The Original Context of the Yauya Stela

The Yauya stela is one of the largest and mostimpressive Chavín-style stone sculptures

known to archaeologists. Discovered by Julio C.Tello in 1919, it has played a central role in dis-cussions of Chavín style, culture, and cosmologyfor almost a century. Despite its renown, it re-mains uncertain at which archaeological site thissculpture was originally erected and what cultur-al processes led to its creation. This article pres-ents an account of my efforts to resolve this ques-tion. It draws upon my trips to Yauya in 1974 and2001, as well as the findings of other investigatorswho have grappled with this problem. One of theby-products of my 2001 efforts was the rediscov-ery of an additional fragment of the Yauya stela,a description of which is provided here. Perhapsmore important than the documentation of thissculpture fragment, the 2001 research led to theformulation of a plausible explanation of the orig-inal cultural context of the Yauya stela and its sub-sequent history.

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION

The town of Yauya is the capital of a district ofthe same name in the province of Carlos FermínFitzcarrald, department of Ancash (figure 6.1).Situated at 3258 m above sea level (masl) onsteep mountain slopes, Yauya is located high

above the deeply incised Maribamba River, lo-cated over 1100 meters below (figure 6.2). TheMaribamba River is an affluent of the YanamayoRiver, which is a tributary of the Marañon River.The lands around Yauya are devoted to typicalhighland crops such as potatoes, olluco, broadbeans, and barley; the lands surrounding theMaribamba are much lower and protected fromfrosts and consequently well-suited for maize,tropical fruit, and other cultigens adapted towarmer, more sheltered environments. It is a rel-atively short journey from Yauya to areas of cocacultivation, and some residents of Yauya workedseasonally in these areas during the coca boom.While the immediate environment of Yauya isalien to the animals and plants of the Amazon,the village is only 18 km from the tropical habi-tats bordering the Marañon where many of theseanimals flourish. In terms of special natural re-sources, the Yauya area has silver deposits thatwere actively mined until the beginning of thetwentieth century.

There are no large or well-known archaeo-logical sites at Yauya, but the Inca road that runsacross the lower edge of the puna lands above themodern town has attracted a fair amount of at-tention (Ravines 1996:31). Chavín de Huántar, asite with which Yauya is often linked, is located 50km to the south.

163

6 .

TH E OR I G I N A L CO N T E X T O F

T H E YAU YA ST E L A

Richard L. Burger

TRANSFORMATION: ART, ARCHITECTURE, AND CULTURE164

Figure 6.1. The town of Yauya, Department of Ancash

Figure 6.2. View of the deeply incisedMaribamba River draining into theYanamayo River, taken from the Districtof Yauya

Historical BackgroundThe Yauya stela was encountered by archaeolo-gists during Julio C. Tello’s 1919 ExpediciónArqueológica de la Universidad Mayor de SanMarcos al Departamento de Ancash. This investi-gation of the Marañon drainage focused on manyof the early sites in highland Ancash for the firsttime, including Chavín de Huántar. The Yauyastela, however, was not found at an archaeologicalsite. It had been incorporated by local residents asa threshold or lintel (umbral) in the church of thesmall town of Yauya. Tello’s team made a rubbingand cast of the huge sculpture (Tello 1923:290–294; 1960:196), and a replica of it was placed onexhibition at the San Marcos University Archae-ological Museum (Tello 1943:156). Tello report-ed on the Yauya stela for the first time in his ar-ticle “Wira-Kocha” (1923:290–294). Additionaldescriptions of it appear in his 1960 volume on

Chavín, in which Tello claims that the sculptureoriginally came from Ichik Yauya, a site supposed-ly located on the outskirts of Yauya. Unfortun-ately, he provided no information on how thisprovenience was established. Moreover, Tellodoes not offer any description of Ichik Yauya, nordoes he include it on his map of the zone’s archae-ological sites. Judging from my inquiries in 1974and 2001, the term Ichik Yauya is unknown tomodern inhabitants of Yauya. Alexander Herrera(1998:235) reached the same conclusion duringhis work in the 1990s.

The fragment of the stela encountered inYauya’s church in 1919 measured 165 cm in length,57 cm in width, and 15 cm in thickness (Tello1923). Low-relief designs occurred on the block ofcut and polished white granite that had beenshaped into a parallelepiped form (figure 6.3).Theface of the block and its two narrow lateral sides

CHAPTER 6: THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT OF THE YAUYA STELA 165

Figure 6.3. The fragment of the Yauyastela discovered by Julio C. Tello in its2001 location in a local elementary schoolin Yauya

were well polished and served as the base for theincised grooves that delineate zoomorphic figuresin classic Chavín style (figure 6.4). The Yauya stelawas of special interest to Tello because of its sim-ilarity to the carvings of Chavín de Huántar. InTello’s opinion, the image depicted on the stonewas an idealized ichthyic or fish-related divinitythat symbolized the moon (Tello 1943:156; 1960:196). He considered the Yauya stela to be the bestChavín representation of this divinity, and he re-lated it to other more conventionalized represen-tations of the same supernatural being on thenorth-central coast of Peru at Punkurí in Nepeñaand Cerro Sechín in Casma (Tello 1960:199). De-spite the lack of any reliable archaeological prove-nience, the Yauya stela has played an importantrole in the definition of the Chavín style. AlfredKroeber (1944:87), for example, discusses it in hisattempt to evaluate Tello’s general concept ofChavín. Kroeber, in agreement with Tello, con-cludes: “The piece is certainly close to Chavín artgenerally in its concepts and style, and speciallyclose to the Raimondi [Stone].”

Tello’s protégé, Rebeca Carrión Cachot (1948:Pls. XIX5, XXXVI), believed along with her men-tor that the sculpture represented a fish divinitysymbolizing the moon (1948:52), and she includ-ed Yauya in her irradiation model for the spreadof Chavín civilization based on this single isolat-ed sculpture. Similarly, Gordon Willey (1951:125), in his critical analysis of the Chavín concept,accepted the Yauya stela as one of the 17 sites orareas where “indisputable Chavín stylistic affilia-tion was manifested.” In fact, for Willey, the Yauyastela is the only case of a highland stone sculpturein the Chavín style, besides the carvings at KunturWasi, outside of Chavín de Huántar (Willey 1951:123). Willey (1951:113) writes: “This site [Yauya]in the Marañon drainage north of Chavín deHuántar is represented solely by a carved stela orcolumn, no longer in situ. It is a standing figureof a monster, perhaps a fish or a fish with felineattributes. . . . This solitary find seems to me tobe justifiably incorporated within the Chavínstyle.”

It is difficult to disagree with Willey’s judg-ment on this, except to emphasize that there wasno known “site” that could be linked to the sculp-

ture that could be placed in the Marañon drain-age. It is the main purpose of this article to re-solve this lacuna.

John Rowe, using a drawing based on a rub-bing of the stela by Fred D. Ayres, featured theYauya stela prominently in his classic descriptionof the Chavín style (Rowe 1962, 1967a:Fig.18).Like Kroeber and Willey, Rowe had never visit-ed Yauya and consequently had never seen thestela in person. Rowe, unlike Tello and Kroeber,identified the image on the Yauya stela as a cay-man and linked it with cayman representations on


Figure 6.4. Drawing of the Yauya stela made byTello’s expedition

the Tello obelisk and the granite frieze found atthe foot of the Monumental Stairway at Chavín(Rowe 1967a:83). Rowe considered the cayman tobe the only animal figure in Chavín art that couldbe considered a deity or important mythologicalfigure because of the way in which it was featuredon major Chavín sculptures. Rowe also notes thatthe tail on Chavín representations of the caymandoes not resemble an actual cayman tail. He ex-plains this inconsistency as follows: “ [T]hismythical detail may be no more than a misunder-standing on the part of the artists who were notpersonally familiar with their subjects, caymansoccurring only at a much lower altitude” (Rowe1967a:83).

Perhaps because the village of Yauya was so faroff the beaten track, the problem of the undeter-mined archaeological source for the stela fragmentwas largely ignored by Kroeber,Willey, Rowe, andothers. The sculpture was well known, but discus-sions of it were inevitably decontextualized andbased solely on its iconography, which was in it-self derived from rubbings, drawings, and casts.

In 1964 Julio Espejo, another follower ofTello, published a short note on the Yauya stela inwhich he reported the existence of a second frag-ment of the sculpture. In this note he wrote: “Thestela alluded to is found in the threshold of thechurch of the town. Its exact provenience is un-known, although its Chavín origin and lineage areundeniable. But in the area there exists no evi-dence of Chavín [cultural features], nor have thearchaeological sites in the vicinity provided addi-tional data on the original piece. Moreover, thedistance between Chavín and Yauya is consider-able, resulting even now in a true road problem”(Espejo 1964:2).

In this short publication Espejo reported thathis informant, Gerardo Vidal, had indicated thathe had seen the second stela fragment severalyears before in the house of Sr. Mancisidor. It was“similar to the one in the church with drawingson one side.” Vidal visited the house and con-firmed that it was found there. The sculpturefragment was serving as the pedestal supportinga wooden post that supported the eave of the roof.It measured 57 × 43 cm. Vidal tried to engage itwith the large fragment reported by Tello, but itdid not fit. However, the kind of the stone, the

type of incisions, and the style of the figures rep-resented matched the other fragment in every de-tail. Based on the report and a rubbing providedby a Sr. Palacios, Espejo was able to produce a hy-pothetical reconstruction of the original sculp-ture that integrated both fragments. A line draw-ing by Pablo Carrera M. incorporated the newfragment and showed that the Yauya stela features“a dual representation of mythological person-ages placed face-to-face” (Roe 1974:47); in otherwords, it showed two matching supernatural be-ings arranged head to head. There is no indica-tion that Espejo or any other archaeologistviewed the sculpture fragment said to be in theMancisidor household.

In 1974 I visited the village of Yauya to learnmore about the original context of the Yauya stelaand explore the possibility of doctoral research inthe zone. I had read accounts of the stela by Telloand others and was impressed by its large size andthe high quality of the carving, as well as by Tello’sbroader argument about the importance of theMarañon drainage in the origins of Chavín. I rea-soned that there might be a major Chavín cere-monial center in the area from which the sculp-ture had been extracted for inclusion in churchconstruction. At the time of my first visit, Yauyawas still beyond the national road system, so it wasnecessary to reach the village on foot from Uchus-quillo. The absence of restaurants or lodgings foroutsiders created logistical difficulties. Even moreproblematic was the mood of hostility and civilunrest in Yauya; this was the product of a mas-sacre two years before. According to the storiesrelated to me, Peruvian police had suppressed apeasant uprising against local landowners in1972. This poorly documented incident occurredin the context of the agrarian reform initiated bythe government of General Juan Velasco. Un-educated farmers from the slopes surroundingthe town were incensed by rumors of pishtacos,light-skinned, fair-haired anthropomorphic be-ings that kidnap and kill innocent farmers to ex-tract their fat for sale to the industrial world tomake the wheels of industry turn (Weismantel2001). The insurgents also had heard rumors ofimmense quantities of hoarded food and otherprovisions in the houses of the Yauya elite. Theyreacted by storming the town where the more


educated landowners lived, taking several prison-ers and decapitating a schoolteacher who was sus-pected of being a pishtaco. Eventually, governmenttroops intervened to liberate the town and thecaptives from the occupying farmers; in theprocess, between 5 and 20 insurgents were killedand several of the leaders were imprisoned. A by-product of this event was the abandonment ofYauya by most of the town’s elite families, manyof whom migrated to Huaraz or Lima.

Not surprisingly, I found less cooperation inYauya than I had anticipated in 1974, and myplans for future investigations seemed increasing-ly unrealistic. Nonetheless, I persisted in search-ing for the source of the Yauya stela for almost aweek. With the assistance of Don Domingo Peñaand others, I visited several sites, including TamboReal de Huancabamba, the site from which mostlocal people believed the Yauya stela had beenbrought. On his visit to Yauya, Federico Kauff-mann Doig was likewise told that the stela hadbeen brought from Tambo to Yauya (KauffmannDoig 1978:261). During my visits to Tambo andother sites near Yauya, I found no Early Horizoncultural materials, nor did I encounter architec-ture with Chavín-related features. I was able toview the fragment of the Yauya stela, originallypublished by Tello, which was displayed leaningagainst the wall of the local school.

In 1998 Alexander Herrera reported on thediscovery of another large fragment of the Yauyastela (figures 6.5, 6.6). He encountered it at theColegio San Diego in the village of Chincho, atown located 4 km northwest of Yauya. Herrerastates that he was told that this fragment camefrom the Montengayoc sector of Ingaragá Moun-tain. The fragment measures 105 cm in length, 56cm in width, and 15 cm in thickness (Herrera1998: 231– 233). Like the original fragment of theYauya stela, the Chincho fragment is a white gran-ite block carved on the front and two lateral faces(figure 6.6). Based on the dimensions, stone, andcarving style, there is no question that this piececonstitutes the other extreme of the Yauya stela. Itdoes not, however, articulate with the originalfragment because of fragments still missing fromthe central portion of the sculpture. Herrera be-lieved that the diagonal break in the Chincho frag-ment could match the break in the piece reported

by Espejo, but this could not be confirmed becausehe was unable to locate the fragment discussed byEspejo (Herrera 1998:234) or other small frag-ments of the stela mentioned by Tello (1923:Fig.2). The Chincho piece confirmed the bilaterallysymmetric reconstruction proposed by Espejo(1964; compare Roe 1974: Fig. 11), and it was alsoproof of the large size of the Yauya stela, even whencompared with the best-known low-relief carvingsfrom Chavín de Huántar (table 6.1).

Herrera was interested in establishing thesource for the Yauya stela, which he refers to asthe Yauya-Chincho stela. Toward that end hemade inquiries during his investigations. Herrerawas told by Donato Dominguez that the stelafragment documented by Tello had been broughtto Yauya by the landowner Ponce LeónMelgarejo from the ruins known as Tambo Realde Huancabamba. According to this account, thesculpture was apparently found in a field 200 msoutheast of the remains of a tambo in the com-munity of Jatun Oco, which is located roughly 4


Figure 6.5. Photograph of the Chincho fragment ofthe Yauya stela, with the school guardian in 2001.Thisfragment is oriented upside down relative to thedrawing of it in figure 6.6.

km from the Montengayoc sector. Herrera con-firmed that the pottery and architecture at TamboReal de Huancabamba was late, and that the siteincluded finely finished Inca blocks. He also vis-ited private collections in the town of Yauya thatincluded Early Intermediate Period materials re-covered from the Montengayoc sector (Herrera1998:235, 239, Figs. 5, 6).

Thus Herrera concluded that the extant frag-ments of the Yauya stela were both recovered inmodern times from two different archaeologicalsites located far from each other.Neither site shows

evidence of Early Horizon occupation, and this ledHerrera to speculate that perhaps the sculpture wasoriginally brought from Chavín de Huántar toYauya where it was reutilized, just as a fragment ofthe Thunderbolt stone in the Pucará style was car-ried across Lake Titicaca from Arapa to Tiahuanaco(Herrera 1998:238; compare Chávez 1975).

In my opinion, the hypothesis presented byHerrera to resolve the enigma of the origin of theYauya stela is not a satisfying one. First of all, itdoes not explain why a one-ton granite statuewould be carried over difficult terrain for 50 km(as the condor flies) from Chavín de Huántar toYauya. Given its weight, it would have to be car-ried by human bearers, since it exceeds the loadthat can be borne by llamas and, unlike the casediscussed by Sergio Chávez, water transportwould not have been an option. Moreover, therewas no need to bring fine building material toYauya since outcrops of granite and other fine-grained volcanic stone exist in the area (Herrera1998). In fact, a large number of finely carved ash-lars were produced at Yauya for the constructionof the Inca tambo there. In addition, over threedozen cut and polished blocks of fine-grained vol-canic rock from Tambo have been transported tothe town of Yauya and have been incorporatedinto the market, the old hacienda, and the church.This suggests that there was no practical necessi-ty to transport granite ashlars from distant Chavínde Huántar for “reutilization,” as Herrera sug-gests, since high-quality stone was locally avail-able and exploited by late prehistoric peoples.

Moreover, when considered in more detail, theanalogy drawn with the case of the Arapa-Thunder-bolt stela does not work well for the situation in


Figure 6.6. Drawing of the Chincho fragment ofthe Yauya stela by Alexander Herrera

Table 6.1. Comparison of Chavín Stela Dimensions

Length (cm) Width (cm) Thickness (cm) Yauya Stela

300

56

15

Tello Obelisk

252

32

26

Raimondi Stone

195

76

17

Yauya. In the case documented by Chávez, a frag-ment of a large granite stela from Arapa, an im-portant Pucará site on the north shore of LakeTiticaca, was transported mainly by boat toTiahuanaco, which is located near the south shoreof the lake. According to Chávez, the stela frag-ment from Arapa was a war trophy brought to theemergent political and ceremonial capital atTiahuanaco and displayed for its symbolic mes-sage of dominance (Chávez 1975). In the case ofthe Yauya stela, it is unclear what the motive wouldbe to carry a one-ton sculpture from the EarlyHorizon ceremonial center at Chavín de Huántarto a small Inca tambo in Yauya, a zone of little po-litical importance in Late Horizon times. In addi-tion, the Herrera hypothesis does not explain whythe two large fragments of the stela were found atwidely separated archaeological sites.

Finally, although the Yauya stela is similar tocarvings from Chavín de Huántar, it differs in im-portant ways from the 200-odd sculptures fromthat site. First of all, it was carved on the block’spolished face and two lateral sides. At Chavín deHuántar, sculpture is carved on a single face, suchas the Raimondi stone; on two faces, such as thecornices that hung from the upper outer walls ofthe New Temple; or on four sides, such as theTello obelisk (Tello 1960:Figs. 33, 63, 31, respec-tively). The Yauya stela is unique in being carvedon three surfaces. The back of the sculpture andthe narrow sides on the top and the bottom wereleft blank. Given the large size of the Chavín deHuántar sample, it is reasonable to interpret thedifference between the Yauya stela and the sculp-ture from Chavín de Huántar as an indicator thatthe stela was carved locally in the Yauya area bysomeone knowledgeable about and skilled inChavín stone carving.

The Discovery of the Yauya Stela FragmentsIn 2001 I returned to Yauya after an absence of 27years in the hope of resolving the impasse con-cerning the origin of the Yauya stela.Accompaniedby my friend Urfe Mancisidor, a Yauya-born edu-cator, I was given access to information from awide range of sources that had previously been un-available. My initial efforts were devoted to visit-ing archaeological sites that I had missed during

my first visit. I hoped that the detailed knowledgethat I had developed over two decades concerningthe location of major Initial Period and EarlyHorizon sites (Burger 1992a) might allow me tolocate sites in comparable locations that might beplausible sources of the Yauya stela, despite thelack of early surface material.These efforts provedunsuccessful.The main sites in the area date to theEarly Intermediate Period or later (Herrera 2003)and do not resemble Initial Period or Early Hor-izon sites documented in valleys, such as theCallejón de Huaylas or the Mosna. The setting ofthe town of Yauya on steeply inclined slopes dif-fers from that of Chavín de Huántar, which is seton a level floodplain, or sites such as Kuntur Wasior Pacopampa which are set on natural eminencesthat rise above surrounding areas of level land.The most conspicuous site in the immediate Yauyaarea is Ushpacoto, a Recuay residential site on arocky spur overlooking the deeply entrenchedMaribamba. Nearby there are small horizontalshaft tombs built into steep rocky cliffs made ac-cessible only because of a recently constructedroad that cuts into the rock face.

The slopes separating Yauya from the Mari-bamba River are too steep for major archaeolog-ical sites, although some of them do display evi-dence of agricultural terracing, probably dating tolate pre-hispanic times, and the floodplain sur-rounding the Maribamba River is likewise toonarrow for the construction of a major Chavínsite. Private collections in Yauya, such as those ofDomingo Ortega and Domingo Peña, featurestone sculpture and pottery from Recuay andlater cultures, but no “formative” material. Myfindings in this regard parallel those described byHerrera (1998, 2003).

Fortunately, interviews with local residentsproved more productive than the field reconnais-sance. During a visit to Tambo (Tambo Real deHuancabamba) at 3553 masl, I had the opportuni-ty to speak with Máximo Benites, owner of the landwhere the original fragment of the Yauya stela wasdiscovered. He confirmed that his ancestor hadfound the stela in a field while farming and that ithad been moved to the church in Yauya at the re-quest of the local hacendado. He showed me the spotwhere it had been found according to his family.


Near this piece of land are rectangular stone build-ings that incorporate cut stone blocks (figure 6.7);additional loose stone blocks could be seen erodinginto a stream that cuts through the site. Theseblocks appear to be identical in material and ma-sonry technique to the dozens of ashlars in the townof Yauya (figure 6.8), confirming the statements ofresidents that these blocks had been brought totown from Tambo. The oral tradition, reflected inthe site name Tambo Real de Huancabamba, thatthe stone structures are the remnants of an Incatambo seems reasonable, particularly in light of theInca road that crosses this area. It is also supportedby the Inca pottery, lithics (illas, porras, bolas, and thelike), and metal artifacts that Benites has collectedat the site and now keeps in his private collection.

A second and even more informative inter-view took place with farmer Jesus Morales Solis(August 15, 2001). He claimed to have been thediscoverer of the “Chincho” fragment of the stela,

an assertion confirmed by other residents ofYauya. According to Morales, he discovered thestela in July of 1991 in his chacra (agricultural field)while he was planting potatoes (figure 6.9). Thetop of the stela was encountered only 15 cm belowthe surface, but he had to dig down 1.5 m in orderto extract the carving. He showed me the site ofthe discovery; it is located in an area known asQuellcayrumi, the Quechua term for “writing onstone.” This archaeological site is situated at 3828masl on a narrow ridge near a natural prominencefrom which the entire Maribamba drainage wouldbe visible on a clear day (figure 6.10). Kaolinsherds of the Recuay culture were visible on thesurface near the spot where the stela was said tohave been found. According to Morales, theteachers from Chincho removed the sculpturewith the assistance of their students, without hispermission, and carried it to their school. It shouldbe noted that this account differs in some small


Figure 6.7. Inca building with cut stone blocks at Tambo Real de Huancabamba, District of Yauya


Figure 6.8. Large ashlar block from Tambo Real de Huancabamba currently in the town of Yauya

Figure 6.9. Jesus Morales Solis at Quellcayrumi, indicating the location of the “Chincho” fragmentdiscovered in 1991

but crucial details from that published by Herrera.He reports that the stela fragment was found in1993 in the Montengayoc sector of Cerro Ingar-

agá (Herrera 1998:231). Montengayoc is a largeRecuay site located at 3861 masl about 1 km tothe south of Quellcayrumi (figure 6.11). It is


Figure 6.10. The archaeological site of Quellcayrumi, the hypothetical original context of the Yauya stela

Figure 6.11. The Early Intermediate Period site of Montengayoc near Quellcayrumi

characterized by large rectangular and circularstone structures. Another group of ruins knownlocally as Ingaragá is located half a kilometer far-ther to the south at 3895 masl. It features rectan-gular stone buildings. All three sites are locatedalong the same ridge and all show evidence ofRecuay or later occupation, with the finest visiblemasonry present at Montengayoc. The differ-ences between the above account and the infor-mation provided by Herrera may be because heobtained it from the teachers in Chincho ratherthan from the farmer who discovered the stone.

An important implication of the informationobtained from Morales is that the Quellcayrumior Chincho fragment was found 3 km northwestof Yauya, while the Tambo or original Yauyafragment was found almost 4 km southeast ofYauya (figure 6.12). Thus a linear distance ofabout 7 km separates where the two pieces of thestela were encountered by modern farmers.According to residents, because of the ruggedterrain the trip from one location to the otherrepresents a trip of 3 to 4 hours on foot, andmuch more if a half-ton sculpture fragment werebeing carried. Thus neither fragment of the so-called Yauya stela was originally discovered inthe town of Yauya, although both do come fromthe district of Yauya.

Rediscovering the Missing Yauya Stela FragmentAs already mentioned, in 1964 Espejo publishedan account of a small fragment of the stela thathad been reutilized in the Mancisidor householdin the town of Yauya. Unfortunately, Kauffmannand Herrera had been unable to locate it duringtheir visits to Yauya in the subsequent decades. Ithad never been examined by Espejo and hadnever been adequately documented or published.During our 2001 visit, Urfe Mancisidor searchedin vain for the sculpture fragment in his familyhome in Yauya and was told that it had probablybeen removed when the roof was replaced manyyears before.

Fortunately, Mancisidor was able to drawupon his family’s social network to make inquiriesabout where the carving might be, and on August14, 2001, Jorge Melgarejo Palacios volunteered

that a stone sculpture existed in the unoccupiedhome of his father, Victor Melgarejo; unfortu-nately, the room in which the carving was kept hadbecome infested with bees. Despite this obstacle,we were able to extract the piece from the roomand, by candlelight in the courtyard of the house,confirm that it was indeed another fragment ofthe Yauya stela and that it corresponded to thepiece referred to in the 1964 Espejo publication(figures 6.13, 6.14).We documented the fragmentby photography and a rubbing was made, beforeit was returned to the care of Melgarejo.

As noted, his fragment had never been exam-ined by an archaeologist, and Espejo had based hisaccount on a report by Gerardo Vidal. A new de-scription of the piece is provided here along withphotographs and a drawing based on our rubbingof the fragment (figure 6.15). The carving was onan irregular pentagonal white granite block. Ithad been broken from a larger sculpture, butnone of the breaks were fresh. Closer inspection


Figure 6.12. Map of the Yauya area showing thelocation of the places discussed in this chapter.Courtesy of Archaeology Magazine.


Figure 6.13. The rediscovered fragment of the Yauya stela seen by candlelight in the houseof Jorge Malgarejo Palacios

Figure 6.14. The decorated lateral edge of the rediscovered fragment of the Yauya stela,shown (rotated clockwise) on the right edge of figure 6.15

revealed that the fragment comes from the cen-tral section of the Yauya stela, and only one of thelateral sides is intact. The polished face of theblock and lateral side are decorated with incisionsand other features. According to our measure-ments, the stela fragment is 16 cm thick; the in-tact lateral edge is 37 cm long, and in its widestsection about 50 cm remain of the carved face. Ifthe irregular sculpture fragment is measuredwithout regard to its original orientation, its di-mensions are 59 × 44 cm, fairly close to measure-ments of 57 × 43 cm reported by Espejo. Moreimportantly, the carving on the Melgarejo frag-ment matches the section of the stela illustratedin Espejo’s 1964 publication.

The upper 16 cm of the carved stela face is infairly good condition, but the lower 26 cm is worndown as though it had been used as a grinding sur-face (figure 6.13). The face of the fragment showsone of the circular eyes, part of the mouth, andthe broad upper fish-like drum-shaped vertebraeof the monstrous creature. Along the preservedlateral edge of the piece is a complete S-shapedvolute that, like the eye, features recessed circu-

lar zones to highlight the motif (figure 6.14).Unfortunately, part of the lateral edge is badlydamaged. Basically, the newly documented frag-ment depicts part of the upper body and head ofthe supernatural creature carved on the Quell-cayrumi (or “Chincho”) fragment (figure 6.15).These two fragments together display the sameimage as found on the stela fragment illustratedby Tello. Thus the Chavín sculpture from Yauyarepresents two identical symmetrically arrayedmonstrous supernatural creatures. Between thethree sculpture fragments now extant, some 90%of the Yauya stela has been recovered and docu-mented (plate 6.1).

There is no information about how the frag-ment first published by Espejo moved from theMancisidor house on the town plaza to theMelgarejo house several blocks away or, more im-portantly, about the original source of the newlydocumented fragment. However, it seems likelythat it represents one of the fragments mentionedbut not illustrated by Tello. According to him,these pieces were broken off the original Yauyastela fragment after the sculpture was brought to


Figure 6.15. Drawing of the rediscovered fragment. Drawing: Heather Hurst.

the town; the breakage occurred in order to ac-commodate the block as a threshold or lintel forthe church. Tello (1960:196) wrote: “It [the Yauyastela] is a rectangular granite slab that has beenintentionally fractured to adopt it to the dimen-sions of the church doorway. To do this severalpieces were separated off or broken, some ofwhich were found at a short distance [from themain sculpture] during the university expeditionof 1919, but which could not be reconstructed norused to determine the dimensions that the origi-nal stela had, and even less to understand the sec-ondary figures that would have adorned the headof the idol.”

Since the Mancisidor house was already in ex-istence at the time of Tello’s 1919 visit, one of theloose fragments referred to by Tello could havebeen brought there as a curiosity or, alternative-ly, for practical purposes such as reuse in domes-tic construction.

If this is the case, the proximate source of thethird fragment was the same as that of the Yauyastela fragment, which is to say it would have beenextracted from Tambo Real de Huancabamba aspart of the original sculptural block encounteredin their field by the Benites family. It should benoted that Tello refers to several small fragmentsof the stela in the town, besides the large one in-corporated into the church and the one illustrat-ed here. These pieces must be found if the stelais to be fully reconstructed and restored. Wherethese additional small pieces might be remainsunknown, but there is a rumor that at least onewas removed from Yauya by a schoolteacher whenhe was transferred. Even without the missingfragments, it is now possible to reconstruct theimage on the Yauya stela with confidence. Thisreconstruction does not differ significantly fromthe artistic volumetric rendering proposed byEspejo (1964) or the line drawing based on it at-tributed to Pablo Carrera (Roe 1974:Fig.11).

A New Hypothesis for the Origin of the Yauya StelaHow can we account for the creation of the Yauyastela and the recovery of large fragments of it intwo different and distant locations? The hypoth-esis proposed here is that the Yauya stela was

carved in the Yauya area by someone intimatelyfamiliar with the sculpture style at Chavín deHuántar, in order to create a unique cult objectfor purposes of worship at the high-altitude siteof Quellcayrumi. Larger than the Tello obelisk orthe Raimondi stone (table 6.1), the Yauya stelawould have been one of the most impressive carv-ings of its time. The collapse of Chavín’s civiliza-tion around 200 B.C. produced a cultural back-lash in highland Ancash during the late EarlyHorizon (Burger 1992a). An alien ceramic style,known as Huaras or White-on-Red, was adopt-ed, and sacred sites were transformed into nucle-ated villages. At Chavín de Huántar religioussculpture was reused in these secular buildings,regardless of its religious carving. I hypothesizethat the shrine at Quellcayrumi was likewiseabandoned, and that the Yauya stela was split intotwo pieces for use in the post-Chavín settlementthat developed there. By the end of the EarlyIntermediate Period or somewhat later, the sitewas probably abandoned. By the time of the Incaconquest, the Yauya stela had been forgotten andburied for over 1200 years. However, sometimein the Late Horizon, someone digging atQuellcayrumi, perhaps a farmer, encountered oneof the sculpted granite blocks buried beneath thesurface. Based on our understanding of Incastatecraft, it is reasonable to posit that if a largecut and polished block was found at Quellcay-rumi, it could have been transported by mitaworkers from this spot 7 or 8 km away for incor-poration into the state building complex associ-ated with the Inca highway system at Tambo Realde Huancabamba. The labor required to movethe block would not have been a problem for thelabor-rich Inca authorities, and the time and ef-fort involved in moving the block would havebeen considerably less than carving an ashlar ofthis size from scratch.

If this hypothesis is correct, the Yauya stelawas carved during the middle Early Horizon(Rowe’s Phase D or Burger’s Janabarriu phase) forplacement above Yauya in a high-altitude shrineat Quellcayrumi. This hypothesis is amenable toarchaeological testing through excavations atQuellcayrumi to determine whether or not a Cha-vín shrine exists at the site beneath the remains of


the post-Chavín village. There is precedent in theChavín de Huántar area for the presence of Cha-vín sculpture at high-altitude sites, most notablyat Pojoc (3850 masl) and Waman Wain (3500masl). Both sites are located near the upper limitsof agriculture overlooking the Mosna Valley(Burger 1982). Like Quellcayrumi, both sites arelocated on narrow ridges just below the upperlimit of Andean agriculture and both offer pano-ramic views of the valley below.

Chavín sculpture, some carved in white gran-ite, was found at both Pojoc and Waman Wain.Its quality varied from rustic (Burger 1982:Fig.56) to refined (Burger 1982:Fig. 64), but it reit-erated almost all the major themes in the Chavínsculptural corpus. The presence of an incompletecarving suggests that some of it was carved on thespot (Burger 1982:Fig. 68a). There was little ce-ramic evidence of an Early Horizon occupationon the surface of either of these sites due to thedepth and intensity of the later occupation, butfragments of Chavín sculpture did appear, pre-sumably due to their reutilization in later con-structions. Deep excavations at Pojoc revealed anEarly Horizon component 2 m below the surface,and one unit exposed a Chavín platform of largecut-stone blocks associated with Pacific seashells.Based on the abundant presence of Chavín sculp-ture and the impressive stone platform at Pojoc,it can be suggested that small-scale religious ar-chitecture featuring stone sculptures was built forworship at high-altitude locations in the Chavínde Huántar area during the Early Horizon. Quell-cayrumi resembles these sites and may reflect thissame cultural pattern.

If the hypothesis proposed here is correct,the Yauya stela would have been a major cult ob-ject at a high-altitude shrine at Quellcayrumi.Because this sculpture is carved on its lateralsides, it can be inferred that it was not designedto be set into a wall as architectural ornamenta-tion. On the contrary, it may constitute a cult ob-ject along the lines of the Lanzón or the Telloobelisk. The identification of it as a possible cultobject is reinforced by the presence of two cos-mograms at the sculpture’s central axis. In Cha-vín art, the cosmogram is represented by a circlewithin a notched square. This distinctive motifalso appears along the axis of the Lanzón and the

Tello obelisk. According to Lathrap, the notchedsquare represents the horizontal extent of thisworld with its four cardinal directions, while thecircle sunken in its center represents an orifice inthe membrane between the upper and lowerhalves of the universe through which the flux ofsupernatural power flows (Lathrap 1985:251).

The central theme of the Yauya stela remainsa matter of debate. Some scholars, such as Feder-ico Kauffmann Doig (1978:260–261; 1988:34)and Ralph Cané (1983, 1986), are convinced thatthe stela represents the Flying Feline (FelinoVolador) described in the modern myth of Qoa.The dominant view, initially proposed by Rowe(1967a), interprets the image on the stone as apair of supernatural cayman figures each repre-sented using a split-open pelt-like convention(see Roe 1974:22–23 for criteria distinguishingcayman from feline depictions). According toRowe (1962:18), of all the animal representationsin Chavín art, the carvings of the cayman were theonly ones representing a major deity.

The supernatural qualities of the crocodilianfigures on the Yauya stela are reflected in thecomposite or monstrous features that were incor-porated, most notably the feline features of theface, the fish-like or icthyian character of thespine, and the substitution of avian tail feathers ofthe hawk or crested eagle for the tapering ophid-ian tail of the cayman. Thus, if the main figure onthe Yauya stela is a supernatural cayman, it is a fly-ing felinized cayman with a fish-like vertebral col-umn. The shape of the mouth and the overlap-ping upper row of canines are strongly suggestiveof cayman inspiration, as are the position and formof body, legs, and hands.

Lathrap (1985:246–248) suggests that thisrepresentation was based on the Melansuchus niger,or black cayman. The black cayman, in Lathrap’sopinion, was selected as a model of the cosmos be-cause it is the dominant aquatic predator wherev-er it occurs and, more importantly, because it is theultimate symbol of ecological and social stabilityon account of its role in distributing nutrientsthrough the lowland river systems of the Amazonand Orinoco. Lathrap specifically identifies therepresentation on the Yauya stela as the Master ofthe Fishes (Lathrap 1985:246), an identificationthat draws plausibility from the eight naturalistic


fish that swim alongside the two monstrous croc-odilian images on the stela. One of the distinctivequalities of the black cayman, which grows to 18to 20 feet in length, is that it moves easily betweenthe water and land, often at frightening speed;with the addition of avian tail feathers to theimage, the supernatural Great Cayman is shownto have access to all three realms that were recog-nized in traditional Andean cosmology.

Worship of the Great Cayman spread widelythrough Peru during the Chavín horizon. Itreached the desert along the coast of Peru, farfrom its natural habitat, and was propagated byway of painted cotton textiles, such as those foundat the shoreline site of Carhua (Roe 1974:Fig. 12;Burger 1993a:58, Fig. 7b) on the Paracas Penin-sula). At Quellcayrumi on the edge of the puna,high above Yauya, at 3828 masl, the Master of theFishes was far from home. Nonetheless, perhapsthe worship of the Great Cayman at Quellcay-rumi should not surprise us, given its wondrousview of the Marañon drainage on a clear day.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to express my thanks to the inhabitants ofYauya who assisted me in this project, most no-tably Máximo Benites, Jorge Melgarejo, EmilianoMorales, Jesus Morales Solis, and Domingo Peña.I am particularly indebted to my good friend UrfeMancisidor for accompanying me to Yauya andhelping me in all aspects of this investigation. Iwould like to thank my friend and colleague SteveWegner for his moral and logistical support andLucy Salazar-Burger for her aid and understand-ing. Thanks also to William Conklin for his sug-gestion that I prepare an expanded and more ac-ademic version of an earlier article (Burger 2002)for his edited volume, and to Heather Hurst forturning my rubbings into a drawing of the newYauya stela fragment. Finally, to Alexander Her-rera, Peter Roe, Dumbarton Oaks, and Archaeologymagazine for permission to republish their draw-ings. The translations from Spanish sources weremade by the author.


The Original Context of the Yauya Stela

Documents

Transcript of The Original Context of the Yauya Stela