1

LATE INTERMEDIATE PERIOD POLITICAL ECONOMY AND HOUSEHOLD

ORGANIZATION AT JACHAKALA, BOLIVIA

by

Christine Denise Beaule

B.A., Northwestern University, 1993

M.A., University of Pittsburgh, 1999

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

University of Pittsburgh

2002

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH

_______________

FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

This thesis was presented

by

Christine D. Beaule

It was defended on

April 22, 2002

and approved by

Dr. Marc Bermann

Dr. Robert Drennan

Dr. James Richardson III

Dr. John Frechione

_________________________________

Committee Chairperson

ii

Copyright by Christine D. Beaule

2002

iii

To Mom, Dad, Colette, Dan and the rest of the Beaule and Simard clans

iv

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Marc Bermann

ABSTRACT

LATE INTERMEDIATE PERIOD POLITICAL ECONOMY AND HOUSEHOLD ORGANIZATION AT JACHAKALA, BOLIVIA Christine D. Beaule, Ph.D.

University of Pittsburgh, 2002

All households in prehistoric communities without well established sociopolitical

hierarchies were concerned, first and foremost, with meeting their subsistence needs.

Because the emergence of non-food producing elite households means that, at some

point, they began to focus on other activities, the domestic economy is where complexity

begins to develop. Participation in craft production and exchange activities can provide

opportunities for some households to accumulate wealth and/or prestige; this is the basis

for a model of political economy tested against data from a site in the Andean altiplano.

One objective of this dissertation project was to reconstruct the local history of

Jachakala, a small village in the central Bolivian highlands occupied from ca. AD 170-

1200. Artifacts from house floors, middens, and other features are divided into three

chronological periods and grouped into three zones. Comparative inter-zonal and

diachronic analyses are conducted to test models of the domestic economy and political

economy derived from Kenneth Hirth's work in Mesoamerica.

The domestic economy model predicts a low degree of socioeconomic

differentiation within a subsistence-oriented community. Patterns of staple and craft

production, wealth inequalities, and supra-regional exchange are reconstructed to test this

model against data from the first occupation, the Niñalupita Period.

I also test the hypothesis that differential participation in exchange and craft

production activities underwrote the emergence of socioeconomic stratification, the

central tenet of the Hirth model of political economy. There are significant inter-zonal

differences in exchange goods and craft production refuse from the Isahuara and

Jachakala Periods, but participation in these activities did not cause a political economy

to develop, because some wealth inequalities predate this diversity.

v

Finally, I used Tiwanaku-style artifacts from Jachakala to assess relations with

this pre-Inkan state. Results suggest that Tiwanaku's influence on local processes was

minimal and indirect, and implications for models of inter-regional relationships are

explored. Although this investigation focuses on one community in the central Bolivian

altiplano, I hope that it will be of comparative value for archaeologists investigating

domestic economy, household organization, the origins of complexity, and core-

periphery relations in and beyond the Andes.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The list of those who have offered professional and personal support during my

graduate program is very long, but I must confine my remarks to a few of the most

influential. Foremost among these is my mentor, Dr. Marc Bermann. His theoretical

insights, strength and integrity in the field have been inspirational to me. Equally

important, however, were the moral support, dog stories, Singani, and friendship that he

provided. Dr. Robert Drennan has also been instrumental in my development; his work

and personal input have stimulated me to think about the archaeological record of

complexity in new ways. My research has benefited tremendously from his input, for

which I am grateful. Dr. James Richardson has also played an important role in my

work, in and out of the classroom. He has graciously shared his extensive knowledge of

the Andean region, his network of Andean colleagues, and his expertise on environmental

and technological matters with me, all of which have greatly improved this thesis. I

thank Dr. John Frechione too for his good natured and last-minute participation in my

dissertation defense. His comments during that meeting were both insightful and helpful

in my final revisions. Additionally, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr.

Kathleen Allen, who continues to provide thoughtful commentary on most of what I

write. The theoretical perspective and personal support that she has always offered are

much appreciated.

I would also like to recognize those who supported my fieldwork in Bolivia. The

University of Pittsburgh's Center for Latin American Studies, the Fulbright IIE program,

and the National Science Foundation provided the financial means to conduct this

project. Lic. Jose Estevez Castillo gave invaluable input and official support during the

project. The administrative staff, directors, and many engineers from the Inti Raymi S.A.

gold mine were of unforeseen but fundamental importance to my work. The extent to

which they "adopted me" cannot be underestimated, and I am profoundly grateful to have

had such a wonderful extended family in Bolivia. The residents of La Joya, and

especially my four local workers, spent a full year teaching me as much or more than I

taught them; this inter-cultural exchange is as important to me as the data I brought home.

My talented crew included Ignacio Villca, Miguel Angel Contreras, Roman Ramos

vii

Mancilla, Hector Lorera Mague, and Roberth Waldo Vacarraza Mague, my student,

Rosario Calcina, and Ms. Rachel Wilcove, a volunteer.

I am unable, however, to adequately express the gratitude I feel for my family.

My parents, Ray and Denise Beaule, have been the foundation on which I have built my

life. Their words of encouragement, their pride, strength, and intelligence make me one

the luckiest people I know. My sister, Colette Bailey, is more than my best friend; she,

my brother Dan, and their own families, Kerri, Steve and Madison, are my cheerleaders.

Marc and Monique Simard have also lent their insights, motivation, and support over the

years, for which I am very grateful. Although they are too numerous to list, I also thank

the members of both of my extended families for their support, and for refraining from

asking the obvious question ("Are you done yet?"). Finally, I want to single out a few of

my closest friends for their encouragement, including Christian Peterson, Tammy

Szatkowski-Reeves, Aaron Hoegle, Courtney Rose Lavayen, Kim Williams-Shuker, and,

of course, Sid.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................v. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................vii. LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................xiv. LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................xviii. CHAPTER 1. POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE ANCIENT ANDES.................................1 The Context of Accumulation......................................................2 Types of Resources ......................................................................2 Structural and Ideological Changes .............................................3 The Role of External Ties ............................................................5 Scales of Differentiation ..............................................................6 Inter-Household Variability .........................................................6 Types of Inter-Household Variability..........................................8 The Three Sectors of the Domestic Economy .............................9 An Economic Focus.....................................................................10 The Hirth Model of Domestic Economy .................................................11 Households’ Economic Stability..................................................11 Constraints on Economic Diversification ....................................12 Land Tenure Systems and Domestic Structure............................13 Stimuli for Change in the Household Economy ..........................15 Summary ......................................................................................16 The Jachakala Project: Theoretical Context ............................................16 The Hirth Model of Political Economy ...................................................18 Wealth Differentiation and Sociopolitical Reorganization..........18 Diversification of the Household Economy.................................20 Archaeological Testing of the Hirth Model .............................................20 Operationalizing The Hirth Models .............................................22 The Site of Jachakala ...............................................................................23 Niñalupita Period .........................................................................23 Isahuara Period.............................................................................25 Jachakala Period...........................................................................26 The Southern Zone.......................................................................27 The Central Zone .........................................................................28 The Northern Zone.......................................................................30 Organization of Argument .......................................................................30 2. RESEARCH SETTING AND FIELD METHODS.........................................32 A Regional Perspective................................................................32 Chronological Considerations..................................................................34 Fieldwork Methods ..................................................................................36 Aims of Artifact Analyses ...........................................................40 Environmental Context ............................................................................42

ix

Cultigens ......................................................................................42 Methods of Intensifying Agricultural Production........................43 Water Resources ..........................................................................44 Wild and Domesticated Animal Resources .................................45 The Río Desaguadero...................................................................46 3. THE NIÑALUPITA PERIOD: DOMESTIC ECONOMY .............................49 The Initial Occupation of Jachakala ............................................49 Excavation Units..........................................................................50 Domestic Remains .......................................................................51 The Cemetery...............................................................................51 Household Approaches ................................................................52 Inter-Zonal Comparisons Unpacked: Methodological Constraints ...................................................................................54 Agricultural Production ...........................................................................56 Objectives of Lithic Analysis.......................................................56 Basalt Assemblage Characteristics ..............................................58 Problems with Basalt Analysis ....................................................61 Lithic Categories..........................................................................61 Biface Reduction Sequence .........................................................63 Results of the Lithic Analysis ......................................................66 Conclusions..................................................................................69 Camelid Utilization..................................................................................70 Goals and Methods of Faunal Analysis .......................................70 Sorting Jachakala’s Fauna............................................................73 Results of Faunal Analysis...........................................................75 Conclusions: Meat Consumption Patterns ...................................77 Craft and Exchange Activities .................................................................78 Aims of Ceramic Analysis ...........................................................78 Assemblage Characteristics .........................................................78 The Utilitarian Inventory .............................................................80 Ceramic Comparisons..................................................................81 Miscellaneous Craft and Exchange Goods ..................................83 Conclusions about Exchange .......................................................83 Other Domestic Activities........................................................................84 Textile Production........................................................................84 Hunting ........................................................................................84 Metallurgy....................................................................................84 Storage .........................................................................................85 Discussion: Niñalupita Period and the Domestic Economy ....................... 85 4. THE ISAHUARA AND JACHAKALA PERIODS: INCIPIENT POLITICAL ECONOMY................................................................................88 Jachakala During the Isahuara and Jachakala Periods.................88 Excavation Units..........................................................................90 Domestic Remains ...................................................................................90

x

Domestic Architecture and Artifact Inventories ..........................90 Storage, Refuse Disposal, and Cooking Features ........................91 Non-Domestic Functions .........................................................................93 The Walls That Divided Them ....................................................93 Centralized Storage......................................................................94 A Possible Corral .........................................................................96 Two Temples ...............................................................................98 The Northern Zone Household ....................................................100 The Cemetery...............................................................................101 Stylistic Variation in Cranial Deformation ..................................104 Inter-Zonal Differences and Political Economy ......................................105 Labor, Land, and the Hirth Model ...............................................105 Craft Specialization......................................................................106 Agricultural Production ...........................................................................106 Objectives of Lithic Analysis.......................................................106 Results of the Isahuara Period Lithic Analysis ............................110 Jachakala Period Comparisons ....................................................111 Diachronic Lithic Analysis Results .............................................113 Differential Intensity of Lithic Activities ....................................116 Conclusions..................................................................................117 Camelid Utilization..................................................................................119 The Faunal Data...........................................................................119 Results of the Isahuara Period Faunal Analysis...........................120 Results of the Jachakala Period Faunal Analysis.........................120 Sum of Synchronic Faunal Differences .......................................122 Diachronic Faunal Comparisons..................................................124 Involvement with Camelids .........................................................125 Similarities Between the Center and North .................................127 Conclusions..................................................................................128 Craft and Exchange Goods ......................................................................131 Aims of Ceramic Analysis ...........................................................131 The Utilitarian Inventory .............................................................132 The Decorated and/or Imported Wares........................................132 Isahuara Period Ceramic Comparisons........................................134 Jachakala Period Ceramic Comparisons......................................135 Diachronic Patterns......................................................................136 Conclusions About Ceramic Patterns ..........................................137 Semi-Precious Stone Imports.......................................................138 Craft Production, Exchange, and Political Economy...................141 Other Domestic Activities........................................................................142 Textile Production........................................................................142 Hunting Tools and Faunal Remains.............................................143 Camelid Mandible Tools and Other Bone Implements ...............146 Decorated Bone and Drug Ingestion Items..................................149 Metallurgy....................................................................................150 Conclusions..................................................................................151

xi

Complexity at the Center .........................................................................152 Labor Mobilization or Resource Control.....................................152 Subsistence Differences ...............................................................153 The Local Origins of Changes in Economic Organization..........154 The Role of Craft Production and Exchange ...............................155 5. HOUSEHOLD ORGANIZATION AND DIVERSITY..................................157 The Household Unit.....................................................................157 Architectural Dimensions of Ranking .........................................158 Artifacts and Architecture............................................................159 Methods........................................................................................160 Jachakala Household Remains.................................................................160 The Typical Household Unit........................................................162 Southern Zone Residential Architecture......................................164 Central Zone Residential Architecture.........................................165 Northern Zone Domestic Architecture.........................................167 Ties to the Northern Zone: Architectural Mimicry......................168 Household Architectural Variability and Social Stratification ................169 Measuring Assemblage Diversity ................................................169 Results of Index of Assemblage Diversity Analysis....................171 6. EXTERNAL CONTACTS ..............................................................................175 Exchange and Complexity: Problems of Scale............................175 Models of Exchange and Problems of Causality .........................177 Goals of Analysis.........................................................................179 The Domestic Context .................................................................181 The Imported Ceramics Assemblage ...........................................182 Ubiquity Analyses: Ceramic Imports...........................................183 Ubiquity Analyses: Non-Ceramic Imports ..................................185 Interpretations of Patterns in Exchange Goods............................187 Relations with Tiwanaku .........................................................................188 Iconography and Ideology ...........................................................188 Tiwanaku and the Question of Causation ....................................189 Conclusions..............................................................................................190 7. TESTING THE HIRTH MODELS: LESSONS LEARNED ..........................192 Changes in Jachakala's Domestic Economy ................................192 Social Differences and Social Power...........................................195 Theoretical Import of Research ...............................................................196 Agency in Interregional Relationships.........................................196 Perspectives on the State from La Joya .......................................200 The Environmental Factor ...........................................................201 Prestige Good Models of Social Complexity...............................202 Jachakala and the Origins of Complexity ....................................202 Avenues for Further Investigation ...............................................203

xii

BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................205 APPENDIX A. CERAMIC TYPOLOGY AND DIAGNOSTICS...........................................219 B. LITHICS DATA AND STATISTICS.............................................................252 C. FAUNAL DATA AND STATISTICS............................................................268 D. UTILITARIAN TOOLS .................................................................................294 E. EXCHANGE AND LUXURY GOODS.........................................................307 F. RITUAL PARAPHERNALIA ........................................................................313 G. ARCHITECTURE AND FEATURES ...........................................................322

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE Chapter 2 1. Units and levels used in lithic, faunal, and ceramic artifact analyses.................41 2. Volumes of water exiting Lake Titicaca by the Río Desaguadero from 1964 to 1978 (Montes de Oca 1989:248). ..........................................................47 Chapter 3 3. Faunal packet compositions and relative meat utility indices ............................71 Chapter 4 4. Ratios representing the number of lithic artifacts over the total number of ceramic sherds in the south and center, and the site overall, for all three occupations. ...............................................................................................117 5. Ratios representing the number of faunal fragments over the total number of ceramic sherds in each zone, and the site overall, for all three occupations.......126 6. Ratios (over number of sherds) and frequencies (in parentheses) of imported semi-precious worked stones across the site during the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala Period ...........................................................................140 7. Ratios (over number of sherds) and frequencies (in parentheses) of spinning and weaving implements across the site during the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala Period. ..........................................................................144 8. Ratios (over number of sherds) and frequencies (in parentheses) of hunting implements across the site during the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala Period. .................................................................................................................145 9. Non-camelid faunal remains presented as proportions of the total number of identified faunal remains in each zone and period. ........................................146 10. Ratios (over number of sherds) and frequencies (in parentheses) of various bone tools, including camelid mandible tools, during the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala Period. .....................................................148 11. Ratios (over number of sherds) and frequencies (in parentheses) of slag from metallurgy, and copper ornaments, during the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala Period .........................................................................151 Chapter 5 12. Index of Assemblage Diversity analysis and scores, including artifact categories and counts by household..................................................................174 Chapter 6 13. Ubiquity analysis results performed on imported ceramic assemblage at Jachakala. ......................................................................................................184 14. Ubiquity analysis results performed on imported materials and implements other than ceramic vessels ................................................................................186

xiv

APPENDICES PAGE A. Ceramic Typology and Diagnostics 15. N416 E568, counts of typed ceramic sherds recovered by level ......................224 16. N425 E526, counts of typed ceramic sherds recovered by level ......................225 17. N465 E516, counts of typed ceramic sherds recovered by level. .....................226 18. N511 E509, counts of typed ceramic sherds recovered by level ......................227 19. N546 E528, counts of typed ceramic sherds recovered by level ......................229 20. N517 E450, counts of typed ceramic sherds recovered by level ......................230 21. N559 E589, counts of typed ceramic sherds recovered by level ......................232 22. N567 E418, counts of typed ceramic sherds recovered by level ......................233 23. N581 E540, counts of typed ceramic sherds recovered by level ......................234 24. N673 E545, counts of typed ceramic sherds recovered by level ......................235 25. Counts of ceramic types from the three southern zone units for the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala period.......................................................236 26. Counts of ceramic types from the four central zone units for the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala period.......................................................237 27. Counts of ceramic types from the three northern zone units for the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala period.......................................................238 28. Counts and proportions of ceramic types recovered from the southern zone for the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala period ..................................239 29. Counts and proportions of ceramic types recovered from the central zone for the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala period ...........................................239 30. Counts and proportions of ceramic types recovered from the northern zone for the Isahuara and Jachakala period...............................................................240 31. Chi squares, Niñalupita period ceramics: a.) storage and cooking proportions, b.) decorated/imported proportions...................................................................241 32. Chi squares, Isahuara period ceramics: a.) storage and cooking proportions, b.) decorated/imported proportions...................................................................242 33. Chi squares, Jachakala period ceramics: a.) storage and cooking proportions, b.) decorated/imported proportions...................................................................243 34. Chi squares, Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala period ceramics: a.) storage and cooking proportions totaling one hundred percent, b.) decorated/imported proportions totaling one hundred percent....................244 35. Chi squares, Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala period ceramics: a.) storage and cooking proportions over the total number of typed sherds, b.) decorated/imported proportions over the total number of typed sherds......245 B. Lithics Data and Statistics 36. N416 E568, counts of lithic artifacts recovered by level..................................253 37. N425 E526, counts of lithic artifacts recovered by level..................................254 38. N463 E516, counts of lithic artifacts recovered by level..................................255 39. N468 E480, counts of lithic artifacts recovered by level..................................256 40. N511 E509, counts of lithic artifacts recovered by level..................................257 41. N517 E450, counts of lithic artifacts recovered by level..................................258 42. N559 E589, counts of lithic artifacts recovered by level..................................259

xv

43. Counts of lithic artifact categories from the four central zone units for the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala period.......................................................260 44. Counts and proportions of lithic artifacts recovered from the central zone for the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala period ...........................................260 45. Counts of lithic artifact categories from the three southern zone units for the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala period.................................................261 46. Counts and proportions of lithic artifacts recovered from the southern zone for the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala period ...........................................261 47. Chi squares, Niñalupita period lithics: a.) including both production and con- sumption debris, b.) production debris only, c.) consumption debris only.......262 48. Chi squares, Isahuara period lithics: a.) including both production and con- sumption debris, b.) production debris only, c.) consumption debris only.......264 49. Chi squares, Jachakala period lithics: a.) including both production and con- sumption debris, b.) production debris only, c.) consumption debris only.......266 C. Faunal Data and Statistics 50. N416 E568, counts of faunal elements recovered by level...............................269 51. N425 E526, counts of faunal elements recovered by level...............................270 52. N511 E509, counts of faunal elements recovered by level...............................271 53. N517 E450, counts of faunal elements recovered by level...............................272 54. N559 E589, counts of faunal elements recovered by level...............................273 55. N567 E418, counts of faunal elements recovered by level...............................274 56. N581 E540, counts of faunal elements recovered by level...............................275 57. Faunal packet statistics: Niñalupita Period .......................................................276 58. Faunal packet statistics: Isahuara Period ..........................................................277 59. Faunal packet statistics: Jachakala Period ........................................................278 60. Counts of elements totaled by faunal packet from the two southern zone units for the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala phases..................................279 61. Counts and proportions of faunal packets recovered from the southern zone for the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala phases ..................................279 62. Counts of elements totaled by faunal packet from the three central zone units for the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala phases..................................280 63. Counts and proportions of faunal packets recovered from the central zone for the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala phases...........................................280 64. Counts of elements totaled by faunal packet from the two northern zone units for the Isahuara and Jachakala phases......................................................281 65. Counts and proportions of faunal packets recovered from the northern zone for the Isahuara and Jachakala phases ..............................................................281 66. Chi squares, five Niñalupita Period faunal packets: a.) including the southern and central zones (no northern zone during this occupation) ............282 67. Chi squares, five Isahuara Period faunal packets: a.) including the southern, central, and northern zones, b.) the residential (southern and central) zones only ...................................................................................................................283 68. Chi squares, five Jachakala Period faunal packets: a.) including the southern, central, and northern zones, b.) the residential (southern and central) zones only ...................................................................................................................284

xvi

69. Chi squares, trunk and non-trunk Niñalupita Period faunal packets: a.) the residential (southern and central) zones only.........................................285 70. Chi squares, trunk and non-trunk Isahuara Period faunal packets: a.) the residential (southern and central) zones only.........................................286 71. Chi squares, trunk and non-trunk Jachakala Period faunal packets: a.) the residential (southern and central) zones only.........................................287 72. Diachronic chi squares, southern zone faunal packets by period .....................288 73. Diachronic chi squares, central zone faunal packets by period ........................288 74. Diachronic chi squares, northern zone faunal packets by period......................289 75. Non-camelid faunal remains: synchronic and diachronic chi squares: a.) comparing three periods, b.) comparing central and southern zones...........290

xvii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE Chapter 1 1. Map of the south central Andes showing the location of the La Joya research area (Bermann and Castillo 1993:312) ...............................................................17 2. Map of the site of Jachakala, showing foundations of domestic and public structures and dividing walls visible on the surface. Contour lines in the southwest corner mark one-meter intervals ........................................................24 3. Map of Jachakala with locations of horizontal and deep excavations indicated by hatched areas..................................................................................................27 Chapter 2 4. Chronologies for the Titicaca Basin and the La Joya region, including the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala Periods at the site of Jachakala..................35 5. The shift in relative proportions of faunal meat packet remains from Level 3 (left) to Level 4 (right) in units such as this one (N416 E568) was the basis for the local chronology ......................................................................................36 6. Location of horizontal exposures and units excavated to sterile soil at Jachakala, marked by hatching ...........................................................................38 7. Example of a house floor, domestic features, and an adjacent midden, which together form a discrete household unit..............................................................39 Chapter 3 8. Location of excavation units (in relation to surface architectural remains) with Niñalupita Period levels used in inter-zonal analyses of cultural materials .......50 9. Stratigraphic profile of the southern baulk of unit North 416 East568. Note the adobe wall melt (feature D) and small, bell-shaped storage pits (features A, B, C, and E)....................................................................................................52 10. Sample of black basalt bifacial hoes or handaxes from Jachakala ...................57 11. Biface reduction sequence in which bifacial tool are the end products (Parry 1987: 46) ...............................................................................................59 12. Artifact classification scheme used to analyze Jachakala’s basalt lithic remains..............................................................................................................60 13. An example of proportions of lithic categories in a Jachakala assemblage with relatively more macroflakes and tool blanks, the indicators of bifacial tool production..................................................................................................62 14. An example of proportions of lithic categories in a Jachakala assemblage with relatively more cores and broken biface fragments, the indicators of bifacial tool consumption..................................................................................62 15. The bifacial hoe production sequence employed for Jachakala lithic remains..............................................................................................................64 16. Location of excavation units with Niñalupita Period levels used in inter- zonal lithic analyses ..........................................................................................65 17. Proportions of lithic debris from the Niñalupita Period in the southern (left) and central (right) zones...........................................................................66

xviii

18. Proportions of lithic categories of debris from the Niñalupita Period in the center and south ................................................................................................67 19. Faunal packets used for the Jachakala assemblage (camelid illustration from Aldenderfer 1998:107) .............................................................................72 20. Location of excavation units with Niñalupita Period levels used in inter- zonal faunal analyses ........................................................................................73 21. Proportions of faunal packets from the Niñalupita Period in the southern (left) and central (right) zones...........................................................................76 22. Niñalupita Period faunal packet proportions in the southern and central zones .................................................................................................................76 23. Location of excavation units with Niñalupita Period levels used in inter- zonal ceramic analyses......................................................................................79 24. Proportions of typed sherds from storage and cooking vessels (left) and other wares (right) in the southern and central zones during the Niñalupita occupation .........................................................................................................81 25. Incised bone flute or snuff tube fragment from a southern zone pit .................82 Chapter 4 26. Location of excavation units (in relation to surface architectural remains) with Isahuara and Jachakala Period levels used in inter-zonal analyses of cultural materials...............................................................................................89 27. Portion of dividing wall between the central and northern zones excavated....93 28. One of three small, circular foundations in Jachakala’s northern zone that might have served as storage structures............................................................95 29. Photo of two conjoined circular foundations on the surface of Jachakala, which may have functioned as a camelid corral ...............................................96 30. A large circular foundation in the northern zone of Jachakala; this structure may have been a temple or public gathering space...........................................98 31. Large, circular foundation on the site surface and at the end of the wall separating the central and northern zones; this may have been a ritual structure.............................................................................................................100 32. Photos of two mortuary features, each containing the skeletal remains of what appear to be one adult female, and one of which is accompanied by an infant of unknown gender .................................................................................102 33. Location of excavation units (in relation to surface architectural remains) with Isahuara and Jachakala Period levels used in inter-zonal lithic analyses .........107 34. Proportions of lithic debris from the Isahuara Period in the southern (left) and central (right) zones....................................................................................109 35. Proportions of lithic categories of debris from the Isahuara Period in the center and south ................................................................................................109 36. Proportions of lithic debris from the Jachakala Period in the southern (left) and central (right) zones....................................................................................111 37. Proportions of lithic categories of debris from the Jachakala Period in the center and south ................................................................................................112 38. Diachronic comparison of lithic debris proportions from the central zone,

xix

including the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala Periods...............................114 39. Niñalupita (top, left), Isahuara (top, right), and Jachakala (bottom) Period proportions of lithic debris in the central zone .................................................114 40. Diachronic comparison of lithic debris proportions from the southern zone, including the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala Periods...............................115 41. Niñalupita (top, left), Isahuara (top, right), and Jachakala (bottom) Period proportions of lithic debris in the southern zone ..............................................115 42. Location of excavation units (in relation to surface architectural remains) with Isahuara and Jachakala Period levels used in inter-zonal faunal analyses .............................................................................................................119 43. Isahuara Period southern (top, left), central (top, right), and northern (bottom) zone faunal packet proportions ..........................................................121 44. Isahuara Period faunal packet proportions in the southern, central, and northern zones...................................................................................................121 45. Jachakala Period southern (top, left), central (top, right), and northern (bottom) zone faunal packet proportions ..........................................................123 46. Jachakala Period faunal packet proportions in the southern, central, and northern zones...................................................................................................123 47. Faunal packet proportions in the southern (top, left), central (top, right), and northern (bottom) zones for all three periods.............................................124 48. Location of excavation units (in relation to surface architectural remains) with Isahuara and Jachakala Period levels used in inter-zonal analyses of ceramics ............................................................................................................131 49. Range of Tiwanaku-style vessel forms, and three non-Tiwanaku wares, identified at Jachakala (illustrations by Marc Bermann) ..................................133 50. Proportions of storage and cooking vessels (left), and decorated/imported wares (right) from the Isahuara Period .............................................................135 51. Proportions of storage and cooking vessels (left), and decorated/imported wares (right) from the Jachakala Period ...........................................................136 52. Proportions of storage and cooking vessels (left), and decorated/imported wares (right) for the Niñalupita, Isahuara, and Jachakala Periods....................137 53. Three examples of camelid mandible tools found at Jachakala........................147 Chapter 5 54. Photos of three Jachakala Period domestic structures (clockwise from left, Houses 6, 3, and 8) demonstrate the variable shapes and, to a limited extent, floor areas in household architecture at the site................................................161 55. Illustration of House 4 (N511 E509), the second large round foundation on top of a raised, ashy area in the Jachakala Period central zone, and the largest house at the site. The midden (N511 E509) lies to the southeast of the foundation .........................................................................................................163 56. Location of the houses with three highest IAD scores .....................................171 57. Line graph of Index of Assemblage Diversity scores for each household unit, grouped by zone........................................................................................172

xx

Chapter 6 58. Location of Jachakala’s major trade connections in adjacent areas of the Bolivian altiplano and Andean foothills ...........................................................180 Chapter 7 59. Map of the Tiwanaku State illustrating one of the more extreme views of this polity’s area of political control (Swartley 2002: 176, taken from Fundacion Winaymarka 1993: 5). ....................................................................198 60. Map showing “hypothesized areas under direct Tiwanaku control at its height circa AD 800-900” (Bauer and Stanish 2001:39, Map 2.2)...................199 APPENDICES PAGE A. Ceramic Typology and Diagnostics 61. Ceramic type descriptions.................................................................................220 62. Illustrations of a sample of ceramic diagnostic sherds from N511 E509 .........246 63. Illustrations of a sample of ceramic diagnostic sherds from N511 E509 .........247 64. Illustrations of a sample of ceramic diagnostic sherds from N511 E509 .........248 65. Illustration of a reconstructed small, undecorated, two-handled La Joya Orange pitcher...................................................................................................249 66. Illustration of a small, undecorated and unbroken La Joya Orange pitcher (note the small hole in the vessel body, perhaps the reason it was discarded) ..........250 67. Illustration of a reconstructed, undecorated “nub” handled bowl of unknown ceramic type ......................................................................................................251 C. Faunal Data and Statistics 68. Niñalupita period proportions of faunal packets in the southern, central, and northern zones: trunk (top left), forelimb (top right), hindlimb (middle left), ribs (middle right), and head (bottom) packets ........................................291 69. Isahuara period proportions of faunal packets in the southern, central, and northern zones: trunk (top left), forelimb (top right), hindlimb (middle left), ribs (middle right), and head (bottom) packets.................................................292 70. Jachakala period proportions of faunal packets in the southern, central, and northern zones: trunk (top left), forelimb (top right), hindlimb (middle left), ribs (middle right), and head (bottom) packets.................................................293 D. Utilitarian Tools 71. Illustrations of a sample of bifacial basalt hoes or handaxes recovered at Jachakala ...........................................................................................................295 72. Photos of a sample of groundstone implements recovered at Jachakala, including a dacite mano (top) and metate (bottom) ..........................................296 73. Illustration of a sample of expedient basalt tools recovered at Jachakala ........297 74. Illustration of a small dacite pestle (top) and sandstone boleadora or

xxi

slingstone (bottom) ...........................................................................................298 75. Illustrations of three bifacial basalt projectile points recovered at Jachakala, and a fourth bifacial point whose shape suggests a discarded tool...................299 76. Illustrations of two worked long bone awls......................................................201 77. Illustrations of two worked long bone needles (dashed lines indicate broken tips) .......................................................................................................301 78. Illustration of a large worked long bone scoop or digging implement .............302 79. Illustration of a worked deer antler digging implement....................................303 80. Illustrations of two worked camelid mandible tools.........................................304 81. Illustrations of one broken (top), three complete (middle two, bottom left), and one incompletely perforated (bottom right) ceramic spindle whorl disc ...305 82. Illustrations of two reconstructed ceramic spoons............................................306 E. Exchange and Luxury Goods 83. Illustrations of one ópalo (top left) and two obsidian (top right, bottom) small bifacial projectile points ..........................................................................308 84. Photo of marine shell fragments recovered from the Jachakala Period square house floor ........................................................................................................309 85. Illustrations of a carved bone bead (left), and a bright purple sodalite bead (right) ................................................................................................................309 86. Illustrations of four copper artifacts from central zone units, Jachakala Period: the top two are tupu needles, and the bottom are fragments of personal adornments (the bottom right is possibly a fragment of a piece resembling that on the bottom left) ...................................................................310 87. Illustrations of four additional copper artifacts from Jachakala: the left two are possibly fragments of personal adornments, and the right two are small, flat fragments of unknown objects....................................................................311 88. Illustrations of two decorated faunal fragments, one with double incised and painted lines (top), and one hollowed, perforated fragment of a possible flute or snuff tube..............................................................................................312 F. Ritual Paraphernalia 89. Unslipped Tiwanaku-style sherds from a punctate-necklace jar (top), a llama or puma paw from an incense-burner (middle), and incised (left) and slipped (right) llama or puma ears from the same vessel type (bottom)....314 90. One unbroken and one partial Tiwanaku V keru (cup for the ritual consumption of chicha, or maize beer) from Jachakala ...................................315 91. Tiwanaku-style sherds from Jachakala with a range of painted geometric design elements.................................................................................................316 92. Tiwanaku-style sherds from Jachakala with anthropomorphic (top: human? eyes, and middle: stylized human stick figures) and zoomorphic (bottom: stylized puma at rest) ........................................................................................317 93. Unbroken half of an unslipped, undecorated bowl found inside the slightly larger bowl pictured in Figure 94......................................................................318 94. Illustration of the reconstructed, small Desaguadero Orange bowl inside which that pictured in Figure 93 was located ...................................................319

xxii

95. Unbaked ceramic figurine fragments with incised or shaped features, possibly of an anthropomorphic or zoomorphic nature ....................................320 96. Illustrations of two worked long bone snuff trays ............................................321 G. Architecture and Features 97. Illustration of excavated community depository (N567 E418) in the north- eastern corner of the site, Jachakala Period ......................................................323 98. Excavated burial of an older male individual in the northern zone cemetery, Niñalupita Period levels. Note the missing feet and the perpendicular placement of the tibia underneath the femur bones ..........................................324 99. Adult male human skull from Isahuara Period burial exhibiting style of cranial deformation limited to males ................................................................324 100. Adult female human skull from Isahuara Period burial exhibiting cranial deformation style limited to females at the site ................................................325 101. Household hearth feature with deliberate arrangement of large, burned ceramic sherds (N509 E503.5)..........................................................................325 102. Sample of an excavated household storage feature with the remains of a large, undecorated olla vessel adjacent to the square central zone household foundation (N466 E464), Jachakala Period ......................................................326 103. Excavated household ritual offering of two undecorated bowls, one inside the other, containing ash, flecks of carbonized wood, and several small camelid bone fragments. This feature is located in the midden next to the largest round central zone household (N511 E509)..........................................326 104. Illustration of House 1 (N465 E516), a partial circular foundation and hearth with ash and flecks of carbon from the southern zone, Isahuara period...........327 105. Illustration of House 2 (N463 E516), a partial rectangular foundation from the southern zone, Isahuara period....................................................................328 106. Illustration of House 3 (N517 E450), a large round foundation on top of a raised, ashy area in the central zone, Jachakala period.....................................329 107. Illustration of House 5 (N562 E497), the eastern half of a round foundation in the Jachakala period central zone. The limits of the ash stains delineating the original location of the western foundation stones are represented by a dashed line ........................................................................................................330 108. Illustration of House 6 (N546 E528), a partial circular foundation located in the central zone against the dividing wall separating the center and north, Jachakala period. House 9 lies on the other side of this wall ..........................331 109. Illustration of House 7 (N559 E589), the tiny circular house from the central zone, Jachakala period ..........................................................................332 110. Illustration of House 8 (N468 E480), the partial square foundation and platform bench from the central zone, Jachakala period. Several smashed storage jars, a hearth, and two ceramic vessels are noted as well.....................333 111. Illustration of House 9 (N552 E528), a partial circular foundation against the dividing wall separating this from the central zone, and the only domestic structure in the north, Jachakala period. House 6 lies on the other, central zone side of the wall .........................................................................................334

xxiii

1

CHAPTER 1

POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE ANCIENT ANDES

Specific methods of developing and maintaining control over valued materials,

facilities, equipment, or esoteric knowledge vary cross-culturally. In most models of the

origins of social stratification, political systems grow via increasingly restrictive control

over people and the products of their labor through the manipulation (conscious or not) of

kinship relations, ritual activities, and various material goods. Resources of some type,

whether food, luxury goods, or tools, are “required to underwrite the expansion,

integration, and administration of political systems” (Hirth 1996:205). It is not enough,

however, to identify those resources differentially distributed within a society and

associated with the trappings of the wealthy and powerful. The recent theoretical focus on

multiple complementary methods of increasing socioeconomic gaps between households

makes clear the possibility that craft production, subsistence practices, exchange

relations, ritual, and so on are not mutually exclusive provisioning strategies (Hirth

1996:207).

Hirth’s definition of a political economy concisely describes one current political

perspective on resource accumulation strategies. He writes, “Political economies emerge

as individuals undertake the organization of production or the implementation of

resource-accumulation activities within society,” thus benefiting by increasing their

social power through the selective distribution or use of their extra resources (1996:221).

Resource accumulation, in his and similar models, refers to variable production and

consumption practices by individuals employing accumulated goods in social contexts,

2

rather than for subsistence needs (Hirth 1996:220; Brumfiel and Earle 1987; Hayden

1990, 1993). In this way, wealth differentiation and inequalities in social or political

power are linked in a single model, albeit one which fails to distinguish how or why the

two (must) co-occur.

The Context of Accumulation

One way that archaeologists’ models of the origins and development of wealth

inequalities differ is in their choice of contexts within which accumulation takes place.

For instance, resource accumulation within general or special purpose contexts such as

community-level rituals, feasts, or storage often fail to materially benefit individual

households in any direct or lasting manner. Short-term resource accumulation for the

explicit purpose of hosting community-wide activities can promote differences of

prestige (goods) or social status between households; these may not leave material traces

behind.

On the other hand, the development of general-purpose accumulation strategies,

within the socially acceptable context of community-wide functions, can create a

framework of inequality for expanding differences in other, more personal ways (Hirth

1996:224; Earle 1997). Surplus accumulation and consumption on the household level

may lead to direct and visible wealth differences such as those commonly referred to as

elite/commoner distinctions, particularly as this economic differentiation is

institutionalized over time.

Types of Resources

A second way of organizing models of political economies is to draw distinctions

between the types of resources (and their uses) whose differential distributions constitute

or are associated with economic inequality. Some archaeologists envision control over

food surpluses in this role (Johnson and Earle 1987; Schurr and Schoeninger 1995), while

others argue for the importance of non-utilitarian or luxury goods (Brumfiel and Earle

1987; Roscoe 1993) that justify and express political rank (Earle 1997). Production

strategies of some sort, whether framed in terms of labor mobilization, agricultural

intensification, tributary obligations, surplus mobilization, or controlled craft economies,

3

are usually fundamental variables in political economy models. These models are often

presented under the rubric of service directed strategies, including political or religious

justification for the accumulation of surplus resources, reciprocity for services rendered

by elites and/or bureaucrats (Blanton et. al. 1982; Clark and Blake 1994; Earle 1990),

interregional exchange (Schortman 1989), and tribute mobilization (Hirth 1996:215).

Social institutions (as opposed to economic control) such as feasting traditions (Brumfiel

and Fox 1994; Clark and Blake 1994), redistribution (Service 1962), and prestige-good

distribution systems (Cobb 1991; Costin 1991; Helms 1993; Kristiansen 1991; Peregrine

1996; Steponaitis 1992) lie at the heart of elite redistribution models.

Structural and Ideological Changes

Such models emphasizing economic factors can be further contrasted with those

advocating the key role of ideological forces in the advent of complexity. For example,

Conrad and Demarest (1984) argue that political power is vested in social structures, so

that differential power relations evolve through structural change. Johnson and Earle

(1987) suggest that power based on exclusive access to luxury goods or esoteric

knowledge is generally less stable and ineffective in implementing long-term structural

changes, though it is less clear why that should be the case. The emergence of a political

economy requires, however, a concurrent set of changes in what Hirth terms the

“economic ideology” of a society (1996:225). This particular belief system is concerned

with the ownership, usage, and relative conversion values of resources. The ownership or

primary control of resources can be defined in terms of land tenure, labor rights and

obligations, communal versus household resources, tributary relations, and so forth.

Hirth’s definition of resource usage, on the other hand, encompasses both resource

accumulation rationales (more commonly referred to as justification) as well as the

development of short- and long-term obligations such as ritual gifts or feasting (Hirth

1996:225).

The concept of resource conversion or equivalency indicates the value of goods

that can be converted at some point to food or other utilitarian necessities (Hirth

1996:226). The social or political values attached to such things as ritual wares, long-

distance trade items, or labor intensive craft goods, are thoroughly covered in the

4

literature on prestige goods (e.g., Demarest 1989). However, when these goods are

viewed as potential sources of wealth or economic inequality, then they may function as

symbolic capital. In other words, expressions of status differentiation cannot directly

represent wealth inequalities until a system of resource conversions is established, in

which those items’ economic value (in terms of food, for example) can be roughly

calculated. Even when the values of obsidian blades are established, for example, wealth

inequalities will not necessarily emerge; but in order for these blades to function as

sources of wealth in a social system, their economic value needs to be somehow defined

or standardized. Emerging elites promote not only new means of increasing their own

control over the goods produced and labor provided by others, but also new contexts in

which those resources are expendable, and new ideas about the relative value of their

material signs of prestige.

Furthermore, changes in economic ideologies can occur over time with or without

strong political leadership (Hirth 1996:226). Bender (1990:254) points out that it is the

ability to convert new systems of labor organization into symbolically viable differences

of prestige that is the crucial threshold for developing political economies. Her point ties

in nicely with Hirth’s hypotheses regarding economic ideologies and external

opportunities for the expansion of the domestic economy, because new systems of labor

organization may result from households’ differential participation in externally derived

opportunities such as craft economies or trade.

The archaeological correlates of changes in economic ideology are sometimes

more difficult to pin down. One might employ differential distributions of prestige goods

relating social status and modes of wealth accumulation, an argument that figures often in

case studies of the origins of complexity. Long-distance trade goods, commonly assumed

valuable because of their associated transportation costs, may come to represent portable

wealth instead of, or in addition to, local religious paraphernalia. Contexts of artifacts’

deposition, in wealthy households, burials, and caches, can help archaeologists clarify

just which types of goods were expressions of personal power or prestige and which

items were ultimately for sale.

5

The Role of External Ties

Other models of political economy stress the role of exchange or external contacts

in situations of growing inequalities (Rathje 1971; Renfrew and Cherry 1986; Schortman

1989). These include more current theoretical offerings set within the conceptual context

of world-systems theory, or core-periphery relations (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1991;

Schortman and Urban 1992; Schwartz and Falconer 1994; Stein 1999b; Wallerstein

1974). Whether interregional exchange networks function solely to provide raw materials

for variably organized production systems, or whether their role in alliance formation and

political justification is stressed, this sector of the political economy often figures

prominently. Rare or exotic materials reflect and/or justify status in two distinct manners,

including owners’ direct access to wider interregional markets (Flannery et al. 1989) and

through the high value of the goods themselves that derives from procurement costs

(Helms 1979, 1993). To some extent, world-systems theory has changed (or perhaps

polarized) the way exchange is approached, in refocusing attention on broader systematic

relations as opposed to individual-centered agency.

Perhaps the most notable outcome of recent approaches to core-periphery (or,

simply, interregional) relationships is the acknowledgement that cross-cultural contact

may or may not alter the structure of local social systems. Contact and trade between

centralized state systems and provincial societies can indirectly affect household

organization without stimulating the localized growth of centralized, restricted

production, storage, or procurement strategies (Hirth 1996:219). Even in terms of luxury

goods’ presumed/possible function as political justification for wealth differentiation, the

iconographic import of ideological elements must be set into local structures, beliefs, and

practices.

This point is especially relevant to research on the Andean state of Tiwanaku. In

some models of state organization, the mere presence of sherds bearing Tiwanaku-style

decoration was sufficient in the past to characterize sites such as Jachakala as outlying

Tiwanaku colonies (Browman 1981). Depictions of Tiwanaku-periphery relations in rural

areas have ranged from a highly centralized political and economic force collecting

tribute from constituent populations in wide-ranging regions (Kolata 1993) to a loose

confederation of independent polities who voluntarily adopted elements of Tiwanaku

6

ideology. Little fieldwork has been conducted at peripheral regions distant from the

Titicaca basin with the goal of comparing pre-Tiwanaku and Tiwanaku patterns.

Consequently, one objective of my work on the site of Jachakala is to establish the timing

of the emergence of the political economy in order to definitively argue that changes

there were or were not stimulated by contact with the Tiwanaku state.

Scales of Differentiation

The scale of analysis is another important factor in the formulation and testing of

models of political economy. It is crucial to determining the point at which differences

between groups of people indicate changes in social organization. Inter-regional, inter-

community, and inter-household differences require three somewhat different kinds of

analytical tools. Changes in the size and organization of communities, for example, can

be explained by one set of variables (such as the development of craft specialization or

the adoption of new agricultural techniques); these can and often do differ from variables

that are used to explain inter-household variation (the formation of extended family

households or a religious elite are good examples). The kinds of differences that emerged

between groups of prehistoric people at the household, community, and regional scales

are the same (differences can be social, economic, ideological, political, and so forth).

However, the particular sets of variables attributed causation in models of incipient

differentiation relate more closely to the scale of social change. This thesis is focused on

describing and explaining changes through time within a single community; it must

therefore take into account variables that affect or alter how people are organized on that

social scale (i.e., within and between households and groups of households). Toward this

end, intra-community changes at the site of Jachakala are tied into the

domestic/household economy.

Inter-Household Variability

This focus on households or groups of households makes good sense when

working in small agro-pastoral communities, where these are most often the basic

decision-making units. As Hirth emphasizes (1993a:22), it is important to keep in mind

that the domestic unit’s primary goal is the basic accumulation of sufficient provisions to

7

at least minimally support its residents. Subsistence needs, though variably defined cross-

culturally, take precedence over all others. From this perspective, the general long-term

stability of agrarian households is directly attributable to their inability (because sizes of

labor forces, subsistence needs, and social responsibilities are predetermined) to mobilize

additional resources to experiment with extraneous socioeconomic opportunities to

accumulate wealth or prestige. Therefore, the range of available economic strategies will

directly determine the degree of variability in residential composition and form found

within a community. This variation is usually minimal, however, due to the limited range

and, more importantly, homogeneity of economic options available to agrarian household

units within a community.

Differences, or rather the absence of differences, in the kinds of activities pursued

by households is one source of variability explored by archaeologists. The origins of

complexity within a society are usually described in terms of changes in the pursuits to

which emerging elites devote time. When some members of a community begin to do

different things than others, particularly if those activities bring participants prestige,

surplus resources, and eventually power, we recognize incipient political economies.

Within a domestic economy, on the other hand, the kinds of basic activities performed by

each household should differ little from its neighbors.

A second source of inter-household economic variability is the level of

intensification (of farming, herding, craft production, trade, and other production

activities). Even in subsistence production, short-term intensification by some households

relative to others should not necessarily construe wealth-creating surplus accumulation.

Small-scale agrarian households vary subsistence production to produce surpluses to

account for regular resource shortfalls, the growth of the basic co-residential unit, or

similar internal factors, and do so without the stimulus of political intervention from

above or outside. This flexibility in production levels is the basis for low-level economic

differentiation in societies with egalitarian ideologies. To some extent, such economic

differentiation is perhaps tied to the normal range of sizes of co-residential units

(including nuclear and extended kin groups, households at various stages of their life

cycles, those with social ties to other communities or regions, etc.).

8

These differences in household composition and the associated sizes of both

material needs and labor forces manifest in archaeological patterns reflecting a range of

economic strategies. Such differentiation should be reflected in a strong correlation

between economic intensification and architectural features like diversity of house size or

form. Inter-household differences subsumed under a domestic economy should not,

however, be strong or significant enough to qualify as wealth differentiation as typically

described in political economy models. In other words, economic differences associated

with variable household needs should not result in differential distributions of status

goods (i.e., social complexity, which might or might not further reflect differences in

political power). Other classes of goods one would not expect significantly different

distributions of in a domestic economy include imports, prestige goods, serving vessels,

and the correlates of craft production activities. In such a system, economic variability

should rather fall within the realm of moderate household-based intensification of

production. When some households diversify their economy to incorporate a separate set

of activities, and when those extramural activities translate into wealth differences, these

changes reflect something different altogether: incipient socioeconomic complexity. If

such categorical differences further extend to the realm of political power, then a political

economy is born.

The distinction can be illustrated by the following scenario. Larger households

will produce more agricultural implements to employ and feed their greater number of

consumers. The higher frequencies of hoe debitage left behind do not constitute wealth

differences compared to smaller neighboring households, because both produce and use

their own tools. However, when some begin to manufacture tools for exchange (i.e., they

produce many more tools than they use), this craft production signals changes in intra-

community relationships.

Types of Inter-Household Variability

These two types of changes in a domestic economy correspond to those described

by Bermann (1994). “Systemic changes,” or “changes in existing dimensions of the

household system,” can be the basis for moderate levels of inter-household economic

variability. Intensifying production to meet changing household needs is one example.

9

“Transformational changes,” on the other hand, are “shifts in the rules or principles that

govern domestic organization,” and “imply changes in the household’s role or function in

larger systems” (Bermann 1994:24). This latter dimension involves the kinds of changes

underlying long-term, broader scale shifts such as the emergence of elites. The trick, of

course, is to correctly identify both the spatial and diachronic changes in household

patterns that fall into each category. The long term, local perspective on the domestic

economy of Jachakala households afforded by the site’s multiple occupations provides an

ideal framework for attempting to distinguish between these two kinds of household

changes.

The Three Sectors of the Domestic Economy

It is crucial to distinguish between the two kinds of inter-household economic

differences mentioned above, namely those in the kinds of activities undertaken by

residents, and variations in the degree of (subsistence) intensification. I agree with Hirth,

moreover, that the domestic activities of all households (regardless of their relative level

of intensification) can be best approached through material residues related to the three

sectors of an economy described below. These sectors include production, service, and

exchange activities.

Most prehistoric households farmed, witnessed or perhaps hosted rituals,

produced and consumed trade goods, and participated in a wide range of social,

economic, and political activities. This range of activities together comprises the

domestic economy. Access to a variety of resources, such as land, kin- or communally-

based labor, raw materials, and individual talents and personalities, in addition to factors

of a particular ecological setting, shape (to greater or lesser degrees) optimal strategic

options for fulfilling each household’s demands. Some researchers mistakenly focus on

the most visibly prominent resource accumulation strategy, be it agricultural

intensification or craft production, as typifying the entire domestic economy, rather than

recognizing that a variable mix of resources will be employed through a combination of

efforts to meet each household’s basic needs. These efforts will intertwine the three

sectors mentioned above (Hirth 1996:220-221).

10

Production involves the control of food and craft goods, and subsumes farming,

herding, storage, processing, and manufacturing. The service sector specifically refers to

payments rendered to elites for their support or as payment for their community-oriented

functions within the context of a fully developed political economy. However, some

communal activities, given the absence of an elite, can be grouped under the same

heading insofar as they require either labor or materials on a supra-household level.

Examples of such activities include periodic ceremonies at which large accumulations of

goods are ritually consumed, or the construction of communal works such as meeting

places and small-scale irrigation works; in these instances, centralized resources will

typically have culturally proscribed uses. Finally, the distribution sector of the economy

refers to strategies developed to control resources circulating through inter-household,

inter-site, or inter-regional exchange networks (Hirth 1996:209).

An Economic Focus

This approach focuses most heavily on the economic activities of the households

in a given community, though the social, political, and ideological dimensions of

variability can be explored with the same data. This economic focus is reflected in the

working definitions of domestic and political economies used in this project, and in the

way these are tied together in the models I test. The dynamic, growth-oriented sphere of

economic activities aimed at the maximization of wealth or surplus staple resources for

the support of elite households is termed the “political economy”. In contrast, the

domestic economy or “subsistence economy” functions solely “to satisfy the basic needs

of the family with minimum effort, [and] tends toward conservatism” (Johnson and Earle

1987:14). Johnson and Earle argue that the inherent tendency toward conservatism in a

subsistence economy will prevail until some crucial stimulus interrupts former economic

patterns and causes the reorganization of basic labor forces. This last statement is

assumed in the models tested in this thesis.

As Hirth emphasizes, archaeologists studying the evolution of political economy

tend to focus on “identifying the evolution of political organization rather than

reconstructing the economic relationships that underscore them” (1996:203). This

assumed equation of political development and both wealth and status differentiation has

11

contributed to a skewed literature on the origins of complexity (Hirth 1996:227). Among

others, his work in Central Mexico and mine in Bolivia attempt to correct this situation

with a revised focus on the economic processes underlying social differentiation. Most

studies of political economy, he continues, emphasize either production (i.e. agricultural

intensification) or exchange (Rathje 1971; Renfrew and Cherry 1986; Schortman 1989),

rather than exploring all forms of resource control exploited in the creation of wealth and

status differences between households (Hirth 1996:205). The emphasis on exchange

relationships in some of these studies derives from the rise in popularity of world-systems

theory (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1991; Kohl 1987, 1989; Schortman 1989; Schortman and

Urban 1992). This dissertation accords with Hirth’s assertion that in addition to exchange

relations, “political organization, consumption patterns, and social development are also

strongly influenced by how individuals control the production and service sectors of their

economies” (1996:204). Again, Hirth’s focus on the three sectors of the domestic

economy integrates exploration of all of them to provide more powerful theoretical tools

for looking at economic variability, as the next section explains.

THE HIRTH MODEL OF DOMESTIC ECONOMY

Households’ Economic Stability

Household economic organization directly reflects subsistence practices and the

range of socioeconomic opportunities available to its membership. Organizational

variability among contemporaneous households will be predictably small, according to

Hirth, where few opportunities for economic expansion exist (1993a:23). Hirth adds that

prehistoric households would have had little opportunity to change, “except under

circumstances of dramatic sociopolitical reorganization or environmental change

(draught, famine, plague, etc.), resulting in long-term stability in form and composition.”

(1993a:23). Incorporation into a larger political system would also provide opportunities

for economic reorganization. This is an important assumption underlying this approach to

modeling the domestic economy of groups within a community. Organizational stability

is more or less the norm; it is upset by some stimulant or change in the

socioenvironmental setting of the household/community.

12

In the absence of such circumstances, the stability of the domestic economy stems

from households’ inability to procure sufficient resources to either create or take

advantage of opportunities to fundamentally change their economic organization. While

elite households in well established political economies could generally finance

alternative adaptations, subsistence-oriented households cannot (Hirth 1993:23). Three

factors responsible for the long-term stability of non-elite households’ domestic economy

include their preference for traditional production strategies, deep-seated beliefs about the

social composition of households and the various roles of their members, and the limited

range of economic opportunities in a given social and environmental setting. In the Hirth

model relating the domestic and political economies, changes in household economic

organization (the range of activities practiced by a household and the relative proportions

of its limited labor devoted to different tasks) happen when the third factor is altered.

Household membership and social organization are not part of this model.

Constraints on Economic Diversification

Given differences in the size of available labor forces and subsistence needs

associated with stages in the household life cycle, some households will always produce

and need somewhat more than others. In a society in which extended family groups are

housed in small structures grouped around a common patio, for instance, subsistence,

craft, and exchange activities should correspondingly increase or decrease with the

number of occupied structures in each patio group. Similarly, larger households with both

more mouths to feed and more workers should produce and consume somewhat more

goods, though these differences will not necessarily extend to the realm of wealth (i.e.,

more serving or ritual wares, luxury items, and so forth). However, subsistence demand

levels and the size of available labor forces simultaneously function as constraints on the

growth and diversification of agrarian domestic economies because these needs are

primary.

The second constraint on prehistoric economic growth is the poorly developed

nature of distribution systems (Hirth 1996:222). Exchange networks are inherently

limited in terms of the types and volume of goods that can effectively circulate over short

or long distances (Drennan 1984). Distance, weight, preservation, the organization and

13

regularity of traders or caravans, and the cultural value placed on goods, all affect long-

distance exchange. On a local level, the relationship between households’ differential

participation in exchange networks and wealth or prestige accumulation is not necessarily

causal. Increased access to trade goods will not necessarily stimulate increased wealth or

elevate status within a community, so this relationship must be subjected to rigorous

testing.

These two sources of variability in a domestic economy - subsistence demand

levels and limited distribution networks - together modify the view of prehistoric peasant

households as being uniformly conservative. Constraints on economic growth at the level

of the household or multi-household group do not preclude a degree of variability. In this

sense, Chayanov’s picture of peasant farmers who require external stimuli to intensify

their subsistence production is far from the rule (cf. Netting 1993). Intensified domestic

production in noncomplex societies may include increased agricultural production, part-

time craft specialization, and increased participation in or reliance upon interregional

exchange systems. Many archaeological and ethnographic case studies have documented

such domestic intensification in the absence of external stimulants such as environmental

or population pressure (Brumfiel 1994; Clark and Blake 1994; Hayden 1990; Strathern

1971). Because of this, it is important to test the central tenet of the Hirth model, namely

that the potential for socioeconomic differentiation within a community rises with the

introduction of economic opportunities outside the traditional agricultural sector, such as

increasing the focus on craft production for exchange or wage labor pursuits. This

approach, also advocated by numerous other researchers (Blanton et. al. 1982; Flannery

and Winter 1976; Sanders et. al. 1979; Wilk 1984, 1990), complements models equating

political development and elite means of controlling certain facets of the means of

production.

Land Tenure Systems and Domestic Structure

The land tenure system is another important (albeit more difficult to reconstruct)

factor shaping the domestic economy of non-elites, according to Hirth. In situations of

unrestricted rights to land and other natural resources, he predicts “considerable variation

in the [social] structure of domestic groups” (Hirth 1993a:28). On the other hand,

14

households will be more homogeneous in both form and size when access to land is

highly structured or when there is insufficient land for unrestricted population growth.

Furthermore, when “there are pronounced inequalities in the access to land and other

resources, differences in household membership will often be the result of rank rather

than economic adaptation” (Hirth 1993a:28).

Though land tenure systems are extremely difficult to reconstruct

archaeologically, one can sometimes draw reasonable implications from observations of

environmental settings and the relative homogeneity or variability in inter-household

structural considerations. Hirth’s assertion that the amount of accessible land and the

quantity of labor available to cultivate it are important factors shaping non-elite

households’ economic organization accords well with his model of the domestic

economy.

In this model, it is generally difficult for individual households to gather enough

surplus resources to allow them to experiment with non-agricultural activities. Why this

is so is not, I think, a question of defining surplus subsistence resources in relative versus

absolute terms. Except under conditions of extreme population pressure or environmental

stress, agrarian households have the ability to produce a bit more (and/or consume a bit

less) food than they need. Similarly, the ability to store extra subsistence products long

enough to accumulate a fund which can be spent in support of non-domestic pursuits

(potential wealth-building activities such as cash crops, craft production, trade ties, etc.)

is not necessarily a hindrance. In the Andean highlands, for instance, tubers are freeze-

dried to make chuño, and meat may be stored as jerky. Preservation of stored subsistence

goods elsewhere might be a bigger problem than in the arid altiplano environment. In

theory, therefore, nothing much more than time is needed to accumulate extra food to

allow for experimentation with non-domestic activities. However, the unpredictable

nature of agro-pastoral resource bases, particularly in such marginally productive

environments as the altiplano (because of high risks associated with overnight frosts) is

well-known to anthropologists and peasants alike. This alone could make agrarian

households unwilling to count on stores of extra food while they devote more time to

non-domestic pursuits.

15

Given their subsistence orientation, the size and internal economic organization of

households will vary mostly with the amount of land and labor available to each. One can

frame the issue in terms of cultural conservatism, labor productivity and time allocations

(Netting 1993:105-109), or domestic (subsistence-oriented) economy. The working

assumption in this model is that in general, agrarian households are unlikely to expand or

radically restructure their domestic economy to the extent that archaeologically

recognizable wealth differences emerge in the process, without some reason to do so. Of

course they do change over time in many cases, and these are the archaeological

moments of interest to us. This long-term general stability in the domestic economy (and

low levels of variability between households’ activities in similar social, environmental,

and economic circumstances) is further reinforced by highly structured land tenure

systems; more than time is needed to intensify subsistence production if land is not

readily available. In this way, ethnographic and archaeological conceptions of the

agrarian household’s structure and organization (e.g., Smith’s (1987) description of the

household life cycle) tie directly into Hirth’s (1993a) point about land tenure systems.

Stimuli for Change in the Household Economy

The introduction of opportunities outside of the traditional agricultural sector can

break this long-term pattern of economic stability and relieve constraints on

socioeconomic diversification. Chances for some households or groups to dominate

either long-distance trade or craft production mean that subsistence strategies may cease

to be the primary factor dictating domestic organization for all households. The effects of

trade and craft production, as well as later wage opportunities, on the domestic economy

depends on the frequency, scale and organization of those activities (Hirth 1993a:28).

Hirth focuses on craft production in particular in his own work in Central Mexico.

He concludes that it was not, in fact, an important economic alternative at the time of the

Conquest thanks to pressure on rural households to maintain their commitment to

agriculture. However, he argues that most craft specialization occurred in household

contexts, and “economies of scale and specialization were achieved most often by the

growth in household size rather than by the appearance of supra-level forms of economic

organization” (1993a:30). Because changes in household form accompanied the evolution

16

of chiefdoms and states, much variation in domestic organization may be the result of

changing social relationships rather than shifts in production strategies (1993a:32).

Summary

For these reasons, prehistoric households and groups of households are ideal

contexts for studying long-term patterns in the domestic economy, including the

production, resource ownership and consumption, and distribution sectors of

socioeconomic relationships within communities. Given that, regardless of the level of

intensification, the domestic economy’s primary goal is to fulfill the basic subsistence

needs of members, Hirth attempts to refocus attention on the economic underpinnings of

the emergence of socioeconomic stratification.

Variation among agrarian households should be minimal in the absence of

significant opportunities for expansion of the domestic economy, because it is difficult to

collect surplus resources for experimentation. This difficulty derives from several

constraints on economic diversification inherent in the domestic economy of Prehispanic

households. First, the size of available labor forces and associated subsistence demand

levels are both fixed, though not constant throughout the household life cycle. Secondly,

distribution networks are poorly developed.

Hirth argues that long-term changes in the domestic economy leading to, in some

cases, a political economy, stem from opportunities for some households to dominate

non-agricultural pursuits such as craft production or trade. Such opportunities make inter-

household wealth differentiation possible.

THE JACHAKALA PROJECT: THEORETICAL CONTEXT

One goal of the project described in this dissertation was to reconstruct the

domestic economy of one small community in the central Bolivian highlands in order to

test Hirth’s model of economic change. The site of Jachakala is a small village (6.72 ha in

surface area) that was occupied from ca. AD 170-1200, including the Late Formative

Period (ca. AD 150-800) and Late Intermediate Period (ca. AD 800-1200). Fieldwork

conducted there from July 1997 through February 1998 both pre-Tiwanaku and

17

Figure 1. Map of the south central Andes showing the location of the La Joya research

area (Bermann and Castillo 1993:312).

Tiwanaku-contemporary periods at a single site in the La Joya region, Department of

Oruro, of the Bolivian altiplano (Figure 1). Changes through time in patterns of staple

and craft production, wealth inequalities, supra-regional exchange, and material styles are

explored extensively at the multi-component site of Jachakala in this study of local

prehistory. In sum, the goal of my research was to test whether variability in the

economic organization of households underwrote the emergence of social, political,

and/or wealth differences between areas of the village.

In contrast to this localized approach, archaeological research on political

economies in the south central Andean literature has primarily focused on the

organization of the largest imperial systems, such as the Inca, Lupaca, and Tiwanaku

18

polities (Albarracin-Jordan 1996; Browman 1978b, 1980, 1981; D’Altroy and Earle

1985; Kolata 1985, 1986, 1993; Moseley 1992; Richardson 1994; Stanish 1992). These

case studies provide a view of political economies at imperial cores and major prehistoric

centers, typically emphasizing factors such as pressure to produce surplus goods by an

emerging elite, and the evolution of part or full-time economic specialization (Costin

1991; Earle, D’Altroy, et al. 1980, 1987; Hastorf 1990; Whalen 1981). However, very

little is known about the emergence of political economies outside of these large-scale

systems, hence the need for studies in the periphery (Bermann 1994; Yoffee and Cowgill

1988).

Many of these smaller scale investigations, however, primarily focus the

Tiwanaku-style materials found at the Tiwanaku-contemporary occupations of various

sites; relations between a core site and other regions are described in terms of client-

patron, elite-elite alliance, or colony models (Browman 1978b, 1980, 1981; Goldstein

1993, 2000a; Kolata 1985; Serracino 1980). These studies have sometimes lacked a local,

dynamic perspective in that interaction with Tiwanaku itself is seen as the principal

stimulus to the evolution of local political economies. The Jachakala project, in contrast,

follows Bermann’s (1994) work at Lukurmata in that interaction with Tiwanaku in

particular is seen as just one factor (though one which holds much theoretical interest for

me) in the emergence of wealth differentiation. Occupations that predate, and that are

contemporary with Tiwanaku are contrasted to explore the local pre-contact origins and

subsequent development of intra-site differences, as Jachakala passed into and out of the

margins of a centralized state system. Because this work provides the first extensive look

at the Late Intermediate Period occupation of the La Joya region, it focuses mostly on

broad spatial and diachronic patterns rather than smaller-scale analytical units such as

individual households.

THE HIRTH MODEL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

Wealth Differentiation and Sociopolitical Reorganization

Given Jachakala’s multiple occupational phases and the changes in the

community’s socioenvironmental setting (including, of course, the development and

19

subsequent expansion of Tiwanaku-derived ideology across the altiplano landscape), this

site provided a good opportunity to reconstruct a long-term local history and test

hypotheses for how and why differences would emerge. The model of political economy

tested in Chapter 4 articulates the development of a political economy with changes in the

domestic economy described earlier. One can explore diversity in economic activities at

the household level through artifacts from house floors, adjacent activity areas, and

associated features, to infer how a representative sample of households responded to and

participated in broader long-term changes in a region’s political and economic

organization. As the basic unit of analysis, artifact assemblages left by groups of people

within a community can be directly compared in order to reconstruct long-term changes

in agricultural, trade, wealth, and tool production activities.

One group’s control over the distribution of valuable exchange goods or the

production of certain material classes does not by itself signify the emergence of a

political economy. If unequal economic and political relations between households do

emerge, then evidence for the differential distribution of wealth and prestige should

accompany changes in the economic organization of the prehistoric domestic unit. For

example, changes in the distributions of staple, wealth or prestige goods that followed

from contact with the Tiwanaku state can only be identified as such by directly

comparing pre-Tiwanaku with Tiwanaku-contemporary assemblages. Likewise, the

comparison of Tiwanaku-contemporary and post-Tiwanaku assemblages could reveal

whether the eventual collapse of the larger Tiwanaku system affected a community’s or

household’s domestic economy.

While the specific method of resource control employed will vary from society to

society, “resources in the form of food, tools and/or luxury goods are required to

underwrite the expansion, integration, and administration of political systems” (Hirth

1996:205). Fieldwork was designed to test for the emergence of differential access to key

utilitarian and non-utilitarian goods to determine which facets of the local economy,

including the production, service, and exchange sectors, were exploited in the creation of

hierarchical social divisions. Evidence for status differences might include differential

distributions of luxury goods and prestige items such as Tiwanaku-style ritual

20

paraphernalia between households or sites, or differences in the size and quality of

domestic architecture of high and low-status households.

Diversification of the Household Economy

The model of the emergence of a political economy from a domestic economy

that will be tested below against the La Joya archaeological record is taken from Hirth’s

(1993a, 1993b, 1996) work in the Central Mexican highlands. The domestic economy of

prehistoric agrarian households is characterized, he writes, by “two features: (1)

households were the primary units of production and were organized to produce

resources primarily for their own subsistence; and (2) most households, irrespective of

the level of sociopolitical development, were engaged in agricultural activities on a full-

or part-time basis” (1993a:27-28).

To reiterate, the Hirth model of political economy states that differential

participation in activities such as trade and craft production can lead to increased

variation in the domestic economy, organization, and size of households. This inter-

household variability forms the economic underpinnings of the political economy. The

consequent development of rank or status differences between households follows from

differential access to key resources such as raw materials and long-distance trade goods.

Although many have drawn strong connections between household composition (not

addressed in my work) and subsistence strategies (see Netting et. al. 1984), Hirth’s model

suggests that variability on this level is more likely due to changes in non-subsistence

pursuits. These in turn reflect changes in intra-community (differential involvement in

craft production) or inter-community (inter-regional exchange) relationships.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING OF THE HIRTH MODEL

For the La Joya region in particular, Hirth’s model provides a number of testable

hypotheses. The first task is to reconstruct the domestic economy at Jachakala, including

production, service, and distribution activities. Some differences in the distribution of

such materials as basalt debris from the manufacture of agricultural hoes are to be

expected, because households at different stages of their life cycles will produce and

21

consume variable amounts of food. Hirth predicts that if analysis reveals no significant

differences in the economic organization of households (including subsistence, trade, and

craft production), size and structural differences between them will reflect rank or status

inequalities. However, this structural variability might alternatively indicate differences

in households’ life cycles, size, and/or social connections.

Under the domestic economy model, all households will participate in a similar

range of activities to more or less similar degrees. Small and large households alike will

farm, herd or at least consume parts of a few camelids, produce and/or use a range of

utilitarian tools, and so on. Because differences between them are ones of degree rather

than kind of activities, the relative proportions (not quantities) of artifacts reflecting craft

production pursuits, for example, will be fairly similar.

On the other hand, if strong economic differences between residents are

identified, then the question arises whether those intra-community differences are strictly

economic or whether they underlie inequalities in social status or political power. So, if

differences are revealed, then the second task is to determine what kind they are: social

(prestige), economic (wealth), and political (power) differences are three very different

things. Differences in social status, for instance, should be archaeologically visible as

restricted access to long-distance luxury goods (such as obsidian or marine shell) or

prestige goods (such as ritual paraphernalia or perhaps Tiwanaku-style ceramics).

Similarly, because wealth differentiation is not the same thing as political inequality, I

would need to find evidence for political hierarchy, such as different facilities or location

relative to non-domestic features or badges of office, in order to argue for an incipient

political economy.

The Hirth model of political economy provides a third task: to test the hypothesis

that evidence for wealth differences will accompany evidence for variable levels of

participation in craft production and/or exchange activities (e.g., production of basalt

tools or Tiwanaku-style ceramics) that serves to distinguish some households or areas of

the site from the rest. This hypothesis is the central tenet of the Hirth model of social

change.

In this way, three types of differences are being explored: social (household size,

structure, and domestic economic organization), wealth (subsistence differences, access

22

to valued exchange goods), and political power (evidence for control over people or the

products of others’ labor). The Hirth model predicts that differentiation in terms of wealth

and political power (both are implied in the term “political economy”) should correspond

to transformational household changes in craft production or exchange activities.

Hirth’s readily testable hypotheses linking inter-household differences to variation

in economic activities provide a direct means of exploring the broader economic

processes that underwrite the development of a political economy, as defined earlier.

(Note that some conceptual problems related to the treatment of social stratification,

wealth differences, and political hierarchy will be discussed in Chapter 7; in fact, the

model of “political economy” tested in this work focuses most heavily on economic

differentiation, rather than political organization.) In sum, the model employed in this

project asserts that the composition, organization, and range of activities of a domestic

unit will be primarily structured by the mode of production and its access to various

resources. Following Hirth, I explore the relative importance of changes in the

production, service, and exchange facets of the local economy in the emergence of

differences of some sort at Jachakala.

Operationalizing the Hirth Models

To operationalize the Hirth models of domestic and political economy, three sets

of questions need to be answered in turn.

1. Degree of variability:

What does the domestic economy look like for each period of Jachakala’s history?

Are there differences in the domestic economy of households or groups of people

in the community beyond those moderate ones predicted by variations in the

domestic life cycle?

2. Kinds of differentiation:

Are those differences strictly economic, or are they spatially associated with

differentiated distributions of artifacts that indicate wealth, prestige, or political

power?

3. Hirth model of socioeconomic change:

23

Do these economic differences develop as some households participate to a much

greater degree in either exchange networks or craft production activities?

THE SITE OF JACHAKALA

This section is devoted to a preliminary "snapshot" overview of the general

patterns derived from recovered artifacts and features dating to each of the three periods.

It is intended to give the reader a brief descriptive introduction to the full range of

features found in the archaeological record of the site, rather than a comprehensive

overview of the spatial and diachronic patterns covered in later chapters. The earliest,

Niñalupita Period will be addressed first as an antecedent to the Isahuara and Jachakala

Period developments. Jachakala Period patterns are in turn divided into three short

sections, each of which describes findings in one of the community’s three spatially

segregated areas or zones. The Jachakala Period description in particular focuses heavily

on architectural remains, because the foundations of houses, public structures, and

dividing walls are readily visible on the site surface. Figure 2 presents a map of the site,

which includes both excavated structures as well as partial stone foundations untouched

to date by a trowel. All pictured structural remains in this site map are visible on the

surface. Figure 3 uses hatched areas to show the location and extent of excavations.

Niñalupita Period

During the Niñalupita Period (ca. AD 150-500), Jachakala covered between three

and four hectares. A single calibrated radiocarbon date from a well-preserved hearth in

the deepest cultural level dates the site’s initial occupation to 1720±60 years BP, between

AD 170 and 290. Artifacts recovered from the deepest strata (120 to 200 cm below the

surface) of pits taken to sterile soil include ceramic wares, basalt debitage, and faunal

remains, with very small quantities of semi-precious stones or other non-utilitarian

imports. While no complete residential stone foundations were identified deeper than a

meter below the site surface, typical domestic features such as small, unlined hearths,

ash-filled pits, storage pits, and a small number of possible activity areas are

24

TempleCorral

DepositoriesCemetery

Temple

North

Center

South

Legend

Domestic Structure

Public Structure

Isolated Wall

Zone Dividing Wall

2000 50 100 150

0

50

100

150

200

250

Figure 2. Map of the site of Jachakala, showing foundations of domestic and public

structures and dividing walls visible on the surface. Contour lines in the southwest corner

mark one-meter intervals.

scattered throughout the compact, silty clay matrix. This combination of artifacts and

small features extends from the southernmost border of the site to the middle of the

central zone. In other words, the initial occupation of Jachakala lies underneath the

southern half or so of the area later covered by the final, Jachakala Period occupation.

The lack of Niñalupita Period house foundations poses little problem for this

study of the domestic economy if one employs Flannery’s theoretical approach to the

household unit, or "household cluster" (Flannery and Winter 1976:45). This concept

incorporates features such as middens, storage pits, and activity areas as well as

residential structures associated with households (Bermann 1994:29). Material residues

25

from the household unit’s range of domestic activities will be physically spread over a

larger area than that enclosed by a foundation. This is a methodological dilemma

acknowledged by archaeologists studying household processes and patterns, but one that

is notoriously difficult, if not impossible, to address. In comparing remains from house

floors and features immediately around the foundations, activity areas used by those

residents are certainly missed. This is one reason why a number of units not adjacent to

visible structures were excavated at Jachakala. Nevertheless, as Bermann argues for

Lukurmata, only part of each household unit was exposed at Jachakala (1994:30). For the

Niñalupita Period in particular, groups of domestic features associated, presumably, with

the residents of various areas of the site (rather than particular domestic structures) must

serve to represent household units in general.

Some 40 to 50 m to the north of this initial occupation, the site’s residents had

already begun to bury their dead in a small area that was to serve as the cemetery for the

entire thousand or so years of the village’s occupation. The well-preserved remains of

three older males were excavated in Niñalupita Period levels of this cemetery. The

physical orientation, position, and treatment these three received differed greatly; one

underwent post-mortem mutilation, another was lain extended atop a small fire, and a

third was interred in a fetal position. Other than large round stones and a small quantity

of undecorated sherds, however, no grave goods accompanied any of these three

individuals.

Although, as mentioned above, no distinguishable household units could be

identified, artifact distribution patterns together with the small sample of recovered

domestic features indicate that the site was founded as a small village of some three to

four hectares in size. Statistical exploration of these patterns in Chapter 3 aims to

reconstruct the Niñalupita Period domestic economy and to test for different kinds of

variation in the quantity or quality of materials that groups of people in each area had

access to, including both utilitarian as well as imported goods.

Isahuara Period

It is primarily in the centrally located strata (30 to 120 cm below the surface) of

pits to sterile soil that the initial differences between households in different areas of the

26

site are evident. The community began to slowly expand to the north, growing in size to

cover approximately 4 to 5 ha during this transitional period, from ca AD 500-800.

Occupation continued in the southern area of the site, while the community expanded to

include newly established households to the north of the Niñalupita Period settlement.

Although the community is expanding to the north, the size of the site at the beginning

and end of the Niñalupita occupation are only approximations. Only two identifiable

household foundations were ever uncovered during this phase; site size estimates are

strictly based on the depth at which randomly placed pits throughout the site reached

sterile soil. Instead, a range of domestic features and artifacts similar to those from the

Niñalupita Period were uncovered throughout the Isahuara Period strata at Jachakala.

Jachakala Period

Structures from the upper 30 cm of cultural materials date to approximately AD

800–1200, based on the recovery of Tiwanaku IV and V phase ceramic wares from

within and around their foundations. Although the Isahuara and Jachakala Periods

roughly correspond to Tiwanaku Periods IV and V, it appears that contact with Tiwanaku

occurred only perhaps in the later half of the Isahuara Period. The deepest levels of that

period contain no Tiwanaku-style ceramic wares outside of intrusive midden contexts.

Nonetheless, the three-period chronology employed throughout this thesis relies on local

economic changes through time, rather than on evidence dating the community’s first

contact with this external political entity. This is, of course, consistent with the project’s

emphasis on local history.

By the end of the Jachakala Period, the site had grown to cover 6.7 hectares, again

expanding primarily to the north. The dense scatter of remains visible on the surface of

the site date to this occupation. These include the stone foundations of numerous

architectural units, which are spatially grouped into three zones or sectors of the site. A

sample of structures in each zone was exposed in large, contiguous horizontal

excavations that exposed an average of 24 m2; a total of 340 m2 of surface area was

opened up in this manner. Figure 3 illustrates the placement and spatial extent of these

horizontal excavations. Deep excavations to sterile soil were also conducted in units

placed within those horizontal exposures and in a few randomly chosen locations. As

27

Figure 3. Map of Jachakala with locations of horizontal and deep excavations indicated

by hatched areas.

shown on the site map (Figure 2), two large, east-west oriented, adobe mudbrick walls

physically divide the community into three clusters. Many smaller, straight walls appear

within each of the zones, perhaps once serving as windbreaks used for some measure of

protection against the sudden strong gusts and mini-tornadoes that are such common

features of the flat, high plains. Artifacts and structures in these three areas, which are

spatially equal in area, are discussed separately because developments in each differ. A

general description of Jachakala Period remains in the southern, central, and northern

zones follows.

TempleCorral

DepositoriesCemetery

Temple

North

Center

South

2000 50 100 150

0

50

100

150

200

250

28

The Southern Zone

The southernmost zone of the site includes the least amount of architectural

remains. It is possible that residents of the modern hacienda (the 19th century farm)

whose now abandoned structures lay just over the southern border of Jachakala)

harvested foundation stones from Jachakala surface remains in the south. Spatially, this

zone covers a slightly smaller area than the original occupation of the site during the

Niñalupita Period. Recognizable domestic architecture is confined, however, to the

uppermost 60 cm of the area. The field crew excavated extensively in and around three

houses in this zone, two of which were single-rowed circular foundations, and the

southern half of a large rectangular foundation. Numerous small refuse and storage pits

and a hearth were recovered within the foundations of these three households. A very

large midden associated with the round house in the uppermost levels of one area cut into

the northern half of the rectangular house that was buried some 50 cm below it. Within

the ashy fill of this midden, a female bundle burial alongside an infant of unknown

gender was deposited, accompanied by two ritual features.

In addition, six 2x2 m pits were randomly placed and excavated down to sterile

soil within this southern zone, bringing the total surface area excavated in the south to 54

m2. Generally speaking, residents here had access to some long-distance exchange items

such as obsidian, seashell, and ópalo, as well as some types of Tiwanaku-style vessels.

While a few small areas on the surface yielded large quantities of basalt microlithics,

frequencies of basalt drop dramatically below the surface. Utilitarian ceramics of all

vessel forms are ubiquitous, including a small quantity of the local decorated styles.

Faunal remains are also found throughout units in this area of the community.

The Central Zone

Occupation of the central zone covered about 2 ha. A total of six house

foundations were excavated in this area, one of which was square-shaped and five of

which were circular. What at first appeared to be a seventh, partial circular house

foundation turned out to be a short length of curved wall, which perhaps served as a

shelter or windbreak of some sort. Also, five 2x2 m pits were excavated down to sterile

29

soil within this central zone. This brings the total excavated surface area in the central

zone to 180 m2.

Most household units in this part of the site yielded fairly diverse artifact

assemblages, including ceramics, lithics, and faunal remains, but also Tiwanaku-style

ritual vessels and other classes of imported goods. Individual structures can, more often

than not, be assigned to either Tiwanaku IV or V, because decorated sherds from their

associated middens will be slipped in the color associated with either one phase or the

other. This helps to refine the chronological relationship between structures a bit. Most

houses in the center also have evidence of household ritual activities in the form of

offerings buried against an interior wall, often consisting of an undecorated Tiwanaku

vessel form with ash and carbon remains of burned materials inside them.

Nearly all households in this zone had large and fairly deep middens immediately

outside the southwestern corner of their foundations. These middens contained camelid

remains, and basalt lithic debitage from all stages of manufacturing (including entire hoes

and/or handaxes). The notably high concentrations of basalt debitage here in particular

led me to test the hypothesis that the central zone was a possible center for stone tool

manufacture, whether the finished products were eventually distributed throughout the

community or the larger region. Small storage pits and sherds from large storage jars in

the middens next to central zone households also set these units apart from their

neighbors to the south. Most households further yield small to moderate amounts of long-

distance trade goods such as semi-precious stones and marine shell. Finally, a dozen or so

well preserved personal adornments and fragments of adornments of copper (including

bow-shaped objects and tupu pins) were recovered from some domestic contexts along

the northern edge of this central zone.

Architecturally speaking, central zone houses are no more stylistically diverse

than those in the south, with large and small circular, as well as square or rectangular

foundations in both areas. Most but not all of the structures in the center had short

sections of adobe walls extending straight off their southwest corners, perhaps mimicking

through this feature the large temple to the north (described below). Some but not all

include narrow alcoves formed by secondary walls built partway around the primary

foundation, thus extending the total square area covered by the roof while simultaneously

30

maintaining the circular shape of the interior room. A single square structure on the

western margin of this zone also boasted a large stone bench, perhaps a sleeping or

storage platform. The relationship between economic patterns and domestic architecture

is investigated in Chapter 5.

The presence of long-distance trade items and evidence for household ritual

offerings offer additional kinds of data to compare with assemblages from the southern

zone. Storage pits in and around houses as well as decorated ceramic wares form two

more points of inter-zonal comparison. Differences between these two areas of the site

are tested in Chapter 4, including sets of materials related to subsistence, craft production,

and exchange activities.

The Northern Zone

Jachakala's northern zone has evidence for numerous non-domestic functions. As

the smallest of the three zones, it covers less than 2 ha, which are physically separated

from the residential areas of the site by a large, double-rowed wall broken by two narrow

doorways. The three small extramural depositories, both of the very large, circular

temples, and a sizeable structure composed of two conjoined circular foundations

(possibly a double llama corral) are located in this area. Additional units in the cemetery,

also located here, were opened up to reveal two more burials. As with the Niñalupita

Period burials mentioned above, these interments varied widely in their positions and

post-mortem treatment. Also, a single circular household foundation was identified and

excavated, next to the large dividing wall but still within the northern zone. Altogether,

five 2x2 m units were taken down to sterile soil in this area of Jachakala, for a total of

106 m2 of horizontal excavations.

ORGANIZATION OF ARGUMENT

In conclusion, differences between groups of households in the central and

southern zones are explored, with the broader objective of testing hypotheses derived

from the Hirth models of domestic and political economy. Jachakala’s remains are

divided up by period and zone, but the chapters that follow are organized in a somewhat

31

different manner. Chapter 3 presents evidence for a domestic economy during the

Niñalupita Period, while developing intra-community differences are explored in Chapter

4 through remains dating to the Isahuara and Jachakala Periods. These two chapters, in

addition to the discussions of architectural expressions of differentiation and inter-

household comparisons in Chapter 5 and external ties in Chapter 6, together paint a local

picture of the origins of inter-household sociopolitical differentiation that goes beyond

studies of peripheral villages subsumed under Andean states.