Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-gq7q9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T04:23:24.443Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cultural Epochs and Refuse Stratigraphy in Peruvian Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2018

WM. Duncan Strong
WM. Duncan Strong*
Affiliation:
Columbia University, New York City
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is the purpose of the present paper to discuss, as briefly as possible, the manner in which major Peruvian cultural periods or epochs have been determined to the present and to suggest certain modifications as the result of recent objective, refuse-heap, stratigraphic studies, particularly those in the Virú Valley of Peru. It must be obvious to all students in the Peruvian field that our present terminology for major cultural epochs in prehistoric Peru is inconsistent and unsatisfactory. That this is due in considerable part to the recent great increases in stratigraphic knowledge makes such a re-evaluation even more necessary. Assuming, with Kroeber, “That the foundations of scientific archaeology in Peru were laid by Max Uhle,” and that, “the only general scheme of interpretation … not founded essentially on Uhle's” is that of Julio Tello, we will, very briefly, discuss these two major theoretical approaches.

Type
Developmental Classification
Information
Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology , Volume 4: A Reappraisal of Peruvian Archaeology , 1948 , pp. 93 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1945

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Kroeber, 1927.

2 The earlier formulations of Tello's general scheme for the development of Peruvian culture are discussed by Kroeber (1927, pp. 631-9). Tello's later views are summed up in a very important paper (Tello, 1942). A brief abstract in English, by Willey (19436) was regarded as quite accurate by Dr. Tello. Since the present account barely touches upon the great scheme outlined and cannot gc into the terminology employed, the reader is referred to the original paper.

3 Tello, 1942, p. 38.

4 Kroeber, 1927, p. 634.

5 Uhle, 1931.

6 See Kroeber (1927; p. 629; 1926a) for more detail.

7 Strong, 1925, pp. 139-58.

8 Means, 1931, pp. 195-6.

9 Strong, 1943, chart opposite p. 42; Kroeber, 1944, Fig. 6. Since the present article, due to considerations of space, is more critical than expository in regard to earlier work, the reader is referred to the above, and to Willey (1945V for summaries of the recent great advances in establishing pan-reruvian horizon styles and in stratigraphic research.

10 Kroeber and Strong, 1924a.

11 Kroeber and Strong, 1924b.

12 Strong, 1925, pp. 174-6, 183-4. Tello, who in 1919 had recognized the great importance of the early “Chavin stone culture” did not associate it with this ceramic style until considerably later. He states: “In 1926 and 1927, while reviewing the works of Max Uhle for the purpose of appraising the foundations of his theory of the origin and development of Peruvian cultures, I was surprised to find that the remains of pottery found by him in the Ancon and Supe rubbish deposits were no other than remains of the Classic Chavin pottery.” Tello, 1943, p. 136.

13 Kroeber, 1930, p. 108.

14 Kroeber, 1937, pp. 253-4.

15 Bennett, 1934. These well-known excavations at Tiahuanaco mark the first extensive application of refusestratigraphy in the Andean area. According to Kroeber (1927, pp. 639-40), Schenck's discovery in 1926 of lea refuse overlying Nazca burials marks “probably the first stratification in Peru into which there enters the element of a clear occupation refuse, as contrasted with debris fill or grave yard soil.”

16 Bennett, 1936.

17 Bennett, 1939, p. 146.

18 Bennett, 1944a, p. 109.

19 Strong and Corbett, 1943, p. 90; Willey, 1943a, p. 196; Bennett, 1946a, p. 80. The last reference contains the most recent and full summary account of Andean archaeology yet available.

20 Strong and Corbett, 1943; Willey, 1943a; and Rowe, 1944.

21 Kroeber, 1926a, p. 343; 1927, p. 626.

22 Kroeber, 1930; Bennett, 1939; Larco, 1945c.

23 The Virú Valley Project on the north coast of Peru was organized by the Institute of Andean Research in cooperation with the Institute of Social Anthropology of the Smithsonian Institution, the Instituto de Estudios Etnológicos, and the Museo Nacional de Antropología y Arqueologfa del Peru. For brief references to the wider cooperative nature, comprehensive research plans, and certain results of this project, see Willey, 1946, and Strong, 1947.

24 For a description of Virú pottery and burials of this period see Bennett, 1939, pp. 79-80, and Willey, 1947a.

25 Bennett, 1939.

26 Larco, 1945c.

27 Tello, 1942, p. 123.

28 Larco, 1944.

29 Brown, 1926.

30 H. Tschopik, 1946.

31 Bennett, 1946a, p. 80.

32 Willey (1946, p. 134) presents this terminology. The alignment of cultures to epochs given there is that of Larco. A slightly different alignment, as seen by Strong, has been presented elsewhere (Strong, 1947, p. 464). Larco and Strong, however, were then in complete agreement as to major epoch terminology. It was the general opinion of the conference that the time was ripe in Peru for the adoption of some new method of epoch designation similar, if not identical, to that put forward by Larco and Strong. Since the above was written, Larco's epoch-cultural scheme for the Chicama Valley has appeared in print (Larco, 1948).

33 Spinden, 1922, p. 228.

34 Longyear, 1946, p. 204.

35 For the relative position of these cultures see Strong, 1943, p. 42, with revisions based on the recent placing of “Toltec” in Mexico.