Society for American Archaeology

The Peruvian Co-TraditionAuthor(s): Wendell C. BennettReviewed work(s):Source: Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, No. 4, A Reappraisal of PeruvianArchaeology (1948), pp. x, 1-7Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25130223 .Accessed: 29/03/2012 13:46

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toMemoirs of the Society for American Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

(i?1^^mm*m \ -\ Colombia f~

( .QUITO "|\* ̂

\^ Ecuador J ^v /

m<*>^ ,y ^__/

4' / f / Peru J ^^C r ^/

PIURAV ^/ / J ] J

LAMBAVEQUEVT^ < \|. J? V- / /

chicama\^V V V* ( / Br?Zil f-' SAWTAYCrX \ \ T\ \ I neperaxt^ \ \ \ y \ \ ) casmaK \^ X ' \ X*^\ [

HUWJMEvV^ J%/

I J

J

FORTALEZA\0t '

^ L^ V

r^^ huaura}^ + f?' \ ̂ / chancayY^ ̂ -%\ A /X^ a^ */

RIUAC^ V\ C\ ' \ /l ?(

LURWV^/ V^-VS X I J) B0l,V,Q ?/ MALA \ / *o Xfc-; \ \ >-^ J 7 CAHETEX / ****'

\ 1 I / chincha\A^ X I V ^o?A p,sc0<%**&>* ^ \ \ ^

\

?^>\ ,r^ ) PUCAKA* I ) \ ICA^\( J I LAKE 1 k **CZA\ / ) C%JlTlCACA / I LOUAS^r \ r$ \X ,Of I ?* N

chalaX^^ N -^ IZ.\ X ^|PW?

\

V/TORX^b^ / \ *

TAMeoX \ Xc?CHA8AM^

NARfCA \ Q 1 r^ \ l LAKE 1 ? \ |>?o* e ' * <> 3*>*

j I

you/oue I

eo'_-n*_y I

^y

Fig. 1. Map of Peru.

Peru as a Whole

THE PERUVIAN CO-TRADITION

Wendell C. Bennett

I. THE CONCEPT OF AN AREA CO-TRADITION

THE

culture area concept as developed by Wissler1 has had only limited applicability

to archaeology, since it depends too much on

specific elements or traits, is too heavily weighted by subsistence, is not sharply enough defined, is too inclusive, and is too static in time. Although Wissler divided the New World into a number of archaeological culture areas, these have not been very meaningful, since

they lump gross elements with total disregard for time, which results more in confusion than in significant classification.

In Kroeber's reappraisal of North America

many modifications have been made in the culture area concept, which have reawakened

the interests of archaeologists. Kroeber2 works on the assumption that

" . . . space and time

factors are sufficiently interrelated in culture

history to make the culture area a valuable

mechanism . . . ." With this in mind he ar

ranges the numerous small areas of North

America into six major groups, each of which he3 believes

" ... to represent a substantial

unit of historical development, or of a prevailing characteristic current of culture.'' He goes even

further to introduce the qualification of "in

tensity" for a culture area:4 "What we call in

tensity of culture therefore means both special content and special system. A more intensive as

compared with a less intensive culture norm

ally contains not only more material?more

elements or traits?but also more material

peculiar to itself, as well as more precisely and

articulately established interrelations between the materials." This quality of intensity im

plies time depth, as Kroeber demonstrates in

discussing particular groups. The addition of time depth to a culture area

1 Wissler, 1917. 2 Kroeber, 1939, p. 2.

3 Kroeber, 1939, p. 20.

4 Kroeber, 1939, p. 222.

forms a meaningful unit for archaeological historical interpretation. For one thing, this allows more precise regional delimitation, since

only the territory is considered within which the component cultures formed a culture area

at every time period, and not the territory of maximum expansion during a particular time

period. A name for such a cultural-time-space unit is badly needed. It is possible to employ such phrases

as culture area column, culture

area continuum, and culture area with time

depth, but Dr. Ralph Linton has proposed "area co-tradition" which seems more satis

factory. Unlike the culture area classification, the cultures included in an area co-tradition are treated as wholes. Thus each has its own his

tory, its own persistent traditions. The coined

word, co-tradition, refers, then, to the linkage, the interrelationships of these cultural tradi tions in time and space.

To repeat, an area co-tradition is the over-all

unit of cultural history of an area within which the component cultures have been interrelated over a period of time. The term is not applied

merely to the cultural history of a region. For

example, Highland Colombia's history does not form a co-tradition, since there is as yet no evi

dence of the mutual relationships of the

archaeological cultures included. Neither is a co-tradition the history of a single culture. A reconstruction of Navaho history, which traced the migration from some northern area like

the Mackenzie to the present home in the Southwest would be excluded from this con

cept. In brief, the co-tradition implies a cultural continuum in an area. The successive occupa

tions of a Patagonian rock-shelter would not, in themselves, be sufficient.

An area co-tradition should have certain over

all characteristics which distinguish it as a

whole. Regional subdivisions are to be expected, since these, in a sense, reflect the component

cultures, but links between regions and evi dence of their being subjected to the same gen

1

2 SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY [memoirs, 4

eral influences should be found. The unit should have definable limits in both space and time.

Changes within the time period covered are

inevitable, but the major ones should be more or less uniform, although not necessarily identi cal. The questions of origin and of basic formu lation of the area co-tradition are of great inter

est, but not intrinsically part of the concept. Likewise, the causes and directions of change within the unit are subjects for later investiga tion.

As a classificatory device, the area co-tradi

tion is a useful preliminary to the study of cul ture history. Although in part an abstraction, the area co-tradition actually purports to repre

sent a substantial unit of cultural history. Various area co-traditions, once established, can

be compared. Do they have single centers,

multiple centers, shifting centers? How impor tant is size, complexity, rate of change? What

types of unity are found in each, such as politi cal, stylistic, subsistence, environmental? Are

there regular sequences of internal develop ment? Archaeologists have been blocked in studies of acculturation and culture change be

cause of the uncertainty of cultural continuity,

but with this concept regional cultural changes can be examined and their causes sought. Peru

is selected for an illustration of an area co-tradi

tion.

II. THE PERUVIAN CO-TRADITION

Many archaeologists have spoken of Andean or Central Andean civilization, but few have bothered to define its territorial limits. Tello5

states that the Andean civilization covers all the mountains and the Pacific coast from the Colombian border, 2? 5' North, to the Rio Bio

Bio, 38? South. Uhle, while not so specific, writes as though he were dealing with an equally extensive area. Means6 says that he is covering the republics of Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia,

together with adjacent portions of Colombia,

Argentina, and Chile. The present writer7 has

defined the Central Andes as the highlands and coast of Peru and the highlands of Bolivia,

including the eastern cordillera. None of these

writers consistently deals with the total area he

defines. In this description of the Peruvian

co-tradition, an attempt is made to define the unit more sharply?an attempt anticipated by

5 Tello, 1942.

6 Means, 1931. 7

Bennett, 1946a.

Kroeber:8 "I should observe first that I regard all native Peruvian civilization as a unit?a

larger historical whole, a major areal culture

with time deptb." This is essentially the present view, namely

that the Peruvian co-tradition includes the coast

and highlands of Peru and the Titicaca basin

of Bolivia, or, more specifically, the Peruvian coast from Lambayeque to Mollendo and the

highlands from Cajamarca to Tiahuanaco; and that it covers a time span from the formu lation of the Chavin horizon to the Spanish

Conquest, or, in terms of guess-dates, from

about 200 B.C. to 1532 a.d. Before these space

and time limits can be properly explained, the

over-all characteristics of the Peruvian co tradi

tion must first be presented. The Peruvian co-tradition has the following

major characteristics. Subsistence is based on

intensive agriculture and herding. The common

plants are maize, potatoes, quinoa, manioc,

beans, peanuts, oca, pepper, squash, cotton,

and many fruits. The domesticated animals are

the llama, alpaca, and guinea pig. The narcotic

coca is chewed with lime, while tobacco is of minor importance. Cultivation is with digging stick and clod crusher, and utilizes irrigation, terracing, fertilizer, and crop rotation. The

clothing pattern is based on the breach clout or

skirt and belt, the slit-neck shirt, shawl, head

band or other headgear, and the woven bag

with strap. The crafts of pottery, metallurgy,

basketry, shell, feather, and woodwork are all

prominent, but weaving is particularly out

standing. Common design motifs are the feline,

fish, condor, ray, trophy head, masked figure with cape, and many geometric elements. Craft

specialization is common. Buildings are made

with permanent materials, such as stone and

adobe. Massive construction is typical, both for

religious purposes and public works. Temples and dwellings are commonly decorated with

carving, painting, and arabesques. The popula

tion is concentrated in villages or larger ag

gregates. There are political units above the

local groups and marked individual and class

distinctions. Abundant leisure time over and

above economic minimums is ever present. The

standard work pattern is in groups, either on

the basis of cooperation, religious inspiration, or forced corvee. The prominence of ancestor

worship, elaborate grave goods, and mummy

bundles can be designated by the term "necro

8 Kroeber, 1944, p. 111.

Bennett] A REAPPRAISAL OF PERUVIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 3

tropic" (grave-oriented). The pilgrimage re

ligious pattern is typical, and such pilgrimages are not limited to local areas or to a single time

period as witnessed by Chavin de Huantar, Tiahuanaco, Pachacamac, and Copacabana.

Many negative characteristics could be added

to the above list, such as no urn burial, no bow

and arrow, and weak water transportation. These characteristics are found in each sub

division and each main time period of the Peruvian co-tradition, which is also united in other ways. Specific traditions link the cultures of some subdivisions throughout several time

periods. Various types of horizon styles cut

across some or all of the sub-regions in one time

period. Furthermore, many of the component

cultures are intricately related in space and

time. For example, Chiripa has relationship with Pucara, Early Tiahuanaco, and Chana

pata; Pucara in turn is linked with Classic

Tiahuanaco, Wari, the Epigonal, and the Black White-Red horizon; these, finally, merge into

lea and Chimu. Another such branching rela

tionship is Chavin, Cavernas, Necropolis, and Nazca on one side; Chavin, Salinar, Mochica, and Chimu on the other. Finally, as will be shown later, the culture changes throughout the Peruvian area are roughly uniform in time

and direction.

The geographical environment of the Peru vian area has many consistencies in spite of

some major contrasts in altitude, rainfall, and

temperature. However, both on the coast and

in the highlands there are large areas suitable for cultivation. These have rich soils and ample

water supply, and are not covered by resistant

deep rooted grasses or forest. All of these areas

are isolated enough for independence, but close

enough for cultural contact. All present mate

rials suitable for architecture and craft manu

facture.

At this point the geographical limits of the Peruvian co-tradition can be examined in greater

detail. Although it is true that some of the cultural characteristics are found elsewhere, that similar geographic conditions exist in

adjacent regions, and that some of the horizon

styles extend beyond the boundaries, a detailed examination shows that the Peruvian co-tradi

tion, as delimited previously, is reasonably isolated, both geographically and culturally.

The Peruvian area, as here defined, is roughly 1700 kilometers long, from north to southeast, and from 100 to 400 kilometers wide. Within this area, the major valleys and basins are never

separated by more than 200 kilometers, and even then small settlement pockets exist in between. (The Cuzco basin is an exception and is the most isolated of all. This is interesting since on the basis of present evidence, the Cuzco basin is known to be prominent only in the late

periods.) In the north, however, the Cajamarca basin is separated from Loja in southern Ecua dor by some 400 kilometers of rough, forest covered mountains which lack sizeable basins and which are virtually without population today. Furthermore, a climatic change occurs

north of Cajamarca which produces a double

rainy season and supports a wet paramo cover

age, less suitable for llamas and alpacas than the Peruvian puna. Turning next to the

northern coast, Lambayeque is separated from

Piura by the Sechura desert, some 225 kilo meters wide. Piura, in turn, is separated from the subtropical coast of Manabi and Guayas by an extensive, barren, unpopulated stretch of sand.

Ecuadorian archaeology is too little knowTn to

permit sound generalization. The best work has been done in Manabi and Esmeraldas on the

coast, and in the highland basins from Cuenca north, rather than in the parts closest to Peru. At present, the sub-regions of Ecuador appear

quite independent culturally, although the Tuncahuan style may ultimately prove to be a genuine horizon. There are some indications

that coast and highland connections will be established. For example, earth mounds are

characteristic of highland Imbabura and coastal

Esmeraldas, and Collier and Murra9 encoun

tered many highland sherds in Azuay which

they considered to be of coastal origin. Future work may allow grouping the coast and high lands of Ecuador and southern Colombia as an areal co-tradition, but this would probably be an

independent one, not merely an adjunct of

the Peruvian. In highland Ecuador, for example there are no pre-Inca buildings with permanent

materials, no large scale sites, no identifiable ceremonial centers, and few llamas and alpacas.

There is no evidence of widespread cultural ties of the kind that unite Peru. Furthermore, there are few specific stylistic tie-ups with Peru in the

pre-Inca periods. The gold work of Sigsig and

Chordeleg looks somewhat Tiahuanacoid, but there is no ceramic confirmation of the spread of the Tiahuanaco horizon. In brief, the Peru vian unit seems well delineated both culturally

9 Collier and Murra, 1943.

4 SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY [memoirs, 4

and geographically in the north. Piura may some day be grouped with Peru, but Ecuador seems unlikely.

The tropical forests of the Upper Amazon mark the eastern boundary of the Peruvian unit. The penetration of Andean culture into the

tropics, and the influence of tropical cultures on the Andean are interesting problems but have little to do with the limits of the Peruvian

co-tradition, which certainly does not exist in the jungle.

The southern margin of the Peruvian unit is in part determined by the intense desert condi tions. The Atacama desert along the coast is the most intense in the world with only one

major oasis, Calama on the Rio Loa, and this

lies some 700 kilometers south of Arequipa. Even so, the Calama cultures, none of major

importance, show some relationship to the

Peruvian, but further south in Chile the Dia

guita cultures are affiliated with the Northwest

Argentine co-tradition.

A desert strip cuts eastward across the Andes south of 17?. The western cordillera of Bolivia is dry, without basins, and, today, virtually

without population. South of Lake Titicaca, the Desaguadero River disappears in Lake

Poopo, where the water evaporates into ex

tensive salt flats. Actually, apart from the Titicaca basin, the most inhabitable regions of Bolivia are in the eastern cordillera. The

closest to Peru is the Cochabamba basin, and this is separated from Titicaca by over 300 kilo

meters of rugged mountainous country. In

spite of this, good Tiahuanaco ceramics are

found in the Cochabamba region although permanent buildings, ceremonial centers, and

stone carving are not. In general, the Peruvian

influences in the eastern cordillera are no greater

than those from the Amazon, Chaco, and

Pampas. It thus seems sound on geographical and cultural grounds to fix the southern

boundary of the Peruvian co-tradition on the

Mollendo-Arequipa-Tiahuanaco line.

Once the spatial limits and the over-all char acteristics of the Peruvian co-tradition have been defined, the subdivisions can be con

sidered. These are of two kinds, regional and

temporal. The regional subdivisions involve both coastal valleys and highland basins which

present some interesting contrasts, but at this time only the spatial relationships are discussed.

It has long been customary to trisect both the coast and the highlands into a North, a Central, and a South division. This has led to some con

fusion, particularly since a glance at the map shows clearly that the south highlands (Puno

Tiahuanaco) bear no close spatial correspond ence to the south coast (Nazca-Canete). Since

coast-highland relationships are of considerable

importance, more precise regional terms must

be employed. Each coastal valley forms an isolated unit

and should, theoretically, have its own local cultural history. However, archaeological re

finements in Peru are not sufficient to show this.

Consequently, the valleys are arranged into

nine groups on the basis of proximity and cultural overlap. These are listed from north to south with each named after a single central

valley: 1. Lambayeque group: Lambayeque, Sana, Pacasmayo

(Fig. 2:1). 2. Moche group: Chicama, Moche, Viru, Chao (Fig. 2:2). 3. Chimbote group: Santa, Chimbote, Nepefia, Casma

(Fig. 2: 3). 4. Huarmey valley (Fig. 2:4). 5. Rimac group: Paramonga, Supe, Huaura, Chancay,

Ancon, Rimac, Lurln (Fig. 2:5). 6. Cafiete group: Mala, Canete, Chincha (Fig. 2: 6). 7. Ica group: Pisco, lea, Nazca (Fig. 2:7). 8. Lomas group (Fig. 2:8). 9. Arequipa group: Camana, Majes, Mollendo, Arequipa

(Fig. 2: 9).

There are numerous highland valleys, pockets, and basins, but only six are of major

importance. These are again listed from north

to south:

1. Cajamarca basin (Fig. 2, a). 2. Callejon de Huaylas basin (Fig. 2, b). 3. Hudnuco basin (Fig. 2, c). 4. Mantaro basin (Fig. 2, d). 5. Cuzco basin (Fig. 2, e). 6. Titicaca basin (Fig. 2, r).

Each highland basin is separated from its

neighbor by a substantial distance, around 300

kilometers, but, with the exception of Cuzco, none is too distant from one or more of the coast groups. On geographical grounds, com

munication from' basin to basin would be more difficult than from highland to coast, and, in the case of the Tiahuanaco horizon, the spread from one basin to another seems to have been

by way of the coastal valleys. There are many

other indications of rather close relationship of the highland basins with the adjacent coastal

valleys. On the basis, then, of actual spatial relationships and known cultural tie-ups, five transverse divisions can be listed, although these admittedly overlap, and do not cover

Bennett] A REAPPRAISAL OF PERUVIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 5

every basin and group to complete satisfaction:

1. Far North division: Ca/amarca-Lambayeque-Moche

(Fig. 2: I, A, 1, 2). Confirmed culturally by the Chavin

horizon, the spread of the Cajamarca style, and the cursive

tripod style. 2. North division: Ca//e/dw-Moche-Chimbote-Huarmey

/ C to***00- ... ,/ \ <;

J]-V ?

s>_ Pe*o ; * I. LAM6A- |K\r >L ? V- YEQOE I pX\f Xt*- ? *

U. 2 f r L^A MARCA^ ^\^J X

O x *

/ M ) ?

nn-rr^?**-/ ;^ Brazil

g]-*+^7-^J^cuzco ;V_____

g 8, LO*AS VC^f Y\ ;

^

*>_\ / y l ' rSlF/

^ ? w" v \L si1 f /* V -V VJtfgL X /*

/ y t' f\ Cochabamba. /

/ J v > a /A> \ Bolivia

y v* / *?.?.?*?

Fig. 2. Limits and Divisions of the Peruvian Co-Tradition.

Rimac (Fig. 2: II, b, 2,3,4, 5). Confirmed culturally by the

Chavfn horizon, the White-on-Red horizon, the Negative

horizon, the Tiahuanaco horizon, the Black-White-Red

horizon, and the Recuay three color negative distribution.

3. Central division: Afantaro-Rimac-Canete-Ica (Fig. 2:

III, d, 5, 6, 7). Confirmed culturally by the Nazca B-Y

horizon, the Tiahuanaco horizon, and probably by other

connections.

4. South division: Cuzco-Lom&s (Fig. 2: IV, e, 8). So far

not confirmed culturally. 5. Far South division: Titicaca-Arequipa (Fig. 2: V, f, 9).

Confirmed culturally by the Tiahuanaco horizon, the

spread of the Decadent Tiahuanaco and the Atacameno cul tures.

These divisions are weakest for the Hudnuco and Cuzco basins and the Lomas coast group, the cultural history of none of which is known.

A South division (Fig. 2: IV) is left open for

future confirmation. The Callejdn and the

Mantaro basins seem to have been the most

important highland centers during most of

6 SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY [memoirs, 4

Peruvian cultural history, and consequently

merit far more attention than they have re

ceived thus far. The Peruvian co-tradition can also be divided

temporally although the lines are not too

sharp. It is interesting, however, that the cul tures of the total region change in the same

directions at approximately the same times.

For Viru Valley, at least, this is not due to

population replacement, since Mr. Ford has

assembled convincing evidence for a basic

population continuum there. Temporal divi

sions have been recognized since the days of

Uhle's pioneer work. Means10 dealt with

Andean civilization in terms of century by century growth of culture. Larco11 proposed seven major divisions for the coast of Peru.

At the 1946 Chiclin conference, Strong and

Larco outlined seven divisions for the north

coast. In a manuscript submitted to the Ameri can Museum of Natural History, I have de

scribed the Peruvian co-tradition in terms of six

major time divisions:

1. Cultists (Chavin de Huantar, Cupisnique, Nepeiia

and Casma Coast Chavin sites, Early Anc6n and Supe,

Chongoyape), in which the pattern is formulated.

2. Experimenters (Cavernas, Chancay White-on-Red,

Salinar, Huaraz White-on-Red, Chanapata, Chiripa), in

which technological experiments in agriculture, ceramics,

metallurgy, building, and the like are in evidence.

3. Mastercraftsmen (Nazca A and B, Interlocking, Early

Lima, Mochica A and B, Gallinazo, Recuay, Katak, Pucara,

Early Tiahuanaco, and initial Classic Tiahuanaco), in

which technological controls are complete, and numerous

local patterns of orientation are formulated.

4. Expansionists (Tiahuanaco, Wari, Epigonal, Middle

Ancon I-II, Pacheco, Early lea, Wilkawatn-Tiahuanaco,

Cajamarca, and also the somewhat later Black-White-Red

horizon sites), in which attention is completely turned to

social and political organization, and conquest and expan

sion is manifested everywhere. 5. City Builders (lea, Chancay Black-on-White, Late

Huamachuco, Early Inca, Decadent Tiahuanaco, Chimu),

in which local political controls are reformulated, and popu

lations are concentrated in large units.

6. Imperialists (Inca and local manifestations), in which

political empire is finally achieved over the total area.

Without entering into the details of the

content of each temporal division, let me point out a few general observations about the

Peruvian co-tradition.

1. The Peruvian evidence shows a long slow period of

initial cultural growth, but the formulation of the pattern

1(> Means, 1931.

11 Larco, 1938-39.

which characterizes the area co-tradition takes place with

comparative rapidity, and this pattern persists until in

terrupted by the Spanish Conquest. This seems an impor tant point to stress, in view of the fact that some writers

have obviously confused the time required for formulation

of a pattern with the length of its duration.

2. The Peruvian co-tradition shows technological ad

vancement up to the point (Mastercraftsmen) where tech

niques are adequate for a satisfactory control of subsistence

and maintenance of the economy. There is then a shift to

social and political manipulation of man-hour work units

and virtually no new advances are made in technology. In

the case of Peru the social and political pattern which

emerged is characterized by sharp class distinctions and

corv6e labor.

3. The Peruvian co-tradition has different focal centers in

different time periods, from the North division, to the

Central and South, and finally to the Cuzco basin. It like

wise illustrates the constant contrast between the coastal

valleys which are dependent on a single source of irrigation

water, and the amorphous highland basins. We can almost

go so far as to say that the coast fostered states, the high lands confederacies.

4. Numerous trends can be observed, for example: from

small villages to cities; from individual artists to mass

craft production; in art style, from Chavin stylization to

realism, to Tiahuanaco conventionalization, to geometric.

In brief, it seems that the concept of area

co-traditions, as illustrated by Peru, is a useful one which might profitably be applied to other

parts of New World and Old World archaeology. It does not follow that any region, if sufficiently studied, will represent an area co-tradition. Also, as in the case of the culture area, differences in

intensity are to be expected. On the basis of

present evidence, several other area co-tradi

tions in the New World could probably be established.

III. OTHER AREA CO-TRADITIONS

A Southwest co-tradition would cover the

region of Arizona, western New Mexico, south

east Colorado, and southern Utah, and encom

pass three major cultural and regional com

ponents, the Anasazi, Hohokam, and Mogol lon-Mimbres. The author is not competent to

describe this unit in detail, but some of the

general characteristics might be: maize agricul

ture supplemented by collecting and hunting; village pattern; metate-mano complex; sub

terranean cists and storage pits; pit houses; rough architecture with stone, mud, and beams;

emphasis on basketry, weaving, and pottery with monumental stone carving and metal

lurgy lacking; ritual emphasis; rain and fertility cults; absence of marked class or individual dis

tinctions. The unit might have a time span from

Bennett] A REAPPRAISAL OF PERUVIAN ARCHAEOLOGY 7

about 300 to 1600 a.d., and some six major

epochs, designated, in the case of Hohokam:12

Pioneer, Colonial, Sedentary, Classic, Late, and

Historic.

A Middle American co-tradition would in clude the area from western Honduras and

Salvador to Zacatecas in Mexico. The major regional and cultural components would appear to be Central Mexico (Toltec, Aztec), Oaxaca

(Zapotec), Vera Cruz (Olmec, Totonac), and Guatemala-Salvador-Yucatan (Highland and Lowland Maya). Vaillant13 characterizes the

total unit by: intensive agriculture, both

tropical and semi-desert; maize, beans, cacao,

tobacco, cotton, squash, peppers; ceramics,

weaving, and limited metallurgy; lack of do mesticated animals; emphasis on sculpturing; polytheism based on nature worship; divinities in drawings and sculpture; platforms and

temples; writing; astronomy; and recorded

calendar. Vaillant estimates the over-all time

span as 0-1500 a.d., and recognizes four divi

sions: Middle Cultures, Full Independent Civilizations, Late Independent Civilizations,

Mixteca-Puebla.

A Northwest Argentine co-tradition should include the mountainous regions of Salta,

Catamarca, Tucuman, La Rioja, northern

12 Martin, Quimby, and Collier, 1947.

13 Vaillant, 1941.

San Juan, and western Santiago del Estero.

Northern, southern, and eastern sub-regions could be distinguished. Some of the general characteristics would be urn burial, particularly for infants; villages of rough stone or clay; ab

sence of ceremonial centers; emphasis on

ceramics, metallurgy, figurines, and clay pipes; use of tobacco for smoking and snuff; agricul ture, probably without irrigation; serpent, jaguar, owl, and toad design motifs; and prob ably warlike tendencies. The time span would still be uncertain, but in all sub-regions parallel development could be noted, and the cultures

arranged into early, middle, late and Inca

periods. It is possible that parts of central Chile would be included, but it is significant that

Jujuy in northern northwest Argentina would not be.

These three area co-traditions plus the Peru

vian appear to be of roughly comparable size, time duration, and intensity. Among other pos

sibilities of area co-traditions of less duration and intensity are Alaska, the Northwest Coast, Southeast United States, Ecuador coast and

highland, West Indies-Venezuela, and Pata

gonia. Regions like the Amazon and the Eastern Woodlands would be hard to define because of

their great expanse and somewhat vague cul

tural characteristics.

Yale University New Haven, Connecticut