Dillehay 2004 Social Landscape & Ritual Pause Uncertainty

8/10/2019 Dillehay 2004 Social Landscape & Ritual Pause Uncertainty

1/30

239

Social landscape and ritual pause

Uncertainty and integration in formative Peru

TOM D. DILLEHAY

Department of Anthropology,University of Kentucky,USA

ABSTRACT

In the study of emergent complexity, little attention has been givento the strategies employed by autonomous household-basedcommunities to overcome the social risks and uncertainties of initialintegration and how these strategies can be examined archeologically.Such strategies can be designed to slow the integrative process and toprovide small-scale communities with the opportunity to negotiate the

form of emerging social cohesion. The Late Initial Period of Peru (c.15001000 BC) presents a case study in which households are inte-grated for the first time at public ceremonies that were influenced ororganized by a centralizing external ideology. The archeologicalevidence at San Luis, a U-shaped mound complex in the Zana Valley,Peru, suggests the use of segmented ritual spaces and rhythmic, time-extended ritual pauses by households to ensure social harmony and todeter or delay movements toward political centralization. Thebroader implications of these developments are discussed for early

complex societies.

Journal of Social Archaeology A R T I C L E

Copyright 2004 SAGE Publications (www.sagepublications.com)

ISSN 1469-6053 Vol 4(2): 239268 DOI: 10.1177/1469605304042396
http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/


2/30

240 Journal of Social Archaeology 4(2)

KEYWORDS

integration landscape Peru place politics ritual

INTRODUCTION

The process of establishing social integration and political centralization inearly complex societies has primarily been treated by anthropologists as ifit was a self-evident reality in which a minority of emerging elites organ-ized, integrated, and ruled people (e.g. Fried, 1967; Service, 1975).1 Untilrecently, archeologists had mainly employed hierarchical models of central-ization and inequality to explain various forms of social interaction andpower relations between rulers and commoners (Anderson, 1996; Blantonet al., 1996; Brumfiel, 1994; Clark and Blake, 1994; Crumley, 1995; Dobresand Robb, 2000; Feinman, 2000). Commoners have generally been viewedas the products of social inculcation to which they were subjected inexchange relations, ideological indoctrination, and public gatherings atspecial places (Bender, 1995; Earle, 1991; Flannery, 1976; Hayden, 1995;Hill and Clark, 2001; Upham, 1990). Although useful for examining certainaspects of social relations, these models have often been shortsighted. Theyhave presumed passive acquiescence on the part of commoners and

overemphasized the extent to which autonomous communities weremolded by social processes to become part of a hierarchic collective.Underemphasized is the presence of communities that questioned, resistedor moved slowly towards these developments by organizing non-central-ized, communal efforts to integrate on their own terms (Arnold, 1995;Crumley, 1995; Giddens, 1984; Pauketat, 2000; Price and Feinman, 1995;Sherratt, 1990). When pressures are placed on communities by changingsocial landscapes, they may respond in different ways (Dietler and Hayden,2001; Ehrenreich et al., 1995; Hayden, 1995; McIntosh, 1999; Mehrer, 2000;

Renfrew and Cherry, 1986) by organizing along various dimensions of hier-archic, heterarchic and horizontal complexity that represent differing butcompeting forms of social constructs.

In regions of the world where early complex societies emerged, it is notalways clear whether integration and/or centralization occurred rapidly orgradually, whether it was negotiated between non-elites and ruling elites,or whether it ever developed. Despite the efforts of local leaders, theremust have been risk and uncertainty attached to agricultural or other formsof economic intensification, adoption of innovations, increased congre-

gation and coordination of activities, and increased differences in access toresources, with the notion that their integration on a collective, inter-household level eventually would lead to socialization, differential power,and hierarchy (Carneiro, 1981; Fried, 1967; Spriggs, 1984). Not all public


3/30

241Dillehay Social landscape and ritual pause

goal-oriented politics, however, require formal leadership and centralizedrelations (Burger, 1992; Swartz, 1968: 36). Integrative processes of social-ization, as well as the routine and continuous inculcation of values and

beliefs in exchange systems, public works such as road and irrigationsystems, and special ceremonies, also could have played vital roles inendowing autonomous households with the social skills that could have ledto self-directed communal modes of production (Keene, 1991; also seeArnold, 2000; Dillehay, 1992; Saitta, 1997).

A critical question to explore, and the issue on which I focus this essay,is whether ruled by hierarchical or other forms of order, some small-scalecommunities acting as independent units were capable of distancing them-selves from large-scale, centralizing integrative processes to which theywere subjected, of reflecting on and perhaps contesting these processes, andestablishing a pace or tempo of social integration on their own terms atperiodic public ceremonies, particularly in times of the risk and uncertaintythat must have been associated with early societies adopting new techno-logical forms of production and being exposed to new ideologies of socialcohesion. I argue that a distancing strategy gave these communities the timeand circumstances to define the conditions of integration and to accelerate,deter or negotiate centralization on their own terms. Bourdieu (1990) refersto these conditions as crisis moments in doxa: that is, those times and placeswhere people question a change or the status quo for the good of the popu-

lation during an intense or uncertain moment the crisis of concern in thisstudy being an emergent agrarian lifeway probably associated with theemergence of irrigation systems, increased contact between neighboringcommunities, and the spread of an integrative pan-Central Andeanreligious ideology2 to a local community in the Formative Late InitialPeriod (c. 15001000 BC) of Peru.

Crucial to my understanding of emergent complexity is the spatial andtemporal ordering of a society, which structures and is structured by socialaction. Geographical literature has shown that the meaning of spaces and

places are historically and socially constituted and vary through time (e.g.Harvey, 1989; Keith and Pile, 1993; Miller, 1995). The meaning of a placeaffects the types of events carried out in it and vice versa. Time, like space,is socially constituted and as such also carries meaning. Culturally producedconcepts of time are shaped by and enacted through social practices, whichare structured and synchronized by places (Adam, 1995; Levine, 1997;Zerubavel, 1981). That is, people socially structure the pace or tempo oftheir activities just as they locate them in built environments. What resultsis a cycle of meanings, actions, tempos, and places influencing, constituting,

and structuring each other. Social power arises from the temporal, spatialand other relationships between actors in a mutually acknowledgedcompetitive or cooperative context of daily routines and practices. Insocieties undergoing intense social change, these practices often create and


4/30


are created by new ways of experiencing time and space that alter the paceof life and produce new places to accommodate events associated withchange. These experiences often result in what Harvey (1989: 220)describes as time-space compressions the technological, ideological,political, and/or economic conditions that accelerate the transportation of

goods and the communication of new ideas across space. In this sense, bothspace and time are reduced in scale and scope by innovative time-spaceinstruments to achieve societal goals. Examples are the rapid pace andspread of socio-economic development spurred by the nineteenth centuryindustrial revolution, the quick movement of people from one place toanother by rapid transit systems, the global transmission of informationwithin seconds by computers, and all-purpose assembly plants (e.g. FordCompany) for more cost-efficient production. In a similar but reversed way,I believe that other or similar instruments can act in the capacity of

timespace extensions; that is, to expand rather than compress time and/orspace to intentionally slow or retard certain developments or practices.Modern-day examples are the slow-food movement begun in Italy thatwas designed to shift the increasingly rapid global consumption of cheap

Figure 1 General location of the Zana Valley in Peru and of the San Luis site

and Initial Period household sites in the valley


5/30


fast foods back to locally produced, exquisitely prepared and healthierhome-cooked meals, and President Clintons town hall meetings in the1990s that were created to slow national political agendas to include more

local and regional voices. I suggest that instruments of time-space compres-sion and extension are not limited to the modern era, but also existed inthe preindustrial past as media to increase, slow, change or deter broadsocial, economic and cultural movements.

The purpose of this article is to analyze a crisis moment by studying theemergent conditions of social integration and the probable deterrence ofpolitical centralization among autonomous households associated with thepublic ceremonial site of San Luis in the Zana Valley on the north coast ofPeru during the Late Initial Period (Figure 1). I suggest that local house-holds in the valley developed ritualized and individualized timespaceextensions at special U-shaped ceremonial monuments at San Luis in orderto adjust to a newly introduced integrative ideology and to negotiate alocally specific form of integration and deterrence. I also argue that house-hold-based communities in early societies can respond in different ways tothe pressures placed on them by changing social conditions, that differentforms of social relations can be negotiated between small-scale localcommunities and large-scale processes placing pressure on them, and thatthese relations can be integrated through small-scale, individualized ritualactivities. On a regional level, the result is a pluralistic society comprised

of various communities defined by different but probably competing socialconstructions.

Two primary themes run throughout this article. The first is the way inwhich ceremonial landscape, the U-shaped monuments at San Luis, thesites social tempo and ritual calendar were used by local households toslow, guide and structure a new but negotiable ideological experience (seelater discussion on the nature of this ideology, insofar as we can understandit archeologically), and to socially integrate themselves on their terms intimes of new risks and uncertainties. This experience had to secure the

adherence of individual households to the collective social order, to providethe symbolic glue that unified this order and bonded household membersto it, and to allow different households to share power and to participatein collective activity and ritual at San Luis in negotiable unranked ways.Important to the success of sharing power was equal access of all house-holds to construct individual ritual spaces at San Luis and to periodicallyperform or share ritual time that is, to establish a collective rhythm inceremony. Although not yet defined archeologically, I suspect that an inte-grative, valley-wide irrigation system played a crucial role in motivating

local groups to collectively organize themselves to share water and to makeimportant decisions about their livelihood (Williams, 1985). Major dietaryshifts were taking place at this time with more groups moving farther inlandaway from the coast to exploit fertile agricultural lands and to establish


6/30


water networks (Burger, 1992: 111; Moseley, 2001: 99102). Such movessurely necessitated greater integration. Second, I believe that small-scalecommunal activity worked at San Luis, because it was based on an ideology

that appealed to people living under different circumstances; it wasdesigned to show autonomous households how to agree and how to inte-grate socially. Crucial to this design was periodic ceremony that was consti-tuted by timespace extensions or pauses and breaks in ritual action, whichallowed for power sharing across different households and fostered a self-directed collective solidarity by means of consensus management and bybelief in a corporate cognitive code (Blanton et al., 1996: 57) a newcommunity-based religious ideology (Burger, 1992). Prior to presenting thearcheological evidence for these patterns, I will discuss briefly the Initialperiod in Peru and some concepts that guide my thinking.

UNCERTAIN TIMES IN PERU

The Late Preceramic and Late Initial periods (c. 35001000 BC) in Peruwere times of major ideological, social and economic transformation, inten-sive agricultural, maritime and pastoral economies, increased corporatelabor, the appearance of great art styles, U-shaped monumental architec-

ture, a widespread integrative religion to promote and legitimize thesetransformations, and increased population growth and interaction(Bonavia, 1991; Burger, 1992; Lavallee, 2000; Moseley, 2001; Quilter, 1991).Some local communities were more strongly affiliated than others assuggested by shared ceramic, iconographic, and architectural styles(Burger, 1992; Donnan, 1985; Isbell, 1976; Quilter, 1991). Some investi-gators view this uniformity as evidence for early state-like polities thatshared a centralized ideology (Feldman, 1985; Haas, 1982; Keatinge, 1981;Pozorski and Pozorski, 1987a, 1987b; Shady et al., 2001). There also are a

wide variety of local and regional styles, which casts doubts on widespreadpolitical and ideological centralization. Further, little archeologicalevidence exists in the form of elite burials, craft specialization and exchangefor the purpose of accumulating personal wealth and for establishing statusand power among a few leaders, and centralized and elaborate houses tosubstantiate social classes and permanent hierarchical rulers. Opposingviews on the political nature of these early communities rest primarily onthe degree to which stylistic diversity or unity reflects centrality. It is mostlikely that the Initial Period was characterized by a plurality of communi-

ties organized on different hierarchic, heterarchic, and horizontal levels(Burger, 1992; Burger and Salazar, 1986; Dillehay, 1992, 1999; Quilter,1991). The Late Preceramic and Late Initial periods (25001000 BC) culmi-nated in the Chavin culture (c. 1000200 BC), which forged greater cultural


7/30


and social unity from a multitude of regional cultural traditions (Burger,1992; Tello, 1942).

Although the ideology of this period is not well understood, Burger

(1992: 37) perceives it as:. . . organizational innovations in the central Andes [that] permitted thelarge-scale mobilization of labor before the appearance of markedsocioeconomic stratification and the coercive state apparatuses that oftenaccompany it. At the heart of this Late Preceramic [and Initial Period]innovation was the role of religious ideology in motivating collective efforts,maintaining order, and perpetuating the system. . . . [This] was an ideologywhich held that the community, not the individual, owned and controlled thecritical resources. Membership of the community was validated throughparticipation in communal activities, and failure to collaborate resulted in

social sanctions and eventually in limited access to land and water.

In adding to Burgers definition, I perceive this ideology as a flexibledoctrine of social construction that encouraged some populations tosocially integrate, perhaps with the intent to eventually organize themselvesat a higher level, and others to politically centralize by means of practicinginter-household affiliation in U-shaped ceremonial places and in everydaylife routines. I believe that local communities influenced by or adopting thisideology had choices about a range of social constructs and the strategiesused to make one or another prevail. As noted earlier, the end result wasa pluralistic Initial Period society characterized by multiple and co-existingversions of this ideology that shared architectural and other styles and thatvaried along various dimensions of hierarchy, heterarchy, and horizontalcomplexity, with none of them dominating enough to eliminate the rest.

Between 2500 and 1500 BC, if not earlier, this ideology had spread andtransformed most other coastal and highland valleys into a symbolic andsocial nexus for local communities and eventually brought them into valley-long and, in some parts, regional spheres of religious, social and economicinteraction. When this ideology later arrived in the Zana Valley (c.

14001200 BC), local communities opted for a horizontal, communal formof social integration whereby authority was rotated and shared amonghouseholds. It is not known whether the adoption of this ideology and itsassociated ceramic styles and U-shaped monuments was achieved byemulation or imposition. For reasons not presently understood, only certainelements of this ideology are present at San Luis. Some major iconographicelements are absent; shared but decadent U-shaped monumental andceramic styles are present. In my opinion, this suggests partial emulation ofthe ideology by the Zana community.3


8/30


IDEOLOGY, UNCERTAINTY, AND RITUAL TEMPO AND

PLACE

Many social theories of ideology (Gramsci, 1973; Roscoe, 1993; Thompson,1990) insist that people are not always imposed upon by dominant groupsbut must be convinced that the ideas of a new social order will benefit them.Domination, power and social order occur in the realm of meaning, aformal political and ideological arena, and a temporal setting composed ofdifferent groups within the society. Time is required to implement plans fora new order and for groups to adjust to new conditions. Different groupswithin the same society may have different plans that promote theirdifferent ideas and interests, despite the potential ruling power of a

dominant group or ideology (Archer, 1988).Public rituals and places are one of the easiest ways of including different

groups within a wider social order and ideological movement, to recognizeother positions and ideas, to register ambivalence about belonging anddifference, to shape and alter intergroup cooperation, and to deal with riskand uncertainty in moments of social doubt (Natter and Jones, 1997). In thissense, ritual is not just normative but transformative, insofar as it providesthe means for responding to perceived tensions between local groups, insti-tutions and historical conditions and for changing ideologies. It also is

important to recognize the special places where rituals are practiced and theway they are structured materially and temporally (DeMarrais et al., 1996)to develop cooperation and compliance between different groups andbetween different plans and ideologies. Special spatial structures and placesof collective action provide historically contingent but durable schemes ofcompliance or dissent that have an ideological dimension (Therborn, 1980).This dimension . . . derives from routines of compliance. It establishes anauthority structure and institutionalizes practices of rule. Ideologies presentthe code of social order how social and political organizations are struc-

tured (Earle, 1997: 8). Ideological codes must connect public beliefs toactions and to special places. These places, in turn, contribute to the creationand reproduction of ideology (Hirsch and OHanlon, 1995; Lefebvre, 1991).Thus, special places are not only produced by but also produce ideology,and they may reproduce specific forms of social positioning and cohesionin time and space (Earle, 1997: 1538).

In the case of Peru, special places such as the U-shaped ceremonialstructures of the Late Initial period were not just produced by and reflectedideology. These places also played an important role in the creation andnegotiation of ideological beliefs and ritual practices and in the regulationof resources and people. The patterned layout in the size and shape of theceremonial space of local U-shaped forms was an expression of thenegotiated social and religious order. By tracing the historical conditions


9/30


that relate local form to the pan-Central Andean religious ideology andsocial order, we can examine early social integration in the Zana Valley,and how autonomous household relationships were restructured and

remapped in the socially constructed space of the U-shaped buildings atSan Luis. Specifically, analysis of the construction and use phases of thesebuildings provides detailed information on the tempo of social cohesion andthe rhythm of the ritual calendar that allowed local household communi-ties the time to adjust to integration and to set their own pace of change(Bourdieu, 1990, 1994; Thrift, 1988).

Bourdieu (1994) has addressed the importance of understanding thepace of a community. That is, members of a community must perform theirduties by conforming to an accepted social order. This entails adhering tothe collective rhythm or calendar that helps to establish and maintaincommunity solidarity. Certain rhythms are appropriate for certain actionsincluding, for my purpose, inter-household ceremonial activities that followan annual cycle or tempo. For Bourdieu, adherence or submission to thecollective rhythm is important, because the temporal and spatial organiza-tion of specific collective actions structures the communitys representationof ideology and, in turn, structures the community itself in the form of asocial or ritual calendar (Bourdieu, 1994: 1589; see also Young andSchuller, 1988; Zerubavel, 1981).

Little is known of the social rhythm or tempo of use of early ceremonial

sites, and how public architecture, building phases, and periodic ceremonymay have been used to integrate autonomous groups or employed for non-integrative purposes (Dillehay, 1998; Walker and Lucero, 2000). In theCentral Andes, the U-shaped centers of the Late Preceramic and LateInitial periods were special places where the social calendars of inter-house-hold activities and new ideologies were periodically played out and wheregoals may have been informed by a habitus, a call for action that orientedmembers of previously autonomous households toward particular practicesas opposed to others, such as sustained autonomy, social integration, or

even political centralization.The general thinking about the periodicity of building phases in early

Andean monuments is that they represent relatively static, conservative,construction units reflecting refurbishment events, reciprocal laborexchanges, population expansion, changes in leadership or ritual cycles ofdedication, termination and renewal ceremonies (Burger, 1992; Moore,1996). Andeanists have not specifically problematized these phases as anobject of social study by asking what the tempo of cultural deposition (i.e.stratigraphy) at these sites implies ideologically or politically. I suggest that

they not only reflect ritual cycles and related activities, but, at some sites,the formation of deliberate timespace extensions (e.g. temporal pausesor breaks) in the public social calendar that are designed to slow inte-gration or to more cautiously approach it, respectively, by engaging in


10/30


intercommunity ceremony and to establish an agenda and values to guidethis new experience and collective identity in times of risk and uncertainty.4

STRATIGRAPHY OF TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL RHYTHMS

The idea of a social tempo or rhythm in the use of public buildings hasreceived limited attention from Andean archeologists. Yet, it is the stratig-raphy of a place that perhaps best represents the empirical record of siteuse, its temporal construction phases, its cycles of occupation and abandon-ment, and its time-space compressions and extensions. As such, the studyof stratigraphy, use phases, and the patterned layout of buildings provideinsights into the social order and social processes that were at work (Walkerand Lucero, 2000).

In this study, site use refers to a single continuous brief interval of time,a week, month, season or year perhaps, as suggested by the thickness andhorizontal extent of habitation floors and by the debris recovered fromthem. The tempo of site use is different. It refers to the frequency andsyncopation (Dillehay, 1998; Wandsnider, 1992) of occupation in a specificlocale, whether it is a site on the landscape or a particular place or time ofuse in a building. Continuous stratigraphy indicates uninterrupted occu-

pation or temporalities by the same or different communities. Discontinu-ous stratigraphy represents lapsing temporalities or cycles of site use andabandonment (whether related to cultural or natural events). A site is thusshaped by these rhythms of different occupation and abandonment tempo-ralities. By studying the stratigraphic record of sites, we can address therelationship between temporally and spatially discrete episodes of site useand disuse to study changes in the organization of behavior in spatiallybounded site areas, such as U-shaped structures.

Essential to this approach is detailed methodological emphasis on site

stratigraphy, especially the microstrata of cycles of discrete use floors andculturally sterile abandonment layers. The microstrata of U-shaped struc-tures generally has not been recorded by archeologists working in Peru;when they have been identified, it has beenpost facto, and usually recordedas architectural (re)building episodes revealed by walls and room additions(or macrostrata) rather than as intermittent episodes of use and/orabandonment that may be interpreted as temporal and spatial compres-sions/extensions designed to speed up, delay and manipulate, respectively,certain social and economic processes. In this study, both microstrata and

macrostrata constitute important units of analysis, which inform us ofspecific cultural and social events and, most importantly, provide a proxyrecord of their sequential, synchronic and coalescent histories at San Luisand its associated households.


11/30


INTEGRATION, PLACES, AND TEMPORALITIES AT SAN

LUIS

To study emergent social integration and delay or deterrence of politicalunity in the middle Zana Valley, an integrated research strategy was imple-mented at San Luis (Dillehay, 1998; Dillehay et al., 1997; Dillehay andNetherly, 1981; Netherly and Dillehay, 1979) and its two, side-by-side, U-shaped ceremonial complexes (Figures 12). Research at the site focusedon: (1) excavating comparable areas of the two complexes; (2) defining theintra-complex organization and inter-complex relations of the structures;(3) documenting the technology, economy, and internal organization of thestructures; (4) studying the cycles of use and abandonment by examining

the macro-strata and micro-strata of San Luis; and (5) identifying outlyingsupport settlements characterized by small agrarian households.

The Zana Valley is situated at the lowest point of the Andean chain inPeru, and contains the countrys closest juxtaposition of coast, sierra, andtropical forest (Koepcke and Koepcke, 1958; Simpson, 1975). The valley ischaracterized by a series of branching, lateral canyons which contain accessroutes to the tropical forest above and to the arid middle valley, where theSan Luis site is located, and the coastal desert plain below (Dillehay andNetherly, 1981).

Figure 2 Schematic view of the two U-shaped structures at San Luis


12/30


Figure 3 Schematic drawing of the two building phases (1 and 2 on the left

side of the figure) of mound A,prepared use floors (1E, 2B,2D, 2F, 2G, 2K,2M,

2O, 2Q,2S,2U, and 2W), and culturally placed but sterile fill layers betweenthem in the stratigraphy of a one of several excavated trenches in complexes

A and B. Note that some floors are discontinuous and occupy discrete areas of

the platform mounds.This stratigraphy is typical of the entire site complex


13/30


The two U-shaped structures at San Luis face to the east. The northernstructure is complex A; the southern structure is complex B (Figure 2). Thestructures are 4 m and 3 m high, 80 and 89 m long, and 120 and 250 m wide,

respectively. Both are constructed of rough fieldstones and occasionallysmooth blocky stones, and have a central structure with a platform and twoparallel wings. The pair of U-shaped mounds is unique in the valley,although later paired mounds exist elsewhere (Netherly and Dillehay,1986).

In total, 625 m2 were excavated in on-mound and off-mound areas atSan Luis. An additional 105 m2 of looters pits were cleaned and profiled.In total, 2932 sherds, stone tools, copper pieces, spondylus shells, rockcrystals, bone remains, articulated llama skeletons and several miscella-neous items were recovered from survey and excavation. Extensive surveyconducted in the valley resulted in the location of 15 small domestic sitesof the Late Initial Period. These sites range in size between 3050 m and6090 m, and are defined by ceramics, grinding stones, cultigens (e.g. corn,beans, peppers, peanuts, cotton), faunal remains (e.g. deer, iguana, shell-fish), occasional small stone residential structures, and other debris. Theselocalities show indistinguishable ceramic affinity with San Luis; two of thesesites have AMS radiocarbon dates (129060 BC [Beta 161914] and131050 BC [Beta 161913]) that agree with those from San Luis.

Macro-strata and micro-srata: occupation and abandonment

episodes

Two long trenches were excavated, several large blocks, and profilednumerous looter pits in both complexes and in off-mound areas. The exca-vations have revealed two major construction phases in the two complexes(Figure 3). Both complexes consisted of occasional small rooms, buildingwalls and several distinct, intermittent and thin (540 mm) prepared floorsand culturally sterile abandonment layers constructed in specific but limited

areas across the platform of the atria and on the wings, and at differentlevels within the structures (Figure 4). None of the floors and any associ-ated walls extended continuously across any platform level on the mainpyramids and on the two wings in the complexes. Each floor was preparedin a discrete area and subsequently capped by the culturally sterile lensesof clay silt.

The structures revealed more discrete construction phases thanexpected, forming small architectural units, levels, and activity areas, withprepared platform floors often tapering off into a prior use area, thus

leaving the impression that the time passed between each episode wasrather short in duration. Most construction on the atrium of each moundwas composed of small ritual platforms and stone-lined hearths of differentlevels. More than 20 prepared floors occupied the corners of the platforms,


14/30


with many superimposed upon others. Some abandoned structures werepartially destroyed or modified by the subsequent construction. Otherswere intentionally buried by the placement of culturally sterile sediment.Most ritual activity was associated with burned areas and intentionallybroken pottery vessels. We interpreted these discrete vertical and hori-zontal constructions and floors as different and brief ritual episodes thatrepresent individual household spaces. (Each discrete floor averages c. 13m2 in size.) Similar stratigraphic patterns have been found at other LateInitial Period sites (Terada and Onuki, 1981; Walter Alva, pers. comm.,

1997), which may represent similar or dissimilar activities.Ceramics recovered from the two complexes and from the 15 support

sites indicate a Late Initial Period occupation ranging between approxi-mately 1400 and 1100 BC. Two AMS radiocarbon dates obtained fromcharcoal in sealed hearths excavated in the base of the atria of thecomplexes were processed at 129040 BC (Beta 161944) for complex A andat 128060 BC (Beta 34558) for complex B. Based on the close agreementof these dates, on the similarity of and overlap between ceramic stylesbetween the two complexes, and on the appearance of discrete, thin, inter-

mittent use floors in all excavated areas, it appears that the entire siterepresents a series of temporally close building, use and abandonmentepisodes. The ceramic types and radiocarbon dates from these sites agreecompletely with similar types and date at Huacaloma Period sites (Terada

Figure 4 Schematic view from above of discrete ash lenses, prepared floors,

and remnants of wall construction associated with the last use episode of

building phase 2 in complex A


15/30


16/30


exchange across the site, and with the building of the structures them-selves.

In summary, the archeological evidence says something about the basisof divisions, transformations, and changes within the local society; thatpeople made internal fissioning or divisions and that the two complexeswere simply sequential building, use and abandonment phases by the samelocal society. The critical evidence for social, ritual and exchange activitiescomes from the U-shaped form of the complexes and from specific andcomparable architectural features and the duplicity of activities in bothcomplexes. The presence of discrete deposits of artifacts and features in theU-shaped structures seems to reflect individual ritual episodes of local

households (Dillehay, 1998).

Figure 5 Drawing of C-shaped burned areas, hoofprints,and other feature

stains on use floor of south wing of complex A. Note the linear-like layout and

clustering of some features


17/30


18/30


19/30


20/30


OPTING FOR INTEGRATION

I have examined public ritualized spatial practices as part of the social struc-

ture and as instrumental in building a coherent community at San Luis. Thiscommunity was delineated through choices made about new organizationalforms of social interaction and shared practices between local and non-localcommunities that probably involved ritualized gift exchanges andcommunal labor projects (Marcus, 2000: 234; Monaghan, 1995; Yaeger,2000) By choosing a public strategy of social integration rather thanpolitical centralization, as I have interpreted the archeological evidence, itmay have eased local concerns about uncertainty and opened the way tocooperation, trust, and more exchange during moments of emergent

complexity. Small-scale rituals at San Luis connoted completion ofexchanges between households and established a community social matrix,even though they may have emulated only part of the large-scale intrusiveideology. Set within this context the boundaries of ritual were not onlyneutral to each household but gave a redundant time-space order andfamiliarity. I have learned from large-scale, multi-lineage ceremonies of thepresent-day Mapuche in Chile that general adherence to uniformity inritual material symbolism and in the spatial layout of ceremonial sites isimportant in order for local and non-local communities to participate within

a regional network of familiar ritual spaces, although rituals can be inter-preted differently by different communities (Dillehay, 1992). Althoughceremony produces bonds of solidarity among communities, it does notrequire strict adherence to all forms, symbols and doctrines of pan-Mapuche ideology and, in the past, to political centralization. To theMapuche, public ceremony was and is not only an integrating factor butalso an expression of social independence and social divisiveness. At SanLuis and other localities, it also may have been participation in a networkof allied ceremonies sponsored by small-scale communities that may havebeen more important than the sharing of all symbols, beliefs, and practiceswithin the wider Central Andean ideology. I say this because, as mentionedearlier, not all architectural and stylistic elements of this ideology arepresent at San Luis, implying only a partial commitment to its structure anddoctrine.

Participation in rituals at San Luis extended the social spatiality of thelocal population beyond their individual households to a local public place,and to the even larger-scale ideology that featured the U-shaped ceremo-nial space in other coastal sites. As a result, three complementary levels ofsocial order existed in the middle valley: the pan-Central Andean ideology

as expressed in the dual U-shaped spaces of San Luis, the collectivecommunity of households at the site, and the private spaces of each house-hold. These levels may have been separate in daily life, but they


21/30


22/30


Recognition of differences in the meanings and beliefs of an integrativereligious ideology and the employment of ritual participation to structurecommunity identity presents a more complex view of these early societies,

whereby a plurality of ideologies and social orders may have been toler-ated via the employment of similar symbols and architectural canons. Alsoneeded is more study of the content and structure of experiences and ideasthat established the tempo and form of ritual interaction on the communityand regional level.

CONCLUSION

What do the observed patterns at San Luis tell us about emerging socialand political complexity at the outset of Andean civilization? The archeo-logical record of the Zana Valley presented here can be interpreted indifferent ways. Some archeologists may see centralization and hierarchy inthe data presented; others may interpret individual agency, heterarchy, oregalitariansm. I see full-scale political incorporation by outsiders beingdenied by locals at San Luis. People never lived permanently at San Luis,but they were periodically integrated there. The need to integrate probablystemmed from population nucleation in the middle valley, from the inten-

sification of an agrarian lifeway, and perhaps from the realization thatincreased intravalley and intervalley connectivity via an irrigation networkwere inevitable. By experiencing ceremonial activity at San Luis and byspatially structuring and restructuring the site, the U-shaped structuresbecame vehicles for an active reconstruction of remembrance or corporatememory that permitted the projection of local social relations into thefuture.

I do not see the integrative processes and shared ceramic and architec-tural styles at San Luis and other U-shaped settlements of this period in

the Central Andes being representative of an incipient state system, butplaces that simply wove together circulating ideas, styles, and populationsto form a particular kind of integrated society one poised to achieve moreintegration or even centralization in some places. It is likely, however, thatmost of these settlements were nothing more than small polities defined bya particular kind of improvised social integration and occasionally politicalcentralization, and by different strategies designed to transform, multiply,and spread their local identity through shared power at special places.

Several further issues can be raised for which we have no current answers

in the archeological record of early complex societies. For instance, whatleadership roles came to play in the regulation of interhousehold activity?When did households evolve into a formal political community? When thisoccurred, were special places like the U-shaped structures abandoned?


23/30


What factors conditioned the negotiated choices made about hierarchical,heterarchical, or horizontal models of organization? What are the specifictriggering conditions of integration in multiple localities? The fact that

household members of an emerging community may have shared commoncustoms and interests and resided in the same area does not necessarilymean that they automatically acted in conformity with the general interestof the community. As Fortes (1945) has shown, the household members oflocal communities may struggle hard to retain their autonomy and power.As a result, communities may exercise several options to sustain solidarity,one of which is to increase public ritual (Kertzer, 1988: 17980), whichinvolves new adjustments and readjustments between households. Theseadjustments may bring about the ritualization of emergent leadershipamong members, in response to new social conditions. If so, emergentleadership and later centralization may evolve through a series of structuresand problems, with leadership roles being situational, informal, andperiodic as the problem of building community cohesion becomes moreacute.

In archeology, we often concern ourselves with the origin of things. Welook to that one moment, that one place we can point to as the source ofcultural diffusion, political control, agency, or cultural influence. In placeof a genesis, I see something happening at San Luis that is far less spec-tacular: a subtle, elusive set of exchanges, a network of trades and trade-

offs, competing representations and negotiations between various localhouseholds and outsiders. Gradually, these complex, periodic borrowings,lendings, collective exchanges, and mutual enhancements from onecommunity to another led to social and eventually political integration inthe Zana Valley. In archeology, we need to better understand the construc-tion of these exchanges and the processes of movement across them inorder to better understand the emergence of early complex societies. Wealso need to partially move away from notions of chiefdom and statesystems and look to other kinds of societies, and the way they managed

multiple strategies of social space and rhythms of temporalities to definetheir identities and achieve their goals. I have sought to give more atten-tion to these strategies within which, and by means of which, previouslyautonomous household-based communities circulated in a new social, rituallandscape and expanded their identities to opt for integration rather thancentralization.

NOTES

1 In this study, I view social integration and political centralization as differentbut potentially continuous processes that may grade into each other. I refer tosocial integration as cooperation and exchange among roughly egalitarianhouseholds, with decision-making being a community enterprise. Leadership is


24/30


temporary, rotating, and open to all members of the society. Politicalcentralization means that power and authority permanently inhere in oneperson or a group of persons.

2 On the Peruvian coast, the material manifestations of this ideology are

U-shaped ceremonial pyramids and a broadly shared but highly variableiconographic and ceramic style. In the highlands, the architecture, iconographyand ceramic styles are less uniform but still indicative of a widespreadideological tradition. There is much literature on the iconography of ritualarchitecture and ceramics of the Initial Period which space does not permit meto discuss.

3 It is difficult to distinguish between an imposed and adopted ideology. Thesymbols of authority of this ideology were primarily embodied in neckless jars,drinking vessels and other ceramic forms, U-shaped architecture, geometric andanthropomorphic iconography, and religious codes (Burger, 1992: 56127). In

my opinion, the absence of elite burials in the U-shaped complexes, permanentoccupation of San Luis, an elaborate or elite domestic residence, and moreformal iconography on ceramics and in clay sculpture suggests the absence of acentralized authority and a decadent and flexible interpretation of this ideology.It is granted that decadence also is manifested in the archeological record ofhinterland sites that were strictly under the centralized control of later politicalhierarchies (i.e. Moche, Chimu, Huari, Inca). However, these sites usuallycontain elite burial records, elaborate artifacts, and housing or administrativestructures that clearly indicate a local authority that represented the polity.

4 There also may have been occasions when building phases acted in reverse, and

served as time-space compressions to accelerate political integration. This mayhave happened at earlier sites such as Caral in the Supe Valley (Shady et al.,2001) and at several localities in the Casma Valley (Pozorski and Pozorski,1987a, 1987b) where political centralization and hierarchy likely occurred. Thearcheological signatures of time-space extension and compressions and ofhierarchic, heterarchic and horizontal constructs require more attention in thefuture.

Acknowledgements

The author thanks the Instituto Nacional de Cultura for granting the permission tocarry out archeological research in the Zana Valley over the past 25 years. He alsothanks Drs Walter Alva and Cristobal Campana for serving as the Peruvian co-directors of the project. Thanks are also extended to Patricia Netherly, who was co-director of the research in the Zana Valley from 1976 to 1990, Jack Rossen, andnumerous students from the Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, the PontificiaUniversidad Catolica del Peru, and the University of Kentucky who worked withthe project. I thank several colleagues who read portions or all of this manuscript,especially Patricia Netherly, Paul Trawick, and Jack Rossen. Anonymous reviewersare also thanked for their insightful comments. Gratitude is also extended to theNational Science Foundation for supporting the research at San Luis.


25/30


References

Adam, B. (1995) Timewatch: The Social Analysis of Time. Cambridge: Polity Press.Alva, W. (1988) Investigaciones en el complejo formativo con arquitectura monu-

mental de Puruln, costa norte del Per, Beitrge zur Allgemeinen und Ver-gleichenden Archaologie 8: 283300.

Anderson, D.G. (1996) Fluctuations between Simple and Complex Chiefdoms inthe Late Prehistoric Southeast, in J.F. Scarry (ed.) Political Structure and Changein the Prehistoric Southeastern United States, pp. 23152. Gainesville: UniversityPress of Florida.

Archer, M. (1988) Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Arnold, J.E. (1995) Transportation Innovation and Social Complexity amongMaritime Hunter-Gatherers,American Anthropologist 97: 73347.

Arnold, J.E. (2000) Revisiting Power, Labor Rights, and Kinship: Archeology andSocial Theory, in M.B. Schiffer (ed.) Social Theory in Archaeology, pp. 1430.Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Bawden, Garth (1996) The Moche. Oxford: Blackwell books.Bender, B., ed. (1995) Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Oxford: Berg Press.Blanton, R.E., G.M. Feinman, S.A. Kowalewski and P.N. Peregrine (1996) A Dual

Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization, CurrentAnthropology 37: 114.

Bonavia, D. (1991) Per, Hombre e Historia. Lima: Ediciones Edubanco.Bourdieu, P. (1990) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Bourdieu, P. (1994) Structure, Habitus, Power: Basis for a Theory of Symbolic

Power, in. N.B. Dirks, G. Eley and S. Ortner (eds) Culture/Power/History: AReader in Contemporary Theory, pp. 15599. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress.

Brumfiel, E. (1994) Factional Competition and Political Development in the NewWorld: An Introduction, in E.M. Brumfiel and J.W. Fox (eds) FactionalCompetition and Political Development in the New World, pp. 313. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Burger, R.L. (1992) Chavin and the Origins of Andean Civilization. London:

Thames and Hudson.Burger, R. and L. Salazar-Burger (1986) Early Organizational Diversity in thePeruvian Highlands: Huaricoto and Kotosh, in R. Matos, S. Turpn and H. Eling(eds) Andean Archaeology, pp. 4564. Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaPress.

Carneiro, R.L. (1981) The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State, in G.D. Jones andR.R. Kautz (eds) The Transition to Statehood in the New World, pp. 3775.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clark, J.E. and M. Blake (1994) The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosityand the Emergence of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica, in E.M.

Brumfiel and J.W. Fox (eds) Factional Competition and Political Development inthe New World, pp. 1730. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crumley, C.L. (1995) Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies, in R.M.

Ehrenreich, C.L. Crumley and J.E. Levy (eds) Heterarchy and the Analysis of


26/30


Complex Societies, pp. 16. Washington, DC: American Anthropological Associ-ation.

DeMarrais, E., L.J. Castillo and T.K. Earle (1996) Ideology, Materialism, andPower Strategies, Current Anthropology 37: 1532.

Dietler, M. and B. Hayden, eds (2001) Feasts: Archaeological and EthnographicPerspectives on Food, Politics, and Power. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Insti-tution Press.

Dillehay, T.D. (1992) Keeping Outsiders Out: Public Ceremony, Resource Rights,and Hierarchy in Historic and Contemporary Mapuche Society, in F.W. Lange(ed.) Wealth and Hierarchy in the Intermediate Area, pp. 379422. Washington,DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

Dillehay, T.D. (1998) La Organizacion Dual en Los Andes: El Problema y LaMetodologia de Investigacion en el Caso De San Luis, Zana, Boletin de Arque-ologia PUCP2: 3760.

Dillehay, T.D. (1999) El Paisaje Cultural y Publico: El Monumentalismo Holistico,Circumscripto de las Comunidades Araucanos, in A. Duran and R. Bracco (eds)Arqueologia de Las Tierras Bajas, pp. 449466. Montevideo: Ministerio deEducacion.

Dillehay, T.D., H. Eling and J. Rossen (1990)Informe sobre la campaa de 1989 enlos valles de Zaa y Jequetepeque, Per. Lima: Instituto Nacional de Cultura.

Dillehay, T.D. and P. Netherly (1981) Exploring the Upper Zaa Valley in Peru:A Unique Tropical Forest Setting Offers Insights into the Andean Past,Archae-ology 36: 2230.

Dillehay, T.D., J. Rossen, and P. Netherly (1997) The Nanchoc Tradition: The

Beginnings of Andean Civilization,American Scientist 85: 4656.Dobres, M.A. and J. Robb, eds (2000) Agency in Archaeology. London: Routledge

Press.Donnan, C., ed. (1985) Early Ceremonial Architecture in the Andes. Washington,

DC: Dumbarton Oaks.Earle, T.K., ed. (1991) Chiefdoms: Power, Economy, and Ideology. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Earle, T.K. (1997) Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Prehistory.

Stanford: Stanford University Press.Ehrenreich, R., C. Crumley, and J. Levy, eds (1995) Heterarchy and the Analysis of

Complex Societies. Archaeological Papers of the American AnthropologicalAssociation Number 6. Washington, DC.

Elera, C. (1992) El Complejo Cultural Cupisnique: Antecedents y Desarrollo desu Ideologa Religosa, Senri Ethnological Studies 37: 89101.

Feinman, G. (2000) Corporate/Network: New Perspectives on Models of PoliticalAction and the Puebloan Southwest, in M. Schiffer (ed.) Social Theory inArchaeology, pp. 3151. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

Feldman, R. (1985) Preceramic Corporate Architecture: Evidence for the Develop-ment of Non-egalitarian Social Systems in Peru, in C. Donnan (ed.) Early Cere-monial Centers in the Andes, pp. 7192. Washington, DC.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Flannery, K.V., ed. (1976) The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: AcademicPress.

Fried, M. (1967) The Evolution of Political Society. New York: Random House.


27/30


Fortes, M. (1945) The Dynamics of Clanship among the Tallensi. London: OxfordUniversity Press.

Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structura-tion. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gramsci, A. (1973) Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.Haas, J. (1982) The Evolution of the Prehistoric State. New York: Columbia

University Press.Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Post-Modernity: An Enquiry into the Origins

of Culture Change. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Hayden, B. (1995) Pathways to Power: Principles for Creating Socio-Economic

Inequalities, in T.D. Price and G.M. Feinman (eds) Foundations of SocialInequality, pp. 1586. New York: Plenum Press.

Hill, W. and J.E. Clark (2001) Sports, Gambling, and Government: Americas FirstSocial Compact?,American Anthropologist 103: 33145.

Hirsch, E. and M. OHanlon (1995) The Anthropology of Landscape. Oxford:Clarendon Press.

Isbell, W. (1976) Cosmological Order Expressed in Prehistoric Ceremonial, Actesdu 42 Congrs International des Amricanistes 4: 26999.

Joyce, R.A. and J.A. Hendon (2000) Heterarchy, History, and Material Reality:Communities in Late Classic Honduras, in M.A. Canuto and J. Yaeger (eds)The Archeology of Communities, pp. 14360. London: Routledge Press.

Kato, Y. (1993) Resultados de las excavaciones en Kuntur Wasi, Cajamarca, SenriEthnological Studies 37: 20328.

Kaulicke, P. (1975) Pandanche. Un caso del Formativo en los Andes de Cajamarca.

Seminario de Historia Rural Andina. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de SanMarcos.

Kaulicke, P. (1997) La nocin y la organizacin del espacio en el FormativoPeruano, in H. Crdoba (ed.) Espacio: Teora y Praxis, pp. 11327. Lima: Ponti-ficia Universidad Catlica del Per.

Keatinge, R. (1981) The Nature and Role of Religious Diffusion: An Example fromthe Peruvian Prehistory, in A. Jones and R. Kautz (eds) The Transition to State-hood in the New World, pp. 17287. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keene, A. (1991) Cohesion and Contradiction in the Communal Mode of Produc-tion: The Lessons of the Kibbutz, in S. Gregg (ed.) Between Bands and States,

pp. 37695. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.Keith, M. and S. Pile, eds (1993) Place and the Politics of Identity. London: Rout-

ledge Press.Kertzer, D. (1988) Ritual, Politics, and Power. New Haven: Yale University Press.Koepcke, H.W. and M. Koepcke (1958) Los restos de bosques en las vertientes

occidentals de los andes peruanos, Boletn del Comit Nacional de Proteccin ala Naturaleza 16.

Lavallee, D. (2000) The First South Americans (trans. by P. Bahn). Salt Lake City:University of Utah Press.

Lefebvre, H. (1991) The Production of Space. Oxford: Blackwell.

Levine, R. (1997)A Geography of Time. New York: Basic Books.Lumbreras, L. (1990) Chavn de Huntar en el Nacimiento de la Civilizacin Andina.

Lima: Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Andinas.Marcus, J. (2000) Toward an Archeology of Communities, in M.A. Canuto and


28/30


J. Yaeger (eds) The Archeology of Communities, pp. 23143. London: RoutledgePress.

Matsumoto, R. (1992) Dos Modos de Proceso Socio-Cultural: el HorizonteTemprano y el Periodo Intermedio Temprano en el Valle de Cajamarca, Senri

Ethnological Studies 37: 169202.McGuire, R.H. and D.J. Saitta (1996) Although They Have Petty Captains, They

Obey Them Badly: The Dialectics of Prehispanic Western Pueblo SocialOrganization,American Antiquity 61: 197216.

McIntosh, S.K. (1999) Pathways to Complexity: An African Perspective, in S.K.McIntosh (ed.) Beyond Chiefdoms: Pathways to Complexity in Africa, pp. 130.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mehrer, M.W. (2000) Heterarchy and Hierarchy: The Community Plan as Insti-tution in Cahokias Polity, in M.A. Canuto and J. Yaeger (eds) The Archeologyof Communities, pp. 4457. London: Routledge Press.

Miller, J.H. (1995) Topographies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Monaghan, J. (1995) The Convenants with Earth and Rain: Exchange, Sacrifice and

Revelation in Mixtec Sociality. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Moore, J. (1996)Architecture and Power in the Ancient Andes: The Archaeology of

Public Buildings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Moseley, M.E. (2001) The Incas and their Predecessors. London: Thames and

Hudson.Natter, W. and J.P. Jones (1997) Identity, Space and Other Uncertainties, in G.

Benko and U. Strohmayer (eds) Space and Social Theory, pp. 14161. London:Blackwell.

Netherly, P. and T.D. Dillehay (1979)Informe sobre la campaa de 1978 en al altode Zaa. Lima: Instituto Nacional de Cultura.

Netherly, P. and T.D. Dillehay (1986) Duality in Public Architecture in the UpperZaa Valley, in D.H. Sandweiss and P. Kvietok (eds) Perspectives in AndeanPrehistory and Protohistory, pp. 85115. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Pauketat, T.R. (2000) The Tragedy of the Commons, in M.A. Dobres and J. Robb(eds)Agency Archaeology, pp. 11329. London: Routledge Press.

Pozorski, S. and T. Pozorski (1987a) Theocracy vs. Militarism: The Significance ofthe Casma Valley in Understanding Early State Formation, in J. Haas,S. Pozorski, and T. Porzorski (eds) The Origins and Development of the Andean

State, pp. 1530. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Pozorski, S. and T. Pozorski (1987b) Early Settlement and Subsistence in the Casma

Valley, Peru. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.Price, T.D. and G.M. Feinman, eds (1995) Foundations of Social Inequality. New

York: Plenum Press.Quilter, J. (1991) Late Preceramic Peru,Journal of World Prehistory 5: 387438.Ravines, R. (1985) Early Monumental Architecture of the Jequetepeque Valley,

Peru, in C. Donnan (ed.) Early Ceremonial Architecture of the Andes,pp. 209226. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

Renfrew, C. and J. Cherry, eds (1986) Peer-Polity Interaction. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Roscoe, P.B. (1993) Practice and Political Centralization, Current Anthropology

34: 11140.


29/30


Rossen, J. (1996) Report on San Luis Archeobotanical Remains, Zana Valley.Lexington: University of Kentucky Press.

Saitta, D.J. (1997) Power, Labor, and the Dynamics of Change in Chacoan PoliticalEconomy,American Antiquity 62: 726.

Service, E. (1975) Origin of the State and Civilization. New York: W.W. Norton.Shady, R., J. Haas and W. Creamer (2001) Dating Caral, a Preceramic Site in the

Supe Valley on the Central Coast of Peru, Science 292: 7236.Shady, R. and C. Leyva (2003) La Ciudad Sagrada de Caral-Supe. Lima: Instituto

Nacional de Cultura.Simpson, B. (1975) Pleistocene Changes in the Flora of the High Tropical Andes,

Paleobiology 1: 3451.Spriggs, M., ed. (1984) Marxist Perspectives in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Stark, B., ed. (1999) The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Washington, DC:

Smithsonian Institution Press.Swartz, M., ed. (1968) Local-level Politics. Chicago: Aldine Publishing.Tellenbach, M. (1986) Las Excavaciones en el Asentamiento Formativo de

Montegrande, Valle de Jequetepeque en el Norte del Peru. Bonn: Materialien zueAllgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archaeologie 39.

Tello, J.C. (1942) Origen y desarrollo de las civilizaciones prehistricas, Actas ytrabajos cientificos de 27 Congreso Internacional de Americanistas. Lima.

Terada, K. and Y. Onuki (1981) Excavations at Huacaloma in the Cajamarca Valley,Peru, 1979. Report 2 of the Japanese Scientific Expedition to Nuclear America.Toyko: University of Tokyo Press.

Therborn, G. (1980) The Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology. London:Routledge.

Thomas, J. (1995) The Politics of Vision and the Archaeologies of Landscape, inB. Bender (ed.) Landscape: Politics and Perspectives, pp. 1948. Oxford: Berg.

Thompson, J. (1990) Ideology and Modern Culture. Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress.

Thrift, N. (1988) Vicos Voco: Ringing the Changes in the Historical GeographyTime Consciousness, in M. Young and T. Schuller (eds) The Rhythms of Society,pp. 5394. London: Routledge Press.

Turner, V. (1974) Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Upham, S., ed. (1990) The Evolution of Political Systems. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Walker, W.H. and L. Lucero (2000) The Depositional History of Ritual and Power,in M.A. Dobres and J. Robb (eds)Agency in Archaeology, pp. 13047. London:Routledge Press.

Wandsnider, L. (1992) The Spatial Dimension of Time, in J. Rossignol and L.Wandsnider (eds) Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, pp. 257284.New York: Plenum.

Watanabe, J.M. and B. Smuts (1999) Explaining Religion without Explaining ItAway: Thrust, Truth, and the Evolution of Cooperation in Roy A. Rappaports

The Obvious Aspects of Ritual ,American Anthropologist 101: 98112.Williams, C. (1985) A Scheme for the Early Monumental Architecture of the


30/30


Central Coast of Peru, in C. Donnan (ed.) Early Ceremonial Architecture in theAndes, pp. 22740. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks.

Williams, C. (1991) Complejos de pirmides con planta en U. Patrn arquitectnicode la costa central, Revista del Museo Nacional 44: 95110.

Yaeger, J. (2000) The Social Construction of Communities in the Classic MayaCountryside: Stategies of Affiliation in Western Belize, in M.A. Canuto and J.Yaeger (eds) The Archeology of Communities, pp. 12342. London: RoutledgePress.

Young, M. and T. Schuller, eds (1988) The Rhythms of Society. London: Routledge.Zerubavel, E. (1981) Hidden Rhythms: Schedules and Calendars in Social Life.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

TOM D. DILLEHAY has carried out three decades of archeological and

ethnoarcheological research in Peru, Chile, other Latin American coun-

tries, and parts of the United States. He has published extensively on

topics ranging from the peopling of the Americas to early sedentism and

the dynamics of the Inca empire.

[email: [email protected]]

Dillehay 2004 Social Landscape & Ritual Pause Uncertainty

Documents

Transcript of Dillehay 2004 Social Landscape & Ritual Pause Uncertainty