Reviews in Anthropology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/grva20

A regional perspective of Preceramic

times in the central Andes
a
Tom D. Dillehay
a
Associate Professor at the University of Kentucky
Published online: 05 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Tom D. Dillehay (1985) A regional perspective of Preceramic times in the
central Andes, Reviews in Anthropology, 12:3, 193-205

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00988157.1985.9977731

 A Regional Perspective of
Preceramic Times in the Central Andes
Tom D. Dillehay
MacNeish, Richards., Angel Garcia Cook, Luis G.
Lumbreras, Robert K. Vierra, and Antoinette
Nelkin-Terner. The Prehistory of the Ayacucho
Basin, Peru: Excavations and Chronology. Volume
II. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1981.
xii + 279 pp. including figures, graphs, tables,
references, index. $45.00 cloth.
MacNeish, Richard S., Robert K. Vierra,
Antoinette Nelkin-Temer, and Carl J. Phagan. The
Prehistory of the Ayacucho Basin, Peru:
Nonceramic Artifacts. Volume III. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press, 1980. xii + 344 pp.
including figures, graphs, tables, references, index.
$45.00 cloth.
MacNeish, Richard S., Robert K. Vierra,
Antoinette Nelkin-Terner, Rochelle Lurie, and An-
gel Garcia Cook. The Prehistory of the Ayacucho
Basin, Peru: The Preceramic Way of Life. Volume
IV. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
1983. x + 288 pp. including figures, graphs,
tables, references, index. $45.00 cloth
In recent years a major concern in American arche-
ology has been regional research frameworks and
theoretical models. Such a concern has in large part
been inspired by two trends: the blooming search
for more appropriate and productive levels and
means of archeological theorizing (see Binford
[1977, 1981], Raab and Goodyear [1984], Willey
and Sabloff [1980]) and the flowering of cultural
ecology in archeology and its focus on culture as a
set of subsystems that serve to relate human groups
to their local and regional ecological settings. As it
seems to turn out, some of the main reasons for
studying regions are both pragmatic and normative:
regional data sets can provide operational units of
analysis for elucidating particular sequences of
cultural history and for reconstructing evolutionary
stages of culture change and process. For the most
part, archeological models of culture change em-
phasize processes of adaptation and certain levels of
technological, subsistence, and social organization
most strongly related to the economic forces of
production and consumption, a not-surprising con-
sequence of the data base with which archeologists
work.
These central concerns do not obscure a broader
use to which the study of regions can also be put.
Linked with the accumulation of knowledge on
major cultural adaptations and changes in different
194
subareas, it is at least feasible to begin to map
important ties between regions in a larger-scale
"interaction sphere" and to examine their cultural
evolution over time. Ideally speaking, information
from similar or dissimilar regions and spheres can
be used as building blocks to construct more gen-
eralized theories of culture systems. In short, a
basic goal is to do systematic regional comparison
and to deductively test hypotheses of regional ex-
perience and regional behavioral patterns clustering
around the more general evolutionary trends which
presumably occurred and recurred. This goal has
not yet been achieved in American archeology.
All this should be self-evident. The pitfall is that
there have been few studies in archeology that have
taken the learning experience about a cultural sys-
tem in one area and applied it to a cultural system in
another area in an attempt to construct a larger-scale
theory of culture change. The continuum of inge-
nious work of Richard S. MacNeish and his col-
leagues in the Tehuacan Valley of Mexico to the
Ayacucho-Huanta basin of Peru represents one of
the few exceptional experiences in the archeology
of the 1960s and 1970s, when the information and
hypotheses learned from one region were actually
tested against similar ecological conditions and
cultural trends in a different region.
The Ayacucho-Huanta project in the south-cen-
tral highlands of Peru must be understood in light of
the earlier work by MacNeish in the Tehuacan
Valley, which illuminated the long period of exper-
imentation from which corn, beans, and squash
agriculture emerged as a basis for Mesoamerican
civilization. The Tehuacan project generated sev-
eral major hypotheses about the kind of social and
natural environment in which plant domestication
and agriculture would have originated (MacNeish
1967). These conditions are (1) the presence of
"wild plants susceptible to domestication or closely
related to known domesticated or cultivated
plants," (2) an area of "great ecological diversity
within a relatively confined region," (3) dry caves in
different ecological zones, and (4) "archeological
REVIEWS IN ANTHROPOLOGY / Summer 1985
remains of the late preceramic period (when domes-
tication and agriculture probably began) and of the
period of early civilization (the end product of this
pristine development)" (Volume II, p. 1). The
Ayacucho region met these conditions and thus
became a testing ground for these hypotheses "in a
comparable subarea of another nuclear area—the
Andean area or interaction sphere—where pristine
plant agriculture, animal domestication, and civili-
zation were assumed to have developed" (11:1).
The Ayacucho basin is a roughed area defined by
several diverse and closely juxtaposed microenviron-
mental zones. The lower elevations of the basin are
characterized by arid scrub plains, thorn forests,
and humid forests, while the higher lands are
defined by cooler and wetter puna steppes, where
frosts can occur year-round. Based on a first im-
pression, it hardly seems a promising environment
in which to search for traces of early plant and
animal domestication; yet, in four major field sea-
sons between 1966 and 1973, the Peabody Founda-
tion project succeeded in compiling a fascinating,
and often controversial, record of early agricultural
and village development from early preceramic
times to early colonial times. Without any doubt the
best-known aspect of the project to date is the
disputable data for a 25,000-15,000 B.P. South
American pre-projectile point stage. MacNeish's
interpretation of these earlier materials (1971,1976,
1979) and his strong support of a pre-Clovis occu-
pation in the Americas (1976, 1978) have placed
him and his research in the forefront of the heated
debate on the entry date of humans into the New
World. Other major aspects of the Ayacucho re-
search, such as plant and animal domestication, rise
of complex societies, and theories of culture sys-
tems, have not yet appeared in print. Nonetheless,
some information on these topics is available in the
published annual reports (MacNeish 1969;
MacNeish et al. 1970) of the project and in the
introductory and concluding chapters in the books
under review.
Although these volumes are the first to be pub-
DILLEHAY / Preceramic Times in the Central Andes
lished on the Ayacucho data, they are the second,
third, and fourth in a series reporting the research
results. The primary emphasis of these books is a
detailed description of the excavated sites, the
stratigraphy and work at these sites, an exhaustive
analysis of the non-ceramic materials, a definition
of the preceramic and ceramic cultural phases in the
subarea, and a reconstruction of the long-term
preceramic life way in the basin. The forthcoming
first and fifth volumes will focus on the geological
and environmental setting (Volume I) and describe
the ceramic occupation in the subareas (Volume V).
As can be expected, the last volume (VII) in the series
is much more ambitious. It will correlate the entire
cultural sequence of the Ayacucho basin
with other sequences from other regions of the
Andean culture area to give us a complete
cultural history or chronology of cultural
energy-flow systems for this changing culture
area. This culture history will give us the
analytical materials for formulating hypotheses
about why culture changed in this area
(MacNeish 1978) . . .we will also attempt to
test such hypotheses with comparative data
from other primary national states—specifi-
cally, MesoAmerica, the Near East, and the
relatively incomplete evolution in the Near
East. (IV: 1)
It is on this larger-scale level of analysis that the
regional data sets from Ayacucho and Tehuacan
will be used to outline the general cultural condi-
tions under which human societies changed and,
particularly, chose food production over food col-
lection as their subsistence base, and how they
developed more complex civilizations.
It should be emphasized that the project em-
ployed a techno-environmental approach that goes
well beyond the research problem and design of the
Tehuacan work. The Ayacucho research advanced
to an analysis of energy flow systems and how they
reflect culture change. As discussed in more detail
later, this approach is rooted in some creative
195
archeological procedures that integrate a plethora of
diverse data sets into a coherent and speculative
recital of environmental forces acting on culture.
The importance of this approach is that it reveals
how aspects of the archeological record can be fully
utilized to reconstruct a more complete cultural
system.
This review cannot do justice to the wealth of
information presented in these impressive volumes.
I will focus specifically on the major themes and
positions which to me seem most important in these
publications. I will describe briefly the main topics
of the two descriptive volumes (II and III) and then
concentrate the remaining discussion on the two
features of these three reports which should attract
most interest: the Early Man data from Pikimachay
Cave and the reconstruction of the preceramic
lifeway in the Ayacucho basin (IV).
Descriptive Analysis: Volumes II and III
The project archeologists did considerable site sur-
veying in six different environmental zones in the
Ayacucho basin and limited excavations at fifteen
sites, but the major part of their energies was
expended in intensive excavation of three cave sites
(Pikimachay, Jaywamachay, and Puente). It is
the data derived from excavations at these three
sites that provide the real substance of these three
volumes.
The organization of each volume is very good.
There is a useful discussion of the general project
objectives and of the specific purpose of each book
in the introduction of each volume. A considerable
amount of new material coming from the project is
presented, which should make these volumes attrac-
tive to scholars interested in topics ranging from
cave archeology and lithic analysis, to energy flow
models and lifeways of prehistoric hunters and
gatherers.
Specifically, Volume II addresses the ecological
setting of sites, chronology and stratigraphy, and
reconstruction of cultural phases. The description of
196
the excavations and particularly of the stratigraphy
at each site is very detailed, and the wealth of maps
and profiles, along with plans of the horizontal
extent of the various zones, clarifies the presenta-
tion of the extremely complex stratigraphie situation
in some cave sites.
Most of the volume is dedicated to the exhaustive
description and analysis of the stratigraphy. The
chronological assignment of each cultural phase for
each stratigraphie zone depended on artifact analy-
sis, factor analysis, and classification and "on
cross-dating the zones with similar zones from other
stratified sites that had radiocarbon determinations"
(11:52). The correlations between stratigraphie
zones and cultural phases at sites seem to be in
good order. However, the full meaning of these
correlations will not be understood until the corre-
sponding geological reconstruction of climatic and
environmental episodes and of cross-connecting and
dating zones at each site has been published.
The reconstructed stratigraphy and cultural
phases are too numerous to individually summarize
here. In short, the stratigraphie succession of pre-
historic cultural components ranged from the con-
troversial 25,000 B.P. Early Man component at the
base, to the early colonial period at the top, al-
though the entire sequence is superimposed only at
one site, Pikimachay Cave.
A provocative and interesting feature of this
volume is MacNeish's chapter on the reconstruction
of the temporal-spatial seasonal indicators of the
various stratigraphie occupations of the rockshel-
ters, for understanding the annual economic cycle
of hunters and gatherers. Due to poor preservation
of soft organic remains in the Ayacucho area, there
were very few archeologically recovered plants that
could be used as "primary seasonal indicators."
Therefore, MacNeish and his colleagues turned to
the faunal materials, more specifically to bone-
fusion development of camelids, deer and other
animals, to indicate seasonality. He admits that
little is known of the annual cycle of bone-fusion
development of these animals, that the use of these
REVIEWS IN ANTHROPOLOGY / Summer 1985
materials for predicting seasonality is very limited,
and that the findings are tenuous.
The last chapter in this volume defines briefly the
sequence of cultural phases and their temporal-
spatial distribution across different ecological zones
in the basin, and presents a good descriptive inter-
pretation of the lifeway of each phase. Primary
emphasis is given to seasonality, settlement type
(i.e., microband, macroband, hamlet, village,
administrative town, etc.), ecological location, and
time range of the collection of sites comprising each
phase in each ecological zone. This is a good,
reliable definition of the regional culture history.
Volume III provides a well-organized and more
than adequate analysis of the non-ceramic artifacts.
Superficially, the lithic descriptions resemble the
conventional descriptions of lithic types typical of
those found in good detailed reports of other Amer-
ican archeologists. Actually the classification is
more succinct and useful in that it presents a
detailed quantitative and qualitative statement of the
co-occurrence of certain morphological attributes.
A brief definition is presented for each lithic cate-
gory, but detailed definitions of individual types are
not given. Further, there is little comparison be-
tween the Ayacucho lithics and known types from
other sites in the region or from other regions of the
Andes. Hopefully, more consideration will be given
to these matters in the future volumes.
Cultural items other than lithics are grouped into
categories of material, and the brief descriptions are
adequate, especially since most of these materials
are well illustrated. The one exception is the mod-
ified bone collection from the deeper Paccaicasa
and Ayacucho phase deposits. The majority of these
specimens should have been illustrated for the
reader.
Carl Phagan's chapter on flake analysis is much
more definitive than the previous chapters on lithic
tools. An informative study of the spatial distribu-
tion of different flake attributes at different sites in
different zones is presented. Some interesting find-
ings on flake production variability across time-
DILLEHAY / Preceramic Times in the Central Andes
space in the basin are presented. Phagan offers only
a few superficial comments on the frequency and
patterning of certain attributes, but provides no
substantive cultural conclusions.
If taken in light of the kinds of theoretical
arguments promised for the remaining volumes, the
chapters in Volumes II and III are mainly descrip-
tive. The writing chores in these volumes were
shared by MacNeish and two of his long-time
colleagues from the Tehuacan project, Antoinette
Nelken-Terner and Angel Garcia Cook; by several
American scholars, Carl J. Phagan, Robert K.
Vierra (who also performed statistical and compu-
tational studies), and Wayne Wiersum; and by Luis
G. Lumbreras, a Peruvian archeologist. Despite
some problems, MacNeish and these scholars are to
be thanked for their organized, well-informed effort
to bring together so much information on a
region about which so little was previously known.
Early Man at Ayacucho
The published appearance of the archeological evi-
dence of the pre-Clovis deposits at Pikimachay Cave
has been long awaited by scholars from various
disciplines interested in the early peopling of the
Americas. The controversial data from the site and
the interpretations of these data have been discussed
in the literature on Early Man for more than a
decade. As with other publications on materials of
this nature and importance, I have come away with
a mixed opinion. Before I embark on a critique of
these data, a few introductory comments are neces-
sary.
There is much dispute and considerable differ-
ence of opinion as to when the first humans entered
the Americas (see Bryan 1978; Carter 1980;
Dincauze 1984; Humphrey and Stanford 1979;
Krieger 1964; Lynch 1983; and Owen 1984). A
number of locations scattered throughout the west-
ern hemisphere have been presented as evidence of
human occupation prior to 12,000 B.P., or the
pre-Clovis big-game hunting culture. The question
197
of the entry date leads to important considerations
of the direction and availability of migration routes
throughout the Americas during late glacial times
and of the typological succession in the technology
and economy of these early cultures. Proponents of
the pre-Clovis or "pre-projectile stage" (Krieger
1964) believe that an earlier generalized economy
of gathering or foraging preceded big-game hunt-
ing. Scholarly reception to the data and arguments
for an earlier occupation has been mixed, with more
"agnostics" and "skeptics" than "believers"
(Meighan 1983; Owen 1984).
Much of the evidence for this early occupation
has been rejected or questioned by a substantial
number of scholars for one or a combination of
several reasons. Some sites are surface locations or
have disturbed contexts, questionable radiocarbon
dates or poorly defined stratigraphy, which makes
reliable dating impossible. Other sites may have
similar contextual or dating problems, and also have
yielded an artifact collection so small that the
absence of a projectile point technology cannot be
proven. Another problem with some stone collec-
tions is whether they are human-made or nature-
made. Further, the poor preservation or disturbance
of materials in most late Pleistocene deposits has
limited the nature and type of archeological pattern-
ing observed at sites and, in tum, the types of
cultural behavior inferred for this early culture.
All of the above problems relate primarily to the
nature and status of the archeological context.
Criticism can also be aimed at the archeologist and
his or her analytical treatment and published form of
early cultural materials. The materials and their
archeological and geological contexts at a signifi-
cant number of purported pre-Clovis sites have
never been described, and probably never studied,
in an exhaustive, careful and systematic technical
fashion. The published reports have sometimes
been so vague and general in content and purpose
that the often shallow, descriptive presentation does
not provide opportunity to evaluate the full merits of
the evidence (see Bryan 1978:311-313).
198
One other point warrants brief consideration.
Unlike the Clovis, Folsum, Piano, and other Paleo-
Indian complexes—and the post-Pleistocene Ar-
chaic and later ceramic cultures that are tied to
regional or intraregional cultural sequences—pur-
ported pre-Clovis sites are generally widely dis-
persed in time and space, forcing a continent-wide
and hemisphere-long comparison of often highly
diversified materials from many different geological
and archeological contexts. Such a large-scale level
of comparative analysis can be productive, but only
if there is a consistent and formal set of scientific
criteria to judge the validity or invalidity of early
materials, and if there is a theoretical paradigm or
model to guide the research and to explain the
archeological record in light of the similar and
dissimilar human forces and natural forces that
produced this record. So far, these criteria and
paradigms are lacking in pre-Clovis research. The
end result has been that studies of pre-Clovis sites of
separate temporal-spatial dimensions have been
useful descriptively because they define a local or
regional norm; but without hypothetically or empir-
ically linked criteria of analysis or competing mod-
els, these studies are not explanatory of a pre-Clovis
cultural system which, itself, remains unspecified
(see Dincauze 1984).
One of the values of Pikimachay Cave is that it is
one of only two well-documented, stratified sites in
the Americas (the other is Meadowcroft Shelter in
Pennsylvania) that contains pre-12,000 B.P. depos-
its overlain by levels representing a long cultural
sequence. The cave is characterized by 13 superim-
posed geological zones and 43 phases of human
occupation spanning possibly more than 15 millen-
nia. These zones and phases are tied into the
cultural and geological chronology of numerous
other sites in a well-defined regional framework of
analysis. The rare opportunity to examine the
artifactual patterning and meaning of early materials
in light of a related cultural and behavioral contin-
uum was offered to MacNeish and his associates.
Materials from the deeper Paccaicasa and
REVIEWS IN ANTHROPOLOGY / Summer 1985
Ayacucho levels are of concern here. The Pac-
caicasa phase is defined by the deepest stratigraphie
zones (K, j , i, il), by 96 bones of extinct animals (6
of which display cut or saw marks), about 100
flakes or core fragments (some of which are of
exotic stone not found naturally in the cave) and 73
artifacts (4 of which are made of exotic stones), and
11 activity areas. The majority of the artifacts are
made of a fractured "tufa" (tuff) rock that forms
the cave walls. MacNeish interprets the cultural
materials and activity areas as evidence of butcher-
ing, bone working, and woodworking tasks per-
formed by microbands of hunters using the cave
from time to time as a base camp. Four radiocarbon
determinations on sloth bones date these materials
roughly between 25,000 and 15,000 years ago.
The following Ayacucho phase is characterized
by 212 stone artifacts, more than 1000 cores and
chips, 517 animal bones, several pollen samples
and 9 activity areas. These artifacts were recovered
from two zones (hi and h) that are dated by
radiocarbon means between 15,000 and 13,000 years
ago. Hunting and butchering of several different
animal species and possibly plant collecting were
reconstructed as the major activities of this phase.
The presence of possibly fire-cracked rocks in a
reddish earth area and four blackened bones are
suggestive of cooking. Seasonal microbands are
also seen as having produced these materials.
One other Early Man phase (Huanta) is defined
on the basis of 7 stone artifacts and 6 bones
contained in zone h immediately above the
Ayacucho levels. The estimated time range for this
phase is 13,000 to 11,000 years ago.
The rock type, morphology, and context of tuff
stone artifacts mainly from the Paccaicasa levels
have come under the closest scientific scrutiny and
harshest criticism by some professionals (see Lynch
1981, 1983; Owen 1984), although the bone arti-
facts and radiocarbon dates have also been ques-
tioned (Haynes 1984). These stones are, as
MacNeish 1978:476) has stated, "extremely crude
with the majority made from volcanic tufa that does
DILLEHAY / Preceramic Times in the Central Andes
show evidence of man's work very clearly." Most
archeologists remain uncertain as to whether these
stones were fractured by human agency, by the
movement of giant sloths that once lived in the
cave, or by roof fall. Tuff is an unusual tool
material (Lynch 1983), and from what I can deter-
mine of the artifact descriptions in Volume III and
the earlier reports, none of these stones is a formal,
diagnostic type that can be compared with anything
else found to date in the Americas, making it
difficult to connect them to a technological pattern.
The later Ayacucho phase, with the association of
some apparently valid stone and bone artifacts and
cultural features, has received less criticism, and in
many scholarly circles has been accepted as a
pre-Clovis component.
Aside from the radiocarbon dates, there is little
doubt that the case for an early pre-Clovis occupa-
tion at Pikimachay Cave rests mainly with judgment
on the validity or invalidity of the stone and bone
artifacts. Since few scientists have had or will have
the opportunity to inspect these materials or their
casts, it is of extreme importance that a detailed
technical description of a majority of the early
materials, including extensive illustrations, be pro-
vided to the reader. Such a description is not given
in these volumes. What bothers me is that while site
stratigraphy, lithic attributes, and other aspects are
documented in good, systematic detail, the Early
Man data are barely discussed and insufficiently
illustrated. Only a few of the 349 specimens recov-
ered from the late Pleistocene levels are illustrated.
However, the provenience of these stones is not
specified, so that the reader is not certain which
cultural phase is represented. The same is also true
of the bone collection. No "cut" or "saw" marks
or modified bones of the Paccaicasa levels, and only
a few modified Ayacucho specimens, are shown.
Worse yet, Lurie's use-wear study of stone artifacts
(Vol. IV) does not provide any artifact illustrations
or photographs of use-wear for the reader. It is
unfortunate that such an otherwise exhaustive data
analysis includes only a preliminary and scant
199
treatment of such significant information. The
reader is left with a vague and incomplete perspec-
tive of the early cultural materials documented in
these volumes.
The few illustrated tuff and other stones in these
volumes, and the specimens shown on slides by
MacNeish at professional meetings,1 reveal some
interesting morphological characteristics that could
be the result of minimum modification by human
forces. As mentioned above, the use of tuff as a tool
material is uncommon, but slight morphological
alteration of pebbles (including some unusual rock
types) by human manufacture and/or use is docu-
mented at the 13,000-year-old site of Monte Verde,
located in south-central Chile (Dillehay 1984, n.d.;
Collins and Dillehay n.d.). Most of the stone tools
at Monte Verde are naturally fractured pebbles with
suitable working surfaces or edges. These stones
were selected from available gravels in a stream bed
and were altered in the course of use. Intentional
flaking is evidenced on only a few of the stones,
showing that the inhabitants knew how to modify
the shape of a selected stone or how to make their
own tools. In short, we learn that the site inhabitants
chose a combination of certain useful surfaces and
edges, rock types, and morphological forms,
whether made by humans or by nature, and that
natural elements (including wood, shell, etc.) were
used without any prior intentional alteration. Taking
these points into consideration, it must be realized
that in the analysis of stone collections from sites
like Pikimichay Cave, determining the cultural use
of certain rock types and forms can be more
important than establishing whether they are nature-
produced ecofacts or culture-produced artifacts.
Judged in this light, we should be very cautious in
our assessment of the Paccaicasa and Ayacucho tuff
materials, considering that, although the rock type
and form are very irregular, these objects might
have been culturally used. Given these concerns, it
is even more important that a well-planned and
in-depth use-wear study be performed and reported
on these specimens.
200
Another cautionary note is, perhaps, in order. A
striking difference between the sites of Pikimachay
Cave and Monte Verde is that human activity at the
latter site is documented by the spatial association
and patterning not only of stone tools and bones of
extinct animals, but also of well-preserved wooden
artifacts, medicinal and edible plant remains,
hearths and other features, and architectural struc-
tures. However, when compared with other cultural
evidence from Monte Verde, stones and bones are
the least culturally modified raw materials and are
the least salient archeological indicators of human
activity. Again, at sites like Pikimachay Cave,
where organic remains are poorly preserved and
questionable stone and bone materials are present,
one has to wonder how much weight we can place
on these objects as accurate ecofactual or archeo-
logical signals of the absence or presence of human
activity or of the type and number of different
cultural activities.
There are a few other issues about the tuff
materials that are bothersome and remain unan-
swered. For instance, if tuff was a popular raw
material in late Pleistocene times, why was it so
rarely used by the later cultures? Did the earlier
inhabitants not have access to better materials? Is
there any geological information that would re-
solve this problem? Also, there were several
highly competent, expert archeologists (some of
them lithic specialists) working with the project
and evidently examining the tuff specimens.
Although the descriptive and analytical chapters on
lithics were written by MacNeish and Nelken-
Turner, are we to believe that the other archeolo-
gists on the project also analyzed these specimens?
Can we assume—since none of the other project
archeologists (particularly Phagan, Lurie, and
Vierra) have gone to press to question the validity
of the "tuff' artifacts—that they are in complete
agreement with MacNeish and Nelken-Tumer's
interpretations? Given the significance of these
specimens and of the debate they have stirred in the
field, some support, clarification, or response is
REVIEWS IN ANTHROPOLOGY / Summer 1985
perhaps warranted on the part of these other
archeologists.
As for the exotic stone "artifacts" in the Pac-
caicasa levels, it is possible, as Lynch (1983) has
pointed out, that these items might have filtered
down from the superimposed Ayacucho levels. In
order to begin to adequately evaluate these data,
however, more information on the type, number,
morphology, size, and provenience of all exotic
pieces in levels of both phases and on the geology of
roof fall, verticracks, and deposits in the cave is
required. These data are not completely presented
or discussed.
Acceptance of "definable activity areas" and
occupational floors in the Paccaicasa levels rests
with the case for validity of the artifacts. Nonethe-
less, some of the floor and activity plans do show
some interesting spatial clusters of materials that fit
an expected pattern of artifact distribution.
Given the type and amount of information pro-
vided on the Early Man data in these volumes, I find
it difficult to properly assess the ecofactual or
artifactual status of the recovered stone specimens.
This position, coupled with the few radiocarbon
dates on sloth bones and with incomplete reporting
on associated materials, leaves me with a mixed
opinion. As it now stands, I am not satisfactorily
convinced that humans occupied the cave during
Paccaicasa times, although I am willing to maintain
reservations until some of the previously mentioned
problems (particularly those regarding the tuff spec-
imens and use-wear analysis) are resolved, until the
stone and bone collections are reported in greater
detail, or until comparable data are recovered else-
where. However, even if these conditions are met,
there is still no guarantee that our understanding of
the data will permit us to make final judgment on
these early materials. It may be that the proposed
Paccaicasa component may require future reexami-
nation from time to time in light of new methods
and new evidence from other sites.
Turning very briefly to the Ayacucho and Huanta
phases, I accept the former as a cultural component
DILLEHAY / Preceramic Times in the Central Andes
dating around 14,000 to 12,000 years ago. Al-
though there are some questionable materials in the
Ayacucho levels and only one radiocarbon date has
been obtained on the phase, there are enough human
artifacts, features, and artifactual patterning to build
a convincing case for hunter, and possibly gatherer,
activities. This phase is also aligned chronologically
with a few other pre-12,000 B.P. sites (e.g. Los
Toldos, Taima-Taima, El Abra, Monte Verde) in
South America. So few artifactual materials were
recovered for the Huanta phase that I will not
comment on it here.
In retrospect, Early Man studies have produced a
somewhat static and divided picture of early culture
in the Americas. With specific reference to South
America, where (1) domesticates are reported at
Guitarreo Cave in north-central Peru as early as ca.
10,500 B.P. (Lynch 1980), (2) planned architecture
and sedentism are evidenced at Monte Verde, (3) a
substantial number of sites, located in distinct and
widely dispersed geographical areas, are dated be-
tween 12,000 and 10,000 B.P., and (4) diversified
and well-adapted preceramic cultures (9,000-4,000
B.P.), with economies partly based on domesticated
plants and/or animals, are documented in highly
contrasting environmental zones throughout the
continent, it should not be surprising that early
humans appeared on the continent long before
12,000 years ago. While it is apparent that the
Bering Land Bridge is the most logical route of
human entry into the Americas, the growing num-
ber of early sites and the diversity and complexity of
the late-to-post-Pleistocene cultural developments
in South America should require archeologists to
seriously reconsider current theories on the means,
places, and dates of the early peopling of the New
World.
Model Building: Volume IV
The data presented in Volumes II and III, along
with ecological information apparently yet to be
published, are used in Volume IV to reconstruct a
201
regionally based chronological model of the
preceramic lifeway (25,000 to 3,750 B.P.) in the
different ecological zones of the Ayacucho
basin. MacNeish focuses specifically on the
technology, settlement type and pattern, economy,
environment and seasonality, and energy flow of
each preceramic phase. His model is based on
cultural ecology theory and specifically on energy
flow theory, taking many of its conceptual and
methodological cues from the anthropological
research of Thomas, Winterhaider, and McRae
(1973, 1979) on energy flow systems in contempo-
rary highland communities of southern Peru.
Supposedly, this reconstruction will be used by
MacNeish and his associates to examine the
broader theoretical issues of past social and
economic complexity in the basin and of culture
change and development. It is in this volume that
some of the guiding paradigms and assumptions
and the general contributions of the research project
can be evaluated.
MacNeish emphasizes the energetic efficiency of
human groups during each preceramic phase in each
ecological zone and the seasonal and spatial avail-
ability of selected resources that are ultimately
determined by environmental conditions. He essen-
tially defines culture as an adaptive energy flow
system. This kind of approach obviously stands to
enhance our understanding of the important role of
biological and technoenvironmental variables in
past cultural systems, but so far it has ignored
attempts to measure the significance of social vari-
ables as intrinsic to the process of social and cultural
change. MacNeish is frank to admit that the
preceramic archeological record limits his examina-
tion of hunter-gatherer social relations and ideol-
ogy, but it would seem that aspects of exchange
options, social organization, social strategies, and
"social relations of production" (Wiessner 1982)
and regional socioeconomic models of Andean
"zonal complementarity" (see Lynch 1973, 1981;
Murra 1972; MacNeish et al. 1975; Nunez and
Dillehay 1979) would have also been considered in
202
the research design and formulation of this predic-
tive model.
MacNeish's model of energy flow is based on
several straightforward assumptions relating cul-
tural pattern, change, and system to changing
environmental and social conditions. His model
places a heavy emphasis on the seasonal availabil-
ity of target resources and on energy expenditures
of various social and economic tasks. Cultural
variables such as social differentiation, and any
differential group access to resource zones, are
treated lightly. In addition, this approach tends to
take variability in settlement types in different
ecological zones as a given of environmental
compulsion, not as a proposition to be tested. The
assumption is weak because economic division of
labor across the natural landscape and social
relations of production and consumption can
produce the same variability in the archeological
record of the Central Andes.
The major problems with archeological applica-
tion of the energy flow-energetic efficiency ap-
proach are (1) definition of the archeological evi-
dence that constitutes time allocation and work
effort, measurement of such archeological units of
analysis as occupational floors and activities, vary-
ing group sizes, tool assemblages, and settlement
types and (2) obtainment of good quantitative data
on past ecology and human biology. MacNeish's
qualitative and quantitative reconstruction of activ-
ity areas and Vierra's statistical reconstruction of
occupational floors at each site for each cultural
phase—which, along with artifact assemblages, are
essential units of analysis for determination of
energy expenditures and energy flow—are innova-
tive in method, but somewhat speculative in content
and concept. Nonetheless, the techniques employed
in this reconstruction do reduce subjectivity in
resource estimation and energy flow.
There are other chronological and contextual
aspects of the archeological application of the
energy flow model that are troublesome, but I will
not dwell on them here. MacNeish provides a clear
REVIEWS IN ANTHROPOLOGY / Summer 1985
assessment of the limitations of the approach, and
then proceeds to build his model and to reconstruct
the culture history of the region. His general
cultural historical findings are too numerous to
summarize here, but the general pattern is worth
noting.
Social organization during the post-Pleistocene
preceramic period is reconstructed as having been
family-centered with, at most, band-type organiza-
tion. MacNeish characterizes the smaller family
groups as "microbands" and the larger multifamily
groups as "macrobands." He sees yearly economic
rounds involved in continual fissioning and
regrouping between these two types of societies. It
is significant that the same type of society is the one
that developed agriculture, and that it formed the
basis for the later village farming societies.
The general sequence of cultural events and the
specific classification of settlement types (i.e.,
bands, hamlets, administrative centers, etc.) in the
Ayacucho reconstruction are strikingly, but not
surprisingly, similar to that of the Tehuacan region.
It is hoped that the strict application of a Tehuacan
settlement typology will not impede MacNeish's
future attempt to define the different kinds of
Andean behavior and organization that produced
different kinds of sites. Explicit definitions of these
types in reference to Andean archeology would
have been useful to the reader.
As an aside, MacNeish does point to evidence
that demographic movement, population growth,
seasonal resource scheduling, and sedentism are
regional phenomena in the Ayacucho Basin: the
products of a complex interplay between different-
sized groups operating within a local "vertical
symbiosis" bound by broader regional networks of
interaction. Once the conceptual and theoretical
implications of these phenomena are developed
more fully, MacNeish will have the opportunity to
shed some light on our understanding of the key
similarities and differences in intraregional social
and economic organization in the Central Andes.
For example, there is a significant difference be-
DILLEHAY / Preceramic Times in the Central Andes
tween the economic mean and the chronological
placement of sedentism in the Ayacucho Basin as
opposed to the Junin area some 200 km to the
north. Preceramic societies in the Ayacucho region
had a mixed economy of hunting and gathering in
closely juxtaposed habitats that allowed both se-
quential and concurrent seasonal exploitation of
different resources. A sedentary lifeway, based
mainly on corn agriculture, gradually developed in
the valley lowlands between 5,000 and 3,750 B.P.
Rick (1980, 1983) postulates a more habitat- and
resource-specific type of sedentism, based mainly
on vicuña hunting on the high Junin puna, begin-
ning about 9,000 years ago. It should be of partic-
ular interest to Andeanists to consider the kinds of
ecological and sociocultural conditions that might
explain the distinct type and timing of sedentism in
each region. In the final analysis, MacNeish will
have to confront this issue and others regarding
intraregional problems. However, part of the suc-
cess of the final volumes will be judged not so much
by whether he examines these problems, but by how
successfully he reconciles his findings and inter-
pretations with relevant data on adjacent regions of
the Central Andes and by how well warranted are
his concepts and assumptions.
To conclude, MacNeish and his colleagues have
provided a valuable service in their candid assess-
ment of the data and their limitations and utilities.
Despite the inherent preservation and sampling
problems of the archeological record, I think that
many of MacNeish's insights into the demographic
movement of groups, changing technology, and
subsistence economy are correct. The detailed
knowledge that the project generated about the
preceramic history of Ayacucho provides an in-
depth study of the early human manipulation of the
Ayacucho Basin and an extraordinarily detailed
baseline for formulation of broader theories on
culture change.
These volumes will become an essential refer-
ence work for future archeology in the Andes. Also,
what MacNeish has accomplished in Ayacucho
203
demonstrates further his wisdom in selecting this
region for intensive study. The achievement of this
project will allow him not only to reconstruct and
explain a different perception of prehistoric Andean
cultural organization from within a regional frame-
work, but also to bring together a common perspec-
tive to a variety of cross-cutting themes (particularly
plant domestication and village formation) and hy-
potheses in Mesoamerican and Central Andean
studies. Once achieved, his intraregional approach
and findings should have a wider applicability in the
study of culture change.
Tom D. Dillehay is Associate Professor at the
University of Kentucky. He has done most of his
fieldwork in Peru and Chile, and has a continuing
interest in political economy and the evolution of
complex societies in the Andes. His publications on
these topics have focused on Pleistocene cultural
adaptations and pre-state and state social forma-
tions.
NOTES
1. In 1974, I had a brief opportunity to see some of the
tuff specimens at MacNeish's laboratory at the
Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima; but I
did not study these materials long enough to form an
opinion on their validity.
REFERENCES
Binford, Lewis R.
1977 General Introduction. In For Theory Building in
Archaeology: Essays on Faunal Remains, Aquatic
Resources, Spatial Analysis, and Systemic Model
Building. L.R. Binford, ed. pp. 1-13. New York:
Academic Press.
1981 Middle-Range Research and the Role of
Actualistic Studies. In Bones: Ancient Men and
Modern Myths. L.R. Binford, ed. pp. 21-30. New
York: Academic Press.
204
Bryan, A.L.
1978 An Overview of Paleo-American Prehistory from a
Circum-Pacific Perspective. In Early Man in Amer-
ica: From a Circum-Polar Pespective. A.L. Bryan,
ed. pp. 306-327. Occasional Papers in Anthropol-
ogy. Edmunton: University of Alberta.
Carter, G.F.
1980 Earlier Than You Think: A Personal View of Man
in America. College Station: Texas A & M Univer-
sity.
Collins, M.B., and T.D. Dillehay
n.d. The Implications of the Lithic Assemblage from
Monte Verde, Chile, for Early Man Studies. In New
Evidence for the Pleistocene Peopling of the Ameri-
cas. A.L. Bryan, ed. Orono: University of Maine.
Dillehay, T.D.
1984 An Ice Age Settlement in Chile. Scientific Amer-
ican 251:106-117.
n.d. The Cultural Relationships of Monte Verde: A Late
Pleistocene Site in the Subantarctic Forest of South-
Central Chile. In New Evidence for the Pleistocene
Peopling of the Americas. A.L. Bryan, ed. Orono:
University of Maine.
Dincauze, D.F.
1984 An Archaeo-logical Evaluation of the Case for
Pre-Clovis Occupations. Advances in World Archae-
ology 3:275-323.
Haynes, C.V.
1984 Personal Communication. Cited by R. Owen in
The Americas: The Case Against an Ice-Age Human
Population. In The Origins of Modern Humans: A
World Survey of the Fossil Evidence. F.H. Smith
and F. Spencer, eds. pp. 517-563. New York: Alan
R. Liss.
Humphrey, R.L., and D. Stanford, eds.
1979 Pre-Plano Cultures of the Americas: Paradoxes
and Possibilities. Washington, D.C.: Anthropology
Society of Washington.
Krieger, A.D.
1964 Early Man in the New World. In Prehistoric Man
in the New World. J.D. Jennings and E. Norbeck,
eds. pp. 23-81. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lynch, T.F.
1973 Harvest Timing, Transhumance and the Process of
Domestication. American Anthropologist 75:1254-
1259.
1980 Guitarreo Cave: Early Man in the Andes. New
York: Academic Press.
REVIEWS IN ANTHROPOLOGY / Summer 1985
1981 Zonal Complementarity in the Andes: A History of
the Concept. In Networks of the Past: Regional
Interaction in Archaeology. P.D. Francis, F. Kense,
and P.G. Duke, eds. pp. 221-231. Calgary: Univer-
sity of Calgary.
1983 The Paleo-Indians. In Ancient South Americans.
J.D. Jennings, ed. pp. 87-137. New York: Freeman.
MacNeish, R.S.
1967 A Summary of the Subsistence. In Prehistory of
the Tehuacan Valley. Volume I. D.S. Byers, ed. pp.
290-309. Austin: University of Texas Press.
1969 First Annual Report of the Ayacucho
Archaeological-Botanical Project. Andover: R.S.
Peabody Foundation.
1971 Early Man in the Andes. Scientific American
224:36-46.
1976 Early Man in the New World. American Scientist
64:316-327.
1978 Late Pleistocene Adaptations: A New Look at
Early Peopling of the New World as of 1976. Journal
of Anthropological Research 34:475-496.
1979 The Early Man Remains from Pikimichay Cave,
Ayacucho Basin, Highland Peru. In Pre-Plano Cul-
tures of the Americas: Paradoxes and Possibilities.
R.L. Humphrey and D. Stanford, eds. pp. 1-47.
Washington, D.C.: Anthropology Society of Wash-
ington.
MacNeish, R.S., Antoinette Nelkin-Terner, and Angel
Garcia
1970 Second Annual Report of the Ayacucho
Archaeological-Botanical Project. Andover: R.S.
Peabody Foundation.
MacNeish, R.S., T.C. Patterson, and D.L. Browman
1975 The Central Peruvian Prehistoric Interaction
Sphere. Andover: Papers of the R.S. Peabody Foun-
dation for Archaeology, Phillips Academy.
Meighan, C.W.
1983 Early Man in the New World. In Quaternary
Coastlines and Marine Archaeology. P.M. Masters
and N.C. Fleming, eds. pp. 445-448. Orlando,
Florida: Academic Press.
Murra, J.V.
1972 El "Control Vertical" de un Máximo de Pisos
Ecológicos en la Económia de las Sociedades
Andinas. In Visita de la Provincia de León de
Huanuco (1562). Volume 2. J.V. Murra, ed. pp.
427-476. Huanuco: Universidad Nacional Hermilio
Valdizan.
Nuñez, L., and T. Dillehay
DILLEHAY / Preceramic Times in the Central Andes
1979 Movilidad Giratoría, Armonía Social y Desarollo
Económico en los Andes Meridionales. Antofagasta:
Universidad del Norte.
Owen, R.C.
1984 The Americas: The Case Against an Ice-Age
Human Population. In The Origins of Modern Hu-
mans: A World Survey of the Fossil Evidence. F.H.
Smith and F. Spencer, eds. pp. 517-563. New York:
Alan R. Liss.
Raab, M.L., and A.C. Goodyear
1984 Middle-Range Theory in Archaeology: A Critical
Review of Origins and Applications. American An-
tiquity 49:255-268.
Rick, J.W.
1980 Prehistoric Hunters of the High Andes. New York:
Academic Press.
1983 Cronología, Clima y Subsistencia en el
Precerámico Peruano. Lima: INDEA.
205
Thomas, R.B.
1973 Human Adaptation to a High Andean Energy
Flow System. Occasional Papers in Anthro-
pology, Number 7. University Park: Depart-
ment of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity.
Thomas, R.B., B. Winterhaider, and S.D. McRae
1979 An Anthropological Approach to Human Ecology
and Adaptive Dynamics. Yearbook of Physical An-
thropology 22:1-46.
Wiessner, P.
1982 Beyond Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: A Com-
ment on Binford's Analysis of Hunter-Gatherer
Settlement Systems. American Antiquity 47:171-
178.
Willey, G.R., and J. Sabloff
1980 A History of American Archaeology. London:
Thames and Hudson.