Peruvian Archaeology
A Critical History
Henry Tantalen
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American
National Standard for Information SciencesPermanence of Paper for Printed Library
Materials, ansi/niso z39.481992.
Cover design by Jane Burton
Title page image: Figurine bottle of drummer. Moche culture, Vicus, Per, 2nd5th century.
Photo by Raccolte Extraeuropee del Castallo Sforzesco, licensed under Creative Commons.
chapter title
Contents
List of Illustrations 7
Acknowledgements11
Foreword15
Introduction: The Crisscrossed Past 17
Chapter 1. The Beginnings of Archaeology in Peru 20
Chapter 2. The Foundation (Western) of Peruvian Archaeology:
Max Uhle and Cultural Evolutionism 29
Chapter 3. Archaeology and Nationalism in the 1920s:
Julio C. Tello and Peruvian Culture 44
Chapter 4. Indigenismo in the Ancient Capital of the Incas:
The Cusqueo Period of Luis Valcrcel 56
Chapter 5. North American Influence in the 1940s:
Rafael Larco Hoyle and the Vir Project 70
Chapter 6. New Horizons in Peruvian Archaeology:
John H. Rowe and the Berkeley School 83
Chapter 7. Ethnohistory and Archaeology in the 1960s:
John Murras Influence in Peru 91
Chapter 8. Archaeology as Social Science:
From Gordon Childe to Luis Lumbreras 103
Chapter 9. Processualist Archaeology in Peru:
Emergence and Development 116
Chapter 10. Archaeology in 1990s Peru:
A View from Lima 126
chapter title
Illustrations
Figure 1. Volume ii of Antigedades Peruanas (1851). 25
Figure 2. Illustration of Inca ruins from Antigedades Peruanas (1851). 26
Figure 3. Alphons Stbel, 1871. 27
Figure 4. Wilhelm Reiss. 27
Figure 5. Max Uhle. 30
Figure 6. Museum fr Vlkerkunde, Berlin. 32
Figure 7. Adolph Bastian. 33
Figure 8. Phoebe Hearst, circa 1890. 35
Figure 9. Museum of National History, Lima, 1906. 39
Figure 10. Julio C. Tello. 45
Figure 11. Museum of Archaeology, Lima, 1920s. 48
Figure 12. National Museum of Archaeology, 2013. 49
Figure 13. Julio C. Tello and Alfred Kroeber, November 1, 1926. 53
Figure 14. Tellos bronze sculpture with the Acllawasi (Inca building) in the
in 1923. 60
Figure 17. Luis. E. Valcrcel and Julio C. Tello at Machu Picchu, Cusco, 1935. 67
Figure 18. Jorge C. Muelle. 68
Figure 19. Wendell C. Bennett. 73
Figure 20. Gordon Willey. 76
Figure 21. Rafael Larco Hoyle. 78
Figure 22. Chicln Museum, Chicama Valley, La Libertad, 2009. 79
Figure 23. North American Chicln Roundtable attendants. 80
Figure 24. Luis G. Lumbreras, Elas Mujica, and John Murra at the Iskanwaya
Figure 30. Michael Moseley at the El Paraiso site, Lima, 1967. 120
Figure 31. Ondores, House of the Agrarian Reform, 1973. 122
Figure 32. Aerial photo of Huaca San Marcos, Lima, 1944. 131
Figure 33. Ruth Shady and Joaqun Narvaez at Huaca San Marcos,
Figure 34. Mariana Mould de Peases book presentation, Lima, 1997. 144
Figure 35. Dama de Cao performance, April 2009. 151
chapter title
Dedicated to Kelita,
because her smile illuminates my world
10
Acknowledgments
11
12
Acknowledgments
archaeology could fill a book of its own. Also in Puno, I got to know a number
of archaeologists who accompanied me in my research. I particularly remember Eduardo Arizaca.
I also thank a number of people that I met in Spain during my time there.
I thank Gonzalo Ruiz Zapatero, who taught the history of archaeology at the
Universidad Complutense de Madrid. I never tire of thanking Vicente Lull,
who welcomed me into the Department of Prehistory at the Universidad
Autnoma de Barcelona (uab), where I did my doctoral studies. It was
here in Barcelona that I learned about European archaeology. I was able to
visit many important cities such as Athens, Paris, Rome, London, Berlin,
Amsterdam, and many others. In each of these places I met colleagues who
influenced me in my theoretical and historical understanding of archaeology. I want to especially thank Manuela Fischer, who welcomed me into the
Ethnographic Museum of Berlin and allowed me to examine its collections.
In England, I met Bill Sillar, who helped me during my visits to University
College London (ucl). I also met a number of wonderful people, including
Helga Grstch, Paul Olrtegui, Cristina Aixal, Manuel Aguirre, and Juan
Carlos de la Torre. Im especially grateful to Nicols Robles for allowing me
to stay at his house at Cerdanyola del Valls to finish my dissertation and
for being a great friend at that critical time. I also thank some outstanding
professors, including Rafael Mic and Mara Saa of the uab for their inspiration and generosity.
In South America I want to especially thank Gustavo Politis, who offered
me his academic assistance and moreover became a very close friend. In Ecuador, Stefan Bohrquez introduced me to the archaeology of his beautiful
country. Thanks to Stefan, I know Jorge Marcos, who has become a teacher to
me. I also want to thank Eduardo Gos Neves, who invited me to the Museo
de Arqueologa y Etnologa de la Universidad de So Paulo in Brazil.
I met Charles Chip Stanish in 1997 in Puno, and I thank him for the opportunity to work more in this area for my doctoral thesis and for his help in
publishing this book. For the past three years, we have codirected the Programa Arqueolgico Chincha, a fabulous research experience that we have
just begun. Also, thanks to Chip, I have also become acquainted with North
America, particularly California, where I visited Thomas Patterson and other
colleagues who are part of Peruvian archaeology. I also thank him and Elena
Allen for translating the final chapter of this book from the original Spanish.
I also want to acknowledge Mitch Allen, who met me in Hawaii during
the saa meeting and agreed to publish this book.
Luis Guillermo Lumbreras has become an exceptional teacher for me in
the last few years, and I am fortunate to have long conversations about Peru-
Acknowledgments
13
vian and world archaeology. I also thank Juan Jos Rodrguez, who loaned me
one of the first archaeology books that I read in my life. I also acknowledge
Csar Astuhuamn, whose study of Tellos life inspired me to study the history of other Peruvian archaeologists. In Trujillo I thank Segundo Vsquez,
who has become a great friend of mine, passing unforgettable afternoons in
Cochayas house.
I also wish to acknowledge Fernando Brugu Valcrcel, Luis Lumbreras,
Mariana Mould de Pease, Manuela Fischer, Joaqun Narvez, John Rick,
Michael Moseley, Joanne Pillsbury, and Antonio Coello for some of the photographs that are used in this book. Richard Burger helped obtain the photograph of W. Bennett that appears in this book. I likewise thank Ulla Holmquist also providing photographs from the Larco Museum archive.
I take this opportunity to thank my friends from my days at the University San Marcos, especially Santiago Morales Erroch and Julissa Ugarte. Also,
new people have come into my life in recent years, and I wish to express my
thanks for their patience and generosity: Michiel Zegarra, Alex Gonzles
Panta, Alexis Rodrguez Yabar, Paolo Zorogasta, and Abel Fernndez. One of
my great friends, Miguel Aguilar Daz, cannot be forgotten in these acknowledgments.
I wish to thank my mother, Mnica, for her support and for the freedom
to be myself. Finally, I thank Kelita Prez Cubas, who fills my life with laughter and beautiful moments.
14
Foreword
had the pleasure of doing the initial translation of this book for my
colleague and friend Henry Tantalen. As I went through the chapters I
found myself fascinated by the insights that Henry brings to bear on the
history of Peruvian archaeology. There is a wealth of information about the
field in this book that contextualizes the growth and development of Peruvian archaeology for both the interested nonarchaeologist as well as the
professional. As a straightforward compilation of the key historical figures
and events in Peruvian archaeology, this book is well worth the read.
But there is much more. Henry brings to bear a critical historical approach to understanding these personages and events. This book focuses
on the political and social context of the production of knowledge about the
past in Peru. We see, from the perspective of a young Peruvian intellectual,
the influence of foreigners such as Ephraim Squier, Max Uhle, and John Rowe
on the course of archaeology in the country. We learn the details of how
nationalism and national identity drives much of the research. We see how
international events, such as the War of the Pacific, World Wars I and II, and
the Cold War profoundly affected the nature of Peruvian archaeology. He
deftly details the political struggles between some of the luminaries of Peruvian archaeology such as Julio Tello, Luis Eduardo Valcrcel, Rafael Larco
Hoyle, and many others. We see how alliances between Peruvian scholars
and foreign archaeologists were used to advance political and personal
agenda within and outside of the country.
People like me trained in the Anglo-American tradition of archaeology
are aware of how politics, identity, gender, class, and history affect the production of knowledge. But I think that my colleagues from North America
Peruvian Archaeology by Henry Tantalen, 1516. 2014 Left Coast Press Inc. All
rights reserved.
15
16
Foreword
and Europe will still be surprised by the perspective of a Peruvian intellectual as detailed in this book. I had never been aware, for instance, of the
Klein Commission contracted by the Peruvian government from 1949 to 1955
to advise in the reorganization of the economy and financial structure of the
Peruvian state. From a critical perspective, this was an overt attempt at economic and political colonization by the United States in Peru. The Left was
furious at what was seen as an attempt by the Peruvian oligarchy to ally with
the corporate and military groups in the United States. It was in this context
that the Fulbright Commission supported substantial research in Peru. From
an American perspective, perhaps a bit of a naive one, this represented an
opportunity to do research in one of the richest archaeological areas of the
world in conjunction with our Peruvian colleagues. But from a critical Left
perspective, importing or imposing North American archaeology on
the country was part of a comprehensive strategy of rightist politics in the
country. The view that archaeological knowledge production was intimately
connected to Cold War politics pervades this book.
We find that the arrival of processual archaeologists in the 1980s was
viewed as a hegemonic response to the growing popularity of Peruvian and
Spanish social archaeology. I had never really seen myself as a tool of repression, yet this is how many of my colleagues, particularly from Chicago and
Michigan, were perceived by the Peruvian Left. We also see how the internal
struggle between the two primary centers of archaeology in contemporary
PeruSan Marcos University and la Pontificia Universidad Catlica del
Per (pucp)played out from the 1980s to the present day. As in the United
States in the last generation, there is a tension between public and private
universities. In Peru, the neoliberal agenda and the devastating effects of
Sendero Luminoso terrorism severely hurt the archaeological program at
San Marcos. The tensions and struggles of the 1980s and the Fujimori government resonate to the present day.
This is a marvelous book, rich in content and interpretative sophistication. Any archaeologist who considers working in South America should
read this book. And anyone interested in the history of ideas and the role of
archaeological knowledge in our daily lives will find this a fascinating read.
Charles Stanish
Peruvian Archaeology by Henry Tantalen, 1719. 2014 Left Coast Press Inc. All
rights reserved.
17
18
perspective. With only tangential reference to the great Julio C. Tello, for instance, Peruvian archaeology was relegated to being an exotic land where
archaeologists came to test European and American theories and methodologies. Yet Peru is a country where archaeology developed its own character
and nuances. Certainly, from the very beginning, Peruvian scholars contributed to the canon of archaeological knowledge, both theoretical and empirical. I assiduously avoid any kind chauvinist position or, worse, a nationalism
that would exclude people simply because of their place of origin. Yet it is
important to understand the trajectory of archaeological practice carried
out in Peru vis vis a strong foreign presence that has dominated the field
for decades.
Even though this saturation of so many foreigners could be seen as a
negative, one positive result was that Peruvian archaeology emerged as an
internationally recognized place to conduct research. Many investigators
practiced forms of archaeology developed in other countries far from the
Andes; Peru became a country crisscrossed by many different archaeologists
and archaeological traditions. In fact, as we will see, many of the great theories used in other parts of the world were also applied in Peru. Likewise,
methodologies such as settlement surveys were developed and/or refined in
the vast Peruvian deserts, where preservation is so spectacular. And certainly,
as one can clearly see from the constant references to archaeology in the
popular press, such as National Geographic magazine, Peru is a very special
place, thanks to the discoveries of Machu Picchu, the Nazca Lines, and the
Lord of Sipn, which have been constantly in the public eye since the very
beginning of archaeological exploration.
As we will also see, a vast quantity of objects from Peru has filled the
museum galleries of the world, particularly in Europe, from practically the
first moment of contact (Cabello 1993). This one-way trafficking in ancient
art expanded to North America by the end of the nineteenth century (Bruhns
and Kelker 2010:12). This artifact diaspora served to cement the relationships
(not necessarily positive) between Peruvians and their rich archaeological
heritage with collectors and researchers around the globe. This would be one
of the important social contexts from which Peruvian archaeology would
later emerge. From a postcolonial perspective, this book demonstrates how
the relationship between Peruvians and foreigners generated, through the
extensive collections, a notion of the prehispanic past in the country. The
creation of this historical narrative was clearly influenced byand depended
uponrelationships with more economically developed countries like Great
Britain, France, the United States, and Germany.
19
Chapter 1
Introduction
nterest in the central Andean past, in the area that would later become
Peru, goes back to the prehispanic period, when societies such as the
Tiwanaku and the Inca used sites and special places, known as huacas,
as a means to create historical narratives for themselves.1 This common historical phenomenon served to justify and legitimize the political structure
of dominant social elite of these societies. Thus, this interest in the past is
based, as in other areas of the world (Egypt, Rome, China, India, etc.), on
the need to give depth to time and to create cultural roots through iconic
archaeological cultures, sites, and archaeological objects.
However, since we have no written sources in the precolumbian Andean
world, it is only since 1532 that we can actually understand the intentions of
the individuals and institutions responsible for linking the past with their
contemporary social and political world. Thus, the first Spanish chroniclers
were also responsible for generating some of the first intellectual linkages
of their contemporary world with that of the ancient past as they saw it. For
example, Miguel de Estetes ([1534] 1891) account of the journey of Hernando
Pizarro from Cajamarca to Pachacamac in early 1533 is a significant case in
point. It relates the social and political dynamics that occurred at this key
oracle center, an important Inca and pre-Inca site located a few miles south
of Lima, which would become the capital of the Viceroyalty of Peru. He observes, for example, the village seems to be ancient, due to the fallen buildings that are in it (Estete [1534] 1891:133). This is one of the first instances
in the early historical documents in which a writer differentiates between
buildings in use and those that had been abandoned and therefore were older.
Peruvian Archaeology by Henry Tantalen, 2028. 2014 Left Coast Press Inc. All
rights reserved.
20
21
In a similar manner, the chronicles of Pedro Cieza de Len ([1553] 2005) are
important documents precisely because he takes the time to distinguish
between and Inca and pre-Inca buildings and settlements. While this may
strike the modern observer as somewhat self-evident, it was a major observation in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In a world that the West
considered only about 6,000 years old, the discovery of societies that did not
have historical records was quite significant.
One document that has unique cultural meaning and that has been compared with other sacred books such as the Old Testament, the Popol Vuh, or
the epic of Gilgamesh (Millones and Mayer 2012:11) is the anonymous text attributed to Francisco de vila (1598?) known as the Huarochir Manuscript
(Arguedas [1966] 2007). This text relates a myth describing huacas and their
form of existence in the world alongside humans. These extirpators of idolatries such as vila provide valuable information about archaeological sites
and objects in their effort to erase indigenous beliefs and practices. In spite
of the huge damage that this extirpation campaign by the Catholic Church
wrought on the customs and life of the indigenous peoples, it also constitutes the first source of ethnographic information of Andean societies.
Later, during the Spanish colonial period and viceroyalty, the looting of
archaeological sites became one of the many exploitative practices in Peru
similar to mining and guano exploitation. Looting of huacas was widespread,
as described by Jorge Zevallos Quiones (1994) for the north coast. However,
beyond bureaucratic and tax documents, there are no additional records of
such activities.
As Lisa Trever (2012; also see Schaedel 1949) has shown, the Bishop of
Trujillo, Baltasar Martnez Compan, established one of the first idioms of
archaeological representation in Peru using the sites and archaeological objects of the north coast in Trujillo del Per, published between 1781 and 1789.
The watercolor images in the book link this work directly with contemporary
European traditions that also dealt with archaeological remains, such as
those about Pompeii or Herculaneum in Naples (Pillsbury and Trever 2008).
Despite these early attempts at archaeological descriptions and representations, it is only with the advent of the Republic from 1821 that we see
systematic efforts by individuals and institutions to create a deeper historical
sense in the Peruvian nation. These efforts were realized under the influence
of foreign investigators, or within largely European theoretical constructs.
North American scholars at this time effectively borrowed from European
models, which were indirectly imposed in Peru. Peruvian scholars at this
time likewise sought to establish a postcolonial history freed from the influence of Spain; however, they could not escape the larger European intellectual
22
23
24
25
Rivero y Ustariz did not focus solely on archaeology; in the great natural
history tradition of nineteenth-century Europe, he also dealt with biology
and geology. Much of this material was collected with the celebrated Alexander
Von Humboldt, the German naturalist who conducted a world voyage of exploration (Contreras and Cueto 2007:115). Likewise, Federico Kauffmann
Doig (2000:15), following the historian Csar Coloma (1994:38), points out
that in the second third of the 19th century, Rivero y Ustariz excavated a
beautiful textile from the Necropolis of Ancn that was later acquired by the
Louvre.
For some historians, this scientific tradition is a kind of protoarchaeology
(Rivasplata 2010). According to Stefanie Gnger:
In 1851, Mariano de Rivero published Antigedades Peruanas in collaboration with Johann Jakob von Tschudi, who always recognized Rivero
as the primary intellectual author of the book.[8] The book was already in
circulation in 1853 as a German translation and it is proven that the
protagonists of the present study [Reiss, Stubel, and Uhle] had read it
(Gnger 2006:86).
Gnger makes three main observations: (1) Rivero found himself in a
climate in which discussions of the past, at least through the acquisition of
antiquities, was a relevant topic of discussion among the Lima political class,
Figure 1. Volume II of Antigedades peruanas (1851) by Mariano Eduardo de Rivero y
Ustariz and Johan Jacob von Tschudi.
26
Figure 2. Inca ruins from Antigedades peruanas (1851) by Mariano Eduardo de Rivero y
as well as in the other cities of Peru;9 (2) his work did not go unnoticed in
other intellectual spheres, especially in western and central Europe, where
his book was published and translated; and (3) later investigators came to
understand Peruvian archaeology through these publications.
As Contreras and Cueto (2007:115) indicate, intellectuals such as Rivero
y Ustariz did not find themselves in a favorable environment for their scientific or cultural activities. This was caused by lack of support by the various
Peruvian governments, a lack of resources in general, and the dominance of
the military and legal elite (as opposed to other intellectuals) in public posts.
Yet in spite of this, Rivero y Ustariz continued gaining new knowledge about
Peruvian prehistory in an era that Michel Foucault (1979:185) aptly describes
as one in which intellectuals were not focused on specifics, but on universals. Rivero y Ustariz dedicated himself not just to archaeology, but to other
fields as well. As Luis Felipe Villacorta says:
Only the brilliance of the distinguished Eduardo Rivero y Ustarz and
later that of Nicols Fernndez de Pirola padre, shined in history of
national sciences during the first part of the 19th century, and unfortunately their efforts and talents found more fertile ground in the administrative tasks of the State than in the scientific investigation and
dissemination of the national natural riches (Villacorta 2008:225).
Raimondi also conducted studies on archaeological sites and objects
(Raimondi 1874). Within his European natural history perspective, he would
27
28
Chapter 2
30
31
systematic excavation in Pachacamac, but he was also working under a philosophy that assumed all societies pass through a series of stages as a universal principle. This was of course within the framework created by Lewis
Henry Morgan in the United States that goes back to the philosophers Georg
W. F. Hegel (Lull and Mic 2007:118) and Johann Joachim Winckelman from
an art-historical perspective (Gran Aymerich [1998] 2001:42) or Christian
Thomsen in prehistory (Trigger 2006:121). The basic logic of this evolutionary philosophy is that societies evolve from simple to complex, from savagery to civilization.
This was the logic of science then current in the middle of the nineteenth
century. For Peru, Uhle was the first to propose anything like what we could
call science in archaeology, and it was in this positivist tradition that he
worked. Thus, any study of the past had to operate within this basic positivist
framework, a generator of empirical knowledge that resulted in the need to
organize objects and archaeological data. It is also important to recognize
the taxonomies used by the naturalists, especially in France and England
in the nineteenth century (Larson 2006). Uhles accomplishment is that he
merged a Western way to view the past with an accepted scientific method
in an unquestionably hegemonic manner from a Peruvian perspective.
The key point is that this hegemonic science was fostered within academic circles in the Andes by Europeans and Americans, and was also presented in international arenas such as world expositions4 or scientific meetings such as the Congreso Internacional de Americanistas (International
Congress of Americanists)5 (Gnger 2009:71011). These arenas, representing
the modernist viewpoint of Western progress, became stages for these very
ideas. Often intellectuals returning from an International Congress of Americanists meeting applied these ideas to their local professional practices.
Uhle6 and Tello, the two principal scholars of the past at the beginning of the
twentieth century, used these arenas to learn new approaches as well as to
disseminate their own innovative ideas.
A primary arena for the establishment of these Western scientific principles in Peru was the Sociedad Geogrfica de Lima (Geographic Society of
Lima), established in 1888 (Cueto 1992). One of its objectives was to help create a new nation through the study of Perus geography as well as natural and
social resources. This information would be incorporated into the collective
imagination of Peru (Lpez-Ocn 2002).
Uhle, like other intellectuals in America, found fertile ground for his
professional work. As foreigners (outsiders), they were in a country where
they had no roots or political baggage. In the beginning, they had government
32
support in getting positions, and national intellectuals did not perceive their
presence as a threat. This was also the case for Uhle, as we will see later in this
book.
33
34
This marks the first steps taken by modern professionals to protect Tiwanakusand, in a sense the entirety of Andeancultural patrimony. But it also
marked him as a nuisance by the military and government authorities and
prevented him from ever excavating at the site again.
He returned to La Paz, but was effectively stranded there because the
promised funding from Berlin was withdrawn. In 1894, he began a professional relationship with Sara Yorke, curator of Egyptian and Mediterranean
collections and secretary of the University Archaeological Association in
Philadelphia, and the wife of Cornelius Stevenson. Stevenson and William
Pepper became his main benefactors and mentors in Philadelphia (Erickson
2010:95).
It took some time, however, to receive this funding. Uhle therefore
concentrated on learning Aymara grammar while he waited for the
money. During his stay, in 1894, an ethnologist working for the American Museum of Natural History (amnh) in New York arrived in La Paz:
Adolph Bandelier. Bandelier, whom we have already mentioned in the
previous chapter, was also interested in working in Tiwanaku (Fischer
2010:54) and, in fact, had been commissioned by amnh for this purpose
(Loza 2004:155). Both of these larger-than-life personalities maintained
a cordial relationship but were critical of each others work, especially
because both were out to collect materials for their respective museums collections. Toward the end of 1894 and in 1895, Uhle spent most of
his time working in the Bolivian altiplano, concentrating on the shores
and islands of Lake Titicaca (Loza 2004:155). Although Uhle made many
observations and field notes, it was Bandelier who finally published
his work on the area in 1910. The Islands of Titicaca and Koani, a classic
of highland archaeology, was written in English and published in the
United States. The archaeological materials from this and other excavations, as well as materials purchased by Bandelier, are found today in
the amnh, his home institution at the time.
After failing in his original goal to excavate at Tiwanaku, Uhle resigned from the Royal Museum of Ethnology in Berlin (Fischer 2010:55).
He then accepted a contract from the University of Pennsylvania in
1895 and prepared for a trip to Lima, arriving in the city in 1896. In this
bustling metropolis, his first task was to submit an account of his trip
to Bolivia and the Peruvian countryside, along with a report on the
language of the Urus of the altiplano. This was published in the newspaper Globus in Braunschweig, Germany.Once in Peru, Uhle began his
archaeological work in Ancn and Pachacamac, and excavated until
February 1897.
35
An important observation is that Uhle, for the first time, effectively recognized the first horizon styles in Bolivia and Peru. He defined two horizons that
were clearly evident at Pachacamac. Uhle had arrived in Bolivia8 already
knowing that there was a pre-Inca culture, the Tiwanaku, having worked on
collections from this site in Germany. As mentioned, along with Stbel, he
had published a work about this site and he understood that related materials were found over a wide area (Stbel and Uhle 1892). Uhle therefore had an
intellectual framework before even arriving in South America that there were
at least two principal prehispanic styles: Inca and Tiwanaku. So it was indeed
a question of style. In general, most archaeological explanation up to that
point was focused on style at some level, a result of both diffusionist and positivist thinking. Uhle absorbed all of these intellectual currents and had conducted his excavations in Peru within this general framework. But is important to also realize that this framework informed the scientific missions from
the University Museum at Pennsylvania in all parts of the world (Patterson
2002:49). With Uhle now affiliated with this venerable institution, we can see
how this theory and method was reinforced in his work. Penn had also established an archaeological laboratory where much of the Pachacamac materials
were sent, creating an entire building to house the many artifacts collected
from around the world (Erickson 2010).9 It is important to also point out that
all of this was possible because of the direct financial support from the university. The same type of arrangement would later characterize Uhles relationship with the University of California at Berkeley, where he was able to
study the collections made by North American scholars such as Alfred Kroeber. Uhles relationship with Berkeley
cannot be understood without understanding the financial support given to
him by Phoebe Hearst (Kaulicke 2010:13)
(Figure 8). The collections at Berkeley,
as we will see in the following chapter,
helped to substantially refine the Peruvian Horizon styles.
Uhles scientific agenda in Peru also
included the analysis of the time depth
of Peruvian prehistory. To accomplish
this, it was necessary to recognize
the changes that had occurred over
36
time. The idea of deep time (before the Incas and Tiwanaku) in Peruvian
archaeology in particular, and Americanist archaeology in general, was very
much part of his research program. As noted earlier, Uhle had written In
Americanist studies, the first thing that had to be done was to introduce the
idea of time, to get people to admit that the types could change (Uhle in
Rowe 1954:v). To achieve this, Uhle had to test these new ideas with empirical
evidence from his archaeological work on sites that could demonstrate these
changes, especially ceramic style shifts over time (Rowe 1998). But how was
it possible to perform this task with the technical means at his disposal at
that time? By the middle of the nineteenth century, relative chronologies had
already been tested in Europe. This was done through the identification of
prehistoric ages that were defined by the material of the artifacts, with stone,
bronze, and iron being the most obvious. This Three-Age classification was
very broad, and styles became an important tool in European archaeology
used even today (Rowley-Conwy 2006; various authors in Lozny 2011).
Style is a set of associated features expressed in art. This is important because it always undergirds archaeological explanation; it is from style that
higher levels of archaeological explanation are based. As Trigger (2006)
notes, style is part of a theory based in the object itself; it is the most concrete
and the lowest level from which one constructs explanations. Archaeologically, the construction of a style presupposes distinct patterns in the form
and decoration of objects, allowing the analyst to construct a coherent group
of elements. However, it is important to note that this concept originally
developed in the history of art and effectively focuses only on the appearance
of the object itself, almost always defined in aesthetic terms (Kroeber 1963:68;
Sackett 1977; Scott 2006; Shanks 1999:4, 2001; Willey [1951] 1970:49). This view
of the history of art influenced the notion of aesthetics as representing the
spirit of the age (in the sense used by Hegel), as well as an evolutionary approach as an inherent succession of styles (Bardavio and Gonzles 2003:50;
Trigger 2006:57).
In Uhles time, methods were simpler than in later decades. He first observed some concordance in the artifacts and the architecture over an area.
From this he inferred diffusion from some pristine place, creating a horizon.
Uhle recognized a great Inca Horizon materially expressed as architectural and ceramic similarities. But he also saw a pattern that was earlier
(stratigraphically under) than the Inca expansion and which was expressed
in iconographic motifs, most strongly on pottery. Therefore, it was logical in
this moment for Uhle to propose that the Staff God seen on the Gate of the
Sun in Tiwanaku and other Tiwanaku objects was the same as what he was
37
seeing on ceramics from Pachacamac. This was his empirical evidence confirming his hypothesis that there existed a great Tiwanaku empire that had
spread throughout the Andes and to the Peruvian coast. In this way, Uhle
saw an extensive pre-Inca civilization flourishing well before the Cusco state
emerged. This allowed him to further suggest an evolutionary development
following the logic of the timethat societies evolved from simple to complex. Tiwanaku was found in the south, while the Inca materials were found
in a larger area that covered all of the Tiwanaku distribution. Hence, this fit
into the evolutionary model of development.
As Uhle pointed out in 1900:
Modern science has opened up entirely new ways to explore the ancient
civilizations of the Americas as well as other branches of human knowledge. Not long ago it was believed that the history of the Inca Empire
comprised the entire ancient history of Peru. Garcilaso and other notable writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, relying on the
tradition of the Inca Empire, agreed that those were the first civilizers of
Peru; before that time Peru was only occupied by savage tribes, to which
Incas brought civilization. But we have observed characteristics distinct
from the Inca for some time at ancient monuments and from tombs
scattered across the country that can be considered inferior to those
from Cuzco in the level of civilization. It is absolutely impossible and
contrary to human evolution that such a high civilization evident in Peru
at the time of its discovery [by Europeans] could be the fruit on only 400
years of development (Uhle cited in Meja Xesspe 1967:xiii).
Uhles modern vision of science, human evolution, and progress paralleled that of other intellectuals throughout Europe and the United States.
This same vision permitted Uhle to come to these conclusions through years
of study in Peruvian archaeology. His scientific publications gave him great
international and national prestige. Uhle, at 44 years of age, was at the height
of his academic career.
38
In fact, after its initial push by Rivero y Ustariz, the museum fell into disrepair, as noted in the testimony of the British diplomat Thomas Hutchinson
in 1873:
Turning to the left, beneath the same arcade, I come to a door that was
once green, but is now an indescribable colour, from the must of ages.
This tells, with a label on the outside, that it is El Museo Nacional, the
National Museum. But there is a padlock on it as large, probably, as any in
Newgate, and the porter at the jiorie-cockere does not know anything
about the key. I made a pilgrimage to the door of this museum scores of
times during my residence in Lima, but the lock was always there. Even
Dr. Vigil, at the opposite side of the Patio, knew nothing about it, for it
was not in his department. After the creation of the Society of Fine Arts,
referred to elsewhere, I was one of the committee asked to inspect it, with
a view to the removal of its contents to the Exhibition Palace, for the
formation of a new museum. But my imagination of these was sadly
disappointed. On its walls are hanging portraits of all the Viceroys who
formerly governed in Lima. Outside of these the collection of other
objects was confined to a few hundred birds, some animal monstrosities
of double-headed calves, et voila tout. The dozen or two specimens of
prehistoric crockery-ware, that it had contained, were already sent to the
Exhibition Palace, and the whole was not worth the cost of being
removed. I could not help reflecting on this as a cogent illustration of the
absence of national taste, to say nothing of national pride, in the city of
Limawhere the large Exhibition Palace could be filled with archaeological proofs of the ancient glories of Peru, without going farther than
six to eight miles outside the city walls (Hutchinson 1873:31920).
Later, after moving to the Palacio de la Exposicin, the museum was
sacked in 1881 by Chilean soldiers (Gnger 2009:695). After this loss in the war,
the Peruvian state began its campaign known as the National Reconstruction from 1883 to 1895. As Teodoro Hampe Martnez (1996:141) aptly notes:
Consumed by the debacle of the war with Chile (18791883), the political
class of Lima began a serious analysis of the nature of Peruvian society,
with the aim to understand the causes of the disaster and from this
knowledge come up with a path of national regeneration. In the middle
of this environment surged a strong nationalistic sentiment, nurtured
by the desire to emphasize the most important cultural values of the
country: the language, its traditions, its land. And it is in such circumstances that the first academic institutions were established and which
39
have had a lasting effect to this day. For example, we note that the Peruvian Academy of Language ( formed through the efforts of Ricardo
Palma), was opened solemnly on August 30, 1887 as well as the Geographical Society of Lima, created by executive order [decreto supremo]
on the 22nd of February, 1888. Both of these institutions were promoted
by President Andrs Avelino Cceres as a means to institutionalize these
national goals (Hampe Martnez 1996:141).
This nationalist enterprise continued until the end of the nineteenth century,
led by a generation of intellectuals that largely came from the Lima elite. This
period is known as the Aristocratic Republic (18951919), a time when the political and intellectual elite began a serious interest in the antiquity of Peruvian
Man.11 The Peruvian state institutionalized this interest with the foundation of
the Museo de Historia Nacional (Figure 9) in 1905 during President Jos Pardo y
Barredas first term (19041908). Uhle was contracted for six years to head the
prehistory section of the museum, known at the time as the Archaeology and
Savage Tribes Section (Hampe Martnez 1998).12 This represented a kind of
foundational support for the construction of Peruvian history at the height of
the influence of the aristocracy, a construction based upon archaeological data
(Lumbreras 1998:178; Rowe 1954).
Thus, Pardo y Barredas government issued an executive order on May 6,
1905, authorizing the creation of the Museo de Historia Nacional under the
authority of the Instituto Histrico del Per; the museum was inaugurated
Figure 9. Museum of National History, Lima, 1906.
40
on July 28, 1906.13 The museum would function in the Palacio de la Exposicin
using a building that was originally intended for other purposes.
Uhle gave his famous speech on the importance of legislation for the protection of Perus archaeological heritage during the inauguration (Kaulicke
2010:1516). The flamboyant archaeologist began his work immediately, highlighting the countrys archaeological antiquities and the importance of protecting and collecting them. Although he started out as a section head, Uhle
eventually became the director of the museum (Tello 1967a:75).
As section head, Uhles tasks were principally to receive archaeological objects considered to be the property of the Peruvian state, to increase this collection, and to organize exhibitions of these objects. For his exhibitions, as we
have seen, he used the models from his previous work in the Ethnological Museum of Berlin, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of California
at Berkeley. In fact, Uhle already knew which were the main sites that he
should direct his excavations to increase his collections, especially near Lima.
He therefore reinitiated excavations in sites around Lima and excavated
in already known cemeteries such as Isla San Lorenzo and Bellavista in Callao. He also explored the extensive area around Makatampu, a site located
between Colonial and Argentina Avenues. At the same time, Uhle accepted
or bought personal collections from Limeos interested in promoting and
helping the mission of the Museo de Historia Nacional.
Uhle worked by cataloging, identifying, organizing, and grouping the
materials, both chronologically and stylistically, and mounted exhibits in
the Justice Ministry and in the Sociedad Geogrfica de Lima. Between 1908
and 1910 he was again in the field, this time excavating the great mounds of
Arambur and Concha in the archaeological zone located near the presentday San Marcos University (Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos)
(see also chapter 10 and Figure 32). He also was commissioned in 1911 by the
Peruvian government to conduct an exploration of Choquequirao, located
on the right bank of the Apurmac River, and published a series of articles
and gave lectures in academic meetings.
But despite his archaeological work, which clearly increased the Museums archaeological holdings, . . . the economic support of the Government
was limited and insignificant, such as was demonstrated in the 1907 budget
that only lasted until the end of his contract . . . . How could a person of Uhles
stature conduct any work in the laboratory or field with such a small budget? (Tello 1967a:74).
However, a pernicious subtext constantly bedeviled Uhle. His five-year
tenure led to a series of debates among the Lima political class, who did
not take kindly to a foreigner occupying a place as iconic as director of the
41
National History Museum, a position that they felt should be filled by a Peruvian. As Gnger notes:
From the moment that Max Uhle took up his post in Lima, he was
harshly criticized, debated, and questioned by the Lima elite. A detailed
case study of the discourses surrounding Uhle between 1906 and 1911,
and Peruvian memoirs of Uhle from 1912 to 1928, shed light on much
more than personal conflicts or rivalries. Peruvian scholars, politicians,
and intellectuals initially called for Uhle because he was a foreigner
a European and a German. They dismissed him on the basis of the same
argument. A close-up view of the reasons named to employ, dismiss,
praise, and criticize Max Uhle in early-twentieth-century Lima
especially those voiced by government representative and prominent
figures, such as the conservative historians Riva-Agero and Gutirrez
de Quintanilla, and the indigenist scholars Julio C. Tello and Luis E.
Valcrcelhelps to explain major intellectual developments in Perus
relationship with Germany and Europe (Gnger 2007:52).
In the end, vulgar intrigues and the severe budget cuts forced Uhle to resign as director of the Museo de Historia Nacional (Hampe 1998:147). Thus,
Uhle delivered the archaeological patrimony of the museum, which consisted of 8,675 objects, to the government commission presided by Dr. Carlos
Wiesse on December 23, 1911. Emilio Gutirrez de Quintanilla, one of the
members of the Instituto Histrico del Per (an entity that depended upon
the museum), assumed the directorship of the National History Museum in
1912 after Uhle left (Tello 1967a:80). Upon taking control, Gutirrez de Quintanilla opined that the museum had been mismanaged, putting in question
the honesty and efficiency of Professor Uhle (Hampe Martnez 1998:148).
Gutirrez de Quintanilla remained in this post until 1935; as discussed later
in this book, Julio C. Tello also engaged in some controversial polemics with
the director of the museum, especially in 1913.
42
were centered in the cities of Tacna and Arica (Orellana 1996:95).15 He had
a strong influence on the academic world of Santiago, so much so that one
of the most important Chilean archaeologists of the time, Martin Gusinde,
declared himself a disciple of this master (Orellana 1996:90). Later, after
finishing his contract in Chile, he moved to Ecuador at the invitation of the
distinguished Jacinto Jijn y Caamao, an Ecuadorian researcher who knew
Uhles work well and would later excavate in Peru at the Maranga complex
in 1925 (Jijn y Caamao 1949).16 In Ecuador, Uhle conducted excavations,
lectured at the university, and directed the Museo Nacional de Arqueologa.
In September 1933, Uhle went back to Germany to enjoy a pension offered
him by the German government (Rowe 1954:1718) and to work at the IberoAmerican Institute in Berlin. He dedicated these years to writing articles,
processing data, and putting his notes of 40 years together (Linares Mlaga
1964:34; Rowe 1954:18). Through the initiative of Dr. Luis E. Valcrcel, the
Faculty of Letters of San Marcos University, the Peruvian government organized a jubilee in his honor in 1935, including both Peruvian and foreign intellectuals. In his speech, Valcrcel was quoted as saying, This tribute also
means that the consciousness of Peru has not forgotten, nor will ever forget,
all those who embrace the thankless task of the misunderstood researcher,
constantly maligned but whose merit is still recognized in spite of all (Bueno
2003:19). The Peruvian government also accorded him the highest civilian
honor for a foreigner, the Order of the Sun (Orden del Sol).
In 1939, Uhle returned to Peru as an invitee to the xxvii International
Congress of Americanists (Rowe 1954:18). Uhle participated in two sessions,
in which he gave two papers: Procedencia y Origen de las Antiguas Civilizaciones Americanas (The Location and Origin of Ancient American Civilizations) and La Marcha de las Civilizaciones (The March of Civilizations)
(Bueno 2003:20). Unfortunately, World War II broke out the same year that
Uhle returned to Peru. Although Peru declared itself a neutral country, in
1941 it formalized its support with the Allies (Contreras and Cueto 2007:269).
Later, Japanese and German citizens were considered suspicious. According
to Linares Mlaga (1964:34), Jorge C. Muelle remembered that Uhle was detained with other compatriots in the Hotel Los ngeles in Chosica, near
Lima. Uhle finally returned to Germany in 1942 (Rowe 1954:19). Linares Mlaga
concludes, And so it was the second world war that darkened his life and
little was heard from him until mid-May of 1944, when the cable arrived announcing the death of the great man at the advanced age of 88 years
(1964:35).
43
Discussion
We have seen in this chapter that the beginnings of archaeology can be
traced back in time to the early part of the second half of the nineteenth century. Although Max Uhle was the investigator who made the most significant
progress by excavating and publishing with the academic standards of the
time, it is undeniable that there was an existing archaeological tradition in
Peru, similar to that of other countries. It is remarkable how creole elites and
immigrants reproduced this tradition using a purely Western framework, but
it is really remarkable that, save for Rivero y Ustariz, no other person born in
Peru was part of the founding of archaeology in his or her own country. As
we will see in the following chapters, archaeological innovation almost always had foreign sources. But we will also see that nationalist politics would
alter this relationship in key moments of the twentieth century.
Beyond that, Uhles work was significant in establishing broad chronologies in the central and southern Andes, linking large areas in meaningful
time units. His work as organizer and builder of the archaeological section
of the Museo de Historia Nacional del Per was very relevant because, after
the war with Chile, Peru was left with no institution that could conserve and
exhibit its prehispanic legacy. Uhles concern for the destruction of Perus
cultural heritage was also very important in a societyabove all the social
elitethat continued to destroy sites to fuel their collecting obsessions. Finally, one can appreciate how Uhle was caught up in the polemics of national
identity because he was an official of the Peruvian state as head of the Museum. His exit from the country was a loss of archaeological expertise, even
though it did result in the creation of archaeological institutions in other
South American countries such as Chile and Ecuador.
Thus, while his scientific contributions were significant and foundational, from a postwar (with Chile 18791884) nationalist perspective (Aljovn and Cavieres 2005:14; Klarn 2004:304), it was necessary to construct a
nation ideally with people born on its own soil. So, we can understand, given
the intense feelings of the time, that the father of Peruvian archaeology
would have to be someone who embodied both physically and ideologically
the concept of Peruvian-ness. Needless to say, it was necessary to find a
person that could reanimate the concept of the ancient Peruvian in the
vacuum left by Uhle. Moreover, this person should be found among the available intellectuals in the Peruvian social scene. The distinguished figure of
Julio C. Tello would play an important role in this national objective.
Chapter 3
45
46
(Trigger 2006:211). Obviously, this social theory had already been adopted in
other European countries, with a strong presence in the United States through
Boasian anthropology and scholars such as Alfred Kroeber. In this sense, the
cultural history paradigm promoted hegemonic archaeological trends at the
beginning of the twentieth century. The expansion of this paradigm to other
countries was linked to the economic, political, and ideological dependencies
that existed in the world at that time. This hegemonic relationship resulted in
the imposition of foreign notions of the past in these dependent nations;
good archaeological explanations for European prehistory, for example, are
converted into a framework for the construction of national identities in
other dependent countries (Kohl and Fawcett 1995).
Tello began his academic career using this explanatory framework. He
held a widely accepted concept that a suite of similar artifacts represented a
coherent culture. This concept is linked to the cultural history framework,
used in a period when cultures were defined methodologically and sociologically. The construction of cultures was a response to what was happening Europe at the time: nation-states were being formed in the aftermath of World
War I as the old monarchies were falling apart, and Europe was being reconstituted along different lines, the process of which reached its final point with
the end of World War II (Hobsbawm 1991). This was the period when European
elites began to generate their own national identities, and found a means to
scientifically reinforce their political and economic interests.
Thus, in the first decades of the twentieth century, the tendency was to
identify nuclear centers from which innovations spread across the territory.
This theory of cultural change was diffusionism, a framework that Tello
used implicitly in his work. In the same vein, Tello refers to Chavn as a
mother culture, which Gordon Willey ([1951] 1970) had noted in an article
published in 1951. If societies were subject to universal evolution, then deviations from such an evolution were due to influences from a pristine area.
This was the new paradigm that arose in the early twentieth century.
Methodologically, it was a big change. Previously, archaeological objects
that appeared in an area were explained as the result of an internal process
of social evolution. So, for example, if we had an archaeological context with
a monochrome design, and in the next stratum we had a tricolor ceramic,
how can we explain this? The favored diffusionist explanation at that time
was that a different cultural group had invaded the area. This was the essence of Uhles theory and how, for example, he explained the Tiwanaku style
horizon. When he worked in Pachacamac in 1896, he already had in mind the
horizon concept coupled with an early type of diffusionist theory. For Uhle,
the principal figure on the Gate of the Sun at Tiwanaku, the Staff God, also
47
48
One suspects that there must have been other investigators who conducted their own work, but who either did not view archaeology as their
primary discipline or simply did not attain academic visibility. As a result,
archaeology was not professionalized in Peru at that time. As we will see,
the professionalization of archaeology began in the 1950s.3 Before this time,
there were self-taught people that excavated and studied objects for personal
reasons, but there was no professional school of archaeology.
49
University (1919), the Museo de Arqueologa Peruana (1924) (Figure 12),4 and
the Museo Nacional de Arqueologa y Antropologa (1938) provided opportunities for him to promote his theories on numerous archaeological topics
(see also Rowe 1954:24).
Here, I illustrate how Tellos government-sanctioned positions facilitated
his creation of an ideology that we can call nationalistic indigenismo (Angelo 2005:188; Mesa 2006). We can therefore see Tellos position as an active
element of the Peruvian state apparatus becoming an example to follow ( for
example, see Astuhuamn 2004).
Tello was born in 1880 in Suni, a town near Huarochir nestled in the
sierras of Lima (Meja Xesspe 1967:vi). In principle, his humble, indigenous
origins should have oriented him towards the indigenista movement. Nevertheless, Tello did not totally lack the means for a basic education and,
thanks to his fathers local government position, he was able to obtain certain privileges over his companions in primary school (Astuhuamn 2004;
Astuhuamn and Dagget 2005). Under this circumstance, he arrived in Lima
at 13 years old to pursue secondary school studies (Lumbreras 2006).5 These
were difficult economic times, but he had help from mentors with sufficient
means or with some academic influence (Palma [1917] 1956:8). For example,
during Tellos university years in Lima, Ricardo Palma helped with funds
until he received a post in the National Library, where Palma was director.
50
Sebastin Barranca, his professor at San Marcos University, also helped him
out financially (Astuhuamn and Dagget 2005; Daggett 2009:8,10). We thus
see that Tello made good use of the opportunities afforded to him in the
academic culture of Perus capital.
Tellos training at San Marcos University when he began in 1900 was in
medicine, but he soon became interested in anthropology. He was drawn
to physical and cultural anthropology as a result of his access to academic
publications at the National Library, the cranial collections recovered in his
native region of Huarochir, and from other collections made by his mentors.
He finished his work in 1908 with a bachelors thesis titled The Antiquity of
Syphilis in Peru, in which one can detect an early search for the primordial
Peruvian civilization within the dominant diffusionist paradigm of the day.
This thesis opened doors for Tello in the academic world and raised his
profile among the intellectual elite of Lima, particularly at San Marcos University. As Csar Astuhuamn and Richard Daggett note:
On the 21st of August, by prior petition of the Medical faculty, an executive order by the Legua government provided a scholarship for Tello to
study at Harvard University. While he studied in the us, Tellos interest
continued to turn toward the study of human remains, language and
museums. He traveled around the country, attended academic conferences, visited museums, especially those that had osteological collections from Peru. At the end of June 1911, Tello received a Master of Arts in
Anthropology (Astuhuaman and Dagget 2005:22).
In the United States, he also attended the classes of prestigious professors at the main universities that taught North American archaeology ( for
example, Harvard). Most of these centers had adopted the diffusionist thesis
of the Boasian variety. Csar Astuhuamn (personal communication, 2007)
notes that among Tellos professors were William Farabee, a specialist in the
Peruvian Amazon and metals; Alfred Tozzer, a specialist in Mesoamerican
archaeology; and Roland Dixon. Lumbreras (2006:213) tells us that Tello
counted on the help of Franz Boas, Frederic W. Putnam, and Alex Hrdlicka in
the United States and Felix von Luschan in Berlin. Given this, it is not strange
that he followed the theories of his professors and colleagues, arguing later
that the first Andean peoples immigrated from the selva.
In 1911, thanks to another scholarship from the Peruvian government,
Tello took a long trip through Western Europe. It was in Berlin in 1912 that
he became convinced of the diffusionist thesis. In this trip abroad, we find
the source of inspiration for the ideas that Tello brought back to Peru in
1913. It was from these academic circles that he reproduced the hegemonic
51
discourse and from which he materialized his own views about Andean
civilization.
Returning to Peru in 1913, he petitioned the government of Guillermo
Billinghurst (19121914) and received a position as director of the Archaeological Section of the old Museo de Historia Nacional. Again, just as he did to
Uhle, the director of the museum, Emilio Gutirrez de Quintanilla, accused
Tello of mismanagement, theft, and trafficking of archaeological materials.
These diatribes surfaced in a pamphlet titled The Manco Capac of Peruvian
Archaeology, Julio C. Tello (Seor de Huarochir). As one can imagine, given
these racist and unsubstantiated personal attacks, Tello abandoned his position in 1915.
Two years later, in 1917, Tello entered national politics and was elected
as a parliamentary deputy from Huarochir. From this privileged position
in the Peruvian government he generated a series of projects related to the
protection of cultural patrimony and the establishment of institutions that
helped his professional career. In addition, he used this position to confront
his enemies, namely Gutirrez de Quintanilla (Tello 1967a:110).
Later, Tello joined San Marcos University. From here, he directed his
principal expeditions in the country, such as that at Chavn de Huntar in
1919 (Tello 1943). It was here of course that he obtained the archaeological
materials to define the mother culture and propose the diffusion of this
culture to the rest of the central Andes (Tello 1960).
As mentioned here, his position on this was diametrically opposed to
that of Uhle (Ramn 2005:10), who paradoxically also explained the origin of
societies via a mechanism of diffusion6 (Kaulicke 1998a:74; Politis 1995:203;
Rowe 1954:21). Nevertheless, Tellos thesis had an autochthonous substance
that sustained a nationalist ideology, in contrast to Uhles allochthonous
thesis.7 Likewise, Tellos epistemology started with a hypothesis then tested
in the field (hypothetical deduction, as we would say today), whereas Uhle
started with the object of study within a positivist-empiricist framework
(Lumbreras [1983] 2005:296). Because of this, one gets the sense that Tello already knew what he would find in his expeditions before he conducted them.
For the Peruvian archaeologist Rosa Fung (1963), Tello (1929, [1939] 1942)
had an implicit social evolutionary bias in his work (e.g., his chronological
schema of the Archaic, Classic, and Decadent periods). However, his ideas
provided a way to explain long-term changes in the Andean world. Tellos
diffusionism, in addition to expressing a succession of different cultures,
also accounted for internally driven change. Social changes were expressed
in blocks of time that paralleled the growth of a culture. When a culture
decayed and disappeared from the pressures of new a group of people
52
53
archaeological projects were slowed or even stopped by the very same state
that he once supported. For example, his expedition to the Nepea Valley
in the north coast to investigate the important sites of Cerro Blanco and
Punkuri generated controversy. As usual, people raised suspicions about the
supervision of this project and about the management of the funds. These
rumors reached the ears of the other members of the Patronato de Arqueologa (which Tello founded in 1929) such as Luis E. Valcrcel and Santiago
Antnez de Mayolo (Tello [1933] 2005:165 and passim).
Valcrcel and Antnez de Mayolo investigated Tellos excavations. A recently published book on San Marcos Universitys Museo de Arqueologa,
based upon a collection of Tellos manuscripts (Cuadernos del Archivo Tello
2005), is interesting here because it focuses on Tellos Nepea Valley excavations in 1933, where he discovered Cerro Blanco, an important Formative
site. The letters in this archive are between Tello and the Patronato de Arqueologa. After reading these letters, one can appreciate his dependency on
others for financial support. This created a difficult situation for Tello,
marked by financial uncertainty and the burden of having other scholars
such as Valcrcel and Antnez de Mayolo monitor his work. It wasnt until
1937 that Tello was able to resume serious work.
Figure 13. Julio C. Tello and Alfred Kroeber, Lima, November 1, 1926. Courtesy of Smithsonian
Institution.
54
Discussion
Tellos archaeological research sought to vindicate and celebrate the past of
the Andean peoples. Contrary to the radical diffusionists who saw Andean
civilization emerging elsewhere, he argued that Chavn was the origin of
these great prehispanic societies. His proposals were based upon on theoFigure 14. Tellos bronze sculpture with the Acllawasi (Inca building) at Pachacamac, Lima,
55
ries developed in the early part of the twentieth century. Diffusionism gave
him the mechanism and the methodology by which he discovered the proof
of the antiquity of Chavn as well as its cultural development, manifest in
its architecture and artifacts that extended over a great part of the Andes.
Throughout his life he was supported by a series of local intellectuals, but
primarily he counted on the help of the government. The Legua administration found in Tellos thesis a clear link between the present and the past,
which was a key element in creating a new national identity. Tello wanted
to build the national identity not only on the basis of academic discourse,
but also through the construction of institutions such as museums. His style
clearly dominated the intellectual scene in the country up to the end of the
1930s. But his importance began to fade as early as the 1920s, when Legua
was removed from office and Valcrcel took over the major cultural institutions in Peru.
Tello recovered somewhat after this because of his prestige and with the
financial help of the institutions that he helped found. This permitted him
to continue in the field, for instance, at Pachacamac (Figure 14). In his last
decade, during World War ii, he witnessed the arrival of the American archaeologists on the Vir Project, Rafael Larco Hoyles consolidation of power
and prestige in the north coast, and that of Jorge C. Muelle on the national
stage. Tellos principal disciples, Rebecca Carrin Cachot and Toribio Meja
Xesspe, had some influence from their positions in the Museo Nacional de
Arqueologa. In truth, up to at least the 1960s, there was no archaeologist
that could promote a national archaeology like Tello within the Peruvian
state.
Chapter 4
Introduction
Peruvian Archaeology by Henry Tantalen, 5669. 2014 Left Coast Press Inc. All
rights reserved.
56
57
58
59
60
Figure 16. Performance of Misin de Arte Incaico en el Extranjero (Incaic Art Mission in
Foreign Parts) headed by Luis E. Valcrcel at 1923. Courtesy of the Luis E. Valcrcel Archive.
perhaps, the one text that depended most heavily on Marxist thought;
Mariteguis influence is clear in this work. He encouraged Valcrcel to write
the book to reflect the life of the indigenous people of Cusco. This work demonstrates very clearly the strong relationship between the political and academic activities of the young Valcrcel, who was aware that the scientific
study of prehispanic societies was being conducted in a revolutionary time
with both the promise of a new indigenous status as well as the hope of a
new kind of social order for the entire nation.
61
62
63
64
Andean archaeology over the years. He also describes how little of the surface architecture is visible and highlighted the temples in the so-called
Qalasaya, comparing these to those at Tiwanaku. He reports on the Rain
or Lightning Monolith, the most outstanding stela in the Pukara style at the
site. He also reported, for the first time, the Sacrificer or kaj monolith,
which he would publish on more extensively at a later time. He concluded
this report by linking Pukara with Tiwanaku, suggesting that it was a radiating center of culture: It is a well-founded possibility that the Great Andean
Culture expanded over the great Peruvian plains, spilling into the coastal
valleys and the highlands. Pukara is a milestone in the gigantic journey of
the Race (Valcrcel 1925b:21). Finally, a curious thing about the Memorias
is that he says that he conducted excavations in Pukara, but he does not
mention this in the report. Continued research in the archives is needed to
ascertain if he really excavated at the site. Regardless, we know from his publications that he recovered archaeological ceramic material in the Pukara
Polychrome style, which could have come from either the surface or from
excavations when Valcrcel was there.
Later, with his material collected and stored in Lima, Valcrcel published
a series of articles in the Revista del Museo Nacional (Valcrcel 1932a, 1932b,
1935). As I discuss later, Valcrcel was already serving as director of the
archaeological museum, the institution charged with publishing this journal. This journal was one of the more prestigious outlets for his ideas and
substantially helped his image in Lima. In fact, Valcrcels fame was growing and he without a doubt began to outshine the venerable Julio C. Tello,
who as we have seen had been a congressman from Huarochir in the Legua
government. Tello was in the ruling party and as a consequence was strongly
related to the official party.
Returning to Valcrcels discoveries in Puno, in addition to producing
the first inventories and scientific reports in the area, he tried to offer an
explanation of these artifacts, especially the iconic beings that were represented in Pukaras monoliths and ceramics. His explanation used myths,
iconographic comparisons, place names, and so forth in a classic study of
this period using what was effectively an ethnological approach. This methodology appears in his article El Gato de Agua (1932b), where he defines
the representation of the nutria as the principal icon recognized in most of
the Pukara stelae. But beyond this observation, something very important
in Valcrcels publications is the early connection between Pukara and the
southern coast, with cultures such as the Paracas and Nazca:6 A small, but
important number of data have been brought together. Everything seems to
65
suggest a strong link between Pukara and Naska, the highlands and the coast
(Valcrcel 1932b:3; emphasis added). He also realized early on that certain
Pukara motifs were found in Tiwanaku, although to be fair, this was fairly
well known by the 1930s.
In the same year, Valcrcel, picking up again the diffusionist framework
in his article The Mythic Personage of Pukara (1932a), established the links
between Pukara, Paracas, and Nasca as mentioned, but also expanded this
connection to the statues of San Agustn in Colombia. At San Agustn, there
were sculptures that also represented the Pukara beheader akaj that
he spoke briefly about in his 1925 report. Most of the comparisons that he
was able to make between objects from this time on are clearly due to his
greater access to the collections of the archaeological museum as well as his
conversations with Jorge C. Muelle. Muelle was Valcrcels close collaborator, trained at the Escuela de Bellas Artes de Lima. Because of this, Valcarcel
turned some attention to the history of art in the Andes. Later, in 1935, in his
article Litoesculturas y cermica de Pukara, he referred to Pukara as the
other great center of the culture of the altiplano (Valcrcel 1935:25). In the
same publication, he offers readers more evidence of Pukaras material culture. Of interest to the specialist in the archaeology of the altiplano is that,
for the first time, a researcher refers to the site of Kala Uyu, known today as
Qaluyu. Alfred Kidder later visited the site in 1939, where he excavated other
stelae in the Pukara style.
In virtually all of Valcrcels work, it is clear that the description was
more important than explanation. Even when he does offer some explanations, it is only in regard to the iconography and its comparison with other
cultures. In this sense, for Valcrcel, myths and legends were the basis to
explain the sculptural and ceramic motifs. He referred constantly to Wiracocha, most likely because of Julio C. Tello, who had published a work with that
very same name in 1923 (Tello 1923). Valcrcel also used the popular ethnological method as a means of explaining of the past. This method basically
swept away a series of ontological and epistemological problems. Valcrcel
likewise affirmed that Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer were his principal sources of ideas for his explanations from his student days in Cusco.
Valcrcel adopted a diffusionist posture, although it was more sophisticated
thanks to his experience with stratified archaeological deposits like those
Uhle excavated in Pachacamac. This is evident in Valcrcels writing, such as:
Monoliths and pottery will orient archaeologists to not only the horizontal
plane of diffusion, but also to the perpendicular or stratigraphic one, that is
the basis for theory building (Valcrcel 1935:28).
66
67
68
69
Conclusion
In this chapter I wanted to make it clear that Valcrcel, from his time in
Cusco and despite his lack of training as an archaeologist, contributed to
scholarship on the ancient altiplano societies, especially Pukara. He was
principally influenced by his indigenous perspectives, which were merged
with anarchism and Marxism. On the political level, his different positions
in Billinghursts democratic government and his later relationship with the
dictator Snchez Cerro had major impacts on his visibility and academic
policy, which would have profound implications in the history of archaeology in Peru.
In this sense, regarding the mix of politics and science, Valcrcel was
no different from Tello, who, in his commitment to the Legua dictatorship, defended the indigenous cause from a paternalistic perspective. This
government pushed the change of status of indigenous peoples to that of
paid workers, and at times referred to the indigenous people as a new proletarian class (Tello [1936] 1973). Nevertheless, as we saw, Tellos importance
began to diminish in the 1930s, whereas Valcrcel would continue to be an
important influence in Andean studies, occupying key positions in the Peruvian state such as Education Minister. Perhaps because of his increasingly
important role in the government, Valcrcel moved away from archaeology
and focused on broader topics. Nevertheless, the issues were always related
to indigenous people.
Tellos death in 1947 left the country without one of the most prominent
archaeologists of the first half of the twentieth century. Other researchers,
most prominently Tellos disciples, continued working in the tradition of the
master but with little success. On the north coast, Rafael Larco Hoyle garnered considerable prestige thanks to his research and collections. He too
would be a force in Peruvian archaeology, as we will now see.
Chapter 5
y the early 1940s, Peru seemed to have overcome the world economic crisis that started in the United States a decade earlier. The
social conflicts of the previous decade, which had spread to all of the
main cities of Peru, were strongly suppressed by military governments such
as that of Snchez Cerro (19311933). On the other side, the Communist Party,
after the death of Jos Carlos Maritegui, continued to follow the orthodox
instructions of the iii Communist International. The Communist party effectively failed because of the simplistic way in which they tried to apply foreign
policies in Peru.1
apra, under the leadership of Vctor Ral Haya de la Torre, came to be
the party of the popular classes (Haworth 1992:171). However, the so-called
Peoples Party maintained, in the late 1920s and early 1930s, a manifest
ambivalence with its simultaneous anti-imperialist discourse and procapitalist behavior all the while calling for a social revolution (Cotler 1978:243).2
These contradictions intensified even more when, as expected, the Peruvian
bourgeoisie, due to their economic dependence on and the policies of the us
government, did not share the political objectives of Haya de la Torre, since
these would endanger the oligarchic-imperialist scaffolding that dominated [Peruvian] society (Cotler 1978:243). Trapped between these internal
contradictions and the realities of Peruvian society, the party would never
come to power (Cotler 1978:244). Thus, apra lost the 1931 elections to Snchez Cerro and automatically became the enemy of the state.
The same receptivity to North American capitalism continued with the
government of scar Benavides between 1933 and 1939. For this reason, this
Peruvian Archaeology by Henry Tantalen, 7082. 2014 Left Coast Press Inc. All
rights reserved.
70
71
72
73
by the intellectual vacuum left by the death of Julio C. Tello in 1947 (Burger
1989:38) and the consequent abandonment of the diffusionist thesis.
As mentioned, the researchers arrivals were more formal than before.
Institutions such as the University of California at Berkeley continued a
tradition of Andean studies, which began with Uhles early work in 1896
and increased substantially with American archaeologists such as Alfred
Kroeber (1925a), Duncan Strong (1942), John Rowe (1942a), Dorothy Menzel
(Rowe 1956), and Lawrence Dawson (Rowe [1961] 1970:41920). Also, in 1959,
San Marcos University organized a program of research on the coast in collaboration with the Fulbright Commission, which included the participation of Dwight Wallace, Lawrence Dawson, Dorothy Menzel, and Edward P.
Lanning, among others (Rowe [1961] 1970:421). All of this was made possible
by the political and economic climate in Peru at the time, which offered a
favorable situation for this unprecedented influx of foreign researchers. We
have already briefly explained this historical phenomenon; now we can focus
on the iconic archaeologists of this period. We start with Wendell C. Bennett.
74
75
76
77
78
marginal societies. This is obvious in Stewards Handbook, and is clear evidence of the evolutionism of this work.
Willey also emphasized the definition of horizon style, a concept that,
as we saw in chapter 2, Uhle had already established at the end of the nineteenth century and that Kroeber had been using since 1942 in Peru. Willey
himself described the situation:
Most North American archaeologists in the Peruvian field have followed
in the tradition of the German scholar, Max Uhle, particularly the Uhle
scheme as it has been explained and enlarged by A. L. Kroeber. The UhleKroeber methodology is that of cross-dating regional culture sequences
of Peru with stylistic time-markers, or horizon styles. The goal is to build
a time-space framework of cultures as synchronously perfect as possible.
The Incaic and Tiahuanaco styles were employed as horizons, but neither
Uhle nor Kroeber used Chavn in this manner (Willey [1951] 1970:108).
In this way, we see how North American archaeologists were largely
united in their opposition to Tello and instead felt more comfortable
with Larco Hoyle, as Willey noted: North American opinion on the
functional significance of the widespread Chavn-style manifestations
is closer to that of Larco than to that of Tello (Willey [1951] 1970:109).
This position cannot be understood without noting that Rafael Larco
Hoyle had the full backing of the us archaeologists (Figure 21). Trained in the
United States, Larco Hoyle was a member of the landed bourgeoisie that had
emerged on the north coast, owning a large property in Chicama Valley. Larco
Hoyle likewise developed his thesis as a
counter to Tellos, arguing that the
spirit of Chavn art was coastal, not
from the sierra or the Amazon (Larco
Hoyle [1938] 2001:28). Larcos theories
also belie a strong political-ideological
subtext, which is understandable because at that time there was a struggle
over productive forces in the country
and conflict between the sierra and the
coast (bourgeois landowners versus
dispossessed peasants). Tellos theory of
79
Chavns sierra origin can be seen as part of his own ideological and political
motives.
With these criticisms, Willey became the leading voice in opposition to
Tellos thesis of the unity of Andean civilization, and the ground was prepared
for new theories from North American archaeologists.
80
chy known as the Sugar Barons by the Apristas (Burga and Flores Galindo
1984:51). This socioeconomic class was intimately linked with the sugar cane
boom on the north coast in the first decades of the twentieth century, specifically in the Chicama Valley. Of particular interest to us is that the Hacienda
Chicln was in the center of these plantations. A brief history of the Larco
family can help us to understand the context of the Chicln Roundtable.
The first-generation immigrant Larco brothers were born on the island of
Sardinia, Italy, and arrived in Lima in the middle of the nineteenth century
as merchants. Two of these brothers, Andrs and Rafael Larco, moved to
Chicama in 1867. Rafael Larco married Josefina Herrera. When Rafael Larco
died in 1888, his heirs founded the Viuda de Larco e Hijos Company with
the intent to work the Hacienda Chiquitoy, located on the south margin of
the Chicama Valley. In 1895, the company leased Chicln but, given a series
of family setbacks, the business was dissolved. Victor Larco Herrera became
the sole owner of the mill, the reed beds, and other capital at Chiquitoy.
He later bought the hacienda from this uncle Andrs. The other siblings
Rafael, Alberto, Mara, and Carlosformed the Sociedad Larco Herrera
with the intent to work the Chicln land, but over time, new family conflicts
Figure 23. North AmericanChicln Roundtableattendants. From left to right: unidentified,
Donald Collier, unidentified, Junius Bird, Wendell C. Bennett, James Ford, Gordon Willey,
Clifford Evans, and Duncan Strong. Courtesy of the Larco Museum Archive.
81
fragmented the resources and land. At this time, Rafael Larco Herrera was
already collecting antiquities and had an interest in how the ancient prehispanic inhabitants of this area had solved the water supply problem in the
valley (Burga and Flores Galindo 1984:53).
Thus, Rafael Larco Hoyle grew up in an area rich in archaeology, in a cultured and philanthropic family, though primarily they were landowners and
members of a provincial aristocratic family. His studies in the United States
and his European tour increasingly drew him to the hegemonic archaeology of that time. Certainly, his life was full of different motivations vis vis
archaeology; for instance, Larco Hoyle founded the Museo Arqueolgico
de Chicln in 1926 with his vast personal collection, an early example of the
private creation of an archaeological institution in Peru (Figure 22). His work
is important because it was foundational for the archaeology of Perus northern coast, discovering cultures much as Tello did, and creating the famous
phases of the Moche. Larco rivaled Tello not only because of this private
museum but also because of his divergent views on the origin of the mother
culture of Andean society. Obviously, one can see that each had a personal
vision of archaeology rooted in their divergent life experiences, research
interests, ideologies, and political agenda.
With the Chicln Roundtable, Larco Hoyle finally dominated north-coast
archaeology as well as Peruvian archaeology in general. He used this opportunity to articulate his plans for Peruvian archaeology with members
of the Vir Project (Figure 23). As Ramn says: Although the Roundtable
included the principal national authorities (Jorge Muelle, Julio Tello, and
Luis Valcrcel), of the Peruvians, only the host participated (2005:11). As we
noted earlier, Valcrcel dominated the archaeological scene at this time, and
Muelle was one of his principal collaborators.10 At this time, Tello was finishing up his last projects, specifically at the site of Pachacamac (see Figure 14).
Tello would die soon thereafter in June 1947 (Bueno 2010:24), just a year after
the Chicln Roundtable.
Discussion
The 1940s were important globally with a war between two large blocs;
although it was largely a European and Asian conflict, it affected many countries around the world. Peru was no exception. The war also created alliances
among countries of the world, Peru included, although its participation was
peripheral. As primarily a commodities export country, Peru had to decide
where her loyalties were and whom it would support in this global conflict.
The government opted for the Allies and imported certain us policies at
82
home. Therefore, because of World War ii, us influence was felt in various
fields, including the intellectual and ideological.
One of the great archaeological investigations in the world, the Vir
Project, took place during this time, coinciding with the publication of the
Handbook of South American Indians as part of a project sponsored by official
institutions of the us government. Also, apart from American archaeologists, Rafael Larco Hoyle became the predominant archaeological intellectual in the country thanks to his work of many decades on the north coast
and his shared vision with the Vir Project archaeologists. In Lima, Tellos
health faded along with his intellectual and political importance, his major
ideas increasingly being displaced by more innovative ones. His disciples
struggled to keep his legacy alive, but were increasingly more marginalized
within the national archaeological scene.
Thus, the archaeology of the 1940s marks what Alexander Herrera
(2010:149)following Trigger (1989a:623)calls the beginning of a global
archaeology; that is, an archaeology that clearly articulates the interests
and projects of the hegemonic centers of intellectual and economic power.
Peruvian archaeology in later decades would be conducted within this perspective, and political changes would favor yet again other kinds of archaeology, including the support of nationalist archaeologies.
Chapter 6
84
85
his message to the country on July 27, 1949, he began with a diatribe against
apra. Odra, in one of his most vicious statements, says: I declare to you, as
President of Peru, that the 23 years of apra constituted a string of offenses
against all rights and all obligations [of the nation], against individuals and
against institutions, against the past and against the future (Odra 1948). In
this context of strengthening Peruvian-American relations, it is not surprising that the United States looked favorably on Perus policy of apras political persecution.
Manuel Prados second government (19561962) continued the policies
of his first term as well as the Odra economic policies, although he now allied with apra in what was known as the Coexistence (La Convivencia).
This is also the period of the fishing boom, a time of economic success fueled from mainly from the fishmeal industry. This energized the economy,
especially for the upper-class coastal urban elites. The city of Lima, like other
coastal cities, became a magnet for many rural families; as a consequence,
this generated a substantial demographic growth and led to social problems,
particularly in the absence of state planning. It also prepared the foundations of what Jos Matos Mar (1986) called the popular flood (desborde
popular). Meanwhile, the agrarian areas were in a precarious situation.
There were conflicts between the local authorities and the provincial elites
that controlled the land and the labor of the campesinos on their properties.
This was very clear in the pressures for land reform, like in La Convencin
Valley, Cusco, headed by Hugo Blanco and others, that we will see later were
linked with those called the guerrillas of Peru.
86
87
88
89
90
Conclusion
John Rowes influence in Andean archaeology, both theoretically and empirically, begins with his initial work in the southern sierra. Rowe came to the
city of Cusco in 1939 and immediately began a lively scholarly interaction
with his American colleagues as well as with celebrated Peruvian scholars
such as Manuel Chvez Balln and Oscar Nez del Prado. This work from
the 1940s to the 1960s distinguished the archaeology of the region. It can
be understood as part of a general historical process in which at least two
theoretical schoolscultural history and social evolutionengaged in a
dialectical tension that reflected the theory and praxis of twentieth-century
archaeology.
Likewise, many of the concepts and categories defined by Rowe still
affect the way in which we represent Andean archaeology. As we have
seenand as Rowe himself notedthese broader theoretical concepts are
only heuristic devices. Only the absolute chronologies (such as those in the
master sequence in Ica) can guarantee any advance in the archaeological
investigations of prehispanic societies.
Rowes work in Peru continued the tradition of Berkeley researchers that
we already saw in the work of Uhle and, later, Alfred Kroeber and his students. Rowe also wanted to establish analytical tools and methods to cover
the greater part of the Andes. His influence is such that we continue to use
the horizon system. While his system has limitations, it is still a valuable
frame of reference to understand the broad outlines of prehispanic Andean
civilizations.
Chapter 7
he previous chapter outlined the veritable golden age of the Peruvian economy in the 1950s. Yet, the military had to intervene again,
especially in politics and the national economy, in the late 1960s. As
Nelson Manrique says:
From a military perspective, the growing dependence of the Peruvian
economy in relation to the us economy compromised the independence
of the country, endangering national security. The armed forces saw
these developments with growing concern. This profound ideological
shift that started in the late fifties, culminated in the Velasco revolution.
An important factor in this shift was the questioning of the process of
denationalization [privatization] of the national resources and the
conviction that those that benefitted would not be allowed to defend the
interests of the nation (Manrique 2009:154).
The 1960s, especially from 1962 to the coup of Velasco Alvarado in 1968,
was a politically convulsive time in Peru. During these years there was a military junta (19621963) and the first government of the architect Fernando
Belande Terry (19631968). There were enormous social problems in the
provinces, where many had risen up against the unjust socioeconomic system
that favored the rights of the propertied classes over those of the campesinos.
The 1960s also was the era of the great peasant movements demanding
land as well as the formation of leftist groups that took up arms. Various
guerrilla groups formed, including those of Luis de la Puente Uceda of Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria (mir). These guerrillas were inspired by
Peruvian Archaeology by Henry Tantalen, 91102. 2014 Left Coast Press Inc. All
rights reserved.
91
92
93
Andes. However, this approach began to have real impact only in the twentieth century, especially through the work of John Rowe, as we saw earlier.
John Victor Murra (19162006), Rowes near-contemporary researcher from
the United States, was born in Eastern Europe (specifically the Ukraine, but
moved to Romania)1 and helped develop this research tradition. Some of
the greatest ethnohistorians of our time, Mara Rostworowski and Franklin
Pease, also emerged at this time. Murras work was methodologically significant because he generated a research framework and a group of disciples
that tested his ethnohistorically generated ideas with archaeological data.
Murra was interested in prehispanic societies long before his arrival in
Peru in 1958. He had traveled in Ecuador from August 1941 to February 1942
(Barnes 2009b:8;) gathering data for his masters thesis (Barnes 2009:2b;
Murra 1942); he also published an article with Donald Collier and Sharat K.
Roy (Collier et al. 1943) and two chapters himself in the Handbook of South
American Indians (Murra 1946, 1948).2 He maintained his collaboration with
Julian Steward, the editor of the Handbook, in 1948 and 1949 when he worked
under him in the Peoples of Puerto Rico Project (19471950). Murra conducted ethnographic research in six communities on this island (Salomon
2007:793 cited in Barnes 2010:12).
Marisol de la Cadena notes:
In 1952, while still a graduate student at the University of Chicago, Murra
traveled to Jamaica, hired by his friend, the American anthropologist
Sydney Mintz, and then traveled to Puerto Rico under the auspices of
Julian Steward. From Jamaica, Murra went to Cuba where he met
Fernando Ortiz, the author of Contrapunto cubano. Tabaco y azcar . . .
perhaps the earliest historical ethnography produced by a Latin
American intellectualits first edition had a preface by Bronislaw
Malinowski. . . . From Cuba, Murra took a boat to the Yucatan and then a
plane to Mexico City, where he met another anthropologist, the Spaniard
Angel Palerm, where they spent long hours talking about anthropology
and revolution. . . . Later, he also would participate in conversations
with the Mexican Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrn who had studied anthropology at Northwestern University with Melville Herskovitz and, like
Ortiz, was interested in africana. This dense social networkof friendship, opportunity, academic interests and political viewsthat connected many different countriesthe US, Cuba Mxico, Spain and
Romaniashows the complexity of anthropological conceptual interactions between North and South America. This also suggests the existence of a Latin American intellectual network beyond the borders of
individual countries (de la Cadena 2007:112).
94
So Murra, who also had fought in the Spanish Civil War with the International Brigade, continued to cultivate his relationships with leftist intellectuals in Latin America. In other areas, however (Barnes 2010:14), one can
see his alienation from the Marxist left, basically because he had lived in a
repressive communist regime and was disillusioned from his experience in
Spain. In spite of this, Murra continued to be motivated by leftist and materialist ideas, and one can understand his closeness with like-minded intellectuals in South America.
In 1956, using sources from already published material, Murra finished
his doctoral dissertation at the University of Chicago, a work that would
become one of the most influential in understanding Inca economic organization. Beginning in 1958, he followed this research focus with studies on
the relationship between the Incas and their subject peoples, such as that
seen in the Visitas of Chucuito (Dez de San Miguel [1567] 1964) and Hunuco
(Ortz de Zuiga [1562] 1967).3 Basing his theories on these primary source
documents, Murra created one of the most important models of Andean
political economy: the vertical archipelago.
Murras work was inspired by substantivist economic historians and
anthropologists, especially Karl Polanyi,4 a professor at Columbia University.
Polanyi was celebrated for his book The Great Transformation (1944), and
was developing ideas with his colleagues that would be published in a book
called Trade and Market in the Early Empires (1957; see Barnes 2010:1314).
This framework was politically and theoretically leftist. Murras doctoral
thesis, The Economic Organization of the Inca Empire, was clearly in this
tradition and provided a deeper materialist understanding of Inca society. It
also marked an important point in which archaeology would be integrated
with the early chronicles. It was now necessary for Murra to prove his hypothesis in the field (Figure 24).
As Monica Barnes (2010) writes:
In 1958 and 1959, with his passport in hand, and on leave from Vassar
[the university where he taught in these years], Murra conducted
ethnological and ethnohistorical work in Peru. . . . In the 195960
academic year Murra did additional archival research in Lima. During
this period Murra taught a general course, The Economic Organization
of the Inca State, based on his dissertation and an advanced seminar,
Ethnohistorical Uses of the xvith Century Sources on Inca Social
and Economic Organization, at San Marcos University in Lima. Up to
this point Murra had had little opportunity to work with unpublished
archival sources himself, although he saw the potential and had
95
96
Figure 25. From left to right: John Murra, Craig Morris, Mara Rostworowski, Javier de la
Rocha, Rafael Varon Gabai, Cecilia Blondet, and Franklin Pease. Art Museum, Lima, 1997.
Courtesy of Mariana Mould de Pease.
97
During the late 1950s Murra had made field visits to the Hunuco area
and knew from personal observations that late period archaeological
sites of many types were abundant there, and that the great Inca
administrative center of Hunuco Pampa was well preserved. Murra
proposed an integration of several lines of evidence to create a more
advanced interpretation of Inca life. The visitas provided a list of sites
with a variety of functions. These included villages, shrines, markets,
and fortresses, as well as roads and their way-stations or tambos. In his
successful National Science Foundation application Murra expressed
the belief that it would be possible to locate and visit every place
mentioned, excavating a selection. Archaeological evidence could then
be integrated with the detailed historical accounts (Barnes 2009b:29).
To achieve the project goals, Murra brought together a number of researchers from different American and Peruvian specialties. He put himself
in charge of the ethnohistorical research, and named Donald E. Thompson
as director of the archaeological work. John L. Cotter, an archaeologist with
the US Park Service, also was in the original crew. Robert McKelvey Bird,
son of the legendary Junius Bird and a graduate student at the University
of California, was responsible for the botanical work. Peter Jenson, a Peace
Corps volunteer with experience in museums, oversaw the laboratory. The
team likewise included Gordon D. Hadden and Daniel Shea (Barnes 2010:30).
Murra also mentions in his memoirs that Craig Morris was a volunteer at
the beginning of the project (Murra 2000:115). The Peruvian archaeologists
on the project were Manuel Chvez Balln, Ramiro Matos Mendieta, Luis
Barreda Murillo, and Rogger Ravines, as well as students Csar Fonseca Martel, Emilio Mendizbal Losack, and Juan M. Ossio Acua, and the American
Freda Wolf (Barnes 2010:2930).
Barnes (2010) likewise notes:
According to the outline presented in Murras N.S.F. proposal, and
interim reports submitted, the first year of the project, to begin officially
on July 1, 1963, was devoted to survey to identify the installations mentioned by Ortiz de Ziga, including the great site of Hunuco Pampa
and fortresses noted by Ortiz but not visited by him. Of special interest
was the market town at Chinchacocha. The extent to which markets, as
opposed to other forms of state-sponsored or local exchange, functioned
in the Andes remains somewhat unclear, but Murra addressed this
issue in many of his writings, including his dissertation. In general,
Murras Hunuco-centered work has contributed a great deal to our
understanding of the economic organization of the Inca state.
98
99
decision to work on urbanism. In fact, both Childe and Adams are cited in
Morris articles about Hunuco Pampa (Morris 1973, 1980, 1985), providing
some insight into his theoretical leanings. From his numerous publications,
it is clear that throughout his career, Morris developed a research program
focused on the archaeology of Inca political and economic organization (see
Marcus 2007; Morris 1967, 1972, 1982; Morris and Thompson 1985).
One can also appreciate that the other great influence on Morris was
North American theory based initially on economic anthropology and its
methods, in particular the substantivist position of John Murra and his
students (Tantalen 2010b). It was within this theoretical framework that
Morris sought to understand the development of Andean cities, particularly
those of the Inca. Furthermore, his long stays in Peru permitted him to understand modern society and the differences that had developed over the
centuries, if not millennia.
It is worth remembering that Murra was supported by the Universidad
de Hunuco through the assistance of a Peruvian congressman (Carlos Showing Ferrari) and the Institute of Andean Research. With this help, he started
excavations under the broad permit of cleaning and conservation (limpieza
y consolidacin) the site (Murra and Hadden 1966). In reality, the excavations
were substantial; Murra and his team reconstructed many of the large walls
and installed new streets and access routes, which we now consider enhancements to the visitor experience at Hunuco Pampa. He also initiated a
series of projects to reconstruct the ushnu and other buildings at the site.
100
101
102
Conclusion
John Murra was one of the most prominent anthropologists in the study of
Andean societies in the second half of the twentieth century. His concept
of the vertical archipelago generated a great ethnohistoric tradition in the
social sciences, especially in archaeology. His particularist, antiuniversalist
views echoed with a generation and highlighted the precapitalist condition
of indigenous peoples. This was all done during the Cold War, consistent
with the substantivist economic anthropological theory of Karl Polanyi and
his followers, who dismissed the existence of markets and instead focused
on reciprocity and redistribution in the economy.
In a social environment such as Perus in the second half of the twentieth
century, where on one hand indigenous groups were marginalized and exploited, and on the other hand there was a growing insurgency in the form
of indigenous political movements, Murras proposals resonated with the
Peruvian left. With the coming of the military junta, he found his ideas fell
squarely in the center of Peruvian political and social life.
Chapter 8
s we saw in chapter 4, early leftist views among intellectuals interested in archaeology and the indigenismo movement were consistent with those of the young Luis E. Valcrcel. A later period in the
history of Peruvian archaeology (which I have defined previously [Tantalen
2006]) is the link with Marxist thought, which was in part a product of the
work of Emilio Choy Ma. To understand its academic marginality (Macera
1979), we delve into what has been called the cultural historical/neoevolutionary phenomenon, which would come to dominate successive governments from roughly 1940 to 1968.
As discussed earlier, North American archaeologists came to Peru in the
1940s in a systematic manner with support from various governmental and
nongovernmental agencies. These archaeologists were largely in the cultural
historical camp. This theory, although well developed in the United States
and Europe, had only recently been introduced to Peru by Tello. A second
group of North American archaeologists began to introduce neoevolutionary theory (principally developed by Julian Steward and his students) in the
1950s, filling the vacuum left by Tellos death in 1947 (Burger 1989:38; Morales
1993:22) and the subsequent abandonment of the diffussionist thesis surrounding the mother culture concept of Chavn.
Much of the archaeological theory in Peru during this time was articulated through this hegemonic, foreign influence. Emilio Choy Ma, son of Chinese immigrants, was one researcher who resisted this influence.
Peruvian Archaeology by Henry Tantalen, 103115. 2014 Left Coast Press Inc.
All rights reserved.
103
104
105
Figure 27. Archaeology graduation ceremony, San Marcos University, 1974. From left to right:
Daniel Morales, Ramiro Matos, Lucy Salazar, Rosa Fung, Mara Mendoza, and Emilio Choy
Ma. Courtesy of John Rick.
106
107
and with an avowedly anti-imperialist policy, the special forces counterinsurgency training remained the same, the manuals continued as before the
internal hierarchies continued and paradoxically the officials . . . acquired
certain aristocratic features (Flores Galindo 1999:10).
In 1975, the military junta replaced Velasco with General Francisco Morales
Bermdez, an institutionalist military leader (Mauceri 1989:15) from an
aristrocratic family in Lima. Morales Bermdez carried out the systematic
dismantling of his predecessors work. The pressures of the International
Monetary Fund (imf) required the government to make sharp adjustments
that led to new problems in the Peruvian economy, forcing Morales Bermdez to reopen the doors to foreign investment and grant large concessions
(Deniz 1978:12). Finally, Morales Bermdez called the Constituent Assembly
of 1978 to make the transition to democracy, presided over by the Aprista
Vctor Ral Haya de la Torre. It was in this context that the archaeologist
Luis Lumbreras emerged in tandem with what is known as Latin American
social archaeology (Fernndez Martnez 2005; Patterson 1994; Politis
2006:171).
108
Figure 28. International Congress of Americanists at Lima, 1970. From left to right: Carlos
Ponce Sangins, Mario Sanoja, Lautaro Nuez, Luis G. Lumbreras, and Jos Luis Lorenzo.
Courtesy of Luis G. Lumbreras.
109
110
111
112
Figure 29. San Marcos Universitys Museum of Archaeology inauguration, 1969. From left to
right: Luis E. Valcrcel, Juan de Dios Guevara (Rector of the University), Jorge C. Muelle, Luis
G. Lumbreras, and Antonio Cornejo Polar. Courtesy of Luis G. Lumbreras.
Nevertheless, the methodology to apply this in practice is still a missing element in this book, perhaps because it was a preliminary statement and a
very new and radical way of perceiving social materiality. Or, as at least one
author has suggested (Navarrete 2006), he sought to convert this into a popular discourse and to construct a revolutionary political program.
This book was a major factor that prompted Jos Luis Lorenzo to organize the Reunin de Teotihuacn in 1975 (Lorenzo 1976), an event that promoted this theoretical and political perspective. As mentioned earlier, the
organizers hoped that each of the participants would bring this perspective
back to their home country.
In this sense, Lumbreras political and theoretical views became more
visible and influential with his return to Lima and with his enhanced position at San Marcos University. For instance, in the year 2000, one of his books
was selected as one of the 50 books that every cultured Peruvian should
read. This book, De los Orgenes del Estado, was published in 1972 as a gift to
his son, and as a result was written for a popular audience (Lumbreras 2010).
With this work, Lumbreras clearly moved the (pre)history of the Central
Andes as a class struggle into a classic Marxist paradigm.
113
114
Conclusion
Although Latin American social archaeology, especially Peruvian archaeology, is a common theme among the archaeologists who are dedicated to the
history of archaeology, especially in Latin America, the issue of how to put
it into practice is still an understudied component of this paradigm. This is
due to the fact that this is still a nascent enterprise, or as one Latin American
author (Navarrete 2006) has suggested, because it aspires to become a form
of popular discourse building a revolutionary political program.
Lumbreras developed an archaeology created by Peruvians based upon
an anticolonialist critique of North American influence. Paradoxically, the
postulates of this work resulted in a contradiction between discourse and
practice, evident perhaps in the evolutionary logic underlying the culturalhistorical categories in the writings of various Marxist authors (see especially
Lumbreras 1974b). Nevertheless, we must recognize that Lumbreras emerged
as the most important synthesizer of Peruvian archaeology of the time. This
is made even more evident by the fact that his work was published in other
languages.
As I state elsewhere (Tantalen 2004), the theme of archaeology as a
social science was restricted to alternative rhetorical and hegemonic discourses related to capitalism, but it had minimal effect on the society that
it was supposed to help4 (Benavides 2005:10; Valdez 2004:131). Another factor (see Politis 2006:171), especially for Peru (Bonavia and Matos 1992:217),
that explains the debacle in social archaeology is the persecution from
governmental authorities in the 1980s and 1990s.5 In fact, the traditional
autonomy of San Marcos University in Lima won in Crdoba, Argentina, in
115
Chapter 9
Introduction
n the late 1960s, North American archaeologists inspired by the theoretical and methodological principles of processualist archaeology began
to conduct projects in Peru. Luis Lumbreras and the Marxism paradigm
were dominant in Lima, but outside the capital its impact was minor to
nonexistent because Perus provincial cities did not have solid archaeology training programs. Although there was an atmosphere of nationalism
promoted by the government, this did not translate into the establishment
of archaeological schools outside of the capital, and in some parts of Peru,
there were no archaeology programs in the local universities at all.
The larger cities had universities with some archaeologists, though one
could say that while there was a theoretical perspective that came from
Limaespecially San Marcos Universityin places like Trujillo or Arequipa,
archaeology was basically an empirical pursuit, a situation that persists to
the present day. Furthermore, because the Velasco government was increasingly weak and eventually collapsed, processual archaeology, associated
more with conservative elements in the country, became more important
(except for a slump in the 1980s that was due to some internal conflicts).
From the 1990s to the present day, it remains the dominant archaeological
current in the country. Before we study processual archaeology in any depth,
we need to look at the historical context in which it emerged in the 1960s
through the 1980s.
Peruvian Archaeology by Henry Tantalen,116125. 2014 Left Coast Press Inc. All
rights reserved.
116
117
118
Processualism
The original processualism of the 1960s (Binford 1962) had as its objective to
explain cultural systems. In this sense, it focused beyond the individual cultures and instead sought to explain the (universal) processes of social systems
that were in turn composed of subsystems such as social, religious, psychological, ideological, technological, economic, and so forth (Clarke
[1968] 1984:88131). Culture became the extrasomatic means of adaptation
(an idea originally proposed by Leslie White in 1949) and a marker of a human ecological system (Binford 1962). Through systems theory (cybernetics), processualism understood culture as composed of different levels of
subsystems, each of which left different kinds of artifacts. The social theory
adopted by processualism was evolutionary in nature, inspired by ethnography. This neoevolutionary theory incorporated a typology of societies, such
as that of chiefdom, a category that has been criticized from within and
from outside of processualism (Yofee 2005).
Processualism in Peru was based in large part on the work of Gordon
Willey. It was seen as a methodology linked to cultural ecology and other
scientific approaches, using new methodologies to test anthropological
models (Stanish 1999). One difference with the cultural historical school is
the scientism based upon a positivist logic (Trigger 1992:282). The settlement pattern represented the past distribution of cultures, and the shifts
through time represented cultural change via underlying social processes. In
this theory, generalizations were considered one of the goals of science. In its
more extreme form, processualists sought to discover underlying laws of social process (e.g., Watson et al. 1974). In this view, the hypothetical-deductive
method guaranteed research objectivity. Soon, processual archaeology integrated sophisticated methods and techniques in the analysis of settlements,
many of which originated in the Cambridge school of paleoeconomy (Higgs
119
1975; Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1970), and site catchment analysis became a
popular method to understand human-environment interactions. From
these new models and methods (such as locational geography) one could
propose doing a spatial archaeology (Clarke 1977; Hodder and Orton 1990).
Regional survey data defined these processes and the evolution of societies. The methodology was practically the same; what changed was the
method to analyze the archaeological evidence. The techniques in this case
were more sophisticated and began to incorporate multidisciplinary studies in archaeology ( for example, see Brothwell and Higgs [1969] 1980). This
broad approach was designed to study social complexity. The artifacts were
viewed as means to adapt to a physical environment just as Binford has
argued with his concepts of the technomic, sociotechnic, and ideotechnic
(Binford 1962). These three categories clearly corresponded to the three subsystems described here.
For processualists, the appearance of exotic artifacts did not indicate migrations, as they did in the earlier cultural history framework. Rather, emergent elite or leaders obtained prestige goods ( for example, see Johnson and
Earle 2000) to reinforce the social system. Processual theory interpreted
such data within a fairly clear neoliberal philosophy where the social contract, the optimization of natural resources, competition, prestige, and
status were natural motivations for the human species. In this sense, one
could see anthropological models play out in the shifts in settlement patterns. With these data, one could conduct a comparative scientific analysis
around the world, observing settlement pattern changes in the social evolution of complex societies (Stanish 1999:117).
This kind of archaeology, although developed by Binford in his influential
article in 1962, had to wait for the right conditions to flourish in Peru. At the
end of the 1970s, the cultural historical school confronted the rising neoevolutionary tide, now reinforced by Binfordian theories and assisted by the
methodologies and techniques that supported this neopositivist framework.
The rapid acceptance of processual theories, likewise, was assisted by the inability of historical materialism to consolidate as a school of thought in Peru.
This was exacerbated by the missed opportunities presented in the political
environment created by the Velasco military government(Tantalen 2004),
opportunities that could have allowed the consolidation of a Peruvian school
of archaeology centered on an historical materialist perspective.
Processual archaeology likewise was supported by eminent Peruvian
archaeologists such as Ramiro Matos, who was funded by the Smithsonian
Institution beginning in the 1960s. Here, Matos met North American archaeologists working in Mexico, such as Jeffrey Parsons (Parsons and Matos
120
Mendieta 2002:vii). Parsons had been a field assistant to the great William
Sanders, director of the Teotihuacn Valley Project (Parsons 2004:1). Matos
later worked in the central sierra of Peru with Kent Flannery, Jeffrey Parsons,
Terence DAltroy, and others. Most notable was the Upper Mantaro Archaeological Research Project (umarp), directed by Timothy Earle at ucla (Parsons and Matos Mendieta 2002:vii). umarp was one of the most explicitly
processual projects in the world at that time.
One project that produced a generation of strongly processual archaeologists was the Chan ChanValle de Moche project. This project was made
up almost exclusively of North American archaeologists, though not all of
these scholars adopted a processualist framework in their research.
121
of the Moche state, including the famous Huacas de la Luna y el Sol. According to Luis Jaime Castillo (Castillo 2013), among the most important studies
were by Theresa Topic on excavations at Moche (1977), by Sheila Pozorski on
the diet and subsistence in the Moche Valley (1976), the study of the funerary contexts excavated at all of the sites published by Donnan and Mackey
(1978), and Charles Ortloff s hydraulic analysis (Ortloff et al. 1982).
Unfortunately, the team never produced a final report for the project,
except for some edited volumes that are more interpretation than data.
These volumes include Chan Chan: Andean Desert City, edited by Michael
Moseley and Kent Day (1982); The Northern Dynasties Kingship and Statecraft
of Chimor, edited by Moseley and Cordy-Collins (1990); and Chan Chan:
Metrpoli Chim, edited by Rogger Ravines (1980). The projects field notes,
maps, and photographs are stored at the Peabody Museum Archives of Harvard University.
Two notable projects developed out of the original undertaking, one
conducted by Garth Bawden and the other by Kent Day. These projects
focused on the later Moche periods and its collapse. Bawden (1977, 1982a,
1982b) investigated the site of Galindo, a late Moche site. His interpretations
were more inspired by what we now call postprocessualism, but in essence
is a kind of structuralism tinged with historical materialism (Quilter and
Koons 2012:132) similar to the French structural Marxist tradition of Louis
Althusser. Day worked at the site of Pampa Grande, located in the neck of the
Chancay Valley in Lambayeque, with young researchers including the late
Martha Anders (1981), Izumi Shimada (1976, 1978), and Jonathan Haas (1985).
These researchers studied storage systems, agricultural zones, ceremonial
sectors, and habitation areas of the great pyramids. Unfortunately, Day never
published the results of his work. Fortunately, Izumi Shimada (1976, 1994)
published some of the results of this project (Castillo 2013).
After this pioneering project with its influential processualist theoretical
and methodological framework, I now turn our attention to the Peruvian
sierra, where another large-scale project was established in the 1970s.
122
123
124
of Omo represents an example of altiplano peoples exploiting lowland territories in a very different ecological zone, data that supported John Murras
model of zonal complementarity.
The 1995 season at Chen Chen continued basic research on the site, but
also was intended to recover tomb lots in the massive cemetery at the settlement. These tombs had been known since the 1950s thanks to the work of
the Japanese mission led by Eiichiro Ishida (see Ishida 1960). The project
was an emergency rescue as well: there were plans to build the large Pasto
Grande Canal, which would lead to the imminent expansion of the town of
Moquegua. Even in the 1990s there was a pueblo joven above the city center
expanding toward the site. Today, most of the site has been covered by modern housing or has been destroyed. There is no question that the Programa
Contisuyu rescued the prehistory of this area in the valley; without this team,
these data would have been permanently lost.
Programa Contisuyu also worked to create the Museo Arqueolgico
Regional, thanks initially to the financial support of the Southern Peru Copper Corporation and donors from Lima. This facility continues to support
research to the present day.
Conclusion
Since its arrival in Peru at the end of the 1970s, processualist archaeology
generated great changes in the method and theory of how research was conducted in the country. It was explicitly more scientific, based upon neopositivist assumptions, methods, and techniques. More processualist projects
were conducted in the 1980s, above all in the areas of the country that were
not affected by the conflict between Sendero Luminoso and the military,
particularly on the coast and in the Aymara-speaking areas of the Peruvian
altiplano. Projects included the survey in the Santa Valley by David Wilson
(1988), research by Richard Burger and Lucy Burger-Salazar in the Lurn Valley (Burger and Burger-Salazar 1991), and the Programa Collasuyu (using the
model of Programa Contisuyu) in Puno.4
Many Peruvian archaeologists worked with North American archaeologists from the 1940s up to the 1970s. In the 1970s and 1980s there was considerable knowledge transfer, with Peruvian students learning processual
method and theory, logic, andmost importantthe concepts and philosophical assumptions of this neopositivist approach. Nevertheless, most
Peruvian archaeologists continued to work in the cultural historical school,
essentially creating a hybrid approach that mixed the cultural historical
with the processual. Some archaeologists were more committed to these
125
projects, such as Ramiro Matos, who worked directly with foreign projects in
the central Andes. As Peter Kaulicke (2011) recalls about the 1970s, although
processualism had already started in the Andes, and results were being published in foreign venues, at the local level the archaeologists at San Marcos
University continued to pursue a national archaeology:
On one side was San Marcos archaeology, the undisputed national center
of archaeology dominated by specialists of international reputation as
Lumbreras, Matos and Fung that attracted the attention of almost all
foreigners interested in Perus pre-Hispanic past. There was a moment
prior to this period in which archaeology was to be separated from
anthropology (1975), a process in which I was involved. I also was aware
of the students viewpoints and the personal problems, the tendency to
form groups, the lack of infrastructure reflected in the publications
(Arqueologa y Sociedad, Boletn del Seminario de Arqueologa, Apuntes
Arqueolgicos, las Obras del Seminario Rural Andino, etc.) that were
merely mimeographed and poorly circulated. On the other hand, the
Seminario de Arqueologa de RivaAgero was a center dedicated basically to the study of sites near or in Lima (Tablada de Lurn, Pando) with
little funding and with little national or international prestige (Kaulicke
2011:19).
As we will see in the next chapters, the situation would change in the
following decades, most profoundly when the archaeology major was created at pucp in 1983. However, the 1980s was a difficult time to conduct
archaeological research, particularly in the sierra, because of terrorism and
the economic crisis.
In the 1990s, processual archaeologists could again work in a safer
environment with the cessation of internal conflict. Up to the present day,
processualism, each year a bit more sophisticated theoretically and methodologically, and successfully addressing the criticisms that were leveled in the
Anglophone world, has remained important in Peruvian archaeology and
has partnered well with new generations of archaeologists, particularly with
the pucp, as we will see.
Chapter 10
Introduction
127
128
129
undemocratically, and it was converted into a place where one could only
learn professional careers, not a place for social and political critique. This,
as designed, led to a push away from confronting the social problems of
Peru, with few exceptions.
In 1992, the San Marcos University was deeply troubled. In fact, a year
earlier Fujimori personally visited the campus, also known as Ciudad Universitaria.8 The government policies took effect immediately:9 the military
occupied the university, students and professors were arrested and jailed,
and barracks were even installed on the campus itself (see Burt 2006:47).10
Students were required to leave classes during sweeps of the campus.11 As
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission reports (Comisin de la Verdad
y Reconciliacin 2003:655): The presence of the military base also meant
that sweeping operations were conducted during school hours. These operations detained many student who were listed as being involved in alleged
subversive activities.12 This repression was made complete with blackouts,
military drafts, and nighttime curfews that severely restricted the movement
of citizens in the streets of Lima.
The policies of the neoliberal philosophy were also implemented in the
university at this time.13 The curriculum was altered to be antipolitical
or politically neutral (poltica pasiva; Ponce 2002) with a focus on the
technical applications of knowledge (Degregori [2000] 2011; Lynch 2000:23),
a consequence of the disenchantment of young people with the traditional
political parties and critical, liberatory ideas. This was especially true on
the left due to some anachronistic ideas, the repression of the universities,
and the perception ( fed by the media) that political activism was negative
or, in the best scenario, that it was not necessary as part of a young persons
professional training.
One can read in the final report of the Commission of Truth and Reconciliation (Comisin de la Verdad y Reconciliacin 2003:633): The widespread and pernicious idea that everyone in San Marcos were terrorists, was
precisely the false perception that justified public opinion that supported in
large partthe repressive actions of the Government and the imposition of a
military base in this as in other universities considered to be terrorist bases.
In this sense, the repression of all critical thought on the left and any
militant activity by organized leftist political parties promoted an absence of
a political consciousness in what has been called Generation X. At San Marcos University, the political apathy on the left was rampant in the student
body (also see Oliart 1999:410). What emerged was a pragmatism and individualism that was promoted by the neoliberal policies of the government.
130
131
Figure 32. Aerial view of Huaca San Marcos, Lima, 1944. A majority of the University of
San Marcos campus is located to the right of the big pyramids. (Image courtesy of Servicio
Aerofotogrfico Nacional.)
crises and consolidate the archaeology major in the Fundo Pando. The
Seminario de Arqueologa [in constrast] did not develop in the same way
but kept the original structure of the 1960s. In general, this situation was
much more favorable [at the pucp] than it was for other universities
in the country, particularly at San Marcos. Internal political problems,
the retirement of established professors and the exit of foreigners due
to security and economic issues, wasted the capital that had been built
up over the years. The precarious infrastructure, mentioned above,
contributed to the crisis as well, although this was a disease that was
found in all of the archaeology programs in the country, including the
pucp, though to a lesser degree (Kaulicke 2011:24).
132
Santiago Uceda (2000:254) notes in a similar vein for the north coast:
In less than five years, from almost 20 foreign expeditions in the Peruvian
north coast, only four continued in 1992, three in the coast and one in the
highlands. This is a pattern that occurred around the country where, effectively, archaeological investigations by foreigners significantly declined or
disappeared.15
Returning to San Marcos University, due to the military intervention
and the new university regime imposed by the government, the archaeology major as well as social sciences in general was restructured to exclude
most critical theory and political action (see Degregori and Sandoval 2009).
As an example, in 1987 there were six subjects explicitly linked with Marxist
theory (Bonavia and Matos 1992:286). In 1992, only one had a course related
to Marxism. In fact, the only philosophy course (Introduction to Philosophy)
that was taught in the social science department did not include Marxist
thought. Perhaps an anachronism, a course called Political Economy used
a textbook by a famous Soviet author (Nikitin 1976). In this context, Marxist
literature was removed from the libraries; carrying a book like this could link
you to the terrorists. It was not easy to speak of certain authors, much less
study Marxist archaeologists such as Luis Lumbreras. This was a bitter irony
given the fact that a few years earlier, such authors were the most popular
and influential ones in the country, as Duccio Bonavia and Ramiro Matos
(1992) have pointed out.
The major professors at San Marcos in those days were Hernn Amat, Alberto Bueno, Ruth Shady, Jorge Silva, and Daniel Morales. Many of the most
renowned archaeologists stayed away from this university for a number of
reasons. Lumbreras had left the country for a tour of Europe, for instance.
Although San Marcos had a sufficient group of teachers to maintain the
undergraduate studies, there were serious deficiencies in the academic and
professional offerings at this time (Shady 1998).16 This was due to the lack
of government funding in the social sciences.17 Another important element
that explains certain shortcomings in the training was that in the 1990s San
Marcos increased the number of undergraduates with an increase in financial support. The obvious result was that students were not able to receive
the best possible education.
In contrast to San Marcos University, the Universidad Nacional de Trujillo had field projects where students could complete their preprofessional
training. The principal project was the work at the Huaca del Sol y de la
Luna, which from 1991 was conducted by the Department of Social Sciences
(Uceda and Morales 2010:15). San Marcos did not have any archaeological
projects, with the exception of the small excavations in Sector 11, a Lima
133
Culture site located behind the Department of Social Sciences on the San
Marcos campus. There was also the rare project conducted by San Marcos
professors that included students, without any financial support. These research projects rarely supported student theses.
There were only a few archaeological projects around Lima in the 1990s.
The Huaca Pucllana project in Miraflores and the work of older colleagues
provided some opportunities to conduct preprofessional training. The
Museo de Arqueologa was also reused on university grounds (La Casona)
and began inventories of their collections in 1996. Under the leadership of Dr.
Ruth Shady it was rejuvenated, and incorporated students into research on
the collections. Likewise, the then-nascent Caral Project, and later the work
at Huaca San Marcos, provided students opportunities for their practica
(Narvez 1999) (Figure 33).
It was in this context that the first licenciatura examinations were established. This mechanism allowed the licensing of many colleagues who
were recognized as professionals, giving them a new and enhanced status. Of
course, this also meant that other colleagues with less experience, including
the author of this book, were able to achieve this professional status as well.
Without going into too great a detail about the diminution of research and
Figure 33. Ruth Shady and Joaqun Narvaez at the top of Huaca San Marcos during
excavations, Lima, 2000. Courtesy of Joaqun Narvez.
134
scientific productivity in our school, I can refer you to the analyses of Alex
Gonzles Panta (2010) and Augusto Bazn (2011).18 The only point I want to
make is that, independently of academic quality, this licensing process has
created a large number of professionals. This title allows them to work in
archaeology and compete for jobs alongside their counterparts from universities in Lima as well as the provinces.
The shortcomings in vocational training in the 1990s had to be overcome in other venues outside of the university. It is not stretch to say that
the library in the social sciences department at San Marcos was far from an
ideal place to conduct investigations. There was also a library in the school of
archaeology that gradually declined over the years until it practically disappeared.
Given this unflattering situation, many of the students had to work with
the few Peruvian archaeologists that actually had projects, or had to work
with the foreigners conducting research in the Andes. There was no systematic attempt to place students on field research projects. Rather, each of
the students worked out agreements with different archaeological projects
through personal and professional contacts. These fascinating life stories are
sadly beyond the scope of this book.
Conclusion
The arrival of democracy in the 1980s created a social environment in which
many of the political demands could be channeled in a legal and democratic
manner. In spite of this, political groups on the radical left chose to follow a
violent path, retreating to the sierras where the field was fertile because of
the historically unresolved social injustices. Some student groups opted for
this violent path, which was linked to political orthodoxy, party dogmatism,
and a cultish dedication to individual leaders.
Later, Lima became the center of the struggle for political power. In this
context, San Marcos University also played a significant role generating radical groups, given its political traditions and the socioeconomic profile of its
student body.
The Fujimori government adopted a hardline counterinsurgency program aimed at San Marcos and other universities in Peru, forcing them to
deal with this new reality. Compounding this was the fact that the institutions of higher learning had severe economic problems, and their new
leaders encountered a high level of corruption and bureaucratic intransigence that justified the very changes demanded by the students previously.
However, the military occupation of San Marcos University was not based
135
upon a desire to improve education but rather to control the student body
and sideline subversive speech that the Fujimori regime did not accept. San
Marcos was almost completely politicized in the 1980s. After the military
intervention, the purges, and the disappearances of the Fujimori government, the university in the 1990s was a pacified place where it was very
difficult to have leftist political discussion or, for that matter, any form of
critical thought contrary to government interests. Something that is not well
known is that there were a number of leftist groups that criticized Sendero
Luminoso and mrta to the point that Sendero Luminoso had assassinated
some 300 prominent leftist critics by the mid-1990s (Ron 2001:570). The military intervention on the campus did not distinguish between these different
groups, lumping all of them under the category of subversive.
Although the fight against insurgent groups and the control of the university by the government brought a superficial atmosphere of calm, this
new situation did not necessarily improve academic quality (interview with
German 1996 in Vargas 2005). So many San Marcos students had to look
for other opportunities to finish or enhance their education. As mentioned,
the choices available included working with foreigners, or with the Instituto
Nacional de Cultura and the Comisin de Formalizacin de la Propiedad Informal (cofopri). This latter group was a government agency charged with
legalizing land titles in the country; locating and documenting archaeological sites were an important component of this work.
Perus situation in the 1990s was very different from today. The end of the
1990s marked the beginning of what is known as cultural resource management (crm) in a distinctly Peruvian model. The neoliberal economic policies of successive governments allowed archaeologists to enter the private
sector, working for large mining and other companies. This is referred to
as contract archaeology or impact archaeology (Del guila [1998] 2007;
Shady 2000). Though recent, there already are some attempts to explain this
phenomenon (Bazn et al. 2008; Gonzles Panta 2010; Lane 2012). This is one
of the important contexts into which Peruvian archaeology developed as a
discipline and career. We will now turn to the nature of Peruvian archaeology in the twenty-first century.
Chapter 11
Peruvian Archaeology by Henry Tantalen, 136148. 2014 Left Coast Press Inc.
All rights reserved.
136
137
Later, Alan Garca won a second mandate from 2005 to 2010 with support
from the apra party.1 He likewise continued the neoliberal policies of his
predecessors. Perus economy continued to grow in macroeconomic terms,
becoming one of the strongest in South America. Moreover, the political
violence that so wracked the country during the twentieth century came to
a definitive end, creating a more open environment for political discussions
that included the now-disillusioned Peruvian left.
Many Fujimori-era laws were kept in place during the Toledo and Garca
administrations. In fact, the constitution of Peru in use today is the same that
was approved in 1993 by the Fujimori government. One of these controversial
laws liberalized higher education (Decreto Legislativo 882 de 1996), which
promoted the creation of many universities of different levels of quality. At
the same time, public universities continued to face economic problems
inherited from the past. They were also highly politicized and reactionary,
preventing significant change to meet the changing needs of students. One
can say that private universities have compensated for the shortcomings
and failures of public universities. Also, the nonprofit majors have lost the
support of the state: this is particularly true for the social sciences in general,
and archaeology in particular.
138
139
of the people who made the Andean civilization one of the greatest civilizations of the world.
Certainly, Matos Mendietas description is not very flattering or conducive to a robust archaeology, at least from the classrooms at San Marcos.
This is unfortunately a situation that could be extrapolated to other public
universities in the country. The situation in the only private university in
the country granting degrees in archaeology was quite different. We refer, of
course, to the Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per (pucp), which clearly
took over the leadership of Peruvian archaeology in the twenty-first century
(see Lane 2012:221).
The Rise of Archaeology in the PUCP
Very close to the San Marcos University campus, on the Avenida Universitaria, is the campus of the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, known either
as pucp or simply La Catolica. This private university was founded in 1917
from land donated by the great Jos de la Riva Agero. The pucp has a very
long humanist intellectual tradition and has been very influential in Peruvian
national life. It is also one of the few universities with a vibrant archaeology
program. The history of the archaeology major goes back to the Seminario de
Arqueologa of the Instituto Riva Agero that was founded in 1958 by Josefina
Ramos de Cox (Kaulicke 2011:17) and which has continued to function parallel to the program at pucp, which was established in 1983 through the efforts
Peter Kaulicke and Kzrysztof Makowski. In the first decade since its founding, the program has established itself as an academically excellent career
track promoting research and education through field schools. A number of
pucp students have traveled abroad for doctoral studies as well. Unlike the
situation at San Marcos, pucp has been able to provide their students the
opportunity to establish their academic credentials and work in Peru. Most
important in some respects, pucp has displaced San Marcos as the most
prestigious archaeology program at an international level. In fact, some of
their students have obtained jobs in foreign universities, reinforcing their
strong international reputation. And this is all done with a largely Peruvian
staff of professors augmented by some foreign scholars.
The projects of the pucp students and professors are important because
they place the archaeology program in different areas and resonate with the
Peruvian public. One of these projects was at the Tablada de Lurn, where
many students were trained in the 1990s. The San Jos de Moro project, directed by Luis Jaime Castillo, is now driving a model of archaeology in Peru
140
and continues to keep the Moche in the limelight, both nationally and internationally. This is due to their expansive field schools, their archaeological
discoveries, and their multimedia publications. These projects also attract
foreign colleagues who collaborate with the students and project directors
at pucp.2
An important element in the rise of pucps archaeology program is the
symposia organized by Peter Kaulicke since 1996. The results of these symposia are published in the Boletn de Arqueologa de la pucp. This publication is
comprehensive in nature, covering practically the entire prehistory of Peru,
and nicely integrates foreign and national archaeologists, convening them
in Lima.
Thus, archaeology at pucp has provided an important arena for Peruvian archaeology, and has emerged as a global leader in Andean studies.
141
142
develop and update a national system of cultural data about the archaeological heritage; maintain the National Registry of Archaeologists
(Ministerio de Cultura n.d.).
This Ministry therefore has a huge responsibility for the entire cultural
patrimony of the nation. It also generates and stores a vast quantity of information. One of its main challenges is to defend archaeological heritage;
in addition, it is expected to develop consistent and realistic policies for the
management of the archaeological heritage.3 It is an institution that will be
the key player in the following years because, as we have seen in previous
chapters, archaeology and culture are fundamental, emblematic elements of
the Peruvian nation.
One recent example of a major archaeological program developed by the
Ministry of Culture is the Qhapaq an project. This project originated with
the old inc and was proposed during the administration of Luis Lumbreras.
Now in the Ministry of Culture, the Qhapaq an project is designed to study
the Inca Road system as a part of the world cultural patrimony. This road
runs through Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Boliva, Chile, and Argentina, passing
through national frontiers. Along with the road, various sites and archaeological landscapes have also been documented. Obviously, one of the goals
of this project is to promote tourism. In spite of some criticism (Korstanje
and Garca 2007), the project has indeed generated a huge amount of data.
Significantly, many Executive Units have taken on an important role in this
project as well.
Executive Units and Archaeological Sites
Established by the Peruvian government in 2001, the Executive Units are decentralized public entities that are administratively and financially autonomous and supervised by technocratic institutions. The Executive Units are
linked directly to archaeological supervision under the Ministry of Culture.
Today, major archaeological sites such as Caral, Sipn (within the Naylamp
Executive Unit), Tcume, Marcahuamachuco, etc., are managed by Executive Units. This indicates that the Executive Units have invested large sums of
money for research, conservation, and tourism development.
The iconic site of Caral and nearby sites is a good case in point. This work
has been directed by Dr. Ruth Shady since 1993 as a small project funded
by the inc. In 1996, Shady received a grant from the National Geographic
Society. In 1997, Shady became director of the Archaeological Museum at
San Marcos and the Caral project affiliated with this institution. As a result,
143
144
Valley project from the late 1960s through the 1980s with the discovery of the
tomb of the Lord of Sipn. It was Walter Alvas discoveries at Sipn that
gave rise to what has been called the golden age of north coast archaeology
(Figure 34). Along with these major discoveries has been the large increase in
the number of foreign and national archaeological programs outside of the
monumental sites. It is significant that the Huacas de la Luna y del Sol Project began with funds from the Universidad Nacional de Trujillo; the bulk of
the money now comes from the private beer company Unin de Cerveceras
Peruanas Backus y Johnston and later from foundations such as the World
Monuments Fund (Uceda and Morales 2010:15). We therefore see a project
started by a public university and then later supported by private Peruvian
companies and international foundations. Another case is the Proyecto
Arqueolgico El Brujo in the Chicama Valley, which began in 1990 with funding by the private Peruvian Fundacin Wiese (Mujica 2007:19). The Executive
Unit model is also involved in sites such as Chotuna-Chornancap, Sipn, and
Tcume.5 Chan Chan itself has been intensively excavated to enhance its
tourist potential.
Thus, north coast archaeology has various levels of funding from small
grants received by researchers for specific research projects through the
Figure 34. Mariana Mould de Peases book presentation, Lima, 1997. From left to right:
Susana Meneses, Franklin Pease, Mariana Mould de Pease, Mara Rostworowski, and Walter
Alva, 1997. Courtesy of Mariana Mould de Pease.
145
field schools to the big budgets that manage a set of sites for research and
conservation. Obviously, this has generated many jobs for archaeologists
and also provides research opportunities. It also helps students conduct
their preprofessional training. And it has enhanced tourism, specifically with
the creation of the Ruta Moche (The Moche Route). It is still unclear how
this helps the local communities in the long term, both economically and
socially.
146
Conclusion
The number of archaeologists in Peru in the last decade has soared. According to the Colegio de Arquelogos del Per (coarpe) website, there are
903 people licensed to conduct archaeology in the country (coarpe 2014).
Taking into account that this register is not obligatory, we estimate approximately 1,200 professional archaeologists are working in Peru in addition
to undergraduate students who work in the field. This increase is directly
linked to the demand for archaeologists in crm. Likewise, San Marcos, as
discussed in this chapter, offers alternatives to the written thesis, saving
time and money to get certified. We can categorize Peruvian archaeologists
today in the following ways:
1 crm archaeologists;
2 Government archaeologists;
3 Archaeologists working for foreign research projects;
4 University professors;
147
148
Another group has chosen to study in Europe, especially France, Spain, and
the United Kingdom. It is noteworthy that many of these students get scholarships to study abroad or have the ability to finance themselves. In many
cases, these students have returned to work in Peru, although some have
remained in the country where they studied.
There are a few things that need to be improved in Peruvian archaeology.
First, while coarpe is a good start, there is no professional organization
that can speak in a unified voice for Peruvian archaeologists. We lack an
organization such as the Congreso Nacional de Arqueologa in countries like
Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. Second, there is a significant lack of an institution to provide funds for basic research, as we see in Chile and Argentina
through their science foundations. It would be ideal if the government could
establish research centers in conjunction with universities and museums.
In summary, Peruvian archaeology has experienced a massive shift from
a small group of public university professors focused on San Marcos University to a much larger group of public and private archaeologists working in a
variety of contexts.
Conclusion:
n this book I have examined the different theories about the past that
different researchers and archaeologists have developed. These studies
have generated explanations within economic, political, and ideological
contexts that have provided sustenance, support, and reproducibility even
beyond archaeology itself. Almost all of these frameworks have come from
foreign intellectuals. Even when Peru experienced nationalistic political
environments, with archaeologists such as Tello in the 1920s or Lumbreras,
foreign thought was still overwhelmingly influential. Tellos theory was
known as cultural historicism in both its American and European versions,
and Lumbreras Marxist ideals were in addition to other theories originally
generated in Europe.
For this reason, it is apparent that archaeologists have provided the
material throughout Peruvian history for governments to implement the
necessary ideologies, through economic and political changes, to support
these explanations. In fact, the government has provided possibilities for
archaeologists to establish their own intellectual spaces, but some leaders
have marginalized certain perspectives from the past. All of this allows us to
better understand the history of archaeology as part of a much wider social
process that clearly transcends the borders of archaeology as we know it.
It is worth noting that Peruvian archaeology began in the nineteenth century with European and North American interest in and economic support
of Peruvian archaeological collections and their accompanying officials and
employees; later, in the early twentieth century, the Peruvian government
provided support for archaeological activities to the point of nationalizing
archaeological activity in Peru, according to Grahame Clark ([1947] 1980:237).
Peruvian Archaeology by Henry Tantalen, 149155. 2014 Left Coast Press Inc.
All rights reserved.
149
150
During the tenure of President Augusto B. Legua (19191930), the government considered nationalizing archaeology, but quickly abandoned the
idea during World War II, when the United States gained a greater presence
in Latin America. By then, nearly all Peruvian archaeology was conducted
by foreigners, most from the United States. However, in the mid-twentieth
century, President Juan Velasco Alvarado (19681975) supported archaeology
in Peru conducted by Peruvians themselves, which corresponded with his
nationalist political stance. At the end of the century, as neoliberal politics
emerged, control of Peruvian archaeology was once again returned to private companies and clearly defined capitalist practices. This is a sign of the
privatization of archaeology in Peru because of the lack of funding and political support from the Peruvian government, which does not see archaeology as a profitable business. Thus, the management of archaeological objects
and sites became a business run by foreigners. However, the landscape of
archaeology presented in this book allows us to see that it was not always
this way; some government policies have benefited from our knowledge of
the past, and archaeology was not just a way to gain money through tourism.
Another important thing to recognize through this historical analysis
of Peruvian archaeology is that archaeologists, especially those discussed
here, have played an important role in the intellectual and ideological
movements of Peru. They have also helped generate a national identity. This
nationalism has historically always been generated by Limas upper classes
and powered by the capital citys government. I believe that our identity, as
a universal anthropological process, has a series of elements that also could
be important to the Peruvian society if that identity were to be generated in
an objective and scientific manner or, more important, with the intention
of creating a more just and democratic society than the one that currently
exists. Racism has been a large part of society throughout the creation of a
Peruvian national identity, but today it is just one of the unwanted elements
in the construction of the Peruvian nation. The archaeology, anthropology,
and history of Peru also should be considered in the construction of local or
regional identities, since they continue to be important elements of society
and should not be overlooked. Archaeology has had a prominent role in the
development of these regional and local identities by providing materials
that give new insight. We can appreciate that the local history of the north
coast of Peru now includes archaeological sites and artifacts of the Sicn or
Moche societies (Asencio 2012; Saucedo 2012b; Silva 2007) (Figure 35).
One thing that follows from this analysis, which may be part of my own
bias, is that Peru has a centralized vision emanating from Lima that also
affects the structure of Peruvian institutions. Thus, because of the centraliza-
New Horizons
151
Libertad, April 2009. Dama de Cao was discovered at Huaca El Brujo, an important
Moche site. Photo by Henry Tantalen.
tion of the Republic of Peru, a legacy of the Viceroyalty, Lima is the place
where the most prominent intellectuals make their home. Notable exceptions to this are Larco Hoyle, who resided near Trujillo, and Valcrcel, who
lived in Cusco until 1930. So ultimately, we have a Limea urban vision of the
historical processes, which is not just archaeological heritage but also history (Mndez 2011). What we can appreciate for now is that the intellectuals
associated with Peruvian archaeology have stopped forming and developing
their careers only in Lima. This means that the possibility of having a professional career in archaeological research and contributing to the knowledge
of national reality still depends on the centralized manner in which Peru
was formed. Also, since the provinces of the country have limited access to
knowledge and education, it generates an unequal production, distribution,
and consumption of knowledge in this historic case. There is little representation for intellectuals who do not reside in the capital; when they do have
a voice, they have to travel to the capital, where the principal government
institutions are. In reality, one of the biggest issues within Peru is that from
152
Lima it is difficult understand the exact nature of the other provinces, especially the needs of the communities that are contradicted by the government
policies put in place. However, starting in 2002, regional governments have
formed that have a certain political and economic autonomy, but the lack of
representation on the national level is still the same. For example, the laws
that are passed by the Congress of the Republic affect the entire nation of
Peru.
Apart from this top-down view, important as a historiographical trend,
it is important to see archaeologists as agents, from below, of their own history. While doing a genealogical study one can see that many archaeologists
have found their niche or have even been sent by their mentors, professors,
or bosses to study Peruvian archaeology. Despite this, it is clear that those
same archaeologists started to weave their own social networks with intellectuals and politicians that let them create a space for the discussion and
manifestation of particular important ideas that pertained to their collective
or social interest groups. Thus, these archaeologists were able to establish
their place of work or research on their own through their social networks.
It is important to recognize that the perspectives of these archaeologists can
sometimes change over time as historical context changes or even if they are
just looking to better their living conditions as human beings, especially as
intellectuals. They have managed to find enough support to continue working as archaeologists.
However, this book demonstrates that Peruvian archaeology is full of
successes and failures alike and is a good case study to provide analytical
tools. It also has developed a confrontation between the positive and negative elements, which await a much more detailed analysis. The interaction
between Peruvians and foreigners through archaeology in Peru, for better
or for worse, has created and continues to develop what we call Peruvian
archaeology. This interaction is one of the greatest legacies of archaeology
in Peru. Understanding how this happened and how it affects the people
involved, whether they are archaeologists or not, is important to develop
better social relationships for the future. We believe that this book helps
us understand how we can do archaeology better while still addressing our
objective to reconstruct the past so as to learn from it, and also to propose
solutions with society to build a better future for our community.
Archaeology in Peru has established the fundamental elements for
archaeology throughout South America. Since Peru is the nuclear area of
prehispanic social development and even of great empires, more researchers have come to Peru than to other countries. However, other countries in
the region are now clearly surpassing the archaeology done in Peru. This is
New Horizons
153
because in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, the state finances
its archaeologists and their projects through their public research agencies.
Since archaeology in Peru is not funded by the state, archaeologists have
had to find other means to finance their projects and publications. Thus, the
solidarity between archaeologists and institutions formed for the countrys
investigations has become tradition since the time of Julio C. Tello and even
before. Obviously these connections vary, but the important thing is that
these relations need to stay as close as possible in the future.
At present, there are field schools that integrate foreign exchange
students and Peruvian students under the direction of experienced archaeologists, typically Americans with Peruvian codirectors. These schools
generate novel experiences that have allowed new generations of students
as researchers to establish short- and medium-term projects. This not only
can provide new archaeological data, but also promotes the protection of
Peruvian archaeology and the possibility that those archaeologists will return to those research sites and encourage the local communities to learn
more about their past. Also, the cooperation with countries that want to
help research and conserve these archaeological sites has proven very useful in Peruvian archaeology because it allows anyone to visit and conserve
archaeological sites: local people, Peruvian tourists, and foreigners.
Since Peruvian archaeology has been handled for the most part by international, national, and private institutionsmuch like other aspects of
Peruthe indigenous groups sometimes become rhetorical voices, and
their lack of representation in the politics of archaeological projects is
evident. They are a fundamental part of realizing Peruvian exhibitions, and
should really start to be incorporated and consulted in the development
and implementation of national cultural laws because they are the people
most affected by them. In recent years, archaeologists have tried to approach
this social dilemma through public archaeology, defined as the field that
studies the outcome relationships that arise when archaeology goes beyond
the academic world, [allowing] a multi-disciplinary discussion about the
relationships between academics and the public (Saucedo 2012a:177). However, it is still in its development stages in Peru, which indicates how little
attention is given to archaeology in general, including the archaeological
ideas, needs, and proposals from people associated with the archaeological
sites. Fortunately, this situation appears to be changing in the archaeology
community, with those trying to apply a public archaeology framework in
Peru (Saucedo 2012b). Moreover, in contrast to other Latin American countries (see various in Gnecco and Ayala 2010a),1 in Peru there is no such thing
as Indigenous Archaeology (Herrera 2010). As we have seen in this book,
154
New Horizons
155
ourselves and our social lives through the positive experiences that history
and archaeology offer us.
Finally, archaeology in Peru, the archaeology that fascinates people
across the world not just because of iconic sites like Machu Picchu or Sipn,
is an archaeology that is facing a very interesting future. A major challenge is
to preserve the immense wealth of archaeological sites and objects for future
generations. This means that we have to form new generations of professional archaeologists and and educate society to be responsible guardians of
our shared cultural patrimony. The information generated by archaeological
research can be a very valuable tool in these regards. Also, if archaeologists
can learn to temporarily stop being scientists at times and interact with
other people, it will be indispensible in changing the image of our profession
as too often absorbed in arcane pursuits and socially irrelevant activities.
Our generation and those that will come in the future, with our knowledge of
past roads crossed by our predecessors, will give the world the opportunity
to learn about the past for the future. All of us will share the achievements
of the ancient Andean peoples. Fortunately, Peruvian archaeology, it would
seem, has just started on this road.
156
Notes
Introduction
1We could cite any number of excellent publications on the history of
archaeology around the world. We mention just a few here: Trigger (1992,
2006), Daz-Andreu and Champion (1996), Kohl and Fawcett (1995), MoroAbadia (2007), Patterson (2002), Gran Aymerich ([1998] 2001), and Daniel
(1987).
2I view this book in the broad historiographical tradition of intellectual
history that has a long and distinguished presence in Peru in the twentieth
century (Aguirre and McEvoy 2008:23). Therefore, I am not just interested
in a history of ideas, but also want to comprehend how the various actors
dealt with and molded their particular historical circumstances. I want to
understand how the larger political, economic, and cultural contexts affected the development of the practice of archaeology and the creation of a
past in Peru.
3Here, the concept of the organic intellectual of Antonio Gramsci (1967) is
useful. The organic intellectual is one that emerges within a particular social
class to explain and justify its existence. Archaeologists are likewise understood in this sense, providing a historical justification for a class structure
and its corresponding ideology.
Chapter 1
1A huaca can be defined as a thing (object, feature on the landscape, water
source, and even human remains) that has a potential and or an actual force
recognized by Andean peoples. A huaca in this sense acquires a relationship
between humans that must be kept in equilibrium.
157
158
Notes
159
Chapter 2
1The complete name of this German scientist was Friedrich Maximiliano
Uhle Lorenz. I do not want to spend too much time discussing Uhles biography, but rather I wish to emphasize certain details of his work relevant to
this intellectual history. I recommend that the reader consult the following
sources: Rowe (1954), Linares Mlaga (1964), and Kaulicke (2010).
2See also such influential historians such as William Prescott, who suggested
a pre-Inca period in his majestic The Conquest of Peru ([1847] 1944:5), or Sebastin Lorente ([1876] 2005), who suggested various periods in Peruvian prehistory, the oldest being the Period of the Curacas followed by The Inca
Period. None of these timeframes were based on systematic archaeological
data.
3I thank Charles Stanish for providing a copy of Bandeliers diary from the
collections at the American Museum of Natural History.
4There have been a number of different international exhibitions since the
mid-nineteenth century (Quiza 2007). The first of these was the 1851 First
World Exhibition in London. After the International Exhibitions were established, the Ibero-American Exhibition (such as in Sevilla in 1929) and the Pan
American Exhibition were also held.
160
Notes
161
with John C. Merriam at the Emeryville site near Berkeley (Uhle 1907). These
were recognized as the first scientific excavations in California, and Uhle
was able to recognize a chronological sequence through the materials. His
real interest in the shellmounds (like Ancn) began there in Emeryville,
and he worked on the Peruvian coast upon his return to Peru in late 1903
and 1904 with the economic sponsorship of Phoebe A. Hearst. While in Ancn, he decided to explore the Chancay Valley (Puerto de Chancay y Cerro
Trinidad) and the sites of spero and Puerto Supe. Returning to Lima, he
explored the cemeteries of Isla San Lorenzo. In 1905, he started new work in
in Puno, Cusco, Arequipa, Chala, Chavia, Acari (Conventillo, Warato, and
Lomas), Nazca, and Palpa (Kakatilla, La Mancha, Poroma, Tambo del Perro,
Estaquera, and Nanaska).
13It is curious that the Antiquities Act of the United States was passed in
1906.
14The Museo Nacional de Chile had existed since 1838; however, see Schell
(n.d.).
15Tacna at this time was still occupied by Chilean troops.
16During his stay in Lima in 1925, Jijn y Caamao also was in contact with
Alfred Kroeber and Julio C. Tello.
Chapter 3
1For instance, a great part of oil production in Peru was controlled by companies with American capital, such as the International Petroleum Company
(ipc), in the second half of the 1910s (Clayton 1998:192).
2Pedro Villar Crdova conducted some excavations in the 1920s and 1930s,
but these were more focused on ethnohistory. His most important work is
Arqueologa del Departamento de Lima (Villar Crdova [1935] 1984).
3Duccio Bonavia (2008:72) suggests that Tello was behind the first instance
in which a major in archaeology was instituted in Peru in 1926 at San Marcos University (also see Matos 1985:8, although he dates this to the 1930s and
1940s), and Katharina Schreiber (2006:197) links this institutionalization of
archaeology with the creation of the Archaeological Section of the Science
Faculty and John Rowes tenure at the Universidad San Cristbal de Abad
del Cusco in 1942. In both cases, one cannot say if this major was within
an established academic structure that gave it this status. The archaeology
major was created more recently in 1956 at San Marcos University when the
Anthropology Department (1956) was founded which included anthropology
162
and archaeology. The students in this Department studied together for four
years. In the fifth year, they split between those that wanted to be anthropologists or archaeologists (Bueno 2010:34).
4However, it would be some time before archaeology was included as a
major in Peruvian universities. This could be another factor that explains the
dependency of Peruvian scholars on foreign scholars for theory and method.
5At least until age 15, when Tellos father died. Later, an aunt was responsible
for providing financial support to finish secondary school, as was the director of his high school, Pedro Labarthe (Palma [1917] 1956).
6This position was announced publicly in 1924 at the xxi Congreso Internacional de Americanistas in Gteborg, where he proposed that the high
civilizations of the Americas were descended from the Maya, which in turn
originated in Asia.
7As Stefanie Gnger (2007:4) notes, this debate would culminate in 1928
when both researchers met in the xxiii Congreso Internacional de Americanistas in New York. At this meeting, Tello attended as the Peruvian representative and presented his paper Civilizacin Andina: Algunos Problemas
de la Arqueologa Peruana, in which he talked about his 1919 expedition and
about his ideas about the autonomous development of ancient Peruvian
civilization (Astuhuamn, personal communication, 2007), displacing Uhle
in the academic circles.
8Tello actively participated in the indigenista movement at the beginning
by joining the Asociacin Pro-Indgena, which he would leave in 1922 over
disagreements about the methodologies, theories, and policies that its leaders espoused. Tello felt that it was not an ethnic problem but a sociopolitical
and socioeconomic one derived from the European conquest (Del Castillo
and Moscoso 2002:167, 17980; Tello 1967b:51).
9The close relationship between Tello and Legua can be seen in his correspondence with Pedro Zulen (Del Castillo and Moscoso et al. 2002).
10Other South American examples can be found in Gnecco (2004), Joffr
(2007), Lpez Mazz (2004), Nastri (2004), Navarrete (2006), etc.
11For a greater discussion of the life of Kroeber, see Steward (1962) and Kroeber (1970).
Chapter 4
1It was founded in 1909 with the leadership of Pedro Zulen, Dora Mayer, and
Joaqun Capelo. Valcrcel joined soon after the Association was formed.
Notes
163
Chapter 5
1With the exception of the Mariteguis attempts, such as the 7 Ensayos de
Interpretacin de la Realidad Peruana in 1928.
2The contradiction between apra s discourse and practice may explain why,
according to its policy of pursuing domestic growth through capitalism to
expand the countrys bourgeoisie and, consequently, raise the standard of
life of the proletariat.
3Years before, the ruling class had shown sympathy for the Italian and Spanish fascism, especially during the government of Snchez Cerro in the 1930s.
4Nevertheless, during the mandate of General Manuel A. Odra (19491956)
and under the Internal Security Law, a new wave of repression against apra
and the Communist Party began (Pease 1995:213).
5Although North American archaeologists rejected Tellos diffusionist theories (Willey [1951] 1970), many used his same assumptions. As such, Tello had
begun to explain the development of Andean societies, ordering these into
cultural historical sequences.
6An explanation of the political context in which Bennett worked at Tiwanaku is found in Loza (2008).
7As mentioned earlier in this book, he was one of the proponents of neoevolutionism.
164
Chapter 6
1This political phenomenon was found in other South American countries.
As Frank Rodrguez (2012:129) notes: In the decade of the 1950s in the 20th
century, a number of regimes proliferated which can be called development
militarists or development dictators. These military governments, among
the noted being the generals Manuel Odra in Per, Gustavo Rojas Pinilla
in Colombia, Juscelino Kubitschek in Brazil, and Marcos Prez Jimnez in
Venezuela, were characterized in general terms and leading a modernization
process with an industrial base, urbanization, a large role for the state in the
economy, and the defense of private property.
2The US Department of War was reorganized into the Department of Defense in 1949. A War Department in fact did not exist at this time.
3For example, this was also reflected in the financial support that the
United States provided to the Peruvian military. Flores Galindo (1999) notes:
Between 1950 and 1968, Peru received 81.9 million dollars of military aid,
after Brazil and Chile, the third highest beneficiaryif one may use that
euphemism for us aidto the entire continent. During these years, more
than 4,000 officers had participated in the Military Assistance Program
(Flores Galindo 1999:9).
4One of the last phrases in the 1948 message to the nation was: to save Peru
from the chaos of the disastrous policies of the [previous] Government and
the subversive ideas of apra (Odra 1948).
5Rowes bibliography lists three articles for 1942 in the city of Cusco; one
of the last was titled Sitios Histricos en la regin de Pucara, Puno in the
Revista del Instituto Arqueolgico of Universidad del Cusco (Rowe 1942b).
This would also be his first work on the circum-Titicaca Basin area.
6A clear example of this was the early use of carbon 14 dating to ground his
own ideas (Rowe 1945).
7It is hard to believe that with the existence of carbon 14 dating he had not
yet abandoned these ideas about cultural streams mediated through typical elements. This fact compelled Rowe (1966) to write an article about it.
Notes
165
Chapter 7
1Murra was sent to Chicago by his father in 1934 to avoid the intense antiSemitic atmosphere in Romania (Barnes 2009b:4).
2He takes this trip during World War ii and, according to Monica Barnes
(2009a:viii), his trip to Ecuador was also linked to US intelligence services.
3In regard to the data that he recovered from both Visitas, we can quote
Murra himself: The two Visitas had much in common. Both were written
to provide empirical information collected in the field, informants whose
knowledge came from their deep roots in the Andean experience. . . . In both
cases, some of the informants were adults at the time of European invasion.
In both zones, some of them such as Vilcacutipa in Ilave or Xagua from Chaglla had participated in Inca activities at the state level and not just among
their own ethnic groups. Both Visitas are complementary: that of the Chupachu has the advantage to provide domestic information, house by house,
while the Lupaqa emphasize the roles of the kings. Los Chupachu speak
Quechua; los Lupaqa speak Aymara. The first had contacts with the warm
lands, the second tell us about the puna. The Visita de Chupachu offers more
material over the relationships between an ethnic group with Tawantinsuyu;
that of the Lupaqa much more about the relationships of their relationship
with the colonial European regime (Murra 1967:383 in Marzal 1998:360).
4While in Castro et al. (2000) Murra is seen as independent of this influence
while writing his thesis, it is clear that his ideas about economic anthropology and the concepts of reciprocity and redistribution in the Inca world fall
clearly within the framework of Polanyi and his followers.
5In his book Man Makes Hinself ([1936] 1996), Gordon Childe proposed
his Neolithic and Urban revolutions. His article The Urban Revolution
(Childe 1950; see also Childe [1952] 2004, [1954] 2004) is a work that would
inspire generations of archaeologists to look in different parts of the world
for evidence for these profound transformations (Bonavia 1991:182; Castro et
al. 2003; Smith 2009).
6According to Osmar Gonzles (2011), the view of the indianista has understood the Indian as an ornament, a part of the landscape, while those
that explain [the Indian] taking into account his existential social conditions
are referred to in the literature as indigenistas (Gonzles 2011:737).
166
Chapter 8
1By 1930, Tellos influence as a preeminent intellectual in government circles
began to diminish. For example, the Patronato Nacional de Arqueologa that
he founded was taken over by Luis Valcrcel, who not only did not help Tello,
but criticized his work (Prieto 2011).
2It is significant to note that this place had been Tellos sanctuary (in fact,
he asked to be buried there).
3In another publication, I provide an extensive analysis of this book (Tantalen 2004).
4In a 1992 study on the teaching of archaeology in Peru, we find that although
Lumbreras work (1974b, 1981a) was the most popular among students, his
theoretical orientation was not reflected in the theses or other published
work by students (Bonavia and Matos 1992:79).
5As Lumbreras himself declared in the prologue to the second edition of his
book La Arqueologa como Ciencia Social (1981a:9): This book goes to press
at a time in Peru when a strong anti-marxist currents is developing and
when certain [right wing] dogmatic features are found in sectors of the university that have lost the revolutionary perspective in the last few years; this
apparently has happened in other countries as well. The rest of the final
paragraph makes an interesting analysis of the circumstances in which
Marxism developed in Peru. However, it also points out paths that were not
followed consistently by several of Lumbreras supporters.
Chapter 9
1The research project headed by Proulx had a cultural historical orientation
quite similar to the Vir Project (Proulx 1968:1015). Moreover, during the
first season they were only in Nepea Valley from June to August 1967 (Proulx
1968), then returned in 1971 and in 1979. They project was quite sporadic,
with few members. As Proulx says: In 1967 I began a multi-year systematic
archaeological survey of the Nepea Valley on the north coast of Peru. My
selection of this valley for research was prompted by Junius Bird of the American Museum of Natural History who was involved in the planning of a major
project there, focusing on the clearing of the Moche site of Paamarca. I was
encouraged to precede this work with a survey to determine the extent and
nature of the various cultures in Nepea. Although funding for Birds project
never materialized, I continued my survey over a period of almost 18 years,
with trips to Peru in 1967, 1971, 1979. My graduate student, Richard Daggett,
Notes
167
continued the survey during 198081, writing his dissertation on The Early
Horizon Occupation of the Nepea Valley, North Central Coast of Peru in
1985 (Proulx n.d.).
2As Jeffrey Parsons and Ramiro Matos (2002:viii) note: Timothy Earle was
a graduate student at the University of Michigan in the late 1960s and early
1970s. As an undergraduate student at Harvard in the mid-1960s, Earle had
worked in the Lurin Valley on the Peruvian central Coast in a survey project
directed by Thomas Patterson. Following his dissertation research in Hawaii,
Earles interests gravitated back to the Andes after the mid-1970s.
3Another research project with this ethnoarchaeological focus is one by
Kent Flannery, Joyce Marcus, and Robert Reynolds, which was published as
The Flocks of the Wamani: A Study of Llama Herders on the Punas of Ayacucho,
Peru (Flannery et al. 1989).
4See the Collasuyo Archaeological Research Institutes website at http://
collasuyo.wordpress.com/.
Chapter 10
1Relative autonomy because the police had been operating at San Marcos
University since 1987, arresting large numbers of students.
2The work of Anbal Apaico (2012) offers an acute account of what happened
in this last university.
3A classic solution to the dire economic circumstances in that decade was
the proliferation of charitable activities called polladas, which raised money
with a dance party where chicken and plenty of beer were consumed. A detailed study of this anthropological phenomenon can be found in Bjar and
lvarez (2010).
4Phrase spoken by Alberto Fujimori in his lecture before the Asociacin de
Exportadores (adex) a short time before his self-coup.
5In this frontal assault, the rondas campesinas played a very important
role ( for example, see Fumerton 2001).
6Although both subversive groups contributed their share of violence during the 1980s and early 1990s, and their individual stories differ, the case of
mrta deserves a bit more detailed study than those currently available. One
such work is that of Mario Meza (2011).
7Also see Gorriti (2008); Rnique (2003); Roncagliolo (2005); Starn (1995);
and Stern (1998).
168
8It is important to note that until late 1980, Fujimori served as Dean and
Rector of the Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina and had been president of the National Assembly of Rectors. Thus, once he became president
of the country, he fully understood how the Peruvian university system functioned.
9As Rubn Quiroz (2005:88) notes: . . . it is the attack in Calle Tarata, in a
Lima neighborhood as fashionable as Miraflores, that served as a pretext for
Fujimori to intervene in the Universities.
10The second floor of the dining hall of the university center at San Marcos
was the place chosen by the army to set up headquarters.
11 In this same decade, many agents from the sin (Servicio de Inteligencia
Nacional) were hidden among the student population (also see Ponce 2002:
33).
12In July 18, 1992, the so called Grupo Colina, with the support of the army,
detained a professor and nine students on the campus of the Universidad
Enrique Guzmn y Valle La Cantuta. A year later, in 1993, their remains
were found in the Chavilca Quebrada in Cieneguilla.
13Nevertheless, as Degregori and Sandoval (2009:48) note, in spite of the
proposal of neoliberal reform of the public university, in the end we were
left with the same old corporatist and corrupt practices of the university
leadership, effectively truncating any modernization.
14According to Vargas (2005): . . . The government and the Congress, dominated by Fujimori legislators, passed law 26457 ordering the reorganization
of two important national universities in Lima. Its 10th article states The
process of reorganization referred to in this Law will begin with the Universidad Enrique Guzmn y Valle and the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San
Marcos, and authorizes the Executive Branch through Supreme Decrees to
designate Reorganized Commissions, positions that were made up by faculty that supported the intervention and were allied with Fujimori. At San
Marcos University, they named such a commission with little or no academic
stature that, while not military people, were happy to assume that role.
15An indicator of the decline in publications by American archaeologists on
Peru can be seen in a review of the journal Latin American Antiquity. In that
decade, there were a total of 187 articles. Of these, only 39 were about Peru, 11
of which were from the highlands (Cajamarca, Junn, Cusco, and Puno) while
the bulk (28) were from the coast.
16A deeper sociological analysis of that human capital is beyond the scope
of this book.
Notes
169
Chapter 11
1The current constitution only permits a single, five-year term for presidents. An individual can be re-elected after sitting out one term.
2According to the data provided by this university, we see that the number
of licenciatura theses have grown substantially in the last several years.
3In spite of this huge mission, it has a wholly inadequate budget.
4See http://www.caralperu.gob.pe/vista/historia/index.php.
5All of these sites are administered by the Naylamp-Lambayeque Executive
Unit, created in 2006. Likewise, an Executive Unit oversees the important
museums associated with these sites, most notably the Museo Tumbas Reales
de Sipn.
Conclusion
1 In countries as Argentina and Chile, for instance, some indigenous communities asked for repatriation of human remains and objects extracted from
prehispanic sites because they perceived them as their ancestral legacy and
part of their ethnic identity (Gnecco and Ayala 2010b:34).
170
References
Adams, Richard. (1960) 1979. El Origen de las Ciudades. In Biologa y Cultura: Introduccin a la Antropologa Biolgica y Social, 22936. Madrid: Selecciones de
Scientific American.
Adrianzn, Alberto, ed. 2011. Apogeo y Crisis de la Izquierda Peruana: Hablan Sus
Protagonistas. Lima: idea Internacional/Universidad Antonio Ruiz de Montoya.
Aguilar, Miguel. 2004. La Universidad Peruana y los Partidos Polticos: Medios, Fines
y Corrupcin. Available at http://antropologia2004unfv.pe.tripod.com/universi
dadypartidos.htm (accessed January 5, 2014).
_____. 2006. Surgimiento de las Sociedades Complejas en los Andes Centrales: Una
Perspectiva desde el Valle de Huaura, Per. Report submitted for professional
archaeology license, Professional School for Archaeology and Anthropology,
Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal. Available at http://archaeo.info/craig/
modules/Downloads/docs/Monografia_final_Aguilar%202006.pdf.
_____. 2011. Entre Dilogos y Repatriaciones. Reparacin Colonial por la Memoria y
Preservacin de Machu Picchu. Antpoda 12:21134.
Aguirre, Carlos, and Augusto Ruiz. 2011. La Historia es una Necesidad Colectiva:
Entrevista a Alberto Flores Galindo (1982). Histrica 35(1):187209.
Aguirre-Morales, Manuel. 2005. La Arqueologa Social el Per. Oxford, uk: British
Archaeological Reports.
Aguirre, Carlos, and Carmen Mc Evoy. 2008. Introduccin. In Intelectuales y Poder:
Ensayos en Torno a la Repblica de las Letras en el Per e Hispanoamrica (ss. xvi
xx), edited by Carlos Aguirre and Carmen Mc Evoy, 13-43. Lima: ifea/Instituto
Riva Agero.
Alburquerque, Germn. 2010. Los Intelectuales Latinoamericanos, la Guerra Fra y
la Revista Amrica Latina de Mosc (19761992). Revista Universum 25(1):1226.
Alcalde, Javier, Carlos del guila, and Fernando Fujita. 2001. Nuevas Evidencias en
Chincha: Nota Preliminar sobre Contextos de la poca Wari. Boletn de Arqueologa pucp 5:54354.
_____. 2007. . . . El Reposo del Badilejo. . . . Reflexiones sobre Conceptos, Aplicaciones y
Realidades de la Arqueologa Actual. Lima: Orbis Tertius/Instituto Chincha.
171
172
References
Aldenderfer, Mark. 2011. Balances y Perspectivas del Periodo Arcaico en la Regin del
Altiplano. In Arqueologa de la Cuenca del Titicaca, Per, edited by Luis Flores,
and and Henry Tantalen, 2739. Lima: Instituto Francs de Estudios Andinos/
ucla Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
Aljovn, Cristbal, and Eduardo Cavieres. 2005. Reflexiones para un Anlisis Histrico
de Chile-Per en el Siglo xix y en la Guerra del Pacfico. In Chile-Per; Per-Chile
en el Siglo xix. La Formacin del Estado, la Economa y la Sociedad, edited by
Eduardo Cavieres and Cristbal Aljovin, 1124. Valparaso, Chile: Ediciones Universitarias de Valparaso.
Anders, M. 1981. Investigation of State Storage Facilities in Pampa Grande, Peru.
Journal of Field Archaeology 8(4):391404.
Anderson, Benedict. (1991) 1997. Comunidades Imaginadas. Reflexiones sobre el Origen
y la Difusin del Nacionalismo. Mxico City: Fondo de Cultura Econmica.
Angelo, Dante. 2005. La Arqueologa en Bolivia. Reflexiones Sobre la Disciplina a
Inicios del Siglo xxi. Arqueologa Suramericana 1(2):185211.
Apaico, Anbal. 2012. Una Visin de la Arqueologa Ayacuchana. Available at http://
arkeologianibal.blogspot.com/2012/02/una-vision-de-la-arqueologia-ayacucha
na.html.
Aparicio, Guillermo. 1997. El Racismo en los Andes Peruanos. In vi Jornadas Lascasianas: La Problemtica del Racismo en los Umbrales del Siglo xxi, 89112. Mxico
City: Instituto de Investigaciones Jurdicas, Universidad Nacional Autnoma de
Mxico.
Arguedas, Jos Mara. (1966) 2007. Dioses y Hombres de Huarochir. Narracin Quechua recogida por Francisco de vila [1598?]. Lima: Universidad Antonio Ruiz de
Montoya.
Arguedas, Jos Mara, Jorge Bravo Bresani, Alberto Escobar, Henri Favre, Jos Matos
Mar, Jos Miguel Oviedo, Anbal Quijano, and Sebastin Salazar Bondy. 1985. He
vivido en vano? Mesa Redonda sobre Todas las Sangres. 23 de junio de 1965. Lima:
iep.
Arkush, Elizabeth. 2011. Hillforts of the Ancient Andes: Colla Warfare, Society, and Landscape. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
Arnold, Bettina. 1990. The Past as Propaganda: Totalitarian Archaeology in Nazi
Germany. Antiquity 64:46478.
Arqueolgicas. 1974. Homenaje al Dr. Jorge C. Muelle. Arqueolgicas 15:35.
Asencio, Ral. 2012. Nosotros los Muchik: Turismo, Arqueologa, Antropologa y
Discursos de Identidad Colectiva en la Costa Norte del Per (19872009). In El
Turismo es cosa de Pobres? Patrimonio Cultural, Pueblos Indgenas y Nuevas Formas de Turismo en Amrica Latina, edited by Ral Asencio and Beatriz Prez,
3560. Asociacin Canaria de Antropologa/Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Available at http://www.pasosonline.org/Publicados/pasosoedita/PSEdita8.pdf.
Astuhuamn, Csar. 2004. El Becario Julio C. Tello. Boletn ifp 2:1415.
References
173
Astuhuamn, Csar, and Richard Dagget. 2005. Julio Csar Tello Rojas: Una
Biografa. In Paracas Primera Parte, Julio C. Tello, 1761. Lima: Museo de Arqueologa y Antropologa de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Ballart, Josep. 1997. El Patrimonio Histrico y Arqueolgico. Valor y Uso. Barcelona: Ariel.
Ballart, Josep, and Jordi Tresserras. 2001. Gestin del Patrimonio Cultural. Barcelona:
Ariel.
Banco de la Repblica andBiblioteca Luis ngel Arango. 1996. Tras las Huellas: Dos
Viajeros Alemanes en Tierras Latinoamericanas. Bogot, Colombia: Biblioteca
Luis ngel Arango. Available at http://www.banrepcultural.org/blaavirtual/his
toria/hue/indice.htm (accessed December 17, 2013).
Baquerizo, Manuel. 1974. Emilio Choy y su Influencia en el Per. In Emilio Choy:
Antropologa e Historia 1:xxixxv. Lima: unmsm.
Bardavio, Antonio, and Paloma Gonzles Marcn. 2003. Objetos en el Tiempo. Las
Fuentes Materiales en la Enseanza de las Ciencias Sociales. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.
Bardella, Gianfranco. 1989. Un Siglo en la Vida Econmica del Per. 18891989. Lima:
Banco de Crdito del Per.
Barnes, Monica. 2009a. Editors Preface. Andean Past 9:vxii.
_____. 2009b. John Victor Murra (August 24, 1916-October 16, 2006): An Interpretative Biography. Andean Past 9:163.
Barnhart, Terry. 2005. Ephraim George Squier and the Development of American Anthropology. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Bastian, Adolph. 18781889. Die Culturlander des Alten America. Berlin: Weidmann.
Bawden, Garth. 1977. Galindo and the Nature of the Middle Horizon in the Northern
Coastal Peru. PhD. Dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
_____. 1982a. Galindo: A Study in Cultural Transition during the Middle Horizon.
In Chan Chan: Andean Desert City, edited by M. E. Moseley and K. Day, 285320.
Albuquerque: The University of New Mexico Press.
_____. 1982b. Community Organization Reflected by the Household: A Study of PreColumbian Social Dynamics. Journal of Field Archaeology 9(2):16581.
Bazn, Augusto. 2011. Situacin del Departamento de Arqueologa, Sus Implicancias
en la Formacin de Pre Grado y Desafos del Estudiantado por Cambiar Estas
no muy Gratas Realidades. Paper presented at Semana de Arqueologa 2011: El
Desarrollo Histrico de la Arqueologa en San Marcos, Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San Marcos, November 2125, Lima.
Bazn, Augusto, Alex Gonzles, Elizabeth Cruzado, and Michiel Zegarra. 2008.
Semana de Arqueologa 2005: Arqueologa para el Desarrollo: Propuestas, perspectivas y conclusiones. Supay 6:2426.
Bjar, Hctor. 1973. Las Guerrillas de 1965. Balance y Perspectiva. Biblioteca Peruana.
Lima: peisa.
174
References
Bjar, Hctor, and Magno lvarez. 2010. Las Polladas: Una Estrategia de Sobrevivencia en poca de Crisis Econmica y Poltica. Lima, 19802003. Investigaciones
Sociales 14(24):25983.
Benavides, Hugo. 2005. Los Ritos de la Autenticidad: Indgenas, Pasado y Estado
Ecuatoriano. Arqueologa Suramericana 1(1):525.
Bennett, Wendell. 1943. The Position of Chavn in Andean Sequences. Proceedings
American Philosophical Society 86(2):32327.
_____. 1944. The North Highlands of Peru: Excavations in the Callejn de Huaylas and
at Chavn de Huntar. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 39(1), New York.
_____. 1946. Part 2. The Central Andes. In Handbook of South American Indians,
Volume 2, edited by Julian Steward, 61176. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 143. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
_____. 1948. The Peruvian Co-Tradition. In Reappraisal of Peruvian Archaeology,
Memoirs of Society for American Archaeology 4, edited by Wendell Bennett. Supplement to American Antiquity 13(4)17.
_____. 1950. Cultural Unity and Disunity in the Titicaca Basin. American Antiquity
41(2):8998.
Bennett, Wendell, and Junius Bird. 1949. Andean Culture History. New York: American
Museum of Natural History.
Bermann, Marc. 1994. Lukurmata: Household Archaeology in Prehispanic Bolivia.
Princeton, nj: Princeton University Press.
Betalleluz, Betford. 2003. La Imagen de la Historia Nacional Peruana. Hispanistas,
Indigenistas y Marxistas. Periodificaciones, Proyectos y Propuestas de la Historiografa Peruana del Siglo xx. Dilogos 7:21934.
Binford, Lewis R. Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):21725.
Boletn. 1999. La Historia Recordada. El Dr. Luis G. Lumbreras Rememora su Labor
al Frente del Museo. Boletn del Museo de Arqueologa y Antropologa de la unmsm
9. Available at http://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/bibvirtual/publicaciones/antropolo
gia/1999_N09/historia_recordada.htm.
Bonavia, Duccio. 1991. Per, Hombre e Historia. De los Orgenes al Siglo xv. Lima:
Edubanco.
_____. 2004. Jorge C. Muelle. Semblanza del Hombre y del Arquelogo. Revista
Histrica xli: 21337.
_____. 2008. John Howland Rowe, el Gran Peruanista. Revista Histrica xliii:7195.
Bonavia, Duccio, and Ramiro Matos. 1992. Enseanza de la Arqueologa en el Per.
Lima: Fomciencias.
Botero, Clara. 2006. El Redescubrimiento del Pasado Prehispnico de Colombia: Viajeros, Arquelogos y Coleccionistas. Bogot, Colombia: Instituto Colombiano de
Antropologa e Historia/Universidad de los Andes.
Bowen, Sally, and Jane Holligan. 2003. El Espa Imperfecto. La Telaraa Siniestra de
Vladimiro Montesinos. Lima: peisa.
References
175
Brothwell, Don, and Eric Higgs. (1969) 1980. Ciencia en Arqueologa. Madrid: fce.
Bruhns, Karen, and Nancy Kelker. 2010. Faking the Ancient Andes. Walnut Creek, ca:
Left Coast Press.
Bueno, Alberto. 2003. Pachacamac: El Sitio del Poder de la Tierra y Max Uhle (2503-1856/11-05-1944). In Pachacamac: Informe de la Expedicin Peruana William
Pepper de 1896, edited by Max Uhle. Lima: Fondo editorial de la Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
_____. 2010. Julio C. Tello y la Arqueologa del Per en la Universidad Nacional Mayor
de San Marcos. Investigaciones Sociales 14(25):1746.
Burga, Manuel, and Alberto Flores Galindo. 1984. Apogeo y Crisis de la Repblica Aristocrtica. Lima: Ediciones Rikchay Per.
Burger, Richard. 1989. An Overview of Peruvian Archaeology (19761986). Annual
Review of Anthropology 18:3769.
Burger, Richard, and Lucy Salazar-Burger. 1991. The Second Season of Investigations at the Initial Period Center of Cardal, Peru. Journal of Field Archaeology
18(3):27596.
Burt, Jo-Marie. 2006. Quien Habla es Terrorista: The Political Use of Fear in Fujimoris Peru. Latin American Research Review 41(3):3262.
_____. 2009. Violencia y Autoritarismo en el Per. Bajo la Sombra de Sendero Luminoso y la Dictadura de Fujimori. Lima: iep.
Cabello, Paz. 1993. El Museo de Amrica. Anales del Museo de Amrica 1:1121.
Callirgos, Juan Carlos. 1993. El Racismo: La Cuestin del Otro (y de Uno). Lima: desco.
Canziani, Jos. 1992. Arquitectura y Urbanismo en el Periodo Paracas en el Valle de
Chincha. Gaceta Arqueolgica Andina 22:87117.
Castillo, Luis Jaime. 2001. Rafael Larco y la Cultura Mochica. Arqueolgicas 25:11722.
_____. 2013. 110 Aos de Arqueologa Mochica: Cambios Paradigmticos y Nuevas
Perspectivas. In Historia de la Arqueologa en el Per del Siglo xx, edited by Henry
Tantalen and Csar Astuhuamn, 157205. Lima: Instituto Francs de Estudios
Andinos/Institute of Andean Research.
Castro, Victoria, Carlos Aldunate, and Jorge Hidalgo, eds. 2000. Nispa Ninchis: Conversaciones con John Murra. Lima: iep/iar.
Castro, Pedro, Trinidad Escoriza, Joaqum Oltra, Montserrat Otero, and Encarna
Sanahuja. 2003. Qu es una Ciudad? Aportaciones para su Definicin desde
la Prehistoria. Scripta Nova Revista Electrnica de Geografa y Ciencias Sociales
vii:(146):10.
Childe, Gordon. 1926. The Aryans: A Study of lndo-European Origins. London: P. Kegan.
_____. (1936) 1996. Man Makes Himself. Mxico City: Fondo de Cultura Econmica.
_____. 1950. The Urban Revolution. Town Planning Review 21:317.
_____. (1952) 2004. Old World Prehistory: Neolithic. In Foundations of Social Archaeology. Selected Readings of V. Gordon Childe, edited by Thomas Patterson and
Charles Orser, 11738. Walnut Creek, ca: AltaMira Press.
176
References
Childe, Gordon. (1954) 2004. Early Forms of Society. In Foundations of Social Archaeology. Selected Readings of V. Gordon Childe. Foundations of Social Archaeology.
Selected Readings of V. Gordon Childe, edited by Thomas Patterson and Charles
Orser, 15569. Walnut Creek, ca: AltaMira Press.
Chirinos, Patricia. 2006. La Imagen del Imperio: Los Estudios Sobre Wari en la Arqueologa Peruana. Arkeos 1(3):3149.
Choy Ma, Emilio. (1960) 1979. La Revolucin Neoltica y los Orgenes de la Civilizacin Peruana. Antropologa e Historia 1:12288. Lima: unmsm.
_____. (1961) 1979. El Trabajo en el Origen del Hombre Americano. Antropologa e
Historia, 1:97112. Lima: unmsm.
Cieza de Len, Pedro. (1553) 2005. Crnica del Per. Caracas: Ayacucho.
Clark, Grahame. (1947) 1980. Arqueologa y Sociedad. Madrid: Akal.
Clarke, David. (1968) 1984. Arqueologa Analtica. Barcelona: Bellaterra.
_____. 1977. Spatial Archaeology. London: Academic Press.
Clayton, Lawrence. 1998. Estados Unidos y el Per: 18001995. Lima: cepei.
COARPE (Colegio de Arquelogos del Per). 2014. Miembros de la Orden. Available
at http://www.coarpe.org/miembros.php (accessed January 4, 2014).
Collier, Donald, John Murra, with Sharat K. Roy. 1943. Survey and Excavations in
Southern Ecuador. Chicago, IL: Field Museum of Natural History Publication 528.
Coloma, Csar. 1994. Los Inicios de la arqueologa en el Per, o, Antigedades Peruanas de Mariano Eduardo de Rivero. Lima: Instituto Latinoamericano de Cultura
y Desarrollo.
Comisin de la Verdad y Reconciliacin. 2003. Informe Final. Lima: cvr.
_____. 2004. Hatun Willakuy. Versin Abreviada del Informe Final de la Comisin de
La Verdad y Reconciliacin. Lima: cvr.
Contreras, Carlos, and Marcos Cueto. 2007. Historia del Per Contemporneo. Lima:
iep.
Cotler, Julio. 1978. Clases, Estado y Nacin en el Per. Lima: Instituto de Estudios
Peruanos.
Cuadernos del Archivo Tello. 2005. Arqueologa del Valle de Nepea. Excavaciones en
Cerro Blanco y Punkur. Lima: Museo de Arqueologa y Antropologa de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Cueto, Marcos. 1992. Apogeo y crisis de la Sociedad Geogrfica de Lima: 18881940.
Dynamis 12:3545.
DAltroy, Terence, and Christine Hastorf. 2002. Preface. In Empire and Domestic
Economy, edited by Terence DAltroy and Christine Hastorf, xiiixv. New York:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Daggett, Richard. 1994. The Paracas Mummy Bundles of the Great Necropolis of
Wari Kayan: A History. Andean Past 4:6975.
References
177
178
References
Diez de San Miguel, Garci. (1567) 1964. Una Apreciacin Etnolgica de la Visita. In
Visita hecha a la Provincia de Chucuito por Garci Diez de San Miguel en el ao 1567
por Garci Diez de San Miguel, translated by Waldemar Espinoza Soriano, 42144.
Lima: Casa de la Cultura del Per.
Donnan, Christopher, and Carol Mackey. 1978. Ancient Burial Patterns of the Moche
Valley, Peru. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Drinot, Paulo. 2006. Construccin de Nacin, Racismo y Desigualdad: Una Perspectiva Histrica del Desarrollo Institucional en el Per. In Construir Instituciones:
Democracia, Desarrollo y Desigualdad en el Per desde 1980, edited by John Crabtree, 1131. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per/Universidad del Pacfico/
Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
Durand, Francisco. 1996. El Fenmeno Fujimori y la Crisis de los Partidos. Revista
Mexicana de Sociologa 58(1):97120.
Erickson, Clark. 2010. Max Uhle en Filadelfia (18971899). In Max Uhle (18561944):
Evaluaciones de sus Investigaciones y Obras, edited by Peter Kaulicke, Manuela
Fischer, Peter Masson, and Gregor Wolff, 93108. Lima: Pontificia Universidad
Catlica del Per.
Espinoza, Waldemar. 1995. Luis E. Valcrcel, el Indigenista e Incaista. Ciencias Sociales 1(1):6982.
Estete, Miguel de. (1534) 1891. La Relacin del Viaje que Hizo el Seor Capitn Hernando Pizarro por Mandado del Seor Gobernador, su Hermano, Desde el Pueblo
de Caxamalca Parcama, y de all Jauja. In Francisco de Xerez: Verdadera Relacin de la Conquista del Per, 12149. Madrid: Establecimiento tipogrfico de
Juan Cayetano Garca.
Evans, Clifford. 1968. Rafael Larco Hoyle: 19011966. American Antiquity 33(2):2336.
Fernndez Martnez, Vctor. 2005. Una Arqueologa Crtica: Ciencia, tica y Poltica en
la Construccin del Pasado. Barcelona: Crtica.
Fischer, Manuela. 2010. La Misin de Max Uhle para el Museo Real de Etnologa en
Berln (18921895): Entre las Ciencias Humboldtianas y la Arqueologa Americana. In Max Uhle (18561944): Evaluaciones de sus Investigaciones y Obras, edited by Peter Kaulicke, Manuela Fischer, Peter Masson, and Gregor Wolff, 4962.
Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per.
Flannery, Kent, Joyce Marcus, and Robert Reynolds. 1989. The Flocks of the Wamani:
A Study of Llama Herders on the Punas of Ayacucho, Peru. New York: Academic
Press.
Flores Galindo, Alberto. 1999. La Tradicin Autoritaria: Violencia y Democracia en el
Per. Lima: sur, Casa de Estudios del Socialismo/aprodeh.
_____. (2005) 2010. Buscando un Inca: Identidad y Utopa en los Andes. Lima: El Comercio.
Fournier, Patricia. 1999. La Arqueologa Social Latinoamericana: Caracterizacin de
una Posicin Terica Marxista. In Sed Non Satiata: Teora Social en la Arqueologa
Latinoamericana Contempornea, edited by Andrs Zarankin and Flix Acuto,
1732. Buenos Aires: Ediciones del Tridente.
References
179
180
References
References
181
Kapsoli, Wilfredo. (1984) 2010. Ayllus del Sol: Anarquismo y Utopa Andina. Lima:
Asamblea Nacional de Rectores.
Kauffmann Doig, Federico. 2000. El Inicio de la Arqueologa Cientfica en el Per:
Reiss y Stbel en Ancn. Exposition of lithographs from the 1875 publication The
Necropolis of Ancn in Peru, Museo de Arte, Lima, April 27May 14, 2000.
Kaulicke, Peter. 1998a. Julio C. Tello vs. Max Uhle en la Emergencia de la Arqueologa
Peruana. In Max Uhle y el Per Antiguo, edited by Peter Kaulicke, 7082. Lima:
pucp.
_____. 20022003. Visiones del Pasado de Johan Jakob von Tschudi. Bulletin de la
Socit Suisse des Amricanistes, 6667:7784.
_____. 2006. Poltica, Prctica y Teora en la Arqueologa del Per. Arqueologa y
Sociedad 17:1117.
_____. 2010. La Vida y Obra de Friedrich Max Uhle. Recientes Logros, Problemas y
Perspectivas. In Max Uhle (18561944): Evaluaciones de sus Investigaciones y Obras,
edited by Peter Kaulicke, Manuela Fischer, Peter Masson, and Gregor Wolff, 924.
Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per.
_____. 2011. El Seminario de Arqueologa, el Proyecto Arqueolgico Sechn y la
Especialidad de Arqueologa pucp: De la Prehistoria de una Especialidad y la
Historia de un Sitio Prehistrico. In Arqueologa Peruana: Homenaje a Mercedes
Crdenas, edited by Luisa Vetter, Sandra Tllez, and Rafael Vega-Centeno, 1728.
Lima: Instituto Riva Agero, Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per/Centro
Cultural de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Kidder, Alfred. 1956. Settlement PatternsPeru. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in
the New World, edited by Gordon Willey, 14855. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 23. New York: Wenner Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.
Klarn, Peter. 1976. Formacin de las Haciendas Azucareras y Orgenes del apra. Lima:
iep.
_____. 2004. Nacin y Sociedad en la Historia del Per. Lima: iep.
Kohl, Philip, and Clare Fawcett, eds. 1995. Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of
Archaeology. Cambridge, uk: Cambridge University Press.
Korstanje, Alejandra, and Jorgelina Garca. 2007. The Qhapaq an Project: A Critical
View. Archaeologies 3(2):11631.
Kristal, Efran. 1991. Una Visin Urbana de los Andes. Gnesis y Desarrollo del Indigenismo en el Per 18481930. Lima: Instituto de Apoyo Agrario.
Kroeber, Alfred. 1925a. The Uhle Pottery Collections from Moche. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 21(5):191234.
_____. 1925b. The Uhle Pottery Collections from Supe. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 21(6):23564.
_____. 1926a. The Uhle Pottery Collections from Chancay. University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 21(7):265304.
_____. 1926b. Archaeological Explorations in Peru, Part i: Ancient Pottery from Trujillo.
Anthropological Memoirs of the Field Museum of Natural History 2(1).
182
References
Kroeber, Alfred. 1930. Archaeological Explorations in Peru, Part II: The Northern Coast.
Anthropological Memoirs of the Field Museum of Natural History 2(2).
_____. 1937a. Archaeological Explorations in Peru. Part iv: Caete Valley. Anthropological Memoirs of the Field Museum of Natural History 2(4).
_____. 1937b. Preface. In Archaeological Explorations in Peru, Part III: Textiles of
the Early Nazca Period, edited by Lila ONeale. Anthropological Memoirs of the
Field Museum of Natural History 2(3):1279.
_____. 1944. Peruvian Archeology in 1942. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology
4. New York.
_____. 1963. Methods of Peruvian Archaeology. awpa Pacha 1:6171.
Kroeber, Theodora. 1970. Alfred Kroeber: A Personal Configuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lane, Kevin. 2012. Prospects: Archaeological Research and Practice in Peru. Antiquity 86:2217.
Larco Hoyle, Rafael. (1938) 2001. Los Mochicas (Vol. 1). Lima: Museo Arqueolgico
Rafael Larco Herrera.
Larson, Edward. 2006. Evolucin: La Asombrosa Historia de una Teora Cientfica.
Barcelona: Debate.
Linares Mlaga, Eloy. 1964. El Antroplogo Alemn Friedrich Max Uhle. Padre de la
Arqueologa Andina. Arequipa, Peru: Talleres Grficos P. L. Villanueva.
Liss, Sheldon. 1984. Marxist Thought in Latin America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lpez Jimnez, scar. 2001. Europa y la Creacin de los Modelos Clticos: El Origen
del Paradigma tnico-Cultural. Trabajos de Prehistoria 58(2):6988.
Lpez Lenci, Yazmn. 2005. La Ciudad del Cusco Hoy: Lugar Sagrado y/o Marca Registrada de una Cultura Globalizada? Available at http://www.iai.spkberlin.de/.
Lpez Mazz, Jos Luis. 2004. Arqueologa e Identidad Uruguaya: El Saber y el Poder
en las Vanguardias Intelectuales. In Teora Arqueolgica en Amrica del Sur, edited
by Gustavo Politis and Roberto Peretti, 197211. Olavarra, Argentina: unicen.
Lpez-Ocn, Leoncio. 2002. La Sociedad Geogrfica de Lima y la Formacin de una
Ciencia Nacional en el Per Republicano. Terra Brasilis 3. Available at http://ter
rabrasilis.revues.org/330 (accessed November 21, 2012).
Lorente, Sebastin. (1876) 2005. Escritos Fundacionales de Historia Peruana. Lima:
unmsm.
Lorenzo, Jos Luis. 1976. Hacia una Arqueologa Social, Reunin en Teotihuacn (Octubre 1975). Mxico City: Publicaciones del inah.
Loza, Carmen. 2004. Itinerarios de Max Uhle en el Altiplano Boliviano: Sus Libretas
de Expedicin e Historia Cultural (18931896). Indiana, 15 (Suplemento). Berlin:
Iberoamerikanische Institut.
_____. 2008. Una Fiera de Piedra Tiwanaku, Fallido Smbolo de la Nacin Boliviana.
Estudios Atacameos 36:93115.
References
183
Lozny, Ludomir, ed. 2011. Comparative Archaeologies: A Sociological View of the Science of the Past. New York: Springer.
Lull, Vicente, and Rafael Mic. 1997. Teora Arqueolgica I. Los Enfoques Tradicionales: Las Arqueologas Evolucionistas e Histrico Culturales. Revista dArqueologa
de Ponent 7:10728.
_____. 2007. Arqueologa del Origen del Estado: Las Teoras. Barcelona: Bellaterra.
Lumbreras, Luis G. 1969. De los Pueblos, las Culturas y las Artes del Antiguo Per.
Lima: Moncloa-Campodnico.
_____. 1974b. La Arqueologa como Ciencia Social. Lima: Histar.
_____. 1974c. The Peoples and Cultures of ancient Peru. Translated by Betty Meggers.
Washington, dc: Smithsonian Institution Press.
_____. 1980. Los Orgenes de la Guerra y el Ejrcito en el Antiguo Per. In Historia
General del Ejrcito Peruano: Los Orgenes, edited by Leonor Cisneros and Luis. G.
Lumbreras, 237415. Lima: Comisin Permanente de la Historia del Ejrcito del
Per.
_____. 1981a. La Arqueologa como Ciencia Social. Lima: piesa.
_____. 1981b. Arqueologa de la Amrica Andina. Lima: Milla Batres.
_____. (1983) 2005. La Arqueologa Peruana en los Aos Setenta: Mtodos y Perspectivas. In Arqueologa y Sociedad, edited by Enrique Gonzles Carr and
Carlos del guila, 296306. Lima: iep/inc/indea.
_____. 1986. Tres Fundaciones de un Museo para el Per. In Museo Peruano: Utopa
y Realidad, edited by Alfonso Castrilln, 1218. Lima: Industrial Grfica.
_____. 1993. Chavn de Huntar: Excavaciones en la Galera de las Ofrendas. Materialien zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archologie, Band 51. kava. Mainz
am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
_____. 1998. Max Uhle y la Tradicin de Investigacin Arqueolgica en el Per.
Indiana 15:17796.
_____. 2001. Uhle y los Asentamientos de Chincha en el Siglo xvi. Revista del Museo
Nacional 49:1387.
____. 2005. Arqueologa y Sociedad. Edited by Enrique Gonzales and Carlos del
guila. Lima: mnaahp/indea/iep.
____. 2006. Apuntes sobre Julio C. Tello, el Maestro. San Marcos 24:20922.
____. 2010. Arqueologa Cientfica Social: Balances y Perspectivas. In Ctedra Julio
C. Tello, edited by Museo de Arqueologia y Antropologa de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, 20821. Lima: unmsm.
Lynch, Nicols. 1990. Los Jvenes Rojos de San Marcos: El Radicalismo Universitario en
los Aos Setenta. Lima: El Zorro de Abajo editores.
____. 2000. Poltica y Antipoltica en el Per. Lima: desco.
Macera, Pablo. 1979. Emilio Choy: Un Hombre de Futuro. In Emilio Choy: Antropologa e Historia 1:xxvixxxiii. Lima: unmsm.
Macera, Pablo, and Jorge Basadre. 1974. Conversaciones. First edition. Lima: Mosca
Azul Editores.
184
References
Manrique, Nelson. 2009. Usted fue aprista! Bases para una Historia Crtica del APRA.
Lima: clacso/Fondo editorial de la Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per.
Marcos, Jorge. 2007. La Influencia de Vere Gordon Childe en el Naixement de lArqueologia Social a Latinoamrica. Cota Zero 22:659.
Marcus, Joyce. 2007. Edward Craig Morris 19392006: A Biographical Memoir. Washington, dc: National Academy of Sciences.
Marcus, Joyce, and Patrick Ryan Williams, eds. 2009. Andean Civilization: A Tribute to
Michael Moseley. Los Angeles: ucla Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
Maritegui, Jos Carlos. (1928) 1997. 7 Ensayos de interpretacin de la realidad peruana
[Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality]. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Marx, Karl, and Eric Hobsbawm. 1971. Formaciones Econmicas Precapitalistas.
Mxico City: Siglo xxi.
Marzal, Manuel. 1998. Historia de la Antropologa, Volumen I, Primera Parte: Antropologa Indigenista. Sixth edition. Quito, Ecuador: Abya-Yala/Universidad Politcnica Salesiana.
Matos Mendieta, Ramiro. 1985. La Formacin Profesional del Arquelogo en el Per.
Boletn de Lima 46:714.
____. 1999. Problemas y Alternativas de la Investigacin en Arqueologa. Investigaciones Sociales 3(4):11117.
Matos Mar, Jos. 1986. Desborde Popular y Crisis del Estado: El Nuevo Rostro del Per
en la Dcada de 1980. Third edition. Lima: iep.
Mauceri, Philip. 1989. Militares: Insurgencia y Democratizacin en el Per, 19801988.
Lima: iep.
____. 1995. State Reform, Coalitions, and the Neoliberal Autogolpe in Peru. Latin
American Research Review 30(1):737.
____. 1997. Return of the Caudillo: Autocratic Democracy in Peru. Third World
Quarterly 18(5):899911.
Mayer, Enrique. 2013. In the Realm of the Incas. In Merchants, Markets, and Exchange
in the Pre-Columbian World, edited by Kenneth G. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury,
30918. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
McGuire, Randall, and Rodrigo Navarrete. 1999. Entre Motocicletas y Fusiles: Las
Arqueologas Radicales Anglosajona e Hispana. Revista do Museu de Arqueologia
e Etnologia 3(Suplemento):18199.
Meja Xesspe, Toribio. 1967. Prlogo. In Pginas Escogidas, edited by Julio C. Tello
and Toribio Meja, vxxiii. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Mndez, Cecilia. 1996. Incas Si, Indios No: Notes on Peruvian Creole Nationalism
and its Contemporary Crisis. Journal of Latin American Studies 28(1):197225.
_____. 2006. Las Paradojas del Autoritarismo: Ejrcito, Campesinado y Etnicidad
en el Per, Siglos xix al xx. Iconos. Revista de Ciencias Sociales 26:1734.
_____. 2011. De Indio a Serrano: Nociones de Raza y Geografa en el Per (siglos
xviiixxi). Histrica 35(1):53102.
References
185
Mendible, Alejandro. 1994. Los Aos Cincuenta: Una Dcada Fundamental. Revista
Sic 570:4613.
Menzel, Dorothy, John H. Rowe, and Lawrence Dawson. 1964. The Paracas Pottery of
Ica: A Study in Style and Time. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 50.
Mesa, Christian. 2006. Julio C. Tello: Teora y Prctica en la Arqueologa Andina.
Arqueologa y Sociedad 17:4966.
_____. 2011. La Experiencia Insurreccional del Movimiento Revolucionario Tpac
Amaru: Grupo Memoria. Draft report. Available at http://es.scribd.com/doc/795
97327/Mario-Meza-La-experiencia-insurreccional-del-Movimiento-Revolucio
nario-Tupac-Amaru.
Millones, Luis, and Renata Mayer. 2012. La Fauna Sagrada de Huarochir. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos/Instituto Francs de Estudios Andinos.
Ministerio de Cultura. 2012. Lineamientos de Poltica Cultural. Lima: Ministerio de
Cultura.
_____. n.d. Direccin de General de Patrimonio Arqueolgico Inmueble. Available
at http://www.cultura.gob.pe/patrimonio/arqueologicoinmueble (accessed January 4, 2014).
Mir Quesada, Francisco, and Moiss Vargas. 2002. San Marcos: Tres Periodos en
una Dcada 19902002. Tomado del Informe General y Recomendaciones de
la Comisin de la Verdad San Marcos 20012002, presentado ante la Asamblea
General de la unmsm, April 2002. Available at http://peru.indymedia.org/mail
.php?id=19936.
Molinari, Tirso. 2009. El Fascismo en el Per: La Unin Revolucionaria 19311936. Lima:
Fondo Editorial Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Montoya, Rodrigo. 1998. Todas las Sangres: Ideal para el Futuro del Per. Estudos
Avanados 12(34):23564.
_____. 2005. San Marcos: El Pulmn del Per. Una Entrevista con Rodrigo Montoya,
por Martn Paredes Oporto. Quehacer 154:5662.
Monzn, Cndido, Miguel Roiz, and Mercedes Fernndez. 1997. Perfiles de una
Cultura Poltica Autoritaria: el Per de Fujimori en los Aos Noventa. Revista
Mexicana de Sociologa 59(2):93128.
Morales, Daniel. 1993. Compendio Histrico del Per; Historia Arqueolgica del Per
(del paleoltico al Imperio Inca). Lima: Milla Batres.
Moreira, Neiva. 1975. La Via Revolucionaria Peruana. Barcelona: Avance.
Moreno, Jorge. 2007. Historia de un Pionero. Special issue on Julio C. Tello. El Diario
El Comercio June 15.
Moro-Abada, Oscar. 2007. Arqueologa Prehistrica e Historia de la Ciencia: Haca
una Historia Crtica de la Arqueologa. Barcelona: Bellaterra.
Morris, Craig. 1967. Storage in Tawantinsuyu. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago, IL.
186
References
References
187
Murray, Edmundo. 2008. Jack of All Trades (and Master of All): Dr. Hutchinsons
Practice in Africa and Latin America, 18511874. Irish Migration Studies in Latin
America 6(3):1816.
Narvez, Joaqun. 1999. Proyecto Arqueolgico Huaca San Marcos: Resultados Preliminares. Boletn del Museo de Arqueologa y Antropologa 2(5):510.
Nastri, Javier. 2004. La Arqueologa Argentina y la Primaca del Objeto. In Teora
Arqueolgica en Amrica del Sur, edited by Gustavo Politis and Roberto Peretti,
21331. Olavarra, Argentina: unicen.
Navarrete, Rodrigo. 2006. La Arqueologa Social Latinoamericana: Una meta, Mltiples Perspectivas. Caracas, Venezuela: Universidad Central de Venezuela.
Nikitin, P. 1976. Manual de Economa Poltica. Madrid: Akal.
Odra, Manuel A. 1948. Mensaje a la Nacin del Jefe del Movimiento Revolucionario.
General de Brigada Manuel A. Odra, Arequipa, October 27, 1948. Available at
www.congreso.gob.pe/museo/mensajes/Mensaje-1948-1.pdf (accessed December
30, 2013).
Oliart, Patricia. 1999. Alberto Fujimori: El hombre que el Per necesitaba? In Los
Senderos Inslitos del Per: Guerra y Sociedad, 19801995, edited by Steve Stern,
399410. Lima: iep/unsch.
Orellana, Mario. 1996. Historia de la Arqueologa en Chile (18421990). Santiago, Chile:
Bravo y Allende Editores.
Ortiz de Zuiga, Iigo. (1562) 1967. Visita de la Provincia de Len de Hunuco en 1562,
edited by John V. Murra, 2 volumes (1967, 1972). Series: Documentos para la historia y etnologa de Hunuco y la selva central, 1, 2. Hunuco, Per: Universidad
Nacional Hermilio Valdizn, Facultad de Letras y Educacin.
Ortloff, Charles, Michael Moseley, and Robert Feldman. 1982. Hydraulic Engineering
Aspects of the Chimu Chicama-Moche Intervalley Canal. American Antiquity
47(3):57295.
Ossio, Juan. 2006. Andinidad. Boletn del Instituto Riva Agero 33:3953.
Oyuela-Caycedo, Augusto, Armando Anaya, Carlos G. Elera, and Lidio Valdez. 1997.
Social Archaeology in Latin America? Comments to T. C. Patterson. American
Antiquity 62(2):36574.
Paerregaard, Karsten. 2000. Procesos migratorios y estrategias complementarias
en la sierra Peruana. European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies
69:6980.
Palacios, Ral. 2006. Historia de la Repblica del Per [1933-2000]. Lima: El Comercio.
Palma, Ricardo. (1917) 1956. El Doctor Julio C. Tello: Recuerdos de mi Vida de Estudiante. In La Obra Docente y Doctrinaria de Julio C. Tello, edited by Oscar Santisteban Tello, 79. Lima.
Parsons, Jeffrey. 2004. Critical Reflections on Forty Years of Systematic Regional
Survey. Paper presented at the 69th Annual Meeting of the Society for American
Archaeology, March 31April 4, 2004, Montreal, Canada.
188
References
Parsons, Jeffrey, and Ramiro Matos Mendieta. 2002. Foreword. In Empire and Domestic Economy, edited by Terence DAltroy and Christine Hastorf, viixi. New
York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Parsons, Jeffrey, Charles Hastings, and Ramiro Matos. 1997. Rebuilding the State in
Highland Peru: Herder-Cultivator Interaction during the Late Intermediate Period
in the Tarama-Chinchaycocha Region. Latin American Antiquity 8(4):31741.
Patterson, Thomas. 1994. Social Archaeology in Latin America: An Appreciation.
American Antiquity 59(3):5317.
____. 2002. Toward A Social History of Archaeology in the United States. Belmont, ca:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Paz Soldn, Mariano. 1865. Atlas Geogrfico del Per. Paris: Fermin Didot.
Pease, Franklin. 1995. Breve Historia Contempornea del Per. Mxico City: Fondo de
Cultura Econmica.
Pea, Vctor, Pablo Rivera, Peter Schulz, and Jorge Tpia. 2011. La Produccin Cientfica en San Marcos: Hechos, Cifras y Estndares Internacionales (20022010). Lima:
unmsm/concytec.
Pfeiffer, Robert E. 1969. John Howland Rowe: Bibliography, 19401960. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 40:11232.
Pillsbury, Joanne, and Lisa Trever. 2008. The King, the Bishop, and the Creation of an
American Antiquity. awpa Pacha 29:121219.
Polanyi, Karl. (1944) 1989. La Gran Transformacin: Critica del Liberalismo Econmico.
Madrid: Ediciones de La Piqueta.
Polanyi, Karl, Conrad Arensberg, and Harry Pearson, eds. 1957. Trade and Market in
the Early Empires. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Politis, Gustavo. 1995. The Socio-Politics of the Development of Archaeology in
Hispanic South America. In Theory in Archaeology: A World Perspective, edited by
Peter Ucko, 197235. London: Routledge.
____. 2006. El Paisaje Terico y el Desarrollo Metodolgico de la Arqueologa en
Amrica Latina. Arqueologa Suramericana 2(2):16875.
Ponce, Grover. 2002. El Discreto Encanto del Desencanto: Jvenes, Poltica y Rgimen Fujimorista en San Marcos de los Noventa. Paper presented at the xii Coloquio Internacional de Estudiantes de Historia, Pontificia Universidad Catlica
del Per, Lima.
Pozorski, Shelia G. 1976. Prehistoric Subsistence Patterns and Site Economics in the
Moche Valley, Peru. PhD dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
Prieto, Gabriel. 2011. Dos Forjadores de las Ciencias Sociales en el Per: Sus Publicaciones y Confrontaciones. Arqueologa y Sociedad 22:11144.
Prescott, William (1847) 1944. Historia de la Conquista del Per. Buenos Aires: Jnos
Peter Kramer.
Proulx, Donald. 1968. An Archaeological Survey of the Nepea Valley, Peru. Research
Report No. 2, Department of Anthropology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
References
189
Proulx, Donald. 1982. Territoriality in the Early Intermediate Period: The Case of
Moche and Recuay. awpa Pacha 20:8396.
_____. n.d. Nepea Valley Survey (19671980). Available at http://people.umass.
edu/proulx/Nepena_Valley_Survey.html (accessed January 2, 2014).
Quilter, Jeffrey, and Luis Jaime Castillo, eds. 2010. New Perspectives on Moche Political Organization. Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection.
Quilter, Jeffrey, and Michele Koons. 2012. The Fall of the Moche: A Critique of Claims
for South Americas First State. Latin American Antiquity 23(2):12743.
Quiroz, Rubn. 2005. La Guerra Contina: Aproximaciones a la Violencia Poltica e
Ideolgica en el Per. Solar 1(1):7792.
Quiza, Ricardo. 2007. Babel Revisitada: Exposiciones, Globalizacin y Modernidad
(18511905). Hispania Nova: Revista de Historia Contempornea 7. Available at
http://hispanianova.rediris.es.
Ragas, Jos. 2008. Idelogos del Leviatn. Estadstica y Sociedad en el Per (1791
1876). In Intelectuales y Poder: Ensayos en Torno a la Repblica de las Letras en
el Per e Hispanoamrica (ss. xvixx), edited by Carlos Aguirre and Carmen Mc
Evoy, 15172. Lima: ifea/Instituto Riva Agero.
Raimondi, Antonio. 1874. El Per. Parte Preliminar. Tomo I. Lima: Imprenta del Estado.
Ramn, Gabriel. 2005. Periodificacin en Arqueologa Peruana: Genealoga y Apora.
Bulletin de lInstitut Franais dEtudes Andines 34(1):533.
Ratzel, Friedrich. 19091912. Anthropogeographie. Stuttgart, Germany: J. Engelhorn.
Ravines, Rogger. 1970. Los Comienzos de la Arqueologa Andina. In 100 Aos de Arqueologa en el Per, edited by Rogger Ravines, 2953. Lima: Instituto de Estudios
Peruanos.
_____, ed. 1980. Chan Chan: Metrpoli Chim. Lima: iep.
____. 2006. Fuentes para la Historia de la Arqueologa Peruana. Boletn de Lima
28(105106):7338.
Reiss, Wilhelm, and Alphons Stbel. 18801887. Das Todtenfeld von Ancon in Peru: ein
Beitrag zur Kenntniss der Cultur und Industrie des Inca-Reiches: nach den Ergebnissen eigener Ausgrabungen. Berlin: Ascher & Co.
Rnique, Jos Luis. 2003. La Voluntad Encarcelada: Las Luminosas Trincheras de
Combate de Sendero Luminoso del Per. Lima: iep.
Rice, Prudence, and Donna Ruhl. 1989. Archaeological Survey of the Moquegua
bodegas. In Ecology, Settlement, and History in the Osmore Drainage, edited by
Don Rice, Charles Stanish, and Philip Scarr, 479502. Oxford, uk: b.a.r. International Series s545.
Rick, John. 1980. Prehistoric Hunters of the High Andes. New York: Academic Press.
Rivasplata, Paula. 2010. La Proto-Arqueologa en el Per en el Siglo xix. Temas Americanistas 24:63106.
Rivero y Ustariz, Mariano, and Johan Jacob von Tschudi. (1851) 1853. Peruvian Antiquities. New York: George P. Putnam & Co.
190
References
Riviale, Pascal. 2003. Charles Wiener o el Disfraz de Una Misin Lcida. Bulletin de
lInstitut dEtudes Andines 32(3):53947.
Rodrguez, Frank. 2012. La Nocin de Democracia en Tiempos de la Dictadura Militar (19481958). Presente y Pasado. Revista de Historia 17(33):12944.
Ron, James. 2001. Ideology in Context: Explaining Sendero Luminosos Tactical Escalation. Journal of Peace Research 38(5):56992.
Roncagliolo, Santiago. 2005. La Cuarta Espada: La Historia de Abimael Guzmn y
Sendero Luminoso. Barcelona: Debate.
Rowe, John H. 1942a. La Seccin Arqueolgica de la Universidad del Cuzco. Revista
del Instituto Arqueolgico 6(10/11):iii.
_____. 1942b. Sitios Histricos en la Regin de Pucara, Puno. Revista del Instituto
Arqueolgico 6(1011):6675.
____. 1945. Absolute Chronology in the Andean Area. American Antiquity 10:26584.
____. 1946. Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Conquest. In Handbook of South
American Indians, Volume 2, edited by Julian Steward, 183330. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 143. Washington, dc: Smithsonian Institution.
____. 1950. Sound Patterns in Three Inca Dialects. International Journal of American
Linguistics 16(3):13748.
____. 1953. Eleven Inca Prayers from the Zithuwa Ritual. Kroeber Anthropological
Society Papers 8/9:8299.
____. 1954. Max Uhle, 1856-1944: A Memoir of the Father of Peruvian Archaeology.
University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology
46(1):1134.
_____. 1956. Archaeological Explorations in Southern Peru, 19541955. American
Antiquity 22(2):13551.
_____. 1959. Archaeological Dating and Cultural Process. Southwestern Journal of
Anthropology 15(4):31724.
____. (1961) 1970. La Arqueologa de Ica. In 100 Aos de Arqueologa en el Per, edited by Rogger Ravines, 41537. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.
____. (1962) 1967. Stages and Periods in Archaeological Interpretation. In Peruvian
Archaeology: Selected Readings, edited by John Rowe and Dorothy Menzel, 115.
Palo Alto, ca: Peek.
____. 1966. Diffusionism and Archaeology. American Antiquity 31(3):3347.
____. 1998. Interview with John H. Rowe, Honoree of Anthropologys Eighth Emeriti
Lecture. The Jawbone: Anthropology Department Newsletter. University of California, Berkeley.
____. 1998. Max Uhle y la Idea del Tiempo en la Arqueologa Americana. In Max
Uhle y el Per Antiguo, edited by Peter Kaulicke, 524. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per.
Rowley-Conwy, Peter. 2006. From Genesis to Prehistory: The Archaeological Three
Age System and Its contested reception in Denmark, Britain, and Ireland. Oxford
uk: Oxford University Press.
References
191
192
References
Shady, Ruth. 2006a. Americas First City? The Case of Late Archaic Caral. In Andean
Archaeology III: North and South, edited by William Isbell and Helaine Silverman,
2866. New York: Springer.
____. 2006b. La Civilizacin Caral: Sistema Social y Manejo del Territorio y sus Recursos. Su Trascendencia en el Proceso Cultural Andino. Boletn de Arqueologa
pucp 10:5989.
____. 2008. Poltica Cultural en el Per y la Situacin del Patrimonio Arqueolgico.
International Journal of South American Archaeology 2:617.
____. 2009. Caral-Supe y su Entorno Natural y Social en los Orgenes de la Civilizacin. In Andean Civilization: A Tribute to Michael E. Moseley, edited by Joyce
Marcus and Patrick Williams, 99120. Los Angeles: ucla Cotsen Institute of
Archaeology.
Shanks, Michael. 1999. Art and the Early Greek State: An Interpretive Archaeology.
Cambridge, uk Cambridge University Press.
_____. 2001. Culture/Archaeology: The Dispersion of a Discipline and its Objects.
In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, 284305. Cambridge, uk:
Polity.
Shimada, Izumi. 1976. Socioeconomic Organization at Moche V Pampa Grande,
Peru: Prelude to a Major Transformation to Come. PhD dissertation, University
of Arizona, Tucson.
_____. 1978. Economy of a Prehistoric Urban Context: Commodity and Labor Flow
at Moche V Pampa Grande, Peru. American Antiquity 43(4):56992.
_____. 1994. Pampa Grande and the Mochica Culture. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Shimada, Izumi, and Rafael Vega-Centeno. 2011. Peruvian Archaeology: Its Growth,
Characteristics, Practice, and Challenge. In Comparative Archaeologies: A Sociological View of the Science of the Past, edited by Ludomir Lozny, 569612. New
York: Springer.
Silva, Mario. 2007. Lords, Pyramids and Replicas: Images from the North Coast of Peru.
New York: Mallqui Books.
Silverman, Helaine, and William Isbell, eds. 2008. Handbook of South American Archaeology. New York: Springer.
Skidmore, Thomas, and Peter Smith. 2005. Modern Latin America. Sixth edition. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Michael. 2009. V. Gordon Childe and the Urban Revolution: A Historical
Perspective on a Revolution in Urban Studies. Town Planning Review 80(1):329.
Squier, E. George. 1877. Peru: Incidents of Travel and Exploration in the Land of the
Incas. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Stanish, Charles. 1989. Household Archeology: Testing Models of Zonal Complementarity in the South Central Andes. American Anthropologist 91(1): 724.
References
193
Stanish, Charles. 1999. Settlement Pattern Shifts and Political Ranking in the Lake
Titicaca Basin, Peru In Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years
Since Vir, edited by B. Billman and G. Feinman, 11628. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
____. 2001. Regional Research on the Inca. Journal of Archaeological Research 9(3):
21341.
____. 2003. Ancient Titicaca: The Evolution of Complex Society in Southern Peru and
Northern Bolivia. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Stanish, Charles, Edmundo De La Vega, Lee Steadman, Cecilia Chvez, Kirk Frye,
Luperio Onofre, Matthew Seddon, and Percy Calisaya. 1997. Archaeological Survey
in the Juli-Desaguadero Region of Lake Titicaca Basin, Southern Peru. Fieldiana 29.
Chicago, il: Field Museum of Natural History.
Stanish, Charles, and Abigail Levine. 2011. War and Early State Formation in the
Northern Titicaca Basin, Peru. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
108(34):139016.
Starn, Orin. 1991. Missing the Revolution: Anthropologists and the War in Peru. Cultural Anthropology 6(1):6391.
____. 1995. Maoism in the Andes: The Communist Party of PeruShining Path and
the Refusal of History. Journal of Latin American Studies 27(2):399421.
Stern, Steve, ed. 1998. Shining and Other Paths: War and Society in Peru, 19801995.
Durham, nc: Duke University Press.
Steward, Julian, ed. 1946. Handbook of South American Indians. Bureau of American
Ethnology Bulletin 143, 6 volumes. Washington, dc: Smithsonian Institution.
____. 1960. Alfred Kroeber, 18761960: A Biographical Memoir. Washington dc: National Academy of Sciences.
Strong, Duncan. 1942. Recent Archeological Research in Latin America. Science,
New Series 95(2460):17983.
Stbel, Alphons, and Max Uhle. 1892. Die Ruinensttte von Tiahunaco im Hochlande
des Alten Per: Eine Kulturgeschichtliche Studie auf Grund Selbstndiger Aufnahmen. Leipzig, Germany: Hiersemann Verlag.
Taboada, Constanza, and Carlos I. Angiorama. 2003. Buscando los Indicadores Arqueolgicos de la Unidad Domstica.Cuadernos de la Facultad de Humanidades y
Ciencias Sociales. Universidad Nacional de Jujuy20:393407.
Tanaka, Martn. 1999. Los Partidos Polticos en el Per, 19921999: Estatalidad, Sobrevivencia y Poltica Meditica. Lima: iep.
Tantalen, Henry. 2004. LArqueologia Social Peruana: Mite o Realitat? Cota Zero
19:90100.
____. 2006. La Arqueologa Marxista en el Per: Gnesis, Despliegue y Futuro. Arqueologa y Sociedad 17:3347.
____. 2008. Arqueologa de la Formacin del Estado: El Caso de la Cuenca Norte del
Titicaca. Lima: Fondo Editorial del Pedaggico San Marcos.
194
References
Tantalen, Henry. 2010b. El Urbanismo Obligado: Craig Morris y el Fenmeno Urbano Inca. Arqueologa y Sociedad 21:13143.
Tantalen, Henry, and Miguel Aguilar, eds. 2012. La Arqueologa Social Latinoamericana: De la Teora a la Praxis. Bogot, Colombia: Universidad de los Andes.
Tantalen, Henry, and Csar Astuhuamn, eds. 2013. Historia de la Arqueologa en el
Per del Siglo xx. Lima: Instituto Francs de Estudios Andinos/Institute of Andean Research.
Tello, Julio C. 1921. Introduccin a la Historia Antigua del Per. Lima: Euforin.
____. 1923. Wiracocha. Inca 1(1):94320, 1(3):583606.
____. 1929. Antiguo Per: Primera poca. Lima: Comisin Organizadora del Segundo
Congreso Sudamericano de Turismo-Excelsior.
_____. (1933) 2005. Arqueologa del Valle de Nepea: Excavaciones en Cerro Blanco y
Punkur. Cuadernos de Investigacin del Archivo Tello, 4. Lima: Museo de Arqueologa y Antropologa de la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
_____. (1936) 1973. Prlogo. In Del Ayllu al Cooperativismo Socialista. First edition.
Lima: Biblioteca Peruana. peisa.
_____. (1939) 1942. Origen y Desarrollo de las Civilizaciones Prehistricas Andinas.
Lima: Librera e imprenta Gil.
_____. 1943. Discovery of Chavn de Huntar. American Antiquity 9(1):13660.
_____. 1960. Chavn: Cultura Matriz de la Civilizacin Andina. Edited by Toribio Meja Xesspe. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
_____. 1967a. Historia de los Museos Nacionales del Per, 18221946. Edited by
Toribio Meja Xesspe. Arqueolgicas 10:1268.
_____. 1967b. Pginas Escogidas. Edited by Toribio Meja Xesspe. Lima: Universidad
Nacional Mayor de San Marcos.
Thorp, Rosemary, and Geoffrey Bertram. (1978) 1988. Per: 18901977. Crecimiento y
Polticas de una Economa Abierta. Second edition. Lima: Mosca Azul.
Toohey, Jason. 2009. Community Organization, Militarism, and Ethnogenesis in the
Late Prehistoric Northern Highlands of Peru. PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Topic, Theresa Lange. 1977. Excavations at Moche. PhD dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, ma.
Trigger, Bruce. 1989a. Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperialist. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader, edited by Robert Preucel
and Ian Hodder, 61531. Oxford, uk: Blackwell.
_____. 1989b. A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge, uk: Cambridge University Press.
____. 1992. Historia del Pensamiento Arqueolgico. Barcelona: Crtica.
____. 2006. A History of Archaeological Thought. Second edition. Cambridge, Uk:
Cambridge University Press.
References
195
Trever, Lisa. 2012. The Uncanny Tombs in Martnez Compaons Trujillo del Per.
In Past Presented: Archaeological Illustration and the Ancient Americas, edited by
Joanne Pillsbury, 10740. Washington, dc: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library
and Collection.
Trevisan, Paula, and Luis Massa. 2009. Fotografas Cusqueas Atravesando el Indigenismo. Aisthesis 46:3964.
Tung, Tiffiny. 2012. Violence, Ritual, and the Wari Empire: A Social Bioanthropology of
Imperialism in the Ancient Andes. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
Uceda, Ricardo. 2004. Muerte en el Pentagonito: Los Cementerios Secretos del Ejrcito
Peruano. Bogot, Colombia: Planeta.
Uceda, Santiago. 2000. La Arqueologa en el Norte Peruano en la Dcada de los Noventa. sepia viii. Mesa Regional Investigaciones Arqueolgicas en la Costa Norte
25280.
Uceda, Santiago, and Ricardo Morales, eds. 2010. Moche: Pasado y Presente. Trujillo,
Peru: Patronato Huaca del Valle de Moche/Fondo Contravalor Per Francia/
Universidad Nacional de Trujillo.
Uhle, Max. (1903) 1991. Pachacamac: A Reprint of the 1903 edition by Max Uhle. Philadelphia: The University Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of
Pennsylvania.
_____. 1907. The Emeryville Shellmound. University of California Publications in
American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(1):184.
Valcrcel, Luis E. 1925b. Informe sobre las Exploraciones Arqueolgicas en Pukara.
Revista Universitaria del Cuzco 48:1421.
____. 1927. Tempestad en los Andes. Lima: Biblioteca Amauta.
____. 1932a. El Personaje Mtico de Pukara. Revista del Museo Nacional 1(1):1831.
____. 1932b. El Gato de Agua: Sus Representaciones en Pukara y Naska. Revista del
Museo Nacional 1(2):327.
____. 1935. Litoesculturas y Cermica de Pukara. Revista del Museo Nacional
4(1):258.
____. 1981. Luis E. Valcrcel: Memorias. Edited by Jos Matos Mar, Jos Deustua, and
Jos Luis Rnique. Lima: iep .
Valdez, Lidio. 2004. La Filosofa de la Arqueologa de Amrica Latina. In Teora
Arqueolgica en Amrica del Sur, edited by Gustavo Politis and Roberto Peretti,
12940. Olavarra, Argentina: unicen.
Vargas Llosa, Mario. 1969. Conversacin en la Catedral. Barcelona: Seix Barral.
____. 1996. La Utopa Arcaica: Jos Mara Arguedas y las Ficciones del Indigenismo.
Madrid: Alfaguara.
Vargas, Zenn. 2005. Formacin Profesional: Mito y Realidad. Investigaciones Sociales 14:21334.
Vaughn, Kevin. 2011. The Ancient Andean Village: Marcaya in Prehispanic Nazca. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.
196
References
Villela, Sergio, and Jos De la Puente. 2011. El ltimo Secreto de Machu Picchu: Quin
es el Dueo de la Ciudadela de los Incas. Lima: El Comercio.
Villacorta, Luis Felipe. 2006. Antonio Raimondi y el Departamento de Ancash: Historia y Construccin de un vnculo cientfico, personal y simblico. In El Departamento de Ancachs y sus Riquezas Minerales: Coleccin de estudios Geolgicos y
Mineros para la obra El Per, Vol. ii, 1996. Lima: Universidad Nacional Mayor de
San Marcos.
____. 2008. El Prestigio como Poder: Antonio Raimondi y la Validacin Cientfica
del Anhelo por el Progreso Nacional. In Intelectuales y Poder: Ensayos en torno
a la Repblica de las letras en el Per e Hispanoamrica (ss. xvixx), edited by
Carlos Aguirre and Carmen Mc Evoy, 22151. Lima: ifea/Instituto Riva Agero.
Villar Crdova, Pedro. (1935) 1984. Arqueologa del Departamento de Lima. Lima:
Ediciones Atusparia.
Vita-Finzi, Claudio, and Eric Higgs. 1970. Prehistory Economy in the Mount Carmel
Area of Palestine: Site Catchment Analysis. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society
36:137.
Watanabe, Luis, Michael Moseley, and Fernando Cabieses, eds. 1990. Trabajos Arqueolgicos en Moquegua, Per. Lima: Programa Contisuyu del Museo Peruano de
Ciencias de la Salud/Southern Peru Copper Corporation.
Watson, Patty Jo, Steven LeBlanc, and Charles Redman. 1974. El Mtodo Cientfico en
Arqueologa. Madrid: Alianza.
Wiener, Ral. 2001. Bandido Fujimori: El Reeleccionista. Second edition. Lima: www
Editores.
Wilk, Richard, and William L. Rathje. 1982. Household Archaeology.American Behavioral Scientist 25(6):61739.
Willey, Gordon. 1945. Horizon Styles and Pottery Traditions in Peruvian Archaeology. American Antiquity 11(1):4956.
_____. (1951) 1970. El Problema de Chavn: Revisin y Crtica. In 100 Aos de Arqueologa en el Per, edited by Rogger Ravines, 161214. Lima: Instituto de Estudios
Peruanos.
_____. 1952. A Survey of South American Archaeology. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 83(1):5864.
Wilson, David. 1988. Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Lower Santa Valley Peru.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Yalle, Omar. 2008. La Cultura Poltica en el Discurso de los Dirigentes Universitarios
de la Izquierda Sanmarquina: 19952000. Masters thesis, Universidad Nacional
Mayor de San Marcos, Lima.
Yofee, Norman. 2005. The Myth of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities,
States, and Civilizations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zevallos Quiones, Jorge. 1994. Huacas y Huaqueros en Trujillo durante el Virreinato
(15351835). Trujillo, Per: Editora Normas Legales.
Index
A
absolute chronology, 89, 90
academic circles, 31, 50, 72
academic discourse, 55
academic environment, 61
Acari, 161
Acllawasi, 54
Adams, Robert M., 98, 99
aesthetics, 36
agency, 146
agrarian reform, 106
guila, Carlos del, 113
Aguilar, Miguel, 127
Aguirre Beltrn, Gonzalo, 93
Alcalde, Javier, 113
Alfonso Ugarte, Avenue (Lima), 68
Alianza Popular Revolucionaria
Americana (APRA), 44, 66, 70, 71,
84, 85, 105, 117, 137, 163, 164
Allies, 42, 71, 81, 83
allochthonous thesis, 51
Althusser, Louis, 108, 121
altiplano archaeology, 62
Alva, Walter, 143, 144
Amat, Hernn, 132
197
198
Index
antiquarian, 24
Antiquities Act, USA, 161
antiquities collectors, 27
Antnez de Mayolo, Santiago, 53
Apaico, Anbal, 167
Apuntes Arqueolgicos (journal), 125
Apus, 136
archaeological deposits, 65
archaeological descriptions, 21
archaeological monuments, 58, 63
archaeological context, 46
archaeological data, 31, 39, 74, 87, 93, 122
archaeological discourse, 108
archaeological discoveries, 61, 62
archaeological evidence, 97
archaeological excavations, 27, 63
archaeological explanation, 35, 36, 46, 86
archaeological heritage, 39, 138, 140-142,
151, 158
archaeological heritage management, 140
archaeological interpretation, 107
archaeological logic, 32
archaeological materials, 34, 51, 123
archaeological objects, 40, 46, 150
archaeological patrimony, 24, 41, 141
archaeological projects, 53, 132-134, 143
archaeological remains, 110
archaeological representations, 21
archaeological science, 29
archaeological sequence, 88
archaeological thought, 61, 86, 138
archaeological tradition, 42
archaeologists, 61, 65
Archaeology as Social Science/La
Arqueologa como Ciencia Social
(book), 107, 111, 166
archaeology programs, 116, 140
architecture, 55
Arequipa, 24, 56, 66, 116, 161
Argentina, 29, 30, 33, 148, 153, 160, 169
Arguedas, Jos Mara, 60, 99, 100, 101,
104, 110
B
Bachir, Acha, 145
Baessler, Arthur, 27
Bandelier, Adolph, 30, 34, 73, 159
Barcelona, Spain, 140
Barnes, Monica, 96
Barranca, Sebastin, 50
Barreda Murillo, Luis, 97
Basadre, Jorge, 44, 56, 110
Bastian, Adolph, 30, 33, 34
Bate, Luis Felipe, 108
Battle of Ayacucho, 22
Bawden, Garth, 120, 121
Bazn, Augusto, 134
Belande Terry, Fernando, 91, 92, 106
Belgium, 33
Bellavista, Callao, 40
Benavides, Oscar, 66, 70
Bennett, Wendell C., 73-76, 80, 163, 164
Beresford-Jones, David, 145
Berlin, 24, 33, 34, 50, 160
Index
C
Cabieses, Fernando, 123
Cceres, Andrs Avelino, 39, 44
Cadena, Marisol de la, 92, 93, 95, 96, 101
Cajamarca, 20, 169
Callao, 104
Callejn de Huaylas, 118
Cambridge school of paleoeconomy, 118
campesinos, 85, 91, 99, 100, 106
Canada, 120
199
200
Index
colonial mentality, 23
colonialist worldview, 28
Columbia University, 67, 94
Comas, Juan, 110
Comisin de Formalizacin de la Propie-
dad Informal (COFOPRI), 135
Comisin de la Verdad y la Reconciliacin/
Truth and Reconciliation Commission,
117, 129
Communism, 71
Communist ideology, 84, 92
Communist Party of Peru, 45, 70, 105, 163
Communist regime, 94
competition, 119
complex societies, 119, 123
Congreso Internacional de Americanistas/
International Congress of American-
ists, 31, 42, 108, 111, 160, 162
Conrad, Geoffrey, 120
Consejo Nacional de Cinematografa
(CONACINE), 141
Consejo Nacional de Democratizacin
del Libro y de Fomento de la Lectura
(PROMOLIBRO), 141
Conservative, 23
Constituent Assembly, 107, 117
contract archaeology, 135, 145
Contreras, Carlos, 26
Conversation in the Cathedral (novel), 84
Cooper, Prentice, 71
Crdoba (Argentina), 114
Cordy Collins, Alana, 121
Cornejo Polar, Antonio, 112
Costa Rica, 160
Cotler, Julio, 22, 71
Cotter, John, 97
Creole elites, 43
Cuba, 92, 93
Cuban Communist revolution, 107
Cueto, Marcos, 26
cultural anthropology, 50
cultural area, 76, 87
cultural change, 47, 86, 118
Index
cultural borders, 56
cultural change, theory of, 46
cultural ecology, 118
cultural ecological perspective, 77
cultural evolution, 122
Cultural evolutionism, 72, 88
cultural heritage, 43
cultural heritage management, 140
cultural historical areas, 113
cultural historical methodology, 87, 108
cultural historical approaches, 72, 74, 76
cultural historical categories, 114
cultural historical narratives, 52
cultural historical school, 118, 119, 124
cultural historical sequences, 73, 74, 76,
78, 163, 164
cultural historical theory, 108, 149
cultural history, 45, 46, 47, 77, 90
cultural history perspective, 72, 79
cultural patrimony, 33, 51, 140, 155
cultural patterns, 86, 88, 122
cultural resource management (CRM), 135,
140, 145-147
cultural unity, 77
culture (in archaeology), 46, 51, 74, 77, 164
Cusco, 24, 56-58, 60-62, 65, 67, 69, 88, 90,
95, 151, 161, 169
Cusquea society, 58
D
DAltroy, Terence, 120, 122
Daggett, Richard, 50, 167
Dama de Cao, 151
Darwin, Charles, 65
Dawson, Lawrence, 73, 86, 89
Day, Kent, 120, 121
De los Orgenes del Estado (book), 112
De los Pueblos, las Culturas y las Artes en
el Antiguo Per (book), 111
Degregori, Carlos Ivn, 128
dependency theory, 95, 100
dependent countries, 46
201
E
Earle, Timothy, 120, 122, 167
Early Intermediate Period, 87, 89
eastern Europe, 93
economic anthropology, 99, 164
economic colonialism, 71
economic dependence, 70
economic context, 71
Ecuador, 41, 43, 93, 164
egalitarian tribal social structures, 104
Egypt, 87
Ejrcito de Liberacin Nacional (ELN), 105
El Brujo Archaeological Project, 144
El Frontn Island, Callao, 83
El Paraso (archaeological site), 120
electoral process, 66
Emeryville (archaeological site), 161
empiricism, 67
empirical base, 32, 89
empirical evidence, 36
empirical knowledge, 31
empirical work, 88
Engels, Frederick, 105
England, 31, 122
Enlightenment, 24, 28
epistemology, 28, 30, 51
Escrcena, Augusto, 113
202
Index
F
Facultad de Medicina de San Fernando, 23
Faculty of Letters, San Marcos University, 42
Farabee, William, 50
Fascism, 67, 163
Fascist countries, 71
Fascist regimes, 66
Feldman, Robert, 120
Fernndez de Pirola, Niclas, 26
feudal structure, 45
Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago,
160
field schools (in archaeology), 144, 153
fieldwork, 32, 98
Flannery, Kent, 120, 122, 167
Flores Galindo, Alberto, 22, 45, 66, 99, 106,
154, 164
Flores, Isabel, 110
Fonseca Martel, Csar, 97
Ford, James, 80
foreign capital, 22
foreign researchers, 73
foreign travelers, 28
Formative site, 53, 74
Foucault, Michel, 26
France, 22, 28, 31, 147
Franco, Francisco, 67
French structuralist materialism, 108, 121
Frisancho, Jos, 63
Fujimori, Alberto, 115, 126-128, 130, 134-137,
167, 168
Fujita, Fernando, 113
Fulbright Commission, 73, 86
functionalist framework, 77
Fundacin Wiese, 144
funerary contexts, 121
Fung, Rosa, 51, 105, 110, 125, 130, 138
G
Gaceta Arqueolgica Andina (journal), 113
Galindo (archaeological site), 121
Gallinazo (archaeological site), 73
Index
H
Haas, Jonathan, 121
hacienda, 45, 63
Hacienda Chicln, 80
Hacienda Chiquitoy, 80
Hadden, Gordon D., 97
Hamel, Eugene, 87
203
204
Index
I
Ibero-American Institute, Berlin, 42
Ica, 84, 90
Ica Valley, 89
iconographic motifs, 36
iconography, 65
ideological conflict, 84
ideologies, 19, 29
Illinois, 159
imagined community, 45
impact archaeology, 135
Inca, 24, 33, 35, 37, 52, 61, 74, 87, 94, 98, 99,
136, 164
Inca Empire, 37, 56, 62
Inca mythology, 45
Inca road system, 114
Inca ruins, 26, 158
Inca society, 94, 99
Inca State, 97
Inca style, 78
index fossil, 77, 88
indigenismo, 47, 56-58, 62, 67, 95, 100, 103,
104
Index
J
Jamaica, 93
Japanese citizens, 42
Japanese residents, 71
Jenson, Peter, 97
Jijn y Caamao, Jacinto, 42, 161
Julien, Michle, 145
Junn, 169
K
Karp, Eliane, 136
Kauffmann Doig, Federico, 25
Kaulicke, Peter, 29, 125, 139, 140, 158
Keatinge, Richard, 120
Klein Mission, 83
Kolata, Alan, 120
Knigliches Museum fr Vlkerkunde/
Royal Museum of Ethnology, Berln,
32-34, 40
Korean War, 84
Kossina, Gustav, 47
Kroeber, Alfred, 31, 35, 46, 53, 54, 73, 76, 78,
79, 88, 90, 161, 162, 165
Kubitschek, Juscelino, 164
Kultur Kreiss, 160
L
La Convencin Valley, Cusco, 85, 101
La Paz, Bolivia, 34
La Prensa (Peruvian newspaper), 109
Labarthe, Pedro, 162
Lake Poop, 33
Lake Titicaca, 30, 33, 34, 61, 74
Lambers, Karsten, 145
land reform, 85
Lane, Kevin, 145
Lanning, Edward, 73, 89
Larco Herrera, Rafael, 81
Larco Herrera, Vctor, 80
Larco Hoyle, Rafael, 47, 55, 69, 78, 79, 81, 82,
143, 151
205
206
Index
M
Macera, Pablo, 130
Machu Picchu, 18, 59, 62, 67, 136, 155, 163
Mackey, Carol, 120, 121
Makatampu (archaeological site), 40
Makowski, Kzrysztof, 139
Malay, 32
Malinowski, Bronislaw, 93
Man Makes Himself (book), 105, 164
Manrique, Nelson, 84, 91
Mantaro Valley, 122
Mao Tse Tung, 109
Maranga complex, 42
Marcahuamachuco (archaeological site),
142
Marcona Mining Company, 84
Marcoy, Paul, 30
Marcus, Joyce, 122, 167
Maritegui, Jos Carlos, 45, 59, 60, 66, 70,
163
markets, 84, 97, 100, 101, 102, 127, 145
Martnez Compan, Baltasar, 21
Marx, Karl, 104
Marxism, 62, 69, 100, 111, 132, 149, 166
and the Left, 94
archaeology of, 107, 132
ideas, 59
paradigm of, 112, 116
structural Marxist, 108
theory of, 47, 130, 132
thought, 60, 103, 132
Massa, Luis, 28
Master Ica sequence/Ocucaje master
sequence, 86, 89, 90
master sequence, 76
material culture, 61
material remains, 52
Matos Mar, Jos, 85, 96, 110, 117
Matos, Ramiro, 95, 97, 105, 110, 119-122, 124,
125, 130, 132, 137-139, 143, 167
Matto de Turner, Clorinda, 58
Maya (culture), 162
Index
N
Nancy, France, 160
Narvez, Joaqun, 133
national
bourgeoisie, 71
identities, 24, 43, 52, 150 (construction
of), 46
archaeology, 24, 85, 125, 137
207
culture, 45
discourse, 52
economy, 22, 66, 84, 126, 127
National Assembly of Rectors, Peru, 168
National Geographic (magazine), 18
National Geographic Society, 120, 142, 145
National History Museum/Museo de
Historia Nacional, Peru, 37-41, 43, 51
National Library (of Peru), 49, 50
National Museum of Peru, 24, 37
National Museum, Bogot, 158
national politics, 37, 51, 52
National Reconstruction, period of 23, 38
National Science Foundation, 92, 97, 120
nationalist ideology, 51
nationalist politics, 43
nationalistic indigenismo, 49, 52
nationality, 52
nation-states, 46
Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 154
natural history, 23, 26, 27
Natural History Museum, Bogot, 158
naturalists, 31
Naval Hospital, 84
Nazca (style), 64, 65, 89
Nazca, Ica, 161
Nazca Lines, 18
Nazism, 67
Near East, 47
Necropolis of Ancn, 25, 27, 30, 34
neoevolutionary theory, 72, 87, 103, 118
neoliberal
economics, 127, 128, 135, 145
philosophy, 119, 129
policies, 129, 136, 137
neolithic revolution, 47, 165
neopositivist framework, 119, 124
Nepea Valley, 53, 121, 166, 167
New Guinea, 32
New York, 76, 162
208
Index
O
Oaxtepec Group, 108
Ocucaje, 89
Odra, Manuel A., 83-85, 163, 164
official ideology, 45, 67
oil exploitation, 84
oligarchy, 71
Ollanta drama, 59
Ollantaytambo, 58
Omo (archaeological site), 123
Onuki, Yoshio, 145
Opus Dei, 67
Order of the Sun (Orden del Sol), 42
Orefici, Giuseppe, 145
organic intellectual, 157
Orsini, Carolina, 145
Ortiz, Fernando, 93
Ortloff, Charles, 121
Ossio, Juan, 97
Owen, Bruce, 122, 123
P
Pachacamac, 24, 32
Index
209
Pikillacta, 62
pilgrimage center, 63
Pizarro, Hernando, 20
Plan COPESCO, 143
Polanyi, Karl, 94, 102, 164
political activism, 129
political activity, 22, 52, 108
political agenda, 22
political constitutions, 22
political context, 44, 71
political discourse, 56
political ideas, 62
political landscape, 84
political movements, 45
political structure, 22, 56
political violence, 137
Politis, Gustavo, 71
Pompeii, 21
Ponce Sangins, Carlos, 108, 110
Pontificia Universidad Catlica del Per
(PUCP), 123, 125, 130, 131, 139, 140, 147
campus of, 139
Popol Vuh, 21
populist policies, 71, 84
Porras Barrenechea, Ral, 110
positivism, 111
positivist framework, 31, 35
positivist logic, 118
positivist philosophy of science, 29, 30
positivist tradition, 29, 31
positivist-empiricist framework, 51
postcolonial history, 21
postcolonial identity, 37
postcolonial perspective, 18
postcolonial world, 24
postprocessualism, 121
pottery production, 122
Pozorski, Shelia, 120, 121
Pozorski, Thomas, 120
Pozzi-Escot, Denise, 113
Pozzi-Escot, Muriel, 113
210
Index
Q
Qalasaya (Pukara), 64
Qaluyu (archaeological site), 65
Quechua (language), 63, 136, 160, 164
Quechua culture, 33
Quesnell, Frdric, 27
R
racism, 47, 150, 154, 158
radical Left, 134
Raimondi, Antonio, 23, 26, 158
Ramn, Gabriel, 79, 89
Ramos de Cox, Josefina, 139
Ratzel, Friedrich, 160
Ravines, Rogger, 97, 121
raw materials, 71
reciprocity, 101, 164
Reconstruccin Nacional (period of), 44
Recuay, 158
redistribution, 101, 164
regional survey, 119, 123
regionalism, 57
regional identity, 150
Reindel, Markus, 145
Reiss, Wilhelm, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32-34, 160
relative chronologies, 36, 89
republican democracy, 22
republican ideals, 22
Index
S
Sacsahuaman, 58
Said, Edward, 28
Salazar, Lucy, 105, 124
salitre, 22, 23
Salta, 33
San Agustn (Colombia), 65
San Jos de Moro Project, 139
San Marcos University, 50, 51, 66, 73, 86, 94,
95, 104, 105, 110-114, 116, 117, 123, 125, 126,
128-132, 134, 135, 138, 147, 148, 161, 167-169
intellectuals of, 44
Snchez Cerro, Luis M., 52, 66, 67, 69, 70,
99, 163
Sanders, William, 120
Sanoja, Mario, 56, 108
Santa Valley, 124
Santiago de Chile (city), 41
211
Sardinia, Italy, 80
savagery, 31
Schaedel, Richard, 68, 85, 95, 111
Schreiber, Katharina, 161
scientific data, 61
scientific meetings, 31
scientific method, 31
scientific publication, 37
scientific report, 32, 64
scientific tradition, 25
Seki, Yuji, 145
Seminario de Arqueologa de Riva Agero,
125, 131, 139
Seminario de Historia Rural Andina, 130
Sendero Luminoso/Shining Path, 101, 118,
122, 124, 128, 135
Seor de Sipn sndrome, 138, 143
Servicio de Inteligencia Nacional (SIN), 168
settlement pattern, 76, 77, 118, 119
Seville, 67
Shady, Ruth, 132, 133, 142
Shea, Daniel, 97
Shimada, Izumi, 68, 85, 111, 121
Sicn, 143, 150
Sillar, Bill, 145
Silva, Jorge, 132
Sipn (archaeological site), 142-144, 155
Sipn, Lord of, 18, 127, 138, 143
site catchment analysis, 119
sixteenth century, 28, 60
Smithsonian Institution, 119
social sciences, 61
social change, 45, 51
social class structure, 104
social classes, 23
social complexity, 119
social conflicts, 70
social contract, 119
Social Darwinism, 29, 30, 45
social evolution, 46, 90
Social evolutionism, 45
social materiality, 112
212
Index
social networks, 19
social revolution, 70
social theory, 45, 46, 118
socialism, 106
Socialist Party, Peru, 45
socially significant archaeological unit, 111
Society for American Archaeology (SAA),
145
South America, 28, 33, 35, 56, 58, 71, 92, 93,
112, 113, 137, 152, 160
southern Andes, 43, 73
Southern Peru Copper Corporation, 84,
123, 124
Soviet archaeology, 107
Soviet Union, 47, 84
Spain, 21, 67, 93, 94, 157
Spanish (language), 136
Spanish chroniclers, 20
Spanish colonial period, 21, 56, 89
Spanish Civil War, 94
Spanish Royalist troops, 22
spatial archaeology, 119
Spencer, Herbert, 65
Squier, George, 27, 28, 158, 159
Staff God, 36, 46
stages (in archaeology), 87, 88, 111
Stanish, Charles, 123, 159
Starn, Orin, 101
status, 119
Stevenson, Cornelius, 34
Steward, Julian, 72, 74, 77, 78, 86, 93, 103
stratigraphy, 30
Strong, W. Duncan, 73, 75, 80, 88, 165
structuralism, 121
Stbel, Alphons, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 35, 160
style (in archaeology), 32, 35, 36, 63, 74,
75, 89
sugar cane, 80
Supe Valley, 143
systematic excavation, 31
systems theory, 118
T
Tabo, Ernesto, 107
Tablada de Lurn (archaeological site),
125, 139
Tacna, 41, 161
Talara, port of, 71
Tamayo Herrera, 58
Tambomachay (archaeological site),
Cusco, 58
Tarapac, 23, 158
Tarata Street, Miraflores, 168
Tawantinsuyu, 56, 136, 164
taxonomies, 31
Taylor, Gerald, 60
Tello, Juan, 113
Tello, Julio C., 18, 31, 41, 43, 45-56, 58, 61, 62,
64, 65, 68, 69, 72-79, 81, 85, 86, 103, 109-
111, 113, 115, 130, 140, 149, 153, 161-163, 166
school of, 72
Tempestad en los Andes (book), 59, 62
Teotihuacn Valley Project, 120
Tercer Militarismo/Third Militarism, 66
terrorism, 125, 127, 145
The Great Transformation (book), 94
The Conquest of Peru (book), 159
The Flocks of the Wamani: A Study of
Llama Herders on the Punas of
Ayacucho, Peru (book), 167
The Gallery of Offerings (Chavn de
Huntar), 110
The Northern Dynasties Kingship and
Statecraft of Chimor (book), 121
The Prehistory of Cuba (book), 107
theoretical concepts, 90
theoretical framework, 30, 72, 76, 99
theoretical position, 72
Thompson, Donald, 97
Thomsen, Christian, 31
Three-Age classification, 36
time units, 43
Titicaca Basin, 75
Tiwanaku (archaeological site), 24, 33-37,
63-65, 73, 158, 163
Index
U
Uceda, Santiago, 126, 132
Uhle, Max, 25, 28-37, 39-43, 46, 47, 51, 54, 61,
65, 73, 78, 88, 90, 143, 159, 160, 162, 165
Ukraine, 93
UNESCO, 113, 140, 143
Unidad Ejecutora Marcahuamachuco, 141
Unidades Ejecutoras/Executive units, 140,
142-144, 147, 169
Unin de Cerveceras Peruanas Backus y
Johnston, 144
United States of America, 28, 29, 31, 34, 37,
45, 46, 50, 54, 67, 70-72, 74, 78, 81, 83-85,
92, 93, 101, 103, 106, 120, 122, 140, 147,
150, 154, 158-160, 164
213
universal evolution, 46
universal principle, 31
Universidad de Concepcin, Chile, 111
Universidad Catlica de Santa Mara de
Arequipa, 123
Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 113
Universidad de Hunuco, 99
Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina,
168
Universidad Nacional de Trujillo, 127, 132,
144
Universidad Nacional Enrique Guzmn y
Valle La Cantuta, 168
Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal,
127, 147
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos
(campus of), 40, 128, 130, 131, 133, 139
Universidad Nacional San Antonio Abad
del Cusco, 58, 62, 127, 161
Universidad Nacional San Cristbal de
Huamanga, 110, 127, 147
Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga
de Ica, 147
Universidad Nacional Santiago Antnez de
Mayolo, 147
Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona, 113
University of Pennsylvania, 34, 164
University Archaeological Association,
Philadephia, 34
University Museum at Pennsylvannia, 35, 40
University of California at Berkeley, 35, 40,
73, 89, 120, 160, 161
University of California at Los Angeles
(UCLA), 122
University of Chicago, 93, 94, 98
University of Chile, 41
University of Michigan, 122, 123, 167
Upper Mantaro Archaeological Research
Project (UMARP), 120-122
urban elite, 23
urban revolutions, 47, 165
urbanism, 99
Urus (ethnic group), 33, 34
214
Index
V
Valcrcel, Luis E., 41, 42, 47, 53, 55-65, 67,
69, 81, 86, 96, 100, 103, 110, 112, 130, 151,
162, 163, 166
Vargas Llosa, Mario, 84
Vargas, Bertha, 123
Vargas, Iraida, 108
Varn Gabai, Rafael, 96
Vassar University, 94
Velarde, Leonid, 113
Velasco Alvarado, Juan, 91, 105, 106, 107, 111,
113, 117, 141, 150
Veloz, Marcio, 108
Venezuela, 107, 164
Veracruz, Pablo de la, 113
vertical archipelago (model), 94, 98, 100,
102, 124
Viceroyalty of Peru, 20, 151
Vicos, 92
Villar Crdova, Pedro, 47, 161
Vir Project, 55, 73, 76, 77, 79, 81, 82, 92,
143, 166
Vir Valley, 77, 79
W
Wallace, Dwight, 73, 86
War of the Pacific, 23, 44
Wari (archaeological site), 73, 110, 118
Wari (style), 89
Wari Empire, 110
warlords, 22
Watanabe, Luis, 123
Wenner-Gren Foundation, 76, 145
western culture, 28
western Europe, 47, 50, 71
western framework, 43
western model, 28
western perspective, 28
western progress, 31
western science, 29
What Happened in History? (book), 109
White, Leslie, 72
Wiener, Charles, 27, 28, 30, 159
Wiesse, Carlos, 41
Willey, Gordon, 46, 74-80, 118
Wilson, David, 124
Winckelman, Johann Joachim, 31, 36
Wiracocha (god), 65
Wolf, Freda, 97
world cultural patrimony, 114
world expositions, 31
World Heritage Site, 143
World Monuments Fund, 144
World War I, 46
World War II, 42, 46, 55, 71, 72, 74, 82-84,
150, 164
Y
Yacovleff, Eugenio, 68
Yorke, Sara, 34
Yucatn, 93
Z
Ziokowski, Mariusz, 145
Zoological and Anthropological Museum,
Dresden, 32
Zuidema, Tom, 99
Zulen, Pedro, 162
chapter title
215