268 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
2, 2016]
of the significance of superposed mural programs with
widely differing subject matter, arguing that the fact that
rooms painted with bird and fire-water symbolism were
covered over with depictions of Storm God symbolism
may signify an underlying change in lineage organization
of the compound. Similar arguments have been made
for the reconfiguration of the iconography of sequential
construction phases at the Feathered Serpent Pyramid
and at the Avenue of the Dead Complex, although both
of these may have served palatial, and therefore strongly
political, functions. Based primarily on the murals,
Juárez Osnaya interprets Totometla as having housed a
resident priestly class of relatively high status.
The puzzles of political organization, socioeconomic
status, and the meaning of art at Teotihuacan permeate
both of these contributions and highlight certain strengths
in each. Although the theoretical tradition enjoys a long
pedigree in the archaeology of Teotihuacan, many of the
hypotheses derived from historical materialism have not
withstood closer evaluation of facts on the ground. For
instance, if top-down management of hydraulic infra-
structure was an important source of state power, why are
all documented canals modest in scope with large net-
works of them having been covered over during the con-
solidation of the state and urban sprawl outward? Further,
if Teotihuacan featured a highly exploitative upper class,
why were the residences for most of the population so
nicely planned and constructed, and why did commoners
enjoy relatively ready access to most materials that cir-
culated within the Classic period Mesoamerican econ-
omy? Juárez Osnaya suggests that the residents of
Totometla were of a high-ranking, priestly class, but, in
fact, the dimensions of the excavated sample of rooms
(ca. 4–5 m) are more consistent with an intermediate
status compound. One of the remarkable aspects of
domestic life at Teotihuacan is the elaborateness of so
many compounds located in the inner core of the city,
which led early archaeologists to deem them “palaces,”
when in fact none were. Reasoning more consistent with
the record articulates with what Juárez Osnaya (e.g., p.
65) identifies as the “second social division of labor” at
Teotihuacan, whereby apartment living created scalar
efficiencies in production at the city, attracting migrants.
This line of reasoning connects nicely to Cowgill’s (pp.
124–125) discussion of “relative deprivation,” whereby
relative gains in wealth by neighbors of intermediate sta-
tus may lead to peer emulation in building styles, adorn-
ment, and construction materials, leading in the
Teotihuacan case to substantial and ornate apartment com-
pounds, without requiring intensive state involvement.
Resolution of such issues remains central to future
investigations at Teotihuacan. In Cowgill’s book we have
a roadmap for continuing to address them, written by
one of the greatest archaeologists of the city and a scholar
who has been tireless in creating an infrastructure for
[Vol. 27, No.
training future generations. It will appeal to an English-
speaking readership interested in the city or in broader
questions of early urbanism. In Juárez Osnaya’s book,
we get a glimpse of the valuable data generated through
salvage excavations and the importance of bringing them
to press. We gain an appreciation of the elaborateness of
many Teotihuacan residences, both in their iconography
and construction sequences. It will appeal to a Spanish-
speaking readership interested in domestic architecture
and its changes associated with urban development, past
and present.
The Northern Titicaca Basin Survey: Huancané-Putina.
CHARLES STANISH, CECILIA CHÁVEZ JUSTO,
KARL LAFAVRE, and AIMÉE PLOURDE. 2014.
Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology Number 56,
Studies in Latin American Ethnohistory & Archaeology
Volume IX. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. xvi +
407 pp. $38.00 (paper), ISBN 978-0-915703-84-5.
Reviewed by José M. Capriles, Pennsylvania State Uni-
versity.
The Lake Titicaca Basin is often seen as the cultural cen-
ter of the Andes. Much as the Inca acknowledged the
lake as the birthplace of their own ancestors, many gen-
erations of scholars sought in the basin the origins of
Andean civilization. For over a century, archaeologists
have investigated key monumental sites in the basin,
such as Tiwanaku, Pukara, Chiripa, and Sillustani. How-
ever, as much as we have been able to learn from these
places, to understand the far-reaching complexity of
sociopolitical change in the region, countless archaeo-
logical settlements remain to be explored and more sys-
tematic survey is necessary not only to discover these
sites but also to place them in a broader temporal, spatial
and evolutionary framework. This is particularly true for
intermediate areas between the largest and most monu-
mental sites.
The Northern Titicaca Basin Survey: Huancané-
Putina, written by Charles Stanish, Cecilia Chávez
Justo, Karl Lafavre, and Aimée Plourde makes an impor-
tant contribution to filling a void of information regard-
ing the spatial and temporary extent of human
occupation in the northern portion of the basin. Divided
in four chapters, this lengthy volume is a straightforward
survey report. The first chapter describes the ecological
and cultural landscape of the basin and delineates the
research design behind the northern Titicaca Basin sur-
vey. The Huancané-Putina corresponds to one of three
large-scale surveys implemented in the northern portion
of Lake Titicaca, and future volumes will describe the
results of the Arapa and Taraco surveys. It is worth
emphasizing that the diachronic perspective of social
 REVIEWS
evolutionary change put forward by Stanish places these
surveys in a comparative framework for understanding
the emergence and transformation of complex societies
in the basin.
In the second chapter, Chávez Justo describes the
methodology and results of the ceramic analysis imple-
mented to derive the detailed typology used in the survey
to classify the sites chronologically. Based on four cri-
teria, this new typology is both agglomerative and poly-
thetic. The first criterion, raw material, is used to sort the
assemblage into groups and variants. Technology is the
second criterion, and the core of this typology relies on
it as over a hundred individual pastes are initially
described and later arranged into a series of 13 wares,
which have chronological validity. A third criterion of
analysis incorporates morphology and function to create
vessel classes and categories, and a fourth and final cri-
terion introduces decoration. The result is a typology
that relates wares and vessel types with temporal
cogency. The final result is noteworthy, although the
detailed descriptions of the pastes and the drawings of
the vessels are tedious, of variable quality, and it is often
difficult to sort apart some pastes without recourse to
thin-sections and other analytical and visual aids. The
new typology is a welcome addition to Titicaca basin
archaeology, considering that most scholars working in
the basin have passively contended with the multifaceted
variability that characterizes over three millennia of soci-
eties occupying the region by opting to use longer tem-
poral periods, which conceal all but the most obvious
sociopolitical changes (i.e., the expansion of the
Tiwanaku state or the advent of Inca conquest). I hope
that new studies will test and improve its effectiveness.
The third chapter includes the description of the
nearly 500 archaeological sites documented during the
survey of Huancané and Putina. Two large tables include
site descriptions, elevations, temporal phases, and other
data for all habitation and cemetery sites. The site descrip-
tions, often illustrated by photographs, are succinct but
otherwise suitable. It is important to note that the tables
and descriptions do not include the actual site coordi-
nates, without which all of the information contained in
the volume is left in the lurch. Another qualm is that site
sizes are given as length and width measurements, as
opposed to surface areas derived from tracking the
perimeter of the sites or the result of systematic surface
collections. Two diagnostic sherds were used to assign
a temporal phase to a site, except for late intermediate
period wares, which required three.
The fourth chapter uses the theoretical framework
developed at the beginning of the book to describe the
region’s settlement system and its change through time.
The authors use broad-scale maps to show the changes
in the distribution of habitation sites over 13 phases. In
269
addition, the Archaic period is briefly discussed, as many
sites associated with this period were recorded, but no
maps for this period are provided. This chapter is brief
and mostly notes either major trends or impressionistic
hypotheses without quantitative analysis, which reminds
the reader that the volume is mostly a presentation of
data, leaving broader analysis and interpretations for
later publications. In this respect, the book is comple-
mented by two appendices that consist of pictures, draw-
ings, and tabular data of diagnostic ceramic sherds and
lithic bifaces (mostly consisting of projectile points).
Given the importance of the Lake Titicaca Basin for
understanding the emergence and consequences of social
complexity, the data contained in this volume are sub-
stantive. Moreover, the data sets presented here will
guide and contextualize future research in the region for
years to come. Scholars interested in analyzing spatial
data will find this volume useful, but they will have to
find the actual site coordinates elsewhere. Following a
long tradition of systematic surveys in the Titicaca basin,
this report makes a significant contribution towards con-
solidating the data produced by the northern Titicaca
basin survey project during the last 15 years, and we will
await earnestly for the publication of the Arapa and
Taraco surveys.
Panorama Arqueológico: Dos Oaxacas MARCUS
WINTER and GONZALO SÁNCHEZ SANTIAGO,
editors. 2014. Centro INAH Oaxaca, Mexico. vi + 329
pp. ISBN 978-607-9305-34-5.
Reviewed by Ronald K. Faulseit, Field Museum,
Chicago.
This edited volume is a welcome addition that will be
of interest not only to specialists working in Oaxaca,
but to all Mesoamerican scholars. Although I find the
editors’ fundamental premise of “two Oaxacas” prob-
lematic, many of the individual papers are strong and
some present important new findings that are sure to
contribute greatly to our understanding of Mesoameri-
can prehistory. The volume contains 16 papers covering
very diverse thematic, spatial, and temporal foci, includ-
ing informative syntheses for understudied regions in
the state of Oaxaca, such as the Sierra Mixe, Isthmus of
Tehuantepec, and Sierra Mazateca. The accompanying
figures, drawings, maps, and photographs richly com-
plement the individual works, and the volume also con-
tains a separate section with color plates. Unfortunately,
this broad topical coverage also reduces the continuity
between the individual papers and contributes to the
lack of a coherent theme that satisfactorily ties all of the
works together, a feature that makes the book read more