mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== Emergence of Civilizations / Anthro 341: Class 19 The Emergence of Civilization in the Andes: Initial Period ã Copyright Bruce Owen 2002 * Initial Period 2000-800 BC * so called because it was the time of the first (initial) use of ceramics * these dates fall around the end of the latest periods we looked at in Mesopotamia and Egypt, but are roughly contemporary with the Lungshan Horizon through the Shang Dynasty subsistence shifted from mostly marine resources to a mix with more irrigated agriculture, as people moved further up into the coastal segments of the river valleys * root crops (potatoes, oca, ulluco, manioc [yuca] etc.) plus beans, squashes, fruits * maize still rare or absent on the coast, just appearing in the highlands * Current evidence has maize becoming important in the intermontaine valleys first, and being adopted on the coast later, at the very end of the Initial period. * This is surprising, because * maize was very important on the coast in later times * and in early Mesoamerican societies, too * but maize just does not turn up in coastal Initial period excavations no consensus on why they shifted to depend more on irrigated crop production * no evidence of excessive population for the maritime resources * population was low relative to maritime carrying capacity estimates no increase in physiological stress indicated by human bones no significant environmental change known Wenke suggests that maize farming was more dependable than marine resources, due to the effects of occasional disasterous El Niño events * first, it couldn't have been maize, since that was not adopted until later. Maybe manioc, beans, etc. were more dependable? * depending on diverse food sources is always more reliable than depending on just one source * but farming often suffers just as badly as fishing in El Niño years -- often worse * so there may be some truth to this, but it is not an obvious, clear answer another suggestion: * weak, incipient leaders may have developed in the Late Preceramic through monument construction and coordination of ritual activities * these somehow encouraged a greater emphasis on canal construction and irrigated farming precisely because they could control it better than fishing and shellfish gathering * that is, maybe it was easier for a leader with modest initial wealth or authority to create his or her own "extra" income by investing in canal construction, sowing seed, etc., than by trying to extract resources from relatively independent fishers and shellfish gatherers some people moved further inland to farm * it is easiest to build canals in the steeper sections of the valleys, not the flattest coastal section * this split groups into coastal fishers and inland farmers, a division that continued into historical times they began making ceramic vessels, maybe for boiling starchy crops weaving replaced more laborious hand-knotting methods of making cloth * allowed larger production of cloth * this presumably accompanied greater production of cotton from farming and wool from camelid herding organization * highly variable, regional pottery styles suggest lots of small, self-sufficient groups * the larger valleys had several ceremonial centers at this time, each center apparently associated with a small, local canal system * Moseley sees this as corporate action organized around the centers * that is, people came together in order to build and use the ceremonial centers, and this organization allowed them to go on to build canals Burger sees this as action by small groups (villages or kin groups) that were interacting anyway * that is, local groups and alliances between them existed just because of where they lived and who was nearby * these groups built both the ceremonial centers and the canals * so the centers simply reflect larger social groups, rather than causing them in any case, the canal systems were still of a scale that a village could manage much greater elaboration of monumental architecture * similar in concept to the Late Preceramic, but * many more ceremonial sites * generally bigger and more elaborate constructions, some very much bigger continued the practice of repeated interment and rebuilding structures started to feature large adobe friezes, often painted in bright colors, visible to crowds in plazas In the Reader, Burger divides these Initial period centers into several different traditions, but we will just lump them together here U-shaped mound complexes (Initial period, 2000 - 800 BC) * About 20 major U-shaped complexes known * U-shaped arrangement of central and flanking mounds defining a plaza * stairway up the center front, forming a dramatic entrance to the top of the main mound much larger than preceramic constructions Repeatedly interred and rebuilt Huaca la Florida * 1750-1650 BC * 6.7 million person-days (18,400 person-years), not including leveling the area, plastering, modeling, and painting the outsides * And there are others even larger! * Plazas up to 30 ha! Las Haldas * another large (8 hectare) Initial period U-shaped mound complex Cardal (the name is similar, but this is NOT the same site as Caral) * A smaller U-shaped center, notable mostly because it happens to have been well excavated recently (by Richard Burger) * late in the Initial period: 1100-850 BC * entrance stairway flanked by painted clay frieze of a gigantic mouth with interlocking teeth and canines 1 m long * painted cream, yellow, red, and black small habitation areas nearby contemporary with similar centers, one just 1 km away, another 5 km away * suggests that small groups built and used them some residences on top of main mound at Cardal were presumably for elites * but their refuse is like that in ordinary houses * that is: weak stratification on top of central mound, several burials * both male and female * presumably important people * but grave goods were limited: a few ordinary ceramics; one old man had a necklace of sea lion teeth and earspools made from porpoise vertebrae * that is, the most elite burials we have found associated with these huge mounds show few trappings of high status Garagay * 1640-900 BC * 3.2 million person-days (about 8,800 person-years) * painted relief of shaman (?) using a hallucinogen? Huaca de los Reyes * further north on the coast * dates range from 2040 to 970 BC, but it may not have actually been used that long * U-shaped complex with colonnades facing three sides of a main rectangular plaza * facades had large, modeled clay sculptures of anthropomorphic heads with fangs, toothy feline mouths, etc, painted in green, cream, and black * estimated 960 person-years to build (350,400 person-days) Generalizations about the Initial period coastal U-shaped mound tradition * no evidence that the centers were linked into a single hierarchy * highly varied ceramics from region to region suggests small societies that did not interact too much with each other * social stratification * some elite burials * but "elite" did not have a lot of fancy goods possible high-status residences on top of main mound at Cardal had refuse like that in ordinary houses * again, "elite" did not live much better than others maybe a cargo system? or status was acquired, not hereditary, so that wealth did not accumulate over generations in certain families? no signs of large settlements over a few thousand people Initial period in the Casma valley: an extreme case * five, then six centers in the Casma valley * described and discussed in the excellent, readable article by the Pozorskis in the Reader * Sechín Alto * oldest date is 1720 BC, construction presumably started even earlier * Twice the volume of Huaca La Florida * over 13 million person-days to build * that is 35,600 person-years (without weekends off!) * (still less than 10% of the estimate for Khufu's pyramid at Giza: 400,000 person-years) final form reflects around 1000 years of rebuilding! * incredible cultural conservatism, comparable to Mesopotamian temples 250 x 300 m at base (7.5 ha, bigger than the entire town of Jericho!) * base is bigger than the Great Pyramid at Giza or the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan * this single platform mound would cover the entire SSU main quad and all of Stevenson, Darwin, and Salazar hall 44 m tall (143 feet) at highest point * like a 9-storey building! originally adobe, with adobe friezes; massive stone facing added later area in front of main mound: * four successive rectangular courts * 3 with sunken circular plazas * total 1.4 km long (close to a mile long!) Cerro Sechín * much smaller than Sechín Alto * not a mound or U-shaped structure, but a room complex at the foot of a hill * originally adobe, with large cats and fish modeled and painted on the front at different times * stone sculpture wall built around 1520 BC, after numerous earlier rebuildings and expansions * What does the wall mean? * "Medical school" (not very likely) * Warfare? * residential sites are not defensible at this time * sites are on flat land near irrigable areas, not on hilltops or ridges * they don't have defensive walls and no other evidence of significant warfare * like lots of burials with traumatic injuries * or lots of weapons in burials or other contexts maybe warfare was real but rare? or even so rare as to be a historical to mythical memory? or it was some sort of ritualized conflict different from our concept of warfare, such that defenses were not appropriate? * the Andean concept of tinku * scheduled, organized fight between villages or descent groups * often resulting in real injuries or deaths Pampa de las Llamas / Moxeke (2000 - 1500 BC) (Still Casma valley) * about 200 ha * over twice the area of the entire SSU campus! * a complex with two big mounds connected by plazas, and a lot of smaller ceremonial and residential buildings Moxeke main mound * stepped pyramid/platform mound with rounded corners * 160 x 170 m at base (a bit over a third the area of Sechín Alto) * would cover most of the main SSU quad and Salazar hall * 30 m high (98 feet) * 10 m (33 feet) up on the sides were huge painted sculptures in niches, clearly for viewing from the ground * front had huge niches occupied by sculptural figures * presumably the setting for ceremonies mean to be appreciated by a sizable crowd located in the plaza Huaca A * very different from Moxeke main mound * broad platform with a complex of rooms on top with very high walls (4-7 m, roughly 16 feet), many with niches * mostly built of fieldstones set in mortar, with surfaces plastered and painted white * 136 m x 119 m (a little smaller than Moxeke main mound) * 9 m - 15 m high (29 to 49 feet) * tall, but much lower than main mound * more like a high, broad platform covered with high-walled rooms originally painted white, with huge feline (cat) paintings around entrance no evidence that people lived in Huaca A * no hearths, no food garbage lots of restrictions to access * main log gate, a serious barrier * many interior doorways had sliding pole barriers that could only indicate that a doorway was closed (easy to duck under) * suggests overseers or respect for authority maybe the rooms were for storage? * very little evidence of what would have been stored there * not surprising; if it had any value, it would have been removed pollen from niches suggests cotton, beans, potatoes, peanuts * but it could have blown in on the wind * pollen comes from flowers; it is not typically plentiful on the parts of plants that would be stored, like peanuts or potatoes lots of rodent bones also suggest storage maybe they were administrative rooms? maybe they were for ritual, like some preceramic sites? * but there are no hearths in the rooms * they do not match either the Aspero tradition (interconnected rooms with one or two focal, special rooms) or the Kotosh tradition (many similar rooms with independent access from outside) * if Huaca A is for ritual, it must have been fairly different from earlier traditions Numerous platforms along the edges of the huge plaza between Huaca A and Moxeke main mound * some had high-status residences behind them * built like the Huaca A rooms (plastered, painted rubble-filled walls) * but with hearths and domestic refuse * and with storerooms that contained * large jars * niches * storage pits these were presumably residences of the elite "bureaucrats" working at the attached small platform mound * pottery figurines * stone mortars and pestles for red pigment * wall and body paint? stamp and cylinder seals * 2 stamp seals have red pigment, suggesting stamping on cloth or skin * apparently not used like Old World seals; no clay sealings found but the garbage in these residences is similar to the plainer ones we will look at * so do the architectural differences and special artifacts indicate a status difference, or not? possible low-status housing a little further away from Huaca A and the plaza * perishable buildings, with probably cane walls set along stone footings * less regular plans * hearths smaller * not connected to or aligned with public architecture * yet the domestic refuse is similar to that in the better-built residences See Pozorski and Pozorski (an excellent article) for a different point of view and more on Pampa de las Llamas / Moxeke generalities about the Initial period Casma valley * no defensible sites! * no craft workshops known, nor fine goods that would imply craft specialists * except the ceremonial buildings themselves, with sculptures and paintings on the walls no really large concentrations of population no large-scale irrigation works still no impressive elite burials But-- * huge monumental architecture * storage (at least at Pampa de las Llamas) (maybe!) * administration (at Pampa de las Llamas) (maybe!) * possibly higher-status residences associated with the fancy buildings so is it civilization yet or not? * consider Burger's "state-free" achievement definition * the Pozorskis use a more standard state definition The Initial Period State Debate * Burger's view of Casma sociopolitical organization * doubts that the Initial Period Casma sites were united in a state organization * does not see evidence of expected state features: * no standardized government architecture * no artifacts emblematic of state bureaucracy * little evidence of occupational specialization, other than fishers vs. farmers * few artifacts suggestive of specialist craft producers * no workshop areas known Burger argues that the variation in residential architecture is not evidence of two socioeconomic classes * because the garbage is similar, i.e. the food and goods used by the people living in both areas was similar, not different no clearly high-status burials * one burial from a "high status" area and one burial from a "low status" area * both were in simple sub-floor pits with only broken pottery as offerings * this sample is somewhat limited... Burger suggests that high status may have been linked to leadership in ritual and construction work * but was not translated into class differences * and thus not evidence of a state prefers to see the Casma valley as a patchwork of independent but similar "pre-state polities", each with its own territory, canal system, and monumental site other doubts about the complexity of the Initial Period societies in the Casma valley * the population would have been pretty modest in size * the evidence for Huaca A being a storage structure is not strong; it might have been a ritual building, without the economic functions the Pozorskis ascribe to it * no evidence of a writing or recordkeeping system * the evidence for considering all the Casma valley sites to be part of a single hierarchical system is weak; they could have been a bunch of relatively simple, independent groups, just with some being bigger than others if there was no state in the Casma valley, home of the most complex and impressive sites during the Initial Period, presumably there was none anywhere in the Andes in the Initial Period The Pozorskis' alternative view * They see a "civilization" in the Casma valley at 2000 - 1500 BC * They note the potential for state administration inherent in irrigation agriculture * they see all the sites (Pampa de las Llamas/Moxeke, Cerro Sechin, and others) as being part of a single political system * partially because several sites include an artistic motif showing a cluster of three or four squares, as on the hats of the warriors at Cerro Sechin * they think this could be a symbol of a ruling elite, ethnicity, or government they estimate that the residential sectors of Pampa de las Llamas / Moxeke held 2500 people of various economic statuses they see Huaca A as a managed warehouse * full of access control devices, appropriate for a warehouse * lots of repetitious square rooms that could be for storage * i.e. similar to Mesopotamian temple storage and redistribution complexes they think that the smaller mounds were offices for managing flow of these goods * Pozorskis see storage features in the attached residences as being for personal wealth of occupants * and thus evidence of an upper class * they also note seals and traces of pigments in these buildings that might have been used to mark higher status these relatively few high-status residences would contrast to the larger area of low-status cane-walled homes further from the monuments and plaza they interpret another site, Taukachi-Konkan, as a monumental residence for a ruling elite, serving as the capital of the Casma polity * making all the monumental sites in the valley part of a complex hierarchy, with different functions and different relative importance, all necessary for the functioning of a valley-wide state Which is right? People still argue, but the Pozorskis are in the minority