures with large (1m or bigger) ground stone batanes"………………………………..…………….…………. 100"

Table 5.2" Distribution of structures with looters pits and the structures among " those whose pits provide evidence for subterranean burials"……………. 103"

Table 5.3" Distribution of structures types throughout the residential sectors of Cocahuischo" ……………………………………..…………………………… 108"

Table 5.4" Averages and coefficients of variation for attributes related to " architectural characteristics of patio groups and habitations at "Cocahuischo"….……………………………………………………………….. 109"

Table 5.5" Counts and percentages of habitations, patios, and terraces at " Cocahuischo that are attached to patio groups vs. isolated structures"…. 110"

Table 5.6" Mean and standard deviation of house and patio group size in each of " the four residential sectors" ………………………………………………..… 113"

Table 5.7" Mean and standard deviation of average stone size in each of the four" residential sectors" ………………………………………………………….… 117"

Table 5.8" Types of construction materials and methods of construction for " habitations at Cocahuischo" ………………………..………..………..….….. 117"

Table 5.9" Architectural features recorded in Cocahuischo habitations"…….………. 119" Table 5.10" Registry of locus numbers assigned to the structures excavated in 2012".. 121" Table 5.11" Characteristics of mortuary practices and skeletal remains recovered "

from burials throughout Cocahuischo during the 2010 field season".…… 134" Table 5.12" Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 17"…………………………. 147" Table 5.13" Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 32"…………………………. 152" Table 5.14" Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 88"………………….….….. 160" Table 5.15" Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 104"……….……………….. 165" Table 5.16" Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 190"…………………..……. 172"

!xv

Table 5.17" Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 203"………………..……… 177" Table 5.18" Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 255"…………………..……. 185" Table 5.19" Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 285"…………….………….. 193" Table 5.20" Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 293"……………..……..….. 198" Table 5.21" Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 246 (Unit 6)"………..…..… 201" Table 5.22" Raw accelerated mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon (14C) dates "

from Cocahuischo" …………………………….……………………..…….… 202" Table 5.23" Revised south coast chronology reflecting current radiocarbon dates"….. 205" Table 6.1" Attributes recorded as part of the ceramic analysis" ………..……….……. 214" Table 6.2" Distribution of ceramic forms (combined coarseware and fineware) at

Cocahuischo based on 672 rims, necks, bases, and whole vessels "recovered during excavations"………..…..…………………………………. 217"

Table 6.3" Distribution of coarseware ceramic forms at Cocahuischo based on 342 rims, necks, and whole vessels recovered during excavations"………….. 217"

Table 6.4" Stylistic groups of Cocahuischo pottery by vessel form, based on 536 " rims, necks, bases, and body sherds recovered during excavations"…….. 241"

Table 6.5" Motifs recorded on 332 Late Nasca sherds" …………………….……….…. 243" Table 6.6" Representation of vessel forms (based on percentage of assemblage) in"

Proulx’s (2006) sample and Cocahuischo" …………………………………. 244" Table 6.7" Motifs recorded on 131 Transitional sherds"…………………….…..….….. 257" Table 6.8" Motifs recorded on 13 Estrella sherds"………………………………………. 271" Table 6.9" Motifs recorded on 42 Local sherds"………………………………..……….. 278" Table 6.10" Distribution of styles throughout excavated structures"………………..… 284" Table 6.11" Distribution of stylistic groups throughout the Cocahuischo sectors" .….. 287" Table 6.12" Distribution of pottery styles by ceramic paste"……………………………. 289" Table 6.13" Distribution of stylistic groups and ceramic paste by residential zone"…. 290" Table 6.14" Total ceramic assemblage at Cocahuischo by function" …………………… 292" Table 7.1" Frequency and weight of artifacts recovered during excavations at

Cocahuischo in 2010 and 2012"……………………….……………………… 301" Table 7.2" Attributes recorded as part of the lithic analysis"…………………….……. 301" Table 7.3" Lithic artifacts at Cocahuischo"……………………………………….……… 302" Table 7.4" Types of raw material by artifact class"…………………………….…..…… 303" Table 7.5" Obsidian artifacts"…………………………………………..………..……….. 308" Table 7.6" Spatial distribution of lithic artifact classes"………………………………… 311" Table 7.7" Spatial distribution of obsidian artifacts"……………………..………..…… 312" Table 7.8" Spatial distribution of lithic material types"……………….………..….…… 313" Table 7.9" Distribution of animal bone types based on preliminary observations"… 316" Table 7.10" Botanical remains recovered from Cocahuischo"…………………….…….. 319" Table 7.11" Tools, toys, and adornments by material type, artifact class, and sector"... 321" Table 7.12" Tools, toys, and adornments by sector and structure"…..….……….…….. 324" Table 7.13" Human skeletal remains from Cocahuischo (analysis by C. M. Kellner)".. 326" Table 7.14" Features and artifacts associated with food, drink, and craft production "

in the excavated structures" ……………………………………….………… 330" !

!xvi

Table 7.15" Ratio of fineware to plainware pottery in habitations and the multi-" crafting building (based on unconjoining rims). Variability in status is "based on architectural analysis" ……………………….………….………… 336"

Table 7.16" Presence of rare pottery forms and high status artifacts in habitations" and the multi-crafting building. Variability in status based on"architectural analysis" ……………………………………………………..… 337

xvii

!!!!!!LIST OF FIGURES!!!

Figure! Page! Figure 1.1 ! Regional map of the south coast of Peru illustrating the location of

important Early Intermediate Period and Middle Horizon !archaeological sites mentioned in the text!…..…….……..…..……………… 3!

Figure 2.1 ! Photograph of the main pyramid at Cahuachi (photo: V. Whalen)!……… 31! Figure 2.2 ! Photograph of Early Nasca bowl from Cahuachi. Item on display at the

Museo Antonini in Nasca (photo: V. Whalen)! …………..…..…………..….. 32! Figure 2.3 ! Photograph of Middle Nasca cup bowl (image courtesy of Carol !

Sawyer)! ……………………………………………………………………..… 34! Figure 2.4 ! Satellite image of the broad, flat alluvial fan where Taruga is located

(satellite image courtesy of GoogleEarth)!………………………………..….. 36! Figure 2.5 ! Satellite image of the steep, elevated hillside where Cocahuischo is !

located (satellite image courtesy of GoogleEarth)!…………………..…..….. 37! Figure 4.1! Chart illustrating current knowledge of where and when the different

ceramic styles discussed are found, based on published 14C dates from archaeological contexts directly associated with pottery (median of CAL 2 σ format was used to define upper and lower temporal boundaries of style production and consumption). References used in TABLE 6.3 were supplemented by Isbell (1997) and Silverman (1993)! …………………..… 78!

Figure 5.1 ! Location of Cocahuischo and the southern Nasca region!……..…………. 81! Figure 5.2! Aerial photo of Cocahuischo illustrating the habitations, patios, and

terraces that compose the site. The Tierras Blancas River is located at the top of the image and the lower flank of Cerro Chiuchipampa is located !at the base of the image! ……………………………………………..…….… 82!

Figure 5.3! Photo of Cocahuischo facing up valley, illustrating the steep hillside on which Cocahuischo is located (photo courtesy M. Tierney)!…...……..….. 83!

Figure 5.4! Satellite image of the upper Tierras Blancas River, highlighting the ! modern road, town of Ronquillo, and archaeological sites!………….…… 83!

Figure 5.5! Aerial photo of Cocahuischo taken in 1944. Note relative lack of erosion or destruction of the site when compared with current aerial images !(see FIG. 5.2)! ………………………………………………………..………… 84!

Figure 5.6! Natural outcrops located above Cocahuischo!…………………………..…. 85! Figure 5.7! View of possible stone corral with Cocahuischo in the background!….… 86! Figure 5.8! Stone corral (highlighted in blue) and associated patio group !

(highlighted in green)! ……………………………..……..………………..… 86!

xviii

Figure 5.9! Topographic map of Cocahuischo illustrating architectural features and the 2010 and 2012 excavations! ………………….………….………………. 87!

Figure 5.10! Comparative aerial photograph planviews of Patio Groups 1 and 12. ! Note the difference in scale between the two different structures and !their adjacent patios! ………………………………………..………..….……89!

Figure 5.11! Topographic map of Sectors I-III at Cocahuischo, illustrating ! architectural features and units of excavation during the 2010 and 2012 field seasons ! ………………………………………………………………..… 90!

Figure 5.12! Structure in Sector III containing a back wall that forms the retaining ! wall of the habitation terrace above! …………………………….….….…… 92!

Figure 5.13! Tomb 3 at Cocahuischo, located in the Sector IV cemetery!………..…..…. 92! Figure 5.14 ! Topographic map of Sector V at Cocahuischo, illustrating architectural

features and excavation units from the 2010 and 2012 field seasons! …… 93! Figure 5.15! Example photograph of pottery (Sector II, Structure 90) recovered !

during systematic surface collection in 2010! ……………..……..……..….. 94! Figure 5.16! Topographic map of Cocahuischo illustrating structures where surface

collections of pottery and lithic artifacts were made!…..…..……………… 95! Figure 5.17! Structure 259 in Sector V, illustrating high degree of wall collapse and !

a large central looters pit! ………………………………………….….…..…. 97! Figure 5.18! Structure 17 in Sector I, illustrating high degree of wall preservation! .…. 97! Figure 5.19! Large ground stone batán and associated ground stone mano from

Structure 417 in Sector V! …………………………..……….…….……..…… 98! Figure 5.20! Topographic map of Sectors I-III at Cocahuischo illustrating the

distribution of features visible on the surface, such as batanes and !looters pits with evidence of bone! ………………………..…………..……. 99!

Figure 5.21! Topographic map of Sector V at Cocahuischo illustrating the ! distribution of features visible on the surface, such as batanes and !looters pits with evidence of bone!…………………………..…………..… 101!

Figure 5.22! Looters pits in Structure 400 in Sector V with visible subterranean structures and human bone in the back dirt!…….….…………….………. 102!

Figure 5.23! Large stone slabs used in Cocahuischo domestic construction!……..….. 105! Figure 5.24! Example of a habitation at Cocahuischo. Note presence of full structure

wall (rather than retaining wall)! ……………………..…..…………….…. 106! Figure 5.25! Example of a patio at Cocahuischo. Note presence of retaining wall and

architectural definition of space without full structure wall!……….…… 107! Figure 5.26! Example of a terrace at Cocahuischo. Note the lack of architectural

definition of space!…………………………………………….………..…… 108! Figure 5.27! Architectural drawing of Patio Group 99 at Cocahuischo, illustrating a

complex domestic unit in Sector V! ………………………….…………..… 111! Figure 5.28! Bar graph illustrating the variation in house size! ……………………..… 112! Figure 5.29! Bar graph illustrating the variation in patio group size! ………..………. 112! Figure 5.30! Box plot diagram illustrating the range of house size in each of the

residential sectors! …………………………………………….…………..… 114! Figure 5.31! Box plot diagram illustrating the range of patio group size in each of !

the residential sectors! ………………………………………………….…… 114!

xix

Figure 5.32! Bar graph illustrating the variation in average stone size! ………..…….. 116! Figure 5.33! Box plot diagram illustrating the range of average stone size in each of !

the residential sectors! ………………………………………………………. 116! Figure 5.34! Example of a door jam in Sector III of Cocahuischo!………………….….. 118! Figure 5.35! Niche located in structure wall of a habitation (Structure 119) in Sector !

III of Cocahuischo! ………………………….…………………….…………. 119! Figure 5.36! Internal wall located in a habitation (Structure 161) in Sector III of ! ! Cocahuischo! ………………………………………………..…..…….…..….. 119! Figure 5.37! Guide to the symbols used in the Harris matrices!……………..….…….. 123! Figure 5.38! Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 156, Unit 1!…………….….. 123! Figure 5.39! Planview of excavations in Unit 1, highlighting the two architectural !

units and the subterranean burial (burial drawn by H. Van Gijseghem)! ! ! ……………………………………………………………………………..… 124!

Figure 5.40! Excavations in Unit 1, illustrating UA2 in the upper left corner, a ! portion of UA3 in the lower left, and the stone slabs capping the subterranean burial in the center of the unit!……………………….….…. 125!

Figure 5.41! Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 155, Unit 2!……….……….. 126! Figure 5.42! Excavations in Unit 2, illustrating the ashy refuse pit (and possible !

hearth) in the right side of the unit!………………………..………….…… 127! Figure 5.43! Planview of excavations in Unit 2, illustrating the refuse pit (and !

possible hearth) located in the southeastern corner of the unit!………… 127! Figure 5.44! Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 374, Unit 3!…………..…… 129! Figure 5.45! Profile of excavations in Unit 3, illustrating the refuse pit dug into the

natural hillside (figure drawn by H. Van Gijseghem)! …..…….……..….. 129! Figure 5.46! Excavations in Unit 3, illustrating plainware pottery fragments !

recovered from the ash concentration and possible refuse pit!…..…..…. 130! Figure 5.47! Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 75, Unit 4!……….…….….. 131! Figure 5.48! Excavations in Unit 4, the construction fill used to build the patio! ! terrace! ………………………………………………………………………… 131! Figure 5.49! Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 88, Unit 5!……………..….. 132! Figure 5.50! Profile of excavations in Unit 5, illustrating the deep refuse pit dug into !

the natural hillside (figure drawn by H. Van Gijseghem)!……….…..….. 133! Figure 5.51! Planview drawing of Tomb 4.2, illustrating flexed burial position found !

at Cocahuischo (figure drawn by L. M. González La Rosa)!……….……. 134! Figure 5.52! Excavations in Tomb 5, illustrating the stone slabs commonly found

capping the tombs at Cocahuischo! …………………..…..……………….. 135! Figure 5.53! Excavations in Tomb 8, illustrating the disturbed stone slabs often !

found just above or cutting into the body and beneath the upper layer!of slabs! ……………………………………………………………………….. 136!

Figure 5.54! Excavations in Tomb 3, illustrating the collapsed position the skeletal remains (likely buried in a flexed and seated position) were found in. !Note also the large stone slab placed vertically between the ribs and !arm on the right side!…………………………………………………….….. 136! !

xx

Figure 5.55! Excavations in Tomb 5, illustrating the small circular stone structure located with in the tomb and below the undisturbed upper layer of !stone slabs!……..……………………………………………..………………. 137!

Figure 5.56! Photograph of excavations in Tomb 6, highlighting the placement of! the Late Nasca collared jar in relation to the upper layer of stone !slabs! ………………………………………………………………………..… 138!

Figure 5.57! Late Nasca collared jar recovered during excavations in Tomb 6!……… 138! Figure 5.58! Planview drawing of Tomb 7. Note the lack of both the cranium and

mandible among the skeletal remains (figure drawn by L. M. González !La Rosa)! …..………………………………………..………………………… 139!

Figure 5.59! Excavations in Tomb 7, illustrating the disturbed stone slabs found ! directly above the headless body!……………….…………………….…… 139!

Figure 5.60! Photographic planview of Patio Group 10, illustrating the location of Structure 17, its associated patio, and the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC)!………….. 141!

Figure 5.61! Prepared mud clay floor (Locus 004) found in Structure 17!…………….. 141! Figure 5.62! Planview of excavations in Structure 17, highlighting important !

features that were encountered!………………….…..……….……………. 142! Figure 5.63! Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 17!………………………….. 144! Figure 5.64! Transitional style bowl found at the interface of the prepared mud clay

floor and the ash pit below in Structure 17! …………..………..…………. 145! Figure 5.65! Transitional style bowls recovered from the floor & ash pit interface !

during excavations in Structure 17!……………………..………….……… 145! Figure 5.66! Ash deposits and fire centers (visible in brown) encountered during

excavations in Structure 17!……………….…………..……………….……. 146! Figure 5.67! Photographic planview of Patio Group 12, illustrating the location of

Structure 32, its associated patio, and the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC)!……..…… 148!

Figure 5.68! Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 32!………………..…..……. 149! Figure 5.69! Stone and bone pendants recovered during excavations in Structure 32! ! !…………………………………………………………………………………. 150! Figure 5.70! Breached clay cap covering a looted burial pit encountered during

excavations in Structure 32!…………………………………….…………… 150! Figure 5.71! Planview of excavations in Structure 32, highlighting important !

features that were encountered!…………….………………..…………….. 151! Figure 5.72! Photographic planview of Patio Group 29, illustrating the location of

Structure 88, its associated patio and terrace, and the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC)! .…. 153!

Figure 5.73! Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 88!………………….……… 154! Figure 5.74! Planview of excavations in Structure 88, highlighting important !

features that were encountered!…………………………….…..…….……. 155! Figure 5.75! Possible stone bench encountered during excavations in Structure 88!… 156! Figure 5.76! Large obsidian biface recovered during excavations in Structure 88! ..… 157! Figure 5.77! Cross section of excavations in Structure 88, illustrating the bench (and

bench fill), informal floor, deep refuse pit, and intrusive burial pit!……. 157!

xxi

Figure 5.78! Intrusive burial pit in Structure 88, illustrating Late Nasca collared jar interred upside down! …………………………………………..…….…….. 159!

Figure 5.79! Late Nasca style collared jar recovered from the intrusive burial pit ! during excavations in Structure 88!………………………..………………. 159!

Figure 5.80! Photographic planview of Structure 104, illustrating the location of the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC)!…………………………………………………………. 160!

Figure 5.81! Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 104!………………………… 161! Figure 5.82! Planview of excavations in Structure 104, highlighting important !

features that were encountered!……………….………..……………….…. 162! Figure 5.83! Excavations in Structure 104, illustrating the ash pit visible in the !

center of the informal floor surface!…………………….……..…………… 164! Figure 5.84! Excavations in Structure 104, illustrating the possible hearth against !

the southern structure wall!…………………………….…..………….…… 164! Figure 5.85! Photographic planview of Patio Group 55, illustrating the location of

Structure 190, its associated patio, and the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC)!……….…. 166!

Figure 5.86! Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 190!………………………… 167! Figure 5.87! Planview of excavations in Structure 190, highlighting important !

features that were encountered!……………….………………..……….…. 168! Figure 5.88! Three ash pits encountered during excavations in Structure 190!………. 169! Figure 5.89! Ceramic lids recovered from the ash pits during excavations in !

Structure 190! …………………………………..…………………………..… 169! Figure 5.90! Ceramic lids recovered from the ash pits!…………………………………. 170! Figure 5.91! Deep refuse pit (right) and bases of ash pits (left) encountered during

excavations in Structure 190!………………….………….………….……… 171! Figure 5.92! Two nested bivalves recovered from the surface of the deep refuse pit

encountered during excavations in Structure 190!……..….….…….……. 171! Figure 5.93! Photographic planview of Patio Group 78, illustrating the location of

Structure 203, its associated terrace, and the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC)!…….……. 173!

Figure 5.94! Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 203!………………….…….. 174! Figure 5.95! Planview of excavations in Structure 203, highlighting important !

features that were encountered!………………….………..……….………. 175! Figure 5.96! Mud clay sphere capping camelid pelvis interment (visible in lower!

right corner) encountered during excavations in Structure 203. Photo!taken after a cut had been made through the sphere to determine!relationships to camelid bone and dark organic matrix below! …..…… 176!

Figure 5.97! Camelid pelvis interred below mud clay sphere, encountered during excavations in Structure 203!………………………….…………………….. 177!

Figure 5.98! Photographic planview of Patio Group 1, illustrating the location of Structures 255 & 253, their associated patio, and the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC)! .…. 178!

Figure 5.99! Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 255!…………….…..………. 180! !

xxii

Figure 5.100! Planview of excavations in Structure 255, highlighting important ! features that were encountered! …………………………..………….……. 181!

Figure 5.101! Fragment of apisonado with pottery embedded in the center of the structure, laying directly above the deep ash concentration !encountered during excavations in Structure 255!………..…..…….……. 182!

Figure 5.102! Deep ash concentration encountered throughout Structure 255. Photo taken after cut was made to expose the stratigraphy of the ash!……..…. 182!

Figure 5.103! Ash concentration against southeastern wall in Structure 255, ! illustrating carbonized vegetable material and soil indicative of high!burn temperatures! ………………………………………………………….. 184!

Figure 5.104! Very large earthenware fragment (outlined with white dashes) and ! bivalve placed within ash concentration by southeastern structure wall !of Structure 255!……………………………………………………………… 184!

Figure 5.105! Miniature ollas recovered from the base of the ash concentration in Structure 255! …………………………..……………………………..……… 186!

Figure 5.106! Fire cracked rock recovered from the base of the ash concentration in Structure 255! ……………………………………………………..…….….… 186!

Figure 5.107! Ground stone mano (a), hammer stones (b), unfired clay molds (c), ! large earthenware fragment (d), and highly burned porous material (e) recovered from the occupation levels of Structure 255!………………..… 188!

Figure 5.108! Photographic planview of Structure 285, illustrating the unit of ! excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, !Arqueosystems SAC)!…………………………………………………………. 189!

Figure 5.109! Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 285!………..………….….… 190! Figure 5.110! Planview of excavations in Structure 285, highlighting important !

features that were encountered!………………………….…….…….…….. 191! Figure 5.111! Mano, large plainware fragment, and marine bivalve embedded in

occupation surface within internal room in Structure 285! ..…….……… 193! Figure 5.112! Photographic planview of Patio Group 119, illustrating the location of

Structures 293, 292, & 290, their patio and terrace, and the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, !Arqueosystems SAC)!………………………………..……………………..…. 194!

Figure 5.113! Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 293!………………….…….. 195! Figure 5.114! Planview of excavations in Structure 293, highlighting important !

features that were encountered!…………………..………..………………. 196! Figure 5.115! Late Nasca flaring bowl recovered from excavations in Structure 293! … 197! Figure 5.116! Bivalve placed above pit in Structure 293!…………………….……….….. 197! Figure 5.117! Harris Matrix of deposits found in Structure 246 (Unit 6)!…………..….. 199! Figure 5.118! Planview of excavations in Structure 246 (Unit 6), highlighting !

important features that were encountered! …………….…..……….…….. 200! Figure 5.119! Calibrated AMS 14C dates from Cocahuischo. Calibrations were !

performed using the OxCal 4.1.7 calibration program (Bronk Ramsey !2010) and the IntCal09 curve (Reimer et al. 2009)!……….…….…………. 203!

xxiii

Figure 5.120! Architectural drawing of Patio Group III at Cocahuischo, illustrating a large, higher status domestic unit! ….…………………………….…..…… 206!

Figure 5.121! Architectural drawings of Patio Groups I and II at Cocahuischo, illustrating a large higher status architectural unit (used for suprahousehold food and craft production) and a small lower status domestic unit! ……………………………………………………….……….. 207!

Figure 5.122! Aerial photograph of Cocahuischo taken by Katharina Schreiber in ! 1986, illustrating the spatial divide between the two main residential !zones of the site. Sectors I-III are in the foreground and Sector V is in !the upper right corner! ……………………………………………………… 210!

Figure 6.1! Fineware and coarseware categories of vessel form present in the Cocahuischo assemblage!…….……………………….………………….…. 215!

Figure 6.2! Rim diameters from fineware (a) and coarseware (b) bowls!………….… 218! Figure 6.3! Coarseware deep convex bowls: (a) CO31-22, (b) CO23-1, (c) CO26-3, !

(d) CO79-6, (e) CO23-2, (f ) CO140-2, (g) CO 33-1, and (h) CO26-2!……. 219! Figure 6.4! Coarseware convex bowls: (a) U2-C-2, (b) CO57-9, (c) CO86-3, (d) !

U5-B-19, (e) U5-B-23, (f ) CO60-9, (g) CO86-5, (h) CO66-8, (i) CO27-8, !and (j) CO28-83!………………………………………………………..…….. 220!

Figure 6.5! Coarseware convex bowls: (a) CO29-5, (b) CO59-9, (c) CO8-3, (d) ! CO52-5, (e) CO120-5, (f ) CO91-5, (g) CO31-25, (h) CO146-3, and (i) !CO7-1!…………………………………………………………………………. 221!

Figure 6.6! Coarseware convex bowls: (a) CO89-2, (b) CO29-2, (c) CO60-4, (d) ! U5-A-6, (e) CO96-2, (f ) U5-B-34, (g) CO93-8, (h) CO96-17, (i) U5-B-9, !and (j) CO91-10!……………………………………………………………… 222!

Figure 6.7! Coarseware straight-sided bowls: (a) CO52-9, (b) CO82-5, (c) U3-B-7, ! (d) CO93-6, (e) CO26-1, (f ) CO65-6, (g) CO94-1, and (h) U3-B-3! …..….. 223!

Figure 6.8! Fineware goblets: (a) U3-B-29 [N7a?], (b) CO7-2 [N7a], (c) CO167-1 ! [N6 or 7a], (d) CO31-5 [N6 or 7a], (e) CO54-1 [N7a], and (f ) CO80-8 ![N6 or 7a]. Note that for (a) the rim diameter is unknown!…………..…. 225!

Figure 6.9! Coarseware jars & ollas: (a) CO80-12, (b) CO28-88, (c) CO28-90, (d) CO146-13, (e) CO140-1, and (f ) CO28-99!…………………………….…… 227!

Figure 6.10! Coarseware jars & ollas: (a) U3-B-F1-1, (b) CO31-37, (c) CO149-5, (d) CO31-39, (e) CO81-2, (f ) CO89-3, and (g) CO77-2!………………….……. 228!

Figure 6.11! Coarseware jars & ollas: (a) CO93-7, (b) CO93-3, (c) CO96-6, (d) ! CO146-14, (e) CO91-11, and (f ) CO92-1!…………………..……..….…….. 229!

Figure 6.12! Comparison of coarseware jars & ollas with straight neck profiles: (a) CO93-4, (b) CO97-1, (c) CO99-3, (d) CO100-2, and (e) CO93-1, vs. !convex neck profiles: (f ) CO5-1, (g) CO28-85, (h) CO27-1, and (i) !CO31-20, and collarless vessels: (j) CO 21-1 and (k) CO31-6!………..….. 230!

Figure 6.13! Coarseware narrow high necked jars: (a) CO28-21, (b) CO31-52, and (c) CO31-53! ………………………………………………………………..…….. 231!

Figure 6.14! Fineware and coarseware vases: (a) CO86-1 [N6], (b) U3-S-6 [N7a], (c) CO148-1 [N7a], (d) CO36-1, (e) CO146-1 [N5/6], (f ) U3-A-6, and (g) CO161-1 [N7a]. Note that for (b) and (c) the rim diameter is unknown!

! !…………………………………………………………………………………. 232!

xxiv

Figure 6.15! Fineware bottles: (a) CO31-55 and (b) CO78-1!………………….….…….. 233! Figure 6.16! Fineware modeled effigies: (a) CO28-24 [N7a], (b) CO28-22 [unknown],

and (c) CO93-14 [N7a]!…………………………………….…………..…….. 234! Figure 6.17! Coarseware miniatures: (a) CO122-1, (b) CO101-8, (c) CO59-12, (d)

CO31-36, (e) CO28-84, (f ) U5-A-7, (g) CO31-30, (h) CO31-31, (i) !CO57-11, (j) CO52-14, and (k) CO52-13. Note that for (i), (j), and (k) the !rim diameter is unknown! ……………………………………..…..……….. 235!

Figure 6.18! Polishing tools: (a) CO79-13, (b) CO28-25, (c) CO146-5, (d) CO146-6, (e) CO59-19, (f ) CO57-15, (g) CO66-17, (h) CO57-30, (i) CO28-23, (j) !CO18-4, (k) CO28-6, (l) CO82-9, (m) CO65-11, (n) CO82-10, (o) CO73-2, !(p) CO100-17, and (q) CO99-6! ………………………………………..……. 236!

Figure 6.19! Spindle whorls made from reused coarseware and fineware sherds: (a) Locus 201, (b) Structure 190 - surface, (c) Locus 409, (d) Locus 409, (e) Locus 205, (f ) Unit 2 - Capa A, (g) Locus 409, and (h) Locus 409!……… 237!

Figure 6.20! Examples of Late Nasca pottery at Cocahuischo: (a) CO86-1, (b) ! CO79-3, (c) CO80-1, (d) CO54-1, and (e) CO28-5!…………….…….…….. 242!

Figure 6.21! Late Nasca flaring bowls with interior decoration: (a) CO22-1 [N7a], (b) CO53-2 [N7a], (c) CO28-16 [N7a], (d) CO104-7 [N7a], (e) CO8-4 [N7a], !(f ) CO5-4 [N7a], and (g) U3-B-1 [N7a]! ..……………………….….………. 245!

Figure 6.22! Late Nasca [N7a] flaring bowl with exterior mythical being decoration (CO150-1)!…………………………………….………………………………. 246!

Figure 6.23! Late Nasca and possible Middle Nasca flaring bowls with exterior mythical being decoration: (a) CO143-1 [late N6/early N7a], (b) !CO167-3 [N5], and (c) U3-S-5 [N7a]! ………………..……………..………. 247!

Figure 6.24! Late Nasca flaring bowls with exterior animal motifs: (a) CO88-1 [N6 ! or 7a], (b) CO63-1 [N7a], (c) CO80-3 [N7a], (d) CO149-1 [N7a], (e) !U5-B-1 [N7a], (f ) CO147-1 [N7a], and (g) CO95-1 [N7a]! …………..…… 248!

Figure 6.25! Late Nasca flaring bowls with exterior geometric motifs: (a) CO164-2 [N7a], (b) CO100-24 [N7a], (c) CO81-1 [N7a], (d) CO80-3 [N7a], (e) !CO31-1 [N7a], (f ) CO82-4 [N7a], and (g) U4-S-1 [N7a]! ……..…..…..….. 249!

Figure 6.26! Late Nasca and possible Middle Nasca straight-sided bowls with ! exterior mythical, geometric, and animal motifs: (a) CO35-2 [N5], (b) CO31-2/97 [N7a], (c) CO88-9 [N7a], (d) CO88-5/6 [N6 or N7a], (e) !CO82-2 [N7a], and (f ) CO82-1 [N7a]!………………………..………..…… 250!

Figure 6.27! Late Nasca and possible Middle Nasca convex bowls with exterior and interior decoration: (a) CO167-2 [N5 or 6], (b) CO13-3 [N5 or 6], (c) CO159-2 [N6], (d) CO57-3 [N7a], (e) CO11-1 [N7a], (f ) U3-S-11 [N7a], !and (g) CO158-1 [N7a]!…………………………………….….….…….…… 251!

Figure 6.28! Late Nasca [N7a] collared jar with exterior mythical being decoration (CO32-22)!………………………………………………..…………………… 252!

Figure 6.29! Late Nasca [N7a] collared jar with exterior inverted ‘cacti’ decoration ! (T6-A-1)!………………………………………………….…………………… 253!

Figure 6.30! Examples of Transitional pottery at Cocahuischo: (a) CO28-8 [N7b/c], ! (b) CO28-3 [N7b/c], (c) CO28-11 [N7b/c], (d) CO27-2 [N7b/c], and (e) CO59-1 [N7b/c]!…………………………………..……..……………….….. 255!

xxv

Figure 6.31! Examples of Transitional pottery at Cocahuischo: (a) CO16-1 [N7/8], ! (b) CO52-7 [N7/8], (c) CO59-4 [N7/8], (d) CO27-3 [N7/8], and (e) !CO18-5 [N7/8]!……………………………………………………….…..….. 256!

Figure 6.32! Transitional straight-sided bowls with interior geometric motifs: (a) ! U5-B-8 [N7b/c], (b) CO157-3 [N7b/c], (c) CO43-1 [N7b/c], (d) CO65-4 [N7b/c], (e) CO66-4 [N7b/c], (f ) CO80-10 [N7b/ c], (g) CO158-4 ![N7b/c], and (h) CO18-6 [N7b/c]!………………………..…….….………. 259!

Figure 6.33! Transitional convex bowls with interior pendant scallop and zigzag decoration: (a) CO156-3 [N7b/c], (b) CO156-4 [N7b/c], (c) CO66-6 ![N7b/c], (d) CO88-8 [N7b/c], and (e) U1-D-2 [N7b/c]. Note that for (c) !the rim diameter is unknown! …………………..……….………..……….. 260!

Figure 6.34! Transitional straight-sided bowls with interior pendant color block decoration: (a) CO60-1 [N7b/c], (b) CO57-1 [N7b/c], (c) CO162-1 ![N7b/c], (d) CO31-16 [N7b/c], (e) CO52-6 [N7b/c], (f ) U2- C-1 ![N7b/c], (g) U5-S-2 [N7b/c], (h) CO159-1 [N7b/c], and (i) U5-B-10 ![N7b/c]!………………………………………………………………..……… 261!

Figure 6.35! Transitional convex bowls with interior pendant color block ! decoration: (a) CO88-7 [N7b/c], (b) CO32-2 [N7b/c], (c) CO5-7 ![N7b/c], (d) CO79-2 [N7b/c], (e) CO29-1 [N7b/c], (f ) CO31-9 ![N7b/ c], and (g) U5-B-63 [N7b/c]! ..………………………..…………..… 262!

Figure 6.36! Transitional convex bowls with exterior dotted squiggle, zigzag, & ! band, as well as paneled decoration: (a) CO29-6 [N7b/c], (b) CO28-14 [N7b/c], (c) CO157-4 [N7/8], (d) CO80-9/82-3 [N7b/c], (e) CO57-5 ![N7b/c], and (f ) CO156-2 [MH1B/Huamanga]!……………………….… 263!

Figure 6.37! Transitional convex bowls with interior geometric decoration: (a) ! CO8-7 [N7/8], (b) CO28-12/13 [N7b/c], (c) CO63-2 [N7b/c], (d) !CO155-1 [N7b/c], and (e) U3-S-9 [N7b/c]! …………………..……..…….. 264!

Figure 6.38! Transitional [N7/8] straight-sided bowl with interior pendant scallop ! and recurving worm decoration (CO7-9)! ……………………….……..…. 265!

Figure 6.39! Transitional [N7/8] convex bowl with exterior dotted squiggle ! decoration (CO7-8)!…………………………………………………….……. 266!

Figure 6.40! Transitional convex bowls with interior human and animal decoration: ! (a) CO63-11 [unknown], (b) CO28-37 [unknown], (c) CO18-7 [N7b/c or N7/8], (d) CO31-58 [N7b/c or N7/8], (e) CO28-35 [N7b/c or N7/8], !and (f ) U1-S-3 [N7b/c]! …………………………….…..……….………….. 267!

Figure 6.41! Cumbrous bowls with interior paneled bands and pendant rectangles: ! (a) and (c) are redrawn from photographs and drawings of a bowl illustrated by Kroeber (1956: fig. 12a, plate 38e, respectively), and (b) is drawn from a photograph of a bowl illustrated by Eisleb (1975: fig. !293)!……………………………………………………………………………. 268!

Figure 6.42! Fineware bowls with interior pendant scallop decoration: (a) ! ML035435 and (b) ML035484 (images courtesy of the online catalog of !the Museo Larco)! …..………………………………………………………… 269!

Figure 6.43! Fineware bowl with interior pendant scallop decoration (image ! courtesy of Carol Sawyer)! ……………………..……….……………..…… 269!

xxvi

Figure 6.44! Examples of Estrella pottery at Cocahuischo: (a) CO51-1, (b) CO28-4, ! (c) CO52-1, (d) CO54-2, (e) CO66-2, and (f ) CO100-23!………….…….… 272!

Figure 6.45! Estrella convex bowls with interior and exterior geometric decoration: ! (a) CO52-4, (b) CO31-12, (c) CO79-5, (d) U5B55, and (e) CO39-1. Note !that for (c) the rim diameter is unknown!…………….……..….….……… 273!

Figure 6.46! Estrella straight-sided bowls with exterior and interior geometric decoration: (a) CO29-4 and (b) CO93-33. Note that the rim diameter !for (a) is unknown!……………………………………………….………..… 274!

Figure 6.47! Examples of Local pottery at Cocahuischo: (a) CO56-1, (b) CO104-1, (c) CO8-1/30, (d) CO53-1, (e) CO70-1, (f ) CO120-4, and (g) CO59-3!…..….. 275!

Figure 6.48! Local straight-sided bowls with exterior and interior geometric ! decoration: (a) CO57-4, (b) CO67-1, (c) CO17-1, (d) CO52-3, (e) CO52-8, !(f ) CO53-4, (g) CO96-13, (h) CO63-1, and (i) CO59-5!………..…..……… 276!

Figure 6.49! Local convex bowls with exterior geometric decoration: (a) CO31-13, ! (b) CO66-1, (c) CO161-2, and (d) CO8-6!…………………..…..….……….. 277!

Figure 6.50! Magnified image of Paste Type A sherd (taken using DinoXcope ! handheld microscope at 51x)! ……………………………..…..……..…….. 280!

Figure 6.51! Magnified image of Paste Type B sherd (taken using DinoXcope ! handheld microscope at 51x)! ………………..……….……………….…… 281!

Figure 6.52! Magnified image of Paste Type C sherd (taken using DinoXcope ! handheld microscope at 51x)! ……………………………..…..………..….. 282!

Figure 6.53! Ratio of pottery styles within excavated structures. Structures 17-203 ! are in Sectors I-III and Structures 255-293 are in Sector V! ……………… 283!

Figure 6.54! Percentage of pottery styles in the different strata of Structure 88. The ! loci in each major stratum were condensed because of arbitrary level designations, a lack of pottery, and because the patterns present within condensed loci were the same (see FIG. 5.66 for comparison)! …….…… 286!

Figure 6.55! Percentage of pottery styles in the different strata of Structure 190. The ! loci in each major stratum were condensed because of arbitrary level designations, a lack of pottery, and because the patterns present within condensed loci were the same (see FIG. 5.79 for comparison)! …..…….. 287!

Figure 6.56! Ratio of pottery styles within test units. Units 1-2 and 4-6 are located in Sectors I-III and Unit 3 is located in Sector V! …………………..……..… 288!

Figure 7.1! Non-obsidian lithic artifacts: (a) chalcedony flake, (b) fine grained ! siliceous flakes, (c) fine grained volcanic flakes & cores, (d) fine grained volcanic ground stone tools, (e) quartzite flakes & cores, (f) quartz flake !& fragments, and (g) quartzite river pebble!………………………..…….. 304!

Figure 7.2! Ground stone mortar (Sector III)!………………………………….….……. 306! Figure 7.3! Obsidian artifacts: (a) CO15, (b) CO56, (c) CO18, (d-e) CO27, (f) CO28, !

(g) CO29, (h) CO44, (i) CO33, (j-k) CO59, (l) CO79, (m) CO148, (n) !CO27, (o) CO79, (p) CO57, (q) CO36, (r) CO54, (s-t) CO57, (u) CO18, !(v) CO16, (w-x) CO31, (y) CO32, (z) CO52! ………….…………..……….. 307!

Figure 7.4! Shell artifacts: (a) Acmaeidae, (b) Mytilidae, (c) Pectinidae, (d) crab, (e) ! Sea snails, and (f) unidentified marine bivalve with barnacles!……..….. 318!

xxvii

Figure 7.5! Photograph of warp-face plain weave textile (taken with a DinoXcope handheld microscope at 208x)! …………..….……………………….…….. 320!

Figure 7.6! Tools, toys, and adornments from 2010 and 2012 excavations: (a) shell pendants and beads, (b) stone pendants, (c) unidentified mineral pendants, (d) bone pendant, (e) Spondylus pendants, (f) worked bone tools, (g) copper/bronze tupu pins, (g) stone discs or ‘tokens,’ and (i) worked shell tools! ……………….………………………………………..… 322!

Figure 7.8! Results of strontium isotope analysis of 9 Cocahuischo individuals ! (figure produced by C. M. Kellner, based on data from Conlee et al. !2009; Kellner et al. 2011; Knudson et al. 2009; Tung and Knudson 2011)!! ……………………………………………………………………………..… 327!

!xxviii

!!!!!ABSTRACT"!!!

Whalen, Verity H. Ph.D., Purdue University, August 2014. Re-Becoming Nasca: A Household-Based Analysis of the Transformation of Community and Tradition at a Late Nasca Village, Peru. Major Professor: Kevin J. Vaughn."!!" By employing a household-based perspective, this dissertation investigates how

communities and traditions are created and reimagined through periods of sociopolitical

reformation. Drawing from archaeological and bioarchaeological data, I examine the end

of the Early Intermediate Period, a transitional phase in Andean prehistory. Following

the collapse of a regional ceremonial cult, Late Nasca society on the south coast of Peru

underwent a period of sociopolitical balkanization and reformation. I situate my

research at Cocahuischo, a large Late Nasca settlement in the Tierras Blancas Valley. I

utilize mapping, excavation, and artifact analysis to examine the internal politics of

community and tradition at Cocahuischo and whether residents formed relationships

with other Late Nasca and Andean communities during a time of change. Patterns in

spatial organization, household structure, artifact assemblages, and mortuary practices

were used to investigate the level of social cohesion within the local community.

Diachronic changes in tradition were evaluated by comparing fineware pottery and

domestic architecture to earlier Nasca sites. Pottery, lithics, and intra-site spatial

organization were then examined to better understand inter-regional interaction and

extra-local community affiliations. I draw from theoretical perspectives of practice,

community, tradition, and cultural reformation to illustrate how these processes are

embodied through daily life."

" Broad similarities were found throughout Cocahuischo in the form of domestic

space, style of pottery, mortuary practices, and form of tools and objects used in daily

subsistence and production activities. These data suggest the presence of a local Late

!xxix

Nasca community constituted through daily life and activities of production and

consumption. The differences between these data and the architecture and pottery of

earlier Nasca settlements indicate changes in where ceremonial feasting occurred, how

religious ideology was mediated through pottery, and the size of corporate social entities

over time. The diversity of pottery styles and domestic architecture at Cocahuischo also

illustrates the presence of sub-local communities that crosscut the settlement. Stylistic

similarities in pottery suggest that these sub-local communities were linked to other

highland, Estrella, and Late Nasca groups. The data from Cocahuischo thus illustrate a

series of nested communities at sub-local, local, and supra-local levels.

!1

!!!!!CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH PROBLEM"!!!

1.1" An Archaeology of Communities in Transition"!" This dissertation investigates how communities and traditions are transformed

during times of sociopolitical balkanization and reformation. As social entities that

coalesce through interaction between members, shared beliefs, and notions of place,

communities are always in the process of becoming (Pauketat 2010; Yaeger 2000; Yaeger

and Canuto 2000). They grow out of shared practices and are embodied, created, and

reimagined through daily life and extra-ordinary “practices of affiliation” (Yaeger 2000:

126). Both community identity and communal relationships are negotiated through

material media. Objects and the built environment structure people’s daily activities and

relationships to one another, but are simultaneously shaped by agentive practices

(Dobres and Hoffman 1994; Dobres and Robb 2005). Material culture is a medium

through which the recursive relationship between structure and agency is constituted

(Bourdieu 1976; Giddens 1984; Gieryn 2002). Traditions, unconscious ‘ways of being,’

and community identity are thus both embodied and transformed through daily

activities and the material world."

" By focusing on a time of sociopolitical disintegration, the present study

advocates an archaeology of communities in transition. Such an approach explores not

just how communities are constituted through daily practice, but the ways in which

people question and rebuild traditions and relationships during times of broader societal

change. The collapse or transformation of states, empires, and political systems has been

a productive area of archaeological research (e.g. Conlee 2003; Janusek 2005; Tainter

1988; Yoffee and Cowgill 1988). When administrative and political structures are

dramatically altered, it can affect local power dynamics and community politics, and

drive innovation and change. Shared social memory and notions of community identity

!2

are transformed as previous social hierarchies are subverted and political relationships

are renegotiated. People may reach out and forge long-distance relationships with

members of other societies, forming “imagined communities” that transcend spatial

boundaries (sensu Yaeger 2000). Such communities orient around shared notions of

affinity and are constituted through “practices of affiliation”(Pauketat 2010; Yaeger

2000)."

" Social change and the transformation of tradition are driven by agentive daily

practices at the household and community level (Janusek 2005). As people begin to

question formerly naturalized social norms and traditions, they alter their behavior,

worldview, and relationships to one another through daily practices. All actions – even

those that serve to embody and reproduce unconscious ‘ways of being’ – are inherently

transformative (Pauketat 2001). Practice can thus be the medium of both tradition

maintenance and social change. Yet when people begin to comment on elements of

tradition that previously went unquestioned, they incite processes of conscious and

sometimes political alteration. The transformation or negotiation of tradition is a fluid

process that can occur in many different social arenas, ranging from the mundane

practices of everyday life to grand political performances (Silliman 2001). As such,

broader societal changes both shape and are shaped by processes at the community and

household level. "

" Drawing from household and community archaeology, this dissertation

constructs an archaeology of communities in transition by focusing on the archaeological

investigation of a Late Nasca settlement that was occupied during a time of regional

balkanization and change. In doing so, this study reframes a period of sociopolitical

disintegration as a time of cultural reformation and examines how communities

negotiate and reimagine traditions."

!!!1.2" Cultural Reformation and Late Nasca Society"!

" The Nasca were a people who lived on the south coast of Peru for nearly a

millennium. Situated within the far northern reaches of the Atacama desert, Nasca "

!3

society thrived throughout the Early Intermediate Period (EIP; ca. A.D. 1-750; FIG. 1.1).

Nasca people lived an agropastoral lifestyle, relying on the cultivation of crops such as

maize, beans, and squash, the maintenance of herds of animals such as camelids, and the

exploitation of marine resources (Vaughn 2005a). They also constructed puquios to

exploit subterranean water sources in an increasingly marginalized desert environment

Figure 1.1. Regional map of the south coast of Peru illustrating the location of important Early Intermediate Period and Middle Horizon archaeological sites mentioned in the text.

PERU

RiverProjection: WGS 1984 18SCartographer: V. Whalen

0 45 km Archaeological site

0-500 m500-1000 m

1000-3000 m3000-4000 m

4000-4500 m

+ 4500 m

Topará

Pisco

Ica

Río Grande de Nazca

Acarí

ParacasPeninsula

Cañete

Chincha

Pacific

Ocean88

441010

22

1515

1818

Northern

Nasca

RegionCentral

Nasca

Region

Southern

Nasca

Region

9933

11111212

5511 77

66

1717

16161414

1313

Rio Tin

gueRio C

o

charc

as

Rio Ingenio

Rio

Gran

de

Rio

P

alpa

Rio V

iszcas

Rio B

lancasRio A ja

1 - Pacheco2 - Cahuachi3 - La Tiza4 - Taruga5 - Pajonal Alto6 - Huaca del Loro7 - Marcaya8 - Cocahuischo9 - Pataraya10 - Trancas11 - Calvario12 - Incawasi13 - La Muña14 - Los Molinos15 - Parasmarca16 - Casa Vieja17 - PV62-7018 - Huari19 - Chaviña20 - Maymi

Rio L

a

s T

ranca

s

Rio

T

aruga

1919

2020

Departmentborder

DEPARTMENTOF ICA

DEPARTMENT OFHUANCAVELICA

DEPARTMENTOF AYACUCHO

DEPARTMENTOF AREQUIPA

!4

(Conlee in press; Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003). Most people lived in villages of

varying size, scattered throughout the river valleys of the south coast (Isla Cuadrado

and Reindel 2005; Massey 1986; Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003). The households

within these villages were for the most part socio-economically self-sufficient (Vaughn

2004, 2009). "

" Early Nasca society was characterized by a regional ceremonial cult centered at

the pilgrimage center of Cahuachi (FIG. 1.1; Orefici 2012; Silverman 1993). Residents

from around the south coast made pilgrimages to Cahuachi to participate in rituals and

feasts held within the plazas, pyramid mounds, and temples at the site (Bachir Bacha

2007; Kantner and Vaughn 2012; Silverman 1993; Vaughn 2009). Finely made

polychrome pottery used in feasts and ceremonies was imbued with religious ideology

and symbology (Carmichael 1992, 1994). Some pilgrims acquired ceramic vessels like

those used in the ceremonies and brought them back to their villages (Vaughn 2004,

2009; Vaughn and Neff 200, 2004). These vessels were used in re-creative feasts at the

household level – illustrating a society with some accessibility to ritual knowledge and

practice. At the same time, ritual elites or specialists at Cahuachi held sociopolitical

power and influence over the local residential population and the region as a whole,

particularly with regard to the ceremonial activities that were such an integral part of

Nasca life (Reindel and Isla Cuadrado 2006; Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003; Vaughn

2009)."

" Around A.D. 450, however, something changed in the Nasca region. Construction

at Cahuachi halted and its influence in the Nasca heartland appears to have rapidly

dissipated (Orefici 2012; Silverman 1993; Silverman and Proulx 2002). While the site and

the sacred place in the landscape where it is located continued to be used as a cemetery,

most ceremonial activities at Cahuachi itself ceased (Silverman 1993). Other ceremonial

spaces appeared at nearby sites like Estaquería, where new practices associated with

carved huarango posts took the place of the pyramid mound and plaza rituals (Strong

1957). These changes in the use of sacred space in Nasca were mirrored by changes in

religious iconography depicted on polychrome pottery. Following Early Nasca, there

was a rapid change and diversification of symbols and motifs (Blasco Bosqued and

!5

Ramos Gomez 1980; Eisleb 1975; Proulx 2006; Roark 1965). Middle and Late Nasca style

pottery illustrates a myriad of new forms and mythical beings, and a proliferation of

existing designs. Stylistically, it marks a rupture in what individuals were representing

on pottery and how they were doing so."

" Similar changes are present in sociopolitical organization and the way that

people inhabited the landscape. As construction at Cahuachi was dissipating, people

began building large planned settlements with elaborate tombs that illustrate emerging

inequalities in social status and authority (Isla Cuadrado and Reindel 2006; Reindel

2009). These processes culminated in a Late Nasca landscape characterized by

sociopolitical balkanization. Instead of small villages and the occasional ceremonial

center scattered throughout the river valleys of the south coast, Late Nasca people

aggregated into settlements of unprecedented size (Schreiber 1998; Schreiber and Lancho

Rojas 2003). These large villages were increasingly located away from the Nasca

heartland on the south coast, and toward the fringe of the Nasca region (FIG. 1.1).

Leadership became more localized during a time of increased competition and conflict

over resources in a marginalized environment (Beresford-Jones et al. 2009a; Eitel et al.

2005; Kellner 2002; Tomasto Cagigao 2009). Late Nasca people relied more heavily on a

maize based diet (Kellner and Schoeninger 2008, 2012; Menzel 1971), which would have

necessitated more complex systems of irrigation and water management. Increasing diet

diversity among higher status individuals also points to inequality in access to resources

(Kellner and Schoeninger 2012: 504). In addition, Late Nasca people forged ties with

other Andean groups, engaging in trade and inter-regional interaction (Menzel 1971;

Knobloch 1983; Paulsen 1983; Proulx 1994). "

" By the end of the EIP, Nasca society witnessed another period of sociopolitical

and cultural reformation, as residents migrated into the highlands and the southern Las

Trancas Valley during the Middle Horizon (MH; ca. A.D. 750-1000; Conlee and Schreiber

2006; Schreiber 1999, 2005; Reindel and Isla Cuadrado 2013). There, local society

coalesced around the large site of Huaca del Loro, forming the seat of the Loro polity

(FIG. 1.1; Conlee and Schreiber 2006; Strong 1957)."

!6

" From a sociopolitical perspective, Nasca is best characterized as a “middle range

society” (Vaughn 2009: 13). At no point in the EIP did Nasca become a state, yet it

exhibited sociopolitical complexity that exceeded that of entirely independent villages.

That complexity is characterized by cycles of sociopolitical integration and

balkanization, which were associated with marked cultural developments. Late Nasca

was one of these phases. It was clearly a time of overarching societal change, yet we

know little about the transformation of community and tradition. How were local power

dynamics restructured through agentive practices at Nasca settlements in the wake of

Cahuachi’s collapse? Were Late Nasca settlements each characterized by a cohesive local

community? Or did communities cross-cut these settlements and the broader south coast

landscape? How were traditions constructed and (re)constructed within Late Nasca

settlements? What role did inter-regional relationships and imagined communities play

in changing notions of community identity and tradition in Nasca? Ultimately, did

traditions associated with the Loro polity have roots in Late Nasca communities and

practices? If so, when did people begin the process of reimagining these traditions?"

" "!!1.3" An Introduction to Cocahuischo"!

" To address these questions, I situate my research at Cocahuischo, a large Late

Nasca settlement on the south coast of Peru. Cocahuischo is located in the upper valley

of the Tierras Blancas River at a zone of transition in the ancient Andean landscape –

between the coast and the highlands. Composed of nearly 200 households, the large

village occupies a steep hillside high above the river bottom. The settlement is

punctuated to the south by the hilltop and to the north by a sharp cliff, rendering it

defensible. Spatially, Cocahuischo is divided by large quebradas (or gullies) into two

primary residential zones and an isolated cemetery. The residential areas are densely

packed with oblong patio groups consisting of 2-9 architecturally defined spaces that are

agglutinated to form small to moderate sized compounds. In contrast to some of the

other known Late Nasca settlements, Cocahuischo has not been destroyed by modern

agricultural practices and its relative inaccessibility has largely protected it from looting.

!7

The size and preservation of the site makes it an ideal context for investigating the

nature of community and tradition during Late Nasca. By focusing on a specific site and

incorporating a regional perspective, I examine how local communities were constructed

and (re)constructed at Cocahuischo, and whether residents engaged with imagined

communities that transcended spatial boundaries during a time of sociopolitical

balkanization."

!!!1.4" Structure of the Dissertation"!

" This dissertation is organized into 8 chapters. Following this brief introduction, I

present a paleoenvironmental and cultural history of the Nasca region to contextualize

Cocahuischo in Chapter 2. I also present a brief history of research on the south coast to

situate the current study. Chapter 3 discusses the conceptual and methodological

framework I use in this dissertation. I draw from anthropological and archaeological

theories of practice, tradition, community, and cultural reformation to construct an

archaeology of communities in transition. Building from this research, I articulate my

methodological approach to the present study, which is rooted in community and

household archaeology. I then turn to pottery in Chapter 4 and examine issues of style

and chronology on the south coast and in central Andean highlands. In addition to

describing the EIP and MH ceramic styles that are pertinent for this research, I discuss

problems with correlating style and time within, and between, regions."

" A detailed introduction to Cocahuischo and the results of data collection are

presented in Chapters 5-7. Chapter 5 discusses surface analysis and excavation

methodologies and results, based on fieldwork carried out in 2010 and 2012. These

include architectural analysis, surface analysis of ground stone tools and looters pits, test

excavations throughout domestic spaces, horizontal excavations of houses, and tomb

excavations. Following data presentation, I examine status and the social organization of

space at Cocahuischo based on architecture, mortuary practices, and the spatial layout of

the site. I also discuss the temporal occupation of Cocahuischo and site abandonment.

Ceramic analysis is presented in Chapter 6 and includes formal, stylistic, and

!8

technological analyses. After presenting the basic data, I discuss form, function, and

style in the Cocahuischo assemblage, diversity within and between houses, and the

nature of ceramic production and consumption. Chapter 7 focuses on non-ceramic

artifact analysis: lithics, faunal remains, botanical remains, textiles, minerals, and human

skeletal remains. In this chapter, I consider food, drink, and craft production at

Cocahuischo and synthesize the data on artifact assemblages and status. Chapter 8

summarizes the findings and interpretations of this dissertation and considers their

implications for our understanding of Late Nasca society. I conclude by exploring the

nature of communities in transition and how traditions are transformed during times of

sociopolitical balkanization and reformation."

�9

!!!!!!CHAPTER 2. PLACING COCAHUISCHO IN SPACE AND TIME: A CULTURE

HISTORY OF THE SOUTH COAST"!!!! In this chapter I describe the environmental context of the Nasca region and the

history of south coast research, and outline major prehispanic cultural developments.

My aim is to situate Cocahuischo and Late Nasca society within an indigenous tradition

stretching back almost a millennium. The culture history that I present is the traditional

reconstruction used among Nasca scholars, which grew out of the research programs

that I discuss. "

!!!2.1" Paleoenvironmental Context"!

" The south coast of Peru is a dry, pre-montane desert formation (ONERN 1971).

Following other Nasca scholars (Van Gijseghem 2004; Vaughn 2000), I define the south

coast as the area extending from the Cañete Valley in the north to the Acarí Valley in the

south (see FIG. 1.1). While this region transcends modern political boundaries

(particularly the departments of Ica, Lima, and Arequipa), it is a geophysically cohesive

area. As I will illustrate, there is also general cultural-historical continuity among the

valleys in this region. The seasonal rivers of the south coast - particularly those in the

Nasca drainage - are some of the narrowest and driest along the Andean coast (ONERN

1971). As one moves north to south the water flow decreases dramatically. The people

living in these valleys today adapt to the yearly variation in the amount of surface water,

just as the residents would have done in the past. They have also devised a number of

strategies to maximize water availability and crop growth. In spite of the perceived

�10

aridity of the region, Rowe argued that in Ica, “one good soaking of the land a year was

enough to ensure a crop of maize and squash” (1973: 59-60)."

" Until around the third millennium B.C., the northern Atacama desert was a

grassland (Eitel and Mächtle 2009). The late Holocene, however, has been marked by

fluctuating periods of humidification and aridification. Edwards (2010: 59) has

suggested that based on an analysis of the Quelccaya ice-cap core in the southern Andes

(see Thompson et al. 1985), present day environmental conditions roughly mirror those

of the Middle Horizon (MH; ca. A.D. 750-1000; TABLE 2.1). The same cannot be said for

all the periods considered in this chapter. Current paleoclimatological data from Palpa

indicate that there was a period of increasing aridity from the fifth to seventh centuries

A.D., while the prior eras and subsequent Late Intermediate Period (LIP; ca. A.D.

1000-1532) experienced a more humid climate. Based on geoarchaeological data, Eitel

and colleagues (2005) argue that by the fifth century A.D., the south coast witnessed an

aridification as the Atacama desert extended eastward. The increasing aridity of the

Table 2.1. Traditional chronology used by Nasca scholars (following DeLeonardis 2000; Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003; Van Gijseghem and Vaughn 2008; Vaughn 2009).

Horizons and Intermediate Periods Culture Phase DatesLate Horizon Inka A.D. 1476-1532

Late Intermediate Period Tiza 

A.D. 1000-1476

Middle Horizon Wari/Loro Nasca 8-9 A.D. 750-1000

Early Intermediate PeriodLate Nasca Nasca 6-7 A.D. 550-750Middle Nasca Nasca 5 A.D. 450-550Early Nasca Nasca 2-4 A.D. 1-450

Early Horizon/Formative Period

Proto-Nasca Ocucaje 10/Nasca 1 100 B.C. - A.D. 1

Late Paracas Ocucaje 8-9 300-100 B.C.Early Paracas Ocucaje 3-7 800-300 B.C.

Initial Period     1800-800 B.C.

�11

Nasca region began before 800 B.C. during the Initial Period and extended through the

MH (Eitel et al. 2005: 154; see also Bird et al. 2011). Beresford-Jones and colleagues

document a similar degradation of the landscape in the Ica Valley by the end of the MH

(2009b: 247). In Ica, the increasing aridification was exacerbated by human induced

deforestation (Beresford-Jones et al. 2009a, 2009b). The subsequent LIP was a more

humid phase. After around A.D. 1100, there were heavier rains and more fluvial activity

(Bird et al. 2011: 8587; Eitel et al. 2005: 154, Eitel and Mächtle 2009). The desert conditions

that characterize the south coast today developed between the seventeenth and

nineteenth centuries A.D., during what is known as the Little Ice Age (Eitel and Mächtle

2009)."

" "!!2.2" History of Research"!

2.2.1" Discovery and Early Exploration of the Nasca Drainage"!" Around the turn of the nineteenth century, what would later be characterized as

‘Nasca’ style pottery started appearing in museum collections throughout Europe

(Proulx 1968: 101). These materials likely came from looted burial contexts, but a number

of researchers recognized the antiquity of the pottery and correctly assumed that its age

significantly pre-dated the Inca. By all accounts, the initial discovery and definition of

the Nasca culture can be attributed to the German archaeologist Max Uhle. Uhle’s work

on the south coast began in 1901, when he conducted the first formal exploration of

Nasca with excavations in the cemetery at the hacienda of Ocucaje in the Ica Valley

(Proulx 1970: 7; Rowe 1954: 7). There, he found pottery which greatly resembled vessels

he had seen in museum collections in Berlin. These initial forays encouraged Uhle to

carry out extensive fieldwork in the Nasca drainage. The collections produced through

this expedition were sent back to the University of California in Berkeley (whose patron,

Phoebe Apperson Hearst, had sponsored the project), where they remain today. While

Nasca style pottery had appeared sporadically in museum collections prior to Uhle’s

�12

work, his excavations in many ways represent the official ‘discovery’ of the style (Rowe

1954: 7)."

" Uhle continued his work on the south coast in subsequent years, with the

primary motivation of acquiring pottery to contribute to the growing collection at

Berkeley. The 1905 expedition focused on the Río Grande de Nasca drainage, and

instead of excavations, Uhle purchased a large collection of pottery from former

assistants who were looters or huaqueros (Rowe 1960: 31). The product of Uhle’s

expeditions in Nasca is one of the largest collections of Nasca pottery in the US,

although the provenience information for most of the vessels is all but lost. Nonetheless,

Uhle’s work sparked international interest in the Nasca culture area by designating its

polychrome pottery as among the most “beautiful and valuable” in Peru (1914: 1)."

" In the years following Uhle’s expeditions, collections of Nasca pottery grew,

along with international interest (see Silverman and Proulx 2002: 3-4 for a thorough

summation). Among those inspired by the products of Uhle’s work was Peruvian

archaeologist Julio Tello. Starting in 1906, Tello began visiting the Nasca region, and his

fascination with Nasca culture resulted in over 20 years of field research. Among his

expeditions were excavations at cemeteries in the Río Grande de Nasca drainage in 1915

(Tello 1917: 283), and extensive excavations between 1926 and 1928 of additional

cemeteries in the region (Tello and Mejía Xesspe 1967)."

" The most extensive and important excavations that Tello conducted, at least in

terms of the current study, were carried out in the Las Trancas Valley and at Pacheco (in

the center of the Nasca Valley) in the late 1920’s. Pacheco is a Wari center that has been

all but destroyed by modern agricultural activities (Schreiber 1999), and a recent visit to

the site by the author confirms that all that remains are scattered surface ceramics

(although it is possible there is still subterranean architecture). As a result, Tello’s notes

are currently the best data we have available regarding Pacheco. At the site, Tello

discovered a cache of especially fine ‘Tiahuanacoid’ style ceramics, which were later

realized to derive from the highland Wari empire (Daggett 2009: 27-28). Tello’s work in

Las Trancas was also significant, producing an impressive array of artifacts, extracted

�13

from 468 tombs and 613 mummy bundles. Among these were 107 trophy heads

associated with the tombs, along with 4,095 artifacts (Tello and Mejía Xesspe 1967: 149)."

" As director of the Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Tello also played an

instrumental role in facilitating the research of another key scholar in Nasca

archaeology: Alfred Kroeber (Kroeber and Collier 1998: 29). Kroeber conducted

extensive fieldwork at a staggering number of locales in Peru throughout his career (see

Kroeber 1944: 24 for a summary), but his work in Nasca began in 1925 when he

conducted fieldwork near Lima on the north coast and in the Cañete Valley (Kroeber

1926, 1930, 1937; Kroeber and Collier 1998: 29). This initial foray into Chincha, Pisco, Ica,

and Nasca, along with museum studies of the Uhle pottery collection at Berkeley,

sparked an intensive study of the Nasca culture beginning with fieldwork in 1926

(Kroeber and Collier 1998: 29). The goal of the 1926 field season was twofold: to continue

exploration of the Nasca culture and to locate in situ Nasca textiles which were rare in

collections at that time, but had proven just as spectacular as Nasca polychrome pottery

(Kroeber and Collier 1998: 29). To this end, Kroeber’s team conducted systematic

excavations of cemeteries in the four southern valleys of the Nasca region (known today

by Nasca scholars at the Southern Nasca Region, or SNR), although most sites were in

the vicinity of the modern town of Nasca (Kroeber and Collier 1998: 39-83)."

" Up until the 1950’s, research in Nasca centered around the recovery of Nasca

polychrome pottery, and to a lesser extent, textiles. Excavations focused on mortuary

contexts, which were known to contain elaborate grave goods, rather than habitations.

Museum work was also oriented around Nasca pottery, primarily trying to establish a

temporal sequence for the Nasca region (as I discuss in the following section). All of this

makes the origins of Nasca archaeology heavily rooted in mortuary contexts. Indeed,

Nasca culture, until the work of William Duncan Strong in the 1950’s, was essentially a

“cemetery culture” (Carmichael 1995: 161)."

" After the 1926 Kroeber expedition, there was a lengthy hiatus in fieldwork in

Nasca (see Silverman 1993: 19), which was ended by the Columbia University

expedition, directed by William Duncan Strong. During two field seasons in 1952 and

1953, Strong’s team explored the relationship between Paracas Cavernas, Nasca, and

�14

‘Tiahuanacoid’ cultures through survey and excavation in the Nasca drainage (Strong

1954, 1957). The goal was to identify deeply stratified sites that could be used to attain a

clearer picture of Nasca prehistory, and to that end, Strong’s team carried out detailed

survey of the Ica, Grande, Ingenio, Nasca (both Aja and Tierras Blancas), Taruga, Las

Trancas (or ‘Tunga’ in Strong’s report), Lomas, and Chala Valleys. Throughout the Ica-

Grande region, Strong identified a total of 36 sites that had a Nasca component. Again,

the focus was on sites with cemeteries so that chronological relationships (based on

ceramics) could be determined."

" In the course of this research, Strong undertook excavations in Ocucaje and

Nasca proper (including extensive excavations at the Early Nasca ceremonial site of

Cahuachi, which revealed both habitation refuse and the abundant remains of ritual and

feasting activity [Strong 1957: 31]), and most importantly for the present study, at Late

Nasca cemeteries as well as the MH site of Huaca del Loro in the Las Trancas Valley. But

despite the fact that Late Nasca, according to Strong, “… is an important and fascinating

period with a greater range in space than Early Nasca” (1957: 32), his expedition only

investigated Late Nasca contexts at Cahuachi (burials), La Estaquería (a stratigraphic

section), and surface collections from Cahuachi and other sites in the region (Strong

1957: 32). It should be noted that following Strong’s ceramic sequence (and like that of

Gayton and Kroeber), some pottery that would now be considered Middle Nasca was

grouped into Late Nasca."

" Strong’s work at the MH site of Huaca del Loro proved more fruitful. He focused

his efforts on the small round ‘temple’ located at the heart of the site, where excavations

recovered large quantities of offerings including mummified macaws, llama and guinea

pig remains, as well as fossilized whale bones (Strong 1957: 36). Most importantly,

Strong correctly identified the stylistic connection between the newly defined Loro

pottery style and styles found in Ayacucho (particularly at the site of Huari). Like

Pacheco, much of Huaca del Loro has since been destroyed by modern agricultural

practices, yet Strong’s work at the site (as well as at Cahuachi) represents the roots of a

strong research program in Nasca, which continues today."

!

�15

2.2.2" The Development of the Nasca Chronology"!" One of the products of Kroeber’s research in the 1920’s was an initial sequence of

the Nasca pottery. An earlier sequence had been produced by Kroeber’s student, Anna

Gayton, but Kroeber was dissatisfied with it (Gayton and Kroeber 1927). The sequence

was based upon pottery that lacked either grave or other provenience (since most Nasca

pottery at that time came from looted contexts). A desire to establish a sequence based

on carefully controlled contexts was one of Kroeber’s primary motivations for the 1926

field season (Gayton and Kroeber 1927: 4; Kroeber 1956: 330). In contrast to the Dawson

seriation (see below), which is a similiary seriation, the Kroeber sequence was based on a

quantitative analysis of shape, color, and quantitative distribution. While design or motif

was taken into consideration, it was considered subordinate to other characteristics

(Kroeber and Collier 1998: 20). The Kroeber sequence, however, was not widely adapted

by south coast scholars and fell out of use with the development of the Dawson seriation

– in spite of the fact that Dawson never actually published his sequence (Kroeber and

Collier 1998: 20)."

" Just after Strong conducted the Columbia University expedition, John Rowe and

his students from Berkeley began what would become decades of research on the south

coast (as well as throughout Peru). The Fourth University of California Archaeological

Expedition carried out fieldwork throughout Peru in 1954 and 1955, and each scholar on

the team had an independent research objective (Rowe 1956). While Rowe was

investigating the chronological sequence of Cuzco, his former PhD student Dorothy

Menzel was examining the late period style of Acarí and Chala with Francis Riddell, and

Lawrence Dawson was attempting the formidable task of producing a detailed

chronological sequence of Nasca pottery. Dawson had begun this effort in 1952 and 1953

while still in Berkeley, examining the pottery recovered from Uhle and Kroeber’s

projects (Rowe 1956: 135). The 9 phase similiary seriation that Dawson developed under

Rowe’s supervision (see TABLE 2.1), while similar in many ways to the Kroeber

sequence (despite the different methodologies employed to generate them), remains

unpublished to this day. Yet it is the sequence employed by most Andeanists."

�16

" Although Dawson never published his work himself, much work has been done

on Nasca ceramics since the 1950’s and some fragments of the seriation have been

published. Dorothy Menzel (1971, 1977) conducted a sub-seriation of the Nasca 7 phase

based on her excavations at the Late Nasca PV62-70 site, yet her work remains largely

unpublished. Donald Proulx’s work on Nasca pottery culminated in his 2006 Sourcebook

of Nasca Ceramic Iconography (see also Proulx 1968, 1983, 1989, 1994). In the book, Proulx

discusses the 9 phases of the Dawson seriation at length, and provides phase numbers

for vessels shown in figures – something also done by Patrick Carmichael in his 1998

publication of the Kroeber and Collier volume (each vessel is thus comparatively

assigned to both the Kroeber phase and the Dawson seriation phase). The Dawson

seriation is thus somewhat accessible to students of Nasca archaeology. A thorough

discussion of the seriation itself will be presented in Chapter 4."

!!!2.2.3" Site Surveys and Settlement Patterns"!

" The research programs initiated in the 1950’s by Columbia University and the

University of California played a key role in defining Nasca society temporally and

spatially. The ceramic seriations developed by Kroeber and Dawson allowed sites to

easily be given temporal and cultural affiliation based on surface ceramics – which

became instrumental in the wave of surveying that began with the University of

California project in 1954 and reached its height in the 1980’s. These research programs

were aimed at evaluating the nature of sociopolitical organization in Nasca society and

in particular, testing the hypothesis that Nasca was a state level society. All of the major

valleys on the south coast were surveyed during the 1980’s and 1990’s by a large group

of Nasca scholars. "

" Dwight Wallace (1971, 1984) conducted early surveys of Chincha and Pisco,

seeking to establish a chronology for the northern region of the south coast. Peters (1997)

also conducted a later settlement survey of Pisco and Canziani (1992) undertook survey

in Chincha. Anita Cook (1999), Lisa DeLeonardis (1991), Sarah Massey (1986, 1991), and

Williams and Pazos (1977) all conducted settlement surveys of Ica, seeking to

�17

understand Paracas and Early Nasca sociopolitical organization. Patrick Carmichael

(1991) carried out an extensive survey of the coastline from the Paracas Peninsula to the

mouth of the Río Grande. David Browne (alone [1992] and with colleague Jose Baraybar

[1988]) undertook survey of the Palpa region, recording sites of all time periods. In

ongoing research that I discuss further in the following section, Markus Reindel and

Johny Isla Cuadrado conducted settlement surveys of the Palpa and Grande drainages

(1998). Helaine Silverman (1992, 1994, 2002) carried out full coverage survey in Ingenio,

seeking to reconstruct Nasca society (in particular, Early Nasca society). Donald Proulx

(1998) undertook fully coverage survey of the lower Río Grande and Nasca Valleys.

Extensive regional settlement surveys were conducted by Katharina Schreiber in Tierras

Blancas, Aja, Taruga, and Las Trancas (Schreiber 1989, 1999; Schreiber and Lancho Rojas

1995, 2003). These sites included both habitations and cemeteries from all the time

periods. Finally, Francis Riddell and colleagues have conducted long term archaeological

research that included both settlement survey and excavations in the far southern Acarí

Valley, recording numerous sites of all time periods (Riddell 1989; Riddell and Valdez

Cárdenas 1988)."

" These studies have provided an important foundation for south coast research.

Documenting and understanding settlement patterns is an important stage in the

archaeological study of a region and this work has developed our understanding of

Nasca society. While a regional perspective is important, detailed data from individual

sites are necessary to test more nuanced hypotheses. As I discuss in the following

section, excavations have been carried out at a number of sites on the south coast to

further investigate Nasca society and sociopolitical organization during multiple periods

in prehistory. Yet as I will illustrate in the remainder of the chapter, there has been a bias

in the focus of Nasca scholarship. Much research has centered on understanding Early

Nasca society."

!!!!!!

�18

2.2.4" Excavations and Current Research Programs"!" Since the 1990’s, there have been a myriad of research programs investigating

Nasca society. These include in-depth, multi-year programs centered at individual

archaeological sites or regions; bioarchaeological, ceramic, and art historical studies of

museum collections; and numerous dissertations that have used household archaeology

to understand daily life and society on the south coast. While museum based studies

often employ a diachronic approach, excavations have generally focused on

investigating a single time period. The primary exception is the large scale Palpa

research project that Markus Reindel and Johny Isla Cuadrado have been directing for

the better part of a decade. Otherwise, these investigations and our knowledge are

centered on a few key phases."

" After the initial excavations conducted by Kroeber and Strong at Cahuachi, the

first efforts at renewing excavations on the south coast during the later half of the

twentieth century again focused on Cahuachi. In the late 1980’s, Helaine Silverman

began a research program at the site, to test the hypothesis that Cahuachi was the capital

of a small state. Her work demonstrated that the site was a ceremonial center based on

excavations and ethnohistoric analogy (1986, 1988, 1993). In Silverman’s model, people

from around the south coast made pilgrimages to the relatively empty site of Cahuachi,

where different ayllus were represented by the various temple mounds at the site

(Silverman 1993: 310). While her work confirmed that Cahuachi was an Early Nasca

phenomenon, Silverman also uncovered a later use of the site as a ritual space (1987,

1993). Silverman’s work at Cahuachi was followed by an extensive long-term research

program directed by Giuseppe Orefici. An architect by training, Orefici’s research has

focused on evaluating and reconstructing architecture at Cahuachi and assessing the

sequence of construction. During the nearly two decade project, large sections of

Cahuachi have been excavated and reconstructed, although much of the data was not

published until recently (Orefici 2012; see also Orefici 1993). While Orefici has not

published extensively, his project at Cahuachi has resulted in a few projects conducted

by Peruvian archaeologists (e.g. Rios Valladares 2007)."

�19

" Following this renewed interest in Cahuachi, a number of scholars began

undertaking excavation programs at settlements throughout the Nasca drainage to

better understand Nasca society as a whole. A research group emerged at the University

of California, Santa Barbara under the direction of Katharina Schreiber. While Schreiber

conducted limited excavations at a Middle and Late Nasca settlement in the Taruga

Valley (1998), her students began excavating sites from various time periods throughout

the drainage. Kevin Vaughn (2000) undertook excavations at Early Nasca Marcaya in the

Tierras Blancas Valley as part of his dissertation. Vaughn later carried out research at

multiple Early Nasca sites throughout the southern valleys of the Grande drainage, to

investigate craft consumption and the nature of sociopolitical organization (Vaughn and

Linares Grados 2006; Vaughn and Van Gijseghem 2008; Vaughn et al. 2006). Eventually,

his work led to a larger (and on-going) project on Early Nasca society that examines the

relationship between Nasca people and Cahuachi by investigating the intersection of

pilgrimage, craft production, quotidian practices, and mining (Kantner and Vaughn

2012; Vaughn 2004, 2005a, 2006, 2009, 2010; Vaughn and Neff 2000, 2004; Vaughn and

Van Gijseghem 2007; Vaughn et al. 2007, 2011, 2013a, 2013b, 2014)."

" Another student of Schreiber’s, Hendrik Van Gijseghem, undertook excavations

at the Paracas/Proto Nasca site of La Puntilla at the intersection of the Aja and Tierras

Blancas valleys as part of his dissertation. Van Gijseghem’s research investigated the role

of migration and frontier processes in Nasca ethnogenesis (2004, 2006, 2013). His later

collaborations with Vaughn have focused on investigating the role of mining in Nasca

society through survey and excavations in upper Ica and Ingenio (Van Gijseghem et al.

2011, 2013). "

" Christina Conlee began a research program in Nasca focused on sociopolitical

reformation at the LIP site of Pajonal Alto in the Taruga Vally (Conlee 2000, 2003, 2005),

but later broadened her temporal focus to Formative through LIP through her work at

the multi-component site of La Tiza in the Aja Valley (Conlee 2007, in press). Conlee’s

research has also included collaborations with bioarchaeologist Michele Buzon to

investigate health and migration in Nasca prehistory (Buzon et al. 2012; Conlee et al.

2009). The first of Schreiber’s students to investigate the MH in Nasca, Matthew

�20

Edwards, undertook excavations at the Wari way station of Pataraya in Tierras Blancas

as part of his dissertation (Edwards 2010; Edwards et al. 2008). Overall, a collaborative

research program has emerged out of these studies that has allowed for comparisons

between time periods. For instance, Vaughn, Conlee, and Schreiber have conducted

diachronic comparative studies on the chemical composition of fineware pottery

(Vaughn et al. 2005, 2006) and the origins of obsidian tools (Eerkens et al. 2008, 2009,

2010)."

" In the northern Palpa region, a German team led by Markus Reindel and Johny

Isla Cuadrado has been conducting interdisciplinary research rooted in survey and

excavations for over a decade. The Palpa research program has conducted full coverage

survey of the entire Palpa region - recording around 800 sites by 2009 - and has extended

the survey to include the Palpa highlands (Isla Cuadrado and Reindel 2005; Reindel

2009; Reindel and Isla Cuadrado 2013; Reindel and Wagner 2009; Reindel et al. 1999).

Large-scale excavations have been conducted at dozens of sites spanning multiple time

periods. The Palpa research project is by far the largest research program that has been

undertaken in Nasca studies and has included countless collaborations with specialists

in the geosciences and bioarchaeology (e.g. Eitel and Mächtle 2009; Eitel et al. 2005;

Fassbinder and Gorka 2009; Fehren-Schmitz et al. 2009; Görsdorf and Reindel 2002;

Hecht 2009, 2010; Horn et al. 2009; Mächtle and Eitel 2012; Mächtle et al. 2009; Reindel et

al. 2003; Renneberg et al. 2009; Schlosser et al. 2009; Stark et al. 2009; Stöllner 2009;

Tomasto Cagigao 2009; Unkel et al. 2007, 2012). As the results of Reindel and Isla

Cuadrado’s research are too extensive to summarize here, I include the major findings in

the culture history below and discuss their work further in Chapter 4."

" A handful of other short-term excavation programs have been undertaken at

sites throughout the south coast. Silverman conducted brief excavations at the Paracas

and Carmen site of Alto de Molino in the Pisco Valley, to explore intra-regional

relationship between different groups on the south coast (Silverman 1997). Anita Cook

conducted excavations at the Late Nasca and MH settlement of Casa Vieja in the Ica

Valley (Chiou et al. 2013; Cook and Parrish 2005). Lisa DeLeonardis has excavated at the

Paracas site of Callango in the lower Ica Valley (1997). At the Paracas and Early Nasca

�21

site of Animas Altas in the lower Ica Valley, Aïcha Bachir Bacha has been conducting

excavations for a few years (Bachir Bacha and Llanos Jacinto 2012). Dwight Wallace

(1962) excavated at the Paracas site of Cerrillos in the upper Ica Valley and has been

overseeing research related to the site for a number of years (e.g. Bustamante et al. 2007;

Splitstoser 2011). Browne and colleagues (1993) excavated an extensive Nasca trophy

head cache in the Palpa region as part of a salvage archaeology operation. Finally, while

ongoing, Brendan Weaver is currently conducting excavations as part of his dissertation

research at historical sites near Palpa and the Ingenio Valley - representing the first foray

into colonial archaeology in the Nasca region (personal communication, 2012)."

" Other projects have focused on investigating the Nasca Lines or geoglyphs.

Scholars found renewed interest in the geoglyphs during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s,

in part as a response to popular and nonscientific ideas about the geoglyphs. Early

research by Aveni (1990) and Reinhard (1988) was augmented by the extensive research

carried out by Karsten Lambers as part of the Palpa research project (see also Isla

Cuadrado and Reindel 2005; Reindel et al. 2006). Lambers’ work (2004, 2006) has

employed a multi-disciplinary approach to studying the lines using GIS, aerial

photography, archaeological data, and ethnographic analogy. "

" In addition to Proulx’s extensive work on Nasca pottery that I discussed above,

research has also been conducted by Patrick Carmichael (1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1998,

2013), Blasco Bosqued and Ramos Goméz (1980), Patricia Knobloch (2005), and Richard

Roark (1965). These studies have been primarily based on museum collections, and with

the exception of Knobloch and Roark, have focused on Early and Middle Nasca pottery.

Other museum based work has included bioarchaeological studies of Nasca society.

Corina Kellner has conducted extensive research on health and diet, migration, conflict,

and the impacts of imperialism in Nasca society (Kellner 2002; Kellner and Schoeninger

2008, 2012). Williams and colleagues (2001) carried out an osteological analysis of trophy

heads and a study of associated artifacts from the Kroeber collection at the Field

Museum. Knudson and colleagues (2009) also conducted an later analysis of Nasca

trophy heads from the Kroeber collection using bioarchaeological and isotopic analyses.

Other museum based research is rooted in art history."

�22

" There are presently multiple art historians conducting dissertations on the south

coast. Meghan Tierney, a student at Emory University, is investigating whether and how

shamanism informed the Nasca aesthetic system during Early Nasca (ca. A.D. 1-450). Her

work examines the visual aspects of sculptural polychrome ceramics in an attempt to

understand how Nasca ceramists, who may also have been shamans, portrayed the

visionary experiences (Tierney 2013). Deborah Spivak, a student at the University of

California, Santa Barbara, is investigating the development of a independent Loro

network during the MH, which she argues was centered in the southern Trancas and

Taruga valleys of the SNR (Spivak 2013). Spivak’s research unifies archaeological data

with stylistic analysis of the Loro pottery style and bridges the gap between art historical

studies of museum collections and archaeological research. Both Spivak’s and Tierney’s

research demonstrate that there is a bright future of collaboration and dialogue between

art historians and archaeologists in the study of Nasca society."

!!!2.2.5" Summary"!

" The present state of Nasca scholarship includes an immense wealth of

information on what life was like for Nasca people. Yet much that remains unknown.

Survey is still being conducted in previously unexamined regions of the south coast and

highlands, where we now know Nasca people were settling. Large-scale excavations at

Middle and Late Nasca settlements beyond the Palpa region and at MH settlements

throughout the south coast are lacking. There has been a heavy historical bias in Nasca

research toward cemeteries and ceremonial centers – or museum artifacts from such

contexts – and toward Early Nasca. The focus of contemporary research, however, is

unifying survey with excavations and other methods of data collection at multiple scales

of analysis. Such a multi-disciplinary approach bodes well for the future of Nasca

research and suggests that although we have much to learn, our understanding of Nasca

society is growing exponentially. I now turn to the traditional cultural historical

reconstruction used by Nasca scholars, to further situate the present study."

�23

2.3" First Settlers and the Origins of Social Complexity"!2.3.1" Archaic Period"!

! The earliest evidence for occupation of the south coast dates to the Archaic

Period (ca. 9000-1800 B.C.; TABLE 2.1). By this time, South America had been colonized

for a few thousand years by small groups of foragers. The Archaic Period is poorly

understood on the south coast, even though there was a clear Archaic occupation. Data

from sites such as La Esmeralda (Isla Cuadrado 1990) and Upanca (Vaughn and Linares

Grados 2006) point to an Archaic component. There is evidence of Early Archaic Paiján

spearpoints outside of the Ica Valley (Bonavia and Chauchat 1990), and Engel (1976: 88)

reported on villages in Paracas and the mouth of the Ica river. Many of these occupations

appear limited to temporary encampments - a pattern that contrasts with the

monumental construction found elsewhere in the Andes (e.g. Shady Solis et al. 2001).

There is, however, evidence from the ceremonial site of Cahuachi for an occupation

dating between 4405 and 4239 B.C. that was associated with permanent facilities -

suggesting that the south coast Archaic occupation didn’t consist entirely of nomadic

foraging groups (Isla Cuadrado 1990; Orefici 2011: 136). Obsidian recovered from at least

two of the Archaic sites also indicates that people on the south coast were engaged in

long distance relationships at an early date (see Isla Cuadrado 1990: 75; Strong 1957: 10)."

!!!2.3.2" Initial Period"!

" The Initial Period (ca. 1800-800 B.C.; TABLE 2.1) marks the first instances of

incipient social complexity on the south coast. The settlement pattern during the Initial

Period is characterized by somewhat isolated and socio-economically independent

settlements witnessing an increase in trade and interaction. This contrasts with the

north and central coast, where there is increased interaction through trade, a shared

architectural tradition manifested in U-shaped ceremonial sites, and well-established

irrigation farming (Burger and Salazar-Burger 1991). The cultural traditions associated

with south coast settlements have a much more local focus, and illustrate a general lack

�24

of regional integration (Silverman 1996). However, some of these traditions were

enduring, and it is clear based on sites such as Pernil Alto in the Palpa Valley that the

later Paracas culture had deep roots in the region (Reindel 2009)."

" Trade networks that became important in later Paracas times had already been

established during the Initial Period. For example, the ceramic complex of Disco Verde

shared similarities with the nearby (and more recent) site of Puerto Nuevo, located on

the eastern shore of the Paracas Bay (Engel 1966; García Soto and Pinilla 1995).

According to Silverman (1996), the styles of both these sites are reminiscent of a north

coast Cupisnique variety (Larco Hoyle 1945). Additionally, Erizo in the Callango Basin

of the Ica Valley contained obsidian from the Quispisisa source in the south central

highlands (Burger and Asaro 1993). Silverman has argued that the sites in the Paracas

region during this time were located in ideal points of contact with the greater Andean

world (1996). The sites on the Paracas Bay (e.g. Disco Verde and Puerto Nuevo) may

have had a privileged position because the Paracas Peninsula breaks up what would

otherwise be a continuous route down the Peruvian coast. The fact that trade of exotic

resources (e.g. obsidian) had already been established during the Initial Period is a key

factor in the later development of Paracas."

!!!2.3.3" Early Horizon/Formative Period"!

! The Formative Period (ca. 800-100 B.C.; TABLE 2.1) witnessed the emergence of

social complexity on the south coast. This time period is also referred to by many as the

‘Early Horizon,’ following Rowe’s chronological system (1962; see also Conlee 2003;

Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003; Vaughn 2009). On the south coast, the Formative 1

Period is characterized by the emergence and development of Paracas society. Scholars

have divided Paracas into two main phases - Early and Late - based on sociopolitical and

cultural changes. The start of the Early Paracas phase (800 – 300 B.C.) is marked by the

Although see Reindel and Wagner (2009: fig. 1.2) for an alternate use of terminology. They 1

define the ‘Formative Period’ as encompassing both the Early Horizon and Initial Period.

�25

appearance of the influence of the religious ideology associated with Chavín de Huántar.

The site of Chavín de Huántar was an elaborate ceremonial (and possibly pilgrimage)

center, out of which spread a powerful religious cult with a distinct iconography

represented in ceramics and textiles (Burger 1988, 1992; Rick 2005). While some Chavín

style temples were erected over local structures in the highlands (Burger 1992),

elsewhere in the Andes the influence of Chavín was visible in the adoption of Chavín

iconographic traits into local iconographic traditions (Lanning 1960; Rick et al. 1998)."

" Evidence for Early Paracas occupation on the south coast is limited, and consists

of three types of sites: those with ‘pure’ Chavín artifacts, those with Chavín ‘style’

artifacts, and those with local, non-Chavín artifacts. The foremost example of pure

Chavín artifacts in the Paracas region comes from the Karwa textile cache and pottery

found at Independence Bay, 50 km west of the Ica Valley (Cordy-Collins 1976; García

Soto and Pinilla 1995). The site contained a large rectangular tomb with over 200

fragments of decorated cloth and ceramics (Cordy-Collins 1977). These elaborately

painted textiles are not local interpretations of Chavín religious iconography, but rather

illustrate a strictly defined imagery very similar to that found on stone sculptures at

Chavín (Burger 1988; Wallace 1991). While Burger (1988) has argued that the site of

Karwa represents a sister ceremonial site to Chavín de Huantar, an alternative

explanation sees the Karwa cache as prestige goods expertly reproduced by Paracas

people (Massey 1986; Wallace 1991). "

" The site of Cerrillos in the upper Ica Valley is the prime example of a site with

Chavín style artifacts that exhibit elements of Chavín iconography (e.g. the feline mouth

with interlocked canines). Despite the stylistic similarity, they are not the close

replications found at Karwa (Wallace 1962). Beyond the Ica-Karwa corridor however,

there is currently little evidence for Chavín influence – although this may well be a

product of limited excavations. The exception comes from Mollake Chico in Palpa,

which housed a unique burial with Chavín style ceramics and prestige goods such as

gold and obsidian, illustrating contact between the coast and highlands (Isla Cuadrado

2009). In addition, there are settlements in Ica and elsewhere that illustrate a local

Paracas tradition that was well established prior to the developments of Late Paracas,

�26

and potentially had ties to the greater Andean community beyond Chavín (DeLeonardis

1997). The interaction with this greater Andean community continued to increase during

Early Paracas, visible in Quispisisa obsidian and other exotic goods (e.g. lapis lazuli,

spondylus) that are found in at the south coast during this time (Isla Cuadrado 2009;

Massey 1986)."

" The Late Paracas phase (300 B.C. – A.D. 1) is punctuated by a series of rapid cultural

developments on the south coast. By the close of Early Paracas, the Chavín cult had

declined and its influence on the south coast had dissipated. There was marked

population growth, and instead of the previously scattered settlements, populations

began aggregating into increasingly larger settlements in each of the river valleys

(DeLeonardis 1997; Massey 1991; Reindel 2009). These centers likely represented

regional polities all engaged in a common cultural tradition. This tradition included

burying the dead with elaborate textiles in the extensive ceremonial precincts of the

Paracas Peninsula (Tello and Mejía Xesspe 1979). In terms of ceramic styles, Late Paracas

is marked by the appearance of the Oculate Being in Ica Valley iconography (Menzel et

al. 1964). The Oculate Being was rare outside of Ica, although it was found on ceramics at

Chongos in the Pisco Valley (Lapiner 1976). The Late Paracas ceramic style was not

uniform however, and while many design elements and forms were similar, there was a

good deal of regional variation (Menzel et al. 1964; Sawyer 1966; Wallace 1985)."

" In the Ica Valley, a series of regional centers rose to power throughout the course

of Late Paracas. Sites such as Teojate, Cerro Yunque, Tajahuana, Animas Bajas and Media

Luna/Animas Altas, Cerro Max Uhle, and Cerro de la Cruz exhibited evidence for civic-

ceremonial architecture, residences, and fortifications (Cook 1999; DeLeonardis 1997;

Massey 1986, 1991; Strong 1957). The occupation of these sites fluctuated throughout

Ocucaje phases 8 and 9, suggesting a cycle of different groups holding (somewhat

tenuous) positions of privilege, and then being usurped by others. By Ocucaje phase 10

however, almost all of these sites were abandoned and populations dispersed.

Elsewhere in the Paracas region similar patterns are visible. In Palpa there was massive

colonization of over 100 settlements, with large aggregations of people at sites like

Jauranga, which had well-established exchange networks with the coast and highlands

�27

(Isla Cuadrado 2009: 137, Reindel 2009: 448). There were also sites such as Pinchango

Viejo, with defensive features similar to those found in Ica at Tajahuana (Reindel 2009:

449-450). Additionally, although bioarchaeological data suggest some regional variability

in cultural practices during Late Paracas, recent genetic data indicate that Paracas people

formed a relatively uniform population (Fehren-Schmitz et al. 2009: 170, Tomasto

Cagigao 2009: 156-157). "

" Contemporaneous with Paracas, Topará society developed in the northern

valleys of the south coast. Little is known about Topará settlement patterns and site

structure, although there may be some evidence for civic-ceremonial buildings in

Chincha at Huaca Alvarado and Huaca Soto (Lumbreras 1974a). Early Topará ceramics

are found only in the northern most valleys of Topará and Cañete, but the distribution of

Topará artifacts increased over time, and the style was eventually found in all but the

Palpa and Nasca Valleys (Wallace 1986). In particular, Topará style artifacts began to

replace Paracas ceramics and textiles in the northern Chincha and Pisco valleys, at sites

like Chococota (Canziani 1992) and Chongos (Wallace 1986). However, this did not occur

in the Paracas Peninsula and the upper Ica Valley, where the two styles co-existed –

suggesting intense contact between Paracas and Topará societies – perhaps with the

ritual regalia of Topará leaders being viewed as exotic prestige items by Paracas leaders

in Ica (Paul 1991; Peters 2000). Furthermore, Topará style ceramics were characterized by

a masterful technical control, that later appears to have influenced ceramic production in

Ica and other areas of the Paracas region (Massey 1986; Menzel et al. 1964; Silverman

1991). "

" Over the course of Late Paracas there was not only intense regional interaction,

but also the movement of Paracas people into new parts of the south coast. Groups

began migrating into the southern portion of the Nasca drainage beginning around

Ocucaje phase 8, as evidenced by the appearance of settlements such as La Puntilla (Van

Gijseghem 2006). Additionally, there was early occupation at the later Nasca ceremonial

center of Cahuachi (Strong 1957; Vaughn and Van Gijseghem 2007). However, given new

data on settlements in the Palpa Valley during the time, this interpretation may need to

be reexamined. There was a rich Paracas tradition established in Palpa that had

�28

antecedents in the Initial Period (Reindel 2009), suggesting that local populations always

had close ties with the broader Paracas community. Given the prevalence of Ocucaje

phase 8 and 9 occupations in Palpa, it is possible that the initial migration into the

southern valleys of the Nasca region came not from Ica, but from groups in Palpa

expanding their territory. The technology present in Nasca 1 pottery however, suggests

close contact between Paracas groups and Topará peoples (Peters 1997), indicating that

later migrations may have come from Ica, where contact with Topará was more intense."

!!!2.3.4" Proto Nasca"!

" At this point in south coast prehistory, it becomes useful to conceptualize the

south coast in terms of a series of geographical and cultural areas. A number of scholars

have separated the the four southern rivers of the Río Grande de Nasca drainage into a

culture area known as the Southern Nasca Region (Van Gijseghem and Vaughn 2008;

Vaughn 2004, 2009). Following Carmichael (2013), I consider the Ica Valley and its

tributaries (the Cocharcas and Tingue rivers) to be the Northern Nasca Region (NNR),

the Grande, Palpa, Viscas, and Ingenio Valleys to be the Central Nasca Region (CNR),

and the Aja, Tierras Blancas, Taruga, and Las Trancas Valleys to be the Southern Nasca

Region (SNR; see FIG. 1.1). Such a division recognizes the geographical distinctions

between these areas, but also illustrates the meaningful cultural differences between the

regions. As I will demonstrate here and in Chapter 4, the NNR, CNR, and SNR are

distinct in terms of both cultural history and pottery styles. Highlighting these

differences and exploring the relationships between the people living in each of these

regions is an important focus of current research."

" The Proto Nasca period (ca. 100 B.C. - A.D. 1; TABLE 2.1) marks an important time

of sociopolitical and cultural transition on the south coast. Since its discovery, it has long

been known that Nasca was directly related to the Paracas culture. Indeed, as Menzel

and colleagues suggested, “…the distinction between “Ocucaje” and a later “Nasca”

style at Ica is … arbitrary…. Both are parts of a single tradition in which there is a strong

�29

element of continuity between any two successive phases.” (Menzel et al. 1964: 251).

Today, scholars have confirmed this statement and determined that Nasca has direct

roots in Paracas/Ocucaje. Van Gijseghem’s (2004, 2006, 2013) research at La Puntilla

convincingly argues for a migration to the SNR of Paracas peoples with ensuing

factional competition between migrants eventually resulting in leaders emerging in the

SNR. The frontier context led to social change, with the development of Nasca 1 pottery

and its associated cultural movement. "

" Compositional work (Vaughn and Van Gijseghem 2007) has at least partially

demonstrated that the Cahuachi cult began in the Proto Nasca phase and in part was a

result of this factional competition. During this period, people lived in scattered and

defensible villages throughout the Nasca drainage, such as La Puntilla and Uchuchuma

(Bautista and Rojas Pelayo 2013; Van Gijseghem 2006). At least some community

members engaged in ceremonial activity within settlement plazas (Van Gijseghem 2006,

2013). Based on evidence from pottery, people also participated in ceremonial activities

at Cahuachi. Yet the chemical signature of some Nasca 1 vessels indicates that there were

other ceremonial sites in competition with Cahuachi during this time (Van Gijseghem

2013: 180). These different cultural affiliations appear manifested in the consumption of

Ocucaje 10 and Nasca 1 pottery, which are found contemporaneously within individual

settlements (Van Gijseghem 2006). While there may have been a migration of people into

the region, the cultural landscape wasn’t empty – sites in both the SNR and CNR

demonstrate a long and enduring occupation of the Nasca drainage (Reindel 2009,

Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003, Vaughn and Linares Grados 2006). Moreover, the Proto

Nasca presence in the CNR illustrates a robust occupation - more sites are found during

this time period than any other (Reindel 2009: 451)."

!!! !!!!!!

�30

2.4" The Early Intermediate Period and Emerging Polities"!2.4.1" Early Nasca"!

! Early Nasca (ca. A.D. 1-450; TABLE 2.1) is the culture and people that emerged out

of the Proto Nasca period on the south coast. Early Nasca society can be characterized as

a federation of communities united by a common ceremonial cult centered at Cahuachi.

Cahuachi had emerged as the dominant site out of the hypothesized competing Proto

Nasca ceremonial centers (FIG. 1.1; Van Gijseghem 2013). The majority of Early Nasca

people lived in small villages scattered through the middle valleys of the south coast

rivers. In the SNR, these sites resemble Marcaya, an Early Nasca village excavated by

Vaughn (2000, 2004, 2009; FIG. 1.1). Located in the middle Tierras Blancas Valley,

Marcaya is perched on the gently sloping base of the northern valley flank. The

settlement, like a similar Early Nasca village located up valley (see FIG. 5.4), is

composed of 70-90 curvilinear structures agglutinated into patio groups. Residents

engaged in an agropastoral economy based off of maize cultivation, the exploitation of

marine resources, and camelid herding (Vaughn 2005a). Economically, they were

independent, yet they participated in a regional sociopolitical system centered on

religious ideology and pilgrimage (Vaughn 2004, 2009). At the site of La Tiza, there is

evidence for a more complex Early Nasca settlement, with rectilinear architecture,

diverse compounds, and a substantial population (Conlee in press). The people living at

La Tiza supported themselves with irrigation agriculture, possibly supplied with water

acquired through the local puquios. While Schreiber and Lancho Rojas (2003) argue that

the puquios were used in Middle Nasca, Conlee’s data indicate that at least in some areas

they were used during Early Nasca."

" Elsewhere, people also lived in large independent villages (Isla Cuadrado and

Reindel 2005; Massey 1986). There are Early Nasca settlements throughout the CNR and

NNR, although some are much larger than Marcaya and the other SNR sites (Massey

1986: 186-188, table 4.6). Indeed, in the CNR there is even evidence for a possible civic-

residential site. Los Molinos is characterized by platform construction and rectilinear

compounds that contrast sharply with small residential sites like Marcaya (FIG. 1.1; Isla

�31

Cuadrado and Reindel 2005: 62; Reindel 2009: 452-453). Silverman suggests that Ventilla

(her site #165) in the Ingenio Valley was also a contemporaneous urban center (2002: 50).

Some (e.g. Cook 1995: 363), however, have questioned Silverman’s conclusions and

suggested that Ventilla is instead primarily a Late Intermediate Period site. Recent data

from the upper Ica Valley suggest that there was at least one other civic-ceremonial site

on the south coast during this time. At Cerro Tortolita, there is evidence for platform

mounds and plazas similar to those from Cahuachi, just at a smaller scale (Massey 1986:

fig. 4.14; Vaughn et al. 2014). Thus, it is possible the hierarchy of civic-ceremonial sites

and sociopolitical organization of the south coast is more complex during Early Nasca

times than was previously thought. The sites in the SNR, CNR, and NNR are unfortified,

which contrasts with both the prior Formative Period."

" The Early Nasca people living in these villages and sites through the south coast

were engaged in a ceremonial web of interaction centered at the pilgrimage site of

Cahuachi. Cahuachi is an immense site composed of dozens of platform mounds and

pyramids (FIGS. 1.1 & 2.1; see Orefici 2012; Silverman 1993). Early Nasca people made

pilgrimages to Cahuachi, where leaders sponsored elaborate feasting events tied to

Figure 2.1. Photograph of the main pyramid at Cahuachi (photo: V. Whalen).

�32

agricultural fertility (Kantner and Vaughn 2012; Orefici 2012; Silverman 1993; Vaughn

2004, 2009). Initially thought to be the capital of a small state (Rowe 1963), Cahuachi is

now understood to have been a ceremonial site that housed a residential population of

ritual leaders and caretakers (Bachir Bacha 2007; Kantner and Vaughn 2012; Silverman

1993; Vaughn 2009). The site was also a cemetery, where people from around the south

coast were buried (Webb et al. 2011). Evidence from ceramic iconography and artifact

assemblages from excavations at Cahuachi suggest that large feasting events were held

there. Vaughn (2004, 2009) has argued that the people living in villages like Marcaya

throughout the Nasca region made pilgrimages to Cahuachi to participate in ceremonial

events, including such feasts. Before their return home, they acquired fine polychrome

pottery produced at Cahuachi (FIG. 2.2; Vaughn and Neff 2000, 2004; although see

Silverman [2002: 155] for an alternate perspective). These vessels were important

materializations of the religious ideology associated with Cahuachi (Carmichael 1992,

1994), depicting elements of nature tied to agricultural fertility (e.g. beans, maize,

peppers, trophy or ‘disembodied’ heads) and shamans or deities (e.g. the Mythical

Figure 2.2. Photograph of Early Nasca bowl from Cahuachi. Item on display at the Museo Antonini in Nasca (photo: V. Whalen).

�33

Being). These vessels were subsequently reused by Nasca people in household

recreations of the feasting rituals enacted at Cahuachi (Vaughn 2004, 2009, 2010; Kantner

and Vaughn 2012)."

" Another important facet of Early Nasca ceremonial life was the elaborate

geoglyphs that people constructed on the pampa and hillsides of the SNR and CNR

(Aveni 2000; Isla Cuadrado and Reindel 2005; Lambers 2006; Orefici 2011). Firmly rooted

in Formative practices (Stanish et al. 2014), these geoglyphs represent complex forms and

creatures known to be important in Nasca religious ideology, as well as geometric

shapes. While the explanations of the use and purpose of the Nasca lines vary from

scientific hypotheses (e.g. Johnson et al. 2002; Reiche 1968) to wild speculation (e.g. the

work of Erich von Daniken), current scholarship sees most of them as ritual pathways

(see Reindel 2009; Vaughn 2009). The Nasca lines no doubt had a variety of uses and

meanings over time (Isla Cuadrado and Reindel 2005: 66; Lambers 2006), but the

evidence for ritual procession is strongest (see Lambers 2004: 112-113). There are ties

between the lines and elements of traditional Andean belief systems (such as mountain

deities or apus), and ritual activity enacted on the lines would have been intertwined

with veneration of the gods (Reinhard 1988)."

!!!3.4.2" Middle Nasca"!

! During Middle Nasca (ca. A.D. 450-550; TABLE 2.1), the south coast saw a rupture

in political integration reflected in a radical transformation in ceramic iconography (FIG.

2.3; Proulx 2006: 37-40; Roark 1965: 55-60) and settlement patterns (Schreiber and Lancho

Rojas 2003). Construction at Cahuachi halted (Orefici 2012; Silverman 1993: 318;

Silverman and Proulx 2002: 119-120) and leadership in the SNR became fragmented and

restricted to local communities. The prolonged drought during the sixth century A.D.,

possibly exacerbated by gradual deforestation, further strained resources in an already

marginal environment (Beresford-Jones et al. 2009a; Eitel et al. 2005). During this time

people constructed puquios or aqueducts in the dry lower valleys of the SNR where they

�34

had begun settling for the first time (Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003). The seat of

political power changed during Middle Nasca, moving from the ceremonial center at

Cahuachi to the northern Palpa valley, as evidenced by sites such as La Muña (Isla

Cuadrado and Reindel 2006; Reindel 2009). La Muña is a large settlement with adobe

buildings and evidence of civic activity (Reindel 2009: 454). During Middle Nasca,

people in the CNR began aggregating into a small number of larger and more complex

sites (Isla Cuadrado and Reindel 2005: 63). The funerary practices present at La Muña

indicate that in the CNR, Middle Nasca society was organized in social classes with a

ruling elite (Isla Cuadrado 2009: 138)."

" While there has been much research in the CNR, Middle Nasca society in the

SNR remains poorly understood. The CNR witnessed a period of peak settlement

density during Middle Nasca (Reindel 2009: 454). Settlement data from the SNR

indicates that a similar pattern was present (Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003: 146).

People began aggregating together into a smaller number of larger settlements - a

pattern that grew during the subsequent Late Nasca period. Yet there have been no large

scale excavations at Middle Nasca sites in the SNR, except for the Middle Nasca

Figure 2.3. Photograph of Middle Nasca cup bowl (image courtesy of Carol Sawyer).

�35

component of the Late Nasca Taruga site excavated by Schreiber (1998: 265) and the

Middle Nasca tombs and ritual complex at La Tiza excavated by Conlee (in press; see

FIG. 1.1). Recent data from the CNR also suggests that there is a movement of people

into the highlands of the Palpa region (Reindel and Isla Cuadrado 2013). Similar

occupation was documented by Edwards at an Early Nasca site in the headwaters of the

Aja Valley (2010: 387-388). The settlement of culturally ‘Nasca’ people at such elevations

is unexpected and challenges previous notions regarding the extent of Nasca society and

the relationship between different Nasca peoples. "

!!!2.4.3" Late Nasca"!

! By Late Nasca (ca. A.D. 550-750; TABLE 2.1), the leaders in Palpa appear to have

fallen out of favor, and in the wake of the sociopolitical decentralization there was an

increase in conflict (Kellner 2002: 82-83; Tomasto Cagigao 2009: 153), as people

aggregated into settlements of unprecedented size (Schreiber 1998: 263). Within the SNR,

it appears that small polities emerged in each valley (Schreiber 1998: 263, 1999: 168).

These polities were centered at sites such as Cocahuischo, Taruga, and Trancas (FIG. 1.1).

In the upper and middle portions of the Ica Valley in the NNR, Menzel and colleagues

documented 14 of these large settlements, often found on previously unoccupied flat or

steep broad alluvial fans (1971: 86). The placement of these sites is similar to the pattern

found in the CNR and SNR - most are located on broad, flat alluvial fans at the bases of

large quebradas or gullies (such as Parasmarca, Taruga, and PV62-70; see FIGS. 1.1 & 2.4),

while a small number are found on steep hillsides or alluvial fans that drop steeply to

the valley floor (such as Cocahuischo and Trancas; see FIGS. 1.1 & 2.5). The two known

sites that are most defensible are also located closest to the highlands (see FIG. 1.1).

Environmental conditions suggest Late Nasca people also endured the prolonged

drought that began during Middle Nasca times (Eitel et al. 2005). Botanical remains for

the PV62-70 site in Ica point to decreased reliance on flowing river water during the final

phases of Late Nasca (Menzel 1971), and data from the Samaca Basin of the lower Ica

�36

Valley suggest that the drought was exacerbated by human induced deforestation

(Beresford-Jones et al. 2009a)."

" Iconographic depictions of conflict (Proulx 2006: 42-44), trophy heads (Browne et

al. 1993; Kellner 2002: 93; Knudson et al. 2009), and the defensible location of some Late

Nasca sites (Schreiber 2005: 246) suggest that this was a time of competition between

leaders (possibly kin groups or powerful families) and regional factions. These

individuals were engaged in a sphere of interaction with other leaders and elites from

groups throughout the Andes. Prestige goods (such as Spondylus, obsidian, textiles, and

fineware ceramics) were exchanged, likely along with knowledge, loyalties, and

marriage partners. Evidence from ceramic iconography and technology suggests that

Nasca people had relationships with people of the Estrella tradition in the northern

Pisco and Chincha valleys on the south coast (Menzel 1971: 91, 128; Silverman 1997), the

highland Ayacucho Huarpa culture (Benavides Calle 1971; Knobloch 1983: 289-316;

Figure 2.4. Satellite image of the broad, flat alluvial fan where Taruga is located (satellite image courtesy of GoogleEarth).

�37

Leoni 2006: fig. 11.10; Paulsen 1983; Silverman and Proulx 2002:93-94), residents of the

southern Moquegua Valley (Goldstein 2000a), as well as with Moche groups on the

north coast (Proulx 1994)."

" Thus far, few investigations have been made of the end of the EIP in Nasca. The

limited available data have led to dominant interpretations of Late Nasca society that

emphasize sociopolitical disintegration, resource strain and competition, and warfare

and conflict. Late Nasca society existed during a time of environmental strain - a century

of prolonged drought exacerbated by human induced deforestation. Schreiber’s (1998)

reconstruction of Late Nasca society sees the aggregation of people into large valley

settlements as the emergence of small valley polities. She suggests that during times of

conflict, people sometimes aggregate into larger settlements for safety purposes

(Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003: 157). Increased competition over resources such as

Figure 2.5. Satellite image of the steep, elevated hillside where Cocahuischo is located (satellite image courtesy of GoogleEarth).

�38

water might have led to social strain and violence. Current evidence does suggest that

most Late Nasca people subsisted on cultivated foodstuffs such as maize (Kellner and

Schoeninger 2008), making irrigation and water resources crucial. Other scholars, such

as Silverman (1993), even go as far as to suggest that Late Nasca society can be

considered a ‘warrior chiefdom,’ where leadership rooted firmly in aggressive prowess

arose in response to the scarcity of resources and resulting competition. This model of

Late Nasca leadership breaks with reconstructions of sociopolitical organization during

earlier times, when leadership was intwined with religious and ritual practice. Early

Nasca leaders have been interpreted as influential shamans. In spite of the changes that

occur during Middle Nasca times, the emergence of a Late Nasca warrior class would

represent a break with centuries of indigenous leadership rooted in ideological power."

" "

!!2.4.4" Estrella"!

" While Middle and Late Nasca society was thriving in the Ica-Grande drainage,

the little known Estrella tradition existed in the northern Pisco and Chincha Valleys.

Settlement surveys suggest small occupations of people in the lower valleys (see Peters

1997: 147-150). Residents of these valleys are known through the ceramic style also

referred to as Estrella (Proulx 1994, 2006: 45; Wallace 1977). Estrella pottery exhibits the

inclusion of a number of Late Nasca motifs (Wallace 1977) and Late Nasca pottery

likewise illustrates the appropriation of Estrella designs (Menzel 1971: 91; Silverman

1997), suggesting intense contact and interaction between Estrella and Late Nasca

people. At present, however, no detailed investigations have been made at an Estrella

settlement, rendering a very limited understanding of Estrella society."

!!!2.4.5" Ayacucho During the Early Intermediate Period"!

! During the EIP, the Ayacucho Basin was inhabited by the little known Huarpa

culture. Most people lived in villages located near rivers or springs that were densely

�39

scattered throughout the Ayacucho heartland (Benavides Calle 1971; Leoni 2009: 28).

Huarpa groups practiced complex irrigation agriculture based in elaborate hydraulic

technology and methods of soil preparation (Lumbreras 1974a: 135). The hillsides

around Huarpa villages were heavily terraced, such that five times more land was

agriculturally productive than today (Lumbreras 1974a: 135). A small segment of the

Huarpa population lived in a more urban setting at the civic-ceremonial site of

Ñawinpukyo, and eventually at Conchopata and Huari (see FIG. 1.1). The hilltop site

has a ceremonial core with a central plaza surrounded by elite residential compounds.

Within the plaza is a circular temple that was used for communal ceremonies (Leoni

2006, 2009: 192). Leoni argues that the location of Ñawinpukyo within the sacred

landscape of the Ayacucho Basin was intimately tied to the ritual practices that occurred

within the ceremonial precinct of the site. He suggests animal sacrifices and ceremonial

feasts simultaneously communicated cosmological principles and reaffirmed social and

political relationships between community members (Leoni 2006: 300, 2009: 193). Such

rituals were thus an important part of the lives of Ñawinpukyo’s residents. Ñawinpukyo

also played an important sociopolitical role in Huarpa society, although it declined with

the rise of sites that exhibited innovations in the ceremonial and ideological realms, such

as Conchopata and Huari (Isbell 2001: 119)."

" As many scholars have argued, the relationship between Huarpa and Nasca

groups was significant (Knobloch 1976, 1983, 1991; Glowacki and Knobloch 2001;

Lumbreras 1974a; Menzel 1964; Silverman and Proulx 2002). Multiple elements of Late

Nasca ceramic iconography, including rotating spirals and triple-rayed appendages,

were incorporated into the Huarpa Cruz Pata style (Leoni 2006: 456, fig. 11.10). The

influence of Nasca ceramic style and technology in Ayacucho ultimately resulted in the

emergence of new Wari imperial styles. Design elements such as background stippling

and black line spirals attached to vertical bars that are common on Huarpa fineware

pottery appear in Late Nasca ceramic iconography (Silverman and Proulx 2002: 94).

Nasca ceramic style (the materialization of religious ideology [Vaughn 2006]) and

technology appear to have been important to the people of Ayacucho during the EIP,

and this position of esteem continued into the MH. Current evidence suggests a

�40

significant encounter between Nasca and Huarpa groups, involving the exchange of

prestige goods and knowledge. Further support comes from Calvario, a newly

discovered Early Nasca settlement with a notable MH component, which is located at

the headwaters of the Aja and Tierras Blancas rivers at 2800 masl – much closer to the

highlands than other Nasca settlements (Edwards 2010: 107). Recent data from Palpa

provides evidence for highland Late Nasca settlements, again challenging our notions of

the relationships between the sierra and the coast. For Nasca groups that cultivated

relationships with Ayacucho during the late EIP, these ties would have placed them in a

unique position during the MH and provided opportunities that other factions in the

region lacked."

!!!2.5" The Middle Horizon and the First Andean Empires"!

2.5.1" The Emergence of Wari Imperialism"!! Some time around A.D. 550, the transition between Huarpa society in Ayacucho

and the Wari state began. Important Huarpa civic-ceremonial sites such as Ñawinpukyo

gradually became burial grounds and lower level settlements (Leoni 2010), as the cities

of Huari and Conchopata grew (Isbell 2001; Isbell and Cook 2002). The Wari empire

spread out of the capital city of Huari to establish settlements and outposts throughout

the Andes during the MH (Isbell and Schreiber 1978; Schreiber 1992). Construction at

Huari occurred quickly, as monumental ritual and funerary segments of the city were

built (Benavides Calle 1991; Bragayrac 1991; Isbell 2001: 127-135). By around A.D. 700, 1.5

km2 of massive compounds had been constructed to house the city’s growing elite (Isbell

1997; Isbell et al. 1991). The characteristic orthogonal nature of the newly constructed

architecture is diagnostic of Wari constructions throughout the Andes. Efforts were

made to further terrace the Ayacucho countryside, in order to support the rapidly

growing Huari population (Ochatoma Paravicino and Cabrera Romero 2001). "

" At some point in the seventh century A.D., Wari rulers began establishing outposts

in strategic locales throughout the central Andes. Some Wari sites, such as Jincamocco in

�41

the Sondondo Valley, housed populations participating in large scale agricultural

production (Schreiber 1992). Other sites may have served as trading posts that engaged

with local people and economies (e.g. Honcopampa [Isbell 2010; Schreiber 1999: 91] and

possibly Viracochapampa [Topic 1991; Topic and Topic 2010]), and acted as

administrative devices to integrate local populations (e.g. Pikillacta [McEwan 2005]).

Likewise, the site of Cerro Baúl was established as a Wari outpost on the frontier of the

contemporaneous expansive Tiwanaku state (Nash and Williams 2005, 2009; Williams

2001, 2009). Wari emissaries at Cerro Baúl entertained foreign dignitaries and engaged

them in ceremonial feasting events (Moseley et al. 2005)."

" Power in Wari society was intertwined with religious practice and military

power, with the existence of a ‘warrior class’ (Ochatoma Paravicino and Cabrera Romero

2002; Ochatoma Paravicino et al. 2008; Tung 2008, 2012; Tung and Knudson 2010, 2011).

Aspects of Wari material culture (including architectural style, textiles, finely painted

pottery) were consumed throughout the Andes - even in contexts lacking a strong Wari

presence (e.g. Jennings 2006, 2010a; Owen 2007, 2010). In a few regions, the presence of

Wari outposts had little effect on the lives of local people (e.g. Bélisle 2011; Bélisle and

Covey 2010). Yet in some instances Wari interests turned violent. Analysis of Wari trophy

heads recovered from sites such as Conchopata illustrates the presence of some foreign

warriors (Tung and Knudson 2008). Although violence may have played at least a

minimal role in Wari imperialism (Tung 2007b), Wari administrative strategies can best

be characterized as a ‘mosaic of control’ (Schreiber 1992). Wari strategies centered

around adapting to local sociopolitical conditions and employing different techniques of

administration in different areas."

!!!2.5.2" The Wari Presence on the South Coast"!

" By the start of the MH (ca. A.D. 750-1000; TABLE 2.1), a Wari presence was

established in the Nasca region (Conlee 2010; Conlee and Schreiber 2006; Schreiber 1998,

1999, 2005; Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003). Settlements appeared at sites such as

�42

Pacheco (a possible Wari ceremonial center [Menzel 1964]), Pataraya (a Wari outpost

[Edwards 2010; Schreiber 2001, 2005]), and Incawasi (a large administrative site

[Edwards 2010]; see FIG. 1.1). Isotopic analysis of Wari style burials from La Tiza

confirms the presence of foreigners in the Nasca region during this time (Conlee et al.

2009: 2760). The Nasca were on the frontier of the Wari empire, and geographically they

were at a crossroads as well – between the mountains and the coast. A road was

established running from the capital of Wari in Ayacucho, through the Sondondo Valley

and past the Wari administrative site of Jincamocco, and into the Nasca drainage

(Schreiber 1984, 1991). An additional route was established between the Tierras Blancas

and Aja valleys, just up valley from Pataraya and Incawasi (Edwards 2010: fig. 149)."

" Current evidence from regional settlement data suggests the majority of Nasca

people moved into the southern valleys to avoid contact with Wari groups (Conlee and

Schreiber 2006; Schreiber 1999, 2005). Large communities were established at sites such

as Huaca del Loro in the Las Trancas Valley (see FIG. 1.1), and occupation in the

northern valleys dissipated (Conlee and Schreiber 2006; Reindel and Isla Cuadrado 1998;

Schreiber 2001; Silverman 2002). Huaca del Loro became the center of a local Nasca

polity that maintained local autonomy despite the Wari presence in the region (Conlee

and Schreiber 2006: 100-101). While Wari style ceramics are found in the Las Trancas

Valley, Wari imperial pottery is absent at Huaca del Loro, suggesting a local polity

unaffiliated with Wari (Strong 1957). The local MH ceramic style referred to as ‘Loro’ due

to its initial identification at this site (Strong 1957) represents the cultural production of a

local community relatively independent from Wari influence (see Conlee and Schreiber

2006: 102). In spite of this apparent resistance to Wari efforts, some people remained in

northern valleys such as Tierras Blancas and Aja, living in close proximity to Wari

settlements. Current evidence from La Tiza indicates at least a minimal MH domestic

occupation and cemetery (see Conlee 2010). The presence of Wari in Nasca disrupted

local power dynamics, providing opportunities in the new imperial establishment for

the competing factions that had developed during Late Nasca. Moreover, the

relationships forged with Ayacucho elites during the late EIP may have placed some

�43

Nasca people in a unique position within the Wari empire, despite their seemingly

peripheral position."

" Indeed, it has been argued that Nasca culture played an important role in Wari

identity (Conlee 2005: 214). As with Huarpa pottery, Wari imperial Chakipampa

ceramics incorporated stylistic elements of Nasca iconography (Menzel 1964: 7), such as

the humped animal, a derivative of the Late Nasca mythical monkey (Menzel 1964: 29;

Proulx 2006: fig. 5.80 & 5.82). Wari ceramics also share technological similarities with

Nasca pottery, such as slip painting and high-temperature firing (Conlee and Schreiber

2006: 98). Wari apparently adopted elements of Nasca mortuary practices as well,

burying their dead in a seated and flexed position characteristic of the Nasca region

during the EIP (Menzel 1964: 70)."

!!!2.6" Disintegration, Reformation, and Conquest"!

2.6.1" The Late Intermediate Period and Late Horizon"!Following the convention among south coast scholars (see Conlee 2005), I

consider the LIP and Late Horizon together as a single period (ca. A.D. 1000-1532) even

though they can be separated (see TABLE 2.1). The Inka presence on the south coast was

not strong (Menzel 1959). Separating out a Late Horizon (LH; ca. A.D. 1400-1532) phase

thus has limited meaning and implies a cultural break among the indigenous people

between the LIP and LH. Such a break is artificial - there were certainly local

sociopolitical changes during these times, but few can be attributed to the outside

influence of the Inka empire."

In the wake of Wari collapse, the south coast witnessed a period of sociopolitical

reformation. The disintegration of the Wari empire proved more disruptive to local life

on the south coast than the Wari presence (Conlee 2000, 2003). Complex polities arose in

Chincha and the NNR (Clarkson 1990: 126; Engel 1981; Menzel 1959, 1976), and likewise

in the CNR and SNR, that were ruled by local elites (Conlee et al. 2004; Conlee 2003).

There was an increase in population density and people aggregated together into

�44

settlements of unprecedented size (Browne 1992; Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003). In

the CNR, these settlements (such as Pinchango Alto and Huayurí) were located in

defensible places (Reindel 2009). LIP sites in the NNR are similarly located - the city of

Chokoltaja in the Cocharcas tributary of the NNR is located on a virtually inaccessible

fortified hilltop (see FIG. 1.1). The pattern is different in the SNR, where sites (such as

Pajonal Alto) are relatively indefensible (Conlee 2003; see FIG. 1.1). The layout of

settlements such as Pajonal Alto also indicate that one of the changes during the LIP was

a return to locally based civic-ceremonial practice. Power - previously centralized in the

hands of a few - again became diffused, held by a number of local elites residing in

settlements throughout the Nasca drainage (Conlee 2003). LIP people throughout the

south coast engaged in high levels of trade with people from throughout the Andes

(Conlee 2003; Reindel 2009). Despite prior characterizations, data from the CNR indicate

that the LIP was a time of cultural florescence, bolstered by an increasingly humid

environment (Reindel 2009). "

The subsequent Inka presence on the south coast appears to have been limited

(Menzel 1959; Reindel 2009). In the CNR, only one tambo (or way station) has been

identified and Inka sherds are rare (Reindel 2009: 459). A private Inka retreat was located

in the SNR, at the site of Paredones (Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003). The closest large

scale Inka administrative center was Tambo Colorado in the northern Pisco Valley (Uhle

1913). While Menzel (1959) did not identify an Inka presence in the Ica Valley of the

NNR, recent informal survey by Hendrik Van Gijseghem and colleagues of the

Cocharcas and Tingue tributaries of the Ica Valley indicates that the Inka presence may

be more complex than previously thought (personal communication, 2013). In any case,

the impact of the Inka empire on the local south coast population was limited. Most LIP

settlements continued to be occupied through the LH and there were no local changes to

population structure (Reindel 2009: 459)."

!!!!!!

�45

2.6.2" The Spanish Conquest"!In A.D. 1532, the Spanish began their colonization of South America. While the

Inka presence on the south coast had little effect on its indigenous residents, the impact

of the Spanish conquest was dramatic. As Edwards (2010: 116) notes, archaeologists

typically conclude their discussions of Andean culture history with Spanish colonization

because they see this event as the moment when truly indigenous sociopolitical

processes effectively ended. As the previous overview illustrated however, the history of

the Nasca people is punctuated by repeated instances of imperialism - albeit none as

drastic and altering as the Spanish conquest. I disagree that the Spanish conquest marks

the end of truly indigenous culture, yet there is presently meager data regarding the

colonial period on the south coast. Recent research being undertaken by historical

archaeologists will develop our understanding of this period and how the lives of local

Nasca people were transformed by colonial processes."

!!!2.7" Summary"!

" The culture historical overview I have provided serves to contextualize the

present study and the site of Cocahuischo within broader sociopolitical processes. It also

highlights recurrent patterns of sociopolitical integration and balkanization. The history

of the Nasca region is characterized by periods of cohesion and centralization of power

that are punctuated by phases of sociopolitical disintegration and reformation. Prior to

the apogee of Cahuachi and the florescence of the Early Nasca period, the south coast

was characterized by a time of sociopolitical competition and conflict. Local leaders and

groups were engaged in intense inter-regional interaction and ceremonial practices were

localized. Rapid cultural and social change simultaneously divided settlements and

communities. All of these patterns re-emerged during Late Nasca in the wake of

Cahuachi’s decline – and subsequently in the wake of Wari collapse. As a Late Nasca

settlement, Cocahuischo is uniquely situated to shed light on the processes of cultural

reformation and community building that characterized the end of the EIP.

!46

!!!!!!CHAPTER 3. (RE)CONSTRUCTING COMMUNITY AND TRADITION: THEORETICAL

AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS"!!!" In the present study, I examine a period of sociopolitical transition in prehispanic

Peru. By the end of the Early Intermediate Period (EIP; ca. A.D. 1-750), sociopolitical

organization on the south coast became balkanized as people aggregated into

settlements of unprecedented size (Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003). The Late Nasca

phase was a time of regionalism and rapid cultural change, that culminated in the

emergence of the local Loro polity during the Middle Horizon (MH; ca. A.D. 750-1000).

My research focuses on processes of social and cultural reformulation by investigating

how Late Nasca communities and traditions were constructed, negotiated, and

reimagined. The following chapter situates this research within a broad body of theory. I

review approaches to sociopolitical and cultural reformation, tradition, community

building, and inter-regional interaction, focusing on how these process are embodied

through daily practice. I then discuss the methodological approach I take in this

research, which is rooted in household and community archaeology."

!!!3.1" Community and Daily Practice"!

" A basic principle guiding this research is that the power and ability of

individuals to act is a negotiation between structure and agency. As Giddens suggests,

“agency refers not to the intentions people have in doing things but to their capability of

doing those things in the first place” (1984: 9). Throughout their daily activities, people

act in intentional and strategic ways, yet these behaviors and decisions are

simultaneously shaped by historical and social circumstances that are only partly of "

!47

their making. This process, “the continuous creation of the conditions that govern

practice” (Pauketat 2001: 79), is termed structuration by Giddens (1984). Individuals

have the opportunity and agency to act, but often unconsciously act within social norms,

behaving in a manner that will allow them to ‘go on’ in the world (Giddens 1984). These

are still agentive acts – in that individuals consciously or unconsciously choose to do

them – but the nature of these actions is guided by principles beyond individual

consciousness. As Silliman and many others have put it, “social agents are both

constrained and enabled by structure” because there is a recursive relationship between

structure and practice (2001: 192)."

" These sometimes unquestioned and unconscious practices that individuals enact

throughout daily life are guided by shared cultural discourses and social interactions.

Practices are shaped by “a self-evident and natural order which goes without saying and

therefore goes unquestioned,” referred to as doxa by Bourdieu (1977: 166). Put differently,

doxa are “those second-hand, taken-for-granted ways of doing or knowing” (Pauketat

2001: 79) or “the naturalized perception of existing social structures” (Dornan 2002: 306).

While some doxic practices exist outside of the world of intentionality (e.g. mundane,

quotidian actions), others can be politicized and involve conscious decisions based on

shared motivations and life histories (related to Giddens’ [1984] notion of ‘practical

consciousness’). In some cases, then, conscious and intentional decisions may result in

actions that reproduce social norms and structures just as often as challenge them. It is

through this dialectic of contestation and reaffirmation that doxa proves most useful as a

concept - “the creation and dissolution of doxa is a political process” (Silliman 2001: 194)."

" Juxtaposed to practice theory perspectives is the concept of tradition (Pauketat

2001). As Ortner suggests, practice theory based studies explore “where ‘the system’

comes from - how it is produced and reproduced, and how it may have changed in the

past or be changed in the future” (1984: 146). In many ways, tradition is related to

Bourdieu’s doxic practices that are imbued with intentionality, yet tradition encompasses

doxa and can involve an element of emotional investment. While doxic practices and the

process of structuration (Giddens 1984) are often unconscious and composed of the

arbitrary, tradition can be an intentional and continuous process of cultural production

!48

composed of things that people feel invested in. Tradition is rooted in a generally

recognized past, embodied and shaped through daily practices, and composed of doxic

practices that allow sometimes contradictory elements of the social order to be perceived

as natural (Lightfoot 2001). Following Pauketat, traditions “are always in the process of

becoming” (2001: 80). Since traditions are always in the process of transformation, they

are inherently historical processes."

" The relationship between these processes and social change can seem

paradoxical. The process of cultural production and the construction of tradition are

continuous and negotiated daily, yet all actions are inherently transformative. As

Pauketat suggests, “all people enact, embody, or re-present traditions in ways that

continuously alter those traditions” (2001: 79). Even acts that serve to reproduce and

reinforce doxic practices and traditions are themselves transformations. These

transformative acts often result, however, in the perception of periods of relative stasis

because their transformative power is in the reproduction of tradition and doxa. Practice

can be the medium of both tradition and social change (Pauketat 2001: 80). While

processes of daily embodiment and reproduction can be largely unconscious acts, the

transformation or dissolution of tradition or doxa is highly politically and socially

charged. When there is a schism in the unquestioned support of elements of doxa or

tradition, opinion and practice descend into orthodoxy and heterodoxy (Silliman 2001:

194). If elements of doxic practices are politicized, reinstated, and redefined, they

generate ‘orthodoxies’ or cultural hegemonies. If it is the structure of the doxa itself – the

inherent politics within – that is questioned and replaced, heterodoxies are produced.

The transformation or negotiation of doxa or tradition is a fluid process than can occur in

many different social arenas involving many different nested communities. As Silliman

observes, “the negotiation can occur on the grand stages of social performance or in the

practices of everyday life” (2001: 194). It is Silliman’s notion of ‘practical politics’ that

describes these quotidian transformations - negotiations of social position and identity

embodied through lived experience. Whether part of gradual or rapid social change,

these acts illustrate the fluid and shifting edges of doxa."

!

!49

3.1.1" Conceptualizing Community"!" In this study, I investigate how cultural reformation in Late Nasca society was

driven by agentive practices within individual communities. I consider communities to

be spatially and temporally situated supra-household groups that coalesce through

social interaction between members. Communities are embodied, negotiated, and

reproduced through daily life, and are characterized by self-ascription and a shared

sense of interest and identity. They may also be emplaced, as they arise out of the

recursive relationship between a group of people, a set of social circumstances, and a

particular location (Yaeger and Canuto 2000). Most importantly, as Yaeger and Canuto

(2000) argue, communities are continually in process. They are both created and

recreated through social interaction and place. Households are likewise always in the

process of becoming, yet are more circumscribed social entities that mutually participate

in a set of defined activities (Ashmore and Wilk 1988: 4). While they are inherently

political and composed of individuals with sometimes contradictory and competing

agendas, within middle range societies, households and communities are the axes of

decision making power (Wolf 1990)."

" Communities have been theorized using a variety of conceptual frameworks that

address what they are, what they do, and how they are reproduced. Following Yaeger

and Canuto (2000), these theoretical perspectives can be grouped broadly into structural-

functionalist, historical-developmental, ideational, and interactionist. Structural-

functionalist approaches characterized much early research on communities, conceiving

of them as the basic unit of social and biological reproduction in human societies (e.g.

Murdock 1949; Redfield 1955). From this perspective, communities consist of people

who interact on a daily basis, share a common culture, and coexist within a given spatial

area. They act as the ‘natural’ structuring unit in society and are bounded both socially

and geographically. These viewpoints see communities as the building blocks of society

and some scholars still advocate for a similar pragmatic approach."

" Kolb and Snead (1997), for instance, conceive of three irreducible elements of

communities. First, they are social entities whose daily interactions serve to continually

reinforce and reproduce the group. Second, they act as an axis of organization for

!50

subsistence activities, generating conditions under which productive economic systems

can flourish. Third, they are self-ascriptive. Communities exist as they are recognized by

their members, and by the creation and maintenance of their physical and symbolic

boundaries. Communities seen through this lens are thus strongly linked to a sense of

‘place’ as well as ‘activity.’ Communities are social entities that collectively do things, yet

they are also manifest through the landscape. Communal ties are ‘mapped’ through the

natural and built environment. "

" While such approaches are useful contributions – and particularly pragmatic for

archaeology – their focus on place and behavior overlooks how communities structure

and are structured by belief (Wernke 2013b: 23). Communities are more than just the

daily behaviors of a particular group in a specific place. They are complex systems of

social interaction characterized by recursive relationships between behavior, belief, and

social forces, which are constituted and reimagined through daily practices."

" Historical-developmental research arose in response to these structural-

functionalist perspectives by examining communities as historical products (e.g. Mintz

1956; Wolf 1955). Research reoriented around the question of how communities develop.

Communities were seen as products of external factors, rather than as internally

constituted social entities that develop within local contexts because of local

circumstances. Such perspectives privilege broader sociopolitical processes in shaping

the local, without recognizing the hand that local processes simultaneously have in

transforming external forces (Yaeger and Canuto 2000: 2). The primordial notion of

community present in structural-functional approaches and the passive notion of

community present in historical-developmental perspectives also leave little room for

what Yaeger and Canuto (2000) term ideational approaches. "

" Ideational perspectives draw from the notion of ‘imagined community,’ which is

formed through intentional ascription and affiliation with a set of ideas or symbols

(Anderson 1991; Cohen 1985). From this perspective, communities coalesce around the

perception of affinity more so than day to day interaction or common practice. They are

“dynamic identities … connected to common experiences, places, and memories”"

(Pauketat 2010: 172). While members may not know one another or participate in any"

!51

face to face activities, they perceive themselves as sharing some essential characteristic

or common interest that defines their membership in an imagined community. At the

same time, community is more than just the sum of numerous individuals’ perceived

identity. To bridge this ontological gap, Yaeger and Canuto advocate an interactionalist

perspective that “focuses our attention squarely on the relationship between interactions

that occur in a given space and the sense of shared identity that both fosters and is

fostered by these interactions” (2000: 6)."

" I follow Yaeger’s (2000) approach and recognize the presence of local and

imagined communities that exist at different levels of identification. I employ a practice

based perspective to envision communities as dynamic social institutions that are

constructed and continually reconstructed by members’ actions (Yaeger 2000: 125). As

Pauketat suggests, “communities are subject to continuous renegotiations of interests

and the social production of memories whenever people gather together, encounter each

other, or interact with the landscapes of experience” (2010: 172). Local communities

grow out of shared practices and the often unconscious activities of the everyday. They

are produced, reproduced, and transformed through daily activities and often cross-cut

settlements and increasingly broad communities. At the same time, individuals may also

belong to imagined communities that transcend spatial boundaries (sensu Yaeger 2000).

These social entities are subject to the same processes of community building as local

communities, but they exist on a different end of the social spectrum. Rather than being

rooted in largely unconscious quotidian practices, imagined communities can be

politicized and fluid."

!!!3.2" Inter-Regional Interaction as Imagined Community"!

" In the present study, I consider Cocahuischo as the center of a local community.

At the same time, I acknowledge the existence of multiple sub- and supra-local

communities that transect the settlement and the broader region. Many scholars have

noted that the sociopolitical changes occurring during the end of the EIP were intwined

with increasingly intense interaction between Nasca communities and other Andean

!52

groups. Late Nasca people reached beyond the realm of the Nasca heartland and forged

relationships with other societies, such as Moche and Estrella to the north, Huarpa to the

east, and Acarí to the south (Knobloch 1983: 289-316; Menzel 1971: 91; Paulsen 1983;

Proulx 1994). Many of the major Late Nasca settlements were established at points in the

landscape that are spatially closer to other Andean groups (see FIG. 1.1). Such

movement may have been motivated by resource access or by the desire for proximity to

different societies. Because communities and “practices of affiliation” (Yaeger 2000: 126)

can cross-cut spatial boundaries, residents of Late Nasca settlements may have

recognized communal affiliation with some members of these other Andean groups."

" The interaction of culturally distinct people – who form networks, alliances, and

friendships, and exchange material goods, knowledge, traditions, and often marriage

partners – has been an important component of archaeological research for nearly a

century (Cusick 1998; Schortman and Urban 1992; Stein 2002). Long-distance

relationships with people who are culturally distinct both shape and are situated within

local politics, value systems, and identities (Goldstein 2000a, 2000b; Helms 1979;

Hofman et al. 2007; Wells 1998; Wynne-Jones 2010). The individuals engaging in these

interactions constantly redefine their social position, identity, and relationships with

material objects, practices, and other people (e.g. Dietler 1997; Naum 2010, 2013; Silliman

2009; van Dommelen 1997, 2005, 2012; Voss 2008). The negotiation of intercultural

relationships often results in a complex amalgamation of beliefs, traditions, and material

culture, mutually influenced by all participants. Individuals may appropriate, invert,

and even reinterpret cultural symbols and practices within local value systems and ways

of being and doing. Often conceived of as ‘hybridity’, ‘hybridization,’ ‘transculturalism,’

or ‘creolization’ (e.g. Hitchcock and Maeir 2013; Stockhammer 2013; Van Valkenburgh

2013), the process of constructing, negotiating, and reimagining a shared set of symbols

and a sense of affiliation is a process of community building. "

" Seen through the lens of community, these inter-regional relationships can be

conceived of as imagined communities (cf. Anderson 1991). Imagined communities are

more politicized and fluid than local communities, and the sense of affiliation members

feel can transcend inequalities and differences (Anderson 1991: 6-7; Yaeger 2000: 126). I

!53

draw from Yaeger and Canuto (2000: 6), however, in recognizing that individual

affiliation and recognition of symbols alone do not constitute community. Imagined

communities do not co-reside and they are not constituted through daily life, yet they

still require some level of social interaction to be constructed and embodied. Imagined

communities might thus be constituted through “practices of affiliation” (Yaeger 2000)

such as feasts, communal labor events, and religious ceremonies. Face to face interaction

might be minimal and may not encompass all members, but imagined communities

need “physical venues for the repeated, meaningful interaction needed to create and

maintain a community” (Yaeger and Canuto 2000: 6). Place thus has a particular

significance for imagined communities. Face to face contact during integrative activities

is extra-ordinary (vs. quotidian and routine) and the locales where activities occur are

emplaced within social memory and shared notions of communal identity."

!!!3.3" Sociopolitical Change and Cultural Reformation in Middle Range Societies"!

" The emergence of Late Nasca society has been categorized as a period of

sociopolitical balkanization and cultural innovation. In the wake of the Cahuachi cult’s

collapse, leadership became more localized and cultural practices more regionalized, as

people aggregated into large settlements in each of the Nasca regions (Menzel 1971: 86;

Schreiber 1998: 263; Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003: 157). While no community is ever

static, Late Nasca communities experienced considerable transformations and challenges

as the regional political system deteriorated and underwent change. The transition from

Late Nasca society to the Loro polity that emerged during the MH has been

characterized more drastically as a moment of sociopolitical and cultural disintegration

(see Spivak 2013). Many people abandoned Late Nasca settlements and migrated into

the highlands and the southern Las Trancas Valley, near the heart of the Loro network

(Conlee and Schreiber 2006; Reindel and Isla Cuadrado 2013; Schreiber 1999, 2005). Even

though there was change and regionalism, however, many aspects of indigenous

cultural practice remained the same. "

!54

" While Late Nasca and ultimately Loro society can be viewed as a period of

disintegration or collapse, it may be best understood through the lens of cultural

reformation. As Janusek argues with regard to Tiwanaku, “collapse was as much a

process of cultural creation and social reformulation as it was a necessary turning away

from the past” (2005: 201). A vast literature has explored what happens when states,

empires, and political systems collapse (e.g. Conlee 2003; Demarest 2004; Hegmon et al.

2008; Janusek 2005; Marcus 1998; McAnany and Yoffee 2009; Schwartz and Nichols 2006;

Stone 1999; Tainter 1988; Yoffee and Cowgill 1988; Zovar 2012). Such research has

considered collapse as both a sudden event and a gradual process. The transformation of

administrative and political structures can subvert previous social hierarchies and leave

power vacuums that are filled by more localized political relationships. There is often

local and temporal variation in the impact and process of collapse in different

communities, leading to sociopolitical and cultural regionalism. Amidst a landscape of

political change, shared social memory and notions of identity transform as

communities and relationships are renegotiated. Some aspects of the past are recalled

and emphasized while others are forgotten (Janusek 2005; Schwartz 2013; Yoffee 2006).

These relationships and shared social memory are both reflected in, and constructed by,

the built environment and material objects through everyday and extra-ordinary

practices (Joyce 2008). Both continuity and change in post-collapse periods are driven by

individual actors’ agentive decisions at a particular point in time (Janusek 2005). "

" Within middle range societies, sociopolitical change and cultural reformation are

equally as transformative and driven by the creative actions of individuals. When

regional sociopolitical systems collapse, local communities begin to break away and

enter periods of internal restructuring. Social norms, traditions, and power relations are

deconstructed and rebuilt. A diverse cultural landscape may develop – even within

small regions – as different people transform and assign new meaning to relationships,

objects, landscapes, and the built environment (Schwartz 2013; Yaeger and Robin 2004).

People may develop inter-regional contacts as local identities and community

relationships enter a phase of transformation and re-becoming. During times of political

instability and change, such inter-regional ties may politically and economically ‘buffer’

!55

the interests of individuals and communities against the uncertain regional

environment. Relationships with non-local people may be constituted through everyday

life or through extra-ordinary events and collective practices of affiliation. Interactions

with members of other communities and agentive daily practices ultimately result in

larger systemic changes, as power relations, traditions, and doxic practices are

questioned, negotiated, and reimagined. " "

! !!3.4" Archaeology of the Everyday: Research Strategy and Methodology"!

" How are these processes of rebuilding constituted through daily life and how do

we, as archaeologists, examine them? The current study investigates how communities

construct and reimagine traditions during times of sociopolitical transition. I explore

processes of cultural reformation at Cocahuischo by examining how community and

tradition are formed and reimagined through the agentive practices of individual

community members. Conlin Casella and Fowler (2005), however, highlight the

distinction between practice and identity. As they observe, “it is through shared cultural

practices that individuals trace their sense of belonging within a cultural group” (Conlin

Casella and Fowler 2005: 7). Yet practices do not equal identities - they are actions shaped

in part by one’s specific identity, but also by other circumstances and histories. The

material traces of practices must be disentangled from evidence that speaks to social

identity – community or otherwise. An archaeology of community and tradition needs

to examine how relationships, affiliations, and those unconscious ‘ways of being’ are

differentially constructed and reconstructed through individual actions. I thus consider

how community and tradition are negotiated through material objects and the built

environment. The present study is rooted in community and household archaeology

because of my focus on understanding how processes of cultural transformation are

constituted through daily practice. As such, the basic units of analysis that I employ in

this study are the community and the household."

!!

!56

3.4.1" The Archaeological Community"!" It is necessary to begin with a consideration of how communities, in the sense

discussed above, are visible in the archaeological record. As many archaeologists have

pointed out, archaeological sites are no more the direct correlate of ancient communities

than structures are of households (Ashmore and Wilk 1988; Marcus 2000). Sites are

archaeologically observed palimpsests resulting from years and often centuries activity

(Dunnell 1992). Communities, whether local, imagined, or both, exist as groups of

people that coalesce around shared ideas, symbols, and goals, and whose membership is

continually in flux. While all communities are rooted in notions of common identity, that

identity may or may not be marked by clear material correlates. As Yaeger and Canuto

argue, “the community is not a spatial cluster of material remains to be observed, but

rather a social process to be inferred” (2000: 9)."

" At the local and sub-local level, communities are constituted through daily

practices that are often unconscious. Following a communities of practice approach

(Hendon 2010; Wenger 1998), these communities are evident through cohesive ways of

doing and being. The built environment and actions of subsistence, production, and

consumption can thus all reflect membership in local communities. Within a settlement,

sub-local communities might be tied to specialized activities, such as craft working,

religious practice, or food preparation, or common quotidian interests. Again,

membership in these communities is both structured by and reproduced through the

everyday, generating a sense of commonality that might be largely taken for granted. As

such, the basic units of analyses when investigating sub-local and local communities are

the house and communal space (Yaeger and Canuto 2000: 10)."

" The ‘micro-region’ approach advocated by Yaeger and Canuto (2000) attempts to

bridge hyper-localized analyses with regional perspectives by focusing on the area that

reaches beyond the archaeological settlement to include intra-site spaces. The ‘micro-

region’ encompasses the site and the pathways, meeting areas, agricultural fields, refuse

areas, and pastoral zones in the surrounding areas between sites (Gaffney and Gaffney

1988; Kolb and Snead 1997). In doing so, a micro-region approach offers the

archaeologist a methodology for examining the spatially distributions of communities.

!57

In a similar vein, Joyce and Hendon (2000) propose a ‘multiscalar’ approach to

community that considers how community identity is inscribed in material media

ranging from quotidian objects to the landscape. Taken at a regional level, such an

approach allows archaeologists to consider the intersection of different communities –

imagined and otherwise – in both daily and extra-ordinary life, and at scales ranging

from the sub- to supra-local."

!!!3.4.2" The Archaeological Household"!

! The archaeological study of the ancient household has its roots in Mesoamerica,

where scholars first began to contemplate more nuanced reconstructions of daily life and

community (e.g. Flannery 1976). These early studies criticized the focus on elites,

temples, and tombs and sought to move archaeology toward a social reconstruction of

prehispanic life. Flannery’s seminal work set off a movement that placed the people back

into prehistory. The goal became understanding daily life, as well as broader social

developments, through the lens of the household (e.g. Aldenderfer 1993; Allison 1999;

Ball and Taschek 2007; Bawden 1982; Brown et al. 2002; Carballo 2011; D’Altroy and

Hastorf; Feinman et al. 2002; Garber et al. 1998; Hendon 1996; Hirth 2009; Janusek 2002;

Johnston and Gonlin 1998; Joyce and Gillespie 2000; Manzanilla and Chapdelaine 2009;

Mehrer 2007; Nash 2009; Robin 2003; Tringham 1991; Wattenmaker 1998; Wilk and

Ashmore 1988). Villages, towns, and cities (and their inferred ‘communities’) became

vibrant and diverse amalgamations of households, each with their own affiliations,

intentions, and internal politics. By focusing the unit of investigation on archaeological

households, it became possible to see prehispanic life from a more nuanced frame of

reference."

" Household studies have particularly taken root in the archaeological

investigation of middle range societies. In such contexts, the household is considered the

basic socioeconomic unit and broader sociopolitical entities such as the state are absent.

Growing out of an effort to make the units of measure in archaeology more behaviorally

meaningful, early approaches focused on the definition and identification of households

!58

in the archaeological record. These definitions established the distinction between a

‘house’ or dwelling, and a ‘household’ or kin, family or activity group (Aldenderfer and

Stanish 1993; Ashmore and Wilk 1988; Bawden 1982; Santley and Hirth 1993; Wilk and

Rathje 1982). Households were conceptualized in terms of what they do: production;

consumption; generational transmission of wealth, property, and rights; co-residence;

and reproduction (Ashmore and Wilk 1988: 4). "

" More recent work has expanded economic perspectives to explore how

households themselves may be zones of negotiation and contestation for identity and

power (Allison 1999). Studies have demonstrated the often blurred distinction between

public vs. private and domestic vs. ritual areas (Brown and Sheets 2000; Dean and Kojan

2001). Households are multi-faceted social entities and residents often engage in daily

practices that transcend circumscribed categories such as economic, political, or ritual.

Households can also enact change within communities, since they incite both

cooperation and conflict. At the same time, important shifts in household and

community organization reflect broader sociopolitical and economic developments (Van

Gijseghem and Vaughn 2008: 112)."

" Scholars have productively used households as a lens for understanding

processes as diverse as inter-regional interaction and trade (Feinman and Nicholas 1993),

migration and ritual practice (Manzanilla 2002), and colonialism (Brumfiel 1987, 1991,

1996, 1997, 2000; Silliman 2009, 2010). Within the context of the Andes, archaeologists

have used household frameworks to investigate emerging social complexity and elites

(Goldstein 1993, 2005; Lau 2010; Vaughn 2004, 2005a, 2009), multi-ethnic communities

(Bawden 1993; Bermann 1994, 1997; Conrad and Webster 1989; Stanish 1989, 1992), social

reproduction (Sillar 2000), balkanization and cultural reformation (Conlee 2000, 2003,

2005; Janusek 2005), long-distance trade and inter-regional interaction (Goldstein 2000a),

migration and ethnogenesis (Van Gijseghem 2004, 2006, 2013), and the complex

relationships present in expansive states and colonial systems (Bélisle 2011; D’Altroy and

Hastorf 2001; Nash 2002; Nash and Williams 2005; Williams 2001; Wernke 2011, 2012,

2013a, 2013b). Such research uses the household as a lens through which to view broader

!59

social processes, while simultaneously recognizing how agentive household behavior

drives change and shapes societal developments."

" Recent investigations of households in the Andes have been shaped, in part, by

how scholars conceive of them as social groups. Assumptions about the presence of

nuclear families vs. multi-family residential groups (or broader social groups, such as

the historically documented ayni) have influenced how archaeologists in different

regions interpret domestic space (Davis 2012; Isbell 1996; Nash 2009). On the south coast,

patio groups are understood as the loci of nuclear families (e.g. Vaughn 2009). As I

discuss below, variability in the size and organization of domestic space is thus linked to

social status, the permanence or social mobility of families, and the presence of extended

kin groups. Variability can also reflect broader social processes and community factions.

Because households are the interface of daily practice and community politics, during

times of sociopolitical change and cultural reformation, they are active loci of

transformation. As residents begin to question the formerly doxic and rebuild traditions,

they alter their daily behaviors and their relationship with objects and spaces."

!!!3.4.3" The Materiality of Community Identity and Tradition"!

" Contemporary archaeology has sought to build from social theory, bringing a

more nuanced view of community identity and tradition to the study of the past (see

Conkey 1990; Dietler and Herbich 1998; Flannery 1976; Hodder 1982; Jones 1997;

Renfrew 1987; Robin 2001; Shanks and Tilley 1987; Trigger 1978; Tringham 1991). These

approaches recognize that identity and tradition are embodied, negotiated, and

reimagined through daily practice. Material media are thus more than just passive

reflections, they play an active role in the daily construction and re-construction of

identity and tradition. Drawing from practice theory approaches, material objects and

the built environment are agentive because they shape behavior (Dobres and Hoffman

1994; Dobres and Robb 2005). People act in certain ways because of the social cues

embedded in objects and architecture. At the same time, these media can be repurposed,

!60

reinterpreted, or physically altered, changing their meaning and relationship with

society."

" Style, as the “active symbolic role of particular characteristics of material culture

in mediating social relations and social strategies” (Jones 1997: 113), is thus an agentive

form of communication, rather than a passive reflection of cultural norms. Such a

perspective problematizes the assumption that the transmission of style is a product of

proximity and social interaction (e.g. Hodder 1979, 1982), and recognizes that material

culture is created and shaped for a variety of (sometimes contradictory) reasons. While

there are often specific intentions and agendas, style and design choices are just as

frequently made unconsciously and are influenced by factors outside of the social

identity of the producer (Dobres and Hoffman 1994; Hegmon 1992; Schiffer and Skibo

1997; see also Gijanto 2011; Mills 2007). At the same time, Gosden argues that “styles of

objects set up universes of their own into which people need to fit” (2005: 194). Ideas and

abstract thoughts may thus mirror forms suggested by existing objects, instead of the

objects simply following existing ideas. Stylistic changes can illustrate the process of

agentive individuals commenting on formerly naturalized practices and transforming

traditions, identities, and affiliations, vis-à-vis the recursive relationship between people

and material media. Gosden suggests, however, that they may also be changes brought

about by the objects themselves, through stylistic life cycles not always under the “direct

and willed control of individuals or groups” (2005: 195)."

!!!3.4.4" Architecture, Status, and Social Organization"!

" The foundation of architectural analysis is the notion that the built environment

is a medium through which society is embodied (Bourdieu 1976; Giddens 1994; Gieryn

2002; Parker Pearson and Richards 1994; Rapoport 1969). Through construction, agents

alter their environment, which in turn shapes their actions by promoting certain

behaviors and constraining others. In this way, the built environment is both the product

!61

of human agency and agentive itself. Buildings “give structure to social institutions, 1

durability to social networks, persistence to behavior patterns” and yet they are “objects

of (re)interpretation, narration, and representation” (Gieryn 2002: 35). Houses in

particular are products of the recursive relationship between agentive behaviors and

structure within daily life. Houses affect largely unconscious quotidian behavior,

causing people to reproduce social norms and doxic practices. Yet by creating and

modifying domestic spaces, people constitute, question, and alter social structures.

Houses are thus a medium for both social reproduction and change."

" Most archaeologists view households as the basic unit of socioeconomic

integration (Rathje 1983). As such, some variability in house form has been interpreted

as a reflection of socioeconomic inequality (Blanton 1994; Wilk 1990). Analysis of surface

architecture can identify status differentiation existing between households, as visible in

the quality of architecture and relative size of the space (Bawden 1982; Blanton 1994;

Carballo 2011; Nash 2009; Vaughn 2009). Habitations made of more labor intensive

materials represent a greater investment, suggesting influence and status within the

community (Abrams 1989, 1994; Ames 2007; Blanton 1994; McGuire and Schiffer 1983).

Additionally, the quality of construction can be linked to household permanence and

cross generational kinship (e.g. Rathje 1983). Large, well made habitation structures

represent a larger investment and can suggest multi-generation or corporate kin groups

of high status, whereas lesser investments in household construction may indicate post-

marital mobility and weaker socioeconomic ties to the community (Blanton 1994, 1995;

McGuire and Shiffer 1983: 282-284; Van Gijseghem 2001: 268)."

" At the same time, scholars have argued for a number of factors shaping house

form. Dwellings, for instance, may embody symbols and metaphors (Blier 1987; Hodder

1990) or mark ethnic divisions (Goldstein 2005). Andean scholars have suggested more

than one kind of social organization may coexist within a polity, such as nuclear families,

extended kin or corporate groups, or co-habitational craft guilds (e.g. Isbell and Cook

Although neither Bourdieu nor Giddens would explicitly have seen it that way. As Gieryn notes, 1

Bourdieu privileged buildings as structuring forces that shape human behavior, while Giddens privileged human agency and reduced buildings to things that are manipulated and exist only as they are recognized by agents as influencing interactions (2002: 37).

!62

2002: 279; Janusek 1999: 146-147; Shimada 1994; Uceda and Armas 1997; Van Gijseghem

2001). This variability (or at least its potentiality) renders differential patterns in

domestic architecture problematic, as they may or may not be explicitly tied to

socioeconomic status. As noted above, large complex patio groups can indicate higher

status families, yet they can also suggest corporate kin groups. Such building complexes

may also reflect changing residential practices over time, as agents modify and expand

domestic spaces as needs and desires alter. These interests may be linked to the

practicalities of increasing family size and the development cycle of households (Goody

1972, 1990; Van Gijseghem 2001). They may also reflect the agentive decisions of a

particular family member or changes in the collective perception of how domestic space

should be structured. In the case of the latter two, shifts in domestic architecture may

illustrate the process of agents questioning and commenting on formerly naturalized

social practices."

!!!3.5" The Present Research"!

" The major question addressed in this study is how communities and traditions

are created and reimagined through periods of sociopolitical transformation and cultural

reformation. To investigate change in Late Nasca society, I took a community and

household-based perspective. My research utilized mapping, excavation, and artifact

analysis to evaluate the internal politics of Cocahuischo, a local Late Nasca settlement,

and the impact of external relationships with other Late Nasca and Andean

communities. The fieldwork on which this study is based consisted of a multi-faceted

program of architectural analysis, house excavations, tomb excavations, and ceramic,

lithic, and bioarchaeological analyses of artifacts and human remains. Data collection

employed multiple methods to produce classes of data with different levels of

resolution: (1) households or sub-local communities, (2) local communities, and (3)

supra-local or imagined communities (sensu Yaeger 2000)."

" The first goal of my research is examining how community and tradition were

negotiated and reconstructed at Cocahuischo. I consider patterns in spatial organization,

!63

household structure, artifact assemblages, and mortuary practices to investigate levels of

integration and social cohesion within local and sub-local communities. I focus on how

relationships and community identities were negotiated through material objects and

the built environment. I also examine how residents began to rebuild traditions at the

household level, based on pottery and domestic architecture. I then look at patterns of

interaction with other Late Nasca, Estrella, and highland people, to investigate how

supra-local or imagined communities were constituted through daily and extra-ordinary

practice, and how they shaped sociopolitical and cultural reformation. To do so, I draw

from regional settlement maps, intra-site spatial organization, pottery production and

consumption, and the correlates of trade.

�64

!!!!!CHAPTER 4. NEGOTIATING STYLE AND TIME: POTTERY AND CHRONOLOGY ON

THE SOUTH COAST"!! !" The following chapter will discuss the role that the traditionally defined ceramic

styles of the south central Andes have played in our understanding of the past. The

chapter will first present and describe the relevant ceramic styles, then discuss the

current issues with (1) the geographical and temporal definitions of these styles and (2)

the relationship between style and time."

!!!4.1" Introduction"!

" In this dissertation, I explore how people used pottery as a vessel for

materializing many aspects of life, including identity, religious ideology, non-local ties,

sociopolitical position, and kin relations. I also examine how pottery simultaneously

played an active role in peoples lives, structuring daily practice and politics. As objects

that are shaped by and structure individual and collective agency, pottery plays a key

role in how communities rebuild traditions. Investigating these processes requires a

consideration of ceramic technology and style. Since the goal of this dissertation is to

examine a community in transition during the end of the Early Intermediate Period

(EIP), I examine multiple inter-regional styles that have been defined for the EIP in the

south central Andes (see TABLE 2.1). I describe the defining features of these styles and

highlight the problems that arise when scholars assume that ceramic seriations – which

are reflections of stylistic change – reflect time as well. "

" "

!!

�65

4.2" Early Intermediate Period Pottery Styles"!4.2.1" The Nasca Ceramic Sequence"!

! The Nasca pottery styles are characterized by refined ceramic technology and a

palette of fifteen distinct mineral-based pigments, which were used to produce the

characteristic polychrome fineware of the Nasca drainage (Vaughn 2009: 39). Based on

the work of Lawrence Dawson (see Rowe 1960), Nasca ceramics have been seriated into

a 9-phase sequence. Scholars in the Northern Nasca Region (NNR) and Southern Nasca

Region (SNR) recognize the EIP pottery as a 6-phase sequence, grouped into Early

(phases 2-4), Middle (phase 5), and Late (phases 6-7) Nasca (see TABLE 2.1; FIG. 1.1). An

alternative grouping is used in the Central Nasca Region (CNR), where the sequence is

divided into Early Nasca (phases 2-3), Middle Nasca (phases 4-5), and Late Nasca (phase

7, since phase 6 pottery is absent [see Hecht 2009, 2010]). Nasca 1 is recognized as

contemporaneous with the earlier Paracas cultural tradition (see Hecht 2009, 2010; Van

Gijseghem 2006), Nasca 8 is the local MH style known as ‘Loro’ (see Hecht 2009, 2010;

Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003), and Nasca 9 is the Wari imperial Chakipampa style

(see Knobloch 1991: 238). While Dawson’s seriation was based on ceramic style, it was

assumed to reflect change over time and a sample of radiocarbon dates has resulted in a

basic chronology that is used by Nasca scholars."

" Early Nasca (phases 2-4) pottery is characterized by representations of

naturalistic motifs (such as plants and animals) and mythical creatures drawn with

recognizable symbols. The theme of Early Nasca pottery is agricultural fertility and

water (Carmichael 1998: 224; Vaughn 2009: 43). Many fauna traditionally linked with

water in the Andean belief system are represented (such as killer whales, fish, and

marine crustaceans) and themes of agricultural production and products (such as beans,

peppers, and maize) are common. The Early Nasca styles contain disembodied heads

and blood that iconographers suggest are linked to notions of agricultural fertility as

well (e.g. Carmichael 1992, 1994, 1998). The most common mythical creature throughout

all the Nasca stylistic phases is the Mythical Being. Referred to as the ‘Anthropomorphic

Mythical Being’ or AMB by Proulx (2006) and ‘Masked Mythical Being’ by Roark (1965),

�66

the Mythical Being occurs frequently on Early Nasca pottery and is often depicted

holding a disembodied head. Early Nasca pottery consists of bowls, cups, shallow vases,

bottles, jars, and modeled effigy vessels. While the Nasca 3 style has been considered the

‘florescence’ of EIP Nasca pottery (Proulx 2006: 34), the Nasca 4 style demonstrates a

large degree of heterogeneity and local variation in the style (Proulx 2006: 36). "

" Middle Nasca (phase 5) pottery was viewed by Dawson and others as

transitional between the earlier Monumental styles and the later Proliferous styles

(Proulx 2006: 37). On Middle Nasca pottery, iconography is focused on abstract rather

than depictive motifs. These designs were characterized by Roark (1965) as ‘Bizarre

Innovations.’ The experimentation diagnostic of the Nasca 5 style includes a scrambling

or mixing of features from the mythical creatures found in the Early Nasca styles, such

as “legs growing from the top of the head, missing body parts, or mixed human and

animal characteristics” (Roark 1965: 26). Nasca 5 pottery also illustrates the development

of ‘Rayed Faces’ (which can be subdivided into ‘Scrambled Figures,’ ‘Surrounded Faces,’

and ‘Rayed Faces,’ following Proulx [2006: 38]). Based on the work of Blagg (1975), the

style can be divided into ‘Conservative,’ ‘Progressive,’ and ‘Bizarre’ substyles. Proulx

sees the “amount of innovation and diversity” found in Nasca 5 pottery as evidence that

the Nasca 5 phase was the longest in the Nasca sequence (2006: 37). Yet Blagg has argued

that the Nasca 5 style represents the materialization of a new religious movement

(1975:67-68). If this is the case, then following Carmichael (1998), such diversity could

indicate not temporal duration, but rather of cultural creativity and experimentation

often associated with such social phenomena. Nasca 5 pottery is characterized by a high

frequency of vases in addition to bowls, cups, bottles, jars, and figurines and effigy

vessels (Proulx 2006: 39)."

" Late Nasca (phases 6-7) pottery was referred to as ‘Proliferous’ by Rowe because

of the abstract and complex representation of motifs (Proulx 2006: 29). The Nasca 6 style

is considered by many to be the “high point of Proliferous art” (Proulx 2006: 40). From a

technological perspective, Nasca 6 vessels demonstrate highly skilled control of firing

and well executed slip painting. This technological proficiency is mirrored by stylistic

complexity – an intricacy of motifs and a “profusion of colors and symbolic

�67

content” (Proulx 2006: 40). In terms of iconography, Nasca 6 pottery is flooded with new

motifs, many derivative of previous designs yet more intricate. The Mythical Being

continues to be a major theme in Nasca 6 pottery and is represented in numerous

variations with a focus on the head or face (Roark 1965: 38). The complexity of the face

and mouth mask are mirrored by the presence of other surrounding faces, often at least

three, which each have proliferated masks with rays (Roark 1965: 41). The body of the

mythical being plays a more minor role in the later phases. A number of mythical motifs

(e.g. Harvesters, Serpentine Creatures, Horrible Birds, and Spotted Cats) that play a

major role in previous phases are absent in Nasca 6 pottery (Proulx 2006: 41-42). The

Nasca 6 style does, however, mark the appearance of the Jagged Staff God (referred to as

the ‘Jagged Staff Demon’ by Seler [1923: 267]) and the warrior like creature that Proulx

calls the ‘Hunter’ (2006: 42). Disembodied heads are represented in great numbers on

Nasca 6 pottery, as are themes of warfare and ritual head taking. The iconographic

importance of naturalistic motifs decreases in Nasca 6 style, although geometric designs

remain common (Proulx 2006: 42). One of the most notable aspects of the Nasca 6 style is

the division of vessel design space with multiple vertical registers. During the Late

Nasca phases it is common to find a vessel with representations of mythical creatures

and disembodied heads, which are bordered by bands of geometric motifs. "

" In terms of form, there is a diversification of vessel shapes in Nasca 6 pottery

(Proulx 2006: 41). Vases dominate and along with bell-shaped and tapering vases, a tall

cylindrical form appears. These tall vases are also found in the Nasca 7 style, where the

form is tall and narrow with up to four separate registers. Although vases are found in

the Nasca 7 style, they disappear as a common form by the end of the Nasca 7 phase

along with tall head jars, head and spout bottles, and collared bottles. The goblet form, 1

which effectively replaces vases and cups among Nasca 7 and Nasca 8 pottery, originates

in the Nasca 6 style (Proulx 2006: 41). Flaring bowls are also an important vessel

category among Nasca 6 and Nasca 7 pottery, as are the cumbrous bowls that appear for

Nasca 7 pottery has been seriated by Menzel (the seriation remains unpublished but is 1

mentioned by Menzel (1971, 1977); see Proulx 2006: 42-43 for discussion) into Nasca 7a, 7b, and 7c substyles.

�68

the first time in the Nasca 7 style. Cumbrous bowls remain an important shape category

in Nasca 8 and Nasca 9 style pottery. They are distinguished from other bowl types by

their form and interior pendant decoration (Proulx 2006: 43). In general, as one moves

through the Nasca 5-7 styles, the trend in vases is of elongation. The trend in bowls is of

an increasing flare toward the rim (with the exception of cumbrous bowls, which are

convex and slightly rounded). Another vessel form that emerges for the first time in the

Nasca 7 style is single spouted bottles. One version of this form has a long, vertical spout

attached to the body of the vessel by a handle and is very similar to Moche spout and

handle bottles. Proulx (1994, 2006) argues that this form’s appearance in the Nasca style

can be attributed to contact with Moche people. "

" Proulx (2006), following the unpublished seriation Menzel produced of Nasca 7

pottery, sees the Nasca 7 style as diverse both in terms of form and iconography. While

Menzel originally argued for three subdivisions of the Nasca 7 style that represented

temporally discrete categories, Proulx has condensed the subdivisions into Nasca 7a and

7b/c styles and acknowledged the possibility of contemporaneous substyles (2006: 30). 2

The Nasca 7a style illustrates a continuation of previous forms: tall vases, head and

spout bottles, collared bottles, and flaring bowls. The Nasca 7b/c substyle marks the

disappearance of nearly all of these forms (save flaring bowls) and the emergence of

cumbrous bowls, single spout bottles, face neck bottles, and goblets – all categories that

continue among Nasca 8 and 9 pottery. Cumbrous bowls in particular are significant.

They represent a return to a vessel form (gambreled bowls) not seen since the Nasca 3

and Nasca 4 styles and they typically have interior pendant decoration. The use of

Only one excavation context is known in which the stratigraphic relationships between the 2

substyles of Nasca 7 pottery has been documented. Menzel (1971) documented stratigraphy at the PV62-70 site from La Pampa de la Tinguiña in the Ica Valley, which illustrate Nasca 7a and subsequently 7b/c style pottery. Menzel notes that the marked changes in form, color palette, iconography, and location of decoration between the ‘earlier’ and ‘later’ Nasca 7 pottery recovered from deposits at the site correspond to changes in botanical materials consumed by the Late Nasca people who were living there (1971: 90-91). The restricted foodstuffs documented at the site from later periods, when reliable flowing river water became scarce, correlated with the increased popularity of design elements and forms which endured into the Middle Horizon (and were likely derived from outside influences).

�69

interior pendant designs is also a common element of Middle Horizon styles found

throughout the Andes (e.g. Owen 2007). "

" The iconography of Nasca 7 pottery illustrates a continued importance of the

Mythical Being, depicted in new abbreviated forms that Proulx refers to as ‘fan-headed’

because of the replacement of post cranial bodies with an elaborate head ornament

(2006: 44). In addition to the Mythical Being, only abstract manifestations of the Killer

Whale remain in the Nasca 7 style – all other earlier mythical creatures have disappeared

from the sequence. A new mythical creature, referred to as the Affendämon or ‘Ape

Demon’ by Schlesier (1959) appears for the first time. As in the Nasca 6 style, geometric

designs make up a large part of Nasca 7 style iconography, whether as a divider band or

the primary motif. Proulx argues that one of the central themes of the Nasca 7 style

iconography is depictions of warriors, conflict, and militaristic themes (2006: 44). In

some examples, these warriors and their captives are depicted in profile view and in

motion, with terrain illustrated in the background. Following Proulx’s analysis, such

representations are evidence of Moche influence on the Nasca style, due to interaction

between Late Nasca people and groups on the north coast during the end of the EIP

(Proulx 1994, 2006: 44-45). "

" The Nasca 7 style has the widest geographical range of all the Nasca phases. It is

found as far north as the Cañete Valley and as far south as Arequipa, and its stylistic

influence can be strongly felt in Ayacucho. Just as Nasca 7 pottery was influencing the

stylistic choices made in other regions, however, foreign styles were at the same time

impacting the decisions of Nasca potters. In addition to the influence of Moche

iconography, stylistic inspiration came from Ayacucho. Design elements such as

background stippling, chevrons, checkerboard patterns, special patterns of zigzag lines,

and black line spirals attached to vertical bars that are common on Huarpa fineware

pottery appear in Nasca 7 ceramic iconography (Knobloch 1983; Menzel 1964: 9; Proulx

2006: 45; Silverman and Proulx 2002: 94). The influence of Ayacucho pottery began with

the Nasca 7 style and became intense in frequency and variety in Nasca 8 pottery. As

Proulx suggests, “a great deal of artistic experimentation and change was apparently

taking place in Phase 7” (2006: 45). "

�70

" The Nasca 7 style also illustrates the clear impact of Estrella pottery found in the

Pisco and Chincha valleys to the north. Menzel (1971: 91) even notes the presence of

actual Estrella pottery in Late Nasca contexts at the PV62-70 site in the upper Ica Valley.

Estrella pottery employs white interior backgrounds with interior pendant scallop

designs, black, red, and white diagonal lines on dark backgrounds, and white stippling

on dark backgrounds (Proulx 2006: 45; Wallace 1977). These traits appear in Nasca 7

pottery. Menzel (1971) suggests that the cumbrous bowl form and style of upper interior

band or pendant decoration derive from similar Estrella bowls found in the northern

Pisco and Chincha valleys. Such vessels are also found in the Ica Valley, in conjunction

with Nasca 7 style pottery (Menzel 1971: 70). Along with interior pendant designs,

cumbrous bowls may contain designs of ‘rakes’ or feet in the interior base and exterior

banded stripes with diagonal lines - again deriving from Estrella pottery (Menzel 1971:

70). "

" Iconographically, the division between the Nasca 7a and 7b/c substyles is clear.

Nasca 7a pottery depicts the new abbreviated form of the Mythical Being, the Killer

Whale, and the Affendämon. Female faces often rim the base of vessels and distinctive

scenes of warfare appear. The stylistic influences of the Nasca 7a substyle are Nasca 5

and Nasca 6 pottery, and Estrella and Moche pottery from the north. The Nasca 7b/c

substyle is distinct. The Affendämon becomes reduced to a disembodied head (a theme

which continues in Nasca 8) and geometric designs become prevalent (Proulx 2006:

44-5). The typical background color is also different between the Nasca 7 substyles. Most

Nasca 7a pottery, like the earlier Nasca phases, employs polychrome designs

represented on a white background. Nasca 7b/c pottery illustrates an increasing

importance of red as a background color. Nasca 8 and Nasca 9 pottery often have red as

a base color, as does MH pottery throughout the Andes (see Menzel 1971: 70-71; Owen

2007). Many Nasca 7b/c style cumbrous bowls have a red slipped interior with an

exterior red or purple band. The interior polychrome decoration only occupies a small

portion of the design space (along the upper portion of the rim or scattered throughout

the interior base). This pattern also contrasts with the Nasca 7a and earlier styles, which

make extensive use of the design space on a vessel through multiple registers of motifs.

�71

Proulx argues that stylistically, the outside influence on Nasca 7b/c pottery is Ayacucho,

a trend that continues in Nasca 8 pottery. While the Nasca 7 substyle seriation was never

published, there is firm evidence for a legitimate division of Nasca 7 pottery into the

Nasca 7a and Nasca 7b/c substyles (as described by Proulx [2006] and Menzel [1971]).

There are distinctions both in form and in iconography, including the placement of

design elements within the vessel, as well as the origin of non-local stylistic influence. "3

" As Menzel (1971: 70) notes, many of the new design elements that appear in

Nasca 7b/c pottery become important in the Nasca 8 and Nasca 9 styles. The Nasca 8

style, now referred to by most as Loro, is thought to mark the beginning of the MH and

intense cultural influence from Ayacucho. Loro pottery represents a departure from the

previous Nasca styles. Indeed, Dawson referred to Loro pottery as ‘Disjunctive’ (Menzel

et al. 1964), due to the reduction of previously recognizable motifs to mere geometric

elements. Loro motifs include abstract geometric representations of the Killer Whale and

the Mythical Monkey, disembodied heads, humanoid designs (such as abstractions of

arms, hands, legs, hair), and new motifs such as the ‘Star with Eye’ (Proulx 2006: 47).

Loro vessels also have purely geometric designs. These are located along the inner rim of

vessels, following the pendent style found on Huamanga style pottery throughout the

Andes (Anders 1986; Brewster-Wray 1990; Coleman Goldstein 2010; Owen 2007). The

highland influence is also visible in vessel form. Deep spherical bowls with exterior

decoration are a typical Loro form, as are interior decorated cumbrous bowls (Proulx

2006: 46). Face-neck pitchers, which make their appearance among Nasca 7b/c pottery,

are also an important Loro shape category. As Carmichael notes, the Loro style “is a

provisional, catch-all designation” and it “appears likely that Loro may yet be divided

into several styles, some of which may be found to originate in epoch 7 or occur as local

‘strains’ even earlier” (1988: 255). "

While the influence of Estrella pottery on Nasca 7a pottery is clear, it should be noted that the 3

Nasca 7b/c style derives much from Estrella as well. Menzel (1971: 70) observes Estrella design elements and forms in Nasca 7b/c cumbrous bowls, suggesting the greatest and most enduring outside source of stylistic influence in Late Nasca pottery wasn’t Ayacucho or Moche, but rather Estrella. Alternatively, if the two primary Nasca 7 substyles are seen as contemporaneous stylistic variants, then Estrella can be considered the most dominant outside source of design inspiration.

�72

" The Nasca 9 style is now recognized to be the highland Wari Chakipampa style,

which chronologically is thought to be contemporaneous with Loro pottery (e.g.

Knobloch 1991; Proulx 2006: 47). Dawson defined the Nasca 9 style as the point when

Wari cultural influence clearly appeared in south coast pottery (Proulx 2006: 47). Since

we now recognize this influence to have included the adoption of Wari imperial style

pottery, Chakipampa pottery will be discussed further in the section on Ayacucho

pottery below. The major features of the Nasca 9 style are rayed motifs (similar to the

Nasca 8 Star with Eye), a humped animal in profile, an animal with a stinger, and dotted

filler elements (Menzel 1964: 28-29). These designs are painted in colors of gray, cream,

and purple. Also common on Nasca 9 pottery are disembodied heads and chevron band

designs, which often rim the necks of jars or vertically divide panels. Elongated bottles

with single vertical spouts are a common Nasca 9 vessel form, as are open convex bowls

and face-neck bottles (Menzel 1964: 29-30; Proulx 2006: 47). "

!!!4.3" Temporal and Geographical Variability in Nasca Pottery"!

" Based on the work of Dawson and the later interpretations of other scholars, each

phase in the Nasca sequence is thought to represent roughly a century of absolute time.

However, as Rowe noted, “the seriation only provides a chronologic ordering of the

phases, not their definition” (1960: 41). Dawson and colleagues recognized that while the

seriation provided a framework for the ordering of the Nasca pottery styles, it did not

draw firm lines where one style ended and the next style began, nor did it establish an

absolute chronology of the styles (Rowe 1956: 147). The view of the seriation that

Dawson and colleagues held also left room for contemporaneity of styles. As Rowe

states, “since it is theoretically possible for stylistically progressive pieces to be made

and used at the same time as stylistically conservative ones, the phases of a seriation like

Dawson’s do not necessarily represent separate chronological units.” (1956: 147)."

" As more excavations of residential and civic-ceremonial sites have been

conducted, some discrepancies have appeared between the absolute chronology that has

been assigned to the Dawson seriation and the evidence from sites throughout the south

�73

coast. Here I review some of these discrepancies to highlight the problems faced by

Nasca scholars and to provide some context for the approach to ceramic styles that I take

in the present study."

" Based on recent archaeological data and radiocarbon dates, there is variability in

when and where the different pottery styles were produced and consumed. In some

cases, current data suggest that there is overlap between styles. While the Nasca 2 and

Nasca 3 styles appear to represent relatively distinct temporal entities, the same cannot

be said for the Nasca 4 and Nasca 5 styles. By A.D. 325, Nasca 4 pottery is found in the

CNR in domestic and mortuary contexts (Unkel and Kromer 2009: fig. 14.7). The timing

is similar in the SNR - Nasca 4 pottery is found at habitations by around A.D. 350 (Vaughn

2009: 83, table 3.1). In the CNR, these ceramics are joined by Nasca 5 pottery, which is

found in the same contexts. At sites like Los Molinos, Nasca 4 and Nasca 5 vessels are

found in the same stratigraphic layers, intermixed. The same is true of La Muña and

graves from Jauranga and Hanaq Pacha (Hecht 2009: 229). In the CNR, the Nasca 4 and

Nasca 5 styles do not represent true temporal phases, but rather contemporaneous styles

– a point noted by Dawson based on grave associations in his original sample (Rowe

1956: 147). Browne too, considered the Nasca 4 style to represent a “stylistic but not a

chronological division” in the CNR (1992: 79)."

" In light of these data, the Nasca 4 and Nasca 5 styles do not represent distinct

chronological units. In the CNR, these styles reflect changing traditions. Affiliations once

held by the Cahuachi cult (represented by the Nasca 2 - Nasca 4 styles) were replaced by

a new or local sect (represented by the Nasca 5 style). Given the history of competing

religious movements in the Nasca drainage and the important role that polychrome

pottery has played in these movements, such a pattern is unsurprising. In the SNR,

however, the Nasca 4 and Nasca 5 styles may not be contemporaneous. While Nasca 5

pottery was adopted in the CNR by around A.D. 325, in the SNR it does not appear until

around A.D. 450 (Proulx 2006: 28-29; Vaughn 2009: table 3.1). For over a century then,

Nasca 5 pottery was produced and consumed in CNR while people living in villages

such as Marcaya were still producing and consuming Nasca 4 pottery (TABLE 4.1). Yet a

recent study by Vaughn and colleagues using optically stimulated thermoluminescence

�74

Table 4.1. Radiocarbon dates from archaeological sites in the Nasca drainage.

Nasca Region

PeriodCultural affiliation

Ceramic Phase Region Site

Radiocarbon date (calibrated 2 sigma) Source

Early Intermediate

Period

Early Nasca

Nasca 2- 3 CNR Los Molinos A.D. 140-210 Unkel and Kromer 2009

Nasca 2-3 CNR Los Molinos A.D. 150-245Unkel and Kromer 2009

Nasca 2-3 CNR Los Molinos A.D. 160-260 Unkel and Kromer 2009

Nasca 2-3 CNR Los Molinos A.D. 170-275 Unkel and Kromer 2009

Nasca 2-4 SNR Upanca A.D. 120-435 Vaughn and Linares 2006

Nasca 3-4 SNR Marcaya A.D. 130-420 Vaughn 2009

Nasca 3-4 SNR Marcaya A.D. 240-420 Vaughn 2009Nasca 3-4 SNR Marcaya A.D. 370-540 Vaughn 2009

Middle Nasca

Nasca 4/5 CNR Avg. 10 samples, multiple sites

A.D. 325-440 Unkel and Kromer 2009

Late Nasca

Nasca 7 CNR Parasmarca A.D. 430-545 Unkel and Kromer 2009

Nasca 7 CNR Parasmarca A.D. 465-590 Unkel and Kromer 2009

Nasca 7 CNR Parasmarca A.D. 570-650 Unkel and Kromer 2009

Late Nasca/Loro

Nasca 7/8 SNR Pajonal Alto A.D. 570-690 Conlee 2000

Middle Horizon

LoroNasca 8 CNR

Parasmarca/Los Molinos A.D. 605-680 Unkel and

Kromer 2009

Nasca 8 CNRParasmarca/Los

Molinos A.D. 610-695 Unkel and Kromer 2009

Loro/Wari

Nasca 8/Wari

SNR La Tiza A.D. 653-774 Conlee 2010Nasca 8/

WariSNR La Tiza A.D. 664-829 Conlee 2010

Nasca 8/Wari

SNR Pataraya A.D. 674-869 Edwards 2010Nasca 8/

WariSNR Pataraya A.D. 807-990 Edwards 2010

WariNasca 9 CNR Parasmarca/Los

MolinosA.D. 685-815 Unkel and

Kromer 2009

Nasca 9 CNRParasmarca/Los

Molinos A.D. 690-825Unkel and Kromer 2009

�75

(OSL) to directly date pottery suggests that there is more temporal overlap in the SNR

between the Nasca 4 and Nasca 5 styles than was previously thought (Vaughn et. al.

2013). A key problem faced by Nasca scholars is that the data from the SNR derive from

limited excavation contexts and the frequency of radiocarbon dates is much lower than

in the CNR. The German led research program in Palpa has produced a large number of

radiocarbon dates from sites spanning the Initial Period through Late Horizon (e.g.

Unkel et al. 2007, 2009). There are no radiocarbon dates associated with Nasca 5 pottery

in the SNR (TABLE 4.1). Before the relationship between the Nasca 4 and Nasca 5 styles

in the SNR can be examined further, additional radiocarbon dates from excavation

contexts are needed. "

" There may also be temporal overlap in the production and consumption of Nasca

6 and Nasca 7 pottery. In the Ingenio Valley of the CNR, Nasca 6 pottery is only known

from a small sector of the Ventilla site (Silverman 2002: 129). Nasca 6 pottery is absent

from domestic and mortuary contexts in the rest of the CNR as well (Hecht 2009: 229). In

the Ica Valley of the NNR, Cook encountered a Nasca 7 occupation at the site of Casa

Vieja, but found no evidence for Nasca 6 pottery (Cook and Parrish 2005: 136). Menzel 4

likewise documented numerous Nasca 7 settlements in Ica without any evidence for

Nasca 6 (1971: 86). Yet Nasca 7 pottery is found in abundance at Late Nasca settlements

like Parasmarca in the CNR, and the radiocarbon dates from these contexts provide no

evidence for a temporal lag that would have been filled by the Nasca 6 style (Unkel and

Kromer 2009: 238). Rather, there is no temporal gap at all between radiocarbon dates for

Nasca 4/5 contexts and those from Nasca 7 contexts – suggesting that the Nasca 6 phase

is more of a regional variant than a temporal predecessor of Nasca 7. The OSL data

collected by Vaughn and colleagues also conforms to this pattern and even suggests

some overlap between not just Nasca 6 and Nasca 7 pottery, but Nasca 5 - Nasca 7

pottery (Vaughn et al. 2013). Hecht (2009: 229) suggests the Nasca 6 style is found

predominantly in the SNR, where it has been documented in several graves (Silverman

1993; Kroeber and Collier 1998) and at Cahuachi (Strong 1957; see also Carmichael 1988;

Although Menzel (1971) does mention a few unprovenienced vessels as coming from Ica.4

�76

Silverman 1993). Yet Menzel (1971: 66) observes that very few Nasca 6 settlements have

actually been confirmed. In his substantial analysis of Nasca ceramic iconography,

Proulx notes a similar conundrum. In spite of the fact that Nasca 6 vessels comprise a

large selection of his sample (12.5%, in contrast to the 11.5% represented by Nasca 7

vessels), there are only a small number of sites that actually contain Nasca 6 pottery

(2006: 40-43). Proulx’s analysis consisted of museum pieces that often come from burial

contexts (through excavations in cemeteries or looting). Based on these data, it is

possible that Nasca 6 pottery is not only a regional variant, but a style of pottery

reserved for certain contexts such as burials. "

" Present data also suggest regional variation in when people began producing

and consuming Nasca 7 pottery and the MH styles. The Nasca 7 style first appears at

sites like Parasmarca in the CNR around A.D. 440 (Unkel and Kromer 2009), at a time

when Nasca 5 pottery is found in the SNR (Vaughn 2009: table 3.1). Nasca 6 and Nasca 7

pottery did not occur in the SNR until around A.D. 550. Likewise, while Nasca 7 pottery

Table 4.2. Comparative chronology of the EIP and MH (and associated pottery styles) as they are understood to have occurred in the SNR, CNR, and Ayacucho.

�77

was abandoned in the CNR in favor of the Nasca 8 (or Loro) style around A.D. 630, Loro

pottery is not found in the SNR until around A.D. 750 (TABLES 4.1 - 4.2). There is a

limited occupation of Pajonal Alto that contains Nasca 7 and Loro style ceramics

intermixed, which dates to circa A.D. 630 (Conlee 2000: 204). Notably, the ceramics

recovered do not appear to be either Nasca 7 or Loro pottery, but rather a more

transitional style. Kroeber and Collier also noted a funerary context with both Nasca 7

and Loro style ceramics (1998: 212, 223). "

" Yet the present chronology is based on very limited radiocarbon dates from the

SNR and only a single published date from the NNR, which derives from the Nasca 7

and MH site of Casa Vieja (Cook and Parrish 2005: 142). There are no radiocarbon dates

from a discrete Nasca 6 or Nasca 7 context in the SNR and only four radiocarbon dates

from Loro and MH contexts (TABLE 4.1). The dates generated as part of this dissertation

are important to our understanding of when and where the Late Nasca styles were

produced and consumed. As these data illustrate, there is clear variation in the Dawson

seriation. The styles do not always represent discrete temporal markers, and there are

regional differences in when styles were adopted (see Carmichael 2013). Further

radiocarbon dates from excavations in the SNR and the NNR will be key to developing a

better and regionally cohesive understanding of Nasca prehistory and the role that these

Nasca pottery styles played."

!! !4.4" Correlating Style and Time"

" "" As the above discussion illustrates, well developed dating programs are

important to our ability to link ceramic styles with absolute temporal dates. Inferences

regarding sociopolitical developments and regional cohesion are difficult to make when

the patterns being observed cannot be firmly tied to calendrical dates. This is

particularly true when the ceramic styles being used in interpretation played a central

cultural role in sociopolitical organization. As I discussed, there are different regional

chronologies employed by archaeologists on the south coast. The chronology used by

�78

scholars working in the CNR (which is based on a much more robust dating program)

suggests that people were producing and consuming the Nasca styles at different times

than the people in the SNR. Yet the chronology used by most scholars in the SNR is

based on limited radiocarbon dates. Future results from excavation contexts may

Figure 4.1. Chart illustrating current knowledge of where and when the different ceramic styles discussed are found, based on published 14C dates from archaeological contexts directly associated with pottery (median of CAL 2 σ format was used to define upper and lower temporal boundaries of style production and consumption). References used in TABLE 6.3 were supplemented by Silverman (1993).

A.D. 100

A.D. 200

A.D. 300

A.D. 400

A.D. 500

A.D. 600

A.D. 700

A.D. 800

A.D. 900

A.D. 1000ICA - NASCA DRAINAGE

0 Nasca 2/3

Nasca 4

Nasca 5

Nasca 7

Loro

Chakipampa

Nasca 6

?

Viñaque

�79

correlate well with the CNR chronology. Indeed, the results of Vaughn and colleagues’

OSL analysis support that conclusion. "

" Also important is examining the social context of consumption of Nasca pottery

and intra-regional variability. It is possible that at different settlements throughout the

south coast, people were simultaneously using Nasca 5, 6, or 7 pottery. Likewise, some

sites with Nasca 7 or Loro pottery may have been contemporaneous. Moreover, people

may have used these styles at the same time within individual settlements, illustrating

complex processes of cultural reformation at the community level. These processes have

already been observed by scholars who note objects that transcend stylistic boundaries.

As Carmichael has illustrated, it may be productive to think in terms of the groups that

produced and consumed these different styles, where, and when (FIG. 4.1)."

!!!

4.4" Summary"!" In this chapter I have presented an overview of the EIP pottery styles relevant to

the present study and discussed some of the issues faced by south coast archaeologists.

The establishment of ceramic chronologies has been a cornerstone of Andean

scholarship and forms the foundation of Nasca research. Studies over the past few

decades have refined the Dawson seriation and radiocarbon dating programs have

begun to establish an absolute chronology associated with the the different pottery

styles. These dating programs - and the widely variable quantity of dates available in

different regions - also highlight inconsistencies with the Dawson seriation. The

temporal overlap of some styles has been noted, as has regional variability in when the

different styles were adopted. The radiocarbon dates generated as part of this research

fill a key gap in the SNR chronology by establishing calendrical dates for excavation

contexts directly associated with Late Nasca pottery.

!80

!!!!!CHAPTER 5. SURFACE ANALYSIS AND EXCAVATIONS"

!!!" The following chapter discusses surface analysis and excavations at the research

site. After providing a detailed description of Cocahuischo and its location within the

Tierras Blancas Valley, I describe the methodology and results of surface collection and

architectural analysis. I then present the methodology and results of horizontal

excavations. I conclude by discussing status and the social division of space at the site.

The chapter as a whole provides an overview of data collection methods in the field, and

summarizes the data collected through surface analysis and excavations."

!!!5.1" Introduction to Cocahuischo"!

" The archaeological site of Cocahuischo is located in the upper Tierras Blancas

river valley of the Southern Nasca Region or SNR, in the Department of Ica (FIG. 5.1).

Cocahuischo was initially recorded by Katharina Schreiber in 1986, as part of settlement

surveys being conducted in the northern valleys of the SNR, and given the numbers

86-16 and 86-15. The name Cocahuischo was described by local residents when the site

was first identified, and derives from Quechua (kuka wisch’uy), meaning literally “to

throw or abandon coca”. This can be taken to imply the elevation where coca no longer

grows or, more likely, the elevation at which chewing coca is no longer necessary to

mitigate the effects of elevation – and thus one spits it out (Vaughn, personal

communication, 2010). "

" Cocahuischo is located over a 6 hectare area of the southern flank of the valley, at

an elevation of about 1250 meters (m) above sea level. The settlement consists of over

400 houses, patios, and terraces, and a cemetery with 40 tombs (FIG. 5.2). The southern"

!81

backside of the site rises sharply to Cerro Chiuchipampa, while the cliff defining the

northern edge of Cocahuischo descends steeply approximately twenty meters to the

Tierras Blancas valley floor (FIG. 5.3). Cocahuischo is located on the opposite side of the

valley from the road that connects the Nasca-Puquio highway to Ronquillo, the small

hamlet a few kilometers north of Cocahuischo and just south of Pataraya (FIG. 5.4).

Above this road on the opposite side of the valley is a small Formative house site. Since

its initial recording, Cocahuischo has remained unstudied until fieldwork was carried

out in 2010 and 2012 by the author as part of this dissertation. Surface ceramics from

throughout the site suggested the occupation of Cocahuischo spanned the late Early

Intermediate Period (EIP), making it one of the only known locales in the SNR where

Figure 5.1. Location of Cocahuischo and the southern Nasca region.

PERU

Río Nasca

Río Ingenio

Río Taruga

Río Las Trancas

PalpaRío AjaRegion

Río Tierras Blancas

480000 500000 520000 540000

8350

000

8370

000

8390

000

560000460000440000

440000 460000 480000 500000 520000 540000 560000

8330

000

8410

000

8430

000

8350

000

8370

000

8390

000

8330

000

8410

000

8430

000

V. Whalen 20120 20km

RiverProjection: WGS 1984 18S

Departmentborder

Cartographer: V. Whalen

DEPARTMENTOF ICA

DEPARTMENT OFAYACUCHO

CocahuischoCocahuischo

!82

this key transitional period can be examined from the perspective of an individual

community."

" As a whole, Cocahuischo is relatively well-preserved and unlooted (for the Nasca

region). The site looks to be in much the same condition as it was when it was initially

recorded in 1986 and as it appears on an aerial photograph taken in 1944 by the Peruvian

Air Force (FIG. 5.5). While there is some water and wind damage to certain structures

(leading to deflated contexts), the structural integrity of the deposits in most structures is

solid. What looting has occurred is generally centered on burials, although the half "

Figure 5.2. Aerial photo of Cocahuischo illustrating the houses, patios, and terraces that compose the site. The Tierras Blancas River is located at the top of the image and the lower flank of Cerro Chiuchipampa is located at the base of the image.

!83

! "

!Figure 5.3. Photo of Cocahuischo facing up valley, illustrating the steep hillside on which Cocahuischo is located (photo courtesy M. Tierney).

Figure 5.4. Satellite image of the upper Tierras Blancas River, highlighting the modern road, town of Ronquillo, and archaeological sites (Satellite image courtesy of Google Earth).

!84

finished looters pits (and subsequent excavations of the cemetery conducted as part of

this study) suggest that these efforts were not particularly fruitful. The modern surface

of the site is mostly exposed and devoid of vegetation, except for scattered columnar

cacti (likely Neoraimondia arequipensis) and small shrubs (Cnidoscolus peruvianus)."

Figure 5.5. Aerial photo of Cocahuischo taken in 1944. Note relative lack of erosion or destruction of the site when compared with current aerial images (see Figure 5.2). Aerial photograph courtesy Servicio Aerofotográfico Nacional de Perú via Katharina Schreiber.

!85

" Some Late Nasca sites are located in defensible positions on steep hillsides of the

valley and descend sharply on the valley facing side. The size of these sites marks an

expansion of settlement size during the late EIP. In earlier periods, settlements were

composed of 70-90 structures (such as Early Nasca Marcaya [Vaughn 2009] or the Early

Nasca settlement just up valley from Cocahuischo), but by Late Nasca new settlements

were established with upwards of 400-500 structures. Most of these houses are packed

closely together along the natural topography of the hillsides. Raw material for

construction at Cocahuischo was readily available, either through fieldstone present on

the surface or through quarrying natural outcrops in the steep hillside above the site

(FIG. 5.6). "

" Cocahuischo’s size suggests a rather large population, when compared to other

settlements in the valley (such as the Early Nasca village of Marcaya, or the Wari way

station of Pataraya). At its height, the site was likely occupied by around 400 people.

Today, residents of Tierras Blancas rely on a mixed agropastoral economy, consisting of

locally grown goods and livestock they herd on the sparsely vegetated hillsides and the

valley bottom. Local farmers tend to small crops of maize, wheat, and beans, irrigated by

Figure 5.6. Natural outcrops located above Cocahuischo.

!86

water channeled from the river (when it flows). Animals (primarily goats) are kept in

small corrals, and residents rely on them for dairy products and meat. On the hillside

east of Cocahuischo (past a small gully or quebrada), is a wash with a large stone

enclosure that appears to be a prehistoric corral – likely associated with the site (FIGS.

Figure 5.7. View of possible stone corral with Cocahuischo in the background (photograph courtesy H. Van Gijseghem).

Figure 5.8. Stone corral (highlighted in blue) and associated patio group (highlighted in green). Photograph courtesy H. Van Gijseghem.

!87Figure 5.9. Topographic map of Cocahuischo illustrating architectural features and the 2010 and 2012 excavations.

1246m

1238m

1230m

SECTOR V

SECTOR IV

SECTOR III

SECTOR I

SECTOR II

1222m

1214m

1206m

1190m1198m

1182m

1166m

Tierras Blancas River

1174m

Tombs

525300

525300

525000

525000

525100

525100

525200

52520083

6340

0

8363

400

8363

200

8363

200

8363

300

8363

300

525400

525400

2010 Units

2010 Tombs

Architecture

COCAHUISCHO

Patio area

Terrace area

Pathway

2012 Units

0 10 50 100

METERS

PROJECTION: WGS 1984UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR ZONE 18S

!88

5.7 & 5.8). Just southeast of the corral is a patio group composed of a circular house and

oblong patio, architecturally very similar to the patio groups at Cocahuischo. Other than

this, however, there is not much evidence for agricultural or pastoral activity associated

with Cocahuischo (save a few small terraces scattered throughout the site which may

have been used for household gardens). Most crops were likely cultivated in the valley

bottom, now obliterated by modern farming."

!!!5.1.1" Mapping and Sectors of the Site"!

" Based on the natural topography of the site, in particular, the presence of four

quebradas, Cocahuischo was divided into five sectors: 4 primarily residential (Sectors I-III

and V) and one containing a cemetery (Sector IV; FIG. 5.9). The initial division of the site

was made during the first stage of the 2010 pilot project, when Cocahuischo was

mapped using a total mapping station rented from an engineering company in Ica. A

datum was established on the road across valley from Cocahuischo that leads from the

Nasca-Puquio highway to Ronquillo, since it provided the most optimal vantage point of

the rather steep site. For each structure, 4-5 points were taken along walls, terraces, and

doorways. All recorded points were noted on a sketch map of the site that was

previously made by the author, and recorded by Hendrik Van Gijseghem, who operated

the total station. The data was then entered into the ESRI ArcView program by Stefanie

Bautista to generate a topographic and architectural map (produced in conjunction with

the author using the Adobe Illustrator program)."

" The majority of houses were built on terraces, which abut the natural bedrock

and were constructed using retaining walls and natural fill, forming patio groups of 2-3

structures. Most of these houses are packed closely together along the natural

topography of the hillside. The average room size varies considerably, from 3m in

diameter to upwards of 10m (FIG. 5.10). The foundations of all house and retaining walls

were composed of unmodified or slightly modified fieldstone without mortar (wall

superstructures may have been constructed of perishable materials). In some cases, the

construction materials included relatively large stone slabs, worked on multiple sides,

!89

which appear to have been quarried from the natural outcrops in the steep hillside

above the site (see FIG. 5.6)."

" Sector I is the eastern most portion of the site (see FIG. 5.9), and consists of 24

patio groups, a series of small terraces, and stand alone structures (Structures 1-77), as

well as a small cemetery along the far eastern margin of the sector (FIG. 5.11). Just over

40% of these patio groups (N=10) consist of two semi-circular structures attached to

Figure 5.10. Comparative aerial photograph planviews of Patio Groups 1 and 12. Note the difference in scale between the two different structures and their adjacent patios (Aerial photographs courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC).

!90

either end of an open patio, while the other 60% (N=14) have only one structure. As

throughout most of the site, the structures forming patio groups in Sector I are stretched

out in a line, forming an elongated rounded rectangle, much like patio groups

commonly found at Early Nasca villages such as Marcaya and Uchuchuma (Van

Gijseghem and Vaughn 2008: fig. 8; Vaughn 2000: fig. 4.2). As throughout all the sectors,

in terms of structure size, there is no pattern related to elevation. In Sector I – the largest

house is found at the base of the site (Structure 76), but an almost equally large house is

found near the top (Structure 17)."

Figure 5.11. Topographic map of Sectors I-III at Cocahuischo, illustrating architectural features and units of excavation during the 2010 and 2012 field seasons. See Appendix A for structure and patio group numbers.

1238m

1230m

Tombs

525300

525300

525200

525200

8363

400

8363

300

525400

525400

SECTOR III

2010 Excavation

Architecture

COCAHUISCHO

Patio area

Terrace area

Pathway

2012 Excavation

SECTOR II

SECTOR I

1198m1190m

1182m

1174m

1206m

1214m

1222m

1246m

8363

400

8363

300

525350

525350

525250

525250

8363

350

8363

350 Structure 190

Structure 88 U5

Structure 104Structure 32

U4

Structure 17

MAP OF SECTORS I-III

units

units

2m contour0 10 50 75

METERS

PROJECTION: WGS 1984UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR ZONE 18S

Structure 203

Structure 246

U6

U1U2

!91

Sector II is located on the narrow v-shaped plateau that extends out between

Sectors I and III (see FIG. 5.11), and consists of 11 patio groups and a series of small

terraces and stand alone structures (Structures 78-110). All but two of these patio groups

(N=9) consist of a single semi-circular structure attached to either the eastern or western

end of an open patio or terrace. The only patio groups with a house or terrace at either

end are located in the upper portion of Sector II (Patio Groups 28 & 29), where the site

becomes very steep. Separated from Sectors I and III by two quebradas, Sector II is by far

the smallest sector, although the nature of the quebradas makes Sector II easily accessible

toward the top of the site, where the quebradas are more shallow. In this sense, Sectors I-

III do not really represent physically distinct spaces. The geographical division between

Sectors I-III and Sector V, however, is much more marked and likely had an impact on

the relationship between the two major areas of the settlement (see FIG. 5.9)."

Sector III is the westernmost portion of Cocahuischo before the cemetery, and

consists of 45 patio groups, a number of narrow terraces located predominantly toward

the top of the site, and a series of stand alone structures (Structures 111-250; see FIG.

5.11), making it the second largest sector after Sector V (see FIG. 5.9). At the top of Sector

III, the patio groups are packed tightly together, with some retaining walls providing the

back wall of the structure below (FIG. 5.12). At the western base of Sector III, past a

series of oval terraces, is a large half-moon shaped plaza. Toward the southern edge of

this plaza (Structure 250) is a small circular stone pit – very similar to the semi-circular

plaza with circular stone pit complex located on the western edge of Sector V (although

in that case, the stone structure is located outside the plaza)."

Sector IV is an isolated, large v-shaped plateau extending out between Sectors III

and V, and consists of a cemetery with 35 tombs (see FIG. 5.9). It is removed from the

nearby sectors by large and deep quebradas – the most substantial natural divisions at

Cocahuischo. The tombs are semi-subterranean with surface markers of mounds of

uncut fieldstone (FIG. 5.13). Sector IV is unique in that it consists of tombs, rather than a

mixture of domestic architecture and tombs (some of which are burials intrusive to

houses or patios, as is found in Sectors I, III, and V). "

!92

Finally, Sector V is the western most portion of the site, located across from the

cemetery on Sector IV on the opposite side of a large quebrada (see FIG. 5.9). It consists of

49 patio groups, a series of rounded terraces, and a number of stand alone structures

(Structures 251-471), making it the largest sector with the most densely packed

Figure 5.12. Structure in Sector III containing a back wall that forms the retaining wall of the house terrace above.

Figure 5.13. Tomb 3 at Cocahuischo, located in the Sector IV cemetery.

!93

architecture (FIG. 5.14). Throughout most of the site, the patio groups are stretched out

in a line, forming almost rectangular entities. While many of the patio groups in Sector V

follow this pattern, a number form honeycomb style clusters of structures agglutinated

to form larger patio groups. This could be due to the fact that portions of Sector V are

much less steep than the other sectors, or this could indicate some sort of meaningful

social difference."

Figure 5.14. Topographic map of Sector V at Cocahuischo, illustrating architectural features and excavation units from the 2010 and 2012 field seasons.

1246m

1238m

1230m

1222m

1214m

1206m

1190m

1198m

1182m

525000

525000

525100

525100

8363

200

8363

200

8363

300

8363

300

SECTOR V

525050

525050

524950

524950

8363

250

8363

250

2010 Excavation

Architecture

COCAHUISCHO

Patio area

Terrace area

Pathway

2012 Excavation

MAP OF SECTOR V

units

units

2m contour0 10 50 75

METERS

PROJECTION: WGS 1984UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR ZONE 18S

Structure 255

Structure 285

Structure 293

U3

8363

350

8363

350

!94

5.2" Surface Collections and Architectural Analysis"!5.2.1" Surface Collections"!

! Once all the structures had been numbered and the site was mapped during the

2010 field season, a systematic collection of pottery and lithic artifacts present on the

surface of the site was conducted. The collection was augmented during the 2012 field

season with data regarding the distribution of large ground stone batanes and the

location and content of looters pits (e.g. evidence for subterranean burials in domestic

contexts). Particularly with regard to pottery, the location of Cocahuischo on a cliff

overlooking the Tierras Blancas Valley floor proved helpful. Looting is a significant

problem on the south coast of Peru, and house sites that are located close to roads or

areas of modern traffic are often quite looted. While a limited surface collection was

conducted during Schreiber’s initial recording of the site, the remote location insured

that the fineware pottery present on the surface of the site was actually quite plentiful,

making a systematic collection somewhat representative of subsurface deposits and thus

worth the time and effort expended."

Figure 5.15. Example photograph of pottery recovered during systematic surface collection in 2010.

!95Figure 5.16. Topographic map of Cocahuischo illustrating where surface collections of pottery and lithic artifacts were made.

1246m

1238m

1230m

SECTOR V

SECTOR IV

SECTOR III

SECTOR I

SECTOR II

1222m

1214m

1206m

1190m1198m

1182m

1166m

Tierras Blancas River

1174m

Tombs

525300

525300

525000

525000

525100

525100

525200

52520083

6340

0

8363

400

8363

200

8363

200

8363

300

8363

300

525400

525400

Surface pottery collected

Architecture

COCAHUISCHO

Patio area

Terrace area

Pathway

0 10 50 100

METERS

PROJECTION: WGS 1984UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR ZONE 18S

from structure

2m contour

!96

" A team of two to three people conducted the systematic surface collection over

five days in 2010. Field assistants collected the surface pottery and other significant

artifacts present in each structure (or in some cases, patio group, if a clear affiliation with

a particular structure was not possible), while I noted the structure and took a scale

photograph of each pottery and artifact group (FIG. 5.15). Along with documentation,

the photos allowed for post-fieldwork analysis of ceramic style and iconography.

Because Cocahuischo is a very steep site, with a high degree of rain erosion and wall "

collapse, artifacts recovered from wall fall or deposits that had clearly washed down

from the house terrace above were re-associated with that patio group or structure. In

some cases, no pottery was visible on the surface of a structure, either because erosion of

the subsurface deposits was low, the artifacts had already been removed, had washed

away, or the pottery density of the subsurface deposits was low. Once documented, the

artifacts were left in place due to the logistical constraints of collecting the entire sample

of surface artifacts."

" Scale photos were taken for a total of 843 ceramic sherds and 18 lithic artifacts

recovered from 153 structures throughout the four residential sectors (Appendix B; FIG.

5.16). The pottery included a combination of plainware and fineware polychrome

fragments (although the frequency of fineware sherds was significantly higher, partially

due to visibility in the rocky and sandy deposits of the site), and lithic artifacts consisted

primarily of obsidian and quartzite (again, likely a product of visibility). While the goal

was a full coverage survey, surface artifacts were recovered from more structures in

Sectors I-III than in Sector V, for a few reasons. First, the preservation of structures in

Sector V is generally worse than in the other sectors (FIGS. 5.17 & 5.18). There is greater

wall collapse, in some of the smaller structures the surface area is almost entirely

covered by wall fall. The erosion of sediments and exposure of artifacts on the surface is

thus less frequent, and whatever erosion might have exposed artifacts post-

abandonment has been hidden by fallen rocks. Second, Sector V is generally less steep

than most areas of Sectors I-III, which likely has also led to less rain water erosion and

washing down of sediments (and in turn, exposure of artifacts). Indeed, the

southwestern portion of Sector V is nearly flat, which likely reduced the impact of water

!97

erosion. Rain water, however, is a double edged sword in terms of taphonomic processes

- able to expose subsurface deposits but also to wash them completely away. Although

parts of Sector V are rather flat, at the same time, the central area of Sector V forms a

shallow gully that likely funneled rainwater down from the hillside above, washing out

Figure 5.17. Structure 259 in Sector V, illustrating high degree of wall collapse and a large central looters pit.

Figure 5.18. Structure 17 in Sector I, illustrating high degree of wall preservation.

!98

structure deposits. Overall, Sector V does have slightly higher rates of looting (14.3% of

structures, in contrast with 12.4% of structures in Sectors I-III) and the looters pits

themselves are more extensive (FIG. 5.17). In structures that have been looted, higher

frequencies of surface artifacts were recovered."

" During the 2012 field season, additional analyses of visible surface features were

made. The distribution of large ground stone batanes, at least 1 meter in length, was

recorded to examine patterns in domestic production. Assuming that in Nasca, the

archaeological household is represented by patio groups, it can be hypothesized that

each patio group would have been responsible for its own food production and

preparation. Given the importance of maize and other food sources whose preparation

includes grinding, one way this may be represented archaeologically is by the presence

of ground stone manos and batanes (FIG. 5.19). While manos may be portable, the large

stone batanes that have been previously observed at Cocahuischo are not, making their

placement and association with patio groups indicative of domestic production

practices. The distribution of large ground stone batanes was recorded for each of the

Figure 5.19. Large ground stone batán and associated ground stone mano from Structure 417 in Sector V.

!99

four residential sectors and some clear patterns are visible, particularly when comparing

Sector V to Sectors I-III (TABLE 5.1)."

" While not every patio group in Sectors I-III contained a large batán, the batanes

are fairly regularly distributed throughout the three sectors (FIG. 5.20). In Sector I, 5 of

the 24 patio groups (or 20.8%) contained a large batán. In Sector II, 2 of the 11 patio

groups (or 18.%) contained a large batán, and in Sector III, 8 of the 45 patio groups (or

17.8%) contained a large batán. Since the batanes that were recorded included only those

Figure 5.20. Topographic map of Sectors I-III at Cocahuischo illustrating the distribution of features visible on the surface, such as batanes and looters pits with evidence of bone.

1238m

1230m

Tombs

525300

525300

525200

525200

8363

400

8363

300

525400

525400

SECTOR IIIArchitecture

COCAHUISCHO

Patio area

Terrace area

Pathway

SECTOR II

SECTOR I

1198m1190m

1182m

1174m

1206m

1214m

1222m

1246m

8363

400

8363

300

525350

525350

525250

525250

8363

350

8363

350

MAP OF SECTORS I-III

2m contour0 10 50 75

METERS

PROJECTION: WGS 1984UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR ZONE 18S

Subterranean burial pit (looted)

Large ground stone batán

!100

1 meter in length or larger, it is very likely that more patio groups contained at least one

batán."

" The distribution of batanes in Sector V is distinct (FIG. 5.21). While 6 of the 49

patio groups (or 12.2%) contained a large batán, Sector V has a much higher percentage

of stand alone structures than Sectors I-III, making the prevalence of batanes even lower.

When looked at from the perspective of structures, only 8 of the 210 structures (or 3.8%)

in Sector V contained a large batán, whereas in Sectors I-III, 16 of the 266 structures (or

6%) contained a large batán. While this pattern is not statistically significant (chi square

test result of Χ2 = 1.2478, degrees of freedom = 1, 50-80% confidence interval), the

frequency of batanes in the two areas of the site are still distinct. Moreover, the spatial

patterning in Sector V marks a clear distinction between the two major regions of

Cocahuischo. The batanes are relatively scattered in Sectors I-III and are evenly

distributed throughout the three sectors. In contrast, the batanes in Sector V are

concentrated in a cluster of large patio groups at the northeastern edge of the sector.

Only two batanes were recorded outside this grouping, and these, too, were found in the

northern half of Sector V. Even more notable than their spatial placement within the

sector, these patio groups are themselves quite unusual. While they will be discussed

Table 5.1. Distribution of patio groups and structures with large (1m or bigger) ground stone batanes.

Sector

# of Patio Groups

Sector

# of Structures

batán no batán Total batán no batán Total

I 5 19 24 I-III 16 258 266

II 2 9 11

III 8 37 45 V 8 194 210V 6 49 55

Total 21 114 135 Total 24 452 476

!101

further in the architectural analysis section, these patio groups represent an organization

of space that is distinct from any other patio groups at Cocahuischo, both in terms of size

and complexity."

" In addition to examining the distribution of batanes, during the 2012 field season

the presence and distribution of looters pits throughout the four residential sectors was

recorded. Based on the test excavations conducted in 2010 and observations made while

Figure 5.21. Topographic map of Sector V at Cocahuischo illustrating the distribution of features visible on the surface, such as batanes and looters pits with evidence of bone.

1246m

1238m

1230m

1222m

1214m

1206m

1190m

1198m

1182m

525000

525000

525100

525100

8363

200

8363

200

8363

300

8363

300

SECTOR V

525050

525050

524950

524950

8363

250

8363

250

Architecture

COCAHUISCHO

Patio area

Terrace area

Pathway

MAP OF SECTOR V

2m contour0 10 50 75

METERS

PROJECTION: WGS 1984UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR ZONE 18S

8363

350

8363

350

Subterranean burial pit (looted)

Large ground stone batán

!102

in the field, it was clear that some structures contained subterranean (possibly intrusive)

burials. A pedestrian survey of the site and examination of looters pits and back dirt was

used to record the frequency of looters pits and whether or not they contained evidence

of bone. Many of these pits are clearly subterranean tombs (FIG. 5.22), and their

distribution throughout the four residential sectors, as well as their location within the

built environment, was of interest."

" In Sectors I-III, a total of 33 structures containing looters pits were recorded (see

FIG. 5.20; TABLE 5.2). Of these looted structures, 30 (or 90.9%) contained bone visible in

the wall of the pit or back dirt, suggesting that the looters pits encountered (or entirely

removed) a subterranean tomb. Among the 30 structures with looters pits that showed

evidence of burials, 22 (or 73.3%) were located within houses while the rest were located

within patios. In Sector V, a total of 25 structures containing looters pits were recorded

(see FIG. 5.21; TABLE 5.2). Of these looted structures, only 9 (or 36%) contained bone,

suggesting a subterranean burial. Based on these data, the difference in the prevalence of

subterranean burials between Sectors I-III and V is highly statistically significant (chi

square test result of Χ2 = 18.8422, degrees of freedom = 1, < 99.9% confidence interval).

Figure 5.22. Looters pits in Structure 400 in Sector V with visible subterranean structures and human bone in the back dirt.

!103

Among the 9 looted structures that showed evidence of burials in Sector V, only 4 (or

44.4%) were located within houses while the remaining 55.6% were found in patios and

terraces. When compared to the 22 out of 30 looted structures with likely burials found

in houses in Sectors I-III, this difference is statistically significant (chi square test result of

Χ2 = 3.3687, degrees of freedom = 1, 90-95% confidence interval)."

" It would be tempting to suggest that the differences between Sectors I-III and

Sector V in the prevalence of subterranean burials and where they are located (house vs.

patio or terrace) are meaningful. Indeed, the distribution of looters pits throughout the

two major residential zones seems comparable. We recorded looters pits in 12.4% of

structures in Sectors I-III and 11.9% of structures in Sector V, indicating that the patterns

visible in subterranean burials are not entirely one of sampling (chi square test result of

Χ2 = 0.0282, degrees of freedom = 1, >50% confidence interval). Based on these data, there

does appear to be a much higher prevalence of subsurface domestic burials in Sectors I-

III. Firm conclusions regarding where these burials are located within domestic contexts

are more problematic. While 72.4% of burials in Sectors I-III and only 44.4% of burials in

Sector V were located beneath houses, 72.7% of all looted structures in Sectors I-III and

56% of all looted structures in Sector V were houses, suggesting that the perceived

pattern is more reflective of looting practices than anything else. As we will see below,

Sector

# of looted structures # of looted structures - bone

House Patio/Terrace Total House Patio/Terrace TotalI 11 2 13 11 2 13II 4 1 5 4 1 5III 8 7 15 7 5 12V 14 11 25 4 5 9

Total 37 21 58 26 13 39

Table 5.2. Distribution of structures with looters pits and the structures among those whose pits provide evidence for subterranean burials.

!104

there is a higher ratio of houses to patios and terraces in Sectors I-III than in Sector V,

which may account for the fact that more of the structures looted in Sectors I-III were

houses."

!!!5.2.2" Architecture Analysis"!

! Initial fieldwork during 2010 revealed preliminary evidence for houses with high

quality construction, located in more restricted areas, suggesting that privileged

community members were present. As part of the research strategy in 2012, detailed

architectural analysis of the entire site was undertaken, to quantify the perceived

differentiation in domestic architecture. These data served as a proxy for social status.

The majority of structures were built on terraces, which abut the natural bedrock and

were constructed by leveling the natural hillside and using retaining walls and natural

fill, forming patio groups of 2-3 structures. The average room size at Cocahuischo varies

considerably, from around 2m in diameter to upwards of 11m. The foundations of all

structure and retaining walls were composed of unmodified or slightly modified

fieldstone without mortar (wall superstructures may have been constructed of

perishable materials). In some cases, the construction materials included relatively large

stones, worked on all sides (FIG. 5.23), which appear to have been quarried in the

natural outcrops in the steep hillside above the site (see FIG. 5.6). Even though these

outcrops are located in close proximity to some portions of the site (a few structures are

located less than 10m from these outcrops), quarrying the stone and transporting larger

cobbles requires more time and effort. While the distribution of stone size may be a

correlate for status, in this case it may also simply be correlated with the elevation of

structures and their proximity to outcrops – people who are constructing houses closest

to these outcrops are most likely going to take advantage of the raw materials."

For this study, I employed multiple scales of analysis: (1) building materials, (2)

walls and architectural features (such as doorways), (3) structures or rooms, and (4)

compounds or patio groups (following Bagwell 2006; Van Gijseghem 2001). Architectural

!105

data was collected for all houses at Cocahuischo based on a series of characteristics 1

relating to size and layout of structures and patio groups, size and quality of

construction materials, construction techniques, and features such as doorways, niches,

and storage pits (Appendix B). Based on patterns in construction materials and

permanence observed during surface analysis, the structures were divided into three

general categories: (1) houses, (2) patios, and (3) terraces. While walls were not always

well preserved, the quantity of wall fall present within a house or its vicinity was used

to estimate the size and permanence of the structure (and in turn, to categorize it as

‘house,’ ‘patio,’ or ‘terrace’)."

Houses. Houses are generally round (although Sector V, many houses are

rectangular) structures, ranging from 1.6 meters in diameter/length to 10.8 meters, and

constructed of diverse materials ranging from small fieldstone to large prepared slabs.

Since there is considerable variation in form, particularly in Sector V, houses were

defined primarily based upon architectural characteristics (FIG. 5.24). We only collected

Figure 5.23. Large stone slabs used in Cocahuischo domestic construction.

While descriptions of the site and spatial organization consider all houses, due to preservation, 1

detailed architectural data was collected on all 117 houses in Sectors I-III and only 78 out of the 84 total houses in Sector V.

!106

full architectural data for houses, which were consistently defined by the presence of

structure walls and door jams, simply due to the logistical restraints of the size of the

site. Because of preservation issues, it is possible that other structures would have been

considered houses (based on these criteria) had excavations to expose the foundational

structure of the building been conducted. Houses are sometimes stand alone structures,

although they often are attached to a patio or terrace to form a patio group."

Patios. Patios range in shape from rectangular, to oval, to oblong and unusual

forms, are anywhere from 3.0 meters in length to 15.0 meters, and are typically

constructed of fieldstone retaining walls and occasionally an interior wall set up against

the hillside behind. Again, in Sector V, the distinction between houses and patios could

not be achieved on form alone, but throughout the rest of Cocahuischo, form and

relative size were usually clear indicators of patios. Either way, patios were defined

architecturally as more ephemeral and open spaces than houses, which lacked full

structure walls yet were characterized by some form of retaining wall and architectural

definition (FIG. 5.25). While some patios are found as stand alone structures (particularly

Figure 5.24. Example of a house at Cocahuischo. Note presence of full structure wall (rather than retaining wall).

!107

in Sector V where their frequency is rather high), most are attached to houses to form

patio groups."

Terraces. Terraces are the most ephemeral of the structure categories, are

anywhere from 2.8 meters in diameter/length to 7.9 meters, and are defined as cleared

space with no to little architectural definition (FIG. 5.26). Typically oval in shape,

terraces may have a limited line of stones defining their space, but lack any walls,

retaining or otherwise. A number of terraces are stand alone structures, and were likely

used for cultivation of small patio group gardens. Other terraces are found attached to

structures and patios as part of patio groups."

In addition to houses, patios, and terraces, there are a few spaces within

Cocahuischo that can tentatively be characterized as ‘plazas.’ These spaces are large,

open areas that have been leveled and sometimes lined with stone or, when the ground

is steeper, bolstered with a retaining wall. Three plaza areas were found, one on the

southwestern edge of Sector III and two along the western edge of Sector V. In both

sectors, these plazas are somewhat removed from other structures. Excluding the plazas,

Figure 5.25. Example of a patio at Cocahuischo. Note presence of retaining wall and architectural definition of space without full structure wall.

collapsed)retaining)wall

!108

the distribution of structure types throughout the four residential sectors of the site can

be found in TABLE 5.3. In each sector, the dominant form of spatial organization is the

patio group."

In Sectors I-III, patio groups typically consist of one or two houses with an

adjoined patio. Of the 80 patio groups, only 5 (or 6.25%) contain more than 3 structures.

The organization of space in Sector V is distinct. While a number of patio groups consist

of one or two houses attached to a patio or terrace, quite a few consist of much more

complex agglutinations of structures. Of the 49 patio groups in Sector V, 5 (or 10.2%)

Figure 5.26. Example of a terrace at Cocahuischo. Note the lack of architectural definition of space.

Table 5.3. Distribution of structures types throughout the residential sectors of Cocahuischo.

Sector Houses Patios Terraces Total Structures Patio Groups

I 35 26 12 73 24II 17 12 6 35 11III 65 47 46 158 45V 84 84 42 210 49

!109

consist of more than 3 structures. Unlike in Sectors I-III, where 3-4 structures is the

maximum, these patio groups contain upwards of 5-9 structures, resulting in greater

overall variability in the use of space. Indeed, when examining the number of structures

present in patio groups found in Sectors I-III, the coefficient of variation is 24.602. In

contrast, the coefficient of variation for the number of structures present in patio groups

found in Sector V is 48.292 (TABLE 5.4). A similar pattern characterizes the ratio of house

to patio or terrace space (measure in m2) present in each patio group. In Sectors I-III, the

average ratio is 0.038, while in Sector V the ratio is 0.270. The difference is likely

impacted by the complexity of many patio groups in Sector V, which contain multiple

houses attached to a single patio or terrace. Again, there is also more variability in the

ratio of house to patio or terrace space in each patio group present in Sector V, which has

a coefficient of variability of 608.276 (in contrast to 503.236 for Sectors I-III)."

Table 5.4. Averages and coefficients of variation for attributes related to architectural characteristics of patio groups and houses at Cocahuischo.

PATIO GROUP ATTRIBUTES

Sector

area of patio group (m # of structures in group house:patio ratio (m

average coefficient of var. average coefficient of var. average coefficient of var.

I-III 42.97 45.39 2.346 24.602 0.038 503.236

V 45.44 85.47 2.676 48.292 0.270 608.276

STRUCTURE ATTRIBUTES

Sector

area of house (m wall height (m) average stone size (cm

average coefficient of var. average coefficient of var. average coefficient of var.

I-III 12.80 48.40 0.72 39.40 19325.54 59.33

V 14.43 58.11 0.68 29.56 25067.70 69.05

!110

As has been discussed, the patio group represents a meaningful prehispanic

social category - the household. Houses, patios, and terraces that are isolated (or

grouped differently) likely represent a different use of space and social category. For

houses, whether the difference is nuclear vs. extended kin group, a matter of status,

differences in household production activities, or simply an expression of taste is

difficult to determine based on surface analysis. In Sectors I-III, the frequency of isolated

houses is consistent (TABLE 5.5). For Sector V, the frequency is higher. In the case of

patios and terraces, isolation may simply be attributed to differences in function. In

Sectors I-III, the majority of patios are attached to houses to form patio groups, while

only some terraces form part of a patio group (TABLE 5.5). Sector V is characterized by

the same pattern. Given the ephemeral nature of terraces, perhaps this suggests terrace

areas were used as cultivation areas. "

Either way, there is a clear distinction between Sectors I-III and Sector V in terms

of organization of architectural space. There are more stand alone structures, particularly

houses, in Sector V. It is possible these structures are not in fact houses, but serve some

other function. There is also much more variation in how structures are agglutinated to

form patio groups. Some patio groups contain upwards of 8 houses, patios, and terraces

(FIG. 5.27). Other groupings of structures in Sector V form not clear patio groups, but

honeycomb like clusters of mostly patios with the occasional house. Still other 2-3

Table 5.5. Counts and percentages of houses, patios, and terraces at Cocahuischo that are attached to patio groups vs. isolated structures.

Sector

Houses Patios Terraces

Attached Isolated Total Attached Isolated Total Attached Isolated Total

# % # % # # % # % # # % # % #

I-III 98 83.8 19 16.2 117 70 82.4 15 17.6 85 14 21.9 50 78.1 64

V 51 60.7 33 39.3 84 66 78.6 18 21.4 84 12 28.6 30 71.4 42

!111

structure patio groups are grouped around much larger terrace areas, possibly forming

broader social groups centered around communal space."

Turning to possible indicators of status, the average house size at Cocahuischo is

varied (FIG. 5.28). The same is true of patio groups, although the complex patio groups

in Sector V mentioned above are outliers (FIG. 5.29). As was mentioned before, houses

range in diameter/length from 1.6 meters to 10.8 meters, which is a considerable

difference. It is possible that some of the structures on the lower end are not in fact

houses, but rather domestic storage facilities (since they are commonly found attached to "

patio groups). It should also be noted that this variability exists on a spectrum - there is

no clear line that can be drawn between houses that are, for instance, average vs. large -

and all further interpretations of status differentiation presented in this section are

1214m

1218m

Structure 373

Structure 372

Structure 371

Structure 370

Structure 374

Structure 376

Structure 375

Structure 377

0 10m

N

WĂƟŽ�'ƌŽƵƉ�ϵϵ

Figure 5.27. Architectural drawing of Patio Group 99 at Cocahuischo, illustrating a complex domestic unit in Sector V.

!112

Figure 5.28. Bar graph illustrating the variation in house size.

Figure 5.29. Bar graph illustrating the variation in patio group size.

0"

10"

20"

30"

40"

50"

60"

70"

0*5" 6*10" 11*15" 16*20" 21*25" 26*30" 31*35" 36*40" 41*45"

Freq

uency"

House"Area"(meters"squared)"

0"

5"

10"

15"

20"

25"

30"

0'10"

11'20"

21'30"

31'40"

41'50"

51'60"

61'70"

71'80"

81'90"

91'100"

101'110"

111'120"

121'130"

131'140"

141'150"

151'160"

161'170"

171'180"

181'190"

191'200"

201'210"

Freq

uency"

Pa7o"Group"Area"(meter"squared)"

!113

relative. There is no such thing as an empirically definable ‘high status’ house or patio

group. There are merely ‘higher status’ houses and patio groups, characterized in

contrast to ‘lower status’ houses and patio groups."

The average house size in Sectors I-III and Sector V is similar (see TABLES 5.4 &

5.6). Between each of the four residential sectors, however, differences in house size are

statistically significant, based on a one-way ANOVA (F [3, 191] = 2.552, p = 0.057).

Within the sectors, there is much more variability in Sectors III and V (FIG. 5.30). Such

variation is due, in part, to the larger areas of Sectors III and V. Comparatively, Sectors I-

II form only a third of the site and contain only 23% of the structures. The average patio

group area in Sectors I-III and Sector V is also similar. Based on a one-way ANOVA,

differences in patio group size between each of the sectors are not statistically significant

(F [3, 111] = 0.199, p = 0.897). While the average patio group size is comparable, there is

much greater variability in Sector V (FIG. 5.31), which likely reflects the diversity of

spatial organization in Sector V."

In the initial design of the architectural analysis, wall height was judged to be a

good measure of archaeological status. Most domestic structures in Nasca are

constructed of stone foundations with perishable superstructures - the greater the stone

component of the wall, the greater the investment in energy (during construction) and

resources. Once all the houses had been examined, however, wall height seemed less a

marker of status than of preservation. In Sectors I-III, wall height was measured for 73 of

Table 5.6. Mean and standard deviation of house and patio group size in each of the four residential sectors.

House Area Patio Group Area

Sector Mean Standard Deviation Sector Mean Standard Deviation

I 10.54 4.0808 I 39.89 13.8274II 14.21 4.4703 II 44.19 20.1179III 13.64 7.1837 III 44.17 21.8115V 14.44 8.3878 V 45.44 38.8395

!114

Figure 5.30. Box plot diagram illustrating the range of house size in each of the residential sectors.

Figure 5.31. Box plot diagram illustrating the range of patio group size in each of the residential sectors.

0"

25"

50"

75"

100"

125"

150"

175"

200"

225"

I" II" III" V"

Pa+o

"Group

"Area"(m

eters"squared)"

Sector"

0"

5"

10"

15"

20"

25"

30"

35"

40"

45"

50"

I" II" III" V"

Hou

se"Area"(m

eters"squared)"

Sector"

!115

the 117 houses (or 62%). The rest had structure walls that were completely collapsed. In

Sector V, wall height could only be measured for about half of the houses (42 out of 78

total, or 54%). The average wall height in Sector V is lower than the average in Sectors I-

III (0.68 m vs. 0.72 m, respectively; see TABLE 5.4). It is possible that this is due to a

higher degree of wall collapse in Sector V, a general observation made during data

collection. Additionally, the difference between Sectors I-III and Sector V may be due to

landscape. In Sectors I-III, the site is overall much more steep, causing a number of

structures to employ the hillside as a backbone for the inner structure wall, which also

helps to preserve it over time. While it is tempting to suggest that the higher degree of

wall collapse present in Sector V indicates a temporal gap in the occupation of the

sectors, it is more likely that the natural hillside impacted the differential preservation."

Given the preservation issues present with measuring wall height, average stone

size and the type of construction materials and technique are likely more accurate

markers of status. Due to the sheer size of Cocahuischo and the logistical problems

associated with measuring every single rock on the site, for each structure, one stone

was selected as representative of the average size of construction material. For structures

where stones of many different sizes were used, one which best represented the mean

was selected for measure."

As with nearly all architectural measures, the average stone size for houses exists

on a spectrum (FIG. 5.32). That said, there is a difference between the average stone size

of houses in Sectors I-III and that of houses in Sector V (see TABLES 5.4 & 5.7). The

average stone size in Sector V (25067.70cm3) was notably larger than that of Sectors I-III

(19325.54cm3). Based on a one-way ANOVA, these differences are statistically significant

(F [3, 188] = 5.623, p = 0.001). There was also more variability in Sector V (FIG. 5.33).

When turning to the type of material used in construction, this pattern makes sense - the

majority of houses in Sector V (82.1%) were constructed using only angular stone (rather

than a combination of angular stones and worked stone slabs). Such construction

typically generates a larger overall stone size (TABLE 5.8). Just over half of houses in

Sectors I-III (59.8%) were constructed using only angular stone, while the rest were built

!116

Figure 5.33. Box plot diagram illustrating the range of average stone size in each of the residential sectors.

0"

10000"

20000"

30000"

40000"

50000"

60000"

70000"

80000"

90000"

100000"

I" II" III" V"

Average"ston

e"size"(cen

<meters"cube

d)"

Sector"

0"

10"

20"

30"

40"

50"

60"

70"

80"

0+10000"

10001+20000"

20001+30000"

30001+40000"

40001+50000"

50001+60000"

60001+70000"

70001+80000"

80001+90000"

90001+100000"

Freq

uency"

Average"Stone"Size"(cen?meters"cubed)"

Figure 5.32. Bar graph illustrating the variation in average stone size.

!117

of a combination of angular stone and worked stone slabs. Interestingly, despite this 2

distinction in the type of material utilized in construction, the degree of coursing present "

in the construction technique is virtually identical in Sectors I-III and Sector V."3

In addition to these general architectural measures, the presence of doors,

internal walls, and niches was examined. While entrances to structures are common in

the Nasca region, well defined doors, characterized by two large dressed stones placed

Sector

STONE TYPE DEGREE OF COURSINGangular

stone %stone slab % uncoursed %

semi coursed %

fully coursed %

I-III 70 59.8 47 40.1 43 65.1 19 28.8 4 6.1

V 64 82.1 14 17.9 28 63.6 15 34.1 1 2.3

Table 5.7. Mean and standard deviation of average stone size in each of the four residential sectors.

Average Stone Size

Sector Mean Standard Deviation

I 25086 10605II 14629 7702III 17512 11693V 25067 17308

Table 5.8. Types of construction materials and methods of construction for houses at Cocahuischo.

None of the houses in Sector V and only one house in Sectors I-III were constructed using solely 2

worked stone slabs.

The degree of coursing was only analyzed for houses with intact sections of wall where at least 3

a sample of coursing was visible (66 houses in Sectors I-III and 44 in Sector V).

!118

on either side of an opening (FIG. 5.34), are less common (Vaughn, personal

communication, 2010). Doors were recorded in 49 houses, with 40 in Sectors I-III and 9 in

Sector V (TABLE 5.9). Again, due to the greater degree of wall collapse in Sector V, it is

possible that the lower frequency of doors recorded is a product of visibility. At present,

however, it seems to be a marked distinction. In Sectors I-III, 34% of houses contained

doors, while only 11% of those in Sector V did. Doors were overwhelmingly located

within houses (100% of doors in Sector V and 97.5% of doors in Sectors I-III), leading to

either open patios and terraces or undefined exterior space, although two were located

at the entrances to the patios themselves."

Other architectural features identified in Cocahuischo houses include internal

walls and a niche, although these were found at low frequencies (see TABLE 5.9). This is

likely due to preservation. If the structure wall is not well preserved, the chances of

identifying a niche within it are very low (although one was recorded in Sector III; FIG.

5.35). Likewise, with high levels of wall fall, internal structure walls also become

obscured and depending on their initial height, easily masked by windblown deposits.

Two internal walls were identified, however, one in Sector III and one in Sector V (FIG.

5.36)."

Figure 5.34. Example of a door jam in Sector III of Cocahuischo.

!119

Sector

DOORS OTHER FEATURES

total #

Location Orientationinternal

walls nicheshouse % patio % east % west %

I-III 40 38 95 2 5 24 60 16 40 1 1

V 9 9 100 0 0 7 77.8 2 22.2 1 0

Table 5.9. Architectural features recorded in Cocahuischo houses.

Figure 5.35. Niche located in structure wall of a house (Structure 119) in Sector III of Cocahuischo.

Figure 5.36. Internal wall located in a house (Structure 161) in Sector III of Cocahuischo.

!120

5.3" Excavation Methodologies and Results"!5.3.1" Introduction"!

! Since the houses themselves were the meaningful analytical category in this

study, horizontal excavations were carried out to partially expose a sample of 10 houses

to reveal important features such as middens, caches, hearths, production areas, and

burials. House areas were assumed to have artifacts indicative of domestic refuse (e.g.

ceramics, faunal remains) and prestige goods, whereas public or communal spaces were

assumed to be kept clean (as is typical in Nasca), and lack evidence of cooking or craft

production (Robin 2003; Wilk and Rathje 1982). Excavation units were placed in houses

because in Nasca, hilltop sites typically lack middens (Vaughn 2009: 69)."

For each patio group that was sampled, the largest circular structure was selected

for excavation. Based on the architectural analysis, and data from other Nasca sites,

these structures were presumed to be the primary residence of the household, or

possibly the residence of the most influential kin group members residing the in space.

Each structure was bisected along a north/south or east/west axis, or along a median

line from the hillside to the edge of the terrace. One half of the structure was then

excavated entirely, so that occupation levels and a complete profile of the entire

structure’s stratigraphy could be exposed. This provided a thorough illustration of the

construction, use, and abandonment of the space. Since doorways are placed on both the

eastern and western sides of structures, a variable sampling technique also allowed us to

evenly profile the use of space within houses, rather than skewing the data toward a

single portion of structures."

Units were named after the structure. For instance, the unit excavated in

Structure 32 was labeled ‘Structure 32.’ Each was excavated to sterile in levels following

the natural stratigraphy of the site (typically 10-70cm). A locus system was used to

record contexts, providing each level or feature in each structure a unique context (or

locus) number (see Harris 1979). For improved ease of associating materials with units,

blocks of 99 numbers were reserved for each unit (TABLE 5.10). While only a fraction of

these locus numbers were typically used during excavations, these large number blocks

!121

will allow future excavations in these structures to maintain a level of organizational

continuity. Harris matrices were then drawn for each structure to illustrate the spatial

and stratigraphic relationships between contexts. The advantage of using a locus system

is that it removes interpretation from the process of excavation. The goal during

excavation is to define unique contexts and establish stratigraphic and spatial

relationships between them. After this has been completed, interpretation of what those"

contexts represent (for instance: natural fill, cultural fill, floor or occupation surface,

construction fill, storage pit, ash lens, etc.) occurs. Using this type of system reduces the

tendency to assume that the stratigraphy in one house will mirror the stratigraphy in

another. "

Based on a sub-datum established for each structure, planviews were drawn of

each locus. The defining surface of each was also photographed. Due to the sheer size

and steepness of Cocahuischo, it would have been highly impractical to establish a sub-

datum used for more than one structure - getting a clear line to pull a string taut over

more than a 10 meter area is virtually impossible. Locus elevations and profiles for each

structure were made based on measurements of Xcm below sub-datum. Once

excavations were finished, at least one profile was completed for the bisecting wall of the

structure and in many cases, a 1 meter profile of a section of intact wall (if present) and

substrate was drawn. Since I chose to use the actual structure as the unit of measure in

Sector Structure Locus #I 17 001-099

I 32 100-199II 88 200-299II 104 300-399III 190 400-499III 246 (Unit 6) 500-599III 203 600-699V 285 700-799V 255 800-899V 293 900-999

Table 5.10. Registry of locus numbers assigned to the structures excavated in 2012.

!122

excavations, variability in structure size and form made it difficult to make inter-unit

comparisons. To establish better control over the amount of matrix excavated and the

density of artifacts, the number of 10 liter buckets excavated in each locus was recorded.

All excavated matrix was dry screened with ¼ inch wire mesh and 1 liter soil samples

were taken from each locus containing cultural material for future analysis. "

!!!5.3.2" 2010 Excavations"!

! During the 2010 field season, five test excavations (2 meter by 2 meter and 1

meter by 2 meter units) were placed in patio groups throughout Cocahuischo, to

evaluate the temporal occupation of the site and the use of space within patio groups.

The units were initially placed within different areas of architecturally distinct spaces, so

that we could begin to evaluate the nature of the built environment and where different

sorts of activities would have occurred. While only five units were placed, once the

initial test excavations began to reveal a pattern in how different structures were used,

the subsequent excavations were strategically placed to reveal data pertinent to the

research questions. The results of these initial excavations subsequently shaped the

strategy taken toward excavations in 2012, since I had a better understanding of how

different spaces at Cocahuischo were used. The excavation system utilized in 2010 was

different than the one employed in during the 2012 field season. A basic level and feature

system commonly employed in Peruvian archaeology was used, rather than a locus

system. Levels were recorded as ‘Capa A, Capa B, Capa C, etc.’ and features were given

‘Hallazgo,’ ‘Rasgo,’ or ‘Unidad Arquitectónica’ designations, in combination with the

associated level (e.g. ‘UA1, Capa B’)."

!!!5.3.2.1" Structure 156 (Unit 1)" !

The first test unit in 2010 was placed within a large house with a well defined

door jam in the southeastern region of Sector III (FIG. 5.11). The 2m by 2m unit was

!123

Figure 5.37. Guide to the symbols used in the Harris matrices.

Figure 5.38. Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 156, Unit 1.

MODERN SURFACE

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

Capa A

Capa B

Capa D

ArchitectureUnit 2

ArchitectureUnit 1

ArchitectureUnit 3

Capa C

Tomb 1

DEPOSITS

FEATUREFILL SURFACE

FEATURES

SUBSTRATUM

SUBSTRATUM

TOMB

RELATIONSHIPS

DEPOSITS ARE CONTEMPORANEOUS

DEPOSITS ARE LIKELY CONTEMPORANEOUS

CONNECTING DEPOSIT POSTDATES THE CONNECTED DEPOSIT

CONNECTING DEPOSIT LIKELY POSTDATES THE CONNECTED DEPOSIT

!124

oriented to north and placed along the southeastern side of the house, to expose

potential activity areas and a portion of structure entrance. The upper level of Unit 1

(Capa A) consisted of initially loose then compacted light beige windblown sand

deposited post-abandonment and large stones that are likely wall fall (FIGS. 5.37 & 5.38).

The stones from the wall collapse rested on a level of darker, ashy, more gravelly matrix

(Capa B), which contained higher frequencies of cultural material, concentrated in "

particular near the entrance to the structure. Beneath this level was a lighter,

homogenous matrix containing large angular stones (Capa C). Two architectural units

were defined (UA2 and UA3) as part of the presumed occupation surface (with UA1

Figure 5.39. Planview of excavations in Unit 1, highlighting the two architectural units and the subterranean burial (burial drawn by H. Van Gijseghem).

Unit 1WůĂŶǀŝĞǁ�ŽĨ�ĞdžĐĂǀĂƟŽŶƐ

�džĐĂǀĂƟŽŶunit

Stone

Feature Key

Sandy matrix

20cm

StoneƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞ

Human bone

!125

consisting of the remaining portion of the unit, where nearly all cultural material,

including fineware pottery, was recovered). UA2 is a line of semi angular stones along

the southwestern corner of Unit 1 (FIG. 5.39). The second architectural unit is

hypothesized to be intrusive and placed after the abandonment of the house, due to the

distinct nature of the matrix found above (which was different in texture and

compaction from the matrix found in the rest of the unit). UA3 is a circular structure

composed of stacked layers of semi worked angular rocks and stone slabs located in the

south-central portion of Unit 1 (FIG. 5.39). Beneath this intrusive circular structure, we

encountered large, flat stone slabs laying in and atop a level of fine, compact sand void

of any pebbles or rocks (Capa D; FIG. 5.40). The fine sand capped a flexed burial of a

male age 28-38 years (Tomb 1), which was housed in a pit dug into the sterile soil (FIG.

5.39). Again, based on the stratigraphy, the burial appears to have been intrusive.

Unfortunately, the only grave goods recovered were two small plainware fragments,

making a clear cultural or temporal association with the burial difficult."

!!

Figure 5.40. Excavations in Unit 1, illustrating UA2 in the upper left corner, a portion of UA3 in the lower left, and the stone slabs capping the subterranean burial in the center of the unit.

!126

5.3.2.2" Structure 155 (Unit 2)" !After excavations had begun in Unit 1, it was decided to place a 1 m by 2 m test

unit in the adjacent patio, to gain a greater understanding of the use of space within a

patio group. Structure 155 is a large oblong patio, and Unit 2 was oriented to north and

placed long ways abutting the northern retaining wall of the structure (see FIG. 5.11).

The upper portion of Unit 1 contained a similar layer of compacted light beige

windblown sand (Capa A; FIG. 5.41). Below this, a slightly darker matrix embedded "

with large rocks was encountered (Capa B). Beneath the initial surface, two distinct areas

began to emerge: an ashy colored matrix with cultural material (particularly fragments

Figure 5.41. Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 155, Unit 2.

MODERN SURFACE

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

Capa A

Capa BCapa BSouth

Capa CSouth

NotExcavated

Feature 1

!127

Figure 5.42. Excavations in Unit 2, illustrating the ashy refuse pit (and possible hearth) in the right side of the unit.

Figure 5.43. Planview of excavations in Unit 2, illustrating the refuse pit (and possible hearth) located in the southeastern corner of the unit.

Feature Key

Unit 2WůĂŶǀŝĞǁ�ŽĨ�ĞdžĐĂǀĂƟŽŶƐ

�džĐĂǀĂƟŽŶunit

Stone

20cm

ZĞĨƵƐĞ�Ɖŝƚ

!128

of pottery and camelid bone) in the south eastern corner of the unit (Capa B South), and

a similar rocky light brown matrix in the rest of the unit (likely construction fill used in

to build the patio terrace). The dark ashy matrix extended down into a pit which had

been dug into the sterile soil that formed the foundation of the patio terrace (FIGS. 5.42

& 5.43), and with this ashy pit a compact surface was encountered (Feature 1). The color

and texture of the matrix and the density of domestic waste such as plainware pottery,

shell, and animal bone suggests that this area was a refuse pit or possibly an informal

hearth."

!!!5.3.2.3" Structure 374 (Unit 3)" !

The third test unit was placed in the center of a very large patio area located in

the northeastern portion of Sector V (see FIG. 5.11). Unit 3 was a 2 m by 2 m unit

oriented north and placed abutting the retaining wall of the patio. The upper level

consisted of a light beige, compact silty matrix relatively void of rocks, which contained

a high quantity of pottery (Capa A; FIG. 5.44 & 5.45). Beneath this was a level of semi

compact gravelly matrix (Capa B). Within this level was a thick ash concentration

abutting the northern wall of the unit (Feature 1). This lens contained large fragments of

domestic refuse such as plainware pottery, animal bone, and shell, which represent the

cultural material recovered from a level that was otherwise largely void of artifacts

(Figure 5.46). The base of this level extended into an elongated pit dug into the sterile

soil that forms the foundation of the patio terrace (FIG. 5.45), and contained greater

quantities of cultural material, suggesting that this area was a refuse pit."

!!!!!!!

!129

!Figure 5.44. Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 374, Unit 3.

MODERN SURFACE

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

Capa A

Capa B

NotExcavated

Feature 1

Figure 5.45. Profile of excavations in Unit 3, illustrating the refuse pit dug into the natural hillside (figure drawn by H. Van Gijseghem).

!130

5.3.2.4" Structure 75 (Unit 4)" !The fourth test excavation was the final unit placed in a patio, to test whether

patios were largely areas of food preparation and production, and aside from refuse pits,

were kept relatively clean. Unit 4 was placed along the inner wall of a patio at the

western base of Sector I (see FIG. 5.11). The upper stratum of Unit 4 was a loose, then

compacted light beige aeolian sand, much like that encountered in the other units (Capa

A; FIG. 5.47). Beneath this level was an organic, light brown, and gravelly matrix (Capa

B), with little cultural material but with a small round mano embedded within. The

matrix contained a large number of small and medium sized rocks, coherent with the

upper layers of a construction fill used to build the patio terrace (FIG. 5.48). This fill

continued and became composed of increasingly larger rocks, which rested on a brown,

semi loose organic silt in the center of the unit (Capa C). The silty matrix had evidence of

bone fragments, but often times the soil moisture at Cocahuischo renders small pieces so

fragmentary that they are only visible during excavation as patches of white."

Figure 5.46. Excavations in Unit 3, illustrating plainware pottery fragments recovered from the ash concentration and possible refuse pit.

!131

" "!Figure 5.47. Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 75, Unit 4.

Figure 5.48. Excavations in Unit 4, the construction fill used to build the patio terrace.

MODERN SURFACE

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

Capa A

Capa B

Capa C

!132

5.3.2.5" Structure 88 (Unit 5)" !The final test excavation of 2010 was placed in a large house with a portion of

well built structure wall intact at the top of Sector II (see FIG. 5.11). Based on the other

test units, it was concluded that the highest frequency of fineware pottery and prestige

artifacts would be located in houses rather than patios, and the hypothetical high status

of the residents of Structure 88 made it an ideal house to sample. Unit 5 was a 1 m by 2

m unit oriented north and placed within the center of the structure, abutting the interior

northern edge of the structure wall. The upper level of Unit 5 was loose, light beige

aeolian sand (Capa A) with a hard packed surface throughout the middle of the unit,

which was likely an informal floor (Capa A floor; FIGS. 5.49 & 5.75). Beneath this surface

Figure 5.49. Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 88, Unit 5.

MODERN SURFACE

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

Capa A

Capa AFloor

Capa B Feature 1

Capa C

!133

was a slightly darker matrix, ashy in some areas, that contains higher levels of pebbles

and domestic refuse such as pottery, animal bone, and lithics (Capa B). A distinctly ashy

matrix was encountered in the southern half of the unit within this refuse (Feature 1),

which extends down to create a deep pit. The pit, which appears to have been dug into

the sterile soil that forms the house foundation, slopes to the north and to the south,

where it forms a small pit with an additional level of ashy matrix (Capa C; FIG. 5.50).

Overall, the matrix beneath the informal floor contained a very high quantity of cultural

material, include high levels of fineware polychrome pottery, animal bone, shell, lithics

(including an obsidian point), and a Spondylus pendant."

!!!

Figure 5.50. Profile of excavations in Unit 5, illustrating the deep refuse pit dug into the natural hillside (figure drawn by H. Van Gijseghem).

!134

Figure 5.51. Planview drawing of Tomb 4.2, illustrating flexed burial position found at Cocahuischo (figure drawn by L. M. González La Rosa).

Table 5.11. Characteristics of mortuary practices and skeletal remains recovered from burials throughout Cocahuischo during the 2010 field season.

Tomb Sector Orientation Sex Stone slabs Re-entered Grave goods1 III south male x x2 IV south female x x3 IV south female x x x

4.1 IV south child x x4.2 IV east female x x5 IV east female x6 IV south female x x x7 IV south male x x x8 IV south female x x9 IV south female      

!135

5.3.2.6" Sector IV Tombs" !" In addition to the test excavations discussed above, in 2010 an unlooted Late

Nasca cemetery was discovered in Sector IV of the site. In combination with the looted

cemetery in Sector I, there are at least 40 tombs at Cocahuischo. Unlooted burial contexts

are rare in Nasca, so 9 of the 21 unlooted tombs were excavated in 2010 with emergency

funds from National Geographic (PI Kevin Vaughn; TABLE 5.11). The tombs are semi-

subterranean with mounds of uncut fieldstones topping the burials (see FIG. 5.13).

Bodies were buried flexed and seated within deep pits, often nearly a meter below the

surface (FIG. 5.51). The unlined burial pits were cut into the natural hillside and the

bodies were buried within coarse fill that often contained a high degree of gravel. As a

result, many of the bodies were difficult to excavate because the matrix surrounding the

bones was so rocky. "

" As in Tomb 1, a number of the tombs contained flat stone slabs capping the tomb

(FIG. 5.52). Some tombs also contained what appeared to be a second disturbed layer of

stone slabs, laying directly above (and sometimes cutting into) the skeletal remains (FIG.

Figure 5.52. Excavations in Tomb 5, illustrating the stone slabs commonly found capping the tombs at Cocahuischo.

!136

Figure 5.53. Excavations in Tomb 8, illustrating the disturbed stone slabs often found just above or cutting into the body and beneath the upper layer of slabs.

Figure 5.54. Excavations in Tomb 3, illustrating the collapsed position the skeletal remains (likely buried in a flexed and seated position) were found in. Note also the large stone slab placed vertically between the ribs and arm on the right side.

!137

5.53). Due to this and the coarse fill (which in both color and texture resembled the

sterile soil of the natural hillside) used in many of the tombs, many of bodies were likely

buried in a flexed position, yet we encountered them keeled over and splayed (FIG.

5.54). Tomb 4 contained not only a burial capped by stone slabs, but a second burial

found below underneath a second series of disturbed slabs. An additional burial (Tomb

5) was located within a small circular stone structure that was placed within the burial

pit (FIG. 5.55). Eight bodies were facing south and two (in separate tombs) facing east –

suggesting a possible affinity with Ayacucho in the highlands to the east. The tombs

largely lacked grave goods, except for Tomb 3, which contained the fragmented remains

of what was likely a copper pectoral sheet, Tomb 7, which contained a minute fragment

of plain weave textile, and Tomb 6, which contained a Late Nasca style collared jar

(FIGS. 5.56 & 5.57). The jar in Tomb 6 was placed above the upper layer of stone slabs

(and a disturbed layer was encountered below, just above the body). Full discussion of

both the bioarchaeological data and grave goods will be included in Chapters 6 & 7."

Figure 5.55. Excavations in Tomb 5, illustrating the small circular stone structure located with in the tomb and below the undisturbed upper layer of stone slabs.

!138

Figure 5.56. Photograph of excavations in Tomb 6, highlighting the placement of the Late Nasca collared jar in relation to the upper layer of stone slabs.

Figure 5.57. Late Nasca collared jar recovered during excavations in Tomb 6.

!139

Figure 5.58. Planview drawing of Tomb 7. Note the lack of both the cranium and mandible among the skeletal remains (figure drawn by L. M. González La Rosa).

Figure 5.59. Excavations in Tomb 7, illustrating the disturbed stone slabs found directly above the headless body.

!140

" Tomb 7 lacked not only grave goods, but also a head. The burial was excavated

in full, yet the body was found in a seated, flexed position, somewhat collapsed like

many of the other bodies, and without a cranium or mandible (FIG. 5.58). Like a number

of other tombs, Tomb 7 contained an upper layer of stone slabs capping the top of the

tomb and a lower level of disturbed stone slabs directly above the skeletal remains (FIG.

5.59). The multiple layers of stone slabs, general lack of grave goods (and the placement

of the one ceramic offering above the upper layer of stone slabs), coarse burial pit fill, and

headless body all point to prehispanic tomb re-entry."

!!

5.3.3" 2012 Excavations"!! In this section I will present the horizontal excavations carried out in 2012.

Discussions of artifact frequencies are restricted to the structure wide excavations and do

not include the test units in the total counts and weights. Only some of the test units

were located in houses and the placement of these units does not reflect the same

sampling of domestic space as the horizontal excavations. Even if the units were scaled

for comparison, the resulting artifact assemblages are not as easily comparable from a

spatial perspective. A test unit placed in the center of a patio results in data that is very

different from half of a house."

!!!5.3.3.1" Structure 17" !

Located in the uppermost area of Sector I, Structure 17 is a large circular

structure, presumed to be a house, with a medium sized attached patio (see FIGS. 5.11 &

5.60). Due to good preservation and lack of deflation, Structure 17 was chosen for

excavation as an example of a moderate to higher status house. Additionally, a large

section of the southeastern structure wall was still intact, making this a good

opportunity to view at least part of the architectural layout of a house. We bisected the

structure east-west and excavated the southern half of Structure 17, allowing us to

!141

Figure 5.60. Photographic planview of Patio Group 10, illustrating the location of Structure 17, its associated patio, and the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC).

Figure 5.61. Prepared mud clay floor (Locus 004) found in Structure 17.

!142Figure 5.62. Planview of excavations in Structure 17, highlighting important features that were encountered.

1230m

1228m

1226m m

8363

374

8363

376

8363

378

8363

380

Datum:8363373N

525381E

8363

374

8363

376

8363

378

8363

380

525382 525380 525378 525376 525374

525382 525380 525378 525376 525374

Prepared floor

Fire center

Bench fill

Feature Key

Fineware bowl

Groundstonemano

Ash pit

Structure 17Planview of excavations

2m contour

Excavationunit

Stone

Patio area

Intact wall

m

!143

expose the entrance to the house and the possibly intact contexts below the wall fall

along the southwestern wall."

" Despite the intact southeastern wall, the upper layers of Structure 17 contained a

high quantity of wall fall intermixed with a layer of light beige aeolian sand that

accumulated post-abandonment. The upper level of wall fall in Structure 17 was

intermixed with sediments washed down from the terrace above, and contained

polychrome and plainware pottery, lithics, shell, and animal bone. This matrix was

considered the Superficie, since the cultural material contained within was not in situ, but

rather came from the domestic contexts in the above patio group. Within and beneath

this wall fall, and in the center of the structure, were additional levels of loose and

compact light beige aeolian sand (Loci 001-003).!

! Beneath these post-abandonment levels, a prepared mud-clay floor surface, 10cm

deep, was encountered in the center of the structure (Locus 004; FIGS. 5.61 & 5.62). Atop

this floor were ceramic fragments laying horizontally on the surface, and the remains of

two Transitional style bowls were embedded within the floor – at the interface of the

base of the floor and the ashy matrix below (FIGS. 5.63-5.65; while the floor was not

located under the wall fall along the eastern portion of the structure, the presence of

fragments of the same vessels embedded within the floor and in the ashy matrix below

suggests that whatever caused the ash – an event which involved the placement or

smashing of the vessels – occurred prior to the construction of the floor and the final use

of the structure). Additionally, while the floor surface was not preserved throughout the

structure, a fragment was encountered along the southern wall atop a bench feature (see

FIG. 5.62).! !

! In the eastern portion of the Structure 17, near the structure entrance, was an ash

pit below the floor that contained cultural material and had evidence of a burning event,

including dark grey ash and burnt soil indicating that it had been heated to high

temperatures (Loci 006-009; FIG. 5.66). The matrix within contained high levels of

cultural refuse, in particular, animal bone, pottery, lithics, and shell (excluding Locus "

008, which contained no cultural material), as well as an oblong mano embedded

vertically in the ash. The location of this pit cut into the natural sterile soil of the hillside "

!144

!

Figure 5.63. Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 17.

MODERN SURFACE

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

Superficie

Locus007

Locus006

Locus005

Locus 001

Locus008

Locus004

Locus010

Locus009

Locus 002

Locus 003

Locus011

!145

Figure 5.64. Transitional style bowl found at the interface of the prepared mud clay floor and the ash pit below in Structure 17.

Figure 5.65. Transitional style bowls recovered from the floor & ash pit interface during excavations in Structure 17.

!146

(which was leveled to form the foundation of the house), its placement underneath the

prepared floor, and its location directly in front of the structure entrance suggest that the

pit was constructed, and the burning event occurred, prior to the final occupation of the

structure.!

! Beneath the ash concentration and floor was a light brown gravelly matrix (Loci

010 & 011) used to level the natural hillside that formed the foundation of the house

(Locus 005). Including the Superficie, approximately 1,770 liters of matrix were excavated

from Structure 17, from an area of 7.77m2. There was an artifact density of 5.24g of

pottery/liter or 1,194.08g/m2 excavated (TABLE 5.12). For lithics, the artifact density

was 0.23g/liter or 52.64g/m2 excavated. Tools (including obsidian points) and

adornments were found at a frequency of 0.0017 artifacts/liter or 0.39 artifacts/m2

excavated. Animal bone occurred at a frequency of 0.13g/liter or 30.37g/m2 excavated.

Finally, shell had an artifact density of 0.023g/liter or 5.15g/m2 excavated. The majority

of artifacts came from the floor and ash concentrations.!

!

Figure 5.66. Ash deposits and fire centers (visible in brown) encountered during excavations in Structure 17.

!147

!!!!5.3.3.2" Structure 32" !

Located along the far western edge of Sector I (see FIG. 5.11), Structure 32 is a

small circular structure, presumed to be a house, with an attached patio (FIG. 5.67).

Because of its size, Structure 32 was selected for excavation as an example of a lower

status house. Unlike some of the other houses chosen for excavation, Structure 32 is

characterized by badly preserved architecture and lacks any section of preserved wall. In

spite of this, Structure 32 was the best preserved of the hypothesized lower status houses

in Sector I. Additionally, the presence of wall fall was hypothesized to have further

protected the matrix, making it likely we would encounter more intact contexts. The

southern half of the structure was selected for excavation since there appeared to be little

erosion or deflation (in contrast with the northern half, where the retaining wall of the

structure’s terrace was badly collapsed). By bisecting the structure east-west, it was also

possible to expose the section of the wall where the structure joined the patio, allowing

the doorjamb to be uncovered (were one present). !

! Based on the stratigraphy, there appear to have been two episodes of

architectural collapse in Structure 32. The upper level of wall fall in Structure 32 was

intermixed with sediments washed down from the terrace above, and contained

polychrome and plainware pottery, lithics, shell, and animal bone. This matrix was

Material Weight (g) Count Density (g/l) % of site total (g) % of site total (#)pottery 9278 1272 5.24 8.81 12.46lithics 409 38 0.23 6.41 8.56obsidian 1 1 0.0006 0.53 2.70metal 0 0 0 0 0spindle whorls/discs 0 0 0 0 0worked bone/shell 0 0 0 0 0pendants 3 2 0.0017 8.82 15.38shell 40 40 0.023 4.80 4.51animal bone 236 351 0.13 7.96 7.08botanical/organic 11 14 0.0062 22.45 22.22

Table 5.12. Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 17.

!148

considered the Superficie, since the cultural material contained within was not in situ, but

rather came from the domestic contexts in the above patio group. Two subsequent layers

of wall fall (Loci 100-101; FIG. 5.68), consisting of large rocks intermixed with compact

light beige aeolian sand, was encountered below this level and contained lower

quantities of cultural material (nearly 50% less when compared with the Superficie)."

" Beneath the wall fall was a layer of cultural occupation (Loci 102-104) that rested

directly on top of the sterile soil (Locus 105) of the natural hillside, which was leveled to

form the foundation of the structure. These contexts contained quantities of domestic

refuse consistent with a house, although a number of the polychrome sherds, obsidian

artifacts, and objects of personal adornment (such as pendants) were localized in an area

of the structure along the southeastern edge of the interior structure wall above a burial

pit dug into the natural hillside (FIG. 5.69). The matrix above this pit, while considered

the same context as the rest of the unit during excavation, was nonetheless recognized to

be much more loose in texture - which is coherent with the discovery of the tomb. " "

Figure 5.67. Photographic planview of Patio Group 12, illustrating the location of Structure 32, its associated patio, and the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC).

!149

" The tomb had a circular cap of cream colored clay (Locus 106) that had been

breached in prehistory (FIGS. 5.70 & 5.71). Beneath the donut shaped cap was fill (Locus

107) containing artifacts typical of domestic refuse (pottery, shell, and animal bone). The

location of pendants, obsidian, and polychrome sherds, along with a single human rib

fragment, in close spatial proximity to the mouth of the breached tomb suggests that the

tomb was re-entered in prehistory and prior to the first episode of wall collapse. The

body and most of the burial artifacts were removed, although a few objects and a

fragment of the skeleton were left behind. Based on the lack of a clear floor surface

above the breached tomb, it appears that this event occurred just prior to the

abandonment of the structure."

Figure 5.68. Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 32.

MODERN SURFACE

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

Superficie

Locus 100

Locus101

Locus102

Locus103

Locus104

Locus105

Locus106

Locus107

!150

" Including the Superficie, approximately 750 liters of matrix was excavated in

Structure 32, from an area of 3.19m2. There was an artifact density of 2.69g of pottery/

liter or 631g/m2 excavated (TABLE 5.13). For lithics, it was 0.11g/liter or 25.08g/m2

excavated. Tools (including obsidian points) and adornments were found at a frequency

of 0.01 artifacts/liter or 2.82 artifacts/m2 excavated. Animal bone occurred at a

frequency of 0.08g/liter or 19.12g/m2 excavated. Finally, shell had an artifact density of

0.04g/liter or 10.03g/m2 excavated."

!!

Figure 5.69. Stone and bone pendants recovered during excavations in Structure 32.

Figure 5.70. Breached clay cap covering a looted burial pit encountered during excavations in Structure 32.

!151

!!!

Figure 5.71. Planview of excavations in Structure 32, highlighting important features that were encountered.

1222m

1224m

m

Datum:8363370N

525333E

525334

5253

34

525332

5253

32

525330

525330 525328

5253

32

8363370

8363

370

8363

372

8363372

8363

374

8363374

8363368

8363

368

Mud/clay cap

Looted burialGround stonepitmano

Feature Key

Structure 32Planview of excavations

cactus

2m contour

Excavationunit

Stone

Patio area

Intact wall

!152

5.3.3.3" Structure 88" !" Located in the upper portion of Sector II (see FIG. 5.11), Structure 88 is a large

circular structure, presumed to be a house, with an attached patio and terrace (FIG. 5.72).

The patio group contains two large (1m2) batons and a small mortar. Because of its size

and the excellent preservation of a portion of the structure wall, Structure 88 was

selected for excavation as an example of a higher status house. A 1x2m test pit was

placed in Structure 88 during the pilot field season in 2010, which was oriented north-

south and abutted the northern portion of the structure wall. Due to the location of the

better preserved section of structure wall, the eastern edge of the test pit (Unit 5) was

extended to bisect Structure 88 during the 2012 field season. The western half of the

structure was better preserved and lacked the high quantity of unstable wall fall present

in the southeastern portion of Structure 88, and thus was chosen for excavation.

Additionally, Unit 5 yielded a high frequency of artifacts, including polychrome pottery,

obsidian, and a Spondylus pendant, making it likely that we would encounter further

artifacts of this nature by excavating in the western by excavating in the western half of

the structure."

Table 5.13. Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 32.

Material Weight (g) Count Density (g/l) % of site total (g) % of site total (#)pottery 2014 367 2.69 1.91 3.60lithics 80 17 0.11 1.25 3.83obsidian 17 5 0.023 9.04 13.51metal 0 0 0 0 0spindle whorls/discs 5 1 0.0067 0.56 3.57worked bone/shell 7 1 0.0093 16.28 9.09pendants 7 2 0.0093 20.59 15.38shell 32 24 0.04 3.84 2.71animal bone 61 155 0.08 2.06 3.12botanical/organic 0 0 0 0 0

!153

" As was encountered in a number of houses, Structure 88 exhibited multiple

episodes of wall fall following the abandonment of the structure. The rubble was

encountered primarily in the southern section of Structure 88, and the upper level

contained pottery and domestic refuse from the patio group above from matrix that had

washed down during heavy rains. Since the material was considered to be foreign to the

structure, it was classified as Superficie. Beneath the Superficie were a series of strata of

wall fall (large angular rocks) and loose then compact light beige aeolian sand (Loci

200-201, 203; FIG. 5.73). These contexts contained quantities of domestic refuse,

including pottery, lithics, animal bone, shell, and tools such as a worked bone scraper

and a spindle whorl. While considered to be a post-abandonment level since it is located "

above the presumed occupation surface, Locus 203 in particular contained high

quantities of domestic refuse (12 times the pottery found in Locus 200, by weight),

suggesting that the structure perhaps served as a refuse midden post-occupation."

!

Figure 5.72. Photographic planview of Patio Group 29, illustrating the location of Structure 88, its associated patio and terrace, and the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC).

!154

!

Figure 5.73. Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 88.

MODERN SURFACE

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

Superficie

Locus204

Locus209

Locus210

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

Locus212

Locus201

Locus205

Locus208

Locus203

Locus213

Locus200

Locus202

Locus206

Locus214

Locus207

Locus211

!155

!

Figure 5.74. Planview of excavations in Structure 88, highlighting important features that were encountered.

1232m

1234m

1236m m

Datum:8363327N

525317E

525316

525316 525318

525318

525320

525320/8363324

525322

525322

525324

525324 525326

5253

26

525314

5253

14

8363326

8363

326

8363

328

8363

328

8363

324

8363

330

8363

330

8363

332

8363

332

8363334

8363

334

cactus

Informal floor

Intrusive pit

Refuse pitCollared jar

Large obsidian Bench

Feature Key

point

Structure 88Planview of excavations

2m contour

Excavationunit

Stone

Patio area

Intact wall

feature

!156

" Below the strata of wall fall and windblown sediments, the structure was

subdivided into two areas based on an architectural feature encountered along the south

and southwestern interior edge of Structure 88. The presumed bench, extending

approximately 1m away from the wall, contained a light beige, compact, floor like

surface (Locus 202), directly atop rocky construction fill (Locus 204) with high levels of

cultural material (including a large obsidian biface) that was bordered by a series of flat

rocks all resting on the same level (FIGS. 5.74-5.76). Beneath the main layer of

construction fill were two additional levels of matrix (Loci 210 & 211) atop the natural

sterile soil of the hillside (which the base of the structure wall rests directly on)."

" At the same level of the base of the bench, the northern half of Structure 88

contained a clear occupation surface, visible through the presence of pottery sherds

laying horizontally and a light brown compaction in the central part of the structure

(Loci 205 & 206, respectively; FIG. 5.77). Below this occupation surface was a deep pit

Figure 5.75. Possible stone bench encountered during excavations in Structure 88.

!157

Figure 5.76. Large obsidian biface recovered during excavations in Structure 88.

Figure 5.77. Cross section of excavations in Structure 88, illustrating the bench (and bench fill), informal floor, deep refuse pit, and intrusive burial pit.

20cm

Structure 88 - Cross section

wall fall

windblown sand

bench fill

informal floor

looted burial pit

cultural refuse

sterile soil

!158

filled with high quantities of domestic waste (Loci 205, 208, 212, 213, & 214). The natural

hillside had been modified to create the large refuse pit (1.2m deep), which slopped

down sharply just past the center of the structure. The loose, grayish brown matrix with

slight gravel inclusions within this pit contained very high frequencies of pottery, lithics,

shell, animal bone, obsidian, copper artifacts, and objects of personal adornment such as

pendants. By comparison, the density of pottery per liter of matrix excavated was 10.6g

in the pit matrix (Loci 205, 208, 212, & 213 averaged), yet only 5.9g per liter in Locus 204

(the bench fill)."

" " Within the large pit was a smaller, oval pit containing dark brown,

smooth organic matrix, which intruded into the larger refuse pit. This smaller pit

contained a large Late Nasca collared jar, interred empty and upside down, with the

remains of a white clay cap still visible on the mouth of the vessel (FIGS. 5.78 & 5.79).

The matrix (Locus 209) this bottle was buried with contained both plain and polychrome

ceramic fragments, animal bone, shell, obsidian, one of the two fragments of gourd

recovered from the site, and pieces of worked bone. The size and shape of the pit, along

with the possible human bone fragment recovered from the surrounding matrix,

suggests that this was perhaps another tomb that was re-entered in prehistory. In this

instance, the tomb was not only emptied, but a ceramic vessel was intentionally interred

in the place of the body. The location of the pit underneath the hypothesized occupation

surface suggests that this event occurred prior to the final occupation of Structure 88." "

" Including the Superficie, approximately 2,500 liters of matrix were excavated

from Structure 88, from an area of 10.11m2. There was an artifact density of 7.31g of

pottery/liter or 1,806.6g/m2 excavated (TABLE 5.14). For lithics, it was 0.39g/liter or

97.23g/m2 excavated. Tools (including obsidian points) and adornments were found at a

frequency of 0.013 artifacts/liter or 3.26 artifacts/m2 excavated. Animal bone occurred at

a frequency of 0.30g/liter or 74.97g/m2 excavated. Finally, shell had an artifact density

of 0.08g/liter or 18.59g/m2 excavated. Again, the majority of the material came from the

deep refuse pit below the occupation surface."

!!

!159

!!

Figure 5.78. Intrusive burial pit in Structure 88, illustrating Late Nasca collared jar interred upside down.

Figure 5.79. Late Nasca style collared jar recovered from the intrusive burial pit during excavations in Structure 88.

!160

5.3.3.4" Structure 104" !" Located in the middle of Sector II (see FIG. 5.11), Structure 104 is a small, isolated

circular structure, presumed to be a house (FIG. 5.80). Due to good preservation and lack

of deflation, Structure 104 was chosen for excavation as an example of a lower status

house. A section of the southeastern structure wall was still intact, making this a good

Figure 5.80. Photographic planview of Structure 104, illustrating the location of the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC).

Table 5.14. Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 88.

Material Weight (g) Count Density (g/l) % of site total (g) % of site total (#)pottery 18265 2748 7.31 17.34 26.92lithics 983 101 0.39 15.40 22.75obsidian 111 15 0.044 59.04 40.54metal 7 2 0.0028 70.00 66.67spindle whorls/discs 10 6 0.004 1.11 21.43worked bone/shell 18 5 0.0072 41.86 45.45pendants 15 5 0.006 44.12 38.46shell 188 175 0.08 22.54 19.75animal bone 758 1529 0.3 25.58 30.82botanical/organic 18 37 0.007 36.73 58.73

!161

opportunity to view at least part of the architectural layout of a house. We bisected the

structure east-west and excavated the southern half of Structure 104, allowing us to

expose the possibly intact contexts below the wall fall along the southern wall. There

was a small looters pit in the northern half of Structure 104, which also influenced the

decision to excavation the southern portion of the structure."

" Like the other houses, Structure 104 contained upper layers of wall fall

intermixed with light beige aeolian sand, with some water compaction. The upper most

level of wall fall was considered the Superficie, since it contained material washed down

Figure 5.81. Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 104.

MODERN SURFACE

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

Superficie

Locus305

Locus 300

Locus306

Locus303

Locus304

Locus 301

Locus 302

Locus307

Locus308

!162Figure 5.82. Planview of excavations in Structure 104, highlighting important features that were encountered.

m

1212m

525292

525292525290

5252

90

525288

5252

88

525294

5252

94

8363376

8363

376

8363374

8363

374

8363

378

8363

378

8363

380

8363380

Datum:8363376N

525292E

Structure 104Planview of excavations

2m contour

Excavationunit

Stone

Intact wall

8363

382

8363382

Occupation Fire center

Ash pitFeature Key

surface

m

!163

from the terrace above. Below this were two levels of windblown sand and compaction

(Loci 300-302; FIG. 5.81). Beneath these post abandonment contexts was an light brown,

compact surface determined to be an informal floor or apisonado (Locus 303), which was

encountered throughout most of the internal area of the structure (FIG. 5.82). The

compact occupation surface was relatively clean, with a few fragments of pottery. There

was also a concentration of loose light gray ashy soil (Locus 304), likely a small fire pit,

dug into the sterile soil of the natural hillside (Locus 305) which forms the foundation of

the house. This pit was partially below the floor in the central area of Structure 104 and

contained high levels of cultural material, particularly pottery, lithics, and shell (FIG.

5.83). Unlike some of the ashy pits located in other houses, this one may have been used

during the occupation of the structure, likely for cooking purposes. The placement of

part of the ash lens beneath the floor, however, may suggest that some activity that

caused the ash pre-dates the final use of Structure 104. Another pit, below a thick ashy

layer containing domestic waste such as pottery, animal bone, and shell, was discovered

along the southwestern portion of the structure wall (Loci 306-308; FIG. 5.84). The burnt

soil at the base of the pit suggests a hot fire, perhaps a hearth. The wall fall in this area of

Structure 104 destroyed any evidence of an occupation surface, making it difficult to

establish the stratigraphic relationship between this ash pit and the floor. "

" Including the Superficie, approximately 480 liters of matrix were excavated from

Structure 104, from an area of 3.53m2. There was an artifact density of 1.82g of pottery/

liter or 247.59g/m2 excavated (TABLE 5.15). For lithics, the artifact density in Structure

104 was 0.085g/liter or 11.61g/m2 excavated. Tools (including obsidian points) and

adornments were found at a frequency of 0.006 artifacts/liter or 0.85 artifacts/m2 "

excavated. Animal bone occurred at a frequency of 0.05g/liter or 6.80g/m2 excavated.

Finally, shell had an artifact density of 0.046g/liter or 6.23g/m2 excavated. The majority

of pottery comes from the two ash pits, and the presence of two sherds (one in each pit)

that appear to be from the same vessel suggests these pits were used somewhat

contemporaneously."

!!

!164

Figure 5.84. Excavations in Structure 104, illustrating the possible hearth against the southern structure wall.

Figure 5.83. Excavations in Structure 104, illustrating the ash pit visible in the center of the informal floor surface.

!165

5.3.3.5" Structure 190" !" Located in the western middle of Sector III (see FIG. 5.11), Structure 190 is a large

circular structure, presumed to be a house, with an attached oblong patio (FIG. 5.85).

Due to good preservation and lack of deflation, Structure 190 was chosen for excavation

as an example of a moderate to higher status house. Much of the structure wall had

collapsed, but we hypothesized that the wall fall had protected the lower strata and

preserved intact cultural contexts. We bisected the structure north-south and excavated

the eastern half of Structure 190, allowing us to expose the possibly intact contexts below

the wall fall along the eastern wall. Additionally, it appeared as though the foundation

of the eastern wall was largely intact, and that there may have been a structure entrance

facing the patio. Excavating the eastern half of Structure 190 allowed us to expose the

foundation wall and determine whether there was an entrance between the house and

patio." "

" Structure 190 exhibited multiple episodes of wall fall following the abandonment

of the structure. The rubble (consisting of large angular rocks intermixed with light beige

aeolian sand) was encountered throughout the eastern half of Structure 190, and the

upper level contained very low quantities of domestic refuse from the patio group above

Table 5.15. Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 104.

Material Weight (g) Count Density (g/l) % of site total (g) % of site total (#)pottery 874 208 1.82 0.83 2.04lithics 41 22 0.085 0.64 4.95obsidian 8 2 0.017 4.26 5.41metal 0 0 0 0 0spindle whorls/discs 0 0 0 0 0worked bone/shell 0 0 0 0 0pendants 1 1 0.0021 2.94 7.69shell 22 19 0.046 2.64 2.14animal bone 24 14 0.05 0.81 0.28botanical/organic 0 0 0 0 0

!166

from matrix that had washed down during heavy rains. Since the material was

considered to be foreign to the structure, it was classified as Superficie. Beneath the

Superficie were a series of strata of wall fall and initially loose, then compact, light beige

aeolian sand (Loci 400-402; FIG. 5.86). These contexts contained quantities of domestic

refuse, including pottery, lithics, animal bone, and shell."

" A light brown compact soil, possibly an informal floor surface, was encountered

along the eastern wall (Locus 406), with pottery laying horizontal on the surface and a

burned area (Locus 408; FIG. 5.87). However, above this level in the southern half of the

structure was an dark grey ash lens (Loci 404-405), beneath which were three

superimposed holes intruding into the informal floor and filled with loose gray ashy

matrix and domestic waste such as pottery (particularly fineware), animal bone, and

shell (Loci 409-410, 413; FIG. 5.88). "

" The bottom two of these holes were dug into the sterile soil (Locus 418) that was

leveled to form the foundation of the housing terrace, although the relationship between

the ash pits and the possible informal floor is not very clear. It is possible that these pits

Figure 5.85. Photographic planview of Patio Group 55, illustrating the location of Structure 190, its associated patio, and the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC).

!167

Figure 5.86. Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 190.

MODERN SURFACE

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

Superficie

Locus 407

Locus 400

Locus405

Locus406

Locus404

Locus 401

Locus 402

Locus408

Locus403

Locus418

Locus 414Locus410

Locus409

Locus413

Locus412

Locus 415

Locus 416 Locus417

!168Figure 5.87. Planview of excavations in Structure 190, highlighting important features that were encountered.

m

1218m

1220m

525212

525212 525214

5252

14

525210

525210

525208

525208

525206

525206

525204

5252

04

525202

5252

02

Datum:8363344N

525212E

8363

344

8363

344

8363

342

8363342

8363

340

8363340

8363

346

8363

346

8363

348

8363348

8363

350

8363350

Occupation

Ground stonemano

Ash pit

Refuse pit

Plainware lids

Nested bilvalve

Obsidian point

Feature Key

Structure 190Planview of excavations

2m contour

Excavationunit

Stone

Patio area

Intact wall

m

surface

!169

Figure 5.89. Ceramic lids recovered from the ash pits during excavations in Structure 190.

Figure 5.88. Three ash pits encountered during excavations in Structure 190.

!170

were hearths or trash pits, used while the structure was occupied, but the presence of a

pair of clay lids nested and intentionally interred along the one of one pit also possibly

suggests a more ritual activity (FIGS. 5.89 & 5.90). However, the presence of the third

hole above and intruding into the first two pits also suggests that the activities which

produced these ash pits occurred over a period of time, rather than in one moment."

" In the northern half of Structure 190, a large deep pit dug into the natural hillside

was encountered which contained loose, light brown gravelly soil with a high

concentration of domestic waste such as pottery, animal bone, lithics, and shell (Loci 403,

407, 415-417; FIG. 5.91). This pit is very similar to the one encountered in the northern

half of Structure 88 and the eastern half of Structure 203, which also contained high

quantities of domestic refuse layered within a deep pit. The upper most level of the pit

contained a pair of bivalves, seemingly intentionally interred (FIG. 5.92)." "

" Including the Superficie, approximately 2,540 liters of matrix were excavated

from Structure 190, from an area of 7.48m2. There was an artifact density of 2.99g of

pottery/liter or 1,014.30g/m2 excavated (TABLE 5.16). For lithics, the artifact density in

Figure 5.90. Ceramic lids recovered from the ash pits.

!171

Figure 5.91. Deep refuse pit (right) and bases of ash pits (left) encountered during excavations in Structure 190.

Figure 5.92. Two nested bivalves recovered from the surface of the deep refuse pit encountered during excavations in Structure 190.

!172

Structure 190 was 0.16g/liter or 54.41g/m2 excavated. Tools (including obsidian points)

and adornments were found at a frequency of 0.01 artifacts/liter or 3.34 artifacts/m2

excavated. Animal bone occurred at a frequency of 0.18g/liter or 59.89g/m2 excavated.

Finally, shell had an artifact density of 0.088g/liter or 29.81g/m2 excavated. The large

majority of this material was recovered from the three ash pits and the deep refuse pit in

the northern half of the house."

!!5.3.3.6" Structure 203" !" Located in the northeastern area of Sector III (see FIG. 5.11), Structure 203 is a

small circular structure, presumed to be a house, with an attached terrace (FIG. 5.93).

Because of its size, the apparent lack of erosion or deflation, and the minimal quantity of

wall fall within the interior portion of the structure, Structure 203 was selected for

excavation as an example of a house of moderate status. For sampling purposes, and

because the northern half of the structure contained the least amount of wall fall,

Structure 203 was bisected east-west and the northern portion was chosen for

Table 5.16. Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 190.

Material Weight (g) Count Density (g/l) % of site total (g) % of site total (#)pottery 7587 1901 2.99 7.20 18.62lithics 407 133 0.16 6.38 29.95obsidian 33 8 0.013 17.55 21.62metal 3 1 0.001 30.00 33.33spindle whorls/disks 703 12 0.277 78.29 42.86worked bone/shell 6 2 0.002 13.95 18.18pendants 6 2 0.002 17.65 15.38shell 223 162 0.088 26.74 18.28animal bone 448 717 0.18 15.12 14.45botanical/organic 8 7 0.003 16.33 11.11

!173

excavation. Based on what was visible on the surface, it also appeared that the base of

the northern retaining wall, built into the natural hillside to form the housing terrace,

was intact. Excavating the northern half of Structure 203 allowed us to expose the

foundation of the structure wall and investigate the construction technique used to

create the housing terrace."

" The upper strata of Structure 203 consisted of collapsed wall and light beige

compact aeolian sand (Loci 600, 601, & 602; FIG. 5.94), with little cultural material. Along

the interior edge of the structure wall, beneath the majority of wall fall, was a darker

brown, more organic matrix resting directly on top of sterile (Locus 605) in the western

portion of the structure. This matrix (Locus 603) contained much higher quantities of

cultural material, including pottery, lithics, animal bone, and shell. While no floor

surface (prepared or informal) was encountered in Structure 203, this level appears to

have been the final in situ cultural occupation."

Figure 5.93. Photographic planview of Patio Group 78, illustrating the location of Structure 203, its associated terrace, and the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC).

!174

" Beneath these strata, in the middle and eastern portions of the structure, was a

deep pit (Loci 604 & 610) containing light brown, loose gravelly soil with ashy lenses

(Loci 609 & 611; FIG. 5.95), which was cut into the sterile soil (Locus 605). Within the pit,

which contained high quantities of domestic waste (such as pottery, lithics, animal bone,

and shell), were two intrusive pits filled with loose light grayish brown ashy matrix and

Figure 5.94. Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 203.

MODERN SURFACE

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

Locus602

Locus 607Locus 608

Locus604

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

Locus609

Locus611

Locus610

Locus603

Locus600

Locus601

Locus606

Locus605

!175Figure 5.95. Planview of excavations in Structure 203, highlighting important features that were encountered.

1208m

1210m

Datum:8363372N

525244E

525244

525244525242

5252

42

525240

5252

40

525246/8363372

5252

4652

5248

525248

8363

372

8363

370

8363370 8363374

8363

374

8363

376

8363376

8363

378

8363378

Dark organic

Refuse pit

Large fineware

Camelid pelvis

Mud-claysphere

matrix

fragment

Feature Key

Structure 203Planview of excavations

2m contour

Excavationunit

Stone

Terrace area

Intact wall

m

!176

dark brown organic matrix. The first of these pits (Locus 606) was large (greater than 1m

in diameter), circular, and filled with ashy domestic refuse. Unlike the pits found in

Structure 17 and 190, the matrix in the Structure 203 pit was not pure ash or the remains

of a fire. Rather, the matrix here was light gray in color (when compared to the

surrounding matrix), but more similar to a trash pit than a fire pit or hearth (and nearly

identical to what was found in Structure 88). The second pit (Loci 607 & 608) in Structure

203, however, was more reminiscent of a burnt offering. The circular pit was small (20cm

in diameter), capped with a compact, white clay like sphere (also nearly 20cm in

diameter), and filled with a very dark brown, organic matrix (FIG. 5.96). Within this pit

(and directly below the compact spherical cap), was half of an intact camelid pelvis (FIG.

5.97). The color and texture of the surrounding matrix suggests that this pelvis was

interred with flesh still intact. The placement of the compact clay sphere above, and the

interment of a still fleshed section of bone, suggests that this interment was not only

intentional, but possibly ritual in nature."

" Approximately 1,430 liters of matrix were excavated from Structure 203, from an

area of 4.65m2. There was an artifact density of 3.31g of pottery/liter or 1,018.06g/m2

Figure 5.96. Mud clay sphere capping camelid pelvis interment (visible in lower left corner) encountered during excavations in Structure 203. Photo taken after a cut had been made through the sphere to determine relationship to camelid bone and dark organic matrix below.

!177

excavated (TABLE 5.17). For lithics, it was 0.20g/liter or 60.86g/m2 excavated. Tools

(including obsidian points) and adornments were found at a frequency of 0.007

artifacts/liter or 2.37 artifacts/m2 excavated. Animal bone occurred at a frequency of

0.22g/liter or 66.88g/m2 excavated. Finally, shell had an artifact density of 0.05g/liter or

15.70g/m2 excavated. As was encountered in other structures that contained deep refuse

pits, the majority of cultural material was recovered from those contexts."

!

Figure 5.97. Camelid pelvis interred below mud clay sphere, encountered during excavations in Structure 203.

Table 5.17. Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 203.

Material Weight (g) Count Density (g/l) % of site total (g) % of site total (#)pottery 4734 707 3.31 4.49 6.93lithics 283 70 0.2 4.43 15.77obsidian 12 4 0.0084 6.38 10.81metal 0 0 0 0 0spindle whorls/disks 18 4 0.013 2.00 14.29worked bone/shell 12 3 0.0084 27.91 27.27pendants 0 0 0 0 0shell 73 77 0.05 8.75 8.69animal bone 311 605 0.22 10.50 12.20botanical/organic 0 0 0 0 0

!178

5.3.3.7" Structure 255" !" Located in the uppermost area of Sector V (see FIG. 5.14), Structure 255 is a very

large circular structure, presumed to be a house, with an attached patio and smaller

subsidiary structure (FIG. 5.98). Of all the circular structures at Cocahuischo, Structure

255 is the largest by far, and is located at the place in Sector V where one has the greatest

visibility of both the site and the Tierras Blancas valley. Due to its placement, and good

preservation and lack of deflation, Structure 255 was chosen for excavation as an

example of a higher status house possibly high highest (based architectural measures of

socioeconomic status). Additionally, based on what was visible at the surface, it was

hypothesized that the entire southern structure wall was intact beneath a layer of upper

wall fall and sediments washed down from the hillside above. None of the other

structures excavated contained more than 25% of intact structure wall, making this a

Figure 5.98. Photographic planview of Patio Group 1, illustrating the location of Structures 255 & 253, their associated patio, and the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC).

!179

unique opportunity to view the architectural layout of a house in its entirety. We

bisected the structure east-west and excavated the southern half of Structure 255,

allowing us to expose the entrance to the house, the structure wall, and the possibly

intact contexts below the wall fall along the southern wall."

" Unlike the other structures excavated, in Structure 255 we did not encounter

much material in the upper strata because there were almost no structures located

above. The matrix that washed down the hillside and into Structure 255 was mostly

sterile soil and rocks (which was considered the Superficie since it was not an in situ

context). Intermixed with this matrix was an episode of wall collapse along the interior

southern wall, consisting of large angular rocks and stone slabs, and light beige loose

aeolian sand. In the center of the structure was a layer of light beige compact aeolian

sand (Locus 800; FIG. 5.99) deposited post abandonment of the structure."

" Beneath the post-abandonment layers along the southern and eastern walls, we

encountered what initially appeared to have been another possible bench feature,

wrapping from the doorway around to the southwestern corner of the structure.

Scattered throughout the rocks which presumably formed the structure of the bench

were a series of compact surfaces (Locus 801), possibly the capping surface to the bench.

Upon closer inspection it was concluded that rather than a bench, the angular rocks and

stone slabs merely represented another episode of wall collapse and the compact

surfaces were the result of water compaction. Beneath these surfaces were two

additional matrices that contained cultural material (particularly pottery and animal

bone), one light tan, very loose gravelly sand (Locus 802) and one light brown brown

organic soil (Locus 803) resting between and just below the rocks (the rocks and matrix

just beside the doorway was preserved so that stratigraphic relationships could be

established later, and was considered Locus 814). "

" In the central portion of the structure below the post abandonment strata, we

came down on a light brown, loose sand with low levels of gravel inclusions, and

pottery laying horizontally within the matrix (Locus 807). Beneath this looser matrix was

a light beige compact informal floor surface (Locus 808; FIG. 5.100) that had plainware

pottery embedded within it (FIG. 5.101). "

!180

" "

!!" "

!

!" "

Figure 5.99. Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 255.

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

MODERN SURFACE

Locus804

Locus807

Locus800

Locus802

Superficie

Locus808

Locus801

Locus803

Locus814

Locus811

Locus 806Locus 810

Locus809

Locus812

Locus805

Locus 831Locus 832Locus 833

Locus825

Locus827

Locus828

Locus829

Locus830

Locus819

Locus815

Locus816

Locus817

Locus818

Locus823

Locus821

Locus820

Locus822

Locus824

Locus835

Locus836

Locus836

!181Figure 5.100. Planview of excavations in Structure 255, highlighting important features that were encountered.

1238m

1240m

1242m Datum:8363233N

525023E

525024

525024

525026

525026

525028

5250

28

525022

525022

525020

525020

525018

525018

525016

525016/8363340525014

5250

14

8363232

8363

232

8363

230

8363230

8363

234

8363

234

8363

236

8363

236

8363

238

8363

238

8363

240

8363

242

8363342

Informal floor

Fire center

Ash pitMiniature olla

Earthenwarefragment Fire-cracked

rock

Feature Key

Structure 255Planview of excavations

2m contour

Excavationunit

Stone

Patio area

Intact wall

m

!182

Figure 5.102. Deep ash concentration encountered throughout Structure 255. Photo taken after cut was made to expose the stratigraphy of the ash.

Figure 5.101. Fragment of apisonado with pottery embedded in the center of the structure, laying directly above the deep ash concentration encountered during excavations in Structure 255.

!183

" Below the informal floor and the matrix in the rest of the unit was a thick, deep

concentration of loose dark grey ash that extended throughout the entire structure (FIG.

5.102). In the upper layers, we identified four different concentrations along the

southeastern wall (Loci 806 & 810), the southwestern wall (Locus 805 & 809), in the

eastern portion of the structure (Loci 804 & 811), and in the western portion of the unit

(Loci 804, 812, & 831). While not clearly separated, these concentrations were

hypothesized to have derived from different fire sources (based on differences in color

and presence of carbonized vegetable material; FIG. 5.103), and to have been

differentially distributed throughout the structure by wind. The afternoon winds at

Cocahuischo blow up valley (west-east), and the ashy matrix was clearly deepest along

the eastern wall. "

" The density of artifacts, particularly large fragments of very coarse plainware

pottery (that could be characterized more as ‘earthenware’ than plainware, based on

comparisons with plainware pottery from other structures at Cocahuischo; FIG. 5.104)

was very high in these strata. Of the 51.06 kilos of pottery recovered from Structure 255

(which is already 48% of the total pottery recovered from Cocahuischo), 36.20 kilos

(71%) of it come from the ash concentration. In comparison with the refuse pit found in

Structure 88 (which had a density of 11.64 grams of pottery for each liter excavated), the

ash concentration in Structure 255 had a density of 43.61g/liter excavated. The density of

Structure 255 as a whole (including the post abandonment levels) is 7.43g/liter (TABLE

5.18), making the quantity of pottery present in the ash concentration truly unusual.

Also encountered were large quantities of animal bone (particularly camelid) often

burnt, and much less fragmentary than found in other structures. While long bones were

rarely encountered elsewhere, in the ash concentration of Structure 255, many burnt long

bone fragments were recovered (a number of which had burnt edges, suggesting that the

breaks were not the result of taphonomic processes)."

" In one of these contexts (Locus 810), along the southern wall, we encountered

two separate interments of a large piece of plainware pottery (so large and straight in

form that it seems virtually impossible that it came from a vessel, even a very large olla

or jar) placed with half of a marine bivalve within the ash against the structure wall

!184

Figure 5.103. Ash concentration against southeastern wall in Structure 255, illustrating carbonized vegetable material and soil indicative of high burn temperatures.

Figure 5.104. Very large earthenware fragment (outlined with white dashes) and bivalve placed within ash concentration by southeastern structure wall of Structure 255.

!185

(FIG. 5.104). One of these was located directly atop a sandy soil above the sterile,

meaning that it was placed before the fire that produced the ash occurred. "

" Below the layer of ash, and directly above the sterile soil of the natural hillside

that was leveled to form the foundation of the housing terrace, we encountered fifteen

separate fire centers (Loci 816-817, 819-830, & 833; see FIG. 5.100). These centers varied in

size and intensity of the fire (based on the color of the burnt soil), with the largest two

centers (Loci 833 & 830) being located along the southwestern and western portion of the

structure. In a couple of areas, there were thin layers of very fine sand (Loci 813 & 832) in

between layers of ash and the dark reddish brown burnt soil of the fire centers. Along

the eastern wall of the structure were two pits (Loci 815 & 818), one almost 50cm deep

and located directly in front of the doorway, which contained no evidence of burning but

were filled with ash and cultural refuse. Directly above two of the fire centers (base of

Locus 812 and Locus 833) we also encountered two miniature ollas, one of which had

been smashed beneath a rock that showed evidence of fire-cracking, the other intact

within the lower levels of ashy matrix (FIG. 5.105). A series of fire-cracked rocks were

found throughout the structure (Loci 810, 824, and 825, in particular) with bases that

were under the ash level, indicating that these rocks were placed before the fire (FIG.

5.106)."

Table 5.18. Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 255.

Material Weight (g) Count Density (g/l) % of site total (g) % of site total (#)pottery 51062 2370 7.43 48.48 23.22lithics 1920 22 0.28 30.08 4.95obsidian 0 0 0 0 0metal 0 0 0 0 0spindle whorls/disks 150 2 0.022 16.70 7.14worked bone/shell 0 0 0 0 0pendants 2 1 0.00029 5.88 7.69shell 169 353 0.025 20.26 39.84animal bone 995 1356 0.31 33.58 27.33botanical/organic 10 4 0.0015 20.41 6.35

!186

Figure 5.105. Miniature ollas recovered from the base of the ash concentration in Structure 255.

Figure 5.106. Fire cracked rock recovered from the base of the ash concentration in Structure 255.

!187

" Because the base of the structure wall (which was built directly atop the sterile

soil of the leveled natural hillside) was burnt along the level of the ash, it can be

assumed that at least part of the structure wall, and likely the entire building, was in

place at the time of the fire. The position of the informal floor directly above the ash in

the center of the structure, and the plainware pottery laying horizontally on the surface

of the matrix directly above the ash in the rest of the structure, suggest that the events

that produced the ash occurred prior to the final use of Structure 255. The location of one

ash pit directly in front of the doorway suggests that at least this event occurred before

the structure was used at all."

" The size and number of fire centers (evidenced by the dark reddish brown

patches of soil, which indicate that the soil was heated to a very high temperature)

suggest that a major fire produced a large quantity of ash in the structure. After this,

activity in the structure resulted in the production of an informal floor surface in the

center of the structure and the doorway, and the placement of large quantities of pottery

throughout the structure. At least one other fire episode subsequently occurred

superimposing this initial layer of ash, along the southeastern wall of the structure. In all

likelihood, the ash deposit in Structure 255 represents multiple burning events over a

prolonged period of time, rather than a single fire - suggesting continuous use of the

structure. "

" As was mentioned before, the sheer density of pottery (predominantly

plainware) that was encountered in Structure 255 is most impressive. Including the

Superficie, approximately 6,870 liters of matrix were excavated from Structure 255 (3,170

liters excluding post-abandonment contexts), from an area of 20.63m2. There was an

artifact density of 7.43g of pottery/liter or 2,475.13g/m2 excavated (TABLE 5.18). The

primary ash layer (Loci 804-806, 809-812, & 831) had a pottery density of 43.61g g/liter

excavated – considerably high than other domestic contexts at Cocahuischo (e.g. 11.64/

liter excavated in the refuse pit of Structure 88). For lithics, the artifact density in

Structure 255 was 0.28g/liter or 93.07g/m2 excavated. Tools (including obsidian points)

and adornments were found at a frequency of 0.0001 artifacts/liter or 0.048 artifacts/m2

!188

excavated. Animal bone occurred at a frequency of 0.144g/liter or 48.23g/m2 excavated.

Finally, shell had an artifact density of 0.025g/liter or 8.19g/m2 excavated. "

" The artifact assemblages encountered in other Cocahuischo houses are quite

distinct from Structure 255. Polychrome pottery, found in high quantities in the other

high status houses is sparse in Structure 255, when compared to the quantity of

plainware pottery. Additionally, some unusual objects were recovered from excavations,

particularly in the ash concentration and above the fire centers. Fragments of what

appear to be box shaped vessels with shallow troughs, made of cooked yet unfired clay,

Figure 5.107. Ground stone mano (a), hammer stones (b), unfired clay molds (c), large earthenware fragment (d), and highly burned porous material (e) recovered from the occupation levels of Structure 255.

!189

were found scattered about Structure 255. Also recovered were ground stone

hammerstones and a mano (which were found resting atop the ash deposit), and small

fragments of a highly burned material (possibly clay), which presents evidence for

pyrotechnic activity in Structure 255 (FIG. 5.107)."

!!!5.3.3.7" Structure 285" !" Located in the far western edge of Sector V (see FIG. 5.14), Structure 285 is a

geographically isolated medium sized circular structure, presumed to be a house (FIG.

5.108). Due to good preservation and lack of deflation, Structure 285 was chosen for

excavation as an example of a house of moderate status. Its relative isolation from other

patio groups (and proximity to the plaza at the western edge of the site) and the lack of a

patio or terrace made it an interesting addition to the sample. We bisected the structure "

!

Figure 5.108. Photographic planview of Structure 285, illustrating the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC).

!190

!!

!

Figure 5.109. Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 285.

MODERN SURFACE

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

Superficie

Locus706

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

Locus 700

Locus705

Locus709

Locus701

Locus710

Locus703

Locus704

Locus702

Locus711

Locus707

Locus712

Locus708

!191Figure 5.110. Planview of excavations in Structure 285, highlighting important features that were encountered.

Structure 285Planview of excavations

Pottery

Ground stonemano

concentration

Bivalve

m

1224

m

Internal wall

Large plainwarefragment

Feature Key

2m contour

Excavationunit

Stone

Intact wall

Datum:

524986

524986

524988

524988

524990

524990

8363246N524986E

524984

524984

524982

524982524980

5249

80

8363

246

8363

246

8363

244

8363244

8363

248

8363

248

8363

250

8363

250

8363

252

8363

252

!192

north-south and excavated the western half of Structure 285, because of the relatively

high level of wall collapse on the southern and southeastern side of the structure."

" The upper strata of Structure 285 consisted of collapsed wall and light beige

compact aeolian sand (Superficie and Loci 700-704; FIG. 5.109), with little cultural

material (primarily pottery, animal bone, and shell found in the lower levels). The wall

fall was primarily located along the southern wall of the structure, and was intermixed

with matrix washed down from the hillside above. The southwestern interior of

Structure 285 appears to have been divided by a narrow wall stretching approximately a

meter toward the center of the structure, and was preserved by the wall fall (FIG. 5.110)."

" Beneath the upper layers of post-abandonment deposits throughout most of

Structure 285 was a level of light brown loose rocky construction fill (Locus 705 & 709).

Within the presumed interior room, an light tan compact informal floor surface (Locus

706) was encountered that was embedded with a mano, a large fragment of a plainware

vessel, and a marine bivalve (FIG. 5.111). Three concentrations of plainware pottery were

also recovered from the central area of the structure (Loci 707-708, 711) at different levels

within the construction fill. Additionally, there was a pit dug into the construction fill in

the northwestern area of the structure (Locus 712)."

" Including the Superficie, approximately 4,270 liters of matrix were excavated from

Structure 285, from an area of 8.85m2. There was an artifact density of 0.66g of pottery/

liter or 320.79g/m2 excavated (TABLE 5.19). For lithics, artifact density in Structure 285

was 0.02g/liter or 11.53g/m2 excavated. Tools (including obsidian points) and

adornments were found at a frequency of 0 artifacts/liter or 0 artifacts/m2 excavated.

Animal bone occurred at a frequency of 0.004g/liter or 1.92g/m2 excavated. Finally, shell

had an artifact density of 0.016g/liter or 7.68g/m2 excavated. The artifact assemblage

from Structure 285 was strikingly sparse when compared to the other structures. Little

material was recovered overall, no obsidian or tools were found, and what little pottery

was present was overwhelmingly plainware. Only four very small fragments of

polychrome pottery was found from in situ contexts in Structure 285."

!!

!193

!

Figure 5.111. Mano, large plainware fragment, and marine bivalve embedded in occupation surface within internal room in Structure 285.

Table 5.19. Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 285.

Material Weight (g) Count Density (g/l) % of site total (g) % of site total (#)pottery 2839 161 0.66 2.70 1.58lithics 102 7 0.02 1.60 1.58obsidian 0 0 0 0 0metal 0 0 0 0 0spindle whorls/disks 0 0 0 0 0worked bone/shell 0 0 0 0 0pendants 0 0 0 0 0shell 68 5 0.016 8.15 0.56animal bone 17 15 0.004 0.57 0.30botanical/organic 0 0 0 0 0

!194

5.3.3.8" Structure 293" !" Located in the southeastern portion of Sector V (see FIG. 5.14), Structure 293 is a

small rectangular structure, presumed to be a house, attached to a large patio group

composed of a large oval patio, a small circular structure, and a terrace (FIG. 5.112). Due

to good preservation and lack of deflation, Structure 293 was chosen for excavation as an

example of a lower status house. Additionally, the relative complexity and size of the

patio group made Structure 293 a good addition to the sample. The matrix washed

down from the terrace above had covered the southern portion of the structure,

presumably preserving the southern wall of Structure 293. We bisected the structure

north-south and excavated the western half, to expose the hypothesized intact wall and

the interior of the structure furthest from the patio entrance." "

" The upper strata of Structure 293 consisted of collapsed wall and light beige

loose then compact aeolian sand (Superficie and Loci 900-901, 903; FIG. 5.113). The wall

fall was primarily located along the southern wall of the structure, and was intermixed

with matrix washed down from the hillside above. Beneath Locus 901 in the

northeastern portion of the structure was a slightly darker sandy matrix with small

Figure 5.112. Photographic planview of Patio Group 119, illustrating the location of Structures 293, 292, & 290, their patio and terrace, and the unit of excavation (aerial photograph courtesy of Fotografia Aerea, Arqueosystems SAC).

!195

gravel inclusions that had a concentration of pottery embedded within, and in the

deepest level of the matrix, pottery lying horizontal and two small manos (Locus 902;

FIG. 5.114). The pottery included the partial remains of a small plainware jar and the

complete neck of a large olla. This hypothesized occupation surface also contained

quantities of domestic refuse, including animal bone and shell."

" Beneath the presumed occupation surface was another level of loose, light brown

sandy matrix with small gravel inclusions, containing cultural material such as the "

remains of polychrome and plainware vessels, additional small manos, and the only

example of obsidian in Sector V (Locus 904). Associated with this level were two other

Figure 5.113. Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 293.

MODERN SURFACE

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

Superficie

Locus905

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

Locus906

Locus907

Locus903

Locus 900

Locus904

Locus 901

Locus902

Locus909

Locus908

!196Figure 5.114. Planview of excavations in Structure 293, highlighting important features that were encountered.

m

1224mOccupation

Pottery

Fineware bowl

Ground stone mano

Chalk

Structure 293Planview of excavations

concentration

fragmentBivalve

Subterranean

Feature Key

2m contour

Excavationunit

Stone

Patio area

Intact wall

Datum:8363289N

525062E

525062

5250

6252

5064

525064

525060

5250

60

525058

5250

58

8363288

8363

288

8363286

8363

286

8363290

8363290

8363

292

8363292 8363294

8363

294

surface

pit

!197

concentrations with pottery (Loci 905 & 906), including a nearly complete Late Nasca

flaring bowl accompanied by a fragment of chalk in the southeastern portion of the

structure (FIG. 5.115). Beneath this level were three small pits dug into the sterile soil

(Loci 907-909), containing few artifacts (only Locus 908 [FIG. 5.116], which also

Figure 5.116. Bivalve placed above pit in Structure 293.

Figure 5.115. Late Nasca flaring bowl recovered from excavations in Structure 293.

!198

contained an intact bivalve at the surface of the pit) and filled with light beige fine sand

or light tan gravelly sand. Unlike the pits dug into sterile that were encountered in other "

houses, in Structure 293 these pits were virtually empty and contained soil of a light

brown color, rather than ash."

" Including the Superficie, approximately 1,430 liters of matrix were excavated

from Structure 293, from an area of 3.85m2. There was an artifact density of 5.75g of

pottery/liter or 2,136.10g/m2 excavated (TABLE 5.20). For lithics, the artifact density in

Structure 293 was 1.51g/liter or 559.48g/m2 excavated. Tools (including obsidian points)

and adornments were found at a frequency of 0.0021 artifacts/liter or 0.78 artifacts/m2

excavated. Animal bone occurred at a frequency of 0.0455g/liter or 16.88g/m2

excavated. Finally, shell had an artifact density of 0.0105g/liter or 3.89g/m2 excavated."

!!5.3.3.9" Structure 246 (Unit 6)" !" Located in the northeastern portion of Sector III (see FIG. 5.11), just on the edge

of the cliff that descends sharply to the Tierras Blancas river floor, Structure 246 is a very

small, isolated circular structure. Located near a number of other similar structures,

Table 5.20. Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 293.

Material Weight (g) Count Density (g/l) % of site total (g) % of site total (#)pottery 8224 418 5.75 7.81 4.09lithics 2154 32 1.15 33.74 7.21obsidian 4 1 0.0028 2.13 2.70metal 0 0 0 0 0spindle whorls/disks 6 2 0.0042 0.67 7.14worked bone/shell 0 0 0 0 0pendants 0 0 0 0 0shell 15 28 0.0105 1.80 3.16animal bone 65 117 0.0455 2.19 2.36botanical/organic 0 0 0 0 0

!199

Structure 246 was chosen for excavation primarily to determine what it was.

Architecturally, the structure was more ephemeral than other houses and seemed more

similar to a patio. The shape, size, and isolation of Structure 246, however, made it

unlikely that it would have served as such. We selected to place a 1 m by x 2 m test unit

in Structure 246 to investigate whether the space was a very low status house, or a space

of some other use. The excavation unit was placed long ways oriented roughly north-

south, with the southern border of the unit placed up against the southern structure

wall."

" Since Structure 246 was located at the base of Sector III on a relatively flat portion

of the site, there was some rain washed matrix from above, which contained little

cultural material. The ephemeral structure walls also resulted in little wall collapse

Figure 5.117. Harris matrix of deposits found in Structure 246 (Unit 6).

MODERN SURFACE

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

Locus 500

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

Locus 501

Locus503

Locus502

Locus504

!200

covering and protecting the cultural deposits of Structure 246. The upper strata of the

structure consisted of light beige compact aeolian sand (Loci 500-502; FIG. 5.117) with

few artifacts. The surface ceramics found in the structure were collected as Superficie,

since some likely had washed down from the terraces above during heavy rains.

Beneath these post-abandonment layers was a light brown compact matrix, presumed to

be an informal floor or occupation surface (Locus 503), embedded with fragments of

plainware pottery (FIG. 5.118). Below the occupation surface was a thin layer of light

Figure 5.118. Planview of excavations in Structure 246 (Unit 6), highlighting important features that were encountered.

Unit 6Planview of excavations

Excvationunit

Stone

20cm

Occupation surface

Feature Key

Datum:8363410N

525240E

525240

525240

525242

525242

8363

410

8363

410

8363

412

8363

412

!201

brown gravelly matrix containing limited cultural material (Locus 504), likely

construction fill placed directly upon the sterile soil to form the foundation of the

structure."

" Approximately 230 liters of matrix were excavated from Structure 246, from an

area of 2.00 m2. There was an artifact density of 2.00g of pottery/liter or 229.5g/m2

excavated (TABLE 5.21). For lithics, the artifact density in Structure 246 was 0.02g/liter

or 2.50g/m2 excavated. Tools (including obsidian points) and adornments were found at

a frequency of 0.004 artifacts/liter or 0.50 artifacts/m2 excavated. Animal bone occurred

at a frequency of 0.21g/liter or 24.00g/m2 excavated. Finally, shell had an artifact density

of 0.017g/liter or 2.00g/m2 excavated. Overall, the artifact assemblage in Structure 246

was sparse, comparatively, although the deposits in the structure were also quite

shallow. The types of artifacts recovered and the proportions of these artifacts types

were actually quite comparable to other domestic structures, suggesting that Structure

246 was in fact a house – just an ephemeral and presumably lower status one."

!

Table 5.21. Quantity of artifacts recovered from Structure 246 (Unit 6).

Material Weight (g) Count Density (g/l) % of site total (g) % of site total (#)pottery 459 56 2 0.44 0.55lithics 5 2 0.02 0.08 0.45obsidian 2 1 0 1.06 2.70metal 0 0 0 0 0spindle whorls/disks 6 1 0.026 0.67 3.57worked bone/shell 0 0 0 0 0pendants 0 0 0 0 0shell 4 3 0.017 0.48 0.34animal bone 48 102 0.21 1.62 2.06botanical/organic 2 1 0.0087 4.08 1.59

!202

5.4" Temporal Occupation of Cocahuischo"!5.4.1" Radiocarbon Dates"!

" As part of the 2012 fieldwork, carbon samples were collected during excavations

and submitted for 14C dating at the Arizona AMS Laboratory. The four carbon samples

analyzed came from occupation levels and features directly associated with diagnostic

pottery (TABLE 5.21). The raw 14C dates were calibrated using the OxCal 4.1.7

calibration program (Bronk Ramsey 2010) and the IntCal09 curve (Reimer et al. 2009).

The four samples were taken from structures throughout the four residential sectors of

Cocahuischo. Sample #1 was directly associated with the two Transitional bowls

recovered from Structure 17 (see FIG. 5.65 & 6.38-6.39), while Sample #2 was associated

with the Late Nasca collared jar found in Structure 88 (see FIGS. 5.78-5.79 & 6.28).

Sample #4 was taken from the ash deposit in Structure 255 (also associated with Late

Nasca pottery). "

" All four samples from Cocahuischo date securely to the EIP. The earliest date is

A.D. 255 (median at 2σ) and the latest is A.D. 498 (median at 2σ). Samples #1-2 and 4 are

consistent with a combined calibrated 2σ range of A.D. 356-596 (range of medians at 2σ =

A.D. 466 - 498; FIG. 5.119). Sample #3 is a clear outlier. The calibrated 2σ range of A.D.

132-378 pre-dates the other Cocahuischo samples by two centuries. The pottery

associated with Sample #3 is stylistically identical to pottery from other contexts at the

Table 5.22. Raw accelerated mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon (14C) dates from Cocahuischo.

Sample # Locus

Laboratory Sample # d13C F 14 Dates (2 σ)

Median (at 2 σ) Context

1 007 AA99879 -22.7 0.8244 ± 0.0041 1,551 ± 40 CAL A.D. 422-595 A.D. 509 subfloor ash deposit

2 Locus AA99880 -23.0 0.8188 ± 0.0039 1,606 ± 38 CAL A.D. 356-549 A.D. 453subfloor burial pit

3 410 AA99881 -21.9 0.8017 ± 0.0038 1,776 ± 38 CAL A.D. 132-378 A.D 255 subfloor ash deposit

4 811 AA99882 -26.9 0.8251 ± 0.0039 1,545 ± 38 CAL A.D. 426-596 A.D. 511subfloor ash deposit

!203

site. The burned wood that was dated may have come from salvaged wood or represent

the earliest activity at the site (considerably pre-dating the main occupation). The

consistency of the other three dates suggest all four residential sectors of Cocahuischo

were occupied during a relatively narrow window of time."

!!!5.4.2" Founding and Abandonment of the Site"!

" While Cocahuischo had a short occupation, present data suggest that Sector V

may have been the area where construction initially began. Spatially, many areas of

Sector V are more gently slopping than elsewhere in Sectors I-III, making Sector V most

appealing from a building perspective. The most complex patio groups are also located

in Sector V. Such spaces likely reflect differences in social organization and the presence

of corporate kin groups and suprahousehold production. Although very few fragments

of Middle Nasca (Nasca phase 5) pottery have been recovered from Cocahuischo, most

of what has been identified comes from Sector V. As I discuss in Chapter 6, the majority

R_Date Sample 1

R_Date Sample 2

R_Date Sample 3

R_Date Sample 4

100 1calBC/1calAD 101 201 301 401 501 601 701

Calibrated date (calBC/calAD)

OxCal v4.1.7 Bronk Ramsey (2010); r:5 Atmospheric data from Reimer et al (2009);

Figure 5.119. Calibrated AMS 14C dates from Cocahuischo. Calibrations were performed using the OxCal 4.1.7 calibration program (Bronk Ramsey 2010) and the IntCal09 curve (Reimer et al. 2009). Medians at 2 σ: Sample #1 (A.D. 509), Sample #2 (A.D. 453), Sample #3 (A.D. 255), Sample #4 (A.D. 511).

!204

(around 80%) of Sector V pottery is Late Nasca, rather than Transitional. These different

styles do not represent strict chronological units. Yet Late Nasca (and Nasca 5) pottery

does illustrate the strongest cultural ties to an enduring tradition rooted in the Cahuachi

cult. While AMS dates likewise indicate that Sectors I-III and V were occupied during a

short period of time, these data may suggest that Sector V was the initial occupation. As

more people congregated into that area of the valley, the settlement expanded past the

cemetery onto the slopes at the other side of the quebrada. The time gap between the

occupation of Sector V and Sectors I-III may not have been long, perhaps no more than a

generation."

" There is presently no evidence that houses at Cocahuischo were occupied into

the MH. Throughout the four residential sectors, the site was effectively abandoned well

before the Wari presence was established in the valley. The primary occupation of the

site was nearly 250 years before Pataraya was built and based on current radiocarbon

dates, habitation had dissipated entirely by around A.D. 650 (and likely earlier). Although

the site was largely abandoned, there was some limited MH activity. In Sectors I-III and

V, a few surface sherds were recovered that are explicitly Loro or Wari in style (see FIG.

6.36f). At the same time, the majority of surface sherds are Late Nasca or Transitional,

suggesting that whatever activity produced these MH sherds was limited. A handful of

houses may have been occupied longer than the rest of the settlement or re-occupied

during the MH once the rest of the population had dissipated. Alternatively, the sherds

could be the product of visits to the site during the MH, as people went over Cerro

Chiuchipampa to the neighboring valley or up to Mina Pataraya."

!!!5.5.3" Chronological Implications"!

" In Chapter 4, I discussed issues with the different regional chronologies used by

south coast archaeologists. Within the Southern Nasca Region (SNR), the Late Nasca

phase was thought to extend from A.D. 550-750. The radiocarbon dates from Cocahuischo

are not consistent with the SNR chronology. They are significantly earlier, yet correlate

!205

well with the Central Nasca Region (CNR) chronology. With multiple new dates from

multiple sites, it is clear that the Late Nasca phase occurred earlier than previously

thought. I suggest the traditional chronology for the SNR be revised to incorporate the

complementary dates from the CNR, reflect the overall earlier timing of the Late Nasca

phase, and illustrate the likely contemporaneity of Middle Nasca with both Early and

Late Nasca in the SNR (TABLE 5.22). "4

Table 5.23. Revised south coast chronology reflecting current radiocarbon dates.

Period Culture CNR SNR Dates

Late Horizon

Late Intermediate Period

Middle Horizon

Early Intermediate Period

Formative Period

Initial Period

Inka

Tiza

Wari/Loro

Late Nasca

Middle Nasca

Early Nasca

Proto-Nasca

Late Paracas

Early Paracas

Nasca 8 & 9 Nasca 8 & 9

Nasca 7

Nasca 4 & 5

Nasca 2 & 3

A.D. 450-650

A.D. 1476-1532

A.D. 1000-1476

A.D. 650-1000

A.D. 300-450

A.D. 1-300

100 B.C. - A.D. 1

Nasca 2

Nasca 6 & 7

N5

Ocucaje 10 & Nasca 1Ocucaje 8-9

Ocucaje 3-7

Ocucaje 10 & Nasca 1Ocucaje 8-9

Ocucaje 3-7

300-100 B.C.

800-300 B.C.

1800-800 B.C.

N4

Nasca 3

We presently have no radiocarbon dates for Nasca 5 settlements or occupations in the SNR. 4

Given the approximate dates when construction at Cahuachi halted (ca. A.D. 300-450 [Bachir Bacha 2007; Orefici 2012]) and when Cocahuischo was founded (ca. A.D. 450), it seems likely that Nasca 5 is not a discrete temporal phase in between Early and Late Nasca, but rather overlaps somewhat with both in the SNR. The data from sites like Marcaya indicate that Nasca 4 and 5 occupations probably did not occur at the same sites in the SNR, but rather at different settlements in the region. Very limited evidence from Cocahuischo, however, suggests that Nasca 5 and 7 may be found in the same contexts.

!206

!5.5" Discussion"!

5.5.1" Architecture, Mortuary Practices, and Social Status"!" Detailed architectural analysis revealed overall variability throughout

Cocahuischo and consistently greater variability within Sector V. Based on the size and

complexity of domestic space and the quality of construction materials and techniques, I

identified some houses that were of comparatively higher social status than others. At

the top of Sector III, for instance, is a large patio group composed of a patio area and

four structures (FIG. 5.120). The buildings are constructed primarily of large, well-

coursed worked stone slabs. Another very large patio group built of primarily well-

coursed worked stone is found at the top of Sector V (FIG. 5.121). As I suggest below and

in Chapter 7, this particular patio group was used for suprahousehold food and craft

production. The space was built in the typical style of Cocahuischo residences, however,

0 5m

N

WĂƟŽ�'ƌŽƵƉ�///

Structure 275

Structure 277

Structure 276

Structure 278

Structure 2791224m

1226m

Figure 5.120. Architectural drawing of Patio Group III at Cocahuischo, illustrating a large, higher status domestic unit.

!207

and contains a large patio area, subsidiary structure, and large main building (the

biggest structure at Cocahuischo). As I suggested in Chapter 3, these large well-made

patio groups may illustrate a greater investment and multi-generation or corporate kin

groups of higher status (Blanton 1994, 1995; McGuire and Schiffer 1983: 282-284; Van

Gijseghem 2001: 268). They may have been developed, remodeled, and added on to as

families grew because houses are, as Lau suggests, “always in the process of

becoming” (2010: 327). In contrast are small patio groups composed of only a single

building and patio, such as one from the middle of Sector II (FIG. 5.121). Such structures

are built of small, uncoursed field stones. The differences between these spaces are

considerable. Yet overall, there is no evidence for an ‘elite’ vs. ‘commoners’ dichotomy

within the settlement. There is continuous variability in the size, construction materials

and techniques, and features of habitations and patio groups."

" Although the average size of both houses and patio groups is greater in Sector V,

it is difficult to correlate this pattern with social status. At a site of Cocahuischo’s size,

without excavations it is tenuous at best to argue that all structures with clearly defined

walls were houses. As I discuss below, some portions of Cocahuischo were likely

0 5m

N

0 5m

N

Structure 255 Structure 254 Structure 253

1238m

1242m

1218m

1222m

WĂƟŽ�'ƌŽƵƉ�/ WĂƟŽ�'ƌŽƵƉ�//

Structure 100

Structure 99

Figure 5.121. Architectural drawings of Patio Groups I and II at Cocahuischo, illustrating a large higher status architectural unit (used for suprahousehold food and craft production) and a small lower status domestic unit.

!208

devoted to craft and food production, resulting in structures whose size has more to do

with function than with socioeconomic status."

" While the architectural analysis and artifact assemblages illustrate some patterns

in social status, the mortuary practices do not. The form of tombs at Cocahuischo is

relatively consistent. In the cemetery in Sector IV, tombs are capped by a mound of

fieldstones and dug into the natural hillside. The only architectural features are rings of

stones at the surface (atop which fieldstones were pilled) and subterranean layers of

stone slabs capping the burial. In one tomb, the body was buried within a subterranean

stone lined circular pit. All tombs in the cemetery contained surface stones and all but

one contained at least one layer of stone slabs (see TABLE 5.11). While the size of the

surface mounds and stone rings varied, there were no clear divisions and size

differences were not considerable. Bodies were buried in consistent positions (flexed and

seated) and grave goods were scarce. The only objects recovered are the fragmented

remains of what was likely a copper pectoral sheet, remnants of a plain weave textile,

and a Late Nasca style collared jar. While the other grave goods were found with the

body, the jar was encountered above an upper layer of stone slabs. As I suggested above,

the lack of grave goods and placement of the jar are likely a product of prehispanic tomb

re-entry. "

" The only other tombs encountered at Cocahuischo were subterranean house

burials. One was located within a small circular stone-lined pit and the other was a

simple pit tomb re-entered in prehistory (the body was removed). These tombs

contained the only evidence for two typical Nasca burial practices - a mud-clay tomb

cap on one and clean sand used as a tomb cap on the other. Although the body was not

recovered from the clay capped tomb (it was removed in prehistory, likely before the

final abandonment of the house), the clean sand capped tomb contained one of the two

male burials excavated. The other male was a headless burial. Since these males were

also interred with grave goods (a few sherds were placed with the sand capped

individual), it is possible the data point to some form of gender based status. Yet the

copper pectoral sheet and Late Nasca jar were interred in female tombs. The evidence

for gender based status is tenuous at best and the differences between all the

!209

Cocahuischo burials are limited. This is unsurprising given Carmichael’s conclusion in

his study of Nasca mortuary practices that “the distribution of grave goods, in general,

indicates a homogenous, fluid, and unrestricted circulation of goods throughout society”

(1988: 397-398). While extreme status differences evident in mortuary practices have

been documented in select contexts, the more common pattern in Nasca society seems to

have been one of relatively equal access. Some individuals are buried with greater

quantities of goods, but status was not marked through the presence of certain types of

objects. Moreover, the practice of grave re-entry at Cocahuischo blurs the evidence and

makes interpretations regarding status difficult. At present, it appears there were no

clear differences based on gender or age. Any remaining status distinctions have been

lost to time."

!!!5.5.2" The Social Division of Space"!

" The excavations and architectural analysis also revealed clear patterns in the use

of space throughout Cocahuischo. The primary division appears to be between the two

major zones of the site: Sectors I-III and Sector V. The nature of the built environment in

these two zones was distinct. In Sectors I-III, patio groups consist of 2-3 structures,

patios, and terraces. While size is variable, layout and spatial organization is consistent.

Structures are circular or ovoid, placed on either end of oblong patios or terraces. Based

on excavations, these structures are all houses, making the patio groups archaeological

households. The distribution of large batanes throughout Sectors I-III indicates that these

households were relatively self-sufficient socioeconomic units. Artifact assemblages

confirm that each patio group was engaged in food preparation and storage activities.

Many were also involved in household-based craft production."

" While it cannot be firmly established that the structures in Sector V were not

houses, the social construction of space was different than in Sectors I-III. To begin, there

is a clear spatial division between the two primary residential zones of Cocahuischo

because of the natural landscape (FIG. 5.122). Residents of these areas would have felt a

spatial division and the quebradas would have impacted day to day activities and how

!210

people moved throughout the settlement. It also appears some residents in Sector V

were engaged in production activities beyond the household level. Many patio groups

are large agglutinations of 5-9 structures or smaller patio groups oriented around large

cleared spaces. These include the two very large patio group complexes discussed

above. Some structures are circular and isolated, while others are rectangular and

attached to patios, terraces, or other rectangular structures. Batanes are centralized near

the large, complex patio groups in the eastern portion of the sector. Based on

excavations, residents of these structures were engaged in varying levels of food

preparation and storage and craft production. While both Structures 255 and 293 contain

many of the artifacts represented in Sectors I-III houses, the assemblages and features

Figure 5.122. Aerial photograph of Cocahuischo taken by Katharina Schreiber in 1986, illustrating the spatial divide between the two main residential zones of the site. Sectors I-III are in the foreground and Sector V is in the upper right corner.

!211

were distinct (see Chapters 6-7 for further discussion). It appears Structure 293 may have

been part of a larger household that specialized in suprahousehold production of

foodstuffs. Likewise, Structure 255 was a multi-crafting building that engaged in

suprahousehold food preparation, chicha beer brewing, and limited metalworking. In

contrast, Structure 285 appears to have served a more minimalistic social function. There

is little evidence for food preparation or storage, from either pottery or foodstuffs. As

one of the only known structures with internal walls, Structure 285 is also distinct

architecturally. The isolated location, lack of a patio or terrace, and presence of carefully

placed objects atop a floor surface in the small room suggest the house may have been

the site of ritual activity. Regardless, it is clear that some patio groups and houses in

Sector V served a different social role in the community than those in Sectors I-III."

!!!5.5.3" Summary"!

" The goal of this chapter was to present the site of Cocahuischo and the results of

surface analysis, architectural analysis, and excavations. Architectural data

demonstrated that although there are clear differences in status, the variation between

houses and patio groups at Cocahuischo is continuous. No clear lines can be drawn

between social classes. While each structure is different, these data also present an

occupational history of Cocahuischo. In particular, the excavations demonstrated a

single occupation in Cocahuischo structures. No evidence for superimposed floor or

house surfaces was encountered. Moreover, based on hypotheses generated by the

architectural analysis, excavations further clarified how different spaces were used. With

the addition of excavation data and artifact assemblages, structures that appeared

similar based on architecture were revealed to have had potentially distinct functions,

ranging from domestic to ritual and production oriented.

!212

!!!!!!CHAPTER 6. CERAMIC ANALYSIS"!!!

" The next two chapters will provide the reader with a detailed description of

artifact analysis. Ceramic analysis forms a core component of this dissertation, providing

data central to the research questions outlined in Chapter 1. In this chapter, I describe the

ceramic analysis undertaken as part of this research. I conclude by discussing style and

function in the Cocahuischo assemblage, the social role of pottery in Nasca society, and

the nature of Late Nasca ceramic production and consumption."

!!!6.1" Materials and Analytical Procedure"!

" Pottery is by far the most ubiquitous artifact recovered during excavations. By

weight, it constitutes the majority of artifacts collected during 2012 and 2010 (93% and

77%, respectively). Following numerous Nasca scholars (e.g. Carmichael 1988; Silverman

1993; Vaughn 2000), the Cocahuischo pottery was separated into two primary groups:

fineware (high quality decorated pottery) and coarseware (lower quality utilitarian

pottery used for activities like cooking). Fineware pottery is characterized by well-fired,

fine and uniform fabric; polychrome pre-fire mineral paint; burnished surfaces; and

thinner vessel walls (avg. 4.4 mm). In contrast, coarseware pottery is often characterized

by unevenly or poorly-fired coarse fabric; roughly slipped, washed, or unslipped

surfaces; and thicker vessel walls (avg. 6.2 mm). The categories of fineware and

coarseware pottery were further subdivided into diagnostic and undiagnostic pottery.

The designation of diagnostic vs. undiagnostic was made both in the field and once

sherds had been washed and sorted in the lab. Sherds were considered diagnostic if they

contained: (1) a portion of the vessel - such as the rim, base, neck, appliqué, or handle -

!213

that may provide chronological or cultural information, or (2) decoration such as paint,

modeling, or incision. These sherds were separated from the undiagnostic pottery and

each was given an individual catalog number (e.g. ‘CO32-1,’ where ‘CO’ designates the

site, ‘32’ designates the unique context ID #, and ‘1’ designates the sherd # within that

context). The numbers were inked using an archival quality Micron pen on an interior 1

or undecorated edge of the sherd. All undiagnostic body sherds from coarseware and

fineware vessels were also collected (95.5 kg in total). Vessels were quantified according

to a Minimum Vessel Count (MVC), which used non-conjoined rims and necks as a

proxy for a complete vessel. Handles were not included since it could not be established 2

whether they belonged to a vessel whose rim or neck had already been counted or not,

nor whether two similar handles were part of the same vessel. In all likelihood then, the

MVC may be slightly conservative."

" The 2010 and 2012 excavations at Cocahuischo recovered a combined total of

1,419 diagnostic sherds. Each of these sherds was drawn (vessel form only) and

photographed, and data regarding construction technology; decoration; post-fire marks;

form;, rim, neck, handle, and appendage attributes; and iconography and style were

collected (TABLE 6.1). Of the 1,419 diagnostic sherds, 969 are fineware and 450 are

coarseware. The perceived bias toward fineware sherds is due to the fact that any sherd

(body or otherwise) with paint, modeling, or incision on it was considered diagnostic. In

contrast, only rims, necks, bases, and handles were considered diagnostic for coarseware

pottery. A total of 672 of the 1,419 diagnostic sherds are diagnostic of vessel form (these

include non-conjoining rims and necks, and two bases). It should also be noted that

while 969 fineware sherds were considered diagnostic, some fineware sherds were not

included in the final stylistic analysis. Any body sherd from a fineware vessel that

See Appendix C for full context information associated with each catalog number.1

It is possible for one of these fragmented necks to be from the same vessel as one of the rims. 2

Most necked vessels at Cocahuischo are ollas (or cooking pots) and the necks are quite tall. For this reason, when necks were recovered with little to no portion of the neck-rim wall preserved, they were only used in the MVC if their fabric was distinct from other rim sherds.

!214

contained paint, modeling, or incision was classified as diagnostic, but in many cases the

smaller sherds turned out to be too small for any meaningful cultural or stylistic"

affiliation to be established. As such, there may be discontinuities between the total

number of diagnostic sherds discussed here and the totals presented below for each of

the styles identified at Cocahuischo. "

!!!6.2" Analysis of Forms"!

6.2.1" Introduction"!" Of the 1419 total diagnostic sherds, 672 are diagnostic of vessel form. These

sherds were each assigned to a formal category based on shape classifications used by

other Nasca researchers (Carmichael 1988; Hecht 2010; Kroeber 1956; Kroeber and

Collier 1998; Proulx 2006; Silverman 1993). The vessel types defined by the Dawson

seriation, however, were based primarily on whole vessels that are housed in museums.

Table 6.1. Attributes recorded as part of the ceramic analysis.

CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY

paste color

RIM ATTRIBUTES

rim diameter (cm)firing atmosphere vessel angle at rimtemper vessel profile at rim - exteriorpercent temper fraction preservedsurface finish - interior curvature of rim with respect to vesselsurface finish - exterior profile of rim/lip with respect to vessel

wallssurface treatment - interiorBASE ATTRIBUTES

angle of body with respect to basesurface treatment - exterior vessel profile at basesurface color - interior base formsurface color - exterior

HANDLE ATTRIBUTES

# of handles

DECORATION

primary interior decoration handle formsecondary interior decoration handle locationprimary exterior decoration APPENDAGE

ATTRIBUTESappendage form

secondary interior decoration appendage locationrim decoration

OTHER ATTRIBUTES

wall thickness (cm)

POST-FIRE MARKSvessel height (cm)maximum vessel diameter (cm)number of sherds comprising vessel

VESSEL FORMstylephase

!215

With a few exceptions, the Cocahuischo pottery consists of rim, neck, and base

fragments that represent less than 10% of the entire vessel. Many of the traditionally

defined Nasca vessel shapes are difficult to distinguish based on small rim sherds.

Scholars in the Central Nasca Region (CNR; see Hecht 2010) have begun using basic

categories descriptive of the upper portion of vessel walls for fragmented pottery

collections - I follow a similar approach. Rather than try to place sherds into the precise

formal categories used by other scholars, I use broad and descriptive shape categories to

classify the Cocahuischo assemblage (FIG. 6.1). "

" Coarseware vessels were categorized as (1) bowls [straight-sided or convex], (2)

jars & ollas [collared or collarless], (3) vases, (4) miniatures, or (5) polishers. Fineware

vessel forms are more diverse and include (1) bowls [flaring, straight-sided, or convex],

(2) goblets, (3) collared jars, (4) vases, (5) bottles, (6) modeled effigies, and (7) polishers.

Coarseware

Vases Jars & Ollas Bowls Miniatures Polishers

Collared

Collarless

Straight-sided

Convex

Fineware

Vases Jars Bowls Modeled effigies Bottles

Collared Flaring

Straight-sided

Convex

Goblets Polishers

Figure 6.1. Fineware and coarseware categories of vessel form present in the Cocahuischo assemblage.

!216

Note that this does not represent the entire breadth of Nasca vessel shapes, only those

present in the Cocahuischo assemblage. In the following section, I will define and

describe each shape category. While I discuss at length the coarseware pottery, the

fineware forms will be considered in more detail in the stylistic analysis section, since

the relationship between form and pattern of decoration is a key component of style. "

!!!6.2.2" Bowls"!

" The Cocahuischo collection is composed of a high proportion of bowls (N=452;

67% of all vessels; TABLE 6.2). Bowls are unrestricted vessels that are wider than they

are tall. They were categorized as ‘flaring,’ ‘straight-sided,’ or ‘convex’ based on the wall

profile. Flaring bowls have a concave or outward-curving wall profile, straight-sided

bowls have walls lacking curvature, and convex bowls have a convex or incurving wall

profile. Such a division of bowl forms is more simplified than the systems used by other

Nasca scholars (see Kroeber and Collier 1998: 95; Proulx 2006: 41-46). As will be

illustrated in the figures, even the tripartite system I used was often too precise. For rim

sherds where less than 5cm of the vessel wall was visible, the line between a ‘flaring,’

‘straight-sided,’ or ‘convex’ bowl was often unclear. I optimistically assigned sherds to

these categories during the analysis, but particularly for coarseware vessels, the simple

designation of ‘bowl’ may have been sufficient."

" Bowls are the most numerous form at Cocahuischo and also the most variable.

Fineware bowls vary in diameter from 7 to 33 cm (avg. 18.3 cm; FIG. 6.2a), illustrating a

considerable range in size and a normal distribution. Based on rim sherds and a limited

sample of whole vessels, fineware bowls are flaring, straight-sided, and convex. The size

of coarseware bowls is equally variable, ranging from 8 to 37 cm in diameter (avg. 17.5

cm; FIG. 6.2b). The form of coarseware bowls, however, is more limited. Coarseware

bowls are either straight-side or convex, although convex bowls are the dominant

category (71% of all coarseware bowls; TABLE 6.3). Among both fineware and

coarseware bowls, most vessels are broad-mouthed and shallow. The only exception is a

small sample of undecorated fineware coarseware bowls that are deep and convex"

!217

!!!!

!!

Table 6.2. Distribution of ceramic forms (combined coarseware and fineware) at Cocahuischo based on 672 rims, necks, bases, and whole vessels recovered during excavations.

Table 6.3. Distribution of coarseware ceramic forms at Cocahuischo based on 342 rims, necks, and whole vessels recovered during excavations.

Vessel Form Count % of sub-category

% of Total

Bowls 153 44.7Straight-sided 45 29.4Convex 108 70.6

Jars & Ollas 156 45.6Collared 152 97.4Collarless 2 1.3Unknown 2 1.3

Vases 2 0.6Miniatures 12 3.5Polishers 18 5.3Other 1   0.3  

Vessel Form Count % of sub-category

% of Total

Bowls 452 67.3Flaring 59 13.1Straight-sided 180 40Convex 213 46.9

Goblets 7 1Jars & Ollas 162 24.1

Collared 158 97.5Collarless 2 1.25Unknown 2 1.25

Vases 11 1.6Bottles 2 0.3Miniatures 12 1.8Modeled effigies 4 0.6Polishers 19 2.8Other 3   0.5  

!218

!

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

5-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35

Rim diameter (cm)

Mean = 18.3 Std. Dev. = 4.2 N = 228

a

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40

Rim diameter (cm)

Mean = 17.5 Std. Dev. = 5.2 N = 101

b

Figure 6.2. Rim diameters from fineware (a) and coarseware (b) bowls.

!219

CM

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Figure 6.3. Coarseware deep convex bowls: (a) CO31-22, (b) CO23-1, (c) CO26-3, (d) CO79-6, (e) CO23-2, (f) CO140-2, (g) CO 33-1, and (h) CO26-2.

!220

Figure 6.4. Coarseware convex bowls: (a) U2-C-2, (b) CO57-9, (c) CO86-3, (d) U5-B-19, (e) U5-B-23, (f) CO60-9, (g) CO86-5, (h) CO66-8, (i) CO27-8, and (j) CO28-83.

CM

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

!221

Figure 6.5. Coarseware convex bowls: (a) CO29-5, (b) CO59-9, (c) CO8-3, (d) CO52-5, (e) CO120-5, (f) CO91-5, (g) CO31-25, (h) CO146-3, and (i) CO7-1.

CM

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

!222

Figure 6.6. Coarseware convex bowls: (a) CO89-2, (b) CO29-2, (c) CO60-4, (d) U5-A-6, (e) CO96-2, (f) U5-B-34, (g) CO93-8, (h) CO96-17, (i) U5-B-9, and (j) CO91-10.

CM

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

!223

and often have narrow mouths (FIG. 6.3). These vessels are similar to Kroeber and

Collier’s ‘deep bowls’ or more open mouthed ‘incurved jars’ (1998: fig. 91). "

" The majority of coarseware bowls, however, are broad and shallow (FIGS.

6.4-6.7). While no whole coarseware bowls were recovered from Cocahuischo, based on

more complete examples and bowls found at other sites, these vessels likely have

slightly rounded or flat bases (e.g. FIG. 6.5c, i). Additionally, a few coarseware bowls

could easily be considered plates (e.g. FIGS. 6.4f, h, 6.5a, 6.6d-f). These vessels are very

shallow and often thin walled. Overall, however, coarseware bowls are remarkably

Figure 6.7. Coarseware straight-sided bowls: (a) CO52-9, (b) CO82-5, (c) U3-B-7, (d) CO93-6, (e) CO26-1, (f) CO65-6, (g) CO94-1, and (h) U3-B-3.

CM

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

!224

uniform. Some variability is to be expected, yet the bowls illustrate a general model for

serving vessels that appears to have been utilized by most residents of Cocahuischo. "

!!

6.2.3" Goblets"!" The assemblage contains a very small proportion of goblets (N=7; 1% of all

vessels; TABLE 6.2). There are only seven examples and all are fineware (FIG. 6.8).

Goblets are typically conceived of as drinking vessels. They are deeper than bowls and

more shallow than vases. Many goblet forms are also have wider mouths than vases.

Some goblets are waisted and narrow at the center of the vessel. Others are straight

sided and open. Due to the difficultly of classifying small rim sherds, some (e.g. FIG.

6.8c,d, f) were considered goblets rather than bowls due to their stylistic similarity to

other published goblets (such as the presence of multiple registers). While the types of

goblets were not subdivided, most are likely what Kroeber and Collier (1998) would

refer to as ‘conical goblets,’ ‘angled goblets,’ or ‘waisted goblets.’ "

!!!6.2.4" Jars & Ollas"!

" Jars & ollas make up a large portion of the assemblage (N=162; 24% of all vessels;

TABLE 6.2). Next to bowls, they are the most common form. They are defined as

restricted (collared and collarless) spherical vessels used for cooking and storage of

liquids and foods. In theory, a ‘jar’ is used for storing liquid whereas an ‘olla’ is used for

cooking (see Rice 1987: table 7.2). As such, jars should be much more narrow mouthed 3

than ollas. I did not distinguish between ‘jars’ and ‘ollas,’ however, because the division

between the two categories is not well defined in the Cocahuischo assemblage (see

DeLeonardis 1997: 229-230 for a similar case). Although the neck diameter of such

vessels ranged from 5 to 27 cm, many vessels fall in the middle of the spectrum (see

As both Van Gijseghem (2004: 239) and DeLeonardis (1997: 230-231) point out, the division is 3

primarily one of different vessel height to width ratios. As the terminology is used within Peruvian archaeology, however, the implication is typically one of function, as well.

!225

Figure 6.8. Fineware goblets: (a) U3-B-29 [N7a?], (b) CO7-2 [N7a], (c) CO167-1 [N6 or 7a], (d) CO31-5 [N6 or 7a], (e) CO54-1 [N7a], and (f) CO80-8 [N6 or 7a]. Note that for (a) the rim diameter is unknown.

CM

a

b

c

d

e

f

!226

FIGS. 6.9-6.11). Since drawing a clear dividing line was difficult, I treat these vessels as a

collective group referred to as ‘jars & ollas.’"

" Jars & ollas are primarily coarseware. Only six fineware examples were

encountered, all of which can be classified as ‘collared jars.’ These fineware collared jars

range from 5 to 10 cm in diameter at the rim. Coarseware jars & ollas are more numerous

and variable (45% of all coarseware vessels; TABLE 6.3). They range from 7 to 27 cm in

diameter and are primarily collared (97% of all jars & ollas; TABLE 6.3). While there are

only a few sherds with attached handles, the numerous isolated handles (N=64) suggest

that many coarseware jars & ollas were handled. Handles are flat (or ‘strap’) and when

orientation is visible, they are vertical (e.g. FIGS. 6.9d & 6.10c). There appear to be two

primary types of jars & ollas: those with a convex neck profile and those with a straight

neck profile (FIG. 6.12). The spatial distribution of these vessels suggests some

meaningful variability in the style of cooking or storage vessels used in different social

contexts. The jars & ollas recovered from the multi-crafting building are larger and have

a straight neck profile and taller necks than those recovered from houses. They are also

exclusively collared, even though collarless jars & ollas were found in other residential

contexts (FIG. 6.12j-k)."

" There is also a small sample of collared vessels that illustrate an unusual form

(FIG. 6.13). The narrow, high necks appear to come from a coarseware collared jar, but

the shape of these vessels is much different than other collared jars & ollas at

Cocahuischo. The closest form is an undecorated collared jar figured by Kroeber and

Collier (1998: fig. 194) that illustrates a similar narrow, upright collar. That particular

vessel is undecorated fineware (based on fabric), whereas the three I identified have a

fabric consistent with other coarseware vessels."

!!

!!!!!!

!227

Figure 6.9. Coarseware jars & ollas: (a) CO80-12, (b) CO28-88, (c) CO28-90, (d) CO146-13, (e) CO140-1, and (f) CO28-99.

CM

a

b

c

d

e

f

!228

Figure 6.10. Coarseware jars & ollas: (a) U3-B-F1-1, (b) CO31-37, (c) CO149-5, (d) CO31-39, (e) CO81-2, (f) CO89-3, and (g) CO77-2.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

CM

!229

Figure 6.11. Coarseware jars & ollas: (a) CO93-7, (b) CO93-3, (c) CO96-6, (d) CO146-14, (e) CO91-11, and (f) CO92-1.

CM

a

b

c

d

e

f

!230

CM CM

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

k

Figure 6.12. Comparison of coarseware jars & ollas with straight neck profiles: (a) CO93-4, (b) CO97-1, (c) CO99-3, (d) CO100-2, and (e) CO93-1, vs. convex neck profiles: (f) CO5-1, (g) CO28-85, (h) CO27-1, and (i) CO31-20, and collarless vessels: (j) CO 21-1 and (k) CO31-6.

!231

6.2.5" Vases"!" Vases were recovered in very small numbers (N=12; 2% of all vessels; TABLE

6.2). All but two of the twelve vases are fineware vessels (FIG. 6.14). Coarseware vases

are a rare category, not often mentioned in the literature. While they are uncommon at

Cocahuischo (0.6% of the coarseware assemblage), coarseware vases are nonetheless

represented. Vases are tall and narrow vessels used for drinking that have greater height

than width. Only rim fragments of vases are represented, making assessments of vase

type difficult. While they are fragmented, it is likely that these vases are equivalent to

Proulx’s ‘cylindrical vase’ (2006: fig. 2.2) and Kroeber and Collier’s ‘cylindrical vase’ or

‘bulbous concave vase’ (1998: 43, fig. 90). "

!!!6.2.6" Bottles"!

" Bottles are another uncommon vessel form (N=2; 0.3% of all vessels; TABLE 6.2).

Bottles are typically double or single spouted spherical vessels used for storage and

presentation of liquids. In Early Nasca, bottles are often thought of as high status goods

and are found in cemeteries and ceremonial contexts (Vaughn 2004: 76). The socially

circumscribed use in Early Nasca might explain their rarity within domestic contexts at

Cocahuischo. The two fragments of bottles that were recovered are small fineware

sherds, consisting of part of the bottle spout. One is slipped in red, as is typical of Nasca

bottles, while the other is painted black and stripped with red and white (FIG. 6.15)."

Figure 6.13. Coarseware narrow high necked jars: (a) CO28-21, (b) CO31-52, and (c) CO31-53.

CM

a b c

!232

CM

d

f

a

b

c

e

g

Figure 6.14. Fineware and coarseware vases: (a) CO86-1 [N6], (b) U3-S-6 [N7a], (c) CO148-1 [N7a], (d) CO36-1, (e) CO146-1 [N5/6], (f) U3-A-6, and (g) CO161-1 [N7a]. Note that for (b) and (c) the rim diameter is unknown.

!233

!!6.2.7" Modeled Effigies"!

" Modeled effigies are a similarly rare vessel category (N=4; 0.6% of all vessels;

TABLE 6.2). They are defined as spouted or enclosed vessels that are modeled in the

form of humans, animals, or plants. Some of the effigies may also be figurines, which are

solid modeled clay objects. As with bottles, modeled effigies are fineware vessels that

were recovered only in small fragments. Two of the modeled effigy fragments (FIG. 6.16)

that were recovered are human heads found on modeled effigy bottles similar to those

figured by Proulx (2006: plate 19, fig. 5.126). Another fragment is the leg of a modeled

naked female figurine similar to that figured by Proulx (2006: plate 40; fig. 5.146), and the

fourth is a body fragment."

!!!6.2.8" Miniatures"!

" Miniatures are also found in small numbers (N=12; 1.8% of all vessels; TABLE

6.2). All the miniature vessels - including collared jars, spouted collared jars, and bowls -

CM

a b

Figure 6.15. Fineware bottles: (a) CO31-55 and (b) CO78-1.

!234

are coarseware (FIGS. 5.98 & 6.17). While they are not a major vessel category,

miniatures are represented with greater frequency than vases (N=11) and bottles &

goblets combined (N=9). Miniatures are defined as very small vessels whose size and

shape indicate a function different from full size vessels. While the division between 4

miniature and regular jars or ollas is obvious, the line between small bowls and

miniature bowls is less clear. As was mentioned, some small coarseware bowls are only 8

cm in diameter, and the largest of the miniature bowls is 6 cm in diameter. While depth

and overall volume of the vessel was taken into consideration, the designation of a

vessel as a ‘miniature’ is nonetheless somewhat arbitrary. "

Figure 6.16. Fineware modeled effigies: (a) CO28-24 [N7a], (b) CO28-22 [unknown], and (c) CO93-14 [N7a].

CM

a

b

c

For instance, while smaller jars or ollas might have a neck diameter of 13 cm and a maximum 4

vessel diameter of 27 cm, a miniature collared jar will have a neck diameter of 1.5 cm and a maximum vessel diameter of 5.7 cm (or 9.2 cm and 11 cm, respectively).

!235

!6.2.9" Other Ceramic Artifacts"!

" Polishing tools. Polishers are repurposed sherds, usually coarseware, that have

been rounded and their edge smoothed through repeated use scraping or polishing a

surface (FIG. 6.18). They were found in small numbers at Cocahuischo (N=19; 3% of

vessel assemblage; TABLE 6.2). Only one polisher comes from a fineware vessel and it is

Figure 6.17. Coarseware miniatures: (a) CO122-1, (b) CO101-8, (c) CO59-12, (d) CO31-36, (e) CO28-84, (f) U5-A-7, (g) CO31-30, (h) CO31-31, (i) CO57-11, (j) CO52-14, and (k) CO52-13. Note that for (i), (j), and (k) the rim diameter is unknown.

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

j

k

CM

!236

small compared to the coarseware polishers (FIG. 6.18h). This artifact seems more

reminiscent of the stone ‘tokens’ that will be discussed further in Chapter 7. The size of

polishers is variable, ranging from 1.7 to 8.8 cm in diameter. Overall, they are too small

to have been used as ‘lids’ for the jars & ollas that were recovered from Cocahuischo.

They were likely used either as ceramic disks associated with pottery production or as

spindle whorl blanks. One exception is the large polishing tool illustrated in FIG. 7.18q,

which may have served as a lid as well. "

" Lids. Along with polishers, two ceramic ‘lids’ were recovered from Cocahuischo

(see FIG. 5.83). Like polishers, these lids are repurposed, round coarseware sherds. Yet

Figure 6.18. Polishing tools: (a) CO79-13, (b) CO28-25, (c) CO146-5, (d) CO146-6, (e) CO59-19, (f) CO57-15, (g) CO66-17, (h) CO57-30, (i) CO28-23, (j) CO18-4, (k) CO28-6, (l) CO82-9, (m) CO65-11, (n) CO82-10, (o) CO73-2, (p) CO100-17, and (q) CO99-6.

CM

a b c d e f g h

i j k l m n

o p q

!237

they show no evidence of any wear or smoothing of the edge. Roughly finished, they

each have a single hole drilled through the center of the artifact. These objects are too

large to be spindle whorls and lack the wear that would suggest they were used for

polishing. As such, they are classified as lids due to comparisons with other Nasca

assemblages (e.g. Silverman 1993: fig. 17.3; Van Gijseghem 2004: 264). An alternate

hypothesis sees these objects as drilling platforms. The central holes, however, were

drilled from both sides, indicating that the hole performed a task central to the use of the

artifact (such as allowing moisture or steam to escape)."

" Spindle whorls. Spindle whorls, which would have been used in textile

production, were recovered in surprisingly low numbers. Since textile production is

often considered a domestic activity, the household excavations were anticipated to

produce a much larger spindle whorl assemblage. For instance, Vaughn found that

nearly all households at Marcaya were participating in at least the spinning component

CM

ab c

d

e fg

h

Figure 6.19. Spindle whorls made from reused coarseware and fineware sherds: (a) Locus 201, (b) Structure 190 - surface, (c) Locus 409, (d) Locus 409, (e) Locus 205, (f) Unit 2 - Capa A, (g) Locus 409, and (h) Locus 409.

!238

of textile production (2000: 423). In addition to 27 spindle whorls, Vaughn also recovered

chalk, likely used to coat the hands and facilitate rapid spinning (2000: 423). Edwards

and colleagues also found high quantities of spindle whorls (N=98) at Pataraya

(Edwards 2010; Edwards et al. 2008). Yet only eight spindle whorls were recovered from

all 14 excavated houses and patios at Cocahuischo (FIG. 6.19). Cocahuischo spindle

whorls are exclusively ceramic, contrasting with those recovered from some residential

sites in the Nasca drainage (e.g. Van Gijseghem 2004: 262). Also distinct is the fact that

the Cocahuischo spindle whorls are repurposed sherds rather than specially made

objects (see Conlee 2000: 340, fig. 9.2; Edwards 2010: 369; Edwards et al. 2008: 98; Van

Gijseghem 2004: 262). The sherds were ground into a circular form and a hole was

drilled in the middle of the object from both sides. The size of spindle whorls is fairly

consistent, with perhaps two general categories: a larger spindle whorl (e.g. 4 cm in

diameter) and a smaller spindle whorl (e.g. 2 cm in diameter). "

" Within the Andes, there are two primary fibers that are spun to produce textiles:

cotton and camelid fleece. Past analyses have demonstrated that characteristics such as

whorl diameter and weight, and spindle size (inferred by the diameter of the hole in the

spindle whorl) are indicative of whorl function (Keith 1998; Parsons 1972, 1975).

Although the Cocahuischo sample size is small, based on Vaughn’s (2009) analysis these

spindle whorls were likely employed in drop spinning techniques to spin camelid fiber.

The spindle whorls recovered from Cocahuischo are similar to those from Marcaya and

distinct from those recovered at Pajonal Alto (Conlee 2000, 2003; Vaughn 2009: 118-121).

Specifically, they are more similar in shape and size to those documented in the

highlands (see Schreiber 1992: 250; Stanish 1997: 49) than to those from the coastal

regions in Peru. Highland people often use drop spinning, where the spindle and

spindle whorl are suspended in the air (Gayton 1961). While convenient, this technique

requires a sturdy fiber - camelid fleece. These data suggest that the Cocahuischo spindle

whorls were used for spinning camelid fiber rather than cotton."

!!

!239

6.3" Stylistic Analysis"!6.3.1" Introduction"!

" Having discussed the different shape categories present in the Cocahuischo

assemblage, I now turn to style. The characterization of style in this analysis was a two

part process. I first examined the types of motifs and stylistic elements present. Of the

1419 diagnostic sherds, style could be determined for 536. For each sherd or vessel, the

primary motif and up to five secondary motifs were recorded (see TABLE 6.1). Primary

motifs are defined as any design that takes up most of the field on a piece of pottery,

while secondary motifs are subsidiary (often geometric) designs. A primary motif on one

vessel, however, could be used as a secondary motif on another vessel. To identify

motifs, I drew from published studies of EIP and MH pottery from multiple regions of

the central Andes (see Chapter 4), and consulted other scholars. The location of the 5

primary motif on the vessel (interior vs. exterior) was noted, as was the nature of motifs

(‘mythical,’ ‘natural,’ ‘geometric,’ or a mixture). I then examined patterns in motifs,

vessel forms, and other stylistic elements such as background color to identify ‘stylistic

groups.’ As I will discuss, these stylistic groups do not deviate much from the traditional

classifications of EIP and MH style in Nasca. The Dawson seriation and Menzel’s (1964,

1971, 1977) work on the later phases already largely identified these patterns. For

comparative purposes, I have identified (where possible) the Dawson seriation phase of

each fineware sherd figured (represented by ‘N’ and the phase number). As new data are

generated from new contexts, it is important to test such patterns - particularly when

objects from both residential and mortuary contexts are involved. As I previously

mentioned and will discuss further, the Dawson seriation becomes problematic in

situations where pottery is fragmentary and was used in domestic rather than mortuary

contexts."

!! These include: Anders (1986), Cook (1985, 1994), Cook and Glowacki (2003), Edwards (2010), 5

Eisleb (1975), (Glowacki 1996), Knobloch (1976, 1983, 1991, 2005), Kroeber and Collier (1998), Leoni (2004), Menzel (1964), Paulsen (1983), Proulx (2006), Owen (2007), and Roark (1965).

!240

!6.3.2" The Cocahuischo Pottery Styles"!

" Based on these data and the patterns I observed in the Cocahuischo pottery, I

identified a series of stylistic group: (1) Late Nasca pottery (equivalent to Hecht’s [2009,

2010] ‘Late Nasca’ or Proulx [2006] and Menzel’s [1971] ‘Nasca 6 and 7a’), (2)

Transitional pottery (equivalent to some of Reindel and colleagues’ [1999: fig. 31] ‘Nasca

8/Loro’, Conlee’s [2000: 204] pottery that exhibits both Nasca 7 and 8 characteristics,

Carmichael’s pottery that exhibits both Nasca 7 and 8 characteristics [in Kroeber and

Collier 1998, e.g. fig. 332], Menzel’s [1971, 1977] ‘Nasca 7b and 7c’, or Proulx’s [2006]

‘Nasca 7b/c’), (3) Estrella pottery (equivalent to Wallace’s [1977] ‘Estrella’) , and (4) 6

Local pottery. An additional group of pottery was classified as ‘other’ because the style

of the pottery was unrecognizable. In the following section, I will describe these groups

and provide both iconographic and formal characteristics. "

" "!!6.3.2.1" Late Nasca Pottery" !! The most abundant stylistic group is Late Nasca (N=332, 62% of all vessels;

TABLE 6.4). This type of pottery is what most scholars are referring to when they say

‘Late Nasca’ or ‘Nasca phase 6 and 7.’ Few scholars are familiar with and/or use the

Nasca phase 7 substyles that were defined by Menzel. When they refer to Nasca phase 7

pottery, however, they usually mean Menzel and Proulx’s phase 7a. Indeed, Late Nasca

pottery from Cocahuischo bears strong resemblance to pottery found on the surface of

other Late Nasca sites and in many museum collections." "

" "

!!! Stylistically, Estrella pottery appears identical to the style identified by Wallace. Based on a 6

number of criteria which I will discuss in this chapter, however, I consider this to be a local style rather than evidence of trade pieces.

!241

!!!

Table 6.4. Stylistic groups of Cocahuischo pottery by vessel form, based on 536 rims, necks, bases, and body sherds recovered during excavations.

Stylistic Group Vessel Form Count % of Stylistic Group Forms

% of Total Sherds

Late NascaBowls 118 82.5 22

Flaring 47 32.9 8.8Straight-sided 47 32.9 8.8Convex 24 16.7 4.4

Goblets 7 4.9 1.3Collared jars 6 4.2 1.1Vases 7 4.9 1.3Bottles 1 0.7 0.2Modeled effigies 4 2.8 0.7Unknown 189 - 35.3

  Total 332 100 61.9

TransitionalBowls 78 98.7 14.6

Flaring 2 2.5 0.4Straight-sided 33 41.8 6.2Convex 43 54.4 8

Polishers 1 1.3 0.2Unknown 52 - 9.7

  Total 131 100 24.5

EstrellaBowls 13 100 2.4

Straight-sided 4 30.8 0.7Convex 9 69.2 1.7

  Total 13 100 2.4

LocalBowls 33 100 6.1

Flaring 2 6 0.4Straight-sided 19 57.6 3.5Convex 12 36.4 2.2

Unknown 9 - 1.7

  Total 42 100 7.8

UnknownBowls 8 100 1.5

Flaring 3 37.5 0.55Straight-sided 3 37.5 0.55Convex 2 25 0.4

Unknown 10 - 1.9

  Total 18 100 3.4

!242

Figure 6.20. Examples of Late Nasca pottery at Cocahuischo: (a) CO86-1, (b) CO79-3, (c) CO80-1, (d) CO54-1, and (e) CO28-5.

a !!! b !!!!!!!! c !!!!!! d !!!e

!243

Table 6.5. Motifs recorded on 332 Late Nasca sherds.

Motif Type Design Count % of sub-category % of Total

Primary Motifs

Mythical beings 38 13 6.7Humans & animals 73 24.9 13

Girl faces 27 9.2 4.8Trophy heads 9 3 1.6Birds 8 2.7 1.4Fish 8 2.7 1.4Snakes 5 1.7 0.9Modeled faces 4 1.4 0.7Blood 4 1.4 0.7Butterflies & insects 4 1.4 0.7Captive in motion 2 0.7 0.4Feathers 2 0.7 0.4

Plants 13 4.4 2.3Modeled gourd base 11 3.8 1.9Inverted cacti 1 0.3 0.2Beans 1 0.3 0.2

Tools & crafts 9 3.1 1.6Abstract combs 4 1.4 0.7Diagonal lines and spears 3 1 0.5Spun fiber 2 0.7 0.4

Geometric 160 54.6 28.4Striping (vertical, horizontal, & diagonal) 42 14.3 7.4Checkerboard 14 4.8 2.5Lattice or crosshatching 13 4.5 2.3Horizontal polychrome squiggle 11 3.8 1.9Stippling 11 3.8 1.9Pendant triangles or half moons 10 3.4 1.8Solid circles or ovals 10 3.4 1.8Step frets 7 2.4 1.3Color blocks 7 2.4 1.2Nested boxes 6 2.1 1.1Parallel zigzag striping 5 1.7 0.9Diamonds with dot in center 5 1.7 0.9Dotted squiggles or zigzags 5 1.7 0.9Zigzag band with triangle core 3 1 0.5Half circle with fringe 3 1 0.5Zigzag with 'antennae' 3 1 0.5Solid diamond and triangle band 2 0.7 0.4Spirals 1 0.3 0.2Linked ovals 1 0.3 0.2Rim hash marks 1 0.3 0.2

Total 293 100 52

Secondary Motifs

Horizontal divider band 124 45.9 22Thin rim band 122 45.2 21.7Wide purple, red, or black exterior rim band 14 5.2 2.5Wide purple or red interior rim band 10 3.7 1.8

  Total 270 100 48

!244

" Late Nasca pottery is characterized by a number of stylistic elements (FIG. 6.20).

First, the background color is typically white. Polychrome designs are painted atop and

figures are outlined in black. Primary motifs are often geometric (54.6% of recorded

primary motifs) but also include girl faces, Mythical Beings, trophy heads, plants, tools

& crafts, and animals (often fish and baby birds or fledgling cormorants; TABLE 6.5;

FIGS. 6.21-6.29). Many of these motifs or their antecedents are found on earlier Nasca

styles. Decoration is almost exclusively exterior (93%) and is often divided into two

design registers. For instance, a flaring bowl might have a primary register with a band

of mythical beings subdivided from a checkerboard base by banded horizontal lines.

Three or more registers are common on Late Nasca vessels in other collections, yet are

absent from Cocahuischo (see Blasco Bosqued and Ramos Goméz 1980: plancha VII,

figura 10; Eisleb 1975: figs. 214, 217; Kroeber and Collier 1998: fig. 316). The lack of

multiple registers may reflect the fragmentary nature of the assemblage or the limited

vessel forms."

" Late Nasca pottery is represented by forms that grew out of earlier Nasca phases,

such as flaring bowls, vases & goblets, collared jars, and modeled effigies and figurines

(TABLE 6.4). While these are common vessel shapes, the Cocahuischo assemblage is

clearly distinct and lacks high quantities of characteristic Late Nasca forms. Proulx (2006:

42-43) documented much higher ratios of vases and bottles, and a much lower ratio of

bowls (TABLE 6.6). Also of note, all the non-bowl fineware vessels recovered from

Cocahuischo are Late Nasca (see TABLE 6.4). These data suggest both socially contextual

Source Style% of Assemblage

Vases Bottles Bowls

ProulxNasca 6 31 22 19Nasca 7 20 23 18

Cocahuischo Late Nasca 5 0.7 83

Table 6.6. Representation of vessel forms (based on percentage of assemblage) in Proulx’s (2006) sample and Cocahuischo.

!245

Figure 6.21. Late Nasca flaring bowls with interior decoration: (a) CO22-1 [N7a], (b) CO53-2 [N7a], (c) CO28-16 [N7a], (d) CO104-7 [N7a], (e) CO8-4 [N7a], (f) CO5-4 [N7a], and (g) U3-B-1 [N7a].

CM

a

b

d

c

e

f

g

!246

Figure 6.22. Late Nasca [N7a] flaring bowl with exterior mythical being decoration (CO150-1).

CM

!247

Figure 6.23. Late Nasca and possible Middle Nasca flaring bowls with exterior mythical being decoration: (a) CO143-1 [late N6/early N7a], (b) CO167-3 [N5], and (c) U3-S-5 [N7a].

CM

a

b

c

!248

Figure 6.24. Late Nasca flaring bowls with exterior animal motifs: (a) CO88-1 [N6 or 7a], (b) CO63-1 [N7a], (c) CO80-3 [N7a], (d) CO149-1 [N7a], (e) U5-B-1 [N7a], (f) CO147-1 [N7a], and (g) CO95-1 [N7a].

!249

Figure 6.25. Late Nasca flaring bowls with exterior geometric motifs: (a) CO164-2 [N7a], (b) CO100-24 [N7a], (c) CO81-1 [N7a], (d) CO80-3 [N7a], (e) CO31-1 [N7a], (f) CO82-4 [N7a], and (g) U4-S-1 [N7a].

!250

Figure 6.26. Late Nasca and possible Middle Nasca straight-sided bowls with exterior mythical, geometric, and animal motifs: (a) CO35-2 [N5], (b) CO31-2/97 [N7a], (c) CO88-9 [N7a], (d) CO88-5/6 [N6 or N7a], (e) CO82-2 [N7a], and (f) CO82-1 [N7a].

CM

a

b

c

d

e

f

!251

Figure 6.27. Late Nasca and possible Middle Nasca convex bowls with exterior and interior decoration: (a) CO167-2 [N5 or 6], (b) CO13-3 [N5 or 6], (c) CO159-2 [N6], (d) CO57-3 [N7a], (e) CO11-1 [N7a], (f) U3-S-11 [N7a], and (g) CO158-1 [N7a].

CM

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

!252Figure 6.28. Late Nasca [N7a] collared jar with exterior mythical being decoration (CO32-22).

CM

!253Figure 6.29. Late Nasca [N7a] collared jar with exterior inverted ‘cacti’ decoration (T6-A-1).

CM

!254

forms and a reduction in formal diversity among the other styles."

" The Late Nasca assemblage does contain two intact collared jars. While collared

jars are rare at Cocahuischo, the examples that have been recovered illustrate finely

made vessels with complex mythical and naturalistic iconography (e.g. FIG. 6.20c). One 7

of the whole collared jars has a form and iconography very similar to two vessels

recovered from the cemetery at Chaviña (FIG. 6.28; Lothrop and Mahler 1957: plate III,

plate IVc). The other illustrates naturalistic motifs and a modeled gourd base identical to

vessels figured by Blasco Bosqued and Ramos Goméz (1980: lámina XI: fig. 4a, plancha

II: fig. 5) and Eisleb (1975: fig. 213; FIG. 6.29)."

!!!6.3.2.2" Transitional Pottery" !! The second most abundant stylistic group is Transitional (N=131, 25% of all

vessels; TABLE 6.4). I use the term Transitional because as Menzel (1971: 71) argued,

such pottery represents a break with previous Nasca phases and illustrates the

appearance of new design elements that become important in MH pottery. Yet it is

neither traditionally Nasca nor MH - it is, quite literally, ‘transitional.’ Since Menzel’s

sub-seriation was never published, different scholars use different terms to classify such

pottery (see above). With the term Transitional, I create a generalized category that

emphasizes the distinction between Nasca phases 7a and 7b/c pottery, yet is inclusive of

the variation found in pottery during the EIP to MH transformation."

" Transitional pottery is characterized by a few key elements (FIGS. 6.30 & 6.31).

First, it often employs a red, orange, or brown background, rather than white (as is

common in Late Nasca pottery). Polychrome designs are painted atop and while some "

It should be noted that in the case of fineware vessels, these ‘collared jars’ are more 7

appropriately labeled ‘necked jars.’ Following Rice (1987: 212), vessels whose restriction of the opening is located above the point where the vessel diameter is greatest are ‘necked.’ In contrast, a ‘collared’ vessel has an unrestricted opening where the mouth of the vessel flares up at the point of maximum vessel diameter. Among Nasca scholars, however, fineware vessels are typically referred to as ‘collared jars,’ and I follow this convention here (Proulx 2006: 44, Vaughn 2009: fig. 6.1).

!255

Figure 6.30. Examples of Transitional pottery at Cocahuischo: (a) CO28-8 [N7b/c], (b) CO28-3 [N7b/c], (c) CO28-11 [N7b/c], (d) CO27-2 [N7b/c], and (e) CO59-1 [N7b/c].

a !!!!!!! b !!!!! c !!!!d !!!!!! e

!256

Figure 6.31. Examples of Transitional pottery at Cocahuischo: (a) CO16-1 [N7/8], (b) CO52-7 [N7/8], (c) CO59-4 [N7/8], (d) CO27-3 [N7/8], and (e) CO18-5 [N7/8].

a !!! ! b !!!!! c !! d !!!e

!257

!!!shapes and figures are outlined in black, it is not as common as it is on Late Nasca

pottery. Motifs are typically geometric (87% of primary motifs) or naturalistic (13% of

primary motifs), and include pendant color blocks, horizontal (sometimes dotted)

squiggles or zigzags, pendant scallops or zigzags, linked ovals, and abstract human and

animal forms (TABLE 6.7; FIGS. 6.32-6.40). Like Late Nasca vessels, rims are marked

with a thin black line. The diversity of Transitional motifs is considerably less than Late

Nasca motifs - although this could be a factor of the larger number of Late Nasca sherds

(see TABLES 6.6 & 6.7)."

Table 6.7. Motifs recorded on 131 Transitional sherds.

Motif Type Design Count % of sub-category % of Total

Primary Motifs

Humans & animals 14 13 5.4Fish 6 5.6 2.3Appendage of human or animal 4 3.7 1.5Modeled faces 2 1.9 0.8Human swimmer 1 0.9 0.4Snakes 1 0.9 0.4

Geometric 94 87 36Pendant color blocks 38 35.1 14.5Dotted squiggles or zigzags 19 17.6 7.3Pendant scallops or zigzags 16 14.8 6.1Linked ovals 6 5.6 2.3Pound sign 3 2.8 1.1Horizontal polychrome squiggle 3 2.8 1.1Vertical striping 2 1.9 0.8Solid circles or ovals 2 1.9 0.8Star with eye 1 0.9 0.4Spirals 1 0.9 0.4Cruciform 1 0.9 0.4Band with dots 1 0.9 0.4Checkerboard base 1 0.9 0.4

Total 108 100 41.4

Secondary Motifs

Wide purple, red, or black exterior rim band 66 43.1 25.3Thin rim band 66 43.1 25.3Horizontal divider band 20 13.1 7.6Diagonal lines on wide exterior rim band 1 0.7 0.4

  Total 153 100 58.6

!258

" Based on Menzel’s description, many features are attributable to the influence of

the Estrella style of the northern Pisco and Chincha valleys:"

The features attributable to the Estrella style include an extended and very shallow form, containing the principal decoration on the interior rather than the exterior, pendant arcs or rake or foot designs on the interior, and secondary ornamental strips with diagonal lines on the outer edge (Menzel 1971: 70; author’s translation).!!

As Menzel notes, designs on Transitional vessels are often restricted to the upper portion

of the interior rim. These thick paneled bands or pendant motifs and rectangles contain

simple geometric designs. While only two whole Transitional vessels were recovered,

multiple sherds make it clear that some of these bowls are very similar to ones described

by both Kroeber (1956) and Eisleb (1975; FIG. 6.41). Designs on Transitional vessels also

cover the interior base and the exterior rim (e.g. FIGS. 6.36 & 6.40), which, when not the

primary design space, is often decorated with a wide horizontal red, purple, or black

band (see FIG. 6.38)."

" Pendant scallops or horizontal dotted polychrome ‘squiggles’ (e.g. FIG. 6.32b-e,

g-h & 6.33) have also been documented by other scholars on the interior of red-slipped

bowls (see Glowacki and McEwan 2001: fig. 15a; Huamán López 2012: fig. 3.23; Kroeber

and Collier 1998: fig. 361, 416; Williams et al. 2001: fig. 78). A number of museum

collections contain similar bowls from the Nasca region, as do private collections (FIGS.

6.42 & 6.43). These bowls, however, come from contexts that date to the MH and are

considered to be stylistically MH. As Menzel (1971: 71) notes, these design patterns - red 8

ground with black, white, and yellow decoration, interior decoration, scallops, lack of

black outlining - exhibit a sharp break with prior Nasca styles and represent a trend that

becomes important during the MH. Indeed, Patricia Knobloch has identified some of the

dotted motifs (e.g. FIG. 6.38) as being common on MH1 pottery (personal

communication, 2012). Based on Knobloch’s extensive analysis, one example dates

The museum and private collections contain largely unprovenienced vessels, or vessels with 8

vague geographic associations, such as ‘south coast.’ The cultural association (when provided) is also stylistically MH and again vague (e.g. ‘Tiahuanaco’).

!259

CM

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Figure 6.32. Transitional straight-sided bowls with interior geometric motifs: (a) U5-B-8 [N7b/c], (b) CO157-3 [N7b/c], (c) CO43-1 [N7b/c], (d) CO65-4 [N7b/c], (e) CO66-4 [N7b/c], (f) CO80-10 [N7b/c], (g) CO158-4 [N7b/c], and (h) CO18-6 [N7b/c].

!260

Figure 6.33. Transitional convex bowls with interior pendant scallop and zigzag decoration: (a) CO156-3 [N7b/c], (b) CO156-4 [N7b/c], (c) CO66-6 [N7b/c], (d) CO88-8 [N7b/c], and (e) U1-D-2 [N7b/c]. Note that for (c) the rim diameter is unknown.

CM

a

b

c

d

e

!261

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

iCM

Figure 6.34. Transitional straight-sided bowls with interior pendant color block decoration: (a) CO60-1 [N7b/c], (b) CO57-1 [N7b/c], (c) CO162-1 [N7b/c], (d) CO31-16 [N7b/c], (e) CO52-6 [N7b/c], (f) U2-C-1 [N7b/c], (g) U5-S-2 [N7b/c], (h) CO159-1 [N7b/c], and (i) U5-B-10 [N7b/c].

!262

Figure 6.35. Transitional convex bowls with interior pendant color block decoration: (a) CO88-7 [N7b/c], (b) CO32-2 [N7b/c], (c) CO5-7 [N7b/c], (d) CO79-2 [N7b/c], (e) CO29-1 [N7b/c], (f) CO31-9 [N7b/c], and (g) U5-B-63 [N7b/c].

CM

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

!263

Figure 6.36. Transitional convex bowls with exterior dotted squiggle, zigzag, & band, as well as paneled decoration: (a) CO29-6 [N7b/c], (b) CO28-14 [N7b/c], (c) CO157-4 [N7/8], (d) CO80-9/82-3 [N7b/c], (e) CO57-5 [N7b/c], and (f) CO156-2 [MH1B/Huamanga].

CM

a

b

c

d

e

f

!264

Figure 6.37. Transitional convex bowls with interior geometric decoration: (a) CO8-7 [N7/8], (b) CO28-12/13 [N7b/c], (c) CO63-2 [N7b/c], (d) CO155-1 [N7b/c], and (e) U3-S-9 [N7b/c].

CM

a

b

c

d

e

!265

CM

Figure 6.38. Transitional [N7/8] straight-sided bowl with interior pendant scallop and recurving worm decoration (CO7-9).

!266

Figure 6.39. Transitional [N7/8] convex bowl with exterior dotted squiggle decoration (CO7-8).

CM

!267

CM

a b

c de

f

Figure 6.40. Transitional convex bowls with interior human and animal decoration: (a) CO63-11 [unknown], (b) CO28-37 [unknown], (c) CO18-7 [N7b/c or N7/8], (d) CO31-58 [N7b/c or N7/8], (e) CO28-35 [N7b/c or N7/8], and (f) U1-S-3 [N7b/c].

!268

a b

c

CM

Figure 6.41. Cumbrous bowls with interior paneled bands and pendant rectangles: (a) and (c) are redrawn from photographs and drawings of a bowl illustrated by Kroeber (1956: fig. 12a, plate 38e, respectively), and (b) is drawn from a photograph of a bowl illustrated by Eisleb (1975: fig. 293).

!269

Figure 6.42. Fineware bowls with interior pendant scallop decoration: (a) ML035435 and (b) ML035484 (images courtesy of the online catalog of the Museo Larco).

Figure 6.43. Fineware bowl with interior pendant scallop decoration (image courtesy of Carol Sawyer).

a

b

!270

stylistically to MH1B (FIG. 6.36f; see Anders 1986: fig. 7.40g for another MH example). "9

" The decoration of Transitional pottery marks a break with prior Nasca design

trends, as do vessel forms (TABLE 6.4). Bowls are effectively the only category (99%).

Among bowls, there is a preference toward convex forms (54%) that mirrors the

appearance of cumbrous bowls noted by Proulx (2006: 43). Convex bowls also become

an important vessel category among the MH styles (see Proulx 2006: 46). While there are

two flaring bowls represented in the Transitional sample from Cocahuischo, their form is

different from Late Nasca flaring bowls. Rather than broad, flaring vessels with exterior

decoration, these are deep, narrow mouthed bowls with interior decoration (see FIG.

6.31b). Indeed, they are more reminiscent of large cup bowls or goblets. Again in

contrast to Late Nasca pottery, the large majority (86%) of Transitional bowls are interior

decorated. Additionally, Transitional bowls exhibit a more rounded base (e.g. FIGS.

6.30e, 6.31c, 6.38, & 6.39), similar to the hemispherical bowls that dominate during the

MH in Nasca."

!!!6.3.2.3" Estrella Pottery" !" Estrella pottery is the smallest stylistic group represented at Cocahuischo (N=13,

2% of all vessels; TABLE 6.4). Unfortunately, little is published on Estrella style or

settlements, making the identification of pottery bearing Estrella stylistic elements

difficult. Yet the Estrella vessels illustrate not just the selective incorporation of non-10

local motifs and stylistic elements (as is found in some Late Nasca and Transitional

vessels), but literal adaptation of design elements and forms. Estrella sherds recovered

from Cocahuischo could easily have been uncovered at Estrella sites in the Pisco and

Chincha valleys. In terms of style, they are effectively foreign vessels. In some cases,

As part of a surface collection from Cocahuischo, it is likely that this particular sherd does in fact 9

date to the MH. It may have come from a final sporadic (and limited) MH use of Cocahuischo, once the majority of the site was abandoned (which will be further discussed in Chapter 8).

While Estrella (and the Pisco and Chincha valley fore-bearer, Carmen) is little known, the 10

research program directed by Charles Stanish and Henry Tantaleán in Chincha (e.g. Stanish et al. 2014) is providing new data.

!271

these vessels might incorporate elements of Late Nasca style pottery as well. As I discuss

below, however, technological analysis suggest these objects were likely produced

locally within the Nasca region."

" Estrella pottery at Cocahuischo is characterized by two primary design elements:

(1) interior polychrome pendant scallops or rectangles on white backgrounds, and (2)

diagonal lines on thick exterior rim bands (FIG. 6.44-6.46). Occasionally these exterior

bands have a diagonal line of solid white circles, as well (FIG. 6.44d). The color palate

consists predominately of black, red, and white. Vessels that bear the first design element

often contain the second. Thus, bowls with interior pendant designs also have an

exterior band with diagonal lines (TABLE 6.8; FIG. 6.44e-f, 6.45c, & 6.46b). In some cases,

the exterior design on these bowls is a thick red or purple rim band. Other bowls have

just the exterior striped band and the rest of the vessel is unslipped (FIG. 6.44a, c-d &

6.45a). Vessels with exterior stripped bands are most common (62% of Estrella

assemblage). Estrella vessels are exclusively bowls. Convex bowls (69%) are more

common than straight-sided bowls (31%), although a total sample of 13 sherds is

inadequate for make assertions regarding common vessel forms. "

!!

!!!

Motif Type Design Count % of sub-category % of Total

Primary Motifs

Geometric 19 100 61.3Diagonal lines on wide exterior rim band 10 52.6 32.3Solid pendant scallops 5 26.3 16.1Pendant hash marks and rectangles 3 15.8 9.7Solid circles or ovals 1 5.3 3.2

  Total 19 100 61.3

Secondary Motifs

Thin rim band 8 66.7 25.8Wide purple, red, or black exterior rim band 3 25 9.7Horizontal divider band 1 8.3 3.2

  Total 12 100 38.7

Table 6.8. Motifs recorded on 13 Estrella sherds.

!272

Figure 6.44. Examples of Estrella pottery at Cocahuischo: (a) CO51-1, (b) CO28-4, (c) CO52-1, (d) CO54-2, (e) CO66-2, and (f) CO100-23.

a !!!! b !!!! c !!! d !!!!! e !!!!!!f

!273

Figure 6.45. Estrella convex bowls with interior and exterior geometric decoration: (a) CO52-4, (b) CO31-12, (c) CO79-5, (d) U5B55, and (e) CO39-1. Note that for (c) the rim diameter is unknown.

CM

a

b

c

d

e

!274

!6.3.2.4" Local pottery" !" The final stylistic group of pottery at Cocahuischo is Local (N=42, 8% of all

vessels; TABLE 6.4). The pottery that I refer to as Local is characterized by a cohesive set

of stylistic traits. These include three primary design elements: (1) an exterior band of

‘swooping’ step frets outlined in white [e.g. FIG. 6.47c], (2) a wide exterior rim band

bordered by a white and/or black line [e.g. FIG. 6.47g], or (3) a red, purple, or brown

slip with a thin black and/or white rim line [FIG. 6.48i; TABLE 6.9; see also FIGS.

6.47-6.49]. A few vessels are slipped in in a thick orange band bordered by a white line

and the lower vessel is painted black (FIG. 6.47a). Additionally, some vessels contain

polychrome horizontal ‘squiggle’ lines (FIG. 6.47d). Most Local vessels are exterior

decorated (93%) and all are bowls (TABLE 6.4). Straight-sided bowls are the most

common (58%), with convex bowls being the second most frequent vessel type (36%).

Flaring bowls are only present in small numbers (6%)."

CM

a

b

Figure 6.46. Estrella straight-sided bowls with exterior and interior geometric decoration: (a) CO29-4 and (b) CO93-33. Note that the rim diameter for (a) is unknown.

!275

Figure 6.47. Examples of Local pottery at Cocahuischo: (a) CO56-1, (b) CO104-1, (c) CO8-1/30, (d) CO53-1, (e) CO70-1, (f) CO120-4, and (g) CO59-3.

!276

CM

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

i

Figure 6.48. Local straight-sided bowls with exterior and interior geometric decoration: (a) CO57-4, (b) CO67-1, (c) CO17-1, (d) CO52-3, (e) CO52-8, (f) CO53-4, (g) CO96-13, (h) CO63-1, and (i) CO59-5.

!277

"

Figure 6.49. Local convex bowls with exterior geometric decoration: (a) CO31-13, (b) CO66-1, (c) CO161-2, and (d) CO8-6.

a

b

c

d

CM

!278

"

!!!" In many ways, Local pottery resembles some earlier Nasca phase 4 pottery. The

bowl form is often similar, as are the motifs themselves, such as bands of step frets (see

Eisleb 1975: figs. 168-170, 176-179; Kroeber and Collier 1998: figs. 149-150). Local bowls

do not appear, however, to simply be Early Nasca vessels. While there is some similarity

in decoration, the motifs are still different in many ways. Rather than occupying the

entire exterior of the bowls, the design space on Local bowls is a wide band along upper

exterior rim. The designs themselves are not as finely executed as those on the Early

Nasca vessels and the remainder of the vessel is unslipped. Although there is some

similarity in form, that similarity is not restricted to Local bowls. Rather, it characterizes

many of the bowls from all the stylistic groups. "

! !!6.4" Technological Analysis"!

" In addition to form and style, I examined aspects of construction technology and

materials for each diagnostic sherd (see TABLE 6.1). Paste recipes and firing techniques

are the foundation of ceramic production (see Frank 1998). The diversity of paste types,

tempers, and firing techniques speaks to the diversity of potters and potting sites. The

Motif Type Design Count % of sub-category % of Total

Primary Motifs

Geometric 24 100 34.8Swooping step frets 21 87.52 30.3Horizontal polychrome squiggle 1 4.16 1.5Wide purple, red, orange, or black exterior rim 1 4.16 1.5Wide purple or red interior rim band 1 4.16 1.5

  Total 24 100 34.8

Secondary Motifs

Thin rim band 27 60 39.1Horizontal divider band 18 40 26.1

Total 45 100 65.2

Table 6.9. Motifs recorded on 42 Local sherds.

!279

pottery from Cocahuischo may have been produced on site, locally in Tierras Blancas, or

at another regional locale. Moreover, different types or styles of pottery may have been

produced in different contexts. In this section, I examine the different ceramic ‘types’

based on construction technology."

!!!6.4.1" Ceramic Pastes"!

" In recent years, Nasca studies have witnessed a proliferation of ceramic analyses

focused on technological aspects of production. While initial studies focused on

production techniques (e.g. Carmichael 1990, 1994, 1998), other work has included the

identification of paste groups verified through chemical characterization of the pottery

(e.g. Vaughn and Neff 2000, 2004; Vaughn and Van Gijseghem 2007; Vaughn et al. 2005,

2006; Vaughn et al. 2011). To investigate the nature of production during Late Nasca, I

examined the fabric (or paste) of all diagnostic sherds. Sherds were grouped into general

paste groups based on macroscopic analysis of paste color, temper, and firing technique

(see Rice 1987: 322). Paste group assessments were made on fresh breaks with a 10x hand

lens. Digital photographs of fresh breaks were then taken with a DinoXcope handheld

microscope at 51x. The sample included 300 sherds from the different paste groups and

the aforementioned styles. While these images do not form a central part of the present

analysis, they will be used in the future in combination with imaging software to further

verify the characterization of the paste groups."

" Paste Type A is a very fine paste that is light red in color (one step around

Munsell reference color 10YR 5/6; FIG. 6.50). Unlike the other paste types, which exhibit

some variation in color within the group, Paste Type A is highly consistent. Inclusions

are fine and well sorted sand, often composed of quartz and occasionally mica. There is

very little temper and the majority of sherds have 5% or less (assessments were made

based on Orton et al. 1993: fig. A4). Paste Type A sherds are oxidized and almost all

(97%) are well fired and lack a diffuse core. All the sherds in this paste group are from

fineware polychrome painted vessels. A total of 435 sherds (31% of the total assemblage)

are characterized as Paste Type A. This paste group matches Vaughn’s (2000: 368) ‘Paste

!280

Type C’ for Early Nasca sherds, and seems characteristic of much of the Late Nasca

pottery that I have observed at other settlements throughout the Nasca drainage. "

" Paste Type B is also a fine paste, generally light brown in color (one step around

Munsell reference color 7.5 YR 6/3; FIG. 6.51). While Paste Type A sherds are very

consistent in color, sherds classified as Paste Type B fall on a spectrum, ranging from

grayish brown (one step around Munsell reference color 5YR 5/2) to tan (one step

around Munsell reference color 10YR 6/3) to yellowish brown (one step around Munsell

reference color 5YR 6/6). There is no clear line between the different variations of color,

however, and no other criteria upon which to further divide the group. Like Paste Type

A, inclusions are fine and well sorted sand. Yet there appears to be more variability in

the source material of temper among Paste Type B sherds. Inclusions are composed of

quartz, feldspar, sometimes mica, and a variety of other as of yet unidentified materials.

Figure 6.50. Magnified image of Paste Type A sherd (taken using DinoXcope handheld microscope at 51x).

!281

While temper among Paste Type B sherds is usually small granules, they are found in

slightly greater densities than Paste Type A pottery. The majority of sherds have 5%

temper or less (86%), although some contain 10% temper (14%). Paste Type B sherds are

oxidized and the large majority (87%) are well fired and lack a diffuse core. Like Paste

Type A, all sherds is this paste group are from fineware polychrome vessels. A total of

533 sherds (or 38% of the Cocahuischo assemblage) are characterized as Paste Type B."

" Paste Type C is a coarse paste, generally brown in color (one step around

Munsell reference color 7.5YR 6/3 or 4/4; FIG. 6.52). Again, the color spectrum for this

paste group is variable, ranging from grayish brown (one step around Munsell reference

color 5YR 5/2) to yellowish brown (one step around Munsell reference color 5YR 6/6) to

reddish brown (one step around Munsell reference color 10YR 5/6). As with Paste Type

B, however, there is no clear line to be drawn between these variations in paste color and

Figure 6.51. Magnified image of Paste Type B sherd (taken using DinoXcope handheld microscope at 51x).

!282

no other criteria provide any obvious subgroup divisions. Inclusions for Paste Type C

are poorly sorted and coarse, composed of volcanic pebbles, quartz, feldspar, and

occasionally mica. The largest of these granules are very coarse (between 1-2 mm). The

density of temper in Paste Type C sherds is variable. Sherds with 10% temper are most

common (52%), followed by sherds with 5% temper (33%), 20% temper (13%), and 30%

temper (2%). The majority of Paste Type C sherds are oxidized (64%) and most are well

fired. Sherds that were reduced, however, are less well fired and exhibit sharp or diffuse

cores. All sherds in this paste group are from coarseware utilitarian vessels, such as

bowls and jars & ollas. A total of 450 sherds (or 32% of the Cocahuischo assemblage) are

characterized as Paste Type C."

!!

Figure 6.52. Magnified image of Paste Type C sherd (taken using DinoXcope handheld microscope at 51x).

!283

6.5" The Spatial Distribution of Pottery Styles"!" Having discussed the Cocahuischo ceramic assemblage as a whole and described

the different stylistic and production groups present at the site, I now turn to the

distribution of pottery throughout the settlement. I focus on the spatial distribution of

pottery styles because there is no evidence for stratigraphic relationships. The

differences in pottery are stylistic, not chronological. The AMS dates from the four

residential zones are highly consistent and indicate a narrow window of occupation.

These samples were recovered from comparable stratigraphic contexts and are

associated with all the pottery styles. While the deposits at Cocahuischo are often

deflated and suffer from erosion, in some cases structure floors were identified. There

was no evidence for multiple floors or occupations from any of the excavated buildings. "

" While all other sections of this chapter present the combined ceramic assemblage

collected during fieldwork in 2010 and 2012, here I focus on the buildings excavated

during 2012. The test units were placed in a variety of domestic spaces and produced

small samples of pottery that could skew the overall patterns, even if unit size is taken

Ratio of Pottery Styles

Perc

enta

ge o

f Stru

ctur

e As

sem

blag

e

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Structure17 32 88 104 190 203 285 293 255

Late NascaTransitionalEstrellaLocal

Figure 6.53. Ratio of pottery styles within excavated structures. Structures 17-203 are in Sectors I-III and Structures 255-293 are in Sector V.

!284

into consideration. I return to them at the end of the section, once I have considered the

broader spatial patterns based on the horizontal excavations in 2012."

" There is variability in the ratio of pottery styles throughout the excavated

structures (TABLE 6.10; FIG. 6.53). Some houses (Structures 17, 32, 88, and 190) contain

multiple styles. While Late Nasca pottery is dominant in these houses, Transitional

pottery is well represented. In other houses (Structures 203 and 293) and the multi-

crafting building (Structure 255), there is a clear dominance of Late Nasca pottery. There

Table 6.10. Distribution of styles throughout excavated structures.

Building Stylistic Group Count% of sub-category

% of Total Building Stylistic Group Count

% of sub-category

% of Total

Str. 17Late Nasca 15 60 3.7

Str. 203Late Nasca 39 86.7 9.6

Transitional 6 24 1.5 Transitional 5 11.1 1.25Estrella 0 0 0.0 Estrella 1 2.2 0.2Local 4 16 1.0 Local 0 0 0.0Other 0 0 0.0 Other 0 0 0.0

  Total 25 100 6.2   Total 45 100 11.05

Str. 32Late Nasca 9 52.9 2.2

Str. 255Late Nasca 31 73.8 7.6

Transitional 7 41.2 1.7 Transitional 3 7.1 0.7Estrella 0 0 0.0 Estrella 2 4.8 0.5Local 1 5.9 0.2 Local 4 9.5 1.0Other 0 0 0.0 Other 2 4.8 0.5

  Total 17 100 4.1   Total 42 100 10.3

Str. 88Late Nasca 84 56.4 20.6

Str. 285Late Nasca 3 100 0.7

Transitional 50 33.6 12.3 Transitional 0 0 0.0Estrella 4 2.7 1.0 Estrella 0 0 0.0Local 8 5.3 2.0 Local 0 0 0.0Other 3 2.0 0.7 Other 0 0 0.0

  Total 149 100 36.6   Total 3 100 0.7

Str. 104Late Nasca 1 9.1 0.2

Str. 293Late Nasca 21 91.4 5.2

Transitional 8 72.7 2.0 Transitional 1 4.3 0.2Estrella 1 9.1 0.2 Estrella 0 0 0.0Local 1 9.1 0.2 Local 0 0 0.0Other 0 0 0.0 Other 1 4.3 0.2

  Total 11 100 2.6   Total 23 100 5.6

Str. 190Late Nasca 41 44.0 10.1Transitional 25 26.9 6.1Estrella 5 5.4 1.25Local 18 19.4 4.4Other 4 4.3 1.0

  Total 93 100 22.85

!285

is also patterning in the distribution and density of Estrella and Local pottery. A number

of houses lack Estrella or Local pottery. Others have higher ratios of Estrella (Structure

104) or Local pottery (Structure 190). The small quantities of Estrella and Local pottery

make these patterns less certain than the ratios of Late Nasca and Transitional pottery,

which are found in much higher numbers (see TABLE 6.10)."

" Although a number of structures at Cocahuischo contain a mixture of the pottery

styles, only four contain them all. The assemblages from Structures 88, 104, 190, and 255

include a combination of Late Nasca, Transitional, Estrella, and Local pottery (TABLE

6.10). When examined broadly, it appears that there are two primary ‘types’ of

assemblages present in the Cocahuischo buildings: (1) Late Nasca & Transitional

dominant [Structures 17, 32, 88, 104, and 190] and (2) Late Nasca dominant [Structures

203, 255, 285, and 293]."

" These differences necessarily illustrate intra-community variation, since they do

not reflect chronological changes. In buildings that contain multiple pottery styles, the

styles were intermixed within undisturbed stratigraphic contexts or within subterranean

refuse pits. As FIGS. 6.54 & 6.55 illustrate, there is no clear pattern in the ratio of Late

Nasca, Transitional, Estrella, and Local pottery between any of the stratigraphic levels in

Structures 88 and 190. Rather, varying quantities of each style were found in the

subterranean pits that form the foundation of the structure, in the occupation levels, and

in the post-abandonment overburden. If these styles were chronological entities, we

would expect different levels to contain primarily one style of pottery, in spite of

deflation and intermixture. For instance, the substrate and lower levels of occupation in

Structure 88 should contain predominantly Late Nasca pottery, with the upper levels of

the occupation containing mostly Transitional pottery. As FIG. 6.54 illustrates, this is not

the case. The location of these styles illustrates spatial patterns in their use, rather than

temporal ones."

" Sectors I-III constitute one of the two main residential zones of Cocahuischo.

They are separated from Sector V (the other residential zone) by a large and deep

quebrada. In Sectors I-III the ratio of Late Nasca to Transitional pottery is relatively

consistent (TABLE 6.11). Based on the average density of styles in excavated structures,

!286

Figure 6.54. Percentage of pottery styles in the different strata of Structure 88. The loci in each major stratum were condensed because of arbitrary level designations, a lack of pottery, and because the patterns present within condensed loci were the same (see FIG. 5.66 for comparison).

MODERN SURFACE

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

62%13%

25%

33%53%

7%7%

1%

47%35%

3% 7%7%

!

Nasca Phase 5

Late Nasca

Transitional

Estrella

Local

Unknown

!287

Table 6.11. Distribution of stylistic groups throughout the Cocahuischo sectors.

Sector

Avg. % of structure assemblage

TotalLate Nasca Transitional Estrella Local Other

I 57.1 31.0 0 11.9 0 100II 53.1 36.3 3.1 5.6 1.9 100III 58.0 21.8 4.3 13.0 2.9 100V 80.9 5.9 2.9 5.9 4.4 100

Figure 6.55. Percentage of pottery styles in the different strata of Structure 190. The loci in each major stratum were condensed because of arbitrary level designations, a lack of pottery, and because the patterns present within condensed loci were the same (see FIG. 5.79 for comparison).

MODERN SURFACE

POST-ABANDONMENT

OCCUPATION

SUBSTRATE

INTERFACE WITH GEOLOGY

Late Nasca

Transitional

Estrella

Local

Unknown

34%

33%22%

11%

20%

20%40%

20%

50%27%

9%

13%1%

!288

Late Nasca pottery accounts for just over half of structure assemblages (approx. 55%),

Transitional pottery accounts for one third (approx. 30%), and Estrella and Local pottery

only account for small proportions (approx. 3% and 10%, respectively). The density of

styles in Sector V stands in marked contrast. The average structure in Sector V contains

primarily Late Nasca pottery (81%) and small quantities of Transitional, Estrella, and

Local pottery (3-6%). Based on the individual house assemblages, the difference between

Sectors I-III and Sector V with respect to proportions of pottery styles is highly

significant (χ 2 = 22.885, 0.001 > p). Based on these data, the houses in Sectors I-III have

greater diversity of pottery and a lower ratio of Late Nasca pottery than Sector V."

" The test units illustrate a somewhat similar pattern. Units 1, 2, and 5 all contain

ratios of Late Nasca to Transitional pottery that are consistent with the houses in Sectors

I-III (FIG. 6.56). Unit 3, located in Sector V, has predominantly Late Nasca pottery with a

small quantity of Local pottery (15%), similar to Structure 255. Units 4 and 6, however,

have much higher percentages of Late Nasca pottery than the other Sector I-III

structures. While there is variation, the test units do reiterate the pattern of Sector I-III

structures containing the highest ratios of Transitional pottery."

Ratio of Pottery Styles

Perc

enta

ge o

f Tes

t Uni

t As

sem

blag

e

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Test Unit1 2 3 4 5 6

Late NascaTransitionalEstrellaLocal

Figure 6.56. Ratio of pottery styles within test units. Units 1-2 and 4-6 are located in Sectors I-III and Unit 3 is located in Sector V.

!289

!

!!! !!6.6" The Intersection of Paste Group and Style"!

" I now turn to the relationship between the paste groups and pottery styles. As

was mentioned, the three paste groups are equally represented in the Cocahuischo

assemblage. Paste Type C, however, is composed of coarseware utilitarian vessels and

will not be considered further in this section. The ceramic assemblage is evenly

distributed between the two fineware paste groups: Paste Type A and Paste Type B

(TABLE 6.12). Within these two paste groups, the distribution of the two dominant

pottery styles is also unexpectedly even. Paste Type A sherds are mostly Late Nasca

(62%) and Transitional (24%). Paste Type B sherds are likewise mostly Late Nasca (55%)

and Transitional (24%). There are some differences among the less common styles, since

both Estrella and Local sherds are predominantly Paste Type B (TABLE 6.12). Overall,

however, the similar ratio of styles among Paste Type A and Paste Type B is significant (χ 2 = 10.467, 0.05 > p > 0.02). This finding was unanticipated, since it was hypothesized

that the differences between the styles would extend beyond merely iconography and

form. Instead, it appears that the diversity in iconography and form in the Cocahuischo

assemblage is seemingly unrelated to patterns in construction technology."

Table 6.12. Distribution of pottery styles by ceramic paste.

Paste Group Stylistic Group Count% of sub-category % of Total

Paste Type ALate Nasca 165 61.8 30.8Transitional 64 24.0 12.0Estrella 3 1.1 0.6Local 14 5.2 2.6Other 21 7.9 3.9

  Total 267 100 49.9

Paste Type BLate Nasca 147 54.9 27.5Transitional 65 24.3 12.1Estrella 10 3.7 1.9Local 29 10.8 5.4Other 17 6.3 3.2

  Total 268 100 50.1

!290

" When the relationship between paste group and style is examined from a spatial

perspective, however, a pattern does emerge. The majority of Sector V pottery is Paste

Type A (65%), regardless of style (TABLE 6.13). In Sectors I-II, the majority of pottery is

Paste Type B (60%), again regardless of style. Sector III pottery contains a near even split

between Paste Type A and Paste Type B, although more Late Nasca pottery is Paste Type

A (59%) and more Transitional pottery is Paste Type B (62%). Throughout the site, paste

group differences are more pronounced among some styles than others. In Sectors I-III,

Transitional pottery is more often Paste Type B. Transitional pottery in Sector V,

however, is exclusively Paste Type A. The difference in Sector V between Paste Type A

Table 6.13. Distribution of stylistic groups and ceramic paste by residential zone.

Sector Stylistic GroupPaste Type A Paste Type B

Count % of sub-category % of sector Count % of sub-category % of sector

ILate Nasca 14 70.0 28.0 17 56.7 34.0Transitional 5 25.0 10.0 8 26.7 16.0Estrella 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0Local 1 5.0 2.0 5 16.7 10.0Other 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0Total 20 100 40.0 30 100 60.0

IILate Nasca 28 43.1 17.1 46 46.5 28.0Transitional 28 43.1 17.1 34 34.3 20.7Estrella 1 1.5 0.6 4 4.0 2.4Local 3 4.6 1.8 6 6.1 3.7Other 5 7.7 3.0 9 9.1 5.5Total 65 100 39.6 99 100 60.4

IIILate Nasca 58 68.2 33.9 40 46.5 23.4Transitional 14 16.5 8.2 23 26.7 13.5Estrella 1 1.2 0.6 5 5.8 2.9Local 7 8.2 4.1 12 14.0 7.0Other 5 5.9 2.9 6 7.0 3.5Total 85 100 49.7 86 100 50.3

VLate Nasca 65 67.0 43.3 44 83.0 29.3Transitional 17 17.5 11.3 0 0.0 0.0Estrella 1 1.0 0.7 1 1.9 0.7Local 3 3.1 2.0 6 11.3 4.0Other 11 11.3 7.3 2 3.8 1.3Total 97 100 64.7 53 100 35.3

!291

and Paste Type B with respect to style is highly significant (χ 2 = 16.817, 0.01 > p > 0.001).

These data suggest a link between pottery style, paste groups, and residential zones.

Residents of Sector V consumed less Transitional pottery than the other sectors of the

site, but when they did, the paste group was uniform and congruent with the paste

group noted by Vaughn for Early Nasca pottery. In Sectors I-III, there was overall more

diversity in the styles and construction of pottery."

!!!6.7" Discussion"!

6.7.1" Form and Function in the Cocahuischo Assemblage"" "" The description of a domestic ceramic assemblage presented in this chapter

provides data regarding the types of vessels that Late Nasca people were using in their

homes. The pottery can be grouped into a series of functional categories (TABLE 6.14).

The forms and their morphological characteristics correlate with different functions the

objects would have performed: serving, cooking and storage, craft production, and

‘other.’ The majority (70%) are serving vessels: bowls, goblets, vases, and bottles.

Goblets, vases, and bottles are almost exclusively fineware, while bowls are both

fineware and coarseware. Storage and cooking vessels (24% of all vessels) are almost

exclusively coarseware. The quantity of storage and cooking vessels is less than that

recovered by Vaughn at Marcaya (where cooking and storage vessels compose 38% of all

vessels; 2009: table 6.2). Finally, vessels whose function is characterized as ‘other’ or

‘unknown’ compose the remainder of the assemblage (3%). These vessels include

miniatures, modeled effigies, and vessels whose form is unknown. If modeled effigy

vessels were bottles (as has been noted by Proulx [2006] and others), then they would

fall into the ‘serving’ category. The few examples from Cocahuischo, however, are small

fragments lacking any evidence of a spout or opening. "

" Miniatures are an anomalous form when determining function. It is likely that

some miniatures were used for actual serving, while others were too small to have held

more than a tiny quantity of food or liquid. Nasca scholars have documented finely

!292

made polychrome and coarseware miniature vessels within high status domestic and

mortuary contexts (Carmichael 1988: 395, 479, plate 13; Vaughn 2000: fig. 6.17). Likewise,

a number of Andean scholars have encountered miniature vessels within EIP and MH

contexts associated with ritual activity - whether household-based, funerary, or

otherwise (e.g. Brewster-Wray 1990: 264-265; Goldstein and Owen 2001: fig. 19; Huamán

López 2012: figs. 3.17-3.18; Leoni 2009: fig. 7.45; Ponte 2000: fig. 23; Silverman 1993: fig.

13.32). Some of the miniatures at Cocahuischo may have served a ritual function as well."

" The vessel assemblage also indicates that both fineware and coarseware vessels

were used within houses and patios for domestic food preparation and consumption

activities. This pattern is congruent with what has been observed at other Nasca

settlements (e.g. Hecht 2010; Van Gijseghem 2004; Vaughn 2009). The distribution of

Table 6.14. Total ceramic assemblage at Cocahuischo by function.

Function Form Count % of sub-category % of Total

ServingBowls 452 95.8 67.3

Flaring 59 12.5 8.8Straight-sided 180 38.2 26.8Convex 213 45.1 31.7

Goblets 7 1.5 1Vases 11 2.3 1.6Bottles 2 0.4 0.3

  Total 472 100 70.2

Storage & Cooking

Jars & Ollas 162 100 24Collared 158 97.5 23.4Collarless 2 1.25 0.3Unknown 2 1.25 0.3

  Total 162 100 24

Craft Production

Polishers 19 100 2.9

Total 19 100 2.9

Other Miniatures 12 63.1 1.8Modeled effigies 4 21.1 0.6Other 3 15.8 0.5

  Total 19 100 2.9

!293

coarseware and fineware between the functional categories is distinct. At Early Nasca

sites, coarseware vessels were exclusively used for storage and cooking (Silverman 1993:

fig. 16.34; Vaughn 2000: 353, 2009: 104). Yet at Cocahuischo, coarseware vessels were

used for serving as well (33% of all serving vessels). Ceramic assemblages from Nasca 1

sites (Silverman 1993: fig. 16.34; Van Gijseghem 2004: 244) suggest that this pattern is not

a new development, but rather the reappearance of an old practice."

!!!6.7.2" Style in the Cocahuischo Assemblage"!

" The stylistic division of pottery presented here deviates to some extent from the

Dawson seriation. Estrella and Local pottery are outliers by definition, yet Late Nasca

and Transitional pottery do not conform entirely to the Dawson seriation phases either.

The main departure lies in my division the Nasca 7 style into two separate groups -

pottery that fits well with earlier Nasca styles (Late Nasca) and pottery that fits well with

later MH styles (Transitional). As I discussed, Menzel (1971: 71) noted long ago that the

division between Nasca phase 7a and 7b/c pottery marks the real stylistic split between

the Nasca and later MH styles. In using the terms ‘Late Nasca’ and ‘Transitional,’ I

highlight this rupture while simultaneously following other scholars (see Hecht 2009,

2010) who employ broader stylistic categories for domestic assemblages that contain

mostly fragmentary remains. "

" Transitional pottery, in particular, provides a stylistic home for pottery that

straddles the later Dawson seriation phases. Vessels like the Transitional bowls (see

FIGS. 6.38 & 6.39) from Cocahuischo often prompt disagreement among experts

regarding stylistic assignments, and rightly so, because they defy the categories we

currently have. One could classify those vessels as Nasca phase 7b/c, Nasca 8/Loro,

local MH, or ‘in between Nasca phase 7 and 8.’ To provide a more cohesive framework

for describing this type of pottery, I use the term Transitional. Transitional recognizes the

cohesive set of stylistic elements present in pottery that is neither Late Nasca nor MH,

while being inclusive of the variability often found during transformative periods."

!294

" The analysis of style presented here is important for a number of reasons. We

currently have little data on Late Nasca pottery from residential sites. Except for

Parasmarca (which was characterized by Reindel [2009: 456] as an administrative center)

and Menzel’s PV62-70 site, no pottery has been recovered from excavations at a Late

Nasca residential site. The majority of previous discussions of Late Nasca pottery (and

the definition of Dawson’s phases) have been based on museum collections containing

whole vessels recovered from mortuary contexts (e.g. Proulx 2006; Roark 1965; Wegner

1976). The social context of consumption is an important element of archaeological

investigations of pottery. In contexts where traditionalism prevails, stylistic change may

occur more slowly, whereas pottery produced and consumed for quotidian use may

illustrate more innovation (Van Gijseghem, n.d.). As I suggested in Chapter 4, some

styles of Nasca pottery were reserved primarily for ceremonial or mortuary contexts,

making pottery from residential sites crucial. The Dawson seriation was simply not

based on the types of pots found at Cocahuischo. The assemblage is stylistically distinct,

and understandably so, since it derives from a very different social context than the

pottery Dawson used for his seriation."

!!!6.7.3" The Social Role of Pottery in Nasca Society"!

" Polychrome pottery played a central role in Nasca life. As I discussed in Chapter

2, Early Nasca pottery was imbued with ritual symbology. Themes of agricultural

fertility such as plants and trophy heads were common depictions, as were mythical

beings (Carmichael 1992, 1994). Scholars have argued that Early Nasca polychrome

pottery was a materialization of a complex religious ideology, and that these objects

were important in sociopolitical organization and power (e.g. Silverman and Proulx

2002; Vaughn 2009). Such pottery seems to have been produced by specialists near

Cahuachi, the Early Nasca ceremonial and pilgrimage center (Vaughn and Neff 2000,

2004). Visitors to the site are thought to have participated in communal feasting events

within large plazas, where polychrome pottery was used as serving vessels (Orefici 2012;

!295

Silverman 1993). Following these activities, visitors brought polychrome pottery home

with them, as a symbol of their journey (Kantner and Vaughn 2012)."

" At the same time, Early Nasca pottery was not just a passive reflection of

religious ideology and pilgrimage, it played an active role in people’s lives. Polychrome

pottery structured household ceremonial practice through its role in re-creative feasts. Its

presence within settlements prompted people to engage in certain behaviors. It no doubt

also structured intra-community relationships, as a materialization of the pilgrimages its

owners had made. Pottery during the Late Nasca phase was no different. Similar themes

of mythical beings are present on Late Nasca phase pottery, along with depictions of

trophy heads, violence, foreigners, plants, and animals. While pilgrimage and a regional

ceremonial cult may not have shaped Late Nasca society the way it did Early Nasca

society, pottery remained an important structuring force in social life. Late Nasca,

Transitional, Local, and Estrella pottery shaped community identity and relationships,

but was simultaneously altered and given meaning through human action. Such pottery

was one of the mediums through which relationships and traditions were embodied,

negotiated, and reimagined."

!!!6.7.4" Ceramic Production and Consumption at Cocahuischo"!

" The pottery discussed in this chapter can be subdivided into five primary

groups, based on patterns in style, form, and construction technology: (1) restricted Late

Nasca forms, (2) Late Nasca bowls, (3) Transitional and Estrella pottery, (4) Local pottery,

and (5) coarseware cooking, storing, and serving vessels. Restricted Late Nasca forms -

such as goblets, vases, jars, and modeled effigies - are very finely made vessels. They

exhibit an iconographic canon that is both consistent with pottery from other Late Nasca

contexts and distinct from the rest of the Cocahuischo Late Nasca assemblage. These

include hallmarks of the Late Nasca style, such as mythical beings, human figures,

weapons, and geometric motifs such as step frets, diamonds, and crosshatching.

Stylistically, they seem very similar to objects in museum collections and some of the

pottery from Parasmarca in the Central Nasca Region (CNR; Hecht 2009, 2010). Late

!296

Nasca bowls are also finely made, although there is more variation in the execution of

form, decoration, and firing. There is also distinct patterning in iconography. While these

objects would be recognized as Late Nasca by any scholar, the designs are somewhat

localized to the Southern Nasca Region (SNR) and differ from many of the Parasmarca

designs. Indeed, most sherds with the same motifs as Parasmarca vessels are restricted

Late Nasca forms. Within the realm of bowls, there seem to be regionally specific sets of

Late Nasca motifs that are commonly used. "

" Transitional and Estrella vessels are also finely made, yet characterized by some

variation in the execution of form, decoration, and firing. These objects are absent from

Parasmarca and are not well represented in museum collections. Stylistically, they seem

very similar to vessels Menzel (1971) describes from PV62-70 in the Northern Nasca

Region (NNR), suggesting a level of regionalism in their consumption. Local vessels,

however, are both variable in execution and design, and found only in the SNR. While

Local pottery was not restricted to the Tierras Blancas Valley, coarseware cooking,

storing, and serving vessels likely were. These objects are characterized by considerable

variation in form, paste, temper, and firing. While there are no comparative collections

available, it seems likely that coarseware pottery was characterized by valley or site

specific regionalism in both production and consumption."

" These data suggest patterning in the production of fineware pottery. The level of

standardization in iconography and shape among restricted Late Nasca forms is

consistent with the model of Early Nasca pottery production, which is thought to have

occurred near Cahuachi (Vaughn and Neff 2000, 2004). Restricted Late Nasca forms are

found throughout the south coast in residential sites, cemeteries, and ceremonial

contexts. The wide distribution, standardization, and expert execution of these objects

makes it likely that production was somewhat centralized. Restricted Late Nasca forms

may have been produced by specialists near Cahuachi or in one of the other major Late

Nasca sites (such as PV62-70 or Parasmarca). Indeed, the compositional similarity

identified by Vaughn and colleagues (2011) between restricted Late Nasca forms and

Early Nasca pottery is congruent with this hypothesis. The production of Late Nasca

bowls appears to have been more localized. There was clearly communication and

!297

shared knowledge of ceramic tradition, but the regionalism in designs discussed above

suggests that these vessels were produced and consumed at the regional level.

Transitional and Estrella pottery were also likely produced in more restricted contexts,

within only some of the major Nasca regions and possibly within individual valleys or

sites. Some Transitional and Estrella pottery, for instance, was likely produced at

PV62-70 in the NNR, while other objects were produced within the SNR at sites like

Cocahuischo. In the case of Estrella sherds, the similarity of fabric to other Cocahuischo

pottery suggests that these objects were not foreign trade pieces, but were produced

within the Nasca region. As I mentioned above, Local pottery was also produced within

the SNR, and likely within individual settlements or valleys."

" Yet the four fineware groups do not fall neatly along the lines of paste type (see

TABLE 6.12). Among Late Nasca pottery, just as many goblets, vases, modeled effigies,

bowls, and jars are Paste Type A as Paste Type B. The same is true of Transitional pottery.

In the case of Estrella and Local pottery, at least, the majority are Paste Type B. This

suggests a complex landscape of resources and potters during the end of the EIP. Still,

the remarkable uniformity of Paste Type A pottery, in terms of color, temper, and firing

conditions, may suggest some level of standardization in the conditions of production,

or simply raw materials. While there may not have been centralized production of these

objects, there may have been knowledge of where to acquire clay and temper that was

shared and passed down by kin groups who specialized in pottery manufacture.

Alternatively, there may have been multiple sources for clay and temper that fit this

profile. Although the clay and temper sources used by Early Nasca potters near

Cahuachi may still have been mined for materials, the diversity of pastes suggests that

more sources were exploited during Late Nasca. The variation within Paste Type B, in

particular, points to non-centralized production and access to multiple clay and temper

sources. While future chemical composition analyses of paste may help clarify the

situation, it seems likely that there were varying levels of centralization over the

production of the different styles and less control over the raw materials. Unlike during

Early Nasca, potters making restricted Late Nasca forms no longer used exclusively one

type of clay and temper from a particular source. At the same time, the clay and temper

!298

sources used in the production of Early Nasca pottery were no longer restricted -

multiple groups producing multiple styles had access."

" Within the context of Cocahuischo, there is some evidence for ceramic

production activities. The ceramic polishers or disks I mentioned above and the stone

polishers, bone and wood tools, and mortars I discuss in Chapter 7 were all likely used

in pottery manufacture. Although there is no direct evidence for production locales, such

as refuse pits with ash, wasters, and vitrified sherds, it is unsurprising. Cocahuischo is

located high above the river on a steep hillside. Resources for ceramic production, such

as fuel, would have been found at the river bottom. Rather than transport these

materials 20 m up a steep cliff, residents likely would have fired pots in ephemeral sites

near the valley bottom. These sites would have been destroyed by the encroaching river

and modern cultivation long ago, erasing the direct evidence for pottery production. All

that would remain are the tools people kept within their houses and the pots themselves

- both of which are present at Cocahuischo."

!!!6.7.5" Summary"!

" The Cocahuischo ceramic assemblage demonstrates that residents were using

fineware and coarseware pottery for food preparation, storage, and serving within their

daily lives. They also used ceramic objects such as spindle whorls and disks in craft

production. Ceramic vessels encompassed a variety of forms and were likely produced

in different social contexts and at different regional sites. While coarseware pottery was

probably produced locally, other styles of fineware pottery may have been produced at

Cocahuischo, elsewhere in the SNR, near Cahuachi, or at one of the other Late Nasca

settlements in the NNR or CNR. Stylistically, the Cocahuischo ceramic assemblage is

diverse. Along with Late Nasca pottery (encompassing the Nasca 6 and 7a phases of the

Dawson seriation), Transitional (encompassing the Nasca 7b/c phase and vessels that

are transitional between the Nasca 7 and 8 phases of the Dawson seriation), Estrella, and

Local pottery was identified. These objects illustrate patterning in form and spatial

distribution throughout the site. Transitional vessels are exclusively shallow bowls and

!299

were found in high ratios within certain houses. Elsewhere, house and building

assemblages were dominated by Late Nasca pottery, which is characterized by more

diverse forms. While there is one Late Nasca dominant house in Sectors I-III, Sector V is

overwhelmingly Late Nasca dominant. In contrast, the houses in Sectors I-III illustrate

assemblages characterized by Late Nasca pottery, but also high ratios of Transitional,

Estrella, and Local pottery. In Chapter 7, I synthesize the ceramic data with the rest of

the artifact assemblages to consider social status and food, drink, and craft production at

Cocahuischo."

�300

!!!!!CHAPTER 7. NON-CERAMIC ARTIFACT ANALYSIS"!!!

" In this chapter, I describe the analyses of non-ceramic artifacts that were

undertaken to investigate the research problem and present the basic results. The

materials analyzed include lithics; botanical and faunal remains; textiles; minerals; tools,

toys, and adornments; and human skeletal remains. At the end of the chapter, I

synthesize these data and the evidence presented in Chapters 5-6 to examine social

status and food, drink, and craft production at Cocahuischo."

!!!7.1" Lithics"!

" Lithic artifacts only comprise a small portion of the Cocahuischo assemblage (8.6

kg or 7% by weight of total assemblage; TABLE 7.1). Yet lithics are often common in

domestic assemblages and include non-local material acquired through trade and inter-

regional interaction. As such, the lithic material recovered from Cocahuischo in 2012 was

analyzed based on a series of attributes related to material and physical characteristics,

tool type, and aspects of production (TABLE 7.2). Lithic artifacts range from ground

stone tools, to shatter and flakes associated with production, to blades, cores, and

projectile points. The following discussion illustrates the patterns found in primarily

non-ground stone lithics. Many of the ground stone tools at Cocahuischo are large

batanes and manos used for processing of food and ground stone mortars (see Chapter 5).

Since these objects were far too large to collect, they were noted in the field and left in

situ. I will consider these ground stone artifacts later in this section, but they are not

included in any of the tables or discussions of patterns in the Cocahuischo lithic

assemblage."

!

�301

!!!!!

!!!!7.1.1" Classes of Lithic Artifacts"!

! Chipped and ground stone artifacts include flakes, cores, chipped stone tools,

hammer stones, ground stone tools, and non-diagnostic lithic fragments (N=450; TABLE

7.3). Artifacts characterized as ‘other’ include small polished river stones. The majority

of these lithic artifacts are flakes (36%) and non-diagnostic fragments (43%). Flakes are

chipped stone artifacts that are byproducts of lithic reduction. A few flakes show

evidence of use-wear, suggesting that they were also employed as tools. These objects

may have been expedient tools, produced by re-using a flake left over from lithic

Table 7.1. Frequency and weight of artifacts recovered during excavations at Cocahuischo in 2010 and 2012.

LITHIC ATTRIBUTES

material

METRIC ATTRIBUTES

length of axis 1 (mm)class length of axis 2 (mm)type width (mm)color/shade half concavity depth

(mm)

FLAKE TYPE

whole flake weight (g)broken flake

PLATFORM ATTRIBUTES

exterior platform angleflake fragment platform length (mm)shatter platform width (mm)

RETOUCH ATTRIBUTES

retouchedCORTEX ATTRIBUTES

cortex %retouch type cortex location# of retouched segments

cortex type

Table 7.2. Attributes recorded as part of the lithic analysis.

Material Weight (kg) Count % of total (kg)

Pottery 112.71 11917 88.763Lithics 8.61 1103 6.781Faunal remains 4.65 7495 3.662Botanical remains 0.075 84 0.059Textiles 0.009 4 0.007Tools, toys, & adornments 0.102 41 0.08 Minerals 0.823 172 0.648

�302

reduction. They may also have been intentionally formed by reducing a core and

modifying it into a flake tool. While a large quantity of flakes were recovered from

houses, cores are rare (1.3% of total assemblage)."

" Chipped and ground stone tools only compose a small percentage of the lithic

assemblage (9%; TABLE 7.3). Chipped stone tools are predominantly projectile points

(N=21; 75%). Bifaces are represented in small numbers and consist of bifacially flaked

knives and tools (N=7; 25%). These tools would have been produced by direct

percussion flaking of cores or larger flakes and retouched by pressure flaking."

Ground stone tools are likewise represented in small numbers (N=12; 3% of lithic

assemblage; TABLE 7.3). They consist of small grinding stones or manos (N=11; 92%),

although there is at least one example of a hammer stone. These objects were likely

produced by repeated use of rounded river cobbles or other optimally shaped stones."

!!!7.1.2" Material Types"!

! The majority of lithic artifacts are made of locally sourced materials (N=413; 92%

of lithic assemblage; TABLE 7.4). These include quartzite (44%), fine grained volcanics

(such as basalt, andesite, and rhyolite; 36%), quartz (3%), and fine grained siliceous rocks

Table 7.3. Lithic artifacts at Cocahuischo.

Artifact class Frequency % of total

Flake 163 36.2Core 6 1.3Chip stone tool 28 6.2

Projectile point 21 4.7Biface 7 1.5

Hammer stone 1 0.2Ground stone tool 11 2.5Non-diagnostic fragment 192 42.7Other 49 10.9

�303

Table 7.4. Types of raw material by artifact class.

Material Artifact class Frequency% of sub-category % of total

ObsidianFlake 6 16.2 1.3Chip stone tool 28 75.7 6.2

Projectile point 21 56.8 4.7Biface 7 18.9 1.6

Non-diagnostic fragment 3 8.1 1.0

  Total 37 100 8.5

ChalcedonyFlake 1 100 0.2

Total 1 100 0.2

QuartziteFlake 96 48.3 21.3Core 3 1.5 0.7Non-diagnostic fragment 87 43.2 19.1Other 14 7.0 3.1

Total 200 100 44.2

QuartzFlake 1 6.7 0.2Non-diagnostic fragment 4 26.7 0.9Other 10 66.7 2.2

Total 15 100 3.3

Fine grained volcanics

Flake 51 31.9 11.3Core 3 1.9 0.7Hammer stone 1 0.6 0.2Ground stone 5 3.1 1.1Non-diagnostic fragment 85 53.1 18.9Other (river stone) 15 9.4 3.3

  Total 160 100 35.6

Fine grained siliceous

Flake 6 40.0 1.3Non-diagnostic fragment 7 46.7 1.6Other (river stone) 2 13.3 0.4

Total 15 100 3.3

OtherFlake 2 9.1 0.4Ground stone 6 27.3 1.3Non-diagnostic fragment 6 27.3 1.3Other 8 36.4 1.8

  Total 22 100 4.9

�304

(3%; FIG. 7.1). Chert is absent from the Cocahuischo assemblage. This was unexpected

since it has been found at other sites in the Tierras Blancas Valley such as Marcaya

(Vaughn 2000: table 7.3) and Pataraya (Edwards 2010: 349; see also Johnson 2009). In

some cases, chert is represented in high quantities, yet at Cocahuischo it is absent. The

residents of the site appear to have utilized other materials for chipped stone objects.

While the fine grained volcanic rock found in the outcrops above the site is not ideal for

Figure 7.1. Non-obsidian lithic artifacts: (a) chalcedony flake, (b) fine grained siliceous flakes, (c) fine grained volcanic flakes & cores, (d) fine grained volcanic ground stone tools, (e) quartzite flakes & cores, (f) quartz flake & fragments, and (g) quartzite river pebble.

a

CM CM

b

CM

c

CM

d

CM CM

f

e

CM

g

�305

producing chipped stone tools, Cocahuischo residents were evidently using it for

expedient tools. The quantity of such artifacts is in all likelihood higher than recorded.

Buildings were constructed using the same locally sourced, fine grained volcanic stone.

The visual similarity between chipped stone flakes and shatter resulting from wall

collapse is high, making it difficult to identify artifacts associated with lithic production.

Residents also used quartzite, which accounts for a large portion of the chipped stone

artifacts and the lithic assemblage as a whole (N=200; 44%; TABLE 7.4). As with the fine

grained volcanics, quartzite objects are predominantly flakes and non-diagnostic

fragments generated through lithic reduction. This suggests that at least some level of

lithic production or refinement was occurring."

" Other locally sourced materials include fine grained volcanics (primarily

andesite and basalt) and unidentified local rocks that were used for ground stone tools

(FIG. 7.1; see also FIG. 5.107a-b). The majority of these objects were made from rounded

river cobbles from the Tierras Blancas river. They were further modified and smoothed

during use as grinding or smoothing tools. Some were small river rocks repurposed as

polishers and other tools (N=17), while a small number were used as hammer stones

(N=1). As I mentioned above, a high quantity of ground stone tools were identified

throughout Cocahuischo, but only a small portion of them were collected and analyzed

(N=13; 3% of total lithic assemblage; TABLE 7.4). In the prehispanic Andes, grinding and

processing foodstuffs with ground stone tools involved two elements: (1) a large, flat

slab known as a batán that was used as the grinding surface, and (2) a rounded hand

stone known as a mano that did the grinding. The large batanes and manos that would

have been used for food preparation were documented and left in situ at the site (see

Chapter 5). Some of these batanes were over 1 m in diameter, making them largely

immobile. Only smaller ground stone tools and hammer stones recovered during

excavations were analyzed. These objects vary somewhat in size, from a maximum

length of 5.4 to 13.3 cm, although larger manos (ca. 20 cm) were recovered during

excavations. Also noted and left at the site were portable ground stone mortars, made of

a coarse pinkish stone that has been observed as cobbles in the river bed below

Cocahuischo (FIG. 7.2). These objects sometimes had small, deep cylindrical grinding

�306

surfaces that would have required a long and narrow mano or wooden or bone tool.

Others had more shallow grinding surfaces. "

" The only type of non-locally sourced lithic material at Cocahuischo is obsidian

(N=37; 9% of total lithic assemblage; TABLE 7.4). The obsidian is visually consistent with

the Quispisisa source in the central Andean highlands (Burger and Glascock 2000),

although on the south coast this is not always a reliable method of identification

(Vaughn and Glascock 2005). It is likely that obsidian recovered from the site came from

Quispisisa, particularly because of past geochemical analysis of a sample of Cocahuischo

obsidian (Eerkens et al. 2010). Obsidian artifacts recovered include flakes (N=6),

projectile points (N=21), bifaces (N=7), and non-diagnostic fragments (N=3; TABLES 7.4

& 7.5; FIG. 7.3 ). The majority of obsidian artifacts are finished tools, and all finished 1

chipped stone tools are made of obsidian. Obsidian flakes and non-diagnostic fragments

are only represented in small numbers (24% of obsidian assemblage). In contrast, there

are much higher rates of debitage related to the manufacture or maintenance of non-

obsidian lithic artifacts. Most non-obsidian chipped stone objects are flakes and non-

diagnostic fragments (84% of non-obsidian assemblage). This suggests that obsidian was

Figure 7.2. Ground stone mortar (Sector III).

See Appendix C for the full context information associated with each catalog number.1

�307

acquired in largely the same form that it was recovered in. There may have been limited

working of preforms and retouching of obsidian tools at Cocahuischo, but there is little

evidence for the kind of manufacture or maintenance that is associated with non-

obsidian lithic materials at the site. This is consistent with the pattern at only one site in

the Tierras Blancas Valley - Pataraya (Edwards 2010: 350). It contrasts with the pattern

Vaughn (2000: 411) observed at Marcaya, where the full sequence of obsidian reduction

Figure 7.3. Obsidian artifacts: (a) CO15, (b) CO56, (c) CO18, (d-e) CO27, (f) CO28, (g) CO29, (h) CO44, (i) CO33, (j-k) CO59, (l) CO79, (m) CO148, (n) CO27, (o) CO79, (p) CO57, (q) CO36, (r) CO54, (s-t) CO57, (u) CO18, (v) CO16, (w-x) CO31, (y) CO32, (z) CO52.

a b c d e f g h

i j k l m n

o p q r s t

u v w x y z CM

�308

Sector Structure Locus Artifact class Color Length (mm) Width (mm) Weight (g)I 17 009 non-diagnostic fragment grey - - 0.4I 32 101 projectile point black 39.1 19.0 3.6I 32 102 projectile point grey banded 19.2 16.9 1.8I 32 104 non-diagnostic fragment black - - 0.7I 32 104 projectile point black 34.4 17.6 3.3I 32 104 projectile point black 20.1 13.4 1.3II 88 204 flake grey 11.5 6.1 0.05II 88 204 flake black 18.3 8.2 0.3II 88 204 projectile point grey banded 32.2 17.0 2.8II 88 204 projectile point clear banded 40.1 24.5 4.8II 88 204 biface black 79.6 53.4 59.8II 88 205 flake clear banded 15.3 9.9 0.3II 88 205 projectile point black 42.4 19.7 4.9II 88 206 projectile point black orange 35.7 19.2 3.1II 88 208 projectile point black 17.1 12.8 1.2II 88 208 biface black 15.4 13.0 1.0II 88 208 biface black 23.4 14.6 3.2II 88 209 biface black 16.6 14.5 1.4II 88 210 projectile point black 47.3 19.2 4II 88 212 non-diagnostic fragment black - - 0.3II 88 213 projectile point black 26.8 15.3 1.6II 104 302 flake black 26.9 18.9 2.9II 104 304 projectile point black 29.9 17.3 2.3III 190 402 biface black orange 14.8 14.2 0.9III 190 404 projectile point grey 24.2 14.8 1.7III 190 406 projectile point black 32.2 16.4 3.2III 190 407 projectile point grey 18.5 14.2 1.7III 190 407 projectile point grey 23.1 12.9 1.2III 190 407 biface grey banded 26.7 19.1 3.5III 190 409 projectile point clear banded 42.5 22.8 6.2III 190 409 projectile point black 43.5 18.6 3.1III 203 603 projectile point grey banded 44.5 15.6 3.9III 203 603 projectile point grey 28.8 18.0 2.0III 203 606 flake black 15.3 8.1 0.3III 203 606 biface black 13.3 9.1 0.7III 246 503 flake clear 14.7 11.2 0.3V 293 904 projectile point black 36.0 17.3 2.9

Table 7.5. Obsidian artifacts.

�309

was present: cores, primary and secondary waste flakes, and finished tools. Unlike at

Cocahuischo and Pataraya, the obsidian at Marcaya was likely imported as nodules

rather than preforms or finished tools. A similar pattern was observed at Pajonal Alto in

the Taruga Valley, where raw material was imported rather than finished obsidian tools

(Conlee 2000: 237-239). Likewise, at La Puntilla (located where the Tierras Blancas and

Aja Valleys meet), much of the obsidian was flakes and cores (84%) rather than finished

tools (Van Gijseghem 2004: 292). Cocahuischo and Pataraya appear to be outliers in that

the residents of these sites were acquiring obsidian in its fully finished form rather than

as raw materials."

!!!7.1.3" Tool Types and Standardization"!

" The majority of obsidian tools are projectile points (75%; TABLE 7.5). The

percentage of obsidian projectile points is higher at Cocahuischo than at other sites in

the Nasca drainage, except La Puntilla. There, projectile points account for 84% of all

obsidian tools. As at Cocahuischo, most other tools (such as bifaces or scrapers) are

likely modified and repurposed projectile points (Van Gijseghem, personal

communication, 2013). In contrast, projectile points at Marcaya account for 59% of

obsidian tools (Vaughn 2000: table 7.5), and at Pajonal Alto, they only account for 4%

(Conlee 2000: table 6.2). Based on the data collected on the 18 intact obsidian projectile

points from Cocahuischo, Kasey Heiser completed an analysis of the standardization of

forms. The goal was to evaluate whether the artifacts recovered were produced by

specialists. Heiser used coefficients of variation (CV) to assess the degree of

standardization in obsidian projectile points and by inference, the presence of

specialized production (see Eerkens 2001; Van Pool 2002). A length/width ratio was

used as the unit of measure because later retouching and modification may have altered

points (thus obscuring possible standardization that resulted from craft specialization).

The total CV for the Cocahuischo projectile points is 16.93, which falls below Van Pool’s

(2002) threshold for specialization. This suggests the projectile points at Cocahuischo

were not produced by specialists."

�310

!!!7.1.4" Spatial Patterns of Lithic Artifacts"!

" The density of lithic artifacts throughout the houses varied. Larger and higher

status houses, such as Structures 88 and 190, have the highest densities (25% and 31% of

the total assemblage, respectively; TABLE 7.6). Smaller houses and the multi-crafting

building contained less lithic artifacts. Two structures have very low densities of lithic

artifacts, but this is likely due to the fact that one (Structure 246) was only a 1 x 2 m test

pit and the other (Structure 285) was not explicitly a house. As with pottery, there are

considerably more lithics in Sectors I-III than in Sector V. Only 15% of the total

assemblage was recovered from Sector V, but the difference likely reflects the quantity of

structures excavated rather than access to lithic artifacts. There is, however, less evidence

for lithic production activities. The average density of debitage in Sectors I-III (87% of

structure assemblages) is higher than the average density in Sector V (61%). Excluding

the two outlier structures (246 and 285) that had very low quantities of lithics, the

average density in Sectors I-III (85% of structure assemblages) is still high and that of

Sector V (48%) even lower. These data suggest that the residents of Sectors I-III engaged

in more lithic production activities than those in Sector V. As was discussed in Chapter 5,

they may also reflect differences in the social construction of space between the two

main residential zones of of the site."

" Stone tools were recovered from nearly every structure at Cocahuischo

(excluding Structures 17 and 246; TABLE 7.6). Yet there was variation in the type of tools

recovered. Spaces that were not explicitly houses (Structures 255 and 285) contained only

ground stone tools (manos and hammer stones). Other houses contained exclusively

chipped stone tools (Structures 32, 104, and 203). Only the two large, higher status

houses (Structures 88 and 190) and hypothesized specialized house (Structure 293)

contained both ground stone and chipped stone tools (although Structure 293 only

contained a single obsidian projectile point). Among chipped stone tools (which are

exclusively obsidian), projectile points are nearly absent from Sector V, yet are

distributed throughout almost all of the Sector I-III houses (TABLES 7.6 & 7.7). The

�311

Table 7.6. Spatial distribution of lithic artifact classes.

Sector Structure Artifact class Frequency% of artifact class

% of structure assemblage % of total

I17

Debitage 38 10.7 92.7 8.4Core 2 33.3 4.9 0.4Other 1 2.0 2.4 0.2

  Total 41 - 100 9.1

32Chipped stone tool 4 14.3 18.2 0.9

Projectile point 4 19.0 18.2 0.9Debitage 17 4.8 77.3 3.8Other 1 2.0 4.5 0.2

    Total 22 - 100 4.9

II88

Chipped stone tool 11 39.3 9.6 2.4Projectile point 7 33.3 6.1 1.6Biface 4 57.1 3.5 0.9

Ground stone tool 1 8.3 0.9 0.2Debitage 92 25.9 80.7 20.4Other 10 20.4 8.8 2.2

  Total 114 - 100 25.3

104Chipped stone tool 1 3.6 3.2 0.2

Projectile point 1 4.8 3.2 0.2Debitage 29 8.2 93.5 6.4Other 1 2.0 3.2 0.2

    Total 31 - 100 6.9

III

190Chipped stone tool 8 28.6 5.7 1.8

Projectile point 6 28.6 4.3 1.3Biface 2 28.6 1.4 0.4

Ground stone tool 1 8.3 0.7 0.2Debitage 115 32.4 82.1 25.6Core 1 16.7 0.7 0.2Other 15 30.6 10.7 3.3

  Total 140 - 100 31.1

203

Chipped stone tool 3 10.7 10.7 0.7Projectile point 2 9.5 7.1 0.4Biface 1 14.3 3.6 0.2

Debitage 23 6.5 82.1 5.1Core 1 16.7 3.6 0.2Other 1 2.0 3.6 0.2

  Total 28 - 100 6.2

246Debitage 5 1.4 100.0 1.1

Total 5 - 100 1.1

�312

Table 7.6. Continued.

Table 7.7. Spatial distribution of obsidian artifacts.

Sector Structure Artifact class Frequency% of artifact class

% of structure assemblage % of total

V255

Ground stone tool 4 33.3 13.8 0.9Debitage 13 3.7 44.8 2.9Core 1 16.7 3.4 0.2Other 11 22.4 37.9 2.4

  Total 29 - 100 6.4

285Ground stone tool 1 8.3 14.3 0.2Debitage 6 1.7 85.7 1.3

Total 7 - 100 1.6

293Chipped stone tool 1 3.6 3.0 0.2

Projectile point 1 4.8 3.0 0.2Ground stone tool 5 41.7 15.2 1.1Debitage 17 4.8 51.5 3.8Core 1 16.7 3.0 0.2Other 9 18.4 27.3 2.0

    Total 33 - 100 7.3

Sector Structure Frequency % of sector % of total

I 17 1 16.7 2.732 5 83.3 13.5

  Total 6 100 16.2

II 88 15 88.2 40.6104 2 11.8 5.4

  Total 17 100 46.0

III 190 8 61.5 21.6203 4 30.8 10.8246 1 7.7 2.7

  Total 13 100 35.1

V 255 0 0 0285 0 0 0293 1 100 2.7

  Total 1 100 2.7

�313

Table 7.8. Spatial distribution of lithic material types.

Sector Structure Material type Frequency% of material type

% of structure assemblage

% of total

I17

Obsidian 1 2.6 2.4 0.2Quartzite 30 15.1 73.2 6.7Fine grained volcanics 9 5.6 22.0 2.0Fine grained siliceous 1 6.7 2.4 0.2

  Total 41 - 100 9.1

32Obsidian 5 13.2 22.7 1.1Quartzite 10 5.0 45.5 2.2Quartz 1 6.7 4.5 0.2Fine grained volcanics 6 3.8 27.3 1.3

    Total 22 - 100 4.9

II88

Obsidian 15 39.5 13.2 3.3Quartzite 40 20.1 35.1 8.9Quartz 3 20.0 2.6 0.7Fine grained volcanics 46 28.8 40.4 10.2Fine grained siliceous 3 20.0 2.6 0.7Other 7 31.8 6.1 1.6

  Total 114 - 100 25.3

104Obsidian 2 5.3 6.5 0.4Quartzite 16 8.0 51.6 3.6Fine grained volcanics 11 6.9 35.5 2.4Fine grained siliceous 1 6.7 3.2 0.2Other 1 4.5 3.2 0.2

    Total 31 - 100 6.9

III 190Obsidian 8 21.1 5.7 1.8Quartzite 51 25.6 36.4 11.3Fine grained volcanics 69 43.1 49.3 15.3Fine grained siliceous 6 40.0 4.3 1.3Other 6 27.3 4.3 1.3

  Total 140 - 100 31.1

203Obsidian 4 10.5 14.3 0.9Quartzite 16 8.0 57.1 3.6Fine grained volcanics 7 4.4 25.0 1.6Fine grained siliceous 1 6.7 3.6 0.2

  Total 28 - 100 6.2

246Obsidian 1 2.6 20.0 0.2Quartzite 2 1.0 40.0 0.4Fine grained volcanics 1 0.6 20.0 0.2Other 1 4.5 20.0 0.2

    Total 5 - 100 1.1

�314

highest quantities of chipped stone tools - both projectile points and bifaces - again come

from the two large, higher status houses (Structures 88 and 190, which contained 39%

and 29% of the chipped stone tool assemblage, respectively). In contrast, the majority

(83%) of ground stone tools were recovered from Sector V. Again, this likely reflects the

presence of the multi-crafting building (Structure 255), the hypothesized specialized

house (Structure 293), and the building that was not explicitly domestic (Structure 285)."

" As was mentioned above, obsidian - the only material used for chipped stone

tools - was nearly absent from Sector V. Only a single projectile point was recovered

(TABLES 7.7 & 7.8). This was unexpected and again suggests significant differences

between the primary residential zones of Cocahuischo. The obsidian present in Sectors I-

III was concentrated (61%) in the two higher status houses (Structures 88 and 190).

Quartzite, the most ubiquitous lithic material recovered, was also found primarily in

Sectors I-III (83%). Yet as TABLE 7.8 illustrates, quartzite was recovered in all three of the

Table 7.8. Continued.

Sector Structure Material type Frequency% of material type

% of structure assemblage

% of total

V255

Quartzite 12 6.0 41.4 2.7Quartz 9 60.0 31.0 2.0Fine grained volcanics 5 3.1 17.2 1.1Fine grained siliceous 3 20.0 10.3 0.7

  Total 29 - 100 6.4

285Quartzite 2 1.0 28.6 0.4Quartz 2 13.3 28.6 0.4Fine grained volcanics 2 1.3 28.6 0.4Other 1 4.5 14.3 0.2

  Total 7 - 100 1.6

293Obsidian 1 2.6 3.0 0.2Chalcedony 1 100.0 3.0 0.2Quartzite 21 10.6 63.6 4.7Fine grained volcanics 4 2.5 12.1 0.9Other 6 27.3 18.2 1.3

    Total 33 - 100 7.3

�315

excavated structures in Sector V in at least small numbers. In contrast to quartzite, the

majority of quartz artifacts (73%) were recovered from Sector V. The multi-crafting

building (Structure 255), which contained 6% of the total lithic assemblage, had 60% of

the recovered quartz. Additionally, while the same diversity of lithic material types is

present in Sector V as in Sectors I-III, most lithic artifacts in Sector V are quartzite,

quartz, and fine grained volcanics used as ground stone tools (83%; TABLES 7.6 & 7.8)."

!!!7.2" Faunal Remains"!

" Faunal remains include animal bone and shell, which were recovered from every

structure excavated. Despite their ubiquity, faunal remains only account for a small

portion of the total artifact assemblage (4% by weight; TABLE 7.1). Due to the

preservation present at the site, both animal bone and shell were highly fragmentary.

While bones could be exposed and photographed intact, their extraction from excavation

contexts often led to fragmentation. In some contexts, animal bones were burned,

rendering better preservation. Shell remains were better preserved and the assemblage

does include a handful of intact bivalves and gastropods. Analysis and identification of

the entire faunal assemblages is still pending, but preliminary results will be presented

here."

!!!7.2.1" Animal Bone"!

" Like lithics, animal bone only represents a small portion of the material

recovered from Cocahuischo by weight (2.4% of total assemblage; 3.42 kg). The animals

represented include large and small mammals, and possibly birds. Given the presence of

projectile points adequate for hunting, the animal bone assemblage likely includes both

wild and domesticated animals. While species have not yet been identified, the large

mammals no doubt include camelid and cervid, and small mammals were probably

foxes and rodents such as cuy. Body parts represented include long bones, vertebrae,

�316

ribs, foot bones, and cranial fragments. These data suggest that overall, whole animals

were present, not just choice cuts. Based on preliminary analysis, however, there is

differential access to body parts (and by inference, meat packages) with certain types of

animals. Large mammals such as camelids appear to be the most prevalent animals in

the Cocahuischo faunal assemblage, yet there is presently evidence only for elements of

legs (e.g. long bones, foot bones, and scapulae or pelvises) and vertebrae and ribs

(TABLE 7.9). One possible tooth fragment was recovered, as were small bones which

may be part of the inner ear. Beyond that, mandibles and cranial fragments are found

only for small mammals. Preliminary data also suggests that some houses may have had

access to predominantly one type of meat package over another. In the non-residential

building, for instance, the animal bone assemblage suggests access to legs and torsos,

whereas in Structure 88 it suggests access to leg and rib cuts. Further analysis will of

course be necessary to verify these preliminary observations. Additionally, in some

Table 7.9. Distribution of animal bone types based on preliminary observations.

Animal type Body part Sector

Large mammalVertebrae II-III & VRibs I-III & VPelvis II-IIILeg bones I-III & V

  Foot bones I-III & V

Small mammal

Vertebrae II-IIIRibs I-IIIScapulae II-IIILeg bones I-III & VPelvis II-III & VMandibles II-III

  Cranial fragments II-III

Bird Miscellaneous II-III

�317

structures (such as 17, 88, 190, 203, and 255), there were burned bones (particularly large

mammal). "

!!!7.2.2" Shell"!

" Despite their inland location, marine shell is often common at Nasca settlements

(e.g. Edwards 2010: 375; Van Gijseghem 2004: 298; Vaughn 2000: 464). Archaeological

and isotopic evidence suggests that at least some Nasca people were consuming marine

organisms (Kellner and Schoeninger 2012), and using it for personal adornments and

tools. The presence of the shells themselves also indicates that people were acquiring

marine bivalves in their complete form, rather than simply as dried meat. The

malacological material recovered from Cocahuischo was encountered in every structure

excavated, but only accounts for a small portion of the Cocahuischo assemblage by

weight (2.25%; 1.079 kg). The taxa represented at Cocahuischo are diverse and include

Mytilidae (mussels), Pectinidae (scallops), Acmaeidae (limpets), Spondylus (thorny

oyster), a number of unidentified marine and freshwater bivalves, Trochidae (sea snail),

unidentified gastropods, land snails, and crab (FIG. 7.4). Species represented include

Chorro mytilus, Perumytilus purpurata, Aulacomya ater, and possibly others. Preliminary

observations suggest that mussels are the most common taxa. Smoothing present on the

edges of some of the larger mussels suggests that they may have been used as ladles or

spoons (see Van Gijseghem 2004: 298)."

!!!7.3" Botanical Remains"!

" The preservation of organic material is typically excellent in an arid environment

and a variety of botanical remains have been recovered from Nasca sites (e.g. Conlee

2000: table 7.1; Cook and Parrish 2005; Silverman 1993: tables 20.1-20.3; Van Gijseghem

2004: 294-295). These include comestibles such as maize, beans, squash, tubers, and

fruits; industrial plants such as cotton and gourd; coca leaves; and plants used for

�318

construction materials. Like Marcaya, however, Cocahuischo lacks the level of

preservation encountered at lower elevation sites, where soils are less humid. Some

botanical remains were recovered, but most were fragmentary. The most common

botanical material was a variety of seeds (TABLE 7.10). Also present were comestibles

such as maize, peanut, squash, and lucuma, and mate or bottle gourd, which may have

been used for storage. These items were only encountered in very small numbers,

however, due to preservation conditions. In contexts with hearths or fires (such as the

non-residential production facility), greater numbers of botanicals were recovered since

Figure 7.4. Shell artifacts: (a) Acmaeidae, (b) Mytilidae, (c) Pectinidae, (d) crab, (e) Sea snails, and (f) unidentified marine bivalve with barnacles.

CM

a

CM

b

CM

f

CM

CM

c

d

e

�319

burned remains preserve better. In all likelihood, residents were consuming a more

diverse plant resource base and using a variety of industrial plants (such as cotton).

Future botanical and pollen analysis of soil samples taken from each context will help

elucidate the botanical resources being exploited."

!!!7.4" Textiles"!

" The state of preservation for the botanical material mirrors that of textiles. Only

four very small fragments of textile were encountered. Of these, only one fragment was

large enough for analysis conducted by Sarah Kerchusky in 2012. Kerchusky examined

the textile with the unaided eye and a DinoXcope handheld microscope at 208x

magnification. The textile is a 1.8 x 0.7 cm fragment of a warp-face plain weave textile

(FIG. 7.5). The fibers appear to be camelid wool, although the magnification possible

with the DinoXcope was not adequate to verify the specimen. The wool is undecorated

and was not dyed. Based on Kerchusky’s analysis, the weaving style of this textile was

very common throughout prehispanic Peru and was produced on a back-strap loom. "

!" "

Table 7.10. Botanical remains recovered from Cocahuischo.

Latin Name Common Name Economic Use Likely Origin Frequency % of Total

Zea mays Maize Food, fodder, fuel Local 2 3.5Arachis hypogea Peanut Food Local 1 1.8Lagenaria ciceraria Mate (bottle gourd) Food, storage Local 2 3.5Cucurbita sp. Squash Food Local 1 1.8Lucuma bifera Lucuma Food Local 7 12.3Unknown Unidentified seed Food - 19 33.3Unknown Wood Construction material or

tool- 1 1.8

Unknown Unidentified plant - - 25 43.9

�320

!7.5" Tools, Toys, and Adornments"!

" In addition to the aforementioned food remains and textiles, tools, toys, and

adornments made of stone, bone, shell, metal, unidentified mineral, and baked clay were

recovered from Cocahuischo (TABLE 7.11). I consider these artifacts separately from

lithics, bone, and shell because of their modified nature. Such objects were not found in

great numbers (only 0.08% of the total assemblage by weight; TABLE 7.1), but were

recovered in multiple houses. Lithic artifacts include perforated stone pendants (FIG.

7.6b) and small stone discs or ‘tokens’ (FIG. 7.6h). These ‘tokens’ are of an unknown

purpose and are not mentioned elsewhere in the Nasca literature. Given their size and

shape, I hypothesize they may have been used in some sort of game. Bone artifacts

consist predominantly of worked tools (88%), likely used in textile and ceramic

production, and a single bone pendant (FIG. 7.6d, f). Shell artifacts are either pendants

and beads (69%) or worked tools (31%), again probably used for textile production (FIG.

7.6a, e, i). Shell pendants and beads were made of a variety of genera, including

Figure 7.5. Photograph of warp-face plain weave textile (taken with a DinoXcope handheld microscope at 208x).

�321

Spondylus (thorny oyster), Acmaeidae (or limpets) and sea snails. Baked or poorly fired

clay artifacts include the box-shaped molds discussed in Chapter 5 (see FIG. 5.107).

Pendants & beads and discs or ‘tokens’ were also recovered that were made of an

unknown mineral or stone that is white, chalky, and easily fragmented (FIG. 7.6c). The

tokens are of variable size - some similar to the stone ‘tokens,’ while others are slightly

larger. At present, the exact nature and origin the material these artifacts are made of is

unknown and will require further analysis."

" The only metal recovered from Cocahuischo was in the form of fragmented

copper/bronze tupu pins (FIG. 7.6g). These objects would have been used to secure

shawls or other clothing. While small metal fragments have been documented at some

Nasca sites (e.g. Conlee 2000: 253; Edwards 2010: 376, fig. 135), they are not common and

Table 7.11. Tools, toys, and adornments by material type, artifact class, and sector.

Material type Artifact class Count% of material type

% of artifact class % of total Sectors

Animal bone Pendants & beads 1 12.5 5.9 1.1 IWorked tools 7 87.5 63.6 7.6 I-III

  Total 8 100 - 8.7 -

Shell Pendants & beads 9 69.2 52.9 9.8 II-IIIWorked tools 4 30.8 36.4 4.3 II-III

  Total 13 100 - 14.1 -

Stone Pendants & beads 4 66.7 23.5 4.3 I-II, & VDiscs or 'tokens' 2 33.3 16.7 2.2 II

  Total 6 100 - 6.5 -

MetalTupu pins 3 100 100 3.3 II-III

Total 3 100 - 3.3 -

Unknown mineral

Pendants & beads 3 23.1 17.6 3.3 I & IIIDiscs or 'tokens' 10 76.9 83.3 10.9 III

Total 13 100 - 14.1 -

Baked clayMolds 49 100.0 100 53.3 V

Total 49 100 - 53.3 -

�322

known contexts do not date to the Early Intermediate Period (EIP). Carmichael (1988:

305) found few metal artifacts in his extensive analysis of Nasca mortuary practices and

observed that metal is rare in Nasca graves and Nasca society, as well. What copper

Carmichael did encounter was associated with mid-status Early Nasca burials, while

gold was associated with high status Proto and Early Nasca burials. Indeed, Edwards

CM

a

CM CM

b

CM

c

d

CM

e

g

CM CM

h

f

i

CM

CM

Figure 7.6. Tools, toys, and adornments from 2010 and 2012 excavations: (a) shell pendants and beads, (b) stone pendants, (c) unidentified mineral pendants, (d) bone pendant, (e) Spondylus pendants, (f) worked bone tools, (g) copper/bronze tupu pins, (g) stone discs or ‘tokens,’ and (i) worked shell tools.

�323

(2010: 377) notes that the use of bronze alloys may have been a distinctive trait

associated with Wari metal working during the Middle Horizon (MH). Reindel and

colleagues (2013: 304) also note the presence of high quantities of copper objects and

tupus in Wari tombs in the Northern Nasca Region (NNR)."

!!!7.5.1" Spatial Patterns of Tools, Toys, and Adornments"!

" While these artifacts were found in multiple buildings, they were concentrated

both in Sectors I-III and in the two higher status houses (Structures 88 and 190; TABLE

7.12). Bone and shell tools and adornments are completely absent from Sector V, as are

discs or ‘tokens’ (TABLE 7.11). The only type of artifacts recovered were unbaked clay

molds and a single small stone pendant in the multi-crafting building (Structure 255;

TABLE 7.12). Excluding these baked or poorly fired clay molds, tools, toys and

adornments were found almost exclusively in Sectors I-III (98% of total assemblage).

Indeed, without the molds, Structure 88 contains 40% of all the tools, toys, and

adornments recovered from the site and Structure 190 contains 35%. Structure 88 in

particular contained high quantities of adornments (47%) and worked tools (46%), while

Structure 190 had the highest quantities of the unknown mineral discs or ‘tokens’ (83%).

Structure 88 also contained one of the two Spondylus pendants. The spatial distribution

of these artifacts throughout the two primary residential zones of the site again

highlights the clear differences between these areas in the use of space."

!!!7.6" Minerals"!

" In addition to the aforementioned materials, a number of minerals were

recovered from excavations throughout the site. Possible fragments of hematite, chunks

of unknown purple, grey, and brown minerals, and pieces of chalk were encountered.

While the uses of these other minerals remain unknown, chalk may have been utilized in

a number of activities, including textile production and as an additive in chewed coca

�324

leaves. A total of 61 g of chalk were recovered from Cocahuischo. The chalk was found

in nearly every structure excavated, except for Structures 104 and 285, and the multi-

crafting building (Structure 255). In Sectors I-III, chalk was generally found in small

pieces (avg. 3 g) and each house contained a small sample. Yet in Sector V, chalk was

only recovered from Structure 293, the fragments were much larger (avg. 18 g), and the

structure contained the majority of chalk recovered (35 g; 58% of total assemblage). It is

Table 7.12. Tools, toys, and adornments by sector and structure.

Sector Structure Artifact Class Count% of artifact class % of total

I17

Pendants & beads 2 11.8 2.2

Total 2 - 2.2

32 Pendants & beads 2 11.8 2.2Worked tools 1 9.1 1.1

    Total 3 - 3.3

II 88Pendants & beads 8 47.1 8.7Worked tools 5 45.5 5.4Discs or 'tokens' 2 16.7 2.2Tupu pins 2 66.7 2.2

  Total 17 - 18.5

104Pendants & beads 1 5.9 1.1

  Total 1 - 1.1

III 190Pendants & beads 2 11.8 2.2Worked tools 2 18.2 2.2Discs or 'tokens' 10 83.3 10.9Tupu pins 1 33.3 1.1

  Total 15 - 16.3

203Worked tools 3 27.3 3.3

Total 3 - 3.3

Unit 2Pendants & beads 1 5.9 1.1

  Total 1 - 1.1

V 255 Pendants & beads 1 5.9 1.1Molds 49 100 53.3

    Total 50 - 54.3

�325

possible that chalk was used to aid in spinning during textile production or was related

to coca chewing. The presence of high quantities of chalk in a specialized house

associated with suprahousehold production activities in Sector V suggests that textile

manufacture is more likely."

!!" "

7.7" Human Skeletal Remains"!" A sample of burials were excavated from the isolated cemetery in Sector IV and

from a subterranean house tomb in Sector III. The 10 individuals were examined by

bioarchaeologist Corina M. Kellner as part of the Cocahuischo project in 2010-2012. Here

I present a brief summation of Kellner’s analyses, which include osteological and

isotopic analysis of the individuals. "

!!!7.7.1" Osteological Analysis"!

! The majority of Cocahuischo burials are female (70%; TABLES 5.9 & 7.14). The

only males are the individual buried beneath the house floor in Sector III and the Sector

IV headless burial. Most of the individuals buried are young to middle aged adults

ranging from 23-44 years of age. The two males (aged 23-30 and 28-38 years) are younger

overall than the females (youngest 23-26 years, oldest 35-50 years). One child was

encountered, buried atop an adult burial in Sector IV. Eight individuals exhibit

anteroposterior cranial vault modification, which is the typical Late Nasca form of

cranial modification (Kellner 2002: 101). Two individuals did not have enough

information for a determination of modification."

" In terms of health, there are moderate rates of dental disease and arthritis. The

most common pathological lesions in this sample are antemortem tooth loss and carious

lesions, followed by osteoarthritis (TABLE 7.13). Osteoarthritis of the lower limbs is

common, with three females exhibiting slight lipping around the articular surfaces in

parts of the femur, tibia, hip, and vertebrae. This slight lipping may be due to walking

�326

and climbing on uneven rocky ground, but current studies of osteoarthritis show that it

is multifactorial, with older age being a common factor. The subadult did not exhibit any

pathological lesions, and four of the females have antemortem tooth loss along with

carious lesions. In the Cocahuischo population, this tooth pathology may be due to a

diet heavy in sticky carbohydrates, such as maize. Considering the advanced age of

many individuals, such prevalence of dental disease and arthritis is to be expected. Rates

of trauma were low (10%), with only one adult female exhibiting a healed hand fracture

of a phalanx paired with vertebral and sacral sponylolysis. A second female has a

Schmorl’s node on a thoracic vertebrae. In all likelihood, these injuries were caused by

the exertion of lifting, twisting, and walking with large bundles over uneven rocky

terrain. The small sample size (N=10) means that these observations would be

strengthened by future analysis of additional individuals."

!!!!!

Tomb Age (years)

Sex Cranial modification

Arthritis Osteo- periostitis

Cribra orbitali

a

Antemortem tooth loss

Caries Tooth wear

Fractures

1 28-38 Male Tabular erect Tibia & cuboid - - X X - -2 35-44 Female Tabular erect - - - X - - -

3 30-39 Female Tabular erect Vertebrae & femur

- - X - - Hand

4.1 35-50 Female - - - - - - X -

4.210 ± 30 months - Tabular erect - - - - - - -

5 30-39 Female Tabular erect Pelvis & radius Fibula - - - - -6 23-26 Female Tabular erect - Fibula - X - - -7 23-30 Male (headless) Clavicle & foot - - - - - -8 25-29 Female Tabular erect - - X - - - -

9 25-40 Female Tabular erect - - - X - - -

Table 7.13. Human skeletal remains from Cocahuischo (analysis by C. M. Kellner).

�327

7.7.2" Isotopic Analysis"!" Of the 10 individuals examined by Kellner, isotopic analysis was conducted for 9

of them. Assuming an individual had limited mobility during their life, strontium

isotopes can serve as a geochemical signature, since strontium (absorbed into the

skeleton through soils and the food chain) from eroding geologic materials replaces

calcium in skeletal tissue (Bentley 2006: 136). Kellner tested the teeth of eight individuals

and the bone of the headless individual for strontium isotopes. Strontium signatures of

the Nasca and Ayacucho regions are different, albeit overlapping (based on established

faunal baselines), and thus can be used to infer migration and the origins of migrants

(Conlee et al. 2009; Kellner et al. 2011; Knudson et al. 2009; Tung and Knudson 2011).

Strontium isotope analysis of the Cocahuischo individuals, however, provides no

Figure 7.8. Results of strontium isotope analysis of 9 Cocahuischo individuals (figure produced by C. M. Kellner, based on data from Conlee et al. 2009; Kellner et al. 2011; Knudson et al. 2009; Tung and Knudson 2011).

�328

evidence for foreign individuals (FIG. 7.8). Based on all the extant Nasca drainage

strontium isotope values (mapped by Kellner), the Cocahuischo individuals are found

within the range of isotope values for other Nasca individuals from the various valleys

in the Nasca drainage. Importantly, none of the Cocahuischo individuals fall within the

Conchopata faunal baseline, which would indicate migration from the Ayacucho area. In

fact, no Cocahuischo individuals fall outside the Nasca faunal baseline, indicating that

they are locals. In the later MH, there are some individuals buried at Pataraya that may

have been migrants from Ayacucho (while others were locals). MH individuals from the

Nasca, Taruga, and Palpa Valleys were also likely migrants, but their strontium isotope

values are too high for the Ayacucho region. Undated Nasca “trophy” head individuals

buried at Cahuachi and Cantayo were also migrants to the Nasca region and not from

Ayacucho (see FIG. 7.8)."

!!!7.8" Discussion"!

7.8.1" Food, Drink, and Craft Production"!" Research on the south coast suggests that earlier Nasca households were

economically self-sufficient. People produced and consumed food, drink, textiles, and

lithics at the household level (Van Gijseghem 2004; Vaughn 2000; Vaughn and Linares

Grados 2006). The primary exception is pottery. Thus far, no clear evidence of ceramic

production has been identified at a Nasca residential site, even though pottery is

ubiquitous. Later settlements - such as MH Casa Vieja in the NNR or Maymi in the Pisco

Valley - have documented evidence of ceramic production activities. Evidence may

likely exists at Cahuachi (Bachir Bacha 2007; Orefici 2012) and Vaughn has argued that

some Early Nasca polychrome pottery was produced there and distributed to visiting

pilgrims (Vaughn and Neff 2000, 2004). Another exception is metal. There is presently

little data on metallurgy in Nasca. Metal artifacts have been recovered from graves and

ceremonial contexts (e.g. Orefici 2012: figs. 16-17; Reindel et al. 2013: fig. 14.7), yet the

locales of their production remain largely unknown. Such activities may have been

�329

household-based or objects may have been produced at a regional level and distributed

through trade, gifting, and exchange."

!!!7.8.1.1" Household Production Activities" !" The data from Cocahuischo are largely congruent with other Nasca residential

sites. Evidence for food preparation, lithic production, ceramic production, and weaving

were all encountered in domestic contexts (TABLE 7.14). Based on artifact assemblages

and features, it appears that residents were producing and consuming food at the

household level. As at Marcaya, Uchuchuma, and La Puntilla, patio groups contain

hearths, grinding tools, cooking pots, storage jars, serving vessels and foodstuffs

(Vaughn 2000: 259; Vaughn and Linares Grados 2006: 601). Residents consumed wild

and domesticated animals, freshwater and marine mollusks, and plant resources such as

maize, squash, peanut, and lucuma. These resources would have been acquired locally

or through trade, and were prepared and served the household level. Foods may have

been prepared by cooking stews, although roasting and toasting may have been

common, as Hastorf and Johannessen (1993: 123) observed for the Mantaro Valley."

" Like Vaughn (2009: table 6.2) encountered at Marcaya, the majority of pottery

used by households was serving vessels (see TABLE 6.4). While Vaughn encountered a

mixture of bowls (57%) and vases (27%) among the serving assemblage at Marcaya, at

Cocahuischo, nearly all serving vessels (96%) are bowls. There appears to be a change

between Early and Late Nasca in the dominant vessel forms people used to serve and

consume food and drink. "

" Based on preliminary analysis of faunal remains, it appears there may have been

some differential access to animal resources or meat packages. All houses consumed

some level of animal and mollusk resources (TABLE 7.14). Given the proximity of the

corral mentioned in Chapter 5, it seems likely that some residents were also involved in

the herding of camelids. Other meat no doubt came from wild resources such as cervid,

foxes, and cuy. Along with hunting, residents acquired marine and freshwater mollusks,

coming from the coast. The presence of some shell indicates that people were acquiring

�330

not just dried meat, but in some cases the shells. The distribution of marine resources

indicates that all houses had access, yet the diversity of resources in some of the higher

status patio groups suggests some residents consumed a greater variety of foods."

Table 7.14. Features and artifacts associated with food, drink, and craft production in the excavated structures.

Features & Artifacts 17 32 88 104 190 203 285 293 255

Subsistence Activities

Faunal remains X X X X X X X X X

Comestibles X X XCooking pots X X X X X XStorage jars X X X X X X X X XStorage lids X XServing vessels X X X X X X X X XGrinding tools X X X XHearths X X XObjects for controlling fire X

Pot supports X

Domestic Production Activities

Weaving tools X X X X

Spindle whorls X XChalk X X X X X XPolishing stones X XBone scrapers X X XCeramic disks X X X X X XMortars X

Lithic debitage X X X X X X X X

House Features

Storage pits

Benches X X

Prepared floors X X

Adornments & Exotica

Pendants & beads X X X X X

Tupu pins X X

Obsidian knives & points X X X X X X

Metal Working

Hammer stones X

Furnace possibleIngot molds X

Slag lumps possible

�331

" Ceramic production likely occurred away from the residential portion of the site

at the valley bottom. Resources such as fuel would have been more readily available,

and production sites may have consisted of ephemeral firing pits that have been erased

by the expanding river and modern cultivation. Yet within a number of houses, objects

and tools associated with ceramic production activities have been identified. These

include polishing stones, bone scrapers, ceramic disks or polishers, and possibly the

small mortars discussed above (see FIG. 7.2; TABLE 7.14). While the small mortars may

have been multi-purpose, they are very similar in size and form to mortars from

Conchopata that Wolff (2012: fig. 68) argues were used for processing clay, pigment, and

temper. The bone scrapers are similar in shape to tools associated with textile

production. Some are smaller and have a matte, weathered appearance, however, which

Wolff identifies as characteristic of tools used for clay rather than working fibers, based

on ethnoarchaeological comparison (2012: 163-170). Some of the ceramic polishers or

disks I discussed in Chapter 6 may have been spindle whorl blanks. Yet the size of others

and their similarity to disks from Conchopata makes it likely they were used in ceramic

production (Wolff 2012: 148-149). Stone polishers are more clear evidence for ceramic

production. These objects would have been used to burnish the surface of finely

polished Nasca polychrome pottery."

" Evidence for lithic production or retouching of lithic artifacts was more

widespread and was found in all the excavated houses (TABLE 7.14). The residents of

Sectors I-III engaged in more lithic production activities than those in Sector V. This is

likely a result of differences in the social construction of space between the two main

residential zones. Most residents seem to have manufactured and modified lithic tools

on a regular basis, no doubt making expedient tools out of the local stone. The one

exception is obsidian artifacts. While obsidian was recovered from seven houses (see

TABLE 7.5), there was little evidence for obsidian tool production or retouching. A

smaller portion of the obsidian assemblage (24%) consists of debitage related to

manufacture or maintenance than the non-obsidian assemblage (84%). It appears that

obsidian arrived at Cocahuischo in largely intact form. Alternatively, some obsidian may

have been worked by households that have yet to be excavated. Of note, this pattern is

�332

consistent with only one other site in the Tierras Blancas Valley - Pataraya (Edwards

2010: 350). It contrasts with the lithic assemblages recovered from La Puntilla and

Marcaya. It is surprising that Cocahuischo residents acquired obsidian artifacts in a

manner reminiscent of the latter Wari outpost rather than Formative and Early Nasca

villages. It may be that Huarpa people in Ayacucho were already exerting influence over

the Quispisisa obsidian source, resulting in the distribution of not just preforms, but

already worked artifacts to llama caravans for trade."

" Evidence of textile production was less widespread at Cocahuischo. While chalk

was recovered in many houses, weaving implements - including spindle whorls and

shell and bone tools - were only recovered in five houses (TABLE 7.14). Textiles

themselves were rare, likely due to preservation. The tools recovered provide evidence

for both spinning and weaving activities in some households. Based on other Nasca

settlements, higher levels of household weaving were anticipated. Vaughn found that

nearly all households at Marcaya participated in at least weaving (2000: 423) and

Edwards and colleagues also found high levels of weaving activities at Pataraya

(Edwards et al. 2008). Yet at Cocahuischo, only some houses participated in textile

production. Residents also repurposed ceramic objects as spindle whorls, rather than

producing specially made objects. Overall, these data contrast with patterns of

household-based weaving at other Nasca settlements and suggests textile production

was not completely household-based at Cocahuischo. Alternatively, spinning and

weaving may have been conducted principally within patios, leaving little signature in

house contexts. "2

" There is presently no evidence for metal working within households. As I discuss

below, metallurgy appears to have occurred within a multi-crafting patio group used for

suprahousehold food and drink production. Within houses, however, there is no

evidence for production activities. A handful of metal artifacts - copper tupu pins and a

possible pectoral - were recovered, yet metal artifacts are relatively rare in Nasca graves

and settlements. Many known contexts with copper or bronze alloys are associated with

Of the patios where text units were placed in 2010, however, few contained evidence of textile 2

production activities. Only one spindle whorl was recovered from 8m2 of excavations.

�333

Wari or local metal working during the MH (e.g. Edwards 2010: 376-377, fig. 135;

Reindel et al. 2013: 304). In EIP Nasca mortuary contexts, copper and gold are associated

with high status individuals and most date to Early or Middle Nasca (e.g. Carmichael

1988: 305; Isla Cuadrado 2009). Metal working within Late Nasca society may have been

a somewhat specialized activity, associated with particular households or individuals. It

may be unlikely that all the households who consumed metal artifacts were also

producing them. The same may be true of the pendants and beads that were recovered

from a number of houses. These objects may have been made by the people who wore

them, but it is equally as likely that they were made by specialized households or

individual artisans. "

!!!7.8.1.2" Supra-Household Production Activities"!" One of the excavated structures appears to be a multi-crafting building. Structure

255 was anticipated to be a very high status household based on architecture and its

placement within the settlement. Yet it was not a typical habitation. It was the locale of

suprahousehold food, drink, and craft production activities (Whalen and González La

Rosa in press). The size of hearth areas and artifact assemblages all point to production

beyond the typical household level. Artifacts include very high densities of coarseware

cooking and storage jars, coarseware serving bowls, fineware serving bowls, faunal

remains and comestibles, grinding tools, flat ceramic slabs for controlling fires, and stone

pot supports (TABLE 7.14). The form and size of coarseware cooking and storage jars

and fineware serving bowls are distinct from domestic wares, suggesting large-scale

production. Similar contexts have been identified by Moore (1981, 1989, 2006), Moseley

and colleagues (2005), Nash (2010), and Shimada (1978) in residential and non-

residential Andean spaces. Within Structure 255, residents were preparing raw

foodstuffs, cooking and preparing dishes for serving, storing foodstuffs, and cooking

and fermenting chicha beer. These activities occurred at a scale unparalleled in domestic

contexts."

�334

" In Sector V, the largest habitations (all circular) are clustered toward the upper

center of the site, near the multi-crafting building. While large habitations are found in

the other areas of Sector V as well, they are typically rectangular rather than circular,

pointing to differences in the social construction of space between the two major zones

of Cocahuischo. These differences may be linked to commensal politics and the types of

food, drink, and craft production that occurred in Structure 255. Some of the larger patio

groups might represent the extended kin groups that initially founded Cocahuischo.

These kin groups may eventually became involved with suprahousehold food, drink,

and craft production activities. The proximity of these large houses to Structure 255

suggests that these spaces were linked, as does the fact that one of these houses lacks a

communal patio area."

" Elsewhere in Sector V are patio groups with upwards of 8-9 structures

agglutinated around a communal patio or terrace area. These large compounds illustrate

a social organization distinct from the households in Sectors I-III. This organization was

likely intertwined with suprahousehold production activities. Unlike in Sectors I-III,

grinding tools used for raw food processing are centralized near these large patio group

complexes. Residents of these households may have been involved in somewhat

specialized production of raw foodstuffs - such as maize - en masse for the multi-

crafting building or the sector as a whole. "

" Structure 255 was also used for metal working. A small copper mine (Mina

Pataraya) is located 360m from Structure 255 in the hillside above Cocahuischo (Eerkens

et al. 2009: 743). Along with the aforementioned artifacts, baked clay casting molds,

grinding and hammer stones, and highly porous burned material (possibly a fragment

of a furnace wall) were recovered (see TABLE 7.14). Some of the large coarseware

cooking pots may also have been repurposed as a furnace. Although these data are

limited evidence for metallurgy, Structure 255 is located at the top of Sector V in an ideal

locale for pyrotechnic activities, particularly if Nasca people used wind-driven rather

than lung-powered furnaces. It is also possible that Structure 255 was not used for small-

scale copper smelting, but rather working and cold-hammering of copper objects."

�335

" Residents who engaged in these activities in Structure 255 would likely have

repurposed many objects and features for different activities. Hearths used for cooking

may also have been used in chicha brewing and metal working. These activities made

use of the same prevailing winds and fuel resources. Stone tools may have been used to

grind maize for chicha, break apart animal bones for marrow, and hammer metal objects.

Residents no doubt drew from the same knowledge of controlling firings and generating

high temperatures for cooking, brewing, and metal working activities. These residents

may not have been specialists in the production of a particular item, but in the process

itself, making Structure 255 an example of cross-craft production or multi-crafting."

!!!7.8.2" Artifact Assemblages and Status"!

" Based on excavations throughout the four residential sectors of Cocahuischo,

artifact assemblages are loosely tied to the relative social status inferred by the

architectural analysis. In general, larger, more well-made houses contain higher

quantities of obsidian and objects of personal adornment (such as pendants, beads, and

copper tupu pins), but they did not necessarily have higher ratios of fineware pottery.

Such a relationship was expected based on observations at other Nasca settlements. At

Early Nasca Marcaya, for instance, 55% of pottery is fineware and all households had

access to it (Vaughn 2004: 74-75). Vaughn (2005a: table 7.2) found similar ratios of pottery

in houses at Upanca and Uchuchuma, which are overall lower than the ratio at

Cahuachi. He suggests that the households at Marcaya with the highest ratio of fineware

pottery and diversity of forms were engaged in status building activities. Vaughn argues

that the heads of these higher status households may have served as representational

community leaders in regional ritual activities (Vaughn 2004: 82). "

" While the architecturally defined higher status houses at Cocahuischo had higher

quantities of fineware pottery, they did not have higher ratios (TABLE 7.15). Higher

quantities of fineware pottery appear more a product of the size of the structure than a

reflection of status. These data suggest that the quantity of fineware pottery is most

closely linked to the amount of cooking, preparation, and serving activities that occurred

�336

within a house and the number of people in residence. Houses with more residents ate

more food and served it to more people. In such contexts, the ceramic assemblages

contain greater numbers of fineware serving vessels. The ratio of fineware to plainware,

however, is not higher because they were also using higher quantities of plainware

cooking and storage vessels."

" Indeed, the suprahousehold food and craft production building (Structure 255)

had the lowest ratio of fineware pottery, even though it is the largest, most well-made

structure at the site. The building contained an immense quantity of pottery, but much of

it was used for food and drink preparation activities, rather than serving. Additionally,

the houses with the highest ratio of fineware pottery were architecturally of lower status

(Structures 32, 104, and 293). It is possible that in smaller houses, most cooking activity

and equipment was located in patios, creating higher ratios of fineware to plainware

within houses. "

" Moreover, higher status forms - such as Late Nasca vases, goblets, bottles, and

modeled effigies and plainware miniatures - were not localized to higher status houses

(TABLE 7.16). Such forms were encountered in a range of contexts, from higher status

houses to lower status houses and the multi-crafting building. High status artifacts such

Pottery Type

Lower Status Houses Higher Status Houses Multi-Crafting Building

32 104 203 293 285 190 17 88 255N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

Coarseware rims 4 25 0 0 15 38 4 29 2 50 32 35 15 48 56 48 56 67

Fineware rims 12 75 5 100 24 62 10 71 2 50 60 65 16 52 61 52 27 33

Table 7.15. Ratio of fineware to plainware pottery in houses and the multi-crafting building (based on unconjoining rims). Variability in status is based on architectural analysis.

�337

as pendants and beads, tupu pins, and obsidian knives and points were also found in a

variety of contexts (TABLE 7.16). "

" Overall, the artifact assemblages illustrate the complex and variable relationship

between material objects, access to labor and resources, and social status. The data again

point to some kin groups - such as those living in Structures 88 and 190 - that had overall

greater access to resources, labor, and exotica. These families may have been part of the

leadership structure at Cocahuischo, or they may have been the heads of large corporate

kin groups and thus able to command greater access to labor, trade goods, and rare

pottery through family members or ties. Access to resources does not always reflect

authority, but in this context, it seems to have been associated with influence within the

community. Yet the situation was more complex. Other families - such as the ones living

in Structure 203 - had clear access to so-called high status artifacts, yet resided in a small

patio group made of average materials and techniques. Either these objects were not

restricted to influential residents, or construction materials and the size of domestic

space were not closely linked to social status at Cocahuischo."

High Status Artifacts Lower Status Houses Higher Status Houses Multi-Crafting

Building

32 104 203 293 285 190 17 88 255

Pottery

Vases - - X X - - - X -Goblets - - X - - X X X -Bottles - - X - - - - X -Modeled effigies - - - - - - - X XMiniatures - - - - - X - X X

Adornments & Exotica

Pendants & beads X X - - - X X X -Tupu pins - - - - - X - X -

Obsidian knives & points X X X X - X - X -

Table 7.16. Presence of rare pottery forms and high status artifacts in houses and the multi-crafting building. Variability in status is based on architectural analysis.

�338

7.8.3" Summary"!" The goal of this chapter was to present the non-ceramic artifacts recovered from

Cocahuischo and synthesize patterns in production and status based on material culture.

Many houses had evidence of food, lithic, textile, and ceramic production. Food

preparation appears to have been largely household-based, with each patio group

preparing, cooking, and storing its own food. Faunal and botanical remains suggest a

varied diet composed of local animal and plant resources that were both domesticated

and wild. Access to such resources varied throughout the different houses, with some

having a greater variety of animal resources or access to select meat packages. Most food

and drink was served in bowls, suggesting a transformation in cuisine from earlier

Nasca times. Residents also worked the local stone, producing chipped and ground

stone tools that were used in food preparation and daily subsistence tasks. They used

spindle whorls, chalk, and bone and wood tools to weave textiles. Residents likewise

engaged in some level of local ceramic production, which likely occurred outside of the

residential zones of the site, possibly near the valley bottom. "

" In addition to household-based production, a multi-crafting building was

encountered with evidence for suprahousehold food and craft production. There,

residents cooked and prepared food for serving, brewed chicha beer, and engaged in

metal working. Nearby are the largest habitations at the site, whose residents may have

engaged in some of the activities in the multi-crafting building. The distinct organization

of residential space in Sector V and the centralization of ground stone tools also suggests

the presence of somewhat specialized households that may have produced foodstuffs en

masse for the multi-crafting building and the sector as a whole. Alternatively, these large,

complex households could represent supra-family collectivities that produced food for a

larger residential entity that extended beyond the basic patio group."

" Some houses at Cocahuischo also contained trade goods, including lithic artifacts

such as obsidian tools, food such as marine shell and crustaceans, and exotic

adornments such as Spondylus pendants. The lack of debitage suggests that obsidian

tools arrived at the site in largely intact form, a pattern that contrasts with earlier Nasca

settlements. The distribution of lithic, ceramic, faunal, and botanical artifacts throughout

�339

the houses highlights the complex relationship between access to resources and labor,

and trade goods, exotica, and high status objects. The distribution of trade objects

indicates that while access was nearly universal, the quantity of objects was not. Many

houses had obsidian tools, but the majority were centralized in two higher status

households. Greater numbers of trade goods were also encountered in Sectors I-III than

in Sector V, where obsidian was virtually absent. At the same time, architecturally

defined higher status houses did not have higher ratios of fineware pottery, nor did they

have higher quantities of high status or restricted ceramic forms (such as vases and

bottles). The artifact assemblages suggest continuous variability in influence and

authority within the community. Some households were able to command greater access

to labor, trade goods, and rare pottery, yet there is not a consistent correlation between

access to traditionally defined high status objects and the quality of construction

materials and the size of domestic space."

!340

!!!!!CHAPTER 8. COCAHUISCHO AS A COMMUNITY IN TRANSITION:

INTERPRETATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS"!!!" In this study, I sought to examine processes of cultural reformation during times

of regional sociopolitical balkanization. Using an approach rooted in community and

household archaeology, I evaluated how community identities, relationships, and

traditions were constructed and reconstructed at Cocahuischo. I drew from architectural

data, house excavations, mortuary practices, and material objects to examine social

cohesion, change, and the formation of “imagined communities” (sensu Yaeger 2000) that

transcended spatial boundaries. The data from Cocahuischo illustrate how processes of

community building are negotiated through daily practice and how traditions are

redefined through times of sociopolitical balkanization and reformation. More broadly,

these data suggest the cultural revolution that occurred during the Middle Horizon

(MH) had deep roots in Late Nasca society. In this chapter, I consider these

transformations and the nature of Cocahuischo as a community in transition. I conclude

by discussing the implications for our understanding of the end of the Early

Intermediate Period (EIP) and the MH, and directions for future research."

!!!8.1" Social Organization, Status, and Leadership in Late Nasca Society"!

" While Early Nasca sociopolitical organization was characterized by a center of

power and influence at the ceremonial site of Cahuachi, Late Nasca society was

characterized by sociopolitical disintegration and reformation. Following Cahuachi’s

decline, leadership appears to have become more localized and regionalized. Previous

reconstructions of the timing of the Late Nasca phase suggested a century-long period of

transition between the collapse of the Cahuachi cult and the occupation of Late Nasca

!341

settlements like Cocahuischo (e.g. Schreiber and Lancho Rojas 2003: 16-17; Vaughn 2009:

table 3.1). Yet the radiocarbon dates generated as part of the present study indicate little

time passed between construction halting at Cahuachi (ca. A.D. 300-450; Bachir Bacha

2007; Orefici 2012) and the founding of Cocahuischo (ca. A.D. 450) . Contrary to prior 1

interpretations, these data suggest the emergence of Late Nasca society – at least in the

Southern Nasca Region (SNR) – was directly linked with processes of collapse associated

with Cahuachi. We presently have no radiocarbon dates for Middle Nasca sites in the

SNR, but it seems likely that Middle Nasca overlapped with both the Early and Late

Nasca phases. Current data from the CNR suggests Middle Nasca (Nasca phase 5

pottery) emerged there during the beginning of Cahuachi’s decline (Reindel 2009:

454-455). Further data will be necessary to test the hypothesis, but it appears such

pottery was then adopted in the SNR, overlapping temporally with the final occupation

of Cahuachi and Early Nasca sites like Marcaya, and the initial occupation of Late Nasca

sites like Cocahuischo. Both Middle and Late Nasca, then, represent overlapping and

regionally situated reactions to the collapse of Cahuachi. Settlements like Cocahuischo

thus provide a window into how social organization, power dynamics, status, and

community were negotiated and reimagined in the wake of regional sociopolitical

disintegration and reformation."

" The layout of domestic space at Cocahuischo mirrors the patterns found at earlier

Nasca sites in the SNR, suggesting that there was some continuity in social organization

and the construction of domestic space. This is unsurprising, given that the Early Nasca

village of Marcaya was likely abandoned just as Cocahuischo was founded (see Vaughn

2009: 83). It may even be possible that some of the co-residential groups that lived at

Marcaya and the nearby Early Nasca village were among those who aggregated together

and founded Cocahuischo. The majority of houses in both residential zones of the site

are attached to patios or terraces to form patio groups. In some cases, these patio groups

are large agglutinations of multiple houses, subsidiary rooms, and patio or terrace areas.

Yet there is a clear relationship – particularly in Sectors I-III – between houses and

See FIG. 4.1 for a comparison of the temporal duration of the associated ceramic styles, again 1

demonstrating that the Early and Late Nasca phases actually abutted one another in the SNR.

!342

shared communal space. As Van Gijseghem and Vaughn (2008: 122-123) observe, the

development of patio group architecture in Early Nasca settlements illustrates an

increasing control of access to inner domestic space. Houses at Cocahuischo were

accessed by entering a patio or terrace first. Particularly among the larger, well-made

houses, these patio areas are more than just cleared terraces. They have defining walls

that would have delimited the communal space shared by the residing group – and

shielded it from the view of other people."

" Yet the architectural and artifact data point not to leaders or ‘chiefs,’ but to

variability in influence and social status within the community. Large, well constructed

patio groups were built throughout the site and in all four residential sectors. Unlike at

Formative settlements (Van Gijseghem and Vaughn 2008: 123), there is no spatial or

architectural division between higher and lower status households. Architecturally,

Cocahuischo more closely mirrors Early Nasca villages like Marcaya, where the

settlement is organic and lacks architectural divisions of status (Vaughn 2009). The

residents of all these houses had access to fineware polychrome pottery and objects of

prestige and adornment. Either there were not clear differences in social class at

Cocahuischo, or such differences were not tied to access to resources and labor."

" At the same time, some patio groups illustrate the development of increasingly

elaborate residential spaces. Patio groups with upwards of 8-9 structures agglutinated

around a large communal patio or terrace area are found in Sector V. More complex

patio groups are also present in parts of Sectors I-III. The presence of large, well-built,

complex patio groups points to households that were larger or had greater influence

than others. Residents were able to mobilize labor and quantities of stone to construct

these ample buildings and compounds. In turn, such compounds differentially

structured daily social interaction. The size of these patio groups suggests residents also

had access to a larger spatial portion of the densely packed settlement than others. The

biggest, most complex patio groups might represent the homes of community leaders.

More likely, they illustrate extended kin groups or those that engaged in some type of

suprahousehold production activities. As Lau suggests, the development of complex

residential compounds points to “greater emphasis on a multi- or supra-family

!343

collectivity” (2010: 345). While Cocahuischo does not contain the same scale of massive

compounds Lau documented at Yayno, the emergence of larger patio groups in Nasca

illustrates a similar trend."

" In Sector V, such patio groups are associated with high densities of ground stone

manos and batanes, which are used in food preparation. Elsewhere in the sector, houses

and patio groups lacked grinding stones. In contrast, grinding stones in Sectors I-III

were evenly distributed throughout moderately sized patio groups. Coleman Goldstein

(2008) has observed that patio groups in the Mantaro Valley that lacked grinding stones

were indicative of broader household units and interdependency. Following Weismantel

(1988), older houses with multiple generations were hubs of food preparation. Food was

also served to other people residing in smaller, less architecturally complex spaces that

were outside of the patio group with the loci of production. Again, these data point to

the development of larger corporate social entities during Late Nasca."

" While speculative, it is possible that the largest patio groups in each of these

sectors represent the head families of the kin groups that initially founded the

settlement. As has been argued elsewhere for the Nasca region (Van Gijseghem 2006:

437), the surrounding smaller patio groups may represent an effort of social

reproduction to maintain spatially proximate extended family households. In Sector V,

this process may be evident in the large, complex patio groups described above and the

nearby smaller compounds. As Lau (2010: 329) observes, community politics are often

indexed by inter-household coalitions and power dynamics. At the local level, corporate

kin groups may have coalesced into sub-local communities through mutual interests and

shared affiliations, as I discuss below. The emergence of these corporate kin groups may

also reflect a strategy for negotiating the fragmented Late Nasca sociopolitical landscape.

Following the collapse of Cahuachi, people may have reimagined intra-community

relationships to emphasize broader social networks, which were created and mediated

through residential space."

" How did these changing notions of social organization structure Late Nasca

society as a whole? Based on settlement patterns and excavations at a few sites, it has

been argued that Late Nasca represents the height of Nasca sociopolitical complexity

!344

(Menzel 1971; Schreiber 1998). Indeed, Menzel’s (1971: 88) observation of complex public

architecture, elite residences, and adobe platform mounds at PV62-70 in the Northern

Nasca Region (NNR) suggests parts of Late Nasca society were characterized by

considerable sociopolitical differentiation and complexity (see also Williams and Pazos

1974). The presence of elite compounds points to complex kinship organization and

relations of authority and influence. Platform mounds reflect a localization of ritual

practice and ceremonial authority, suggesting that Late Nasca people reclaimed both

sacred space and practice in the wake of Cahuachi’s collapse. Elsewhere in the Central

Nasca Region (CNR) and SNR, residential sites are characterized by similar complexity

in architectural compounds, many of which are rectilinear like those at PV62-70 (e.g.

Reindel 2009: 455-456, fig. 25.9). When compared with earlier Nasca sites, it seems Late

Nasca people began to reimagine residential and ceremonial space. In particular, there

appears to be a movement toward supra-family collectivity and localizing and

reincorporating sacred spaces within residential zones – a pattern also visible in the

plaza-like areas at Cocahuischo."

" These plazas consist of three isolated 10-20m wide oblong spaces, found in both

Sector III and V. Beyond architectural analysis, no investigations have been made into

the plazas. Drawing from other research in the Nasca region, however, a few hypotheses

can be proposed regarding their use and role in Nasca society. Van Gijseghem and

Vaughn (2008) have documented the presence of plazas within Formative settlements

and cleared campos barridos (a precursor of the Nasca geoglyphs) near sites. They suggest

that such spaces were used for integrative activities – such as feasting and

ceremonialism – that occurred at the community level. Settlement-based ceremonial

practices contrast sharply with the pattern at Early Nasca sites. With the emergence of

Cahuachi, ceremonial practices became regionally-based and centered at the pilgrimage

site. While people likely reenacted feasting within the household, there were no

integrative spaces like plazas within Early Nasca settlements. Drawing from Van

Gijseghem and Vaughn’s argument, the re-emergence of plazas at Late Nasca

settlements in the wake of Cahuachi’s collapse likely represents a return to locally

situated ritual practice. These spaces may have been used for feasting activities or

!345

ceremonialism. The presence of two of the plazas in Sector V suggests they may have

been used for the suprahousehold events the multi-crafting building was preparing food

and chicha beer for. Such ceremonial activities would have played a key role in the

construction and embodiment of community identities."

" Politically, Late Nasca groups appear to be characterized by considerable

regionalism. The data from Cocahuischo point to a local community marked by

variability in relative status and influence. At present, however, there is no evidence for

clear differences in social class nor clear leaders or ‘chiefs.’ There does not appear to be

status differentiation or hierarchical relationships between the Late Nasca settlements of

the SNR, either. These large villages likely formed a loosely affiliated polity, based on

cultural affinity and shared resource concerns. The Late Nasca occupation of the NNR,

however, could illustrate a polity approximating the complexity of chiefdom-like

sociopolitical organization. Menzel (1971) documented a hierarchy of 14 large Late

Nasca settlements in the Ica River, with PV62-70 at the apex. In the CNR, Reindel (2009)

posits a civic-residential purpose for the settlement of Parasmarca, again suggesting

sociopolitical complexity greater than that of the SNR. The sociopolitical landscape

following the collapse of Cahuachi was thus characterized by regionalism. Communities

in different parts of the south coast responded to the sociopolitical upheaval in various

ways – illustrating diversity in societal reformation. In each region, however, it is clear

that shared social memory and practices were transformed as communities and

relationships were renegotiated."

!!!8.2" Communities and the Transformation of Tradition at Cocahuischo"!

" In the wake of Cahuachi’s decline, there was a rapid and pan-regional

reimagining of the pottery that materialized religious ideology and mediated social

relations and communal affiliations. A period of stylistic diversification emerged and at

settlements like Cocahuischo, multi-faceted assemblages are found within individual

houses. Pottery had long been a medium through which society was embodied on the

south coast and during the Late Nasca phase, pottery became a medium of negotiation

!346

and transformation. Both traditions and community ties were restructured amidst

broader sociopolitical reformation and these processes are manifested in polychrome

pottery. "

" In Chapter 1, I suggested that Cocahuischo was the center of a local community,

composed of residents of the settlement. While there is clear variability in the form and

style of domestic architecture, the houses and patio groups at Cocahuischo share more in

common with one another than with those at other Late Nasca settlements (see Menzel

1971: 88; Reindel 2009: 455-456; Williams and Pazos 1974). These data suggest that

residents of Cocahuischo shared a general understanding of how domestic space should

be structured and in turn, how it should structure daily activity and social relations. The

similarity of objects and tools they used throughout daily life and the food they

consumed also point to a shared experience of the quotidian. As Yaeger suggests, such

objects and constructions of space would have fostered “very similar understandings of

the world and how to act within it” (2000: 129). Artifact assemblages indicate that most

households participated in domestic production activities such as food preparation,

lithic and ceramic production, and weaving. The cohesive forms and styles of artifacts

associated with these activities illustrate cohesive ways of doing akin to “communities of

practice” (see Hendon 2010; Wenger 1998). The site-wide distribution of Late Nasca

pottery – and its presence in every house excavated – also points to the presence of a

local community that shared some level of communal affiliation. The quotidian nature of

these activities and embodiment of relationships suggests that such a sense of

community would have been largely unconscious and naturalized (Yaeger 2000)."

" The construction of local community identity may also have centered on

practices related to ancestor veneration. Nearly all the tombs at Cocahuischo have

evidence of prehispanic re-entry. Bodies were shifted, grave goods may have been

removed, and tombs were subsequently re-interred with new capstones. Similar

practices were noted in two subterranean house burials, where the bodies were removed

entirely. In one instance, the grave was re-interred with a fineware jar. Carmichael’s

(1988: 374-376) analysis of graves from Cahuachi suggests that grave re-entry was likely

an enduring practice in Nasca society and activities associated with ancestor veneration

!347

may have been tied to the portrayal of shared social memory and the maintenance of

community identity."

" Cocahuischo also illustrates the presence of sub-local communities that crosscut

the settlement. While Late Nasca pottery was ubiquitous, it was encountered in much

greater quantities in Sector V. There, Late Nasca pottery accounted for approximately

80% of structure assemblages. Sector V was also home to the multi-crafting building,

possible specialized households, and large patio groups indicative of corporate kin

groups. The presence of high ratios of Late Nasca pottery in such contexts suggests Late

Nasca pottery was used in the supra-household integrative activities that occurred in the

plazas of Sector V. The multi-crafting building was used in part for food preparation and

chicha beer brewing, making it likely that Late Nasca pottery in such contexts was used

to serve food and drink during ceremonial or supra-household meals. "

" Such an association is unsurprising, given the deep history of feasting in Nasca

society (see Orefici 2012; Silverman 1993; Silverman and Proulx 2002: 132; Strong 1957:

31; Valdez 1994). It illustrates that while many practices were restructured in the wake of

Cahuachi’s collapse, they were not summarily abandoned. Rather, they were reimagined

and resituated within Late Nasca settlements. Some residents of Cocahuischo might

have reclaimed feasting activities, carrying them out within the communal patios and

plazas of a settlement – rather than a regional pilgrimage center. The nature of these

practices, and the material culture that structured and embodied relationships, point to a

sub-local community that centered on feasting and the religious ideology materialized in

Late Nasca pottery. The presence of at least one household in Sector III that consumed

almost exclusively Late Nasca pottery indicates that affiliation with this sub-local

community did not necessitate residence in Sector V."

" Late Nasca pottery itself illustrates the tension between conservatism and

transformation in Nasca society. Stylistically, Late Nasca pottery grew out of the

Cahuachi cult and in many ways it shows clear continuity. The patterns of colors, the

types of motifs, the vessel forms, and as I discussed above, the types of activities it was

used for all suggest elements of Early Nasca practice endured. Many ceremonial

activities appear to have been resituated within the plazas and communal spaces of Late

!348

Nasca settlements, yet the activities themselves and the type of pottery used in them

remained the same. Vases, goblets, bottles, and flaring bowls were still used for ritual

food consumption and the variety of vessels suggests the continuation of a complex

relationship between ceremony and cuisine. These finer Late Nasca vessel forms I

discussed in Chapter 6 were likely produced outside of Cocahuischo, possibly near

Cahuachi or within one of the other major Late Nasca settlements. As in Early Nasca,

this points to a relationship between ceremonial activities that occurred at local

settlements and broader regional practices. At the same time, numerous scholars have

noted the transformative nature of Late Nasca pottery (Blagg 1975; Proulx 1994, 2006;

Roark 1965). Many motifs endured, but they were dramatically altered, as were vessel

forms. The residents of Cocahuischo who used Late Nasca pottery within their homes

and for ceremonial activities in integrative spaces were thus engaged in a process of

reimagining Nasca tradition and identity. In contrast to Transitional and Local pottery,

however, this process of reimagining had not fully rejected the past."

" In Sectors I-III, there were a number of houses that contained high quantities of

Transitional and Local pottery. While Late Nasca pottery marks a stylistic departure

from Early Nasca pottery, Transitional and Local pottery mark a clear rupture (see

Menzel 1971: 71). As objects that would have mediated and embodied social

relationships, this stylistic departure illustrates a transformation in communal identity

and religious ideology. Van Gijseghem (2006: 438) has explored how Nasca people

previously manipulated a traditional symbol and materialized it in a new medium. This

transformation of tradition, or as Stovel puts it, “the objectification of extant cultural

symbols for a new identity” (2013: 12) has implications for Transitional and Local

pottery. If Late Nasca pottery can be thought of as reimagining, then Transitional and

Local pottery ought to be conceived of as reformation. Residents of sites like Cocahuischo

used pottery that inverted and reinterpreted extant cultural symbols and practices.

Where Late Nasca pottery drew from earlier traditions, Transitional and Local pottery

rejected many past stylistic norms and forged new ones. This process of cultural

reformation is common during times of sociopolitical upheaval (e.g. Conlee 2003;

Janusek 2005; Zovar 2012). The Cocahuischo residents who used these styles within

!349

daily life likely identified with a different sub-local community. Such objects are largely

unaffiliated with the multi-crafting building and are found at the household level,

suggesting that the social construction of object use changed along with style and

meaning."

" Taken as a whole, these data suggest residents began to question formerly

naturalized (or doxic) practices. Polychrome pottery remained a medium for expressing

and embodying religious ideology. Through its use in household and communal

ceremonial activities, polychrome pottery structured social relationships and shaped

ritualized behavior. Yet some residents may have questioned the role pottery played in

daily and ceremonial life. Transitional and Local objects were used almost exclusively in

domestic contexts. Vessel form and the location of designs suggests the proxemics of

their use were different from Late Nasca pottery. Open form and interior decoration with

simple, stylized geometric designs meant the symbols present in these objects were more

accessible to the people consuming food and drink from them. Transitional and Local

pottery may have been used for more private rituals at the household level, rather than

large, group oriented ceremonies. Within the context of Cocahuischo, this again points to

sub-local communities whose membership was reinforced through differential

ceremonial and integrative practices. More broadly, these data suggest ritual practices

were not just resituated within local settlements during Late Nasca. Within certain

segments of Late Nasca society, the nature of ritual practices was reimagined.

Polychrome pottery still played an important agentive role in ceremonial meals, yet

residents appear to have questioned and redefined how it structured food consumption

and social relationships."

" The Cocahuischo data thus illustrate how people renegotiate traditions and

community identities through times of sociopolitical disintegration and reformation.

They demonstrate that communities are constructed and embodied through daily life

and extra-ordinary practices of affiliation that reaffirm membership. Most importantly,

these data show that communities are fluid entities whose membership is constantly in

negotiation. The Cocahuischo data also elucidate the tension between conservatism and

transformation that can exist within individual settlements and communities. As I

!350

discussed in Chapter 3, cultural reformation is not simply a process of rejecting existing

traditions wholesale and replacing them with new ones. Old traditions and new ones are

continually negotiated, transformed, and constituted through daily life and integrative

community activities. In many cases, they co-exist, simultaneously mediating

community relationships and factions. Communities in transition are characterized by

this tension between old and new, which plays out in every aspect of life from the

unconscious actions of the everyday to the choreographed rituals of ceremonial practice."

!!!8.3" Late Nasca Imagined Communities"!

" While I have focused on the nature of community and tradition within

Cocahuischo, these data also speak to relationships forged with people beyond the

borders of the settlement. It has long been argued that the Late Nasca phase was a time

of increasingly intense interaction with other Andean groups, such as Moche, Estrella,

and Huarpa (Menzel 1971; Knobloch 1983; Paulsen 1983; Proulx 1994). The data from

Cocahuischo point to trade of material objects and the construction of “imagined

communities” (sensu Yaeger 2000). Imagined communities are perceived social groups

that transcend spatial boundaries and are constituted through practices of affiliation.

They orient around common concerns and are formed through intentional ascription. By

means of events such as religious ceremonies, collective labor projects, and feasts,

members engage in meaningful interaction that solidifies social relationships and creates

a community. Within daily life, members may use objects, structure the built

environment, and behave in certain ways that embody, reproduce, and signal their

participation in extra-local communities. As events and relationships that often exist

outside of the quotidian, such communities can be politicized and fluid."

" Drawing from pottery, lithics, ceremonial spaces, and tomb form, I would

suggest that Cocahuischo residents engaged in practices that created and maintained

affiliations with (1) highland groups, (2) Estrella people in the northern Pisco and

Chincha Valleys, and (3) other Late Nasca people. These supra-local communities

correlate with the sub-local communities I discussed above – suggesting practices of

!351

affiliation that both divided the local community and transcended spatial boundaries.

Households that consumed high ratios of Transitional and Local pottery, for instance,

appear to have simultaneously identified with highland and Estrella people, while those

that consumed primarily Late Nasca pottery did not."

" At a basic level, Cocahuischo residents acquired obsidian coming from the

highlands. While most households had access to such objects, those with higher ratios of

Transitional and Local pottery had the highest quantities of obsidian tools. Affiliation

with highland groups might thus have been embodied and expressed through exotic

raw materials and polychrome pottery. Transitional pottery, in particular, illustrates the

selective incorporation of designs that become common on Huamanga pottery

throughout the Andes during the MH – symbols associated with highland identity. 2

Affiliation was also constituted through mortuary practices. Some Cocahuischo

residents buried their dead in tombs capped with non-traditional stone slabs (see

Carmichael 1988: 185-195; Isla Cuadrado 2009: 128-131 for comparison). The practice

mirrors a few examples of highland and MH tomb form on the south coast (see Leoni

2010: fig. 23; Isla Cuadrado 2009: 134-135), again suggesting highland affinity."

" There is simultaneously evidence that some Cocahuischo residents perceived ties

to Estrella people to the north. Some households consumed Estrella pottery, which

illustrates the literal adaptation of non-local style. At the same time, as Menzel (1971:

69-71) notes, the type of pottery I refer to as Transitional also draws from Estrella

traditions. While we know little about the nature of integrative activities with Estrella

people, it seems clear that some residents were signaling a perceived affiliation."

" Thus far, I have emphasized the balkanized nature of the regional Late Nasca

sociopolitical and cultural landscape, yet there is evidence these different groups

perceived some level of common affiliation. They all consumed Late Nasca style pottery

and likely engaged in feasting and ceremonial activities within settlements. The use of

See examples of pendant squiggles and pendant rectangles from Aqo Wayqo (Ochatoma 2

Paravicino and Cabrera Romero 2001: 163-170), Azángaro (Anders 1986: figs. 7.28-7.29), Beringa (Owen 2010: fig. 4.6), Jargampata (Isbell 1977: fig. 24a-j, plate 13d), and La Real (Huamán López 2012: fig. 3.23).

!352

Late Nasca pottery within quotidian and extra-ordinary contexts suggests these

relationships and Late Nasca identity were embodied through daily life. In the SNR,

region-wide ritualized practices of affiliation seem to be centered on ceremonial spaces

marked with upright huarango posts (Strong 1957: 32). At sites such as Estaquería near

Cahuachi and La Marcha in the Las Trancas Valley, Late Nasca people created low

platforms and open spaces containing these objects, which were sometimes carved with

faces (Strong 1957: fig. 14a). This style of ceremonial architecture is mirrored in the Room

of the Posts at Cahuachi, which was ritually interred by Loro people during the MH

(Silverman 1987)."

" The pottery recovered from these regional ceremonial sites suggests residents of

SNR settlements that identified with Late Nasca sub- and supra-local communities

participated in integrative activities at Estaquería and La Marcha. The practices of

affiliation that constituted Late Nasca communities thus included feasts and

ceremonialism within the plazas of settlements like Cocahuischo, as well as regional

integrative activities at these huarango post sites. The pottery from Estaquería and La

Marcha also indicates that ultimately, sub- and supra-local communities associated with

emerging Loro society used many of these spaces for ceremonial activity during the MH.

The huarango post style of ceremonial architecture illustrates a pattern very different

from the built environment of the CNR and NNR, where ritual spaces include large

platform mounds (Menzel 1971: 87). Yet there is presently no evidence for huarango

features at Cocahuischo or the other SNR settlements, suggesting that such spaces

transcended the quotidian and were reserved for extra-ordinary practices of affiliation.

The presence of huarango posts at sites later used by Loro people might indicate that

ultimately, the practice was adopted or reclaimed by the segment of Late Nasca society

that I suggest Loro grew out of – the sub- and supra-local communities identified by

Transitional and Local pottery."

" The data from Cocahuischo thus illustrate a series of nested communities. At a

local level, residents of the site formed a community through largely unconscious

quotidian practices, shared daily experiences, and cohesive ways of doing and being. At

the same time, certain households simultaneously identified with sub-local and

!353

imagined communities that crosscut the settlement and transcended spatial boundaries.

These relationships and practices of affiliation linked them with highland people,

Estrella groups, other Late Nasca settlements in the SNR polity, and the wider Late

Nasca world. These increasingly broad relationships may have been sparked by

Cahuachi’s collapse and the societal reformation that followed. Residents of sites like

Cocahuischo were navigating an uncertain sociopolitical landscape and may have

reimagined notions of affinity to emphasize broader social networks. "

" The end of the EIP was marked by drought and an increasingly marginalized

environment (Beresford-Jones et al. 2009a; Eitel et al. 2005; Menzel 1971: 90-91). Faced

with fragmented sociopolitical organization and increasing aridity, Late Nasca people

may have turned to inter-regional relationships to mediate both social upheaval and

resource strain (Erickson 1999; Middleton 2012). Current evidence suggests there was

some regionalism in diet (Kellner and Schoeninger 2012; Menzel 1971; Whalen and

Kellner 2014), indicating that perhaps Late Nasca people developed more locally based

resource strategies. As Janusek (2005) argues, drought conditions can drive people to

rely on a more balanced and diversified diet. Inter-regional ties and increased seasonal

mobility may have played a key part. Some residents of settlements like Cocahuischo,

for instance, might have embodied a more highland identity in part because of increased

concerns with camelid herds grazed in the highlands. While faunal remains indicate

ubiquitous access to large mammals, spatially, the houses with the highest ratios of

Transitional pottery are closest to the corral just east of the site. A similar space has not

been identified west of Sector V, where pottery is predominantly Late Nasca. While

further data will be required to test the hypothesis, it is possible that the households

with higher ratios of Transitional pottery were involved with camelid herding and

formed social ties to highland communities that inhabited grazing territories to bolster

access. During a time of environmental and resource strain, such relationships would

have broadened the social network of this sub-local community and served as a

buffering strategy."

!!!

!354

8.4" Implications and Future Research"!" By examining a Late Nasca settlement inhabited following the collapse of the

Cahuachi cult, this dissertation research constructed an archaeology of communities in

transition. As I discussed in Chapter 3, periods of sociopolitical disintegration and

reformation are key locales for the agentive transformation of community and tradition.

Using a multifaceted methodology rooted in household and community archaeology, I

drew from the built environment, house excavations, mortary practices, and material

objects to investigate how people negotiated and reimagined traditions and

communities during a time of societal upheaval. This research demonstrates the

importance of a multi-pronged approach, because of the complexity of cultural

reformation. Different perspectives on status, identity, tradition, and community were

offered by the architectural, ceramic, lithic, mortuary, and bioarchaeological data,

making a synthetic methodology crucial for a thorough understanding of cultural

reformation. This research also illustrates the necessity for both micro-regional and intra-

settlement perspectives, because of the local and regional factionalism that often

accompanies periods of sociopolitical disintegration. Late Nasca society was

characterized by sub-, local, and supra-local communities that both crosscut settlements

and transcended spatial boundaries. Moreover, these factions were not the same

throughout each Late Nasca settlement nor region."

" This dissertation research simultaneously reforms our view of Late Nasca society

and the EIP to MH transition. Following the collapse of Cahuachi, community identities,

relationships, traditions, and power dynamics were negotiated and restructured at the

local level through quotidian and extra-ordinary practices. Some segments of

Cocahuischo society established wider social groups within the settlement – in the form

of larger corporate entities – and connected themselves to the greater Late Nasca world

through ceremonialism, feasting, the construction of residential space, and the use of

Late Nasca pottery within daily life. Others maintained smaller social networks within

the settlement – living in basic, single family patio groups – yet established a wider

social network that included ties to highland and Estrella people. Supra-local

relationships were mediated through household feasting, mortuary practices, and the

!355

use of obsidian and Transitional pottery within daily life. These data indicate that Late

Nasca settlements were not homogenous social entities, but divided communities

composed of fluid segments with different interests, motivations, and intentions."

" The evidence from Cocahuischo also suggests Late Nasca people reclaimed

sacred places within the landscape and resituated the nature of ritual practice to

emphasize both local and supra-local ceremonialism. New ceremonial sites with

huarango posts emerged at key points in the SNR landscape, yet feasting and ceremonial

practices also occurred within settlement plazas and individual houses. As I have

argued, it appears some segments of Late Nasca society rejected Cahuachi and its

ceremonial authority and reformulated ceremonial practice itself. New local and sub-

local communities coalesced around shared daily experiences within settlements and

newly enacted practices of affiliation, such as local feasting. At the same time, many

settlements were characterized by the tension of transformation, as old and new

traditions were continually negotiated and embodied through quotidian practice and

integrative community activities."

" Based on these data, I argued that the regional polities that emerged in the NNR,

CNR, and SNR shared some practices of affinity that transcended local communities. At

the same time, residents of the various Late Nasca settlements cultivated differential

inter-regional ties. In the NNR and SNR, practices of affiliation linked residents to non-

Huarpa highland and Estrella people, along with other Late Nasca groups. In the CNR,

however, local communities demonstrated clear affinity with Late Nasca identity and

possibly Huarpa people in the Ayacucho Basin. These patterns have implications for the 3

emergence of local MH society. While residents of the CNR migrated toward the

highlands of Ayacucho (Reindel and Isla Cuadrado 2013; Reindel et al. 2013), society in

the SNR converged around Huaca del Loro in the Las Trancas Valley to reform a local

polity (Conlee and Schreiber 2006; Strong 1957)."

Based on my visual analysis of the pottery that Hecht (2009, 2010) figures. Stylistically, the 3

pottery from Parasmarca is Nasca phase 7a and some sherds illustrates the incorporation of design elements that Proulx (2006: 45) and others identify as being Huarpa derived.

!356

" Ultimately, these processes of constructing and reconstructing Nasca identity and

tradition resulted in the emergence of Loro culture. The data from Cocahuischo

contradict the traditional interpretation of Loro as a sudden loss of ‘Nasca-ness’ in

response to Wari imperialism during the MH (e.g. Carmichael 1988: 256; Proulx 2006: 46;

Schreiber 2001; Silverman 2002: 171). Rather, this research suggests that Loro had deep

roots in the Nasca region and grew out of Late Nasca settlements like Cocahuischo.

There, residents used Transitional and Local pottery, cultivated ties to highland groups,

and resituated ritual practices within the home and eventually, within regional huarango

ceremonial sites. The way Loro people made pottery and the designs they used suggest

strong affinity with these factions of Late Nasca society, as does the built environment of

Loro ritual space, cranial modification, and mortuary practices. As with some factions of

Late Nasca society, these patterns illustrate a resistance to the legacy of Cahuachi. By the

time Loro society coalesced during the MH, people had summarily rejected and

forgotten symbols long associated with Cahuachi. They created new relationships with

the sacred landscape, supernatural world, and each other. Most importantly, these

processes of re-becoming began not during the MH, but within Late Nasca society itself

at settlements like Cocahuischo."

" While the present study has illuminated processes of cultural reformation in Late

Nasca society, several venues of future research will contribute to our understanding of

the end of the EIP. First, more detailed analyses of the Cocahuischo data can nuance our

understanding of how communities and traditions were created and reimagined

through daily practice. In this research, I focused primarily on the analysis of fineware

polychrome pottery. Coarseware quotidian vessels, however, mediate and materialize

largely unconscious quotidian actions. More detailed analyses of how such vessels were

formed, used, and discarded will paint a richer picture of processes of cultural

reformation. While community leaders and artisans may have been shaping the

transformation of fineware pottery, change and continuity in the form and technology of

the coarseware vessels used in daily life can reflect more deeply ingrained notions of

community, identity, and tradition. Likewise, compositional analyses of fineware paste

and pigment can help us understand further how Late Nasca imagined communities

!357

were constituted. Confirming where the vessels that mediated and symbolized such

relationships were made, by whom, and how they were distributed is key to

understanding how these communities were constructed. A larger sample of individuals

from Cocahuischo and additional strontium isotope analysis will also allow us to

investigate the role migration and intermarriage played in the constitution of extra-local

communities. Finally, further excavations at other Late Nasca and Loro archaeological

sites will help us develop our picture of the EIP to MH transition, and explore both

regional diversity in local community identity and the construction and maintenance of

imagined communities. "

" By investigating a Late Nasca community in transition, this study examined how

people reimagine traditions and restructure community relationships during times of

sociopolitical reformation. The data from Cocahuischo highlight how these processes of

negotiation are constituted through quotidian actions and extra-ordinary practices of

affiliation. They also illustrate that communities in transition are places of fluid and

constantly changing identities and cultural affiliations, because of the tension between

old and new that is inherent in transformation. This research likewise reformed our

understanding of Late Nasca society and the EIP to MH transition. The evidence from

Cocahuischo suggests that Late Nasca society in the SNR emerged as a direct result of

the collapse of Cahuachi and was characterized but cultural pluralism. Residents of Late

Nasca settlements challenged and reimagined traditions, resituated and reclaimed ritual

practices, and broadened social networks in an increasingly marginal environment. Most

importantly, the present study demonstrated that Loro traditions grew directly out of

Late Nasca communities at settlements like Cocahuischo.

!358

!!!!!BIBLIOGRAPHY"!!!

Abrams, E. 1989. Architecture and Energy: An Evolutionary Perspective. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1:47-87."!

Abrams, E. 1994. How the Maya Built Their World: Energetics and Ancient Architecture. Austin: University of Texas Press."!

Alcalde, J., C. del Aguila, and F. Fujita. 2001. "Nuevas Evidencias en Chincha: Nota Preliminar sobre Contextos de la Época Wari," in Huari y Tiwanaku: Modelos vs. Evidencias, segunda parte. Edited by P. Kaulicke and W. H. Isbell, pp. 543-554. Lima: Boletín de Arqueología 5, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú."!

Aldenderfer, M. Editor. 1993. Domestic Architecture, Ethnicity, and Complementarity in the South-Central Andes. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press."!

Aldenderfer, M., and C. Stanish. 1993. "Domestic Architecture, Household Archaeology, and the Past in the South Central Andes," in Domestic Architecture, Household Archaeology, Ethnicity, and Complementarity in the South-Central Andes. Edited by M. Aldenderfer. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press."!

Allison, P. M. 1999. The Archaeology of Household Activities. London: Routledge."!Ames, K. M. 2007. "The Archaeology of Rank," in Handbook of Archaeological Methods.

Edited by R. A. Bentley, H. Maschner, and C. Chippindale, pp. 487-513. New York: AltaMira."!

Anders, M. B. 1986. Dual Organization and Calendars Inferred from the Planned Site of Azángaro: Wari Administrative Strategies. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms."!

Anders, M. B., S. Arce, I. Shimada, V. Chang, L. Tokuda, and S. Quiroz. 1998. "Early Middle Horizon pottery production at Maymi, Pisco Valley, Peru," in Andean Ceramics: Technology, Organization, and Approaches. Edited by I. Shimada. Philadelphia: Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology (MASCA), University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology."!

!359

Anderson, B. 1991. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. 2nd ed. London: Verso."!

Ashmore, W., and R. R. Wilk. 1988. "Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past," in Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past. Edited by R. R. Wilk and W. Ashmore, pp. 1-27. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press."!

Aveni, A. F. 1990. The Lines of Nazca. Philadelphia: Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society."!

Aveni, A. F. 2000. Between the Lines: The Mystery of the Giant Ground Drawings of Ancient Nazca, Peru. Austin: University of Texas Press."!

Bachir Bacha, A., and O. D. Llanos Jacinto. 2012. Arqueología e Iconografía de los Textiles Paracas Descubiertos en Animas Altas, Ica, Perú. Jornadas Internacionales de Textiles Precolombinos 5:211-230."!

Bagwell, E. 2006. Domestic Architectural Production in Northwest Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, University of New Mexico. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!

Ball, J. W., and J. T. Taschek. 2007. Sometimes a "Stove" is "Just a Stove": A Context-Based Reconsideration of Three-Pronged "Incense Burners" from the Western Belize Valley. Latin American Antiquity 18:451-470."!

Bautista, S., and L. Rojas Pelayo. 2013. The Reuse of Space and Place during the Paracas-Nasca Transition: The case of Uchuchuma, Aja Valley, Peru. Paper presented at the 78th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Honolulu, April 3-7."!

Bawden, G. 1982. Community Organization Reflected by the Household: a Study of Pre-Columbian Social Dynamics. Journal of Field Archaeology 9:165-181."!

Bawden, G. 1993. "An Archaeological Study of Social Structure and Ethnic Replacement in Residential Architecture of the Tumilaca Valley," in Domestic Architecture, Ethnicity, and Complementarity in the South-Central Andes. Edited by M. Aldenderfer, pp. 42-54. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press."!

Bélisle, V. 2011. Ak'awillay: Wari State Expansion and Household Change in Cusco, Peru (AD 600-1000). Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!

Bélisle, V., and R. A. Covey. 2010. "Local Settlement Continuity and Wari Impact in Middle Horizon Cuzco," in Beyond Wari Walls: Regional Perspectives on Middle Horizon Peru. Edited by J. Jennings, pp. 79-95. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press."

!360

Benavides Calle, M. 1971. Análisis de la Cerámica Huarpa. Revista del Museo Nacional 37:63-88."!

Benavides Calle, M. 1991. "Cheqo Wasi, Huari," in Huari Administrative Structure: Prehistoric Monumental Architecture and State Government. Edited by W. H. Isbell and G. F. McEwan, pp. 55-70. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection."!

Bennett, W. C. 1953. Excavations at Wari, Ayacucho, Peru. New Haven: Yale University Publications in Anthropology 49."!

Bentley, R. A. 2006. Strontium Isotopes from the Earth to the Archaeological Skeleton: A Review. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 13:135-187."!

Beresford-Jones, D., S. Arce, O. Q. Whaley, and A. Chepstow-Lusty. 2009a. The Role of Prosopis in Ecological and Landscape Change in the Samaca Basin, Lower Ica, Valley, South Coast Peru from the Early Horizon to the Late Intermediate Period. Latin American Antiquity 2:303-332."!

Beresford-Jones, D., H. Lewis, and S. Boreham. 2009b. Linking Cultural and Environmental Change in Peruvian Prehistory: Geomorphological Survey of the Samaca Basin, Lower Ica Valley, Peru. Catena 78:234-249."!

Bermann, M. 1994. Lukurmata: Household Archaeology in Prehispanic Bolivia. Princeton: Princeton University Press."!

Bermann, M. 1997. Domestic Life and Vertical Integration in the Tiwanaku Heartland. Latin American Antiquity 8:93-112."!

Bird, B. W., M. Abbott, M. Vuille, D. T. Rodbell, N. D. Stansell, and M. F. Rosenmeier. 2011. A 2,300-Year-Long Annually Resolved Record of the South American Summer Monsoon from the Peruvian Andes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 108:8583-8588."!

Blagg, M. 1975. The Bizarre Innovation in Nazca. M.A. thesis, University of Texas. "!Blanton, R. E. 1994. Houses and Households: A Comparative Study. New York: Plenum

Press."!Blanton, R. E. 1995. "The Cultural Foundations of Inequality in Households," in

Foundations of Social Inequality. Edited by T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman, pp. 105-127. New York: Plenum Press."!

Blasco Bosqued, C., and J. Ramos Goméz. 1980. Cerámica Nasca. Valladolid: Seminario Americanista de la Universidad de Valladolid."

!361

Blier, S. P. 1987. The Anatomy of Architecture: Ontology and Metaphor in Batammaliba Architectural Expression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press."!

Bonavia, D., and C. Chauchat. 1990. Presencia del Paijanese en el Desierto de Ica. Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Études Andines 28:1-24."!

Bourdieu, P. 1976. "Marriage Strategies as Strategies of Social Reproduction," in Family and Society. Edited by R. Forster and O. Ranum, pp. 117-145. London: Selections from the Annales Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations. Johns Hopkins University Press."!

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press."!

Bragayrac D., E. 1991. "Archaeological Excavations in the Vegachayoq Moqo Sector of Huari," in Huari Administrative Structure: Prehistoric Monumental Architecture and State Government. Edited by W. H. Isbell and G. F. McEwan, pp. 71-80. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection."!

Brewster-Wray, C. C. 1990. Moraduchayuq: An Administrative Compound at the Site of Huari, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York, Binghamton. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms."!

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2010. Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates. Radiocarbon 51:337-360."!Brown, L. A., and P. Sheets. 2000. Distinguishing Domestic from Ceremonial Structures

in Southern Mesoamerica: Suggestions from Cerén, El Salvador. Mayab 13:11-21."!Brown, L. A., S. E. Simmons, and P. Sheets. 2002. "Household Production of Extra-

Household Ritual at the Cerén Site, El Salvador," in Domestic Ritual in Ancient Mesoamerica. Edited by P. Plunket. Los Angeles: Monograph 46. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California."!

Browne, D. 1992. "Further Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Province of Palpa, Department of Ica, Peru," in Ancient America: Contributions to New World Archaeology, Oxbow Monograph 24. Edited by N. J. Saunders. Oxford: Oxbow Books."!

Browne, D., and J. P. Baraybar. 1988. "An Archaeological Reconnaissance in the Province of Palpa, Department of Ica, Peru," in Recent Studies in Pre-Columbian Archaeology, BAR International Series 421. Edited by N. J. Saunders and O. d. Montmollin, pp. 299-325. Oxford: BAR."!

Browne, D., H. Silverman, and R. Garcia Soto. 1993. A Cache of 48 Nasca Trophy Heads from Cerro Carapo, Peru. Latin American Antiquity 4:274-294."

!362

Brumfiel, E. M. 1987. Consumption and Politics at Aztec Huexolta. American Anthropologist 89:676-686."!

Brumfiel, E. M. 1991. "Weaving and Cooking: Women's Production in Aztec Mexico," in Engendering Archaeology: Women in Prehistory. Edited by J. M. Gero and M. W. Conkey. Oxford: Blackwell Press."!

Brumfiel, E. M. 1996. "Figurines and the Aztec State: Testing the Effectiveness of Ideological Domination," in Gender and Archaeology: Research in Gender and Practice. Edited by R. P. Wright. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press."!

Brumfiel, E. M. 1997. Tribute Cloth Production and Compliance in Aztec and Colonial Mexico. Museum Anthropology 21:55-71."!

Brumfiel, E. M. 2000. "The Politics of High Culture: Issues of Worth and Rank," in Order, Legitimacy, and Wealth in Ancient States. Edited by J. Richards and M. Van Buren, pp. 131-139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press."!

Burger, R. L. 1988. "Unity and Heterogeneity within the Chavín Horizon," in Peruvian Prehistory. Edited by R. W. Keatinge, pp. 99-144. New York: Cambridge University Press."!

Burger, R. L. 1992. Chavín and the Origins of Andean Civilization. London: Thames and Hudson."!

Burger, R. L., and F. Asaro. 1993. "La Distribución y Procedencia de Artefactos de Obsidiana Durante el Periodo Inicial y Horizonte Temprano," in Emergencia de la Civilización en los Andes: Ensayos de Interpretación. Edited by R. L. Burger, pp. 189-231. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos."!

Burger, R. L., and M. D. Glascock. 2000. Locating the Quispisisa Obsidian Source in the Department of Ayacucho, Peru. Latin American Antiquity 11:258-268."!

Burger, R. L., and L. Salazar-Burger. 1991. The Second Season of Investigations at the Initial Period Center of Cardal, Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology 18:275-296."!

Bustamante, A., M. Delgado, R. M. Latini, and A. V. B. Bellido. 2007. Multivariate Analysis in Provenance Studies: Cerrillos Obsidians Case, Peru. Hyperfine Interactions 175:43-48."!

Buzon, M. R., C. A. Conlee, A. Simonetti, and G. J. Bowen. 2012. The Consequences of Wari Contact in the Nasca Region during the Middle Horizon: Archaeological, Skeletal, and Isotopic Evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2627-2636."!

!363

Canziani, J. 1992. Arquitectura y Urbanismo del Período Paracas en el Valle de Chincha. Gaceta Arqueológica Andina 6:87-117."!

Carballo, D. M. 2011. Advances in the Household Archaeology of Highland Mesoamerica. Journal of Archaeological Research 19:133-189."!

Carmichael, P. 1988. Nasca Mortuary Customs: Death and Ancient Society on the South Coast of Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Calgary. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms."!

Carmichael, P. 1990. Nasca Pottery Construction. Ñawpa Pacha 24:31-48."!Carmichael, P. 1991. Prehistoric Settlement of the Ica-Grande Littoral, Southern Peru.

Research report submitted to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada."!

Carmichael, P. 1992. "Interpreting Nasca Iconography," in Ancient Images, Ancient Thought: The Archaeology of Ideology. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Chacmool Conference. Edited by A. S. Goldsmith, S. Garvie, D. Selin, and J. Smith, pp. 187-197. Calgary: University of Calgary."!

Carmichael, P. 1994. The Life from Death Continuum in Nasca Imagery. Andean Past 4:81-90."!

Carmichael, P. 1995. "Nasca Burial Patterns: Social Structure and Mortuary Ideology," in Tombs for the Living: Andean Mortuary Practices. Edited by T. D. Dillehay, pp. 161-189. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks."!

Carmichael, P. 1998. "Nasca Ceramics: Production and Social Context," in Andean Ceramics: Technology, Organization, and Approaches. Edited by I. Shimada, pp. 213-231. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology."!

Carmichael, P. 2013. Regionalism in Nasca Style History. Andean Past 11:215-231."!Chiou, K. L., A. Cook, and C. A. Hastorf. 2013. Flotation versus Dry Sieving

Archaeobotanical Remains: A Case History from the Middle Horizon Southern Coast of Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology 38:38-53."!

Clarkson, P. B. 1990. "The Archaeology of the Nazca Pampa: Environmental and Cultural Parameters," in The Lines of the Nazca. Edited by A. F. Aveni, pp. 125-135. Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society."!

Cohen, A.P. 1985. The Symbolic Construction of Community. London: Tavistock Publications.!

!364

Coleman Goldstein, R. 2010. Negotiating Power in the Wari Empire: A Comparative Study of Local-imperial Interactions in the Moquegua and Majes Regions during the Middle Horizon (550-1050 CE). Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!

Conkey, M. W. 1990. "Experimenting with Style in Archaeology: Some Historical and Theoretical Issues," in The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Edited by M. W. Conkey and C. A. Hastorf, pp. 5-17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press."!

Conlee, C. A. 2000. Late Prehispanic Occupation of Pajonal Alto, Nasca, Peru: Implications for Imperial Collapse and Societal Reformation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!

Conlee, C. A. 2003. Local Elites and the Reformation of Late Intermediate Period Sociopolitical and Economic Organization in Nasca, Peru. Latin American Antiquity 14:47-65."!

Conlee, C. A. 2005. "The Expansion, Diversification, and Segmentation of Power in Late Prehispanic Nasca," in The Foundations of Power in the Prehispanic Andes, vol. 14. Edited by K. J. Vaughn, D. Ogburn, and C. A. Conlee, pp. 211-223. Washington D.C.: Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association."!

Conlee, C. A. 2007. Decapitation and Rebirth. Current Anthropology 48:438-445."!Conlee, C. A. 2010. "Nasca and Wari: Local opportunism and colonial ties during the

Middle Horizon," in Beyond Wari Walls: Regional Perspectives on Middle Horizon Peru. Edited by J. Jennings, pp. 96-112. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press."!

Conlee, C. A. In press. Nasca Culture Integration and Complexity: A Perspective from the Site of La Tiza. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology."!

Conlee, C. A., M. R. Buzon, A. Noriega Gutierrez, A. Simonetti, and R. A. Creaser. 2009. Identifying Foreigners versus Locals in a Burial Population from Nasca, Peru: An Investigation using Strontium Isotope Analysis. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:2755-2764."!

Conlee, C. A., and K. Schreiber. 2006. "The Role of Intermediate Elites in the Balkanization and Reformation of Post-Wari Society in Nasca, Peru," in Intermediate Elites in Pre-Columbian States and Empires. Edited by C. Elson and R. A. Covey, pp. 94-111. Tucson: University of Arizona Press."!

Conlee, C. A., J. Dulanto, C. J. Mackey, and C. Stanish. 2004. "Late Prehispanic Sociopolitical Complexity," in Andean Archaeology. Edited by H. Silverman, pp. 209-236. New York: Blackwell."

!365

Conlin Casella, Eleanor, and Chris Fowler. 2005. Beyond Identification: An Introduction. In The Archaeology of Plural and Changing Identities: Beyond Identification, edited by E. Conlin Casella and C. Fowler, pp. 1-10. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers."!

Conrad, G. W., and A. Webster. 1989. "Household Unit Patterning in San Antonio," in Ecology, Settlement, and History in the Osmore Drainage, Peru. Edited by D. S. Rice, C. Stanish, and P. Scarr, pp. 395-414. Oxford: BAR International Series 545, Archaeopress."!

Cook, A. 1985. Art and Time in the Evolution of Andean State Expansion. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York, Binghamton. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms."!

Cook, A. 1994. Wari y Tiwanaku: Entre el Estilo y la Imagen. Lima: Fondo Editorial, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú."!

Cook, A. 1999. Asentamientos Paracas en el Valle Bajo de Ica, Peru. Gaceta Arqueológica Andina 25:61-90."!

Cook, A., and M. Glowacki. 2003. "Pots, Politics, and Power: Huari Ceramic Assemblages and Imperial Administration," in The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires. Edited by T. L. Bray, pp. 173-202. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers."!

Cook, A., and N. Parrish. 2005. Gardens in the Desert: Archaeobotanical Analysis from the Lower Ica Valley. Andean Past 7:135-156."!

Cordy-Collins, A. 1976. An Iconographic Study of Chavín Textiles from the South Coast of Peru: The Discovery of a Pre-Columbian Catechism. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms."!

Cordy-Collins, A. 1977. "Chavín Art: Its Shamanic/Hallucinogenic Origins," in Pre-Columbian Art History. Edited by A. Cordy-Collins and J. Stern, pp. 353-362. Palo Alto: Peek."!

Costion, K. E. 2009. Huaracane Social Organization: Change Over Time at the Prehispanic Community of Yahuay Alta, Perú. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!

Cusick, J. G., ed. 1998. Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale."!

D'Altroy, T.N., and Christine A. Hastorf, eds. 2001. Empire and Domestic Economy. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers."

!366

Daggett, R. E. 2009. "Julio C. Tello: An Account of His Rise to Prominence in Peruvian Archaeology," in The Life and Writings of Julio C. Tello: America's First Indigenous Archaeologist. Edited by R. L. Burger, pp. 7-54. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press."!

Davis, A. R. 2012. "Materialist Villages or Idealist Communities? The Effect of Site Formation Processes on the Portrayal of Pre-State Andean Settlements," in 31st Annual Northeast Conference on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Boston."!

Dean, E., and D. Kojan. 2001. Ceremonial Households and Domestic Temples: "Fuzzy" Definitions in the Andean Formative. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 85:109-135."!

DeLeonardis, L. 1991. Settlement History of the Lower Ica Valley, Peru; 5th-1st Centuries, B.C. M.A. thesis, Catholic University of America."!

DeLeonardis, L. 1997. Paracas Settlement in Callango, Lower Ica Valley, 1st Millennium B.C., Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, The Catholic University of America. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!

DeLeonardis, L. 2000. The Body Context: Interpreting Early Nasca Decapitated Burials. Latin American Antiquity 11:363-386."!

Demarest, A.A. 2004. Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press."!

Dietler, M. 1997. The Iron Age in Mediterranean France: Colonial Encounters, Entanglements, and Transformations. Journal of World Prehistory 11:269-357."!

Dietler, M., and I. Herbich. 1998. "Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries," in The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Edited by M. T. Stark, pp. 232-263. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press."

Dobres, M.-A., and C. R. Hoffman. 1994. Social Agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1:211-258."!

Dobres, M.-A., and J. E. Robb. 2005. "Doing" Agency: Introductory Remarks on Methodology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12 (3):159-166."!

Dornan, Jennifer L. 2002. Agency and Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9 (4):303-329."!

Dunnell, Robert C. 1992. The Notion Site. In Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, edited by J. Rossignol and L. Wandsnider, pp. 21-41. New York: Plenum Press."

!367

Edwards, M. 2010. Archaeological Investigations at Pataraya: A Wari Outpost in the Nasca Valley of Southern Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. DMI Dissertations Publishing."!

Edwards, M., F. Fernandini Parodi, and G. Alexandrino Ocaña. 2008. Decorated Spindle Whorls from Middle Horizon Pataraya. Ñawpa Pacha 29:87-100."!

Eerkens, J. 2001. Techniques for Assessing Standardization in Artifact Assemblages: Can We Scale Material Visibility. American Antiquity 66:493-504."!

Eerkens, J., K. J. Vaughn, T. R. Carpenter, C. A. Conlee, M. Linares Grados, and K. Schreiber. 2008. Obsidian Hydration Dating on the South Coast of Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:2231-2239."!

Eerkens, J., K. J. Vaughn, and M. Linares Grados. 2009. Pre-Inca Mining in the Southern Nasca Region, Peru. Antiquity 83:738-750."!

Eerkens, J., K. J. Vaughn, M. Linares Grados, C. A. Conlee, K. Schreiber, M. D. Glascock, and N. Tripcevich. 2010. Spatio-temporal patterns in obsidian consumption in the Southern Nasca Region, Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:825-832."!

Eisleb, D. 1975. Altperuanische Kulturen Nazca. Berlin: Museum Für Völkerkunde."!Eitel, B., and B. Mächtle. 2009. "Man and Environment in the Eastern Atacama Desert

(Southern Peru): Holocene Climate Changes and Their Impact on Pre-Columbian Cultures," in New Technologies for Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru. Edited by M. Reindel and G. A. Wagner, pp. 17-37. Berlin: Springer."!

Eitel, B., S. Hecht, B. Mächtle, G. Schukraft, A. Kadereit, G. A. Wagner, R. Kromer, I. Unkel, and M. Reindel. 2005. Geoarchaeological Evidence from Desert Loess in the Nazca-Palpa Region, Southern Peru: Paleoenvironmental Changes and Their Impact on Pre-Columbian Cultures. Archaeometry 47:137-158."!

Engel, F. 1966. Paracas: Cien Siglos de Cultura Peruana. Lima: Editorial Juan Mejía Baca."!Engel, F. 1976. An Ancient World Preserved. New York: Crown."!Engel, F. 1981. Prehistoric Andean Ecology: Man, Settlement and Environment in the Andes,

the Deep South. Vol. 2. Papers of the Department of Anthropology, Hunter College of the City University of New York. New York: Humanities Press."!!!

!368

Fassbinder, J. W. E., and T. H. Gorka. 2009. "Beneath the Desert Soil - Archaeological Prospecting with a Caesium Magnetometer," in New Technologies for Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru. Edited by M. Reindel and G. A. Wagner, pp. 49-70. Berlin: Springer."!

Fehren-Schmitz, L., S. Hummel, and B. Herrmann. 2009. "Who Were the Nasca? Population Dynamics in Pre-Columbian Southern Peru Revealed by Ancient DNA Analyses," in New Technologies for Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru. Edited by M. Reindel and G. A. Wagner, pp. 159-172: Springer."!

Feinman, G. M., and L. M. Nicholas. 1993. Shell-Ornament Production in Ejutla: Implications for Highland-Coastal Interaction in Ancient Oaxaca Ancient Mesoamerica 4:103-119."!

Feinman, G. M., L. M. Nicholas, and H. R. Haines. 2002. Houses on a Hill: Classic Period Life at El Palmillo, Oaxaca, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 13:251-277."!

Flannery, K. V. 1976. The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: Academic Press."!Frank, B. 1998. Mande Potters and Leatherworkers: Art and Heritage in West Africa.

Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press."!Gaffney, C. F., and V. L. Gaffney. 1988. Some Quantitative Approaches to Site Territory

and Land Use from the Surface Record. In Conceptual Issues in Environmental Archaeology, edited by D. A. Davidson and E. G. Grant, pp. 82-90. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press."!

Garber, J. F., W. D. Driver, L. A. Sullivan, and D. M. Glassman. 1998. Bloody Bowls and Broken Pots: The Life, Death, and Rebirth of a Maya House. University of New Mexico Press."!

García Márquez, M., and R. Bustamante Montoro. 1990. Arqueología del Valle de Majes. Gaceta Arqueológica Andina 5:25-40."!

García Soto, R., and B. Pinilla. 1995. Aproximación a una Secuencia de Fases con Cerámica Temprana de la Región de Paracas. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 23:43-81."!

Gayton, A. 1961. The Cultural Significance of Peruvian Textiles: Production, Function, Aesthetics. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 25:111-128."!

Gayton, A., and A. Kroeber. 1927. The Uhle Pottery Collections from Nazca. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 24:1-46."!

!369

Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press."!

Gieryn, Thomas F. 2002. What Buildings Do. Theory and Society 31 (1):35-74."!Gijanto, L. 2011. Exchange, Interaction, and Change in Local Ceramic Production in the

Niumi Commercial Center on the Gambia River. Journal of Social Archaeology 11:21-48."!

Glowacki, M. 1996. The Wari Occupation of the Southern Highlands of Peru: A Ceramic Perspective from the Site of Pikillacta. Ph.D. dissertation, Brandeis University. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms."!

Glowacki, M., and P. J. Knobloch. 2001. Q'otakalli and Huarpa Pottery: Tracing the Origins of the Wari Cuzco Occupation. Paper presented at the 66th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, New Orleans, April 18-22."!

Glowacki, M., and M. Malpass. 2003. Water, Huacas, and Ancestor Worship: Traces of a Sacred Wari Landscape. Latin American Antiquity 14:431-448."!

Glowacki, M., and G. F. McEwan. 2001. "Pikillacta, Huaro, y la Gran Región del Cuzco: Nuevas Interpretaciones de la Ocupación Wari en la Sierra Sur," in Huari y Tiwanaku: Modelos vs. Evidencias, segunda parte. Edited by P. Kaulicke and W. H. Isbell, pp. 31-49. Lima: Boletín de Arqueología PUCP No. 4. Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú."!

Goldstein, P. S. 1993. "House, Community, and State in the Earliest Tiwanaku Colony: Domestic Patterns and State Integration at Omo M12, Moquegua," in Domestic Architecture, Ethnicity, and Complementarity in the South-Central Andes. Edited by M. S. Aldenderfer. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press."!

Goldstein, P. S. 2000a. Exotic Goods and Everyday Chiefs: Long-Distance Exchange in Indigenous Sociopolitical Development in the South Central Andes. Latin American Antiquity 11:335-361."!

Goldstein, Paul S. 2000b. “Communities Without Borders: The Vertical Archipelago and Diaspora Communities in the Southern Andes,” in The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective. Edited by M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger. London: Routledge."!

Goldstein, P. S. 2005. Andean Diaspora: The Tiwanaku Colonies and the Origins of Andean Empire."!!

!370

Goldstein, P. S., and B. Owen. 2001. "Tiwanaku en Moquegua: Las Colonias Altiplánicas," in Huari y Tiwanaku: Modelos vs. Evidencias, segunda parte. Edited by P. Kaulicke and W. H. Isbell, pp. 139-168. Lima: Boletín de Arqueología PUCP No. 4. Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú."!

Goody, J.R. 1972. The Evolution of the Family. In Household and Family in Past Time, edited by P. Laslett and R. Wall, pp. 103-124. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press."!

Goody, J.R. 1990. The Oriental, the Ancient, and the Primitive: Systems of Marriage and the Family in the Pre-Industrial Societies of Eurasia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.!!

Görsdorf, J., and M. Reindel. 2002. Radiocarbon Dating of the Nasca Settlements Los Molinos and La Muña in Palpa, Peru. Geochronometria 21:151-156."!

Gosden, Chris. 2005. What Do Objects Want? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12 (3):193-211."!

Harris, E. C. 1979. Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy. London: Academic Press."!Hastorf, Christine A., and Sissel Johannessen. 1993. Pre-Hispanic Political Change and

the Role of Maize in the Central Andes of Peru. American Anthropologist 95 (1):115-138."!

Hecht, N. 2009. "Of Layers and Sherds: A Context-Based Relative Chronology of the Nasca Style Pottery from Palpa," in New Technologies for Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru. Edited by M. Reindel and G. A. Wagner, pp. 207-230: Springer."!

Hecht, N. 2010. A Relative Sequence of Nasca Style Pottery from Palpa, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Bonn. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!

Hegmon, M. 1992. Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:517-536."!

Hegmon, M., Matthew Peeples, Ann Kinzig, Stephanie Kulow, Cathryn M. Meegan, and Margaret C. Nelson. 2008. Social Transformation and its Human Costs in the Prehispanic US Southwest. American Anthropologist 110:313-324."!

Helms, M. W. 1979. Ancient Panama, Chiefs in Search of Power. Austin: University of Texas Press."!

!371

Hendon, J. A. 1996. Archaeological Approaches to the Organization of Domestic Labor: Household Practice and Domestic Relations. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:45-61."!

Hendon, Julia A. 2010. Houses in a Landscape. Durham: Duke University Press."!Hirth, K. G. Editor. 2009. Housework: Craft Production and Domestic Economy in Ancient

Mesoamerica. Washington D.C.: Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, No. 19."!

Hitchcock, Louise A., and Aren. M. Maeir. 2013. Beyond Creolization and Hybridity: Entangled and Transcultural Identities in Philistia. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28 (1):51-73."!

Hodder, Ian. 1979. Economic and Social Stress and Material Culture Patterning. American Antiquity 44 (3):446-454."!

Hodder, I. 1982. Symbols in Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press."!Hodder, I. 1990. The Domestication of Europe. Oxford: Basil Blackwell."!Hofman, Corinne L., Alistair J. Bright, Arie Boomert, and Sebastiaan Knippenberg. 2007.

Island Rhythms: The Web of Social Relationships and Interaction Networks in the Lesser Antillean Archipelago Between 400 B.C. and A.D. 1492. Latin American Antiquity 18 (3):243-268."!

Horn, P., S. Holzl, S. Rummel, G. Aberg, S. Schiegl, D. Biermann, U. Struck, and A. Rossmann. 2009. "Humans and Camelids in River Oases of the Ica–Palpa–Nazca Region in Pre-Hispanic Times – Insights from H-C-N-O-S-Sr Isotope Signatures," in New Technologies for Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru. Edited by M. Reindel and G. A. Wagner, pp. 173-192. Berlin: Springer."!

Huamán López, O. 2012. "Presencia - Ausencia y Recurrencia: La Cerámica," in Wari en Arequipa? Análisis de los Contextos Funerarios de La Real. Edited by W. Yépez Álvarez and J. Jennings, pp. 54-97. Arequipa: Museo Arqueológico José María Morante, Universidad Nacional de San Agustín de Arequipa."!

Isbell, W. H. 1977. The Rural Foundations for Urbanism: A Study of Economic and Stylistic Interaction between Rural and Urban Communities in Eighth-Century Peru. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, Illinois Studies in Anthropology 10."!

Isbell, W. H. 1984. "Huari Urban Prehistory," in Current Archaeological Projects in the Central Andes. Edited by A. Kendall, pp. 95-131. Oxford: BAR International Series 210."

!372

Isbell, W. H. 1989. "Honcopampa: Was it a Huari Administrative Center?," in The Nature of Wari: A Reappraisal of the Middle Horizon Period in Peru. Edited by R. M. Czwarno, F. M. Meddens, and A. Morgan, pp. 98-114. Oxford: BAR International Series 525."!

Isbell, W. H. 1996. Household and Ayni in the Andean Past. Journal of the Steward Anthropological Society 24:249-296."!

Isbell, W. H. 1997. "Reconstructing Huari: A Cultural Chronology for the Capital City," in Emergence and Change in Early Urban Societies. Edited by L. Manzanilla, pp. 181-227. New York: Plenum Press."!

Isbell, W. H. 2000a. "Repensando el Horizonte Medio: El Caso de Conchopata, Ayacucho, Perú," in Huari y Tiwanaku: Modelos vs. Evidencias, primera parte. Edited by P. Kaulicke and W. H. Isbell, pp. 9-68. Lima: Boletín de Arqueología 4, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú."!

Isbell, W. H. 2001. "Huari: Crecimiento y Desarrollo de la Capital Imperial," in Wari: Arte Precolombiano Peruano, pp. 99-172. Sevilla: Centro Cultural El Monte."!

Isbell, W. H. 2010. "Agency, Identity, and Control: Understanding Wari Space and Power," in Beyond Wari Walls: Regional Perspectives on Middle Horizon Peru. Edited by J. Jennings, pp. 233-254. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press."!

Isbell, W. H., and A. Cook. 2002. "A New Perspective on Conchopata and the Andean Middle Horizon," in Andean Archaeology II: Art, Landscape, and Society. Edited by W. H. Isbell and H. Silverman, pp. 249-306. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers."!

Isbell, W. H., and K. Schreiber. 1978. Was Huari a State? American Antiquity 43:372-389."!Isbell, W. H., C. C. Brewster-Wray, and L. E. Spickard. 1991. "Architecture and Spatial

Organization at Huari," in Huari Administrative Structure: Prehistoric Monumental Architecture and State Government. Edited by W. H. Isbell and G. F. McEwan, pp. 19-54. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection."!

Isla Cuadrado, J. 1990. La Esmeralda: Una Ocupación del Periodo Arcaico en Cahuachi, Nasca. Gaceta Arqueológica Andina 20:67-80."!

Isla Cuadrado, J. 2001. "Wari en Palpa y Nasca: Perspectivas desde el Punto de Vista Funerario," in Huari y Tiwanaku: Modelos vs. Evidencias. Segunda Parte. Edited by P. Kaulicke and W. H. Isbell, pp. 555-584. Lima: Boletín de Arqueología PUCP No. 5. Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú."!

!373

Isla Cuadrado, J. 2009. "From Hunters to Regional Lords: Funerary Practices in Palpa, Peru," in New Technologies for Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru. Edited by M. Reindel and G. A. Wagner, pp. 119-140: Springer."!

Isla Cuadrado, J., and M. Reindel. 2005. New Studies on the Settlements and Geoglyphs in Palpa, Peru. Andean Past 7:57-92."!

Isla Cuadrado, Johny, and Markus Reindel. 2006. Burial Patterns and Sociopolitical Organization in Nasca 5 Society. In Andean Archaeology III: Anthropology and Archaeology, edited by H. Silverman and W. H. Isbell, pp. 374-400. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press."!

Janusek, J. W. 1999. Craft and Local Power: Embedded Specialization in Tiwanaku Cities. Latin American Antiquity 10:107-131."!

Janusek, J. W. 2002. Out of Many, One: Style and Social Boundaries in Tiwanaku. Latin American Antiquity 13:35-61."!

Janusek, J. W. 2005. Collapse as Cultural Revolution: Power and Identity in the Tiwanaku to Pacajes Transition. In Foundations of Power in the Prehispanic Andes, edited by K. J. Vaughn, D. Ogburn and C. A. Conlee, pp. 175-209. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, no. 14."!

Jennings, J. 2006. Core, Peripheries, and Regional Realities in Middle Horizon Peru. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25:346-370."!

Jennings, J. 2010a. "Becoming Wari: Globalization and the Role of the Wari State in the Cotahuasi Valley of Southern Peru," in Beyond Wari Walls: Regional Perspectives on Middle Horizon Peru. Edited by J. Jennings, pp. 37-56. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press."!

Jennings, J. Editor. 2010b. Beyond Wari Walls: Regional Perspectives on Middle Horizon Peru. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press."!

Jennings, J. 2010c. Beyond Wari Walls. In Beyond Wari Walls: Regional Perspectives on Middle Horizon Peru, edited by J. Jennings, pp. 1-18. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press."!

Jennings, J., and W. Yépez Álvarez. 2001. Architecture, Local Elites, and Imperial Entanglements: The Wari Empire and the Cotahuasi Valley of Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology 28:143-159."!!!

!374

Johnson, D. W., D. Proulx, and S. B. Mabee. 2002. "The Correlation Between Geoglyphs and Subterranean Water Resources in the Río Grande de Nazca Drainage," in Andean Archaeology II: Art, Landscape, and Society. Edited by H. Silverman and W. H. Isbell, pp. 307-332. New York: Kluwer."!

Johnson, M. J. 2009. Obsidian Availability through Time: Lithic Analysis at La Tiza and Pataraya, Nasca Drainage, Peru. M.A. thesis, Texas State University, San Marcos."!

Johnston, K. J., and N. Gonlin. 1998. "What Do Houses Mean? Approaches to the Analysis of Classic Maya Commoner Residence," in Function and Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture. Edited by S. D. Houston. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks."!

Jones, S. 1997. The Archaeology of Ethnicity: Constructing Identities of the Past and Present. London: Routledge."!

Joyce, R. A. 2008. Practice in and as Deposition. In Memory Work: Archaeologies of Material Practice, edited by B. J. Mills and W. H. Walker, pp. 25-39. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press."!

Joyce, R. A., and S. D. Gillespie. Editors. 2000. Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press."!

Joyce, R. A., and J. A. Hendon. 2000. Hierarchy, History, and Material Reality: Communities in Late Classic Honduras. In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger. London: Routledge."!

Kantner, J., and K. J. Vaughn. 2012. Pilgrimage as Costly Signal: Religiously Motivated Cooperation in Chaco and Nasca. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31:66-82."!

Keith, K. 1998. Spindle Whorls, Gender, and Ethnicity at Late Chalcolithic Hacinebi Tepe. Journal of Field Archaeology 25:497-515."!

Kellner, C. A. 2002. Coping with Environmental and Social Challenges in Prehistoric Peru: Bioarchaeological Analyses of Nasca Populations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!

Kellner, C. A., and M. J. Schoeninger. 2008. Wari's Imperial Influence on Local Nasca Diet: The Stable Isotope Evidence. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27:226-243."!

Kellner, C. A., and M. J. Schoeninger. 2012. Dietary Correlates to the Development of Nasca Social Complexity (A.D. 1-750). Latin American Antiquity 23:490-508."!

!375

Kellner, C. A., A. Somerville, and M. J. Schoeninger. 2011. Strontium Analyses of Human Bone Reveal no Wari State Emissaries in the Nasca Region of South Coastal Peru (750-1000 AD). Paper presented at the American Association of Physical Anthropologists Annual Meeting. Minneapolis, Minnesota."!

Knobloch, P. J. 1976. A Study of the Huarpa Ceramic Style of the Andean Early Intermediate Period. M.A. thesis, State University of New York, Binghamton."!

Knobloch, P. J. 1983. A Study of Andean Huari Ceramics from the Early Intermediate Period to the Middle Horizon Epoch 1. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York, Binghamton. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms."!

Knobloch, P. J. 1991. "Stylistic Date of Ceramics from the Huari Centers," in Huari Administrative Structure: Prehistoric Monumental Architecture and State Government. Edited by W. H. Isbell and G. F. McEwan, pp. 247-258. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection."!

Knobloch, P. J. 2005. Monkey Saw, Monkey Did: A Stylization Model for Correlating Nasca and Wari Chronology. Andean Past 7:111-134."!

Knobloch, P. J. In press. An Early Intermediate Period Deposit of Huarpa Style Ceramics from the Site of Huari, Department of Ayacucho, Perú. Ñawpa Pacha."!

Knudson, K. J., S. R. Williams, R. Osborn, K. Forgey, and P. R. Williams. 2009. The Geographic Origins of Nasca Trophy Heads using Strontium, Oxygen, and Carbon Isotope Data. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 28:244-257."!

Kolb, Michael J., and J.E. Snead. 1997. It's a Small World after All: Comparative Analyses of Community Organization in Archaeology. American Antiquity 62 (4):609-628."!

Kroeber, A. 1926. Archaeological Explorations in Peru. Part I. Ancient Pottery from Trujillo. Field Museum of National History, Anthropology Memoirs 2."!

Kroeber, A. 1930. Archaeological Explorations in Peru. Part II. The Northern Coast. Field Museum of National History, Anthropology Memoirs 2:45-116."!

Kroeber, A. 1937. Archaeological Explorations in Peru. Part IV. Cañete Valley. Field Museum of National History, Anthropology Memoirs 2:223-273."!

Kroeber, A. 1944. Peruvian Archaeology in 1942. Viking Fund Publication in Anthropology 4. New York: Viking Fund."!

Kroeber, A. 1956. Toward a Definition of the Nazca Style. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 43:327-432. University of California Press, Berkeley. "

!376

Kroeber, A., and D. Collier. 1998. The Archaeology and Pottery of Nazca, Peru: Alfred L. Kroeber's 1926 Expedition. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press."!

Lambers, K. 2004. The Geoglyphs of Palpa (Peru): Documentation, Analysis, and Interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Zurich. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!

Lambers, K. 2006. The Geoglyphs of Palpa, Peru: Documentation, Analysis, and Interpretations. Bonn: Forschungen zur Archäologie Außereuropäischer Kulturen."!

Lanning, E. P. 1960. Chronological and Cultural Relationships of Early Pottery Styles in Ancient Peru, University of California, Berkeley."!

Lapiner, A. 1976. Pre-Columbian Art of South America. New York: Harry N. Abrams."!Larco Hoyle, R. 1945. "Los Cupisniques." XVII Congreso Internacional de Americanistas,

Lima, 1945."!Lau, G. F. 2010. House Forms and Recuay Culture: Residential Compounds at Yayno

(Ancash, Peru), a Fortified Hilltop Town, AD 400-800. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29:327-351."!

Leoni, J. B. 2004. Ritual, Place, and Memory in the Construction of Community Identity: A Diachronic View from Ñawinpukyo (Ayacucho, Peru). Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York, Binghamton. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!

Leoni, J. B. 2006. "Ritual and Society in Early Intermediate Period Ayacucho: A View from the Site of Ñawinpukyo," in Andean Archaeology, vol. 3. Edited by W. H. Isbell and H. Silverman, pp. 279-306. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum."!

Leoni, J. B. 2009. Archaeological Investigations at Ñawinpukyo: Change and Continuity in an Early Intermediate Period and Middle Horizon Community in Ayacucho, Peru. Oxford: BAR International Series 1991, Archaeopress."!

Leoni, J. B. 2010. Early Intermediate Period and Middle Horizon funerary practices in Ayacucho: a view from the site of Ñawinpukyo. Ñawpa Pacha 30:65-90."!

Lightfoot, K. G. 2001. Traditions as Cultural Production: Implications for Contemporary Archaeological Research. In The Archaeology of Traditions: Agency and History Before and After Columbus, edited by T. R. Pauketat, pp. 237-252. Gainesville: University Press of Florida."!

Lothrop, S. K., and J. Mahler. 1957. Late Nazca Burials in Chaviña, Peru. Cambridge: Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 50, Harvard University."!

!377

Lumbreras, L. G. 1959. Esquema Arqueológico de la Sierra Central del Perú. Lima: Revista del Museo Nacional XXVIII."!

Lumbreras, L. G. 1960. La Cultura de Wari, Ayacucho. Etnología y Arqueología 1:130-227."!Lumbreras, L. G. 1974a. The Peoples and Cultures of Ancient Peru. Washington, D.C.:

Smithsonian Institution Press."!Lumbreras, L. G. 1974b. Las Fundaciones de Huamanga. Hacia una Prehistoria de Ayacucho.

Lima: Editorial Nueva Educación."!Mächtle, B., and B. Eitel. 2012. Fragile Landscapes, Fragile Civilizations - How Climate

Determined Societies in the Pre-Columbian South Peruvian Andes. Catena 103:62-73."!

Mächtle, B., B. Eitel, G. Schukraft, and K. Ross. 2009. "Built on Sand: Climatic Oscillation and Water Harvesting During the Late Intermediate Period," in New Technologies for Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru. Edited by M. Reindel and G. A. Wagner. Berlin: Springer."!

Manzanilla, L. 2002. "Living with the Ancestors and Offering to the Gods," in Domestic Ritual in Ancient Mesoamerica. Edited by P. Plunket. Los Angeles: Monograph 46. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California."!

Manzanilla, L., and C. Chapdelaine. Editors. 2009. Domestic Life in Prehispanic Capitals: A Study in Specialization, Hierarchy, and Ethnicity. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology."!

Marcus, J. 1998. The Peaks and Valleys of Ancient States: An Extension of the Dynamic Model. In Archaic States, edited by G. M. Feinman and J. Marcus, pp. 59-94. Santa Fe: School of American Research."!

Marcus, J. 2000. Toward an Archaeology of Communities. In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 231-242. London: Routledge."!

Massey, S. 1986. Sociopolitical Change in the Upper Ica Valley, 400 BC to AD 400: Regional States on the South Coast of Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan."!

Massey, S. 1991. "Social and Political Leadership in the Lower Ica Valley: Ocucaje Phases 8 and 9," in Paracas Art and Architecture: Object and Context in South Coastal Peru. Edited by A. Paul, pp. 315-348. Iowa City: University of Iowa."!

!378

McAnany, Patricia A., and Norman Yoffee, eds. 2009. Questioning Collapse: Human Resilience, Environmental Variability, and the Aftermath of Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press."!

McEwan, G. F. 1991. "Investigations at the Pikillacta Site: A Provincial Huari Center in the Valley of Cuzco," in Huari Administrative Structure: Prehistoric Monumental Architecture and State Government. Edited by W. H. Isbell and G. F. McEwan, pp. 93-120. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection."!

McEwan, G. F. 1996. Archaeological Investigations at Pikillacta, a Wari Site in Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology 23:169-186."!

McEwan, G. F. 2005. Pikillacta: The Wari Empire in Cuzco. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press."!

McGuire, R. H., and M. B. Schiffer. 1983. A Theory of Architectural Design. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2:277-303."!

Meddens, F. M., and N. Branch. 2010. "The Wari State, Its Use of Ancestors, Rural Hinterland, and Agricultural Infrastructure," in Beyond Wari Walls: Regional Perspectives on Middle Horizon Peru. Edited by J. Jennings, pp. 155-170. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press."!

Mehrer, M. 2007. "Steps to a Holistic Household Archaeology," in Commoner Ritual and Ideology in Ancient Mesoamerica. Edited by N. Gonlin and J. C. Lohse, pp. 281-293. Boulder: University Press of Colorado."!

Menzel, D. 1959. The Inca Occupation of the South Coast of Peru. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 15:125-142."!

Menzel, D. 1964. Style and Time in the Middle Horizon. Ñawpa Pacha 2:1-106."!Menzel, D. 1971. Estudios Arqueológicos en los Valles de Ica, Pisco, Chincha, y Cañete.

Arqueología y Sociedad 6:1-161."!Menzel, D. 1976. Pottery Style and Society in Ancient Peru: Art as a Mirror of History in the

Ica Valley, 1350-1750. Berkeley: University of California Press."!Menzel, D. 1977. The Archaeology of Ancient Peru and the Work of Max Uhle. Berkeley: R. H.

Lowie Museum of Anthropology."!Menzel, D., J. H. Rowe, and L. E. Dawson. 1964. The Paracas Pottery of Ica: A Study in Style

and Time. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press."!

!379

Mills, B. J. 2007. Performing the Feast: Visual Display and Suprahousehold Commensalism in the Puebloan Southwest. American Antiquity 72:210-239."!

Mintz, S. 1956. Coñamelar: The Subculture of a Rural Sugar Plantation Proletariat. In The People of Puerto Rico, edited by J. H. Steward and et al., pp. 314-417. Urbana: University of Illinois Press."!

Moore, J. D. 1981. Chimu Socio-Economic Organization: Preliminary Data from Manchan, Casma Valley, Peru. Ñawpa Pacha 19:115-125, 127-128."!

Moore, J. D. 1989. Pre-Hispanic Beer in Coastal Peru: Technology and Social Context of Prehistoric Production. American Anthropologist 91 (3):682-695."!

Moore, J. D. 2006. Copper Metallurgy in a Prehistoric Household, Casma Valley, Peru. Ñawpa Pacha 28:141-149."!

Moseley, M. E., D. J. Nash, P. R. Williams, S. D. deFrance, A. Miranda, and M. Ruales. 2005. Burning Down the Brewery: Establishing and Evacuating an Ancient Imperial Colony at Cerro Baúl, Peru. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 102:17264-17271."!

Murdock, G. P. 1949. Social Structure. New York: Macmillan."!Nash, D. J. 2002. The Archaeology of Space: Places of Power in the Wari Empire. Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Florida. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!Nash, D. J. 2009. Household Archaeology in the Andes. Journal of Archaeological Research

17:205-261."!Nash, D. J. 2010. Fine Dining and Fabulous Atmosphere: Feasting Facilities and Political

Interaction in the Wari Realm. In Inside Ancient Kitchens: New Directions in the Study of Daily Meals and Feasts, edited by E. Klarich, pp. 83-110. Boulder: The University of Colorado Press."!

Nash, D. J., and P. R. Williams. 2005. Architecture and Power on the Wari-Tiwanaku Frontier. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 14:151-174."!

Nash, D. J., and P. R. Williams. 2009. Wari Political Organization: The Southern Periphery. In Andean Civilization: A Tribute to Michael E. Moseley, edited by J. Marcus and P. R. Williams, pp. 257-276. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press."!

Naum, M. 2010. Re-emerging Frontiers: Postcolonial Theory and Historical Archaeology of the Borderlands. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17:101-131."

!380

Naum, M. 2013. Convivencia in a Borderland: The Danish-Slavic Border in the Middle Ages. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28 (1):75-94."!

Nishizawa, H. 2011. Shifting Power and Prestige in the Ayacucho Valley, Peru's South Central Highlands: Materiality of Huarpa and Wari Ceramics. Ph.D. dissertation, American University. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!

Ochatoma Paravicino, J., and M. Cabrera Romero. 2001. Poblados Rurales Huari: Una Visión desde Aqo Wayqo. Lima: CANO Asociados SAC."!

Ochatoma Paravicino, J., and M. Cabrera Romero. 2002. "Religious Ideology and Military Organization in the Iconography of a D-Shaped Ceremonial Precinct at Conchopata," in Andean Archaeology II: Art, Landscape, and Society. Edited by W. H. Isbell and H. Silverman, pp. 225-248. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers."!

Ochatoma Paravicino, J., T. A. Tung, and M. Cabrera Romero. 2008. The Emergence of a Wari Military Class as Viewed through Art and the Body. Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Vancouver, March 26-30."!

ONERN. 1971. "Inventario, Evaluación, y Uso Racional de los Recursos Naturales de la Costa. Cuenca del Río Grande (Nazca)." Lima: ONERN."!

Orefici, G. 1993. Nasca: Arte e Società del Popolo dei Geoglifi. Milan: Jaca Books."!Orefici, G. 2012. Cahuachi: Capital Teocrática Nasca. Lima: Fondo Editorial, Universidad de

San Martin de Porres."!Ortner, Sherry. 1984. Theory in Anthropology Since the Sixties. Comparative Studies in

Society and History 26 (126-166)."!Owen, B. 2007. Rural Wari far from the Heartland: Huamanga Ceramics from Beringa,

Majes Valley, Peru. Andean Past 8:287-373."!Owen, B. 2010. "Wari in the Majes-Camaná Valley: A Different Kind of Horizon," in

Beyond Wari Walls: Regional Perspectives on Middle Horizon Peru. Edited by J. Jennings, pp. 57-78. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press."

Parker Pearson, M., and C. Richards. 1994. "Architecture and Order: Spatial Representation and Archaeology," in Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space. Edited by M. Parker Pearson and C. Richards, pp. 38-72. London: Routledge."!

Parsons, M. 1972. Spindle Whorls from the Teotihuacán Valley, Mexico. Museum of Anthropology Anthropological Papers 45:619-639."!

!381

Parsons, M. 1975. The Distribution of Late Postclassic Spindle Whorls in the Valley of Mexico. American Antiquity 40:208-215."!

Pauketat, T. R. 2001. Practice and History in Archaeology: An Emerging Paradigm. Anthropological Theory 1 (1):73-98."!

Pauketat, T. R. 2010. Of Leaders and Legacies in Native North America. In The Evolution of Leadership: Transitions in Decision Making from Small-Scale to Middle-Range Societies, edited by K. J. Vaughn, J. Eerkens and J. Kantner, pp. 169-192. Santa Fe: School for Advanced Research Press.!!

Paul, A. 1991. "Paracas: An Ancient Cultural Tradition on the South Coast of Peru," in Paracas Art and Architecture: Object and Context in South Coastal Peru. Edited by A. Paul, pp. 1-34. Iowa City: University of Iowa."!

Paulsen, A. C. 1968. A Middle Horizon Tomb, Ica Valley, Peru. Ñawpa Pacha 6:1-6."!Paulsen, A. C. 1983. Huaca del Loro Revisited: The Nasca-Huarpa Connection. Andean

Past 1:98-121."!Peters, A. H. 1997. Paracas, Topará and Early Nasca: Ethnicity and Society on the South

Central Andean Coast. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!

Peters, A. H. 2000. Funerary Regalia and Institutions of Leadership in Paracas and Topará. Revista de Antropología Chilena 32:245-252."!

Ponte, V. M. 2000. "Transformación Social y Política en El Callejón de Huaylas, Siglos II-X D.C.," in Huari y Tiwanaku: Modelos vs. Evidencias, primera parte. Edited by P. Kaulicke and W. H. Isbell, pp. 219-251. Lima: Boletín de Arqueología PUCP No. 4. Fondo Editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú."!

Proulx, D. 1968. Local Differences and Time Differences in Nasca Pottery. Vol. 5. University of California Publications in Anthropology. Berkeley: University of California Press."!

Proulx, D. 1970. Nasca Gravelots in the Uhle Collection from the Ica Valley, Peru. Research Reports 5. Amherst: Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts."!

Proulx, D. 1983. "The Nasca Style," in Art of the Andes: Pre-Columbian Sculptured and Painted Ceramics from the Arthur M. Sackler Collections. Edited by L. Katz, pp. 87-105. Washington D.C.: Arthur M. Sackler Foundation and the AMS Foundation for the Arts, Sciences, and Humanities."!!

!382

Proulx, D. 1989. "Nasca Trophy Heads: Victims of Warfare or Ritual Sacrifice?," in Cultures in Conflict: Current Archaeological Perspectives. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary. Edited by D. C. Tkaczuk and B. C. Vivian, pp. 73-85. Calgary: University of Calgary Archaeological Association."!

Proulx, D. 1994. Stylistic Variation in Proliferous Nasca Pottery. Andean Past 4:91-107."!Proulx, D. 1998. Settlement Patterns and Society in South Coastal Peru. Research report

submitted to the H. John Heinz III Charitable Fund."!Proulx, D. 2006. A Sourcebook of Nasca Ceramic Iconography. Iowa City: University of Iowa

Press."!Rathje, W. L. 1983. "To the Salt of the Earth: Some Comments on Household Archaeology

Among the Maya," in Prehistoric Settlement Patterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey. Edited by E. Vogt and R. M. Leventhal, pp. 23-34. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press."!

Redfield, R. 1955. The Little Community: Viewpoints for the Study of the Human Whole. Chicago: University of Chicago Press."!

Reiche, M. 1968. Mystery on the Desert. Stuttgart: Eigenverlag."!Reimer, P. J., M. G. L. Bailie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. W. Beck, P. G. Blackwell, C. Bronk

Ramsey, C. E. Buck, G. S. Burr, R. L. Edwards, M. Friedrich, P. M. Grootes, T. P. Guilderson, I. Hajdas, T. J. Heaton, A. G. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, K. F. Kaiser, B. Kromer, F. G. McCormac, S. W. Manning, R. W. Reimer, D. A. Richards, J. R. Southon, S. Talamo, C. S. M. Turney, J. van der Plicht, and C. E. Weyhenmeyer. 2009. IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51:1111-1150."!

Reindel, M. 2009. "Life at the Edge of the Desert - Archaeological Reconstruction of the Settlement History in the Valleys of Palpa, Peru," in New Technologies for Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru. Edited by M. Reindel and G. A. Wagner, pp. 439-461: Springer."!

Reindel, M., and J. Isla Cuadrado. 1998. Informe Final: Proyecto Palpa 1998. Instituto Nacional de Cultura de Peru."!

Reindel, M., and J. Isla Cuadrado. 2013. Coast-Highland Interaction of the Nasca Society in the Palpa Region, South of Peru. Paper presented at the 78th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Honolulu, April 3-7."!

!383

Reindel, M., and G. A. Wagner. 2009. "Introduction - New Methods and Technologies of Natural Sciences for Archaeological Investigations in Nasca and Palpa, Peru," in New Technologies for Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru. Edited by M. Reindel and G. A. Wagner, pp. 1-13. Berlin: Springer."!

Reindel, M., J. Isla Cuadrado, and K. Koschmieder. 1999. Vorspanische Siedlungen und Bodenzeichnungen in Palpa, Süd-Peru/Asentamientos Prehispánicos y Geoglifos e Palpa, Costa Sur del Perú. Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 19:313-381."!

Reindel, M., K. Lambers, and A. Grün. 2003. Photogrammetrische Dokumentation und Archäologische Analyse der Vorspanischen Bodenzeichnungen von Palpa, Süd-Peru/Documentación Fotogramétrica y Análisis Arqueológico de los Geoglifos Prehispánicos de Palpa, Coast Sur del Perú. Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäologie 23:186-223."!

Reindel, M., J. Isla Cuadrado, and K. Lambers. 2006. Los Geoglifos de Palpa: Documentación, Análisis, y Perspectivas. Boletín de Lima 143:73-111."!

Reindel, Markus, Thomas R. Stöllner, and Benedikt Gräfingholt. 2013. Mining Archaeology in the Nasca and Palpa Region, South Coast of Peru. In Mining and Quarrying in the Ancient Andes: Sociopolitical, Economic, and Symbolic Dimensions, edited by N. Tripcevich and K. J. Vaughn, pp. 299-324. New York: Springer."!

Reinhard, J. 1988. "The Nazca Lines, Water, and Mountains: An Ethnoarchaeological Study," in Recent Studies in Pre-Columbian Archaeology. Edited by N. J. Saunders and O. de Montmollin. Oxford: BAR International Series 421."!

Renfrew, Colin. 1987. Problems in the Modeling of Sociocultural Systems. European Journal of Operational Research 30 (2):179-192."!

Renneberg, R., S. Hummel, and B. Herrmann. 2009. "The Nasca and Their Dear Creatures – Molecular Genetic Analysis of Pre-Columbian Camelid Bones and Textiles," in New Technologies for Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru. Edited by M. Reindel and G. A. Wagner, pp. 193-206. Berlin: Springer."!

Rice, P. 1987. Pottery Analysis: A Sourcebook. Chicago: University of Chicago Press."!Rick, J. W. 2005. "The Evolution of Authority and Power at Chavín de Huántar, Peru," in

The Foundations of Power in the Prehispanic Andes. Edited by K. J. Vaughn, C. A. Conlee, and D. Ogburn, pp. 71-90. Washington D.C.: Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association."!

!384

Rick, J. W., S. Rodriguez Kembel, R. Mendoza Rick, and J. A. Kembel. 1998. La Arquitectura del Complejo Ceremonial de Chavín de Huántar: Documentación Tridimensional y sus Implicancias. Boletín de Arqueología PUCP 2:181-214."!

Riddell, F. Editor. 1989. Archaeological Investigations in the Acari Valley, Peru: A Field Report. Sacramento: California Institute of Peruvian Studies."!

Riddell, F., and L. Valdez Cárdenas. 1988. Prospecciones Arqueológicas en el Valle de Acarí, Costa Sur del Perú. Sacramento: California Institute for Peruvian Studies."!

Rios Valladares, P. 2007. El Sector CAH 04, Y8-EXP 108: Las Funciones de la Plaza al Este de la Gran Pirámide en los Complejos Ceremoniales de Cahuachi (Nazca), Período Intermedio Temprano. Licenciada en Arqueología thesis, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú."!

Roark, R. 1965. From Monumental to Proliferous in Nasca Pottery. Ñawpa Pacha 3:1-92."!Robin, C. 2001. Peopling the Past: New Perspectives on the Ancient Maya. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Science 98:18-21."!Robin, C. 2003. New Directions in Classic Maya Household Archaeology. Journal of

Archaeological Research 11:307-346."!Rowe, J. H. 1954. Max Uhle, 1856-1944: A Memoir of the Father of Peruvian Archaeology.

Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 46:1-134."!Rowe, J. H. 1956. Archaeological Explorations in Southern Peru, 1954-1956: Preliminary

report of the Fourth University of California Archaeological Expedition to Peru. American Antiquity 21:135-151."!

Rowe, J. H. 1960. "Nuevos Datos Relativos a la Cronología del Estilo Nasca," in Antiguo Peru, Espacio y Tiempo: Trabajos Presentados a la Semana de Arqueología Peruana 1959, pp. 29-45. Lima: Librería-Editorial Juan Mejía Baca."!

Rowe, J. H. 1962. Stages and Periods in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 18:40-54."!

Rowe, J. H. 1963. Urban Settlements in Ancient Peru. Ñawpa Pacha 1:1-28."!Rowe, J. H. 1973. "Urban Settlements in Ancient Peru," in Peoples and Cultures of Native

South America. Edited by D. R. Gross, pp. 49-78. Garden City: Doubleday and The Natural History Press."!

Rowe, J. H., D. Collier, and G. R. Willey. 1950. Reconnaissance Notes on the Site of Huari, Near Ayacucho, Peru. American Antiquity 16:120-137."

!385

Santley, R. S., and K. G. Hirth. Editors. 1993. Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica: Studies of the Household, Compound, and Residence. Boca Raton: CRC Press."!

Sawyer, A. R. 1966. Ancient Peruvian Ceramics: The Nathan Cummings Collection. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art."!

Schiffer, M. B., and J. M. Skibo. 1997. The Explanation of Artifact Variability. American Antiquity 62:27-50."!

Schlesier, K. 1959. Stilgeschichtliche Einordnung der Nazca-Vasen-Malereien: Beitrag zur Geschichte der Hochkulturen des Vorkolumbischen Peru. Annali Lateranensi 23:9-236."!

Schlosser, S., R. Kovacs, E. Pernicka, D. Günther, and M. Tellenbach. 2009. "Fingerprints in Gold," in New Technologies for Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru. Edited by M. Reindel and G. A. Wagner, pp. 409-436: Springer."!

Schortman, E. M., and P. A. Urban. 1992. “Current Trends in Interaction Research,” in Resources, Power, and Interregional Interaction. Edited by E. M. Schortman and P. A. Urban, pp. 235-255. New York: Plenum Press."!

Schreiber, K. 1978. Planned Architecture of Middle Horizon Peru: Implications for Social and Political Organization. Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York, Binghamton. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms."!

Schreiber, K. 1984. "Prehistoric Roads in the Carahuarzo Valley, Peru," in Current Archaeological Projects in the Central Andes: Some Approaches and Results. Edited by A. Kendall, pp. 75-94. Oxford: BAR International Series 210."!

Schreiber, K. 1989. Proyecto Nasca Sur 1989: Informe Final. Instituto Nacional del Cultura de Peru."!

Schreiber, K. 1991. "Jincamocco: A Huari Administrative Center in the South Central Highlands of Peru," in Huari Administrative Structure: Prehistoric Monumental Architecture and State Government. Edited by W. H. Isbell and G. F. McEwan, pp. 199-214. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection."!

Schreiber, K. 1992. Wari Imperialism in Middle Horizon Peru. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology."!

Schreiber, K. 1998. "Afterward," in The Archaeology and Pottery of Nazca, Peru: Alfred L. Kroeber's 1926 Expedition. Edited by P. Carmichael, pp. 261-270. Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.!

!386

Schreiber, K. 1999. "Regional Approaches to the Study of Prehistoric Empires: Examples from Ayacucho and Nasca, Peru," in Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years since Virú. Edited by B. R. Billman and G. M. Feinman, pp. 160-171. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press."!

Schreiber, K. 2001. "The Wari Empire of Middle Horizon Peru: The Epistemological Challenge of Documenting an Empire Without Documentary Evidence," in Empires. Edited by S. E. Alcock, T. N. D'Altroy, K. D. Morrison, and C. M. Sinopoli, pp. 70-92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press."!

Schreiber, K. 2005. "Imperial Agendas and Local Agency: Wari Colonial Strategies," in The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters, School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Edited by G. J. Stein, pp. 237-262. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press."!

Schreiber, K., and J. Lancho Rojas. 1995. The Puquios of Nasca. Latin American Antiquity 6:229-254."!

Schreiber, K., and J. Lancho Rojas. 2003. Irrigation and Society in the Peruvian Desert: The Puquios of Nasca. New York: Lexington Books."!

Schwartz, G., and J. J. Nichols, eds. 2006. After Collapse: The Regeneration of Complex Societies. Tucson: University of Arizona Press."!

Schwartz, K. R. 2013. Through the Rearview Mirror: Rethinking the Classic Maya Collapse in the Light of Postclassic Rural Social Transformation. Journal of Social Archaeology 13 (2):242-265."!

Segura Llanos, R., and I. Shimada. 2010. "The Wari Footprint on the Central Coast: A View from Cajamarquilla and Pachacamac," in Beyond Wari Walls: Regional Perspectives on Middle Horizon Peru. Edited by J. Jennings, pp. 113-135. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press."!

Seler, E. 1923. Die Buntbemalten Gefässe von Nazca im Südlichen Peru und die Hauptelemente ihrer Verzierung. Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen Sprach- und Altertumskunde 4:169-338."!

Shady Solis, R., J. Haas, and W. Creamer. 2001. Dating Caral, a Preceramic Site in the Supe Valley on the Central Coast of Peru. Science 292:723-726."!

Shanks, M., and C. Tilley. 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press."!Shimada, I. 1978. Economy of a Prehistoric Urban Context: Commodity and Labor Flow

at Moche V Pampa Grande, Peru. American Antiquity 43 (4):569-592."!

!387

Shimada, I. 1994. Pampa Grande and the Mochica Culture. Austin: University of Texas Press."!

Sillar, B. 2000. Shaping Culture: Making Pots and Construction Households: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Pottery Production, Trade, and Use in the Andes, British Archaeological Reports, International Series. Oxford: Archaeopress."!

Silliman, S. 2001. Agency, Practical Politics, and the Archaeology of Culture Contact. Journal of Social Archaeology 1 (2):190-209."!

Silliman, S. 2009. Change and Continuity, Practice and Memory: Native American Persistence in Colonial New England. American Antiquity 74:211-230."!

Silliman, S. 2010. Indigenous Traces in Colonial Spaces: Archaeologies of Ambiguity, Origin, and Practice. Journal of Social Archaeology 10:28-58."!

Silverman, H. 1986. Cahuachi: An Andean Ceremonial Center. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms."!

Silverman, H. 1987. A Nasca 8 Occupation at an Early Nasca Site: The Room of the Posts at Cahuachi. Andean Past 1:5-55."!

Silverman, H. 1988. Cahuachi: Non-Urban Cultural Complexity on the South Coast of Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology 15:403-430."!

Silverman, H. 1991. "The Paracas Problem: Archaeological Perspectives," in Paracas Art and Architecture: Object and Context in South Coastal Peru. Edited by A. Paul, pp. 349-415. Iowa City: University of Iowa."!

Silverman, H. 1992. Estudio de los Patrones de Asentamiento y Reconstrucción de la Antigua Sociedad Nasca. Boletín de Lima 82:33-44."!

Silverman, H. 1993. Cahuachi in the Ancient Nasca World. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press."!

Silverman, H. 1994. Paracas in Nazca: New Data on the Early Horizon Occupation of the Rio Grande de Nazca Drainage, Peru. Latin American Antiquity 5:359-382."

Silverman, H. 1996. The Formative Period on the South Coast of Peru: A Critical Review. Journal of World Prehistory 10:95-146."!

Silverman, H. 1997. The First Field Season of Excavations at the Alto de Molino Site, Pisco Valley, Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology 24: 441-457."!

Silverman, H. 2002. Ancient Nasca Settlement and Society. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press."

!388

Silverman, H., and D. Proulx. 2002. The Nasca. Malden: Blackwell."!Spivak, D. 2013. Were the Nasca "Nasca" in the Middle Horizon. Paper presented at the

78th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Honolulu, April 3-7."!Splitstoser, J. C. 2011. Weaving the Structure of the Cosmos: Cloth, Agency, and Worldview at

Cerrillos, An Early Paracas Site in the Ica Valley, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, The Catholic University of America. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!

Stanish, C. 1989. Household Archaeology: Testing Models of Zonal Complementarity in the South Central Andes. American Anthropologist 91:7-24."!

Stanish, C. 1992. Ancient Andean Political Economy. Austin: University of Texas Press."!Stanish, C. 1997. Archaeological Survey in the Juli-Desaguadero Region of Lake Titicaca

Basin, Southern Peru. Fieldiana 29:1-170."!Stanish, Charles, Henry Tantaleán, Benjamin T. Nigra, and Griffin Laura. 2014. A 2,300-

year-old Architectural and Astronomical Complex in the Chincha Valley, Peru. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science."!

Stark, F., R. Leonhardt, J. W. E. Fassbinder, and M. Reindel. 2009. "The Field of Sherds: Reconstructing Geomagnetic Field Variations from Peruvian Potsherds," in New Technologies for Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru. Edited by M. Reindel and G. A. Wagner, pp. 103-. Berlin: Springer."!

Stein, Gil J. 2002. From Passive Periphery to Active Agents: Emerging Perspectives in the Archaeology of Interregional Interaction. American Anthropologist 104 (3):903-916."!

Stockhammer, Philipp W. 2013. From Hybridity to Entanglement, from Essentialism to Practice. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28 (1):111-28."!

Stöllner, T. 2009. "Gold in Southern Peru? Perspectives of Research into Mining Archaeology," in New Technologies for Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru. Edited by M. Reindel and G. A. Wagner, pp. 393-407. Berlin: Springer."!

Stone, Tammy. 1999. The Chaos of Collapse: Disintegration and Reintegration of Inter-Regional Systems. Antiquity 73 (279):110-118."!

Strong, W. D. 1954. Recent Archaeological Discoveries in South Coastal Peru. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 16:215-218."!

Strong, W. D. 1957. Paracas, Nazca, and Tiahuanacoid Relationships in south coastal Peru. Salt Lake City: Society for American Archaeology Memoir 13."

!389

Stovel, Emily M. 2013. Concepts of Ethnicity and Culture in Andean Archaeology. Latin American Antiquity 24 (1):3-20."!

Tainter, Joseph A. 1988. The Collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press."!

Tello, J. 1917. "Los Antiguos Cementerios del Valle de Nazca," in Proceedings of the Second Pan American Scientific Congress, Vol. 1. Edited by G. L. Swiggett, pp. 283-291. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office."!

Tello, J., and T. Mejía Xesspe. 1967. Historia de los Museos Nacionales del Peru. Arqueológicas 10:1-268."!

Tello, J., and T. Mejía Xesspe. 1979. Paracas, Segunda Parte: Cavernas y Necrópolis. Lima: Publicación Antropología del Archivo "Julio C. Tello,” Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos."!

Thompson, L. G., E. Mosley-Thompson, J. F. Bolzan, and B. R. Koci. 1985. A 1500-Year Record of Tropical Precipitation in Ica Cores from the Quelccaya Ice Cap, Peru. Science 229:971-973."!

Tierney, M. 2013. Representations of the Body in Nasca Sculptural Ceramics. Paper presented at the 78th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Honolulu, April 3-7."!

Tomasto Cagigao, E. 2009. "Talking Bones: Bioarchaeological Analysis of Individuals from Palpa," in New Technologies for Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru. Edited by M. Reindel and G. A. Wagner, pp. 141-158: Springer."!

Topic, J. R. 1991. "Huari and Huamanchuco," in Huari Administrative Structure: Prehistoric Monumental Architecture and State Government. Edited by W. H. Isbell and G. F. McEwan, pp. 141-164. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection."!

Topic, T., and J. R. Topic. 2010. "Contextualizing the Wari-Huamanchuco Relationship," in Beyond Wari Walls: Regional Perspectives on Middle Horizon Peru. Edited by J. Jennings, pp. 188-212. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press."!

Trigger, B. G. 1978. Time and Tradition: Essays in Archaeological Interpretation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press."!

Tringham, R. 1991. Households with Faces: The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric Architectural Remains. Blackwell Press."!

!390

Tung, T. A. 2003. A Bioarchaeological Perspective on Wari Imperialism in the Andes of Peru: A View from Heartland and Hinterland Skeletal Populations. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!

Tung, T. A. 2007a. The Village of Beringa at the Periphery of the Wari Empire: A Site Overview and New Radiocarbon Dates. Andean Past 8:253-286."!

Tung, T. A. 2007b. Trauma and Violence in the Wari Empire of the Peruvian Andes: Warfare, Raids, and Ritual Fights. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 133:941-956."!

Tung, T. A. 2008. Dismembering Bodies for Display: A Bioarchaeological Study of Trophy Heads from the Wari Site of Conchopata, Peru. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 136:294-308."!

Tung, T. A. 2012. Violence, Ritual, and the Wari Empire: A Social Bioarchaeology of Imperialism in the Ancient Andes. Gainesville: University of Florida Press."!

Tung, T. A., and K. J. Knudson. 2008. Social Identities and Geographical Origins of Wari Trophy Heads from Conchopata, Peru. Current Anthropology 49:915-925."!

Tung, T. A., and K. J. Knudson. 2010. Childhood Lost: Abductions, Sacrifice, and Trophy Heads of Children in the Wari Empire of the Ancient Andes. Latin American Antiquity 21:44-66."!

Tung, T. A., and K. J. Knudson. 2011. Identifying Locals, Migrants, and Captives in the Wari Heartland: A Bioarchaeological and Biogeochemical Study of Human Remains from Conchopata, Peru. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30:247-261."!

Uceda, S., and J. Armas. 1997. "Los Tallares Alfareros en el Centro Urbano Moche," in Investigaciones en la Huaca de la Luna 1995. Edited by S. Uceda, E. Mujica, and R. Morales, pp. 93-104. Trujillo: Facultad de Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Nacional de La Libertad."!

Uhle, M. 1913. Zur Chronologie der alten Kulturen von Ica. Journal de la Société des Américanistes de Paris 10:341-367."!

Unkel, I., and B. Kromer. 2009. "The Clock in the Corn Cob: On the Development of a Chronology of the Paracas and Nasca Period Based on Radiocarbon Dating," in New Technologies for Archaeology: Multidisciplinary Investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru. Edited by M. Reindel and G. A. Wagner, pp. 231-244: Springer."!

Unkel, I., B. Kromer, M. Reindel, L. Wacker, and G. Wagner. 2007. A Chronology of the Pre-Columbian Paracas and Nasca Cultures in South Peru Based on AMS 14 C Dating. Radiocarbon 49:551-564."

!391

Unkel, I., M. Reindel, J. Gorbahn, J. Isla Cuadrado, B. Kromer, and V. Sossna. 2012. A Comprehensive Numerical Chronology for the Pre-Columbian Cultures of the Palpa Valleys, South Coast of Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:2294-2303."!

van Dommelen, Peter. 1997. Colonial Constructs: Colonialism and Archaeology in the Mediterranean. World Archaeology 28:305-323."!

van Dommelen, Peter. 2005. “Colonial Interactions and Hybrid Practices: Phoenician and Carthaginian Settlement in the Ancient Mediterranean,” in The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters. Edited by G. J. Stein. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press."!

van Dommelen, Peter. 2012. Colonialism and Migration in the Ancient Mediterranean. Annual Review of Anthropology 41:393-409."!

Van Gijseghem, H. 2001. Household and Family at Moche, Peru: An Analysis of Building and Residence Patterns in a Prehispanic Urban Center. Latin American Antiquity 12:257-273."!

Van Gijseghem, H. 2004. Migration, Agency, and Social Change on a Prehistoric Frontier: The Paracas-Nasca Transition in the Southern Nasca Drainage, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!

Van Gijseghem, H. 2006. A Frontier Perspective on Paracas Society and Nasca Ethnogenesis. Latin American Antiquity 17:419-444."!

Van Gijseghem, H. 2013. Our Children Might be Strangers: Frontier Migration and the Meeting of Cultures across Generations. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 28."!

Van Gijseghem, H. n.d. "An Abridged Reading of Menzel, Rowe, and Dawson's 1964 The Paracas Pottery of Ica: A Study in Style and Time." Unpublished manuscript."!

Van Gijseghem, H., and K. J. Vaughn. 2008. Regional Integration and the Built Environment in Middle Range Societies: Paracas and Early Nasca Houses and Communities. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27:111-130."!

Van Gijseghem, H., K. J. Vaughn, V. H. Whalen, M. Linares Grados, and J. Olano Canales. 2011. Prehispanic Mining in South America: New Data from the Upper Ica Valley, Peru. Antiquity 85: Project Gallery."!

Van Gijseghem, H., K. J. Vaughn, V. H. Whalen, M. Linares Grados, and J. Olano Canales. 2013. "Economic, Social, and Ritual Aspects of Copper Mining in Ancient Peru: An Upper Ica Valley Case Study," in Mining and Quarrying in the Ancient Andes: Sociopolitical, Economic, and Symbolic Dimensions. Edited by N. Tripcevich and K. J. Vaughn, pp. 275-298. New York: Springer."

!392

Van Pool, T. L. 2002. Specialized Ground Stone Production in the Casas Grandes Region of Northern Chihuahua, Mexico. American Antiquity 67."!

Vaughn, K. J. 2000. Archaeological Investigations at Marcaya: A Village Approach to Nasca Sociopolitical and Economic Organization. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. UMI Dissertations Publishing."!

Vaughn, K. J. 2004. Households, Crafts, and Feasting in the Ancient Andes: The Village context of Early Nasca Craft Consumption. Latin American Antiquity 15:61-88."!

Vaughn, K. J. 2005a. "Crafts and the Materialization of Chiefly Power in Nasca," in The Foundations of Power in the Prehispanic Andes. Edited by K. J. Vaughn, C. A. Conlee, and D. Ogburn, pp. 113-130. Washington D.C.: Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association."!

Vaughn, Kevin J. 2005b. Household Approaches to Ethnicity on the South Coast of Peru: The Domestic Architecture of Early Nasca Society. In Us and Them: The Assignation of Ethnicity in the Andean Region, Methodological Approaches, edited by R. Reycraft. Los Angeles: ULCA Institute of Archaeology Press."!

Vaughn, K. J. 2006. Craft Production, Exchange, and Political Power in the Pre-Incaic Andes. Journal of Archaeological Research 14:313-344."!

Vaughn, K. J. 2009. The Ancient Andean Village: Marcaya in Prehispanic Nasca. Tucson: University of Arizona Press."!

Vaughn, K. J. 2010. "Emergent leadership in middle-range societies: An example from Nasca, Peru," in The Evolution of Leadership: Transitions in Decision Making from Small-Scale to Middle-Range Societies. Edited by K. J. Vaughn, J. Eerkens, and J. Kantner, pp. 147-168. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press."!

Vaughn, K. J., and M. D. Glascock. 2005. Exchange of Quispisisa Obsidian in Nasca: New Evidence from Marcaya. Andean Past 7:93-110."!

Vaughn, K. J., and M. Linares Grados. 2006. 3,000 Years of Occupation in Upper Valley Nasca: Excavations at Upanca. Latin American Antiquity 17:595-612."!

Vaughn, K. J., and H. Neff. 2000. Moving beyond Iconography: Neutron Activation Analysis of Ceramics from Marcaya, Peru, an Early Nasca Domestic Site. Journal of Field Archaeology 27:75-90."!

Vaughn, K. J., and H. Neff. 2004. Tracing the Clay Source of Nasca Polychrome Pottery: Results from a Preliminary Raw Material Survey. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:1577-1586."!

!393

Vaughn, K. J., and H. Van Gijseghem. 2007. A Compositional Perspective on the Origins of the Nasca Cult. Journal of Archaeological Research 34:814-822."!

Vaughn, K. J., C. A. Conlee, H. Neff, and K. Schreiber. 2005. "A Compositional Analysis of Nasca Polychrome Pigments: Implications for Craft Production on the Prehispanic South Coast of Peru," in Laser Ablation ICP-MS: A New Frontier in Archaeological Characterization Studies. Edited by R. J. Speakman and H. Neff, pp. 138-154. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press."!

Vaughn, K. J., C. A. Conlee, H. Neff, and K. Schreiber. 2006. Ceramic Production in Ancient Nasca: Provenance Analysis of Pottery from the Early Nasca and Tiza Cultures through INAA. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:681-689."!

Vaughn, K. J., J. Eerkens, M. Linares Grados, and M. Edwards. 2007. Hematite Mining in the Ancient Americas: Mina Primavera, a 2,000 year old Peruvian Mine. JOM: The Journal of The Minerals, Metals, & Materials Society 59:21-25."!

Vaughn, Kevin J., Jelmer Eerkens, Carl Lipo, Sachiko Sakai, and Katharina Schreiber. 2013. Using New Techniques to Test Long-Standing Typologies: Luminescence Dating and the Dawson Ceramic Seriation in the Southern Nasca Region, Peru. Paper presented at the 78th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Honolulu, April 3-7th."!

Vaughn, K. J., L. Dussubieux, and P. R. Williams. 2011. A Pilot Compositional Analysis of Nasca Ceramics from the Kroeber Collection. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:3560-3567."!

Vaughn, K. J., H. Van Gijseghem, M. Linares Grados, and J. Eerkens. 2013a. Minería de Hematita en la Costa Sur del Perú: Investigaciones Arqueológicas en la Mina Primavera. Chungará, Revista de Antropología Chilena 45:131-142."!

Vaughn, K. J., H. Van Gijseghem, V. H. Whalen, J. Eerkens, and M. Linares Grados. 2013b. "The Organization of Mining in Nasca During the Early Intermediate Period: Recent Evidence from Mina Primavera," in Mining and Quarrying in the Ancient Andes. Edited by N. Tripcevich and K. J. Vaughn, pp. 157-182. New York: Springer."!

Vaughn, K. J., V. H. Whalen, and H. Van Gijseghem. 2014. Plazas and Pilgrimage in the Upper Ica Valley. Paper presented at the 79th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Austin, April 23-27."!

Voss, Barbara. 2008. The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Race and Sexuality in San Francisco. Berkeley: University of California Press."!

!394

Wagner, L. J. 1981. Information Exchange as Seen in Middle Horizon Two Ceramics from the site of Huari, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms."!

Wallace, D. 1962. Cerrillos, and Early Paracas Site in Ica, Peru. American Antiquity 27:303-314."!

Wallace, D. 1971. Sitios Arqueológicos del Peru (Segunda Entrega): Valles de Chincha y de Pisco. Arqueológicas 13."!

Wallace, D. 1977. "Early Intermediate Period Ceramics of the South-Central Peruvian Coast." Unpublished manuscript."!

Wallace, D. 1984. "Paracas in Chincha and Pisco: A Reappraisal of the Ocucaje Sequence," in Recent Studies in Andean Prehistory and Protohistory. Edited by D. P. Kvietok and D. H. Sandweiss, pp. 67-94. Ithaca: Cornell University Latin American Studies Program."!

Wallace, D. 1985. "Paracas in Chincha and Pisco: A Reappraisal of the Ocucaje Sequence," in Recent Studies in Andean Prehistory and Protohistory. Edited by D. P. Kvietok and D. H. Sandweiss, pp. 67-94. Ithaca: Latin American Studies Program, Cornell University."!

Wallace, D. 1986. "The Topará Tradition: An Overview," in Perspectives on Andean Prehistory and Protohistory: Papers from the Third Annual Northeast Conference on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Edited by D. H. Sandweiss and D. P. Kvietok, pp. 35-48. Ithaca: Latin American Studies Program, Cornell University."!

Wallace, D. 1991. "A Technical and Iconographic Analysis of Carhua Painted Textiles," in Paracas Art and Architecture: Object and Context in South Coastal Peru. Edited by A. Paul, pp. 61-109. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press."!

Wattenmaker, P. 1998. Household and State in Upper Mesopotamia: Specialized Economy and the Social Uses of Goods in an Early Complex Society. Smithsonian Series in Archaeological Inquiry. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press."!

Webb, E. C., C. D. White, and F. J. Longstaffe. 2011. Exploring Geographic Origins at Cahuachi using Stable Isotopic Analysis of Archaeological Human Tissues and Modern Environmental Waters. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology. "!

Wegner, S. 1976. "A Stylistic Seriation of Nasca 6 Painted Pottery Designs." Unpublished manuscript."!!

!395

Wells, P.S. 1998. “Culture Contact, Identity, and Change in the European Provinces of the Roman Empire,” in Studies in Culture Contact: Interaction, Culture Change, and Archaeology. Edited by J. G. Cusick, pp. 316-334. Carbondale: Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University."!

Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press."!

Wernke, S. A. 2011. "Convergences: Producing Early Colonial Hybridity at a Doctrina in Highland Peru," in Enduring Conquests: Rethinking the Archaeology of Resistance to Spanish Colonialism in the Americas. Edited by M. Liebmann and M. Murphy, pp. 77-102. Santa Fe: School for American Research."!

Wernke, S. A. 2012. Spatial Network Analysis of a Terminal Prehispanic and Early Colonial Settlement in Highland Peru. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:1111-1122."!

Wernke, S. A. 2013a. "Andean Households in Transition: The Politics of Domestic Space at an Early Colonial Doctrina in the Peruvian Highlands," in Decolonizing Indigenous Histories: Exploring Prehistoric/Colonial Transitions in Archaeology. Edited by M. Oland, S. M. Hart, and L. Frink, pp. 77-101. Tucson: University of Arizona Press."!

Wernke, S. A. 2013b. Negotiated Settlements: Andean Communities and Landscapes under Inka and Spanish Colonialism. Gainesville: University Press of Florida."!

Whalen, Verity H., and Luis Manuel González La Rosa. In press. Late Nasca Food and Craft Production in the Tierras Blancas Valley, Peru. Ñawpa Pacha 34 (1)."!

Whalen, Verity H., and Corina A. Kellner. 2014. New Perspectives on Regional Cohesion in Late Nasca Society. Paper presented at the 54th Annual Institute of Andean Studies Annual Meeting, Berkeley, January 10-11."!

Wilk, R. R. 1990. "Built environment and consumer decisions," in Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: an Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study. Edited by S. Kent, pp. 34-42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press."!

Wilk, R. R., and W. Ashmore. Editors. 1988. Household and Community in the Mesoamerican Past. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press."!

Wilk, R. R., and W. L. Rathje. Editors. 1982. Archaeology of the Household: Building a Prehistory of Domestic Life. Beverly Hills."!

Williams, C., and M. Pazos. 1974. Informe Final: Surface Survey of the Upper Ica Valley. Instituto Nacional de Cultura.!

!396

Williams, P. R. 2001. Cerro Baúl: A Wari Center on the Tiwanaku Frontier. Latin American Antiquity 12:67-83."!

Williams, P. R., and D. J. Nash. 2006. Sighting the Apu: A GIS Analysis of Wari Imperialism and the Worship of Mountain Peaks. World Archaeology 38:455-468."!

Williams, S. R., K. Forgey, and E. Klarich. 2001. An Osteological Study of Nasca Trophy Heads Collected by A. L. Kroeber during the Marshall Field Expeditions to Peru. Fieldiana 33:1-132."!

Wolf, E. R. 1955. Type of Latin American Peasantry: A Preliminary Discussion. American Anthropologist 57:472-471."!

Wynne-Jones, S. 2010. Lines of desire: Power and materiality along a Tanzanian caravan route. Journal of World Prehistory 23:219-237."!

Yaeger, J. 2000. The Social Construction of Communities in the Classic Maya Countryside: Strategies of Affiliation in Western Belize. In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 123-142. London: Routledge."!

Yaeger, J., and M.A. Canuto. 2000. Introducing an Archaeology of Communities. In The Archaeology of Communities: A New World Perspective, edited by M. A. Canuto and J. Yaeger, pp. 1-15. London: Routledge."!

Yaeger, J., and C. Robin. 2004. Heterogeneous Hinterlands: The Social and Political Organization of Commoner Settlements near Xunantunich, Belize. In Ancient Maya Commoners, edited by J. C. Lohse and F. Valdez, Jr. Austin: University of Texas Press."!

Yoffee, N. 2006. Notes on Regeneration. In After Collapse: The Regeneration of Complex Societies, edited by G. Schwartz and J. J. Nichols, pp. 222-227. Tucson: University of Arizona Press."!

Yoffee, N., and L. Cowgill, eds. 1988. The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations. Tucson: University of Arizona Press."!

Zovar, J. M. 2012. Post-Collapse Constructions of Community, Memory, and Identity: An Archaeological Analysis of Late Intermediate Period Community Formation in Bolivia's Desaguadero Valley. Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University. UMI Dissertations Publishing."

!397

Appendix A: Numbered Map of Cocahuischo Structures and Patio Groups"!!!

Tom

bs

52

53

00

8363400

8363400

52

54

00

52

53

00

52

54

00

2010 U

nit

s

2010 T

om

bs

Arc

hit

ectu

re

SE

CT

OR

I

Pati

o a

rea

Terr

ace a

rea

Path

way

2012 U

nit

s

05

25

50

ME

TE

RS

PR

OJE

CT

ION

: W

GS

1984

UN

IVE

RS

AL

TR

AN

SV

ER

SE

ME

RC

AT

OR

ZO

NE

18S

12

347

89

1314

1718

19

2526

2728

29 21

2223

3130

3233

3435

3637

3839

4041

50

4948

54

51

5253

6162

4344

4546

55

56

6364

65

6667 58

5960

72

6869

7071

7476

75

77

Patio

Grou

p 9

Patio

Gro

up 1

3

Patio

Gro

up 1

2Patio

Gro

up 1

4

Patio

Grou

p 15

Patio

Gro

up 1

8

Patio

Grou

p 17

Patio

Gro

up 1

6

Patio

Gro

up 1

9

Patio

Gro

up 2

5

Patio

Gro

up 2

4

Patio

Gro

up 2

0Pa

tio G

roup

21

Patio

Gro

up 2

6

Patio

Gro

up 2

2Pa

tio G

roup

23

Patio

Gro

up 4

Patio

Gro

up 5

Patio

Gro

up 6

Patio

Gro

up 8

Patio

Gro

up 1

0

Patio

Gro

up 1

1

!398

!!!!

!!!

52

53

00

8363400 8363300

2010 U

nit

s

2010 T

om

bs

Arc

hit

ectu

re

SE

CT

OR

II Pati

o a

rea

Terr

ace a

rea

Path

way

2012 U

nit

s

05

25

50

ME

TE

RS

PR

OJE

CT

ION

: W

GS

1984

UN

IVE

RS

AL

TR

AN

SV

ER

SE

ME

RC

AT

OR

ZO

NE

18S

52

53

00

8363400 8363300

78

79

80

8788

84

8990

91

92

94

95

7396

472

9798

99

100

101

103

102

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

Patio

Grou

p 27

Patio

Gro

up 28

Patio

Grou

p 29

Patio

Gro

up 30

Patio

Grou

p 31

Patio

Gro

up 3

2Pa

tio G

roup

2

Patio Grou

p 33

Patio

Gro

up 3

4

Patio

Gro

up 3

5

Patio

Gro

up 3

6

!399

!!!!

!!

52

53

00

52

53

00

52

52

00

52

52

00

8363400 8363300

2010 U

nit

s

2010 T

om

bs

Arc

hit

ectu

re

SE

CT

OR

III P

ati

o a

rea

Terr

ace a

rea

Path

way

2012 U

nit

s

05

25

50

ME

TE

RS

PR

OJE

CT

ION

: W

GS

19

84

UN

IVE

RS

AL

TR

AN

SV

ER

SE

ME

RC

AT

OR

ZO

NE

18

S

8363400 8363300

162

PG 6

5

150

149

Patio

Gro

up 4

9

159

135

136

147

148

157

111

112

113

114

Patio

Gro

up 4

8

121

12011

911

8

115

126

127

128

12913

0

PG 3

8

PG 3

9Pa

tio G

roup

43

PG 4

0

Patio

Gro

up 3

7

125

133

134

Patio

Gro

up 4

1

PG 4

2

132

141

140

Patio

Gro

up 4

4

138

137

Patio

Gro

up 4

5

145

473

144

143

142

151

153

154

Patio

Gro

up 4

7

PG 4

6

156

155

167

165

164

Patio

Gro

up 5

116

3

160

161 Pa

tio G

roup

68

170

171

172

Patio

Gro

up 6

7

181

195

196

19719

8Pa

tio G

roup

82

200

201

199Pa

tio G

roup

77

PG 7

6

177

176

174

175

178

179

PG 5

4

180

189

190

PG 5

3

PG 6

619

219

1

Patio

Gro

up 5

2

212

210

209

Patio

Gro

up 5

9

Patio

Gro

up 5

819

419

3PG

56

188

187

186

185

184

208

207

PG 5

7Pa

tio G

roup

75

PG 6

9

206

205

204

PG 7

021

721

6

PG 6

122

2

223

237

Patio

Gro

up 6

4

PG 5

0

235

234

233 23

2

Patio

Gro

up 6

3

220

219

218

PG 6

217

321

5

229 20

321

421

3

226

225

224Pa

tio G

roup

80

Patio

Gro

up 7

9

PG 7

8

Patio

Gro

up 7

1

PG 8

1

231

230

PG 7

2241

240

Patio

Gro

up 7

325

0

244

PG 7

4

242

246

247

248

249

!400

!!!!

525000

525000

83

63

30

0

2010 Units

2010 Tombs

Architecture

SECTOR V

Patio area

Terrace area

Pathway

2012 Units

0 5 25 50

METERS

PROJECTION: WGS 1984

UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR ZONE 18S

83

63

30

0

255 254 253252

251Patio Group 1

267320

261

256474257266

Patio Group 84 Patio Group 83285

262263

PG 88

277

264 258

259

260

Patio Group 89

415

314

350

349

309

310

PG 86

284283

282281

280

Patio Group 85

307

306

PG 87

279

272

273

271

270275

274

PG 90

301

297

298

299

PG 3

414 412

411

410

409

408407

406

405

404403

402

401

Patio Group 93

361

360

357

358

356

355354

353

352

347

348

346 345

Patio Group 91

334

344 343342

341

269

400 431

336

337

PG 92

PG 95

332331

333

330328

PG 94

326

325

327

324

Patio Group 96

296 295

294 292

293

318

317

290

289

Patio Group 119

Patio Group 97

316

367 366

365

364

363362

Patio

Grou

p 98

377

375

376

374

373372

368

371 370

Patio Group 99

417

416

Patio Group 100

418

419

455

454 451

Patio Group 101

456

457

378

379

PG 102

460

459 461

462

PG 107

463

464

465

PG 106

426425

428

PG 105

466467

Patio Group 117468

469Patio Group 116

471

470

PG 115

430 432

433PG 114 435

434

PG 113

381

382

PG 104

384

385

386

387

390

PG 105

392393PG 109

PG 108

391394

395PG 110

398

396

436

437440

441442

PG 111

PG 112

449

444446

448

!401

Appendix B: Surface Ceramics Data"!

Str. # Patio Group Sector # of

sherds# of

lithics Stylistic affiliation

1 4 I 7 0 Classic Late Nasca2 4 I 6 0 -3 4 I 7 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional4 5 I 17 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional7 6 I 1 0 -8 6 I 1 0 Transitional9 6 I 1 0 Classic Late Nasca10 - I 3 0 Classic Late Nasca, Estrella derived11 - I 1 0 Classic Late Nasca13 8 I 6 0 Classic Late Nasca14 8 I 5 0 Classic Late Nasca17 10 I 5 0 Classic Late Nasca18 10 I 11 0 Classic Late Nasca20 - I 5 0 Classic Late Nasca22 9 I 10 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional23 9 I 1 0 Transitional24 - I 1 0 Classic Late Nasca26 13 I 2 0 Classic Late Nasca28 - I 16 1 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional29 - I 15 0 Classic Late Nasca, Estrella derived30 11 I 7 0 Classic Late Nasca34-36 14 I 3 0 Classic Late Nasca40 16 I 2 0 Classic Late Nasca42 - I 3 0 Classic Late Nasca43 21 I 2 0 Transitional44 21 I 1 0 Transitional45 20 I 8 0 Classic Late Nasca, Local Tierras Blancas48-50 17 I 19 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional52 18 I 5 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional, Local Tierras Blancas57 - I 2 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional59 26 I 1 0 Classic Late Nasca60 26 I 7 0 Classic Late Nasca, Estrella derived65 - I 3 0 Classic Late Nasca, Estrella derived68 23 I 6 0 Classic Late Nasca70 24 I 3 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional76 25 I 6 0 Classic Late Nasca78-79 27 II 7 0 Classic Late Nasca80 - II 4 0 -86 29 II 6 0 Estrella, Transitional87-88 29 II 11 0 Classic Late Nasca, Estrella derived89 28 II 2 0 Estrella

90 28 II 6 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional, Local Tierras Blancas, Ayacucho derived

!402

Str. # Patio Group Sector # of

sherds recorded

# of lithics

recorded

Stylistic affiliation

93 - II 30 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional, Local Tierras Blancas94 30 II 2 0 Classic Late Nasca96 31 II 16 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional, Local Tierras Blancas99 2 II 5 1 Classic Late Nasca100 2 II 4 1 Transitional108 35 II 2 0 -109-110 36 II 4 0 Transitional135-136 - III 7 2 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional, Estrella derived146 - III 1 0 Classic Late Nasca147 48 III 3 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional148 48 III 15 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional111-114 37 III 4 0 Classic Late Nasca116 40 III 2 0 Classic Late Nasca, Local Tierras Blancas119 39 III 6 0 Classic Late Nasca120-121 38 III 2 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional127 42 III 2 0 Transitional128 43 III 5 0 Classic Late Nasca, Local Tierras Blancas134 41 III 11 3 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional138 45 III 3 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional139 44 III 8 0 Ayacucho derived141 44 III 5 0 Classic Late Nasca144 - III 4 0 Classic Late Nasca150 49 III 19 1 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional151 - III 5 0 Classic Late Nasca152 - III 4 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional, Estrella derived154 - III 5 0 Classic Late Nasca155 50 III 9 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional160 68 III 5 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional162 65 III 9 0 Classic Late Nasca163 65 III 8 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional164 51 III 17 0 Classic Late Nasca, Local Tierras Blancas166 51 III 8 0 Classic Late Nasca, Estrella derived168 - III 6 0 Classic Late Nasca171 67 III 1 0 unknown172 - III 7 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional178 54 III 5 0 Classic Late Nasca181 - III 3 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional183 - III 4 0 Classic Late Nasca184-185 69 III 7 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional190 55 III 4 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional, Estrella derived191 52 III 7 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional193 56 III 9 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional195 82 III 3 0 Classic Late Nasca

Str. # Patio Group Sector # of

sherds recorded

# of lithics

recorded

Stylistic affiliation

206 70 III 14 0 Classic Late Nasca, Estrella210 58 III 14 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional, Estrella derived213 79 III 10 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional215 71 III 5 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional216 61 III 12 0 Classic Late Nasca219 62 III 8 0 Classic Late Nasca, Estrella derived224 80 III 23 1 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional229 81 III 16 1 Classic Late Nasca230 72 III 14 0 Classic Late Nasca234 63 III 6 0 Classic Late Nasca240 - III 1 0 Classic Late Nasca242 - III 1 0 Classic Late Nasca244 74 III 3 0 -245 - III 3 0 -246 - III 5 0 Local Tierras Blancas255 1 V 5 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional257 83 V 9 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional, Local Tierras Blancas258 - V 1 0 Classic Late Nasca260 89 V 1 0 Classic Late Nasca270 - V 1 0 Classic Late Nasca272 - V 12 0 Classic Late Nasca275 90 V 1 0 unknown277 - V 3 0 Classic Late Nasca281 85 V 5 0 Classic Late Nasca, Local Tierras Blancas284 85 V 25 2 Classic Late Nasca, Estrella293 119 V 4 0 Classic Late Nasca301 3 V 8 0 Classic Late Nasca, Estrella derived306 87 V 1 0 Classic Late Nasca307 87 V 2 0 Classic Late Nasca309 86 V 3 0 Classic Late Nasca314 - V 2 0 Estrella derived328 - V 5 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional332 94 V 5 2 Classic Late Nasca, Estrella334 96 V 8 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional352-361 - V 1 0 Estrella365 98 V 3 0 Classic Late Nasca367 98 V 4 0 unknown368 98 V 7 0 Classic Late Nasca373 99 V 1 0 Transitional374 99 V 23 3 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional, Local Tierras Blancas392 109 V 3 0 Classic Late Nasca, Local Tierras Blancas398 - V 1 0 Classic Late Nasca400 93 V 10 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional401 93 V 12 0 Classic Late Nasca408 - V 4 0 Classic Late Nasca418 - V 6 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional436 111 V 1 0 -457 - V 10 0 Classic Late Nasca, Transitional

!403

!404

Appendix C: Architectural Data"

PROVENIENCE STRUCTURE CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

area of patio group (m

preservation of structure (score 1-4)

length (m)

width (m)

area (m structure form

I 4 1 46.18 3 3.60 3.70 13.32 D-shaped

I 4 3 46.18 4 4.50 3.00 13.50 D-shaped

I 5 4 22.67 2 4.30 2.60 8.78 oval

I 6 7 33.71 3 2.70 2.80 5.93 circle

I 6 9 33.71 3 4.40 3.00 10.36 oval

I 8 13 10.26 4 2.90 2.40 5.46 oval

I 10 17 39.61 2 4.30 4.10 13.84 circle

I 10 19 39.61 3 1.90 1.70 2.53 oval

I 9 21 38.76 4 3.00 2.10 4.94 oval

I 9 23 38.76 3 3.80 3.70 11.04 circle

I 13 25 22.96 2 4.00 3.30 10.36 circle

I - 27 - 3 3.70 2.90 8.42 oval

I - 28 - 3 4.10 2.80 9.01 oval

I - 29 - 3 2.70 3.30 6.99 circle

I 11 31 52.76 3 4.50 3.10 10.95 oval

I 12 32 21.11 3 3.00 2.80 6.59 circle

I 14 34 40.87 3 2.90 3.40 7.74 circle

I 14 36 40.87 3 3.20 2.90 7.28 circle

I 15 37 40.35 4 3.20 4.30 10.80 circle

I 15 39 40.35 3 4.60 2.70 9.75 oval

I 16 40 57.79 3 4.90 4.30 16.54 circle

I 21 43 28.59 3 4.30 4.30 14.51 circle

I 20 46 52.97 4 4.60 4.20 15.17 circle

I 17 48 69.73 3 3.15 3.40 8.38 oval

I 17 50 69.73 3 5.00 4.50 17.66 rectangle

I 18 51 37.81 3 3.60 3.50 9.89 circle

I 18 53 37.81 2 3.10 2.30 5.60 oval

I 22 55 33.49 4 3.10 3.10 7.54 circle

I 26 59 47.74 4 4.40 3.40 11.74 oval

I 19 62 37.91 2 4.50 4.00 14.13 oval

I 23 69 41.83 4 4.40 3.60 12.43 oval

I 24 71 42.72 3 4.80 5.10 19.22 circle

I - 72 - 3 4.70 2.60 9.59 oval

I - 74 - 3 3.10 3.80 9.25 circle

I 25 76 57.87 2 5.40 4.60 19.50 circle

II 27 79 27.14 3 4.40 4.10 14.16 circle

II - 80 - 3 6.40 3.50 17.58 oval

!405

PROVENIENCE WALL CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #

Patio Group # Str. #

wall height (m)

wall thickness at base (m)

wall thickness at top (m)

average stone size (cm

stone type type of masonry

degree of coursing

I 4 1 0.54 - - 28875 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

I 4 3 0.16 - - 24300 angular rock dry -

I 5 4 0.64 - - 43200 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

I 6 7 1.15 - - 36960 angular rock, slab dry fully coursed

I 6 9 0.54 - - 11880 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

I 8 13 - - - 46800 angular rock dry -

I 10 17 1.23 - 0.51 31008 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

I 10 19 - - - - - dry -

I 9 21 - - - 31500 angular rock, slab dry -

I 9 23 0.9 - - 23310 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

I 13 25 0.54 - - 38976 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

I - 27 0.44 - - 17388 angular rock dry uncoursed

I - 28 - - - 30690 angular rock dry -

I - 29 0.40 - - 37600 angular rock dry uncoursed

I 11 31 1.10 - 0.45 15400 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

I 12 32 0.60 - - 9360 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

I 14 34 0.84 - - 18354 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

I 14 36 0.33 - - 20332 angular rock, slab dry -

I 15 37 - - - 9768 angular rock dry -

I 15 39 0.65 - - 34112 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

I 16 40 0.50 - - 35154 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

I 21 43 0.60 - - 17917 angular rock dry -

I 20 46 - - - 22400 angular rock dry -

I 17 48 0.55 - - 11286 angular rock dry semi coursed

I 17 50 0.58 - - 25344 angular rock, slab dry -

I 18 51 0.90 - - 30400 angular rock dry uncoursed

I 18 53 0.93 - - 12600 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

I 22 55 - - - 24600 angular rock dry -

I 26 59 - - - 44000 angular rock dry -

I 19 62 0.79 - 0.55 9240 angular rock dry uncoursed

I 23 69 - - - 18088 angular rock dry -

I 24 71 0.46 - - 31800 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

I - 72 0.85 - - 16146 angular rock dry uncoursed

I - 74 1.00 - - 21344 angular rock dry uncoursed

I 25 76 1.60 - - 22800 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

II 27 79 0.81 - - 20800 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

II - 80 0.85 - 0.35 11880 angular rock dry uncoursed

!406

!

PROVENIENCE STRUCTURE FEATURES

Sector #

Patio Group #

Str. #

internal vs. external doorway

doorjamb height (m)

doorjamb width (m)

orientation of doorway

number of niches

niche (s) location

niche (s) orientation

number of interior walls

I 4 1 interior 0.50 0.72 W 0 - - 0

I 4 3 interior 0.30 0.81 E 0 - - 0

I 5 4 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 6 7 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 6 9 interior 0.54 1.00 E 0 - - 0

I 8 13 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 10 17 interior 0.45 0.93 W 0 - - 0

I 10 19 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 9 21 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 9 23 interior 0.54 0.80 E 0 - - 0

I 13 25 interior 0.40 0.50 W 0 - - 0

I - 27 - - - - 0 - - 0

I - 28 - - - - 0 - - 0

I - 29 interior 0.40 0.45 W 0 - - 0

I 11 31 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 12 32 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 14 34 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 14 36 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 15 37 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 15 39 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 16 40 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 21 43 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 20 46 interior 0.50 0.60 E 0 - - 0

I 17 48 interior 0.65 0.59 W 0 - - 0

I 17 50 interior 0.55 1.05 E 0 - - 0

I 18 51 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 18 53 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 22 55 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 26 59 interior 0.34 0.80 E 0 - - 0

I 19 62 interior 0.83 0.83 W 0 - - 0

I 23 69 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 24 71 - - - - 0 - - 0

I - 72 - - - - 0 - - 0

I - 74 - - - - 0 - - 0

I 25 76 - - - - 0 - - 0

II 27 79 interior 0.50 0.80 E 0 - - 0

II - 80 - - - - 0 - - 0

!407

!

PROVENIENCE PATIO OR TERRACE CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

attached structure structure #

structure shape length (m) width (m) area (m

I 4 1 patio 2 rectangle 4.40 4.40 19.36

I 4 3 patio 2 rectangle 4.40 4.40 19.36

I 5 4 patio 5 oval 6.10 2.90 13.89

I 6 7 patio 8 rectangle 6.70 2.60 17.42

I 6 9 patio 8 rectangle 6.70 2.60 17.42

I 8 13 patio 14 rectangle 3.00 1.60 4.80

I 10 17 patio 18 oval 8.00 3.70 23.24

I 10 19 patio 18 oval 8.00 3.70 23.24

I 9 21 patio 22 rectangle 6.70 3.35 22.78

I 9 23 patio 22 rectangle 6.70 3.35 22.78

I 13 25 patio 26 rectangle 3.60 3.50 12.60

I - 27 - - - - - -

I - 28 - - - - - -

I - 29 patio - - - - -

I 11 31 patio 30 rectangle 11.30 3.70 41.81

I 12 32 patio 33 rectangle 6.60 2.20 14.52

I 14 34 patio 35 rectangle 5.50 4.70 25.85

I 14 36 patio 35 rectangle 5.50 4.70 25.85

I 15 37 patio 38 rectangle 5.50 3.60 19.80

I 15 39 patio 38 rectangle 5.50 3.60 19.80

I 16 40 patio 41 rectangle 7.50 5.50 41.25

I 21 43 patio 44 oval 4.60 3.90 14.08

I 20 46 patio 45 rectangle 7.00 5.40 37.80

I 17 48 patio 49 rectangle 10.50 3.70 38.85

I 17 50 patio 49 rectangle 10.50 3.70 38.85

I 18 51 patio 52 rectangle 6.20 3.60 22.32

I 18 53 patio 52 rectangle 6.20 3.60 22.32

I 22 55 terrace 57 oval 5.80 5.70 25.95

I 26 59 patio 58 rectangle 7.50 4.80 36.00

I 19 62 patio 61 rectangle 8.20 2.90 23.78

I 23 69 patio 68 oval 10.70 3.50 29.40

I 24 71 patio 70 rectangle 5.00 4.70 23.50

I - 72 - - - - - -

I - 74 - - - - - -

I 25 76 patio 75 oval 10.40 4.70 38.37

II 27 79 patio 78 oval 5.70 2.90 12.98

II - 80 - - - - - -

!408

PROVENIENCE STRUCTURE CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

area of patio group (m

preservation of structure (score 1-4) length (m) width (m) area (m

structure form

II 29 88 82.43 2 5.00 4.70 18.45 circle

II 28 89 73.87 2 5.40 3.40 18.36 rectangle

II 28 91 73.87 2 3.90 2.70 8.26 oval

II 28 92 73.87 4 3.10 2.60 6.33 oval

II 30 95 43.39 4 4.00 3.50 10.99 oval

II 31 96 43.74 3 4.80 4.80 18.09 circle

II 32 98 58.76 3 4.80 4.80 18.09 circle

II 32 472 58.76 3 5.10 4.20 16.81 oval

II 2 99 39.73 4 4.70 4.00 18.80 rectangle

II 33 102 43.25 2 3.70 3.80 20.97 circle

II - 103 - 3 4.20 2.70 8.90 oval

II - 104 - 2 3.90 3.60 11.02 circle

II 34 105 21.32 4 4.30 3.40 11.48 oval

II 35 107 28.82 3 3.70 3.60 10.46 circle

II 36 110 23.69 3 4.00 4.10 12.87 circle

III 37 111 46.80 2 3.10 3.80 11.78 rectangle

III 37 113 46.80 4 4.10 2.00 6.44 oval

III 37 114 46.80 4 5.50 2.60 11.22 oval

III 40 115 17.89 3 4.40 3.44 11.88 oval

III 39 119 23.27 2 4.40 4.00 13.82 circle

III 38 121 30.66 3 2.60 2.10 5.46 rectangle

III 42 126 27.96 4 3.70 3.60 10.46 circle

III 43 129 25.03 3 2.40 2.20 4.14 circle

III 43 130 25.03 4 4.20 2.60 8.57 oval

III - 132 - 3 4.40 2.40 8.29 oval

III 41 125 51.13 3 3.90 3.50 10.71 circle

III 41 133 51.13 4 3.40 2.50 6.67 oval

III 45 138 40.01 2 4.60 4.60 16.61 circle

III 44 141 105.83 3 5.50 5.00 21.59 circle

III - 135 - 3 4.00 3.40 10.68 oval

III - 136 - 3 10.50 4.20 44.10 rectangle

III 46 142 44.46 4 3.90 3.80 11.63 oval

III 47 145 48.44 3 5.10 5.10 20.42 circle

III 48 148 48.92 3 5.00 4.40 17.27 circle

III 49 149 37.17 3 3.80 3.50 10.44 circle

!409

PROVENIENCE WALL CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

wall height (m)

wall thickness at base (m)

wall thickness at top (m)

average stone size (cm stone type

type of masonry

degree of coursing

II 29 88 1.10 - 0.42 27048 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

II 28 89 0.90 - 0.40 10584 angular rock dry uncoursed

II 28 91 1.40 - 0.40 15334 angular rock dry uncoursed

II 28 92 - - - 12480 angular rock dry -

II 30 95 - - - 17918 angular rock dry -

II 31 96 0.60 - - 35475 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

II 32 98 0.60 - - 17500 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

II 32 472 0.83 - 0.40 10692 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

II 2 99 - - - 12546 angular rock, slab dry -

II 33 102 1.05 - 0.37 8325 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

II - 103 - - - 17280 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

II - 104 0.90 - 0.30 6840 laja dry fully coursed

II 34 105 - - - 7680 angular rock, slab dry -

II 35 107 0.74 - 0.35 10890 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

II 36 110 1.20 - 0.30 5425 angular rock dry uncoursed

III 37 111 0.95 - 0.25 41514 angular rock, slab dry fully coursed

III 37 113 - - - 18400 angular rock dry -

III 37 114 - - - 32670 angular rock dry -

III 40 115 0.70 - 0.45 16650 angular rock dry uncoursed

III 39 119 1.30 - 0.50 23940 angular rock dry uncoursed

III 38 121 0.62 - - 3000 angular rock dry uncoursed

III 42 126 - - - 16500 angular rock, slab dry -

III 43 129 - - - 9660 angular rock dry -

III 43 130 - - - - angular rock dry -

III - 132 0.47 - - 39750 angular rock dry uncoursed

III 41 125 0.75 - 0.30 15750 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

III 41 133 - - - 5600 angular rock dry -

III 45 138 0.73 - - 27648 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

III 44 141 0.73 - - 9720 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

III - 135 0.60 - 0.26 6720 angular rock dry uncoursed

III - 136 0.88 - 0.34 30240 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

III 46 142 0.18 - 0.32 19425 angular rock dry -

III 47 145 0.78 - 0.60 30240 angular rock dry uncoursed

III 48 148 0.53 - 0.30 26000 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

III 49 149 0.80 - - 16813 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

!410

PROVENIENCE STRUCTURE FEATURES

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

internal vs. external doorway

doorjamb height (m)

doorjamb width (m)

orientation of doorway

number of niches

niche (s) location

niche (s) orientation

number of interior walls

II 29 88 - - - - 0 - - 0

II 28 89 - - - - 0 - - 0

II 28 91 - - - - 0 - - 0

II 28 92 - - - - 0 - - 0

II 30 95 interior 0.67 0.50 E 0 - - 0

II 31 96 - - - - 0 - - 0

II 32 98 - - - - 0 - - 0

II 32 472 interior 0.46 0.78 W 0 - - 0

II 2 99 interior 0.28 0.70 W 0 - - 0

II 33 102 interior 0.21 0.60 E 0 - - 0

II - 103 - - - - 0 - - 0

II - 104 - - - - 0 - - 0

II 34 105 - - - - 0 - - 0

II 35 107 - - - - 0 - - 0

II 36 110 exterior 0.23 0.90 E 0 - - 0

III 37 111 interior 0.80 0.74 W 0 - - 0

III 37 113 exterior 0.56 0.70 W 0 - - 0

III 37 114 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 40 115 interior 0.37 0.55 W 0 - - 0

III 39 119 - - - - 1 Muro Sur Norte 0

III 38 121 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 42 126 interior 0.47 0.56 W 0 - - 0

III 43 129 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 43 130 - - - - 0 - - 0

III - 132 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 41 125 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 41 133 interior 0.32 0.55 E 0 - - 0

III 45 138 interior 0.58 0.40 E 0 - - 0

III 44 141 - - - - 0 - - 0

III - 135 - - - - 0 - - 0

III - 136 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 46 142 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 47 145 interior 0.45 0.50 E 0 - - 0

III 48 148 interior 0.46 0.80 E 0 - - 0

III 49 149 interior 0.72 0.63 W 0 - - 0

!411

PROVENIENCE PATIO OR TERRACE CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

attached structure structure #

structure shape length (m) width (m) area (m

II 29 88 patio 87 rectangle 9.90 4.50 44.55

terrace 86 rectangle 5.50 4.50 19.43

II 28 89 patio 90 rectangle 12.40 3.30 40.92

II 28 91 patio 90 rectangle 12.40 3.30 40.92

II 28 92 patio 90 rectangle 12.40 3.30 40.92

II 30 95 patio 94 rectangle 9.00 3.60 32.40

II 31 96 patio 73 oval 8.60 3.80 25.65

II 32 98 patio 97 rectangle 7.00 3.40 23.80

II 32 472 patio 97 rectangle 7.00 3.40 23.80

II 2 99 patio 100 oval 6.20 4.30 20.93

II 33 102 patio 101 oval 8.60 3.30 22.28

II - 103 - - - - - -

II - 104 - - - - - -

II 34 105 patio 106 oval 3.80 3.30 9.84

II 35 107 patio 108 rectangle 5.40 3.40 18.36

II 36 110 patio 109 oval 5.30 2.60 10.82

III 37 111 patio 112 rectangle 6.20 2.80 17.36

III 37 113 patio 112 rectangle 6.20 2.80 17.36

III 37 114 patio 112 rectangle 6.20 2.80 17.36

III 40 115 terrace 116 oval 4.50 1.70 6.01

III 39 119 patio 118 rectangle 2.10 4.50 9.45

III 38 121 patio 120 rectangle 9.00 2.80 25.20

III 42 126 patio 127 rectangle 5.00 3.50 17.50

III 43 129 patio 128 rectangle 4.40 2.80 12.32

III 43 130 patio 128 rectangle 4.40 2.80 12.32

III - 132 - - - - - -

III 41 125 patio 134 rectangle 13.50 3.30 33.75

III 41 133 patio - - - - -

III 45 138 patio 137 triángulo 7.20 6.50 23.40

III 44 141patio & terrace 140 rectangle 10.50 5.20 54.60

terrace 139 rectangle 5.70 5.20 29.64

III - 135 - - - - - -

III - 136 - - - - - -

III 46 142 patio 143 oval 12.30 3.40 32.83

III 47 145 patio 473 oval 8.50 4.20 28.02

III 48 148 patio 147 oval 8.40 4.80 31.65

III 49 149 patio 150 rectangle 8.10 3.30 26.73

!412

PROVENIENCE STRUCTURE CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

area of patio group (m

preservation of structure (score 1-4) length (m) width (m) area (m

structure form

III 50 156 59.71 3 4.70 4.80 17.71 circle

III - 157 - 2 3.90 3.00 9.18 oval

III 68 159 51.99 4 4.30 3.50 11.81 oval

III 68 161 51.99 3 4.20 4.30 14.18 circle

III 65 162 63.62 3 5.60 4.40 19.34 oval

III 51 165 116.60 4 4.10 4.20 13.52 circle

III 51 167 116.60 4 4.60 4.00 14.44 circle

III 67 170 71.10 4 6.60 3.20 16.58 oval

III - 172 - 3 7.50 3.70 21.78 oval

III 66 175 47.88 3 4.60 4.00 14.44 oval

III 53 177 12.72 4 3.00 2.90 6.83 circle

III 54 179 28.79 4 3.00 2.80 6.59 circle

III - 181 - 4 2.10 2.80 4.61 oval

III 69 184 52.16 4 5.50 4.80 26.40 rectangle

III 55 190 43.08 4 5.20 4.60 18.78 circle

III 52 192 38.60 4 3.90 3.90 11.94 circle

III 56 194 27.09 4 3.40 3.90 10.41 circle

III 70 205 64.68 4 8.40 3.10 26.04 rectangle

III 70 206 64.68 3 6.40 3.40 17.08 oval

III 71 173 74.79 3 6.30 5.90 29.19 oval

III 57 208 51.53 4 5.20 5.20 21.23 circle

III 58 210 31.86 4 4.90 4.50 17.31 circle

III 59 212 24.01 3 2.90 3.20 7.28 circle

III 61 217 42.70 4 4.30 4.10 13.84 circle

III 62 218 40.78 4 5.10 3.80 15.21 oval

III 62 220 40.78 4 3.00 3.30 7.77 circle

III 60 222 23.88 4 4.20 3.60 11.87 oval

III 63 232 87.89 3 4.40 4.30 14.85 circle

III 63 233 87.89 4 3.20 3.10 7.79 circle

III 63 235 87.89 4 6.30 5.10 25.22 oval

III 72 231 58.31 4 5.50 4.30 18.56 oval

III 64 237 45.32 3 5.10 5.70 22.82 oval

III 73 241 32.98 3 3.40 3.30 8.80 oval

III 74 244 26.93 4 4.70 3.70 13.65 oval

III - 249 - 4 3.30 3.20 8.29 circle

III - 197 - 2 1.20 1.30 1.22 circle

III - 198 - 3 2.00 2.30 3.61 circle

!413

PROVENIENCE WALL CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

wall height (m)

wall thickness at base (m)

wall thickness at top (m)

average stone size (cm

stone type type of masonry

degree of coursing

III 50 156 0.80 - 0.30 14400 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

III - 157 0.75 - 0.38 5400 angular rock dry uncoursed

III 68 159 - - - 7774 - dry -

III 68 161 0.56 - - 26208 angular rock dry semi coursed

III 65 162 0.85 - 0.45 17500 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

III 51 165 - - - 20520 angular rock dry -

III 51 167 - - - 20800 angular rock dry -

III 67 170 - - - 13158 angular rock, slab dry -

III - 172 0.81 - - 17480 angular rock dry uncoursed

III 66 175 0.97 - - 12675 angular rock dry uncoursed

III 53 177 - - - 23520 angular rock dry -

III 54 179 - - - 5376 angular rock dry -

III - 181 - - - 5096 angular rock dry -

III 69 184 - - - 21672 angular rock dry -

III 55 190 - - - 19600 angular rock dry -

III 52 192 - - - 12150 angular rock dry -

III 56 194 - - - 11088 angular rock, slab dry -

III 70 205 - - - 15000 angular rock dry -

III 70 206 0.68 - - 10400 angular rock dry uncoursed

III 71 173 0.65 - - 11310 angular rock dry -

III 57 208 - - - 60372 angular rock dry -

III 58 210 - - - 53391 angular rock dry -

III 59 212 0.40 - 0.55 24752 angular rock dry uncoursed

III 61 217 - - - 14256 angular rock dry -

III 62 218 - - - 25200 angular rock dry -

III 62 220 - - - 17160 angular rock dry -

III 60 222 - - - 18000 angular rock dry -

III 63 232 0.54 - - 12555 angular rock, slab dry -

III 63 233 - - - 12958 angular rock dry -

III 63 235 - - - 11934 angular rock, slab dry -

III 72 231 - - - 47628 angular rock dry -

III 64 237 0.50 - - 5852 angular rock dry uncoursed

III 73 241 0.31 - - 5819 angular rock dry uncoursed

III 74 244 - - - 8170 angular rock dry -

III - 249 - - - 7980 angular rock dry -

III - 197 0.75 - - 4000 angular rock dry uncoursed

III - 198 0.54 - - 9375 angular rock dry uncoursed

!414

PROVENIENCE STRUCTURE FEATURES

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

internal vs. external doorway

doorjamb height (m)

doorjamb width (m)

orientation of doorway

number of niches

niche (s) location

niche (s) orientation

number of interior walls

III 50 156 interior 0.58 1.24 E 0 - - 0

III - 157 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 68 159 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 68 161 - - - - 0 - - 1

III 65 162 interior 0.36 0.60 W 0 - - 0

III 51 165 interior 0.86 0.70 E 0 - - 0

III 51 167 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 67 170 interior 0.46 0.46 W 0 - - 0

III - 172 exterior 0.87 0.78 E 0 - - 0

III 66 175 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 53 177 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 54 179 - - - - 0 - - 0

III - 181 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 69 184 interior 0.82 0.80 W 0 - - 0

III 55 190 interior 0.20 0.60 E 0 - - 0

III 52 192 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 56 194 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 70 205 interior 0.18 0.70 E 0 - - 0

III 70 206 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 71 173 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 57 208 interior 0.53 0.67 E 0 - - 0

III 58 210 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 59 212 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 61 217 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 62 218 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 62 220 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 60 222 interior 0.46 0.80 E 0 - - 0

III 63 232 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 63 233 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 63 235 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 72 231 interior 0.39 0.35 E 0 - - 0

III 64 237 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 73 241 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 74 244 interior 0.50 1.12 E 0 - - 0

III - 249 - - - - 0 - - 0

III - 197 - - - - 0 - - 0

III - 198 - - - - 0 - - 0

!415

PROVENIENCE PATIO OR TERRACE CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

attached structure structure #

structure shape length (m) width (m) area (m

III 50 156 patio 155 rectangle 10.50 4.00 42.00

III - 157 - - - - - -

III 68 159 patio 160 rectangle 6.50 4.00 26.00

III 68 161 patio 160 rectangle 6.50 4.00 26.00

III 65 162 patio 163 rectangle 10.80 4.10 44.28

III 51 165 patio 164 rectangle 14.40 4.90 70.56

III 51 167 terrace 166 oval 4.90 4.70 18.08

III 67 170 patio 171 rectangle 11.60 4.70 54.52

III - 172 - - - - - -

III 66 175 patio 174 rectangle 8.80 3.80 33.44

III 53 177 patio 176 oval 3.00 2.50 5.89

III 54 179 patio 178 rectangle 7.40 3.00 22.20

III - 181 - - - - - -

III 69 184 patio 185 rectangle 5.60 4.60 25.76

III 55 190 patio 189 rectangle 9.00 2.70 24.30

III 52 192 patio 191 rectangle 8.60 3.10 26.66

III 56 194 patio 193 oval 8.50 2.50 16.68

III 70 205 patio 204 rectangle 7.70 2.80 21.56

III 70 206 patio 204 rectangle 7.70 2.80 21.56

III 71 173 patio 215 rectangle 8.00 5.70 45.60

III 57 208 patio 207 rectangle 10.10 3.00 30.30

III 58 210 patio 209 triángulo 7.10 4.10 14.55

III 59 212 terrace 211 oval 6.10 3.50 16.76

III 61 217 patio 216 rectangle 7.80 3.70 28.86

III 62 218 patio 219 oval 6.30 3.60 17.80

III 62 220 patio 219 oval 6.30 3.60 17.80

III 60 222 terrace 221 oval 5.10 3.00 12.01

III 63 232 patio 234 oval 8.50 6.00 40.03

III 63 233 patio 234 oval 8.50 6.00 40.03

III 63 235 patio 234 oval 8.50 6.00 40.03

III 72 231 patio 230 triángulo 15.00 5.30 39.75

III 64 237 terrace 236 cuadrado 5.00 4.50 22.50

III 73 241 patio 240 rectangle 6.20 3.90 24.18

III 74 244 terrace 243 oval 4.70 3.60 13.28

III - 249 - - - - - -

III - 197 - - - - - -

III - 198 - - - - - -

!416

PROVENIENCE STRUCTURE CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

area of patio group (m

preservation of structure (score 1-4) length (m) width (m) area (m structure form

III 81 229 30.20 3 5.20 5.70 23.27 circle

III 80 224 45.25 4 3.60 3.30 9.32 circle

III 80 226 45.25 3 4.30 3.50 11.81 oval

III 79 214 33.14 2 3.70 4.60 13.36 circle

III 78 203 19.67 3 4.20 3.50 11.54 circle

III 77 201 31.86 4 3.00 3.30 7.77 circle

III 76 199 16.80 2 4.00 2.90 9.11 oval

III 75 188 44.08 3 3.70 2.80 8.13 oval

V 1 253 75.9 3 3.90 2.80 8.57 oval

V 1 255 86.4 3 6.80 5.60 29.89 oval

V - 261 5.93 4 2.70 2.80 5.93 circle

V 83 474 87.5 3 2.30 2.20 3.97 circle

V 83 257 88.6 4 6.20 3.90 24.18 rectangle

V 84 266 8.71 3 3.70 3.00 8.71 oval

V 85 281 80.54 3 5.20 5.50 22.45 circle

V 85 282 80.54 4 2.30 2.30 5.29 rectangle

V 85 284 80.54 3 6.00 2.90 17.40 rectangle

V - 285 15.19 3 4.50 4.30 15.19 circle

V 86 309 13.82 4 4.00 4.40 13.82 circle

V 87 306 54.18 3 5.50 5.50 23.75 circle

V 88 262 10.35 4 2.90 2.70 6.15 circle

V - 264 3.25 4 2.3 1.8 3.25 oval

V - 277 19.22 2 4.8 5.1 19.22 circle

V - 258 13.74 2 5.0 3.5 13.74 oval

V 89 259 62.36 3 9.7 3.2 31.04 rectangle

V 89 260 62.36 3 10.8 2.9 31.32 rectangle

V - 276 3.45 3 2.2 2.0 3.45 circle

V 90 275 26.08 1 3.5 3.9 10.72 circle

V 3 301 57.82 1 6.8 5.1 27.22 oval

V 91 345 54.80 3 4.8 2.5 9.42 oval

V 91 347 54.80 3 6.7 3.2 16.83 oval

V 92 269 42.80 4 4.3 4.8 16.20 circle

V - 360 4.90 3 2.6 2.4 4.90 circle

V - 361 3.39 4 2.7 1.6 3.39 oval

!417

PROVENIENCE WALL CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

wall height (m)

wall thickness at base (m)

wall thickness at top (m)

average stone size (cm stone type

type of masonry

degree of coursing

III 81 229 0.80 - - 9152 angular rock, slab dry fully coursed

III 80 224 0.27 - - 11200 angular rock dry -

III 80 226 0.24 - - 13200 angular rock dry uncoursed

III 79 214 0.90 - - 20790 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

III 78 203 0.30 - - 10098 angular rock dry uncoursed

III 77 201 - - - 9072 angular rock dry -

III 76 199 0.64 - - 17024 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

III 75 188 0.34 - - 9504 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

V 1 253 0.74 - 0.40 22050 angular rock, slab dry fully coursed

V 1 255 1.10 - - 18538 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

V - 261 - - - 6000 angular rock dry -

V 83 474 0.65 - - 24000 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

V 83 257 - - - 23000 angular rock dry -

V 84 266 - - - 50000 angular rock dry semi coursed

V 85 281 0.95 - - 20000 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

V 85 282 - - - 13125 angular rock dry -

V 85 284 0.45 - - 35000 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

V - 285 0.70 - - 15000 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

V 86 309 - - - 6000 angular rock dry -

V 87 306 0.65 - - 16500 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

V 88 262 - - - 7500 angular rock dry -

V - 264 - - - 7500 angular rock dry -

V - 277 0.90 - - 40000 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

V - 258 0.60 - - angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

V 89 259 0.60 - - 24000 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

V 89 260 0.60 - - 37500 angular rock dry uncoursed

V - 276 0.65 - - 4500 angular rock dry uncoursed

V 90 275 1.10 - 0.45 63000 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

V 3 301 1.05 - 0.50 35000 angular rock dry uncoursed

V 91 345 0.75 - - 35000 angular rock dry uncoursed

V 91 347 0.55 - - 8750 angular rock dry uncoursed

V 92 269 - - - 9000 angular rock dry -

V - 360 0.50 - - 26250 angular rock dry uncoursed

V - 361 - - - 8750 angular rock -

!418

PROVENIENCE STRUCTURE FEATURES

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

internal vs. external doorway

doorjamb height (m)

doorjamb width (m)

orientation of doorway

number of niches

niche (s) location

niche (s) orientation

number of interior walls

III 81 229 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 80 224 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 80 226 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 79 214 interior 0.33 0.95 E 0 - - 0

III 78 203 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 77 201 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 76 199 - - - - 0 - - 0

III 75 188 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 1 253 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 1 255 interior 0.65 0.80 E 0 - - 0

V - 261 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 83 474 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 83 257 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 84 266 - - - - 0 - - 1

V 85 281 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 85 282 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 85 284 interior 0.40 0.40 E 0 - - 0

V - 285 exterior 0.25 0.65 E 0 - - 0

V 86 309 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 87 306 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 88 262 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 264 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 277 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 258 exterior 0.65 0.60 W 0 - - 0

V 89 259 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 89 260 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 276 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 90 275 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 3 301 interior 0.80 0.80 E 0 - - 0

V 91 345 interior 0.80 0.60 W 0 - - 0

V 91 347 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 92 269 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 360 exterior 0.35 0.60 E 0 - - 0

V - 361 - - - - 0 - - 0

!419

PROVENIENCE PATIO OR TERRACE CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

attached structure structure #

structure shape length (m) width (m) area (m

III 81 229 terrace 228 oval 2.60 3.20 6.53

III 80 224 patio 225 irregular 6.60 6.70 24.12

III 80 226 patio 225 irregular 6.60 6.70 24.12

III 79 214 patio 213 oval 6.30 4.00 19.78

III 78 203 terrace - oval 3.70 2.80 8.13

III 77 201 patio & terrace 200 oval 6.50 3.00 15.30

terrace 202 oval 4.00 2.80 8.79

III 76 199 terrace 227 oval 3.50 2.80 7.69

III 75 188 patio 187 rectangle 4.40 3.20 14.08

patio 186 rectangle 8.10 2.70 21.87

V 1 253 patio 254 rectangle 11.0 3.4 37.40

V 1 255 patio 254 rectangle 11.0 3.4 37.40

V - 261 - - - - - -

V 83 474 patio 256 rectangle 12.9 4.6 59.34

V 83 257 patio 256 rectangle 12.9 4.6 59.34

V 84 266 terrace 265 oval 7.7 2.8 16.92

V 85 281 patio 280 rectangle 5.1 4.4 22.44

V 85 282 patio 283 rectangle 3.6 3.6 12.96

V 85 284 patio 283 rectangle 3.6 3.6 12.96

V - 285 - - - - - -

V 86 309 terrace 308 rectangle 2.8 1.8 5.04

V 87 306 terrace 305 rectangle 7.9 2.6 20.54

patio 306 oval 4.2 3.0 9.89

V 88 262 patio 263 rectangle 3.0 1.4 4.20

V - 264 - - - - - -

V - 277 - - - - - -

V - 258 - - - - - -

V 89 259 - - - - - -

V 89 260 - - - - - -

V - 276 - - - - - -

V 90 275 patio 274oval/rectangle 4.8 3.2 15.36

V 3 301 patio 299 rectangle 8.5 3.6 30.60

V 91 345 patio 346 oval 5.3 3.5 14.56

V 91 347 patio 348 oval 5.4 3.3 13.99

V 92 269 patio 400 rectangle 7.0 3.8 26.60

V - 360 - - - - - -

V - 361 - - - - - -

!420

PROVENIENCE STRUCTURE CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

area of patio group (m

preservation of structure (score 1-4) length (m) width (m) area (m

structure form

V 93 402 53.58 2 4.7 5.2 19.19 circle

V - 410 5.35 3 3.1 2.2 5.35 oval

V 94 332 22.54 3 3.6 3.5 9.89 circle

V - 330 7.04 3 3.9 2.3 7.04 oval

V - 328 24.00 3 7.5 3.2 24.00 rectangle

V - 333 12.75 3 5.1 2.5 12.75 rectangle

V 96 325 63.730 3 5.0 5.1 20.02 circle

V - 327 16.00 3 5.0 3.2 16.00 rectangle

V - 292 7.40 4 4.1 2.3 7.40 oval

V 118 293 37.61 4 2.7 2.1 4.45 oval

V 118 290 37.61 4 3.2 2.2 5.53 oval

V 97 317 56.91 4 7.1 3.6 25.56 rectangle

V 97 318 56.91 3 8.2 3.1 25.42 rectangle

V 98 364 145.24 3 6.8 3.2 21.76 rectangle

V 98 365 145.24 3 6.8 4.1 27.88 rectangle

V 98 367 145.24 4 3.5 5.3 14.56 oval

V 98 366 145.24 4 4.0 2.8 8.79 oval

V - 324 9.99 4 5.3 2.4 9.99 oval

V 99 375 209.68 3 9.5 4.0 38.00 rectangle

V 99 376 209.68 4 7.8 4.0 31.20 rectangle

V 99 377 209.68 4 8.4 3.5 29.40 rectangle

V - 370 6.48 4 2.5 3.3 6.48 circle

V - 371 11.62 4 4.0 3.7 11.62 circle

V 100 417 56.74 3 5.3 5.0 26.50 rectangle

V - 419 25.28 3 7.0 4.6 25.28 oval

V 101 455 21.78 4 5.1 3.5 14.01 oval

V 101 454 21.78 4 4.5 2.2 7.77 oval

V - 451 16.60 4 4.7 4.5 16.60 circle

V 102 378 41.22 3 6.3 3.4 21.42 rectangle

V 102 379 41.22 4 5.5 3.6 19.80 rectangle

V 103 390 18.89 4 5.0 2.6 13.00 rectangle

V 104 381 25.65 3 3.4 3.4 9.07 circle

V 105 425 28.52 4 4.5 3.0 10.60 oval

V - 426 12.81 4 5.1 3.2 12.81 oval

V 106 465 6.19 4 3.1 1.6 3.89 oval

!421

PROVENIENCE WALL CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

wall height (m)

wall thickness at base (m)

wall thickness at top (m)

average stone size (cm stone type

type of masonry

degree of coursing

V 93 402 0.40 - - 45000 angular rock, slab dry uncoursed

V - 410 - - - 12500 angular rock dry -

V 94 332 0.50 - - 12000 angular rock dry uncoursed

V - 330 0.50 - - 27000 angular rock dry uncoursed

V - 328 1.00 - - 26250 angular rock dry uncoursed

V - 333 0.70 - - 6000 angular rock dry uncoursed

V 96 325 0.80 - - 48000 angular rock dry uncoursed

V - 327 0.90 - - 21000 angular rock dry uncoursed

V - 292 - - - 43750 angular rock dry -

V 118 293 - - - 10000 angular rock dry -

V 118 290 - - - 10500 angular rock dry -

V 97 317 - - - 45000 angular rock dry -

V 97 318 0.70 - - 96250 angular rock dry semi coursed

V 98 364 0.60 - - 16500 angular rock dry uncoursed

V 98 365 0.70 - - 67500 angular rock dry uncoursed

V 98 367 - - - 45000 angular rock dry -

V 98 366 - - - 31500 angular rock dry -

V - 324 - - - 15750 angular rock dry -

V 99 375 0.80 - - 30000 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

V 99 376 - - - 30000 angular rock dry -

V 99 377 - - - 42000 angular rock dry -

V - 370 - - - 48000 angular rock dry -

V - 371 - - - 82500 angular rock dry -

V 100 417 0.50 - - 22500 angular rock dry uncoursed

V - 419 0.90 - - 15000 angular rock dry uncoursed

V 101 455 - - - 12000 angular rock dry -

V 101 454 - - - 24500 angular rock dry -

V - 451 - - - 18750 angular rock dry -

V 102 378 0.75 - - 40000 angular rock dry -

V 102 379 - - - 17500 angular rock dry -

V 103 390 - - - 18000 angular rock dry -

V 104 381 0.80 - - 29250 angular rock dry uncoursed

V 105 425 - - - 13125 angular rock dry -

V - 426 - - - 21000 angular rock dry -

V 106 465 - - - 20250 angular rock dry -

!422

PROVENIENCE STRUCTURE FEATURES

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

internal vs. external doorway

doorjamb height (m)

doorjamb width (m)

orientation of doorway

number of niches

niche (s) location

niche (s) orientation

number of interior walls

V 93 402 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 410 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 94 332 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 330 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 328 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 333 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 96 325 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 327 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 292 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 118 293 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 118 290 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 97 317 exterior 0.85 0.50 E 0 - - 0

V 97 318 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 98 364 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 98 365 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 98 367 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 98 366 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 324 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 99 375 interior 0.30 0.70 E 0 - - 0

V 99 376 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 99 377 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 370 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 371 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 100 417 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 419 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 101 455 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 101 454 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 451 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 102 378 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 102 379 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 103 390 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 104 381 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 105 425 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 426 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 106 465 - - - - 0 - - 0

!423

PROVENIENCE PATIO OR TERRACE CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

attached structure structure # structure shape length (m) width (m) area (m

V 93 402 patio 401 oval 4.6 3.6 13.00

terrace 399 triángulo/odd shape 6.9 6.2 21.39

V - 410 - - - - - -

V 94 332 patio 331 oval 5.2 3.1 12.65

V - 330 - - - - - -

V - 328 - - - - - -

V - 333 - - - - - -

V 96 325 patio 326 rectangle 9.3 4.7 43.71

V - 327 - - - - - -

V - 292 - - - - - -

V 118 293 terrace 291 oval 8.0 3.2 20.10

V 118 290 terrace oval 4.8 2.0 7.54

V 97 317 patio 316 oval 4.2 1.8 5.93

V 97 318 patio 316 oval 4.2 1.8 5.93

V 98 364 terrace 369 oval 7.1 3.1 17.28

V 98 365 terrace/patio 368 oval 11.2 3.4 29.89

V 98 367 patio 362 rectangle 3.3 3.4 11.22

V 98 366 patio 363 rectangle 4.2 3.3 13.86

V - 324 - - - - - -

V 99 375 patio 372 rectangle 6.3 2.7 17.01

V 99 376 patio 373 rectangle 7.1 3.8 26.98

V 99 377 patio 374 odd shape 11.1 7.7 67.09

V - 370 - - - - - -

V - 371 - - - - - -

V 100 417 patio 416 oval 10.7 3.6 30.24

V - 419 - - - - - -

V 101 455 - - - - - -

V 101 454 - - - - - -

V - 451 - - - - - -

V 102 378 - - - - - -

V 102 379 - - - - - -

V 103 390 terrace 389 circle/oval 3.0 2.5 5.89

V 104 381 patio 382 oval 6.6 3.2 16.58

V 105 425 terrace 429 D-shaped 4.0 2.4 4.80

patio 428 oval 4.4 3.8 13.13

V - 426 - - - - - -

V 106 465 patio 464 oval 3.7 2.3 6.68

!424

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PROVENIENCE STRUCTURE CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

area of patio group (m

preservation of structure (score 1-4) length (m) width (m) area (m structure form

V 107 462 11.45 4 2.6 2.1 4.29 circle

V 108 342 21.92 3 3.7 3.1 9.00 circle

V 109 393 37.07 3 4.2 4.2 13.85 circle

V 110 394 29.08 3 3.5 3.1 8.52 circle

V 111 436 31.20 2 4.3 4.4 14.85 circle

V - 396 11.87 3 4.2 3.6 11.87 circle

V 112 441 46.11 3 5.7 3.1 17.67 rectangle

V - 444 15.92 2 5.2 3.9 15.92 circle

V - 446 3.14 3 2.0 2.0 3.14 circle

V - 448 7.54 4 3.2 3.0 7.54 circle

V 113 435 20.85 4 4.5 3.1 10.95 oval

V 114 433 41.56 3 4.6 3.4 15.64 rectangle

V - 430 15.54 3 4.5 4.4 15.54 circle

V 115 471 27.91 3 4.2 4.2 13.85 circle

V 116 468 38.94 3 3.5 3.8 10.44 circle

V 117 446 13.77 4 2.4 2.4 4.52 D-shaped

V 117 447 13.77 4 3.8 3.1 9.25 D-shaped

!425

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PROVENIENCE WALL CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

wall height (m)

wall thickness at base (m)

wall thickness at top (m)

average stone size (cm stone type

type of masonry

degree of coursing

V 107 462 - - - 20000 angular rock dry -

V 108 342 0.60 - - 6750 angular rock dry uncoursed

V 109 393 0.55 - - 26250 angular rock dry uncoursed

V 110 394 0.55 - - 39375 angular rock dry uncoursed

V 111 436 0.55 - - 24500 angular rock dry uncoursed

V - 396 0.90 - - 15000 angular rock dry uncoursed

V 112 441 - - - 23625 angular rock dry semi coursed

V - 444 0.20 - - 17500 angular rock dry uncoursed

V - 446 - - - 15000 angular rock dry uncoursed

V - 448 - - - 11250 angular rock dry -

V 113 435 - - - 15000 angular rock dry -

V 114 433 0.35 - - 24000 angular rock dry uncoursed

V - 430 0.50 - - 18750 angular rock dry semi coursed

V 115 471 0.60 - - 9000 angular rock, slab dry semi coursed

V 116 468 0.80 - - 10000 angular rock dry uncoursed

V 117 446 - - - 16000 angular rock dry -

V 117 447 - - - 18375 angular rock dry -

!426

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PROVENIENCE STRUCTURE FEATURES

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

internal vs. external doorway

doorjamb height (m)

doorjamb width (m)

orientation of doorway

number of niches

niche (s) location

niche (s) orientation

number of interior walls

V 107 462 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 108 342 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 109 393 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 110 394 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 111 436 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 396 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 112 441 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 444 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 446 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 448 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 113 435 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 114 433 - - - - 0 - - 0

V - 430 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 115 471 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 116 468 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 117 446 - - - - 0 - - 0

V 117 447 - - - - 0 - - 0

!427

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PROVENIENCE PATIO OR TERRACE CHARACTERISTICS

Sector #Patio Group # Str. #

attached structure structure #

structure shape length (m) width (m) area (m

V 107 462 patio 461 oval 4.8 1.9 7.16

V 108 342 patio 341 rectangle 6.8 1.9 12.92

V 109 393 patio 392 rectangle 5.4 4.3 23.22

V 110 394 patio 391 rectangle 4.3 2.0 8.60

patio 395 rectangle 5.2 2.3 11.96

V 111 436 terrace 438 oval 3.1 2.3 5.60

patio 437 rectangle 4.3 2.5 10.75

V - 396 - - - - - -

V 112 441 patio 440 rectangle 7.9 3.6 28.44

V - 444 - - - - - -

V - 446 - - - - - -

V - 448 - - - - - -

V 113 435 patio 434 rectangle 4.5 2.2 9.90

V 114 433 patio 432 rectangle 10.8 2.4 25.92

V - 430 - - - - - -

V 115 471 patio 470 rectangle 3.7 3.8 14.06

V 116 468 patio 469 rectangle 9.5 3.0 28.50

V 117 446 - - - - - -

V 117 447 - - - - - -

!428

Appendix D: Catalog Number Registry"!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

N Sector Structure LocusCO1 I 17 SurfaceCO2 I 17 001CO3 I 17 002CO4 I 17 003CO5 I 17 004CO6 I 17 005CO7 I 17 006CO8 I 17 007CO9 I 17 008CO10 I 17 009CO11 I 17 010CO12 I 17 011CO13 I 32 SurfaceCO14 I 32 100CO15 I 32 101CO16 I 32 102CO17 I 32 103CO18 I 32 104CO19 I 32 105CO20 I 32 106CO21 I 32 107CO22 II 88 SurfaceCO23 II 88 200CO24 II 88 201CO25 II 88 202CO26 II 88 203CO27 II 88 204CO28 II 88 205CO29 II 88 206CO30 II 88 207CO31 II 88 208CO32 II 88 209CO33 II 88 210CO34 II 88 211CO35 II 88 212CO36 II 88 213CO37 II 88 214CO38 II 88 Unit 5 cleaningCO39 II 104 SurfaceCO40 II 104 300CO41 II 104 301CO42 II 104 302

!429

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

N Sector Structure LocusCO43 II 104 303CO44 II 104 304CO45 II 104 305CO46 II 104 306CO47 II 104 307CO48 II 104 308CO49 III 190 SurfaceCO50 III 190 400CO51 III 190 401CO52 III 190 402CO53 III 190 403CO54 III 190 404CO55 III 190 405CO56 III 190 406CO57 III 190 407CO58 III 190 408CO59 III 190 409CO60 III 190 410CO61 III 190 411CO62 III 190 412CO63 III 190 413CO64 III 190 414CO65 III 190 415CO66 III 190 416CO67 III 190 417CO68 III 190 418CO69 III 190 Wall cleanCO70 III 246 (Unit 6) SurfaceCO71 III 246 (Unit 6) 500CO72 III 246 (Unit 6) 501CO73 III 246 (Unit 6) 502CO74 III 246 (Unit 6) 503CO75 III 246 (Unit 6) 504CO76 III 203 600CO77 III 203 601CO78 III 203 602CO79 III 203 603CO80 III 203 604CO81 III 203 605CO82 III 203 606CO83 III 203 607CO84 III 203 608

!430

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

N Sector Structure LocusCO85 III 203 609CO86 III 203 610CO87 III 203 611CO88 V 255 SurfaceCO89 V 255 800CO90 V 255 801CO91 V 255 802CO92 V 255 803CO93 V 255 804CO94 V 255 805CO95 V 255 806CO96 V 255 807CO97 V 255 808CO98 V 255 809CO99 V 255 810CO100 V 255 811CO101 V 255 812CO102 V 255 813CO103 V 255 814CO104 V 255 815CO105 V 255 816CO106 V 255 817CO107 V 255 818CO108 V 255 819CO109 V 255 820CO110 V 255 821CO111 V 255 822CO112 V 255 823CO113 V 255 824CO114 V 255 825CO115 V 255 826CO116 V 255 827CO117 V 255 828CO118 V 255 829CO119 V 255 830CO120 V 255 831CO121 V 255 832CO122 V 255 833CO123 V 255 834CO124 V 255 835CO125 V 255 836CO126 V 255 837

!431

!!!!!!!!!

N Sector Structure LocusCO127 V 255 838CO128 V 285 SurfaceCO129 V 285 700CO130 V 285 701CO131 V 285 702CO132 V 285 703CO133 V 285 704CO134 V 285 705CO135 V 285 706CO136 V 285 707CO137 V 285 708CO138 V 285 709CO139 V 285 710CO140 V 285 711CO141 V 285 712CO142 V 285 Wall cleanCO143 V 293 SurfaceCO144 V 293 900CO145 V 293 901CO146 V 293 902CO147 V 293 903CO148 V 293 904CO149 V 293 905CO150 V 293 906CO151 V 293 907CO152 V 293 908CO153 V 293 909CO154 V 293 910CO155 I - SurfaceCO156 II 90 SurfaceCO157 III 136 SurfaceCO158 V 257 SurfaceCO159 V 272 SurfaceCO160 V 281 SurfaceCO161 V 301 SurfaceCO162 V 328 SurfaceCO163 V 334 SurfaceCO164 V 400 SurfaceCO165 V 408 SurfaceCO166 V 418 SurfaceCO167 V 457 Surface

!432

!!!!!VITA"!!!

Verity H. Whalen!Department of Anthropology"

Purdue University"700 West State Street" "

West Lafayette, Indiana, 47907-2051"!!EDUCATION!!

2014" PhD in Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, Purdue University. Dissertation: Re-Becoming Nasca: A Household-Based Analysis of the Transformation of Community and Tradition at a Late Nasca Village, Peru. Committee chair: Kevin J. Vaughn.!!

2009" MS in Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, Purdue University. Thesis: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Community Ritual: Archaeological Implications of the Relationship Between Ceremony and Space.!!

2006" BA in Anthropology, Department of Anthropology, Cornell University."!!RESEARCH INTERESTS!!Emergence of Complex Societies, Cultural Reformation, Inter-Regional Interaction, Community and Household Archaeology, Commensal Politics, Ritual Practice, Ceramic Analysis, Peru"!!PUBLICATIONS!!Peer Reviewed Articles!!2014" Whalen, Verity H. and Luis Manuel González La Rosa. “Late Nasca food and

craft production in the Tierras Blancas Valley, Peru.” Ñawpa Pacha 34(1): 79-106."2011" Van Gijseghem, Hendrik, Kevin J. Vaughn, Verity H. Whalen, Moises Linares

Grados, and Jorge Olano Canales. “Prehispanic mining in South America: New data from the upper Ica Valley, Peru.” Antiquity Project Gallery 85(328)."!

!433

Book Chapters!!2013" Vaughn, Kevin J., Hendrik Van Gijseghem, Verity H. Whalen, and Moises

Linares Grados. “The organization of mining in Nasca during the Early Intermediate Period: Recent evidence from Mina Primavera.” In Mining and Quarrying in the Ancient Andes: Sociopolitical, Economic, and Symbolic Dimensions (eds. Nico Tripcevich and Kevin J. Vaughn), pp. 157-184. New York: Springer."

2013" Van Gijseghem, Hendrik, Kevin J. Vaughn, Verity H. Whalen, Moises Linares Grados, and Jorge Olano Canales. “Economic, social, and ritual aspects of copper mining in ancient Peru: An Upper Ica Valley case study.” In Mining and Quarrying in the Ancient Andes: Sociopolitical, Economic, and Symbolic Dimensions (eds. Nico Tripcevich and Kevin J. Vaughn), pp. 275-298. New York: Springer."!

Manuscripts in Submission!!Van Gijseghem, Hendrik and Verity H. Whalen. “Mining, ritual, and social memory: An

exploration of toponymy in the Ica Valley, Peru.” In Ritual Practice in the Andes (eds. Silvana Rosenfeld and Stefanie Bautista San Miguel). University Press of Colorado. Submitted for review January 3rd, 2013."

Van Gijseghem, Hendrik, Kevin J. Vaughn, Verity H. Whalen, and Moises Linares Grados. “Extracción de pigmentos y modos de producción ritual en la cultura Nasca: Implicaciones para su reconstrucción sociopolítica.” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Études Andines (special issue edited by Ann Peters and Elsa Tomasto Cagigao). Submitted for review May 1st, 2013."!!

RESEARCH GRANTS!!2012" Dissertation Improvement Grant, BCS-1155710 (PI Kevin J. Vaughn), National

Science Foundation ($19,985). Doctoral Dissertation Research: Late Nasca regional engagements and the local context of Wari colonialism in Nasca, Peru."

2010" Exploration Fund Grant, Explorers Club, ($1,000). Imperialism and the disintegration of Nasca culture: A local perspective from Cocahuischo.!!!

FELLOWSHIPS, SCHOLARSHIPS, AND AWARDS !!2013" Purdue Graduate Student Government Travel Grant, Purdue University ($1,000)."2013" Graduate Student Travel Grant, Purdue University ($300)."2013" Bilsland Dissertation Fellowship, Purdue University ($15,000)." 2012" Graduate Student Travel Grant, Purdue University ($250). "2011" Graduate Student Travel Grant, Purdue University ($100)."2010" Purdue Research Foundation Fellowship, Purdue University ($15,000)." 2010" Research Incentive Grant, Purdue University ($500)."2007" Ross Fellowship, Purdue University ($16,525)." 2007" Research Incentive Grant, Purdue University ($500)."2006" Hirsch Archaeological Travel Grant, Cornell University ($500)."

!434

CONFERENCE SYMPOSIA ORGANIZED!!2013" Approaching a synthesis of Nasca society: Recent research on the south coast of

Peru. Co-organized with Stefanie Bautista San Miguel at the 78th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, April 6th."!!

CONFERENCE AND INVITED PRESENTATIONS !!Academic Presentations!!2014" Verity H. Whalen and Corina M. Kellner. “Modeling Late Nasca societal

interaction on the south coast of Peru.” Presented at the 79th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Austin, Texas, April 23-27th. "

2014" Kevin J. Vaughn, Verity H. Whalen, and Hendrik Van Gijseghem. “Plazas and pilgrimage in the upper Ica Valley.” Presented at the 79th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Austin, Texas, April 23-27th."

2014" Verity H. Whalen and Corina M. Kellner. “New perspectives on regional cohesion in Late Nasca society.” Presented at the Institute of Andean Studies 54th Annual Meeting, Berkeley, California, January 10-11th."

2013" Verity H. Whalen. “Re-becoming Nasca: The politics of intercultural encounters and social change.” Invited talk at the University of Toronto Archaeology Centre, October 18th. "

2013" Verity H. Whalen, Luis Manuel González La Rosa, and Corina M. Kellner. “What came before Wari: Late Nasca interregional interaction and community politics.” Presented at the 78th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, April 6th."

2013" Corina M. Kellner, Kevin J. Vaughn, Verity H. Whalen, and Hendrik Van Gijseghem. “Borderland migration patterns during a time of environmental and social challenges at the Peruvian Nasca site of Cocahuischo (A.D. 550-750).” Presented at the 78th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii, April 5th. "

2012" Verity H. Whalen and Luis Manuel González La Rosa. “Societal interaction and community politics during the late Early Intermediate Period in Nasca, Peru.” Presented at the 31st Northeast Conference on Andean Archaeology and Ethnohistory, Boston, Massachusetts, October 20th."

2012" Corina M. Kellner, Kevin J. Vaughn, Hendrik Van Gijseghem, and Verity H. Whalen. “Bioarchaeological analysis of unlooted tombs from Cocahuischo in Nasca, Peru (A.D. 650-750) reveals disease and trauma patterns during the leading up to Wari imperial incursion.” Presented at the 81st Annual American Association of Physical Anthropologists Meeting, Portland, Oregon, April 12th."

2012" Corina M. Kellner, Kevin J. Vaughn, Hendrik Van Gijseghem, and Verity H. Whalen. “Bioarchaeological analysis of unlooted tombs from Cocahuischo in Nasca, Peru (A.D. 650-750).” Presented at the 77th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Memphis, Tennessee, April 19th."

!435

2012" Hendrik Van Gijseghem and Verity H. Whalen. “Mining, ritual, and social memory: Can place-names reveal ancient attitudes toward landscape?” Presented at the 77th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Memphis, Tennessee, April 20th."

2011" Verity H. Whalen. “Architecture and status at a Late Nasca community: Preliminary excavations at Cocahuischo.” Poster presented at the 76th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Sacramento, California, March 31st."

2011" Hendrik Van Gijseghem, Kevin J. Vaughn, Verity H. Whalen, Moises Linares Grados, and Jorge Olano Canales. “Mining of copper and copper-bearing minerals in ancient Peru: New evidence from the Upper Ica Valley.” Presented at the 76th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Sacramento, California, April 3rd.!

2009" Lauren Kohut and Verity H. Whalen. “Religious Affiliation? Defining relationships between religious and domestic architecture at Malata.” Presented at the 74th Annual Society for American Archaeology Meeting, Atlanta, Georgia, April 24th."!

Invited Guest Lectures!!2013" Verity H. Whalen. “Wari colonialism on the south coast of Peru.” Department of

Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, November 13th."2013" Verity H. Whalen. “Wari urbanism in prehispanic Peru.” Department of

Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, April 2nd. "!!ARCHAEOLOGICAL FIELD RESEARCH!!2014" Project Co-Director, Proyecto Arqueológico La Marcha, Peru. Field school

in the Las Trancas Valley. Purdue University & Northern Arizona University."

2013" Field Director, Ica Valley Pilgrimage Project, Peru. Surface analysis and mapping at Cerro Soldado and Cerro Tortolita in the Upper Ica Valley. Purdue University."

2010 – 2012" Project Director, Proyecto Arqueológico Nasca Tardio, Peru. Dissertation research at Cocahuischo in the Tierras Blancas Valley. Purdue University."

2010 – 2013" Lab Director, Proyecto Arqueológico Mina Primavera, Peru. Excavations at Mina Primavera in the Ingenio Valley. Purdue University & Université de Montréal."

2010" Research Assistant, Proyecto Arqueológico Minas Antiguas de Ica, Peru. Survey and mapping of mining sites in the Upper Ica Valley. Purdue University."

2009" Research Assistant, Proyecto Análisis de Artefactos Metales – Museo de Ica, Peru. Inventory of metal artifacts in the Regional Ica Museum. Purdue University."

!436

2008 – 2009" Research Assistant, Proyecto Arqueológico Pataraya-Ayacucho, Peru. Survey, mapping, and excavations in the upper Aja Valley. University of California, Santa Barbara."

2008" Field Assistant, Proyecto Arqueológico Tuti Antiguo, Peru. Excavations at Malata, Inka/Colonial settlement in the Colca Valley. Vanderbilt University."

2006" Field Assistant, Rio Bravo Archaeological Survey, Belize. Excavation and mapping at Chawak But’o’ob, Late Classic Maya site. University of Texas, Austin."!!

MUSEUM EXPERIENCE!!2006 – 2007" " Collections Database Manager, Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca,

NY. Management of type specimen database, NSF grant DBI #0447298, and online database (www.pricollectionsdatabase.org)."

2005 – 2006" " Collections Assistant, Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca, NY. Curation and photography of type specimen collection, locality research, general collections management, specimen preparation, and assistance in Mastodon Research Project."

2003" Collections Intern, Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca, NY. Preparation, cleaning, and inventory of mastodon and mammoth collections, and inventory of museum specimens."!!

TEACHING EXPERIENCE AND AWARDS !!Instructor, Purdue University, 2011."" Introduction to Archaeology and World Prehistory" Teaching Assistant, Purdue University, 2008 – 2011."" Introduction to Anthropology" " Introduction to Archaeology and World Prehistory"" Human Cultural Diversity"" The Archaeology of the Ancient Andes"" Native American Cultures"Nomination, Committee for the Education of Teaching Assistants (CETA) Teaching

Award, Purdue University, 2012."!!!!!!!!

!437

PROFESSIONAL SERVICE !!Internal!!2009 – 2011" Graduate liaison, Sexual Harassment Advisors Network, Purdue

University."2009 – 2011" Treasurer, Anthropology Graduate Student Organization, Purdue

University."2008 – 2009" Vice President, Anthropology Graduate Student Organization, Purdue

University."2007 – 2008" Cohort Representative, Anthropology Graduate Student Organization,

Purdue University."!External!!2013" "Session chair, 78th Annual Meeting of the Society for American

Archaeology."2013" " Peer Review, Andean Past." 2008 – 2011" Member, Cornell Alumni Admissions Ambassador Network."!!PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS !!Society for American Archaeology, student member, 2007 – 2014"!