Ch0 Introduction

Cover Page


Santa Barbara



Quarries, Caravans, and Routes to Complexity:

Prehispanic Obsidian in the South-Central Andes



A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the

requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy

in Anthropology




Nicholas Tripcevich


Committee in charge:

Professor Mark Aldenderfer, Co-Chair

Professor Michael Jochim, Co-Chair

Professor Katharina Schreiber

Professor Keith Clarke

March 2007


Signature Page


                 Quarries, Caravans, and Routes to Complexity:

                 Prehispanic Obsidian in the South-Central Andes


                                 Copyright © 2007


                                 Nicholas Tripcevich



                       The dissertation of Nicholas Tripcevich is approved.



                        Keith Clarke



                        Katharina Schreiber



                        Michael Jochim, Committee Co-Chair



                        Mark Aldenderfer, Committee Co-Chair


                                         March 2007




Acknowledgements go first to the people of the Colca valley who have kindly welcomed the foreigners who hike through their lands and camp on the volcanoes that ring the valley. I would like to acknowledge the support of my dissertation committee, Mark Aldenderfer, Katharina Schreiber, Michael Jochim, and Keith Clarke, who provided valuable guidance in this process. I am particularly grateful to my advisor Mark Aldenderfer who shares my fondness for mountain environments and the people who thrive there. My background was primarily in geography when Mark admitted me to the program at UCSB, and I am grateful that he recognized the contribution that a geographical emphasis can make to anthropological research. I would like to thank Katharina Schreiber who has terrific enthusiasm for the Andes and for prehistory, Michael Jochim has been willing to provide guidance and feedback at crucial moments during this research, and Keith Clarke whose knowledge of geography and enthusiasm for mobile geographical technologies were inspiring. Although not on my committee, Charles Stanish has been consistently encouraging and has provided valuable insights and a useful regional perspective.

This dissertation research was made possible by a doctoral dissertation improvement grant from the Nation Science Foundation and a UCSB graduate division dissertation fellowship. The fieldwork was conducted with a permit from the Instituto Nacional de Cultura - Perú. The UC Santa Barbara Anthropology Department and Letters and Science Information Technology, and the GIS division at URS Corporation/Santa Barbara have provided me with part-time work and have kindly put up with my odd schedule during this writing up process.

The Titicaca Basin is an excellent introduction to the Andes as it possesses enduring Andean cultural traditions, rich archaeology, and a collegial community of archaeologists that work there. My thanks to the many colleagues who have shared their insights and their data from the Titicaca Basin research, and to Cecilia Chávez and Edmundo de la Vega at the Puno house. Ever supportive, Karen Doehner contributed valuable advice and generously translated key documents. This research project is regional in scope and it inevitably has resulted in debts of gratitude to many people whose data and observations have contributed to this exploration of Chivay obsidian and regional interaction.

Striking out from the Titicaca Basin to work in Arequipa was made easier by the warm community and valuable facilities that I found there. The Centro de Investigaciones Arqueológicas de Arequipa (CIARQ) was a important base for field operations and a hospitable environment for lab analysis, and special thanks go to Karen Wise and Augusto Cardona for establishing and continuing this valuable facility. I am especially grateful for Augusto’s logistical support for this project, his enthusiasm and expertise in Arequipa archaeology, and for his hosting of memorable ceviche parties at CIARQ. The INC offices in Arequipa, in particular Marco Lopez, Cecilia Quequesana, and Lucy Linares, helped to make the bureaucratic hurdles less difficult.

This project was made possible by the energetic participation of a committed team of researchers and students from many countries. The enthusiasm of co-director Willy Yépez Alvarez made fieldwork at the high altitude source a pleasure, and made subsequent lab work in Arequipa and coordination with the INC proceed smoothly. Important contributions to the field research were made by Cheyla Samuelson and Alex Mackay who generously contributed months, even years, away from their own research goals to greatly advance this project and the data that has resulted from it. The theoretical and methodological merit of the lithics analysis in this project is largely due to Alex Mackay’s keen field observations, efficient lab procedures, and unparalleled speed with the digital calipers. Saul Morales has been a valuable friend and collaborator nearly every year since I first met him in Juli, Peru eight years ago. As Saul anticipated in 1999, he was an important contributor to this field project, and he was also an astute cultural mediator who relies sometimes on the axiom “ en Perú, todo es posible”. A sincere thank you is also due to all of the other tireless participants of the Upper Colca project, a list that includes Ross Burley, Mirza del Castillo, Erik Erwin, Brian Finucane, Guillermo Flores, Tamara Flores Ramos, Melissa Joubert, Chris Lagen, Adan Lacunza, José Ubeda, and Daniel Zimbler.

A great deal of credit for turning this geographer into an anthropologist goes to my colleagues at UCSB, in particular Elizabeth Klarich and Nathan Craig. I would like to thank Liz Klarich for her friendship and because her explanations of theoretical and regional subjects have been invaluable. Liz has been a reliable source of sound advice about grad school since I first visited Santa Barbara through to consultation about organizing this dissertation. Nathan Craig is a never-ending source of ideas for original ways to apply GIS to anthropological problems, for training in meticulous excavation work, and for demonstrating how tough and focused work in the field can be enjoyable.

I would like to thank Cynthia Herhahn for demonstrating how to supervise a project and for field training when I worked for her in Juli, my first year in Peru. Thanks also to Cynthia for joining us in 2003 in the Colca for a three day high altitude survey/backpacking death march, and thanks for follow-up discussions of my research as I wrote up this work. I am grateful also to Cindy Klink who provided advice and shared results from her work in the Ilave and Huenque valleys. Justin Jennings has been a good colleague as he has shared material from his work in Cotahuasi as well as valuable insights about working in the Arequipa. I would like to thank Steve Wernke for his friendship and collegiality, and for his advice about research and the community in the Colca valley. Other colleagues that have provided advice and encouragement include Matthew Bandy, David Browman, Michele Buzon, Augusto Cardona, Christi Conlee, José-Antonio Chávez, Miriam Doutriaux, Tobias Fischer, Sarah Fowler, Anabel Ford, Martín Giesso, Michael Glassow, Paul Goldstein, Ian Lindsay, Michael Malpass, Daniel Sandweiss, Ericka Simborth, Bruce Owen, Felix Palacios, Kurt Rademaker, Frank Spera, Waldo Tobler, Tiffiny Tung, Hendrik Van Gijseghem, Kevin Vaughn, and Ryan Williams. In the Colca valley, Timoteo and Adriana Valdivia, Eliseo Vilcahuaman Panibra, la Familia Espinel, la Familia Sotormayor, Saturnino Ordóñez, and Padre Franz Windischhofer all contributed in important ways to the success of this project.

Acknowledgement is due as well to the efforts of Richard Burger and Sarah Brooks and their collaborators in geochemistry for locating and first documenting the obsidian deposits in the Colca valley. Both researchers provided me with useful advice in carrying out this project. Michael Glascock at M.U.R.R. and M. Steven Shackley at UC Berkeley have both been generous with their time in educating me about geochemical analysis, and in analyzing obsidian source samples from Peru. Spatial data and imagery that were essential to this work was acquired from several agencies free-of-cost, and thanks are due to NASA, USGS, NIMA, Digital Perú, DigitalGlobe (GoogleEarth), and the IGS base station in Arequipa for GPS correction. Mark Aldenderfer was generous with equipment and I wish to thank him for the loan of GPS equipment and cameras for several seasons in a row, as well as for his truck that served as our field vehicle.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents, Robert Tripp and Susan Ervin-Tripp, for their interest, encouragement, and support through all stages of my research. My brother Alexander and sister Katya were likewise supportive. I would like to acknowledge the kind advice and direction from Laura Nader, family friend, and advocate for an integrative view of anthropology. My deepest love and gratitude goes to my wife Cheyla Samuelson who has contributed emotional support, encouragement, and effort to advancing my Ph.D. project from the beginning. She enthusiastically participated in the rigorous 5000m portion of the research, and her keen intellect and constructive observations helped considerably in directing this project. Cheyla spotted more than her share of projectile points during survey, and thanks to her concern for the crew while camping at the obsidian source we can say that “no students were permanently damaged in the making of this dissertation”!



Regional studies of obsidian artifacts in the south-central Andes have shown that over 90% of the analyzed artifacts from the Lake Titicaca Basin belong to a single geochemical obsidian type. A decade ago researchers identified the geological origin of this obsidian type as the Chivay / Cotallalli source, located 180km west of Lake Titicaca above the Colca valley in Arequipa at 71.5355° S, 15.6423° W (WGS84), and at 4972 meters above sea level. This research project focused on the obsidian source and adjacent lands within one day’s travel from the source. The project included a 33 km2 survey, 8 test units, and in-depth lithic attribute analysis. Mobile GIS (Arcpad) was used extensively during survey. A substantial quarry pit and an obsidian workshop were examined closely, as were consumption sites in nearby areas. The results of this study found that the earliest diagnostic materials at the source date to the Middle Archaic (8000 – 6000 BCE) and that intensification of obsidian production occurred earlier than previously recognized, at circa 3300 BCE Increased obsidian production appears to have been focused on the acquisition of large (> 20cm) and homogeneous obsidian nodules, although the formal tools produced with obsidian were predominantly small projectile points. It is argued that the acquisition of large, homogenous nodules was prioritized because the production potential of large nodules was highest, and because obsidian was associated with competitive display among early aggrandizers. The timing and economic associations of obsidian production and circulation suggest that the possession of large obsidian pieces in the Titicaca Basin was a demonstration of social connections to distant resources, and to regional trade networks that emerged with regularized camelid caravan transport networks. Obsidian artifacts were not inherently “prestige goods”, rather it is suggested here that obsidian was the least perishable of a number of cultural goods distributed by an expanding network of caravans that linked communities in the region. The acquisition and consumption of these cultural goods was a demonstration of economic connections and cultural influence during the dynamic period of incipient social inequality between the Terminal Archaic (3300–2000 BCE) through the Middle Formative (1300–500 BCE)


Table of Contents

Table of Contents

The pagination below applies to the PDF and the printed version of this document.

With the web version a Table of Contents is shown on the right side of the browser.







Chapter 1 – Like Salt or Like Gold?.. 1

1.1. Overview.... 1

1.1.1. Prehispanic Economy. 7

1.1.2. Chemical characterization work in the Andes. 12

1.2. Structure of the Dissertation... 14

1.2.1. Organization of presentation.. 14

1.2.2. Digital data availability. 14

1.2.3. Dates. 15

1.2.4. Spatial data.. 15

1.2.5. Photographs and scale. 17

1.3. Conclusion... 18

Chapter 2 – Theoretical Approaches to 
Economy, Exchange, and Raw Material Sources.. 19

2.1. Introduction... 19

2.2. Anthropological approaches to economy and exchange.. 21

2.2.1. Economies. 21

2.2.2. Transfer of goods and exchange value. 28

2.2.3. Transfer of goods and socio-political complexity. 46

2.2.4. Definitions of exchange. 60

2.2.5. Exchange and social distance. 69

2.2.6. Territoriality and access to raw material sources. 76

2.2.7. Discussion.. 79

2.3. Chemical provenience and exchange.. 81

2.3.1. Quantitative approaches to regional exchange. 82

2.3.2. Other Distance Decay studies. 86

2.3.3. Site-oriented studies of exchange. 92

2.3.4. Discussion.. 98

2.4. The View from the Quarry... 100

2.4.1. The specialization and efficiency framework for quarry studies. 102

2.4.2. Analysis of a production system.. 105

2.4.3. Specialization at a Mexican Obsidian workshop.. 108

2.4.4. A contextual approach to Neolithic axe quarries in Britain.. 110

2.4.5. Discussion.. 118

Chapter 3 –  The Regional Context of 
Chivay Obsidian Research... 121

3.1. Andean Economy and Exchange.. 126

3.1.1. Economic organization and trade in the Andes. 128

3.1.2. Economy and exchange in mountain environments. 135

3.2. Long distance trade.. 156

3.2.1. Household-level caravans. 159

3.2.2. Incentives for early caravan formation.. 162

3.2.3. Exchange between herders and farmers. 164

3.2.4. Types of products carried by caravans. 166

3.2.5. Caravan travel distances and speeds. 168

3.2.6. Circuit mobility and role of the periphery. 172

3.2.7. Compadrazgo relationships and commerce. 175

3.2.8. Discussion.. 180

3.3. Regional patterns and major sources of obsidian... 183

3.3.1. Obsidian and larger geographical associations. 188

3.4. Chivay Obsidian Consumption Contexts.. 191

3.4.1. Asana.. 191

3.4.2. Qillqatani rock shelter. 193

3.4.3. Sumbay. 200

3.4.4. The Ilave Valley and Jiskairumoko.. 202

3.5. Andean Obsidian Distributions through Time.. 206

3.5.1. Archaic Foragers in the South-Central Andes. 211

3.5.2. Early Agropastoralist obsidian distributions. 231

3.5.3. The Late Prehispanic. 255

3.6. Obsidian Use in the South-Central Andes.. 271

3.6.1. Variability in Andean obsidian use. 272

3.6.2. Symbolic significance of obsidian.. 284

3.7. Models for the Procurement and Circulation of
Chivay Obsidian in Prehistory... 291

3.7.1. Direct acquisition Model 292

3.7.2. Multiple Reciprocal Exchanges (Down the line) Model 296

3.7.3. Independent Caravans Model 300

3.7.4. Elite-Sponsored Caravans Model 305

3.8. Summary... 307

Chapter 4 –  Regional Geography and Geology 
of the Upper Colca Project Area... 309

4.1. The geography of the Colca Valley study area... 310

4.1.1. Climate across the study area.. 313

4.1.2. Lower elevation biotic zones: Study Area Blocks 3 and 6.. 320

4.1.3. High Puna: Block 2 survey and adjacent Blocks 4 and 5.. 327

4.1.4. The Chivay Source: Block 1.. 331

4.2. Tectonic geology... 332

4.3. Formations in the Upper Colca Valley... 335

1.       A geological descent of the upper Colca drainage. 337

4.3.1. Yura and associated sedimentary strata.. 343

4.3.2. Oligocene and Miocene lavas. 344

4.3.3. Pliocene lavas – Barroso group.. 347

4.3.4. Pleistocene – Ampato group.. 350

4.3.5. Holocene stratovolcanoes. 350

4.3.6. Glaciation.. 350

4.4. How obsidian is formed... 355

4.4.1. Chemical differentiation.. 357

4.4.2. Obsidian color. 358

4.5. Pliocene (Barroso group) obsidian in the Colca valley... 359

4.5.1. Chivay obsidian source observations. 360

4.6. Other Tertiary obsidian in the Colca valley... 366

4.6.1. Tripcevich source sampling work.. 369

4.7. Conclusion... 373

Chapter 5 –  Research Methods and 
Data Recording Strategies.. 375

5.1. Introduction... 375

5.1.1. Locus rather than Site-oriented survey methods. 376

5.1.2. Data recording in both categorical forms and field journals. 377

5.2. Geographical context.. 379

5.2.1. Geographical datum and regional data sets. 380

5.2.2. Regional datasets. 382

5.3. Data recording approach... 382

5.3.1. Introduction.. 382

5.3.2. Organization, sampling, and inference. 383

5.3.3. Aggregating by Sites versus Loci 385

5.3.4. Site and Loci recording structure. 386

5.3.5. The Primary Key: ArchID... 387

5.3.6. Site classification.. 389

5.3.7. Linking Field and Lab data: an example. 390

5.3.8. Theoretical relevance of the provenience system.. 391

5.4. Survey Strategy... 393

5.4.1. Goals of Survey and Testing.. 393

5.4.2. Surveys types: Prospection, Statistical, and Spatial Structure. 394

5.4.3. Surveyor interval and sampling.. 395

5.4.4. Survey design.. 396

5.4.5. Testing the effectiveness of the B3 survey strategy. 400

5.5. Mobile GIS for archeological survey... 402

5.5.1. Standard survey practice. 402

5.5.2. The contribution of mobile GIS.. 404

5.5.3. Hardware configuration.. 405

5.5.4. Defining loci and sites. 407

5.5.5. Attribute Forms. 408

5.5.6. Variability within a Locus. 410

5.5.7. Sampling High-density Loci 414

5.5.8. Collection during survey. 415

5.5.9. Other Data Types. 415

5.5.10. Processing steps with mobile GIS.. 416

5.5.11. Implications of Mobile GIS for Fieldwork.. 418

5.6. Test Excavation Methodology... 420

5.6.1. Excavation procedures. 420

5.6.2. Proveniencing of excavated materials. 421

5.6.3. Proveniencing for database management and quantitative analysis. 423

5.7. Lab analysis.. 424

5.7.1. Phase I Lab work.. 425

5.7.2. Phase II Lab work.. 426

5.8. Sampling in Upper Colca work... 431

5.8.1. Sampling during survey. 432

5.8.2. Sampling during excavation.. 432

5.8.3. Sampling during lab analysis. 433

5.9. Derivative indices.. 434

5.9.1. Lithic density raster index. 436

5.9.2. Cumulative Viewshed Analysis and Exposure Index. 439

5.9.3. Bifacial Thinning Flake index. 443

5.10. Database structure and 1:M labeling.. 445

5.10.1. The All ArchID Centroids file. 446

5.10.2. VB Script for One-to-Many labeling.. 448

5.11. Conclusion... 450

Chapter 6 –  Survey Results from 
Research in the Upper Colca... 451

6.1. Introduction to data presentation... 451

6.1.1. Data presentation and cartographic conventions. 453

6.2. Obsidian variability in the study area... 457

6.2.1. Material type by survey block.. 457

6.2.2. Production Indices. 472

6.2.3. Projectile Points and obsidian variability. 475

6.3. Survey Results: Archaic Foragers Period (9000–3300BCE). 481

6.3.1. Block 1 – Archaic Source and adjacent high puna.. 484

6.3.2. Block 2 – Archaic San Bartolomé. 510

6.3.3. Block 3 – Archaic Callalli and adjacent valley bottom areas. 534

6.4. Survey Results: Early Agropastoralists Period (3300BCE – AD400)  578

6.4.1. Block 1 – Source. 584

6.4.2. Block 2 – San Bartolomé. 611

6.4.3. Block 3 – Callalli 623

6.5. Survey Results: Late Prehispanic Period (AD400 - AD1532). 635

6.5.1. Block 1 – Source. 637

6.5.2. Block 2 – San Bartolomé. 651

6.5.3. Block 3 – Callalli 663

6.6. Chapter summary discussion... 677

Chapter 7 –  Results and Analysis of  Data
from Test Excavations
.. 679

7.1. Goals of the analysis of production... 680

7.2. General Indices of Production... 685

7.3. Test excavation units.. 689

7.4. Block 1 Test Excavations at Maymeja Q02-2. 692

7.4.1. Q02-2, Test Unit 2.. 692

7.4.2. Q02-2, Test Unit 3.. 707

7.4.3. Summary Interpretation of A03-126 Workshop.. 748

7.5. Block 2 Test Excavations at Pausa A02-39. 751

7.5.1. A02-39, Test Unit 1 and 2.. 751

7.5.2. A02-39, Test Units 3 and 4.. 752

7.6. Block 3 Test Excavations at Taukamayo A02-26. 762

7.6.1. A02-26, Test Unit 1.. 762

7.6.2. Test Unit 2.. 773

7.7. Comparisons between Blocks with surface and excavated data. 774

7.7.1. Size of flaked stone artifacts. 774

7.8. Conclusion... 776

Chapter 8 –  Major Findings from
the  Upper Colca Project
.. 778

8.1. Introduction... 778

8.2. Review of major findings.. 778

8.2.1. Archaic Foragers (10,000 – 3300 BCE). 780

8.2.2. Early Agropastoralist 782

8.2.3. Late Prehispanic. 786

8.2.4. Discussion.. 790

8.3. Production and interaction... 790

8.3.1. Lithic raw material use in the vicinity of the Chivay source. 790

8.3.2. Quarrying for non-local consumption.. 792

8.3.3. Site visibility at Maymeja and warfare in the Colca area.. 794

8.3.4. Quarry pit and associated workshop activities. 797

8.3.5. Pottery and lithic production.. 805

8.3.6. Projectile Points. 806

8.3.7. Regional caravans and local interaction.. 809

8.3.8. Models of regional obsidian circulation.. 815

8.4. Theoretical implications from obsidian procurement evidence   826

8.4.1. Herder status and herd size. 827

8.4.2. The changing scale of regular interaction.. 828

8.4.3. Aggrandizing behavior. 830

8.5. Future research... 833

8.5.1. Other Andean sources. 833

8.5.2. Technological improvements. 834

8.6. Conclusion... 835

Appendix A –  Arch ID and Lot ID Registry.. 837

A.1. All Arch ID (Centroids) values.. 837

A.2. Lot ID Registry... 865

Appendix B –  Selected Obsidian Sources
in Southern Peru... 870

B.1. Aconcagua Obsidian Source.. 870

B.2. Alca Obsidian Source.. 870

B.3. Chivay Obsidian Source.. 871

B.4. Uyo Uyo Obsidian Source.. 874

Appendix C –  Obsidian Artifact Examples
and  Representations from the Andes.. 875

References Cited –.. 883


List of Figures

List of Figures

Pagination for printed and PDF versions.

Figure 1.1. Larger study region with modern towns and roads.. 3

Figure 1-2. Tobler's (1993) Hiking Function models foot travel velocity as a function of slope. 16

Figure 2-1. Varieties of reciprocal exchange (after Sahlins 1972: 199). 31

Figure 2-2. Modes of exchange from Renfrew (1975:520). 66

Figure 2-3. Network configurations. 68

Figure 2-4. Model for inference about prehistoric exchange (from Torrence 1986: 5). 70

Figure 2-5. Log-Log fall-off curve of obsidian density (Sidrys 1976: 454). 84

Figure 2-6. Stages of production from quarry, local area, and region (after Ericson 1984: 4). 106

Figure 3-1. Chronologies discussed in the text. 124

Figure 3-2. Contemporary types of Andean zonation (Brush 1977: 12). 138

Figure 3-3. Diagram of institutions of Andean complementarity (from Salomon 1985: 520).. 140

Figure 3-4. Subsistence exchange for products by ecozone versus single-source, diffusive goods. 146

Figure 3-5. Known south-central Andean obsidian sources used in prehistory with least cost paths (Tobler’s function on SRTM DEM data) from the three major sources to sites in the region. 184

Figure 3-6. Cumulative frequency graph showing three major Peruvian obsidian sources by consumption site altitude. 187

Figure 3-7. Qillqatani data showing percentage of bifacially flaked tools and percentages of debris made from obsidian per assemblage by count (from Aldenderfer 1999c, in prep.). 195

Figure 3-8. Sumbay pitchstone projectile points. 201

Figure 3-9. Comparison of projectile point counts in the Ilave Valley and the Upper Colca. 204

Figure 3-10. Projectile Point Typology with Titicaca Basin chronology (from data in Klink and Aldenderfer 2005) 210

Figure 3-11. Chivay type obsidian distributions during the “Archaic Foragers” time (circa 10,000 – 3,300 BCE). 214

Figure 3-12. Chivay type obsidian distributions during the “Early Agropastoralists” time (3,300 BCE – AD 400). 232

Figure 3-13. Chivay type obsidian distributions during the “Late Prehispanic” time (AD 400 – 1532). 256

Figure 3-14. Type 5d projectile points from a Terminal Archaic level at Asana and Early Formative levels at Qillqatani. 278

Figure 4-1. View of the volcanic Chivay source area above the town of Chivay in the Colca valley. 310

Figure 4-2. Survey blocks in the Upper Colca study area are shown with modern production zones described in Table 4-1. 312

Figure 4-3. Temperature by Altitude at mid- and high-altitude Arequipa meteorological stations.. 315

Figure 4-4. Comparison of Temperature highs, means, and lows for August and January). 316

Figure 4-5. Mean monthly temperatures (°C) from data in ONERN (1973). 316

Figure 4-6. Precipitation by Altitude (left), precipitation in the study area. 317

Figure 4-7. Latitude against barometric pressure. 319

Figure 4-8. Exterior and interior of probable colonial pyrotechnical structure. 323

Figure 4-9. Tuber cultivation at 4200 masl surrounded by large tuff outcrops. 325

Figure 4-10. ASTER scenes with the terminus of volcanic breccia outcrop. 328

Figure 4-11. View of San Bartolomé (Block 2) area during the dry season t. 330

Figure 4-12. Select raw material sources in the central Andes. 333

Figure 4-13. Rock groups in the Colca region (based on Palacios et al., 1993). 336

Figure 4-14. Legend showing geological map units in maps that follow. 340

Figure 4-15. Geological map units and 2003 Survey Block boundaries (in gray) for the Upper Colca project study area. Legend shown in preceding figure. 340

Figure 4-16. Geological map units shown on ASTER scene from 28 Sept 2000; legend is shown in Figure 4-14. In general, red pixels show areas of photosynthesizing vegetation (bofedales). 342

Figure 4-17. Andesitic Tacaza deposits with breccias and tuff outcrops in the Quebrada de los Molinos drainage. The Chivay obsidian source in later Barroso deposits is found high above, on the right side of the photo. 345

Figure 4-18. The lower section of the Castillo de Callalli is known as “Cabeza de León”. 346

Figure 4-19. Detail of Chivay source, Maymeja area with INGEMMET geological map. 348

Figure 4-20. Glacial polish and striations (aligned towards camera) on lava flows adjacent to Maymeja workshop on the southern end of the Maymeja area. 354

Figure 4-21 (a). Small box in lower-right gully shows Q02-1, an obsidian flow eroding out of ashy-pumaceous soils below western arm of Cerro Ancachita. (b). This obsidian is of limited use for tool making because it contains vertical, subparallel fractures. 361

Figure 4-22. Obsidian gravels exposure in tephra soils east of Cerro Hornillo. 363

Figure 4-23. Geological map units with Uyo Uyo sampling locations. See Figure 4-14 for legend. Selected archaeological sites in the main Colca Valley shown in blue. 367

Figure 4-24. Bivariate plot showing Dysprosium against Manganese for Tripcevich 2005 samples. 370

Figure 4-25. Map showing locations of Colca valley obsidian source samples analyzed by MURR in 2005. 371

Figure 5-1. Criteria in designing regional survey from three stage research proposal including obsidian source survey, testing program, and concluding with the river valley survey. 397

Figure 5-2. GPS tracks from edges of most survey routes. 399

Figure 5-3. An example of a pedestrian survey line following a river terrace at a 15 meter interval.. 403

Figure 5-4. Mobile GIS implementation with ESRI Arcpad 6.. 406

Figure 5-5. (a) Arcpad screen showing a large site with loci and points.. 409

Figure 5-6. Maps for two different hypothetical sites recorded in less than one hour.. 411

Figure 5-7. (a) Structure of the archaeological Shapefiles with names and descriptions.. 412

Figure 5-8. (a) Example of proveniencing for four 50cm quads within a 1x1m unit. 422

Figure 5-9. Showing some of the percussive metrics, platform metrics, and measures of retouch invasiveness for ventral side (after Clarkson 2002) used in the Phase II analysis.. 429

Figure 5-10. Line of sight across hilly terrain results in specific cells and targets being in view or out of view. 440

Figure 5-11. Viewshed is not necessarily reciprocal, as the individual and the left can see the person on the right, but the opposite is not true. 441

Figure 5-12. Cumulative Viewshed using 5000 random observers and 10 km viewing distance. 442

Figure 5-13. The All_ArchID_Centroids table provides a single reference layer for all the ArchID numbers used in the projecta. 447

Figure 6-1. Artifactual lithic material types in the Upper Colca Project study region. 458

Figure 6-2. Proportion of obsidian for four colors (shades) of glass, by count. 462

Figure 6-3. Proportion of obsidian material as Ob1 and Ob2 (heterogeneities), by count. 464

Figure 6-4. Photographic comparison of the homogeneous Ob1 obsidian and the Ob2 obsidian with heterogeneities. 466

Figure 6-5. Complete projectile point weights and lengths by material type for the entire project area. Series 5 projectile points are excluded and chalcedony is combined with chert. 480

Figure 6-6. Projectile Point weights and lengths (when not broken) by material type for Block 1 and adjacent high puna areas of Blocks 4 and 5. Series 5 projectile point types excluded. 484

Figure 6-7. Possible Chivay obsidian source camps during Archaic Forager times. 486

Figure 6-8. Middle Archaic obsidian projectile point from Maymeja area [A03-184]. 489

Figure 6-9. (a) Small rock shelter at “Molinos 2” [A03-580] is filled with debris from heavy runoff. (b) A density of flakes, predominantly of obsidian, are found in profile in the flood channel. 494

Figure 6-10. Lithic scatters are associated with shelter provided by large boulders located along moraines [A03-539]. One surveyor that is visible in blue provides scale. 496

Figure 6-11. Obsidian scatters were found along the base of these viscous lava flows at 5040 masl [A03-291]. 497

Figure 6-12. Map of project area showing Reconnaissance Blocks 4 and 5 with diagnostic projectile points and logistical sites from the Archaic Foragers period. 501

Figure 6-13. Rock shelter [A03-229] passes behind the collapsed margin of the grey lava flow in the center of the photo. Walls are built to partially close off both of the two entrances. 502

Figure 6-14. Multicomponent site of A03-910 "Collpa" among crystalline tuff outcrops.. 506

Figure 6-15. Photo of moraines and bofedales of Escalera south-west of Chivay source. 509

Figure 6-16. Projectile Point weights and lengths (when complete) by material type for Block 2. 512

Figure 6-17. Archaic Forager sites in Block 2: Major sites described in the text. 514

Figure 6-18. A03-1050 consists of four rock shelters: A, B, C, and D. 517

Figure 6-19. Chiripascapa [A03-1014], Archaic Foragers occupation. 518

Figure 6-20. Huañatira [A03-900] and vicinity, Archaic Foragers occupation. 524

Figure 6-21. Rock shelter of Huañatira with circular mortuary feature visible inside. One meter scale showing on tape resting on rock along dripline (see also Figure 6-76). 527

Figure 6-22. Block 2 Archaic Foragers component from lithic evidence. 530

Figure 6-23. Projectile Point weights and lengths (when complete) by material type. 536

Figure 6-24. Archaic Period in Blocks 3, 6 and 5 (valley): Sites described in the text. 538

Figure 6-25. Block 3: Early, Middle, and Late Archaic projectile points and Aceramic sites. 539

Figure 6-26. Site of Kakapunku [A03-1000]. 541

Figure 6-27. The entrance of A03-1001 with looted cist tomb visible inside the rock shelter. 542

Figure 6-28. Cueva de Quelkata was dynamited by Majes Project road crews in 1976. Two people are visible for scale inside the shelter to the left of center. 545

Figure 6-29. Quelkata in 1975 redrawn from Chavez (1978: 20). Red dotted line shows estimated border of the portion of the rock shelter that remains after the dynamiting for road widening. 545

Figure 6-30. Quickbird satellite image of Quelkata area in 2005. The shelter is under the tuff outcrops immediately to the left of the bridge. Data courtesy of Google / Digital Globe. 547

Figure 6-31. A 65cm column of cultural deposits still exists at the back of Quelkata at a height of approximately 1.8m above datum (at head height between the gravels and the tuff in photo). 549

Figure 6-32. Profile of extant deposits at Quelkata shown in terms of relative collection units. 551

Figure 6-33. Cueva de Mollepunco (A02-3). 556

Figure 6-34. Petroglyph of camelid on wall of Mollepunco. 556

Figure 6-35. View westward from “Callalli 11” across quebrada shows the eastern edge of Callalli. 561

Figure 6-36. Callalli 11 [A03-599] on terrace on the east edge of the town of Callalli. 562

Figure 6-37. Chalcedony projectile point [A03-790] from Anccasuyo [A03-785]. 563

Figure 6-38. Map of the Sullullumba [A03-806], an Archaic Foragers site showing lithic loci on terrace edge 40m above the annual flood line. Image courtsey of Quickbird DG / Google. 567

Figure 6-39. Sullullumba [A03-806] along terrace edge above the upper Río Colca. Yellow notebook and scale bar are visible in the center-rear of photo. 568

Figure 6-40. Projectile points from Sullullumba [A03-806]. 570

Figure 6-41. The high density lithic locus A03-808 consisted of aphanytic volcanics and chert. 570

Figure 6-42. Block 6 Challacone - Ichocollo overview map. 573

Figure 6-43. Ichocollo complex along Quebrada Ichocollo. 574

Figure 6-44. Photo looking northwest across Ichocollo creek. 576

Figure 6-45. Testing at Quarry Pit Q02-2 with 1x1 test unit Q02-2u3. Snow remains in the pit. 587

Figure 6-46. A03-269 and A03-734 "Camino Hornillo" and modern trail system. 588

Figure 6-47. Apacheta (cairn) close to junction of the Escalera route with Cerro Hornillo. 589

Figure 6-48. Camino Hornillo showing (a) A03-268 and (b) A03-734 segments. Photos were digitally modified to highlight the route in red. 591

Figure 6-49. Block 1 possible Early Agropastoral settlement pattern with Series 5 projectile points. 594

Figure 6-50. A03-126 "Maymeja 1" workshop and vicinity. 596

Figure 6-51. View of A03-126 "Maymeja" from north. Terraced area A03-334 on upper level. Test Unit Q02-02 is just right of the orange bucket. Project tents are visible in corral A03-127. 597

Figure 6-52. (a) Workshop area of "Maymeja 1" showing proximity of bofedal, (b) Testing Q02-2U3, with the quarry pit [Q02-2] visible among light ash 600m uphill in the background. 598

Figure 6-53. Base of structure [A03-335] is formed by fifteen large, partially buried stones and measures 2.5m in diameter. 601

Figure 6-54. A03-126, 209, 275 Maymeja workshop and vicinity. 604

Figure 6-55. View looking south from above at A03-201 "Saylluta" with excavation of test unit Q02-2u1 under way in top center of corral by the orange bucket. Site datum is on top of the large boulder to the south of Q02-2u1 (just above test unit in the photo). 605

Figure 6-56. Blocks 4 and 5 showing Series 5 projectile point distribution. 609

Figure 6-57. Block 2 - Early Agropastoral occupation. 612

Figure 6-58. Pausa [A02-39] showing raised oval structures, lithic concentrations, large rock forming wall bases, and test unit locations. Site mapped with Topcon total station and dGPS. 618

Figure 6-59. Circular structure A03-557 extends from 1m behind the tape to just below the largest rocks at the back of the photo. 620

Figure 6-60. Testing u3 and u4 on north edge of structures A03-558 and A03-559. This photo is taken from above, from the base of the lava flow. 620

Figure 6-61. Early Agropastoralist settlement in Block 3. 624

Figure 6-62. Taukamayo [A02-26], a multicomponent site partially destroyed by a landslide. 627

Figure 6-63. Overview of Taukamayo [A02-26] on slump along base of hillside. Grey box shows area detailed in Figure 6-64, below. 628

Figure 6-64. Taukamayo [A02-26] detail showing two test units locations on cutbank margins of the creep area. Excavators are visible on right-side at A02-26u1 and provide scale for photo. 629

Figure 6-65. Non-local incised and stamped pottery from Taukamayo [A02-26], in the 2003 provenience it is A03-679. and A03-679.2. 631

Figure 6-66. Sixteen large andesite hoes were found at Taukamayo [A02-26]. 634

Figure 6-67. Block 1 Late Prehispanic features. 639

Figure 6-68. Three levels of terracing in [A03-275] below glacier polished rhyolite flow. Yellow tape shows 1m. 641

Figure 6-69. (a) Cutstone masonry [A03-339] from site A03-275 close to the workshop area at the Chivay obsidian source. Yellow tape shows 50cm. (b) Rim sherds from an 18cm diameter Inka-Collagua plate were found adjacent to this corner. 642

Figure 6-70. Blocks 1 and 4 overview showing possible route of Late Prehispanic canal. 647

Figure 6-71. Blocks 4 and 5 Reconnaissance - Late Prehispanic component. 649

Figure 6-72. Non-local sherd with geometric elements akin to Middle Horizon or LIP styles [A03-1056.1]. 653

Figure 6-73. Block 2 diagnostic artifacts from the Middle Horizon and Late Intermediate Period. 654

Figure 6-74. Huañatira [A03-855]. Corrals, structures, and artifacts scatters wrap around the base of the lava escarpment. A small figure is visible on the right edge for scale. 656

Figure 6-75. Huañatira A03-817 and A03-855 multicomponent site showing corral structures. 658

Figure 6-76. Cist tomb with mortared stonework. 659

Figure 6-77. Block 2 diagnostic artifacts from the Late Horizon. 662

Figure 6-78. Block 3 Middle Horizon and Late Intermediate Period features. 665

Figure 6-79. Recently looted cocoon-type interment from A03-815. 667

Figure 6-80. Block 3 Late Horizon diagnostic materials. 670

Figure 6-81. Callalli Antiguo [A03-662] and surroundings. 672

Figure 6-82. A03-662 north sector of Callalli Antiguo agricultural sector. 673

Figure 6-83. Base of walls of structure A03-663 in Callalli Antiguo. 675

Figure 6-84. Collapsed wall of A03-663 structure. 675

Figure 6-85. Cores at Callalli Antiguo [A03-662] and vicinity compared with all of Block 3. 676

Figure 7-1. Principal lithic reduction in the northern African Gumu-sana assemblage (from B. A. Bradley 1975: Fig. 1). 683

Figure 7-2. Bifacial sequences diverge based on the original nodule form with arrows showing percussion direction (Pastrana and Hirth 2003: 204-205). 684

Figure 7-3. Radiocarbon dates on charcoal from test excavations in 2003 showing uncalibrated and calibrated dates as BCE from OxCal v3.9 (Ramsey 2003). 691

Figure 7-4 Map of quarry pit showing topographic surface acquired using a total station. 693

Figure 7-5. (a) Perspective view of quarry pit, (b) Perspective view bisected with an inferred natural slope. 694

Figure 7-6. The quarry [Q02-2] and workshop [A03-126] are 600m apart. In this image snow blankets most south-facing slopes but the quarry pit debris pile is visible protruding through the snow mantle. 695

Figure 7-7. Diagram of Q02-2 quarry pit and position of the Q02-2u2 test unit 698

Figure 7-8. Q02-2, view of quarry pit and u2 test unit from the north. 699

Figure 7-9. Q02-2u2 quarry pit south and west profile diagrams showing excavation levels. 700

Figure 7-10. South profile of Q02-2u2 at quarry pit at the top of levels 11/12. 700

Figure 7-11. Location of test unit Q02-2u3 in site A03-126 workshop. 710

Figure 7-12. Q02-2u3 workshop test unit west and north profile diagrams showing strata. 712

Figure 7-13. Q02-2u3 west profile at Maymeja workshop site [A03-126]. 712

Figure 7-14. Proportions of Tech Classes in excavation levels by count in Q02-2u3. 714

Figure 7-15. Retouched artifacts by Excavation Level. 719

Figure 7-16. Q02-2-u3 Cores by Level showing changes length and weight. 721

Figure 7-17. Canonical discriminant chart for core clusters from Q02-2u3. 724

Figure 7-18. Boxplots showing three clusters of Q02-2u3 cores with size measures. The tabular shape of C2 cores is apparent in their thinness relative to their length and width. 726

Figure 7-19. An example of a C1 core [L03-162.303], arrows indicate percussion. 727

Figure 7-20. An example of a C2 core [L03-162.305]. 728

Figure 7-21. An example of a C3 core [L03-162.280] showing a small area of thin cortex. 728

Figure 7-22. Clustered Cores from Q02-2u3 workshop test unit showing counts by level. 729

Figure 7-23. Q02-u3: Graph showing means of complete cores and cortical flakes. 731

Figure 7-24. Q02-2u3: Graph showing means of measures on complete obsidian flakes. 734

Figure 7-25. Canonical discriminant chart for complete flake clusters from Q02-2u3. 738

Figure 7-26. An example of a flake from the F1 cluster [L03-162.21]. 740

Figure 7-27. An example of a flake from the F2 cluster [L03-162.118]. 740

Figure 7-28. An example of a flake from the F3 cluster [L03-162.66]. 740

Figure 7-29. Graph showing Flake clusters by excavation level. 742

Figure 7-30. A02-39u3 (upper unit in photo) and u4 (lower) at basal levels. Top of photo is east. 752

Figure 7-31. Circular hearth (F1) in A02-39u4, level 5. Top of photo is north, unit is 1m on a side. 753

Figure 7-32. A02-39 "Pausa" – north, with Test Units 3 and 4, ovals, and inferred features. Compare with larger map showing ovals in Figure 6-58. 754

Figure 7-33. A02-39u4 Pausa test unit west profile diagram showing strata and levels. 757

Figure 7-34. A02-39u3/u4 Bar graph showing counts of lithics classes by excavation level. 758

Figure 7-35. Cumulative Frequency of A02-39 u3 & u4 showing Level 5 reduction against reduction for all levels. 760

Figure 7-36. Test unit A02-26u1 is a 1x1m test unit placed on the edge of a creeping landslide with an irregular extension area (1x) on the south edge of the unit. Top of the photo is north. 763

Figure 7-37. A02-26u1 Taukamayo test unit, north profile diagram showing strata and levels. 765

Figure 7-38. A02-26u1 Technical Class by Excavation Level. 768

Figure 7-39. A02-26u1 Material Types by Excavation Level. 768

Figure 7-40. Obsidian at Taukamayo A02-26u1, Ob1 and Ob2 compared. 769

Figure 7-41. Cumulative frequency comparing obsidian and non-obsidian flakes. 771

Figure 7-42. Flake metrics from Quarry area (Block 1) as compared with local consumption areas 774

Figure 8-1. View westward from obsidian production area A03-210 towards main Colca valley. 795

Figure B?1. Nodule from the Aconcagua source. Photo courtesy of Mark Aldenderfer. 870

Figure B?2. Nodules of Alca obsidian with brownish tint. 871

Figure B?3. Nodule of Chivay obsidian from Maymeja weighing 1750g and 23.3 cm long. 872

Figure B?4. (a, L03-161.341) nodule from quarry pit area. 873

Figure B?5. Nodule of Uyo Uyo obsidian with irregularities perhaps caused by air bubbles in the magma. 874

Figure C-1. Obsidian projectile points from the Upper Colca survey project.. 876

Figure C-2. Obsidian point (Cat. 609) from Terminal Archaic context at Jiskairumoko. 876

Figure C-3. Bifacially flaked obsidian “Wari style” points or knives from surface contexts. Photos courtesy of Bruce Owen. 877

Figure C-4 Rollout of Tiwanaku q'ero showing bows and black-tipped arrows (top) near the rim of vessel (Posnansky 1957: XXa). 878

Figure C-5. Early Nasca ritual obsidian knife hafted to painted dolphin palate (Disselhoff 1972: 277). 879

Figure C-6. Representations of black-tipped projectiles are diagnostic to Nasca B1 and B2 ceramics (Carmichael et al. 1998: 151). 880

Figure C-7. Paracas textile with figure holding black-tipped projectiles (Lavalle and Lang 1983: 95) 880

Figure C-8. Wooden hand mirror with obsidian inlay, Wari (Lavalle and Perú 1990: 185). 881

Figure C-9. Obsidian point hafted on harpoon found in a Paracas necropolis, Ica, Peru (Engel 1966: 180c). 881

Figure C-10. An obsidian point embedded in a human lumbar vertebra (from Ravines 1967: 230). 882

Figure C-11. Obsidian Point penetrating through arm muscle near left humerus found at Carhua in Ica, Peru (Engel 1966: 212). 882

List of Tables

List of Tables

Pagination from printed and PDF versions.

Table 2-1. Three categories of exchange goods. 39

Table 2-2. Economic processes in political evolution. 47

Table 2-3. Characteristics of reciprocity and redistribution (from Renfrew 1975: 8). 65

Table 2-4. Household composition of raw materials should vary with different types of exchange.. 95

Table 2-5. Measurement indices for procurement system (after Ericson 1984: 4). 105

Table 3-1. Reported llama caravan loads, distances, and times. 166

Table 3-2. Three major Peruvian obsidian sources showing average and maximum distances and times. 183

Table 3-3. Obsidian in the north and south Titicaca Basin by counts and percents. 186

Table 3-4. Asana obsidian samples, collections, and associated 14C samples by level (from Aldenderfer 1998b: 131, 157, 163, 209, 268; Frye et al. 1998). 189

Table 3-5. Qillqatani excavation levels, radiocarbon dates, and obsidian samples. 191

Table 3-6. Qillqatani periods by tools (bifacially flaked) and debitage (all other lithics), in obsidian and non-obsidian categories. 193

Table 3-7. Counts of obsidian debitage at Qillqatani by weight (g). 194

Table 3-8. Sumbay, SU-3 Pit 5. Strata with obsidian samples and associated artifacts (Máximo Neira Avendaño 1990: 32-33). 199

Table 3-9. Temporal organization of data. 205

Table 3-10. Examples of obsidian use in the south-central Andes (part 1). 272

Table 3-11. Examples of obsidian use in the south-central Andes (part 2). 273

Table 3-12. Models of procurement and exchange for Chivay obsidian. Compare terms with those used in Figure 2-2 and Figure 3-3. 290

Table 4-1. Andean ecological zones with approximate local elevation values for each zone. 308

Table 4-2. Equatorial bulge and effects on barometric pressure (in torr) at 15° and 60° latitude. From data in (J. B. West 1996: 1851). Equivalent altitude column shows altitude at 60° latitude with equivalent pressure to the value shown at 15° latitude. 317

Table 4-3. Coordinates and names of select raw material sources in the central Andes. Coordinates in WGS1984 datum. 332

Table 4-4. Characteristics of Obsidian. 355

Table 4-5. Peruvian obsidian source samples submitted to MURR by Tripcevich in 2002 and 2005. Coordinate datum is WGS84. 370

Table 5-1.The two reference ellipsoids used in Peruvian and Bolivian cartography (NIMA 1977). 379

Table 5-2. Three parameter cartographic transformations for UTM coordinates from PSAD 1956 (La Canoa) to WGS 1984 (Dana 1998; Mugnier 2001; 2006: 496; NIMA 1977). 379

Table 5-3. Types of archaeological survey described by Banning (2002: 27-38). 392

Table 5-4. Digital data sources used in developing the survey strategy. 394

Table 5-5. Sites and isolates from 100% survey strip that would not have been encountered using the regular Block 3 survey strategy. 399

Table 5-6. Locus and Site artifact density definitions. 405

Table 5-7. Sources of inconsistent data during the 2003 project. 414

Table 5-8. Measures on flaked stone artifacts during Phase II lithics analysis. 425

Table 5-9. Proportion of analysis by projectile point typological group. 427

Table 5-10. Vector and raster layers used in analysis and derived raster output. 433

Table 5-11. Loci to GRID conversion values. 436

Table 5-12. Script for labeling through a One-To-Many relate in ArcMap 9.1. 447

Table 6-1. Abbreviations for lithics used in maps, figures, and tables. 451

Table 6-2. Example of a map abbreviation label for a diagnostic lithic. 452

Table 6-3. Abbreviations for ceramics used in maps, figures, and tables. 453

Table 6-4. Example and explanation of a map label for a diagnostic ceramic. 453

Table 6-5. Counts of artifactual lithics material types throughout the study region. 456

Table 6-6. Lengths of complete obsidian artifacts with > 30% cortex. 458

Table 6-7. Obsidian artifact color (shade) by survey block surface collection. 460

Table 6-8. Obsidian artifact material type by Survey Block surface collections. 462

Table 6-9. Projectile Points made from obsidian containing heterogeneities (Ob2). 465

Table 6-10. Ratio of Obsidian Projectile Points with heterogeneities. 465

Table 6-11. Obsidian: mean sizes of complete Ob1 and Ob2 artifacts, by Survey Block. 467

Table 6-12. Obsidian production system indices for surface survey. 472

Table 6-13. ArchID numbers for diagnostic projectile points, Series 1-4 only. 474

Table 6-14. Projectile point mean weights by point type and material type. 475

Table 6-15. All obsidian projectile points by survey block. 476

Table 6-16. Aggregated Projectile Point Styles by Material Type for the project area. 477

Table 6-17. Classifications for Archaic components of sites. 481

Table 6-18. Diagnostic Projectile points Series 1-4 from Blocks 1, 4 and high altitude areas of Block 5, identifed by ArchID number. 488

Table 6-19. All Diagnostic Projectile Points from Blocks 1, 4, and Block 5 upper puna. Weights included for unbroken points only. 489

Table 6-20. Environmental characteristics of Archaic Foragers logistical camps in Block 1. 490

Table 6-21. Lithic artifacts from site A03-229 excluding eleven Series 5 projectile points. 501

Table 6-22. Lithic artifacts from site A03-777 excluding 1 Series 5 projectile point. 502

Table 6-23. Lithic artifacts from site A03-910 excluding five Series 5 Ob1 projectile points. 505

Table 6-24. Complete Cores at Collpa [A03-910]. 506

Table 6-25. Diagnostic Projectile points Series 1-4 from Block 2 identifed by ArchID number. 509

Table 6-26. Loci in Chiripascapa. 513

Table 6-27. Diagnostic Series 1 through 4 projectile points from Chiripascapa [A03-1014]. 519

Table 6-28. Representative proportions of material types by projectile point styles. 519

Table 6-29. All lithic artifacts from Chiripascapa. 520

Table 6-30. Non-consecutive ArchID numbers at Huañatira [A03-900], an Archaic Foragers site. 524

Table 6-31. Diagnostic Series 1 through 4 projectile points from Huañatira [A03-900]. 526

Table 6-32. All lithic artifacts from Huañatira. 526

Table 6-33. Environmental characteristics of selected Archaic Foragers sites in Block 2. 530

Table 6-34. Diagnostic Projectile points Series 1-4 from Blocks 3, 6 and the valley portion of Block 5 identifed by ArchID number. 532

Table 6-35. Loci in Kakapunku [A03-1000]. 539

Table 6-36. Rock shelters at Kakapunku [A3-1000], dimensions in meters. 539

Table 6-37. Selected Lithics from Kakapunku [A03-1000]. 541

Table 6-38. Counts of Material types by Artifact Form from 1977 Quelkata surface collections. 551

Table 6-39. Loci in Pokallacta [A03-1074]. 555

Table 6-40. Rock shelters at Pokallacta [A3-1074], dimensions in meters. 555

Table 6-41. Selected Lithics from Pokallacta [A03-1074]. 556

Table 6-42. Environmental characteristics of aceramic sites. 557

Table 6-43. Loci at Sullullumba [A03-806]. 566

Table 6-44. Site sizes in Ichocollo [A03-32]. 569

Table 6-45. Bifacially Flaked Lithics from Ichocollo by Material Type. 574

Table 6-46. Bifacial Lithics at Ichocollo showing Counts of Material Types by Length. 575

Table 6-47. Classifications for Early Agropastoralist components of sites. 579

Table 6-48. Areal features belonging to A03-126 and A03-275 workshop complex. 597

Table 6-49. Material types for Series 5 points in Blocks 4 and 5. 608

Table 6-50. Dimension of structural features at Pausa [A02-39]. 617

Table 6-51. Counts of lithics from surface collection at Pausa [A02-39]. 619

Table 6-52. All ceramics from Taukamayo [A02-26] and vicinity. 628

Table 6-53. Cores from the surface of Taukamayo. 630

Table 6-54. Counts of lithics from surface collection at Taukamayo [A02-26]. 630

Table 6-55. Ob1 and Ob2 obsidian use at A03-738 "Lecceta 1" compared with entire project. 648

Table 6-56. Diagnostic sherds from Huañatira 2 [A03-855]. 653

Table 6-57. Diagnostic ceramics from Callalli Antiguo [A03-662] and vicinity. 670

Table 7-1. Lithics Phase II analysis showing fraction of artifacts with detail measures. 677

Table 7-2. Q02u2 “Quarry Pit” obsidian production system indices. 681

Table 7-3. Q02u3 “Maymeja Workshop” obsidian production system indices. 682

Table 7-4. A02-26u1 “Taukamayo” obsidian production system indices. 683

Table 7-5. A02-39 u3 and u4 “Pausa” obsidian production system indices. 684

Table 7-6. 1x1m test excavation unit proveniences from 2003 fieldwork. 685

Table 7-7. Q02-2u2 Excavation levels from test unit at quarry pit.. 697

Table 7-8. Q02-2u2 lithic technical class by test unit excavation level. 698

Table 7-9. Q02-2u2 quarry pit obsidian artifact material type and color by level. 699

Table 7-10. Q02-2u2 Color in quarry pit artifacts compared with all points from fieldwork. 700

Table 7-11. Q02-2u2 quarry pit: Lengths of flakes and cores with >20% cortex. 701

Table 7-12. Calculated depth of strata in Q02-2u2. 702

Table 7-13. Q02-2u3 Excavation levels from test unit at the A03-126 workshop. 708

Table 7-14. Q02-2u3: c2 showing Technical Class by Level with the Standard Residual. 709

Table 7-15. Attributes of obsidian artifacts from Q02-2u3. 711

Table 7-16. Proportion of Kombewa flakes by level in Q02-2u3. 711

Table 7-17. Cores at Q02-2-u3 by excavation level showing countsof Ob1 and Ob2. 715

Table 7-18. Canonical discriminant function for Q02-2u3 Cores. 718

Table 7-19. Q02-2-u3 characteristics of three clusters from core attributes. 721

Table 7-20. Q02-2u3: ANOVA on complete cores and flakes with at least 50% dorsal cortex. 727

Table 7-21. Q02-2u3: ANOVA on measures from complete flakes. 730

Table 7-22. Canonical Discriminant Function Structure Matrix in order of size of correlation. 733

Table 7-23. Q02-2-u3: characteristics of 3 clusters of flakes based on numerical attributes. 734

Table 7-24. Q02-2u3: c2 showing types of terminations by flake cluster. 736

Table 7-25. Q02-2u3: Obsidian type and color of artifacts by level. 742

Table 7-26. Q02-2u3: Length of complete flakes and cores with ?50% cortex. 742

Table 7-27. A02-39u3 test unit. Excavation levels, overview, and soil description. 751

Table 7-28. A02-39u4 test unit. Excavation levels, overview, and soil description. 751

Table 7-29. A03-39u3/u4 counts of lithics by level. 753

Table 7-30. A02-39u3 and u4: Obsidian flake types by excavation level. 754

Table 7-31. A02-26u1 test unit. Excavation levels, overview, and soil description. 759

Table 7-32. A02-26u1: Artifact counts and averages for select measures. 762

Table 7-33. A02-26u1: Lithic Technical Classes by Level showing counts. 762

Table 7-34. A02-26u1 Excavation and Block 3 surface: Lithic Tech. Classes by Obsidian type. 767

Table 7-35. Counts by length for all complete obsidian flakes with ?20% dorsal cortex. 770

Table 8-1. Visibility index values of high visibility production locations. 791