Through the Glass Darkly: Prehispanic Obsidian Procurement and Exchange in Southern Peru and...

P1: FLF

Journal of World Prehistory [jowo] PP015-290372 December 6, 2000 13:57 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Journal of World Prehistory, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2000

Through the Glass Darkly: Prehispanic ObsidianProcurement and Exchange in Southern Peruand Northern Bolivia

Richard L. Burger,1 Karen L. Mohr Chavez,2 and Sergio J. Chavez2

Recent discovery of the major geological sources of Central Andean obsidianpermits a new understanding of the patterns of obsidian procurement andexchange by the Prehispanic societies of southern Peru and northern Bolivia.Based on the trace element analysis of obsidian artifacts from 160 archaeo-logical sites, it can be established that the two major deposits of obsidian werebeing exploited by 9400 BP, and that volcanic glass was being transported overlong distances throughout Andean prehistory. Inhabitants of the Cuzco regionacquired most obsidian from the Alca source in central Arequipa, while thosein the high plateau surrounding Lake Titicaca obtained most obsidian fromthe Chivay source in southern Arequipa. Obsidian evidence suggests closeties between the Cuzco and Circum-Titicaca regions throughout prehistory,except during the Middle Horizon (ca. 1400–1050 BP), when the expansionof the Huari and Tiahuanaco states disrupted this pattern.

KEY WORDS: Andean archaeology; Peru; Bolivia; obsidian; exchange.

INTRODUCTION

Although the highlands of southern Peru were the birthplace and heart-land of the Inca empire, archaeological research in this region has laggedbehind that of central and northern Peru. The chronology and cultural de-velopments prior to the emergence of the Incas in the 15th century are still

1Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, Box 208118, 170 Whitney Avenue, NewHaven, Connecticut 06520.

2Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Central Michigan University,Mount Pleasant, Michigan 48859.

267

0892-7537/00/0900-0267$18.00/0 C© 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation

P1: FLF


268 Burger, Chavez, and Chavez

poorly understood despite the efforts of major figures such as John Roweand Manuel Chavez Ballon. Nevertheless, there has been slow and continu-ous progress which has revealed traces of rich cultural diversity and a longhistory of sociocultural change and transformation in this area. Several re-cent syntheses (e.g., Burger, 1992) conclude that the origins of civilizationin the Lake Titicaca Basin that ultimately led to Pucara and the subsequentTiahuanaco state were largely independent of, and partially coeval with,those in central and northern Peru that led to the Chavın and Moche civ-ilizations. The recent formulation of the Yaya-Mama Religious Tradition(K. Chavez, 1989) and subsequent excavations at centers of this traditionin the Lake Titicaca region by Karen and Sergio Chavez, Christine Hastorf,and others (K. sand S. Chavez, 1997; Hastorf, 1999) have strengthened thisposition. Thus, the Lake Titicaca region has particular importance for An-dean studies and perhaps for world prehistory not only as the highest area inthe world where complex society developed, but also as one of the few placeswhere that development can be traced in situ. The relationship between thedevelopments of complexity in the northern Peruvian highlands and LakeTiticaca region is one of many subjects that requires additional explorationusing new approaches.

Unfortunately, until recently, much of the literature on the area in ques-tion has focused on the diversity of pottery styles which flourished there andtheir chronological ordering, and, consequently, discussions of contact withoutside areas and local and long-distance exchange have likewise dependedheavily on stylistic arguments. One noteworthy exception to this general-ization is the work on obsidian sourcing and procurement, which has beencarried out over the last quarter century for archaeological sites in this re-gion. This evidence has the potential of shedding light on the regional andpanregional patterns of interaction throughout the human occupation of thiscrucial center of early civilization. It also is relevant to evaluating attemptsto reconfigure earlier models of cultural areas in light of John Murra’s theoryof verticality. The present article provides a summary of past research on ob-sidian exchange in the highlands of southern Peru and northern Bolivia and,by doing so, offers an overview of the Prehispanic cultural developmentsthere as well as the changing patterns of contact between this region and theareas outside of it. This study is based on the analysis of 598 obsidian artifactscoming from 65 archaeological sites within the region and 349 artifacts from9 sites outside it, in addition to obsidian results from other Andean sites, andencompasses 10,000 years of prehistory, from Preceramic to Inca times.

The cultural history of the highlands of southern Peru and northernBolivia is so distinctive that some archaeologists have questioned whetherthis area still should be considered as part of the Central Andean or PeruvianCo-Tradition, as defined by Wendell Bennett (1948). This topic, along withmany others, was discussed at an international conference held in Paracas,

P1: FLF


Prehispanic Obsidian Procurement and Exchange in Peru and Bolivia 269

Peru, in 1979. The goal of the meeting was to reevaluate thinking concerningarea models of local and regional developments in the Andes and one ofthe conference’s principal conclusions, summarized in the writings of LuisLumbreras (1981a; cf. PRPCA 1979a, 1979b), was the definition of a SouthCentral Andean Archaeological Area separate and distinct from the CentralAndean Archaeological Area (which included most of coastal and highlandPeru) and the Meridional Archaeological Area (which includes northwest-ern Argentina, central Chile, the highlands of central Argentina, and centralChile) (Fig. 1).3 The purpose of this new typology was to delineate areas ofshared historical development and economic integration. The definition ofthese areas was not meant to imply the existence of rigid prehistoric frontiersor ignore the importance of macrointegrative forces such as those unleashedby the Inca, which were capable of overcoming and reshaping these divisions.This new typology was advocated as a heuristic device designed to underlinebroad patterns of economic and social conduct developed by related culturesin order to flourish in particular environments (Lumbreras, 1981a, p. 17). Inline with his emphasis on the productive basis of culture, Lumbreras empha-sized the determining role of certain dominant geographic features in thepatterning of archaeological areas. In the case of the newly established SouthCentral Andean Area, also called the Circum-Titicaca Area, the crucial geo-graphic feature is hypothesized to be the broad high pastureland (altiplano)surrounding Lake Titicaca in Peru and Bolivia at elevations mostly above3800 m. Also included within this archaeological area were the coastal val-leys of far south Peru and northern Chile and the eastern highland valleys ofnorthern Argentina and northern Bolivia. These zones were argued to haveresources different from and complementary to those of the altiplano. Thishigh-altitude region surrounding Lake Titicaca is viewed as the economicand demographic foundation of the Inca empire by John Murra (1972) andmany others. From the perspective of Lumbreras and others at the ParacasConference, the high elevation of the altiplano, the width of the Andes atthis latitude, the distance between environmental zones, the great extent oflands appropriate only for pasture, and the unusual lacustrine resources ofLake Titicaca can be seen as creating subsistence problems and potentialsdistinct from those in the Central Andean Area to the north.

Yet, does the new formulation by Lumbreras actually accommo-date the existing body of archaeological evidence better than the earlier

3With the exception of Fig. 2, all the illustrations were made by S. Chavez, and the obsidianartifacts were drawn accurately following a technique he developed for lithic remains. Eachartifact is drawn in accordance with the following standardized procedure: The first drawingon the left begins with the side having the most elaborate flaking (Face A). The second drawingis the profile which corresponds to the left edge of Face A, turning the artifact right to exposethe vertical view of the edge. The third is the opposite side (Face B). The cross section drawnunder Face B corresponds to the widest portion of the artifact, Face A at the top and B at thebottom.

P1: FLF



Fig. 1. Map of South America showing some sites not included in other figures.

P1: FLF



classifications it seeks to replace? The stimuli for the reevaluation pro-posed by the Paracas Conference were an appreciation of new ethnohistoricsources (Murra, 1972) as well as settlement studies and related informationof stylistic relationships between pottery styles (e.g., Mujica, 1985; Rivera,1984). However, a comprehensive evaluation of the Paracas Conferenceframework has yet to be undertaken, and although this archaeological andhistorical information will occasionally be referred to here, it is not the focusof this article. Nevertheless, one goal of this article is to explore the heuristicvalue of this new classification through one class of archaeological informa-tion: the sources and distribution of obsidian artifacts. Much of this evidenceis published here for the first time, but even the information on obsidian ex-change available at the time of the Paracas Conference was not consideredin formulating the new framework. Since the methodological basis for thisstudy is geochemical analysis, it provides a line of evidence independent ofthose arguments based on stylistic similarities or settlement patterns.

A critical feature of the Paracas classification is that the Cuzco, Vil-canota, and Urubamba Valleys are considered part of the Central AndeanArea rather than part of the neighboring altiplano areas surrounding LakeTiticaca. Though this division can be justified on purely geographic grounds,it does not appear to be consistent with the patterns of economic and cul-tural interaction inferred from the archaeological record. Evidence will bepresented here which indicates the great time depth of economic and polit-ical ties between Cuzco and the Circum-Titicaca area. As will be seen, theobsidian sourcing data raise serious doubts about the heuristic value of theCentral Andean/South Central Andean distinction as currently defined.

BACKGROUND OF RESEARCH

Obsidian characterization studies have been used for investigating pre-historic exchange and interaction in Southwest Asia (Renfrew et al., 1966),North America (Griffin et al., 1969), and Mesoamerica (Heizer et al., 1965)since the mid-1960s, but they only began to be conducted for the Andeanarea of South America in the 1970s. In 1971, K. Chavez submitted obsid-ian samples for neutron activation analysis to Adon Gordus, Departmentof Chemistry, University of Michigan. These specimens had been excavatedfrom three early sites in Cuzco and Puno, Peru, and were analyzed in thehope of determining what types of obsidian were being utilized during theEarly Horizon and, along with other evidence, what were the patterns of re-gional interaction (K. Chavez, 1977, 1982a, 1982b, 1983). In 1973, R. Burgerindependently initiated a project on Andean obsidian utilizing X-ray flu-orescence with Robert Jack at the Department of Anthropology of theUniversity of California, Berkeley. The following year, a more successful

P1: FLF



and comprehensive project utilizing both neutron activation and X-ray flu-orescence was begun by Burger with Frank Asaro and Helen Michel at theLawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL), University of California, Berkeley.The obsidian specimens analyzed in the LBL study covered the entire ar-chaeological sequence and came from a broad region including coastal andhighland Peru and highland Bolivia. This project was later expanded to in-clude Ecuador (Asaro et al., 1994; Burger et al., 1994). For the LBL research,the first author obtained the collaboration of many investigators who pro-vided samples from their excavations and surface collections, and also in-corporated specimens from his own investigations. The initial results of theBurger, Asaro, and Michel study became available in an internal LBL re-port in 1977, a version of which was published in Peru’s Revista del MuseoNacional in 1979. Work on obsidian exchange continued over the followingtwo decades, but only sporadic publications resulted (e.g., Burger and Asaro,1982; Burger et al., 1984).

During this time, the common interests of the authors of this article firstled to discussions and ultimately to collaboration, and it was decided thatthe time was ripe for a detailed synthesis of the findings on the southernhighlands and altiplano. The evidential basis of this paper thus draws heav-ily upon the unpublished and published work by Burger at LBL as well ashis more recent collaborative work with Michael D. Glascock at the MissouriUniversity Research Reactor (MURR) and his broad perspective on Andeanobsidian exchange. K. Chavez provided samples from her excavations andsurveys in Cuzco and Puno, and incorporates her interpretations of the re-sults in relation to their chronological placement and her perspective onsouthern highland prehistory. S. Chavez likewise provided samples from hisexcavations and surveys in Puno and Cuzco, as well as his detailed knowledgeof Andean lithic technology and chronology. Recently, with the decrease ofpolitical violence in the Andean highlands, there has been a renewed in-terest in obsidian sourcing (e.g., Brooks et al., 1997; Burger et al., 1998a–c;Aldenderfer, 1999, pp. 383–384) and this subject is being advanced by a newgeneration of investigators such as Justin Jennings and Martin Giesso. It ishoped that this contribution will help to provide a strong foundation forfuture studies.

CHEMICAL GROUPS AND SOURCING

The 1971 neutron activation analysis at the University of Michigan per-mitted the identification of two major chemical types of obsidian and possiblya third rare one for the south highlands of Peru, based on their distinctiveNa/Mn ratios. The two sources for which obsidian had come were referred

P1: FLF



to as the “Cuzco source” and the “Puno source,” named for the departmentsof Cuzco and Puno where each occurred with great frequency, although thegeological locations of the sources remained unknown (K. Chavez, 1977,p. 35; 1982a, pp. 249–253).

The 1974–1975 analyses at LBL isolated eight major chemical types and,with one exception, these major obsidian types were provisionally named forthe particular regions where the artifacts occurred archaeologically. No geo-logical sources were known to match these seven chemical types (Burger andAsaro, 1977, 1979). One chemical type of obsidian was found to match sam-ples which archaeologist Rogger Ravines reported to have collected at a geo-logical source called Quispisisa, which he said was situated near San Genaroin Huancavelica (Ravines, 1971, p. 27), but which, in 1999, was located nearthe town of Sacsamarca in central Ayacucho (Burger and Glascock, 2000a).Volcanic glass from the Quispisisa Source comprises the vast majority of ob-sidian artifacts studied from what is now central and northern Peru (Burgerand Asaro, 1979).

In the Peruvian highlands south of the Department of Ayacucho, thevast majority of the obsidian artifacts tested belonged to only two chemi-cal groups, judging from their trace element composition. These chemicaltypes were defined using instrumental neutron activation (INAA) to pro-vide highly precise quantitative figures for some 28 elements. The chemicaltype of obsidian most common in the Cuzco drainage was referred to asthe Cuzco Type, while the other type, which was more common in the LakeTiticaca Basin, was dubbed the Titicaca Basin Type. Twelve obsidian arti-facts (approximately 1%) had compositions which differed from these twomain types and some were hypothesized to constitute rare types which wereused infrequently. At sites in southern Peru, the two dominant types definedin the Burger and Asaro (1977, 1979) study paralleled and corresponded tothe two groups identified in the unpublished study by Chavez and Gordus.Given the large scale of the Burger and Asaro analyses, which included over800 artifacts from some 141 archaeological sites in Peru and Bolivia, it wasevident that most of the obsidian utilized in antiquity by the people of thesouthern highlands of Peru and northern highlands of Bolivia came fromtwo geological sources, neither of which had been identified at that time.Fortunately, the geological sources of both types of obsidian have now beenlocated and accurately characterized.

Obsidian of the Cuzco Type comes from a source in the Cotahuasi Valleyof central Arequipa, approximately 195 km southwest of Cuzco (Burgeret al., 1998a) (Fig. 4). The headwaters of the Cotahuasi River are found on thewestern side of the continental divide and its waters eventually cut one of theworld’s deepest canyons (approximately 3000 m from rim to bottom) formingthe Ocona River just before draining into the Pacific Ocean. The obsidian

P1: FLF



source is located 2850 m above sea level, about 1 km from the village of Alcain the Cotahuasi Province, Department of Arequipa. The volcanic glass fromthe Alca Source is of excellent quality, showing no signs of structural flaws ordegradation, and it occurs in large nodules sometimes measuring 20–30 cmon a side.

Obsidian of the Titicaca Basin Type derives from a source in the ColcaValley of eastern Arequipa (Burger et al., 1998b) (Fig. 4). The Colca Valley,like that of Cotahuasi, is known for its beautiful canyon vistas as well as itscontinuing volcanic activity on Mount Sabancaya. It is currently a popularlocation on the tourist circuit. The Colca River drains along the westernslopes of the Andes until it reaches the Pacific; in its lower reaches, theriver is known as the Majes or Camana rather than Colca. The obsidiandeposit is located 5 km to the east of the town of Chivay at an elevationof approximately 4900 m above sea level (Burger et al., 1998b, pp. 203–205;Figs. 2, 3). A large quarry area has been reported from the source area(Brooks et al., 1997). The obsidian from the area of the volcanic dome is offine quality and occurs in large blocks, some exceeding 30 cm on a side.

Additional research on the geologic sources of Peruvian obsidian hasalso been successful in locating two other obsidian deposits that were ex-ploited in Prehispanic times. The Puzolana Source, located immediately tothe south of the modern city of Ayacucho provided the obsidian for artifactsof the Ayacucho Type (Burger and Glascock, 2000b), and the JampatillaSource (Burger et al., 1998c), situated 55 km north of Puquio, was exploitedfor the Pampas Type obsidian. Obsidian at both of these sources occurs in theform of relatively small nodules and, perhaps because of this, neither sourceplayed a major role in networks of long-distance exchange. Other obsidiansources have recently been reported in the literature, but details have notbeen published, including an Aconcagua Source in Puno (Aldenderfer, 1999,p. 383) and a Sora Sora Source in Bolivia (Brooks et al., p. 450).

With the discovery of five of the eight principal sources of Peruvian ob-sidian identified in Burger and Asaro (1977), the results of obsidian sourceanalysis in the southern highlands now can be assessed in terms of theirimplications for patterns of procurement and exchange and to better under-stand the changing role of this region within the prehistory of the Andes.In reviewing these data, it becomes clear that in this region several othertypes of obsidian were utilized on a limited basis in addition to the eightkinds originally defined in 1977. Presumably, these chemical types of ob-sidian came from yet unlocated geologic deposits of volcanic glass in thesouthern highlands of Peru or northern Bolivia. One of these, called theTumuku Type in this study, appeared in the appendix of the 1977 study andwas referred to as Rare Type 1 (Burger and Asaro, 1977, pp. 65, 67, 69).The results presented in this article suggest that “Rare Type 1” was more

P1: FLF



frequently utilized than realized and, since sites yielding obsidian artifactswith this chemical signature are clustered close to the town of Tumuku nearthe modern Peru–Bolivia political border, we have provisionally dubbedit the Tumuku Type. Another chemical type of obsidian, referred to here asthe Chumbivilcas Type, was not encountered in our original sample and wasnot referred to in earlier publications. Artifacts with this chemical signatureonly appear in significant numbers among archaeological samples collectedin the western Cuzco Province of Chumbivilcas, a remote area near the cur-rent political division of the departments of Cuzco and Arequipa (S. Chavez,1989). Despite extensive and repeated efforts carried out over the years byK. and S. Chavez in many areas of the departments of Cuzco and Puno, noobsidian sources were identified in those regions.

A TEMPORAL REVIEW OF OBSIDIAN PROCUREMENTAND DISTRIBUTION

The results of obsidian analyses are presented below within the chrono-logical framework proposed by John Rowe that is utilized by many archae-ologists working in the Central Andes. Where possible, we offer comple-mentary information in order to explain the temporal placement of thesamples and the relationship of the samples to each other. In some cases,the chronology of this area remains poorly understood and we have drawnupon S. Chavez’s ongoing study of the lithic sequences of southern Peru andnorthern Bolivia in order to give chronological significance to the findings.

The Preceramic

The Preceramic obsidian artifacts analyzed derive from sites in the Pe-ruvian departments of Arequipa, Puno, and Cuzco (Table I; Fig. 2). Theearliest evidence of obsidian exploitation comes from the Department ofArequipa, but from the far south coast rather than the highlands. Exca-vations at the Quebrada Jaguay 280 site between the Ocona and Camanadrainages revealed evidence of a Paleo-Indian occupation dating to 11, 105–9850 BP. These dates make Quebrada Jaguay 280 one of the oldest knownsettlements in the Americas. Located only 2 km inland on an alluvial ter-race at 40 m above sea level, the residents of Quebrada Jaguay relied onocean resources including the net fishing of drums (Sciaenae) and collectionof wedge clams (Mesodesma donacium). Obsidian was the dominant rawmaterial for the sample of lithics recovered, and all of it came from the AlcaSource, some 130 km away at 2850 m (Sandweiss et al., 1998). To reach the

P1: FLF


276 Burger, Chavez, and ChavezTa

ble

I.P

rece

ram

icSa

mpl

es Pro

babl

yC

hiva

yTu

muk

uC

hum

bivi

lcas

Chu

mbi

vilc

asA

lca

Sour

ceTy

peTy

peTy

peSo

urce

Uni

dent

ified

Tota

lN

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.

Cuz

co,P

eru

Huk

iWas

i3

433

431

147

Kul

law

ata

267

133

3C

hoqo

Cho

qo1

100

1W

iraq

ocha

Orq

o1

100

1To

talf

orC

uzco

325

325

217

325

18

12

Pun

o,P

eru

Tum

uku

240

360

5C

ham

aqta

510

05

Roc

kshe

lter

(Pit

1,st

rata

3an

d4)

Qaq

achu

pa1

100

1To

talf

orP

uno

327

873

11

Are

quip

a,P

eru

Sum

bay

310

03

Su-3

(Pit

5,st

ratu

m3)

Su(s

urfa

ce)

210

02

Su-2

(sur

face

)20

100

20V

isca

chan

i2

100

2C

aban

acon

de2

100

2Ja

chal

aca

810

08

Que

lkat

a21

100

21H

uilt

occo

610

06

Tota

lfor

6410

064

Are

quip

a

Tota

lfor

sout

hhi

ghla

nds

7080

89

33

22

33

11

87

Not

e:A

llar

esu

rfac

esp

ecim

ens

unle

ssot

herw

ise

note

d.

P1: FLF



Fig

.2.M

apof

site

s,es

peci

ally

sout

hern

Per

uan

dno

rthe

rnB

oliv

ia.D

raw

nby

Ros

emar

yV

olpe

.

P1: FLF



source area from Quebrada Jaguay 280 would have required crossing fromthe Quebrada into the Ocona drainage, but it remains uncertain whether thecoastal inhabitants made specific procurement trips, moved seasonally intothe highlands, perhaps to an area near the obsidian source, or acquired theobsidian through exchange.

In the southern highlands of Peru, the early history of obsidian usage canbe documented at two sets of excavations, one at Asana in the Departmentof Moquegua, and another at the Chamaqta Rockshelter in the Departmentof Puno. Obsidian from Asana, in the Osmore Basin at 3435 m, provides theearliest evidence for obsidian utilization in the south highlands and for thefirst exploitation of the Chivay Source (Fig. 4). In the lithic assemblage ofAsana, minor amounts (from 0.28% to 0.36%) of Chivay Source obsidianwere used beginning in the Asana II/Khituna Phase at 9400 BP, disappearingby the end of the Asana IV/Muruq’uta Phase at 6000 BP (Aldenderfer, 1998,pp. 81, 157, 163, 209, 268; 1999, pp. 383–384). When obsidian reappeared inthe Asana VII/Awati Phase at 3640 BP, as only 0.40% of raw materials,the source of obsidian shifted to a closer deposit in Aconcagua only 80 kmeast. The excavated obsidian analyzed from the Chamaqta Rockshelter andsurface artifacts from Tumuku, also in Puno, provides strong evidence forthe earliest use of Tumuku Type obsidian during the late Preceramic.

Except for artifacts from the Ccollpa-Sumbay area, all of our other sam-ples of Preceramic obsidian come from the surface of sites having preceramiccomponents as well as later remains. However, an assessment of the formof those surface artifacts as Preceramic in age justifies their incorporationhere. In the case of five projectile points analyzed from Qaqachupa in Punoand Kullawata, Choqo Choqo, and Wiraqocha Orqo in Cuzco, their stemmedbases permitted us to assign them with confidence to the Preceramic (Fig. 3).Such stemmed points resemble those from clearly dated Preceramic contextsand have never been reported from excavated ceramic occupations in thisregion. These Cuzco sites also suggest the earliest use of Chumbivilcas Typeobsidian in Preceramic times.

All 64 specimens from six sites in Arequipa were made from the ChivaySource obsidian. Twenty-five of these come from Ccollpa-Sumbay, an areahaving seven Preceramic sites designated as Su-1 to 7 by their excavator,Maximo Neira Avendano (1968). Subsequently, Eloy Linares Malaga (1974,p. 150) provided a more precise name, Ccollpa-Sumbay, for the sites, andindicated the altitude to be 4020 m. Su-3 is the main cavern at Ccollpa-Sumbay and seven pits were excavated there. Neira found four natural layersextending across the areas excavated. Three obsidian samples from stratum 3of Pit 5 (Neira, 1968, p. 56) have a date of 6160 BP ± 120 (BONN-1558),and a date of 5350 BP ± 90 (BONN-1559) was derived from stratum 2,above stratum 3 of this pit (Ravines, 1982, pp. 180–181; Neira, personal

P1: FLF



Fig. 3. Late Preceramic obsidian artifacts used in the analysis. All come from the surface.(a) From Qaqachupa, Province of Melgar, Department of Puno. Chivay Source obsidian (8065-H). (b) From Kullawata, Province of Chumbivilcas, Department of Cuzco. Chumbivilcas Typeobsidian (8057–7). (c) From Kullawata. Chumbivilcas Type obsidian (8064-X). (d) From ChoqoChoqo, Province of Chumbivilcas, Department of Cuzco. Chumbivilcas Type obsidian (8064-I). (e) From Wiraqocha Orqo, Province of Chumbivilcas, Department of Cuzco. ChumbivilcasType obsidian (8064-E). (f) From Kullawata. Probable Chumbivilcas Type obsidian (8064–3).

P1: FLF



communication, 1973). Associated materials are listed for all pits, including16 point types. Obsidian occurs in all cultural levels, including a point in thelowermost stratum 4 of Pit 3, but it is relatively rare. The surface obsidiansamples, 20 coming from the shelter and terreplain of Su-2 and two fromCcollpa-Sumbay, generally are, in all likelihood, also Preceramic given theclear abundance of Preceramic materials at these locations and the apparentlack of pottery remains.

Thirty-nine samples were analyzed from five other sites located in theProvince of Cailloma, Department of Arequipa. Viscachani is an open sitenear a rockshelter, Quelkata a cave, and Huiltocco a rockshelter. We haveincluded these sites in this section along with Cabanaconde and Jachalaca,based on the assessment by their investigator that they are primarily Pre-ceramic, although information is incomplete and the samples tested wereundiagnostic flakes. Surface materials from Quelkata were like those of thePreceramic remains from Ccollpa-Sumbay, although some later remains (toColonial) also occurred (Jose Antonio Chavez, personal communication,August 1974). At both Quelkata and Huiltocco, obsidian and quartzite wererelatively abundant, followed by chert. The raw material for the 39 obsid-ian artifacts analyzed from these five sites had also been brought from theChivay Source in the Colca Valley.

From the Department of Puno, five samples come from the excavationsof Neira in the Chamaqta Rockshelter near Kututu (Calicanto), District ofPisacoma, in the Province of Chucuito. All are of the Tumuku Type (pre-viously designated as Rare Type 1). Three specimens came from stratum 4and two from stratum 3 of Pit 1 there. Although the Preceramic remainsare unpublished (Neira, personal communication, 1983), Jose Marıa FrancoInojosa (1957) previously provided information on these caves, situated atabout 3900 m. He describes numerous cave paintings, notes some flint pointsand bone in some of them, and indicates that the original name for Calicantocave is Kututu.

At the archaeological site of Tumuku, also in the Province of Chucuito,three obsidian flakes from the surface proved to be of the Tumuku Type,while two were of volcanic glass brought from the Chivay Source. This rockshelter, situated at an elevation of 4500 m, was reported by Felix Palacios(1984) as one of several Preceramic sites located in the District of SantaRosa de Juli. The surface lithic remains were associated with the shelterand concentrated west to the Cuypa-Cuypa River. Palacios proposes a longPreceramic occupation from 9950 to 4450 BP based on cross-dating materialsthat include 20 point types. Some Inca pottery was also found, but it isprobable that the specimens analyzed belong to the Preceramic occupation.Only concave-based point Types 1–3 are of obsidian and were cross-datedto period III of the Toquepala Rockshelter No. 2 (Tacna) sequence as late

P1: FLF



Preceramic (Palacios, 1984, p. 25). Lacking other pottery remains, then, itappears obsidian usage here began around 5450–4950 BP, as did concave-based point forms. Furthermore, the position of Tumuku seems to haveplaced it in an intermediate location between spheres of Chivay Source andTumuku Type obsidian utilization.

One surface fragment of a stemmed point (Fig. 3a) from Qaqachupaon the outskirts of Ayaviri, capital of the Province of Melgar, was madeof obsidian from the Chivay Source. Qaqachupa is known primarily for itsEarly Horizon Qaluyu occupation (Rowe, 1956, p. 144), but the point formindicates that the site had a Preceramic component as well. The point frag-ment compares most closely to point Type 7 in the Ravines classification forRockshelter No. 2 at Toquepala (Ravines, 1973, pp. 140, 145, 147, specimen100 on p. 152, and Fig. P7), although it is somewhat larger. This form, with ashort and asymmetrical stem, dates to Toquepala period III (5450–4950 BP)(Ravines, 1973, p. 154).

The five obsidian samples included here from the Province of Chumbi-vilcas in the Department of Cuzco come from the surface of three sites inthe District of Velille. The obsidian projectile points analyzed came from thesites of Kullawata, Choqo Choqo, and Wiraqocha Orqo (S. Chavez, 1989,pp. 30–35) (Fig. 3b–f). Three are of Chumbivilcas Type obsidian, while twoare chemically similar and are probably also of the Chumbivilcas Type. Asnoted above, the geological source of the Chumbivilcas Type obsidian hasyet to be identified. All five specimens are points or fragments of pointswhich were classified as Preceramic primarily because they possess stemmedbases. At Kullawata and Wiraqocha Orqo, other diagnostic Preceramic lithicremains were also collected, including stemmed points of materials otherthan obsidian (S. Chavez, 1989, Fig. 14, top two rows). The first sample fromKullawata is a fragment having only the stem portion complete (Fig. 3b).This piece corresponds to a group of several bifacially worked points alsofrom Kullawata, which have the following characteristic attributes: broadrectangular stem in relation to the body of the point with a slightly convexor straight base, lateral barbs, and often serrated edges above the barbs.

This group is most similar to the stemmed points present at the lowestlevels in the Ichuna Rockshelter, Province of Mariscal Nieto, Departmentof Moquegua (Menghin and Schroeder, 1957, pp. 46–47, Fig. 10a–c), and, toa lesser extent, to points excavated by Neira at the Su-3 cave of Ccollpa-Sumbay. Specifically, the group from Kullawata resembles Neira’s Type 2,and also compares to his Types 1 and 15 except the latter two have slightlyconcave bases (Neira, 1968, pp. 59–60, 62, Figs. 11A–B, 12A, 16B). LinaresMalaga (1974, pp. 150–151, Fig. 6) also combines Neira’s Types 1, 2, and15. Neira (1968, p. 64) concludes that all 16 of his point types are indis-tinguishably found throughout his three stratigraphic levels, but that Type 1

P1: FLF



has primacy in all levels. As mentioned, two radiocarbon measurements datestratum 3 in Pit 5 at Su-3 to 6160 BP ± 120 and stratum 2 to 5350 BP ± 90.

Comparisons can also be made to a single basalt point (Type 20) col-lected by Palacios from the surface of Tumuku that may resemble our group(Palacios, 1984, pp. 22, 25–26, Plate V, Type 20). Single surface examplesare illustrated from the Department of Puno in the area around the ruinsof Sillustani (Ruiz Estrada, 1973, pp. 165–166, Plate 29, Fig. e) and at Chill-icua near Ilave (Ravines, 1973, pp. 171–172, Fig. l on fifth plate of photos,and Fig. 126 on p. 172). Broad-stemmed points like those from Kullawataare absent, we would argue, in Ravines’ excavations in the Department ofTacna at both the Caru Shelter (Ravines, 1968) and Toquepala RockshelterNo. 2 (Ravines, 1973).

Another relatively large collection of points comes from the surfaceof Tambillo, near San Pedro de Atacama in northern Chile. Here, JorgeKaltwasser (1963, pp. 136–137) classifies the collection into six types, of whichonly some examples of his Types 2 (Plate I, only Fig. 4, although with a moreconvex base) and 3 (Plate I, especially Fig. 9) resemble those from our group.Additionally, Kaltwasser (1963, p. 144) suggests a date no older than 5950 BPfor these materials.

In Bolivia, from the site of Huancarani (Wankarani), Heinz Walter(1966, p. 82, Plate 7a, Fig. 1, 19) and Carlos Ponce Sangines (1970, pp. 27,44, Fig. 16, lower right, and Fig. 17, second from the left on the bottom row)report stemmed points. Unfortunately, the latter reference does not indi-cate the exact excavated context, if any, and Ponce implies that the differentshapes of points he illustrates are part of the early ceramic-using culture ofHuancarani. If this is the case, it suggests the continuity of several Prece-ramic stage points into early ceramic times, a conclusion in sharp contrastwith those excavated elsewhere (K. Chavez, 1982a, p. 249; Grossman, 1985,p. 65).

The second point form found at Kullawata and Choqo Choqo (Fig. 3c–d)has a narrow oval or pointed stemmed base, and the one in Fig. 3d has lateralbarbs with serrated edges above them. This shape is relatively frequent atmost of the sites mentioned above (cf. S. Chavez, 1989, Fig. 14, lower right)and elsewhere in the Andean region. These points compare most closely toRavines’ Type 2 at the Toquepala Rockshelter No. 2 (Ravines, 1973, pp. 141,143, and Fig. P2 on p. 140; see also p. 169 on Ichuna). Ravines calls thistype Punta Ichuna, named after the Ichuna Rockshelter in Moquegua, andsees close similarity or “stylistic identity” with the stemmed points docu-mented there by Oswaldo Menghin and Gerhard Schroeder (1957, pp. 46–47, Fig. 10a–f). However, Ravines included within his Punta Ichuna (Type 2)both the broad rectangular stemmed form, represented by the first Kullawatapoint above and by the Ichuna points, and the oval or pointed stemmed forms,

P1: FLF



diagnostic of this second group from Chumbivilcas. Consequently, the termPunta Ichuna is a misnomer, for it incorporates what is, in essence, twodifferent groups. This issue may not have been apparent to Ravines whenso little was known in the literature, and it may reflect a far more tempo-ral and/or geographical, hence cultural/functional/technological variabilitythan expressed in his worthy synthesis of the available data. Ravines (1973,pp. 153–155) proposes three periods for Rockshelter No. 2 of Toquepalabased on the stratigraphic column there and on two radiocarbon dates fromthe adjacent Toquepala Cave that lack archaeological associations, one fromthe base (9580 BP± 160, Y-1325) and the other from the lowest stratum hav-ing human occupation (9490 BP ± 40, Y-1372) (Ravines, 1968, pp. 47, 54):

• Period III (strata 1 and 2), 5450–4950 BP. Point Types 1–7 and 9.Diagnostic elements include triangular concave-based points (Type 1)and polished stone ornaments.• Period II (stratum 3), 5950–5650 BP. Conservative elements of Pe-

riod I, new rhomboidal points, and points with serrated stems occur.• Period I (strata 4 and 5), 8650–7850 BP. Point Types 2 (Punta Ichuna)

3, 4, 8-9 representing the oldest occupation of the rockshelter.

Based on this sequence, the second group of point fragments from Kullawataand Choqo Choqo could date to any period. However, Ravines (1973, p. 149)notes Type 2 points occur with greatest frequency in stratum 3 (and are absentin stratum 5), making a somewhat greater likelihood that this Chumbivilcasgroup dates to Period II.

Two additional examples come from Wiraqocha Orqo and ChoqoChoqo (Fig. 3e–f). They may represent a third group or be variations ofthe previous two groups, i.e., the result of reworking (S. Chavez, n.d.-a); nei-ther base is clearly squared nor ovoidal. The complete point (Fig. 3e) with aslightly trapezoidal stem compares to a point from Toquepala RockshelterNo. 2 (Ravines, 1973, second plate following p. 170, Fig. t), and may be re-lated to the much smaller stemmed points proposed to occur during thePreceramic after 5450 BP (Ravines, 1973, p. 177).

In summary, the five obsidian stemmed points analyzed from Chumbi-vilcas could be assigned to between about 6150 BP and sometime after5450 BP and provide an approximate age for the earliest use of the Chumbi-vilcas Type obsidian, as follows: group one, based on the two Ccollpa-Sumbaydates (5350 BP± 90 and 6160 BP± 120); group two, based on Toquepala Pe-riod II (5650–5950 BP); and the two miscellaneous pieces, based on Ravines’assessment for the south highlands, especially after 5450 BP. Furthermore,both the squared and ovoidal stemmed points resemble those of the AsanaVI/Qhuna Phase excavated from the site of Asana that date to ca. 5000–4400 BP (Aldenderfer, 1998, p. 234). Aldenderfer cross-dates these points

P1: FLF



to similar ones from the Hakenasa Phase in northern Chile of ca. 6000–4000 BP, and notes their restricted south-central Andean distribution. Bothpoint forms, therefore, appear to be roughly contemporary and relativelylate in the Preceramic sequence of the region. Finally, the five Chumbivil-cas points and the one from Qaqachupa represent the only clearly reportedstemmed points of obsidian for this region.

The obsidian flakes analyzed from the cave of Huki Wasi, high aboveand north of Sicuani (Province of Canchis) in the Department of Cuzco, aretentatively assigned to the Preceramic based on the style of points foundthere, although their age is not certain (Percy Paz, personal communication,1973; Burger and Asaro, 1979, p. 312). This site is located near the watershedbetween the Vilcanota Valley to the north and the Lake Titicaca Basin tothe south. Significantly, in our artifact sample, obsidian from the Alca andChivay Sources was present in equal proportions. If these samples belongto the Preceramic, then they represent the earliest documented use of Alcaobsidian in the southern highlands, as well as the northernmost distributionof obsidian from the Chivay Source. These results from Huki Wasi alsoindicate the establishment of a pattern of using volcanic glass from bothmajor Arequipa obsidian sources; this pattern also characterizes the Sicuanizone in later times.

It is possible that some of the other obsidian artifacts tested fromChumbivilcas and made of Alca Source obsidian are also Preceramic, butthese artifacts could not be identified as clearly Preceramic forms. A per-forator of Alca Source obsidian tested from Choqo Choqo, for example, issimilar to, but larger than, one from Ccollpa-Sumbay (Neira, 1968, Fig. 17B),and we know concave-based points, such as those made of Alca Source ob-sidian from the Chumbivilcas sites, occur during the late Preceramic as wellas later. Thus, although it is likely that Alca Source obsidian was being usedat sites in Chumbivilcas as well as at sites in Sicuani during the Preceramic,this cannot be demonstrated with certainty.

With very few exceptions, quantification of lithic materials derived fromsurface or excavated contexts is absent in the literature. However, quantifi-cations are provided by Palacios (1984, pp. 16–17, 22–24) for surface remainsat Tumuku and by Neira (1968) for the excavated lithics at Ccollpa-Sumbay.Table II provides a summary of lithic materials based on Palacios’ surfaceinventory, our own summary of Neira’s excavated materials, and surfacespecimens from Kullawata reported by S. Chavez (1989). It can be observedthat the utilization of obsidian, either to manufacture points or other tools,is low at all three sites. The figures from Ccollpa-Sumbay are the most reli-able because they are based on excavated remains. This low proportion ofobsidian in Preceramic times confirms for the most part observations madeby S. Chavez (n.d.-a) elsewhere in Cuzco and Puno.

P1: FLF



Table II. Comparison of Lithic Materials at Three Preceramic Sites in Peru

Obsidian Basalt OtherTotal

No. % No. % No. % No.

Kullawata, all 3 4 52 78 12 18 67Kullawata, points 3 6 39 83 5 11 47Tumuku, all 41 6 240 38 358 56 639Tumuku, points 23 8 90 33 159 58 272

Obsidian Retinite OtherTotal

No. % No. % No. % No.

Ccollpa-Sumbay, all 6 3 162 85 23 12 191Ccollpa-Sumbay, points 5 3 125 86 16 11 146

Note: For Kullawata, obsidian points without stems have been omitted. For Tumukuand Ccollpa-Sumbay, all points have been included, and, for Tumuku, assumed notto correspond to the Late Horizon component there. Other artifacts from Kullawatawere presumed to be Preceramic. Flakes have been omitted for all sites.

Discussion and Conclusions for the Preceramic

Early inhabitants of southern Peru discovered two major obsidian sour-ces (Alca and Chivay) between ca. 11,000 and 9400 BP, and minor ones by latePreceramic times between ca. 6150 and 3640 BP (Tumuku, Chumbivilcas, andAconcagua). Recent evidence indicates that Alca source obsidian was firstexploited by coastal maritime-adapted Paleo-Indian groups who acquiredthe material from a significant distance in the highlands. The earliest use ofChivay Source obsidian is now documented at Asana. These early groupsbegan to use obsidian in minor amounts for projectile points and other tools,and, with the exception of Tumuku and apparently Aconcagua types, thesesame sources continued to be exploited through most periods of the ceramicstage.

Preceramic samples are especially helpful in permitting the potentialdiscovery of unlocated geological sources since the earliest and most abun-dant use of an obsidian type should occur closest to its source. For example,it was observed that Chivay Source obsidian was the only type found at sitesstudied in Arequipa and that its use there began at least by ca. 6150 BP.The abundance at so many Preceramic sites suggested that the source waslocated west of the Titicaca Basin and north of the city of Arequipa, and itseventual location in the Colca Valley was later confirmed.

The still unlocated source of Tumuku Type obsidian appears to be lo-cated far southeast near the Peru–Bolivia border in the Province of Chucuito,based on its earliest occurrence at Tumuku perhaps by 5450 BP and its exclu-sive use at Chamaqta Rockshelter near Pisacoma. The geological source ofTumuku Type obsidian also could be situated in the adjacent area of Bolivia

P1: FLF



or Chile. Interestingly, Franco Inojosa (1957, p. 295) notes the occurrenceof an extensive lava formation surrounding Pisacoma. The surface Prece-ramic remains at Tumuku, which were cross-dated to those from excavatedcontexts, range from 9950 to 4450 BP (Palacios, 1984, p. 26), but the use ofobsidian is associated only with later concave-based point Types 1–3 thatare cross-dated to 5450–4950 BP based on Ravines’ proposed sequence forToquepala Rockshelter No. 2 (Palacios, 1984, Table 3).

Chumbivilcas Type obsidian occurs earliest in Chumbivilcas Provincein southwestern Cuzco, suggesting its source may lie somewhere in the area.Chumbivilcas obsidian is so far known only from the Velille River Basin, andwas in use perhaps by 6150–4350 BP based on cross-dating of the point stylesinvolved. This chemical type of obsidian had not been detected in the orig-inal study by Burger and Asaro (1979), perhaps because no archaeologicalsamples were tested from the Chumbivilcas area.

The earliest known highland use of Alca obsidian is its apparently latePreceramic occurrence at the site of Huki Wasi near Sicuani, a linear distanceof about 210 km from the source. We would expect it to occur earliest closer tothe source such as in Velille, but Preceramic artifacts of Alca obsidian couldnot be positively identified there. The exclusive usage of artifacts made ofAlca Source obsidian on the coast at Quebrada Jaguay 280 some 130 km fromits source between 11,105 and 9850 BP suggests that some of the other typesof obsidian may have longer histories of usage than is currently documented.It is also possible that the relatively low elevation of the Alca Source at only2850 m made its initial exploitation particularly attractive with the retreatof the glaciers at the end of the Pleistocene and beginning of the Holocene.

At the present time, the obsidian evidence shows that the acquisitionof Chivay Source obsidian became widespread during the late Preceramic(Fig. 4). Its distribution suggests that people in the Colca Valley and adja-cent ones south in Arequipa, the highlands above the Moquegua Valley, theupper Vilcanota Valley (at Huki Wasi), the northern Lake Titicaca Basin (atQaqachupa), and those from an area to the southeast near the border withBolivia (at Tumuku) were linked through the network(s) responsible for thedistribution of this obsidian. Tumuku occupants utilized Tumuku Type ob-sidian as well as obsidian from the Chivay Source, while those at ChamaqtaRockshelter used only Tumuku obsidian. Huki Wasi, in the upper drainageof the Vilcanota, lies in an intermediate position between the Valley of Cuzcoto the north and the altiplano of Puno to the south; here, both Chivay andAlca Source obsidians were being utilized. This intermediate zone patternof using both types in significant, but varying proportions persisted into laterceramic periods as people were in a favorable geographical position to in-teract with both northern and southern neighbors and chose to do so.

P1: FLF



Fig

.4.P

rece

ram

icdi

stri

buti

onof

obsi

dian

from

sour

ces

inth

eso

uth

high

land

s.U

nide

ntifi

edob

sidi

anfr

omH

ukiW

asih

asbe

enom

i-tt

edhe

re.

P1: FLF



That the south highlands was not part of the central or south-centralAndean area during the Preceramic is suggested by the absence of ob-sidian from the more northern Quispisisa and Puzolana (Ayacucho Type)Sources as well as by the absence of south highland obsidians in those ar-eas farther north. Both the Quispisisa and Puzolana Sources were utilizedfor the production of obsidian artifacts in Ayacucho during the Puente(10,950–9050 BP), Jaywa (9050–7750 BP), Piki (7750–6350 BP), Chihua(6350–5050 BP), and Cachi (5050–3700 BP) phases of the Preceramic (Burgerand Asaro, 1977, p. 61; 1979, p. 302; MacNeish et al., 1980, pp. 44–45; 1983).The Puzolana Source obsidian never achieved more than a very local dis-tribution. While Quispisisa Source obsidian apparently was not used in thesouth highlands during the Preceramic, it was the most widespread in otherareas of Peru during this time, including the central and south coast, fromChilca to Nasca (Burger and Asaro, 1979, pp. 301–304; Burger and Glascock,2000a), and in the highlands from at least Junın (Uchcumachay) to Ayacucho(Burger and Asaro, 1978).

Initial Period (3750–2750 BP)

Regional interaction was firmly established in the south highlands dur-ing the Initial Period when the earliest pottery-using groups occupied theregion between ca. 3350/3250 and 2950/2800 BP (Table III). This conclu-sion originally was based on pottery similarities and was supported by theobsidian evidence (K. Chavez, 1977, pp. 35, 1090–1091; 1983, p. 331), andit is now confirmed by a larger, sourced obsidian sample. Occupations in-cluded within this period are represented by the earliest levels excavatedat Marcavalle (Phase A) in the Valley of Cuzco; Pikicallepata in the upperVilcanota; and Qaluyu (Early Qaluyu) and Chiripa (Early Chiripa/“Sub-Lower House Level” or Condori Phase) in the northern and southern LakeTiticaca Basin, respectively (K. Chavez, 1983, pp. 319–332). The obsidianartifacts analyzed from Marcavalle (Province of Cuzco) and Pikicallepata(Province of Canchis) in the Department of Cuzco and Qaluyu (Provinceof Lampa) in the Department of Puno come from K. Chavez’s excavationsat these sites (K. Chavez, 1969, 1977, 1982a, 1982b, 1983; for all radiocar-bon dates from these sites, see K. Chavez, 1977, pp. 1142–1147; Lawn, 1971,pp. 373–376).

Phase A at Marcavalle, dated by two radiocarbon dates (2860 BP ±47, P-1566, and 2916 BP ± 55, P-1567, uncalibrated), represents the earliestknown occupation of the Cuzco Basin. One point of Chivay Source obsidianvery likely dates to Phase A despite its provenience from a mixed upper level,as it was found directly on undisturbed deposits only of Phase A (Fig. 5a).

P1: FLF



Table III. Initial Period Samples

Chivay Alca Rare 9 Chivay TumukuSource Source Type Source? Type Total

No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No.

Cuzco, PeruMarcavalle

Probably phase 1 100 1A (1B/1)

Uncertain phase 2 33 4 67 6(A or B?) (Pit 1,100–110 cm)

Pikicallepata 2 67 1 33 3(8B/19, 8B/23)

Total for Cuzco 5 50 5 50 10

Puno, PeruQaluyu

Early Qaluyu 20 87 1 4 1 4 1 4 23(2B/6 to 2B/30F)

BoliviaChiripa

Condori IB Phase 1 100 1

Total for south 25 74 6 18 1 3 1 3 1 3 34highlands

Area outside the south highlandsApurimac, Peru

WaywakaPhases A/B/C–D 1 2a

aPercentage based on 50 speciments tested from all Muyu Moqo phases, including 25 (50%)Andahuaylas A, 15 (30%) Jampatilla, 7 (14%) Quispisisa, and 2 (4%) Rare 4 Type.

Two other specimens of Chivay Source obsidian came from the lowest 10 cmof Pit 1 excavated by Patricia J. Lyon and Luis Barreda Murillo at Marcavalle,and represent one third of the obsidian tested from this level (two thirds wereof Alca obsidian). This provenience is also suggestive of an early occurrencefor Chivay Source obsidian here. Their date would presumably be older thanthe radiocarbon date of 2645 BP± 115 (GX-0453) obtained on Pit 1 materialwhich overlay these lowest 10 cm, and would likely belong to Phase A orB. K. Chavez’s Unit C that contained Phase B materials in the lowermostlevels was located in the vicinity of the Lyon/Barreda Pit 1.

At Marcavalle, the occurrence in Phase A, and possibly Phase B, is theonly time Chivay Source obsidian appears in our samples from northernCuzco until it shows up at Machu Picchu during imperial Inca times. ForPikicallepata, this period stands out as the only time when Chivay Sourceobsidian predominates (67%). Similarly, the Initial Period is the only timewhen Alca obsidian occurs at Qaluyu, based on our sample (4%), although

P1: FLF



Fig. 5. Initial Period obsidian projectile points (a–f) and other tools (g–h). Excavations ofK. Chavez. (a) From Marcavalle, Province and Department of Cuzco, probably Phase A (1B/1,A-1). Chivay Source type obsidian. (b) From Pikicallepata, Province of Canchis, Departmentof Cuzco (8B/19, A-35). Chivay Source obsidian. (c) From Qaluyu, Province of Lampa, De-partment of Puno (2B/6, A-12). Chivay Source obsidian. (d) From Qaluyu (2B/6-6, 8061-$).Rare 9 Type obsidian. (e) From Qaluyu (2B/8, A-14). Alca Source obsidian. (f) From Qaluyu(2B/16A, A-15). Chivay Source obsidian. (g) Notched scraper from Qaluyu (2B/8-2, 8061-V).Chivay Source obsidian. (h) Notched scraper with cutting edge from Qaluyu (2B/6-1, 8061-6).Chivay Source obsidian.

P1: FLF



Chivay Source obsidian predominates (87%) there. It is possible the earliestpottery-using settlers of Marcavalle brought Chivay Source obsidian withthem when they arrived from areas to the south that included Pikicallepataand Qaluyu; radiocarbon dates from the latter sites show occupations withsimilar pottery to have been earlier than at Marcavalle (cf. K. Chavez, 1982a,p. 242). Subsequently, Marcavalle people maintained ties with those areaswhere Chivay Source obsidian usage predominated.

During this period, Chivay Source obsidian is found earliest at Qaluyu,at perhaps 3250 BP. Chivay Source obsidian identified from Early Qaluyucontexts includes specimens from two superimposed levels (2B/9 above2B/16) having radiocarbon dates of 3045 BP ± 56 (P-1584) and 3239 BP ±52 (P-1585), respectively. At Pikicallepata, Chivay Source obsidian occursin pre-3050 BP levels and at Marcavalle during Phase A at ca. 2950 BP.Alca Source obsidian also appears at Pikicallepata in pre-3050 BP levels, atQaluyu by perhaps 3050 BP, and at Marcavalle by Phase A or B or at least byPhase C ca. 2700 BP. The first evidence of Rare Type 9 obsidian occurs duringthis time at Qaluyu; this type was not recognized in the original LBL study.

The south highland area is also linked to the south central highlands atthis time as shown by the presence of one piece of Alca Source obsidian atthe site of Waywaka, near Andahuaylas in the Department of Apurimac, in amixed Muyu Moqo (Phases A/B/C-D) context excavated by Joel Grossman.The Muyu Moqo occupation has been radiocarbon dated to ca. 2950–3650 BP(Grossman, 1985, pp. 58–59). Of the 50 obsidian samples tested for all MuyuMoqo phases, the one specimen from the Alca Source represents only 2%of our sample (Table III) (Burger and Asaro, 1979, p. 305). This obsidianevidence from Waywaka is not surprising given the many close similaritiesshared in pottery and point styles from Muyu Moqo Phase C–D and earliestlevels of Marcavalle, Pikicallepata, and Qaluyu (K. Chavez, 1983, pp. 319–331; Grossman, 1985, pp. 56–57, 65, Figs. 73–79). Considering the easy accessto various local sources of obsidian used (especially Andahuaylas A), itseems unlikely that Muyu Moqo people directly obtained the Alca obsidianfrom its source. A more plausible explanation, consistent with the potteryevidence, is that they were interacting with people from the Cuzco areawhere Alca Source obsidian was being used.

Tumuku Type obsidian was used by the earliest occupants of Chiripain the southern Lake Titicaca Basin expanding its known occurrence fromPreceramic times. The piece tested belongs to the Condori Phase datedby David L. Browman (1978, pp. 807–808) to 3300–2800 BP, specificallyto Condori IB, 3200–2800 BP (Browman, 1998, p. 310). This phase is pre-sumably partially equivalent to the Early Chiripa or “Sub-Lower HouseLevel” of Alfred Kidder II dated to 3350–2850 BP based on two radiocar-bon dates, 3240 BP ± 130 (P-129) and 2970 BP ± 120 (P-145) (Mohr, 1966,

P1: FLF



pp. 2–3, Appendix 1; Ralph, 1959, pp. 56–57; K. Chavez, 1989, p. 17) andto the Taraco Archaeological Project’s redefined Early Chiripa Phase, ra-diocarbon dated to 3450–2950 BP (Steadman, 1999, p. 63; Whitehead, 1999).Tumuku Type obsidian distribution appears to be temporally limited and spa-tially localized to a highland zone of interaction in extreme southern Peruand northern Bolivia, never reaching north of the Province of Chucuito inPuno. We do not know whether this Chiripa occurrence of Tumuku Type ob-sidian corresponds to the final period when this as-yet-unlocated source wasutilized. Obsidian from the Chivay Source appears to have largely replacedthe Tumuku Type in this area at least by the late Early Horizon judging fromthe utilization of Chivay Source obsidian during the Mamani Phase (LateChiripa) at Chiripa. From Condori Phase IB, Browman (1998, p. 310) alsoreports an apparently rare type of obsidian, based on neutron activationanalysis not carried out at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

During the Initial Period, the south highland distribution of ChivaySource and Alca Source obsidian shows parallel trends. The distribution ofChivay Source obsidian extends into the Valley of Cuzco beyond its northernoccurrence in the Preceramic, and Alca Source obsidian expands southwardinto the northern Lake Titicaca Basin where Chivay Source obsidian pre-dominates (Fig. 6). The Initial Period is the only time when both Alca andChivay Source obsidians appear to be present at Marcavalle, Pikicallepata,and Qaluyu. Pikicallepata lies in an intermediate position along this tran-sect between the Cuzco Valley to the north and the Lake Titicaca Basin tothe south. Percentages of Alca Source obsidian progressively decrease fromnorth to south and that of the Chivay Source decrease south to north. Asnoted, this pattern of utilizing obsidian from both sources in the intermediatearea already may have begun during the Preceramic at Huki Wasi. South-ern Lake Titicaca Basin sites were apparently dependent on procuring theirobsidian from the Tumuku Type source, a minor one which may be locatedin this area.

The use of obsidian from both major south highland obsidian sources atsites between the lower valleys of Cuzco and the altiplano of Puno reflects thecontacts among groups who exploited these environmentally different loca-tions in diverse ways, and reinforces the evidence for such interaction basedon pottery similarities among these sites. Furthermore, increasing contactbetween the south highlands and the Central Andean sphere of interactionis indicated by pottery similarities between these areas. It is also strength-ened by the rare presence of Alca Source obsidian farther to the west inAndahuaylas. Specific resemblances in pottery from sites in Andahuaylas,Acarı, on the south coast, and the south highlands (Cuzco to Puno) includebottles with spout and handle (likely double-spout and bridge), “neckless”

P1: FLF



Fig

.6.I

niti

alP

erio

ddi

stri

buti

onof

obsi

dian

from

sour

ces

inth

eso

uth

high

land

s.

P1: FLF



ollas, horizontal punctated ridges or lugs, quadrilateral bowls, convex-basedbowls, red slip (zoned by incision in the south highlands), zoned punctation,geometric designs, two- or three-coil handles, and flat-backed solid anthro-pomorphic figurines (K. Chavez, 1983, pp. 319–331). Many of these simi-larities also extend into northern Bolivia, including Condori Phase Chiripa(Browman, 1981, p. 413), the Huancarani culture of the altiplano, and ap-parently contemporary sites in Cochabamba.

Despite similarities in pottery and point forms that indicate interac-tion, evidence of obsidian from the two major southern highland sourcesis conspicuously absent on the south coast during the Initial Period. Forexample, at the Initial Period site of Hacha in Acarı, of 64 pieces tested,63% came from the Quispisisa Source (Burger and Asaro, 1979, p. 297,and unpublished results) and 11% came from the Jampatilla Source (about150 km away from Acarı); the yet unlocated source of Acarı Type obsid-ian accounted for 19%. The incongruity between the obsidian and potteryevidence for the south highlands and south coast seems to indicate distinctmodes/mechanisms of distribution and interaction for each medium. As inPreceramic times (Burger and Asaro, 1979, p. 303), the south coast areacontinued more intense contact with the north, including obsidian procure-ment, as part of the Central Andean Interaction Sphere (MacNeish et al.,1975). We have no samples analyzed from the far south coast dating to thisperiod to test whether the highland–coast obsidian distribution continuedfrom Preceramic times.

The Initial Period marks a change to projectile points as the primary useof obsidian; this pattern continued through the Early Intermediate Period.In the Preceramic of the south highlands, only a minor proportion of pointswere made of obsidian [3–8%, Table II; cf. Aldenderfer (1998, 1999) for allPreceramic phases at Asana, and, in contrast, Seddon (1994, Table 7 andFigs. 172–174) for Tumatumani, where 31% of points from ceramic compo-nents were of obsidian]. In addition, sometime before the late Initial Period,stemmed projectile points were no longer made, being replaced by trian-gular forms of various kinds; other small stemmed and barbed forms be-gin to appear in the Early Intermediate Period in Bolivia and the MiddleHorizon in Peru. Other locally available materials were used for chippedtools from the Initial Period through at least the Early Intermediate Period.These observations derive from many sites, especially lithics excavated fromMarcavalle, Pikicallepata, and Qaluyu, including samples submitted for anal-yses (S. Chavez, n.d.-b). At Marcavalle, a biotite vitrophyre or micaceousbasalt predominates for larger tools, but only one point coming from Phase Awas made of this material of 23 excavated from all phases. The basalt waslikely brought from the Lucre Basin only about 27 km to the south-east (K. Chavez, 1982a, pp. 253–254), in contrast to the obsidian that was

P1: FLF



transported from the Alca Source about 210 km away and from the ChivaySource even farther.

The obsidian projectile points excavated from these three sites belong-ing to the Initial Period include the following range of attributes (examples inFig. 5a–f have been selected to show this range and are not meant to representtypes): size is generally small, but larger and smaller versions occur; edgestend to be convex and serrated; large areas of the original flake surface areretained in some points which are planoconvex in cross section, while othershave more flaking on their surfaces producing a biconvex cross section; andthe concave base may be shallow and wide or more deeply U- or V-shaped.Reshaping of points may contribute to their variability in size and shape.Other obsidian tools of about the same relatively small size, especially fre-quent and only found at Qaluyu, include notched scrapers (Fig. 5g) or multi-purpose tools such as a notched scraper with a cutting/scraping edge (Fig. 5h).

Concave-based points have a widespread distribution in time andspace. They occur from late Preceramic times (Grossman, 1972, pp. 139–141;Ravines, 1973, pp. 154, 177) and continue into the Early Horizon throughoutsouthern to northern Peru (highland and coast) and northern Bolivia andChile (K. Chavez, 1982a, p. 249; 1983, p.330). Though rare from clear EarlyIntermediate Period contexts, concave-based points continue (Fig. 10e), andoccur in the Middle Horizon, although generally of a finer technique andsmaller size. Early concave-based points come from such sites as PuntaPichalo in northern Chile (Bird, 1943, p. 259); Huancarani in Bolivia (Walter,1966, p. 109, surface; Ponce, 1970, p. 44, Fig. 16); Camata (Steadman, 1995,p. 33, Fig. 20b–c) and Tumuku (Palacios, 1984, p. 22, Types 1–3 of obsid-ian) in Puno; Ichuna (Menghin and Schroeder, 1957, Figs. 7–8), ToquepalaRockshelter No. 2 (Ravines, 1973, p. 149, Types P1a and b), and Asana(Aldenderfer, 1998, Fig. 8.25; of the Asana VII/Awati Phase, ca. 3640 BP) inMoquegua; Arcata in Arequipa (Schroeder, 1957, plate facing p. 292, Figs. 12,13, 24, 25, 27, 29); Waywaka in Andahuaylas (Grossman, 1972, p. 137; 1985,p. 65, Figs. 73–85; of obsidian from all Muyu Moqo phases); Hacha in Acarı(Grossman, 1972, p. 140); Ayacucho (MacNeish et al., 1980, pp. 88–90; QuispeTriangular Points, PP 27 and 28, usually of obsidian that begin in the CachiPreceramic phase); and from Kotosh in Huanuco (Izumi and Terada, 1973,p. 249, and Plates 52-3 and 139-2; of obsidian from the Kotosh Chavın period).The presence of projectile points suggests that hunting was still an importanteconomic activity. Faunal remains from Initial Period levels at Marcavalle,Pikicallepata, and Qaluyu showed that hunting, especially of deer, contin-ued to be important even after domestication of camelids had taken place(K. Chavez, 1982a, pp. 244–247, 259; Wing, 1977, p. 839; 1986, pp. 253, 257).

Similar projectile point forms were made of obsidian coming from dif-ferent sources, while points of contrasting forms were manufactured out of

P1: FLF



the obsidian from the same source, suggesting there was no need to dif-ferentiate the origin of the obsidian stylistically. What was important wasnot where the obsidian came from, since the source of obsidian could notalways be distinguished visually, but rather that the tool was of obsidian.Even Rare 9 Type obsidian, which is always visually distinct because of itstransparency, looks like another type that is chemically similar to, but dis-tinct from, Chivay Source obsidian. One might expect that if the points weremade at or near the quarry itself or at a location where one obsidian type waspredominantly used, people producing them at these places for subsequentdistribution might make them in a distinctive style. Such does not appear tobe the case. Furthermore, obsidian waste chippage in early layers of theseexcavated sites such as Qaluyu documents on-site manufacturing and/or re-touching. Evidently, distribution from the sources involved relatively small,unfinished pieces of obsidian; no large cores or preforms, nor even largechunks of obsidian, are known to occur at this time. The largest chunk is1.9 cm by 1.4 cm, and 1.2 cm thick; it is from Qaluyu, and is of Chivay Sourceobsidian. People appear to have been making tools out of very small flakesthat otherwise would be discarded at the source, thus maximizing the useof this rare material and further supporting the assertion that manufacturetook place at the three sites.

The Early Horizon (2750–2050 BP) and Early Intermediate Period(2050–1400 BP)

The early part of the Early Horizon (2750–2550/2450 BP) (Table IV)is represented by Phases B–D at Marcavalle, materials from levels overly-ing earliest ones at Pikicallepata, Late Qaluyu levels, and Middle Chiripa(“Lower House Level” or Llusco Phase); these occupations are radiocar-bon dated to ca. 2950/2800–2550/2450 BP. In addition, Marcavalle levels atMinas Pata and the lowest levels of Q’elloqaqa Cave and Taraco likely dateto this time. Minas Pata (Province of Quispicanchis) in the Department ofCuzco was excavated by Edward B. Dwyer (1971, pp. 41, 70–78); Q’elloqaqaCave (Province of Lampa) in Puno was excavated by S. Chavez; and Taraco(Province of Huancane), also in Puno, was excavated by S. and K. Chavez.

For Marcavalle, two dates derive from Phase C levels, 2661 BP ± 46(P-1563) and 2685 BP ± 49 (P-1564), and one from Phase D, 2571 BP ±45 (P-1562). A date of 2645 BP ± 115 (GX-0453) comes from a depth of60–85 cm in the Lyon/Barreda Pit 1 there, and obsidian samples tested arefrom 30 to 100 cm of this unit. For these levels at Pikicallepata, there arethree dates, 2775 BP ± 60 (P-1591), 2894 BP ± 51 (P-1590), and 2987 BP ±57 (P-1592). Two dates come from late Qaluyu levels at Qaluyu, 2925 BP± 61

P1: FLF



Tabl

eIV

.Sa

mpl

esfr

omth

eE

arly

Par

toft

heE

arly

Hor

izon

Pro

babl

yA

lca

Chu

mbi

vilc

asC

hum

bivi

lcas

Rar

eC

hiva

ySo

urce

Type

Type

8Ty

peSo

urce

Tota

lN

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

Cuz

co,P

eru

Mar

cava

lleU

ncer

tain

phas

e(C

orD

?)18

100

18(P

it1,

30–1

00cm

)P

hase

sC

and

D(1

J/2B

,1J/

3,16

763

141

51

521

1J/5

,1J/

5B,1

J/6,

1J/7

;1C

/3,

1C/3

A,1

C/4

,1C

/6,1

C/1

1)M

inas

Pat

aU

nkno

wn

Mar

cava

lleph

ase

210

02

(Uni

t2,1

man

dbe

low

)To

talf

orno

rthe

rnC

uzco

3688

37

12

12

41

Pik

ical

lepa

ta(8

B/1

1,8B

/12,

1077

323

138B

/12A

,8B

/15,

8B/1

5A,

8B/1

6,8B

/18,

8B/2

1)Ta

waq

oya

(sur

face

)1

100

1Y

anam

anch

a(s

urfa

ce)

267

133

3P

ukap

ata

(sur

face

)1

501

502

Pun

o,P

eru

Qaq

achu

pa(s

urfa

ce)

350

350

6

Tota

lfor

inte

rmed

iate

area

,17

688

3225

Cuz

coan

dP

uno

Q’e

lloqa

qaU

ncer

tain

(mix

ed,3

8B/3

)2

100

2P

roba

bly

Lat

eQ

aluy

u(3

8B/4

)3

100

3Q

aluy

uL

ate

Qal

uyu

610

06

(2B

/4,2

B/4

C,2

B/4

H)

Unc

erta

inQ

aluy

uph

ase

810

08

(2C

/6,2

C/1

0)Su

rfac

e4

100

4Ta

raco

Pro

babl

yL

ate

Qal

uyu

210

02

(31B

/47,

31B

/48)

Tota

lfor

rest

ofP

uno

2510

025

Tota

lfor

sout

hhi

ghla

nds

5358

33

11

11

3336

91

P1: FLF



(P-1582) and 2945 BP± 61 (P-1583), and Kidder obtained dates of 2522 BP±114 (P-155) and 2962 BP± 120 (P-156) from his excavations there. We haveno samples from Middle Chiripa levels at Chiripa dated to between 2850 and2550 BP (Mohr, 1966, pp. 2–3, Appendix 1) or Llusco Phase, radiocarbondated to between 2800 and 2600 BP (Browman, personal communication,1990), or a redefined Middle Chiripa Phase, radiocarbon dated to 2950–2750 BP (Steadman, 1999; Whitehead, 1999).

In the Valley of Cuzco, the Alca deposit was the primary source ofobsidian used during the early Early Horizon. At Marcavalle in Phases Cand D, 76% of the pieces tested are of the Alca Source type, while 14%–19% are of the Chumbivilcas Type and 5% are Rare 8 Type, a chemicaltype occurring for the first time in Phase D. The Chumbivilcas Type obsid-ian, apparently newly appearing in the Cuzco Basin in Phases C and D atMarcavalle, reflects a local sphere of interaction with that area. No ChivaySource obsidian has been unambiguously documented at Marcavalle for thistime period, although no Phase B obsidian was tested and the lowest levelof Lyon/Barreda’s Pit 1 at Marcavalle discussed earlier that could belongto this time (perhaps Phase B) included 34% Chivay Source obsidian. Ob-sidian artifacts from the upper levels of Lyon/Barreda’s Pit 1 as well as twospecimens from the Marcavalle component (exact phase unknown) at MinasPata likely also belong to this period; all are from the Alca Source.

Samples from the three excavated sites in the Department of Punostudied here (Qaluyu, Q’elloqaqa Cave, and Taraco) show that only theChivay Source obsidian was being utilized in the Early Horizon. It is possiblethat the Qaluyu levels in K. Chavez’s Unit C at Qaluyu also belong to thistime. If so, eight are from the Chivay Source; one additional transparentpoint (visually like Rare 9 Type) is apparently not obsidian based on neutronactivation analysis at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. Surface specimensfrom Qaluyu are also Chivay Source; it should be noted, however, that thesite has a significant Pucara occupation, and that Collao and Inca materialsare present. The lowermost levels at Taraco, as well as level 4 and possiblylevel 3 at Q’elloqaqa Cave, appear to represent Late Qaluyu occupations.The six specimens analyzed from these levels are all from the Chivay Source.We do not have any specimens from sites to the south of Taraco nor fromChiripa that date to this time to determine what obsidian was being usedthere.

At Pikicallepata in the intermediate zone between the Cuzco Valleyand Lake Titicaca, both Alca Source and Chivay Source obsidians con-tinued to be utilized. Now, however, the Alca Source, rather than ChivaySource, predominates (77%), as it does in the Cuzco Valley. Surface spec-imens from three other multicomponent sites in this intermediate zone[Tawaqoya, Yanamancha, and the nearby site of Pukapata (K. Chavez, 1977,

P1: FLF



pp. 1011–1013)] also have obsidian from the Alca and Chivay Sources withthe former predominating. They likely date to this time, but could be later(late Early Horizon or Early Intermediate Period), and the samples testedrepresent debitage rather than stylistically diagnostic points. However, thelocation of these sites reinforces the pattern already inferred from sites withbetter evidence.

Surface specimens from Qaqachupa, a site near Ayaviri, have been in-cluded here. Although it is a multicomponent site containing Preceramic,Pucara, Collao, and Inca remains in minor amounts, pottery indicates theprincipal occupation to be Qaluyu. Furthermore, three specimens testedwere concave-based points and a serrated flake that fall within the range offorms dated to this time. Obsidian had been brought from both the Chivayand Alca Sources (50% each), like the intermediate pattern to the north.It is noteworthy that Pikicallepata and Qaqachupa correspond to an inter-mediate area where both Alca and Chivay Sources were used in significantamounts. Both sites are about equidistant from the drainage division at LaRaya, Pikicallepata, about 60 km linear distance away in the upper Vilcan-ota, and Qaqachupa at about 63 km in the far northern Lake Titicaca Basin.

To the north of this intermediate area, then, Alca Source was the pre-dominant type used, while farther south, Chivay Source obsidian was theonly type employed (Fig. 7). The obsidian distribution in this intermediatezone from Pikicallepata to Qaqachupa suggests a frontier pattern betweentwo extremes of obsidian utilization, and reflects a continuum of interac-tion from Cuzco to Puno. It is not surprising that the zone of overlap inAlca and Chivay Source obsidians is situated near the transition betweentwo environmental zones, from lower valleys on the north to the higher al-tiplano in the south. Here, the complementary resources from each zoneare in closest proximity for exchange between adjacent communities, at thistime unrestricted by strong political control.

We do not know at what points along this continuum each type was in-troduced from their sources, nor by whom and how it was further distributed.Were Pikicallepata and Qaqachupa peoples obtaining both types directly, orwere the inhabitants of Cuzco obtaining obsidian from the Cotahuasi Valleyand those of Puno procuring it from the Colca Valley, with Pikicallepataand Qaqachupa receiving obsidian from both ends? A distance–decay orfalloff model (Renfrew, 1975, pp. 5–6, 40–54; 1977), with some modification,may help answer these questions based on our evidence. In this case, theapplication of this model involves the frequency of obsidian from a partic-ular source rather than the size of the artifacts themselves (Close, 1999).That southern sites in the northern Titicaca Basin have 100% Chivay Sourceobsidian suggests closest proximity to the source, but instead may be in-terpreted as the area of entry into the system of down-the-line distribution

P1: FLF



Fig

.7.E

arly

Hor

izon

(ear

lypa

rt)

dist

ribu

tion

ofob

sidi

anfr

omso

urce

sin

the

sout

hhi

ghla

nds.

P1: FLF



along the natural Ayaviri–Vilcanota corridor. The decreasing percentage ofChivay Source obsidian northward conforms precisely to increasing distance.Similarly, the predominant use of Alca Source obsidian at the northernmostCuzco sites suggests an area of entry into the system in that region, but theexpected 100% of Alca obsidian in Cuzco is decreased by the introductionof the alternate/competing Chumbivilcas Type and Rare 8 Type obsidian. Ifthe intermediate area were receiving both Chivay and Alca obsidian, down-the-line distribution in decreasing amounts might not conform to increasingdistance since visually the obsidian is not easily distinguishable. Alterna-tively, however, the intermediate area could have received and distributedAlca Source obsidian northward separately from the Chivay Source obsidiansouthward, such as at different times during the year.

The obsidian evidence suggests Pikicallepata to have had more con-tact with the area north, a conclusion supported by pottery similarities(K. Chavez, 1983, pp. 333–346). The pottery from sites in Cuzco and theSicuani area in lower valleys shares more in common stylistically than withthat from altiplano sites in the Lake Titicaca Basin. Similarly, Qaqachupapottery is more like Qaluyu pottery to the south than to that from Vilcanotasites. Nevertheless, importantly, the occupants of the Pikicallepata area wereinteracting with their southern neighbors, as were Qaqachupa residents withthose to their north, as indicated by both the obsidian and pottery evidence(especially well documented from excavations at Pikicallepata).

The exclusive use of Chivay Source obsidian at the southern end of theregion and the primary use of Alca Source obsidian at the northern extremewhere Chivay Source obsidian is absent does not accurately reflect the con-tinued inclusion of these two extremes within a single sphere of interaction.Pottery evidence, however, documents that conclusion clearly. Based on pot-tery excavated from sites in the Cuzco Basin to the northern Lake TiticacaBasin, more intense intraregional interaction occurred during the early EarlyHorizon than previously (K. Chavez, 1983, pp. 342–346). Many specific stylis-tic similarities occur at these widespread sites, despite local differences, andinclude cream on brown as well as black or red-brown on cream painting,sometimes with red; cream on red painting; use of specular hematite; post-fired paint in incisions, grooves, or punctations on dark brown; convex-basedbowls; spouts, likely from double-spout and bridge bottles; and designs suchas reclining-S, stepped elements, checkered elements, and lattices.

At Marcavalle, there was an increase in kinds and quantities of nonlocalpottery coming from tentatively identifiable locations within this region. De-tailed stylistic and mineralogical arguments discussed elsewhere (K. Chavez,1982a, pp. 278–301; 1983, p. 334) show that black on cream painted potterylikely made in the Pikicallepata area occurs from Marcavalle to Juli. Pot-tery likely made in the Qaluyu area is present from Marcavalle to south of

P1: FLF



Qaluyu, and cream on brown pottery from Marcavalle occurs at Pikicallepataand Qaluyu. Furthermore, there are links with the southern Lake TiticacaBasin indicated by what appears to be a grass-tempered Chiripa sherd atMarcavalle in Phase D. The Pikicallepata pottery found at Marcavalle prob-ably was not acquired because it was needed, since large bowls and jars werelocally available. Rather, these bowls may have contained gifts to initiateand lubricate the exchange of accompanying goods, services, or obligations,and/or belonged to a prestige, as opposed to a domestic, sphere of inter-action (K. Chavez, 1983, pp. 320, 332, 342–346). Marcavalle, for example,had salt, camelid hair, and freeze-dried meat (ch’arki) to offer for neededbasalt from the Lucre Basin and other goods including obsidian from longerdistances away.

Based on observations of the obsidian artifacts from Marcavalle,Pikicallepata, Qaluyu, and Q’elloqaqa (S. Chavez, n.d.-b), the same kindsof projectile points and other small tools as discussed for the Initial Periodcontinue (Fig. 8a–e; K. Chavez, 1969, p. 51, Fig. v, 2C/6 of Chivay Source ob-sidian). In addition, at Marcavalle, there is a projectile point with a straightbase (Fig. 8f), straight-based knives (Fig. 8g), and roughly triangular flakeswith two serrated edges converging to a point (Fig. 8h–i). One of the ser-rated flakes also occurs at Pikicallepata (Fig. 8j). Among multipurpose tools,a notched scraper having a cutting edge also has a projection used as a per-forator (Fig. 8e), a serrated-edged flake also has part of one edge used as ascraper (Fig. 8h), and some projectile points may also have served multiplefunctions (e.g., Fig. 8a). Small notched scrapers continue only at Qaluyu,while serrated flakes occur only in Cuzco at Marcavalle and Pikicallepata.These two forms correspond to Chivay Source and Alca Source obsidians,respectively. This correspondence of tool form to obsidian type likely reflectstool function rather than production at the sources since these tools are madeon small flakes. Point forms, however, do not vary by obsidian type. There

→Fig. 8. Early Horizon (early part) projectile points and other obsidian tools used in the analysis.(a–b, d–j) Excavations of K. Chavez; (c) excavations of S. Chavez. (a) Projectile point from Piki-callepata (8B/18, A-34). Alca Source obsidian. (b) Projectile point from Pikicallepata (8B/12A,A-30). Alca Source obsidian. (c) Projectile point base from Q’elloqaqa, Province of Lampa,Department of Puno (38B/4-1, 8060-H). Chivay Source obsidian. (d) Notched scraper fromQaluyu (2B/4C-2, 8061→). Chivay Source obsidian. (e) Multipurpose tool (notched scraperwith cutting edge and projection for perforating) from Qaluyu (2C/6, A-18). Chivay Sourceobsidian. (f) Projectile point from Marcavalle, Phase D (1C/4, A-4). Rare 8 Type obsidian.(g) Knife from Marcavalle, Phase C (1J/6, 8061-M). Chumbivilcas Type obsidian. (h) Multipur-pose flake with serrated edges and scraping edge from Marcavalle, Phase D (1C/3, A-3). AlcaSource obsidian. (i) Flake with serrated edges from Marcavalle, Phase D (1C/3A-2, 8061-U).Alca Source obsidian. (j) Flake with serrated edges from Pikicallepata (8B/18, 8060-1). AlcaSource obsidian.

P1: FLF


303

P1: FLF



appear to be larger and thicker worked or unworked flakes at this time (thelargest being 3.7 cm by 2.7 cm by 0.7 cm thick from Pikicallepata of AlcaSource obsidian, and 3.1 cm by 1.7 cm by 1.1 cm thick from Q’elloqaqa ofChivay Source). Limited amounts of small obsidian debitage occur at thesesites, indicating some on-site working and/or retouching.

The faunal remains indicate hunting continues. Spears or darts tippedwith obsidian points would have been used, and a bone spear thrower handlein the form of what appears to be a duck has been identified at Marcavallefrom Phase C (K. Chavez, 1982a, Fig. 16).

During the early Early Horizon, no obsidian from sources outside thesouthern highlands is found in the region, nor does obsidian from the majorsources used in the south highlands occur outside this area. Similarly, potteryattributes shared with those from outside the area are generally lessened,although some increased relation with the eastern montana or tropical forestdoes occur (K. Chavez, 1983, p. 342). Thus, both the obsidian and potteryevidence point to the deepening of the isolation of the southern sierra fromthe “Central Andean Interaction Sphere,” while at the same time showingcontinued contact between the peoples of the Cuzco area and those of theLake Titicaca Basin.

Marked stylistic changes occur in the south highlands at about 2550/2450BP. In Cuzco, the Chanapata style begins at about 2550/2450 BP; this age esti-mate is based on the measurement for the end of Phase D of the Marcavallestyle. This sequence in Cuzco includes an early phase, once called ClassicChanapata, and a later Derived Chanapata phase (Rowe, 1944, pp. 10–23,55–56; 1956, p. 136, Fig. 2, and p. 143; see also Yabar Moreno, 1972, 1982). Thetermination of the Derived Chanapata phase has not been established andlikely lasts into the early part of the Early Intermediate Period. The poorlyknown Waru style, roughly corresponding to John H. Rowe’s Carmencastyle (Rowe, 1944, pp. 19–20), appears to follow the Chanapata style sinceit was found stratified above Chanapata and below Huari deposits at Batan‘Urqo (Rowe, 1956, p. 142; Zapata, 1997, Fig. 2), thus placing it late in theEarly Intermediate Period. The cultural chronology of the Cuzco area, how-ever, remains poorly understood for this long time span prior to the MiddleHorizon (cf. Bauer, 1999).

In the northern Cuzco end of our region, only Alca Source obsidian wasbeing used during the later part of the Early Horizon and Early IntermediatePeriod (Table V; Fig. 9). Forty-five specimens from excavated Chanapatacontexts and tentatively dated surface collections at 10 Cuzco sites all wereof Alca Source obsidian (except for one specimen of Rare 3 Type mentionedlater). Huillca Raccay (Province of Urubamba), Marcavalle, and Minas Pataprovided obsidian specimens from excavated Chanapata contexts. The four

P1: FLF



(Con

tinu

ed)

Tabl

eV

.Sa

mpl

esfr

omth

eL

ate

Par

toft

heE

arly

Hor

izon

(EH

)an

dth

eE

arly

Inte

rmed

iate

Per

iod

(EIP

)

Pro

babl

yA

lca

Chi

vay

Rar

e3

Rar

e6

Rar

e9

Chu

mbi

vilc

asQ

uisp

isis

aA

ndah

uayl

asSo

urce

Sour

ceTy

peTy

peTy

peTy

peSo

urce

ATy

peTo

tal

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

Cuz

co,P

eru

Hui

llca

Rac

cay

Cha

napa

ta(b

ldg.

17,

410

04

leve

ls6–

9)P

aqal

la-m

oqo

Pro

babl

yC

hana

pata

310

03

(sur

face

)B

ando

jaP

roba

bly

Cha

napa

ta1

100

1(s

urfa

ce)

‘Aqa

wlla

yP

roba

bly

Cha

napa

ta2

100

2(s

urfa

ce)

Cha

napa

taP

roba

bly

Cha

napa

ta9

100

9(s

urfa

ce)

Muy

u’U

rqo

Poss

ibly

Cha

napa

ta12

921

813

(sur

face

)Q

’asa

pata

(’A

qo-m

oqo)

Pro

babl

yC

hana

pata

110

01

(sur

face

)M

arca

valle

Cha

napa

ta(1

F/4

)3

100

3L

asaw

pata

Pro

babl

yC

hana

pata

310

03

(sur

face

)M

inas

Pat

aC

hana

pata

(Uni

t2,

710

07

20–5

0cm

)To

talf

or45

981

246

nort

hern

Cuz

co

P1: FLF



Chi

nchi

rmoq

oSu

rfac

e1

100

1P

ikic

alle

pata

Cha

napa

ta-r

elat

ed3

502

331

176

(8B

/6,8

B/9

,8B

/9A

,8B

/10,

8B/1

7)L

ater

Cha

napa

ta-

667

222

111

9re

late

d(8

B/3

,8B

/4,

8B/5

A,8

B/7

B)

Unc

erta

in(m

ixed

,1

100

18B

/1)

Suyu Su

rfac

e5

831

176

Tota

lfor

inte

rmed

iate

1461

626

14

14

14

23ar

ea,C

uzco

Kul

law

ata

Surf

ace

410

04

Wir

aqoc

haO

rqo

Surf

ace

410

04

Cho

qoC

hoqo

Surf

ace

1286

17

17

14To

talf

orC

uzco

7987

67

33

11

11

11

91

Pun

o,P

eru

Qal

uyu

Puc

ara

(2F

/3)

210

02

Pro

babl

yP

ucar

a1

100

1(m

ixed

,2F

/1)

Puc

ara

Lat

eE

H1

100

1(E

xcav

atio

nIV

,lo

wes

tlev

els)

Tabl

eV

.(C

onti

nued

)

Pro

babl

yA

lca

Chi

vay

Rar

e3

Rar

e6

Rar

e9

Chu

mbi

vilc

asQ

uisp

isis

aA

ndah

uayl

asSo

urce

Sour

ceTy

peTy

peTy

peTy

peSo

urce

ATy

peTo

tal

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

P1: FLF



Puc

ara

(Exc

avat

ion

120

480

5I,

Con

cent

rati

on3;

Exc

avat

ion

IV,

low

erle

vels

;E

xcav

atio

nV

)P

roba

bly

Puc

ara

150

150

2(E

xcav

atio

nII

I,m

ixed

)P

roba

bly

Puc

ara

133

267

3(s

urfa

ce)

Can

cha

Can

cha

Asi

runi

375

125

4Po

ssib

lyla

teE

H(s

urfa

ce)

Esq

uina

pata

Pro

babl

y7

100

7P

ucar

a(s

urfa

ce)

Cax

ani

Poss

ibly

910

09

late

EH

(sur

face

)Ta

raco

Lat

eE

H(3

1B/2

3,9

1648

831

258

31B

/27,

31B

/29

to37

,31B

/39,

31B

/41

to44

)P

ucar

a(3

1B/1

1to

12

4198

4231

B/2

2)Su

rfac

e3

751

254

San

Roq

ueSu

rfac

e3

100

3In

catu

nuhu

iri

Pro

babl

yla

te1

109

9010

EH

–EIP

(sur

face

)Ju

li Surf

ace

210

02

Tota

lfor

Pun

o14

913

689

11

21

153

(Con

tinu

ed)

Tabl

eV

.(C

onti

nued

)

Pro

babl

yA

lca

Chi

vay

Rar

e3

Rar

e6

Rar

e9

Chu

mbi

vilc

asQ

uisp

isis

aA

ndah

uayl

asSo

urce

Sour

ceTy

peTy

peTy

peTy

peSo

urce

ATy

peTo

tal

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

P1: FLF



Bol

ivia

Chi

ripa

Mam

aniI

IIB

110

01

Pro

babl

yM

aman

i1

100

1(d

istu

rbed

Tia

huan

aco

Epo

chII

Ite

mpl

efil

l)

Kal

lam

arka

EIP

(exc

avat

ion)

210

02

Tota

lfor

Bol

ivia

410

04

Tota

lfor

sout

hhi

ghla

nds

9338

146

593

12

13

11

<1

248

Are

asou

tsid

eth

eso

uth

high

land

sA

puri

mac

,Per

uW

ayw

aka

Qas

awir

kaP

hase

113

225

563

8

Anc

ash,

Per

uC

havı

nde

Hua

ntar

EH

,Jan

abar

riu

Pha

se3

466

941

170

Tota

lfor

outs

ide

45

6887

68

78so

uth

high

land

s

Tabl

eV

.(C

onti

nued

)

Pro

babl

yA

lca

Chi

vay

Rar

e3

Rar

e6

Rar

e9

Chu

mbi

vilc

asQ

uisp

isis

aA

ndah

uayl

asSo

urce

Sour

ceTy

peTy

peTy

peTy

peSo

urce

ATy

peTo

tal

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

P1: FLF



Fig

.9.E

arly

Hor

izon

(lat

epa

rt)

and

Ear

lyIn

term

edia

teP

erio

ddi

stri

buti

onof

obsi

dian

from

sour

ces

inth

eso

uth

high

land

s.

P1: FLF



obsidian samples tested from Huillca Raccay come from Chanapata levels6–9 in a test pit excavated by Ann Kendall in 1975, and were stratified abovea Chanapata deposit situated between two floors (levels 11 and 13) that wasdated to 2364 BP ± 70 (Kendall, 1976; Hey, 1984, pp. 291, 298–300). SomePaqalla-moqo sherds, a painted variety of Chanapata pottery (Rowe, 1944,pp. 17–18), also occurred in these levels.

At Marcavalle, two dates were derived from deposits containing Chana-pata pottery, including Paqalla-moqo sherds, 2131 BP ± 55 (P-1560) and2096 BP ± 51 (P-1561) (K. Chavez, 1977, pp. 143–145; 1982a, p. 241). Threeobsidian specimens came from within a pit (1F/4) dated by the first date,and were overlain by a layer (1F/4A) dated by the second date. Seven otherpieces come from a Chanapata component of Minas Pata.

Obsidian flakes were also tested from the surface of seven multicom-ponent sites which had primarily Chanapata and/or Derived Chanapata ontheir surfaces (Table V). They have been included here based on the greaterprobability that the specimens date to this time.

For the intermediate zone, the results from Pikicallepata show that thepattern of receiving quantities of both Alca Source and Chivay Source obsid-ians continued. As in the early Early Horizon, Alca Source obsidian predom-inated and the Chivay Source obsidian remained a lesser but significant partof the total during the late Early Horizon/Early Intermediate Period. Twogroups of late Early Horizon/Early Intermediate Period levels representedby these samples contain Chanapata-related pottery. The lower group oflevels may be dated by two radiocarbon dates to 2533 BP± 55 (P-1586) and2627 BP± 48 (P-1589), while the upper group would be later. Samples fromall these levels combined, including a mixed upper level, show Alca Sourceobsidian comprised 56% and Chivay Source obsidian 31%. Furthermore, theintermediate zone pattern is reinforced by the occurrence at Pikicallepataof both Rare 3 and 9 Types of obsidian, the former used in the Cuzco areaand the latter in the altiplano. Other surface specimens from intermediatesites such as Tawaqoya, Yanamancha, and Pukapata (Table IV) could alsobelong here.

Northwest of the region, in Andahuaylas, a single Alca Source flakewas found at Waywaka, belonging to the Qasawirka Phase. This Qasawirkapiece, constituting 13% of the specimens tested, comes from an Early In-termediate Period deposit, but the Qasawirka pottery style also extends atleast to Middle Horizon Epoch 1B (Grossman, 1985, pp. 60, 62). Thus, furtherconnection with this area is indicated as in the Initial Period.

In the altiplano during the late Early Horizon, a powerful religioussystem emerged, the Yaya-Mama Religious Tradition (K. Chavez, 1989;K. Chavez and Chavez, 1997), named after a distinctive style of stone sculp-ture found throughout the Lake Titicaca Basin (S. Chavez and Chavez, 1976).

P1: FLF



Independent of Chavın in the north, it laid the foundations for the rise ofcomplex polities in the region, including Pucara and Tiahuanaco, and con-tributed to Huari and Inca. This Tradition represents the first widespreadunification of diverse groups in the Basin who used different pottery styles,and ongoing research by K. Chavez and S. Chavez at Yaya-Mama sites inBolivia confirms that the Tradition is manifested archaeologically by thefollowing features they shared: temples centers with sunken courts, the ear-liest public architecture in the Basin; Yaya-Mama and Pucara style stonesculpture associated with these temples; ritual paraphernalia, including pot-tery trumpets and ceremonial burners; and supernatural iconography such asheads with rayed appendages. Participation in the ceremonial system also in-volved a network of sociopolitical and economic interaction that predictablywould have had an impact on the distribution of exotic materials, includingobsidian.

The Yaya-Mama Religious Tradition began at about 2750 BP, duringLate Chiripa times, and lasted until 1750–1550 BP; however, with the discov-ery of the Santiago semisubterranean enclosure dated to the Middle Chiripaphase (Dean and Kojan, 1999, pp. 39–41; Whitehead, 1999, p. 20), it mayhave emerged earlier. Groups integrated by the Tradition used diverse pre-Pucara pottery styles as well as the Pucara style in the northern end of theBasin and several Chiripa/Chiripa-related styles and the Qalasasaya style(Epoch I at Tiahuanaco; Ponce, 1971) in the southern Basin. Similarities iniconography between these pottery and sculptural styles and south coastalmaterials encompass Early Horizon Phases 8–10 and Early IntermediatePeriod Phases 1–3 (S. Chavez and Chavez, 1976, p. 66; Rowe and Brandel,1971, p. 3; Lumbreras, 1974, pp. 88–89). Elements of the Chanapata style ofCuzco also center on Phases 8–10 of the Paracas pottery of the Ica Valley,although they span Phases 5–10 (e.g., K. Chavez, 1977, p. 1042), and somesimilarities exist between the Chiripa and Chanapata styles (Rowe, 1944,p. 56; K. Chavez, 1977, p. 1037).

At Pucara, one obsidian artifact coming from the lowest level of Ex-cavation IV of Alfred Kidder II was made from Chivay Source obsidian.This lowest level appears to just antedate the “Classic” Pucara occupationand contained pottery of what has been called the Cusipata style (Kidder,1948, p. 89; Franquemont, 1990; K. Chavez, 1983, pp. 350–351; Mujica, 1987;K. Chavez and Chavez, n.d.-a). The occupants must also have participatedin the Yaya-Mama Religious Tradition.

Immediately pre-Pucara, late Early Horizon levels excavated at Taracoshow a striking presence of Alca Source obsidian (16%), a quantity neveroccurring before nor equaled after this period there. Taraco was evidently avery important regional center at this time, linked to what must have beena major shrine pertaining to the Yaya-Mama Religious Tradition. Such an

P1: FLF



assessment is based on ritual paraphernalia found in these levels, includ-ing fancy pottery, trumpets, and ceremonial burners, and by the presenceof numerous Yaya-Mama style stone sculptures at the site, including theYaya-Mama stela, that elsewhere are associated with temples. Taraco’s pan-regional importance as a ceremonial center may explain why it stands outfrom other contemporary sites sampled in having such a high frequency ofAlca Source obsidian. More frequent, continued social and economic ex-change with the Cuzco area is indicated by the Alca Source obsidian, andTaraco may have attracted people and their resources from Cuzco in pilgrim-age to this evidently major public center. By the early Early IntermediatePeriod, however, Taraco seems to have yielded such a role to the site ofPucara.

Surface specimens from Incatunuhuiri probably date to the late EarlyHorizon and/or the Early Intermediate Period based on the abundance ofthe apparently pre-Pucara and Pucara pottery and sculpture found there(Kidder, 1943, pp. 13–14, Figs. 2 and 3, Plate II; and concave-based points inFig. 4). This site also appears to have been an important center, and analysisof these samples indicates 10% to be of Alca Source obsidian and 90% tobe from the Chivay Source.

Specimens from the surface of Cancha Cancha Asiruni and Caxani(S. Chavez and Chavez, 1970, pp. 25–31) may date to the late Early Horizon,judging from the predominance of surface pottery that closely compares topottery from late Early Horizon levels at Taraco. However, these sites alsohave earlier (Late Qaluyu) and later (Pucara and later) occupations as well.Continuities in projectile point forms from the Initial Period to the EarlyIntermediate Period do not permit more precise dating of the points tested,but they are certainly in this range. At Cancha Cancha Asiruni, 75% of theobsidian tested was from the Chivay Source and 25% was of Rare 9 Type,while at Caxani, all was from the Chivay Source.

Of much less certain date are three surface specimens from the multi-component site of San Roque in Juliaca, including two concave-based points,and two surface specimens from Juli; they are all made of obsidian from theChivay Source. They could date to any of the numerous ceramic periodsrepresented at these locations (Stanish and Steadman, 1994; Stanish et al.,1997). The two points from San Roque, however, are of the same small kindthat occur during the Initial Period, Early Horizon, and Early IntermediatePeriod. The samples are mentioned here to further document Chivay Sourceobsidian usage in the Titicaca Basin, a conclusion that has been more clearlyconfirmed at other unambiguously dated sites. Similarly, four surface spec-imens from Taraco include three points of Chivay Source obsidian and oneRare 6 Type. The only other occurrence of Rare 6 Type in all Peru came from

P1: FLF



the surface of Chinchirmoqo, 2 km from Pomacanchi, Department of Cuzco,in the intermediate area. No additional information on the site is available,however.

At Chiripa, Bolivia, on the southern end of Lake Titicaca, ChivaySource obsidian now appears for the first time and is the only kind usedduring the Mamani Phase, radiocarbon dated by Browman (1998, p. 302) to2600–2000 BP. This Late Chiripa phase is presumably partially equivalent toKidder’s “Upper House Level,” dated by 10 radiocarbon dates to between2550 and 2050 BP (Ralph, 1959, pp. 56–57; two other dates were slightlylater), or to a redefined Late Chiripa phase radiocarbon dated to 2750–2050 BP (Steadman, 1999; Whitehead, 1999). One specimen came from aMamani IIIB context (2300–2000 BP) and the other was from disturbed fillin the Tiahuanaco (Epoch III) temple; this fill contained about 95% Mamanimaterial, strongly suggesting the piece also belongs to the Mamani Phase(Browman, personal communication, March, 1990).

Chiripa was a major ceremonial center of the Yaya-Mama ReligiousTradition during the Early Horizon (K. Chavez, 1989). It is precisely thestrong interaction between both ends of Lake Titicaca which this ceremonialsystem engendered that appears to explain the introduction of Chivay Sourceobsidian into the southern end of the Titicaca Basin from the north whereit was used earlier. No specimens from the preceding Llusco Phase (2800–2600 BP) at Chiripa were tested to determine earlier use.

Outside the south highlands during the Early Horizon, Alca Source ob-sidian was found at Chavın de Huantar in Janabarriu contexts excavated byR. Burger, representing 4% of the obsidian tested for this phase (Burgeret al., 1984). Janabarriu pottery cross-dates to Phases 3–5 of the Paracasstyle of the Ica Valley (Burger, 1988), although dated to ca. 2350–2150 BPand should be roughly coeval with the Chanapata style in Cuzco and pre-Pucara/Pucara styles associated with the Yaya-Mama Religious Tradition inthe altiplano [however, Chanapata pottery and Yaya-Mama sculpture com-pare closely to Phases 8–10 of the Ica sequence (see Silverman, 1996, for adiscussion of south coastal chronological problems and the proposed elim-ination of Phases 4–7)]. One of the Alca Source flakes tested derives fromSector A, just across the Huachecsa River from the main temple precinctat Chavın. Sector A has been interpreted as a low-status area in the set-tlement where perishable materials were produced such as the process-ing of camelid or other animal skins. The two other Alca Source flakescame from Sector D near the temple, which was occupied by residentswho held a higher social position than those living in Sector A (Burger,1984, pp. 239–240; cf. Miller and Burger, 1995). Numerous imported sump-tuary goods were found here including exotic pottery, marine fish, gold,

P1: FLF



and spondylus. It is interesting that obsidian from the Alca Source foundits way into both high- and low-status areas at Chavın de Huantar, partic-ularly since it is visually indistinguishable from the Quispisisa Source ob-sidian which constitutes 95.5% of the volcanic glass utilized at Chavın deHuantar.

Thus, the pattern that emerges from this Early Horizon distribution isthat Alca Source obsidian is being moved outside its area of exclusive use inthe northern part of the Department of Cuzco to the northern Lake TiticacaBasin in moderate abundance as well as with less frequency to Chavın, some770 km linear distance away. Movement of obsidian is strikingly asymmetric,as other types of obsidian found elsewhere are not coming into the north-ern Cuzco area at this time, not even from the Chivay Source. Chavın deHuantar was certainly an important religious center of high prestige at thistime. It is possible that Chanapata-related people who exclusively used theAlca Source obsidian were drawn to this powerful, sacred center and madepilgrimages there bringing Alca Source obsidian along with them. Similarly,Chanapata people or other groups using Alca Source obsidian may alsohave been attracted to major Yaya-Mama centers, especially Taraco or evenIncatunuhuiri, to which they also brought Alca Source obsidian.

Turning to other evidence, during Epoch 6 of the Early Horizon, Para-cas influence from Peru’s south coast has been reported in the Departmentof Cuzco and it raises the possibility of indirect contact with Chavın culturalelements. John Rowe (1971, p. 118; 1977) described and analyzed the styleof three precious metal objects: the Echenique plume and plaque and theOberti disk, all said to come from Cuzco. Complex depictions of fangedfaces and personages on these objects compared most closely to Epoch 6of Ocucaje style of Ica, a time when Chavın influence was still apparent inthe Paracas style. An argument could be made for contemporaneity withthe Chanapata style, similar elements of which span Phases 5–10 of theOcucaje style (K. Chavez and Chavez, n.d.-c). The depictions on the metalobjects are important in providing antecedents to the Yaya-Mama style andto later Pucara, Tiahuanaco, and Huari styles (Rowe, 1977, p. 1). The Alcaobsidian recovered at Chavın opens the possibility of a more direct connec-tion between Chavın and Cuzco, perhaps via Andahuaylas, where there isAlca obsidian earlier and later. Interestingly, a piece of obsidian from a yetunlocated source believed to be located near Andahuaylas (referred to asAndahuaylas A) also was found in Sector A at Chavın de Huantar (Burgeret al., 1984, pp. 239–240).

About 2150 BP, close to the beginning of the Early Intermediate Period,the Pucara polity emerges in the northern Lake Titicaca Basin (Valcarcel,1925; Kidder, 1943, 1948; Mujica, 1990; S. Chavez, 1992). Centered at the site

P1: FLF



of Pucara, with its multiple monumental sunken temples, finely carved stonesculpture, and fancy ceremonial pottery, the Pucara elites continued theYaya-Mama Religious Tradition (K. Chavez, 1997) and controlled the pro-duction of powerful supernatural images explicitly conveyed in a corporatestyle (S. Chavez, 1992). The Pucara polity unified and controlled most of thenorthern Titicaca Basin and extended its influence from at least Chumbivil-cas in Cuzco (Rowe, 1958; Nunez del Prado, 1972; S. Chavez, 1989) toTiahuanaco in Bolivia (S. Chavez, 1976). Pucara style materials also indi-cate contact into the Vilcanota drainage and the Cuzco Basin, to the southand far south coast of Peru (Ica and Moquegua; Conklin, 1985; Feldman,1989), and possibly northern Chile (Rivera, 1977, pp. 43–46, Plates 1–3), orearlier pre-Pucara Yaya-Mama times (Rivera, 1991, pp. 21–28).

Obsidian specimens from three excavated archaeological sites (Qaluyu,Taraco, and Pucara) are directly associated with Pucara occupations. Threeartifacts from Qaluyu are made of the Chivay Source obsidian. Two wererecovered from a Pucara layer radiocarbon dated to 1949 BP± 52 (P-1581),a date falling within the range of 2209–1741 BP derived from six other datesobtained earlier by Kidder from Pucara itself (Ralph, 1959, p. 57). A thirdspecimen came from a mixed upper level above pure Pucara refuse. Of the42 specimens tested for the Pucara levels at Taraco, only one specimen (2%)was of the Alca Source obsidian, located 300 km to the west; all others were ofthe raw material brought from the Chivay Source, located 175 km to the west.

At Pucara, of seven obsidian artifacts tested, five were excavated byKidder from Pucara contexts, including a broken projectile point (Fig. 10b)and large utilized flakes (Fig. 11); two others came from Excavation III andare also most probably Pucara, given the overwhelming predominance ofPucara remains recovered at that locality. Three surface pieces are likely ofPucara age as well, since obsidian usage during the Late Intermediate/LateHorizon is rare or absent.

Results show that Pucara was receiving a large quantity of obsidianfrom the Alca Source during the beginning of the Early Intermediate Period;30% of the 10 specimens tested were from the Alca Source, about 258 kmaway. Even based only on the five unmixed excavated samples, 20% wereof the Alca Source obsidian, including the point. It may be that as Pucaragained preeminence as the most important political and religious centerof this region, it drew and attracted more people and/or resources fromthe Cuzco area than did other evidently subsidiary Pucara sites, such asQaluyu and Taraco, where Alca Source obsidian is apparently absent orvery rare. Most obsidian, however, came from the Chivay Source, 70% ofthe 10 specimens tested, a distance of 143 km to the west. It is probablethe seven surface specimens of Chivay Source obsidian from Esquinapata

P1: FLF



P1: FLF



also belong to this time, as the site has a Pucara occupation, the nature ofwhich is not known.

The closeness of Pucara–Cuzco relations is also supported by the pres-ence of Pucara style stone sculpture at both Suyu in the Sicuani area (Rowe,1956, p. 144; Champi and Roman, 1993) and in Chumbivilcas (Rowe, 1958;Nunez del Prado Bejar, 1972; S. Chavez, 1989), as well as Pucara style pot-tery at Batan ‘Urqo (Bauer, 1999, p. 123) and Wimpillay (Manuel ChavezBallon, personal communication, 1988) in Cuzco. The inclusion here of sur-face samples from Suyu and Wiraqocha in Chumbivilcas is based primarilyon the presence of Pucara style sculpture at these sites. The surface samplesfrom Choqo Choqo and Kullawata were also included here based on theproximity of these sites to others with Pucara style sculpture, although nodiagnostic sherds of this period were associated. Concave-based projectilepoints analyzed could belong to earlier periods, however.

Results indicate that Chivay Source obsidian continued to be used in theSicuani area at Pikicallepata and Suyu at this time, but is not found farthernorth nor, importantly, in Chumbivilcas. None of the 22 surface samples fromthe three Chumbivilcas sites tested was from the Chivay Source. Rather, 4from Kullawata, 4 from Wiraqocha Orqo, and 12 from Choqo Choqo are ofthe Alca Source obsidian, and 1 Rare 3 Type and 1 probable ChumbivilcasType come from Choqo Choqo. Based on the limited evidence available, itappears that Pucara-related people were not bringing Chivay Source obsid-ian into Chumbivilcas, nor was Chumbivilcas Type obsidian distributed toPuno sites as might be expected.

On the basis of excavated and surface samples from the northern LakeTiticaca Basin, Chivay Source obsidian remained the predominant type used.However, sites of unusual importance appear to have a greater proportionof Alca Source obsidian; this pattern is evident for Taraco for the late EarlyHorizon, Pucara for the early Early Intermediate Period, and Incatunuhuirifor either or both periods.

←Fig. 10. Late Early Horizon and Early Intermediate Period obsidian artifacts. (a, f) Excavationsof K. Chavez; (b) excavations of Kidder; (d, e, g, h) excavations of S. and K. Chavez.(a) Projectile point from a late Chanapata level at Pikicallepata (8B/5A, A-26). Alca Sourceobsidian. (b) Broken projectile point from a Pucara deposit at Pucara, Province of Lampa,Department of Puno; Excavation I, Concentration 3 (39-101-30/2736-1, Peabody Museum,Harvard University, 8147-I). Alca Source obsidian. (c) Broken projectile point from the surfaceof Pucara (5A/5, 8065-Z). Alca Source obsidian. (d) Concave-based projectile point from a lateEarly Horizon level at Taraco, Province of Huancane, Department of Puno (31B/37, 8060-F).Chivay Source obsidian. (e) Concave-based projectile point from an Early Intermediate PeriodPucara level at Taraco (31B/13, 8060-E). Chivay Source obsidian. (f) Tear-dropped-shapedmultipurpose tool from a late Chanapata level at Pikicallepata (8B/3, A-23). Alca Sourceobsidian. (g) Inlay (?) with ground edge around its circumference, from a late Early Horizonlevel at Taraco (31B/31, 7014-3). Chivay Source obsidian. (h) Utilized flake with ground edgefrom a late Early Horizon level at Taraco (31B/36, 7013→). Rare 9 Type obsidian.

P1: FLF


Fig. 11. Early Intermediate Period obsidian artifacts used in the analysis. All come fromKidder’s excavations at the site of Pucara. (a) Large utilized flake, Excavation V/15, NorthWall (lower levels) (39-101-30/2841-1, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, 8147-L). ChivaySource obsidian. (b) Large utilized flake, Excavation IV/141B, Trench U, Level 2 (lower level)(39-101-30/2829-1, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, 8147-M). Chivay Source obsidian.(c) Large utilized scraper, Excavation IV/201, Trench V-Lower Level (Level 3) (39-101-30/2830-1, Peabody Museum, Harvard University, 8147-K). Chivay Source obsidian.

318

P1: FLF



All of the obsidian analyzed from Kallamarka in Bolivia on the southside of Lake Titicaca had been procured from the Chivay Source. The lin-ear distance to the source from Kallamarka would have been 330 km. Thespecimens come from excavated levels containing Kallamarka style pottery,suggested to date to Epoch III of Tiahuanaco (Portugal Zamora and PortugalOrtiz, 1975, p. 213; Girault, 1976; cf. Mujica, 1985, p. 123; Albarracın-Jordanet al., 1994, pp. 114–115), and would date to the Early Intermediate Period,likely toward its end. These samples point to continued use of Chivay Sourceobsidian in the southern Lake Titicaca Basin since Late Chiripa times. Someof the surface specimens from Tiahuanaco could belong to this time as well,and all are from the Chivay Source (Table VI).

Pottery evidence for contacts from the southern Lake Titicaca Basin toCuzco during the late Early Intermediate Period consists of the appearanceof Early Tiahuanaco/Epoch III-related ceremonial burners in Puno and theintermediate and northern areas of Cuzco (as far north as Paruro and theLucre Basin in the Valley of Cuzco) (K. Chavez, 1986). These burners seemto be locally made imitations of southern Lake Titicaca Basin ceremonialparaphernalia rather than imports. Knowledge of the late Early Intermedi-ate Period, however, remains poorly defined for both Cuzco and the LakeTiticaca Basin.

Rare 9 Type obsidian was always low in frequency, and our first evidenceof it occurred at Qaluyu during the Initial period (Table III, 4%). It appearedduring the late Early Horizon at Taraco (2% of these levels) and in a roughlycontemporary or slightly later (Chanapata-related) level at Pikicallepata(11% of these levels). One example of this type was also found on the surfaceof Cancha Cancha Asiruni (25%), also possibly late Early Horizon in date.We have no evidence of later use or other spatial occurrence of Rare 9Type obsidian. It has an Initial Period to at least late Early Horizon span ofuse within the southern area, primarily in Puno, but also into the intermediatearea. Kidder recovered colorless obsidian from a Late Chiripa level as well asfrom Early Tiahuanaco levels at Tiahuanaco (K. Chavez and Chavez, n.d.-a,b); it is tempting to speculate that they could be Rare 9 Type, which is alsocolorless.

Rare 3 Type occurs in an early Chanapata-related level (late Early Hori-zon) at Pikicallepata (17% of those levels) as well as from the surface of Muyu‘Urqo that may possibly be Chanapata (Zapata, 1998, pp. 325–331). Anothersurface sample comes from Choqo Choqo in Chumbivilcas and a probablelater one from Huasau in the Cuzco Valley (Table VI). These sites completethe northern distribution of Rare 3 Type. At this point, it is impossible tosuggest likely source areas for these two minor obsidian types, except in themost general terms: the Cuzco Basin/Vilcanota Valley for Rare 3 Type andthe northern Titicaca Basin for Rare 9 Type.

P1: FLF



During the late Early Horizon and early Early Intermediate Period inCuzco, long obsidian projectile points with relatively flat bases appear tooccur with greater frequency than in the early Early Horizon. However,flat-based points are extremely rare in the northern Lake Titicaca Basin.This conclusion is based on observations of hundreds of excavated and sur-face specimens (S. Chavez, n.d.-b). Flat-based points include a point from alate Chanapata-related level at Pikicallepata (Fig. 10a), two excavated fromChanapata (Rowe, 1944, Fig. 17, 11, and 13), and two from the surface ofChanapata (Yabar Moreno, 1972, p. 218). Pucara projectile points also in-clude large ones; the point from a clearly Pucara context at Pucara is 3.3 cm(broken) by 2.2 cm by 0.4 cm thick (Fig. 10b). It is similar to another brokenone from the surface of Pucara (Fig. 10c). These points range in length from4.0 to 5.2 cm.

On Pucara style pottery and sculpture, there are depictions of triangularknives. On pottery, these depictions may occur as face markings (Rowe andBrandel, 1971, Fig. 4), or as crown ornaments on the fanged personage thatis associated with severed heads (S. Chavez, 1992, Figs. 206a, 210), or in thehand of such a personage on a statue (S. Chavez and Torres, 1986). Theymay have been meant to represent obsidian knives (large “points”), and itis possible the large, broken Pucara points may have been such knives. Onpolychrome pottery, these knives are black and have parallel oblique incisedlines on each edge suggesting flaked surfaces. Comparable hafted (obsidian)knives, along with severed heads, are associated with the Oculate Being orhuman impersonators, beginning in Phase 9 of the Paracas pottery of Ica, andsuch knives continue into the Nasca style (Menzel et al., 1964, pp. 196–198,271, Fig. 52c). Actual severed heads, beginning in Early Horizon 9 (Menzelet al., 1964, p. 199), and large obsidian knives, often hafted, have been foundin Paracas and Nasca deposits (e.g., Tello and Mejıa, 1979, Fig. 15, 5, Fig. 39,2–4, Fig. 68, 4; Disselhoff, 1972, p. 277; Silverman, 1987, p. 7, Figs. 9–11).These knives are usually longer and broader than points we know from thesouth highlands.

In addition to larger points, different kinds of small, concave-basedprojectile points previously described for the Initial Period and early EarlyHorizon continue. These points are of obsidian (Fig. 10d–e) or very rarelyof other materials (K. Chavez and Chavez, n.d.-a; Kidder, 1943, p. 15, Fig. 4from Incatunuhuiri). Some of these large and small points may have beenmultipurpose tools.

A new point form begins to appear at this time in the southern LakeTiticaca Basin and may indicate the use of bow and arrow. Excavationsby Kidder at Tiahuanaco yielded two (and possibly three) small, finelymade stemmed-and-barbed projectile points from Early Tiahuanaco lev-els (Kidder, 1956, p. 22; K. Chavez and Chavez, n.d.-b). One of these points

P1: FLF



is of obsidian and measures 2.7 cm by 1.2 cm by 0.3 cm thick and the other,of greenish quartz, is 2.3 cm by 1.3 cm by 0.3 cm thick. These forms are foundin great abundance at Tiahuanaco sites and will be discussed more fully inthe section dealing with the Middle Horizon.

Hunting continued alongside herding, as shown by the presence of deerand other wild animals in the faunal remains of late Early Horizon–Early In-termediate Period deposits at Marcavalle, Minas Pata, Pikicallepata (Wing,1977, p. 839, 1986, p. 257), and at Pucara (K. Chavez and Chavez, n.d.-a). An-imal bones are unidentified at Chanapata, but a spearthrower handle was ofantler (Rowe, 1944, pp. 15, 21). There is evidence of the continued utilizationof spearthrowers during this time, and they were probably used in propellingobsidian tipped darts/spears. Bone spearthrower hooks and a spearthrowerhandle were excavated from Chanapata levels at Chanapata (Rowe, 1944,pp. 20–21, Fig. 17, 3, 4, 8) and others have been reported from Chanapata(Yabar Moreno, 1972, p. 219, Foto No. 1). A bone spearthrower handle wasalso recovered by K. Chavez from a late Chanapata level at Pikicallepata(8B/4).

For Chiripa, Bennett (1936, pp. 413–446) makes no specific identifi-cation of deer, and no deer was found by Browman in Llusco to MamaniPhases (Kent, 1987, p. 310). Kidder, however, recovered fragments of antlersthere (K. Chavez and Chavez, n.d.-b), as did the Taraco ArchaeologicalProject (Moore et al., 1999, pp. 106, 113). No deer was specifically identifiedfrom Early Tiahuanaco levels at Tiahuanaco by Bennett (1934) or Kidder(K. Chavez and Chavez, n.d-b). These southern lake sites, having little or nodeer, reveal a different subsistence strategy from those to the north. Chiripa,for example, was especially lacustrine oriented (Kent, 1987, p. 310). At thesame time, these sites show low amounts of obsidian (see below), few obsid-ian projectile points, and, as at Pucara, a lack of nonperishable evidence ofspearthrowers.

Small, notched scrapers described for the Initial Period and early EarlyHorizon at Qaluyu continue in Pucara levels there, as do serrated flakesin late Chanapata levels at Pikicallepata. An apparently new tear-dropshaped tool form appears that is multipurpose; these occur at Pikicallepata inearly and late Chanapata-related levels (Fig. 10f) and at Qaluyu in a Pucaralevel.

One small, flat, oval piece of obsidian from a late Early Horizon level atTaraco appears to have been an inlay (Fig. 10g). It has been ground aroundits circumference. The piece compares to two smaller Pucara specimens ofother materials from Kidder’s excavations at Pucara that also seem to beinlays, such as for eye depressions on pottery (K. Chavez and Chavez, n.d.-a). These constitute rare examples of Central Andean obsidian used forpurposes other than tools.

P1: FLF



A pattern that emerged at Taraco was the appearance of large piecesof obsidian in the late Early Horizon levels. Most of the large examplesare of Alca obsidian, including the largest piece, also worked, which mea-sures 2.9 cm by 2.0 cm by 0.9 cm. In the Early Intermediate Period Pucaralevels, slightly larger, thick chunks are more abundant, many with cortexstill remaining, but all are of obsidian from the Chivay Source. The largestpiece also used measures 3.5 cm by 2.9 cm by 1.3 cm thick. This pattern ofusing larger pieces of obsidian is further substantiated by the presence ofnumerous large flakes encountered by Kidder in his excavations at Pucara,including both late Early Horizon and Early Intermediate Period contexts(e.g., Fig. 11; K. Chavez and Chavez, n.d.-a), and he illustrated large piecesof obsidian from the surface of Taraco (Kidder, 1943, p. 18, Fig. 6). Largepieces of obsidian from Pucara levels at the Pucara site are mostly fromthe Chivay Source, but also include Alca Source obsidian. Surprisingly, bothlarge points in Fig. 10b–c are of Alca Source obsidian.

Although there were more large pieces of obsidian available, peoplecontinued to maximize the use of obsidian at Taraco during the late EarlyHorizon, using even small, flat flakes (e.g., Fig. 10h). In Early IntermediatePeriod Pucara times at Taraco, small pieces were again used, but also somelarger ones appear to have been left as waste flakes.

Larger pieces of obsidian were necessary for the manufacture of largerpoints or other tools, such as might have taken place at Pucara. Judging fromdebitage at such sites as Chanapata (Rowe, 1944, p. 21; Yabar Moreno, 1972,p. 217), Pikicallepata, Pucara (K. Chavez and Chavez, n.d.-a), and Taraco,obsidian was being worked at these sites. In apparent contrast, Bennett (1936,p. 445) makes no note of obsidian at Chiripa, and only a few pieces wererecovered by Kidder there, including one possible point (K. Chavez andChavez, n.d.-b). In Early Tiahuanaco levels at Tiahuanaco, Bennett (1934,p. 426, and Table 9) notes only three obsidian artifacts; obsidian flakes werefound in most of his pits at Tiahuanaco, including Early Tiahuanaco levels(1934, p. 451), but are not tabulated by provenience. Finally, 14 unworkedfragments of obsidian and one artifact, in addition to the point, were foundin the Early Tiahuanaco levels at Tiahuanaco by Kidder (K. Chavez andChavez, n.d.-b). Important centers, at least in the northern Lake TiticacaBasin, appear to have had access to slightly more obsidian than other sites.Apparently, demand increased concomitantly with effective procurementand distribution, and larger pieces of obsidian began to be used.

Thus, prior to the Middle Horizon, Alca Source obsidian achieves itswidest distribution within the southern highlands region, traversing severalenvironmental zones, from the lower Urubamba Valley on the north (atHuillca Raccay) and into the altiplano just south of the city of Puno (at

P1: FLF



Incatunuhuiri) (Fig. 9). Outside the south highlands, Alca Source obsidianreaches Andahuaylas and Chavın in the north in minor amounts.

The area utilizing Chivay Source obsidian shifts southward after the be-ginning of the Early Horizon. Its northernmost occurrence is in the Sicuaniarea (at Pikicallepata) and, for the first time, it expands from the northernend of the Lake Titicaca Basin into the southern end, where it becomes theexclusive obsidian source used at Chiripa and later Kallamarka. A possibleexplanation for this southern extension is that Chivay Source obsidian wasassociated with the unification of the Basin created by the Yaya-Mama Re-ligious Tradition; its appearance at Chiripa during the Late Chiripa phasecorresponds to the time when the site was an important center participatingin the Tradition.

North of the intermediate area around Sicuani, of the two major obsid-ian types, only Alca Source obsidian is used. The utilization of both types inthe intermediate zone, with the Alca Source predominating, again revealsa continuum of interaction between the extremes. In the northern LakeTiticaca Basin, sites achieving special prominence or high prestige appear toshow low, but significant frequencies of Alca Source obsidian. Pilgrimage,with all of its accompanying political, social, and economic implications,may account for this pattern, as suggested for the Alca Source obsidian atChavın de Huantar. At the same time, some Pucara, and what appears to beEarly Tiahuanaco Epoch III, influence penetrates the Cuzco area from thealtiplano.

The spread of Alca Source obsidian is again asymmetric: it moves be-yond northern Cuzco, but no other obsidian comes into the area. This patternmay be a function of the type of interaction going on, the means of distribu-tion, or the kind of commodity involved, to name a few possible explanations.Viewed only from the distribution of obsidian and assuming Cuzco peopleare responsible for its movement, this evidence suggests the northern Cuzcoarea to be most directly interactive with distant higher status centers.

Finally, the current obsidian evidence does not offer a full picture of thepatterns of interaction during the late Early Horizon and Early IntermediatePeriod. Metal, textile, stone sculptural, and pottery remains point to fairlystrong ties between the south highlands and south and far south coast duringthe late Early Horizon and early Early Intermediate Period. This interac-tion is further substantiated by such evidence as iconographic similaritiesbetween the Paracas/Nasca styles and the Echenique/Oberti metal artifactsand the Chanapata, Yaya-Mama, and Pucara styles; the presence of a Pucaratextile, possibly from an elite grave, in the Ica Valley (Conklin, 1985); andthe apparently Chiripa-related and Pucara pottery in the Moquegua Valley(Feldman, 1989).

P1: FLF



Middle Horizon (1400–1050 BP)

A new pattern of obsidian distribution emerges during the Middle Hori-zon that marks a significant departure from that described for the preced-ing periods. This shift is most evident for southern Peru because our workon obsidian from the Bolivian side of Lake Titicaca has been limited, andonly a brief summary of the analyses at MURR by Martin Giesso has beenpublished (Brooks et al., 1997, p. 450). Basically, the obsidian distribution inwhat is now southern Peru reflects the impact of the territorial expansionand influence of the Huari empire and its frontier with the Tiahuanaco polityin the south. The obsidian distribution reflects not only the reorganization ofsocioeconomic relations by the state and the attendant movement of peoplesand goods within the Huari empire, but also the intensification of interac-tion between its centers and those beyond imperial control, such as Peru’snorth coast. For the first time, obsidian from sources in the south-centralhighlands is found with frequency at sites in northern Cuzco and, at thesame time, the Alca Source obsidian, hitherto only rarely found outside theCuzco and Arequipa area, now occurs at Huari and other Middle Horizonsites to the north. Furthermore, for the first time, Chivay Source obsidiandoes not occur in the Department of Cuzco, which had been brought underHuari control. In an analogous fashion, no longer does Alca Source obsidianoccur within the Tiahuanaco-dominated Lake Titicaca Basin. Thus, the ob-sidian evidence suggests that the previous, long-standing tradition of southhighland interaction was now disrupted by two powerful imperial forces.The Cuzco area was pulled into wider and more direct interaction with theentire Huari territory to the north, at the same time becoming increasinglyseparated from the Titicaca Basin area to the south. The Lake Titicaca arealikewise strengthened its links to the Bolivian hinterland to the south and,apparently, the non-Peruvian obsidian sources located there.

Based on the distribution of archaeological pottery, iconography, andarchitecture, it has been inferred that during its apogee, the Huari state wascentered in Ayacucho and extended its territory south beyond the CuzcoValley to Sicuani with the administrative complex of Pikillaqta marking itssouthernmost center of power (Isbell and McEwan, 1991; Schreiber, 1992;Zapata, 1997). On the Pacific coast, Huari pottery dating to Epoch 2 of theMiddle Horizon has been recovered in virtually all of the coastal valleysnorth of the city of Arequipa, including Ocona (Rowe, 1963, p. 14; Menzel,1964, p. 70; Menzel, 1969, pp. 68–69), Majes or Camana (Lumbreras, 1974,p. 165), and Sihuas (Lumbreras, 1975, p. 145; Linares Malaga, 1990). Themost recent research has provided new evidence of a strong Huari pres-ence in Ocona (Chavez and Salas, 1990) and Majes (Manrique and Cornejo,

P1: FLF



1990; Garcia and Bustamante, 1990). As a consequence of this coastal ex-pansion to the south, Huari would have had clear control of the obsidiansource at Alca in the Cotahuasi Valley. In fact, several centers and villageswith Huari-related occupations have been located in the valley near the ob-sidian source and some appear to be associated with canal and terracingsystems (Burger et al., 1998a, p. 193; Justin Jennings, personal communica-tion, 1999). The transport of Alca Source obsidian from its geological depositinto the Cuzco Basin and beyond would have been possible without pass-ing through territory controlled by populations linked to the Tiahuanacopolity.

From its capital in the altiplano near the southern shores of LakeTiticaca, Tiahuanaco expanded northward at least to Ayrampuni on theAzangaro River of the northern Lake Titicaca Basin (Kidder, 1943, p. 20),east to Cochabamba, west to the Moquegua Valley on the Peruvian coast(Goldstein, 1989, 1990), and extended into areas of northern Chile and north-western Argentina (Kolata, 1993, pp. 243–281). Huari successfully pene-trated this Tiahuanaco-dominated south coast territory by establishing astrong colonial center at the fortified hilltop sites of Cerro Baul and nearbyCerro Mejia in the Moquegua Valley. Huari occupations here, along withHuari presence on other hilltops in the valley, represent an insular intrusioninto a valley occupied and controlled by Tiahuanaco (Lumbreras et al., 1982;Watanabe, 1984; Moseley et al., 1991). Cerros Baul and Mejıa are also asso-ciated with a canal and terraces, Cerro Baul having Middle Horizon 1 and 2pottery. To the south in the Caplina Valley of Tacna, also within Tiahuanacoterritory, Huari presence is documented by a burial (Flores, 1990). Only inthese coastal valleys does current evidence clearly show that the Huari andTiahuanaco territories overlap. In the highlands, the borders of each leave abuffer zone between them. However, recent excavations at the Huari site ofBatan ‘Urqo near Cuzco have apparently yielded Classic Tiahuanaco potterysuggesting some Tiahuanaco–Huari interaction (Glowacki, 1996, p. 245). Thetwo areas of interaction thus defined reflect the defensible frontiers estab-lished during imperial expansion, and they are not due to geographic orecological reasons per se (Schreiber, 1992, pp. 279–281).

Significantly, the Chivay Source is situated in the river valley whichbecomes the Majes in its lower reaches; therefore, it appears to be locatedjust within the southern frontier of Huari expansion. As we have seen inthe preceding sections, the Chivay Source had been the traditional sourceof obsidian for the Lake Titicaca Basin and thus its location must havecreated special problems for altiplano populations dependent on this rarenatural resource. Nevertheless, as will be seen, this obstacle was apparentlyovercome with some success.

P1: FLF



Within Huari territory, multiple obsidian types were used and distri-buted over enormous distances. For Tiahuanaco territory, our sample fromthe northern Lake Titicaca Basin suggests that the situation was more sim-ilar to the traditional pre-Middle Horizon pattern where a single obsid-ian source (i.e., the Chivay Source) was predominant. However, the lat-ter conclusion may not be applicable to the southern Lake Titicaca Basin,where our sample is more limited and where the presence of the capitaland other major political centers could have produced a more complexpattern.

Before proceeding, the issue of determining which obsidian might beassigned to the Middle Horizon must be addressed. Single-component siteswith Huari materials belong to a relatively short period, perhaps only 200years, in the early half of the Middle Horizon during which the fragile em-pire expanded and then collapsed. Unfortunately, virtually all the sites sam-pled with Middle Horizon materials are multicomponent. The situation iseven more complicated for Tiahuanaco materials since sites classified asTiahuanaco need not be of Middle Horizon age (Classic Tiahuanaco/EpochIV), but could date to a much longer range of time, extending back tothe Early Intermediate Period (Early Tiahuanaco/Epoch III) or forward tothe late Middle Horizon/Late Intermediate Period (Decadent Tiahuanaco/Epoch V); this time range could stretch for almost a millennium. Abso-lute dates, pottery styles, and relative chronology are still ambiguous forTiahuanaco (see, e.g., Burkholder, 1997, especially pp. 7–10, 60–70). Obvi-ously, surface obsidian from multicomponent sites might not belong to theMiddle Horizon, but it can be evaluated as to the greater or lesser degree ofprobability of such an assignment on an individual basis by using featuressuch as artifact morphology. An attempt to date the surface points analyzedled us to an examination of the existing literature for details on Middle Hori-zon points. Unfortunately, this search reveals that relatively little systematicattention has been paid to Tiahuanaco or Huari lithics, with a few notableexceptions (Stone, 1983; Rivera, 1978). Published points recovered from se-curely dated Middle Horizon contexts are relatively rare, but are crucial,while surface examples associated with Middle Horizon sites or from mixedMiddle Horizon deposits may also be useful for dating.

For our purposes here, three major point styles may be identified forthe Middle Horizon, with variations: a small, stemmed-and-barbed shape(Fig. 12a,d); a small, concave-based shape (Fig. 12b, c, e, f, i–k, m); and,within the Huari empire (McEwan, 1984, p. 126; Anonymous, 1997, p. 43),but apparently rarely for Tiahuanaco (e.g., Ryden, 1947, Fig. 58F), a larger,convex-sided point that narrows slightly at a straight or slightly concavebase (Fig. 12g, h, l). The latter were not necessarily only used as projec-tiles. The tiny points show very small flake scars and fine workmanship

P1: FLF



indicative of pressure flaking. Current evidence shows that the very smallTiahuanaco style points occur from Early (Epoch III) to at least ClassicTiahuanaco (Epoch IV) times (Kidder, 1956, p. 22; K. Chavez and Chavez,n.d.-b; cf. Albarracın-Jordan, 1996, p. 187; Goldstein, 1993, Fig. 3.7A). Suchtiny points, both stemmed and nonstemmed, do not appear in Peru until theMiddle Horizon with Huari expansion to sites like Cerro Baul. In Cuzco,these tiny points continue in small numbers during the Late IntermediatePeriod (Rowe, personal communication, 1987) and, although not of obsidianand somewhat larger, in the Late Horizon (Valencia, 1970, p. 172, Plate 8,Fig. 8 and Plate 9, Fig. 1, both points of azurite). In contrast, thousands of suchpoints are present at Tiahuanaco (Kidder, 1956, p. 22), large numbers comefrom San Pedro de Atacama (C. Torres, personal communication, 1987), andothers are reported from Tarija (Ravines, 1982, p. 193). These points appar-ently reflect the widespread use of bow and arrow at this time. Evidencefor the bow and arrow has long been known from Tiahuanaco iconography(Posnansky, 1958, Plate XXa; Boero Rojo, 1980, color Plate 8) and in Huariiconography (Reid, 1984, pp. 100–101). Recently, depictions of the bow andarrow appeared on large Middle Horizon ceremonial urns excavated at Con-chopata near Ayacucho by Jose Ochatoma (personal communication, 1999)and an actual bow was encountered by William Isbell (personal communi-cation, 1999) in a Huari burial at the same site. It should be noted, however,that even after the introduction of the bow and arrow, the spearthrower con-tinued to be used and spearthrower hooks have been recovered from Huarisites such as Cerro Baul.

Some of the sites with surface samples made of “foreign” obsidian typessituated outside the south highlands have been incorporated into the MiddleHorizon here. This inclusion is justified because it may be strongly arguedthat no south highland samples coming from securely dated contexts belong-ing to earlier or later periods were made of any of those obsidian types.

The peoples of the Ayacucho Basin who created the expansive Huaristate had a long tradition of using obsidian, and at the capital of the empire,the massive urban center of Huari, substantial quantities of obsidian havebeen recovered in excavations there with large amounts occurring on thesurface (Burger and Asaro, 1977, p. 27; Stone, 1983). Stone (1983, pp. 298,307–308) indicated that obsidian imports to the site were greatly expanded,from small amounts of all chipped lithic materials in the Early IntermediatePeriod, to 48% during Huari times. One of Peru’s most important sources,the Quispisisa Source, was located near the Huari heartland, now confirmedto be in Ayacucho rather than Huancavelica (Burger and Glascock, 2000a).Moreover, all of the major sources of obsidian utilized in Prehispanic Peruwere situated within the limits of the Huari empire. Quispisisa obsidian wasthe traditionally dominant obsidian in the Ayacucho Valley and it comprised

P1: FLF



P1: FLF



96% of the sample analyzed from Huari itself (Table VI). However, obsid-ian from the Alca Source and the Andahuaylas A Type were also present,representing only 2% each, in the sample analyzed at LBL (Burger andAsaro, 1977, pp. 27, 59). Thus, it is not surprising that while other centers ofthe Huari empire utilized a great variety of obsidian sources, special promi-nence was given to the Quispisisa Source obsidian. This pattern suggests aconsiderable degree of state involvement in the movement and distributionof goods and/or the great interregional movement of people involved inHuari economy and government. At the same time, local patterns of obsid-ian use continued within the empire, and some local obsidian types spreadover considerable distances for the first time. At Huari sites, politics as wellas proximity to sources determined the procurement, distribution, and con-sumption of obsidian. This new patterning is so intriguing that a closer lookat the evidence is warranted.

The largest and most impressive Huari provincial center is certainlyPikillaqta, situated at 3250 m in the Lucre Basin to the south of Cuzco.The site, with its grid plan, covers nearly 2 km2 and includes over 700 in-dividual structures, some with walls over 12 m in height. Excavations byGordon McEwan (1984, 1991, 1996) demonstrated that Pikillaqta was animperial center devoted to state ceremony, production, and residence, ele-ments that underlay the Huari imperial administrative strategy. Numerousobsidian flakes and tools were recovered in his excavation of Middle Hori-zon 1B and 2 materials associated with the architecture, and in 1993, Burgeranalyzed eight of these samples at MURR in collaboration with Michael D.Glascock. All eight flakes proved to have come from the Quispisisa Sourcein central Ayacucho, some 280 km away. On the surface of Pikillaqta, Burgerrecovered a point fragment similar to one excavated in Huari contexts there

←Fig. 12. Middle Horizon obsidian artifacts utilized in the analysis. All come from the surface,except h. (a) Small stemmed-and-barbed projectile point from Tiahuanaco (18A/1, 8064− >).Chivay Source obsidian. (b) Small concave-based projectile point from Tiahuanaco (18A/1,8064-V ∧). Chivay Source obsidian. (c) Small concave-based projectile point from Moray,Province of Urubamba, Department of Cuzco (24A/1, 8065-0). Chumbivilcas Type obsidian.(d) Small stemmed-and-barbed projectile point from Huasau, Province and Department ofCuzco (22A/1, 8065-Y). Probably Chumbivilcas Type obsidian. (e) Small concave-based pro-jectile point from Huasau (22A/1, 8065-X). Rare 3 Type obsidian. (f) Small concave-based pro-jectile point from Kullawata, Province of Chumbivilcas, Department of Cuzco (10A/2, 8064-Y).Probably Quispisisa Source obsidian. (g) Large knife (?) from Kullawata (10A/2, 8064-5). AlcaSource obsidian. (h) Flat-based projectile point from a Huari burial at Fierrowasi, Province ofAnta, Department of Cuzco (11A/1, 8060-D). Chumbivilcas Type obsidian. (i) Small concave-based projectile point from Cerro Baul, Moquegua Valley (8149-L). Alca Source obsidian.(j) Small concave-based projectile point from Cerro Baul (8149-M). Alca Source obsidian. (k)Utilized flake from Cerro Baul (8149-K). Unidentified obsidian type. (l) Flat-based projectilepoint from Cerro Baul (8149-J). Alca Source obsidian. (m) Small concave-based projectilepoint from Catarpi, north of San Pedro de Atacama, Chile. New obsidian type.

P1: FLF


Tabl

eV

I.M

iddl

eH

oriz

on(M

H)

Sam

ples

Pro

babl

yL

ike

Chu

mbi

-C

hum

bi-

And

a-A

nda-

Pro

babl

yU

nide

n-Ja

mpa

-C

hiva

yA

lca

vilc

asvi

lcas

huay

las

huay

las

Qui

spis

isa

Qui

spis

isa

Rar

eR

are

Rar

eti

fied

New

tilla

Sour

ceSo

urce

Type

Type

ATy

peA

Type

Sour

ceSo

urce

3Ty

pe7

Type

8Ty

peTy

peTy

peSo

urce

Tota

lN

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%

Cuz

co,P

eru

Bat

an’U

rqo

Surf

ace

150

150

2P

ikill

aqta

Hua

riE

xcav

atio

ns8

100

8Su

rfac

e1

100

1H

uasa

uSu

rfac

e1

501

502

Fier

row

asi

Hua

riB

uria

l1

100

1K

allp

itu

Surf

ace

110

01

Sant

aB

arba

raB

aja

Surf

ace

150

150

2M

oray

Surf

ace

110

01

Ceb

olla Hua

yco

Surf

ace

210

02

Wim

pilla

ySu

rfac

e1

251

251

251

254

Qot

akal

liPo

zo1

110

01

(mix

ed)

Pozo

21

100

1(m

ixed

)Su

rfac

e2

100

2Ta

raw

i2

100

2M

Hor

LIP

(sur

face

)

No.

330

P1: FLF


Kul

law

ata

MH

?1

100

1(s

urfa

ce)

Pro

babl

yM

H1

100

1(s

urfa

ce)

Tota

lfor

Cuz

co9

282

61

31

313

411

31

31

31

31

31

332

Pun

o,P

eru

Tara

coP

roba

bly

MH

2810

028

(31B

/6,3

1B/7

,31

B/7

A,3

1B/8

,31

B/8

A,3

1B/9

,31

B/1

0,31

B/1

0A)

Tota

lfor

Pun

o28

100

28

Bol

ivia

Tari

jaT

iahu

anac

o?(s

urfa

ce)

2a10

02

Sora

Sora

Tia

huan

aco?

310

03

(sur

face

)H

uanc

aran

iT

iahu

anac

o(s

urfa

ce)

110

01

Tia

huan

aco

1810

018

Surf

ace

Tota

lfor

2188

312

24B

oliv

iaTo

talf

orso

uth

high

land

s49

589

112

21

11

113

151

11

11

11

14

51

184

(Con

tinue

d)

Tabl

eV

I. (

Con

tinu

ed)

Pro

babl

yL

ike

Chu

mbi

-C

hum

bi-

And

a-A

nda-

Pro

babl

yU

nide

n-Ja

mpa

-C

hiva

yA

lca

vilc

asvi

lcas

huay

las

huay

las

Qui

spis

isa

Qui

spis

isa

Rar

eR

are

Rar

eti

fied

New

tilla

Sour

ceSo

urce

Type

Type

ATy

peA

Type

Sour

ceSo

urce

3Ty

pe7

Type

8Ty

peTy

peTy

peSo

urce

Tota

lN

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.

331

P1: FLF


Are

asou

tsid

eth

eso

uth

high

land

sre

ferr

edto

La

Lib

erta

d,P

eru

Mar

caH

uam

achu

coU

hle

colle

ctio

n1

100

1M

cCow

nex

cava

tion

310

03

Hua

mac

huco

Uhl

eco

llect

ion

536

964

14

Aya

cuch

o,P

eru

Hua

riSu

rfac

e1

21

250

9652

Jinc

amoq

oSu

rfac

e5

1024

4722

4351

Apu

rim

ac,P

eru

Way

wak

aQ

asaw

irka

Pha

se1

501

502

(MH

1-2)

Moq

uegu

a,P

eru

Om

oE

xcav

atio

ns2

252

253

381

128

Cer

roB

aul

Surf

ace

33

7079

78

11

78

11

89

Chi

le Cat

arpi

Tia

huan

aco?

110

01

(sur

face

)

Tota

lfor

outs

ide

sout

hhi

ghla

nds

52

8438

125

1<

194

431

<1

1<

123

1022

1

Tabl

eV

I.

Pro

babl

yL

ike

Chu

mbi

-C

hum

bi-

And

a-A

nda-

Pro

babl

yU

nide

n-Ja

mpa

-C

hiva

yA

lca

vilc

asvi

lcas

huay

las

huay

las

Qui

spis

isa

Qui

spis

isa

Rar

eR

are

Rar

eti

fied

New

tilla

Sour

ceSo

urce

Type

Type

ATy

peA

Type

Sour

ceSo

urce

3Ty

pe7

Type

8Ty

peTy

peTy

peSo

urce

Tota

lN

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%

(Con

tinue

d)

inte

xt

One

is li

ke H

uanc

aran

i.a

No.

332

P1: FLF



(McEwan, 1984, p. 126). This biface fragment was analyzed at LBL andshown to come from the unidentified source known as Andahuaylas A andpresumed to be found in the Andahuaylas region of the Department ofApurimac (Burger and Asaro, 1977, p. 32). The presence in Cuzco of obsidianfrom these two obsidian sources was unprecedented in the region’s past, butit appears to have been part of a larger pattern of Middle Horizon obsidianprocurement.

This same pattern also is evident from the analysis of obsidian from sixother sites in the Cuzco region which we judged to be probably Middle Hori-zon in date. They have Quispisisa, Andahuaylas A, or Jampatilla obsidianpresent. The surface obsidian from Santa Barbara Baja is likely Middle Hori-zon; no pre-Middle Horizon material was found there (Rowe, personal com-munication, 1978), although some post-Middle Horizon material was recov-ered. One of the Santa Barbara obsidian artifacts came from the Alca Source,but the other was made of Quispisisa Source obsidian. One probable MiddleHorizon point tested that came from the surface of Kullawata in Chumbivil-cas is made of Quispisisa Source obsidian (Fig. 12f). Another point of AlcaSource obsidian is also likely of Middle Horizon date (Fig. 12g); it resem-bles some from Cerro Baul (Anonymous, 1997, p. 43). Therefore, althoughKullawata is a multicomponent site, the forms of the points analyzed suggesta Middle Horizon date. In addition, Huari style material has been found atnumerous sites in Chumbivilcas, including near Kullawata (S. Chavez, 1989,pp. 34–36; Lantaron, 1985, pp. 30–40). The multicomponent sites of Kallpituand Batan ‘Urqo have Huari components, but Cebolla Huayco lacks infor-mation; four flakes from all three sites proved to come from the QuispisisaSource. A fifth flake from Batan ‘Urqo was of Alca Source obsidian. Flakesanalyzed from Wimpillay, a multicomponent site with a Middle HorizonHuari component (Bauer, 1999, p. 63), included one piece from the Jam-patilla Source (Burger et al., 1998c) in addition to one Alca, one Rare 7, andone Rare 8 Types of obsidian. A point from Fierrowasi was associated witha Huari burial, the only secure context of these specimens, and it proved tobe from the Chumbivilcas Source (Fig. 12h). Other multicomponent sites inCuzco with Huari presence include Huasau with a probably ChumbivilcasType and a Rare 3 Type obsidian, Moray with a Chumbivilcas Type obsidian,Tarawi with Alca Source obsidian, and Qotakalli with Alca Source and anUnidentified Type obsidian.

Thus, both the excavated and surface obsidian tools and flakes thatcan be assigned to the Huari occupation of Cuzco with certainty or witha high degree of probability include a very substantial amount of volcanicglass brought from Huari’s traditional quarry, the Quispisisa Source, andoccasional instances of obsidians brought from other zones in the empire,

P1: FLF



most notably obsidian from the Jampatilla Source in Ayacucho and of theAndahuaylas A Type in Apurimac. These new kinds of obsidian cooccurin Cuzco along with specimens reflecting continued exploitation of sourcestraditionally used in the Cuzco area, primarily the Alca Source and the yet-unlocated Chumbivilcas Type.

If all of the Quispisisa obsidian from the Department of Cuzco doesindeed belong to the Huari occupation there, more of the obsidian testedcomes from this source than from the closer and traditionally utilized AlcaSource in the Cotahuasi Valley. When the specimens of Andahuaylas Aand Jampatilla Source are added to the Quispisisa pieces, the proportion ofobsidian from northern sources rises to half of the Middle Horizon samplefrom Cuzco. The precise figures are probably unreliable, but they definitelyindicate that a radical change in obsidian utilization occurred in this region, achange brought about by the Huari imperial organization newly introducedhere.

The pattern of obsidian consumption documented for Pikillaqta andother Cuzco sites with Huari components has its counterpart at the evenmore southern Huari outpost of Cerro Baul in Moquegua, already men-tioned above. The Chivay Source would be the expected supplier of ob-sidian to this site if proximity were the only concern, but the strong Huaripresence raises the possibility that the obsidian consumed might also comefrom deposits closer to the Huari heartland or other sources within its realm.After the publication of the original LBL report (Asaro and Burger, 1977),29 samples were analyzed at LBL in collaboration with Frank Asaro and,subsequently, in 1997 and 1998, an additional 60 samples were analyzedwith Michael D. Glascock at MURR. All of these samples came from thesurface, but nevertheless a Middle Horizon date is indicated by the single-component nature of the site and the forms of the obsidian points recov-ered among the surface materials (Figs. 12i–l and 13). Obsidian artifactsof five different chemical types of obsidian were found, of which one wasan unidentified type; thus, volcanic glass was provided from five geologicalsources, four of which were heavily exploited in the past. Abundant chip-ping debris was found at the site (Watanabe, 1984, p. 45) as well as at anadjacent Huari site, Cerro Mejıa (Moseley et al., 1991), but elsewhere in thevalley, obsidian does not occur with much frequency (Moseley et al., 1991;Paul Goldstein, personal communication, 1999). Of the materials analyzedfrom Cerro Baul, obsidian from the distant Quispisisa Source (8%) wasmore common than raw material from the nearest obsidian deposit (i.e., theChivay Source), which only constituted 3% of the sample. The Alca Sourcenear Cotahuasi was the predominant source, constituting 79% of the obsid-ian. As at Pikillaqta, there was noteworthy presence of Andahuaylas A Typeobsidian (8%), probably from the Department of Apurimac, a zone which

P1: FLF



Fig

.13.

Obs

idia

nar

tifa

cts

from

the

surf

ace

ofth

eM

iddl

eH

oriz

onH

uari

site

ofC

erro

Bau

l,M

oque

gua

Val

ley.

Pho

togr

aph

byB

illSa

cco.

P1: FLF



constituted an important hinterland of the Huari empire (Grossman, 1985;Meddens, 1991). At Cerro Baul, the high proportion of obsidian from theAlca Source could have resulted if people from Cuzco or central Arequipaprovided a significant contingent of pilgrims, soldiers, or administrators atthe Huari outpost. Alternatively, if access to the Chivay Source were notpossible, the Alca Source would have been the closest high-grade obsid-ian deposit. The three pieces of Chivay Source obsidian may have beenbrought by or acquired from Tiahuanaco people nearby or scavenged fromabandoned Tiahuanaco sites in the drainage. The low frequency of ChivaySource obsidian at Cerro Baul argues for its relative inaccessibility to Huariinhabitants even though the Chivay Source was closer to Cerro Baul thanthe Alca, Quispisisa, and Andahuaylas A sources.

The presence in Cuzco and Cerro Baul of obsidian from sources out-side the southern highlands during the Middle Horizon is mirrored by theunprecedented appearance of southern highland obsidians in central andnorthern Peru. Several sites from outside the south highlands were found tohave Alca Source obsidian along with a Huari stylistic component. One ofthe northernmost zones with evidence of Huari cultural materials, includingrelgious offerings and administrative architecture, is the Huamachuco areaof northern Peru (Schreiber, 1992, pp. 98–99; J. Topic, 1991; T. Topic, 1991).Although rare or absent prior to the emergence of the Huari state, obsidianis a noteworthy feature of sites having Huari style pottery such as MarcaHuamachuco and Cerro Amaru. Max Uhle made a collection of 53 obsid-ian points in Huamachuco (McCown, 1945, p. 304 and Plate 19, ee) whichare probably Middle Horizon in date, and Theodore McCown encounteredsimilar points in his work at Marca Huamachuco. Three specimens exca-vated by McCown (1945, pp. 288–289, Plate 19, gg) come from a late EarlyIntermediate Period/early Middle Horizon context; all three were made ofobsidian from the Quispisisa source. The points McCown illustrates are thelarge variety mentioned previously as a second Middle Horizon form. Oneof the 15 points tested from the Uhle collection from Huamachucho had adefinite provenience from the surface of Marca Huamachuco, and this pointwas made of obsidian from the Alca Source. Of the 14 other points analyzedfrom Huamachuco, 5 (36%) were of Alca Source obsidian. This obsidian hadbeen brought some 980 km to Huamachuco from its source in the CotahuasiCanyon.

As noted above, the original context and function of the Huamachucoobsidian remain poorly understood. Nevertheless, the large complete obsid-ian points recovered by Uhle and McCown in Huamachuco bring to mind theinclusion of complete obsidian bifaces as offerings in Moche V tombs datingto the early Middle Horizon along the North Coast. These have been doc-umented by Michael Moseley in the Moche Valley and Luis Jaime Castillo

P1: FLF



in the Jequetepeque Valley. In both cases, the objects have been interpretedas exotic items of ceremonial importance acquired by non-Huari elites fromtheir counterpart within the Huari empire. One large biface from a lootedMoche V burial has been tested and it proved to come from the Quispi-sisa Source (Burger and Asaro, 1977, p. 29). During excavations at MarcaHuamachuco, John and Theresa Topic recovered five obsidian projectilepoints placed in the fill of a circular mound in the sixth century A.D. (J. Topic,1991, pp. 157–158). Obsidian also was recovered from Cerro Amaru, a cen-ter of Huari ceremonial activity in Huamachuco (J. Topic, 1991, p. 159).Whether the obsidian from Huamachuco reflects interaction between lo-cals and foreign pilgrims or representatives of the Huari empire, or whetherthey were brought to Huamachuco for use by Huari invaders, or both, re-mains to be determined, but the Topics believe that the former is the morelikely explanation. In either case, there seems little doubt that obsidian fromHuamachuco, including that from the Alca Source in the Uhle Collection,was brought to this region of the northern highlands as a result of the emer-gence of the Huari empire and its increasing influence outside its heartlandwhether through conquest, alliance, or trade.

Within the Huari heartland at the Huari administrative center ofJincamoqo located near the Jampatilla obsidian deposit, Schreiber’s excava-tions recovered significant amounts of Alca Source obsidian (10%) in addi-tion to volcanic glass artifacts from the more local Jampatilla and QuispisisaSources (Burger et al., 1998c, p. 235). Clearly, obsidian was moving northfrom the southern frontier of the empire as well as moving south from theempire’s core. Obsidian tested from Waywaka in Andahuaylas associatedwith Qasawirka style materials coming from Middle Horizon deposits, how-ever, included pieces from the more local Andahuaylas A and JampatillaSources (Burger and Asaro, 1977, p. 62; Grossman, 1985, pp. 60, 62).

With the exception of samples analyzed from Chavın de Huantar(Burger et al., 1984, pp. 265, 267), before the Middle Horizon, AndahuaylasA obsidian only had occurred in Andahuaylas and Lucanas (in southernAyacucho, near Jincamoqo) areas (Burger and Asaro, 1977, pp. 32–33). Dur-ing the period of Huari expansion, Andahuaylas A obsidian spread to Huariitself, Pikillaqta, and Cerro Baul (but oddly was absent from our samplefrom Jincamoqo). Similarly, Jampatilla Source obsidian, which has a longhistory of use in the Lucanas area, is found not only at the nearby Huari cen-ter of Jincamoqo, but also at Wimpillay in Cuzco. As we have already seen,the Alca Source near Cotahuasi was even more widely distributed. The pres-ence of Alca Source obsidian in samples analyzed from Huamachuco, Huari,Jincamoqo, and Cerro Baul appears to be the result of the expansion of Huaripower and influence. Even the Chumbivilcas Type obsidian now appears toexpand into the more northward Cuzco Provinces of Urubamba (Moray),

P1: FLF



Anta, and Quispicanchis (to Batan ‘Urqo). Nevertheless, the ChumbivilcasType seems to have been restricted to this enlarged local sphere rather thantransported elsewhere. Among the kinds of obsidian not utilized at Huarisites are the Acarı and Andahuaylas B Types and obsidian from the PuzolanaSource. These are minor obsidian types of very limited distribution, all lo-cated within what became Huari territory. The Acarı and Ayacucho sourcesevidently went into disuse by this time, and Andahuaylas B, found only inthe Andahuaylas region, apparently was not used in any quantity until latertimes (Burger and Asaro, 1977, p. 33).

Judging from the obsidian analyzed from Middle Horizon sites in Peru,people within the Huari realm were not obtaining Chivay Source obsidian fortheir own consumption. Nor were people in Tiahuanaco territory procuringAlca, Andahuaylas A, or Jampatilla obsidian (nor Quispisisa Source ob-sidian in significant amounts; see discussion below) despite the apparentpotential for doing so as the two groups interacted face to face. The fact thatChivay Source obsidian was not distributed in Huari territory underminesBrowman’s contention (1981, pp. 416–417; 1985, p. 66) that Tiahuanaco de-pended on trade with Huari. It has been suggested that the Huari colonyin Moquegua was established in part to acquire exotic goods, including ob-sidian reportedly occurring nearby (Lumbreras et al., 1982, p. 5; Watanabe,1984, p. 46) from Tiahuanaco territory, but the results of the provenienceanalysis just summarized indicate that the obsidian at Cerro Baul was beingbrought in from afar rather than exported from the area, and that the sourcesused were those favored by and located within the Huari empire.

As noted, obsidian is rare in Moquegua throughout the sequence out-side the Huari sites of Cerro Baul and Cerro Mejıa. This generalizationapplies to pre-Middle Horizon sites and sites with Tiahuanaco-related com-ponents. Fortunately, Paul Goldstein provided a sample of obsidian for anal-ysis from his excavations at Omo, the largest Tiahuanaco site in Moquegua(Goldstein, 1989, 1993a, 1993b). Due to its scarcity, only eight samples wereavailable for study in 1997 and 1998 by Burger and Glascock at MURR; nev-ertheless, the results were surprising. Rather than depending on the nearestobsidian source (i.e., the Chivay Source in the Colca Valley), which was alsothe source favored by the site of Tiahuanaco and its administrative and ru-ral settlements within the Titicaca Basin, Omo shows a pattern of multipleobsidians (Table VI), including Quispisisa, Alca, and Andahuaylas A. Onlytwo of the eight specimens analyzed came from the Chivay Source. Whilethis consumption of Chivay Source obsidian at Omo may be higher than atCerro Baul at a statistically meaningful level, it is even more significant thathalf of the obsidian sampled from Omo comes from sources associated withthe Huari empire. This suggests, at the very least, that Omo was not obtainingmost of its obsidian from Tiahuanaco itself or through exchange networks

P1: FLF



controlled by a Tiahuanaco state. It is conceivable that, on the contrary,most obsidian was acquired by the residents of Omo from Cerro Baul, eitherthrough exchange or by scavenging it from the site once it was abandoned.

Stone argued that there was craft specialization of chipped lithic toolsduring the Huari empire, based primarily on the presence of more elabo-rate, retouched tools made of imported raw materials, especially obsidian.However, using surface lithics from Huari, she found no evidence of work-shops for the primary manufacture of these tools, and suggested that craftspecialization of obsidian was carried out elsewhere at Huari or at other sites(Stone, 1983, pp. 174–175, 222, 246–247, 293–295, 299–300, 306–310). Rivera(1978, p. 589) noted that in the Yanapunta sector of Huari, there is evidenceto suggest possible specialized manufacture of lithic tools, especially points.Similarly, at Cerro Mejıa adjacent to Cerro Baul, there are concentrationsof chipping debris pointing to specialized production (Moseley et al., 1991,p. 135). In contrast, in all three areas of Huari that Stone includes in hersurface sample, local materials were being worked locally, likely by nonspe-cialists (Stone, 1983, pp. 246, 294–295).

The pattern of obsidian distribution in the Huari empire indicates that atsome sites, the largest portion of the obsidian came from the closest (still dis-tant) source. The admixture of obsidian from long-distance sources at Huariadministrative centers may indicate the movement of soldiers, religious andgovernmental functionaries, or other populations/groups controlled by thestate. The presence of this exotic obsidian in small amounts may not be somuch a matter of new procurement mechanisms per se as a reflection of theincreased movement of alien peoples who brought it with them (Burger andAsaro, 1977). It probably was not the intention at Cerro Baul to acquire fourdifferent obsidian types. Visually they look very similar and one source wouldhave sufficed. Some troops or others who had to be supplied may have beenrequired to bring their own materials, including obsidian, from their localpoint of origin. So far, of course, no Huari storehouses with obsidian havebeen found, although Lumbreras (1975, p. 129) suggests that possibility forflint in the Uspha Qoto sector of Huari. Given the varieties of obsidian atCerro Baul, it is tempting to argue that many different regional administra-tive/military units participated. This same situation may have occurred atother sites like Pikillaqta, Marca Huamachuco, Jincamoqo, and Huari.

Within Tiahuanaco territory on the northern end of Lake Titicaca at thesite of Taraco, only Chivay Source obsidian has been found so far in post-Pucara, pre-Late Intermediate Period layers (one Tiahuanaco sherd associ-ated). In our surface sample (N = 18) from Tiahuanaco itself, all of the mate-rials analyzed likewise had been brought from the Chivay Source in the ColcaValley (Fig. 12a, b). In Burger’s collaboration with LBL and MURR, addi-tional possible Tiahuanaco samples were run from Sora Sora, Huancarani,

P1: FLF



and Tarija in Bolivia, as well as from Catarpi, north of San Pedro de Atacamain northern Chile (Figs. 1, 14). The results indicate Chivay Source obsidianwas used at Sora Sora, while the obsidian samples from Huancarani, Tarija,and Catarpi were dissimilar from the known Peruvian deposits and showedthe existence of unidentified sources, presumably located in Bolivia andpossibly Chile. These three Bolivian sites are multicomponent, the first twowith significant Formative occupations, however. Sora Sora (Departmentof Oruru) has Formative to Inca components (Ishida, 1960, pp. 481–482;Browman, 1998, p. 309), but there is a collection in the Museo Nacionalof La Paz with both stemmed-and-barbed and concaved-based Tiahuanacostyle points from the site (W. Coe, in K. Chavez and Chavez, n.d.-b).Huancarani, Department of Oruru (Walter, 1966; Ponce, 1970, 1972), andTarija, Department of Tarija (Ponce, 1972, p. 133; Ravines, 1982, pp. 193–194, 199, 216, 221), both include Preceramic to Inca components. The ages ofthe specimens tested are uncertain, but one point analyzed from Tarija is asmall Tiahuanaco stemmed-and-barbed point (Ravines, 1982, p. 193v); thereare also points from Tarija at the Museo Nacional of La Paz like the twoTiahuanaco style forms, as well as a Tiahuanaco V occupation there. Sim-ilarly, the point tested from Catarpi is a small, Tiahuanaco style, concave-based form (Fig. 12m) and can also be assigned to this period with greatercertainty. Burials containing broken bows and arrows, and hundreds of bothforms of Tiahuanaco style points, about half made of obsidian, have beenfound in San Pedro de Atacama (C. Torres, personal communication, 1987).

Based on the analysis of samples from Tiahuanaco, and the presumablyTiahuanaco examples from Taraco and Sora Sora, it appears that ChivaySource obsidian was the only type of obsidian utilized, but other sourceswere also accessible if Huancarani, Tarija, and Catarpi are included. Thatobsidian sources besides that of Chivay were also used at Tiahuanaco sites issupported by the preliminary results of Martin Giesso’s work with MichaelGlascock at MURR. In their study of 87 obsidian artifacts from Tiahuanacoand Tiahuanaco occupations at Lukurmata, Konko Wankane, Chiripa, andunspecified rural sites in the Tiahuanaco Valley, 76% of these specimens an-alyzed were found to have been brought from the Chivay Source, thus con-firming the general picture offered by the results of our LBL work. However,the remaining 21 artifacts in the MURR sample were found to have beenbrought from nine additional sources, most unidentified, but some withinthe territorial boundaries of modern Bolivia (Brooks et al., 1997), or possi-bly Chile, given our results. Also supporting the LBL analysis, they foundno evidence of obsidian from the Jampatilla or Alca Sources, two types ofobsidian found at numerous Huari sites within the territory it controlled.However, Quispisisa Source obsidian was present in their sample, althoughits provenience is not reported. As at the Huari site of Cerro Baul, where

P1: FLF



Fig

.14.

Mid

dle

Hor

izon

dist

ribu

tion

ofob

sidi

an.R

are

3Ty

peob

sidi

anat

Hua

sau,

Rar

e7

and

8Ty

pes

atW

impi

llay,

unid

enti

fied

type

sat

Qot

akal

li,C

erro

Bau

l,H

uanc

aran

i,an

dTa

rija

,and

ane

wty

peat

Cat

arpi

have

been

omit

ted

here

.

P1: FLF



a very minor amount of Chivay Source obsidian was found, a small amountof Quispisisa obsidian was brought to the Tiahuanaco heartland and to theTiahuanaco center at Omo (here, along with Andahuaylas A obsidian alsofrom within the Huari region); in fact, it may be in the Moquegua Valley,where direct interaction between the two groups has been documented asphysically probable, that this two-way access occurred. The obsidian datacan be interpreted to support such direct interaction.

As noted, the location of the Chivay Source on the edge of the Huariempire must have posed a problem for the Tiahuanaco state. Nevertheless,the continued use of Chivay Source material in the Titicaca Basin and the ex-treme scarcity of obsidian from this source within the Huari domain indicatethat some special arrangement was worked out. Significantly, Chivay Sourceobsidian occurred at no Huari site other than Cerro Baul. Perhaps as a resultof the difficult situation posed by Chivay’s location, obsidian may have beenchanneled directly into the Tiahuanaco heartland through formalized state-controlled mechanisms and/or agreements worked out with Huari authori-ties. Such a hypothesis would help to explain why this obsidian is absent in therest of Huari territory and why it failed to reach the Tiahuanaco populationin Moquegua in significant amounts. The apparent absence of Tiahuanacopottery and structures in the Colca Valley led Brooks et al. (1997, p. 449)to suggest control of the Chivay Source by a local group; independent localgroups, however, could have equally or more easily provided Huari pop-ulations with this obsidian. Obsidian from Huari sites in the Majes-ColcaValley could be tested to show otherwise, while field research in the ChivaySource area itself could explore whether Tiahuanaco colonists were present.The obsidian data do not appear to conform to the expected pattern of pos-tulated multiethnic “artisan islands” within the vertical archipelago modelproposed by John Murra (1972, pp. 442–443) in which rare or restricted re-sources such as metal ores, or here different obsidian types, are shared bydifferent groups; in this case, each group (Huari and Tiahuanaco) wouldhave had colonies to acquire the resource for the distant homeland.

Given the Chivay problem, Tiahuanaco may have sought out other ob-sidian sources as well as used other kinds of lithic raw material. Tiahuanacostyle points from the heartland are usually made of materials other than ob-sidian, and volcanic glass showed a marked decrease from previous ceramicperiods in our region. A collection of 147 Tiahuanaco style points illustratedfrom the Regional Museum of Tiwanaku, for example, shows only about10–12% to be of obsidian or possibly obsidian (Boero Rojo, 1980, p. 301).Similarly, of the 11 points illustrated from Tiahuanaco by Max Uhle (1889,Plate 20, 20–30), 2, or 18%, are of obsidian. Obsidian tools and debitagewere not common (5% or less) at the site of Iwawi, a Tiahuanaco occupation22 km from the urban center (Catherine Bencic, personal communication,

P1: FLF



Table VII. Late Intermediate Period (LIP) and Late Horizon (LH) Samples

Alca Source Chivay Source UnidentifiedTotal

No. % No. % No. % No.

Cuzco, PeruMachu Picchu

Inca (Bingham excavation) 2 100 2Qhataqasallaqta

Killke (surface) 1 100 1Coricancha

Killke, Inca (surface) 1 100 1Mawkallaqta

Killke, Inca (surface) 1 100 1Choquepuquio

LIP? (surface) 1 50 1 50 2Total for Cuzco 4 57 2 29 1 14 7

Puno, PeruLlalli

LIP (surface) 7 100 7Cerro Pucara

Probably LIP (surface) 10 100 10Taraco

LIP (31B/5) 1 14 6 86 7Inca (31B/4) 5 100 5Uncertain (mixed, 31B/1, 15 100 15

31B/2, 31B/3)Kolkeparke

LIP or LH (surface) 1 50 1 50 2Sillustani

LIP or LH (surface) 1 100 1Total for Puno 2 4 45 96 47

Total for south highlands 6 11 47 87 1 2 54

August 18, 2000). Furthermore, small point size produced by a fine technol-ogy in the Tiahuanaco heartland allowed more of them to be made per unitof material.

Late Intermediate Period (1050 BP–AD 1476) and Late Horizon(A. D. 1476–1532)

Following the collapse of the Huari empire, the Central Andes saw theemergence of a multitude of polities, varying in size from multivalley statesto small chiefdoms. This period, known as the Late Intermediate Period(Table VII), was brought to an end with the conquests of the Inca state. Theyear 1476 marks the beginning of the Late Horizon with Inca presence inthe Ica Valley, but in terms of cultural developments in the south highlands,Inca imperial expansion begins in Cuzco during the Late Intermediate Periodwith the reign of Pachacutec beginning in the first half of the 15th century.

P1: FLF



Sites or materials in the south highlands, then, may show Inca influence whilebelonging temporally to the Late Intermediate Period. A central questionthat arises is whether the traditional pre-Middle Horizon pattern of obsidianprocurement and distribution was reestablished and, if it was, did this occurprior to Inca incursion or only by the Inca conquest and the ensuing reor-ganization of conquered peoples. It is, therefore, important to differentiatesites and materials that show no Inca influence from those that do.

Based on current evidence, we cannot be certain that the pre-MiddleHorizon pattern emerged again prior to Inca influence, but two sites are sug-gestive that it did. Taking the post-Middle Horizon sample as a whole, wecan generalize that settlements in Puno were using primarily Chivay Sourceobsidian, while sites in Cuzco were exploiting the Alca Source. Moreover,at Taraco in Puno, Alca Source obsidian came from level 5 in associationwith Late Intermediate Period pottery showing no clear Inca influence. Ata second site called Kolkeparke, which is situated on a slope inclining to-ward the city of Ayaviri, one obsidian artifact was found to be made ofAlca Source obsidian. It and the other point came from the surface whereprimarily pre-Inca-influenced Collao pottery occurs, and these pieces prob-ably come from that occupation, although Inca remains have been foundin the city, including Inca burials (Bustinza, 1960, p. 350). These occasionalartifacts of Alca obsidian in the northern Titicaca Basin seem to reflect thereemergence of close links between this area and the Cuzco Basin. In Puno,Llalli is a Late Intermediate period site and Cerro Pucara probably is; thearea of Cerro Pucara from which that obsidian sample comes has primar-ily pre-Inca-influenced Collao pottery associated with it. Sillustani has bothpre-Inca-influenced and Inca occupations. All three of these sites in Punoutilized Chivay Source obsidian.

In Cuzco, Qhataqasallaqta has a Late Intermediate Period Killke occu-pation; Coricancha has both Killke and Inca present, while Machu Picchuand Mawkallaqta are Inca sites. Choquepuquio has materials from all ce-ramic periods, but construction was carried out during both Inca and espe-cially pre-Inca Late Intermediate Period occupations (McEwan, 1984, p. 17;McEwan, 1991, p. 99; Gibaja Oviedo, 1973). With the exception of MachuPicchu, all of the late Cuzco examples analyzed from these sites were of AlcaSource obsidian, but, unfortunately, are surface specimens.

In the southern highlands of Peru, obsidian decreased in usage duringthe Late Intermediate Period and Late Horizon, although it clearly still per-sisted in Inca times (Fig. 15). J. H. Rowe (personal communication, 1987)notes that obsidian occurs in smaller quantities in the Late IntermediatePeriod component of Tarawi in Cuzco than in Marcavalle and Chanap-ata sites. Arturo Ruiz notes a decrease in lithics generally through timeas determined from his excavations of burial chambers (chullpas) at Sil-

P1: FLF



Fig

.15

.L

ate

Inte

rmed

iate

Per

iod

and

Lat

eH

oriz

ondi

stri

buti

onof

obsi

dian

from

sour

ces

inth

eso

uth

high

land

s.U

nide

ntifi

edob

sidi

anat

Cho

quep

uqui

oha

sbe

enom

itte

dhe

re,a

ndth

ere

isno

docu

men

ted

Chi

vay

Sour

ceob

sidi

anat

Cho

quep

uqui

o.

P1: FLF



lustani. Lithics occur with greatest frequency in his lowermost stratum III,decrease in stratum II, and are absent in the uppermost stratum I; he assignsstrata II and III to pre-Inca Colla affiliation and stratum I to Colla-Inca (Ruiz,1973, pp. 44, 46). Catherine Julien found only a few obsidian flakes associ-ated with Phase 2 and 3 (Inca influenced) levels at Hatunqolla (CatherineJulien, personal communication, 1978). The reasons for this shift may be dueto competing technologies that fulfilled the same functions. The widespreaddissemination of metal tools by the Inca state could have had a significantimpact on demands for obsidian tools, as did the popularity of polishedstone tools made from locally available stone. For example, ground slateknives for cutting are frequently found associated with Killke occupations(Rowe, 1944, p. 61; Dwyer, 1971, pp. 57, 68), but metal, especially copperand bronze, came to be more frequently used by the Incas for tools (Rowe,1946, p. 248). Nevertheless, seven obsidian tools were recovered from MachuPicchu (Bingham, 1930 [1979], p. 199 and Fig. 211), and obsidian flakes werecollected from Coricancha, Mawkallaqta, and Qhataqasallaqta.

The great synthesizer of Spanish historical accounts, Father BernabeCobo (1956, p. 135), noted that at the time of the conquest, obsidian wasbeing used for various tools in Peru. In pre-Inca times, obsidian had beenused widely for projectile points sometimes used in armed conflicts, but inimperial Inca times, slings, bolas, clubs, and fire-hardened or metal-tippedspears were the primary weapons used by armies in the highlands. Someobsidian-tipped darts or arrows had been employed in hunting in pre-Incatimes, but during the Late Horizon, this subsistence strategy was of muchless importance (Rowe, 1946, pp. 217, 275–276).

Nevertheless, obsidian points were still produced after the Middle Hori-zon and there are two good excavated contexts to demonstrate in Cuzco thatthe very small Tiahuanaco style points continued in use during the Late Inter-mediate Period pre-Inca occupations and into Inca times. The Late Interme-diate Period tiny obsidian points from Tarawi (J. H. Rowe, personal commu-nication, 1987) have already been noted, as have the stemmed-and-barbedazurite points from Inca contexts at Sacsayhuaman (Valencia, 1970, p. 172,Plate 8, 8 and Plate 9, 1). Ruiz (1973, pp. 164–169, Plate 29) recovered60 projectile points from the surface of Sillustani. Most were basalt or flint,but some were of obsidian. Aside from Preceramic forms, he found 1 smalltriangular point (Plate 29c) and 45 with concave bases. It is likely that thesepoints belong to the Late Intermediate Period pre-Inca occupations here,since earlier remains have not been reported. The small triangular obsidianpoint from Sillustani (Plate 29d) resembles the triangular point of ChivaySource obsidian from Kolkeparke, and both have relatively thick cross sec-tions while the larger, concave base points from Pucara, Kolkeparke, andSillustani (Plate 29a) are in some respects similar. These larger, concave base

P1: FLF



points also resemble earlier (Initial to Early Intermediate periods) points,but tend to differ in having large areas of the central portions of both facesunchipped and a thin base.

Machu Picchu provides the sole example in our sample of excavatedobsidian from a definite Late Horizon context and, unlike all of the other lateprehistoric Cuzco artifacts, these came from the Chivay Source rather thanthe Alca Source. The two pieces of Chivay Source obsidian analyzed fromMachu Picchu belonged to a large deposit of small obsidian pebbles foundby Hiram Bingham’s 1912 excavation near the city gateway (Bingham, 1930,p. 199), rather than the sample of obsidian tools recovered from the site. Thiscollection of unworked, naturally rounded nodules of volcanic glass wereleft as an offering. It is possible that persons traveling to Machu Picchu fromsoutheastern Arequipa or the northern Titicaca Basin brought the obsidianpebbles to leave them as a type of ceremonial cache linking the Inca royalestate along the forested eastern slopes of the Andes to the volcanic powersof the high western slopes of the Andes where they had been collected. Thiscase constitutes additional archaeological evidence of interaction betweenthe Inca elite and the highland peoples of Arequipa or Puno; this relationshipis well documented in the historical and archaeological record. It is significantthat the nodules are completely unworked and are actually so small as tomake their conversion into tools impractical. That the obsidian pebbles werebrought from the far-away source area rather than acquired from the sourceused locally in Cuzco is clearly intentional since Chivay Source obsidian isabsent at other Late Intermediate Period/Late Horizon sites in the Cuzcoregion, where Alca Source obsidian was used. The Machu Picchu case revealsan aspect of obsidian utilization during Inca times in which obsidian appearsto have been among the semiprecious minerals suitable in its apparentlynatural state as an offering or sacred object comparable to quartz crystals(Rowe, 1946, p. 297).

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

From the foregoing review of Andean prehistory, it is clear that An-dean peoples valued volcanic glass highly and were willing to go to greatlengths to acquire it either directly or through exchange. Although high-quality obsidian deposits are rare in the Central Andes, the early settlerswere able to locate those few sources of it within tens of thousands of squarekilometers of rugged terrain. In the southern highlands of what is now Peru,two major sources of obsidian were discovered and exploited at a surpris-ingly early date, 11,000 BP in the case of the Alca Source and 9400 BP forthe Chivay Source. Once discovered in the deeply entrenched valleys and

P1: FLF



high peaks of western Arequipa, one in the Cotahuasi Valley and the otherin the Colca Valley, these two major obisidan sources were exploited con-tinuously until the indigenous socioeconomic system was disrupted by theSpanish conquest requiring that these sources be rediscovered in the 20thcentury. The archaeological obsidian from Inca contexts marks the end ofthe use and manufacture of obsidian tools.

As the preceding sections have shown, during the entire archaeologicalsequence for the southern highlands, obsidian was consistently transportedbeyond the limits of the valleys in which it is found naturally, being car-ried over the continental divide into the rich highland basins to the east.The general pattern that emerges for our region is that Alca Source ob-sidian was exploited by people in the Cuzco Basin, while Chivay Sourceobsidian was predominantly utilized by inhabitants of the Lake TiticacaBasin; in the intermediate area, groups acquired obsidian from both sources.During the final three millennia of the sequence, this process was facili-tated by the availability of llamas as pack animals, but the pattern of long-distance transport of obsidian emerged long before these animals were do-mesticated, a time when humans would have borne these raw materialseastward on their backs across the high puna grasslands into the Vilcan-ota Valley and the Titicaca Basin. Unlike the Near East and Mesoamer-ica, the purpose of the obsidian was almost exclusively for the productionof stone tools, especially points and utilized flakes. The use of obsidianfor offerings, inlays, and mosaic mirrors provided rare exceptions to thisgeneralization.

It is intriguing that although other deposits of obsidian apparently ex-isted in the southern highland region of Peru, above and beyond those ofthe Alca and Chivay Sources, obsidian from these was never distributed verymuch outside their immediate source area. While geological sources of theChumbivilcas and Tumuku Types of obsidian have yet to be located, theirlimited distribution strongly suggests where these deposits of volcanic glasswill be encountered in future explorations. The reason for the strong prefer-ence for the two major types of obsidian from Alca and Chivay, even in areasnear the probable sources of the rare types, is not known. However, workelsewhere in the Andes indicates that the Prehispanic occupants, whetherhunters and foragers, farmers, or herders, were determined to gain accessto obsidian that was high in quality (i.e., lacking in flaws such as bubbles,cracks, and impurities) and large in size (i.e., appropriate for chipping intolarge tools or prepared cores). Most sources of obsidian in the Central An-des lack one of these essential features; many are degraded in some mannerand others are characterized by only small obsidian nodules inappropriatefor many purposes (Burger et al., 1998c; Burger and Glascock, 2000b). Wehypothesize that when the Tumuku and Chumbivilcas obsidian sources are

P1: FLF



located, they, too, will be found to be deposits of small obsidian nodules ordisplay some other geological limitation.

By Preceramic times, a pattern of obsidian exchange emerged whichcharacterized the southern highlands of Peru throughout most of its prehis-tory (Fig. 4). The Alca Source in the Cotahuasi Valley was exploited inten-sively and volcanic glass from this deposit was acquired by the residents ofthe large and productive Vilcanota Valley. Farther to the south, the ChivaySource in the Colca Valley was utilized not only for the surrounding areaand the rich Arequipa area, but also to supply the inhabitants of the farnorthwestern Titicaca Basin (Qaqachupa) and of a high lake tributary onthe southwest (Tumuku). The pattern in the intermediate zone near Sicuaniof acquiring both sources was also already established.

By the first millennium BC, large quantities of imported obsidian fromthe two major sources were being acquired by the small scale pre-state agri-cultural societies that occupied this region (Fig. 6). Judging from the per-vasive presence of obsidian artifacts, an extensive exchange network musthave existed linking the source areas with the multitude of small sedentarycommunities that dotted the landscape.

Another pattern which characterizes the Initial Period is the presenceof small amounts of Chivay Source obsidian in the Cuzco Basin (after whichtime it never occurs) and small amounts of Alca obsidian in the northernportion of the Titicaca Basin. Since there is little difference in the visual orphysical properties of these two major types of obsidian, we believe thatthis small percentage of exotic obsidian was the unintentional result of so-cioeconomic contact between the peoples of the two highland basins. Thishypothesis is consistent with the patterning of obsidian use in the intermedi-ate zone near Sicuani and La Raya separating these two adjacent watersheds.Throughout the sequence, sites in this area consistently show the presenceof both Alca and Chivay obsidian in significant quantities. These patternssuggest the abiding linkage between the ancient peoples of the Cuzco andCircum-Titicaca areas throughout prehistory.

As noted at the outset of this article, some scholars, such as Luis Lum-breras, have proposed that whereas the Cuzco Basin should continue to beconsidered as part of the Central Andean Archaeological Area, Puno andthe rest of the Titicaca Basin should be viewed as a component of a separateSouth Central Andean Archaeological Area. The archaeological evidence,however, indicates otherwise. The obsidian data, like the pottery evidence,appear to indicate that the two areas were linked together by social and eco-nomic ties, perhaps stimulated by the complementarity of their geographyand resources.

While the two areas seem inextricably connected, judging from the ob-sidian evidence, there is surprisingly little indication of strong links during

P1: FLF



most of the sequence to areas farther north or south. With the exception ofthe Middle Horizon, exotic Peruvian obsidians from Ayacucho and otherparts of the south central highlands are conspicuously lacking in the Cuzcoand Vilcanota Valleys, and Alca source obsidian is likewise rare anywhereto the north of Cuzco. Similarly, setting aside the Middle Horizon, obsidianfrom Bolivian and Chilean sources is notably absent from the entire LakeTiticaca Basin. Thus, the area comprised of Cuzco, Arequipa, and the Tit-icaca Basin seems to constitute a developmental zone more closely linkedtogether than with those areas surrounding it. In this sense, the Lumbrerasreformulation seems to offer little improvement from the older formula-tions of Bennett and others, and it may promote a typology that is more anobstacle than a useful tool.

This situation, of course, does not imply that the areas in question werecontinually isolated from the Central Andean area to the north. On thecontrary, the patterns of obsidian distribution and pottery styles indicatelinks of varying strength between Cuzco and the neighboring Departmentof Apurimac to the northwest (Figs. 6 and 9). Even more surprising is theevidence for small quantities of Alca Source obsidian at Chavın de Huantarwhile the site was at its height as a panregional ceremonial center. For overhalf a century, scholars have been intrigued by the distant similarities to theChavın style found in the iconography and pottery of the southern highlands,as exemplified by the Chanapata style (Rowe, 1944, p. 10), and the StaffGod Pose exemplified by the “Camelid Woman” was already present inthe south by Pucara times (S. Chavez, 1992). The discovery of Alca Sourceobsidian at Chavın itself raises the possibility that pilgrims or visitors fromthe Cuzco Basin (or adjacent areas of Andahuaylas or Arequipa linkedto the Cuzco Basin) may have journeyed to the northern highlands andactually observed Chavın religious art and material culture first hand. If so,they could have stimulated its emulation in the societies of the southernhighlands.

During the late part of the Early Horizon and the Early IntermediatePeriod, Chivay Source obsidian extends to the southern Lake Titicaca Basinfor the first time (at Chiripa and Kallamarka) (Fig. 9). At the same time, AlcaSource obsidian reaches its widest distribution, from Huillca Raccay in theUrubamba Valley north of Cuzco to Incatunuhuiri near Puno. The spreadof these two obsidian types in the Lake Titicaca Basin may be attributed tothe increased interaction stimulated by the Yaya-Mama Religious Tradition,a system of social, economic, political, and religious networks that unifieddiverse groups in the Basin. Alca Source obsidian, traditionally used bypeople to the north, now occurs in minor amounts at principal Yaya-Mamacenters including Taraco, Pucara, and Incatunuhuiri, which strongly suggestsincreased contacts with the Cuzco area.

P1: FLF



In recent years, there has been considerable debate about the natureof the Huari and Tiahuanaco polities and their impact on societies beyondtheir respective heartlands (Isbell and McEwan, 1991), and the obsidian ev-idence summarized here has implications for this ongoing debate (Fig. 14).The initial exploration of these phenomena was largely on the basis of pot-tery styles (cf. Menzel, 1964), and this approach produced some reluctanceto accept initial claims of imperial expansion and socioeconomic transfor-mation throughout the Central Andean region. Moseley and other schol-ars (cf. Mackey, 1982) working on Peru’s north coast were often doubtfulabout the role of Huari in stimulating cultural changes in this area and evenmore skeptical about the existence of a Huari military expansion into theregion. Some scholars working on the central coast, such as Shady (1981),suggested increased exchange among independent polities, and the emi-gration of Circum-Titicaca peoples into more northern areas might betterexplain the processes at work.

For the southern highlands of Peru, the obsidian data present unam-biguous evidence of a radical shift in distribution strategies that reinforcesthe perception that the Middle Horizon Huari profoundly transformed therelations between Andean regions and, as a result, modified their respec-tive developmental trajectories. In the case of the Cuzco area, the obsidiansourcing data reveal a sharp increase in obsidian brought from the QuispisisaSource, obsidian that provisioned the urban center of Huari and the othercenters in its heartland. In addition, Andahuaylas A and Jampatilla Sourceobsidian, utilized either at Huari or Huari sites, is also brought into the CuzcoValley for the first time. At the same time, Alca Source obsidian, linked for solong with the peoples of Cuzco, appears far to the north in places like Huariand Huamachuco. Thus, the obsidian results point to the increasing integra-tion of the Cuzco area with the rest of the Central Andean ArchaeologicalArea to the north. Given the distances involved from sources, this new pat-tern seems a reflection of new political realities undermining the preexistingeconomically rational pattern of obsidian procurement that preceded theincorporation of Cuzco into the Huari empire.

Some scholars have attempted to explain the shared iconographicfeatures between the Huari and Tiahuanaco spheres of influence by positingtrade between the two realms, while others have hypothesized a rigid fron-tier between them. As we have seen, the obsidian data do not lend support tothe trade hypothesis since commercial exchange with Tiahuanaco would beexpected to produce an increase in Chivay Source obsidian in the Cuzco arearather than its sudden disappearance at archaeological sites. Similarly, theabsence of Alca obsidian in the northern Titicaca Basin suggests an attenu-ation of traditional contacts between the areas. Nevertheless, the situationin Moquegua at Cerro Baul and Omo, where both Chivay and Alca Source

P1: FLF



obsidian were utilized along with more distant Andahuaylas A and Quispi-sisa obsidian, suggests that the frontier between Huari and Tiahuanaco wasnot impermeable.

The preliminary results of Martin Giesso’s work on obsidian from theTiahuanaco region suggest that during the Middle Horizon, this area wasstrengthening its links to the south, just as Cuzco was forging new links withthe north. In both cases, there is ample complementary pottery, architectural,and other archaeological evidence that is consistent with the obsidian evi-dence. Nevertheless, the geochemical basis for the obsidian analysis rendersit methodologically independent of other kinds of analysis and consequentlythe consonance between the different classes of data is all the more com-pelling. The complex and dynamic situation in the southern highlands duringthe Middle Horizon also illustrates the futility of attempting to define archae-ological areas or any other typological classification which is inherently staticin nature.

Of course, obsidian evidence offers only a partial view of long-distanceinteraction and, as we have noted, there are several instances where the ob-sidian results taken alone would lead to potentially misleading conclusions.It is clear that mechanisms were established at an early date by farmers inthe Cuzco area and the altiplano of Lake Titicaca to acquire volcanic glassfrom the arid canyon of the Cotahuasi and the puna of Colca, respectively,but whether at a given time this was done by a series of small, down-the-line exchanges, by specialized merchants utilizing llama caravans, by stateinstitutions, or some other arrangement remains to be established. As a con-sequence, it is difficult to evaluate the implications of the obsidian results formodels such as those proposed by John Murra which focus on vertical inter-dependencies. The possibility of colonies working on behalf of the consumingareas cannot be discounted, but evidence of such ethnically alien intrusionshas yet to be reported from the area of the obsidian deposits; given the poorlyunderstood archaeological record of these areas, this absence is by no meansdefinitive. Populations at or near the sources, such as local independent sup-pliers or local groups aligned with distant populations or centers, have notbeen identified. Alternatively, were these obsidian sources “empty sourcecenters,” freely open to be exploited by diverse groups, barring a monopolyover such a resource? While it is difficult to shed light on the utility of theverticality model, it is surprising that the residents of the Omo site, a po-tential case of the sort of imperial colonies referred to by Murra (1972) inhis seminal article, were not supplied with obsidian by its parent populationin the Tiahuanaco heartland or by a colony at the nearest obsidian source.Instead, Omo seems to have been forced to acquire most of its obsidian fromthe nearby Huari outpost at Cerro Baul, and the scarcity of obsidian at theTiahuanaco site in Moquegua suggests the difficulties involved. In contrast,

P1: FLF



obsidian artifacts are commonplace at nearby Cerro Baul and the site hadaccess to three types of obsidian (Quispisisa, Andahuaylas A, and Alca)located within Huari-controlled territory.

In summary, obsidian sourcing studies permit us to glimpse Andeanprehistory “through a glass, darkly,” but, despite the limitations of this per-spective, important prehistoric patterns are clearly visible. Some, like thestrong east–west ties between the Cuzco–Titicaca area and the sources ofvolcanic glass on the western slopes in Arequipa previously had attractedlittle attention, while others, like the north–south linkages between the pop-ulations of Cuzco and the Circum-Titicaca zone, had been identified, buttake on greater significance in light of this new and independent dataset.

Despite the recent advances in the study of Andean obsidian, muchremains to be done, above and beyond finding the remaining unlocated geo-logical sources of obsidian such as the Tumuku and Chumbivilcas Types.Detailed studies at the site level are badly needed to provide quantita-tive data on the volume of the obsidian trade and how its scale changedthrough time. Investigations of obsidian distributions within sites are crucialto understand how obsidian was utilized in different social and functionalcontexts. Research at the source areas of the volcanic glass have the po-tential of clarifying the sociopolitical organization of obsidian procurementand how it changed over time. Only when such additional studies are com-pleted can we hope to document the variety of mechanisms used to exploitand distribute obsidian in the prehistoric Andes and determine how thesemechanisms were modified as the size and complexity of Andean societiesevolved.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We are indebted to the many colleagues who provided obsidian samplesfor analysis from their archaeological surveys and excavations, and to Peru’sInstituto Nacional de Cultura for permission to analyze specimens in theUnited States. Appreciation also goes to the Peabody Museum of Archae-ology and Ethnology, Harvard University, for permitting us to test someobsidian specimens from Pucara. We acknowledge our collaborators whohave provided the analytical facilities and expertise that provide the foun-dation for this study: Adon Gordus at the University of Michigan, FrankAsaro, Helen Michel, and Fred Stross at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory,University of California, and Michael D. Glascock at the Missouri UniversityResearch Reactor. We are also grateful to Sharon J. M. Rodriguez for herassistance in the preparation of this manuscript. We also express our grati-tude for the many institutions that have helped fund this research including

P1: FLF



the National Science Foundation, Yale University, and Central MichiganUniversity.

REFERENCES

Albarracın-Jordan, J. (1996). Tiwanaku : Arqueologıa Regional y Dinamica Segmentaria, PluralEditores, La Paz.

Albarracın-Jordan, J., Lemuz, C., and Paz, J. L. (1994). Investigaciones en Kallamarka, primerinforme de prospeccion. Textos Antropologicos (La Paz) 6: 11–123.

Aldenderfer, M. S. (1998). Montane Foragers. Asana and the South-Central Andean Archaic,University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.

Aldenderfer, M. S. (1999). Cronologıa y conexiones: Evidencias preceramicas de Asana. Boletınde Arqueologıa PUCP (Lima) 3: 375–391.

Anonymous (1997). Contisuyu; Memoria de las Culturas del Sur, Asociacion Contisuyu,Moquegua, Peru.

Asaro, F., Burger, R. L., Michel, H. V., Stross, F. H., and Salazar, E. (1994). Ecuadorian obsid-ian sources used for artifact production and methods for provenience assignments. LatinAmerican Antiquity 5(4): 257–277.

Bauer, B. S. (1999). The Early Ceramics of the Inca Heartland, Fieldiana, Anthropology NewSeries 31, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.

Bennett, W. C. (1934). Excavations at Tiahuanaco. Anthropological Papers of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History, XXXIV(III).

Bennett, W. C. (1936). Excavations in Bolivia. Anthropological Papers of the American Museumof Natural History, XXXV(IV).

Bennett, W. C. (1948). The Peruvian Co-tradition. In Bennett, W. (ed.), A Reappraisal ofPeruvian Archaeology, Memoirs for the Society of American Archaeology, Menasha,Wisconsin, pp. 1–7.

Bingham, H. (1930 [1979]). Machu Picchu : A Citadel of the Incas, Memoirs of the NationalGeographic Society, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut.

Bird, J. B. (1943). Excavations in Northern Chile. Anthropological Papers of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History XXXVIII(IV): i–ii, 171–318.

Boero Rojo, H. (1980). Descubriendo Tiwanaku, Editorial Los Amigos del Libro, La Paz,Bolivia.

Brooks, S. O., Glascock, M. D., and Giesso, M. (1997). Source of volcanic glass for ancient tools.Nature 386: 449–450.

Browman, D. L. (1978). The temple of Chiripa (Lake Titicaca, Bolivia). In Ramiro MatosMendieta (ed.), II Congreso Peruano, El Hombre y la Cultura Andina (31 de Enero–5 deFebrero 1977), Actas y Trabajos, Lima, Peru, Vol. II, pp. 807–813.

Browman, D. L. (1981). New light on Andean Tiwanaku. American Scientist 69(4): 408–419.

Browman, D. L. (1985). Cultural primacy of Tiwanaku in the development of later Peruvianstates. Dialogo Andino 4: 59–72.

Browman, D. L. (1998). Lithic provenience analysis and emerging material complexity atFormative Period Chiripa, Bolivia. Andean Past 5: 301–324.

Burger, R. L. (1984). The Prehistoric Occupation of Chavın de Huantar, Peru, University ofCalifornia Press. Berkeley, California.

Burger, R. L. (1988). Unity and heterogeneity within the Chavın horizon. In Keatinge, R. (ed.),Peruvian Prehistory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 99–144.

Burger, R. L. (1992). Chavın and the Origins of Andean Civilization, Thames and Hudson,London.

Burger, R. L., and Asaro, F. (1977). Trace element analysis of obsidian artifacts from the Andes :New perspectives on pre-Hispanic economic interaction in Peru and Bolivia, Preprint No.6343, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, California.

P1: FLF



Burger, R. L., and Asaro, F. (1978). The distribution and provenience of Preceramic obsidianartifacts from the central highlands and coast of Peru. Contributions of the University ofCalifornia Archaeological Research Facility 36: 61–83.

Burger, R. L., and Asaro, F. (1979). Analisis de rasgos significativos en la obsidiana de los AndesCentrales. Revista del Museo Nacional (Lima) 43(1977): 281–325.

Burger, R. L., and Asaro, F. (1982). La procedencia de artefactos de obsidiana de los sitiosformativos en Ayacucho: Chupas y Wichqana. Boletın del Museo Nacional de Antropologıay Arqueologıa (Lima) 7: 9–10.

Burger, R. L., and Glascock, M. D. (2000a). Locating the Quispisisa Obsidian Source in theDepartment of Ayacucho, Peru. Latin American Antiquity 11(3): 258–268.

Burger, R. L., and Glascock, M. D. (2000b). The Puzolana Obsidian Source: Locating thegeologic source of Ayacucho Type obsidian. Andean Past 6: in press.

Burger, R. L., Asaro, F., and Michel, H. V. (1984). The source of the obsidian artifacts at Chavınde Huantar (Appendix E). In The Prehistoric Occupation of Chavın de Huantar, Peru,University of California Press, Berkeley, California, pp. 263–270.

Burger, R. L., Asaro, F., Michel, H. V., Stross, F. H., and Salazar, E. (1994). An initial consid-eration of obsidian procurement and exchange in Prehispanic Ecuador. Latin AmericanAntiquity 5: 228–255.

Burger, R. L., Asaro, F., Trawick, P., and Stross, F. (1998a). The Alca Obsidian Source: Theorigin of raw material for Cuzco Type obsidian artifacts. Andean Past 5: 185–202.

Burger, R. L., Asaro, F., Stross, F., and Salas, G. (1998b). The Chivay Obsidian Source and thegeological origin of Titicaca Basin Type obsidian artifacts. Andean Past 5: 203–224.

Burger, R. L., Asaro, F., Schreiber, K., Glascock, M., and Ccencho, J. (1998c). The JampatillaObsidian Source: Identifying the geological source of Pampas Type obsidian artifacts fromsouthern Peru. Andean Past 5: 225–239.

Burkholder, J. (1997). Tiwanaku and the anatomy of time : A new ceramic chronology from theIwawi Site, Department of La Paz, Bolivia, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropol-ogy, State University of New York, Binghamton, New York.

Bustinza, D. V. (1960). Estudios arqueologicos en la Provincia de Ayaviri, Departamentode Puno (Resumen). In Matos, R. (ed.), Antiguo Peru; Espacio y Tiempo, EditorialJ. Mejıa B., Lima, Peru, pp. 349–350.

Champi Monterroso, P. Z., and Roman Bustinza, N. (1993). Arqueologıa de Suyo-Sicuani (Unaintroduccion a su estudio), Tesis de Licenciatura en Arqueologıa, Facultad de CienciasSociales, Universidad Nacional San Antonio Abad del Cuzco, Cuzco, Peru.

Chavez, J. A. and Salas, R. (1990). Catastro arqueologico de la Cuenca del Rio Ocona. GacetaArqueologica Andina (Lima) 18/19: 15–20.

Chavez, K. L. Mohr. (1969). Excavations in the Cuzco-Puno area of southern highland Peru.Expedition 11(2): 48–51.

Chavez, K. L. Mohr. (1977). Marcavalle : The ceramics from an Early Horizon site in the Val-ley of Cusco, Peru, and implications for south highland socio-economic interaction, Ph.D.dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,Pennsylvania.

Chavez, K. L. Mohr. (1982a). The archaeology of Marcavalle, an Early Horizon site inthe Valley of Cuzco, Peru. Part I. Baessler-Archiv, Neue Folge XXVIII(1980; 2): 203–329.

Chavez, K. L. Mohr. (1982b). The archaeology of Marcavalle, an Early Horizon site in theValley of Cuzco, Peru. Part II. Baessler-Archiv, Neue Folge XXIX(1981; 1): 107–205.

Chavez, K. L. Mohr. (1983). The archaeology of Marcavalle, an Early Horizon site in the Valleyof Cuzco, Peru. Part III, Baessler-Archiv, Neue Folge XXIX(1981; 2): 241–386.

Chavez, K. L. Mohr. (1986). Early Tiahuanaco-related ceremonial burners from Cuzco, Peru. InRivera, M. A. (ed.), 45th International Congress of Americanists, Bogota, 1985, Symposium“La Problematica Tiwanaku Huari en el Contexto Panandino del Desarrollo Cultural,”Departamento de Historia y Geografıa, Universidad de Tarapaca, Arica, Dialogo Andino4(1985): 137–178.

Chavez, K. L. Mohr. (1989). The significance of Chiripa in Lake Titicaca Basin developments.Expedition 30(1988; 4): 17–26.

P1: FLF



Chavez, K. L. Mohr. (1997). The temple site of Ch’isi on the Copacabana Peninsula, Bolivia : Aview of local differences and regional similarities within the Yaya-Mama religious tradition.Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,Symposium “Understanding the Pre-Tiahuanaco Yaya-Mama Religious Tradition in theLake Titicaca Basin: Interdisciplinary Perspectives,” Nashville, Tennessee.

Chavez, K. L. Mohr., and Chavez, S. J. (1997). Current research: The Yaya-Mama ArchaeologyProject, Copacabana, Bolivia. Willay 44: 5–7.

Chavez, K. L. Mohr., and Chavez, S. J. (n.d.-a). Pucara : The 1939 and 1955 expeditions of AlfredKidder II, University, Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Chavez, K. L. Mohr., and Chavez, S. J. (n.d.-b). Tiahuanaco, Chiripa, and Qaluyu : The 1955 ex-pedition of Alfred Kidder II, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,Pennsylvania.

Chavez, K. L. Mohr., and Chavez, S. J. (n.d.-c). A review of the archaeology of the south highlandsof Peru and Northern Bolivia.

Chavez, S. J. (1976). The Arapa and Thunderbolt stelae: A case of stylistic identity with im-plications for Pucara influences in the area of Tiahuanaco. Nawpa Pacha 13(1975): 3–25,Plates I–X.

Chavez, S. J. (1989). Archaeological reconnaissance in the Province of Chumbivilcas, southhighland Peru. Expedition 30(1988; 3): 27–38.

Chavez, S. J. (1992). The conventionalized rules in Pucara pottery technology and iconogra-phy : Implications for socio-political developments in the northern Lake Titicaca Basin,Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, EastLansing, Michigan.

Chavez, S. J. (n.d.-a). The Late Preceramic Stage in the Departments of Cuzco and Puno, Peru,unpublished.

Chavez, S. J. (n.d.-b). Chipped lithic remains from pottery-using sites in the south highlands ofPeru, unpublished.

Chavez, S. J., and Chavez, K. L. Mohr. (1970). Newly discovered monoliths from the highlandsof Puno, Peru. Expedition 12(4): 25–39.

Chavez, S. J., and Chavez, K. L. Mohr. (1976). A carved stela from Taraco, Puno, Peru, andthe definition of an early style of stone sculpture from the altiplano of Peru and Bolivia.Nawpa Pacha 13(1975): 45–83, Plates XXI–XXVIII.

Chavez, S. J., and Torres, C. M. (1986). Pucara style elements present on some snuff tablets fromSan Pedro de Atacama, northern Chile, Paper presented at the XXVI Annual Meeting ofthe Institute of Andean Studies, Berkeley, California.

Close, A. E. (1999). Distance and decay: An uneasy relationship. Antiquity 73: 24–32.Cobo, B. (1956 [1653]). Historia del Nuevo Mundo, Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, Vols. 91

and 92, Ediciones Atlas, Madrid.Conklin, W. J. (1985). Pucara and Tiahuanaco tapestry: Time and style in a sierra weaving

tradition. Nawpa Pacha 21(1983):1–44, Plate I.Dean, E., and Kojan, D. (1999). Santiago. In Hastorf, C. A. (ed.), Early Settlement at Chiripa,

Bolivia; Research of the Taraco Archaeological Project, Contributions of the University ofCalifornia Archaeological Research Facility 57: 37–41.

Disselhoff, H. D. (1972). Das Imperium der Inka und die Indianischen Fruhkulturen Andenlan-der, Safari-Verlag, Berlin.

Dwyer, E. B. (1971). The early Inca occupation of the Valley of Cuzco, Ph. D. dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, California.

Feldman, R. A. (1989). The early ceramic periods of Moquegua. In Rice, D. S., Stanish, C., andScarr, P. R. (eds.), Ecology, Settlement, and History in the Osmore Drainage, Peru, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, pp. 207–217.

Flores, I. (1990). Evidencia Wari en el Valle Medio del Caplina. Gaceta Arqueologica Andina(Lima) 18/19: 159–163.

Franco, J. M. (1957). Pinturas rupestres de Pizacoma. Revista del Museo Nacional (Lima) 26:295–298.

Franquemont, E. M. (1990). The ancient pottery from Pucara, Peru. Nawpa Pacha 24(1986):1–30.

P1: FLF



Garcia, M., and Bustamante, R. (1990). Arqueologıa del Valle de Majes. Gaceta ArqueologicaAndina (Lima) 18/19: 25–40.

Gibaja, A. (1973). Arqueologıa de Choqepujyo, Thesis, Universidad Nacional San AntonioAbad del Cuzco, Cuzco, Peru.

Girault, L. (1976). Las Ruinas de Chullpa Pata de la Comunidad de Kallamarka, InstitutoNacional de Arqueologıa, Publicacion No. 19, La Paz, Bolivia.

Glowacki, M. (1996). The Wari occupation of the southern highlands of Peru : A ceramic perspec-tive from the site of Pikillacta, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, BrandeisUniversity, Waltham, Massachusetts.

Goldstein, P. (1989). Omo, a Tiwanaku provincial center in Moquegua, Peru, Ph.D. Dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago.

Goldstein, P. (1990). La ocupacion Tiwanaku en Moquegua. Gaceta Arqueologica Andina(Lima) 18/19: 75–104.

Goldstein, P. (1993a). House, community, and state in the earliest Tiwanaku colony: Domesticpatterns and state integration at Omo M12, Moquegua. In Aldenderfer, M. S. (ed.), Do-mestic Architecture, Ethnicity, and Complementarity in the South-Central Andes, Universityof Iowa Press, Iowa City, Iowa, pp. 25–41.

Goldstein, P. (1993b). Tiwanaku temples and state expansion: A Tiwanaku sunken court templein Moquegua, Peru. Latin American Antiquity 4(1): 22–47.

Griffin, J. B., Gordus, A. A., and Wright, G. A. (1969). Identification of the sources ofHopewellian obsidian in the Middle West. American Antiquity 34: 1–14.

Grossman, J. W. (1972). Early ceramic cultures of Andahuaylas, Apurimac, Peru, Ph.D. disser-tation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, California.

Grossman, J. W. (1985). Demographic change and economic transformation in the south-centralhighlands of pre-Huari Peru. Nawpa Pacha 21(1983): 45–126.

Hastorf, C. A. (1997). Current research: The Taraco Archaeological Project, Chiripa, Bolivia.Willay 44: 10–12.

Hastorf, C. A. (ed.). (1999). Early settlement at Chiripa, Bolivia; research of the Taraco Ar-chaeological Project, Contributions of the University of California Archaeological ResearchFacility 57.

Heizer, F., Williams, H., and Graham, J. A. (1965). Notes on Mesoamerican obsidians andtheir significance in archaeological studies. Contributions of the University of CaliforniaArchaeological Research Facility 1: 94–103.

Hey, G. (1984). Early occupation on the Huillca Raccay Promontory Site, Cusichaca; the ar-chaeological evidence. In Kendall, A. (ed.), Current Archaeological Projects in the CentralAndes ; Some Approaches and Results, Proceedings of the 44th International Congress ofAmericanists, Manchester, 1982, pp. 291–306.

Isbell, W. H., and McEwan, G. F. (1991). A history of Huari studies and an introduction tocurrent interpretations. In Isbell, W. H., and McEwan, G. F. (eds.), Huari AdminisitrativeStructure : Prehistoric Monumental Architecture and State Government, Dumbarton OaksResearch Library and Collection, Washington, D.C., pp. 1–17.

Ishida, E. (1960). Andes ; The Report of the University of Tokyo Scientific Expedition to theAndes in 1958, Bijitsu Shuppan Sha, Tokyo.

Izumi, S., and Terada, K. (1972). Andes 4 ; Excavations at Kotosh, Peru, 1963 and 1966, Universityof Tokyo Press, Tokyo.

Kaltwasser, J. (1963). Descripcion de artefactos lıticos de “Tambillo” (Region del Salar deAtacama). Anales de la Universidad del Norte, Antofagasta 2: 135–145.

Kendall, A. (1976). Archaeological research in the Lower Urubamba : The Cusichaca Project ;Problems and evaluation of archaeological procedure, unpublished.

Kent, J. D. (1987). Periodic aridity and prehispanic Titicaca Basin settlement patterns. InBrowman, D. L. (ed.), Arid Land Use Strategies and Risk Management in the Andes ;A Regional Anthropological Perspective, Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 297–314.

Kidder II, A. (1943). Some Early Sites in the Northern Lake Titicaca Basin. Expeditions toSouthern Peru; Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology,Vol. 27, No. 1, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

P1: FLF



Kidder II, A. (1948). The position of Pucara in Titicaca Basin archaeology. In A Reappraisalof Peruvian Archaeology, assembled by W. C. Bennett, American Antiquity 13(4, pt. 2):87–89.

Kidder II, A. (1956). Digging in the Titicaca Basin. University Museum Bulletin (University ofPennsylvania) 20(3): 16–29.

Kolata, A. L. (1993). The Tiwanaku : Portrait of an Andean Civilization, Blackwell, Cambridge.Lantaron, L. (1985). Prospeccion Arqueologica de la Provincia de Chumbivilcas, Unpublished

Practicas Pre-Profesionales, Carrera de Arqueologıa, Universidad Nacional San AntonioAbad del Cuzco, Cuzco, Peru.

Lawn, B. (1971). University of Pennsylvania radiocarbon dates XIV. Radiocarbon 13(2): 363–377.

Linares, E. (1974). Anotaciones sobre cuatro modalidades de arte rupestre en Arequipa (Pic-tografıas, petroglifos, arte rupestre mobiliar y geoglifos). Anales Cientıficos de la Universi-dad del Centro del Peru 2(1973): 133–267.

Linares, E. (1990). Prehistoria de Arequipa, CONCYTEC, Universidad Nacional de SanAgustin, Arequipa, Peru.

Lumbreras, L. G. (1974). Peoples and Cultures of Ancient Peru, Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington, D. C.

Lumbreras, L. G. (1975). Las Fundaciones de Huamanga ; Hacia una Prehistoria de Ayacucho,Club Huamanga, Editorial “Nueva Educacion,” Lima, Peru.

Lumbreras, L. G. (1981a). Arqueologıa de la America Andina, Editorial Milla Batres, Lima,Peru.

Lumbreras, L. G. (1981b). The stratigraphy of open sites. In MacNeish, R. S., Garcia Cook, A.,Lumbreras, L. G., Vierra, R. K., and Nelken-Terner, A. (eds.), Prehistory of the Ayacu-cho Basin, Peru ; Excavations and Chronology, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor,Michigan, Vol. II, pp. 167–198.

Lumbreras, L. G., Mujica, E., and Vera, R. (1982). Cerro Baul: Un enclave Wari en territorioTiwanaku. Gaceta Arqueoloogica Andina 1(2): 4–5.

Mackey, C. J. (1982). The Middle Horizon as viewed from the Moche Valley. In Moseley, M.,and Day, K. (eds.), Chan Chan : Andean Desert City, University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque, New Mexico, pp. 321–332.

MacNeish, R. S., Patterson, T. C., and Browman, D. L. (1975). The Central Peruvian Prehis-toric Interaction Sphere, Papers of the R. S. Peabody Foundation No. 7, Phillips Academy,Andover, Massachusetts.

MacNeish, R. S., Nelken-Terner, A., and Vierra, R. K. (1980). Haftable pointed bifaces. InMacNeish, R. S., Vierra, R. K., Nelken-Terner, A., and Phagan, C. J., (eds.), Prehistory ofthe Ayacucho Basin, Peru ; Nonceramic Artifacts, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor,Michigan, Vol. III, pp. 35–95.

MacNeish, R. S., Vierra, R. K., and Cook, A. G. (1983). The Preceramic way of life in the HumidWoodland Ecozone. In MacNeish, R. S., Vierra, R. K., Nelken-Terner, A., Lurie, R., andCook, A. G., (eds.), Prehistory of the Ayacucho Basin, Peru ; The Preceramic Way of Life,University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Vol. IV, pp. 188–224.

Manrique, J., and Cornejo, Z. M. (1990). Vision sobre la arqueologıa del valle de Camana.Gaceta Arqueologica Andina (Lima) 18/19: 21–24.

McCown, T. D. (1945). Pre-Incaic Huamachuco. Survey and Excavations in the Region of Hua-machuco and Cajabamba, University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

McEwan, G. (1984). The Middle Horizon in the Valley of Cuzco, Peru : The impact of the Wari oc-cupation of Pikillacta in the Lucre Basin, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas.

McEwan, G. (1991). Investigations at the Pikillacta site: A provincial Huari center in the Valleyof Cuzco. In Isbell, W. H., and McEwan, G. F. (eds.), Huari Administrative Structure :Prehistoric Monumental Architecture and State Government, Dumbarton Oaks ResearchLibrary and Collection, Washington, D.C., pp. 93–119.

McEwan, G. (1996). Archaeological investigations at Pikillacta, a Wari site in Peru. Journal ofField Archaeology 23: 169–186.

P1: FLF



Meddens, F. (1991). A provincial perspective of Huari organization viewed from the Chicha/Soras Valley. In Isbell, W. H., and McEwan, G. F. (eds.), Huari Administrative Structure :Prehistoric Monumental Architecture and State Government, Dumbarton Oaks ResearchLibrary and Collection, Washington, D. C., pp. 215–231.

Menghin, O. F. A., and Schroeder, G. (1957). Un yacimiento en Ichuna (Dep. Puno [sic], Peru)y las industrias preceramicas de los Andes Centrales y Septentrionales. Acta Praehistorica(Buenos Aires) 1: 41–56.

Menzel, D. (1964). Style and time in the Middle Horizon. Nawpa Pacha 2: 1–105.Menzel, D. (1969). New data on the Huari empire in Middle Horizon Epoch 2A. Nawpa Pacha

6(1968): 47–114, ff.Menzel, D., Rowe, J. H., and Dawson, L. E. (1964). The Paracas Pottery of Ica ; A Study in Style

and Time, University of California Press, Berkeley, California.Miller, G., and Burger, R. L. (1995). Our father the cayman, our dinner the llama: Animal

utilization at Chavın de Huantar, Peru. American Antiquity 60(3): 421–458.Mohr, K. L. (1966). An analysis of the pottery of Chiripa, Bolivia : A problem in archaeologi-

cal classification and inference, M. A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University ofPennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Moore, K. M., Steadman, D., and deFrance, S. (1999). Herds, fish, and fowl in the domestic andritual economy of Formative Chiripa. In Hastorf, C. A. (ed.), Early Settlement at Chiripa,Bolivia; Research of the Taraco Archaeological Project, Contributions of the University ofCalifornia Archaeological Research Facility 57: 105–116.

Moseley, M. E., Feldman, R. A., Goldstein, P. S., and Watanabe, L. (1991). Colonies and con-quest: Tiahuanaco and Huari in Moquegua. In Isbell, W. H., and McEwan, G. F. (eds.),Huari Administrative Structure : Prehistoric Monumental Architecture and State Govern-ment, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D. C., pp. 121–140.

Mujica, E. (1985). Altiplano-coast relationships in the south-central Andes: From indirect todirect complementary. In Masuda, S., Shimada, I., and Morris, C. (eds.), Andean Ecologyand Civilization ; An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Andean Ecological Complementarity,University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, pp. 103–140.

Mujica, E. (1987). Cusipata: Una fase pre-Pucara en la cuenca norte del Titicaca. Gaceta Ar-queologica Andina (Lima) 4(13): 22–28.

Mujica, E. (1990). Pukara: Une societe complexe ancienne du bassin septentrional du Titicaca.In Inca-Peru ; 3000 ans d’Historie, Musees Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, Brussels, Belgium,pp. 156–177.

Murra, J. V. (1972). El “control vertical” de un maximo de pisos ecologicos de la sociedadesandinas. In Visita de la Provincia de Leon de Huanuco en 1562, Universidad NacionalHermilio Valdizan, Huanuco, Peru, Vol. II, pp. 427–476.

Neira, M. (1968). Un nuevo complejo lıtico y pinturas rupestres en la Gruta Su-3 de Sumbay.Revista de la Facultad de Letras (Universidad Nacional de San Agustin de Arequipa) 5:43–75, Figs. 1–37.

Nunez del Prado, J. V. (1972). Dos nuevas estatuas de estilo Pucara halladas en Chumbivilcas,Peru. Nawpa Pacha 9(1971): 23–32, Plates XV–XVIII.

Palacios, F. (1984). El taller lıtico de Tumuku. Revista del Museo e Instituto de Arqueologıa(Universidad Nacional de San Antonio Abad, Cuzco, Peru) 23: 15–36.

Ponce, C. (1970). Las Culturas Wankarani y Chiripa y su Relacion con Tiwanaku. AcademiaNacional de Ciencias de Bolivia, Publicacion No. 25, La Paz, Bolivia.

Ponce, C. (1971). La Ceramica de la Epoca I de Tiwanaku, Academia Nacional de Ciencias deBolivia, La Paz, Boliva.

Ponce, C. (1972). Tiwanaku : Espacio, Tiempo y Cultura; Ensayo de Sıntesis Arqueologica,Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia, La Paz, Bolivia.

Portugal, M., and Portugal, M. (1975). Qallamarka, nuevo yacimiento arqueologico descubiertocerca a Tiwanaku. Arte y Arqueologıa (La Paz) 3/4: 195–216.

Posnansky, A. (1958). Tihuanacu : The Cradle of American Man, Vols. III and IV, Ministerio deEducacion, La Paz, Bolivia.

P1: FLF



PRPCA (1979a). Crıticas y Perspectivas de la Arqueologıa Andina, Documentos de TrabajoNo. 1, Preparado por Luis G. Lumberas, Proyecto Regional de Partimonio AndinoUNESCO/PNUD, Lima, Peru.

PRPCA (1979b). Comentarios sobre el Conjunto de Notas que Constituyen el Documento deTrabajo No. 1, Documento de Trabajo No. 2, Preparado Por Luis G. Lumbreras, ProyectoRegional de Partimonio Cultural Andino, UNESCO/PNUD, Lima, Peru.

Ralph, E. K. (1959). University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon Dates III. American Journal ofScience, Radiocarbon (Supplement) 1: 45–58.

Ravines, R. (1968). El abrigo de Caru y sus relaciones culturales con otros sitios tempranos delsur del Peru. Nawpa Pacha 5(1967): 39–57, Plates XXI–XXXIII.

Ravines, R. (1971). Groups de tradicion cazadora en las tierras altas de Huancavelica, Peru.Revista del Museo Nacional (Lima) XXXVII: 17–27.

Ravines, R. (1973). Secuencia y cambios en los artefactos lıticos del sur del Peru. Revista delMuseo Nacional (Lima) 38(1972): 133–184.

Ravines, R. (1982). Panorama de la Arqueologıa Andina, Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, Lima,Peru.

Reid, J. W. (1984). El arte de la cultura Huari. In Lavalle, J. A. (ed.), Arte y Tesoros del Peru ;Culturas Precolombinas—Huari, Banco de Credito del Peru, Lima, Peru, pp. 40–190.

Renfrew, C. (1975). Trade as action at a distance: Questions of integration and com-munication. In Sabloff, J. A., and Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (eds.), Ancient Civiliza-tion and Trade. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico pp. 3–59.

Renfrew, C. (1977). Alternative models for exchange and spatial distribution. In Earle, T. K.,and Ericson, J. E. (eds.), Exchange Systems in Prehistory, Academic Press, New York,pp. 71–90

Renfrew, C., Dixon, J. E., and Cann, J. R. (1966). Obsidian and early cultural contacts in theNear East. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 32: 30–72.

Rivera, M. A. (1977). Prehistoric chronology of northern Chile, Ph.D. dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin.

Rivera, M. A. (1984). Altiplano and tropical lowland contacts in northern Chilean prehistory:Chinchorro and Alto Ramirez revisited. In Browman, D. L., Burger, R. L., and Rivera,M. A. (eds.), Social and Economic Organization in the Prehispanic Andes, BAR Interna-tional Series, Oxford, pp. 143–160.

Rivera, M. A. (1991). The prehistory of northern Chile: A synthesis. Journal of World Prehistory5(1): 1–47.

Rivera, F. (1978). Analisis tipologico de las puntas de proyectil Wari. In Matos, R. (ed.), IIICongreso Pernano, el Hombre y la Cultura Andina, Actas y Trabajos, Vol. II, pp. 584–593.

Rowe, J. H. (1944). An Introduction to the Archaeology of Cuzco. Expeditions to Southern Peru,Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 27, No. 2,Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Rowe, J. H. (1946). Inca culture at the time of the Spanish conquest. In Steward, J. H. (ed.),Handbook of South American Indians, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 143, Smith-sonian Institution, Washington, D.C., Vol. 2, pp. 183–330.

Rowe, J. H. (1956). Archaeological explorations in southern Peru, 1954–1955; Preliminary re-port of the Fourth University of California Archaeological Expedition to Peru. AmericanAntiquity 22(2): 135–151.

Rowe, J. H. (1958). The adventure of two Pucara statues. Archaeology 11(4): 255–261.Rowe, J. H. (1963). Urban settlements in ancient Peru. Nawpa Pacha 1: 1–27, Plate I.Rowe, J. H. (1971). The influence of Chavın art on later styles. In Benson, E. P. (ed.), Dumbarton

Oaks Conference on Chavın, 1968, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection,Washington, D.C., pp. 101–124.

Rowe, J. H. (1977). El arte religioso del Cuzco en el Horizonte Temprano. Nawpa Pacha 14(1976): 1–20, Plates I–X.

Rowe, J. H., and Brandel, C. T. (1971). Pucara style pottery designs. Nawpa pacha 7–8 (1969–1970): 1–16, Plates I–XVIII.

P1: FLF



Ruiz, A. (1973). Las Ruinas de Sillustani, Doctoral dissertation, Programa Academico deAntropologıa, y Arqueologıa, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru.

Ryden, S. (1947). Archaeological Researches in the Highlands of Bolivia, Elanders BoktryckeriAktiebolag, Goteborg, Sweden.

Sandweiss, D. H., McInnis, H., Burger, R. L., Cano, A., Ojeda, B., Paredes, R., del CarmenSandweiss, M., and Glascock, M. (1998). Quebrada Jaguay: Early South American marineadaptations. Science 281: 1830–1832.

Schreiber, K. J. (1992). Wari Imperialism in Middle Horizon Peru, Anthropological Papers No.87, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Schroeder, G. (1957). Hallazgos de artefactos de piedra en el Peru y los problemas delpoblamiento de America. Revista del Museo Nacional (Lima) 26: 290–294.

Seddon, M. T. (1994). Lithic artifacts. In Archaeological Research at Tumatumani, Juli, Peru, byStanish, C. and Steadman, L. [with a contribution by Seddon, M. T.], Fieldiana, Anthro-pology New Series No. 23, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, pp. 65–71.

Shady, R. (1981). Intensificacion de contactos entre las sociedades andinas como preludio al“Movimiento Huari”. Boletın del Museo Nacional de Antropologıa y Arqueologıa (Lima)7: 7–9.

Silverman, H. (1987). A Nasca 8 occupation at an early Nasca site: The Room of the Posts atCahuachi. Andean Past 1: 5–55.

Silverman, H. (1996). The Formative Period on the south coast of Peru: A critical review. Journalof World Prehistory 10(2): 95–146.

Stanish, C., and Steadman, L. [with a contribution by Seddon, M. T.]. (1994). ArchaeologicalResearch at Tumatumani, Juli, Peru, Fieldiana, Anthropology New Series No. 23, FieldMuseum of Natural History, Chicago.

Stanish, C., de la Vega, E., Steadman, L., Chavez, C., Frye, K. L., Onofre, L., Seddon, M. T.,and Calisaya, P. (1997). Archaeological Survey in the Juli-Desaguadero Region of LakeTiticaca Basin, Southern Peru, Fieldana, Anthropology New Series No. 29, Field Museumof Natural History, Chicago.

Steadman, L. H. (1995). Excavations at Camata : An early ceramic chronology for the west-ern Titicaca Basin, Peru, Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University ofCalifornia at Berkeley, Berkeley, California.

Steadman, L. H. (1999). The ceramics. In Hastorf, C. A. (ed.), Early Settlement at Chiripa,Bolivia: Research of the Taraco Archaeological Project, Contributions of the University ofCalifornia Archaeological Research Facility 57: 61–72.

Stone, J. (1983). The socio-economic implications of lithic evidence from Huari, Peru, Ph.D.Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York, Binghamton,New York.

Tello, J. C., and Mejıa, T. (1979). Paracas Segunda Parte; Cavernas y Necropolis, UniversidadNacional Mayor de San Marcos, Direccion Universitaria de Biblioteca y Publicaciones,Lima, Peru.

Topic, J. R. (1991). Huari and Huamachuco. In Isbell, W. H., and McEwan, G. F. (eds.), Huari Ad-ministrative Structure : Prehistoric Monumental Architecture and State Government, Dum-barton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D. C., pp. 141–164.

Topic, T. L. (1991). The Middle Horizon in northern Peru. In Isbell, W. H., and McEwan, G. F.(eds.), Huari Administrative Structure : Prehistoric Monumental Architecture and State Gov-ernment, Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D. C., pp. 233–246.

Uhle, M. (1889). Kultur und industrie nach den im besitze des Museums fur Volkerkunde zuLeipzig, Vol. I, Alta Zeit, Verlag von A. Asher and Co., Berlin.

Valcarcel, L. E. (1925). Informe sobre la exploracion arqueologica de Pukara. Revista Univer-sitaria (Cuzco) 15(48): 14–21.

Valencia. A. (1970). Las microesculturas de Saqsaywaman. Revista Saqsaywaman (Cuzco) 1:159–172 ff.

Walter, H. (1966). Beitrage zur Archaologie Boliviens, Archaologische Studien in den Ko-rdilleran Boliviens II, Baessler-Archive, Neue Folge, Beiheft 4, Verlag von Dietrich Reimer,Berlin.

P1: FLF



Watanabe, L. (1984). Cerro Baul: Un santuario de filiacion Wari en Moquegua. Boletın de Lima32: 40–42.

Whitehead, W. T. (1999). Radiocarbon dating. In Hastorf, C. A. (ed.), Early Settlement atChiripa, Bolivia; Research of the Taraco Archaeological Project, Contributions of the Uni-versity of California Archaeological Research Facility 57: 17–21.

Wing, E. S. (1977). Animal domestication in the Andes. In Reed, C. A. (ed.), Origins of Agri-culture, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 837–859.

Wing, E. S. (1986). Domestication of Andean camelids. In Vuilleumier, F., and Monasterio, M.(eds.), High Altitude Tropical Biogeography, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 246–264.

Yabar, J. (1972). Epoca Pre-Inca de Chanapata. Revista Saqsaywaman (Cuzco) 2: 211–233.Yabar, J. (1982). Figurillas de la cultura pre Inca del Cuzco. Arqueologıa de Cuzco, Ediciones

Instituto Nacional de Cultura-Region Cuzco, Cuzco, pp. 9–12.Zapata, J. (1997). Arquitectura y contextos funerarios Wari en Batan Urqu, Cusco. Boletın de

Arqueologıa PUCP (Lima) 1: 165–206.Zapata, J. (1998). Los cerros sagrados: Panorama del Perıodo Formativo en la Cuenca del

Vilcanota, Cuzco. Boletın de Arqueologıa PUCP (Lima) 2: 307–335.

Through the Glass Darkly: Prehispanic Obsidian Procurement and Exchange in Southern Peru and...

Documents

Transcript of Through the Glass Darkly: Prehispanic Obsidian Procurement and Exchange in Southern Peru and...