3000 years of Pottery Production: Insights & Cautionary Tales from the Lake Titicaca Basin, Peru

Elizabeth Klarich & Honorato Ttacca

Lessons from the Living: Ethnography and Archaeology in the South Central Andes AAA Session organized by Patrick Ryan Williams Participants: Maria Bruno | Christopher Dayton | David Goldstein | Randi Gladwell | Susan deFrance | Robin Coleman | Elizabeth Klarich | Nathan Craig | Paul Goldstein | Sofia Chacaltana | John Janusek | Nicola Sharratt | Patrick Williams | Bruce Mannheim | Session Abstract: Archaeologists investigate the past, but during their research they become part of the living communities in the regions in which they study. In the highlands of southern Peru and western Bolivia, local people become important parts of our research programs. Through our work relations, we become guests in their houses, sponsors and participants in community festivities, and coworkers and employers in archaeological excavation and survey. We enter into kin relationships with individuals and with communities. We become integrated into their lives for months at a time, and we maintain our relationships with them year after year. Many local communities perceive themselves as descendants of the people we study. They relate the past to their relationships with their surroundings, their lands, and their ancestors. They see deep roots in their beliefs that traverse the ages. From daily activities to spiritualistic beliefs, our informants teach us about their lives and give us insights into how their ancestors lived. The threads of continuity with the past permeate the social fabric. It is a continuity the people themselves claim and embrace at times, and distance themselves from at others. Native descendants that work closely with us in the field interpret the archaeological findings based on their own experiences. Their knowledge is shaped by place and immersion in local traditions. They are entwined with the locale in a way that an archaeologist can never be, yet their interactions with us prefigure the interpretations of the past we make as archaeologists. Through ethnoarchaeology, ethnography, camaraderie, and compadrazgo, we learn a great deal from them. This session explores the contributions of our indigenous collaborators to archaeological thought in the South Central Andes, the area of the ancient Tiwanaku realm. Each paper examines how the first hand teachings of living individuals has informed the archaeologist in creating an explanation for the patterns we see in ancient material culture or played out on relict landscapes. Observation of traditional household activities yields new clues to actions in the past. Experiencing quotidian daily life today helps us to envision how people may have worked. Economic activities on the outskirts of communities, such as pastoral pasturing or cultivation in surrounding agricultural fields, also informs us of the relationship between people and their landscapes. The teachings of modern ritual specialists help us understand cognitive patterns of meaning today and give us insights into indigenous systems of knowledge that intersect with bygone times. Intentionally or not, the native voice penetrates our interpretation of archaeological contexts. In these papers, we acknowledge the contributions of local ethnography to the construction of an archaeological past.

E. Klarich- 2006 AAA Please do not cite without permission of the author

3000 Years of Pottery Production: Insights and Cautionary Tales from the Lake Titicaca Basin, Peru Elizabeth A. Klarich (UCSB) & Honorato Ttacca (Maestro & Potter, Pucar, Peru) Abstract: The rich clay sources along the Pucara River in the northwestern Lake Titicaca Basin have been exploited by potters for utilitarian and fineware vessel production over the last 3000 years. Today, the town of Pucar is known throughout the South Central Andes as the production hub for the famous toritos de Pucar. These brightly painted clay bull figurines adorn highland and coastal rooftops as fertility and good luck symbols. In the Titicaca Basin, Pucar is a reputable production center of ollas (cooking vessels) and clay ovens, which are sold at regional markets. Prehistorically, the center of the Late Formative (200 BC- AD 200) regional polity of Pukara was located along this meandering river; these clays were used to produce highly polished, incised, polychrome vessels with standardized iconography. Unfortunately, due to limited excavation data, little is known about the organization of Pukara pottery production, consumption, and distribution during this key time period in regional prehistory. As a result, reconstructions of prehistoric pottery organization have relied on a few ethnographic studies of modern potting communities in the Titicaca Basin. While there are threads of continuity in the traditions of clay collecting and processing, it is necessary for archaeologists to seriously consider the impact of new technologies, increased interregional interaction, and the demands of the tourism industry on modern workshop contexts, trade networks, and household pottery assemblages before using these contexts to model prehistoric behavior.

E. Klarich- 2006 AAA Please do not cite without permission of the author

[TITLE] -Seorita Liz, Eso me parece el patio de mi casa -Seor Honorato Qu parte del patio? -La zona atrs, donde trabajamos la cermica. -Cmo? Por qu? -Pues, hay piso pero no bien hecho, hay huecos llenos de materiales de produccin como temperantes, hay herramientas para pulir y moler, y esa mancha de arcilla amarilla no es parte del piso preparado, parece una zona donde se cay en el suelo la pintura/ engobe y se sec no? -Ah pues, tienes razn, tienes razn. -This looks like the patio of my house. -What part of the patio? -The back part, where we make pottery. - How? Why? -Well, there is a floor, but not well made, there are holes full of materials like temper, there are tools for polishing and grinding, and this patch of yellow clay isnt part of a prepared floor, it looks like paint or slip spilled on the patio and dried. You see? -You know, youre right.

[PENON-1] To anyone who has done archaeological fieldwork, surely this conversation seems familiar. It took place with Honorato Ttacca, the co-author of this paper, during my dissertation field project in 2001. It was likely a glaringly sunny and windy day in the Peruvian altiplano during the six months of excavations at Pukara, an archaeological site in the northwestern Lake Titicaca Basin that was the center of a regional polity during the Late Formative period, approximately 2000 years ago [MAP-2]. One of the many goals of the project, initially a study of prehistoric household economics, was to document the organization of ceramic production [INCENSARIO-3]. While the project didnt encounter many remains of Formative households, there was evidence of small-scale ceramic production in one of the excavation blocks. However, these remains only vaguely resembled the expectations originally developed using ethnoarchaeological studies, comparative archaeological data, and a number of models of craft production in complex societies. Prehistoric pottery from Pukara was produced by highly skilled artisans, executing polychrome designs on incised backgrounds with standardized iconography

E. Klarich- 2006 AAA Please do not cite without permission of the author

and very consistent firing. Where were the pottery specialists producing their wares in elite sponsored or controlled workshops? They definitely were not in Block 3 during the Late Formative. [TOWN-4] Fortunately, Honorato and other potters working on the project from the town of Pucar provided several extra sets of eyes during excavations and innumerable insights into the variability that can be encountered in the archaeological record, specifically in terms of identifying household-scale activities. This symposium is an opportunity to present some similar insights and cautionary tales that have been developed over the last few years, many a result of working with numerous indigenous collaborators, especially regarding craft production.

[CRAFTS-5] We begin with a discussion of the (1) threads of continuity in ceramic production in the Lake Titicaca Basin/ surrounding region and the insights from these patterns that can be used to guide the interpretation of prehistoric remains. We then turn to a discussion of the (2) dynamic nature of pottery production in Pucarspecifically the changes of the last few decadesand the impacts on modern patterns, many which first appear timeless. Combining our perspectivesas an archaeologist and my co-author as a life-long potterwe offer a few cautionary tales to other researchers, specifically to archaeologists, who are constantly engaged in informal Ethnoarchaeology while living and working in our regions of research.

Threads of continuity: Insights from ethnography, ethnohistory and archaeology [VESSEL TYPES-6] Since Harry Tschopiks publication An Andean Ceramic Tradition in Historical Perspective was published in American Antiquity in 1950, there have been a number of ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological studies of pottery production in the south-central Andes. In this early article, Tschopik combined ethnographic data collected in the town of

E. Klarich- 2006 AAA Please do not cite without permission of the author

Chucuito in the southwestern Lake Titicaca Basin from 1940-1942, local archaeological data, and traditional and recorded history to document 500 years of pottery production. He states his goals as the following: Although no one would seriously deny that the Golden Age of Andean ceramics is long since past, highland Indians in several regions of Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia continue to make pottery vessels and, by and large, to employ aboriginal techniques in their manufacture. This being the case, the writer believes that an account of the potterymaking techniques of a contemporary Andean Indian groupthe Aymaramay serve to shed some light on the question of ceramic technology in this area during pre-Columbian times (Tschopik 1950: 196). He provides an invaluable resource in his documentation of production techniques in this regionfrom gathering clay to firing technologyand also in his discussion of exchange, socioeconomics, household organization, and the organization of production beyond the household (e.g. community specialization). Tschopik concludes that the data from this region support Gordon Willeys then recently formulated concept of a pottery tradition: the composite picture that emerges from such a synthesis reveals a remarkable ceramic continuity in the northwest Titicaca Basin area, and demonstrates the persistence of the Aymara pottery tradition over a span of five centuries (Tschopik 1950:196). He also notes that other modern patterns such as narrow specialization by communities and widespread trade networks likely hearken back to the preColumbian past (ibid: 217).

More recent ethnoarchaeological studies of ceramic production include Bill Sillars Shaping Culture: Making Pots and Constructing Households: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Pottery Production, Trade and Use in the Andes (2000) and Karen Mohr-Chvezs Traditional Pottery of Raqch'i, Cuzco, Peru: A Preliminary Study of its Production, Distribution, and Consumption (1987), both set in the Department of Cuzco, just to the northwest of the Titicaca Basin. Using

E. Klarich- 2006 AAA Please do not cite without permission of the author

these ethnoarchaeological studies in conjunction, there are recurring themes that support images of continuity: 1) household-level production/ some degree of autonomy; and 2) community-level pottery specialization

[TORITO- 7] Moving locally, the town of Pucar and the neighboring area of Santiago de Pupuja are also referenced by Tschopik, Mohr-Chvez, and Sillar in their ethnographic and ethnohistoric studies. Modern production techniques in the town have also been documented by Gertrude Litto in the publication South American Folk Pottery (1976). Pucar, well-known today for the production of the toritos de Pucar and large-cooking vessels called ollas [OLLAS-8], has a vibrant ceramic tradition dating back almost 3 millennia.

Based on a combination of archaeological, ethnohistoric, and ethnographic data, there are some threads of continuity in the production of pottery in Pucar. To begin, the clay sources directly west of the town are exceptional for the production of a range of vessels [TOWN- 9]. There is little information on prehistoric clay use, beyond petrographic analysis reported by Sergio Chvez (1992) that indicates locally available minerals were used as temper in Classic Pukara decorated wares (Chvez 1992); prehistoric clay sourcing studies have yet to be completed. Dating to 1680, there is documentation of litigation involving access to the clay mines of Santiago de Pupuja, as discussed in Geoffrey Spurlings study of craft producers in the northern basin town of Milliraya (1992). Today, potters from as far as Cuzco come to Pucar to either buy (or steal) clay from the two major sources near town [SOURCE-1-10] an easily accessible source along the riverbank and [SOURCE-2-11] the other a deeply buried deposit under the ancient river course accessed through dangerous ditches and trenches. [SANTIAGO-12] Some

E. Klarich- 2006 AAA Please do not cite without permission of the author

potters from Pucar also travel the 5-7 kilometers to the area of Santiago de Pupuja to purchase or trade for the clay source mentioned in the 1680 document. Each source is used for a different type of vessel and potters occasionally mix them in different recipes.

[TOOLS-13] There is also continuity in terms of tools used in the formation and finishing of pottery (smoothing, wiping, burnishing, trimming, and decorating). The tools recovered in 2001 from our excavation contexts are indistinguishable in form from those used today by potters in Pucar and those documented in earlier ethnographies. The major difference is materials used stone and broken pottery prehistorically, broken plastic and metal today.

Production also continues to occur primarily in household contexts, as mentioned above. [SPURLING MAP-14] Both Litto and Spurling document the layout of modern ceramic production zones within large house compounds in this regionthese include areas for processing clay (soaking, grinding, kneading), forming and drying vessels, and often for firing them. In the Pukara excavations (and also documented by Claudia Rivera (2003) at Tiwanaku in the southern basin), there is not evidence for large-scale workshops, rather production in residential compounds at a variety of scales.

The last thread of continuity mentioned in ethnographic studies is the presence of communitylevel specialization [MARKET-15], generally argued to serve as a mechanism for maintaining both horizontal and vertical interdependence in the greater region. Based on detailed documentation of exchange patterns in the southern part of Cuzco, Mohr-Chvez (1987) argues that trade of food and pottery were used in tandem to artificially maintain dependency

E. Klarich- 2006 AAA Please do not cite without permission of the author

relationship between often widespread communities. While there is ample archaeological evidence for long-distance exchange of pottery and other goods during the Late Formative period, ceramic data are not such that specialization has been clearly documented at the community level or smaller scale.

Cautionary tales: Insights from Living and Working in Pucar In contrast to the continuity of clay sources, tools kits, production context/composition, Pucar potters also have a long history of innovation. [WHEEL-16] The most obvious shift post-Contact is the use of the potters wheel, a unique feature of Pucar within the Titicaca Basin. Approximately 2000 years ago, Classic Pukara pottery was hand built using coiling techniques for all ranges of vessel sizes. However, dating back to Colonial sources, pottery was produced both using molds and the potters wheel (torno de eje vertical) (Tshopik 1950). Today, potters continue to use molds for torito production, the wheel for most bowls/ small specialty vessels, and continue to do some hand building of grotesque figurines [recently introduced to the region].

A major change in the recent past is in firing technology. Prehistorically in the Titicaca Basin, there is solid evidence for open-pit firing technology at Tiwanaku (also documented by Rivera, 2003), similar to that used in many parts of the Andes today (Rivera 2003, personal communication with William Sillar) [FIRING-17]. Unfortunately, firing areas were not encountered in prehistoric contexts at Pukara. [BIG KILN-18] During the Colonial period in Pucar, pottery was fired in conical kilns (Tshopik 1950) and Litto also documented more recent kiln forms, including updraft and multi-chambered kilns [LITTO-19]. While many households today continue to use these kiln types, wealthier potters have purchased electric kilns and other

E. Klarich- 2006 AAA Please do not cite without permission of the author

members of the community will sometimes rent them for personal use. This has strongly impacted pottery production in the recent past, including the range of vessel types produced, production volume, and even clay recipes. The effects of these changes and their material correlates need to be documented in detail.

Another possible change in Pucar is related to the composition of production, using Cathy Costins terminology, which is whether it takes place in a household or workshop context. As mentioned above, most evidence indicates household-level production prehistorically, historically, and ethnographically. However, Colonial accounts document that Pucar had talleres (workshops) that employed about five to six potters (Indians) under the supervision of a mestizonot based on local interests (Tschopik 1950). Much more recently, Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) working in the region have attempted to introduce (or reintroduce) workshop contexts into Pucar. Within the past few years, the organization CARE sponsored training programs for local potters, provided materials, and even constructed a workshop building on the edge of town [CARE-20]. However, due to household demands and incredible factionalism among community potters (that is a whole paper in itself), the building remains unfinished and interest levels are low (working in this communal setting).

To conclude, many elements of modern pottery production appear to reflect a level of continuity from prehistoric, historic, and recent times [COOP-21]. However, this is also an industry that is constantly in flux due to many of the factors mentioned above; additionally we must also consider: (1) demands of the tourist trade [booming]; (2) changing/expanding patterns of interregional exchange with improved transportation [highway/train]; (3) introduction of metal

E. Klarich- 2006 AAA Please do not cite without permission of the author

and plastic vessels into domestic assemblages; and (4) promotion of non-local production styles and techniques by NGOs trying to improve Pucar production.

Just as it is not methodologically sound to pick and choose sound bites from social theory or fragmentary data sets from archaeological case studies for comparative analysis, if we are to integrate the insights of our indigenous collaborators in the interpretation of prehistoric contexts we must do so systematicallywe have realized that this is an essential part of the next phase of our fieldwork in Pucar. While archaeologists constantly ask questions of the communities members where we conduct our research informal ethnoarchaeology [SEASONS- 22] due to the nature of fieldwork we are often there during the same time of the year each year and observe only snapshots of the production, consumption and distribution cycles. [WRAP UP23] If we then use these snapshots to interpret prehistoric contexts, we run the risk of peopling the past with limited, inaccurate representations of the social and economic organization of activities such as craft production; we then present a system much less dynamic than the one that can be reconstructed using archaeological, historic, and comprehensive ethnographic sources from the regions where we work and live. Thank you.

E. Klarich- 2006 AAA Please do not cite without permission of the author

References Cited Chvez, S. L. 1992 The Conventionalized Rules in Pucara Pottery Technology and Iconography: Implications of Socio- Political Development in the Northern Titicaca Basin. Unpublished PhD, Michigan State University. Litto, G. 1976

South American Folk Pottery. Watson Guptill, New York.

Mohr-Chvez, K. L. 1987 Traditional Pottery of Raqch'i, Cuzco, Peru: A Preliminary Study of its Production, Distribution, and Consumption. awpa Pacha 22-23(1984-1985):161-210. Rivera, C. S. 2003 Ch'iji Jawira: A Case of Ceramic Specialization. In Tiwanaku and its Hinterland: Archaeology and Paleoecology of an Andean Civilization, Urban and Rural Archaeology, edited by A. Kolata. Vol. 2. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London. Sillar, B. 2000 Shaping Culture: Making Pots and Constructing Households: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Pottery Production, Trade and Use in the Andes. BAR International Series 883. J. and E. Hedges: Distributed by Hadrian Books, Oxford. Spurling, G. E. 1992 The Organization of Craft Production in the Inka State: The Potters and Weavers of Milliraya (Peru). Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University. Tschopik Jr., H. 1950 An Andean Ceramic Tradition in Historical Perspective. American Antiquity 3:196-218.

E. Klarich- 2006 AAA Please do not cite without permission of the author

South Central Andes

Classic Pukara

Artifacts from the Museo Ltico Pukara, Peru

http://www.blackant.net/other/images/peru2002/page10.php & Gertrude Litto (1976)

Bill Sillar 2000

Gertrude Litto, 1976

Litto 1976

Dry Season (September) Rainy Season (March)