Society for American Archaeology

Andean Culture History by Wendell C. Bennett; Junius B. Bird Review by: John Howland Rowe American Antiquity, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Oct., 1950), pp. 170-172 Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/276900 . Accessed: 08/04/2014 14:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.239.130.177 on Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:48:30 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

170

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[2, 1950

A final word about the format of the book may be pertinent. The print is quite readable and the binding adequate but I personally object to Copper Plate Gothic type for running heads. Its boldness is distracting. Printing costs are certainly excessive but the six-dollar price will keep it out of the hands of many studentsand faculty.
WILLIAM G. HAAG

University of Mississippi Oxford, Mississippi Andean Culture History. WENDELLC. BENNETTand American Museum of Natural History, B. BIRD. JUNIUS Handbook Series, No. 15. New York, 1949. 319 pp., 57 figs. including maps and a table, bibliography and index. $3.25. Andean Culture History is an excellent synthesis of Peruvian archaeology expertly presented in its total South American context by two of the men who have contributed most to its development through their excavations. It is designed primarily as an introduction to the subject and is the best available work to introduce the student to Andean prehistory. Its systematic arrangement, excellent illustrations and well chosen reading list recommend it especially for this purpose. The text is divided into three parts. Part 1, "The Setting," by Bennett, is a summary of the archaeology and ethnology of the whole continent as a background for the other parts. Part 2, "The Central Andes," also by Bennett, is the heart of the book. Peruvian archaeology is presented in the form of a reconstruction of culture history arranged on a framework of seven major time periods with a note added on Colonial and modern developments. Part 3, "Techniques," is by Bird; it contains a discussion of Andean ceramics, metallurgy and textiles from a technical point of view. The textile section is the longest, reflecting Bird's special interest and competence in this field, and it is a masterpiece of simple presentation of a very complex subject. The American Museum is to be congratulated on an outstanding addition to its famous Handbook Series. The authors of this book are men of such stature, however, that their views on the general interpretation of Andean archaeology and on its more controversial special problems carry a great deal of professional weight and should be discussed on a professional level. Having expressed my approval of the book as an introductory manual, I want to state some dissenting reactions to the sections by Bennett and especially to the archaeological picture presented in Part 2. The' following observations should be read as criticisms of ideas and their presentation, not of the author; I am well aware that many of the concepts discussed originated with other investigators, especially Kroeber and Willey, and that some of them are the common property of present day Andeanists. One of the great contributions of a synthesis such as Bennett offers is that it makes possible constructive criticism of the whole field covered.

The general frame of reference of Part 2 is a spatial division of the Central Andes into six archaeological regions and a chronological division into seven named major time periods. This framework is made explicit in the table on p. 112. For the spatial division, Bennett has evidently abandoned the areas which he proposed in 1948 (SAA-M No. 4, p. 5) in favor of those proposed by Gordon Willey (ibid., p. 9). Willey's areas represent the archaeological divisions of the Peruvian coast between Chicama and Nazca pretty well, in the sense that within each area culture was rather uniform in any given period. The extreme north and south parts of the coast are less well known archaeologically and are ignored in Willey's and Bennett's tables. The highland regions, however, have no demonstrable archaeological unity. To place Huari ("Wari") and "Chanka" in the same region with Cuzco is rather like putting Paracas in a single area unit with Moche. Huari is characterized by an obviously Tiahuanacoid style, and, as Bennett points out (p. 200), the Cuzco region apparently remained totally independent of Tiahuanaco influence. The "Central Highland" area should be divided into at least two regions: Mantaro-Andahuaylas and ApurimacCuzco; when more is known of the archaeology of this area further division of the Mantaro-Andahuaylas region may be necessary. The "South Highland" area is also sharply divided in some archaeological periods, especially when the Pucara and Tiahuanaco cultures occupied opposite ends of the Titicaca basin; this area would be better treated as two, Puno and Tiahuanaco. My colleague, T. D. McCown, has similar reservations regarding the unity of Bennett's North Highland area. The chronological framework for the presentation of all of Central Andean archaeology is a sequence of named major periods which were conceived and defined in terms of the ceramic sequence of the Viru and Chicama valleys as worked out by the Viru Valley Project (1946-47). The idea of such a set of period names, each aiming at describing a "developmental stage" of North Coast culture, is said by Strong to have been originated by Rafael Larco (SAA-M No. 4, p. 100). It was taken up by several participants in the Vir6 project and alternative sets of names suggested by Bennett, Strong, Willey, and Steward (SAA-M No. 4, pp. 9, 114, etc.). Each set differs slightly from the others in the points of division between periods and in the names chosen but all are based directly on the Virui sequence and on no other. Willey and Bennett, however, have gone on to apply their period names to all of the Central Andean region, apparently without noting that they are spectacularly unsuited to any area in southern Peru. We can grant them the Central Coast, where a well established sequence parallels the North Coast one very closely, and they may be justified in the inferred chronology of the North Highlands, which is built up by comparing local highland styles to North Coast ones, but on the South Coast and in the Central and South Highlands the local picture is entirely different.

This content downloaded from 190.239.130.177 on Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:48:30 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BOOK REVIEWS

171

The South Coast is a good example. The Paracas earlier periods the evidence is not so clear. The earlier Cavernas style shows the feline designs which Willey horizon styles are a case in point: defining the Chavin and Bennett use as the mark of the Chavin Horizon Horizon as Willey and Bennett do in terms of a feline (SAA-M No. 4, p. 10; work under review, p. 108) but design, it is found nowhere in southern Peru except it also uses negative painting which is the mark of at Paracas. If it is redefined on a basis of the associaanother horizon style which Bennett places three to tion of incised designs with certain other technological four hundred years after Chavin on the North Coast. characteristics of the pottery, a horizon style which may Apparently the Chavin and Negative Horizons are in- be called Incised Horizon could be set up to include the Chavin materials, Cavernas, Chanapata, Chiripa and distinguishable chronologically on the South Coast and there is no White on Red or local style between them. Pucara, but in that case it might also have to include Bennett's solution in his table is to shade the top of styles outside of the Central Andes region such as Barthe Cavernas block to indicate Negative Horizon influ- reales in Argentina. Also, in that case, it would include ences and the bottom to indicate Chavin influences; this materials 1000 to 1500 years apart in age. The Tiahuaprocedure amounts to clutching at straws to preserve naco horizon apparently does not appear in the Cuzco his framework. In the present state of our knowledge area or on the far North Coast; it is extremely weak in there is no reason to believe that the negative Cavernas Puno. On the other hand, it apparently occurs in northware is anything but contemporary with the incised and ern Chile, a region not usually included in the Central Andes (p. 91). Bennett's other horizon styles have painted pieces, nor any reason for separating the ones which have feline designs from the ones that do not. clearly local distributions. Cavernas is presumably followed on the South Coast The best solution to the problem of synthesizing the by Nazca (including Necropolis). In his text (pp. 179- data of Andean archaeology for elementary presentation 180) Bennett lists Nazca-Necropolis under his Master- would probably be to describe the North Coast sequence, craftsman Period, but in his table, in order to avoid a indicating differences in the essentially parallel North gap, he puts Necropolis and Nazca A in the Experi- Highlands and Central Coast areas, and then describe menter Period, leaving only Nazca B for the Master- the South Coast and Tiahuanaco sequences separately craftsman division. The inconsistency involves a mat- with notes on the incomplete information available for ter of some 200 years on Bennett's scale. other Southern Peruvian areas tied to these two. The Coast Tiahuanaco ("Pacheco" in the table) which rather aberrant Cuzco sequence could be treated as a follows Nazca fits in with the North Coast picture betprelude to the description of the Incas. ter than any other southern period, but even so there In addition to these general problems of space and are some grounds for thinking that it began somewhat time, there are a few points of a more specific nature earlier in the south than in the north. that deserve comment. I am somewhat mystified as to why Middle Ica is Bennett apparently intends the break between Early shaded with the hatching of the Black-White-Red Hori- Farmers and Cultists to coincide with the appearance zon, though I agree that it is probably contemporary, of pottery in Virui and Chicama; the Guafiape period at least in part. Late Ica, however, is out of place in which he includes as Cultist in the table is, if I underthe table. Both the Late Ica styles described by Strong stand the preliminary reports on the Viru Project corand Kroeber from the Uhle collections had either Inca rectly, the first pottery period in Virui. But in the text or Spanish artifacts associated with them in the graves. (p. 121) he describes the earliest pottery and the apOne suspects that Middle Ica gave way to Late Ica very pearance of adobe construction in the section on Early shortly before the Inca conquest, again an awkward Farmers, and the only pottery described under Cultists division in terms of the North Coast scale. is Cupisnique. Of course, the particular pottery There is no need to discuss the relationships of the described on p. 121 is not the Guafiape of Viru but Central and South Highland periods in detail since the earliest pottery found by Bird in Chicama, just a glance at the two right hand columns of Bennett's north of Huaca Prieta (SAA-M No. 4, pp. 25-27). Still, table will make the discrepancies in terms of the major one gathers from Bird's account that he considers this time divisions sufficiently clear. These discrepancies be- ware to be roughly contemporary with Guafiape. If it is come even greater if the two areas are redivided as not, we need some clarification of the point and some suggested above. It may be noted, parenthetically, howmention of Guafiape pottery should be included in the ever, that there is no evidence for Classic Tiahuanaco Cultist section. succeeding Pucara in the Puno area. The relationships The statement on p. 181 that "The Mastercraftsman between Pucara and Tiahuanaco have been worked out Period in general marks the culmination of technological by Bennett himself (SAA-M No. 4, p. 91). advancement . . . and attention was shifted to the conWhat has apparently happened is that, in a desire to trol of man units rather than the development of addisimplify the complexities of Andean archaeology, the tional techniques" is open to some question. This is a over-all unity of the Central Andean area has been matter of emphasis, but what about such later developgreatly exaggerated, especially by Kroeber (e.g., VF-PA ments as fine tapestry, silver plating, two new alloys No. 4), Willey and Bennett. There is no question that and the cutting of huge stone blocks in the Expansionist the whole area was unified under the Incas but for Period (pp. 186, 198); bronze, and with it the wide

This content downloaded from 190.239.130.177 on Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:48:30 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

172

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[2, 1950

use of metal for tools, in the City Builder Period (pp. 212-13); and lacquer inlay and new metallurgical techniques in the Imperialist Period (p. 229)? And are not all quipus from graves of the later periods? The statement on p. 175 that "The Mochica seem to have had an ideographic type of writing" represents a serious critical lapse. It is based on a claim of Rafael Larco's which the evidence quite fails to support. The scenes on the pots which Larco interpreted as evidence for writing can be adequately explained as representations of divination and gambling. Marked beans would not even make good mnemonic devices unless they were fixed in a particular order, as on a string or stick, and the Mochica beans are always represented loose. There are some other cases in which Bennett is equally incautious in his discussion of Early Man evidence in Part 1. The Lagoa Santa, Confins, and Punin finds are even less respectable archaeologically than Tepexpan Man. Incidentally, I find no reference to the Cave of Candonga, which, after Bird's finds on the Straits of Magellan, is the most likely association of human remains with Pleistocene fauna yet reported from South America (AA, Vol. 11, pp. 58-60). Bennett feels that the Bolivian plateau on which the site of Tiahuanaco stands was probably not the center of distribution for the Tiahuanaco Horizon (pp. 184185). His reasoning is very peculiar, however, and ignores some of the evidence. He says: "The bleak altiplano near Lake Titicaca has an altitude of almost fourteen thousand feet, which is too high for the cultivation of many plants, although quinoa, potatoes, and oca can be grown, and there is pasturage for llamas and alpacas. Today, the region supports a scattered, although reasonably large Indian population; presumably the situation was not very different in the past." The evidence presented plainly suggests the opposite conclusion to Bennett's. The Titicaca basin is excellent country for the cultivation of quinoa, potatoes and ocas, not to mention ullucu, anu (Bennett's mashua) and caiiahua; these plants are Andean staples even at much lower altitudes. Even maize will grow in sheltered spots. Not only is there pasturage for llamas and alpacas, the two largest Andean domestic animals, but the region is peculiarly favorable for both animals so that they are more numerous around Lake Titicaca than anywhere else in the Andes. The lake and its tributary rivers are much better stocked with fish than most other Andean waters, and the suche or river catfish is a prominent motive in Pucara and Chucuito design. The Indian population is indeed reasonably large: it is unusually dense for the Andes and apparently was exceptionally dense at the time of the conquest also; even in the 17th century censuses the lake provinces stand out in numbers of Indian tributaries. Archaeological sites are as abundant around the lake as in many coast valleys. If the lake basin was not the center of distribution of the Tiahuanaco Horizon it was not because the area was unfavorable for human occupation.

The reader will note that I have found Andean Culture History an extremely stimulating book, and I venture to predict that out of the discussions it provokes will come some notable advances in the interpretation of Andean prehistory.
JOHN HOWLAND ROWE

University of California Berkeley, California Excavations at Snaketown IV - Reviews and Conclusions.

HAROLD STERLING GLADWIN. Medallion Papers No.

XXXVIII, Gila Pueblo, Globe, Arizona, June, 1948. 267 pp., 15 plates, 59 figures, appendix and bibliography. Eighteen years have elapsed since Grewe Site was laid bare by the Van Bergen -Los Angeles County Museum party in the spring of 1930, and fourteen years have passed since the Gila Pueblo conducted its extensive excavations at Snaketown. No major Hohokam sites have since been excavated. Gladwin points out that prior to the intensive work done at Snaketown on the Pima Reservation, Grewe Site was the first major operation to present the early Hohokam complex to students of southwestern archaeology. Here I must confess that when we worked Grewe Site we were working in the dark and I have always been convinced that at best we only worked part of a site. The fields to the south, east and west, which had been ploughed under all bore traces of large trash mounds similar to those found on Grewe Site, hence we always surmised that we did not excavate the entire village area. However, prior to our examination of Grewe Site, aside from the work done on the Casa Grande National Monument and some desultory digging in the ruins along the Gila River near Florence, earlier expeditions by Frank Cushing, etc., all the knowledge of the Hohokam territory had been gained by a series of surface surveys with a few test pit examinations, conducted by the Gila Pueblo over a rather wide area in the central and southwestern portions of Arizona, with particular emphasis upon the Gila and its tributaries. As a matter of fact, unless my memory plays me false, I had heard Mr. Gladwin express himself to the effect that further excavations of Hohokam sites were unnecessary since most of the valid information relative to the'Hohokam had been obtained through these surface surveys. After Grewe Site had been found, these conclusions went out the window and Gila Pueblo opened field work at Snaketown and the results were published in 1937. Now, Mr. Gladwin, in 1948, has issued what seems to me to be a most important item, in that it is an almost complete revision of ideas voiced in the first papers on Snaketown. I, for one, am glad to see this new attitude although it seems most regrettable that it should appear when practically all work of the Gila Pueblo has been suspended. For a number of years I have felt that the cultural elements of pottery, carved bone, stone and shell, as well as the mirror bases, copper bells, ball-courts, etc.,

This content downloaded from 190.239.130.177 on Tue, 8 Apr 2014 14:48:30 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions