INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfIlming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help yOu understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced :r.!:o the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.

2. When an image on the iIlm is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the fill'!!. inspector noticed either biurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been fIlmed, you will fmd a good image of the page in the adjacent frnme.

3. Wo-len 3 rr-aap, dra~i.w;g or chart, etc., is part of u'le materiai being photo-graphed the photographer has followed a defmite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin fIlming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from ieft to right in equai sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below ta;e irrst row and continuing on until complete.

4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have fIlmed the best available copy.

u~ Micr6filfP.5

International 300 N. ZEEB ROAO, ANN ARBOR, MI 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW, LONDON WC1R 4EJ, ENGLAND

MILLER, GEORGE ROBERT

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ETHNOARCHAEOLOGY OF THE ANDEAN CAMEL IDS

University of California, Berkeley PH.D.

8014808

1979

University Microfilms

International 300 N. Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor, MI 48106 18 Bedford Row, London WClR 4EJ, England

'r

PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark ~.

1.

2.

3.

'4.

5.

Glossy photographs __ ./ __

Colored illustrations ~ ----Photographs with dark background ----Illustrations are poor copy ----°rint shows through as there is text on both sides of page ----

6. Indistinct, brcken or small print on several pages throughout ----7. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine ___ _

8. Computer printout pages with indistinct print ___ _

9. Page(s) lacking when material received, and not available from school or author ----

10. Page(~) seem to be missing in numbering only as text fo1io~s ----

11. Poor carbon copy ----12. Not original copy, several pages with blurred type ----13. Append; x pages are poor copy ___ _

14. Original copy with light type ___ _

i5. Curl ing and wrinkied pages. ----16. Other ___________________________________________________ _

Univeshv Micrdfilms

International 300;\; 2::: RD .. ANI\; .=..R30R ....,; ':8106 '313: 761.4700

An Introduction to the Ethnoarchaeo1ogy of the Andean Came1ids

By

George Robert Miller

B.S. (University of San Francisco) 1966 C.Phi1. (University of California) 1975

DISSERTATION

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

in

Anthropology

in the

GRADUATE DIVISION

OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

Approved:

........ J~ .. B9"';,,:··fl.q.!1~. Y:<~ ... "?;? ~~ 1 :17~ ChaL ..... a'l Date

....... ·fr· .. <J~!'< .. /~ ................ .

. . . . . . . . '0. ((~~~. 4 . ?:-( ~~ .......... (~ . t!'.c:#.~~ . /9:;t'9'

Dedicated to all those that valued truth over personal gain and cooperation over competition.

PREFACE

True to the tradition of most doctoral dissertations,

the text has been written before the Preface, and now only

one pleasant task remains for me the thanking of the

innumerable friends and colleagues that made this research

effort possible.

At its inception this project is indebted to the intel-

lectual stimulation of Elizabeth Wing in the field of

camclid zooarchaeology. It was she who originally suggested

to me the value of studying a large sample of camelid bones

from La Raya. In this regard the Instituto Veterinario de

Investigaciones Tropicales y de la Altura and particularly

its camelid station at La Raya deserve recognition

the facilities that they provided me. Although the list of

the La Raya personnel that lent me assistance could itself

almost fill a volume of this size, several names stand out

for special thanks. Domingo Jara cheerfully assisted in the

often boring task of skeletal preparation and patiently

answered my endless questions concerning Quechua bone termi-

nology and camelid husbandry practices. His cooperation and

ingenuity in the face of frequently trying conditions are at

the very base of the La Raya comparative collection.

ii

Another La Raya emploYee, Ubaldo Zafra, came to my aid in

July, 1975 when I took a hard look at the calendar and real­

ized that I would never complete the project without assis­

tance. Ubaldo's generous performance of many tedious but

necessary clerical tasks in these last two months allowed me

a degree of sanity which would have been absent without him.

To all other unnamed member s 0 f the La Raya staff that sup­

ported my project to the end I extend sincere thanks and "un

abrazo fuerte."

In regard to the ethnographic portion of the project I

owe a great debt to the many residents of Tuqsa, Huaycho and

La Raya who gave generously of their time and hospitality.

My ethnographic work w<1s greatly enhance by the suggestions

and friendship of Jorge Flores Ochoa. His prior experience

in Tuqsa facilitated my entrance into this community and

lBter his editorial comments on the ethnographic chapters

helped refine this part of the study. My assistant during

the ethnographic work was Percy Paz Flores. His fluency in

Quechua, keen ethnographic eye and easy sense of humor were

invaluable aids to an anthropologist more accustomed to

dealing with stoic sternabrae and phlegmatic phalanges than

with living personalities. It is certainly no exaggeration

to say that the proj ect would have been impossible without

him.

iii

In April, 1975 Jorge Quinones, owner of the Estancia

Vicuna, graciously provided me with the opportunity to

extend my osteological studies to the guanaco of Tierra del

Fuego. The week that I passed on his sheep ranch collecting

guanaco skeletons among oak forests and shadows of the

ancient Ona was a magical time that will not ~e soon forgot­

ten. I am indebted to Kenneth Raedeke and his wife, Linda,

not only for facilitating the original contact with Sr.

Quinones but also for stoically suffering through my boiling

of guanaco bones in their kitchen in Punta Arenas. As an

extension of my study of guanaco osteology Rosendo Pascual

kindly allowed me to study the skeletons of both modern and

fossil camelids at the Museo de La Plata, Argentina.

The research was funded by the National Science Founda­

tion (Grant for Improving Doctoral Dissertation Research),

the Center for Latin American Studies, University of Cali­

fornia, Berkeley a Robert H. Lowie Graduate Fellowship

from the Departm5-nt of Anthropology, University of Califor­

nia, Berkeley and the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Univer­

sity of California, Berkeley.

I owe a great debt to a number of Berkeley faculty

members who aided this project. My principal adviser

throughout my grad uate stud ies was John H. Rowe. To John I

extend my heartfelt gratitude, not only for his many hours

iv

of counsel, but mostly for having the wisdom to recognize

the zoclogogist trapped in the body of an archaeologist. To

Glynn L. Isaac and William A. Clemens for providing impor­

tant advise in regard to my research design and the analysis

of field data. To Oliver Pearson and the Museu~ of Ver­

tebrate Zoology for supporting my work both materially and

intellectually. To Patricia Lyon for her many hours of

editing and advise during the travails of fieldwork. To

Robert Rodden for his enthusiastic support and his lesson of

humanism.

Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude to the

many friends and relatives that helped me see this study to

completion. To my friend and typist,

assistance too numerous to detail.

Richard Burger, for

To Al FI ynn for his

writer's hideaway. To my father, Leo Miller, for his sense

of humor and Figure 5-7. To my mother, Jean Duffy Miller,

for sanctuary to write the last chapter and for support that

extends far beyond this project. Finally and most impor­

tantly, to my wife, Joan, for her patience and love

throughout the five years of labor.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ••.•••••...•••.•.•.•..•.•••••••••••.•.••.••••••••••. ~

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................. 0:: •••••••••••••••••• 1

The Nature of the Andean Andean Camel id s. The

Research Objectives. Research Methods ...• Osteological Studies .. Ethnozoological Studies •.

Fauna. • • 1 ....•. 3

.7

.8 · .8 · 14

CHAPTER 2 BUTCHERY AND CONSUMPTION ....•.......•.•...... 19

Methods .........•. Butchery Personnel Butchery Locale. Slaughter •..

and Tools.

Ventral throat Dorsal st~ . .::. Ch'illa

sl it.

An indigenous technique. Ritualistic or utilitarian? Geographical distribution.

Skinning. Ev isceration ••. Di smemberment.

Brisket •.•. Forel imbs .• Hindlimbs. Neck .•.. Thoracic and lumbar vertebrae ... Cannon bones ......••.

Comparative Preparation

Head •• Axial

Di smemberment. for Cooking.

skeleton .. Vertebrae. Ribs •••. Sternum •

vi

•• 21 • •• 23

· ....... . 24 .25 .25 .26

. ..... . 27 ?1

• .J'

· ....... . 34 · .... . 36

• •••••••• 39 . .. 42

· .••.. 43 .44 .44

· ••••• 46 • •••••••• 47

.47

.48 · .48

......• 53 · .53

. .. 56 .56 .57

· .57

Long

Scapula ................................ 59 Innominate .....•....•....•.•.•......•.. 59

bones, •••.•........•....••..•.•......•.. 61 Humerus ..•.•....•.......•.•......•..... 62 Radius-Ulna .•...••....••.....••...•.•.• 62 Femur .................................. 64 Tibia .................................. 66 Cannons and phalanges .••••.•.•••....•.. 66

Density Determinations •.•.•....••.•.•.•.•.••...••. 68 Cooking and Eating .••..........•..••..•••••..•.•.. 68 Summary ..................................... "" ..... 75

CHAPTER 3 -- ADDITIONAL FACTORS OF CULTURAL TAPHONOMY •••.• 77

Im pI em en t s ........................................ 77 Games and Toys •..••....•.•••.•.............••....• 80 Scavenger Activity .•...•.•••......•••.•.•••••..•.• 82 Burning ..................... . ' ............... _ .... . 86 Ceremonial Use of Camelids ...••.•.•...••...•..••.. 88 Housekeeping Behavior ..•..••.•..•.....•.•..•.•••.. 92 Vertical Bioenergetics •...•...................•... 97 S urn mar y . • . . . . . . . . . . . " . • . . . . . • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . .. 1 00

CHAPTER 4 -- CASE STUDIES FROM THE VALLEY OF CUZCO .....•. 103

Site Descriptions ......•.•......•••.•.••.•....... 103 Marcavalle •..•......•......•••••..••..•.•.•. 103 Qhataq'asallacta .••.•.•.•.••.....•••......•. 106 Min a spa t a .•••••...•.•.•.•.•....•. ~ •...•.•••. 1 07

Methods of Analysis .............................. 108 Species Identification •...••.•.•..•.•.....••...•• 112 Relative Importance of Different Species ...•..•.. 114

Number of Identified Specimens .•..•.•.••••. 115 Minimum Number of Individuals •...••.•••....• 11? Cuzco Valley MNI calculations •••..•..•..•.•. 121

The problem of bilateral variation ••.•• 123 MNIs, excavation units and refuse disposal spheres .....•..•••.•... 125 MNI results ............................ 133 The reliability of MNI estimates of secondary species .••.•••......•.•.•. :134

Weight of Usable Meat .•.••••••.•.•.•••.••.•. 137 Camelid size differences •.........••.•. 138 Univariate metrical analysis •••.•.••••• 140

vii

Bivariate metrical analysis •.......•.•. 150 Multivariate metrical analysis •....•... 157 Summary of metrical results •..•........ 159 Use of metrical resul ts for calculation of weight of usable meat •.. 159 Problem of ignoring the weight factors.163

CHAPTER 5 -- THE IMPRINT OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR ....•.••....•.. 166

Backgound of Differential Representation Studies.166 Measures of Skeletal Completeness .....•.•••••.•.. 173 A Pr 0 b 1 em 0 f Co un t i ng Un its .........•.•.••..••..• 1 78 Cuzco Valley Differential Representation .•...•... 183 Intra-site Differential Representation ......••..• 185

Cranial Representation ••...•...•.•.•••••••.. 187 Fore-quarters versus hind-quarters ....•...•• 189 South ll.merican schlepp? ...•.......•••.•••.• 190

Schlepping a guanaco? ................. 195 Schlepp effect percentages •...••.•..••. 197 Differential durability .•.•....••...... 199 Butchery and consumption factors •....•. 203 Carnivore scavenging factors •.••.•....• 209 M e at dis t rib uti 0 n fa c to r s . • • . . . • • . . . ... 21 0

Marcavalle vs Qhataq'asallacta Faunal Patterning.214 Age structure differences ..•.....•.•..... 215 Bone complex differences •.•.••..••...•. 217 Fracture pattern differences .•.•••...•• 218 Bone burning differences .......•......• 219 Comminution differences ••.••.••••...•.• 220

Cultural Differences Between the Cuzco Sites •.••• 224

CHAPTER 6 -- SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS ....•.••...•.. 232

ENDNOTES •••••.••••••••••••••••••••••..•.••••••••••••••••• 245 Chapter 1 ......................................... 245 Chapter 2 ........................................ 246 Chapter 3 ........................................ 251 Chapter 4 ................... ~ ................... . 253 Chapter 5 ........................................ 257

BIBLIOGRAPHy .•....••...••.•••••.•••.....••••.•.••.•.••••• 260

viii

APPENDIC ES ................................................. 270 Appendix I -- Quechua Bone Terminology ......•..•• 270 Appendix II -- Computer Code Book ..••.•.•..••.•.• 272

EXPLANATION OF PLATES •..................••............... 292

PLATES •••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••.•.•.••••••••••••••.•• 295

ix

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Faunal remains excavated from archaeological sites have

been subjected to increasingly detailed and sophisticated

analyses in recent years. These studies have dealt with

such topics as possible structural modification to bone due

to domestication, faunal remains as seasonal occupation

indicators, differential bone representation as an indicator

of human behavior, differences in faunal management prac­

tices as reflected in the age structure of the exploited

animals, etc. However, the bulk of these studies have been

confined to the Old World and to a smaller degree to North

America. Until very recently this aspect of prehistoric

reconstruction has been sadly neglected in South American

archaeology, and the great majority of published reports on

archaeological faunal remains from the Andean area has been

limited to appended lists of identified species.

The Nature of the Andean Fauna

While this lack of emphasis on zooarchaeological

research in the Andes is probably due to a variety of unex­

plained factors, surely it has been influenced in part by

the nature of the South A~erican fauna. The fauna utilized

aboriginally by man in the Old World was characterized by an

2

abundance of medium to large size ungulates. These were

both wild (a variety of antelope, deer, rhinoceros, auroch,

equids, etc.) and domesticated (cattle, sheep, goat, camel,

pig, horse, reindeer). The great variety of ungulate taxa

utilized by man in the Old World is reflected in faunal

lists from archaeological sites as diverse in time and space

as lower Pleistocene Olduvai Gorge (Leakey, 1971), Middle

Pleistocene Terra Amata (de Lumley, 1972) and the Neolithic

Deh Luran Plain (Hole, et a1., 1969). The diversity of fau­

nal communities in the Old World seems to have attracted a

good deal of early paleontological and zoological research

in that area which in turn has formed the foundation of a

healthy tradition of zooarchaeological investigations.

The Neotropical fauna of South America, al though

extremely rich in endemic forms, contrasts strikingly with

the Old World in terms of ungulates utilized by man. Only

four groups of ungulates (tapirids, tayasuids, cervids and

camelids) are extant on the South A.1'Jlerican continent. The

diverse bovid group which has contributed so much to the

cultures of the Old World and North America is entirely

absent in South America, apparently never ab12 to penetrate

successfully Neotropica from Nearctica. The Andean area,

which is the zoogeographical focus of this study: is even

more restricted in regards to ungulates. With the exception

of an occasional tapir or peccary obtained from the eastern

3

slopes, only four species of camelids and three species of

cervids were available to peoples of the prehistoric Andes.

Of these seven species only the llama and the alpaca were

ever domesticated and played major cultural roles analagous

to the domesticated bovids and equids of the Old World.

Thus, the majority of Andean archaeological sites are

characterized by a heavy reliance on deer and camelids, and

in sites from later time periods it is not uncommon to find

the fauna represented by over 90% camelids, presumably of

the domesticated varieties. It is perhaps partially a

result of this lack of species diversity that concern for

zooarchaeological information has been such a recent

development in the Andes.

The Andean Camel id s

In addition to the monocrop nature of most faunal

assemblages from Peruvian archaeological sites, the dominant

camelid group has presented some unique obstacles to ade­

quate faunal analysis. These animals are representatives of

the family Camelidae. This group traces its ancestry back

to Oligocene times in North America. Here the fossil pro­

genitors gave rise to two extant tribes; the Camelini

crossed the Bering Land Mass to become eventually the

dromedary and Bactrian camels of Eurasia, while the Lamini

4

radiated south into tropical North America (Florida),

Mesoamerica and South America during the Early Pleistocene.

By Middle Pleistocene times the original South American

llamines (sic) had become differentiated into two fossil

genera of camel size, Palaeolama and Hemiauchenia. In the

rugged puna environment of the Andes Palaeolama further dif-

ferentiated at this time into two smaller genera, Lama and

Vicugna (Webb, 1965, 1974). At the end of the Pleistocene

Hemiauchenia and Palaeolama became extinct, leaving Lama and

Vicugna to occupy the entire Andean zone plus the pampas of

Argentina. By historic times four "species" of camelids

were established in the Andes; Lama guanicoe (guanaco), Lama

glama ( llama) , Lama pacos ( alpaca) and Vicugna vicugna

(vicuna) .

The sytematics of the extant camelid genera are replete

with controversy. The arguments center on the degree of

morphological, genetic and behavioral difference that exist

among the four commonly recognized "species." At issue is

al so the time depth 0 f these differences and the role of man

in the creation of the domesticated forms.

The wild guanaco (Plate 1) is commonly considered to be

the progenitor of the domesticated llama (Plate 2), to which

it bears considerable resemblance in morphology and

behav ior. In fact, the llama is often referred to as a

5

"domesticated guanaco." The derivation of the smaller and

fine wooled alpaca (Plate 3), however, is not so easily

explained. Because the domesticated alpaca shares certain

morphological features and behavioral characteristics with

the wild vicu~a (Plate 4), several authors have suggested an

ancient vicu~a stock or llama-vicu~a hybrid as the origin of

the alpaca (Gilmore, 1950; Steinbach, 1953; ROhrs, 1958).

On the other hand, Herre (1952, 1953) has argued, on the

basis of details of cranial morphology, that the guanaco is

the ancestor of both the llama and the alpaca.

The matter is further complicated by the fact that all

four animals can interbreed successfully and produce fertile

offspring. Llama-alpaca hybrids, called waris or "huar­

izos", are not uncommon in contemporary domestic herds in

Peru, and all other combinations have been produced experi­

mentally. This interfertility does not conform very well to

the standard definition of species as mutually exclusive

breeding populations and has caused a number of researchers

to opt for a tighter taxonomic classification of the Andean

camelids. This classification recognizes only one genus

(Lama) in which the lla~a, alpaca and guanaco are assigned

subspecific rank within the species Lama glama, and the

vicu~a is assigned to a separate species as Lama vicugna.

As a final source of confusion, a number of respected

6

South American paleontologists have claimed that all four

contemporary Andean camelids, both wild and "domesticated",

have been found as distinct forms in Pleistocene deposits in

Patagonia (Lo pez Ar ag uren, 1930; Cabrera, 1931). This claim

has never been verified by further investigations, but if

found to be true, "lQuld mean that human beings had little or

no role in changing the morphology of the beasts.

These debates concerning the origin and taxonomy of the

Andean camelids, although interesting on a purely zoological

level, are also of crucial concern to the Andean archaeolo-

gist. The evolutionary proximity of the Andean camelids to

each other and the taxonomic confusion which surrounds them

is a reflection of the similarity of their bones. There are

no morphological features with which to differentiate con-

sistently among the fragmentary remains of the four

camelids. Only in the case of the fortuitous discovery of a

vicuna incisor can a single species of Andean camelid be

identified

1 features.

on

In

the basis of qualitative morphological

general, the faunal analyst is able to iden-

tify these bones from an Andean archaeological site which

are "camelid", but is not able to distinguish visually among

the four species with any confidence. This inability has

been the chief stumbling block to the development of Andean

zooarchaeology and. has made detailed reconstructions of

prehistoric economies extremely difficult.

7

The importance of learning how to distinguish among the

camelid groups: however: cannot be forgotten. It is clear

from historical and ethnographic evidence that the four

animals, albeit very closely related, were utilized in very

different ways during aboriginal times. Llamas were used

principally as pack animals, while alpacas were utilized for

their fine wool. Both of these domesticates were also used

for meat and purposes of religious sacrifice. Guanacos and

vicunas, on the other hand, were never domesticated and were

obtained only through hunting and/or community drives.

Thus, camelids were associated with at least three separate

sets of human behavior which the Andean archaeologist would

love to be able to reconstruct. If the four caT.elid groups

are not distinct species in the strict taxonomic sense, at

least they were viewed as functionally distinct by the

Andean natives that herded and hunted them; and it is this

human perception that most interests the prehistorian.

Research Objectives

Research focused on three major problems of camelid

zooarchaeology: 1) morphological criteria for distinguishing

between the species; 2) age structures of contemporary herds

and epiphyseal fusion criteria for determining the age at

death of archaeological animals; 3) cultural taphonomy as a

factor in differential bone visibility.

8

Resea~~h Methods

In order to investigate the above problems research

involved three basic activities: 1) Laboratory study of the

osteology of a large sample of camelid skeletons. These

studies consisted of the analysis of qualitative morphologi­

cal features, biometric analysis, determination of densities

of individual skeletal elements and recording the states of

fusion at individual epiphyseal foci in animals with known

ages; 2) Field observation of camelid husbandry practices in

traditional herding communities. These studies focused on

aspects of bone treatment, age structure of herds and herd

management decisions; 3) Laboratory analysis of three

archaeological bone samples as case studies on which to test

information and hypotheses generated in the two previous

activities.

Osteological Studies

This research was conducted in the southern highlands

of Peru between September, 1974 and September, 1975. My

base of operations during the year of field work was the

South American Camelid Center at La Raya, Peru. This

research station is operated by the Instituto de Investiga­

ciones Tropicales y de la Altura (IVITA), of the Universidad

9

Nacional Mayor de San Marcos with the cooperation of the

Peruvian Ministry of Agriculture. It is located just north

of the Nudo de Vilcanota on the main Cuzco-Puno road at an

altitude of 4100 meters above sea level (see Figure 1-1).

The La Raya station maintains several large herds of

alpacas (totaling over 7,000 head), along with a number of

much smaller herds of llamas, vicuY'las and paco-vicuY'las

(alpaca-vicuY'la hybrids). These animals are kept for a

variety of experimental purposes. These include parasito­

logical, physiological and nutritional studies, but the

principal thrust of the research program is in the area of

reproductive biology. The alpaca is one of Peru's most

valuable resources, and as such, its reproductive success is

an economic concern of national importance.

Although the La Raya camelids are probably better fed

and cared for than any other camelids in existence, they do

suffer a 3-4% annual mortality rate. Previous to my project

the bones of these natural fatalities normally were disposed

of in an open area behind the station's buildings. Burial

in this area, referred to as the "La Raya bone cemetery",

was not formal, however, and bones were often found to have

been disinterred by scavenging dogs or human digging. Th~s~

these bones were not considered to be suitable for detailed,

osteological studies. Instead, it was decided to salvage

o·

10·

25 , I • ,

1. COOPERATIVA HUAYCHO

2. TUQSA

s;>'OO 3. I.V.LT.A .• LA RAYA

~ - Major Road

-- Major Drainage 4/050

I ( /

10

S:ale Elevation in meters ~ __ ~~ __ ~ __ ~~ __ ~ ______ ~ ________________________ ~ ____ -r1r

80·

Figure 1-1 Area of ethnoarchaeological fieldwor.k.

1 1

the carcasses of as many of the natural fatalities as possi-

ble and to prepare fresh complete skeletons. After autopsy

in the La Raya pathology laboratory and recording the

animal's essential data, the carcass was eviscerated,

stripped of its meat, dismembered and boiled in 25 gallon

containers over an outside, alpaca dung, cow dung or wood

fire for 4 to 12 hours. The boiling time was dependent on

the age of the animal and the available fuel. Due to the

lack of more sophisticated facilities and materials the only

additive to the boiling water was laundry detergent. After

boiling the bones were cleaned of all remaining tissue,

rinsed, and then dried in the sun for two to four days.

Each bone element from the skeleton was then marked with

India ink with the animal's IVITA tag number, or lacking

such a tag, with an improvised catalogue number. 32 alpa-

cas, 5 llamas, 4 vicu~as and 2 paco-vicu~as from the IVITA 2 herds were prepared in this way. In addition the carcasses

of a number of wild animals were donated by local residents.

These were prepared in similar fashion and included in the

osteological reference collection.

The only camelid absent from La Raya collection was the

wild guanaco. These animals, formerly abundant in the Peru-

vian Andes, currently are found in great numbers only in

Patagonia. Thus, in order to observe the guanaco and to

obtain skeletal specimens I travelled both to Tierra del

12

Fuego, Chile and to the Provincia de Chubut, Argentina dur­

ing April, 1975. In Chile I was able to make contacts which

allowed me to collect and prepare the remains of 6 guanacos

found dead in the forests of Tierra del Fuego.These guanacos

were returned to La Raya where their cleaning and prepara-

tion was completed. They were then added to the comparative

collection.

With the addition of several alpacas, llamas and a wari

purchased from traditional herders in communities in the

southern sierra the final inventory of camelid skeletons

prepared at La Raya is as follows:

37 alpacas

7 llamas

1 wari

4 vicuYlas

2 paco-vicunas

6 guanacos

The bones of each of these specimens were subjected to

a series of biometric measurements. These measurements were

taken with dial calipers reading to a tenth of a millimeter

and with an osteometric board reading to half of a millime-

ter. 283 separate bone dimensions per individual were meas-

ured in this way.

Each specimen with a known age was examined in regard

13

to the state of fusion at various long bone fusion loci.

Lacking radiographic equipment this examination was limited

to surface evidence of fusion, non-fusion, or partial fusion

(ie. epiphysis fused to diaphysis but fusion line still

present) . This information, in conjunction with dental

eruption data gathered from the same animals, was used to

deteimine the ages of death of the archaeological specimens.

Upon co~pletion of these osteological studies many of

the camelid and othei reference specimens were donated to

South American institutions. These include the Museo

Nacional de Antropolg~a y Arqueolog~a, Lima (4 alpacas, 2

llamas, 3 vicunas, 1 paco-vicuna, 2 Andean foxes, 1 cuy, 1

viscacha; 1 skunk, 1 puma, 1 wildcat, 1 domesticated cat);

Centro Regional Sur de Investigaci6n y Restauracidn de

Bienes Monumentales, Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Cuzco (2

alpacas, 1 sheep, 1 viscacha, 1 A~dcan fox, 1 cuy); Univer­

sidad Nacional del Cuzco, San Antonio Abad (1 alpaca); Museo

de IVITA, La Raya (1 alpaca, 1 vi0una, 1 paco-vicuna, 1

fox); Museo de La Plata, Departamento de Paleontolog~a de

los Vertebrados, La Plata (1 alpaca). In addition the fol­

lowing camelid specimens are found on permanent loan to the

Laboratorio de Paleoetnozoolog~a, Universidad Nacional Mayor

de San Marcos, Lima: 14 adult alpaca skeletons, 14 juvenile

alpaca skeletons, 5 adult llama skeletons, 1 wari skeleton,

6 guanaco skeletons (various degrees of completeness), 13

14

alpaca cranea and 2 llama cranea. degrees of completeness) •

Ethnozoological Studies

Of equal importance with the basic osteological studies

~e~ the nec~~sity of investigating the contemporary patterns

cf man-~amelid relationships in highland Peru. A number of

g:}od ethne·graphic stud ies had been done on llama-alpaca

herding communities (Custred, 1968; Flores Ochoa, 1968;

Nachtigall, 1966; Palacios, 1977; Webster, 1971), but in all

cases the focus had been on the herders and their social

institutions. Very little attention had been paid to the

a~imals ~hemselves or to the material culture associated

-y;i'.:.h them. No previous study had attempted to investigate

(>r:r.:temporary camelid herders through the eyes of an

archaeologist; ie. concentrating on those aspects of the

culture that might be expected to leave some trace in the

archaeological record. The most obvious source of these

ethnoarchaeological data is, of course, in the bones of the

animals vis a vis the ways in which these bones are treated

by their human handlers.

In his stud y 0 f the ! Kung Bushmen John Yellen has

termed this type of ethnozooarchaeological evidences as

;icultu'c~l patterning in faunal remains" (Yellen, ms.). Cen-

is

tral to '~his study is the message that butchery, meat dis­

tribution and bone waste disposal are culturally governed

activities and as such can often reveal pertinent informa­

tion co~c~rning human lifestyles. This cultural information

is tucked away in such seemingly inconsequential data as the

manner in l..rhich bones are disposed of on a site, the ways in

which they a~e fractured and the frequencies with which some

bones preserve and others disappear.

Interest in "cuI tural patterning in faunal remains" is

closely allied to a recently resurrected sub-field of

paleontology, called taphonomy. Taphonomy refers to the

study of the passage of bone material from the biosphere to

the lithosphere (Efremov, 1950); i.e. the reasons behind why

some ancient bones become permanently fossilized to await

the paleontologist's pick, while others decay or are scat­

tered to be lost forever to the fossil record. The biologi­

cal and geological factors which have been implicated in

bone su~vival patterns in paleontological sites are complex

and multifaceted (Behrensmeyer, 1975), and the situation

becomes even more complicated when factors of human activity

are added to the picture. In addition to the natural fac­

tors involved in paleontological bone survival the question

of whether an archaeological bone is able to successfully

pass from the living animal to the zooarchaeologist's

analysis table is influenced by a myriad of variables. This

16

journey from the biosphere to final analysis can be con­

ceived of as a pathway strewn with n'.lDlerous obstacles; or a

filtration system with many valves and filters. Such a cul­

tural taphonomic system is illustrated in Figure 1-2. This

model represents graphically my intuitive view of camelid

taphonomy before going into the field in 1974. It consists

of a sequential listing of the major factors which I

believed would affect camelid bone survival, and thus, those

factors which needed to be investigated in the field. The

principal goal of these taphonomic investigations was seen

as fleshing out the model by documenting the magnitude and

directionality of these factors, and the identification of

additional factors.

The ethnoarchaeological studies which provided the

majority of the cultural taphonomic data took place in a

number of native alpaca herding communities in the southern

highlands of Peru. In December, 1974 and June, 1975 I

visited the community of Tuqsa located in a puna environment

(4300 meters) in the mountains east of Sicuani (see Fig. 1-

1). Tuqsa is a small community of some fifteen traditional

puna households. The occupants make a living by raising

potatoes for home consumption and herding alpacas and sheep

for their wool which they then sell to dealers from Sicuani.

In this community I was able to observe two camelid

butcheries, interview a number of modern herders and

{.;\ V

~ TION~ DEATH AGE t;;EI~

~ [ ,"T::]+ .RE-COO-;;;:L. [coo ... :1..... I COn'IlHPTIO

FRACTU~ 'f

L-..-. ______________________ _

Figure 1-2 Pre-fieldwork model of major taphonomic factors affecting the survival of bone from the living animal to the analysis table.

_ .. -..l

18

excavate in a modern midden3 •

In June, 1975 I visited the Cooperativa Huaycho located

at approximately 4600 meters, 35 kilometers northeast of

NuYloa (see Fig. 1-1). This cooperative is the result of the

dissolution of an old hacienda by the Peruvian Agrarian

Reform. The "comuneros", although employing a college edu-

cated administrator and sharing many Cooperative tasks,

manage their llamas and alpacas in a traditional fashion

with few signs of modern technology. At Huaycho I was able

to observe two butcheries, to interview a number of alpaca

herders, and to excavate in the kancha of a recently dissoc­

cupied herder's house complex 3 •

In June, 1975 I visited the Cooperativa San Martin de

La Raya located at some 4200 meters elevation about 30

kilometers south of IVITA, La Raya, on the Cuzco- Puno road

(see Fig. 1-1). Here I was able to take age/sex censuses of

two alpaca herds and to interview camelid herders.

My stay at IVITA, La Raya also provided ample opportun-

ity for the observation of some aspects of camelid husban-

dry. This facility, although highly technological in its

orientation, is manned by numerous llama and alpaca herders

from traditional backgrounds. These herders were an invalu­

able source of information concerning camelid management.

Chapter 2

BUTCHERY AND CONSUMPTION

A growing body of archaeological literature has

developed over the past several years concerning the

butchery and consumption of animals that were utilized for

meat by prehistoric man. The fundamental goal of these stu­

dies has been the reconstruction of human behavior in regard

to the hunting of game animals and the later processing of

their meat. Some of these descriptions have drawn on

osteoarchaeological data as well as ethnographic observa­

tions of butchery and meat processing (Yellen, n.d.; Bonni­

chsen, 1973; Brain, 1967, 1969), while others have been

based entirely on archaeological evidence and therefore are

largely inferential in nature (White, 1953; Wheat, 1972;

Frison, 1973; Perkins and Daly, 1968; Dart, 1957). Although

sharing many aspects of method and purpose with the above

works, the following step-by-step description of camelid

butchery and consumption differs from them in two important

respects.

With the partial exception of C.K. Brain, who studied

Hottentot food remains to shed light on australopithecine

related bone accumulations, all other investigators have

dealt with wild species that are utilized by hunting and

20

gathering peoples. The present study of llamas and alpacas

is unique in its focus upon domesticated species. The prob­

lems which must be considered in such a study of domesti­

cated animals 2re often different from those encountered

with wild prey. Hunting techniques are replaced by husban­

dry practices, kill sites by corrals, and problems of tran­

sporting the kill to the living site are simply not applica­

ble. On the other hand, consideration of the commercial

trading of meat and other aspects of an

agricultural/pastoral economy become important.

Secondly, because of the much greater time depth the

applicability of contemporary ethnographic models to North

American Paleo-Indians, Middle Paleolithic ibex hunters or

even early African hominids is normally regarded as tenuous

at best. In contrast a high degree of cultural continuity

between modern herders of llamas and alpacas and their

prehistoric counterparts is an assumption implicit in much

of the literature on prehistoric Andean economy. This

assumption, however, has never been adequately tested. It

will be one of the goals of this study, therefore, to exam­

ine the hypothesis that such continuity does in fact exist

and can be demonstrated from ethnographic, ethnohistorical

and archaeological sources.

21

Methods

Ideally ethnographic observation of butchery practices

should take place in a situation which is "normal" for the

participants and unbiased by the observer's presence and

expectations. In the case of an Andean pastoral community

this optimum observational situation would occur when a com­

munity member spontaneously decided to slaughter and butcher

a llama or alpaca without the ethnographer ever expressing

prior interest in such activity. However, due to a multi­

tude of factors affecting the diet of Andean pastoralists

such a procedure proved to be impractical for my research.

Al though llama and al paca meat constitutes the maj or source

of animal protein for contemporary Andean pastoralists, and

the entire camelid group played the same role during recent

archaeological times in the southern sierra, m·eat comprises

a very small percentage of the total diet of an Andean

patoral community. The diet of the camelid herders of

Parat~a has been observed to rely heavily on vegetable pro­

ducts traded up from lower altitudes. Families of humble

resources normally consumed only 3 to 4 alpacas per annum,

while more comfortable families slaughtered a maximum of one

alpaca per month (Flores Ochoa, 1968:41). A similar low

level of meat consumption was observed a1'Jlong alpaca herders

in the Nu~oa area (Gursky, 1970:131), and my initial obser­

vations in the La Raya and Tuqsa areas confirmed the same

22

phenomenon.

Therefore, due to time constraints it was decided to

forego the optimum, unbiased situation and to employ a pro­

cedure that would minimize the number of uncontrolled vari­

ables in the butchery process and maximize the number of

observations. The resulting "controlled consumption experi­

ments" proceded as follows:

1) the purchase of an alpaca by me in a native community;

2) the donation of the alpaca to a family in order for it

to be sl aughtered and consumed "como de costumbre" (in

the traditional manner) with the proviso that the fam­

ily tie up their dog(s) and return all bones, fractured

or not, to me in a plastic gunny sack which I provided;

3) observation and photography of the process of butchery

and consumption over a period of 4 to 7 days. Observa­

tion was often coupled with interview concerning why a

particular action was performed;

4) the reconstruction of these bones with water-soluble,

white glue in the laboratory at La Raya.

These controlled consumption experiments were conducted four

times: once in the Cooperativa Huaycho, twice in the commun­

ity of Tuqsa, and once at Tambo on the property of IVITA, La

23

Raya. In addition to these observations from the beginning

to the end of t~e process I was able to observe the

slaughter and dismemberment of two other alpacas in Huaycho

and over 30 llamas, alpacas and paco-vicunas in La Raya.

The following description is an ideal composite of

ca~elid butchery in the southern sierra drawn from these

various observations. As in any culturally governed work

task both social context and individual style may vary some

of the more subtle elements; however this description con-

forms to the standard pattern. Exceptions to the standard

pattern will be noted as applicable.

Butchery Personnel and Tools

The entire butchery operation can be performed by one

lone man, although the usual number seems to be two -- a

principal male butcher and a butchery partner 0r assistant.

The principal butcher takes charge of the slaughter and

later butchers either the anterior or posterior half of the

. , an 1m a ... , while the partner (often his wife) takes charge of

butchering the other half. However, if the number of people

present and the occasion permit, as many as 4 or 5 may par-

ticipate in different phases of the butchery. Children

quite often assist in the less muscular activities.

24

The principal instrument that is used during the ini-

tial butchery process is any metal knife that happens to be

available, generally with a total length of 15-25 cm. and of

the inexpensive variety that can be purchased in local mark-

ets for less than $1.00. The knife or knives is constantly

resharpened on surrounding stones during the approximately 1

hour operation. A wedge-shaped stone called a k'achina rumi

a~i.SO may be utilized for one isolated task of the dismember-

ITent process which will be described below. The k'achina

rumi is a crude stone some 10-15 cm. wide and 15-20 cm.

long, slightly resembling a "proto-cleaver" in shape. I

observed three of these stones, and none of them appeared to

be modified in any way, but rather were opportunistic finds

of the desired shape and weight. Interview with the butch-

ers confirmed that intentional working of k'achina rumi is

unknown .

Butchery Locale

After selecting an animal for slaughter the animal may

be killed on the spot or carried nearer to the site of con­

sumption, often into the walled kancha (patio) of the

herder's house. In any case all parts of the carcass even-

tually arrive at the site of consumption.

25

Slaughter

Although the actual killing of the animal is not nor­

mally considered as a causative factor in the differential

representation of body parts or other faunal phenomena

observed in archaeological samples, the killing of Andean

camel ids is of some ethnographic interest as well as being

an important datum in establishi~g continuity between modern

butchery practices and the archaeological record. A full

description of the three methods of camelid slaughter

observed in the southern sierra is therefore warranted.

1) Ventral throat slit: In this method the animal is

laid on its left side and its feet are tied together at the

level of the metapodial condyles (right front leg over right

rear leg over left front leg over left rear leg). Its neck

is positioned over a pan or bowl or sometimes a depression

in the earth. The principal butcher kneels behind the

animal's neck while a helper holds its mouth closed and

presses the snout tightly to the ground. The butcher then

quickly saws through the ventral side of the neck with a

knife, cutting through the trachea and esophagus, and

finally severs the spinal cord by cutting between the atlas

and the occipital condyles. When the incision is complete

the neck is bent backward and all possible blood is col­

lected in the container (Plate 5).

26

It should be noted that the act of severing the spinal

cord may leave cut marks on the ventral surface of both the

atlas and the occipital condyles, but as will be seen below

the presence of such marks does not necessarily indicate

this type of slaughter.

The ventral throat slit is utilized by the herders in

the area of La Raya, in many of the more accul turated areas

along the main highway between Cuzco and Puno, and according

to informants from that region in many of the Aymara-

speaking parts of the Department of Puno.

2) Dorsal stab: In this method of sacrifice the animal --is left standing while being held around the neck by the

butcher's assistant. The butcher holds the animal by one

ear in order to steady the head, and then abruptly stabs it

dorsally between the atlas and the occipital condyles with a

small, very sharp dagger, severing the spinal cord (Plate

6). If the dorsal stab method is not precisely executed it

may require multiple stabbings and leave cut marks on the

dorsal surface of the atlas and/or the occipital condyles,

but if correctly executed the blade passes cleanly between

the two bones, the animal dies instantly and drops to the

ground having suffered very little. However, a certain

degree of skill is required in order to sever the spinal

cord in one blow, and for this reason the dorsal stab method

27

is normally not used by ordinary herders in the southern

sierra. This method is commonly employed by "maestros" in

the slaughter houses of Sicuani, Santa Rosa, Nu~oa, Ayaviri,

etc., because of its efficiency in despatching a large

number of animals in a short time without spilling their

blood. The dorsal stab method does not require tying up the

animals and allows them to be immobilized by one or two men

while the rest of the butchery, including a ventral slitting

of the throat is reserved for later. Most herders are fami-

liar with this method and are able to execute it upon

request, albeit clumsily, but I have never seen the dorsal

stab used spontaneously in a traditional setting in the

southern sierra. However, it has been reported from the

Ayacucho region (Kent Flannery, personal communication) and

I suspect that it may be utilized in the southern sierra in

clandestine activity ,...~ v ... a ' pa"'a "'''s+-' ';ng 2 ..L. "" 4 \.A "'-'-..L. 1. •

3) Ch' ilIa: On page 880 [894J of his Nueva Coronica y

Buen Gobierno Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala illustrates the

traditional Inca method of slaughtering a camelid (Fig. 2-1)

which, according to the accompanying text, involved sticking

the bare hand into the thoracic cavity.3 In the same text

Gu am an Poma indicates that his method of camelid slaughter

was no longer practiced licitly when he was writing in 1614,

but that it was still performed by some shamans. His text

implies that at the time of his writing, "in these Christian

Figure 2-1 Illustration of the ch'il1a from Guaman Poma (1936: 880[894]).

28

29

times", the ventral throat slit was the accepted and licit

method of slaughtering a camelid.

Fortunately for the Andean archaeologist, however,

Christian times appear not to have penetrated completely

into some areas of the Peruvian highlands. The stand ard

mee-hod of camelid slaughter in the puna of the Department of

Cuzco is the ch'illa , which is essentially the same method

described by Guaman Porna for the 16th century. The ch'illa

consists of laying the animal on its left side with either

its four legs tied together as in Guarnan Porna's illustration

or with the hind legs pulled out straight by an assistant

(Plate 7). The principal butcher locates himself behind the

animal, often half kneeling on its right side, makes a small

incision (50-70 cm.) through the skin to the right of the

sternum, directly posterior to the right false rib, plunges

his hand into the abdominal cav ity, through the diaphragm

( laphin) and into the thoracic cav ity (PI ate 8). Here he

manually breaks the ascend ing aorta where it leaves the

heart. The entire process takes and averag e of thirty

seconds from the time of the initial incision to the with-

4 drawal of the hand.

In spite of the rather grotesque impression that it

leaves on the uninitiated observer, the ch'illa seems to be

rather humane, for in none of the 5 occasions that I was

30

able to observe this method of slaughter did the animal seem

to suffer or protest as much as it does in the modern ven-

tral throat slit. In fact when asked why they use this

method of sacrifice herders often refer to this humane

aspect of the ch'illa. I have heard fo ur reasons g iv en for'

the use of the ch'illa:

(1) The animal dies quickly and does not suffer as much.

This reason also has been recorded in the Moquegua

region (Nachtigall,1966:222).

(2) All the blood collects in the thoracic cavity and can

be efficiently scooped out later while losing only a

bare !Il in imum •

(3) With this method one does not stain Pachamama, the

earth goddess.

(4) The camelids' neck skin is tough and since good, sharp

knives traditionally have been rare in Andean pastoral

communities, it is much easier to make a small incision

through the soft tissue of the belly than to use the

ventral throat slit method. The toughness of the neck

skin is substantiated by the fact that this skin, espe-

cially from llamas, is saved in order to dry and use

for sandal leather. It was put to the same use during

Inca times (Rowe, 1946:234).

31

This last reason has an interesting archaeological

impl ication. Although I have never seen it done, it seems

entirely feasible that a llama or alpaca could be

slaughtered with the ch'illa using only a small stone

scraper or flake. Unfortunately Guaman Poma does not men-

tion how the incision was made in his illustration, but if

the ch'illa was the common method of camelid sl aughter in

prehistoric times, and reason no.4 was the chief reason for

its use, then perhaps the Andean archaeologist should not

expect to find elaborate butchery tool kits in at least Inca

period sites. Neither a strong blade nor a sharp, pointed

dagger is necessary for the ch'illa as in the ventral throat

slit or in the dorsal stab methods. Bottle glass has been

observed for various other aspects of processing camelid

products in the sierra (Benjamin S. Orlove, personal commun-

ication), but the feasibility of completing the skinning and

butchery with such small tools remains to be experimentally

tested.

The time depth of the ch'illa which is documented in

Guaman Porna's illustration raises a number of additional

questions for the Andean archaeologist. These questions,

although impossible to answer conclusively, deserve comment

and the mention of some contributing evidence.

1) Was the ch'illa the original method of llama and

32

alpaca slaughter in the Andes, and were all other methods

introduced with European contact? The uniqueness of the

ch'illa and its absence in Europe are certainly indications

that this method of slaughter is an indigenous trait and

probably was invented in the Andes sometime after the domes-

tication of the llama and/or the alpaca. The antiquity of

th~ ch'illa as an autochthonous Andean practice is corro-

borated by its exclusive use on camelids. To my knowledge

it is never used for the slaughter of European domesti­

cates 5 , and is considered even by herders that do not use it

to be the traditional method, and the one used by the "anci-

anos" (ancients).

Osteological evidence for the existence of the ch'illa

in antiquity, however, is very unlikely to be uncovered.

All three methods of camelid slaughter presently employed in

southern Peru can leave the same cut marks on the atlas and

the occipital condyles after the entire carcass has been

dismembered, and unfortunately the ch'illa incision leaves

no special stamp on the bones.

Ethnohistorical evidence is somewhat more abundant,

albeit clouded by the standard problems inherent in all

early chronicles and the fact that all references to the

killing of camelids occur within the context of religious

sacrifice and idolatry descriptions. Besides Guam an Poma's

33

striking illustration and description of the ch'illa Fray

Pablo Jo s~ de Arr iag a prov id es us with an even more g rue some

description of llama sacrifice:

They tie the llama to a large rock and make him circle it five or six times, and later they open him up near the heart and pull it out, and they normally eat mouth­fulls of it raw and they sprinkle the blood on the huaca, and the meat is distributed among the sacrifi­cial ministers an% the rest of the Indians (Arriaga, 1910: Chap IV, 24).

In contrast to these all too sanguinary descriptions of

Inca sacrifices the other chroniclers either provide no

details as to the specific method of slaughter, or as in the

case of Juan Polo de Ondegardo state that camel ids were

killed by slitting the throat in the same way that the Moors

sacrificed animals:

The manner of killing all animals, whether large or small, which the Indians used according to their ancient ceremonies, is the same 70ne the Moors have which is called the alquible. That is to grasp the animal above the right foreleg, to turn its eyes toward the sun, speaking certain words according to the kind of animal killed ••. (Polo de Ondegardo, 1916: 15).

A number of later chroniclers copied this passage directly

from Polo de Ondegardo (Acosta, 1954: Book V, Chap. XVIII,

160 ; Morua, 1946: Chap. LII, 168), while Cobo modified it

slightly and added at the end n and these [certain words]

finished, [the priest] slit the throat of the victim" (Cobo,

1964: Book XIII, Chap. XXI, 202). Likewise, one of Peru's

earliest chroniclers, Pedro Cieza de Leon, although not

34

going into any detail, used the Spanish verb "degollar" (to

slit the throat) to describe the Inca method of camelid

sacrifice (Cieza, 1967: Chap. XXX, 104). Finally, it is

interesting that as astute an observer of sacrificial detail

as was Cristobal de Molina del Cuzco failed to record any

details of the method of ritual slaughter. Instead he

focused on the post mortem incineration of the victims and

other accompanying rituals (Molina, 1943). This omission may

mean that the method of slaughter that would have seemed

least noteworthy to Molina and his readers, namely the ven-

tral throat slit, was in common practice in Cuzco. Had the

bizarre and impressive ch'illa been part of the sacrifices

he observed in Cuzco, it seems likely that Molina would have

described it. On the other hand Molina did not arrive in

Cuzco until some 25 years after the conquest when public

sacrifices may have been totally eradicated. In this case

he could not have been an eyewitness to a sacrificial ritual

and his lengthy written descriptions of these ceremonies

would be based completely on interviews.

In summary! the ethnohistorical data, although by no

means crystal clear in this regard, seems to indicate that

both the ch'illa and the ventral throat slit methods were

practiced during Inca times.

2) To what degree did the two methods of slaughter men-

35

tioned in the chronicles function in the religious and secu-

lar contexts? Was the ancient ch'illa used exclusively in

religious contexts or was there an analogous utilitarian

practice in prehistoric times? I was able to observe the

ch'illa in the Department of Cuzco only as an utilitarian

practice, albeit surrounded by a multitude of quasi-magical

and/or religious rituals. 8 Horst Nachtigall, on the other

hand, witnessed in the puna of Moquegua, in both sacred and

profane contexts, a similar method of llama slaughter which

involvej the a~tual removal of the beating heart from the

thoracic cavity. He affirms that in this area the method is

the same whether performed for ceremonial or utilitarian

reasons (Nachtigall, 1966: 308).

In regard to the status of the ch'illa at the time of

the conquest the chroniclers are again of tenuous assis-

tance. The fanatical Christianizing orientation of the 16th

and 17th century Spaniards focused the attention of the

early historians more on ritual matters than on mundane

aspects of animal husbandry. Both known ethnohistorical

references to the ch'illa are within the context of ritual

sacrifice; however, Gu am an Poma also condemns its use for

utilitarian purposes:

The Indians of this land maintain the ancient law of idolatry because in order to eat or for ceremony they kill llamas by opening the heart which is the law of idolatrous shamans (Guaman Poma, 1936: 881 [895]).

36

Thus it appears that the ch'illa was used during antiquity

as both a ceremonial practice and an everyday butchery

method for the procurement of meat. It is not inconceivable

that its survival to the present day in the more remote

areas of the highlands is due in part to its association

with ritual and to native resistance to Spanish and later

Republican religious prohibitions.

3) Does the present distribution of the ch'illa reflect

its distribution in antiquity and perhaps provide a clue to

its time depth?

Al though I personally have seen the ch'illa performed

only in Tuqsa and Huaycho, I have heard it described by

herders from Pitumarca, Chumbivilcas and the area above

Ollantaytambo. It also is reported to be the common method

employed in Parat:i!a and Macusar~i (Jorge Flores Ochoa, per-

sonal communication) and among the Quechua speaking herders

of the puna of Moquegua (Nachtigall, 1966a:220). In addi-

tion I suspect that it originally had a much wider distribu-

tion in pre-Spanish times. The fact that Guaman Poma men-

tions the ch'illa probably indicates that he was familiar

with it from the region of Lucanas, where he spent much of

his early life, although he could have been exposed to the

practice during his travels through othe~ regions, including

Cuzco. Although my investigations were far more limited in

37

the Aymara area (5 informants) it is interesting to note

that according to these informants the ch'illa is practi-

cally unknown in that region and that the ventral throat

slit is the method in common use. During the late 1930's

Tschopik observed the ventral throat slit in common use

around Chucuito. He also stated that a method analogous to

the ch'illa was used on rare occasions (Tschopik, 1946:

562) •

There is another scrap of information which suggests

that the ch'illa may have been absent in Aymara territory

since ancient time. Juan Polo de Ondegardo, as observant a

chronicler as we have, spent much of his Peruvian life in

Aymara territory. After his arrival in Peru in 1543 he pos-

sessed an extensive encomienda in Charcas and was appointed

"corregidor" of that region in 1549 by Pedro de la Gasca.

He remained at this post until 1558 when he was appointed

corregidor of Cuzco for a three year term (John H. Rowe,

personal communication). It was during this period in Cuzco

that he wrote on the Inca religion and described the

aforementioned ventral throat sl it method of camelid sacri-

fice which he called the "alquible" (Polo de Ondegardo,

1916: 15). Nowhere does he mention a method resembling the

ch'illa. Since he went to the trouble of describing the

"alquible" in detail, it seems likely that he would have

mentioned the ch'illa if he had observed it either in

38

Charcas or during his stay in Cuzco.

As inconclusive as such sparse evidence may be, it is

worth suggesting that the practical absence of the ch'illa

in modern Aymara territory in Peru perhaps indicates that

this method of slaughter is no more ancient than Inca times,

was introduced into areas that the Incas conquered, and had

a less than indelible impact on the fiercely independent

herders of the Collao. Alternately the modern absence of

the ch'illa in Aymara territory and its continued use in

Quechua zones may reflect a traditional ethnic difference in

slaughter methods between these two areas. Such an areal

difference could antedate the Inca state by centuries or

even millenia. Of course, both of these hypotheses may be

proven untenable, if ethnographic accounts of the ch'illa

among Aymara-speaking herders of Peru, Bolivia or Chile are

reported in the future.

In concluding this section it should be emphasized that

whatever may be the significance of these rather tenuous

speculations concerning the origin, function and distribu-

tion of the ch'illa, the link between the modern practice

and its counterpart in the ethnohistorical past appears to

be quite strong. Such a link is of obvious importance in the

degree of confidence with which one can interpret archaeo-

logical faunal remains on the basis of ethnoarchaeological

39

data.

Skinning

After the animal has been slaughtered it is rolled on

to its back and one butcher begins to slit the skin along

the ventral midline beginning at the level of the sternum

and cutting toward the neck. This completed, he or his

partner continues the ventral slit backwards from the ster­

num to the anus, cutting off the udder (nuftu) or the male

genitalia in the process. The udder, like most other members

which are removed later, is then hung over a wall to keep it

clean and away from dogs.

A cut is made on the posterior surface of the right

forleg through the articulation between the carpals and the

proximal end of the metacarpal, and then the metacarpal is

bent forward breaking the joint so that it hangs loose

(Plate 11). The same procedure is followed by the butchery

partner for the right rear leg (Plate 12).

The precise level at which this cut is made is subject

to some variation, although all butchers claim to be follow­

ing traditional rules that they learned as children. Butc~­

ers f~om Tuqsa state that the ideal is to cut between the

two layers of carpals/tarsals leaving a layer of these bones

40

both on the distal end of the radius-ulna (or tibia) and a

layer on the proximal ends of the cannon bones (Fig.2-2, cut

A). On the other hand some butchers from Huaycho adamantly

insist that tradition only dictates dividing the tarsals in

this way and that both layers of carpals should remain with

the metacarpal (Fig.2-2, cut B). Still another butcher from

Huaycho claims that it is customary to cut beneath both the

carpals and the tarsals, thus leaving the proximal ends of

the cannons clean (Fig.2-2, cut C). Depending upon the

treatment of the adjacent longbone in the processes of cook­

ing and consumption these variations in butchery may be a

factor in the preservation of these carpals and tarsals in

the ground, and ultimately in their representation in the

archaeological sample.

Having completed the above, incisions are then made

from these carpal/tarsal breaks along the insides of the

right legs to the midline incision. The skin on the right

legs is then pulled away from the underlying flesh using a

knife and tugging. The skin is pulled away from the body by

intermittently using a knife to loosen muscle attachments

and stretching the skin tight and hitting it with a clenched

fist where it is attached to the body. In this manner the

skin is freed entirely from the right side and from the

right legs.

I _ __ I . RAOIUS-UL:NA

r (

Figure 2-2 Alternate methods of separating the lower limbs from the upper limbs.

41

42

The animal is then rolled over exposing its left side

and the entire precess is repeated until the whole carcass

except for the neck and head have been peeled, and the

animal lies naked upon its own skin.

Eviseration

An incision is made in the belly which allows the vis­

cera to pop out. As the butcher's partner begins to remove

and arrange the digestive system the principal butcher con­

tinues the incision craniad and saws through the cartilage

(k'apa) to the right of the sternum (qhawin). He continues

this cut around the cranial end of the sternum and cuts

through the costal cartilage to the left of sternum. The

sternum along with the accompanying abdominal muscle is

removed as one package and is hung over a wall.

This exposes all the internal organs from the esophagus

to the colon. The esophagus is tied off at the point where

it leaves the neck and at the point where it joins the

stomach, and then is cut craniad to these ties. This pro­

cedure prevents the thoracic organs and the meat from being

spoiled by the contents of the digestive system.

At this point the heart is normally slit and the last

remaining blood squeezed into the thoracic cavity. The neck

43

vessels may also be rubbed to push blood into the chest.

The heart, liver and the lungs are then cut loose and hung

over a wall.

The partially coagulated blood that has collected in

the thoracic cavity is scooped out using a small bowl, cup

or cupped hands and deposited in a pot or basin. Care is

taken to remove all the blood that is possible from the

thorax by wiping it out with a cloth. This blood will be

utilized later for blood sausage, (yawarsalchi), which also 1n

makes use of the large intestine as a casing. tV

A butche~'s helper, usually a woman, then cuts the

digestive system loose from its vertebral attac~~ents and

deposits it upon a "manta", a piece of plastic sheeting, or

a special skin called a p'aqlachu. This bundle of viscera

is carried some distance away from the carcass s often to a

stream, and cleaned. All the viscera is eventually con-

sumed, except for the pancreas which is referred to

disparagingly as the michi k'aranchan and is always thrown

away or given to a dog or cat.

Dismemberment

When all the internal organs, except the kidneys, and

the blood have been removed, the carcass is cut up into pri-

44

mary packages of convenient sizes which are later divided

further for the process of consumption.

(1) Brisket: As described in the previous section, the

sternum with the accompanying muscle is the first meat/bone

package to be removed (Fig. 2-3a).

(2) Forelimbs: A slit is made dorsally through the mus-

cle between the last and the penultimate ribs on the right

side. By cutting and prying this operation continues around

each rib head at its poi~t of articulation with the ver­

tebral centrum. 11 When the head of rib no.2 has been disar-

ticulated another slit is made ventrally between the first

and second ribs. Then an easy cut is made through the

attachment between the cranial border of the scapula and the

vertebral column. This liberates the right ribs, scapula,

humerus and radius-ulna as one meat/bone package (mak'i)

which is then hung over a wall (Fig. 2-3b). The scapula,

humerus and radius-ulna come out unscathed from this opera-

tion.

This particular step in the buchery process leaves the

first rib (waqaqsun) attached to its point of articulation

between the seventh cervical vertebra CC7 ) and the first

throracic vertebra (T 1), and the last rib (sulka waqtan)

attached between T11 and T12. This procedure is followed

because the heads of these two ribs are locked tightly into

4f

Figure 2-3

, ~ e

d fA ~~]Q£pJ:J;::OJ:I~

~b c _.

a 9

~ ~

Sequence of dismemberment of camelid carcass in the southern highlands of Peru.

.l:' Ul

46

their vertebral articulations and according to camelid

butchers are practically impossible to remove without break­

ing.

(3) Hindlimbs: While the right forelimb is being

removed the butchery partner removes the right hind limb

along with the right innominate. This is accomplished by

sawing through the pubic symphysis with a knife in young

animals in which the symphysis is not completely fused, or

if the animal is an adult with a strongly fused symphysis,

by laying a knife blade along the length of the symphysis

and hitting it with a large stone (k'achina rumi) (Plate

13). Then, by using the leg as a lever, cutting between the

sacrum and the ilium, and severing the few remaining muscu­

lar attachments, the entire leg is pried free (Fig. 2-3c).

the femur and tibia are unscathed in this process. The

innominate may corne out complete or slightly fractured

depending on the ease with which the symphysis is broken.

tradition dictates, however, that these bones and generally

all others should pass through this process of initial

dismemberment essentially intact. Herders often mention

that breaking bones during the butchery will bring bad luck

to their herd.

(4 and 5) The same process described in 2 and 3 are

repeated with the left limbs.

47

(6) Neck: If the neck (kunka) has not yet been skinned

along with the rest of the body and the limbs, it is done

now by making a ventral midline incision as far as the atlas

and then peeling the skin back by using a knife and tugging.

If the animal is a llama or huarizo (llama-alpaca hybrid),

the skin of the neck is cut away from the rest of the hide

to be used in the manufacture of sandals, lassos, llama

boots (llama p'olqo), etc.

A cut is made between the first and second thoracic

vertebrae which leaves T1 and the first rib (waqaqsun) with

the neck. Then, if the animal has been slaughtered by the

ventral throat slit or by the dorsal stab method, the inci-

sion between the atlas and the occipital condyles is com-

pleted and the neck is removed as one package and the head

as another (Figs. 2-3d and 2-3e). If the ch'illa has been

employed, the same incision is made from start to finish.

Thus, the same cut marks may appear on the ventral surface

of the atlas and the occipital condyles in all animals

regardless of the method of slaughter.

(1) Thoracic and lumbar vertebrae: Depending on the

personal style of the butcher the entire rigid column from

2 T to the sacrum may be left connected or a cut may be made

between T11 and T12 which separates it into two packages: a)

the ffaffu wasan, consisting of T2 through T11 and, b) the

48

p'alta wasan, consisting of T12, the floating ribs, the lum-

bar vertebrae, the kidneys and the sacrum. The caudal ver-

tebrae generally remain with the hide, but may be included

with the p'alta wasan, if the butcher is particularly neat

(Fig 2-3f) .

(8) Cannon bones: The last step in the dismemberment

process is to cut free the lower' legs which include the can-

nons (chuqchuku) and the phalanges from the skin and to lay

out the skin to dry in the sun with the wet side up. These

lower legs are put together and stored in any convenient

place (Fig. 2-3g).

Comparative Dismemberment

It should be emphasized that the above procedure of

dismemberment is not the only method of cutting up a large

mammal. Llama and alpaca butchery as observed in the south-

ern sierra of Peru conforms rather strictly to a series of

culturally prescribed rules, proceeds through the eight

aforementioned steps, and unvaryingly produces 12 or 13

meat/bone - - - ,-- - --!Jd~Kd!;;t::;:, • While basic mammalian symmetry dictates

that the butchery of most large animals conform to the gen-

eral camelid pattern, there exist many differences in detail

in other areas. Other reported butchery procedures of large

mammals contrast in both the number and kinds of steps, in

49

both the number and kinds of meat/bone packages, and in the

ancillary procedures which accompany the dismemberment. No

other reported butchery procedure seems to emphasize so much

that bones remain intact throughout the dismemberment~ and

camelid butchery appears to be unique in the care with which

the rib heads are removed from the vertebrae. A contrasting

example of rib treatment is the butchery of wildebeeste as

practiced by the !Kung Bushmen of Africa in which an axe is

employed to chop th~ough the ribs near their vertebral

attachments and to smash the anterior vertebral column both

longitudinally and horizonally (Yellen, ms.:16).

Llama/alpaca butchery is also unique in the treatment

of the pelvis. Other authors describe the head of the femur

being separated from the acetabulum by means of skillful

incisions through the suspensory ligaments, a procedure

which leaves the pelvis as one unit. Llama/alpaca butchers

tend to conceptualize the pelvis as being composed of two

innominates which need only be split apart in order to free

the entire hindlimb package. However, this does not appear

to be as much a function of camelid anatomy as it is a cul­

turally dictated pattern. In contrast to the domesticated

camelids the butchery of the wild guanaco by the ana of

Tierra del Fuego has been described as involving the separa­

tion of one femur from the acetabul~~ while the other is

left attached to the entire pelvis (Bridges, 1948:256).

50

The number of meat/bone packages produced from a

butchery appears to be chiefly a function of the size of the

animal and what is manageable for the hunter to carry home,

or for the cook to store and manipulate conveniently. Yel-

len describes 21 packages resulting from a wildebeeste

weighing some 400 lbs. (Yellen! ms.:14-18), while the weight

of the bones of a 2000 lbs. bison proved to be so unmanage-

able for the North American Plains Indians that most were

discarded at the site after having been stripped of their

meat (Wheat, 1972:99). The butchery of the domesticated

Andean camelids produces 12 or 13 packages, but this seems

to be not as much a function or size as it is of cultural

rules and the minimal carrying distance. The wild guanacos

of Tierra del Fuego while weighing a bit more than the aver-

age adult llama were butchered by the Ona in a slightly dif-

ferent fashion:

Unless in a violent hurry, the Ona divided a guanaco in a particular manner. The brisket, which was generally regarded as the hunter's portions, came off first. Then the ribs, each side with its shoulder and front leg attached, were removed close to the backbone, leav­ing that still fixed to the neck. Next one of the hind legs was cut off like a ham. The hind leg remained attached to the trunk, which when separated from the neck just where the second rib would have been, was the heaviest portion. The animal was thus divided into five sections, not counting the brisket. The second heaviest section was the piece that included the head, neck and backbone (Bridges, 1948:256-257).

As fortunate as we are to have this account of aboriginal

guanaco butchery, it is regrettable that Lucas Bridges was

51

not more of an anatomist. On the basis of this passage and

others I have reconstructed what I infer to be the guanaco

meat/bone packages (Fig. " 1., .::::-'t J • However", it is difficult to

determine exactly where the vertebral column was divided on

the basis of this description. Likewise, Bridges makes no

specific reference to the cannon bones and whether they were

cut away from the upper limbs during the skinning as in

llama/alpaca butchery or left with them. Somewhat later in

the same hunting-butchery description Bridges does shed some

light on this problem:

It was, therefore, with surprise that I saw Kankoat, having finished cutting up the two guanaco, pack every scrap of meat, the skin, blood and even the feet [my emphasis] into two huge bundles in the manner just described (Bridges, 1948:257).

This implies that the Ona normally left the feet at the kill

site and therefore that the feet were separated from the

upper limbs. Of course; it is difficult to know if Bridges

included both hooves and cannons in his term "feet" or sim-

pI y the hooves.

It is clear from Bridges' description, however, that

the Ona butchery of a guanaco resulted in fewer meat/bone

packages arriving at the site of consumption than is the

case of modern Andean butchery.

..... e ~

~ ~

c

~b d

~

m~) t

Figure 2-4 Sequence of dismembermHnt of guanaco carcass by the Dna of Tierra del Fuego.

'.:v~

Vl I\)

53

Preparation for Cooking

Whereas the previous process of llama/alpaca dismember­

ment involved very little actual breakage of bone, nearly

all the bones are broken during the subsequent process of

cooking preparation in which meat/bone packages are subdi­

vided into more manageable sized portions. During different

phases of this process the butcher may employ a knife, a

small hatchet or short-handled adze, a k'achina rumi and a

stone anv il • The fr actur ing of bones is ;;:1 ways per formed on

the flat surface of an anvil whether the hatchet or the

k'achina rumi is the striking implement.

The responsibility for meat preparation does not seem

to be controlled by rigid sex roles. Whether a man or woman

performs this task depends on individual families and cir­

cumstances.

Head

As much of the wool as possible is cut away from the

head with a knife and then the head is placed in or held

above a fire in order to singe off any remaining fibers. An

incision is made through the facial ~uscles on either side

of the temporal-mandibular joint and extending some 3-5 cm.

beyond it in the direction of the ear. The butcher then

hooks one end of a 30-50 cm. long loop of llama rope, called

a k'aqlla k'aqchana waskha over the mandible at the point of

54

the canine diastema constriction and the other end around

the ball of his foot~ While pulling back on the skull with

two hands the foot is depressed, breaking the remaining

attachments at the temporal-mandibular joint (Plate 14).

In order to separate the mandible from its articulation

the cook pushes· ·inward on the vertical rami until the den­

taries separates at the symphysis or near it (Fig. 2-5).

Unless the animal is very young this break usually occurs to

one side of the symphysis rather than right at it. The

second and third breaks are produced with a hatchet and

separate the vertical rami from the horizontal rami. The

tongue is cut out of the mandible with a knife and then

divided into three portions of equal size.

The cranium is next divided sagittally with the hatchet

by first breaking the bone along the ventral midline start­

ing at the occipital condyles and continuing anteriorly

through the premaxilla. The cranium is then turned over and

the same process continued dorsally along the sagittal crest

through the facial bones. Each one of these sagittal sec­

tions is divided into five pieces of approximately equal

size by employing four cuts:

1) the snout is split dorsoventrally in front of the cheek

teeth;

55

o

T~ 3

Figure 2-5 Sequence of mandible fractures.

Figure 2-6 Sequence of cranium fractures.

56

2) the braincase is split dorsoventrally midway between

the orbit and the occipital condyle;

3) the occiptial-temporal region is split anteroposteri­

orly at the level of the external auditory meatus;

4) the maxilla with its cheek teeth is split away from the

orbit, frontal and zygoma by means of a diagonal blow

(Fig. 2-6).

The mandible and cranial fragments, including the brain por­

tions, are normally boiled along with the elbows, knees and

feet.

Axial Skeleton

(1) Vertebrae: All the vertebrae receive approxiately

equal treatment regardless of their position on the column.

However, the lumbar vertebrae are favored as they are sur­

rounded by more tender meat and the cervical vertebrae are

considered to be tough. In fact the neck is considered the

most difficult part of the entire carcass to butcher and is

used in a Quechua wedding ceremony as a test of the domestic

prowess of the bride (Percy Paz, personal communication).

Normally the individual vertebrae are separated from

one another by cutting with a knife between the vertebral

centra. Then, depending upon the style of the butcher and

the number of people to be fed the vertebrae may be split

57

into 2 pieces either lateromedially or anteroposteriorly.

This is done by first making an incision through the meat

all the way around the bone and _.&.._,: , .. .:--;::''''L .l..l\..l..115 this "guid e

line" with the k'achina rumi (Plate 15). Although no firm

rules could be determined from the observed butcheries, the

tendency is to break the cervical vertebrae lateromedially

in the dorsoventral plane (Fig. 2-7). These vertebrae are

rather large and would be cumbersome as undivided chunks of

meat. The lumbar vertebrae tend to be broken anteropos-

teriorally in the dorsoventral plane and to have their dor-

sal spines snapped off. The dorsal spines of the thoracic

vertebrae also generally are broken off, but their centra

are normally left unbroken. There is, however, a good deal

of variation around these general tendencies.

The sacrum is divided into three sections by hitting it

with the k'achina rumi or hatchet (Fig. 2-8).

(2) Ribs: Although the ribs are treated with extreme

care during the dismemberment process they are handled very

casually during consumption. They are normally roasted

directly over the fire and eaten much like spareribs. They

may be left whole or snapped in two by the person eating

them.

(3) Sternum: The brisket muscle is cut away from the

sternum and saved for later roasting. The sternal meat

58

Figure 2-7 Fracture of cervical vertebra.

Figur2 2-8 Sequence of sacrum fracture.

59

package is cut into convenient chunks along the lines of the

individual sternabrae and later boiled.

Interestingly there is a bit of folklore concerning the

individual sternabrae which dictates that only unmarried

children should eat the most cranial sternabra (hatun

viurana) and the most caudal sternabra (huch'uy viurana).

It is said that if a married adult eats either of these

pieces he (she) will soon be widowed.

(4) Scapula: The scapula is stripped of any meat which

is easily cut away with a knife and then is broken into five

portions of approximately equal size by means of four blows

with the k'achina rumi:

1) the first blow is across the neck usually above the

acromion process and separates the glenoid cavity and

coracoid process from the flat part of the bone;

2) the flat "paddle" is split in half anteroposteriorly;

3) each of the remaining portions are then bifurcated in

turn (Fig. 2-9).

These pieces are boiled.

(5) Innominate: The head of the femur is separated

from the innominate by carefully cutting between it and the

acetabulum. The innominate is then divided into 5 or 6

Figure 2-9

Figure 2-10

3 1

Sequence of scapula fracture.

1 1

Sequence of innominate fracture.

60

61

sections as shown in Figure 2-10 by using the hatchet or

k'achina rumi. Whether the acetabulum itself is damaged in

the process depends on the skill or the butcher. The plan

seems to be to leave it intact, but the butcher's aim is not

always precise.

Long bones

The bones of the limbs are of special interest to the

zooarchaeologist because they are most diagnostic in terms

of species and age determination and in the estimation of

minimum numbers of individuals. Hence it is interesting to

note that llama/alpaca butchers treat these individual ana-

tomical elements in distinct ways governed by definite rules

and do not lump all leg bones into the same category. How-

ever, one general rule seems to exist which calls for the

breaking of all long bones, except the cannons, into four

basic chunks: the proximal end, two sh~ft fragments, and the

distal end (depending on the bone, extremities may be broken

further) • This is normally accomplished by first making

"guide line" incisions through the meat and breaking the

bone at this line with a hatchet or k'achina rumi. Gen-

erally the hatchet is preferred for the longitudinal frac-

turing of the extremities, while the kfachina rumi is used

for crosswise fracturing of the shafts. The treatment

received by individual long bones is described as follows:

62

(1) Humerus: The bulk of the upper forelimb muscle

mass is removed from the humerus and set aside. The humerus

is separated from the radius-ulna by cutting through the

muscular attachments around the semi-lunar notch. Then

using the hatchet or kfachina rumi the humerus is broken

into 5 or 6 chunks in the order illustrated in Figure 2-11.

Depending on the style of the butcher the head may be

cleaved longitudinally once or twice, but it is always split

at least once, in order to expose the cancellous bone and

grease. The head of the humerus is reputed to be especially

flavorful when boiled in soups or stews, and its importance

is reflected in the special name, malsana, it is given by

llama/alpaca butchers. The distal end of the humerus is

normally not split, because of its denser nature and low fat

content.

(2) Radius-Ulna: The radius-ulna is rather lean in

regards to meat and is made largely of compact bone. It is

broken crosswise, therefore, into the four standard long

bone joints as shown in Figure 2-12. Neither the proximal

nor the distal ends were ever observed to be fractured long­

itudinally by modern Andean butchers. However, it should be

noted that due to the particular morphology of the fused

camelid radius-ulna the proximal fracture produces two diag­

nostic fragments. The distal end usually is left with at

least one layer of carpals still attached to it (see Fig.

QD 1-

2(n

63

Figure 2-11 Sequence of humerus fracture.

Figure 2-12 Sequence of radius-ulna fracture.

64

2-2) and no attempt is made to remove these bones during the

pre-cooking preparation. The distal end of the radius-ulna

and the attached carpals seem to be viewed as one single

unit which is referred to simply as the elbow, maki qhonqo.

This folk anatomy classification is corroborated by the

butchers' inability to describe the individual or collective

carpasl any more specifically than "huesecitos" (little

bones) and by the fact that the maki qhonqo remains intact

until it is actually consumed. (See Appendix 1 for the

entire Quechua bone taxonomy).

(3) Femur: The femur and tibia are separated by cut­

ting with a knife between their articular surfaces and

through the posterior muscles. The patella is cut away from

the distal end of the femur and set aside, and the bulk of

the posterior meat is removed from the femur.

The femur has a good deal of cancellous bone in both

the proximal and distal ends, and therefore is broken into

at least six chunks in the manner illustrated in Figure 2-

13. The proximal end is split longitudinally at least once

separating the greater trochanter from the head and neck.

The head also may be separated from the rest of the proximal

end depending on style. The distal end is then fractured

longitudinally between the two condyles. Finally three

crosswise fractures with the k'achina rumi separate the ends

65

Figure 2-13 Sequence of femur fracture.

Figure 2-14 Sequence of tibia fracture.

66

from the shaft fragments. This particular order seems to

facilitate holding the bone firmly while cleaving through

the ends, as well as the production of chunks of approxi­

mately equal size.

(4) Tibia: The tibia is divided into a minimum of 5

chunks as illustrated in Figure 2-14 by first breaking the

proximal end longitudinally into two or three pieces with a

hatchet and then separating the distal end and two shaft

fragments with the k'achina rumi. In a fashion similar to

the treatment of the radius-ulna, the astragalus and cal­

caneum (and sometimes the other tarsals) are normally left

attached to the distal tibia and are viewed as being one

unit with it. Together they are referred to as the knee,

chaki qhonqo.

(5) Cannons and phalanges: The lower limbs including

the cannons and the feet are first laid in a fire in order

to singe off all the hair. The tylopod hooves (each con­

taining 2 first, 2 second and 2 third phalanges) are then

removed by cutting between the meatapodial condyles and the

proximal articular surfaces of the first phalanges. The

phalanges are undamaged in this process and are set aside

for later boiling.In contrast to the upper limb bones, the

cannons are normally divided into only two portions by

breaking the midshaft crosswise with the k'achina rumi

67

(Plate 16).

In contrast to the clean, idealized breaks of the long

bones illustrated in Figures 2-11 to 2-14 photgraphs of

reconstructed camelid long bones (Plates 17-20) show a good

many shaft fragments which are not accounted for in the

schematic dra\.[ings. These smaller fragments are resul ts of

secondary fracturing along the axis of the bone. They are

produced solely by the primary blows, and are not the resul t

of striking the primary fragments further after the intial

fracturing. In some cases this longitudinal shaft fractur­

ing may be the resul t of the longitudinal fracturing of the

ends of the bone. However, the longitudinal fracturing seen

in the distal humerus sbaft (Plate 17) and in the distal

tibia shaft (Plate 20) cannot be accounted for in this way.

It is interesting to note that in all cases in which

the epiphysis is fractured longitudinally it is by a blow

struck before the epiphysis is separated from the shaft.

This practice is probably a simple function of the handle

which the shaft provides when striking the epiphysis, but it

may also be a clue to the manner in which putative "tools"

with spiral shaft fractures are produced.

The longitudinal fracturing of the ends of some long

bones (proximal humerus, proximal and distal femur, proximal

tibia) is clearly related to the cancellous nature and fat

68

content of these bone portions. The long bone epiphyses

that are not fractured longitudinally are always those which

are denser and do not contain much fat.

Density Determinations

In an attempt to quantify the density of different ele-

ments I performed specific gravity determinations on the

ends of each one of the long bones and some of the small

bones of the extremities. These determinations were con-

ducteds as follows: ten specimens of each bone were col-12 lected from the" alpaca cemetery" at La Raya. The humerus,

radius-ulna, femur and tibia were cut transversely into

thirds with a hacksaw. The metapoidals were cut in half

across the middle of the shaft. 13 The calcaneum, astragalus

and phalanges were left intact. Each one of these pieces

was weighed and its volume determined by means of water dis-

pI acement • A comparison of the mean specific gravities for

these bone portions is presented graphically in Figure 2-15.

It is clear from this diagram that there is a definite

correspondence between density and longitudinal fracturing

of epiphyses.

Cooking and Eating

With the exception of the roasting of ribs and some

Fractured longitudinally

Not fractured longitudinally

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1 •

. 8' -_. ....... -- ---- ~S{8~ ~y;-~'-,..;.~ M":''':.x~ 9.3~SiS ~:-.Rmw ««..:·,.:·)X x««·>=-» ~xo;o;g .. ~ ~~ 6»:Mt:« R':U~ •• 8

.81 • W. • u..t. • ........ • L-· • X«·ft.M »:.;>....m:«x «<'!"m;.:.c XiI:«t-~ ~-:'(.:.Kw ~»M:-;S XV~~ @:w..:< (-:&:.«a.."'Y. o:-:«-:-;-w:: S»)2IIm I .6

.4 I • r\ • • 0-, • • u.a. • I.L.t • g.:;"".~ ~1ffC!a ~~tmgJ X;:;~M~ ~ :s:?:;s.::~z ):~UI:~~~ W~~~ ~ MY!'Wdi Wl'7i'il ---6.4

Figure 2-15 Specific gravity of came1id appendicular bone elements.

'" I.D

70

internal organs, boiling was observed to be the favored

method of meat cooking. Roasted meat is certainly appreci­

ated when it is served but its preparation seems to be some­

what troublesome and less efficient for daily meals, and it

is therefore reserved for special occasions. The high alti­

tude, difficulty of combustion, and scarcity of good fuels

are probably responsible for this fact. Boiled portions of

meat are commonly served with a number of small potatoes in

a thin soup/stew. The broth which has acquired the flavor

of the boiled meat is normally drunk directly from the bowl

or sometimes with a spoon, and the chunks of meat and pota­

toes picked out and eaten with the hands.

The stress to which such boiled bone is subjected is

very poorly understood. It is clear that as bone is boiled

its organic content is gradually destroyed. The amount of

destruction will depend on the bone element, the degree to

which the bone has been fractured thus exposing the internal

structure, and the cooking time. In herding communities a

joint of meat is normally boiled for four hours or more,

depending on the age of the animal and whether it is a llama

or an alpaca (llamas are reputed to be tougher).

A related factor whose importance is difficult to

assess stems from the high altitude at which Andean pastoral

communities are found. At altitudes over 4,000 meters water

71

boils at slightly more than 85 0C . instead of the normal o 100 C. of sea level. This lower temperature may be less

stressful to bone. However, it is unknown whether it is the

temperature, the amount of time in the pot or a combination

of these two factors which is more destructive to bone. The

comparability of boiling a joint of meat for two hours at

sea level at 100oC. or for four hours at 4000 m. at 85 0 C.

has never been studied, as far as I know. Until such time

as experimentation is conducted along these lines the Andean

zooarchaeologist should be mindful of the possibility that

high Andean boiling may affect bone differently than boiling

at lower altitudes.

As described in the previous section no special point

is made of extracting the marrow during the meat preparation

stage. Bone grease and marrow certainly are enjoyed as part

of the llama/alpaca bounty and marrow is sucked out of every

nock and cranny during the consumption stage. However,

shaft marrow and grease contained in the cancellous bone at

the ends of the long bones seem to playa role as important

in the flavor of the soup/stew as they do as individual food

objects. Herders claims this soup/stew flavor factor as

being or prime importance in the longitudinal fracturing of

the proximal and distal femora, the proximal tibiae and

especially the proximal humeri.

72

This role of marrow utilization contrast with other

reported ethnographic uses of this nutrient. !Kung hunters

find the marrow from the wildebeeste cannon bones to be such

a tempting delicacy that they stop midway through the

dismemberment process to split the cannons down their whole

lengths and to eat the marrow. As in the Andes the !Kung do

use marrow to enrich their stews, but its is first extracted

from the bones during the preparation stage, set aSide, and

only added after the meat has been boiled (Yellen, ms.:28).

The Calling Lake Cree of Alberta are reported to employ an

elaborate process of bone grease extraction which virtually

demolishes all of the moose's axial skeleton and all of the

long bone shafts, while surprisingly leaving the longbone

extremities intact. The marrow extracted from the long

bones and the fat collected from boiling all the bone frag­

ments is then put into a storage container so that it can

eventually be consumed (Bonnichsen, 1973:11).

The use of marrow in the diet and the damage that bones

sustain during its extraction appear to be a major factor in

the post-consumption differential representation of bone

elements, and hence their probable survival in an archaeo­

logical site. By combining the butchery and consumption

data that are available for the llama/alpaca, the wilde­

beeste (Yellen, ms.) and the moose (Bonnichsen, 1973) it is

possible to compare the numbers of fragments of each of the

73

appendicular bone elements that are normally produced within

three separate cultural-faunal contexts (see Table 1).13

Bone Element Llama/ alpaca Wildebeeste Moose Quechua !Kung Cree

Scapula 2 ( C) ? ? Pr. Humeri 4+ (L) 6+ (L) * Ds. Humeri 2 ( C) 2 or 4 (C or L) 2 ( C) Pr. Rad ius UI nae 4 ( C) 4 (L) 2 ( C) Ds. Rad iusUI nae 2 ( C) 4 (L) 2 ( C) Carpals 14 (N) ? 0 ** Pro Metacarpals 2 ( C) 0 *** 2 ( C) Ds. Metacarpals 2 ( C) 0 *** 2 ( C) 1 st Phalanges 8 (N) 16 (L) 0 ** 2nd Phalanges 8 (N) 16 (L) 0 ** 3rd Phalanges 8 (N) 8 (N) 0 ** Ds. Metatarsals 2 ( C) 0 *** 2 ( C) Pro Metatarsals 2 ( C) 0 *** 2 ( C) Tarsals 10 (N) ? 0 ** Ds. Tibiae 2 ( C) 2 or4+( C or L) 2 ( C) Pro Tibiae 4+ (L) 6+ (L) 2 ( C) Ds. Femora 4+ (L) 6+ (L) 2 ( C) Pro Femora 4+ (L) 6+ (L) 2 ( C) Acetabula 2 ( C) ? 2 ( C)

Total 86+ 76+ 24

Table 1

!he number of appendicular bone fragments produced by the butchery and consumption of one animal and expected t~ be found at the living site (? = data missing or ambiguous ; C = crosswise fracture; L = longitudinal fracture; N = no fracture; * = pulverized in the production of bone grease; ** = left in the field with intestines; *** = split longitu­dinally for the extraction of marrow and discarded at the kill site.)

These data demonstrate striking differences in the number of

fragments that would be expected from the butchery and con-

sumption of one animal in each of these settings. The two

74

major factors responsible for these differences in expected

frequencies are the longitudinal fracturing of epiphyses

(and first and second phalanges in the case of the wilde­

beeste), and the discarding of bones in the field. Of

course, a number of later taphonomic factors would also

influence the survival of these elements in an archaeologi­

cal site, but the intitial effect of butchery and consump­

tion fracture on the differential representation of bone

elements should be clear.

It is important that the zooarchaeologist recognize the

role of culturally dictated butchery/consumption practices

in the production of a faunal sample, and that some attempt

be made to correlate the manner in which an element is frac­

tured with its representation in the sample. The aforemen­

tioned ethnoarchaeological observations indicate that simple

comparisons of numbers of represented elements in a sample

are by themselves insufficient for the reconstruction of

human behavior, since these numbers are affected by the way

in which a bone was fractured or left intact. The longitu­

dinal fracturing of long bone extremities both decreases the

size of recognizable fragments and increases the exposure of

the more fragile, internal, spongy bone to the stresses of

the depositional environment. These factors in turn

decrease a bone's chance of survival in the ground.

75

It is clear, therefore, that ethnozoological observa­

tions from a number of different cultural contexts suggest

that statistical treatment of bone element frequencies from

archaeological sites must be coupled with a thorough under­

standing of bone fracture pattern. Such correlation will be

explored further below.

Summary

This chapter can be best summarized by examination of

Figure 2-16. This diagram illustrates the cultural tapho­

nomic filters which were found to affect camelid bone from

their origin in the living animal to their arrival in the

after-diner garb2ge (post-consumption assemblage). As indi­

cated by the outward pointed arrows the direction of these

filters' influence is generally destructive. The net

result, therefore, is a loss of bone material to the system.

t deBI rtt:t lun we"JnlnR tJlfi\,lnl

I I

'"'''' -["'""'" 1+ II'H~:-CIl()KIIIC; ~ fllACI um: COOK lilt:

Figure 2-16 Model of cultural taphonomic filters operatfng on came lid bone between its origin in the living animal until after its consumption (outwa~d directed arrows indicate a loss of bone to the system).

~ ~

Chapter 3

ADDITIONAL FACTORS OF CULTURAL TAPHONOMY

The importance of butchery and consumption factors in

the survival of bone cannot be overemphasized. However,

there exist several other factors which, although not

directly associated with butchery and consumption, play

definite roles in the accumulation of bone refuse in Andean

sites. In most cases the magnitude of their influence is

unknown, and in some cases not even the direction of that

influence is clearly understood. Much more work needs to be

done in order to quantify these factors, but in the meantime

it is important at least to note their existence and to

describe their nature.

Implements

The use of bone as a raw material for the manufacture

of utilitarian or ornamental objects has almost entirely

disappeared in the highlands of Peru. Today the only tool

that is consistently made from bone is weaving implement

called a wich'uffa, 1 which is used as a packing tool and to

separate the warp from the weft when producing designs in

the textile. This tools is manufactured in the areas that I

78

visited from a freshly butchered camelid metapodial by chop­

ping off the distal condyles2 with a knife and then by means

of a half-whittling, half chopping motion working the shaft

to a point. This rough point is then smoothed by abrasion

against a rock. The entire production requires no more than

10 minutes. When in use by a weaver the wich'ufta is grasped

around the proximal shaft and the point inserted behind the

weft thread being worked and packed tight into the warp

(Plate 21).

Interviewed herders and weavers were very particular

concerning the specific kind of metapodial that constituted

the ideal wich'una. Llama metapodials are preferred over

alpacas for strong, long-lasting wich'una which are to be

used for regular weaving jobs, whereas thinner, more deli-

cate vicuna metapodials are preferred for finer work.

Access to vicuna bones, however, has become increasingly

difficult in recent years so the desirability of vicuna

wich'una may be as much a matter of status as it is of util-

ity. Deer metapodials are also said to be desirable, but

they are rare as well.

Weavers claim that the bone must come from an adult

animal, presumably for reasons of length and durability. A

preference also seems to exist for metatarsals over metacar-

pals. In fact one weaver from Huaycho claimed that good

79

wich'uffa are only made from metatarsals of adult females,

although she was unable to explain how deviation from these

criteria would affect the finished implement. Wich'uffa seem

to be in some demand by weavers from lower altitudes who do

not have direct access to large numbers of came1ids. A

herder from Huaycho stated that 10 to 15 years earlier he

was accustomed to collect as many came1id metapodia1s as he

could, work them into wich'uffa and carry them two weeks by

llama train to the annual fair of e1 Senor de Huanca held on

September 14 near P'isaq. Here he would barter his wich'una

with weavers for agricultural goods, fetching in trade an

arroba (25 1bs.) of corn per wich'uffa or its equivalent, and

later pack all the goods he had obtained in trade back to

Huaycho.

If such vertical trading patterns were common in anti­

quity they certainly could have affected the representation

of certain bone elements in archaeological sites at both

levels. Although the number

archaeological record in this way

of

is

metapodia1s lost to the

probably not great,

wich'uffa manufacture and trade should be considered as con­

tributory factors in the representation of bone elements in

Andean sites.

Aside from the formalized wich'uffa tool category I have

seen bone used also for opportunistic implements which

80

involved no modification of the bone. For instance, a bro-

ken long bone shaft may be stuck in a crack in the wall to

provide a useful hanger.

Toys and Games

Camelid astragali are used by modern inhabitants of the

southern sierra in a game of chance and for purposes of

d iv ination. Bot.h in the ga~e and ~ - d iv ination the bone is ... u

tossed into the air and the resul t is read by observing the

side upon which it 1 and s. The game is well known in the

areas which I visited but apparently it is not played very

frequently for most herders that I interviewed were confused

about the rules. This game, called watoq in Quechua or

"burrito" after the name of the bone in Spanish, is

apparently basically the same as "taba" which was popular

among Argentine gauchos and originally introduced from Spain

(Cooper, 1949:513). However, in contrast to the bovine

"taba" which is sometimes plated on either side with metal

cleats, the camel id "burrito" is left completel y unmod ified.

The use of the astragalus for divination is similar but

a number of bones may be used together. Regardless of the

number of bones used, good luck is indicated by the lateral

surface landing upwards and bad luck by the medial surface.

81

Another play oriented use of bone that is common in

llama/alpaca herding communities is the exclusive province

of small children. Modeling themselves on their parents and

older siblings Andean children are often found to "play

alpaca herder" in an analogous fashion to urban children

"playing house or doctor." As part of this play the child

builds a small corral out of stones and populates it with

bone animals (Plate 22). The bones which are selected to

play the roles are quite standardized and most Andeans

recognized their identities. First phalanges are called

paqo (alpaca) and the second phalanges are their offspring.

The astragalus is called asnucha (little burro), the cal­

caneum -is (little dog) and the more stable of the cervical

vertebrae, c2_c6 , are called waka (cow). These bones are

gathered from the area surrounding the herder's house,

installed in the play corral, and pushed around in the

fashion of herd animals. The first phalanges are also

called "soldados" (soldiers) in some parts of the southern

sierra, and may be utilized for war games, if the child is

feeling more militaristic than pastoral.

It would be rather farfet.ched to suggest that such

games affect the representation of bone elements in Andean

sites in any significant way. However, a tendency for small

child to aggregate certain bones, especially first

phalanges, does seem to exist in some modern Andean

82

communities. Also some day in the future, when mere atten-

tion is paid to archaeological bone debris in the Andes and

the study of activity areas has become an established pro­

cedure, some archaeologist may search for ~ model to illuci­

date a strange concentration of phalanges, astragali, cal­

canea and cervical vertebra in his site. For such an

archaeologist I provide this otherwise rather anecdotal

piece of data.

Scav eng er Activ ity

The effect of wild carnivores or rodents on the bone

refuse produced by mod ern /',ndean communi ties seems to be

negligible, and there is no reason to believe that the

situation was markedly different in tte prehistoric past.

Camelid herders are always on the lookout for both pumas

(Felis concolor) and the Andean fox (Dusicyon culpaeus), but

their chief concern is for newborn animals that might be

attacked during the night. Both of these predators are

extremely timid as far as man is concerned and it is highly

unlikely that either would venture into a herder's kancha

(patio) in order to snatch a piece of freshly butchered

meat, let alone processed bone refuse. Similarly the well­

known scavenging activity of the condor (Vultur gryphus) in

the Andes is limited to the carcasses of wild camelids and

83

other vertebrates (Koford, 1957:207), and has no effect on

domestic bone accumulations. The influence of these wild

scavengers may have been slightly more significant before

the domestication of the llama and alpaca; however, I doubt

that it ever approached the magnitude of influence docu-

mented in other parts of the world, such as Africa.

The effect of indigenous rodents on Andean faunal

assemblages also is assumed to be of minimal immportance.

However, this assumption is based entirely on the extreme

rarity of rodent gnaw marks on the archaeological bone that

I have studied and never having observ·ed such rodent

activity in contemporary communities. In order to test this

assumption future taphonomic work in the Andes might do well

to investigate the "pack rat habits" of native rodents and

their possible effect on bone refuse .

The domesticated dog ( r" -l,.,anlS .&' - 1 - -) .. aml larlS is, on the

other hand, a major factor in the survival of bone processed

in Andean communities. Practically every herding family

owns at least one dog and some have more than one. These

dogs are usually medium-sized, spaniel/setter mongrels with

shaggy black fur. They are kept chiefly to guard the flocks

from predators and rustlers, and contribute very minimally

to herding the camel ids and sheep. They usually suffer from

semi-starvation and are quite vicious. They subsist mainly

84

on scraps of meat, potato skins and an occasional bowl of

mush made from mashed chufio, water and sometimes a little

fat.

When the family has picked the bones as clean as possi­

ble they are usually tossed to the dogs who may carry them a

hundred meters or more from the living site in order to gnaw

on them. In this case, the dog is acting as a bone disper­

sal agent and is contributing to a differential loss of bone

materials to the system. Some dogs, however, may aggregate

bones in one spot as was observed in an abandoned herders

complex in Huaycho. Here a small dog house had been built

fro~ stones near the downslope corner of the kancha. The

floor of the partially collapsed dog house was littered with

a heavy concentration of bones and the area surrounding it

was also extremely rich in bone refuse. It appears, there­

fore, that Andean dogs can be agents of both dispersal and

concentration in regard to domestic bone refuse.

The destructive influence of domestic dogs on bone is

well recognized (Lyon, 1970), albeit less than precisely

defined (Casteel, 1971)0 Gnaw marks were commonly observed

on bone refuse in all the communities that I visited in the

southern sierra. In Huaycho I collected bone scatter from

the surface surrounding a house that was occupied by one

woman, three children and three dogs. Although I was unable

85

to make any detailed study of the distribution of gnaw marks

on these bones or of the differential representation of bone

elements in the sample, a very large percentage had canine

puncture marks and portions of the cancellous bone gnawed

away. It is unfortunate that the present inaccessability of

this collection and of the ethnographic excavation collec-

tions prevents the quantification of these data. Future

studies of the problems of differential bone survival in the

Andes would do well to include controlled experimentation on

the role of domestic dogs.

At the same time a note of caution should be inter-

jected concerning the indiscriminant use of ethnographic

analogy in the interpretation of archaeological data. Other

human behavioral patterns could have existed in the prehis-

toric past. The present Andean practice of tossing nearly

all bones to the dogs need not be the only hum2n attitude

towa~'d dogs and bones. The ana of Tierra del Fuego had a

quite different policy:

In the ashes we discovered charred guanaco bones, which had first been broken open to remove the marrow. The Fuegians always threw bones on the fire, to prevent their hungry dogs from breaking their teeth or choking them s e 1 v e s (Br i d g e s, 1 94 8 : 1 97) •

Bridges does not explain why Fuegian dogs were so delicate.

They probably were not, but the ana thought so and fed them

only meat and internal organs. Although this Ona practice

86

may not have been common in other parts of the world, it is

worth remembering. The bone refuse found at such an Ona

site would have been subjected to quite different agents of

destruction than the bone found in most contemporary Andean

sites.

Burning

As noted in the section on cooking the only camelid

bones that were observed to be regularly roasted were the

ribs. The small amount of bone burning that this roasting

produces is limited to the exposed articular ends and areas

whe~"e the bone is scraped clean of meat. The meat protects

most of the bone from the flames and the signs of burning

that are left on the bone are brown and local (what might be

termed scorch marks). They were not black and allover the

bone.

The lack of bone burning observed during the controlled

consumption experiments contrasts dramatically with the bone

excavated from a contemporary midden in Tuqsa. In one unit

of this excavation over 57% of the 2855 bone fragments

showed some signs of burning. Much of this burning was of

the black or gray (calcined) variety, and covered much or

all of the bone's sur face _ The ashy nature 0 f the so il and

an interview with the occupants of the adjacent house

87

indicated that this midden was the accumulation of years of

kitchen floor sweepings and fireplace refuse. Again a com-

plete analysis of this burning could not be conducted. How-

ever, it is obvious that the mere observation of bone burn-

ing is not a reliable indication of cooking treatment.

These ethnographic observations, suggest that the intensity

of burning may be an indicator of post-consumption disposal.

Bone that is burned black or calcined probably never is pro-

duced in modern Andean communities simply during the cooking

process. It is much more likely that such bone is the

result of bone being thrown directly into the coals after

being stripped of meat and remaining there for some time

exposed to high temperatures.

The direction of the influence of burning on bone is

also somewhat questionable. Intuitively it would seem that

exposing bone to the high temperature stress of a bed of

coals could not help but weaken its internal structure and

thus decrease its longevity in the ground. However, exami-

of a good deal of burned bone excavated in the Andes

has left me with the impression that some bone is actually

preserved in part because of burning. Comparison of bone

from the same excavation unit and level demonstrates that

some of the burned bones, especially those burned jet black,

appear denser and are less eroded than their unburned coun-

terparts. It is possible that exposure to certain

88

temperatures for a particular amount of time in combination

with other unknown variables may harden bone and increase

its chances of survival in the ground. I should emphasize

that this suggestion is based upon a subjective impression,

and that further research, perhaps replicative in nature,

should be conducted in order to define more clearly the des­

tructive and/or preserving effect of fire on bone.

Ceremonial Uses of Camel ids

The methods of ritual slaughter of camel ids have been

described extensively in Chapter 2. Judging from the fre­

quency with which these sacrifices are mentioned in the

early chronicles the number of animals so disposed must have

been quite large, at least under the Inca state religion.

In Cuzco llamas and alpacas were sacrificed daily as part of

the observances of the ceremonial calendar. Although the

various chroniclers differ slightly in their counts, a

minimum of three camel ids appear to have been sacrificed

each day of the year, one in the morning, one at noon and

one at dusk (Molina, 1943:47). The first month of the

sacred round, called Qhapac raymi, was typical in terms of

the sacrifice of camelids. The first day of festivities

witnessed the arrival at the Temple of the Sun of 100 large,

89

carefully chosen camelids3 with long wool and straight

tails. The high priest of the Sun led them around the idols

and offered them to Wiracocha, the creator god, and then

divided them among thirty of his deputies in order that they

might sacrifice three or four each day of the month (Cobo,

1964: Book XIII, Chap. XXV, 209). According to both Polo de

Ondegardo and Cobo, who used Polo de Ondegardo as one of his

sources, each month began with the offering of 100 camelids,

of differing colors, regardless of the theme or principal

activity of the month. In addition to these regular daily

sacrifices numerous special occasions dictated the sacrifice

of many more camelids in Cuzco, and for other ceremonies,

both public and private, in all parts of the empire.

Although the details of these sacrifices are worthy of

a study themselves, it is the chronicler's description of

the disposal of their remains that is of special interest to

our present discussion of taphonomy. While there is some

disagreement among the chroniclers as to the destiny of the

camelids' carcasses after sacrifice, most emphasize that the

animals were burned. Some state that the meat was consumed

by the public on occasions (Cobo, 1964: Book XIII, Chap.

XXVII, 215) or that the blood was utilized for yawar sankhu,

the blood communion of the Inca religion (Molina, 1943:37;

Cobo, 1964: Book XIII, Chap. XIX, 219). However, the most

interesting description for the zooarchaeologist is that of

90

the disposal of bones. According to Molina sometime after

the full moon of the month of Kamay 4 a juvenile camelid was

burned so that the Winter would always send its waters.

Following this immolation the annual ceremony of burned

bones was conducted:

.,having constructed several step-dams in the stream that passes through the plaza, they brought out the ashes and charcoal which had been kept from what was left over from the bones of the sacrifices of the past year. They ground these up with two baskets of coca, many flowers of a variety of colors, aj~, salt and roasted peanuts. Ground up together in this manner they took out a small amount, and carrieg the rest to the confluence of said stream and a&other below the section of the city called Pumachapa (Cobo, 1964: Book XIII~ Chap. XXVI, 213).

After a bit more ceremony the mixture was thrown into the

river along with cloth, feathers gold and silver. Two hun-

dred Indians then followed the floating sacrifice to the

bridge of Ollantaytambo where they offered two more baskets

of coca (Molina, i943:65).

If this practice of grinding up all the remains of

burned sacrificial bone and then disposing of them in a

river was followed consistently in antiquity, these bones

would certainly be lost to the archaeological record. How-

ever, it is unlikely that all the bone from the thousands of

yearly camelid sacrifices would have been treated so

strictly. Nonetheless, a number of other chroniclers indi­

cate that after the sacrificial immolation was complete the

91

bones of the victim were badly burned and these burned bones

were treated in some special manner. Cobo even states that

in Cuzco sacrificial bone remains were kept for years in a

special depository in Pumachupa (Cobo, 1964: Book XIII,

Chap. XXV, 209).

Similar special treatment of the bones from sacrificed

camelids has been observed by ethnographers in the southern

sierra. In Paratfa the sacrifice of a male llama is the

central activity of a ceremony called wilancha. After the

llama is sacrificed part of it usually is consumed in the

traditional manner and part is buried intact. The broken

bones from the consumed portion are then burned and left in

the fire (Jorge Flores 0., personal communication). In the

puna of Moquegua the bones of a sacrificed camelid are not

burned, but after the meat has been eaten they are buried

intact along with leaves of coca in a special pit that has

been dug in a corral (Nachtigall, 1966b:195).

Both the ethnographic and ethnohistorical sources leave

many questions unanswered concerning the disposal of bones

from sacrificed camelids. However, it should be clear that

in no documented case are the bones of such sacrifices

treated casually and discarded as the bones of an animal

that has been slaughtered for meat. It is not inconceiv­

able, therefore, that the discovery of unusual concentra-

92

tions of burned, or perhaps unbroken, camelid bone in Andean

sites may be due in some cases to sacrificial practices.

Housekeeping Behavior

Strangely enough the personal neatness of the family

may be a factor in the survival of bone from Andean communi­

ties. While visiting families in the southern sierra I

noticed a great deal of variation in the amount of detritus

that covered the floors of their kancha. Some kancha are

covered with bone, tin cans, bottles, bits of plastic, etc.,

while others are very clean. Interview with the residents

confirmed that some were much more conscientious house­

keepers than others. Some stated that they cleaned up the

floor of the kitchen and kancha only when it was necessary,

some claimed to clean about once a week and one insisted

that he buried the floor sweepings and fireplace contents

almost every day. Variation also existed in whether the

residents made consistent use of a designated dumping area

or randomly tossed garbage over the kancha walls. Such

differences in domestic behavior obviously contribute to the

dispersal and concentration of bone refuse.

The ethnographic excavations conducted in Tuqsa and

Huaycho provide two widely contrasting examples of bone

refuse accumulation. The residents of the Tuqsa household

93

made consistent use of a spring-side midden for fireplace

contents but were rather casual in regards to refuse in the

kitchen and kancha. Soundings made around the periphery of

the kancha turned up only sparse bone refuse, while excava-

tion in the midden uncovered a significant concentration of

bone (Fig. 3-1). As mentioned earlier, however, this midden

contained a high percentage of burned bone which had been

subjected to a different set of stresses from the bone found

around the periphery of the kancha. Any attempt to compare

the differential representation of bone elements from this

midden with bones from any other part of the site or with a

different site would have to recognize the cultural filters

through which they had passed.

The excavations at Huaycho were conducted in a house-

hold complex which had been abandoned for some five years.

In this case we know little about the housekeeping habits of

the residents but something can be inferred from the bone

accumulation. The complex is built on an approximately 100

slope and the floor of the kancha was originally covered

with cobblestones. These factors, along with the aforemen-

tioned dog house, seem to have been influences in the accu-

mulation of bone on the site. No true midden was discovered " ". ". i

around the periphery of the complex, but·~~jor concentra-.

tions of bone were found at the low point of the kancha and

just over the wall outside (Fig. 3-2). Originally this

stream

midden

"" III • { r, j* -:: ~ ;,. ",If ", lilt

corral

Fi~~re 3-1 Sketch of Tuqsa house complex.

"".­tv,1I ".,~'

za._kt_IChl-.J

bedroom

94

95

corral

bedroom

---- • - kancha

- : bedroom

Figure 3-2 Sketch of Huaycho house complex.

96

corner of the kancha possessed a drain which was uncovered

during excavation, but had been completely clogged and

covered by some 60 cm. of refuse and mud. Apparently heavy

rains had washed refuse from all parts of the upslope kancr-a

to this corner, down through the drain and on to the slope

below. Throwing bones over the wall at this corner may also

have contributed to the downslope deposition. Then, at some

time, the drain became clogged and refuse also accumulated

on the inside of the wall.

In contrast to the bone from the Tuqsa midden the Huay­

cho bone was largely unburned. Instead a high percentage of

it suffered from having been waterlogged in the dense clay

for several years. Much of this bone was light and

extremely fragile, presumably having undergone some degree

of decalcification, and probably would not have survived in

any recognizable form for many more years. Had this been a

site of archaeological time depth the smaller and more fra­

gile fragments would certainly have disappeared.

Although the present inaccessability of these data do

not permit an analytical comparison of the differential

representation of bone elements from these two ethnographic

samples, it should be clear that differences in household

behavior can subject bone to different kinds of stresses.

Consideration of these stresses should be included in any

91

bone analysis.

Vertical Bioenergetics

Perhaps the most intriguing and complex factor affect-

ing the representation of bone elements in Andean refuse has

to do with the very nature of the Andean economic system and

the flow of energy between ecozones. The interdependence of

vertical ecozones in the prehistoric past has been

emphasized by ~urra (1912) and others. It is recognized

that the high altitude puna ecozone is only habitable

because of the unique ability of the domesticated camel ids

to prosper above 4,000 meters and the ability of camelid

herders to trade animal products for agricultural goods from

lower altitudes. In analyzing the human bioenergetics of

communities in the Nunoa area Brooke Thomas has summarized

this phenomenon most concisely:

As suggested from the energetic efficiency of pastoral­ism, food energy which can be extracted only from the high puna flow system is probably not sufficient to meet consumption requirements of a substantial segment of the Nunoa population. When animal resources (wool, hides, meat, etc.) produced in this ecosystem, however, are exchanged for high calories foods grown at lowe~ elevations, adequate energy levels become available. ~stimates have indicated that if all animal resources produced by a typical family were exchanged for wheat flour, energy production derived from pastoralism could be increased as much as five times. This would result in an overall energetic efficiency of 11.9, which is almost identical to agriculture during a normal year. A critical interdependcy therefore exists between

98

ecozones, which if disrupted could seriously affect the ability of the Nunoa population to support itself (Tho­mas, 1973:164).

Thus viewed within the context of bioenergetics, the

vertical trading patterns alluded to during the discussion

of the wich'uffa become an absolute necessity of survival for

residents of the puna. In addition, this necessity has been

felt for a good many centuries. Writing in the middle of

the 17th century, Bernab~ Cobo described subsistence in the

puna:

God created llamas in this cold land for the good of its inhabitants, for without these animals life would be very difficult because the land is very sterile ... (Cobo, 1964: Book IX, Chap. LVII, 365).

Somewhat later Cobo adds that the necessity was a mutual

one, felt at both vertical levels:

With the meat and textiles which [the camelid herders] made ~ney bought and bartered in the valleys and warm country for the things they lacked, such as aji, fish, corn, coca, fruits and other things that they needed. Because in the warm country the residents lacked meat, because camelids are not born there. Nor did they have other domesticated animals to compensate for this lack until the Spanish brought their domesticated animals which now abound everywhere (Cobo, 1964: Boox IX, Chap. LVII, 366).

Vertical exchange certainly must have been of much

greater importance before the introduction of European

domesticates, but even in the present day such trade is very

evident in the southern sierra. For the anthropologist and

tourist alike the sight of a loaded llama train co~ing down

99

from the p~na or returning is a colorful and still not

totally infrequent occurrence along the Cuzco-Puno road and

others parts of the southern sierra. When asked what they

are carrying llama drivers generally mention a variety of

puna products and usually include chargui7 (jerky) in the

list. Modern camelid charqui is produced by salting joints

of meat and alternately exposing them to the high Andean sun

and to its freezing nights. Normally this is done during

June or July, the coldest months of the year. As in all

other culturally governed behaviors observed in the southern

sierra some variation exists in the style of charqui produc-

tion, but most herders produce it with the bones still in

the meat. All parts of the carcass are utilized with the

exception of the lower legs and the head which are never

used. The term "lower leg" in this case includes cannons,

phalanges and perhaps some carpals o~ tarsals, depending on

the butchery technique (see Fig. 2-2 for review of varia­

tions in carpal/tarsal butchery treatment). The lower legs

are not included because they lack sufficient meat to make

them desirable, while the head will not keep for a prolonged

period of time and is set aside for immediate home con sump-

tion.

It is difficult to know, of course, to what degree

prehistoric charqui manufactures conformed to the modern

method of dressing the carcass and distributing the

100

different joints of meat. An entirely different system of

distribution of joints of meat may have existed in anti­

quity, as well as the concurrent policy of driving some live

animals to lower altitudes and trading them on the hoof.

There is some ethnohistorical evidence to indicate that not

only were camelids "sold" on the hoof at the agricultural

level, but that some coastal valley peoples even possessed

permanent herds of llamas CGarci Diez, 1964). Despite these

complications, however~ there exists the possibility that we

may be able to detect ver-tical trading of charqui in the

differential representation of bone elements from both the

pastoral level and from the agricultural level. This possi­

bility will be explored further in Chapter 5.

Summary

As mentioned in Chapter 1 the chief goal of my ethno­

graphic research in the southern highlands was to investi­

gate the processes of camelid bone treatment among contem­

porary herders. A hypothetico-deductive model of the pri­

mary taphonomic processes believed to contribute to the for­

mation of a general faunal sample was presented in Figure

1-16. As a result of the ethnoarchaeological research

described in the previous two chapters the model now can be

viewed as more complete and documenting a multitude of pre-

101

viously unrecognized taphonomic factors operating specifi­

cally upon the formation of Andean sites. Figure 3-3 sum­

marizes these results and illustrates the direction of

influence of each taphonomic filter. Outward directed

arrows indicate destruction and a loss of bone material from

the taphonomic system. Inward directed arrows indicate

alteration and/or transport and imply redistribution of bone

material within the taphonomic system.

It would be completely unrealistic to suggest that this

model includes all agents of destruction and redistribution

operating on Andean faunal assemblages. I am thoroughly

convinced that one year's fieldwork has only scratched the

surface of this problem. However, Figure 3-3 does serve to

document t!1e known taphonomic factors and to underscore the

fact that faunal samples are not the result of any single

cause but rather are the results of a multitude of factors.

IIEA111 ...

."nllicial

\' 111'11

opec I., tHllle

""'r'

STOH"':f./ ,.HANSI·OIlI UfIIIAI:t:

t .'~

I IIlI1TIIFHY

}HIC IUlltH

\

'1I'~jlltt:t lun ..L-

/1.Hf:-COIlKIIU: .... FIlAC'lIIIIf.

~ RECOVERY

H(:IIIIICIIIF.

1

"'I'''kllllll~ com: 11/1:

I:EOI.lllacl 4 fNVlllorltlENTAI

... ACTORS

SAHl'I,IN!;

Figure 3-3 Model of taphonomic filters operating on came lid bone between its origin in the living animal until its archaeological analysis in the laboratory (outward directed arrows indicate a loss of bone to the system; inward directed arrows indicate redistribution of bone within the system).

...... o I\.)

Chapter 4

ARCHAEOLOG!CAL CASE STUDIES FROM THE VALLEY OF CUZCO

Ultimately the ethnographic data presented in the pre­

vious chapters are only relevant for the archaeologist when

compared with faunal materials excavated from an archaeolog­

ical site. In an attempt to test the applicability of the

various hypotheses derived from the ethnographic research,I

undertook the analysis of three archaeological bone samples

from the Cuzco Valley in the southern highlands. All three

sites share the same basic environmental zone 1rlhile varying

slightly in terms of micro-environmental niches. They differ

greatly, however, in terms of associated cultural refuse and

times of occupation. The sites are from earliest to latest

as follows:

Site Descriptions

A) Marcavalle, PCz 6-45 This is an Early Horizon occu­

pation site located at 13 0 31' 45" Sand 71 0 57' Won the

southeastern margin of the present day city of Cuzco at an

elevation 0 f approx im atel y 3,300 meter s above sea level.

The site consists of a shallow midden approximately 300

meters long and 300 meters wide situated on a wide terrace

104

above the R~o Cachimayo which flows along the northeastern

edge of the city of Cuzco and eventually into the Urubamba

drainage system (Fig. 4-1). It was occupied during Peru's

Early Horizon by the earliest pottery making people of the

Valley of Cuzco, and the site has been radiocarbon dated at

between 146 + 51 B.C. and 966 + 55 B.C. based on a half-life

of 5568 years (Karen L. Mohr-Chavez, personal communica-

tion) •

The faunal sample whose analysis is included here was

obtained in an excavation conducted in October, 1963 by the

University of Cuzco under the direction of Luis Barreda

Murillo and Patricia J. Lyon, and with the assistance of

five fifth-year anthropology students. Three contiguous

units comprising a total volume 2.5 meters long by 2.0

meters wide by about 1.1 meters deep were excavated near

the approximate center of the site within the present walls

of the Instituto de Menores. Animal bone was recovered by

two techniques. The larger bones were collected during the

trowelling process, while finer fragments were collected in

the screens. Two screens were used simultaneously during

the excavation, one with half inch mesh and the other with

quarter inch mesh. Small bones obviously were lost through

the half inch mesh which would have been recovered with the

quar-ter inch mesh. t.T_ •• _ .... -- .£.. '- -l1V WI: V 1::1 , \" 1l I:: simultaneous use of both

screens during all phases of the excavation should have

Figure 4-1

"

t _ _1

5 4 ) 2 o 5 KUotnetcro

Cuzco Valley sites and surrounding topography (atter ~uzco quadrant, Instituto Geogr'fico Militar, Lima, 1973).

•

106

prevented the non-random skewing of the sampling from any

horizontal sector or stratigraphic level. The net result of

this system of recovery should be a consistent under-

representation of small bones in all areas of the site.

1 B) Qhataq'asallacta-, PCz ~-18 This is an Inca period

site located at 130

32' Sand 71 0 59' W at approximately

3600 meters elevation on the north slope of a hill above the

modern church of Bel~n on the southwestern edge of Cuzco

(Fig. 4-1). The site overlooks the Rfo Huancaro and con-

sists of long rows of rectangular structures, measuring

approximately 4X8 meters, and extending down the slope of

the hill toward the city. The total area of the site is

approximately one square kilometer.

Based on the recovered pottery, the site was occupied

during the Late Horizon and into the early Colonial Period.

It is believed to have been constructed by the Inca state

and used primarily for habitation (Dean E. Arnold, personal

communication) .

The faunal sample whose analysis is included here was

obtained by clearing and excavation of the site by the

Instituto Nacional de Cultura, Cuzco between October, 1972

and April, 1973, under the direction of Jos~ Gonzales Cor-

rales, staff archaeologist of the Instituto Nacional de Cul-

tura, and Dean E. Arnold, visiting Fulbright professor at

107

the University of Cuzco. Excavation and clearing involved

the tracing of the numerous ruined walls and the excavation

of three rectangular structures near the north end of the

site. Animal bone was recovered primarily in passageways

outside the rectangular structures. No information is

available concerning the use of screens during the excava­

tion process.

C) Minaspata, PCz 12-i This site is located in a

slightly different biogeographic zone than the other two

Cuzco Valley sites. It is situated in the Lucre Basin at

the extreme southern end of the long valley of Cuzco, at a

somewhat lower altitude than the city itself and overlooks

the southeast shore of resource-rich Lake Lucre (Fig.4-1).

Minaspata is a multi-component midden including some col­

lapsed architectural features and appears to have been occu­

pied intermittently from sometime in the Early Horizon

through Inca times (Dwyer, 1971:70-12). However, the pot-

tery from Minaspata has not been subjected to any rigorous

analysis. Therefore, its time of occupation cannot be dated

with any confidence.

The faunal analysis included here refers to a small

sample excavated in May and June, 1969 by Alfredo Valencia

Zegarra of the ex-patronato de Arqueologfa, Cuzco.

108

Methods of Analysis

The three Cuzco faunal samples mentioned above were

borrowed from the University of Cuzco and the Instituto

~acional de Cultura, Cuzco, respectively, in January, 1975.

They were then transported to the osteology laboratory, at

La Raya, where they were cleaned and separated into those

bones that were believed to be identifiable to at least the

family level2 and those fragments too small, too damaged or

not sufficiently diagnostic to be identifiable to that

level. The identifiable bones were then marked as to their

site number, horizontal provenience and vertical proveni­

ence. The non-identifiable bones were set aside in labeled

bags for later analysis. The numbers of bones from each of

these categories are summarized below:

Site

Marcavalle

Qhataq'asallacta

Minaspata

ID bones

633

1590

99

Non-ID bones

3688

8299

*

Total

4321

9889

*3

All numbered bones were identified using the compara­

tive collection of native Andean fauna that was being

prepared in the La Raya laboratory, and the following data

determined for each bone: 1) bone element, 2) side, 3)

109

proximal-distal and/or anterior/posterior portion, 4) state

of fusion of long bones or eruption and wear of teeth, 5)

taxon, 6) fracture pattern, 7) number, orientation and posi­

tion of any cut marks present on the bone, 8) the maximum

dimension in millimeters (including any broken portion), 9)a

description of any human modification evident on the bone,

10) a description of any burning which the bone may have

suffered, 11) any diagnostic biometric measurements. These

data were recorded individually on cards as in the example

illustrated in Fig. 4-2.

After returning to the University of California, Berke­

ley, a computer code system was devised to describe all the

aforementioned variables and then all data originally

recorded on cards were transferred to numeric form on coding

sheets as in the sample illustrated in Fig.4-3, and eventu­

ally to punched cards. The separate values which each of

these variables can take are described in the complete code

book which is included as Appendix 2.

The statistical manipulation of the data was accom­

plished by means of various packaged subprograms available

in the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

using the CDC 6400 computer at the University of California,

Berkeley, and by means of a number of programs developed for

the Data General Nova and Eclipse Mini-Computers at the

Nq C-z. 10 - 46 Orden~ :r 6 - J - I {j Familia: Catmi2.Jo

Elemento Osee:

T; bio....

O'Stc& De~cMo

Fusion:

f05JONodo

Comentario:

Especie y/o

Tamaiio:

Estimacion de Edad:

Fractura y I 0 Huellas de Carnicei'ia:

Peso:

Figure 4-2 Sample bone data card used in analysis.

110

-~' Z

'" :::> ...

::-c:- .. ) ,,> Q t <i ()'~') rt- -::- ~ ~\J"'.. ~ ~ :- -=-- -.. -- - - -... \.~ - -~ rt- '''I - c· \l"'" IS'" IS" ~ \0; ~ - -. ................ - ~

\f) ':\ ~ .s _t"'" ~,,"!"--~~n-~ ~c C ;.,p.::P-

C" ('\.(':> c- --J!:> ---- ~ ~,'"') C ,,") ,,) .... -rt>~I'I'),t',) r.-T"T-:::-~~~ ~C"- ~G:>.

-.-C" ___ -

Z = C· Z

z -C> -. X -< ... .... 21

t'-~ C) ~ c ~ I . Ir' <0 t><:> ,,~ c>'" I <::l - 0 ....... G .

~, .. ~~ ~~ ........ ---.--~ ~

lO- .... " -nr.-'-l. r<'> -- - Cb

, i .

! I : ;

1 1

l i , ,

I \ i t \ I I 1 '"" 1

I I =-. -- ... +::>-.;,~-~ ,,") ~') .. ~ ~ 0.00.00

111

112

Department of Anthropology's Quantitative Methods Labora­

tory.

Species Identification

The fauna available to the prehistoric inhabitants of

the Cuzco Valley has been described by Hershkovitz (1969:60)

as the pastoral fauna of the Andean altiplano. This zoogeo­

graphic zone is characterized by relatively few mammalian

niches whose occupants operate within efficient predator­

prey relationships. The mammals represented at the three

Cuzco Valley sites are listed below:

Rodentia

Caviidae

Cavia porcellus ---------------------cuy, guinea pig

Carnivora

Canidae

Canis familiaris --------------------domestic dog

Dusicyon culpaeus ------------------ Andean fox

Mustelidae

Conepatus rex ---------------------- skunk

Artiodactyla

Camelidae

Lama guanicoe ---------------------- guanaco

Lama glama ------------------------- llama

Lama pacos ------------------------- alpaca

Vicugna vicugna -------------------- vicuna

Cervidae

113

Hippocamelus antisensis ------------ taruka, huemul

Odocoileus virginianus ------------- white-tailed deer

Despite the low diversity of this fauna it was not

always possible during analysis to assign the bone fragments

to the species level with a great degree of confidence.

Canids are represented at all three site, but in the cases

of Marcavalle and Minaspata by only isolated teeth. The

Ohataq 1 asallacta canids are represented by both an isolated

tooth and fragmentary maxillae and mandibles, but the lack

of a sufficieut sample of comparative dog and fox skeletal

material prevented identification to the species level.

The taruka and white-tailed deer are difficult to dis­

tinguish on the basis of post-cranial material. Only in the

case of an o. virginianus antler fragment from Marcavalle

was it possible to identify a deer specimen to the species

level. The remaining specimens have been identified only as

cervids. It is presumed, however, that both species were

utilized by the Cuzco Valley inhabitants, since both are

present in the region today.

114

The four species of Andean camel ids similarly are

extremeley difficult to distinguish on the basis of fragmen­

tary skeletal remains. Few morphological features have been

found wi th which even complete skel etons of the four species

may be distinguished. However, size differences among the

four species can be used with relative success in order to

obtain at least a rough idea of which of the camelids are

present in an archaeological site, and in what proportion.

Discussion of this technique will be deferred until later in

this chapter.

Relative Importance Of Different Species

The first point to emerge from the analysis of the

identifiable bones is the predominance of camelids over all

other taxa at the three sites. it

constituted the primary source

is clear that camelids

of animal protein of all

three archaeological communities, with other mammals playing

only very secondary roles in the economy. However, the per­

centages of the secondary species differ somewhat from site

to site and deserve thorough discussion.

A number of methods have been devised by faunal

analysts in an attempt to assess the relative abundance of

different animal taxa excavated from archaeological sites.

115

These methods have been employed on single component sites,

between stratigraphic levels of multicomponent sites, and

between sites or units of the same time period. Whether used

synchronically or diachronically, all the methods with which

I am familiar possess the common goal of quantifying as

accurately as possible the relative economic importance of

each species to the living human community. The three

methods which are most commonly seen in the faunal litera­

ture achieve this goal with differing degrees of success.

In order to test the relative value of each of these methods

to faunal analysis in the Andes, I have calculated the rela­

tive importance of different taxa using each of the three

methods separately.

Number of Indentified Specimens

The first of these taxon abundance methods to be used

historically in faunal analysis was the fragments or speci­

men method. This method is quite simple in procedure and

consists of merely counting the number of bone fragments

assignable to each taxon and assuming that the relative pro­

portion of each of these taxa in the archaeological sample

correlates in some linear fashion with their relative impor­

tance in the diet. However, this procedure has been chal­

lenged by a number of authors (Chaplin,1971:64-67;

116

Daly,1969:149; Payne,1972:68). While there is no need here

to repeat the exhaustive criticism of these authors, it is

necessary to emphasize that the specimen method views both

animal anatomy and the entire taphonomic pathway from the

biosphere to the lab table in the most simplistic of terms.

The specimen method assumes that all animals in the sample

have the same number of identifiable bones -- which they

often do not (eg. a carnivore may have as many as 60

phalanges while an equid has 12). Likewise the fragments

method assumes that the butchery of a large animal will pro­

duce the same number of fragments as the butchery of a small

animal. This is rarely, if ever, the case. The breaking up

of marrow-rich bones of large animals and leaving intact the

bones of small animals is a pattern frequently observed in

zooarchaeological samples. Finally the fragments method

assumes that all parts of the carcass of every species

arrived at the excavated area, and that they suffered

equally under the destructive factors of cooking, burial and

e~cavation.

In light of all these negative comments it would seem

that we could discard the specimen method and pass on to

more profitable avenues of research. However, despite its

drawbacks the specimen method may be of value in certain

cases which will be discussed below. Thus, this method was

the first utilized to calculate the relative importance of

117

the different taxa found at the three Cuzco Valley sites.

The complete results of this method are presented in Table 2

and summarized graphically in Fig.4-4.

Minimum Numbers of Individuals

In 1953, Theodore White, recognizing some of the prob­

lems inherent in the specimen method, suggested that a more

accurate determination of the relative abundance of dif­

ferent taxa could be made by calculating the minimum number

of individuals necessary to have produced the faunal sample

under investigation. The procedure which White utilized to

this end was to select for each taxon the most abundant

unique bone element (eg. left distal tibia, right dentary,

right astragalus) and let its frequency in the sa~ple ~~rve

as the minimum number of individuals (MNI). Thus, this logic

would argue that, if 27 left bison astragali are the

greatest number of unique bones at a Site, then the remains

of at least 27 individual bison must have been deposited

there.

It is important to note that White's method makes no

claim at estimating the "probable" number of individuals,

but rather contents itself with the most conservative esti­

mate, the bare minimum. A number of I ater faunal analysts

(Chaplin,1971j Flannery,1967j Krantz,1968) have felt,

118

Marcavalle Qhataq'asa Minaspata

Human 0 15 0 (0.9%)

Cuy 0 7 0 (0.4% )

Canid 2 4 1 (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.9%)

Conepatus rex 0 1 0 (0.06%)

Camelid 583 1541 78 (82.5%) (96.0%) (71 .6% )

Cervid 46 5 19 (6.5%) (0.3%) (17.4%)

Bos taurus 0 1 0 (0.06%)

Bird 2 0 1 (0.3%) (0.9%)

Reptile 0 1 0 (0.06%)

Amphibian 0 1 0 I (0.06%)

Lg. mammal indet. 42 13 *3 (5.9% ) (0.8% ) I

Sm. mammal indet. 0 2 * (0.1%)

Artiod ac tyl indet 3i 14 * (4.4%) (0.9%)

Total 705 1605 . 99

Table 2 Numbers of identified specimens from Cuzco Valley sites.

Camelids 92.1% (583)

MARCAVALLE

Camelids 78.8% (78)

MINASPATA

Others

Others 0.6% (4)

Camelids

98.7% (1541)

1. 3% L========-­(20)

Others ~-......,.. 2-;0%

(2)

QHATAQ ' ASALLACTA

119

Figure 4-4 Relative frequencies of taxa from Cuzco Valley sites based on identified specimens (categories less specific than the family level have been excluded).

120

however, that White's minimum numbers go beyond scientific

conservatism to the point of inaccur9cy. Thus, they have

taken White's method as only the first step in their calcu­

lations and revised their MNls upward by carefully checking

to see if all the lefts matched all the rights. In so doing

Chaplin makes use of an elaborate procedure involving both

proximal and distal portions of long bones, Flannery util­

izes only the more abundant of the portions, and Krantz uses

only paired mandible halves to estimate the original animal

population at the site. Unfortunately, these and other

variations in the calculation of MNIs, although admirable in

their intents, have added yet another problem to the primary

goal of estimating the relative economic importance of the

excavated species. This problem is one of lack of compara­

bility between the work of different authors. Donald Gray­

son has demonstrated the disparate and misleading results

that may be obtained from different methods of calculating

MNIs and has c aIled for stand ard ization of methodology among

faunal analysts (Grayson,1973). While agreeing in principle

with such standardization, I suspect that it may be prema­

ture to decide on one method until it has been proven to

produce more accurate results than any other. In the

interim, however, I feel that it is clearly necessary for

faunal analysts to state explicitly how their MNIs are

derived.

121

Methods of MNI Calculations for the Cuzco Valley Sites

The MNI procedure which I utilized with the Cuzco Val­

ley bones was a combination of both Chaplin's and Flannery's

methods. For every taxon each unique bone element category

(eg. proximal metatarsal) was separated into rights and

lefts. Following Chaplin "any animal which could not be

identified as not belonging to any of the animals from the

opposite site was assumed to be from an animal represented

on the opposite side." In other words the burden of proof is

on demonstrating that a bone from the less abundant side

could not possibly match any bone from the more abundant

side and, therefore, should be added to the MNI total. The

criteria which I used to judge non-matches between right and

left were age and size.

In order to clarify this procedure, it will be helpful

to describe an example from level 2 of the site of Marca­

valle in which 21 camelid calcanea are represented by 9

rights and 12 lefts. According to White's method these

specimens would indicate a MNI of 12. However, non-matches

can be demonstrated in the following manner: First, the

rights and lefts may be differentiated by dividing them

according to their age. Thus:

Fused Unfused Neonatal

Left 7 1 4

Right 7 2 o

122

At this stage it can be seen that the MNI has increased from

12 to 13 on the basis of 7 fused lefts (or rights), 2

unfused rights, and 4 neonatal lefts, none of which can be

matches.

Next each fused left is compared biometrically with

each fused right in an attempt to demonstrate non-matches

(later this same type of comparison may be repeated for the

unfused elements). Ideally this comparison is done by

measuring the same dimension with calipers on each bone (eg.

maximum distal width). However, it is frequently impossible

to take the same measurement because the critical landmarks

have been damaged or fractured away. Damaged bones of this

kind must be assumed to be matches.

The complete comparison of Marcavalle right and left

calcanea appears in Table 3. The specific goal of the

biometric comparison of fused elements is to determine if

the MNI of 12 lefts can be increased by the addition of any

proved non-matches among the fused rights. The results are

that 2 fused rights are assumed to match 2 fused lefts

because of fragmentation, and all circled fused rights are

shown to be non-matches with all the lefts on the basis of

measurements. In addition both of the unfused rights cannot

LEFT RIGHT

Neonatal #1 #2 #'3 #4

Un fused #54

~ iF1

ra #2

Fused #6 74.9 iF3 #7 80.7 #4 #8 91 .5 #5 #9 03 7 .,I .! #6 #10 96. 1 #7 #11 Frag .• ~ Frag. #8 #12 Frag .• ~ Fr ag • #9

Table 3 Marcavalle, Unit 2, camelid calcanea comparisons

for determination of MNIs. Arrows indioate matches. Circled elements indicate non-matches.

123

match one unfused left, so one of the rights is circled as a

non-match. The minimum number of individuals is therefore

increased by 6 to a total of 18.

The Problem of Bilateral Variation

The validity of these biometric comparisons, of course,

hinges upon a clear idea of the size variation th2t might be

expected between a right and left element of the same

animal. Unfortunately, to my knowledge, such bilateral

124

variation has never been documented in a published form.

However, in illustrating a set of biometric comparisons for

MNI calculations, Chaplin seems to assume a very narrow

range of variation between right and left. Chaplin's exam-

pIe is summarized here in Table 4.

#1 #2 fl3 414 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9

LEFT RIGHT

27.0+---- ~ 26.0 ----.27.0 23.54 ~g.1b 28.0 ? •

24.5~r~ 24.6 ~ 27.6 23.4 24.6

Table 4 Example of biometric comparisons of fused distal

sheep tibiae (after Chaplin, 1971:74). Arrows indi­cate matches. Circled elements indicate non-matches.

In this example he accepts as matches two sets of identical

measurements, as probable matches two bones for which there

is a 0.3 mm. difference in maximum distal width, and rejects

a possible pair with a 0.2 mm. difference (#2 left, #6

right) and another with a 0.4 mm. difference (#2 left, #4

right) • Thus, Chaplin would add all three circled right

elements to the MNI derived from the left elements. The

logic of these judgements impresses me as inconsistent.

In regard to the Cuzco Valley bones I chose to be very

conservative in the numbers of bcnes that could be added to

125

the MNI on the basis of non-comparable measurements. I

assumed a 1.0 mm. limit of variation between right and left

on measurements of the magnitude mentioned in the previous

two examples. This limit is over twice that which Chaplin

appears to employ, but as shown in Table 3 wa~ not too wide

to demonstrate non-matches (in other cases camelid bones

were judged to be matches using this limit of variation).

Admittedly this limit is completely arbitrary, without docu­

mentation, and may exaggerate the degree of assymetry found

among vertebrates, but in the absence of specific zoological

guidelines it seems wise to assume wider limits of bilateral

variation and to place a heavier burden of proof on non-

matches.

These examples point to the necessity of a more criti­

cal examination of the problem of bilateral variation within

a skeletal population of vertebrates. The goal of such a

study should be to quantify the amount of variation within

which right-left matches can occur and beyond which a non-

match is indicated. Until such a study is performed we can

have no more than an intuitive sense about the correctness

of MNls based on biometric comparisons.

MNls, Excavation Units and Refuse Disposal Spheres

The final theoretical problem which must be mentioned

126

in regard to the minimum numbers of individuals from the

Cuzco Valley sites concerns the analytical units within

these sites which were chosen for the calculation of MNls.

These analytical units are determined by the vertical stra-

tigraphy of the site and the horizontal displacemment of

excavation units. A fundamental assumption of the match

method of MNI calculation is that the remains of an indivi-

dual animal could have been deposited anywhere within the

anlytical unit. This requires that the analytical units

represent fairly discreet time periods and/or areas of depo-

sition, and that units which are believed to be heterochro-

nous or mix different refuse disposal spheres should not be

chosen. On the other hand, it is logical to lump contem-

poraneous stratigraphic levels which occur within different

but nearby pits.

The analytical units chosen for the calculation of

minimum numbers of individuals from the site of Marcavalle

coincide with a major stratigraphic break noted during exca-

vation. site was excavated in two arbitrary levels, 0-

30 cm. and 30-60 cm., and two partially natural levels, 60-

100 cm. and 100-110 cm. (see Fig. 4-5). Unfortunately the

arbitrary excavation of the portion above 60 cm. mixed

several natural strata and it has been necessary here to

lump them together (0-60 cm.). The natural levels below 60

cm. have also been lumped into one analytical unit (60-110

a cm.

60 cm.

100 cm ..

127

SECTOR SECTOR PILOT B.

Figure 4-5

A SECTOR • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• · • · • • • • · ! · ~NALY T I C AL U N I T

•

A N A L Y TIC A L U NIT • • • • • • •

· · • · • • •

1

2

,Analytic21 units utilized to calculate minimum numbers of individuals from the site of Marcavalle.

128

cm.) because of the paucity of material from the 100-110 em.

level and evidence for continuous occupation between the two

level s. In contr ast the stratig raphic and ceram ic ev id ence

suggests that occupation may not have been continuous

between the upper (0-60 cm.) and the lower (60-110 cm.) com-

ponents, and that a break between analytical units is justi-

fied here. Lastly, there was no material culture difference

noted between the same levels of the 3 horizontal sectors

(Patricia J. Lyon, personal communication). Therefore , it

was decided to use the 2 analytical units illustrated in

Fig. 4-5 and to calculate minimum numbers of individuals for

each unit separately and then to sum them. The complete

results of these calculations are shown in Table 5.

Unit 1 is slightly larger in volume (1.5 m3 ) than Unit

2 (1 .25 3 m ), but a much heavier concentration of bone was

found in the lower unit (475 identifiable bones) than in the

upper one (158 identifiable bones). This differential bone

concentration is also reflected in the MNIs and in the

ceramics.

The determination of analytical units for the site of

Qhataq'asallacta involved a different set of problems than

those mentioned for Marcavalle. As noted in the site

descriptions the material cuI ture associated with

Qhataq'asallacta is almost exclusively Inca, with a few

129

ANALYTICAL UNIT 1 ANALYTICAL UNIT 2 Camelid I Cervid Camelid I Cervid

Mandible 1 0 4 0 Max ilIa 0 0 3 0

Scapula 3 0 4 1 Pr. Humerus 1 0 3 3 Ds. Humerus 2 0 7 2 Pr. Rad ius-Ulna 1 0 8 2 Ds. Radius-Ulna 1 0 10 0 Metacarpal 2 1 8 0

. Astragalus 5 1 13 3 Calcaneum 3 0 15 1

-Metatarsal 0 0 23 0 Ds. Tibia 2 0 9 2 Pr. Tibia 3 0 4 1 Ds. Femur 1 0 3 1 Pr. Femur 3 0 6 2 Innominate 4 0 7 0

Table 5

Minimum numbers of individuals represented by various elements from the 2 analytical units (levels) of Marcavalle.

Colonial remains. These associations effectively bracket

the occupation from sometime after the rise of the Inca

state under Pachakuti around 1438 until shortly after the

Spanish conquest of Cuzco in 1533. Tnis rather discreet

time period, plus the fact that no clear stratigraphic

breaks were noted during excavation, argues for the use of

one analytical unit for the determination of MNIs. Such

would be the case, if we could safely assume that meat was

shared over the entire extent of the excavated area and/or

130

that the excavated area falls within one refuse disposal

sphere. However, the presence of architecture at the site

suggests an alternative situation. Meat consumption and bone

disposal may have centered around individual structures,

with little or no transport away from this center.

Since nearly all excavations at Qhataq'asallacta had

been conducted within or along the exterior wall of archi­

tectural structures (see Fig. 4-6), it was decided to test

for this kind of bone movement before deciding on the pre­

ferred analytical unites) for MNI calculations. This was

done by attempting to match biometrically the three most

abundant elements (astragalus, calcaneum, proximal metacar­

pal) from diverse areas of the site. Such comparisons, of

course, suffered from the same lack of knowledge concerning

bilateral variation as was discussed previously. In addi­

tion other variables such as domestic dogs, downslope move­

ment, etc. may have scattered bones that were originally

deposited around an individual structure. These difficul­

ties, notwithstanding, no perfect matches were detected in

non-adjacent structures, and very few 1.0 mm. limit of vari­

ation matches were found in non-adjacent structures. This

negative evidence certainly does not prove that bone dispo­

sal was centered around individual structures and that no

post-consumption bone movement occurred between structures.

However, when coupled with the activity area evidence to be

v.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·

.... Anta

:' •••• r1~ •••••

.............

t Cuzco

~ ~ ~& I

N

131

Excavated area •••••••••••••••

Figure 4-6 Sketch map of Qhata~'asallacta (after information provided by Dean E. Arnold).

I

132

discussed in the next chapter it argues for the use of

architecture related excavation units as analytical units in

the MNI calculations. The complete results of these calcu­

lations for the camelids are presented in Table 6.

I II III IV 1A 2A 3A 02 03 T ?

Mandible - 01 01 - 01 - - - 03 - -Maxilla 01 01 - - - 01 - - - - -Scapula 02 05 02 06 02 04 - 05 04 02 07 Pr. Humerus - ('11 01 01 02 - - 03 01 - 01 -.J I

Ds. Humerus 02 03 03 02 04 01 - 10 04 01 07 Pr. Radius-Ulna 02 03 06 04 02 01 - 07 04 01 07 Ds. Radius-Ulna 02 03 04 05 01 02 01 06 05 01 07

Scaphoid - 01 - - 01 01 - 01 - - 02 Lunar - - - - - - - 01 - - 02 Cuneiform - 01 01 - 01 - - 03 02 - 02 Magnum - - 01 - - - - 01 01 - 01 Unciform - 01 01 - - - - 02 02 - 03 Pisiform - 01 - - - - - 01 - - -Metacarpal 05 02 08 03 02 02 - 07 05 - 10

Metatarsal 02 02 05 02 03 01 - 12 06 02 04 Astragalus n":1 08 12 05 04 02 - 06 03 - 08 ~ oJ

I I

Calcaneum 02 02 03 03 02 01 - 08 04 01 06 Nav icular - 01 02 - - - - 03 03 - 02 Cuboid - 02 04 02 01 - - 05 05 - 05 En tocunei form - 01 01 01 - - - 02 - - 03 Fibula I 01 02 02 - 02 - - - 01 - 02

Ds. Tibia 03 05 03 06 05 01 - 06 03 02 05 Pr. Tibia 01 02 02 01 02 01 - 07 03 - 02 Ds. Femur 01 03 02 01 01 02 01 07 04 - 1 1 Pr. Femur 01 02 02 02 01 02 01 07 04 01 1 1 Innominate 01 03 02 - 01 03 - 10 05 - -

i

Table 6 Minimum numbers of camelids as represented by various

elements from separate analytical units at Qhataq'asallacta.

I

133

Due to the small sample size from Minaspata it was

decided to lump all excavation levels into one analytical

unit. The Minaspata minimum numbers of individuals are

presented in Table 7.

Mandible Maxilla

Scapula Pr. Humerus Ds. Humerus Pr. Rad ius-Ulna Ds. Rad ius-Ulna Metacarpal

Astragalus Calcaneum Fibula

Metatarsal Ds. Tibiae Pr. 0

I Ds. Femur 0 ... 1;'0 " ... .&. .L • .L ""'m ...... .L

Innominate I

Camel id

0 0

3 0 ~ ..J

1 1 1

2 2 1

1 3 0 4 3 3

Table 7

Cervid

0 0

1 0 2 1 0 0

1 1 0

1 1

0 1 o

Minimum numbers of individuals represented by various elements at Minaspata.

MNI Results

The minimum numbers of individuals data from each of

the Cuzco Valley sites are presented graphically in Fig. 4-

134

7. A comparison between this figure and Fig. 4-4 demon­

strates that the MNI results indicate a much greater rela­

tive importance for the secondary species than was indicated

by the specimen method. Conversely the importance of the

camelids is significantly decreased.

The Reliability of MNI Estimates of Secondary Species

These differing results may be due to a variety of fac­

tors. First, the tendency of the MNI method to exaggerate

the importance of the rarer species has received repeated

comment in the faunal literature. In fact, it has been sug­

gested that a faunal sample must contain at least 300 speci­

mens of a species in order to obtain a realistic MNI

(Gejvall:1969). None of the secondary species from the

Cuzco Valley sites satisfy this requirement, and some are

represented by only one or two specimens.

Secondly, it is unclear whether some of the species

were actually food items or if their remains were acciden­

tally deposited at the site. The skunk bone from

Qhataq'asallacta is a clear example of this problem. This

specimen may not have been the remains of a meal, but for

lack of concrete evidence it will be assumed to have been

food refuse. Similarly, for a variety of reasons it is

Ca."Uelids 79.3% (23)

MARCAVALLE

Cervids 25% (2)

Camel ids 50%

MINASPATA

Canids

(2)

Cuys 3.7% (3)

Others 3.7% (3)

Canid 3.4% (1)

ird

(1)

Camelids 86. i';~ (72)

QHATAQ ' ASALLACTA

Figure 4-7 ~linimum numbers of individuals from the three Cuzco Valley sites.

135

136

doubtful that the canids should be considered as food items.

None of the canid remains show butchery marks or signs of

burning. Also the modern residents of the southern sierra

look with disdain on canine flesh, and there is very little

ethnohistorical evidence to suggest that the prehistoric

residents of this area possessed a substantially different

attitude. The Incas hunted foxes only as nusiances and kept

domesticated dogs only as pets. However, there is some

indication that some of the Inca's contemporaries did not

have such an aversion to dog meat. The Huanca of Jauja

ceremonially sacrificed dogs instead of llamas and ate the

meat (Guaman Porn a , 1936:267), but this appears to have been

an exception to the general Andean pattern. Hence the canid

remains will be excluded from future food calculations.

The third factor influencing the different resul ts seen

in Fig. 4-4 and 4-7 is that the MNI method estimates the

numbers of animals consumed at the sites but does not take

into account differences of size which may exist between the

species. As mentioned previously the goal of these species

abundance methods is to estimate the relative economic

importance of the species present at the site. Raw MNI

estimates that do not consider, for example, the immense

difference in meat obtainable from one individual llama and

one individual cuy are obviously of little value, and

erroneously inflate the importance of small species. Hence,

137

it is necessary to examine still another method of calculat­

ing species importance.

Weight of Usable Meat

In the same article in which Theodore White proposed

the use of minimum numbers of individuals in archaeological

faunal analysis he recognized the necessity of correcting

MNI estimates according to differing body weights among

species. To this end he drew up a list of the most common

North American game animals and calculated the average

pounds of usable meat that could be derived from one indivi­

dual (White,1953:397). I have compiled a similar list for

the members of the altiplano fauna which were probable food

items in the Cuzco Valley (see Table 8). It will be noted

in this table that the individual species of the camelid

family are listed separately for the first time and that

their average weights vary from 50 to 115 kilograms. In

light of this weight range it seems inadvisable to me to

continue to treat the camelid family as if it were only one

species. Although it is far beyond the scope of this

dissertation to include a thorough study of the problem of

species identification among the South American camelids, in

order to employ the weight of usable meat method it is

necessary to discuss this problem briefly.

138

Species Average ~ usable Weight/ Source I 10

weight meat Species

Cuy 1 70 0.7 Gilmore

Skunk 3.4 70 2.4 Walker !l

57.5 Raedeke§ Guanaco 115 50 . I I Gilmore

Llama 115 50 57.5 I Miller 6

Al paca 55 50 32.5 I Fernandez Baca

Vicuna 50 50 27.5 Gilmore

I Taruka 55 50 27.5 Walker

White-tailed 91 50 45.5 White deer

Table 8 Weight 0 f usable meat data for al tipl ano fauna.

Camelid Size Differences

As mentioned previously, no morphological features have

been found which can be used to separate fragmentary

archaeological remains of the Andean camel ids accurately and

consistently. However, a size gradient has been observed

among the bones of these animals and it generally conforms

to the following pattern:

139

Largest

Guanaco

Llama

Alpaca

Vicuna

Smallest

Based on this size gradient Elizabeth Wing was able to

employ a multivariate statistical technique (stepwise

discriminant analysis) to a number of measurements taken on

a series of comparative camelid skeletons and separate them

into a group of large ca'llelids (guanacos, llamas) and a

group of small camelids (alpacas, vicunas). This technique,

however, could not accurately discriminate between guanacos

and llamas, nor between alpacas and vicunas (Wing,1972:329).

Encouraged by Wing's initial, albeit qualified, success

I measured as many camelid skeletons as possible during my

stay in South A.'llerica. These measurements have not been

subjected to an exhaustive statistical analysis because the

sample size is not as yet sufficient for such treatment.

However, in an attempt to get an idea of the general tenden­

cies of these measurements I have analyzed four camelid

bones which occur frequently i~ archaeological samples (can­

nons, calcanea, astragali and proximal phalanges).7

140

Univariate Metrical Analysis

The aforementioned size gradient is clearly demon­

strated by a graphic representation of measurements of the

maximum proximal width of the proximal phalanges (see Fig.

4-8). The means of the four samples are significantly dif­

ferent (p=(.001 according to student's t-test) and the 95%

confidence intervals can be seen to overlap only slightly in

the case of guanacos and llamas. The clear gap in size

between alpacas and llamas corroborates the separation which

l.Jing found between small and large camelids and suggests

that these two species should be fairly easy to "identify"

by means of biometric techniques(at least at sites which are

suspected of contaip.ing only domesticated camel ids) . The

separation between llamas and guanacos is unclear in this

example. On the other hand the vicuna/alpaca separation

suggests that we should be able to n identify" these tv!O

species with some degree of confidence.

However, before becoming inordinately sanguine over the

prospects of identifying the four species of Andean camelids

on the basis of one measurement a cautionary note must be

added. The ranges of size variation among the camelids is

much more confusing when other bones or even different

dimensions on the same bone are examined. For example, the

total length of the proximal phalanges (Fig. 4-9) is much

t

Figure '1-8

Guanaco (N=l1)

Llama (N=22)

----I Alpaca (N=54)

- I Vicuna (N=14)

~ I I I I I 1 13 14 15 16 17

L-J 18 19

. I I I I I I J 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 mm.

Modified Dice-Leras diagram of maximum proximal width of camelid proximal phalanges. Horizontal lines •• observed ranges; rectangles = one standard deviation; solid black = 95% confidence intervals for the mean; vertical lines = means.

-' .t= -'

Guanaco (N=ll) Ii ...... :.-Llama (N=22)------____ _

Vicufia (N=14)

L t .~~ I 1 446 4g---~ PX ~T 1-1 I I I L. II I I I I I I I

56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 mm.

Figure 4-9 l10dified Dice-Leras diagram of maximum length of camelid proxJmal phalanges. Horizontal lines = observed ranges; rectangles = one standard deviation; solid black = 95% confidence intervals for the mean; vertical lines = means. -'

.1= I\)

143

less encouraging in regard to species separation, with the

exception of the separation between small and large camel ids

which is clearly preserved. This measurement shows almost

complete overlap of alpacas and vicunas and changes their

rank along the size gradient. This tendency toward dispro-

portionately long toes among vicunas may be due to differ-

ences between their adaptation to the high puna and the

alpacas' adaptation to the wetter, spongy "bofedal" pasture

land. In any case the maximum length of the first phalanges

is an example of a number of measurements which were tested

but found to be inaccurate discriminators among the camelid

species.

The 1st phalange's maximum proximal width, however,

appears to be a good discriminator and serves to illustrate

several pOints concerning the application of biometrics to

archaeological camelid bone. The first point to emerge from

the study of this measurement relates to the amount of vari-

ability expected within a species. A statistical indicator

of the homogeneity of zoological population is the coeffi-

cient of variation (V). Based on the comparison of hundreds

of Vs for linear dimensions of mammalian anatomical measure-

ments, Simpson, et ale have concluded that:

..• the great majority of them lie between 4 and 10, and 5 and 6 are good average values ••• Much higher values usually indicate that the sample was not pure, for instance, that it included animals of decidely

144

different ages or of different minor taxonomic divi­sions (Simpson, et al., 1960:91).

If we apply this same criterion to the measurements of

the maximum proximal width of the camelid 1st phalanges from

Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta, Vs of 13.93 and 9.90,

respectively, are obtained. This indicates that neither of

these archaeological camelid samples represent homogeneous

populations and that more than one species may have been

present at each of these sites.

When the Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta distributions

of this phalanx measurement are plotted in histogram fashion

and superimposed over the 95% confidence intervals illus-

trated in Fig. 4-8 a number of interesting points emerge

(see Fi g. 4-1 0) •

First, the two samples appear to have quite different

size distributions, Marcavalle lacking the sizable component

of small camelids present at Qhataq'asallacta. In fact,

this impressionistic difference oan be confirmed statisti-

cally. Student's t-test applied to the difference between

the means of Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta indicates only

a 1% probability that these two samples could have been

drawn from the same population.

Secondly, the d istr ibutions 0 f both sampl es show a ten-

dency toward bimodality. The Qhataq'asallacta sample is

QHATAQ'ASALLACTA

MARCAVALLE

Figure 4-10

r- -, 12 13

<l .... n 8, III

> t-' to III n III

20

t"4

i

21 2 23

f III n o

24 25 26 nun.

Distr:Lbutions of maximum proximal width measurements of camelid proximal phalanges from the sites of Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta compared with the 95% confidence intervals illustrated in Fig. 4-8.

-' J::' V1

146

markedly bimodal while Marcavalle may actually be trimodal.

(The small sample size of Marcavalle makes a conclusion dif­

ficult). These modes are separated by an area of minimum

frequency which corresponds roughly to the,gap between the

alpaca and llama 95% ~onfidence intervals. To test whether

the visual impression of correspondence between the archaeo­

logical modes and the comparative llama and alpaca 95% con­

fidence intervals has any statistical basis I separated both

the Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta observations into two

groups with the division at 19.0 mm. Then to check the

hypothesis that these archaeological groups were in reality

alpacas and llamas, respectively, a t-test was performed

upon the differences between their means and the means of

their probable species of origin. In general the resul ts of

these comparisons (see Table 9) support the visual impres-

sian.

None of the chosen pairs were found to be significantly

different at the 0.05 level, and only in the case of the

Qhataq'asallacta large camelids and llamas was a differnce

detected between the 0.2 and 0.1 levels. (This difference

may be due in fact to the disparity in sizes of these two

samples, rather than to any biological reality).

When the 5 Marcavalle observations at the extreme right

end of the scale are excluded from the calculations the

147

Sample pairs .... d.f. P I"

Marcavalle large/ 1 .246 50. 0.3-0.4 Comparative llamas

Marc avaIl e "11 am as" / 0.303 34.6 0.7-0.8 comparative llamas

Qhataq'asa large/ -1.564 29. 1 0.1-0.2 comparative llamas

Qhataq' asa "llamas"/ -1 .921 26.6 0.05-0.1 comparative llamas

Qhataq'asa small/ -1.191 93.2 0.2-0.3 comparative alpacas

Table 9 Student's t-test of proximal phalanx measurements. The term

"llamas" refers to the clusters of large camelids that are larger than 19 mm., but excludes those larger than guanacos.

remaining large camelids O·1arcavalle "llamas") fit even

better with the comparative llamas (p=>O. 7) • It is by no

means inconceivable that the five excluded bones may come

from guanacos, or from an extremeley large breed of llamas

no longer extant. 8 Eliminating the two extremely large

observations from the Qhataq'asallacta sample, however,

decreases the degree of fit (p=0.5 - 0.1). Again this is

probably an artifact of the disparate sample sizes.

The elimination of these extremely large individuals

also brings the coefficients of variation (V) for each of

the archaeological "species" to well within the limits of a

homogeneous breeding population as described by Simpson, et

al. (see Table 10).

148

Sample name N mean s.d. V

Marcavalle 37 20.74 2.89 13.93 camel ids

Qhataq'asa 117 19.49 1 .93 9.90 camel ids

Marcavalle 30 21.88 1.76 8.04 large

Qhataq'asa 73 20.75 1 . 14 5.49 large

Qhataq'asa 44 17.41 0.86 4.96 small

I Marcavalle 25 21 . 19 0.909 4.3 "11 am as"

Qhataq'asa 71 20.64 0.94 4.56 I " 11 am as"

Comparative 22 21. 31 1 • 51 7.09 llamas

Comparative 54 17.68 1 • 34 7.59 alpacas

Table 10 Summary statistics for maximum proximal width of 1st phalanx.

Thus, in summarizing this last section, it can be seen

that the analysis of linear dimensions of Andean carnelid

bones can provide promising criteria for the separation of

an archaeological sample into its component species. Cer-

tainly there is too much intraspecific variability and over-

lap between species to offer much hope of ever being able to

identify an individual specimen by means of univariate

statistics. However, within the Cuzco Valley archaeological

149

sample there seems to be strong statistical evidence which

both indicates clustering of linear measurements within

species-like limits and the association of these clusters:

means with those of known camelid species. Analysis of the

maximum proximal width of the 1st phalanges from Marcavalle

and Qhataq'asallacta indicate that more than one species of

camel id was con sumed at both sites. The most frequently

occuring species at Marcavalle was probably llama, along

with a few individuals which were much 1 arger and a few

which were much sm aller ( see Fig. 4-10) • These other groups

are too small for statistical testing and thus no conclusion

can be drawn concerning their identities. The camelids from

Qhataq'asallacta appear to be both llamas and alpacas.

These identities of the two groups are supported by the

likelihood that domesticated camel ids would have been much

more prevalent at an Inca site than wild camelids.

The final point of interest to emerge from Figure 4-10

is that the proportions of large camelids to small ones at

the two sites are quite different. Based on the phalanx

measuremnt only 18.9% of the Marcavalle camelids were of

alpaca size or smaller, while 36.8% of the Qhataq'asallacta

camelid s were from this size range.

150

Bivariate Metrical Analysis

In general bivariate analysis of camelid astragali,

calcanea and distal cannons tends to corroborate the results

of univariate analysis of 1st phalanges. As seen in Figures

4-11 to 4-16 measurements of these bones when plotted

bivariately tend to cluster in a similar fashion to the

phalanges. In all three of these cases large camelids seem

to be fairly well separated from small ones. Guanacos tend

to be at the large end of the large group, but are seen to

overlap to some degree with llamas. The small camelids, on

the other hand, are hopelessly overlapped. Unlike the

situation observed in Fig. 4-8 bivariate analysis does not

promise accurate separation of alpacas and vicunas.

The size character of the archaeological camel ids seen

in these bivariate plots is very similar to that observed

with the linear phalanges measurements. The majority of the

Marcavalle camelids are large and some are as large or

larger than the comparative guanacos. In contrast the

Qhataq'asallacta sample is much more evenly distributed over

the two major comparative groups, and only in the case of

the astragali are there bones that fall within the guanaco

size range.

151

mm. MARCAVALLE 35-r----------------------------------------------------~

Astragalus

<>

32

• <> <> •

• <> <>

• ~ ~

~

29 8

• A-A e ~

~ • ~ ~

• 28

2J

~ 0

0

0 0 • c 00 0

0

20

~

0 0 0 Vicuna __ 0

0 Alpaca __ 0 0 Llams __ ~

0 Guanaco_ <> 0 Marcavalle

unknown_ •

20 23 ~.<!l 29 32 35 38 men. -... C-C

Figure 4-11 Bivariate analysis of came lid astragalus maximum proximal width (A) versus maximum trochlear length (C). Marcava1le came lid astragali of unknown species ~lotted against comparative camelid astragali of known species.

152

mm: QHATAQASALLACTA 35,~------------------------------------------------------~

Astragalus

32

29

A-A

• 26 •

• • • • ~O

b

• 0 , .

0 0 0

00 0 0 • 23

0 ·0 0

·0 0

0 0

• • • b 5

• --• •

<> • <>

<> <>

• oe.

b

•

• • • • b.· • •

b

Vicuna

Alpaca

Llama

Guanaco

QhataQ'asaliacta unknown

0

0

b

<>

e 20-+-------,r-------~------_r------~--------~------_r----~

20 23 26 29 C-C

32 35 38 mm.

Figure 4-12 Bivariate analysis of came lid astragalus maximum proximal width (A) versus maximum trochlear length (C). Qhataq'asallacta camelid astragali of unknown species plotted against comparative came lid astragali of known species.

153

mm. 551-r---

1

--------,

Calcaneum

X

MARCAVALLE

50

45

x A-A

35 o

o 30

A

o

• o~

00

000

8 0 o

o 08 a o 0 8 0

o

• c o

/::;.

<>

<> • <>

<> • /::;.

/::;. /::;.

~. a • /::;. /::;.

/::;./::;. /::;.

<>

Vicuns ____ _

Alpaca ____ _ Llama ____ _

Guanaco ___ _

o o /::;.

<> Msrcavalle unknown.

•

25-+------~------~~------~------~------,_------_r--~ 50

Figure 4-13

60 70 80 X-X

90 100 110 mm.

Bivariate analysis of camelid calcaneum maxinu~ antero­posterior width (A) versus maximun length eX). Harcavalle came lid calcanea of unknown species plotted against compara­tive camelid calcanea of known species.

154

mm: QHATAQ'ASALLACTA 55;~----------------------------------__________________ 1

50

45

A-A

40

35~

30

25 I 50

Figure 4-14

Calcaneum

i 60

X

0

A

0

•• 0

e~O 0 e ~'b

o • • 08 a 0 0 0 0

0 c

I I

70

0

• e

• e

00 • 0

I 10

X-X

" -0

b.

•

b.

~ • eb.

b.b. b.

i>

I 90

<>

<> <>

<>

b. b.

b.

Vicui'\a 0

Alpaca 0

Llama b.

Guanaco ___ <> Ohataq'asallacta unknown __ •

I 110 mm.

I 100

Bivariate analysis of camelid calcaneum maximum antero­posterior 't..ridth (p..) versus maximum length eX). Qhataq I asa­llacta came lid calcanea of unknown species plotted against comparative calcanea of knotm species.

155

mm. MARCAVALLE

55~------------------------------------------------------~

50

45

K-K

30

Distal Metapodial

• 0

o

<>

)i e b-

b-

b-b-

b-

•

~

~ <> <> <>

6.

b-.-• • b-

Vicuna ____ _ Alpaca ____ _

o o

Llama l:!.

Guanaco <> Uarcavalle unknown •

<>

25-+-------r------~------~------~------~----~----~ 25

Figure 4-15

30 35 40 T-T

45 50 55 mm.

Bivariate analysis of camelid distal metapodial maximum fusion line width (K) versus maximum epiphysis width (T). Marcavalle ca~elid distal metapodials of unknown species plotted against comparative distal metapodials of known species.

156

mm. OHATAO'ASALLACTA 551~------------------------------------------__________ ~

50

45 K

K-K

40

"",. ~;;)

30

Distal Metapodial

~

I \

0 Q:]

% 0°0 o 0

0

K T

.. -0

• 0 e

~ c ••

<> <>

~ <> <>

<> <>

~

<> <> <> ~ <>

<> a

:. a eA.~

t.

• lea • A .-

e ~ ·a ~ • •

Vicuna 0

Alpaca 0

Llama t::. Guanaco <> Ohataq'asallacta unknown •

25~------~------~-------r-------r-------r------~-----do 25

Figure 4-16

35 40 T-T

45 50 55 mm.

Bivariate ar.alys~s of camelid distal metapodial maximum fusion line width (K) versus maximum epiphysis width (T). Qhataq'asallacta camelid distal metapodials of unknown species plotted against comparative distal metapodials of known species.

157

Multivariate Metrical Analysis

Finally in order to compare the bivariate results with

another form of analysis, and hopefully to "identify" those

archaeological specimens that fall between the large and

small comparative groups, the Marcavalle and

Qhataq'asallacta astragali, calcanea and distal cannons were

subjected to stepwise discriminant analysis. The multivari-

ate procedure used was the subprogram DISCRIMINANT from the

Statistical Package for the Social Sc iences (N· .. le ~ et

al.:1975) performed on the University of California's CDC

6400 computer.

Having observed the high degree of overlap between

alpacas and vicuYlas it was decided to lump these two species

into the category of "small camelids", while preserving the

distinction between llamas and guanacos for the large

camelids. The discriminant analysis decisions are presented

in Table 11 along with the results of the univariate and

bivariate analysis. In all but one case the discriminant

analysis calculated identical proportions of large to small

camelids as did my visual inspection of the bivariate plots.

Only in the case of the Qhataq'asallacta astragali are the

results slightly different, the computer being a bit more

generous in its estimation of territory occupied by llamas.

I

158

Bone Semple Univariate Bivariate Discriminant Analysis Analysis Analysis

large Small large Small Guanaco Uarra

!v'..arc. 1st Phalanges {B} 81.1% 18.9% (30) (7)

Qhata. 1st Phalanges (B) 63.2% 36.8% (74) (43)

Marc. Astragali (C-A) 90.0% 10.0% 60.0% 30.0% (9) (1) (6) (3)

Qhata. Astragali (C-A) 52.6% 47.4% 13.2% 147 •4% (20) (18) (5) (18)

Marc. Calcanea (X-A) 77.8% 22.2% 33.3% 44.5% (7) (2) (3) (4)

Qhata. Calcanea (X-A) 41.2% 58.8% 0 41.2% (7) (10) 0 (7)

I I ' I Marc. Cannons (K-T) 76.9% 23.1% 15.4% 61.5%

(10) (3) (2) (8)

Qhata. Carmons (K-T) 72.0% 28.0% 0 72.0% (18) (7) 0 (18)

Table 11

Comparison of species identification rnetlDds for four well-represented canelid bones from Marcaval1e and Qhataq'a.c;a])acta by rreans of univariate, bivariate and rnultir~iate analysis.

Alpaca Vicufia

10.0% (1)

39.5% (15)

22.2% (2)

58.8% (10)

23.1% (3)

28.0% (7)

159

Summary of Metrical Results

Comparing the results of these three analytical tech-

niques and four different bones a fairly consistent pattern

can be discerned. Although there is a fair amount of varia-

tion in the percentages of small and large camelids between

the different bones, when all four bone categories are

lumped the percentage of Marcavalle specimens judged to be

from small camel ids is calculated as 18.9%, while the per-

centage of Qhataq'asallacta small ca~elids is 39.6% (chi-

square indicates that these proportions are significantly

different at the 0.05 level).

Applications to Estimation of Weight of Usable Meat

For purposes of calculating tne weight of usable

camelid meat (the perhaps forgotten goal of this long

digression into the province of biometrics and taxonomy) I

have rounded off the Marcavalle and Qhataq' asallacta n small

camelid" percentages to 20% and 40%, respectively9. The

Minaspata sample was too small for statistical tests compar-

able to that shown above,however, the bones examined indi-

cate that both large and small camel ids were present at the

site. Although the proportions of each species are unknown

at Minaspata they have been arbitrarily set at 50:50 for

160

purposes of usable meat calculations.

The estimated numbers of camel ids at each site were

corrected in accordance with the above findings and the

modified MNIs multiplied by the appropriate weight factor

(see Table 12).

Site Spec ies MNI Weight/ Kilos of Individual Usable Meat

Camel id 23 [:.l Large(.8) 18.4 57 . 5 10 1058.0 -l -l Small(.2) 4.6 28.75 132.25 <C :>

36.511 <C Cervid 4 146.0 u

.::::: <C ::a:

Bird 1 0.5 0.5

Total 1336.75

Camelid 72 Large(.6) 43.2 57.5 12 2484.0

<C I Small( .4) 28.8 32.5 936.0 E-< U

Cerv id 3 36.5 109.5 <C -l -l <C

0.7 2.1 Cf.l Cuy 3 <C

a Skunk 1 2.4 2.4 <C

E-< <C

Other13 ::c: 3 0.5 1 .5 a

Total 3535.5 I Camel id 4 43.1

14 172.5 I

<C 36.5 E-< Cervid 2 73.0 <C

0... Cf.l <C Bird 1 0.5 0.5 :z H ::a:

Total 246.0

Table 12 MNIs converted to weight of usable meat for Cuzco sites.

I

161

The resulting species percentages are presented graphically

in Fig.4-17 and can be seen to be quite different from the

percentages based on raw MNI estimates. In order to facili-

tate comparisons, the results of the three species abundance

methods discussed in this chapter are also presented in

Table 13.

Spec imen MNI Weight Method Method Method

t.:J Camelid 92. 1 79.3 89.04 ...J

I I

...J I <l; ::>

Cervid 13.8 <l; 7.3 10.92 u I 0:: <l; ::E: Other 0.6 6.8 0.04 .

<l; Camelid 98.7 86.7 96.73 CI) <l; -0' Cervid 0.3 3.7 3.10 <l; E-< <l; ::r: Other 1 .3 9.8 o. 17 0'

. Camel id 78.8 50.0 70.1 CI) <l;

I I I z Cerv id 19.2 25.0 29.6 H ::E: Other 2.0 25.0 0.3

Table 13 Comparison of the percentage results of three methods of assessing species abundance for the Cuzco Valley sites.

The most salient difference seen here is in the reduction of

the percentages of the smaller, rarer species to a level

more in keeping with their probable economic importance.

Camelids 89%

large

}fARCAV ALLE

Cervids 11% I

Cervids 3.1%

Others 0.17%

Cervids 29.6%

Camel ids 70.2%

MINASPATA

Bird 0.04%

small

J , , ~============~~J

large

162

Camel ids 96.7%

QHATAQ'ASALLACTA

Bird 0.2%

Figure 4-17 Weight of usable meat percentages from the three Cuzco Valley sites.

163

The Problem of Ignoring the ~!eight Factor

Intuitively this last method would seem to provide the

most accurate estimate of any of the three species abundance

methods. Minimum numbers of individuals, although a neces-

sary first step in the calculation of the weight of usable

meat, do not in themselves accurately represent the relative

economic importance of different species. Raw MNIs are

especially inappropriate for use in the Andes where two of

the most numerically frequent taxa, camelids and cuys, are

so disparate in size (a camelid can provide 82 times as much

meat as a cuy).

This problem is not nearly as dramatic for the Cuzco

Valley sites shown above as for other Andean sites where

cuys have been found to be more abundant. A particulary

impressive exa~ple of the pitfall of using unmodified MNI

estimates with camelids and cuys is seen in the Mito level

of Kotosh where Wing has reported the following species fre-

quencies (Wing, 1972:331):

Species MNI %

Cuy 36 25 Camelid 21 15 Cervid 85 60 Bird 1

Table 14 MNI data from Mito level at Kotosh

164

These percentages based on raw MNls give the impression

that cervids were by far the most important fauna during the

Mito period, with cuys slightly less than half as abundant

as cervids, and camelids even less abundant than cuys. If,

however, these MNls are corrected for differential body

weigpt the resulting percentages are significantly different

from those calculated by Wing (p=>0.05) and the ranking of

the species is altered.

Species MNI I Weight Factor Usable Meat % I

Cuy 36 0.7 25.2 0.6

Camel id 15 I Large(.9) 18.9 57.5 1086.75 25.6

Sm all ( .1) 1 . 1 25.0 27.5 I 0.6 I Cerv id 85 36.5 3102.50 73.2 I

Table 15 Weight of usable meat from Mito level at Kotosh

When viewed as kilograms of meat cuys are sho~m to be an

almost negligible part of the the dietary intake of this

site, as opposed to 25% of it, while the cerv id/ camel id

ratio is reduced from 4: 1 to less than 3: 1. 16 Of course,

Wing's use of MNls to illustrate relative species abundance

diachronically within a site, or from site to site, is per-

fectly valid. However, I believe the use of weight of

usable meat estimates has the additional advantage of fur-

nishing us with an idea of intra-site, intra-period species

abundance, and the:,efore, provides a better overall picture

165

of faunal utilization.

Chapter 5

THE IMPRINT OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR ON CAMELID BONES

The previous chapter has dealt essentially with meat

preferences and the various methods of assessing the rela-

tive importance of different animal species in the diet of

the prehistoric inhabitants of the Valley of Cuzco. This is

an obvious and important first step in the understanding of

any subsistence economy. However, an area of zooarchaeolog-

ical investigation which is potentially still more rewarding

deals not merely with which animal species were exploited,

but goes beyond this initial datum to search for evidence of

human behavior in the treatment of bone. This type of evi-

dence has been described as "cultural patterning in faunal

remains "(Yellen, ms.) and is basically a product of the

kinds of cultural taphonomic factors described in Chapters 2

and 3.

The Background of Differential Representation Studies

The first such evidence of cultural patterning to be

examined here appears to be a universally perplexing problem

confronting zooarchaeologists in all parts of the world.

Simpl y stated this problem is "why do some bones appear in

.. -.... ~.-.

167

archaeological samples with greater or lesser frequency than

would be expected in an ideal sample." An "ideal sample" in

this instance is one in which all body parts (bone elements)

are represented in the same proportion as they are found in

the complete skeleton of the animal; ie. in a camelid skele­

ton for every 2 distal humeri we would expect to find 8

first phalanges, 7 cervical vertebra, 2 astragali, 1 sacrum,

etc. The differing proportions of bone elements in a com­

plete camelid skeleton are illustrated in the form of a fre­

quency polygon in Figure 5-1. This ideal representation,

however, is rarely, if ever, achieved in a sample excavated

from an archaeological site. Figure 5-2 serves to illus­

trate one example of the kind of discrepancy which is often

found between bone representation in an ideal sample and in

an archaeological sample.

Such differential representation of bone elements has

been viewed by many archaeologists as not only a source of

insight into' aboriginal subsistence behavior, but also

essential to an understanding of species frequencies since

these frequencies are based on the frequencies of bone ele­

ments. Thus, a good deal of recent faunal literature has

been devoted to the explanation of glaring irregularities in

bone element representation. Raymond Dart, for example,

noted that among the bovid remains from Makapansgat in South

Africa humeri were represented by 10 times as many distal

Innominates

Pre Femora

Ds. Femora

Patellae

Pre Tibiae

Ds. Tibiae

Calcanea

Astragali

Tarsals

Pre Metatarsals

Ds. Metapodials

30 Phalanges

20 Phalanges

10 Phalanges

Pre Metacarpals

Carpals

~\ 'V6

~ll

Mfl

o o ~

-------

" f" I • I T ¢-

-----=:::. ----" """ ,,"

--

T T J I T + t • t

_1

~

------------------

Ds. RadiUS-Ulnae~~

Pr. Radius-Ulnae ~

----------

Ds. Humeri ~

Pr. Humer:i ~

Scapulae --, .

o 0 o C"I ~

c co

C LI"I

-----

o M

REPRESENTATION ",

--,

o N

~ ~

t t I •

o ,..;

168

c

..... . .

XJ m "'0 :0 m CJ) m z ~ ~ -0 z ~ 0

Ul 'u t:1 I'd t:1 ("') I'd ...... N W tj n t1 CJl t1 CJl III t1 0 0 O' III III . t1 . '0 "d I'd I'd I'd r! :Il ~ ~ 6? III ~ ::r ::r ::T ,-, 1-'

M ~ ...... CD III III III it' III 0. 0. CJl rt ...... ...... ...... I.., (IJ ro CD ~. ~. III III III ~ !\) t1 t1 r:: c: n ::l ::l '0 IJ· ~. CJl CJl III OQ OQ OQ 0 I ~ CD CD CD P. Cl I/) CJl I/) 1-'. ~.J III III ::l ...... r' (J) (J)

100 "T-G'--'=-."'1 ~

90 -I

C:--:::v ~ d ~ 1- C> ~

II I I

80 -t I I ' , ' I I I I I I , I , I I I ,

1,0 I , I I

30 I A' 20 •

I'd t1 . ~ CD rt III rt III 11 (J)

III ...... (J)

11 III 11 (J)

III ...... (J)

i::' rt t1 III

()Q III ...... ....

("') t:J III (J) ...... . n III 11 ::l b! CD III ~.

III CD

"d "d t:J "d H t1 III (J) t1 S . rt . • CD 0 I-:l ...... ~ ~ a ~. ...... m ~ 1::' 0' III ::J .... CD 0 III III t1 t1 rt It> 1\1 III CD

(J)

V1.~~ ,) ~1~ I., ........ . /.~~\ .

~, •. 1__ "

~ gy fJ~/" ... '(j ...... , I' .. ~ ~, -. ~ ., ... ~

. ~ ----- ... 1.0

0

Figure 5-2 Comparison of ideal representation of cnmelid appendicular elements and the representation of camelid appendicular elements from the site of Marcavalle.

lOO

90

80

70

60

50

-40

30

20

10 --' 0\ \D

170

ends as proximal ends (336:33). Similar discrepancies of

representation were noted for other parts of the skeleton

causing Dart to conjecture that:

•.. the disappearance of tails was probably due to their use as signals and whips in hunting outside the cavern (1957:85).

And that:

The femora and tibiae would be the heaviest clubs to use outside the cavern; that is probably why these bones are the least common. Humeri are the most common of the long bones, probably because they would be the most convenient clubs for the women folk and children to use at horne (1957:170).

As might be expected this explanation has met with a good

deal of controversy. C.K. Brain has argued that the propor-

tions of bone elments that Dart found at Makapansgat very

closely approximate the proportions found among modern Hot-

tentot village food remains, and these people, apparently,

are not prone to the outlandish behavior which Dart suggests

fur the osteodentokeratic australopithecines

(Brain,1967,1969).

One of the most well-known, while less inflamatory,

attempts to explain the human behavior behind differential

bone representation was made by Dexter Perkins and Patricia

Daly in their analysis of the faunal remains from the Neol-

ithic site of Suberde in southwestern Turkey (Perkins and

Daly, 1968). This site was characterized faunally by four

171

groups of medium and large sized mammals -- pig, red deer,

oxen and sheep/goat. For purposes of analysis Perkins and

Daly divided the appendicular skeleton into a foot component

(A) and a leg component (B). Dividing the skeleton in this

manner the authors were struck by the fact that oxen were

represented by a preponderance of foot bones over leg bones,

whereas the sheep/goat were represented by nearly equal

numbers of these 2 appendicular components. Making the

assumption that there is no good natural reason why the foot

bones of oxen should preserve better in the earth than their

leg bones, Perkins and Daly sought for a human behavioral

explanation for this skewedness of the sample. They found a

model in the ethnohistory of North American bison hunters

which seemed to provide an adequate explanation. Faced with

the imposing task of hauling an almost 2000 lb. carcass from

the kill site to the site of consumption, the aboriginal

bison hunters often opted for skinning the animal, stripping

the meat from the large and heavy leg bones, throwing these

away at the kill site and then dragging the approximately

1000 lb. meat package to camp in the hide which still had

the feet attached. Perkins and Daly postulated a similar

type of behavior for Suberde, hypothesizing that the ox

bones found in that site were from wild animals which had

been hauled back from outlying kill sites, and that the

sheep/goat were from domesticated herds which were butchered

172

and consumed at the habitation site. Their explanation of

the high frequency 0 f ox foot bones has become immortal ized

in the faunal lexicon as the "schlepp effect" after the Ger­

man (and perhaps Yiddish) verb meaning "to drag."

Since Perkin's and Daly's first proposal of the schlepp

effect a number of other authors have claimed that this same

"phenomenon" is at least partially responsible for the dif­

ferential representation of body parts found in their faunal

samples. Thus, it has recently been suggested that South

African Middle Stone Age hunters selectively brought back to

their living site a disproportionate nu~ber of large bovid

foot bones compared to leg bones for reasons not unlike

those of Suberde (Klein, 1976:87-88). Similar schlepp

explanations have been proposed for Chilean guanacos

(Simons, ms.).

There is no denying the contribution of the aforemen­

tioned studies in suggesting the value of differential bone

representation as a source of information concerning prehis­

toric man-animal relationships. Howe'Jer, as Yellen has

pointed out (ms. :8), the interpretative results of these

studies are weakened somewhat by their reliance upon unil­

ineal causes. Recent ethnoarchaeological investigations

into cultural taphonomy (Brain, 1967, 1969; Yellen, ms.)

have clearly established the impossibility of isolating one

173

single, cultural cause of differing bone frequencies.

Instead a number of different factors seem to be responsi­

ble.

Therefore, it is hypothesized from these African stu­

dies and from the carnelid taphonomy data presented in

Chapters 2 and 3 (see Fig. 3-3 for summary) that the sur­

vival of archaeological camelid bone can be explained rea­

sonably only in terms of multiple causes. In order to exam­

ine this hypothesis let us now turn to some concrete

archaeological examples.

Measures of Skeletal Completeness

The camelid bone element counts for the three Cuzco

Valley sites are presented in Table 15.

Rapid examination of these data reveals that in the two

larger samples nearly all expected camelid skeletal elenients

are present, in greater or lesser numbers (again the Minas­

pata sample is too small to be of much use). The fact that

there are no salient gzps in the skeletal inventory suggests

several things about human behavior.

that the normal procedure at both sites

First, it indicates

was probably to

butcher entire animals and consistently not to discard major

portions of the carcass elsewhere. This implies, of course,

I

174

Element Marcavalle Qhataq'asa Minaspata

Cr anial/Max ilIa 13 9 1 Mandible 13 12 1 Scapula 10 61 4 Humerus 19 73 6 Radius-Ulna 36 116 3 Scaphoid 7 7 2 Lunar 2 4 1 Cuneiform 3 1 1 1 Magnum 2 4 0 Unciform 5 12 0 Pisiform 2 2 0 Metacarpal 17 70 1 1 st Phalanx 115 269 10 2nd Phalanx 55 r- ,..

I 2 ?U

3rd Phalanx 6 6 1 Cannon Condyle 94 367 6 Metatarsal 22 I 56 2 Astragalus 18 84 4 Calcaneum 24 64 5 Nav icular !3 17 1 Cuboid 14 33 2 Ectocuneiform 2 10 2 Fibula 2 1 1 1 Tibia 25 82 5 Patella 6 43 0 Femur 24 114 9 Innominate 23 38 3 Atlas 3 1 0 A3is7 2 7 0 C- -C * 60 * Thoracic * 39 * Lumbar * 66 * Sternabrae 2 1 • 0 Sacrum 1 0 I 0 Sesamoids 1 0 0

Table 15 Frequencies of camelid skeletal fragments from Cuzco sites. (* = not counted from this site).

that both Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta ~ere habitation

sites, a fact clearly established by other means,

In the cases of Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta the

175

above inferences may seem rather obvious. However, in regard

to camelids from more ancient sites and/or secondary species

the degree of skeletal completeness can serve as an impor­

tant indicator of the circumstances under which bones were

deposited in an archaeological site. A number of attempts

have been made to quantify the degree of skeletal complete­

ness between species in a faunal sample; first in paleontol­

ogy (Shotwell, 1955) and later in archaeology (Thomas,

1971). Thomas' method is very involved and, judging from

the examples he provides, seems to have been designed for

the analysis of wild faunas quite different from the Cuzco

Valley situation. Therefore, it is not appropriate to exam­

ine this method in any detail here. However, the end pro­

duct of the method, an index called the "corrected number of

bone specimens per individual (CSI)", is of potential util­

i ty in Andean sites and should be mentioned in passing.

Thomas calculated the following CSls for the fauna of

Hanging Rock Shelter, a Desert Archaic site in northern

Nevada:

Meado~ .. l mouse

Deer mouse

Pocket mouse

Jack rabbit

Cotton tail rabbit

50.9

33.4

28.5

22.9

18.5

176

Wood rat 17.2

Ground squirrel 14.3

Pocket golpher 10.6

Big horn sheep 4.5

Ground-hog 3.5

Muskrat 2.7

Skunk 1.8

Coyote 1.6

Deer 1 .2

The high degree of skeletal completeness of the three

mouse species is judged by Thomas to indicate that they Here

members of the proximal, natural community and were not food

animals. In contrast, the low CSIs of the remaining species

is believed to indicate a high degree of skeletal disruption

caused by human dietary practices that tended to destroy and

disperse the bones of prey-species.

To return to the Cuzco Valley samples: calculations of

CSIs for the Marcavalle and Qhataq' asallacta camelids yields

figures of 27.2 and 26.0, respectively. These CSIs are

quite high in comparison to the Hanging Rock Shelter wild

food species of comparable size (Bighorn = 4.5; Deer = 1.2)

and resemble more closely the rabbits, which were surely

brought back whole to the site, and the intrusive rodents

that are pr esumed to have died on the site. Such hig h CSI

177

figures, of course, can be explained principally by the

domesticated nature of the camel ids presumed to have been

slaughtered and butchered at the sites of Marcavalle and

Qhataq' asallacta. However, the bones of wild camelids from

more ancient sites in the Andes may have been subjected to

entirely different dispersal patterns which would be

reflected in lower CSIs. Future investigators of faunal

samples from preceramic sites in the Andes, therefore, might

consider the study of CSI figures as a possible method of

distinguishing between wild and domesticated camelid

remains.

The corrected number of bone specimens per individual

is a useful indicator of the amount of disturbance suffered

by a faunal assemblage between its extraction from the bios­

phere and its archaeological recovery. However, it does not

provide much information concerning the specific ways in

which human activity could have altered the assemblage along

the taphonomic pathway. For such information we must exam­

ine the relative frequencies of bone elements at Marcavalle

and Qhataq'asallacta more closely.

But first, in order to do this, we must recognize that,

just as in the case of calculations of minimum numbers of

individuals, no standardized procedure has been adopted for

the presentation of differential representation data. This

178

methodological problem must be addressed before proceeding

to more informative areas of interpretation.

A Problem of Counting Units

At issue here is the question of what it is exactly

that we should be counting in studies of differential

representation of body parts. Is it the relative numbers of

skeletal elements that interest us, as in the numbers of

astragali as compared to proximal femora? Or are we

interested instead, in the relative nU'Jlbers of fragments of

astragalus material versus proximal femur material? The two

questions express two different concerns. They are based in

the investigation of two related, but distinct aspects of

hum an behav ior .

The first of these concerns is the more basic, and

appears earlier in the faunal literature in the works of

Dart and Perkins and Daly. It asks the fundamental question

of whether there is some connection between the archaeologi­

cal visibility of separate skeletal elements in a site and

human patterns of use and/or discard of these elements.

This first concern seeks to establish some kind of a causal

link between differential representation and differential

selection and/or use of basic anatomical bone packages. The

focus of this concern lies in natural skeletal units as they

179

appear in the animal, the differential perceptions of these

units by hunters and butchers, and finally, the differential

uses to which these units may have been put in the native

culture.

The second question, while superficially appearing to

be identical, includes an added dimension derived from the

knowledge that archaeological visibility of skeletal ele­

ments is probably never linked unilineally to human behavior

alone, but rather is complicated by a whole host of tapho­

nomic agents. The fcc·c,nd question recognizes that the ori­

ginal meat/bone units selected by the butcher may have been

altered and fragmented many times over through processes of

cooking, carnivore scavenging, treadage, tool manufacture

and various other factors of attrition. This second ques­

tion is addressed indirectly in the differential representa­

tion studies of Brain (1967,1969), Read (1971), Ziegler

(1973), Klein (1976) and Binford (1977). However, in none

of these works is the unit used in counting skeletal ele­

ments from archaeological faunas explicitly defined. Nor is

it clear how small recognizable fragments should be counted

in relation to large recognizable fragments. Or more

specifically how one is to count a small, but clearly recog­

nizable, fragment from a humerus head; and how one is to

count an entire humerus head which, in some cases, could

have produced 2 or 3 recognizable fragments. In other

180

words, is the faunal analyst to equate the proportions of

twenty complete proximal humerus articulations with twenty

small, longitudinally fractured splinters of distal femur

articulations? This problem is especially important in

Andean sites where so many of the long bone articulations

are fractured longitudinally producing numerous small, but

recognizable, fragments. I have found it necessary, there­

fore, to develop a procedure which takes into account these

differences in fracture pattern, and thereby attempts to

address itself to both of these questions.

involves the following steps:

This procedure

(1) The first step of this procedure is to calculate the

probable number of recognizable fragments (PNRF) for

each element. This calculation is a conservative esti­

mate of the number of recognizable fragments derivable

from one element and is based on the size and geometry

of the bone. In the case of the Andean camel ids it also

is based on observations of contemporary fracture pat-

terns. For sake of simplicity it is assumed that all

appendicular consumption elements (i.e. either articu­

lar ends of long bones or smaller foot bones) could be

broken into two recognizable fragments. (The radius­

ulna is an exception to this rule, in that its geometry

makes it more probable that it could be fractured into

3 recognizable elements.) The fracture of any given

181

element could produce, of cour se, three or even four

recognizable fragments. This fact could alter slightly

the results of the use of PNRF units. However, without

becoming involved in unmanageable attempts to quantify

the exact percentage of the element represented by the

fragment, this assumption seems to prov id e the most

convenient operating procedure.

(2) The PNRF for each element is then multiplied by the

c .... , :51

number of each of these elements in one skeleton. This

product is termed the probable number of recognizable

fragments per individual (PNRF/I).

The PNRF/I for each element is then multiplied by the

minimum number of individuals previously determined for

the site. This product is termed the expected number

of fragments (EMF) \..rhich represents the comparative

figure to which the actual bone counts will be refer-

enced.

(4) The observed number of fragments (ONF) for each element

is calculated in accordance with the rules established

for the probable number of recognizable fragments; e.g.

a complete distal tibia fragment which has been frac-

tured crosswise across shaft is counteed as 2

because it contains 2 PNRFs, whereas a longitudinally

fractured proximal humerus fragment is counted as 1. A

182

complete append ic ul ar bone, such as a tib ia, would be

counted as 4 (2 for the proximal end and 2 for the

distal) .

The advantage of this counting method, over one in

which simple fragments are counted, can best be illustrated

by citing an hypothetical example. In this imaginary

archaeological sample proximal camelid humeri are

represented by 50 fragments and distal camelid tibiae are

likewise represented by 50 fragments. The two elements

would seem to exist in equal proportions in the sample.

However, closer examination of the fragments reveals that

the proportions are not at all equal because the humerus

fragments consist of 48 small, longitudinally fractured

articular fragments and 2 complete articulations, whereas

the 50 tibia fragments consist of 20 longitudinally frac­

tured articular fragments and 30 complete articulations.

The problem of equating the numbers of these two sets of

bones arises from the possibility that some of the small,

longitudinally fractured fragments could have come fro~ the

same original bones. For instance, two or more small frag­

ments could represent the same in corpus proximal humerus.

By using the probable number of recognizable fragments

method with the above exa~ple, proximal humeri would be

counted as 48 (numbers of longitudinal fragments) + 2X2

(number of complete humerus articulations X PNRF for the

183

proximal humerus) = 52. In the same fashion distal tib ia

would be counted as 20 (number of longitudinal fragments) +

30X2 (number of complete distal tibia articulations X PNRF

for the distal tibia) = 80. Thus, the ratio of proximal

humeri to distal tibiae is calculated not as 1:1, as indi­

cated by a simple count of the number of fragments, but as

50:80 or 1:1.6. I believe that this method is a much more

accurate reflection of the true archaeological visibility of

skeletal elements recovered in an archaeological sample.

(5) Finally, the survival percentage of each consumption

element is calculated by dividing the observed number

of fragments (ONF) by the expected number of fragments

(ENF) •

A complete tabulation of these calculations for the

Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta samples is presented in

Table 16.

Cuzco Valley Differential Representation

Having dispensed with the methodological problems

described in the past pages we can now examine the differen­

tial representation from Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta for

evidence of cultural patterning. We should expect that such

cultural patterning may be revealed by intrasite differen-

184

• ~CAvALLE I ~ I A.SAI..IAc-J.:A Elerrent PNRF PNRF/I ENF OOF '" Em' CNF % ""

M3xilla 2 4 92 10 14.1 288 12 4.2 M3ndib1e 2 4 92 13 '8 -.L .::> I 288 15 5.2

Scapula 2 4 92 10 10.9 288 61 21.2 Pr. Hum ..... 4 92 11 12.0 288 21 7.3 .I:.

Ds. Hum 2 4 92 16 17.4 288 87 30.2 Pr. Rad-Ul 3 6 138 26 18.8 432 116 26.9 Ds. Rad-Ul 2 4 92 25 27.2 288 81 28.1 carpal 2 28 644 42 6.5 2016 80 4.0 Pr. M::: 2 4 92 21 22.8 288 97 33.7 1st Phal 2 16 368 178 48.4 1152 487 42.3 2nd Phal 2 ! 16 368 103 28.0

11152 99 8.6

3rd Phal 2 . -; t::: : -:l&;.Q 12 12 1.0 .... v oJ v..., 3.3 1152 Ds. cannon 1 8 184 96 52.2 576 286 49.7

Pr. MI' 2 4 92 28 30.4 288 84 29.2 Tarsal 2 12 276 51 18.5 864 131 15.2 Astragalus 2 4 92 35 38.0 288 133 46.2 calcaneum 2 4 92 41 44.6 288 78 27.0 Ds. Tibia 2 4 92 24 26.1 288 79 27.4 Pr. Tibia 2 4 92 11 12.0 288 41 14.2 Patella 2 4 92 12 13.0 288 68 23.6 Ds. Farrur 2 4 92 9 9.8 288 61 21.2 Pr. Farrur 2 4 92 21 22.9 288 67 23.3 Innaninate 2 4 92 23 25.0 288 38 13.2

Atlas 2 2 46 6 13.0 144 2 1.4 Axis 2 2 46 4 8.7 144 14 9.7 C3-C7 10 10 50 ? -- 720 ? --TlDracic 2 I 24 I 552 ? -- 1728 ? --Lumbar 2 14 322 ? -- 1008 ? --Tot. Vert 18 52 1196 504 42.1 3744 480 12.8

MIT 23 72

Table 16

Frequencies and percentage sw:vi val of appendicular and axial rone elements frem M3rcaval1e and Qhataq' asa11acta. PNRF=probab1e nuriber of recognizable frag:nen:cs; PNRF II= probable number of recognizable fragrrents per individual: ~-expected number of fragrrents: ONF= obse..-rved number of fragnents; %= percentage survival.

185

tial representation of body parts, as well as by contrasts

between the representation of elements from the Marcavalle

and Qhataq'asallacta samples. Figure 5-3 is provided as a

graphic display of these contrasts among the Marcavalle and

Qhataq'asallacta camelid appendicular elements.

Two aspects of differential representation are immedi­

ately evident upon inspection of this figure. First, there

is a high degree of variability in survival or archaeologi­

cal visibility betwen the skeletal elements, and second, the

patterns of survival of Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta ele­

ments are quite similar, with a few exceptions. Let us

first discuss the intrasite variabiltiy and attempt to

interpret this variabity in light of the ethnozoological

data discussed in Chapters 2 and 3.

Intra-site Differential Representation

The mean survivorship

fairly consistent between

for all skeletal elments is

the two sites: 23.4% for Marca-

valle and 21.5% for Qhataq'asallacta. However, as observed

in Figure 5-3, the survival rates of indivual bones within

the sites vary much more dramatically: between 52.2% for

Marcavalle distal metapodials and 1.0% for Qhataq'asallacta

ungual phalanges.

Innominates

Pro Femora

Ds. Femora

Patellae

Pro Tibiae

Ds. Tibiae

Calcanea

Astragali

Tarsals

Pr. Metatarsals

Ds. Metapodials

30 Phalanges

2° Phalanges

10 Phalanges

Pro Metacarpals

Carpals

Ds. Radius-Ulnae

Pr. Radius-Ulnae

Ds. Humeri

Pro HUI:leri

Scapulae

.,.,.~

~\ I

~. I . ;~

':.._---,,""

= -() .!: = III .= a = a; s: o

186

o

---

i ---~ I ~----~-----I~----~----~I------j~----1

o ...0

o U'\

o 0 0 0 o ..::t t"\ N -

", SURVIVAL

E o 1-1 ~

CIl .j..I

c:: ClI E ClI ~

ClI

1-1 Ctl ~ ;::l t) .~

"1:l c:: Q)

~ ~ Ctl

~ o c:: o .~ .j..I

Ctl .j..I

c:: ClI 0)

ClI 1-1 ~ ClI 1-1 •

Ctl ~ .j..I

Ctl t) .~ Ctl .j..I .....

c:: ..... ClI Ctl 1-1 CIl ClI Ctl ~­...... 0" .~ Ctl "1:l.j..l

Ctl ClI.c::

.c:: 0-.j..I

"1:l ~ c:: o Ctl

c:: ClI O~ 0) .....

.~ Ctl 1-1 > Ctl Ctl ~t) E 1-1 o Ctl Q;E

187

This variability can best be understood in terms of

major bone complexes~ rather than individual bones. The

survival rates of the five major bone complexes (excluding

the ribs) from the two sites are presented in Table 17.

MARCAVALLE QHATAQ'ASALLACTA I ENF ONF % ENF ONF %

Head 184 30 16.3 576 27 4.7

Vertebra 1196 504 42. 1 3744 480 12.8

Fore-limb 506 88 17.4 1584 366 23.1

Hind-limb 552 100 18. 1 1728 354 20.5

Feet 1564 553 35.4 4896 1395 28.5

Table 17

Bone group survival rates at Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta. ENF=expected number of fragments; ONF=observed number of

fragments; %=group survival percentage.

These group survival rates indicate a number of

interesting tendencies, some consistent between the sites,

and others indicating cultural differences between Marca-

valle and Qhataq'asallacta.

Cranial Representation

First, head parts (mandibles and maxillae) have a low

archaeological visibility at both sites and show a

188

particularly low survival rate at Qhataq'asa11acta (4.7%).

This is quite unexpected, since these parts have the reputa­

tion of being the most durable and diagnostic of faunal

remains. Mandibles, especially, are often reported in the

literature to have the highest survival rate of any bone on

a site and are used for that reason as the basis of MNI cal­

culations. The low rate of survival of these elements in

the Cuzco Valley samples may be due to a number of tapho­

nomic factors.

As mentioned in Chapter 2 the contemporary Andean prac­

tice is to fracture the skull into 5 pieces during prepara­

tion for cooking. The mandible is broken into four frag­

ments (see figs. 2-5 and 2-6). This consumption fracturing

may have been even more severe in antiquity. The great

majority of cheek tooth rows were found broken at Marcava11e

and Qhataq'asallacta. These cheek tooth rows were usually

found intact in the controlled consumption experiments.

Another factor which may have influenced the survival

of maxillae and mandibles is the nature of the high Andean

environment. While collecting surface bone scatter at La

Raya, Tuqsa and Huaycho, I was struck by the fragility of

the teeth that I picked up. For some reason the teeth

seemed to have suffered more than other skeletal material.

This damage may be a result of surface exposure to unfil-

· 189

tered ultra-violet rays and/or severe fluctuations in diur­

nal temperatures. Although I have no substantive data to

support it, I suspect that these physical factors, when com­

bined with the cultural factors of fracture, may result in

badly damaged cranial material which has a low survival

rate.

Fore-quarters versus hind-quarters

The second general tendency revealed by Table 17 is

that fore-limbs and hind-limbs are represented in approxi­

mately equal proportions.

Fore-limb

Hind-limb

MARCAVALLE

88

100

QHATAQ'ASALLACTA

366

354

The chi-square statistic indicates that observed variations

in fore-limb versus hind-limb frequencies are not signifi­

can t (p= > 0 • 5) .

This pattern differs from that found among some wild

prey species in other parts of the world. For example, Read

has observed that reindeer remains from Upper Paleolithic

sites in Germany show a consistent preponderance of front

limbs over hind limbs (1.4:1 - 1.8:1). From these data she

concludes that a large ~~~~er of kills took place at suffi-

190

cient distance from the site, so that the hunters were at

times forced to select only the most desirable portions of

the carcass, and to leave the rest in the field (Read,

1971:133).1 Conversely, she concludes that the hind-quarters

of deer were prefered over fore-quarters at the California

Indian site of CA Lan-243v (Read,1971:161).

That a similar disproportionate representation of front

or hind parts is absent at Marcavalle or Qhataq'asallacta is

not surprising. Factors of transport are not applicable to

domesticated animals butchered and consumed at the home

site, and contemporary patterns of usage among Andean pas-

toralists show no preference for either the f6re or hind

limbs of camelids.

South American s~hlepp?

The third general tendency indicated in Table 17 is

that foot elements (carpals, tarsals, metapodials and

phalanges) show a much higher survivorship than upper leg

elements. This is particulary true at Marcavalle where

podial elements survived at double the rate of leg elements.

The preponderence of foot elements also can be observed in

Figure 5-3 where the highest percentages peak in the center

of the diagram (foot bones) and taper off to either side

(leg bones). This over-representation of foot bones consti-

191

tutes the most salient feature of these samples, and pro­

vides a point of departure for exploration into the reasons

behind the total pattern of differential representation.

The over-representation of foot bones is also strongly

reminiscent of our old friend, the schlepp effect. Is it

possible that there was a South American schlepp for the

camelids, as well? The schlepp effect, or a related

phenomenon, has been proposed as an explanation for the dif­

ferential representation of Andean camelid bones on at least

two occasions.

In a paper presented at the 1973 meetings of the

Society for American Archaeology, Dwight Simons, of the

University of California at Davis, argued that the camelid

remains from the preceramic sites of Tarapac~ in northern

Chile suggest that the inhabitants of this area were guanaco

hunters and that they schlepped their kills back to their

home bases. In his analysis of the faunal remains from

Tarapac~ Simons found that camel ids were represented by

88.2% foot bones (as compared to leg bones). This is an

even greater preponderance of podial elements than Perkins

and Daly had encountered at Suberde. In that Early Neol­

ithic site the authors had found that 83% of the oxen (Bos

primegenius) were represented by foot bones, in contrast to

the sheep/goat which were represented by only 55% foot

192

bones. From this point of reference, Simons was convinced

that the only reasonable explanation for such a high percen-

tage of foot bones at the Tarapacc\ sites was that

gaunaco hunters were engaged in "even greater schlepping."

(Simons, ms.)

In her analysis of the camelid remains from Kotosh

Elizabeth Wing (1972) also concerned herself with the dif-

ferential representation of body parts. She notes that "the

bones less frequently found than would be expected are all

those from the lower part of the limbs" (p.337), and that

"the main muscle bearing bones of the limb, the humerus and

femur, are for the most part represented more frequently

than expected" (p.338). Although she provides no figures

that can be converted to limbs versus feet percentages, it

is clear from the text that something akin to the opposite

of the Tarapacc\ and Suberde situations was operating at

Kotosh. H'ing interprets the paucity of camelid podial ele-

ments as a resul t of: 1) the metapodials becoming al tered

beyond recognition through the process of tool manufacture

(a destiny to which the long, straight shafts of the metapo­

dials are particlularly well suited) and, 2) the toe bones

being left with the skin after butchei4 Y. This second expl a-

nation is, of course, the same as the schlepp effect but in

reverse direction. In this case the butchery procedure is

the same as with its Turkish cousin -- foot bones are left

193

on the hide. However, instead of using the hide to schlepp

the butchered meat back to the base camp, the" ant-5.-schlepp"

butchers of Kotosh discarded or traded away the skin along

with its foot bones. The result of this practice, according

to Wing, was a net loss of foot bones from the exc8vated,

residential areas of the site~ and consequently an under­

representation of these elements in the archaeological sam­

pIe.

How do these two situations compare with those from the

Cuzco Valley and what light can the ethnozoological data

shed on the interpretation of a high representation of foot

bones in camel id assemblages? The i~epresentation of foot

bones at Marcavalle and Qhataq~asallacta is 79.7% and 70.5%,

respectively. These percentages, although not as high as

those from the Tarapacc! camelids or the Suberde oxen, are

much higher than the Suberde sheep/goat (55%) which were

presumed to be domesticated and butchered at the occupation

si te. The Cuzco foot percentages are even higher in compar­

ison with two other domestic animal samples: 32.1% for C.K.

Brain's study of Hottentot goat bones and 26.2% for

Binford's and Bertram's stud y 0 f Nav aj 0 sheep bones ( see

Figure 5-4 for a graphic comparison of all these samples).

Is it possible that the Cuzco Valley camel ids were wild and

were schlepped back to the habitation site in a similar

fashion to that suggested for Suberde and Tarapacc!? This

90

ISO

'I, '70

80

50

30

20

10

79.7

til

~ ~ u

~ ~ <

i

70.5

til 0 H t-1

~ t.J

~ t.J j ~ til < -~.

~ CI

88.3

70.9

til 0

,1-1 t-1

~ ~ t.J

C,!) < ~ t.J

< 0 ~ ~ t.J ~ ~

~ ~

1 1 1 :: . >'1 1

100

83.0

0/0

':~Iii;: '" . ~ " . ~ ~ i

~~~~ :~1:~~tt{; I'~";}},n.~~;

§~i

70

58.15 leo

50 I

!Xi

~ ~" o ,:i,,\i d 1-40

O)~t~~'%. ~ <Jj,/j:'i'~

~ ;f~:V.fh', \" " ~:,,~~I 1-30

55.0

~ 0

til

~ t: 0

rz.l C,!)

~ ........ Il-,

til 1%.1 ~ ~ til

u

~ I';'W\~I 1-20 ~:;',:!s-,l::f

~

~

;J rz.l

til

,.L )ii, , 10

~

I rY~i" I til

Sl >/:~~fi ;. ' , I . ,

\·Y~;"~. :, :" .. : .. '. '.'", ~,~ '>

<.'

I,'·

r.~l r 0

'I.- .:

O I I I I . I 1 '.. I ' .'" . k ··,·····1 ' __ 1/ I I

Figure 5-4 comparison of foot versus leg bone representation from a number of man-animal situations. Tarapaca, Chi1e:Simons, n.d.; Kotosh, Peru:Wing, 1972; Suberde, Turkey:Perkins and Daly, 1968; Hottentots:Brain, 1969; Navajo:Binford and Bertram, 1977; Star Carr, England: Read, 1971.

-> \0 -'=

195

seems highly unlikely for a number of reasons, not the least

of which is that the great majority of all other evidence,

both faunal and otherwise, indicates that Marcavalle and

Qhataq'asallacta were village sites occupied by sedentary,

ceramic-making peoples with access to agricultural products

and domesticated herds. Widespread hunting away from the

occupation site is certainly not indicated for Inca

Qhataq'asallacta, and there is little evidence to suggest

more than a secondary role for hunting at Marcavalle. In

addition, I believe that the schlepp model may not be

entirely applicable to the South American camel ids and that

there exist a number of other taphonomic factors which could

have played significant roles in the particular foot/leg

representations observed at Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta.

These issues are numerous and will be discussed systemati­

cally in terms of a series of factors.

1) Do you really need to schlepp a guanaco? In bandy­

ing about the term "schlepp" over the past several pages its

full meaning may have been diluted. It must be remembered

that this phenomenon was originally proposed to explain the

method devised by hunters to butcher a large ungulate most

efficiently and to transport large quantities of meat over a

considerable distance from the kill site to the camp site.

In addition, the original schlepp effect involved three com­

ponents important to later differential representation: a)

196

the discard of heavy long bones in the field after having

stripped them of meat, b) retaining the foot bones on the

skin which was used as a container for the meat and, c)

dragging the heavy meat and foot bone bundle back to the

habitation site. Thus, the schlepp effect was the solution

to a subsistence problem, a problem made especially acute

because the prey animals weighed over 900 kilos.

Adult guanacos from Tiera del Fuego average about 100

kilos, with a recorded maximum of 149 kilos (Raedeke,

1975:4). Peruvian and Northern Chilean guanacos are

believed by some (L~nnberg, 1913) to average somewhat

smaller. Thus, if we use White's 50% of usable meat rate,

the guanaco hunter would be faced with hauling some 40-70

kilos of usable guanaco meat from the kill site to the camp

site. The Ona of Tiera del Fuego apparently found this an

entirely manageable task for one man. Bridges recounts a

case in which an Ona hunter carried parts of two guanacos

weighing over 300 lbs. for a distance of over a mile. The

method used is described as follows:

If it was intended to carry the meat more than a short distance, the Ona hunter would make a neat bundle of it, and would then tie it with a thin hide called moji, which he always carried with him ••. these lines were fitted over the carrier's shoulders and across his chest, so that he was enclosed in a network. The bur­den rested on his hips, and he walked with his body stooping forward. The advantage of this mode of pack­ing was that the weight, by being rested on the hips, tired only the legs, whereas on the shoulders it would have fatigued the whole body. It was particularly

197

suitable for carrying heavy loads a long distance (Bridges, 1948:257).

It seems unlikely, therefore, that aboriginal guanaco

hunters would have found it necessary to employ the full

schlepp method. They may have utilized the skin and the

feet as a container~ for this would have been a convenient

and logical device, but they most certainly would not have

felt compelled to strip and discard the long bones. 2 Such

discard also seems unlikely on the grounds that it would

mean a loss of marrow, a nutrient which the Ona definitely

enjoyed (Bridges, 1948:197).

However, without examining the original data it would

be presumptuous of me to deny the possibility that the

Tarapac~ guanaco hunters were employing a modified schlepp

method. Despite the fact that the schlepp method may not

have been absolutely necessary for the subsistence of the

Tarapaquenos, they may have used it for reasons that only

they would understand. Something certainly caused foot

bones to out-survive leg bones by a ratio of almost 9:1!

2) Is a 88%,83% or 79% foot bone representation grossly

out of line, compared to the normal representation of these

bones in a camelid skeleton?

As illustrated in Figure 5-4, the foot/leg ratio is

198

approximately 7:3 in the ungulate skeleton. However, this

figure is derived from my own method of counting bone frag­

ments (calculating PNRFs, etc.). When more traditional

methods of counting bones are used, the percentage of foot

bones in an ungulate skeleton rises to around 80%. The

method apparently used by Dwight Simons for the Tarapac~

camelids yields a figure of 80%.

Three points must be made about this situation.

Firstly, foot representation percentages of 70-80% are not

all that out of line with what one would expect from an

ungulate skeleton. The 79.7% figure for Marcavalle is only

slightly high and the 70.5% figure for Qhataq'asallacta

corresponds almost exactly with my calculated norm of 71%.

Likewise, the 88% foot representation at Tarapac~ is not

entirely inconsistent with Simons' calculated norm of 80%.

Perhaps then, in the absence of other complicating agents of

attrition, we should consider schlepp-like foot bone percen­

tages to reflect more nearly normal representation of these

elements, and our efforts should be concentrated on explain­

ing percentages that fall far below the 70-80% norm. It may

be that it is really the 55% figure for the Suberde

sheep/goats that should make us suspicious of human inter­

vention.

The second point, however, is the more important and

199

should be taken as a caveat. The fact that different faunal

analysts can arrive at different figures for the normal pro­

portion of foot bones in the ungulate skeleton indicates

that there is most probably variation in their methods of

countj.ng archaeological bone fragments as well. This under­

scores the necessity of arriving a~ some standardization in

these methods, so as to make the works of separate investi­

gators more compatible.

Thirdly, despite the lack of consensus concerning

schlepp effect foot bone percentages, we should not abandon

all attempts to quantify the phenomenon. Lynch's recent

suggestion that at Gu i tarrero Cave the "usel ess bones [of

brocket deer] were left behind, while the meat was perhaps

carried home in a hide bundle with the feet still attached"

is supported solely by a statement concerning " •.. the

predom inanc e of foot bones •.• " (Lynch, 1978: 476) • What does

predominance mean and which foot bones are being referred

to?

The forum of the above reference is a textbook anthol­

ogy and, thus, the lack of quantified data is somewhat

understandable. However, I find such a tantalizing argument

extremely frustrating without the details.

3) Are there factors of differential durability that could

contribute to a schlepp-like survival pattern of skeletal

elements in an archaeological sample?

200

As discussed in Chapter 2 there is a wide variation in

the density of bone elements in the camelid skeleton, rang­

ing from 0.9 for the distal femur and proximal humerus to

more than 1.8 for the metapodial elements. A review of Fig­

ure 2-15 illustrates that camelid foot elements tend to be

denser than most long bone articulations. In this regard it

is instructive to compare the results of bone density deter­

minations from other ungulates. Binford and Bertram (1977)

have performed density determinations on the bones of sheep

and caribou. Although the circumstances and methods of

these determinations were quite diferent from mine, a com­

parison between the two sets of results is quite interest­

ing. Figure 5-5 illustrates this comparison between cari­

bou, sheep and camelid bone densities. The most salient

aspect of this figure is the contrast in densities of foot­

bones. The densities of the articular ends of long bones

coincide closely among the three taxa, but the camelid foot

bones are significantly more dense than the corresponding

bones from sheep and caribou. This contrast is especially

evident among the phalanges and metapodials, and somewhat

less so among carpals and tarsals.

It is tempting to pounce on this foot density contrast,

2.0

1.9

1 .n

1.7

1.(,

1 I~ .~

C m 1.4 z ~ 1.3 .... -< 1.2

1.1

1.0

.9

.0

.7

Ul "tl t:l o,j t:l 0 o,j .-. N W t:l o,j ~ g;- o t:l o,j o,j t:l tU H n Ii I/) Ii I/) III Ii 0 0 0 I/) Ii III III I/) Ii III I/) Ii g III . . . Ii . . . t1 rt .-. . . rt . . '0 "d o,j o,j o,j I/) t1 n (ll 0 ~

~ !:xl ~ :;Q III :;( P' P' P' :~ :;( III III ~ ~ ~ .-. t'Ij t'Ij Jj .-. 5 III .-. (ll III III III (ll (ll .-. ()Q ...,. ...,. .-. m m

..., . III p. P- I/) rt .-. .-. .-. f1- rt I/) III (ll tT' tT' III ~ (ll (ll (ll ...,. ...,. III ~ III ~ ~ III .-. III ...,. ...,. (ll 0 0 III Ii Ii l. ~ n I=' rt ..., . III III t1 t1 rt

...,. ••• I/) I/) III ()Q OQ ()Q 0 III (ll (ll III III (ll I I ~ (ll (ll (ll P. t1 I/) C1 C1 I/) I/) I/) ...,. I/) .-. ~ III III III ~ .-. .-' .-. III III I/) I/)

m ~,.' ~\( ~ ~.,{ ~ ·i······· .... \\h.t: ( &q~ :;'/,~ I.

~ ~ [!j ~~/' " ,:~.:~., .. €;:::::.::::J <>::.J <:I ~ \ .' 1.1 '.'

•

t::::::::D ~ C> ~

, '\ ' 'V " __ ..... , ' I / \

,~\ I",.,~~·l. / \ ~ I j'/ ...,/ -.......... / ~ \ /.1 ~ \ Ii' \ J ~ 1/ \\~/I \ I ~ ---

Came lids

Caribou

Sheep

.. --., ~ ~ -~- ---_.!.'

, I

I

Figure 5-5 Comparison between the densities of came lid, caribou and sheep appendicular elements (caribou and sheep data from Binford and Bertram, 1977).

2.0

1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

1 IJ

.;J

Lit

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

.9

.8 I\) 0 ->

.1

202

and to proclaim that this alone is the reason for the high

survival of camelid podial elements in the Cuzco sites and

the usual low survival rate of these elements among other

zooarchaeological species. There are reasons for caution,

however. In the first place foot bones do not always

preserve well in Andean sites. Thus, other factors besides

the density constant seem to affect their archaeological

survival. Secondly, my procedure of density determination

contrasts with that employed by Binford and Bertram, and

therefore, there is no assurance that the two sets of

results are completely comparable.

On the other hand, it may be that for some unknown evo­

lutionary reason the engineering of the tylopod hoof has

produced much denser podial elements than in other ungulates

which have been tested. If this is the case, we would be

forced to disagree with Binford and Bertram's assertion that

n ••• research aimed at increasing the documentation [of bone

density] of species other than [sheep and caribou] may be

selective rather than exhaustive .•. (Binford and Bertram,

1977:149), and to respond that perhaps an adequate evalua­

tion of the role of density in bone survival can only be

achieved after density determination have been performed on

a wide range of mammalian skeletons. However, such a

response must await camelid bone density determinations

which attempt to replicate the procedure utilized by Binford

203

and Bertram.

4) Are there factors of butchery, cooking and consump­

tion fracture that could contribute to a schlepp like survival

pattern of bones in an archaeological sample?

Deductively we would predict that a differential

representation pattern resembling the schlepp effect could

be produced by fracturing practices which would normally

leave foot bones intact but would damage a large number of

long bone articulations beyond recognition. Furthermore, we

would predict that longitudinal fracturing of long bone

articulations would both reduce the size of the bone frag­

ments to be recognized, and would increase the exposure of

fragile cancellous bone in the articular ends of less dense

long bones to agents of decomposition. The sum of these

practices would tend to decrease the archaeological visibil­

ity of the long bones, and concomitantly increase the

archaeological visibility of the foot bones.

In general, these are the fracturing practices observed

among contemporary native butchers of the southern highlands

of Peru. As described in detail in Chapter 2, the majority

of camelid bones, both from the upper legs and from the

feet, are fractured only crosswise across the shaft, or not

at all. The longitudinal fracturing of long bones is

204

normally reserved for the spongy articulations of the proxi­

mal humerus, proximal femur, distal femur, and proximal

tibia. The controlled consumption experiments demonstrated

that, as a consequence of this fracturing practice, frag­

ments from these elements were reduced in size and their

probability of being recognized by a faunal analyst was also

reduced.

In order to both compare the contemporary fracture pat­

terns with archaeological fracture patterns and to che~~ the

correlation between archaeological fracture and other bone

attributes, I have devised a typology of bone fracture. The

most common long bone fracture possibilities are illustrated

in Figure 5-6 along with their computer code numbers. The

complete fracture typology is described in Appendix 2.

As with many typologies, especially experimental first

attempts, this bone fracture typology was not a complete

success. This partial failure was due principally to the

subjectivity involved in deciding between two closely

related fracture types. The distinction between types 07

and 08, for example, is not always clear when examining

archaeological bones in the laboratory. This difficulty has

produced

analysis. 3

an undesired lack of replicability in the

However, despite these qualifications the bene fracture

\

U 13 14 15

~ , I

~ ~~ Cl~ ~ ~ 04 2f3 27 05 06 07 08

~~ ~ 1 1 ~ M q OV 10 11 12 17 18 19

Q ~ 23 24

Figure 5-6 Basic bone fracture typology (see Appendix 2 for descriptions and additional categories.

205

206

typology has been useful in a number of ways. It served to

focus the analyst's attention on the ways in which bones

from the Cuzco Valley samples were fractured. It also

alerted the analyst to the possibility of continuity between

archaeological fracture patterns and known ethnographic

practices. In general, the fracture patterns of modern

bones from Tuqsa and Huaycho show striking similarities to

those from Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta. This continuity

in fracture practice is especially relevant in terms of the

bones which normally receive longitudinal marrow fracturing,

and those which are fractured merely across the shaft, or

not at all. The numbers of bones in each of these

categories from Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta are

presented in Table 18. 4 When the separate bone elements are

combined into groups which correspond to major differences

in ethnographic fracture an even more salient pattern

emerges. The longitudinal fracturing of the marrow-rich,

cancellous articulations of the proximal humerus, proximal

femur, distal femur and proximal tibia is observed to have

been significantly more frequent among both archaeological

samples than this kind of fracturing of the denser long bone

articulations or the bones of the foot (see Table 19).

Given our original hypothesis concerning the corelation

between longitudinal fracturing and low archaeological visi­

bility, it is not surprising that the archaeological data

Element

Pr. H..::m

05. Hum

Pr. R-U

Ds. R-U

carpal

Pr. M:

0 1 Pm1

20 Phal

30

Phal

05. can

Pr. Mr

Tarsal

Ast

cal

Ds. Tib

Pr. Tib

Ds. Fen

Pr. Fan

~CAVALLE QHATAQ' ASALIACI'A

No Fracture or lDngi tOOinal No Fracture or ! lDngi tudinal Crosswise Frac Fracture Crosswise Frac Fracture

3 3 50.0% 8 5 38.5%

10 2 17.0% 28 10 26.3%

10 6 37.5% 28 17 37.7%

15 1 6.3% 25 5 16.6%

21 0 0% 40 0 0%

13 4 23.5% 22 13 37.1%

106 I 9 7.8% 143 5 3.4%

54 1 1.8% 48 2 4.0%

6 0 0% 6 0 0%

32 41 56.2% 121 90 42.7%

9 I

13 59.1% 28 I 14 33.0%

8.3% 22 2 50 6 10.7%

16 2 11.1% 50 15 23.1%

16 6 27.3% 23 I 15 39.5%

10 I 4 28.6% 28 ·1 6 17.6%

5 5 50.0% 19 3 13.6%

5 3 37.5% 22 15 40.5%

4 11 73.3% 17 15 46.8%

Table 18

Frequencies of carne1id appendicular elements frcrn Marcavalle an:l Qhataq'asal1 acta. which "Were observed to 1::e fractured crosswise or not at all versus trose fractured longitudinally.

207

I

208

~C'A.VALLE QEATAQ I ASALlACI'A

Bone Group MLTlirral or longitudinal Minirral or i IDngitudinal No Fracture Fracture No Fracture Fracture

Spongy brnb 17 22 66 38 elements 56.4% 36.5%

D::mse Illnb 45 13 109 40 elements 22.4% 26.8%

Foot 295 13 340 70 elements 20.9% 17.1%

Table 19

Ccrrp'3.rison of min:i.rral fracture (crosswise or none) versus longitudinal rrarrow splitting arrong three rrajor rone groups of the cancl.id appendicular skelton. Sp:>ngy limb elements = proxirral humerus, proxircal femur, distal ferrur, proxircal tibia; de...'1Se Illnb elements = distal hLlrrerus, proxi..T!8.1 radius­ulna, distal radius-ul..?')3, distal tibia~ foot elenents = carpals, tarsals I metapcxlials and ph3.l.a..'1ges.

209

demonstrate that those elements that have the highest fre­

quency of longitudinal fracture also are the most con­

sistently under-represented in the Cuzco samples. The fac­

tor of reduced recognizability seems to be particularly

acute among the spongy articulation group. 78% of those

bones classified as l1artiodactyltt (on the grounds that the

element could be identified but the fragment was too small

to distinguish between camelid or cervid) were from this

group.

5) Are there carnivore scavenging factors which could

contribute to a schlepp-like survival pattern of camelid

in an archaeological sample?

Due to the present inaccessability of the ethnographic

bone scatter and excavation samples, I have only impressions

with which to address this question. However, these impres­

sions are of some value and worth relating. While collect­

ing these ethnographic samples, especially the bone surface

scatter, I was struck by the numerous signs of dog gnawing.

This carnivore damage appeared to be particularly frequent

on spongy articular ends such as the proximal humerus. This

stands to reason, for the dogs certainly know which are the

most nutritious and pleasurable bones to gnaw on. If this

impression is confirmed by future study of these bones, it

210

may demonstrate yet another factor of attrition operating

differentially on leg bones as opposed to foot bones. Thus,

this factor would be another contributor to a schlepp-like

surv iv al pat tern.

6) Are there meat distribution factors which could con­

tribute to a schlepp-like survival pattern of camelid bones

in an archaeological sample?

Hypothetically, we might predict that the behavioral

pattern which would produce such a differential representa­

tion would be one in which a higher proportion of upper leg

elements than foot elements would be distributed away from

the habitation site. This practice would tend to reduce the

representation of leg elements and inflate the representa­

tion of foot elements at the ·site. This is precisely the

pattern observed in the modern practice of charqui manufac­

ture described in Chapter 3. As part of this practice dried

joints of meat from all portions of the animal, save the

head and feet, ar e tr ad ed down from pun a herd ing v ill ag es to

more temperate agricultural zones. The resulting over­

representation of podial and cranial elements in the refuse

of high altitude jerky production centers and the concomi­

tant over- representation of limb elements at low altitude

recipient sites might be termed the "charqui effectlt. (see

211

Figure 5-7).

It is entirely possible that the unusually high

r ~ pre sen tat ion 0 f f 00 tel em en t sat Mar c a v all e (7 9 . 7 %), may

be partially a result of charqui production and trade from

this site in Early Horizon times. The site of ~1arcavalle at

3300 meters is located at less than the ideal altitude for

charqui manufacture, since it is the penetrating cold of

June and July nights on the puna that provides the perfect

conditions for this process. However: it frequently does

drop below freezing during June and July in Cuzco and these

temperatures combined with other unknown factors 5 may have

made the site of Marcavalle entirely adequate for the pro­

duction of charqui. While the faunal data cannot prove this

thesis, the over-abundant foot elements (especially proximal

phalanges) at Marcavalle certainly lend it corroborative

suppo rt .

On the other hand the complete charqui effect requires

a similar disproportionate representation of cranial ele­

ments, and these are relatively scarce at Marcavalle. If in

fact the charqui effect was in operation at this site, I

again can only offer severe fracture damage and high alti­

tude exposure as possible contributing factors in the reduc-

tion of cran ial el emen ts .

SigllS of the charqui effect may be even more evident at

212

Figure 5-7 Pictorial representation of the cbarqui effect --an explanatory model of camelid bone differential representation.

t.', __ , ..

213

low altitude sites and/or sites far removed from the camelid

centers of the southern highlands. Such a site is Kotosh

located in the upper Huallaga valley at an altitude of some

2000 meters. As mentioned previously, the camelid remains

reported by Elizabeth Wing from this site show a predomi­

nance of upper limb bones over foot bones. Rather than, or

perhaps in addition to, the "anti-schlepp" and tool manufac­

ture explanations proposed by Wing, this over-abundance of

leg bones may have been caused by Kotosh's position as the

low altitude, agricultural partner in a vertical charqui

trading relationship.

The environmental setting of Kotosh certainly makes it

unlikely that a large population of camel ids would have been

resident in the immediate vecinity of the site. This is

especially true of the sm~ll, alpaca and vicu~a size,

camelids identified by Wing. These species are noted for

their intolerance to low altitudes.

If, indeed, the charqui effect was operating at Kotosh,

the method of initial butchery may have been slightly dif­

ferent than at Marcavalle. At Marcavalle all foot bones,

including astragalus and calcaneum, are abundant. This fact

suggests that these bones were removed ~ith the metatars~ls

(a pattern not observed among contemporary native butchers

see Fig. 2-2). At Kotosh astragali and calcanea are also

abundant. This fact

butchery methods in the

is consistent with

southern highlands

214

con t em po r a r y

where these

bones, along with the fibula, are always retained with the

distal tibiae. Perhaps, the abundance of astragali and cal­

canea at Kotosh is due partially to having "ridden in" with

the long bones, and partially to other factors of density

and minimal fracture.

The possibility that Kotosh was participating in a

vertical trading. system as early as its preceramic Mito

period is, of course, tantalizing for the understanding of

prehistoric Andean economy. However, such a conclusion must

await further evidence from low altitude sites and/or a re­

examination of the original Kotosh data in light of this

suggestion.

Marcavalle versus Qhataq' asallacta Bone Treatment

Along with numerous consistencies in camelid utiliza­

tion that are evident in both the Cuzco Valley samples there

are an equal number of inconsist.encies which point to

differences of human behavior and site function at Marca­

valle and Qhataq'sallacta. These differences are multiple.

The evidence for them will be described with minimal comment

and interpretations reserved until last.

215

1) Age structure differences Although the details of

age structure among the Marcavalle and Qhataq'sallacta

camelids are beyond the scope of this dissertation, and will

be the topic of a separate paper, a short discussion of this

aspect of the Cuzco Valley faunal remains is necessary here

for reasons of its relevance to both inter-site behavioral

differences and intra-site differential representation.

Based on evidence of epiphyseal fusion it \Olas determined

that the average age at time of slaughter was much older for

the Qhataq' asallacta camel ids than for those from Marca­

valle. Whereas only 23% of the camelid long bones from

Qhataq'asallacta were observed to be unfused (i.e.

juvenile), 51% of these bones from Marcavalle were found in

the unfused state. It is estimated that 30% of the Marca­

valle camelids had died by 1 year of age whereas only 2% of

the Qhataq'asallacta animals had died by this age. Although

there may be a natural biological component included in

these differences, it is probable that these age structures

also reflect differences in husbandry practices between the

two cultures. The Incas of Qhataq'asallacta selected only

"mature ll animal::; that had outlived their cargo carrying or

wool bearing abilities, while the Marcavallenos selected

animals at a more tender age, perhaps for the quality of

their meat.

Whatever the reasons behind these differences in age

216

structure it is important to note how they may have affected

the differential representation of body parts at each site.

Lewis Binford and Jack Bertram, in a recent paper (1977),

have argued that the single most important factor influenc-

ing the survivorship of bones in an archaeological site is

differential density, and that the density of individual

elements increases in a non-allometric fashion with age.

The core of this argument is based on the differential

representation of sheep body parts from two modern Navajo

sites; a winter site in which a high percentage of lambs

were slaughtered, and a summer site represented mostly by

prime adt;lt sheep. In regard to differences between the

archaeological visibility at the two sites the authors say:

It is clear that there are more parts represented by substantial numbers in this [summer] assemblage than was the case for the winter site. The mean survivor­ship estimate is 34.9%, as compared to 20.6% for the winter. Similarly, the 'pattern of anatomical part fre­quency is different. For instance, on the summer site, the most common bone was the distal humerus; on the winter site, the mandible was most common, and the distal humerus was represented by only 32.6% of the animals indicated by mandibles. In short, there is a real structural difference between the recovered popu­lation of bones from the two sites, as well as meaning­ful differences in their overall survivorship (Binford and Bertram, 1977: 100).

The authors then conclude (after the analysis of bone

density data from three sheep with known ages) that:

The only difference between the two samples was in the age structure of the animals exposed to attrition through dog destruction. This observation led to the surmise that differences in the age of the animals

217

exposed to a constant agent of attrition could condi­tion the pattern of survival noted among different ana­tomical parts (Binford and Bertram, 1977: 105).

While this explanation may be justified for the Navajo

sheep data, it appears not to fit the data from Marcavalle

and Qhataq'asallacta. The age structures from these two

sites are certainly dissimilar, and one would expect as

well, using Binford and Bertram's age-related densification

model, that the mean survivorships and structural patterns

of body part survival would be dissimilar. However, the

mean survivorships from the two sites are quite similar

(Marcavalle = 23.4%, Qhataq'asallacta = 21.5%), and as can

be seen in Figure 5-3 and previous discussion, the patterns

of survivorship are very close (cf. Binford and Bertram,

Fig.3.8). I take this to mean that other factors besides

age-related bone densification are responsible for the dif-

ferent patterns of bone survival at the Cuzco sites, and

that many of these factors are cultural in origin.

2) Bone complex differences As a consequence of the

protracted description of the schlepp-effect and the con-

trasts between limb and foot representation, discussion of

the iepresentation of axial elements has been neglected.

The survival of vertebral fragments provides one of the most

dram atic contrasts between the Marcavalle and

218

Qhataq'asallacta assemblages. As presented in ,.,.. .... \...,.-. ., '7 IdU.J..1:: I I

survival rate of vertebral fragments is 42.1% at Marcavalle

(the highest of any bone group) , and 12.8% at

Qhataq'asallacta. Due to the difficulty of identifying

small fragments, the Marcavalle count might be somewhat

inflated because of the erroneous inclusion of a number of

cervid vertebral fragments among the camelid vertebra. But

it is very doubtful that this error factor could account for

a three-fold difference between the two sites. It is more

likely that these frequency differences reflect real differ-

ences in meat/bone usage between the sites, and that for

some reason, fewer vertebral el emen ts arr iv ed at

Qhataq'asallacta. Further examination of Table 11 will also

show that these differences also are reflected by the fact

that only appendicular elements have survived with any regu-

larity at Qhataq'asallacata, and the individual survival

rates of the three appendicular bone complexes is remarkedly

similar (23.1%, 20.5%, 28.5%).

3) Fracture pattern differences It was emphasized in the

previous section or. intra-site variability that the spongy

articulations of the proximal humerus, proximal femur,

distal femur and proximal tibia were fractured longtitudi-

nally with consistently higher frequency at both Marcavalle

and Qhataq'asallacta than were the elements from any other

\ \

219

bone group. However, a point that was not mentioned is tha~

longitudinal fracturing in general is less frequent a~

Qhataq' asallacta. The difference between the two sites -is

particularlyy obvi~us in regard to the marrow-rich artieula­

tions. 56.4% of these bones were fractured longitudinally

at Marcavalle and only 36.5% received .similar treatment at

Qhataq'~sallacta. The reduced e~phasis on this practice,

which was observed to be a function of soup/ stew product.ion

among contemporary herders, may indicate that.

Qhataq'asallacta was not exclusively a h~bitation site, and

that it possessed s~me.more specialized function.

The evidence for specialization is also corroborated by

the fact that fifteen complete unfractured long bones were

found at Qhataq'asallacta (1 humerus, 2 radius-~lnae, 5

metacarpals, 1 femur and 6 metatarsals). This is ·an extreme

rarity for an archaeological assemblage and suggests that

factors other than normal post-consu~ption disposal may have

been responsible for the depo si tion of bones at

Qhataq'asallacta.

4) Bone burning differences In no area is the difference

.betwee.n the treatment of bone at Marcavalle and

.~hat8q'asallacta more salient than in the frequency with

which bone at these two sites wa.s found to be burned. 31.81

of all. camelid bone from Marcavalle was observed to be at

220

least partially burned, while only 4.3% of the camelid bone

fro~ Qhataq'asallacta showed evidence of burning (see Fig­

ure 5-8). Cervid bones from Marcavalle show a similar high

incidence of burning -- 31.7%.

Approximately 60% of the burned bone at Marcavalle is

of the jet black or calcined variety, indicating prolonged

exposure to intense heat. As suggested in Chapter 3, this

type of burning is probably not produced by cooking prac­

tices. It is more likely that it is the result of post­

consumption disposal in hearths where bones, already

stripped of their meat, are expused to hot coals, perhaps

during several separate firings. If this is true, much of

the Marcavalle bone may have been deposited in a similar

fashion to the modern bone from Tuqsaj i.e. as part of ashy

fireplace refuse.

The relative lack of burning at Qhataq'asallacta, on

the other hand, provides yet another piece of evidence for a

specialized, non-habitation function for this site.

5) Maximum dimension of fracture differences Prelim-

inary examination of the Cuzco Valley bones in 1974 gave me

the impression that the Qhataq'asallacta bones were not as

badly fractured as were the Marcavalle bones. In an effort

to quantify this impression and to better understand the

Innominates

Pr. Femora

Ds. Femora

Patellae

Pro Tibiae

Ds. Tibiae

Calcanea

Astragali

Tarsals

Pro Metatarsals

Ds. Metapodials

3° Phalanges

20 Phalanges

10 Phalanges

Pro Metacarpals

Carpals

un

Bll

o o ~

Ds. Radius-UInae~\ ~ I

Pro Radius-UInce ~ Ds. Humeri ~'u

Pro HU1":Jeri if '~~. \ I Scapulae

, , ' ........ -_ ... ' ,

o 0\ (

o co I

o r-. , o

..c I

c U'"l

I

0/0 BURNED

o 1

o C"'"l

I o N I

,

221

c T

/ I

/ , I ........

........

/ /

i \ ~

f

/ .1..... .........

'<

'\ I I I , \

I { \ \

/ /

\ )

( \

c

t"O .u U t"O ...... ...... t"O CI)

t"O

0"" t"O .u t"O

;r. OJ C o

..0

222

relative degree of bone cominution between sites, the max­

imum dimension in millimeters of each specimen was measured.

For complete bones, liKe phalanges and astragali, this was

the maximum anatomical dimension, while for fractured long

bones it was usally the distance from some portion of its

articular surface down the shaft to its broken end. As

illustrated in Figure 5-9 these measurements confirmed my

first impression. With only two exceptions the means of the

maximum dimensions of all Qhataq'asallacta long bone frag­

ments (including metapodials in this case) proved to be

larger than the corresponding means from Marcavalle. While

this increase was observed to be as much as 40%, the mean

increase in size of all bone fragments from Marcavalle to

Qhataq' asallacta was 15.3~. These differences in maximum

dimension were shown to be statistically significant by

means of the student's t-test (p=0.001--0.01).

The lack of severe fracturing at Qhataq'asallacta is

particulary evident among the limb bones from one excavation

unit, structure 03 (see Fig. 4-6). The limb bones from this

unit are remarkedly unfractured. The means of their maximum

dimensions average 35.9% longer than limb bones from Marca­

valle. In all cases the means of the maximum dimensions of

individual bone elements from structure 03 were larger than

the corresponding means from Marcavalle, and only in the

cases of the proximal metacarpal and metatarsal were these

70 =4

60 +

50

• e' 40 o ~ 30 m :xl m 20 Z o rn 10

o-~ \: 7'

10 All frlJgmentll Structure 03 only

t; ~ t:J :.r 1-·1

(II (f) S . 0

'-3 '-'j 7J '>:I 1=1 1-" I.J, C1> C1> rJ. a' a' S S :::1 1-" 1-" 0 0 III (\I III 'i 'i rt-eD CD Il' IU IU

III

'

l . '\

./ /,~=~::; ( ",,-' '--• • j

70

" t60

I \ + I \ 50

/ \ I \ 1\ 1-40

I \ 1\ \ I \ t- 30 \ / \ \ I \ \ I \ t-20

\ / ~ \ I ' t-1O 'y

0

10

20 20-L...~S;:~~~ Figure 5-9 Maximum dimension of fragments comparisons between Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta. Comparisons expressed as percentage of difference (+ or -) between the means of Qhataq'asallacta's maximum dimensions and the means of their Marcavalle counterparts.

I\) I\) LV

224

means slightly smaller than the means from Qhataq'asallacta

taken as a whole (see Fig. 5-9).,

Cultural Differences Between Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta

The gestalt that emerges from the sum of these data is

that the treatment of camelid bone at Marcavalle during the

Early Horizon was quite distinct from its treatment during

Inca times at Qhataq'asallacta. My belief is that these

distinctions are related in part to general cultural dif­

fernces between the early pastoralist/agriculturalist inha­

bitants of the Valley of Cuzco in 1000 B.C. and its occu­

pants under the Inca state in the 15th and 16th centuries

A.D. They also may be related in part to differences in

si te function.

The qualitative attributes of the Marcavalle faunal

assemblage all point toward a normal habitation function for

that site. The treatment of bone here reflects a cultural

pattern reminiscent of that observed in small, modern Andean

communities, such as Tuqsa and Huaycho. Bone is fractured

in a manner designed to provide the most convenient packages

for the cook and the consumer, and to extract the maximum

amount of nutrition. A high percentage of bone is burned,

as if after chewing off the meat the Marcavaleno diners

225

would often toss the bones into the fireplace, later to be

discarded along with the ashes. As is the modern practice,

all parts of the camelid carcass appear to have been util­

ized, for all parts have at least a respectable archaeologi­

cal visibility. It is possible that the specialized func­

tion of charqui manufacture may have contributed to the

unusually high proportion of foot bones and emphasis on

young tender animals. But if this is so, it seems to have

been an ancillary activity to a normal village in which peo­

ple lived and ate and threw out their garbage.

Qhataq'asallacta, on the other hand, does not fit this

image on a number of counts. Bones are not fractured in a

manner consistent with a frugal Andean meat consummer. The

fragments are both unusually large, in terms of maximum

dimension, and show a decreased emphasis on the longitud inal

splitting of articular ends. The Incas of Qhataq'asallacta

evidently were not as interested in extracting marrow from

bones or in producing chunks of meat convenient for the fam­

ily stew pot as were their Early Horizon ancestors or their

20th century descendants. Bones are rarely burned at

Qhataq'asallacta. They did not filter through the fireplace

as they did at Marcavalle. All parts of the carcass were

not consumed regularly at the Inca site. Both cranial and

vertebral elements are relatively infrequent here. The

emphasis was on the appendicular bones of the legs and feet.

226

Finally, the Qhataq'asallacata bones came from relatively

old animals, ones probably selected not because they pro­

vided prime cuts of meat, but because they had outlived

their other functions.

I suspect that only the age structure factor was normal

for most Inca sites. One would expect that in the tightly

organized Inca state the slaughter and consumption of llamas

and alpacas normally would be reserved for those animals

that had already served out their tours of duty in the wool

producing or carrgo carying herds. Normally, it would be a

waste of resources to slaughter a young animal for just its

meat. Although there is no specific mention of this matter

of old versus young meat, the chronicles do refer to the

existence of mature herds composed Qf camel ids called

aporucos (Cobo, 1964:209); Tschudi, 1969:122). The

Qhataq'asallacta bones may have come largely from aporucos.

In contrast, the relative lack of burning and fracture,

and the emphasis on appendicular bones, impresses me as spe­

cialized, rather than standardized Inca attributes. It is

aparent that a large proportion of the Qhataq'asallacta

bones did not pass through the same taphonomic consumption

filters as those from Marcavalle. If we posit, for the

moment, that the majority of these bones were not deposited

at the site as normal food refuse, then what other tapho-

nomic pathways might lie

possible pathways occur

227

behind their deposition? Three

to me. None alone fits all the

known facts about Qhataq'asallacta. But bearing in mind that

we are dealing in speculation, elements of all three may

comprise the explanation for these pheno~ena.

1) The bones found at Qhataq'asallacta could be the

product of consumption, but consumption of a rather special­

ized sort. The high degree of bone fracturing observed at

Tuqsa and Huaycho (and presumably Marcavalle) is the product

of preparation for family consumption and for cooking in

family-size pots. Cooking on a more institutional scale

would not necessarily be subjected to the same constraints.

Pots could be larger and, therefore, joints of meat could be

larger. Is it possible that Qhataq'asallacta served such an

institutional or communal function? I leave you to consider

the image of Qhataq'asallacta as an Inca army garrison with

a common mess and army-size meat rations.

2) Previous to its excavation in 1972-73

Qhataq'asallacta was commonly thought to have been an Inca

storage

Despite

center (John

the ceramic

H. Rowe,

evidence

personal communication).

for habitation unearthed by

Gonzales and Arnold, the site still may have functioned in

part as a storage center. If this was true, it is not

inconceivable that one of the stored items was dried meat,

228

charqui. During the modern production of charqui meat/bone

packages are not fractured as in consumption fracturing.

The carcass is dismembered, but bones are left largely

intact for drying. Not until they are utilized later in

soup/stew or other dishes are the initial dried meat/bone

packages fractured into convenient chunks. If this, or a

practice in which long bones were merely halved, was in

effect for Inca char qui manufacture, the large number of

minimally fractured and complete bones at Qhataq'asallacta

may represent charqui joints stored for later use in Cuzco

or for shipment to the provinces. Structure 03 in particu­

lar may represent such a charqui warehouse. Some of the

meat stored in these warehouses may have spoiled and never

have been consumed at all.

This explanation, of course, does not fit the large

number of foot bones nor the scarcity of vertebra at

Qhataq'asallacta. To explain this anomaly we must examine a

third possible pathway.

3) It will be remembered from Chapter 3

manufacture of bone tools is a relatively

activity in the southern highlands of Peru today.

not the case, however, during the Late Horizon.

that the

unimportant

This was

The Incas

made a wide variety of functional and decorative items from

bone. Museum collections demonstrate that these ranged from

229

weaving instruments to cross-beam balances to hair combs to

pendants. As far as can be determined, the great majority

of these items were manufactured from the shafts of long

bones.

We would expect a site that possessed such a craft spe­

cialization to show a disproportionate number of appendicu­

lar bones useful in tool manufacture, to show a large number

of minimally altered bones that would have been used as tool

blanks, to show a high proportion of worked bone discards,

and generally to show a pattern anomalous to a post­

consumption assemblage. Qhataq'asallacta satisfies nearly

all of these expectations.

The relative scarcity of head parts and vertebra may

indicate their lack of utility in tool manufacturing. Con­

versely, the abundance of appendicular elements may reflect

desirability of these bones for tool manufacture. Metapo­

dial fragments are especially frequent at Qhataq'asallacta

(survival percentage -- proximal metacarpal = 33.7%; proxi­

mal metatarsal = 29.2%; distal metapodials = 49.7%). This

may reflect the fact that these elements have long, straight

shafts which are very useful as tool blanks. The man ufac-

ture of flat and straight tool blanks, or perhaps awls, may

explain why proximal metacarpals and proximal metatarsals

are the only bones from structure 03 that have mean maximum

~-.-.-- .

230

dimensions belo~'l the 1 evel of Qhataq' asallacta as a whole

(see fig. 5-9 ). These proximal metapodials may represent a

concentration of blanks from that structure.

In contrast to thts relatively high degree of fragmen­

tation: eleven of the fifteen complete bones found at

Qhataq'asallacta were metapodials. In this regard, one may

recall the discussion of wichuf'ia manufacture and trade in

Chapter 3. Similar weaving implements are known from Inca

collections, although the archaeological specimens show that

the distal condyles were used as the handle rather than the

mode~n use of the proximal end.

The only aspect of this tool manufacture model which

does not fit the Qhataq'asallacta data is the matter of

numbers of bone tool discards. Only 58 (0.79%) of the total

numbe~ of bones at Qhataq'asallacta could be classed as

definite tools, or as possibly worked. The proportion of

worked bone is actually higher at Marcavalle, where no such

model appeared appropriate.

My ab il i ty to interpret this discrepancy is hampered b-Y'

the fact that this feature of the data only became apparent

to me after returning to the United States and I was unable

to double check the bones. My lack of knowledge concerning

other aspects of the excavation is also a disadvantage. It

may be that obvious bone artifacts were stored separately

231

from the un-modified faunal remains and that the percentage

of modified bone would be increased to a respectable level

by their addition. Likewise, it may be possible that an

activity area devoted to bone tool manufacture lies unexca­

vated at Qhataq'asallacta,6 and that the excavated remains

represent merely the castaways from the fringes of the

activity center.

Ultimately, a final interpretation concerning the char-

acter of the Qhataq'asallacta assemblage can be made only

after we posses a much more complete set "i: well-documented

faunal samples from the Andes. The stud y 0 f faunal attri-

butes such as differential representation, fracture pat­

terns, burning and activityy area concentrations requires

careful excavation and patient analysis. However, the

results, in terms of knowledge of human behavior, are well

worth the effort and until such time as we have such a store

of comparative data our interpretations can be little more

than speculations.

Chapter 6

SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

Numerous zooarchaeological investigations in the Old

World and North America have demonstrated that studies of

differential representation of body parts and studies of

other qualitative features of archaeological bone can pro­

vide a revealing window into ancient human behavior. The

success of studies in these areas suggests the overlooked

potential of similar research in regard to the Andean

camelids. Enthusiasm concerning this possibility must be

tempered, however, by the knowledge that recent paleontolog­

ical studies in the field of taphonomy indicate that fossil

bone assemblages are most often the result of a multitude of

biological and physical forces, and, by extension, that

archaeological models that attribute bone survival to unil­

ineal causes are probably over-simplified Thus, it is more

appropriate and in accordance with taphonomic theory to view

the progression of bone from the living animal to the

analysis table as a pathway and the factors which could

affect the destruction or survival of a particular bone as

filters or obstacles along this path.

An intuitive model of the general taphonomic pathway

and factors (filters) is presented in Figure 1-2 (p.17).

This model was conceived prior to entering the

provided an outline of testable hypotheses.

233

field and

One of the

primary goals of the fieldwork was an attempt to flesh out

this outline by observation of bone treatment among Andean

pastoralists and to test the derived ethnographic model

against archaeological data from the same geographic area.

Fieldwork took place in three communities of alpaca and

llama herders in the southern highlands of Peru (Tuqsa,

Huaycho and La Raya) and consisted of observation, inter-

view, controlled consumption experiments and experimentation

on bone density. Although it leaves no direct imprint in

the the archaeological record, one of the slaughter methods -

employed by modern Andean butchers is quite unusual and

demonstrates an important cultural link with the ethnohis­

torical past. This method is called ch'illa in modern

Quechua and involves killing the animal

abdominal incision and a manual breaking of

by means 0 f an

the ascend ing

aorta where it leaves the heart. For a number of reasons,

including a 16th or 17th century description and illustra­

tion by Fel~pe Guaman Poma de Ayala, the ch'illa appears to

be an indigenous technique of camelid slaughter dating at

least to the Inca period and is probably a unique Andean

invention. The importance of the ch'illa to the archaeolo­

gist is that its continuity through a minimum of six centu­

ries of Andean culture history suggests that other camelid

234

husbandry practices also may have been little changed by

Spanish influence, and, therefore, that ethnoarchaeological

research in this area can expect a greater degree of relia­

bility than in other areas lacking this documented con­

tinuity.

tend

In regard to

to treat

butchery, contemporary alpaca butchers

bone rather gently during the initial

dismemberment phase. In contrast, the production of con­

sumption units prior to cooking is quite destructive to

bone. This statement is particularly true of the less dense

articular surfaces of the proximal humerus, proximal femur,

distal femur and proximal tibia vlhich are always split long­

itudinally in order to expose their marrow-rich contents in

soups-stews. It is interesting that these four elements are

also the least dense bones of the appendicular skeleton, a

fact which would increase their vulnerability to taphonomic

stress. These observations suggest that the archaeological

consequence of the observed ethnographic and density situa­

tions would be a much reduced rate of survival for spongy

long bone fragments as compared to denser elements in the

camelid skeleton.

In addition to butchery and consumption factors there

are a number of other cultural factors contributing to the

character of bone assemblages in modern Andean communities.

235

These and the previously mentioned aspects of butchery are

described in Chapter 3 as factors of cultural taphonomy, but

in a wider theoretical context they may be viewed as

specific zooarchaeological influences within the realm of

what Michael Schiffer calls cultural site formation

processes, or c-transforms (Schiffer, 1977). These tapho­

nomic factors or processes include such phenomena as the

production of bone tools, the use of bones in children's

games and toys, the role of scavengers on bone survival, the

effects of bone burning, the special treatment of the bones

form ceremonially sacrificed camel ids, the influence of

individual styles of housekeeping and/or trash disposal and

the role of dried meat (charqui) trading from high altitude

pastoral zones to low altitude agricultu~al zones. All the

processes observed in the field operate within the dynamic

cultural system (S-S processes in the obscure language of

Schiffer) and affect the formation of the archaeological

record by means of destruction, alteration and redistribu­

tion of bone materials. A diagramatic summary of these fac­

tors and the taphonomic pathway in which they are involved

is presented in Figure 3-3, p.102.

The overall impression gained from the ethnographic

fieldwork is that, although all the factors seen in Figure

3-3 could contribute to the formation of Andean archaeologi­

cal sites, two factors seem to exert greater influence on

236

the differing character of Andean faunal assemblages than

all the rest. These two factors, differential bone destruc­

tion due to marrow extraction and differential bone distri­

bution due to charqui trade, appear to posses the potential

for significantly altering the frequencies of camelid skele­

tal elements found in archaeological sites. The effect of

marrowing is quite straightforward and its archaeological

consequence (reducing the archaeological visibility of

marrow-rich articular ends) has been mentioned above. The

effect of charqui trade is equally simple -- prime char qui

cuts (legs, vertebrae, ribs) are traded away from the pro-

duction site, producing an archaeological

reCipient area heavily weighted toward trunk

sample in the

and leg ele-

ments and a sample in the production zone skewed toward head

and foot elements (see Figure 5-7, p.212).

The analysis of three faunal samples from the Valley of

Cuzco provides a test of the hypothesis that these tapho­

nomic factors were operating during the prehistoric past and

can be detected archaeologically. Unfortunately, however,

the central topic of camelid differential representation is

dependent upon a number of methodological issues which,

though unanticipated in the original research outline, serve

to uncover sev~ral inconsistencies in previous zooarchaeo­

logical methods and have the positive effect of inducing

more precise thinking in their regard. One such issue

237

involves the calculation of minimt..'Ill numbers of individuals

for the camelids and other secondary species. Most reported

attempts to employ this method of estimating species abun­

dance have failed to state explicit criteria for MNI calcu­

lations. One problem involves the use of biometric compari­

sons between rights and lefts of the same element in order

to demonstrate non-matches and hence to increase the minimum

number of individuals. This procedure has been discussed by

Chapl in (1971) but the probl em 0 f b il ateral v ar iation

between right and left elements of the same animal has never

been addressed. Until a thorough zoological investigation

into the phenomenon of bilateral variation is conducted, the

application of biometric comparisons to the calculation of

MNIs should be considered to have questionable validity.

Another problem inherent in MNI calculations is the

definition of intra-site refuse disposal spheres within

~lhich various elements from an individual animal might be

found. MNI numbers are estimates at best, but their inaccu­

racy is only compounded by ignoring the problem of possible

mixing of bones from different cultural periods or

butchery/consumption areas.

Numerous authors have commented on the necessity of

converting MNI estimates to weights of usable meat for indi­

vidual species. Attempts to do this with the Andean fauna

238

is complicated by the fact that, although the four species

of camelids yield different quantities of meat, they are not

easily distinguished on osteological grounds. In analyzing

the camelid bones from the Cuzco Valley sites biometric

techniques were utilized in order to "identify" the species

involved. The measurement of a large sample (n=71) of com-

parative camelid skeletons from La Raya and elsewhere per-

mitted refinement of techniques pioneered by Elizabeth Wing.

These techniques are based on a size gradient among the

camelid species and allow the osteometric discrimination of

three groups of Andean camelids (alpacas + vicunas, llamas

and guanacos). These discrimination techniques were util-

ized to "identify" a sample of unknown camelid bones from

Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta and to demonstrate that Mar-

cavalle was reliant on la!'ge camelids than was

Inca Qhataq'asallacta where alpacas appear to have formed a

significant portion of the population. By combining the

resulting percentages of large and small camelids at Marca-

valle and Qhataq'asallacta with the previously derived MNI

information an estimate of weight of usable meat from each

camelid can be made. Although somewhat more complicated

than previously reported methods of estimating the relative

abundance of Andean species, the weight of usable meat

method is essential in this culture area where food animals

range in size from the 115 kg. guanaco to the 1 kg. cuy.

239

These methodological considerations, although important

in their otm right, are secondary to the central focus of

the study of archaeological differential representation of

c3melid body parts in light of ethnoarchaeological observa­

tions. Differential representation at Marcavalle and

Qhataq'asallacta was calculated using a new method designed

to compensate for the longitudinal fracturing of long bone

articulations so common in Andean sites. In summary, this

method involves the calculation of probable numbers of

recognizable fragments (PNRF) for each skeletal element, the

calculation of expected numbers of fragments (ONF) and

finally the calculation of the percentage of fragments which

survive the taphonomic journey. This method represents

accurately the survival of individual skeletal elements

regardless of the degree of longitudinal fracturing at the

site, and, therefore allows more valid inter-site compari-

sons of bone survival than other methods now in use.

Details of the procedure of this method are discussed in

Chapter 5.

While a number of interesting points emerge from

analysis of the Cuzco differential representation and other

qualitative bone data the major tendencies can be subsumed

under the general categories: 1) tendencies which appear to

be the same at both Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta and may

be reflections of a general Andean cultural pattern, and 2)

240

tendencies which differ between the two sites and probably

reflect differences in site function.

1) In support of the relevance of ethnoarchaeological

analogy and the direct historical approach the data demon­

strate a strong correlation between ancient bone fracture

patterns and their modern counterparts. The fracture pat­

tern of bones observed in the Cuzco Valley assemblages

easily could have been produced by the contemporary butchers

of communities like Tuqsa. Ynis correlation is especially

evident in relatively unacculurated communities, where a

high degree of cultural continuity is inferred, and less so

in areas of major Hispanic influence.

With regard to differential representation, the most

salient feature of both the Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta

bone assemblages is the predominance of foot bones over leg

bones. This phenomenon also has been observed in the Old

World among large ungulates such as bison and has been

explained as the result of the "schlepp effect." For a

variety of reasons, the most important of which deal with

the smaller body size of the South American camelids, this

explanatory model is inappropriate to the Andean situation.

The high survival rate of camelid podial ela~ents is

entirely consistent with practices observed in Tuqsa and

Huaycho and ethnoarchaeological hypotheses generated from

241

the study of bone treatment in these communities.

The principal causative factors behind the preponder­

ance of camelid foot bones at Marcavalle and

Qhataq'asallacta seem to be: a) differential damage to long

bones as a result of marrow extraction and hence their

reduced archaeological visibility, and b) the charqui effect

which would tend to have redistributed leg bones away from

these high altitude sites (see Figure 5-7). This explana­

tion is corroborated by the documented over-representation

of leg bones at Kotosh (Wing, 1972), a low altitude site

most likely receiving charqui cuts from the puna zone.

2) Despite the similarity of foot versus leg frequen­

cies at Marcavalle and Qhataq'asallacta there are clear

indications from the bone samples that the two sites were

formed in distinct manners. Both the fracture and burning

patterns observed at Marcavalle indicate that the faunal

assemblage was formed through the normal discard of food

refuse at a habitation site, probably in a midden. Judging

by the frequency and degree of burning, as well as compari­

sons with the Tuqsa ethnoarchaeological sample, it appears

that much of the bone may have passed through the fire

hearth.

In contrast, fracture pattern; maximum dimension of

fracture, epiphyseal fusion data and burning evidence at

242

Qhataq'asallacta suggest that the faunal assemblage at this

Inca site is not the product of normal occupational refuse,

but rather the result of a set of more specialized ancient

behaviors. However, no single explanatory model appears to

fit all the features of the Qhataq'asallaota assemblage~

hence a combination of three behavioral patterns seems indi­

cated. These ancient behaviors may have included:

a) the use of Qhataq'asallacta as a storage center

which included facilities for the storage of charqui. Aban­

doned or spoiled charqui cuts would explain part~ally the

infrequent burning and relatively low degree of cominution

of Qhataq'asallacta bones.

b) the possible presence at Qhataq'asallacta of commu­

nal cooking facilities as may have existed to support the

Inca army. The bone treatment behavior implicit in such

facilities would account partially for the large maximum

dimension of fracture statistics at the site and the dis­

similarity of t.he fracture pattern to that of known consump­

tion assemblages.

c)the use of at least a portion of Qhataq'asallacta as

a workshop for the production of bone tools. Such bone work­

ing would tend to explain the large number of minimally

fractured bones as well as the large proportion of metapodi­

also These bones could have been intended as tool blanks

243

but never utilized. Tool manufacture also would explain the

relative scarcity of head and vertebral parts at the site.

These bones would not be as desirable for tool production as

long, straight limb bones and metapodials.

Recommendations for Future Research

In general the results of this study must be viewed as

encouraging. For the first time the use of ethnoarchaeolog­

ical investigations has been demonstrated as an important

tool for the generation of explanatory hypotheses and the

elucidation of processes of site formation in the Andes.

Ethnoarchaeological analogs derived from modern Andean herd­

ing communities appear to be especially useful due to the

evidence for strong cultural continuity between modern puna

residents and their ethnohistoric (and perhaps prehistoric)

counterparts.

In addition, it is clear that the role of archaeologi­

cal bones from Andean sites need not continue to be limited

to that of "ecofacts", mere indicators of ancient environ­

ment and diet, but rather should be regarded as "natural

monuments", accurate reflectors of intricate patterns of

past human activity. The bone data from Marcavalle and

Qhataq'asallacta, in light of ethnoarchaeological analogy,

are certainly tantalizing. This is especially true in regard

244

to differential representation frequencies and their pro­

posed explanation in the charqui effect.

Finally, this study has resulted in a basic outline of

the Andean taphonomy system in which a series of taphonomic

filters or processes are detailed. This outline should be

an aid to all Andean archaeologists as a first step in

understanding site formation in this culture area.

However, it would be completely unjustified at this

point to suggest that this study does more than uncover the

potential for ethnoarchaeological investigations and for the

detailed analysis of qualitative features of Andean faunal

samples. In the view of the author, the principal utility

of this study and the fieldwork that preceded it is as a

suggestion, a hint of future work to be done. The next step

should be to attempt to place these ethnoarchaeological

observations within the context of a thorough study of

Andean site formation and the formulation of explicit propo­

sitions governing both natural and cultural site formation

processes in this extremely variable environment. Without

such explicit propositions the cultural patterning of faunal

remains discussed here will continue to tease the archaeolo­

gist, while always witholding the degree of confidence which

this valuable subject matter deserves.

ENDNOTES

Chapter 1

[1J The lOhg, open-rooted incisors of this species are sig-

nificantly different from the shorter, closed-rooted

situation among the other three species. In addition,

the vicuna tends to have enamel on only the labial sur-

face of the incisors, while the others p~esent this

feature on both the lingual and labial surfaces. These

dental differences have played an important role

assignment of the vicuna to a separate genus in most

classificatory schemes.

These criteria are not infallible, however, and I

have examined a number of alpaca skulls with incisors

that could easily be confused with those of a vicuna.

[2J The provenience of the vicunas was not originally La

Raya. The carcasses of three adult animals were

obtained from Cala Cala, a former hacienda northeast of

Puno specializing in vicuna breeding and now admin-

istered by the Peruvian Ministry of Agriculture. For a

number of years the former owner of Cala Cala was

engaged in breeding vicunas with alpacas. Recently,

consciencious attempts to eliminate alpaca genes from

[3]

246

the herd have been made, but alpaca characteristics

continue to surface in some individuals. The three

animals which I received from Cala Cala had been evis­

cerated and dried, so I was unable to observe their

outward physical characteristics. However, I was

assured by the administrator of Cala Cala that the

animals were phenotypically vicuna and had no alpaca

features.

The other vicu!"!a: a juvenile, carne from an

hacienda near Cuzco.

stock.

It was of unequivocally pure

The faunal remains recovered

presently on loan to

in thi s ex c av ation

the Laboratorio

is

de

Paleoetnozoologfa, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San

Marco s in Lim a.

Chapter 2

[1] Henceforth I will follow the convention of underlining

Quechua words. Spanish words and phrases will be

inclosed in quotation marks.

247

[2J While interviewing camelid herders in the southern

sierra several were reluctant to admit any knowledge of

the dorsal stab method and/or made veiled, joking

references to some type of "sacrificio de noche"

(nighttime slaughter). However, they would provide no

details. The immediate and silent effect of the dorsal

stab, of course, would be ideal for rustlers working

the dead of night, especially in the furtive pakaylla

type of rustling (Orlove, 1973:70). In such a situa­

tion the ability to remove the animal noiselessly is of

paramount importance.

[3J I translate the text which appears above the drawing as

follows: Indians who kill a camelid. Butchers as in

the time of idolatry stick in the hand to the right of

the heart. One should not slaughter a camelid in this

manner, but rather, as in these Christian times, should

slit the throat of the camelid. For it is witchcraft

and idolatry to slaughter in the ancient manner, and

the Indians of this land that do it should be punished

(Guaman Poma, 1936: 880 [894J.

[4J Guaman Porna's illustration is slightly in error in

regard to the anatomy of the animal. Despite the fact

that the text states that "mete la mano al derecho del

corazon" (he sticks in his hand to the right of the

248

heart) the illustrated butcher has his hand in the left

side of the animal. Also his hand is directed away

from the heart in the direction of the abdominal cav-

ity. In addition the incision is much higher on the

side of the thorax than is the actual case.

The 19th century German traveller, Johann von

Tschudi, also mentions this method of camelid sacrifice

and asserts that "Sacrific ial llamas were sheared

because the long dense wool would have impeded the

knife (tumi) of stone or copper which made the cut on

the left side of the chest" (Tschudi, 1965:131).

[5J An exception to this statement is a reported Chumbivil-

cas marriage rite in which the groom must make a

ch'illa- like incision in a black lamb and pullout its

still beating heart. The number of palpitations are

then counted for the purpose of divination. This prac-

tice, however, is patently ritualistic and not the true

utilitarian ch'illa.

[6J The translation of this Spanish passage and others that

follow are my own.

[7J "Alquible" is probably a hispanization of "toward qib-

lah", the direction in which Muhammadans look when

praying (Hastings, 1926:30).

249

[8J Without comment a list of the practices I observed is

as follows: a) the ch'illa is sometimes accompanied by

the cermony of tinkay, toasting the local apus (moun­

tain spirits) with beer, wine or 40% alcohol. At other

times it is much more businesslike and no ceremony is

performed; b) the slaughtered animal is sometimes

covered with a poncho in order that the other members

of the herd do not become excited (Plate 9); c) an

offering of coca is sometimes made to the spirit of the

dead animal immediately followings its slaughter and

butchery (Plate 10); d) in Tuqsa it was claimed that

both Tuesday and Fridays were unlucky days for the

ch'illa.

[9J The side that is skinned first is dependent on both

handedness and style.

[10J On both etymological and historical grounds the origin

of yawarsalchi is probably hispanic. Salchicha is the

Spanish word for sausage. The only dietary use of

camelid blood noted in the chronicles was for yawar

sankhu, a kind of bread made from maize and camelid

blood. Yawar sankhu was received on ceremonial occa­

sions in a manner similar to the Eucharist and was

designed to symbolically unite the recipient and the

Inca.

250

[11] Considerable care is taken to maintain the rib heads

intact during this process. This is done so that the

individual vertebrae will not be difficult to separate

into portions of meat during the process of consump­

tion.

[12] These bones had been lying on the surface of the ground

for varying lengths of time, and consequently had lost

varying amounts of organic matter. This factor may

cloud the exactness of these determinations to some

degree. However, there is no reason to believe that

anyone element received differential exposure as com­

pared to any other element.

[13] The high specific gravities of the metapodial elements

may be due in part to the inclusion of a sUbstantial

part of the very dense shaft along with the epiphysis.

Shaft fragment specific gravities from the other long

bones ranged between 2.03 and 2.33.

[14] The data from these three sources are not completely

comparable. Information for some bone elements of the

wildebeeste and moose is missing or somewhat ambiguous.

The complete fusion of the radius and ulna in the

llama/alpaca differs from the situation in the wilde­

beeste and moose. Thus, radius-ulna in the wildebeeste

and moose columns should be read as only the radius.

251

Chapter 1

(1] The term ruk'i is more commonly used in the Cuzco area.

(2] The opposite end of the metapodials apparently is used

in the Cuzco area.

(3] This is a compromise term. It is most likely that the

Incas sacrificed both llamas and alpacas. It is clear

that only domesticated species were utilized for sacri­

fice (Cobo, 1964: Book XIII, Chap. XX, 201), however,

the chroniclers do not make a clear distinction between

them. The Spanish conquerors and later immigrants,

encountering a group of strange animals which bore some

vague resemblance to European sheep applied the terms

"carnero", "cordero'!, "oveja1l, and "ganado" to the

domesticated camel ids with no clear attempt to dif­

ferentiate between llamas and alpacas. Apparently both

Molina and Cobo were aware of the difference between

the two animals, but do not carry the distinction

through their descriptions of sacrifice. In his sec­

tion on natural history, Cobo defines two kinds of car­

nero: the "carnero raso" is a beast 0 f burd en and larg e

( = llama or Lama glama), the "carnero 1 anudo" or "paco"

is smaller and valued for its fine wool (= alpaca or

Lama pacos) (Cobo, 1964: Book IX, Chap. LVII, 366).

252

But unfortunately, Cobo neglects to use "raso" or

"lanudo" consistently in the rest of his text.

Molina lists a number of native categories of

camelids, in which both llamas and alpacas are men­

tioned, but most categories refer to color quality and

some may overlap the two taxonomic species.

Therefore, there is no foolproof way of distin­

guishing between llamas and alpacas in the chronicles,

and "camelid" should be read in this section as incor­

porating the possibility of either llama or alpaca.

[4] Kamay is Januz.t y according to Polo de Ondegardo and

December accc~~c. :.'. ;": to Mol ina. However, Polo's account

is earlier, acc0r~ing to John Rowe, and represents a

better understanding of the Inca calendar. Kamay was

roughly equivalent to January in the Julian calendar,

but 10 days behind the Gregorian calendar which was

adopted in 1582. This lack of synchronization between

the two calendars and different times of authorship may

account for the confusion in terminology. (John H.

Rowe, personal communication).

[5] Molina is more specific in this instance. He calls the

first river "Capimayo or Guacapancomayo", which flows

down some ravines above Cuzco (Molina, 1943:64). These

names are probably equivalent to 9apimayo ( = river of

253

the shrine of zaphi in the Quebrada of Saphi (Cobo,

1956: Book XIII, Chap. XIII, 173) and to Guacapuncomayo

( = river of the shrine-doorway; a name given to the

entrance of the Quebrada de Saphi) (John H. Rowe, per-

sonal communication). These are obviously ancient

names for the Huatanay River which conforms to these

descriptions and joins the Tullumayo River about 1.5

kilometers below the plaza.

[6] This is a misspelling of Pumachupa (the puma's tail)

which is the section of the city formed by the conflu-

ence of the Huatanay and Tullumayo Rivers.

[7] This is the Spanish spelling of this word. The correct

Quechua spelling is "ch'arki".

Chapter 4

[1] This spelling of the site name, "Qhataq' asallacta", is

the one originally provided me by Jos~ Gonzales. An

alternate spelling which is more orthographically con-

sistent with other Quechua spellings found in this

dissertation is "Qhata-q'asallaqta".

254

[2J Unfortunately this goal proved to be unreasonably

optimistic and in some cases more general categories

(eg. Large Mammal Indeterminate, Artiodactyl Indeter­

minate) had to be used.

[3J Only the identifiable bones were studied from this

site.

[4J In order to be consistent I have utilized White's esti­

mate of 50% of usable meat for the ungulates. Published

estimates of camelid usable meat yield, however, are

somewhat higher. Raedeke (1974:4) estimates a 53%

yield for guanacos, and Fernandez-Baca (1971:13) calcu­

lates a 60% yield for alpacas. Hence; 50% may be on the

conservative side.

[5J I have decided on 115 kilos as the average live weight

based on a compromise between the Tierra del Fuego

guanacos which Raedeke claims to be extremely large

(ave. 125 kilos) and the much smaller figure provided

by Gilmore (75-100 kilos) .

[6J Data taken from 8 adult llamas (2 males, 6 females) for

which I was able to record the weights in La Raya.

[7J The majority of the measurements which I took were the

same as those illustrated by Wing (1972:330), and those

which I include here are identical, although differing

255

in their letter designations.

[8] Although the comparative llama sample is not extremely

large it contains at least two individuals which

residents of La Raya claimed were some of the largest

llamas they had ever seen. Likewise the majority of the

comparative guanacos came from Tierra del Fuego where

they are reported to range ~~ high as 149 kilos.

[9J For purposes of calculating the weight of usable meat

it is sufficient to present the percentages of small

and large camelids. However, several intriguing prob­

lems which must be left for future research shGuld at

least be commented upon at this point. The rather

small percentage of small camel ids at Marcavalle is

substantiated independently by Elizabeth Wing's step­

wise discriminant analysis of 109 camelid bone measure­

ments taken on astragali, calcanea, distal humeri, and

distal tibiae from Karen Mohr-Chavez's 1966 exccavation

at the same site. On the basis of this sample Wing

judged 19.3% of the Marcavalle camelids to be from the

small category (after Wing, 1973). Although published

data are inadequate for definite conclusion, this low

frequency of small camel ids at Marcavalle may be typi­

cal of Early Horizon sites in the southern sierra north

of the Titicaca Basin, and may be related to a more

recent domestication of alpacas than llamas, and/or a

slower spread of alpacas into sub-puna environments. A

similar low frequency of small camelids (22.8%) is seen

at another Early Horizon site, Piki-kalli-pata, located

some 70 miles south of Cuzco at approximately the same

altitude and in the same type of environment as Marca­

valle (from Wing, 1973).

In contrast, almost 40% of the camelids from

Qhataq' asallacta are small and are most probably alpa­

cas (based on the expectation of a predominance of

domesticated camelids from a site located in the capi­

tal of the Inca Empire). That such a percentage of

small camel ids may be typical of Late Horizon sites is

sugg ested by (.ling's anal ys i s 0 f the camel id bones from

the Inca site of Tarma in the central highlands where

she calculated 48.2% (N=166) of the camelids to be from

the small category (after \oiling, 1973).

[10] Based on an averaging of alpaca and vicuna weights.

[11] Based on an averaging of taruka and white-tailed deer

weights.

[12] Alpaca weight -- based on the assumption that the great

majority of Qhataq' asallacata small camel ids are alpa­

cas.

257

[13J This category includes small bird, reptile, and amphi­

bian bones that could not be identified more specifi­

cally than class.

[14J This figure is a rough averaging of the weights of all

four camelids. This weight estimate is thus based

entirely on size.

[15J The breakdown of the camelids into 90% large and 10%

small is based on my interpretation of information pro­

vided by Wing (1972,1973). It is meant to bE only a

rough estimate.

[16J I have used here the figure of 36.5 kilos/individual

cervid based on an averaging of taruka and white-tailed

deer weights. However, if the smaller brocket deer is

really a significant part of the cervid sample from

Kotosh, the weight of usable meat/individual cervid

would be reduced further,thus altering the

cervid/camelid ratio again.

Chapter 5

{1J Although it is far beyond the province of this disser­

tation to discuss non-Andean faunas, it is interresting

to note that Binford's recent work with Alaskan ~aribou

indicates that their front quarters are acourate indi-

258

cators of poor nutrition, and that for this reason they

are less desirable after the rigors of winter (Binford

and Bertr am, 1977: 83 ) . Thus, Read's inter pr etation 0 f

reindeer differential representation may be complicated

by factors of seasonality.

[2J In this regard it seems even more unlikely that prehis-

toric hunters would have found it necessary to schlepp

small brocket deer. Thomas Lynch has recently sug-

gested that the abundance of brocket foot bones at Gui-

tarrero Cave in the northern Peruvian highlands can be

explained by the inhabitants having carried the meat

back to the home base in the hide with the feet still

attached (Lynch,1978:476)

[3J In the future, a possibly more objective method of

analyzing fracture pattern data would be to quantify

the length, orientation and angle of the fracture by

means of measurements.

[4J The total number of bones presented in this table is

less than in Tables 15 and 16 because fracture pattern

data was not recorded for some excavation units.

It has been suggested (Karen Mohr-Chavez, personal com-

munication) that Marcavalle's location on the shore of

the the Rfo Cachimayo (salt river) would make it an

259

ideal locale for char qui production, if the modern

method of using salt to dry the meat were followed.

However, there is no ethnohistorical evidence to indi-

cate that salt was used as a drying agent in ancient

times. Bernab~ Cobo catalogues many other uses for

sal t (Cobo, 1964:Book III, Chap I iT . , 112-113) and

describes charqui manufacture during Inca times (Cobo,

1964:Book XII, Chap XXX, 126) but does not mention the

use of salt in the preparation of charqui. It seems

unlikely that such a useful technique would have been

utilized in Cuzco in the Early Horizon and then forgot-

ten by Inca times.

[6J The structure 03 bone data, although a provocative

indication of an activity area of some kind, cannot be

labelled conclusively as such until a thorough compari-

son can be made with the ceramic data. This evidence

is further clouded by the fact that I received nine of

the Qhataq'asallacta bone level bags with their pro-

venience tags missing. Some of these bags could have

corne from structure 03, and their contents might alter

the picture.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acosta, Jos~ de Historia natural y moral de las Indias [1589J. Biblioteca de Autores Espanoles, Tomo 73, pp. 1-247. Madrid.

Arriaga, Pablo Jos~ de 1910 Extirpacidn de la idolatra en el Peru

[1621J. Edicidn facsimilar de una copia de la edicidn de 1621 encontrada en la Biblioteca Nacional de Parfs por Enrique Pena. Buenos Aires.

Binford, Lewis R. and Bertram, Jack B. 1977 Bone frequencies--and attritional processes. In For

Theory Building in Archaeology, Lewis R. Binford, ed., pp.77-153. Academic Press. New York.

Bonnichsen, Robson 1973 Some operational aspects of human and animal bone

alteration. In Mammalian Osteo-Archaeology:North America. B. Miles Gilbert, ed., Missouri Archaeo­logical Society, pp.9-24. Columbia. Society, pp. 9-24. Columbia.

Behrensmeyer, A.K. 1975 The taphonomy and paleoecology of Plio-Pleistocene

vertebrate assemblages east of Lake Rudolf, Kenya. Bulletin of Museum of Comparative Zoology, vol. 146, no. 10, pp.473-578. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Brain, 1969

1967

C.K. The contribution of Namib desert Hottentots to an understanding of australopithecine bone accumula­tions. Scientific Papers of the Namib Desert Re­search Station, no.39. Pretoria, South Africa.

Hottentot food remains and their bearing on the interpretation of fossil bone assemblages. Scienti­fic Papers of the Namib Desert Research Station, no. 32. Pretoria, South·Africa.

261

Bridges, E. Lucas 1948 uttermost part of the earth. Hodder and Stroughton.

London.

Casteel, Richard W. 1971 Differential bone destruction: some comments.

American Antiquity, vol. 36, no. 4, pp.466-469. D.C.

Chaplin, Raymond E. 1971 The study of animal bones from archaeological sites.

Seminar Press. London.

Cieza de Ledn, Pedro de 1967 El senorio de los Incas (segunda parte de la Crdnica

del Per~) [1553J. Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. Lima.

1945 La crdnica del Per~ [1550]. Coleccidn Austral, no. 507. Espasa-Calpe, S.A. Madrid.

Cobo, Bernab~ 1964 Historia del Nuevo Mundo [1653]. Biblioteca de

Autores Espanoles, Tomo 91, Tomo 92, pp. 1-275. Madrid.

Cooper, 1949

John M. Games and gambling. In Handbook of South American Indians, Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 143, vol. V, pp.503-524. Wash­ington, D.C.

Custred, Gl ynn 1974 Llameros y comercio interregional. In Reciprocidad e

Intercambio en los Andes Peruanos, Giorgio Alberti y Enrique Mayer, eds., Instituto de Estudios Peruanos, pp.252-289. Lima.

Daly, Patricia 1969 Approaches to faunal analysis in archaeology. Ameri­

can Antiquity, vol. 34, no. 2, pp.146-153. Washing­ton, D. C.

262

Dart, Raymond A. 1957 The Makapansgat australopithecine osteodentokeratic

culture. Proceedings of the 3rd Pan African Congress on Prehistory, 1955, pp.161-171. Livingston.

De Lumley, Hen~y 1969 A Paleolithic camp at Nice. In Old World Archaeo­

logy: Foundations of Civilization. C.C. Lamberg­Karlovsky, ed., W.H. Freeman and Company, pp.33-42. San Francisco.

Diez de 1964

Dwyer, 1971

San Miguel, Garci Visita hecha a la provincia de Chucuito por Garci Diez de San Miguel en el ano 1567. Documentos region­ales para la Etnolog~a y Etnohistoria Andinas. Torno 1. Ediciones de la Casa de la Cultura del Peru. Lima.

Edward Bridgman The early Inca occupation of the valley of Cuzco, Peru. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Anthro­pology, University of California, Berkeley.

Efremov, J.A. 1940 Taphonomy:New Branch of Paleontology. Pan-American

Geologist, vol.74, no.2, pp.81-93.

Fernandez Baca A., Saul 1971 La alpaca:reproduccidn y crianza. Instituto Veteri­

nario de Investigaciiones Tropicales y de la Altura, Bolet~n de Divulgacidn, no. 7. Lima.

Flannery, Kent V. 1967 Vertebrate fauna and hunting patterns. In The Pre-

history of the Tehuacan Valley, vol.1, pp.132-177. University of Texas Press. Austin.

Flores Ochoa, Jorge A. 1968 Los pastores de Parat~a: una introduccidn a su es­

tudio. Instituto Indigenista Interamericano. Mexico.

Frison, 1973

263

George C. The Wardell buffalo trap 48 SU 301: commmunal pro­curement in the Upper Green River Basin, Wyoming. Anthropological Papers, no. 48, Museum of Anthro­pology, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.

Gejvall, N.G. 1969 Lerna, a pre-classic site in the Argorlid,vol. 1.

American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Princeton.

Gilmore, Raymond 1947 The fauna and ethnozoology of South k~erica. In

Handbook of South k~erican Indians, Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 143, vol. VI, pp.345-463. Washington, D.C.

Gravson. Donald K. 1973 'On the methodology of faunal analysis. American Anti­

quity, vol. 38, no.4, pp. 432-439. Washington, D.C.

Guaman 1936

Gursky, 1970

Porna de Ayala, Felipe Nueva cordnica y buen gobierno (codex p~ruvien illustr~). Travaux et M~moires de l'Institut d'Ethnologie, XXIII. Paris.

M. Diet and physical characteristics of Quechua Indians from three Peruvian highland communities (Abstract). kmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology, vol. 33, p. 131. Washington, D.C.

Hastings, James, ed. 1926 Encyclopaedia of Religion 2nd Ethics, Vclume 11.

Charles Scribner's Sons. New York.

Herre, Wolf 1952 Studien uber die wilden und domestizierten

Tylopoden Sadamerikas. Zoologischer Garten, Band 19, Hefte 2-4, pp.20-98.

1953 Die Herkunft des Alpakka. Saugetierkundliche Mitteilungen, Band 1, Heft 1, pp.176-177. Stuttgart.

264

Hershkovitz, P. 1968 The evolution of mammals on southern continents

VI. The recent mammals of the Neotropical Region: a zoogeographical and ecological review. Quarterly Review of Biology, vol.44, no.1, pp.1-70. Stoney-. brook.

Higham, C.F.W. 1968 Faunal sampling and economic prehistory. Sonderdruck

aus Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde, Band 33, Heft 5, pp. 291-305. Hamburg.

Hole, Frank, Flannery, Kent V. and Nealy, James A. 1969 Prehistory and human ecology of the Deh Luran plain.

Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, no.1, Univer­sity of Michigan. Ann Arbor.

Klein, Richard G. 1975 The mammali3n fauna of the Klasies River Mouth sites,

Southern C~p~ Province, South Africa. South African Archaeologic3l Bulletin, vol. 31, nos. 123-124, pp. 75-9S. Cape Town.

Koford, Carl B. 1957 The vicuna and the puna. Ecological Monographs,

Krantz, 1968

vol.27, pp.153-219. Durham.

Grover S. A new method of counting mammal bones. American Journal of Archaeology, vol. 72, no. 3, pp.286-288. Baltimore.

Lawrence, Barbara 1973 Problems in the inter-site comparison of faunal

remains. In Domestikationsforschung und Geschichte der Haustiere. Jamos Matolcsi, ed., pp.377-402. Budapest.

Leakey, L.S.B. 1971 Olduvai Gorge. Vol. 3. Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge.

L~nnber:g, Einar 1918· Notes on Guanacos. Arkiv f~r Zoologi, vol. 8,

no. 19, pp.1-8. Uppsala.

Lopez Aranguren, Dolores J. 1930 Cam~lidos fdsiles argentinos. Anales de la

Sociedad Cient:i!fica de Argentina, vol. 109, pp.15-35, 97-126. Buenos Aires.

Thomas F.

265

Lynch, 1978 The South American Paleo-Indians. In Ancient Native

Americans, Jesse D. Jennings, ed., pp.455-489. w. H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco.

Lyon, Patricia J. 1970 Differential bone destruction:an ethnographic

example. American AntiC!.uity: vol. 35 s no. 2, pp.213-215. Salt Lake City.

Mortla, 1946

Mart:l!n de Los origenes de los Inkas [1590]. Los Pequenos Grandes Libros de Historia Americana, serie I, XI. Librer:i!a e Imprenta D. M. Miranda. Lima.

Murra, John V. 1972 El "control vertical" de un mdximo de pisos

ecoldgicos en la econom:i!a de las sociedades

tomo

andinas. In Visita de la Provincia de Leon de Huanuco en 1562, tomo 2, pp. 427-476. Huanuco, Peru.

Nachtigall, Horst 1966a Indianische, Fisher, Feldbauer und Viehzuchter:

Beitrage zurperuanischen Volkerkunde. Marburger Studien zur Volkerkunde, Band 2. Berlin.

1966b Of rend as de llamas en la vida ceremonial de los pastores de la puna de Moquegua (Pertl) y de la puna de Atacama (Argentina) y consideraciones historico­culturales sobre la ganader:i!a ind:i!gena. Proceed-ing ... .:.;· of the 36th International Congress of American­is t s, 1 964, p p. 1 93 -1 98. Se v ill a •

266

Nie, Norman H., et ale 1970 Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Second

, Edition" McGraw-Hill Book Company. New York.

Orlove C., Benjam~n Sebasti~n 1973 Abigeato. Allpanchis phuturinga. Organo del Institu­

to de Pastoral Andino, tomo V. Cuzco.

Palacios R~os, Felix 1977 " .•• Hiwasaha Uywa Uywatana, Uka Uywaha Hiwasuru

Uyusitu.":Los Pasotres Aymara de Chichillapi. M.A. Thesis, Pontifica Universidad Catdlica del Per1.l. Lima.

Payne, Sebastian 1972 On the interpretation of bone samples from archaeo­

logical sites. In Papers in Economic Prehistory, E.S. Higgs, ed., Cambridge University Press, pp. 65-81. Cambridge.

Perkins, Dexter, Jr. and Daly, Patricia 1968 A hunter's village in Neolithic Turkey. Scientific

American, vol. 219, no. 5, pp. 96-106. New York.

Polo de 1916

Ondegardo, Juan Los errores y svpersticiones de los indios, sacadas del tratado y aueriguaci6n que hizo el Licenciadc Polo [1585]. Colecc idn del ibros y documentos referentes a la Historia del Per1.l, tomo III, pp.3-43. Lima.

Raedeke, Kenneth 1975 El guanaco de M.agallanes, Chile. Su distribucidn y

biolog~a. Publicacidn Tecnica, no. 4, Corpora-cidn Nacional Forestal. Santiago.

Read, Catherine E. 1971 Animal bones and human behavior. Ph.D. dissertation,

UCLA, University Microfilms. Ann Arbor.

R<5hr s, Man fred 1957 Okologische Beobachtungen an wildleben Tylopoden

Slldamerikas. Verhandlungen der Deutschen Zoolo-

"" ..

267

gischen Gesellschaft in Graz, Zoologischer Anzeiger, Supplementband 21, pp.538-554. Leipzig.

Rowe, John H. 1946 Inca cultura at the Spanish conquest. In Handbook of

South American Indians, Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of ~~erican Ethnology, Bulletin 143, vol. 2, Ope 183-330. Washington, D.C.

Schiffer, Michael B. 1977 Toward a unified science of the cultural past. In

Research Strategies in Historical Archeology, Stanley South, ed., Academic Press, New York.

Schiffer, Michael B. and Rathje, William L. 1973 Efficient exploitation of the archeological record:

penetrating problems. In ReseCirch and Theory in Cur­rent Archeology, Charles L. Redman, ed., John Wiley and Sons, pp.169-179. New York. pp.169-179. New York.

Shotwell, J.A. 1955 An approach to the paleoecology of mammals. Ecology,

vol. 36, pp. 327-337. Durham.

Simons, Dwig ht ms. Faunal remains from nor~nern Chile. Paper presented

at the 38th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, May 3, 1973. San Francisco.

Simpson, George Gaylord, Roe, Anne and Lewontin, Richard C. 1960 Quantitative Zoology. Hartcourt, Brace and Company.

New York.

Steinbacher, G. 1953 Zur Abstammung des Alpakka - Lama pacos. Sauge­

tierkundliche Mittelungen, Band 1, Heft 2, PP.78-79. Stuttgart.

Thomas, 1971 On distinguishing natural from cultural bone in

archaeological sites. American Antiquity, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 366-,71. Washington, D.C.

268

Thomas, R. Brooke 197~ Human adaptation to a high andean energy flow system.

Occasional Papers in Anthropology, no.7, Pennsylvania State University. Universtiy Park, Pennsylvania.

Tschopik, Harry 1946 The Aymara. In Handbook of South American Indians,

Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethno­logy, Bulletin 143, vol. 2, pp.501-573. Washington, D.C.

Tshchudi, Johann Jakob von 1965 La llama (Auchenia lama Fisch): en relacidn con 1a

cultura del Per~ antiguo [1885J. Translation and introduction by Glynn Custred, Mesa Redonda de Cien­cias Prehistoricas y Antropologicas, vol.1, pp.120-138. Pont:i!fica Universidad Catdlica del Pertl. Lima.

Voorhies, M. 1969 Taphonomy and population dynamics of an early Plio-

cene fauna, Knox County, Nebraska. Contributions to Geology, Special Paper #1, University of Wyoming Press. Laramie.

Walker, Ernest P. 1974 Mammals of the world, 3rd edition. The John Hopkins

University Press. Baltimore.

Webb, S. David 1974 Pleistocene llamas in Florida, with a brief review

of the Lamini. In Pleistocene Mammals of Florida, S. David \>Jebb, ed., The UniverSity Presses of Florida, pp.170-213. Gainesville.

1965

Wheat, 1972

The osteology of Camelops. Bulletin of the Los An­geles County Museu~, no.1. Los Angeles.

Joe Ben The Olsen-Chubbuck site:a paleo-Indian bison kill. Memoir s 0 f the Society for .A.'1lerican Archaeology, no. 26, American Antiquity, vol.57, ~"1O. 1, pt. 2. Washington, D.C.

269

White, Theodore 1953a A method of calculating the dietary percentage of

various food animals utilized by aboriginal peoples. American Antiquity, vol. 18, no. 4, pp.396-398. Salt Lake City.

1953b Observations on the butchering technique of some aboriginal peoples, no. 2. &uerican Antiquity, vol. 19, no.2, pp.160-165. Salt Lake City.

Wing, Elizabeth S. 1972 Utilization of animal resources in the Peruvian

Andes. In Andes 4, Excavations at Kotosh, Peru, 1963 and 1964, Izummi Seiichi and Kazuo Terada, eds., University of Tokyo Press, pp.327-351. Tokyo.

1973 Utilization of animal resources i~ the Andes. NSF Report GS 3021. Mimeographed.

Yellen, John E. ms. Cultural patterning in faunal remains:evidence from

the !Kung Bushmen. In Experimental Archaeology, D. W. Ingersoll, ed., Columbia University Press. New York. (in press)

Ziegler, Alan C. 1973 Inference form prehistoric faunal remains. Addison­

Wesley Module in Anthropology, no. 43. Indianapolis.

Appendix 1

QUECHUA OSTEOLOGICAL TERMS

English Tuqsa Huaycho La Raya

Cranium Uman tullu Uman tullu Uman tullu

Mandible K'aqlla K'aqllin K'aqllin

Incisor Yawpaq kiiun

Canine SantaYlin

Molar Waqu kirun

Premaxilla/ Senqa tullu Senqa tullu Maxilla/ ~1asal

Frontal Mat'in Mat'in

Lagrimal/ Nawi tullu Nawi tullu Malar

Parietal/ Uma pat a tullu Uma pata tullu Temporal/ Occiptial

Occipital Nak' ana tullu condyles

Hyoid Qallo cruz

Atlas Kutipillu Ukupilla Ukupilla

Cerv ical Kunka tullu Kunka tullu Kunka tullu vertebra

Thoracic NaYlu wasan NaYlu wasan Wasan tullu vertebra

Lumbar Raku wasan P'altawasan P' al tawasan vertebra

Sacrum Wasan pata Chupa pata

Caudal Chupa tullu Chupa tullun vertebra

Rib

1 st rib

Last rib

Sternum

Thorax

Anterior

Posterior thoraxi A.bdomen Abdomen

Scapulc:

Humerus

Olecrenon

Waqtan

Alkachun

Sulka waqtan

Q' awin

Qhasqo

Waqta kapacha

Maki pikuru

T<ukuchu

Radius-Ulna Maki wichun

Carpal s Wichuku moqo

Metacarpals Maki chuqchuku

1st phalanx Lunachu

2nd phalnax Una nolaskucha

3rd phalanx Sillu punta

Pelvis Teqnin

Ischium

Acetabul um

~Taqtan

Waqaqsun

Maki palitin

Maki pikuru

Wichun

Maki tullu

Tanachu

Tonachu

Tanachu

Kanchan

Oqotin

Femur Chaki Pikuru Phaka pikuru

Patella Chasaq'an Phaka mut'in

Tibia Chaki wichun Phaka wichun

Calcaneum 'Alqocha 'Alqocha

Astragalus Asnocha Asnocha

Metatarsal Chaki chuqchuku Chuqchuku

271

Waqtan

Waqaqsun

Sulka waqtan

Qhasqo

Wiqsan

Ch'illan

Paletilla

Saqman

Wichun

Sol tako

Sol tako

Chakan

Teqnin

Qorikancha

Raku phakan

Mut'in

Nanu phakan

'AI qocha

Asnocha

Wichun

Appendix 2

COMPUTER CODE BOOK

**************~~~¥ •• ** * * * site (columns 1-3) * * * **********************

the archaeological site number or institutional provenience of the bone is coded here.

001 marcavalle, pcz 6-45 002 qhataq'asallacta, pcz 6-18 003 minaspata, pcz 12-9 004 tuqsa, peru 005 huaycho, peru 006 ivita, la raya, peru 007 estancia vicuna, tierra del fuego, chile 008 museo de la plata, argentina 011 waywaka, pap 2-2 012 museum of paleontology, university of california,

berkeley (ucmp) 013 museum of vertebrate zoology, university of

california, berkeley (ucmvz) 014 marca huamachuco 015 california academy of sciences 016 chavin de huantar, pan 6-18

*********************************** * * * catalogue number (columns 5-13) * * * ***************************~*******

this number includes horizontal and vertical provenience information as well as an individual serial number (eg. 140-367)

*************** * card number * ***************

in the case of comparative specimens or rare archaeological bones which require more than 7 measuresments, col. 13 may be used to designate the card number of the particular case (eg. 1,2,3). if blank, this column indicates only one

card per case.

************************~ * * * taxon (columns 15-19) *

~nLs classification is hierarchical and arr~~ged in phylogenetic order after gilmore, 1947 (column 15= class, column 16 = order, column 17 = family, column 18 =genus, column 19=species with the exception of some rare orders that have been lumped to acomomo-date the coding scheme). only those taxa having some liklihood of appearing in an andean archaeological site haye been included.

00000 indeterminate 10000 mammal indet 10001 large mammal indet 10002 medium mammal indet 10003 smalll mammal indet 10003 small mammal indet

11000 marsupial indet 1 i 100 didelphid indet 11111 didelphis albiventris -- opposum 1112 i marmosa sp. -- mouse opposum

12000 chiroptera

13000 primate

13900 edentate

14000 rodent indet 14100 leporid indet :4110 sylvilagus sp. jq200 erethizontidae 14300 dinomyidae 14400 dasyproctidae 14410 dasyprocta punctatus -- agouti 14500 cavidae 14510 cavia indet 14511 cavia porcellus -- domestic cuy 14520 galea sp. -- wild cuy 14531 hydrochoerus hydrochaeris -- capybara 14541 cuniculus paca -- pac a 14542 cuniculus thomasi -- extinct paca 14543 cuniculus tacsanowski -- mountain pac a 14600 chinchillidae

273

14611 chinchilla chinchilla -- chinchilla 14621 lagidium peruanum -- mountain viscacha 14631 lagostomos sp. -- extinct plains viscacha 14700 octodontidae 14710 ctenomys sp. -- tuco-tuco 14800 abrocomidae 14810 abrocoma ablativa 14900 cricetidae 14910 cryzomys sp. 14920 akodon sp. 14930 phyllotis sp. 14941 neotomys erbiosus 14950 chichillua sahamae 14960 rattus sp. -- domestic rat 14970 mus sp. -- domestic mouse

15000 carnivora indet 15100 procyonidae 15110 procyon sp. -- racoon 15120 nasua sp. 15131 potos flavus -- kinkajou 15200 mustelid indet 15210 lutra sp. -- otter 15221 conepatus rex -- skunk 15231 galicitis furax -- huron 15300 felid indet 15301 large felid indet 15302 small felid indet 15311 felis concolor -~ puma 15312 felis weidii -- margay 15314 felis onca -- jaguar 15315 felis pardalis -- ocelot 15316 felis domesticus -- house cat 15411 tremarctos ornatus spectacled bear 15500 canid indet 15501 large canid 15502 small canid 15511 dusicyon culpaeus -- andean fox 15521 canis familiaris -- domestic dog 15600 otarid 15611 otaria flavescens -- sea lion 15621 arctocephalus australis -- fur seal 15700 phocid indet

16000 cetacea and sirenia

17000 proboscidea

18000 perissodactyl indet 18100 tapirid indet 18110 tapirus sp. -- tapir 18200 equid indet 18201 large equid 18202 small equid

274

18211 equus caballus -- horse

19000 artiodactyl indet 19100 tayassuidae 19111 tayassu tayacu -- collared peccary 19112 tayassu pecari -- white-lipped peccary 19200 tayasuid or suid indet 19300 suidae 19311 sus scrofa -- domestic pig 19400 camelid indet 19411 lama guanicoe -- guanaco 19412 lama glama -- llama 19413 lama pacos -- alpaca 19414 lama glama x lama pacos -- huarizo 19415 vicugna vicugna x lama pacos -- paco-vicuna 19421 vicugna vicugna -- vicuna 19430 palaeolama -- large extinct camelid 19500 cervid indet 19511 odocoelius virginianus -- white-tail deer 19521 mazama sp. -- brocket 19531 pudu pudu -- pudu 19541 hippocamelus antisensis -- huemul, taruka 19600 bovid 19611 bos taurus -- e~ropean cow 19621 ovis sp. -- european sheep 19630 sheep/goat indet 19641 capra hircus -- european goat

20000 bird

30000 reptile

40000 amphibian

50000 fish

**--*************** * 4

* sex (column 21) ~

* * *******************

most commonly the sex of comparative specimens is coded here. if known, the sex of archaeological specimens also may be coded here.

o indet male

2 !' .dale

275

* age (columns 22-24) * * z

this field is used for comparative specimens of known ages. columns 22-24 refer to the age in months.

********~******************

* * * element (columns 26-30) * * * ***************************

the anatomical element that is represented by the spe­cimen is coded here. this classification is hierar­chical and is a slightly modified version of an ele­ment classification developed by d. crader and d. gifford of the department of anthropology, university of california, berkeley.

10000 zone head 11000 era cranial indet or cra~ium complete 11001 bcs braincase 11002 pmx premaxilla 11003 pmxt premaxilla with teeth 11004 max maxilla 11005 maxt maxilla with teeth 11006 pal palatine 11007 vom vomer 11008 nas nasal 11009 sph sphenoid 11010 eth ethmoid 11011 lac lacrimal 11012 frn 11013 hco 11014 hsh 11015 jug 11016 zyg 11017 orb 11018 tem 11019 sqa 11020 par 11021 occ 11022 boe 11023 ocn 11024 mas 11025 pet

frontal horn core horn sheath jugal zygomatic arch orbital region temporal squamosal pa.rietal occipital basioccipital occipital condyle mastoid process or region petrosal

276

11026 bul 11027 pas 11028 2.l~ 11029 det 11030 let 11031 prt 11032 pfr 11033 spo 11034 pro 11035pto 11036 epo 11037 soc 11038 xoc 11039 cob 11040 hyq 11041 hym 11042 syp 11043 mpt 11044 qua 11045 ptg 11046 ept 11047 smx 11048 ops 11049 opr 11050 pop 11051 iop 11052 sop 11053 hya 11054 bhy 11055 chy 11056 ehy 11057 uhy

bulla parasphenoid ~lisphenoid

dermethmoid lateral ethmoid parethmoid prefrontal sphenotic prootic pterotic epiotic supraoccipital exoccipital circUIl!orbital unit hym syp mpt qua hyomandibular symplectic metapterygoid quadrate pterygoid entopterygoid supramax illa unit opr pop iop sop operculum preoperculum interoperculum suboperculum unit bhy chy ehy basihyal ceratohyal epihyal urohyal

11058 brn branchiostegal 11059 qju quadratojugal 11060 lac lacrimal 11061 sor supraorbital 11062 oto otolith 12000 man mandible indet or complete 12001 mant mandible with tetth 12002 sym symphysis 12003 symt symphysis with teeth 12004 den dentary or corpus 12005 dent dentary with teeth 12006 ang angle or angular 12007 san surangular 12008 ram ramus 12009 crn coronoid process 12011 prt prearticular 12010 art articular condyle or articular 13000 tth tooth indet 13010 i incisor indet upper or lower indet 13011 di deciduous incisor indet upper or lower indet 13020 c c~~ine upper or lower indet 13021 dc deciduous canine upper or lower indet

277

13030 P 13040 dp 13050 m 13060 cth 13070 thr 13071 dthr 13110 uiO 13111 ui1 13112 ui2 13113 ui3 13114ui4 13115 duiO 13116 dui1 i3117 dui2 13118 dui3 13119 dui4 13120 uc 13121 duc 13130 upO 13131 up1 13132 up2 13133 up3 13134 up4 13135 up34 13140 dupO 13141 dup i 13142 dup2 13143 dup3 13144 dup4 13150 UlilO 13151 um1 13152 um2 13153 um3 13154 um12 13155 um23 13160 uch 13170 uthr 13171 dutr 13210 liO 13211 li 1 13212 li2 13213 li3 13214 li4 13215 dliO 13216 dlU 13217 dli2 13218 dli3 13219 dli4 13220 lc 13221 dlc 13231 lp1 13230 lpO 13232 lp2 13233 11'3

premolar indet upper or lower indet deCiduous premolar indet upper or lower indet molar indet upper or lower indet cheektooth indet upper or lower indet toothrow upper or lower indet deCiduous toothrow upper or lower indet upper incisor indet upper incisor 1 upper incisor 2 upper incisor 3 upper inc isor 4 deciduous upper incisor indet deCiduous upper incisor 1 deciduous upper inCisor 2 deciduous upper incisor 3 deCiduous upper incisor 4 upper ca1'l ine deciduous upper canine upper premolar indet upper premclar 1 upper premolar 2 upper premolar 3 upper premolar 4 upper premolar 3 or 4 deciduous upper premolar indet deciduous upper premolar 1 deciduous upper premolar 2 deCiduous upper premolar 3 deciduous upper premolar 4 upper molar indet upper molar 1 upper molar 2 upper molar 3 upper molar 1 or 2 upper molar 2 or 3 upper cheektooth indet upper too throw deciduous upper toothrow lower incisor indet lower inc isor 1 lower inc isor 2 lower inc isor 3 lower inc isor 4 deciduous lower inCisor indet deciduous lower incisor 1 deciduous lower incisor 2 deciduous lower inCisor 3 deCiduous lower incisor 4 lower canine deciduous lower canine lower premolar 1 lower premolar indet lower premolar 2 lower premolar 3

278

13234 Ip4 lower premolar 4 13235 Ip34 lower premolar 3 or 4 13240 dlpO deciduous lOwer premolar ind6t 13241 dlp1 deciduous lower premolar 13242 dlp2 deciduous lower premolar 2 13243 dlp3 deciduous lower premolar 3 13244 dlp4 deciduous lower premolar 4 13250 1m0 lower molar indet 13251 1m1 lower molar 1 13252 1m2 lower molar 2 13253 1m3 lower molar 3 13254 1m12 lower molar 1 or 2 13255 lm23 lower molar 2 or 3 13260 lcn lower cheektooth indet 13270 lthr lower toothrow 13271 dltr deciduous lower toothrow 14000 hyo hyoid 20000 axl axial indet 21000 vrt vertebra indet 21001 vrtr vertebral row articulated indet or mixed 21002 cen centrum indet 21003 cene centrum epiphysis indet 21100 cer cervical vertebra indet 21102 axi axis cervical vertebra 2 21103 c"',..-:<

-- oJ cervical vertebra 3

21104 cer4 cervical vertebra 4 21101 atl atlas cervical vertebra 21105 cer5 cervical vertebra 5 21106 cer6 cervical vertebra 6 21107 cer7 cervical vertebra 7 21108 cerr cervical row articulated 21109 cerc cervical centrum 21110 cere cervical centrum epiphysis 21200 tho thoracic vertebra indet 21201 tho 1 thoracic vertebra 1 21202 tho2 thoracic vertebra 2 21203 tho3 thoracic vertebra 3 21204 tho4 thoracic vertebra 4 21205 tho5 thoracic vertebra 5 21206 tho6 thoracic vertebra 6 21207 tho7 thoracic vertebra 7 21208 tho8 thoracic vertebra 8 21209 tho9 thoracic vertebra 9 21210 th10 thoracic vertebra 10 21211 th11 thoracic vertebra 11 21212 th12 thoracic vertebra 12 21213 th13 thoracic vertebra 13 21214 th14 thoracic vertebra 14 21215 th15 thoracic vertebra 15 21216 th16 thoracic vertebra 16 21217 th17 thora.cic vertebra 17 21218 th18 thoracic vertebra 18 21219 thol last thoracic vertebra 21220 thor thoracic row articulated

279

2i22i thoc thoracic centrum 21222 thec thoracic centrum epiphysis 2i300 lum lumbar vertebra indet 21301 1~1 lumbar vertebra 1 21302 lum2 lumbar vertebra 2 21303 lum3 lumbar vertebra 3 21304 lum4 lumbar vertebra 4 21305 lum5 lumbar vertebra 5 21306 lum6 lumbar vertebra 6 21307 lum7 lumbar vertebra 7 21308 luml last lumbar vertebra 21309 lumr lumbar row articulated 21310 lumc lumbar centrum 21311 lume lumbar centrum epiphysis 21400 sac sacrum complete or sacral vertebra indet 21401 sacl sacral vertebra 1 21402 sac2 sacral vertebra 2 214C3~~c3 sacral vertebra 3 21404 sac4 sacral vertebra 4 21405 sac5 sacral vertebra 5 21406 sacl last sacral vertebra 21407 sacc sacral centrum 21408 sace sacral centrum epiphysis 21500 cau caudal vertebra 21501 caur caudal row articulated 21600 syn synsacrum 22000 rib rib indet 22100 riba anterior rib 22101 ribl first rib 22200 ribp posterior rib 22300 cos costal cartilage 23000 ste sternum or sternabrae 24000 mnb manubrium 25000 fur furculum 26000 bac baculum 30000 gir girdle Done indet 31000 pec pectoral girdle bone indet 31010 scp scapula indet or complete 31011 scpg glenoid of scapula 31012 scpa acromion of scapula 31013 scps spine of scapula 31014 scpb blade of scapula 31020 clv clavicle 31030 cor coracoid 31040 icl interclavical 31050 acr acromion bone 31060 cle cleithrum 31070 sci supracleithrum 31080 pcl postcleithrum 31090 aco anterior coracoid 32000 pel pelvis indet or complete 32010 iIi ilium 32020 isc ischium 32021 istb ischial tuberosity

280

32030 pub pubis 32040 ilis ilium plus ischium 32050 ilpb ilium plus pubis 32060 ispb ischium plus pubis 32070 ace acetabulum 32071 aili acetabulum ilium only 32072 aisc acetabulum ischium only 32073 apub acetabulum pubis only 32074 aisi acetabulum ischium and ilium only 32075 apil acetabulum pubis and ilium only 32076 apis acetabulum pubis and ischium only 32080 ppub prepubis 40000 lbn long bone indet 40500 dbcn cannon indetl proximal frag or 2 distal condyles 40501 sccn cannon indetl single condyle 40502 epcn cannon indetl condyle epipysis 41000 flb forelimb indet or articulated unit 41010 hum humerus 41210 rad radius 41300 uln ulna 41301 ulc ulna olecranon with sigmoid notch 41302 uls ulna sigmoid notch only 41402 rul radio ulna 41403 ruar radius-ulna (prox articular surface only) 41404 ruol radius-ulna (olecranon process only) 40500 met metapodial indet 41500 mcO metacarpal digit indet 41501 mcl metacarpal first digit 41502 mc2 metacarpal second digit 41503 mc3 metacarpal third digit 41504 mc4 metacarpal fourth digit 41505 mc5 metacarpal fifth digit 41506 mcm main metacarpal 41507 mca accessory metacarpal 41508 cmc carpometacarpus 42000 hlb hindlimb indet or articulated unit 42100 fem femur 42101 fmhd femur head 42102 fmeh femur head epiphysis 42103 fmgt femur greater trochanter 42200 tib tibia 42300 fib fibula or lateral malleolus 42400 tbt tibiotarsus 42500 mtO metatarsal indet 42501 mt1 metatarsal first digit 42502 mt2 metatarsal second digit 42503 mt3 metatarsal third digit 42504 mt4 metatarsal fourth digit 42505 mt5 metatarsal fifth digit 42506 mtm main metatarsal cannon bone 42507 mta accessory metatarsal 42508 tmt tarsometatarsus 42600 pat patella 50000 pod podial indet

281

51000 car carpal or manus bone indet 51001 sca scaphoid 5i002 lun lunate 51003 cun cuneiform 51004 mag magnum 51005 unc unciform 51006 pis pisiform 51007 tzd trapezoid 51008 tzm trapezium 51009 scI scapholunar 51010 rdl radiale 51011 intc intermedium carpal 51012 ulr ulnare 51013 cncl centrale carpal 1 51014 cnc2 centrale carpal 2 51015 dcl distal carpal 1 51016 dc2 distal carpal 2 51017 dc3 distal carpal 3 51018 dc4 distal carpal 4 51019 navi navicular of the carpus 51020 tri triquetal 51021 cap capitate 51022 ham hamate 51023 gmlt greater multangle 51024 lmlt lesser multangle 52000 tar tarsal or pes bone inde!t 52001 ast astragalus 52002 cal calcaneum 52003 nay ~avicular of tne tarsus 52004 cub cuboid 52005 nyc naviculocuboid 52006 ento entocuneiform of tarsal 52007 cu2 intermediate cuneiform 52008 cu3 lateral cuneiform 52009 tbl tibiale 52010 intt intermedium tarsal 52011 fbr fibulare 52012 ~nt. centrale tarsal 52013 dt1 distal tarsal 1 52014 dt2 distal tarsal 2 52015 dt3 distal tarsal 3 52016 dt4 distal tarsal 4 52017 tal talus of primates

282

50200 ses sesamoid proximal or distal medial or lateral front or hi 50210 pss proximal sesamoid medial or lateral front or hind indet 50211 psm proximal sesamoid medial front or hind indet 50212 psI proximal sesamoid lateral front or hind indet 50220 dss distal se8~F~id medial or lateral front or hind indet 50221 dsm distal sesamoid medial front ot hind indet 50222 dsl distal sesmoid lateral front or hind indet 51210 fpss front proximal sesamoid medial or lateral indet 51211 fpsm front proximal sesamoid medial 51212 fpsl front proximal sesamoid lateral 51220 fdss front distal sesamoid medial or lateral indet

51221 fdsm front distal sesamoid medial 5i222 fdsl front distal sesamoid lateral 52210 hpss hind proximal sesamoid medial or lateral indet 52211 hpsm hind proximal sesamoid medial 52212 hpsl hind proximal sesamoid lateral 52220 hdss hind distal sesamoid medial or lateral indet 52221 hdsm hind distal sesamoid medial 52222 hdsl hind distal sesamoid lateral 50100 pha phalanx indet 50110 phal first phalanx digit indet front or hind indet 50111 phll first phalanx first digit front or hind indet 50112 ph12 first phalanx second digit front or hind indet 50113 ph13 first phalanx third digit front or hind indet 50114 ph14 first phalanx fourth digit front or hind indet 50115 ph15 first phalanx fifth front or hind indet 50120 pha2 second phalanx digit inGet 50122 ph22 second phalanx second digit front or hind indet 50123 ph23 second phalanx third digit front or hind indet 50121 ph21 second phalar~ first digit front or hind indet 50124 ph24 second phalanx fourth digit front or hind indet 50125 ph25 second phalanx fifth digit front or hind indet 50130 pha3 third phalanx digit indet 50133 ph33 third phalanx third digit front or hind indet 50134 ph34 third phalanx fourth digit fron t or hind indet 50135 ph35 third phalanx fifth digit front or hind indet 50132 ph32 third phalanx second digit front or hind indet 50140 pha4 fourth phalanx digit indet front or hind indet 50143 ';.ha3 fourth phalanx third digit front or hind indet 50144 pha4 fourth phalanx fourth digit front or hind indet 50154 pha5 fifth phalanx fourth digit front or hind indet 51110 fp10 front first phalar~~ digit indet 51111 fp11 front first phalanx first digit 51112 fp12 front first phal~~ second digit 51113 fp13 front first phalar~ third digit 51114 fp14 front first phalanx fourth digit 51115 fp15 front first phalanx fifth digit 51120 fp20 front second phalanx digit indet 51121 fp21 front second phalanx first digit 5i122 fp22 front second phalanx second digit 51123 fp23 front second phalanx third digit 51124 fp24 front second phalanx fourth digit 51125 fp25 front second phalanx fifth digit 51130 fp30 front third phalanx digit indet 51132 fp32 front third phalanx second digit 51133 fp33 front third phalanx third digit 51134 fp34 front third phalanx fourth digit 51135 fp35 front third phalanx fifth digit 51140 fp40 front fourth phalanx digit indet 51143 fp43 front fourth phalanx third digit 51144 fp44 front fourth phal~~ fourth digit 51154 fp54 front fifth phalanx fourth digit 52110 hp10 hind first phalanx digit indet 52111 hpl1 hind first phal~~ first digit 52112 hp12 hind first phalanx second digit

283

52ii3 hp13 hind first phalanx third digit 52114 hp14 hind first phalanx fourth digit 52115 hp15 hind first phalanx fifth digit 52120 hp20 hind second phalanx digit indet 52121 hp21 hind second phalanx first digit 52122 hp22 hind second phalanx second digit 52123 hp23 hind second phalanx third digit 52124 hp24 hind second phalanx fourth digit 52i25 hp25 second phalanx fifth digit 52130 hp30 hind third phalanx digit indet 52132 hp32 hind third phalanx second digit 52133 hp33 hind third phalanx third digit 52134 hp34 hind third phalanx fourth digit 52i35 hp35 hind third phalanx fifth digit 52140 hp40 hind fourth phalanx digit indet 52143 hp~3 hind fourth phalanx third digit 52144 hp44 hind fourth phalanx fourth digit 52145 hp45 hind fourth phalanx fifth digit 52150 hp50 hind fifth phalanx digit indet 52151 hp51 hind fifth phalanx first digit 52152 hp52 hind fifth phalar~ second digit 52153 hp53 hind fifth phalanx third digit 52154 hp54 hind fifth phalanx fourth digit 50160 hoof hoof cover 61000 der dermal bones 61001 ray fin ray 61002 scu scute 61003 crp carapace 61004 pIa plastron 61005 skin skin 61006 scI scale /5.u 00 . ~pi.. pectoral spine 70000 'a~t antler 70200 antt antler tyne 70400 antb antler base 90000 nid totally nonidentifiable bone

* portion (columns 31-33) * * * **********~****************

the area of the complete bone from which the archaeo­logical fragment is derived is coded here.

vertical portion (columns 31)

complete 2 proximal

284

3 middle portion 4 distal 5 LTldet 6 proximal epiphysis 7 distal epiphysis 9 na

horizontal portion (columns 32-33)

01 complete bone 02 anterior (dorsal for phalanges) 03 antero-lateral 04 lateral 05 postero-lateral 06 posterior (ventral for phalanges) 07 postero-medial 08 medial 10 antero-medial 11 lateral or medial indet 12 anterior or posterior indet 13 indet 99 na

******************** * ~ * side (column 35) * * * ********************

the side of the body from which the specimen is derived is coded here.

o indet 1 right 2 left 3 medial (vertebrae) 4 complete (right and left) 9 na

*******************************§**** * * * fracture pattern (columns 37-38) * * * **********************************§*

a subjective description of the manner in which the specimen is fractured is coded here.

285

00 complete bone (no f~acture) 01 half bone/ split longitudinally, ante~o-posteriorally 02 half bone/ split longitudinally, latero-medially 03 half bone/ split crosswise 04 proximal epiphysis intact/ no shaft 05 proximal articulation intact/ no shaft 06 proximal articulation intact/ shaft split crosswise 07 proximal articulation ~!~'~act/ shaft split spirally 08 proximal articulation intact/ shaft split diagonally 09 proximal articulation fragment/ no shaft 10 proximal articulation fragment/ shaft split crosswise 11 prox art frag/ shaft split long, antero-posteriorally 12 prox art frag/ shaft split long, latero-medially 13 shaft complete (tube) 14 shaft fragment/ split crosswise 15 shaft fragment/ split longitudinally 16 shaft fragment/ split indet 17 distal art frag/ shaft split long, latero-medially 18 distal art frag/ shaft split long, antero-posteriorally 19 distal art frag/ shaft split crosswise 20 distal articulation fragment/ no shaft 21 distal articulation intact/ shaft split diagonally 22 distal articulation intact/ shaft split spirally 23 distal articulation intact/ shaft split crosswise 24 distal articulation intact/ no shaft 25 distal epiphysis intact/ no shaft 26 proximal epiphysis frag/ split antero-posteriorally 27 proximal epiphysis frag/ split latero-medially 28 distal epiphysis frag/ split antero-posteriorally 29 distal epiphysis frag/ split latero-medially 30 prox radius-ulna split crosswise thru semi-lunar nctch/

shaft split crosswise 31 prox radius-ulna split crosswise between fusion plane

and semi-lunar notch/ shaft split crosswise 32 olecranon split longitudinally or diagonally/ shaft

split crosswise 33 prox radius-ulna split crosswise thru semi-lunar notch/

shaft split diagonally 34 prox radius-ulna split crosswise between fusion DIane

and semi-lunar notch/ shaft split diagonally 35 olecranon split longitudinally or diagonally/ shaft

split diagonally 36 prox radius-ulna split crosswise thru semi-lunar notch/

shaft split spirally 37 prox radius-ulna split crosswise between fusion DIane

and semi-lunar notch! shaft split spirally 38 olecranon split longitudinally or diagonally/ shaft 39 olecranon only/ split crosswise 40 olecranon only/ split diagonally 41 olecranon only/ split longitudinally 70 calcaneum missing cuboid/fibular facet area 80 proximal femur split crosswise across neck 81 proximal femur split longitudinally between head and

286

greater trochanter 90 unique fracture 95 fracture pattern indetl fragment too small 96 smashed(compression cracking) 97 intact except for one corner or protuberance broken off 98 fresh fracture (during excavation or after)

* * * cut marks (columns 40-44) * * * *****~******~~§~*§~**********

the number, orientation and position cn the bone of any definite cut marks are coded here.

number of marks (column 48)

o none present 1 one present 2 two present 3 three present 4 four present 5 five present 6 six present 7 seven present 8 eight or more present 9 unspecified number present

orientation of marks (column 49)

o none present 1 longitudinal orientation 2 crosswise orientation 3 diagonal orientation 4 any combination of above 5 random orientation 1 radially to articular surface (eg. glenoid)

vertical position of marks (column 50) ......................................

o none present 1 complete 2 proximal 3 middle portion 4 distal 6 proximal shaft 7 distal shaft 8 multiple sides

287

9 indet

00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 21

horizontal position of marks (columns 51-52)

none present complete bone anterior (dorsal antero-lateral lateral postero-lateral

-P_ ... .LVJ. phalanges)

posterior (ventral for phalanges) postero-medial medial antero-medial lateral or medial indet anterior o~ posterior indet indet shaft fragment multiple locations (~~rks on more than one surface) extreme end (eg. on keel of cannon condyle) lateral and medial edges ( ego distal humerus)

*************~~***********4*

* * * modification (column 46) * * * ****************************

any indication that the specUnen was intentionally modified by man or scavenger is ooded here. codes are also provided to alert the analyst to any unique condi­tion which is described elsewht:!C'e in non-computerized form.

o unmodified 2 definitely worked 3 rodent gnawed 4 carnivore gnawed 5 possibly gnawed 7 *unique condition flag (check separate, non-computer­

ized reference for details of bone's condition 8 extra boney growth 9 *pathology flag (check separate, non-computerized

~eference for details on bone's condition).

288

* * * burning (column 48) * * * ***~*******************

a subjective description of any burning that the bone may have suffered is coded here.

o unburned 1 burned black 2 calcined 3 locally affected (only one portion of bone) 4 slightly affected (light burning over entire surface) 5 possibly affected

******************************** * * * fusion state (columns 50-51) * * * ****~***************************

the state of fusion of each bone element is coded here.

00 indeterminate 01 completely fused 02 fusing (fusion line still quite obvious) 03 unfused 04 proximal complete/ distal complete 05 proximal complete/ distal fusing 06 proximal complete/ distal unfused 07 proximal fusing/ distal complete 08 proximal fusing/ distal fusing 06 09 proximal fusing/distal unfused 10 proximal unfused/ distal complete 11 proximal unfused/ distal fusing 12 proximal unfused/ distal unfused 13 fetal or neonatal 30 radius unfused with ulna proximally 31 radius unfused with ulna distally 32 radius fusing with ulna proximally 33 radius fusing with ulna distally 40 humerus head unfused with itself, latero-medially 41 distal humerus/ posterior tuberosities unfused 50 pubic symphysis unfused 51 ,ubic symphysis fusing 52 pubic symphysis completely fused 53 ischial tuberosLty unfused 54 ischial tuberosity fused

289

**~~~~w.*§*****************

* * * weight (columns 53-55) ~ * * ***************************

the weight of the specDnen from 001 gram to 999 grams is coded here.

***§****~.***************************

* * * maximum dimension (columns 51-59) * * *

the maximum dimension in millimeters of the specimen, including any breakage, is coded here. this providee a measure of the relative degree of bone comminution.

******************************** * * * measurements (columns 60-80) * * * *******************************~

290

seven possible measurement fields of three columns in length are provided on the first card. additional measurements may ba ~ecoded en subsequent cards in columns 60-80, if necessary, in which case the last column of the catalog no. field (col 13

is reserved for the card number. measurements are expressed in millimeters and coded with an implicit decimal point after the first two columns of each field (f3. 1) • each bone element has individual measurements due to differences on anatomy. taken on the humerus are metacarpal. however, an most common measurements standardize the positions bone measurements.

thus, for example, the measurements distinct from those taken on the attempt has been made to confine the to the first card of a case and to of the following universal long

proximal fields (col. 60-68) proximal lateral-medial width (col. 60-62) proximal anteri0r posterior width (col. 63-65)

other proximal measurement (col. 66-68)

distal fields (col. 69-77) distal lateral-medial width (69-71) distal anterior-posterior width (col. 72-74) other distal measurement (col. 75-77)

other measurements (proximal, distal or shaft)

this standardization, of course, is less suited to non- long bones such as vertebrae.

291

EXPLANATION OF PLATES

#1 Two adult male guanacos. Instituto de la Patagonia, Pu n t a Ar en as, Ch i 1 e .

#2 Adult male llama and friend. IVITA, La Raya. (Llamas normally do not carry men. This one was mounted only as a lark) .

#3 A.dult male a.nd female alpacas in mating cor:;al. IVITA, La Raya.

#4 Juvenile and adult vicunas in chaco corral. Hacienda Cala Cala.

#5 Ventral throat slit method of camelid slaughter. IVITA, La Raya.

#6 Dorsal stab method of camelid slaughter. IVITA, La Raya.

#7 Ch'illa method of camelid slaughter -- butcher making abdominal incision. Cooperativa Huaycho.

#8 Ch'illa method of camelid slaughter -- butcher breaking the ascending aorta. Cooperativa Huaycho.

#9 Slaughtered alpaca covered with a poncho in order not to offend the rest of the herd. Tuqsa.

293

#10 Coca offering to spirit of recently slaughtered alpaca. Cooperativa Huaycho.

#11 Disarticulation of the carpal/metacarpal jOint. Tambo, La Raya.

#12 Disarticulated tarsal/metatarsal joint. Cooperativa Huaycho.

#13 Breaking the pubic Symph~T5i~ wi th a k' achina rumi. Tambo, La Ra ya .

#14 Using a k'aqlla k'aqchana waskha to disarticulate the mandile at the temporal-mandibular joint. Tuqsa.

#15 Using a k'achina rumi to split a vertebra of convenient size:Tuqsa.-

into chunks

#16 Alpaca ffietapodials reconstructed after controlled con­sumption experiment. Tuqsa.

#17 Alpaca humeri reconstructed after controlled consump­tion experiment. Tuqsa.

#18 Alpaca radius-ulnae reconstructed after controlled con­sumption experiment. Tuqsa.

#19 Alpaca femora reconstructed after controlled consump­tion experiment. Tuqsa.

294

#20 Alpaca tibiae reconstructed after controlled consump­tion experiment. Tuqsa.

#21 Wich'ufta use to separate warp and weft threads. IVITA, La Raya.

#22 Child's play corral populated with bone animals. Tuqsa.

PLATE 1

PLATE 2

PLATE 3

PLATE 4

PLATE 5

PLATE 6

PLATE 7

PLATE 8

PLATE 9

PLATE 10

PLATE 11

PLATE 12

~ ~- ~".:::::.,. ". - . -". .

.~':'~.'~.~ ~ ;> .' •

PLATE 13

PLATE 14

PLATE 15

PLATE 16

·PLATE 17

·PLATE 18

·PLATE 19

PLATE 20

PLATE 21

PLATE 22