ancón and garagay ceramic production at the time of chavı́n de huántar

Journal of Archaeological Science (2001) 28, 29–43doi:10.1006/jasc.1999.0587, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

Ancon and Garagay Ceramic Production at the Time ofChavın de Huantar

Isabelle C. Druc*

Peabody Museum, Yale University

Richard L. Burger

Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, P.O. Box 208118, New Haven, CT 06520-8118, U.S.A.

Regina Zamojska

Departement de Chimie, Universite de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, J1K 2R1, Canada

Pierre Magny

Service de Microscopie Eu lectronique, Faculte de Medecine, Universite de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, J1K 2R1,Canada

(Received 16 July 1999, revised manuscript accepted 16 December 1999)

Ceramics from Ancon and Garagay, two early sites on the central coast of Peru, are analysed to verify the existence ofceramic exchange. The analysis technique are petrography, X-ray fluorescence, scanning electron microscopy andenergy dispersive X-ray microanalysis (SEM-EDX). The results are compared to a larger data bank including ceramicsfrom the sites of Chavın de Huantar, Pallka, Huaricoto and smaller sites in the Nepena valley. The analyses yieldinteresting information on ceramic production, which is mostly local, and unexpected results regarding the lack ofcompositional similarities between the ceramics analysed from Ancon and Garagay. The results suggest that, althoughthe sites are close to each other, interactions and ceramic exchange should be sought for among communities within thesame drainage. � 2001 Academic Press

Keywords: CERAMIC ANALYSIS, PROVENANCE, CERAMIC PRODUCTION, ARCHAEOLOGY,CENTRAL COAST OF PERU.

A ncon and Garagay are two important sites onthe central coast of Peru. During the InitialPeriod and Early Horizon (1800–300 ),

Ancon was a fishing village and a cemetery, whileGaragay was a ceremonial centre in the Rimac Valley(Figure 1). Much of the ceramics, bone objects, woodcarvings and other artefacts found at Ancon andGaragay are related to the Chavın horizon, a stylistic,iconographic and ideological pan-Andean complex.Chavın de Huantar, after which this stylistic horizonhas been named, is a major ceremonial centre in theMosna Valley of the north central Andes. The site isknown for its lithic art, carved stelae and beautiful

290305–4403/01/010029+05 $35.00/0

ceramics with complex iconography. The importanceof Chavın de Huantar and Chavın horizon in general ishighlighted by the presence of many Chavın elementsover a large geographic area, along the coast and in thehighlands. Because of the stylistic similarities withChavın, Ancon’s ceramics have been analysed as partof a large inter-regional study with five other sites:Chavın de Huantar, Pallka, Huaricoto and sites PV31-312 and PV31-330 in Nepena (Druc, 1997, 1998). Thepurpose of the inter-regional study was to verify theexistence of ceramic exchange between the sites. Thesesites have contemporaneous occupations, they arelocated in different regions and they all have local andChavın-related ceramics.

In 1997, ceramic distribution was identified betweenChavın de Huantar, Huaricoto and Pallka, and

*Correspondence address: Department of Anthropology, Universityof Wisconsin-Madison, 5240 Social Science Building, 1180 Observ-atory Drive, Madison, WI 53706-1393, U.S.A.

� 2001 Academic Press

30 I. C. Druc et al.

PacificOcean

N

0 100 kmLima

R. Rim

ac

1 42 3

5R. L

urin

R. Chill

on

R. Chan

cay

R. M

antaro

Lima

PERU

R. Huaura

R. Sup

eR. Pativilca

R. F

orta

leza

8

9

76

R. Huarm

eyR. C

ulebras

R. Casm

a

R. Nepena

R. SantaR. C

hao

R. M

aranon

WH

ITE C

OR

DILLE

RA

C. de Huaylas

BLA

CK

CO

RD

ILLER

A

Figure 1. Sites mentioned in the text. (1) Ancon, (2) Garagay, (3) ElParaiso, (4) Huacoy, (5) Manchay Bajo, (6) Chavın de Huantar,(7) Huaricoto, (8) Pallka, (9) Nepena PV31-312 & PV31-330.

between Pallka and the Nepena sites. However, nodirect ware exchange between Ancon and the five othersites studied could be fully ascertained, although thecomposition of several Chavın sherds suggests acoastal provenance. To pursue this matter further, wedecided to focus on samples from the central coastalsites of Ancon on the shoreline north of Chillon,and Garagay, in the nearby Rimac Valley. If Anconceramics showed no direct compositional relationshipswith the highland sites, and if another coastal site isto be sought for the provenance of the non-localceramics found at Chavın, Garagay could be a candi-date. Furthermore, this large ceremonial centre islocated close enough to Ancon to presume that inter-actions, including ceramic exchange, occurred betweenthe two sites. The analysis of 10 Garagay ceramics is afirst attempt to solve this dual problem.

Both Garagay and Ancon have long occupations.The later part of the Ancon sequence, from which thesamples were taken, is roughly coeval with the Chavınsequence as defined by Burger (1984). This is based onstyle and on 14C dates (Burger, 1981). Earlier scholarslike Carrion Cachot (1948) saw Ancon as a ‘‘colony’’of Chavın and most subsequent authors (MatosMendieta, 1968; Rosas, 1970; Scheele, 1970) haveargued for the contemporaneity and tight linkagebetween Ancon and Chavın de Huantar. At the sametime, it is important to contrast the nature of the sites,

although most of the fragments analysed from bothAncon and Chavın come from domestic contexts.Ravines et al. (1982) publish a string of 14C dates forGaragay that suggest that the site overlaps with at leastthe earliest phase at Chavın (i.e. the Urabarru Phase)and part of the Ancon sequence. The style of theceramics is consistent with this conclusion. Ravines &Isbell (1976) argue for the contemporaneity of the LateAtria at Garagay with Chavın’s Old Temple based oniconography. The sites are thus coeval and inter-related. It is worth noting that all of the Garagaysherds come from a single small excavation on the backterrace of the main mound. This context suggests thatthe materials are refuse from the activities on themound (a public place) and that they date relativelylate in the sequence, since the earlier terrace surfacesare hidden within the mound covered by later reno-vations. We have found in Lurin and Chavın (Burger,1987; Burger & Salazar Burger, 1991), however,that there is substantial overlap during the LateInitial Period and Early Horizon between ‘‘domestic’’ceramics and those found broken in the publicmonumental complexes (with the exception of offeringcontexts, like Ofrendas).

Comparisons of Garagay-Chavın and Garagay-Ancon, however, failed to reveal compositional simi-larities, suggesting that none of the ceramics analysedwere exchanged between these sites. Nevertheless, theanalysis yields interesting information regardingceramic production and distribution during Chavıntimes. The results of the analysis are here detailed forAncon and Garagay.

The methods include petrography, X-ray fluor-escence, scanning electron microscopy and energydispersive X-ray microanalysis (SEM-EDX). Theanalysis is based on 73 ceramic fragments fromAncon, 10 fragments from Garagay and six soilsamples. For Chavın de Huantar, Pallka, Huaricotoand Nepena, the sample numbers are 79, 31, 22, and32, respectively. The ceramic sample from Anconcomes from excavations by Thomas Patterson in theAncon Tank Site PV45-2 (Patterson, 1971; Sheele,1970). The sample consists of different ware types andsubphases: decorated and undecorated bowls, necklessollas (cooking pots), jars, bottles and one figurine(Table 1, Figure 2(a)—see Druc, 1998, for a completeillustration of the Ancon fragments). The ceramicsdate to the Late Initial Period and Early Horizonand fall into Patterson’s (1971) phases 1 to 6,coeval with the Urabarriu and Janabarriu phasesin Chavın de Huantar. Sample selection was doneso as to be representative of the forms and warestyles found in phases 1 to 4. This collection served asthe basis for studies by Harry Scheele (1970) andRichard Burger (1972), and will be published in thenear future (Patterson et al., in prep.). The collec-tion is now housed at Yale University under thecare of Richard Burger, with whom the selectionof the sample was made. The Garagay samples

Ancon and Garagay Ceramic Production 31

are bowls, ollas and bottle fragments (Figure 2(b),Table 1) from an excavation conducted by Jose Pinillain sector B of the temple, cut 02 above level 1, belowsoil (capa) III. This level shows chronological over-lap with the Urabarriu phase in Chavın de Huantar.The fragments were given to Richard Burger foranalysis.

Table 1. Sample description

Ancon (PV45-2-51)A66-A33 coeval with the Urabarriuphase in Chavın de Huantar

Ancon (PV45-2-51)A1-A4 coeval with the Janabarriuphase in Chavın de Huantar

Garagay ceramicscoeval with the Urabarriuphase in Chavın de Huantar

A66a-d reddish-brown ollas A1a thin black bowl, highly polished G1 diagonal incised bowl rimA88a undecorated black olla A1b black bottle neck G2 bowl rimA88b undecorated black bowl A2a red bowl G3 black ollaA88c red slipped bowl, zoned

rocker stampingA2b black circle-stamped bowlA3g black, impressed bowl

G4 reddish ollaG5 black bowl rim

A30c Chavın bottle, incised A3j grey jar neck G6 reddish olla rimA32c black bottle, zoned dashes A3k grey bottle neck G7 bottle chamberA33a undecorated black olla A3m figurine head G8 highly polished black chamberA33h undec. black, straight-sided bowlA33i undecorated red bowl

A4d black, straight-sided bowl, highly polished G9 black bottle neck fragmentG10 grooved fragment of globular vase

A33j bowl, brown slip, zoned rocker stampingA33k grey bowl, grooved

A4e black bowl, incision and stamped circle-dot

A33l black polished bowl, modellingA33n bowl, red slip, zoned dentateA33o bowl, red and brown slip, incised

(a) (b)

A66a A66b A66c A66d A88a

A30c A32cA33h A88b A88c

A1a A1b

A33j

A33n A2aA2b

A3kA3j

A3m

0 5 cm

A33o

A3gA4eA4d

0 5 cm

A33k A33l

A33iA33a

G1G2

G3G4

G5 G6

G8G7

G9

G100 3 cm

Figure 2. (a) Ceramics from Ancon and (b) Garagay.

Geological Setting

The geology of the region is important for confir-mation of the local character of the ceramic pro-duction. Ancon is situated in a bay opening intothe Pacific, on a desert coastal stretch between theChillon and Chancay valleys (Figure 3). The U-shaped


ceremonial centre of Garagay is located in the lower,right margin of the Rimac valley, 8 km inland and tothe north of Lima (Ravines & Isbell, 1976; Burger,1992). The Chillon, Chancay and Rimac rivers cutacross the Coastal Batholith, which is the predominantintrusive rock unit in the Black Cordillera. Outcrops ofdiorite are found less than 10 km away from Ancon.The surficial geology around Ancon is composed ofsedimentary layers of clay, shale, feldspathic sandstoneand limestone of the Puente Inga formation intermixedwith volcanic layers of andesite and porphyriticbasalts of the Puente Piedra formation (Amiel,1970; INGEMMET, 1982, 1992; Atherton et al., 1985).The andesite fragments are porphyritic (a textureof large and well-formed crystals in a finergroundmass—Allaby & Allaby, 1996). Cherts andbreccias with granite fragments are also intercalatedwith the volcanic layers. Puente Inga formation isa member of the larger Puente Piedra formation(INGEMMET, 1992). Both are Late Jurassic andCretaceous in age. The clays and shales of the PuenteInga formation are highly fossiliferous, composedmostly of ammonites and ammonoids. The shales arecomposed of 20% quartz and 80% clay (70% ismontmorillonite and 30% illite—INGEMMET, 1992).On the site of Puente Inga, close to Ancon (seeFigure 3), the clay is illitic, highly fossiliferous, andinterbedded with feldspathic sandstone and micro-volcanic breccia. The upper member of the Puente Ingaformation is composed mainly of sedimentary rocks:

feldspathic and pyroclastic sandstone, mudstone,andesite and some chert. The quaternary sediments areaeolian and marine deposits; no alluvial deposits arefound in the Ancon area (Amiel, 1970). South ofAncon, near Marquez, close to Garagay, the shales,limestones and sandstones are intercalated with layersof andesite and tuff; lavas with fossil wood may bepresent (Atherton et al., 1985: 48). The Casma group ismade up of volcanic rocks (pillow lavas, tuffs andhyaloclastites), with some granodiorite clasts appear-ing in the upper sequence (upper Albian greenagglomerate formation—Atherton et al., 1985: 49).Inland, the intrusive rocks from the Coastal Batholithnear Lima and Ancon are gabbros and diorites ofthe Patap unit and granodiorites–tonalites of theSanta Rosa units (Pitcher, 1985: 95, figure 9.2,table 9.1; INGEMMET, map 24i). Enclaves of micro-diorite are also reported (Pitcher, 1985: table 9.1).

Six soil samples were collected in and around Ancon.Three samples were collected from the site itself (twoadobe fragments Pr71 and Pr73 from Miramar, andone sandy soil Pr74 from Las Colinas), two clays werecollected from veins close to the shore in lithified cliffsof the Puente Inga formation (Pr76, Pr77) south ofAncon at Puente Inga, and one is a soil sample from aroad cut in the lower Chillon valley at the head of thevalley (Pr78). These comparative samples have beenanalysed chemically and are discussed in the clusteranalysis and conclusion sections of the paper. Thepetrographic analysis of the Puente Inga clays showsa very homogeneous composition and no aplasticinclusions can be seen.

Petrographic AnalysisAll thin sections have been analysed under plain andcross-polarized light, reporting the type, size androundness of the grains, grain alteration, paste colourand compaction, and the presence of voids. TheUdden–Wentworth scale was used for granulometry(Folk, 1965). Roundness was estimated after Muller’sscale (1965 in Stienstra, 1986). The ruban countmethod was used for quantifying the number of grainsper type and size (modal analysis). Percentages arebased on 200 to 300 grain counts. Counting wasperformed on one to three thin sections per petro-group. The petrogroups were constituted on qualitativeground.

Pac

ific

Oce

an

N

0 50 km

LIMA

R. Rimac

R. Lurin

R. Chill

on

R. Chanca

y

a

Marquez

Pte IngaAncon

b

c

d

Garagay

Figure 3. Geological setting of the Coastal Batholith and volcanicoutcrops of the central coast (after Atherton et al., 1985; figure 6.3).(a) Coastal Batholith (Patap gabbro–diorite, Sta Rosa granodiorite),(b) Calipuy volcanic group, (c) Casma lavas and tuffs, (d) PuentePiedra andesite and basalt.

Mineral Composition of the Ancon CeramicsPetrographic analysis of the 73 thin sections ofceramics from Ancon shows only minor variations intheir mineral composition. Four petrographic groups(or petrogroups) and five subgroups are differentiated(An-A, An-B, An-C, An-D, and An-B1, -B2, -B3, -B4,-B5). No pottery fragment presents a compositiontotally different from the rest. The petrogroups are


Table 2. Mineral composition and mode of Ancon and Garagay ceramics

Petro-groups INT* VOLC SED MET Minerals Granulo Ware types

An-AN=5

d-gd19·5%

— aren1·7%

— 78·8% L fs-vcsM fvs-ms

ollas andundec bowls

An-BN=30

gr, gd14·7%

and11%

aren, chertsltst, shale

5·3%

qzt, sch2·5%

66·5% L fs-vcsM vfs-cs

all types

An-CN=18

gr, gd11·6%

tr-and20·2%

aren, chertsltst

27·4%

qzt, sch4%

36·8% L vfs-csM vfs-cs

bowlsbottles,2 jars

An-DN=4

gr, gd4·9%

— — qzt, sch0·7%

94·4% L fs-csM vfs-ms

bowls,bottle, jar

Ga-AN=8

gr, gab5·8%

and8·3%

aren, chert26·1%

— 59·8 L fs-csM vfs-cs

all types

Ga-BN=2

d-gd(gab, gr)

25·6%

— aren, chert2·4%

— 72% L fs-gM vfs-ms

ollas

*INT, intrusive; VOLC, volcanic; SED, sedimentary; MET, metamorphic; d, diorite; gd, granodiorite; gr, granite;gab, gabbro; and, andesite; tr, trachyte; aren, arenite; sltst, siltstone; qzt, quartzite; sch, schiste; vfs, very fine sand(0·0625–0·125 mm); fs, fine sand (0·126–0·25 mm); ms, medium sand (0·26–0·5 mm); cs, coarse sand (0·5–1 mm);vcs, very coarse sand (1–2 mm); g, granule (2–4 mm).

distinguished from each other by paste texture, siltosityof the clay matrix and granulometry, rather than bymineral composition. The exception is petrogroupAn-A, characterized by a dioritic–granodioritic temperwith large angular rock fragments. The other petro-groups have a mixed composition of sedimentary,volcanic, intrusive, and a few metamorphic fragments.Volcanic and intrusive fragments are found in nearlyall the thin sections. The volcanic fragments areporphyritic andesite and a few basalt fragments. Theintrusive inclusions come from granite, granodioriteand more mafic rocks. The sedimentary fragments areless abundant but more varied (argillite, sandstone,arenite, orthoquartzite, chert, siltstone and shale).Metamorphic rock fragments of quartzite and quartz-mica schist are also present. The mineralogy of thepaste conforms to the local geology detailed in theprevious section. The intrusive rock fragmentsobserved in the ceramic pastes derive from the CoastalBatholith, and dioritic outcrops are found 10 kminland. The andesites, quartz-arenites, cherts andcarbonate fragments, and grain weathering are alsotypical of the coastal environments around Ancon.

Aside from the rock fragments, the mineral inclu-sions are quartz, alkaline feldspar, plagioclase, biotite,hornblende, pyroxene and a few small olivines. Ironoxides, nodules and opaque minerals are frequent. Themineral inclusions are weathered or recrystallized,and plagioclase is altered into calcite and damourite.Fifteen thin sections, of all ware types, contain recrys-tallized carbonates, small fragments of spicules (acalcareous or siliceous bodypart of invertebrates, like

sponges) and fossils of marine origin. Six thin sectionshave fragments of primary calcite, a mineral absentfrom the ceramic paste of Chavın de Huantar,Huaricoto, Pallka, the two Nepena sites and Garagay.

The angularity of the minerals and rock fragmentsranges from subangular to rounded, with most of thelithics on the rounded side except for PetrogroupAn-A, which has angular fragments. Granulometryranges from fine sand (0·125 mm) to very coarse (up to2 mm in diameter). The fine-paste petrogroup An-Cpresents a more homogeneous granulometry. Thisgroup is composed of decorated and undecoratedbowls and bottles, and two jars. Table 2 summarizesthe mineral composition and mode of the Anconceramics.

The petrographic observations, combining compos-ition, grain angularity, alteration and granulometry,allow for interpreting the ceramic production of Anconin terms of temper used, paste preparation and produc-tion groups. The diversity of the rock fragments andmineral inclusions within the ceramic paste, the round-ness of the grains, their alteration, and the presence ofcarbonates, spicules of natural occurrence in marinesand, and marine fossils, suggest the use of unclassedsand temper collected on the littoral. The exception ispetrogroup An-A, with large angular fragments and nocoastal sand temper. This composition suggests theaddition of crushed rock, probably from the intrusiveoutcrops inland next to Ancon. A fine and homo-geneous granulometry, in a dark, non-silty clay matrix,is characteristic of bottles and some bowls. This wasalso observed for bottles from Chavın de Huantar and


Pallka. The fine granulometry for bottles attests to thecare given to paste preparation and production of thistype of ware, probably in accordance with its function.However, the mineral composition of the fine-pastegroup is the same as for the other petrogroups, sug-gesting a similar resource area. The mineral variabilityobserved within the same petrogroup indicates that theproduction was non-specialized and that the pottersacquired their clay and temper from sources close toeach other. The variability between groups is low,suggesting that the ceramics were produced within thesame region around Ancon or in the nearby lowerChillon valley. Different ware forms were producedwith the same paste, a custom still attested today(Druc, 1996). Finer grinding and preparation wasreserved mainly for bottle manufacture. Three ollasand two undecorated bowls have a crushed granodior-ite temper. They attest to a different technology(crushed rock versus sand temper), resource area and,probably, production place. This is also observed inGaragay and Nepena.

Mineral Composition of the GaragayCeramicsThe 10 thin sections from Garagay are divided intwo petrogroups, GaA and GaB, which have distinctmineralogical compositions. Petrogroup GaA is, inturn, subdivided into two subgroups, GaA1 andGaA2.

Subgroup GaA1 is composed of seven ceramics (G1,G2, G3, G5, G8, G9, G10). This group is characterizedby volcano–sedimentary sand grains with ferro-magnesian minerals. G9 and G10 have spherulitequartz grains. The mixed composition, alteration,roundness and presence of micrite grains suggest acoastal origin for the raw materials. The few intrusivefragments in the paste derive from the CoastalBatholith plutonic rocks (e.g. Patap gabbro and SantaRosa groups). G3 is the archetype of this group: thelithic fragments are predominantly sedimentary(quartz arenite and chert) and volcanic (andesite).Intrusive rock fragments are of mafic (gabbro) tointermediary and felsic type (granodiorite and granitewith perthitic texture). Micrite grains and microdacitefragments are present. Lithic fragments and mineralsare altered. Individual minerals in the matrix arequartz (the majority), alkali feldspar and plagioclase,hornblende, biotite, pyroxene, and some olivine,hematite grains and opaque minerals. The lithic frag-ments are fine to coarse sand in size. Individualminerals range from very fine sand-size to medium size.There are a few carbonates, which are fine sand sized.

Subgroup GaA2 consists of the bottle fragment G7.The composition is volcano–sedimentary with someferromagnesian minerals. In contrast to the ceramicsin petrogroup GaA, there is no biotite, hornblende,calcite or carbonate in the matrix. The lithic fragments

are andesite, chert, metamorphosed granite, and thereis one basalt fragment. They are of medium to verycoarse sand-size, rounded, and very altered. Some seaurchin spicules 1 to 1·2 mm in length (coarse to verycoarse) with internal trachytic texture have beenrecrystallized with minerals. These recrystallized grainssuggest a sand temper from the littoral. Quartz andfeldspar are the main individual minerals with acci-dental very fine, coloured minerals (possibly mica orepidote).

Petrogroup GaB consists of only two ceramics, G4and G6. Both are undecorated ollas with crushed-rocktemper. They are composed of medium sand-sizeto granule-size diorite/granodiorite fragments withplagioclase crystals (multiple albite twinning), horn-blende, coarse clino- and orthopyroxene phenocrysts,olivine, and quartz; coarse to very coarse gabbrofragments with pyroxene, olivine and zoned plagioclaseinclusions; very coarse sand-size to granule-size micro-granite fragments with micrographic quartz, alkalinefeldspar, and altered albite with fine white mica inclu-sions. Individual minerals are altered, angular to sub-angular, and of very fine to coarse sand-sized. They arethe same as those constituting the rock fragments(hornblende, pyroxene, quartz and plagioclase). Theindividual grains probably come from the same sourceor result from the preparation of the raw material bycrushing. Oxidized biotite and very fine chert frag-ments are also found in the clay matrix. The matrix isbrown in crossed polarized light.

Petrogroup GaA is characterized by abundant sedi-mentary fragments, while GaB has abundant intrusiveand quartz fragments, and no volcanic (see Table 2).GaB also has a broader range of sizes (from veryfine-sand to granule fragments) and more very finesand grains in the matrix than GaA. The coarsefractions in GaB are composed of lithic fragments, anindication of rock-temper addition to a silty matrix(Velde & Druc, 1999).

The paste composition of four petrogroups fromAncon and Garagay are illustrated in Figure 4.

The Garagay ceramics studied by Ravines et al.(1982) are said to contain sand temper and quartzgrains, in different proportions according to theceramic categories. This sand temper probablycorresponds to the sedimentary component observedin petrogroup GaA, but Ravines’ descriptions (Ravineset al., 1982) based upon macroscopic observation donot offer enough precision for direct comparison withour analysis.

Intersite Mineralogical ComparisonCompared to the ceramics from Chavın de Huantar,Pallka, Huaricoto and Nepena, the mineral com-position of the Ancon ceramics is very different. Thegrains are much more altered and rounded, with a highoccurrence of sedimentary and volcanic components.


Garagay GaB (G4) Garagay GaA (G4)

Ancón An-A (A30a) Ancón An-B (A32c)

gdhn

gd

fd

qzpl

gd

px

pl

gd

qz

ch

fd

qzt

qz

gr

pl

qz

gdpx

ch

ch

plqzt

pl

ol

qz

pl fd

dr

dr

dr

dr

qz

fd

fd

qzt

fd

op

chfd

ch

fd qzt

opop

Figure 4. Main ceramic petrogroups from Ancon and Garagay. Drawing after photomicrographs, �80. gr, granite; gd, granodiorite;dr, diorite; qz, quartz; fd, feldspath; pl, plagioclase; hn, hornblende; px, pyroxene; ch, chert; qzt, quartzite; op, opaque mineral.

These ceramics are also less granitic and more cal-careous than those from the other sites. For example,the plutonic character of the inclusions is dominantin Pallka and Nepena ceramics, whereas Huaricoto

sherds are characterized by metamorphic and sedi-mentary inclusions, and Chavın de Huantar ceramicshave an extremely varied composition. The sedi-mentary and volcanic grains in the paste of many


Chavın de Huantar sherds are of a different type thanthose of Ancon’s. This led to the rejection of severalattributions based on chemical similarities.

The 10 thin sections from Garagay share pastesimilarities with the Ancon ceramics (i.e. sedimentaryand volcanic grains abraded, weathered and rounded).However, they cannot be classified as having the sametemper source. A coastal provenance for the Garagaytempers is suggested, but the marine sand temper inthe Ancon ceramics is not found in the Garagayfragments that were analysed. The spicule fragments,biocarbonates and calcite fragments from a littoralmarine environment are absent from the Garagaysamples, with the exception of the bottle body G7. Itis noteworthy, however, that coarse, intrusive rock-temper was used at both sites for the production ofcoarse, reddish ollas. This type of temper was alsofound in ollas from Nepena. Although the diorite–granodiorite fragments may pertain to the same for-mation, it is difficult to say if only one source area wasmined for producing this kind of ware. To verify thispossibility, detailed geochemical and geochronologicalstudies of local sedimentary sources should be made. Inany event, there is certainly a relation between thetemper used and the function of the ware, perhaps toenhance heat resistance.

The results of the chemical analysis presented in thenext section help to reach an inter-regional perspectiveof the ceramic production at Ancon.

Chemical Composition of the Ancon CeramicsThe XRF instrument used in the analysis of the Anconand Garagay ceramics is a Kevex 700, an energy-dispersive device with seven secondary targets and a16-sample tray. Powder samples of 120 to 300 mg wereused in the form of pressed pellets. The major, minorand trace elements measured with Na, Mg, Al, Si, P, S,K, Ca, Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Zn, Se, Sr, Zr and

Pb. The concentrations of each were calculated withthe program EXACT. The major and minor elementsare recomposed by stoichiometric calculation as oxidesin weight percent (Wgt%), while the traces are given inelemental concentrations and in parts per million(ppm). Some of these elements were excluded fromthe statistical analysis, in particular Ni, Se and Pbfor Ancon, as a result of irregular detection. Twostandards from the Canadian Metallurgical Society(CANMET) were analysed along with each batch toensure the same analytical conditions were obtainedfor both the samples and the standards. (See Druc,1998, for details about acquisition, calibration andnormalization of the measures.)

Ancon Ceramic and Soil CompositionsThe composition of the Ancon ceramics, Puente Ingaclay samples (Pr76, Pr77, Chillon (pr78) and Anconsoils are given in Table 3. In the table, oxides are givenin weight percent; traces are in parts per million (ppm).For the three soil samples from Ancon, the compo-sitional range is shown, while the mean and standarddeviation are given to illustrate the composition of the73 Ancon ceramic samples. The differences in chemicalcontent among the Ancon samples are readily notice-able. The silica content is lower in the two clays, andthe aluminium content is much higher than for theother soil samples and the ceramics, while the mag-nesium, calcium and iron contents are lower. Nosignificant differences are observed in the concen-trations of the other oxides or of the trace elements,except for Cu and Zn, which are much lower in theclays than in the rest of the samples.

Table 3. Composition of Ancon ceramics (mean and standard deviation) and soil samples (range)

Wgt% SiO2 Al2O3 SO2 NaO MgO P2O5 CaO K2O TiO MnO

Ceramics 66·91 19·81 1·38 0·89 6·11 0·21 1·85 1·74 0·49 0·06(N=73) �2·67 �1·58 �0·7 �0·3 �2·1 �0·08 �0·6 �0·3 �0·1 �0·0Pr76 56·17 32·34 0·62 2·11 4·03 0·54 0·63 2·74 0·59 0·01Pr77 55·83 35·74 0·24 0·44 3·49 0·18 0·41 2·63 0·07 0·01Pr78 58·79 22·67 0·4 0·52 5·64 0·16 2·07 1·52 0·65 0·12Ancon Soils 55·5–59·2 16·7–15·06 1·73–0·8 2·29–1·3 7·7–6·76 0·27–0·19 5·25–3·1 4·25–2·5 0·89–0·5 0·18–0·1

ppm Cr Co Cu Zn Sr Zr

Ceramics(N=73) 34�18 32�4·8 86�31 246�72 229�73 133�43Pr76 77 5 19 44 179 87Pr77 176 34 17 62 90 85Pr78 25 5 61 127 230 90Soils 33–24 5–3 195–193 198–186 333–142 91–45

Garagay Ceramic CompositionsThe mean and standard deviation of the compositionof the Garagay ceramics are given in Table 4. Of the


10 Garagay fragments analysed, the red neckless ollafragment G6 is singled out for many elements. Inparticular, it has low SiO2 (65·55%), high CaO (4·12%)and high Mn (524 ppm). The paste is very coarse withlarge inclusions that are visible to the naked eye.However, the chemical composition falls within thegeneral profile for Garagay, and its production can becalled ‘‘local’’. It clusters with the other Garagaysamples when several sites are compared, and is attrib-uted to Garagay at 99% probability by discriminantanalysis.

The two samples G4 and G4b come from thesame olla. This olla is coarse, and the duplicate G4bwas made to verify internal homogeneity and therepresentativity of the sampling of coarse vessels. Theywere analysed in the same batch, under the sameconditions. The results of the analysis show theircompositions to be similar, with small variations intrace element contents, in particular Se and Pb. How-ever, these two elements show great intrasite variabilityfor all the wares, which may be due to their lowpresence and inhomogeneous distribution within thesamples.

Statistical AnalysesThe 73 Ancon samples allowed different analyses to beconducted, looking at ware classification, chemicalprofiles and group memberships. A cluster analysis wasperformed on the PCA factors built from a correlationmatrix, following the advice of statistician BernardColin (Universite de Sherbrooke). Using the factors asvariables (instead of the raw data) allows the corre-lation between the chemical elements to be taken intoaccount. Group membership was obtained by discrimi-nant analysis. The reference group for each site wasconstructed after elimination of the outliers. Althoughthey are not natural chemical groups (the groups werepre-set), their homogeneity was corroborated by petro-graphic analysis. In discriminant analysis, one mustalso remember that attributions are made by default tothe closest available match. This is the case with‘‘indirect’’ attributions to Ancon, and is the reason forthe need to include other coastal sites in the data set.Garagay is a first attempt in that direction. The

Garagay samples were compared to the Ancon frag-ments to see if they showed distinct, compositionalmemberships, suggesting different provenances. TheAncon–Garagay comparison is presented last, after thedescription of the Ancon sample.

Table 4. Composition of Garagay ceramics (N=10)

Wgt% SiO2 Al2O3 SO2 NaO MgO CaO K2O TiO

Mean 69·13 16·33 0·16 0·56 4·47 2·04 1·94 0·21 �1·79 �0·68 �0·12 �0·26 �0·26 �0·82 �0·25 �0·06

ppm P Mn Cr Co Cu Zn Sr Zr

Mean 590·76 342·32 16·4 2·8 41·5 89·7 144·8 79·8 �257·16 �94·01 �3·7 �0·8 �7·4 �7·6 �18·6 �7·9

Cluster AnalysisThis preliminary exploration of the Ancon datashows a rather homogeneous profile (Figure 5). In thedendrogram of the cluster analysis performed on thePCA factors, Euclidean distances, centroid method,several small subgroups can be distinguished. Theygroup, however, ceramics with different mineral,formal and stylistic types. Although fine and coarsewares may cluster separately, some ceramics of verydissimilar appearance show very similar chemical com-position (e.g. the olla A66d and the bottle A30c). Theseresults corroborate the petrographic observations. Thegranodiorite-tempered ceramics, however, do notcluster tightly together. This suggests a diversity ofproduction places (or potters) using different clays butsimilar temper.

Other clustering methods (average and completelinkage) yielded the same grouping tendencies, particu-larly for the soil samples. Five of six comparativesamples show a chemical composition dissimilar fromthe archaeological ceramics’ composition. The soil andclay samples are found in a marginal position in thedendrogram. They cluster down below the dendro-gram, where ceramic A2b is also found, a black bowlwith circle-impressed decoration. The two clays fromPuente Inga link latest to the tree. The only soil sampleto show compositional similarity with the Anconceramics, and with the bottle A1b in particular, is Pr78from a road cut at the head of the Chillon valley. Thismay indicate a closer chemical kinship of the soil to theinterior land than to the coastal sediments aroundAncon. Another sample from further above theChillon valley, at Santa Rosa, was also collectedbut excluded from the analysis because of its greatcompositional difference.

Given the above results, the sampled clays do notseem to correspond to the clay material used in theceramic production at Ancon. The geological literature


describes the Puente Inga clays as being highly fossil-iferous. This high fossil presence was not recognized inthe ceramic thin sections, which confirms the XRFresults. Some spicules and carbonates were indeedfound in the ceramic samples, but not in signifi-cant quantity to imply that the pots were made withfossiliferous clay.

Linear Typology AnalysisAnother type of statistical analysis conducted waslinear typology analysis (Overall & Klett, 1972), usinga program developed by Francis Forest (n.d.). Thisanalysis identifies different chemical types, five in thecase of Ancon. Three types (Types 2, 3, 4) comparewell with either the mineral or the stylistic compositionof the ware, while Types 1 and 5 show no archaeologi-cal or mineral significance. Type 2 is rich in Mg andvery poor in P; it brings together 14 Urabarriu-coevalwares and one Janabarriu bottle, of which only one isdecorated. The majority are ollas and coarse bowls,and there are two bottles. The mineral composition isclearly felsic and volcanic (petrogroups An-B andAn-C), which would explain the high Mg content. Thistype could be linked to the domestic character of thewares, being possibly more resistant to heating, assuggested by the presence of volcanic fragments andthe coarse granulometry.

Type 3 is characterized by a high content of Mn, Ca,Ti, Fe and P, and low Sr. It groups 16 ceramics ofdifferent forms but with the same mineral composition.Exceptions are for three sherds, which come from theUrabarriu and Janabarriu levels. Two stylisticallyatypical bowls and the clay figurine are in this group.Type 4 is very similar in sulphur and very poor inaluminium, magnesium and silica. The ceramics of thistype are bottles, bowls (decorated and undecorated)and an olla. All but one (bottle A32C) are coeval withJanabarriu. The high sulphur content could be due topost-depositional contamination, but it may also resultfrom the volcanic component of the local geology, aplausible explanation that needs exploration.

Site SignatureThe chemical signature of Ancon, based on multiplediscriminant analysis (Forest, n.d.), is characterized bythe high content of trace elements (S, Cu, Cr and Sr)and the insignificance of the ferrous-clayey phase. Themain chemical characteristics of Ancon are the strongpresence of sulphur, which may be linked to thevolcanic component in the local geologic environment;the high phosphate content, tentatively explained bythe coastal environment of the site; and the calcareousphase, as typified by the presence of sandstone withcalcareous cement, calcite and carbonates in theceramic thin sections.

AN66aAN66bAN32cAN33lAN4pAN33dAN33lAN33hAN33oAN33iAN33oAN66bAN3bAN4cAN4gAN3kAN3jAN4eAN4kAN3iAN3mAN32aAN33nAN2dAN69bAN30dAN33iAN88cAN33cAN32bAN66aAN30aAN4qAN66dAN30cAN66hAN66iAN66cAN66dAN2aAN66aAN2cAN3dAN3eAN33mAN3cAN3fAN4eAN4fAN4hAN3lAN4dAN3bAN4mAN4nAN4aAN4iAN4bAN4jAN30bAN1bpr78AN68fAN33gAN33kAN69aAN41AN33bAN69gAN33aAN1aAN3aAN3gpr71pr74pr73AN2bpr76pr77

Figure 5. Classification of the Ancon samples by cluster analysis,centroid method (after Druc, 1998).

Temporal VariationA time partition in relation to the chemical com-position of ceramics from Ancon is observed.Urabarriu sherds are grouped separately from theJanabarriu-coeval ceramics. This fact can tentativelybe interpreted as a difference in the location of work-shops or in the acquisition areas for raw materials in


relation to time period. Such a time partition was notobserved in the petrographic data. This could meanthat the trace elements, which are not observable witha petrographic microscope, are responsible for thepartition noted in the chemical data. It is possible thatsome variation in their concentration occurred duringthe occupation of the site. This classification, and thetrace element variation responsible for it, could also beproduced by chemical alteration during burial of thesherds. These hypotheses need further analysis in orderto be verified.

Local CeramicsThe origin of the Ancon ceramics is local for more than92% of them, based on discriminant analysis of thechemical data. This confirms the petrographic analysis,which indicates the use of coastal material and littoralsand in the ceramic production. The local geologystrengthens the case for this conclusion. The decoratedceramics and the figurine also seem local. This includesseveral bowls and bottles with complex decoration, andtwo black bowls with stamped circles of the Janabarriustyle. None of the stamped-circle bowls have beenattributed to Chavın de Huantar (no chemicalsimilarity) except for one ceramic (with only 56%probability).

The provenance of the dioritic/granodioritic temperfor petrogroup An-A can also be considered local, asdiorite outcrops are found close to Ancon. However,the absence of a river or of a nearby fresh-water sourceis an obstacle for inferring ceramic production directlyat the site. Rather, the workshops might have beensituated closer to the valley. Thus, the term local, in thecase of Ancon, includes the coast and the valley fringearound the site.

Inter-regional Comparison and CeramicExchangesApart from the reservations expressed in the intro-duction to the statistic section, interesting results comefrom the discriminant analysis of chemical data at theinter-regional level, inlcuding Chavın de Huantar,Huaricoto, Pallka and the two Nepena sites. Only threeceramics from Ancon are attributed to another site (i.e.Chavın de Huantar), but with provenance probabilitiestoo low to be retained (P=56, 62 and 86%). Thesethree non-local ceramics are an undecorated, very fineblack bowl (A1a) and two decorated Janabarriu bowls(A3g and A4e). Three ceramics show a low probabilityof membership to Ancon (between 79 and 84%). Mostof the decorated wares, however, appear to be made inthe region. These results confirm the homogeneity ofthe Ancon ceramics and the local character of theproduction compared to the other sites. No chemicalsimilarity with the ceramics of Pallka, Nepena orHuaricoto was observed. The three Ancon ceramics

weakly attributed to Chavın suggest that these waresare probably from another site with a geochemicalenvironment intermediate between Chavın and Ancon.Their provenance was not revealed by comparison withthe Garagay ceramics.

While no ceramic found in Ancon could beattributed to another of the sites sampled, the reverse isnot true. Four ceramics found in Chavın de Huantarshow a high probability of coming from the Anconregion. This is the case for a decorated non-Chavınstyle bowl (3752b, P=98%), an Urabarriu jar (3748b,P=96%) and two bottles (3758B, P=94%; 3765a,P=91%). Twelve other sherds had a low probability ofmembership to Ancon, and could not therefore beattributed to this site. They suggest, however, an as yetunknown provenance site with a geochemical signaturesimilar to Ancon’s. Unfortunately, Garagay cannot beconsidered as the provenance site for these sherds, asno attribution was made once this site was added to thedata bank.

Time Periods of the Ceramic ExchangesNone of the four sherds from Chavın de Huantarattributed to Ancon are of the Janabarriu style. Theinter-regional relationships with the coast seem limitedin this case to the Urabarriu and Chakinani phases.This is not the case for exchanges between Pallka orHuaricoto and Chavın de Huantar, which were moreprominent during the Chakinani phase and, above all,during the Janabarriu phase. In Chavın, only three outof 18 non-local ceramics are from the Urabarriu phase,suggesting that ceramic interactions were less frequentduring that time.

Intersite ComparisonThe compositions of the Garagay (N=10) and Ancon(N=73) samples were compared using principal com-ponent analysis (PCA) with 14 variables (Si, Al, Mg,Ca, K, S, P, Mn, Ti, Cr, Cu, Sr, Zr and Pb). Alogarithmic transformation was performed on the rawdata. The first two principal components express 30·75and 14·4% of the total variance. The plot of the firsttwo components shows a clear separation between theAncon and the Garagay fragments (Figure 6). Thecoarse olla A33a does not cluster with either one ofthese groups. This ceramic has many biocarbonates inits paste, and was attributed to Ancon in a prioranalysis. A preliminary cluster analysis using averageand complete linkage methods yielded the same separ-ation between the ceramics from the two sites. BottleG9, however, showed weak linkage to Ancon, ratherthan Garagay. The petrography and the PCA donot support this attribution, but it could suggest aproduction distinct from the other Garagay samples.

The Garagay data (N=10) was added to the existingdata for Chavın de Huantar (N=79), Pallka (N=31)


and Ancon (N=73). Fifteen variables were retained forprincipal component analysis. The Chavın de Huantargroup is poorly defined due to its high heterogeneouscomposition. It is a site where mineralogical andchemical composition variation is high, and more than30% of the ceramics were found to be non-local (Druc,1998). Pallka and Ancon samples are intermixed, whilethe Garagay samples cluster together, apart from theother samples, but for one marginal sample. Finally,discriminant analysis was conducted on the whole data

set. No Garagay fragments were attributed to anyother site, and the membership probabilities to Chavın,Huaricoto, Pallka, Nepena or Ancon are all very lowor nil.

–42

2

–3

–3

–2

–1

0

1

–2 –1 0 1

Figure 6. Classification of Garagay and Ancon ceramics by PCA, plot of the first two components.

Table 5. Matrix analysis of Ancon and Garagay ceramic samples (Si/Al ratios, means and standard deviations)

Id Type Si/Al Si Al Mg K Ca Ti Fe

A33h bowl 2·15 50·67 23·58 4·10 4·93 1·68 1·20 13·16�0·71 �1·88 �0·7 �0·4 �0·03 �0·6 �1·52

A88a olla 1·38 51·62 26·00 2·38 6·18 2·23 0·59 10·44�2·74 �1·58 �0·24 �2·26 �0·12 �0·10 �1·20

A3k bot. neck 2·06 51·19 25·03 4·44 4·5 2·03 0·66 11·65�1·96 �2·98 �1·12 �0·85 �1·23 �0·22 �2·37

A4d bowl 2·21 52·63 23·83 5·35 5·16 1·86 0·76 9·96�3·94 �0·83 �2·16 �0·97 �0·29 �0·54 �2·49

A4e dec. bowl 2·23 53·12 23·25 3·43 2·34 3·4 2·18 10·66�1·03 �0·77 �1·32 �0·01 �0·04 �2·54 �3·31

G3 olla 2·83 59·16 21·02 2·72 3·96 2·9 0·92 8·29�1·58 �1·56 �0·41 �1·76 �0·94 �0·52 �0·61

G5 bowl 2·53 58·07 22·99 1·98 4·78 2·97 0·86 7·82�1·83 �1·12 �0·16 �0·45 �0·53 �0·41 �0·46

G6 olla 2·06 48·89 23·79 2·82 3·71 3·92 1·14 15·16�0·85 �1·49 �0·75 �0·98 �0·79 �0·07 �0·86

G9 bot. neck 1·80 46·02 25·51 4·91 4·47 2·55 0·59 15·61�4·89 �1·90 �2·87 �0·84 �0·38 �0·17 �4·40

Clay Matrix Analysis

Five Ancon and four Garagay thin sections have beenanalysed by scanning electron microscopy and energy


dispersive X-ray microanalysis (SEM-EDX) in order tocompare the compositions of the clay matrices. Thesamples were chosen so as to represent different petro-groups and ware types. The analysis was performed onfour different areas per sample. The areas were free ofinclusions, so that only the clay matrix compositioncould be analysed. Seven elements were measured.Table 6 gives the Si/Al ratio and mean elementalconcentrations per sample. The Si/Al ratios give anidea of the type of clay used. Montmorillonite clayratios range between 2·58 and 3·47, illite ratios between1·53 and 2·62, and kaolinite ratios around 1 (Newman,1987). According to these figures, the ratios measuredfor the Ancon ceramics suggest the use of illite clays,while the Garagay wares display illitic (G6, G9),montmorillonite (G3) and mixed (G5) clay types. Theillite composition of the clay in the Ancon ceramics isin accordance with the local clays, particularly with thePuente Inga formation. The Ancon ceramics have ahomogeneous matrix composition; that is, the elemen-tal compositions are similar over the areas analysed.For Garagay, internal homogeneity is great for G3, G5and G6. In contrast, the bottleneck G9 shows morevariability, particularly in Si and Fe concentrations.Olla samples A88a from Ancon and G6 from Garagaywere chosen because of their dioritic rock temper.The matrix analysis shows that the clay used fortheir production is not the same, ruling out a same-provenance theory.

Because of the small size of the data set, the factorplot of principal component analysis of the Ancon–Garagay SEM-EDX data (Figure 7) serves mainly tovisualize the elemental differences between the samples.The analysis was performed with six variables (Si, Al,Mg, K, Ca and Fe). Titanium was omitted due to itshigh standard deviation. Its omission allows for a

better percentage of the total variance explained(F1=57·94, F2=26·36). This tentative factorial analy-sis shows no overlap of clay compositions between thetwo sites, suggesting the use of different clay resourceareas for each site, and probably also on the local level.Olla G6 and bottle G9 definitely do not have the sameclay material as pots G3 and G5 (see the differences inSi and Fe contents). Similarly, bowl A4e differs fromthe other Ancon ceramics by its low K and high Cacontents. A SEM-EDX analysis of local clays aroundAncon and Garagay could confirm the presence ofdifferent production sites.

–22

2

Factor (1)

CA

Fact

or (

2)

–2

–1

0

1

–1 0 1

A4e

G6

G3

G5

SI

A88a

K

A4d

A33h

A3k

MG

AL

G9

FE

Figure 7. Matrix analysis. Factor plot of principal componentanalysis, untransformed data, with classification of the ceramics andprojection of the variables used in the analysis.

ConclusionThe analysis shows that the great majority of ceramicproduction in Ancon is local, and that ceramics wereproduced around the site or near the coastal valleys.The potters used littoral sand temper and, for afew cooking pots, rock temper. A specialized prep-aration of clays is observed for bottles and somebowls, including finer grinding during the raw materialpreparation.

The position of the comparative samples in theAncon dendrogram of the cluster analysis suggests thatthe origin of the clay for the production of the majorityof the ceramics found in Ancon was not near the site.The rarity and type of fossils in the thin sections (ascompared to the rich ammonoid Puente Inga claysdescribed in the literature) suggest that the clay used bythe potters who made the ceramics found in Ancon wasprobably not from Puente Inga outcrops near the site.Clay beds closer to the Chillon valley are more likely tobe the source. SEM-EDX studies, comparing the com-position of the clay in the ceramic paste and claysamples from the Puente Inga formation as well assecondary clay deposits in the region, would certainlyhelp in answering this question. Some of the tempergrains, however, show a distinct marine origin, and theroundness of the grains suggests that the temper couldbe derived from sand collected on shore. This wouldsuggest that the ceramic production was done either inthe littoral zone, using clays from inland sources, orinland near the mouth of or in the Chillon valley, withtemper collected on the shore. A few production sitesmust have also been near diorite or granodioriticoutcrops, to account for the presence of these types ofinclusions in some of the ceramics from Ancon. Thesame remark applies to the two Garagay fragmentswith crushed diorite temper. The other ceramicsanalysed from Garagay must have been producedinland, near the site, using coastal sand temper. Asimilar situation probably occurred in the Lurin valley,south of Garagay. Trisha Thorme’s work (pers.comm., 1999) indicates many local production centresin Lurin during the Initial Period, and the work atManchay Bajo appears to have located at least onelocal centre of production (Burger & Salazar Burger,pers. comm.).


Despite the stylistic diversity in Ancon, non-localceramics are rare. Their presence is attested by thechemical analyses, which identified six of 73 ceramicswith exogenous composition (if the wares with lowmembership are considered). However, none can beattributed to the other sites sampled with a high levelof confidence. Inter-regional relations with Chavın deHuantar are attested to by the presence of four ceramicfragments found in Chavın de Huantar, but producedin the region of Ancon. This indicates a movementtowards Chavın from the coast (and not the contrary),a fact that is also observed for Pallka and Huaricoto(Druc, 1998). Finally, no ceramic exchanges betweenAncon and Garagay or the coastal valleys ofNepena, Casma (Pallka), or the Callejon de Huaylas(Huaricoto) were observed. The lack of ceramicexchange between Ancon and Garagay’s samples aswell as the local character of Ancon’s ceramic produc-tion suggest that shoreline villages could produce theirown pottery, although it was thought that fisher folkwould have acquired all their ceramics from inlandcentres. In turn, the ceramics from the ceremonialcentre of Garagay were probably produced near thesite or in the Rimac valley. Comparative materialsand a larger ceramic sample would help confirm thispoint.

The analyses also suggest that none of the ceramicsanalysed from Garagay could have been made inChavın de Huantar, Huaricoto, Pallka, Nepena orAncon. None were exchanged between Garagay andthe other sites studied above. This result could havebeen expected for the comparison between Garagayand the sites of Pallka, Huaricoto and Nepena, due totheir distance from each other and to the sites involved.These sites were probably less prone to contact withthe central coast sites. The absence of ceramicexchange between Garagay and Chavın de Huantar(no similarities in composition) is a little more surpris-ing, but one must take into account the limited size ofthe sample. These two sites are important ceremonialcentres, and stylistic influence have occurred betweenChavın and Garagay. Although the size of the Garagaysample is small, the chemical and mineralogicalsignatures observed yield information about thematerials expected in ceramic production. Compo-sitional similarities with other productions can thus beexplored.

The absence of compositional similarity betweenthe ceramics from Garagay and Ancon is consistentwith the latest models of Richard Burger (1992) andPatterson et al. (in prep.). It was thought that thepeople living in the fishing village of Ancon wouldinteract with ceremonial centres in the coastal valleys(Patterson, 1971), including Garagay. Ancon wouldtrade marine products with inland sites to obtainagricultural goods. However, Burger (1992) proposesthat the centres and social units based around the sameirrigation systems would interact preferentially. Similarhypotheses of restricted interactions are proposed for

the acquisition of subsistence goods by Quilter et al.(1991) for the Late Preceramic and Initial Period site ofEl Paraiso in the Chillon valley, and by Ravines et al.(1982) for Garagay. Thus, interaction was focusedlocally and within the same drainage, while little ex-change is observed between more distant valleys. If thismodel is correct, prospective studies of ceramics fromthe ceremonial centre of Huacoy in the Chillon valleyshould reveal the presence of ceramic exchanges withAncon. Richard and Lucy Burger’s investigations inthe Lurin valley show cultural and probably socio-economic interdependency between coastal and inlandcommunities, and even between lower, middle andhigh valley units. The location of Garagay in theRimac valley, and Ancon on the shore betweenthe Chillon and Chancay valleys, would explain theabsence of interactions observed through a study ofthese ceramics.

AcknowledgementsThis research was made possible thanks to a grantfrom the SSHRC (Social Sciences and HumanResources Council of Canada). Our acknowledge-ment also goes to several people, museums andinstitutions that provided the ceramic samples andthe logistical support to conduct the analysis, inparticular, Richard Burger, Jose Pinilla Blenke, YaleUniversity, Universite de Montreal and Universite deSherbrooke.

ReferencesAllaby, A. & Allaby, M. (Eds) (1996). The Concise Oxford

Dictionary of Earth Sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Amiel, R. W. (1970). Geologıa del area de Ancon, zona Piedras

Gordas. Boletin Tecnico 1, 53–55. Colegio de Ingenieros delPeru.

Atherton, M. P., Warden, V. & Sanderson, L. M. (1985). TheMesozoic marginal basin of Central Peru. In (W. S. Pitcher &M. P. Atherton, Eds) Magmatism at a Plate Edge: The PeruvianAndes. New York: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 47–59.

Burger, R. L. (1972). The ceramic sequence of the Early Horizon fromAncon. Unpublished paper presented at the XII Annual Meetingof the Institute of Andean Studies, Berkeley.

Burger, R. L. (1981). The radiocarbon evidence for the temporalpriority of Chavın de Huantar. American Antiquity 46(3), 592–602.

Burger, R. L. (1984)). The Prehistoric Occupation of Chavın deHuantar, Peru. Anthropology 14. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Burger, R. L. (1987). The U-shaped pyramid complex, Cardal, Peru.National Geographic Research 3, 363–375.

Burger, R. L. (1992). Chavın and the Origins of Andean Civilization.London: Thames and Hudson.

Burger, R. L. & Salazar Burger, L. (1991). Recent investigations atthe Initial Period center of Cardal, Lurın Valley. Journal of FieldArchaeology 18, 275–296.

Carrion Cachot, R. (1948). La cultura Chavın, dos nuevascolonias: Kuntur Wasi y Ancon. Revista del Museo Nacional deAntropologıa Arqueologıa II, 99–172.


Druc, I. C. (1996). De la etnografıa hacia la arqueologıa: Aportes deentrevistas con ceramistas de Ancash (Peru) para la caracteriz-acion de la ceramica prehispanica. Bulletin de l’Institut Francaisd’Eutudes Andines 25, 17–41.

Druc, I. C. (1997). Caracterisation et analyse de provenance de laproduction ceramique dans l’aire d’influence Chavın (Andes centre-nord): Un aspect des relations interregionales a l’Horizon ancien.Ph.D. Dissertation. Universite de Montreal.

Druc, I. C. (1998). Ceramic Production and Distribution in the ChavınSphere of Influence. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports,International Series 731.

Forest, F. (n.d.). Programmes d’analyse discriminante multiple etd’analyse typologique lineaire. Departement d’anthropologie,Universite de Montreal.

Folk, R. L. (1965). Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Austin:Hemphill’s.

INGEMMET (Instituto Geologico Minero y Metalurgico)(1982). Inventario Nacional de Sustancias no Metalicas. Lima:Ingemmet.

INGEMMET. (1992). Geologıa de los cuadrangulos de Lima, Lurin,Chancay y Chosica. Boletın 43. Lima: Ingemmet.

Matos Mendieta, R. (1968). A formative period painted potterycomplex of Ancon. American Antiquity 32, 226–232.

Newman, A. C. D. (Ed.) (1987). Chemistry of clays and clayminerals. Mineralogical society monograph 6. Longman Scientific &Technical.

Overall, J. E. & Klett, C. J. (1972). Applied Multivariate Analysis.New York: McGraw-Hill.

Patterson, T. C. (1971). Chavın: An interpretation of its spread andinfluence. In (E. P. Benson, Ed.) Dumbarton Oaks Conference onChavın. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Libraryand Collection, pp. 29–48.

Patterson, T. C., Burger, R. L. & Wallace, D. (in prep.). TheArchaeology of the Ancon Shellmounds.

Pitcher, W. (1985). A multiple and composite batholith. In (W. S.Pitcher & M. P. Atherton, Eds) Magmatism at a Plate Edge: ThePeruvian Andes. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Quilter, J., Ojeda, E. B., Pearsall, D. M., Sandweiss, D. H., Jones,J. G. & Wing, E. S. (1991). Subsistence economy of El Paraıso, anearly Peruvian site. Science 251, 277–283.

Ravines, R. & Isbell, W. (1976). Garagay: Sitio ceremonial tempranoen el valle de Lima. Revista del Museo Nacional 46, 253–275.

Ravines, R., Engelstad, H., Palomino, V. & Sandweiss, D. H. (1982).Materiales arqueologicos de Garagay. Revista del Museo NacionalXLVI, 135–233.

Rosas, H. (1970). La secuencia cultural del periodo Formativo enAncon. Ph.D. Dissertation. Universidad Nacional Mayor de SanMarcos, Lima.

Scheele, H. (1970). The Chavın occupation of the central coast of Peru.Ph.D. Dissertation. Harvard University.

Stienstra, P. (1986). Systematic macroscopic description of thetexture and composition of ancient pottery. Some basic methods.University of Leiden, Department of Pottery Technology.Newsletter 4, 29–48.

Velde, B. & Druc, I. C. (1999). Archaeological Ceramic Materials.Origin and Utilization. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer Verlag.

ancón and garagay ceramic production at the time of chavı́n de huántar

Documents