True, Crew 1980 Tarapacá 2A

Archaeological Investigations in Northern Chile:
Tarapaca 2A
by
D. L. True and Harvey Crew
Archaeological investigations in Northern Chile during 1966-67 resulted in the recording of some 22
preceramic sites along the lower reaches of the quebrada Tarapaca (Map O. This report represents the
Jesuits of a preliminary analysis of the data recovered from one of these sites which dates as early as
5000 years ago.
The older preceramic sites in the interior Chilean deserts, as with similar desert sites elsewhere in the
world, tend to be small in area, shallow in depth, and subject to multiple re-occupations as people return
to favorable locations. Only meticulous excavation and analysis of specimens can sort out the
occupations present in such sites,' and Tarapaca 2A posed particular problems in this regard. It is possible
that two temporal periods can be identified in the 2A refuse, one certainly representing an early
guanaco-hunting people, and the other possibly representing a later llama-keeping population. The work
here was done under the auspices of the University of Chile/University of California Cooperative
program and was funded by the Ford Foundation .
The Site
Tarapaca 2A is located on the southerly side of the Quebrada Tarapaca, approximately 4 km . from the
junction of the quebrada and a dry lake bed which is part of the Pampa de Tamarugal. It is within the
bounds of a larger site designated Tarapaca 2, characterized by a scatter of chipping waste and lithic
artifacts spread over an area some 350 m. long and 90 m . wide (Map 2). Within this larger space,
concentrations of artifacts indicate several different occupations. Most of these seem to be part of the
same pattern, but the artifacts recovered from 2A are quite different from those taken from any of the
other loci. . '
Tarapaca 2A itself is characterized by a concentration of chipping waste, artifacts and nonartifactual
refuse spread over a space not exceeding 15 m. in diameter. Refuse and artifacts in Tarapaca 2 were
most heavily concentrated within a central zone having a diameter of about 8 m. (these. relationships are
indicated in Map 2) .
This is almost certainly a short term stopover site utilized primarily by hunting and gathering peoples,
probably as part of a seasonal round.
59
60 D. L. True and Harvey Crew
"-
'"">
IOUIOUE
..,,..--'
I
,.,)
"' ......
{'.>
I
\
-\
\
\
\
I
z I
I
lLJ
U
l ,
0 \
I
(
U '\
IJ...
<, [J
U I?/o (
LOA \
\
CL
)
PELUN (
(
SAN PEDRO l..

"'-

TAMBILLO
30 KM
t TULAN

Map 1. Northern Chile showing sites of early lithic types.
Tara/lOco 2A
.. SITE TR2
ARTIFACT
~
~ CONCENTRATION
CD SITE 2A
36 M
Map 2. Sites Tarapaca 2 and 2A.

D. L. True and Harvey Crew
62
NOT TO SCALE
0::'i'~'~''t~+ i:~~C+ S :::~:~~jU.Ttti)i;!:i:) ~~:~.

.---r
J{/b~~:~:
::: >:::: : :~: :. : '. :..:.. : ..... ... -. . '. . ..... .. -. ..' --. :. -. - . . : .... : . : ......;.: . :-'.. : . . . . . . . . . -.
FLOO R? _____ .,,,,,,,.,. ___ e_ *"..",.-------
Figure 1. Profile of Site Tarapaca 2A.

Tarapaca 2A 63
Excavation of the Site
Examination of the site revealed a shallow deposit of windblown sand and residual silts not exceeding
25 to 30 cm. in depth . The sandy deposit overlies a dense rock-like caliche layer which seems to underlie
a large part of this region. When left in place as a subsurface deposit, the upper portion of the caliche is
often altered into a layer of fine dust-like powder. In some cases, such alteration may be a byproduct of
the occupancy of the site where it forms an intermediate layer between the windblown sand and the
underlying caliche. Figure I illustrates the nature of this relationship at Tarapaca 2A .
The presence of bone and shell fragments on the surface of the site suggested use other than as a
workshop, and it seemed probable that excavation would be worthwhile. In planning this excavation two
-things were apparent:
1. Tm( shallowness of the soil meant that no deep cultural deposit would be likely, so that
vertical control would have to be carefully maintained,
2. Meaningful relationships within the site-should any exist-were more likely to be in terms
of spatial rather than vertical distributions. The time dimension was likely to be reasonably
short, and differences, if any were discernible, would be in terms of tool kit or activity loci
definition within the site . The likelihood of recovering meaning/it! relationships of this kind
seemed extremely remote, but a conservative excavation strategy was initiated directed
toward this end.
A square 6 m. on a side was staked out over the central portion of the site and gridded into 11/2 X 11/2
m. units. Excavation was primarily with a soft brush, with occasional use of a whisk broom. Use of the
trowel was limited to moving the deposit after it had been examined in place . After this initial
examination, all of the loose deposit was sifted through a lI8-inch screen.
The deposit was removed in 4-cm. levels over the entire block . The integrity of each 11/2 m. grid unit
was maintained for recording purposes, but the entire surface was excavated to the 4-cm . level before
any penetration into the next level was permitted. After each of these layers was removed, the entire
surface was brushed and examined for features or other significant elements in situ . This procedure was
initiated simply to preserve horizontal relationships which might otherwise be missed in the digging
process.
By the time the 8-cm . level was completed and brushed, discolorations in the sand were visible. At
the to-cm. level several of these discolored areas were identifiable as concentrations of refuse with a
high organic content. The upper 8-10 cm. of deposit in general appeared to be a more or less
homogeneous mixture of windblown sand, chipping waste, occasional artifacts, and bone fragments until
the above-mentioned discolorations appeared . In retrospect, it was apparent that the concentration of
these various elements was in fact highest in the areas overlying the discolorations, and that those units
with the smallest area of "refuse" in the lower levels also had the lowest frequency of artifacts in the
upper level. By the time the 10-cm. level had been cleared and brushed, remnants of floor-like surfaces
were exposed at several locations within the areas of refuse concentration. Figure 2 shows the
distribution of these refuse concentrations and floor-like surfaces within the grid . Figure 3 illustrates the
relationship between the various component elements in the deposit.
The floor-like surfaces consisted of a mixture of sand and ground-up organic material cemented
together as if it had been wet. This may have been the result of living activities and whatever moisture
might have spilled onto the ground. It may have been a deliberate wetting process designed to
consolidate the powdery subsurface resulting from traffic over the upper surface of the caliche layer, or it
could have been a byproduct of animal urine. Unfortunately, these floor-like surfaces were badly
fragmented and could not be recovered completely. Enough of the distribution was discernible ,
however, so that it is possible to say that the hardened surfaces correlate with the concentrations of
refuse and the several fireplaces or hearth areas located in the excavations. It seemed likely at the time
that each of these represented a specific camp location. After the fragmented surfaces were removed and
TRENCH
A-A A 8 c
PIT
1-1
REFUSE CONCENTRATIONS
FLOOR SURFACES
1.5 METERS
1 C-14 SAMPLE 101
2 FISH CACHE
3 C 14 SAMPLE 100
Figure- 2. Floors and refuse co ncentrations , Site Tarapaca 2A.

Tarap(l ccI 2A 65
SIDEWALL PROFILES
AA ' A A . ,. ,
N EA S T WALL E
. ... ..': . - ....;:

BH
w WEST TO NORTH WAL L

C ) B ,) A') A'A .) N
S I DEWALL PRO FI L ES C ENTER BLOCK
. .~.. .....1SANO
1.......
'.
NORTH TO EAS T WAL L AND
A RTIFACTS
~. ,. ,,~
D RE F USE
B' B2 B2 f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~] CA LI CH E
7 5 eM
Figure 3. Profi les, Site Tara r aca 2A .

p
b
I
Figure 4. Chipped stone artifacts, Site Tarapaca 2A . (Scale equals 2.7 em.)
Tarapaca 2A 67
the excavations were extended below the lO-cm. level, it became apparent-or more so-that the
organic elements in this midden were concentrated in pockets and that the surrounding sand was nearly
sterile . Almost all artifacts recovered from beneath the floor level were associated with the areas of
increased organic content and fireplaces . In most units, the sterile sub-base was reached by the 20-cm.
level. In a few cases the cultural material penetrated deeper than this, but for all practical purposes the
deposit overall was less than 20 cm . deep. In those cases where it exceeded 20 cm ., it is possible that the
underlying subsoil was hollowed out to form a kind of saucer-shaped depression. There was no evidence
that this was done deliberately-as in a house construction-but it is possible that the activities of the
occupants churned the soft altered sub-base into dust and that it was removed as a nuisance. In the
course of the excavations, a center block was left intact long enough to record the sidewall profiles as
they were exposed . These profiles, plus those marking the outer perimeter, are illustrated in Figure 3.
Artifacts
The artifacts recovered from Tarapaca 2A have been subjected to two independent kinds of analyses.
In the first, a rather detailed lithic analysis was made with an emphasis upon the mode of manufacture
(Crew, n.d.). The second analysis was a more traditional evaluation, with the artifacts categorized on the
basis of formal attributes, assumed function, and a variety of manufacturing and dimensional
characteristics. The categories tend to follow those used in previous studies of Tarapaca sites to provide
maximum comparability of the preceramic sites in this region (True, Nunez and Nunez 1970; True,
Nunez and Nunez 1971; True and Matson 1970; and True and Gildersleeve, this volume) .
In the second analysis the artifacts were separated initially into two general groupings: lithic artifacts
and non-lithic artifacts. All of the stone artifacts that could be assigned to a more specific category were
further sub-divided into four large groups:
I. Pecked and battered stone artifacts (ground stone)
2. Chipped stone artifacts, unifacial
3. Chipped stone artifacts, bifacial
4. Chipped stone artifacts, special categories.
Each of these general groupings was then sorted into additional sub-divisions based on more specific
criteria (See Appendix, this volume, p. 213) . Artifacts in each category believed to be of special interest
are described in greater detail. .
Bevel-Edged Cobble (PI. 1a)
Thjs artifact has been reworked and represents at least two kinds of tools . In the first instance, it was
a flattish cobble 130 mm . in length by about 100 mm. in width. One edge had been pecked to form a
sharpened (narrowed) contact surface. The flat edge angle and the general dullness of this edge
precludes effective use as a chopping tool. It appears that it was a pounding tool of some kind.
Substantial portions of the two flat surfaces appear to have been polished through wear or handling.
These smoothed areas were examined with a microscope but no directional striations could be detected.
After the initial shaping and use, several large flakes were removed along one edge and part of the
other, transforming the artifact into what would be classified as a kind of unifacial cobble chopper ,
cortex-based scraper plane, or both. Wear facets on what would be a planar surface suggest the latter
possibility, although there is little evidence supporting its use as a chopping tool.
<:>
C
Figure 5. Characteristic point types .

\) I II/gu , most likely the same point type Chi lean archaeologists call PI/rtjlica. B) !-Iuara fa/ICfed , a local
dc\ ign; lti on for this type . No attempt was made to fmc! Andean co unterparts though th e form is
\\i despn::;ld and occurs in parts of th e Grea t Basin in North America . C) !-II/am sfelllmed, a loca l
dC'iign; lti()n for a widespread Andean for m. Further studies arc needed to determine its tim e place ment.
I)) III/ura S ((,III II/ed, Iri(/c . E) III/(Iracil/o hi/IOilll, IOGII designati o n for a form apparentl y widely di st ribut ed
in Northern Chile and parts of Peru . One might call thi s " Tulan " ex ce pt th at Tulan itself has not been
detine d ;Ind refers less to a point type th ;ln to a pi;lce that yields va ri o us artifact fo rms . F) Soral/olleur
\/;u/ J('(/. COI/I 'e.\ hase, a heavy somewhat crude knik form fo und in several co nt ex ts in Chile and pl'obably
di-;tributed through o ut the Andes . (j) S()I'OI/al I('al \ /iuJled. Jloilllcd hose, sa me as preceding except less
L'O Illm (1n .
Tarapaca 2A 69
Projectile Points
This category refers to thinned biface implements with conventionalized forms . Since there is a thin
line between artifacts believed to be projectile points and cutting tools with similar forms, the distinction
here is admittedly arbitrary . In some cases multi-purpose usage was probably the norm . The named
rrojectile point forms here follow the categories proposed by True, N ufiez and N ufiez (1971 :414-415),
where forms overlap with those found in the workshop sites. In almost every case these are local
designations for forms known to have a wide distribution in the Andean region . The designations are
taken from local place names. lIl/ga , for example , is almost certainly the same as the Puripica points
described in the literature for the region at large. However, until systematic. comparisons can be made
between the two groups of artifacts it seems best not to confuse the issue by proclaiming the presence of
this named type here in Tarapaca . Except ' for the Huara-tapered point forms (PI. 6e), no further
comment seems necessary here.
Projectile Point, Huara-tapered (PI. 6e~ Fig. 4b)
Two specimens were identified in the Tarapaca 2A assemblage. Both are broken , although one is
complete enough to estimate dimensions with some accuracy. These are roughly leaf-shaped form s with
a tapered body and a rounded base. Very similar artifacts have been reported from the Plateau and
Great Basin regions in North America by Warren and Ranare, where they are designated Haskett-like
points (1968: 10). Artifacts in this grouping are pressure-flaked or finished with very . well- controlled
percussion flaking. One specimen in the 2A collection has a missing tip. Examination of the break
suggests that it might have been deliberately fragmented . There is further evidence that the resulting
platform was used to remove a longitudinal flake from one side of the point. This appears to have been
an unsuccessful attempt to remove a fluting flake. This may be of some importance, since several
artifacts in this assemblage have been modified in a similar manner.
Knives
This category refers to thinned bifaces with conventionalized forms believed to have functioned as
cutting tools . All specimens were examined with a microscope for evidence of wear. Unfortunately , the
majority has been subjected to light sandblasting and all evidence of striations or wear facets has been
obliterated. As with the projectile points, there is some question of mUlti-purpose function and
identification of function in some instances. The named types follow those proposed by True, Nunez
and Nunez (1971:414), and are local place names. As with the projectile points, the described and
named forms almost certainly represent local versions of forms and types with wide distributions in the
Andean regions. Figure 5 provides some additional data on these forms and relationships.
Elongate Biface, Modified
This is a roughly blocked out form with a heavy cross- section. There is some secondary flaking and
edge modification suggesting possible use as a knife. Two fragmentary specimens are included.
Ovate Biface
These are four roughly blocked out forms that appear to be blanks or knife rejects. They are similar
in manufacture and form to heavy ovate bifaces described from the workshop sites along the Pampa
Vl
C
0
c..
"'=
~
~
~~
~

:l:
y
:.;
2
:J
.::::
Vl :J
g :.;
.::- .2
c .0
0 E
:<:
0..
t-
-.D 0
2 :.;
:J
~
~
'"0
c
;0
"or.
'"'C
~
:2
.~
:J
~
~
C
~
'-
:;
...c
'r
.r;
,
Tarapaca 2A 71
Tamarugal (True, Nunez, and Nunez 1971) but are somewhat smaller. The long dimension of the
largest specimen in the present sample is only 81 mm . There is minimal retouching or secondary
shaping.
Heavy Discoidal Biface (PI. 3s: Fig. 4f)
This category includes two artifacts often designated as light choppers or heavy knives. There is little
indication of use , but one specimen (Tr. 2A-334) was modified with the removal of a large flake from
one surface after it had been completed (Levalloisian core ?) .
Flake Discs (PI. 4i-k)
These are small roughly discoidal flakes , shaped by snapping off the margins to form the disc. Usually
they are unmodified except for this trimming but four specimens have been previously worked over at
least one surface and appear to be flakes struck from finely finished bifaces.
Segmented Thinned Bifaces (PI. 5a-e, Fig. 4d,e)
These are fifteen fragments of deliberately broken points or knives (Huara-stemmed ?) . The original
artifacts were finely made, usually of basalt, and it is unlikely that they were broken by accident. Both
lateral and longitudinal breaks are present. In several instances burin-like edges are present (see also
Crew, this volume) .
In conjunction with the foregoing categorization of the 2A artifacts, it must be stressed that the
groupings are intuitive and arbitrary. This is especially true for the lithic artifacts , and relationships
between many of the suggested groupings and any presumed function may well be in error. For
categories designated projectile points or knives (Huara-stemmed, Tambillo Triangular, etc.), no real
problem exists and it is assumed that the groupings in these cases do reflect some level of cultural
reality. On the other hand, differences between heavy flake scrapers, flake scrapers, scraper planes ,
domed scrapers, and irregular domed scrapers, etc. , are difficult to quantify and document in any
meaningful way. In some cases there may well have been cultural factors at work influencing the
development of these implements, and some quite specific variations in form or size may have been
dictated by convention. Under such circumstances and assuming proper recognition of the
conventionalized categories, a more elaborate typology of the form differences would be useful. In the
present context, however, this is not at all clear and the various categories proposed are at best tenuous.
In many cases it seems nearly certain that a continuum of forms represents varying stages of
development within a single generalized tool category. Sharpening and other functional modifications
would have an effect on artifact size and degree of finish even though no specific conventions for these
two attributes were present. In short, style, which is the critical source of diagnostic attributes for most
artifact analysis, is seemingly not a factor in many of the Tarapaca 2A artifacts (scrapers and possible
planing tools) . Hence any meaningful differences, if they are to be isolated, will have to be identified on
the basis of nonstylistic criteria. In the Appendix (p. 213), the emphasis is on general categories of tools
rather than specific forms within such classes. Hence relationships and relative frequency of cutting
tools, scraping tools, and projectiles within and between sites may be more realistic at this stage of our
knowledge than attempts to deal with poorly defined intuitive typological categories based on specific
formal characteristics. We think it worthwhile to attem pt such typological descriptions as part of the
overall analysis, but see this latter re-ordering as more useful and consistent with analyses based on
manufacturing techniques and method. It is our contention that general shifts in technology,
subsistence, and cultural orientation should be detectable with this level of analysis, and that attempts to
deal with finer and more specific developments will be more successful after these general outlines have
been established.
Some additional comment on the nature of the 2A artifacts is presented in the following section.
Artifact Discussion
The artifacts described above are of interest for several reasons, the first being the large number and
variety of artifacts recovered from this very small site (tess than 8 cubic meters of deposit was
examined), including several that, so far, are unique. Although 22 preceramic camps were examined as
part of the Tarapaca investigations (along with some 40 to 50 sites belonging to the ceramic-using
agricultural phases) the assemblage at 2A is not exactly duplicated anywhere in this immediate region.
There is duplication in some leaf-shaped knives or projectiles and in some generalized scraper forms in
some sites. There is no duplication (so fad of the broad Huara-stemmed point anywhere else in the
Tarapaca sequence. The point designated Huara-tapered (point type 18) is likewise unreported for this
region. Saw-edged flakes (PI. 4g, h), and flake discs (PI. 4i-k), are not yet described for any other site in
the area at large.
A second area of interest is the large number of artifacts that have been reworked. Two factors are
noted here. First, a substantial number of well-made bifacially-flaked projectile points (or knives) were
deliberately broken and segmented, presumably for the purpose of making some different kind of tool.
In several instances burin blows were involved and the manufacture of burin-like edges may have been
the goal. Second, in a number of these cases the reworked specimens (fragmented and segmented
projectile points or knives) were subjected to blows designed to produce flute-like scars (see PI. 7h) .
This fluting, in several instances, produced gouge-like cutting surfaces. These curved cutting edges were
produced on several different kinds of artifacts, but in every case they involved reworking some pre-
existing artifact rather than direct manufacture from scratch . The fluting attempts were not always
successful and several artifacts in this assemblage display fractures and flake scars that are the
byproducts of efforts that went awry . Presumably these were discarded as rejects.
Reworking existing artifacts is not unusual, and reworked specimens can be found in almost any lithic
assemblage. What is unique here is the large number of reworked elements and the rather systematic
segmentation and reworking that seems to have been practiced. Further, all of the reworked pieces were
deliberately broken specimens of finely-made artifacts. This was not a case, then, of reshaping projectiles
that were broken in use, or resharpel1ing edges that had become dulled , or salvaging a tool by reshaping
its point or whatever. Extremely fine specimens of bifacially-flaked knives or points were reduced to
gravers, burins and other tool forms in a systematic way. It is almost as if one group of people with a
particular technological orientation had camped over a location already containing the finely
manufactured bifaces and simply used them as a source of raw material for their own purposes. The
biface projectile point/knife forms were almost certainly part of a life way where hunting was an
important oriemation. In contrast, the tools produced as a result of the modifications (burins, gravers,
gouges etc.) seem to be part of a tool kit we might associate with wood working, manipulation of bone,
hide or whatever. In short, there is a distinct possibility that the inventory from 2A represents at least
two separate assemblages from clearly different periods of time . This is a possibility worth further
consideration and will be discussed in another context below.
A third area of discussion concerns the distribution of some of the more diagnostic forms over the
area at large . A reasonable survey of the literature supports the contention that many of the 2A
elements are unique to this site (or at least have not yet been re ported for the general area). Other
elements are so generalized that their presence or absence does not yet have any real meaning in this
kind of comparison (generalized scrapers, etc.) . One artifact in this assemblage that seems useful in a
Tarapaca 2A 73
distribution study is the projectile point designated Huara-stemmed. Both forms of this (types 6 and 7)
have been reported in adjacent regions in contexts which may be of some importance in evaluating the
Tarapaca material.
One such circumstance is found in the material Le Paige calls Tambillo (Le Paige 1964:27; see also
Pis. 49 through 53). This site is located in the Atacama region on the east side of the Salar. A
description of the artifacts from Tambillo is presented by Kaltwasser (963). The Tambillo assemblage
includes a variety of point types and knives, scrapers, and other lithic tools that are not unlike some of
those recovered at 2A. For the most part, however, these are forms that are replicated in several
preceramic contexts in Northern Chile. In fact, it seems likely, based on the evidence now accumulated
at Tarapaca, that Tambillo, as described by Kaltwasser, is a mixed lot and includes more than one period
of time or more than one cultural unit. Kaltwasser's Point Type 1 (PI. I, Figs. 1-3) is what we think a
Tambillo point should look like. His Type 2 point may correspond to our Huara-stemmed although it
appears that the workmanship is somewhat less refined (PI. I, Figs. 5, 6). If these two forms are
accepted as typical of Tambillo and of Tarapaca 2 and 2A, it is possible to identify several other localities
where "Tambillo type" material can be recognized. Referring back to Le Paige (964), artifacts from
several sites are illustrated which seem to be similar to the Tambillo types. For example, some of the
artifacts from La Cueva de la Damiana IV are quite similar in general outline (ibid: 187, PI. 91). Several
of the forms from Zuniquena potrero are clearly part of the same tradition (ibid: 173, PI. 77), as are
points recovered from Alto de Tocolen (ibid: 155, PI. 59) . The triangular form from Tambillo is
represented in the assemblage from Pelun (ibid:153, PI. 57), and from Tulan (ibid: 134, PI. 38). Tulan
also includes a stemmed form very much like those from 2A.
Figure 6 (this paper) illustrates the two diagnostic forms referred to in the discussion above. At the
present time it seems most sensible to identify the short stubby triangular form as a diagnostic Tambillo
element, and to see the Huara-stemmed form as a sometimes-associated point that mayor may not
belong with the Tambillo complex per se. Orellana 0965:87-89) describes Tambillo-like material from
sites near the confluence of the rios Saldao and Loa. As with the Atacama sites mentioned above, the
short triangular form with a contracting stem is accompanied at these sites by a stemmed form similar to
the Huara-stemmed point from 2A.
This relationship is consistent with the circumstances along the quebrada Tarapaca, except that at
Tarapaca the two forms are found as part of two discrete assemblages. The angular form (Fig. 6a, b), is
clearly associated with concentrations within the larger space designated Tarapaca 2, but is not found in
the assemblage at 2A. Conversely, Huara-stemmed forms were found in the 2A refuse but were not
found in any other part of Tarapaca 2. The two forms, then, are mutually exclusive, but at the same
time appear to be part of some larger camping area. The general spatial relationships between Site 2 and
2A is presented in Map 2.
Looking to the north, Ravines (1967: Pis. 26, 27) illustrates similar forms from the Abrigo de Caru
in Southern Peru. A discussion of other finds in the same area includes examples of points (knives ?)
that are similar to the triangular Tambillo and the Huara-stemmed forms (see Ravines 1967, Pis. 30-32).
Artifacts similar to the Huara-stemmed points were found in Peru near Ichuna (Menghin and
Schroeder 1957:47). It is possible that Lynch's "stemmed point with projecting shoulders and triangular
blade" found at Guitarrero Cave in Northern Peru is similar to the Huara-stemmed points from 2A (see
Lynch and Kennedy 1970:Fig. 1e.).
Analysis of debitage recovered from the 2A excavation provides additional information believed to be
of some importance. The following resume seen in conjunction with the Appendix provides the essence
of this part of our data.
1. Few cores were recovered and virtually no blades. Those cores that were examined along
with a large number of flakes suggest a flake-based industry.
2. Flakes examined here were sorted into three basic forms:
a. retouch flakes from bifaces finished by pressure-flaking.
74 D . L. True and Harvey Crew
b. retouch flakes made by hard or soft hammer percussion .

c. retouch flakes from steep-sided scrapers.
3. A predominance of retouch flakes b indicates considerable modification of biface preforms
on the site.
4. These preforms were probably carried in and not manufactured on the spot. This is based on
a general lack of waste flakes in the refuse.
5. Most flakes (70%) are those associated with biface modification (a and b) and the remainder
(30%) are those associated with scraping tools (c) .
6. The distribution of this debitage within the site is considered significant. The fine retouch
flakes associated with point and knife manufacture (or resharpening) tend to be
predominant in the lower levels (deeper than 10 cm). The scraper retouch flakes are more
common in the upper 10 cm. Additional discussion of this relationship is included in the
concluding section below.
In short, the lack of a large proportion of waste to retouch flakes at 2A suggests that most of the
manufacturing activities responsible for the tools recovered at this site must have taken place elsewhere.
Since raw material is easily obtained locally, this cannot be attributed to scarcity of material and must be
due to other factors .
A comparison of frequency of tool types with each of the retouch flake categories suggests that
scrapers here were less often modified than were bifaces (18 scrapers and 85 bifaces were examined
representing 18 and 82 percent of the totals) . The small sample size from the lower levels is a matter of
concern , and the results must be qualified on this account. Nevertheless, these distributions, when seen
in conjunction with other lithic and non-lithic sources of information , seem to be significant. Debitage
concentrations correlate spatially with distributions of faunal material as well as with the areas of highest
organic content in the deposit.
Non-Artifact Resources from the Tarapaca 2A Excavations
Plant Remains
Remains from several species of plants were recovered from the living floors and occasional pockets
of partially decomposed refuse. Because of their fragmentary nature, most of these bits and pieces are
unidentifiable. However, tentative identifications were made for a few specimens. These are described
below.
1. Several small fragments have been identified as totora by the local workmen (Scirpus totora). This
rush or tule-like plant still grows in wet locations in the adjacent quebrada. The identification here is
tentative, however, since the term totora may refer to anyone of several similar plants (Typha, etc.).
2. Two seeds and one charred seed pod have been identified as Prosopis. Two species are represented:
Algarrobo (Prosopis julijfora) , and Tamarugal (Prosopis tamarugo) . Both species are found in the region
today and certainly have been part of the environment for several thousands of years. Several twigs and
small wood fragments may also be Prosopis but they have not been identified specifically.
Tarapaca 2A 75
Animal Remains
Animal remains recovered during the investigations at Tarapaca 2A have not yet been studied in
detail, but several analyses are in progress. Enough preliminary work has been done so that a few
categories can be identified and some comment is possible. Mammal, bird and fish remains have been
identified as follows:
l. Mammalian remains from Tarapaca 2A:
The most obvious and common of all animal remairis were represented by bone and bone
fragments from a large mammal presumed to be guanaco (Lama guanicoe). These were
scattered over the site with the heaviest concentrations occurring in the upper 10 cm. of the
deposit. A total of 10.76 kg . of large mammal bone was recovered . It is assumed that the vast
majorty of this is Lama, although many of the fragments are too small for positive
identification and an occasional deer bone fragment may be included . Out of this total, 5.49
kg . were definitely identified as Lama . Slightly less than 1 kg. of this identified bone was
burned, suggesting cooking or some association with camp fires. A very tentative and
preliminary analysis of these bones suggests that the most common elements are foot bones;
limb bone fragments are quite rare. For Tarapaca 2A this distribution is tentative . For the
nearby site of Tarapaca 14A (with many similar cultural elements) it has been documented
with a considerable degree of reliability (Simons, this volume). An evaluation of butchering
practices or other factors that might bear upon this distribution is not possible at the present
time, but will be included in the final report on this material. Table 1 presents the distribution
of large animal bone within the site. Evidence other than bone from large mammals is
confined to tufts of wool and animal hair; 11 of 16 excavated units contained some hair or
wool remains. In most instances there is less than one-tenth of a gram of wool in each unit,
and quantification is unlikely to be meaningful. The fiber has been identified as Lama, based
on microscopic examination of hairshaft cross-sections. The results need to be verified with a
larger sample, however, and the present identification is tentative. Colors range from very
light brown to light brown and often have a yellowish cast. No small mammal remains were
recovered from Tarapaca 2A.
2. Bird remains from Tarapaca 2A :
Bird bone is rare and was recovered from only one unit (Trench C, Pit 2, 10-io cm). The
sample is limited to four small and as yet unidentified fragments 0.2 g.). Feathers were
recovered from six units. Although none of these have been identified, it seems that at least
three or four different birds are represented, one of which is almost certainly a coastal species.
Detailed analysis of the feathers from this and other sites in the region is in progress.
3. Fish remains from Tarapaca 2A:
Fish bone was recovered from 8 of the 16 excavated units (Table 2 provides distributional
and some dimensional data on these specimens). Because no comparative material is available
from this region, specific identification has not been attempted. All are clearly Teleost fishes
and all are of marine origin. Chilean workmen present at the time the material was excavated
identified some of these as "Corvina" but this must be seen as a very general categorization.
All of the remains discussed so far are represented by vertebral centra, and with few
exceptions the size of the fish must have been substantial (Casteel 1970, personal
communication). Casteel (972) reports a positive correlation between vertebral width and
fish weight. No calculations have been made for this specific material so far, but it is likely
that fishes as much as five feet in length are represented in this sample. Casteel (this volume)
reports two additional vertebral centra recovered from Trench B, Pit 3, 10-20 cm. This latter
m aterial was taken from a microanalysis study of a small unsorted refuse and soil sample
tak e n fr om that unit. Besides the skeletal elements described above, a small cache of wh o le
dried fi s h was found in Trench A , Pit 2 ,00-20 cm). These fish were in an advan ced stage of
decomposition and could not be recovered intact. Portions of the bony head structure were
salvaged. The cache consisted of not less than five small fish some 8-10 cm . in length . Th ey
we re located immediately under a thin but compact surface consisting of vegetable fiber and
re main s of trampled plant materials mixed with water-hardened midden deposit. Figure 1
shows the relationship of thi s cache to the rest of the site and its position in the deposit.
4. Shellfish re mains from Tarapad 2A:
Shell was recovered from all of the 16 excava ted units. Four shells made up the majorit y of
t he sa mple (Choromytillls, COl1choleplIs, Chiton and Protothaca). One barnacle was recove red
from o ne unit , and a small fragm e nt of a sea urchin from a nother. Seve ral small e r fragments
of s hell co uld not be ide ntified . See Table 3.
Discussion of Nonartifactual Resources
From the ev ide nce cited above it is poss ible to make several statem e nts about the area, the resources
available for use in prehistoric time s, and th e nature of the reso urce ex plo itation by the occupa nt s of th e
area at th e tim e site TarapaGI 2A was occupied. These a re tentative state m e nts, and are su bj ect to
rev is io n as res ult s from more complete a nalyses of thi s m aterial are ob tained.
I. Ce rtain ly Prosollis was present in th e area at the tim e the s it e was occ upied . This means th a t the
wa ter reso urces within th e quebrada a nd adjacent sa lar were probably co mpa ra ble to th ose of th e present
day. Th is would be sufficient to account for the specific plant rema in s recovered at 2A .
2. Th e prese nce of small twigs in the site refuse similar to specimens identified by the workmen as
" forage a nd firew ood " also suggests si milar conditions within the adjacent quebrad a. N o s pecific
id e ntificati o n has been made for these specimens but some are a lmost certainly Saltbush (Atriplex sp.).
3. The m os t common vege table reso urce in the refuse was a can e-like plant identified by the
workmen as toto ra. Thi s is usually associated with wet bog-lik e a reas o r s tanding water. It is proposed
the n that the strea m in the Quebrada Tarapad at that time reached this far down stream . Substantial
amounts of tofOra had been trample n into tiny fragments.
4. A relativel y large amount of bone tentatively identified as Lama was recove red ; this is almost
certainly guanaco (Lama gll(lnicoe) (over 1000 pieces were reco vered) . Even con sidering that many
pieces are fragmented and represent the smaller bones rather than the larger ones, it is almost certain
that rem ai n s of several animals are included (D. Simons, perso nal communication, 1972) . Guanaco-
hunting at thi s location must have been seasonal and part of a seasonal round which included utili za tion
of highl and reso urces for at least part of the year.
5. Re lat io ns hips with the highl and reg ion s are also indicated by the presence of long thorns from cacti
which do no t grow at the lower elevations (see PI. Sk) .
6. Additional evidence for highland re lation ships is found in similar projectile point types recovered
from seasonal camps in highland contexts (L. Nunez , personal communication , 1967).
7. Re la ti ons hips between T a ra pad 2A and the coast are indicated by fish bone and shell fo und in this
site as we ll as by the presence of fe athers from coastal birds (probably cormorants). This relationship is
corroborated by s imilarities in lithic artifacts reported from the earlier levels at Pisagua Viejo by Nunez
(L. Nunez, pe rso nal communication , 1967), and by artifacts recovered at Punta Pich alo by Bird (1943).
Tarapaca 2A 77
In sum, it seems reasonable to suggest that the site Tarapaca 2A was a short-term stopover camp and
was part of a subsistence pattern or patterns involving coastal as well as highland resources . The
evidence for such relationships is certainly present. The question at this point is related to the specific
circllmstal/ces of these relationships over some substantial period of time. The following discussion
proposes one hypothesis relative to this question.
Conclusions
When the results of the investigations at Tarapac,i 2A are evaluated with respect to data from the
other sites in the immediate area, several relationships become apparent that justify some additional
comment:
One of the most obvious relationships is between the larger site Tarapac,i 2 and the individual locus
designated 2A. Because of a consistent association in several parts of Northern Chile, it seems almost
certain that the two clearly different point types found on 2 and 2A are part of some larger related
cultural pattern . The I/afllre of the relationship itself is not clear, and there is no way to say which of the
two forms is earlier or later than the other. In every case where the two forms have been reported for
the Atacama region they are found together in a mixed assemblage . One important facet of the site 2A
data here is the demonstration that these two forms are separable and are not always part of a mixed
assemblage of some kind. The assemblage at 2A contained the leaf-shaped stemmed point (Huara-
stemmed) but did 1/01 include a single specimen of the angular form (Tambillo). In contrast, the
collections from Site 2 did not turn up a single specimen of the Huara-stemmed form , but did include
severa l of the angular Tambillo form s. Because this separation is demonstrated here so clearly, it is
possible to discuss the 2A artifacts and situation without involving the Tambillo artifacts found at Site 2.
These two artifact forms in fact may represent very different kinds of adaptations.
The deposit at 2A is characterized by the presence of several distinct concentrations of refuse and
artifacts which suggest occupation by several groups (families), This could have been an occupancy by
one family group over a period of several years (or centuries), or by several families all at the same
time. Either of these circumstances could account for the distribution of the refuse in the site and the
floor-like surfaces associated with each refuse concentration. Examination of the artifacts and
radiocarbon dates, however, supports the proposition that the deposit here was the byproduct of a very
small group utilizing the location intermittently over a long period of time . That these may have been
hunting parties rather than family groups must also be considered.
The basic diagnostic point type in the 2A assemblage is the leaf-shaped stemmed form designated
Huara-stemm ed. This point was almost certainly used by people with a hunting orientation for. hunting
guanaco. This general assumption is supported by the available data from the area at large, and by its
association in Site 2A with substantial amounts of guanaco bone. Although it is not yet possible to
obtain direct and specific identification of guanaco based only on skeletal material, radiocarbon dates
obtained from charcoal in two different fire pits suggest that the initial occupancy here was at least 5000
radiocarbon years ago (GAK 3895:5250 :. 340; GAK 2205 :5970 ::: 120); at this early date it is unlikely
that we are dealing with domesticated llam a .
A st riking characteristic of the Huara-stemmed points from Site 2A is the extremely fine
workmanship manifested in all of the recovered specimens. These may, in fact, be the finest examples
of worked basa lt either author has ever seen . It is obvious, in any case, that the makers of these artifacts
were not engaged in any haphazard or casual activity . It seems logical, then, that such tools would have
had considerable value, an assumption that is inconsistent with another aspect of the Site 2A
asse mblage, and which suggests an internal relationship not evident in the stratigraphy.
At least three artifact categories in this asse mblage are made of reworked portions of Huara-stemmed
points. That such pains would be taken to make such a fine point just to break it up seems unlikely .
Howe ve r, the breakage was not accidental, and was seemingly systematic and methodical.
78 D . L. True and Harvey Crew.
Since this pattern of behavior appeared to us to be inconsistent and illogical, the possibility that two
different groups had occupied this same location separated by some considerable period of time was
suggested. This is proposed below in a somewhat tenuous hypothesis:
a. At some point in time between 5000 and 6000 years ago, Site 2A was occupied on a
temporary basis by a small band of hunters seeking guanaco. This was but one of severa l
camps utili zed by the band or hunting party in a seasonal round that exte nded from the
coast at Pisagua Viejo to the upland regions in the Chilean Andes.
b. The Huara-stemmed point type was part of the tool kit of these people , along with some
generalized leaf-shaped knives and several scrapers. They made beads out of the top of the
Limpet shell, modified the Choro shell either as ornaments or as some kind of tool, and
almost certainly made flakers and awls out of Lama bone . Shellfish were collected but must
not have been a significant part of the diet, at least during this part of th e round.
c. Some 1500 or so years later this same locality was re-occupied. It seems likely that the
people using the camp in both instances were all part of the same cultural pattern but that
there was a change in subsistence orientation through the years, and th e second (or later)
occupants were not especially focused on hunting activi ties . The exact natu re of this new
s ubsistence base or what happened in the interim is not clear, but th e Site 2A camp must
have been used as a stopover camp by people on the way to the highlands or from the
highlands to the coast. In sum, we suggest that the tools associated with the artifact
segmenting process (second occupancy) were made by travelers rather than hunters per se.
It seems quite clear that two different orientations are represented in this refuse. There is
evidence in the chipping waste distributions that supports this contention . The majority of
the fine retouch flakes representing the byproducts of point and knife manufacture came
from the lower portion of the deposit. The steep scraper retouch flakes are, in contrast,
more common in the upper portions of the refuse . This seems to suggest that the Huara
points were made during the earlier occupancy and that the majority of the steep angled
scrapers were made (or sharpened) during the later occupancy. Further, except for a single
fluted gouge, no tools orher rhan b(faces (knives and points) were recovered from the lower
levels of the deposit. This agrees with the lack of scraper retouch flakes in the same levels
and suggests that the scraping tools found on this site were part of some activity not
directly related to those practiced by hunters and gatherers using the H uara points .
Although it is very tentative at this point, there is at least a possibility that the latest occupancy here
was made by peopJe with domesticated llama. The basis for this suggestion is as follows:
a. Microscopic examination of the wool found in the refuse indicates that it is llama rather than
guanaco. However, the sample is small, and we are not certain that the differences in hair
structure are definitive, so the identification is still tentative.
b. The refuse itself is not unlike that which would result from the tethering and feeding of the
animals. The floor-like features or surfaces overlay the majority of the artifacts (certainly the
Huara points), fireplaces, and other cultural debris. This is the reverse of the normal
situation where one expects to find the artifacts superimposed on the living surface. The
hardened surfaces then may have been habitation floors for the later occupancy or they
could have been the byproduct of animals tethered adjacent to the camp, which because of
its very temporary duration, did not result in the development of any recognizable features .
The floor-like features described for several parts of the site are typical of hardened surfaces
produced in this region when water is added to a mixture of sand, macerated organic
material and fine material derived from the underlying caliche layer. A necessary ingredient
is water in one form or another, and it is unlikely that such a surface would form simply as
Tarapaca 2A 79
a result of traffic and consolidation by trampling. Two possibilities are suggested as a source
of this moisture. It was added by the occupants to control the dust and provide a stable
working surface , or it came from urine . To test for the latter, chemical tests were run on
samples of the floor surfaces. These indicated the presence of triple phosphate crystals
which are considered to be clear cut diagnostic evidence of urine . Although possible, it
seems unlikely that the human occupants would urinate in the exact place where they were
sleeping and living. This leads to the speculation that non-human urine is involved. The
tests available to us are unable to discriminate between human and non-human animal
urine based on the crystals alone, so the matter is unresolved.
Since the most recent of the radiocarbon dates obtained for Site 2A was made on wool from Lama,
the time of the last period of occupancy is fairly well defined . This date, if it is reasonably correct,
suggests an occupation and re-utilization of this site as much as 1000 years after it was abandoned by
the hunters res ponsible for the first refuse . Whether or not the llama had been domesticated by 2000
B.C. is a moot question but it seems a possibility . The absence of pottery at the site, coupled with the
radi ocarbon determination clearly place the second phase of occupation well into the B.C. period. The
crux of the matter seems tied to the identification of the hair samples as llama rather than guanaco. If
our tests are correct, the hypothesis seems to have some basis. Further tests with a larger sample should
go a long way toward clarifying these relationships.
If herding or trading peoples with domesticated llama utilized this site as proposed, they did two
things that are critical to the development of the Site 2A midden . First they tethered their animals-
cert ainly not more than three or four head-over almost the exact spot and covering the same space
utilized by the previous occupants. This is a remarkable coincidence, but not impossible. Secondly, they
recovered projectile points left in the refuse by the previous occupants and re-worked them into a new
category of tools : not the tools of hunters, but the tools presumably of people who work wood, bone,
woo l and hide . Because of these rather unusual circumstances, we stress the very tentative nature of this
proposal and recognize that other possibilities must be explored as the research in this area progresses.
The fact that these segmented artifacts and reworked tools seemingly have not been reported from other
sit es either on the coast or in upland contexts is not in itself a serious problem, since it is likely that
they simply have not been recognized. Unless an investigator was versed in the details of lithic
technology or had reason to look for this kind of treatment, most of the artifacts described would have
been treated as broken points or knives and there would be no reason to do anything more than catalog
them as such .
It would be unrealistic to suggest that any of the aforementioned tests or relationships confirm the
hypothesis as proposed, but they do provide the motivation for further tests that, it is hoped, will be
more definitive in nature. We are aware of the alternate possibilities. We are cognizant of a !leed for
many more C-14 determinations, and we realize that what we have described above is a beginning
rather than an end. With this much information in hand, however, and a set of specific data sources to
be examined, we are confident that future work at Tarapaca 2 and 2A will add measurably to our
knowledge of an important era in the Chilean Preceramic.
Tarapaca 2A 81
TARLE 1
DISTRIBUTION OF LARGE MAMMAL BONE
TENTATIVELY IDENTIFIED AS GUANACO (LAMA)
Trench A-A, Pit I-I, 0-10 em.

All Large Mammal Bone (Lama?) 405 .8 grams (468 pieces)
Identified Large Mammal (Lama) 149.4 grams (83 pieces)
Burned Bone (both categories) 87 .9 grams (I35 pieces)
Trench A-A. Pit I-I, 10-20 cm.
All Large Mammal Bone (Lama?) 55.3 grams (126 pieces)
Identified Large Mammal Bone (Lama) 17.8 grams 00 pieces
Burned Bone (both categories) 6.3 grams (I5 pieces)
Trench A-A, Pit 1-1. 20-30 em.
Identified Large Mammal Bone (Lama) 4.8 grams (2 pieces)
Burned Bone (both categories) 1.9 grams (3 pieces)
Trench A-A. Pit I. 0-10 cm.
Trench A-A, Pit I, 10-20 em.
Trench A-A. Pit I, 20-30 cm.
Burned Bone (both categories) 0.3 grams (1 piece)
Trench A-A, Pit 2, 0-10 cm.
Identified Large Mammal Bone (Lama?) 292.6 grams (135 pieces)
Trench A-A , Pit 2, 10-20 cm.
All Large Mammal Bone (Lama?) 98.0 grams (1 18 pieces)
Identified Large Mammal Bone (Lama) 52 .1 grams (29 pieces)
Trench A-A, Pit 2. 20-30 cm.
All Large Mammal Bone (Lama ?) 18.6 grams (38 pieces)
Trench A-A , Pit 3, 0-10 cm.
All Large Mammal Bone (Lama?) 1152 .7 grams (1194 pieces)
Identified Large Mammal Bone ( Lama) 530 .6 grams (238 pieces)
Trcl/ch A-A. Pir 3. IO-]U em.
All Large Mammal Bone (Lama n 199.3 grams (56 pieces*)
Identified Large Mam mal Bone (Lama) 112.4 grams (20 pieces)
Burned Bone (both categories) 5.0 grams (7 pieces')
Trcl/ch A-A. Pir 3. ]O-3U em.
All Large Mammal Bone (Lanw) 43 .8 grams (53 pieces' )
Identilied Large Mam mal Bone (Lama) 12.4 grams (8 pi eces)
Burned Bone (both categories) None
Trcl/ch A . Pirl-I . (I-IOcm.
All Large Mammal Bone (Lama~) 285.2 grams (248 pi eces')
Burned Bon e (be.h categories) 8.1 grams (16 pi eces')
Trcl/ch A . Pir I - I. IO-](} cm.
All Large Mammal Bone (Lama?) 42 .6 grams (65 pieces')
Identified Large Mammal Bone (Lama) 10.8 grams (4 pi eces)
Burned Bone (both categories) 0.8 grams (I piece')
Trel/ch A, Pir I-I. 20-30 em.

None
Trcl/ch A. Pir I , ()-IU em.
All Large Mammal Bone (Lama?) 876.2 grams (949 pieces')
Identified Large Mammal Bone (Lama) 418.6 grams (193 pi eces)
Trench A . Pit I . IU-20 CIIl .
All Large Mammal Bone (Lama?) 113 .0 grams (36 pi eces')
Identified Large Mammal Bone (Lama) 91.6 grams (J 5 pieces)
Treneh A , Pit I, 2U-3U cm.
None
Trel/ch A , Pit 2, 0-10 cm.
Identified Large Mammal (Lama) 279.5 grams (] 19 pieces)
Trel/ch A , Pit 2, IU-2U em.
Burned Bone (both categories) 4.7 grams (J 2 pieces')
Treneh A, Pit 2, 20-3U cm.

All Large Mammal Bone (Lama 1) 68.5 grams (J 02 pieces')
Trench A, Pit 3, 0-10 cm.
All Large Mammal Bone (Lama ?) 247.3 grams (242 pi eces' )
Trench A, Pit 3, 10-20 cm.
None
Tarapaca 2A 83
Trellch A. Pir 3. 20-30 CI1l.
All Large Mammal Bone (Lama ?) 10.3 grams (8 pieces')

Burned Bon e (both categor ies) None
Trrllch B. Pir I-I. 0-10 CIII.
All Large Mammal Bone (Lama n 565.7 grams (840 pieces')

Trellch B. Pi! I-I. 111-]11 CIII.
All Large 1\1,lmmal Bone (Lama n 65.8 grams (82 pieces' )

Identified Large Mamma l Bone (Lama) 18.0 grams (9 pieces)
Trrl1ch B. Pi! I-I. ]11-311 CIII.

Identified Large Mammal Bone ( Lama) 2. 1 grams (I piece)
Burned Bone (both categories) 1.3 grams (I pi ece')
Trrllch B. Pi! I. 0-10 cm.
Trcllch B. Pi! I. 10-]0 CIl1.
None
Trcllch B. Pil ]. 0-10 CIII.
All Large Mammal Bone (Lama?) 1002.2 'grams (619 pieces')

Trrl1ch B. Pir]. 10-]0 cm.
Identified Large Mammal Bone (Lama) 20.9 grams (I6 pieces)
Trench B. Pi! 3. U-IO 1'111.

Id entified Large Mammal Bone (Lama) 537 .2 grams (288 pieces)
Burned Bone (both categories) IliA grams (107 pieces)
Trcllch B. Pi13. I()-]() 1'111.

Identified Large Animal Bone (Lama) 172.6 grams (76 pieces)
Burned Bone (both categories) 18 .9 grams (17 pieces')
Trcllch B. Pir 2. 20-30 cm.
Identified Large Mamm al Bone (Lama) 1.8 grams (4 pieces)
84 D . L. True and Harvey Crew
Trench C. Pit I-I . 0-10 CIl1.
Trel/ch C. Pit I-I. 10-20 CI1l.
All Large Mammal Bone (Lama n 5.9 grams (18 pieces)
Trcl/ch C. Pit I. 0-1 II 1'111.
Ide ntified Large Mammal Bone (Lama) 302.6 grams (91 pi eces)
Trel/ch C. Pit I. IU- 20 cm.
All Large Mammal Bone (Lama?) 62.4 grams (43 pi eces')
Identified Large Mammal Bones (Lama) 34.1 grams (II pi eces)
Trcl/ch C. Pit 2. 0-10 CI11.
Trcl/ch C. Pit 2. IU-20 em.
Identified Large Mammal Bone (Lama) 113 .7 grams (50 pieces)
Burned Bone (both categories) 20 .6 grams (24 pieces)
Trel/ch C. Pit 2. 2U-JU em.
Identified Large Mammal Bone (Lama) 3.3 grams (J piece)
Burned Bone (both categories) 0.8 grams (J piece ')
Trcl/ch C. Pit 3. U-I () ('111.
Trel/ch C. Pit J. 1()-2U em.
All Large Mammal Bone (Lama) 35.0 grams (30 pieces')
Sur/ace
Total Large Mammal Bone from Site (Lama?) 10,766.2 grams (10 .76 kilograms)
Total Identified Large Mammal Bone (Lama) 5493.4 grams (5.49 kilograms)
Total Burned Large Mammal Bone (Lama?) 993 .1 grams

Tarapaca 2A 85
TABLE 2
FISH BONE RECOVERED FROM TARAPACA 2A
Tr('l/ch A-A, Pi! I-I, IJ-IIJ CI1l .
I Vertebral Centrum, II mOl. diameter

Tmlch A-A, pi! I-I, IIJ-]IJ CI1l.
I Vertebral Centrum [fragment), 15 mOl. diameter

I Vertebral Centrum, 10 mOl . diameter
I Vertebral Centrum , 8 mm . diameter
Tmleh A -A. Pi! I
None
Tmlch A-A. Pi! ]
None
Tmlch A-A. Pi! 3. IJ-I() cm.
I Vertebral Centrum, 20 mm. diameter (identified by workman as "Co rbina")
Tmlch A-A. Pi! 3. ]IJ-30 em.
I Vertebral Centrum [fragment], 12 mOl . diameter
Tmlch A. Pi! I-I . IJ-/IJ CIII .
I Vertebral Centrum, 10 mOl . diameter
Trel/eh A. Pi! I , IIJ-2IJ em.
I Vertebral Centrum , 9 mOl. diameter
Trel/ch A, Pi! 2, IIJ-2IJ em.
Sardine Cache
Trel/ch A, Pi! 3, IJ-IIJ em.
I Vertebral Centrum, 16 mm . diameter
I Vertebral Centrum , 8 mm. diameter
2 Vertebral Centra, II mm . diameter [articulatedl
Tmleh B, Pi! I-I
None
Tr(,l1eh B, Pi! I , IJ-IIJ elll.
Trel/eh B, pi! ], U-IIJ elll.
I Vertebral Centrum, 16 mOl. diameter
I Vertebral Centrum, 9.5 mm . diameter
I Unidentified Fragment
Trel/ch B, Pi! 3, 0-1 IJ em.
2 Vertebral Centra, 12 mm . diameter
I Vertebral Fragment
Trench B, Pi! 3, I IJ- 2U cm.
2 Vertebral Centra, 12 mm. diameter
I Vertebral Centrum , II mm . diameter
I Vertebral Fragment
I Vertebral Centrum, 1 mm. diameter (microanalysis)
I Vertebral Fragment, no dimensions
TABLE 3
DISTRIBUTION OF SHELLFISH REMAINS
Trcll ch A -A. Pit I-I. 0-10 CIII.

Choro (Chorolllytilus choms) 8.7 grams (21 pieces)
Locos (Collcho/cpus collcho/cpus) 6.5 grams (3 pieces)
Trcl/ch A-A. Pit I-I. IO-]IJ CIII.
No Shell
Trcllch .I-A . Pit I-I . ]IJ-3(1 ClII.
No Shell
Total Shell Recovered for this Unit 15.2 grams (24 pieces)
TrcllchA- .-1. Pit I . (I-/IJulI.

No Shell
Trcllch A-A. Pit I . If)-}IJ CIII.
Chora (C/IOI"OIII.I"!i/u.I choms) 2.2 grams (8 pieces)
Other (Unidentified) .2 grams (] piece)
Trcllch4- ..J. Pit I. }(I-30 CIII .
No Shell
Trcllch A -A. pi! }. f)-I IJ CIII.

Chora (Chorolllyti/us choms) 18.2 grams (62 pieces)
Locos (Col/cho/cpus cOl/cho/cpus) 5.5 grams (2 pieces)
Chiton (Not Identified to Genus Levell 6.9 grams (5 pieces)
_ _ _ (Protothaca ) 1.2 grams (2 pieces)
Other (Unidentified) 0.9 grams (3 pieces)
Trcllch A-.4. Pi!}. /(I-}f) ClII.
Chora (C!iOrolllyti/us choms) 2.2 grams (5 pieces)

Chiton (Unidcntif'ied to Gem. ~ Levell 1.2 grams (I piece)
Other (Unidentified Fragments) 0.2 grams (] piece)
Trcllch A-A . Pit } . }O-3IJ Clll.
Other (Unidentified Fragments) 0.5 grams (2 pieces)
TrcllchA-A. Pi! 3. (I-I(lclII .

Chora (Chorolllyti/us choms) 22.0 grams (36 pieces)
Locos (Col/cho/cpus col1cho/cpus) 12.4 grams (3 pieces)
Chiton (Unidentified to Genus Levell 12.4 grams (8 pieces)
Trcllch A -A. Pit 3, IO-]U ClII.
Chora (Chorolllytilus choms) 1.6 grams (2 pieces)

Trcllch A -A, pi! } , .!()-}O CIIl.
Choro (Chorolll.l"ti/us chorus) 0.6 grams (I piece)

Other (Unidentified Fragment) 0.5 grams (] piece)
Total Shell Recove red for this Unit 52 .7 grams (54 pieces)
Tarapaca 2A 87
Trcllch A, Pit I-I , U-IU CII1,
Choro (Choromyti/us chorus) 7.2 grams (12 pieces)

Locos (Collcholeplls cOllcho/eplIs) 3.1 grams (I piece)
Trellch A, Pit I-I, IU-]U CII1.
Choro (Chol"Ol11)'ti/lls chorus) 2.5 grams (4 pieces)

Trellch A, Pit I-I, 20-JO CI11.
No Shell
Total Shell Recove red for this Unit 15.6 grams ( 19 pieces)
Trcllch A, Pit I , (}-I U CIl1.

Choro (ChOI"OIII,l"ti/lIs chorus) 36.1 grams (76 pieces)
Locos (Collcho/C{JIIS cOllcholeplIs) 5.9 grams (6 pieces)
Trcllch A, Pit I, 1()-2U cm.
Choro (Chol"Ol11.1'ti/us chorus ) 1.5 grams (3 pieces)
Locos (Collcho/C{JIIS cOllcho /eplIs) 4.8 grams (I pi ece)
Other (Unidentified Fragment) 0.6 grams (I piece)
Trellch A, Pit I , ]U-JU cm.
None
Trellch A, Pit 2, U-I () cm,

Choro (Chol"Omyti/us chorus) 19.7 grams (40 pieces)
Locos (Collcho/epus collcholeplIs) 8.1 grams (6 pieces)
Chiton (Unidentified to Genus Level) 7.0 grams (6 pieces)
(Protothaca ) 4.3 grams (2 pieces)
Other (Unidentified Fragments) 0.2 grams (I piece)
Trcllch A, Pil], 10-20 CIl1.
Choro (Chol"Om)"tillis chorus) 2.0 grams (5 pieces)
Other (Unidentified Fragment) 0.7 grams (I piece)
Trellch A, Pit ], ](}-JIJ CI11,
Choro (Chol"Ol11ytilus chorus) 4.1 grams (12 pieces)
Total Shell Recovered for this Unit 46.1 grams <73 pieces)
Trellch A , Pit 3, IJ-I IJ CIl1.

Choro( Choromy tillis chorus) 6.3 grams (19 pieces)
(Protothaca ) 1.7 grams (I piece)
Other (Unidentified Fragment) 1.7 grams (1 piece)
Trellch A, Pit J, 11J-21J CI11.
None
Trrl/cll B, Pil I-I, ()-I (J ('/1/.
Choro (ClIO/'OlI1yli/lIs cllol'/ls) 6.0 grams (24 pieces)

Locos (Col/cho/rpllS col/cho/eplls) 4.0 grams (2 pieces)
Other (Unidentified Fragm ent) 0.5 grams (I pi ece)
Trel/ch S , Pil I-I, I(}-JO CIl1.
Choro (Choromyli/lis chol'/ls) 0.6 grams (2 pieces)
Tot al Shell Recovered for this Unit 1I. 1 gran 1'" (29 pieces )
Trrl/ch S, Pil I, (}-I () CIl1.

Choro (ChoroIl1Yli/lIs chol'/ls) 5.9 grams (8 pieces)
Locos (Col/cho/rfills cOl/cho/rfills) 11.6 grams (2 pieces)
(Protothaca ) 4.1 grams (3 pieces)
Erizo (Sea Urchin) 0.2 grams (I piece)
Total Shell Recovered for this Unit 21.8 grams (J4 pieces)
Trrl/ ch S, Pil }, ()-I (J CII1 .
Choro (Cho/'Omyli/lls chol'/ls) 38.9 grams (70 pieces)

Locos (Col/cilo/eplis ('ol/cho/rfills) 15 .6 grams (3 pieces)
Chiton (Unidentified to Genus Level) 1.0 grams (J piece)
Protothaca ) 2.3 grams (2 pieces)
Other (Unidentified Fragment) 1.2 grams (1 piece)
Trel/ch B, Pil}, I()-J() Cil/.
Choro (Cho/'OlI1yti/lis chorus) 1.2 grams (1 piece)

Chiton (Unidentified to Genus Levell 2.3 grams (1 piece)
Protothaca - - - ) 1.2 grams (1 piece)
Total Shell Recovered for this Unit 77.1 grams ( 108 pieces)
Trel/ch B, Pil }, (}-IO cm.

Choro (Cilorolllyti/lls chol'/ls) 22.3 grams (51 pieces)
Locos (Col/cho/eplis concho/ef./"s) 3.5 grams (2 pieces)
Other (Unidentified Fragments) 1.1 gram (4 pieces)
Tr('//ch S, Pil}, 1()-2(} CIII.
Choro (Choromytillls chol'/ls) 23.1 grams (23 pieces)
Other (Unidentified) 0.5 grams (\ piece)
Trench S , Pil }, J(}-}O CIII .
Choro (ChO/'OlIIyti/lIs chorlls) 2.4 grams (3 pieces)
Trel/ch C. Pit I-I , IJ-IIJ CIII.

Choro (Choromyti/lis chorus) 6.2 grams (13 pieces)
Other (Unidentified) 0.3 grams (1 piece)
Trench C. Pil I-I, IU-2IJ CI11.
Choro (Choromyti/lis chorus) 1.0 grams (3 pieces)
Tarapaca 2A 89
Trench C. Pit I. U-IU cm.
Choro (Choromytillis chorus) 11.6 grams (32 pieces)
Trench C. Pit I. IU-2U cm.
No Shell
Trench C. Pit 2, U-I U em.

Choro (Choromytilus chorus) 5.3 grams (25 pieces)
Locos (C oncl/olepus concho lepus ) 4.8 grams (1 piece)
Chiton (Unidentified to Genus Levell 1.3 grams (1 piece)
Trench C. Pit 2, IU-2U cm.
Choro (Choromytilus chorus) 7.9 grams (I3 pieces)
Trel/ch C. Pit 2, 2U-JU em.

No Shell
Total Shell Recovered for this Unit 22 .0 grams (45 pieces)
Trench C. Pit J, U-I () cm.

Choro (Choromytilus chorus) 14.9 grams (23 pieces)
Locos (Concholepus eoneholepus) 2.3 grams (1 piece)
Chiton (Unidentified to Genus Levell 1.2 grams (I piece)
Barnacle (Unidentified to Genus Levell 1.5 grams (1 piece)
Trel/eh C. Pit J, lU-20 em.
Chow (Choromytillis chorus) 3.7 grams (3 pieces)
TOT AL SHELL RECOVERED BY SPECIES, ALL UNITS
Choro 297.3 grams

Loco 88.1 grams
Chiton 53.1 grams
Protothaca 14.8 grams
Barnacle 1.5 grams
Sea Urchin 0.2 grams
Unidentified 19.0 grams
474.0 grams
APPENDIX
,
ARTIFACTS FROM TARAPACA 2A
tv
......
Artifact category No. of specimens Weight in Length in Width in Thickness Thickness to Edge angle %of ~
and type and material grams mm. mm. inmm. width ratio in degrees Category Provenience
l. GROUND STONE :
Globular core I (frag .) fine 34 31.1 52.8 18.4 20 of Cat. I Trench B, Pit I ,
hammer I textured basalt 0-10 cm.
Beveled edge I dense fme tex 702 13 1 103 38 20 Trench AA, Pit 2,
cobble hammer tured sandstone OlOcm.
Milling stone, I quartzite 793 130 60 80 20 Surface

non-diagnostic
Mano, I vesicular 125 62 58 29 20 Trench B, Pit 3,

nondiagnostic basalt O-lOcm.
Smoothing I andesite 38.5 42 32 20 20 Trench AA, Pit 2,

pebble I 0-10 cm.
2. UNIFACIALL Y FLAKED STONE IMPLEMENTS:

Domed scraper I 2 rhyolite , 15 to 47.5 32 to 46 28 to 43 12 to 27 range: 62 to 70 8.3 of Cat. 2 ~
I chert, I fine ave.: 25.8 ave.: 39 .2 ave. : 35 .5 ave .: 20.2 0.38 to 0.69 ave.: 67 ~
n:,
grain~d basalt ave.: 0 .56 :::
!::l..
;;;:.
Domed scraper 2 2 rhyolite I I (whole spe 45 (whole spe 25 {whole spe 10.6 (whole range: 50 to 55 4 .2
(incl. I frag .) cimen only) cimen only) cimen oniy) specimen) 0.42 to 0.58 ave.: 52.5
ave .: 0.50
Domed scraper 3 5 basalt (whole specimens (whole specimens (whole specimens (whole specimens range: 60 to 89 20.8
4 rhyolite only) only) only) only) 0.44 to 1.03 ave .: 72.5
I unident. 60 to 177 38 to 76 33 to 64 16 to 39 ave .: 0.69
(incl. I frag .) ave. : 109.8 ave.: 57.1 ave .: 45.1 ave.: 30.1
Scraper plane I I basalt 56 1 95 76 56 0.74 76 2.1

Scraper plane 3 2 basalt 459 to 585 101 to 103 73 (both) 47 to 62 range : 82 to 84 4.2
ave.: 522 ave.: 102 ave.: 73 ave.: 54 .5 0.64 to 0.85 ave .: 83
ave.: 0.75
Flake scraper I 6 basal t , I chert (whole specimens) (whole specimens) (whole specimens) (whole specimens) not calculated 53 to 8 1 18.7
I rhyolite, 2 jas 10 to 50 32 to 78 30 to 47 9 to 2 1 ave.: 65
per (incl. I frag.) ave .: 27.6 ave .: 49 ave.: 37 .7 ave. : 12.5
Flake scraper 2 2 rhyolite , I chert (whole specime n) (whole specimen) (whole specimen) (whole specimen) 0 .47 57 to 68 6.2
(incl. 2 frags.) 23 47 30 14 ave .: 62 .6
Heavy flake 2 basalt (whole specimen) (whole specimen) (whole specimen) 18 to 20 range 54 to 68 4.2
scraper I (incl. I frag .) 67 66 46 ave.: 19 0 .43 to 0.49 ave.: 60.5
ave .: 0 .46
Heavy flake I basalt 76 85 43 19 0.44 73 2 .1
scraper 4
Heavy flake I basalt 228 .3 73 86 27 0.3 1 61 2. 1

scraper 5
Irregular used 10 basalt , 2 chal- 2 to 47 19 to 76 18 to 42 5 to 16 not calculated 30 to 40 27. 1

flakes , knife II cedony, I rhyolite ave .: 12 .15 ave .: 39.6 ave .: 30.9 ave. : 9. 1 ave. : 33 .2
3. KNIVES :
Huaracina bipoint II rhy olite , I not calculated not calculated 24 to 38 7 to 12 range: 40 to 49 15.7 of Cat. 3
other volcanic ave.: 31.0 ave.: 9 .8 0 .25 to 0.46 ave.: 44 .8
(all frags.) ave . 0.32 (22 .4 on one side)
Soronal leaf- 7 rhyolite, I (whole specimens) (whole specimens) (5 specimens) (aU specimens) (5 specimens) 30 to 52 7.8
shaped , basalt (incl. 3 2 1 to 54 57 .4 to 100 33 to 5 1 9 to 15 ra nge: ave.: 4 2
convex-based complete) ave .: 33.3 ave .: 79.3 ave.: 39 .8 ave.: 11.5 0 .24 to 0 .39 ( 2 1 on a ne side)
ave. : 0.29
~
Soronalleaf- 4 rhyolite (incl . (whole specimens (whole specimens (whole specimens (aU) (whole specimens) 36 ta 46 3 .9
:g
'Il
shaped , 3 complete) only) 18 to 36 only) 65 to 8 1 onl y) 31 t0 37 9 to 15 range: ave.: 39 ::s
t::>...
pointed base ave.: 29 ave.: 72.6 ave.: 34 ave .: 12.3 0.29 ta 0.44 (19.5 on one Side) ~.
ave.: 0.36
Soronal leaf- 3 rhyolite (aU not calculate d not calculated 28 to 42 6 to II range: 36 (I 8 on one side) 2.9
shaped, contract- frags .) ave .: 34 ave .: 9.3 0 .1 9 to 0 .39
ing stem ave .: 0 .29
Tarapacli tri- I chalcedony 7 13 34 .6 29.6 6.8 0 .23 44 (22 on one side) 1.0
angular, concave
base
Huaracina I rh yolite , I chert not calculated not calculated 28 to 29 7 range: 34 and 38 2.0
serrated (both frags.) ave.: 28.5 0 .24 ta 0 .25 ave.: 36
ave. : 0.25 (I 8 on one side)
Discoidal I rhyolite 41 56 47 14 0 .30 52 1.0

flake
Fragments, 6 chert not recorded not recorded not recorded 3 .8 t0 9 .2 not calculated 5.9
non-<iiagnostic ave.: 6 .8
segments
Fragments , 6 rhyolite , 2 chert , not recorded not recorded not recorded 5.0 to 9 .6 not calculated 9.8
non-<iiagnostic I quartzite, ave.: 7 .9
mid-sections I other IV
Vl
tv
Artifact category No. of specimens Weight in Length in Wid th in Thickness Thickness to Edge angle % of 0--
and type and material grams mm. mm . inmm. width ratio in degrees Category Provenience
- - - -.- - - - -
Fragment, 11 rhyolite, not recorded not recorded not recorded 4 .4 to 16.0 not calculated 32 to 54 15.7
non-diagnostic 5 chert-like ave. : 9 .7+ ave.: 41.2
tips material (20.6 one side)
Fragment, 8 rhyolite, not recorded not recorded not recorded 6.2 to 14 .5 not calculated 28 to 48 10.8
non-diagnostic I basalt, ave. : 9.2+ ave.: 38.4
tips (thin sections) 2 other (34 .2 on one side)
Fragment, 4 rhyolite, 2 not recorded not recorded not recorded 6.9 to 13.0 not calculated 34 to 48 8.8
non-diagnostic basalt, 2 chert, ave .: 9.1 ave.: 43
bases I other
Fragment , 3 basalt , not re corded not recorded not recorded 7.8 to 10.8 not calculated 28 to 46 8.8
non-diagnostic 2 rhyolite, ave .: 9 .2 ave.: 39 .2
mid-sections 1 chert, (19 .7 one side)
(poss . soronal) 3 other
Fragment, 6 rhyolite not recorded not recorded 23.8 to 29.6 7.6 to 10.6 not calculated 35 to 52 5.9
non-diagnostic ave.: 26.5 ave.: 8.8 ave .: 42
mid-sections
(poss. Huaracina
A
or Tulan)
~
~
:::
t::<.
~.
4 . PROJECTILE POINTS:
I1uga 2 rhyolite (whole specimen) (whole specimen) 23.5 to 26.5 II to 17 range : 46 overall 3.2 of Cal. 4
(type 4) (incl . 1 frag.) 23 69.8 ave .: 25.0 ave. : 14 0 .47 to 0 .63 (23 one side)
ave .: 0 .55
Huara-tapered 1 chalcedony , (whole specimen) 72 18 to 19 8 to 9 range : 43 to 49 3 .2

(type 18) I quartzite 9 ave .: 18.5 ave.: 8.5 0.42 to 0.50 46 overall
(incl. I frag .) ave.: 46 (23 one side)
Huara-stemmed 3 basalt not calculated not calculated 18 to 24 6 to 9 range : 44 to 50 16.2

(type 7) 3 rhyolite , ave. : 20.8 ave.: 7.6 0.30 to 0.47 ave.: 47.8
4 other (aU frags .) ave. : 0.37 (23.9 one Side)
Huara-stemmed 15 basalt , (whole specimens) (whole specimens) (4 specimens) (19 specimens) (4 specimens) 40 to 52 32.2
wide 5 rhyolite 10 to 11.56 63 to 64 24 to 28 5 to 8 range: ave .: 45
(type 6) ave. : 10.7 ave. : 63 .5 ave .: 25 .5 ave. : 6.6+ 0.25 to 0.33 (22.5 one side)
ave. : 0 .28
Fragments, 2 chert , not recorded not recorded not recorded (4 specimens) not recorded 6.4
non-diagn ostic tips 1 rhyolite, 5.0 to 6.7
(poss. type 6) 1 other ave.: 5.7+
Fragments, II basalt, not recorded not recorded not recorded 4.0 to 10.0 not recorded 29.0
non-diagnostic 3 rhyolite, ave .: 6 .9
(poss. type 7) I jasper,
3 chalcedony
Fragments, 2 chert, not recorded not recorded not recorded 5.4 to 7.0 not recorded 4.8
non-diagnostic I basalt ave.: 6.0
mid-sections
Fragments, 2 rhyolite, not recorded not recorded not recorded 6.8 to 8.8 not recorded 4.8
non-diagnostic I chalcedony ave .: 3.56
tips
5. BIFACIALLY FLAKED STONE ARTIFACTS, HEAVY CROSS-SECTIONS:

Elongate biface , 2 rhyolite , not calculated not calculated 36 to 47 19 to 30 range: 58 to 66 17.6 of Cat. 5
modified I other ave.: 43 ave.: 24.6 0.53 to 0.65 ave.: 62
(all frags.) ave.: 0.57 (31 one side)
A.
Ovate biface 3 rhyolite , 39 to 59 61 to 82 34 to 45 15 to 22 range : 54 to 72 23.5 :g
'1:>
I basalt ave.: 50.7+ ave.: 70.7+ ave.: 41 ave.: 19 .75 0.33 to 0.65 ave. : 62 :::
ave .: 0.49 (31 one side) s:::...
~.
Projectile 3 basalt , (2 whole spe- (2 whole spe- (all) (all) range: 48 to 60 41.2
point 2 rhyolite , cimens only) cimens only) 21 to 33 10 to 15 0.33 to 0.54 ave _: 53 .5
blanks I other volcanic , 8 to 35 41 to 72 ave.: 29 ave.: 12.4 ave.: 0.43+ (26.7 one side)
I chert ave .: 21.5
Heavy 2 basalt 109 to 150 63 to 77 60 to 71 25 to 33 range: 72 to 82 11.7

discoidal ave.: 129.5 ave .: 70 ave.: 65.3 ave.: 29 0.35 to 0.55 ave.: 77
biface ave .: 0.45
Biface cobble I fine grained 639 129 110 43 0.39 68 5.8

chopper granitic
6. BIFACIALLY FLAKED STONE ARTIFACTS LACKING CONVENTIONALIZED FORMS:

Keeled scraper I I rhyolite 58 52 36 42 1.17 74 to 90 9.0 of Cat. 6
Keeled scraper 2 I basalt 89 54 33 47 1.42 80 9.0

cortex -based
tv
......
-.l
IV
00
Artifact category No . of specimens Weight in Length in Width in Thickness Thickness to Edge angle %of
and type and material grams mm. mm . inmm. width ratio in degrees Category Provenience
- ---
Heavy flake 2 basalt (whole specimen) (whole specimen) (whole specimen) (whole specimen) 60 to 80 18 .2
scrapers, (I frag.) 94 65 51 .431+
beveled edge
. - - ---~ - -- - - . - -- - - -- .- -- - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - ~- - -- -
Knife type 9, 4 rhyolite, (whole specimens) (whole specimens) (whole specimens) (whole specimens) (whole specimens) 42 to 55 63.6
irreg. form 3 basalt 25 to 47 51 to 74 34 to 42 12 to 18 range: ave .. 49.7
biface (incl. 5 complete) ave.: 34 .8 ave .. 59.8 ave.: 37.4 ave.: 15.4 0.32 to 0.50
ave.: 0.42
7. SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF FLAKED STON E IMPLEMENTS (BIFACIALLY ~ORKED):

Gouge I basalt 38 22 6.2 not calculated not calculated 5.0 of Cat. 7
Knife/Scraper I basalt not calculated not calculated 20 0 .25 scraper side 56 5.0
(frag.) knife side 32
:t...
Segmented 13 basalt , (frags. only) (frags . only) (frags. only) 3.7t09.6 not calculated 32 to 46 75.0 ~
~
thinned 2 chalcedony 0.5 to 8.0 5.2 t047 8.0 to 25 ave.: 6.46 ave .: 36 .9 ::::
t:l..
bifaces (all frass .) ave .: 3.72 ave.: 24.2 ave .: 16 .8+ ~.
Pointed 2 basalt , II to 20 23 to 50 16 to 50 18.5 to 27.4 range: not calculated 15.0

flakes I rh yolite ave. : 17.6 ave. : 4I.0 ave.: 27.3 ave.: 68.1 0.55 to 8.8
ave.: 0.7
8. SPECIAL CAT EGORI ES OF FLAKED STONE IMPLEMENTS (UNIFACIAL OR QUESTIONABLE):

Irregular flake I rhyolite 15 61 30 13 0.43+ 24 to 47 5.2 of Cat. 8
knife
Saw edged 3 basalt , 2 to 15 19 to 58 15 to 28 4 to II not calculated 36.8

flake knife 2 chert , ave .. 6.5+ ave.: 35 ave.: 22.3 ave.: 7.57
2 rhyolite
Flake discs 10 basalt, 0.6 to 1.5 13 to 20 14 to 18 3 to 5 not calculated 71 to 85 57.8

lather ave.: 1.2 ave. : 16.1 ave .. 15.7 ave.: 3 .6 ave.: 79
- -- -- - -
9. SPECIAL CATEGORIES OF FLAKED STONE IMPLEMENTS (OTHER):
Core I rhyolite 188 65 62 49 not calculated not calculated 3.0 of Cal. 9
Worked flakes 13 rhyolite , not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated not calculated 96 .9
6 chert ,
II basalt ,
I jasper,
I chalcedony
10. SHELL ARTIFACTS: AR

Bead , disc 43 limpet shell not recorded 5 to 8 4 to 6 2 to 3 82.6 of Cal. 10
wloval hole ave. : 6.27 ave.: 5.18 ave. : 2.3
Bead , spire 2 shell not recorded 20 to 22 (diameter) 3 .9

ground olive ave.: 21 10 to 12
ave.: II
Bead , basal 5 shell not recorded (4 specimens) (4 specimens) (4 specimens) 9 .6

ground snail 7 to 8 5 to 7 4 to 5
ave.: 7.5 ave.: 5 .75 ave.: 4.5
A
Worked fragments 2 Choromy tilus 0.7 18 to 25 10 to 12 I (both 3.8
~
."
(pass. scraper or frags . ave.: 21.5
:::.
ave .. II specimens) ~
ornaments
:;:;:.
II. BONE ARTIFACTS

Bead , bone disc , 2 mammal bone not re corded 5 to 8 5 to 8 4 (both) 22 .2 of Cal. II
biconically drilled ave .: 6 .5 ave. : 6.5
Flaker , 3 mammal bone (frags.) (frags .) (frags .) (frags.) 33.3

irregular (prob. Lama) 2 to 3.4 33 to 61 3 to I I 5 to 6
bone ave.: 2.6 ave.: 42 .6 ave.: 9.0 ave.: 5.3
Heavy bone I mammal bone not recorded 17 II 5.0 11.1

awl (frag., prob.
Lama)
Thin I mammal bone , not recorded 16 10 2 11.1

sectioned tip fragm ent
bone awl
Worked bone I frag., pa ss. not recorded 30 7 at largest end 7 at largest end 11.1 tv
(antler tip?) deer antler (not complete)
'-0
Artifact category No . of specimens Weight in Length in Width in Thickness Thickness to Edge angle %of
and type and material grams mm . mm. inmm. width ratio in degrees Category Provenience
-- - - _._- - -- N
N
Wo rked bone , I split mammal not recorded 55 9 4 11.1 0
non-diagnostic bone (Lama?)
12 . MISCELLANEOUS NON-LITHIC ARTIFACTS:

Wooden artifacts, 5 algarobbo 0.3 to 6.2 41 to 115 6 to 23 5.6 of Cal. 12
nondiagnostic & unid. twigs ave .: 1.94 ave.: 7.04 ave .: 12
Cactus thorn 4 Cerus of some not recorded (2 complete) (diameter, 2

pins unknown species 116 to 120 complete specimens)
ave.: 118 2 (both) measured
a t socket on base
Modified gourd I cucurbit 0.4 22 18 1.0

sheU (frag.)
Bound hank I human hair not recorded 70 (dia. at knot)

of hair 2
Cordage, wool , SLama , 2A355; 35 x 2 Color & shape: 7.5 yr. 5/6 "s" twist
brown & tan 2A-421: 50 x 1.5 Color & shape : 7.5 yr. 6 /6 "S" twist A
2ply yarn
2A-422: 50 x 1.0 Color & shape : 10 yr. 6 /4 "s" twist ~
'1)
2A-423 : 20 x 2 Color & shape: 10 yr. 6 /3 "5" twist ::s

2A-425 : 140 x 1.5 Color & shape : 7.5 yr. - 6/6 "5" twist ~
Cordage, wool 3 Lama (?) 2A-424: 120 x 2 Color & shape : 10 yr. 6/4 "Z" twist
replied browns & tans 2A-420: 30 Color & shape: 2.5 yr. 3/4 "Z " twist
2A-412 :73 x 1.5 Color & shape : brown "Z" twist
Cordage, hair 2 human hair 2A-418:IOOx 1.0 Color & shape : 2.5 yr. 3/2 "z" twist
replied na tural brown 2A-419: 55 x 1.0 Color & shape: 2.5 yr. - 3/s "Z" twist
Cordage, I frag., 2A-427: -- x 1.0 Color & shape: brown "5" twist (frag.)
vegetable fiber, prob. tatara
Cordage, I (several tiny 2A-426: (no dimensions) Color & shape : grey/brown "5" twisted (net?)
vegetable fiber , fragments)
textile
Cordage, knotted 3, pass. tatara 2A-430: II x 15 Color & shape : brown not twisted
unspun 2A-428: 10 x 12 Color & shape : brown not twisted
2A-429: 10 x II x 15 Color & shape : brown not twisted
Matting I totara 2A-431 : Color & shape : brown not twisted

fragments :
vegetable fiber s
Quid I unidentified 2A 2ANCN: 35 x 15 x 6 Color: brown

plant material
Tarapaca 2A xv
I
c d
Plate 1. Hammers, smoothing pe bble , and domed scrapers from Tarapaca 2A . (Scale equals 3 em.)
XVI D. L. True and Harvey Crew
a I
b
I
C d
e g
f
Plate 2. Scraper planes and flake scrapers from Tarapaca 2A . (Scale equals 3 em.)
Tarapaca 2A XVII
I
a b
c d e
f g
I I
h .
I .
J
I I. I 0
I
k , n
m
p r
s
Plate 3 . Used flakes, knives, projectile points, and projectile point blanks from Tarapaca 2A .
(Scale equals 3 em.)
D . L. True a nd Harvey Crew
XVIII
a
e
d
g
J k
Plate 4. Flake and keeled scrapers, irregular biface knives, irregular flake knives, saw edged flake kn ives,
and flake d iscs from Tarapaca 2A. (Scale eq uals 4 em.)
Tarapaca 2A
.d
k
Plat e 5. Segmented bifaces, pointed flakes , core, bone awl fragment, cobb le chopper and cactus thorn
pins from Tarapaca 2A . (Scale equa ls 3 em.)
xx D. L. True and Harvey Crew
Plate 6. Knife forms (Huaracifia bipoint), Tarapaca triangular, Huaracifia serrated, shell beads, bone awl fragment,
worked gourd fragment and worked wooden objects from Tarapaca 2A. (Scale equals 3 cm.)
Tarapaca 2A XXI
c
f
b d Ie
g
h
Plate 7. Wooden artifact, cordage fragments, matting fragments, netting, and fluting on a segmented biface;
Tarapaca 2A. (Scales on a and h egual 4 cm.; scale on b-g equals 2 cm.)

True, Crew 1980 Tarapacá 2A

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

True, Crew 1980 Tarapacá 2A

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Archaeological Investigations in Northern Chile:

Map 2. Sites Tarapaca 2 and 2A.

0::'i'~'~''t~+ i:~~C+ S :::~:~~jU.Ttti)i;!:i:) ~~:~.

FLOO R? _____ .,,,,,,,.,. ___ e_ *"..",.-------

Figure 1. Profile of Site Tarapaca 2A.

Figure- 2. Floors and refuse co ncentrations , Site Tarapaca 2A.

w WEST TO NORTH WAL L

Figure 3. Profi les, Site Tara r aca 2A .

Bevel-Edged Cobble (PI. 1a)

Figure 5. Characteristic point types .

Projectile Point, Huara-tapered (PI. 6e~ Fig. 4b)

Elongate Biface, Modified

Heavy Discoidal Biface (PI. 3s: Fig. 4f)

Flake Discs (PI. 4i-k)

Segmented Thinned Bifaces (PI. 5a-e, Fig. 4d,e)

b. retouch flakes made by hard or soft hammer percussion .

Non-Artifact Resources from the Tarapaca 2A Excavations

Discussion of Nonartifactual Resources

Trench A-A, Pit I-I, 0-10 em.

Trel/ch A, Pir I-I. 20-30 em.

Treneh A, Pit 2, 20-3U cm.

All Large Mammal Bone (Lama ?) 10.3 grams (8 pieces')

All Large Mammal Bone (Lama n 565.7 grams (840 pieces')

All Large 1\1,lmmal Bone (Lama n 65.8 grams (82 pieces' )

All Large Mammal Bone (Lama?) 5.9 grams (7 pieces')

All Large Mammal Bone (Lama?) 1002.2 'grams (619 pieces')

All Large Mammal Bone (Lama?) 910.0 grams (699 pieces')

All Large Mammal Bone (Lama?) 350.0 grams (247 pieces')

Total Burned Large Mammal Bone (Lama?) 993 .1 grams

Tr('l/ch A-A, Pi! I-I, IJ-IIJ CI1l .

I Vertebral Centrum, II mOl. diameter

I Vertebral Centrum [fragment), 15 mOl. diameter

Trcll ch A -A. Pit I-I. 0-10 CIII.

TrcllchA- .-1. Pit I . (I-/IJulI.

Trcllch A -A. pi! }. f)-I IJ CIII.

Trcllch A-.4. Pi!}. /(I-}f) ClII.

Chora (C!iOrolllyti/us choms) 2.2 grams (5 pieces)

TrcllchA-A. Pi! 3. (I-I(lclII .

Chora (Chorolllytilus choms) 1.6 grams (2 pieces)

Choro (Chorolll.l"ti/us chorus) 0.6 grams (I piece)

Choro (Choromyti/us chorus) 7.2 grams (12 pieces)

Trellch A, Pit I-I, IU-]U CII1.

Choro (Chol"Ol11)'ti/lls chorus) 2.5 grams (4 pieces)

Trcllch A, Pit I , (}-I U CIl1.

Trellch A, Pit 2, U-I () cm,

Trellch A , Pit 3, IJ-I IJ CIl1.

Trrl/cll B, Pil I-I, ()-I (J ('/1/.

Choro (ClIO/'OlI1yli/lIs cllol'/ls) 6.0 grams (24 pieces)

Trrl/ch S, Pil I, (}-I () CIl1.

Trrl/ ch S, Pil }, ()-I (J CII1 .

Choro (Cho/'Omyli/lls chol'/ls) 38.9 grams (70 pieces)

Choro (Cho/'OlI1yti/lis chorus) 1.2 grams (1 piece)

Trel/ch B, Pil }, (}-IO cm.

Trel/ch C. Pit I-I , IJ-IIJ CIII.

Trench C. Pit 2, U-I U em.

Trel/ch C. Pit 2, 2U-JU em.

Total Shell Recovered for this Unit 22 .0 grams (45 pieces)

Trench C. Pit J, U-I () cm.

TOT AL SHELL RECOVERED BY SPECIES, ALL UNITS

Choro 297.3 grams

Milling stone, I quartzite 793 130 60 80 20 Surface

Mano, I vesicular 125 62 58 29 20 Trench B, Pit 3,

Smoothing I andesite 38.5 42 32 20 20 Trench AA, Pit 2,

0::'i'~'~''t~+ i:~~C+ S :::~:jU.Ttti)i;!:i:) :~.

FLOO R? ___ .,,,,,,,.,. _ e_ *"..",.-------